-------
A Review of Methods
for Measuring
Fugitive PM-IO Emission Rates
by Russell Frankel
Department of Environmental Science and Engineering
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Campus Box 7400, Rosenau Hall
Chapel Hill, NC 27599
Project Officer:
Peter Westlin
Emissions Measurement Laboratory
Mail Drop 19
Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
..j.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Region 5, Library (PL-12J)
7 West Jackson Boulevard, 12th Floor
, IL 60604-3590 ^-
-------
Abstract
The purpose of this report is to serve as a guide for the
measurement of fugitive dust. To that end, the methods of
measuring fugitive particulate emissions are reviewed. The
methods included are the quasi-stack method, the roof monitor
method, the upwind-downwind method, the exposure profiling
method, the portable wind tunnel method, the scale model wind
tunnel method, the tracer method and the balloon method. Each
measurement method is explained, along with its advantages and
disadvantages. Sources of error are discussed, as are sampling
protocols. The literature on each method is reviewed. A section
of the report is devoted to the issues of error, accuracy and
precision of the methods.
-------
Acknowledgements
I'd like to thank Terence Fitz-Simons, Roy Huntley, David Leith,
Prem Muthedath, Marc Plinke, Tracey Shea, Dennis Shipman, and
Russell Wiener for their help and comments. I especially want to
thank Chatten Cowherd, John Irwin and Peter Westlin for the
generous amounts of time they spent giving me technical advice.
-------
Table of Contents
Page
Introduction 1
Quasi-stack method. • • • 2
Roof monitor method 4
Upwind-downwind method « 6
Exposure profiling method 10
Portable wind tunnel method 13
Scale model wind tunnel method 16
*
Tracer method * . . 19
Balloon method 24
t
Error, accuracy and precision in the methods 24
Conclusions 27
References 29
Table and figures 35-37
Appendices
Appendix A: Code of Federal Regulations Excerpts —
Methods 201, 201A, 1, and 5D
Appendix B: Examples of recent applications of the quasi-
stack method (Richards and Brozell, 1992)
Appendix C: Quasi-stack technical manual
(Kolnsberg et al., 1976)
Appendix D: List of approved ambient samplers, and federal
regulation defining PM-10 reference method
Appendix E: Roof monitor technical manual
(Kenson and Bartlett, 1976)
Appendix F: Western surface coal mine study
(Axetell and Cowherd, 1984)
-------
Contents (continued)
Appendix G: Upwind-downwind technical manual
(Kolnsberg, 1976)
Appendix H: Test plan for uniform line sources
(Carman and Muleski, 1993b)
Appendix I: Test plan for point or non-uniform line sources
(Carman and Muleski, 1993a)
Appendix J: EPA publication AP-42, section 11.2.7
Appendix K: Measurement of particulate fugitive emissions
(TRC, 1980)
-------
Introduction
Fugitive dust may be defined as dust emitted from sources other
than stacks or tail pipes. EPA now regulates emissions of dust
particles which have an aerodynamic diameter of ten microns or
less, because this dust causes respiratory health effects. Such
dust is referred to as PM-10.
Emission factors published in EPA document AP-42 describe
fugitive dust emission rates for a variety of sources. Most of
the time these emission factors suffice for calculation of
industrial or other fugitive emissions. But sometimes people in
the private sector or state or local government disagree with the
published emission factors for a given process or situation, or
they think that the published emission factors do not apply.
They wish to calculate specific emission factors themselves. In
that event, the rate of fugitive dust emission must be measured.
The purpose of this report is to provide information and guidance
about the measurement of PM-10 from fugitive sources. To that
end, a review of the literature concerning methods for measuring
fugitive PM-10 emissions has been performed.
Several such methods exist. The quasi-stack method, the roof
monitor method and the upwind-downwind method have relatively
long histories, and have been used to measure various kinds of
fugitive emissions including dust. The exposure profiling method
was developed specifically for measuring fugitive particulate
emissions. The portable wind tunnel method was first used by
soil scientists before being used in an air pollution context.
The balloon method is a little-used offshoot of the exposure
profiling method. The scale model wind tunnel method and tracer
method have also been comparatively little-used.
The selection of a measurement method depends upon such factors
as source geometry, presence or absence of an enclosing
structure, feasibility of hooding or enclosing the source, size
of the dust plume, distance between plume generation and feasible
sampling sites, and type of process causing the plume. For
example, the quasi-stack method requires the (usually temporary)
enclosure or hooding of a source. The roof monitor method
involves monitoring of air flow and particle concentration
leaving all major exit points in a building. The portable wind
tunnel is used only to study emissions from wind erosion.
Exposure profiling is an excellent method for studying "point"
sources such as loading or unloading operations, or "line"
sources such as traffic on a road, but the sampling equipment
must be placed within a few meters of the emission source. The
upwind-downwind method is nearly universally applicable, but may
be the least accurate of the methods. Appendix K (TRC, 1980)
contains excellent information on the selection of a measurement
method.
-------
Quasi-stack method
Richards and Brozell (1992), Richards and Kirk (1992), and
Brozell and Richards (1993) describe recent applications of the
quasi-stack method at stone crushing plants. The quasi-stack
method is especially well suited to small materials-handling
operations and small components of industrial processes.
Essentially, this method consists of enclosing or hooding (often
temporarily) the fugitive dust source to be measured. The dust
plume is ducted away from the source at a known air velocity, by
using a fan, and the exhaust is sampled isokinetically in the
duct.
The intake velocity must be lower than the velocity in the
sampling duct. For typical ducts with smooth walls the Reynolds
number should be in the neighborhood of 200,000 (turbulent
region). There should be a minimum straight duct run of three
duct diameters upstream and downstream of the sampling port
(Kolnsberg et al., 1976).
Standard stack sampling trains (EPA Methods 201 or 201A) may be
used to measure concentrations of PM-10, using standard sampling
protocols (EPA Method 1, where applicable). The product of the
concentration, the mean velocity of the exhaust and the cross-
sectional area of the duct gives the emission rate.
The quasi-stack method is potentially the most accurate means of
measuring a fugitive dust plume because the entire plume is
captured and measured close to the source, and because it uses
well established and well validated sampling protocols. However,
the air velocity in the vicinity of the hood or enclosure must be
sufficient to entrain the entire PM-10 plume without being fast
enough to cause excess emissions.
For example, excess emissions might emit from a stone crusher if
the air speed inside the temporary enclosure is higher than the
normal ambient air speed. In that case, the higher air speed in
the enclosure might cause more dust to enter the air from stone
crushing, thus causing an overestimation of the emission rate.
Also, there must not be significant deposition of PM-10 within
the duct-work or enclosure. Furthermore, if the space enclosed
is normally subjected to turbulence from ambient winds, the
emission rate calculated after enclosure may underpredict the
true emissions. Finally, the sampling protocol must represent
the average dust levels encountered in cyclic or uneven dust-
producing processes (Cowherd and Kinsey, 1986).
Appendix A is an excerpt from 40 CFR 51 containing descriptions
of Methods 201 and 201A. Appendix A also contains excerpts from
40 CFR 60, with descriptions of Methods 1 and 5D. Appendix B is
-------
an excerpt from Richards and Brozell (1992) describing recent
applications of the quasi-stack method.
EPA published a series of technical manuals on measuring fugitive
emissions in 1976. One manual was on the quasi-stack method
(Kolnsberg et al.), one was on the roof monitor method (Kenson
and Bartlett) and one was on the upwind-downwind method
(Kolnsberg). From the point of view of measuring PM-10, these
manuals have several problems: they are old, the equipment in
them has largely been superseded, the manuals were written from
the perspective of measuring all fugitive emissions, not just
dust, and at that time EPA was concerned with measuring total
suspended particulate, not PM-10. Nevertheless, they provide
significant useful information and are being included in this
report as appendices. However, it must be reiterated that much
of the equipment in these manuals has been superseded. Appendix
C contains the text of Kolnsberg et al., (1976), the manual on
the quasi-stack method. Appendix K (TRC, 1980) also contains
very detailed information on this method, although the equipment
described is out of date.
Some specific work has been done on hood capture of process
fugitive particulate by PEDCo Environmental, Inc. (1984) and by
Kashdan et al. (1986). The former study describes the capture of
fugitive particulate from a primary copper converter by use of an
air curtain, and the use of quasi-stack measurements to quantify
emission rates. There is very good documentation of adequate
capture efficiency of this arrangement, but no documentation that
the fugitive emissions are unaffected by the air curtain.
Nevertheless, the air curtain is quite far from the process, and
it seems likely that the very small negative pressure involved
would be too small to cause increased emissions. The air curtain
seems useful only for heated, buoyant plumes.
Kashdan et al. comprehensively describe a series of hood designs
for capture of process fugitive particulate emissions. Capture
efficiencies are included. Again, however, there is no
information available on the extent of influence of these hood
systems on the processes themselves. To what extent do they
induce increased emissions? Could they reduce emissions by
decreasing turbulence around the source? Obtaining answers to
these questions is not necessarily a trivial problem.
Richards and Brozell (personal communication, 1993) have used a
smoke tracer method to visually determine the minimum air
velocity required for PM-10 plume capture. This issue is further
complicated if ambient winds or drafts must be dealt with,
because the hood air velocity needs to be higher in draftier
environments (Kolnsberg et al., 1976). Also, it must be
ascertained that the behavior of the visible smoke plume
resembles that of the actual PM-10 plume. Furthermore, it would
be preferable to have mass measurements of emitted and captured
-------
tracer as well as the visual evidence that the hood is effective
at capturing emissions without inducing or decreasing them.
In any case, several hood designs may be appropriate for use with
quasi-stack measurements. The user must demonstrate, however,
that the hood does not cause underestimation or overestimation of
source emissions.
Roof monitor method
When processes are located within a building, the roof monitor
method may be the best means of measuring fugitive particulate
emissions. In this method, measurements of particulate
concentration and air velocity must be made at each opening from
which dust may issue from the building. The cross-sectional area
of each opening is also required. The product of the cross-
sectional area of the opening, the exit velocity, and the
concentration of PM-10 gives the fugitive PM-10 emission rate
from an opening. The sum of the emission rates from all openings
gives the emission rate for the building as a whole.
^In most cases, the building as a whole is considered to be the
'"source." When considering the ambient impact of processes
within a building, we are only interested in dust which escapes
from the building, rather than in the "true" emissions from each
process inside.
Air velocity in openings to buildings may be quite variable.
Even flow direction may shift. Consequently, isokinetic sampling
may be difficult, and it may not be feasible to use stack testing
methods. In that event, ambient PM-10 sampling devices may be
used. These devices may pump a measured flow of air past a
filter. The weight of particulate deposited divided by the total
air flow during the time the device was in operation gives the
average concentration of dust in the sampled air. The product of
the average concentration, the cross-sectional area of an
opening, and the average exit velocity will give an average
emission rate for a given opening over the period of time
sampled. Appendix D contains a list of ambient samplers which
have met EPA criteria published in 40 CFR 50, as of July, 1993.
Table I (from Muleski et al., 1991) provides a list of advantages
and disadvantages of various types of PM-10 ambient samplers.
Another issue when using the roof monitor method is that
concentrations of dust may vary in unknown ways across various
openings. Consequently, it is important to sample, as in stack
testing, at a number of sites along the cross section of each
opening.
In cases where ducts lead to openings, it is important to
ascertain that there is not significant PM-10 deposition in the
-------
duct-work downstream from the sampling site before the exit from
the building Is reached. Otherwise one will make significant
overestimations of PM-10 emissions.
On the other hand, it is critical to sample during times which
are representative of normal and peak dust emissions. Otherwise,
the calculated emission rates will have little meaning.
Without the use of additional testing, it will not be possible to
separate and quantify the individual sources within a building;
the different plumes will be measured as one intermingled plume
leaving the various openings of the building. To discriminate
between sources under one roof, tracer tests are required (see
Appendix E, and also see Vanderborght et al. 1982), or else one
process at a time may be operated to obtain an emission rate for
each process.
The roof monitor method should have the potential to give
accurate emission rates. It has been thought to be somewhat less
accurate than the quasi-stack method, however (Kolnsberg, 1982).
Another issue that may arise in sampling via the roof monitor
method is that the building openings may be difficult to access,
difficult or hazardous to lead electrical lines to, and
precarious to work around. Trozzo and Turnage (1981) developed a
protocol for using battery powered personal samplers as
surrogates for the large hi-vol ambient samplers which were then
the EPA reference method for measuring ambient dust
concentrations. No subsequent studies using this technique were
found in the literature. Newer battery powered devices called
saturation monitors could be adequate under some conditions for
the roof monitor method, but this has not been studied.
Generally, if stack sampling methods cannot be used, it is
recommended that EPA approved ambient sampling devices be used
whenever possible (See Appendix D).
However, it is EPA's recommendation that whenever feasible, stack
sampling trains be used, specifically Method 201 or 201A. It may
be desirable to build temporary duct-work around openings in
order to use these methods, provided that the duct-work does not
alter the dust outflow.
In the case where emissions are sampled in ducts, EPA Method 1
should be used when the ducts are of the appropriate type. In
cases where sampling is attempted in an actual roof monitor, the
sampling should be done according to EPA Method 5D. (See Appendix
A.)
Appendix E contains the 1976 technical manual on the roof monitor
method by Kenson and Bartlett. As noted above, there is
substantial obsolete material in this manual ,• we include it
nevertheless because there is also substantial valuable
-------
information. Appendix K (TRC,1980) also has detailed information
on the roof monitor method (but dated information on equipment).
Upwind~downwind method
In the upwind-downwind method, at least one ambient PM-10
concentration is obtained upwind of a dust source and several PM-
10 concentrations are obtained downwind as well. Wind speed and
direction and other meteorological variables are monitored during
the sampling procedure. The downwind concentration minus the
upwind concentration is considered to be the concentration due to
the PM-10 source (or net concentration). Using a dispersion
model and the meteorological information, the net concentration
is used to solve for the emission rate in the dispersion model.
Each downwind sampler will yield an emission rate estimate; these
may be averaged to obtain the best estimate of the emission rate.
The upwind-downwind method may be applied to many different
situations. It cannot, however, distinguish between plumes which
mix, unless one of the plumes is distinctly upwind of the other.
While the upwind-downwind method is the most versatile of the
generally applied methods, it is also been considered the least
accurate. This is partly because only a tiny fraction of the
greatly diluted plume is sampled, and this sampling is usually
done many meters from the source. While plumes are thought to
behave in a Gaussian fashion, that behavior occurs only on
average over a period of time. A great many samples over a long
time would have to be obtained for the actual plume distribution
to approach that of a Gaussian curve. Such a sampling strategy
is usually impractical. Consequently, random plume
irregularities will give rise to uncertain emission estimates.
Even if sampling is done at many sites (an expensive
proposition), inaccuracies still result from using average
meteorological values to represent the instantaneous vagaries of
real weather. For example, the dispersion models are
particularly unable to cope with a situation in which the wind
direction at the source is different from the wind direction at
the receptor.
Despite these problems, it seems possible to obtain reasonable
accuracy with this method. Hu Gengxin et al. (1992) found that
their results were within a factor of two, 80 percent of the
time, apparently using the quasi-stack method as a reference.
In any case, there is an important reason for using the upwind-
downwind method: there are times when this is the only method
which suits the situation. Obtaining an emission rate from an
area source such as a large parking lot is an example.
-------
Regarding basic sampling protocol, the arrangement of sampling
devices will vary depending upon the geometry of the source. The
number of upwind samplers will depend upon the proximity of
interfering upwind plumes—a more heterogeneous upwind dust
profile will require more upwind samplers. Downwind of the
source to be measured, for "point" or area sources, at least five
ambient particulate samplers are required, at two different
downwind distances and three different crosswind distances
(Cowherd and Kinsey, 1986). The greater the number of downwind
samplers, the better the characterization of the plume. Refer to
Appendix D for a list of acceptable ambient sampling equipment,
and for an excerpt from the statute which defines the reference
method for measuring PM-10 in ambient air.
Kinsey and Englehart (1984), Russell and Caruso (1983), Maxwell
et al. (1982), and Larson et al. (1981) have done upwind-downwind
studies on "line" sources (roads). However the exposure
profiling technique is well suited to roads, and is thought to be
more accurate than the upwind-downwind method (Kolnsberg,1982;
Fitzpatrick, 1987).
Looking at sampling arrangements in more detail, a study by
Carnes et al. (1982) suggested that 10 or 11 downwind samplers
was the optimum number for measuring emissions from a coal
storage pile, based upon a cost-benefit analysis. They claimed
that using ten downwind samplers will provide estimates of
emission strength within 25 percent of estimates obtained using
30 or more samplers. Hesketh and Cross (1983) make no specific
recommendations on total number of samplers, but do suggest two
sampling heights for each sampling site, one at ground level and
one at three meters. Axetell and Cowherd (1984) did an
exhaustive study on surface coal mines; they wrote in detail on
most of the measurement methods described in this report,
including the upwind-downwind method. Excerpts of their report
are included as Appendix F. The reader should keep in mind,
however, that the equipment in that study was used primarily to
measure total suspended particulate, not PM-10. Appendix K (TRC,
1980) also contains a good deal of information on the upwind-
downwind method. Kolnsberg (1976) wrote a technical manual on
the method. That report is included as Appendix G because of its
valuable detail, despite the obsolescence of much of the
equipment described.
Regarding equipment, some studies (Kinsey and Englehart, 1984;
Russell and Caruso, 1983; and Larson et al., 1981) have used
devices which turn off the ambient samplers automatically if the
wind direction deviates more than a certain number of degrees
from the source. This is done because the sampler may be
essentially out of the plume if the wind deviates enough. Shut-
off angles for these devices have typically been in the range of
22.5 - 65 degrees to either side of the original plume
centerline. The desirable shut off angle will vary with the
-------
distance the samplers are from the source. Other studies
(Maxwell et al., 1982; Games et al., 1982; Larson, 1982; and
Wells et al., 1980) have not used such a device. Current thought
is that using an automatic shut-off is a good idea (Cowherd, C.,
1993, personal communication). Hesketh and Cross (1983) suggest
using two ambient samplers at each sampling position, one
operating continuously and the other operating only when the wind
is within 22.5 degrees from the source. Any sampler with a
directional shut-off should have a timer to count the elapsed
time the sampler is in operation.
Factors other than wind direction changes may make the data from
a particular test run unusable. For example, if the wind is very
slight, a recognizable plume might not form. A typical response
has been to initiate testing only if wind speeds exceed 1 meter
per second (2.2 m.p.h.).
Another important issue relevant to the upwind-downwind method is
the choice of a dispersion model. Which model should one use?
EPA uses the Industrial Source Complex (ISC) model, particularly
for gaseous emissions. This is a Gaussian plume model for flat
terrain. It has no deposition term specifically for particles
under 30 microns in aerodynamic diameter (as of July, 1993),
meaning that it does not accurately account for deposition of
these particles downwind of the source. PM-10 will have some
degree of downwind deposition. The ISC model is known to always
underestimate deposition of particles smaller than five microns
(Irwin, John, U.S. EPA Source Receptor Analysis Branch, personal
communication, 1993). On the other hand, the direction and
magnitude of bias for deposition of particles between five and
ten microns in diameter will depend upon release height, source
configuration, particle size and downwind distance.
The rate of downwind deposition will depend upon air convection
and turbulence which bring particles into contact with the
ground, and upon the gravitational settling velocity of the
particles. The gravitational settling flux and ground deposition
flux are both thought to be proportional to the local air
concentration of particles (Ermak, 1977). EPA is nearing
completion on work to add an improved deposition term to the ISC
model, which should make it more accurate for use with dust.
There are other dispersion models available which have deposition
terms. Ermak (1977) developed a model based upon the solution of
an atmospheric diffusion equation. Several later models are
based upon his work. These include models developed by Winges
(1990 and 1982), and by Becker and Takle (1979). Winges's
Fugitive Dust Model (1990) has computer software which allows
non-scientists to perform the data entry.
Hu Gengxin and Yang Xu (1992) reported on the development of a
model by Hu Gengxin and Xia Liguo. Hu Gengxin et al. (1992)
8
-------
briefly reviewed the applicability of various dispersion models
to fugitive dust problems, and compared a model developed by them
to two previously developed by Hu Gengxin. They used known
emission rates to evaluate the models, and found that their new
model performed somewhat better overall than Hu Gengxin's older
ones. They also found that each model had optimal distances and
angles from the plume centerline where it performed better than
the other models .
Generally, when using dispersion models, at a minimum the
following information will be required: Distance from each
ambient sampler to dust source, wind speed, wind direction, and
Pasquill-Gifford stability class. Other parameters, such as
roughness length or deposition velocity, may be required for a
given model. The elucidation of these other parameters may not
be trivial.
Furthermore, if. the model was created for unobstructed flat
terrain, but the real terrain is not flat, inaccuracies will
result unless the model is altered to suit the real situation. A
meteorologist or other mathematical modeler is required for
making such alterations.
Another modeling issue is the source geometry. Some models are
better than others for a particular source geometry. A model
which treats point and volume sources well might not be as good
for area sources, for example. Furthermore, the use of a point
source approximation for an area source will cause an
underestimate of emissions for a measured downwind concentration.
The closer the downwind receptor is to the area source, the
greater will be the error. A rule of thumb sometimes used by the
EPA for square area sources is that the receptor must be a
minimum of ten site lengths from the source for the point source
approximation to be reasonable.
Some information on dispersion models is available on an EPA
computer bulletin board called TTN (Technology Transfer Network).
The number to call for modem connections is 919-541-5742. Upon
reaching the main menu, choose the "SCRAM" (Support Center for
Regulatory Air Models) option for model information.
If one does use a model which accounts for deposition, the model
will typically require the sizing of the particles emitted from
the dust source. This is because particles of different
aerodynamic diameter will deposit on the ground between the
source and the sampler at different rates. To model the
deposition rate of the dust requires knowledge of the size
distribution of the dust. This has often been obtained
aerodynamically with cascade impactors, but may also be obtained
using other methods.
-------
Exposure profiling method
The exposure profiling method was developed by Midwest Research
Institute, under an EPA contract, as a tool for deriving emission
factors (Cowherd et al., 1974). The exposure profiler consists
of a number of ambient samplers (typically four or five) at
several heights along a vertical tower, typically four to ten
meters in height (Figure 1). The samplers are provided with a
means to sample nearly isokinetically: typically this consists of
either interchangeable nozzles of various sizes or variable flow-
rate control. Wind speed is monitored by anemometers, usually at
two to five heights along the tower (McCain et al., 1985). Wind
speeds for unmonitored heights are often -calculated using a
logarithmic algorithm (Muleski et al., 1993; Axetell and Cowherd,
1984). Wind direction is monitored by a wind vane.
One or more towers of this type is placed downwind of the source,
with the sampler intakes pointed into the wind. The profiling
tower is placed close to the source, often approximately five
meters away (Muleski et al., 1993; Cowherd and Kinsey, 1986;
Cuscino et al., 1983;). Ambient samplers (typically between one
and four of them) are placed upwind of the source at one or more
heights (Pyle and McCain, 1985). The upwind samplers are also
placed close to the source, often ten to fifteen meters away
(Muleski et al., 1993; Cowherd and Kinsey, 1986; Cuscino et al.,
1983). Sampling at the upwind samplers is not necessarily
isokinetic (Bohn, 1982).
Exposure (Carman and Muleski, 1993a) may be defined as the net
passage of mass through a unit area perpendicular to the plume
transport direction (wind direction):
E = (10'7)CUt
where: E = dust exposure (mg/cm2)
C = net concentration (ug/m3)
U = approaching wind speed (m/s)
t = sampling duration (s)
Values of exposure will vary at different sites within the plume.
The integral of exposure evaluated over the cross section of the
plume should equal the total mass flux of dust emitted from the
source (Carman and Muleski, 1993a; Axetell and Cowherd, 1984;
Bohn et al., 1978). The integration may be accomplished via
Simpson's rule. Simpson's rule necessitates an odd number of
data points at equal intervals; if additional data points are
required to obtain an odd number or equal spacing, they are
obtained by extrapolation (Muleski et al., 1993).
Mathematically, for a uniformly emitting "line" source (really a
"point" source moving along a line), such as a car moving along a
relatively uniform dirt road, a single vertical integration may
10
-------
suffice to characterize the emissions (Bonn et al., 1978). In the
case of "point" or small area sources, a two dimensional
integration will be required (Garman and Muleski, 1993a; Bonn et
al., 1978).
Similarly, from the point of view of physical measurement, for a
point source moving along a line and emitting uniformly, one
profiling tower may suffice to characterize the plume. In the
case of "point" or small area sources, a number of profiling
towers must be used.
The samplers should be symmetrically placed in the body of the
dust plume so that approximately 90 percent of the mass flux of
the dust cloud passes between the outermost edges of the array.
As an example, for a Gaussian dust plume, the exposure values
measured by the samplers at the edge of the sampling array should
be about 25 percent of those measured at the center of the array
(Bohn et al., 1978).
Exposure profiling has been used primarily for measuring
emissions from sources whose plumes will not have significant
mass passing above the highest sampler on a profiling tower.
This has largely constrained this method to sampling close to the
source. Axetell and Cowherd (1984) for example, write that it is
preferable for the profiling towers to be approximately five
meters from the source. However, Clayton et al. (1984) report
the use of sectional aluminum masts to raise the heights of their
highest samplers well above 20 meters. This kind of tower height
would permit sampling farther from the source. Sampling farther
from a point or area source, however, also requires a more
horizontally widespread tower array, because of horizontal plume
dispersion.
The exposure profiling method may not be practical for sampling
large area sources. The bigger the distance between the upwind
side of the area source and the profiling tower, the higher the
tower will need to be. The longer the dimension of the area
source perpendicular to the wind, the wider the profiling array
must be.
Exposure profiling uses a mass conservation approach (Garman and
Muleski, 1993a) to calculate emission rates from mass fluxes
measured downwind. But some PM-10 may deposit on the ground
between the source and the profiling tower. This "lost mass" of
PM-10 could be significant, particularly if the source is close
to the ground. Any deposition occurring between the source and
the profiling tower will lead to inaccuracies (under-predictions)
in calculating emission rates. The significance of these
inaccuracies is unknown.
However, perhaps a distinction should be drawn between the actual
emission rate and the relevant emission rate. What we are
11
-------
normally concerned about is entry of dust into the ambient
environment. The dust that is immediately deposited is not
usually of great concern. Hence, it may be reasonable to
acknowledge this source of inaccuracy in the exposure profiling
method in terms of measuring the actual emission rate, while
realizing that this inaccuracy may not pertain to the "relevant"
emission rate.
This inaccuracy could become problematic if the calculated
emission rate is to be used with a dispersion model to predict
downwind ambient impact. If a dispersion model with a deposition
algorithm is used, there will be under-prediction of the ambient
impact. "Lost mass" deposited between the source and the
profiler will lead to a lower-than-actual calculated emission
rate, and then the deposition algorithm will further decrease the
predicted downwind concentration.
Nor would it necessarily be correct to use a dispersion model
without a deposition algorithm to calculate the ambient impact of
a source. Again, in this case, missing mass deposited between
the source and the profiler will lead to underestimates of the
actual emission rate. The application of a dispersion model
without a deposition term tends to lead to overestimates of PM-10
downwind impacts. The result of combining an underestimated
emission rate with an ambient impact overestimation is unclear.
Possibly the errors would essentially cancel. Perhaps comparing
the resulting ambient impact predictions with predictions derived
from receptor models provides a clue, but receptor models for
dust generally have their own problems with conservation of mass
issues.
In any case, the magnitude of the mass lost to deposition between
the source and the profiler is unknown. It will vary with source
height, meteorological conditions and source-profiler distance.
This mass may not be significant at many emission heights and
under certain meteorological conditions, but it could be
important for sources emitting close to the ground. This mass
should be quantified. We would then be more sure of actual
emission rates.
Exposure profiling has another- source of inaccuracy in the
necessity of extrapolating mass fluxes from the outermost
samplers in the array to the fluxes outside of the array. The
more widespread the sampling array, the more this source of error
can be minimized. As an example of the potential magnitude of
this source of error, Muleski et al. (1983) found between a ten
and seventeen percent- discrepancy from using a six-meter
profiling tower compared to their results using a ten-meter
tower, for measuring dust emissions five meters from an unpaved •
road.
Exposure profiling is considered significantly more accurate than
12
-------
the upwind-downwind method (Kolnsberg, 1982; Fitzpatrick, 1987).
Th±a ±a because exposure profiling samples quasi-isokinetically,
typically samples a much larger portion of the dust plume, and
does not depend on dispersion modeling for determining emission
rates. Kolnsberg (1982) writes that the accuracy of the exposure
profiling method is comparable to that of the roof monitor
method.
The report of Axetell and Cowherd (1984), which has been included
as Appendix F, contains a description of the exposure profiling
method and step by step calculations for measuring emission rates
from line-sources. Carman and Muleski (1993b) has a less
detailed but more current plan for measuring line-source emission
rates; this is Appendix H. Another report by Carman and Muleski
(1993a) includes information on the calculation of emission rates
from area sources, sampling configuration diagrams, and
information on sample handling and analysis, and is included as
Appendix I.
Portable wind tunnel method
The portable wind tunnel was used in the 1970's to study the
effects of wind-blown sand on vegetation, and to quantify the
determinants of wind erosion (Fryrear, 1971; Gillette, 1978). It
has since been used to quantify wind-generated emissions from
exposed soil and from coal storage piles (Axetell and Cowherd,
1984; Cowherd, 1983; Cuscino et al., 1983). It should be
reiterated that this method is used only to quantify wind-
generated emissions.
The portable wind tunnel is diagrammed in Figure 2 (from Cuscino
et al., 1983). The "working" part of the wind tunnel has an open
floor and is placed directly on the surface to be tested. An
airtight seal is maintained between the tunnel sides and the
tested surface (Axetell and Cowherd, 1984). A fan draws air
through the tunnel from an intake "upwind" of the test area. At
a threshold speed, dust will be picked up or eroded from the test
surface by the passing air stream. The quantity of eroded
material (neglecting deposition) is the net amount of dust
leaving the tunnel, or the total amount leaving minus the amount
entering.
As shown in Figure 2, the emissions sampling in the portable wind
tunnel is done in a raised, fully enclosed duct, downstream from
the working section. In the past, emissions have been measured
isokinetically by ambient sampling equipment. The Emissions
Measurement Branch of EPA prefers the use of standard stack
sampling trains whenever feasible. This would mean using Method
201 or 201A. An ambient sampler could, however, be used to
obtain the concentration of dust in the ambient intake air for
the tunnel.
13
-------
The emission rate calculation is like a stack problem: The
emission rate from the tested area equals the net particle
concentration times the tunnel flow rate. The calculation of the
tunnel flow rate is complicated, however, by boundary layer
considerations, including shear stress at the tunnel floor and
walls. Axetell and Cowherd (1984) present a calculation
procedure for determining flow rate (See pages 82-86 of Appendix
F).
Cowherd (1983) stated that the wind speed profile near the tunnel
floor followed a logarithmic pattern and was related to friction
velocity, roughness height and the distance from the tunnel
floor. Friction velocity is related to shear stress at the
tunnel sides and floor (White, 1986). Roughness height has been
obtained via an extrapolation of the measured wind speed profile;
the distance from the tunnel floor at which the wind speed
extrapolates to zero is considered to be the mean roughness
height (Axetell and Cowherd, 1984). According to Cowherd (1983) ,
knowing the roughness height allows the use of the tunnel
centerline wind speed to extrapolate the probable wind speed at
10 meters height via a logarithmic wind profile which describes
wind speeds in the atmospheric boundary layer. In practice, this
extrapolation is done graphically by plotting height versus wind
speed using semi-log paper (Cowherd, C., personal communication,
1993). The measured wind speeds are extrapolated "back" to the
y-axis to obtain the roughness height, and they are extrapolated
"forward" to 10 meters to obtain the wind speed at that altitude.
The slope of the graph will be the friction velocity.
Thus, over flat ground, the tunnel centerline wind speed can
apparently be related to a corresponding wind speed at 10 meters
altitude. Since the tunnel centerline wind speed can also be
related to a PM-10 emission rate, the wind speed at 10 meters can
presumably be related to that emission rate.
For storage piles, the procedure is as above, except that one
must also consult EPA publication AP-42, section 11.2.7 in order
to obtain the relationship between the unobstructed atmospheric
wind speed profile and the wind speed profile at various sites
across a storage pile. Section 11.2.7 of AP-42 is included as
Appendix J. For a description of the use of the portable wind
tunnel see Appendix F (Axetell and Cowherd, 1984).
A basic assumption made in using the portable wind tunnel method
concerns the relating of emission rates in the tunnel to those
out of the tunnel. Consider a wind speed measured in the open
air at a height of 15 cm. That wind moving over a particular
segment of open ground at a certain time causes a specific
emission rate. Now consider the same, wind speed measured at the
same height, but moving through a tunnel placed next to the same
spot at the same time. It is assumed that if the ground is
similar in and out of the tunnel, the emissions will be the same
14
-------
in and out of the tunnel. In other words, the physical presence
of the tunnel-is assumed not to affect the emission rate.
The portable wind tunnel method, like the exposure profile method
employs a mass conservation approach (Axetell and Cowherd, 1984).
Therefore any deposition which occurs between the point of
emission and the point of measurement will lead to an
underestimation of total emissions. However, one must ask
whether such deposition is relevant. Are we concerned with the
total flux of PM-10 up from a source, regardless of whether some
of it is deposited before it leaves the source, or are we
concerned with the net flux leaving the source and entering the
ambient environment?
Let us look at the situation in which a dispersion model is used
to determine downwind ambient impact of the source. If the
source is treated as a point source in a dispersion model with a
deposition algorithm, the deposition occurring in the tunnel
might not be relevant. This is because the source is actually an
area, but is being treated as a point. Deposition occurring
within the area of the source but unaccounted for in the tunnel
may be accounted for by the deposition algorithm of the
dispersion model. (However, one must make sure to consider
ambient impact far enough downwind so that the use of a point
source model for an area source will not distort the predicted
downwind impact—one must be far enough downwind so that the
source "looks like" a point.)
Wind erosion of soil or other materials is a complicated process.
For example. Cowherd (1982) has suggested that wind gusts rather
than mean wind speed cause most particle uptake. Another
complication is that wind erosion is not a steady state process,
but changes as a function of the amount of erodible material
exposed to the wind, which itself is partly a function of the
length of time a surface has been exposed to a particular wind
speed. The amount of erodible material will also depend upon the
frequency, extent, timing and effect of disturbances caused by
outside forces acting on a surface to be tested. An example of
such outside forces might be the driving of a vehicle on a
material storage pile. Cowherd (1983) has dealt with the issue
of erosion potential and describes a means to quantify it (Also
see Appendix F, pages 85-86). The issue of disturbance will
presumably need to be dealt with by having a sampling strategy
which fairly represents the normal conditions of the surface to
be tested.
However, there are other complications of wind erosion. For
example, fetch is defined as the length of exposed surface along
the axis of the wind. Gillette (1978) -found that increasing the
fetch in the portable wind tunnel increased the emission rate per
unit area for particles smaller than 25 urn. This finding held
for all fetches tested, the largest of which was 21.7 cm.
15
-------
Axetell and Cowherd (1984) use a fetch of 3.5 meters; perhaps
this 'longer fetch obviates this problem, but this is not
addressed in the emission measurement literature.
A possibly related issue is that of sandblasting, which is
defined as the impaction of saltating particles onto a surface.
On open stretches of bare ground, sandblasting causes emissions
of particles smaller than 25 um (Gillette, 1978). But in the
wind tunnel, Gillette found that emission of particles smaller
than 25 um was independent of sandblasting. He speculated that
this might be due to the short fetch of the test section in his
tunnel. Again it is possible that a 3.5 meter fetch would
obviate this problem, but this -does not appear -to be addressed in
the literature on emission measurement. On the other hand, most
fugitive dust sources have shorter fetches than those encountered
by Gillette on the farmlands of Kansas and Texas. Perhaps sand
blasting is unimportant for short fetches.
Gillette (1978) also found during field studies that for some
soil types, the ratio of fine to coarse particles emitted
increased with increasing wind speed. He wasn't able to
duplicate this finding in his wind tunnel. He speculated that
this was due to the small fetch of his tunnel inhibiting
sandblasting effects.
As a benefit of working primarily in rather flat, unfcrested
areas, both Cowherd and Gillette were able to use values of
roughness height extrapolated from measured wind tunnel
velocities alone. But this could be a problem in forested or
rolling areas where a different means of obtaining roughness
height may be necessary (Cowherd, C., personal communication,
1993) .
In any case, it appears that the portable wind tunnel is superior
to other methods of quantifying wind erosion. Nearly the entire
plume is captured. Sampling is isokinetic. Flow rate through
the tunnel can be accurately determined.
Scale model wind tunnel method
The scale model wind tunnel method involves the construction of a
reduced-size re-creation of a process or landscape inside of a
wind tunnel. An attempt is usually made to make important
parameters in the wind tunnel resemble those occurring in the
field. These parameters may include turbulence, wind shear, or
other physical quantities.
Specific approaches to ensuring similarity between the wind
tunnel environment and the field environment have differed.
There does not appear to be a consensus on the correct approach
16
-------
to take.
Visser (1992) studied the effects of moisture and wind speed on
the dust emission rates of three different types of coal. He
differentiated emissions occurring from windsift (particles
entrained by wind out of a falling stream) from those occurring
by impaction (falling and "bouncing"). He determined impaction
emissions (dustiness) using a technique described by Lundgren
(1986). By dumping the coal into a grille-covered box recessed
in the tunnel floor, Visser claimed to minimize re-entrainment of
impaction emissions when he was studying windsift.
Emissions were measured, isokinetically at nine.points downstream
from the falling coal. Emission rates were determined by
considering the flux at each sampler as representative of the
flux of the surrounding area, calculating the flux for each area
and then summing the fluxes. The calculated emission factors did
not agree well with those from cited field studies, although they
were said to be in rough agreement with those from a cited wind
tunnel study.
Visser seems to have made the assumption that phenomena observed
in his wind tunnel will be indicative of those occurring in the
real world. He does not appear to have used any kind of
dimensional analysis, which is generally applied to scale model
wind tunnel studies, even though he was dumping much smaller
quantities of coal than would be dumped in real industrial
situations. Not only is the different throughput of coal at
issue, but the turbulence inside the tunnel is also important.
Does the tunnel turbulence at a given wind speed resemble that
encountered in real situations? Does the velocity profile in the
tunnel resemble that of the atmospheric boundary layer? Visser
does not seem to have addressed these issues.
De Faveri et al. (1990) studied the effects of wind breaks and
coating compounds on emissions from coal storage piles. They
built a scale model terrain. In the building of their model,
they considered the simulation of the atmospheric boundary layer,
the simulation of atmospheric turbulence, and the simulation of
terrain with the appropriate roughness height. In relating
tunnel design to real-world characteristics, their dimensional
analysis considered the threshold speed (speed at which eroding
particles become airborne), air speed, particle size, space, and
time of exposure. Interestingly, they scaled the particle size
of the coal they were using.
The actual measurement of emissions was only quantitative
relative to baseline emissions, however. No method for measuring
the actual mass flux was used. Also, the scaling of particle
size may open a formidable can of worms in that such scaling must
take into account forces acting on particles which change in
importance with differing particle size. Electrostatic force is
17
-------
one example of a force which has more importance in determining
the behavior of smaller particles.
Yocom et al. (1985) dropped sulfur into a hopper in a wind tunnel
to study dust emissions at wind speeds up to eight miles per
hour. In considering the similarity between the atmosphere and
the wind tunnel, they explain that the calculation of the
Reynolds number for wind tunnels is related to the dimensions of
obstructions in the tunnel. They use the square root of the
frontal area of a wind flow obstruction as the characteristic
length for calculation of the Reynolds number. Wind tunnel
turbulence was compared to atmospheric turbulence via a
comparison of Reynolds numbers; it was admitted that,
particularly at low wind speeds, the wind tunnel might not
accurately represent atmospheric turbulence.
Another feature of the Yocom study was isokinetic sampling at the
downwind end of the tunnel using hi-vol samplers with directional
nozzles and variable flow rate. Deposition in the tunnel was
measured by weighing deposits on removable aluminum plates placed
on the tunnel floor downwind of the dropped sulfur.
An emission factor developed in the Yocom et al. study agreed
closely with one developed in the field by another group using
exposure profiling to measure emissions from the dropping of
sulfur. Interestingly, in the Yocom et al. study, particles
deposited downwind of the dropped sulfur were not included in the
calculation of the emission factor, so the actual mass flux out
of the stream of dropping sulfur must have been underestimated.
Billman and Arya (1985) studied the effects of windbreaks on wind
speeds across downwind storage piles. While they did not
directly study emissions, their report is interesting in that a
subsequent field study (Zimmer et al., 1986) was performed to
verify the results obtained by Billman and Arya. For piles
unscreened by windbreaks, Zimmer et al. found that while the
measured field wind speeds agreed well with those predicted from
the wind tunnel studies for measurements taken at the front of
storage piles, there was poor agreement at the back of the piles.
For the case in which the pile was screened by a windbreak, only
one test was directly comparable between the two studies; in that
case, the wind tunnel values for screen efficiency were
approximately forty percent higher than the field results.
Zimmer et al. attributed at least part of the discrepancy between
field and wind tunnel results to higher turbulence in the
atmosphere than in the wind tunnel.
Williams (1982) made the assumption that turbulence in his wind
tunnel resembled that at the outdoor site he was modeling. He
did not do any dimensional analysis. His study is interesting,
however, in that he weighed removable dust trays to determine
mass flux. He claimed to differentiate between flux occurring by
18
-------
saltation and that occurring by suspension. To do this he used a
method involving three adjacent dust trays arranged sequentially
along the axis of the wind and embedded in the wind tunnel floor.
He claimed that the saltation process reaches equilibrium
"quickly." Since the upwind tray receives no saltating particles
from other trays, the weight loss measured will be due both to
suspension of particles into the air and to any outgoing
saltation which occurs. By contrast, the downwind tray should,
Williams claims, experience incoming saltation flux from the
middle tray equal to that lost downwind to the tunnel, and so net
saltation flux of the downwind tray should be zero. Any loss of
tray weight in the downwind tray should be due, according to
Williams, to suspension alone. It may be, however, that the
downwind tray is incurring deposition of suspended particles
eroded from the upwind trays, as well as saltation flux in and
out of the tray. This would complicate Williams' scheme.
Viner et al. (1982) point out that a large wind tunnel cross
section is desirable so that boundary layer effects of the walls
and ceiling of the tunnel will not complicate the velocity
profile around the model. However, a large cross section
requires a large fan if high wind speeds are desired.
The Viner study used roughness elements in the tunnel floor to
simulate the atmospheric boundary layer. Viner et al. state that
"The most important parameter with regard to particle entrainment
is the shear stress at the surface of the dust sample." Given
the roughness elements used in their tunnel, they calculated that
the shear stress in the tunnel was typical of atmospheric
conditions.
Viner et al. note that an advantage of scale model wind tunnel
tests is that individual parameters affecting dust emissions can
be controlled. A disadvantage is that the relationship between
the tests and actual field emissions is "uncertain at best."
The Viner study used three methods for studying emission rates.
The information in the published report on the first two methods
is limited; however, one method measured mass flux by means of a
probe and the other method used a probe to collect particles for
optical sizing. The third method was judged the most direct and
reproducible. This consisted of weighing a removable tray
containing the erodible material, before and after a test. This
technique was criticized as being subject, however, to error from
the handling of the tray.
Tracer method
The tracer method uses either a gas or particles as a tracer for
dust. Several gas tracer studies have used sulfur hexafluoride as
a tracer. Usually particulate tracers are fluorescent or
19
-------
phosphorescent or have a dye or other coating which makes them
fluoresce or phosphoresce.
The assumption behind the tracer method is that the dispersion of
dust will be imitated by the tracer. In other words, the tracer
plume will strongly resemble the dust plume if the tracer is
released in the same place at the same time as the dust. The
validity of this assumption will be discussed later. However, if
we assume for the moment that this assumption is correct, then
the dust emission rate may be easily determined (Vanderborght et
al., 1982):
cd/ct - Qd/Qt
where Cd = downwind net dust concentration
Ct = downwind net tracer concentration
Qd = dust emission rate
Qt = tracer emission rate
The concentrations of dust and tracer are measured at the same
locations upwind and downwind of the source. The upwind
concentrations of dust and tracer are subtracted from the
respective downwind concentrations to obtain Cd and Ct. (In
practice the upwind tracer concentration will be close to zero.)
The tracer emission rate is known. (In the case of a gaseous
tracer, the gas cylinder can be weighed before and after the
tracer release.) Consequently, the emission rate of the dust
will be the only unknown quantity and can be readily calculated
using the simple proportion expressed above.
Baxter (1983) used sulfur hexafluoride as a tracer for dust from
a mining operation. As previously mentioned, an assumption made
in this and other tracer studies is that if the tracer is
released in the same area and at the same time as the dust, then
the tracer and the dust will disperse in similar ways. Another
assumption made in this particular study is that deposition of
particles less than 30 urn in diameter will be minimal over
distances less than 100 meters. This latter assumption was
necessary because Baxter was measuring gaseous tracer and total
suspended particulate at distances as far as 100 meters downwind,
and any particulate deposition in that distance would mean that
the tracer and the dust were dispersing differently, since sulfur
hexafluoride does not undergo deposition.
The assumptions of similar dispersion and no particulate
deposition are questionable; their veracity should depend upon
emission height and meteorological conditions. For example, if
the emissions are close to the ground, significant dust
deposition might occur over 100 meters, especially under certain
weather conditions. Also, significant reflection of the sulfur
hexafluoride gas from the ground could occur over 100 meters. By
contrast, the dust would not be expected to undergo much
20
-------
reflection since most dust tends to stick where it impacts.
Baxter visually determined the sites of maximum dust emissions
and placed the sulfur hexafluoride cylinders in those areas. He
outlined a means of keeping the release rate of the tracer gas
constant using a two stage pressure regulator, a fine metering
valve and a rotameter. The total amount of gas released was
determined by weighing the gas cylinder before and after the
tracer gas release.
Baxter used a continuous sulfur hexafluoride analyzer and ambient
samplers, all mounted on a van approximately 75 meters downwind
of the source. He used the measurements made by the continuous
sulfur hexafluoride analyzer to indicate where to move the mobile
platform so that he could follow the wind shifts and remain in
the main part of the dust plume. Time-integrated samples of
sulfur hexafluoride were also obtained using bag samplers.
Vanderborght et al. (1982) point out the advantages of using
sulfur hexafluoride as a tracer: it is inert, non-toxic, stable
up to approximately 500 degrees Celsius, easily detectable at
concentrations as low as 50 nanograms per cubic meter, and normal
background levels are below the level of detection. Their study
used sulfur hexafluoride as a tracer for antimony (Sb) dust
emitted from an Sb metallurgical plant.
The Vanderborght study used bag samples of sulfur hexafluoride
and used gas chromatography to analyze the samples. Ambient
samples of Sb were obtained, and were analyzed using neutron
activation and x-ray fluorescence.
Vanderborght et al. sampled at distances as close as 15 meters
and as far as 180 meters from the source. They make the claim
that at these distances deposition of Sb aerosol is negligible.
They do admit to problems with the tracer study at the close in
distances, however. An indication of such problems is that they
found different ratios of Cd/Ct at various sampling sites close
to the source. But this ratio should be constant over a given
time period, even at different locations, since that ratio should
equal Q^/Q^ and the latter ratio will average to a constant over
the same time period. Vanderborght et al. attributed this
problem to poor mixing of the dust and tracer plumes. This is
quite plausible since.they were using one point source of sulfur
hexafluoride to approximate two separated point sources of dust.
Nevertheless, they found that further downwind, the C^/Ct ratio
remained constant ("within acceptable limits") at various
distances and locations. This is evidence both that deposition
is negligible at the sampling distances downwind, and that the
dust plume and tracer plume disperse in essentially the same way.
Wachter (1980) developed emission factors for stone crushing •
21
-------
operations using sulfur tetrafluoride as a tracer gas. He used a
gas chromatograph with an electron capture detector to analyze
the gas samples.
Wachter made major errors in his paper. Although he was
interested in total suspended particulate rather than PM-10, his
errors are instructive. First, in arguing for the validity of
the tracer technique, he makes the unsupported assumption that
particles under 50 urn in diameter behave in the same way that
sulfur tetrafluoride does. Then, in an effort to prove that only
small particles emit past the plant boundaries, he attempts to
show, using Stokes's Law, that particles larger than 19 urn will
settle-within 300 meters from the source under average
meteorological conditions. Now if particles from 19 urn to 50 urn
in diameter settled within 300 meters from the source, they would
certainly not be acting like a gas, and the tracer study would
probably be invalid.
Furthermore, the use of Stokes Law alone to determine where
atmospheric dust will settle is erroneous. Wachter assumes that
the terminal settling velocity along with a horizontal wind speed
can be used to calculate where particles will deposit. His
approach ignores atmospheric turbulence, which is often the most
important determinant of where suspended particles will settle.
Deposition velocity rather than terminal settling velocity is
generally the most important quantity in such a situation.
Reynolds (1980) was concerned with the re-entrainment or
resuspension into the air of hazardous materials deposited on
surfaces. He seeded various surfaces with known amounts of
phosphorescing particulate tracer having a size distribution in
the 1 um to 5 urn diameter range. The tracer particles were
composed of "zinc-cadmium sulfide." (The EPA does not recommend
the use of cadmium-containing materials as tracers.) Reynolds
eroded the labeled surfaces using a hi-vol drawing through a
portable wind tunnel, and trapped the eroded particles on a
filter. Mass loading of the tracer on the filter was obtained
using optical techniques. However, since only the mass of tracer
was obtained, and not the mass of eroded dust, Cd could not be
obtained. So Qd could not be directly calculated.
Thus, Reynolds was obliged to determine the mass flux of the dust
indirectly. He did this by determining a tracer resuspension
rate (fraction of tracer particles resuspended in the air per
unit time) with a dimension of time"1. He notes that initial
resuspension fluxes are directly proportional to the resuspension
rate, and that "Therefore resuspension fluxes and relationships
should be nearly equivalent to functional relationships
determined for the resuspension rate—". He then calculates the
mass flux of dust based upon estimates of the amount of erodible
material available and the calculated resuspension rate for the
tracer. He claims that his resuspension rates are accurate to
22
-------
within a factor of three based upon estimations of the magnitudes
of the sources of error in the experiment.
The portable wind tunnel method seems to be a much more direct
and efficient means of measuring wind erosion than the
particulate tracer method described by Reynolds. The mass of
eroded dust may be directly calculated with a portable wind
tunnel; there is no need to use a tracer as a surrogate for dust.
Sehmel (1973.) used zinc sulfide particles as a tracer material in
a study on dust emission from a paved road. The zinc sulfide was
placed on one lane of the road. An array of non-isokinetic
samplers was mounted on towers at various distances downwind of
the road. Deposition samplers were also positioned at various
downwind distances. A graphical integration of the downwind
tracer exposure and ground deposition was performed to calculate
the resuspension rate per vehicle pass. The quantity of erodible
material per unit area of road must be estimated to permit the
calculation of the mass flux of dust from the resuspension rate
of tracer. The emission rates thus calculated were said to be
accurate within a factor of three, based upon an error analysis.
The exposure profiling method has often been used to calculate
dust emissions from roads in the years since Sehmel's study.
Exposure profiling appears to be a superior method in that the
dust mass flux is measured directly, rather than using a tracer
as a dust surrogate.
The use of gaseous tracers, however, appears promising,
particularly for PM-10, the dispersion of which should be more
like a gas than the dispersion of total suspended particulate
would be (since PM-10 will undergo less deposition). However,
the distance at which downwind deposition of PM-10 ceases to be
negligible remains to be shown. At the distance where deposition
ceases to be negligible, the gas and the dust plumes will be
acting differently, and the tracer method will be less valid.
This distance will vary with source height and with
meteorological conditions, and could be predicted using
dispersion models.
By contrast, there is also a problem very close to the source:
How do we know that the dust and the tracer have adequately mixed
and have formed a uniform plume? Perhaps this issue can be
minimized by carefully selecting dust source geometry and tracer
source location to facilitate plume mixing. Maybe the problem
can be solved by sampling both dust and tracer at a number of
locations and distances. If the Cd/Ct ratio is constant over a
number of locations and distances, perhaps we can assume, as
Vanderborght et al. suggested, that this is adequate evidence of
plume homogeneity over those areas.
23
-------
Balloon method
Balloon sampling is an offshoot of the exposure profiling method.
The balloon sampling method consists of ambient samplers sampling
quasi-isokinetically, suspended at a number of heights from a
balloon. Mass flux is computed in the same way as in the
exposure profiling method. The balloon method has been used in
attempts to sample large area sources or sources which may not be
closely approached. Armstrong and Drehmel (1982) designed one
such system. Axetell and Cowherd (1984) used balloon sampling in
an attempt at measuring the dust emissions from blasting
operations.
The latter study had problems with sampling often being non-
isokinetic, as well as encountering a problem of being unable to
sample a sufficiently large segment of the plume except under
very limited wind conditions. The problem of anisokinesis
occurred because nozzles on the ambient sampler intakes could not
be changed with the balloons aloft, and the flow rate to the
samplers was fixed. In this particular instance, variable flow
rate to the samplers might have been a good method of maintaining
isokinetic sampling. However, isokinetic sampling is less
critical for accurate measurement of PM-10 than it is for total
suspended particulate (Davies, 1968). Appendix F has a detailed
description of the balloon sampling protocol used by Axetell and
Cowherd.
Error, accuracy and precision in the methods
Error may be defined as "the departure of the measured value from
the true value" (Taylor, 1990). It is equivalent to the term
"inaccuracy."
Rosbury et al. (1984) focus on error in emission factors.
However, some of the sources of error which they mention are
broadly applicable to several measurement methods. They place
error sources into five categories: emissions, activity
parameters, source location, meteorological inputs and dispersion
model.
A potentially relevant error that Rosbury et al. list in the
emissions category is any assumption made about particle size
distributions. An example is the common assumption that various
types of dust are log-normally distributed.
Errors in defining activity parameters, while not causing
inaccuracy in the mass flux measurement itself, can create error
in interpreting the meaning of the measurement. Is a given level
of activity (which relates to a given mass flux measurement)
peak, average or below average activity?
24
-------
An example of a source location uncertainty may be observed in
trying to define source height. For instance, wnat is the source
height for the dust emitted by vehicle traffic on a road?
Uncertainties in meteorological inputs include errors in
measurements of wind speed and wind direction. Additional
uncertainty comes from estimation of stability class and mixing
height. Also, how uniform are the meteorological conditions over
the source-measurement area?
Some uncertainties implicit in the use of dispersion models were
discussed in the upwind-downwind section of this report. Rosbury
et al. used three different emission factors in all combinations"
with three different dispersion models (while holding other
variables constant) and thus calculated nine different predicted
downwind concentrations. They found that while the emission
factors differed by as much as a factor of 4.7, the predicted
downwind concentrations differed by as much as an order of
magnitude.
Axetell and Cowherd (1984) performed an error analysis on the
exposure profiling method and on the upwind-downwind method (See
pages 45-46 and Table 3-6 in Appendix F). An error analysis is
an attempt to quantify inaccuracy by listing each perceived
source of error, deciding whether it is random or systematic, and
making an estimate of its potential magnitude and direction.
Their initial results indicated that error in the exposure
profiling method for particles less than fifteen microns ranged
from -14 percent to +8 percent. Field experience caused them to
revise this estimate to plus or minus 30-35 percent. An initial
error analysis for the upwind-downwind method estimated
inaccuracies of plus or minus 30.5 percent and 50.1 percent for
line sources and point/area sources respectively.
Sehmel (1973) and Reynolds (1980) performed error analyses on the
different particulate tracer technique each was using, and each
claimed that the technique he was using was accurate to within a
factor of three.
Error analyses may be useful, but they are essentially an
educated guess at the amount of inaccuracy in a method. Even if
the estimates of magnitude of known sources of error are good,
there is no guarantee that one has considered all sources of
inaccuracy. For example, the error analysis of Axetell and
Cowherd (1984) for exposure profiling does not appear to take
into account the mass balance deficit from deposition that
probably occurs with that method.
Turning specifically to the issue of accuracy, this may be
defined as the closeness of a method's measurements to the actual
value of the measured quantity (Taylor, 1990). To ascertain the
level of accuracy of a measurement method, we must know the
25
-------
actual value of the quantity that is being measured.
There may be only one example in the accessible literature in
which experimental releases of known quantities of fugitive dust
were measured in order to determine the accuracy of a method. Hu
Gengxin et al. (1992) found that their dispersion model used with
the upwind-downwind method predicted emissions within a factor of
two of measured emissions, 80 percent of the time. They
apparently measured emissions with the quasi-stack method as a
reference. However, their experimental technique is not
described in detail in their paper, no doubt due to space
constraints, so their exact procedure, and consequently its
validity, is not entirely certain.
While the quasi-stack method may be, from general principles,
potentially the most accurate fugitive dust measurement
technique, one must demonstrate that the method does not alter
the emissions of dust from the source. This may not be a
straightforward task. Consequently, the use of the quasi-stack
method as a reference method for determining emission rates
appears questionable.
However, an adaptation of the quasi-stack method as a means for
determining the accuracy of other methods might work very well.
In this case, it would only be necessary that the mass flux of
the dust emitting out of the quasi-stack duct equal the mass flux
measured by the sampling train inside the duct. Ip other words,
one would need to ascertain that there was negligible deposition
in the duct downstream of the sampling train. Then one would
have a known emission rate with which to assess the accuracy of
other methods.
There appears to be at least one other study using known emission
rates of dust to determine the accuracy of dust measurement
methods. Hu Gengxin et al. cite a book by Li Zhuongkai (1985),
presumably written in Chinese, which is said to report on field
experiments verifying diffusion models using known releases of
glass beads and fog droplets from point sources.
Because so little work has been done comparing known emission
rates of dust with measurements made by fugitive dust measuring
methods, there is not much to say about the accuracy of these
methods, other than what one can deduce or conjecture from
general principles. For example, we might expect that methods
which sample a large part of a dust plume will be more accurate,
on average, than those which sample a small part of the plume.
Another generalization is that isokinetic sampling is better than
non-isokinetic sampling, although the importance of this
decreases as particle size decreases. Dispersion modeling
introduces a source of error.
One or more- of these generalities might be difficult to quantify.
26
-------
In any case, that would be a tangential approach to defining
accuracy. Much more work needs to be done using known emission
rates to evaluate the accuracy of fugitive dust measurement
methods.
Similarly, few studies have evaluated the precision of methods.
Precision may be defined by considering a series of measurements
of a particular quantity. The closer the values of the
measurements are to each other, the more precise the measurement
method (Taylor,1990).
Precision may be a difficult parameter to obtain for fugitive
dust measurement methods. This is because it is necessary to
have multiple measurements of the same quantity to obtain
precision. But it may not be easy to emit the same quantity of
dust multiple times. So the papers which report values for
precision are those which use methods which obtain multiple
measurements of the emission rate during each time period when
dust is emitted. These methods are the upwind-downwind method
and the tracer method.
Carnes et al. (1982) found, in five test runs of the upwind-
downwind method, that the coefficients of variation of emission
rates (the sample standard deviation divided by the sample mean
for each test) ranged from 0.219 to 0.456. There were twelve to
fifteen observations in each of the five test runs. Each
observation stems from one downwind concentration measurement
taken from each ambient sampler in each test run. Carnes et al.
found that these observations were normally distributed when they
were all grouped together.
Vanderborght (1982), using a gaseous tracer, found relative
standard deviations (coefficients of variation multiplied by
100%) of 19, 22, 23 and 33 percent in four test runs. Each test
run consisted of seven tracer measurements taken more than
fifteen meters downwind of the source.
A number of papers submit emission factors to statistical
scrutiny. However, one cannot easily obtain the precision of the
measurement method from the emission factor statistics because
the emission factors are relationships between emission rates and
activity levels (such as the number of grams of dust emitted per
kilogram of coal handled). Uncertainty in the relationship
between the mass flux measurement and the activity level, as well
as uncertainty in measurements of the activity itself would
complicate any attempt to obtain precision of the measurement
method from statistics about the emission factor.
Conclusions
The quasi-stack method may potentially be very accurate, and is
27
-------
probably the best method for measuring emissions from enclosable
sources, but difficulties arise in trying to demonstrate that the
enclosure of a source does not alter its emissions. Many hood
configurations exist which might work with this method, but most
have not been studied in the context of measurement of mass flux.
The roof monitor method is probably the best method for measuring
emissions from buildings. Sampling problems may include
difficulties in adequately sampling very large openings, as well
as very variable flow through the openings.
The upwind-downwind method may be the least accurate but most
generally applicable of the well established methods. The use of
dispersion modeling involved with this method is a major source
of error; the dispersion model to be used should be carefully
chosen and applied to minimize this source of error.
The exposure profiling method seems to be the best method for
unenclosable sources which are of relatively small area and which
are amenable to having profilers placed within a few meters of
them. The method does have a potentially significant mass
balance deficit due to deposition; this deficit should be
quantified or at least modeled (using a dispersion model, for
example).
The portable wind tunnel method may be the best method for
determining rates of wind erosion. This method also has a
potentially significant mass balance deficit which should be
quantified or modeled.
A number of more or less experimental techniques have been used.
Balloon sampling has encountered some difficulties outside of
very specific meteorological conditions. The scale model wind
tunnel method has been used in a number of experiments, but
differing protocols, dimensional analyses, and measuring
techniques have been used from study to study. The use of the
tracer method has been reported in several papers; while
particulate tracers do not appear to have been especially
accurate, the gas tracer technique seems promising.
Very little work has been done comparing known emission rates
with the measurement of those rates. Consequently, almost no
conclusions of a quantitative or definitive nature can be drawn
about the accuracy of the measurement methods for fugitive dust.
Few studies have been done on the precision of the methods. Much
work remains to be done in these areas.
28
-------
References
Armstrong and Drehmel, 1982: Balloon sampling to characterize
particle emissions from fugitive sources; Armstrong, J.A. and
Drehmel, D.C.; in Proceedings of the Third Symposium on the
Transfer and Utilization of Particulate Control Technology:
Volume IV. Atypical Applications. EPA-600/9-82-005d; .NTIS PB83-
149617
Axetell and Cowherd, 1984: Improved emission factors for fugitive
dust from western surface-coal mining sources; EPA-600/7^84^048;<
NTIS PB84-170802
Baxter, 1983: Quantifying fugitive emissions from mining and
material handling operations using gas trace techniques. Baxter,
R.A.; in proceedings of the 76th annual meeting of the Air
Pollution Control Association. Paper 83-49.4
*
Becker and Takle, 1979: Particulate deposition from dry unpaved
roadways; Becker, D.L. and Takle, E.S.; "Atmospheric Environment"
vol. 13, pp 661-668
Billman and Arya, 1985: Windbreak effectiveness for storage-pile
fugitive-dust control: a wind tunnel study. Billman, B.J. and
Arya, S.P.S.; EPA/600/3-85/059; NTIS PB85-243848
»
Bohn, 1982: Inhalable particulate emissions from vehicles
traveling on unpaved roads; Bohn, R.; in Proceedings of the Third
Symposium on the Transfer and Utilization of Particulate Control
Technology. Volume IV. Atypical Applications. EPA-600/9-82-
005d; NTIS PB-83 149617
Bohn et al., 1978: Fugitive emissions from integrated iron and
steel plants; Bohn, R., Cuscino,T., and Cowherd, C. ;
EPA/600/2/78/050;
Brozell and Richards, 1993: PM10 Emission factors for a stone
crushing plant transfer point; Brozell, T and Richards,J; Entropy
Environmentalists, Inc, Research Triangle Park, NC. Entropy
project 11432.
Carnes et al., 1982: Test Protocol for Evaluating Fugitive
Emissions from Active Coal Storage Piles; Carnes,D.; Catizone,P.;
Kincaid,T.; and Harris,D.B.; presented at Fifth Symposium on
Fugitive Emissions: Measurement and Control; EPA/600/9-89/085;
NTIS PB90-110123
Clayton et al., 1984: Methods for determining particulate
fugitive emissions from stationary sources; Clayton, P., Wallin,
S.C., Davis, B.J., and Simmonds, A.C.; NTIS PB85-181717
29
-------
Cowherd, 1983: A new approach to estimating wind-generated
emissions from coal storage piles. Cowherd, C.; Air Pollution
Control Association specialty conference proceedings SP-51:
Fugitive Dust Issues in the Coal Use Cycle
Cowherd, 1982: Emission factors for wind erosion of exposed
aggregates at surface mines. Proceedings of the 75th annual
meeting of the Air Pollution Control Association. Paper 82-15.5.
Cowherd et al., 1974: Development of emission factors for
fugitive dust sources; Cowherd, C., Axetell, K., Guenther, C.M. ,
and Jutze, G.A.; EPA-450/3-74-037; NTIS PB 238262
Cowherd and Kinsey, 1986: Identification, Assessment and Control
of Fugitive Particulate Emissions; Cowherd,C. and Kinsey, J.S.;
EPA/600/8-86/023; NTIS PB86-230083
Cuscino et al., 1983: Iron and steel plant open source fugitive
emission control evaluation; Cuscino, T., Muleski, G.E., and
Cowherd, C.; EPA-600/2-83-110; NTIS PB84-110568 .
Davies, 1968: The entry of aerosols in sampling heads and tubes.
"British Journal of Applied Physics"; 2:291
De Faveri et al., 1990: Reduction of the environmental impact of
coal storage piles: a wind tunnel study. De Faveri, D.M.;
Converti, A.; Vidili, A.; Campidonico, A.; and Ferraiolo, G.;
"Atmospheric Environment," Vol. 24A, No. 11, pp 2787-2793
Ermak, 1977: An analytical model for air pollutant transport and
deposition from a point source; Ermak, D.L.; "Atmospheric
Environment" vol. 11, pp 231-237
Fitzpatrick, 1987: User's Guide: Emission control technologies
and emission factors for unpaved road fugitive emissions;
EPA 625/5-87/022; NTIS PB90-274101
Fryrear, 1971: Survival and growth of cotton plants damaged by
wind-blown sand; Fryrear, D.W.; "Agronomy Journal," 63, pp 638-
642
Garman and Muleski, 1993a: Example test plan for point or non-
uniform line sources; Garman, G. and Muleski, G.E.; EPA contract
68-DO-0123; Work assignment 11-44; MRI project 9712-M(44)
Garman and Muleski, 1993b: Example test plan for uniform line
sources. EPA contract 68-DO-0123; Work assignment 11-44; MRI
project 9712-M(44)
Gillette, 1978: Tests with a portable wind tunnel for determining
wind erosion threshold velocities. "Atmospheric Environment"
12:2309
30
-------
Hesketh and Cross, 1983: Fugitive Emissions and Controls;
Hesketh, H.E. and Cross, F.L.; Ann Arbor Science Publishers, Ann
Arbor, MI. Pages 112-113.
Hu Gengxin and Yang Xu (1992): Methods used for estimating
fugitive emission rates of air pollutants and their application
in China; "Environmental Monitoring and Assessment" 20: 35-
46,1992
Hu Gengxin et al., 1992: A study of diffusion models applied to
dust emissions from industrial complexes; Hu Gengxin, Xia Liguo,
and Hong Yanfeng; "Environmental Monitoring and Assessment," 22:
89-105
Kashdan et al., 1986: Technical manual: Hood system capture of
process fugitive emissions; Kashdan, E.R; Coy, D.W; and Spivey,
J.J; EPA/600/7-86/016; NTIS PB86-190444
Kenson and Bartlett, 1976: Technical manual for the measurement
of fugitive emissions: Roof monitor sampling method for
industrial fugitive emissions; Kenson, R.E. and Bartlett, P.T.;
EPA~600/2-76-089b;
Kinsey and Englehart, 1984: Study of construction related dust
control; Kinsey, S.J. and Englehart, P.J.; presented at the 77th
annual meeting of the Air Pollution Control Association
«
Kolnsberg, 1976: Technical manual for measurement of fugitive
emissions: upwind/downwind sampling method for industrial
emissions; Kolnsberg, H.J.; EPA-600/2-76-089a
Kolnsberg et al., 1976: Technical manual for the measurement of
fugitive emissions: Quasi-stack sampling method; Kolnsberg,H.J;
Kalika, P.W; Kenson, R.E; and Marrone, W.A. EPA 600/2-76-089c
Kolnsberg, 1982: Techniques and equipment for measuring inhalable
particulate fugitive emissions; Kolnsberg, H.J.; Third Symposium
on the Transfer and Utilization of Particulate Control
Technology, Volume IV, Atypical Applications; EPA-600/9-82-005d;
NTIS PB83- 149617
Larson, 1982: Evaluation of field test results on wind screen
efficiency; Larson, A.G.; Fifth Symposium on Fugitive
Emissions: Measurement and Control; EPA/600/9-89/085; NTIS
PB90-110123
Larson et al., 1981: Evaluation of the effectiveness of civil
engineering fabrics and chemical stabilizers in the reduction of
fugitive emissions from unpaved roads; Larson, A.G.; Shearer,
D.L.; Drehmel, D.C.; and Schanche, G.W.; presented at the 74th
annual meeting of the Air Pollution Control Association
31
-------
Li Zhuongkai, 1985: Foundation and Application of Air Pollution
Meteorology. Meteorology Publication Agency, Beijing
Lundgren, 1986: A measurement technique to quantify fugitive dust
emissions from handling of granular products. "Journal of Aerosol
Science," 17, pp 632-634
Maxwell et al., 1982: The Atlantic Richfield Company Black
Thunder Mine haul road dust study; Maxwell, D.R.; Ives, J.A.; and
Hormel, T.R.; presented at the 75th annual meeting of the Air
Pollution Control Association
McCain et al., 1985: Comparative study of open source
particulate emission measuring techniques; McCain, J.D., Pyle,
B.E. and McCrillis,R.C.;. presented at the 75th annual meeting of
the Air Pollution Control Association
Muleski et al., 1983: Definition of the long-term control
efficiency of chemical dust suppressants applied to unpaved
roads; Muleski, G.E., Cuscino, T.A., and Cowherd, C.; presented
at the 76th annual meeting of the Air Pollution Control
Association
Muleski et al., 1991: Development of a plan for surface coal mine
study. Muleski, G., Cole, C., Vardiman, S., Cowherd, C. and
Connery, K.; EPA contract 68-DO-0137; MRI project 9800-A(68)
Muleski et al., 1993: Surface coal mine emission factor study:
Final test report; Muleski, G.E., Carman,G., and Cowherd,C.; EPA
contract 68-DO-0123; Work assignments 11-37 and 11-55; MRI
project 9712-M(37), -M(55)
PEDCo Environmental, Inc, 1984: Evaluation of an air curtain
hooding system for a primary copper converter, volume I; EPA-
600/2-84-042a; NTIS PB84-160514
Pyle and McCain, 1985: Critical review of open source
particulate emission measurements. Part II - field comparison;
Pyle, B.E. and McCain, J.D.; EPA contract 68-02-3696; Southern
Research Institute project 5050-4
Reynolds, 1980: Experimental studies of resuspension from
various environmental surfaces. Reynolds, B.W.; proceedings of
the 73rd annual meeting of the Air Pollution Control Association.
Paper 80-68.4
Richards and Brozell, 1992: PM10 Emission factors for a stone
crushing plant Deister vibrating screen and crusher; Richards, J
and Brozell, T; Entropy Environmentalists, Inc, Research
Triangle Park, NC. Entropy project 11236.
Richards and Kirk, 1992: PM-10 Emission factors for a stone
32
-------
crushing plant tertiary crusher and vibrating screen; Richards, J
and Kirk, W.T; EPA contract 68D00122; Work assignment 1-35;
Entropy subcontract 36-920021-99
Rosbury et al., 1984: Uncertainties in predicting fugitive dust
emissions and concentrations around western surface coal mines.
Rosbury, K.D., Zimmer, R.A., and Rasmussen, J.; proceedings of
the 77th annual meeting of the Air Pollution Control Association,
Paper 84-100.6
Russell and Caruso, 1983: A study of cost-effective dust
suppressants for use on unpaved roads in the iron and steel
industry; presented at the 76th annual meeting of the Air
Pollution Control Association
Sehmel, 1973: Particle resuspension from an asphalt road caused
by car and truck traffic. Sehmel, G.A.; "Atmospheric
Environment" 2, PP 291-309, July, 1973
Taylor, 1990: Statistical TechniquesforData Analysis. Taylor,
J.K.; Lewis Publishers, Inc., Chelsea, Michigan. Pages 20-22.
Trozzo, 1981: Method for determining mass particulate emissions
from roof monitors; Trozzo, D.L. and Turnage, J.W.; in Specialty
conference proceedings: Air Pollution Control in the Iron and
Steel Industry; Air Pollution Control Association, editor
TRC, 1980: Protocol for the measurement of inhalable particulate
fugitive emissions from stationary industrial sources. TRC
Environmental Consultants, Inc.; EPA contract 68-02-3115; Task
directive 114
Vanderborght et al., 1982: On the use of SF6-tracer releases for
the determination of fugitive emissions. Vanderborght, B.,
Kretzschmar, J., Rymen, T., Candreva, F. and Dams, R. ;
proceedings of the Fifth Symposium on Fugitive Emissions:
Measurement and Control; EPA/600/9-89/085; NTIS PB90-110123
pp 10-1 to 10-7
Viner et al., 1982: A wind tunnel for dust entrainment studies;
Viner, A.S., Ranade, M.B., Shaughnessy, E.J., Drehmel, D.C., and
Daniels, B.E.; in proceedings of the Third Symposium on the
Transfer and Utilization of Particulate Control Technology:
Volume IV. Atypical Applications. EPA-600/9-82-005d; NTIS PB83-
149617; pp 168-173
Visser, 1992: A wind tunnel study of the dust emissions from the
continuous dumping of coal; Visser, G.T.; "Atmospheric
Environment" Vol. 26A, No. 8, pp 1453-1460
Wachter, 1980: Fugitive dust levels from stone crushers. Wachter,
R.A.; proceedings of the 73rd annual meeting of the Air Pollution
33
-------
Control Association. Paper 80-68.2
Wells et al., 1980: Development of a model for emission and
dispersion of fugitive dust from coal-storage facilities; Wells,
R.C.; Ellis, H.M.; and Flickinger, J.; presented at the 73rd
annual meeting of the Air Pollution Control Association
White, 1986: Fluid Mechanics; White, P.M.; McGraw-Hill Book
Company, New York; page 299.
Williams, 1982: The optimization of wind screens for fugitive
emission control using wind tunnel tests; Williams, C.J.; in
proceedings of the Fifth Symposium on Fugitive Emissions:
measurement and control; EPA/600/9-89/085; NTIS PB90-110123
pp 5-1 to 5-19
Winges, 1982: Development of an air guality model for mining
fugitive dust; Winges, K.D.; presented at the 75th annual meeting
of the Air Pollution Control Association
Winges, 1990: Us'er's guide for the Fugitive Dust Model (FDM)
(Revised); Winges, K.D.; EPA 910/9-88-202R; NTIS PB90-215203
Yocom et al., 1985: Development of fugitive dust emission factors
using a low speed wind tunnel. Yocom, J.E., Hoffnagle, G.F.,
Brookman, T.E., Bowne, N.E., Miller, J.D., and Wilkinson, R.F.;
presented at the 78th annual meeting of the Air Pollution Control
Association
Zimmer et al., 1986: Field evaluation of wind screens as a
fugitive dust control measure for material storage piles.
Zimmer, R.A., Axetell, K., and Ponder, T.C.; EPA/600/7-86/027;
NTIS PB86-231289
34
-------
Table 1. PM10 SAMPLING OPTIONS
Type
Representative
samplers
Time
averaging
period
Advantages
Disadvantages
High volume
Wedding, Anderson
6 to 24 h
EPA Reference Method for PM
10
Averaging period comparable to
Can operate on portable generator
power
Requires AC power
Cannot provide fine time
resolution of concentrations
Continuous
CO
en
Beta gauge, TEOM
(tapered element
oscillating
microbalance)
Continuous
Provides very fine time resolution
of concentration
Requires "clean" AC power,
and does not run well on
portable generators
Generally requires
temperature-controlled
enclosure for reliable
operation *
Most expensive option
Saturation
"PRO-2"
6 to 24 h
Battery powered
Least expensive option
Relatively rugged and easily
deployed/moved
Not an equivalent method
Cannot provide fine time
resolution of concentration
1
io
-------
Figure 1. Exposure profiler.
36
-------
co
c
-I
ft)
"O
O
-s
c-t-
o>
cr
*MU
05
rs
ex
cr
3
rs
n>
-------
Appendix A
-------
PI. 60, App. A, Moth. 5A
40 CFR Ch. I (7-1-89 Edition)
4.2.1 Container No. 1 (filter). Same In-
structions as Method 6, Section 4.2, "Con-
tainer No. 1." If It Is necessary to fold the
filter, do so such that the film of oil Is
Inside the fold.
4.2.2 Container No. 2 (Probe to Filter
Holder). Taking care to see that material on
the outside of the probe or other exterior
surfaces does not get Into the sample, quan-
titatively recover paniculate matter or any
condensate from the probe nozzle, probe fit-
ting, probe liner, precollector cyclone and
collector flask (If used), and front half of
the filter holder by washing these compo-
nents with TCE and placing the wash In a
glass container. Carefully measure the total
amount of TCE used In the rinses. Perform
the TCE rinses as described In Method S,
Section 4.2, "Container No. 2," using TCE
Instead of acetone.
Brush and rinse the inside of the cyclone,
cyclone collection flask, and the front half
of the filter holder. Brush and rinse each
surface three tunes or more, if necessary, to
remove visible participate.
4.3.3 Container No. 3 (Silica Del). Same
procedure as In Method 5, Section 4.2. "Con-
tainer No. 3."
4.2.4 Implnger Water. Treat the 1m-
pingera as follows: Make a notation of any
color or film in the liquid catch. Follow the
same procedure as in Method S, Section 4.2,
"Implnger Water."
4.2.6 Blank. Save a portion of the TCE
used for cleanup as a blank. Take 200 ml of
this TCE directly from the wash bottle
being used and place It In a glass sample
container labeled "TCE blank."
4.3 Analysis. Record the data required on
• sheet such as the one shown in Figure 5A-
1. Handle each sample container as follows:
4.3.1 Container No. 1 (Filter). Transfer
the filter from the sample container to a
tared glass weighing dish and desiccate for
24 hours In a desiccator containing anhy-
drous calcium sulfate. Rinse Container No.
1 with a measured amount of TCE and ana-
lyze this rinse with the contents of Contain-
er No. 2. Weigh the filter to a constant
weight. For the purpose of Section 4.3, the
term "constant weight" means a difference
of no more than 10 percent or 2 mg (which-
ever is greater) between two consecutive
weighings made 24 hours apart. Report the
'final weight" to the nearest 0.1 mg as the
Average of these two values.
4.3.2 Container No. 2 (Probe to Filter
lolder). Before adding the rinse from Con-
ainer No. 1 to Container No. 2, note the
evel of liquid In the container and confirm
n the analysis sheet whether or not leak-
ge occurred during transport. If noticeable
:akage occurred, either void the sample or
.•ike steps, subject to the approval of the
dmlntstrator, to correct the final results
Measure the liquid In this container either
jlumetrlcally to ±1 ml or gravlmetrlcally
to ±0.5 g. Check to see if there Is any appre-
ciable quantity of condensed water present
in the TCE rinse (look for a boundary layer
or phase separation). If the volume of con-
densed water appears larger than 5 ml, sepa-
rate the oIl-TCE fraction from the water
fraction using a separatory funnel. Measure
the volume of the water phase to the near-
est ml; adjust the stack gas moisture con-
tent, If necessary (see Sections 6.4 and 6.5).
Next, extract the water phase with several
25-ml portions of TCE until, by visual obser-
vation, the TCE does not remove any addi-
tional organic material. Evaporate the re-
maining water fraction to dryness at 83'C
(200*F), desiccate for 24 hours, and weigh to
the nearest 0.1 mg.
Treat the total TCE fraction (Including
TCE from the filter container rinse and
water phase extractions) as follows: Trans-
fer the TCE and oil to a tared beaker and
evaporate at ambient temperature and pres-
sure. The evaporation of TCE from the so-
lution may take several days. Do not desic-
cate the sample until the solution reaches
an apparent constant volume or until the
odor of TCE is not detected. When it ap-
pears that the TCE has evaporated, desic-
cate the sample and weigh It at 24-hour In-
tervals to obtain a "constant weight" (as de-
fined for Container No. 1 above). The "total
weight" for Container No. 2 is the sum of
the evaporated partlculate weight of the
TCE-oll and water phase fractions. Report
the results to the nearest 0.1 mg.
4.3.3 Container No. 3 (Silica Gel). This
step may be conducted In the field. Weigh
the spent silica gel (or silica gel plus Implng-
er) to the nearest 0.5 g using a balance.
4.3.4 "TCE Blank" Container. Measure
TCE In this container either volumetrically
or gravlmetrlcally. Transfer the TCE to a
tared 250 ml beaker and evaporate to dry-
ness at ambient temperature and pressure.
Desiccate for 24 hours and weigh to a con-
stant weight. Report the results to the near-
est 0.1 mg.
NOTE: In order to facilitate the evapora-
tion of TCE liquid samples, these samples
may be dried In a controlled temperature
oven at temperatures up to 38'C (100'F)
until the liquid Is evaporated.
4.4 Quality Control Procedures. A qual-
ity control (QC) check of the volume meter-
Ing system at the field site Is suggested
before collecting the sample. Use the proce-
dure defined In Method 5, Section 4.4.
5. Calibration
Calibrate the sampling train components
according to the Indicated sections of
Method 5: Probe Nozzle (5.1). Pilot Tube As-
sembly (5.2), Metering System (5.3), Probe
Heater (5.4), Temperature Gauges (5.5),
Ijeak Check of Metering System (5.6), and
Barometer (5.7).
650
Environmental Protection Agency
Pt. 60, App. A, Meth. 50
6. Calculation*
6.1 Nomenclature. Same as in Method 6.
Section 6.1. with the following additions:
C,=TCE blank residue concentration, mg/
mg.
m,=Mass of residue of TCE after evapora-
tion, mg.
V^= Volume of water collected In precollec-
tor, ml.
V,= Volume of TCE blank, ml.
V,,= Volume of TCE used In wash, ml.
W,= Weight of residue In TCE wash. mg.
p,= Density of TCE, mg/ml (see label on
bottle).
6.2 Dry Qas Meter Temperature and Ori-
fice Pressure Drop. Using the data obtained
In this test, calculate the average dry gas
meter temperature and average orifice pres-
sure drop (see Figure 6-2 of Method 6).
6.3 Dry Oas Volume. Using the data from
this test,, calculate V.<^> by using Equation
6-1 of Method 6. If necessary, adjust the
volume for leakages.
6.4 Volume of Water Vapor.
Eq. 6A-1
Where:
K,=0.00133 m'/ml for metric units.
=0.04707 ft '/ml for English units.
6.5 Moisture Content.
Eq. 6A-2
NOTE; In saturated or water droplet-laden
gas streams, two calculations of the mois-
ture content of the stack gas shall be made.
one from the implnger and precollector
analysis (Equations BA-1 and 5A-2) arid a
second from the assumption of saturated
conditions. The lower of the two values of
moisture content shall be considered cor-
rect. The procedure for determining the
moisture content based upon assumption of
saturated conditions Is given In the note of
Section '1.2 of Method 4. For the purpose of
this method, the average stack gas tempera-
ture from Figure 6-2 of Method 5 may be
used to make this determination, provided
that the accuracy of the In-stack tempera-
ture sensor Is within ±1'C (2'P).
6.6 TCE Blank Concentration.
C,=m,/V,p,
6.7 TCE Wash Blank.
Eq. 5A-3
Eq. 5A-4
6.8 Total Partlculate Weight. Determine
the total partlculate catch from the sum of
the weights obtained from Containers 1, 2,
and 3. less the TCE blank.
6.9 Partlculate Concentration.
Eq. BA-6
Where: ,
K,=0.001 g/mg.
6.10 Isoklnetlc Variation and Acceptable
Results. Method 6. Sections 6.11 and 6.12,
respectively.
7. Bibliography
The bibliography for Reference Method
6A is the same as for Method 6, Section 7.-
METHOD 6B—DETERMINATION or NONSUL-
nntic ACID PARTICULATE MATTER FROM
STATIONARY Bounces
I. Applicability and Principle.
1.1 Applicability. This method is to be
used for determining nonsulfurlc add par-
tlculate matter from stationary sources. Use
of this method must be specified by an ap-
plicable subpart. or approved by the Admin-
istrator, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, for a particular application.
1.2 Principle. Partlculate matter Is with-
drawn Isoklnetlcally from the source using
the Method S train at 160'C (320'F). The
collected sample Is then heated In the oven
at 160-C (320-F) for 8 hours to volatilize
any condensed sulfurlc acid that may have
been collected, and the nonsulfurlc acid par-
tlculate mass Is determined gravtmetrlcally.
2. Procedure.
The procedure Is identical to EPA Method
6 except for the following:
2.1 Initial Filter Tare. Oven dry the filter
at 160±5'C (320 ±10'F) for 2 to S hours.
cool in a desiccator for 2 hours, and weigh.
Desiccate to constant weight to obtain the
Initial tare. Use the applicable specifications
and techniques of Section 4.1.1 of Method t
for this determination.
2.2 • Probe and Filter Temperatures.
Maintain the probe outlet and filter tem-
peratures at 160±14 'C (320±2B 'F).
2.3 Analysis. Dry the probe sample at
ambient temperature. Then oven-dry the
probe and filter samples at a temperature of
160±6 'C (320±10 *F> for 6 hours. Cool In a
desiccator for 2 hours, and weigh to con-
stant weight. Use the applicable specifica-
tions and techniques of Section 4.3 of
Method 5 for this determination. -,,
METHOD 5C—[RESERVED]
METHOD 6D—DETERMINATION or PARTICU-
LATE MATTER EMISSIONS FROM POSITIVE
PRESSURE FABRIC FILTERS
1. Applicability and Principle v
1.1 Applicability. This method applies to
the determination of partlculate matter
emissions from positive pressure fabric fit-
-------
PI. 60, App. A, Math. 5D
40 CFR Ch. I (7-1-89 Edition)
ters. Emissions are determined In terms of
concentration (mg/m*) and emission rate
(kg/h).
The General Provisions of 40 CFB Part
60, | 60.8(e). require that the owner or oper-
ator of an affected facility shall provide per-
formance testing facilities. Such perform-
ance testing facilities Include sampling
ports, safe sampling platforms, safe access
to sampling sites, and utilities for testing. It
la Intended that affected facilities also pro-
vide sampling locations that meet the speci-
fication for adequate stack length and mini-
mal flow disturbances as described in
Method 1. Provisions for testing are often
overlooked factors in designing fabric filters
or are extremely costly. The purpose of thU
procedure is to identify appropriate alterna-
tive locations and procedures for sampling
the emissions from positive pressure fabric
filters. The requirements that the affected
facility owner or operator provide adequate
access to performance testing facilities
remain in effect.
1.2 Principle. Partlculate matter Is with-
drawn Isoklnetically from the source and
collected on a glass fiber filter maintained
at a temperature at or above the exhaust
gas temperature up to a nominal 120'C
(120- ±14'C or 248 ±26 'F). The partlcu-
late mass, which Includes any material that
condenses at or above the filtration temper-
ature, is determined gravlmetrlcally after
removal of uncomblned water.
2. Apparatus
The equipment requirements for the sam-
pling train, sample recovery, and analysis
are the same as specified in Sections 2.1. 2.2,
and 2.3, respectively, of Method 6 or
Method 17.
3. Reagent*
The reagents used In sampling, sample re-
covery, and analysis are the same as speci-
fied In Sections 3.1, 3.2, and 3.3. respective-
ly, of Method 6 or Method 17.
4. Procedure
4.1 Determination of Measurement Site.
The configurations of positive pressure
fabric filter structures frequently are not
amenable to emission testing according to
the requirements of Method 1. Following
are several alternatives for determining
measurement sites for positive pressure
fabric filters.
4.1.1 Stacks Meeting Method 1 Criteria.
Use a measurement site as specified In
Method 1, Section 2.1.
4.1.2 Short Stacks Not Meeting Method 1
' Criteria. Use stack extensions and the pro-
cedures In Method 1. Alternatively, use flow
straightening vanes of the "egg-crate" type
(see Figure SO-1). Locate the measurement
site downstream of the straightening vanes
at a distance equal to or greater than two
times the average equivalent diameter of
the vane openings and at least one-half of
the overall stack diameter upstream of the
stack outlet.
4.1.3 Roof Monitor or Monovent. (See
figure 5D-2.) For a positive pressure fabric
filter equipped with a peaked roof monitor,
ridge vent, or other type of monovent, use a
measurement site at the base of the mono-
vent. Examples of auch locations are shown
In Figure 513-2. The measurement site must
be upstream of any exhaust point (e.g.. lou-
vered vent).
4.1.4 Compartment Housing. Sample Im-
mediately downstream of the filter bags di-
rectly above the tops of the bags as shown
In the examples In Figure 5D-2. Depending
on the housing design, use sampling ports In
the housing walls or locate the sampling
equipment within the compartment hous-
ing.
4.2 Determination of Number and Loca-
tion of Traverse Points. Locate the traverse
points according to Method 1, Section 2.3.
Because a performance test consists of at
least three test runs and because of the
varied configurations of positive pressure
fabric filters, there are several schemes by
which the number of traverse points can be
determined and the three test runs can be
conducted.
4.2.1 Single Stacks Meeting Method 1
Criteria. Select the number of traverse
points according to Method 1. Sample all
traverse points for each test run.
4.2.2 Other Single Measurement Sites.
For a roof monitor or monovent, single com-
partment housing, or other stack not meet-
Ing Method 1 criteria, use at least 24 tra-
verse points. For example, for a rectangular
measurement site, such as a monovent, use
a balanced 5x5 traverse point matrix.
Sample all traverse points for each test run.
4.2.3 Multiple Measurement Sites. Sam-
pling from two or more stacks or measure-
ment sites may be combined for a test run,
provided the following guidelines are met:
(a) All measurement sites up to 12 must be
sampled. For more than 12 measurement
sites, conduct sampling on at least 12 sites
or 50 percent of the sites, whichever Is
greater. The measurement sites sampled
should be evenly, or nearly evenly, distribut-
ed among the available sites; if not, all sites
are to be sampled.
(b) The same number of measurement
sites must be sampled for each test run.
(c) The minimum number of traverse
points per test run is 24. An exception to
the 24-polnt minimum would be a test com-
bining the sampling from two stacks meet-
ing Method 1 criteria for acceptable stack
length, and Method 1 specifies fewer than
12 points per site.
(d> As long as the 24 traverse points per
test run criterion Is met, the number of tra-
Environmental Protection Agency
Pt. 60, App. A, Meth. 5D
verse points'per measurement site may be
reduced to eight.
Alternatively, conduct a test run (or each
measurement site individually using the cri-
teria In Section 4.2.1 or 4.2.2 for number of
traverse points. Each test run shall count
toward the total of three required for a per-
formance test. If more than three measure-
ment sites are sampled, the number of tra-
verse points per measurement site may be
reduced to eight as long as at least 72 tra-
verse points are sampled for all the tests.
The following examples demonstrate the
procedures for sampling multiple measure-
ment sites.
Example 1: A source with nine circular
measurement sites of equal areas may be
tested as follows: For each test run, traverse
three measurement sites using four points
per diameter (eight points per measurement
site). In this manner, test run number 1 will
Include sampling from sites 1, 2, and 3; run 2
will Include samples from sites 4. 5. and 6;
and run 3 will Include sites 7, 8, and 9. Each
test area may consist of a separate test of
each measurement site using eight points.
Use the results from all nine tests In deter-
mining the emission average.
Example 2: A source with 30 rectangular
measurement sites of equal areas may be
tested as follows: For each of three test
runs, traverse five measurement sites using
a 3 x 3 matrix of traverse points for each
site. In order to distribute the sampling
evenly over all the available measurement
sites while sampling only 50 percent of the
sites, number the sites consecutively from 1
to 30 and sample all the even numbered (or
odd numbered) sites. Alternatively, conduct
a separate test of each of 15 measurement
sites using Section 4.2.1 or 4.2.2 to deter-
mine the number and location of traverse
points, as appropriate.
Example 3: A source with two measure-
ment sites of equal areas may be tested as
follows: For each test of three test runs, tra-
verse both measurement sites using Section
4.2.3 In determining number of traverse
points. Alternatively, conduct two full emis-
sion test runs of each measurement site
using the criteria in Section 4.2.1 or 4.2.2 to
determine the number of traverse points.
Other test schemes, such as random deter-
mination of traverse points for a large
number of measurement sites, may be used
with prior approval from the Administrator.
4.3 Velocity Determination. The velocities
of exhaust gases from postltlve pressure
baghouses are often too low to measure ac-
curately with the type S pltot specified in
Method 2 [I.e., velocity head <1.3 mm H,O
(0.05 In. H,O)]. For these conditions, meas-
ure the gas flow rate at the fabric filter
Inlet following the procedures in Method 2.
Calculate the average gas velocity at the
measurement site as follows:
Qi T.
V = — . —
A. T,
Eq. 6D-1
Where:
v=Average gas velocity at the measurement
slte(s), m/s (ft/s).
Qi-Inlet gas volume flow rate, m'/s (ft'/s).
A.=Measurement slte(a) total cross-section-
al area, m'(ft').
T.=Temperature of gas at measurement
site. -K CR)
T,=Temperature of gas at Inlet, 'K CR).
Use the average velocity calculated for the
measurement site In determining and main-
taining Isoklnetic sampling rates. Note: All
sources of gas leakage, into or out of the
fabric filter housing between the Inlet meas-
urement site and the outlet measurement
site must be blocked and made leak-tight.
Velocity determinations at measurement
sites with gas velocities within the range
measurable with the type S pltot (I.e., veloc-
ity head >1.3 mm H,O (0.05 In. H,O)] shall
be conducted according to the procedures In
Method 2.
4.4 Sampling. Follow the procedures
specified In Section 4.1 of Method 5 or
Method 17 with the exceptions as noted
above.
4.5 Sample Recovery. Follow the proce-
dures specified in Section 4.2 of Method 5 or
Method 17.
4.6 Sample Analysis. Follow the proce-
dur'es specified In Section 4.3 of Method 6 or
Method 17.
4.7 Quality Control Procedures. A (QC)
check of the volume metering system at the
field site Is suggested before collecting the
sample. Use the procedure defined In Sec-
tion 4.4 of Method 6.
6. Calibration
Follow the procedures as specified In Sec-
tion 5 of Method 5 or Method 17.
6. Calculation*
Follow the procedures as specified In Sec-
tion 6 of Method 5 or Method 17 with the
exceptions as follows:
6.1 Total volume flow rate may be deter-
mined using inlet velocity measurements
and stack dimensions.
6.2 Average Partlculate Concentration.
For multiple measurement sites, calculate
the average partlculate concentration as fol-
lows:
C =
2 Vol.
Ed. 6D-2
-------
PI. 60, App. A, Meth. 5D
Where:
40 CFR Ch. I (7-1-89 Edition)
C = Average concentration of partlculate Jor
mass collected lor run 1 oJ n, alfn runs, mg/srn'Cgr/scf).
mg(gr). '• Bibliography
VoJ,=The sample volume collected tor run 1 The bibliography la the same as for
ol n. sm» (scl). Method 5. Section 1.
-070x0
(CELL SIZE)
\
\
-0.45x0-
NOTE: POSITION STHAIGHTENEflS SO THAT CELL SIDES ARE LOCATED APPROX. 4S« FROM TRAVERSE OIA'..
Figure 50-1. Example o< Now straightening vanes.
Environmental Protection Agency
VENTILATOR THRO AT
SAMPLING SITES.
ENTRY PORTS f OH
SAMPLING ABOVE
FILTER BAGS
PI. 60, App. A, Mvlh. 5D
VENTILATOR THROAT
SAMPLING SITES
ENTRYPORTS FOR
SAMPLING ABOVE
FILTER (ACS
Figure 50-2. Acceptable sampling site locations for: (a) peaked roof; and (b) ridge vent
type fabric filters.
654
-------
Pt. 60, App. A, M.th. |
Method 28—Determination of Hydrogen
Chloride Emissions From Stationary
Sources
'Method 27—Determination of vapor tight-
ness of gasoline delivery tank using pres-
sure-vacuum test
Method 28-Certlflcatlon and auditing of
wood heaters
Method 28A—Measurement of air to fuel
ratio and minimum achievable burn
rates for wood-fired appliances
The test methods In this appendix are re-
ferred to In { 60.8 (Performance Tests) and
160.11 (Compliance With Standards and
Maintenance Requirements) of 40 CFR part
60. subpart A (General Provisions). Specific
uses of these test methods are described In
the standards of performance contained In
the subparts, beginning with Subpart D.
Within each standard of performance, a
section title "Test Methods and Procedures-
Is provided to: (1) Identify the test methods
to be used as reference methods to the facil-
ity subject to the respective standard and
(2) Identify any special Instructions or con-
ditions to be followed when applying a
method to the respective facility. Such in-
structions (for example, establish sampling
rates, volumes, or temperatures) are to be
used either In addition to, or as a substitute
for procedures In a test method. Similarly,
for sources subject to emission monitoring
requirements, specific Instructions pertain-
ing to any use of a test method as a refer-
ence method are provided In the subpart or
in Appendix B,
Inclusion of methods in this appendix Is
not intended as an endorsement or denial of
their applicability to sources that are not
subject to standards of performance. The
methods are potentially applicable to other
sources; however, applicability should be
confirmed by careful and appropriate eval-
uation of the conditions prevalent at such
sources.
The approach followed In the formulation
of the test methods Involves specifications
for equipment, procedures, and perform-
ance. In concept, a performance specifica-
tion approach would be preferable in all
methods because this allows the greatest
flexibility to the user. In practice, however
this approach Is Impractical In most cases
because performance specifications cannot
be established. Most of the methods de-
scribed herein, therefore. Involve specific
equipment specifications and procedures
and only a few methods In this appendix
rely on performance criteria.
Minor changes in the test methods should
not necessarily affect the validity of the re-
sults and it is recognized that alternative
and equivalent methods exist. Section 60 8
provides authority for the Administrator to
specify or approve (1) equivalent methods
<2) alternative methods, and (3) minor
40 CFR Ch. I (7-1-92 Edition)
changes In the methodology of the test
methods. It should be clearly understood
that unless otherwise identified all such
methods and changes must have prior ap-
proval of the Administrator. An owner em-
ploying such methods or deviations from
the test methods without obtaining prior
approval does so at the risk of subsequent
disapproval and retesting with approved
methods.
Within the test methods, certain specific
equipment or procedures are recognized as
being acceptable or potentially acceptable
and are specifically identified in the meth-
ods. The items Identified as acceptable op-
tions may be used without approval but
must be Identified in the test report. The
potentially approvable options are cited as
"subject to the approval of the Administra-
tor" or as "or equivalent." Such potentially
approvable techniques or alternatives may
be used at the discretion of the owner with-
out prior approval. However, detailed de-
scriptions for applying these potentially ap-
provable techniques or alternatives are not
provided in the test methods. Also, the po-
tentially approvable options are not neces-
sarily acceptable in all applications. There-
fore, an owner electing to use such poten-
tially approvable techniques or alternatives
Is responsible for: (1) assuring that the tech-
niques or alternatives are in fact applicable
and are properly executed; (2) Including a
written description of the alternative
method In the test report (the written
method must be clear and must be capable
of being performed without additional In-
struction, and the the degree of detail
should be similar to the detail contained In
the test methods); and (3) providing any ra-
tionale or supporting data necessary to
show the validity of the alternative In the
particular application. Failure to meet these
requirements can result In the Administra-
tor's disapproval of the alternative.
METHOD 1-SAMPLE AND VELOCITY TRAVERSES
TOR STATIONARY SOURCES
1. Principle and Applicability
1.1 Principle. To aid in the representa-
tive measurement of pollutant emissions
and/or total volumetric flow rate from a
stationary source, a measurement site where
the effluent stream is flowing In a known di-
rection Is selected, and the cross-section of
the stack is divided Into a number of equal
areas. A traverse point Is then located
within each of these equal areas.
1.2 Applicability. This method Is applica-
ble to flowing gas streams In ducts, stacks.
and flues. The method cannot be used
when: (1) flow Is cyclonic or swirling (see
Section 2.4), (2) a stack Is smaller than
about 0.30 meter (12 In.) In diameter, or
Environmental Protection Agency
0 071 ni; (113 In.-') class sectional aica. or (3)
the measurement site Is less than two stack
or duct diameters downstream or less than a
half diameter upstream from a flow disturb-
ance
The requirements of this method must be
considered before construction of a new fa
cility from which emissions will be meas-
ured, failure to do so may require subse-
quent alterations to the slack or deviation
from the standard procedure. Cases involv-
ing variants are subject to approval by the
Administrator, U.S Environmental Protec-
tion Agenc>.
2 Procedure
2.1 Selection of Measurement Site. Sam-
pling or iploclly measurement is performed
at a site located at least eight stack or duel
diameters downstream and two diameters
upstream horn any flow disturbance such as
a bend, expansion, or contract ion in the
slack, or from a xisible flame. If necessary.
an allernative location mav be selected, at a
position at least two slack or duct diameters
Pt. 60, App. A, Meth. A
downslienm and a unlf diameter upstream
from any flow disturbance. For a rectangu-
lar cross section, an equivalent diameter
(D,) shall be calculated from the following
equation, to determine the upstream and
downstream distances:
2LW
(L+W)
where L = length and W= width.
An alternative procedure is available for
determining the acceptability of a measure-
ment location not meeting the criteria
above. This precedure. determination of gas
flow ancles at (he sampling points and com-
paring the results with accept ability crite-
ria. Is described In Section 2.5.
2.2 Determining the Number of Traverse
Points.
OS
DUCT DIAMETERS UPSTREAM FROM FLOW DISTURBANCE (DISTANCE A)
10 1.S 2.0
f>0
Z40
O
us
y
> JO
u*
a 20
a
i 10
a
o
1 1 1 1 1 1 1
• HIGHER NUMBER IS FOR
RECTANGULAR STACKS OR DUCTS
2". OR 25*
1 -
t
T
A
B
1
P
1
1
(
/DISTURBANCE
MEASUREMENT
:- SITE
DISTURBANCE
V> 1
-
|_ '6 STACK DIAMETER > 0.61m (24 in-l
1
- 1 a OR 9* -
DISTURBANCE IBENO. EXPANSION. CONTRACTION ETC i
STACK DIAMETER - 0 30 TO 0.61 m 112-24 In)
1 1 1 1 III
10
DUCT DIAMETERS DOWNSTREAM FROM FLOW DISTURBANCE (DISTANCE B)
Figure 11 Minimum number of traverse points for paniculate traverses.
2.2.1 Particulate Traverses. When the
eight- and Iwo-diameler criterion can be
met. the minimum number of traverse
points shall be: (1) twelve, for circular or
rectangular stacks with diameters (or equiv-
alent diameters) greater than 0.61 meter (24
in ); (2) eight, for circular stacks with diam-
eters between 0.30 and 0.61 meter (12-24
-------
40 CFR Ch. I (7-1-92 Edition)
points, or a greater value, so that for circu-
lar stacks the number Is a multiple of 4. and
for rectangular stacks, the number Is one of
those shown In Table 1-1.
TABLE 1-1. CROSS-SECTION LAYOUT FOR
RECTANGULAR STACKS
PI. 60, App. A, Meth. 1
In.); (3) nine, for rectangular stacks with
equivalent diameters between 0.30 and 0 81
meter (12-24 in.).
When the eight- and two-diameter crite-
rion cannot be met, the minimum number
of traverse points is determined from Figure
1-1. Before referring to the figure, however.
determine the distances from the chosen
. measurement site to the nearest upstream
»nd downstream disturbances, and divide
each distance by the stack diameter or
equivalent diameter, to determine the dis-
tance in terms of the number of duct diame-
ters. Then, determine from Figure 1-1 the
minimum number of traverse points that
corresponds: (1) to the number of duct di-
ameters upstream; and (2) to the number of
diameters downstream. Select the higher of
the two minimum numbers of traverse
DUCT DIAMETERS UPSTREAM FROM FLOW DISTURBANCE (DISTANCE Al
Number ol traverse poinls
9
'2
16
20
25
30
36
42 . .
49
Matrix layout
3x3
4x3
4x4
5x4
5x5
6x5
6x6
7x6
7x7
c
le *°
f*™
i w
a
1
1 10
X
0
* 10 IS 20 2
1 1 1 1 1 1 | -
•HIGHER NUMBER is FOR
RECTANGULAR STACKS OH DUCTS
—
__
y— 7
T
A
1
i
DISTURBANCE
i
MEASUREMENT) ~
:- SITE
DISTURBANCE
1
" STACK DIAMETER > 061 m 124 ln.1
1
12
j 80H»« -
STACK DIAMETER - 0.30 TO 0.61 m 112 24 ln.1
1 1 1 1 .
' J 4 S 6 7
1
1 a in
DUCT DIAMETERS DOWNSTREAM FROM FLOW DISTURBANCE (DISTANCE Bl
Figure 12. Minimum number ol Iraverse pointl for velocity Inonpamculate) traverses.
2.2.2 Velocity (Non-Partlculate) Tra-
verses. When velocity or volumetric flow
rate Is to be determined (but not partlculate
matter), the same procedure as that for par-
tlcjiiate traverses (Section 2.2.1) is .followed
except that Figure 12 may be used Instead
of Figure 1-1.
2 3 Cross-sectional Layout and Location
of Traverse Points.
2 3.1 Circular Stacks. Locate the traverse
points on two perpendicular diameters ac-
cording to Table 1-2 and the example shown
in Figure J-3. Any equation (for examples.
see Citations 2 and 3 In the Bibliography)
that gives the same values as those in Table
Environmental Protection Agency
For partlculate traverses, one of the diam-
eters must be in a plane containing the
greatest expected concentration variation.
e.g.. after bends, one dlametor shall be In
the plane of the bend. This requirement be-
comes less critical as the distance from the
disturbance Increases; therefore, other di-
ameter locations may be used, subject to ap-
proval of the Administrator.
In addition for slacks having diameters
greater than 0.61 m (24 in.) no traverse
points shall be located within 2.5 centime-
ters (1.00 in.) of the stack walls, and for
stack diameters equal to or less than 0.61 m
(24 in.), no traverse points shall be located
within 1.3 cm (0.50 In.) of the stack walls.
To meet these criteria, observe the proce-
dures given below.
Pt. 60, App. A, Meth. 1
2.3.1.1 Stacks With Diameters Greater
Than 0.61 m (24 in.). When any of the Ira-
verse points as located In Section 2.3.1 fall
within 2.5 cm (1.00 in.) of the .stack walls, re-
locate them away from the stack walls to:
(Da distance of 2.5 cm (1.00 In.); or (2) a
distance equal to the nozzle Inside diameter,
whichever Is larger. These relocated tr.i-
\rrsc poinls (on each end of a diameter)
shall be the '•adjusted" traverse points.
Whenever two successive traverse points
are combined to form a single adjusted Ira-
verse point, treat the adjusted point as two
separate traverse points, both in the sam-
pling (or velocity measurement) procedure.
and In recording the data.
tRAVERSt
POIN1
1
2
3
4
OISIANCE
•* ol diameter
4
14
29
JO
IS
IS
F.9ure 1 3. Example showing circular stack cross section divided into
12 equal areas, with location of traverse pointl indicated.
TABLE 1 -2 LOCATION OF TRAVERSE POINTS IN CIRCULAR STACKS
(Percent ol slack diameter Irom inside wall lo traverse point)
10
11
12
13
14
15
!6
17
18
Number ol traverse poinls on a diameter—
2
146
654
4
67
2SO
750
933
6
44
146
296
704
654
956
a
32
10 5
194
323
677
606
895
966
10
26
82
146
226
342
658
774
654
918
974
12
2.1
67
116
177
250
356
644
750
823
882
933
979
14
18
57
99
146
20 t
269
366
634
731
799
854
90 1
943
982
16
16
49
65
125
169
220
283
375
625
71 7
780
83 t
875
91 5
951
984
18
14
44
75
109
146
tea
236
296
382
618
704
764
812
854
69 1
925
956
on A
20
1.3
39
67
97
129
165
204
250
306
388
61 2
694
750
796
835
871
903
O1 1
22
t.t
35
6.0
6.7
tie
146
160
21.8
26.2
315
393
607
685
738
782
820
654
oa A
24
t.l
32
5.5
7.9
105
132
161
194
230
272
323
39 B
602
677
728
770
806
ai ft
-------
PI. 60, App. A, Math. 1
40 CFR Ch. I (7-1-92 Edition)
TABLE t-2. LOCATION OF TRAVERSE POINTS IN CIRCULAR STACKS—Continued
(Pefcenl ot slack diameter Irom inside wall to traverse point)
21
22
23
24
Number ol traverse points on a diameter—
2
4
6
e
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
96 5
989
24
92 1
945
966
989
2.3.1.2 Stacks With Diameters Equal to
or Less Than 0.61 m (24 In.). Follow the pro-
cedure In Section 2.3.1.1, noting only that
any "adjusted" points should be relocated
away from the stack walls to: (1) a distance
of 1.3 cm (0.50 In.); or (2) a distance equal to
the nozzle Inside diameter, whichever Is
larger.
2.3.2 Rectangular Stacks. Determine the
number of traverse points as explained In
Sections 2.1 and 2.2 of this method. Prom
Table 1-1, determine the grid configuration.
Divide the stack cross-section into as many
equal rectangular elemental areas as tra-
verse points, and then locate a traverse
point at the centroid of each equal area ac-
cording to the example In Figure 1-4.
If the tester desires to use more than the
minimum number of traverse points,
expand the "minimum number of traverse
points" matrix (see Table 1-1) by adding the
extra traverse points along one or the other
or both legs of the matrix; the final matrix
need not be balanced. For example, If a 4x3
"minimum number of points" matrix were
expanded to 36 points, the final matrix
could-be 9x4 or 12x3, and would not neces-
sarily have to be 6x6. After constructing the
final matrix, divide the stack cross-section
Into as many equal rectangular, elemental
areas as traverse points, and locate a tra-
verse point at the centroid of each equal
area.
The situation of traverse points being too
close to the stack walls Is not expected to
arise with rectangular stacks. If this prob-
lem should ever arise, the Administrator
must be contacted for resolution of the
matter.
2.4 Verification of Absence of Cyclonic
Flow. In most stationary sources, the direc-
tion of stack gas flow Is essentially parallel
to the stack walls. However, cyclonic flow
may exist (1) after such devices as cyclones
and Inertlal demlsters following venturl
scrubbers, or (2) In stacks having tangential
Inlets or other duct configurations which
tend to Induce swirling; In these Instances,
the presence or absence of cyclonic flow at
- the sampling location must be determined.
The following techniques are acceptable for
this determination.
o
o
o
o
r
o
1
o
1
0 1 0
0 ) 0
1
1
1
O , 0
1
Figure I 4. Example ihowingteclangular Hack cioii
section divided mlo 12 equal ire«, with a Iraveru
point at cenlroid ol each arta.
Level and zero the manometer. Connect a
Type S pilot tube to the manometer. Posi-
tion the Type S pltot tube at each traverse
point, In succession, so that the planes of
the face openings of the pltot tube are per-
pendicular to the stack cross-sectional
plane; when the Type S pilot tube Is In this
position, It Is at "O1 reference." Note the dif-
ferential pressure (Ap) reading at each tra-
verse point. If a null (zero) pltot reading Is
obtained at 0* reference at a given traverse
point, an acceptable flow condition exists at
that point. If the pltot reading Is not zero at
0* reference, rotate the pltot tube (up to
±60' yaw angle), until a null reading Is ob-
tained. Carefully determine and record the'
value of the rotation angle (a) to the near-
est degree. After the null technique has
been applied at each traverse point, calcu- '
late the average of the absolute values of a; ;;
assign a values of 0* to those points for jj
which no rotation was required, and Include ,
these In the overall average. If the average 9
value of a Is greater than 20*. the overall •:
flow condition In the stack Is unacceptable <)
and alternative methodology, subject to the s
approval of the Administrator, must be used '
to perform accurate sample and velocity tra-'.
verses. J
The alternative procedure described In t
Section 2.5 may be used to determine the ro-'
tatlon angles In lieu of the procedure de- '
scribed above. '
2.5 Alternative Measurement Site Selec- ,
lion Procedure. This alternative appl'es to .
Environmental Protection Agency
sources where measurement locations air
less than 2 equivalent stack or duct diame
ters downstream or less than '4 duct diame
ter upstream from a flow disturbance. The
alternative should be limited to ducts larger
than 24 in. In diameter where blockage and
wall effects are minimal. A directional flow-
sensing probe is used to measure pitch and
yaw angles of the gas flow at 40 or more tra
verse points; the resultant angle is calculal
ed and compared with acceptable criteria
for mean and standard deviation.
NOTE: Both the pitch and yaw angles are
measured from a line passing through the
traverse point and parallel to the stack axi.s.
The pitch angle is the angle of the gas flow
component In the plane that INCLUDES!
the traverse line and is parallel to the stack.
axis The yaw angle is the angle of the gas
flow component in the plane PERPENDIC
ULAR to the traverse line at the traverse
point and Is measured from the line passing
through the traverse point and parallel to
the stack axis.
2.5 1 Apparatus.
2.5.1.1 Directional Probe. Any directional
probe, such as United Sensor Type DA
Three-Dimensional Directional Probe, capa
ble of measuring both the pitch and yaw
angles of gas flows is acceptable. (NOTE
Mention of trade name or specific product;
does not constitute endorsement by the U.S
Environmental Protection Agency.) Assign
an identification number to the directional
probe, and permanently mark or engrave
the number on the body of the probe. Tin-
pressure holes of directional probes are sus
ceptible to plugging when used In particu
late-laden gas streams. Therefore, a system
for cleaning the pressure holes by "back'
purging" with pressurized air is required.
2.5.1.2 Differential Pressure Gauges. In-
clined manometers, U-tube manometers, or
other differential pressure gauges (e.g.,
['. magnehelic gauges) that meet the speclflca
lions described In Method 2. section 2.2.
NOTE: If the differentia) pressure gauge
I; produces both negative and positive read-
|r Ings, then both negative and positive pres
I;, sure readings shall be calibrated at a mini
If mum of three points as specified in Method
|f. 2, section 2.2.
2.5.2 Traverse Points. Use a minimum ol
40 traverse points for circular ducts and 42
|; points for rectangular ducts for the gas flow
| angle determinations Follow section 2.3 and
[Table 1-1 or 1-2 for the location and layoul
; of the traverse points If the measureimiil
f. location is determined to be acceptable ac
cording to the criteria in this alternative
I procedure, use the same traverse poini
! number and locations for sampling and vc
jlocity measurements
25.3 Measurement Procedme
2.53.1 Piepare the directional ptobe and
E1 differential pressure gauges as lecommetul
Pt. 60, App. A, Math. 1
ed by the manufacturer. Capillary tubing or
surge tanks may be used to dampen pres-
sure fluctuations. It is recommended, but
not required, that a pretest leak check be
conducted. To perform a leak check, pres-
surize or Use suction on the impact opening
until a reading of at least 7.6 cm (3 in.) HiO
reglstcis on the differential pressure gauge,
then plug the impact opening. The pressure
of a leak-free system will remain stable for
at least 15 seconds.
2.S.3.2 Level and zero the manometers.
Since the manometer level and zero may
drift because of vibrations and temperature
changes, periodically check the level and
zero during the traverse.
2.5.3.3 Position the probe at the appro-
priate locations in the gas stream, and
rotate until zero deflection is Indicated for
the yaw angle pressure gauge. Determine
and recoid the yaw angle. Record the pres-
sure gauge readings for the pitch angle, and
determine the pitch angle from the calibra-
tion curve. Repeat this procedure for each
traverse point. Complete a "back-purge" of
the pressure lines and the impact openings
prior to measurements of each traverse
point.
A post-test check as described In section
2.5.3.1 Is required. If the criteria for a leak-
free system are not met, repair the equip-
ment, and repeat the flow angle measure-
ments.
2.5.4 Calculate the resultant angle at
each traverse point, the average resultant
angle, and the standard deviation using the
following equations. Complete the calcula-
tions retaining at least one extra significant
figure beyond that of the acquired data.
Round the values after the final calcula-
tions.
2.5.4.1 Calculate the resultant angle at
each traverse point:
R, = arc cosine [(cosine Y,)(coslne P,»
Eq. 1-2
Where:
R,= Resultant angle at traverse point i,
degree.
Y, = Ya\v angle at traverse point I, degree.
P,=Pitch angle at traverse point i, degree.
2.5.4.2 Calculate the average resultant
for the measurements:
Eq. 1-3
Where.
ft -Avi-iiiKc resultant angle, degree.
n--Total number of traverse points.
2 5.4.3 Calculate the standard deviations:
-------
Pt. 60, App. A, Meth. 1
(n-1)
Eq. 1-4
Where:
Substandard deviation, degree.
2.5.5 The measurement location is ac-
ceptable If ft < 20' and Sd < 10*.
2.5 6 Calibration. Use a flow system as
described in Sections 4.1.2.1 and 4.1 2.2 of
Method 2. In addition, the flow system shall
have the capacity to generate two test-sec-
tion velocities: one between 365 and 730 m/
•rhln (1200 and 2400 ft/min) and one be-
tween 730 and 1100 m/mln (2400 and 3600
U/mln).
2.S.6.1 Cut two entry ports In the test
section. The axes through the entry ports
shall be perpendicular to each other and
Intersect In the centrold of the test section.
The ports should be elongated slots parallel
t'o the axis of the test section and of suffi-
cient length to allow measurement of pitch
angles while maintaining the pilot head po-
sition at the test-section centrold. To facili-
tate alignment of the directional probe
/'during calibration, the test section should
be constructed of plexiglass or some other
transparent material. All calibration meas-
urements should be made at the same point
In the test section, preferably at the cen-
trold of the test-section.
2.5.6.2 To ensure that the gas flow is par-
allel to the central axis of the test section,
follow the procedure in Section 2.4 for cy-
clonic flow determination to measure the
gas flow angles at the centroid of the test
section from two test ports located 90'
apart. The gas flow angle measured in each
port must be ±2' of 0'. Straightening vanes
should be installed, If necessary, to meet
this criterion.
25.6.3 Pitch Angle Calibration. Perform
a calibration traverse according to the man-
ufacturer's recommended protocol in 5' in-
crements for angles from -60' to i 60' at
one velocity in each of the two ranges speci-
fied above. Average the pressure ratio
values obtained for each angle in UK: two
flow ranges, and plot a calibration curve
with the average values of the pressure
ratio (or other suitable measurement factor
as recommended by the manufacturer)
vessus the pitch angle. Draw a smooth line
through the data points. Plot also the data
values for each traverse point. Determine
40 CFR Ch. I (7-1-92 Edition)
for angles between 0' and 40* and within 3'
for angles between 40* and 60*.
2.5.6.4 Yaw Angle Calibration. Mark the
three-dimensional probe to allow the deter- ;
ruination of the yaw position of the probe. *
This Is usually a line extending the length r
of the probe and aligned with the Impact
opening. To determine the accuracy of
measurements of the yaw angle, only the
zero or null position need be calllbrated as
follows. Place the directional probe In the
test section, and rotate the probe until the
zero position Is found. With a protractor or
other angle measuring device, measure the
angle Indicated by the yaw angle Indicator
on the three-dimensional probe. This should
be within 2* of 0*. Repeat this measurement
for any other points along the length of the
pilot where yaw angle measurements could •
be read In order to account for variations In
the pltot markings used to Indicate pltot
head positions.
3. Bibliography
I. Determining Dust Concentration In a
Gas Stream, ASME. Performance Test Code
No. 27. New York. 1957.
2. Devorkin, Howard, et al. Air Pollution
Source Testing Manual. Air Pollution Con-
trol District. Los Angeles. CA November
1963.
3. Methods for Determination of Velocity,
Volume, Dust and Mist Content of Gases.
Western Precipitation Division of Joy Man-
ufacturing Co. Los Angeles, CA. Bulletin.
WP-50. 1968.
4. Standard Method for Sampling Stacks
for Particulate Matter. In: 1971 Book of
ASTM Standards. Part 23. ASTM Designa-
tion D-2928-71, Philadelphia, PA 1971. \
5. Hanson, H. A., et al. Particulate Sam-;
pling Strategies for Large Power Plants In-
cluding Nonunlform Flow. USEPA. ORD.'
ESRL. Research Triangle Park. NC. EPA-,
600/2-76-170. June 1976 ,1
6 Entropy Environmentalists. Inc. Deter-' ^*i
mination of the Optimum Number of Sam- >
pling Points: An Analysis of Method 1 Crlte-, •&.]
na. Environmental Protection Agency, Re-j
search Triangle Park. NC. EPA Contract.
No. 68-01-3172. Task?. „ .
7. Hanson, H.A.. R.J. Davini. J.K. Morgan,
and A.A. Iversen. Particulate Sampling
Strategies for Large Power Plants Including •$
Nonuniform Flow. U.S Environmental Pro-j ft
lection Agency. Research Triangle Park,: •?
NC Publication No EPA-600/2-76-170."
June 1976. 350 p. ,
8. Brcoks. E.F.. and R.L. Williams. Flow;
and Gas Sampling Manual. U.S. Envlron-i -Jj
mental Protection Agency. Research Trlan-i 'I
gle Park. NC. Publication No. EPA-600/2-i "
Environmental Protection Agency
10. Brown, J. and K. Yu. Test Report: Par
tlculatc Sampling Strategy in Circular
Ducts. Emission Measurement Branch.
Emission Standards and Engineering Divi-
sion. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. Research Triangle Park. NC. 27711.
July 31. 1980. 12 p.
11. Hawksley. P.O.W.. S. Badzioch, and
J.H. Blacketl. Measurement of Solids in
Flue Gases. Lealherhead. England, The
British Coal Utilisation Research Associa-
tion, 1961. p. 129-133.
12. Knapp, K.T. The Number of Sampling
Points Needed for Representative Sovirce
Sampling. In: Proceedings of the Fourth Na-
tional Conference on Energy and the Envi-
ronment. Theodore. L.. et al. (ed.). Dayton,
Dayton Section of the American Institute of
Chemical Engineers. October 3-7. 1976. p.
563-568.
13. Smith. W.S. and D J. Grove. A Pio-
posed Extension of EPA Method 1 Criteria.
"Pollution Engineering." XV (8V.36 37.
August 1983.
14. Gerhart. P M. and M J. Dorsey. Inves-
tigation of Field Test Procedures for Large
Pans. University of Akron. Akron, Oil.
(EPRI Contract CS-1651). Final Report
(RP-1649-5) December 1980.
15. Smith, W.S. and D J. Grove. A New
Look at Isokinetic Sampling - Theory and
Applications. "Source Evaluation Society
Newsletter." VIII (3V.19-24. August 1963.
[METHOD 1A—SAMPLE AND VELOCITY TRA-
VERSES FOR STATIONARY SOURCES WITH
SMALL STACKS OR DUCTS
1. Applicability and Principle
1.1 The applicability and principle of this
! method are identical to Method 1, except
[this method's applicability is limited to
litacks or ducts less than about 0.30 meter
|[<12 In.) in diameter or 0.071 m* (113 In.') in
fcross-sectional area, but equal to or greater
Pt. 60, App. A, Meth. 1A
than about 0.10 meter (4 In.) in diameter or
0.0081 m- (12.57 In.*) In cross-sectional area.
1.2 In these small diameter stacks or
ducts, the conventional Method 5 stack as-
sembly (consisting of a Type 8 pltot tube at-
tached to a sampling probe, equipped with a
nozzle find thermocouple) blocks a signifi-
cant portion of the cross section of the duct
and causes inaccurate measurements.
Therefore, for partlculate matter (PM) sam-
pling in small stacks or ducts, the gas veloci-
ty is measured using a standard pilot tube
downstream of the actual emission sampling
site. The straight run of duct between the
PM sampling and velocity measurement
sites allows the flow profile, temporarily dis-
turbed by the presence of the sampling
probe, to redevelop and stabilize.
1.3 The cross-sectional layout and loca-
tion of 11 averse points and the verification
of the absence of cyclonic flow are the same
as in Method 1. Sections 2.3 and 2.4, respec-
tively. Differences from Method 1, except as
noted, are given below.
2. Procedure
2.1 Selection of Sampling and Measure-
ment Sites.
2.1.1 PM Measurements. Select a PM
sampling site located preferably at least 8
equivalent stack or duct diameters down-
stream and 10 equivalent diameters up-
stream -from any flow disturbances such as
bends, expansions, or contractions In the
stack, or from a visible flame. Next, locate
the velocity measurement site 8 equivalent
diameters downstream of the PM sampling
site. See Figure 1A-1. If such locations are
not available, select an alternative PM sam-
pling site that Is at least 2 equivalent stack
or duct diameters downstream and 2V4 diam-
eters upstream from any flow disturbance.
Then, lorate the velocity measurement site
2 equivalent diameters downstream from
the PM sampling site. Follow Section 2.1 of
Method 1 for calculating equivalent diame-
ters for a rectangular cross section.
-------
PI. 60, App. A, Math. 1A
40 CFR Ch. I (7-1-92 Edition)
t
a
I
OHI
»-
L
s
1
I
Environmental Protection Agency
2.1.2 PM Sampling (Steady Flow) or only
Velocity Measurements. For PM sampling
when the volumetric flow rale in a duct is
constant with respect to time. Section 2.1 of
Method 1 may be followed, with the PM
sampling and velocity measurement per-
formed at one location. To demonstrate
that the flow rate is constant (within 10 per-
cent) when PM measurements are made.
perform complete velocity traverses before
and after the PM sampling run. and calcu-
late the deviation of the flow rate derived
after the PM sampling run from the one de-
rived before the PM sampling rim. The PM
sampling run is acceptable if the deviation
does not exceed 10 percent.
2.2 Determining the Number of Tiaverse
Points
2.2 1 PM Sampling. Use Figure 1-1 of
Method 1 lo determine the number of tra-
verse points to use at both (he velocity
measurement and PM sampling locations
Before referring lo the figure however, do
termine the distances between both the ve
locity measurement and PM sampling sites
lo the nearest upMieain and downstream
disturbances Then divide each distance by
Ihe stack diameter or equivalent diameter
lo express the distances in terms of the
number of duel diameters. Next, determine
Ihe number of traveise points from Ficiue
1-1 of Method 1 r-orrcspondini! to each of
these four distance. Choose Ihe highest of
the four numbers ol lraxn.se points (01 a
greater number) so (hat. for circular duels.
the number is a multiple of four, and for
rectangular ducts, the number is one of
those shown in Table 1-1 of Method 1
When Die optimum duct diameter location
criteria can be satisfied, the minimum
number of traverse points required Is eight
for circular ducts and nine for rectangular
ducts.
222 I'M Sampling (Steady Flow) or Ve-
locity Measurements. Use Figure 1^2 of
Melhod 1 to determine the number of tra
verse points, following Ihe same proceduie
used for PM sampling traverses as described
In Section 2.2.1 of Method 1. When Ihe opti
mum duct diameter locallon criteria can be
salisfied. Ihe minimum number of traverse
Pt. 60, App. A, Meth. 2
points required is eight for circular ducts
and nine for rectangular ducts.
3. Bibliography
1. Same as in Method 1. Section 3, Cita-
tions 1 through 6.
2. Vollaro. Robert F. Recommended Pro-
cedure for Sample Traverses in Ducts
Smaller Than 12 Inches In Diameter. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Emission
Measurement Branch, Research Triangle
Park, NC. January 1977.
METHOD 2—DETERMINATION OF STACK GAS
VEIOCITV AND VOLUMETRIC FLOW RATE
(TYPE S PITOT TUBE)
1. Principle and Applicability
1.1 Principle. The average gas velocity in
a stack is determined from the gas density
and from measurement of the average veloc-
ity head with a Type S (Stausscheibo or re-
x-erse In pe) pilot tube.
1.2 Applicability. This method is applica-
ble for measurement of the average velocity
of a gas stream and for quantifying gas
flow.
This procedure is not applicable at meas-
urement sites which fail to meet the criteria
of Melhod 1. Seclion 2.1. Also, Ihe method
cannot be used for direct measurement in
cyclonic or swirling gas streams; Section 2.4
ol Melhod 1 shows how to determine cy-
clonic or swirling flow conditions. When un-
acceptable conditions exist, alternative pro-
cedures, subject to the approval of the Ad-
mlnisliator, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, must be employed to make accurate
flow mlc determinations; examples of such
alternative procedures arc: (1) lo install
straightening vanes: (2) to calculate the
total volumetric flow rate stoichiometrical-
ly, or Ci> to move to another measurement
site al which the flow Is acceptable.
2. Apparatus
Specifications for Ihe apparatus are glx'en
below. Any other apparatus that has been
demonstrated (subject to approval of the
Administrator) to be capable of meeting the
specifications will be considered acceptable.
-------
METHOD 201 - DETERMINATION OF PM10 EMISSIONS
(Exhaust Gas Recycle Procedure)
1. • Applicability and Principle
1.1 Applicability. This method applies to the in-stack measurement of
particulate matter (PM) emissions equal to or less than an aerodynamic
diameter of nominally 10 jim (PM10) from stationary sources. The EPA
recognizes that condensible emissions not collected by an in-stack method are
also PM10, and that emissions that contribute to-ambient PM10 -levels are the
sum of condensible emissions and emissions measured by an in-stack PM10
method, such as this method or Method 201A. Therefore, for establishing
source contributions to ambient levels of PM10, such as for emission inventory
purposes, EPA suggests that source PM10 measurement include both in-stack PM10
and condensible emissions. Condensible emissions may be measured by an
impinger analysis in combination with this method.
1.2 Principle. A gas sample is isokinetically extracted from the
source. An in-stack cyclone is used to separate PM greater than PM,0, and an
in-stack glass fiber.filter is used to collect the PM10. To maintain
isokinetic flow rate conditions at the tip of the probe and a constant flow
rate through the cyclone, a clean, dried portion of the sample gas at stack
temperature is recycled into the nozzle. The particulate mass is determined
gravimetrically after removal of uncombined water.
2. . Apparatus
NOTE: Method 5 as cited in this method refers to the method in 40 CFR
Part 60, Appendix A.
2.1 Sampling Train. A schematic of the exhaust of the exhaust gas
recycle (EGR) train is shown in Figure 1.
17
-------
2.1.1 Nozzle with Recycle Attachment. Stainless steel (316 or
equivalent) with a sharp tapered leading edge, and recycle attachment welded
directly on the side of the nozzle (see schematic in Figure 2). The angle of
the taper shall be on the outside. Use only straight sampling nozzles.
"Gooseneck" or other nozzle extensions designed to turn the sample gas flow
90*, as in Method 5 are not acceptable. Locate a thermocouple in the recycle
attachment to measure the temperature of the recycle gas as shown in Figure 3.
The recycle attachment shall be made of stainless steel and shall be connected
to the probe and nozzle with stainless steel fittings. Two nozzle sizes,
e.g., 0,125 and 0.160 in., should be available to allow isokinetic sampling to
be conducted over a range of flow rates. Calibrate each nozzle as described
in Method 5, Section 5.1.
2.1.2 PM10 Sizer. Cyclone, meeting the specifications in Section 5.7.
2.1.3 Filter Holder. 63-mrn, stainless steel. An Andersen filter, part
number SE274, has been found to be acceptable for the in-stack filter.
NOTE: Mention of trade names or specific products does not constitute
endorsement by the Environmental Protection Agency.
2.1.4 Pitof Tube. Same as in Method 5, Section 2.1.3. Attach the
pitot to the pitot lines with stainless steel fittings and to the cyclone in a
configuration similar to that shown in Figure 3. The pitot lines shall be
made of heat resistant material and attached to the probe with stainless steel
fittings.
2.1.5 EGR Probe. Stainless steel, 15.9-mm (5/8-in.) ID tubing with a
probe liner, stainless steel 9.53-uim (3/8-in.) ID stainless steel recycle
tubing, two 6.35-mm il/4-in.) ID stainless steel tubing for the pi toe tuoe
extensions, three thermocouple leads, and one power lead, all contained by
18
-------
stainless steel tubing with a diameter of approximately 51 mm (2.0 in.).
Design considerations should include minimum weight construction materials
sufficient for probe structural strength. Wrap the sample and recycle tubes
with a heating tape to heat the sample and recycle gases to stack temperature.
2.1.6 Condenser. Same as in Method 5, Section 2.1.7.
2.1.7 Umbilical Connector. Flexible tubing with thermocouple and power
leads of sufficient length to connect probe to meter and flow control console.
2.1.8 Vacuum Pump: Leak-tight, oil-less, noncontaminating, with an
absolute filter, "HEPA" type, at the pump exit. A Gast Model 0522-V103 G18DX
pump has been found to be satisfactory.
2.1.9 Meter and Flow Control Console. System consisting of a dry gas
meter and calibrated orifice for measuring sample flow rate and capable of
measuring volume to ±2 percent, calibrated laminar flow elements (LFE's) or
equivalent for measuring total and sample flow rates, probe heater control,
and manometers anli magnehelic gauges (as shown in Figures 4. and 5), or
equivalent. Temperatures needed for calculations include stack, recycle,
probe, dry gas meter, filter, and total flow. Flow measurements include
velocity head (Ap), orifice differential pressure (AH), total flow, recycle
flow, and total back-pressure through the system.
2.1.10 Barometer. Same as in Method 5, Section 2.1.9.
2.1.11 Rubber Tubing. 6.35-mm (1/4-in.) ID flexible rubber tubinq.
2.2 Sample Recovery.
2.2.1 Nozzle, Cyclone, and Filter Holder Brushes. Nylon bristle
brushes properly sized and shaped for cleaning the nozzle, cyclone, filter
holder, and probe or probe liner, with stainless steel wire shafts and
handles.
19
-------
2.2.2 Wash Bottles, Glass Sample Storage Containers, Petri Dishes,
Graduated Cylinder and Balance, Plastic Storage Containers, and Funnels. Same
as Method 5, Sections 2.2.2 through 2.2.6, and 2.2.8, respectively.
2.3 Analysis. Same as in Method 5, Section 2.3.
3. Reagents
The reagents used in sampling, sample recovery, and analysis are the
same as that specified in Method 5, Sections 3.1, 3.2, and 3.3, respectively.
4. Procedure
4.1 Sampling. The complexity of this method is such that, in order to
obtain reliable results, testers should be trained and experienced with the
test procedures.
4.1.1 Pretest Preparation. Same as in Method 5, Section 4.1.1.
4.1.2 Preliminary Determinations. Same as in Method 5, Section 4.1.2,
c
except use the directions on nozzle size selection in this section. Use of
the EGR method may require a minimum sampling port diameter of 0.2 m (6 in.).
Also, the required maximum number of sample traverse points at any location
shall be 12.
4.1.2.1 The cyclone and filter holder must be in-stack or at stack
temperature during sampling. The blockage effects of the EGR sampling
assembly will be minimal if the cross-sectional area of the sampling assembly
is 3 percent or less of the cross-sectional area of the duct and a oitot
coefficient of 0.84 may be assigned to the pitot. If the cross-sectional 'area
of the assembly is greater than 3 percent of the cross-sectional area of the
duct, then either determine the pitot coefficient at sampling conditions or
use a standard pitot with a known coefficient in a configuration with the EGR
sampling assembly such that flow disturbances are minimized.
20
-------
4.1.2.2 Construct a setup sheet of pressure drops for various Ap's and
temperatures. A computer is useful for these calculations. An example of the
output of the EGR setup program is shown in Figure 6, and directions on its
use are in Section 4.1.5.2. Computer programs, written in IBM BASIC computer
language, to do these types of setup and reduction calculations for the EGR
procedure, are available through the National Technical Information Services
(NTIS), Accession number PB90-500000, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield,
Virginia 22161.
4.1.2.3 The EGR setup program allows the tester to select the nozzle
size based on anticipated average stack conditions and prints a setup sheet
for field use. The amount of recycle through the nozzle should be between 10
and 80 percent. Inputs for the EGR setup program are stack temperature
•
(minimum, maximum, and average), stack velocity (minimum, maximum,, and
.average), atmospheric pressure, stack static pressure, meter box temoerature.
stack moisture, percent 02 and percent C02 in the stack gas, pitot coefficient
(C ), orifice AH@, flow rate measurement calibration values [slope (m) and y-
intercept (b) of the calibration curve], and the number of nozzles available
and their diameters.
4.1.2.4 A less rigorous calculation for the setup sheet can be done
manually using the equations on the example worksheets in Figures 7, 8, and 9,
or by a Hewlett-Packard HP41 calculator using the program provided in
Appendix 0 of the EGR operators manual, entitled Applications Guide for Source
PM10 Exhaust Gas Recycle Sampling System. This calculation uses an
approximation of the total flow rate and agrees within 1 percent of the exact
solution for pressure drops at stack temperatures from 38 to 260°C (100 to
500*F) and stack moisture up to 50 percent. Also, the example worksheets use
21
-------
a constant stack temperature 1n the calculations, Ignoring the complicated
temperature dependence from all three pressure drop equations. Errors for
this at stack temperatures ±28*C (±50'F) of the temperature used in the setup
calculations are within 5 percent for flow rate and within 5 percent for
cyclone cut size.
4.1.2.5 The pressure upstream of the LFE's is assumed to be constant at
0.6 in. Hg in the EGR setup calculations.
4.1.2.6 The setup sheet constructed using this procedure shall be
similar to Figure 6. Inputs needed for the-calculation are the same as for
the setup computer except that stack velocities are not needed.
4.1.3 Preparation of Collection Train. Same as in Method 5,
Section 4.1.3, except u.se the following directions to set up the train.
4.1.3.1 Assemble the EGR sampling device, and attach it to probe as
a
shown in Figure 3. If stack temperatures exceed 260°C (500'F), then assemble
the EGR cyclone without the 0-ring and reduce the vacuum requirement. ^o
130 mm Hg (5.0 in. Hg) in the leak-check procedure in Section 4.1.4.3.2.
4.1.3.2 Connect the probe directly to the filter holder and condenser
as in Method 5. Connect the condenser and probe to the meter and flow control
console with the umbilical connector. Plug in the pump and attach pump lines
to the meter and flow control console.
4.1.4 Leak-Check Procedure. The leak-check for the EGR Method consists
of two parts: the sample-side and the recycle-side. The sample-side
leak-check is required at the beginning of the run with the cyclone attached,
and after the run with the cyclone removed. The cyclone is removed before the
post-test leak-check to prevent any disturbance of the collected sample prior
to analysis. The recycle-side leak-check tests the leak tight integrity of
22
-------
the recycle components and is required prior to the first test run and after
each shipment.
4.1.4.1 Pretest Leak-Check. A pretest leak-check of the entire
sample-side, including the cyclone and nozzle, is required. Use the leak-
check procedure in Section 4.1.4.3 to conduct a pretest leak-check.
4.1.4.2 Leak-Checks During Sample Run. Same as in Method 5,
Section 4.1.4.1.
4.1.4.3 Post-Test Leak-Check. A leak-check is required at the
conclusion of each sampling run. Remove the cyclone before the leak-check to
prevent the vacuum created by the cooling of the probe from disturbing the
collected sample and use the following procedure to conduct a post-test
leak-check.
4.1.4.3.1 The sample-side leak-check is performed as follows: After
removing the cyclone, seal the probe with a leak-tight stopper. Before
.starting pump, close the coarse total valve and both recycle valves, and open
completely the samole back pressure valve and the fine total valve. After
turning the pump on, partially open the coarse total valve slowly to prevent a
surge in the manometer. Adjust the vacuum to at least 381 mm Hg (15.0 in. Hg)
with the fine total valve. If the desired vacuum is exceeded, either
leak-check at this higher vacuum or end the leak-check as shown below and
start over. CAUTION: Do not decrease the vacuum with any of the valves.
This may cause a rupture of the filter. NOTE: A lower vacuum may be used,
provided that it is not exceeded during the test.
4.1.4.3.2 Leak rates in excess of 0.00057 m3/min (0.020 ft3/min) are
unacceptable, if the leak rate is too high, void the sampling run.
23
-------
4.1.4.3.3 To complete the leak-check, slowly remove the stopper from
the nozzle until the vacuum is near zero, then immediately turn off the pump.
This procedure sequence prevents a pressure surge in the manometer fluid and
rupture of the filter.
4.1.4.3.4 The recycle-side leak-check is performed as follows: Close
the coarse and fine total valves and sample back pressure valve. Plug the
sample inlet at the meter box. Turn on the power and the -pump, close the .
recycle valves, and open the total flow valves. Adjust the total flow fine
adjust valve until a vacuum of 25 inches of mercury is achieved. If the
desired vacuum is exceeded, either leak-check at this higher vacuum, or end
the leak-check and start over. Minimum acceptable leak rates are the same as
for the sample-side. If the leak rate is too high, void the sampling run.
4.1.5 EGR Train Operation. Same as in Method 5, Section 4.1.5, except
omit references to nomographs and recommendations about changing the filter
assembly during a run.
4.1.5.1 Record the data required on a data sheet such as the one shown
in Figure 10. Make periodic checks of the manometer level and zero to ensure
correct AH and Ap values. An acceptable procedure for checking the zero is to
equalize the pressure at both ends of the manometer by pulling off the tubing,
allowing the fluid to equilibrate and, if necessary, to re-zero. Maintain the
probe temperature to within ll'C (20*F) of stack temperature.
4.1.5.2 The procedure for using the example EGR setup sheet is as
follows: Obtain a stack velocity, reading from the pitot manometer (Ap), and
find this value on the ordinate axis of the setup sheet. Find the stack
temperature on che aoscissa. Where these two values intersect are the
24
-------
differential pressures necessary to achieve isokineticity and 10 urn cut size
(interpolation may be necessary).
4.1.5.3 The top three numbers are differential pressures (in. H20), and
the bottom number is the percent recycle at these flow settings. Adjust the
total flow rate valves, coarse and fine, to the sample value (AH) on the setup
sheet, and the recycle flow rate valves, coarse and fine, to the recycle flow
on the setup sheet.
4.1.5.4 For startup of the EGR sample train, the following procedure is
recommended.. Preheat the cyclone in the stack for 30 minutes. Close both the
sample and recycle coarse valves. Open the fine total, fine recycle, and
sample back pressure valves halfway. Ensure that the nozzle is properly
aligned with the sample stream. After noting the Ap and stack temperature,
select the appropriate AH and recycle from the EGR setup sheet. Start the
pump and timing device simultaneously. Immediately open both the coarse total
and the coarse recycle valves slowly to obtain the approximate desired values.
Adjust both the fine total and the fine recycle valves to achieve more
precisely the desired values. In the EGR flow system, adjustment of either
valve will result in a change in both total and recycle flow rates, and a
slight iteration between the total and recycle valves may be necessary.
Because the sample back pressure valve controls the total flow rate through
the system, it may be necessary to adjust this valve in order to obtain the
correct flow rate. NOTE: Isokinetic sampling and proper operation of the
cyclone are not achieved unless the correct AH and recycle flow rates are
maintained.
4.1.5.5 During the test run, monitor the probe and filter temperatures
periodically, and make adjustments as necessary to maintain the desired
25
-------
temperatures. If the sample loading is high, the filter may begin to blind or
the cyclone may clog. The filter or the cyclone may be replaced during the
sample run. Before changing the filter or cyclone, conduct a leak-check
(Section 4.1.4.2). The total particulate mass shall be the sum of all cyclone
and the filter catch during the run. Monitor stack temperature and Ap
periodically, and make the necessary adjustments in sampling and recycle flow
rates to maintain isokinetic sampling and the proper flow rate through the
cyclone. At the end of the run, turn off the pump, close the coarse total
valve, and record the final dry gas meter reading. Remove the probe from the
stack, and conduct a post-test leak-check as outlined in Section 4.1.4.3.
4.1.6 Calculation of Percent Isokinetic Rate and Aerodynamic Cut Size.
Calculate percent isokinetic rate and the aerodynamic cut size (D50) (see
Calculations, Section 6) to determine whether the test was valid or another
test run should be made. If there was difficultly in maintaining isokinetic
rates or a Or,0 of 10 /im because of source conditions, the Administrator may, he
consulted for possible variance.
4.2 Sample Recovery. Allow the probe to cool. When the probe can be
safely handled, wipe off all external PM adhering to the outside of the
nozzle, cyclone, and nozzle attachment, and place a cap over the nozzle to
prevent losing or gaining PM. Do not cap the nozzle tip tightly while the
sampling train is cooling, as this action would, create a vacuum in the filter
holder. Disconnect the probe from the umbilical connector, and take the probe
to the cleanup site. Sample recovery should be conducted in a dry indoor area
or, if outside, in an area protected from wind and free of dust. Cao the ends
of the impingers and carry them to the cleanup site. Inspect the components
of the train prior to and during disassembly to note any abnormal conditions.
25
-------
Disconnect the pitot from the cyclone. Remove, the cyclone from the probe.
Recover the sample as follows:
4.2.1 Container Number 1 (Filter). The recovery shall be the same as
that for Container Number 1 in Method 5, Section 4.2.
4.2.2 Container Number 2 (Cyclone or Large PM Catch). The cyclone must
be disassembled and the nozzle removed in order to recover the large PM catch.
Quantitatively recover the fM from the interior surfaces of the nozzle and the
cyclone, excluding the "turn around" cup and the interior surfaces of the exit
tube. The recovery shall be the same as that for Container Number 2 in
Method 5, Section 4.2.
4.2.3 Container Number 3 (PM10) Quantitatively recover the PM from all
of the surfaces from cyclone exit to the front half of the in-stack filter
holder, including the "turn around" cup and the interior of the exit tube.
The recovery shall be the same as that for Container Number 2 in Method 5,
Section 4.2.
4.2.4 Container Number 4 (Silica Gel). Same as that for Container
Number 3 in Method 5, Section 4.2.
4.2.5 Imoinqer Water. Same as in Method 5, Section 4.2, under .
"Impinger Water."
4.3 Analysis. Same as in Method 5, Section 4.3, except handle EGR
Container Numbers 1 and 2 like Container Number 1 in Method 5, EGR Container
Numbers 3, 4, and 5 like Container Number 3 in Method 5, and EGR Container
Number 6 like Container Number 3 in Method 5. Use Figure 11 to record the
weights of PM collected.
4.4 Quality Control Procedures. Same as in Method 5. Section 4.4.
27
-------
5. Calibration
. Maintain an accurate laboratory log of all calibrations.
5.1 Probe Nozzle. Same as in Method 5, Section 5.1.
5.2 Pi tot Tube. Same as in Method 5, Section 5.2.
5.3 Meter and Flow Control Console.
5.3.1 Dry Gas Meter. Same as in Method 5, Section 5.3.
5.3.2 LFE .Gauges. Calibrate the'recycle, total, and inlet total LfE
gauges with a manometer. Read and record flow rates at 10, 50, and 90 percent
of full scale on the total and recycle pressure gauges. Read and record flow
rates at 10, 20, and 30 percent of full scale on the inlet total LFE pressure
gauge. Record the total and recycle readings to the nearest 0.3 mm
(0.01 in.). Record the inlet total L'FE readings to the nearest 3 mm
(0.1 in.). Make three separate measurements at each setting and calculate the
average. The maximum difference between the average pressure reading and the
average manometer reading shall not exceed 1 mm (0.05 in.). If "he
differences exceed the limit specified, adjust or replace the pressure gauge.
s
After each field use, check the calibration of the pressure gauges.
5.3.3 Total" LFE. Same as the metering system in Method 5, Section 5.3.
5.3.4 Recycle LFE. Same as the metering system in Method 5, Section
5.3, except completely close both the coarse and fine recycle valves.
5.4 Probe Heater. Connect the probe to the meter and flow control
console with the umoilical connector. Insert a thermocouple into the probe
sample line approximately half the length of the probe sample line. Calibrate
the probe heater at 66'C (150'F), 121'C (250'F), and 177'C (350'F). Turn on
the power, and jet the prooe heater to the specified temperature. Allow the
heater to equilibrate, and record the thermocouple temperature and the meter
28
-------
and flow control console temperature to the nearest 0.5'C (1'F). The two
temperatures should agree within 5.5*C (10*F). If this agreement is not met,
adjust or replace the probe heater controller.
5.5 Temperature Gauges. Connect all thermocouples, and let the meter
and flow control console equilibrate to ambient temperature. All
thermocouples shall agree to within 1.1'C (2.0*F) with a standard
mercury-in-glass thermometer. Replace defective thermocouples.
5.6 Barometer. Calibrate against a standard mercury-in-glass
barometer.
5.7 Probe Cyclone and Nozzle Combinations. The probe cyclone and
nozzle combinations need not be calibrated if the cyclone meets the design
specifications in Figure 12 and the nozzle meets the design specifications in
Appendix B of the Application Guide for the Source PM10 Exhaust Ga4 Recycle
Sampling System. EPA/600/3-88-058. This document may be obtained from
Roy Huntley at (919)541-1060. If the nozzles do not meet the design
specifications, then test the cyclone and nozzle combination for conformity
with the performance specifications (PS's) in Table 1. The purpose of the PS
tests is to determine if the cyclone's sharpness of cut meets minimum
performance criteria. If the cyclone does not meet design specifications,
then, in addition to the cyclone and nozzle combination conforming to the
PS's, calibrate the cyclone and determine the relationship between flow rate,
gas viscosity, and gas density. Use the procedures in Section 5.7.5 to
conduct PS tests and the procedures in Section 5.8 to calibrate the cyclone.
Conduct the PS tests in a wind tunnel described- in Section 5.7.1 and using a
particle generation system described in Section 5.7.2. Use five particle
sizes and three wind velocities as listed in Table 2. Perform a minimum of
29
-------
three replicate measurements of collection efficiency for each of the 15
conditions listed, for a minimum of 45 measurements.
5.7.1 Wind Tunnel. Perform calibration and PS tests in a wind tunnel
(or equivalent test apparatus) capable of establishing and maintaining the
required gas stream velocities within 10 percent.
i
5.7.2 Particle Generation System. The particle generation system shall
be capable of producing solid monodispers'ed dye particles with the mass median
aerodynamic diameters specified in Table 2. The particle size distribution
verification should be performed on an integrated sample obtained during the
sampling period of each test. An acceptable alternative is to verify the size
distribution of samples obtained before and after each test, with both samples
required to meet the diameter and monodispersity requirements for an
acceptable test run.
5.7.2.1 Establish the size of the solid dye particles delivered to the
test section of "he wind tunnel using the operating parameter?; •)(• Mi« particii?
generation system, and verify the size during the tests by microscopic
examination of samples of the particles collected on a membrane filter. The
particle size, as established by the operating parameters of the generation
system, shall be within the tolerance specified in Table 2. The precision of
the particle size verification technique shall be at least ±0.5 urn, and the
particle size determined by the verification technique shall not differ by
more than 10 percent from that established by the operating parameters of the
particle generation system.
5.7.2.2 Certify the monodispersity of the particles for each test
either by microscopic inspection of collected particles on filters or by other
suitable monitoring techniques such as an optical particle counter followed by
30
I
-------
a multichannel pulse height analyzer. If the proportion of multiplets and
satellites in an aerosol exceeds 10 percent by mass, the particle generation
system is unacceptable for purposes of this test. Multiplets are particles
that are agglomerated, and satellites are particles that are smaller than the
specified size range.
5.7.3 Schematic Drawings. Schematic drawings of the wind tunnel and
blower system and other information showing complete procedural details of the
test atmosphere generation, verification, and delivery techniques shall be
furnished with calibration data to the reviewing agency.
5.7.4 Flow Rate Measurement. Determine the cyclone flow rates with a
dry gas meter and a stopwatch, or a calibrated orifice system capable of
measuring flow rates to within 2 percent.
5.7.5 Performance Specification Procedure. Establish the test particle
generator operation and verify the particle size microscopically. If
rconodispersity is to be verified by measurements at the beginning and the end
of the run rather than by an integrated sample, these measurements may be made
at this time.
5.7.5.1 The cyclone cut size (D50) is defined as the aerodynamic
diameter of a particle having a 50 percent probability of penetration.
Determine the required cyclone flow rate at which D50 is 10 /zm. A suggested
procedure is to vary the cyclone flow rate while keeping a constant particle
size of 10 /jm. Measure the PM collected in the cyclone (mc), exit tube (mt),
and filter (mf). Compute the cyclone efficiency (Ec) as follows:
mc
Ec - X 100
(mc + mt + mf)
31
-------
5.7.5.2 Perform three replicates and calculate the average cyclone
efficiency as follow:
(Er + E2 t E3)
£ m ——„
avg _
3
where Et, E;,, and F5 .ire replicate measurements of Eu.
5.7.5.3 Calculate the standard deviation (a) for the replicate
measurements of Ec as follows:
._ •> . •> _ •>. (EI * E2 + ES)
z
if a exceeds 0.10, repeat the replicate runs.
5.7,5,4 Using the cyclone flow rate that produces D^ for 10 /zm,
measure the overall efficiency of the cyclone and nozzle, E,,, at the particle
sizes and nominal qns velocities in Table 2 usinq the followinq procedure.
5.7.5.5 Set the air velocity in the wind tunnel to one of the nominal
gas velocities from Table 2. Establish isokinetic sampling conditions and the
correct flow rate through the sampler (cyclone and nozzle) using recycle
capacity so that the 050 is 10 fan. Sample long enough to obtain ±5 percent
precision on the total collected mass as determined by the precision and the
sensitivity of the measuring technique. Determine separately the nozzle catch
(mn), cyclone catch (mc), cyclone exit tube catch (mt), and collection filter
catch (mf ) .
5.7.5.6 Calculate the overall efficiency (E3) as follows:
(mn + mc •(- mt + mf)
X 100
-------
5.7.5.7 Do three replicates for each combination of gas velocities and
particle sizes in Table 2. Calculate E0 for each particle size following the
procedures described in this section for determining efficiency. Calculate
the standard deviation (a) for the replicate measurements. If a exceeds 0.10,
repeat the replicate runs.
5.7.6 Criteria for Acceptance. For each of the three gas stream
velocities', plot the average E0 as a function of particle size'on Figure 13.
Draw a smooth curve for each velocity through all particle sizes. The curve
shall be within the banded region for all sizes, and the average Ec for a D50
for 10 im shall be 50 ± 0.5 percent.
5.8 Cyclone Calibration Procedure. The purpose of this section is to
develop the relationship between flow rate, gas viscosity, gas density, and
050. This procedure only needs to be done on those cyclones that do not meet
the design sneci fications in Fiqure 12.
5.3.1 Calculate cyclone flow rate, determine the flow rates and Dr/n's
For three di f ferent -part icle sizes between 5 /im and 15 ym, one of which shall
be 10 ;wn. All sizes must be within 0.5 /un. For each size, use a different
temperature within 60'C (108*F.) of the temperature at which the cyclone is to
be used and conduct triplicate runs. A suggested procedure is to keep the
particle size constant and vary the flow rate. Some of the values obtained in
the PS tests in Section 5.7.5 may be used.
5.8.1.1 On log-log graph paper, plot the Reynolds number (Re) on the
abscissa, and the square root of the Stokes 50 number [(STK50)1/2] on the
ardinate for each temperature. Use the following equations:
_
Re
-------
(Stkso)
1/2
* Q
11/2
cyc
where:
Qcyc - Cyclone flow rate cra3/sec.
p » Gas density, g/cm.
•
dcyc.» Diameter of cyclone inlet, cm. '
^cyc * Viscosity of gas through the cyclone, poise.
D50 « Cyclone cut size, cm.
5.8.1.2 Use a linear regression analysis to determine the slope (m),.
and the y-intercept (b). Use the following formula to determine Q, the
cyclone flow rate required for a cut size of 10 /im.
Q
*cyc
(3000}(K,)'
-(0.5 - m)
M, P..
ra/(m - 0.5)
d(m-l.5)/(m-0.5)
wnere:
Q = Cyclone flow rate for a cut size of 10 /un, cm/sec.
Ts » Stack gas temperature, *K.
d » Diameter of nozzle, cm.
Kj - 4.077 X 10"3
5.8.2 Directions for Using Q. Refer to Section 5 of the EGR operators
manual for directions in using this expression for Q in the setup
calculations.
6. Calculations
5.1 The EGR data reduction calculations are performed by the EGR
reduction computer program, which is written in IBM BASIC computer language
and is available through MTIS. Accession number P890-500000, 5235 Port Royal
34
-------
Road, Springfield, Virginia 22161. Examples of program inputs and outputs are
shown in Figure 14.
6.1.1 Calculations can also be done manually, as specified in Method 5,
Sections 6.3 through 6.7, and 6.9 through 6.12, with the addition of the
following:
6.1.2 Nomenclature.
Bc = Moisture fraction of mixed cyclone gas, by volume,
dimensionless.
Cj » Viscosity constant, 51.12 micropoise for *K (51.05 micropoise
for °R).
C2 - Viscosity constant, 0.372 micropoise/*K (0.207 micropoise/*R).
C3 = Viscosity constant, 1.05 X 10'4 micropoise/'K2 (3.24 X 10'5
micropoise/*R2).
C, = Viscosity constant, 53.147 micropoise/fraction 0..
C5 = Viscosity constant, 74.143 micropoise/fraction I-LO.
D?0 = Diameter of particles having a 50 percent probability of
penetration, ym.
f02 - Stack gas fraction 02, by volume, dry basis.
iq = 0.3858 *K/mm Hg (17.64 'R/in. Hg).
Mc = Wet molecular weight of mixed gas through the PM10 cyclone,
g/g-mole (Ib/lb-mole).
Md = Dry molecular weight of stack gas, g/g-mole (Ib/lb-mole).
Pbap = Barometer pressure at sampling site, mm Hg (in. Hg).
Pin, =• Gauge pressure at inlet to total LFE, mm H-,0 (in. H.,0).
P = Absolute stack pressure, mm Hg (.in. Hg).
35
-------
Q8 » Total cyclone flow rate at wet cyclone conditions, m3/min
(ftVmin).
Q,(std) » Total cyclone flow rate at standard conditions, dscni/min
(dscf/min).
Tm - Average temperature of dry gas meter, *K (*R).
Ts » Average stack gas temperature, *K (*R).
v*(std) * Volume of water vapor in gas sample (standard conditions), scm
(scf).
XT » Total LFE linear calibration constant, m3/[(nnn)(mm H20)]
YT - Total LFE linear calibration constant, dscm/min (dscf/min).
APT - Pressure differential across total LFE, mm H20 (in. H20).
S - Total sampling time, min.
/iovc =» Viscosity of mixed cyclone gas, micropoise.
•UI.FE ~ Viscosity of gas at laminar flow elements, micropime.
Mstd = Viscosity of standard air, 180.1 micropoise.
6.2 PMIQ Particulate Weight. Determine the weight of PM10 by summing
the weights obtained from Container Numbers 1 and 3, less the acetone blank.
6.3 Total Particulate Weight. Determine the particulate catch for PM
greater than PM,0 from the weight obtained from Container Number 2 less the
acetone blank, and add it to the PM10 particulate weight.
6.4 PM10 Fraction. Determine the PM10 fraction of the total particulate
weight by dividing the PM10 particulate weight by the total particulate
weight.
35
-------
6.5 Total Cyclone Flow Rate. The average flow rate at standard
conditions is determined from the average pressure drop across the total LFE
and is calculated as follows:
Q
s(std) Nl
XT AP
The flow rate, at actual cyclone conditions, is calculated as follows:
Q
s(std)
ym(atd)
$
6.6 Aerodynamic Cut Size. Use the following procedure to determine the
aerodynamic cut size (Dso).
6.6.1 Determine the water fraction of the mixed gas through the cyclone
by using the equation below.
\i
Vatd)
Mstd)
6.6.2 Calculate the cyclone gas viscosity as follows:
eye
Cl + C2
C3 V * C4 ^02 * C5 B=
6.6.3 Calculate the molecular weight on a wet basis of the cyclone gas
as follows:
Mc > Md(l - Bc) + 18.0(BC)
5.5.4 [f the cyclone meets the design specification in Figure 12,
calculate the actual D50 of the cyclone for the run as follows:
T.
•] 0.2091 r ..
10.7091
where 0, = 0. 1562.
37
-------
6.6.5 If the cyclone does not meet the design specifications in
Figure 12, then use the following equation to calculate D50.
DSO " (3)(10)b (7.376 X 10"4)m
* ^cyc
where:
m - Slope of the calibration curve obtained in Section 5.8.2.
b » y-intercept of the calibration curve obtained in Section 5.8.2.
6.7 Acceptable Results. Acceptability of anisokinetic variation is the
same as Method 5, Section 6.12.
6.7.1 If 9.0 /an < D50 <11 (m and 90 $ I $ 110, the results are
acceptable. If D50 is greater than 11 /un, the Administrator may accept the
results. If D50 is less than 9.0 pro, reject the results and repeat the test.
7. Bibliography
1. Same as Bibliography in Method 5.
2. McCain. J.Q., J.W. Ragland,
-------
PITOT TUBE
EGR PROBE ASSEMBLY
flECYt »E
LINE
T-J-l
_r~LJ
\ I
i • ! n._.
LI
I . | U
M10
3LONE
Cll TCD
I
HEATED
FILTER
HOLDER
HOLDER
METHOD 5
IMPINGERS
TOTAL
FLOW LFE
|
I
, METER AND FLOl
1 CONTROL CONSO
RECYCLE
FLOW
LFE
SAMPLE
ORIFICE
DRY
GAS
METER
1
1
1
1
I
EXHAUST
|
SEALED PUMP
Figure 1. Schematic of the exhaust gas recycle (rain.
-------
MIXED GAS
TO CYCLONE
SAMPLE
GAS
RECYCLE
GAS
O
O
Ol
O
Figure 2. Schematic o< EGR nozzle assembly.
-------
PM 10 CYCLONE
FILTER HOLDER
(63-mm)
EGR NOZZLE
TYPE—S PITOT
RECYCLE LJNE
STACK THERMOCOUPLE
U
RECYCLE THERMOCOUPL
Figure 3. SGS PM«o cyclone sampling devica.
-------
FLOW
MAGNEHELICS
DUAL
MANOMETER
M
FINfc TOTAL
VALVE
COARSe TOTAL
VALVE
(V,)
VACUUM GAUGE
DRY GAS METER
SAMPLE BACK
PRESSURE VALVE
-------
ORIFICE METER
DRY GASMtTER
THEHMOCOUPLE
TOTAL FLOW
THERMOCOUPLE
DRY GAS METER
MANOMETER
SOLENOID
RECYCLE FLOW
OUICKCOMNECT
TOTAL FLOW
QUICKCGHNECT
HEPA FILTER
TOTAL LFE
RECYCLE LFE
RECYCLE FLOW
SOLENOID
TOTAL FLOW
SOLENOID
Figure 5. Example EGH control module (rear view)
showing principle components.
-------
EXAMPLE EMISSION GAS RECYCLE SETUP SHEET
VERSION 3.1 MAY 1986
TEST 1.0. : SAMPLE SETUP
RUN DATE : 11/24/86
LOCATION : SOUPCE SIM
OPERATOR(S) : RH JB
NOZZLE DIAMETER (IN) :.25
STACK CONDITIONS:
AVERAGE TEMPERATURE (F) : 200.0
AVERAGE VELOCITY (FT/SEC) : 15.0
AMBIENT PRESSURE (IN HG) : 29.92
STACK PRESSURE (IN H20) : .10
GAS COMPOSITION
H20 « 10.0 %
02 = 20.9 5
C02
.0
MD = 28.84
MW * 27.75
(LB/LB MOLE)
DP(PTO) -150
0.026
**** TARGET PRESSURE DROPS ****
TEMPERATURE (F)
161
172
183
194
206
217
228
SAMPLE
TOTAL
RECYCLE
i RCL
.49
1.30
2.39
61 t
,49
1.90
2.92
61 S
.48
1.91
2.94
52 %
.47
1.92
2.17
62 I
.46
1.92
3.00
62 4
• .45
1.92
3.02
•53 r,
.45
1.93
3.05
63 r,
,031
.58
1.88
2.71
57 I
.56
1.89
2.74
57 5
' .55
1.39
2.77
58 %
.55
1.90
2.80
58 %
.55
1.91
2.32
59 %
.54
1.91
2.85
59 %
.53
1.91
2.88
60 %
.52
1.92
•2.90
60 %
.035
,039
.67
1.88
2.57
54 %
.75
1.87
2.44
51 I
.65
1.88
2.60
55 %
.74
1.88
2.47
52 %
.64
1.89
2.63
55 I
.72
1.88
2.50
52 %
.63
1.89
2.66
56 %
.71
1.89
2.53
53 %
.62
1.90
2.69
56 *
.70
1.89
2.56
53 %
.61
1.90
2.72
57 %
.69
1.90
2.59
54 %
.60
1.91
2.74
57 *.
.67
1.90
2.62
54 %
.59
1.91
2.74
57 %
.66
1.91
2.65
55 %
Figure 6. Example EGR setup sheet.
44
-------
Barometric pressure, P. r, in. Hg »
Stack static pressure, P , in. H,0 -
Average stack temperature, ts, F -
Meter temperature, tm, *F -
Gas analysis:
%CO
%N2 + %CQ
Fraction moisture content, Bws
Calibration data:
Nozzle diameter, Dn in.
Pitot coefficient, C
AH, in. H0
9,
Molecular weight of stack gas, dry basis:
Md - 0.44 (%C02) + 0.32 (%02) + 0.28 (%N2 + %CO) = _ Ib/lb mole
Molecular weight of stack gas, wet basis:
Mw - Md (1-BWS) + 18BWS » _ Ib/lb mole
Absolute stack pressure:
, Md (t, * 460) P,
K - 346.72 0,; ;\H, Cp'- (1 - B..J'
Pbar
Desired meter orifice pressure (AH) for velocity head of stack gas (Ap)
AH = K Ap = ____ in. H20
Figure 7. Example worksheet 1, meter orifice pressure head calculation.
45
-------
Barometric pressure, Pbflr, in. Hg
Absolute stack pressure, Ps, in. Hg
Average stack temperature, Ts, *R
Meter temperature, Tm, *R
Molecular weight of stack gas, wet basis, Md Ib/lb mole
Pressure upstream of LFE, in. Hg
0.6
Gas analysis:
Calibration data:
Fraction moisture content, B,
ws
Nozzle diameter, Dn, in.
Pitot coefficient, C
Total LFE calibration constant, X£
Total LFE calibration constant, Tt
Absolute pressure upstream of LFE:
LFE
in. Hg
Viscosity of gas in total LFE:
M,.FE - 152.418 + 0.2552 Tm + 3.2355xlO'5 Tm2 + 0.53147 (%02)
Viscosity of dry stack gas:
ud = 152.418 r 0.2552 f_ f 3.2355x10'" T^ * 0.53147 (%02) =
Constants:
K1 . 1.5752x10
K, - 0.1539
-5
T P
'm Ks
°-;osl
LU
LFE
%E T™ °n2
0.2949 T 0.7051
d 's
CP
PLFE
f ^ 1
1 Ts j
Bws Md d - 0.2949 (1 - 18/Md)] + 74.143 Bws (1 -
fid - 74.143 BWB
Figure 8. Example worksheet 2 (page 1 of 2), total LFE pressure head.
46
-------
Yt
Xt 180.1 Xt
K2 K3
Total LFE pressure head:
Apt - A! - Bj (Ap)* - in. H20
Figure 3. Example worksheet 2 (page 2 of 1}, total LFE pressure head.
-------
Barometric pressure, P^., 1n. Hg
Absolute stack pressure, Ps 1n. Hg
Average stack temperature, Ts, *R
Meter temperature, Tm, *R
Molecular weight of stack gas, dry basis, Md, 1b/1b mole
Viscosity of LFE gas, %E> poise
Viscosity of dry stack gas, iidt poise
Absolute pressure upstream of LFE, PLFE, in. Hg
Calibration data:
Nozzle diameter, Dn, in.
Pitot coefficient, C
Recycle LFE calibration constant, Xr
Recycle LFE calibration constant, Yr
1.5752X10'5
> 0.7051
s **d
O u 0.:949 T 0.7051
PLFE Md '$
K2 - 0.1539
M T n 2
Hi re I- U-
UrC In n
d.:949
- 74.143
A2"T
B2-
K4
xr
180.1 X.
Pressure head for recycle LFE:
- A2 - 82
.in. H20
Figure 9. Example worksneet 3, recycle LFE pressure neaa,
-------
This page intentionally left blank.
-------
Hun
Code
Sampler
11)
Fllttr
IIJ
Sampler
Oiiciilallon
Sampling
Location
No^le
Diameter-ID
(In)
Operator (s)
Dale
Start
Time
End
Time
Sampling
Duration
(">'")
OGM
(initial)
OGM
(Imal)
Sample
Volume
C'3)
Onul Manometer Leveled and Zeroed?
Maguehellcs Zeroed?
Slack
Temperature
(°F)
Stuck Sldtic
PiL-ssurc
. H2O)
Ambient
Ambient
Pressure
• H9)
Gas
Sybluiu, Leak Check
( > 15 In. Hg>
%co
Gu Composition
Moisture Content
Pilot Leak Check
(Pos) (Neg)
Notes
tn
O
Hun
Time
Foil Ha
Tra« PI
AP
Pilot
AH.
Sample
OQM
Volume
AP
Tola!
AP
Recycle
Stack
Recycle
Probe
LFE
OQM
-------
PI ant
Date
Run no.
Filter no.
Amount liquid lost during transport
Acetone blank volume, ml "
Acetone wash volume, ml
Acetone blank cone., mg/mg (Equation 5-4, Method
Acetone wash blank, mg (Equation 5-5, Method 5)
Container
number
1
3' '
1
I
\
2
(
Weight
Final weight
fotal
.ess acetone blar
teiaht or" PMiQ...
.ess acetone bl ar
"otal particulate
. of particulate
mg
Tare weight
tk
ik
> weight
» matter
Weight gain
Figure 11. EGR method analysis sheet.
-------
Cyclone Interior Dimensions
Din
0.10 in. :.
cm
inches
Dimensions (±0.02 cm, ±0.01 in.)
Din
1.27
0.50.
0
4.47
1.76
D
-------
TABLE 1. PERFORMANCE SPECIFICATIONS FOR SOURCE PM10 CYCLONES
AND NOZZLE COMBINATIONS
Parameter
I-. Collection efficiency
2. Cyclone cut size (Dso)
Units
Percent
Specification
Such that collection
efficiency falls within
envelope specified by
Section 5.7.6 and Figure 13.
10 ± 1 ion aerodynamic
diameter.
TABLE 2. PARTICLE SIZES AND NOMINAL GAS VELOCITIES FOR EFFICIENCY
Particle size (/im)a
Target gas velocities (m/sec)
7 ± 1.0
15 t 1.5
25 ± 2.5
5 ± 0.5
7 ± 0.5
10 ± 0.5
14 ± 1.0
20 ± 1.0
(a) Mass median aerodynamic diameter.
53
-------
This page intentionally left blank.
54
.*
-------
ui
Ln
PI
Ml
H«
O
H-
f»
1
a
M
O
•0
a
n
:r
n
M
§
O
O
m
^
31
f
o
o
t—
§ 5
u» o
PERCENT EFFICIENCY
fei ti 6 B S ^ 8
A
ta
I I I I I
g IS
T~r
J_i I Mill I
-------
EMISSION GAS RECYCLE
DATA REDUCTION
VERSION 3.4 MAY 1986
TEST ID. CODE: CHAPEL HILL 2
TEST LOCATION: BAGHOUSE OUTLET
CHAPEL HILL
10/20/86
JB RH MH
TEST SITE:
TEST DATE:
OPERATORS(S)
TEMPERATURES
T(STK): 251.0 F
T(RCL)-: 259.0 F
T(LFE): 81.0 F
T(DGM): 76.0 F
WATER CONTENT
ESTIMATE : 0.0 %
OR
CONDENSER: 7.0 ML
COLUMN : 0.0 GM
CALIBRATION VALUES
*****ENTERED RUN DATA
SYSTEM PRESSURES
*****
DH(ORI)
OP(TOT)
P(INL)
DP(RCL)
OP(PTO)
1
1.91
12.15
2.21
0.06
18 INWG
INWG
INWG
INWG
INWG
RAW MASSES
CYCLONE 1:
FILTER :
21.7 MG
11.7 MG
IMPINGER
RESIUUE : 0.0 MG
CP(PITOT)
DHG(ORI)
M(TOT LFE)
3(TOT LFE)
M(RCL LFE)
8(RCL LFE)
DGM GAMMA
0.840
10.980
0.2298
-.0058
0.0948
-.0007
0.9940
******
REDUCED DATA
STACK VELOCITY (FT/SEC)
STACK GAS MOISTURE (%)
SAMPLE FLUW RATE (ACFM)
TOTAL FLOW RATE (ACFM)
RECYCLE FLOW RATE (ACFM)
PERCENT RECYCLE
ISOKINETIC RATIO (%)
CYCLONE 1
3ACKUP FILTER
PARTICULATE TOTAL
(UM) (% <)
(PARTICULATE)
10.15 25.3
(MG/DNCM)
56.6
20.5
87.2
MISCELLANEA
P(BAR)
DP(STK)
V(DGM)
TIME
% C02
% 02
NOZ (INK-
BLANK VALUES
CYC RINSE
FILTER HOLDER
RINSE
FILTER BLANK
IMPINGER
RINSE
29.99 INWG
0.10 INWG
13,744 FT3
60.00 MIN
8.00
20.00
0.2500
0.0 MG
0.0 MG
0.0 MG
0.0 MG
15.95
2.4
0.3104
0.5819
' 0.2760
46.7
95.1
(GR/ACF)
0.01794
0.00968
0.02762
(GR/DCF)
0.02470
0.01232
0.03802
(LB/DSCF)
(X 1E6)
3. 52701
i.907
5.444
Figure 14. £xampJe Inputs and outputs of the EGR -eduction program.
-------
METHOD 201A - DETERMINATION OF PM10 EMISSIONS
(Constant Sampling Rate Procedure)
1. Applicability and Principle
1.1 Applicability. This method applies to the in-stack measurement of
particulate matter (PM) emissions equal to or less than an aerodynamic
diameter of nominally 10 fan (PM10) from stationary sources. The EPA
recognizes that condensible emissions not collected by an in-stack method are
also PM10, and that emissions that contribute to ambient PM10 levels are the
sum of condensible emissions and emissions'measured by an in-stack PM10
method, such as this method or Method 201. Therefore, for establishing source
contributions to ambient levels of PM10, such, as for emission inventory
purposes, EPA suggests that source PM10 measurement include both in-stack PM10
and condensible emissions. Condensible emissions may be measured by an
impinger analysis in combination with this method.
1.2 Principle. A gas sample is extracted at a constant flow rate
through an in-stack sizing device, which separates PM greater than PM,0.
Variations from isokinetic sampling conditions are maintained within
well-defined limits. The particulate mass is determined gravimetrically after
removal of uncombined water.
2. Apparatus
NOTE: Methods cited in this method are part of 40 CFR Part 60,
Appendix A.
2.1 Sampling Train. A schematic of the Method-201A sampling train is
shown in Figure 1. With the exception of the PM10 sizing device and in-stack
filter, this train is the same as an EPA Method 17 train.
2.1.1 Nozzle. Stainless steel (316 or equivalent) with a sharp tapered
leading edge. Eleven nozzles that meet the design specifications in Figure 2
57
-------
are recommended. A large number of nozzles with small nozzle increments
increase the likelihood that a single nozzle can be used for the entire
traverse. If the nozzles do not meet the design specifications in Figure 2,
then the nozzles must meet the criteria in Section 5.2.
2.1.2 PM10 Sizer. Stainless steel (316 or equivalent), capable of
determining the PM10 fraction. The sizing device shall be either a cyclone
that meets the specifications in Section 5.2 or a cascade impactor that has
•
beer, calibrated using the procedure"!n Section 5.4.
2.1.3 Filter Holder. 63-mm, stainless steel. An Andersen filter, part
number SE274, has been found to be acceptable for the in-stack filter.
NOTE: Mention of trade names or specific products does not constitute
endorsement by the Environmental Protection Agency.
2.1.4 Pitot Tube. Same as in Method 5, Section .2.1.3. The pitot lines
shall be made of heat resistant tubing and attached to the probe with
stainless steel fittings.
2.1.5 Probe Liner. Optional, same as in Method 5, Section 2.1.2.
2.1.6 Differential Pressure Gauge, Condenser, Metering System,
Barometer, and Gas Density Determination Equipment. Same as in Method 5,
Sections 2.1.4, and 2.1.7 through 2.1.10, respectively.
2.2 Sample Recovery.
2.2.1 Nozzle, Sizing Device, Probe, and Filter Holder Brushes. Nylon
bristle brushes with stainless steel wire shafts and handles, properly sized
and shaped for cleaning the nozzle, sizing device, probe or probe liner, and
filter holders.
2.2.2 Wash Bottles, Glass Sample Storage Containers. Petri Dishes,
Graduated Cylinder and Balance, Plastic Storage Containers, Funnel and Rubber
58
-------
Policeman, and Funnel. Same as in Method 5, Sections 2.2.2 through 2.2.8,
respectively.
2.3 Analysis. Same as in Method 5, Section 2.3.
3. Reagents
The reagents for sampling, sample recovery, and analysis are the same as
that specified in Method 5, Sections 3.1, 3.2, and 3.3, respectively.
4, Procedure
4.1 Sampling. The complexity of this method is such that, in order to
obtain reliable results, testers should be trained and experienced with the
test procedures.
4.1.1 Pretest Preparation. Same as in Method 5, Section 4.1.1.
4.1.2 Preliminary Determinations. Same as in Method 5, Section 4.1.2,
except use the directions on nozzle size selection and sampling time in this
method. Use of any nozzle greater that 0.16 in. in diameter require a
sampling port diameter of 6 inches. Also, the required maximum number of
traverse points at any location shall be 12.
4.1.2.1 The sizing device must be in-stack or maintained at stack
temperature during sampling. The blockage effect of the CSR sampling assembly
will be minimal if the cross-sectional area of the sampling assemble is
3 percent or less of the cross-sectional area of the duct. If the
cross-sectional area of the assembly is greater than 3 percent of the
cross-sectional area of the duct, then either determine the pitot coefficient
at sampling conditions or use a standard pitot with a known coefficient in a
configuration with the CSR sampling assembly such that flow disturbances are
iTiinimized.
59
-------
4.1.2.2 The setup calculations can be performed by using the following
procedures.
4.1.2.2.1 In order to maintain a cut size of 10 /on in the sizing
device, the flow rate through the sizing device must be maintained at a
constant, discrete value during the run. If the sizing device is a cyclone
that meets the design specifications in Figure 3, use the equations in
Figure 4 to calculate three orifice heads (AH): one at the average stack
temperature, and the other two at temperatures ±28*C (±50*F) of the average
stack temperature. Use the AH calculated at the average stack temperature as
the pressure head for the sample flow rate as long as the stack temperature
during the run is within 28"C (50*F) of the average stack temperature. If the
stack temperature varies by more than 28'C (50*F), then use the
appropriate AH.
4,1.2.2.2 If the sizing device is a cyclone that does not meet the
design specifications in Figure 3, use the equations in Figure 4, except use
the procedures in Section 5.3 to determine Qs, the correct cyclone flow rate
for a 10 iim cut size-.
4.1.2.2.3 To select a nozzle, use the equations in Figure 5 to
calculate Apmin and Apraax for each nozzle at all three temperatures. If the
sizing device is a cyclone that does not meet the design specifications in
Figure 3, the example worksheets can be used.
4.1.2.2.4 Correct the Method 2 pi tot readings to Method 201A pi tot
readings by multiplying the Method 2 pitot readings by the square of a ratio
of the Method 201A pitot coefficient to the Method 2 pitot coefficient.
Select the nozzle for which Apmin and ApTOX bracket all of the corrected
Method 2 pitot readings. If more than one nozzle meets this requirement,
SO
-------
select the nozzle giving the greatest symmetry. Note that if the expected
pi tot reading for one or more points is near a limit for a chosen nozzle, it
may be outside the limits at the time of the run.
4.1.2.2.5 Vary the dwell time, or sampling time, at each traverse point
proportionately with the point velocity. Use the equations in Figure 6 to
calculate the dwell time at the first point and at each subsequent point. It
is recommended that the number of minutes sampled at each point be rounded to
the nearest 15 seconds.
4.1.3 Preparation of Collection Train. Same as in Method 5,
Secti-on 4.1.3, except omit directions about a glass cyclone.
4.1.4 Leak-Check Procedure. The sizing device is removed before the
post-test leak-check to prevent any disturbance of the collected sample prior
to analysis.
4.1.4.1 Pretest Leak-Check. A pretest leak-check of the entire
sampling train, including the sizing device, is required. Use the leak-check
procedure in Method 5, Section 4.1.4.1 to conduct a pretest leak-check.
4.1.4.2 Leak-Checks During Sample Run. Same as in Method 5,
Section 4.1.4.1.
. 4.1.4.3 Post-Test Leak-Check. A leak-check is required at the
conclusion of each sampling run. Remove the cyclone before the leak-check to
prevent the vacuum created by the cooling of the probe from disturbing the
collected sample and use the procedure in Method 5, Section 4.1.4.3 to conduct
a post-test leak-check.
4.1.5 Method 201A Train Operation. Same as in Method 5, Section 4.1.5,
except use the procedures in this section for isokinetic sampling and flow
rate adjustment. Maintain the flow rate calculated in Section 4.1.2.2.1
61
-------
throughout the run provided the stack temperature is within 28*C (50*F) of the
temperature used to calculate AH. If stack temperatures vary by more than
28*C (50'F), use the appropriate AH value-calculated in Section 4.1.2.2.1.
Calculate the dwell time at each traverse point as in Figure 6.
4.1.6 Calculation of Percent Isokinetic Rate, and Aerodynamic Cut Size
(D50). Calculate percent isokinetic rate and D50 (see Calculations, Section 6)
to determine whether the test was' valid or another test run should be made.
If there was difficulty in maintaining isokinetic sampling rates within the
prescribed range, or if the Dso is not in its proper range because of source
conditions, the Administrator may be consulted for possible variance.
4.2 Sample Recovery. If a cascade impactor is used, use the
manufacturer's recommended procedures for sample recovery. If a cyclone is
used, use the same sample recovery as that in Method 5, Section 4.2, except an
increased number of sample recovery containers is required.
4.2.1 Container Number 1 (In-Stack Filter}.. The recovery shall be the
same as that for Container Number 1 in Method 5, Section 4.2.
4.2.3 Container Number_2 (Cyclone or Large PM Catch). This step is
optional. The anisokinetic error for the cyclone PM is theoretically larger
than the error for the PM10 catch. Therefore, adding all the fractions to get
a total PM catch is not as accurate as Method 5 or Method 201. Disassemble
the cyclone and remove the nozzle to recover the large PM catch.
Quantitatively recover the PM from the interior surfaces of the nozzle and
cyclone, excluding the "turn around" cup and the interior surfaces of the exit
tube. The recovery shall be the same as that for Container Number 2 in
Method 5, Section 4.2.
62
-------
4.2.4 Container Number 3 (PM10). Quantitatively recover the PM from
all of the surfaces from the cyclone exit to the front half of the in-stack
filter holder, including the "turn around" cup inside the cyclone and the
interior surfaces of the exit tube. The recovery shall be the same as that
for Container Number 2 in Method 5, Section 4.2.
4.2.6 Container Number 4 (Silica Gel). The recovery shall be the same
as that for Container Number 3 in Method 5, Section 4.2.
4.2.7 Imoinger Water. Same as in Method 5, Section 4.2, under
"Impinger Water."
4.3 Analysis. Same as in Method 5, Section 4.3, except handle
Method 201A Container Number 1 like Container Number 1, Method 201A Container
Numbers 2 and 3 like Container Number 2, and Method 201A Container Number ,4
like Container Number 3. Use Figure 7 to record the weights of PM collected.
Use Figure 5-3 in Method 5, Section 4.3, to record the volume of water
collected.
4.4 Quality Control Procedures. Same as in Method 5, Section 4.4.
5. Calibration
Maintain an accurate laboratory log of all calibrations.
5.1 Probe Nozzle> Pi tot Tube, Metering System, Probe Heater
Calibration, Temperature Gauges, Leak-check of Metering System, and Barometer.
Same as in Method 5, Section 5.1 through 5.7, respectively.
5.2 Probe Cyclone and Nozzle Combinations. The probe cyclone and
nozzle combinations need not be calibrated if both meet design specifications
in Figures 2 and 3. If the nozzles do not meet design specifications, then
test the cyclone and nozzle combinations for conformity with performance
specifications (PS's) in Table 1. If the cyclone does not meet design
63
-------
specifications, then the cyclone and nozzle combination shall conform to the
PS's and calibrate the cyclone to determine the relationship between flow
rate, gas viscosity, and gas density. Use the procedures in Section 5.2 to
conduct PS. tests and the procedures in Section 5.3 to calibrate the cyclone.
The purpose of the PS tests are to confirm that the cyclone and nozzle
combination has the desired sharpness of cut. Conduct the PS tests in a wind
tunnel described in Section 5.2.1 and particle generation system described in
Section 5.2.2. Use five particle sizes and three wind velocities as listed in
Table 2. A minimum of three replicate measurements of collection efficiency
shall be performed for each of the 15 conditions listed, for a minimum of 45
measurements.
5.2.1 Wind Tunnel. Perform the calibration and PS tests in a wind
«
tunnel (or equivalent test apparatus) capable of establishing and maintaining
the required gas stream velocities within 10 percent.
5.2.2 Particle Generation System. The particle generation system shall
be capable of producing solid monodispersed dye particles with the mass median
aerodynamic diameters specified in Table 2. Perform the particle size
distribution verification on an integrated sample obtained during the sampling
period of each test. An acceptable alternative is to verify the size
distribution of samples obtained before and after each test, with both samples
required to meet the diameter and monodispersity requirements for an
acceptable test run.
5.2.2.1 Establish the size of the solid dye particles delivered to the
test section of the wind tunnel by using the operating parameters of the
particle generation system, and verify them during the tests by microscopic
examination of samples of the particles collected on a membrane filter. The
64
-------
particle size, as established by the operating parameters of the generation
system, shall be within the tolerance specified in Table 2. The precision of
the particle size verification technique shall be at least ±0.5 /an, and
particle size determined by the verification technique shall not differ by
more than 10 percent from that established by the operating parameters of the
particle generation system.
5.2.2.2. Certify the monodispersity of the particles for each test
either by microscopic inspection of collected particles on filters or by other
suitable monitoring techniques such as an optical particle counter followed by
a multichannel pulse height analyzer. If the proportion of multiplets and
satellites in an aerosol; 'exceeds 10 percent by mass, the particle generation
system is unacceptable for the purpose of this test. Multiplets are particles
that are agglomerated, and satellites are particles that are smaller than the
specified size range.
5.2.3 Schematic Drawings.. Schematic drawings of the wind tunnel and
blower system and other information showing complete procedural details of the
test atmosphere generation, verification, and delivery techniques shall be
furnished with calibration data to the reviewing agency.
5.2.4 Flow Measurements. Measure the cyclone air flow rates with a dry
gas meter and a stopwatch, or a calibrated orifice system capable of measuring
flow rates to within 2 percent.
5.2.5 Performance Specification Procedure. Establish test particle
generator operation and verify particle size microscopically. If
monodispersity is to be verified by measurements at the beginning and the end
of the run rather than by an integrated sample, these measurements may be made
at this time.
-------
5.2.5.1 The cyclone cut size, or D50, of a cyclone is defined here as
the particle size having a 50 percent probability of penetration. Determine
the cyclone flow rate at which D5Q is 10 /an. A suggested procedure is to vary
the cyclone flow rate while keeping a constant particle size of 10 im.
Measure the PM. collected in the cyclone (mc), the exit tube (n^), and the
filter (mf). Calculate cyclone efficiency (Ec) for each flow rate as follows:
flu
(mc
X 100
5.2.5.2 Do three replicates and calculate the average cyclone
efficiency [Ec{axg)j as follows:
E3)/3
where £,,, Er and E3 are replicate measurements of Ec..
5.2.5.3 Calculate, the standard deviation (a) for the replicate
measurements of Ec as follows:
C 2 , C 2\ .
t2 + t3 ;
(Et + E2 4- E3):
3.
If a exceeds 0.10, repeat the replicated runs.
5,2.5.4 Measure the overall efficiency of the cyclone and nozzle, E0,
at the particle sizes and nominal gas velocities in Table 2 using the
following procedure.
-------
5.2.5.5 Set the air velocity and particle size from one of the
conditions in Table 2. Establish isokinetic sampling conditions and the
correct flow rate in the cyclone (obtained by procedures in this section) such
that the Dso is 10 /an. Sample long enough to obtain ±5 percent precision on
total collected mass as determined by the precision and the sensitivity of
measuring technique. Determine separately the nozzle catch (mn), cyclone
catch (mc), cyclone exit tube (Mt), and collection filter catch (mf) for each
particle size and nominal gas velocity in Table 2. Calculate overall
efficiency (E0) as follows:
(m + m )
E0 - X 100 .
(">n + mc + !"t + mf)
•
5.2.5.6 Do three replicates for each combination of gas velocity and
particle size in Table 2. Use the equation below to calculate the average
overall efficiency [Eo( »] for each combination following the procedures
described in this section for determining efficiency.
where E1? E2, and E3 are replicate measurements of E0.
5.2.5.7 Use the formula in Section 5.2.5.3 to calculate a for the
replicate measurements. If a exceeds 0.10 or if the particle sizes and
nominal gas velocities are not within the limits specified in Table 2, repeat
the replicate runs.
5.2.5 Criteria for Acceptance. For each of the three gas stream
velocities, plot the Ea(avg) as a function of particle size on Figure 8. Draw
57
-------
smooth curves through all particle sizes. Eo(avg) shall be within the banded
region for all sizes, and the Ec(avg) shall be 50 ± 0.5 percent at 10 tan.
5.3 Cyclone Calibration Procedure. The purpose of this procedure is to
develop the relationship between flow rate, gas viscosity, gas density, and
DSD-
5.3.1 Calculate Cyclone Flow Rate. Determine flow rates and D50's for
three different particle sizes between 5 /un and 15 pm, one of which shall be
10 fan. All sizes must be determined within 0.5 /urn. For each size, use a
different temperature within 60*C (108*F) of the temperature at which the
cyclone is to be used and conduct triplicate runs. A suggested procedure is
to keep the particle size constant and vary the flow rate.
5.3.1.1 On log-log graph paper, plot the Reynolds number (Re) on the
abscissa, and the square, root of the Stokes 50 number [(Stk^)3*] on the
ordinate for each temperature. Use the following equations to compute both
values:
Re
4 ft Q,
eye
cyc
where:
•'eye
ft
eye
(deye)3
Cyclone flow rate, cm3/sec.
Gas density, g/cm3.
Diameter of cyclone inlet, cm.
Viscosity of gas through the cyclone, micropoise.
68
-------
Dso - Aerodynamic diameter of a particle having a 50 percent
probability of penetration, cm.
5.3.1.2 Use a linear regression analysis to determine the slope (m) and
the Y-intercept (b). Use the following formula to determine Q, the cyclone
flow rate required for a cut size of 10 /on.
eye
(3000)(K1)-b
-(0.5-m)
m/(m-0.5)
d
where:
m « Slope of the calibration line.
b » y-intercept of the calibration line.
. Qs - Cyclone flow rate for a cut size of 10 /«n, cm3/sec.
d » Diameter of nozzle, cm.
Ts =» Stack gas temperature, *R.
Ps = Abso.lute stack pressure, in. Hg..
Mc = Molecular weight of the stack gas, Ib/lb-mole.
Kt - 4.077-x 10~3.
5.3.1.3 Refer to the Method 201A operators manual, entitled Application
Guide for Source PMIO Measurement with Constant Sampling Rate, for directions
in the use of this equation for Q in the setup calculations.
5.4 Cascade Impactor. The purpose of calibrating a cascade impactor is
to determine the empirical constant (Stkso), which is specific to the impactor
and which permits the accurate determination of the cut sizes of the impactor
stages at field conditions. It is not necessary to calibrate each individual
impactor. Once an impactor has been calibrated, the calibration data can be
applied to other impactors of identical design.
5.4.1 Wind Tunnel. Same as in Section 5.2.1.
€9
-------
5.4.2 Particle Generation System. Same as in Section 5.2.2.
5.4.3 Hardware Configuration for Calibrations. An impaction stage
constrains an aerosol to form circular or rectangular jets, which are directed
toward a suitable substrate where the larger aerosol particles are collected.
For calibration purposes, three stages of the cascade impactor shall be
discussed and designated calibration stages 1, 2, and 3. The first
calibration stage consists of the collection substrate of an impaction stage
and all upstream surfaces up to and including the nozzle. This may include
t
other preceding impactor stages. The second and third calibration stages
consist of each respective collection substrate and all upstream surfaces up
to but excluding the collection substrate of the preceding calibration stage.
This may include intervening impactor stages which are not designated as
«
calibration stages. The cut size, or D50, of the adjacent calibration stages
shall differ by a factor of not less than 1.5 and not more than 2.0. For
example, if the first calibration stage has a 05Q of 12 Mm. then the 050 of the
downstream stage shall be between 6 and 8 jun.
5.4.3.1 It is expected, but not necessary, that the complete hardware
assembly will be used in each of the sampling runs of the calibration and
performance determinations. Only the first calibration stage must be tested
under isokinetic sampling conditions. The second and third calibration stages
must be calibrated with the collection substrate of the preceding calibration
stage in place, so that gas flow patterns existing in field operation will be
simulated.
5.4.3.2 Each of the PM1Q stages should be calibrated with the type of
collection substrate, viscid material (such as grease) or glass fiber, used in
PM10 measurements. Note that most materials used as substrates at elevated
70
-------
temperatures are not viscid at normal laboratory conditions. The substrate
material used for calibrations should minimize particle bounce, yet be viscous
enough to withstand erosion or deformation by the impactor jets and not
interfere with the procedure for measuring the collected PM.
5.4.4 Calibration Procedure. Establish test particle generator
operation and verify particle size microscopically. If monodispersity is to
be verified by measurements at the beginning and the end of the run rather
than by an integrated sample, these measurements shall be made at this time.
Measure in triplicate the PM collected by the calibration stage (m-) and the PM
on all surfaces downstream of the respective calibration stage (m') for all of
the flow rates.and particle size combinations shown in Table 2. Techniques of
mass measurement may include the use of a dye and spectrophotometer.
Particles on the upstream side of a jet plate shall be included with the
substrate downstream, except agglomerates of particles, which shall be
included with the preceding or upstream substrate.- Use the following formula
to calculate the collection efficiency (E) for each stage.
5.4.4.1 Use the formula in Section 5.2.5.3 to calculate the standard
deviation (a) for the replicate measurements. If a exceeds 0.10, repeat the
replicate runs.
5.4.4.2 Use the following formula to calculate the average collection
efficiency (Eavg) for each set of replicate measurements.
Eavg > (E, + E2 + E3)/3
where E,, E7, and £3 are replicate measurements of E.
71
-------
5.4.4.3 Use the following formula to calculate Stk for each Eavg.
D2 Q
Stk
9 n A dj
where:
0 - Aerodynamic diameter of the test particle, cm (g/cm3)3*.
Q - Gas flow rate through the calibration stage at inlet conditions,
cm3/sec.
/i * Gas viscosity, micropoise.
A » Total cross-sectional area of the jets of the calibration stage,
cm2.
dj - Diameter of one jet of the calibration stage, cm.
5.4.4.4 Determine Stk50 for each calibration stage by plotting Eavg
versus Stk on log-log paper. Stkso is the Stk number at 50 percent
efficiency. Note that particle bounce can cause efficiency to decrease at
high values of Stk. Thus, 50 percent efficiency can occur at multiple values
of Stk. The calibration data should clearly indicate the value of Stkso for
minimum particle bounce. Impactor efficiency versus Stk with minimal particle
bounce is characterized by a monotonically increasing function with constant
or increasing slope with increasing Stk.
5.4.4.5 The Stkso of the first calibration stage can potentially
decrease with decreasing nozzle size. Therefore, calibrations should be
performed with enough nozzle sizes to provide a measured value within
25 percent of any nozzle size used in PM10 measurements.
5.4.5 Criteria For Acceptance. Plot Eavg for the first calibration
stage versus the square root of the ratio of Stk to Stkso-on Figure 9. Draw a
72
-------
smooth curve through all of the points. The curve shall be within the banded
region.
6. Calculations
6.1 Nomenclature.
Bws » Moisture fraction of stack, by volume, dimensionless.
Ct - Viscosity constant, 51.12 raicropoise for *K (51.05 micropoise
for *R).
C2 - Viscosity constant, 0.372 micropoise/'K (0.207 micropoise/'R).
C3 - Viscosity constant, 1.05 x 10"4 micropoise/'K*
(3.24 x 10"5 micropoise/*R2).
C4 » Viscosity constant, 53.147 raicropoise/fraction 02.
C5 - Viscosity Constant, 74.143 micropoise/fraction H20.
D50 » Diameter of particles having a 50 percent probability of
penetration, /jm.
f0 = Stack gas fraction 02, by volume, dry basis.
K! » 0.3858 °K/mm Hg (17.64 'R/in. Hg).
Mc = Wet molecular weight of mixed gas through the PM10 cyclone,
g/g-mole (Ib/lb-mole).
Md - Dry molecular weight of stack gas, g/g-mole (Ib/lb-mole).
Pbar = Barometric pressure at sampling site, mm Hg (in. Hg).
P, = Absolute stack pressure, mm Hg (in. Hg).
Qs = Total cyclone flow rate at wet cyclone conditions, m3/min
(ft3/min).
Qs(std) = "^otal cyclone flow rate at standard conditions, dscm/min
(dscf/min).
Tm - Average absolute temperature of dry meter, *K (*R).
73
-------
Ts - Average absolute stack gas temperature, *K (*R).
Vw(std) - Volume of water vapor in gas sample (standard conditions),
son (scf).
9 - Total sampling time, min.
J*cyc " Viscosity of mixed cyclone gas, micropoise.
/istd - Viscosity of standard air, 180.1 micropoise.
6.2 Analysis of Cascade Impactor Data. Use the manufacturer's
recommended procedures to analyze data from cascade impactors.
6.3 Analysis of Cyclone Data. Use the following procedures to analyze
data from a single stage cyclone.
6.3.1 PM10 Weight. Determine the PM catch in the PM10 range from the
sum of the weights obtained from Container Numbers 1 and 3 less the acetone
o
blank. .
6.3.2 Total PM Weight (optional). Determine the PM catch for greater
than PMIO from the weight obtained from Container Number 2 less the acetone
blank, and add it to the PM1Q weight.
6.3.3 PM10 Fraction. Determine the PM10 fraction of the total
particulate weight by dividing the PM:0 particulate weight by the total
particulate weight.
6.3.4 Aerodynamic Cut Size. Calculate the stack gas viscosity as
follows:
Mcyc a Cx + C2 Ts + C3 Ts2 + C4 f02 - C5 Bws
74-
-------
6.3.4.1 The PM10 flow rate, at actual cyclone conditions, is calculated
as follows:
V*(std)
6.3.4.2 Calculate the molecular weight on a wet basis of the stack gas
as follows:
MC - Md(l - BJ + 18.0(BJ
6.3.4.3 Calculate the actual 050 of the cyclone for the given
conditions as follows:
[ TS ]
L MC PS .
0.2091
"eye
L Qs J
10.7091
'so
where Bt - 0.027754 for metric units (0.15625 for English units).
6.3.5 Acceptable Results. The results are acceptable if two conditions
are met. The first is that 9.0 /un < D50 < 11.0 /an. The second is that, no
sampling points are outside Apmin and Apmax, or that 80 percent < I <. 120
percent and no more than one sampling point is outside Apmin and Apm
is less than 9.0 /an, reject the results and repeat the test.
max. If Dso
75
-------
7. Bibliography
1. Same as Bibliography in Method 5.
2. McCain, J.D., J.W. Ragland, and A.O. Williamson. Recommended
Methodology for the Determination of Particle Size Distributions in Ducted
Sources, Final Report. Prepared for the California Air Resources Board by
Southern Research Institute. May 1986.
3. Farthing, W.E., S.S. Dawes, A.D. Williamson, J.D. McCain, R.S.
Martin, and J.W. Ragland. Development of Sampling Methods for Source PM10
Emissions. Southern Research Institute for the Environmental Protection
Agency. April 1989. MTIS PB 89 190375, EPA/600/3-88-056.
4. Application Guide for Source PM10 Measurement with Constant Sampling
Rate. EPA/600/3-88-057.
76
-------
PM10
SAMPLER
NOZZLE
X
•S"TYPE
PITOT TUBE
FILTER HOLDER
HEATED PROBE
IMPINGER TRAIN
THERMOMETER
1}
DISTILLED WATER EMPTY SIL(CAGEL
INCLINED
MANOMETER
FLOW CONTROL SYSTEM COARSE
. CALIBRATED
GAS ± ORIFICE
EXIT
VACUUM
PUMP
INCLINED
MANOMETER
DRY GAS
METER
Figure 1. CSR Sampling Train
76A
-------
ttozale
Diameter
(inches)
Cone
Angle, 9
(degrees)
0.136
0.150
0.164
0.130
0.197
0.215
0.233
0.264
0.300
0.342
0.390
4
4
5
6
6
6
6
5
4
4
3
Outside
taper, $
(degrees)
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
Straight inlet
length, t
(inches)
Total Length
L
(inches)
<0.05
<0.05
-------
Cyclone Interior Dimensions
Din
I
0.10 in. C
•O'
•Ocup-
4
H
r
T T
t
et
Heup.
cm
inches
Dimensions (±0.02 cm, ±0.01 in.)
Gin
U7
O.SQ.
a
4.47
1.76
De
1.50
a.59
3
1.32
0.74.
H
S.3S
2.74
h
124
Q.8S
Z
4.71
1.35
S
1.S7
O.S2
Heap
2.25
0.33
Dcup
4.45
1.75-
°;
1.Q2
0.40
0
t,:
;].•
Figure 3. Cyclone design specifications.
-------
Barometric pressure, Puar, in. Hg
Stack static pressure, Pg, in. H20
Average stack temperature, ts, F
Meter temperature, tm, *F
Orifice AH8, in. H20
Gas analysis:
%C02
%o2
%N2 + SCO
Fraction moisture content, Bws
Molecular weight of stack gas, dry basis:
Md - 0.44 (%C02) + 0.32 (%02) + 0.28 (%N2 + %CO) -
Jb/lb mole
Molecular weight of stack gas, wet basis:
Mw - Md (1-BWS> + 18 (BW8) » Ib/lb mole
Absolute stack pressure:
P -P +-^-.
$ ""• 13.6 -
.in. Hg
Viscosity of stack gas:.
/is - 152.418 + 0.2552 ts + 3'.2355xlO"5 ts2 + 0.53147 (%02)
74.143 B,
WS
micropoise
Cyclone flow rate:
0.002837
(ts + 460)
0.2949
ftymin
Figure 4. Example worksheet 1 (Page 1 of 2), cyclone flow rate and AH.
79
-------
Orifice pressure head (AH) needed for cyclone flow rate:
460) Md 1.083 AH3
AH
ts + 460
bar
in.H20
Calculate AH for three temperatures:
'*.. 'F
AH, in. H20
Figure 4. Example worksheet 1 (Page 2 of 2), cyclone flow rate and AH.
30.
-------
Stack viscosity, /is> micropoise
Absolute stack pressure, Ps, in- Hg
Average stack temperature, ts, *F
Meter temperature, t_, *F
Method 201A pitot coefficient, C
Cyclone flow rate, ft3/rain, Q
Method 2 pitot coefficient, C '
Molecular weight of stack gas, wet basis, Mw
Nozzle diameter, Dn, in.
Nozzle velocity
3.056 Qs
ft/sec
Maximum and minimum velocities:
v * v
mm n
0.2457
0.3072 -
0.2603
1.5
ft/sec
max ~ n
r 0.2603 Q,"5 it.
0.4457 + 0.5690 -r
1.5
ft/sec
Figure 5. Example worksheet 2 (page 1 of 2), nozzle selection.
31
-------
Maximum and minimum velocity head values:
Bln)
Apm1n - 1.3686 x 10-
(vBln)2
(t, + 460) Cp2
in. H20
" 1-3686 x 10'4
P.
(t, + 460) Cp2
in. H20
Nozzle number
Dn. in.
vn. ft/sec
vra1 . ft/sec
v^^. ft/sec
Abmin. in. H.,0
APn,,-,. in. H,0
Velocity traverse data:
Ap (Method 20 1A) « Ap (Method Z)
Figure 5. Example worksheet 2 (page 2 of 2), nozzle selection.
-------
Total run time, minutes
Number of traverse points
LAP'
avg
(Total run time)
(Number of points)
where:
tt » dwell time at first traverse point, minutes.
Ap': =• the velocity head at the first traverse point (from a previous
traverse), in. H20.
Ap'avg - the square of the average square root of the Ap's (from a
previous velocity traverse), in. H20.
At subsequent traverse points, measure the velocity Ap and
calculate the dwell time by using the following equation:
ti
tn » (Apn)1/z, n- 2,3,...total number of sampling points
where:
t., =» dwell time at traverse point n, minutes.
Apn =» measured velocity head at point n, in. H20.
Apj * measured velocity head at point 1, in. H20.
Figure 6. Example worksheet 3 (page 1 of 2), dwell time.
33
-------
Port
Point Number Ap t Ap t Ap t Ap t
4 "
6
Figure 6. Example worksheet 3 (page 2 of 2), dwell time,
34
-------
PI ant
Date
Run no.
Filter no.
Amount of liquid lost during transport
Acetone blank volume,, nil
Acetone wash volume, ml (4)
(5)
Acetone blank cone., mg/mg (Equation 5-4, Method 5)_
Acetone wash blank, mg (Equation 5-5, Method 5) ~
Container
number
1
3
Weight of RMjo
mg
Final weight
Tare weight
Total ....... ..
Less acetone blank.....................
Weight, of PM10.....
Weight gain
Figure 7. Method 201A analysis sheet..
35
-------
TABLE 1. PERFORMANCE SPECIFICATIONS FOR SOURCE PM10 CYCLONES
AND NOZZLE COMBINATIONS
Parameter
Units
Specification
1. Collection efficiency
Percent
2. Cyclone cut size (Dso)
{OR
Such that collection
efficiency falls within
envelope specified by
Section 5.2.6 and Figure 8.
10 ± 1 (an aerodynamic
diameter.
TABLE 2. PARTICLE SIZES AND NOMINAL GAS VELOCITIES FOR EFFICIENCY
Particle size (/an)a
5 ± 0.5
7 ± 0.5
10 ± 0.5
14 ± 1.0
20 ± 1.0
Target gas velocities (m/sec)
7 ± 1.0
•
15 ± 1.5
25 ± 2.5
*
1
(a) Mass median aerodynamic diameter.
36
-------
CO
o
00
PI
H>
Hi
H-
ft
9
n
I
o
A
O
h
PERCENT EFFICIENCY
H 6 a a a 8
S *
o
i «
•o
o __
3
» —
n
o
2 .
2 M
(D t->
8
A
u>
«a
A
A
a
1_| I 11)11 I
8 tt
1 1 1 1 1 1
-------
o
ui
u
M»
10
5
35 "*"
90 I—
30
70
60
SO
40
30
0.1
17 < v < 27 IB/S
9 < y < 17 n/s
•» < 9 m/a
0.4 0.5
V STK /
IHl-41
Figure 9. Efficiency envelope for first calibration stage.
-------
Appendix B
-------
PN10 EMISSION FACTORS
FORA
STONE CRUSHING PLANT
DEISTER VIBRATING
AND CRUSHER
Prepared for:
WW1am C. Ford, P.E.
National Stone Association
Director of Environmental Programs
1415 Elliot Place, N.Vi.
Washington, D.C. 20007
Prepared by:
Or. John Richards, P.E. and Todd Brozell
Control Equipment Testing And Optimization Division
Entropy Environmentalists, Inc.
P.O. Box 12291
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27709-2291
Entropy Project 11236
DECEMBER 1992
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 Summary 1
1.1 Test Procedures and Results 1
1.2 Key Personnel 2
2.0 Plant and Sampling Location Description 3
2.1 Process Description and Operation 3
2.2 Fugitive Dust Control 5
2.3 Sampling and Emission Testing Procedures 5
2.4 Monitoring of Process Operating-Conditions 14
3.0 Test Results 16
3.1 Objectives and Test Matrix 16
3.2 Stone Moisture Levels 17
3.3 Ambient PM10 Concentrations 17
3.4 Stone Production Rates 18
3.5 PM10 Emission Factors 19
4.0 QA/QC Activities 22
4.1 QC Procedures 22
4.2 Velocity/Volumetric Flow Rate Determination 22
4.3 QA Audits 23
4.4 Parti oil ate/Condensibles Sampling QC Procedures 23
4.6 Sample Volume and Percent Isokinetics 24
4.7 Manual Sampling Equipment Calibration Procedures 25
4.8 Data Validation 26
5.0 References 28
6.0 SI ossary 29
Appendix A. Field Data and Results Tabulation
Appendix B. Raw Field Data Sheets
Appendix C. Calibration Da
Appendix D. Sampling Log at
Appendix E. Moisture Analyi
Appendix F. Audit Data Shet
-------
1.0 SUMMARY
1.1 TEST PROCEDURES AND RESULTS
The National Stone Association (NSA) sponsored this PM10 emission test
program In order to determine PM10 emission factors applicable to various
process units at stone crushing plants. The test site was the Vulcan
Materials, Inc. facility 1n Skippers, Virginia. The specific sources tested
were a 7 foot heavy duty shorthead Simmons cone crusher (T crusher) and an 8
by 20 foot Dei star vibrating screen. Entropy Environmentalists, Inc. (Entropy)
developed the emission testing program and conducted the.PM1Q emission tests.
A Quasi-stack system was used to conduct emission tests on the Inlet and
outlet of the 7' crusher. Small enclosures were Installed at both locations.
Clean make-up air from HEPA filters was blown Into each enclosure at a rate
approximately equal to the exhaust gas stream flow rate being drawn to the
emission sampling location. Using this testing approach, all of the PM10
emissions from the crusher inlet and outlet were efficiently captured and
adjacent sources of PM10 emissions did not affect the results.
The Deister vibrating screen emission tests were conducted using a track-
mounted hood system. The hood has dimensions of 2 feet by 2 feet and was
mounted 12 inches above the upper screen deck of the Deister Screen. The small
scale and the mounting position of the hood ensured that the normal PM10
emissions were not significantly influenced by the presence of the hood. The
capture velocity in the hood was set by adjusting the variable speed DC motor
of the tubeaxial fan installed on the hood outlet duct. The hood capture
velocity was selected based on observations of the fugitive dust capture
characteristics of the hood. This testing approach is an adaptation of the
conventional "roof monitoring" technique for fugitive emission testing.
The PM10 emissions were tested using EPA Method 201A. The tests were
divided into two sets: stone moisture levels greater than 1.5%, and stone
moisture levels less than 1.5%. The results of the PM10 emission tests are
presented in Table 1. The emission rates determined during both series of
tests on the 7' crusher and the Deister screen were low. These wet stone
emission factor results are entirely consistent with the zero visible emissions
operating conditions observed during all of these tests. Stone samples
obtained during each of the tests were also analyzed and found to have very low
levels of material below approximately less than 10 microns.
TABLE 1. CRUSHER PM10 EMISSIONS
PM10 Source Stone Moisture PM10 Emissions
(% Height) (Pounds/Ton)
Crusher « 1.5%) 0.00397
(> 1.5%) 0.00026
Deister Screen « 1.5%) 0.02701
(> 1.5%) 0.00103
-------
1.2 KEY PERSONNEL
The National Stone Association Project Manager was Mr. Bill Ford. He was
assisted by Mr. Ronnie Walker of Vulcan Materials, Inc. The Entropy project
manager was Mr. Todd Brozell. - Technical assistance was provided by Mr. Bill
K1rk and Dr. John Richards of Entropy. The tests were observed by Mr. Solomon
Ricks of the U.S. EPA, OAQPS Emission Measurement Branch, Mr. Dennis Shipraan of
the U.S. EPA, OAQPS Emission Inventory Branch, Mr. Horace Wilson of Martin
Marietta, and Mr. Steve Witt of Martin Marietta. A summary of the key
personnel and their phone number are provided in Table 2.
TABLE 2. KEY PERSONNEL
Telephone Numbers
National Stone Association
Mr. Bill Ford (202) 342-1100
Vulcan Materials, Inc.
Mr. Ronnie Walker (804) 634-4158
Martin Marietta
Mr. Horace Wilson (919) 781-4550
Mr. Steve Witt (919) 781-4550
U.S. EPA, Emission Inventory Branch
Mr. Dennis Shipraan (919) 541-5477
U.S. EPA, Emission Measurement Branch
Mr. Soloman Ricks (919) 541-5242
Entropy Environmentalists, Inc.
Mr. Todd Brozell (919) 781-3550
Mr. Bill Kirk (919) 781-3550
Dr. John Richards (919) 781-3550
-------
2.0 PLANT AND SAMPLING LOCATION DESCRIPTION
2.1 PROCESS DESCRIPTION AND OPERATION
The Skippers, Virginia plant produces crushed granite used for road paving
and construction. Figure 1 provides a simplified flowchart of the portion of
the plant relevant to this emission testing program. The primary surge pile
shown in the upper right of Figure 1 1s rock which has been conveyed from the
large surge pile of rock in the quarry. The stone is then conveyed via Stream
1 to the 7' X 20' vibrating screens and the coarse product is conveyed via
Stream 2 to the coarse surge pile. The coarse product is transported via
Streams 3 and 4 to the 7' heavy duty shorthead Simmons Cone Crusher (hereafter
referred to as the 7' crusher). Entropy monitored the stone feed rate leaving
the 7' crusher by weighing a two foot section of Stream 5 and multiplying this
weight by the speed of the belt.
The 7' crusher reduces the size distribution of the material received from
the coarse surge pile. Stone leaving the 7' crusher ranges in size from 3
inches to relatively small particles. The material from the 7' crusher
discharges onto a conveyor (Stream 5) leading to the outlets of two Model 1560
omni cone crushers. Following the orani cone crushers discharge, the main feed
conveyor (Stream 6) contains all of the plant production with the exception of
oversized product. The main feed conveyor (Stream 6) delivers the stone to the
top of the structure housing the Deister vibrating screens. The plant operates
a scale on this conveyor to calculate total dally tonnage from all three
crushers to the 8' X 20' screens. Entropy also used this scale as a basis for
calculations of the Deister screen.
The stone flow to the Deister screens and the orani cone crushers is
termed "closed circuit" since oversized material containing some fines adhering
to the surface can reelrculate through the Deister and ornni cone crushers until
the stone is crushed small enough to fall through the Deister screen. The 7'
crusher that Entropy tested however had no reelrculated stone flowing through
it.
The Deister decks are 8 feet wide by 20 feet long and are inclined on a
20 degree slope. There are three vertically stacked decks. The upper deck has
a mesh opening of 1.125 square inches, for the first 12 feet of travel and an
opening of 1 square inch for the last 8 feet of travel. The middle deck has
mesh opening of 0.58 square Inches and the lower deck has slot openings of
0.118 inches by 1 inch. Stone collecting on the middle and lower decks are
combined as one product stream. Fine particles passing through all three decks
collect as a separate process stream. The oversized material remaining on the
top screen goes to the inlet of the Omni Cone crushers. The total quantity of
oversized material entering the Omni Cone crushers is estimated to be 500 to
600 tons per hour. The stone feed rates to the two Deister screens were
approximately equal during the tests.
-------
1
/'~">\SIMMONS CONE CRUSHER
O
2 - MODEL 1560 OMNI CONE CRUSHERS
V
VULCAN MATERIALS. INC.
SKIPPERS. VA
6' X 20' DEISTER SCREENS
-------
2.2 FUGITIVE DUST CONTROL
Wet suppression 1s used for fugitive dust control of the 7' Simmons
crusher, two Node! 1560 orani cone crushers, and the Dei star vibrating screens.
There are water spray nozzles located on the vibrating feeder to the 7'
crusher, on the conveyor underneath the crusher, and on the discharge chute
near the top of the Deister screens. Not all of these spray nozzles are
necessary to maintain wet conditions. The nozzles on the Inlet chute to the
Delster screen were off during the tests. Over-wetting of the rock can cause
blinding of the lower screen or blockage of the fines discharge chute
underneath the Deister. During these emission tests, the plant experienced no
significant screen blinding conditions.
2.3 SAMPLING AND EMISSION TESTING PROCEDURES
2.3.1 Fugitive Emission Test Approach
Since there are no air pollution control devices on the Deister screens
or the 7' crusher, fugitive emission testing procedures were needed to capture
and measure the PM10 emissions. Entropy considered the criteria listed in
Table 3 in designing the test program. Entropy evaluated alternative testing
procedures during several site visits by Entropy personnel. The emission
testing techniques which are generally applied to fugitive dust emission
sources include,
• Upwind-downwind profiling,
• Roof monitor sampling, and
• Enclosures and Quasi-stack sampling.
Deister Screen Testing Alternatives
The roof monitoring approach of fugitive emission testing appeared to be
the most applicable technique for the Deister screen at the Skippers plant.
This involved the sampling at a horizontal array of sampling points above the
surface of the emission source. However, an adaption of the general procedure
was necessary due to the lack of a partial enclosure to serve as the roof
monitor and due to the swirling gas flows created by wind leakage around the
screen enclosure. Accordingly, Entropy designed and installed a track-mounted
hood system for fugitive emission capture. By using this track-mounted hood
version of roof monitor sampling, it was possible to accurately capture and
measure the PM10 emissions without influencing the PM10 emission rates from the
screen surface.
Upwind-downwind profiling techniques involve measurement of the increase
In PM10 concentrations as a gas stream passes over or around the source being
evaluated. This is usually performed using ambient PM10 monitors in upwind and
downwind locations. Entropy concluded that this approach was not applicable to
the Deister screen at the Skippers, Virginia plant because of the building
constructed around the Deister screen. Also, there were a number of possible
sources immediately upwind and downwind of the 7' crusher. These sources
included crushers, conveyors and conveyor transfer points, and Interstate 95
traffic. It would be impossible to isolate the 7' crusher from these nearby
sources using an upwind-downwind testing procedure.
-------
Table 2. FUGITIVE EMISSION CAPTURE
SYSTEM DESIGN CRITERIA
The capture system should not create higher-than-actual PN10
emission rates due to high gas velocity conditions near the
point of PN10 particle entrainment.
The capture system should not create a sink for PN10 emissions.
The capture system should Isolate the process unit being tested
from other adjacent sources of PN10 emissions.
The capture system should not create safety hazards for the
emission test crew or for plant personnel. It should not
create risks to the plant process equipment.
The capture systems should not obstruct routine access to the
process equipment by plant personnel.
The capture system and overall test procedures must be economical,
practical, and readily adaptable to other plants so that these
tests can be repeated by organizations wishing to confirm or
challenge the emission factor data developed in this project.
The quasi-stack method involves the construction of a temporary enclosure
around the Deister screen and the installation of a duct and fan system for gas
handling. Entropy rejected this approach primarily because of the extremely
high gas flow rates necessary. To simulate the identical emission conditions
for typical wind speeds at the plant would require gas flow rates between
13,200 and 52,800 actual cubic feet per minute (ACFM); Ductwork with a
diameter between 4 and 6 feet would be necessary to carry this large gas flow
at velocities where PN10 losses would be minimized. Since the Deister
vibrating screen is on a relatively small platform 80 feet above the ground,
this ductwork would have to be quite long and carefully supported. This
approach would be prohibitively expensive. Other disadvantages include:
• It would be extremely difficult to simulate actual wind speeds and
wind approach angles using make-up air.
• An enclosure restricts plant operations personnel's access to
the vibrating screen
• Construction safety risks are possible due to the lack of access and
due to the rotating equipment in restricted areas.
-------
7' Crusher Inlet and Outlet Testing Alternatives
The quasi-stack method appeared to be the most accurate and practical
approach for capturing the fugitive emissions from the Inlet and outlet areas
of the 7' crusher. This approach allowed Isolation of the 7' crusher from the
other fugitive dust sources in the Immediate vicinity.
The quasi-stack method required the construction of temporary enclosures
around the Inlet and outlet of the 7' crusher and the Installation of a duct
and fan system for gas handling. Since the PN10 emissions are generated
primarily by stone-to-stone attrition in the crusher and during falling, the
use of an enclosure does not influence the rate of PM10 emissions.
The roof monitoring approach of fugitive emission capture involves the
sampling at a horizontal array of sampling points above the surface of the
emission source. This approach was rejected because there was no logical means
to sample in the area Immediately above the crusher inlet or outlet. The
emission profiling technique was also rejected for the crusher emission points
since there were a number of other possible PN10 sources in the immediate
vicinity of the crusher.
2.3.2 PH10 Emission Testing Procedure
Deister Screen Testing Equipment
The track-mounted hood system used for sampling the Deister Screen
consisted of a 2 foot by 2 foot aluminum hood suspended 12 inches above the
upper deck of the Deister vibrating screen. The position of the hood above the
stone is shown in Figures 2 and 3. This hood position was close enough to the
upper screen deck to ensure good emission capture but not so close that the
entering air stream caused greater-than-actual PN10 emissions. A variable
speed DC-driven tubeaxial fan controlled the capture velocity of the air
entering the hood. This velocity was set at 150 feet per minute based on the
hood capture characteristics observed using smoke and lightweight strips of
fabric. This velocity 1s higher than the 50 feet per minute minimum capture
velocity specified in reference 9 for vibrating screens.
The top area of the Deister screen was divided into a 3 by 9 array of
sampling locations, each of which was 2 feet by 2 feet in size. The only area
not sampled was the 4-foot strip across the upper inlet side of the Deister
screen where the stone feed dumps onto the top of the screen. Positioning the
hood in this location would have artificially increased PM10 emissions and
caused rapid abrasion of the hood. PM10 from the inlet chute area of the
screen are captured as the hood traverses the uppermost portions of the screen.
Entropy sized the ductwork from the hood to the sampling location for an
average gas flow velocity less than 1000 feet per minute. This transport
velocity is well below the 3500 to 4500 feet per minute velocity used to size
commercial ductwork in stone crushing plants and other facilities handling
large diameter dusts2-8. The purpose of the high velocities in commercial ducts
is to ensure that large diameter dust particles do not settle and accumulate in
the ductwork over long time periods. PM10 sized dust particles have negligible
gravity settling rates in the gas stream residence times in the ducts.
-------
Figure 2. Side View of Traversing Hood in Delster Screen
\
Figure 3. Top View of Traversing Hood in Deister Screen
3
-------
Dust accumulation in the ductwork was not a problem during this study
since the hood operating times were relatively short and the flexible duct was
cleaned regularly. The 1000 feet per minute duct velocity limit Is advan-
tageous since this limits the irapaction of particles less than 10 microns on
the side walls of the hood elbow and the side walls of the flexible duct.
Also, the low gas transport velocity limits any formation of PM10 emissions due
to the movement of the gas stream over the surfaces of large diameter particles
entrained in the gas stream or settling on the bottom of the duct.
7' Crusher Testing Equipment
The inlet to the T crusher was defined as the discharge of the vibrating
feeder into the crusher vessel. This area, having a height of approximately 5
feet, was enclosed with neoprene to allow capture of the PM10 emissions caused
by the stone-to-stone attrition during movement of the stone. The discharge
point of the T crusher is a conveyor leading to the outlets of the secondary
crushers to the Diester screens (Streams 5,6). The discharge point was
enclosed approximately 3 feet upstream and downstream of the T crusher
discharge point. There are several water spray nozzles on the downstream side
of this conveyor. Figure 4 shows a side view of the T crusher.
Figure 4. Side View of T Crusher
-------
Enclosures were built around the Inlet and outlet of the crusher. The
Inlet enclosure measured approximately 40" high with a 78" diameter, the outlet
measured 6'H X 12'D X 5'N. The enclosure outlet ducts were combined Into a
single 1 foot diameter outlet duct. The single one foot diameter duct was used
as a combined sample point for both the Inlet and outlet of the crusher. The
one foot diameter duct was then Increased to a two foot diameter duct, to allow
use of a two foot diameter SCR driven tubeaxlal fan. Filtered air was
supplied to each of the enclosures by means of HEPA (high efficiency
particulate absolute) filters and centrifugal fans. Use of HEPA make-up air
ensured that PM10 emissions measured in the outlet duct were generated by the
unit being tested rather than from adjacent sources. The air flows from each
enclosure were set by adjusting the variable speed DC motor of the tubeaxial
fan installed on the combined outlet duct. The mounting positions of the inlet
and outlet ducts on the enclosures ensured that the normal PM10 emissions were
not significantly Influenced by air flow patterns.
Close-up views of the crusher inlet before and after installation of the
enclosure are provided in Figures 5 and 6. In Figure 6, the flexible duct in
the center right delivers the HEPA filtered make-up air to the enclosure and
the duct in the background takes PH10-laden air to the emission testing
location. The crusher outlet enclosure is shown in Figures 7 and 8. In Figure
8, the long horizontal duct in the center of the photographs contains the PM10
emissions from the outlet enclosure and the vertical duct on the right contains
the PN10 emissions descending from the inlet enclosures. The gas streams are
joined at the duct TEE shown in the lower right of Figure 8.
The combined gas flow from the inlet and outlet enclosures was controlled
by a Dayton Model 3C411 24 inch, 2 HP direct current (DC) driven tubeaxial fan.
This variable speed fan was set at the gas flow rate necessary to maintain a
slightly negative static pressure within the enclosure. Negative pressures
were required to ensure that there was no loss of PM10 emissions from the
enclosure. Highly negative static pressures were undesirable since there could
be high velocity ambient air streams entering the enclosure which could
increase the PM10 emissions.
PH10 Sampling Equipment
EPA Reference Method 201A was used to monitor the PN10 emissions from the
T crusher. This complete sampling system consists of: (I) a sampling nozzle,
(2) a PH10 sampler, (3) a probe and umbilical cord, (4) an impinger train, and
(5) flow control system. Due to the relatively small ducts and the constant
sample gas flow rates set using the DC-driven tubeaxial fans, the "S"-type
pitot tube was not mounted on the PH10 sampler probe. Sas velocities were
determined prior to the emission tests.
Particulate matter larger than 10 microns in diameter is collected in the
cyclone located immediately downstream of the sampling nozzle. Particulate
smaller than 10 microns is collected on the outlet tube of the cyclone and on
the downstream glass-fiber filter.
The cyclone and filter system used in this study met the design and
sizing requirements of Section 5.2 of Method 20IA. The gas flow rate through
the cyclone was set based on the orifice pressure head equation provided in
Figure 4 of Method 201A. The gas flow rate was kept constant throughout the
emission test program.
10
-------
Figure 5. Crusher Inlet Before Installation of
Enclosure
Figure 6. Crusher Inlet with Enclosure
11
-------
Figure 7. Crusher Outlet Enclosure
Figure 8. Crusher Outlet Enclosure
12
-------
PM10 sampling was performed In a 1-foot (Inlet / outlet location)
diameter smooth wall duct mounted directly off the enclosures of the crusher.
The 4-inch diameter sampling port was located 8 duct diameters downstream of
the flexible duct connection and 2 duct diameters upstream of the fan.
Sampling In the vertical direction across the ducts was not possible since dust
collected In the cyclone could be resuspended and pass through to the filter.
The sampling nozzles were selected to provide 80 to 120% Isold netic conditions.
The cyclone and nozzle assembly were mounted within the duct during sampling.
The particulate samples were recovered using the procedures specified in
Method 201A. The sample recovery scheme is illustrated in Figure 9. The
material from the filter, cyclone outlet tube, and filter inlet housing were
combined to determine the total PM10 catch weight.
Nozzle and
Cyclone Body
Brush and
Rinse with
Acetone
Container 1
Cyclone Outlet
and Filter Inlet
Housing
Filter
Filter
Outlet
Housing Impingers
Brush and
Rinse with
Acetone
Rinse 2x Measure
with DI Impinger
Mater Contents
Container 2 Container 3
Clean
Di scard
Archive
Sample
Evaporate Weigh Solids
Acetone and
Weigh Solids
Total PM10
Catch Weight-
Figure 9. Sample Recovery
13
-------
2.4 MONITORING OF PROCESS OPERATING CONDITIONS
There are a number of process variables and weather conditions which
could conceivably Influence PN10 emission rates from the Deister screen:
Stone moisture level
Stone size distribution
Stone silt content
Deister stone feed rates
Stone friability
Stone hardness and density
All of these variables with the exception of stone, type were monitored
using a combination of plant Instruments, special monitoring equipment, and
stone sample analyses. Stone type was not monitored since granite is the only
type of stone processed at this plant.
2.4.1 Stone Moisture Level
A stone sample was removed during each of the emission tests. In all
cases, this sample consisted of a 2 linear foot sample of stone from the main
conveyor leaving the 7' crusher (Stream 5 of Figure 1). The conveyor was
stopped by plant personnel for approximately 5 minutes to permit the Entropy
test crew to remove the stone sample. The sample was placed in a sealed
plastic bucket.
A sample was selected for analysis by placing the stone in a pile and
dividing it into four quadrants. The quadrant randomly selected for analysis
was further subdivided in quadrants until the sample quantity was less than
approximately 2 pounds. This sample was then weighed and heated in an oven at
a gas temperature of approximately 350 degrees Fahrenheit. The weight loss
during heating was calculated and reported as the stone moisture level.
2.4.2 Ambient PM10 Levels
One ambient PM10 monitor was operated Inside the Deister screen
enclosure. It was operated only during the time periods that PN10 emission
sampling was in progress. The ambient air flow rates through the samplers were
calibrated using an Airdata micromanometer. The filters were weighed and PM10
levels during the test were calculated. This data however was not used in the
emissions calculations because it became apparent that the ambient PN10 monitor
was being strongly influenced by emissions from the Oeister screen and was not
providing data representative of PH10 levels in the ambient air entering the
Oeister screen building.
2.4.3 Stone .SjzeJDIstribution and Silt Content
Samples of the stone obtained during the test (see Section 2.4.1) were
used to determine the size distribution and silt content. The initial sample
quadrants used for moisture analysis was used for analysis by ASTN sizing
screens. The sample of approximately 2 pounds was heated to 350 Fahrenheit for
14
-------
30 minutes to drive off the moisture, then allowed to cool, then loaded Into
the top pan. The screen size mesh openings Included:
37.5 Millimeters
19.0 Millimeters
4.75 Millimeters
2.00 Millimeters
150 Microns
75 Microns
38 Microns
Bottom pan
The loaded ASTM screens were placed in a RO-TAP shaker and processed for 10
minutes. The weights of stone remaining on each of the screens were then
determined by subtracting the screen tare weights from the loaded weights.
2.4.4 Stone Processing and Production Rates
^•HMMMMIi^M^PIMM^^^H^^MMI^H^^nMaMHBM^^HIH^^^^^^B^^^^^^^^HI^^^^^B^HB^^B »
The stone processing rate of the T crusher has been defined by Entropy
as the total volume of stone leaving the 7' crusher (Stream 5). The volume of
stone in tons for a particular test was calculated by removing and weighing a 2
foot section of the stone from the conveyor leaving the T crusher. This
amount in pounds/feet was then multiplied by the speed of the conveyor in
feet/minute to produce a rate in pounds/minute. Then to obtain the total
amount of stone per test this number was multiplied by the length of the test
(minutes). This calculation is shown below:
(Pounds Stone per 2 FT) X (380 FT per Minute)
• Pounds Stone per Minute
(Pounds Stone per Minute) X (Test Minutes) X (Ton/2000 Pounds)
• Tons of Stone/Test
15
-------
3.0 TEST RESULTS
3.1 OBJECTIVES AND TEST MATRIX
The objective of this test program was to determine the PN10 emission
factors for a Simmons 7' crusher and a Deistar vibrating screen at a stone
crushing plant. The test program concerned both wet and dry stone conditions.
The specific objectives included the following:
• Capture the PN10 emissions from the inlet and outlet of a
7' crusher without significantly affecting the emission rate.
• Capture the PN10 emissions from the Deister vtbrating screen
without significantly affecting the emission rate.
• Determine the PM10 emission concentrations by means of EPA
Reference Method 201A.
• Calculate the total PM10 emission rates using the known outlet duct
gas flow rates and the Method 201A emission concentrations.
• Measure the stone moisture content, stone feed rate, stone size
distribution, and stone silt content.
The stone processing rate of the Deister screen has been defined by
Entropy as the total quantity of stone produced by the plant minus the fines
removed prior to the secondary crusher. The actual quantities of stone passing
through the Deister are considerably higher than this value since all of the
oversized material remaining on the top deck of the Deister is sent to the 2
Omni Cone crushers and then returned to the Deister screen. The quantities of
stone in stream 6 shown Figure 1 are approximately 50% higher than the quantity
in stream 3 due to this recycle loop. This recycle estimate is based on
measurements of the stone feed rates via the Plant weigh belt scale, on the
conveyor discharging stone to the two Deister screens.
The secondary feed weigh belt scale has been chosen as the basis for the
production rate definition since these data are most readily available at other
stone crushing plants. The disadvantage of this definition is that it creates
emission factor values in pounds per ton of stone, which are higher than would
be calculated if the production rate were based on the total feed rate.
The stone processing rate calculation at the Skippers plant tested during
this study is further complicated by the presence of two Deister screens
operated in parallel. Because of the configuration of the equipment there is
no quantitative means to determine the separate stone flow rates to each.
Entropy has based on emission factor calculations of a 50%-50% split based on
observations during the emission tests.
16
-------
Appendix C
-------
»
F'
EPA-600/2-76-089c
m, *
May 1976
[ TECHNICAL MANUAL
4.
I FOR THE MEASUREMENT OF FUGITIVE EMISSIONS:
' QUASI-STACK SAMPLING METHOD
FOR INDUSTRIAL FUGITIVE EMISSIONS
EPA JJ
RTF, NC
by
H.J. Kolnaberg, P.W. Kalika, R.E. Kenson, andW.A. Marrone
TRC--The Research Corporation of New England
125 Silas Deane Highway
Wethersfield, Connecticut 06109
Contract No. 68-02-1815
ROAP No. 21AUZ-004
Program Element No. 1AB015
EPA Project Officer: Robert M. Statnick
Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory
Office of Energy, Minerals, and Industry
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
Prepared for
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Research and Development
Washington, DC 20460
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION
PAGE
•It'
4-.
^
a
1.0 OBJECTIVE ................... 1
2.0 INTRODUCTION ................. 2
2.1 Categories of Fugitive Emissions ...... 3
2.1.1 Quasi-stack Sampling Method ...... •. . 3
2.1.2 Roof Monitor Sampling Method ....... 4
2.1.3 Upwind-Downwind Sampling Method ...... 4
2.2 Sampling Method Selection .......... 5
2.2.1 Selection Criteria ......... ..... . . 5
2.2.1.1 Site Criteria .............. 5
2.2.1.2 Process Criteria ............ 6
2.2.1.3 Pollutant Criteria ........... 6
2.2.2 Application of Criteria .......... 6
2.2.2.1 Quasi-Stack Method . . . . ....... 7
2.2.2.2 Roof Monitor Method ........... 8
2.2.2.3 Upwind -Downwind Method ......... 8
2.3 Sampling Strategies ............. 9
2.3.1 Survey Measurement Systems ........ 10
2.3.2 Detailed Measurement Systems ...'.... 10
3.0 TEST STRATEGIES ................ 12
3.1 Pretest Survey ............... 12
3.1.1 Information to be Obtained ........ 12
3.1.2 Report Organization ............ 13
3.2 Test Plan .................. 13
3.2.1 Purpose of a Test Plan .......... 13
3.2.2 Test Plan Organization .......... 15
3.3 Quasi-Stack Sampling Strategies ....... 17
3.4 Survey Quasi-Stack Sampling Strategy .... 17
3.4.1 Sampling Equipment ............ 18
3.4.2 Sampling System Design .......... 19
3.4.3 Sampling Techniques ............ 22
3.4.4 Data Reduction .............. 25
3.5 Detailed Quasi-Stack Sampling Strategy ... 26
3.5.1 Sampling Equipment ............ 26
3.5.2 Sampling System Design .......... 27
3.5.3 Sampling Techniques ............ 28
3.5.4 Data Reduction .............. 28
3.6 Quality Assurance .............. 29
4.0 ESTIMATED COSTS AND TIME REQUIREMENTS ..... 32
4.1 Manpower .................. 32
4.2 Other Direct Costs ............. 32
4.3 Elapsed-Time Requirements .......... 36
4.4 Cost Effectiveness ............. 36
APPENDIX
APPLICATION OF THE QUASI-STACK MEASUREMENT METHOD
TO A GREY-IRON FOUNDRY
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE
3-1
4-1
4-2
PAGE
Typical survey program sampling system 23
Elapsed-time estimates for quasi-stack 37
fugitive emissions sampling programs
Cost effectiveness of quasi-stack fugitive
emissions .sampling programs
38
TABLE
3-1
3-2
4-1
4-2
4-3
LIST OF TABLES
Pre-test survey information to be obtained . .
*
Control velocities for dusts and fumes . . . .
Conditions assumed for cost estimation of. . .
quasi-stack sampling program
Estimated manpower requirements for quasi- . .
stack fugitive emissions sampling programs
Estimated costs other than manpower for quasi-
stack fugitive emissions sampling programs
PAGE
14
21
33
34
35
ii
-------
1.0 OBJECTIVE
The objective of this Technical Manual is to present the funda-
mental considerations required for the utilization of the Quasi-Stack
Sampling Method.in the measurement of fugitive emissions. Criteria for
the selection of the most applicable measurement method and discussions
of general information gathering and planning activities are presented.
Quasi-stack sampling strategies and equipment are described and sampling
system design, sampling techniques, and data reduction are discussed.
Manpower requirements and time estimates for typical applications
of the method are presented for programs designed for overall and speci-
fic emissions measurements.
The application of the outlined procedures Co the measurement of
«
fugitive emissions from a grey-iron foundry is presented as an appendix.
-1-
-------
2.0 INTRODUCTION
Pollutants emitted into the ambient air from an industrial plant
or other site generally fall into one of two types. The first type is
released into the air through stacks or similar devices designed to
direct and control the flow of the emissions. These emissions may be
readily measured by universally-recognized standard sampling techniques.
The second type is released into the air without control of flow or
direction. These fugitive emissions usually cannot be measured using
existing standard techniques.
The development of reliable, generally applicable measurement pro-
*
cedures is a necessary prerequisite to the development of strategies for
the control of fugitive emissions. This document describes some pro-
cedures for the measurement of fugitive air emissions using the quasi-
stack measurement method described in Section 2.1.1 below.
-2-
-------
2.1 Categories of Fugitivs Emissions
Fugitive emissions emanate from such a wide variety of circumstances
that it is not particularly meaningful to attempt to categorize them either
in terms of the processes or mechanisms that generate them or the geometry
of the emission points. A more useful approach is to categorize fugitive
emissions in terms of the methods for their measurement. Three basic
methods exist — quasi-stack sampling, roof monitor sampling, and upwind-
downwind sampling. Each is described in general terms below.
2.1.1 Quasi-stack Sampling Method
In this method, the fugitive emissions are captured in a temporarily
installed hood or enclosure and vented to an exhaust duct or stack of
regular cross-sectional area. Emissions are then measured in the ex-
haust duct using standard stack sampling or similar well recognized
methods. This approach is necessarily restricted to those sources
of emissions that are isolable and physically arranged so as to
permit the installation of a temporary hood or enclosure that will not
interfere with plant operations or alter the character of the process or
the emissions.
Typical industrial sources of fugitive emissions measurable by
the quasi-stack method include:
1. Material transfer operations
Solids - conveyor belts, loading
Liquids - spray, vapors
2. Process leaks
Solids - pressurized ducts
Liquids - pumps, valves
-3-
-------
3. Evaporation
Cleaning fluids - degreaaers, wash tanks
Paint solvent vapors - spray booths, conveyors
4. Fabricating operations
Solids - grinding, polishing
Gases - welding, plating
2.1.2 Roof Monitor Sampling Method
This method is used to measure the fugitive emissions entering
the ambient air from building or other enclosure openings such as roof
monitors, doors, and windows from enclosed sources too numerous or un-
wieldy to permit the installation of temporary hooding. Sampling is,
in general, limited to a mixture of all uncontrolled emission sources
within the enclosure and requires the ability to make low air velocity
measurements and mass balances of small quantities of materials across
the surfaces of the openings.
2.1.3 Upwind-Downwind Sampling Method
This method is utilized to measure the fugitive emissions
from sources typically covering large areas that cannot be tem-
porarily hooded and are not enclosed in a structure allowing the
use of the roof monitor method. Such sources include material
handling and storage operations, waste dumps and industrial processes
in which the emissions are spread over large areas or are periodic
in nature.
-4-
-------
The upwind-downwind method quantifies the emissions from such sources
as the difference between the pollutant concentrations measured in the
ambient air approaching (upwind) and leaving (downwind) the source site.
It may also be utilized in combination with mathematical models and
tracer tests to define the contributions to total measured emissions of
specific sources among a group of sources.
2.2 Sampling Method Selection
The initial step in the measurement of fugitive emissions at an
industrial site is the selection of the most appropriate sampling method
to be employed. Although it is impossible to enumerate all Che combina-
tions of influencing factors that might be encountered in a specific
situation, careful consideration of the following general criteria should
result in the selection of the most effective of Che chree sampling
methods described above.
at
I
I
2.2.1 Selection Criteria
The selection criteria listed below are grouped into chree general
classifications common to all fugitive emissions measurement methods.
The criteria are intended to provide only representative examples and
should not be considered a complete listing of influencing factors.
2.2.1.1 Site Criteria
Source Isolability. Can the emissions be measured separately from
emissions from other sources? Can the source be enclosed?
Source Location. Is the source indoors or out? Does location
-5-
-------
permit access of measuring equipment?
Meteorological Conditions. What are the conditions representative
of typical and critical situations? Will precipitation interfere
with measurements? Will rain or snow on ground effect dust levels?
2.2.1.2 Process Criteria
Number and Size of Sources. Are emissions from a single, well
defined location or many scattered locations? Is source small
enough to hood?
Homogeneity of Emissions. Are emissions the same type everywhere
at the site? Are reactive effects between different emissions
involved?
Continuity of Process. Will emissions be produced long enough Co
obtain meaningful samples?
Effects of Measurements. Are special procedures required to pre-
vent the making of measurements from altering the process or emis-
sions or interfering with production? Are such procedures feasible?
2.2.1.3 Pollutant Criteria
Nature of Emissions. Are measurements of particles, gases, liquids
required? Are emissions hazardous?
Emission Generation Rate. Are enough emissions produced to provide
measurable samples in reasonable sampling time?
Emission Dilution. Will transport air reduce emission concentra-
tion below measurable levels?
2.2.2 Application of Criteria
The application of the selection criteria listed in Section 2.2.1
to each of the fugitive emissions measurement methods definec in Section
2.1 is described in general terms in this section.
-6-
-------
2.2.2.1 Quaai-Stack Method
?-.; Effective use of the quasi-stack method requires that the source
;of emissions be isolable and that an enclosure can be installed capable
of capturing emissions without interference with plant operations. The
..location of the source alone is not normally a factor. Meteorological -
conditions usually need be considered only if they directly affect the
sampling.
The quasi-stack method is usually restricted to a single source
and must be limited to two or three small sources that can be effectively
enclosed to duct their total emissions to a single sampling point.
Cyclic processes should provide measurable pollutant quantities during
a single cycle to avoid sample dilution. The possible effects of the
measurement on the process or emissions is of special significance in
this method. In many cases, enclosing a portion of a process in order
to capture its emissions can alter that portion of the process by chang-
ing its temperature profile or affecting flow rates. Emissions may be
similarly altered by reaction with components of the ambient air drawn
into the sampling ducts. .While these effects are not necessarily limit-
ing in the selection of the method, they must be considered in designing
the test program and could influence the method selection by increasing
complexity and costs.
The quasi-stack method is useful for virtually all types of emis-
sions. It will provide measurable samples in generally short sampling
times since it captures essentially all of the emissions. Dilution of
the pollutants of concern is of little consequence since it can usually
be controlled in the design of the sampling system.
-7-
-------
2.2.2.2 Roof Monitor Method
Practical utilization of the roof monitor method demands that the
source of emissions be enclosed in a. structure with a limited number of
openings to the atmosphere. Measurements may usually be made only of
the total of all emissions sources within the structure. Meteorological
conditions normally need not be considered in selecting this method
unless they have a direct effect on the flow of emissions through the
enclosure opening.
The number of sources and the mixture of emissions is relatively
unimportant since the measurements usually include only the total emis-
sions. The processes involved may be discontinuous as long as a repre-
sentative combination of the typical or critical groupings may be in-
cluded in a sampling. Measurements will normally have no effect on the
processes or emissions.
The roof monitor method, usually dependent on or at least influ-
enced by gravity in the transmission of emissions, may not be useful
for the measurement of larger particulates which may settle within the
enclosure being sampled. Emission generation rates must be high enough
to provide pollutant concentrations of measurable magnitude after dilu-
tion in the enclosed volume of the structure.
2.2.2.3 Upwind-Downwind Method
The upwind-downwind method, generally utilized where neither of
the other methods"may be successfully employed, is not influenced by
the number or location of the emission'sources except as they influence
-8-
-------
Che locating of sampling devices. In most cases, only the total con-
tribution to the ambient atmosphere of all sources within a sampling
area may be measured. The method is strongly influenced by meteorolog-
ical conditions, requiring a wind consistent in direction and velocity
throughout the sampling period as well as conditions of temperature,
humidity and ground moisture representative of normal ambient condi-
tions .
The emissions measured by the upwind-downwind method may be the
total contribution from a single source or from a mixture of many sourca
in a large area. Continuity of the emissions is generally of secondary
importance since the magnitude of the ambient air volume into which the
emissions are dispersed is large enough to provide a degree of smooth-
ing to cyclic emissions. The measurements have no effect on the emis-
sions or processes involved.
Most airborne pollutants can be measured by the upwind-downwind
method. Generation rates must be high enough to provide measurable
concentrations at the sampling locations after dilution with the ambient
air. Settling rates of the larger particulates require that the sampling
system be carefully designed to ensure that representative particulate
samples are collected.
2.3 Sampling Strategies
Fugitive emissions measurements may, in general, be separated ir.tzc
two classes or levels depending upon the degree of accuracy desired.
Survey measurement systems are designed to screen emissions and provide
gross measurements of a number of process influents and effluents at a
—9—
-------
relatively low level of effort In time and cost. Detailed systems are
designed to isolate, identify, and quantify individual contaminant con-
stituents with increased accuracy and higher investments in time and
cost.
2.3.1 Survey Measurement Systems
Survey measurement systems employ recognized standard or state-
of-the-art measurement techniques to screen the total emissions from a
site or source and determine whether any of the emission constituents
should be considered for more detailed investigation. They generally
utilize the simplest available arrangement of instrumentation and pro-
cedures in a relatively brief sampling program, usually without pro-
visions for sample replication, to provide order-of-magnitude type data,
embodying a factor of two to five in accuracy range with respect to
actual emissions.
2.3.2 Detailed Measurement Systems
Detailed measurement systems are used in instances where survey
measurements or equivalent data indicate that a specific emission con-
stituent may be present in a concentration worthy of concern. Detailed
systems provides more precise identification and quantification of spe-
cific constituents by utilizing the latest state-of-the-art measurement
instrumentation and procedures in carefully designed sampling programs.
These systems are also utilized to provide emission data over a range
of process operating conditions or ambient meteorological influences.
Basic accuracy of detailed measurements is in the order of 4- 10 to + 50
-10-
-------
\
percent of actual emissions. Detailed measurement system costs are
generally in the order of three to five times the cost of a survey sys-
tem at a given site.
-11-
-------
3.0 TEST STRATEGIES
This section describes the approaches that may be taken to success-
fully complete a testing program utilizing the quasi-stack sampling
method described in Section 2.1. It details the information required
to plan the program, describes the organization of the test plan, spe-
cifies the types of sampling equipment to be used, establishes criteria
for the sampling - system design,-and outlines basic data reduction methods.
3.1 Pretest Survey
After the measurement method to be utilized in documenting the
fugitive emissions at a particular site has been established using the
criteria of Section 2.2, a pretest survey of the site should be corn-
ducted by the program planners. The pretest survey should result in an
informal, internal report containing all the information necessary for
the preparation of a test plan and the design of the sampling system by
the testing organization.
This section provides guidelines for conducting a pretest survey
and preparing a pretest survey report.
3.1.1 Information to be Obtained
In order to design a system effectively and plan for the on-site
sampling of fugitive emissions, a good general knowledge is required of
the plant layout, process chemistry and flow, surrounding environment,
and prevailing meteorological conditions. Particular characteristics
of the site relative to the needs of the owner, the products involved,
the space and manpower skills available, emission control equipment
-12-
-------
Installed, and the safety and health procedures observed, will also
Influence the sampling system design and plan. Work flow patterns and
schedules that may result in periodic changes in the nature or quantity
of emissions or that indicate periods for the most effective and least
disruptive sampling must also be considered. Most of this information
can only be obtained by a survey at the site. Table 3-1 outlines some
of the specific information to be obtained. Addicional information will
be suggested by considerations of the particular on-site situation.
3.1.2 Report Organization
The informal, internal pretest survey report must contain all the
pertinent information gathered during and prior to the site study. A
summary of all communications relative to the test program should be
included in the report along with detailed descriptions of the plant
layout, process, and operations as outlined in Table 3-1. The report
should also incorporate drawings, diagrams, maps, photographs, meteoro-
logical records, and literature references that will be helpful in plan-
ning the test program.
3.2 Test Plan
3.2.1 Purpose of a Test Plan
Measurement programs are very demanding in terms of che scheduling
and completion of many preparatory tasks, observations at sometimes
widely separated locations, instrument checks to verify measurement
validity, etc. It is therefore essential th-at all of the experiment
design and planning be done prior to the start of the measurement pro-
-13-
-------
TABLE 3-1
PRE-TEST SURVEY INFORMATION TO BE OBTAINED
FOR APPLICATION OF FUGITIVE EMISSION SAMPLING METHODS
Plant
Layout
Drawings:
Building Layout and Plan View of Potential Study Areas
Building Side Elevations to -Identify Obstructions and
Structure Available to Support Test Setup
Work Flow Diagrams
Locations of Suitable Sampling Sites
Physical Layout Measurements to Supplement Drawings
Work Space Required at Potential Sampling Sites
Process
Process Flow Diagram with Fugitive Emission Points
Identified
General Description of Process Chemistry
General Description of Process Operations Including
Initial Estimate of Fugitive Emissions
Drawings of Equipment or Segments of Processes Where
Fugitive Emissions are to be Measured
Photographs (if permitted) of Process Area Where
Fugitive Emissions are to be Measured
Names, Extensions, Locations of Process Foremen and
Supervisors Where Tests are to be Conducted
Operations
Location of Available Services (Power Outlets, Main-
tenance and Plant Engineering Personnel, Labora-
tories, etc.)
Local Vendors Who Can Fabricate and Supply Test System
Components
Shift Schedules
Location of Operations Records (combine with process
operation information)
Health and Safety Considerations
Other
Access routes to the areas Where Test Equipment/Instru-
mentation Will Be Located
Names, Extensions, Locations of Plant Security ana
Safety Supervisors
-14-
-------
gram In the form of a detailed test plan. The preparation of such a
plan enables the investigator to "pre-think" effectively and cross-checl
all of the details of the design and operation of a measurement program
prior to the commitment of manpower and resources. The plan then also
serves as the guide for the actual performance of the work. The test
plan provides a formal specification of the equipment and procedures
required to satisfy the objectives of .the measurement program. It is
based on the information collected in the informal pretest survey re-
port and describes the most effective sampling equipment, procedures,
and timetables consistent with the program objectives and site charac-
teristics .
3.2.2 Test Plan Organization
The test plan should contain specific information in each of the
topical areas indicated below:
Background
The introductory paragraph containing the pertinent infor-
mation leading to the need to conduct the measurement program and
a short description of the information required to answer that
need.
Objective
A concise statement of the problem addressed by the test
program and a brief description of the program's planned method
for its solution.
Approach
A description of the measurement scheme and data reduction
methodology employed in the program with a discussion of how each
will answer the needs identified in the background statement.
-15-
-------
Instrumentation/Equipment/Facilities
A description of the instrumentation arrays to be used to
collect the samples and meteorological data identified in the
approach description. The number and frequency of samples to be
taken and the sampling array resolution should be described.
A detailed description of the equipment to be employed and
its purpose.
A description of the facilities required to operate the
measurement program, including work space, electrical power,
support from plant personnel, special construction, etc.
Schedule
A detailed chronology of a typical set of measurements or a
test, and the overall schedule of events from the planning stage
through the completion of the test program report.
Limitations
A definition of the conditions under which the measurement
project is to be conducted. If, for example, successful tests can
be conducted only during occurrences of certain wind directions,
those favorable limits should be stated.
Analysis Method
A description of the methods which will be used to analyze
the samples collected and the resultant data, e.g., statistical or
case analysis, and critical aspects of that method.
Report Requirements
A draft outline of the report on the analysis of the data to
be collected along with definitions indicating the purpose of the
report and the audience for which it is intended.
Quality Assurance
The test plan should address the development of a quality
assurance program as outlined in Section 3.7. This QA program
should be an integral part of the measurement program and be in-
corporated as a portion of the test plan either directly or by
reference.
Responsibilities
A list of persons who are responsible for each phase of the
measurement program, as defined in the schedule, both for the
testing organization and for the plant site.
-16-
-------
in series to provide measurable quantities of particulate matter in three
size ranges: >10 micro meters, 3 to 10 micro.'meters, and 1 to 3 micro
meters. A standard Method 5 type filter, also in series, provides a
fourth size range of <1 micro meter. Organic vapors are collected on a
parous polymer absorber after the sample is cooled by a gas conditioner
on the outlet of the oven. An oxidative impinger entraps the remaining
volatile trace elements to complete the sampling train. Used in combina-
tion with a gas-sampling assembly, the train can provide all the
information required as to the native and composition of the pollutants
in the sampled stream.
3.4.2 Sampling System Design
The primary concern in the design of a survey quasi-stack sampling
system is insuring that measurable concentrations of the pollutants of
concern are transported intact from the source to the sampling points.
This is accomplished by carefully designing the pollutant-capturing
enclosure, measurement duct and air-moving blower to provide sufficient
air flow to entrain and transport the pollutants.
The size and shape of Che pollutant-capcuring hood will be dictated
by the size, shape and location of the pollutant source. In general, it
must be large enough to capture all of the pollutants, but not so large
that the pollutants are diluted below measurable concentrations by an
excessive volume of ambient air.
Hemeon notes that the specific gravity of dusts, vapors or gases
has no bearing on the design of an exhaust system so long as a basic
control velocity is achieved and proposes some basic control velocities
(1) Hemeon, W.C.L., Plant and Process Ventilation, Industrial Press,
Inc., New York. 1963.
-19-
-------
for various ambient draft conditions for dusts and fumes. These are
summarized in Table 3-2.
The air velocity at the open face of a hood is related to the air
flow rate and the face area by
Q - VA, [Equation 3-1]
where Q = air volume flow rate, cubic feet per minute
V = air velocity, feet per minute
A « hood face area, square feet
The minimum air flow rate required to control the emissions is calculated
as the product of the hood face area and the control velocity indicated
in Table 3-2.
Since the calculated air flow rate is sufficient to provide capture
velocity of the emissions at the largest opening of the hood, the trans-
port of the emissions through the smaller cross-sectional area measurement
duct is assured. In order to effectively measure the velocity, tempera-
ture and pressure of the flowing stream to determine the total flow rate,
and to provide the most efficient sample flows, flow in the measurement
duct should be in the turbulent range with a Reynold's number of 2 x 10s
for a typical smooth-walled duct. The Reynolds number for air is roughly
calculated as
Re = dV x- 110
where Re = Reynolds number, dimensionless
d = duct diameter, feet
V = air velocity, feet per minute
Since V =• Q/A
and A = IId2/4
by substitution, Re =» 14QQ
d
and d = 14QQ = 14 QQ -^ . ...
"luT TlTlO5 = X 10 Q> [E1uatlon 3-2]
-20-
-------
TABLE 3-2
CONTROL VELOCITIES FOR DUSTS AND FUMES
Ambient Draft
Characteristics
Nearly draftless
Medium drafts
Very drafty
Control Velocities, feet per minute
Small dust quantities
40 - 50
50 - 60
70 - 80
Large dust quantitie
50 - 60
60-70
75 - 100
(Dust quantities may be roughly estimated in terms of their effect
on visibility. A quantity of dust sufficient to obscure visibility
of major details should be considered a large quantity.)
-21-
-------
The blower or fan used to provide the required air flow rate should,
in general, be selected to provide about twice the calculated rate to
allow foe adjustments for inaccuracies in estimates or assumptions. The
actual flow rate may be controlled by providing a variable bypass air
duct downstream of the measurement duct. A typical survey sampling
system arrangement is illustrated schematically in Figure 3-1. Actual
system layouts will, of course, be governed by space requirements at the
source site. The minimum straight duct runs of 3 duct diameters up-
stream and downstream of the measurement and sampling ports must be
provided to ensure that the sampled flow reaches and remains in the
laminar region.
3.4.3 Sampling Techniques
Sampling must be scheduled and carefully designed to ensure that
data representative of Che emission conditions of concern are obtained.
Effective scheduling demands that sufficient knowledge of operations
and process conditions be obtained to determine proper starting times
and durations for samplings. The primary concern of the sampling design
is that sufficient amounts of the various pollutants are collected to
provide meaningful measurements.
Each of the various sample collection and analysis methods has an
associated lower limit of detection, typically expressed in terms of
micrograms of captured solid material and either micrograms per cubic
meter or parts per million in air of gases. Samples taken must provide
at least these minimum amounts of the pollutants to be quantified. The
amount (M) of a pollutant collected is the product of the concentration
-22-
-------
Exhaust
I
U)
I
3d min.
3d min. H
Measurement
d
Air flow
nitnt
1
duct
Gas
camnflnr _
Particle
sampler
Control
valve
Bypass
air
Blower
Fig. 3-1. Typical survey program sampling system.
-------
of the pollutant in the air (x) and the volume of air sampled (W) , thus,
M (micrograms) - x (micrograms/cubic feet) x V (cubic feet).
To ensure that a sufficient amount of pollutant is collected, an ade-
quately large volume of air must be passed through such samplers as
particle filters or gas absorbing trains for a specific but uncontrolla-
ble concentration. The volume of air (W) is the product of its flow
rate (F) and the sampling time (T), or,
W (cubic feet) = F (cubic feet/minute) x T (minutes).
Since the sampling time is most often dictated by the test conditions,
the only control available to an experimenter is the sampling flow rate.
A preliminary estimate of the required flow rate for any sample may be
made if an estimate or rough measurement of the concentration expected
is available. The substitution and rearrangement of terms in the above
equations yields:
F (cubic feet/minute) = M (micrograms)/x (micrograms/cubic feet)
x T (minutes). [Equation 3-3]
This equation permits the calculation of the minimum acceptable flow
rate for a required sample size. Flow rates should generally be ad-
justed upward by a factor of ac least 1.5 to compensate for likely in-
accuracies in estimates of concentration. The upper limit of the sampling
flow rate is determined by the velocity of the measurement stream. To
minimize the possibility of creating disturbances in the measurement
stream that will permit entrained particulates to escape the entraining
air flow and thus measurement by downstream samplers, the sample stream
-24-
-------
velocity at inlet must not exceed the measurement stream velocity. Thus,
F max «
[Equation 3-4)
where F max * maximum sampler flow rate, cubic feet per minute
Q » air volume flow rate, cubic feet per minute
ds » sampling line inlet diameter, feet
d - measurement duct diameter, feet
Grab samples of gaseous pollutants provide for no means of pollu-
tant sample quantity control except in terms of the volume of the sample.
Care should be taken, therefore, to correlate the sample size with the
requirements of the selected analysis method.
3.4.4 Data Reduction
When the sampling program has been completed and the samples analyzed
to yield pollutant concentrations in micrograms per cubic meter or parts
per million per unit volume in the captured stream, the values are then
multiplied by the flow rate of the captured stream which is assumed to
contain all the pollutants omitted by the source, to yield the source
strength in terms of grams per unit time.
In cases where the background, pollutant level in the ambient air
used as the source pollutant transport medium is known or suspected to
be of a magnitude sufficient to mask the source pollutant emission level,
a sampling run of the ambient air may be required for better quantifica-
tion of the source strength. This may be accomplished using Che sampling
system either with the source inoperative or with the hood directed so
as to avoid capturing any source emissions. The samples from such a
sampling run are analyzed in the same manner as the source samples to
-25-
-------
yield the pollutant concentrations in the ambient air. These are then
subtracted from the source sample values before calculating the source
strengths.
3.5 Detailed Quasi-Stack Sampling Strategy
A detailed measurement system is designed to more precisely identify
and quantify pollutants that a survey measurement-or equivalent data
indicate as possible problem areas, A detailed system is necessarily
more complex than a survey system in terms of equipment, system design,
sampling techniques and data reduction. It requires a much larger invest-
ment in equipment, time and manpower to yield data detailed and dependable
enough for direct action toward achieving emissions control. The basic
configuration of a detailed quasi-stack sampling system is Che same as
Chat of a survey system — an emissions capturing enclosure, a measure-
ment duct and an air mover plus the sampling and measuring equipment.
Ics capturing enclosure may, depending on the characteristics of Che
source, be considerably more complex, providing more of the functions of
a permanent system. The measurement duct is usually longer, providing
space for the installation of a greater number of sampling devices or
complex, on-line specific pollutant measuring arrangements.
3.5.1 Sampling Squipmenf
The pollutants to be characterized by a detailed quasi-stack
system fall into the same two basic classes — airborne particu-
and gases — as those measured by survey systems. Detailed system
sampling and analysis equipment is generally selected to obtain continuous
°r semi-continuous measurements of specific pollutants rather Chan grab-
overall measurement.
-26-
-------
\
Particulate samples are collected using the SASS train described
in Section 3.4.1, filter Impaction, piezo-electric, particle charge trans-
fer, light or radiation scattering, electrostatic, and size selective or
adhesive Impaction techniques. Gases are sampled and analyzed using
flame ionization. detectors, bubbler/impinger trains, non-dispersive
infrared or ultraviolet monitors, flame photometry, and other techniques
specific to individual gaseous pollutants.
The selection of suitable sampling equipment should be influenced
by such considerations as portability, power requirements, detection
limits and ease of control.
3.5.2 Sampling System Design
The basic criteria and methods reviewed in Section 3.4.2 for the
design of a survey system are generally applicable to the design of a
detailed system. In cases where the capturing enclosure actually covers
all or part of the source, however, a minor adjustment is required in
the calculation of the required air flow race. In such cases, Che source
* serves to block some of the free air flow area and reduces the air flow
i
required'to achieve capture velocity. The elements of Equation 3-1 must
therefore be redefined in
Q = VA
where Q » air volume flow rate, cubic feet per minute
V = air velocity, feet per minute
A = free flow area, square feet
The free flow area is defined as the maximum area between the hood and
the enclosed source in any plant parallel to the open hood face.
1
-27-
-------
\
The calculation of Che minimum measurement duct diameter by
Equation 3-2, d - 4.45 x 10 ** Q remains unchanged. Straight duct run
requirements of at least 3d upstream and downstream of measurement parts
are required.
3.5.3 Sampling Techniques
Detailed system sampling, like survey system sampling, must be
scheduled and designed to obtain data representative of the emission
conditions of concern. Since a greater number of samples are likely to
be required in a detailed system, care must be taken to ensure that the
total flow rate to the samplers, does not exceed the air flow required
for capture velocity at the source enclosure.
A detailed system may be utilized to make comparative measurements
of emissions at different process condition's. It is possible, especially
in cases where the source enclosure closely follows the contours of the
source, that the flow of air induced by the sampling system over the
surface of the source could alter the process from that occurring under
normal operating conditions. While.no general method to verify the ex-
istence of this alteration can be defined, it is suggested that an
appropriate analysis be conducted to investigate the possibility and
corrective actions, such as a modification to the enclsoure design, be
taken as required.
3.5.4 Data Reduction
Data obtained in detailed programs is reduced in the same manner as
that obtained in survey programs, relating pollutant concentrations in
the sample volumes to sources strengths. The results are generally more
-28-
-------
accurate than those of a survey program, due to the combined effects of
the increase in the emissions capture effectiveness of the source en-
closure, the performance of inherently more accurate samplings and
analyses, and the replication of sampling.
3.6 Quality Assurance
The basic reason for quality assurance on a. measurement program is
to insure that the validity of the data collected can be verified. This
requires that a quality assurance program be an integral part of Che
measurement program from beginning to end. This section outlines the
quality assurance requirements of a sampling program in terms of several
basic criteria points. The criteria are listed below with a brief ex-
planation of the requirements in each area. Not all of the criteria
will be applicable in all fugitive emission measurement cases.
1. Introduction
Describe the project organization, giving details of che
lines of management and quality assurance responsibility.
2. Quality Assurance Program
Describe the objective and scope of the quality assurance
program.
3. Design Control
Document regulatory design requirements and standards ap-
plicable to the measurement program as procedures and specifi-
cations.
4. Procurement Document Control
Verify that all regulatory and program design specifications
accompany procurement documents (such as purchase orders).
5. Instructions, Procedures, Drawings
Prescribe all activities that affect the quality of the
work performed by written procedures. These procedures must
-29-
-------
include acceptance criteria for determining that these activ-
ities are accomplished.
6. Document Control
Ensure that the writing, issuance, and revision of proce-
dures which prescribe measurement program activities affecting
quality are documented and that these procedures are distributed
to and used at the location where the measurement program is
carried out.
7. Control of Purchase Material, Equipment, and Services
Establish procedures to ensure that purchased material con-
forms to the procurement specifications and provide verification
of conformance.
8. Identification and Control of Materials, Parts, and Components
Uniquely identify all materials, parts, and components chat
significantly contribute to program quality for traceability
and to prevent the use of incorrect or defective materials,
parts, or components.
9. Control of Special Processes
Ensure that special processes are controlled and accomplished
by qualified personnel using qualified procedures.
10. Inspection
Perform periodic inspections where necessary on activities
affecting the quality of work. These inspections must be or-
ganized and conducted to assure detailed acceptability of pro-
gram components.
11. Test Control
Specify all testing required to demonstrate that applicable
systems and components perform satisfactorily. Specify chat
the testing be done and documented according Co written proce-
dures, by qualified personnel, wich adequate test equipment
according to acceptance criteria.
12. Control of Measuring and Test Equipment
Ensure that all testing equipment is controlled co avoid
unauthorized use and that test equipment is calibrated and
adjusted at stated frequencies. An inventory of all test
equipment must be maintained and each piece of test equipment
labeled with the date of calibration and date of next calibra-
tion.
-30-
-------
13. Handling. Storage, and Shipping
Ensure that equipment and material receiving, handling,
storage, and shipping follow manufacturer's recommendations
to prevent damage and deterioration. Verification and docu-
mentation that established procedures are followed is requirec
14. Inspection, Test, and Operating Status
Label all equipment subject to required inspections and
tests so that the status of inspection and test is readily
apparent. Maintain an inventory of such inspections and oper-
ating status.
15. Non-conforming Parts and Materials
Establish a system that will prevent the inadvertent use
of equipment or materials that do not conform to requirements.
16. Corrective Action
Establish a system to ensure that conditions adversely af-
fecting the quality of program operations are identified, ccr-
rected, and commented on; and that preventive actions are
taken to preclude recurrence.
17. Quality Assurance Records
Maintain program records necessary to provide proof of
accomplishment of quality affecting activities of the measure-
ment program. Records include operating logs, test and in-
spection results, and personnel qualifications.
18, Audits
Conduct audits to evaluate the effectiveness of the mea-
surement program and quality assurance program to assure that
performance criteria are being met.
-31-
-------
4.0 ESTIMATED COSTS AflD TIME REQUIREMENTS
Table 4-1 presents a listing of the conditions assumed for estimat-
ing the costs and time requirements of quasi-stack fugitive emissions
sampling programs using the methodology described in this document. Four
programs are listed, representing simple and more complex levels of
effort for each of the survey and detailed programs defined in Section 3.3.
The combinations of conditions for each program are generally representa-
tive of ideal and more realistic cases for each level and will seldom
be encountered in actual practice. They do, however, illustrate the
range of effort and costs that may be expected in the application of the
quasi-stack technique except in very special instances.
4.1 Manpower
Table 4-2 presents estimates of manpower requirements for each of the
sampling programs listed in Table 4-1. Man-hours for each of the three
general levels of Senior Engineer/Scientist, Engineer/Scientist, and
Junior Engineer/Scientist are estimated for the general task areas out-
lined in this document and for additional separable tasks. Clerical man-
hours are estimated as a total for each program. Total man-hour require-
ments are approximately 500 man-hours for a simple survey program and 1000
man-hours for a more complex survey program and 1400 man-hours for a simple
detailed program and 2600 man-hours for a more comples detailed program.
4.2 Other Direct Costs
Table 4-3 presents estimates for equipment purchases, rentals, cal-
-32-
-------
TABLE 4-1
CONDITIONS ASSUMED FOR COST ESTIMATION
OF QUASI-STACK SAMPLING PROGRAM
Parameter
Source accessibility
Source geometry
Emissions
Particulate Samplers
Gas, Samplers
Experiments
Estimated basic accuracy
Level 1 Program
Simple
Open
Small,
simple shape
Constant rate,
continuous flow
Filter
Grab
1
+ 500%
Complex
Congested
Large,
complex shape
Variable rate,
interrupted flow
Filter
Bubblers
1
-1- 200%
Level 2 Program
Simple
Open
Small ,
simple shape
Constant rate,
continuous flow
Cascade impactor
BID
4
+ 100%
Complex
Congested
Large,
complex shape
Variable rate,
interrupted flow
Impactor, light
scatter
FID, infrared
12
+ 50%
I
OJ
LO
I
-------
TABLE 4-2
ESTIMATED MANPOWER REQUIREMENTS FOR QUASI STACK
FUGITIVE EMISSIONS SAMPLING PROGRAMS
Estimates In Man-Hours
Task
Pretest Survey
Test Plan
Equipment Acquisition
Field Set-Up
Field Study
Sample Analysis
Data Analysis
Report Preparation
Totals
Engineer/Scientist Total
Clerical
Grand Total
Level 1 Programs
Simple
Senior
Engr/Sci
4
8
4
16
16
8
8
16
80
Engr/
Sci
12
12
4
32
56
8
8
16
140
480
40
520
Junior
Engr/
Tech
0
0
12
80
120
16
16
8
252
Complex
Senior
Engr/Sci
8
12
4
16
32
8
8
32
120
Engr/
Sci
24
16 .
8
72
128
12
12
32
304
920
60
980
Junior
Engr/
Tech
0
4
28
120
280
24
24
16
496
Level 2 Programs
Simple
Senior
Engr/Sci
8
12
8
16
32
20
2P
40
156
Engr/
Sci
24
24
24
64
128
80
120
80
544
1320
100
1420
Junior
Engr/
Tech
0
12
48
120
240
120
40
40
620
Complex
Senior
Engr/Sci
12
16
12
32
64
40
40
60
276
Engr/
Sci
36
32
36
128
240
180
240
160
1052 .
2528
120
2648
Junior
Engr/
Tech
16
12
52
240
480
240
80
80
1200
-------
TABLE 4-3
ESTIMATED COSTS OTHER THAN MANPOWER FOR QUASI-STACK
FUGITIVE EMISSIONS SAMPLING PROGRAMS
i
Ul
In
Cost Item
Equipment
Sampler Purchases
Calibration
Repairs /Maintenance
Blower/Fan
Construction
Enclosure
Ducting
Shipping
Trailer Rental
Vehicle Rentals
On-Site Communi cat ions
TOTAL
Level 1 Programs
Simple
$1000
0
50
200
500
300
200
0
280
100
$2630
Complex
$1200
50
50
200
800
500
400
0
560
100
$3860
Level 2 Programs
Simple
$8000
300
200
300
1200
300
800
500
900
300
$12800
Complex
$12000
500
300
300
1800
800
1200
500
1200
300
$19100
-------
ibration and repairs; on-site construction of enclosures and ducts;
shipping and on-site communications for each of the listed programs.
Total costs are approximately $2,600 for a simple survey program and
$4,000 for a more complex survey program, and $13,000 for a simple de-
tailed program and $19,000 for a more complex detailed program.
4.3 Elapsed-Time Requirements
Figure 4-1 presents elapsed-tirae estimates for each of the listed
programs broken down into the task areas indicated in the manpower es-
timates of Table 4-2. Total program durations are approximately 12
weeks for a simple survey program and 16 weeks for a more complex survey
program, and 29 weeks for a simple detailed program and 38 weeks for a
more complex detailed program.
4.4 Cost Effectiveness
Figure 4-2 presents curves of the estimated cost effectiveness of
the quasi-stack technique, drawn through points calculated for the
four listed programs. Costs for each program were calculated at $30
per labor hour, $40 per man day subsistence for field work for the man-
power estimates of Table 4-2, plus the other direct costs estimated in
Table 4-3.
-36-
-------
I
OJ
Pre-tast
survey
Jest plan
preparation
Equipment
acquisition
Field
sat-up
Field
study
Sample
analysis
Data
analysis
Report
preparation
CID
LZD
1 5 10 15
I i I l I I 1 l I l l I I l I I I l
20 25 30 35 40
l I I I I I l l I I i I l I I I I l I I I
Simple survey program
Complex survey program
Simple detailed program
Complex detailed program
n i i r i r i n i r~r
1 5 10
15
~r~nn rnrn i i i i i i i i i i i i
20 25 30 35
Weeks
40
Fig. 4-1. Elapsed-time estimates for quasi-stack fugitive emissions sampling programs.
-------
500 r
400
a* 300
CO
u
200
100
Survey program
Detailed program
l
25
50 75 100
Cost in thousands of dollars
125
150
Fig. 4-2. Cost effectiveness of quasi-slack fugitive
emissions sampling programs.
-38-
-------
APPENDIX A
APPLICATION OF THE QUASI-STACK
MEASUREMENT METHOD TO A GREY-IRON FOUNDRY
-39-
-------
L.O IMTKODUCTION
This appendix presents an application of the quasi-stack fugitive
issions measurement system selection and design criteria to a grey-
on foundry mold pouring operation. The criteria for the selection
the method and the design procedures for both survey and detailed
npling systems as presented in Sections 3.4 and 3.5 of this document
e discussed.
-40-
-------
\
A.2.0 BACKGBOUND IMK)BMATION
The following information relative to the pouring operation of the
subject grey-iron foundry would ordinarily be compiled from interviews
and observations during a visit to the plant for a pre-test survey:
Mold pouring operations are conducted at many locations over the
foundry floor, with the molten iron carried from the melting furnace
in a pouring ladle by means of an overhead crane. Ladles are selected
to provide at least enough melt to completely fill a mold in a single
pouring. As many as six smaller molds, with flasks up to about 8 cubic
feet in volume, may be filled from a single small ladle; while the
largest ladle can carry enough melt to fill one mold in a flask up to
300 cubic feet. Actual pouring of the melt takes from about 30 seconds
for the smallest molds to nearly 6 minutes for the largest molds. The
emission character is the same for any size pouring, consisting mostly
of grey-iron fume and a variety of gaseous compounds, principally hydro-
carbons and carbon oxides. Emission character immediately after the
pouring, while there is still a gas-producing reaction between the melt
and the binder material in the mold, is different from that during the
pour, with almost no fume and more gaseous compounds being generated.
Emissions during this venting period are highest immediately after
the pour and lessen wich time, becoming negligible after about 4 minutes
for small molds and about .10 minutes for the largest molds. Molds are
spaced to provide working room around all four sides, so that pouring
operations, at least for the larger molds, may be readily isolated and
emissions from other operations excluded. Pouring is always accom-
plished from above the mold, with mold sprues generally located near one
-41-
-------
edge. Mold gas vents are located over the entire top surface of the
mold. Though foundry operations are continuous, the pouring of a
single mold may be scheduled at any time without seriously disturbing
normal operations.
-42-
-------
A.3.0 METHOD SELECTION
Selecting the most practical method to quantify the pollutants
emitted during the pouring operation involves the evaluation of the site,
process and pollutant information gathered during the pre-teat survey
in terms of the criteria of Section 2.2 as follows:
Site Criteria - the typical mold is located within the foundry
building with enough room.around the mold to provide complete
isolation from other operations and installation of an
enclosure and measuring equipment.
Process Criteria - emissions are from locations small enough
to totally enclose. No reactive effects will occur with other
emissions. Emission duration is only 10-15 minutes. Measure-
ment equipment installation and application will not alter
emissions, process or production schedules.
Pollutant Criteria - emissions to be measured are particulates
and gases, neither of which is hazardous. Generation rate
should produce measurable concentrations in reasonable transport
air flows.
The criteria in this case satisfy the requirements for the quasi-
stack method. Measurements made of a single pouring can provide in-
formation relative to the emission rate for a given volume or mass of
melt, and, by extrapolation, for the entire foundry. A survey program
may be utilized to roughly determine the overall emissions rate and estab-
lish whether the concentrations of particulates or gases chat may reach
the ambient air will result in the creation of an objectionable condition.
If such a condition is indicated, a detailed program will identify and
quantify specific pollutants to assist in the selection and design of
control equipment to reduce emissions to alleviate the condition. The
design of both survey and detailed systems is described in following
sections.
-43-
-------
A.4.0 SURVEY MEASUREMENT SYSTEM
To measure the cont-ribution of a single pouring's emission to the
ambient air, emissions from the mold and ladle during the pouring and
from the mold alone during the post-pouring venting must be captured
and transported to sampling equipment. Samples must be taken at a
high rate to ensure that measurable pollutant quantities are isolated
during the short.process-duration. In order to keep the required hood
structure to a manageable size and still obtain a reasonable sampling
time, a medium-sized mold, 3x4x4 feet is selected, representative of
the average-sized casting produced in the foundry. This size casting
requires about 4 minutes to pour and has a venting period of 7 to 8 min-
utes. Consultations with foundry engineers indicating that a clear-
ance of 3 feet above the front pouring edge of the mold will leave
sufficient room for handling the pouring ladle, a hood is designed a«
shown in Figure A-l, providing this clearance and a 3 inch overlap over
each edge of the mold.
• The face area of this hood is about 16 square feet. The control
velocity for a large quantity of fume in a medium drafty ambient atmos-
phere, as indicated in Table 3-2, is 60-70 feet per minute. Using the
higher velocity value for V and the calculated area for A in Equation 3-1,
Q =• VA * 70 x 16 = 1120 cubic feet per minute.
For this flow rate, the minimum measurement duct diameter is calculated
from Equation 3-2, •
d - 7 x lO'^Q = .78 feet
d * 9.4 inches
-44-
-------
Fig. A-1. Survey program sampling hood design.
-------
A standard 10 inch diameter duct will provide for the proper flow and
require only 8 to 10 feet of length to provide the required flow straight-
ening upstream and downstream of the measurement and sampling probes.
The flow measuring instruments located in the duct consist of a
pitot pressure tube, a static pressure port and a mercury thermometer
inserted to the duct centerline about 40 inches (4d) from the hood
transition section.
The particulate sampling tube is located about 20 inches downstream
of the flow measuring instruments and consists of a 1/2 inch diameter
right-angled probe, this diameter chosen to provide as much sample as
possible during the rather short emission duration. The sampling flow
rate is calculated from Equation 3-4 as
F max = Q d| = 2.8 cubic feet per minute.
d*
At 2.8 cubic feet per minute, the particulate filter will be exposed to
about 11 cubic feet during the pouring and about 20 cubic feet during
the venting period. Grab-sampling 4 cubic foot bags valved into the
sampling line will, be readily filled during the pour and venting to
provide separate measurements of gaseous emission.
-46-
-------
I
\
A.5.0 DETAILED MEASUREMENT SYSTEM
Assuming that the survey system measurements indicate emission rates
resulting in pollutant concentrations in a range possibly hazardous to
the health of the foundry personnel, further identification ot che
specific pollutant components and their concentrations by means of a
detailed measurement system will either establish the need for emission
controls or eliminate the cause for concern.
The detailed system will utilize three separate -on-line particulaCe
measurement devices to determine size distribution, mass, composition
and organic characteristics. These are:
1. Particle charge transfer monitor
2. Cascade impactor
3. EPA isokinetic sampling train
The combination will provide positive identification of all particulates
and readily separate fume from background particles.
Alternatively, the SASS train described in Section 3.4.1 may be
utilized to provide data on the particulates and the volatile matter in
the sampled stream.
Gaseous emissions will be identified and quantified by on-line
measurements using a. flame ionization detector for hydrocarbons and a
non-dispersive infrared monitor for carbon monoxide.
The 3x4x4 foot mold used in Che survey program is again utilized,
with the capture hood modified to provide almost total enclosure of the
mold and pouring ladle by extending the hood to the floor and providing
flexible shrouds across the open front face. The sampling system is
shown with shrouds in place in Figure A-2.
-47-
-------
1*
In this configuration, Che free flow area of the hood is maintained
at about the same size as in the Level 1 system and the air flow rate
calculation remains the same, yielding Q « 1120 cubic feet per minute
and d » 10 inches. The sampling probes may be reduced in size since the
on-line samplers flow requirements are significantly less than those
required for overall measurements. Equation 3-4 shows, for example,
that a 1/16 inch line will provide about 30 times the required 200
milliliter per minute flow rate required by the FID monitor without ex-
ceeding measurement duct velocity restrictions.
• All measurement devices fcr this system are shown within a labora-
tory trailer, since most foundry floors will not allow the installation
of sensitive devices without a strong possibility of either external
contamination or interference with normal work patterns.
In use, the flog,r area within the hood/shroud enclosure is carefully
swept to remove any non-pouring particles. A "dry" run, without the
ladle of melt in position, is conducted before the pour to measure the
background pollutant concentrations. These are subtracted from the
concentrations measured during the pour before source strength calcula-
tions are performed.
-48-
-------
Capture
hood
Particulate Measurement Devices
IKOR EPA CASCADE
IMP ACTOR
HC and CO line
Instruments
Fig. A-2. Detailed program sampling system.
-------
\
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
1. REPORT NO. .
EPA-600/2-76-089c
2.
3. RECIPIENT'S ACC£SSION>NO,
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Technical Manual for the Measurement of Fugitive
Emissions: Quasi-Stack Sampling Method for
Industrial Fugitive Emissions
5. REPORT DATE
May 1976
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION COQE
AUTMOH(S)
H -1
W.A Marrune
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
Kolnsberg,
P.W. Kalika, R. E. Kenson, and
9 PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME ANO AOORESS
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
TRC--The Research Corporatioci of New England
125 Silas Deane Highway
Wethersfield, Connecticut 06109
1AB015; ROAP 21AUZ-004
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
68-02-1815
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND AOOH6SS
EPA, Office of Research and Development
Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Task Final: 6/75-3/76
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA-ORD
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES Project Officer for this technical manual is Robert M. Statnick,
Mail Drop 62, Ext 2557.
is. ABSTRACT
technical manual presents fundamental considerations that are required
in using the Quasi-Stack Sampling Method to measure fugitive emissions. Criteria
for selecting the most applicable measurement method and discussions of general
information-gathering and planning activities are presented. Quasi-Stack sampling
strategies and equipment are described, and sampling system design, sampling
techniques, and data reduction are discussed. Manpower require nic...3 and time
estimates for typical applications of the method are presented for programs designed
for overall and specific emissions measurements. The application of the outlined
procedures to the measurement of fugitive emissions from a gray- iron foundry is
presented as an appendix.
7.
KEY WORDS ANO DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
Air Pollution Foundries
Industrial Processes
Measurement
Sampling
Estimating
Gray Iron
b.IOENTlFIERS/QPEN ENDED TERMS
Air Pollution Control
Stationary Sources
Fugitive Emissions
Quasi-Stack Sampling
c. COSATI Field/Group
13B
13 H
14B
11F
3. ClSTRiauTIQN STATEMENT
Unlimited
19. SECURITY CLASS (This Report)
Unclassified
21. NO OF PAGES
54
20. SECURITY CLASS (This page)
Unclassified
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 O-73)
-50-
-------
Appendix D
-------
* Ap* J
\ (41 FR 8220. Feb. 8,1879)
.^" APPENDIX I—(RESERVED]
APPENDIX J TO PART 50—REFERENCE
METHOD roa XHK DETERMINATION or
• PARTICULAR MATTER AS PM,o IN THE
ATUOSPHXRK
1.0 Applicability-
11 ThU method provides for the meas-
urement ol the mass concentration o( par-
tlculate mutter with an aerodynamic dlarne-
ter lew than or equal to » nominal 10 mi-
crometers (PM,0> to ambient air over a 24-
hour period for purposes of determining at-
tainment and maintenance of the primary
and secondary national ambient air quality
standards for partlculate matter specified In
150.0 of this chapter. The measurement
process is nondestructive, and the PM,o
sample can be subjected to subsequent
physical or chemical analyses. Quality as-
surance procedures and guidance are provid-
ed In part 68, appendices A and B, of this
chapter and In References 1 and 2.
2.0 Principle.
2.1 An air sampler draws ambient air at a
>• constant flow rate into a specially shaped
1 inlet where the suspended partlculate
matter is taertially separated into one or
more size tractions within the PM,. size
range. Each size fraction in the PM,0 size
range U then collected on a separate filter
• over the specified sampling period. The par-
, tide size discrimination characteristics
• (sampling effectiveness and 60 percent cut-
point) of the sampler inlet are prescribed as
performance specifications in part 63 of this
chapter.
2 2 Each filter Is weighed (after moisture
equilibration) before and after use to deter-
mine the net weight (mass) gain due to col-
lected PM». The total volume of air earn
pled, corrected to EPA reference conditions
(2V C 101.3 Wa>. Is determined from the
measured flow rate and the sampling tune.
The mass concentration of PM,« In the am-
bient air Is computed as the total mass of
collected particles in the PM,. size range di-
vided by the volume of air sampled, and Is
expressed In mlcrograms per standard cubic
meter (ug/std mM. For PM,. samples collect-
ed at temperature* and pressures signifi-
cantly different from EPA reference condi-
tions, these corrected concentrations some-
times differ substantially from actual con-
centrations (In mlcrograma per actual cubic
meter) particularly at high elevations. Al-
i though not required, the actual PM,» con-
centration can be calculated from the cor-
rected concentration, using the average am-
bient temperature and barometric pressure
during the sampling period.
40 CFR Ch. I (7-1-91 Edition)
2.3 A method based on this principle will
be considered a reference method only If (a)
the associated sampler meets the require-
ments specified In this appendix and the re-
quirements In part 63 of this chapter, and
(b) the method has been designated as a ref-
erence method In accordance with part 63 of
this chapter.
3.0 Range.
3 1 The lower limit of the mass concen-
tration range Is determined by the repeata-
bility of filter tare weights, assuming the
nominal air sample volume for the sampler.
For samplers having an automatic inter-
changing mechanism, there may be no
upper limit. For samplers that do not have
an automatic filter-changing mechanism.
the upper limit Is determined by the filter
mass loading beyond which the sampler no
longer maintains the operating flow rate
within specified HmlU due to Increased pres-
sure drop across the loaded filter. This
upper limit cannot be specified precisely be-
cause it Is a complex function of the ambi-
ent particle size distribution and type, hu-
midity, filter type, and perhaps other fac-
tors Nevertheless, all samplers should be
capable of measuring 24-hour PM,. mass
concentrations of at least 300 jig/rtd m«
while maintaining the operating flow rate
within the specified limits.
4.0 Precision.
11 The precision of PM,. samplers must
be 5 ug/m' for PM,. concentrations below 80
jig/in" and 7 percent for PM,. concentra-
tions above 80 fig/m*. •» required by Part 63
of this chapter, which prescribes a test pro-
cedure that determines the variation in the
PM,, concentration measurements of Identi-
cal samplers under typical sampling condi-
tions. Continual assessment of precision via
collocated samplers Is required by Part 68 of
this chapter for PM,« samplers used In cer-
tain monitoring networks.
6.0 Accuracy.
6 1 Docaunu the aizu of the parllolei
making up ambient partlculate matter
varies over a wide range and the concentra-
tion of particles varies with particle size, It
Is difficult to define the absolute accuracy
of PM,. samplers. Part 53 of this chapter
provides a specification for the sampling ef-
fectiveness of PM,. samplers. This specifica-
tion requires that the expected mass con-
centratlon calculated for a candidate PM,,
sampler, when sampling a specified particle
size distribution, be within ±10 percent ol
that calculated for an Ideal sampler whose
sampling effectiveness Is explicitly specified.
Also the particle size for 60 percent sam-
pling effectlvensss Is required to be 10±0.6
micrometers. Other specifications related to
accuracy apply to flow measurement and
calibration, filter media, analytical (weigh-
ing) procedures, and artifact. The flow rate
accuracy of PM,. samplers used in certain
Environmental Protection Ag«ncy
monitoring networks Is required by Part 68
ol this chapter to be assessed periodically
via flow rate audits.
8.0 Potential Sourcei of Error.
8.1 Volatile Particles. Volatile particles
collected on filters are often lost during
shipment and/or storage of the filters prior
to the post-sampling weighing1. Although
shipment or storage of loaded filters is
sometimes unavoidable, filters should be
rewelghed as soon as practical to minimize
these losses.
6.2 Artifact!. Positive errors in PM,, con-
centration measurements may result from
retention of gaseous species on filters «•'.
Such errors Include the retention of sulfur
dioxide and nitric acid. Retention of sulfur
dioxide on filters, followed by oxidation to
lulfate. Is referred to as artifact s.ulfate for-
mation, a phenomenon which increases with
Increasing filter alkalinity «. Little or no ar-
tifact sulfate formation should occur using
filters that meet the alkalinity specification
In section 7.2.4. Artifact nitrate formation,
resulting primarily from retention of nitric
acid, occurs to varying degrees on many
filter types, Including glass fiber, cellulose
ester, and many quartz fiber filters *•'•*»'".
Loss of true atmospheric partlculate nitrate
during or following sampling may also occur
due to dissociation or chemical reaction.
This phenomenon has been observed on
Teflon* filters' and Inferred for quartz
fiber filters "• ". The magnitude of nitrate
artifact errors In PM,» mass concentration
measurements will vary with location and
unbient temperature; however, for most
sampling locations, these errors are expect-
ed to be small.
8.3 Humidity- The effects of ambient hu-
midity on the sample are unavoidable. The
filter equilibration procedure in section 9.0
Is designed to minimize the effects of mois-
ture on the filter medium.
6.4 Filter Handling. Careful handling of
(liters botwoon pre«ami>Hng and .poaUam-
pllng weighings Is necessary to avoid errors
due to damaged filters or loss of collected
particles from the filters. Use of a filter car-
tridge or cassette may reduce the magnitude
of these errors. Filters must also meet the
Integrity specification in section 7.2.3.
6.6 Flow Rate Variation. Variations In
the sampler's operating flow rate may alter
the particle size discrimination characteris-
tics of the sampler Inlet. The magnitude of
this error will depend on the sensitivity of
the Inlet to variations in flow rate and on
the particle distribution in the atmosphere
during the sampling period. The use of a
flow control device (section 7.1.3) Is required
to minimize this error. '
6.8 Air Volume Determination. Errors In
the air volume determination may result
from errors In the flow rate and/or sam-
pling time measurements. The flow control
device serves to minimize errors In the flow
Pt. 50, App. J
rate determination, and an elapsed time
meter (section 7.1.5) Is required to minimize
the error In the sampling time measure-
ment.
7.0 ^pporottw.
7.1 PM,. Sampler.
7.1.1 The sampler shall be designed to:
a. Draw the air sample Into the sampler
Inlet and through the particle collection
filter at a uniform face velocity.
b. Hold and seal the filter in a horizontal
position so that sample air Is drawn down-
ward through the filter.
c. Allow the filter to be Installed and re-
moved conveniently.
d. Protect the filter and sampler from pre-
cipitation and prevent Insects and other
debris from being sampled.
e. Minimize air leaks that would cause
error in the measurement of the air volume
passing through the filter.
f. Discharge exhaust air at a sufficient dis-
tance from the sampler Inlet to minimize
the sampling of exhaust air.
g. Minimize the collection of dust from
the supporting surface.
7.1.2 The sampler shall have a sample air
Inlet system that, when operated within a
specified flow rate range, provides particle
size discrimination characteristics meeting
all of the applicable performance specifica-
tions prescribed in part 53 of this chapter.
The sampler Inlet shall show no significant
wind direction dependence. The latter re-
quirement can generally be satisfied by an
inlet shape that Is circularly symmetrical
about a vertical axis.
7.1.3 The sampler shall have a flow con-
trol device capable of maintaining the sam-
pler's operating flow rate within the flow
rate limits specified for the sampler Inlet
over normal variations In line voltage and
filter pressure drop.
7.1.4 Thu munplur nrmll provide u intiuiut
to measure the total flow rale during the
sampling period. A continuous flow recorder
is recommended but not required. The flow
measurement device shall be accurate to ±2
percent.
7.1.5 A timing/control device capable of
starting and stopping the sampler shall be
used to obtain a sample collection period of
24 ±1 hr (1,440 ±60 mln). An elapsed time
meter, accurate to within ±15 minutes,
shall be used to measure sampling time.
This meter is optional for samplers with
continuous flow recorders If the sampling
time measurement obtained by means of
the recorder meets the ±15 minute accura-
cy specification.
7.1.Q The sampler shall have an associat-
ed operation or Instruction manual as re-
quired by part 53 of this chapter which In-
cludes detailed Instructions on the calibra-
tion, operation, and maintenance of the
sampler.
766
-------
•
W. #), App. J
lledium. Ho commercially
medium 1* Ideal In all re-
tor tflsamplers. The user's goals In
the relative Importance
Furthermore, certain types of filters may
notb* aultable for use with some •amplen.
partteularty under heavy loading conditions
(Wah mass concentrations), because of high
or rapid Increase In the filter flow resistance
tnaTwouWMceed the capability of the sam-
DleVs flow control device. However, sam-
plers equipped with automatic fllter-chang
tai mechanta»s may allow use of these
tvD«« of filters. The specifications given
below are minimum requirements to ensure
acceDtabuity of the filter medium for meas-
urement of PMi, mass concentra Ions.
Other filter evaluation criteria should be
considered to meet Individual sampling and
"IMMS Collection Efficiency. 268 percent.
as measured bytoeDOP test (ASTM-2988)
with O.J nm particles at the sampler's oper-
ating face velocity.
T?8 InUffrttv- ±6 jig/m* (assuming sam-
mert nominal 34-hour air sample volume).
Integrity la measured as the PM,. concen-
tration equivalent corresponding to the av-
erage difference between the Initial ind the
final weights of a random sample of test fli-
ter* that are weighed and handled under
actuaYor simulated sampling conditions, but
have no air sample passed through them
(la filter blanks). As a minimum, the test
procure must Include Initial equilibration
and weighing, installation on an Inoperative
•ampler!'removal from the sampler, and
final equilibration and weighing.
724 Alkalinity. <2» mlcrocqulvalcnU/
loam of filter, as measured by the proce-
dure given In Reference 13 following at least
two months storage In a clean environment
(free from contamination by acidic gases) at
room temperature and humidity.
™? flow Hate Trons/«r Standard, The
flow rate transfer standard must be suitable
for the sampler's operating flow rate and
must be calibrated against a primary flow or
volume standard that Is traceable to the Na-
Uon^Bunau of Standards (NBS). The now
rate transfer standard must be capable of
measuring the sampler's operating flow rate
with an' accuracy of ±2 percent.
14 filter Conditioning Environment.
741 Temperature range: 16' to 30 C.
7-.4.2 Temperature control: ±3' C.
743 Humidity range: 20% to 45% RH.
744 Humidity control: ±5% RH.
7's' Analytical Balance. The analytical
balance must be suitable (or weighing the
iype M»d size of filters required by the sam-
pler The range and sensitivity required will
40 CPR Ch. I (7-1-91 Edition)
depend on the filter tare weights and mass
loadings. Typically, an ^"^.^'^
with a sensitivity of 0.1 mg «• required for
high volume samplers (flow «*•>•••«"''
mta). Lower volume samplers (How rates
<0.5 m'/mln) will require a more sensitive
balance.
8.0 Calibration.
8.1 General Reguirtmentt.
8.1.1 Calibration of the •ampler-' flow
measurement device Is required to wtaWUto
traceablllty of subsequent flow »«"«*
ments to a primary standard. A now rat*
transfer standard calibrated agalns; a pri-
mary now or volume standard shall be used
to calibrate or verify the accuracy of the
sampler's flow measurement device.
8 1 2 Particle size discrimination by Iner-
tia) separation requires that specific air ve-
locities be maintained In the sampler's air
Inlet system. Therefore, the flow rate
through the sampler's Inlet must be mato
talned throughout the sampling period
within the design now rate range specified
by the manufacturer. Design flow rates are
specified as actual volumetric flow rates.
measured at existing conditions of tempera-
ture and pressure (Q.). In contrast, mass
concentrations of PM,. are computed using
flow rates corrected to EPA reference condi-
tions of temperature and pressure (Q.*).
8 2 Flow Rate Calibration Procedure.
82 1 PM,. samplers employ various types
of flow control and flow measurement de-
vices. The specific procedure used for flow
rite calibration or verification will vary de-
pending on the type of flow controller and
now indicator employed. Calibration to
terms of actual volumetric flow rates (Q.) Is
generally recommended, but other measurei
of flow rate (e.g.. Q.M> may be used provided
the requirements of section 8.1 are met. !M
general procedure given here Is based on
actual volumetric flow units (Q.) and serves
to Illustrate the steps Involved to the caU-
bratlon of a PM,. sampler. Consult «»e sam-
pler manufacturer's Instruction manual and
Reference 2 for specific guidance on callbrs,
tlon. Reference 14 provides additional Infor-
matlon on the use of the commonly used
measures of flow rate and their Interrela-
822 Calibrate the flow rate transfer
standard against a Primary flow or volume
standard traceable to NBS. Establish a cali-
bration relationship (e.g.. an equat on or
family of curves) such that traceablllty to
the primary standard Is accurate to within 1
percent over the expected range of ambient
conditions (I.e.. temperatures and Pressures)
under which the transfer standard will be
used. Recalibrate the transfer standard pert-
° 8 ITs* Following the sampler manufactur-
er's Instruction nvsuiual. remove the sampler
Inlet and connect the flow rate tran&er
Environmental Protection Agoncy
standard to the sampler such that the
transfer standard accurately measures the
sampler's flow rate. Make sure there are no
leaks between the transfer standard and the
sampler.
8.2.4 Choose a minimum of three flow
rates (actual m'/mln). spaced over the ac-
ceptable flow rate range specified for the
Inlet (see 7.1,2) that can be obtained by suit-
able adjustment of the sampler flow rate. In
accordance with the sampler manufactur-
er's Instruction manual, obtain or verify the
calibration relationship between the flow
rate (actual mVmln) as Indicated by the
transfer standard and the sampler's flow in-
dicator response. Record the ambient tem-
perature and barometric pressure. Tempera-
ture and pressure corrections to subsequent
flow indicator readings may be required for
certain types of flow measurement device's,
When such corrections are necessary, cor-
rection on an individual or dally basis is
preferable. However, seasonal average tem-
perature and average barometric pressure
for the sampling site may be Incorporated
Into the sampler calibration to avoid dally
corrections. Consult the sampler.manufac-
turer's Instruction manual and Reference 2
for additional guidance.
8.2.6 Following calibration, verify that
the sampler Is operating at Its design flow
rate (actual m'/mln) with a clean filter In
place.
8.2.8 Replace the sampler Inlet..
0.0 Procedure.
0.1 Thff sampler shall be operated In ac-
cordance with the specific guidance provid-
ed In the sampler manufacturer'! Instruc-
tion manual and In Reference 2. The gener-
al procedure given here assumes that the
sampler's flow rate calibration Is.based on
flow rates at ambient conditions (Q.) and
wrvei to Illustrate the steps involved In the
Operation of a PM,, sampler. .
9.2 Inspect ouch filler for plnholos, parti-
cles, and other Imperfections. Establish a
filter Information record and assign an Iden-
tification number to each filter.
9.8 Equilibrate ouch filter In the condi-
tioning environment (see 7.4) for at least 24
hours.
9.4 Following equilibration, weigh each
filter and record the presampling weight
with the filter identification number.
9.6 Install a prewelghed filter In the sam-
pler following the Instructions provided in
the sampler manufacturer's Instruction
manual.
9.8 Turn on the sampler and allow It to
establish run-temperature conditions.
Record the flow indicator reading and. If
needed, the ambient temperature and baro-
metric pressure. Determine the sampler
flow rate (actual m'/mln) in accordance
with the Instructions provided In the sam-
pler manufacturer's Instruction .manual.
NOTE,—No onslte temperature or pressure
Pt. 50, App. J
measurements are necessary If the sampler's
flow Indicator does not require temperature
or pressure corrections or if seasonal aver-
age temperature and average barometric
pressure for the sampling site are Incorpo-
rated Into the sampler calibration (see step
8.2.4). If individual or dally temperature and
pressure corrections are required, ambient
temperature and barometric pressure can be
obtained by on-slte measurements or from a
nearby weather station. Barometric pres-
sure readings obtained from airports must
be station pressure, not corrected to sea
level, and may need to be corrected for dif-
ferences in elevation between the sampling
site and the airport.
0.7 If the flow rate Is outside the accept-
able range specified by the manufacturer,
check for leaks, and If necessary, adjust the
flow rate to the specified setpolnt. Stop the
sampler.
9.8 Set the tuner to start and stop the
sampler at appropriate times. Set the
elapsed time meter to zero or record the ini-
tial meter reading.
9.9 Record the sample Information (site
location or identification number, sample
date, filter Identification number, and sam-
pler model and serial number).
9.10 Sample for 24 ±1 hours.
9.11 Determine and record the average
flow rate (Q.) In actual mVmin for the sam-
pling period In accordance with the instruc-
tions provided In the sampler manufactur-
er's Instruction manual. Record the elapsed
time meter final reading and, if needed, the
average ambient temperature and baromet-
ric pressure for the sampling period (see
note following step 9.6).
9.12 Carefully remove the filter from the
sampler, following the sampler manufactur-
er's Instruction manual. Touch only the
oulor oduoN of Iho flltnr.
9.13 Place the filter In a protective
holder or container (e.g., petri dish, glasslne
envelope, or manlla folder).
0.14 Rucord any factors such att meteoro-
logical conditions, construction activity.
fires or dust storms, etc., that might be per-
tinent to the measurement on the filter In-
formation record.
9.1S Transport the exposed sample filter
to the filter conditioning environment as
soon as possible for equilibration and subse-
quent weighing.
9.16 Equilibrate the exposed filter in the
conditioning environment for at least 24
hours under the same temperature and hu-
midity conditions used for presampling
filter equilibration (see 9.3).
6.17 Immediately after equilibration, re-
weigh the filter and record the postsatn-
pllng weight with the filter Identification
number.
inn e<.~~>— •- • •
-------
PI. 50, App. K
, 10.1 The PMu sampler shall be maln-
, talned in strict accordance with the malnte-
' nance procedure* »p«clfled In the sampler
< manufacturer1! Instruction manual.
11.0 Calculation*.
11.1 • Calculate the average flow rate over
the sampling period corrected to EPA refer-
\ ence condition* as Q^. When the sampler's
; flow Indicator is calibrated In actual volu-
metric unlU (Q.), 0*4 U calculated as:
where
0^4*. average flow rate at EPA reference
conditions, std m'/mln;
Q.=* average flow rate at ambient conditions,
P., 'average barometric pressure during the
sampling period or average barometric
pressure for the sampling site, kPa (or
mmHg);
T.,*» average ambient temperature during
the 'sampling period or seasonal average
i ambient temperature for the sampling
' site. K:
' T^tstandard temperature, defined as 298
K;
fM" standard pressure, defined iut 101.3 kl'u
(or 740 mm Hg).
* 11.2 Calculate the total volume of air
sampled as:
wherg
V«4- total air sampled In standard volume
unlU, std m'i
t-sampllng time, mln.
11.3 Calculate the PMu concentration as:
. PMi,-
-------
PI. 50, App. K
There are less stringent data requirements
tot showing that a monitor has failed an at-
tainment test and thus has recorded a viola-
tion of the particular matter standards. Al-
though It Is generally necessary to meet the
minimum 75 percent data capture requlre-
raent per quarter to UM the computational
formula, described In Sections 3 and 4. thfc
criterion does not apply when less data U
sufficient to unambiguously establish non-
attainment. The following examples Illus-
trate how nonattainment can be demon-
strated when a site fails to meet the com-
pfc&nesS criteria. Nonattainment of the 24-
hour primary standards can be established
by (a)ttie observed annual number of excee-
j dance* (a* four observed exceedances In a
' ilnsfle year), or by =1.67
or 1.6. Since 1.6 exceeds the allowable
number of expected exceedances, this moni-
toring site would fall the attainment test.
Example 2 '
In this example, everyday sampling was
Initiated following the first observed excee-
dance as required by 40 CPR 58.13. Accord-
ingly, the first observed exceodance would
not be adjusted for incomplete sampling,
During the next three quarters, 1.2 excee
dances were estimated. In this case, the esti-
mated exceedances for the year would be
1.0+1.2+0.0+0.0 which equals 2.2. If, a*
before, no exceedances were observed foi
the two previous years th»r> »h-
Pt. 50, App. K
then be U/3)x<2.2+0.0+0.0)=0.7, and the
monitoring site would not fall the attain-
ment test.
3.2 Adjustment* for Non-Scheduled Sam-
pling Days.
If a systematic aampllng lohadulo U u*oil
and aampllng I* performed on days In addi-
tion to the days specified by the systematic
sampling schedule, e.g., during episodes of
high pollution, then an adjustment must be
made tn the formula for the estimation of
exceedances. Such an adjustment is needed
to eliminate the bias In the estimate of the
quarterly and annual number of excee-
dances that would occur If the chance of an
exceedance Is different for scheduled than
for non-scheduled days, as would be the case
with episode sampling.
The required adjustment treats the sys-
tematic sampling schedule as a stratified
sampling plan. If the period from one sched-
uled sample until the day preceding the
next scheduled sample ls defined as a sam-
pling stratum, then there is one stratum for
each scheduled sampling day. An average
number of observed exceedances 1s comput-
ed for each of these sampling strata. With
nonscheduled sampling days, the estimated
number of exceedances Is defined as
e, «= (N./m,) x
m,
I
(v./k.)
(31
where
e,»the estimated number of excoodanccs
for the quarter.
N.-llio riuinbnr of day* I" tlio i|\iurlur.
m,=the number of strata with samples
during the quarter,
v,=the number of observed exceedances in
stratum J, and
k,=the number of actual samples In stratum
J.
Note that if only one sample value is re-
corded In each stratum, then formula 13] re-
duces to formula [11.
Example 3
A monitoring site samples according to a
systematic sampling schedule of one sample
every 6 days, for a total of 15 scheduled
samples In a quarter out of a total of 92 pos-
sible samples. During one 6-day period, po-
tential episode levels of PM,o were suspect-
ed, so 5 additional samples were taken. One
of the regular scheduled samples was
missed, so a total of 19 samples in 14 sam-
pling strata uipra m» •
-------
«! Pt.50, App. K
! with one sample per stratum recorded zero
' exceedances. Using formula 131, the estlmat-
: ed number of exceedances for the quarter Is
j e,-(82/i«X(2/a+0+. . .+0)=2.19
I 4.0 Computational Formulas lor Annual
' Standards.
4.1 Calculation of the Annual Arithmetic
'''
40 CFR Ch. I (7-1-91 Iditlon)
Example 4
Using formula 141. the quarterly means
are calculated for each calendar quarter. If
the quarterly means are 62.4. 76.3. 82.1, and
83.2 ng/m *, then the annual mean Is
. •,
" An annual arithmetic mean value for PM,»
U determined by averaging the quarterly
mean* for the 4 calendar quarters o< the
year. The following formula 1s to be used
for calculation of the mean for a calendar
quarter.
. (1/n,) X
(4)
1-1
where
.j£»uthft quarterly mean concentration lor
quarter a. Q-l. >• *«or *•
n,- the number of samples In the quarter.
and
*,- th« ith concentration value recorded in
the quarter.
The quarterly mean, expressed In ng/m».
must be rounded to the nearest tenth (frac-
tional values of 0.06 should be rounded up).
The annual mean U calculated by using
the following formula:
(1/4) X
(6)
x - U/4)X(52.4+76.3.»-82.
= 68.26 or 68.3
4 2 Adjustments for Non-scheduled Sam-
pling Days.
An adjustment In the calculation of the
annual mean is needed if sampling U per-
formed on days In addition to the days spec-
ified by the systematic sampling schedule.
For the same reasons given In the discussion
of estimated exceedances (Section 3.2), th«
quarterly averages would be calculated by
using the following formula:
where
x-»the annual mean, and
I,-the mean for calendar quarter i)
The average of quarterly means must be
rounded to the nearest tenth (fractional
valuei of 0.06 should be rounded up).
The use of quarterly averages to compute
the annual average will not be necessary for
monitoring or modeling data which results
In a complete record. I.e., 366 days per year.
The expected annual mean Is estimated as
the average of three or more annual means.
This multi-year estimate, expressed (n >ig/
m*. shall be rounded to the nearest Integer
for comparison with the annual standard
(fractional values of 0.5 should be rounded
UJJ>).
(l/m,) x
m, k,
J-l 1-1
where
x.=the quarterly mean concentration for
quarter q, q-1. 2, 3. or 4.
xu=the 1th concentration value recorded in
stratum J,
k,=the number of actual samples in stratum
j and
m,=the number of strata with data in the
quarter.
If one sample value 1s recorded in each
stratum, formula (6] reduces to a simple
arithmetic average of the observed values at
described by formula (41.
£xamp
-------
U. S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY * Previous Revision: September 28, 1992
Office of Research and Development *
Atmospheric Research and Exposure * New Designations:
Assessment Laboratory * Daslbl Environmental Corporation
Methods Research & Development Division (MD-77) * Model 2108 Oxides of Nitrogen Analyzer
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711 * Lear Siegler Measurement Controls Corporation
919 541-2622 or 919 541-4599 * Model ML9841 Nitrogen Oxides Analyzer
FTS 629-2622 or FTS 629-4599 * Model ML9810 Ozone Analyzer
* Model ML9850 Sulfur Dioxide Analyzer
Issue Date: February 8, 1993 ************************
LIST OF DESIGNATED REFERENCE AND EQUIVALENT METHODS
These methods for measuring ambient concentrations of specified air pollutants have been designated as "reference
methods" or "equivalent methods" in accordance with Title 40, Part 53 of the Code of Federal Regulations (40 CFR Part
53). Subject to any limitations (e.g., operating range) specified in the applicable designation, each method is
acceptable for use in state or local air quality surveillance systems under 40 CFR Part 58 unless the applicable
designation Is subsequently canceled. Automated methods are acceptable for use at temperatures between 20°C and 30°C
and line voltages between 105 and 125 volts unless wider limits are specified in the method description.
Prospective users of the methods listed should note (1) that each method must be used in strict accordance with
the operation or Instruction manual and with applicable quality assurance procedures, and (2) that modification of a
method by Its vendor or user may cause the pertinent designation to be inapplicable to the method as modified. (See
Section 2.8 of Appendix C, 40 CFR Part 58 for approval of modifications to any of these methods by users.)
Further Information concerning particular designations may be found in the Federal Register notice cited for each
method or by writing to the Atmospheric Research & Exposure Assessment Laboratory, Methods Research & Development
Division (MD-77), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711. Technical
Information concerning the methods should be obtained by writing to the "source" listed for each method. New analyzers
or PM10 samplers sold as reference or equivalent methods must carry a label or sticker Identifying them as designated
methods. For analyzers or PM10 samplers sold prior to the designation, the model number does not necessarily Identify
an analyzer or sampler as a designated method. Consult the manufacturer or seller to determine if a previously sold
analyzer or sampler can be considered a designated method, or if it can be upgraded to designation status. Analyzer
users who experience operational or other difficulties with a designated analyzer or sampler and are unable to resolve
the problem directly with the instrument manufacturer may contact EPA (preferably in writing) at the above address for
assistance.
This list will be revised as nece'ssary to reflect any new designations or any cancellation of a designation
currently In effect. The most current revision of the list will be available for inspection at EPA's Regional Offices,
and copies may be obtained by writing to the Atmospheric Research & Exposure Assessment Laboratory at the address
specified above.
-------
February 8, 1993
LIST OF DESIGNATED REFERENCE AND EQUIVALENT METHODS
Page 2
DESIGNATION
NUMBER
IDENTIFICATION
SOURCE
MANUAL REF. OR FED. REGISTER NOTICE
OR AUTO EQUIV. VOL. PAGE DATE
******
******
Reference Method for the
Determination of Suspended
Participate Matter in the
Atmosphere (High-Volume Method)
Reference Method for the
Determination of Particulate
Matter as PM10 in the Atmosphere
PARTICULATE MATTER - TSP
40 CFR Part 50,
Appendix 6
PARTICULATE MATTER - PM
40 CFR Part 50,
Appendix J
10
Manual
Manual
Reference 47 54912 12/06/82
48 17355 04/22/83
Reference 52
52
24664 07/01/87
29467 08/07/87
RFPS-1087-062
Wedding & Associates,
P.O. Box 1756
Fort Collins, CO 80522
"Wedding & Associates'
PM10 Critical Flow High-Volume
Sampler," consisting of the
following components:
Wedding PMIO Inlet
Wedding & Associates' Critical Flow Device
Wedding & Associates' Anodized Aluminum Shelter
115, 220 or 240 VAC Motor Blower Assembly
Mechanical Timer Or Optional Digital Timer
Elapsed Time Indicator
Filter Cartridge/Cassette
Inc.
Manual
Reference 52 37366 10/06/87
-------
February 8, 1993
DESIGNATION
NUMBER
IDENTIFICATION
LIST OF DESIGNATED REFERENCE AND EQUIVALENT METHODS
MANUAL
SOURCE OR AUTO
Page 3
REF. OR FED. REGISTER NOTICE
EQU1V. VOL. PAGE DATE
RFPS-1287-063 "Sierra-Andersen or
General Metal Works Model 1200
PMIO High-Volume Air Sampler
System," consisting of a Sierra-
Andersen or General Metal Works
Model 1200 PM10 Size-Selective
PARTICULATE MATTER - PM,n (Continued)
Andersen Samplers, Inc.
4801 Fulton Industrial Blvd.
Atlanta, GA 30336
or
General Metal Works, Inc.
145 South Miami
Cleves, OH 45002
Manual
Reference
52
53
45684
1062
12/01/87
01/15/88
Inlet and any of the high-volume
air samplers Identified as
SAUV-10H, SAUV-11H, GMW-IP-10,
GMW-IP-10-70, GMW-IP-10-801, or GMW-IP-10-8000, which Include the following components:
Anodlzed aluminum high-volume shelter with either acrylonltrile butadiene styrene plastic filter holder
and motor/blower housing or stainless steel filter holder and phenolic plastic motor/blower housing;
0.6 hp motor/blower; pressure transducer flow recorder; either an electronic mass flow controller or a
volumetric flow controller; either a digital timer/programmer, seven-day mechanical timer, six-day
timer/programmer, or solid-state timer/programmer; elapsed time indicator; and filter cartridge.
RFPS-1287-064 "Sierra-Andersen or
General Metal Works Model 321-B
PM10 High-Volume Air Sampler
System," consisting,of a Sierra-
Andersen or General Metal Works
Model 321-B PM10 Size-Selective
Andersen Samplers, Inc.
4801 Fulton Industrial Blvd.
Atlanta, GA 30336
or
General Metal Works, Inc.
145 South Miami
Cleves, OH 45002
Manual
Reference
52
53
45684
1062
12/01/87
01/15/88
Inlet and any of the high-volume
air samplers Identified as
SAUV-10H, SAUV-11H, GMW-IP-10,
GMW-IP-10-70, GMW-IP-10-801, or GMW-IP-10-8000, which Include the following components:
Anodlzed aluminum high-volume shelter with either acrylonitrlle butadiene styrene plastic filter holder
and motor/blower housing or stainless steel filter holder and phenolic plastic motor/blower housing;
0.6 hp motor/blower; pressure transducer flow recorder; either an electronic mass flow controller or a
volumetric flow controller; either a digital timer/programmer, seven-day mechanical timer, six-day
timer/programmer, or solid-state timer/programmer; elapsed time indicator; and filter cartridge.
-------
February 8, 1993
DESIGNATION
NUMBER
LIST OF DESIGNATED REFERENCE AND EQUIVALENT METHODS
IDENTIFICATION
SOURCE
MANUAL
OR AUTO
PARTICULATE MATTER - PM,ff (Continued)
RFPS-1287-065 "Sierra-Andersen or
General Metal Works Model 321-C
PM10 High-Volume Air Sampler
Andersen Samplers, Inc.
4801 Fulton Industrial Blvd.
Atlanta, GA 30336
or
General Metal Works, Inc.
145 South Miami
Cleves, OH 45002
Manual
REF. OR
EQUIV,,
Reference
Pagt
FED. REGISTER NOTH
VOL. PAGE DATt
52
53
45684
1062
12/01/8
01/15/81
System," consisting of a Sierra-
Andersen or General Metal Works
Model 321-C PMIO Size-Selective
Inlet and any of the high-volume
air samplers identified as
SAUV-10H, SAUV-11H, GMW-IP-10,
GMW-IP-10-70, GMW-IP-10-801, or GMW-IP-10-8000, which include the following components:
Anodlzed aluminum high-volume shelter with either acrylonitrile butadiene styrene plastic filter holder
and motor/blower housing or stainless steel filter holder and phenolic plastic motor/blower housing;
0.6 hp motor/blower; pressure transducer flow recorder; either an electronic mass flow controller or a
volumetric flow controller; either a digital timer/programmer, seven-day mechanical timer, six-day
timer/programmer, or solid-state timer/programmer; elapsed time indicator; and filter cartridge.
RFPS-0389-071 "Oregon DEQ Medium Volume
PM10 Sampler"
NOTE: This method Is not now
commercially available.
State of Oregon Manual
Department of Environmental Quality
Air Quality Division
811 S.W. Sixth Avenue
Portland, OR 97204
Reference 54 12273 03/24/89
RFPS-0789-073 "Sierra-Andersen Models SA241 and
SA241M or General Metal Works
Models G241 and G241M PMIO
Dichotomous Samplers", consisting
of the following components:
Sampling Module with
Andersen Samplers, Inc.
4801 Fulton Industrial Blvd.
Atlanta, GA 30336 "
or
General Metal w—••- '
Manual
Reference 54 31247 07/27/89
-------
February 8, 1993 LIST OF DESIGNATED REFERENCE AND EQUIVALENT METHODS Page 5
DESIGNATION MANUAL REF. OR FED. REGISTER NOTICE
NUMBER IDENTIFICATION SOURCE OR AUTO EQUIV. VOL. PAGE DATE
' PARTICULATE MATTER - PM,? (Continued!
EQPM-0990-076 "Andersen Instruments Andersen Instruments, Inc. Auto Equlv. 55 38387 09/18/90
Model FH62I-N PM10 Beta 4801 Fulton Industrial Blvd.
Attenuation Monitor," Atlanta, GA 30336
consisting of the following
components:
FH62I Beta Attenuation 19-inch Control Module
SA246b PM10 Inlet (16.7 liter/min)
FH101 Vacuum Pump Assembly
FH102 Accessory Kit
FH107 Roof Flange Kit
FH125 Zero and Span PMIO Mass Foil Calibration Kit
operated for 24-hour average measurements, with an observing time of 60 minutes, the calibration factor
set to 2400, a glass fiber filter tape, an automatic filter advance after each 24-hour sample period, and
with or without either of the following options:
FHOP1 Indoor Cabinet
FHOP2 Outdoor Shelter Assembly
EQPM-1090-079 "Rupprecht & Patashnick TEOM Rupprecht & Patashnick Co., Auto Equlv. 55 43406 10/29/90
Series 1400 and Series 1400a Inc.
PM-10 Monitors," consisting 8 Corporate Circle
of the following components: Albany, NY 12203
TEOM Sensor Unit
TEOM Control Unit
Rupprecht & Patashnick PM-10 Inlet (part number 57-00596) or
Sierra-Andersen Model 246b PM-10 Inlet (16.7 liter/min)
Flow Splitter
Teflon-Coated Glass Fiber Filter Cartridges
operated for 24-hour average measurements, with the total mass averaging time set at 300 seconds,
the mass rate/mass concentration averaging time set at 300 seconds, the gate time set at 2 seconds,
and with or without either of the following options:
Tripod
Outdoor Enclosure
Automatic Cartridge Collection Unit (Series 1400a only)
-------
February 8, 1993 LIST OF DESIGNATED REFERENCE AND EQUIVALENT METHODS Page 6
DESIGNATION MANUAL REF. OR FED. REGISTER NOTICE
NUMBER IDENTIFICATION SOURCE OR AUTO EQU1V. VOL. PAGE DATE
PARTICULATE MATTER - PMt, (Continued)
EQPM-0391-081 "Wedding & Associates' Wedding & Associates, Inc. Auto Equlv. 56 9216 03/05/91
PM10 Beta Gauge Automated P.O. Box 1756
Particle Sampler," consisting Fort Collins, CO 80522
of the following components:
Particle Sampling Module
PM.0 Inlet (18.9 liter/min)
Inlet Tube and Support Ring
Vacuum Pump (115 VAC/60 Hz or 220-240 VAC/50 Hz)
operated for 24-hour average measurements with glass fiber filter tape.
-------
February 8, 1993
DESIGNATION
NUMBER
IDENTIFICATION
LIST OF DESIGNATED REFERENCE AND EQUIVALENT METHODS
SOURCE
MANUAL
OR AUTO
Page
REF. OR FED. REGISTER NOTICI
EQUIV. VOL. PAGE DATE
******
Reference Method for the
Determination of Sulfur
Dioxide In the Atmosphere
(Pararosanlllne Method)
SULFUR DIOXIDE
40 CFR Part 50,
Appendix A
Manual Reference 47
48
54899 12/06/8
17355 04/22/8
EQS-0775-001
"Pararosanlllne Method for the
Determination of Sulfur Dioxide
In the Atmosphere-Technlcon I
Automated Analysis System"
Atmospheric Research and Manual
Exposure Assessment Laboratory
Department E (MD-77)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
Equlv. 40 34024 08/13/7
EQS-0775-002
"Pararosanlllne Method for the
Determination of Sulfur Dioxide
in the Atmosphere-Technlcon II
Automated Analysis System"
Atmospheric Research and Manual
Exposure Assessment Laboratory
Department E (MD-77)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
Equlv
40 34024 08/13/7
EQSA-1275-005
"Lear Slegler Model SM1000 SOZ
Ambient Monitor," operated on the
0-0.5 ppm range, at a wavelength
of 299.5 nm, with the "slow"
{300 second) response time, with
or without any of the following options:
SM-1 Internal Zero/Span
SM-2 Span Timer Card
SM-3 0-0.1 Volt Output
SM-4 0-5 Volt Output
SM-5 Alternate Sample Pump
SM-6 Outdoor Enclosure
Lear Slegler Measurement
Controls Corporation
74 Inverness Drive East
Englewood, CO 80112-5189
Auto Equlv. 41 3893 01/27/7
41 32946 08/06/7
42 13044 03/08/7
45 1147 01/04/8
-------
February 8, 1993
DESIGNATION
NUMBER
IDENTIFICATION
LIST OF DESIGNATED REFERENCE AND EQUIVALENT METHODS
MANUAL
SOURCE OR AUTO
Page
REF. OR FED. REGISTER NOTICI
EQU1V. VOL. PAGE DATE
EQSA-1275-006 "Meloy Model SA185-2A Sulfur
Dioxide Analyzer," operated on
the 0-0.5 ppm range, with or
without any of the following
options:
S-l Linearized Output
S-2 Modified Recorder Output
S-5 Teflon-Coated Block
S-6A Reignite Timer Circuit
5-7 Press To Read
S-11A Manual Zero And Span
S-IIB Automatic Zero And Span
S-13 Status Lights
S-14 Output Booster Amplifier
SULFUR DIOXIDE (Continued)
Columbia Scientific Auto Equiv.
Industries
11950 Jollyville Road
Austin, TX 78759
S-18 Rack Mount Conversion S-24
S-18A Rack Mount Conversion S-33
S-21 Front Panel Digital Volt
Meter S-34
S-22 Remote Zero/Span Control S-35
And Status (Timer)
S-22A Remote Zero/Span Control S-36
S-23 Automatic Zero Adjust S-38
S-23A Automatic/Manual Zero Adjust
41 3893 01/27/7*
43 38088 08/25/71
Dual Range Linearized Output
Remote Range Control And Status
(Signals)
Remote Control
Front Panel Digital Meter With
BCD Output
Dual Range Log-Linear Output
Sampling Mode Status
S-14B Line Transmitter Board
or operated on the 0-1.0 ppm range with either option S-36 or options S-l and S-24, with or without any of
the other options.
EQSA-0276-009 "Thermo Electron Model 43 Pulsed
Fluorescent S02 Analyzer,"
equipped with an aromatic hydro-
carbon cutter and operated on a
range of either 0-0.5 or 0-1.0
Thermo Environmental
Instruments, Inc.
8 West Forge Parkway
Franklin, MA 02038
ppm,
001
002
003
004
with or without any of the following options:
Rack Mounting For Standard 19 Inch Relay Rack
Automatic Actuation Of Zero And
Type S Flash Lamp Power Supply
Low Flow
Span Solenoid Valves
Auto Equiv. 41 8531 02/27/76
41 15363 04/12/76
42 20490 04/20/77
44 21861 04/12/79
45 2700 01/14/80
45 32419 05/16/80
-------
February 8, 1993 LIST OF DESIGNATED REFERENCE AND EQUIVALENT METHODS Page
DESIGNATION MANUAL REF. OR FED. REGISTER NOTId
NUMBER IDENTIFICATION SOURCE OR AUTO EQUIV. VOL. PAGE DATE
SULFUR DIOXIDE (Continued)
EQSA-0676-010 "Philips PW9755 S02 Analyzer," Philips Electronic Auto Equiv. 41 26252 06/25/7
consisting of the following Instruments, Inc. 41 46019 10/19/7
components: 85 McKee Drive 42 28571 06/03/7
PW9755/02 SO, Monitor with: Mahwah, NJ 07430
PW9741/00 S02 Source
PW9721/00 Filter Set SOZ
PW9711/00 Electrolyte S02
PH9750/00 Supply Cabinet
PW9750/10 Supply Unit/Coulometrlc
Either PH9731/00 Sampler or PW9731/20 Dust Filter (or vendor-approved alternate particulate filter);
operated with a 0-0.5 ppm range and with a reference voltage setting of 760 millivolts; with or without anj
of the following options:
PW9750/30 Frame For MTT PW9752/00 Air Sampler Manifold PW9753/00 Mounting Rack For Accessor^
PW9750/41 Control Clock 60 Hz PW9754/00 Air Distributor
EQSA-0876-011 "Philips PW9700 S02 Analyzer," Philips Electronic Auto Equiv. 41 34105 08/12/7
consisting of the following Instruments, Inc.
components: 85 McKee Drive
PW9710/00 Chemical Unit with: Mahwah, NJ 07430
PM9711/00 Electrolyte S02
PW9721/00 Filter Set S02
PW9740/00 S02 Source
PW9720/00 Electrical Unit
PW9730/00 Sampler Unit (or vendor-approved alternate particulate filter);
operated with a 0-0.5 ppm range and with a reference voltage of 760 millivolts.
EQSA-0876-013 "Monitor Labs Model 8450 Sulfur Lear Slegler Measurement Auto Equiv. 41 36245 OB/27/7
Monitor," operated on a range of Controls Corporation 44 33476 06/11/7
either 0-0.5 or 0-1.0 ppm, with 74 Inverness Drive East
a 5 second time constant, a model Englewood, CO 80112-5189
8740 hydrogen sulfide scrubber
in the sample line, with or without any of the following options:
BP Bipolar Signal Processor IZS Internal Zero/Span Module V Zero/Span Valves
CLO Current Loop Output TF TFE Sample Particulate Filter VT Zero/Span Valves And Timer
DO Status Remote Interface
-------
February 8, 1993
LIST OF DESIGNATED REFERENCE AND EQUIVALENT METHODS
Page 1(
DESIGNATION
NUMBER
IDENTIFICATION
SOURCE
MANUAL REF. OR FED. REGISTER NOTICE
OR AUTO EQUIV. VOL. PAGE DATE
EQSA-0877-024
SULFUR DIOXIDE (Continued)
"ASARCO Model 500 Sulfur Dioxide
Monitor," operated on a 0-0.5 ppm
range;
ASARCO Incorporated
3422 South 700 West
or Salt Lake City, UT 84119
"ASARCO Model 600 Sulfur Dioxide
Monitor," operated on a 0-1.0 ppm
range. (Both models are identical except the range.)
NOTE: This method is not now commercially available.
Auto Equiv. 42 44264 09/02/77
44 67522 11/26/79
EQSA-0678-029 "Beckman Model 953 Fluorescent
Ambient S02 Analyzer," operated
Beckman Instruments, Inc.
Process Instruments Division
2500 Harbor Boulevard
Fullerton, CA 92634
Auto
Equiv.
43 35995 08/14/78
on a range of either 0-0.5 or
0-1.0 ppm, with a time constant
setting of 2, 2.5, or 3 minutes,
a 5 to 10 micron membrane filter element installed in the rear-panel filter assembly, with or without any
of the following options:
a. Remote Operation Kit, Catalog No. 641984
b. Digital Panel Meter, Catalog No. 641710
c. Rack Mount Kit, Catalog No. 641709
d. Panel Mount Kit, Catalog No. 641708
EQSA-1078-030 "Bendix Model 8303 Sulfur
Analyzer," operated on a range
of either 0-0.5 or 0-1.0 ppm,
with a Teflon filter installed
on the sample inlet of the H2S
scrubber assembly.
Combustion Engineering, Inc.
Process Analytics
P.O. Box 831
Lewisburg, WV 24901
Auto
Equiv.
43 50733 10/31/78
-------
February 8, 1993
DESIGNATION
NUMBER
IDENTIFICATION
LIST OF DESIGNATED REFERENCE AND EQUIVALENT METHODS
MANUAL
SOURCE OR AUTO
Page 11
REF. OR FED. REGISTER NOTICE
EQU1V. VOL. PAGE DATE
EQSA-1078-032 "Meloy Model SA285E Sulfur
Dioxide Analyzer," operated
on the following ranges and
time constant switch positions:
Range. PDD Time Constant Setting
0-50*
0-100*
0-500
0-1000
off,
off,
1 or 10
1 or 10
1 or 10
1 or 10
SULFUR DIOXIDE (Continued!
Columbia Scientific
Industries
11950 Jollyville Road
Austin, TX 78759
Auto
Equiv.
43 50733 10/31/78
*NOTE: Users should be aware that designation of this analyzer for
operation on ranges less than 0.5 ppm is based on meeting the same
absolute performance specifications required for the 0-0.5 ppm range.
Thus, designation of these lower ranges does not Imply commensurably
better performance than that obtained on the 0-0.5 ppm range.
The analyzer may be operated at temperatures between 10°C and 40°C and at line voltages between 105 and 130
volts, with or without any of the following options:
S-5 Teflon Coated Block
S-14B Line Transmitter Board
S-18 Rack Mount Conversion
S-18A Rack Mount Conversion
S-21 Front Panel Digital Meter
S-22 Remote Zero/Span Control
And Status (Timer)
S-22A Remote Zero/Span Control
S-22B Remote Zero/Span Control S-30
And Status (Pulse) S-32
S-23 Auto Zero Adjust S-35
S-23A Auto/Manual Zero Adjust
S-25 Press To Read S-37
S-26 Manual Zero And Span S-38
S-27 Auto Manual Zero/Span
S-28 Auto Range And Status
Auto Relgnlte
Remote Range Control And Status
Front Panel Digital Meter With
BCD Output
Temperature Status Lights
Sampling Mode Status
EQSA-0779-039
"Monitor Labs Model 8850
Fluorescent S02 Analyzer,"
operated on a range of either
0-0.5 or 0-1.0 ppm, with an
Internal time constant setting
of 55 seconds, a TFE sample filter
options:
03A Rack
03B Slides
05A Valves Zero/Span
06A IZS Internal Zero/Span
Source
Lear Siegler Measurement
Controls Corporation
74 Inverness Drive East
Englewood, CO 80112-5189
Auto
Equiv.
44 44616 07/30/79
Installed on the sample Inlet line, with or without any of the following
06B,C,0 NBS Traceable Permeation 013 Recorder Output Options
Tubes 014 DAS Output Options
08A Pump 017 Low Flow Option
09A Rack Mount For Option 08A 018 Kicker
010 Status Output W/Connector
-------
February 8, 1993
DESIGNATION
NUMBER
IDENTIFICATION
LIST OF DESIGNATED REFERENCE AND EQUIVALENT METHODS
MANUAL
SOURCE OR AUTO
REF. OR
EQUIV.
FED.
VOL.
Page 12
REGISTER NOTICE
PAGE DATE
SULFUR DIOXIDE (Continued)
EQSA-0580-046
Columbia Scientific
Industries
11950 Jollyville Road
Austin, TX 78759
45 31488 05/13/80
'Meloy Model SA 700 Fluorescence Columbia Scientific Auto Equiv.
Sulfur Dioxide Analyzer," opera-
ted on the 0-250 ppb*, the 0-500
ppb, or the 0-1000 ppb range with
a time constant switch position
of either 2 or 3. The analyzer may be operated at temperatures between 20°C and 30*C and at line voltages
between 105 and 130 volts, with or without any of the following options:
FS-1 Current Output
FS-2 Rack Mount Conversion
FS-2A Rack Mount Conversion
FS-2B Rack Mount Conversion
FS-3 Front Panel Mounted Digital Meter
FS-5 Auto/Manual Zero/Span With Status
FS-6 Remote/Manual Zero/Span With Status
FS-7 Auto Zero Adjust
*NOTE: Users should be aware that designation of this analyzer for operation on a range less than 0.5 ppm
is based on meeting the same absolute performance specifications required for the 0-0.5 ppm range. Thus,
designation of this lower range does not imply commensurably better performance than that obtained on the
0-0.5 ppm range.
Lear Siegler Measurement
Controls Corporation
74 Inverness Drive East
Englewood, CO 80112-5189
45
46
79574
9997
12/01/80
01/30/81
EQSA-1280-049 "Lear Siegler Model AM2020 Lear Siegler Measurement Auto Equiv.
Ambient S02 Monitor," operated
on a range of either 0-0.5 or
0-1.0 ppm, at a wavelength of
299.5 nm, with a 5 minute
integration period, over any 10°C temperature range between 20°C and 45"C, with or without the automatic zero
and span correction feature.
-------
February 8, 1993
DESIGNATION
NUMBER
IDENTIFICATION
LIST OF DESIGNATED REFERENCE AND EQUIVALENT METHODS
MANUAL
SOURCE OR AUTO
Page 13
REF. OR FED. REGISTER NOTICE
EQUIV. VOL. PAGE DATE
SULFUR DIOXIDE (Continued)
Thermo Environmental
Instruments, Inc.
8 West Forge Parkway
51 12390 04/10/86
EQSA-0486-060 "Thermo Electron Instruments, Thermo Environmental Auto Equlv.
Inc. Model 43A Pulsed Fluorescent
Ambient SOZ Analyzer," operated
on the 0-0.1 ppm*. the 0-0.2 ppm*, Franklin, MA 02038
the 0-0.5 ppm, or the 0-1.0 ppm
range with either a high or a low time constant setting and with or without any of the following options:
001 Teflon Particulate Filter Kit 003 Internal Zero/Span Valves 004 High Sample Flow Rate Option
002 Rack Mount With Remote Activation
*NOTE: Users should be aware that designation of this analyzer for operation on ranges less than 0.5 ppm
Is based on meeting the same absolute performance specifications required for the 0-0.5 ppm range. Thus,
designation of these lower ranges does not imply commensurably better performance than that obtained on
the 0-0.5 ppm range.
EQSA-1086-061 "Daslbl Model 4108 U.V. Fluores- Dasibi Environmental Corp. Auto Equiv. 51 32244 09/10/86
cence S02 Analyzer," operated 515 West Colorado Street
with a range of 0-100 ppb*. Glendale, CA 91204-1101
0-200 ppb*, 0-500 ppb, or 0-1000 ppb,
with a Teflon-coated partlculate filter and a continuous hydrocarbon removal system, with or without any of
the following options:
a. Rack Mounting Brackets b. RS-232-C Interface c. Temperature Correction
And Slides
*NOTE: Users, should be aware that designation of this analyzer for operation on ranges less than 0.5 ppm
is based on meeting the same absolute performance specifications required for the 0-0.5 ppm range. Thus,
designation of these lower ranges does not imply commensurably better performance than that obtained on
the 0-0.5 ppm range.
EQSA-0390-075 "Monitor Labs Model 8850S SO,
Analyzer," operated on a range
of either 0-0.5 or 0-1.0 ppm.
Lear Siegler Measurement
Controls Corporation
74 Inverness Drive East
Englewood, CO 80112-5189
Auto
Equlv.
55 5264 02/14/90
-------
February 8, 1993 LIST OF DESIGNATED REFERENCE AND EQUIVALENT METHODS Page 14
DESIGNATION MANUAL REF. OR FED. REGISTER NOTICE
NUMBER IDENTIFICATION SOURCE OR AUTO EQUIV. VOL. PAGE DATE
SULFUR DIOXIDE (Continued)
EQSA-0990-077 "Advanced Pollution Advanced Pollution Auto Equlv. 55 38149 09/17/90
Instrumentation, Inc. Model 100 Instrumentation, Inc.
Fluorescent SOZ Analyzer," 8815 Production Avenue
operated on the 0-0.1 ppm*, San Diego, CA 92121-2219
the 0-0.2 ppm*, the 0-0.5 ppm,
or the 0-1.0 ppm range with a 5-micron TFE filter element installed in the rear-panel filter assembly,
either a user- or vendor-supplied vacuum pump capable of providing 20 inches of mercury vacuum at 2.5 L/min,
with or without any of the following options:
Internal Zero/Span
Pump Pack
Rack Mount With Slides
RS-232 Interface
Status Output
TFE Zero/Span Valves
Zero Air Scrubber
*NOTE: Users should be aware that designation of this analyzer for operation on ranges less than 0.5 ppm
is based on meeting the same absolute performance specifications required for the 0-0.5 ppm range. Thus,
designation of these lower ranges does not imply commensurably better performance than that obtained on
the 0-0.5 ppm range.
EQSA-0292-084 "Environment S.A. Model AF21M Environment S.A. Auto Equlv. 57 5444 02/14/92
Sulfur Dioxide Analyzer," 111, bd Robespierre
operated on a range of 0-0.5 ppm 78300 Poissy, France
with a response time coefficient
setting of 01, a Teflon filter installed in the rear-panel filter assembly, and with or without any of the
following options:
Rack Mount/Slides
RS-232-C Interface
-------
February 8, 1993 LIST OF DESIGNATED REFERENCE AND EQUIVALENT METHODS Page 15
DESIGNATION MANUAL REF. OR FED. REGISTER NOTICE
NUMBER IDENTIFICATION SOURCE OR AUTO EQUIV. VOL. PAGE DATE
SULFUR DIOXIDE (Continued!
EQSA-0193-092 "Lear Siegler Measurement Lear Siegler Measurement Auto Equlv. 58 6964 02/03/93
Controls Corporation Model Controls Corporation
ML9850 Sulfur Dioxide Analyzer," 74 Inverness Drive East
operated on any full scale range Englewood, CO 80112-5189
between 0-0.050 ppm* and 0-1.0 ppm,
with auto-ranging enabled or disabled, at any temperature in the range of 15*C to 35°C, with a five-micron
Teflon filter element installed in the filter assembly behind the secondary panel, the service switch on
the secondary panel set to the In position; with the following menu choices selected:
Background: Not Disabled; Calibration; Manual or Timed: Diagnostic Mode: Operate; Filter Type: Kalnan;
Pres/Temp/Flow Comp: On; Span Comp: Disabled;
with the 50-pin I/O board installed on the rear panel configured at any of the following output range
settings: '
Voltage, 0.1 V, 1 V, 5 V, 10 V;
Current, 0-20 mA, 2-20 mA, 4-20 mA;
and with or without any of the following options:
Valve Assembly for External Zero/Span (EZS)
Rack Mount Assembly
Internal Floppy Disk Drive.
*NOTE: Users should be aware that designation of this analyzer for operation on any full scale range less
than 0.5 ppm Is based on meeting the same absolute performance specifications required for the 0-0.5 ppm
range. Thus, designation of any full scale range lower than the 0-0.5 ppm range does not imply
commensurably better performance than that obtained on the 0-0.5 ppm range.
-------
February 8, 1993
DESIGNATION
NUMBER
IDENTIFICATION
LIST OF DESIGNATED REFERENCE AND EQUIVALENT NETHODS
4
SOURCE
MANUAL
OR AUTO
Page 16
REF. OR FED. REGISTER NOTICE
EQUIV. VOL. PAGE DATE
RFOA-1075-003 "Meloy Model OA325-2R Ozone
Analyzer," operated with a scale
range of 0-0.5 ppm, with or
without any of the following
options:
0-4 Output Booster Amplifier
OZONE
Columbia Scientific
Industries
11950 Jollyville Road
Austin, TX 78759
0-18 Rack Mount Conversion
Auto Reference 40 54856 11/26/75
0-18A Rack Mount Conversion
RFOA-1075-004 "Meloy Model OA350-2R Ozone
Analyzer," operated with a scale
range of 0-0.5 ppm, with or
without any of the following
options: »
0-2 Automatic Zero And Span
0-3 Remote Control Zero And Span
Columbia Scientific
Industries
11950 Jollyville Road
Austin, TX 78759
0-4 Output Booster Amplifier
0-18 Rack Mount Conversion
Auto Reference 40 54856 11/26/75
0-18A Rack Mount Conversion
RFOA-0176-007 Bendix or Combustion Engineering
Model 8002 Ozone Analyzer, oper-
ated on the 0-0.5 ppm range, with
a 40 second time constant, with
or without any of the following
options:
A Rack Mounting With Chassis
Slides
Combustion Engineering, Inc. Auto
Process Analytics
P.O. Box 831
Lewisburg, WV 24901
Reference
B Rack Mounting Without Chassis
Slides
41
45
5145
18474
02/04/76
03/21/80
C Zero And Span Timer
D Ethylene/C02 Blend Reactant Gas
RFOA-1076-014
RFOA-1076-015
RFOA-1076-016
"MEC Model 1100-1 Ozone Meter,1
"MEC Model 1100-2 Ozone Meter,1
"MEC Model 1100-3 Ozone Meter,1
operated on a 0-0.5 ppm range,
with or without any of the
following options:
0011 Rack Mounting Ears
0012 Instrument Bail
Columbia Scientific
Industries
11950 Jollyville Road
Austin, TX 78759
0016 Chassis Slide Kit
0026 Alarm Set Feature
Auto Reference 41
42
46647 10/22/76
30235 06/13/77
0033 Local-Remote Sample, Zero, Span Kit
0040 Et.hylene/CO, Blend Feature
-------
February 8, 1993
DESIGNATION
NUMBER
IDENTIFICATION
LIST OF DESIGNATED REFERENCE AND EQUIVALENT NETHODS
MANUAL
SOURCE ' OR AUTO
REF. OR
EQU1V.
FED.
VOL.
Page 17
REGISTER NOTICE
PAGE DATE
RFOA-1176-017 "Monitor Labs Model 8410E Ozone
Analyzer," operated on a range
of 0-0.5 ppm with a time constant
setting of 5 seconds, with or
without any of the following
options:
DO Status Outputs
ER Ethylene Regulator Assembly
TF TFE Sample Partlculate Filter
V TFE Zero/Span Valves
VT TFE Zero/Span Valves And Timer
OZONE (Continued)
Lear Siegler Measurement
Controls Corporation
74 Inverness Drive East
Englewood, CO 80112-5189
Auto
Reference 41 53684 12/08/76
EQOA-0577-019
Dasibi Environmental Corp.
515 West Colorado Street
Glendale, CA 91204-1101
"Dasibi Model 1003-AH, 1003-PC,
or 1003-RS Ozone Analyzer,"
operated on a range of either
0-0.5 or 0-1.0 ppm, with or
without any of the following options:
Adjustable Alarm
Aluminum Coated Absorption Tubes
BCD Digital Output
Glass (Pyrex) Absorption Tubes
Integrated Output
Rack Mounting Ears And Slides
Teflon-based Solenoid Valve
Vycor-Jacketed U.V. Source Lamp
0-10 mV, 0-100 mV, 0-1 V, or 0-10 V Analog Output
Auto
Equiv.
42 28571 06/03/77
RFOA-0577-020 "Beckman Model 950A Ozone
Analyzer," operated on a range
of 0-0.5 ppm and with the "SLOW"
(60 second) response time, with
or without any of the following
options:
Internal Ozone Generator
Beckman Instruments, Inc.
Process Instruments Division
2500 Harbor Boulevard
Fullerton, CA 92634
Computer Adaptor Kit
Auto
Reference 42 28571 06/3/77
Pure Ethylene Accessory
-------
February 8, 1993
i
DESIGNATION
NUMBER
LIST OF DESIGNATED REFERENCE AND EQUIVALENT METHODS
IDENTIFICATION
SOURCE
MANUAL
OR AUTO
Page
REF. OR FED. REGISTER NOTK
EQUIV. VOL. PAGE DATE
OZONE (Continued!
EQOA-0777-023
Philips Electronic
Instruments, Inc.
85 McKee Drive
Mahwah, NJ 07430
"Philips PH9771 03 Analyzer,"
consisting of the following
components:
PW9771/00 03 Monitor with:
PW9724/00 Disc.-Set
PW9750/00 Supply Cabinet
PW9750/20 Supply Unit;
operated on a range of 0-0.5 ppm,
with or without any of the following accessories:
PH9732/00 Sampler Line Heater
PW9733/00 Sampler
PW9750/30 Frame For MTT
PW9750/41 Control Clock 60 Hz
PW9752/00 Air Sampler Manifold
Auto Equiv. 42 38931 08/01/7
42 57156 11/01/7
RFOA-0279-036 "Columbia Scientific Industries
Model 2000 Ozone Meter/' when
Columbia Scientific
Industries
11950 Jollyville Rd.
Austin, TX 78759
Auto
Reference 44 10429 02/20/79
operated on the 0-0.5 ppm range
with either AC or battery power:
The BCA 952 battery charger/AC
adapter M952-0002 (115V) or M952-0003 (230V) is required for AC operation; an internal battery M952-0006 or
12 volt external battery is required for portable non-AC powered operation.
EQOA-0880-047 "Thermo Electron Model 49 U.V.
Photometric Ambient 03 Analyzer,
operated on a range of either
0-0.5 or 0-1.0 ppm, with or
without any of the foil owlng
options:
49-001 Teflon ParHmlato
Thermo Environmental
Instruments, Inc.
8 West Forge Parkway
Franklin, MA Q2Q38
Auto
Equiv.
45 57168 08/27/80
-------
February 8, 1993 LIST OF DESIGNATED REFERENCE AND EQUIVALENT METHODS Page 19
DESIGNATION MANUAL REF. OR FED. REGISTER NOTICE
NUMBER IDENTIFICATION SOURCE OR AUTO EQU1V. VOL. PAGE DATE
OZONE (Continued)
EQOA-0881-053 "Monitor Labs Model 8810 Photo- Lear Siegler Measurement Auto Equlv. 46 52224 10/26/81
metric Ozone Analyzer," operated Control Corporation
on a range of either 0-0.5 or 74 Inverness Drive East
0-1.0 ppm, with selectable Englewood, CO 80112-5189
electronic time constant settings
from 20 through 150 seconds, with or without any of the following options:
05 Pressure Compensation
06 Averaging Option
07 Zero/Span Valves
08 Internal Zero/Span (Valve And Ozone Source) ,
09 Status
10 Participate Filter
15 through 20 DAS/REC Output
EQOA-0382-055 "PCI Ozone Corporation Model PCI Ozone Corporation Auto Equlv. 47 13572 03/31/82
LC-12 Ozone Analyzer," operated One Fairfield Crescent
on a range of 0-0.5 ppm. West Caldwell, NJ 07006
EQOA-0383-056 "Daslbl Model 1008-AH, 1008-PC, Dasibi Environmental Corp. Auto Equlv. 48 10126 03/10/83
or 1008-RS Ozone Analyzer," 515 West Colorado St.
operated on a range of either Glendale, CA 91204-1101
0-0.5 or 0-1.0 ppm, with or
without any of the following options:
Aluminum Coated Absorption Tubes
BCD Digital Output
Glass (Pyrex) Absorption Tubes
Ozone Generator
Photometer Flow Restrictor (2 LPM)
Rack Mounting Brackets or Slides
RS232 Interface
Vycor-Jacketed U.V. Source Lamp
Teflon-based Solenoid Valve *
4-20 mA, Isolated, or Dual Analog Outputs
20 Second Update Software
-------
February 8, 1993 LIST OF DESIGNATED REFERENCE AND EQUIVALENT METHODS Page 20
DESIGNATION MANUAL REF. OR FED. REGISTER NOTICE
NUMBER IDENTIFICATION SOURCE OR AUTO EQUIV. VOL. PAGE DATE
OZONE (Continued)
EQOA-0990-078 "Envlronics Series 300 Envlronics, Inc. Auto Equlv. 55 38386 09/18/90
Computerized Ozone Analyzer," 165 River Road
operated on the 0-0.5 ppm range, West WHlington, CT 06279
with the following parameters
entered Into the analyzer's computer system:
Absorption Coefficient - 308 ± 4
Flush Time - 3
Integration Factor - 1
Offset Adjustment - 0.025 ppm
Ozone Average Time « 4
Signal Average - 0
Temp/Press Correction = On
and with or without the RS-232 Serial Data Interface.
EQOA-0992-087 "Advanced Pollution ' Advanced Pollution Auto Equlv. 57 44565 09/28/92
Instrumentation, Inc. Model 400 Instrumentation, Inc.
Ozone Analyzer," operated on 8815 Production Avenue
any full scale range between San Diego, CA 92121-2219
0-100 ppb* and 0-1000 ppb, at any
temperature in the range of 5°C to 40°C, with the dynamic zero and span adjustment features set to OFF, with
a 5-micron TFE filter element installed in the rear-panel filter assembly, and with or without any of the
following options:
Internal Zero/Span (IZS)
IZS Reference Adjustment
Rack Mount With Slides
RS-232 With Status Outputs
Zero/Span Valves
*NOTE: Users should be aware that designation of this analyzer for operation on ranges less than 0-500 ppb
is based on meeting the same absolute performance specifications required for the 0-500 ppb range. Thus,
designation of any range lower than 0-500 ppb does not imply commensurably better performance than that
obtained on the 0-500 ppb range.
-------
February 8, 1993 LIST OF DESIGNATED REFERENCE AND EQUIVALENT METHODS Page 21
DESIGNATION MANUAL REF. OR FED. REGISTER NOTICE
NUMBER IDENTIFICATION SOURCE OR AUTO EQU1V. VOL. PAGE DATE
OZONE (Continued)
EQOA-0193-091 "Lear Slegler Measurement Lear Slegler Measurement Auto Equlv. 58 6964 02/03/93
Controls Corporation Model Controls Corporation
ML9810 Ozone Analyzer," operated 74 Inverness Drive East
on any full scale range between Englewood, CO 80112-5189
0-0.050 ppm* and 0-1.0 ppm,
with auto-ranging enabled or disabled, at any temperature in the range of 15°C to 35°C, with a five-micron
Teflon filter element installed in the filter assembly behind the secondary panel, the service switch on
the secondary panel set to the In position; with the following menu choices selected:
Calibration; Manual or Timed: Diagnostic Mode: Operate; Filter Type: Kalman; Pres/Temp/Flow Comp: On; Span
Comp: Disabled;
with the 50-pin I/O board Installed on the rear panel configured at any of the following output range
settings:
Voltage, 0.1 V, 1 V, 5 V, 10 V;
Current, 0-20 mA, 2-20 mA, 4-20 mA;
and with or without any of the following options:
Valve Assembly for External Zero/Span (EZS)
Rack Mount Assembly
Internal Floppy Disk Drive.
*NOTE: Users should be aware that designation of this analyzer for operation on any full scale range less
than 0.5 ppm is based on meeting the same absolute performance specifications required for the 0-0.5 ppm
range. Thus, designation of any full scale range lower than the 0-0.5 ppm range does not Imply
commensurably better performance than that obtained on the 0-0.5 ppm range.
-------
February 8, 1993 LIST OF DESIGNATED REFERENCE AND EQUIVALENT METHODS Page 22
DESIGNATION MANUAL REF. OR FED. REGISTER NOTICE
NUMBER IDENTIFICATION SOURCE OR AUTO EQUIV. VOL. PAGE DATE
CARBON MONOXIDE
RFCA-0276-008 Bendlx or Combustion Engineering Combustion Engineering, Inc. Auto Reference 41 7450 02/18/76
Model 8501-5CA Infrared CO Process Analytics
Analyzer, operated on the 0-50 P.O. Box 831
ppm range and with a time con- Lewisburg, WV 24901
stant setting between 5 and 16
seconds, with or without any of the following options:
A Rack Mounting With Chassis Slides
B Rack Mounting Without Chassis Slides
C External Sample Pump
RFCA-0876-012 "Beckman Model 866 Ambient CO Beckman Instruments, Inc. Auto Reference 41 36245 08/27/76
Monitoring System," consisting Process Instruments Division
of the following components: 2500 Harbor Boulevard
Pump/Sample-Handling Module, Fullerton, CA 92634
Gas Control Panel, Model 865-17
Analyzer Unit, Automatic Zero/Span Standardize^
operated with a 0-50 ppm range, a 13 second electronic response time, with or without any of the following
options:
Current Output Feature
Bench Mounting Kit
Llnearlzer Circuit
RFCA-0177-018 "LIRA Model 202S Air Quality Mine Safety Appliances Co. Auto Reference 42 5748 01/31/77
Carbon Monoxide Analyzer 600 Penn Center Boulevard
System," consisting of a LIRA Pittsburgh, PA 15208
Model 202S optical bench
(P/N 459839), a regenerative dryer (P/N 464084), and rack-mounted sampling system; operated on a 0-50 ppm
range, with the slow response amplifier, with or without any of the following options:
Remote Meter
Remote Zero And Span Controls
0-1, 5, 20, or 50 mA Output
1-5, 4-20, or 10-50 mA Output
0-10 or 100 mV Output
0-1, 5, or 10 Volt Output
-------
February 8, 1993
DESIGNATION
NUMBER
IDENTIFICATION
LIST OF DESIGNATED REFERENCE AND EQUIVALENT METHODS
MANUAL
SOURCE OR AUTO
REF. OR
EQUIV.
FED.
VOL
Page 23
REGISTER NOTICE
PAGE DATE
RFCA-1278-033
CARBON MONOXIDE (Continued)
Horiba Instruments, Inc.
17671 Armstrong Avenue
Irvine, CA 92714-5727
•Horiba Models AQM-10, AQM-11, Horiba Instruments, Inc. Auto
and AQM-12 Ambient CO Monitoring
Systems," operated on the 0-50
ppm range, with a response time
setting of 15.5 seconds, with or without any of the following options:
a AIC-101 Automatic Indication Corrector
b VIT-3 Non-Isolated Current Output
c ISO-2 and DCS-3 Isolated Current Output
Reference 43 58429 12/14/78
RFCA-0979-041 "Monitor Labs Model 8310 CO
Analyzer," operated on the
0-50 ppm range, with a sample
Inlet filter, with or without
any of the following options:
02A Zero/Span Valves
03A Floor Stand
04A Pump (60 Hz)
Lear Siegler Measurement
Controls Corporation
74 Inverness Drive East
Englewood, CO 80112-5189
04B Pump (50 Hz)
05A CO Regulator
06A CO Cylinder
Auto Reference 44
45
54545 09/20/79
2700 01/14/80
07A Zero/Span Valve Power Supply
08A Calibration Valves
9A,B,C,D Input Power Transformer
RFCA-1180-048 "Horiba Model APMA-300E Ambient
Carbon Monoxide Monitoring
System," operated on the 0-20
ppm*, the 0-50 ppm, or the 0-100
ppm range with a time constant switch setting of No. 5.
temperatures between 10°C and 40°C.
Horiba Instruments, Inc.
17671 Armstrong Avenue
Irvine, CA 92714-5727
Auto
Reference 45 72774 11/03/80
The monitoring system may be operated at
*NOTE: Users should be aware that designation of this analyzer for operation on a range less than 50 ppm
Is based on meeting the same absolute performance specifications required for the 0-50 ppm range. Thus,
designation of this lower range does not imply commensurably better performance than that obtained on the
0-50 ppm range.
(This method was originally designated as "Horiba Model APMA 300E/300SE Ambient Carbon Monoxide Monitoring
System".)
-------
February 8, 1993
DESIGNATION
NUMBER
IDENTIFICATION
LIST OF DESIGNATED REFERENCE AND EQUIVALENT METHODS
MANUAL
SOURCE OR AUTO
Page 24
REF, OR FED. REGISTER NOTICE
EQUIV. VOL. PAGE DATE
CARBON MONOXIDE (Continued)
Commonwealth of Massachusetts Auto
Department of Environmental
Quality Engineering
Tewksberry, MA 01876
Reference 45 81650 12/11/80
The method consists of the following
RFCA-1280-050 "MASS-CO, Model 1 Carbon Mon-
oxide Analyzer," operated on a
range of 0-50 ppm, with automatic
zero and span adjustments at time
intervals not to exceed 4 hours,
with or without the 100 millivolt and 5 volt output options.
components:
(1) Infra-2 (Uras 2) Infrared Analyzer Model 5611-200-35, (2) Automatic Calibrator Model 5869-111,
(3) Electric Gas Cooler Model 7865-222 or equivalent with prehumidifier, (4) Diaphragm Pump Model 5861-214
or equivalent, (5) Membrane Filter Model 5862-111 or equivalent, (6) Flow Meter Model SK 1171-U or
equivalent, (7) Recorder Model Mini Comp ON 1/192 or equivalent
NOTE: This method is not now commercially available.
RFCA-0381-051 "Dasibi Model 3003 Gas Filter
Correlation CO Analyzer," oper-
ated on the 0-50 ppm range, with
a sample particulate filter in-
stalled on the sample inlet line,
3-001 Rack Mount
3-002 Remote Zero And Span
Dasibi Environmental Corp.
515 West Colorado Street
Glendale, CA 91204-1101
Auto
Reference 46 20773 04/07/81
with or without any of the following options:
3-003 BCD Digital Output 3-007 Zero/Span Module Panel
3-004 4-20 Milliamp Output
RFCA-0981-054
Thermo Environmental
Instruments, Inc.
8 West Forge Parkway
Franklin, MA 02038
"Thermo Environmental Instruments
Model 48 Gas Filter Correlation
Ambient CO Analyzer," operated
on the 0-50 ppm range, with a
time constant setting of 30
seconds, with or without any of the following options:
48-001 Particulate Filter
48-002 19 Inch Rack Mountable Configuration
48-003 Internal Zero/Span Valves With Remote Activation
48-488 GPIB (General Purpose Interface Bus) IEEE-488
48-010 Internal Zero Air Package
Auto
Reference 46 47002 09/23/81
-------
February 8, 1993 LIST OF DESIGNATED REFERENCE AND EQUIVALENT METHODS Page 25
DESIGNATION MANUAL REF. OR FED. REGISTER NOTICE
NUMBER IDENTIFICATION SOURCE OR AUTO EQUIV. VOL. PAGE DATE
CARBON MONOXIDE (Continued)
RFCA-0388-066 "Monitor Labs Model 8830 CO Lear Siegler Measurement Auto Reference 53 7233 03/07/88
Analyzer," operated on the 0-50 Controls Corporation
ppm range, with a five micron 74 Inverness Drive East
Teflon filter element Installed Englewood, CO 80112-5189
In the rear-panel filter assembly,
with or without any of the following options:
2 Zero/Span Valve Assembly
3 Rack Assembly
4 Slide Assembly
7 230 VAC, 50/60 Hz
RFCA-0488-067 "Das1b1 Model 3008 Gas Filter Daslbl Environmental Corp. Auto Reference 53 12073 04/12/88
Correlation CO Analyzer," 515 West Colorado Street
operated on the 0-50 ppm range, Glendale, CA 91204-1101
with a time constant setting of
60 seconds, a partlculate filter Installed In the analyzer sample Inlet line, with or without use of the
auto zero or auto zero/span feature, and with or without any of the following options:
N-0056-A RS-232-C Interface
S-0132-A Rack Mounting Slides
Z-0176-S Rack Mounting Brackets
-------
February 8, 1993
LIST OF DESIGNATED REFERENCE AND EQUIVALENT METHODS
Page 26
DESIGNATION
NUMBER
IDENTIFICATION
MANUAL REF. OR FED. REGISTER NOTICE
OR AUTO EQUIV, VOL. PAGE DATE
CARBON MONOXIDE (Continued)
RFCA-0992-088
Lear Siegler Measurement
Controls Corporation
74 Inverness Drive East
Englewood, CO 80112-5189
Reference 57 44565 09/28/92
'Lear Siegler Measurement Lear Siegler Measurement Auto
Controls Corporation Model
ML9830 Carbon Monoxide Analyzer,"
operated on any full scale range
between 0-5.0 ppm* and 0-100 ppm,
with auto-ranging enabled or disabled, at any temperature in the range of 15°C to 35°C, with a five-micron
Teflon filter element installed in the filter assembly behind the secondary panel, the service switch on
the secondary panel set to the In position, with the following menu choices selected:
Background: Not Disabled; Calibration: Manual or Timed; Diagnostic Mode: Operate; Filter Type: Kalman;
Pres/Temp/Flow Comp: On; Span Comp: Disabled;
with the 50-pin I/O board installed on the rear panel configured at any of the following output range
settings:
Voltage, 0.1 V, 1 V, 5 V, 10 V
Current, 0-20 mA, 2-20 mA and 4-20 mA;
and with or without any of the following options:
Valve Assembly For External Zero/Span (EZS)
Rack Mount Assembly
Internal Floppy Disk Drive
*NOTE: Users should be aware that designation of this analyzer for operation on any full scale range less
than 50 ppm Is based on meeting the same absolute performance specifications required for the 0-50 ppm
range. Thus, designation of any full scale range lower than the 0-50 ppm range does not imply
commensurably better performance than that obtained on the 0-50 ppm range.
-------
February 8, 1993
DESIGNATION
NUMBER
IDENTIFICATION
LIST OF DESIGNATED REFERENCE AND EQUIVALENT METHODS
SOURCE
MANUAL
OR AUTO
REF. OR
EQU1V.
Page 27
FED. REGISTER NOTICE
VOL. PAGE DATE
RFNA-0677-021
"Monitor Labs Model 8440E
Nitrogen Oxides Analyzer,"
operated on a 0-0.5 ppm range
(position 2 of range switch)
with a time constant setting of
20 seconds, with or without any
TF Sample Participate Filter
With TFE Filter Element
V Zero/Span Valves
NITROGEN DIOXIDE
Lear Siegler Measurement
Controls Corporation
74 Inverness Drive East
Englewood, CO 80112-5189
of the following options:
DO Status Outputs
R Rack Mount
FM Flowmeters
Auto Reference 42
42
46
37434 07/21/77
46575 09/16/77
29986 06/04/81
018A Ozone Dry Air
018B Ozone Dry Air - No Drierlte
RFNA-0777-022 Bendix or Combustion Engineering
Model 8101-C Oxides of Nitrogen
Analyzer, operated on a 0-0.5 ppm
range with a Teflon sample filter
(Bendix P/N 007163) Installed on
the sample Inlet line.
Combustion Engineering, Inc.
Process Analytics
P.O. Box 831
Lewisburg, WV 24901
Auto
Reference 42 37435 07/21/77
RFNA-0977-025
"CSI Model 1600 Oxides of Columbia Scientific Auto
Nitrogen Analyzer," operated Industries
on a 0-0.5 ppm range with a 11950 Jollyville Road
Teflon sample filter (CSI Austin, TX 78759
P/N M951-8023) Installed on
the sample Inlet line, with or without any of the following options:
951-0112 Remote Zero/Span Sample 951-
Control
951-0114 Recorder Output, 5 V 951-
951-0115 External Pump
(115 V, 60 Hz) 951-
Reference 42 46574 09/16/77
951-0103 Rack Ears
951-0104 Rack Mounting Kit
(Ears & Slides)
951-0106 Current Output, 4-20 mA
(Non-Insulated)
8074 Copper Converter Assembly
(Horizontal)
8079 Copper Converter Assembly
(Vertical)
8085 Molybdenum Converter Assembly
(Vertical)
951-0108 Diagnostic Output Option 951-8072 Molybdenum Converter
951-0111 Recorder Output, 10 V Assembly (Horizontal)
NOTE: The vertical molybdenum converter assembly is standard on all new analyzers as of 1-1-87; however, use
of any of the other converter assemblies is optional. Also, the above options reflect new CSI part numbers.
-------
February 8, 1993
DESIGNATION
NUMBER
IDENTIFICATION
LIST OF DESIGNATED REFERENCE AND EQUIVALENT METHODS
SOURCE
MANUAL
OR AUTO
Page 28
REF. OR FED. REGISTER NOTICE
EQUIV. VOL. PAGE DATE
EQN-1277-026
"Sodium Arsenlte Method for
the Determination of Nitrogen
Dioxide 1n the Atmosphere"
NITROGEN DIOXIDE (Continued)
Atmospheric Research and Manual
Exposure Assessment Laboratory
Department E (MD-77)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
Equlv.
42 62971 12/14/77
EQN-1277-027
"Sodium Arsenlte Method for
the Determination of Nitrogen
Dioxide in the Atmosphere--
Technicon II Automated
Analysis System"
Atmospheric Research and Manual
Exposure Assessment Laboratory
Department E (MD-77)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
Equlv.
42 62971 12/14/77
EQN-1277-028
"TGS-ANSA Method for the
Determination of Nitrogen
Dioxide In the Atmosphere'
Atmospheric Research and Manual
Exposure Assessment Laboratory
Department E (MO-77)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
Equlv.
42 62971 12/14/77
-------
February 8, 1993
LIST OF DESIGNATED REFERENCE AND EQUIVALENT NETHODS
Page 29
DESIGNATION
NUMBER
IDENTIFICATION
MANUAL REF. OR FED. REGISTER NOTICE
OR AUTO EQUIV. VOL. PAGE DATE
RFNA-1078-031 "Meloy Model NA530R Nitrogen
Oxides Analyzer," operated on
the following ranges and time
constant switch positions:
NITROGEN DIOXIDE (Continued)
Columbia Scientific
Industries
11950 Jollyville Road
Austin, TX 78759
Auto Reference 43
44
50733 10/31/78
8327 02/09/79
Range. PPIW Time Constant Setting
0-0.1*
0-0.25*
0-0.5
0-1.0
4
3 or 4
2, 3, or 4
2, 3, or 4
Operation of the analyzer requires an external vacuum pump, either Meloy Option N-10 or an equivalent pump
capable of maintaining a vacuum of 200 torr (22 inches mercury vacuum) or better at the pump connection at
the specified sample and ozone-air flow rates of 1200 and 200 cm3/min, respectively. The analyzer may be
operated at temperatures between 10°C and 40°C and at line voltages between 105 and 130 volts, with or
without any of the following options:
N-1A Automatic Zero And Span
N-2 Vacuum Gauge
N-4 Digital Panel Meter
N-6 Remote Control For Zero
And Span
N-6B Remote Zero/Span Control
And Status (Pulse)
N-6C Remote Zero/Span Control
And Status (Timer)
N-9 Manual Zero/Span
N-10 Vacuum Pump Assembly (See
Alternate Requirement Above)
N-ll Auto Ranging
N-14B Line Transmitter
N-18 Rack Mount Conversion
N-18A Rack Mount Conversion
*NOTE: Users should be aware that designation of this analyzer for operation on ranges less than 0.5 ppm
Is based on meeting the same absolute performance specifications required for the 0-0.5 ppm range. Thus,
designation of these lower ranges does not imply commensurably better performance than that obtained on
the 0-0.5 ppm range.
-------
February 8, 1993
LIST OF DESIGNATED REFERENCE AND EQUIVALENT METHODS
Page 30
DESIGNATION
NUMBER
IDENTIFICATION
SOURCE
MANUAL REF. OR F£D. REGISTER NOTICE
OR AUTO EQUIV. VOL. PAGE DATE
RFNA-0179-034 "Beckman Model 952-A
NO/NOZ/NO. Analyzer," operated
NITROGEN DIOXIDE (Continued)
on the 0-0.5 ppm range with the
5-mlcron Teflon sample filter
(Beckman P/N 861072 supplied with
the analyzer) Installed on the sample
Inlet line, with or without the Remote
Operation Option (Beckman Cat. No. 635539).
Beckman Instruments, Inc. Auto
Process Instruments Division
2500 Harbor Boulevard
Fullerton, CA 92634
Reference 44 7806 02/07/79
RFNA-0179-035
"Thermo Electron Model 14 B/E
Chemlluminescent N0/N02/N0.
Analyzer," operated on the
0-0.5 ppm range, with or without
any of the following options:
14-001 Teflon Particulate Filter
14-002 Voltage Divider Card
14-003 Long-Time Signal Integrator
14-004 Indicating Temperature Controller
14-005 Sample Flowmeter
14-006 Air Filter
Thermo Environmental
Instruments, Inc.
8 West Forge Parkway
Franklin, MA 02038
Auto Reference 44
44
7805 02/07/79
54545 09/20/79
RFNA-0279-037 "Thermo Electron Model 14 D/E
Chemiluminescent N0/N02/N0,
Analyzer," operated on the
0-0.5 ppm range, with or without
any of the following options:
14-001 Teflon Particulate Fitter
14-002 Voltage Divider Card
Thermo Environmental
Instruments, Inc.
8 West Forge Parkway
Franklin, MA 02038
Auto
Reference 44 10429 02/20/79
-------
February 8, 1993
LIST OF DESIGNATED REFERENCE AND EQUIVALENT METHODS
Page 31
DESIGNATION
NUMBER
IDENTIFICATION
SOURCE
MANUAL REF. OR FED. REGISTER NOTICE
OR AUTO EQUIV. VOL. PAGE DATE
NITROGEN DIOXIDE (Continued)
Combustion Engineering, Inc. Auto
Process Analytics
P.O. Box 831
Lewisburg, WV 2490J
Reference 44 26792 05/07/79
RFNA-0479-038 "Bendlx Model 8101-B Oxides of
Nitrogen Analyzer," operated on
a 0-0.5 ppm range with a Teflon
sample filter installed on the
sample inlet line and with the
following post-manufacture modifications:
1. Ozone generator and reaction chamber input-output tubing modification per Bendix Service Bulletin
8101B-2; 2. The approved converter material; 3. The revised and EPA-approved operation and service
manual. These items are mandatory and must be obtained from Combustion Engineering, Inc.
The analyzer may be operated with or without any of the following optional modifications:
a. Perma Pure dryer/ambient air modification;
b. Valve cycle time modification;
c. Zero potentiometer centering modification
per Bendix Service Bulletin 8101B-1;
d. Reaction chamber vacuum gauge modification.
RFNA-0879-040
"Philips Model PW9762/02
N0/N02/N0. Analyzer," consisting
of the following components:
PU9762/02 Basic Analyzer
PU9729/00 Converter Cartridge
PW9731/00 Sampler or PW9731/20 Dust Filter;
operated on a range of 0-0.5 ppm, with or
without any of the following accessories:
PU9752/00 Air Sampler Manifold
PW9732/00 Sample Line Heater
PW9011/00 Remote Control Set
Philips Electronic
Instruments, Inc.
85 McKee Drive
Mahwah, NJ 07430
Auto
Reference 44 51683 09/04/79
-------
February 8, 1993 LIST OF DESIGNATED REFERENCE AND EQUIVALENT METHODS Page 32
DESIGNATION MANUAL REF. OR FED. REGISTER NOTICE
NUMBER IDENTIFICATION SOURCE OR AUTO EQUIV. VOL. PAGE DATE
NITROGEN DIOXIDE (Continued)
RFNA-0280-042 "Monitor Labs Model 8840 Lear Siegler Measurement Auto Reference 45 9100 02/11/80
NUrogen Oxides Analyzer," Controls Corporation 46 29986 06/04/81
operated on a range of either 74 Inverness Drive East
0-0.5 or 0-1.0 ppm, with an Englewood, CO 80112-5189
internal time constant setting
of 60 seconds, a TFE sample filter installed on the sample inlet line, with or without any of the following
options: ,
02 Flowmeter 08A Pump Pac Assembly With 09A 011A Recorder Output 1 Volt
03A Rack Ears (115 VAC) 01IB Recorder Output 100 mV
03B Slides 08B Pump Pac Assembly With 09B 011C Recorder Output 10 mV
05A Zero/Span Valves (100 VAC) 012A DAS Output 1 Volt
05B Valve/Relay 08C Pump Pac Assembly With 09C 012B DAS Output 100 mV
06 Status (220/240 VAC) 012C DAS Output 10 mV
07A Input Power Transformer 080 Rack Mount Panel Assembly 013A Ozone Dry Air
100 VAC, 50/60 Hz 09A Pump 115 VAC 50/60 Hz 013B Ozone Dry Air - No Drierite
07B Input Power Transformer 09B Pump 100 VAC 50/60 Hz
220/240 VAC, 50 Hz 09C Pump 220/240 VAC 50 Hz
RFNA-1289-074 "Thermo Environmental Instruments Thermo Environmental Auto Reference 54 50820 12/11/89
Inc. Model 42 NO/N02/NOR Analyzer," Instruments, Inc.
operated on the 0-0.05 ppm*, the 8 West Forge Parkway
0-0.1 ppm*, the 0-0.2 ppm*, the Franklin, MA 02038
0-0.5 ppm, or the 0-1.0 ppm range,
with any time average setting from 10 to 300 seconds. The analyzer may be operated at temperatures between
15°C and 35°C and at line voltages between 105 and 125 volts, with or without any of the following options:
42-002 Rack Mounts 42-004 Sample/Ozone Flowmeters 42-007 Ozone Particulate Filter
42-003 Internal Zero/Span And 42-005 4-20 mA Current Output 42-008 RS-232 Interface
Sample Valves With Remote 42-006 Pressure Transducer 42-009 Permeation Dryer
Activation
*NOTE: Users should be aware that designation of this analyzer for operation on ranges less than 0.5 ppm
is based on meeting the same absolute performance specifications required for the 0-0.5 ppm range. Thus,
designation of these lower ranges does not imply commensurably better performance than that obtained on
the 0-0.5 ppm range.
-------
February 8, 1993 LIST OF DESIGNATED REFERENCE AND EQUIVALENT METHODS Page 33
DESIGNATION MANUAL REF. OR FED. REGISTER NOTICE
NUMBER IDENTIFICATION SOURCE OR AUTO EQUIV. VOL. PAGE DATE
NITROGEN DIOXIDE (Continued)
RFNA-0691-082 "Advanced Pollution Advanced Pollution Auto Reference 56 27014 06/12/91
Instrumentation, Inc. Model 200 Instrumentation, Inc
Nitrogen Oxides Analyzer," 8815 Production Avenue
operated on a range of either San Diego, CA 92121-2219
0-0.5 or 0-1.0 ppm, with a 5-micron
TFE filter element Installed in the rear-panel filter assembly, with either a user- or vendor-supplied
vacuum pump capable of providing 5 inches mercury absolute pressure at 5 slpm, with either a user- or
vendor-supplied dry air source capable of providing air at a dew point of 0°C or lower, with the
following settings of the adjustable setup variables:
Adaptive Filter - ON
Dwell Time - 7 seconds
Dynamic Span - OFF
Dynamic Zero - OFF
PMT Temperature Set Point - 15°C
Rate of Change(ROC) Threshold * 10%
Reaction Cell Temperature - 50°C
Sample Time - 8 seconds
Normal Filter Size - 12 samples;
and with or without any of the following options:
180 Stainless Steel Valves 283 Internal Zero/Span With Valves (IZS) 356 Level One Spares Kit
184 Pump Pack 325 RS-232/Status Output 357 Level Two Spares Kit
280 Rack Mount With Slides 355 Expendables PE5 Permeation Tube for IZS
RFNA-0991-083 "Monitor Labs Model 8841 Lear Siegler Measurement Auto Reference 56 47473 09/19/91
Nitrogen Oxides Analyzer," Controls Corporation
operated on the 0-0.05 ppm*, 74 Inverness Drive East
0-0.1 ppm*, 0-0.2 ppm*, Englewood, CO 80112-5189
0-0.5 ppm, or 0-1.0 ppm range,
with manufacturer-supplied vacuum pump or alternative user-supplied vacuum pump capable of providing 200
torr or better absolute vacuum while operating with the analyzer.
*NOTE: Users should be aware that designation of this analyzer for operation on ranges less than 0.5 ppm
is based on meeting the same absolute performance specifications required for the 0-0.5 ppm range. Thus,
designation of these lower ranges does not imply commensurably better performance than that obtained on
the 0-0.5 ppm range.
-------
February 8, 1993 LIST OF DESIGNATED REFERENCE AND EQUIVALENT METHODS Page 34
DESIGNATION MANUAL REF. OR FED. REGISTER NOTICE
NUMBER IDENTIFICATION SOURCE OR AUTO EQU|V, VOL. PAGE DATE
NITROGEN DIOXIDE (Continued)
RFNA-1192-089 "Daslbi Model 2108 Oxides of Dasibi Environmental Corp. Auto Reference 57 55530 11/25/92
Nitrogen Analyzer," operated 515 West Colorado Street
on the 0-500 ppb range, with Glendale, CA 91204-1101
software revision 3.6 installed
in the analyzer, with the Auto thumbwheel switch and the Diag thumbwheel switch settings at 0, with the
following internal CPU dipswitch settings:
switch position function
1 open (down) Recorder outputs are NO & N02
5 open (down) 3 minute time constant
6 closed (up) 3 minute time constant;
with a 5-micron Teflon filter element installed in the filter holder, and with or without any of the
following options:
Built-in Permeation Oven Rack Mounting Three-Channel Recorder Output
RS-232 Interface 4-20 mA Output
RFNA-1292-090 "Lear Siegler Measurement Lear Siegler Measurement Auto Reference 57 60198 12/18/92
Controls Corporation Model Controls Corporation
ML9841 Nitrogen Oxides Analyzer," 74 Inverness Drive East
operated on any full scale range Englewood, CO 80112-5189
between 0-0.050 ppm* and 0-1.0 ppm,
with auto-ranging enabled or disabled, at any temperature in the range of 15°C to 35°C, with a five-micron
Teflon filter element Installed in the filter assembly behind the secondary panel, the service switch on
the secondary panel set to the In position; with the following menu choices selected:
Calibration: Manual or Timed; Diagnostic Mode: Operate; Filter Type: Kalnan; Pres/Temp/Flow Comp: On;
Span Comp: Disabled;
with the 50-pin I/O board Installed on the rear panel configured at any of the following output range
settings:
Voltage, 0.1 V, IV, 5 V, 10 V; Current, 0-20 mA, 2-20 mA, 4-20 mA;
and with or without any of the following options:
Internal Floppy Disk Drive Rack Mount Assembly Valve Assembly for External Zero/Span (EZS)
*NOTE: Users should be aware that designation of this analyzer for operation on any full scale range less
than 0.5 ppm ts based on meeting the same absolute performance specifications required for the 0-0.5 ppm
range. Thus, designation of any full scale range lower than the 0-0.5 ppm range does not imply
commenswrably better performance than that obtained o«> the 0-0,5 ppm range.
-------
February 8, 1993
DESIGNATION
NUMBER
IDENTIFICATION
LIST OF DESIGNATED REFERENCE AND EQUIVALENT METHODS
SOURCE
MANUAL
OR AUTO
REF. OR
EQUIV.
Page 35
FED. REGISTER NOTICE
VOL. PAGE DATE
******
Reference Method for the Deter-
mination of Lead In Suspended
Participate Matter Collected
from Ambient Air
LEAD
40 CFR Part
Appendix G
50,
Manual
Reference 43 46258 10/05/78
EQL-0380-043
"Determination of Lead Concen-
tration In Ambient Partlculate
Matter by Flame Atomic Absorp-
tion Spectrometry .Following
Ultrasonic Extraction with Heated
HNO,-HC1"
Atmospheric Research and Manual
Exposure Assessment Laboratory
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
Equlv. 45 14648 03/06/80
EQL-0380-044
"Determination of Lead Concen-
tration in Ambient Particulate
Matter by Flameless Atomic
Absorption Spectrometry (EPA/
RTP.N.C.)"
Atmospheric Research and Manual
Exposure Assessment Laboratory
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
Equiv. 45 14648 03/06/80
EQL-0380-045
"Determination of Lead Concen-
tration In Ambient Particulate
Matter by Inductively Coupled
Argon Plasma Optical Emission
Spectrometry (EPA/RTP.N.C.)"
Atmospheric Research and Manual
Exposure Assessment Laboratory
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
Equlv. 45 14648 03/06/80
EQL-0581-052
"Determination of Lead Concen-
tration In Ambient Particulate
Matter by Wavelength Dispersive
X-Ray Fluorescence Spectrometry"
California Department of
Health Services
Air & Industrial Hygiene
Laboratory
2151 Berkeley Way
Berkeley, CA 94704
Manual
Equlv. 46 29986 06/04/81
-------
February 8, ,1993
DESIGNATION
NUMBER
IDENTIFICATION
LIST OF DESIGNATED REFERENCE AND EQUIVALENT METHODS
SOURCE
MANUAL
OR AUTO
Page 36
REF. OR FED. REGISTER NOTICE
£9UUL_ VOL. PAGE DATE
EQL-0483-057
"Determination of Lead Concen-
tration in Ambient Particulate
Matter by Inductively Coupled
Argon Plasma Optical Emission
Spectrometry (State 'of Montana)'
LEAD (Continued!
State of Montana
Department of Health and
Environmental Sciences
Cogswell Building
Helena, MT 59620
Manual
Equiv.
48 14748 04/05/83
EQL-0783-058
"Determination of Lead Concen-
tration in Ambient Particulate
Matter by Energy-Dispersive
X-Ray Fluorescence Spectrometry
(Texas Air Control Board)"
Texas Air Control Board
6330 Highway 290 East
Austin, TX 78723
Manual
Equiv.
48 29742 06/28/83
EQL-0785-059
"Determination of Lead Concen-
tration in Ambient Particulate
Matter by Flameless Atomic
Absorption Spectrometry (Omaha-
Douglas County Health Department)1
Omaha-Douglas County
Health Department
1819 Farnam Street
Omaha, NE 68183
Manual
Equiv.
50 37909 09/18/85
EQL-0888-068
"Determination of Lead Concen-
tration in Ambient Particulate
Matter by Inductively Coupled
Argon Plasma Optical Emission
Spectrometry (State of Rhode
Island)"
State of Rhode Island
Department of Health
Air Pollution Laboratory
50 Orms Street
Providence, RI 02904
Manual
Equiv.
53 30866 08/16/88
EQL-1188-069
"Determination of Lead Concen-
tration in Ambient Particulate
Matter by Inductively Coupled
Argon Plasma Optical Emission
Spectrometry (Northern Engineer-
Ing and Testing, Inc.)"
Northern Engineering
and Testing, Inc.
P.O. Box 30615
Billings, MT 59107
Manual
Equiv.
53 44947 11/07/88
-------
February 8, 1993
LIST OF DESIGNATED REFERENCE AND EQUIVALENT METHODS
Page 37
DESIGNATION
NUMBER
IDENTIFICATION
SOURCE
MANUAL REF. OR FED. REGISTER NOTICE
OR AUTO EQUIV. VOL. PAGE DATE
EQL-1288-070
"Determination of Lead Concen-
tration in Ambient Participate
Matter by Inductively Coupled
Argon Plasma Optical Emission
Spectrometry (Silver Valley
Laboratories)"
LEAD (Continued)
Silver Valley Laboratories,
Inc.
P.O. Box 929
Kellogg, ID 83837
Manual
Equiv.
53 48974 12/05/88
EQL-0589-072
"Determination of Lead Concen-
tration in Ambient Particulate
Matter by Energy Dispersive
X-Ray Fluorescence Spectrometry
(NEA, Inc.)"
Nuclear Environmental Manual
Analysis, Inc.
10950 SW 5th Street, Suite 260
Beaverton, OR 97005
Equiv.
54 20193 05/10/89
EQL-1290-080
"Determination of Lead Concen-
tration in Ambient Particulate
Matter by Inductively Coupled
Argon Plasma Optical Emission
Spectrometry (State of New
Hampshire)"
State of New Hampshire
Department of Environmental
Services
Laboratory Service Unit
6 Hazen Drive (P.O. Box 95)
Concord, NH 03302-0095
Manual
Equiv.
55 49119 11/26/90
EQL-0592-085
"Determination of Lead Concen-
tration In Ambient Particulate
Matter by Inductively Coupled
Argon Plasma Optical Emission
Spectrometry (State of Kansas)'
State of Kansas
Department of Health and
Environment
Forbes Field, Building 740
Topeka, KS 66620-0001
Manual
Equiv.
57 20823 05/15/92
EQL-0592-086
"Determination of Lead Concen-
tration in Ambient Particulate
Matter by Inductively Coupled
Argon Plasma Optical Emission
Spectrometry (Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania)"
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
Department of Environmental
Resources
P.O. Box 2357
Harrisburg, PA 17105-2357
Manual
Equiv.
57 20823 05/15/92
-------
METHOD CODES
Method
Metfcon
February 8, 1993
Method
Ref. method (ptraroeualine)
Technicoal (panroaaniliae)
TeduuconD (Ptnreetniiioe)
EQS-0775-001
EQS-0775-002
097
097
097
Sodium aneniie (orifice)
Sodium araaafea/Tecbaicon B
TQS-ANSA (orifice)
Advanced PoUuooa matr. 100
Aaarco500
Beckman953
Beadix 8303
b; 410S
Leer Siegler AM2020
Lear Siegler SM1000
Lear Siegler ML9850
MeloySA185-2A
Meloy SA285E
Meloy SA700
Monitor Ub» 8450
Monitor Ub« 8850
Monitor Labi 8850S
Philip. PW9700
Philip. PW9755
Thermo Electron 43
Thermo Eiectroo 43 A
Advanced PoUution Inatr. 400
rV-ttmn 9SOA
Bepdix8002
CSI2000
Duibi 1003-AH.-PC.-RS
DMibi 1008-AH
Environict 300
Lear Siegler ML9810
McMillan 1100-1
McMillan 11 00-2
McMillan 1 100-3
Meloy OA325-2R
Meloy OA3SO-2R
Monitor Labi 84 10E
Monitor Lab* 88 10
PCI Ozooe Corp. LC-12
Philip* PW9771
Thermo Electron 49
Sectarian 866
Beadix 8501-5CA
D««ibi3003
Duibi 3008
HoribaAQM-10,-11,-12
Horiba 300E/300SE
Lear Siegfer ML 9830
MASS • CO 1 (Maaaacauaetu)
Monitor Labi 8310
Monitor Lab. 8830
MSA202S
Thermo Electron 48
EQSA-0990-077 077
EQSA-0877-024 024
EQSA-0678-029 029
EQSA-1078-Q30 030
EQSA-1Q86-061 061
EQjSA-0292-084 084
EQSA-1280-049 049
EQSA-1275-OOS 005
EQSA-0193-092 092
EQSA-1275-006 006
EQSA-1078-032 032
EQSA-0580-046 046
EQSA-OS76-013 513
EQSA-0779-039 039
EQSA-0390-07S 075
EQSA-0876-011 511
EQSA-0676-010 010
EQSA-0276-009 009
EQSA-0486-060 060
EQOA-0992-087 087
RFOA-OS77-020 020
RFOA-0176-007 007
RFOA-0279-036 036
EQOA-0577-019 019
EQOA-0383-056 056
EQOA-0990-078 078
EQOA-0193-091 091
RFOA-1076-014 514
RFOA-1076-015 515
RFOA-1076-016 016
RFOA-1075-003 003
RFOA-1075-004 004
RFOA-1176-017 017
EQOA-0881-053 053
EQOA-0382-055 055
EQOA-0777-023 023
EQOA-088CMH7 047
RFCA-0876-012 012
RFCA-0276^08 008
RFCA-0381-051 051
RFCA-0488-067 067
RFCA-1278-033 033
RFCA-1180-048 04S
RFCA-0991-088 088
RFCA-1280-050 050
RFCA-0979-041 041
RFCA-0388-066 066
RFCA-0177-018 018
RFC A-0981-054 054
Advanced Pollution Inau. 200
Beebau9S2A
Beadix 8101-B
Bendix8101-C
Dufl>t2108
CSI1600
Lew Siegler ML9841
Meloy NA530R
Monitor Lab* 8440E
Monitor Lab* 8840
Monitor Lab* 8841
Philip* PW9762/02
Thermo Electron 14B/E
Tbenno Election 14D/E
Thermo Eavironmenul Inn. 42
"*1
Ref. method (hi-vol/AA apect.)
Hi-vol/AA apect. (alt. extr.)
Hi-vol/Energy-diap XRF (TX ACS)
Hi-vol/Enefxydiap XRF (NEA)
Hi-vol/FUmekai AA (EMSL/EPA)
Hi-vol/Flamelea* AA (Omaha)
Hi-voWCAP apect. (EMSUEPA)
Hi-vol/lCAP spect. (Kama*)
Hi-vol/ICAP apect. (Mootaoa)
K-voWCAP apect. (NE&T)
Hi-vol/ICAP apect. (N. Hampahr)
Hi-vol/ICAP apect. (Pemuylva)
Hi-voUICAP apect. (Rhode I*.)
Hi-vol/ICAP apect. (S.V. Labi)
Hi-vol/WL-diap. XRF (CA A&IHL)
Oregon DEQ Med. vol. (ampler
Siem-Andenen/GMW 1200
Siem-Andenen/GMW 321-B
Sicm-Andemn/GMW 321-C
Siem-Aad«naa/GMW241 Dicaot
Wedding A AJMC. hign volume
Aadenen Inatr. Beta FH621-N
RAPTEOM 1400,1400.
Wedding A Ajaoc. Beta Gaug«
Reference method (high-volume)
EQN-1277.026
EQN-1277-027
EQN.1277-028
RFNA-069 1-082
RFNA-0179-034
RFNA-0479-O38
RFNA-07T7-022
RFNA-1 192-089
RFNA-0977-025
RFNA-1292-090
RFNA- 1078-031
RFNA-0677-021
RFNA-0280-042
RFNA-0991-083
RFNA-0879-040
RFNA-0179-035
RFNA-0279-037
RFNA- 1289-074
EQL-03 80^43
EQL-0783-058
EQL-0589-072
EQL-0380-044
EQL-0785-059
EQL-0380-045
EQL-0592-085
EQL-0483-057
EQH1 88-069
EQH290-080
EQL-0592-086
EQL-0888-068
EQL-1288-070
EQL-0581-052
RFPS-0389-071
RFPS- 1287-063
RFPS-1287-064
RFPS-1287-065
RFPS-0789-073
RFPS-1087-062
EQPM -0990-076
EQPM-1090-079
EQPM-Q391-081
084
084
09&
082
034
038
022
089
025
090
031
021
042
083
040
035
037
074
803
043
058
072
044
059
045
085
057
069
080
086
068
070
052
071
063
064
065
073
062
076
079
081
802
-------
APPROVED METHODS AS OF FEBRUARY 8, 1993
MANUAL
AUTOMATED
1EFEJUENCE
EQUIVALENT
KEFEXENCE
EQUIVALENT
CO
NO,
1 . IfeMDr Uta (MOB ( J)
1. ct dhiifii) lioi-c (J)
). CKIMXXJ)
4. tfctor NA30* (.1..23.J.I.O)
3. »*Mt52-A(.5)
«. IB 14 M < J)
7. TMJUD/KJ)
10. MKMT Uto M4tl ( J. IJ)
II. TIB « (.01. .1. i J, 1.0)
12. A«M)(J, 1.0)
11. Mow U*« M4I (.«,.!.
a. J. i.o>
14. D^i 2101 ( J)
13. LarSH^rML«*4l (.05-1.0)
1. Ifatoy OAJ1S-M ( J)
1. kMor OA3»-a ( S)
]. CE (BMliz) HOZ (J)
4. fHillM 1100-1 (J)
5. MeMiftM 1100-2 (J)
Uk> M10E (3)
lOO-AH.KJtS (J.1.0)
. CS1 2000 ( J)
}.1VD4«(J, 1.0)
4. Mm — L*( UIO (J. 1 .0)
S.FCIOmCo?. LC-12C.5)
t. DMW KM-AH.HMSC-S.I.CD
7. n« «u»nMO(-5)
I. AM 400 (.l.J. 1.0)
* UvS«(«ir ML M10 (.05-1.0)
Pb
2.
OVA)
1. HV/KATtEPA)
4. KWWDX1F
(AIKL.CA)
5. HV/ICAT (km
*. HV/EDXKF (IX)
7. HV/1
I. HV/ICAF (U)
9. HV/ICAT (NET)
10. HV/lCAf (SVL)
M.HV/DXXFINEA)
12. HV/KAf (NH)
13. HV/ICAF DCS)
14. HV/tCAF (PA)
1. I^fa7 SA1I5-XA (J. 1.0)
43 (J. 1.0)
. 1.0)
AtAKOO 500 (J). MO (1-0)
MJ (J. 1.0)
003 (J, 1.0)
10. M^ SA2S5B(.05,.1.J.1.0)
. J.
tflftar AM2020(J,1.0)
43A(.l. A J, 1.0)
4IOi(.l, i J, 1.0)
(J. 1.0)
IT. AH 100 (S)
II. ImvMMt.A. AR1M (J)
1*. Lw »-ftar ML N50 (.05-1 .0)
U, (.05). (.1). («. (J), (1-0). v 00)
PM,,
I. WAAM. Cited
Ha» HV Ti»»lir
2. SAAMW 1200
3. SAMMW 3214
4. SA/OMW 321-C
5.
. PH62J-NPM.
*. SA/OMW 241 A 24IM
SO,
TSP
-------
DEPT E MD-77
UNITED STATES
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
IESEAKCH TKUttlE PARK, WITH CAROLINA 27711
OFFICIAL BUSINESS
PENALTY FOR PRIVATE USE $300
-------
U.'S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY * Previous Revision: September 28, 1992 *
Office of Research and Development * *
Atmospheric Research and Exposure * New Designations: *
Assessment Laboratory * Daslbl Environmental Corporation *
Methods Research & Development Division (MD-77) * Hodel 2108 Oxides of Nitrogen Analyzer *
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711 * Lear Slegler Neasurement Controls Corporation *
919 541-2622 or 919 541-4599 * Model HL9841 Nitrogen Oxides Analyzer *
FTS 629-2622 or FTS 629-4599 * Hodel HL9810 Ozone Analyzer *
* Model ML9850 Sulfur Dioxide Analyzer *
Issue Date: February 8, 1993 *************************
LIST OF DESIGNATED REFERENCE AND EQUIVALENT METHODS
These methods for measuring ambient concentrations of specified air pollutants have been designated as "reference
methods" or "equivalent methods" In accordance with Title 40, Part 53 of the Code of Federal Regulations (40 CFR Part
53). Subject to any limitations (e.g., operating range) specified in the applicable designation, each method Is
acceptable for use In state or local air quality surveillance systems under 40 CFR Part 58 unless the applicable
designation Is subsequently canceled. Automated methods are acceptable for use at temperatures between 20°C and 30°C
and line voltages between 105 and 125 volts unless wider limits are specified in the method description.
Prospective users of the methods listed should note (1) that each method must be used in strict accordance with
the operation or Instruction manual and with applicable quality assurance procedures, and (2) that modification of a
method by Us vendor or user may cause the pertinent designation to be inapplicable to the method as modified. (See
Section 2.8 of Appendix C, 40 CFR Part 58 for approval of modifications to any of these methods by users.)
Further Information concerning particular designations may be found In the Federal Register notice cited for each
method or by writing to the Atmospheric Research & Exposure Assessment Laboratory, Methods Research & Development
Division (MD-77), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711. Technical
Information concerning the methods should be obtained by writing to the "source" listed for each method. New analyzers
or PMIO samplers sold as reference or equivalent methods must carry a label or sticker Identifying them as designated
methods. For analyzers or PM10 samplers sold prior to the designation, the model number does not necessarily Identify
an analyzer or sampler as a designated method. Consult the manufacturer or seller to determine If a previously sold
analyzer or sampler can be considered a designated method, or If it can be upgraded to designation status. Analyzer
users who experience operational or other difficulties w,1th a designated analyzer or sampler and are unable to resolve
the problem directly with the Instrument manufacturer may contact EPA (preferably in writing) at the above address for
assistance.
This list will be revised as necessary to reflect any new designations or any cancellation of a designation
currently In effect. The most current revision of the list will be available for inspection at EPA's Regional Offices,
and copies may be obtained by writing to the Atmospheric Research & Txposure Asspssm^nt Laboratory at the address
-------
^bruary 8, 1993
DESIGNATION
NUMBER
IDENTIFICATION
LIST OF DESIGNATED REFERENCE AND EQUIVALENT METHODS
SOURCE
MANUAL
OR AUTO
Page 2
REF. OR FED. REGISTER NOTICE
EQUIV. VOL. PAGE DATE
******
******
Reference Method for the
Determination of Suspended
Participate Matter in the
Atmosphere (High-Volume Method)
Reference Method for the
Determination of Particulate
Matter as PMIO in the Atmosphere
PARTICULATE MATTER - TSP
40 CFR Part 50,
Appendix 6
PARTICULATE MATTER - PM
40 CFR Part 50,
Appendix J
10
Manual
Manual
Reference 47 54912 12/06/82
48 17355 04/22/83
Reference 52
52
24664 07/01/87
29467 08/07/87
RFPS-1087-062 "Wedding & Associates'
PH10 Critical Flow High-Volume
Wedding & Associates,
P.O. Box 1756
Fort Collins, CO 80522
Inc.
Sampler," consisting of the
following components:
Wedding PMIO Inlet
Wedding & Associates' Critical Flow Device
Wedding & Associates' Anodlzed Aluminum Shelter
115, 220 or 240 VAC Motor Blower Assembly
Mechanical Timer Or Optional Digital Timer
Elapsed Time Indicator
Filter Cartridge/Cassette
Manual
Reference 52 37366 10/06/87
-------
February 8, 1993 LIST OF DESIGNATED REFERENCE AND EQUIVALENT METHODS Page 3
DESIGNATION MANUAL REF. OR FED. REG ISJER NOTICE
NUMBER IDENTIFICATION SOURCE OR AUTO EQUIV. VOL. PAGE DATE
PART1CULATE MATTER - PM,n (Continued)
RFPS-1287-063 "Sierra-Andersen or Andersen Samplers, Inc. Manual Reference 52 45684 12/01/87
General Metal Works Model 1200 4801 Fulton Industrial Blvd. 53 1062 01/15/88
PM.o High-Volume Air Sampler Atlanta, GA 30336
System," consisting of a Sierra- or
Andersen or General Metal Works General Metal Works, Inc.
Model 1200 PM10 Size-Selective 145 South Miami
Inlet and any of the high-volume Cleves, OH 45002
air samplers identified as
SAUV-10H, SAUV-11H, GMW-IP-10,
GMW-IP-10-70, GMW-IP-10-801, or GMW-IP-10-8000, which include the following components:
Anodized aluminum high-volume shelter with either acrylonitrile butadiene styrene plastic filter holder
and motor/blower housing or stainless steel filter holder and phenolic plastic motor/blower housing;
0.6 hp motor/blower; pressure transducer flow recorder; either an electronic mass flow controller or a
volumetric flow controller; either a digital timer/programmer, seven-day mechanical timer, six-day
timer/programmer, or solid-state timer/programmer; elapsed time Indicator; and filter cartridge.
RFPS-1287-064 "Sierra-Andersen or Andersen Samplers, Inc. Manual Reference 52 45684 12/01/87
General Metal Works Model 321-B 4801 Fulton Industrial Blvd. 53 1062 01/15/88
PN10 High-Volume Air Sampler Atlanta, GA 30336
System," consisting of a Sierra- or
Andersen or General Metal Works General Metal Works, Inc.
Model 321-B PM10 Size-Selective 145 South Miami
Inlet and any of the high-volume Cleves, OH 45002
air samplers Identified as
SAUV-IOH, SAUV-11H, GMW-IP-10,
GMW-IP-10-70, GMW-IP-10-801, or GMW-IP-10-8000, which include the following components:
Anodized aluminum high-volume shelter with either acrylonitrile butadiene styrene plastic filter holder
and motor/blower housing or stainless steel filter holder and phenolic plastic motor/blower housing;
0.6 hp motor/blower; pressure transducer flow recorder; either an electronic mass flow controller or a
volumetric flow controller; either a digital timer/programmer, seven-day mechanical timer, six-day
timer/programmer, or solid-state timer/programmer; elapsed time Indicator; and filter cartridge.
-------
February 8, 1993
DESIGNATION
NUMBER
IDENTIFICATION
LIST OF DESIGNATED REFERENCE AND EQUIVALENT METHODS
MANUAL
' SOURCE OR AUTO
Page 4
REF. OR FED. REGISTER NOTICE
EQUIV. VOL. PAGE DATE
RFPS-1287-065 "Sierra-Andersen or
General Metal Works Model 321-C
PMIO High-Volume A1r Sampler
System," consisting of a Sierra-
Andersen or General Metal Works
Model 321-C PMIO Size-Selective
Inlet and any of the high-volume
air samplers Identified as
PARTICULATE MATTER - PM,? (Continued)
Andersen Samplers, Inc.
4801 Fulton Industrial Blvd.
Atlanta, GA 30336
or
General Metal Works, Inc.
145 South Miami
Cleves, OH 45002
Manual
Reference
52
53
45684
1062
12/01/87
01/15/88
SAUV-10H, SAUV-11H, GMW-1P-10,
GMW-IP-10-70, GMW-IP-10-801, or GMW-IP-10-8000, which Include the following components:
Anodlzed aluminum high-volume shelter with either acrylonltrlle butadiene styrene plastic filter holder
and motor/blower housing or stainless steel filter holder and phenolic plastic motor/blower housing;
0.6 hp motor/blower; pressure transducer flow recorder; either an electronic mass flow controller or a
volumetric flow controller; either a digital timer/programmer, seven-day mechanical timer, six-day
timer/programmer, or solid-state timer/programmer; elapsed time Indicator; and filter cartridge.
RFPS-0389-071 "Oregon DEQ Medium Volume
/- PMIO Sampler"
NOTE: This method Is not now
commercially available.
State of Oregon
Department of Environmental
Air Quality Division
811 S.W. Sixth Avenue
Portland, OR 97204
Manual
Quality
Reference 54 12273 03/24/89
RFPS-0789-073
"Sierra-Andersen Models SA241 and
SA241N or General Metal Works
Models G241 and G241M PMIO
Dlchotomous Samplers", consisting
of the following components:
Sampling Module with SA246b or
G246b 10 fim Inlet, 2.5
Andersen Samplers, Inc.
4801 Fulton Industrial Blvd.
Atlanta, GA 30336
or
General Metal Works, Inc.
145 South Miami
Cleves, OH 45002
Manual
Reference 54 31247 07/27/89
virtual Impactor assembly,
37 mm coarse and fine parUculate filter holders, and tripod mount;
Control Module with diaphragm vacuum pump, pneumatic constant flow controller, total and coarse flow
ami vacuum oauqes, pressure switch (optional), 24-hour flow/event recorder, digital
-------
February 8, 1993 . LIST OF DESIGNATED REFERENCE AND EQUIVALENT METHODS Page 5
DESIGNATION MANUAL REF. OR ffO. REGISTER NOTICE
NUMBER IDENTIFICATION SOURCE OR AUTO EQU1V. VOL. PAGE DATE
PART1CULATE MATTER - PMlff (Continued)
EQPM-0990-076 "Andersen Instruments Andersen Instruments, Inc. Auto Equiv. 55 38387 09/18/90
Model FH62I-N PMIO Beta 4801 Fulton Industrial Blvd.
Attenuation Monitor," Atlanta, GA 30336
consisting of the following
components:
FH62I Beta Attenuation 19-inch Control Module
SA246b PH10 Inlet (16.7 liter/min)
FH101 Vacuum Pump Assembly
FH102 Accessory Kit
FH107 Roof Flange Kit
FH125 Zero and Span PM)0 Mass Foil Calibration Kit
operated for 24-hour average measurements, with an observing time of 60 minutes, the calibration factor
set to 2400, a glass fiber filter tape, an automatic filter advance after each 24-hour sample period, and
with or without either of the following options:
FHOP1 Indoor Cabinet
FHOP2 Outdoor Shelter Assembly
EQPM-1090-079 "Rupprecht & Patashnick TEOM Rupprecht & Patashnick Co., Auto Equiv. 55 43406 10/29/90
Series 1400 and Series I400a Inc.
PM-10 Monitors," consisting 8 Corporate Circle
of the following components: Albany, NY 12203
TEOM Sensor Unit
TEOM Control Unit
Rupprecht & Patashnick PM-10 Inlet (part number 57-00596) or
Sierra-Andersen Model 246b PM-10 Inlet (16.7 I1ter/m1n)
Flow Splitter
Teflon-Coated Glass Fiber Filter Cartridges
operated for 24-hour average measurements, with the total mass averaging time set at 300 seconds,
the mass rate/mass concentration averaging time set at 300 seconds, the gate time set at 2 seconds,
and with or without either of the following options:
Tripod
Outdoor Enclosure
Automatic Cartridge Collection Unit (Series HOOa only)
-------
February 8, 1993 LIST OF DESIGNATED REFERENCE AND EQUIVALENT METHODS Page 6
DESIGNATION MANUAL REF. OR FED. REGISTER NOTICE
NUMBER IDENTIFICATION SOURCE OR AUTO EQUJV, VOL. PAGE DATE
PARTICULATE HATTER - PMIC (Continued)
EQPM-0391-081 "Wedding & Associates' Wedding & Associates, Inc. Auto Equlv. 56 9216 03/05/91
PH10 Beta Gauge Automated P.O. Box 1756
Particle Sampler," consisting Fort Collins, CO 80522
of the following components:
Particle Sampling Module
PM.0 Inlet (18.9 I1ter/min)
Inlet Tube and Support Ring
Vacuum Pump (115 VAC/60 Hz or 220-240 VAC/50 Hz)
operated for 24-hour average measurements with glass fiber filter tape.
-------
February 8, 1993
DESIGNATION
NUMBER
IDENTIFICATION
LIST OF DESIGNATED REFERENCE AND EQUIVALENT METHODS
MANUAL
SOURCE . OR AUTO
REF. OR
EQUIV.
Page
FED. REGISTER NOTICI
VOL. PAGE DATE
******
Reference Method for the
Determination of Sulfur
Dioxide In the Atmosphere
(Pararosanlllne Method)
SULFUR DIOXIDE
40 CFR Part 50,
Appendix A
Manual Reference 47
48
54899 12/06/8
17355 04/22/8
EQS-0775-001
"Pararosanlllne Method for the
Determination of Sulfur Dioxide
In the Atmosphere-Technicon I
Automated Analysis System"
Atmospheric Research and Manual
Exposure Assessment Laboratory
Department E (MD-77)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
Equlv.
40 34024 08/13/7
EQS-0775-002
"Pararosanlllne Method for the
Determination of Sulfur Dioxide
in the Atmosphere-Technicon II
Automated Analysis System"
Atmospheric Research and Manual
Exposure Assessment Laboratory
Department E (MD-77)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
Equlv
40 34024 08/13/7
EQSA-1275-005
"Lear Slegler Model SM1000 SO,
Ambient Monitor," operated on the
0-0.5 ppm range, at a wavelength
of 299.5 nm, with the "slow"
(300 second) response time, with
or without any of the following options:
SM-1 Internal Zero/Span
SM-2 Span Timer Card
SM-3 0-0.1 Volt Output
SM-4 0-5 Volt Output
SM-5 Alternate Sample Pump
SM-6 Outdoor Enclosure
Lear Slegler Measurement
Controls Corporation
74 Inverness Drive East
Englewood, CO 80112-5189
Auto Equiv. 41 3893 01/27/7
41 32946 08/06/7
42 13044 03/08/7
45 1147 01/04/8
-------
February 8, 1993
DESIGNATION
NUMBER
IDENTIFICATION
LIST OF DESIGNATED REFERENCE AND EQUIVALENT HETHODS
SOURCE
MANUAL
OR AUTO
Page I
REF. OR FED. REGISTER NOTICE
EQUIV. VOL. PAGE DATE
EQSA-1275-006
"Meloy Model SA185-2A Sulfur
Dioxide Analyzer," operated on
the 0-0.5 ppm range, with or
without any of the following
options:
S-l Linearized Output
S-2 Modified Recorder Output
S-5 Teflon-Coated Block
S-6A Relgnlte Timer Circuit
S-7 Press To Read
S-11A Manual Zero And Span
S-11B Automatic Zero And Span
S-13 Status Lights
S-14 Output Booster Amplifier
S-14B Line Transmitter Board
or operated on the 0-1.0 ppm range
the other options.
SULFUR DIOXIDE (Continued)
Columbia Scientific Auto Equlv.
Industries
11950 Jollyvllle Road
Austin, TX 78759
41 3893 01/27/7<
43 38088 08/25/71
S-18 Rack Mount Conversion S-24
S-18A Rack Mount Conversion S-33
S-21 Front Panel Digital Volt
Meter S-34
S-22 Remote Zero/Span Control S-35
And Status (Timer)
S-22A Remote Zero/Span Control S-36
S-23 Automatic Zero Adjust S-38
S-23A Automatic/Manual Zero Adjust
Dual Range Linearized Output
Remote Range Control And Status
(Signals)
Remote Control
Front Panel Digital Meter With
BCD Output
Dual Range Log-Linear Output
Sampling Mode Status
with either option S-36 or options S-l and S-24, with or without any of
EQSA-0276-009 "Thermo Electron Model 43 Pulsed
Fluorescent S02 Analyzer,"
Thermo Environmental
Instruments, Inc.
8 West Forge Parkway
Franklin, MA 02038
equipped with an aromatic hydro-
carbon cutter and operated on a
range of either 0-0.5 or 0-1.0
ppm, with or without any of the following options:
001 Rack Mounting For Standard 19 Inch Relay Rack
002 Automatic Actuation Of Zero And Span Solenoid Valves
003 Type S Flash Lamp Power Supply
004 Low Flow
Auto Equlv. 41 8531 02/27/7
41 15363 04/12/7
42 20490 04/20/7
44 21861 04/12/7
45 2700 01/14/1
45 32419 05/16/f
-------
February 8, 1993 , LIST OF DESIGNATED REFERENCE AND EQUIVALENT METHODS Page
DESIGNATION MANUAL REF. OR FED. REGISTER NOTIC
NUMBER IDENTIFICATION SOURCE OR AUTO EQUIV. VOL. PAGE DATE
SULFUR DIOXIDE (Continued)
EQSA-0676-010 "Philips PH9755 S02 Analyzer," Philips Electronic Auto Equlv. 41 26252 06/25/7
consisting of the following Instruments, Inc. 41 46019 10/19/7
components: 85 McKee Drive 42 28571 06/03/7
PW9755/02 SOj Monitor with: Mahwah, NJ 07430
PW9741/00 S02 Source
PH9721/00 Filter Set S02
PW9711/00 Electrolyte S02
PH9750/00 Supply Cabinet
PW9750/10 Supply Unlt/Coulometrlc
Either PH9731/00 Sampler or PW9731/20 Dust Filter (or vendor-approved alternate particulate filter);
operated with a 0-0.5 ppm range and with a reference voltage setting of 760 millivolts; with or without an
of the following options:
PW9750/30 Frame For MTT PW9752/00 Air Sampler Manifold PM9753/00 Mounting Rack For Accessori*
PW9750/41 Control Clock 60 Hz PW9754/00 Air Distributor
EQSA-0876-011 "Philips PH9700 S02 Analyzer," Philips Electronic Auto Equiv. 41 34105 08/12//
consisting of the following Instruments, Inc.
components: 85 McKee Drive
PH9710/00 Chemical Unit with: Mahwah, NJ 07430
PH9711/00 Electrolyte SO,
PH9721/00 Filter Set S02
PH9740/00 S02 Source
PH9720/00 Electrical Unit
PW9730/00 Sampler Unit (or vendor-approved alternate particulate filter);
operated with a 0-0.5 ppm range and with a reference voltage of 760 millivolts.
EQSA-0876-013 "Monitor Labs Model 8450 Sulfur Lear Siegler Measurement Auto Equiv. 41 36245 08/27/
Monitor," operated on a range of Controls Corporation 44 33476 06/1I/
either 0-0.5 or 0-1.0 ppm, with 74 Inverness Drive East
a 5 second time constant, a model Englewood, CO 80112-5189
8740 hydrogen sulfide scrubber
in the sample line, with or without any of the following opUpf>5:
BP Bipolar Signal Processor IZS Internal Zero/Span Module V Zero/Span Valves
CLO Current Loop Output TF TFE Sample Particulate Filter VT Zero/Span Valves And Timer
-------
February 8, 1993 , LIST OF DESIGNATED REFERENCE AND EQUIVALENT METHODS Page 1'
DESIGNATION MANUAL REF. OR FED. REGISTER NOTICE
NUMBER IDENTIFICATION SOURCE OR AUTO EQU1V. VOL. PAGE DAJE
SULFUR DIOXIDE (Continued)
EQSA-0877-024 "ASARCO Model 500 Sulfur Dioxide ASARCO Incorporated Auto Equiv. 42 44264 09/02/77
Monitor," operated on a 0-0.5 ppm 3422 South 700 West 44 67522 11/26/79
range; or Salt Lake City, UT 84119
"ASARCO Model 600 Sulfur Dioxide
Monitor," operated on a 0-1.0 ppm
range. (Both models are identical except the range.)
NOTE: This method is not now commercially available.
EQSA-0678-029 "Beckman Model 953 Fluorescent Beckman Instruments, Inc. Auto Equiv. 43 35995 08/14/78
Ambient S02 Analyzer," operated Process Instruments Division
on a range of either 0-0.5 or 2500 Harbor Boulevard
0-1.0 ppm, with a time constant Fullerton, CA 92634
setting of 2, 2.5, or 3 minutes,
a 5 to 10 micron membrane filter element installed in the rear-panel filter assembly, with or without any
of the following options:
a. Remote Operation Kit, Catalog No. 641984
b. Digital Panel Meter, Catalog No. 641710
c. Rack Mount Kit, Catalog No. 641709
d. Panel Mount Kit, Catalog No. 641708
EQSA-1078-030 "Bendlx Model 8303 Sulfur Combustion Engineering, Inc. Auto Equiv. 43 50733 10/31/78
Analyzer," operated on a range Process Analytics
of either 0-0.5 or 0-1.0 ppm, P.O. Box 831
with a Teflon filter installed Lewisburg, WV 24901
on the sample Inlet of the H2S
scrubber assembly.
-------
February 8, 1993
LIST OF DESIGNATED REFERENCE AND EQUIVALENT METHODS
Page 11
DESIGNATION
NUMBER
IDENTIFICATION
SOURCE
MANUAL REF. OR FED. REGISTER NOTICE
OR AUTO EQUIV. VOL. PAGE DATE
EQSA-1078-032 "Meloy Model SA285E Sulfur
Dioxide Analyzer," operated
on the following ranges and
time constant switch positions:
Range. ODD Time Constant Setting
0-50*
0-100*
0-500
0-1000
off,
off,
1 or
1 or
1 or
10
10
10
1 or 10
SULFUR DIOXIDE (Continued)
Columbia Scientific
Industries
11950 JollyvUle Road
Austin, TX 78759
Auto
Equiv.
43 50733 10/31/78
*NOTE: Users should be aware that designation of this analyzer for
operation on ranges less than 0.5 ppm Is based on meeting the same
absolute performance specifications required for the 0-0.5 ppm range.
Thus, designation of these lower ranges does not Imply commensurably
better performance than that obtained on the 0-0.5 ppm range.
The analyzer may be operated at temperatures between
volts, with or without any of the following options:
10t and 40°C and at line voltages between 105 and 130
S-5 Teflon Coated Block
S-14B Line Transmitter Board
S-18 Rack Mount Conversion
S-18A Rack Mount Conversion
S-21 Front Panel Digital Meter
S-22 Remote Zero/Span Control
And Status (Timer)
S-22A Remote Zero/Span Control
S-22B Remote Zero/Span Control S-30
And Status (Pulse) S-32
S-23 Auto Zero Adjust S-35
S-23A Auto/Manual Zero Adjust
S-25 Press To Read S-37
S-26 Manual Zero And Span S-38
S-27 Auto Manual Zero/Span
S-28 Auto Range And Status
Auto Relgnlte
Remote Range Control And Status
Front Panel Digital Meter With
BCD Output
Temperature Status Lights
Sampling Mode Status
EQSA-0779-039 "Monitor Labs Model 8850
Fluorescent S02 Analyzer,"
operated on a range of either
0-0.5 or 0-1.0 ppm, with an
Internal time constant setting
of 55 seconds, a TFE sample filter
options:
03A Rack
03B Slides
05A Valves Zero/Span
06A IZS Internal Zero/Span
Source
Lear Slegler Measurement
Controls Corporation
74 Inverness Drive East
Englewood, CO 80112-5189
Auto
Equiv.
44 44616 07/30/79
installed on the sample Inlet line, with or without any of the following
06B.C.D NBS Traceable Permeation 013 Recorder Output Options
Tubes 014 DAS Output Options
08A Pump 017 Low Flow Option
09A Rack Mount For Option 08A 018 Kicker
010 Status Output H/Connector
-------
February 8, 1993
DESIGNATION
NUMBER
IDENTIFICATION
LIST OF DESIGNATED REFERENCE AND EQUIVALENT METHODS
MANUAL
SOURCE OR AUTO
Page 12
REF. OR FED. REGISTER NOTICE
EQUIV. VOL. PAGE DATE
SULFUR DIOXIDE (Continued)
EQSA-0580-046
Columbia Scientific
Industries
11950 Jollyville Road
Austin, TX 78759
45 31488 05/13/80
'Meloy Model SA 700 Fluorescence Columbia Scientific Auto Equiv.
Sulfur Dioxide Analyzer," opera-
ted on the 0-250 ppb*, the 0-500
ppb, or the 0-1000 ppb range with
a time constant switch position
of either 2 or 3. The analyzer may be operated at temperatures between 20°C and 30'C and at line voltages
between 105 and 130 volts, with or without any of the following options:
FS-I Current Output
FS-2 Rack Mount Conversion
FS-2A Rack Mount Conversion
FS-2B Rack Mount Conversion
FS-3 Front Panel Mounted Digital Meter
FS-5 Auto/Manual Zero/Span With Status
FS-6 Remote/Manual Zero/Span With Status
FS-7 Auto Zero Adjust
*NOTE: Users should be aware that designation of this analyzer for operation on a range less than 0.5 ppm
Is based on meeting the same absolute performance specifications required for the 0-0.5 ppm range. Thus,
designation of this lower range does not imply commensurably better performance than that obtained on the
0-0.5 ppm range.
Lear Slegler Measurement
Controls Corporation
74 Inverness Drive East
Englewood, CO 80112-5189
45
46
79574
9997
12/01/80
01/30/81
EQSA-1280-049 "Lear Slegler Model AM2020 Lear Slegler Measurement Auto Equiv.
Ambient S02 Monitor," operated
on a range of either 0-0.5 or
0-1.0 ppm, at a wavelength of
299.5 nm, with a 5 minute
Integration period, over any 10°C temperature range between 20°C and 45'C, with or without the automatic zero
and span correction feature.
-------
February 8, 1993
DESIGNATION
NUMBER
IDENTIFICATION
LIST OF DESIGNATED REFERENCE AND EQUIVALENT HETHODS
MANUAL
SOURCE OR AUTO
REF. OR
EQU1V.
Page 13
FED. REGISTER NOTICE
VOL. PAGE DATE
EQSA-0486-060
SULFUR DIOXIDE (Continued)
Thermo Environmental
Instruments, Inc.
8 West Forge Parkway
Auto
Equlv.
51 12390 04/10/86
"Thermo Electron Instruments,
Inc. Model 43A Pulsed Fluorescent
Ambient SO, Analyzer," operated
on the 0-0.1 ppm*, the 0-0.2 ppm*, Franklin, MA 02038
the 0-0.5 ppm, or the 0-1.0 ppm
range with either a high or a low time constant setting and with or without any of the following options;
001 Teflon Particulate Filter Kit 003 Internal Zero/Span Valves 004 High Sample Flow Rate Option
002 Rack Mount With Remote Activation
*NOTE: Users should be aware that designation of this analyzer for operation on ranges less than 0.5 ppm
1s based on meeting the same absolute performance specifications required for the 0-0.5 ppm range. Thus,
designation of these lower ranges does not imply commensurably better performance than that obtained on
the 0-0.5 ppm range.
EQSA-1086-061
"Daslbl Model 4108 U.V. Fluores-
cence S02 Analyzer," operated
51 32244 09/10/86
Dasibi Environmental Corp. Auto Equiv.
515 West Colorado Street
with a range of 0-100 ppb*. Glendale, CA 91204-1101
0-200 ppb*, 0-500 ppb, or 0-1000 ppb,
with a Teflon-coated partlculate filter and a continuous hydrocarbon removal system, with or without any of
the following options:
a. Rack Mounting Brackets b. RS-232-C Interface c. Temperature Correction
And Slides
*NOTE: Users should be aware that designation of this analyzer for operation on ranges less than 0.5 ppm
Is based on meeting the same absolute performance specifications required for the 0-0.5 ppm range, Thus,
designation of these lower ranges does not imply conmensurably better performance than that obtained on
the 0-0.5 ppm range.
EQSA-0390-075 "Monitor Labs Model 8850S SOZ
Analyzer," operated on a range
of either 0-0.5 or 0-1.0 ppm.
Lear Siegler Measurement
Controls Corporation
74 Inverness Drive East
Englewood, CO 80112-5189
Auto
Equiv.
55 5264 02/14/9(
-------
LIST OF DESIGNATED REFERENCE AND EQUIVALENT METHODS Page 14
i v
DESIGNATION MANUAL REF. OR FED. REGISTER NOTICE
NUMBER IDENTIFICATION SOURCE OR AUTO EQUIV. VOL. PAGE DATE
SULFUR DIOXIDE (Continued)
EQSA-0990-077 "Advanced Pollution Advanced Pollution Auto Equiv. 55 38149 09/17/90
Instrumentation, Inc. Model 100 Instrumentation, Inc.
Fluorescent S02 Analyzer," 8815 Production Avenue
operated on the 0-0.1 ppm*, San Diego, CA 92121-2219
the 0-0.2 ppm*, the 0-0.5 ppm,
or the 0-1.0 ppm range with a 5-micron TFE filter element installed in the rear-panel filter assembly,
either a user- or vendor-supplied vacuum pump capable of providing 20 inches of mercury vacuum at 2.5 L/min,
with or without any of the following options:
Internal Zero/Span
Pump Pack
Rack Mount With Slides
RS-232 Interface
Status Output
TFE Zero/Span Valves
Zero Air Scrubber
*NOTE: Users should be aware that designation of this analyzer for operation on ranges less than 0.5 ppm
is based on meeting the same absolute performance specifications required for the 0-0.5 ppm range. Thus,
designation of these lower ranges does not imply commensurably better performance than that obtained on
the 0-0.5 ppm range.
EQSA-0292-084 "Environnement S.A. Model AF21M Environnement S.A. Auto Equiv. 57 5444 02/14/92
Sulfur Dioxide Analyzer," 111, bd Robespierre
operated on a range of 0-0.5 ppm 78300 Poissy, France
with a response time coefficient
setting of 01, a Teflon filter installed in the rear-panel filter assembly, and with or without any of the
following options:
Rack Mount/Slides
RS-232-C Interface
-------
February 8, 1993
DESIGNATION
NUMBER
IDENTIFICATION
LIST OF DESIGNATED REFERENCE AND EQUIVALENT METHODS
MANUAL
SOURCE OR AUTO
Page 15
REF, OR FED. REGISTER NOTICE
EQU1V. VOL. PAGE DATE
SULFUR DIOXIDE (Continued)
EQSA-0193-092
a five-micron
service switch on
"Lear Siegler Measurement Lear Siegler Measurement Auto Equlv. 58 6964 02/03/93
Controls Corporation Model Controls Corporation
ML9850 Sulfur Dioxide Analyzer," 74 Inverness Drive East
operated on any full scale range Englewood, CO 80112-5189
between 0-0.050 ppm* and 0-1.0 ppm,
with auto-ranging enabled or disabled, at any temperature in the range of 15"C to 35°C, with
Teflon filter element Installed in the filter assembly behind the secondary panel, the
the secondary panel set to the In position; with the following menu choices selected:
Background: Not Disabled; Calibration; Manual or Timed: Diagnostic Mode: Operate; Filter Type: Kalnan;
Pres/Temp/Flow Comp: On; Span Comp: Disabled',
with the 50-pin I/O board installed on the rear panel configured at any of the following output range
settings:
Voltage, 0.1 V, 1 V, 5 V, 10 V;
Current, 0-20 mA, 2-20 mA, 4-20 mA;
and with or without any of the following options:
Valve Assembly for External Zero/Span (EZS)
Rack Mount Assembly
Internal Floppy Disk Drive.
*NOTE: Users should be aware that designation of this analyzer for operation on any full scale range less
than 0.5 ppm Is based on meeting the same absolute performance specifications required for the 0-0.5 ppm
range. Thus, designation of any full scale range lower than the 0-0.5 ppm range does not Imply
commensurably better performance than that obtained on the 0-0.5 ppm range.
-------
February 8, 1993
DESIGNATION
NUMBER
IDENTIFICATION
LIST OF DESIGNATED REFERENCE AND EQUIVALENT METHODS
SOURCE
MANUAL
OR AUTO
Page
REF. OR FED. REGISTER NOTK
EPJJJVL_ VOL. PAGE DATt
RFOA-1075-003 "Meloy Model OA325-2R Ozone
Analyzer," operated with a scale
range of 0-0.5 ppm, with or
without any of the following
options:
0-4 Output Booster Amplifier
OZONE
Columbia Scientific
Industries
11950 Jollyville Road
Austin, TX 78759
0-18 Rack Mount Conversion
Auto
Reference 40 54856 11/26/7
0-18A Rack Mount Conversion
RFOA-I075-004 "Meloy Model OA350-2R Ozone
Analyzer," operated with a scale
range of 0-0.5 ppm, with or
without any of the following
options: •
0-2 Automatic Zero And Span
Columbia Scientific
industries
11950 Jollyville Road
Austin, TX 78759
Auto
Reference 40 54856 11/26/75
0-3 Remote Control Zero And Span 0-18 Rack Mount Conversion
0-4 Output Booster Amplifier 0-18A Rack Mount Conversion
5145 02/04/76
18474 03/21/80
RFOA-0176-007 Bendix or Combustion Engineering Combustion Engineering, Inc. Auto Reference 41
Model 8002 Ozone Analyzer, oper- Process Analytics 45
ated on the 0-0.5 ppm range, with P.O. Box 831
a 40 second time constant, with Lewisburg, WV 24901
or without any of the following
options:
A Rack Mounting With Chassis B Rack Mounting Without Chassis C Zero And Span Timer
Slides SHides ° D Ethylene/C02 Blend Reactant Gas
RFOA-1076-014 "NEC Model 1100-1 Ozone Meter," Column- «•-•
RFOA-1076-015 "MEC ModPl lion -* ~
-------
February 8, 1993
LIST OF DESIGNATED REFERENCE AND EQUIVALENT METHODS
Page 17
DESIGNATION
NUMBER
IDENTIFICATION
SOURCE
MANUAL REF. OR FED. REGISTER NOTICE
OR AUTO EQU1V. VOL. PAGE DATE
RFOA-1176-017 "Monitor Labs Model 8410E Ozone
Analyzer," operated on a range
of 0-0.5 ppm with a time constant
setting of 5 seconds, with or
without any of the following
options:
DO Status Outputs
ER Ethylene Regulator Assembly
TF TFE Sample Particulate Filter
V TFE Zero/Span Valves
VT TFE Zero/Span Valves And Timer
OZONE (Continued)
Lear Siegler Measurement
Controls Corporation
74 Inverness Drive East
Englewood, CO 80112-5189
Auto
Reference 41 53684 12/08/76
Dasibi Environmental Corp.
515 West Colorado Street
Glendale, CA 91204-1101
EQOA-0577-019 "Dasibi Model 1003-AH, 1003-PC,
or 1003-RS Ozone Analyzer,"
operated on a range of either
0-0.5 or 0-1.0 ppm, with or
without any of the following options:
Adjustable Alarm
Aluminum Coated Absorption Tubes
BCD Digital Output
Glass (Pyrex) Absorption Tubes
Integrated Output
Rack Mounting Ears And Slides
Teflon-based Solenoid Valve
Vycor-Jacketed U.V. Source Lamp
0-10 mV, 0-100 mV, 0-1 V, or 0-10 V Analog Output
Auto
Equiv.
42 28571 06/03/77
RFOA-0577-020 "Beckman Model 950A Ozone
Analyzer," operated on a range
of 0-0.5 ppm and with the "SLOW"
(60 second) response time, with
or without any of the following
options:
Internal Ozone Generator
Beckman Instruments, Inc. Auto
Process Instruments Division
2500 Harbor Boulevard
Fullerton, CA 92634
Reference 42 28571 06/3/77
Computer Adaptor Kit
Pure Ethylene Accessory
-------
fedruary 8, 1993
DESIGNATION
NUMBER
IDENTIFICATION
LIST OF DESIGNATED REFERENCE AND EQUIVALENT METHODS
MANUAL
SOURCE OR AUIO
Page 18
REF. OR FED. REGISTER NOTICE
£flU!VL_ VOL. PAGE DATE
OZONE (Continued)
Philips Electronic
Instruments, Inc.
85 McKee Drive
Mahwah, NJ 07430
EQOA-0777-023 "Philips PW9771 03 Analyzer,"
consisting of the following
components:
PW9771/00 03 Monitor with:
PW9724/00 Disc.-Set
PW9750/00 Supply Cabinet
PW9750/20 Supply Unit;
operated on a range of 0-0.5 ppm,
with or without any of the following accessories:
PW9732/00 Sampler Line Heater
PW9733/00 Sampler
PW9750/30 Frame For MTT
PW9750/41 Control Clock 60 Hz
PH9752/00 Air Sampler Manifold
Auto Equiv. 42 38931 08/01/77
42 57156 11/01/77
RFOA-0279-036
Reference 44 10429 02/20/79
"Columbia Scientific Industries Columbia Scientific Auto
Model 2000 Ozone Meter," when
operated on the 0-0.5 ppm range
with either AC or battery power:
The BCA 952 battery charger/AC
adapter M952-0002 (115V) or M952-0003 (230V) is required for AC operation; an Internal battery M952-0006 or
12 volt external battery is required for portable non-AC powered operation.
Columbia Scientific
Industries
11950 Jollyville Rd.
Austin, TX 78759
Thermo Environmental
Instruments, Inc.
8 West Forge Parkway
Franklin, MA 02038
45 57168 08/27/80
EQOA-0880-047 "Thermo Electron Model 49 U.V. Thermo Environmental Auto Equiv.
Photometric Ambient 0, Analyzer,
operated on a range of either
0-0.5 or 0-1.0 ppm, with or
without any of the following
options:
49-001 Teflon Particulate Filter
49-002 19 Inch Rack Mountable Configuration
' 49-100 Internal Ozone Generator For Zero, Precision, And Level 1 Span Checks
49-103 Internal Ozone Generator For Zero, Precision, And Level 1 Span Checks MUh Remote Activation
49-488 GPIB (General Purpose Interface Bus) IEEE-488
-------
February 8, 1993 LIST OF DESIGNATED REFERENCE AND EQUIVALENT METHODS Page 19
DESIGNATION MANUAL REF. OR fffl. REGISTER NOTICE
NUMBER IDENTIFICATION SOURCE OR AUTO EQUIV. VOL. PAGE DAJE_
OZONE (Continued)
EQOA-0881-053 "Monitor Labs Model 8810 Photo- Lear Siegler Measurement Auto Equlv. 46 52224 10/26/81
metric Ozone Analyzer," operated Control Corporation
on a range of either 0-0.5 or 74 Inverness Drive East
0-1.0 ppm, with selectable Englewood, CO 80112-5189
electronic time constant settings
from 20 through 150 seconds, with or without any of the following options:
05 Pressure Compensation
06 Averaging Option
07 Zero/Span Valves
08 Internal Zero/Span (Valve And Ozone Source)
09 Status
10 Particulate Filter
15 through 20 DAS/REC Output
EQOA-0382-055 "PCI Ozone Corporation Model PCI Ozone Corporation Auto Equiv. 47 13572 03/31/82
LC-12 Ozone Analyzer," operated One Fairfield Crescent
on a range of 0-0.5 ppm. West Caldwell, NJ 07006
EQOA-0383-056 "Daslbl Model 1008-AH, 1008-PC, Dasibi Environmental Corp. Auto Equlv. 48 10126 03/10/83
or 1008-RS Ozone Analyzer," 515 West Colorado St.
operated on a range of either Glendale, CA 91204-1101
0-0.5 or 0-1.0 ppm, with or
without any of the following options:
Aluminum Coated Absorption Tubes
BCD Digital Output
Glass (Pyrex) Absorption Tubes
Ozone Generator
Photometer Flow Restrictor (2 LPM)
Rack Mounting Brackets or Slides
RS232 Interface
Vycor-Jacketed U.V. Source Lamp
Teflon-based Solenoid Valve
4-20 mA, Isolated, or Dual Analog Outputs
20 Second Update Software
-------
February 8, 1993 LIST OF DESIGNATED REFERENCE AND EQUIVALENT METHODS Page 20
DESIGNATION MANUAL REF. OR FED. REGISTER NOTICE
^NUMBER IDENTIFICATION SOURCE OR AUTO EQU1V. VOL. PAGE DATE
OZONE (Continued)
EQOA-0990-078 "Envlronics Series 300 Environics, Inc. Auto Equiv. 55 38386 09/18/90
Computerized Ozone Analyzer," 165 River Road
operated on the 0-0.5 ppm range, West Hillington, CT 06279
with the following parameters
entered into the analyzer's computer system:
Absorption Coefficient - 308 ± 4
Flush Time - 3
Integration Factor - 1
Offset Adjustment = 0.025 ppm
Ozone Average Time - 4
Signal Average - 0
Temp/Press Correction = On
and with or without the RS-232 Serial Data Interface.
EQOA-0992-087 "Advanced Pollution Advanced Pollution Auto Equiv. 57 44565 09/28/92
Instrumentation, Inc. Model 400 Instrumentation, Inc.
Ozone Analyzer," operated on 8815 Production Avenue
any full scale range between San Diego, CA 92121-2219
0-100 ppb* and 0-1000 ppb, at any
temperature in the range of 5°C to 40°C, with the dynamic zero and span adjustment features set to OFF, with
a 5-micron TFE filter element installed in the rear-panel filter assembly, and with or without any of the
following options:
Internal Zero/Span (IZS)
IZS Reference Adjustment
Rack Mount With Slides
RS-232 With Status Outputs
Zero/Span Valves
*NOTE: Users should be aware that designation of this analyzer for operation on ranges less than 0-500 ppb
is based on meeting the same absolute performance specifications required For the 0-500 ppb range. Thus,
designation of any range lower than 0-500 ppb does not imply commensurafjly better performance than that
obtained on the 0-500 ppb range.
-------
February 8, 1993 LIST OF DESIGNATED REFERENCE AND EQUIVALENT METHODS Page 21
DESIGNATION MANUAL REF. OR FED. REGISTER NOTICE
NUMBER IDENTIFICATION SOURCE OR AUTO EQUIV, VOL. PAGE DATE
OZONE (Continued)
EQOA-0193-091 "Lear Slegler Measurement Lear Slegler Measurement Auto Equlv. 58 6964 02/03/93
Controls Corporation Model Controls Corporation
ML9810 Ozone Analyzer," operated 74 Inverness Drive East
on any full scale range between Englewood, CO 80112-5189
0-0.050 ppm* and 0-1.0 ppm,
with auto-ranging enabled or disabled, at any temperature in the range of 15*C to 35"C, with a five-micron
Teflon filter element installed in the filter assembly behind the secondary panel, the service switch on
the secondary panel set to the Jn position; with the following menu choices selected:
Calibration; Manual or Timed: Diagnostic Mode: Operate; Filter Type: Kalnan; Pres/Temp/Flow Comp: On; Span
Comp: Disabled]
with the 50-pin I/O board installed on the rear panel configured at any of the following output range
settings:
Voltage, 0.1 V, 1 V, 5 V, 10 V;
Current, 0-20 mA, 2-20 mA, 4-20 mA;
and with or without any of the following options:
Valve Assembly for External Zero/Span (EZS)
Rack Mount Assembly
Internal Floppy Disk Drive.
*NOTE: Users should be aware that designation of this analyzer for operation on any full scale range less
than 0.5 ppm is based on meeting the same absolute performance specifications required for the 0-0.5 ppm
range. Thus, designation of any full scale range lower than the 0-0.5 ppm range does not imply
commensurably better performance than that obtained on the 0-0.5 ppm range.
-------
LIST OF DESIGNATED REFERENCE AND EQUIVALENT HETHODS Page 2i
DESIGNATION MANUAL REF. OR FED. REGISTER NOTICE
NUMBER IDENTIFICATION SOURCE OR AUTO EQUIV. VOL. PAGE DATE
^ CARBON MONOXIDE
RFCA-0276-008 Bendix or Combustion Engineering Combustion Engineering, Inc. Auto Reference 41 7450 02/18/76
Model 8501-5CA Infrared CO Process Analytics
Analyzer, operated on the 0-50 P.O. Box 831
ppm range and with a time con- Lewisburg, WV 24901
stant setting between 5 and 16
seconds, with or without any of the following options:
A Rack Mounting With Chassis Slides
B Rack Mounting Without Chassis Slides
C External Sample Pump
RFCA-0876-012 "Beckman Model 866 Ambient CO Beckman Instruments, Inc. Auto Reference 41 36245 08/27/76
Monitoring System," consisting Process Instruments Division
of the following components: 2500 Harbor Boulevard
Pump/Sample-Handling Module, Fuller-ton, CA 92634
Gas Control Panel, Model 865-17
Analyzer Unit, Automatic Zero/Span Standardize^
operated with a 0-50 ppm range, a 13 second electronic response time, with or without any of the following
options:
Current Output Feature
Bench Mounting Kit
Linearizer Circuit
RFCA-0177-018 "LIRA Model 202S Air Quality Mine Safety Appliances Co. Auto Reference 42 5748 01/31/77
Carbon Monoxide Analyzer . 600 Penn Center Boulevard
System," consisting of a LIRA Pittsburgh, PA 15208
Model 202S optical bench
(P/N 459839), a regenerative dryer (P/N 464084), and rack-mounted sampling system; operated on a 0-50 ppm
range, with the slow response amplifier, with or without any of the following options:
Remote Meter
Remote Zero And Span Controls
0-1, 5, 20, or 50 mA Output
1-5, 4-20, or 10-50 mA Output
0-10 or 100 mV Output
0-1, 5, or 10 Volt Output
-------
February 8, 1993
DESIGNATION
NUMBER
IDENTIFICATION
LIST OF DESIGNATED REFERENCE AND EQUIVALENT METHODS
MANUAL
SOURCE OR AUTO
REF. OR
EQU1V.
FED.
VOL.
Page 23
REGISTER NOTICE
PAGE DATE
RFCA-1278-033
CARBON MONOXIDE (Continued)
Horiba Instruments, Inc.
17671 Armstrong Avenue
Irvine, CA 92714-5727
"Horiba Models AQM-10, AQM-11, Horiba Instruments, Inc. Auto
and AQM-12 Ambient CO Monitoring
Systems," operated on the 0-50
ppm range, with a response time
setting of 15.5 seconds, with or without any of the following options:
a AIC-101 Automatic Indication Corrector
b VIT-3 Non-Isolated Current Output
c ISO-2 and DCS-3 Isolated Current Output
Reference 43 58429 12/14/78
RFCA-0979-041 "Monitor Labs Model 8310 CO
Analyzer," operated on the
0-50 ppm range, with a sample
Inlet filter, with or without
any of the following options:
02A Zero/Span Valves
03A Floor Stand
04A Pump (60 Hz)
Lear Siegler Measurement
Controls Corporation
74 Inverness Drive East
Englewood, CO 80112-5189
04B Pump (50 Hz)
05A CO Regulator
06A CO Cylinder
Auto Reference 44
45
54545 09/20/79
2700 01/14/80
07A Zero/Span Valve Power Supply
08A Calibration Valves
9A,B,C,D Input Power Transformer
Horiba Instruments, Inc.
17671 Armstrong Avenue
Irvine, CA 92714-5727
Reference 45 72774 11/03/80
RFCA-1180-048 "Horiba Model APMA-300E Ambient Horiba Instruments, Inc. Auto
Carbon Monoxide Monitoring
System," operated on the 0-20
ppm*, the 0-50 ppm, or the 0-100
ppm range with a time constant switch setting of No. 5. The monitoring system may be operated at
temperatures between 10"C and 40°C.
*NOTE: Users should be aware that designation of this analyzer for operation on a range less than 50 ppm
1s based on meeting the same absolute performance specifications required for the 0-50 ppm range. Thus,
designation of this lower range does not imply commensurably better performance than that obtained on the
0-50 ppm range.
(This method was originally designated as
System".)
"Horiba Model APMA 300E/300SE Ambient Carbon Monoxide Monitoring
-------
February 8, 1993
LIST OF DESIGNATED REFERENCE AND EQUIVALENT METHODS
Page 24
DESIGNATION
NUMBER
IDENTIFICATION
MANUAL
OR AUTO
REF. OR
FED. REGISTER NOTICE
VOL PAGE
CARBON MONOXIDE (Continued)
Commonwealth of Massachusetts Auto
Department of Environmental
Quality Engineering
Tewksberry, MA 01876
Reference 45 81650 12/11/80
RFCA-1280-050 "MASS-CO, Model 1 Carbon Mon-
oxide Analyzer," operated on a
range of 0-50 ppm, with automatic
zero and span adjustments at time
intervals not to exceed 4 hours,
with or without the 100 millivolt and 5 volt output options. The method consists of the following
components:
(1) Infra-2 (Uras 2) Infrared Analyzer Model 5611-200-35, (2) Automatic Calibrator Model 5869-111,
(3) Electric Gas Cooler Model 7865-222 or equivalent with prehumidifier, (4) Diaphragm Pump Model 5861-214
or equivalent, (5) Membrane Filter Model 5862-111 or equivalent, (6) Flow Meter Model SK 1171-U or
equivalent, (7) Recorder Model Mini Comp DN 1/192 or equivalent
NOTE: This method Is not now commercially available.
RFCA-0381-051
Dasibi Environmental Corp.
515 West Colorado Street
Glendale, CA 91204-1101
Auto
Reference 46 20773 04/07/81
"Dasibi Model 3003 Gas Filter
Correlation CO Analyzer," oper-
ated on the 0-50 ppm range, with
a sample particulate filter In-
stalled on the sample Inlet line, with or without any of the following options:
3-001 Rack Mount 3-003 BCD Digital Output 3-007 Zero/Span Module Panel
3-002 Remote Zero And Span 3-004 4-20 Mil 11 amp Output
RFCA-0981-054
Thermo Environmental
Instruments, Inc.
8 West Forge Parkway
Franklin, MA 02038
"Thermo Environmental Instruments
Model 48 Gas Filter Correlation
Ambient CO Analyzer," operated
on the 0-50 ppm range, with a
time constant setting of 30
seconds, with or without any of the following options:
48-001 Particulate Filter
48-002 19 Inch Rack Mountable Configuration
48-003 Internal Zero/Span Valves With Remote Activation
48-488 GPIB (General Purpose Interface Bus) IEEE-488
4p_nin internal /pro Air Package
Auto
Reference 46 47002 09/23/81
-------
February 8, 1993 LIST OF DESIGNATED REFERENCE AND EQUIVALENT METHODS Page 25
DESIGNATION MANUAL REF. OR FED. REGISTER NOTICE
NUMBER IDENTIFICATION SOURCE OR AUTO EQU1V. VOL. PAGE DATE
CARBON MONOXIDE (Continued)
RFCA-0388-066 "Monitor Labs Model 8830 CO Lear Siegler Measurement Auto Reference 53 7233 03/07/88
Analyzer," operated on the 0-50 Controls Corporation
ppm range, with a five micron 74 Inverness Drive East
Teflon filter element Installed Englewood, CO 80112-5189
In the rear-panel filter assembly,
with or without any of the following options:
2 Zero/Span Valve Assembly
3 Rack Assembly
4 Slide Assembly
7 230 VAC, 50/60 Hz
RFCA-0488-067 "Daslbl Model 3008 Gas Filter Daslbl Environmental Corp. Auto Reference 53 12073 04/12/88
Correlation CO Analyzer," 515 West Colorado Street
operated on the 0-50 ppm range, Glendale, CA 91204-1101
with a time constant setting of
60 seconds, a partlculate filter Installed in the analyzer sample inlet line, with or without use of the
auto zero or auto zero/span feature, and with or without any of the following options:
N-0056-A RS-232-C Interface
S-0132-A Rack Mounting Slides
Z-0176-S Rack Mounting Brackets
-------
reumarjr o,
DESIGNATION
NUMBER
IDENTIFICATION
LIST OF DESIGNATED REFERENCE AND EQUIVALENT HETHOi'S
SOURCE
MANUAL
OR AU10
Page 36
REF. OR FED. REGISTER NOTICE
EQU1V. VOL. PAGE DATE
CARBON MONOXIDE (Continued)
RFCA-0992-088
Lear Slegler Measurement
Controls Corporation
74 Inverness Drive East
Englewood, CO 80112-5189
Reference 57 44565 09/28/92
Lear Slegler Measurement Lear Sieqler Measurement Auto
Controls Corporation Model
ML9830 Carbon Monoxide Analyzer,"
operated on any full scale range
between 0-5.0 ppm* and 0-100 ppm,
with auto-ranging enabled or disabled, at any temperature in the range of 15*C to 35°C, with a five-micron
Teflon filter element installed in the filter assembly behind the secondary panel, the service switch on
the secondary panel set to the In position, with the following menu choices selected:
Background: Not Disabled', Calibration: Manual or Timed; Diagnostic Mode: Operate; Filter Type: Kalman;
Pres/Temp/Flow Comp: On; Span Comp: Disabled',
with the 50-pin I/O board installed on the rear panel configured at any of the following output range
settings:
Voltage, 0.1 V, 1 V, 5 V, 10 V
Current, 0-20 mA, 2-20 mA and 4-20 mA;
and with or without any of the following options:
Valve Assembly For External Zero/Span (EZS)
Rack Mount Assembly
Internal Floppy Disk Drive
*NOTE: Users should be aware that designation of this analyzer for operation on any full scale range less
than 50 ppm Is based on meeting the same absolute performance specifications required for the 0-50 ppm
range. Thus, designation of any full scale range lower than the 0-50 ppm range does not Imply
commensurably better performance than that obtained on the 0-50 ppm range.
-------
February 8, 1993
DESIGNATION
NUMBER
IDENTIFICATION
LIST OF DESIGNATED REFERENCE AND EQUIVALENT METHODS
SOURCE
MANUAL
OR AUTO
REF. OR
EQUIV.
FED.
VOL.
Page 27
REGISTER NOTICE
PAGE DATE
RFNA-0677-021 "Monitor Labs Model 8440E
Nitrogen Oxides Analyzer,"
operated on a 0-0.5 ppm range
(position 2 of range switch)
with a time constant setting of
20 seconds, with or without any
TF Sample Particulate Filter
! With TFE Filter Element
V Zero/Span Valves
NITROGEN DIOXIDE
Lear Siegler Measurement
Controls Corporation
74 Inverness Drive East
Englewood, CO 80112-5189
of the following options:
DO Status Outputs
R Rack Mount
FM Flowmeters
Auto Reference 42
42
46
37434 07/21/77
46575 09/16/77
29986 06/04/81
018A Ozone Dry Air
018B Ozone Dry Air - No Drierite
RFNA-0777-022 Bendix or Combustion Engineering
Model 8101-C Oxides of Nitrogen
Analyzer, operated on a 0-0.5 ppm
range with a Teflon sample filter
(Bendix P/N 007163) Installed on
the sample Inlet line.
Combustion Engineering, Inc. Auto
Process Analytics
P.O. Box 831
Lewisburg, WV 24901
Reference 42 37435 07/21/77
Columbia Scientific
Industries
11950 Jollyville Road
Austin, TX 78759
Reference 42 46574 09/16/77
RFNA-0977-025 "CSI Model 1600 Oxides of Columbia Scientific Auto
Nitrogen Analyzer," operated
on a 0-0.5 ppm range with a
Teflon sample filter (CSI
P/N M951-8023) Installed on
the sample Inlet line, with or without any of the following options:
951-0103 Rack Ears 951-0112 Remote Zero/Span Sample 951-8074 Copper Converter Assembly
951-0104 Rack Mounting Kit Control (Horizontal)
(Ears & Slides) 951-0114 Recorder Output, 5 V 951-8079 Copper Converter Assembly
951-0106 Current Output, 4-20 mA 951-0115 External Pump
(Non-Insulated) (115 V, 60 Hz)
951-0108 Diagnostic Output Option 951-8072 Molybdenum Converter
951-0111 Recorder Output, 10 V Assembly (Horizontal)
(Vertical)
951-8085 Molybdenum Converter Assembly
(Vertical)
NOTE: The vertical molybdenum converter assembly Is standard on all new analyzers as of 1-1-87; however, us<
of any of the other converter assemblies is optional. Also, the above options reflect new CSI part numbers
-------
February 8, 1993
DESIGNATION
NUMBER
IDENTIFICATION
LIST OF DESIGNATED REFERENCE AND EQUIVALENT METHODS
MANUAL REF. OR
OR AUTO EQUIV.
Page 28
FED. REGISTER NOTICE
VOL. PAGE DATE
EQN-1277-026
"Sodium Arsenlte Method for
the Determination of Nitrogen
Dioxide In the Atmosphere"
NITROGEN DIOXIDE (Continued)
Atmospheric Research and Manual
Exposure Assessment Laboratory
Department E (MD-77)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
Equlv.
42 62971 12/14/77
EQN-1277-027
"Sodium Arsenlte Method for
the Determination of Nitrogen
Dioxide In the Atmosphere--
Technlcon II Automated
Analysis System"
Atmospheric Research and Manual
Exposure Assessment Laboratory
Department E (MD-77)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
Equlv,
42 62971 12/14/77
EQN-1277-028
"TGS-ANSA Method for the
Determination of Nitrogen
Dioxide In the Atmosphere'
Atmospheric Research and Manual
Exposure Assessment Laboratory
Department E (MD-77)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
Equlv.
42 62971 12/14/77
-------
February B, 1993 LIST OF DESIGNATED REFERENCE AND EQUIVALENT METHODS Page 29
DESIGNATION ' MANUAL REF. OR FED. REGISTER NOTICE
NUMBER IDENTIFICATION SOURCE OR AUTO EQU1V. VOL. PAGE DATE
NITROGEN DIOXIDE (Continued)
RFNA-1078-031 "Meloy Model NA530R Nitrogen Columbia Scientific Auto Reference 43 50733 10/31/78
Oxides Analyzer," operated on Industries 44 8327 02/09/79
the following ranges and time 11950 Jollyville Road
constant switch positions: Austin, TX 78759
Range, ppm Time Constant Setting
0-0.1* 4
0-0.25* 3 or 4
0-0.5 2, 3, or 4
0-1.0 2, 3, or 4
Operation of the analyzer requires an external vacuum pump, either Meloy Option N-10 or an equivalent pump
capable of maintaining a vacuum of 200 torr (22 inches mercury vacuum) or better at the pump connection at
the specified sample and ozone-air flow rates of 1200 and 200 cmj/min, respectively. The analyzer may be
operated at temperatures between 10*C and 40°C and at line voltages between 105 and 130 volts, with or
without any of the following options:
N-1A Automatic Zero And Span N-6C Remote Zero/Span Control N-14B Line Transmitter
N-2 Vacuum Gauge And Status (Timer) N-18 Rack Mount Conversion
N-4 Digital Panel Meter N-9 Manual Zero/Span N-18A Rack Mount Conversion
N-6 Remote Control For Zero N-10 Vacuum Pump Assembly (See
And Span Alternate Requirement Above)
N-6B Remote Zero/Span Control N-ll Auto Ranging
And Status (Pulse)
*NOTE: Users should be aware that designation of this analyzer for operation on ranges less than 0.5 ppm
1s based on meeting the same absolute performance specifications required for the 0-0.5 ppm range. Thus,
designation of these lower ranges does not Imply commensurably better performance than that obtained on
the 0-0.5 ppm range.
-------
February 8, 1993
LIST OF DESIGNATED REFERENCE AND EQUIVALENT HETHODS
Page 30
DESIGNATION
NUMBER
IDENTIFICATION
SOURCE
MANUAL REF. OR FED. REGISTER NOTICE
OR AUTO EQU1V. VOL. PAGE DATE
RFNA-0179-034
NITROGEN DIOXIDE (Continued)
"Beckman Model 952-A
NO/NOZ/NO. Analyzer," operated
on the 0-0.5 ppm range with the
5-micron Teflon sample filter
(Beckman P/N 861072 supplied with
the analyzer) installed on the sample
inlet line, with or without the Remote
Operation Option (Beckman Cat. No. 635539).
Beckman Instruments, Inc.
Process Instruments Division
2500 Harbor Boulevard
Fullerton, CA 92634
Auto
Reference 44 7806 02/07/79
RFNA-0179-035 "Thermo Electron Model 14 B/E
Chemiluminescent N0/N0,/N0.
Analyzer," operated on the
0-0.5 ppm range, with or without
any of the following options:
14-001 Teflon Particulate Filter
14-002 Voltage Divider Card
14-003 Long-Time Signal Integrator
14-004 Indicating Temperature Controller
14-005 Sample Flowmeter
14-006 Air Filter
Thermo Environmental
Instruments, Inc.
8 West Forge Parkway
Franklin, MA 02038
Auto Reference 44
44
7805 02/07/79
54545 09/20/79
RFNA-0279-037 "Thermo Electron Model 14 D/E
Chemiluminescent N0/N0,/N0.
Analyzer," operated on the
0-0.5 ppm range, with or without
any of the following options:
14-001 Teflon Particulate Filter
14-002 Voltage Divider Card
Thermo Environmental
Instruments, Inc.
8 West Forge Parkway
Franklin, MA 02038
Auto
Reference 44 10429 02/20/79
-------
February 88 1993
DESIGNATION
NUMBER
LIST OF DESIGNATED REFERENCE AND EQUIVALENT METHODS
IDENTIFICATION
Page 31
SOURCE
MANUAL REF. OR FED. REGISTER NOTICE
OR AUTO EQU1V. VOL. PAGE DATE
NITROGEN DIOXIDE (Continued)
RFNA-0479-038 "Bendlx Model 8101-B Oxides of
Nitrogen Analyzer," operated on
Combustion Engineering, Inc. Auto
Process Analytics
P.O. Box 831
Lewisburg, HV 24901
Reference 44 26792 05/07/79
a 0-0.5 ppm range with a Teflon
sample filter installed on the
sample inlet line and with the
following post-manufacture modifications:
1. Ozone generator and reaction chamber input-output tubing modification per Bendix Service Bulletin
8I01B-2; 2. The approved converter material; 3. The revised and EPA-approved operation and service
manual. These items are mandatory and must be obtained from Combustion Engineering, Inc.
The analyzer may be operated with or without any of the following optional modifications:
a. Perma Pure dryer/ambient air modification;
b. Valve cycle time modification;
c. Zero potentiometer centering modification
per Bendix Service Bulletin 8101B-1;
d. Reaction chamber vacuum gauge modification.
RFNA-0879-040 "Philips Model PW9762/02
N0/N0,/N0, Analyzer/ consisting
of the following components:
PM9762/02 Basic Analyzer
PH9729/00 Converter Cartridge
PH9731/00 Sampler or PW973I/20 Dust Filter;
operated on a range of 0-0.5 ppm, with or
without any of the following accessories:
PW9752/00 Air Sampler Manifold
PW9732/00 Sample Line Heater
PH9011/00 Remote Control Set
Philips Electronic
Instruments, Inc.
85 McKee Drive
Mahwah, NJ 07430
Auto
Reference 44 51683 09/04/79
-------
February 8, 1993
DESIGNATION
NUMBER
LIST OF DESIGNATED REFERENCE AND EQUIVALENT METHODS
IDENTIFICATION
SOURCE
MANUAL
OR AUTO
Page 32
REF. OR FED. REGISTER NOTICE
EQU1V. VOL. PAGE DATE
NITROGEN DIOXIDE (Continued)
Reference 45
46
9100 02/11/80
29986 06/04/81
RFNA-0280-042 "Monitor Labs Model 8840 Lear Siegler Measurement Auto
Nitrogen Oxides Analyzer,"
operated on a range of either
0-0.5 or 0-1.0 ppm, with an
Internal time constant setting
of 60 seconds, a TFE sample filter installed on the sample inlet line, with or without any of the following
options:
Lear Siegler Measurement
Controls Corporation
74 Inverness Drive East
Englewood, CO 80112-5189
02 Flowmeter
03A Rack Ears
03B Slides
05A Zero/Span Valves
05B Valve/Relay
06 Status
07A Input Power Transformer
100 VAC, 50/60 Hz
07B Input Power Transformer
220/240 VAC, 50 Hz
08A Pump Pac Assembly With 09A
(115 VAC)
08B Pump Pac Assembly With 09B
(100 VAC)
08C Pump Pac Assembly With 09C
(220/240 VAC)
08D Rack Mount Panel Assembly
09A Pump 115 VAC 50/60 Hz
09B Pump 100 VAC 50/60 Hz
09C Pump 220/240 VAC 50 Hz
011A Recorder Output 1 Volt
01 IB Recorder Output 100 mV
011C Recorder Output 10 mV
012A DAS Output 1 Volt
0126 DAS Output 100 mV
012C DAS Output 10 mV
013A Ozone Dry Air
013B Ozone Dry A1r - No Drlerlte
RFNA-1289-074 "Thermo Environmental Instruments
Inc. Model 42 N0/N0,/N0, Analyzer,'
Thermo Environmental
Instruments, Inc.
8 West Forge Parkway
Franklin, MA 02038
Auto
Reference 54 50820 12/11/89
operated on the 0-0.05 ppm*, the
0-0.1 ppm*, the 0-0.2 ppm*, the
0-0.5 ppm, or the 0-1.0 ppm range,
with any time average setting from 10 to 300 seconds. The analyzer may be operated at temperatures between
15'C and 35°C and at line voltages between 105 and 125 volts, with or without any of the following options:
42-002 Rack Mounts 42-004 Sample/Ozone Flowmeters 42-007 Ozone Partlculate Filter
42-003 Internal Zero/Span And 42-005 4-20 mA Current Output 42-008 RS-232 Interface
Sample Valves With Remote 42-006 Pressure Transducer 42-009 Permeation Dryer
Activation
*NOTE: Users should be aware that designation of this analyzer for operation on ranges less than 0.5 ppm
Is based on meeting the same absolute performance specifications required for the 0-0.5 ppm range. Thus,
designation of these lower ranges does not imply commensurably better performance than that obtained on
-------
February 8, 1993 LIST OF DESIGNATED REFERENCE AND EQUIVALENT METHODS Page 33
DESIGNATION MANUAL REF. OR FED. REGISTER NOTICE
NUMBER . IDENTIFICATION SOURCE OR AUTO EQUIV. VOL. PAGE DATE
NITROGEN DIOXIDE (Continued)
RFNA-0691-082 "Advanced Pollution Advanced Pollution Auto Reference 56 27014 06/12/91
Instrumentation, Inc. Model 200 Instrumentation, Inc
Nitrogen Oxides Analyzer," 8815 Production Avenue
operated on a range of either San Diego, CA 92121-2219
0-0.5 or 0-1.0 ppm, with a 5-micron
TFE filter element Installed In the rear-panel filter assembly, with either a user- or vendor-supplied
vacuum pump capable of providing 5 Inches mercury absolute pressure at 5 slpm, with either a user- or
vendor-supplied dry air source capable of providing air at a dew point of 0°C or lower, with the
following settings of the adjustable setup variables:
Adaptive Filter - ON
Dwell Time • 7 seconds
Dynamic Span - OFF
Dynamic Zero - OFF
PMT Temperature Set Point - 15°C
Rate of Change(ROC) Threshold - 10%
Reaction Cell Temperature - 50°C
Sample Time • B seconds
Normal Filter Size - 12 samples;
and with or without any of the following options:
180 Stainless Steel Valves 283 Internal Zero/Span With Valves (IZS) 356 Level One Spares Kit
184 Pump Pack 325 RS-232/Status Output 357 Level Two Spares Kit
280 Rack Mount With Slides 355 Expendables PE5 Permeation Tube for IZS
RFNA-0991-083 "Monitor Labs Model 8841 Lear Siegler Measurement Auto Reference 56 47473 09/19/91
Nitrogen Oxides Analyzer," Controls Corporation
operated on the 0-0.05 ppm*, 74 Inverness Drive East
0-0.1 ppm*, 0-0.2 ppm*, Englewood, CO 80112-5189
0-0.5 ppm, or 0-1.0 ppm range,
with manufacturer-supplied vacuum pump or alternative user-supplied vacuum pump capable of providing 200
torr or better absolute vacuum while operating with the analyzer.
*NOTE: Users should be aware that designation of this analyzer for operation on ranges less than 0.5 ppm
is based on meeting the same absolute performance specifications required for the 0-0.5 ppm range. Thus,
A—t — »«„„ nf »KOCQ inwor- rannp* HOP* not imolv commensuraMy better performance than that obtained on
-------
reoruary 0, 1993 LIST OF DESIGNATED REFERENCE AND EQUIVALENT HETHODS Page 34
DESIGNATION MANUAL REF. OR FED. REGISTER NOTICE
NUMBER IDENTIFICATION SOURCE OR AUTO EQU1V. VOL. PAGE DATE
NITROGEN DIOXIDE (Continued)
RFNA-1192-089 "Daslbl Model 2108 Oxides of Dasibi Environmental Corp. Auto Reference 57 55530 11/25/92
Nitrogen Analyzer," operated 515 West Colorado Street
on the 0-500 ppb range, with Glendale, CA 91204-1101
software revision 3.6 Installed
In the analyzer, with the Auto thumbwheel switch and the Diag thumbwheel switch settings at 0, with the
following Internal CPU dipswitch settings:
switch position function
1 open :(down) Recorder outputs are NO & N02
5 open (down) 3 minute time constant
6 closed (up) 3 minute time constant;
with a 5-roicron Teflon filter element installed in the filter holder, and with or without any of the
following options:
Built-in Permeation Oven Rack Mounting Three-Channel Recorder Output
RS-232 Interface 4-20 mA Output
RFNA-1292-090 "Lear Slegler Measurement Lear Siegler Measurement Auto Reference 57 60198 12/18/92
Controls Corporation Model Controls Corporation
ML9841 Nitrogen Oxides Analyzer," 74 Inverness Drive East
operated on any full scale range Englewood, CO 80112-5189
between 0-0.050 ppm* and 0-1.0 ppm,
with auto-ranging enabled or disabled, at any temperature In the range of 15'C to 35'C, with a five-micron
Teflon filter element Installed In the filter assembly behind the secondary panel, the service switch on
the secondary panel set to the In position; with the following menu choices selected:
Calibration: Manual or Timed; Diagnostic Mode: Operate; Filter Type: Hainan; Pres/Temp/Flow Comp: On;
Span Comp: Disabled;
with the 50-pin I/O board installed on the rear panel configured at any of the following output range
settings:
Voltage, 0.1 V, 1 V, 5 V, 10 V; Current, 0-20 mA, 2-20 mA, 4-20 mA;
and with or without any of the following options:
Internal Floppy Disk Drive Rack Mount Assembly Valve Assembly for External Zero/Span (EZS)
*NOTE: Users should be aware that designation of this analyzer for operation on any full scale range less
than 0.5 ppm Is based on meeting the same absolute performance specifications required for the 0-0.5 ppm
range. Thus, designation of any full scale range lower than the 0-0.5 ppm range does not Imply
commensurably better performance than that obtained on the 0-0.5 ppm range.
-------
February 8, 1993
DESIGNATION
NUMBER
IDENTIFICATION
.1ST OF DESIGNATED REFERENCE AND EQUIVALENT METHODS
MANUAL
SOURCE OR AUTO
Page 35
REF. OR FED. REGISTER NOTICE
EQU1V. VOL. PAGE DATE
******
Reference Method for the Deter-
mination of Lead In Suspended
Participate Matter Collected
from Ambient Air
LEAD
40 CFR Part
Appendix G
50,
Manual
Reference 43 46258 10/05/78
EQL-0380-043
"Determination of Lead Concen-
tration in Ambient Particulate
Matter by Flame Atomic Absorp-
tion Spectrometry Following
Ultrasonic Extraction with Heated
HNOj-HCl"
Atmospheric Research and Manual
Exposure Assessment Laboratory
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
Equlv. 45 14648 03/06/80
EQL-0380-044
"Determination of Lead Concen-
tration In Ambient Particulate
Matter by Flameless Atomic
Absorption Spectrometry (EPA/
RTP.N.C.)"
Atmospheric Research and Manual
Exposure Assessment Laboratory
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
Equlv. 45 14648 03/06/80
EQL-0380-045
"Determination of Lead Concen-
tration In Ambient Particulate
Matter by Inductively Coupled
Argon Plasma Optical Emission
Spectrometry (EPA/RTP.N.C.)"
Atmospheric Research and Manual
Exposure Assessment Laboratory
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
Equlv. 45 14648 03/06/80
EQL-0581-052
"Determination of Lead Concen-
tration In Ambient Particulate
Matter by Wavelength Dispersive
X-Ray Fluorescence Spectrometry*
California Department of
Health Services
Air & Industrial Hygiene
Laboratory
2151 Berkeley Way
Berkeley, CA 94704
Manual
Equlv. 46 29986 06/04/81
-------
February 8, 1993
DESIGNATION
NUMBER
IDENTIFICATION
LIST OF DESIGNATED REFERENCE AND EQUIVALENT METHODS
SOURCE
MANUAL
OR AUTO
Page 36
REF. OR FED. REGISTER NOTICE
EQU1V. VOL. PAGE DATE
EQL-0483-057
"Determination of Lead Concen-
tration In Ambient Particulate
Matter by Inductively Coupled
Argon Plasma Optical Emission
Spectrometry (State of Montana)1
LEAD (Continued)
State of Montana
Department of Health and
Environmental Sciences
Cogswell Building
Helena, MT 59620
Manual
Equlv.
48 14748 04/05/83
EQL-0783-058
"Determination of Lead Concen-
tration In Ambient Particulate
Matter by Energy-Dispersive
X-Ray Fluorescence Spectrometry
(Texas Air Control Board)"
Texas Air Control Board
6330 Highway 290 East
Austin, TX 78723
Manual
Equlv.
48 29742 06/28/83
EQL-0785-059
"Determination of Lead Concen-
tration In Ambient Particulate
Matter by Flameless Atomic
Absorption Spectrometry (Omaha-
Douglas County Health Department)1
Omaha-Douglas County
Health Department
1819 Farnam Street
Omaha, NE 68183
Manual
Equlv.
50 37909 09/18/85
EQL-0888-068
"Determination of Lead Concen-
tration In Ambient Particulate
Matter by Inductively Coupled
Argon Plasma Optical Emission
Spectrometry (State of Rhode
Island)"
State of Rhode Island
Department of Health
Air Pollution Laboratory
50 Orms Street
Providence, RI 02904
Manual
Equlv.
53 30866 08/16/88
tQL-1188-069
"Determination of Lead Concen-
tration In Ambient Particulate
Matter by Inductively Coupled
Argon Plasma Optical Emission
Spectrometry (Northern Engineer-
4 tnrt
rl Trt r t { rtn fnr*
Northern Engineering
and Testing, Inc.
P.O. Box 30615
Billings, MT 59107
Manual Equlv,
53 44947 11/07/88
-------
February 8, 1993
DESIGNATION
NUMBER
IDENTIFICATION
LIST OF DESIGNATED REFERENCE AND EQUIVALENT HETHODS
MANUAL
SOURCE OR AUTO
Page 37
REF. OR FED, REGISTER NOTICE
EQUIV. VOL. PAGE DATE
EQL-1288-070
"Determination of Lead Concen-
tration In Ambient Participate
Hatter by Inductively Coupled
Argon Plasma Optical Emission
Spectrometry (Silver Valley
Laboratories)"
LEAD (Continued)
Silver Valley Laboratories,
Inc.
P.O. Box 929
Kellogg, ID 83837
Manual
Equiv.
53 48974 12/05/88
EQL-0589-072
"Determination of Lead Concen-
tration In Ambient Particulate
Matter by Energy Dispersive
X-Ray Fluorescence Spectrometry
(NEA, Inc.)"
Nuclear Environmental Manual
Analysis, Inc.
10950 SW 5th Street, Suite 260
Beaverton, OR 97005
Equiv.
54 20193 05/10/89
EQL-1290-080
"Determination of Lead Concen-
tration In Ambient Particulate
Matter by Inductively Coupled
Argon Plasma Optical Emission
Spectrometry (State of New
Hampshire)"
State of New Hampshire
Department of Environmental
Services
Laboratory Service Unit
6 Hazen Drive (P.O. Box 95)
Concord, NH 03302-0095
Manual
Equiv.
55 49119 11/26/90
EQL-0592-085
"Determination of Lead Concen-
tration In Ambient Particulate
Matter by Inductively Coupled
Argon Plasma Optical Emission
Spectrometry (State of Kansas)"
State of Kansas
Department of Health and
Environment
Forbes Field, Building 740
Topeka, KS 66620-0001
Manual
Equiv.
57 20823 05/15/92
EQL-0592-086
"Determination of Lead Concen-
tration In Ambient Particulate
Matter by Inductively Coupled
Argon Plasma Optical Emission
Spectrometry (Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania)"
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
Department of Environmental
Resources
P.O. Box 2357
Harrisburg, PA 17105-2357
Manual
Equiv.
57 20823 05/15/92
-------
February 8t
frl.— .J l
Re{. method (panroaunline)
TechittcQn I
Trr-hnfT P
en ^mfrnn
Advanced Pouution tostr. 100
Aa*rco500
Becbaan953
Daeioi 4iOS
Enviramcmcal S.A. AF21M
Lear Siefier AM2020
Lear Siefier SMI 000
Lear Siejter ML9850
Meloy SA185-2A
Meloy SA28SE
Meloy SA700
Monitor Labt 8450
Monitor Lab. 8850
Monitor Labi 8850S
Philips PW9700
Philips PW9755
Thermo Electron 43
Thermo Electron 43 A
Advanced Pollulion Initr. 400
Bend«8002
CSI2000
Duibi 1003- AH, -PC. -RS
D«nbi 1008-AH
Eavtrotuci300
Lear Siegler ML9810
McMillan 1 100-1
McMillan 1100-2
McMillan 1100-3
Meloy OA325-2R
Meloy OA350-2R
Monitor Labs M10E
Monitor Lab. 8810
PQ Ozoae Corp. LC-12
Philipi PW9771
Thermo Electron 49
Beefcmu866
. BendU 1501 -5CA
D«ibi 3003
Duibi 30W
Horiba AQM-10,-11,-12
Hooba 300E«OOSE
LMT Siefier ML 9S30
MASS - CO 1
Monitor Lab. 83 10
Monitor Labs 8S30
MSA202S
Tbenno Electron 48
METHOD CODES
Method
—
EOS-0775-001
EO>0775-002
EOSA-099<«r77
EQSA-0877-024
EQSA-0678-029
EQSA-107S-030
EQSA-1 086-061
EQSA-0292-084
EQS A- 1280-049
EQSA-1275XJ05
EQSA-0193-092
EOSA-1275XJ06
EQSA-1 078-032
EQSA-0580-046
EQSA-0876-013
EQSA-0779X539
EQSA-039CW375
EQSA-0876-01 1
EQSA-0676-010
EQSA-O276XX>9
EQSA-0486-060
EQOA-0992-087
RFOA-0577-020
RFOA-0176-007
RFOA-0279-036
EQOA-0577-019
EQOA-03 83-056
EQOA-0990-078
EQOA-01 93-091
RFOA-1076-014
RFOA-1076-015
RFOA-1076-OI6
RFOA-I075-003
RFOA-1075-004
RFOA-1 176-017
EQOA-088 1-053
EQOA-0382-055
EQOA^jrn-023
EQOA-0880-047
RFCA-0876-012
RFCA-0276-008
RFCA-0381-051
RFCA-0488-067
RFCA-127V033
RFCA-1 180-048
RFCA-0992-088
RFCA-1280-050
RFCA-O979-041
RFCA-03 88-066
RFCA-0177-018
RFCA-0981-054
097
097
097
077
024
029
030
061
OM
049
005
092
006
032
046
513
039
075
511
010
009
060
087
020
007
036
019
056
078
091
514
515
016
003
004
017
053
055
023
047
012
008
051
067
033
048
OU
050
041
066
018
054
Sodium armile (orifce)
Sodium aneaae/Tecaaicoa D
TOS-ANSA (orifice)
fffri toatntm
Advanced Pollution Ia*v. 200
Becbmo952A
Beadix 8101-B
CS11600
LMT Siefier ML9841
Meloy NA530R
Monitor Lab. 8440E
Monitor Lab. 8840
Monitor Lab. 8841
Philip. PW9762/02
Thermo Electron 14B/E
Thermo Electron 14D/E
Tbenno Eovironmeotal In*.
42
Ref. method (hi-vol/AA mpect.)
Hi-vol/AA B|MCl. (alt. extr'.)
HJ-vol/Enerry neet. (EMSL/EPA)
Hi-vol/ICAP epect. (Kanaa.)
Hi-vol/ICAP apect. (Montana)
Hi-voJ/ICAP Beet. (NE&T)
Hi-vol/ICAP Beet. (N. rUmpchr)
Hi-vol/ICAP apect. (Pemuylva)
Hi-vol/ICAP Beet. (Rhode Ii.)
Hi-vol/ICAP Beet. (S.V. Labi)
Hi-voUWL-4>B. XRF (CA A&IHL)
Orejoo DEQ Med. vol. aampler
Siem-Aadenea/GMW 1200
Siem-Aadeneo/GMW 32 1 -B
Siem-Andenen/GMW 321-C
Sien»-Aanema/GMW241 Diehot
Weddinf & A«oc. hifh volume
Aodemo low. Btta FH62J-N
RAPTEOM 1400,1400.
Weddittf A AMOC.
Reference mMhod (high-volume)
f*Jxd»
EQN-1277-026
BQN-1277-027
BQN-1277-021
RFNA-0691-082
RFNA-0179-034
RFNA-0479-038
RFNA-0777-022
RFNA-1 192-089
RFNA-0977-025
RFNA-1292-090
RFNA-1078-031
RFNA-0677-021
RFNA-0280-042
RFNA-099 1-083
RFNA-08 79*040
RFNA-0179-03S
RFNA-0279-037
RFNA-1 289-074
.
EQL-O3 80-043
EQL-0783-058
EOL-0589-072
EQL-03 80-044
EQL-0785-059
EQL-0380-045
EQL-0592-085
EQL-0483-Q57
EQL-1 188-069
EQL- 1290-080
EQL-0592-086
EQL-0888-068
EQL- 1288-070
EQL-058 1-052
RFPS-0389-071
RFPS- 1287-063
RFPS-1287-064
RFPS-1287-065
RFPS-0789-073
RFPS-1087-062
EQPM-0990-076
EQPM-1090-079
EQPM-039 1-081
084
084
09*
082
034
038
022
089
025
090
031
021
042
083
040
035
037
074
803
043
058
072
044
059
045
085
057
069
080
086
068
070
052
071
063
064
065
073
062
076
079
081
802
-------
APPROVED METHODS AS OF FEBRUARY 8, 1993
l.MkA2OJS00)
AQM-IO.il.:200)
11.7*HC(«. .1. A J,
OAJU-a (.5)
2. Md»jr OA3K-ZK (J)
1. EMk IOOVAH.KJU (J.I.O)
1. K^. rw*771 (J)
3. TH1 4* (j. 1.0)
4. ItaMar L*> U10 (J, 1.0)
5. PCI QBaat Cop. LC-12 (.5)
lOOt-AH.KJU(J.I.O)
T I. •!!•! I IT- I 1)
i. An 4oo (.i.j. i.o)
« L-rT ilir ML *IO (.(8-1.0)
l.HV
2. HV
OTA)
3. HV/KAP (ETA)
4. KWWDXBF
(AML.CA)
5. RV/ICAPMT)
«. KV/EDJOLF (DO
7. KV
t. HV/ICAT (U)
» HV/ICAF (NET)
10. HVfKtf (SVL)
1I.HV/EDXXF04EA)
12. HV/ICAF (NK)
13
14 HV/ICAP(PA)
HO.KV
2. SAAMWllOO
3. SASOMW 321-i
4 1AA3MW J21-C
5.
«. 1A/OMW 241 * 24IM
I. Uv Ifccfcr MflOOO ( J)
2. kfcta? 1AII5-2A (J.
J.TBI4J(J, 1.0)
4.
MX) ( J,
AMBCO MO ( J). «00 (1-0)
. 1.0)
. 1.0)
M^r SA2UB (.OI..1.J.14
. IB)
«A700 (.M. J.
< J.I -0)
43A(.l. i J, J.O)
4101 (.1, A J,
(J.
100 (J)
IJC AR1M (J)
ML MSO (.01-1.0)
U, (JOA. (.1). (Jk (J). (I *. • 00) Wta* ••
-------
\
-OEPT E HD-77
UNITED STATES
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK. NORTH CAIOUNA 27711
OFFICIAL BUSINESS
PENALTY POM PfllVATE USE S300
-------
*************************
U. S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY * Previous Revision: September 28, 1992
Office of Research and Development *
Atmospheric Research and Exposure * New Designations:
Assessment Laboratory * Dasibi Environmental Corporation
Methods Research & Development Division (MD-77) * Model 2108 Oxides of Nitrogen Analyzer
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711 * Lear Siegler Measurement Controls Corporation
919 541-2622 or 919 541-4599 * Model HL9841 Nitrogen Oxides Analyzer *
FTS 629-2622 or FTS 629-4599 * Model ML9810 Ozone Analyzer *
* Model ML9850 Sulfur Dioxide Analyzer *
Issue Date: February 8, 1993 *************************
LIST OF DESIGNATED REFERENCE AND EQUIVALENT METHODS
These methods for measuring ambient concentrations of specified air pollutants have been designated as "reference
methods" or "equivalent methods" in accordance with Title 40, Part 53 of the Code of Federal Regulations (40 CFR Part
53). Subject to any limitations (e.g., operating range) specified in the applicable designation, each method is
acceptable for use in state or local air quality surveillance systems under 40 CFR Part 58 unless the applicable
designation Is subsequently canceled. Automated methods are acceptable for use at temperatures between 20'C and 30°C
and line voltages between 105 and 125 volts unless wider limits are specified in the method description.
Prospective users of the methods listed should note (1) that each method must be used In strict accordance with
the operation or Instruction manual and with applicable quality assurance procedures, and (2) that modification of a
method by Us vendor or user may cause the pertinent designation to be inapplicable to the method as modified. (See
Section 2.8 of Appendix C, 40 CFR Part 58 for approval of modifications to any of these methods by users.)
Further Information concerning particular designations may be found In the Federal Register notice cited for each
method or by writing to the Atmospheric Research & Exposure Assessment Laboratory, Methods Research & Development
Division (MD-77), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711. Technical
Information concerning the methods should be obtained by writing to the "source" listed for each method. New analyzers
or PM10 samplers sold as reference or equivalent methods must carry a label or sticker Identifying them as designated
methods. For analyzers or PMIO samplers sold prior to the designation, the model number does not necessarily identify
an analyzer or sampler as a designated method. Consult the manufacturer or seller to determine if a previously sold
analyzer or sampler can be considered a designated method, or if it can be upgraded to designation status. Analyzer
users who experience operational or other difficulties with a designated analyzer or sampler and are unable to resolve
the problem directly with the Instrument manufacturer may contact EPA (preferably in writing) at the above address for
assistance.
This list will be revised as necessary to reflect any new designations or any cancellation of a designation
currently In effect. The most current revision of the list will be available for Inspection at EPA's Regional Offices,
and copies may be obtained by writing to the Atmospheric Research & Exposure Assessment Laboratory at the address
specified above.
-------
February 8, 1993
DESIGNATION
NUMBER
IDENTIFICATION
LIST OF DESIGNATED REFERENCE AND EQUIVALENT NETHODS
SOURCE
MANUAL
OR AUTO
REF. OR
EQUIV.
Page 2
FED. REGISTER NOTICE
VOL. PAGE DATE
******
******
Reference Method for the
Determination of Suspended
Participate Matter in the
Atmosphere (High-Volume Method)
Reference Method for the
Determination of Participate
Matter as PM10 in the Atmosphere
PART1CULATE MATTER - TSP
40 CFR Part 50,
Appendix B
PART1CULATE MATTER - PM
40 CFR Part 50,
Appendix J
10
Manual Reference 47 54912 12/06/82
48 17355 04/22/83
Manual Reference 52
52
24664 07/01/87
29467 08/07/87
RFPS-1087-062 "Wedding & Associates'
PM10 Critical Flow High-Volume
Wedding & Associates,
P.O. Box 1756
Fort Collins, CO 80522
Inc.
Sampler," consisting of the
following components:
Wedding PM10 Inlet
Wedding & Associates' Critical Flow Device
Wedding & Associates' Anodized Aluminum Shelter
115, 220 or 240 VAC Motor Blower Assembly
Mechanical Timer Or Optional Digital Timer
Elapsed Time Indicator
Filter Cartridge/Cassette
Manual
Reference 52 37366 10/06/87
-------
February 8, 1993
DESIGNATION
NUMBER
IDENTIFICATION
LIST OF DESIGNATED REFERENCE AND EQUIVALENT METHODS
MANUAL
SOURCE OR AUTO
Page 3
REF. OR FED. REGISTER NOTICE
EQU1V. VOL. PAGE DATE
PART1CULATE MATTER - PM,» iContinued)
Andersen Samplers, Inc.
4801 Fulton Industrial Blvd.
Atlanta, GA 30336
Manual
Reference
52
53
45684
1062
12/01/87
01/15/88
or
General Metal Works, Inc.
145 South Miami
Cleves, OH 45002
RFPS-1287-063 "Sierra-Andersen or
General Metal Works Model 1200
PM10 High-Volume Air Sampler
System," consisting of a Sierra-
Andersen or General Metal Works
Model 1200 PM10 Size-Selective
'""' Inlet and any of the high-volume
air samplers identified as
SAUV-10H, SAUV-11H, GMW-IP-10,
GMU-IP-10-70, GMW-IP-10-801, or GMW-IP-10-8000, which include the following components:
Anodized aluminum high-volume shelter with either acrylonitrile butadiene styrene plastic filter holder
and motor/blower housing or stainless steel filter holder and phenolic plastic motor/blower housing;
0.6 hp motor/blower; pressure transducer flow recorder; either an electronic mass flow controller or a
volumetric flow controller; either a digital timer/programmer, seven-day mechanical timer, six-day
timer/programmer, or solid-state timer/programmer; elapsed time indicator; and filter cartridge.
RFPS-1287-064
Andersen Samplers, Inc.
4801 Fulton Industrial Blvd.
Atlanta, GA 30336
or
General Metal Works, Inc.
145 South Miami
Cleves, OH 45002
Manual
Reference
52
53
45684
1062
12/01/87
01/15/88
"Sierra-Andersen or
General Metal Works Model 321-B
PMIO High-Volume Air Sampler
System," consisting of a Sierra-
Andersen or General Metal Works
Model 321-B PM10 Size-Selective
Inlet and any of the high-volume
air samplers Identified as
SAUV-10H, SAUV-11H, GMW-IP-10,
GMW-IP-10-70, GMW-IP-10-801, or GMW-IP-10-8000, which include the following components:
Anodized aluminum high-volume shelter with either acrylonitrile butadiene styrene plastic filter holder
and motor/blower housing or stainless steel filter holder and phenolic plastic motor/blower housing;
0.6 hp motor/blower; pressure transducer flow recorder; either an electronic mass flow controller or a
volumetric flow controller; either a digital timer/programmer, seven-day mechanical timer, six-day
timer/programmer, or solid-state timer/programmer; elapsed time Indicator; and filter cartridge.
-------
reoruary 8, 1993
DESIGNATION
NUMBER
IDENTIFICATION
LIST OF DESIGNATED REFERENCE AND EQUIVALENT METHODS
SOURCE
MANUAL
OR AUTO
Page 4
REF. OR FED. REGISTER NOTICE
EOU1V. VOL. PAGE DATE
RFPS-1287-065 "Sierra-Andersen or
General Metal Works Model 321-C
PM,0 High-Volume Air Sampler
System," consisting of a Sierra-
Andersen or General Metal Works
Model 321-C PM10 Size-Selective
PART1CULATE HATTER - PM... (Continued)
Andersen Samplers, Inc.
4801 Fulton Industrial Blvd.
Atlanta, GA 30336
or
General Metal Works, Inc.
145 South Miami
Cleves, OH 45002
Manual
Reference
52
53
456B4
1062
12/01/87
01/15/88
Inlet and any of the high-volume
air samplers Identified as
SAUV-10H, SAUV-11H, GMW-IP-10,
GMW-IP-10-70, GMW-IP-10-801, or GMW-IP-10-8000, which include the following components:
Anodized aluminum high-volume shelter with either acrylonitrile butadiene styrene plastic filter holder
and motor/blower housing or stainless steel filter holder and phenolic plastic motor/blower housing;
0.6 hp motor/blower; pressure transducer flow recorder; either an electronic mass flow controller or a
volumetric flow controller; either a digital timer/programmer, seven-day mechanical timer, six-day
timer/programmer, or solid-state timer/programmer; elapsed time Indicator; and filter cartridge.
RFPS-0389-071
"Oregon DEQ Medium Volume
PM10 Sampler"
NOTE: This method is not now
commercially available.
State of Oregon Manual
Department of Environmental Quality
Air Quality Division
811 S.W. Sixth Avenue
Portland, OR 97204
Reference 54 12273 03/24/89
RFPS-0789-073
"Sierra-Andersen Models SA241 and
SA241M or General Metal Works
Models G241 and G241M PMIO
Dichotomous Samplers", consisting
of the following components:
Sampling Module with SA246b or
G246b 10 urn inlet, 2.5 pm
Andersen Samplers, Inc.
4801 Fulton Industrial Blvd.
Atlanta, GA 30336
or
General Metal Works, Inc.
145 South Miami
Cleves, OH 45002
Manual
Reference 54 31247 07/27/89
virtual impactor assembly,
37 mm coarse and fine particulate filter holders, and tripod mount;
Control Module with diaphragm vacuum pump, pneumatic constant flow controller, total and coarse
rotameters and vacuum gauges, pressure switch (optional), 24-hour flow/event recorder, digital
timer/programmer or 7-day skip timer, and elapsed time indicator.
flow
-------
February 8, 1993 LIST OF DESIGNATED REFERENCE AND EQUIVALENT METHODS Page 5
DESIGNATION MANUAL REF. OR FED. REGISTER NOTICE
NUMBER IDENTIFICATION SOURCE OR AUTO EQU1V. VQl, PAGE DATE
PARTICULATE MATTER - PM,0 (Continued)
EQPM-0990-076 "Andersen Instruments Andersen Instruments, Inc. Auto Equlv. 55 38387 09/18/90
Model FH62I-N PM10 Beta 4801 Fulton Industrial Blvd.
Attenuation Monitor," Atlanta, GA 30336
consisting of the following
components:
FH62I Beta Attenuation 19-inch Control Module
SA246b PM.o Inlet (16.7 liter/min)
FH101 Vacuum Pump Assembly
FH102 Accessory Kit
FH107 Roof Flange Kit
FH125 Zero and Span PM10 Mass Foil Calibration Kit
operated for 24-hour average measurements, with an observing time of 60 minutes, the calibration factor
set to 2400, a glass fiber filter tape, an automatic filter advance after each 24-hour sample period, and
with or without either of the following options:
FHOP1 Indoor Cabinet
FHOP2 Outdoor Shelter Assembly
EQPM-1090-079 "Rupprecht & Patashnick TEOM Rupprecht & Patashnick Co., Auto Equiv. 55 43406 10/29/90
Series 1400 and Series 1400a Inc.
PM-10 Monitors," consisting 8 Corporate Circle
of the following components: Albany, NY 12203
TEOM Sensor Unit
TEOM Control Unit
Rupprecht & Patashnick PM-10 Inlet (part number 57-00596) or
Sierra-Andersen Model 246b PM-10 Inlet (16.7 liter/min)
Flow Splitter
Teflon-Coated Glass Fiber Filter Cartridges
operated for 24-hour average measurements, with the total mass averaging time set at 300 seconds,
the mass rate/mass concentration averaging time set at 300 seconds, the gate time set at 2 seconds,
and with or without either of the following options:
Tripod
Outdoor Enclosure
Automatic Cartridge Collection Unit (Series 1400a only)
-------
February 8, 1993
x^ "
DESIGNATION
NUMBER
LIST OF DESIGNATED REFERENCE AND EQUIVALENT METHODS
IDENTIFICATION
SOURCE
MANUAL
OR AUTO
Page 6
REF. OR FED. REGISTER NOTICE
EQUIV. VOL. PAGE DATE
EQPM-0391-081 "Wedding & Associates'
PMIO Beta Gauge Automated
PART1CULATE MATTER - PM,ff (Continued)
Wedding & Associates, Inc. Auto
P.O. Box 1756
Fort Collins, CO 80522
Particle Sampler," consisting
of the following components:
Particle Sampling Module
PM.0 Inlet (18.9 llter/mln)
Inlet Tube and Support Ring
Vacuum Pump (115 VAC/60 Hz or 220-240 VAC/50 Hz)
operated for 24-hour average measurements with glass fiber filter tape.
Equiv.
56 9216 03/05/91
-------
February 8, 1993
LIST OF DESIGNATED REFERENCE AND EQUIVALENT METHODS
Page
DESIGNATION
NUMBER
IDENTIFICATION
SOURCE
MANUAL REF. OR FED. REGISTER NOTICt
OR AUTO EQUIV. VOL. PAGE DATE
******
Reference Method for the
Determination of Sulfur
Dioxide In the Atmosphere
(PararpsanlUne Method)
SULFUR DIOXIDE
40 CFR Part 50,
Appendix A
Manual Reference 47 54899 12/06/8
48 17355 04/22/8
EQS-0775-001
"Pararosanillne Method for the
Determination of Sulfur Dioxide
in the Atmosphere-Technicon I
Automated Analysis System"
Atmospheric Research and Manual
Exposure Assessment Laboratory
Department E (MD-77)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
Equlv. 40 34024 08/13/7
EQS-0775-002
"Pararosanillne Method for the
Determination of Sulfur Dioxide
in the Atmosphere-Technicon II
Automated Analysis System"
Atmospheric Research and Manual
Exposure Assessment Laboratory
Department E (MD-77)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
Equlv
40 34024 08/13//
EQSA-1275-005
"Lear Slegler Model SM1000 S02
Ambient Monitor," operated on the
0-0.5 ppm range, at a wavelength
of 299.5 nm, with the "slow"
(300 second) response time, with
or without any of the following options:
SM-1 Internal Zero/Span
SM-2 Span Timer Card
SM-3 0-0.1 Volt Output
SM-4 0-5 Volt Output
SM-5 Alternate Sample Pump
SM-6 Outdoor Enclosure
Lear Slegler Measurement
Controls Corporation
74 Inverness Drive East
Englewood, CO 80112-5189
Auto Equiv. 41 3893 01/27/
41 32946 08/06/
42 13044 03/08/
45 1147 01/04/
-------
reoruary 8, 1993
DESIGNATION
NUMBER
IDENTIFICATION
LIST OF DESIGNATED REFERENCE AND EQUIVALENT METHODS
SOURCE
MANUAL
OR AUTO
Page
REF. OR FED. REGISTER NOTICI
EQU1V. VOL. PAGE DATE
EQSA-1275-006 "Meloy Model SA185-2A Sulfur
Dioxide Analyzer," operated on
the 0-0.5 ppm range, with or
without any of the following
options:
S-I Linearized Output
S-2 Modified Recorder Output
S-5 Teflon-Coated Block
S-6A Reignite Timer Circuit
S-7 Press To Read
S-11A Manual Zero And Span
S-11B Automatic Zero And Span
S-13 Status Lights
S-14 Output Booster Amplifier
S-14B Line Transmitter Board
or operated on the 0-1.0 ppm range
the other options.
SULFUR DIOXIDE (Continued)
Columbia Scientific Auto Equlv.
Industries
11950 Jollyvllle Road
Austin, TX 78759
S-18 Rack Mount Conversion S-24
S-18A Rack Mount Conversion S-33
S-21 Front Panel Digital Volt
Meter S-34
S-22 Remote Zero/Span Control S-35
And Status (Timer)
S-22A Remote Zero/Span Control S-36
S-23 Automatic Zero Adjust S-38
S-23A Automatic/Manual Zero Adjust
41 3893 01/27/7'
43 38088 08/25/7
Dual Range Linearized Output
Remote Range Control And Status
(Signals)
Remote Control
Front Panel Digital Meter With
BCD Output
Dual Range Log-Linear Output
Sampling Mode Status
with either option S-36 or options S-l and S-24, with or without any of
EQSA-0276-009 "Thermo Electron Model 43 Pulsed
Fluorescent S02 Analyzer,"
equipped with an aromatic hydro-
carbon cutter and operated on a
range of either 0-0.5 or 0-1.0
Thermo Environmental
Instruments, Inc.
8 West Forge Parkway
Franklin, MA 02038
ppm,
001
002
003
004
with or without any of the following options:
Rack Mounting For Standard 19 Inch Relay Rack
Automatic Actuation Of Zero And Span Solenoid Valves
Type S Flash Lamp Power Supply
Low Flow
Auto Equlv. 41 8531 02/27/7.
41 15363 04/12/7
42 20490 04/20/7
44 21861 04/12/7
45 2700 01/14/8
45 32419 05/16/8
-------
February 8, 1993
LIST OF DESIGNATED REFERENCE AND EQUIVALENT METHODS
Page
DESIGNATION
NUMBER
IDENTIFICATION
SOURCE
MANUAL REF. OR FED. REGISTER NOT1C
OR AUTO EQU1V. VOL. PAGE DATE
SULFUR DIOXIDE (Continued)
EQSA-0676-010 "Philips PW9755 S02 Analyzer," Philips Electronic Auto Equlv. 41 26252 06/25//
consisting of the following Instruments, Inc. 41 46019 10/19/.
components: 85 McKee Drive 42 28571 06/03//
PW9755/02 SO, Monitor with: Mahwah, NJ 07430
PW9741/00 SO, Source
PW9721/00 Filter Set S02
! PW9711/00 Electrolyte S02
PW9750/00 Supply Cabinet
PM9750/10 Supply Unit/Coulometric
Either PW9731/00 Sampler or PW9731/20 Dust Filter (or vendor-approved alternate particulate filter);
operated with a 0-0.5 ppm range and with a reference voltage setting of 760 millivolts; with or without an
of the following options:
PH9750/30 Frame For MTT PW9752/00 Air Sampler Manifold PW9753/00 Mounting Rack For Accessor!•
PW9750/41 Control Clock 60 Hz PW9754/00 Air Distributor
EQSA-0876-011
Philips Electronic
Instruments, Inc.
85 McKee Drive
Mahwah, NJ 07430
Auto
Equlv.
"Philips PH9700 S02 Analyzer,"
consisting of the following
components:
PW9710/00 Chemical Unit with:
PM9711/00 Electrolyte S02
PM9721/00 Filter Set S02
PH9740/00 S02 Source
PW9720/00 Electrical Unit
PW9730/00 Sampler Unit (or vendor-approved alternate particulate filter);
operated with a 0-0.5 ppm range and with a reference voltage of 760 millivolts.
41 34105 08/12/,
EQSA-0876-013
Lear Siegler Measurement
Controls Corporation
74 Inverness Drive East
Englewood, CO 80112-5189
"Monitor Labs Model 8450 Sulfur Lear Sieqler Measurement Auto
Monitor," operated on a range of
either 0-0.5 or 0-1.0 ppm, with
a 5 second time constant, a model
8740 hydrogen sulfide scrubber
1n the sample line, with or without any of the following options:
BP Bipolar Signal Processor IZS Internal Zero/Span Module
CLO Current Loop Output TF TFE Sample Particulate Filter
DO Status Remote Interface
Equlv.
41
44
36245
33476
08/277,
06/1I/;
V Zero/Span Valves
VT Zero/Span Valves And Timer
-------
February 8, 1993
DESIGNATION
NUMBER
LIST OF DESIGNATED REFERENCE AND EQUIVALENT HETHODS
Page 1C
IDENTIFICATION
SOURCE
MANUAL REF. OR FED. REGISTER NOTICE
OR AUTO EQUIV. VOL. PAGE DATE
SULFUR DIOXIDE (Continued)
EQSA-0877-024 "ASARCO Model 500 Sulfur Dioxide ASARCO Incorporated
Monitor," operated on a 0-0.5 ppm 3422 South 700 West
range; or Salt Lake City, UT 84119
"ASARCO Model 600 Sulfur Dioxide
Monitor," operated on a 0-1.0 ppm
range. (Both models are Identical except the range.)
NOTE: This method is not now commercially available.
Auto Equiv. 42 44264 09/02/77
44 67522 11/26/7S
Beckman Instruments, Inc.
Process Instruments Division
2500 Harbor Boulevard
Fullerton, CA 92634
43 35995 08/14/71
EQSA-0678-029 "Beckman Model 953 Fluorescent Beckman Instruments, Inc. Auto Equiv.
Ambient S02 Analyzer," operated
on a range of either 0-0.5 or
0-1.0 ppm, with a time constant
setting of 2, 2.5, or 3 minutes,
a 5 to 10 micron membrane filter element Installed in the rear-panel filter assembly, with or without any
of the following options:
a. Remote Operation Kit, Catalog No. 641984
b. Digital Panel Meter, Catalog No. 641710
c. Rack Mount Kit, Catalog No. 641709
d. Panel Mount Kit, Catalog No. 641708
EQSA-1078-030
"Bendlx Model 8303 Sulfur
Analyzer," operated on a range
of either 0-0.5 or 0-1.0 ppm,
with a Teflon filter Installed
on the sample Inlet of the H2S
scrubber assembly.
Combustion Engineering, Inc.
Process Analytics
P.O. Box 831
Lewisburg, WV 24901
Auto
Equiv.
43 50733 10/31/7
-------
February 8, 1993
LIST OF DESIGNATED REFERENCE AND EQUIVALENT METHODS
Page 11
DESIGNATION
NUMBER
IDENTIFICATION
MANUAL REF. OR FED. REGISTER NOTICE
OR AUTO EQU1V. VOL. PAGE DATE
EQSA-1078-032 "Meloy Model SA285E Sulfur
Dioxide Analyzer," operated
on the following ranges and
time constant switch positions:
Range. ODD Time Constant Setting
0-50*
0-100*
0-500
0-1000
off,
off,
1 or 10
1 or 10
1 or 10
1 or 10
SULFUR DIOXIDE (Continued)
Columbia Scientific
Industries
11950 Jollyville Road
Austin, TX 78759
Auto
Equiv.
43 50733 10/31/78
*NOTE: Users should be aware that designation of this analyzer for
operation on ranges less than 0.5 ppm is based on meeting the same
absolute performance specifications required for the 0-0.5 ppm range.
Thus, designation of these lower ranges does not imply commensurably
better performance than that obtained on the 0-0.5 ppm range.
The analyzer may be operated at temperatures between
volts, with or without any of the following options:
10°C and 40°C and at line voltages between 105 and 130
S-5 Teflon Coated Block
S-14B Line Transmitter Board
S-18 Rack Mount Conversion
S-I8A Rack Mount Conversion
S-21 Front Panel Digital Meter
S-22 Remote Zero/Span Control
And Status (Timer)
S-22A Remote Zero/Span Control
S-22B Remote Zero/Span Control S-30
And Status (Pulse) S-32
S-23 Auto Zero Adjust S-35
S-23A Auto/Manual Zero Adjust
S-25 Press To Read S-37
S-26 Manual Zero And Span S-38
S-27 Auto Manual Zero/Span
S-28 Auto Range And Status
Auto Reignite
Remote Range Control And Status
Front Panel Digital Meter With
BCD Output
Temperature Status Lights
Sampling Mode Status
EQSA-0779-039
44 44616 07/30/79
"Monitor Labs Model 8850 Lear Siegler Measurement Auto Equiv.
Fluorescent S02 Analyzer,"
operated on a range of either
0-0.5 or 0-1.0 ppm, with an
Internal time constant setting
of 55 seconds, a TFE sample filter installed on the sample inlet line, with or without any of the following
options:
03A Rack 068,C,D NBS Traceable Permeation
Lear Siegler Measurement
Controls Corporation
74 Inverness Drive East
Englewood, CO 80112-5189
03B
05A
nr>A
Slides
Valves
Zero/Span
Tubes
08A Pump
09A Rack Mount
For Option OOA
013 Recorder Output Options
014 DAS Output Options
017 Low Flow Option
018 Kkker
-------
DESIGNATION
NUMBER
IDENTIFICATION
LOI ufr DESIGNATED REFERENCE AND EQUIVALENT METHODS
MANUAL
SOURCE OR AUTO
REF. OR
EQU1V.
FED.
VOL.
Page 12
REGISTER NOTICE
PAGE DATE
SULFUR DIOXIDE fContinued)
EQSA-0580-046
Columbia Scientific
Industries
11950 Jollyville Road
Austin, TX 78759
45 31488 05/13/80
'Meloy Model SA 700 Fluorescence Columbia Scientific Auto Equiv.
Sulfur Dioxide Analyzer," opera-
ted on the 0-250 ppb*. the 0-500
ppb, or the 0-1000 ppb range with
a time constant switch position
of either 2 or 3. The analyzer* may be operated at temperatures between 20"C and 30*C and at line voltages
between 105 and 130 volts, with or without any of the following options:
FS-1 Current Output
FS-2 Rack Mount Conversion
FS-2A Rack Mount Conversion
FS-2B Rack Mount Conversion
FS-3 Front Panel Mounted Digital Meter
FS-5 Auto/Manual Zero/Span With Status
FS-6 Remote/Manual Zero/Span With Status
FS-7 Auto Zero Adjust
*NOTE: Users should be aware that designation of this analyzer for operation on a range less than 0.5 ppm
Is based on meeting the same absolute performance specifications required for the 0-0.5 ppm range. Thus,
designation of this lower range does not Imply commensurably better performance than that obtained on the
0-0.5 ppm range.
Lear Siegler Measurement
Controls Corporation
74 Inverness Drive East
Englewood, CO 80112-5189
45
46
79574
9997
12/01/80
01/30/81
EQSA-1280-049 "Lear Siegler Model AM2020 Lear Siegler Measurement Auto Equiv.
Ambient S02 Monitor," operated
on a range of either 0-0.5 or
0-1.0 ppm, at a wavelength of
299.5 nm, with a 5 minute
Integration period, over any 10°C temperature range between 20°C and 45°C, with or without the automatic zero
and span correction feature.
-------
February 8, 1993
DESIGNATION
NUMBER
IDENTIFICATION
LIST OF DESIGNATED REFERENCE AND EQUIVALENT HETHODS
MANUAL
SOURCE OR AUTO
Page 13
REF. OR FED. REGISTER NOTICE
EQU1V. VOL. PAGE DATE
SULFUR DIOXIDE (Continued)
51 12390 04/10/86
EQSA-0486-060 "Thermo Electron Instruments, Thermo Environmental Auto Equlv.
Inc. Model 43A Pulsed Fluorescent Instruments, Inc.
Ambient S02 Analyzer," operated 8 West Forge Parkway
on the 0-0.1 ppm*, the 0-0.2 ppm*, Franklin, MA 02038
the 0-0.5 ppm, or the 0-1.0 ppm
range with either a high or a low time constant setting and with or without any of the following options:
001 Teflon Particulate Filter Kit 003 Internal Zero/Span Valves 004 High Sample Flow Rate Option
002 Rack Mount With Remote Activation
*NOTE: Users should be aware that designation of this analyzer for operation on ranges less than 0.5 ppm
is based on meeting the same absolute performance specifications required for the 0-0.5 ppm range. Thus,
designation of these lower ranges does not imply commensurably better performance than that obtained on
the 0-0.5 ppm range.
51 32244 09/10/86
EQSA-1086-061 "Dasibl Model 4108 U.V. Fluores- Dasibi Environmental Corp. Auto Equlv.
cence S02 Analyzer," operated 515 West Colorado Street
with a range of 0-100 ppb*, Glendale, CA 91204-1101
0-200 ppb*, 0-500 ppb, or 0-1000 ppb,
with a Teflon-coated particulate filter and a continuous hydrocarbon removal system, with or without any of
the following options:
a. Rack Mounting Brackets b. RS-232-C Interface c. Temperature Correction
And Slides
*NOTE: Users should be aware that designation of this analyzer for operation on ranges less than 0.5 ppm
is based on meeting the same absolute performance specifications required for the 0-0.5 ppm range. Thus,
designation of these lower ranges does not imply commensurably better performance than that obtained on
the 0-0.5 ppm range.
EQSA-0390-075 "Monitor Labs Model 8850S SO,
Analyzer," operated on a range
of either 0-0.5 or 0-1.0 ppm.
Lear Siegler Measurement
Controls Corporation
74 Inverness Drive East
Englewood, CO 80112-5189
Auto
Equlv.
55 5264 02/14/90
-------
February 8, 1993 LIST OF DESIGNATED REFERENCE AND EQUIVALENT METHODS Page 14
DESIGNATION MANUAL REF. OR FED. REGISTER NOTICE
NUMBER IDENTIFICATION SOURCE OR AUTO EQUIV. VOL. PAGE DATE
SULFUR DIOXIDE (Continued)
EQSA-0990-077 "Advanced Pollution Advanced Pollution Auto Equiv. 55 38149 09/17/90
Instrumentation, Inc. Model 100 Instrumentation, Inc.
Fluorescent SOZ Analyzer," 8815 Production Avenue
operated on the 0-0.1 ppm*. San Diego, CA 92121-2219
the 0-0.2 ppm*, the 0-0.5 ppm,
or the 0-1.0 ppm range with a 5-micron TFE filter element installed in the rear-panel filter assembly,
either a user- or vendor-supplied vacuum pump capable of providing 20 inches of mercury vacuum at 2.5 L/mln,
with or without any of the following options:
Internal Zero/Span
Pump Pack
Rack Mount With Slides
RS-232 Interface
Status Output
TFE Zero/Span Valves
Zero Air Scrubber
I
*NOTE: Users should be aware that designation of this analyzer for operation on ranges less than 0.5 ppm
is based on meeting the same absolute performance specifications required for the 0-0.5 ppm range. Thus,
designation of these lower ranges does not imply commensurably better performance than that obtained on
the 0-0.5 ppm range.
EQSA-0292-084 "Environnement S.A. Model AF21M Environnement S.A. Auto Equiv. 57 5444 02/14/92
Sulfur Dioxide Analyzer," 111, bd Robespierre
operated on a range of 0-0.5 ppm 78300 Poissy, France
with a response time coefficient
setting of 01, a Teflon filter installed in the rear-panel filter assembly, and with or without any of the
following options:
Rack Mount/Slides
RS-232-C Interface
-------
February 8, 1993
DESIGNATION
NUMBER
IDENTIFICATION
LIST OF DESIGNATED REFERENCE AND EQUIVALENT METHODS
MANUAL
SOURCE OR AUTO
Page 15
REF. OR FED. REGISTER NOTICE
EQUIV. VOL. PAGE DATE
SULFUR DIOXIDE (Continued)
EQSA-0193-092 "Lear Siegler Measurement Lear Siegler Measurement Auto Equiv. 58 6964 02/03/93
Controls Corporation Model Controls Corporation
ML9850 Sulfur Dioxide Analyzer," 74 Inverness Drive East
operated on any full scale range Englewood, CO 80112-5189
between 0-0.050 ppm* and 0-1.0 ppm,
with auto-ranging enabled or disabled, at any temperature in the range of 15"C to 35T., with a five-micron
Teflon filter element installed in the filter assembly behind the secondary panel, the service switch on
the secondary panel set to the In position; with the following menu choices selected:
Background: Not Disabled; Calibration; Manual or Timed: Diagnostic Mode: Operate; Filter Type: Kalnan;
Pres/Temp/Flow Comp: On; Span Comp: Disabled;
with the 50-pin I/O board installed on the rear panel configured at any of the following output range
settings:
Voltage, 0.1 V, 1 V, 5 V, 10 V;
Current, 0-20 mA, 2-20 mA, 4-20 mA;
and with or without any of the'following options:
Valve Assembly for External Zero/Span (EZS)
Rack Mount Assembly
Internal Floppy Disk Drive.
*NOTE: Users should be aware that designation of this analyzer for operation on any full scale range less
than 0.5 ppm Is based on meeting the same absolute performance specifications required for the 0-0.5 ppm
range. Thus, designation of any full scale range lower than the 0-0.5 ppm range does not Imply
commensurably better performance than that obtained on the 0-0.5 ppm range.
-------
February 8, 1993
DESIGNATION
NUMBER
IDENTIFICATION
LIST OF DESIGNATED REFERENCE AND EQUIVALENT METHODS
SOURCE
MANUAL
OR AUTO
Page 16
REF. OR FED. REGISTER NOTICE
EQUIV. VOL. PAGE DATE
RFOA-1075-003 "Meloy Model OA325-2R Ozone
Analyzer," operated with a scale
range of 0-0.5 ppm, with or
without any of the following
options:
0-4 Output Booster Amplifier
OZONE
Columbia Scientific
Industries
11950 Jollyville Road
Austin, TX 78759
0-18 Rack Mount Conversion
Auto Reference 40 54856 11/26/75
0-18A Rack Mount Conversion
RFOA-1075-004 "Meloy Model OA350-2R Ozone
Analyzer," operated with a scale
range of 0-0.5 ppm, with or
without any of the following
options: »
0-2 Automatic Zero And Span
0-3 Remote Control Zero And Span
Columbia Scientific
Industries
11950 Jollyville Road
Austin, TX 78759
0-4 Output Booster Amplifier
0-18 Rack Mount Conversion
Auto Reference 40 54856 11/26/75
0-18A Rack Mount Conversion
RFOA-0176-007 Bendix or Combustion Engineering Combustion Engineering, Inc.
Model 8002 Ozone Analyzer, oper- Process Analytics
ated on the 0-0.5 ppm range, with
a 40 second time constant, with
or without any of the following
options:
A Rack Mounting With Chassis
Auto
Reference
41
45
5145
18474
P.O. Box 831
Lewisburg, WV 24901
Slides
B Rack Mounting Without Chassis
Slides
02/04/76
03/21/80
C Zero And Span Timer
D Ethylene/C02 Blend Reactant Gas
RFOA-1076-014
RFOA-1076-015
RFOA-1076-016
"NEC Model 1100-1 Ozone Meter,
"MEC Model 1100-2 Ozone Meter,
"MEC Model 1100-3 Ozone Meter,
operated on a 0-0.5 ppm range,
with or without any of the
following options:
0011 Rack Mounting Ears
0012 Instrument Bail
Columbia Scientific
Industries
11950 Jollyville Road
Austin, TX 78759
0016 Chassis Slide Kit
0026 Alarm Set Feature
Auto Reference 41 46647 10/22/76
42 30235 06/13/77
0033 Local-Remote Sample, Zero, Span Kit
0040 Ethylene/CO,, Blend Feature
-------
February 8, 1993 LIST OF DESIGNATED REFERENCE AND EQUIVALENT METHODS Page 17
DESIGNATION MANUAL REF. OR FED. REGISTER NOTICE
NUMBER IDENTIFICATION SOURCE OR AUTO EQUIV. VOL. PAGE DATE
OZONE (Continued)
RFOA-1176-017 "Monitor Labs Model 8410E Ozone Lear Siegler Measurement Auto Reference 41 53684 12/08/76
Analyzer," operated on a range Controls Corporation
of 0-0.5 ppm with a time constant 74 Inverness Drive East
setting of 5 seconds, with or Englewood, CO 80112-5189
without any of the following
options:
DO Status Outputs
ER Ethylene Regulator Assembly
TF TFE Sample PartIculate Filter
V TFE Zero/Span Valves
VT TFE Zero/Span Valves And Timer
EQOA-0577-019 "Daslbl Model 1003-AH, 1003-PC, Dasibi Environmental Corp. Auto Equiv. 42 28571 06/03/77
or 1003-RS Ozone Analyzer," 515 West Colorado Street
operated on a range of either Glendale, CA 91204-1101
0-0.5 or 0-1.0 ppm, with or
without any of the following options:
Adjustable Alarm
Aluminum Coated Absorption Tubes
BCD Digital Output
Glass (Pyrex) Absorption Tubes
Integrated Output
Rack Mounting Ears And Slides
Teflon-based Solenoid Valve
Vycor-Jacketed U.V. Source Lamp
0-10 mV, 0-100 mV, 0-1 V, or 0-10 V Analog Output
RFOA-0577-020 "Beckman Model 950A Ozone Beckman Instruments, Inc. Auto Reference 42 28571 06/3/77
Analyzer," operated on a range Process Instruments Division
of 0-0.5 ppm and with the "SLOW" 2500 Harbor Boulevard
(60 second) response time, with Fullerton, CA 92634
or without any of the following
options:
Internal Ozone Generator Computer Adaptor Kit Pure Ethylene Accessory
-------
February 8, 1993
LIST OF DESIGNATED REFERENCE AND EQUIVALENT METHODS
Page 18
DESIGNATION
NUMBER
IDENTIFICATION
SOURCE
MANUAL REF. OR F£0. REGISTER NOTICE
OR AUTO EQU1V. VOL. PAGE DATE
OZONE (Continued)
EQOA-0777-023
Philips Electronic
Instruments, Inc.
85 McKee Drive
Mahwah, NJ 07430
"Philips PW9771 03 Analyzer,"
consisting of the following
components:
PW9771/00 03 Monitor with:
PW9724/00 Disc.-Set
PM9750/00 Supply Cabinet
PW9750/20 Supply Unit;
operated on a range of 0-0.5 ppm,
with or without any of the following accessories:
PW9732/00 Sampler Line Heater
PW9733/00 Sampler
PW9750/30 Frame For MTT
PH9750/41 Control Clock 60 Hz
PH9752/00 Air Sampler Manifold
Auto Equlv. 42 38931 08/01/77
42 57156 11/01/77
RFOA-0279-036
Columbia Scientific
Industries
11950 Jollyville Rd.
Austin, TX 78759
Reference 44 10429 02/20/79
"Columbia Scientific Industries Columbia Scientific Auto
Model 2000 Ozone Meter," when
operated on the 0-0.5 ppm range
with either AC or battery power:
The BCA 952 battery charger/AC
adapter M952-0002 (115V) or M952-0003 (230V) Is required for AC operation; an Internal battery M952-0006 or
12 volt external! battery is required for portable non-AC powered operation.
EQOA-0880-047 "Thermo Electron Model 49 U.V.
Photometric Ambient 0, Analyzer,!
Thermo Environmental
Instruments, Inc.
8 West Forge Parkway
Franklin, MA 02038
operated on a range of either
0-0.5 or 0-1.0 ppm, with or
without any of the following
options:
49-001 Teflon Partlculate Filter
49-002 19 Inch Rack Mountable Configuration
49-100 Internal Ozone Generator For Zero, Precision,
49-103 Internal Ozone Generator For Zero, Precision,
.- .00 ™to ,^ 1 n,,,,noco |ntprfarp Ru0 IFFF-488
And
And
Auto
Equlv.
45 57168 08/27/80
Level 1 Span Checks
Level 1 Span Checks With Remote Activation
-------
February 8, 1993 LIST OF DESIGNATED REFERENCE AND EQUIVALENT METHODS Page 19
DESIGNATION MANUAL REF. OR FED. REGISTER NOTICE
NUMBER IDENTIFICATION SOURCE OR AUTO EQU1V. VOL. PAGE DATE
OZONE (Continued)
EQOA-0881-053 "Monitor Labs Model 8810 Photo- Lear Siegler Measurement Auto Equiv. 46 52224 10/26/81
metric Ozone Analyzer," operated Control Corporation
on a range of either 0-0.5 or 74 Inverness Drive East
0-1.0 ppm, with selectable Englewood, CO 80112-5189
electronic time constant settings
from 20 through 150 seconds, with or without any of the following options:
05 Pressure Compensation
06 Averaging Option
07 Zero/Span Valves
08 Internal Zero/Span (Valve And Ozone Source) ,
09 Status
10 Particulate Filter
15 through 20 DAS/REC Output
EQOA-0382-055 "PCI Ozone Corporation Model PCI Ozone Corporation Auto Equiv. 47 13572 03/31/82
LC-12 Ozone Analyzer," operated One Fairfield Crescent
on a range of 0-0.5 ppm. West Caldwell, NJ 07006
EQOA-0383-056 "Dasibi Model 1008-AM. 1008-PC, Dasibi Environmental Corp. Auto Equiv. 48 10126 03/10/83
or 1008-RS Ozone Analyzer," 515 West Colorado St.
operated on a range of either Glendale, CA 91204-1101
0-0.5 or 0-1.0 ppm, with or
without any of the following options:
Aluminum Coated Absorption Tubes
BCD Digital Output
Glass (Pyrex) Absorption Tubes
Ozone Generator
Photometer Flow Restrictor (2 LPM)
Rack Mounting Brackets or Slides
RS232 Interface
Vycpr-Jacketed U.V. Source Lamp
Teflon-based Solenoid Valve
4-20 mA, Isolated, or Dual Analog Outputs
•"» «• 1 M-J-«_ c^n-u^^m .
-------
February 8, 1993 LIST OF DESIGNATED REFERENCE AND EQUIVALENT METHODS Page 20
DESIGNATION MANUAL REF. OR FED. REGISTER NOTICE
NUMBER IDENTIFICATION SOURCE OR AUTO EMJJL_ VOL. PAGE DATE
OZONE (Continued}
EQOA-0990-078 "Envlronics Series 300 Environics, Inc. Auto Equiv. 55 38386 09/18/90
Computerized Ozone Analyzer," 165 River Road
operated on the 0-0.5 ppm range, West Willington, CT 06279
with the following parameters
entered into the analyzer's computer system:
Absorption Coefficient - 308 ± 4
Flush Time - 3
Integration Factor - 1
Offset Adjustment «= 0.025 ppm
Ozone Average Time - 4
Signal Average - 0
Temp/Press Correction - On
and with or without the RS-232 Serial Data Interface.
EQOA-0992-087 "Advanced Pollution Advanced Pollution Auto Equiv. 57 44565 09/28/92
Instrumentation, Inc. Model 400 Instrumentation, Inc.
Ozone Analyzer," operated on 8815 Production Avenue
any full scale range between San Diego, CA 92121-2219
0-100 ppb* and 0-1000 ppb, at any
temperature in the range of 5°C to 40°C, with the dynamic zero and span adjustment features set to OFF, with
a 5-micron TFE filter element installed in the rear-panel filter assembly, and with or without any of the
following options:
Internal Zero/Span (IZS)
IZS Reference Adjustment
Rack Mount With Slides
RS-232 With Status Outputs
Zero/Span Valves
*NOTE: Users should be aware that designation of this analyzer for operation on ranges less than 0-500 ppb
Is based on meeting the same absolute performance specifications required for the 0-500 ppb range. Thus,
designation of any range lower than 0-500 ppb does not imply commensurably better performance than that
obtained on the 0-500 ppb range.
-------
February 8, 1993 LIST OF DESIGNATED REFERENCE AND EQUIVALENT METHODS Page Zl
a
DESIGNATION MANUAL REF. OR FED. REGISTER NOTICE
NUMBER IDENTIFICATION SOURCE OR AUTO EQU1V. VOL. PAGE DATE
OZONE (Continued)
EQOA-0193-091 "Lear Slegler Measurement Lear Siegler Measurement Auto Equiv. 58 6964 02/03/93
Controls Corporation Model Controls Corporation
ML9810 Ozone Analyzer," operated 74 Inverness Drive East
, on any full scale range between Englewood, CO 80112-5189
0-0.050 ppm* and 0-1.0 ppm,
with auto-ranging enabled or disabled, at any temperature in the range of 15'C to 35°C, with a five-micron
Teflon filter element installed in the filter assembly behind the secondary panel, the service switch on
the secondary panel set to the In position; with the following menu choices selected:
Calibration; Manual or Timed: Diagnostic Mode: Operate; Filter Type: Kalman; Pres/Temp/Flow Comp: On; Span
Comp: Disabled;
with the 50-pin I/O board installed on the rear panel configured at any of the following output range
settings:
Voltage, 0.1 V, 1 V, 5 V, 10 V;
Current, 0-20 mA, 2-20 mA, 4-20 mA;
and with or without any of the following options:
Valve Assembly for External Zero/Span (EZS)
Rack Mount Assembly
Internal Floppy Disk Drive.
*NOTE: Users should be aware that designation of this analyzer for operation on any full scale range less
than 0.5 ppm Is based on meeting the same absolute performance specifications required for the 0-0.5 ppm
range. Thus, designation of any full scale range lower than the 0-0.5 ppm range does not Imply
commensurably better performance than that obtained on the 0-0.5 ppm range.
-------
February 8, 1993 LIST OF DESIGNATED REFERENCE AND EQUIVALENT METHODS Page 22
DESIGNATION MANUAL REF. OR FED. REGISTER NOTICE
NUMBER IDENTIFICATION SOURCE OR AUTO EQUIV. VOL. PAGE DATE
CARBON MONOXIDE
RFCA-0276-008 Bendix or Combustion Engineering Combustion Engineering, Inc. Auto Reference 41 7450 02/18/76
Model 8501-5CA Infrared CO Process Analytics
^- Analyzer, operated on the 0-50 P.O. Box 831
ppm range and with a time con- Lewisburg, HV 24901
stant setting between 5 and 16
seconds, with or without any of the following options:
A Rack Mounting With Chassis Slides
B Rack Mounting Without Chassis Slides
C External Sample Pump
RFCA-0876-012 "Beckman Model 866 Ambient CO Beckman Instruments, Inc. Auto Reference 41 36245 08/27/76
Monitoring System," consisting Process Instruments Division
of the following components: 2500 Harbor Boulevard
Pump/Sample-Handling Module, Fuller-ton, CA 92634
Gas Control Panel, Model 865-17
Analyzer Unit, Automatic Zero/Span Standardize^
operated with a 0-50 ppm range, a 13 second electronic response time, with or without any of the following
options:
Current Output Feature
Bench Mounting Kit
Llnearizer Circuit
RFCA-0177-018 "LIRA Model 202S Air Quality Mine Safety Appliances Co. Auto Reference 42 5748 01/31/77
Carbon Monoxide Analyzer 600 Penn Center Boulevard
System," consisting of a LIRA Pittsburgh, PA 15208
Model 202S optical bench
(P/N 459839), a regenerative dryer (P/N 464084), and rack-mounted sampling system; operated on a 0-50 ppm
range, with the slow response amplifier, with or without any of the following options:
Remote Meter
Remote Zero And Span Controls
0-1, 5, 20, or 50 mA Output
1-5, 4-20, or 10-50 mA Output
0-10 or 100 mV Output
-------
February 8, 1993
DESIGNATION
NUMBER
IDENTIFICATION
LIST OF DESIGNATED REFERENCE AND EQUIVALENT METHODS
MANUAL
SOURCE OR AUTO
Page 23
REF. OR FED. REGISTER NOTICE
EQU1V. VOL. PAGE DATE
RFCA-1278-033
CARBON MONOXIDE (Continued)
Horiba Instruments, Inc.
17671 Armstrong Avenue
Irvine, CA 92714-5727
"Horiba Models AQM-10, AQM-11, Horiba Instruments, Inc. Auto
and AQM-12 Ambient CO Monitoring
Systems," operated on the 0-50
ppm range, with a response time
setting of 15.5 seconds, with or without any of the following options:
a AIC-101 Automatic Indication Corrector
b VIT-3 Non-Isolated Current Output
c ISO-2 and DCS-3 Isolated Current Output
Reference 43 58429 12/14/78
RFCA-0979-041 "Monitor Labs Model 8310 CO
Analyzer," operated on the
0-50 ppm range, with a sample
Inlet filter, with or without
any of the following options:
02A Zero/Span Valves
03A Floor Stand
04A Pump (60 Hz)
Lear Siegler Measurement
Controls Corporation
74 Inverness Drive East
Englewood, CO 80112-5189
048 Pump (50 Hz)
05A CO Regulator
06A CO Cylinder
Auto Reference 44
45
54545 09/20/79
2700 01/14/80
07A Zero/Span Valve Power Supply
08A Calibration Valves
9A,B,C,D Input Power Transformer
RFCA-1180-048 "Horiba Model APMA-300E Ambient
Carbon Monoxide Monitoring
System," operated on the 0-20
ppm*, the 0-50 ppm, or the 0-100
ppm range with a time constant switch setting of No. 5.
temperatures between 10°C and 40°C.
Horiba Instruments, Inc.
17671 Armstrong Avenue
Irvine, CA 92714-5727
Auto
Reference 45 72774 11/03/80
The monitoring system may be operated at
*NOTE: Users should be aware that designation of this analyzer for operation on a range less than 50 ppm
Is based on meeting the same absolute performance specifications required for the 0-50 ppm range. Thus,
designation of this lower range does not imply commensurably better performance than that obtained on the
0-50 ppm range.
(This method was originally designated as
System".)
"Horiba Model APMA 300E/300SE Ambient Carbon Monoxide Monitoring
-------
February 8, 1993
LIST OF DESIGNATED REFERENCE AND EQUIVALENT METHODS
Page 24
DESIGNATION
NUMBER
IDENTIFICATION
SOURCE
MANUAL
OR AUTO
REF. OR
FED. REGISTER NOTICE
YOU PAGE DATE
CARBON MONOXIDE (Continued)
RFCA-1280-050
"MASS-CO, Model
oxide Analyzer,
Commonwealth of Massachusetts Auto
Department of Environmental
Quality Engineering
Tewksberry, MA 01876
Reference 45 81650 12/11/80
1 Carbon Mon-
operated on a
range of 0-50 ppm, with automatic
zero and span adjustments at time
Intervals not to exceed 4 hours,
with or without the 100 millivolt and 5 volt output options. The method consists of the following
components:
(1) Infra-2 (Uras 2) Infrared Analyzer Model 5611-200-35, (2) Automatic Calibrator Model 5869-111,
(3) Electric Gas Cooler Model 7865-222 or equivalent with prehumidifier, (4) Diaphragm Pump Model 5861-214
or equivalent, (5) Membrane Filter Model 5862-111 or equivalent, (6) Flow Meter Model SK 1171-U or
equivalent, (7) Recorder Model Mini Comp ON 1/192 or equivalent
NOTE: This method Is not now commercially available.
RFCA-0381-051 "Daslbl Model 3003 Gas Filter
Correlation CO Analyzer," oper-
ated on the 0-50 ppm range, with
a sample particulate filter in-
stalled on the sample inlet line,
3-001 Rack Mount
3-002 Remote Zero And Span
Dasibi Environmental Corp.
515 West Colorado Street
Glendale, CA 91204-1101
Auto
Reference 46 20773 04/07/81
with or without any of the following options:
3-003 BCD Digital Output 3-007 Zero/Span Module Panel
3-004 4-20 Mi 11 lamp Output
RFCA-0981-054
Thermo Environmental
Instruments, Inc.
8 West Forge Parkway
Franklin, MA 02038
"Thermo Environmental Instruments
Model 48 Gas Filter Correlation
Ambient CO Analyzer," operated
on the 0-50 ppm range, with a
time constant setting of 30
seconds, with or without any of the following options:
48-001 Particulate Filter
48-002 19 Inch Rack Mountable Configuration
48-003 Internal Zero/Span Valves With Remote Activation
48-488 GPIB (General Purpose Interface Bus) IEEE-488
48-010 Internal Zero Air Package
Auto
Reference 46 47002 09/23/81
-------
February 8, 1993 , LIST OF DESIGNATED REFERENCE AND EQUIVALENT METHODS Page 25
DESIGNATION MANUAL REF. OR FED. REGISTER NOTICE
NUMBER IDENTIFICATION SOURCE OR AUTO F.QU1V. VOL. PAGE DATE
CARBON MONOXIDE (Continued)
RFCA-0388-066 "Monitor Labs Model 8830 CO Lear Siegler Measurement Auto Reference 53 7233 03/07/88
Analyzer," operated on the 0-50 Controls Corporation
ppm range, with a 'five micron 74 Inverness Drive East
Teflon filter element installed Englewood, CO 80112-5189
in the rear-panel filter assembly,
with or without any of the following options:
2 Zero/Span Valve Assembly
3 Rack Assembly
4 Slide Assembly
7 230 VAC, 50/60 Hz
RFCA-0488-067 "Daslbl Model 3008 Gas Filter Dasibi Environmental Corp. Auto Reference 53 12073 04/12/88
Correlation CO Analyzer," 515 West Colorado Street
operated on the 0-50 ppm range, Glendale, CA 91204-1101
with a time constant setting of
60 seconds, a particulate filter installed in the analyzer sample inlet line, with or without use of the
auto zero or auto zero/span feature, and with or without any of the following options:
N-0056-A RS-232-C Interface
S-0132-A Rack Mounting Slides
Z-0176-S Rack Mounting Brackets
-------
February 8, 1993
DESIGNATION
NUMBER
IDENTIFICATION
LIST OF DESIGNATED REFERENCE AND EQUIVALENT METHODS
SOURCE
MANUAL
OR AUTO
REF. OR
EQUIV.
Page 26
FED. REGISTER NOTICE
VOL. PAGE DATE
CARBON MONOXIDE (Continued)
RFCA-0992-088
Lear Siegler Measurement
Controls Corporation
74 Inverness Drive East
Englewood, CO 80112-5189
Reference 57 44565 09/28/92
'Lear Siegler Measurement Lear Sieqler Measurement Auto
Controls Corporation Model
ML9830 Carbon Monoxide Analyzer,"
operated on any full scale range
between 0-5.0 ppm* and 0-100 ppm,
with auto-ranging enabled or disabled, at any temperature in the range of 15BC to 35°C, with a five-micron
Teflon filter element installed in the filter assembly behind the secondary panel, the service switch on
the secondary panel set to the In position, with the following menu choices selected:
Background: Not Disabled-, Calibration: Manual or Timed; Diagnostic Mode: Operate; Filter Type: Kalman;
Pres/Temp/Flow Comp: On; Span Comp: Disabled;
with the 50-pin I/O board Installed on the rear panel configured at any of the following output range
settings:
Voltage, 0.1 V, IV, 5 V, 10 V
Current, 0-20 mA, 2-20 mA and 4-20 mA;
and with or without any of the following options:
Valve Assembly For External Zero/Span (EZS)
Rack Mount Assembly
Internal Floppy Disk Drive
*NOTE: Users should be aware that designation of this analyzer for operation on any full scale range less
than 50 ppm Is based on meeting the same absolute performance specifications required for the 0-50 ppm
range. Thus, designation of any full scale range lower than the 0-50 ppm range does not Imply
commensurably better performance than that obtained on the 0-50 ppm range.
-------
February 8, 1993
LIST OF DESIGNATED REFERENCE AND EQUIVALENT METHODS
Page 27
DESIGNATION
NUMBER
IDENTIFICATION
MANUAL REF. OR FED. REGISTER NOTICE
OR AUTO EQU1V. VOL. PAGE DATE
RFNA-0677-021
"Monitor Labs Model 8440E
Nitrogen Oxides Analyzer,"
operated on a 0-0.5 ppm range
(position 2 of range switch)
with a time constant setting of
20 seconds, with or without any
TF Sample Participate Filter
With TFE Filter Element
V Zero/Span Valves
NITROGEN DIOXIDE
Lear Siegler Measurement
Controls Corporation
74 Inverness Drive East
Englewood, CO 80112-5189
of the following options:
DO Status Outputs
R Rack Mount
FM Flowmeters
Auto Reference 42
42
46
018A Ozone Dry Air
018B Ozone Dry Air -
37434 07/21/77
46575 09/16/77
29986 06/04/81
No Drierite
RFNA-0777-022 Bendix or Combustion Engineering
Model 8101-C Oxides of Nitrogen
Analyzer, operated on a 0-0.5 ppm
range with a Teflon sample filter
(Bendix P/N 007163) installed on
the sample inlet line.
Combustion Engineering, Inc. Auto
Process Analytics
P.O. Box 831
Lewisburg, WV 24901
Reference 42 37435 07/21/77
Columbia Scientific
Industries
11950 Jollyville Road
Austin, TX 78759
Reference 42 46574 09/16/77
RFNA-0977-025 "CSI Model 1600 Oxides of Columbia Scientific Auto
Nitrogen Analyzer," operated
on a 0-0.5 ppm range with a
Teflon sample filter (CSI
P/N M951-8023) Installed on
the sample Inlet line, with or without any of the following options:
951-0103 Rack Ears 951-0112 Remote Zero/Span Sample 951-8074 Copper Converter Assembly
951-0104 Rack Mounting Kit Control (Horizontal)
(Ears & Slides) 951-0114 Recorder Output, 5 V 951-8079 Copper Converter Assembly
951-0106 Current Output, 4-20 mA 951-0115 External Pump
(Non-Insulated) (115 V, 60 Hz)
951-0108 Diagnostic Output Option 951-8072 Molybdenum Converter
951-0111 Recorder Output, 10 V Assembly (Horizontal)
(Vertical)
951-8085 Molybdenum Converter Assembly
(Vertical)
NOTE: The vertical molybdenum converter assembly is standard on all new analyzers as of 1-1-87; however, us*
M™ iho ahnvp nntlnns reflect new CSI part n<""bers
-- «_ _..n —
-------
February 8, 1993
LIST OF DESIGNATED REFERENCE AND EQUIVALENT METHODS
Page 28
DESIGNATION
NUMBER
IDENTIFICATION
SOURCE
MANUAL REF. OR FED. REGISTER NOTICE
OR AUTO EQU1V. VOL. PAGE DATE
EQN-1277-026
"Sodium Arsenlte Method for
the Determination of Nitrogen
Dioxide In the Atmosphere"
NITROGEN DIOXIDE (Continued)
Atmospheric Research and Manual
Exposure Assessment Laboratory
Department E (MD-77)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
Equlv.
42 62971 12/14/77
EQN-1277-027
"Sodium Arsenlte Method for
the Determination of Nitrogen
Dioxide in the Atmosphere—
Technfcon II Automated
Analysis System"
Atmospheric Research and Manual
Exposure Assessment Laboratory
Department E (MD-77)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
Equlv.
42 62971 12/14/77
EQN-1277-028
"TGS-ANSA Method for the
Determination of Nitrogen
Dioxide In the Atmosphere'
Atmospheric Research and Manual
Exposure Assessment Laboratory
Department E (MD-77)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
Equlv.
42 62971 12/14/77
-------
February 8, 1993
LIST OF DESIGNATED REFERENCE AND EQUIVALENT METHODS
Page 29
DESIGNATION
NUMBER
IDENTIFICATION
SOURCE
MANUAL REF. OR FED. REGISTER NOTICE
OR AUTO EQU1V. VOL. PAGE DATE
RFNA-1078-031 "Meloy Model NA530R Nitrogen
Oxides Analyzer," operated on
the following ranges and time
constant switch positions:
NITROGEN DIOXIDE (Continued)
Columbia Scientific
Industries
11950 Jollyville Road
Austin, TX 78759
Auto Reference 43
44
50733 10/31/78
8327 02/09/79
Range, pom Time Constant Setting
0-0.1*
0-0.25*
0-0.5
0-1.0
4
3 or 4
2, 3, or 4
2, 3, or 4
Operation of the analyzer requires an external vacuum pump, either Meloy Option N-10 or an equivalent pump
capable of maintaining a vacuum of 200 torr (22 inches mercury vacuum) or better at the pump connection at
the specified sample and ozone-air flow rates of 1200 and 200 cm'/min, respectively. The analyzer may be
operated at temperatures between 10°C and 40°C and at line voltages between 105 and 130 volts, with or
without any of the following options:
N-1A Automatic Zero And Span
N-2 Vacuum Gauge
N-4 Digital Panel Meter
N-6 Remote Control For Zero
And Span
N-6B Remote Zero/Span Control
And Status (Pulse)
N-6C Remote Zero/Span Control
And Status (Timer)
N-9 Manual Zero/Span
N-10 Vacuum Pump Assembly (See
Alternate Requirement Above)
N-ll Auto Ranging
N-14B Line Transmitter
N-18 Rack Mount Conversion
N-18A Rack Mount Conversion
*NOTE: Users should be aware that designation of this analyzer for operation on ranges less than 0.5 ppm
1s based on meeting the same absolute performance specifications required for the 0-0.5 ppm range. Thus,
designation of these lower ranges does not imply commensurably better performance than that obtained on
the 0-0.5 ppm range.
-------
February 8, 1993
DESIGNATION
NUMBER
IDENTIFICATION
LIST OF DESIGNATED REFERENCE AND EQUIVALENT METHODS
SOURCE
MANUAL
OR AUTO
Page 30
REF. OR FED. REGISTER NOTICE
EQU1V. VOL. PAGE DATE
RFNA-0179-034
NITROGEN DIOXIDE (Continued)
"Beckman Model 952-A
NO/NOj/NO. Analyzer," operated
on the 0-0.5 ppm range with the
5-micron Teflon sample filter
(Beckman P/N 861072 supplied with
the analyzer) installed on the sample
inlet line, with or without the Remote
Operation Option (Beckman Cat. No. 635539).
Beckman Instruments, Inc.
Process Instruments Division
2500 Harbor Boulevard
Fullerton, CA 92634
Auto
Reference 44 7806 02/07/79
RFNA-0179-035 "Thermo Electron Model 14 B/E
Chemiluminescent N0/N02/N0.
Analyzer," operated on the
0-0.5 ppm range, with or without
any of the following options:
14-001 Teflon Participate Filter
14-002 Voltage Divider Card
14-003 Long-time Signal Integrator
14-004 Indicating Temperature Controller
14-005 Sample Flowmeter
14-006 Air Filter
Thermo Environmental
Instruments, Inc.
8 West Forge Parkway
Franklin, MA 02038
Auto Reference 44
44
7805 02/07/79
54545 09/20/79
RFNA-0279-037 "Thermo Electron Model 14 D/E
Chemi1umi nescent N0/N02/N0.
Analyzer," operated on the
0-0.5 ppm range, with or without
any of the following options:
14-001 Teflon Particulate Filter
14-002 Voltage Divider Card
Thermo Environmental
Instruments, Inc.
8 West Forge Parkway
Franklin, MA 02038
Auto
Reference 44 10429 02/20/79
-------
February 8, 1993
LIST OF DESIGNATED REFERENCE AND EQUIVALENT METHODS
Page 31
DESIGNATION
NUMBER
IDENTIFICATION
SOURCE
MANUAL REF. OR FED. REGISTER NOTICE
OR AUTO EQU1V. VOL. PAGE DATE
NITROGEN DIOXIDE (Continued)
RFNA-0479-03S "Bendlx Model 8101-B Oxides of
Nitrogen Analyzer," operated on
Combustion Engineering, Inc.
Process Analytics
P.O. Box 831
Lewisburg, WV 24901
Auto
Reference 44 26792 05/07/79
a 0-0.5 ppm range with a Teflon
sample filter Installed on the
sample Inlet line and with the
following post-manufacture modifications:
1. Ozone generator and reaction chamber input-output tubing modification per Bendlx Service Bulletin
8101B-2; 2. The approved converter material; 3. The revised and EPA-approved operation and service
manual. These Items are mandatory and must be obtained from Combustion Engineering, Inc.
The analyzer may be operated with or without any of the following optional modifications:
a. Perma Pure dryer/ambient air modification;
b. Valve cycle time modification;
c. Zero potentiometer centering modification
per Bendlx Service Bulletin 8101B-1;
d. Reaction chamber vacuum gauge modification.
RFNA-0879-040
"Philips Model PW9762/02
N0/N0,/N0. Analyzer," consisting
of the following components:
PW9762/02 Basic Analyzer
PH9729/00 Converter Cartridge
PW9731/00 Sampler or PH9731/20 Dust Filter;
operated on a range of 0-0.5 ppm, with or
without any of the following accessories:
PW9752/00 Air Sampler Manifold
PW9732/00 Sample Line Heater
PW9011/00 Remote Control Set
Philips Electronic
Instruments, Inc.
85 McKee Drive
Mahwah, NJ 07430
Auto
Reference 44 51683 09/04/79
-------
February 8, 1993
DESIGNATION
NUMBER
IDENTIFICATION
LIST OF DESIGNATED REFERENCE AND EQUIVALENT METHODS
MANUAL
SOURCE OR AUTO
Page 32
REF. OR FED, REGISTER NOTICE
EQUIV. VOL. PAGE DATE
RFNA-0280-042 "Monitor Labs Model 8840
Nitrogen Oxides Analyzer,"
operated on a range of either
0-0.5 or 0-1.0 ppm, with an
internal time constant setting
of 60 seconds, a TEE sample filter
options:
02 Flowmeter
03A Rack Ears
03B Slides
05A Zero/Span Valves
05B Valve/Relay
06 Status
07A Input Power Transformer
100 VAC, 50/60 Hz
07B Input Power Transformer
220/240 VAC, 50 Hz
NITROGEN DIOXIDE (Continued)
Lear Siegler Measurement
Controls Corporation
74 Inverness Drive East
Englewood, CO 80112-5189
Auto Reference 45
46
9100 02/11/80
29986 06/04/81
installed on the sample inlet line, with or without any of the following
08A Pump Pac Assembly With 09A
(115 VAC)
088 Pump Pac Assembly With 098
(100 VAC)
08C Pump Pac Assembly With 09C
(220/240 VAC)
08D Rack Mount Panel Assembly
09A Pump 115 VAC 50/60 Hz
09B Pump 100 VAC 50/60 Hz
09C Pump 220/240 VAC 50 Hz
OilA Recorder Output I Volt
01 IB Recorder Output 100 mV
011C Recorder Output 10 mV
012A DAS Output 1 Volt
012B DAS Output 100 mV
012C DAS Output 10 mV
013A bzone Dry Air
013B Ozone Dry Air - No Drierite
RFNA-1289-074 "Thermo Environmental Instruments
Inc. Model 42 N0/N02/N0. Analyzer,1
Thermo Environmental
Instruments, Inc.
8 West Forge Parkway
Franklin, MA 02038
Auto
Reference 54 50820 12/11/89
operated on the 0-0.05 ppm*, the
0-0.1 ppm*, the 0-0.2 ppm*, the
0-0.5 ppm, or the 0-1.0 ppm range,
with any time average setting from 10 to 300 seconds. The analyzer may be operated at temperatures between
15°C and 35°C and at line voltages between 105 and 125 volts, with or without any of the following options:
42-002 Rack Mounts 42-004 Sample/Ozone Flowmeters 42-007 Ozone Particulate Filter
42-003 Internal Zero/Span And 42-005 4-20 mA Current Output 42-008 RS-232 Interface
Sample Valves With Remote 42-006 Pressure Transducer 42-009 Permeation Dryer
Activation
*NOTE: Users should be aware that designation of this analyzer for operation on ranges less than 0.5 ppm
is based on meeting the same absolute performance specifications required for the 0-0.5 ppm range. Thus,
designation of these lower ranges does not imply commensurably better performance than that obtained on
the 0-0.5 ppm range.
-------
February 8, 1993 LIST OF DESIGNATED REFERENCE AND EQUIVALENT METHODS Page 33
DESIGNATION MANUAL REF. OR FED. REGISTER NOTICE
NUMBER IDENTIFICATION SOURCE OR AUTO EQUIV. VOL. PAGE DATE
NITROGEN DIOXIDE (Continued)
RFNA-0691-082 "Advanced Pollution Advanced Pollution Auto Reference 56 27014 06/12/91
Instrumentation, Inc. Model 200 Instrumentation, Inc
Nitrogen Oxides Analyzer," 8815 Production Avenue
operated on a range of either San Diego, CA 92121-2219
0-0.5 or 0-1.0 ppm, with a 5-mlcron
TFE filter element Installed In the rear-panel filter assembly, with either a user- or vendor-supplied
vacuum pump capable of providing 5 inches mercury absolute pressure at 5 slpm, with either a user- or
vendor-supplied dry air source capable of providing air at a dew point of 0°C or lower, with the
following settings of the adjustable setup variables:
Adaptive Filter - ON
Dwell Time • 7 seconds
Dynamic Span • OFF
Dynamic Zero • OFF
PUT Temperature Set Point - 15°C
Rate of Change(ROC) Threshold - 10%
Reaction Cell Temperature - 50°C
Sample Time • 8 seconds
Normal Filter Size - 12 samples;
and with or without any of the following options:
180 Stainless Steel Valves 283 Internal Zero/Span With Valves (IZS) 356 Level One Spares Kit
184 Pump Pack 325 RS-232/Status Output 357 Level Two Spares Kit
280 Rack Mount With Slides 355 Expendables PE5 Permeation Tube for IZS
RFNA-0991-083 "Monitor Labs Model 8841 Lear Siegler Measurement Auto Reference 56 47473 09/19/91
Nitrogen Oxides Analyzer," Controls Corporation
operated on the 0-0.05 ppm*, 74 Inverness Drive East
0-0.1 ppm*, 0-0.2 ppm*, Englewood, CO 80112-5189
0-0.5 ppm, or 0-1.0 ppm range,
with manufacturer-supplied vacuum pump or alternative user-supplied vacuum pump capable of providing 200
torr or better absolute vacuum while operating with the analyzer.
*NOTE: Users should be aware that designation of this analyzer for operation on ranges less than 0.5 ppm
is based on meeting the same absolute performance specifications required for the 0-0.5 ppm range. Thus,
designation of these lower ranges does not imply commensurably better performance than that obtained on
the 0-0.5 ppm range.
-------
February 8, 1993 LIST OF DESIGNATED REFERENCE AND EQUIVALENT METHODS Page 34
DESIGNATION MANUAL REF. OR FED. REGISTER NOTICE
NUMBER IDENTIFICATION SOURCE OR AUTO EPJU\L_ VOL. PAGE DATE
NITROGEN DIOXIDE (Continued)
RFNA-1192-089 "Daslbl Model 2108 Oxides of Daslbi Environmental Corp. Auto Reference 57 55530 11/25/92
Nitrogen Analyzer," operated 515 West Colorado Street
on the 0-500 ppb range, with Glendale, CA 91204-1101
software revision 3.6 Installed
In the analyzer, with the Auto thumbwheel switch and the Diag thumbwheel switch settings at 0, with the
following internal CPU dipswitch settings:
switch position function
1 open (down) Recorder outputs are NO & NO,
5 open (down) 3 minute time constant
6 closed (up) 3 minute time constant;
with a 5-mlcron Teflon filter element installed in the filter holder, and with or without any of the
following options:
Built-in Permeation Oven Rack Mounting Three-Channel Recorder Output
RS-232 Interface 4-20 mA Output
RFNA-1292-090 "Lear Slegler Measurement Lear Siegler Measurement Auto Reference 57 60198 12/18/92
Controls Corporation Model Controls Corporation
ML9841 Nitrogen Oxides Analyzer," 74 Inverness Drive East
operated on any full scale range Englewood, CO 80112-5189
between 0-0.050 ppm* and 0-1.0 ppm,
with auto-ranging enabled or disabled, at any temperature In the range of 15°C to 35°C, with a five-micron
Teflon filter element Installed in the filter assembly behind the secondary panel, the service switch on
the secondary panel set to the In position; with the following menu choices selected:
Calibration: Manual or Timed; Diagnostic Mode: Operate; Filter Type: KaJnan; Pres/Temp/Flow Comp: On;
Span Comp: Disabled;
with the 50-pin I/O board Installed on the rear panel configured at any of the following output range
settings:
Voltage, 0.1 V, 1 V, 5 V, 10 V; Current, 0-20 mA, 2-20 mA, 4-20 mA;
and with or without any of the following options:
Internal Floppy Disk Drive Rack Mount Assembly Valve Assembly for External Zero/Span (EZS)
*NOTE: Users should be aware that, designation of this analyzer for operation on any full scale range less
than 0.5 ppm is based on meeting the same absolute performance specifications required for the 0-0.5 ppm
~..~,,~ Tk.,,. j~^Jr.--.f
-------
February 8, 1993
DESIGNATION
NUMBER
IDENTIFICATION
LIST OF DESIGNATED REFERENCE AND EQUIVALENT METHODS
MANUAL
SOURCE OR AUTO
Page 35
REF. OR FED. REGISTER NOTICE
EQUIV. VOL. PAGE DATE
******
Reference Method for the Deter-
mination of Lead In Suspended
Participate Matter Collected
from Ambient Air
LEAD
40 CFR Part
Appendix G
50,
Manual Reference 43 46258 10/05/78
EQL-0380-043
"Determination of Lead Concen-
tration In Ambient Particulate
Matter by Flame Atomic Absorp-
tion Spectrometry Following
Ultrasonic Extraction with Heated
HNO,-HCr
Atmospheric Research and Manual
Exposure Assessment Laboratory
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
Equiv. 45 14648 03/06/80
EQL-0380-044
"Determination of Lead Concen-
tration In Ambient Particulate
Matter by Flameless Atomic
Absorption Spectrometry (EPA/
RTP.N.C.)"
Atmospheric Research and Manual
Exposure Assessment Laboratory
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
Equiv. 45 14648 03/06/80
EQL-0380-045
"Determination of Lead Concen-
tration In Ambient Particulate
Matter by Inductively Coupled
Argon Plasma Optical Emission
Spectrometry (EPA/RTP.N.C.)"
Atmospheric Research and Manual
Exposure Assessment Laboratory
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
Equiv. 45 14648 03/06/80
EQL-0581-052
"Determination of Lead Concen-
tration In Ambient Particulate
Matter by Wavelength Dispersive
X-Ray Fluorescence Spectrometry'
California Department of
Health Services
Air & Industrial Hygiene
Laboratory
2151 Berkeley Way
Berkeley, CA 94704
Manual
Equiv. 46 29986 06/04/81
-------
February 8, 1993
LIST OF DESIGNATED REFERENCE AND EQUIVALENT METHODS
Page 36
DESIGNATION
NUMBER
IDENTIFICATION
MANUAL REF. OR FED. REGISTER NOTICE
OR AUTO EQU1V. VOL. PAGE DATE
EQL-04B3-057
"Determination of Lead Concen-
tration In Ambient Particulate
Hatter by Inductively Coupled
Argon Plasma Optical Emission
Spectrometry (State of Montana)1
LEAD (Continued)
State of Montana
Department of Health and
Environmental Sciences
Cogswell Building
Helena, MT 59620
Manual
Equlv.
48 14748 04/05/83
EQL-0783-058
"Determination of Lead Concen-
tration In Ambient Particulate
Matter by Energy-Dispersive
X-Ray Fluorescence Spectrometry
(Texas Air Control Board)"
Texas Air Control Board
6330 Highway 290 East
Austin, TX 78723
Manual
Equlv.
48 29742 06/28/83
EQL-0785-059
"Determination of Lead Concen-
tration In Ambient Particulate
Matter by Flameless Atomic
Absorption Spectrometry (Omaha-
Douglas County Health Department)1
Omaha-Douglas County
Health Department
1819 Farnam Street
Omaha, NE 68183
Manual
Equlv.
50 37909 09/18/85
EQL-0888-068
"Determination of Lead Concen-
tration In Ambient Particulate
Matter by Inductively Coupled
Argon Plasma Optical Emission
Spectrometry (State of Rhode
Island)"
State of Rhode Island
Department of Health
Air Pollution Laboratory
50 Orms Street
Providence, RI 02904
Manual
Equlv.
53 30866 08/16/88
EQL-1188-069
"Determination of Lead Concen-
tration In Ambient Particulate
Matter by Inductively Coupled
Argon Plasma Optical Emission
Spectrometry (Northern Engineer-
Ing and Testing, Inc.)"
Northern Engineering
and Testing, Inc.
P.O. Box 30615
Billings, MT 59107
Manual
Equlv.
53 44947 11/07/88
-------
February 8, 1993
DESIGNATION
NUMBER
IDENTIFICATION
LIST OF DESIGNATED REFERENCE AND EQUIVALENT METHODS
MANUAL
SOURCE OR AUTO
REF. OR
EQUIV.
Page 37
FED. REGISTER NOTICE
VOL. PAGE DATE
EQL-1288-070
"Determination of Lead Concen-
tration in Ambient Participate
Matter by Inductively Coupled
Argon Plasma Optical Emission
Spectrometry (Silver Valley
Laboratories)"
LEAD (Continued)
Silver Valley Laboratories,
Inc.
P.O. Box 929
Kellogg, ID 83837
Manual
Equiv.
53 48974 12/05/88
EQL-0589-072
"Determination of Lead Concen-
tration In Ambient Partlculate
Matter by Energy Dispersive
X-Ray Fluorescence Spectrometry
(NEA, Inc.)"
Nuclear Environmental Manual
Analysis, Inc.
10950 SW 5th Street, Suite 260
Beaverton, OR 97005
Equiv.
54 20193 05/10/89
EQL-1290-080
"Determination of Lead Concen-
tration In Ambient Particulate
Matter by Inductively Coupled
Argon Plasma Optical Emission
Spectrometry (State of New
Hampshire)"
State of New Hampshire
Department of Environmental
Services
Laboratory Service Unit
6 Hazen Drive (P.O. Box 95)
Concord, NH 03302-0095
Manual
Equiv.
55 49119 11/26/90
EQL-0592-085
"Determination of Lead Concen-
tration in Ambient Partlculate
Matter by Inductively Coupled
Argon Plasma Optical Emission
Spectrometry (State of Kansas)'
State of Kansas
Department of Health and
Environment
Forbes Field, Building 740
Topeka, KS 66620-0001
Manual
Equiv.
57 20823 05/15/92
EQL-0592-086
"Determination of Lead Concen-
tration In Ambient Partlculate
Matter by Inductively Coupled
Argon Plasma Optical Emission
Spectrometry (Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania)"
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
Department of Environmental
Resources
P.O. Box 2357
Harrisburg, PA 17105-2357
Manual
Equiv.
57 20823 05/15/92
-------
METHOD CODES
Method
February 8>
SO. AmahTgi
Adv«nc«i PoUnoo iottr. 100
Aauco500
Beckau953
prprfJT (3Q3
DMibi4108
Enviroooeima* S.A. AF21M
Lev Sief ler AM2020
Lev Siefkr SMI 000
Lor Siejier ML9850
Meloy SA1S5-2A
Meioy SA285E
Meloy SA700
Monitor Ubi 8450
Monitor Libs 8850
Monitor Labi S850S
Philipi PW9700
Philipi PW9755
Thermo Electron 43
Thermo Electron 43 A
Advutced PoUution \a*u. 400
BectmtD 950A
Beodu 8002
CS12000
DMibi 10Q3-AH.-PC.-RS
Duibi 1008-AH
Eovironici 300
Leer Siegler ML9810
MeMiUu 1100-1
McMillM 1100-2
McMillu 1100-3
Meloy OA325-2R
Meloy OA350-2R
Monitor Libi 84 10E
Monitor Ubi 88 10
PCI Ozone Corp. LC-I2
Philipi PW9771
Tbcmo Ekctreo 49
,BeodU«501-5CA
Duibi 3003
DMibi 3008
Horib«AQM-10, -11.-12
Horib* 300E/300SE
Lev SMffer ML 9830
MASS - CO 1
Monitor Ubi 83 10
Monitor Ubi 8S30
MSA202S
Thermo Electron 48
—
EQS-0775-001
EQS-0775-002
EQSA-0990-OT7
EQSA-0877-024
EQSA4678-029
EQSA-107MX30
EQSA-1086-061
EQSA-0292-OM
EQSA-1280-049
EQSA-1275-005
EQSA4193-092
EQSA-1275-006
EQSA- 1078-032
EQSA-0580-046
EQSA-O876-013
EQSA-0779-039
EQSA-0390-075
EQSA-0876-01 1
EQSA-0676-010
EQSA-0276-009
EQSA-0486-060
EQOA-0992-087
RFOA-0577-020
RFOA-0176-007
RFOA^)279-036
EQOA^)577X)19
EQOA4U&3-056
EQOA-0990-078
EQOA-0193491
RFOA-1 076-014
RFOA-1076-015
RFOA-1076-016
RFOA-1 075-003
RFOA-1075-004
RFOA-1 176XJI 7
EQOA-08S 1-053
EQOA-0382-OSS
EQOA-0777X>23
EQOA-OttO-047
RFCA-0876-012
RFCA-0276-008
RFCA-0381-051
RFCA-04U-067
RFCA-1278-Q33
RFCA-1180-Ott
RFCA-0992-088
RFCA-12»0-050
RFCA-0979-04I
RFCA-0388-066
RFCA-OI77-018
RFCA-0981-054
097
097
097
OT7
024
029
030
061
0(4
049
005
092
006
032
046
513
039
075
511
010
009
060
087
020
007
036
019
056
078
091
514
515
016
003
004
017
053
055
023
047
012
008
051
067
033
048
088
050
041
066
018
054
Sodium afmiiif (orifice)
OM^»H^ AfMOdA^rACiUicO
TOS-ANSA (ori6c4)
AovuMd PoUution intt. 200
BKkmwi 952A
Beodii 8101-B
BMdix8101-C
D«ibi 2108
CSI1600
LMT Sicfier ML9841
M«ioyNAJ30R
Monitor Ubi 8440E
Monitor Ubi 8840
Monitor Ubt 8841
Phiiipf PW9762/02
Thermo Electron 14B/E
Thermo Electron I4D/E
Thermo Environmenul Inf.. 42
Ref. method (hi-vol/AA ipecl.)
Hi-vol/AA »p«ct. (ah. ear.)
Hi-vol/Eaem-dupXRF (TX ACB)
Hi-vol/Enerry-du«p XRF (NEA)
HJ-vot/FtamekM AA (EMSL/EPA)
Hi-vol/FUmelMi AA (Omiht)
Hi-vol/ICAP incct. (EMSL/EPA)
Hi-voinCAP tptci. (Kaiuu)
Hi-vol/ICAP qwct. (Manual)
Hi-voi/ICAP tpeci. (NEAT)
Hi-vol/ICAP ipect. (N. Himpihr)
Hi-vol/ICAP ipcct. (Penniylvi)
Hi-vol/ICAP tpcct. (Rhode li.)
Hi-vol/ICAP tp«et. (S.V. Ubi)
Hi-vol/WL-dup. XRF (CA A&THL)
Oregon DEQ Mod. vol. nmpler
Swm-Aadenen/GMW 1200
Siem-Aaoenen/CMW 321-B
Siem-Aadenen/GMW 321-C
Siem-Aadern/GMW241 Oicaot
Weddiaf A A»oc. hi«B vobune
Aadcnea law. B«tt FH62I-N
R A PTEOM 1400, 1400.
Wedciiac A AMOC. Btti G«i(c
TUricn.rf.tfM
NUfUnff*
EQN-1277-026
EQN-1277-027
EQN-1277.02S
RFNA-0691-082
RFNA-OI79-034
RFNA-0479-03S
RFNA-0777.022
RFNA-1 192-089
RFNA-0977-025
RFNA-1292-090
RFNA-107&-031
RFNA-0677-021
RFNA-0280-042
RFNA-0991-083
RFNA-0879-040
RFNA-0179-035
RFNA-0279-037
RFNA-1289-074
EQL-0380-043
EQL-0783-058
EQL-0589-072
EQL-0380-044
EQL-078S-OS9
EQL-03 80-045
EQL-0592-085
EQL-0483-057
EQU 11 88-069
EQL- 1290-080
EQL-0592-086
EQL-0888-068
EQL-1288-070
EQL-0581-052
RFPS-0389-071
RFPS-1287-063
RFPS-1287-064
RFPS-1287-065
RFPS-0789-073
RFTS-1087-062
EQPM-0990XH6
EQPM-1090-079
EQPM-0391-Otl
Motkod
Cock
084
084
098
OE2
094
038
022
089
025
090
031
021
042
083
040
035
037
074
803
043
058
072
044
059
045
085
037
069
080
086
068
070
052
071
063
064
065
073
062
076
079
OS1
802
\
-------
APPROVED METHODS AS OF FEBRUARY 8, 1992
00)
Atft.io.ii.ngai
1^01000)
MA-MOB
OO. JO. 100)
7.MAMCOI 00)
I. IMMJOB00)
*
10.
It. TU C (.05. .1. A -i. IA
12. AW JOD(J. IJI)
». Hi •» U*. M41 (JJS. .1.
J, 1.0)
14
13. Uv hvtar ML «M1 (.(8.1.0)
lQOk.AH.KJU (J.1.
1. Mriov OA3SO-a (J)
3. TIB 49 (J. 1.0)
4. MMOT Uta U10 (J. 1 .0)
t. DM*. iao».AK.rcjts (j.i .0)
iMOU)
I. AFD400(.l.J.1.0)
l.HV
I. HV
OVA)
}. HV/1CAP (ETA)
4. HWWDXXF
(AOO.CA)
J.
t KV/SBX*F(TX)
7. HV,
Co.)
I
f. HWICAP (Hen
to. HY/ICAP (svi.)
II.HV/BDXKF(NEA)
12. HV/ICAP (TOO
U.HV/)CAr(KS)
14 HV/lCAf (FA)
3.SA/CMWJ2I-I
4. U/OMW 32IIO
«. kA/OMWMt 4VM1M
1000 (J)
MM* SAItt-lA M.
TB 41 (J, 1.0)
(J)
. 1J)
AAAkCO 100 (J), tOO (1.0)
. 1.0)
00 (J, 1.0)
10. Ifator SAO5B (.OS.
.. 1JO>
«. M^T «AXO (JS. J.
u.
14 TB 43A (.1. i J, 1.0)
IS.D«*i4l«(.l, A J, 1.0)
I*. M^v Uk. t*it* (J. 1.0)
17. AH 100 (J)
II. BariNMmlS.A. ARIM (J)
If. LM I^tar ML »«JO (.OS-1 .0)
• COMA «r 0.1001
-------
\
OEPT E MD-77
UNITED STATES
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
ICSEAICM TIUNGLE PAIK. WITH CAJOUiA 27711
OFFICIAL BUSINESS
PENALTY FOft PfltVATE USE 1300
-------
Appendix E
-------
EPA-600/2-76-089b
May 1976
TECHNICAL MANUAL
FOR THE MEASUREMENT OF FUGITIVE EMISSIONS:
ROOF MONITOR SAMPLING METHOD
FOR INDUSTRIAL FUGITIVE EMISSIONS -
PROPERTY CF
EPA LIBRARY
RTF, NC
« by
R.E, Kens on and P. T. Bartlett
TRC--The Research Corporation of New England
125 Silas Deane Highway
Weathersfield, Connecticut 06109
Contract No. 68-02-2110
ROAPNo. 21AUY-095
Program Element No. 1AB015
EPA Project Officer: Robert M. Statnick
Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory
Office of Energy, Minerals, and Industry
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
Prepared for
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Research and Development
Washington, DC 20460
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION
1.0
2.0
2.1
2.2
2.3
3.0
2.1.1
2.1.2
2.1.3
>
2.2.1
2.2.2
3
2.3.1
2.3.2
3.1
3.2
3.1.1
3.1.2
>
3.2.1
3.2.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
3.4.1
3.4.2
3.4.3
3.4.4
3.5.1
3.5.2
3.5.3
3.5.4
3.6
3.6.1
3.6.2
3.6.3
3.7
4.0
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
APPENDIX
A
OBJECTIVE
INTRODUCTION
Categories of Fugitive Emissions
Quasi-stack Sampling Method . .
Upwind-Downwind Sampling Method
Roof Monitor Sampling Method .
Selection of Sampling Method . .
Selection Criteria
Criteria Application
Sampling Strategies
Survey Measurement Systems . .
Detailed Measurement Systems
TEST STRATEGIES
Pretest Survey
Information to be Obtained
Report Organization
Test Plan
Purpose of a Test Plan
Test Plan Organization
Roof Monitor Sampling Strategies . . .
Survey Roof Monitor Sampling Strategy .
Sampling Equipment
Sampling Systems Design
Sampling Techniques
Data Reduction
Detailed Roof Monitor Sampling Strategy
Sampling Equipment
Sampling System Design
Sampling Techniques
Data Reduction/Data Analysis ....
Tracer Tests
Tracers and Samplers
Tracer Sampling System Design ....
Tracer Sampling and Data Analysis . .
Quality Assurance
ESTIMATED COSTS AND TIME REQUIREMENTS
Manpower
Other Direct Costs
Elapsed-Time Requirements
Cost Effectiveness
PAGE
2
2
2
3
3
4
4
6
9
9
10
11
11
11
12
12
12
14
16
16
17
18
21
27
27
29
30
31
32
32
33
34
34
35
38
38
38
42
42
APPLICATION OF THE ROOF MONITORING SAMPLING METHOD
TO AN ELECTRICAL ARC FURNACE INSTALLATION
iii
-------
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE
2-1
3-1
3-2
3-3
3-4
4-1
4-2
4-3
Typical Industrial Fugitive Emissions Sources
Measured by the Roof Monitor Sampling Method
Pre-Test Survey Information to be Obtained for
Application of Fugitive Emission Sampling Methods
Matrix of Possible Combinations of Key Test
Parameters
Elements of Conceptual Systems for a Roof Monitor
Sampling Program as Applied to Specific Types of
Fugitive Emission Sources
Range of Applicability of Common Velocity Measure-
ment Devices for Roof Monitor Sampling
Conditions Assumed for Estimating Costs and Time
Requirements for Roof Monitor Fugitive Emissions
Sampling Programs
Estimated Manpower Requirements for Roof Monitor
Fugitive Emissions Sampling Programs
Estimated Costs Other Than Manpower for Roof . .
Monitor Fugitive Emissions Sampling Programs
PAGE
5
13
22
23
26
39
40
41
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE
3-1
3-2
4-1
4-2
Electric Arc Furnace Operation; Roof Monitor
Showing Sampling/Mounting Configuration
Roof Ventilator Sampling Configuration
Elapsed-Time Estimates for Roof Monitor Fugitive
Emissions Sampling Programs
Cost-Effectiveness of Roof Monitor Fugitive
Emissions Sampling Programs
PAGE
19
20
43
44
iv
-------
1.0 OBJECTIVE
The objective of this technical manual is to present a guide for
the utilization of the Roof Monitor Sampling Method in the measurement
of fugitive emissions. Criteria for the selection of the most applicable
measurement method and discussions of general information gathering and
planning activities are presented. Roof Monitor sampling strategies and
equipment are described and sampling system design, sampling techniques,
and data reduction are discussed.
Manpower requirements and time estimates for typical applications
of the method are presented for programs designed for overall and speci-
fic emissions measurements.
The application of the outlined procedures to the measurement of
fugitive emissions from an electric arc furnace steel making plant is
presented as an appendix.
-1-
-------
2.0 INTRODUCTION
Pollutants emitted into the ambient air from an industrial plant
or other site generally fall into one of two types. The first type is
released into the air through stacks or similar devices designed to
direct and control the flow of the emissions. These emissions may be
readily measured by universally-recognized standard stack sampling tech-
niques. The second type is released into the air without control of
flow or direction. These fugitive emissions usually cannot be measured
using existing standard techniques.
The development of reliable, generally applicable measurement pro-
cedures is a necessary prerequisite to the development of strategies for
the control of fugitive emissions. This document describes some pro-
cedures for the measurement of fugitive emissions using the roof monitor
measurement method described in Section 2.1.3 below.
2.1 Categories of Fugitive Emissions
Fugitive emissions emanate from such a wide variety of circumstances
that it is not particularly meaningful to attempt to categorize them
either in terms of the processes or mechanisms that generate them or the
geometry of the emission points. A more useful approach is to categorize
fugitive emissions in terms of the methods for their measurement. Three
basic methods exist—quasi-stack sampling, roof monitor sampling, and
upwind-downwind sampling. Each is described in general terms below.
2.1.1 Quasi-stack Sampling Method
In this method, the fugitive emissions are captured in a temporarily
installed hood or enclosure and vented to an exhaust duct or stack of
-2-
-------
regular cross-sectional area. Emissions are then measured in the ex-
haust duct using standard stack sampling or similar well recognized
methods. This approach is necessarily restricted to those sources of
emissions that are isolable and physically arranged so as to permit
the installation of a temporary hood or enclosure that will not inter-
fere with plant operations or alter the character of the process or
the emissions.
2.1.2 Upwind-Downwind Sampling Method
This method is utilized to measure the fugitive emissions from
sources typically covering large areas that cannot be temporarily hood-
ed and are not enclosed in a structure allowing the use of the roof
monitor method. Such sources include material handling and storaee
operations, waste dumps, and industrial processes in which the emissions
are spread over large areas or are periodic in nature.
The upwind-downwind method quantifies the emissions from such
sources as the difference between the pollutant concentrations measured
in the ambient air approaching (upwind) and Leaving (downwind) the
source site. It may also be utilized in combination with mathematical
models and tracer tests to define the contributions to total measured
emissions of specific sources among a group of sources.
2.1.3 Roof Monitor Sampling Method
This method is used to measure the fugitive emissions entering
the ambient air from building or other enclosure openings such as roof
monitors, doors, and windows from enclosed sources too numerous or un-
-3-
-------
wieldy to permit the installation of temporary hooding. Sampling is,
in general, limited to a mixture of all uncontrolled emission sources
within the enclosure and requires the ability to make low air velocity
measurements and mass balances of small quantities of materials across
the surfaces of the openings.
These features are embodied in the typical industrial sources and
their emitted pollutants contained in Table 2-1.
The roof monitor method quantifies the emissions from such sources
as the average mass flux of emissions from buildings or enclosure openings
*
over the time period of measurement. The flux is obtained from air and
pollutant material balances across the openings. Tracer tests may also
be used in combination with it to define the contributions of individual
sources.
2-2 Selection of Sampling Method
The initial step in the measurement and documentation of fugitive
emissions at an industrial site is the selection of the sampling method
to be employed. Although it is impossible to emunerate all the combina-
tions of influencing factors that might be encountered in a specific
situation, careful consideration of the following general criteria should
result in the selection of the most effective sampling method.
2.2.1 Selection Criteria
The selection criteria listed below are grouped into three general
classifications common to all fugitive emissions measurement methods.
The criteria are intended to provide only representative examples and
should not be considered a complete listing of influencing factors.
-------
TABLE 2-1
TYPICAL INDUSTRIAL FUGITIVE EMISSIONS SOURCES
MEASURED BY THE ROOF MONITOR SAMPLING METHOD
Industry
Iron & Steel Foun-
dries
Electric Furnace
Steel
Primary Aluminum
Primary Copper
Tires & Rubber
Phosphate Fertili-
zer
Lime
Primary Steel
Graphite, and
Carbide Pro-
duction
Source
Furnace or Cupola
Charging
Melting
Mold Pouring
Charging
General Operations
Carbon Plant
Potroom
Alumina Calcining
Cryolite Recovery
Converter House
Reverberatory Fur-
nace
Roaster Operations
Curing Press Room
Cement House
General Ventila-
tion
General Ventila-
tion
Blast Furnace
Cast House
BOF Operations
Open Hearth
Operations
Arc Furnace
Operation
Particulate
Emissions
Fume, Carbon Dust,
Smoke (Oil)
Fume, Dust
Dust
Metallic Fumes,
Carbon Dust
Metallic Fumes,
Dust
Tars, Carbon Dust
Tars, Carbon &
Aluminum Dust,
Flouridcs
Alumina Dust
Carbon & Alumina
Dust, Flourides
Fume, Silica
Fume
Fume
Organic Partic-
ulate
Dust
Dust, Flourides
Dust
Metallic Fumes
Metallic Fumes,
Carbon Dust
Metallic Fumes
Carbon Dust,
Silica Fume
Gas and
Vapor Emissions
CO, HC, S02
CO, S02
CO, HC, PNA, Odor
CO
CO
CO, HC, S02
CO, HC, S02, HF
S02
S02
S02
HC, Odor
HC, Odor
S02, HF
-
CO, H2S, 302
CO ;
CO
CO, Odor
-5-
-------
2.2.1.1 Site Criteria
Source laolability. Can the emissions be measured separately
from emissions from other sources? Can the source be enclosed?
Source Location. Is the source indoors or out? Does location
permit access of measuring equipment?
Meteorological Conditions. Will wind conditions or precipita-
tion interfere with measurements? Will rain or snow on ground
effect dust levels?
2.2.1.2 Process Criteria
Number and Size of Sources. Are emissions from a single, well
defined location or many scattered locations? Is source small
enough to hood?
Homogeneity of Emissions. Are emissions the same type every-
where at the site? Are reactive effects between different
emi s s ions invo1ved ?
Continuity of Process. Will emissions be produced long enough
to obtain meaningful samples?
Effects of Measurements. Will installation of measuring equip-
ment alter the process or the emissions? Will measurements
interfere with production?
2.2.1.3 Pollutant Criteria
Nature of Emissions. Are measurements of particles, gases,
liquids required? Are emissions hazardous?
Emission Generation Rate. Are enough emissions produced to
provide measurable samples in reasonable sampling time?
Emission Dilution. Will transport air reduce emission con-
centration below measurable levels?
2.2.2 Criteria Application
The application of the selection criteria listed in Section 2.2.1
to each of the fugitive emissions measurement methods defined in Section
2.1 is described in general terms in this Section.
-6-
-------
\
2.2.2.1 Quasi-stack Method
Effective use of the quasi-stack method requires that the source of
emissions be isolable and that an enclosure can be installed capable of
capturing emissions without interference with plant operations. The lo-
cation of the source alone is not normally a factor. Meteorological
conditions usually need be considered only if they directly affect the
sampling.
The quasi-stack method is usually restricted to a single source
and must be limited to two or three small sources that can be effec-
tively enclosed to duct their total emissions to a single sampling point.
The process may be cyclic in nature if any one cycle is of sufficient
duration to provide a representative sample. The possible effects of
the measurement on the process or emissions is of special significance
in this method. In many cases, enclosing a portion of a process in
order to capture its emissions can alter that portion of the process
by changing its temperature profile or affecting flow rates. Emission
may be similarly altered by reaction with components of the ambient air
drawn into the sampling ducts. While these effects are not necessarily
limiting in the selection of the method, they must be considered in de-
signing the test program and could influence the method selection by
increasing complexity and costs.
The quasi-stack method is useful for virtually all types of emis-
sions and is least affected by the emission generation rate of the
process. Dilution of the pollutants of concern is of little consequence
since it can usually be controlled in the design of the sampling system.
-7-
-------
2.2.2.2 Roof Monitor Method
Practical utilization of the roof monitor method demands that the
source of emissions be enclosed in a structure with a limited number of
openings to the atmosphere. Measurements may usually be made only of
the total of all emissions sources within the structure. Meteorological
conditions normally need not be considered in selecting this method.
The number of sources and the mixture of emissions is relatively
unimportant since the measurements usually include only the total emis-
sions. The processes involved may be discontinuous as long as a repre-
sentative combination of the worst grouping may be included in a sam-
pling. Measurements will normally have no effect on the processes or
emissions. •
The roof monitor method, usually dependent on or at least influ-
enced by gravity in the transmission of emissions, may not be useful
for the measurement of larger particulates and heavy gases which may
settle within the enclosure being sampled. Emissions generation rates
must be high enough to provide pollutant concentrations of measurable
magnitude after dilution in the enclosed volume of the structure.
2.2.2.3 Upwind-Downwind Method
The upwind-downwind method, generally utilized where neither of
the other methods may be successfully employed, is not influenced by
the number or location of the emission sources except as they influence
the locating of sampling devices. In most cases, only the total con-
tribution to the ambient atmosphere of all sources within a sampling
area may be measured. The method is strongly influenced by meteoro-
logical conditions, requiring a wind consistent in direction and ve-
locity throughout the sampling period as well as conditions of temper-
-8-
-------
ature, humidity and ground moisture representative of normal ambient
conditions.
The emissions measured by the upwind-downwind method may be the
total contribution from a single source or from a mixture of many sources
in a large area. Continuity of the emissions is generally of little
consequence since the magnitude of the ambient air volume concerned is
large enough to provide a smoothing effect to any circle emissions.
The measurements have no effect on the emissions or processes involved.
Most airborne pollutants can be measured by the upwind-downwind
method. Generation rates must be high enough to provide measurable
concentrations at the sampling locations after dilution with the am-
bient air. Settling rates of the larger particulates require that the
sampling system be carefully designed to ensure that a representative
pollutant cloud is included.
2.3 Sampling Strategies
Fugitive emissions measurements may, in general, be separated into
two classes or levels depending upon the degree of accuracy desired .
Survey measurement systems are designed to screen emissions and to
provide gross measurements of a number of process influents and efflu-
ents; detailed systems are designed to isolate, identify accurately,
and quantify individual contaminant constituents.
2.3.1 Survey Measurement Systems
Survey measurement systems employ recognized standard or state-
of-the-art measurement techniques to screen the total emissions from a
site or source and determine whether any of the emission constituents
-9-
-------
should be considered for more detailed investigation. They generally
utilize the simplest available arrangement of instrumentation and pro-
cedures in a. relatively brief sampling program, usually without pro-
visions for sample replication, to provide order-of-magnitude type data,
embodying a factor of 2 to 5 'in accuracy range with respect to actual
emissions.
2.3.2 Detailed Measurement Systems
Detailed measurement systems are used in instances where survey
measurements or equivalent data indicate that a specific emission con-
stituent may be present in a concentration worthy of concern. Detailed
systems provide more precise identification and quantification of spe-
cific constituents by utilizing the latest state-of-the-art measure-
ment instrumentation and procedures in carefully designed sampling pro-
grams. Detailed systems are also utilized to provide emission data over
a range of process operating conditions or ambient meteorological in-
fluences. Basic accuracy of detailed measurements is in the order of
+ 10 to + 50 percent of actual emissions.
-------
30. TEST STRATEGIES
This section describes the approaches that may be taken to success-
fully complete a testing program utilizing the roof monitor sampling
method described in Section 2.1. It details the information required
to plan the program, describes the organization of the test plan, spe-
cifies the types of sampling equipment to be used, establishes criteria
for the sampling system design, and outlines basic data reduce ion methods.
3.1 Pretest Survey
After the measurement method to be utilized in documenting the fugi-
tive emissions at a particular site has been established usin^ the cri-
teria of Section 2.2, a pretest survey of the site should be conducted
by the program planners. The pretest survey should result In .m infor-
mal, internal report containing all Che information necessarv u>r the
preparation of a test plan and the design of the sampling svst<-'tn by the
testing organization.
This section provides guidelines for conducting a pretest, survey
and preparing a pretest survey report.
3.1.1 Information to be Obtained
In order to design a system effectively and plan for the on-sita
sampling of fugitive emissions, a good general knowledge is required of
the plant layout, process chemistry and flow, surrounding environment,
and prevailing meteorological conditions. Particular characteristics
of the site relative to the needs of the owner, the products involved,
the space and manpower skills available, emission control equipment in-
-11-
-------
stalled, and the safety and health procedures observed, will also influ-
ence the sampling system design and plan. Work flow patterns and sched-
ules that may result in periodic changes in the nature or quantity of
emissions or that indicate periods for the most effective and least dis-
ruptive sampling must also be considered. Most of this information can
only be obtained by a survey at the site. Table 3-1 outlines some of
the specific information to be obtained. Additional information will
be suggested by considerations of the particular on-site situation.
3.1.2 Report Organization
The informaj., internal pretest survey report must contain all the
pertinent information gathered during and prior to the site study. A.
summary of all communications relative to the test program should be
included in the report along with detailed descriptions of the plant
layout, process, and operations as outlined in Table 3-1. The report
should also incorporate drawings, diagrams, maps, photographs, meteo-
rological records, and literature references that will be helpful in
planning the test program.
3.2 Test Plan
3.2.1 Purpose of a Test Plan
Measurement programs are very demanding in terms of the scheduling
and completion of many preparatory tasks, observations at sometimes
widely separated locations, instrument checks to verify measurement va-
lidity, etc. It is therefore essential that all of the experiment de-
sign and planning be done prior to the start of the measurement program
-12-
-------
TABLE 3-1
PRE-TEST SURVEY INFORMATION TO BE OBTAINED
FOR APPLICATION OF FUGITIVE EMISSION SAMPLING METHODS
Plant
Layout
Drawings :
Building Layout and Plan View of Potential Study Areas
Building Side Elevations to Identify Obstructions and
Structure Available to Support Test Setup
Work Flow Diagrams
Locations of Suitable Sampling Sites
Physical Layout Measurements to Supplement Drawings
Work Space Required at Potential Sampling Sites
Process Flow Diagram with Fugitive Emission Points
Process
Identified
General Description of Process Chemistry
General Description of Process Operations Including
Initial Estimate of Fugitive Emissions
Drawings of Equipment or Segments of Processes Where
Fugitive Emissions are to be Measured
Photographs (if permitted) of Process Area Where
Fugitive Emissions are to be Measured
Names, Extensions, Locations of Process Foremen and
Supervisors Where Tests are to be Conducted
' Operations
Location of Available Services (Power Outlets, Main-
tenance and Plant Engineering Personnel, Labora-
tories, etc,)
Local Vendors Who Can Fabricate and Supply Test Sys'tem
Components
Shift Schedules
Location of Operations Records (combine with process
operation information)
Health and Safety Considerations
Other
Access Routes to Che Areas Where Test Equipment/Instru-
mentation Will Be Located
Names, Extensions, Locations of Plant Security and
Safety Supervisors
Regional Meteorological Summaries
-13-
-------
in the form of a detailed test plan. The preparation of such a plan
enables the investigator to "pre-think" effectively and cross-check all
of the details of the design and operation of a measurement program
prior to the commitment of manpower and resources. The plan then also
serves as the guide for the actual performance of the work. The test
plan provides a formal specification of the equipment and procedures re-
quired to satisfy the objectives of the measurement program. It is
based on the information collected in the informal pretest survey re-
port and describes the most effective sampling equipment, procedures,
and timetables consistent with the program objectives and site charac-
teristics.
3.2.2 Test Plan Organization
The test plan should contain specific information in each of the
topical areas indicated below:
Background
The introductory paragraph containing the pertinent infor-
mation leading to the need to conduct the measurement program
and a short description of the information required to answer
that need.
Objective
A concise statement of the problem addressed by the test
program and a brief description of the program's planned method
for its solution.
Approach
A description of the measurement scheme and data reduc-
tion methodology employed in the program with a discussion of
how each will answer the needs identified in the background
statement.
-14-
-------
Instrumentation/Equipment/Facilities
A description of the instrumentation arrays to be used to
collect the samples and meteorological data identified in the
approach description. The number and frequency of samples to
be taken and the sampling array resolution should be described.
A detailed description of the equipment to be employed
and its purpose.
A description of the facilities required to operate the
measurement program, including work space, electrical power,
support from plant personnel, special construction, etc.
Schedule
A detailed chronology of a cypical set of measurements, or
a test, and the overall schedule of events from the planning
stage through the completion ofthe test program report.
Limitations
A definition of the conditions under which the measurement
project is to be conducted. If, for example, successful tests
can be conducted only during occurrences of certain source opera-
tions, those favorable limits should be stated.
Analysis Method
A description of the methods which will be used to analyze
the samples collected and the resultant data, e.g., statistical
or case analysis, and critical aspects of that method.
Report Requirements
A draft outline of the report on the analysis of the data
to be collected along with definitions indicating the purpose
of the report and the audience it is to be directed to.
Quality Assurance
The test plan should address itself to the development of
a quality assurance program as outlined in Section 3.7. This
QA program should be an integral part of the measurement pro-
gram and be incorporated as a portion of the test plan either
directly or by reference.
Responsibilities
A list of persons who are responsible for each phase of
the measurement program, as defined in the schedule, both for
the testing organization and for the plant site.
-15-
-------
3.3 Roof Monitor Sampling Strategies
The roof monitor sampling method, as described in Section 2.1.3,
is used to quantify emissions released into the internal atmosphere of
the buildings or enclosures that contain the process equipment and which
are then ventilated to the external atmosphere as fugitive emissions. The
roof monitor sampling method may be utilized to measure the fugitive
emissions from almost any process that ventilates through building open-
ings such as doors, windows, or any of a wide variety of roof ventilators,
where the ventilation is either gravity dependent or fan driven.
The measurements made include that of the gas flow through the open-
ing either by direct measurement or by calculation (of the gas velocity)
from physical parameters Cpressure drop, thermal conductivity), the
cross-sectional area of the opening, and the particulate and gaseous emis-
sion concentrations in the flowing gas. These measurements or calculations
provide the data necessary to determine the total flux of the fugitive
emissions from all sources operating within the enclosure or from selected
sources, depending on processing sequences or cycles. Since ventilation
rates, especially when gravity driven, can vary, the mass emission rates
so measured are averages over the emission concentration and velocity
measurement period. (Sections 3.4 and 3.5 describe the equipment used
for sampling, the criteria for sampling system design, sampling techniques,
and data reduction procedures for respectively, survey and detailed
roof monitor sampling programs).
3.4 Survey Roof Monitor Sampling Strategy
A survey measurement system, as defined in Section 2.3, is designed
to provide gross measurements of emissions to determine whether any
-16-
-------
constituents should be considered for more detailed investigations. A
survey roof monitor measurement system in its simplest form utilizes
one or two hi-vol type samplers set up to sample the openings by which
the fugitive emissions exit the building or enclosure and an equal num-
ber of hot wire or rotating vane anemometers for determining the gas
velocity exiting the openings. The weight of particulates/volume of
sample air collected and the average velocity across the openings are
combined with the measured area of the opening to calculate the emission
rate of the source. Grab samples of gaseous emissions may be taken at
the same time as the particulate samples and the emission rate calculated
in the same manner. Size distribution of the particulates may also be
obtained simultaneously from a variety of methods.
3.4.1 Sampling Equipment
Pollutants that may be measured by the roof monitor technique are
limited to those that can be airborne sufficiently to exit the enclosure
or structure through the vent openings, i.e., particulates and gases. The
gross measurement requirements for survey sampling of particulates are
best satisfied by high volume filter impaction devices to provide data
on the average emission rate, particle size distribution, and particle
composition. Particle charge transfer or piezoelectric mass monitoring
devices may be utilized for continuous or semi-continuous sampling of
intermittent emission sources where peak levels must be defined.
Gaseous emissions in survey programs are usually grab-sampled for
laboratory analysis using any of a wide variety of evacuated sampling
vessels. Continuous or semi-continuous sampling of specific gases may
-17-
-------
be accomplished using such devices as, for example, continuous monitor
flame ionization detectors (for hydrocarbons) and automated West-Gaeke
bubblers/impingers (for sulfur dioxide). Figures 3-1 and 3-2 show
typical setups utilized for roof monitor/ventilator sampling for fugi-
tive emissions.
3.4.2 Sampling Systems Design
The number and location of devices used to collect samples are
extremely important to the successful completion of a survey roof
monitor sampling program, especially since the program is designed for
minimum cost and provides for no replication of samples. The design of
the sampling system is influenced by such factors as source complexity
and size, physical location and size of the vent openings, variability
of the mass rate and temperature of the emissions, as well as the
homogeneity of the emissions. Most situations will, in general, fie
into some combination of the following parameters:
Source - Sources may be either homogeneous, emitting a single type
of mixture of pollutants from each and every emission location, or
heterogeneous, emitting different types or mixtures of pollutants
from different locations. The resultant pollutant emission "cloud"
("cloud" being used to describe the fugitive emission plume bound-
aries) from a homogeneous source will be homogeneous. The pollutant
as a result of mixing by suitably directed or turbulent enclosure/
structure air flow, homogeneous. The physical size of a source will
determine the extent of the pollutant emission "cloud" and may in-
fluence its homogeneity. The proximity of sources within Che en-
closure/structure will also determine the extent of the "cloud" and
its homogeneity.
Emission Character - The time duration of the emissions may limit
the effective sampling time. Sources which have a short time cycle
(<10-15 minutes) may require different sampling methods than those
of a one-hour or more time scale. The temperatures of the emissions
will also effect sampling. Excessive temperatures may limit the
sampling time for the emissions. If temperatures cycle excessively,
instrumentation which can quickly adjust to this cycle would be
required.
-18-
-------
To gas
analyzers
Traverse line
Cable
Pulley
Detail A
Cable
Gaseous emission
sample line
Power
line
Hi-Vol
Detail B
Fig. 3-1. Electric arc furnace operation; roof monitor showing
sampling/mounting configuration.
-19-
-------
Roof or wall
ventilator
Exhaust
fan
Gaseous emission
sample line
Gas anaiyzer(s)
Fig. 3-2a.Roof or wail ventilator sampling configuration (with or
without fan).
Particle charge
transfer monitoring
system
Gaseous emission
monitoring system
Fig. 3-2b. Roof ventilator sampling configuration.
-20-
-------
Site Accessibility - If the site is not readily accessible, continuous
monitoring equipment, which is usually higher in cost and also in
complexity of arrays, might be required to measure the fugitive
emissions. If standard hi-vols are used, extra samplers would need
to be located in the roof monitor to conserve the number of times
the sampling site has to be accessed to recover samples. Remote
timing equipment and remote recording would be required also.
Emission Cycle - If the emission cycle is short, continuous monitor-
ing equipment may be required. If not, multiple samples may need to
be taken on the same filter. In this case, a remote timing and
recording equipment would be required.
Table 3-3 outlines elements of conceptual systems for roof monitor
sampling programs. These elements are keyed to the numbers on the Matrix
of Table 3-2, and they correspond to the appropriate system elements need-
ed to measure fugitive emissions for that matrix entry. Each matrix
entry corresponds to a specific combination of factors which make up a
particular roof monitor sampling program for a specific source.
3.4.3 Sampling Techniques
Sampling must be scheduled and carefully designed to ensure that
data representative of the emission conditions of concern are obtained.
Effective scheduling demands that sufficient knowledge of operations
and process conditions be obtained to determine proper starting times
and durations for samplings. The primary concern of the sampling design
is that sufficient amounts of the various pollutants are collected to
provide meaningful measurements.
Each of the various sample collection and analysis methods has an
associated lower limit of detection, typically expressed in terms of
micrograms of captured solid material and either micorgrams per cubic
meter or parts per million in air of gases. Samples taken must provide at
-21-
-------
TABLE 3-2
MATRIX OF POSSIBLE COMBINATIONS OF KEY TEST PARAMETERS
Combination
Number
1
2
3
A
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
1A
15
16
Source
Homogeneity
Homogeneous
Homogeneous
Homogeneous
Homogeneous
Homogeneous
Homogeneous
Homogeneous
Homogeneous
Heterogeneous
Heterogeneous
Heterogeneous
Heterogeneous
Heterogeneous
Heterogeneous
Heterogeneous
Heterogeneous
Emissions
Point
Geometry
Simple
Complex
Simple
Complex
Simple
Complex
Simple
Complex
Simple
Complex
Simple
Complex
Simple
Complex
Simple
Complex
Site
Accesibility
Easy
Difficult
Difficult
Easy
Easy
Difficult
Difficult
Easy
Easy
Difficult
Difficult
Easy
Easy
Difficult
Difficult
Easy
Emission
Cycle
Short
Long
Short
Long
Long
Short
Long
Short
Short
Long
Short
Long
Long
Short
Long
Short
Suitable
System
Elements
(1),(A) (1) . . .etc.
,_.. Numbers refer
to conceptual
(A) system elements
for a roof moni-
tor sampling
(1) program most
suitable for a
given matrix
(1),(A) element, as de-
, . scribed in Table
* ' 3-2.
(A)
(6,)(5)
(A)
(6), (5)
(2)
(5)
(A)
(5)
-------
TABLE 3-3
ELEMENTS OF CONCEPTUAL SYSTEMS FOR A
ROOF MONITOR SAMPLING PROGRAM AS APPLIED TO
SPECIFIC TYPES OF FUGITIVE EMISSION SOURCES*
1. One Hi-Vol Sampler
One Rotating Vane Anemometer
One Cascade Impactor
2. Two Hi-Vol Samplers
Two Rotating Vane Anemometers
Two Cascade Impactors
3. One Hi-Vol Sampler
One Rotating Vane Anemometer
One Cascade Impactor
One Portable Anemometer (Vane
or Hot Wire
One Respirable Dust Monitor
4. One Continuous Particulate
Monitor
One Rotating Vane Anemometer
One Cascade Impactor
5. One Continuous Particulate
Monitor
One Rotating Vane Anemometer
One Cascade Impactor
One Portable Anemometer
One Respirable Dust Monitor
6. Two Hi-Vol Samplers
Two Rotating Vane Anemometers
Two Cascade Impactors
One Portable Anemometer
One Respirable Dust Monitor
Fixed Station
In Monitor
Fixed Station
In Monitor
Fixed Station
In Monitor
Manual Traverse
of Doors & Windows
Movable Across and
Down Roof Monitor
Movable Across and
Down Roof Monitor
Manual Traverse of
Doors & Windows
Fixed Station
In Monitor
Manual Traverse of
Doors & Windows
*A11 gaseous sampling done using grab samples for
laboratory analysis.
-------
least these minimum amounts of the pollutants to be quantified. The mass (M)
of a pollutant collected is the product of the concentration of the pollu-
tant in the air (x) and the volume of air sampled (V), thus,
M (micrograms) » x (micrograms/cubic meter) x V (cubic meters).
To ensure that a sufficient amount of pollutant is collected, an ade-
quately large volume of air must be passed through such samplers as
particle filters or gas absorbing trains for a specific but uncontrolla-
ble concentration. The volume of air (V) is the product of its flow
rate (F) and the sampling time (T), or,
V (cubic meters) « F (cubic meters/minute) x T (minutes).
Since the sampling time is most often dictated by the test conditions,
the only control available to an experimenter is the sampling flow rate.
A preliminary estimate of the required flow rate for any sampling loca-
tion may be made if an estimate or rough measurement of the concentration
expected is available. The substitution and rearrangement of terms in
the above equations yields Equation 3-1:
F (cubic meters/minute) = M (micrograms/x (micrograms/cubic meter)
x T (minutes) . (3-1)
This equation permits the calculation of the minimum acceptable flow
rate for a required sample size. Flow rates should generally be adjusted
upward by a factor of at least 1.5 to compensate for likely inaccuracies
in estimates of concentration.
-------
Grab samples of gaseous pollutants provide for no means, of pollutant
sample quantity control except in terms of the volume of the sample.
Care should be taken, therefore, to correlate the sample size with the
requirements of the selected analysis method.
The location of samplers is also important in obtaining representative
data. Where the emissions are known to exit the roof monitor or vent in
a homogeneous pollutant "cloud", one sampler can be used. However, where
the pollutant "cloud" is not known to be homogeneous or is definitely
heterogeneous, samplers should be located at 25-100 ft intervals.
In addition, unless approximations can be made based upon relative
flowrates, a sampler must be located at each separate roof monitor or
vent location on the building/enclosure. This can be simplified if in-
spection of the site indicates that some of these vents art- only minor
sources of the fugitive emissions.
A critical concern in development of the mass emission rates from
roof monitor fugitive emission tests is the accuracy of tht- flow measure-
ments required to change air quality measurements into mas.s emissions.
The basic equation is:
Mass Rate (micrograms/minute) = M (micrograms)/T (minutes) =
X (micrograms/cubic meter) x F (cubic meters/minute)
Where x is known quite accurately, F is the overriding error limit
for fugitive emissions measurements. F can be obtained from:
F (cubic meters/minute) = A (square meters) x U (meters/second)
Preliminary estimates of the linear velocity (V) can be obtained
by use of a hand hot wire anemometer with a digital or scale read-
out. These will serve to determine what method of velocity measurement
-25-
-------
TABLE 3-4
RANGE OF APPLICABILITY OF COMMON VELOCITY
MEASUREMENT DEVICES FOR ROOF MONITOR SAMPLING
Device
Hot Wire
Anemometer*
Rotating Vane
Anemometer
Pitot Tube
Calibrated
Magnehelic
Gauge**
Flow Range
10-8000 fpm
100-6000 fpm )
50-6000 fpm /
500-6000 fpm
2000-10,000 fpm
Accuracy
Fair
Fair at Low fpm I
Good at High fpml
Good
Good
Usable
Temp . Range
0-2258F
0-150°F Mechanical
0-200°F Electric
0-2000°F***
0-200°F
*Cannot be used for sources with significant steam or water content.
**Although accurate has very narrow range of flow measurement and must
be calibrated for opening used.
***Water cooled for high temperatures.
-------
will be the most accurate. Temperature readings should also be taken
to determine the most suitable instrument. Table 3-4 summarizes data
on the four instruments which would be most suitable, which are:
1. Hot Wire Anemometers
2. Rotating Vane Anemometers
3. Pitot Tubes
4. Magnehelic Gauges (after calibration)
The method chosen must take-into account:
1. Compatibility with chosen sampling site conditions,
2. Compatibility with desired error limits of tests.
3.4.4 Data Reduction
When the sampling program has been completed and the samples have
been analyzed to yield average pollutant concentrations in microprams of
particulate matter or parts per million of gases in the pollutant emis-
sion "cloud", the source strength must he calculated. As previously
mentioned, this requires the multiplication of these values by the
cross sectional area of the opening and the average linear velocity
across that opening. This must be done for every significant roof monitor
or vent in the building/enclosure studied to establish the process fugitive
emission rate in grams per second, or other appropriate mass emi^su'n r.ite
units.
3.5 Detailed Roof Monitor Sampling Strategy
A detailed measurement system is designed to more precisely identify
and quantify specific pollutants that a survey measurement or equivalent
data indicate as a possible problem area. A detailed system is necessarilv
more complex than a survey system in terms of equipment, svstem design,
-------
sampling techniques and data reduction. It requires a much larger invest-
ment in terms of equipment time and manpower and yields data detailed and
dependable enough for direct action towards achieving emission control.
Detailed systems in general employ sampling networks to measure the
concentration and distribution of specific pollutants within the pollutant
emission "cloud". The detailed measurements of pollutant distribution and
emission rate variation replace the averaging techniques or the assumptions
of representativeness of the sampling done in survey sampling systems.
Detailed systems are frequently employed to compare the emissions at different
process or operating conditions to determine which conditions dictate the
need for emission control.
The data provided by the sampling network are processed in conjunction
with detailed studies of the volumetric flow rate of the emissions from
the roof monitor or vents to determine mass emission rates from the fugitive
sources.
The complexity of a detailed system is largely determined by the
basic accuracy desired; increasing accuracy demands more measurements
either in the number of locations measured or in the number of measure-
ments made at each location, or both. Most detailed systems will require
a. network of sets of instrumentation located across the plane of the
opening to make simultaneous measurements since the usually lower con-
centrations of specific emissions preclude the use of traversing tech-
niques with inherently short sampling durations, or assumptions regard-
ing the distribution of emissions in the flow through the opening.
-28-
-------
Identification and quantification of a specific fugitive emission
from an enclosed source may involve measurements at more than one build-
ing opening if the flow through the separate openings is of comparable
magnitude and the openings are situated to result in selectivity in the
character or quantity of the emission being vented. This could occur,
for example, when a roof monitor and a floor level door or window both
vent emissions from a variety of sources within a building. Lighter
gaseous emissions and smaller particulates would be expected to vent
through the monitor, while the heavier gases and larger particulates
would tend to settle and vent through the lower opening. If either of
the openings is situated to vent all or most of the emissions from a
specific source, resulting in a different type of emission for the two
openings, the detailed measurement system might require different types
of instrumentation at each location, thus adding to the system complex-
ity.
3.5.1 Sampling Equipment
The pollutants to be characterized by a detailed roof monitor sam-
pling system fall into the same two basic classes—airborne particulates
and gases—as those measured by survey systems. Detailed sampling and
analysis equipment is generally selected to obtain continuous or semi-
continuous measurements of specific pollutants rather than grab-sampled
overall measurement.
Particulate samples are collected using filter impaction, piezo-
electric, and size selective or adhesive imp'action techniques. Gases
-29-
-------
are sampled and analyzed using flame ionization detectors, bubbler/im-
pinger trains, non-dispersive infrared or ultraviolet monitors, flame
photometry, and other techniques specific to individual gaseous pollu-
tants.
The selection of suitable sampling equipment should be influenced
by such considerations as portability, power requirements, detection
limits and ease of control.
3.5.2 Sampling System Design
The basic criteria reviewed in Section 3.4.2 for the design of a
survey sampling system are generally applicable to the design of a de-
tailed system. The need for replacement of survey assumptions as to
pollutant distribution with actual measured values, however, most fre-
quently requires the design of a sampling network that will provide
samples of a distribution at various distances along the width of the
source in both the horizontal and vertical directions. Sampler locations
may generally be determined in the same manner as those for a survey systems
except that they must be capable of finer analysis of pollutant distri-
bution. For detailed measurements, each location must make provision for
sampling across the section of the pollutant emission "cloud" horizontally
and/or vertically. Horizontal distributions over the length of the roof
monitor may be measured by adding a number of samplers (usually at least
two) at either side of the survey sampler location at distances estimated
to yield significantly different pollutant concentrations. Vertical dis-
tributions as well as horizontal distributions across the width of the
roof monitor are best determined by traversing with the samplers or their
probe devices.
-------
General rules which might be applied to system design are as
follows:
1. If emissions are reasonably homogeneous, sampler locations
along the horizontal length of the roof monitor should be
25-50 ft apart maximum. If heterogeneous, they should be
10-20 ft apart.
2. Vertical distances greater than 10-20 ft in roof monitor open-
ings would require either vertically tiered samplers or travers-
ing arrangements,
3. Traversing across the width of a roof monitor or setting up a
network in that width can be employed to sample emissions before
they leave the roof monitor. In cases where external accessi-
bility is a problem, this can be used to obtain representative
samples without leaving the building.
4. If any significant emissions (> 10%) are presumed to exit the
enclosure/structure by other than the roof monitor, that vent
or exit should have its own sampler system.
5. Where a minor (< 10%) amount of emissions are presumed to exit
the enclosure/structure by other than the roof monitor, some
estimate of this should be obtained using a portable and simpli-
fied sampler system (survey type). There can be many such
openings and caution should be applied to avoid excess expendi-
ture of time/money for tests of such minor sources.
3.5.3 Sampling Techniques
In order to obtain representative results of detailed quality, sam-
pling techniques must:
1. Differentiate the peak emissions from the average fugitive
emissions of a process. Online continuous readout devices are
preferable in these cases.
2. Determine the horizontal and vertical distribution of pollutants
within the emission "cloud". Multiple online continuous readout
devices as well as traversing are preferable in these cases.
3. Differentiate specific components of the emissions, preferably
those of highest hazard/toxicity to humans. Single component
continuous online monitors or detailed laboratory analysis of
collected samples of particulates, gases or liquids are preferred
-31-
-------
The specific techniques vhich might be employed vary. However,
the selection criteria should include:
1. Portability
2. Power Requirements
3. Detection Limits
4. Response Time
5. Ease of Control (remote or close at hand)
3.5.4 Data Reduction/Data Analysis
After the analyses for pollutants are completed, the required cal-
culations are made for emission concentrations, including calculations
for the mean and standard deviation. Statistical differences between
test methods can be obtained and confirmed by conducting various statis-
tical significance procedures such as the "t" and "f" tests on the mean
and standard deviation values for the various test methods. A tabula-
tion of the statistical analysis results can then be made and related
to the process conditions at the time of the tests. Finally, the inves-
tigator can determine whether there is a correlation between the emission
results by test method and the process conditions.
3.6 Tracer Tests
Complex sources, consisting of several different sources with similar
or very different emission rate patterns, can be the cause of the fugitive
emissions from the roof monitor of a structure or enclosure. Emission
measurements at the roof monitor of complex sources must be related back
to a specific source to determine what is the most significant cause of
figutive emissions. Tracers can be released at specific rates at the location
of the source to be studies for specific time periods. Knowledge of this,
-------
as well as what sampler caught this tracer and in what concentration,
can serve to differentiate each source's contribution to the fugitive
emissions.
3.6.1 Tracers and Samplers
Both particulate and gaseous atmospheric tracers are in general
use. -The most commonly used particulate tracers are'zinc sulfide and
sodium fluorescein (uranine dye). The primary gaseous tracer is sulfur
hexafluoride (SFg).
Zinc sulfide is a particulate material which can be obcained in
narrow size ranges to closely match the size of the pollutant of con-
cern. The material is best introduced into the atmosphere in dry form
by a blower type disseminator although it can be accomplished by
spraying from an aqueous slurry solution. The zinc sulfide fluoresces
a distinctive color under ultraviolet light which provides a specific
and rapid means of identification and quantification of the tracer in
the samples.
Sodium fluorescein is a soluble fluorescing particulate material.
It is normally spray disseminated from an aqueous slurry solution to
produce a particulate airborne plume, the size distribution of which
can be predetermined by the spraying apparatus. Sodium fluorescein
can be uniquely identified by colorimeter assessment.
Sulfur hexafluoride is a gas which can be readily obtained in
ordinary gas cylinders. Sulfur hexafluoride can be disseminated by
metering directly from the gas cylinder through a flow meter to the
atmosphere. The amount disseminated can be determined by careful flow
metering and/or weight differentiation of the gas cylinder.
-33-
-------
Particulate tracers are usually sampled with filter impaction de-
vices or, for particles over 10 microns in diameter, the more easily
used and somewhat less accurate Rotorod sampler which collects particles
on an adhesive-coated U- or H-shaped rod which is rotated in the am-
bient air by a battery-driven electric motor.
Sulfur hexafluoride gaseous samples are collected for laboratory
gas chromatograph analysis in non-reactive bags of such materials as
Mylar.
3.6.2 Tracer Sampling System Design
All of the design guidelines presented in 3.4.2 and 3.5.2 may be
applied to the design of a tracer sampling system as site conditions
dictate. Their application is, in general, simplified since the source
strength may be controlled to provide measurable tracer concentrations
at readily accessible sampling locations.
A single ambient sampler will usually be sufficient to establish
that no significant amount of the tracer material is present in the am-
bient atmosphere approaching the source, enclosure or structure.
3.6.3 Tracer Sampling and Data Analysis
The methods introduced in Sections 3.4.3 and 3.5.3 for determining
sampler design and location are fully applicable to tracer sampling.
Like design guidelines, they may be more easily applied because of
the control of source strength available.
The analysis of the data is also simplified since the source strength
is known and no back-calculation is required.
-34-
-------
3.7 Quality Assurance
The basic reason for quality assurance on a measurement program is
to insure that the validity of the data collected can be verified. This
requires that a quality assurance program be an integral part of the
measurement program from beginning to end. This section outlines the
quality assurance requirements of a sampling program in terms of several
basic criteria points. The criteria are listed below with a brief ex-
planation of the requirements in each area. Not all of the criteria
will be applicable in all fugitive emission measurement cases.
1. Introduction
Describe the project organization, giving details of the
lines of management and quality assurance responsibility.
2. Quality Assurance Program
Describe the objective and scope of the quality assurance
program.
3. Design Control
Document regulatory design requirements and standards ap-
plicable to the measurement program as procedures and specifi-
cations.
4. Procurement Document Control
Verify that all regulatory and program design specifications
accompany procurement documents (such as purchase orders).
5. Instructions, Procedures, Drawings
Prescribe all activities that affect the quality of the
work performed by written procedures. These procedures must
include acceptance criteria for determining that these activ-
ities are accomplished.
6. Document Control
Ensure that the writing, issuance, and revision of proce-
dures which prescribe measurement program activities affecting
quality are documented and that these procedures are distributed
to and used at the location where the measurement program is
carried out.
-------
7. Control of Purchase Material, Equipment, and Services
Establish procedures to ensure that purchased material con-
forms to the procurement specifications and provide verification
of conformance.
8. Identification and Control of Materials, Parts, and Components
Uniquely identify all materials, parts, and components that
significantly contribute to program quality for traceability
and to prevent the use of incorrect or defective materials,
parts, or components.
9. Control of Special Processes
Ensure that special processes are controlled and accomplished
by qualified personnel using qualified procedures.
10. Inspection
Perform periodic inspections where necessary on activities
affecting the quality of work. These inspections must be or-
ganized and conducted to assure detailed acceptability of pro-
gram conponents.
11. Test Control
Specify all testing required to demonstrate that applicable
systems and components perform satisfactorily. Specify that
the testing done and documented according to written proce-
dures, by qualified personnel, with adequate test equipment
according to acceptance criteria.
12, Control of Measuring and Test Equipment
Ensure that all testing equipment is controlled to avoid
unauthorized use and that test equipment is calibrated and
adjusted at stated frequencies. An inventory of all test
equipment must be maintained and each piece of test equipment
labeled- with the date of calibration and date of next calibra-
tion.
13. Handling, Storage, and Shipping
Ensure that equipment and material receiving, handling,
storage, and shipping follow manufacturer's recommendations
to prevent damage and deterioration. Verification and docu-
mentation that established procedures are followed is required.
14. Inspection, Test, and Operating Status
Label all equipment subject to required inspections and
tests so that the status of inspection and test is readily
apparent. Maintain an inventory of such inspections and oper-
ating status.
-------
15. Non-conforming Parts and Materials
Establish a system that will prevent the inadvertent use
of equipment or materials that do not conform to requirements.
16. Corrective Action
Establish a system to ensure that conditions adversely af-
fecting the quality of program operations are identified, cor-
rected, and commented on; and that preventive actions are taken
to preclude recurrence.
17. Quality Assurance Records -
Maintain program records necessary to provide proof of
accomplishment of quality affecting activities of the measure-
ment program. Records include operating logs, test and in-
spection results, and personnel qualifications.
18. Audits
Conduct audits to evaluate the effectiveness of the mea-
surement program and quality assurance program to assure that
performance criteria are being met.
-------
4.0 ESTIMATED COSTS AND TIME REQUIREMENTS
Table 4-1 presents a listing of the conditions assumed for estimat-
ing the costs and time requirements of roof monitoring fugitive emis-
sions sampling programs using the methodology described in this document.
Four programs are listed, representing minimum and more typical levels
of effort for each of the survey and detailed programs defined in Sections
3.4 and 3.5, respectively. The combinations of conditions for each pro-
gram are generally representative of ideal cases for each level and may
not be encountered in actual practice. They do, however, illustrate the
range of effort and costs that may be expected in the application of the
roof monitor technique.
4.1 Manpower
Table 4-2 presents estimates of manpower requirements for each of
the sampling programs listed in Table 4-1. Man-hours for each of the
three general levels of Senior Engineer/Scientist, Engineer/Scientist,
and Junior Engineer/Scientist are estimated for the general task areas
outlined in this document and for additional separable tasks. Clerical
man-hours are estimated as a total for each program. Total man-hour
requirements are approximately 400 man-hours for minimum effort and
750 man-hours for typical effort in survey programs , and 1600 man-hours
for minimum effort and 2800 man-hours for typical effort in detailed
programs.
4.2 Other Direct Costs
Table 4-3 estimates for equipment purchases, rentals, calibration,
and repairs; on-site construction of towers and platforms; shipping and
-------
TABLE 4-1
CONDITIONS ASSUMED FOR ESTIMATING COSTS AND TIME
REQUIREMENTS FOR ROOF MONITOR FUGITIVE EMISSIONS
SAMPLING PROGRAMS
Parameter
Building
Openings
Emissions
Schedule
Air Flow Ac
Opening
Sampling
Locations
Sampling
Frequency
Estimated
Basic Accur-
acy
L
Survey Programs
Minimum
Effort
1 Roof
(Small)
Constant
Steady
1
Traverse
Once
+ 400%
Typical
Effort
1 Roof
(Large)
Cyclic
Cyclic
4
Fixed
Once
-I- 150%
Detailed Programs
Minimum
Effort
1 Roof
(Large)
Constant
Steady
Typical
Effort
1 Roof,
1 Window
Cyclic,
Mixed
Cyclic
i
Fixed
12/Opening
Fixed
4 Times 10 Times
+50% ! + 20%
Small "a 50' long monitor
Large ^ 200' long monitor
-10-
-------
ESTIMATED MANPOWER REQUIREMENTS FOR ROOF MONITOR
FUGITIVE EMISSIONS SAMPLING PROGRAMS
Estimates in Man-Hours
Task
retest Survey
est Plan Preparation
quipment Acquisition
ield Set-Up
leld Study
ample Analysis
ita Analysis
eport Preparation
otals
ngir.eer/Scientist Tota]
lerical
rand Total
Survey Programs
Minimum Effort
Senior
Engr/Sci
4
4
0
0
20
0
0
12
40
Engr/
Sci
8
12
0
16
40
20
20
32
148
368
40
408
Junior
Engr/
Tech
0
0
12
24
40
40
40
24
180
Typical Effort
Senior
Engr/Sci
4
4
0
8
40
0
8
24
;88
•
Engr/
Sci
8
12
8
64
80
20
20
72
284
704
60
764
Junior
Engr/
Tech
0
0
20
30
80
80
80
40
332
,
Detailed Programs
Minimum Effort
Senior
Engr/Sci
8
8
0
8
120
4
16
44
204
Engr/
Sci
i
16
24
16
64
240
40
40
TOO
540
1448
120
1568
Junior
Engr/
Tech
0
0
40
40
240
160
160
64
704
Typical Effort
Senior
Engr/Sci
12
12
0
24
240
16
32
80
416
Engr/
Sci
24
32
16
128
480
80
80
200
1040
2688
180
2868
Junior
Engr/
Tech
0
24
80
128
480
200
200
120
1232
-------
TABLE 4-3
ESTIMATED COSTS OTHER THAN MANPOWER FOR ROOF MONITOR
FUGITIVE EMISSIONS SAMPLING PROGRAMS
Cost Item
Equipment
Instrument Purchase
Calibration
Repairs
Platforms, Etc., Construction
Shipping
Vehicle Rentals
Communications
Miscellaneous Field Costs
TOTAL
Survey Programs
Minimum
Effort
$1000
50
. 100
200
200
200
50
50
$1850
Typical
Effort
$2000
100
150
500
AGO
500
100
100
:?3850
Detailed Programs
Minimum
Effort
$3000
200
250
600
500
800
200
200
$5750
Typical
Effort
$12000
800
600
3000
800
1200
600
800
$19800
-------
on-site communications for each of the listed programs. Total, costs are
approximately $1,900 for minimum effort and $3,900 for typical effort in
survey programs and $5,800 for minimum effort and $20,000 for typical
effort in detailed programs.
4.3 Elapsed-Time Requirements
Figure 4-1 presents elapsed-time estimates for each of the listed
programs broken down into the task areas indicated in the manpower es-
timates of Table 4-2. Total program durations are approximately 12
weeks for minimum effort and 19 weeks for typical effort in survey pro-
grams and 22 weeks for minimum effort and 33 weeks for typical effort
in detailed programs.
4.4 Cost Effectiveness
Figure 4-2 presents curves of the estimated cost effectiveness of
the roof monitor technique, drawn through points calculated for the
four listed programs. Costs for each program were calculated at $30
per labor hour, $40 per man day subsistence for field work for the man-
power estimates of Table 4-2, plus the other direct costs estimated in
Table 4-3.
-------
Task
Pretest
survey
Test plan
preparation
Equipment
acquisition
Field
set-up
Field
study
Sample
analysis
Data
analysis
Report
preparation
Weeks
5 10 15 20 25 30 35
J i I I I 1 i -i i _l l I I i i i i t i i i i i i i i i i i i i ill
k^
"=fc
i
Simple survey program
Complex survey program
Simple detailed program
Complex detailed program
T I | I T T I I I I I I T~7~~l I I I I I T
0 5 10 15 20
Weeks
~~r~| || | i—TT~m
25 30 35
-------
500 r
400
Survey program
u
1
u
u
n
to
CD
300
200-
100 r
Detailed program
50 100
Costs in thousands of dollars
Fig. 4-2. Cost-effectiveness of roof monitor fugitive
emissions sampling programs.
-------
APPENDIX A
APPLICATION OF THE ROOF MONITORING SAMPLING METHOD
TO AN ELECTRICAL ARC FURNACE INSTALLATION
-45-
-------
A.1.0 INTRODUCTION
This appendix presents an application of the roof monitor fugitive
emissions measurement system selection and design criteria to an electric
furnace steelmaking shop. The criteria for the selection of the method
and the design procedures for both survey and detailed sampling systems
as presented in. Sections 3.4 and 3.5 of this document are discussed.
A,2.0 BACKGROUND INFORMATION
The following information relative to the operation of an electric
arc furnace was utilized to determine the sources and expected types of
fugitive emissions that might be encountered in the measurement programs.
Figure A-l describes the use of the electric furnace in steelmaking and
shows potential emission source^.
Sources of emissions at a typical electric arc furnace installation
could include:
o Charging of scrap to the hot furnace.
o Leaks of hooding and/or electrode holes during melting.
o Normal emissions from scrap melting.
o Charging of limestone and flux to the melt.
o Charging of alloying elements to the melt.
o Tapping and pouring hot metal Co the ladle.
o Tapping and pouring slag into the slag ladle.
o Transfer of hot metal within the electric furnace shop.
Both gaseous (CO, H2S, S02, etc.) and particulate (iron, limestone,
carbon, etc.) emissions are given off by these emission sources and
would require quantification in any fugitive emission test program.
Emissions from each of these sources can be potentially controlled by
collection in a variety of hoods as illustrated in Figures A-2 and A-3,
and transfer through ductwork to a remotely located baghouse. A typ-
ical state-of-the-art ventilation system for a three furnace shop is
-------
Charging basket
Tapping spout
Fig. A-l Fugitive emissions in electric furnace steel making.
-47-
-------
Canopy hood
exhaust duct
Charging
bucket
Fig. A-2 Electric arc furnace-capture system for emissions.
-48-
-------
ivV'-iVVij-'i'f y
1--1' 'J'.-'HUf1 f.
To fabric filter
or scrubber
Fig. A-3 Electric arc furnace-fugitive emission control.
-------
sketched in Figure A-4. These captured emissions can be readily iden-
tified and quantified utilizing duct-type sampling systems and methods.
Some portion of the emission from each source, however, escapes
collection by the ventilation system and is carried out of the building
via a roof monitor. These emissions are predominately those which occur
when the furnace roof is removed and therefore the directly connected
duct system must swing away either with or independent of the roof.
Charging emissions are of that type, and latest designs for electric
furnace shops use canopy hoods to reduce the released emissions which
escape into the general shop areas. These uncaptured charging emissions
are the most significant source of fugitive emissions from electric
furnace steelmaking. Tapping and pouring emissions as well as hot metal
transfer and transport emissions should not be ignored in the pre-test
survey. Visual observation of the emission sources can aid in evaluat-
ing their significance as fugitive sources.
The EPA estimates for uncontrolled emissions, as published in the
Office of Air Programs Publication AP-42, Compilation of Air Pollutant
Emission Factors, are 9.2 Ibs/ton metal charged without oxygen lance and
11 Ibs/ton metal with oxygen lancing. Assuming 90 percent of the emissions
are captured by control equipment, 0.9 to 1.1 Ibs/ton metal charged coula
be transmitted to the atmosphere as fugitive emissions. The potential
fugitive emissions from the roof monitor of a four furnace steelmaking
operation with 100 ton capacity furnaces operating a three shift 24 hour
cycle with 4 melts/day/furnace would therefore be 1,440 - 1,760 Ibs/day
of particulates, plus significant amounts of carbon monoxide, sulfur
gases and other emissions.
-------
Clean air
Exhaust o
Building evacuation (BE) system, closed roof.
Fabric
filter
Furnace r
_ / _\ L
Canopy hood (CH), closed roof.
Building
monitor
Canopy hood (CH), open roof.
Fig. A-4 Electric arc furnace-charging/tapping fugitive emission
control.
-51-
-------
A,3.0 SURVEY MEASUREMENT SYSTEM
To determine the total plant contribution of participates to the
atmosphere, measurement must be made of the emissions from the roof
monitor over a typical melt cycle from a single furnace. The results
of this test can be extrapolated to estimate the total emissions over
a 24 hour cycle of the entire electric furnace shop. Visual observations
can aid in-selection of the roof monitor location, to., ensure representative-
ness of the particulate emissions collected.
A.4.0 SAMPLER LOCATION
A typical sampler location is shown in Figure A-5. By visual ob-
servation within and outside the electric furnace shop a location which
is within the "cloud" of fugitive emissions from a specific furnace csn
also aid in answering the questions:
o Is the particulate emission rate (as measured by opacity) of chat
furnace typical of the entire group of furnaces?
o Is the sampler location in the main flow path of the particulate
"cloud"?
o How does the variance of particulate emissions with time affect
the sampler location?
o How long a sampling period is required to obtain a representative
melt cycle's particulate emissions?
A fixed location high-volume type of particulate sampler similar
to that shown in Figure 3-1 would be used with a recording anemometer.
The average flow rate of air through the roof monitor opening may be
calculated as:
T
F - A/ dV
O T
-52-
-------
Fugitive emission measurement station
in roof monitor for Furnace M 2
Electrical and
sample lines
*~ Electric Til
furnace
' H2
Ground level
test station
Fig. A- 5. Typical survey program site to determine the fugitive emissions from an electric furnace
shop using a roof monitor technique.
Fugitive emission measurement stations
in roof monitor for each furnace
Electrical and
sample lines
Ground level
test station
F i * . A-h Typical detailed program site to determine the fugitive emissions from an electric furnace
shop using a roof monitor technique.
-53-
-------
where F • average air volume flow rate, cubic meters/minute
V - air velocity, meters/minute
A » roof monitor open area, square meters
T • test duration, minutes.
V, A and T are all directly measured values.
The particulate matter collected must be sufficient for measuramoor.
For a high volume sampler of 18 cubic feet per-minute, a desired sample
weight would be 100 micrograms with a 60 minute minimum sampling time.
The required concentration of particulate in the existing air would,
therefore, be:
X - 10"1* Cgm)/0.5 (m3/min) x 60 (minutes)
X = 3.3 x 10~s (gm/m3)
This would be readily achieved if the particulate plume had a 10% or
greater opacity.
Samples are therefore taken over a one hour or larger period and
the volume of air passes through the sampler determined. Multiplication
of the collected mass, by the average air flow through the roof monitor
divided by the air flow through the sampler divided by the time period
will give an estimate of the average emission rate in mass/tine period
for the total electric furnace shop in that time period. Section 3.^.3
details the calculations and how to estimate the sampling time periods.
A. 5.0 DETAILED MEASUREMENT SYSTEM
To determine the total electric furnace shop emissions with some
accuracy, measurements across the roof monitor of the emissions from all
-54-
-------
of the furnaces. Figure A-6 shows such a setup for the roof monitor of
a four furnace electric furnace shop. The samplers are similar to those
shown in Figure 3-1. In addition., if canopy hoods are used to capture
some charging and tapping emissions, they may be sampled by use of a set-
up such as shown in Figure A-7.
The roof monitor sampling svstem must be designed to identify and
quantify the electric arc furnace izstallation fugitive emissions-by
accurately measuring the air flow rare through the roof monitor while
collecting samples of the emissions. The air flow rate will be deter-
mined by measuring the velocity ^f rhe air at a number of locations
across the vertical plane of the no-itor opening using hot-wire or ro-
tating vane anemometers.
Sampling instruments for ch
-------
Particulate Measurement Devices
IKOR EPA CASCADE
IMPACTOR
Canopy hoo
exhaust duct
HC and CO line
Instruments
Fig. A-7. Illustration of test set-up for measuring fugitive
emissions from an electric arc furnace canopy hood.
-------
o Charging of the hot furnace
o Melting operations
o Tapping and pouring
The use of continuous monitoring instrumentation permits the correlation
of emission rate with the process operation to which it belongs. By
monitoring the emissions for extended periods of time, meaningful average
as well as instantaneous individual emission rates can thereby be obtained,
Calibration of continuous traces with known concentration standards, both
gaseous and particulate, is required to do this effectively.
A program designed to do this would include:
o Continuous monitoring on a 24 hour basis of particulates and
gases
o Collection of filterable particulate matter after each total
melt cycle in the furnace below each sampler
o Continuous recording of anemometer traces on a 24 hour basis
o Daily calibration of continuous monitors by comparison against
reference standards. Calibration gases would be used for gaseous
monitors and the high volume filter catch and that of the backup
filter in the particle charge count mass monitor for particulate
monitors.
Additional data on the emission rates of certain specific pollutants
could also be obtained by use of:
o Flame photometer continuous monitoring of sulfur gases
o EPA Method 5 trains vith condensible trains and organic emission
absorber tubes to batch analyze for organics, especially carcinogens
o Membrane type filters for collection and batch chemical/morpholog-
ical analysis of specific inorganic particulate constituents such
as toxic metals and free silica.
-57-
-------
These should be at the discretion of the investigator, since they con-
tribute more than their proportionate share to the manpower time and
money investment in the fugitive emission sampling program.
A typical 4-6 week program would involve 24 hour tests on a four
furnace shop, thus potentially acquiring 24 total melt cycles/day or 480
to 720 sets of data. Because of potential problems of equipment break-
down in the hot and dirty environment in which they are used, as well
as the use of a 12 hour test shift (to allow use of a single well trained
test crew) gives us a potential of 120 to 180 actual data sets. Each
can be broken down into subsets of:
o Furnace tested
o Type and amount of charge used
o Type and amount of fluxes and/or additives used
o Portion of operating cycle involved (charge, melt, pour)
o Data reliability and completeness
Emission factors for each part of the electric furnace melt cycle
can be determined in addition to the average emission rate as determined
for the survey test program. We can break down the collected mass of
particulate and the flow rate as follows:
FI * flow rate for charge part of cycle
MI * mass collected for charge part of cycle
F2 • flow rate for melt part of cycle
M2 * mass collected for melt part of cycle
FS - flow rate for tap/pour part of cycle
M3 * mass collected for tap/pour part of cycle
-------
The on-line mass monitors will be required for this. Calculations can
be done as in Section 3.4.3 of each individual mass rate of emission of
particulates from parts of the cycle. Similar analysis can be done for
the gaseous emissions when continuous monitors are used. The result of
this program would be very detailed knowledge of the fugitive emissions.
from a typical electric furnace melt cycle.
An additional tool to be used where better definition of exact
emission sources and rates is needed is the use of in-plant tracers to
simulate the sources. Gases such as SFg (sulfur hexaflouride) or (flo-
rescent dye particulates) can be released at specific points and at mea-
sured rates inside the electric furnace shop to simulate fugitive sources.
These tracers are collected at the roof monitor and from the collection
efficiency and concentration of collected tracer, a more accurate picture
of fugitive source locations and mass rates can be determined.
-59-
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
1. REPORT NO.
EPA-600/2-76-089b
2.
3. RECIPIENT'S ACC6SSION«NO.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Technical Manual for the Measurement of Fugitive
Emissions: Roof Monitor Sampling Method for
Industrial Fugitive Emissions
5. REPORT DATE
May 1976
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHOR(S)
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
R. E. Kenson and P. T. Bartlett
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
TRC--The Research Corporation of New England
125 Silas Deane Highway
Wethersfield, Connecticut 06109
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
1AB015; ROAP 21AUY-095
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
68-02-2110
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
EPA, Office of Research and Development
Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Task Final; 6/75-3/76
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA-ORD
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES project officer for this technical manual is Robert M. Statnick,
Mail Drop 62, Ext 2557.
16'ABSTRACTThe technical manual presents fundamental considerations that are required
in using the Roof Monitor Sampling Method to measure fugitive emissions. Criteria
for selecting the most applicable measurement method and discussions of general
information gathering and planning activities are presented. Roof Monitor sampling
strategies and equipment are described, and sampling system design, sampling
techniques, and data reduction are discussed. Manpower requirements and time
estimates for typical applications of the method are presented for programs designed
for overall and specific emissions measurements. The application of the outlined
procedures to the measurement of fugitive emissions from an electric-arc furnace
steelmaking plant is presented as an appendix.
7.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
Air Pollution Steel Plants
Industrial Processes
Measurement
Sampling
Estimating
Electric Arc Furnaces
b.lDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS C. COSATI Field/Group
Air Pollution Control
Stationary Sources
Fugitive Emissions
Roof Monitor Sampling
13 B
13H
14B
13A
8. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Unlimited
19. SECURITY CLASS (This Report)
Unclassified
21. NO. Of PAGES
64
20. SECURITY CLASS (Thispage)
Unclassified
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
-------
Appendix F
-------
PBS4-170802
Improved'Emission'PacterVr.forXPugitiv'e'
Dust from Western"Surfac%;{Cpa^Mining Sources
PEDC o-Env ir onmen tal, Inc.., Kansas. City, MO
Prepared for
Industrial Environmental Research Lab.
Cincinnati, OH
Mar 84
J
-------
EPA-600/7-84-048
;_..„._:.;.„_. March 1984
IMPROVED EMISSION FACTORS FOR FUGITIVE DUST
': FROM WESTERN SURFACE COAL MINING SOURCES
by
Kenneth Axetell, Jr.
PEDCo Environmental, Inc.
2420 Pershlng Road
Kansas City, MO 54108
and
Chatten Cowherd, Jr.
Midwest Research Institute
425 Volker Boulevard
Kansas City, MO 64110
Contract Mo. 68-03-2924
Work Directive No. 1
Project Officers
Jonathan G. Herrmann
Energy Pollution Control Division
Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory
Cincinnati, OH 45268
and
Thompson G. Pace, P.E.
Monitoring and Data Analysis Division
Office of A1r Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
rhls study was conducted 1n cooperation with
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region VIII Office In Denver, CO, and the
Office of Surface Mining In Washington, DC,
and Denver, CO.
INDUSTRIAL ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORY
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
CINCINNATI, OH 45268
T "
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
OKlht rrvtnt It fart eompttttnf!
IPORT MO, a.
'A-600/7-84-048
Ttt AMOSUSTITL1
proved Emission Factors for Fugitivt Dust from
stern Surface Coal Mining Sources ' -•_
tripling Methodology A Test Result*
nneth Axetell, Jr. and Chat ten Cowherd, Jr.
.AFQRMtNG ORGANIZATION NAME AND AOORESS
'.DCo Environmental, Inc. Midwest Research Institute
>2D Pershing Rd, 425 Volker Boulevard
msas City, MO 64108 Kansas City, MO 64110
SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND AOORESS
idustrial Environmental Research Laboratory
3. RECIPIENT1* ACCESSIOM>NO.
PB84- 170802
k. REPORT OATS
March 1984
ft. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION COOE
1. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION «l»O«f
NO
16. PROGRAM tilMENT NO.
CBBN1C
n. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
68-03-2924 (WD No. 1)
IX TYPE Of REPORT AND PERIOD COViMCC
Final Report 3/79 - 3/81
ffice of Research and Development
a Environmental Protection Agency
incinnati, OH45268
14. SPONSORING AGENCr CODE
EPA/600/12
NOTfS
A*STAA
primary purpose of this study was to develop emission factors for significanc
jrface coal mining operations that are applicable at Western surface coal mines «nd are
ased on state-of-the-art sampling and data analysis procedures. Primary objectives
ere 1) to develop emission factors for individual mining operations, in the form of
Ration* with several correction factors to account for site-specific conditions, and
) to develop these factors for particles less that 2.5ym)(fine particulates), particles
ess than 15 ym (inhalable particulates), and total suspended particulates. Secondary
bjectives were'l) to determine deposition rates over the SO- to 100-m distance downwinc
rom the sources, and 2) to estimate control efficiencies for certain source categories.
missions resulting from the following were sampled at three mines during 1979 and 1980:
rilling, blasting, coal loading, bulldozing, dragline operations, haul trucks, light-
nd medium-duty trucks, scrapers, graders, and wind erosion of exposed areas. Tht
rimary sampling methods was exposure profiling, supplemented by upwind/downwind.
allon, wind tunnel, and quasi-stack sampling. The number of tests run totaled 265.
"he report concludes with a comparison of the generated emission factors with previou:
mes, a statement regarding their applicability to mining operations with specifi<
:aveats and collateral information which must be considered in their use and recom
wndations for additional research in Western and other mines. • .
KIT WORDS AND OOCUMCNT AMAkVSIS
• DtscRirroRs
*
>. tiiTRiSUTlON STATCMCNT
•
MA — ... *<•*
b.lOINTIFtfRS/OFfN INDtD TERMS
IS. StCUftlTY CLASS (T*uKtf«rtl
UNCLASSIFIED
M. KCCMRITV CLASS IT*u pfft)
c. COSATi field/Group
21. NO. OF PACES
290
22. raict
-------
A !
FOREWORD
When energy and material resources are extracted, processed, con-
verted, and used, the related pollutlonal Impacts on our environment and.
even on our health often require that new and Increasingly more efficient
pollution control methods be used. The Industrial Environmental Research
Laboratory - Cincinnati, (IERL-C1) assists 1n developing and demonstrating
new and Improved methodologies that will meet these needs both efficiently
and economically.
This project Involved the development of emission factors for oper-
ations at surface coal mines located 1n the western United States.
Operations sampled Included, but were not limited to, haul road traffic,
scrapers, draglines, and blasts. Sampling techniques used Included
exposure profiling, upwind-downwind and wind tunnel testing. From this
Information, emission factors were developed which take Into account such
characteristics as soil moisture and silt content. The data presented
1n this study should aid both private Industry and government agencies
1n evaluating emissions from coal mining operations. If additional
Information is needed, contact the 011 Shale and Energy Mining Branch
of the Energy Pollution Control Division.
David G. Stephan
Director
Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory
Cincinnati
111!
' •'
-------
ABSTRACT
Since 1975 several sets of emission factors have evolved for esti-
mating fugitive dust emission from surface coal mines. The diverse values
of available emission factors, obvious sampling problems, and questions of
applicability over a range of mining/meteorological conditions have under-
mined confidence In air quality analyses performed to date. By early 1979,
these problems led to a ground swell of support, from both regulatory and
mining Industry personnel, for the development of new emission factors.
This study began 1n mid-March of 1979. The primary purpose of this
study was to develop emission factors for significant surface coal mining
operations that are applicable at Western surface coal mines and are
based on state-of-the-art sampling and data analysis procedures. The
primary objectives have been 1) to develop emission factors for Individual
mining operations, in the form of equations with several correction factors
to account for site-specific conditions; and 2) to develop these factors
in three particle size ranges—less than 2.5 urn (fine particulates), less
than 15 urn (inhalable participates), and total suspended participates.
Secondary objectives were 1) to determine deposition rates over the 50-
to 100-m distance downwind from the source, and 2) to estimate control
efficiencies for certain source categories.
Sampling was performed at three mines during 1979 and 1980. Emissions
resulting from the following were sampled: drilling (overburden), blasting
(coal and overburden), coal loading, bulldozing (coal and overburden),
dragline operations, haul trucks, light- and medium-duty trucks, scrapers,
graders, and wind erosion of exposed areas (overburden and coal). The
primary sampling method was exposure profiling. When source configuration
made 1t necessary, this method was supplemented by upwind/downwind, balloon,
wind tunnel, and quasl-stack sampling. A total of 265 tests were run.
Extensive quality assurance procedures were Implemented Internally for this
project and were verified by audit.
Size-specific emission factors and correction parameters were developed
for all sources tested. Confidence Intervals and probability limits were
also calculated. Additional data for determination of deposition rates
were gathered, but no algorithms could be developed. Two control measures
for unpaved roads were tested.
1v
-------
The report concludes with a comparison of the generated emission
factors with previous ones, a statement regarding their applicability
to mining operations with specific caveats and collateral Information
h must be considered 1n their use, and recommendations for addi-
ional research 1n Western and other mines.
-------
CONTENTS
Page
sreword 111
sstract iv
igures 1x
ables x1
)breviations of Units xv1
:knowledgement xv11
Introduction 1
P^e-contract status of mining emission factors 1
Purpose of study 2
Technical review group for the study 3
Contents and organization of this report 6
Selection of Mines and Operations to be Sampl . 7
Geographical areas of most concern 7
Significant dust-producing operations 9
Potential mines for sampling 13
Schedule 15
Sampling Methodology 17
Techniques available to sample fugitive dust
emissions 17
Selection of sampling methods 18
Sampling configurations 19
Source characterization procedures 42
Adjustments made during sampling 42
Error analyses for sampling methods 46
Summary of tests performed 46
Sample Handling and Analysis 50
Sample handling 50
Analyses performed 52
Laboratory analysis procedures 52
Quality assurance procedures and results 55
Audits 56
Calculation and Data Analysis Methodology 62
Number of tests per source 62
Calculation procedures 65
Particle size corrections 88
Combining results of Individual samples
and tests 91
Procedure for development of correction factors 93
-------
CONTENTS (continued)
6. Results of Simultaneous Exposure Profiling and
Upwind-Downwind Sampling 94
Description of comparability study 94
Results of comparability study 96
Deposition rates by alternative measurement 116
methods
7. Results for Sources Tested by Exposure Profiling 126
Summary of tests performed 126
Results 131
Problems encountered 144
8. Results for Sources Tested by Upwind-Downwind Sampling 150
Summary of tests performed 150
Results 152
Problems encountered 170
9. Results for Source Tested by Balloon Sampling 172
Summary of tests performed 172
Results 174
Problems encountered 174
10. Results for Sources Tested by Wind Tunnel Method 178
Summary of tests performed 178
Results 181
Problems encountered 193
11. Results of Source Tested by Quasi-Stack Sampling 194
Summary of tests performed 194
Results 196
Problems encountered 196
12. Evaluation of Results 199
Emission rates 199
Particle size distributions 200
Deposition 204
Estimated effectiveness of control measures 211
13. Development of Correction Factors and Emission
Factor Equations 214
Multiple linear regression analysis 214
Emission factor prediction equations 222
Confidence and prediction intervals 222
Emission factors for wind erosion sources 232
vft
-------
CONTENTS (continued)
Page
14. Evaluation of Emission Factors 242
Comparison with previously available
emission factors 242
Statistical confidence in emission factors 244
Particle size relationships 247
Handling of deposition 248
15. Conclusions and Recommendations 250
Summary of emission factors 250
Limitations to application of emission factors 253
Remaining research 255
16. References 257
Appendix A Stepwise Multiple Linear Regression A-l
Appendix B Calculations for Confidence and Prediction
Intervals B-l
-------
FIGURES
Number Page
2-1 Coal Fields of the Western U.S. 8
2-2 Operations at Typical Western Surface Coal Mines 10
2-3 Schedule for Coal Mining Emission Factor
Development Study 1-6
3-1 Exposure Profiler 21
3-2 (Ipwind-Downwind Sampling Array - 26
3-3 Wind Tunnel 29
3-4 Quasi-Stack Sampling—Temporary Enclosure for
Drill Sampling 30
3-5 Blast Sampling with Modified Exposure Profiling
Configuration 33
3-6 Coal Loading with Upwind-Downwind Configuration 34
3-7 Dragline Sampling with Upwind-Downwind
Configuration 36
3-8 Haul Road Sampling with Exposure Profiling
Configuration 38
3-9 Scraper Sampling with Exposure Prof Ming
Configuration 39
3-10 Wind Erosion Sampling with Wind Tunnel 41
5-1 Illustration of Exposure Profile Extrapolation 74
5-2 Example Ground-Level Concentration Profile 81
5-3 Example Vertical Concentration Profile 81
5-4 Plot of the 50 Percent Cut Point of the Inlet
Versus Wind Speed 89
-------
FIGURES (continued)
Number : Page
6-1 Sampling Configuration for Comparability Studies 97
6-2 Particle Size Distribution from Comparability
Tests on Scrapers 100
6-3 Particle Size Distributions from Comparability
Tests on Haul Road 101
6-4 Deposition Rates as a Function of Time 117
6-5 Average Measured Depletion Rates 119
6-6 Depletion Rates by Theoretical Deposition
Functions 122
6-7 Average Measured Depletion Rates Compared to
Predicted Tilted Plume Depletion 124
13-1 Confidence and Prediction Intervals for Emission
Factors for Coal Loading 229
-------
.OF PAGE
Mb.
t
.*>•"
Kumber
t
1-1
2-1
2-2
3-1
i
(••**• —
|3-2
3-3
3-4
3-5
3-6
3-7
3-8
4-1
4-2
4-3
t
4-4
5-1
k . .
I
I
TABLE
i . •
Technical Review Group for Mi
Determination of Significant
Operations
Characteristics of Mines that
Sampling Devices for Atmosphe
Matter— Exposure Profiling
_4 _ 6-1/2"
Basic Equipment Deployment fa
Speciail Equipment Deployment
S
ning Study
Dust-Producing
were Sampled
ric Particulate
••» «^-^ f_n_ i^^_ _... «^^ _, _
p Exposure Profiling
for Exposure
Profiling— Comparability Tests
9-1/8"
Sampling Configurations for S
Source Characterization Parair
During Testing
Summary of Potential Errors 1
Profiling Method
Summary of Potential Errors 1
Downwind Sampling Method
Summary of Tests Performed
Laboratory Analyses Performed
Quality Assurance Procedures
Factor Study
Quality Assurance Results
Audits Conducted and Results
Evaluation of Correction Fact
Data Set
-
• • «*«*»"«%>« * *»^
ignificant Sources
eters Monitored
n the Exposure
n the Upwind-
»
for Mining Emission
ors with Partial
-
— i
Page
5,
12
14
22
y^_
23
24
31
43
47 ,
J
48 ;
49 S
t
53
i
57
i
59 |
J
60
.
66
SSSSS: ^
T ARi
-------
lkKt *J- A \
DPPED
AD;
GIN Number
-TIONST
RE *"5-2 Calcul
5-3 Sampl e
5-4 o0 Met
TABLES (con
a'Eftd-^iinnT p ^1 ?pr ii^inf .
ErWw"^BVvln|/ 1 C " &r^\S'9~ U &Tit\J •
Linued)
Sizes Proposed and Obtained
nod of Determining Atmospheric Stability
C1 ass
Page ;
^•••^••^•v ,
fi7 -i
\j i \
i
6R
76
6-1 Comparison of Particle Size Data Obtained by
Different Techniques
I
6-2 Ratios, of Net Fine and Inhalable Particulate
Concentrations to Net TSP Concentrations
L^ _. ._
j. _ B., ,2- 1
6-3 Concentrations Measured at Collocated Samplers
• ! 1
6-4 Test Conditions for Comparability Studies
i
98
104
_ . . _ ^_
107
109
! 6-5 Calculated Suspended Particulate (TSP) Emission
Rates for Comparability Tests
110
\ l
; 6-6 Calculated Inhalable Particulate (<15 urn) Emission
Rates for Comparability Tests
i
i I
6-7 Analyses of Variance Results
; 6-8 Multiple Classification Analysis (ANOVA)
6-9 Depletion Factors for Compara
i 7-1 Exposure Profiling Site Condi
bllity Tests
tions - Haul Trucks
7-2 Road and Traffic Characteristics^ Haul Trucks
112
113
114
121
127
129
7-3 Exposure Profiling Site Conditions - Light and
! Medium Duty Vehicles
i 7-4 Road and Traffic Characterlst
Medium Duty Vehicles
f
j 7-5 Exposure Profiling Site Condi
i
i
! 7-6 Road and Traffic Characterlst
i
1
. , | 7-7 Exposure Profiling Site Cond-
' < • 2B»-
; C7' I.'"'- ?»
Ics - Light and
tions - Scrapers
:1cs - Scrapers
_
i tions - Graders
| •:•:••.••.•:••.•:•:•
132
133
134
135
136
i
PAGE NUMBER
-------
—
jmber
Z-8
•-9
>T-1G
'-11
'-12
'-13
'-14
'-15
-16
i-l
-2
-3
-4
-5
-t
-7
-8
-9
-10
•11
ll
1 TABLES (cor
Road and Traffic Charactarlst
Test Results for Haul Trucks
i
tinued)
1cs - Graders
Test Results for Light- and Medium-Duty Vehicles
i
Te^.t Results for Scrapers
Test Results for Graders
Dustfall Rates for Tests of ^
aul Trucks
Dustfall Rates for Tests of U1ght and Medium
Duty Vehicles ... ! _. ..
Dustfall Rates for Tests of Scrapers
Dustfall Rates for Tests of Graders
M ' -
Test Conditions for Coal Loading
Test Conditions for Dozer (Overburden)
i
Test Conditions for Dozer (Coal)
i
Test Conditions for Draglines
Test Conditions for Haul Roads
Apparent Emission Rates for Coal Loading High-
Volume (30 um) i
Apparent Emission Rates for Dozer (Overburden^
High -Volume (30 um)
Aoparent Emission Rates for t
Volume (30 um)
Apparent Emission Rates for C
(3d um)
Apparent Emission Rates for t
Volume (30 um)
Emission Rates for Upwind-Dot
b" w '•••• kli"
* ••;;:;:':";:;:
lozer (Coal) H1gh-
ragllne High-Volume
aul Road H1gh-
nwlnd Tests
•.v.v, '.*.'.*
'.*•.«••>.
• «.V.'.V V
I
j
Page i
137 — i
138 ;
140
141
142
145
147
148
149
151
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160 >
161 ;
163 ___|
1
\
-------
TABLES (continued)
Number Page
8-12 Emission Rates for Coal Loading, Dichotomous
(15 urn and 2.5 urn) 165
8-13 Emission Rates for Dozer (Overburden), Dichotomous
(15 urn and 2.5 urn) 166
8-14 Emission Rates for Dozer (Coal), Dichotomous (15 urn
and 2.5 urn) 167
8-15 Emission Rates for Dragline, Dichotomous (15 urn and
2.5 urn) 168
8-16 Emission Rates for Haul Roads, Dichotomous (15 urn and
2.5 urn) 169
9-1 Test Conditions for Blasting 173
9-2 Apparent Emission Rates for Blasting, High Volume
(30 urn) 175
9-3 Apparent Emission Rates for Blasting, Dichotomous
(15 urn and 2.5 urn) 176
10-1 Wind Erosion Test Site Parameters - Coal
Storage Piles 179
10-2 Wind Tunnel Test Conditions - Coal Storage Piles 132
10-3 Wind Erosion Surface Conditions - Coal
Storage Piles 184
10-4 Wind Erosion Test Site Parameters - Exposed
Ground Areas 186
1Q-5 Wind Tunnel Test Conditions - Exposed Ground
Areas 188
10-6 Wind Erosion Surface Conditions - Exposed
Ground Areas 189
10-7 Wind Erosion Test Results - Coal Storage Piles 190
10-8 Wind Erosion Test Results - Exposed Ground
Areas 192
11-1 Test Conditions for Drills 195
x1v
-------
TABLES (continued)
Page
Apparent Emission Rates for Drilling 197
Comparison of Sample Catches on Greased and
Ungreased Impactor Substrated 201
12-2 Particle Size Distributions Based on Net
Concentrations 205
12-3 Depletions Factors Calculated from Dustfall
Measurements 207
12-4 Depletion Factors for Upwind-Downwind Tests 209
12-5 Calculated Efficiencies of Control Measures 212
13-1 Variables Evaluated as Correction Factors 21fi
13-2 Results of First Multiple Linear Regression
Runs (TSP) 217
13-3 Changes made in Multiple Linear Regression
Runs (TSP) 219
13-4 Results of Final Multiple Linear Regression
Runs (TSP) 220
13-5 Results of First Multiple Linear Regression
Runs (IP) * 223
13-6 Changes made in Multiple Linear Regression
Runs (IP) 225
13-7 Results of Final Multiple Linear Regression
Runs (IP) 226
13-8 Prediction Equations for Median Emisison Rates 227
13-9 Typical Values for Correction Factors 228
13-10 Emission Factors, Confidence and Prediction
Intervals 231
13-11 Calculated Erosion Potential Versus Wind Speed 233
13-12 Surface and Emission Characteristics
xv
-------
TABLES (continued)
Number
13-13 Hypothetical Monthly Wind Data Presented in
LCD Format 239
14-1 TSP Emission Factor Comparison 243
14-2 Half-Width of Confidence Internals Compared to
Median TSP Emisison Factor 245
14-3 Evaluation of Widely-Used Parti culateEmission
Factors from AP-42 246
15-1 Summary of Western Surface Coal Mining Emission
Factors 251
x'vi
-------
ABBREVIATIONS OF UNITS
ABBREVIATIONS
ug/m3 micrograms per standard cubic meter
mg milligrams
SCFM standard cubic feet per minute
mi n mi nutes
°C degrees Celsius
in. inches
ACFM actual cubic feet per minute
ft feet
f pm feet per mi nute
sfpm standard feet per minute
cm centimeters
m meters
Ib pounds
VMT vehicle miles traveled
s seconds
°k_ degrees Jcel vi n
g grams
yd3 cubic yards
BTu British Thermal Units
gal gallons
mi miles
CFM cubic feet per minute
mpft mi les per hour
xvli
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Mr. Edward Li 1 lis
provided him with
Herrmann were Mr.
This report was prepared for the Industrial Environmental Research
Laboratory of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Mr.
Jonathan Herrmann served as Project Officer and Mr. Thompson Pace and
from the Air Management Technology Branch of F.PA
technical and policy assistance. Also assisting Mr.
E. A. Rachal, EPA Region VIII; Mr. Floyd Johnson,
Office of Surface Mining, Region V; and Mr. Robert Goldberg, Office of
Surface Mining, Division of Technical Services, all of whom provided
technical and funding support.
Mr. Kenneth Axetell served as PEDCo's Project Manager, and was
supposed by Mr. Robert Zimmer, Mr. Anthony Wisbith, and Mr. Keith
Rosbury. Midwest Research Institute (MRI) acted as subconsultants to
PEDCo. Mr. Chatten Cowherd directed MRI studies with the support of
Mr. Russell Bohn and Mrs. Mary Ann Grelinger.
The assistance of the Technical Work Group, their consultants,
and their counsel, all of whom provided technical guidance throughout
the study, is also grateful ly acknowledged. This work group consisted
of the followi ng:
Government participants
Phi 1 Wondra
E.A. Rachal
Douglas Fox
Randolph Wood
William Zeller
Robert Goldberg
Floyd Johnson
Suzanne WeiIborn
James Di eke
Stan Coloff
Industry/association part.ici pants
Steve Vardiman
Bruce Kranz
Michael Williams
Charles Drevna
Richard Kerch
xvill
-------
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION
'RE-CONTRACT STATUS OF MINING EMISSION FACTORS
Over the past 4 or 5 years, several sets of emission factors for
estimating fugitive dust emissions from surface coal mining have evolved.
The first of these were primarily adaptations of published emisrion fac-
;ors from related industries, such as construction, aggregate handling,
Ldconite mining, and travel on unpaved roads (Monsanto Research Corporation
1975; Environmental Research and Technology 1975; PEDCo Environmental 197S;
Ihalekode 1975; PEDCo Environmental 1976; Wyoming Department of Environmental
Duality 1976, Appendix B; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1977a;
;olorado Department of Health 1978; Midwest Research Institute 1978).
The concept of developing emission factors by operation rather than
cor the entire mine has been widely accepted from the beginning. This
ipproach recognizes the large variation in operations from mine to mine.
As demand for emission factors specifically for surface coal mining
ncreased, some sampling studies at mines were undertaken. The first of
;hese, sponsored by EPA Region VIII in the summer of 1977, sampled 12
)perations at 5 mines in a total of 213 sampling periods (U.S. Environ-
lental Protection Agecny 1978a). Emission factors were reported by
Deration and mine, but no attempt was made to derive a general or
'universal" emission factor equation for each operation that could be
;pplied outside the five geographic areas where the sampling took place.
Uso, several problems with the upwind-downwind sampling method as
smployed in the study were noted in the report and by the mining industry
>bservers. An industry-sponsored sampling study was conducted at mines
n the Powder River Basin in 1978-1979. No information or proposed
mission factors from that study have been released yet.
EPA Region VIII and several state agencies have evaluated the avail -
ble emission factors and compiled different lists of recommended factors
or use in their air quality analyses (U.S. Environmental Protection
tgency 1979; Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality 1979; Colorado
lepartment of Health 1980). Some of the alternative published emission
actors vary, by an order of magnitude. Part of this variance is from
ctual difference in average emission rates at different mines (or at
ifferent times or locations within a single mine) due to meteorological
onditions, mining equipment/techniques being used, control techniques
eing employed, ;nd soil characteristics.
-------
The diverse values for available emission factors, the obvious pro-
blems encountered in sampling mining sources, and questions of applicability
over a range of mining/meteorological conditions have all undermined
confidence in air quality analysis done to date. These problems led to a
ground swell of support from regulatory agency personnel in early 1979 for
new emission factors.
The major steps in an air quality analysis for a mine are estimating
the amount of emissions and modeling to predict the resulting ambient
concentrations. The preamble to EPA's Prevention of Significant Deter-
ioration (PSD) regulations notes the present inability to accurately
mocle1! the impact of mines and indicates that additional research will be
done, However, problems in modeling of mines have been overshadowed by
concern over the emission factors. Advancement in this entire area seems
to be contingent on the development of new emission factors.
PURPOSE OF STUDY
The purpose of this study is to develop emission factors for signi-
ficant surface coal mining operations that are applicable at all Western
mines and that are based on widely acceptable, state-of-the-art sampling
and data analysis procedures. Confidence intervals are to be developed
for the emission factors, based on the numbers of samples and sample
variance. The present study is to be comprehensive enough so that an
entire data base can be developed by consistent methods, rather than just
providing some additional data to combine with an existing data base.
The emission factors are to be in the form of equations with several
correction factors, so values can be adjusted to more accurately may
also be used as the means to combine similar emission factors (e.g.,
haul roads and unpaved access roads), if the data support such combina-
tions.
The emission factors are to be generated for three size ranges of
particles--less than 2.5 Am (FP), less than 15 >um (IP), and total
;.sp8nded particulate (TSP). An alternative to the TSP size fraction
consists of suspended particles less than 30 jum (SP); the upper size
limit of 30 )yn i s the approximate effective cutoff diameter for capture
of fugitive dust by a standard high volume particulate sampler (Wedding
1980).
Definition of particle sizes is important for at least three reasons:
deposition rates in dispersion modesl are a function of particle size;
EPA may promulgate size-specific ambient air quality standards -in the near
future; and visibility analyses require Information on particle size
di stribution.
-------
The study is also intended to determine deposition (or plume depletion)
rates over the 50 to 100 m distance immediately downwind of the sources.
Although it is recognized that deposition continues to significant for
distances of a few kilometers, a large percentage of the fallout occurs in
the first 100 m and estimates of the additional deposition can be made
more accurately from particle size sampling data than from measurements
associated with the emission factor development.
A secondary purpose is to estimate the efficiencies of commonly used
dust control techniques at mines, such as watering and chemical stabili-
zation of haul roads. This aspect of the study received less emphasis
as the study progressed as better information indicated that more test
periods than originally anticipated would be needed-to determine the basic
emission factors with a reasonable margin of error.
The study was designed and carried out with special effort to encourage
input and participation by most of the expected major users of mining
emission factors. The intent was to obtain suggestions for changes and
additions prior to developing the emission factors than criticism of the
techniques and scope of the study afterward.
TECHNICAL REVIEW GROUP FOR THE STUDY
Parti ci pants
EPA's Office of Air Quality Planning and standards (OAQPS) took the
initial lead in planning for a study to develop new emission factors.
Their staff became aware of the amount of concern surrounding the avail-
able mining factors when they considered including surface mining as a
major source category under proposed regulations for Prevention of Signi-
ficant Deterioration.
EPA Region VIII Office, which had directed the first fugitive dust
sampling study at surface mines and published a compilation of recommended
mining emission factors, immediately encouraged such a study and offered
to provide partial funding. The new created Office of Surface Mining
(OSM) in the Department of Interior also offered support and funding. At
that time, OS, had just proposed regulations pursuant to the Surface Mininq
Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA) requiring air quality analyses for
Western mines of greater than 1,000,000 tons/yr production (this
requirement was dropped in the final regulations).
EPA's Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory (IERL) soon became
involved as a result of its responsibilities for the agency's research
studies on mining. This group already had planned some contract work on
-------
fugitive dust emissions from surface coal mines in its FY/1979 budget, so
its staff assumed the lead in contractual matters related to the study.
All the early participants agreed that even broader representation
would be desirable in the technical planning and guidance for the study.
Therefore, a technical review group was established at the outset of the
study to make recommendaitons on study design, conduct, and analysis of
results. The agencies and organizations represented on the technical
review group are shown in Table 1-1. This group received draft materials
for comment and met periodically throughout the study. Other groups that
expressed an interest in the study were provided an opportunity to comment
on the draft report.
Study Design
The study design was the most important component of the study from
many persprctives. It was the primary point at which participants could
present their preferred approaches. The design also had to address the
problems that had plagued previous sampling studies at mines and attempt
to resolve them. Most of the decision making in the study was done during
this phase.
The first draft of the study design report was equivalent to a
detailed initial proposal by the contractors, with the technical review
group then having latitude to suggest modifications or different approaches.
The rationales for most of the design specifications were documented in the
report so members of the technical review group would also have access to
the progression of thinking leading to recommendations.
The scope of the full study was not fixed by contract prior to the
design phase. Some of the options left open throughout the design phase
were number of mines, geographical areas, different mining operations, and
the seasonal range to be sampled. In some cases, the final decision on
recommended sampling methods was left to the results of comparative testing-
alternative methods were both used initially until the results could be
evaluated and the better method retained.
Several major changes were made from the first draft to the third
(final) draft of the study design. These changes are summarized in Section
3. In addition, requests were made for in-depth analyses on particular
aspects of the study design that were responded to in separate reports.
Specifically, the separate reports and their release dates were:
Error Analysis for Exposure Profiling October 1979
Error Analysis for Upwind-Downwind October 1979
Sampli ng
4
-------
TABLE 1-1. TECHNICAL REVIEW GROUP FOR MINING STUDY
Organization
Representative
Al ternati
Bureau of Land Management
Bureau of Mines (U.S.)
Consolidation Coal Company
Department of Energy,
Policy Analysis Division
Environmental Protection Agency
Industrial Environmental Research Lab.
Monitoring and Data Analysis Division
Region VIII
Source Receptor Analysis Branch
Forest Service, U.S. Department of
Agriculture
National Coal Association
National Park Service
New Mexico Citizens for Clean Air
and Water
North American Coal Corporation
Office of Surface Mining
Headquarters
Region V
Peabody Coa1 Company
Wyoming Department of Environmental
Quality
Stan Coloff
H. William Zeller
Richard Kerch
Suzanne Wellborn
Jonathan Herrmann
Thompson Pace
E. A. Rachal
James Dicke
Douglas Fox
Charles T. Drevna
Phil Wondra
Michael D. Williams
Bruce Kranz
Robert Goldberg
Floyd Johnson
Steven Vardiman
Randolph Wood
Bob Kane
J. SoutherU
David Joseph
Edward Burt
J. Christianc
Chuck Collins
-------
Quality Assurance Procedures October 1979
Example Calculations for Exposure November 1979
Profili ng
Calculations Procedures for Upwind-Downwind
Sampling Method October 1979
Statistical Plan November 1979
Statistica Plan, Second Draft May 1980
The above reports were being prepared while sampling proceeded at the
first two mines. The contents of these reports are summarized in this
report in appr'oriate sections.
CONTENTS AND ORGANIZATION OF THIS REPORT
This report contains 16 sections and is bound in one volume. The
first five sections describe the methodologies used in the study; e.g.,
sampling (Section 3), the sample analysis (Section 4), and data analysis
(Section 5). Sections 6 through 11 present results of the various
sampli ng efforts.
Sections 12 through 15 describe the evaluation and interpretation
of results and the development of emission factor equations. The specific
topics covered by section are:
12 Evaluation of Results
13 Development of Correction Factors and Emission
Factor Equations
14 Evaluation of Emission Factors
15 Summary and Conclusions
Section 16 is the list of references.
-------
SECTION 2
SELECTION OF MINES AND OPERATIONS TO BE SAMPLED
GEOGRAPHICAL AREAS OF MOST CONCERN
The contract fo this study specified that sampling be done at Western
surface coal mines. As a result of comments and recommendations made by
members of the technical review group during the study design preparation,
this restriction in scope was reviewed by the sponsoring agencies. The
decision was made to continue focusing the study on Western mines for at
least three reasons:
1. The Western areas are more arid than Eastern of Midwestern
coal mining regions, leading to a greater potential for
excessive fugitive dust emissions.
2. Western mines in general have larger production rates and
ther2fo~e would be larger individual emission sources.
3. Most of the new mines, subject to analyses for environmental
impacts, are in the West.
The need for emission factors for Eastern and Midwestern surface mines
is certainly acknowledged. Consequently, an effort was made in the pre-
sent study to produce emission factors that are applicable over a wide
range of climatic and mining conditions.
There are 12 major coal field in the Western states (excluding tne
Pacific Coast and Alaskan fields), as shown in Figure 2-1. Together,
they account for more than 64 percent of the surface-mineable coal reserves
in the U.S. (U.S. Bureau of Mines 1977). The 12 coal fields havo different
characteristics which may influence fugitive dust emission rates from
mining operations, such as:
Overburden and coal seam thickness and structure
Mining equipment commonly used
Operating procedures
Terrain
Vegetation
Precipitation and surface moisture
Wind speeds
Temperatures
-------
COAL TYPE
LIGNITE
SUBBITUMINOUS
BITUMINOUS
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Coal field
Fort Union
Powder River
North Central
Bighorn Basin
Wind River
Hams Fork
Uinta
Southwestern Utah
San Juan River
Raton Mesa
Denver
Green River
1978 production,
106 tons
14
62
neg
5
2
22
24
reserves
Strippable
106 tons
23,529
56,727
all underground
all underground
3
1,000
308
224
2,318
all underground
all underground
2,120
(Reference: U.S. DOE, Energy Information Administration. Bituminous Coal and
Lignite Production and Mine Ops.-1978. Publication No. DOE/EIA-0118(78).
Washington, D.C. June I960.)
Figure 2*1. Coal fields of the Western U.S.
-------
Mines in all 12 Western coal fields could not be sampled in this study
The dual objectives of the emission factor development propram were to
sample representative, rather than extreme, emi-ssion rates and yet sample
over a wide range of meteorological and mining conditions so that the
effects of these variables on emission rates could also te determined.
Therefore, diversity was desired 1n the selection of mines (in different
coal fields) for sampling.
No formal system was developed for quantifying the diversity between
the Western fields. Instead, three fields with high production from sur-'
face mines and distinctly different characteristics were identified by
the project participants: Fort Union (lignite), Powder River Basin, and
San Juan Rive;*. Sampling at mines in each of these fields was to be the
first priority. If sampling in a fourth field were possible or a suitable
mine could not be located in one of the three primary areas, the Green
River field was the next choice.
SIGNIFICANT DUST-PRODUCING OPERATIONS
All of the mining operations that involve movement of soil, coal, or
equipment or exposure of erodible surfaces generate some amount of fugitive
dust. Before a sampling program could be designed, it was first necessary
to identify which of the many emission-producing operations at the mines
would be sampled.
The operations at a typical Western surface mine are shown schemati-
cally in Figure 2-2. The initial mining operation is removal of topsoil
and subsoil with large scrapers. The topsoil is carried by the scrapers
to cover a previously mined and regraded area (as part of the reclamation
proces-) or placed in temporary stockpiles. The exposed overburden is
then leveled, drilled, and blasted. Next, the overburden material is
removed down to the coal seam, usually by dra.line or shovel and truck
operation. It is placed in the adjacent mined cut and forms a spoils
pile. The uncovered coal seam is then drilled and biased. A shovel or
front-end loader loads the borken coal into haul trucks. The coal is
transported out of the pit along graded haul roads to the tipple, or
truck dump. The raw coal may a»>o be' dumped on a temporary storage
pile and later rehandled by a front-end loader or dozer.
At the tipple, the coal is dumped into a hopper that feeds the pri-
mary crusher. It is then moved by conveyor through additional coal pre-
paration equipment, such as secondary crushers and screens, to the storage
area. If the mine has open storage piles, the crushed coal passes through
a coal stacker onto the pile. The piles are usually worked by dozers,
and are subject to wind erosion. From the storage area, the coal is
conveyed to the train loading facility and loaded onto rail cars. If the
mine is captive, coal goes from the storage pile to the power plant.
-------
o
To rr«p«t*HcNi ami
Shipping
li*ul
4, *»
Undlfluihvd AIM *-
Figure 2-2. Operations at typical western surface coal mines.
-------
During mine reclamation, which proceeds continuously throughout fie
life of the mine, overburden spoils piles are smoother and shaped to
predetermined contours by dozers, Topsoil is placed on the graded spoils
and the land is prepared for revegetation by furrowing, mulching, etc.
From the time an area is disturbed until the new vegetation emerges, the
exposed surfaces are subject to wind erosion.
These operations could not be ranked directly in order of their
impact on parti culate air quality because reliable emission factors to
estimate their emissions do not exist. Also, any specific mine would
probably not have-the same oeprations as the typcial mine described above,
and the relative magnitudes of the operations vary greatly from mine to
mine (e.g., tne average haul distance from the pit to the tipple). --
In the study design phase, two different analyses were done to
evaluate the relative impacts of the emission sources (PEDCo Environmental
and Midwest Research Institute 1979). In the first analysis, several
alternative emission factors reported in the literature were used to cal-
culate estimated emissions from a hypothetical mine having all the pos-
sible mining sources described above. The second analysis used a single
set of emission factors, judged to be the best available for each source,
combined with activity data from seven actual surface mines in Wyoming
and Colorado. The resulting rankings from the two analyses were similar.
The ranges of percentages of total mine emissions estimated by the two
analyses are summarized in Table 2-1. The •. *ces are listed in the
table in order of decreasing estimated contribution.
A one percent contribution to total mine emissions was used in the
study design to separate significant sources, for which sampling would
.a performed, from insignificant sources. There were only a few sources
for which classification was questionable: draglines and wind erosion of
storage piles. This conflict arose because one analysis showed them to
be insignificant and the other indicated they were significant. Because
these operations are integral parts of most mine operations and there was
a wide disparity between alternative emission factors, they were both
included as significant sources to be sampled.
The ranking was also considered in determining the number of tests for
each source-nnore tests were allocated to sources predicted to be the major
contri butors.
11
-------
TABLE 2-1. DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANT DUST-PRODUCING OPERATIONS
Operation
Significant sources
Haul truck
Light and medium duty vehicles
(unpaved access roads)
Shovel/truck loading, evfe overb-rJ«*
Shovel /truck loading, coal
Dozer operations
Wind erosion of exposed areas
Scraper travel
Blasting, ovfe - o^'Z'^''^* **
Truck dumping, coal
Scraper pickup
Scraper spreading
Coal stacker
Train loading
Enclosed storage loading
Transfer/conveying
Vehicle traffic on paved roads
Crushing, primary
Crushing, secondary
Screening and sizing
Drilling, coal
Primary
emission
composition
soil
soil
soil
coal
either
soil
soil
soil
coal
soil
coal
soil
soil
coal
soil
coal
soil
soil
coal
coal
coal
coal
soil
coal
coal
coal
coal
Range in 3
total mir
emission
18-85
-------
POTENTIAL MINES FOR SAMPLING
The number of mines to be sampled was set at three In the study
leslgn. This was based on a compromise between sampling over the widest
-ange of mine/meteorological conditions by visiting a large number of
nines and obtaining the most tests within the budget and time limits by
jampling at only a few mines. The criteria for selection of appropriate
nines were quite simple:
1. The three mines should have the geographical distribution
described above, i.e., one each in the Fort Union, Powder
River Basin, and San Juan River fields.
2. Each mine should have all or almost all of the 14 signifi-
cant dust-producing operations listed in Table 2-1.
3. The mine personnel should be willing to cooperate in the
study and provide access to all operations for sampling.
4. The mines should be relatively large so that there are
several choices of locations for sampling each of the
operations.
Using their industry contacts, the National Coal Association (NCA)
lembers did preliminary screening to find appropriate mines and made
:ontacts to determine whether suitable mines were interested in parti-
ripating in the sampling program.
The three mines finally selected were each obtained in a different
lanner. The first, in the Powder River Basin, volunteered before any
:ontacts were made with mining companies. The second mine was operated
>y a company with a representative on the technical review group. This
line was in the Fort Union field in North Dakota. By coincidence, these
:irst two mines were among the five where sampling had been done in the
irevious EPA-sponsored emission factor development study (EPA 1978a).
Several mines in the San Juan River field were contacted by NCA and
>y PEDCo to participate. After failing to obtain a volunteer, provisions
if the Clean Air Act were invoked to obtain access. Personnel at the
.hird mine cooperated fully with the sampling teams and were very helpful
The names of the three mines are not mentioned in this report.
'ertinent information on the three mines is summarized in Table 2-2.
13
-------
TABLE 2-2. CHARACTERISTICS OF MINES THAT WERE SAMPLED
Parameter
Location
Production
Strati graphic data
Typical overburden depth
Typical coal seam
thickness
Typical parting thickness
Typical pit depth
Av overburden density
Operating data
No. of active pits
Typical haul distance
(one way)
Av storage pile size
Equipment
Dragl ines
Shovels
Front-end loaders
Haul trucks
Water trucks
Scrapers
Jozers
Av coal analysis data
Heat value
Sulfur content
Moisture content
Units
106 tons
ft
ft
ft
ft
lb/yd3
-
mi
103 tons
No. ;yd3
No. ;yd3
Nc.;yd3
No,; tons
No. ;103 gal
No.; yd3
No.
Btu/lb
%
X
Mine 1
>owder River
Basin
9-12
75
23
-
98
3000
3
1.6
72
3; 60
4; 17, 24
4; 5-12.5
Mine 2
North Dakota
1-4
35
2, 4, 9
2, 15, 30
80
3350
2
3.5
15
2; 33, 65
2; 15
1; 12
13; 100, 120 6; 170
5; 8, 10
6; 22
9
8600
0.8
25
3; 1, 8
12; 33, 40
8
10600
0.75
37
Mine 3
Four Corners
5-8
80
8
35
145
5211
7
2.5
300
4; 38-64
1; 12
6; 23.5
11; 120, 150
2; 24
3; 34
9
7750
0.75
13
Information in this table provided by respective mining companies.
14
-------
SCHEDULE
A task order was issued in mid-March, 1979, to prepare a preliminary
study design for development of surface coal mining emission factors.
The time period for the task order was 8 weeks (to mid-May). If the
resulting sampling methods and analytical approach were acceptable to
the sponsoring agencies and the technical review group being convened
to guide the study and assure its wide applicability, another contract
to perform the sampling and data analysis was to follow immediately so
that field work could be completed during the summer and fall of 1979.
The first mine was sampled on schedule, from July 23 through August
24, 1979. However, delays in obtaining approval to sample at a second
mine; requests for further documentation of calculation procedures, error
analyses, and quality assurance procedures; and preparation of a
detailed statistical plan caused a slip in the schedule at this point.
The second mine was sampled from October 10 through November 1, 1979,
precluding a sampling period at a third mine during the dusty season.
The winter sampling at the first mine took place from December 4 through
13, 1979.
Sampling at the third mine, rescheduled for the spring of 1980, was
postponed on several occasions for such reasons as: lapse of the primary
contract with the need to find an alternative contracting mechanism;
unresolved issues regarding the statistical approach; and need for several
contacts to gain access to a mine for the sampling. The third mine was
finally sampled from July 21 to August 14, 19HU.
The actual schedule for the study is shown in chart form in Figure 2-3.
The distribution of sampling periods by season should be noted. Two
occurred during July-August, when emission rates would be expected to be
near their maximum. One of these mines was also sampled in December, when
fugitive dust rates would normally be relatively 1 ow i n the Powder River
Basin. The fourth sampling period was in October, a season during which
potential for dust generation would be near the annual average.
15
-------
1 1 1 1 1 1 1
STUDY DSN FIRST TASK
TASK ORDER FOR FIELD
-A AA A — AA
E ET E ET
PI P2
MINE 1 MINE
A A A
12 3
LEGEND:
1 1
ORDER
WORK
A
E
? MINE 1
WINTEF
4
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1
TASK ORDER TO FINISH FIELD
WORK AND WRITE REPORT
A • i«i~r*TnnnQ
" • — ML.L 1 NNUo
E
P3
MINE 3
Dt"Df">nT*S 'A A A
MtrUM 1 O •• *• — A —
567
KEY TO REPORT NUMBERS:
i f — p
A n
4 A " « .*
T T
^•ff* YMIS>
TESTINQ •
A A«
8 V 10
E • EPA AND OSM MTG W/ CONTRACTORS 1. STUDY DSN, DRAFT 1 6. PRELIMINARY DATA RPT
T • MTG OF TECHNICAL REVIEW GROUP 2. STUDY DSN. DRAFT 2 7. FIRST DRAFT PROJECT RPT, VOL I
P • PRESURVEY TRIP TO MINE 3. STUDY DSN, DRAFT 3 8. FIRST DRAFT PROJECT RPT. VOL II
A • PROJECTED DATE OF EVENT 4. FIVE INTERIM TECHNICAL RPTS 9. SECOND DRAFT PROJECT RPT
5. STATISTICAL PLAN, DRAFT 2 10. FINAL PROJECT RPT
,1111111
1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1
1 I 1
MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP QCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR
1970 1980 1981
Figure 2-3. Schedule for cool mining emission factor development study.
-------
SECTION 3
SAMPLING METHODOLOGY
TECHNIQUES AVAILABLE TO SAMPLE FUGITIVE DUST EMISSIONS
Five basic techniques have been used to measure fugitive dust emissions,
These are quasi-stack, roof monitor, exposure profiling, upwind-downwind and
wind tunnel. Several experimental sampling methods are in developmental
stages.
In the quasi-stack method of sampling, the emissions from a well-
defined process are captured in a temporary enclosure and vented to a
duct or stack of regular cross-sectional area. The emission concentration
and the flow rate of the air stream in the duct are treasured using standard
stack sampling or other conventional methods.
Roof monitor sampling is used to measure fugitive emisssions entering
the ambient air from buildings or other enclosure openings. This type of
sampling is applicable to roof vents, doors, windows, or numerous other
openings located in such fashion that they prevent the installation o*
temporary enclosures.
The exposure profiling technique employs a singlo profile tower with
multiple sampling heads to perform simultaneous multi-point isokinetic
sampling over the plume cross-section. The profiling tower is 4 to 6
meters in height and is located downwind and as close to the source as
possible (usually 5 meters). This method uses monitors located directly
upwind to determine the background contribution. A modification of this
technique employs balloon-suspended samplers.
With the upwind-downwind technique, an array of samplers is set up
both upwind and downwind of the source. The source contribution is
determined to be the difference between the upwind and downwind concen-
trations. The resulting contribution is then used in standard dispersion
equations to back-calculate the source strength.
The wind tunnel method utilizes a portable wind tunnel with an open-
floored test section placed directly over the surface to be tested. Air
is drawn through the tunnel at controlled velocities. A proble is located
at the end of the test section and the air is drawn thorugh a sampling
train.
17
-------
Several sampling methods using new sampling equipment or sampling
arrays are in various stages of development. These include tracer studies,
lidar, acoustic radar, photometers, quartz crystal impactors, etc.
SELECTION OF SAMPLING METHODS
Each of the five basic techniques used to measure fugitive dust
emissions has inherent advantages, disadvantages, and limitations to
its use.
The quasi-stack method is the most accurate of the airborne fugitive
emission sampling techniques because it captures virtually all of the
emissions from a given source and conveys them to a measurement location
with minimal dilution (Kalika et al. 1976). Its use is restricted to
emission sources that can be isolated and are arranged to permit the
capture of the emissions. There are no reported uses of this technique
for sampling open sources at mines.
The roof monitor method is not as accurate as the quasi-stack method
because a significant portion of the emissions escape through other
openings and a higher degree of dilution occurs before measurement. This
method can be used to measure many indoor sources where emissions are
released to the ambient air at low air velocities through large openings.
With the exception of the preparation plant and enclosed storage, none of
the sources at mines occur within buildings.
The exposure profiling technique is applicable to sources where the
ground-based profiler tower can be located vertically across the plume
and where the distance from the source to the profiling tower can remain
fixed at about 5 meters. This limits application to point sources and
line sources. An example of a line source that can be sampled with
this technique is haul trucks operating on a haul road. Sources such as
draglines cannot be sampled using this technique because the source works
in a general area (distance between source and tower cannot be fixed),
and because of sampling equipment and personnel safety.
The upwind-downwind method is the least accurate of the methods
described because only a small portion of the emssions are captured in
the highly diluted transport air stream (Kalika et al. 1976). It is,
nowever, a universally applicable method. It can be used to quantify
emissions from a variety of sources where the requirements of exposure
profiling cannot be met.
The wind tunnel method has been used to meausre wind erosion of soil
surfaces and coal piles (Gillette 1978; Cowherd et al. 1979). It offers
the advantages of measuremei.t of wind erosion-tinder controlled wind
conditions. The flow field in the tunnel has been shcrwn to adequately
18
-------
simulate the properties of ambient winds which entrain particles from
erodible surfaces (Gillette 1978).
Experimental sampling methods present at least three problems for
coal mine applications. First, none have been used in coal mines to date.
Second, they are still in experimental stages, so considerable time would
be required for testing and development of standard operating procedures.
Third, the per sample costs would be considerably higher than for currently
available sampling techniques, thus reducing the number of samples that
could be obtained. Therefore, these techniques were not considered
applicable methods for this study.
After review of the inherent advantages, disadvantages and limitations
of each of the five basic sampling techniques, the basic task was to
determine which samp1ing method was most applicable to the specific
sources to be sampled, and whether that method could be adapted to meet
the multiple objectives of the study and the practical constraints of
sampling in a surface coal mine.
Drilling was the only source which coul be sampled with the quasi-
stack method. No roof monitor sampling could be performed because none
of the sources to be sampled occurs within a building. It was decided
that the primary sampling method of the study would be exposure profiling.
The decision was based primarily on the theoretically greater accuracy
of the profiling technique as opposed to upwind-downwind sampling and
its previous use in similar applications. Where the constraints of
exposure profiling could not be met (point sources with too large a
cross-sectional area), upwind-downwind would be used. The wind tunnel
would be used for wind erosion sampling.
SAMPLING CONFIGURATIONS
Basic Configuration
Exposure Profiling—
Source strength—The exposure profiler consisted of a portable tower,
4 to 6 m in height, supporting an array of sampling heads. Each sampling
head was operated as an isokinetic exposure sampler. The air flow stream
passed through a settling chamber (trapping particles larger than about
50 urn in diameter), and then flowed upward through a standard 8 in. x
10 in. g-lass fiber filter positioned horizontally. Sampling intakes were
pointed into the wind, and the sampling velocity of each intake was
adjusted to match the local mean wind speed as determined prior to each
test. Throughout each test, wind speed was monitored by recording
anemometers at two heights, anu the vertical wind speed profile was
determined by assuming a logarithmic distribution. This distribution
19
-------
has been found to describe surface winds under neutral atmospheric stability,
and is a good approximation for other stability classes over the short-
vertical distances separating the profiler samplers (Cowherd, Axetell,
Guenther, and Jutze 1974). Sampling time was adequate to provide sufficient
particulate mass (_< 10 mg) and to average over several units of cyclic
fluctuation in the emission rate (e.g., vehicle passes on an unpaved road).
A diagram of the profiling tower appears in Figure 3-1.
The devices used in the exposure profiling tests to measure concentrations
and/or fluxes of airborne particulate matter are listed in Table 3-1. Note
that only the (isokinetic) profiling samplers directly measure (.'articulat-e
exposure (mass per unit intake area) as well as particulate concentration
(mass per unit volume). However, in the case of the other sampling devices,
exposure may be calculated as the product of concentration, mean wind speed
at the height of the sampler intake, and sampling time.
Two deployments of sampling equipment were used in this study: the
basic deployment described in Table 3-2 and the special deployment shown
in Table 3-3 for the comparability study.
Particle size-- Two Sierra dichotomous samplers, a standard hi-vol,
and a Sierra cascade impactor were used to measure particle sizes downwind.
The dichotomous samplers collected fine and coarse fractions with upper
cut points (50 percent efficiency) of 2.5 jm and approximately 15 urn.
(Adjustments for wind speed sensitivity of the 15 jum cut point are discussed
in Section 5; limitations of this sampling technique are described in Section
The high-volume parallel-slot cascade impactor with a 20 cfm flow con-
troller was equipped with a Sierra cyclone preseparator to remove coarse
particles that otherwise would tend to bounce off the glass fiber impaction
substrates. The bounce-through of coarse particles produces an excess of
catch on the backup filter. This results in a positive bias in the measure-
ment of fine particles (see Page 6-3). The cyclone sampling intake was
directed into the wind and the sampling velocity adjusted to mean wind speed
by fitting the intake with a nozzle of appropriate size, resulting in
isokinetic sampling for wind speeds ranging from 5 to 15 mph.
Deposition-- Particle deposition was measured by placing dustfall buckets
along a line downwind of the source at distances of 5 m, 20 m, and 50 m from
the source. Greater distances would have been desirable for establishing the
deposition curve, but measureable weights of dustfall could not be obtained
beyond about 50 m during th 1-hour test periods. Dustfall buckets were col-
located at each distance. The bucket openings were located 0.75 m above
ground to avoid the impact of saltating particles generated by wind erosion
downwind of the source.
20
-------
Figure 3-1. Exposure profiler,
21
-------
TABLE 3-1. SAMPLING DEVICES FOR ATMOSPHERIC
PARTICULATE MATTER-EXPOSURE PROFILING
Particulate
natter
category
TP
TSP
IP
FP
Air sampling device
Type
Exposure profiler
head
Cyclone with inter-
changeable probe
tips and backup
filter
Standard hi-vol
Oichotomous sampler
Dichotomous sampler
Quantity
Measured
Exposure and
concentration
Exposure and
concentration
Concentration
Concentration
Concentration
Operating flow
rate
Variable (10-50
SCFM) to
achieve i so-
kinetic
sampling
20 ACFM
40-60 ACFM
0.59 ACFM
0.59 ACFM
Flow
Cal ibrator
Anemometer
cal ibra-
tor
Orifice cal-
brator
Orifice cal-
ibrator
Dry test
meter
Dry test
meter
TP = Total particulate = All particulate matter in plume
TSP = Total suspended particulate = Particulate matter in size range collectec
by hi-vol, estimated to be less than about
30 urn diameter
IP = Inhalable particulate = Particulate less than 15 urn diameter
FP = Fine particulate = Particulate less than 2.5 urn diameter
-------
TABLE 3-2. BASIC EQUIPMENT DEPLOYMENT FOR EXPOSURE PROFILING
cation
wind
wnwind
wnwind
wnwi nd
Di stance
fron
Source
5
5-10
20
50
Equipment
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
Dichotonous sampler
Standard hi-vol
Dustfall buckets
Continuous wind monitor
MRI exposure profiler with 4
sampling heads
Standard hi-vol
Hi-vol with cascade impactor
Dichotonous samplers
Dustfall buckets
Warm wire anemometers
Dustfall buckets
Dustfall buckets
Intake
Height
f \
2.5
2.5
0.75
4.0
1.5 (1.0)
3.0 (2.0)
4.5 (3.0)
6.0 (4.0)
2.5 (2.0)
2.5 (2.0)
1.5
4.5 (3.0)
0.75
1.5 (1.0)
4.5 (3.0)
0.75
0.75
Alternative heights for sources generating lower plume heights are given
in parentheses.
23
-------
TABLE 3-3. SPECIAL EQUIPMENT DEPLOYMENT FOR EXPOSURE
PROFILING—COMPARABILITY TESTS
Location
Upwind
Downwi nd
Downwi nd
Downwind
Distance
from
Source
(«)
5 to 10
5
20
50
Equipment
1
1
2
1
1
1
2
4
2
2
1
2
2
Standard hi-vol
Standard hi-vol
Dustfall buckets
Continuous wind Monitor
MRI exposure profiler with 4 sampling
heads
Standard hi-vol
Hi-vol s with cascade impactors
Dichotomous samplers
Dustfall buckets
Warm wire, anemometers
Hi-vol with cascade irapactor
Dustfall buckets
Dustfall buckets
Intake
Height
(m)
1.25
2.5
0.75
4.0
1.5
3.0
4.5
6.0
2.5
1.5
1.5
3.0
4.5
6.0
0.75
1.5
4.5
2.5
0.75
0.75
24
-------
Exposure Profiling Modification for Sampling Blasts—
Source strength-- The exposure profiler concept was modified for
samp!ing blasts. The large horizontal and vertical dimensions of the
plumes necessitated a suspended array of samplers as well as ground-based
samplers in order to sampler over the plume cross-section in two dimensions.
Five 47 mm PVC filter heads and sampling orifices were attached to a
line suspended from a tethered balloon. The samplers were located at
five heights with the highest at 30.5 m (2.5, 7.6, 15.2, 22.9, and 30.5 m).
Each sampler was attached to a wind vane so that the orifices would face
directly into the wind. The samplers were connected to a ground based
pump with flexible tubing. The pump maintained an isokinetic flow rate
for a wind speed of 5 mph. In order to avoid equipment damage from the
blast debris and to obtain a representative sample of the plume, the
balloon-suspended samplers were located about inn m downwind of the
blast area. Thiis distance varied depending on the size of the blast and
physical constraints. The distance was measured with a tape measure.
The balloon-supported samplers were supplemented with five hi-vol/dichot
pairs located on an arc, at the same distance as the balloon from the
edge of the blast area. These were spaced 20 m apart on the arc.
Particle size— The five ground-based dichotomous samplers provided
the basic particle size information.
Deposition--There was no measurement of deposition with this sampling
methodTOustfal1 samples would have been biased by falling debris from
the blast.
Upwi nd-Oownwi nd--
Source strength-- The total upwind-downwind array used for sampling
point sources included 15 samplers, of which 10 were hi-vols and 5 were
dichotomous samplers. The arrangement is shown schematically in Figure
3-2. The downwind distances of the samplers from point sources were
nominally 30 m, 60 m, 100 m, and 200 m. Frequently, distances in the
array had to be modified because of physical obstructions (e.g., hi^wall)
or potential interfering sources. A tape measure was used to measure
source-to-sampler distances. The upwind samplers were placed 30 to inn
m upwind, depending on accessibility. The hi-vol and dichotomous samplers
were mounted on tripod stands at a height of 2.5 m. This was the highest
manageable- height for this type of rapid-mount stand.
This array was modified slightly with sampling line sources. The
array consisted of two hi-vol/dichot pairs at 5 m, 20 m, and 50 m with
2 hi-vols at 100 m. The two rows of samplers were normally separated by
20 m.
25
-------
Upwind '
samplers
plume
centerline
Figure 3-2. Upwind-downwind sampling array,
26
-------
Particle size-- In addition to the dichotomous samplers located upwind
of the source and at 30 m and 60 m distances downwind of the source, milli-
pore filters were exposed for shorter time period during the sampling at
different downwind distances. These filters were to be subjected to micro-
scopic examination for sizing, but most of this work was suspended because
of poor agreement of microscopy with aerodynamic sizing methods in the
comparability study.
Deposition-- The upwind-downwind method allows indirect measurement
of depsition through calculation of apparent emission rates at different
downwind distances. The reduction in apparent emission rates as a function
of distance is attributed to deposition. At distances beyond about 100 m,
deposition rates detemined by this method would probably be too small to
oe detected separate from plume dispersion.
Wind Tunnel--
Source strength—For the measurement of dust emissions generated by
*ind erosion of exposed areas and storage piles, a portable wind tunnel
*as used. The tunnel consisted of an Inlet section, a test section, and
an outlet diffuser. As a modification to previous wind tunnel designs,
the working section had a 1 foot by 1 foot cross section. This enlarge-
nent was made so that the tunnel could be used with rougher surfaces.
The open-floored test section of the tunnel was placed directly on the
surface to be tested (1 ft x 8 ft), and the tunnel air flow was adjusted
;o predetermined values that corresponded to the means of the upper NOAA
wind speed ranges. Tunnel wind speed was measured by a pitot tube at
:he downstream end of the test section. Tunnel wind speeds were related
:o wind speed at the standard 10 m height by means of a logrithmic profile.
An airtight seal was maintained along the sides of the tunnel by
-ubDer flaps attached to the bottom edges of the tunnel sides. These
*ere covered with material from areas adjacent to the test surface to
eliminate air-infiItration.
To reduce the dust levels in the tunnel air intake stream, testing
*as conducted only when ambient winds were well below the threshold
velocity for erosion of the exposed material. A portable high-volume
•ampler with an open-faced filter (roof structure removed) was operated
)n top of the inlet section to measure background dust levels. The
Miter was vertically oriented parallel to the tunnel inlet face.
An emission sampling module was used with the pull-through wind tunnel
n measuring particualte emissions generated by wind erosion. As shown
n Figure 3-3, the sampling module was located between the tunnel outlet
lose and the fan inlet. The sampling train, which was operated at 15-2S cfm,
27
-------
consisted of a tapered probe, cyclone precollector, para!lei-slot cascade
impactor, backup filter, and high-volume motor. Interchangeable probe
tips were sized for isokinetic sampling over the desired tunnel wind
speed range. The emission sampling train and the portable hi-vol were
calibrated in the field prior to testing.
Particle size—The size distribution for 30 >um and smaller particles
*was generated from the cascade impactor used as the total particulate
sampler. The procedure for correction of the size data to account for
particle bounce-through is described in Section 5.
Deposition--No method of measuring the deposition rate of particles
suspended by wind erosion in the test section could be incorporated into
the design of the wind tunnel.
Quasi-Stack--
Spurce strength--An enclosure was fabricated consisting of an ad-
just aFfTliitaTTrame covered with plastic. The frame was 6 feet long
with maximum openings at the ends of 5 x 6 feet. Due to problems with
the plastic during high winds, the original enclosure was replaced with
a wood enclosure with openings 4x6 feet, as shown in Figure 3-4. For
each test, the enclosure was placed downwind of the drill base. The
outlet area was divided into four rectangles of area, and the wind velocity
was measured at the center of each rectangle with a hot wire anemometer
to define the wind profile inside the frame.
Four exposure profiler samplers with flow controllers were used to
sample the plume. Using the wind profile data, the sampler flow rates
were adjusted to 2 to 3 minute intervals to near-isokinetic conditions.
Particle size--The only particle size measurements made with this
sampling method was the split between the filter catch and settling chamber
.catch in the profiler heads.
Deposition--There was no direct measurement of deposition with this
sampling meIhod.
Sampling Configuration by Source
The basic sampling configurations were adapted to each source to be
tested. Sampling configurations used for each source are indicated in
Table 3-4 and described below.
Overburden Drilling—
This activity was sampled using the quasi-stack configuration.
28
-------
'-J.
-------
CO
o
EXHAUST
VENT
Hl-YOl MOTOR
SETTLING JAR
SETTLING CHAMBER
Figure 3-4. Quasi-stack sampling--temporary enclosure for dri 11 sampling,
-------
TABLE 3-4. SAMPLING CONFIGURATIONS FOR SIGNIFICANT SOURCES
Source
Point,
line, or area
Sampling configuration
Drilling (overburden)
Blasting (coal and overburden)
Coal loading (shovel/truck and
front-end loader)
Dozer (coal and overburden)
Drag!ine
Haul truck
Light- and medium-duty vehicles
Scraper
Grader
Wind erosion of exposed areas
Wind erosion of storage piles
Point
Area
Point or area
Line or point
Point or area
Line
Line
Line
Line
Area
Area
Quasi-stack
Exposure profiling
(modification)
Upwind/downwind
Upwi nd/downwi nd
Upwind/downwind
Exposure profiling
Exposure profiling
Exposure profiling
Exposure profiling
Wind tunnel
Wind tunnel
Several of these sources could be operated as a line, point, or area source
Where possible, the predominant method of operation was used. In other
casis, sampling requirements dictated the type of operation.
31
-------
Blasting—
The plume from a blast is particularly difficult to sample because
of the vertical ar.cl horizontal dimensions of the plume and the inability
to place sampling equipment near the blast. Further, the plume is sus-
pected to be non-Gaussian because of the way in which the plume is
initially formed. Therefore, upwind-downwind sampling is not appropriate.
To sample blasts, a modification of the exposure profiling technique was
developed. This modification was discussed previously. A typical sampling
array is shown in Figure 3-5. The same sampling procedure was used for
overburden blasts and coal blasts.
Coal Loading with Shovels or Front-End Loaders--
The exposure profiler could not be used for this source because of
movement of the plume origin. Therefore, the upwind-downwind configura-
tion for point sources was used. There are many points at which dust
is emitted during truck loading--pulling the truck into position,
scooping the material to be loaded, lifting and swinging the bucket,
dropping the load, driving the truck away, and cleanup of the area by
dozers or front-end loaders. Dropping of the load into the truck was
generally the largest emission point so its emissions were used as the
plume centerline for the sampling array, with the array spread wide enouqh
to collect emissions from all the dust-producing points. Bucket size was
recorded for each test, as well as the number of bucket drop:.
Wind conditions and the width of the pit dictated the juxtaposition of
the source and sampler array. When the winds channeled through the pit and
the pit was wide enough to set up the sampling equipment out of the way of
haul trucks, the samplers were set up downwind and in the pit. When winds
were perpendicular to the pit, the sampling array was set up on a bench
if the bench was not more than 5 to 7 meters high. With this configuration,
the top of the haul truck was about even with the height of the bench;
emissions from the shovel drop point could be very effectively sampled in
this manner. Two coal loading sampling arrays are shown in Figure 3-6.
Dozers--
Dozers are difficult to test because they may operate either as a line
source or m a general area as large as several acres over a 1-hour test
period. When a dozer operated as a line source, the upwind-downwind con-
figuration for a line source was used. The samplers were located with the
assumed plume centerline perpendicular to the line of travel for the dozer.
The number of times the dozer passed the samplers was recorded for each test.
Since dozers could not always be found operating as a line source, captive
dozers were sometimes used so that test conditions could be more accurately
controlled. To sample dozers working in an area, the upwind-downwind point
source configuration was used. The location and size of the area was recorded
along with dozer movements.
32
-------
Figure 3-5. Blast sampling with modified exposure profiling configuration
33
-------
Sampling array in the pit
Sampling array on a bench
Figure 3-6. Coal loading with upwind-downwind configurati,
34
-------
Dragline—
Sampling of this source was performed with the upwind-downwind con-
figuration because of the large initial dimensions of the plume and
because of the impossibility of placing samplers near the plume origin.
There are three emission points--piclcup of the overburden material,
material lost from the bucket during the swing, and overburden drop. It
was not always possible to position samplers so they were downwind of all
three points. Therefore, sketches were made of each setup and field notes.
were recorded as to which points were included in the test. The number of
drops, average drop distance, and size of the dragline bucket were also
recorded.
Location of the samplers relative to the dragline bucket was determined
by wind orientation, size of the pit (width and length) and pit accessi-
bility. When winds were parallel to the pit, the array was set up in the
pit if there was sufficient space and the plumes from all three emission
points passing over the samplers. When winds were perpendicular to the
pit, draglines were only sampled if samplers could be placed on a bench
downwind at approximately the same height as the spoils pile where the
overburden was being dropped. Figure 3-7 shows the two typical dragline
sampling configurations.
Haul Trucks--
Most sampling periods for haul trucks at the first mir. were performed
as part of the comparability study (see Section 6), employing both expo-
sure profiling and upwind-downwind configurations. Haul trucks were used
to perform the comparative study because they are a uniformly-emitting line
source and because haul road traffic is the largest particualte source in
most mines. At subsequent mines, exposure profiling was used to sample
this source. For each test, the wind was approximately perpendicular to
the road, the air intakes of the samplers were pointed directly into the
wind, and the samplers extended to a height of 6 m to capture the vertical
extent of the plume. In a few cases, more than |
-------
Sampling array in the pit
Sampling array at about the same height as the spoils pile
Figure 3-7. Dragline sampling with upwind-downwind configuration
36
-------
specifically for lighter vehicles were used to testing. However, some
sampling for light- and medium-duty vehicles was done on haul roads.
Samples of the road surfaces were taken so that differences due to road
properties could be evaluated (a full discussion of source characterization
is included in the next subsection). A light- and medium-duty vehicle
sampling array is shown in previously cited Figure 3-8.
Scraper—
This source was sampled by the exposure profiling method. Scrapers '
ware sampled while traveling on a temporary road so that the emissions could
be tested as a line source. Neither the loading nor the emptying operations
were sampled, since both had been estimated to have insignificant emissions
compared to scraper travel. The profiler was extended to 6 m to sample
the vertical extent of the plume. In order to secure a suitable setup in
a location with interference from other sources, it was often necessary
to use captive equipment. A typical sampling array for scrapers is shown
in Figure 3-9.
Graders--
Exposure profiling was used to sample graders. Graders operate in a
fairly constant manner; only the speed and travel surface (on road/off
road) vary over a time. It was assumed that the travel surface could be
considered as a correction factor rather than requiring two separate
emission factors. As with dozers, captive equipment was sometimes
necessary to sample this source because graders did not normally drive
past the same location repetitively. Even if there were regarding a short
stretch of road, they would be at a different location on the road cross
section with each pass, making it difficult to reposition the profiler.
Therefore, captive equipment allowed better control of test variables.
Wind Erosion of Exposed Areas and Storage Piles—
The wind tunnel was used to sample these two sources. In measuring
emissions with the portable wind tunnel, it was necessary to place the
tunnel on a flat, nearly horizontal section of surface. Care was taken
not to disturb the natural crust on the surface, with the exception of
removing a few large clumps that prevented the tunnel test section from
making an airtight seal with the surface.
The threshold velocity for wind erosion and emission rates at several
predetermined wind speeds above the threshold were measured on each test
surface. Wind erosion of exposed surfaces had been shown to decay in
time for velocities well above the threshold value for the exposed surface.
Therefore, some tests of a given surface were performed sequentially to
trace the decay of the erosion rate over time at high test velocities. A
typical wind tunnel sampling configuration is shown in Figure 3-10.
37
-------
Haul truck travel
Light- and medium-duty truck
Figure 3-8. Haul road sampling with exposure profiling configuration,
38
-------
Figure 3-9. Scraper sampling with exposure profiling configuration.
39
-------
Changes Made in Response to Comments
Tha basic sampling designs presented above represents the combined
efforts of the two contractors as well as comments received from the tech-
nical review group. Specific changes made in response to technical review
group comments are summarized below.
1. Dichotomous samplers were added to the exposure profiling
sampling method. They were placed at four heights cor-
responding to the isokinetic sampling heights during the
comparability study, and at two heights for the remainder
of the tests. With this arrangement, dichotomous samplers
replaced the cascade impactor as the primary particle
size sampler in exposure profiling.
2. A fourth row of downwind sampler was added to the upwind-
downwind array. Two hi-vols were placed at 200 m from the
source to aid in the measurement of deposition.
3. The quasi-stack sampling method was adopted for sampling
overburden drilling and an enclosure was designed and
fabricated.
4. The modification of the exposure profiling method to sample
blasts was devised.
5. Provisions were made to sample scrapers, and other sources
as required, as captive equipment in locations not subject
to other dust interferences.
SOURCE CHARACTERIZATION PROCEDURES
In order to determine the parameters that affect dust generation from
an individual source, the suspected parameters must be measured at the
time of the emission test. These parameters fall into three categories:
properties of the materials being disturbed by wind or machinery, operating
parameters of the mining equipment involved, and meteorological conditions.
Table 3-5 lists the potential parameters by source that were quantified
during the study.
Representative samples of materials (topsoil, overburden, coal, or road
surface) were obtained at each test location. Unpaved and paved roads were
sampled by removing loose material of road surface extending across the
travel portion. Loose aggregate materials being transferred were sampled
with a shovel to a depth exceeding the size of the largest aggregate pieces.
Erodible surfaces were sampled to a depth of about 1 centimeter. The samples
were analyzed to determine moisture and silt content.
40
-------
Figure 3-10. Wind erosion sampling with wind tunnel
41
-------
Mining equipment travel speeds were measured by radar gun or with a
stop watch over a known travel distance. Equipment specifications and
traveling weights were obtained from mine personnel. For several sources,
it was necessary to count vehicle passes, bucket drops, etc. These counts
were usually recorded by two people during the test tj ensure the accuracy
of the results. Frequent photographs were taken during each test to
establish the sampling layout (to supplement the ground-measured distances),
source activity patterns, and plume characteristics.
Micro-meteorological conditions were recorded for each test. Most of
these data were used in the calculation of concentrations or emission rates
rather than as potential correction factors for the emission factor equations,
During the test, a recording wind instrument measured wind direction and
wind speed at the sampling site. A pyranograph was used to measure solar
intensity. Humidity was determined with a sling psychrometer. A barometer
was used to record atmospheric pressure. The percent of cloud cover was
visual1y estimated.
In addition to monitoring micro-meteorological conditions, a fixed
monitoring station at the mine monitored parameters affecting the entire
area. Data were recorded on temperature, humidity, wind speed and direction,
and precipitation.
ADJUSTMENTS MADE DURING SAMPLING
The sampling configurations detailed in this section were the result
of a careful study design process completed prior to actual field sampling.
Actual field conditions forced changed to elements of the study design.
A modification to the upwind-downwind sampling array was required.
Whereas the study design called for two hi-vols at 200 m downwind of the
source, this setup could not be adapted to field conditions. Three major
reasons for the deviation from the study designs were: (a) the difficulty
of locating the samplers where they were not subjected to other dust in-
terferences; (b) the difficulty of extending power to the samplers; and
(c) in many sampling locations, there was not 200 m of accessible ground
downwind of the source. Therefore, only 1 hi-vol WdS routinely placed
at the 200 m distance and in some cases no sampler was located at that
distance.
Four modifications were made to the exposure profiling sampling array.
First, it was impractical to mount dichotomous samplers at all four heights
on the p/ofiling tower as called for in the original study design. Dicho-
tomous samplers were placed at two heights. Second, the study design called
for an exposure profiling test to be terminated if the standard deviation
of the wind direction exceeded 22.5° during test period. Because unstable
atmospheric conditions were encountered at Mine 1 during the summer season,
42
-------
.TABLE 3-5. SOURCE CHARACTERIZATION PARAMETERS
MONITORED DURING TESTING
Source
Parameter
Quantification technique
All tests'
Overburden drilling
Blasting
Coal loading
Dozer
Dragline
Haul truck
Light- and medium-
duty vehicles
Wind speed and direction
Temperature
Solar intensity
Humidity
Atmospheric pressure
Percent cloud cover
Silt content
Moisture content
Depth of hole
Number of holes
Size of blast area
Moisture content
Silt content
Moisture content
Bucket capacity
Equipment operation
Silt content
Moisture content
Speed
Blade size
Silt content
Moisture content
Bucket capacity
Drop distance
Surface silt content
Vehicle speed
Vehicle weight
Surface loading
Surface moisture content
Number of wheels
Anemometer
Thermometer
Pyranograph
Sling psychrometer
Barometer
Visual estimate
Dry sieving
Oven drying
Drill operator
Visual count
Measurement
From mining company
Dry sieving
Oven drying
Equipment specifications
Record variations
Dry sievjng
Oven drying
Time/distance
Equipment specifications
Dry sieving
Oven drying
Equipment specifications
Visual estimate
Dry sieving
Radar gun
Truck scale
Mass/area of collected
road sample
Oven drying
Visual observation
Same parameters and quantification techniques as
haul trucks
for
(continued)
43
-------
it was necessary to relax this restriction. However, this change had no
effect on the direction-insenstive dichotomous sampler which served as
the primary sizing device. At the third mine, a second cascade impactor
and hi-vol were added alongside the profiler at the height of the third
profiling head. This was to provide backup data on particle size distri-
bution in the upper portion of the plume and on the ISP concentration
pro. ile. Finally, greased substrates were used with the cascade im-
pactors at the third mine to test whether particle bounce-through observed
at the first two mines would be diminished.
A modification was required to the balloon sampling array. The study
design specified that the five ground-based sampler pairs be located
10 m apart and that the balloon samplers be located on the blast plume
centerline. This was found to be impractical under field conditions.
The location of the plume centerline was very dependent on the exact wind
direction at the time of the blast. Because the balloon sampling array
required at least one hour to set up, it was impossible to anticipate
the exact wind direction one hour hence. Therefore, the ground-based
samplers were placed 20 to 30 m apart when the wind was variable so
that some of the samplers were in the-plume. The balloon sometimes could
not be moved to the plume centerline quickly enough after the blast.
Rapid sequence photography was used during the test to assist in deter-
mining the plume centerline; the emission factor calculation procedure
was adjusted accordingly.
ERROR ANALYSES FOR SAMPLING METHODS
Separate error analyses were prepared for the exposure profiling
and upwind-downwind sampling methods. These analysis were documented
in interim technical reports and will be summarized here (Midwest
Research Institute 1979; PEDCo Environmental 1979).
A summary of potential errors (lo) in the exposure profiling method
initially estimated by MRI is shown in Table 3-6. Potential errors
fall in the categories of sample collection, laboratory analysis, and
emission factor calculation. For particles less than 15 ^um, the
error in the technique was estimated by MRI to range from -14 percent
to +8 percent. Subsequent field experience on this project indicated
that actual error was 30 to 35 percent in that size range and higher
for the less than 30 jum (suspended particulate) size range.
45
-------
\
Potential errors initially estimated by PEDCo for the upwind-
downwind sampling method are summarized in Table 3-7. A delineation
was made between errors associated with line sources and point/area
sources. The estimated errors were +30.5 percent and +S0.1 percent,
respectively. ""
SUMMARY OF TESTS PERFORMED
Sampling performed is shown in Table 3-8. The number of samples
are shown by source and mine. A total of 265 tests were completed.
46
-------
TABLE 3-6. SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL ERRORS IN THE EXPOSURE PROFILING METHOD
fource of error
Error type
Action to Miniate* error
Estimated error
collection
I. Instrument error
1. Anlsokinetic sampling
a. Wind direction fluctuation
b. Non-Eero angle of Intake to
wind
e. Sampling rate does not match
wind speed
S. Improper filter loading
4. rartlcle bounce
Laboratory analysis
3. Instrument error
•. filter handling
Emission factor calculation
7. Poor definition of profile
•. extrapolation of particle size
distribution
Total (particles lees than 15 pm)
Random
Systematic
Systematic
Systematic
Systematic
Systematic
Random
Random
Rando*
Randoa
Planned ••intenance, periodic calibration
and frequent flow checki
o.e <
-------
TABLE 3-8. SUMMARY OF TESTS PERFORMED
Sources
Drill (overburden)
Blasting (coal)
Blasting (overburden)
Coal loading
Dozer (overburden)
Dozer (coal)
Dragline
Haul truck
Light- and medium-duty truck
Scraper
Grader
Exposed area (overburden)
Exposed area (coal)
Total
Mine 1
11
3
2
2
4
4
6
7b
5
5b
11
10
70
Mine 2
-
6
8
7
3
5
9
5
5
6
14
7
75
Mine 1W*
12
10
2
3
5
33
Mine 3
7
7
3
15
4
5
8
9
3
2
2
6
16
87
Total
30
16
5
' 25
15
12
19
35C
13d
14
8
34e
39
265
, Winter sampling period.
Five of these tests were comparability tests.
. Nine of these were for controlled sources.
Two of these were for controlled sources.
e Three of these were for controlled sources.
-------
SECTION 4
SAfPLE HANDLING AND ANALYSIS
SAMPLE HANDLING
Several different types of participate samples were collected during
the field work: hi-vol glass filters, filters and settling .chamber
catches from exposure profilers, cascade impactor stages, cyclone pre-
collector catches, Teflon filters from dichotomous samples, Millipore
filter cartridges from microscopic analysis, PVC filters from the balloon
sampling system, and dustfall samples. These samples all required
slightly different handling procedures.
At the end of each run, the collected samples were transferred
carefully to protective containers. All transfer operations except
removal of cartridges from the insti»~ants were done in a van or in
the field lab to minimize sample losses and contamination. Sample media
were carried and transported locally in an upright position, and covered
with temporary snap-on shields or covers where appropriate. Hi-vol
and profiler filters were folded and placed in individual envelopes.
Dust collected on irterior surfaces of profiler probes and cyclone
precollectors was rinsed with distilled water into containers with the
settling chamber catches.
In order to reduce the amount of material dislodged from the taut
dichotomous filters during handling, the preweighed filters were placed
in plastic holders than were then kept in individual petri dishes throughout
the handling process. The petri dishes were sealed with tape before being
returned to the laboratory and stacked in small carrying cases so that
they would not be inverted. Many of the dichotomous filters were hand-
carried back to the laboratory by air travel rather than returning with
the sampling equipment and other samples in the van.
In spite of the special hanuiiny pruueuures adopted for the dicho-
tomous filters, loose particul'ate materials was observed in some of the
petri dishes and material could be seen migrating across the filter
surfaces with any bumping of the filter holder. Several corrective
actions were investigated by PEDCo and MRI throughout the study, but
this remained an unresolved handling problem. First, ringed Teflon filters
were substituted for the mesh-oackeu riiters initially used in an attempt
to reduce movement or vibration of the eroos*d filters. Next, the possi-
oi'.ity of weighing the filters in the field was reviewed. However, a
-------
sensitive microbalance and strict filter equilibration procedures were
required because of the small weights invol ved--fiHer tare weights less
than 100 mg and may upwind and fine particle fraction sample weighs less
than 50 ug. (See Section 12 for further discussion of dichotomous samplers.
PVC filters for the balloon samplers and Millipore filters for
particle size analysis were sent to the field in plastic cartridges.
These cartridges were uncapped and affixed to the air pumps during sampling,
then resealed and returned to the laboratory for gravimetric or microscopic
analysis. Loss of material from these filter surfaces was not observed
to be a problem as it -was with the Teflon filters.
All samples except the dichotomous filters were labeled with the name
of the mine, date, operation, sampler, and a unique sample number
(dichotomous sample holders had only the sample number). This same
information was also recorded on a field data sheet at the time of
sampling. Copies of the field data sheets were shown in the study
design report.
To minimize the problem of particle bounce, the glass fiber cascade
impactor substrates were greased for use at Mine 3. The grease solution
was prepared by dissolving 100 grams of stopcock grease in 1 liter of
reagent grade toluene. A low pressure spray gun was used to apply this
solution to the impaction surfaces. No grease was applied to the borders
and oacks of the substrates. After treatment, the substrates were
equilibrated and weighed using standard procedures. The substrates were
handled, transported and stored in specially designed frames which pro-
tected the greased surfaces.
After samples were taken at the mines, they were kept in the field
lab until returned to the main laboratory. All samples were accounted
for by the field crew by checking against the field data sheet records
prior to leaving the field location. Photocopies of the data sheets
were made and transported separately from the samples. Upon reaching
the lab, the chain of custody was maintained by immediately logging in
the sample numbers of all samples received. No sample were known to have
been lost through misplacement or inadequate labeling during the entire
study.
Non-filter (aggregate) sample were collected during or immediately
following each sampling period and labeled with identifying information.
The samples were kept tightly wrapped in plastic bags until they were
split and analyzed for moisture content. Dried samples were then re-
packaged for shipment to the main laboratories for sieving.
51
-------
ANALYSES PERFORMED
Laboratory analyses were performed on particulate samples and on
aggregate samples. All monitoring of source activities and meteoro-
logical conditions was done with on-site measurements and did not result
in the collection of samples for later analysis. The analyses performed
are summarized in Table 4-1.
All particulate samples were analyzed in the lab of the by the con-
tractor who took the samples. However, almost all of the aggregate
sample analyses were done in the MRI lab because of their extensive
past experience with aggregate analyses and to maintain consistency in
methods. Aggregate samples for PEDCo's tests were taken by their field
crew and moisture contents were determined in the field-lab;- -Most of-the
labeled, dried aggregate samples were then turned over to MRI for all
other analyses.
PEDCo performed all microscopy analyses. Initially, microscopy
samples were to be used to determine full particle size distributions.
After the comparability study results showed that miscroscopy data
did not agree with that obtained from sampling devices that measured
aerodynamic particle sizes, the microscopy work was limited to determination
of largest particles in the plume downwind of sources.
LABORATORY ANALYSIS PROCEDURES
Filters
Particulate s.imples were collected on four different types of filters:
cjlass fiber, Teflon, polyvinyl chloride (PVC) and cellulose copolymer
(Millipore). The procedure for preparing and analyzing glass fiber filters
for high volume air sampling is fully described in Quality Assurance Handbook
for Air Pollution Measurement Systems—Volume II, Ambient Air Specif fc"
Methods (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1977b). Nonstandardi zed
methods were usfcd for the other three filter types. The procedures for
each type are described below.
Glass fiber filters were numbered and examined for defects, then
equilibrated for 24 hours at 70°F and less than 50 percent relative
humidity in a special weighing room. The filters were weighed to the
nearest 0.1 mg. The balance was checked at frequent intervals with
standard weights to assure accuracy. The filters remained in the same
controlled environment for another 24 hours, after which a second analyst
reweighed 10 percent of them as a precision check. All the filters in
each set in which check weights varied by more than 3.0 mg from initial
weights were reweighed. After weighing, the filters were packed flat,
alternating with onionskin paper, for shipment to the field.
52
-------
TABLE 4-1. LABORATORY ANALYSES PERFORMED
Sample
Analysis performed
Particulate
Hi-vol filter
Exposure profiler filter
Settling chamber catch
Cyclone precollector catch
Cascade impactor stages
Quasi-stack filter
Settling chamber catch
Teflon filter
PVC filter
Mi Hi pore filter
Dustfall
Aggregate
Raw soil sample
Dried sample
Weigh, calculate concentration
Weigh
Filter, dry, weigh
Filter, dry, weigh
Weigh
Weigh
Transfer, dry, weigh
Weigh, calculate concentration
Weigh
Microscopic examination for size
distribution and max size
Filter, dry, weigh
Moisture content
Mechanical sieving
-------
When exposed filters were returned from the field, they were equili-
brated under the same conditions as the initial weighing. They were weighed
and check weighed in the same manner.
Teflon filters from dichotomous samplers were dessicated for 24 hours
over anhydrous calcium sulfate (Drierite) before weighing, both before and
after use. The filters were weighed in the same constant temperature and
humidity room as the glass fiber filters. They were weighed to the nearest
0.01 mg and the check weighing had to agree within 0.10 mg or all filters
in the set were reweighed. The filters themselves were not numbered, but
were placed in numbered petri dishes for handling and transport. Plastic
filter holders were also placed on the filters in the lab so they could
be inserted directly into the dichotomous samplers in the field.
PVC filters were treated in exactly the same manner as the Teflon
filters, with the exception that they were placed in plastic cartridges
rather than petri dishes.
The Millipore filters used for microscopic analysis were not weighed
to determine the amount of material collected. After they were exposed
and returned to the lab in a plastic cartridge, a radial section of the
filter was cut and mounted on a glass miscroscope slide. The filter
section was then immersed in an organic fluid that rendered it invisible
under the microscope, and a cover slip was placed over it. The slide was
examined under a light microscope at 100 power using phase contract illu-
mination. The particles were sized by comparison with'a calibrated
reticle in the eyepiece. Ten different fields and at least 200 particles
were counted on each slide. Also, the diameters of the three largest
individual particles observed were recorded.
Settling Chamber Catches and Dustfall Samples
Laboratory grade deonized distilled water was used in the field
laboratory to recover samples from settling chambers and dustfall buckets.
Each unit was thoroughly washed five to eight separate times. A wash
consisted of spraying 15 to 25 ml water into the unit, swirling the unit
around, and then quantitatively pouring the water into a sample jar
(holding 150 +_ 50 ml of wash water) was sealed and packed for shipping
to MRI for sample recovery.
At the MRI laboratory, the entire wash solution was passed through a
47 mm Buchner type funnel holding a Type AP glass fiber filter under
suction. The sample jar was then rinsed twice with 10 to 20 ml of
deonized water. This water was passed through the Buchner funnel ensuring
collection of all suspended material on the 47 mm filter. The tared
filter was then dried in an oven at 100°C for 24 hours. After drying,
the filters were conditioned at constant temperature 24 +_ 2°C and constant
humidity 45+5 percent relative humidity for 24 hours.
54
-------
\
All filters, both tared and exposed, were weighed to +5 yg with
a 10 percent audit of tared and exposed filters. Audit limits were +_10(
ug. Blank values were determined by washing "clean" (unexposed) settlir
chambers and dustfall buckets in the field and following the above pro-
cedures.
Aggregate Samples
Samples of road dust and other aggregate materials were collected i
20 to 25 kg quantities for analysis of moisture and silt content. The
samples were stored briefly in airtight plastic bags, then reduced with
a sample splitter (riffle) or by coning and quartering to about 1 kg (80i
to 1600 g).
The final split samples were placed in a tared metal pan, weighed
on a balance, and dried in an oven at 110°C overnight. Laboratory pro-
cedures called for drying of materials composed of hydrated materials
or organic materials like coal and certain soils for only 2 hours. The
samples were then reweighed and the moisture content calculated as the
weight loss divided by the original weight of the sample alone. This
moisture analysis was done in the field lab.
Dried samples were placed in plastic containers and sealed for ship-
ment to main laboratories for determination of silt contents. This was
done by mechanical dry sieving, with the portion passing a 200-mesh
screen constituting the silt portion. The nest of sieves was,placed
en a conventional sieve shaker for 15 min. The material passing the
200-mesh screen, particles of less than 75 urn diameter, constituted the
smallest particles which could be accurately determined by dry sieving
according to ASTM methods.
More detailed sample collection and laboratory procedures for the
moisture and silt analyses were presented in an appendix to the study
design report.
QUALITY ASSURANCE PROCEDURES AND RESULTS
Quality assurance was an important concern from the beginning of
this field study because of its size, complexity, and importance. Several
special activities were instituted as part of the overall quality assur-
rance effort. The primary one was delineation of specific assurance
procedures to be followed throughout the study. This list of procedures
was subjected to review by the technical review group; a revised version
is presented in Table 4-2. It covers sampling rates, sampling media,
sampling equipment and data calculations.
In addition to the quantitative checks listed in Table 4-2, many non-
quantifiable procedures related to sample handling and visual inspection o
equipment were adopted. Some of these were based on standard practices
55
-------
but others were set more stringent than normal requirements. No quality
assurance procedures for operating or maintaining dichotomous samplers
had been recommended yet by EPA, so considerable project effort was
expended in developing and testing these procedures.
Meteorological equipment and monitoring procedures are not covered
in Table 4-2. Approved equipment was used and it was operated and
maintained according to manufacturer's instructions. Meteorological
instruments had been calibrated in a laboratory wind tunnel prior to the
• field work.
Adherence to the specified quality assurance procedures was checked
periodically by the Project Officer and other members of the technical
review group, by intercontractor checks, and by external independent audits,
Results of the quality assurance program for flow rates and weighing are
summarized in Table 4-3. Results of the audits are described in the
fol1 owing section.
AUDITS
In addition to the rigorous internal quality assurance program and
the review procedures set up with the technical review group, several
independent audits were carried out during this study to further increase
confidence in results. Two different levels of audits were employed:
Intercontractor - MR! audited PEDCo and vice versa
External - Performed by an EPA instrument or laboratory
expert or a third EPA contractor
The audit activities and results of audits are summarized in Table 4-4.
Although there are no formal pass/fail criteria for audits such as
these, all of the audits except the collocated samplers in the comparability
study and filter weighings seemed to indicate that measurements were being
made correctly and accurately. The collocated sampler results are discussed
further in Section 6 and 12. All the filters that exceeded allowable
tolerances upon reweighing (10 percent of audited filters) lost weight.
In the case of the hi-vol filters, loose material was observed in the
filter folders and noted on the MRI data sheet. The amounts lost from the
dichot filters would not be as readily noticeable in the petri dishes. The
several extra handling steps required for auditing the filters, including
their transport from Cincinnati to Kansas City, could have caused loss of
material from the filters.
In addition to the external flow calibration audit at the third mine
(shown in Table 4-4), another one was conducted at the second mine. However,
results of this earlier audit were withdrawn by the contractor who performed
56
-------
«TABLE 4-2.
QUALITY ASSURANCE PROCEDURES FOR MINING EMISSION
FACTOR STUDY
Activity
QA check/requirement
Sampling flow rates
Calibration
Profilers, hi-vols,
and impactors
Dichotomous samplers
Single-point checks
Profilers, hi-vols,
and impactors
Dichotomous samplers
Alternative
Orifice calibration
Sampling media
Preparation
Conditioning
Weighing
Calibrate flows in operating ranges using calibratio
orifice, once at each mine prior to testing.
Calibrate flows in operating ranges with displaced
volume test meters once at each mine prior to testini
Check 25% of units with rotameter, calibration orific
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 san
type and recalibrate non-complying units. (See al-
ternative check below).
Check 25% of units with calibration orifice once at
each site prior to testing (different units each
time). If any flows deviate by more than 5%, check
all other units and recalibrate non-complying units.
If flows cannot be checked at test site, check all
units every two weeks and recalibrate units which
deviate by more than 7% (5% for dichots).
Calibrate against displaced volume test meter annual!
Inspect and imprint glass fiber media with ID
numbers.
Inspect and place Teflon media (dichot filters) in
petri dishes labeled with ID numbers.
Equilibrate media for 24 hours in clean controlled
room with relative humidity of less than 50% (varia-
tion 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 nean
0.1 mg and weigh dichot filters to nearest 0.01 mg.
(continued)
57
-------
B tE '4-2~ f contf nue*).
Activity
QA check/requirement
diting of weights
tare and final)
rrection for
ndling effects
svention of
idling losses
!ibration of
lance
ipling equipment
i ntenance
\11 samplers
h'chotomous samplers
n'pment siting
'ration
sokinetic sampling
profilers only)
revention of static
ode deposition
a calculations
a recording
dilations
Independently verify weights of 7% of filters and
substrates (at least 4 from each batch). Reweigh
batch if weights of any hi-vol filters or substrates
deviate by more than ±3.0 mg or if weights of any
dichot filters deviate by more than ±0.1 mg.
V/eigh and handle at least one blank for each 10
filters or substrates of each type for each test.
Transport dichot filters upright in filter cassettes
placed in protective petri dishes.
Balance to be calibrated once per year by certified
manufacturers representative. Check prior to each
use with laboratory Class S weights.
Check motors, gaskets, timers, and flow measuring
devices at each mine prior to testing.
Check and clean inlets and nozzles between mines.
Separate collocated samplers by 3-10 equipment widths.
Adjust sampling intake orientation whenever mean (15
min average) wind direction changes by more than
30 degrees.
Adjust sampling rate whenever mean (15 min average)
wind speed approaching sampler changes by more than
20%.
Cap sampler inlets prior to and immediately after
sampling.
Use specially designed data forms to assure all nec-
essary data are recorded. All data sheets must be
initialed and dated.
Independently verify 10% of calculations of each type.
Recheck all calculations if any value audited- deviates
by more ±3%.
58
-------
TABLE 4-3. QUALITY ASSURANCE RESULTS
Activity
QA results
Calibration
Profilers, hi-vols,
and impactors
Dichotomous samplers
Single point checks
Profilers, hi-vols,
and impactors
Dichotomous samplers
Weighings
Tare and final
weights
Blank filters
PEDCo calibrated hi-vols a total of 6 times in the 4
visits.
MRI had flow controllers on all 3 types of units.
These set flows were calibrated a total of 4 times
for profilers, 7 times for hi-vols and impactors.
PEDCo and MRI calibrated their 9.dichots a total of 6
times, at least once at each mine visit. Actual flow
rates varied as much as 9.1% between calibrations.
Out of a total of 29 single point checks, only 2
PEDCo hi-vols were found to be outside the 7%
allowable deviation, thus requiring recalibration.
For MRI, 20 single point checks produced no units
out of compliance.
The dichotomous samplers were recalibrated with a test
meter each time rather than checking flow with a
calibfated orifice.
PEDCo reweighed a total of 250 unexposed and exposed
hi-vol filters during the study. Three of the re-
weighings differed by more than 3.0 mg. For 238 dichot
filter reweighings, only four differed by more than
0.1 mg.
MRI reweighed a total of 524 unexposed and exposed
glass fiber filters during the study. Four of the
reweighings differed by more than 3.0 mg. For 43
dichot filter reweighings, only one differed by more
than 0.1 mg.
PEDCo analyzed 88 blank hi-vol and 69 blank dichot
filters. The average weight increase was 3.4 mg
(0.087%) for hi-vols, 0.036 mg (0.038%) for dichots.
The highest blanks were 26.3 and 0.22 mg, respectively.
MRI analyzed 67 hi-vol and dichot filter blanks.
The highest blanks were 7.05 mg and 0.52 mg,
respect vely.
-------
TABLE 4-4. AUDITS CONDUCTED AND RESULTS
Activity
Flo.
cal ibrat-ion
Fi Her
wei gni ng
laboratory
procedures
Col located
samp lers
Systems
auci t
Inter-
contractor
or txternal
audit
I
E
(EPA. OAQPS)
E
(contractor)
I
E
(EPA, EMSL)
I
E
(EPA, OAQPS)
Contractor
audited
PEOCo
MR]
PEDCo
HRI .
PEDCo
MR1
MR I
PEDCo
PEDCo
PEDCo
MR I
PEOCo
MR I
Both
Both
Date
B-22-79
8-27-79
10-12-79
10-12-79
8-01-79
8-01-79
8-06-80
8-05-80
8-06-80
1-02-80
-
10-30-79
11-13-79
7-26-79
to 8-09-79
8-01-79
No. and
type of
units
2 hi-vol
1 hi-vol
1 iapactor
2 dichot
2 hi-vol
2 hi-vol
1 dichot
7 dichot
2 dicnot
10 ni-vol
5 dicnot
39 ni-vol
31 dichot
Compreiv
review
Compreh
rev i ew
18 ni-vol
10 dichot
AH
Results
Each AX from cal curve
Hi-vol and impactor within '
4X of curve, dichot within
2X ,
One within IS, other out
by 12. 6X
Both within 7X
Within 5X
Al 1 set 5 to 11X high
One within IX, other out
By 10X
7 within 5X, 2 within 7%,
one 8 3X from cal curve
Total flows all *nmn SX.
2 coarse flows aifferea
Dy 6. 2 and 9. ~.
Three hi-vol filters
varied by more than 5 0
mg; all lost weight ana
loose material ih folder
was noted. Four dichots
exceeded the 0 10 mg
tolerance and all lost
weight
Filters not suomittea
yet
No problems found
No problems found
Paired hi-vol values
differed by an av of 34%,
IP values by 3SX
Checked siting, calibration.
filter handling, ana
•aint. procedures Few
minor problems found Out
concluded that operations
should provide reliable
aata
60
-------
SECTION 5
CALCULATION AND DATA ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY
NUMBER OF TESTS PER SOURCE
The study design proposed the number of samples to be collected for
each operation, but these initial numbers were based primarily on avail-
able sampling time and the relative importance of each operation as a
dust source. Several members of the technical review group requested
a statistical analysis to determine the appropriate number of samples to
be taken.
After sampling data, were obtained from the first two mines/three
visits, the total sample size needed to achieve a specified margin of
error and confidence level could be calculated by knowing the variability
of the partial data set. This method of estimating required sample size,
in which about half of the preliminarily-estimated sample size is taken
and its standard deviation is used to provide a final estimate of sample
size, is called the two-stage or Stein method. The two-stage method,
along with two preliminary data evaluations, constituted the statistical
plan finally prepared for the study.
The steps in estimating total sample sizes and remaining samples
in the statistical plan were:
1. Determine (by source) whether samples taken in different
seasons and/or at different mines were from the same
population. If they were, total sample size could be
calcul ated di rectly.
2. Evaluate potential correction factors. If samples were not
from a single distribution, significant correction factors
could bring them into a single distribution. If they were
from populations with the same mean, correction factors could
reduce the residual standard deviations.
3. Calculate required sample sizes using residual standard
deviations.
4. Calculate remaining samples required to achieve the desired
margin of error and confidence level and recommend the number
of samples for each source to be taken at the third mine.
62
-------
Two-Stage Method for Estimating Sample Size
If samples are to be taken from a single normal population, the
required total sample size can be calculated with the following equation
based on the two-stage sampling method (Natrella 1963):
n = 1
~&~ (Eq. 1)
where n = number of samples required for first and second stages
combi ned
$1 = estimate of population standard deviation based on nj
samples
t = tabled t-value for risk a and n^-l degrees of freedom
d = margin of error in estimating population mean
The margin of error, d, and the risk, a, that the estimate of the
mean will deviate from the population mean by_ an amount d or greater are
specified by the user. A relative error (d/x) of 25 percent and a risk
level of 20 percent have been specified for the calculations presented
herein based on the intended use for the results, the measurement errors
involved in obtaining the samples, and the accuracy of emission factors
currently being used for other sources. Having specified d (or d/x) and
a, the only additional value needed to calculate n for each source is
the estimate of population standard deviation, S]_ (or S]_/x"), based on
the partial sample obtained to date, n^.
Sample? from the Same Normal Population
One important restriction on the use of Equation 1, as noted above,
is that samples (from different mines) must be from a single normal
distribution. If average emission rates for a specific source at three
different mines are 2, 10, and 50 Ib/ton, and the three samples have
relatively low variability, the combined data cannot be assumed to be
normally distributed with a common mean. Regardless of how many samples
were taken at each mine, the data would be trimodally distributed.
Therefore, before Equation 1 can be used to calculate the total
sample size, a check should be performed to determine whether the avail-
able data from different mines are from populations with the same mean
and variance. If not, the mines would need to be treated separately
and thus require a calculation of required sample size for each mine,
using the analogue of Equation 1 (n = number of samples at a single mine)
The total sample size would then be the total of the three sample sizes
calculated for the respective mines.
63
-------
\
A statistical test can be performed on the data to evaluate whether
two or more sets of samples taken at different mines or in different
seasons are from distributions (populations) having the same means and
variances $NatreUa--1963; Hald 1952).* This test was performed in the
statistical plan and indicated that all sources at the first two mines/
three visits except coal dozers, haul roads, and overburden drills were
from the same populations. Therefore, with the exceptions noted, total
sample sizes could be determined directly.
Correction Factors
This approach on which this study has been based is that the final
emission factors will be mean emission rates with correction factors
attached to adequately account for the wide range of mining and meteoro-
logical conditions over-which the emission factors must be applied.- The
use of correction factors may affect required sample sizes, in that
correction factors which reduce the uncertainty (standard dtviation)
in estimating an emission factor also reduce the sample size necessary
to attain a desired precision with a specified confidence. Therefore, the
partial data from two mines were analyzed for significant correction factors
that could reduce the sample standard deviations and thus possibly reduce
required sample sizes. It should be pointed out that some additional
samples are needed to adequately quantify the effect of each correction
factor on the emission factor, so a small reduction in sample size due to
the use of a correction factor would be offset by this need for extra data.
Independent variables thought to be candidates for correction factors
were measured or monitored with each sample of emission rate. The potential
correction factors are listed in Table 5-1.
The approach for evaluation of correction factors described later in
this section, multiple linear regression, was used to identify significant
correction factors in the partial data set. However, analysis was not
as thorough (e.g., did not include transformations) because it was being
done only to get a slightly better estimate of the optimum sample size.
The independent variables considered and their effects on standard
deviation are summized in Table 5-1. Using appropriate values of s
(standard deviditon) in Equation 1, the sample sizes consistent with the
previous-discussed relative error of 25 percent and risk level of 20
percent were calculated. These numbers are shown in Table 5-2, which
Another test, the x^ test for goodness of fit, may be more appropriate
for determining whether data are from a population with a normal
distribution, but it was not used in the original statistical plan.
64
-------
was taken from the statistical plan. Some x and s values in this table
may not agree exactly with values reported later in the results sections
because of minor changes in calculation procedures between the time the
statistical plan (e.g., method of extrapolating to 30 Aim SP emission rate)
was released and the final report was prepared.
These sample sizes were calculated after 2 mines/3 visits, leaving
only one mine visit to obtain all the additional samples. It was not
possible to complete the sampling requirements specified in Table 5-2
at the third mine within available project resources. Therefore, an
attempt was made to get relative errors for all sources down to 0.31 and
major sources (haul trucks, scrapers, and draglines) down to 0.25 by
slightly reallocating the number of samples required for several of the
sources. Table 5-3 compares four different sets of sample sizes:
1. Originally proposed in study design.
2. Calculated after 2 mines/3 visits to achieve a re-lative
error of 25 percent at risk level of 0.20.
o
3. Proposed in statistical plan as feasible totals after
third mine.
4. Actually collected at 3 mines/4 visits.
CALCULATION PROCEDURES
Exposure Profiling
To calculate emission rates using the exposure profiling technique,
a conservation of mass approach is used. The passage of airborne parti -
culate, 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. Th 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 presented in the paragraphs below.
Step 1 Calculate Weights of Collected Sample--
In order to calculate the total weight of particulate matter collected
by a sample, the weights of air filters and of intake wash filters (profiler
intakes and cyclone precollectors only) are determined before and after
use. The weight change of an unexposed filter (blank) is used to adjust
for the effects of filter handling. The following equation is used to
calculate the weight of particulate matter collected.
-------
TABLE 5-l.\ EVALUATION OF CORRECTION FACTORS WITH PARTIAL DATA SET
Source/
samples
Overburden
drilling/23
Blasting
(coal)/9
Coal
loading/10
Dozer
Dozer
(coal)/7
Dragl ine/11
Haul
truck/18
Lt.- and med. -
duty
vehicles/6
Scraper/
12
Grader/5
Potential
correction factor
Silt
Depth of hole
X moisture
No. of holes
X moisture
Bucket capacity
Speed
Silt
X moisture
Speed
Silt
X moisture
Drop distance
X moisture
Bucket capacity
Operation
Silt
Silt
No. of passes
Control
Moisture
Veh. weight
(added to above)
Silt
X moisture
No. of passes
Not enough data
Mult.
R
0.58
0.63
0.63
0.47
0.48
0.39
0.61
0.69
Die
0.84
Did
Did
0.88
0.91
0.92
0.96a
Did
0.40
0.46
0.47
0.48
0.54b
0.15
0.20
0.28
Significance
0.004
0.161
0.809
0.199
0.860
0.264
0.048
0.239
not improve reg
0.019
not improve reg
not improve regi
0.000
0.120
0.334
0.0483
not improve reg
I
0.048
0.074
0.148
0.258
0.280
0.649
0.827
0.877
Relative std
deviation
0.838
0.699
0.681
0.697
1.037
0.977 '
1.053
1.149
1.122
0.784
0.657
0.636
Cession
0.695
0.416
"ess ion
Cession
1.446
0.733
0.662
0.659
0.500
res si on
1.470
1.377
1.364
1.387
1.419
1.076b
0.888
0.922
'0.961
1.000
Interrelated with drop distance, so not used as a correction factor.
The four variables for haul roads all explained more variance than vehicle
weight, and it did not reduce residual coefficient of variation for com-
bined haul road/access road data set.
-------
TABLE 5-2. CALCULATED SAMPLE SIZES USING TWO-STAGE METHOD
Source
Dril 1 ing
Blasting
(coal)
Coal .
loading
Dozer
(ovbd)
Dozer
(coal)
Dragl ine
Haul truck
(PEDCo est.)
Haul truck
IP (MRI est.)
It.- and med.-
duty vehicles
Scraper
Grader
Single
pop.
no
yes
yes
yes
no
yes
no
no
yes
yes
?
First
est.
40
12
30
18
18
18
30
30
15
18
9
nl
11
12
9
10
11
4
3
11
5
6
6
6
5
12
5
W
1.383
1.372
1.397
1.383
1.383
1.638
1.886
1.383
1.533
1.476
1.476
1.476
1.533
1.363
1.533
sb
X
From Table 5-1
From Table 5-1
18.7
0.031
From Ta
8.97b
3.01b
18.0
0.027
ble 5-1
25.4
6.54
From Table 5-1
4.54
10.37
3.99
0.62
3.30
13 99
0.90
9.67
19.20
6.68
1.56
2.87
15.75
1.7
s/x
0.70
0.70
1.04
1.15
0.56
0.35
0.46
0.73
0.47
0.54
0.60
0.40
1.15
0.89
0.53
n, per
nine
15
15
6b
12b
9
11
13
6
n,
total
45
34
41
14
27
17
30
29
50
24
11
Degrees of freedom (d.f.) for calculating t are n,-l unless there are
correction factors, in which case d.f. are reducea by 1 for each correction
factor.
Smaller sample sizes are required without use of correction factor for
speed.
-------
TABLE 5-3. SAMPLE SIZES PROPOSED AND OBTAINED
Source
D r i 11 i ng
Blasting
(coal)
Coal
loading
Dozer
(ovbd)
Dozer
(coal)
Dragl ine
Haul truck
Lt. - and med
Samples
proposed in
study dsn
40
12
30
18 .
18
18
30
.- 15
duty vehicles
Scrapers
Grac'ars
18
9
Samples
required by
2-stage method
45
34
41
14
27
17
30
50
24
11
Samples
proposed in
stat plan
30
16
24
16
10
19
40
12a
24
8
Rel. error
for samples
in stat plan
0.20
0.36
0.32
0.31
0.31
0.21
0.19
0.45a
0.24
0.27
Samples
actual ly
col lected
30
16
25
15
12
19
36
12
15
7
Expected to be combined with haul roads in a single emission factor.
68
-------
Participate Final Tar Fianl Tare
sample = filter - filter - blank - blank (Eq. 2)
weight weight weight weight weight
Because of the typically small factions of finds in fugitive dust
plumes and the low sampling rate of the dichotomous sampler, no weight
gain may be detected on the fine filter of this instrument. This makes
it necessary to estimate a minimum detectable FP concentration corresponding
to the minimum weight gain which can be detected by the balance (0.005 mg).
Since four individual tare and final weights produce the particualte
sample weight (Equation 2), the minimum detectable weight on a filter is
0.01 mg.
To calculate the minimum FP concentration, the sampling rate (1 m^/h)
and duration of sampling must be taken into account. For example, the
minimum concentration which can be detected for a one-hour sampling period
is 10>ug/m3. The actual sampling time should be used to calculate the
mini mum concentration.
Step 2 Calculate Particulate Concentrations--
The concentration of particulate matter measured bv a sampler, expressed
in units of" micrograms per standard cubic meter (xig/bcm , is given by the
following equation.
Cs = 3.53 x 104 m (Eq. 3)
Ost
where Cs = particulate concentration, ;jg/scm
m = particulate sample weight, mg
Qs - sampler flow rate, SCFM
t = duration of sampling, min
The coefficient in Equation 3 is simply a conversion factor. To be con-
sistent with the National Ambient Air Quality Standard for TSP. all
concentrations are expressed in standard conditions (25°C and 29.92 in.
of Hg).
The specific particulate matter concentrations are determined from
the various particulate catches as follows:
Profiler: filter catch + intake catch
TP - or
Cyclone/cascade impact-or: cyclone catch + substrate
catches + backup filter catch
69
-------
TSP Hi-vol sampler: filter catch
5P - Calculated: sub-30yum fraction determined by extrapolation
of sub-2.5 and sub-15/um fractions assuming a
'Tognormal size distribution
IP - Size-selective inlet: filter catch
Dichotomous sampler: coarse particualte filter catch -c
fine particulate filter catch
FP - Dichotomous sampler: fine particle filter catch multiplied
by 1.11
The dichotomous sampler total flow of 1 m^/h is d'ivided into a coarse
particle flow of 0.1 m^/h and a fine particle flow of 0.9 m^/h. The
mass collected on the fine particle filter is adjusted for fine particles
which remain in the air stream destined for the coarse particle filter.
Upwind (background) concentrations of TP or any of the respective
size fractions are substracted from corresponding downwind concentrations
to produce "net" concentrations attributable to the tested source. Upwind
sampling at one height (2.5 meters) did not allow determination of vertical
variations of the upwind concentration. Because the upwind concentration
at 2.b meters may be greater than at the 4 to 6 meter height of the net
downwind profiling tower, this may cause a downward bias of the net con-
centration. Upwind TP is preferably obtained with an isokinetic sampler,
but should be represented well by the upwind TSP concentration measured
by a standard hi-vol, if there are not nearby sources that would have a
coarse particle impact on the background station.
Step 3 Calculate Isokinetic Flow Ratios--
The isokinetic flow ratio (IFR) is the ratio of the sampler intake air
speed to the wind speed approaching the sampler. It is given by:
Q Qs
IFR =
(Eq. 4)
aU aUs
where Q = sampler flow rate, ACFM
Qs = sampler flow rate, SCFM
a = intake area of sampler, ft?
U = approaching wind speed, fpm
Us = approaching wind speed, sfpm
70
-------
/ IFR is of interest in the sampling of TP, since isokinetic sampling assures
\that particles of all sizes are sampled without bias.
\
Step 4 Calculate Downwind Particle Size Distributions--
The downwind particle size distribution of source--contributed parti -
culate matter at a given height may be calculated from net TP, IP, and FP
concentrations at the same height (and distance from the source). Normally,
the TP value from the exposure profiler head would be used, unless a cascade
impactor operates much closer to isokinetic sampling conditions than the
exposure profiler head.
The proper inlet cut-point of each dichotomous sampler must be determined
based on the mean wind speed at the height of the sampler. The concentration
from a single upwind dichotomous sampler should be adequately representative
of the background contribution to the downwind dichotomous sampler concen-
trations. The reasons are: (a) the background concentration should not
vary appreciably with height; (b) the upwind sampler, which is operated
at an intermediate height, is exposed to a mean wind speed which is within
about 20 percent of the wind speed extremes that correspond to the range
of downwind sampler heights; and (c) errors resulting from the above
conditions are small because of the typically small contribution of back-
ground in comparison to the source plume.
Independent particle size distributions may be determined from a
cascade impactor using the proper 50 percent cutoff diameters for the
cyclone precollector and each impaction stage. Corrections for coarse
particle bounce are recommended.
If it can be shown that the FP and apparent IP fractions of the net TP
concentrations do not vary significantly with height in the plume, i.e.,
by more than about 10 percent, then the plume can be adequately characterized
by a single particle size distribution. This size distribution is developed
from the dichotomous sampler net concentrations. The fine particle cutpoint
of the dichotomous sampler (2.5/im) corresponds to the midpoint of the
normally observed bimodel size distribution of atmospheric aerosol. The
coarse mode represents particles produced by a single formation mechanism
and can be expected to consist of particles of lognormally distributed
.size. The best fit lognormal line through the data points (mass fractions
of TP) is determined using a standard linear regression on transformed d^ta
points as described by Reider and Cowherd (1979). This best fit line is
extrapolated or interpolated to determine SP and IP fractions of TP.
Step 5 Calculate Particulate Exposures and Integrate Profiles--
71
-------
; For direction samplers operated isokinetically, particulate exposures
may be calculated by the following equation:
E = _M = 2.83 x 10-5 CsQst (Eq. 5)
a a
+ 3.05 x 11T8 CsUst (Eq. 6)
where E = particulate mass collected by sampler, mg
M = net particulate mass collected by sampler, mg
a = sampler intake area, cm2
C, = net particulate concentration, ;jg/sirr
U5 = approaching wind speed, sfpm
Qs = sampler flow rate, SCFM
t = duration of sampling, min
The coefficients of Equations 5 and 6 are conversion factors. Net mass or
concentration refers to that portion which is attributable to the source
being tested, after subtraction of the contribution from background.
Note that the above equations may also be written in terms of test
parameters expressed in actual rather than standard conditions. As
mentioned earlier, the MRI profiler heads and warm-wire anemometers
'jive "eadings expressed at standard conditions.
The integrated exposure for a given particle size range is found by
numerical integration of the exposure profile over the height of the plume.
Mathematically, this is stated as follows:
,H (Eg- 7)
A = V Edh
0
where A = integrated exposure, m-mg/cm2
E = particulate exposure, m-mg/cm2 -
h = vertical distance coordinate, m
H = effective extent of plume above ground,
72
-------
Physically, A represents the total passage of airborne participate matter
downwind of the source, per unit length of line source.
The net exposure must equal zero at the vertical extremes of the pro-
file, i.e., at the ground where the wind velocity equals zero and at the
effective heigh1" of the plume where the net concentrations equals zero.
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. The effective height of
the plume is determined by extrapolation of the two uppermost net TSP
concentrations.
Integration of the portion of the net TP exposure profile that
extends above a height of 1 m is accomplished using Simpson's Rule on
an odd number of equally spaced exposure values. The maximum error in
the integrated exposure resulting from extrapolation above the top sampler
is estimated to be one-half of the fraction of the plume mass which lies
above the top sampler. The portion of the profile below a height of 1 m
is adequately depicted as a vertical line representing uniform exposure,
because of the offsetting effects of the usual occurrence of maximum
exposure and the decay to zero exposure at ground level (see Figure 5-1).
Step 6 Calculate Particulate Emission Rates--
The TP emission rate for airborne particulate of a given particle
size range generated by vehicles traveling along a straight-line road
segment, expressed in pounds of emissions per vehicle-mile traveled (VMT),
is gi ven by:
e = 35.5 A (Eq. R)
where e = particulate emission rate, Ib/VMT
A = integrated exposure, m-mg/cm?
N = number of vehicle passes, dimension1, ess
The coefficient of Equation 8 is simply a conversion factor. The metric
equivalent emission rate is expressed in kilograms (or grams) of parti-
culate emissions per vehicle-kilometer traveled (VKT).
The SP, IP, and FP emission rates for a given test are calculated by
multiplying the TP emission rate by the respective size fractions obtained
i n Step 4.
*
Dustfall flux decays with distance downwind of the source, and the flux
distribution may be integrated to determine the portion of the TP emission
which settles out near the source. Although this effect has been analyzed in
73
-------
• Measured Data Point
O Extrapolated Data Point
10 15
NET EXPOSURE, mg/cm2
Figure 5-1. Illustration of exposure profile extrapolation
procedures (haul truck run J-9).
74
-------
previous studies, it is not essential to the reduction of profiling data.
Consequently, no such analysis is being performed in the present study as
part of the profiling calculations.
Upwind-Downwind
The basis for calculation of emission rates in the upwind-downwind
sampling method is conversion of ambient concentration data into corres-
ponding emission rates by use of a Gaussian dispersion equation. Two
different forms of the Gaussian dispersion equation were used—one for
line source and the other for point sources. In both cases, net.downwind
(downwind minus upwind) concentrations were substituted into the equation
along with appropriate meteorological and distance data to calculate
apparent source strengths. The eight to 10 samplers in the downwind array
resulted in that number of estimates of source strength being produced for
each sampli ng period.
In an interim technical report, the caTculation procedures for the
upwind-downwina method were explained in slightly greater detail than has
been allocated in this report. A step-by-step calculation procedure was
presented in the interim report and is summarized below:
1. Determine stability class by o"fj method.
2. Calculate initial plume dispersion, cTy0 and crzo,
3. Determine virtual distance x0.
4. Determine source-to-sampler distances.
5. Calculate plume dispersion (oy and oz) at each downwind
sampling distance.
6. Correct measured concentrations for distance of sampler away
form plume centerline (for point sources only).
7. Calculate source strength with Gaussian dispersion equation.
8. Convert source strength to an emission rate.
These steps are discussed briefly below.
Step 1 Determine the Stability Class--
Stability class was calculated using the oft method. A oft value was
determined for each test period by the method described on the following
page. Stability class was then estimated as presented in Table 5-4. An
alternate method of estimating stability, based on wind speed and cloud
cover, always agreed within half a stability class with the ofc method value,
75
-------
\
TABLE 5-4.
o. METHOD OF DETERMINING ATMOSPHERIC
0 STABILITY CLASS
°0
17.5
12.5
o. >22.5°
-------
Stability class
A
B
C
D
a
07ISTF
0.145
0.110
0.085
0.932
0.915
0.870
- The virtual distance term, x0, is used to simulate the effect of
initial vertical plume dispersion. It is estimated from the
initial vertical plume dispersion value, C^Q, which in turn is
the observed initial plume height divided by 2.15 (Turner 1970):
Away from Plume
Step 6 Correct Concentrations for Distance -of Sample
Centerline —
The dispersion equations assume that sampling is done along the plume
centerline. For line sources, this is a reasonable assumption because
the emissions occur at ground level and have an initial vertical dispersion
(crzo) of 3 to 5 m. Therefore, the plume centerline is about 2.5 m height,
the same as the sampler heights. Field personnel attempted to position
samplers so that this relationship was maintained even in rough terrain.
Horizontal dispersion does not enter into the calculation for line sources.
For point sources, it is not possible to sample contiguously along
the plume centerline because of varying wind directions and possibly
because of varying emission heights (e.g., shovels and draglines). The
problem of varying wind direction was accounted for by first determining
the resultant wind direction relative to the line of samplers, tri-
gonometrical ly calculating the horizontal distance from the sampler to
the plume centerline (y), and then determining the reduction from center-
line concentration with the following equation:
reduction factor
1
(Eq. 11)
Differences in the height of sampling and height of emission release
were accounted for in the point source dispersion equation with an
additional exponential expression when the average difference in height
could be determined. Field personnel noted heights of emission release
on data sheets for later use in dispersion calculations. The exponential
expression used to determine the reduction from centerline concentration is
reduction factor. = e
1
2
J
- 12)
.where H = average vertical distance from plume
centerline to samplers, m
77
-------
Step 7 Calculate Source Strength with Gaussian Dispersion Equation —
The line source equation was used for haul road, scraper, and some
dozer sources. The equation 1s:
X = - - (Eg. 13)
sin $ \2n o_ u
z
where x = plume centerline concentration at a distance x down-
wind from the mining source, g/m3
q = line source strength, g/s-m
$ = angle between wind direction and line source
GZ = the vertical standard deviation of plume concentra-
tion distribution at the downwind distance x for
the prevailing atmospheric stability, m
u = mean wind speed, m/s
The point source dispersion equation was used in conjunction with
dragline, coal loading, and other dozer operations. This equation is:
The point source dispersion equation was used in conjunction
with dragline, coal loading, and other dozer operations. This
equation is:
t
X = 5^3 (E,. 14)
where Q = point source strength, g/s
a = the horizontal standard deviation of plume concen-
^ tration distribution at the downwind distance x for
the prevailing atmospheric stability, m
X, a, , u = same as Equation 14
z
Step 8 Convert Source Strength to an Emission Rate--
The calculated values of q were converted to an emission rate per
vehicle (haul roads and scrapers) or per hour. For the per vehicle unit,
the q value in g/s-m was divided by the traffic volume during the sampling
period. For the per hour unit, the q value was converted to Ib/h at normal
operating speed. Similarly, point source 0 values were converted to emission
rates per ton of material handled or per hour.
In summary, upwind-downwind emission rates were calculated using either
a point source or line source version of the Gaussian dispersion equation.
The point source equation utilized two additional factors to acccount for
78
-------
inability to sample on the plume center-line in the horizontal and vertical
dimensions. Each sampler produced a separate estimate of emission rate for
the test, so eight to 10 values associated with different downwind distances
were generated for each test.
IP and FP emission rates could have been calculated by using the pro-
cedure described above. However, at any specified point within the plume,
the calculated emission rate is directly proportional to measured con-
centration. Therefore, ratios of measured IP and FP concentrations to TSP-
concentrations were calculated for each pair of dichotomous and hi-vol
samplers. i'i,c resulting fractions were multiplied by the calculated TSP
emission rate for the corresponding point in the plume to get IP and FP
emission rates.
If particle deposition is significant over the distance of the downwind
sampler array, apparent emission rates should decrease with distance from
the source. Therefore, upwind-downwind sampling provided an implicit
measure of the rate of deposition. In addition, the possible decrease in
apparent emission rate with distance meant that the eight to 10 different
values for a test could not simply be averaged to obtain a single emission
rate for the test. The procedure for combining the values is explained
in a following subsection.
Balloon Sampling
This calculation procedure combines concepts used in quasi-stack and
exposure profiling sampling. However, it is less accurate than either of
these two methods because the sampling equipment does not operate at
isokinetic flow rates.
The balloon samplers were preset to a flow rate that was isokinetic
at a wind speed of 5 mph. Since wind speed only approached this speed in
two of the 18 tests, the sampling rates were normally super-isokinetic.
The other two types of equipment in the array, hi-vols and dichotomous
samplers, sample at a relatively constant air flow. In spite of this
limitation, it was judged that a calculation involving integration of
concentrations would yield better results than could be obtained by using
a dispersion equation.
Step I Plot Concentration Data in Horizontal and Vertical Dimensions--
Concentration data from the ground-based hi-vols and balloon-suspended
samplers yield a concentration profile of the plume in both the horizontal
and vertical directions. By combining these profiles with visual observa-
tions and photographs, it was possible to determine the plume boundaries.
Conceptually, the next step was to approximate the volume of air that passed
the sampling array by multiplying the product of wind speed and sampling
duration by the cross-sectional area of the plume. The concept is similar
to the procedures used in the quasi-stack calculations. Quasi-stack
calculations are discussed in the next subsection.
' ' ~ 79-
-------
The calculation procedure is essentially a graphical integration
technique. Concentrations measured by the ground-level hi-vols (2.5 m
'Height) were plotted against their horizontal spacing. Bu using visual
observations, photographs taken in the field, and the curve itself, the
profile was extrapolated to zero concentration at both edges of the plume.
The resulting curve was assumed to represent the concentration profile at
ground level and was graphically integrated. This concept is demonstrated
in Figure 5-2.
Step 2 Estimate the Volume Formed by the Two Profiles--
The balloon samplers were suspended at five specific heights of 2.5,
7.6, 15.2, 22.9, and 30.5 m. Since concentrations measured by these
samplers were not directly comparable to those from hi-vols, concentrations
at the four heights about 2.5 m were expressed as ratios of the 2.5 m
concentration. The resulting curve of relative concentration versus
height was extrapolated to a height of zero concentration, as shown in
Figure 5-3. The next step was to multiply each of the ratios by the area
under the ground level concentration profile. This produced an approxima-
tion of the relative integrated concentration at each of the five heights,
3y using a trapezoidal approximation technique, an estimate of the volume
formed by the two profiles was obtained.
Step 3 Calculate the TSP Emission Rate--
The final emission rate calculation was made with the following equation
E = 60 V(u)t (El- 15)
where E = total emissions from blast, mg
V = volume under the two profiles, mg/m
u s= wind speed, m/s
t = sampling duration, min
The final result was then converted to Ib/blast. This value was recorded as
the TSP emission rate.
The next step was to calculate IP and FP emision rates. The unadjusted
IP and FP concentrations for each dichot were expressed as fractions of their
associated hi-vol concentrations. Then, the averages of the five unadjusted
IP fractions and the five FP fractions were calculated and the 50 percent
cut point for IP was adjusted to account for the inlet's dependence on wind
speed. A more detailed discussion of the correction for wind speed is
presented in a later subsection. The resulting fractions were multiplied
by the TSP emission rate and the results reported as IP and FP emission rates,
80
-------
HI-VOL 4
E
ot
HI-VOL 3
HI-VOL 1
HI-VOL 2
DISTANCE PERPENDICULAR TO PLUME, m
Figure 5-2. Example ground-level concentration profile,
30.5
E. 22.9
H;
3
uJ
= 15.2
7.6
2.5
0
1.0
RELATIVE CONCENTRATION
Figure 5-3. Example vertical concentration profile.
81
-------
The procedure outlined above Incorporates a critical assumption
concerning particle size distribution. Due to a lack of particle size
data at each height, the assumption has been made that the fractions of
the concentration less than 15 and 2.5,um are the same throughout the
plume as they are at 2.5 m height. Since particle size distribution
measured at ground level was applied to the entire plume, the reported
IP and FP emission rates are probably underestimates.
^t
Wind Tunnel
To calculate emission rates from wind tunnel data, a conservation of
mass approach is used. The quantity of airborne parti cul ate generated by
wind erosion of the test surface equals the quantity leaving the tunnel
minus the quantity (background) entering the tunnel. Calculation steps
are described below.
Step 1 Calculate Weights of Collected Sample—
The samples are all collected on filters. Weights are determined
by subtracting tare weights from final filter weights.
Step 2 Calculate Parti cul ate Concentrations--
The concentration of particulate matter measured by a sampler,
expressed in units of micrograms per cubic meter Oug/m3), is given by
the following equation:
C = 3.53 x 104 ~ (Eq. 16)
where C = particuiate concentration,
ai = particulate sample weight, mg
Q = sampler flow rate, ACFM
a
t = duration of sampling, min
The coefficient in Equation 16 is simply a conversion factor.
The specific particulate matter concentrations determined from the
various sampler catches are as follows:
TP - Cyclone/cascade impactor: cyclone catch + substrate
catches + backup filter
catch
TSP - Hi-Vol sampler: filter catch
82
-------
To be consistent with the National Ambient A1 r Quality Standard for TSP,
concentrations should be expressed at standard conditions (25° and 29.92
in. of Hg.)«
Tunnel inlet (background) concentrations of TP or any of the respecti
particulate size fractions are subtracted from corresponding tunnel exit
cor cent rat ions to produce "net" concentrations attributable to the tested
source. The tunnel inlet TP concentration is preferably obtained with an
jsokinetic sampler, but should be represented well by the TSP concent ratio
measured by the modified hi-vol, if there are no nearby sources that would
have a coarse particle impact on the tunnel inlet air.
Step 3 Calculate Tunnel Volume Flow Rate —
During testing the wind speed profile along the vertical bisector of
the tunnel wor' .••-.-, section is measured with a standard pitot tube and
included mane _ler, using the following equation:
u(z) = 6.51 H(z) T '
P
where u(z) = wind speed, m/s
H(z) - manometer reading, in. H20
2 * height above test surface, cm
T = tunnel air temperature, °K
P = tunnel air pressure, in. Hg
The values for T and P are equivalent to ambient conditions.
A pitot tube and inclined manometer are also used to measure the cente
line 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 sampl i
duct to the center-line wind speed in the test section is independent of f 1 o
rate, it can be used to determine isokinetic sampling conditions for any
flow rate in the tunnel.
The velocity profile near the test surface (tunnel floor) and the wall
of the tunnel is found to follow a logarithmic distribution (Gillette 1978
u(z) = u^_ In z_ (Eq.
0.4 2^
O
where u* = friction velocity, cm/s
2Q = roughness height, cm
B2
-------
The roughness height of the test surface 1s determined by extra-
ilation of the velocity profile near the surface to z=0. The roughness
jight for the plexiglas walls and ceiling of the tunnel is 6 x lO'^cm.
lese velocity profiles are integrated over the cross-sectional area
•" the tunnel (30.5 cm x 30.5 cm) to yield the volumetric flow rate
Trough the tunnel for a particular set of test conditions.
iep 4 Calculate Isokinetic Flow Ratio—
The isokinetic flow ratio (IFR) is the ratio of the sampler intake air
peed to the wind speed approaching the sampler. It is given by:
= Qs (Eq. 19)
IFR =
where Q = sampler flow rate, ACFM
a = intake area of sampler, ft2
U = wind speed approaching the sampler, fpm
IFR is of interest in the sampling of TP, since isokinetic sampling assures
ihat particles of all sizes are sampled without bias.
Step 5 Calculate Downstream Particle Size Distribution--
The downstream particle size distribution of source-contributed parti-
culate matter may be calculated from the net TP concentration and the net
concentrations measured by the cyclone and by each cascade impactor stage.
The 50 percen- cutoff diameters for the cyclone precollector and each
impaction stage must be adjusted to the sampler flow rate. Corrections
for coarse particle bounce are recommended.
Because the particle size cut point of the cyclone is about 11 urn,
the determination of suspended particulate (SP, less than 30 urn) concen-
tration and IP concentration requires extrapolation of the particle size
distribution to obtain the percentage of TP that consists of SP (or IP). A
lognormal size distribution is used for this extrapolation.
Step 6 Calculate Particulate Emission Rates—
84
-------
The emission rate for airborne participate of a given particle size
range generated by wind erosion of the test surface is given by:
(Eg. 20)
where e = particulate emission rate, g/m2-s
Cn = net participate concentration, g/m3)
Qt = tunnel flow rate, mz/s
A = exposed test area = 0.918m2
Step 7 Calculate Erosion Potential —
If the emission rate is found to decay significantly (by more than
about 20 percent) during back-to-back tests of a given surface at the
same wind speed, due to the presence of non-erodible elements on the
surface, then an additional calculation step must be performed to
determine the erosion potential of the test surface. The erosion
potential is the total quantity of erodible particles, in any specified
particle size range, present on the surface (per unit area) prior to
the onset of erosion. Because wind erosion is an avalanching process,
it is reasonable to assume that the loss rate from the surface if pro-
portional to the amount of erodible material remaining;
«t = Moc" (Eg- 21)
where M^ = quantity of erodible material present on the surface
at any time, g/m2
MQ = erosion potential, i.e., quantity of credible material
present on the surface before the onset of erosion,
g/m2
k = constant, s
t = cumulative erosion time, s
85
-------
Consistent with Equation 21, the erosion potential may be calculated
from the measured losses from the test surface to two erosion times:
In -2=r±] «. (Eg. 22)
/Mo-Ll\
\ Mo Lh
where L, = measured loss during time period 0 to t^, g/m
L2 = measured loss during time period 0 to t2> g/m
The loss may be back -calculated as the product of the emission rate from
Equation 20 and the cumulative erosion time.
Quasi -Stack
The source strengths of the drill tests are determined by multiplying
the average particulate concentration in the sampled volume of air by the
total volume of air that passed through the enclosure during the test.
For this calculation procedure, the air passing tnrough the enclosure is
assumed to contain all of the particulate emitted by the source. This
calculation can be expressed as:
E = <*«• 23>
where E = source strength, g
X = concentration, g/m3
V = total volume, m3
Step 1 Determine Particle Size Fractions--
As described in Section 3, isokinetic samplers were used to obtain
total concentration data for the particulate emissions passing through
the enclosure. Originally, these data were to be related to particle
size, based on the results of microscopic analyses. However, the incon-
sistent results obtained from the comparability tests precluded the use
of this technique for particle sizing. Consequently, the total concen-
tration data were divided into suspended and settleable fractions. The
filter fraction of the concentration was assumed to be suspended parti-
culate and the remainder was assumed to be settleable particulate.
86
-------
Step 2 Determine Concentration for Each Sampler--
Rather than traverse the enclosure, as is done in conventional sour
testing, four separate profiler samplers were used during each test. Th
samplers were spaced at regular intervals along the horizontal centerlin
of the enclosure. Each sampler was set to approximate isokinetic sampli
rate. This rate was determined from the wind velocity measured at each
sampler with a hot-wire anemometer. The wind velocity was checked at
each sampler every 2 to 3 minutes and the sampling rates were adjusted
as necessary.
Step 3 Calculate volume of Air Sampled by Each Profiler--
In order to simplify the calculation of source strength, it was
assumed that the concentration and wind velocity measured at each sample;
were representative of one-fourth the cross-sectional area of the enclosi
Thus, the total volume of air associated with each profiler concentration
was calculated as follows:
V^^ = (ui) (a/4)(t) (Eg. 24
where V. = total volume of air associated with sampler i,
u- = mean velocity measured at sampler i, m/min
a = cross- sectional area of enclosure, m2
t = sampling duration, min
Step 4 Calculate the Total Emissions as Sum of Four Partial Emission Rate
Separate source strengths, E, are calculated for the total concentra
and the fraction captured on the filter. The equation is:
4
V *
-------
Correction of dlchotomous samples to 15 jum values
Conversion of physical diameters measured microscopically to
equivalent aerodynamic diameters
Correction of cascade Impactor data to account for particle
bounce-through.
Correction of Dlchotomous Data
Recent research Indicates that the collection efficiency of the
dichotomous sampler inlet is dependent on wind speed (Wedding 1980). As
shown in Figure 5-4, the 50 percent cut point that is nominally 15 jam
actually varies from 10 to 22 ^m over the range of wind speeds tested.
The procedure developed in the present study to correct dichot con-
centrations to a 15 urn cut point was to:
1. Determine the average wind speed for each test period.
2. Estimate the actual cut point for the sample from Figure 5-4.
3. Calculate net concentrations for each stage by substracting
upwind dichot concentrations.
4. Calculate the total concentration less than the estimated
cut point diameter by summing the net concentrations on the
two stages.
5. Adjust the fine fraction (<2.5>um) concentration by multiplying
by 1.11 to account for fine particles that remain in the portion
of the air stream that carries th» coarse fraction particles.
6. Calculate the ratio of fine fraction to net TSP concentration
and the ratio of total net dichot concentration to net TSP
concentration.
7. Plot (on log-probability paper) two data points on a graph of
particle size versus fraction of TSP concentration. The two
points are the fraction less than 2.5 Aim and the fraction less
than the cut point determined in step 2.
8. Draw a straight line through the two points and interpolate or
extrapolate the fraction less than 15 jum. (Steps 7 ar.d 8 are
a graphical solution that may be replaced by a calculator
program that can perform the linear interpolation or extra-
polation with greater precision.)
88
-------
30
THEORY
EXPERIMENT
10
0
10
20 30
WIND SPEED, km/h
40
Figure 5-4. Plot of the 50 percent cut point of the inlet
versus wind speed.
89
-------
\
9. Calculate the net concentration less than 15 >um from this
fraction and the known net TSP concentration.
A relatively small error 1s Involved 1n the assumption of a log
linear curve between the two points because the 15 urn point is so near
the point for the actual upper limit particle size. The largest un-
certainty in applying this correction is probably the accuracy of the
research data in Figure 5-4.
Conversion of Microscopy Data to Aerodynamic Diameters
Three calculation procedures for converting physical particle diameters
into equivalent aerodynamic diameters were found in the literature (Hesketh
1977; Stockham 1977; and Mercer 1973). One of these was utilized in
calculations in a recent EPA publication, so this procedure was adopted
for the present project (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1978b).
The equation relating the two measurements of particle size is:
(Eq. 26)
where d = particle aerodynamic diameter, \im
a
d = particle physical diameter, \*m
p = particle density
C = Cunningham factor
= 1 + 0.000621 T/d
T = temperature, 8K
C = Cunningham correction for d
This equation requires a trial-and-error solution because Ca is a
function of d. The multiple iterations can be performed by a computer
or calculator program (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1978b).
In practice, Ca is approximately equal to C so the aerodynamic diameter
(da) is approximately the physical diamter (d) times p. An average
particle density of 2.5 was assumed with the microscopy data from this
study, thus yielding conversion factors of about 1.58. It is questionable
whether the trial-and-error calculation of Ca in Equation 26 is warranted
when density values are assumed.
90
-------
Correction of jCascade Impactor Data
To correct for particle bounce-through, MRI has developed a procedure
for adjusting the size distribution data obtained from Its cascade
impactors, which are equipped with cyclone precollectors. The true size
distribution (after correction) 1s assumed to be Informal as defined
by two data points: the corrected fraction of particurate penetrating
the final impaction stage (less than 0.7 ;um) and the fraction of participate
caught by the cyclone (greater than about 10 ;um). The weight of material -
on the backup stage was r»niaced ^corrected) by the average of weights
caught on the two preceding impaction Stages if the backup stage weight
was higher than this average.
Because the particulate matter collected downwind of a fugitive dust
source is produced primarily by a uniform physical generation mechanism,
it was judged reasonable to assume that the size distribution of airbornt
particulate smaller than 30 ^im is lognormal. This in fact is suggested
by the uncorrected particle size distributions previously measured by
MRI.
The isokinetic sampling system for the portable wind tunnel utilizes
the same type of cyclone precollector and cascade impactor. An identical
particle bounce-through correction procedure was used with this system.
COMBINING RESULTS OF INDIVIDUAL SAMPLES AND TESTS
Combining Samples
In the quasi-stack and exposure profiling sampling methods, multiple
samples were taken across the plume and the measurements were combined
in the calculations to produce a single estimate of emission rate for
each test. However, in the upwind-downwind method, several (eight to
10) independent estimates of emission rate were generated for a single
sampling period. These Independent estimates were made at different
downwind distances and therefore had differing amounts of deposition
associated with them.
The procedure for combining upwind-downwind samples was based on
comparison of emission rates as a function of distance. If apparent
emission rates consistently decreased with distance (not more than two
values out of progression for a test), the average from the front row
samplers was taken as the initial emission rate and deposition at suc-
ceeding distances was reported as a percent of the initial emission rate.
If apparent emission rates did not have a consistent trend or increased
with distance, then all values were averaged to get an emission rate for
the test and deposition was reported as negligible. Since deposition
cannot be a negative value, increases in apparent emission rates with
distance were attributed to data scatter, non-Gaussian plume dispersion,
or inability to accurately locate the plume centerline (for point sources).
-------
The amount of deposition from the front row to the back row of samplers
is related to the distance of these samplers from the source, I.e., if
the front samplers are at the edge of the source and back row Is 100 m
downwind (this was the standard set-up for line sources), a detectable
reduction 1n apparent emission rates should result. However, if the
front row 1s 60 m from .the source and back row 1s 100 m further downwind
(typical set-up for point sources due to safety considerations), the
reduction in apparent emission rates with distance is likely to be less
than the average difference due to data scatter.
These dual methods of obtaining a single estimate of emission rate
for each test introduce an upward bias into the data; high levels on the
front row in general lead to their retention as the final values, while
low levels in general lead to averaging with higher .emi ssi on rates, from
subsequent rows. This bias 1s thought to be less than the errors that
would result in applying either of these methods universally for the
different deposition situations described above. It should also be
noted that other types of deposition measurements are possible.
Any single estimate more than two standard deviations away from the
average of the remaining samples was considered an outlier and not included
in calculating the average emission rate.
Combining Tests
Emission rates for three particle size ranges were reported for all
tests, along with data on the conditions under which the tests were taken.
These data were first subjected to multiple linear regression (MLR) analysis,
as described below. Of the three size ranges, only the TSP and IP data were
used in the MLR analysis. This analysis Identified significant correction
parameters for each source.
Next, adjusted emission rates were calculated for each test with the
significant correction parameters. From this data set, average emission
rates (base emission factors) and confidence intervals were calculated.
The emission factor equation is this average emission rate times the cor-
rection factors determined from the MLR analysis.
PROCEDURE FOR DEVELOPMENT OF CORRECTION FACTORS
The method used to evaluate independent variables for possible use as
correction factors was stepwise MLR. It was available as a compute program
as part of the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS). The
MLR program outputs of interest in evaluating the data sets for each source
were the multiple regression coefficient, significance of the variable,
and reduction in relative standard deviation due to each variable. The
stepwise MLR technique is described in moderate detail in Appendix A.
Further information on it can be found in the following references:
92
-------
Statistical Methods, Fourth Edition (Snedecor 1946); Applied Regression
Analysis (Draper 1965); and SPSS, Second Edition (N1e 1975).
V
Because of the high relative standard deviations (s/x") for the data
sets and the desire to have correction factors 1n the emission factor
equations multiplicative rather than additive, all Independent and de-
pendent variable data were transformed to natural logarithms before beinc
entered in the MLR program.
The stepwise regression program first selected the potential correct
factor that was the best predictor of TSP emission rate, changed the
dependent variable values to reflect the impact of this independent vari-
able, then repeated this process with remaining potential correction fact
until all had been used 1n the MLR equation or until no improvements in
the predictive equation was obtained by adding another variable. Not all
variables Included in the MLR equation were necessarily selected as cor-
rection factors.
A detailed description of correction factor development procedures
is given in Section 13 of Volume II.
93
-------
SECTION 6
RESULTS OF SIMULTANEOUS EXPOSURE PROFILING AND
UPWIND-DOWNWIND SAMPLING
The exposure profiling and upwind-downwind samplers were run on a
common source for several tests so :nat simultaneous measurements by these
methods could be compared. This complex undertaking was essential to
establish that the methods were yielding similar results. The simultaneous
sampling, called the comparability study, was performed before any of the
other testing so that any major discrepancies could be resolved or the
study design reevaluated prior to sampling at the second and third mines.
The original intent was to prepare a technical report on the results
of the comparability study and any recommended sampling modifications
for distribution between the first and second mine visits. However, a
series of changes in the method of calculating the suspended particulate
fraction of the total profi! • catch and the temporary nonavailability of
an EPA-recommended computer , ogram for particle size interpolation
prevented the exposure profiling values from being determined. Preliminary
calculations for six of the 10 tests, presented at a September 13, 1979
meeting of the technical review group after completing the last compara-
bility test on August 9, indicated good agreement between the two methods:
The average ratio for 14 pairs of simultaneous measurements
was reported to be 0.92, with only two of the paired valups
differing by more than a factor of 2.0.
Therefore, sampling was conducted as specified in the study design report
at the other two mines. By the time the calculations for suspended
particulate from profiler tests were finalized, the need for a separate
comparability study report had passed.
DESCRIPTION OF COMPARA8ILTY STUDY
The two sources selected for testing in the comparability study were
haul roads and scrapers. They are ground-level moving point sources (line
sources) that emit from relatively fixed boundaries, so the alternative
sampling methods are both appropriate and the extensive sampling array could
be located without fear of the source changing locations. Also, haul roads
and scrapers were suspected to be two of the largest fugitive dust emission
sources at most surface coal mines.
94
-------
Five tests of each source were conducted over a 15-day period. One
additional haul road test was attempted but aborted because of wind
direction reversal shortly after the beginning of the test. The individual
tests were of about one hour duration. All five tests of each source were
performed at a single site; only two sites and one mine were involved in
the comparability study.
Profiling towers were placed at three distances from the source--5,
20, and 50 m—in order to measure the decrease in particulate flux with
distance, and indirectly the deposition rate. The relatively large dis-
tances of the back profiler from the source created one problem: these two
profilers had to be significantly taller than the first tower because the
vertical extent of the plume expands with distance from the source. The
towers were-fabricated ta be 9 and 12 m high, respectively, for the 20 and
50 m setbacks.
Hi-vols and dichotomous samplers for the upwind-downwind configuration
were located at the same three downwind distances as the profiling towers.
Two samplers of each type were placed at these distances. In addition,
two hi-vols were located at 100 m downwind of the source.
Duplicate dustfall buckets were placed at the 5, 20, and 50 m distances
to measure deposition rates directly, for comparison with the calculated
plume mass depletion rates from the profiler and upwind-downwind samplers.
Some sampling equipment was also set out to obtain independent particle
size distribution measurements. Cascade impactors were placed at two heights
at 5 m setback and at one height at 20 m. Millipore filters for micro-
scopic examination wen; exposed briefly during each sampling period at five
different heights (corresponding to profiler sampling head heights) at the
20 m di stance.
Upwind samplers consisted of three hi-vols and a dichotomous sampler,
all located 20 m from the upwind edge of the source. Two of these were
operated by PEDCo as part of the upwind downwind array, and the other two
(hi-vols at 1.5 and 2.5 m height) were operated by MRI as the background
samplers at the 5 m downwind distance as parts of their separate arrays,
but which also served as quality assurance checks for the sampling and
equipment.
Finally, wind speed and direction were continuously recorded during
the tests by separate instruments operated by PEDCo and MRI. Profile
samplers on each tower were kept at isokinetic flow rates by frequency
monitoring hot-wire anemometers at the heights of each of the samplers
and adjusting flows to match measured wind speeds. Therefore, wind speeds
from five different locations in the sampling array and two wind direction .
charts were available for comparison.
95
-------
The sampling configuration used 1n the comparability study 1s shown
schematically 1n Figure 6-1. These sampling periods Involved much extra
equipment, so 1t was not feasible to use this configuration throughout
the project.
RESULTS OF COMPARABILITY STUDY
Particle Size Data
Particle size data were generated by three different methods in the
comparability study: dichotomous sampler, cascade impactor and microscopy.
These three methods all have some shortcomings; corrections to the data-
were required in all three cases. The cut pount for the coarse stage of
the dichotomous sampler was adjusted to eliminate the wind speed error
of the inlet design. The backup filter weight of the cascade impactor was
reduced to correct for particle bounce-through; this weight reduction
averaged 4.2 percent of the total particulate sample for the ten compara-
bility tests shown in Table 6-1. Physical particule sizes measured under
the microscope were converted to equivalent aerodynamic diameters for
comparison with the other size data. The procedures for these corrections
were described in Section 5.
The particle size data for collocated samplers are presented in Table
6-1. For better visual comparison, the size distributions are also shown
graphically in Figures 6-2 and 6-3. In order to reduce the curves on each
graph to a manageable number, the duplicate samples taken by the same
method at each distance (see Tabel 6-1) have been averaged to create a
single curve. All of the dichot and impactor curves are straight lines
because they are based on two data points and an assumption of lognormal
distribution of particles by weight.
Microscopy produced the widest variations between samples—some showed
that less than 10 percent of the particles were sub-30/jm1 and others showed
all particles in the sample to be less than 15 jjm. It was concluded that
the relatively small number of particles counted manually on each filter
(300 to 500) precluded the samples from being representative of the actual
size distribution. This is particularly evident when the number of large
particles counted is considered. Each particle of 40 jum diameter observed
has 64,000 times the mass of a 1 jim particle and 64 times the mass of a
10 xim particle. Therefore, if two particles larger than 40 jum are found in
the fields selected, this could result in 30 pe-cent by weight being in
that size range; whereas, a sample with one particle larger than 40 jum
would have only about 17 percent of its weight in that size range. Thus,
one extra large particle shifts the entire distribution by 13 percent in
this example.
This evaluation is not an indictment of optical microscopy as a
particulate assessment technique. In cases where there are different
96
-------
HI-VOL
DICHOTOMOIT. SAMPLER
PROFILER HEAD
CASCADE IMPACTOR
DUSTFALL
MRI PEDCo
-a
o
Figure 6-1. Sampling configuration for comparability studies.
-------
TABLE 6-1. COMPARISONXOF PARTICLE SIZE DATA OBTAINED BY DIFFERENT TECHNIQUES
Aero-
dynamic
size
Test urn
Jl 2.5
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
30.0
J2 2.5
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
30.0
J3 2.5
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
30.0
J4 2.5
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
30.0
J5 2.5
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
30.0
J9 2.5
5.0
10.0
15.0
Cumulative percent smaller than stated size
At 5 m dlst
Dichot
3.0 m
0.5
2.1
6.3
11.0
15.5
23.7
1.0
1.6
2.5
3.3
3.9
5.0
0.7
2.3
6.4
10.6
14.6
21.8
0.4
1.3
3.7
6.1
8.5
13.0
1.8
4.3
9.1
13.2
16.9
23.0
0.9
3.0
8.5
13.9
6.0 m
1.3
3.2
7.3
11.0
14.4
20.3
1.2
3.3
7.8
12.1
16.0
22.7
5.6
11.2
20.1
26.8
32.1
40.3
1.5
3.2
6.3
7.0
11.4
15.4
2.5
4.6
7.8
10.4
12.6
16.1
2.7
7.1
15.6
22.9
Imoactor
1.5 m
2.2
4.2
7.4
io!ob
2.1
4.3
8'2b
11.5°
5.7
11.2
19.5.
26. lb
2.7
4.9
8 4W
11. r
6.5
11.6
19. lh
24.6°
2.3
4.9
9 5
13! 4°
4.5 m
2.7
5.4
9.8.
13. 5b
19.9
35.7
54. 3b
65.1°
4.6
9.1
16.3.
21. 8b
4.4
8.2
14. lfa
18. 7b
5.5
10.0
16.7
21.8°
2.7
5.3
9- SK
12'. 8°
At 20 • dichot, 2.5 m ht
Dichot
Left
0.6
3.2
11.9
21.4
30.2
44.9
0.8
2.1
5.0
7.7
10.2
14.8
0.9
3.4
10.1
17.0
23.3
34.2
2.2
4.6
8.6
12.0
14.8
19.7
2.7
4.8
8.0
10.5
12.5
15.9
1.4
5.3
14.8
23.9
Right
0.6
4.0
16.0
29.1
40 .-7
67.8
0.6
2.8
9.6
17.1
24.2
36.4
0.7
4.0
15.0
26.8
37.3
53.2
2.2
5.3
11.1
16.1
20.5
27.6
3.1
7.4
15.2
21.7
27.1
35.8
1.6
8.7
28.4
45.5
Impactor
7.2
12.3
19.7.
25. lb
1.3
2.6
4.9.
6.8°
4.7
8.6
14.6.
19. 2°
6.2
11.5
19. 2b
24. 9°
6.6
11.9
19.7
25.4°
3.2
6.7
12.4.
16. 9°
Micro-
scopy
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
9.6C
21.3
33.4
44.9
68.8
100.0
<0.1C
0.2
0.7
2.0
4.4
8.8
2.3C
11.6
44.9
100.0
, -c
2. a
12.9 -
54.4
69.7
At 50 m,
2.5 m ht
Dichot
Left
a
a
a
a
a
a
4.4
8.2
14.1
18.7
22.4
28.3
2.0
5.7
13.2
19.9
25.8
35.4
3.7
7.8
14.6
20.1
24.7
31.9
7.8
13.8
22.3
28.3
33.1
40.3
1.8
6.3
16.8
26.5
Right
a
a
a
a
a
a
2.8
5.5
10.0
13.6
16.6
21.5
1.6
4.9
12.3
19.1
25.2
35.1
3.7
7.4
13.2
17.9
21.7
27.9
7.6
13.3
21.4
27.2
31.7
38.6
1.8
7.0
19.7
31.2
(continued)
98
-------
TABLE 6-1 (continued).
Aero-
dynamic
size
Test urn
20.0
30.0
J10 2.5
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
30.0
J12 2.5.
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
30.0
J20 2.5
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
30.0
J21 2.5
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
30.0
Cumulative percent smaller than stated size
At 5 m dist
Dichot
3.0 a
19.1
28.0
1.2
4.1
11.2
18.0
24.3
34.7
1.5
4.5
11.1
17.3
22.8
31.9
0.5
2.7
10.6
19.6
28.2
42.7
0.6
2.6
8.3
14.5
20.3
30.7
6.0 m
29.0
38.8
3.5
11.2
27.0
39.8
49.6
63.4
6.8
14.1
25.4
33.6
40.1
49.6
0.4
2.2
8.9
16.8
24.6
38.2
0.4
1.4
3.8
6.2
9.1
14.0
Impactor
1.5 n
7.3
13.0
21. 3b
27.3°
5.4
10.2
17. 7b
23. 3b
3.7
6.7
11.3,,
14. 9b
7.7
14.3
23.8.
30. 5b
4.5 n
4.7
9.3
16.7
22.4°
13.5
22.7
34.7.
42.6°
3.9
7.2
12.4.
16. 4b
9.0
16.2
26.4.
33. 5b
At 20 m dichot, 2.5 m ht
Dichot
Left
31.9
44.7
3.4
14.1
37.1
53.9
65.8
80.1
3.5
10.0
22.6
32.9
41.2
53.0
7.7
15.5
27.2
35.7
42.2
51.2
2.8
8.3
19.4
28.8
36.6
48.5
Right
58.0
74.6
1.7
9.9
32.3
50.6
64.1
80.1
2.8
7.7
17.4
25.6
32.5
43.3
5.0
12.5
25.5
35.6
43.5
54.4
4.5
11.0
22.4
31.3
38.5
49.2
Impactor
9.8
17.0
27.0
33.9°
11.5
19.6
30.5
37. 8°
5.8
9.9
16. Oh
20. 5b
10.0
18.5
30.5.
38. 8b
Micro-
scopy
87.6
100.0
<0.1C
0.3
1.2
4.2
6.3
9.4
0.8C
19.5
88.7
100.0
a
a
a .
a
a
a
a
a
At 50 m,
2.5 m ht
Dichot
Left (Right
34.7
47.5
4.0
10.0
20.9
29.6
36.7
47.4
3.6
8.9
18.4
26.2
32.6
42.5
2.5
7.0
15.9
23.6
30.2
40.6
8.7
17.1
29.4
38.2
44.7
53.8
40.8
54.7
2.0
5.9
14.0
21.4
27.7
37.9
4.5
11.8
24.8
35.0
43.0
54.3
2.9
9.3
22.6
33.8
42.8
55.6
5.4
15.2
32.5
45.6
54.5
67.5
a
b
c
No data.
Extrapolated from 10 urn and 0.7 urn data.
Extrapolated assuming a lognonnal distribution below 5 urn.
-------
100
50
30
20
10
5
2.5
1.0
50
30
t 20
•
UJ
? 10
g 2.5
1.0
50
30
20
10
5
2.5
1.0
TEJT J
TEST ^
TEST
:ST
J2
.1 1 5 20 50 80 95 99 99.9
IMPACTOR DATA, 5 m
20 m
DICHOTOMOUS DATA, 5 m
20 m
50 m
MICROSCOPY DATA, 20 m
.1 1
5 20 50 80 95 99 99.9
PERCENT BY WEIGHT SMALLER THAN STATED SIZE
Figu»e 6-2. Particle size distributions from comparability tests on scrapers
100
-------
IUU
bU
JU
20
10
2.5
1,0
50
30
20
10
5
2.5
1.0
50
30
20
10
5
2.5
i n
TE
TE
TE
ST ,
ST ,
ST
/
9
Ji
12
•••;'
121
/
/
y
„
K
\-
•
,
r
/
/
/
/
tjj
\
r /
y
<
*
/ 1
./
/
*
•
/ /
tf
y
•
«
L *
*
/
«
«
'
• '
• *
1
.«
.«'
• •* *
.«'
ft • • • •
• • • • '
TE
•
TE
IM
DI
MI
>T c
«
»
•
•
*
•
ST v
/
10
.-•'
/
20
/
x/
•
•
•
/
/
ft
w
i
1
r
ft
1;
/
^
.
^
i
/
i
t
/
/
^
•>
.
1 1 5 20 50
FACTOR DATA, 5 m
20 m
CHOTOMOUS DATA,
21
5<
CROSCOPY DATA, 2
»
i
•
80 95 99 99.9
5 m
3 m
3 m
0 m
_ _ _ —
.1 1 5 20 50 30 95 99 99.9
PERCENT BY WEIGHT SMALLER THAN STATED SIZE
Figure 6-3. Particle size distributions from comparability tests on haul road:
101
-------
particle types present and the primary purpose is to semi quantitatively
estimate the relative amounts, microscopy is usually the best analytical
tool available. However, as a pure particle sizing method, microscopy
appears to be inadequate compared to available aerodynamic techniques.
In contrast, the dichotomous samplers and cascade impactors produced
fairly consistent size distributions from test to test (as would be ex-
pected) and reasonably good agreement between methods. The cascade impactor
data always indicated higher percentages of particles less than 2.5 >um,
but approached the cumulative percentages cf the dichot method for the
10 to 15 urn sizes. This may reveal that the corrections to impactor data
for particle bounce-through were not large enough.
Data from the dichots at 3 and 6 m heights and the impactors at 1.5
and 4,5 m heights had similar variations in size distribution with height.
For both types of samplers, most of the tests (6 out of in) showed more
large particles on the lower sampler, but several tests showed larger
particles on the upper sampler. This provides evidence that the plume is
still not well formed at the 5 m distance from the source.
Comparison ofsize distributions taken at successive distances from
the source revealed that the percentage of small particles increased from
5 m samples to 20 m samples in all but two cases out of 20. This finding
is consistent with the premise of fallout of larger particles. However,
reduction in mean particle size was not obvious in the comparison of
corresponding data from 20 m and 50 m; only half the tests showed a further
decrease in average particle size and some actually had larger average
particle sizes.
Th dichotomous samplers appeared to give the most reliable results,
either by comparing the distributions taken at different distances in
the same test or by evaluating the effects of corrections made to the
raw data. As indicated in Section 4, handling problems with the dichot filter
and light loadings on the fine particle stages prevented this from being
a completely satisfactory sizing method for the large numbers of samples
generated in the full study. Sampling precision errors resulting from
these factors are quantified in the following subsection. These problems
are discussed further in Section 12, Volume II.
The ratios of net fine particulate (less than 2.5 um) and inhalable
particulate to net TSP are also sizing measures of interest. These data
for collocated samplers in the comparability study are presented in Table
6-2. The average ratio for all the fine particulate (FP) samples was
0.039, indicating a very low percentage of small particles in the plumes.
As expected, this ratio incrased with distance from the source due to fallout
of larger particles but not of the fine particles. The average ratios at
5, 20, and 50 m downwind were 0.016, 0.042, and 0.062, respectively.
Inhalable particulate constituted a much larger fraction of TSP--an average
ratio of 0.52. Again, the differential effect of fallout on large particles
102
-------
was evident. The average IS/TSP ratios at the three sampling distances were
0.36, 0.48 and 0.73.
Simultaneous Sampi 1ng
Samplers located at the same distance from the line sources (but not
collected) showed only fair agreement in their measured concentrations.
The average absolute relative difference 1n the measured TSP values was
17.8 percent; the average (signed) relative difference was 10.6 percent.
The average absolute and signed relative differences at the three distances
were:
Distance Av. diff., % • Signed diff., %
5 25.3 < 17.7
20 13.5 II-5
50 13.7 2.7
Absolute relative difference for each pair is calculated as the absolute
difference between values divided by the mean of the two values, expressed
as a percent: Absolute rel. diff. = |?-b|
(a+b)/2
xlQO. Signed relative difference employs the same calculations, but the
algebraic rather than absolute difference is used.
For IP and FP, the corresponding average absolute relative differences
were 25.3 and 29.1 percent. Average signed differences were 8.9 and 17.7
percent, respectively. The IP and FP differences at the three sampling
di stances were:
Avg. abs Avg. signed
rel. diff, % rel. diff, %
Distance ' IP FP Ip _JjL_
5 19.4 37.9 3.6 26.9
20 36.6 25.7 30.4 10.1
50 19.9 23.6 0.1 16.2
These differences provide an estimate of sampling precision, although
they could be attributed partially to actual differences in source strength
at various locations along the line source, since the samplers were not
collocated. The larger differences in TSP concentrations at the 5 m distance
could be due to highly erratic concentrations in the immediate area of plume
formation. No explanation was found for the larg« IP differences at the
20 m distance.
103
-------
\
The previous discussion was based entirely on data generated by PEDCo.
Both PEDCo and MRI operated equipment upwind of the sources. Measurements
"»ade by PEDCo and MRI samplers are compared In Table 6-3. The average
absolute relative difference 1n upwind TSP concentrations was 19.9 percent,
while the average absolute relative difference 1n measured TSP concentrations
at 5 m downwind was 57.9 percent. These differences appeared to be pri-
marily random, in that some were positive and others were negative and their
signed averages were only 2.5 and 17.6 percent, respectively. The additional
difference above 25.3 percent at 5 m downwind was attributed to such factors
as different flow rates, nonuniform source strength, and slightly offset
sampling times.
The measured IP concentrations at 5 m downwind had a 48.4 percent
average absolute relative difference, also much higher than the simultaneous
PEDCo IP samples,.and the concentrations ms-isured by the two groups had
a systematic bias. PEDCo's values were consistently higher than MRI's.
Both sets of units were calibrated and audited for flow rates, so the
difference was suspected to be In the sample handling procedures, which
were previously noted to be a major problem. Also, different sampling
media were used during the comparability study--PEDCo used mesh-backed
Taflon filters and MRI used ringed filters.
The precision of the basic measurement techniques, as evaluated in
side-by-side sampling, do not agree with values used in the error analyses
cited in Section 3, especially at the 5 m sampling distance. The pre-
cision of the hi-vol appears to be +25 percent or more at 5 m from the
source, improving to about +15 percent at greater distances from the
source. The precision of tFe dlchotomous sampler for measuring the IP
fraction appears to average +25 percent or more at all distances. For
the error analysis of exposure profiling, this changes the random instru-
ment error from 5 percent to at least 25 percent. For upwind-downwind
sampling, the 18.8 percent estimate for hi-vol sampler measurements would
still be appropriate if it were applied to samples taken at 20 m or more
away from the source.
Comparative Emission Rates
The comparability study was conducted over a 2 week period. The
meteorological, source activity, and soi1 conditions for each test are
shown in Table 6-4. This table includes all the variables identified
that might influence partlculate emission rates.
The most important results of the comparability study, emission rates
from simultaneous testing by exposure profiling and the upwind-downwind
technique, are presented in Tables 6-5 and 6-6. Table 6-5 shows TSP
emission rates and Table 6-6 the inhalable partlculate (less than 15jjm)
fraction, both in units of Ib/VMT.
106
-------
Sampler/
location
Hi vol
Upwind
_
5 m dwn
Dichot, IP
5 m dwn
Test
Jl
J2
J3
J4
J5
J9
J10
J12
J20
J21
Jl
J2
J3
J4
J5
J9
J10
J12
J20
J21
Jl
J2
J3
J4
J5
J9
J10
J12
J20
J21
Measured concentration, jjg/m3
PEDCo
sampler
235
13999a
8222a
184
344
285
1106
821
1201
1060
3661
10635
171173
2457
3130
5108
5668
2122
3042
5145
1254
3659
9689
724
1750
2842
2748
801
2036
2653
Second
PEOCo sampler
4649
14407
21580
2719
5732
3926
5009
2137
MRI
sampler
254
13803
3620
226
264
339
1129
1192
1012
780
-
b
24230
2194
1599
7188
10057
819
4014 4833
7747
1119
4427
8761
742
2010
1929
1771
701
2222
3764
2051
1033
388
5191
529
1446
1102
1825
760
1425
1828
Second
MRI sampler
296
14163
10636
176
124
440
913
1064
1020
1009
signed avg
absolute avg
signed avg
absolute avg
signed avg
absolute avc
Rel
diff,
%c
+16
-0
-14
+9
-56
+31
-8
+31
-17
-17
-2.5
19.9
-
_
+22
-16
-94
+46
+62
-89
+31
-103
-17.6
57.9
-14
-165
-56
-32
-26
-74
-21
+1
-40
-55
-48.3
48.4
a Some loose material in filter folder, concentration may be higher.
b Sampler only ran 12 of 34 min, concentration invalidated.
c See Page 103 for procedure to calculate relative difference.
107
-------
\
..\
The data In.Tables 6-5 and 6-6 were examined for relationships between
'• sampling methods, sources, and downwind distance. A standard statistical
i technique was used to determine whether statistically significant. This
'-technique, called Analysis of Variance (ANOVA), was available as a computer
»program as part of the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS).
The basis of ANOVA Is the decomposition of sums of squares. The total sum
of squares in the dependent variable 1s decomposed into independent compo-
nents. The program can be used to simultaneously determine the effects
of more than one independent variable on the dependent variable. Much has
been written about this technique, so further discussion has not been
included here. Further Information on it can be found in many standard '
statistical textbooks.
One of the assumptions upon which ANOVA is based is that input data
are normally distributed. The TSP and IP emission rates in Tables 6-5 and
6-6 were both found to be skewed, so ANOVA was also run on the data after
they were transformed to their natural logarithms. The relationships
between emission rates and sampling methods, sources, and downwind distance
were the same for the untransformed and transformed data. Therefore, the
results with untransformed data are presented herein because they relate
directly to the data in Table 6-5 and 6-6.
The outputs from the program are shown Tables 6-7 and 6-8. They consist
of the ANOVA results and a multiple classification analysis (MCA). The
MCA table can be viewed as a method of displaying the ANOVA results.
The data in Table 6-7 show that sampling method and downwind distance
are significant variables for both TSP and IP (A = 0.20). Source was not
a significant variable anti one of the interrelationships were significant.
Table 6-8 shows the deviation from the total sample mean for the three
variables. Also shown are deviations after the effects of the other
independent variables are accounted for. The minor changes in these
deviations indicate that there are no significant relationships between
variables.
The average percent difference between sampling methods (profiling versus
upwind-downwind) was calculated from the data in Table 6-8 for both TSP
and IP. The resulting differences were 2* and 52 percent, respectively, with
profiling producing the higher values in both cases.
Both methods of sampling showed large overall reductions in TSP
emission rates with distance. However, the profiling samples at 5 in did
not fit the pattern of fairly regular reductions displayed at the other
distances and with the upwind-downwind data. In six of ten tests, emission
rates by profiling at 5 m were much lower than the corresponding rates at
20 m. These six pairs of inverted values were attributed to the systematic
bias documented earlier in this saction between PEDCo and MRI inhalable
particulate concentrations, in whi~.h PEOCo's values were consistently
108
-------
\
TABLE 6-5. CALCULATED SUSPENDED PARTICULATE EMISSION RATES
FOR COMPARABILITY TESTS
Test
Scrapers
Jl
02
J3
J4
J5
Haul roads
J9
J10
J12
Downwi nd
distance,
n
5
20
50
100
5
20
50
100
5
20
50
100
5
20
50
100
5
20
50
100
5
20
50
100
5
20
50
100
5
20
50
100
Emission rate, Ib/VMT
By profiler
Total
part icu late
41.4
29.1
66.5
59.9
40.0
125.0
52.6
23.5
27.5
22.4
15.6
96.7
46.6
15.2
51.4
35.7
17.8
54.1
20.3
7.1
16.5
5.5
2.0
<30 pm
fraction
8.6
15,4
9.4
15.9
8.3
50.2
24.5
8.2
3.9
4.8
4.0
17.7
11.5
4.5
15.2
22.5
8.3
33.0
18.5
3.4
12.9
1.9
0.3
By uw-dw
TSP
10.6
11.4
7.8
2.4
18.6
16.8
7.2
5.3
35.6
17.8
9.8
2.2
5.7
5.2
4.0
2.4
20.0
15.6
5.7
1.2
14.1
13.6
11.1
5.1
12.0
8.8
3.2
neg
3.5
4.4
2.9
0.5
Relative
difference,
*a
+21
-30
+66
+6
-14
-34
-32
+18
+38
+8
0
+12
+30
+24
-8
-49
+29
-93
-71
-6
-115
+79
+162
(continued)
-------
TABLE 6-5 (continued).
Test
J20
J21
Mean
Std dev
Oownwi nd
di stance ,
n
5
20
50
100
5
20
50
100
5
20
50
5
20
50
Emission rate, Ib/VMT
By profiler
Total
paniculate
36.6
31.3
20.6
76.4
40.9
25.0
59.2
34.4
18.5
33.0
16.3
10.9
<30 pm
fraction
12.3
17.7
10.7
14.2
19.2
15.2
17.7
15.2
7.0
13.8
7.2
4.5
By uw-dw
TSP
6.4
4.3
2.8
neg
15.0
13.8
12.8
8.5
14.2
11.2
6.8
9.3
5.2
3.6
Relative
difference,
Xa
-63 -
-122
-117
+5
-33
-17
-22
-30
-3
(difference
signed)
d See Page 103 for procedure to calculate relative difference.
Ill
-------
TABLE 6-6. CALCULATED INHALABLE PARTICULATE (<15
EMISSION RATES FOR COMPARABILITY TESTS
Test
Scrapers
Jl
J2
J3
-
J4
J5
Haul roads
J9
J10
J12
J20
J21
lean
td dev
Downwind
distance,
•
5
20
50
5
20
50
5
20
50
5
20
50
5
20
50
5
20
50
5
20
50
5
20
50
5
20
50
5
20
50
5
20
50
5
20
50
IP emission rate, Ib/VMT
By profiler
4.2
7.2
4.0
6.8
5.2
26.1
11.0
4.1
1.7
2.4
2.2
10.0
5.4
2.5
7.4
11.8
3.7
17.7
12.4
1.8
7.9
1.1
0.2
5.4
12.0
5.8
6.0
11.4
10.3
9.0
8.1
4.0
7.4
4.2
2.9
By uw-dw
3.1
3.5
3.2
2.5
2.4
2.0
14.0
4.2
3.6
1.0
0.9
1.3
5.8
1.1
1.4
7.2
8.9
4.4
6.0
7.6a
4.9a
0.6
1.2
0.5
3'8b
5'7b
7.1b
6.3
5.5
6.3
5.0
4.1
3.5
3.9
2.8
2.2
Relative
di f f erence ,
XC
-30
-69
-46
-96
-89
-60
-89
-13
-52
-91
-51
-53
-132
-56
-3
-28
+17
-99
-49
+93
-172
+9
+86
-35
-71
+20
+5
-70
-48
-57
-66
-13
(signed
difference)
This dichotomous sampler value could not be corrected to a 15 urn cut point
to reflect the wind speed bias of the sampler inlet. The unconnected cut
ooint is about 13.6 urn.
These dichotomous sampler values could not be corrected to a 15 urn cut point
to reflect the wind speed bias of the sampler inlet. The unconnected cut
point is about 19.0 urn
See Page 103 for pnocedune to calculate nelative diffenence.
112
-------
TABLE 6-7. ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE RESULTS
SP BY
ETHOD
3URCE
1ST.
P BY
£THOD
OURCE
'I ST.
SOURCE OF VARIATION
MAIN EFFECTS
METHOD
SOURCE
DIST
2-UAY INTERACTIONS
METHOD SOURCE
METHOD DIST
SOURCE DIST
3-UAY INTERACTIONS
METHOD SOURCE DIST
EXPLAINED
RESIDUAL
TOTAL
SOURCE OF VARIATION
HAIN EFFECTS
METHOD
SOURCE
DIST
2-UAY INTERACTIONS
METHOD SOURCE
METHOD DIST
SOURCE DIST
3-UAY INTERACTIONS
METHOD SOURCE DIST
EXPLAINED
RESIDUAL
TOTAL
SUM OF
SQUARES
794.413
119.001
57.492
817.920
186.270
95.011
44.826
53.749
21.643
21.643
1202.326
3256.810
4459.136
sun OF
SQUARES
269.278
129.377
28.422
111 .478
76.587
.825
41.533
33.784
1.833
1.833
347.697
904.308
1252.005
OF
4
1
1
2
5
1 -
2
2
2
2
11
47
58
DF
4
1
1
2
5
1
2
2
?
2
11
47
58
MEAN
SQUARE
248.603
119.001
57.492
408.960
37.254
95.011
22.413
27.874
10.821
10.821
109.302
69.294
76.882
MEAN
SQUARE
67.319
129.377
28.422
55.739
15.317
.825
20.767
16.992
.917
.917
31.609
19.241
21.586
-
F
3.588
1.717
.830
5.902
.538
1.371
.323
.402
.156
.156
1.577
F
3.499
6.724
1.47?
2.897
.796
.043
1 .079
.883
.048
.048
1,64-3
SIGNIF
OF F
.012
.196
.367
.005-
.747
.248
.725
.671
.856
.85.5
.13?
SIGNIF
OF F
.014
.013
.230
.065
.558
.3:7
.348
.420
.954
.954
.118
113
-------
TABLE 6-8. MULTIPLE CLASSIFICATION ANALYSIS (ANOVA)
TSP BY 9RAND MEAN • 12.08
METHOD
SOURCE
OIST. VARIABLE * CATEGORY
METHOD
Profiler t
Uw-dM 2
SOURCE
Scrapers 1
Haul trucks 2
HIST
5 m i
20 m 2
50 m 3
MULTIPLE 8 SQUARED
MULTIPLE R
IP BY GRAND HEAN = 5.66
METHOD
SOURCE
OIST. VARIABLE » CATEGORY
METHOD
Profiler 1
Uw-dw 2 .
SOURCE
Scrapers t
Haul trucks:
OIST
5 m 1
20 m 2
50 m 3
MULTIPLE R SQUARED
MULTIPLE R
N
2?
30
29
3d
20
20
19
•
UNADJUSTED
dEV'N ETA
1.44
-1.40
.U
.98
-.?5
.11
3.87
1.10
-5.23
.43
•
ADJUSTED
ADJUSTED Ft
FOR INDEPENDENT
INDEPENDENTS + COVARIATE
DEV'N
1.37
-1.33
.91
-.88
3.83
1.06
-5.15
BETA DEV'N BE1
.16
.10
.43
.223
.472
ADJUSTED FOR
ADJUSTED FOR INDEPENDENT c.
N
29
30
29
30 .
20
20
19
UNADJUSTED
OEV'M ETA
1.51
-1.44
.32
-.73
.71
.14
1.38
.47
-1.95
.30
INDEPENDENTS * CQVARIATES
DEV N
1.46
-1.41
-.74
.72
1.37
.46
-1.92
BETA D£V N BETA
.31
.16
.
.30
.215
.464
114 .
-------
higher and the average difference was 48.4 percent. MRI generated the
the 5 m profiling data; PEDCo generated the 20 and 50 m data. This
difference was important because the IP and FP concentration data are
used to extrapolate the less than 30 >im fraction in profiling calculations.
The IP emission data by both sampling methods displayed almost as
much reduction with distance as the TSP data. This is a surprising
finding, in that very little deposition of sub-15jum particles would be
expected over a 50 m interval.
The reason for the relatively ppr comparisons between emission rates
obtained by the two sampling/calculation methods can be traced primarily
to the precision of the sampling methods. MRI and PEOCo samplers located
at the same distances from the source and operated simultaneously procured
TSP concentrations that differed by an average of 58 percent, greater tnan
the average difference of 24 percent in the resulting TPS emission rates.
Similarly, a 48 percent average difference in IP concentrations explains
much of the 52 percent difference in IP emission rates.
Both methods are entirely dependent on the measured IP and or/TSP
values for calculating emission rates. The accuracy of the methods can
improve on the precision of individual measurements to the extent that
multiple measurements are used in the calculation of a single emission
rate. Both profiling and upwind-downwind techniques as employed in the
comparability study utilized two IP measurements, and upwind-downwind
used two TSP measurement to obtain final emission rates at each distance.
Results from the two sampling methods were compared with each other
rather than a known standard, so it is impossible to establish from the
data which is more accurate. If the error analyses described in Section
3 were revised to reflect the sampling precisions reported above,
exposure profiling would show lower total error levels than upwind-downwind
sampling at the same distance from the source. For the distances
routinely used for the respective methods in the reminder of the field
work, upwind-downwind sampling would have lower indicated total error.
Whichever sampling method is used, it appears from the modified error
analyses that the current state-of-the-art in fugitive dust emission
testing is +25 to 50 percent accuracy.
DEPOSITION RATES BY ALTERNATIVE MEASUREMENT ME I HODS
Analytical Approaches
Four different approaches for describing the deposition rate for each
test were considered:
1. Reduction in apparent emission rate per unit distance
form the source (deposition = dg/dx)
115
-------
Reduction 1n apparent emission rate per unit time
(deposition » -dg/dt); also, this deposition rate
plotted as a function of total travel time away from
e nt i i* f a
source
3. Oustfall measurements at successive distances expressed
as percentages of the calculated total particulate
emi ssion rate
4. Total percent reduction in apparent emission rate over
50 or 100 m compared with percent of emissions greater
than 15/im diameter (under the assumption that most
Urge particles settle out and few small ones do)
In the first approach above, deposition rate is the slope of a curve
of TSP or IP emission rate versus distance, applied to either profiling
or upwind-downwind data. Deviations from a smooth, idealized deposition
curve were magnified by this method of determining the slope of a curve
at different points. With the scatter in the emission data of Tables 6-5
and 6-6, calculated deposition rates varied tremendously, including many
negative values.
Converting the deposition data to a time rather than distance basis
in the second approach was an attempt to remove the effect of wind speed
variation on deposition rates. The table of time deposition rates and
plot of deposition rate versus total travel time had almost as much
scatter as the data from the first approach. When the deposition rates
were normalized to percents of the initial emission rate for that test,
the data showed a perceptible relationship, as presented in Figure 6-4,
Oustfall, a direct measurment of particle deposition, could not be
equated with the calculated TSP or IP values described above because
dustfall contains deposition of all particle sizes, not just that in the
TSP or IP size range. Net dustfall rates were compared with reductions
in total particulate (TP) emission rates from the 5 m profiler to the
50 m profiler. However, the same scatter noted above in the profiling
dat* combined with similar scatter in the dustfall data obscured any
pattern in deposition rates.
All dustfall measurements were taken by collocated duplicate readings
The average difference for downwind duplicate measurements in the 10
tests wa, 40.5 percent, even greater than differences in concurrent TSP
and IP measurements. In addition, several (13 out of 57) of the net
dustfall readings were negative because the upwind value was higher than
the downwind one. Allowing for the scatter in the data, dustfall rates
appeared to agree better in magnitude with the TSP deposition rates cal-
culated by the first approach than with TP desposition rates.
116
-------
PERCENT REMAINING (100 QX/QQ)
ro
o
en
o
oo
o
2
o
(O
c
fO
a\
-a
o
i/i
o
3
O»
rt
CM
O
m
1—4
m
<•
i/i
en
o
o
r*
—Jt
o
3
00
o
o
o
-------
The fourth approach evalutated for describing deposition 1n the
comparability tests was to relate the measured deposition to the percent
of particles 1n the plume susceptible to deposition. Particles greater
than 15^m were assumed to be highly susceptible to deposition, partially
because this fractional value was readily available from the test data.
However, none of the correlations between deposition rates and particles
greater than 15 ^m 1n the plume were found to be significant (at the 0.05
to 0.20 level):
Distance
Size meas. method No. tests
5 m impactor 10
20 m Impactor 10
20 m Dichot 1°
No reason was Identified for these low correlations.
Average Deposition
Although the approaches evaluated above did not provide a usable
relationship for estimating the rate of deposition of participate from
the dust plumes, deposition was definitely occurring in the comparability
tests. This was readily apparent from examination of the average emission
rates at successive distances from the source, as shown at the bottom of
Tables 6-5 and 6-6.
These reductions in average emission rate with distance are shown in
Figure 6-5 in terms of depletion factors, the ratios between the depleted
emission rate measured at distance x and the initial emisison rate (Ox/00).
Q0 was the emission rate determined by either profiling of upwind-downwind
sampling at 5 m, which was assumed to be the edge of the mixing cell and
distance at which deposition actually began.
„ This depletion factor approach was applied to the individual test
data to determine whether variables such as stability class, wind speed,
or initial particle size distribution affected the deposition rate
discernibly. The resulting data are presented in Table 6-9. Deposition
rates did not appear to be closely related to any. of the above three
variables in the 10 comparability tests.
Tu°oretical Deposition Functions
Three different theoretical deposition functions have been widely
used in atmospheric dispersion modeling to simulate dry particle deposition:
source depletion, surface depletion, and tilted plume functions. The
depletion factors for these three alternative functions for the first
200 m (200 m Is greater than the sampling distances) are shown in Figure 6-6.
113
-------
legend
TP
TSPuw-dw
3Qyrn
IP
uw-dw
_L
20
40
60
80
100
DOWNWIND DISTANCE, nn
Figure 6-5. Average measured depletion rates,
119
-------
The Input conditions for all three functions were: wind speed = 1.0 m/s,
gravitational settling velocity of raonodlsperse particles » 0.1 m/s, emiss
height * 2.0 m, and stability class as Indicated on the figure.
One observation that can be made from the curves, and that would be
more obvious if the curves were extended beyond 200 m, 1s that much of the
total deposition occurs within this first 200 m. However, these are
theoretical curves and 1t should not be Implied that the field study
measurements at 100 m account for the bulk of deposition or provide a rougf
estimate of fully depleted emission rates. This could only be determined
with actual measurements of deposition at distances of 1 km and beyond.
The tilted plume curve was closest of the three theoretical functions
to the average deposition rates from the comparability study (plotted in
Figure 6-5). There is no assurance that this function continues to provide
the best fit at distances in the range of 1 to 20 km that are of greatest
concern 1n dispersion modeling. Not that the tilted plume depletion is not
very dependent on stability class; the test data did not appear to be
closely real ted to staoility class either.
The depletion factor in the tilted plume function is given in the
following equation:
QXQ0 * 1 - 1 (Eq. 27]
U-n/2)(h u/xvd-l) + 2
where n * Sutton's diffusion parameter, which varies by stability class:
n
A S7T5
B 0.26
C-0 0.48
E-F Q.57
h » emission height, m
u = wind speed, m/s
x - downwind distance, m
vd * deposition velocity, 1Q"2 m/s
The average deposition rates from Figure 6-5 are plotted together with
tilted plume curves representing average test conditions (B stability, u =
2.6 m/s, and h0 =• 2.0 m) for four different v^ values in Figure 6-7. It w*
assumed that v
-------
1.0
0.9
o 0.8
3-
•^
0.7
Legend
Source
depletion"
Surface
depletion"""""
Tilted
plume
o
cr
^
x
cr
0.6
0.5
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
u 3 1.0 m/s
ug - 0.01 m/s 0.9
hQ = 2.0 m
0.8k
0.7
0.6
0.5
For all curves
o
cy
A STABILITY
''
!
^7-
40 80 120
DOWNWIND DISTANCE, m
160
200
Figure 6-6. Depletion rates by theoretical deposition functions,
122
-------
cm/s D, urn Test curve best matched
2 16 IPUw-dw»
5 2fi 30 /jmD
15 45 TSPup-dw
30 63 TP
Actually, deposition rates for small particles onto the ground have
been observed to be greater than can be explained by gravitational
settling velocity, and the concept of a deposition velocity vum
emission rates in 50 m and 79 percent reduction in upwind-
downwind TSP emission rates in 100 m. Deposition rates in indi-
vidual tests were obscured by data scatter, so an empirical
function could not be developed. However, the average deposition
rates expressed as depletion factors (QX/Q0) agreed reasonably
well with theoretical deposition functions. Of the three theo-
retical functions examined, the test data appeared to agree best
with the tilted plume model (subjective evaluation).
Dustfall data had less precision than the ambient measure-
ments on which the emission rate depletion factors were based.
Subsequently evaluation of dustfall data from tests other than the
123
-------
o
Or
Tilted plume
TP
TSPuw-dw
30um
IP
B Stability
u s 2.6 m/s
40 80 120
DOWNWIND DISTANCE, m
160
200
Figure 6-7. Average measured depletion rates compared to
predicted tilted plume depletion.
124
-------
\
comparability tests showed that this method 1s reproducible as
long as there are not wind direction reversals during the sampling
period. A full discussion of dustfall measurement as a method
for quantifying deposition rates 1s presented in Section 12. A
summary discussion of deposition 1s Included in Section 14.
125
-------
SECTION 7
RESULTS FOR SOURCES TESTED BY EXPOSURE PROFILING
SUMMARY OF TESTS PERFORMED
As previously discussed, exposure profiling was used to test parti-
cualte emissions from haul trucks, light-duty and medium duty vehicles,
scrapers (travel mode) and graders. These sources were tested at three
mines during the period July 1979 through August 1980.
A total of 63 successful exposure profiling tests were conducted
at the three mines/four visits. They were distributed by source and by
mine as follows:
Source
Haul trucks
Light- and med.-
duty vehicles
Scrapers
Graders
Controlled/
uncontrolled
U
C
U
C
U
U
Number of tests
Mine 1 Mine 2 Mine 1W Mine 3
6
0
3
2
5
0
6
4
4
0
6
5
3
0
0
0
2
0
4
5
3
0
2
2
Light and variable wind conditions were encountered at Mine 1 during
the test period July-August 1979, with win^s occasionally reversing and
traffic-generated emissions impacting on the upwind sampling station.
These events were termed "bad passes."
Table 7-1 lists the site conditions for the exposure profiling tests
of dust emissions generated by haul trucks. The comparability tests are
indicated by an asterisk after the run number. In addition to the
testing of uncontrolled sources, watering of haul roads was tested as a
control measure.
Table 7-2 gives the road and traffic characteristics for the
exposure profiling tests of haul trucks. This source category exhibited
a wide range of road and traffic characteristics, indicating a good
126
-------
TABLE 7-1. EXPOSURE PROFILING SITE CONDITIONS - HAUL TRUCKS
Mine/Site*
Mine VSite 2
Mine 2/Site 1
Mine 2/Site 3
(Watered)
Mine 2/Site 3
Mine 2/Site 3
(Watered)
Mine 2/Site 3
Mine 2/Site 3
(Watered)
Mine I/Site 5
Profiler
Runb
J-6
J-9*
J-10*
J-lld
J-12*
J-20*
J-21*
K-l
K-6
K-7
K-8
K-9
K-10
K-ll
K-12
K-13
L-l
Date
7/30/79
8/01/79
8/01/79
8/01/79
8/02/79
8/09/79
8/09/79
10/11/79
10/15/79
10/15/79
10/16/79
10/16/79
10/17/79
10/17/79
10/17/79
10/23/79
12/07/79
Start
time
16:06
10:21
14:08
17:39
10:50
14: 10
16:51
10:21
11:03
14:50
11:02
13:18
10:37
12:05
13:38
10:47
14:04
Sampling
duration
(min)
67
51
52
48
49
49
26
86
177
53
105
89
65
64
58
73
92
Vehicle passes
Good
2
41
43
40
18
23
13
65
84
57
43
63
40
50
43
78
57
Bad
37
0
2
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Meteorolo
Temp.
(°C)
24.5
28.3
31.0
30.5
26.7
23.0
25.0
L
14.6
17.8
23.5
10.3
12.0
10.6
12.5
15.5
Wi
spe
(m/
0
4
4
4
C
t
4.0
0.7
(continued)
127
-------
potential for Identifying and quantifying correction parameters. Most
tests Involved a blend of vehicle types dominated by haul trucks. S1H
and moisture values were determined by laboratory analysis of road surface
aggregate samples obtained from the test roads. Mean vehicle speeds and
weights are arithmetic averages for the mixes of vehicles which passed
over the test roads during exposure profiling.
Table 7-3 lists the site conditions for the exposure profiling tests
of dust emissions generated by light- and medium-duty vehicles. In
addition to the testing of uncontrolled roads, the application of calcium
chloride to an access road was tested as a control measure.
Table 7-4 gives the road and traffic conditions for the exposure
profiling tests of light- and medium-duty vehicles. Small variations
in mean vehicle weight and mean number of vehicle wheels were observed
for this source category. No access roads were available at Mine 2, so
light-duty vehicles were tested at a haul road site.
Table 7-5 lists the site conditions for the exposure profiling tests
of dust emissions generated by scrapers (travel mode). Table 7-6 gives
the road and traffic conditions for the exposure profiling tests of
scrapers. All scrapers tested were four-wheeled vehicles, which excluded
this parameter from consideration as a correction factor.
Table 7-7 lists the site conditions for the exposure profiling tests
of dust emissions generated by graders. Table 7-8 gives the road and
traffic conditions for the exposure profiling tests of graders. All
graders tested were six-wheeled vehicles arid weighed 14 tons. Therefore,
mean vehicle weight and mean number of vehicle wheels were excluded from
consideration as correction factors.
RESULTS
The measured emission rates are shown in Tables 7-9 through 7-12
for haul trucks, light- and medium-duty vehicles, scrapers, and graders,
respectively. In each case, emission rates are given for TP, SP, IP,
and FP.
For certain runs, emission rates could not be calculated. For haul
truck 1-2, the profiler samples did not maintain a consistent flow rate.
Haul truck run J-6 was not analyzed because of the predominance of bad
passes, the emissions from run J-7, the access road treated with calcium
chloride, were to low to be measured. Scraper run P-15 produced only a
TP emission factor; questionable results from a single dichotomous sampler
prevented calculation of reliable emission rates for SP, IP, and FP.
-------
The means, standard deviations ,and ranges of SP emission rates for
each source category are shown below:
SP emission rate (Ibs/VMT)
Source No. tests Mean Std. dev. Range
Haul trucks
Uncontrolled 19 18.8 20.2 0.71-67.2
Controlled 9 4.88 3.44 0.60-8.4
Light- and medium-
duty vehicles
Uncontrolled _. 10 4.16, 3.73 0.64- 9.0
a a
Controlled 2 0.35a
Scrapers
Uncontrolled 14 57.8 95.3 3.9 -355
Graders
Uncontrolled 7 9.03 11.2 1.8 -34.0
a On one of two tests, the emissions were below detectable limits.
As expected, the SP emission rates for controlled road sources were sub-
stantially lower than for uncontrolled sources. The mean emission rate
for watered haul ruads was 26 percent of the mean for uncontrolled haul
roads. For light- and medium-duty vehicles, the mean emission rate for
roads treated with calcium chloride was 8 percent of the mean for uncon-
trolled roads.
The average ratios of IP and FP to SP emission rates are:
Average ratio of IP to Average ratio of FP to
Source SP emission rates SP emission rates
Haul trucks 0.50 ' 0.033
Light- and medium-
duty vehicles 0.63 0.112
Scrapers 0.49 0.026
Graders 0.48 0.055
As indicated, SP emission from light- and medium-duty vehicles contained
a much larger proportion of small particles than did the other source
categories.
143
-------
The measured dustfall rates are shown 1n Tables 7-14 through 7-16
for haul trucks, light- and medium-duty vehicles, scrapers, and graders,
respectively.
Flux data from collocated samplers are given for the upwind sampling
location and for three downwind distances. The downwind dustfall fluxes
decay sharply with distance from the source.
PROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED
*•-
Adverse meteorology created the most frequent difficulties in
sampling emissions from unpaved roads, Isokinetic sampling cannot be
achieved with the existing profilers when wind speeds are less than
4 mph. Problems of light winds occurred mostly during the summer testing
at Mine 1. In addition, wind direction shifts resulted in source plume
impacts on the upwind samplers on several occasions. These events,
termed "bad passes," were confined for the most part to summer testing
at Mine 1.
Bad passes were not counted in determining source impact on down-
wind samplers. Measured upwind particualte concentrations were adjusted
to mean observed upwind concentrations for.adjoining sampling periods
at the same site when no bad passes occurred.
Another problem encountered was mining equipment breakdown or
reassignment. On several occasions sampling equipment had been de-
ployed but testing could not be conducted because the mining vehicle
activity scheduled for the test road did not occur.
144
-------
SECTION 8
RESULTS FOR SOURCES TESTED BY UPWIND-DOWNWIND SAMPLING
SUMMARY OF TESTS PERFORMED
Five different sources were tested by the upwind-downwind method--
coal loading, dozers, draglines, haul roads, and scrapers. However,
haul roads and scrapers were tested by upwind-downwind sampling only
as part of the comparability study, with the exception of six additional
upwind-downwind haul road tests during the winter sampling period.
Test conditions, net concentrations, and calculated emission rates for
the comparability tests were presented in Section 6. Test conditions
and emission rates for haul road tests are repeated here for easier
comparison with winter haul road tests, but scraper data are not shown
again. Haul roads were tested by the upwind-downwind method during the
winter when limited operations and poor choices for sampling locations
precluded sampling of dozers or draglines, the two primary choices.
A total of 87 successful upwind-downwind tests were conducted at
teh three mines/four visits. They were distributed by source and by
mine as follows:
Number of tests
Source Mine 1 Mine 2 Mine 1W
Coal loading 28
Dozer, overburden 4 7
Dozer, coal 43
Draglines 65
Haul roads 5 6
Scrapers 5
Test conditions for the coal loading tests are summarized in Table
8-1. Correction factors for this source may be difficult to develop:
bucket capacities and silt contents did not vary significantly during
the tests, nor did drop distances (not shown in the table). One
variable not inlcuded in the table was type of coal loading equipment.
At the first two mines, shovels were used; at the third mine, front-
end loaders were used.
15D
-------
Test conditions for dozers are summarized in Tables 8-2 and 8-3 for
dozers working overburden and coal, respectively. These two source
categories exhibited a wide range of operating and soil characteristics
1n their tests—speed varied from 2 to 10 mph, silt contents from 3.8 to ]
percent, and moisture contents from 2.2 to 22 percent. This indicates a
good potential for correction factors. Also, there is a possibility of
producing a single emission factor for the two dozer operations.
Dragline test conditions are shown in Table 8-4. Bucket sizes for
the different tests were all nearly the same, but large differences in
drop distances (5 to 100 ft), silt contents (4.6 to 14 percent), and
moisture contents (0.2 to 16.3 percent) were obtained. One dragline
variable used in the preliminary data analysis for the statistical plan,
operator skill, was not included in Table 8-4 because it was judged to be
too subjective and of little value as a correction factor for predicting
emissions from draglines. Also, it was not found to be a significant
variable in the preliminary data analysis.
Test conditions for haul roads tested by upwind-downwind sampling are
summarized in Table 8-5. Most of the tests for this source were done by
exposure profiling, so this subset of tests was not analyzed separately
to develop another emission factor. Instead, the calculated emission
rates and test conditions for these tests were combined with the exposure
profiling test data in the data analysis and emission factor development
phase.
RESULTS
The apparent TSP emission rates calculated from the concentrations
at each hi-vol sampler are shown in Tables 8-6 through 8-10 for coal
loading, dozers (overburden), dozers (coal), draglines, and .haul roads,
respectively. These reported emission rates have not been adjusted for
any potential correction factors. The individual emission rates are
shown as a function of source-sampler distances in these tables. Distance
Is an important factor in the evaluation of deposition.
When the samples were evaluated for deposition as described in
Section 5', only 21 out of the 87 upwind-downwind samples (including scrape
demonstrated distinct fallout over the three or four distances. The
percentage of tests showing fallout was much higher for sources sampled
as line sources than for sources samples as point sources: 13 out of 25
(52 percent) for line sources compared to 8 out of 62 (12.9 percent) for
point sources.
It was concluded that some problem exists with the point source
dispersion equation because its results rarely indicate
152
-------
>. .
.deposition, although the same type and size distribution of emissions are
AAvolvecLas with the line source dispersion equation. The sensitivity
of calculated emission rates to several inputs to the point source
equation (such as initial plume width, initial horizontal dispersion, dis-
tance from plume centerline, and stability class) were examined, but no
single input parameter could be found that would change the emission data
by distance to show deposition.
The single-value TSP emission rates for each test determined from
the multiple emission rate values are summarized in Table 8-11. The
means and standard deviations for these tests are shown below:
Source No. tests Units -Mean Std dev Range
tal loading 25 Ib/ton 0.105 0.220 0.0069-1.09
>zer, overburden 15 Ib/h 6.8 6.9 0.9-20.7
)zer, coal 12 Ib/h 134.3 155.6 3.0-439
•agline 19 lb/yd3 0.088 0.093 0.003-0.400
iul road 11 Ib/VMT 17.4 10.9 3.6-37.2
:raper 5 Ib/VMT 18.1 11.4 5.7-35.6
9
It should be emphasized that the mean values reported here are not
emission factors; they do not have any consideration of correction
factors included in them.
Emission rates for coal loading varied over a wide range, from
0.0069 to 1.09 Ib/ton. Rates at the third mine averaged an order
of magnitude higher than at the first two mines. Since a front-end
loader was used at the third mine and shovels at the first two, the
wide differences in average emission rates may indicate that separate
emission factors are required for these two types of coal loading.
Emissions from dozers working overburden varied over a moderate
range. Much of that variation can probably be explained by the soil
characteristics of the overburden being regraded: soil at the second
mine, which in general had the lowest emission rates, had the highest
moisture contents and lowest silt contents; soil at the third mine,
which had the highest emission rates, was driest. The evaluation of
these two correction parameters is described in Section 13.
Coal dozer emissions were grouped very tightly by mine. The
averages, standard deviations, and ranges by mine show this:
162
-------
Mine Mean Std dev Range
1 24.1 10.9 16.1-40.1
2 6.1 3.0 3.0- 9.1
3 299 89.2 222-439
Coal characteristics are also expected to explain part of this variation,
but it is doubtful that the very high emission rates at the third mine
can be explained with just those parameters. Dozers working coal had
considerably higher emission rates than dozers working overburden. The
two sources probably cannot be comb-ined into a single emission factor with
available data unless some correction parameter reflecting the type of
material being worked is incorporated.
Dragline emissions had greater variation within each mine than
between mine averages. As with several of the other sources, emission
rates at the third mine were highest and moisture contents of soil
samples were the lowest. The only sample more than two standard
deviations away from the mean was a 0.400 value obtained at the first
mine. This potential outlier (its high value may be explained by cor-
rection parameters) was more than twice the next highest emission rate.
Haul roads had relatively little variation in emission rates for
the tests shown. However, all these tests were taken at the same mine
during two different time periods. For a more comprehensive listing
of haul road emission rates from all three mines/four visits, the
exposure profiling test data in Section 7 should be reviewed.
Average IP and FP emission rates for each test, along with IP
emission rates calculated from each sampler, are presented by source
in Tables 8-12 athrough 8-16. The values could be averaged without
first considering deposition because dichotomous samplers were only
located at the first two distances from the source (leaving only about
a 30 m distance in which measureable deposition could occur) and
because smaller particles do not have significant deposition. Al-
though the IP data from the upwind-downwind tests have a large amount
of scatter, no reduction in emission rates with distance is evident.
The average ratios of IP and FP to TSP emission rates are:
Av ratio of IP to Av ratio of FP to
Source TSP emission rates TSP emission rates
Coal loading 0.30 0.030
Dozer, overburden 0.86 0.196
Dozer, coal 0.49 0.031
Dragline 0.32 0.032
Haul road 0.42 0.024
164
-------
These values are different than the average ratios of net concentrator
because of the effect of deposition on calculation of the single-value
TSP emission rates.
The overburden dozer IP/TPS ratios are much higher than for other
sources because five of the 15 tests had IP concentrations much higher
than TSP concentrations. When the IP concentration exceeds the TSP
concentration, correction of the IP value to 15 urn size from the actual
(wind speed dependent) cut point cannot be performed by the method
described on Page 83. For such cases in Table 8-13 (and Table 8-14
through 8-16), the uncorrected IP value were reported along with their
estimated cut points. If the five tests with uncorrected IP data were
eliminated, the average IP/TSP ratio would be 0.28, much closer to that
other sources. No explanation was found for the high IP concentrations
compared to TPS concentrations for overburden dozers.
For all sources except overburden dozers, the IP and FP emission rate
variabilities (as measured by the relative standard deviation) were
about the same as TSP emission rate variabilities. Due to the four
high dichotomous sample values, the IP and FP emission rates for
overburden dozers had about twice the relative standard deviation as
the TSP emission rates.
PROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED
The most common problem associated with upwind-downwind sampling w
the long time required to set up the complex array of 16 samplers and
auxiliary equipment. On many occasions, the wind direction would cnany
or the mining operation would move while the samplers were still being
set up.
Another frequent problem was mining equipment breakdown or reassig
ment. At various times, the sampling team encountered these situations
pwer loss to dragline; front-end loader broke down while loading first
truck; dozer broke down, 2 hours until replacement arrived; dozer
operator called away to operate frontend loader; and brief maintenance
check of dragline leading to shutdown for the remainder of shift for
repai r.
A third problem was a typical operation of the mining equipment
dragline sampling. One example was the noticeable difference in dragh
operators1 ability to lift and swing the bucket without losing material
Sampling of a careless operator resulted in emission rates two to five
times as high as the previous operator working in the same location.
The dragline presented other difficulties in sampling by the upwin
downwind method. For safety reasons or because of topographic
obstructions, it was often impossible to place samplers in a regular
170
-------
array downwind of the dragline. Therefore, many samples were taken well
off the plume centerline, resulting in large adjustment factor values in
the dispersion equation calculations and the potential for larger errors.
Estimating average source-to-sampler distances for moving operations
v.such as draglines was also difficult.
Sampling of coal loading operations was complicated by the many
related dust-producing activities that are associated with it. It is
impossible to sample coal loading by the upwind-downwind method without
also getting some contributions from the haul truck pulling into position-,
form a frontend loader cleaning spilled coal from the loading area, and
from the shovel or frontend loader restacking the loose coal between
trucks. It can be argued that all of these constitute necessary parts
of the overall coal loading operation and they are not a duplication uf
emissions included in other emission factors, but the problem arises
in selecting loading operations that have typical amounts of this
associated activity.
Adverse meteorology also created several problems in obtaining
samples. Weather-related problems were not limited to the upwind-
downwind sampling method or the five sources samples by this method,
but the large number of upwind-downwind tests resulted in more of these
test periods being impacted by weather. Wind speed caused problems
most frequently. When wind speeds were less than 1 m/s or greater
than about 8 m/s, sampl^ig could not be done. Extremely low and high
winds occurred on a surprisingly large number of days, causing lost
work time by the field crew relays in starting some tests, and pre-
mature cessation of others. Variable wind directions and wind shifts
were other meteorological problems encountered. In addition to
causing extra movement and set'up of the sampling equipment, changes
in wind direction also ruined upwind samples for some sampling periods
in progress. Finally, several sampling days were lost due to rain.
171
-------
SECTION 9
RESULTS FOR SOURCE TESTED BY BALLOON SAMPLING
SUMMARY OF TESTS PERFORMED
Blasting was the only source tested by the ballloon sampling method,
Overburden and coal blasts were both sampled with the same procedure,
but the data were kept separate during the data analysis phase so that
the option of developing separate emission factors was- avai labl e. A
total of 18 successful tests were completed--14 for coal blasts and 4
for overburden blasts. Three more blasts were sampled, but the balloon
was hit and broken in one and the plumes missed the sampler arrays in
two others; no attempt was made to calculate emission rates for these
three tests.
The overburden was not blasted at the mine in North Dakota (second
mine), so overburden blast tests were confined to the first and third
mines. The resulting sample size of four is not large enough for
development of a statistically sound emisrion factor.
The sampling array consisted of balloon-supported samplers at five
heights plus five pairs of ground-based hi-vols and dichots to establish
the horizontal extent of the plume. No measure of deposition rate was
made with this configuration because all samplers were at the same dis-
tance from the source.
Samplers at Mine 2 were located in the pit for -oal blasts, but
samplers at Mines 1 and 3 were located on the highwall above the pit.
Therefore, some (prior) deposition is included in the emission rate
measured at the latter mines. These are the only emission rates in
the study that are not representative of emissions directly from the
source.
Test conditions for the blasting tests are summarized in Table 9-1.
An extremely wide range of blast sizes was sampled--from 6 to 750 holes
and from 100 to 9600 rn2. The variation in moisture contents was also
quite wide. The only potential correction factor with a limited range
during testing was the depth of the holes. All the holes for coal
blasts were about 20 ft deep. Overburden holes had a range of 25 to
135 ft, but there are not enough data points to develop a correction
factor.
172
-------
RESULTS
TSP emission pates are shown 1n Table 9-2. The emission rates varied
over a wide range, from 1.1 to 514 Ib/blast. Blasting emssions at the
first two mines were relativley low; those at the third mine were quite
high. Some of the differences are expected to be explained by test
conditions, which also varied over a correspondingly wide range. The
values in Table 9-2 are as measured, and have not been adjusted for any
potential correction factors.
The data subsets by mine w«re too small for statisti-cs such as
standard deviation to be meaningful. If the data are divided into sub-
sets of coal and overburden blasts, the TSP emission rates are as
follows:
Type blast No. samples Mean, Ib Std dev Range
Coal 14 ' 110.2 161.2 1.1-514
Overburden 4 106.2 110.9 35.2-270
The only sample that was more than two standard deviations away from the
mean was the 514 Ib value. However, this blast had more than three
times as many holes as any other blast sampled, so it would not be
considered an outlier.
Inhalable and fine particulate emission rates are presented in Table 9-3,
The IP emission rates ranged from 0.5 to 142.8 Ib/blast and from 17 to 138
percent of TSP. The IP emission rates for blasts averaged 46 percent of
the TSP rates, about the same ratio as the haul roads. Fine particulate
averaged 5.0 percent of TSP, higher than for any other source. Ccal
blasts and overburden blasts did not have any obvious distinctions in their
respective particle size distributions.
PROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED
Balloon sampling represented a substantial modification of the exposure
profiling method and therefore a somewhat experimental technique. It
was particularly difficult to apply blasting because technical limitations
of the technique combined with the infrequency of blasting resulted in
very few opportunities to perform the sampling.
This sampling method could not be used when ground level winds were
greater than about 6 m/s because the balloon could not be controlled on
its tether. At wind speed less than about 1 m/s, wind direction tended
to vary and the sampling array could not be located with any confidence
of being in the plume. Also, at low wind speeds, the plume from the
blast frequently split or rose vertically from the blast site. There-
fore, sampling was constrained to a fairly narrow range of wind speeds.
174
-------
\
<>"
For safety reasons, a source-sampler distance of 100 m or more
was usually required. At this distance, the plume could disperse
vertically above the top sampler Inlet under unstable atmospheric
conditions.
Even though sampling was done at very large mines, only one or
two blasts per day were scheduled. This often created difficulties
1n obtaining the prescribed number of blasting tests at each mine.
Since blasting was not a continuous operation, there was no
continuous plume to provide assistance in locating the samplers. For.
coal blasts in particular, the portion of the plume below the high
wa^ll usually was channeled parallel to the pit but any portion rising
above the high wall was subject to ambient winds and often separated
from the plume in the pit.
Finally, representative soil samples could not be obtained for th
source because of the abrupt change in the characteristics of the soil
caused by the blast. The moisture contents reported in Table 9-1 were
for samples of coal in place and overburden from drilling tests (both
prior ot blasting).
177
-------
SECTION 10
RESULTS FOR SOURCES TESTED BY WIND TUNNEL METHOD
SUMMARY OF TESTS PERFORMED
As discussed previously, the wind tunnel method was used to test
particulate emissions generated by wind erosion of coal storage piles
and exposed ground areas. These sources were tested at three mine
sites during the period October 1979 through August 1980.
A total of 37 successful wind tunnel tests were conducted at the
three mines. Tests at Mine 1 took place in late autumn, with below normal
temperatures and snowfall being encountered. Emissions tests were
distributed by source and by mine as follows:
Number of tests
Source Mine 1 Mine 2 Mine 3
Coal storage piles 4 7 16
Exposed ground areas 1 5 4
The decision of when to sample emissions from a given test surface was
based on the first observation of visible emissions as the tunnel flew
rate was incrased. At Mines 1 and 2, if visible emissions in the blower
exhaust were not observed at a particular tunnel flow rate, no air
sampling was performed, but a velocity profile was obtained. Then the
tunnel flow rate was increased to the next level and the process repeated.
When visible emissions were observed, emission sampling was performed and
then repeated at the smae wind speed (but for a longer sampling time) to
measure the decay in the erosion rate. At Mine 3, particle movement on
the test surface was used as the indicator that the threshold velocity
had been reached and that emission sampling should be performed. Five
tests on coal piles and seven tests on exposed ground areas were conducted
on surfaces where no erosion was visually observed, and in these cases
no emissions sampling was performed.
Tale 10-1 lists the test site parameters for the wind tunnel tests
conducted on coal pile surfaces. The ambient temperature and relative
humidity measurements were obtained just above the coal surface external
to the tunnel.
178
-------
Table 10-2 gives the tunnel test conditions for the wind erosion
emission tests on coal surfaces. The equivalent speed at 10 m was
determined by extrapolation of the logarithmic velocity profile measured
in the wind tunnel test section above the eroding surface. The first
friction velocity, which 1s a measure of the wind shear at the eroding
surface, was determined from the velocity profile.
Table 10-3 gives the erosion-related properties of the coal surfaces
from which wind-generated emissions were measured. The silt and moisture
values were determined from representative undisturbed sections of the
erodible surface ("before" erosion) and from the actual test surface
after erosion; therefore, only one "before" condition and one "after"
condition existed for each test site. The roughness height was
determined from the velocity profile measured above the test surface
at a tunnel wind speed just below the threshold value.
Table 10-3 lists the test site parameters for the wind tunnel tests
conducted on exposed ground areas. The surfaces tested included top-
soil, subsoil (with and without snow cover), overburden and scoria.
For Runs J-28, K-31 through K-34, K-47 and K-48, no air sampling was
performed, but velocity profiles were obtained.
Table 10-5 gives the tunnel test conditions for the wind erosion
emission tests on exposed ground areas. Table 10-6 gives the erosion-
related properties of the exposed ground surfaces from which wind-
generated emissions were measured.
RESULTS
Table 10-7 and 10-8 present the wind erosion emission rates measured
for coal pile surfaces and exposed ground areas, respectively. Emission
rates are given for suspended particulate matter (particles smaller than
30 >um in aerodynamic diameter) and inhalable particulate matter (parti-
cles smaller than 15 jun in aerodynamic diameter).
For certain emission sampling runs, emission rates could not be
calculated. No particle size data were available for run J-3Q. For
exposed ground area runs P-37 and P-41, measured emissions consisted
entirely of particles larger than 11.6>um aerodynamic diameter (the
cyclone cut point).
The means, standard deviations, and ranges of SP emission rates for
each source category are shown below:
181
-------
Source
Coal piles
On pile, uncrusted
On pile, crusted
Surrounding pile
Exposed ground areas
Soil, dry
Soil, wet
Overburden
S* emission rate (Ibs/acre-s)
No. tests Mean Std. dev. Range
16
7
4
4
1
5
0.318
0.0521
0.754
0.264
0.0143
0.142
0.439 0.0150-1.52
0.0415 0.00964-0.113
1.054 0.0303-2.27
0.195 0.104-0.537
0.0143
0.160 0.00698-0.329
It can be seen that natural surface crusts on coal piles are effective
in mitigating wind-generated dust-emissions. In addition, emissions from
areas surrounding piles appear to exceed emissions from uncrusted pile
surfaces but are highly variable.
With reference to the rates measured for exposred ground areas,
emissions from more finely teAtL'red soil exceed emissions from overburden.
As expected, the presence of substantial moisture in the soil is effective
in reducing emissions.
Examinations of the conditions under which tests were conducted
indicates (1) an increase in emission rate with wind speed and (2) a
decrease in emission rate with time after onset of erosion. This must
be considered in comparing emission rates for different source conditions.
PROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED
The only significant problem in this phase of the study was the
unforeseen resistance of selected test surfaces to wind erosion. Thres-
hold velocities were unexpectedly high and occasionally above the maximum
tunnel wind speed. This occurred primarily because of the presence of
natural surface crusts which protected against erosion. As a result,
the testing of many surfaces was limited to determination of surface
roughness heights.
Although testing of emissions was intended to be restricted only to
dry surfaces, the occurrence of snowfall at Mine 1 provided an interesting
test condition for the effect of surface moisture. This helps to better
quantify the seasonal variation in wind-generated emissions.
193
-------
SECTION 11
RESULTS FOR SOURCE TESTED BY QUASI-STACK SAMPLING
SUMMARY OF TESTS PERFORMED
Overburden dril Ling, was the only source tested by the quasi-stack
method. A total of 30 tests were conducted--!! at the first mine, 12
at the winter visit to the first mine, and 7 at the third mine. No
drilling samples were taken at the second mine because the overburden
was not shot, and hence not drilled, at that mine. No testing was done
for coal drilling because it was not judged to be a significant source.
Sampling was done on the downwind side of the drill platform; the
enclosure was to contain all the plume coming from beneath the platform.
Four isokinetic sampling heads were located across the far side of the
enclosure. Each collected particulate matter in a settling chamber and
on a filter. Because of the proximity of the sampling inlets to the
source (2 to 3 m), the assumption was made that the filter catch was
the suspended material and the settling chamber was the settlcable
material.
Test conditions for the drill tests are summarized in Table 11-1.
Testing took place over a wide range of drilling depths (30 to 110 fit)
and soil silt contents (5.2 to 26.8 percent), so these can be evaluated
as correction factors. However, there was very little variation in the
moisture contents of the samples. No determination was made whether
this was due to the undisturbed overburden material having a fairly
narrow range of moisture contents or whether it was coincidence that all
moisture contents were in the range of 7 to 9 percent. In either case,
moisture content is not a candidate for a correction factor because of
the narrow range of observed values.
The wind speeds reported in Table 11-1 are not ambient speeds; they
are the average speeds measured by a hot-wire anemometer at the far end
of the enclosure. In general, they were much lower than ambient because
the wind was blocked by the drilling rig and platform. The speeds shown
in the table are the averages for each sampling period of speeds and the
sampling heads were set at to sample Isokinetically. The four heads were
adjusted individually based on wind speed measurements taken at that point
in the enclosure. Wind speed profiles were observed to be fairly uniform
across the enclosure, especially in comparison with traverses across a
stack.
194
-------
RESULTS
The results of the drill tests are shown in Table 11-2. The values
labeled "filter" are suspended particulate, comparable to TSP emission
rates by other sampling methods. No smaller size fractions than suspended
particulate were obtained for this source. The filter catch averaged
only 14.2 percent of the total catch (filter plus settling chamber),
indicating that most of the material emitted from the drill holes was of
large particle size, and therefore readily settleable. This appears to
be a reasonable finding, since a large portion o* the emissions were
produced by an air blast as the drill first entered the ground.
The total emissions per test had much wider-variation than the
suspended portion (filter catch). However, the total emission values
were not used for development of any emission factor, so this variation
was of little consequence.
The units for the TSP emission rates are Ib/hole. The overall range
of emission rates was wide—0.04 to 7.29 Ib/hole—but ranges for subsets
from the individual mine visits were considerably narrower. The
statistics for the three subsets by mine visit are:
Mine
1
1W
3
No. samples
11
12
7
Mean. Ib/hole
0.84
1.98
4.73
Std dev
0.84
1.21
1.95
Range
0.04-2.43
0.06-3.38
1.79-7.29
None of the samples were outliers (more than two standard deviations
away) from the mean value of their subsets. The mean TSP emission rate
for the 30 samples was 2.20 Ib/hole and the standard deviation was 1.97.
Only one value, 7.29, was more than two standard deviations away from
this mean. This distribution is prior to inclusion of correction factors,
which are expected to explain part of the observed variation in emission
rates.
PROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED
The quasi-stack sampling method had not been used previously on any
open fugitive dust sources similar to those at surface mines. However,
the method worked well for sampling drilling emissions and only a few
problems were encountered. The most important problem was that part of
the plume sometimes drifted outside the enclosure when a change in wind
direction occurred. No method could be found to account for this in
estimating source strength, so it was ignored in the calculations. The
effect of emissions escaping the enclosure was to underestimate actual
emission rate, possibly by as much as 20 percent (based on the maximum
volume of visible plume outside the enclosure).
196
-------
\
Another problem with the sampling method was that no particle size
data were obtained. Collection of mllUpore samples for microscopic
analysis was originally planned, but the particle size data obtained
by microscopy 1n the comparability study did nt agree well with that
from aerodynamic sizing devices.
A third problem was securing representative soil samples. As the
drilling progressed, soil brought to the surface sometimes changed in
appearance as different soil strata were encountered. Usually, a compo-
site of the different soils was collected to be submitted as the soil
sample. However, the soil type discharged for the longest period of
time or multiple samples could have been taken. Also, there was no
assurance that soil sppearance was a good indicator of changes in its
moisture or silt content.
198
-------
SECTION 12
EVALUATION OF RESULTS
EMISSION RATES
A total of 265 tests were conducted during the four sampling periods
at three mines. The tests for each source were distributed fairly
uniformly across the three mines, as previously shown 1n Table 3-8,
despite difficulties 1n obtaining tests of particular sources at each
mine. The total number of tests for each source was based on sample
variance of data from the first two mines: required sample sizes were
calculated by the two-stage method described in Section 5.
As in any fugitive dust sampling effort, several problems were
encountered during the study:
Large average differences in concentrations were obtained for
collocated samples, indicating imprecision of the sampling
techniques.
Inability to control the mining operations led to some tests in
which data had to be approximated or some operation cycles
excluded.
Handling problems with the dichotomous filters may have contributed
to an underestimate of emission rates in some cases.
Representative soil samples could not be obtained for some tests
because of accessibility problems, etc., so moisture and silt
values from prior or later tests had to be substituted.
However, the errors introduced by these problems appeared to be small
in relation to the natural variance in emission rates of the sources as
a result of meteorology, mining equipment, operation, etc. In other
words, selection of time and place for sampling probably had far more
impact on the resulting emission rates than problems associated with
measurement of the rates.
The selection of mines may also have influenced final emission
factors. Emission rates measured at Mines 1 and 2 were generally in
the same range. However, the emission rates measured at Mine 3 were
in general outside the range of values from Mines 1 and 2. Correction
factors were used to explain the range in values so that the average
rates employed 1n determining the final emission factors would not be
biased by the high values from Mine 3.
199
-------
For all three mines, the relative standard deviations, a measure of
variation in the sample data, ranged from 0.7 to 1.5 for different sources.
Emission rates for most sources varied over two orders of magnitude in
sample size of 12 to 39. Similar variation was observed in some of the
independent variables thought to have an effect on emission rates.
The remainder of this section is devoted primarily to three aspects
of the test data—particle size distribution, deposition, and effectiveness
of control measures. The evaluation of the independent variables and
their effect on emission rates in discussed in Section 13.
PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTIONS
Considerable effort was expended in the comparability study evaluating
three particle sizing methods—cascade impactors, dichotomous samplers,
and microscopy. The comparison of methods, presented in Section 6, showed
that the cascade impactors and dichotomous samplers gave approximately
the same particle size distributions. In contrast, the microscopy data
varied widely. It was concluded that microscopy is a useful tool for
semi quantitative estimates of various particle types but is inadequate
for primary particle sizing of fugitive dust emissions,
Cascade Impactor Data
As mentioned in Section 3, greased substrates were used in cascade
impactors operated at the third mine to minimize particle bounce-through.
The effectiveness of this preventive measure was checked by comparing
the relative amounts of particulate catch on the back-up filter and on
ten impactor substrates of cyclone/impactor sample with and without
greased substrates.
In Table 12-1, cyclone/impactor samples of uncontrolled emissions
from each source category at Mines 1 and 2 (where unqreased substrates
were used) are compared with samples of the same sofces f-om Mine 3.
Sampling heights for the impactor varied slightly by mine, which
introduces another variable into the comparison. It is evident from
Table 12-1 that greasing produces little change in the proportion of
material caught on the back-up filter. Only in the case of haul trucks
does a positive effect of greasing appear. On the other hand, the
single scraper emission sample collected at the third mine shows a
larger portion of particuiite on the back-up filter. Although comparisons
of this type should ideally be based on collocated samplers, no readily
identifiable pattern for the effect of greasing emerges from this
comparison.
200
-------
Dichotomous Sampler Data
At the outset of the study, 1t was hypothesized that, as the larger
particles fell out of the plume downwind of a mining source, the fraction
of the remaining suspended partlculate less than 15 jm and less than
2.5 jam would increase. Further, 1t was expected that only a small per-
centage of the particulate generated by a source would be in the less
than 2.5yum range. The test data obtained from the dichotomous samples
supported both of these hypotheses.
While the data produced the expected results, there were several
inherent limitations in the sampling technique that were discovered
during the study. These were: the small sample weights collected for
the fine particle samples; the low ratio of net weight to tare weight
of the filter media; and the variable particle size cut point of the
inlet.
The small sample weights on the fine filters were attributed to
two causes: the low volume of air collected and the small amount of
particulate less than 2.5 jam present 1n the plumes. Since the flow rate
of the sampler was so low, 1.0 m^/h, only a small amount of mass was
collected when the concentrations were low. The net weight of the
particulate collected on the fine quality assurance in weighing. These
net weights were only a small fraction of the tare weight of the filter.
Consequently, the potential weighing error was much higher for the
dichotomous filters than for hi-vol filters, which collect a much greater
mass. However, the number of filters checked that exceeded the 100/jg
tolerance in weighing was almost the same for dichotomous filters (5 of
281) as it was for hi-vol filters (7 of 774), which had an allowable
tolerance of 3.0 mg.
An associated problem was the filter media itself. The dust particles
did not adhere well to the Teflon surface. Rather, the particulate
remained on the surface of the filter where it was easily dislodged.
Extensive quality assurance procedures were implemented for the handling
of the filters to minimize particle losses. These procedures were
discussed in Section 4.
The light loadings on the fine filter stages presented additional
problems during the calculation procedures. A negligible mass on the
fine filters resulted in a negligible concentration. For the upwind-
downwind sampling, 25 percent of all the fine filters had calculated
concentrations of zero. There was little variation in this number
between sources. The individual percentages ranged from 18 to 30
percent. The problem was further complicated when upwind concentrations
were substracted from downwind concentrations. An additional 10 to
20 percent of the fine concentrations became negligible after accounting
for upwind concentrations.
202
-------
These negligible values, by themselves, were not a problem. The
data simply Indicated that there were no meastureable emissions 1n the less
than 2.5>um size range. However, the particle size cut point of the
Inlet 1s dependent on wind speed (Wedding 1980). Consequently, measured
coarse concentrations had to be corrected to a 15 ^m cut point.- This
adjustment was based on an assumed lognormal distribution of particles
in the 2.5 to 30 jam range. In order to determine the ISjum value, a con-
centration different from zero was needed for the less than 2.5 >im size.
As discussed 1n Section 5, the concentration resulting from the minimum
detectable mass was substituted for any negligible downwind concentrations.
This substitution had the effect of artificially raising the fine
particulate concentration for each source. This change resulted in an
increase in average FP concentrations of about 10 percent.
Even though there were problems with the dichotomous sampler data,
this sampler was chosen for generating the final particle size data for
several reasons:
1. During the study design, th« dichotomous sampler was the
EPA method of choice for selective particle size sampling.
As such, 1t 1s considered state-of-the-art for ambient
parti clt si za measurements.
2, The Cdtcade Impactor could not be w> venlently used, QaU
from the uumuarabt \\iy ilwJIei uhuwetl that twiwmiMMin of
H»)v»»v»r, mi tiimtmt !iw*vhtr tUM wura
HUHn >IM nvtt m« n\y |mmvV>u»
r'tuv.o UIQ not use dny unpactors.
3 Both contractors used the same type of dichotomous sampler.
As shown 1n Section 6, the dichotomous sampler produced
Internally consistent results. Therefore, it was expected
that particle size data generated by both contractors would
be consistent.
4. Based on the results of the comparability studies, the
dichotomous sampler gave the most consistent results of
the three method evaluated. Extensive project resources
were expended to fine the most valid particle sizing
method. Special quality assurance procedures were
developed and implemented to control problems in the
data. The precision of collocated dichotomous samplers
and the number of filters that exceeded the quality
assurance tolerance in weighing (5 out of 281) were about
the same as that for hi-vols (7 out of 774).
203
-------
\
Particle Size Distribution Data
The average fraction of particles less than 15 jum and less than
2.5/jm are shown in Table 12-2. The data for each source are expressed
as fractions of TSP for upwind-downwind tests and as fractions of SP
(less than 30 jum diameter particles) for profiling and wind tunnel tests.
These fractions were calculated from the raw test results presented in
in Sections 6 through 11.
As shown in the table, IP fractions are reasonably consistent. They
vary from 0.30 to 0.67. The FP/TSP ratios have a much wider variation,
from 0.026 to 0.196. The 0.196 value for overburden dozers appears to
be an anomaly. Excluding this value, the range is-from 0.026 to 0.074.
The high overburden dozer ratios are due to the assumption of minimum
detectable concentrations on the fine filters combined with low TSP
concentrations for most of these tests.
Also evident from the table is that the standard deviation values
are generally higher for sources measured with the upwind/downwind
technique as opposed to the profiler technique. This difference is
inherent in the sampling configurations. Upwind/downwind data are
generated from multiple downwind distances and are the average of several
points. In contrast, profiler data are gathered at a single point 5 m
from the source.
DEPOSITION
Data for quantifying deposition were generated in three ways:
1. For 48 profiling tests, deposition was measured by collocated
dustfall buckets at 5, 20, and 50 m downwind of the source.
2. For 77 upwind-downwind sampling tests, deposition was deter-
mined by apparent source depletion with distance. Measure-
ments were made at four downwind distances at a maximum distance
of 200 m downwind of the source.
3. For 10 comparability tests, exposure profiling and upwind-
downwind samplers were run on a common source so that
simultaneous measurements by these methods could De compared.
Downwind distances were 5, 20, and 50 m.
Dustfall
A consistent reduction in dustfall rate., with distance from the
source was found in 38 of 48 successful CAposure profiling tests. The
average difference between collocated dustfall buckets was 42.6 percent.
204
-------
The dustfall rates for each test were converted to equivalent depletion
factors (ratio between the apparent emission rate, Qx, at a distance x
downwind and the Initial emission rate, Q0) by a four step procedure:
1. Total dustfall from 5 m to 20
-------
\
The standard deviations of the depletion factors displayed two
characteristics: relative standard deviations (RSD) consistently in-
creased with distance from the source; and the RSD values were fairly
high, Indicating much variation in results from the Individual tests.
Interestingly, the haul road tests had similar depletion rates to
the comparability tests (which were conducted on haul roads and scrapers)
when differences in wind speed were considered. This observation led to
another comparison—between tests in which the source was sampled as a
line source and those in which it was sampled as a point source. -The
15 line source tests had average depletion fetors less than 1.0, but
did not demonstrate continuing deposition with increasing distance. In
contracts, the point source tests had average depletion factors of 1.36,
1.35, and 1.52 at three successive distances from the source. The IP
data could not be effectively analyzed for source depletion because
dichotomous samplers were placed at only the first two distances in all
upwind-downwind tests after the comparability tests.
Comparability Study
A discussion of deposition data from the comparability studies is
contained in Section 6. Data are summarized in Figure 6-7. Dustfal1
data were not meaningful because of data scatter. For exposure profiling,
the 30 urn depletion factors at 20 m and 50 m were found to be 108 percent
(source enhancement) and 55 percent. Corresponding TSP data for upwind-
downwind sampling was found to be 87 percent and 56 percent. The data
for 50 m from both measurement techniques indicated considerably greater
source depletion than was found in 44 exposure profiling tests with
dustfall measurements (Table 12-3).
Comparison of Sources of Deposition Data
Data analyzed with respect to deposition were dustfall buckets from
profiling tests; source depletion from upwind-downwind tests; and pro-
filing data from the comparability study. These analyses did not reveal
any significant relationships that could form the basis for an empiri-
cally derived deposition function. Because these analyses were non-
productive and the primary method of measuring deposition (apparent source
depletion in upwind-downwind sampling) gave unstable results, a deposition
function cannot be presented at this time. However, several conclusions
can be drawn.
Based on experience gained from this study, it is recommended that
future dustfall measurement be performed with the following considerations:
1. Dustfall measurements at various distances downwind of the
source should be accompanied by a coincident upwind measurement
that is subtracted as a background value. Dustfall data for a
203
-------
test should be invalidated 1f the upwind sample is impacted by
the source as a result of wind reversal.
2. The measurements should be done in duplicate to reduce error
and so that the precision of the measurement can be assessed.
3. Measurements should be taken at distances greater than 50 m
to quantify the continuing fallout of particles. However,
at greater distances, collection of a detectable mass of
dustfall during a short sampling period may be a problem.
The principal shortcoming of the technique is that the data presented
are for total particulate, which in general are of less interest than
TSP or IP data.
The upwind-downwind source depletion data which indicated source
enhancement in the majority of tests was misleading. Poor results
have been attributed to three main causes.
First, many of the sources tested by upwind-downwind required
placement of the first row of samplers at relatively large distances
•from the source (30-60 m compared to 5-10 profiling). A large part
of the deposition may already have occurred prior to this first
distance, resulting in apparent emission rates of about the same
magnitude at the four downwind distances, rather than decreasing with
distance from an emission rate measured immediately downwind of the
source.
The second suspected cause was that reentrainment may actually be
increasing downwind concentrations. Most of the source listed in
Table 12-4 were, by necessity, tested with the samplers placed on
recently-disturbed surfaces adjacent to the sources. Haul roads were
an exception, in that stable vegetated areas adjacent to the roads
could be selected as sampling locations.
The third suspected cause of an upward bias in emission rates
with distance was the point source dispersion equation. If equivalent
data are input to the point and line source dispersion equations, the
line source version will usually indicate a greater reduction in
apparent emission rates with distance. The sensitivity of calculated
emission rates to several parameters in the point source equation but
not in the line source aquation we^e evaluated, but no single parameter
was isolated that could be masking the reduction in apparent emission
rates with increase in distance.
Because of these three identified problems, it is recommended that
additional deposition measurements be made on line sources where reentrain-
ment near downwind samplers is minimized.
210
-------
ESTIMATED EFFECTIVENESS OF CONTROL MEASURES
Two control measures for unpaved roads and mine areas were tested
as part of this study. The controls were calcium chloride/watering and
watering only. Table 12-5 summarizes the results obtained. No control
cost data were obtained.
At Mine 1, two tests of an unpaved access road treated with calcium
chloride were performed. According to plant personnel, calcium chloride
(Dow Peladow) had been applied at a density of 0.6 gallon of 30 percent
solution per square yard of road surface, approximately three months
prior to testing. This road was watered four times each day to main-
tain the effectiveness of the calcium chloride. Watering occurred about
one hour before testing, but no rewatering was done during a test.
Three tests of an uncontrolled access road at Mine 1 were performed to
establish the uncontrolled emission rate for the calculation of con-
trol efficiency. As indicated in Table 12-5, the control efficiency
calculated from the average controlled and uncontrolled emission rates
was 95 percent for SP and IP and 88 percent for FP.
At Mine 2, four tests of a watered haul road and four tests of the
same road without watering were performed to determine the control
efficiency of watering. The measured watering rate was 0.05 gallon
per square yard of road surface about 5 minutes prior to start of
sampling. No rewatering was done during testing. As indicated in
Table 12-5, a mean control efficiency of approximately 60 percent
was achieved, with no appreciable dependence on particle size. A
similar series of tests performed at Mine 3 to determine the effective-
ness of haul road watering yielded a mean control efficiency of about
70 percent. Watering of the loading areas at Mine 3 reduced coal
loading emissions an average of 78, 81, and 68 percent for TSP, IP,
and FP, respectively.
Although no quantitative data on the effectiveness of calcium chlori
as a dust control measure for unpaved roads was found in the literature,
references were found that contained data evaluating watering as a dust
control measure for haul roads. The estimated control efficiency of
50 percent for watering, as reported by Jutze and Axetell (1974), has
been cited in several recent primary references on fugitive dust con-
trol. Actual test data reported on watering of haul roads in surface
coal mines (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1978a) showed a control
efficiency value of 31 percent was reported (PEDCo Environmental 1980)
for watering of haul roads in a stone quarry.
211
-------
The efficiency values for watering of haul roads obtained 1n this
study (Table 12-5) were higher than the previously reported values and
the original estimate of 50 percent. The efficiency values for calcium
chloride are consistent with reported values of Initial control effi-
ciency exceeding 90 percent for other chemical treatment measures:
lignln sulfonate applied to haul roads 1n a taconlte mine and petroleum
resin applied to a steel plant road (Cowherd, et al. 1979).
213
-------
SECTION 13
DEVELOPMENT OF CORRECTION FACTORS AND EMISSION FACTOR EQUATIONS
ihe method for developing correction factors was based on multipie
linear regression (MLR), as described 1n Section 5. To summarize the
method briefly, values for all variables being considered as possible
correction factors were tablulated by source with the corresponding
TSP emislson rates for each test, then the data were transformed to
their natural logarithms. The transformed data were input to the MLR
program, speclfiying the stepwise option and permitting entry of all
variables that Increased the multiple regression coefficient (initially
allowing the program to determine the order of entry of the variables).
The MLR output of greatest Interest with the significance of each
variable. In nontechnical terms, significance is the probability that
the observed relationship between the independent and dependent vari-
ables is due to chance. If the significance was less than 0.05, the
variable was included as a correction factor; if it was between 0.05
and 0.20 , its Inclusion was discretionary; and if above 0.20, the
variable was not Included. The correction factors were multiplicative
because of the In transformation; the power for each significant
correction factor was specified in the MLR output as the coefficient
(B value) for that variable in the linear regression equation.
This MLR analysis could not be employed with data from the wind
erosion sources because sequential tests were found to be related and
were grouped, thus reducing the number of Independent data points.
With the large number of potential correction parameters in relation
to data points, regression analysis was not feasible.
MULTIPLE LINEAR REGRESSION ANALYSIS
The stepwise multiple linear regresssion program that 1s the nucleus
of the correction factor deveopment procedure is explained in moderate
detail in Appendix A. Further information on it can be found in the
following three references: Statistical Methods, Dourth Edition
(Snedecor 1946); Applied Regression Analysis (Draper and Smith 1965);
and SPSS, Second Edition (N1e 1975).
214
-------
\
The Independent variables that were evaluated as possible correction
factors are listed in Table 13-1. An assessment was made during the MLR
analysis to determine the portion of the total variation 1n the emission
factors explained by the correction factors (multiple regression coefficient
squared) and whether additional variables should have been considered. The
data for each of these variables were presented 1n tables throughout
Sections 7 through 11, and have not been repeated here.
The data were all transformed to their natural logarithms prior to
running MLR. The presumption that the In transformation would provide
better final emission factor equations was based on three considerations:
the data sets all had high relative standard deviations indicating that
the distributions of the emission factor were skewed to the right
(i.e., a long upper tail); the homogeneity of variances (a-condition .
for any least squares analysis) was increased; and multiplicative cor-
rection factors were preferable to additive ones.
More than one MLR was usually required to obtain the final MLR
equations with its associated significance and regression coefficients
(B values). Second and third ^ms were neeeded to eliminate a data
point shown to be an outlier, to remove a variable highly correlated
with another, to remove a variable with significance of 0.05 to 0.20
that entered the stepwise regression ahead of another variable still
being evaluated, or to eliminate a dummy variable (such as a source
subcategory or control/no control) after its significant had been
determined. The sequence of MLR runs with the TSP data for each
source is documented by presenting in Table 13-2 the results of the first
run for each source (with all the variables included), a description in
Table 13-3 of all changes made to get to the final run, and in Table
13-4 the results of the final run.
The multiple regression (correlation) coefficient, R, is a measure
of how well the variables in the equation explain variations in emission
rate. (Actually, R^ is the portion of the total variation explained
by the use of the specified variables). Significance, the second re-
ported statistic, estimates the change that the observed correlation
for a particular variable is due to random variation. Finally, the
residual relative standard deviation measures the amount of variability
left in the transformed data set after adjustment as indicated by the
regression equation. In the transformed data set, the mean logarithmic
values can be quite small. Consequently, the relative standard devia-
fons are larger than normally encountered in regression analysis.
Several independent variables were fairly significant (less than
0.20) when they entered the regression equations, but were not included
as correction factors in the final emission factors. The reasons for
omitting these potential correction factors are explained below, by
source:
215
-------
TABLE 13-1. VARIABLES EVALUATED AS CORRECTION FACTORS
Source
Drill, overburaen
Blasting
Coal loading
Dozer
Dragline
Scrapers
Graders
Light- and medium-
duty vehicles
Haul trucks
Sample
size*
30
18
25
27
19
15
7
10
27
Variables evaluated
Silt
Moisture
Depth of drilling
Material blasted (coal
or overburden)
No. of holes
Area blasted
Depth of holes
Moisture
Distance to samplers
Wind speed
Stability class
Equipment type
Bucket size
Moisture
Material worked
Dozer speed
Silt
Moisture
Wind speed
Drop distance
Bucket size
Silt
Moisture
Silt
Weight
Vehicle speed
Wheels
Silt loading
Moisture
Wind speed
c
c
c
Units
%
%
ft
. -
~2b
fCD
ft
-------
\
TABLE 13-3. CHANGES MADE IN MULTIPLE LINEAR REGRESSION RUNS (TSP)
Source
Change made
Run
No.
Reason
Irill
Hasting, all
,soal loading, all
Dozer, all
Dragline
Scraper
Graders
Light- and medium
duty vehicles
Haul trucks
Remove two data points
Specify moisture as first
variable
Eliminate bucket size, add
control
Remove one data point
Remove one data point
Remove one data point
Drop wheels, moisture, and
silt loading
Add moisture; remove am"so-
kinetic runs; drop wind
Drop wheels, weight, mois-
ture, and silt loading
Drop wind speed, vehicle
speed, anisokinetic
runs
Remove K-7 and L-l
2
2
2
3
2
2
2
Outliers
Moisture had R = 0.72 vs.
area with R = 0.73
Bucket size was to the 12.3
power
Outlier
Outlier
Outlier
Wheels did not vary appre-
ciably, moisture and silt
loading difficult to
quanti fy
Moisture needs to explain
low emissions at mine.
Four anisokinetic runs
(low winds) eliminated
Wheels and weight did not
vary appreciably, moisture
and silt loading difficult
to quantify
Three anisokinetic runs (low
winds) eliminated, vehicle
speed correlation incon-
sistent with previous
studies
Outlier and run unrepre-
sented by vehicle mix
219
-------
\
Drills/Silt - This variable was highly significant but was inversely rather
than directly related to emission pate. Therefore, the last potential
correction factor for this source 1s eliminated; the reported emission
factor is slriply the geometric mean of the observed values.
Blasts/ No. of holes - This variable was highly correlated with another
Independent variable, area blasted, which entered the regression
equation before number of holes.
Coal loading/Bucket size - Bucket size was related to emission rate by a .
power of -12.3 in the regression equation, primarily because of the
very narrow range of bucket sizes tested—14 to 17 yd^. Also, bucket
size only had a correlation of 0.05 with emission rate.
Dozer, all/Dozer speed - Although equipment speed was significant in the
combined data set, it was not significant in either of the subsets
(coal dozers or overburden dozers).
Dragline/Silt - In the first run, silt was not a significant variable.
However, when an outlier was removed, it became highly significant
but was inversely rather than directly related to emission rate
Scrapers/Vehicle speed - This parameter was significant at the 0.111
level, in the discretionary range. It was omitted because of its
high correlation with silt which entered the equation earlier.
Light- and medium-duty vehicles/Weight - This was omitted to preserve
the simplicity of the resulting equation in light of the high
correlation between emission factor and moisture, the first para-
meter entered.
Haul trucks/Vehicle speed - Inverse relationship with emission rate was
inconsistent with all previous studies.
Haul trucks/Weight - This parameter was omitted because it coefficient
was negative, which is difficult to justify from the physics of the
problem.
These relationships conflicted with pre/ious experience in fugitive
dust testing . While the actual relationship may be similar to that
indicated by the MLR equation, some confirmation in the form o.f additional
data was thought to be needed before including these dubious parameters
as correction factors.
The transformations, initial MLR runs, adjustments, and additional
MLR runs were done by the same procedures with the IP emission data as
with the TSP data, using the same values of the independent variables.
22i
-------
The results are summarized in an analogous series of three tables--
Tables 13-5, 13-6 and 13-7. As indicated in Table 13-6, very few changes
were required from the initial runs of the IP data, with the benefit
of the prior TSP runs. For every source, the same independent variables
were highly significant for IP as for TSP.
EMISSION FACTOR PREDICTION EQUATIONS
The prediction equations obtained from the MLR analyses are summari2
in Table 13-8. Tliese equations were taken directly fro mthe MLR runs
described in Tables 13-4 and 13-7, with the coefficients in the Table
13-8 equations being the exponentials of the MLR equation constant terms
and the exponents for each term being the B values. These equations give
estimates of the median value of the emission factors for given value(s)
of the correction factor(s). (The coefficients and exponents are from
the intermediate MLR step that includes only the significant variables
that appear in the final equation.) All but four of the independent
variables in the equations in Table 13-8 are significant at the 0.05
level or better. The four variables in the discretionary range (O.Q5
to 0.20) that were included are: L in haul truck TSP equation, a =
0.146; A in the coal blasting IP equation, a = 0.051; M in the overburder
IP equation, a = 0.71; and S in the grader IP equation, a = 0.078. The
geometric mean values and ranges of the correction factors are summarizeo
in Table 13-9.
CONFIDENCE AND PREDICTION INVERVALS
A computational procedure for obtaining confidence and prediction
intervals for emission factors is described in Appendix B at the end of
this volume of the report. An example of this computation is given here
for coal loading emission data versus the moisture content correction
factor.
Figure 13-1 summarizes the results of this example and also includes
the observed emission factors. The line in the center of the graph is
the predicted median emission rate estimated by the goemetric mean. The
inside set of curves give the confidence interval for the "true median"
as a function of moisture content (M), and the outside set of curves
give the prediction interval for an individual emission factor. The
intervals vary in length as a function of M. The widths of the intervals
are measures of the precision of the estimated factors. These precisions
are comparable to those of existing emission factors as illustrated in
Section 14.
222
-------
TABLE 13-5. RESULTS OF FIRST MULTIPLE LINEAR REGRESSION RUNS (IP)
Source
Drill
Blasting, all
Blasting, coal3
Coal loading, all
Dozer, all
Dozer, coal
Dozer, overburden
Dragline
9
Variable (In order
of MLR output)
N/A
Moisture
Depth of holes
Area blasted
Wind speed
No. of holes
Material blasted
Dist. to samplers
Stability class
Moisture
Areas blasted
No. of holes
Wind speed
Oist. to samplers
Stability class
Moisture
Control
Equipment type
Material worked
Moisture
Silt
Dozer speed
Moisture
Silt
- Dozer speed
Silt
Moisture
Oozer speed
Moisture
Drop distance
Silt
Bucket size
Multiple
R
0.31
0.88
0.92
0.93
0.94
0.95
0.95
0.95
0.86
0.91
0.93
0.94
0.96
0.96
0.49
0.66
0.67
0.71
0.91
0.94
0.97
0.91
0.96
0.96
0.77
0.85
0.37
0.49
0.69
0.72
0.73
Signif-
icance
0.015
0.040
0.000
0.210
0.225
0.272
0.313
0.841
0.000
0.050
0.146
0.202
0.248
0.489
0.017
0.017
0.576
0.000
0.000
0.006
0.001
0.000
0.012
0.420
0.004
0.071
0.290
"0.032
0.015
0.281
0.582
Rel. stc
dev.
9.54
0.753
0.367
0.330
0.451
0.321
0.312
0.307
0.3U5
0.323
0.933
0.490
0.421
0.392
0.373
0.360
0.373
0.235
0.210
0.185
0.189
1.569
1.132
0.683
0.579
0.449
0.682
0.291
0.213
0.216
8.262
5.550
4.830
4.756
0.259
0.232
0.197
0.196
0.200
(continued)
223
-------
TABLE 13-8. PREDICTION EQUATIONS FOR MEDIAN EMISSION RATES
Source
Drill
Blasting, all
Coal loading
Dozer, all
Coal
Overburden
Dragline
Scrapers
Graders
Light- and medium-
duty vehicles
Haul trucks
Prediction equations
TSP
1.3
961 A0'8
D1'8!!1-9
1.16/M1'2
78.4 s1'2^1'3
5.7 s1>2/M1>3
0.0021 d1'1^0-3
(2.7x]0"5)s1'3W2'4
0.040 S2'5
5.79/M4'0
3407
0.0067 wj . L
IP
Nonea
2550 A0'6
01.5M2.3
0.119/M0-9
18.6 s1-5^1'4
1.0 s1-5^1'4
0.0021 d°-7/M°-3
(6.2xlO"6)s1-4W2-5
0.051 S2-0
3.72/M4'3
0.0051 w3'5
FP/TSP
ratios
median
value
None3
0.030
0.019
0.022
0.105
0.017
0.026
0.031
0.040
0.017
Units
Ib/hole
Ib/blast
Ib/ton
Ib/h
Ib/h
lb/yd3
Ib/VMT
Ib/VMT
Ib/VMT
Ib/VMT
Test method allowed for measurement of TSP only.
s = silt content, % 2
A = area blasted, ft
0 = depth of holes, ft
M = moisture content, %
d = drop distance, ft
W = vehicle weight, tons
S ~ vehicle speed, mph
w = number of wheels -
L = silt loading, g/m
227
-------
TABLE 13-9. TYPICAL VALUES FOR CORRECTION FACTORS
Source
Blasting
Coal loading
Dozers, coal
ovb.
Draglines
Scrapers
Graders
Light- and
medium- duty
vehicles
Haul trucks
Correction
factor
Moisture
Depth
Area
Moisture
Moisture
Silt
Moisture
Silt
Drop distance
Moisture
Silt
Weight
Speed
Moisture
Wheels
Silt loading
GMa
17.2
25.9
18,885
17.8
10.4
8.6
7.9
6.9
28.1
3.2
16.4
53.8
7.1
1.2
8.1
40.8
Range
Min.
7.2
-20---
1076 103
6.6
4.0
6.0
2.2
3.8
5
0.2
7.2
36
5.0
0.9
6.1
3.8
b
Max.
38
T3«;
A«* **
,334
38
22.0
11.3
16.8
15.1
100
16.3
25.2
70
11.8
1.7
10.0
254.0
Units'
Percent
Ft2
Fr
Percent
Percent
Percent
Percent
Percent
Ft
Percent
Percent
Tons
mph
Percent
Number
g/m
3 GM = antilog (In (correction factor)}, that is, the antilog of the average
of the In of the correction factors.
Range is defined by minimum (Min.) and maximum (Max.) values of observed
correction factors.
228
-------
\
0.35
0.30
0.25
0.20
0-15
0.10
0.05
\
\
T
\ 95X CONFIDENCE LIMITS FOR MEDIAN E
| 95X PREDICTION LIMITS FOP. E
\ ESTIMATED MEDIAN EMISSION RATE (EL-
\ o MEASURED EMISSION RATES
\
\
\
i —
10
20 30
MOISTURE. X
40
Figure 13-1. Confidence and prediction intervals for emission
factors for coal loading.
229
-------
\
To summarize the Information contained 1n these curves for confidence
Intervals, the following Information 1s presented:
1. Prediction equation for the median emission factor from
Table 13-8: TSP, Ib/ton = 1.16M1-2.
2. Geometric mean and range (maximum and minimum values) of
moisture content correction factor from Table 13-9: GM =
17.8 percent, 6.6 to 38 percent.
3. Estimated median emission factor at the geometric mean (GM)
of the correction factor from Table 13-10: 0.034 Ib/ton.
4. Ninety-five percent confidence intervals for the median emission
factor (the median value for a large number of tests over one
year) at the GM of each correction factor from Table 13-10:
0.023 Ib/ton to 0.049 Ib/ton.
5. Ninety-five percent prediction intervals for an individual
emission factor (approximately one hour) at the GM of the
correction factor from Table 13-10: O.OQ5 Ib/ton to 0.215
Ib/ton.
The confidence and prediction interval data are given oniy tor une
value of the correction factor(s) in order to simplify the presentation.
The widths of the intervals of the GM are indicative of the widths at
other values provided one uses a percentage of the median value in deriving
the confidence and prediction limits. For example, for the coal loading
data the lower confidence limits are approximately 50 to 70 percent of
the median value, the upper limits are 140 to 170 percent of the median
value; the lower prediction limits are 15 percent of the median value
and the upper limits are 630 percent (or 6.3 times) of the median value.
The coal loading data are slightly more variable than data for other
sources and hence the limits are proportionately wider than for the other
sources.
Fine particulate (FP) emission factors were not developed by the
same series of steps as were the TSP and IP factors, because of the larger
variances expected in these data sets and the many tests with negligible
r idings. However, the relative standard deviations calculated from data
in Table 12-2 indicate variability approximately the same as for TSP and
IP data. The geometric mean ratios of FP to TSP presented in Table 13-8
are proposed for use with the TSP emission factor equations to derive
FP emission factors. The FP emission factor is obtained by multiplying
the median FP/TSP ratio times the calcualted TSP emission factor for
each source.
230
-------
TABLE 13-10. EMISSION FACTORS, CONFIDENCE AND PREDICTION INTERVALS
Source
Drills
Blasting,
all
Coal
loading,
all
Dozers, all
coal
ovb.
Draglines
Lt.- and
med.-duty
vehicles
Graders
Scrapers
Haul trucks
TSP/IP
TSP
TSP
IP
TSP
IP
TSP
IP
TSP
IP
TSP
IP
TSP
IP
TSP
IP
TSP
IP
TSP
IP
i
Emission
factor,
median
value
1.3
35.4
13.2
0.034
0.008
46.0
20.0
3.7
0.88
0.059
0.013
2.9
1.8
5.7
2.7
13.2
6.0
17.4
8.2
Units
Ib/hole
Ib/blast
Ib/ton
Ib/h
Ib/h
lb/yd3
Ib/VMT
ib/VMT
Ib/VMT
Ib/VMT
95X
confidence
interval
for median .
LCLD UCLD
0.8 2.0
22.7 55.3
8.5 20.7
0.023 0.049
0.005 0.013
35.5 59.6
13.2 .30.4
2.6 5.3
0.59 1.3
0.046 0.075
0.009 0.020
2.3 3.9
1.6 2.0
3.2 9.9
1.4 5.3
10.0 17.7
4.3 8.9
12.8 23.4
5.7 11.0
95% prediction
Interval
for
emission
factor
LPL UPL
0.1 12.7
5.1 245.8
2.0 87.9
0.005 0.215
0.001 0.071
18.1 117.0
4.5 90.2
0.91 15.1
0.21 3.7*
0.020 0.170
0.002 0.085
1.35 6.4
0.64 5.0
1.14 28.0
0.39 18.5
5.2 33.1
1.8 20.2
4.3 68.2
1.8 33.7
These exact values from the MLR output are slightly different than can be
obtained from the equations in Table 13-8 and the correction factor values
in Table 13-9 due to the rounding of the exponents to one decimal place.
LCL denotes lower confidence limit. UCL denotes upper confidence limit.
231
-------
EMISSION FACTORS FOR WIND EROSION SOURCES
In nearly all of the tests of of wind erosion emissions from the surface
of coal piles and exposed ground areas, the SP and IP emission rates were
found to decay sharply with time. An exception was the sandy topsoil tested
at Mine 3; in that case, an increase in emission rate was observed, probably
because of the entrainment effect of infiltration air as the loose soil
surface receded below the sides of the wind tunnel. The concept of erosion
potential was introduced in Section 5 to treat the case of an exponentially
decreasing quantity of erodible material on the test surface. The erosio'n
potential is the total quantity of particles, in any specified particle
size range, present on the surface (per unit area) that can be removed by
erosion at a particular wind speed.
The calculation of erosion potential necessitated grouping of
sequential tests on the same surface. In effect, this reduced the number
of independent data points for coal and overburden emissions from 32 to
16. As a result, the decision was made not to subject these data to
regression analysis because of the large number of potentially significant
correction parameters in relation to the number of emission measurements
for any given surface type and condition.
Table 13-11 lists the calculated values of erosion potential classified
by erodible surface type and by wind speed at the tunnel centerline. For
the most part, the test wind speeds fit into 3-mph increments; values of
erosion potential for the few runs performed at other wind speeds are
listed under the nearest wind speed category. Whenever erosion potential
is given as a range, the extremes represent two data points obtained at
nominally the same conditions.
is
Erosion potential was calculated using Equation 22 (Chapter 5), which
repeated here:
(Eg. 22)
In
where
= erosion potential, i.e., quantity of erodible material present
on the surface before the onset of erosion, g/m2.
232
-------
TABLE 13-11. CALCULATED EROSION POTENTIAL VERSUS WIND SPEED
Surface
Coal
Area surrounding pile
On pile, uncrusted
On pile, lightly
crusted tracks
On pile furrow
Overburden
Scoria (roadbed material)
Mine
1
2
3
3
2
2
Test series
J-26
J-26 and 27
K-45 and 46
K-40 and 41
K-39
K-42 and 43
P-20
P-31 and 32
P-20 to 22
P-20 to 24
P-31 to 35
P-27 and 28
P-27 to 30
K-35 and 36
K-37
K-49 and 50
v
****& Erosion potential, Ib/acre
26 mph*
> 140b
68b
30
29 mph*
230
140
32 mph*
480
260.
130b
35 mph *
470b
70
90.
40b
100
38 nph *
550b
370
90
ro
co
a Wind speed measured at a height of 15 cm above the eroding surface.
Estimated value.
C Erosion loss may have occurred prior to testing.
-------
t * cumulative erosion time, s
LI = measured loss during time period 0 to t^, g/m2
Lg 3 measured loss during time period 0 to t2, g/m2
Alternatively, Equation 22 can be rewritten as follows:
(Eq. 22a)
An iterative calculation procedure was required to calculate erosion
potential from Equation 22 or 22a. Further, two cumulative loss values
and erosion times obtained from back-to-back testing of the same surface
were required. Each loss value was calculated as the product of the
emission rate and the erosion time.
For example, Runs P-27 and P-28 took place on a coal pile furrow at
a tunnel centerline wind speed of 36 mph. The incremental losses were
calculated as follows:
P-27: 0.0386 g/m2-s x 120 s = 4.63 g/m2
P-28: 0.00578 g/m2-S x 480 s = 2.77 g/m2
Thus the values substituted into Equation 22 for this test series were:
L1 - 4.63 g/m2
t: - 120 s
L2 = 4.63 -t- 2.77 = 7.40 g/m2
t2 = 120 + 480 * 600 s
A value of MQ = 10 was selected and substituted into the right-hana
side of equation 22a and the left-hand side was solved for M0. The
resulting value of 7.75 was then substituted back into the right-hand
side to obtain a new solution—7.48. Additional substitutions were made
and the iteration procedure converged quickly to 7.46 for erosion potentia
(M0), indicating that only a small additional loss (0.06 g/m2) would have
occurred if the tunnel had been operated beyond the 600-s time period at
the same wind speed. The corresponding nonmeric value for the erosion
potential is 67 Ib/acre, which rounds to 70 Ib/acre.
234
-------
Data from unpaired runs (J-26, J-27, K-39, P-20, and K-37) were used
to derive estimated values of erosion potential. Except for J-26, the
erosion times were long enough so that the measured losses approximated
the corresponding erosion potentials.
Note that whenever a surface was tested at sequentially increasing
wind speeds, the measured losses from the lower speeds were added to the
losses at the next higher speeds and so on. This reflects the hypothesis
that, if the lower speeds had not been tested beforehand, correspondingly
greater losses would have occurred at the higher speeds.
The emissions from the coal pile at Mine 3 appea. to be significantly
lower than the coal pile emi si sons measured _at Mines 1 and 2. the coal
pile at Mine 3, which had been inactive for a period of days, was
noticeably crusted; but attempts were made to test areas where reiativiey
fresh vehicle tracks were present. It is not known what percentage of
the erosion potential of these test areas may have been lost because of
brief periods of high winds which typically occurred with the evening
wind shift. The coal pile furrow tested at Mine 3 had a much greater
portion of large chunks of coal (exceeding 1 inch in size) on the surface,
in comparison with the scraper and truck tracks.
The uncrusted overburden and scoria surfaces tested at Mine 2 exhibited
emission rates that'were much lower than the coal surfaces tested, expect
for the coal pile furrow. This reflects the larger portion of nonerocnoie
coarse aggregates present on these non-coa.1 surfaces.
The wind speeds that were used in the testing (Table 13-11), which
exceeded the threshold for the onset of visually observable emissions,
corresponded to the upper extremes of the frequency distributions of hourly
mean wind speeds observed (at a height of 5-10 m) for most areas of the
country. For flat surfaces, the wind speed at the center!ine of the wind
tunnel, 15 cm above the surface, is about half the value of the wind
speed at the 10 m refdrence height. However, for elevated pile surfaces,
particularly on the windward faces, the ratio (ui5+uref) may approach
and even exceed unity. It should be noted that small but measureable
erosion may have occurred at the threshold velocity.
In estimating the magnitude of wind generated emisisons, wind gusts
must also be taken into account. For the surfaces tested, typically
about three-fourths of the erosion potential was emitted within 5 min of
cumulative erosion time. Therefore, although the mean wind speeds at
surface coal mines will usually not be high enough to produce continuous
wind erosion, gusts may quickly deplete the erosion potential over a
period of a few hours. Because erosion potential increases rapidly with
increasing wind speed, estimated emissions should be related to tne yusts
of highest magnitude.
235
-------
The routinely measured meteorological variable which best reflects
the magnitude of wind gusts 1s the fastest mile. This quantity represents
the wind speed corresponding to the whole mile of wind movement which has
passed by the 1-mile contact anemometer in the least amount of time. Dai ly
measurements of the fastest mile are presented in the monthly Local Climato
logical Data (LCD) summaries. The duration of the fastest mile, typically
about 2 min (for a fastest mile of 30 mph), matches well with the half
life of the erosion process, which ranges between 1 and 4 min.
Emissions generated by wind erosion are also dependent on the frequenc
of disturbance of the erodible surface because each time that a surface js
disturbed, its erosion potential is restored. A disturbance is definea
as an action which results in the exposure of fresh surface material.
On a storage pile, this would occur whenever aggregate material is either
added to or removed from the old surface. A disturbance of an exposed
ground area may also result from the turning of surface material to a
depth exceeding the size of the largest pieces of material present.
Although vehicular traffic alters the surface by pulverizing surface
material, this effect probably does not restore the full erosion potential;
except for surfaces that crust before substantial wind erosion occurs.
In tnat case, creaking or tne crust over the area UT tne tire/surraue
contact once again exposes the eroaioie matenai oeneath.
The emission factor for wind generated emissions of a specified
particle size range may be expressed in units of Ib/acre-month as follows:
Emission Factor » f-P(u*15) (Eq. 29)
where f * frequency of disturbance, per month
- erosion potential corresponding to the observed
(or probable) fastest mile of wind for the
period between disturbances, after correcting
the fastest mile to a height of 15 cm (as
described below), Ib/acre.
P(u+ic) is taken directly from Table 13-11 for the type of surface being
considered. Interpolation or limited extrapolation of erosion potential
data may be required.
When applying Equation 29 to an erodible surface, a modified form of
Equation 18 (page 84) is used to correct the fastest mile of wind from
the reference anemometer height at the reporting weather station to a
height of 15 cm. The correction equation is as follows:
236
-------
(Eq. 30)
15
Jhref -JWfj
where u*^ » corrected value of the fastest mile, mph
uref = value of the fastest mile measured at the reference
height, mph
= height of the reference anemometer above ground, cm
nsurf = height of the eroding surface aoove yruunu, cm
z0 = roughness neignt or tne erouiny sutraee, cm
i estimated value of the roughness height for the surface being considered
ay be obtained f-om Table 13-12.
Equation 30 is restricted to cases for which href - hsurf _>. 15 cm.
2cause the standard reference height for meteorological measurement is
3 m, this restriction generally allows for piles as flat upper surfaces
5 high as about 9.85 m and conical piles as hign as 19.7 m. However,
nere may be situations which do not conform to the above restriction; for
-------
The height of the reference meteorological Instrument is 8.0 m above the
ground.
To derive the annual average emlslson factor, the year is divided into
quarterly periods. The fastest mile for each period is determined, and the
average value 1s calculated. From Table 13-13, the 3-month fastest mile
values of 47, 38. 45, and 41 mph yield an average of 43 mph. Next, Equation
30 1s used to correct the average fastest mile from the reference height
of 8 m to 15 cm above the 6-m height of the upper pile surface. A value
of 0.06 cm is used as the roughness height for a lightly crusted coal'
pile surface, as taken from Table 13-12. Substitution or these uata into
Equation 30 yields:
, 800-600- = 29 mph
ln 0.06
From Table 13-11, the SP erosion potential for 29 mph on a lightly crusted
coal pile is 140 Ib/acre. Substitution into Equation 29 yields:
SP emission factor = °'33 x 140 lb = 46 ———-
mo acre acre-mo
Using the appropriate IP/SP ratio from TaDie 13-12, the correspond!ny IP
emission factor is 46 x 0.55 = 25 Ib/acre-mo.
One notable limitation in the use of Equation 29 is its application
to active piles. Because the fastest mile is recorded only once a day,
use of the daily fastest mile to represent a surface disturbed more than
once per day will result in an over-estimate of emissions.
The approach outlined above for calculation of emission factors appear
to be fundamentaly sound, but data limitations produce a large amount of
uncertainty in the calculated factors. Even though the erosion potential
values are judged to be accurate to within a factor or two or uetter for
the surface tested, it is not known how wen these surraces represent the
range of erodible surface conditions found at Westerr surface coal mines.
Additional uncertainty results from the use of Equate jn 30 to correct the
fastest mile values to a height of 15 cm above the erodible surrace.
Taking all the sources of uncertainty into account, it is tnougnt that tne
wind erosion emission factors derived for surfaces similar to those testeu
are accurate to within a factor of about three.
The levels of uncertainty in SP and IP emission factors derived Qy
the technique outlinsd in this section could be reduced substantially by
gathering more data to better define:
240
-------
1. Relationship of erosion potential to wind speed.
2. Relationship between approach wind speed and the distribution
of surface wind speed around basic pile shapes of varying size.
3. Relationship of erosion potential to surface texture.
4. Effect of crusting.
Previous research on wind erosion of natural surfaces could provide
some insight into the nature of these effects. Soil loss resulting from
wind erosion of agricultural land has been the subject of field and
laboratory investigation for a number of years. This research has
focused on the movement of total soil mass, primarily sand-sized aggre-
gates, as a function of wind and soil conditions (Bagnold 1941-; Chepi-1
and Woodruff 1963). Only relatively recently, however, have field
measurements been performed in an effort to quantify fine particle emissions
produced during wind erosion of farm fields (Gillette and Blifford 1972;
Gillette 1978).
Until further research is accomplished, it is recommended that wind
erosion factors be used with full consideration of their uncertainty and
preliminary nature. It is recommended that their use be restricted to
estimates of emissions relative to other mine sources and that they not
be used for estimating the ambient air impact of wind erosion at surface
coal mines.
241
-------
SECTION 14
EVALUATION OF EMISSION FACTORS
COMPARISON WITH PREVIOUSLY AVAILABLE EMISSION FACTORS
As noted in Section of this report, a number of TSP emission factors
for surface coal mining operations were available in the published litera-
ture prior to this study. However, only those factors reported by the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1978a) were based on actual testing
in surface coal mines. Other investigators (Cowherd et al. 1979, McCalden
and Heidel 1978, and Dyck and Stukel 1976) have reported emission factors
for vehicular traffic on unpaved roads expressed in the form of predictive
equations. Their factors were not developed with any data from surface
coal mines, but were based on field data from unpaved roads of similar
characteristics.
Cowherd et al. (1979) used the exposure profiling method to develop a
predictive emission factor equation for vehicular traffic on unpaved roads.
Their equation was developed from measurement of emissions from a wide
range of vehicle types (weighing from 2 to 157 tons) traveling on rural
roads, roads at steel plants, and haul roads at a tacunite mine.
The emission factor equation developed by McCalden and Heidel (1978)
was developed from upwind-downwind tests of light-duty vehicles traveling
on five unpaved roads in the Tucson, Arizona area. The downwind samplers
were located 50 feet from the test roads.
Dyck and Stukel (1976) used the upwind-downwind sampling method to
measure emissions from a single 4-1/2 ton flat-bed truck traveling over
access roads at construction site in Illinois. Vehicle weight was varied
by placing sand bags on the truck bed. Downwind samplers were located at
50 to 150 feet from the test road.
Table 14-1 compares emission factors from the present study with
emission factors reported by EPA and those reported by the other investigators
ciced above. The factors listed for the present study are medians of the
TSP emission factors measured for each source category. The factors listed
by EPA (1978a) are averages of those reported for each of the five mines
tested.
242
-------
\
\
The other factors listed for unpaved roads were calculated from the
respective emission factor equations, using the necessary average cor-
rection parameter values obtained in the present study.
In three of five cases, the average emission factor obtained in
this study is essentially the same as that reported by EPA in 1978. The
factors obtained for access roads are about the same as those calculated
from the predictive equations of other investigations. However, the
factors obtained in the present study for haul trucks, scrapers, and
graders are smaller than those calculated from the predictive equations
of other investigators.
STATISTICAL CONFIDENCE IN EMISSION FACTORS
Confidence intervals associated with the emission factors were pre-
sented in Table 13-10. They are shown again, expressed as fractions of
the corresponding emission factors, in Table 14-2. Also shown in this
table are the relative errors predicted in Table 4 of the Second Draft
Statistical Plan (June 1980). (For purposes of calculation, the half-
width of the confidence interval divided by the median is equal to the
relative error.) Comparison of the 80 percent confidence intervals and
20 percent risk level relative errors reveals that the actual confidence
intervals were smaller, and therefore better, than the estimated or
predicted error levels in 7 out of 10 cases. These results were achieved
because correction factors were able to explain a large portion of the
sample variance for almost every source.
The confidence intervals as a fraction of the emission factor averaged
about -0.20 to +0.24 at the 80 percent confidence level and about -0.30
to +0.43 at the 95 percent confidence level. In comparison, 12 of the
most widely used particulate emission factors in EPA's Compilation of Air
Pollutant Emission Factors, AP-42 (1975), had an average 80 percent con-
fidence interval of _+0.28 and an average 95 percent confidence interval
of +0.45, according to a published analysis of AP-42 factors (PEDCo
EnvTronmental 1974). Information extracted from Table 2-12 of the
published analysis is presented in Table 14-3. Considering the greater
variability inherent in emission rates for fugitive dust sources than for
most industrial process or combustion sources, the mining emission factors
reported herein appear to be on a par with factors in AP-42 that have been
given a ranking of A.
With the confidence intervals achieved for all sources, additional
sampling using the same techniques to improve precision of one or more
factors does not seem to be warranted. However, it should be noted that
these emission factors are still limited in their applicability to Western
mines and to the ranges of correction parameter conditions over which the
present tests were conducted. Also, the number of"mines represented is
small (only three), hence, the mine to mine differences are not yet fully
documented.
244
-------
PARTICLE SIZE RELATIONSHIPS
Emission factors were developed specifically for the IP and TSP size
ranges, with full data analyses being devoted to each. Because of data
analysis problems associated with the very low concentrations of FP, the
emission factors for this size fraction were not calculated by profiling,
upwind-downwind dispersion equations, etc. Instead, net concentrations for
all tests were expressed as a fraction of TPS; the geometric mean fraction
for tests of each source was applied to the TSP emission factor for that
source to calculate the FP emission factor.
The suspended particulate (SP) emission factors from profiling tests
are not actually TSP, but the fraction of total emissions less than 30
in aerodynamic diameter. Several references in the literature cite 30
as the approximate particle size for 50 percent collection efficiency by
the hi-vol sampler. Since TSP is not a clearly defined size distribution,
this was the best approximation that could be made from the profiling
samples, which collect all particle sizes in the plume nondiscriminately.
From the median emission factors for IP and TSP (Table 13-10), size
distributions of emissions appeared to be fairly uniform from source to
source. IP and TSP ratios varied from 0.22 to 0.62. . The IP to TSP
emission factor ratios were similar to those of the IP to TSP net concen-
trations (shown in Table 12-2), but were not the same because of the
independent MLR analyses employed to develop the emission factors for
TSP and IP. Also, the emission factor ratios are based on geometric
rather than arithmetic means. The IP to TSP ratios were lower than
typical in ambient air. However, these ratios were measured at the
sources. As the emissions proceed downwind, greater deposition of the
TSP fraction should increase the ratio.
The FP and TSP emission factor ratios were derived directly from
the geometric mean ratios of their net concentrations, and are the same
as were shown in Table 13-8. One of the sources had a ratio that was an
apparent anomally--overburn dozers, with an FP to TSP ratio of 0.105.
Overburden dozer tests were usually conducted with nc visible plume and
low downwind concentrations, with accompanying potential for particle
size distributions skewed toward smaller particles. With the exception
of this source, the range of median FP to TSP ratios by source was 0.017
to 0.040.
For the two sources that constitute the majority of emissions at
most mines, haul trucks and scrapers, the average FP to TSP ratios were
0.017 and 0.026, respectively. Because mining emissions are mechanically
generated dust, a low percentage of fine particualte would be expected
in the TSP emissions. It is not possible to compare the size distri-
bution data from this study with that.from previous fugitive dust sampling
studies because particle size sampling problems make previous data suspect.
247
-------
Recognizing that there are still several unresolved problems with generating
fine particle data for fugitive dust sources, it is concluded that data from
the present study are reasonable based on their consistency and the observed
agreement between dichotomous and cascade impactor data.
HANDLING OF DEPOSITION
The emission factors in Table 13-10 were all developed from sampling
right at the source. The present test data and information from numerous
other studies indicate fairly rapid deposition of these emissions as they
move away from the source. Therefore, any ambient air quality analysis
using these emission factors should have some provision for considering
deposition or fallout.
Different subsets of tests and alternative measurement techniques
(dustfall and apparent source depletion as discussed in Section 12)
produced greatly varying deposition rates with distance, from no
deposition to an average of 79 percent reduction in TSP in the first
100 m. Only a small part of the differences could be explained by
parameters such as wind speed and stability class. The net result
of the large discrepancies was that test data from the study could
not be used to develop a deposition function for application with the
emission factors. An empirically-derived function would have been
limited to about the first 200 m anyway.
Selection from among available theoretical deposition models is
outside the scope of this study, especially since none of the three
that were compared with test data matched well in the majority of the
tests. Of the three theoretical deposition functions, the tilted plume
model is the most simplistic and shows the most rapid deposition over
the first several km. The other two models, source depletion and
surface depletion, display similar rates and represent supposed options
between computational ease and greater accuracy. According to a
published review of the two modesl, source depletion overestimates
deposition at all distances in comparison with the more accurate
surface depletion functions (Horst 1977). However, for the distances
and emission heights of interest in mining analyses, the reported
differences were minimal (less than 10 percent).
248
-------
\
All three deposition modes! require an estimate of settling velocity,
a value usually not available. From the brief analysis of observed
deposition rates shown in the table on Page 6-28, possible values are
2 cm/s for the IP fraction and 10 cm/s for TSP.
249
-------
SECTION 15
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
SUMMARY OF EMISSION FACTORS
Emission facators for 12 significant sources of particulate emissions
at surface coal mines were developed from extensive sampling at three
different Western mines. Five sampling techniques—exposure profiling,
upwind-downwind, balloon sampling, wind tunnel testing, and quasi-stack--
were used on the 12 different source types, to best match the advantages
of a particular sampling technique to the characteristics of a source.
Sampling was conducted throughout the year so that measured emission rates
would be representative of annual emission rates. The resulting emission
factors are summarized in Table 15-1.
The factors for TSP and IP are in the form of equations with corrections
factors for independent variables that were found to have a significant
effect (at the 0.146 or better risk level) on each source's emission rates.
The ranges of independent variables (correction factors) over which sampling
was conducted, and for which the equations is valid, are shown in Table 15-1.
The units for the emission factors and correction factors were selected
for ease in obtaining annual activity rates an$ average parameter values,
respectively. The equations are also appropriate for estimating short-
term emission rates. For any correction factor that cannot be accurately
quantified, a default value equal to its geometric mean (GM) value can be
used, see Table 13-9. For each source, the FP emission factor is obtained
by multiplying the calculated TSP emission factor by the FP fraction shown
in Table 15-1.
The BO and 95 percent confidence intervals for each of the TPS and IP
emission factors, based on sample size and standard deviation, were
previously presented in Table 13-10. The average 80 percent confidence
interval Tor TSP was -20 to +24 percent of the median value. By comparing
confidence intervals for the present emission factors with those for
factors published by EPA in their Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission
Factors, AP-42 (1975), it was determined that the present factors should
"ecei ve ah A ranking.
250
-------
Emission factors were reported for three size ranges—fine participate
(<2.5Ainr), inhalable particulate (<15;jm), and total suspended particulate
(no well-defined upper cut point, but approximated as 40>um). The fairly
consistent ratios of FP and IP to TSP for different sources indicate that
fugitive dust sources at mines all have similar size distributions. Most
of the particle sizing data were obtained with dichotomous samplers.
The emission factors in Table 15-1 are all for uncontrolled emission
rates. Control efficiencies of a few control measures were estimated by
testing, as reported in Table 12-5. These control efficiencies should be
applied to the calculated emission factors in cases where such controls
have been applied or are anticipated. However, many of the dust-producing
operations are not-normally controlled.
The design and field work for this study have received far more review
and quality assurance checks than any similar projects in air pollution
control. However, because of the large variations in emission rates over
time for mining sources and the imprecision of key sampling instruments
while sampling in dense dust plumes, the added care in conducting the
study did not result in appreciable better sampling data with which to
develoo the emission factors.
LIMITATIONS TO APPLICATION OF EMISSION FACTORS
The emission factors are designed to be widely applicable through
the use of correction factors, but they still have some limitations
which should be noted:
1. The factors should be used only for estimating emissions
from Western coal mines. There is no basis for assuming
they would be appropriate for other types of surface mining
operations or for coal mines located in other geographic
areas without further evaluation.
2. Correction factors used in the equations should be limited
to values within the ranges tested (see Table 15-1). This
is particularly important for correction factors with a
large exponent, because of the large change in the resulting
emisison factor associated with a change in the correction
factor.
3. These factors should be combined with a deposition function
for use in ambient air quality analyses. After evaluation
of che deposition data from this study, no empirical
deposition function could be developed. Any function sub-
sequently developed from these data should have provision
for further deposition beyond the distance of sampling
in this study (100-200 m).
253
-------
4. The factors were obtained by sampling at the point of emission
and do not address possible reductions in emissions in order
to account for dust being contained within the mine pit.
5. As with all emission factors, these mining factors do not
assure the calculation of an accurate emission value from
an individual operation. The emis?ion estimates are more
reliable when applied to a large number of operations, as in
the preparation of an emission inventory for an entire mine.
The emission factors are also more reliable when estimating
emissions over the long term because of short-term source
variation.
5. Appropriate, adjustments shoud be made in estimating annual
emissions with these factors to account for days with rain,
snow cover, temperatures below freezing, and intermittent
control measures.
7. The selection of mines and their small number may have biased
final emission factors, but the analysis did not indicate
that a bias exists.
8. The confidence intervals cited in Table 13-10 estimate how
well the equations predict the measured emission rates at
the geometric mean of each correction factor. For predicting
emission rates from a mine not involved in the testing or
, for predicting rates under extreme values of the stated range
of applicability of the correction factors, confidence in-
tervals would be wider.
9. Error analyses for exposure profiling and upwind-downwind
sampling indicated potential errors of 30 to 35 percent and
30 to 50 percent, respectively, independent of the statistical
errors due to source variation and limited sample size.
10. Geometric means were used to describe average emission rates
because the data sets were distributed lognormally rather than
normally. The procedure makes comparison with.previous
emission factors difficult, because previous factors were
all arithmetric mean values.
11. Wind erosion emission estimates should be restricted to
calculation of emissions relative to other mining sources;
they should not be included in estimates of ambient air
impact.
254
-------
REMAINING RESEARCH
A comprehensive study such as the present one that has evaluated
alternative sampling and analytical techniques is bound to identify
areas where additional research would be valuable. Also, some
inconsistencies surface during the data analysis phase, when it is too
late to repeat any of the field studies. Therefore, a brief list of
unresolved problems has been compiled and is presented here.
1. Sampling at Midwestern and Eastern coal mines is definitely
needed so that emission factors applicable to all surface coal
mines are available.
2. A resolution of which deposition function is most accurate
in describing fallout of mining emissions is still needed.
Closely related to this is the need for a good measurement
method for deposition for several hundred meters downwind
of the source (dustfall is recommended for measurements up
to 100 or 200 m). In the present study, both the source
depletion and dustfall measurement methods were found to
have deficiencies.
3. A method for obtaining a valid size distribution of particles
over the range of approximately 1 to 50 /jm under near-
* isokinetic conditions is needed for exposure profiling. The
method should utilize a single sample for sizing rather than
building a size distribution from fractions collected in
different samplers.
4. The emission factors presented herein should be validated by
sampling at one or more additional Western mines and comparing
calculated values with the measured ones.
5. Standardized procedures for handling dichotomous filters should
be developed. These should address such areas as numbering of
the filters rather than their petri dishes, proper exposure
for filters used as blanks, transporting exposed filters to
the laboratory, equilibrating filters prior to weighing, and
evaluation of filter media other than Teflon for studies where
only gravimetric data are required.
6. One operation determined in the study design to be a signifi-
cant dust-producing source, shovel/truck loading of overburden,
was not sampled because it was not performed at any of the
mines tested. Sampling of this operation at a mine in Wyoming
and development of an emission factor would complete the list
of emission factors for significant sources at Western coal
mines (See Table 2-1).
255
-------
7. Further study of emission rate decay over time from eroding
surfaces is needed. In particular, more information should
be obtained on the effect of wind gusts in removing the
potentially erodible material from th; surface during periods
when the average wind speed is not hiyh enough to erode the
surface.
8. More testing of controlled sources should be done so that
confidence in the control efficiencies is comparable to that
. for the uncontrolled emission rates.
256
-------
APPENDIX A
STEPWISE MULTIPLE LINEAR REGRESSION
Multiple linear regression (MLR) 1s a statistical technique for
estimating expected values of a dependent variable, in this case
particulate emission rates, in terms of corresponding values of two
or more other (independent) variables. MLR uses the method of least
squares to determine a linear prediction equation from a set of
simultaneously-obtained data points for all the variables. The
equation is of the form:
Emission rate = B^XI + 82x3 +...+ Bnxn + constant
where xj to xn = concurrent quantitative values for, each of
the independent variables
BI to Bn = corresponding coefficients
The coefficients are estimates of the rate of change in emission
rates produced by each variable. They can be determined easily by
use of an MLR computer program or with a programmed calculator. Other
outputs of the MLR program are:
1. A correlation matrix. It gives the simple correlation coefficients
of all of the variables (dependent and independent) with one another.
It is useful for identifying two interdependent (highly correlated--
either positive or negative) variables (two variables that produce
the same effect on emission rates), one of which should be eliminated
from the analysi s.
2. The multiple correlation coefficient (after addition of each independent
variable to the equation). The square of the multiple correlation
coefficient is the fraction of total variance in emission rates that
is accounted for by the variables in the equation at the point.
3. Residual coefficient of variability. This is the standard deviation
of the emission rates predicted by the equation (with the sample
data set) divided by the mean of the predicted emisison rates,
expressed as a percent. If a variable eliminates some sample
variance, 1t will reduce the standard deviation and hence the
relative coefficient of variability.
A-l
-------
\
4. Significance of regression as a whole. This value is calculated
from an F test by comparing the variance accounted for by the
regression equation to the residual variance. A 0.05 significance
level is a 1 in 20 change of the correlation being due to random
occurrence.
5. Significance of each variable. This is a measure of whether the
coefficient (B) is different than 0, or that the relationship
with the dependent variable is due to random occurrence. Variables
that do not meet a prespecified significance level may be
eliminated from the equation.
6. Constant in the equation.
The multiple correlation coefficient, unlike the simple correlation
coefficient, is always positive and varies from 0 to 1.0. A value of
zero indicates no correlation and 1.0 means that all sample points lie
precisely on the regression plane. Because of random fluctuations
in field data and inability to identify all the factors affecting
emission rates, the multiple coefficient is almost never zero even when
there is no real correlation and never 1.0 even when concentrations
track known variables very closely. Therefore, it is important to test
for statistical significance.
The form of MLR in the program used in this study was stepwise .
MLR. Variables were added to the equation in order of greatest
increase in the multiple correlation coefficient, with concentrations
then adjusted for that variable and regressed against the remaining
variables again. The procedure can be ended by specifying a maximum
number of variables or a minimum F value in the significance test.
In subsequent runs, the order of entry of variables was sometimes
altered by specifying that a certain variable be entered first or
last.
In order to satisfy the requirement that the variables be quanti-
tative, some were input as dummy variables with only two possible values,
For example, in an MLR run of all blasts, one variable had a value of
0 for all coal blasts and 1 for all overburden blasts. The significance
of this variable determined whether there was a significant difference
between coal and overburden blast emission rates, and the B value was
a direct measure of the difference between the two average emission
rates after adjustment for other variables i-n the MLR equation.
A statistically significant regression relationship between
independent variables and particulate emission rates is no indication
that the independent variables cause the observed changes in emission
rate, as both may be caused by a neglected third variable.
A-2
-------
APPENDIX B
CALCULATIONS FOR CONFIDENCE AND PREDICTION INTERVALS
The computational procedures for confidence and prediction intervals
for emission rates are illustrated in this appendix using TSP emission rates
for coal loading as a function of moisture content (M). The data are
tabulated in Table B-l for convenience, that is, the moisture, %, and
the observed enrission_ rate, Ib/ton, for each of the 24 tests. The
arithmetic average (X), standard deviation (s), and geometric mean (GM)
are given at the bottom of the table.
Confidence Interval
The computational procedure for confidence intervals is as follows:
1. The first s^ep in the analysis is to perform a linear regression
analysis. In this example, the dependent variable is the
logarithm of the emission rate (In E) and the independent
variable is the logarithm of moisture (In M). (Natural
logarithms, i.e., to base e are used throughout this
discussion).
2. The prediction equation for the mean In E is given by.
A
In E = b0 * t>i (In M - Tn~M) (B-l)
where
InE i
s the predicted mean for In E as a function of M
b0, b]_ are the regression coefficients estimated from
the data
In M is the In of moisture content
In M is the arithmetic average of In M
(In M = 2.882 for this example)
B-l
-------
TABLE B-l. TSP EMISSION RATES FOR COAL LOADING, LB/TON
Test
number
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
X
s
GM
Moisture,
%
22
22
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
11.9
11.9
11.9
18
18
18
12.2
11.1
11.1
11.1
11.1
6.6
6.6
6.6
21.42
12.64
17.85
Observed
emission,
Ib/ton
0.0069
0.0100
0.0440
0.0680
0.0147
0.0134
0.0099
0.0228
0.0206
0.0065
0.1200
0.0820
0.0510
0.0105
0.0087
0.0140
0.0350
0.0620
0.0580
0.1930
0.0950
0.0420
0.3580
0.1880
0.0639
0.0819
0.0337
8-2
-------
\
5. The geometric mean of the emission factor E is given by:
exp {In E} (B-6)
and this estimates the median value of E as a function
of M. It should be noted that the mean value of E is
•estimated by:
exp {In E + S s2} (B-7)
Throughout the remainder of this discussion the GM
values are used as estimates of the corresponding
median emission value.
6. The' confidence interval for the median value of E as a
function of M is obtained by:
exp {In E ± t s(ln E)} (B-8)
where In E and s(ln E) are obtained from Equations B-2
and B-4, respectively, and t is read for the desired
confidence level from a standard t table available in
almost any statistical test (e.g., Raid's tables2).
Substituting values of M in Equation (B-8) (and B-2 and
B-4) yields the results plotted in Figure 13-1 and
repeated here for convenience as Figure B-l. One must
not go beyond the limits for observed M because there
are no data or theory to support the extrapolation.
The 95 percent confidence limits for the median E at the GM
of M (i.e., exp {2.882} = 17.85%) are:
where
exp {In^E ± 2.074 s(ln\)}
= -3.385
s(lri^E) = [0.0318 + 0.0637(0)]** = 0.178
and the upper (UCL) and lower (LCL) 95 percent confidence limits
are:
° Limits fUCL = °-°49 lb/ton
Limits 1 lb/ton
Similarly, the 80 percent confidence limits are given by.
exp {Iri^E ± 1.321 s
or
B-4
-------
\
0.35
0.30
0.25
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
0
Ti T
T
T
\ 951 CONFIDENCE LIMITS FOR MEDIAN E
\ 95X PREDICTION LIMITS FOR E
\ ESTIMATED MEDIAN EMISSION RATE
o MEASURED EMISSION RATES
10
20 30
MOISTURE, %
40
Figure B-l. Confidence and prediction interva-ls for emission
factors for coal loading.
B-5
-------
ao«/ Limits fUCL = °-043
80% Limits { lb/ton
The median value is:
exp {liTfc} » O.C339
The above confidence limits are also expressed below as percent-
ages of the predicted median, 0.0339.
r
UCL = 1-45 x predicted median
LCL = 0.68 x predicted median
on*/ r-i^.^4-^ rUCL - 1.27 x predicted median
3QA Limits { = 0>8Q x predicted median
These limits are a measure of the quality of the prediction
of the median emission E for given M on the basis of the data
from the three mines. The widths of these confidence intervals
are consistent with data typically reported by EPA as stated in
Section 15.
One application of these limits would be to estimate the
median annual emissions based on a large number of tons of coal
loaded at the mine with GM moisture content of 17.85 percent. If
the moisture content deviates from this value (17.85%), it is
necessary to calculate the interval at the appropriate value of K
using Equation (B-8).
Because of the complication in presenting the complete
results for all sources and pollutants as in Figure B-l, the
confidence intervals are presented only for the correction fac-
tors (M in this example) at their GM value. Table 13-10 contains
these data for all sources and pollutants.
Prediction Interval
The confidence interval previously described gives a measure
of the quality of the data and of the predicted median which is
applicable only for a large number of operations relative to the
emission factor of interest. In the example in this appendix,
this would imply a large number of coal loading operations (or
tonnage of coal loaded). There will be applications in which the
number of operations is not large and a prediction interval is
desired which is expressed as a function of the number of opera-
tions. The calculation of this interval follows the first three
steps of that for the confidence interval; the subsequent steps,
starting with Step 4, are as follows:
4. The standard deviation of an individual predicted In
emission factor is:
8-6
-------
s(ln E) = [s2(lifE) + s2]**
-' [|- + Sj2 (In M - In M)2 + s2]*5 (B-9)
For the coal loading data,
s(ln E) = [0.0318 + 0.0637 (In M - 2.S82)2 + 0.764]*5 (B-10)
5. The prediction interval for an emission factor E is:
exp {In E ± t s(ln E)}
For the coal loading data, this interval is given by:
exp {In E ± t[0.0318 + 0.0637 (In M - 2.8S2)2 •«• 0.764]*5} (B-ll)
The results are plotted in Figure B-l as a function of
M. For the GM of M (i.e., In M = 2.882), the predic-
tion limits are:
95'/ Limits( UPL = °'215 lb/ton
y^% Limitsi TTsr _ n nnc lb/ton
SO0/ Limits f UPL = 0'110 lb/ton
80% Limits I lb/ton
6. The prediction interval for an individual value is
obviously much wider than the corresponding confidence
interval for a median value. If it is desired to pre-
dict the emissions based on a number of operations, say
N (e.g., N tons of coal), the confidence interval is
given by
exp {In E ± t [s2(ln E) * jf-fi] (B-12)
that is, the last term in Equation B-9 is divided by N
instead of 1. Note that as N becomes large this result
simplifies to that of Equation (B-8).
Test for Normality
One of the major assumptions in the calculations of the con-
fidence and prediction intervals is that the In residuals (de-
lations of the In E from In E) are normally distributed, hence
ihe lognormality assumption for the original (and transformed
iata). A check for normality was performed on the In residuals
for six data sets with the largest number of data values. In two
jf the six cases the data deviated from normality (these two
:ases were TSP and IP emissions for Blasting). Based on these
results, the lognormal assumption was made because of both com-
sutational convenience and adequate approximation for most of the
iata.
B-7
-------
REFERENCES
1. Hald, A. Statistical Theory with Engineering Applications,
John Wiley and Sons, Inc. New York. 1952
2. Hald, A. Statistical Tables and Formulas. John Wiley and
Sons, Inc. New York. 1952.
B-8
-------
Appendix G
-------
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
NationJ Technical Information Service
PB-253 092
TECHNICAL MANUAL FOR MEASUREMENT OF FUGITIVE EMISSIONS
UPWIND/DOWNWIND SAMPLING METHOD FOR INDUSTRIAL EMISSIONS
RESEARCH CORPORATION OF NEW ENGLAND
PREPARED FOR
INDUSTRIAL ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORY
APRIL 1976
-------
\
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(ftetu read Inunctions on tfi* rtvent btfort cample tint)
1. REPORT NO.
EPA-600/2-76-089a
2.
4. TITLE ANO SUBTITLE Technical Manual for Measu
Fugitive Emissions: Upwind/Downwind Samp
for Industrial Emissions
7. AUTHOH(S)
Henry j. Kol ins berg
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION>NO.
r&-^£d o<9 jj
rement of •• "B*°"T.%I5
line Method April 1976
b '•"•'-'•"'-"-'a. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION. REPORT NO.
B. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS 10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
TRC— The Research Corporation of New England 1AB015; ROAP 21AUY-095
125 Silas Deane Highway
Wethersfield, Connecticut 06109
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
EPA, Office of Research and Development
Industrial Environmental Research Laborat
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
19. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES Prniect
Ext^2557.
TlTCONTRACT/GRAN f NO.
68-02-2110
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND P,ERiQp COVERED
Task Final: ^/75-l/76r
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
ory
EPA-ORD
officer for this report is R. M. Statnick, Mail Drop 62,
16. AasTHAoj)4Tjie jjjjmyjQ provides a guide for the implementation of the Upwind/Down-
wind Sampling Strategy in the measurement of fugitive emissions. Criteria for
the selection of the most applicable measurement method and discussions of general
information gathering and planning activities are presented. Upwind/downwind
sampling strategies and equipment are described. The design of the sampling system
sampling techniques, and data reduction procedures are discussed. Manpower
requirements and time estimates for typical applications of the method are
presented for programs designed for overall and specific emissions measurements.
The application of the outlined procedures to the measurement of fugitive emissions
from a Portland cement manufacturing plant is presented as an appendix. .
17.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
a. DESCRIPTORS
Air Pollution
Industrial Engineering
Measurement
Sampling
Portland Cements
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Unlimited
b.lOENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
Air Pollution Control
Stationary Sources
Fugitive Emissions
Upwind/Downwind Sam-
pling
Unclassified
2O. SECURITY CLASS (This pag*/
Unclassified
c. COSATi Field/Croup
13B
13H
14B
11 B
76
22. PRICE
>rV^7
EPA farm 2220*1
-------
\
EPA-600/2-76-089a
April 1976
TECHNICAL MANUAL
FOR MEASUREMENT OF
FUGITIVE EMISSIONS:
UPWIND/DOWNWIND SAMPLING METHOD
FOR INDUSTRIAL EMISSIONS
by
Henry J. Kolnsberg
TRC—The Research Corporation of New England
125 Silas Deane Highway
Wethers field, Connecticut 06109
Contract No. 68-02-2110
ROAP No. 21AUY-095
Program Elemeut No. 1AB015
f.
EPA Project Officer: R. M. Statnick
Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory
Office of Energy, Minerals, and Industry
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
Prepared for
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Research and Development
Washington, DC 20460
-------
\
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION
PAGE
1.0 OBJECTIVE 1
2.0 INTRODUCTION 2
2.1 Categories of Fugitive Emissions 2
2.1.1 Quasi-Stack Sampling Method 2
2.1.2 Roof Monitor Sampling Method 3
2.1.3 Upwind-Downwind Sampling Method 3
2.2 Sampling Method Selection 4
2.2.1 Selection Criteria /.
2.2.2 Application of Criteria 6
2.3 Sampling Strategies 9
2.3.1 Survey Measurement Systems 10
2.3.2 Detailed Measurement Systems 10
*
3.0 TEST PROGRAM PROCEDURES 12
3.1 Pretest Survey 12
3.2 Test Plan 13
3.3 Upwind-Downwind Sampling Strategies 17
3.4 Survey Upwind-Downwind Measurement System ... 17
3.4.1 Sampling Equipment 18
3.4.2 Sampling System Design 19
3.4.3 Sampling Techniques 22
3.4.4 Data Reduction 31
3.5 Detailed Upwind-Downwind Measurement System . . 31
3.5.1 Sampling Equipment 32
3.5.2 Sampling System Design 33
3.5.3 Sampling Techniques 34
3.5.4 Data Reduction 39
3.6 Atmospheric Tracers 39
3.7 Quality Assurance . . . . 43
4.0 ESTIMATED COSTS AND TIME REQUIREMENTS 46
APPENDIX
A TEST PROCEDURES APPLICATION
-------
\
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE PAGE
|
u
fi
2-1 Upwind-Downwind Sampling Method Application [j
to Typical Industrial Fugitive Emissions
Sources 5
"i
4
3-1 Pre-test Survey Information to be Obtained £
for Application of Fugitive Emissions Sampling %
Methods 14 JJ
14
3-2 Matrix of Sampling System Design Parameters ... 21
3-3 Atmospheric Stability Categories 23
4-1 Conditions Assumed for Cost Estimation of
Upwind-Downwind Sampling Programs 47
4-2 Estimated Manpower Requirements for Upwind-
Downwind Sampling Programs 48
4-3 Estimated Costs for Upwind-Downwind Sampling
Programs 50
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE PAGE
3-1 Typical Sampler Locations for Selected
Source Site Configurations 23
3-2 Maximum Downwind Sampler Distances 27
3-3 Maximum Crosswlnd Sampler Distances . 29
3-4 Pollutant Concentration Ratios for Crosswind
Locations 35
3-5 Pollutant Concentration Ratios for Vertical
Locations ..... 37
3-6 Vertical Concentration Distribution Factors ... 38
4-1 Elapsed Time Estimates for Upwind-Downwind
Sampling Programs 51
Iv
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
(continued)
FIGURE PAGE
4-2 Cost-effectiveness of Upwind-Downwind Sampling
Programs 52
A-l Portland Cement Plant Site Layout A-3
A-2 Portland Cement Plant Emission Clouds A-9
A-3 Portland Cement Plant Separate Source Clouds . . A-13
-------
\
1»0 OBJECTIVE
The objective of this procedures document is to present a guide
for the utilization of the Upwind-Downwind Sampling Strategy In the
measurement of fugitive emissions. Criteria for the selection of the
most applicable measurement method and discussions of general informa-
tion gathering and planning activities are presented. Upwind-downwind
sampling strategies and equipment are described and sampling system
design, sampling techniques, and data reduction are discussed.
Manpower requirements and time estimates for typical applications
of the method are presented for programs designed for overall and sped-
*
flc emissions measurements.
The application of the outlined procedures to the measurement of
fugitive emissions from a Portland cement manufacturing plane is pre-
sented as an appendix.
-1-
-------
\
2.0 INTRODUCTION
Pollutants emitted into the ambient air from an industrial plant
or other site generally fall into one of two types. The first type is
released into the air through stacks or similar devices designed to
direct and control the flow of the emissions. These emissions may be
readily measured by universally-recognized standard stack sampling tech-
niques. The second type is released into the air without control of
flow or direction. These fugitive emissions usually cannot be measured
using existing standard techniques.
The development of reliable, generally applicable measurement pro-
cedures is a necessary prerequisite to the development of strategies
for the control of fugitive emissions. This document describes some
procedures for the measurement of fugitive emissions using the upwind-
downwind measurement method described in Section 2.1.3 below.
2.1 Categories of Fugitive Emissions
Fugitive emissions emanate from such a wide variety of circumstances
that it is not particularly meaningful to attempt to categorize them
either in terms of the processes or mechanisms that generate chem, or
the geometry of the emission points. A more useful approach is to cate-
gorize fugitive emissions in terms of the methods for their measurement.
Three basic methods exist—quasi-stack sampling, roof monitor sampling,
and upwind-downwind sampling. Each is described in general terms below.
2.1.1 Quaai-Stack Sampling Method
In this method, the fugitive emissions are captured in a temporarily
installed hood or enclosure and vented to an exhaust duct or stack of
-2-
-------
Tegular cross-sectional area. Emissions are then measured in the ez-
hauat duct using standard stack sampling or similar veil recognized
methods. This approach is necessarily restricted to those sources of
emissions that are isolable and physically arranged so as to permit the
installation of a temporary hood or enclosure that wi.ll not interfere
with plant operations or alter the character of the process or the emis-
sions .
2.1.2 Roof Monitor Sampling Method
This method is used to measure the fugitive emissions entering the
ambient air from building or other enclosure openings such «s roof moni-
tors, doors and windows. The method is especially applicable to situa-
tions in which enclosed sources are too numerous or physically configured
to preclude the application of the quasi-atack method to each source.
Sampling is, in general, limited to a mixture of all uncontrolled emis-
sion sources within the enclosure and requires the ability to make low
velocity exhaust air measurements and mass balances of small quantities
of materials entering and leaving the enclosure through the openings.
2.1.3 Upwind-Downwind Sampling Method
This method is utilized to measure the fugitive emissions from
sources typically covering large areas that cannot be temporarily hooded
and are not enclosed in a structure allowing the use of the roof moni-
tor method. Such sources include material handling and storage opera-
tions, waste dumpa, and industrial processes in which the emissions are
spread over large areaa. These features are embodied in the typical
-3-
-------
industrial sources and their emitted pollutants listed in Table 2-1.
The upwind-downwind method quantifies the emissions from such sources
as the difference between the pollutant concentrations measured in the
ambient air approaching (upwind) and leaving (downwind) the source site.
It may also be utilized in combination with mathematical models and
tracer tests to define the contributions to total measured emissions of
specific sources among a group of sources.
2.2 Sampling Method Selection
The initial step in the measurement of fugitive emissions at an
Industrial site Is the selection of the most appropriate sampling method
to be employed. Although it is Impossible to enumerate all the combina-
tions of Influencing factors that might be encountered In a specific
situation, careful consideration of the following general criteria should
result in the selection of the moat effective of the three sampling
methods described above.
2.2.1 Selection Criteria
The selection criteria listed below are grouped into three general.
classifications common to all fugitive emissions measurement methods.
The criteria, are Intended to provide only representative examples and
should not be considered a complete listing of influencing factors.
2.2.1.1 Site Criteria
Source laolablllty. Can the emissions be measured separately from
emissions from other sources? Can the source be enclosed?
Source Location. Is the source indoors or out? Does location
-4-
-------
••Pliant
•««••««•«*•
•Ws'll
t «»0
••pTJonf
l«ns
ling
mvi
ling
ing volt
•ttioij t
• ft
-lots f 3
»«r»»«ts i»i
•puo| ttvjoif
JtjiatJl ling
-ij|nbl foil
*«1J » «•«$
1'J'MI
'OS
'HDD
•HM-'OS'J'H
fHI *ni'«wi
ling
ltn<
Itnq
ling
Iffy]
Itnfl
•"i
jttyj {to
ling 1*03
-jois
•ffioi;
>tt
JotS »l«nf
t »»MP
n •>|>cvf
•t>joif
1000 't
| to|llno
•tll01| 1*0}
• 31IWJ
•"111*
l]»npo|
sutnof K>tf$ua uizigai inusnan TQIJLU 01
oomw rmtnri cHuvmcxi-aruun
t-t nru
-------
\
permit access of measuring equipment?
Meteorological Conditions. What are the conditions representative
of typical and critical situations? Will precipitation Interfere
with measurements? Will rain or snow on ground effect dust levels?
2.2.1.2 Process Criteria
Number and Size of Sources. Are emissions from a single, well
defined location or many scattered locations? Is source small
enough to hood?
Homogeneity of Emissions. Are emissions the same type everywhere
at the site? Are reactive effects between different emissions
involved?
Continuity of Process. Will emissions be produced long enough to
obtain meaningful samples?
Effects of Measurements. Are special procedures required to pre-
vent She making of measurements from altering the process or emis-
sions or interfering with production? Are such procedures feasible?
2.2.1.3 Pollutant Criteria
Nature of Bnisslons. Are measurements of particles, gases, liquids
required? Are emissions hazardous?
Balsaion Generation Rate. Are enough emissions produced to provide
measurable samples in reasonable sampling time?
Emission Dilution. Will transport air reduce emission concentra-
tion below measurable levels?
2.2.2 Application of Criteria
The application of the selection criteria listed in Section 2.2.1
to each of the fugitive emissions measurement methods defined in Section
2.1 is described In general terms in this section.
-------
\
2.2.2.1 Quaal-Stack Method
Effective uae of Che qua*i-stack method requires that the source
of emissions be iaolable and that an enclosure can be installed capable
of capturing emissions without interference with plant operations. The
location of the source alone ia not normally a iacto' . Meteorological
conditions usually need be considered only if they directly affect the
sampling.
The quaai-stack method ia usually restricted to a single source
and oust be limited to two or three email sources that can be effectively
enclosed to duct their total emissions to a single sampling point.
Cyclic processes should provide measurable pollutant quantities during
a single cycle to avoid sample dilution. The possible effects of the
d
measurement on the process or emissions is of special significance in
this method. In many cases, enclosing a portion of a process In order
to capture its emissions can alter that portion of the process by chang-
ing its temperature profile or affecting flow rates. Emissions may be
similarly altered by reaction with components of the ambient air drawn
into the sampling ducts. While these effects are not necessarily limit-
ing in the selection of the method, they must be considered in designing
the test program and could Influence the method selection by Increasing
complexity and costs.
The quaai-stack method is useful for virtually all types of emis-
sions. It will provide aeasurable samples in generally short sampling
times since it captures essentially all of the emissions. Dilution of
the pollutants of concern is of little consequence since it can usually
be controlled in the. design of the sampling system.
-7-
-------
\
2.2.2.2 Roof Monitor Method
Practical utilization of the roof monitor method demands Chat the
source of emissions be enclosed in a structure with a limited number of
openings to the atmosphere. Measurements may usually be made only of
the total of all emissions sources within the structure. Meteorological
conditions normally need not be considered in selecting this method
unless they have a direct effect on the flow of emissions through cha
enclosure opening.
The number of sources and the mi::Cure of emissions is relatively
unimportant since the measurements usually include only the total emis-
sions. The procesnes involved may be discontinuous as long as a repre-
tientative combination of the typical or critical groupings may be in-
cluded in a sampling. Measurements will normally have no effect on the
processes or emissions.
The roof monitor method, usually dependent on or at least influ-
enced by gravity in the transmission of emissions, may not be useful
for the measurement of larger particulates which may settle within che
enclosure being sampled. Emission generation rates must be high enough
to provide pollutant concentrations of measurable magnitude after dilu-
tion in the enclosed volume of the structure.
2.2.2.3 Upwind-Downwind Method
The upwind-downwind method, generally utilized where neither of
the other methods may be successfully employed, is not influenced by
the number or location of the emission sources except as they influence
-8-
-------
the locating of stapling devices. In most cases, only the total con-
tribution to the ambient atmosphere of all sources within a sampling
area may be measured. The method is strongly influenced by meteorolog-
ical conditions, requiring a wind consistent in direction and velocity
throughout the sampling period as well as conditions of temperature,
humidity and ground moisture representative of normal ambient condi-
tions.
The emissions measured by the-upwind-downwind method may be the
total contribution from a single source or from a mixture of many sources
in a large area. Continuity of the emissions is generally of secondary
importance since the magnitude of the ambient air volume into which Che
emissions are dispersed is large enough to provide a degree of smooth-
ing to cyclic emissions. The measurements have no effect on the emis-
sions or processes involved.
Moct airborne pollutants can be neasured by the upwind-downwind
method. Generation rates must be high enough to provide measurable
concentrations at the sampling locations after dilution with Che ambient
air. Settling rates of the larger particulates require that the sampling
system be carefully designed to ensure that representative particulate
samples are collected.
2.3 Sampling Strategies
Fugitive emissions measurements may, in general, be separated into
two classes or levels depending upon the degree of accuracy desired.
Survey measurement systems are designed to screen emissions and provide
gross measurements of a number of process influents and effluents at a
-9-
-------
\
relatively lov level of effort la time and coat. Detailed systems are
designed to isolate, identify, and quantify individual contaminant con-
stituents with increased accuracy and higher investments in time and
cost.
*
w 2.3.1 Survey Measurement Systems
Survey measurement systems employ recognized standard or state-
of-the-art measurement techniques to screen the total emissions from a
site or source and determine whether any of the emission constituents
should be considered for tore detailed investigation. They generally
utilize the simplest available arrangement of instrumentation and pro-
cedures in.a relatively brief sampling program, usually without pro-
visions for sample replication, to provide order-of-magnitude type data,
embodying a factor of two to five in accuracy range with respect to
actual emissions.
2.3.2 Detailed Measurement Systems
Detailed measurement systems are used in instances where survey
measurements or equivalent data indicate that a specific emission con-
stituent may be present in a concentration worthy of concern. Detailed
systems provides more precise identification and quantification of spe-
cific constituents by utilizing the latest state-of-the-art measurement
instrumentation and procedures in carefully designed sampling programs.
These systems are also utilized to provide emission data over a range
of process operating conditions or ambient meteorological influences.
Basic accuracy of detailed measurements is in the order of + 10 to + 50
-10-
-------
\
percent of actual missions. Detailed measurement system coats are
generally in the order of three to five times the cost of a survey sys-
tem at a given site.
-11-
-------
3.0 TEST PROGRAM PROCEDURES
*
This section describes the procedures required to successfully
complete a testing program utilizing the upwind-downwind sampling method
described in Section 2.1. It details the information required to plan
the program, describes the organization of the test plan, specifies the
types of sampling equipment to be used, establishes criteria for the
sampling system design, and outlines basic data reduction methods.
3.1 Pretest Survey
After the measurement method to be utilized in documenting the
fugitive emissions at a particular site has been established using the
criteria of Section 2.2, a pretest survey of the site should be con-
ducted by the program planners. The pretest survey should result in an
informal, incarnal report containing all the information necessary for
the preparation of a test plan and the design of the sampling system by
the testing organization.
This section provides guidelines for conducting a pretest survey
and preparing a pretest survey report.
3.1.1 Information to be Obtained
In order to design a system effectively and plan for the on-site
sampling of fugitive emissions, a good general knowledge is required of
the plant layout, process chemistry and flow, surrounding environment,
and prevailing meteorological conditions. Particular characteristics
of the site relative to the needs of the owner, the products involved,
the space and manpower skills available, emission control equipment
-12-
-------
installed, and the safety and health procedures observed, will also
influence the sampling system design and plan. Work flow patterns and
schedules that nay result in periodic changes in the nature or quantity
of emissions or that Indicate periods for the most effective and least
disruptive sampling must also be considered. Most of this information -
can only be obtained by a survey at the site. Table 3-1 outlines some
of the specific information to be obtained. Additional information will
be suggested by considerations of the particular on-site situation.
3.1.2 Report Organization
The informal, internal pretest survey report must contain all the
pertinent information gathered during and prior to the site study. A
summary of all communications relative to the test program should be
included in the report along with detailed descriptions of the plant
layout, process, and operations as outlined in Table 3-1. The report
should also Incorporate drawings, diagrams, maps, photographs, meteoro-
logical records, and literature references that will be helpful in plan-
ning the test program.
3.2 Test Plan
3.2.1 Purpose of a Test Plan
Measurement programs are very demanding in terms of the scheduling
and completion of many preparatory tasks, observations at sometimes
widely separated locations, Instrument checks to verify measurement
validity, etc. It is therefore essential that all of the experiment
design and planning be done prior to the start of the measurement pro-
-13-
-------
TABLE 3-1
PRE-TZST SURVEY INFORMATION TO BE OBTAINED
FOR APPLICATION OF FUGITIVE EMISSION SAMPLING METHODS
Plant
Layout
Drawings:
Building Layout and Plan View of Potential Study Areas
Building Side Elevations to Identify Obstructions and
Structure Available to Support Test Setup
Work Flow Diagrams -
Locations of Suitable Sampling Sites
Physical Layout Measurements to Supplement Drawings
Work Space Required at Potential Sampling Sites
Process
Process Flow Diagram with Fugitive Emission Points
Identifisd
General Description of Process Chemistry
General Description of Process Operations Including
Initial Estimate of Fugitive Emissions
Drawings of Equipment or Segments of Processes Where
Fugitive Emissions are to be Measured
Photographs (if permitted) of Process Area Where
Fugitive Emissions are to be Measured
Names, Extensions, Locations of Process Foremen and
Supervisors Where Tests are to be Conducted
Operations
Location of Available Services (Power Outlets, Main-
tenance and Plant Engineering Personnel, Labora-
tories, etc.)
Local Vendors Who Can Fabricate and Supply Test System
Components
Shift Schedules
Location of Operations Records (combine with process
operation information)
Health and Safety Considerations
Other
Access routes to the areas Where Test Equipment/Instru-
mentation Will Be Located
Names, Extension-, Locations of Plant Security and
Safety Supervisors
-14-
-------
\
gram in the form of a detailed test plan. The preparation of such a
plan enaoles the investigator to "pre-think" effectively and cross-check
all of the details of the design and operation of a measurement program
prior to the commitment of manpower and resources. The plan then also
serves aa the guide for the actual performance of the work. The test
plan provides a formal specification of the equipment snd procedures
required to satisfy the objectives of the measurement program. It is
based on the Information collected in the informal pretest survey re-
port and describes the most effective sampling equipment, procedures,
and timetables consistent with the program objectives and site charac-
teristics .
3.2.2 Teat Plan Organization
The test plan should contain specific Information in each of the
topical areas indicated below:
Background
^—^^**»^B-^—«•
The introductory paragraph containing the pertinent infor-
nation leading to the need to conduct the measurement program and
a short description of the information required to answer that
need.
Objective
A concise statement of the problem addressed by the test
program and a brief description of the program's planned method
for its solution.
Approach
A description of the measurement scheme and data reduction
methodology employed in the program with a discussion of how each
will answer the needs identified in the background statement.
-15-
^ufkfSnii^b
-------
\
Inatrnmentation/Equipment/Facilities
A description of the instrumentation arrays tc be used to
collect the samples and meteorological data identified in the
approach description. The number and frequency of samples to be
taken and the sampling array resolution should be described.
A detailed description of the equipment to be employed and
its purpose.
A description of the facilities required to operate the
measurement program, including work-space, electrical power, ~ ""
support from plant personnel, special construction, etc.
Schedule
A detailed chronology of a typical set of measurements or e
test, and the overall schedule of events from the planning stage
through the completion of the test program report.
Liai tationa
A definition of the conditions under which the measurement
project is to be conducted. If, for example, successful tests can
be conducted only during occurrences of certain wind directions,
those favorable limits should be stated.
Analysis Method
A description of the methods which will be used to analyze
the samples collected and the resultant data, e.g., statistical or
case analysis, and critical aspects of that method.
Report Requirements
A draft outline of the report on the analysis of the data to
be collected along with definitions indicating the purpose of the
report and the audience for which it is Intended.
Quality Assurance
The test plan should address the development of a quality
assurance program as outlined in Section 3.7. This QA program
should be an integral part of the measurement program and be in-
corporated as a portion of the test plan either directly or by
reference.
Responsibilities
A list of persons who are responsible for each phase of the
measurement program, as defined in the schedule, both for the
testing organization and for the plant site.
-------
3.3 Ppvlnd-Downiflnd Stapling Strategies
i
| Th« upwind-downwind sampling method, as described In Section 2.1.3,
| la used to quantify the emissions from a source to the ambient atmosphere
3
jj by measuring pollutant levels in the atmosphere. Upwind measurements
\
are made within the ambient air approaching the site of the source,
using sampling equipment suitable for the specific emissions to be mea-
sured, to determine the baseline concentration of pollutants in the
air* Downwind measurements are made of the air within-the cloud of
pollutants emitted by the source, using sampling equipment similar to
that used for the upwind measurements, to determine the total of Che
ambient air and the source's contribution to the concentration of pol-
lutants. The pollutants contributed by the source to the cloud at the
sampling locations are determined as the difference between the measured
upwind and downwind concentrations. Measurement of the wind speed and
direction at the site are combined with the pollutant concentrations at
the sampling locations in diffusion equations to back-calculate the
source strength of the emissions. Section 3.4 and 3.5 describe the
equipment used for sampling, the criteria for sampling system design,
sampling techniques, and data reduction procedures for respectively,
survey and detailed upwind-downwind sampling programs.
3.4 Survey Upwind-Downwind Measurement System
A survey measurement system, as defined in Section 2.3, is designed
to provide gross measurements of emissions to determine whether any
constituents should be considered for more detailed investigation. A
survey upwind-downwind measurement system in its simplest form utilizes
-17-
-------
a single upwind sampler for Che determination of the concentration of
the pollutants of concern in the ambient air approaching the source of
the emissions and two or three identical downwind samplers for the de-
termination of the pollutant concentration and distribution in the am-
bient air leaving the source. These data, combined with measurements
of the ambient air wind speed and direction, are used to calculate che
emission rate of the source.
3.4.1 Sampling Equipment
Pollutants that may be measured by the upwind-downwind technique
are limited to those that can be airborne for significant distances,
i.e., participates and gases. The gross measurement requirements for
survey sampling of particulates are best satisfied by high volume fil-
ter devices t-n provide data on the average emission rate, particle size
distribution, and particle composition. Particle charge transfer or
piezoelectric mass monitoring devices may be utilized for continuous or
semi-continuous sampling of intermittent emission sources where peak
levels must be defined.
Gaseous emissions in survey programs are usually grab-sampled for
laboratory analysis using any of a wide variety of evacuated sampling
vessels or chemical bubblers. Continuous or semi-continuous sampling
of specific gases may be accomplished using such devices as continuous
monitor flame ionization detectors (for hydrocarbons) and automated
flame photometric devices (for sulfur dioxide).
-18-
-------
3.4.2 Stapling System Design
The number and location of the devices used to collect samples la
extremely important to the successful completion of a survey upwind-
downwind sampling program, especially since the program is designed for
minimum cost and provides for no replication of samples. The design of
the sampling system is influenced by such factors as source complexity
and size, site location and topography, and prevailing meteorological
conditions which govern the distribution of the pollutant cloud in the
ambient atmosphere. Most situations will in general fit into some com-
bination of the following parameters;
Source - Sources may be either homogeneous, emitting a single type
or mixture of pollutants from each and every emission location, or
heterogeneous, emitting different types or mixtures of pollutants
from different locations. The resultant cloud of pollutants will,
for a homogeneous source, be homogeneous. The pollutant cloud for
a heterogeneous source may be either heterogeneous or, as a result
of mixing by suitably directed or turbulent ambient air flow, homo-
geneous. The physical size of a source will determine the extent
of the pollutant cloud and may influence its homogeneity, the prox-
imity of different emissions to each other largely Influencing the
degree of mixing in the cloud for a given downwind distance.
Site - Sites in general may be open on level terrain with free
access of ambient air from all sides, partially obstructed by hills
or buildings that interfere with or Influence the ambient air flow
either up- or dovnwiud, or located in a valley between hilla or
large buildings that influence the air flow both up- and downwind.
Each type of topography will influence the extent and homogeneity
of the pollutant cloud depending on the direction of the wind flow
relative to the obstructions.
Meteorology - The direction of the prevailing wind determines the
basic location of upwind and downwind samplers. It will influence
the pollutant cloud in every instance except that of a homogeneous
cloud at an open level site. In other instances, the wind may be
directed generally across or parallel to obstructing hills or
valleys which may result in channeling, lofting, or swirling of
the air flow across the site that will distort the pollutant cloud.
The homogeneity of the ambient air approaching the measurement
site, while not in the strict sense a meteorological condition,
-19-
-------
\
may affect the composition and distribution of different pollutants
within the pollutant cloud. Contributions from sources upwind of
the site may result in variations in the pollutant concentrations
in the ambient air passing over the site and thus in the pollutant
cloud as well.
Wind speed, which can affect the cloud's size and distribution,
need not be considered as a governing design factor since it is to
some degree controllable by scheduling to avoid periods of either
excessive wind velocity or calm conditions. Wind speeds within
normal limits are taken into consideration in data reduction cal-
culations.
Table 3-2 presents a matrix of 20 possible combinations of these
parameters (cloud homogeneity, site topography, wind direction and am-
bient air homogeneity). The simplest combination, that of a homogeneous
cloud in an open level site with homogeneous ambient air, would typically
require a single upwind sampler and cwo downwind samplers located within
the cloud. The complexity of the sampler system design is, in general,
increased by changes in the parameters as follows:
Cloud Homogeneity. A heterogeneous cloud will generally limit the
placement of the downwind samplers to the portion of the cloud
that contains the combined emissions from the various sources. It
may also require the addition of samplers in the cloud to provide
data on the extent of the effects of the heterogeneity and the
consequent variability of the pollutant distributions. This param-
eter will not affect the upwind samplers.
Site Topography. Depending on the relationship of the topography
obstructions and the wind direction, this parameter may affect
both upwind and downwind samplers. Hills and valleys may cause
lofting or depression of the pollutant cloud, requiring sampler
elevation on towers or limiting the downwind distance of samplers
within the cloud. They may also provide funnelling effects that
limit the dispersion of the cloud and restrict the lateral position-
ing of the downwind samplers. Upwind sampler locations may be
restricted by lofting or depression of the ambient air approaching
the site.
Wind Direction. Changes in this parameter alone are not generally
a major factor in the sampling system design. They will dictate
-20-
-------
IA>U 3-2
MATRIX OF SAMPLING SYSTEM DESIGN PAJUM£TE*S
Cloud
Homogeneity
Hoaageneou*
(1)
Heterogeneous
(2)
Sit*
Topography
Open
(H
Hilt
(2)
Valley
0)
Open
0)
Hill
(2)
valley
0)
Wind
Direction
Hot *
Factor
(0)
Parallel (o
Hill (1)
Over Hill
(2)
Down Valley
(1)
Acroa* Valley
(2)
Not a
Factor
(0)
Parallel to
Hill (1)
Over Hill
(2)
Down Valley
(1)
Across Valley
(2)
Ambient Air
Homogeneity
Homogeneous
(1)
Heterogeneous
(2)
Homo (1)
Hetero (2)
Homo (1)
Hetero (2)
Homo (1)
lietero (2)
Homo (1)
Hetero (2)
Homogeneous
(1)
Heterogeneous
<2)
Homo (1)
Hetero (2)
HOBO (1)
Hetero (2)
HOBO (1)
Hetero (2)
Hooo (1)
Hetero (2)
Cloud HomogeneityI
Homogeneous - Source* «t nit* all emitting sas* pollutant*.
- Source* of different pollutant* grouped *o that
emissions ars mlxnd before campling. ,
Heterogeneous - Source* et *lt* emitting' Identifiable different
pollutant* - no mixing before (sapling.
Site Topography:
Open
Hill
Valley
l.'lnd Direction:
- Sit* on flat terrain ambient air access from any
direction unhindered.
- Site close enough to rise In terrain or large
buildings to cause channeling or lofting of am-
bient air.
- Site between rise* in terrain or large building*.
Parallel to - Wind across lite channeled against side of hill.
Hill Usually changes shape of pollutant cloud and
distribution of pollutant* within cloud.
Across Hill - Wind across *ite from or to hill top. Can cause
lofting of depression of pollutant cloud.
Down Valley - Wind across site chsnnelcd against aide* of hill*.
Aero** Valley - Wind across site from hill to hill.
Ambient Air Homogeneity:
Homogeneous - Pollutants in approaching air evenly distributed.
Heterogeneous - Pollutants in approaching air measurably different
at points over site. Usually caused by emisafon*
from nearby upwind external source.
-------
changes in the design in combination with other factors such as
site topography, described above, or the presence of external
sources, which may influence the homogeneity of the approaching
ambient air, described below.
Ambient Air Homogeneity. The presence of external emission sources
that may result in variations in the pollutant concentrations and
distributions in the air approaching a site may require the addi-
tion of samplers both upwind and downwind to ensure that the mea-
surements of the pollutants of interest are not unduly influenced
or masked. Samplers typically are required within and outside of
the external source cloud both upwind and downwind.
Typical sampler locations for selected source site configurations
illustrating some of these effects are sketched in Figure 3-1. The
configurations are identified by a four-digit number referring, in left-
to-right order, to the numbers assigned to 'the parameters identified in
the matrix of Table 3-2. A configuration with a homogeneous cloud emitted
at a valley site with cross-valley wind direction and homogeneous am-
bient air is thus identified as 1321.
3.4.3 Sampling Techniques.
Sampling must be scheduled and carefully designed to ensure that
data representative of the emission conditions of concern are obtained.
Effective scheduling demands that sufficient knowledge of operations
and process conditions be obtained to determine proper starting times
and durations for samplings. The primary concern of the sampling design
is that sufficient amounts of the various pollutants are collected to
provide meaningful measurements.
Each of the various sample collection and analysis methods has an
associated lower limit of detection, typically expressed in terms of
mlcrograms of captured solid material and either micrograms or parts
per million in air of gases. Samples taken must provide at least these
-22-
-------
Wind
1101
2102
1221
2311
Legend
crA Homogaous doud sourca
r^ Hataroganaous doud sourca
Q Extarnai sourca
* I ^•nulai1
•^•:-' Sourca doud
?= Extarnai sourca doud
F10. 3*1. Typical sampler locations for selected sourca sita configuration!.
-23-
-------
\
mininnna amounts of the pollutants to be quantified. The amount (M) of
a pollutant collected is the product of the concentration of the pollu-
tant in the air (x) and the volume of air sampled (V), thus,
M (taicrograms) » x (micrograms/cubic meter) x V (cubic meters).
To ensure that a sufficient amount of pollutant is collected, an ade-
quately large volume of air must be passed through such samplers as
particle filters or gas absorbing trains for~a specif Ire but uncontrolla-
ble concentration. The volume of air (V) is the product of its flow
rate (F) and the sampling time (T),
V (cubic meters) - F (cubic meters/minute) x T (minutes).
Since tha sampling time is most often dictated by the test conditions,
the only control available to an experimenter is the sampling flow
rate. A preliminary estimate of the required flow rate for any sam-
pling location may be made if an estimate or rough measurement of the
concentration expected is available. The subaitution and rearrangement
of terms in the above equations yields Equation 3-1:
F (cubic meters/minute) - M (micrograms)/x (micrograms/cubic meter)
x T (minutes). (3-1)
This equation permits the calculation of the minimum acceptable flow
rate for a required sample size. Flow rates should generally be adjusted
upward by a factor of at least 1.5 to compensate for likely inaccuracies
in estimates of concentration.
Grab-samples of gaseous pollutants provide for no means of pollu-
tant sample quantity control except in terms of the volume of the sample.
-24-
-------
\ .
Care should be taken, therefore, to correlate the sample size with the
requirements of the selected analysis method.
Sampler location is also important in obtaining representative
data. Downwind sampler location is especially critical to ensure that
samples are taken at points known to be within the pollutant cloud at
measurable concentrations. A rough estimate of acceptable downwind
sampler locations may be made utilizing the basic equation^ for the
diffusion of gases and participates in the atmosphere from a ground-
level source: x * Q/*Ku» where
X * pollutant concentrations at receptor point, gm/m3
Q - source emission rate, gm/sec
K » product of standard deviations of vertical and
horizontal pollutant distribution, m2
u • wind speed, m/sec
This equation assumes a Gaussian distribution of pollutants in both the
vertical and horizontal directions and no deposition or reaction of
pollutants at the earth's surface.
By rearranging terms, the product of the standard deviations (K) ,
which are functions of the downwind distance (x) of the receptor from
the source, may be determined as a function of easily estimated or
measured parameters in Equation 3-2:
(3-2)
^ Turner, D. Bruce, "Workbook of Atmospheric Dispersion Estimates,"
U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Public Health Service
Publication No. 999-AP-26, Revised 1969.
-25-
-------
\
where
Q la estimated from published emission factors,
X is set equal to a selected value related to
the sampling method detection limit and
u is measured at the site.
The maximum downwind sampler distance from the source along the axis of
the wind direction (x) may then be determined from the curves of Figure
3-2, which relate K and x for various atmospheric stability categories.
These categories are listed and explained in Table 3-3.
When suitable x-distances, which may be any distance less Chan the
maximum determined from Figure 3-2, have been selected, cross-wind dis-
tances (y) perpendicular to the x-axis that will ensure that samples
are taken within the limits of the cloud must be determined. Maximum
cross-wind distances, which are a function of the distribution of che
pollutant concentrations within the cloud, are plotted as a function of
x in the curves of Figure 3-3 for the same atmospheric stability cate-
gories used in determining x. Downwind samplers should in general be
located at two different x-distances within che limits of the maximum
as determined above and at cross-wind y distances less Chan che maximum
indicated in Figure 3-3 on opposite sides of the wind direction axis.
Upwind samplers should ideally be located on the wind direction
axis Just far enough upwind to prevent sampling the backwash of che
pollutant cloud. A minimum upwind distance of x 710, where x is
max max
determined using x equal to che sampling method-1 a lower detection limit,
will usually be sufficient.
-26-
-------
1 I I I I I I
Atmospheric
stability
category
100
200 400 600 800
Maximum downwind sampler distance from
source along wind direction axis (x) - meters
Ftg. 3-2. Maximum downwind sampler distances.
1000
-27-
-------
\
TABLE 3-3
ATMOSPHERIC STABILITY CATEGORIES
Hind Speed
a/ sec
< 2
2-3
3-5
5-6
> 6
Dav*
Solar Altltudet
> 60*
A
A-B
B
C
C
35*-60«
A-B
B
B-C
C-D
D
15°-35°
B
C
C
D
D
N-fff
Overcast or
> 50Z Clouds
- '
E
D
D
D
*r
< SOS Clouds
-
F
E
D
D
*Day Is one hour after sunrise to one hour before sunset.
altitude may be determined form Table 170, Solar
Altitude and Azimuth* Smithsonian Meteorological Tables.
Use neutral class D for overcast conditions at any wind
speed. - Parital cloud cover (60 percent to 85 percent)
will reduce effective solar altitude one division (e.g.,
from > 60*. to 35*-60a) for middle clouds and two divi-
sions (e.g., from >60* to 15*-35") for low clouds.
-28-
-------
\
300
Atmospheric
stability
category
0 100 200 400 600 800
Downwind sampler distance (x) • meters
1000
Fig. 3-3. Maximum crosswind sampler distances.
\
\
-29-
-------
To illustrate the application of the equations and curves presented
in this section, assume a source emitting particulates into a four meter
per second wind at an estimated rate of 10 grams per second, and a sam-
pler with a lower detection limit of .001 gram and flow rate of 0.67
cubic meter per minute. For a sampling time of 10 minutes, the required
pollutant concentration, Xt at the sampler is x * M/FT, where
M - .001 gram
F - 0.67 cubic meter/minute x 1.5 adjustment factor -
1 cubic meter/minute
T • 10 minutes, and
X • .001/10 - 10-l* grams/cubic meter
The product of the pollutant cloud's standard deviations, K, is found
In Equation 3-2, K - Q/*xu» where
Q • 10 grams/second
X • 10 grams/cubic meter
u « 4 meters/second, and
K " 10/ir x 10"1* x 4 - 8 x 103 meters squared
To measure the emissions during midday with clear skies, Table 3-3
Indicates an atmospheric stability category B for the four meter/second
wind. Figure 3-2 for K - 8 x 103 and category 3 indicates a maximum
sampler downwind distance of 630 meters. Figure 3-3 for x * 680 meters
and category B Indicates a maximum cross-wind distance of 145 meters.
Downwind samplers must then be located within the limits of a tri-
angle with an apex at the source, an altitude of 680 meters along the
wind direction axis and a base 145 meters wide on each aide of the axis.
The upwind sampler should be located along the wind direction axia
at a minimum distance of x 710-68 meters from the source.
max
-30-
-------
\
A more detail«d description of the application of this method is
presented in the appendix.
3.4.4 Data Reduction
When the sampling program has been completed and the samples have
been analyzed to yield pollutant concentrations in such teraa as micro-
grams per cubic meter in the ambient air at each downwind sampling site,
the measured upwind concentrations are subtracted to yield the concen-
tration provided by the source at each sampler. These values are then
back-calculated through known diffusion equations that take into account
the variables of topography and meteorology to produce statistical dis-
tributions of the concentrations within a pollutant cloud generated by
a given source. These calculations yield source strengths of the emis-
sions in such terms as grams per unit time. A library of computer pro-
grams to assist in the performance of the calculations is maintained in
the User's Network for Applied Models of Air Pollution (UNAMAP) at the
Environmental Protection Agency's Research Triangle Computer Center/1^
Additional programs may be obtained through many environmental consul-
tants.
3.5 Detailed Upwind-Downwind Measurement System
A detailed measurement system is designed to more precisely iden-
tify and quantify specific pollutants chat a survey measurement or
equivalent data indicate as a possible problem area. A detailed system
Bulletin American Meteorological Society, Vol. 56, No. 12,
December, 1975.
-31-
-------
\
is necessarily more complex than a survey system in terms of equipment,
system design, sampling techniques, and data reduction. It requires a
much larger investment in terms of equipment, time, and manpower and
yields data detailed and dependable enough for direct action toward
achieving emissions control. Detailed systems in general employ sam-
pling arrays or networks to measure the concentration and distribution
of specific pollutants in the ambient air approaching and leaving a
source. These actual measurements of the pollutant' distribution within
a cloud and the variations in meteorological conditions during the sam-
pling period replace the assumptions utilized in survey sampling sys-
tems. Detailed systems are frequently employed to compare emissions ac
different process or operating conditions to determine which conditions
dictate the need for emission control.
The data provided by the sampling arrays are processed in conjunc-
tion with more detailed meteorological data which are taken simultan-
eously to determine source emission rates and ambient distributions in
much the same manner as the simpler survey systems.
3.5.1 Sampling Equipment
The pc LItanta to be characterized by a detailed upwind-downwind
sampling system fall into the same two basic classes—airborae partic-
ulates and gases—as those measured by survey systems. Detailed sam-
pling and analysis equipment is generally selected to obtain continuous
or semi-continuous measurements of specific pollutants rather than sla-
ple grab-sampled measurements.
Particulate samples are collected using filter impaction, piezo-
-32-
-------
electric, particle change transfer, light or radiation scattering, elec-
trostatic, and size selective or adhesive impaction techniques. Gases
are sampled and analyzed using flame ionization detectors, bubbler/im-
pinger trains, non-dispersive infrared or ultraviolet monitors, flame
I
photometry, and other techniques specific to individual gaseous pollu- ! -^
•*
rants. :
i
i .;
The selection of suitable sampling equipment should be influenced {
I
by such considerations as portability, power requirements, detection :
limits and ease of control. :
i
i
i
3.5.2 Sampling System Design |
The basic criteria reviewed in Section 3.4.2 for the design of a '
survey sampling system are generally applicable to the design of a de-
tailed svstem. The need for replacement of survey assumptions as to
pollutant distribution with actual measured values, however, most fre-
quently requires the design of a sampling array or netvork that will
provide samples of a distribution at various distances downwind of the
source in both the horizontal and vertical directions. Sampler loca-
tions may generally be determined in the same manner as those for a.
survey system. For detailed measurements, each location must provide
for sampling across a section of the pollutant cloud horizontally and/
or vertically. Horizontal distributions may be measured by adding a
number of samplers (usually at least two) at either side of the survey
sampler location at distances estimated to yield significantly differ-
ent pollutant concentrations. Vertical distributions may be measured
by placing a tower of suitable height at each survey sampler location
-33-
-------
\
and adding samplers over a range of heights on each tower. Combina-
tions of horizontal and vertical distributions may be measured by plac-
ing a grid of horizontally and vertically spaced samplers at each
survey sampler location. Actual numbers of samplers* their spacing,
and heights of towers required must be determined for each location. A
rough guide for estimating the required spacing is presented in Section
3.5.3.
3.5.3. Sampling Techniques
The guidelines presented in Section 3.4.3 for the design and loca-
tion of samplers for a survey system are applicable to detailed systems.
The assumption of a Gaussian distribution of pollutants in the cloud,
sufficient for data reduction in survey systems is reasonable as a rough
guide to locating samplers within the pollutant cloud as in Section
3.4.3, and for the spacing of sampling arrays as outlined below.
The approximate concentration of a specific pollutant within a
cloud in which concentrations vary in accordance with a Gaussian dis-
tribution at a given downwind distance from the source is greatest at
ground level on the wind direction axis of the cloud. Assigning this
concentration the und t value x , the concentration
-------
t I I I i I I I I I I
O
**-
8
o
z
t*
UL
-------
determine the probable concentration at a stapler location relative to
the concentration at the axis and the concentration* at lateral dis-
tance* fro* that location to assist in the horizontal spacing of sam-
plers in aa array.
The concentration in the vertical direction from any ground level
point will decrease as the height, Z, increases in a similar relation-
ship. The ratio of the concentration at the elevated point to that ac
ground level, Xh/X» is plotted in Figure 3-5 as a function of Z/Z , where
Z is a function of the downwind distance from the source and the atmo-
m
spheric stability as plotted la Figure 3-6. Figure 3-5 may be used to
determine the relative concentrations at elevated points to assist in
the design of sampling towers and the vertical spacing of samplers in
an array or grid.
In general, arrays should be designed to provide data at concentra-
tions approximately two to four times greater or less than the concen-
tration at a selected ground level sampling point. Physical limitations
at the site or very unstable atmospheric conditions will often preclude
the compliance with this design guideline by limiting the available
horizontal positions or by requiring an impractical tower height. In
such situations, the need to adjust the requirements of the guideline
must be recognized and the array designed to compensate for the limita-
tions.
Upwind sampling arrays will generally be less complex Chan downwind
arrays unless a nearby pollutant source results in a heterogeneous am-
bient air mix. In this case, Che guidelines for downwind array design
presented in this section may have to be applied to the upwind array
-36-
-------
31
I
Ul
8
o
I.
I.
8
L_l I I I L_J
-------
500
100 —
100 200
800
400 800
Downwind distance
-------
design.
Wind speed and direction should be measured at each sampler or
array location. Pretest survey observations should indicate whether
stratification will occur to a degree which will require wind data at
more than one level.
An example of the application of these guidelines to the design of
survey and detailed systems for the measurement of pollutants at a Port-
I
land cement plant is presented as an appendix to this document.
i
i
3.5.4. Data Reduction
Samples are analyzed to yield concentrations of specific pollutants
in such terms as micrograms per cubic meter at each sampling site.
Measured upwind concentrations are substituted Into appropriate diffu-
aion equations to provide ambient air background concentrations at each
downwind site and Che background concentration-subtracted from the mea-
sured downwind concentration at each site to yield the source contri-
i
bution. These values are then substituted into diffusion equations to
back-calculate source strengths in terms of grains per unit time, util-
i
izlng UNAMAP or other available computer programs. I
I
i
3.6 Atmospheric Tracers
In some Instances, prevailing process or meteorological conditions
prohibit the collection of samples containing measurable, clearly de- j
«
fined amounts of 2 specific pollutant for the back-calculation of source \
strengths. In many such cases, the atmospheric tracer method may be \
employed to determine a typical distribution of a general class of pollu-
-39-
-------
\
tant analogous to the pollutant of concern.
The use of tracers should be considered under any of the following
circumstances:
When the pollutant background concentration is either excessively
high or inhonogeneous. This can be caused by significant emis-
sions from external upwind sources.
When the fugitive emissions are of such a complex nature that an
excessive number of downwind vertical profiles are required to
characterize the emissions.
When physical limitations prohibit the installation of adequate
Instrumentation for specific pollutant concentration measurement.
When the nature of the specific pollutant prohibits its measure-
ment with acceptable instrumentation or indicates large probable
errors in measurement.
When estimates of fugitive emissions are being made for non-oper-
ating processes or planned operations.
The atmospheric tracer method, which may be considered as a special
detailed system, consists of.the introduction into the atmosphere, at
the source site under consideration, of a readily identifiable mate.ial
similar in the character of its diffusion In the atmosphere to the pollu-
tant of concern. The quantity released may be controlled to provide
readily measurable concentrations. A detailed downwind measurement
system, designed using the guidelines of Section 3.5, is used to col-
lect samples of the tracer and to determine its dispersion for the known
and controllable source strength. This dispersion will be analogous to
the dispersion of the pollutant of concern and will permit the predic-
tion of pollutant concentrations for a range of source strengths.
-40-
-------
3.6.1 Tracers and Samplers
Both paniculate, and gaseous atmospheric tracers are in general
use. The most commonly used particulate tracers are zinc-cadmium sul-
fide and sodium fluorescein (urinine dye). The primary gaseous tracer
is sulfur hexafluoride (SF6).
Zinc-cadmium sulfide is a particulate material which can be ob-
tained in narrow size ranges to closely match the size of the pollutant
of coscera, The material is best introduced into the atmosphere in dry
fora by a blower type disseminator although it can also be accomplished
by spraying from an aqueous or solvent slurry. The zinc-cadmium sul-
fide fluoresces a distinctive color under ultraviolet light which pro-
vides a specific and rapid means of identification and quantification
of the tracer in the samples.
Sodium fluorescein is a soluble fluorescing particulate material.
It is normally spcay disseminated from an aqueous slurry solution to
produce a particulate airborne plume, the size distribution of which
can be predetermined by the spraying apparatus. Sodium fluoreacein can
be uniquely identified by colorimeter assessment.
Sulfur hexafluoride is a gas which can be readily obtained in ordi-
nary gas cylinders. Sulfur hexafluorlde can be disseminated by meter-
ing directly from the gas cylinder through a flow meter to the atmosphere.
The amount disseminated can be determined by careful flow metering and/or
weight differentiation of the gas cylinder.
Particulate tracers are usually sampled with filter impaction de-
vices or, for particles over 10 microns in diameter, the more easily
used and somewhat less accurate Rotorod sampler which collects particles
-41-
-------
on an adhealve-coated U- or H-abaped rod which la rotated in the am-
bient air by a battery-driven electric motor.
Sulfur hexafluoride gaseous samples are collected for laboratory
gaa chromatograph analysis In non-reactive bags of such materials aa
Mylar.
3.6.2 Tracer Sampling System Design
All of the design guidelines presented in 3.4.2 and 3.5.2 may be
applied to the design of a tracer sampling system as site conditions
dictate. Their application is, in general, simplified since the source
strength may be controlled to provide measurable tracer concentrations
at readily accessible sampling locations.
A single upwind sampler will usually be sufficient to establish
that no significant amount of the tracer material is present in the
ambient atmosphere approaching the source.
3.6.3 Tracer Sampling and Data Analysis
The methods introduced in Section 3.4.3 and 3.5.3 for determining
sampler design and location are fully applicable to tracer sampling.
•x
Like the design guidelines, they may £e more "easily applied because the
source strength is easily controlled. \
The analysis of the data Is also simplified since the source strength
is known and no back-calculation is required.
-42-
-------
3.7 Quality Assurance
The basic reason for quality assurance on a measurement program is
to insure that the validity of the data collected can be verified.
This requires that a quality assurance program be an integral part of
the measurement program from beginning to end. This section outlines
the quality assurance requirements of a sampling program in terms of
several basic criteria points. The criteria are listed below with a
brief explanation of the requirements in each area. Hot all of the
criteria will be applicable in all fugitive emission measurement cases.
1. Introduction
Describe the project organization, giving details of the
lines of management and quality assurance responsibility.
2. Quality Assurance Program
Describe the objective and scope of the quality assurance
program.
3. Design Control
Document design requirements and standards applicable Co
the measurement program as procedures and specifications.
4. Procurement Document Control
Verify that all design specification accompany procurement
documents such as purchase orders.
5. Instructions, Procedures, Drawings
Prescribe all activities that affect the quality of the
work performed by written procedures. These procedures must
include acceptance criteria for determining chat chese activ-
ities are accomplished.
6. Document Control
Ensure that the writing, issuance, and revision of proce-
dures which prescribe measurement program activities affecting
quality are documented and that these procedures are diatrib-
-43-
-------
ttted to and used at the location where the measurement program
la carried out.
7. Control of Purchase Material, Equipment, and Services
Establish procedures to ensure that purchased material
conforms to the procurement specifications and provide veri-
fication of conformance.
8. Identification and Control of Materials, Parts, and Components
Uniquely identify all materials, parts, and components
that significantly contribute to program quality for trace-
ability and to prevent the use of incorrect or defective ma-
terials, parts, or components.
9. Control of Special Proceaaea •
Ensure that special processes are controlled and accom-
plished by qualified personnel using qualified procedures.
10. Inspection
Perform periodic inspections where necessary on activities
affecting the quality of work. These inspections muse be or-
ganized and conducted to assure detailed acceptability of
program components.
11. Test Control
Specify all testing required to demonstrate that applicable
systems and components perform satisfactorily. Specify that
the testing be done and documented according to written proce-
dures, by qualified personnel, with adequate test equipment
according to acceptance criteria.
12. Control of Measuring and Teat Equipment
Ensure that all testing equipment is controlled to avoid
unauthorized use and that test equipment is calibrated and
adjusted at stated frequencies. An inventory of all test equip-
ment must be maintained and each piece of test equipment labeled
with the date of calibration and date of next calibration.
13. Handling, Storage, and Shipping
Ensure that equipment and material receiving, handling,
storage, and shipping follow manufacturer's recommendations to
prevent damage and deterioration. Verification and documentation
that established procedures are followed is required.
-44-
-------
Y
14. Inspection, Test, and Operating Status
Label all equipment subject to required inspections and
testa so that the status of inspection and test is readily
apparent. Maintain an inventory of such inspections and oper-
ating status.
15. Non-Conforming Parts and Materials
Establish a system that will prevent the inadvertent use
of equipment or materials that do not conform to requirements.
16. Corrective Action
Establish a system to ensure that conditions adversely
affecting the quality of program operations are identified,
| corrected, and commented on; at>d thai preventive actions are
I taken to preclude recurrence.
£ 17. Quality Assurance Records
1
| Maintain program records necesaar r to provide proof of
| accomplishment of quality affecting activities of the measure-
l ment program. Records include operating logs, test and in-
I spection results, and personnel qualifications.
I 18. Audits
Tf ^^^t^f^^^fmftm
£
t Conduct audits to evaluate the effectiveness of che mea-
| surement program and quality assurance program Co assure that
| performance criteria are being met.
-45-
-------
\
4.0 ESTIMATED COSTS AND TIME REQUIREMENTS
Table 4-1 presents a listing of the conditions assumed for esti-
mating the costs and time requirements of upwind-downwind fugitive emis-
sions sampling programs using the methodology described in this document.
Four programs are listed, representing minimum and more typical levels
of effort for each of the survey and detailed programs defined in Sec-
tion 3.3. The combinations of conditions for each program are generally
[_ representative of ideal and more realistic cases for each level and will
seldom be encountered in actual practice. They do, however, illustrate
i
I the range of effort and costs that may be expected in the application of
! the upwind-downwind technique except in very special instances.
4.1 Manpower
Table 4-2 presents estimates of manpower reqvirements for each of
the sampling programs listed in Table 4-1. Man-hours for each of the three
general levels of Senior Engineer/Scientist, Engineer/Scientist, and
Junior Engineer/Scientist are estimated for the general task, areas outlined
in this document and for additional separable tasks. Clerical man-hours
are estimated as a total for each progr-im. Total man-hour requirements
and approximately 500 man-hours for a simple survey program and 1500
man-hours for a more complex r.urvey program; and 2800 man-hours for a
simple detailed program and 4500 man-hours for a more complex detailed
program.
-46-
-------
\
TABLE 4-1
oommoNS ASSUMED FOR COST ESTIMATION
0? UPWIND - DOWNWIND SAMPLING PROGRAMS
Parameter
Site
Location
Emission
Source
Emission
Character
Wind
Measurement
Sample
Sites
Samplers
Towers
Experiments
Estimated
Basic
Accuracy
Survey Program
Simple
Open Area-
Accessible
Well Defined
Steady
External
Source
One Upwind
Two Downwind
3
0
1
± 5002
Complex
Congested-
Limited Access
Complex
Steady
Measured
On Site
One Upwind
Three Downwind
8
4 Low
1
± 150Z
Detailed Program
Simple
Open Area-
Accessible
Well Defined
Cyclic
Measured
On Site
Vertical
Arrays-
One Upwind,
Two Downwind
16
4 High
2
± 1252
Complex
Congested-
Limited Access
Complex
Cyclic-
Measured
at Two Levels
Two Measure-
ments On Site
Grid Arrays-
One Upwind,
Two Downwind
30
4 High -
Grids
4
± 752
-47-
-------
TABLE 4-2
ESTIMATED MANPOWER REQUIREMENTS FOR UPWIND - DOWNWIND
SAMPLING PROGRAMS
Estimates in Man-Hour*
Task
Pretest Survey
Test Plan Preparation
Equipment Acquisition
Field Set-Up
Field Study
Sample Analysis
Dsta Analysis
Report Preparation
Total*
Engineer/Scientist Total
Clerical
Grand Total
Survey Programs
Simple
Senior
Engr/Scl
4
8
4
8
24
20
20
16
104
Engr/
Scl
12
12
4
12
48
20
20
16
144
472
40
512
Junior
Engr/
Tech
0
0
12
12
120
36
36
8
224
Senior
Engr/Scl
8
12
4
16
60
60
60
64
284
..
(
Complex
Engr/
Scl
24
16
8
48
200
60
60
64
480
1376
120
1496
Junior
Engr/
Tech
0
4
28
64
268
108
108
32
612
Senior
Engr/Sci
8
Detailed Programs
Simple | Complex
Engr/
Sci
24
12 ! 24
8
80
120
120
120
160
628
4
24
140
300
240
240
80
972
i2628
200
2828
Junior 1
Engr/ 1 Senior
Tech |Enftr/Sci
0
12
48 j
100
1
536
12
16
12
120
180
96 I 180
l|
96 II 180
40 i 200
1028 I 900
I
1
i,
1
Engr/
Sci
36
32
36
280
560
320
320
200
1784
4240
Junior
Engr/
Tech
16
12
52
240
796
180
180
80
1556
i
280
4520
i
I
co
I
-------
\
4.2 Other Direct Costa
Table 4-3 presents estimates for equipment purchases, rentals,
calibration, and repairs; on-site construction of towers and platforms;
shipping and on-site communications for each of the listed programs.
Total costs are approximately $4500 for a simple survey program and
$17,000 for a more complex survey program; and $34,000 for a simple
detailed program and $64,000 for a more complex detailed program.
4.3 Elapsed-Tlme Requirements
Figure 4-1 presents elapsed-time estimates for each of the listed
programs broken down into the task areas indicated in the manpover es-
timates of Table 4-2. Total program durations are approximately 12
weeks for a simple survey program and 17 weeks for a more complex sur-
vey program; and 21 weeks for a simple detailed program and 41 weeks
for a more complex detailed progrsa.
4.4 Cost Effectiveness
Figure 4-2 presents curves of the estimated cost effectiveness of
the upwind-downwind technique, drawn through points calculated for the
four listed programs. Costs for each program were calculated at $30
per labor hour, $40 per man day subsistence for field work for the man-
power estimates of Table 4-2, plus the other direct costs estimated in
Table 4-3.
-49-
-------
TABLE 4-3
ESTIMATED COSTS FOR UPWIND-- DOWNWIND
SAMPLING PROGRAMS
(LABOR COSTS EXCLUDED)
Ot
o
Cost Item
Equipment
Sampler Purchase
Sequencer Purchase
Wind Measurement Purchase
Calibration
Repairs
Wiring Harnesses
i
Construction
Towers
Platforms, etc.
1 Electrical Hook-ups
Shipping
Trailer Rental
Vehicle Rentals
On-Site Conraunlcat Ions
TOTAL
Survey Programs
Simple
$1800
900
0
150
270
0
0
500
0
200
Complex
$4800
2400
3500
250
1000
0
2000
1000
100
400
0 0
280 560
100
$4500
300
$16810
Detailed Programs
Simple
$9600
4800
3500
400
1500
400
8000
1500
200
800
500
1400
700
$34100
Complex
$18000
9000
5000
600
2500
800
19000
2000
300
1200
500
2800
900
$63900
-------
Weeks
Task
Pre-test
survey
Test plan
nranaratlnn
prepa
Equipment
acquisition
Field
set-up
£ Field
1 study
Semple
analysis
Data
atnalvtii
Report
rtrghflA r> f i fl n
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 . 40 43
1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 i I 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
fjf
K?
>-"-^"J y/fflt ample survey program
2 Complex survey program
^ $SSSS Simpl* detailed program
j_y L 1 Complex detailed program
'tt2/£/SA
i
^j^^N^J^jsXw\^S
1 — ^
E3 ( — .
K^^ L|
' — ^
VTTA
b&£3 , —\
tsa
t^^l
*""
U77A
1 I
l\^\^s|
I 1
fTTTA
1 k
I i i i i i i i i ri i i i i i i i i i i i > i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i Ti-n
15 >5 25 35 45
Weeks
Fig. 4-1. Elapsed-time estimaini for upwind-downwind sampling programs.
-------
\ I
500 r-
400r
* 300
200
100
Detailed program
L
50
L_
100 150 200
Cost in thousands of dollars
250
300
Fig. 4-2. Cost-effectiveness of upwind-downwind sampling programs.
-52-
-------
\
APPENDIX A
TEST PROCEDURES APPLICATION
-53-
-------
.o
This appendix presents an application of the upwind-downwind
fugitive emissions measurement system selection and design criteria to a
Portland cement manufacturing plant. The criteria for the selection
of the method and the design procedures for both survey and detailed
sampling systems as presented in Sections 3.4 and 3.5 of this document
are discussed.
-54-
-------
A.2.0 BACKGROUND INFORMATION
The following information relative to the operation of the sub-
ject Portland cement manufacturing plant would ordinarily be gatuered
froa Interviews and observations during a visit to the plant for a pre-
test survey.
Portland cement is made from a mixture of finely ground calcareous
(lime component) and argillaceous (alumina component) materials. The
four major steps for producing Portland cement are:
(1) Obtaining raw materials and reducing their size,
(2) Grinding, blending and homogenizacion of these materials
to obtain desired composition and uniformity,
(3) Heating to liberate carbon dioxide and burning to fora
clinker,
(4) Grinding or fine pulverization of the clinker with
addition of gypsum.
At this location, shown in Figure A-l, limestone is quarried at
the site by dragline buckets, pulverized in a hammer mill, mixed with
water and pumped to raw material storage. Other raw materials are de-
livered to storage by rail. Ball mills reduce first Che limestone and
then a limestone-clay mixture to a fine slurry which is stored in con-
crete tanks prior to ica introduction to the rotary kilns. The slurry
is dried and burned at about 2700*? to form clinker, which is cooled
and stored In bins until needed for Che finish grinding operation where
it is pulverized and mixed with gypsum Co produce Che finished produce.
The cement is stored in silos prior Co bagging or cranafar Co bulk con-
tainer trucks and railroad cars for shipping.
-55-
-------
\
Stataroad
(3-lane)
in
Privata roads /
(2-lana) /
> t I I > I I I I I I I I
Railroad spur Una
UmavtOM
quarry
Rfl.A-1. Portland oament plant srta layout.
-56-
-------
\
The plant operates on a three-shift, round-the-clock production
schedule Including all operations except shipping and unloading of rail-
delivered raw materials, which are normally carried out only on the
8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. shift. The plant produces about 300 barrels of
finished product per hour, consuming about 600 pounds of raw materials j
for each 376 pound barrel produced.
The raw materials and the finished product are essentially dust;
the principal emissions are also dust. The largest contributor Is the
kiln used to produce the clinker, where the dried mixture becomes sus-
pended In the combustion gases as dust and is delivered through the
stack to the atmosphere. A multi-cyclone/electrostatic precipitator
combination removes about 95 percent of the dust before it is vented to
a
the stack. Other sources of dust are the ball mills, materials trans-
fer operations and packaging operations. Hoods at the ball mills and
packing house are utilized to capture and transmit about 85 percent of
their emissions to a bag house. The quarry operation at this plant
contributes little or no dust since Che entire process Is conducted
with the material In a wet condition.
The EPA estimates for uncontrolled emissions, as published in the
Office of Air Programs Publication AP-42, Compilation of Air Pollutant
Factors, are 15 to 55 pounds from the kiln and 2 to 10 pounds from all
other sources for each barrel of cement produced. If the assumed 95
percent effectiveness of the stack controls is correct, 0.75 to 2.75
pounds per barrel could be transmitted to the atmosphere from the stack.
Assuming that 30 percent of all other emissions are hooded, 0.5 ro three
pounds per barrel could be transmitted to the atmosphere as fugitive
-57-
-------
\
emissions.
Tha prevailing daytime wind at the plant ia from a general easter-
ly direction and averagea 10 miles per hour over open, flat, partly
svampy terrain.
-.58-
-------
A.3.0 METHOD SELECTION
Selecting the nose practical method to measure the amount of
emitted pollutants reaching the ambient atmosphere involves evaluating
the site, processes and pollutants concerned in terms of the criteria of
Section 2.2 as follows:
Site Criteria - the various sources at the site are remote from
one another, both indoors and outdoors, and are not small enough
to be hooded or otherwise enclosed.
Process Criteria - emissions are essentially the same from all
sources at the site with no interfering reactions between emis-
sions or with other constituents in the ambient atmosphere.
The process is continuous and does not entail any limitations
as to the timing of sampling.
Pollutant Criteria - emissions to be measured are particulates
whose generation rate and dilution In the ambient air will pro-
vide measurable concentrations within reasonable distances of
the source.
The site criteria are, in this case, the determining factors in
selecting the measurement method. Since the emissions cannot be con-
tained or directed in any manner, only the upwind-downwind measurement
method may be successfully utilized to determine the plant's contribu-
tion to the particulate concentration in the local atmosphere.
The basic question to be answered by the measurement program is
"Does the rate of particulate emissions from the plant exceed the
accepted regulatory agency standard?" This question can be answered
by a survey program average measurement of the total particulate emis-
sions from the plant, including emissions from the kiln stack. If
the survey program indicates that the plant's emissions do exceed stan-
dards, the question to be answered will then be "What actions are neces-
-59-
-------
sary to reduce emissions to an acceptable rate?" The answer to this
question requires that the rates of the specific sources of the emis-
sions be separately quantified. This will require the increased accur-
acy and extent of measurements of a detailed program. The design of
both systems is described in the following sections.
-60-
-------
A.4.0 SURVEY MEASUREMENT SYSTEM
To determine the total plant contribution of participates to the
atmosphere, measurement must be made of the approaching ambient air
containing upwind and all background emissions. In this case, a single
upwind sampler located between the kiln building and the road to the
east will include the general ambient background partlculates plus the
particulates contributed by traffic on the road. A ground level sampler,
located about 200 meters from the kiln, should provide an accurate mea-
surement. The downwind measurement oust include the contributions from
all the sources at the site, which may be considered as emanating from
a line source at ground level with an overlay of emission from the ele-
vated stack, as illustrated in Figure A-2. To ensure that the stack
emission contribution to the cloud is being measured, one downwind sam-
pler is located within the estimated confines of the stack plume and
others outso.de the stack plume as shown on Figure A-2.
A.4.1 Sampler Location
For a high volume sampler sampling 18 cubic feet per minute, a
desired sample weight of 100 micrograms and a 60 minute sampling time,
the particle concentration required at the sampling point is: (per
Equation 3-1)
X - M/FT - 10"1* (gm)/0.5 (m3/min) x 60 (min)
X - 3.3 r 10"5 (gm/m3)
-61-
-------
\
*D1
03
Stack plume
100 meters
Rg. A-2. Portland cement plant emissions ciouds.
-62-
-------
\
Local emission limitations, promulgated on a process weight basis,
permit 30 pounds per hour of particulate to be transmitted to the at-
mosphere from all sources. In order to measure this total emission rate
in a 10 mile per hour (4.47 m/aec) wind with the proposed samplers, the
product of the standard deviations used to determine the maximum dis-
tance from the source that samplers may be located is found using:
K • Q/*XU (Equation 3-2)
K - 30 x 454 x (>/» x 3-3 * 10~6 x 4'47 <") " 8 x l°*
Table 3-3 indicates the use of an atmospheric stability category B
for clear midday conditions and the wind speed of 4.47 meters per sec-
ond. Figure 3-2 indicates a maximum sampler downwind distance well in
excess of one kilometer for K « 8 x 10** and category B, so that any
sampler location within one kilometer downwind of the plant will provide
satisfactory measurements. To ensure that the stack emissions are also
adequately measured, one sampler is located along the wind direction
axis through the stack at a distance of 800 meters from the stack, at
point 01 on Figure A-2. Two additional samplers are located within the
fugitive emissions cloud outside the stack plume at points D2, 300
meters from the kiln structure on its wind direction centerllne, and 03,
500 meters from the kiln at 100 meters to the south (cross-wind) of its
centerline.
Samples are. taken simultaneously at the upwind and three downwind
locations for a one hour period chosen to include activities in all
phases of the process- kiln operation, grinding, packaging and all phases
-63-
-------
\
of material transfer iacludlog bulk product loading and raw material
unloading. The samples are analyzed to determine participate concen-
trations at the sampler locations* which are then used in computer pro-
gramed diffusion equations to determine the source strengths of the
fugitive and stack emissions.
-64-
-------
\
A.5.0 DETAILED MEASUREMENT SYSTEM
Assuming that the survey measurements indicate an emission rate
in excess of the local regulations, say 40 pounds per hour, a detailed
system must be designed to more accurately quantify the emissions from
the separate sources at the plant.
The separate sources are identified as individual particulate
clouds on Figure A-3. Their characteristics and schedules are as fol-
lows:
(1) Flotation Tanks - continuous low level emissions. Cloud
usually isolated.
(2) Ball Mill and Slurry Tanks - continuous emissions. Cloud
usually mixed with (3).
(3) Raw Materials Storage - continuous low level emissions,
higher emissions during day shift material unloading opera-
tions. Cloud always mixed with (2).-
(4) Packing and Shipping - emission level variable with activity,
on day shift only. Cloud always partially mixed with (5).
(5) Finish Grinding Mill - continuous emissions. Cloud partially
mixed with (4).
(6) Stack - continuous emissions.
(7) Materials Transfer - continuous low level emissions as back-
ground to all except (1).
Assuming that the prevailing wind direction remains from the east:
Cloud (1) may be individually measured at any time.
Cloud (2) may be individually measured only when material un-
loading operations are shut down - measurement would be improved
by wetting down raw materials.
Cloud (3) may not be individually measured. Emissions may be
quantified by measuring total of clouds (2) and (3) and subtracting
individual measurement of (2).
-65-
-------
Flotation
O tanks
Finish
grinding
mill
100 maters
Flg.A-3. Portland cement plant separata
sourcadouds.
-66-
-------
Cloud (4) may noc be individually measured. On isaions may be
quantified by measuring total of clouds (4) and (5) and sub-
tracting individual measurement of (2).
Cloud (5) may be individually measured when packing and shipping
operations are shut down.
Cloud (6) emissions may be measured by stack sampling at any-time.
Cloud (7) emissions may not be individually measured. Their low
level background contribution is present in all clouds measured
except (1).
To measure the source strengths associated with clouds (1) through
(5), a network of individual arrays may be set up as follows:
Array [1] - in cloud (1)
Array [2] - in combined clouds (2) and (3)
Array [3] - in combined clouds (5) and (6)
Samples taken during first shift operations using all three arrays
will provide measurments of the particulate concentrations in cloud
(1), the combined concentrations of clouds C>.) and (3) and the combined
concentrations of clouds (4) and (5). Samples should be taken during
materials unloading operations to provide measurements of the maximum
concentrations of cloud (3) and during maximum activity level in the
shipping area to provide measurements of the maximum concentrations of
cloud (4).
Samples taken during second or third shift operations using arrays
[2] and [3] will provide measurements of the particulate concentrations
of clouds (2) and (5).
Stack samples may be taken at any convenient time.
Analyses of the samples will provide particulate concentrations at
-67-
-------
the array locations for each source, which may then be back-calculated
to provide equivalent source strengths, which, with appropriate sub-
tractions described above, will give Individual source strengths.
The flotation tanks are located very nearly at ground level and
may reasonably be considered a ground level source. Array [1] may
therefore be composed of only ground level samplers located across the
cloud (1) generated by these tanks.
Raw material storage generates a ground level source cloud (3),
while the ball mills and the slurry tanks generate an elevated cloud
(2). The array [2] used to sample these clouds must then employ both
ground level and elevated samplers located across the portion of Che
cloud combining the emissions of both sources.
Packing and shipping operations generate a cloud (4) of both ground
level and elevated emissions, as do the finish grinding mill and clinker
storage in cloud (5). Array [3] must then be composed of ground level
and elevated samplers located across Che portion of the cloud combining
the emissions of both clouds.
Assumptions as Co Che approximate source strengths for each of Che
sources are made to provide the starting points for determining array
locations and spacing. Based on Che 40 pound per hour rate for Che
total emissions indicated by the survey measurements, a source strength
of eight pounds per hour is assigned Co each of the sources of clouds
(2) through (5), and four pounds per hour for the sources of clouds (1)
and (7). The conditions of the survey example of Section A.4.1; vich a
10 mile per hour wind from the east, an atmospheric stability category
B, a desired sample weight of 100 micrograms and a 60 minute sampling
-68-
-------
time are assumed to apply to the detailed system.
The best locations for the arrays, each within the clouds they are
designed to measure and away from the influences of other clouds, are
shown at Al, A2 and A3 on Figure A-3.
For array [1], located about 250 meters downwind of the source of
cloud (1) in order to avoid the influence of neighboring clouds, the
£ approximate particle concentration on the wind direction axis at ground
I level is determined from Equation 3-2, rearranged as
i? X " Q/ifKu, where
t
i- X * concentration (gm/m3)
J, Q • source strength • 4 (Ibs/hr) - 0.5 (gm/sec)
; K - 110 (m2) - from Figure 3-7
I u - 4.47 (m/sec), and
t;
*-
ft.
I X - 3.2 x 10"5(gm/m3)
(. *
t The required bumpier flow rate is determined from Equation 3-1,
I rearranged as
[ F - M/xT, where
F - flow rate (m3/min)
M - sample weight - 10"** (gin)
X - 3.2 x 10-5 (gm/m3)
T • sampling time - 60 (min), and
F - 5.2 x 10-2 (m3/min)
The crosa-wind spacing of che samplers in the array is deter-
mined by assigning a particle concentration desired to be measured at
a sampler location of about 1/2 the concentration at the wind direc-
-69-
-------
\
tion axis, or, x " 1«6 x 10s (ga/m3), and calculating its ratio
calculated concentration on the wind direction axis, x • Ia thi£
X/X. * 0.5. Figure 3-4 indicates a value of 0.91 for the cross-w
distance ratio 7/7 , in which 7 is the desired cross-wind sampler
tance and 7. is the maximum cross-wind distance determined from Fi,
n
3-3. In this case, 7ffl for x - 250 meters and category B is 63 mete
and 7 • 62 meters.
Array [1], then, would consist of three ground level samplera 1
cated 250 meters downwind of the flotation tanks with the central aai
pier on the wind axis and two samplers 62 meters away, one In each of
the two cross-wind directions. This array will provide measurement
of at least two particle concentrations within the cloud for use in
the back calculation of the source strength at the flotation tanks.
Similar computations may be made for each of the other arrays,
0
with the addition of a vertical spacing determination using Figures
3-5 and 3-6 in the same manner as Figures 3-3 and 3-4 for the deter-
mination of cross-wind spacing.
-70-
-------
Appendix H
-------
PREFACE
This report was prepared as part of Work Assignment No. 11-44 of EPA Contract
No. 68-DO-0123 as an example test protocol for line sources of fugitive emissions.
Mr. Dennis Shipman of the EPA's Emission Inventory Branch served as the EPA
technical monitor. Dr. Gregory E. Muleski served as Midwest Research Institute's
(MRI's) project leader. Mr. Gary Garman and Dr. Muleski prepared this report.
Approved for:
MIDWEST RESEARCH INSTITUTE
Richard V. Grume
Program Manager
Environmental Engineering Department
Charles F. Holt, Ph.D., Director
Engineering and Environmental
Technology Department
April 28, 1993
MRI-MW9712-44.TP III
-------
CONTENTS
Preface
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Introduction .
Quality Assurance
Sampling and Analysis Procedures
Testing Schedule
References
Appendix:
Material sampling and analysis procedures
1-1
2-1
3-1
4-1
5-1
A-1
MRI-M\R9712-44.7P
-------
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION
This report outlines the test plan to be followed during a field sampling program
to determine fugitive emissions from a uniformly emitting line source. Sources of this
type include (for example) off-highway vehicles, general earthmoving, and travel emis-
sions at logging and associated industrial facilities. The report describes the sampling
methodology, data analysis, and quality assurance procedures to be followed in the
field study. The primary pollutant of concern is paniculate matter (PM), especially PM
no greater than 10 u,rn in aerodynamic diameter (PM10). However, the basic Campling
strategy and data analysis are equally applicable to other types of pollutants that might
be emitted from the same types of sources.
The basic field sampling methodology uses the concept of "exposure profiling"1
developed by MRI. The exposure profiling method calculates emission rates using a
conservation of mass approach. The passage of airborne paniculate (i.e., the quantity
of emissions per unit of source activity) is obtained by the spatial integration of
exposure (mass/area) measurements distributed over the effective cross section of the
plume. Note that for a uniform line or "moving point" source such as an unpaved
road, only a vertically distributed sampling array is required to characterize the plume's
effective cross section.1-2 A companion report describes procedures to be followed to
sample other types of fugitive sources.3
The remainder of this report provides a "skeleton" test protocol in that issues
are discussed in general terms but can be readily expanded once a specific source
and site have been selected for testing. Section 2 discusses quality assurance
considerations, and Section 3 outlines the general sampling and analysis procedures
to be followed. Section 4 describes an example test schedule.
MHI-MVR971Z-4* TP 1-1
-------
SECTION 2
QUALITY ASSURANCE
The sampling and analysis procedures to be followed in this field testing
program are subject to certain-quality, control (QC) guidelines. These guidelines will'
be discussed in conjunction with the activities to which they apply. These procedures
meet or exceed the requirements specified in the reports entitled Quality Assurance
Handbook for Air Pollution Measurement Systems, Volume II—Ambient Air Specific
Methods (EPA 600/4-77-027a) and Ambient Monitoring Guidelines for Prevention of
Significant Deterioration (EPA 4350/2-78-019).
As part of the QC program for this study, routine audits of sampling and
analysis procedures will be performed. The purpose of the audits is to demonstrate
that measurements are made within acceptable control conditions for paniculate
source sampling and to assess the source testing data for precision and accuracy.
Examples of items to be audited include gravimetric analysis, flow rate calibration,
data processing, and emission factor calculation. The mandatory use of specially-
designed reporting forms for sampling and analysis of data obtained in the field and
laboratory aids in the auditing procedure. Further details on specific sampling and
analysis procedures are provided in the following section.
MHI-M\R9712-44.TP
-------
SECTION 3
SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS PROCEDURES
This section describes the general methodology used to characterize particulate
emissions from-uniformly emitting line sources.
GENERAL AIR SAMPLING EQUIPMENT AND TECHNIQUES
Exposure profiling, which is the primary air sampling technique in this study, is
based on 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 generalized atmospheric dispersion model (as in the so-called
"upwind/downwind" method).
The equipment deployment for a typical test is shown in Figure 1 and Table 1.
The primary air sampling device in this example test plan is a standard high-volume
air sampler fitted with a cyclone preseparator (Figure 2). The cyclone exhibits an
effective 50% cutoff diameter (D50) of approximately 10 microns (u,m) in aerodynamic
diameter when operated at a flow rate of 40 cfm (68 m3/h).4
Besides the samplers fitted with the cyclone preseparator to sample PM10
emissions, two other types of samplers are used in the upwind and downwind arrays.
Standard hi-vols are placed at two heights near one of the downwind arrays to sample
TSP (total suspended particulate) emissions.
PM10 reference method samplers (Wedding and Associates' PM10 Critical Flow
High-Volume Samplers) are also used, with one located alongside the upwind array
and another next to a downwind array.
Throughout each test, wind speed is monitored at the downwind sampling site
by directional warm wire anemometers (Kurz Model 465) at three heights. Horizontal
wind direction is monitored by a wind vane at a single height. Wind speed and
direction are scanned using a data logger, with 5-min averages stored in a computer
file. The vertical profile of horizontal wind speed is determined by fitting the
measurements to a logarithmic profile. The sampling intakes are adjusted for proper
directional orientation based on the monitored average wind direction.
MRI-MW9712-44.TP 3*1
\
-------
-------
TABLE 1. SAMPLER DEPLOYMENT
Upwind/
downwind
U
U
D
D
D
D
D
No. of
instruments
1
1
4 per array
2
1
1
3
Measurement
height(s)3
(m)
2
2
1.5,3,4.5,6
1.5,3
3
3
1,3,5
Type of
sampler or
instrument
Cyclone
Wedding PM10
Sampler
Cyclone
Hi-Vol
Wedding PM10
Sampler
Wind vane
Warm wire
anemometer
Parameter
measured
PM10
PM10
PM10
TSP
PM10
Wind direction
Wind
velocity
Selection of sampling heights depends upon various factors, including roadway
width, travel speeds, range of wind speeds expected, etc. Values listed in the
table represent heights commonly used.
MRI-M\R9712-44.TP
3-3
-------
*' Ci
-------
For each source selected for testing, triplicate tests are recommended to
quantify emissions under three different average travel speeds (spanning the range of
common speeds on the road). Note that:
• "Captive" traffic is recommended in order to maintain constant average
vehicle characteristics during the testing periods.
• The roads are tested in the "uncontrolled" condition.
• The primary pollutant of concern during the field exercise is particulate
matter no greater than 10 urn in aerodynamic diameter (PM10). However,
at each test site, at least one set of total suspended particulate (TSP)
emission measurements (using standard high-volume [hi-vol] air
samplers) will be taken.
Each field testing program should begin with a visit to the candidate test site(s).
Upon return, a site-specific test protocol is developed, which describes sampler
deployment and spacing, test schedule, and any special provisions.
EMISSION TESTING PROCEDURE
Preparation of Sample Collection Media
Particulate samples are collected on glass fiber filters, with the exception of the
PM10 reference samplers which require quartz filters. Prior to the initial weighing, the
filters will be equilibrated for 24 h at constant temperature and humidity in a special
weighing room. During weighing, the balance is checked at frequent intervals with
standard (Class S) weights to ensure accuracy. The filters will remain in the same
controlled environment for another 24 h, after which a second analyst reweighs them
as a precision check. If a filter cannot pass audit limits, the entire lot is to be
reweighed. Ten percent of the filters taken to the field are used as blanks. The
quality assurance guidelines pertaining to preparation of sample collection media are
presented in Table 2.
MRI-MVH9712-44.TP 3"5
-------
TABLE 2. QUALITY ASSURANCE PROCEDURESFOR SAMPLING MEDIA
Activity QA check/requirement
Preparation Inspect and imprint glass fiber media
with identification numbers.
Conditioning Equilibrate media for 24 h in a clean
controlled room with relative humidity of
45% (variation of less than ±5% RH) and
with temperature of 23°C (variation of
less than ±1°C).
Weighing Weigh hi-vol filters-to nearest Q.1 mg.
Auditing of weights Independently verify final weights of 10%
of filters (at least four from each batch).
Reweigh batch if weights of any hi-vol
filters deviate by more than ±2.0 mg.
For tare weights, conduct a 100% audit.
Reweigh tare weight of any filters that
deviate by more than ±1.0 mg.
Correction for handling effects Weigh and handle at least one blank for
each 1 to 10 filters of each type for each
test.
Calibration of balance Balance to be calibrated once per year
by certified manufacturer's representa-
tive. Check prior to each use with
laboratory Class S weights.
Pretest Procedures/Evaluation of Sampling Conditions
Prior to equipment deployment, a number of decisions are to be made as to the
potential for acceptable source testing conditions. These decisions shall be based on
forecast information obtained from the local U.S. Weather Service office. If conditions
are considered acceptable, the sampling equipment deployment is initiated. At this
time the sampling flow rates will be set for the various air sampling instruments. The
quality control guidelines governing this activity are found in Table 3.
MRI-MW9712-44 TP 3-6
-------
TABLE 3. QUALITY ASSURANCE PROCEDURES FOR SAMPLING FLOW RATES
Activity
QA check/requirement
High volume air samplers
Orifice and electronic calibrator
Calibrate flows in operating ranges using
calibration orifice upon arrival and every
2 weeks thereafter at each regional site
prior to testing.
Calibrate against displaced volume test
meter annually.
Once the source testing equipment is set up and the filters inserted, air
sampling commences. Information is recorded on specially designed reporting forms
and includes:
a. Air samples—Start/stop times, wind speed profiles, flow rates, and wind
direction relative to the roadway perpendicular (5- to 15-min average).
See Table 4 for QA procedures.
b. Traffic count by vehicle type and speed.
c. General meteorology—Wind speed, wind direction, and temperature.
Sampling time must be long enough to provide sufficient paniculate mass and to
average over several cycles of the fluctuation in the emission rate (i.e., vehicle passes
on the road). Occasionally sampling may be interrupted because of the occurrence of
unacceptable meteorological conditions and then restarted when suitable conditions
return. Table 5 presents the criteria used for suspending or terminating a source test.
Sample Handling and Analysis
To prevent particulate losses, the exposed media are carefully transferred at
the end of each run to protective containers for transportation. In the field laboratory,
exposed filters are placed in individual glassine envelopes and then into numbered file
folders. When exposed filters and the associated blanks are returned to the MRI
laboratory, they are equilibrated under the same conditions as the initial weighing.
After reweighing, 10% of the filters are audited to check weighing accuracy.
MRI-M\B9712-44.TP
3-7
-------
TABLE 4. QUALITY ASSURANCE PROCEDURES FOR SAMPLING EQUIPMENT
Activity
QA check/requirement3
Maintenance
• All samplers
Operation
• Timing
Isokinetic sampling
(cyclones)
Prevention of static
mode deposition
Check motors, gaskets, timers, and flow
measuring devices at each plant prior to testing.
Start and stop all downwind samplers during time
span not exceeding 1 min.
Adjust sampling intake orientation whenever
mean wind direction dictates.
Change the cyclone intake nozzle whenever the
mean wind speed approaching the sampler falls
outside of the suggested bounds for that nozzle.
This technique allocates no nozzle for wind
speeds ranging from 0 to 10 mph, and unique
nozzles for four wind speed ranges above
10 mph.
Cap sampler inlets prior to and immediately after
sampling.
All "means" refer to 5- to 15-min averages.
TABLE 5. CRITERIA FOR SUSPENDING OR TERMINATING A 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 0.9- to 8.9 m/sec (2- to
20-mph) acceptable range for more than 20% of the sampling time.
3. The angle between mean wind direction and perpendicular to the path of the
moving point source during sampling exceeds 45 degrees for two consecutive
averaging periods.
4. Daylight or available artificial lighting is insufficient for safe equipment operation.
5. Source condition deviates from predetermined criteria (e.g., occurrence of truck
spill or accidental water splashing prior to uncontrolled testing).
a "Mean" denotes a 5- to 15-min average.
MRUMA0712-44TP
3-8
-------
EMISSION FACTOR CALCULATION PROCEDURES
To calculate emission rates, a conservation of mass approach is 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, or equivalently, the net particulate mass passing through a unit area
normal to the mean wind direction during the test. The steps in the calculation
procedure for uniformly emitting line sources are described below.
Particulate Concentrations
The concentration of particulate matter measured by a sampler is given by:
c = io3 ™
Qt
where: C = particulate concentration (u.g/m3)
m = particulate sample weight (mg)
Q = sampler flow rate (m3/min)
t = duration of sampling (min)
To be consistent with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards, all
concentrations and flow rates are expressed in standard conditions (25°C and
101 kPa or 77°F and 29.92 inHg).
The isokinetic flow ratio (IFR) is the ratio of a directional sampler's intake air
speed to the mean wind speed approaching the sampler. It is given by:
IFR-J2-
aU
where: Q = sampler flow rate (m3/min)
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 total particulate, since isokinetic
sampling ensures that particles of all sizes are sampled without bias. Note, however,
'that because the primary interest in this program is directed to PM10 emissions,
sampling under moderately nonisokinetic conditions poses no difficulty. It is readily
agreed that 10 u,m (aerodynamic diameter) and smaller particles have weak inertial
characteristics at normal wind speeds and therefore are relatively unaffected by
anisokinesis.5
MRI-MVR9712-44 TP
3-9
-------
Exposure represents the net passage of mass through a unit area normal to the
direction of plume transport (wind direction) and is calculated by:
E = 1CT7 x CUt
where: E = paniculate exposure (mg/cm2)
C = net concentration (u,g/m3)
U = approaching wind speed (m/s)
t = duration of sampling (s)
Exposure values vary over the spatial extent of the plume. If exposure is
integrated over the plume effective cross section, then the quantity obtained
represents the total passage of airborne particulate matter due to the source.
For a line source, a one-dimensional integration is used:
A1 = fH E dh
Jo
where: A1 = integrated exposure (m-mg/cm2)
E = particulate exposure (mg/cm*)
h = vertical distance coordinate (m)
H = effective extent of plume above ground (m)
The effective height of the plume is found by linear extrapolation of the
uppermost net concentrations to a value of zero.
Because exposures are measured at discrete heights of the plume, a numerical
integration is necessary to determine A1. 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 exposure usually occurs below a height of 1 m, so that there
is a sharp decay in 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
integration is then performed numerically.
Particulate Emission Factors
The emission factor for particulate generated by vehicular traffic on a straight
'road segment expressed in grams of emissions per vehicle-kilometer traveled (VKT) is
given by:
MH1-MW9712-44TP - 3" 10
-------
e = 10*
N
where: e = paniculate emission factor (g/VKT)
A1 = integrated exposure (m-mg/cm2)
N = number of vehicle passes (dimensionless)
SURFACE MATERIAL SAMPLES
Associated with each test site is a series of at least three samples of the
surface material. The collection and analysis of these samples are important because
the available emission factor and control performance models often make use of
material parameters. Samples are to be analyzed (at a minimum) for silt (particles
passing a 200-mesh screen) and moisture contents and to determine surface loading
values. Detailed steps for collection and analysis of samples for silt and moisture are
given in the Appendix. An abbreviated discussion is presented below.
Unpaved line source dust samples are to be collected by sweeping the loose
layer of soil or crushed rock from the hardpan road base with a broom and dust pan.
Sweeping is performed so that the road base is not abraded by the broom, and so
that only the naturally occurring loose dust is collected. The sweeping will be
performed slowly so that dust is not entrained into the atmosphere.
Once the field sample is obtained, it will be prepared for analysis. If necessary,
the field sample will be split with a riffle to a sample size amenable to laboratory
analysis. The basic procedure for moisture analysis is determination of weight loss on
oven drying. Silt analysis procedures follow the ASTM-C-136 method. The Appendix
details these procedures.
MFU-M\R9712-44 TF 3" 1 1
-------
-------
SECTION 4
TESTING SCHEDULE
The following describes a typical schedule of ffeld activities involving captive
traffic on a line source, starting with the arrival of the crew, at each test site:
1. Unpack the transport truck and arrange field laboratory facilities. Provide
at least 1 h of captive traffic prior to the start of air testing.
2. Erect the upwind and downwind sampling arrays.
3. Calibrate each sampler to the required volumetric flow rate (40 cfm for
the cyclone preseparators described in Section 3).
4. Providing captive traffic at a constant vehicle speed, conduct air
sampling following the procedures described in Section 3. At the end of
this test period:
• Cover sampler inlets.
• Discontinue the captive traffic.
• Remove and store the sampling media from the downwind
samplers as specified in Section 3.
Repeat the sampling procedure so that three tests are conducted
for the current vehicle speed.
• Collect a road surface material sample following the procedures
given in Section 3.
5. Repeat Step 4 until all three vehicle speeds of interest have been
considered.
6. Pack equipment for transport to the next regional test site or for return to
the main laboratories.
MRI-MW9712-44 TP 4-1
-------
SECTION 5
REFERENCES
1. Muleski, G. E. Critical Review of Open Source Participate Emissions
Measurements: Field Comparison. MRI Final Report Prepared for Southern
Research Institute, MRI Project No. 7993-L(2) (August 1984).
2. Cuscino, T., Jr., G. E. Muleski, and C. Cowherd, Jr. Iron and Steel Plant Open
Source Fugitive Emission Control Evaluation. EPA-600/2-83-110, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC (October 1983).
3. Garman, G., and G. E. Muleski. Example Test Plan for Point or Non-Uniform
Line Sources. Work Assignment No. 44, EPA Contract 68-DO-0123 (April
1993).
4. Baxter, T. E., D. D. Lane, C. Cowherd, Jr., and F. Pendleton. Calibration of a
Cyclone for Monitoring Inhalable Particles. Journal of Environmental
Engineering, 112:3 (1986).
5. Davies, C. N. The Entry of Aerosols in Sampling Heads and Tubes. British
Journal of Applied Physics, 2:921 (1968).
MRI-MMW712-U.TP 5-1
-------
APPENDIX
MATERIAL SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS PROCEDURES
MRI-MVH9712-44 TP
A-1
-------
. SAMPLES FROM UNPAVED ROADS
PROCEDURE
The following steps describe the collection method for samples
(increments).
1. Ensure that the site offers an unobstructed view of traffic
and that sampling personnel are visible to drivers. If the
road is heavily traveled, use one person to "spot" and route
traffic safely around another person collecting the surface
sample (increment).
2. Using string or other suitable markers, mark a 1 ft (0.3 m)
width across the road. (WARNING: Do not mark the collection
area with a chalk line or in anv other method 1-ikely to
introduce fine material into the sample.)
3. With a whisk broom and dustpan, remove the loose surface
material from the hard road base. Do not abrade the base
during sweeping. Sweeping should be performed slowly so that
fine surface material is not injected into the air. NOTE:
Collect material only from the portion of the road over which
the wheels and carriages routinely travel (i.e., not from
berms or any "mounds" along the road centerline) .
4. Periodically deposit the swept material material into a clean,
labeled container of suitable size (such as a metal or plastic
19 L [5 gallon] bucket) with a scalable polyethylene liner.
Increments may be mixed within this container.
5. Record the required information on the sample collection
sheet.
SAMPLE SPECIFICATIONS
For uncontrolled unpaved road surfaces, a gross sample of 10 Ib (5
kg.) to 50 Ib (23 kg) is desired. Samples of this size will require
splitting to a size amenable for analysis. For unpaved roads that
have been treated with chemical dust suppressants (such as
petroleum resins, asphalt emulsions, etc.), the above goal may not
be practical in well-defined study areas because a very large area
would need to be swept. In general, a minimum of 1 Ib (400 g) is
required for silt and moisture analysis. Additional increments
should be taken from heavily controlled unpaved surfaces, until the
minimum sample mass has been achieved.
-------
SAMPLES FROM PAVED ROADS
The following steps describe the collection method for samples
(increments).
1. Ensure that the site offers an unobstructed view of traffic
and that sampling personnel are visible to drivers. If the
road is heavily traveled, use one crew member to "spot" and
route traffic safely around another person collecting the
surface sample (increment).
2. Using string or other suitable markers, mark the sampling
width across the road. (WARNING: Do not mark the collection
area with a chalk line or in any other method 'likelv to
introduce fine material"into the sample.) The widths may be
varied between 0.3 m (1 ft) for visibly dirty roads and 3 m
(10 ft) for clean roads. When using an industrial-type vacuum
to sample lightly loaded roads, a width greater than 3 m (10
ft) may be necessary to meet sample specifications unless
increments are being combined.
3. if large, loose material is present on the surface, it should
be collected with a whisk broom and dustpan. NOTE: Collect
material only from the portion of the road ove_ir which the
wheels and carriages routinely travel (i.e., not from berms or
any "mounds" along the* road centerline) . On roads with
painted side markings, collect material "from white line to
white line." Store the swept material in a clean, labeled
container of suitable size (such as a metal or plastic 19 L [5
gallon] bucket) with a scalable polyethylene liner.
Increments for the same sample may be mixed within the
container.
4. Vacuum sweep the collection area using a portable vacuum
cleaner fitted with a tared filter ,bag. NOTE: Collect;
material only from the portion of the road over which the
wheels and carriages routinely travel (i.e., not from berms or
any "mounds" along the road centerline) . On roads with
painted side markings, collect material "from white line to
white line." The same filter bag may be used for different
increments for one sample. For heavily loaded roads, more
than one filter bag may be required for a sample (increment) .
5. Carefully remove the bag from the vacuum sweeper and check for
tears or leaks. If necessary, reduce samples from broom
sweeping to a size amenable for analysis. Seal broom swept
material in a clean, labeled plastic jar for transport
(alternatively, the swept material may be placed in the vacuum
filter bag) . Fold the unused portion of the filter bag, wrap
a rubber band around the folded bag, and store the bag for
transport.
6. Record the required information on the sample collection
sheet.
-------
SAMPLE SPECIFICATIONS
Broom swept samples (if collected) should be at least 400 g (1 Ib)
for silt and moisture analysis. The vacuum swept sample should be
at least 200 g (0.5 Ib) ; in addition, the exposed filter bag weight
should be at least 5 to 10 times greater than the empty bag tare
weight. Additional increments should be taJcen until these sample
mass goals have been achieved.
\
-------
SAMPLES FROM STORAGE PILES
The following steps describe the method for collecting samples from
storage piles:
1. Sketch plan and elevation views of the pile. Indicate if any
portion is inaccessible. Use the sketch ta plan where the N
increments will be taken by dividing the perimeter into N-l
roughly equivalent segments.
a. For a large pile, collect a minimum of 10 increments
should as near to the mid-height of the pile as
practical.
b. For a small pile, a sample should consist of a minimum of
5 increments evenly distributed amoung the top, middle,
and bottom.
"Small" or "large" piles, for practical purposes, may be
defined as those piles which can or cannot, respectively, be
scaled by a person carrying a shovel and pail.
2. Collect material with a straight-point shovel or a small
garden spade and store the increments in a clean, labeled
container of suitable size (such as a metal or plastic 19 L [5
gallon] bucket) with a scalable polyethylene liner. Depending
upon the ultimate goals of the sampling program, choose one of
the following procedures:
a. To characterize emissions from material handling
operations at an active p'ile. take increments from the
portions of the pile which most recently had material
added and removed. Collect- the material with a shovel to
a depth of 10 to 15 cm (4 to 6 inches) . Do not
deliberately avoid collecting larger pieces of aggregate
present on the surface.
b. To characterize handling emissions from an inactive pile,
obtain increments of the core material from aim (3 ft)
depth in the pile. A 2 m (6 ft) long sampling tube with
a diameter at least 10 times the diameter of the largest
particle being sampled is recommended for these samples.
Note that, for piles containing large particles, the
diameter recommendation may be impractical.
c. If characterization of wind erosion (rather than material
handling) is the'goal of the sampling program, collect
the increments by skimming the surface in an upwards
direction. The depth of the sample should be 2.5~cm (1
inch) or the the diameter of the largest particle,
whichever is less. Do no deliberately avoid collecting
larger pieces of aggregate present on the surface.
In most instances, collection method (a) should be selected.
-------
3. Record the required information on the sample collecti
sheet.
SAMPLE SPECIFICATIONS
For any of the procedures, the sample mass collected should be
least 5 kg (10 lb). When most materials are sampled wi
procedures 2.a or 2.b, ten increments normally result in a samp
of at least 23 kg (50 lb) . Note that storage pile samples usual
require splitting to a .size more amenable to laboratory analysi
\
\
-------
MOISTURE CONTENT DETERMINATION
1. Preheat the oven to approximately 110°C (230°F). Record oven tempera-
ture.
2. Tare the laboratory sample containers which will be placed vn 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
weignt(s). Check zero before weighing.
5. Place sample in oven and dry overnight.a
o. Remove sample container from oven and (a) weigh immediately if uncov-
ered, being careful of the hot-container; or (b) place tight-fitting
lid on the container and let cool before weighing. Record the com-
bined sample and container weight(s). Check zero before weighing.
>
7. Calculate the moisture as the initial weight of the sample and con-
tainer minus the oven-dried weight of the sample and container divided
by the initial weight of the sample a_lone. 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 dry-
ing time, material dried for only 1-1/2 hr must not be more than
2.5 cm (1 in.) deep in the container.
-------
SILT CONTENT DETERMINATION
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
intermediate 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 ooenings or adhering to the sides of the sieve"
should be removed (if possible) without handling the screen roughly.
4. Obtain a scale (capacity of at least 1,500 g) and record make, capac-
ity, 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 the pan at the bot-;
torn, dump dried laboratory sample (probably immediately after moisture
analysis) into the top sieve. The,sample should weigh between 400 and
1,600 g (~ 0.9 to 3.5 1b). 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. Repeat the sieving
in 10-min intervals until the difference between two successive pan
sample weighings (where the tare of the pan has been subtracted) is
less than 3.0%. Do not sieve longer than 40 min.
8. Weigh each sieve and its contents and record the weignt. Check the
zero before every weigning.
9. Collect the laboratory sample and place the sample in a separate con-
tainer if further analysis is expected.
10. Calculate the oercent of mass less than the 200 mesh screen (75 urn).
This is zhe silt content.
This amount will vary for fine textured materials; 100 to 300 g may be
sufficient wnen 90% of tne sample passes a No. 8 (2.35 mm) sieve.
-------
Appendix I
-------
REPORT
Example Test Plan for Point or
Non-Uniform Line Sources
For U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
Attn: Mr. Dennis Shipman
EPA Contract No. 68-DO-0123
Work Assignment No. II-44
MRI Project No. 9712-M(44)
April 28, 1993
MIDWEST RESEARCH INSTITUTE 425 Voiker Boulevard, Kansas City, MO 64110-2299 • (816) 753-7600
-------
PREFACE
This report was prepared as part of Work Assignment No. 11-44 of EPA Contract
No. 68-DO-0123 as an example test protocol for point or non-uniform line sources of
fugitive emissions. Mr. Dennis Shipman of the EPA's Emission Inventory Branch
served as the EPA technicaLmonrtor. Dr. Gregory E._ Muleski served as Midwest
Research Institute's (MRI's) project leader. Mr. Gary Garman and Dr. Muleski
prepared this report.
Approved for:
*
MIDWEST RESEARCH INSTITUTE
Richard V. Grume
Program Manager
Environmental Engineering Department
/.-Charles F. Holt, Ph.D., Director
ff Engineering and Environmental
v Technology Department
April 28, 1993
MHI-MW9712-44STP III
-------
CONTENTS
Preface
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
in
Introduction
Quality Assurance
Sampling and Analysis Procedures
Testing Schedule
References
Appendix:
Material sampling and analysis procedures
1-1
2-1
3-1
4-1
5-1
A-1
MHI-W19712-U.STP
-------
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION
This report outlines the test plan to be followed during a field sampling program
to determine paniculate emissions from a point source, such as a batch material
handling operation or a non-uniformly emitting line source, such as mud/dirt track-out
onto paved roads. The report describes the sampling methodology, data analysis, and
quality assurance procedures to be followed in the field study. The primary pollutant
of concern is paniculate matter (PM), especially PM no greater than 10 ujn in
aerodynamic diameter (PM10). However, the basic sampling strategy and data
analysis are equally applicable to other types of pollutants that might be emitted from
the same types of sources.
The basic field sampling methodology uses the concept of "exposure profiling"
developed by MRI.1 The exposure profiling method calculates emission rates using a
conservation of mass approach. The passage of airborne paniculate (i.e., the quantity
of emissions per unit of source activity) is obtained by the spatial integration of
exposure (mass/area) measurements distributed over the effective cross section of the
plume. Note that for a point source such as a material handling operation, a two-
dimensional sampling array is required to characterize the plume's effective cross
section. For a non-uniformly emitting line source, it is necessary to characterize
emissions along the line. This, of course, also requires a two-dimensional sampling
array. A companion report2 describes sampling protocol for uniformly emitting line
sources, which may be characterized using a one-dimensional vertical sampling array.
The remainder of this report provides a "skeleton" test protocol in that issues
are discussed in general terms but can be readily expanded once a specific source
and site have been selected for testing. Section 2 discusses quality assurance
considerations, and Section 3 outlines the general sampling and analysis procedures
to be followed. Section 4 describes an example test schedule.
MRI-MVR0712-44STP *]-*]
-------
SECTION 2
QUALITY ASSURANCE
The sampling and analysis procedures to be followed in this field testing
program are subject to certain quality control (QC) guidelines. These guidelines will
be discussed in conjunction with the activities to which they apply. These procedures
meet or exceed the requirements specified in the reports entitled Quality Assurance
Handbook for Air Pollution Measurement Systems, Volume II—Ambient Air Specific
Methods (EPA 600/4-77-027a), and Ambient Monitoring Guidelines for Prevention of
Significant Deterioration (EPA 4350/2-78-019).
As part of the QC program for this study, routine audits of sampling and
analysis procedures will be performed. The purpose of the audits is to demonstrate
that measurements are made within acceptable control conditions for particulate
source sampling and to assess the source testing data for precision and accuracy.
Examples of items to be audited include gravimetric analysis, flow rate calibration,
data processing, and emission factor calculation. The mandatory use of specially-
designed reporting forms for sampling and analysis of data obtained in the field and
laboratory aids in the auditing procedure. Further details on specific sampling and
analysis procedures are provided in the following section.
MBI-MW9712-44 S7P 2" 1
-------
SECTION 3
SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS PROCEDURES
This section describes the general methodology used to characterize emissions
from point or non-uniform line sources.
GENERAL AIR SAMPLING EQUIPMENT AND TECHNIQUES
Exposure profiling, which is the primary air sampling technique in this study, is
based on 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 generalized atmospheric dispersion model (as in the so-called
"upwind/downwind" method).
Example equipment deployments are shown in Figures 1 and 2 for a point
source and a non-uniform line source, respectively. The exact spacing of samplers is
highly dependent upon various factors including
• Source dimensions
• Emission release height
• Range of wind speeds expected
The primary air sampling device in this example test plan is a standard high-
volume air sampler fitted with a cyclone preseparator (Figure 3). The cyclone exhibits
an effective 50% cutoff diameter (D^,) of approximately 10 microns (u.m) in
aerodynamic diameter when operated at a flow rate of 40 cfm (68 m3/h).3
Throughout each test, wind speed is monitored at the downwind sampling
site(s) by directional warm wire anemometers (Kurz Model 465) at three heights.
Horizontal wind direction is monitored by a wind vane at a single height. Wind speed
and direction are scanned using a data logger, with 5-min averages stored in a
computer file. The vertical profile.of horizontal wind speed is determined by fitting the
measurements to a logarithmic profile.
The remainder of this report provides a "skeleton" test protocol in that items are
discussed in general terms but can be readily expanded once a specific source and
site have been selected for testing.
MRMWW712-U STP 3-1
-------
Ol
10
UPWIND
DOWNWIND
O CYCLONE
WIND SPEED
WIND DIRECTION
Figure 1, Example sampler deployment for a point source.
-------
GJ
UPWIND
O CYCLONE
WIND DWecTTON
UPWIND
Figure 2. Example deployment for a non-uniformly emitting source.
-------
-------
Each field testing program should begin with a visit to the candidate test site(s).
Upon return, a site-specific test protocol is developed, which describes sampler
deployment and spacing, test schedule, and any special provisions, such as different
source conditions (i.e., test matrix).
EMISSION TESTING PROCEDURE
Preparation of Sample Collection Media
Paniculate samples are collected on glass fiber filters. Prior to the initial
weighing, the filters are equilibrated for 24 h at constant temperature and humidity in a
special weighing room. During weighing, the balance is checked at frequent intervals
with standard (Class S) weights to ensure accuracy. The filters remain in the same
controlled environment for another 24 h, after which a second analyst reweighs them
as a precision check. If a filter cannot pass audit limits, the entire lot is to be
reweighed. Ten percent of the filters taken to the field are used as blanks.
The quality assurance guidelines pertaining to preparation of sample collection
media are presented in Table 1.
TABLE 1. QUALITY ASSURANCE PROCEDURES FOR SAMPLING MEDIA
Activity
QA 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 h in a clean controlled
room with relative humidity of 45% (variation of
less than ±5% RH) and with temperature of
23°C (variation of less than ±1°C).
Weigh hi-vol filters to nearest 0.1 mg.
Independently verify final weights of 10% of
filters (at least four from each batch). Reweigh
batch if weights of any hi-vol filter deviates by
more than ±2.0 mg. For tare weights, conduct
a 100% audit. Reweigh tare weight of any
filter that deviates by more than ±1.0 mg.
Weigh and handle at least one blank for each
1 to 10 filters of each type for each test.
Balance to be calibrated once per year by
certified manufacturer's representa-tive. ChecK
prior to each use with laboratory Class S
weights.
MRI-MkR9712.44.S7F
3-5
-------
Pretest Procedures/Evaluation of Sampling Conditions
Prior to equipment deployment, a number of decisions are to be made as to the
potential for acceptable source testing conditions. These decisions are based on
forecast information obtained from the local U.S. Weather Service office. If conditions
are considered acceptable, the sampling equipment deployment is initiated. At this
time the sampling flow rates are set for the various air sampling instruments. The
quality control guidelines governing this activity are found in Table 2.
TABLE 2. QUALITY ASSURANCE PROCEDURES FOR SAMPLING FLOW RATES
Activity QA check/requirement
High volume air samplers Calibrate flows in operating ranges using
calibration orifice upon arrival and every
2 weeks thereafter at each regional site
prior to testing.
Orifice and electronic calibrator Calibrate against displaced volume test
meter annually.
Once the source testing equipment is set up and the filters inserted, air
sampling commences. Information is recorded on specially-designed reporting forms
and includes:
a. Air samples—Start/stop times, wind speed profiles, flow rates, and wind
direction (5- to 15-min average). See Table 3 for QA procedures.
b. Measures of source activity—such as number of material batch drops
and number of vehicles passing over a track-out site.
c. General meteorology—Wind speed, wind direction, and temperature.
Sampling time must be long enough to provide sufficient sample and to average over
several cycles of the fluctuation in the emission rate (i.e., batch drops). Occasionally
sampling may be interrupted because of the occurrence of unacceptable meteoro-
logical conditions and then restarted when suitable conditions return. Table 4 presents
the criteria used for suspending or terminating a source test.
3-6 MHI-MW8712-44.STP
-------
TABLE 3. QUALITY ASSURANCE PROCEDURES FOR SAMPLING EQUIPMENT
Activity
QA check/requirement*
Maintenance
• All samplers
Operation
• Timing
Isokinetic sampling
(cyclones)
Prevention of static
mode deposition
Check motors, gaskets, timers, and flow-
measuring devices at each plant prior to testing.
Start and stop all downwind samplers during time
span not exceeding 1 min.
Adjust sampling intake orientation whenever
mean wind direction dictates.
Change the cyclone intake nozzle whenever the
mean wind speed approaching the sampler falls
outside of the suggested bounds for that nozzle.
This technique allocates no nozzle for wind
speeds ranging from 0 to 10 mph, and unique
nozzles for four wind speed ranges above
10 mph.
Cap sampler inlets prior to and immediately after
sampling.
All "means" refer to 5- to 15-min averages.
TABLE 4. CRITERIA FOR SUSPENDING OR TERMINATING A 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 0.9- to 8.9-m/sec (2- to
20-mph) acceptable range for more than 20% of the sampling time.
3. The angle between mean wind direction and perpendicular to the plane of the
sampling array during sampling exceeds 45 degrees for two consecutive
averaging periods.
4. Daylight or available artificial lighting is insufficient for safe equipment operation.
5. Source condition deviates from predetermined criteria (e.g., occurrence of truck
spill or accidental water splashing prior to uncontrolled testing).
a "Mean" denotes a 5- to 15-min average.
MRI-MiR9712-**.STP
3-7
-------
Sample Handling and Analysis
To prevent particulate losses, the exposed media are carefully transferred at
the end of each run to protective containers for transportation. In the field laboratory,
exposed filters are placed in individual glassine envelopes and then into numbered file
folders. When exposed filters and the associated blanks are returned to the MRI
laboratory, they are equilibrated under the same conditions as the initial weighing.
After reweighing, 10% of the filters are audited to check weighing accuracy.
EMISSION FACTOR CALCULATION PROCEDURES
To calculate emission rates, a conservation of mass approach is 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, or equivalently, the net particulate mass passing through a unit area
normal to the mean wind direction during the test. The steps in the calculation
procedure for line sources are described below.
Particulate Concentrations
The concentration of particulate matter measured by a sampler is given by:
C = 103 —
Qt
where: C = particulate concentration (u.g/m3)
m = particulate sample weight (mg)
Q = sampler flow rate (m3/min)
t = duration of sampling (min)
To be consistent with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards, all
concentrations and flow rates are expressed in standard conditions (25°C and
101 kPa or 77°F and 29.92 inHg).
The isokinetic flow ratio (IFR) is the ratio of a directional sampler's intake air
speed to the mean wind speed approaching the sampler. It is given by:
IFR = °-
aU
where: Q = sampler flow rate (m3/min)
a = intake area of sampler (m2)
U = mean wind speed at height of sampler (m/min)
3-3 MRI-MVR9712.44.STP
-------
This ratio is of interest in the sampling of total particulate, since isokinetic
sampling ensures that particles of all sizes are sampled without bias. Note, however,
that because the primary interest in this program is directed to PM10 emissions,
sampling under moderately nonisokinetic conditions poses no difficulty. It is readily
agreed that 10 (im (aerodynamic diameter) and smaller particles have weak inertial
characteristics at normal wind speeds and therefore are relatively unaffected by
anisokinesis.4
Exposure represents the net passage of mass through a unit area normal to the
direction of plume transport (wind direction) and is calculated by:
E = 1Q-7 x CUt
where: E = particulate exposure (mg/cm2)
C = net concentration (u,g/m3)
U = approaching wind speed (m/s)
t = duration of sampling (s)
Exposure values vary over the spatial extent of the plume. If exposure is
integrated over the plume effective cross section, then the quantity obtained
represents the total passage of airborne particulate matter due to the source.
For point sources, a two-dimensional integration is used:
w
I/!!**<*
where: A2 = integrated mass (m2-mg/cm2)
W = effective plume width (m)
H = effective extent of plume above ground (m)
E = particulate exposure (mg/cm2)
h = vertical distance coordinate (m)
y = horizontal crosswind coordinate (m)
An analogous expression applies to non-uniform line sources.
Particulate Emission Factors
The emission factor for particulate generated by material handling expressed in
grams of emissions per megagram of material handled is found as:
MHI-M\R9712-USTP 3~9
-------
where: e = paniculate emission factor (g/Mg)
A2 = integrated mass (m2-mg/cm2)
S s measure of source activity appropriate for the source of interest
(e.g., mass of material handled or number of vehicles traveling
over a track-out surface)
SURFACE AND OTHER MATERIAL SAMPLES
A sample that is characteristic of the emitting material or surface is taken in
conjunction with each test. The collection and analysis of these samples are
important because the available emission factor and control performance models often
make use of material parameters. Samples are to analyzed (at a minimum) for silt
(particles passing a 200-mesh screen) and moisture contents. Detailed steps for
collection and analysis of samples for silt and moisture are given in the Appendix. An
abbreviated discussion is presented below.
Sample collection procedures depend on the type of material under
consideration. For example, mud and dirt trackout onto a paved surface is sampled
by broom sweeping (if necessary) followed by vacuum cleaning of the surface. When
the emission source depends upon a bulk material being handled, samples are to be
composited of increments taken from the material being transferred. The Appendix
presents a series of specific procedures for the collection of samples.
Once the field sample is obtained, it will be prepared for analysis. If necessary,
the field sample will be split with a riffle to a sample size amenable to laboratory
analysis. The basic procedure for moisture analysis is determination of weight loss on
oven drying. Silt analysis procedures follow the ASTM-C-136 method. The Appendix
details these procedures.
3-10 MHI-MVRS712-44 STP
-------
SECTION 4
TESTING SCHEDULE
The following describes a typical schedule of field activities, starting with the
arrival of the crew at the test site.
1. Unpack the transport truck and arrange field laboratory facilities. Provide
captive activities or monitor actual operations for at least 1 hr prior to the
start of air testing.
2. Erect upwind and downwind sampling arrays.
3. Calibrate each sampler to the required volumetric flow rate (40 cfm for
the cyclone preseparators described in Section 3).
4. Conduct air sampling following the procedures described in Section 3. At
the end of this test period:'
• Cover sampler inlets
• Discontinue any captive activity
• Remove and store the sampling media from the downwind
samples as specified in Section 3
Repeat the sampling procedure so that at least replicate tests are
conducted under essentially unchanged conditions
• Collect a surface or other material sample following the
procedures given in Section 3
5. Repeat Step 4 until all elements of the test matrix have been considered.
6. Pack equipment for transport to the next regional test site or for return to
the main laboratories.
MHI-MW9712-44.STP 4-1
-------
SECTION 5
REFERENCES
1. • Muleski, G. E. Critical Review of Open Source Paniculate Emissions
Measurements: Field Comparison. MRI Final Report Prepared for Southern
Research Institute, MRI Project No. 7993-L(2) (August 1984).
2. Garman, G., and G. E. Muleski. Example Test Plan for Point or Non-Uniform
Line Sources. Work Assignment No. 44, EPA Contract 68-DO-0123 (April
1993).
3. Baxter, T. E., D. D. Lane, C. Cowherd, Jr., and F. Pendleton. Calibration of a
Cyclone for Monitoring Inhalable Particles. Journal of Environmental
Engineering, 112:3 (1986).
4. Davies, C. N. The Entry of Aerosols in Sampling Heads and Tubes. British
Journal of Applied Physics, 2:921 (1968).
MRI-MVRB712-44.S7P 5~ 1
-------
APPENDIX
MATERIAL SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS PROCEDURES
MRI-MW9712-44.STP A-1
-------
SAMPLES FROM UNPAVED ROADS
PROCEDURE
The following steps describe the collection method for samples
(increments).
1. Ensure that the site offers an unobstructed view of traffic
and that sampling personnel are visible to drivers. If the
road is heavily traveled, use one person to "spot" and route
traffic safely around another person collecting the surface
sample (increment).
2. Using string or other suitable markers, mark a 1 ft (0.3 m)
width, across the road. (WARNING: Do not mark the col lection
area with a chalk ^Ine or in anv other method likely to
introduce fine material into the sample.)
3. With a whisk broom and dustpan, remove the loose surface
material from the hard road base. Do not abrade the base
during sweeping. Sweeping should be performed slowly so that
fine surface material is not injected -into the air. NOTE:
Collect material only from the portion of the road over which
the wheels and carriages routinely travel (i.e. , not from
berms or any "mounds" along the road centerline).
4. Periodically deposit the swtept material material into a clean,
labeled container of suitable size (such as a metal or plastic
19 L [5 gallon] bucket) with a scalable polyethylene liner.
Increments may be mixed within this container.
5. Record the required information on the sample collection
sheet.
SAMPLE SPECIFICATIONS
For uncontrolled unpaved road surfaces, a gross sample of 10 Ib (5
kg) to 50 Ib (23 kg) is desired. Samples of this size will require
splitting to a size amenable for analysis. For unpaved roads that
have been treated with chemical dust suppressants (such as
petroleum resins, asphalt emulsions, etc.), the above goal may not
be practical in well-defined study areas because a very large area
would need to be swept. In general, a minimum of I Ib (400 g) is
required for silt and moisture analysis. Additional increments
should be taken from heavily controlled unpaved surfaces, until the
minimum sample mass has been achieved.
-------
SAMPLES FROM PAVED ROADS
The following steps describe the collection method for samples
(increments).
1. Ensure that the site offers an unobstructed view of traffic
and that sampling personnel are visible to drivers. If the
road is heavily traveled, use one crew member to "spot" and
route traffic safely around another person collecting the
surface sample (increment).
2. Using string or other suitable markers, mark the sampling
width across the road. (WARNING: Do not mark the collection
area with a chalk, .line or in anv other method, likely . to
introduce fine material into the sample.) The widths may be
varied between 0.3 m (1 ft) for visibly dirty roads and 3 m
(10 ft) for clean roads. When using an industrial-type vacuum
to sample lightly loaded roads, a width greater than 3 m (10
ft) may be necessary to meet sample specifications unless
increments are being combined.
3. If large, loose material is present on the surface, it should
be collected with a whisk broom and dustpan. NOTE: Collect
material only from the portion of the road over which the
wheels and carriages routinely travel (i.e. , not from berms or
any "mounds" along the* road centerline) . On roads with
painted side markings, collect material "from white line to
white line." Store the swept material in a clean, labeled
container of suitable size (such as a metal or plastic 19 L [5
gallon] bucket) with a Scalable polyethylene liner.
Increments for the same sample may be mixed within the
container.
4. Vacuum sweep the collection area using a portable vacuum
cleaner fitted with a tared filter bag. NOTE: collect
material only from the portion of the road over which the
wheels and carriages routinely travel (i.e., not from berms or
any "mounds" along the road centerline) . On roads with
painted side markings, collect material "from white line to
white line." The same filter bag may be used for different
increments for one sample. For heavily loaded • roads, more
than one filter bag may be required for a sample (increment) .
5. Carefully remove the bag from the vacuum sweeper and check for
tears or leaks. If necessary, reduce samples from broom
sweeping to a size amenable for analysis. Seal broom swept
material in a clean, labeled plastic jar for transport
(alternatively, the swept material may be placed in the vacuum
filter bag) . -Fold the unused portion of the filter bag, wrap
a rubber band around the folded bag, and store the bag for
transport.
6. Record the required information on the sample collection
sheet.
-------
SAMPLE SPECIFICATIONS
Broom swept samples (if collected) should be at least 400 g (1 Ib)
for silt and moisture analysis. The vacuum swept sample should be
at least 200 g (0.5 Ib) ; in addition, the exposed filter bag weight.
should be at least 5 to 10 times greater than the empty bag tare
weight. Additional increments should be taken until these sample
mass goals have been achieved.
-------
SAMPLES FROM STORAGE PILES
The following steps describe the method for collecting samples from
storage piles:
1. Sketch plan and elevation views of the pile. Indicate if any
portion is inaccessible. Use the sketch to- plan where the N
increments will be taken by dividing the perimeter into N-l
roughly equivalent segments.
a. For a large pile, collect a minimum of 10 increments
should as near to the mid-height of the pile as
practical.
b. For a small pile, a sample should consist of a minimum of
6 increments evenly distributed amoung the top, middle,
and bottom.
"Small" or "large" piles, for practical purposes, may be
defined as those piles which can or cannot, respectively, be
scaled by a person carrying a shovel and pail.
2. Collect material with a straight-point shovel or a small
garden spade and store the increments in a clean, labeled
container of suitable size (such as a metal or plastic 19 L [5
gallon] bucket) with a scalable polyethylene liner. Depending
upon the ultimate goals of the sampling program, choose one of
the following procedures:
a- To characterize emissions from material handling*
operations at an active pile, take increments from the
portions of the pile which most recently had material
added and removed. Collect- the material with a shovel to
a depth of 10 to 15 cm (4 to 6 inches) . Do not
deliberately avoid collecting larger pieces of aggregate
present on the surface.
b. To characterize handling emissions from an inactive pile,
obtain increments of the core material from aim (3 ft)
depth in the pile. A 2 m (6 ft) long sampling tube with
a diameter at least 10 times the diameter of the largest
particle being sampled is recommended for these samples.
Note that, for piles containing large particles, the
diameter recommendation may be impractical.
c. If characterization of wind erosion (rather than material
handling) is the goal of the sampling' program, collect
the increments by skimming the surface in an upwards
direction. The depth of the sample should be 2.5 cm (1
inch) or the the diameter of the largest particle,
whichever is less. Do no deliberately avoid collecting
larger pieces of aggregate present on the surface.
In most instances, collection method (a) should be selected.
-------
3. Record the required information on the sample collection
sheet.
SAMPLE SPECIFICATIONS
For any of the procedures, the sample mass collected should be at
least 5 kg (10 Ib) . When most materials- are sampled with
procedures 2.a or 2.b, ten increments normally result in a sample
of at least 23 leg (50 Ib) . Note that storage pile samples usually
require splitting to a size more amenable to laboratory analysis.
-------
MOISTURE CONTENT DETERMINATION
1. Preheat the oven to approximately 110°C (230°F). Record oven tempera-
ture.
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). Checlc 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 uncov-
ered, being careful of the hot-container; or (b) place tight-fitting
lid on the container and let cool before weighing. Record the com-
bined sample and container weighy(s). Check zero before weighing.
7. Calculate the moisture as the initial weight of the sample and con-
tainer minus the oven-dried weight of the sample and container divided
by the initial weight of the sample aJone. 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 dry-
ing time, material dried for only 1-1/2 hr must not be more than
2.5 on (1 in.) deep in the container.
-------
SILT CONTENT DETERMINATION
1. Select the appropriate S-in. diameter, 2-in. deep sieve sizes. Recom-
mended U.S. Standard Series sizes are: 3/S-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
intermediate sieve should be inserted.
2. Obtain a mechanical sieving device such as a vibratory shaker or a
Roto-Tap (without the tapping function).
2. Clean the sieves with comoressed 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. Obtain a scale (capacity of at least 1,500 g) and record make, capac-
ity, smallest division, date of last calibration, and accuracy.
5. Tare sieves and pan. Check the zero before every wei-ghing. Record
we ights.
*>
6. After nesting the sieves in decreasing order with the pan at the bot-
tom, dump dried laboratory sample (probably immediately after moisture
analysis) into the too sieve. The,sample should weigh between 400 and
•1,500 g (> 0.9 to 3.5 lb).a Brush fine material adhering to the sides
of the container into the top sieve and cover the too 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. Repeat -he sieving
in 10-min intervals until the difference between two successive pan
sample weighings (where the tare of the pan has been subtracted) is
less than 3.0%. Do not sieve longer than 40 min.
8. Weigh each sieve and its contents and record the weight. Check the
zero before every weigning.
9. Collect tne laboratory sample and place the sample in a separate con-
tainer if furtner analysis is expected.
10. Calculate the percent of mass less than the 200 mesh screen (75 urn).
This is the silt csntant.
This amount will vary for fine textured materials; 100 to 300 g may be
sufficient wnen 90% of tne sample passes a No. 3 (2.36 mm) sieve.
-------
REPORT
Example Test Plan for Point or
Non-Uniform Line Sources
For U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
Attn: Mr. Dennis Shipman
EPA Contract No. 68-DO-0123
Work Assignment No. II-44
MRI Project No. 9712-M(44)
April 28, 1993
MIDWEST RESEARCH INSTITUTE 425 Volker Boulevard, Kansas City, MO 64110-2299 • (816) 753-7600
-------
PREFACE
This report was prepared as part of Work Assignment No. 11-44 of EPA Contract
No. 68-DO-0123 as an example test protocol for point or non-uniform line sources of
fugitive emissions. Mr. Dennis Shipman of the EPA's Emission Inventory Branch
served as the EPA technical monitor. Dr.. Gregory E. Muleski served as Midwest
Research Institute's (MRI's) project leader. Mr. Gary Garman and Dr. Muleski
prepared this report.
Approved for:
MIDWEST RESEARCH INSTITUTE
Richard V. Grume
Program Manager
Environmental Engineering Department
/ Charles F. Holt, Ph.D., Director
Engineering and Environmental
Technology Department
April 28, 1993
MRI-MW9Z12-44.STF III
-------
CONTENTS
Preface
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Introduction
Quality Assurance
Sampling and Analysis Procedures
Testing Schedule
References
Appendix:
Material sampling and analysis procedures
. in
1-1
2-1
3-1
4-1
5-1
A-1
MRI-MVRS712-44.STP
-------
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION
This report outlines the test plan to be followed during a field sampling program
to determine particulate emissions from a point source, such as a batch material
handling operation or a non-uniformly emitting line source, such as mud/dirt track-out
onto paved roads. The report describes the sampling methodology, data analysis, and
quality assurance procedures to be followed in the field study. The primary pollutant
of concern is particulate matter (PM), especially PM no greater than 10 u.m in
aerodynamic diameter (PM10). However, the basic sampling strategy and data
analysis are equally applicable to other types of pollutants that might be emitted from
the same types of sources.
The basic field sampling methodology uses the concept of "exposure profiling"
developed by MRI.1 The exposure profiling method calculates emission rates using a
conservation of mass approach. The passage of airborne particulate (i.e., the quantity
of emissions per unit of source activity) is obtained by the spatial integration of
exposure (mass/area) measurements distributed over the effective cross section of the
plume. Note that for a point source such as a material handling operation, a two-
dimensional sampling array is required to characterize the plume's effective cross
section. For a non-uniformly emitting line source, it is necessary to characterize
emissions along the line. This, of course, also requires a two-dimensional sampling
array. A companion report2 describes sampling protocol for uniformly emitting line
sources, which may be characterized using a one-dimensional vertical sampling array.
The remainder of this report provides a "skeleton" test protocol in that issues
are discussed in general terms but can be readily expanded once a specific source
and site have been selected for testing. Section 2 discusses quality assurance
considerations, and Section 3 outlines the general sampling and analysis procedures
to be followed. Section 4 describes an example test schedule.
MRI-MVR9712-U. STP 1-1
-------
SECTION 2
QUALITY ASSURANCE
The sampling and analysis procedures to be followed in this field testing
program are subject to certain quality control (QC) guidelines. These guidelines wili
be discussed in conjunction with the activities to which they apply. These procedures
meet or exceed the requirements specified in the reports entitled Quality Assurance
Handbook for Air Pollution Measurement Systems, Volume II—Ambient Air Specific
Methods (EPA 600/4-77-027a), and Ambient Monitoring Guidelines for Prevention of
Significant Deterioration (EPA 4350/2-78-019).
As part of the QC program for this study, routine audits of sampling and
analysis procedures will be performed. The purpose of the audits is to demonstrate
that measurements are made within acceptable control conditions for particuiate
source sampling and to assess the source testing data for precision and accuracy.
Examples of items to be audited include gravimetric analysis, flow rate calibration,
data processing, and emission factor calculation. The mandatory use of specially-
designed reporting forms for sampling and analysis of data obtained in the field and
laboratory aids in the auditing procedure. Further details on specific sampling and
analysis procedures are provided in the following section.
MFU-MW9712-44 S7P
-------
SECTION 3
SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS PROCEDURES
This section describes the general methodology used to characterize emissions
from point or non-uniform line sources.
GENERAL AIR SAMPLING EQUIPMENT AND TECHNIQUES
Exposure profiling, which is the primary air sampling technique in this study, is
based on 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 generalized atmospheric dispersion model (as in the so-called
"upwind/downwind" method).
Example equipment deployments are shown in Figures 1 and 2 for a point
source and a non-uniform line source, respectively. The exact spacing of samplers is
highly dependent upon various factors including
• Source dimensions
• Emission release height
• Range of wind speeds expected
The primary air sampling device in this example test plan is a standard high-
volume air sampler fitted with a cyclone preseparator (Figure 3). The cyclone exhibits
an effective 50% cutoff diameter (D50) of approximately 10 microns (u,m) in
aerodynamic diameter when operated at a flow rate of 40 cfm (68 m3/h).3
Throughout each test, wind speed is monitored at the downwind sampling
site(s) by directional warm wire anemometers (Kurz Model 465) at three heights.
Horizontal wind direction is monitored by a wind vane at a single height. Wind speed
and direction are scanned using a data logger, with 5-min averages stored in a
computer file. The vertical profile of horizontal wind speed is determined by fitting the
measurements to a logarithmic profile.
The remainder of this report provides a "skeleton" test protocol in that items are
discussed in general terms but can be readily expanded once a specific source and
site have been selected for testing.
MRI-MVR9712-44.STP
3-1
-------
UPWIND
DOWNWIND
O CYCLONE
WIND SPEED
WIND DIRECTION
Figure 1. Example sampler deployment for a point source.
-------
GJ
to
UPWIND
—• WIND {FEED
omecnoN
UPWIND
Figure 2. Example deployment for a non-uniformly emitting source.
-------
• c.
t>rt
-------
Each field testing program should begin with a visit to the candidate test site(s).
Upon return, a site-specific test protocol is developed, which describes sampler
deployment and spacing, test schedule, and any special provisions, such as different
source conditions (i.e., test matrix).
EMISSION TESTING PROCEDURE
Preparation of Sample Collection Media
Paniculate samples are collected on glass fiber filters. Prior to the initial
weighing, the filters are equilibrated for 24 h at constant temperature and humidity in a
special weighing room. During weighing, the balance is checked at frequent intervals
with standard (Class S) weights to ensure accuracy. The filters remain in the same
controlled environment for another 24 h, after which a second analyst reweighs them
as a precision check. If a filter cannot pass audit limits, the entire lot is to be
reweighed. Ten percent of the filters taken to the field are used as blanks.
The quality assurance guidelines pertaining to preparation of sample collection
media are presented in Table 1.
TABLE 1. QUALITY ASSURANCE PROCEDURES FOR SAMPLING MEDIA
Activity
QA 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 h in a clean controlled
room with relative humidity of 45% (variation of
less than ±5% RH) and with temperature of
23°C (variation of less than ±1°C).
Weigh hi-vol filters to nearest 0'.1 mg.
Independently verify final weights of 10% of
filters (at least four from each batch). Reweigh
batch if weights of any hi-vol filter deviates by
more than ±2.0 mg. For tare weights, conduct
a 100% audit. Reweigh tare weight of any
filter that deviates by more than ±1.0 mg.
Weigh and handle at least one blank for each
1 to 10 filters of each type for each test.
Balance to be calibrated once per year by
certified manufacturer's representa-tive. Check
prior to each use with laboratory Class S
weights.
MRI-MVTO712-44.STP
3-5
-------
Pretest Procedures/Evaluation of Sampling Conditions
Prior to equipment deployment, a number of decisions are to be made as to the
potential for acceptable source testing conditions. These decisions are based on
forecast information obtained from the local U.S. Weather Service office. If conditions
are considered acceptable, the sampling equipment deployment is initiated. At this
time the sampling flow rates are set for the various air sampling instruments. The
quality control guidelines governing this activity are found in Table 2.
TABLE 2. QUALITY ASSURANCE PROCEDURES FOR SAMPLING FLOW RATES
Activity QA check/requirement
High volume air samplers Calibrate flows in operating ranges using
calibration orifice upon arrival and every
2 weeks thereafter at each regional site
prior to testing.
Orifice and electronic calibrator Calibrate against displaced volume test
meter annually.
Once the source testing equipment is set up and the filters inserted, air
sampling commences. Information is recorded on specially-designed reporting forms
and includes:
a. Air samples—Start/stop times, wind speed profiles, flow rates, and wind
direction (5- to 15-min average). See Table 3 for QA procedures.
b. Measures of source activity—such as number of material batch drops
and number of vehicles passing over a track-out site.
c. General meteorology—Wind speed, wind direction, and temperature.
Sampling time must be long enough to provide sufficient sample and to average over
several cycles of the fluctuation in the emission rate (i.e., batch drops). Occasionally
sampling may be interrupted because of the occurrence of unacceptable meteoro-
logical conditions and then restarted when suitable conditions return. Table 4 presents
the criteria used for suspending or terminating a source test.
3-6 MHI-MW9712-44.STP
-------
TABLE 3. QUALITY ASSURANCE PROCEDURES FOR SAMPLING EQUIPMENT
Activity
QA check/requirement*
Maintenance
• All samplers
Operation
• Timing
Isokinetic sampling
(cyclones) - -
• Prevention of static
mode deposition
Check motors, gaskets, timers, and flow-
measuring devices at each plant prior to testing.
Start and stop all downwind samplers during time
span not exceeding 1 min.
Adjust sampling intake orientation whenever
mean wind direction dictates.
Change the cyclone intake nozzle whenever the
mean wind speed approaching the sampler falls
outside of the suggested bounds for that nozzle.
This technique allocates no nozzle for wind
speeds ranging from 0 to 10 mph, and unique
nozzles for four wind speed ranges above
10 mph.
Cap sampler inlets prior to and immediately after
sampling.
All "means" refer to 5- to 15-min averages.
TABLE 4. CRITERIA FOR SUSPENDING OR TERMINATING A 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 0.9- to 8.9-m/sec (2- to
20-mph) acceptable range for more than 20% of the sampling time.
3. The angle between mean wind direction and perpendicular to the plane of the
sampling array during sampling exceeds 45 degrees for two consecutive
averaging periods.
4. Daylight or available artificial lighting is insufficient for safe equipment operation.
5. Source condition deviates from predetermined criteria (e.g., occurrence of truck
spill or accidental water splashing prior to uncontrolled testing).
a "Mean" denotes a 5- to 15-min average.
MRI-M\R971Z-M.STP
3-7
-------
Sample Handling and Analysis
To prevent particulate losses, the exposed media are carefully transferred at
the end of each run to protective containers for transportation. In the field laboratory,
exposed filters are placed in individual glassine envelopes and then into numbered file
folders. When exposed filters and the associated blanks are returned to the MRI
laboratory, they are equilibrated under the same conditions as the initial weighing.
After reweighing, 10% of the filters are audited to check weighing accuracy.
EMISSION FACTOR CALCULATION PROCEDURES
To calculate emission rates, a conservation of mass approach is 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, or equivalently, the net particulate mass passing through a unit area
normal to the mean wind direction during the test. The steps in the calculation
procedure for line s6urces are described below.
Particulate Concentrations
The concentration of particulate matter measured by a sampler is given by:
C = 103 -HL
Qt
where: C = particulate concentration (u.g/m3)
m = particulate sample weight (mg)
Q = sampler flow rate (m3/min)
t = duration of sampling (min)
To be consistent with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards, all
concentrations and flow rates are expressed in standard conditions (25°C and
101 kPa or 77°F and 29.92 inHg).
The isokinetic flow ratio (IFR) is the ratio of a directional sampler's intake air
speed to the mean wind speed approaching the sampler. It is given by:
IFR » A
aU
where: Q = sampler flow rate (m3/min)
a = intake area of sampler (m2)
U = mean wind speed at height of sampler (m/min)
3-3 Mfll-MUU712-44.STF
-------
This ratio is of interest in the sampling of total particulate, since isokinetic
sampling ensures that particles of all sizes are sampled without bias. Note, however,
that because the primary interest in this program is directed to PM10 emissions,
sampling under moderately nonisokinetic conditions poses no difficulty, it is readily
agreed that 10 nm (aerodynamic diameter) and smaller particles have weak inertial
characteristics at normal wind speeds and therefore are relatively unaffected by
anisokinesis.4
Exposure represents the net passage of mass through a unit area normal to the
direction of plume transport (wind direction) and is calculated by:
E = 10-7 x CUt
where: E = particulate exposure (mg/cm2)
C = net concentration (u.g/m3)
U = approaching wind speed (m/s)
t = duration of sampling (s)
Exposure values vary over the spatial extent of the plume. If exposure is
integrated over the plume effective cross section, then the quantity obtained
represents the total passage of airborne particulate matter due to the source.
For point sources, a two-dimensional integration is used:
w
where: A2 = integrated mass (m2-mg/cm2)
W = effective plume width (m)
H = effective extent of plume above ground (m)
E = particulate exposure (mg/cm2)
h = vertical distance coordinate (m)
y = horizontal crosswind coordinate (m)
An analogous expression applies to non-uniform line sources.
Particulate Emission Factors
The emission factor for particulate generated by material handling expressed in
grams of emissions per megagram of material handled is found as:
MRI-M\H9712-*4.STT> 3"9
-------
where: e = particulate emission factor (g/Mg)
A2 = integrated mass (m2-mg/cm2)
S = measure of source activity appropriate for the source of interest
(e.g., mass of material handled or number of vehicles traveling
over a track-out surface)
SURFACE AND OTHER MATERIAL SAMPLES
A sample that is characteristic of the emitting material or surface is taken in
conjunction with each test. The collection and analysis of these samples are
important because the available emission factor and control performance models often
make use of material parameters. Samples are to analyzed (at a minimum) for silt
(particles passing a 200-mesh screen) and moisture contents. Detailed steps for
collection and analysis of samples for silt and moisture are given in the Appendix. An
abbreviated discussion is presented below.
Sample collection procedures depend on the type of material under
consideration. For example, mud and dirt trackout onto a paved surface is sampled
by broom sweeping (if necessary) followed by vacuum cleaning of the surface. When
the emission source depends upon a bulk material being handled, samples are to be
composited of increments taken from the material being transferred. The Appendix
presents a series of specific procedures for the collection of samples.
Once the field sample is obtained, it will be prepared for analysis. If necessary,
the field sample will be split with a riffle to a sample size amenable to laboratory
analysis. The basic procedure for moisture analysis is determination of weight loss on
oven drying. Silt analysis procedures follow the ASTM-C-136 method. The Appendix
details these procedures.
3-10 MM-MW8712-44.STP
-------
SECTION 4
TESTING SCHEDULE
The following describes a typical schedule of field activities, starting with the
arrival of the crew at the test site.
1. Unpack the transport truck and arrange field laboratory facilities. Provide
captive activities or monitor actual operations for at least 1 hr prior to the
start of air testing.
2. Erect upwind and downwind sampling arrays.
3. Calibrate each sampler to the required volumetric flow rate (40 cfm for
the cyclone preseparators described in Section 3).
4. Conduct air sampling following the procedures described in Section 3. At
the end of this test period:
• Cover sampler inlets
• Discontinue any captive activity
• Remove and store the sampling media from the downwind
samples as specified in Section 3
• Repeat the sampling procedure so that at least replicate tests are
conducted under essentially unchanged conditions
• Collect a surface or other material sample following the
procedures given in Section 3
5. Repeat Step 4 until all elements of the test matrix have been considered.
6. Pack equipment for transport to the next regional test site or for return to
the main laboratories.
MRI-MVR971Z-U STP 4- 1
-------
-------
SECTION 5
REFERENCES
1. Muleski, G. E. Critical Review of Open Source Particulate Emissions
Measurements: Field Comparison. MRI Final Report Prepared for Southern
Research Institute, MRI Project No. 7993-L(2) (August 1984).
2. Garman, G., and G. E. Muleski. Example Test Plan for Point or Non-Uniform
Line Sources. Work Assignment No. 44, EPA Contract 68-DO-0123 (April
1993).
3. Baxter, T. E., D. D. Lane, C. Cowherd, Jr., and F. Pendleton. Calibration of a
Cyclone for Monitoring Inhalable Particles. Journal of Environmental
Engineering, 112:3 (1986).
4. Davies, C. N. The Entry of Aerosols in Sampling Heads and Tubes. British
Journal of Applied Physics, 2:921 (1968).
MRI-MVRS712-44.STP
5-1
-------
APPENDIX
MATERIAL SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS PROCEDURES
MRI-Mfl9712-44.STP
-------
SAMPLES FROM UNPAVED ROADS
PROCEDURE
The following steps describe the collection method for samples
(increments).
1. Ensure that the site offers an unobstructed view of traffic
and that sampling personnel are visible to drivers. If the
road is heavily traveled, use one person to "spot" and route
traffic safely around another person collecting the surface
sample (increment).
2. Using string or other suitable markers, mark a 1 ft (0.3 m)
width across the road. fWARNING:.Do not mark the collection
area with a chalk line or in _ anv other method likely to
introduce fine material into the sample.)
3. With a whisk broom and dustpan, remove the loose surface
material from the hard road base. Do not abrade the base
during sweeping. Sweeping should be performed slowly so that
fine surface material is not injected into the air. NOTE:
Collect material only from the portion of the road over which
the wheels and carriages routinely travel (i.e. , not from
berms or any "mounds" along the road centerline) .
4. Periodically deposit the swept material material into a clean,
labeled container of suitable size (such as a metal or plastic
19 L [5 gallon] bucket) with a scalable polyethylene liner.
Increments may be mixed within this container.
5. Record the required information on the sample collection
sheet-
SAMPLE SPECIFICATIONS
For uncontrolled unpaved road surfaces, a gross sample of 10 Ib (5
kg) to 50 Ib (23 kg) is desired. Samples of this size will require
splitting to a size amenable for analysis. For unpaved roads that
have been treated with chemical dust suppressants (such as
petroleum resins, asphalt emulsions, etc.), the above goal may not
be practical in well-defined study areas because a very large area
would need to be swept. In general, a minimum of 1 Ib (400 g) is
required for silt and moisture analysis. Additional increments
should be taken from heavily controlled unpaved surfaces, until the
minimum sample mass has been achieved.
-------
SAMPLES FROM PAVED ROADS
The following steps describe the collection method for samples
(increments).
1. Ensure that the site offers an unobstructed view of traffic
and that sampling personnel are visible to drivers. If the
road is heavily traveled, use one crew member to "spot" and
route traffic safely around another person collecting the
surface sample (increment).
2. Using string or other suitable markers, mark the sampling
width across the road. (WARNING: Do not mark the collection
area with a chalk line.. or in anv. .other method 'likelv to
introduce fine material into the sample.) The widths may be
varied between 0.3 m (1 ft) for visibly dirty roads and 3 m
(10 ft) for clean roads. When using an industrial-type vacuum
to sample lightly loaded roads, a width greater than 3 m (10
ft) may be necessary to meet sample specifications unless
increments are being combined.
3. If large, loose material is present on the surface, it should
be collected with a whisk broom and dustpan. NOTE: Collect
material only from the portion of the road over which the
wheels and carriages routinely travel (i.e., not from berms or
any "mounds" along the* road centerline) . On roads with
painted side markings, collect material "from white line to
white line." store the swept material in a clean, labeled
container of suitable size (such as a metal or plastic 19 L [5
gallon] bucket) with a sealable polyethylene liner.
Increments for the same sample may be mixed within the
container.
4. Vacuum sweep the collection area using a portable vacuum
cleaner fitted with a tared filter bag. NOTE: collect
material only from the portion of the road over which the
wheels and carriages routinely travel (i.e. , not from berms or
any "mounds11 along the road centerline) . On roads with
painted side markings, collect material "from white line to
white line." The same filter bag may be used for different
increments for one sample. For heavily loaded roads, more
than one filter bag may be required for a sample (increment) .
5. Carefully remove the bag from the vacuum sweeper and check for
tears or leaks. If necessary, reduce samples from broom
sweeping to a size amenable for analysis. Seal broom swept
material in a clean, labeled plastic jar for transport
(alternatively, the swept material may be placed in the vacuum
filter bag) . Fold the unused portion of the filter bag, wrap
a rubber band around the folded bag, and store the bag for
transport.
6. Record the required information on the sample collection
sheet.
-------
SAMPLE SPECIFICATIONS
Broom swept samples (if collected) should be at least 400 g (1 Ib)
for silt and moisture analysis. The vacuum swept sample should be
at least 200 g'(0.5 lb) ; in addition, the exposed filter bag weight.
should be at least 5 to 10 times greater than the empty bag tare
weight. Additional increments should be taken until these sample
mass goals have been achieved.
-------
SAMPLES FROM STORAGE PILES
The following steps describe the method for collecting samples from
storage piles:
1. Sketch plan and elevation views of the pile. Indicate if any
portion is inaccessible. Use the sketch ta plan where the N
increments will be taken by dividing the perimeter into N-l
roughly equivalent segments.
a. For a large pile, collect a minimum of 10 increments
should as near to the mid-height of the pile as
practical.
b. For a small pile, a sample should consist of a minimum of
6 increments evenly distributed amoung the top, middle,
and bottom.
"Small" or "large" piles, for practical purposes, may be
defined as those piles which can or cannot, respectively, be
scaled by a person carrying a shovel and pail.
2. Collect material with a straight-point shovel or a small
garden spade and store the increments in a clean, labeled
container of suitable size (such as a metal or plastic 19 L [5
gallon] bucket) with a scalable polyethylene liner. Depending
upon the ultimate goals of the sampling program, choose one of
the following procedures:
a. To characterize emissions from material handling1
operations at an active p"ile. take increments from the
portions of the pile which most recently had material
added and removed. Collect- the material with a shovel to
a depth of 10 to 15 cm (4 to 6 inches) . Do not
deliberately avoid collecting larger pieces of aggregate
present on the surface.
b. To characterize handling emissions from an inactive pile,
obtain increments of the core material from aim (3 ft)
depth in the pile. A 2 m (6 ft) long sampling tube with
a diameter at least 10 times the diameter of the largest
particle being sampled is recommended for these samples.
Note that, for piles containing large particles, the
diameter recommendation may be impractical.
c. If characterization of wind erosion (rather than material
handling) is the goal of the sampling program, collect
the increments by skimming the surface in an upwards
direction. The depth of the sample should be 2.5 cm (1
inch) or the the" diameter of the largest particle,
whichever is less. Do no deliberately avoid collecting
larger pieces of aggregate present on the surface.
In most instances, collection method (a) should be selected.
-------
3. Record the required information on the sample collection
sheet..
SAMPLE SPECIFICATIONS
For any of the procedures, the sample mass collected should be at
least 5 kg (10 Ib) . When most materials- are sampled with
procedures 2.a or 2.b, ten increments normally result in a sample
of at least 23 kg (50 Ib) . Note that storage pile samples-usually
require splitting to a size more amenable to laboratory analysis.
\
-------
MOISTUEJ5 CONTENT DETERMINATION
1. Preheat the oven to approximately 110°C (230°F). Record oven tempera-
ture.
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
weignt(s). Check zero before weighing.
5. Place sample in oven and dry overnight.
6. Remove sample container from oven and (a) weigh immediately if uncov-
ered, being careful of the hot .container; or (b) place tight-fitting
lid on the container and let cool before weighing. Record the com-
bined sample and container weighy(s). Check zero before weighing.
7. Calculate the moisture as the initial weight of the sample and con-
tainer minus the oven-dried weight of the sample and container divided
by the initial weight of the sample aJone. Record the value.
8. Calculate the sample weight to be used in the silt analysis as the
oven-dried weight or the sample and container minus the weight of the
container. Record the value.
1 Dry materials composed of hydrated minerals or organic materials like
coal and certain soils for only 1-1/2 hr. Because of this short dry-
ing time, material dried for only 1-1/2 hr must not be more than
2.5 cm (1 in.) deep in the container.
-------
SILT CONTENT DETEHMINATION
1. Select the appropriate S-in. diameter, 2-in. deep sieve sizes. Recom-
mended U.S. Standard Series sizes are: 3/S-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
intermediate 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 comoressed 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. Obtain a scale (capacity of at least 1,500 g) and record make, capac-
ity, smallest division, date of last calibration, and accuracy.
a
5. Tare sieves and pan. Check the zero before every weighing. Record
we ights.
6. After nesting the sieves in decreasing order with the pan at the bot-
tom, dump dried laboratory sample (probably immediately after moisture
analysis) into the too sieve. The,sample should weigh between 400 and
•1,600 g (> 0.9 to 3.5 lb).a 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. Repeat the sieving
in 10-min intervals until the difference between two successive pan
sample weighings (wnere the tare of the pan has been subtracted) is
less than 3. OSS. Do not sieve longer than 40 min.
8. Weigh each sieve and its contents and record the weight. Check the
zero before every weigning.
9. Collect the laboratory sample and place the sample in a separata con-
tainer if furt-er analysis is expected.
10. Calculate the oercent of mass less than the 200 mesh screen (75 urn).
This is the silt content.
a This amount will vary for fine textured materials; 100 to 300 g may be
sufficient wnen 90% of tne sample passes a No. 8 (2.36 mm) sieve.
-------
Appendix J
-------
•i- , \
jase deliver this document to the person at 11063
ite: Wed Jul 21, 1993 04:07 PM
JUN-2B-1993 li:09 FROM EIB 919-541-0634 TO' 105488000832 P.01
Here is the information you requested from
Fax CHIEF
If you need assistance, pnone Info CHIEF at. 919-541-5283.
TOTPL P.01
-------
\
11.2.7 INDUSTRIAL WIND EROSION
11.2.7.1 General1'3
Dust emissions may be generated by wind erosion of open aggregate storage
piles and exposed areas within an industrial facility. These sources
typically are characterized by nonhomogeneous surfaces impregnated with
nonerodible elements (particles larger than approximately 1 centimeter (cm) in
diameter). Field testing of coal piles and other exposed materials using a
portable wind tunnel has shown that (a) threshold wind speeds exceed 5 meters
per second (11 miles per hour) at 15 centimeters above the surface or 10
meters per second (22 miles per hour) at 7 meters above the surface, and (b)
particulate emission rates tend to decay rapidly (half life of a few minutes)
during an erosion event. In other words, these aggregate material surfaces
are characterized by finite availability of erodible material (mass/area)
referred to as the erosion potential. Any natural crusting of the surface
binds the erodible material, thereby reducing the erosion potential,
11.2.7.2 Emissions And Correction Parameters
If typical 'values for threshold wind speed at 15 centimeters are
corrected to typical wind sensor height (7-10 meters), the resulting values
exceed the upper extremes of hourly mean wind speeds observed in most areas of
the country. In other words, mean atmospheric wind speeds are not sufficient
to sustain wind erosion from flat surfaces of the type tested. However, wind
gusts may quickly deplete a substantial portion of the erosion potential ,
Because erosion potential has been found to increase rapidly with increasing
wind speed, estimated emissions should be related to the gusts of highest
magnitude .
The routinely measured meteorological variable which best reflects the
magnitude of wind gusts is the fastest mile. This quantity represents the
wind speed corresponding to the whole mile of wind movement which has passed
by the 1 mile contact anemometer in the least amount of time. Daily
measurements of the fastest mile are presented in the monthly Local
Climatologi-cal Data (LCD) summaries. The duration of the fastest mile,
typically about 2 minutes (for a fastest mile of 30 miles per hour), matches
well with the half life of the erosion process, which ranges between 1 and 4
minutes. It should 'be noted, however, that peak winds can significantly
exceed tha daily fastest mile.
The wind speed profile in the surface boundary layer is found to follow
a logarithmic distribution:
u(z) - u*_ In 3__ (z > ZQ) (1)
0.4 z0
where u - wind speed, centimeters per second
u* - friction velocity, centimeters per second
z - height above test surface, cm
ZQ - roughness height, cm
0.4 - von Karman's constant, dimensionless
V90 Miscellaneous Sources 11.2.7-1
-------
The friction velocity (u*) is a measure of wind shear stress on the erodlbla
surface, as determined from the slope of the logarithmic velocity profile.
The roughness height (z0) is a measure of the roughness, of the exposed surface
as determined from the y intercept of the velocity profile, i. e., the height
at which the wind speed is zero. These parameters are illustrated in Figure
11.2.7-1 for a roughness height of 0.1 centimeters.
Emissions generated by wind erosion are also dependent on the frequency
of disturbance of- the erodible surface because each time that a surface is
disturbed, its erosion potential is restored. A disturbance is defined as an
action which results in the.exposure of fresh surface material. On a storage
pile, this would occur whenever aggregate material is either added to or
removed from the old surface, A disturbance of an exposed area may also
result from the turning of surface material to a depth exceeding the size of
the largest pieces of material present.
11.2.7.3 Predictive Emission Factor Equation*
The emission factor far wind generated particulate emissions from
mixtures of erodible and nonerodible surface material subject to disturbance
may be expressed in units of grams per square merer per year as follows;
N
Emission factor «• k S PJ (2)
i-1
where k - particle siza multiplier
N - number of disturbances per year
P^ - erosion potential corresponding to the observed (or
probable) fastest mile of wind for the ith period
between disturbances, g/tn^
The particle size multiplier (k) for Equation 2 varies with aerodynamic
particle size, as follows:
AERODYNAMIC PARTICLE SIZE MULTIPLIERS FOR EQUATION 2
30 urn <15 m^ <1Q am <2 . 5 urn
1.0 0.6 0.5 0.2
This distribution of particle size within the under 30 micron fraction
is comparable to the distributions reported for other fugitive dust sources
where wind speed is a factor. This is illustrated, for example, in the
distributions for batch and continuous drop operations encompassing a number
of test aggregate materials (see Section 11.2.3).
In calculating emission factors, each area of an erodible surface that
is subject to a different frequency of disturbanca should be treated
separately. For a surface disturbed daily, N - 365 per year, and for a
surface disturbanca once every 6 months, N - 2 per year,
11.2.7-2 EMISSION FACTORS 9/90
-------
Figure 11.2,7-1. Illustration of logarithmic velocity profile.
9/90 Miscellaneous Sources 11.2.7-3
-------
The erosion potential function for a dry. exposed surface is:
P - 58 (u* - u*)2 + 25 (u* - u*) (3)
P - 0 for u* £ u*
t
where u* - friction1 velocity (m/s)
u* .- threshold friction velocity (m/s)
Because of the nonlinear form of the erosion potential function, each
erosion event must be treated separately.
Equations 2 and 3 apply only to dry, exposed materials with iiaited
erosion potential. The resulting calculation is valid only for a time period
as long or longer than the period between disturbances. Calculated emissions
represent intermittent events and should not be input directly into dispersion
models that assume steady state emission rates.
For uncrusted surfaces, the threshold friction velocity is best
estimated from the dry aggregate structure of the soil. A simple hand sieving
test of surface soil can be used to determine the mode of the surface
.aggregate size distribution by inspection of relative sieve catch amounts,
following the procedure described below in Table 11.2.7.-1. Alternatively,
the threshold friction velocity for erosion can be determined from the mode of
the aggregate size distribution, as described by Gillette.5~°
Threshold friction velocities for several surface types have been
determined by field measurements with a portable wind tunnel. These values
are presented in Table 11.2.7-2.
TABLE 11.2.7-1. FIELD PROCEDURE FOR DETERMINATION OF
THRESHOLD FRICTION VELOCITY
Tyler
sieve no.
5
9
16
32
60
Opening
(mm)
4
2
1
0.5
0.25
Midpoint
(mm)
3
1.5
0.75
0.375
u77 (cm/sec)
100
72
58
43
11-2.7-4 EMISSION FACTORS
9/90
-------
\
FIELD PROCEDURE FOR DETERMINATION OF THRESHOLD FRICTION VELOCITY
(from a 1952 laboratory procedure published by W. S. Chepil):
1. Prepare a nest of sieves with the following openings: 4 mm, 2 ma, 1 mm,
0.5 mm, 0.25 ma. Place a collector pan below the bottom (0.25 mm)
sieve.
2. Collect a sample representing the surface layer of loose particles
(approximately 1 cm in depth, for an encrusted surface), removing any
rocks larger than about 1 cm in average physical diameter. The area to
be sampled should be not less than 30 cm.
3. Pour the sample into the top sieve (4 mm opening), and place a lid on
the top.
4. Move the covered sieve/pan unit by hand, using a broad circular arm
motion in the horizontal plane. Complete 20 circular movements at a
speed just necessary to achieve some relative horizontal motion between
the sieve and the particles.
5. Inspect the relative quantities of catch within each sieve, and
determine where the mode in the aggregate size distribution lies, i. e.,
between the opening size of the sieve with the largest catch and the
opening size of the next largest sieve.
6. Determine the threshold friction velocity from Figure 1.
The fastest mile of wind for the periods between disturbances may be obtained
from the monthly LCD summaries for the nearest reporting weather station that
is representative of the site in question. These summaries report actual
fastest mile values for each day of a given month. Because the erosion
potential is a highly nonlinear function of the fastest mile, mean values of
the fastest mila are inappropriate. The'anemometer heights of reporting
weather stations are found in Reference 3, and should be corrected to a
10 meter reference height using Equation 1.
To convert the fastest mile of wind (u"1") from a reference anemometer
height of 10 meters to the equivalent friction velocity (u*), the logarithmic
wind speed profile may be used to yield the following equation:
u* - 0.053 u+ (4)
10
where u* - friction velocity (meters per second)
u'T - fastest mile of reference anemometer for period
•^ between disturbances (meters per second)
This assumes a typical roughness height of 0.5 cm for open terrain.
Equation 4 is restricted to large relatively flat piles or exposed areas with
little penetration into the surface wind layer.
V90 Miscellaneous Sources 11.2.7-5
-------
\
TABLE 11.2.7-2. THRESHOLD FRICTION VELOCITIES
Threshold
friction
velocity
Material
Overburden4
Scoria (roadbed
material)*
Ground coala
( surrounding
coal pile)
Uncrusted coal
pile*
Scraper tracks on
coal pilea'b
Fine coal dust
on concrete padc
(a/a)
1.02
1.33
0.55
1.12
0.62
0.54
Roughness
height
(cm)
0.3
0.3
0.01
0.3
0.06
0.2
Threshold wind
velocity at 10 m (m/s)
z0 - Act
21
27
16
23
15
11
ZQ - 0.5 cm
19
25
10
21
12
10
^Western surface coal mine. Reference 2.
''Lightly crusted.
c£astern power plant. Reference 3.
If the pile significantly penetrates the surface wind layer (i. e., with
a height-Co-basa ratio exceeding 0.2), it is necessary to divide the pile area
into subareas representing different degrees of exposure to wind. The results
of physical modeling show that the frontal face of an elevated pile is exposed
to wind speeds of the same order as the approach wind speed at the top of the
pile.
For two representative pile shapes (conical and oval wich flattop,
37 degree side slope), the ratios of surface wind speed (ug) to approach wind
speed (i^) have been derived from wind tunnel studies. The results are shown
in Figure 11.2.7-2 corresponding to an actual pile height of 11 neters, a
reference (upwind) aneraetersometer height of. 10 meters, and a pile surface
roughness height (z0) of 0.5 centimeters. The measured surface winds
correspond to a height of 25 centimeters above the surface. The area fraction
within each contour pair is specified in Table 11.2.7-3.
The profiles of us/ur in Figure 11.2.7-2 can be used to estimate the
surface friction velocity distribution around similarly shaped piles-, using
the following procedure;
1. Correct the fastest mile value (u1") for the period of interest from
the anemometer height (z) to a reference height of 10 m (u* ) using
a variation of Equation 1: ^
10
- u+
In (10/0.005)
In (z/0.005)
(5)
where a typical roughness height of 0.5 cm (0.005 meters) has been
assumed. If a site specific roughness height is available, it
should be used.
11.2.7-6
EMISSION FACTORS
9/90
-------
\
2. Use the appropriate part of Figure 11.2.7-2 based on the pile shap
and orientation to th« fastest mil a of wind, to obtain the
corresponding surface wind speed distribution (u+):
3. For any subarea of the pile surface having a narrow range of
surface wind speed, use a variation of Equation 1 to calculate the
equivalent friction velocity (u*) :
0.4 u
3
u* -
- 0.10 u+
21
InO.S
From this point on, the procedure is identical to that used for a flat
pile, as described above.
Implementation of the above procedure is carried out in the following
steps :
1. Determine threshold friction velocity for erodible material of
interest (see Table 11.2.7-2 or determine from mode of aggregate
size distribution),
2. Divide the exposed surface area into subareas of constant frequency
of disturbance (N) .
3. Tabulate fastest mile values (u"1") for each frequency of disturbance
and correct them to 10 m (u"1" ) using Equation 5.
4. Convert fastest mile values (U^Q) to equivalent friction velocities
. (u*) , taking into account (a) the uniform wind exposure of
nonelevated surfaces, using Equation 4, or (b) the nonuniform wind
exposura of elevated surfaces (piles), using Equations 5 and 7.
5. For elevated surfaces (piles), subdivide areas of constant N into
subareas of constant u* (i. e., within the isopleth values of u /u_
in Figure 11.2.7-2 and Table 11.2.7-3) and determine the siza oi
each subarea.
S. Treating each subarea (of constant N and u*) as a separata source,
calculate the erosion potential (P1) for each period between
disturbances using Equation 3 and the emission factor using
Equation 2.
7. Multiply the resulting emission factor for each subarea by the size
of the subarea, and add the emission contributions of all subareas.
Note that the highest' 24-hr emissions would be expected co occur on
the windiest day of the year. Maximum emissions ara calculated
assuming a single event with the highest fastest mile value for the
annual period.
V90 Miscellaneous Sources 11.2.7-7
-------
\
Flow
Direction
Pile A
Pile B1
Pile B2
Pile B3
Figure 11.2.7-2. Contours of normalized surface wind speeds, u,-/ur.
11.2.7-8 EMISSION FACTORS 9/90
-------
\
TABLE 11.2.7-3. SUBAREA DISTRIBUTION FOR REGIMES OF Ug/ur
Pile
Subarea
0.2a
0.2b
0.2c
0.6a
0.6b
0.9
1,1
Percent of pile surface area
Pile A
5
35
*
48
.
12
-
4
Pile Bl
5
2
29
26
24
14
-
Pile B2
3
23
-
- 29
22
15
3
Pile B3
3
25
-
28
26
14
4
The recommended emission factor equation presented above assumes that all
of the erosion potential corresponding to the fastest mile of wind is lost
during the period between disturbances. Because the fastest mile event
typically lasts only about 2 minutes, which corresponds roughly to the
halflife for the decay of actual erosion potential, it could be argued that
the emission factor overestimates particulate emissions. However", there are
other aspects of the wind erosion process which offset this apparent
conservatism:
1. The fastest mile event contains peak winds which substantially
exceed the mean value for the event.
2. Whenever the fastest mile event occurs, there are usually a number
of periods of slightly lower mean wind speed which contain peak
gusts of the same order as the fastest mile wind speed.
Of greater concern is the likelihood of overprediction of wind erosion
emissions in the case of surfaces disturbed infrequently in comparison to the
rate of crust formation.
11.2.7.4 Example 1: Calculation for wind erosion emissions from conically
shaped coal pile
A coal burning facility maintains a conically shaped surge pile 11 meters
in height and 29.2 meters in base diameter, containing about 2000 megagrams of
coal, with a bulk density of 800 kg/m3 (50 lb/ft3). The total exposed surface
area of the pile is calculated as follows:
S - a r (r2 + h2)
- 3.14(14,6) (14.6)2 +(11.O)2
- 338 m2
Coal is added to the pile by means of a fixed stacker and reclaimed by
front-end loaders operating at the base of the pile on the downwind side. In
addition, every 3 days 250 megagrams (12.5 percent of the stored capacity of
coal) is added back to the pile by a topping off operation, thereby restoring
9/90 Miscellaneous Sources 11.2.7-9
-------
\
the full capacity of the pile. It is assumed that (a) the reclaiming
operation disturbs only a limited portion of the surface area where the daily
activity is occurring, such that the remainder of the pile surface remains
intact, and (b) the topping off operation creates a fresh surface on the
entire pile while restoring its original shape in the area depleted by daily
reclaiming activity.
Because of the high frequency of disturbance of the pile, a large number
of calculations must be made to determine each contribution to the total
annual wind erosion emissions. This illustration will use a single month as
an example.
Step I: In the absence of field data for estimating the threshold
friction velocity, a value o£ 1.12 meters per second is obtained from Table
11.2.7-2.
Stao 21 Except for a small area near the base of the pile (see Figure
11.2.7-3), the entire pile surface is disturbed every 3 days, corresponding to
a value of N - 120 per year. It will be shown that the contribution of the
area where daily activity occurs is negligible so that it does not need to be
treated separately in the calculations.
*
Step 3: The calculation procedure involves determination of the fastest
mile for each period of disturbance. Figure 11,2.7-4 shows a representative
set of values (for a 1-month period) that are assumed to be applicable to the
geographic area of the pile location. The values have been separated into 3-
day periods, and the highest value in each period is indicated. In this
example, the anemometer height is 7 meters, so that a height correction to
10 meters is needed for the fastest mile values. From Equation 5,
In (10/0.005)
u"1" -
10 7 I In (7/0.005)
u+ - 1.05 u"1"
stay 4: The next step is to convert the fastest mile value for each 3
day period into the equivalent friction velocities for each surface wind
regime (i. e., us/ur ratio)_ of the pile, using Equations 6 and 7. Figure
11.2.7-3 shows the surface wind speed pattern (expressed as a fraction of the
approach wind speed at a height of 10 meters). The surface areas lying within
each wind speed regime are tabulated below the figure.
The calculated friction velocities are presented in Table 11.2.7-4. As
indicated, only three of the periods contain a friction velocity which exceeds
tha threshold value of 1.12 meters per second for an uncrusted coal pile.
These three values all occur within the Ug/Uy - 0.9 regime of the pile
surface.
Step 5_! This step is not necessary because there is only one frequency
of disturbance used in the calculations. It is clear that tha small area of
daily disturbance (which lies entirely within the us/ur - 0.2 regime) is never
subject to wind speeds exceeding the threshold value.
11.2.7-10 EMISSION FACTORS 9/90
-------
\
Prevailing
Wind
Direction
Circled values
refer to u
* A portion of C2 lf Disturbed daU7 by r,cUin,ir,8
activities.
Area
ID
A
B
CL+C2
_^s
0.9
0.6
0.2
P
7.
12
48
40
Ilia S'ilFff?i<"«
Area (m2)
101
402
•}•*<;
Total 838
9/90
Miscellaneous Sources
11.2.7-11
-------
TABLE 11,2,7-4, EXAMPLE 1: CALCULATION OF FRICTION VELOCITIES
3 -day
period
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
3
9
10
4-
U7 U10
(mph)
14
29
30
31
22
21
16
25
17
13
(m/s)
6.3
13.0
13.4
13.9
9.3
9.4
7.2
11,2
7.6
5.8
(nph)
15
31
32
33
23
22
17
26
18
14
(a/s) us
6.6
13.7
14.1
14.6
10.3
9.9
7.6
11.8
8.0
6.1
u* -
/u^ 0.2
0.13
0.27
0.28
0.29
0.21
0.20
0.15
0.24
0.16
0.12
0.1 Ug*"
0.6
0.40
0.82
0.84
0.83
0.62
0.59
0.46
0.71
0.48
0.37
(m/s)
0.9
0.59
1.23
1.27
1.31
0.93
0.89
0.63
1.06
0.72
0.55
6 and 7: The final sett of calculations (shown in Table 11.2.7-5)
involves ehe tabulation and summation of emissions for each disturbance period
and for the affected subarea. The erosion potential (P) ia calculated from
Equation 3.
TABLE 11.2.7-5. EXAMPLE 1:
CALCULATION OF PM10 EMISSIONS*
3 -day
period
2
3
4
u* (m/s)
1.23
1.27
1.31
u* - u* (m/s)
0.11
0.15
0.19
P (g/ffl2)
3.45
5.06
6.84
Pile
Surface Area
ID (m2)
A
A
A
101
101
101
kPA
(«)
170
260
350
Total:
780
u - 1.12 meters per second for uncrusted coal and k
For example, the calculation for the second 3 day period is;
? - 58(u* - u*)2 + 25(u* - u*)
t t
P2 - 58(1.23 - 1.12)2 + 25(1.23 - 1.12)
- 0.70 + 2.75 - 3.45 s/ra2
- 0.5 for
The PM^Q emissions generated by each event are found as the product of
the PM10 multiplier (k - 0.5), the erosion potential (P), and the affected
area of the pile (A) .
11.2,7-12
EMISSION FACTORS
9/90
-------
Local Climatological Data
MOMJHIT SUMMARY
WIND
t
Et
3
ta-
x
tfl
a:
13
30
01
10
13
12
20
29
29
22
14
29
17
21
10
10
01
33
27
32
24
22
32
29
07
34
31
30
30
33
34
29
_ RCSULUHI
SPCtO H.P.M.
5.3
10.5
2.4
1 1 .0
II .3
11.1
19. &
10.9
3.0
M.S
22.3
7.9
7.7
4.5
6.7
13.7
U .2
4.3
9.3
7.5
10.3
17.1
2.4
5.9
M.3
12.1
8.3
8.2
5.0
3.1
4 .9
0
UJ
a
Ul •
» s
a e.
i_i •
V XT
15
6.9
10.6
S.O
M .4
1 1 .9
•19.0
19.8
1 I .2
8. t
15.1
23.3
13.5
15.5
9.5
8.3
13.8
\ \ .5
5,8
10.2
7.8
10.6
17.3
8,5
e. a
11.7
12.2
8.5
8.3
6.5
5,2
5.5
uric
5*'
^j •
16
ui
IS
$
2?
13
12
I 4
IS
16
^
a
as
o
ee
17
01
02
13
1 l
30
' 30
30
13
12
29
17
18
13
1 1
34
3t
3S
2<
20
32
13
02
32
32
25
32
32
31
25
roa
MONTH:
30J_
3
3
_i— —
ll.ll 31 [
ICUTf T
29
I 1
o
Figure 11.2.7-4. Example daily fastest miles of wind for periods of interest.
9/90
Miscellaneous Sources
11.2.7-13
-------
\
As shown in Table 11.2.7-5, the results of these calculations indicate a
monthly PM10 emission total of 78ti grams.
11.2.7.5 Example 2: Calculation for wind erosion from flat area covered
with coal dust
A flat circular area of 29.2 meters in diameter is covered with coal dust
left over from the total reclaiming of a conical coal pile described in the
example above. The total exposed surface area is calculated as follows:
S - - d2 - 0.735 (29. 2)2 - 670 m2
4
This area will remain exposed for a period of 1 month when a new pila
will be formed.
§tep 1: In the absence of field data for estimating the threshold
friction velocity, a value of 0.54 m/s is obtained from Table 11.2.7-2.
*
Step 2; The entire surface area is exposed for a period of 1 month after
removal of a pile and N - 1/yr.
£tep 3: From Figure 11.2.7-4, the highest value of fastest mils for the
30-day period (31 mph) occurs on the llth day of the period. In this example,
the reference anemometer height is 7 m, so that a height correction is needed
for the fastest mile value. From Step '3 of the previous example,
u* - 1.05 u+ -, so that u4" - 33 mph.
10 7 10
Step 4: Equation 4 is used to convert the fastest mile value of 33 mph
(14.6 raps) to an equivalent friction velocity of 0.77 mps. This value exceeds
the threshold friction velocity from Step 1 so that erosion does occur,
This step is not necessary, because thera is only one frequency
of disturbance for the entire source area.
gtaps 6 and 7 : The PMiQ emissions generated by the erosion event are
calculated as the product of the PM^g multiplier (k - 0.5), the erosion
potential (?) and the source area (A). The erosion potential is calculated
from Equation 3 as follows:
P - 58(u* - u*)2 + 25(u* - u*)
t t
? - 58(0.77 - 0.54)2 + 25(0.77 - 0.54)
- 3.07 + 5,75
- 3. 32 g/m2
Thus the ?MIQ emissions for the 1 month period are found to be:
E - (0.3X8.82 g/m2)(670 m2)
- 3.0 kg
11.2.7-14 EMISSION FACTORS 9/90
-------
\
References for Section 11.2.7
1. C, Cowherd Jr., "A New Approach To Estimating Wind Generated Emissions
From Goal Storage Piles" , Presented at the APCA Specialty Conference on
Fugitive Dust Issues in the Coal Use Cycle, Pittsburgh, PA, April 1983.
2, K. Axtell and C. Cowherd, Jr. , Tmpreyed Emission Faetora For Fugitive
fluac from Surface Coal Mining Sources f EPA-600/7-S4-048, U. S.
Environaental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH, March 1984,
3. G, Z, Muleski, "Coal Yard Wind Erosion Measurement", Midwest Research
Institute, Kansas City, MO, March 1985,
4. Updaca Of Fugitive,, Dust, Emissions Factor s -In -AP- 43 Section 11.? - Wind
Bgosion. MRI No, 8985-K, Midwest Research Institute, Kansas City, MO,
1988.
5. W. S, Chepil, "Improved Rotary Sieve For Measuring State And Stability Of
Dry Soil Structure", goj.1 Scianca Society, Of America Proceedings.
16:113-117, 1952.
6. D. A. Gillette, et al . . "Threshold Velocities For Input Of Soil Particles
Into The Air By Desert Soils", Journal Of Geoyhysieal Research.
:5621-5630.
7. Local Climatological Data, National Climatic Center, Asheville, NC.
8. M. J. Changery, yfetional Wind Data Index Final Report. HCO/T1041-01
UC-60, National Climatic Center, Ashevilla, NC, December 1978.
9. B. J. B. Stunder and S. P. S. Arya, "Windbreak Effectiveness For Storage
Pile Fugitive Dust Control: A Wind Tunnel Study", Journal Of The Air
Pollution Control Association. 38:135-143, 1988.
V90 Miscellaneous Sources 11.2.7-15
-------
Appendix K
-------
PROTOCOL rOK Th£ .ViEA
OH LNrirn,ADl.z, P.^KTICUuA 1
FUGITIVE E:\iii5iONS fKO.
STATIONARY iiNUUSTrUAi.
ENVIRONMENTAL
CONSULTANTS, INC,
Prepared unaer:
TasK Directive 1
Contract 6
-------
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION
Tnis document is intenoea as a guideline protocol lor tne measurement -02
innaiaole particuiaie fugitive emissions \.1PF£;, oeiined as particles naving aerodynamic
diameters 15 micrometers or jess. The cata gatnered oy the personnel utilizing tnis
protocol will DQ usec to develop emission factors for innalaole particulate matter irom
lugitive industrial sources. Since tne actual testing will oe performed oy £ numoer of
aiiierent organizations, tne instructions containec in tnis oocument have oeen oesignea
to proviae a octree of uniformity in the testing procedures tnat will result in emission
lactors 01 consistent accuracy anc reiiaoiiity.
Four measurement tecnniques are dealt with in tnis protocol: quasi-stack, roof
monitor, upwmc-aownwmd ana exposure profiling sampling. A step-by-step guioe for
cnoosing tne most appropriate measurement technique for a given source type is
outlined in terms of selection criteria. Tne application of the criteria to eacn of tne
metnocs ts illustrated. Tne site-speciiic information required to plan tne sampling
program and design tne sampling system is defined, and tne preparation of a test plan
utilizing tne iniormation oescrioea. Detailed calculation metnoas for designing
quasi-stacK metnod capture noods and locating roof monitor and upwind-downwind
metnoa samplers are mciuoea, along witn descriptions of recommended sampling
devices and associated equipment. A general description of tne conduct of a program
ior eacn sampling metnod is followed oy a description of tne procedures to oe used in
-i-
-------
calculating emissions concentrations, source emission rates, ana process-rejatea
emission factors.
1 ne protocol aoes not uiicuss measurement accuracy or emission lactor reliability
in a. quantitative sense. Fugitive emissions measurements are generally aoout an oraer
oi magnituue more costly tnan conventional point source stacx testing, ano usual
uucgetary limits preciuae me completion oi enougn measurements to satisfy tne
requirements oi statistical experiment oesign. Tne fugitive emission factors
oeterrninea irom measurements maoe in accorcance witn tne proceoures can :>e
expectea to exnioi: a relatively wioe range oi variation. Discussion of emission ;actor
accuracy, wmcr, goes oeyono tne reiiaoility rating scneme given in ni^-^2, is not
warrantee.
"j ne proceaures aescrioea can. witn a reasonaaie amount oi engineering or
scientific judgment, ne eliectively appiieo to almost any moustrial iPr£ source.
AGiustrnents to tne proceaures will usually DC requirea to meet tne extensive variety oi
site ana source-specuic cnaractenstics tnat will oe encountered. A guioeiine oi typical
aojuiitments 10 accomoaaie tne most common oi sucn cnaractenstics nas Deen incJuoea
in tne text. /\n eiiort nas oeen maae to maKe tnis manual as mucn a "COOKDOOK" type
re;erencs as possiole wnile assuming tne user nas a worKing knowieage of general
sampling tneory, proceaures ana instruments.
-2-
-------
ifcCl ION
Tne selection oi tne most appropriate measurement tecnnique ior paniculate
matter fugitive emissions involves tne consideration oi a numoer 01 parameters. Tnese
relate to tne type oi emissions generated. tneir rate oi generation, tne pnysicai
character! sties ana location oi tneir source, plant operating scneaujes. meteorological
conaiticns anc plant or site geometry ana topograpny. Tne numoer 01 aiiierent
operations oi tne same type wnicn wiij oe testec ana me proposea ouaget ior tne
program are also oi paramount concern. This section oescrioes eacn oi tne oasic
measurement tecnniques, aeiines tne criteria to oe consiaerea in tne selection oi a
tecnnique anc outlines a metnoc ior applying tne criteria.
rCif TluNi
'inere are iour uasic metncoologjes recognizea as oemg eiiective in tne
quantiiication oi particuiate matter fugitive emissions. Eacn methoa is associated witn
aiiierent accuracy ana precision limitations, instrumentation requirements ana sources
to wnicn tnis metnoa can oe properly appiieo. These oasic methoaologies are:
o ^uasi-btaCK Sampling
o KOOI ^lonltor Sampling
o Upwinc-Downwina Sampling
o exposure Proiiiing
Eacn tecnnique is oescriDea in general terms in the iollowing text.
-------
yuasi-StacK Campling
in tms metnoc tne fugitive emissions are capturec in a temporarily installed nooa
or enclosure ana tnen transported oy tne conveying air to an exnaust auct or stack 01
regular cress-sectional area. Tne emissions are measured in This ductwork using tne
stacx sampling procedures oescrioed in beciion 3 01 tnis document.
Tne precision and accuracy limits oi the quasi-stack metnoa are tne oest oi tne
noted sampling techniques and are also the oest aeimed. The accuracy of tne
cuasj-stack metnod is .only slightly jess tnan tnat o: £ normal-stacK test in that fewer.
points in tne stacx are sampled ana a constant oias may oe introduced Dy a failure to
capture all o: tne emissions irom the source oeing tested. Care in the design of tne
capturing system would reduce tne latter error to virtually zero. Also, tne allowaole
isokmetic range is ^U percent rather than *iD percent is usually aanered to.
Vuasi-stacK sampling is necessarily limited to sources that can Be isolated irom
otner sources and elfectiveiy enclosed or hooded to capture their emissions. Careful
consideration must oe given to tne design of the enclosure or nooa and to providing a
volume of emission - transporting air sufficient to carry tne emissions intact to the
sampling equipment, 'tne procedures for cnoosing tnese velocities are explained in tne
nooa ana auct aesign sections. Tne hooded enclosure aesign should not interfere witn
normal plant operations, and tne capturing air How across tne process snouia not oe so
large as to alter tne nature of tne process or aliect tne amount or cnaracter of tne
emissions.
Typical generic fugitive emissions source types measuraoie oy the quasi-stack
metnoa are:
i. Material transfer operations-conveyor belts, loading
2. Process leaks-pressurizea ducts
3. faoricatmg operations-grinding ana polisnmg
-------
Specific examples of maustrial sources wnose fugitive emissions have seen measurec oy
mis tecnnique are given in TaoJe 1.
r\oo: Moniior Sampling
Tnis metnoo is usea 10 measure the emissions generated o> sources locaiea wnnin
a ouiiaing or similar structure as iney are Transmitted into tne atmospnere tnrough a
rooi monitor or otner opening. Tne total emission rate lor ail sources within tne
structure is aeterminec as the proouct-of tne emissions concentration measured in tne
air at tne opening anc the air How rate tnrough tne opening. Most roof monitor
sampling programs require tne collection oi samples anc tne measurement oi air
velocities simultaneously at a numoer oi points in tne plane ol tne opening to ensure
trial representative average values oi concentration ana How rate are ootaxneo.
ivooi monitor sampling is most eiiectively employee ior larger sources located
within structures witn only a few openings, wnere essentially all of tne emissions are
transported tnrougn a single opening. It requires sampling and measurement Devices
capaoie o: maKing accurate determinations oi relatively small masses of emissions ana
very iou air velocities. It may oe utilized ior tne characterization of specmc sources
within an enclosure u operating scneauies mcluae or permit tne arrangement oi
emissions generation DV only that speciiic source. Tracer measurements may also oe
utilized witn rooi monitor sampling to identify speciiic source emissions.
Tne accuracy ana precision of tnis tecnnique vary witn Characteristics oi tne
source ana are aeimaole only in general terms for eacn source tested.
Typical inaustrial sources wnose fugitive emissions may oe measured using the
roof monitor tecnmaue are listed in Taole 2.
-------
TAELE 1. QUASI-STACK SAMPLING METHOD APPLICATION TO
TYPICAL INDUSTRIAL FUGITIVE EMISSION SOURCES
INDUSTRY
SOURCE
EMISSIONS
Iron i: Steel Foundries
Primary Metals
Non-Metallic Minerals
Coal
Asphalt Batching
Grashite and Carbide
Mold Preparation
Moid Pouring
Product Finishing
Furnace Charging
Furnace Tapping
Crushing
Conveying
Crushing & Screening
Reactor Charging
Reactor Tapping
Arc Furnace
Dust
Dust, Fumes
Dust
Dust
Fume
Dust
Dust
Dust
Dust
Dust, Tars
Carbon Dust,
Silica, F urn es
-------
TABLE 2. ROOF MONITOR SAMPLING METHOD APPLICATION TO
TO TYPICAL INDUSTRIAL FUGITIVE EMISSION SOURCES
INDUSTRY
SOURCE
EMISSIONS
Iron 6: Steel Foundries
Electric Furnace Sieei
Primarv Aluminum
Primary Copper
Tires dc Rubber
Phospnate Fertilizer
Lime
Primary Steel
Graphite and Carbidi
Production
Furnace or Cupola Charging
Melting
Mold Pouring
Charging
General Operations
Carbon Plant
Potroom
Alumina Calcining
Cryolite Recovery
Converter House
Reverberatory Furnace
Roaster Operations
Curing Press Room
Cement House
General Ventilation
General Ventilation
Blast Furnace Cast House
BOF Operations
Open Hearth Operations
Arc Furnace Operation
Fume, Carbon Dust,
Smoke (Oil)
Fume, Dust
Dust
Metallic Fumes,
Carbon Dust
Metallic Fumes, Dust
Tars, Carbon Dust
Tars, Carbon 4: Alum-
inum Dust, Fluorides
Alumina Dust
Carbon & Alumina Dust,.
Fluorides
Fume, Silica
Fume
Fume
Organic Particulate
Dust
Dust, Fluorides
Dust
Metallic Fumes
Metallic Fumes,
Carbon Dust
Metallic Fumes
Carbon Dust, Silica
Fume
-7-
-------
Upwind-Downwind Sampling;
This method is utilized in the measurement of emissions after they have entered
the ambient atmosphere from open or area sources, or from enclosed sources not
amenaole to quasi-stack or roof monitor sampling. The emission rate for such sources
is determined by measuring the concentration of The emissions in the ambient air
aownwind of the source, subtracting the portion of the concentration attributable to
otner sources and that measured as background upwind of the source, and using the
thus-determined concentration from the source in proven diffusion eouations or
mathematical models to back-calculate the source's rate of emission. Measurements of
otner contributing parameters, such as wind speed and direction during the emission
sampling, iocatior. of samplers relative to the source, and atmospheric and topographic
conditions, are also required.
Careful design of the sampling network, especially in thejocation of the sampling
devices, is required to ensure representative sampling of the source being investigated
and to ensure that the accuracy of the resulting emission factors approaches as nearly
as possible the accuracy of the equations or models used in calculating the emission
rate,
Upwind-down wind sampling is prooably the most universally applicable of the
fugitive emissions measurement techniques, since it is not usually limited by source
location or geometry. Some typical industrial sources whose fugitive emissions may be
measured using the upwind-downwind technique are listed in Table 3.
Exposure Profiling
'The exposure profiling method utilizes the isokinetic profiling concept which is
the basis for conventional source testing. For measurement of inhalable particuiate
-------
TABLE 3. UPWIND-DOWNWIND SAMPLING METHOD APPLICATION
TO TYPICAL INDUSTRIAL FUGITIVE EMISSION SOURCES
INDUSTRY
SOURCE
EMISSIONS
Coke Making
Pnmarv Aluminum
Primarv
Sand d: Gravel
Electric Furnace Steel
Iron d: Stee! Foundries
Coal
Asphalt
Coal Handling <5c Storage
Charging Ovens
Coking, Door dc Oven Leaks
Coke Pushing
Quenching
Coke Handling dc Storage
Bauxite Handling dc Storage
-viumina Calcining dc Prepara-
ration
Alumina Storage
Mining
Hauling
Tailings Pond
Quarrying dc Truck Hauling
Rock Transfer
Crushing dc Screening
Product Storage dc Handling
Scrap dc Sinter Delivery
Lime dc Silica Delivery
Furnace Tapping
Coke, Silica, Sinter Storage
Mining
Storage dc Transfer
Screening dc Crushing
Drying
Storage Piles
Waste Transfer
Gravel Delivery
Asphalt Storage
Storage Piles •
Asphalt Batching
Drier dc Blower
Reactor Charge dc Discharge
Product Transfer
Coal Dust
Coal Dust, Tars
Coke Dust, Tars
Coke Dust, Tars
Coke Dust, Tars
Coke Dust
Ore Dust
Alumina Dust
Alumina Dust
Dust
Dust
•Dust
Dust
Dust
Dust
Dust
Iron dc Steel Dust
Dust
Fume
Dust
Coal Dust
Coal Dust
Coal Dust
Coal Dust
Coal Dust
Dust
Dust
Tars
Dust
Dust, Tars
Dust, Tars
Dust, Tars
Dust, Tars
-------
TABLE 3 (Cont.). UPWIND-DOWNWIND SAMPLING METHOD APPLICATION
TO TYPICAL INDUSTRIAL FUGITIVE EMISSION SOURCES
INDUSTRY
SOURCE
EMISSIONS
Coal Gasification
Petroleum Refining
Phosphate Fertilizer
Coal Delivery, Storage
<5c Transfer
Waste Transfer
Scrubber Solids
Waste Storage in Transfer
Process Leaks
Mining
Storage Piles
Rock Transfer
Settling Pond
Gypsum Pile
Product Storage d: Transfer
Coal Dust
Dust
Dust
Dust
Tars
Dust
Dust
Dust
Fluorides
Dust
.10-
-------
fugitive emissions, sampling heads are distributed over a vertical network positioned
just downwind (usually about 5m) from the source. Sampling intakes are pointed into
the wind and sampling velocity is adjusted to match the local mean wind speed, as
monitored by distributed anemometers. A vertical line grid of samplers is sufficient for
measurement of emissions from line or moving point sources (e.g.. vehicular traffic on
paved or unpaved roads), while a two-dimensional array of samplers is required for
quantification of virtual point or area source emissions.
Sampling heads are distributee over a sufficiently large portion of the plume so
that vertical and lateral plume boundaries may be located by spatial extrapolation of
exposure measurements. The size limit of area sources for which exposure profiling is
practical is determined by the feasibility of erecting sampling towers of sufficient
height and number to characterize the plume. This problem can be minimized by
sampling only when the wind direction is parallel to the direction of the minimum
dimension of the area source.
The size of the sampling grid needed for exposure profiling of a particular source
may be estimated by observing the size of a visible plume or by calculation of plume
dispersion. Grid size adjustments may be required based on the results of preliminary
testing.
Sampling heads should be symmetrically distributed over the concentrated portion
of the plume containing about 90% of the total mass flux (exposure). For example, if
the exposure from a point source is normally distributed, the exposure values measured
by the samplers at the edge of the grid should be about 25% of the centerline exposure.
Sampling time should be long enough to provide sufficient particulate mass per
sample and to average over several units of cyclic fluctuation in the emission rate (for
-li-
-------
example,' vehicle passes on an unpaved roadl. The first condition is usually easily met
because of the proximity of the sampling grid to the source.
Assuming that sample collection media do not overload, the upper limit on
sampling time is dictated by the need to sample under conditions of relatively constant
wind direction and speed. In the absence of passage of- weather fronts through the area,
acceptable wind conditions might be anticipated to persist for a period of i to 6 hours.
TECHNIQUE SELECTION
The most appropriate measurement technique to apply to a given source is the one
whicr. can be most accurately applied. In general order of preference the techniques
are quasi-stack, exposure profiling, roof monitor and upwind-downwind methods since
precision and accuracy estimates follow this sequence in terms of rank- ordering. This
ordering follows from the fact that the quasi-stack method captures virtually ail of the
emitted particulate from a source and measures the flux .using established procedures.
This is not true of the exposure profiling and roof monitor measurement methods which
use assumptions or estimates to relate the volume of air sampled to the total mass flux.
In the case of the upwind-downwind scheme, a mathematical model with a generally
accepted inaccuracy factor of two must be used to determine the source strength. This
inaccuracy makes this method the least acceptable.
For a situation where the suitability of a given technique to a source is not
immediately apparent (such as upwind-downwind to area sources), then the criteria for
using the quasi-stack, exposure profiiing, roof monitor and upwind-downwind methods
should be applied to the situation in the order stated. For example, if for one reason or
another the quasi-stack method cannot be applied to an operation, then it should be
-12-
-------
determined if exposure profiling can "be. If exposure profiling cannot be applied, then
the roof monitor method should be considered.
Some of the individual criteria to be used in evaluating the utility of each method
are:
Source Size - Is the source small enough to be enclosed or hooded? Can sufficient
transport air flow be induced to capture the emissions?
Source Location - Is the source inside an enclosure? Where is an external source
iocatec in relation to buildings, roads, bodies of water? Will emissions be masked
by emissions from otner sources?
Source Accessibility - What are the limits of access to the source for hooding,
cucting, location of samplers? Is there a platform or catwalk at a roof monitor?
Source I so] ability - Can the emissions from the source be isolated from those of
otner sources? Can measurements be made of a combination of sources?
Site Topography - Will the terrain or buildings on or around the- site affect the
transport of tne emissions or limit the location of samplers?
Site Meteorology - Will the emissions be affected by unusual wind speeds or
directions? w'nat is the likelihood of their occurence? V/iil precipitation affect
the emissions or measurements? .
Process Continuity - Will the emissions be generated continuously? What are
penocs of generation of cyclic emissions? How many cycles must be sampled to
ootain adequate cata?
Process Variations - Are emission rates affected by variations in process
parameters? What parameters are involved? Can variations during the sampling
procedure be determined?
Measurement Effects - Will the measurement procedures affect the emissions or
their generating process?
Application of Criteria
In evaluating which measurement scheme is most applicable for a given situation,
preference first should be given to the quasi-stack method, followed by exposure
profiling, roof monitor, and finally the upwind-downwind method. For each method,
-13-
-------
tnose iactors wmcn scount tne memoes' use are listed m terms' c:
importance in tne tex;
-itiiCK Aietnoc
Tne ioiiowmg is use oi tne ouasi-stacK meinoa.
Cannot oeuio oe oue to size, plant layout. CShA or iaoor
union requig requirements, etc.
Space reqiimpiing metnoa requires tnat a certain length of
cuctworK ;ec. Tne plant layout or process equipment
arrangemeenaDie to sucn.
(Nor.-isoiatji me source oemg testea has £ lou emission
rate, anc ticentration in tne area is relatively mgn. n may
not DC p-ve precise results even
cone en tra'-neasurec.
il tne DaCKgrounc
^averse Damons - il tne source oeing testea is locates
ou: o: 00^,1 wma speeas couic cause testing aiiiicuity.
inoulc u ftucn conaitions woulo greatly interiere witn tne
conauct oi, tnen mis metnoa snomc not r>e usec.
Process inmouction oi a significant How oi air over tne
process ecter tne cnaracter or rate oi tne emissions oy
cnangmg t«ture or flow rate.
exposure Pronling
Tnis tecnnique iy to line sources oi lugitive emissions, out also
has limitea use v/itn sacn as truck unloading. Sampling oi naul roaas
r\as snown tnat tne tyig witn otner iactors sucn as silt content oi the
roaa, speea, ana moist.y nave a pronounced eiiect upon amount oi tne
emissions lor line souactor tending to precluae xne use oi tnis metnoa
is tne aegree oi ailiicoi aata in a neia situation. Tnese aifiicuities
can oe overcome tnrotion witn plant personnel. The results ootameo
-------
with this method are usually much more accurate than those which would be obtained
ay an upwind-downwind measurement of a line or small area source.
In applying this measurement metnoc to material transfer operations and the like
the factors noted beiow would have to be overcome or the method could not be applied.
o Proximity to the source - important since multi-point mass concentrations
must be made in the fugitive cloud. The farther from the source the larger
the cloud becomes due to diffusion, and as a result, more points need to be
sampled. Should the samplers be placed too far from the source, then too
many sampling points would be needed to make this technique usable.
o Size - as noted above, too large z. cloud would require too many samplers.
Non-isoiatable emissions and adverse meteorological factors may also be reasons
to reject tne use of this techniaue.
Roof Monitor
Those factors which would preclude the use of this measurement method are:
Lack of specificity - by definition, the roof monitor technique measures
emissions emanating from an enclosure. Ideally, the sources of those
emissions are of a single unit operation or series of operations which are the
focus of the testing program. This, however, is not always the case and, for
the most part, any lack of specificity with regard to sources would tend to
discount this method.
Unmeasurable Air Flow - the air flow from enclosures is governed by natural
draft and influenced by related meteorological conditions. Should either the
size of the openings be too large or the driving force of the draft too low,
then accurate velocity measurements may not be possible.
Size of the area - roof monitors can extend for considerable distances and
be of a large cross-sectional area. The number of points which need to be
monitored for velocity or from which particulate samples are to be
extracted may be too many to be practical.
o
Access - access to the opening of the monitor for the installation,
monitoring and servicing of the measurement equipment by means of a
platform, catwalk or reasonably flat roof surface must be available.
-15-
-------
Upwind-Downwind Method
The use of the upwind-down wind sampling method is not usually restricted by
consiaerations of source size, location or isoiabiiity. The method may be effectively
employed with any size source as long as a measurable concentration of emissions is
produced by the diffusion of the emissions into the atmosphere. Source location is not a
factor, since ail emissions are measured after their transport into the atmosphere.
Access to the source is not generally required, but a non-obstructed area must be
available to locate samplers within the emissions cloud downwind of the source.
The method permits sampling a combination of fugitive and stack sources as Jong
as the other source's contributions to the measured concentrations can be separately
and simultaneously identified. This eliminates the need for source isolation. The
method is strongly influenced by site, topography and meteorological conditions, both in
the location of sampling points and in the calculations of emission rates. Careful
measurements of sampler locations and of wind speed and direction during the sampling
are required.. Since most upwind-downwind samplings are made as relatively long-term
averages, the effects of cyclic emission generation or variations in the process will be
diminished and need not be of primary concern. The measurement program has no
effect on the process.
It is possible that at a given site z combination of topography and local
meteorological conditions may combine to make a site unsuitable for upwind-downwind
sampling. In this case, the site should be rejected for application of the method and a
more suitable location found.
-ib-
-------
Tnis section oi tne protocol oescrioes tne equipment to oe used ior tne
measurement o: innaiaoie participates ': rom fugitive sources. Tne equipment is oemg
oeal: wttn separately from tne metnocs oescription in oroer to avoid repetition and to
place proper empnasis on tne equipment itseli. Tne sampling equipment can oe amoec
into categories associated with eacn o: tne lour measurement methodologies. There is
also c. Description 01 tne aevice to oe usea lor oetermming innalaoje particulate mass
concentrations curing tne pre-test survey ol tne source.
iacn 01 tne Sampling metnoaoiogies requires ootn velocity ana mass concentration
measurements. Tne equipment associatea witn each metnoaoiogy is aescriDed ior eacn
metnoo oelou. . . .
Tne techniques used ior this metnoaoiogy are laentical to tnose used ior tne
measurements oi innaiaDie particuiate matter in normal gas streams. For more
oetailea information tnan is preseniea nere, tne reader is reierreo to "Proceaures
ivianual lor innalaole Particuiate Sampler Operation" VKeierence ij. For some oi tne
sources tested le.g., comoust ion -related; molecular weignt determinations and water
vapor concentrations may have to DC known for sampling rate calculations. C.PA
•viethods 3 iKeierence £) and n L-ieierence 3; shouid oe used ior these determinations
wnen required.
-------
Velocity Measurements ior yuasi-StaCK Application
Since ior tne most part the air How rate in tne auct will oe determines py an
averaging of point velocity determinations ana since tnese point velocities will oe in
excess 01 ten ieet per seconc, tne most appropriate instrument is the Type S pi tot tuoe
i.r<.eierence *»;. '
Otner point velocity sensors can oe used for air flow Determinations in quasi-
stacK applications as long as tne accuracy of tne instrument is known. Multiple point
sampling prooes are also worKaoie alternatives ior ilow measurement, especially in
those instances wnen tne process cycle time is oi sucn a limited duration as to maKe
manual reversing impractical.
The numoer anc tne locations oi tne points in s. velocity traverse are usually the
same as those irom wmcn a sample is extractea le.g., iPA Method 3j. Since tne
sampling devices usea in this program require a constant flow rate to insure a
consistent collection einciency, tne numoer of sampling points must be restricted tsee
suosection Mass Concentration Measurements for Quasi-^tack Applications for details).
These sampling points will not necessarily oe tne same as those speoiiea ior the
velocity traverse, so that additional aata must oe taken, it is important that the
velocity iluctuations at tnese sampling points oe determined ana tnat, cased upon tnese
fluctuations, tne variation in percent isoKinetic is calculated. 11 this variation is more
tnan ^ 20 percent, then another sampling point must DC used.
iv.ass Concentration Measurements lor Quasi-Stacx Application
The Process Measurements Brancn ^PMb; of tPA's industrial Environmental
Kesearcn i^aooratory of Research Triangle Park, Nortn Carolina funoeo the develop-
ment oy Southern Research institute of an innaiaoie paniculate (IP) sampler to measure
v
-------
trie mnaicDie ana line particle fractions in inaustrial process streams. A complete
aescription 01 tms aevice can oe iouna in Reference 1. bascially. the unn is oesignec
to De compatiDle witn a stanaarc ErA ivietnoa 5 (.reference 5; or ivietnoc 17
(.Reierence b> sampling tram ana consists of two series cyclones ana a oackup inter.
Tne first cyclone i5td-X; has a DSQ* of i5 micrometers wnile the secona ISPl ill; one of
2.3 micrometers. Tne oacxup filter can DC eitner a tnimoie or flat type oepenaing upon
tne expectea fine particuiate concentrations. Tne cyclones are operatec at a nominal
IIow ol 23 i/mm. (Q.& ft. /mm.; at i3G°C (30U°F;. Tne flow tnrough tne cyclone musr
oe kepi constant to insure proper operation. Tnerefore, selecting a location in tne
auctworK wmch has tne least velocity fluctuation is tne most preferaole since tne
numoer of nozzje cnanges is minirmzea. To aetermine tne sampling llowrate for tne
cyclone SrU-A at L>~, of i5 micrometers, Figure j. can oe usec. Th^ requires tnat a
molecular weignt analysis oe maoe py Lf A tVietnoc 3 (Reference 2;. Viscosity can also
be approximateo oy:
u = \i74.4 f 0.406 T) x 10" poise ' U)
wnere T is tne gas stream temperature in aegrees Celsius. The flow rate can then oe
usea in conjunction with Figure 2 to determine the requirea nozzle size. The D5r of
cyclone SKl-ill can tnen De oetermined from Figure 3.' As an example,' assume tnat a
gas stream to oe sampled has a temperature ol 50°C at a point whose velocity is
2U meters/sec. From Equation l tne gas viscosity is m.7 x iO"b poise. From the figure,
*'J ne Use ol a particuiate collector is the aeroaynamic particle aiameter at whicn the
collector achieves 5G-*> collection efficiency; one-naif of the particles are captured ana
one-naif are not.
\
\
-------
30
25
= 20
C3
- 15
7 f
•/ i '
150 200 250
VISCOSITY (M),-MICROPOISE
300
•IGURE 1: SAMPLING RATE VERSUS VISCOSITY AT D5Q= 15 MICROMETERS AERODYNAMIC
DIAMETER FOR IP CYCLONE SRI-X. (REF 1)
-20-
-------
100
4 S 6 8 10 20
GAS VELOCITY, m/«c
30 40 50 50 80 10(
FIGURE 2: NOMOGRAPH FOR SELECTING NOZZLES FOR ISOKINETIC SAMPLING. (RE?. I]
-21-
-------
100
1 2 34568 10
AERODYNAMIC PARTICLE DIAMETER, micrometBn
FIGURE 3: COLLECTION EFFICIENCY VERSUS AERODYNAMIC PARTICLE DIAMETER FOR
CYCLONE SRI III AT 22°C AND 11.3 1/MIN (D), 93°C AND 19.8 1/MIN
(0), AND 150°C AND 22.7 1/MIN (A). (REF 1)
-22-
-------
tne required sampling rate in liters/ mm. is anout 1.5. Prom figure 2, tne nozzle
diameter required lor a sample ilow rate oi O and a velocity oi 20 m/sec. is «* cm.
nn miportint point witn respect to tne IP sampling tecnnique in quasi-stacK
applications is that tne numoer oi sampling point ana samples taKen is not tne same as
that lor c.Pn Method ^. rour sampling points nave oeen estaolisnea lor tnis tecnnique,
as per Reference 1.
A sample and at leas one replicate is to oe taken at each point. Any
measurement oi total mass concentration whicn deviates irom tne mean oy more than
yj-/c snould oe discaroec anc tne sample reeated.
r MGMTOK SAmPLiNG EQUIPMENT
Most rooi monitor systems rely on natural araits caused oy tnermal gradients or
very low volume fans as the prime movers oi emissions-carrying air tnrougn tne vent
opening. Air velocities are usually quite low, in tne order oi a lew feet per seconc, ana
require especially sensitive instruments for tneif measurement. Paniculate
concentrations in tnis air 11 owing through tne monitor may oe expectea to oe
cor.siaera.Dly mgner than amotent levels, and can usually oe effectively sampleo with
niter oevices in the standard nigh volume sampler (4U clmj How rate range.
Velocity Measurements for Roof Monitor Applications
Since emissions irom rooi monitor type systems are transmitted oy natural or
iONv-volurne induced araits through relatively large openings, the air flow, wniie large,
occurs at low velocity. The S-type pitot tuoe, wnich is the most commonly used point
velocity sensor, nas a lower limit oi anout lO feet/second and is not applicable to this
type oi sampling. Taoie 4 lists some instruments which have lower velocity limits irom
-23-
-------
<•. LUV. tvnNUc. VELOCITY INSTKUMtN'lATJujN iK.eierence
instrument ana
manufacturer
velocity
limn. :i/mm
1 emperaiire
ranee
tvirstsiance
to
oarticuiate
Aooiications
inclinec Manometer*
Mooe! i^i-i^v
Uwyer instruments. inc.
700
as
primary
sensor
Same as industrial! stacxs, oucts, vent:
primary &>so lac applications; air or
sensor non-air streams
M icromanometer*
Mooei unij
Tnermo-systems,, inc.
700 in Iieio
<»uO in lao
Same as
primary
sensor
Same as
primary
sensor
La& -applications; iirmtec use
in inqustriai scacio, aucti,
vents; air or nort-au* streams
Micro tecto.-*
noo*. uaug«
uwyer instruments, inc.
700 IT. iieio
lUU in lac
Same as
primary
sensor
Same as
primary
sensor
Lac applications.; limitec use
in inousiriai ^^r""^. aucts,
vents: air or non-air streams
electronic Manometer*
iviooei iLli
uatamer- ics, inc.
700 in iiejo
lUC in lie
Same as
primary
sensor
Same as
primary
sensor
applications,; iirruieo use
in inoustnal stacxs,, aucti»
vents; air or non-air streams
iViecnanicai
Vane Anemometer
instrument (_t
noi-ium
censor
Tnermo- Systems, inc.
70
lesi.;
Fair
To 57CTF
UOOO
inoustnai vents ano grilles;
special caiioratior. neeoec lor
non-air streams
ix-tenueo rcange
rrooeiier Anemometer
>v.»>. 1 oung 'v_o.
not -wire Aneometer
iViooel VT-iolG
Tnermo- Systems, Inc.
1o lilCV lor
7i continuous hair *
outy
.' Fair
gooo
rvooi monitors &no vents: spe«
CiaJ c&liaration neeoec lor
non-air streams
InoustriaJ stactcs, vents, aucts-
lac applications; special can-
oration neeoec lor
non-air streams
Inoustrial stacxs, vents, DUCTS,
lao applications; special cai>-
oration neeoea lor
non-air streams
nuioic Velocity Censor
mooei jutK
Fiuioynamic uevices, etc.
Fair.
to
gooo
inuustrtal gacfes, vents,
oucts; air or non-air streams
iampier*
Moaei uSin-lU^iv
Teieoyne nastings-Kayatst
1UU
Same as
primary
excellent
inaustrial SUCKS, vents,
oucts; air or non-air streams
Lulierential Pressure*
Transmitter
oranat industries, inc.
150
Same as
primary
sensor
Excellent
Incussrial SUCKS, vents,
oucts; air or non-air streams
TVIUS: oe usec ID conjunction witn i 1 ype-^ pitot tuoe or otiier appropriate primary sensing element.
-------
. ! to1 about 10 feet/second. The table also describes their resistance to participates and
gives application areas for each. While accuracy is the most important parameter
associated with this type of instrumentation, the ability or ease of matching the sensor
to an automatic data logger is of equal importance in roof monitor applications since
the physical arrangements at the monitor will most often require remote operation of
the instrumentation.
Mass Concentration Measurements for Roof Monitor Applications
The standard high volume sampler (as described in subsection High Volume Air
Samplers), modified by the addition of a "horizontal eiutriator" is to be used to
Determine mass concentrations for roof monitor applications. The eiutriator is shown in
Figure 4. The eiutriator has been specifically designed to provide a D^Q of
15 micrometers at a flow rate of 40 dm with the collection diameter plates in a
perfectly horizontal position. The air vent configuration thus requires that the high
volume sampler be turned on its side with its filter in a vertical plume parallel to the
roof monitor surface opening. The inlet velocity of about 0.1 fc m/sec., fixed by the
constant flow rate and the bell mouth geometry of the inlet, will preclude isokinetic
sampling in most instances. Corrections for an isokinetic sampling rate can be made in
the concentration calculation procedure.
UPWIND-DOWNWIND SAMPLING EQUIPMENT
The equipment used in upwind-downwind sampling is basically the same as that
I used in standard ambient air monitoring work; namely, meteorological wind systems
f (anemometers and wind direction indicators) and high volume air samplers. While the
-25-
-------
BELL-MOUTH INLET
COLLECTIOM I'LAICS
_ CONNECT TO
STANDARD 111 VOL
FIGURE 4: HORIZONTAL ELUTRIA10R
-------
inlet conii Duration oi tne nigh volume sampling units nave aeen cnangec to accomphsn
i? sampling, tne operation 01 tne unit is uncnangeo.
iiical iviea,surement lor Upwind- Down wino Applications
itanaaro commercially avaUaoie wind systems isucn as a Ciimatronics Mark 111;
are acceptaoie ior tnis application. Wind speed ana direction measurements are
continuously recoroec at upwind anc aownwma stations during the sampling penoa. To
compliment tnis information, meteorological ooservations are loggea concurrent with
me test periocs. Tne ooservations shoulc inciuue sucn parameters as current weatner
conditions, SKy cover ana grouna cover.
mass Concentration Measurements ior Upwino-Oownwinq Applications .
Tne equipment usec ior upwina -down wind particuiate sampling consists oi various
moaincations to tne stancara nign volume samplers. Included in tnese m Deifications
are automatic flow controls, size selective inlets, ana cascade impactors.
nigh Volume Air Samplers
Stanaara nign volume samplers, wmch collect particuiate matter samples in
2 x iO men niters at ilow rates of aoout iQ cim, have Jong oeen used to measure total
suspenaea particuiate matter in tne amoient air. Their use in upwind -down wina
samplings requires tnat tne sampling llow rate, wnicn is an important parameter in the
particuiate concentration calculations, oe maintainea at a constant value throughout
tne sampling run. Constant llow controllers are commercially availaoie ior almost all
stanaara nigh volume samplers.
-27-
-------
Size Selective inlets
i
Used in conjunction witn tne standard nign volume air sampler is a size selective
inlet wnicn nas a j*,, of 15-micrometers v.nen air ilow is at 40 dm. This device is
->u
practically insensitive to 'wine speea anc tnere is no cnange in tne operation 01 the
sampler as a result oi its addition. Tne size selective inlet is sold oy various
manufacturers, usually witn aaapters to permit its- installation on any stancara mgn
volume unit.
nign Volume uascaoe Impactor
To oeterrnine tne size aistnoution oi tne fugitive particuiate. cascade impactors
are usec in conjunction witn tne SSl mociiiec: high volume sampler.
imce a 40 dm sampling rate is aesirea to matcn tne size selective inlet flow
requirements, tne use oi a slotteo-type impactor is indicated. The particle size
cut-oiis and Cunningham slip corrections oi a commercially availanle unit are shown in
Taoie 5 ior <*0 and 20 dm ilow rates ior a four-stage model. Taole 6 presents tne
impactor stage parameters ior tne same mooei.
Tne instruments are usually sola with a slide-rule calculator wmcn can oe used to
determine tne L),Q ior IJow rates otner tnan 40 dm and particle mass densities otner
man ig/cc.
Tnere are various types of suostrates available for use with the impactors. \vnile
Type A glass iioer filters are tne most commonly used, cellulose and metal foils can
also oe used.
-------
TAbi-t 3. C/OCADt
*0 cim
J zt ;microns) C
State iNumoer ^0
i. 7.2 to « 1.U2
2 3.0 to 7.2 1.06
3 1.5 to 3.0 i.ii
** 0.^ to 1.5 1.1 7
m-vol Filter 0.0 to 0.^5
/O am
D ^microns;
P50
10^ to »
4^ to 10J;
2.1 to ^.2
1.3 to 2.1
0.0 to 1.3
Geometric
C * Stahcarc
Deviation
1.C2 i.3<*
1.04 1.50
i.Oi i.«S
1.13 1.50
-
For spnerical particles ai 25 C ana 7oU mm ng
out-poinis aeterrninec irom caiioration with monc-cnsperse aerosols
Cunningnam slip correction factor.
-------
TA3LE 6. HIGH VOLUME IMPACTOR STAGE PARAMETERS (Reference S)
Slot Number
Stage Width, w of
No. (inches) Slots
Total
Slot Throat
Length Length, T
(inches) (inches)
jet-to-
Plate
Distance,S
(inches) T/w
51 o-
Reynolds
Number
V2w
S/u-
jet
Velocity,
V(m/sec)
0.156 9
O.Oc^ 10
C.036 10
0.018 10
fcS.8
0.250
0.050
0.050
0.050
0.125
0.075
0.075
0.075
1.60 O.SO
0.78 1.17
1.39 2.0S
2.7S 4.16
22^5
2005'
2005
2005
4.30
9.3S
16.7
33. <<
'-30-
-------
Fortapje Dust Monitors
in oroer to maximize tne numoer of tests tnat may oe conouctea curing any 01 tne
various sampung programs, tne sampling time per test snoula oe mimmizec. To
accomphsn tnis, an accurate estimation must oe maae oi tne particulate concentration
prior to testing. Tnis estimation is oest perlormeo curing the pre-test survey of tne
facility. Since tne pre-test survey is limited to a relatively cursory examination oi tne
facility, tne estimation of particulate concentrations must t>e made quiody using
portaoie equipment. .f\ beta Gauge is recommenoec ior tnis application for reasons of
accuracy, ruggedness anc reiiacuity. tieta Gauges nave oeen usea :or years to measure
particuiate concentrations anc nave estaoiisneo a satisfactory operating recorc.
Several types oi oeta gauges are avaiiaole. Tne RDM-101 respiraole oust monitor
manufactured oy tne GL/\ Corporation is discussed nere oecause 01. its almost joeal
operating characteristics :or tnis application.
Tne RDivi-lCl uses a two-stage collection system. The first stage is a
pre-coilector wnicn retains particles larger than lO or 20 micrometers depending upon
tne conuguration selected. The cyclone pre-collector retains virtually all particles
larger tnan lO micrometers wniie allowing almost all Jess than 2 micrometers to pass
tnrougn. Tne other pre-collector effectively prevents particles greater than 20 microns
from entering tne unit.
Since tnis instrument collects particulate matter by impaction, particles having
aerodynamic diameters less tnan 0.5 microns do not possess tne inertia to oe aeposited
and, tnerefore, are not effectively measured.
Tne second collection stage is a polyester impactor aisc upon wrucn the particles
are collected. The particles collected aosoro tne beta radiation reaching the Geiger
tuoe detector from a carDon-lf source. beta radiation attenuation is almost
-31-
-------
f
exclusively oepenoent upon the mass per unit area oi the particulates ana is expresses
as:
Where:
No = initial oeta count iwttnout paniculate aDsorption;
N = final oeta count
ym = absorption coefficient
6 = average mass per unit area of coilectea paniculate
Tne paniculate concentration can tnereiore be expressed as:
A UnNJ
( — ii IUJ
y m i^Jt
V, ne:e:
C = paniculate concentration
n = paniculate collection area
^> = volumetric llow rate
t s effective sampling time
'I ne instrument takes two counts; the first is taken curing tne twenty seconas at
tne start oi tne sampling; tne secona at tne ena 01 tne cycle. Tne natural logaritnm oi
tne seconc count multiplied oy a system constant is suostractea from the natural
logarithm ol the firs: count ana displayea as tne mass concentration.
Tne instrument can operate in tnree oasic moaes. Tne first two mooes operate
accoramg to pre-set sampling times. Tnese mooes are "i x" vone-minute sampling
time; ana a "10 x" mooe whicn has a snorter sampling time UO seconas; to enanie
measurement of hign concentrations. Tne tniro mode consists of manual operation oy
wmch tne sampling time can oe varied. Figure 5 snows tne measureaoie concentration
ranges lor tne instrument in this mooe.
Exposure Profiling Sampling Equipment
The exposure profiler oesignea to quantify dust emissions from pavea and unpavea
roaas ^Figure 6; consists of a ponaoie tower (4 to 6m heigntj supporting an array of
-32-
-------
o
'_3
un
20.0
10.C -
MAXIMUM CONCENTRATION
MINIMUM CONCENTRATION
0.01
10 15 20 25
SAMPLE TIME (MINUTES)
FIGURE 5: CONCENTRATION RANGE .vs SAMPLE TIME "OR RDM-101
IN MANUAL MODE
-33-
-------
FIGURE 6: EXPOSURE PROFILER-LINE SOURCE MODE.
-------
sampling heads. Each sampling head is operated as an isokinetic exposure sampler
directing passage of the flow stream through s. settling chamber (trapping particles
larger than aoout 50 ym in diameter) and then upward through a standard S-inch by
10-inch glass fiber filter positioned horizontally. Sampling intakes are pointed into the
wind, and sampling velocity of each intake is adjusted to match the local mean wind
speed, as determined prior to each test. Throughout each test, wind speed is monitored
by recording anemometers at two heights, and the wind speeds at the other sampler
heights are determined by assuming a logarithmic distribution.
In addition to airborne GUST passage (exposure), fugitive dust parameters that are
measured include suspended dust concentration and particle size distribution.
Conventional high volume filtration units are operated upwind of the test soxirce to
measure background concentration. Because of the variation of particle size
distribution with height above the suriace, particle sizing devices should be operated at
TWO or more heights in the fugitive dust plume.
High volume parallel-slot Cascade impactors with a 34 m /hr (20 dim) flow
controller may be used to measure particle size distribution alongside the exposure
profiler. Each impactor unit is equipped with a cyclone pre-separator to remove coarse
particles which otherwise would tend to bounce off the glass fiber impaction substrates,
causing fine particle measurement bias. The cyclone sampling intake is directed into
the wind and fitted with a nozzle of appropriate size to provide for isokinetic sampling.
-35-
-------
SECTION <*
OF A SAMPLING PROGRAM
Aiter me most appropriate measurement metnoo has-oeen selected ior a specific
source, the sampling program must be designed to apply tne metnod in tne most
enective manner, Mte specific factors need to oe incorporated into s. general plan
oesign sucn tnat a tailored program is acnievec. Tms section of tne protocol presents a
test plan design along with tne information necessary to oevelop the aetaiied plan.
Tne purpose of conducting a pretest survey at tne site is to ootain enough detailed
information aoout tne sources of emissions to oe measured to permit the preparation of
a aetaiied test plan and sampling system aesign. The information required is essentially
tne same ior eacn of tne sampling metnoas. Taoie 7 lists tne general iniormation to oe
ootainec as a. result of tne survey, Most of tnis information ana additional information
suggested oy considerations of the specific on-site situation can DC obtained oy
interviewing tne cognizant plant supervisory personnel and from nrst-nana ooservations
oy the measurement program designers.
In order to increase the numoer of tests to the maximum achievable over a given
time penoo, it is necessary to estimate the mass concentration curing the pre-survey
visit. This can oe accomplished with tne use of the cseta ^auge described in Section 3,
EXPOSURE PROFILING SAMPLING EQUIPMENT. The use of this instrument is
aescrioed ior eacn application in the sampling techniques section for eacn method.
-36-
-------
inbj_£ 7. PK.E-TEST ibKVEY INFORMATION TO rsE OBTAINED FOR
APPUCATlOiN OF FUGITlVn. t-MiSSlON SAMPLING wETrtODS
Plant
Layoui
Drawings:
buLJaing Layout and Plan View oi Potential Stuay Areas
buiioing Side Elevations to Identify Destructions ana
Structure Avaiianle to Support Test Setup
Work Flow Diagrams
Locations oi Suitaole Sampling Sites
Physical Layout Measurements to Supplement Drawings
won< Space kequirec at Potential Sampling Sites
Process
Process Flow Diagram with Fugitive Emission Points
laen tified
General Description of Process Chemistry
General Description oi Process Operations Including
Initial Estimate oi Fugitive Emissions
Drawings oi Equipment or Segments oi Processes Where
Fugitive Emissions are to oe iVreasurea
Photographs Ui pernrurtedJ oi Process Area Where
Fugitive Emissions are to DC Measurea
Names, Extensions, Locations oi Process Foremen and
Supervisors W'here Tests are to oe Conducted
Location oi Available Services (Power Outlets, Main-
tenance and Plant Engineering Personnel, .Laoora-
tories, etc.;
Operations Local Venoors Who Can Fanncate ana Supply Test System
Components
Shiit Scneaules .
Location oi Operations Recoras icomoine with process
operation information;
neaitn ana Saiety Considerations
otner
Access routes to the areas Where Test Equipment/Instru-
mentation Will tie Locatea
Names, Extensions, Locations oi Plant Security and
Safety Supervisors
-J7-
-------
To assure tnat none oi the many oetaiis requirec in the conouct oi an effective
measurement program is overlooked, it is essential that ail oi tne program planning
anc oesi^n oe compietec prior to tne start oi tne iielo eiiort in tne form oi a oetaiiec
test plan. Using the miormation coilectec in tne pre-test survey, tne plan snouio provioe
a detailed speciiication of tne proceoures ana equipment requirec to satisiy tne
oojectives of tne program ana a step-oy-step guiae to its penormance.
Tne test plan may oe prepared in any of a variety of formats according to
individual preierences, out snouic contain sufficient information to guioe me test
program personnel in tne following areas:
uoiective
A staterneni 01 tne goals of tne program, presentee in terms of .the end product;
e.g., tne determination oi an emission factor for a specific source as pouncs per ton of
product.
Approach
A description of the measurement metnoa, aata reouction procedures ano
calculations to oe employed to acmeve tne goals aescrioea in the oojective-
Program Scneaule
A aetaiied, cnronologicaily-oroerea aescript-ion of eacn phase of tne sampling
program inducing sampling network oesign, site preparation, equipment preparation and
calioration, site set-up ano equipment cneck out, sampling and Gata collection schedule
ano procedures, cata reduction ana analysis, emission factor calculations and report
preparation.
-3*-
-------
Equipment Specifications
A listing of the sampling and associated equipment required for the program
including pertineni characteristics.
Facilities Requirements
A listing of the facilities such as electrical power, special constructions, work
space, etc., required ibr the program.
Sampling Network
A detailed description-of the network, including specific sampling and associated
equipment locations; or, if this z'~ not oe determined, a description, including sample
calculations, of the metnod to be employed in designing the network.
Site Preparations
A listing of the work required, such as the construction of pjatf orrns, installation
of power lines, etc., to prepare the site for the installation of the sampling network.
Equipment Preparation
A listing of the check-outs, calibrations ana other preparatory work to be
conducted lor each item of equipment prior to its delivery to the site.
Site Set-UP and Check-out
A listing of the steps to be taken for the installation and operational verification
of the sampling network.
Sampling ana Data Collection Scheoule
A .(Description of the samples and associated data to be collected during a typical
measurement run, including examples or actual data logging sheets.
-------
Date Keouction ana Analysis
An laentification oi stanaara proceaures or a Description oi special proceaures TO
je loilo^ec in me nandlin^ ana analysis of samples ana me reauciion of assooatea
cata.
Emission Factor Calculations
A aescripTion, including equations ana sample calculations, of The proceaures TO.
oe employee in tne calculation of emission factors from the reauced data ana sample
analyses.
Report Preparation
nn outline of tne format to oe usec in the preparation of tne measurement
program's Documentation as a final report.
bniiS FOK
Vrnen a sample oi a material is ootaineo lor analysis, the numoer of sample
increments necessary to insure a requirea precision of results at a given confluence
level can oe calcuiatea if the stanaara Deviation of tne analyzeo parameter nas oeen
estaolisnea or estimated, in a similar manner, tne numoer of fugitive emissions tests
necessary for a given level of precision at a aesirea coniiaence level can be estimated
Sasea upon tne stanaara deviation of tne emission values. Unfortunately, tnere is little
or no avauaoie aata of this type for inhalaoie particuiate fugitive emissions ana,
tnerefore, an estimate of tne sianoara deviation cannot oe reasonaoly made at this
time. For each measurement program, therefore, the contractor must estimate tne
stanoard aeviation 01 tne innaiaoie particuiate emissions for eacn source and for eacn
test condition, set the degree of precision oesired and then apply the appropriate
lormula to- uetermme tne required numoer at tesrs. Buagetary consTramts will
-40-
-------
obviously nave a marked effect upon me setting ol tne precision limns anc.
consequently, me numaer oi tests, in oroer to maximize tne information developed oy
tne testing program, a. numoer oi steps can oe taken to insure tnat a statistically valid
program is designed.
First, it is important to Determine wnetner the type of source, or one naving
similar unit operations, has ever oeen tested previously. Tne- oest sources oi
iniormation are tne EPA task managers, the otner EPA contractors in the iugitive
emissions iieia ana tne open literature. - V/natever-aata is gathered curing tnis initial
eilort snouic oe examined to oetermme the causative iactors influencing tne magnituoe
oi tne .emissions ana to estaohsn, if possioie. an estimate ior tne stancarc oeviation oi
tne emission values. Tne former is ol importance since a proper unaerstanoing oi tne
iactors influencing tne emission rate is necessary to set up tne statistical experimental
oesign ior quantuication of tne influences. U'hue tne word "experimental" design is
used here, it snouia De notea tnat in iielo experiments of this type little or no control oi
>
tne operating iactors can oe ootameo out, ratner, whatever data is ootainea must
somenow oe iactorea into tne statistical analysis. For estimating the standard
Deviation oi tne emissions cata ouierences oetween aata gatherea irom aiiierent plants
is oi importance, since large differences would tend to indicate the existence oi some
iniluence not previously accounted ior.
in determining wnich iactors nave the greatest efiect upon emissions it is
important to estimate tne iorm oi tne predictive equation, since it may oe necessary to
transiorm (e.g., log transformation; the gathered data ior statistical analysis.
Knowledge of tne form oi the predictive equation is useful in determining tne type of
transformation most amenaole to tne statistical test cnosen.
-41-
-------
if it is not possicje to estimate tne standard deviation oi tne emission rate from
tne literature witn respect to the suspected causative iactors. tne iirst part oi tne iieic
program may nave to determine it, requiring tnat some o: tne uata oe anaiyzeu on sue.
Tnis requires a nelc laooratory capaoie of m axing gravimetric determinations.
ttavmg gathered tne data, a numoer oi tests of significance can oe applied to
verily d suspected idctors do indeed aiiect tne emission rates, /viuiti-f actor analysis of
variance is prooaoly ioeal ior determing il complex interrelationships oetween iactors
occur. Tne most useful statistical tool, nowever, will prooaoly DC a multiple linear
regression analysis, providing thai tne predictive equation can DC linearized.
DESIGN PROCEDURES
L.acn 01 tne innaiaoie paniculate measurement metnods aescrioed aoove requires
specuic and special calculations to accomphsn the design of tne sampling equipment or
network. This section aescrioes tne procedures to oe followed in the design oi each
method and in locating sampling sites ior the rooi monitor, upwind-downwind and
exposure proiiling methods.
i -Stacx Sampling Method Uesian Procedures
Tne : oil owing sections explain tne tecnniques used to design the capture noocs ior
fugitive emission sampling oy tne Quasi-istacK ivietnod. Duct and ian design metnods
are also explained in aetail.
-42-
-------
Quasi-Stack Hood Design
Since the concentration determinations required for quasi-stack sampling will oe
made using the stacx sampling techniques described in Reference 1, the only specific
design consioeration for tne method is ensuring that the hood or enclosure installed over
tne source is capaole of capturing and transporting virtually ail of the source emissions
to the sampling points in measurable concentrations.
The emissions capturing requirements for quasi-stack sampling can usually oe met
using one oi tnree; basic hooa types - bootns, canopies and exterior hoods. These are
illustrated in Figure 7, along with the equations for calculating their required capture
air volume flow rates, in tnese equations, V is the air velocity required to capture
particles emitted from tne source at their null point farthest from tne hood face and X
is tne distance from the iartnest null point to the hood face. The -null point is the
location at wnicn tne velocity of the particle becomes the same as that of the
surrounding space.
To illustrate tne relative capture air volume flow rates required for each type of
hood, consider a hypothetical source as a cuoe 6 ft. on a side located in a moderately
drafty location emitting moderate amounts of nuisance dust particles from any point on
its surface with equal velocity, resulting in null points 1 ft. from the surface.
A bootn enclosing the source would be about 7 feet high, & feet wide and & feet
aeep. All null points would then oe within the booth, and the required air flow rate
would be:
Q = VWH
The required capture velocity, V, determined from Table 9 (Reference 9) is
50 feet per minute, and
Q = 50x7x8 = 2SOO CUDJC feet per minute
-------
CANOPY
Q = 1.4 PVD
ECTHRIOR HOOD
Q = V(10X2*A)
-FIGURE 7: TYPICAL QUASI-STAOC CAPTURE HOOD CONFIGURATIONS
-------
1 f\ 7 oy 7 loot canopy locatea l foot aoove the source wouia nave an effective
worn perimeter of ^ x s; = 32 it., ana tne requirec air flow rate woula oe:
V, irom Taaie i. is oO feet per minute, ana
^ = i.*t j2 x 7 x t>0 = i&.aib CUDIC feet per minute
n 7 oy i foot exterior nooa locatea i foot from tne source wouia nave an
enective A aistance of & feet and the requirec air iJow rate wouJo oe:
g = VUO A ^ f Ail. •
V. from Tanie &, is ou feet per minute ana
v,; = oU UO x S x i>-r^7 x b> = **i.i>70 CUDJC feet per minute
Tne requirec air now rate for tne canopy is almost 7 times tr.at for tne oootn.
ror tne exterior nooa, it :s ainiost ii times tnat zor tne oootn.
Design consiaerations ana proceaures lor the tnree nooa types are oescribea in
aetail oelow:
bootn Design
A oootn is one of tne most preierrea solutions to tne prooiem 01 capturing
emissions irom inoustrial process operations, secona only to tne total enclosure. Tne
equation
= VVn
W nere :
v = exnaust flow rate, CFM
V = selectea face velocity, ft/min
A, = open face area of oootn, ft
w = wiath of ooth opening, ft.
n = netgnt of oooth opening, IT.
-------
AIR Vc.LOCITlr.b
FOR PAK'DCLi CnPTUKt (reference
urait unaracTerisucs
01 me ipace
•viooerate amounts oi
Particuiates
i-arge amounts oi
ParticuJates
Neariy oraitless space, or
process easily oaiiiec
sace
Very araity; no opportunir\-
:or Soii
Coniroiiing velocnies requirec ai null point. :
toC-70
70-SO
-1*6-
-------
aescrioes 'tne relationsnip between tne exnaust ilow rate ano the oootn dimensions. For
most processes £ face velocity oi ;>0 fpm snoula prove sufficient. Wnere tne process is
more active, nigner velocities may oe required. Reference snoulc ue maoe to
"Industrial Ventilation," ^Keierence iu; wnere the required iace velocities ior most
common operations can oe louna. For very active coic operations, tne design equations
lor exterior noods may oe useo. In such cases tne null point snouid oe noted with
relations to tne open oootn face and tne analysis snouic tnen proceed as with any
exterior nooc arrangement. For not processes tne convective heat flow snouic oe
calculated as in tne foii owing section.
ov or Receiving nood uesi^n
Receiving nooos or canopies serve as receptors oi air ana oust generated anc
directed into tne nood oy tne process itseli. Tne nooc is placed directly on the axis of
tne emitted gas stream and proper design is dependent only on sizing the nooo opening
suii.iciently -and insuring that tne exnaust How rate exceeos tne flow given off £>y the
process. For cold processes, tne extent and velocity oi tne emission cloud can oe
determined during tne pre-test survey curectiy oy measurement or estimated Dy
ooserving the process.
in tne case of hot processes, the convective action of tne neated air is the driving
force for tne emissions. Tne flow of air induced by tne convective force can oe
oescriDec; as loilows:
2 i/3
qo = ^Hh'A m;
wnere:
qQ = air induction rate at upper limits of the hot
oody, CFM
A = cross sectional area of air stream, ft
-47-
-------
m = neignt oi column receiving air - i.e-, neignt oi
not ooay*, it
H1 = convective~"heat transier rate. bTU/min.
'me neat loss, ri', in nTU/min can oe estimated in tne equation:
... - hrA^AT
n - c s ,
bU
\* nere:
n = convection coeiiicient, aTU
min it2 °r
n = surface area emitting neat, it
At = temperature aiiierence oetween tne hot
SKin temperature ana tne room amoient
r o-
temperature, r.
neat joss coemcients ior various snapes are listed in Taole y. Tne use oi tne iactors
iistec in tne taoie in tne aoove equations will yield tne convective air How rate irom
wmcn tne requirea exnaust ijow rate can oe aetermineo.
AS an example, consider me application of a low canopy nooa over a hot
emission source, iince tne source is relatively close to tne hooc, it can oe assumed tnat
tnere is little mixing v»itn tne surrounding air ana, tnereiore, tne liow induced oy tne
not sources ^q ) would oe the same amount exhausted oy the nood. It can also oe
assumed mat sue to tne proximity oi the nood and the source tnat tne norizontai
suriace area 01 the source, A , is the same as tne iace area oi tne nood. For a
norizontaJ neatea suriace, tnereiore,
I/L.
n = Q.35^Air ana
*ror vertical sunaces, m is the heignt oi tne suriace. hor norizontai cylinders, it is tne
diameter, ror norizontai planes, u is not oeiined out since, in most cases, a low canopy
nood woulc oe used ior sucn sources, the neignt irom tne source to tne hood can oe'
used.
-4JS-
-------
TADJLt. *. HEAT LOSb COEFFICIENT (Kelerence
G.1 3.5
0.3 2A
0.* ' 1.7
1.0 1.1
5TU
W ~~~- ~ nf^>
rrun :t F
-.ape cl neaiec sunace
wertical plates, over 2 ft high 0.3 (At) '4
Vertical plates, less than 2 ft high Q.2S
tX = height in ft)
arizontal plate, facing upward - - - . 0.3S (At) ^
arizontal plate, facing downward "0.2 (At) 4
.ngle horizontal cylinders 0.^2 /AA 4
(where D is diameter in incnes) ^D j
#
r
irtical cyiinaers, over 2 ft high (Q.
-------
As s V
qo « ^A
i : A pot 01 molten metal o it. in aiameter; is heia at iDUD h. Vvnat is tne
minimum rate ol exnaust requirec to remove tne generated iume ii a low canopy hood
is placed 3 it. aoove tne pot?
using tne auove equation, anc assuming a square nooc oi 3 it. x 3 it. is usec, then
q = 5.<* A
^o s
qo =
q s
0
2: A no* metal casting, approximateJy a cuoe in snape and ^ it. on a sioe. is to
oe controiieci oy a npoc Jocated aooui 3 it. aoove it. Cajcuiate tne required exnaust
How rate u tne temperature oi the casting is 1000 F.
»
From Taoie 5. tne coeincient 01 neat loss lor a vertical plate is given oy tne
lormuia
"ne equation ior total neat loss is then:
n- = °-3 **
6U
Assuming an area ol iU sq it,
0.3 (SOi
H1 =
bU
bTU
mm
-------
Then, assuming tna* the column of hot air has a cross-sectional area equal to the Top of
the cuoe.
qo * 29 (H'Ap2m)1/3
= 29 (2,249) (16>2(4) i/5
= 3S30 cfm
As notec previously, the use oi the quasi-stack technique is limned to relatively
small sources. For tnis reason, it is envisioned that only a low (less than 3 it. irom tne
source) canopy nooc would be required. In cases where hoods must be placed higher, a
oootn arrangement will most probaoly be required rather than having a iree standing
hooc, since tne amount oi air required to compensate for the hot plume dispersion and
cross flows would probably tend TO diiuTe The air concentration to an excessive degree.
A "safety factor" can be applied TO The design of canopy hoods for hOT processes.
The approacn, however, is markedJy different. "With hot processes the hot air stream's
cross-sectional area determines the size of the hood and convective action of the
heated surfaces dictates tne exhaust flow rate. A process upset or cross-wind could
cause the exhaust cloud to deviate from its path, resulting in a loss of capture
efficiency. Also, the phenomena illustrated in Figure 8 could also occur when there is a
significant distance between the hood face and the throat. In this example, the
convectively induced flow is q . Mixing inside the hood results in a total flow of 2 q,,
then half of the air is not immediately exhausted and it will eventually result in the
entire hood volume becoming filled with contaminated air. If the face area of the hood
-51-
-------
Vtiacity
in Unused
Areas of
Hood race
Sourer
FIGURE 8: CANOPY HOOD ON HOT SOURCE SHOWING INTERNAL
RECIRCULATION (REr 9)
-52-
-------
is .large witn respect to tne rising air column tnen there is no iorce acting on tne
oownwcarc components oi tne recirculaung air to Keep Them irom escaping. To rectily
tms. ana tne otner noteo situations, an increases exnaust ilow is requirea as
cnaractenzec oy tne eauation:
g = q2 - VA,
W nere
= total exnaust flow rate, CF/vi,
q = not air inaucTion rate, CF/vi,
v = iace velocity, it/mm,
A = tne area o: tne nooa iace not occupiec Dy tne entering not air
column, it ,
is requirec. Values oi V are usually m the iUO-1^0 ipm range ior moaerateiy araity
situations, nigner velocities may oe requirea lor otner situations.
Lxtenor nooa besign
"mere are three aspects to tne aesign oi an exterior nooa ior coic processes:
i;tne aeimmon 01 tne contour area servtcea oy the noou, 2) tne location oi tne null
point, ana 3; tne aetermination oi tne requirea capture velocity at the null point. First,
tne area eiiectiveiy exnaustea oy tne nood must oe aeterminea. oy efiective it is
meant tnat tne generates emissions are capturea at the oesireo eiiiciency. This
etiective area is usually termea tne significant contour area, by delimtion, tnis area is
oouiiaea oy "the surface wnicn is tne iocus oi ail points having the same air velocity
mauced Dy a source oi suction" (.Reference 9J. In other woras, the area is aei'inea oy a
suriace having velocity vectors oi equal magmtuae ana direction. It is necessary to
-------
oenne sucn an area, since it will Determine tne requirea air exnaust rate directly
according to tne lormuia:
V = V AC,
w nere:
ist = air llow rate.
V - velocity,
A = area oi velocity contour.
11 tne velocity is taken to oe tne capture velocity ana tne null point is witnin tne
volume oouno Dy tne contour area, tnen tne particles oi concern shouic oe collected at
rugri eiuciencv.
To DC enective ior aesign wor<, tne contour area must oe oennaoie lor a wiae
•
variety o: coniigurations. Fortunately, sucn relationsnips nave seen oevelopec. For
iree st ana ing nooas (.round or rectangular oi lengtn live times their wiatnj. the contour
area is oeiineo Dy:
r\ = 1UA * Af
W nere:
X = axial distance iraoiusj irom hooa lace to signilicant contour,
A = area oi lace opening oi nooa
ana
having aeiinea the lace area oi tne nooa irom the process coniiguration, it is
necessary to know me Distance oi the null point irom the nooa iace and the requirea
capture velocity at the null point to determine the. required exhaust ilow. Exnaust flow
iormulas lor otner coniigurations ana nooa types can oe iouna in Figures 9 ana lu. Null
points are usually determined oy ooservation oi the source as is illustrates in Figure 11.
-------
HOOD TYPE
DESCRIPTION
AIR VOLUME
w
SLOT
Q = 3.7 LV
FLANGED SLOT
Q * 2.8 LVX
w
A'WL
PLAIN OPENING
Q = V(10X2 + A)
FLANGED OPENING
Q * 0.75V(10X2 + A)
W
BOOTH
Q = VA = VWH
CANOPY
Q » 1.4 PDV
P * PERIMETER OF WORK
0 - HEIGHT ABOVE WORK
FIGURE 9: HOOD TYPES AND EXHAUST VOLUMES. (REF 10)
-55-
-------
-n
oc
o
o
a
0
in
3
1/1
en
vo
t**'**
*••*
1
ft
I
p-
i!
XI
I
I'
in
II
J
I
-M-V,
I/I
I
r
171
M
,' Si K1
i
t!
ft
I!
,
I
XI
I
r.
u
o
I
M
-------
For a lateral hood, as shown in the figure, the X value is the distance from the fartnest
null point to the hood.
Use of tne null point concept introauces an automatic safety factor into the
aesign. Applying tne control velocity at the null point assumes that the exhaust flow
does not act to retard tne velocity of the escaping particles. Since in reality it does, a
margin of safety is built into this design concept. To complete the design calculation, it
is necessary to define the capture or control velocity. In practice, this term is found to
oe aepenaenr upon the draft- characteristics-of the surrounding .space and the quantity
of oust emittec. Values for various conditions can be found in Table 9. The values
shown in tne table should only be used as guides. The actual field situation may dictate
that higner or lower control velocities are required.
•
Example
An industrial process results in a multi-directional dust cloud being generated as
illustrated in Figure 11. Observations indicate that the particles tend to lose their
initial momentum aoout one foot from the source. Due to the nature of the location a
lateral nooc arrangement is required as is shown in Figure 10 (hood on plane] which, due
to locational constraints, cannot be placed closer than 1.5 feet from the source.
Assuming various conditions of draft, what are the required exhaust flow rates?
It is given that the pulvation distance is 1 ft. Since the distance from the hood to
the source is 1.5 ft., then the X distance is 2.5 ft. Since the hood is placed on a plane
with its opening perpendicular to the floor on which the source is located, the equation
relating the flow and X distance is
Q = 6.3 VX2
-57-
-------
a. - P-ulvarios aczicr. wirhout hood
b - Vich. excericr aooc; ? is pulsation disrance and
2 is ? plus distance ro hood
FIGURE 11: EXTERIOR HOOD ARRANGEMENT (REF 9)
-58-
-------
Using the upper values from Table 9 for nearly draftless conditions,
Q = 6.3 (60 ipm) (2.5 ft)2
s 2,363 ft /minute
for medium crafty conditions,
Q = 6.3 (70 it/mm) 2.5 ft)2
= 2756 f t /min, and
for very araity conditions,
Q = 6.3 (100 ft/min) (2.5 ft)2
= 3538 ft3/min.
The inclusion of the concept of a "safety factor" with regard to exterior hood
design is acnievec oy the use of a "salvage zone" which exists beyond the selected area
contour and whose width and the magnitude of the velocity vectors contained witnin
serve as a buffer zone to the actions of transient drafts or process upsetsr Ar» example
taken from Reference 9 illustrates this concept. A free-standing exterior hood is
placed at a point near a particuiate emitting source such that the X distance is 3-3/4
incnes. If a control velocity at the null point is assumed to be 75 feet per minute, then,
according to equation (ignoring the hood face area since this term is usually small when
comparea to 10X ), the required exhaust rate would be 75 cfm. If, however, the X
distance was decreased by 1 inch due to faulty observation or process upset, then the
control velocity at the new null point would have dropped to 47 fpm (a 3796 decrease!.
Suppose, however, that the hood is located 12 inches from the null point rather than
3-3/4 inches. The exhaust flow rate would then be 750 cfm. Should the X distance
decrease an inch, as was assumed for the other case, the new control velocity at the
null point would be 630 fpm (a 16% decrease). Such a decrease is much more
-59-
\
-------
acceptable tnan that noted for the previous case. Changes in the contour velocities for
i T
other distances are shown in Figure 12 for the two cases cited.
w'nile velocities of 25 fpm are not very effective for primary control, they ao
exhibit some "salvage" value in collecting particles. The concept of a salvage zone
(that is, the width of tne zone between the aesirea control velocity contour and the 25
ipm contour) is useful in ootaining a feel for tne extent of the safety factor. For tne
aoove example, the width of the salvage zone for the first case is 2-3/4 inches while for
the seconc, about 8-1/2 inches. Ooviousiy. the second case offers a larger safety factor
than tne first, ana is preferred in instances of variable processes. Table 10 gives the
equations :or aetermimng the salvage width for some common hood shapes (refer to
Figure 1C ior comparisonJ.
The use of an exterior hood is not recommended for hot processes, since a low
canopy hood almost always can be applied to a source and is usually more effective.
When for some reason an exterior hood is required on a not process the convectiveiy
induced flow and the exhaust flow rate required due TO puivation action must both be
calculated. An estimate must then be made of the flow rate necessary to deflect ail of
the hot gases into the hood. There is no theoretical methodology which can be used to
show how to accomplish this, and, therefore, a large safety factor must be included in
the design.
Duct Design
The ductwork design for a quasi-stack sampling system must meet four basic
criteria:.
a. The design must provide a minimum transport velocity for the collected
particles.
-60-
-------
80
60
20
DISTANCE INCEZASZ BEYOND PETMAPZ COKTOUS., 7113
FIGURE 12: EFFECT OF DISTANCE ON CAPTURE VELOCITY (REF 9)
-61-
-------
7/\oLt. id. EXPKcSSiONS FOK wluTn OF SALVAGE 1UNE
uOfvuviON huGU inAPEb iKeierence 5)
nooo i ype
Coniour formula
Salvage Zone w icin, rt.
unocsiructec or
opening
FianKing plane parallel
to nooa axis
i/t Sonere
1/6 ipnere
1/2 Cyiinaer
= VUUX2-rA;
^ = VnrX2;
g= V
-
^ - (.X-oistance;
g - (X-a:siancej
G.I i3 Q - (A-aiStance)
0.i6U Ve - tX-aiszance;
u.Oi3vc'/i--*.X-ais*anceJ
-------
. c. • sampling consiaerations with respect to minimum upstream anc aowr.stream
Distance irom tne sampling point must oe met.
c. Uuct aimensions snouic oe suiiioent to allow ior tne 'ise 01 tne in-stack
cyclones - if this is not possiole tnen aimensions must ae large enough to
insure tnat tne use oi a sampling prooe woula not aaversely aiiect tne How
oistriDution.
c. Flow snoula oe in tne turouient region.
Tnese criteria wilt ultimately aia in tne specification of tne ouct dimensions ana length,
as well as tne air velocity tnrougn tne system, n aiscussion oi points a, o and d ioilows:
TransDort Velocities
for particles in tne innalaoje particulate range, tne requireo transport velocity is
usualjy insigniiicant. Tnis is oorne out oy reviewing tne equation ior terminal settling
velocity
VT = l.37pd2 x 1G5
Vvnere:
V, = terminal velocity, Ut/sec;
p = partiae aensity, Uo/it j
a = partiae aiameter, tit;.
for a ^0 micrometer partiae navmg a speciiic gravity oi 2.0 the terminal velocity
woula oe given oy
20 x lu" meters o
V = i.37 iZ.Ux62.if Ib/it ; ' .3U.3 meters/it X
Vi = 0.07 it/sec,
or less than live ieet per minute.
-------
TABLE ii. TYPICAL TkANSfOrvT VELOCITIES tKeierence *j
Dust Type
Turnings
Leac aus;
rounary tumoiing Darreis ana shakeout
Sane oiast oust
Fine coal
v> ooJ
uram
Cozton
Kuooer OUST
Sawoust
fvieial ausr
Transport Velocity
ft oer minute
- ^000
^500
3^00 - 4000
4000
3000 - 4UOO
2500 - 4000
25OU - 3000
2000 - 25000
1200 - 3000
-------
Larger particles ao, however, require significant velocities to keep them
suspended in a moving air stream. An emperical relationship between horizontal
conveying velocity, particle diameter ana specific gravity has oeen developed ior
particles larger than i millimeter.
It is given by:
V = 105 T^d °'4 -
h -i-t-i
Where:
V = horizontal conveying velocity, (ft/minute)
Z = specific gravity
d = particle diameter, (.micrometers).
For conveying velocities in the vertical direction,
Vy = Vh 0.27 d "
where V is the vertical conveying velocity in ft. per minute.
While these values were obtained under laboratory conditions they serve as a
useful guide for setting minimum requirements for field conditions. Table 11 gives
some typical values of V for various materials. Additional examples may be found in
Reference 10.
Turbulent Region Consioeration
in order to effectively measure the velocity, temperature and pressure of the
flowing stream to determine the total flow rate, and to provide the most efficient
sample flows, flow in the measurement duct should be in the turbulent range with a
minimum Reynolds Number of 2x10 for a Typical smooth wailed duct. Since the
Reynolds number for air is typically calculated as
Re = 110 DV
-6.3-
-------
Wnere:
Re = Reynolds Numoer, dimensionless
• D = Duct diameter, ft.
V = Air velocity, it/nrun
ana since, for rouna aucts.
DV suostitution,
D = 7 x 10~4 Q
Defines tne maximum auct diameter allowing turbulent measurement auct flow.
Upstream/Downstream Consideration
Tne auct must be of sufficient length so that the air flow at the sampling point
will oe non-cyclonic. Usually, this wouia necessitate that the sampling point be 2 to 10
diameters downstream ana 3 to 5 diameters upstream irom any disturbance. Duct
lengtn at a minimum, therefore, would be 8 times the duct diameter.
Fan Selection
The previous sections nave snown how to oetermine the required exhaust flow rate
lor hooaing a process ana tne auct velocity, dimensions and length. From these various
"parameters, tne ian required for a particular application can oe selecteo. The specified
flow rate for tne ian snouia £>e about twice tnat calculatea in oraer to provide for fieia
aajustments aue to inaccuracies in assumptions, calculations, etc. A variable oypass air
-------
cue* locatea aownstream from me nooc can be useo to control the air flow rate as is
snown in Figure 10.
Tne lan musi also oe aesignea as to overcome any losses in pressure aue to
resistance in tne system, for convenience purposes, tnis aiscussion will use tne concept
oi velocity neaa in calculating tnese losses, nasicaily, the velocity neaa is tne pressure
exertea oy a moving air mass. It does. not inciuoe, oy definition, static pressure. For
air moving systems n is oescrioec oy the equation for velocity head aue to irjction loss
in pipes:
n -
v ~ HUD
w nere :
ny = velocity neac, inches oi water
•
v r air velocity, it/mm
p = aensity ol air, io/lt"5
Friction loss ana shocx loss aue to suaaen expansion or contraction are the two
major sources oi pressure loss. For most situations, inction loss can oe aetermineo Dy
tne use oi tne auove equation ana Taoies 12 ana 13. ihocx losses are illustrated ior
various auct coniigurations in Figure 14.
example: wnat is tne friction loss in ^U it. of 7" aiameter smooth pipe wnen tne
air velocity is 4-000 it/ mm? Assuming tne air aensity to DC 0.07^ lo/ff3, then from
I/, tne inction loss wouia DC at most one velocity neaa unit ana, therelore,
40 Qu'2 (0.075)
v = 1100
ny = i" of water
-67-
-------
EXHAUST
t
AIM FLOW
PI TOT
MEASUREMENT DUCT
t
PARTICLE
SAMPLER
f
CONTROL
VALVE
BYPASS
All!
mourn
PIGURE 13: TYPICAL QUASI-STACK SAMPLING SYSTEM
-------
12. FKlCTlOJs LOio IN AVENGE GAJ.VANiz.ED IRON DUCT1 u iKeierence
Type oi ouct ; Factor
smootn, e.g., steel pipe witnout joints, or exceptionally well
constructea galvanized iron duct system, with smootn joints 0.9
ivieaium rougn; e.g., average concrete surface 1.5
Very rougn; e.g., average rivetea steel 2.0
-------
For SHOCK Joss, Figure it gives an inoication oi wnai to expect ior various.
coniigurations. To determine total system pressure losses, it is only necessary to aau
tne contriDution oi tne losses cue to tne nooc, expansions/contractions, eloows,
junctions ana auct friction.
i-StacK ivietnoa Sampling Tecnniques
r\ velocity traverse :s conaucted using £PA Metnocs 1 ano 2. Sampling locations
are oepictec in Figure i.5. Velocity measurements snouid also oe maoe at tnese points
to insure tna: isoKinetic sampling rates are maintained within ^20 percent.
Figure 16 can oe usec to determine tne proper sampling auration ior estimatec
particulcte concentrations. Tnese concentrations can oe estimateo during tne
pre -survey oy use oi tne beta
-------
EKT*«NC£ PIECES
BUI Mouth
5 tu. i-e")
27 (It. IT*)
1.4
I. I
v - if at I
CONTSACTJON
a/&, 2-J lj-2 ti
\. as e traction of
h, • smaMvr pip*
QRIFIC?
\ •
T i^
Shore Eaof
hL • 2.8 h.
1 -I5i mi
DU
•w-
Eaual bnnai end mant fla*
FIGURE 14: SHOCK LOSSES TU CQMHON DDCI
(R£F 9)
\
-------
A/A
FIGURE 15:. RECOMMENDED SAMPLING POINTS FOR CIRCULAR
SQUARE OR RECTANGULAR DUCTS
-72-
-------
AI [(STREAM
1000
.5
UJ
5
P
13
3
o.
- I I I II
I I Mill
II Mill
READ DOWN FROM MASS LOADING TO SAMPLE
RATE. READ LEFT TO TIME REQUIRED TO
COLLECT A 1 GRAM SAMPLE AT THAT SAMPLE
RATE.
I
SAMPLE
I I I Ml
I I I Ml
^ 1 O.Q36
l/ntin 100 60 30 20
ACFM 3.G3
0.3G
FIGURE 16: NOMOGRAPH FOR SELECTING PROPER SAMPLING DURATION. (REF 1)
-------
vary. Tnerezore, tne tests snouio DC conducted over the entire cnanging perioc anc not
oe set to a given time.
vuasi-itacx Data Collection
Tnere are two distinct sets oi data collected aurmg a quasi-stacK test. The first
set is concerneo wun tne test itseli. The sampling rate, static pressure, gas stream
temperature, etc. are examples oi tnis sort oi cata anc are well Known to stack testing
personnel. Tne otner set of aata concerns tne operation oeing tested. Proc ess _ data to
pe gatnerea are material mrougnput, process temperatures and pressures, numoer oi
loading operations etc. Tnis type of information is usually ootainaDle from plant
personnel.
*
Kooi Monitor bamplmh ivietnoo Design Procedures
Tne roof monitor sampling metnoa is useo to determine tne total emissions rate of
ail sources witmn a ouilding or enclosure as the product of tne total .emissions.
conveying air volume flow rate through an opening in The structure and the
concentration 01 tne emissions in tnis transport air. 1 ne volume How rate is calculated
as tne product of tne velocity of tne air as measured in tne opening and tne area of the
opening. The pollutant concentration is determined from samples collected in tne plane
oi tne opening taxen concurrently witn the velocity measurements. To assure that a
sulficient memoer of ootn velocity and concentration measuremetns are ootained, the
sampling system ana program must oe designed with careful consideration of sucn
factors as source complexity and size, location and size of the measurement opening,
and tne cnaracten sties of tne emissions.
-74-
-------
Source/Site Considerations
Tne principal source characteristics influencing tne program design are tne size
ana position of tne emission points relative to the measurement opening and tne
variability of the source emission rate, emission points located relatively close to the
opening may result in the formation of a pollutant cloud or plume tnat will pass tnrough
only a portion of tne opening or in the formation of a stratified cloud of variable
concentration. Sucn. a situation will require tne acquisition of a greater numoer o;
concentration samples in tne opening than wouid oe the case with a wiaely aistrioutec,
nomogeneous cioua generated ny emission points more remote from tne opening.
Variations in emission rate will require that longer sampling periods oe employee tnan
tnose ior more constant rates to ensure that a true average concentration is ootainea.
Tne size oi tne measurement opening will govern the numoer an<2 arrangement of
velocity measurements and participate sampling points required to ootain tnese average
values, in general, the larger the opening, tne greater the numoer of sampling points
required.
Meteorological Considerations
External wind can aif ect tne flow patterns of emissions-carrying air irom ouiiding
openings in a numoer oi ways. Winds olowing across the surface of an opening may bias
the ilow of emissions toward the downwind eno of the opening. Winds blowing across.a
rooi in the same direction- as the flow from an opening may create eddy currents or
even a low pressure area outside the opening to cnange the flow pattern or rate tnrough
the opening. Winds of nigh velocity blowing directly into an opening may create areas
of reverse flow through the opening, or, in the case of a douoie-sided monitor, oiow
directly througn tne monitor, adding to the volume flow leaving the opposite side. Care
-75-
-------
shouic-oe taken to eliminate such wind effects curing the sampling oy restricting the
sampling to periods wnen either the wina speed is low enough or its direction is sucn as
to negate sucr. effects. Lf tms is not possible, wind screens may nave to oe installed to
divert tne wind from the opening.
Sampling Configuration Design
Tne selection of the most appropriate rooi monitor sampling equipment is highly
dependent upon eacn each specific site condition. Parameters that effect tne
equipment choice incluae:
Particuiate loaoing
Air velocity through the opening
Process cycling time
Process variaoility
Sampling location
Sampling rate
Air stream temperature
T
ransport air velocities in almost all situations will oe measurable using one of
the low velocity sensors aescrioed in Taoie 4. To facilitate the velocity measurements
wnen long-term sampling is required, or where large openings or potentially hazardous
conditions prevent access to the opening oy test personnel during the sampling, devices
that operate in conjunction with recoroers or other data-loggers must oe used.
Particuiate sampling will oe accomplished by the use at two standard high volume
samplers fitted with tne horizontal elutriators as described in the section on sampling
equipment.
The determination of the most effective velocity and concentration measurement
sites within the opening is described oelow.
-76-
\
-------
' Velocity Profiling
in oroer to minimize the numoer of velocity measurements ana the complexity of
the velocity recording instrumentation required, a metnod fa- determining the average
velocity through the opening from only a few measurements has Deen developed. The
metnoa requires the performance of manual traverses across the opening with suitable
velocity measurement devices to establish velocity profiles and the calculation of
velocities based on tne profile values, for other points in the plane of the opening. The
calculated velocities are then used to determine an area — inte-gratea average -velocity
ior the opening. The procedure for the methoo is as follows:
o Perform a traverse along tne vertical centerline of the opening to ootain
velocity readings at convenient (say, 1 ft.) intervals. For openings longer
than aoout twenty ft, either select a representative section aoout twenty
leet long or select a numoer of locations for vertical traverses each in the
center of aoout twenty feet of opening length.
o Plot the measured velocities as a function of height along the traverse line
and. draw a smooth curve to represent the vertical velocity profile.
o Perform a traverse along a horizontal line .through the maximum velocity
plotted lor tne vertical velocity profile. Use the horizontal centeriine of
tne opening if it falls within the area of maximum velocity.
o Plot the measured velocities as a function of length along tne traverse line
and draw a smooth curve to represent the horizontal velocity profile.
Tne traverses should oe performed under the same process, atmospheric and
meteorological conditions as those expected during the sampling.
To determine the velocity profile over the entire opening or selected section
area, divide tne area into convergent (preferably square) small areas.
Locate the center of each area on a set of coordinates with the crossing oi
the two measured velocity profiles as its center (0T0), the vertical traverse
line as the Y axis (0,Y), and the horizontal traverse line as the X axis (X,0).
Calculate the velocity at the center of each area (X,Y), as:
v V(X.OJ VtO,Y).
wnere V,^ v is the velocity at any point, V, v Q\ _
velocities ai corresondin X and Y distances alon
and V_ are the
corresponding X and Y distances along the horizontal and
-77-
-------
vertical axis profiles, ana V. is the maximum velocity" at tne junction of
tne axes. *
V
o Calculate tne average velocity, A, as tne sum of tne area velocities
oivioea oy tneir numoer. Calculate the velocity aajustment factor, Fy, as
tne quotient of tne average ^calculated; ana tne maximum (.measured;
veiocnies, in:
In tne sampling program, velocity measurements then need only be maoe at the
maximum vG,0} point to calculate the average velocity as V . ~ ^v^(0 0)' s*nce *"e
velocity profile may oe reasonaoly assumed to remain constant for a given opening ana
operating conaition as' long as tne conditions noted previously are observec. In most
programs, velocity measurements are made at one or more additional points on tne
traverse axies to provide a cneck on the constancy of the profile.
Mass Concentration Measurement
it is anticipateo that each contractor will nave two of the horizontal elutriators
for use in this program. For this reason, the pre-survey of the source is of paramount
importance for oetermining not only the placement of these samplers, but also whether
the tecnnique can oe usea at ail for the source under consideration. If, for example,
less than 75% of the emissions come from the two largest openings in the structure, the
roof monitor measurement method should not be used. The Beta Gauge instrument
IRDM; previously described, along with a not wire anemometer, can be usea to
determine if such is tne case. Having determined that sufficient material does pass
through tne opening, the RDM may be used to map tne particuiate concentration
distribution across the openings. Should TWO openings from a given source need to be
sampiea, this means that each sampler must extract a representative sample from a
-------
single location. For sucn a situation, tne particulate flux must oe of tne distribution
type snown in Figure i7. Samplers placea at tne X position ior case (a; would extract
average concentrations wnicn couia tnen be muitipiiea oy the total flow irom tne
monitor to calculate tne source's emission rate. The beta Gauge measurements snould
oe taxen every ten feet (four measurements should be taxen for sources less tnan ten
feet long;. Vertical profiles snould also De ootaineo to determine if a vertical
concentration graoient exists. Tne profiles for a small (less than 10 feet long) opening
shouia De taken at tne centeriine of.tne horizontal plane for case (a;. If a vertical
gradient does exist for a situation luce case la;, the sample snouid De taken at the point
exnimung average flux. For monitors larger tnan ten feet in a case (s.) situation, tnree
vertical measurements snould De taken every twenty feet, if the vertical profiles are
identical (-2U percent for mean value ana range), tnen . the centeriine
norizontal/average concentration vertical point is again used. 11 the vertical gradients
are not identical, tnen tne roof monitor method cannot oe used. For tne horizontal
measurements, if more than 25-rb of the readings are more than 50^ from tne mean
value, tnen tnis metnoc cannot De used.
For case u>;, virtually ail of tne particuiates are Deing emitted througn a limited
section of the monitor. Tne particuiate measurment along the horizontal plume is to De
taken at tne point of nignest concentration. Mass flux is to be determined using tne
concentration and the flow tnrough the reduced section. Tne extent of this section is to
oe Determined DV tne Deta gauge. Vertical measurements are to be taken at one point
in this region and the sampler positioned at the average flux level.
For those cases where bimodal distributions occur, two samplers must De used.
Positioning of tne samplers would follow tne same reasoning as that outlined for the one
sampler situation except that the monitor is divined into two distinct sections. Any
-7*-
-------
DISTANCE ACROSS OPENING
DISTANCE ACROSS OPENING
3
FIGURE 17: ROOF MONITOR FLUX DISTRIBUTIONS
-ao-
-------
particulate aistrioution more complex tnan tn:s Dimoaal cannot oe sampJea using tnis
rnetnoc oecause o: tne TWO sampler limitations.
: Monitor Sampling icneauie
r\s was tne case witn tne quasi-stacK measurement tecnnique process conditions
nave a large eiiect upon tne sampling scneaule lor tne roof . monitor tecnnique.
Sampling times must oe set up to measure distinct parts of or complete process cycles.
wnen airierent operations are occurring- in tne sameLDuildmg.it may oe necessary to
increase tne sampling time to include a complete set of cycles i or ail oi the operations.
This may require a test duration oi one oay.
oesides process conditions the local wind speed and elevation could iniluence tne
sampling scneduie snouid tney nave an eiiect upon tne air flow irom tne ouilaing. For
IP measurements it is not expected tnat normal -updrait velocities could cnange enougn
to aiiect tne total IP liux. However, hign velocities or rapid shiits in wind direction
could interiere witn the sample collection sufficiently to cancel test.
Rooi ivionitor Data collection
Velocity measurements will be automatically recorded at the site. The nigh
volume samplers are set at a given liow rate to insure proper functioning of the
eiutriator ana, as sucn, data collection is not associatea with tneir operation. Process
parameter collection will oe more difficult than tne quasi-stack since multiple
operations will oe occuring and througnput data, process temperature and pressures,
numoer oi loading operations etc. will oe required for eacn operation.
-------
u-DO\Vi\WlND bAiViPuNU ivi£TnUD UiSlGN PROCtuURc.
In order to successfully utilize tne upwina-aownwina metnod for tne acquisition of
aata suincient to calculate source emission rates, a number of source- ano
site-specuic parameters must oe considered.
The most important consideration is the location of the downwind samplers witnin
tne plume oi particuiates generated oy tne source. The samplers must oe located to
provide measureaole samples in sampling periocs of reasonable duration, without
contamination oy particuiates from otner • sources, except tnose mcluaea in tne
oacKg rouno upwind samples. A numoer of site-specific parameters vsucn as source
location, wmc direction, and topograpny; can restrict tne location of samplers.
figure i& illustrates tne influence tnat a combination 01 source location and wmo
direction may exert, in tnis reasonaoly simple arrangement, only tne wmo direction '
snown in "A" will permit unrestricted location of samplers witnin tne plume of source
(.A; along witn acceptaole location of upwind samplers between source (A; and tne area
source. With tne wind direction as snown in lb;, no location witnin tne plume of IA; is
acceptable, wmc directions as snown in "C" and "D" limit tne acceptaule locations to
tnat portion 01 tne plume oetween source »,Aj and its interference from tne other
sources or plumes. Similar interferences occasioned oy topographical features of tne
site may also occur.
in most instances, such restrictions will De recoroed by the initial observations
rnaoe in tne pre-test survey. A portaole responsible dust monitor (.RDivU, used as a
preliminary indicator of a plume's limits, will also reveal less obvious restrictions.
Since ail of tne equipment designated for use in upwino-downwtnd samplings in
this measurement program are oased on nigh volume samplers designed to sample at a
constant ilow rate of 40 cim U.i3 m /min;, tnis sampling rate may DC used as the oasis
lor tne calculation of required sampling periods and sampler locations. Assuming a
-------
WIND
^'
\ \
\
\
\
B
WIND
WIND
LEGEND
• SOURCE (A)
A SOURCE (B)
PLUME BOUNDARY
FIGURE 18 : UPWIND - DOWNWIND SOURCE CONFIGURATION VARIATIONS
\
-------
minimum sample mass oi iO milligrams lor any sampler, tne minimum' required
particuiate concentration at the sampler may oe aetermined from
X = M/FT
Where:
X = concentration, yg/m
M = sample mass, ug
. F = sampling rate, m /min
T = sampling period, min.
3 4
Using the Known vaiues oi 1.13 m /mm. lor F ana 10 mg UO ug) ior M, this
equation may oe used to Determine
XT = 147 lug/m Xnr)
*
tne constant value oi tne product oi concentration and sampling period required ior the
minimum sample mass. This value will be used as the oasis oi all sampler locations and
sampling duration calculations.
F re-Test Survey Concentration Measurements
In oraer to nest locate the downwind samplers ior a specific site/source
comoination, approximate downwind paniculate concentrations may be determined
during tne pre-'test survey using tne portable RDM. The basic procedure is as ioilows:
o Determine, oy observation or the use oi portable wind instruments, the
direction and approximate speed oi tne wind olowing acros the source.
o Select a point on a line irom the source along the wind direction 20-40
meters aownwmd oi the source. (.For sites with limited acces to the
downwind area, select a point aoout midway m the accessible areaj Obtain
a particuiate concentration (x ) reading at this point with the RDM. Record
the concentration value, wina direction, and wind speed.
-------
repeat tne conceniration anc wina measurement at points along a iine
tnrougn tne initial point ana perpendicular to tne wino direction, on eitner
sioe 01 tne initial point at a Distance ol aoout i/4 tne .aownwina Distance
irom tne source ^x ano X h as liiustratea in Figure lb>A. Restrict
measurements to pen"bcis when3 tne wina speea is witmn ^lO^o of tne initial
(y ) measurement wina speea.
i
For initial-point concentration values of 20 ug/m or less, select another
wine center-line point aoout hall tne initial Distance irom tne source ano
repeat tne tnree-point measurements (.x > X » X ) performec at tne original
Distance ^Figure 1^6;. Restrict measurements fo ^iO-x) of tne initial wino
speea. ""
For initial -point concentration values greater than 20 ug/m , select
anotner wmo center-line point aoout- twice- tne initial Distance irom tne
source ana repeat the tnree-point measurements (% » X > X J ^Figure 19CJ.
Ootain, in tne wind center-line upwind of tne source at any convenient
Distance grea
measurement.
Distance greater than aoout 10 meters a concentration (.XioJ and wmc
i: the wine Direction varies During tne foregoing, the measurements snoula
ue suspenaec u tne wina Deviates more than ten Degrees .from the initial
' Direction ana resumed wnen tne Direction is once again witnin tne desirec
limits.
Tauulate tne concentration ana wina measurements are shown on Table l*f.
Calculation of Downwina Sampler Locations
1 ne concentration 01 innalaole particulates at oownwina locations along tne wina
or piume centerlme is approximatea oy
x = —
wnere:
X = concentration, ug/m
v' = source emission rate, ug/sec
0,0= stanaaro Deviation ol norizontal (y) and verticie (z) concnetra-
tion aistriDution, m
y = wina speea, m/sec.
-------
INITIAL: x /4
WIND
~^js. v_ _ T
1
r V fc
^ „]_ ~ — >-
Xl" 1
SOURCE 1
1
A A1
WIND
*5_ Y
^ X2 *f I
-
I t •
SOURCE v.l
Ao^ A
WVMBI* X *5 / »
B
xi £ 20
I
4IND
^ V
^ £
SOURCE
c
xi > 20
Yn A
..no A
X2/4
, l
X7^ A
Xj/4
A»
FIGURE 19: DOWNWIND RDM CONCENTRATION SAMPLING POINTS
-------
TA3LE 14. TABULATION OF MEASUREMENTS
^X2' C)
(X2'X2/t}
Concentration Wind Speed
Sampling Points X» yg/m5 y,m/sec
X6'X9 U6' U9
Upwind X10 U10
-------
ror downline distances up to aoout ;>OG meters, tne proouct a c^ is approximately
*• ""
anear witn distance, so mat me centerhne concentration varies inversely witn
oownumc distance anc wina speea.
Tne measurec values oi concentration ootainea in tne pre-test survey may.
tnereiore. oe used to estaciisn approximate sampler .locations tnrougn a simple
calculation procedure as ioiiows:
o Calculate concentrations at the KDM sampled locations as ioilows:
X/ Y I ~ X "
.
i
/ Y I ~ A
\*. i i jo
ory-y
yi
nr ,x • x > » « - x ^
or \ B io « i u
2
o Calculate Distance along centerlme for one-hour sampling period:
o calculate average concentration ior points Ao/Ii irom centeriine at
o Calculate • maximum sampling time ior sampler at (X , X j as
Tm ' W7'W
11 tne value 01 Tm 15 compatiDie witn tne emission scneauie from the source U.e., if tne
emissions irom the source win be produced at a reasonaoiy constant rate ior tne time
duration T ;, tne downwind sampler points (X ,O), !>X ,X ,^) ana (X - ^) n^a oe
-------
utilized.' ii a snorter sampling pence, T^, is required, tne calculated distance X snouio
ue adjusted to
X -±SI«
claai; i
m
and tne last twc steps oi the calculations repeated using tne adjusted value.
Tnese calculations are maoe ior tne single wind speed value mat prevailed during
tne pre-test survey, ii variations irom mis wind speed are expeced or ooserved ourmg
tne sampling periods, tne value oi A snouid oe adjusted oy a iacror equal to tne ratio
o: tne pre-test measured wind speed and mat expected or ooserveo at tne time oi the
test,
u ore-test
c ^acjj " Ac y actual
Tne last two steps oi the calculation snouio tnen DC repeated using the adjusted value oi
A , to determine x r 2^° maximum sampling time.
Sample Station Coniigurations
Tne downwind sampling station locations determined in tne previous section nave
oeen selected to provide suiiicient data on tne distribution oi particulates generated oy
tne source, to periorm calculations oi tne innalaDle particulate iraction source
strength. To ensure tnat the most eiiective oata is obtained, the sampling stations
snouid oe configured as ioilows:
o Downwind centeriine IX ,0; - wind speed and direction, ground level
standard iTSPj ni vol, ground level ni vol witn size-selective inlet, ano
iour-stage impactor, elevated (2-4 meters; m voi witn size selection inlet
Downwind laterals ( ^CAC/4A CX , - X ^) ) - ground level ni voi with SSI.
-------
o Upwma centeriine (-\,0) - wma speea ana direction, grouna level stanoara •
m vol, grouno level f\i vol witn SSI ana four-stage impactor.
Trie up wine station, intenaea to ootain oacKgrouno concentration level data.
snoulo oe locatec as nearly as possiole along tne extension of the plume centeriine anc
as close as possible to tne source outsiae oi tne influence oi wma eaay currents cau sea
DV tne source.
upwinc-Downwrna Sampling Scneaule
The calculation oi tne sampling perioa auration required to ootain the assumed
minimum acceptaoie sample mass was oescriuea in the section Calculation oi Downwind
Sampler vocations. This calculation assumes tnat the sampling is periormec during a
penoc oi constant wma speea ana direction, so tnat the concentration oi particulates at
the samplers is suaject to minimal variability. Sucn conaitions are uniiKeiy to prevail
unaer actual field conditions ior any significant length of lime, and sampling periocs
must oe acijustea to account ior variations in wma speea or direction.
Tne most effective methoa of adjusting tne sampling perioa is simply to turn off •
the. samplers whenever the variations in wmc speea or direction result in significant
concentration variations and extend the sampling period so tnat the calculated sampling
ouration mauaes only "sampler-on" time periods.
As a general rule, tne aownwmd sampler snould oe tumea off whenver the wma
speea is oelow 7j?
-------
irorn tne oesign calculation direction for perioas longer than three minutes ana turnea
oack on alter tne wino Direction returns to the acceptable range for two minutes.
wmile variations oi tnese magnitudes in wind speeo ana airectioa will usually have
less effect on tne upwind sampling array, since it is not locateo in a specific source
plume, tne general practice snoulo oe to turn oil tne upwind samplers whenever the
aownwmc samplers are turned off.
Upwmc-Down wine jjata Collection
Tne use oi a meteorological equipment set tnat incluaes strip-cnart recoroing oi
wmc speec ana Direction as a function of time greatly reauces tne volume of manual
cata collection requirec. A single operator can easily record sampler on ana ofi times
l directly on tne strip-cnart in most cases, or on a supplemental cata soeet;, along witn
ooservations oi prevailing weatner anc SKy conditions. Conservations of cloud cover and
amoient temperature should oe recorded at tne oeginning and ena of each test and
wnenever any significant cnange occurs.
Process data required in tne calculation of emission factors, such ds material
tnrougnput, process temperatures and pressures, numoer of loading operations and the
lixe, should also oe recorded, in many instances, such information may DC ootainned
directly irom plant operational records. Tnese should oe reviewed prior to tne test to
ensure tnai tne proper data will be available.
Exposure Profiling Sampling Design Procedures
Tnis methoa is used primarily to quantify the emissions caused by vehicular
traffic oy measuring pollutant levels immediately downwind from the road.
-91-
-------
ivieasurement oi tne wma speed ana Direction at tne roaa are comoinec witn innaJaDie
particuiate levels to calculate source STrengtn.
Source/iite Consiaeration
Tne exposure proiiier shoulo oe siteo downwmci oi tne test roao in an area
characterized by Hat terrain and unoostructed wind flow. Normally tne profiler is
positionec at a distance oi 5 m irom tne aownwina eage oi the roao ior roaas traveieo
DV hgnt DUTY venicies. For road traveled DV larger venicies, it may DC necessary to
locate tne proiiier as iar aownwina as lO m irom the road in oraer to avoid tne
momentary changes in wmc direction reaoings which occur near a venicie as it passes
Dy.
*
horizontal wma Direction must have a stancara Deviation less man 22o . Tnis
restriction exciuoes sampling unaer Staoiiity Class A, wnich is characterized oy large
nonzontal wina meanaer ana low wma speeas. Tne angle between tne mean wma
airection ana tne direction oi the sampling axis snouia not exceed ^0°. In this range,
sampling error is less than about Z'TQ ior particles ior 12 urn aerocynamic diameter
(.Keierence iij.
in the wma speea range oi 4 mpn to 2U mph, sampling rate can t>e reaaily adjusted
ana matcnea to the corresponamg mean wma speed. An isokinetic iiow ratio CIFk =
sampling rate/wma speea; oi less tnan O.i or greater tnan 1.2 may lean to large
concentration errors. For particles oi 12 ym aiameter, it has oeen shown that sampling
error is less than about 15% ior iFR Detween O.i and i.2 i,Reierence 11).
Moaerate sampling suostrate ioaamgs are Desirable. Tne loaaings snouia ne nigh
enougn to permit accurate Determination oi the sample weights but low enough to
insure tnat the particle catch is not lost tnrough ilaking oi coilectea particuiate or
maoility oi tne suostrate to nold the particuiate catch.
\
-------
T/\bLz i.5. CRJTtKlA FUK SUSPENDING OK
n.N tAh'USUKt PKUFILiiNLi TEST
f\ test will oe suspenaea or terminates 11:
1. kainiail ensues oaring equipment setup or wnen sampling is in progress.
2. \Vina speea curing sampling moves outsioe the 4 to 20 mpn acceptance range ior
more tnan 20 va oi- tne sampling time.
3.
Tne angie oetween wino airection ana the perpenuicular to the path oi the moving
point source ouring sampling exceeds O oegrees ior more" tnan iO'ro oi tne
sampling time.
Mean wino airection auring sampling sniits Dy more than 20 oegrees.
igni is insuziicient ior saie equipment operation.
e. source conaitiori aeviates irom preoeterminea criteria (e.g.. naul TTUCKS traveling
on access roaa;.
-93-
-------
Campling Configuration Design
For testing 01 emissions from lignt auty traffic on a two-lane or iour-lane roac,
tne iour exposure sampling neacs are positioned at vertical distances oi 1 m, 2 m, 3 m,
ana
-------
Tnrougnout a test oi trainc-generatea emissions, a venicle count is maintained
eitner DV airect ooservation or oy-an automated tecnnique. Fenoaicaily (e.g., curing
iJ minutes oi eacn hour;, venicie mix snouio oe aeterrruneo Dy compiling a log oi
venicles passing me test point segregated Dy venicle type ^usually tne numoer of axles
and wneeis;.
Depending on tne road surface, oust loading and tne traific density, an exposure
profiling test of a pavea road will require about two to eignt hours. A test of an
unpaveo roac- may oe completed in a period of 30 minutes to one hour, Decause of
susstaritiaily greater emissions.
-------
sampling Coniiguraticn Design
r-'or testing o: emissions irom lignt auty trailic on a two-lane or i our-lane roau,
tne iour exposure sampling neacs are positioned ai vertical Distances ol i m, 2 m, 3 rn,
and *• m aoove tne 6rounc. hor testing 01 emissions irom roo.cs Travel ea uy a substantial
portion 01. rneaium or heavy auty vehicles, tne spacing Between samplers is increasea to
i.3 rn witn tne top sampler at a verticie distance 01 i m irom tne ground. Tne particle
sizing aevices used to determine innalaDie particuiate fractions (cascade impactors witn
coarse parade pre-collectors; are positioned sucn that sampling intakes are locatec at
tne same distance as tne profiler irom the roao at the same neignts as tne first anc
t
tnirc exposure sampling neacs counting irom tne grouna.
Once tne exposure profiler is assembled, the anemometers are operated !or a
perioa oi a* least l^ minutes to aetermine tne mean wma speea. .Tne mean wind
•
direction is oetermined irom tne winu station located upwind oi tne test roac near tne
Dacxgrouno particuiate sampler (usually a stanaard hign volume sampler;.
Alter tne mean wind direction and mean wind speed profile have oeen Determined,
tne pronling tower is rutatea so tnat sampler intakes are pointed directly into tne wine.
Tnen tne isoKinetic sampling How rules are caicuiateu. At tne start oi a test, tne
trailic ilow a mterrupiea wnile tne air samplers are activated anc adjusted to tne
proper ilows,
'icuie 15 lists tne criteria lor suspenuing or teniunanng an exposure proiiimg test.
borne oi tnese criteria aaaress tne wind conditions in relation to the requirements lor
isoKinetic sampling. Testing may also cease ii rainiall ensues ^reducing emissions to
negiigiDie levels; or ii iigm is insufficient ior safe operation. Tne unal criterion deals
witn an unacceptaole cnange in source conaition.
-------
Tnrou^nout a tesi 01 tramc-generatec emissions, a venicie count is maintained
either oy cured ocservauon or oy an automated tecnmque. Heriooically (e.g.. curing
i> nunuies oi eacn hour;, verucie m:x snoula oe ueierminea sy compiling a log of
venicies passing tne test point se^re6atec Dy venicie type vusually tne numoer ol axles
dnc wneeis;.
Uepenaing on ine roac surface, oust ioacung anu tne iraliic oensity, an exposure
profiling test of a pavea roaa will require aDout TWO to eighi hours. A test of an
unpavea roac may oe completed in a perioa ol 30 minutes TO one hour, Because of
suosT.ant;aily greater emissions.
-------
REFERENCES
i. WUson, K..R. ana w.B. Smith, "Proceaures Manuel for Jnhalaoie P articulate
Sampler operation" Soutnern Kesearcn institute Keport No.
7y-7bi, Novemoer 30
2. Koinsoerg, n.h., P.W. Kaiika, R.E. K.enson, and W.A. Matrone, "Tecnnicai
Manual For The Measurement of Fugitive Emissions: ^uasi-Stacx Sampling
• Method For industrial Fugitive Emissions." interagency Energy-
Environment Researcn and Development Series, E?A-6QQ/2-7b~UJ£yc, May
Kenson, RiE., anc P.T-. tsaniert, "Tecnnicai Manual For the Measurement ol
Fugitive Emissions: Roof Monitor Sampling Metnod For inoustrial Fugitive
Emissions." interagency Engery-Environment Researcn and Development
Series, iPA-6UG/2-7t>-US5>D, May 1*76.
Koinsoerg, n.j., "Tecnnicai Manual For Measurement 01 Fugitive Emissions:
Upwina/Uownwinc Sampling Meznoa For industrial Emissions." interagency
nnergy - Environment Researcn ana Developmental Se.ries, E
a, April
Dim, 3.G., "A New Vertical impactor (.Dicntomous Samplen For Fine
Particle Air Duality Monitoring," presented at the 7 1st annual meeting of
tne Air Pollution Control Association, paper 7S-75.**, June
b. Cowherc, C-, Dr., K.. Axeteil, 3r., C.M. Guentner, ana G. Outze,
Development of t-mission r-actors lor Fugitive Dust Sources. Final Report,
Midwest Kesearcn institute lor U.x environmental Protection Agency,
Publication No. tiPA-4^0/3-7^-o37, NT1S INO. Po 23&o2//o, June
S.S.M. inhaled Particaiates. Environmental Science and Tecnnology U2:l3j
Decemoer
s. hemeon, w.C-i.., "Plant And Process Ventilation," industrial Press Inc., 2uU
Madison Avenue, New Yor*. Second Edition, Secona printing, Ii>b3.
y. American Conference of Governmental • industrial hygienists, "industrial
Ventilation, A Manual of Recommended Practice," ll Edition, i?7Q.
10. Turner, D-b. "NvorKoook of Atmospheric Dispersion Estimates," Olfice of
Air Programs Publication No. AP-2b. Ills. Environmental Protection
Agency, Research Triangle Pane, NC, 1?7CJ.
ii. Watson, rt.rt. Errors Due to Anisokinetic Sampling of Aerosol, industrial
Mygiene vuaneriy, March
-------
I Continued;
i2. May, K..R. Ub»b7;. Pnysical Aspecis of Sampling Aircorne Microoes in
Gregory, Pn. ri. ana Monteith, J.L. (Eas.) Airoorne tvi icrooes, Camoriage
Univ. Press, L-amoriage.
i3. Cownerc, C., 3r.T R. Bonn, ana T. Cuscino, jr. iron ana Steei Plant Open
Source Fugitive emission Evaluation. Final Report, Mlowest Researcn
institute lor U.S. Lnvironmental Protection Agency, Publication No.
-79-iQ3, May
-------
Tne ultimate oojeciive of an 1PF£ measurement program is ihe calculation oi an
emission factor wmcn related *ne amount of 1PFE generated oy a specific process tc
one or more reaauy-oetermined parameters ol tnat process. Tne procedure oegins witn
tne paniculate marter samples ana related oata ootamea in tne fielc, ana progresses
inrougr, analysis oi tne samples, calculation 01 tne samplea air volume, calculation 01
tne particuiate concentrations at tne sampling sites, calculation of tne source emission
rates, «ma iinally, oeterrnination of tne process emission factor.
Tne procedure can oe relatively straignnorward, involving largely routine filter
weignm^s, ana stanaard, well -ao cum en tea calculations up to tne calculation oi
concentrations, in relating concentrations to emission rates, some complications oegin
to appear, most notably in tne up wind-down wind metnoa where ailiusion equations must
DC utmzea to oacx-calculate the source strengtn from me concentrations, ano the
appropriate background concentrations must De suotracted from tne measured
concentrations. Also, in roof monitor measurement systems, tne determination of tne
appropriate area oi tne opening wnicn enters into the volume flow calculation to wnicn
the concentration is applied, requires a careful review of assumptions and measured
velocities.
-100-
-------
:-=. AMALY'bib
wniie weigning oi filter eaten is prooaoiy tne most straight-forward sample
analysis oi an air pollutant, tnere is suiiicient variety in tne sizes, types and materials
useo ior niters ana suostrates in the iPFE methoas oescrioed, to suggest tnat tne user
oe wary 01 tne apparent simpiiaty. AS a general rule, tne instructions proviaec Dy the
sampler and filter media manufacturers snould oe followed completely. Deviations
snouia oe unoenaKen only in consultation witn tne manufacturers' experts and snould oe
reviewec oy a recognized sampling specialist oeiore implementation. Examples oi
potential proDiem areas incluae:
o Determination oi proper tare weignt oy appropriate drying.
o insertion and removal oi filter or suostrate to prevent loss oi eitner filter
material or sample.
o Handling and transport of samples alter removal irom sampler to prevent
loss or concentration.
o Final iaooratory handling, including drying to assure proper relationsnip to
tare weight.
o Utilization oi weigning equipment suited to the JOD. Laboratory balances
witn a. sensitivity in tne lO to 1UO microgram range can De expected to
result in sample weignts within the expected range of accuracy oi tne
several sampling metnods oescrioea.
VMviPi.E VOLUME CALCULATION
iince many of tne 1PFE measurements involve tne operation oi sampling systems
wrucn are lelt unattended for sunstantial periods, the means used to calculate the total
volume of air passed tnrougn tne samplers must DC thoroughly understood and foolproof.
r-'iow controlled nign volume samplers are ideal, since the flow is held constant and a
direct readout in standard cuoic feet per minute is avaiiaole. The total volume of air
sampled is thereiore given directly oy:
-101-
-------
• Vs -I,*,
wnere V = volume oi air sampled at standard conditions, it
q = iiow rate oi sampler at standard conditions, it /mm
* = sampling time, mm.
t-ugh volume samplers wnich are not iiow controlled involve periodic recording oi tne
flow rate, wnicn declines as the sample is accumulated. Thus, the total volume is
determined oy averaging tne iiow rate during the sampling period, in some cases
several averagings are possible if field personnel are available to checx tne sampler
more tnan once during tne period, li not, the average is determined at tne oeginning
anc end, assuming tnat tne decay is linear with time.
in addition, if tne samplers are not flow controlled, tne volume of air collected
must oe converted to standard conditions. This requires recording oi tne temperature
and pressure ior tne sampling period, so that an average can oe obtained ior use in tne
. equation:
V = V TsPa,
a —
S o
wnere V = volume oi air sampled at standard conditions, it
V_ = volume oi air sampled at actual conditions, it
T * stanoard temperature, °R
T = actual temperature, °R
P = standard pressure, in hg
P = actual pressure, in hg
Tne same comments apply to the averaging oi temperature and pressure as ior tne iiow
determination.
-iQ2-
-------
^rvTc CONC£j\T«./\TluN CALCULATION
The paniculate concentration oetermineo oy any oi tne IPrE metnoos aescrioea is
cajcuiatea oy atviaing tne weignt oi tne capturec sample oy tne total air volume
sampiec. Tne general equation ior this calculation, Daseo on a multistage impactor, is:
S = *v^s
wnere C = concentration oi participate matter wnose aerodynamic aiameter is
J oeiineo oy tne jtn siage oi tne impactor ^mass units per stanoarc
conaition volume units]
jvi = mass caugnt on jth stage oi the impactor imass unitsj
^ = total volume oi air sampled at stanaara conditions (volume units]
Tne total concentration oi paniculate matter, Cy, is tne sum oi the moiviaual impactor
stage concentrations:
r - n r — i n
°T - I S -v^ I jv,
J . J
wnere CT = total mass concentration Imass units per stanoara conaition volume
units;
n = numoer oi stages in tne impactor ana oacKup i
In tne case wnere no impactor is usea, n = 1, ana tne equations simplify to
In tnose cases wnere a oackgrouund concentration exists, as in up wind -down wind
measurements, tne appropriate value must oe suotractea irom the calculated
concentration to Determine tne source-generatec concentration:
CTS = CT - ca
where Cy,- = source -generates concentration
Cy = total measurea concentration
C = measurea oaCKgrouno concentration.
-------
EMISSION RATE. CALCULATION
i
' Tne emission rate calculation entails tne conversion oi tne source-generatea
concentration into a mass emission rate ior tne source. This step requires the
multiplication 01 the concentration oy a total volume flow rate as generated by tne
source. In the case of quasi-stack and roof -monitor measurements, this volume is
Determined oy means of velocity measurements in tne cross-section tnrougn wnich the
flow passes. The integration of velocity times area segments gives the total source
volume flow rate, in the case of the up wind -downwind metnodrtne emitted material
nas oeen dispersea in the atmosphere, and the source emission determination requires
application of diffusion equations.
Emission Rate Calculation Involving Velocity measurements
Wnere pitot tunes are used to measure velocities in quasi-stack measurements,
the velocity at a given point is given oy the following equation:
V = $JU* C
a p \P iVi
c a
wnere V = point velocity; ft/sec
O,
A = velocity head; in h^O
M = molecular weight of gas
C = dimensionless pitot tuoe coefficient
P
P = pressure of air stream; in hg
T s temperature oi air stream; R
Q,
-------
\vhen otner velocity measurement equipment is appliec, the point velocity
relationsrup will oe different, ana in many cases, tne instrument can oe reac directly in
terms oi tne velocity in ft per sec, it per mm, etc.
Once tne point velocities are determined, tne average velocity, V is ootainea ano
C
tne total ilow calculated oy u = V_ A.
a A
wnere u = tn? total flow rate from the source in actual volume units, (e.g.,
a it'/min)
A = tne total area of tne flow opening in area units te.g., ft j
in tne case ol tne pitot equation,
V- X5 CS C
V G. - cO.va (_„
wnere: L? is the average velocity nand (in. h O)
T_ is the average air stream temperature (°R;
d
(P. and M are assumed constant across the flow opening)
The total volume ilow at standard conditions is determined from:
wnere: u = tozal ilow rate from the source in standard volume units ie.g., sta
ft /mm
T - standard temperature ( k.)
P = standard pressure (in hg)
Tne foregoing relationships for flow are for "wet" conditionns. 11 the flow is to be
expressed in dry standard cuoic feet per minute, the equation Decomes:
wnere b = fraction oy volume of water vapor in the sampled airVtream.
-------
The emission rate from me source is determined DV multiplying tne source volume flow
rate oy tne particuiate concentration, assuring tnat tne ilow units matcn tne
concentration units. Tne general equation is:
wnere- z. = source mass emission rate in mass units/time units
1^ = source How rate in volume units/time unit
Cjs- = source -gen era tec concentration in mass units/volume units consistent -
witn L anc ^- units,
Emission Rate Calculations lor Upwind - Downwmc Sampling Programs
.^articulate matter samples ootainec at tne upwind ana central oownwina sampling
sites are analyzed as described in the section Sample Analysis to provioe particuiate
concentrations at eacn sampling location ior total suspended particulates tni vol
sampler;, innaiaole size iraction thi vol sampler with size-selective inlet; anc size
distribution ini vol samples with iSl ana ^-stage impactor;. Samples irom tne downwind
cross- plume sites are anaiyz.ec to provioe innaiaule size iraction concentrations only.
To calculate the source emission rate, the upwina concentration is suotractea, as
a general oackgrounc level oi particulates, Irom tne aownwind concentrations to yiela
tne concentration a triDutaole to tne source lat eacn oownwina sitej. Tnese source
contriDUtion concentrations are then suosituteC into diffusion equations averaged to
oacK-calcuiate source strengths irom concentrations, taking into account corrections
ior wind velocity, meteorological conditions ana atmospheric staniiity variations. The
simplest form of the oasic aiiiusion equation, for a ground level source with a ground
level sampler on tne plume centerline is:
.106.
-------
X= W/TO oz y, where
X = concentration at receptor, yg/m
v = source emission rate, yg/sec
G s stanaara aeviation oi Horizontal concentration aistnoution, m
C' = stancara aeviation 01 vertical concentration aistrioution, m
V = wina velocity, m/sec
Rearrangeo to:
tne oasic equation can be usea • to aetermme source emission - rates from tne
measurement receptor concentrations ana wma speeas anc tne concentration
aistrioution stancara aeviations ootainea irom Reierence 13.
For source/site configurations oi mcreasea complexity, tne oasic equation is
expanaec to incluae exponential terms to correct lor differences in source anc receptor
.
neignts, samples ootainea at off-centeriine locations ana other pnysica! parameters.
Most ol tne more complex revisions oi tne aiiiusion equation nave oeen usea to aevelop
aitfusion moaeis availaole irom such sources as tne EPA's User's Network ior Appijea
ivioaeis ol Air Pollution lUNA.viAPj, maintainea at the Researcn Triangle ParK
Computer Center. Selection ol tne most appropriate moael ior a specific site ana
comoination or atmospneric conaitions snould oe leit to an experienced aiiiusion
meteorologist to ensure tnat all pertinent parameters are considered ana the most
accurate source emission rate is ootainea.
EXPOSURE PROFILING JJATA REDUCTION
Data reauction ior measurement oi 1PFE Dy Exposure Profiling is sufficiently
aiiferent tnan ior the otner measurement metnoos to warrant this seperate section.
-107-
-------
• Tne passage of airoorne particulate, i.e.. tne quantity of emissions ger unit of
source activity, is ootained ay spatial integration lover tne effective cross-section oi
tne plume; oi distnoutea measurements of exposure (.mass/area;. Tne exposure is tne
point value of tne fiux imass/area-time; of airoorne particuiate integrated over tne
time oi measurement.
I'viatnematicaHy stated, the total mass emission rate IK; is given oy:
«•? -A .
wnere m = dust catch Dy exposure sampler alter suotraction of Background
a = intake area of sampler
t = sampling time
h = vertical distance coordinate
w = lateral distance coordinate
A = eilective cross -sectional area of plume
Q
in tne case of a line source or moving point source with an emission neight near
grounc level, tne mass emission rate per source lengtn unit being sampieo is given Dy:
•H
K = — / ^r^- on
wnere: v» = widtn of tne sampling intake
n = effective extent of the plume aoove ground
Tne integration of filter exposure values as a function of profiler sampler neignts
is suDject to an error oased on insufficient point data to compieteiy descrioe the plume
exposure profile. A four-point integration over a plume of less than y m heignt ;s
considered adequate to relied tne exposure profile. Figure 2-0 shows a typical
exposure profile measured downwind of an unpavea road.
-10S-
-------
Sampling Height (m)
Q
n
*•
CD
O
c
-------
IsoKinetjc Corrections
il it :s necessary to sample at a nonisoxinetic ilow rate le.g., to ootain sufficient
sample unoer lignt wine conditions;, tne ioilowing multiplicative iactors woulc oe used
to correct measured exposurea ana concentrations to corresponding isoKinetic values:
Fine Particles Coarse Particles
(a < 5 u mj __ (d > 50 urn)
Exposure Multiplier U/u 1
Concentration multiplier i u/U
wnere: u = sampling intake velocity at a given elevation
U = wine velocity at same elevation as u
d= aerodynamic lequwaient spnere/ particle diameter
For a particle-size distrinution containing a mixture oi line, intermediate, ano
coarse particles, tne isoKinetic correction iactor is an average oi toe aoove iactors
weigntec oy tne relative proportion oi coarse and line particles. For example, u. tne
mass o: line particles in tne distribution equals twice tne mass oi tne coarse particles,
tne weignted isoKinetic correction ior exposure would oe:
i/js UlU/uJ f 1;
FACT UK
Tne determination oi an iPFt. emission iactor is straignti orward once the source
emission rate nas oeen calculated. The emission rate is related to a readily measurable
process parameter wnose variation is determined during the emission measurements.
Tne most common process parameter is one wnicn oescrioes tne process tnrougnput,
generally in mass terms. Thus, emission iactors may oe in terms oi mass of emissions
per mass oi raw material input, or product output.
-110-
-------
. li is critical mat me process parameter is one wmch is eitner aireacy routinely
momtorec, or lor wmcn imormation can reaaily oe ootainec, in a time irame whicn
mat cues tne averaging period oi interest. ror example, process tnroughuut
imorrr.ation oeterminea irom annual, raw material purchase recoros will not provide an
accurate nourly or oaiiy emission estimate, in the design of an 1PF£ measurement
program, tne pertinent process parameter ior tne ultimate emission factor may be
rather oovious from the start, however, tnere may oe many other emission-influencing
process variaoies. some oi wmcn may oe more significant, and tnere will rarely oe
sufficient numoers of tests to directly account for ail of tnese influences. It is
important, tneref ore, to gatner as mucn process and related oata as possible during tne
test program. Tne oata snouia inciuae production outputs, ieedstocK inputs, etc., anc a
listing oi tne irequency oi tne operations taKing place. Included in. the parameters
gathered snould oe:
o production output
o feedstock inputs
o process cycling time
o process temperature
o pnysical dimensions ol equipment generating emissions
o numoer of emission points per operation
o fuel type/amount
o composition of proouct/feedstocKS
Tne question of proprietary information should oe resolved in advance ol the
measurement program. Often the process owner will be reluctant to release
information on process related parameters wnicn could allow outsiders to estimate
production figures. While an emission factor by itself will rarely lead to sucn
deductions, tne oack-up measurement program data can provide such leads to
well-informed persons. It is therefore pruoent to explore the probaole iorm of the
-ill-
-------
emission factor, and the related process information needed, before the measurement
program plan is finalized.
Fugitive emissions are also frequently dependent upon meteorological parameters,
such as:
o wind speed
o wind direction
o precipitation index
o numiciity
Additional parameters that could relate to 'area sources are:
o silt content
o activity factor
o venicle miles traveled
o acres of construction activity
, o pile shape factor
The effects ol variations in such parameters should be considered in the determination
of emission factors.
As mentioned in the Introduction, this protocol has not discussed measurement
accuracy in a quantitative reuse. Emission factor reliability is directly influenced by
individual measurement accuracy, the numoer of measurements made, and the degree
to which these are organized to account for tne process and other variables. Since
fugitive emissions measurements are generally about an order of magnitude more costly
tnan conventional point source stack testing, budgetary limits -will usually preclude the
completion of enough measurements to satisfy the requirements of statistical
experiment design. Thus, inhaiable paniculate matter fugitive emission factors
determined from measurements made in accordance with the procedures described in
this protocol can be expected to exhibit a wide range of variation.
The format of AP-42, "Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors" utilizes an
"Emission Factor Rating" which was developed from a numerical ranking system applied
-------
-4
D^ knowieagaole tecnnical personnel who reviewed the bases for the emission factors.
The numerical rankings and their associated letter ratings are as ioliows:
Numerical Rank ' Letter Rank
5 or less E (Poor)
6 to 15 D (Below average)
16 to 25 • C (Average)
26 to 35 B (Above Average)
36 to 40 A (Excellent)
7ne numerical rankings were aeveloped in three categories with the following maximum
scores. The score which is entered in the above table is the sum of the three category
ratings.
Measured Emission Data: 20 points (max)
Process Data: 10 points.(max)
Engineering Analysis: 10 points (max)
Total 40 points (max)
For the purpose of elevating the reliability of IPFE emission factors which may oe
developed from tnis protocol, the AP-42 rating scheme described above is considered
adequate.
The protocol user is encouraged to complete as many well-planned measurements
as his Dudget will allow. He should then subject his resultant emission factors to an
objective review to establish the reliability rating. If the emission factors are then
ultimately published in a document similar to AP-42, document users will be acie to
relate their reliability to prior published factors in a consistent manner.
-113-
------- |