United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards
Researcn Triangle Park NC 27711
EPA-450/4-88-003
February 1988 -
Air
GAP FILLING PM
EMISSION
FACTORS FOR
SELECTED OPEN
AREA DUST
SOURCES
10
-------
EPA-450/4-88-003
Gap Filling PM10Emission Factors For
Selected Open Area Dust Sources
By
Midwest Research Institute
Kansas City MO 64110
EPA Contract No.68-02-3891
U S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office Of Air And Radiation
Office Of Air Quality Planning And Standards
Research Triangle Park NC 27711
", " Environmental Protection Agency
February 1988 cn 5, Library (5PL-16)
"-. Ta-irborn Street, Room 1670
'.:,, IL 60604
-------
This report has been reviewed by the Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S Environmental
Protection Agency, and approved for publication as received from the contractor Approval does not signify
that the contents necessarily reflect the views and policies of the Ag^rcy, neither does mention of trade
names or commercial products constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.
EPA-450/4-88-003
-------
CONTENTS
Preface , i i
1.0 Introduction 1
2.0 Development of Proposed PM10 Emission Factors 2
3.0 Agricultural Tilling 7
3.1 Background 7
3.2 Derivation of PM10 emission factor 7
3.3 Recommended PM10 emission factor(s) 7
3.4 Reference documents ,. 8
4.0 Agricultural Harvesting of Cotton 9
4.1 Background 9
4.2 Basis for derivation of PM10 emission factor 9
4.3 Recommended PM10 emission factor(s) 9
4.4 Reference documents 9
5.0 Agricultural Harvesting of Grain 11
5.1 Background 11
5.2 Derivation .of PM10 emission factor 11
5.3 Recommended PM10 emission f actor (s) 11
5.4 Reference documents 11
6.0 Waste Disposal by Burning 13
6.1 Background 13
6.2 Basis for derivation of PM10 emission factor 13
6.3 Recommended PM10 emission factor(s) 13
6.4 Reference documents 13
7.0 Airporc Runways (Unpaved) 18
7.1 Background 13
7.2 Basis for derivation of PM10 emission factor 13
7.3 Recommended PM10 emission factor 18
7.4 Reference documents -. 19
3.0 Cattle ceedlots 20
3.1 Background ZO
8.2 Basis'for derivation of PM10 emission factor 20
8.3 Recommended PM10 emission f actor (s) 20
8.4 Assumptions and caveats 21
8.5 Reference documents 21
9.0 Construction Site Preparation 22
9.1 Background 22
9.2 Basis for derivation of PM10 emission factors 22
9.3 Recommended PM10 emission factors 26
9.4 Reference documents 26
-------
CONTENTS (concluded)
10.0 Demolition of Structures 27
10.1 Background 27
10.2 Basis for derivation of PM10 emission factor 27
10.3 Recommended PM10 emission factor 29
10.4 Reference documents 29
11.0 Off-Highway Vehicle Travel 31
11.1 Background 31
11.2 Basis for derivation of PM10 emission factor 31
11.3 Recommended PM10 emission factors 32
11.4 Reference documents 32
12.0 Municipal Solid Waste Landfills.. , 33
12.1 Background 33
12.2 Basis for derivation of PM10 emission factor 33
12.3.Recommended PM10 emission factor (preliminary). 34
12.4 Reference documents 34
13.0 Coarse, Dry Tailings Ponds 35
13.1 Background 35
13.2 Basis for derivation of PM10 emission factor 35
13.3 Recommended PM10 emission factor 37
13.4 Reference documents 37
14.0 Transportation Tire Wear 38
14.1 Background 38
14.2 Basis for derivation of PM10 emission factor 38
14.3 Recommended PMi0 emission factor 38
14.4 Reference documents 38
15.0 Transportation Brake Wear ;.... 39
15.1 Background 39
15.2 Basis for derivation of PMIO emission factor 39
15.3 Recommended PM10 emission factor 39
15.4 Reference documents 39
16.0 Road Sanding/Salting 40
16.1 Background 40
16.2 Basis for derivation of ?M10 emission factor 40
16.3 Recommended PM10 emission factor(s) , 45
16.4 Reference documents f ' 45
17.0 Unoaved Parking Lots ^6
17.1 Introduction -16
17.2 Basis for derivation of PM10 emission factor 46
17 T3 Recommended PM10 emission factor 47
17.4 Reference documents 47
-------
TABLES
Number Page
1 PM10 Emission Factor Development 3
2 Proposed Gap Filling Emission Factors 5
3 Participate Emission Factors for Cotton Harvesting
Operations 10
4 Emission Rates/Factors from the Harvesting Grain 12
5 Emission Factors for Open Burning of Nonagricultural
Material .- 14
6 Emission Factors and Fuel Loading Factors for Open Burning
of Agricultural Materials 15
7 Emission Factors for Leaf Burning 17
8 Calculated Emission Factors for Construction-Related
Fugitive Oust 23
9 Net Particulate Concentrations and Ratios 25
10 Comparison of Emission Factors for Road 2 31
11 Wind Erosion Emission Factor Testing 35
12 Results of Sieve Analyses 41
13 Mileage of Treated Highways and Tollways, and Mean Annual
Snow Days by State 42
-------
SECTION 1.0
INTRODUCTION
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has revised the National
Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for particulate matter (PM). The new
standard is based on PM with an aerodynamic diameter of less than or equal to
10 ym (PM10). Revision of this standard means that states must review their
PM emission inventories and State Implementation Plans (SIPs).
EPA publishes an Agency document, Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission
Factors (AP-42),1 to provide the states with quality-rated emission factors for
use in preparing emission inventories and SIPs. However, PM10 emission
factors for some open dust sources are not presently contained in AP-42. The
purpose of this report is to fill gaps that exist in the PM10 emission factors
for those sources. PM10 factors have been derived using scientific and
engineering judgement and employing data transfer techniques.
The PM10 factors derived in this study represent uncontrolled emissions
(unless noted) and should be used cautiously to fill gaps in PM10 emission in-
ventories. The most reliable emission factors are based on source-specific
test data. The reader is cautioned to use the gap filling factors only for
situations where the stated caveats and assumptions are valid and for those
sources where no direct test data are otherwise available.
Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors (AP-42), Volumes I and II,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air and Radiation, Research
Triangle Park, NC, Fourth Edition: September 1985 and Supplement A:
October 1986.
-------
SECTION 2.0
DEVELOPMENT OF PROPOSED PM10 EMISSION FACTORS
In this study, the first step consisted of the review of current AP-42
factors for applicability, with particular emphasis on particle size informa-
tion. For some open area dust sources, AP-42 presents particulate emission
factors for total suspended particulates (TSP) or other particle size frac-
tions which"can be used in estimating PM10. The second step was to search for
other documents which could contribute applicable PM10 emission factor
information. Finally, all technical information was evaluated and methods
were proposed and then used to develop PM10 emission factors for the sources
of interest.
In particular, three general techniques were used to develop PM10
factors. The first technique consisted of dividing a source activity into
generic components and then combining available emission factors for these
activities into a new emission factor for the source of interest. The second
technique involved the formulation of a new factor using marginally applicable
but related factors and size-specific data. The third technique was to base a
PM10 factor on field testing data not currently reported in AP-42.
The above procedures resulted in PM10 emission factors for the sources
presented in Table 1. Each source is identified by category and dust-emitting
activity. Related AP-42 emission factors are listed, if available, together
with the basis for the proposed PM10 emission factor.
Table 2 summarizes and assigns quality ratings to the proposed PM10 emis-
sion factors for open area dust sources of interesjt and notes the relevant
section of this report for each source. The quality ratings (A-E) are esti-
mates of the reliability of the factors and apply only when emission param-
eters are .vithin stated limits. Sections 3.0 through 17.0 oresent detailed
background information and methodology for each of the proposed =M,0 factors,
and state all assumptions and caveats. Background documents used as refer-
ences and to prepare the PM10 emission factors have been assembled and are on
file at the Criteria Emissions Section of EPA's Office of Air Quality Planning
and Standards.
-------
TABLE 1. PM10 EMISSION FACTOR DEVELOPMENT
Source
Category
Activity
AooIi caoia
AP-42
sections
Basis for proposed PMlo amiss ion factor
Agricultural tiI I ing
T!I I ing (mechanical)
Agricultural harvesting of cotton Harvesting, loading,
field transport
(mechanical)
11.2.2 Current AP-42 factor is specific TO ?M,
6.16 ^10 factors are closaiv represented 2v
factors in AP-42.
Agricultural harvesting of grain Harvesting, loading,
field transport
(mechanical)
Waste disposal ay burning
Airport runways (unpaved)
Burning (comoustion)
Aircraft landings and
takeoffs (mechanical
and wind erosion)
5.17 P^io factors are closely represented ay
factors in AP-42.
2.4 Current TSP factors in AP-42 are noted as Seing
mostly suomicron and thus also representative
of PM1Q factors.
11.2.1 Unpaved road PM1Q factor ,5 used «irh represents
tive parameters for smalI aircraft runways
together with a wind erosion multiplier.
Cattle feed lots
Construction site preparation
Demolition of structures
Surface disturbance 6.15
(mechan i caI); exposed 11.2.2
arodible surface
(wind erosion); traffic
(mechanical)
Traffic and materials 11.2
hand!ing (mechanical
and »md erosion)
Building destruction 11.2
a. Explosive detora-
i
tion
b. Mechanical impact
Oeoris cleanuo
3. Qeons 'oadinq
(mechanical and
wind erosion)
S. Truck traffic
Current TSP factors are made specific TO °M;a
using an aerodynamic particle size multiplier
from agricultural soils.
TSP factors back-calculated using dispersion
modeling are made specific to PM10 using an
average PM^g/TSP ratio measured ,n the field.
Current AP-42 PM, Q factors for 3atch drop
operations and unoaved .-oad Tr-jcx T^vei er=
used together with two measured "3? factor-;
(corrected to PM10 using a generic sarticla si;;
multiplier) for truck fiMmq. "he PM . 3 rjctor-
sre :omoined and -eiated "3 -ne -'oor snaca : '
aetnolisned uuiiding jsing r*»i at i onsn i as -~zm 2
survey of demolished Suii dings.
Off-nignway vehicle traffic
Traffic (mechanical);
surface disturbance
(wind erosion)
Measured PM«g factors 'or vemc!e travel on
natural desert <-SPram are used for 'our-»neei
vehicles and are corrected jer AP-42 for
motorcycle wheels and -eight.
(continued)
-------
TABLE I (Continued)
Sourca
Category
ACT i v i ty
ADDi icable
AP-42
sections
Basis tor proposed ?M10 emission factor
Municipal solid fasts landfills
Coarse, dry taiIinga ponds
Transportation tire wear
Traffic (mechanical); 11.2
dumping (mechanical);
covering with soiI
(mechanical and wind
erosion)
Exposed erodible
surface (wind
eros i on)
Traffic (mechanical) 11.2.5
Emission inventories for two landfill studies ar=
the basis for emissions from unpaved read rravei
handling of fill materials, and aozer activity.
Current AP-4.2 factors are used "o oota i n a °M . ;,
factor for MSW landfills based on ^SW volume re-
ceipts and on-site travel distance to the dis-
posal site.
PM10 factor is closely represented by measured
PM i 2 f actor .
PMjg factor was developed by EPA from Iaooratorv
and field studies.
Transportation' brake wear
Traffic (mechanical)
11.2.5 PWlo factor was developed by EPA from I aoorato'-v
stud i es.
Soad sanding/salting
Traffic (mechanical)
Unsaved parking lots
Traffic (mechanical)
exposed erodible
surface (wind
erosion)
11.2.5 Entire PM10 fraction (contained in the silt frac
tion) of the sand mixture is assumed to Seccme
airborne. These fractions are based on measured
values for sand and for western sandy soils.
Five percent of the applied salt is assumed *o
dry on roadway and 10 percent of this film is
assumed to De driven off as PM,_a emissions.
11.2.1 ^10 factor is based on AP12 unpaved road
factor with default values for silt, numoer of
wheels, vehicle weight, and vehicle speed.
-------
TABLE 2. PROPOSED GAP FILLING EMISSION FACTORS
Source category
Agricul tural ti 1 1 ing
Agricultural harvesting of cotton
Agri cultural harvesting of grain
Waste disposal by burning
Airporr runways (unpaved)
Estimated
Estimated PM10 emission factor rat" ing
AP-42 Equation 1 in 11.2.2.1 B
AP-42 Table 6.16-2 C
AP-42 Table 6.17-1 0
AP-42 Tables 2.4-1, 2.4-2, and 2.4-3 3
75s g/LTO E
0.19s Ib/LTO
App 1 i cab 1 e report
section
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
Cattle feed lots
70 kg/day/1,000-head capacity
180 Ib/day/l,000-^ead capacity
or 15 metric ton/1,000-head throughput
17 tons/1 ,000-head throughput
8.0
Construction site preparation
5.7 kg/VKT , . . ,
3 } topsoiI removal
20 ib/VMT
1.2 kg/VKT ,
4.3 Ib/VMT
} cut and fill operations
2.8 kg/VKT , . ...
} truck haulage
10 ib/VMT
9.0
Demolition of structures
56 g/m of demolished floor area
0.011 Ib/fr2 of demolished floor area
10.0
Off-highway vehicle travel
1.3 kg/VKT ,. . , . . ,
3 }4-wheel vehicles
6.3 Ib/VMT
0.25 kg/VKT .
3 } motorcycies
0.39 Ib/VMT
1 1 .0
Municipal solid «aste landfills'
' q/m -
-------
TABLE 2 (Continued)
Source category
Estimated PM10 emission factor
Estimated Applicable report
rating section
Road sanding/salting
'Jnaaved par* ing lots
13s g/metric ton of applied sand
0.03s Ib/ton of applied sand
4.3 kg/metric ton of applied salt
10 ib/ton of applled salt
0.2
(565-p)
365
(L -i- W) g/venicie parked
16.0
7.0
(English unit not suitable)
s = Si It content ($)
LTO = Landing/takeoff cycles
VMT = Vehigle miles traveled
VKT = Vehicle kilometers traveled
0 = MSW volume (mj)
0 = Distance between gate and MSW disposal site (mi).
T = Number of minutes that wind velocity exceeds 19 m/s (42 mph) at 10 m above surface during specific
time period of interest
I = Dimension of parking lot perpendicular to aisles (m)
W = Dimension of parking lot parallel to aisles (m)
-------
SECTION 3.0
AGRICULTURAL TILLING
3.1 BACKGROUND
The mechanical tilling of agricultural land injects dust particles into
the atmosphere as the soil is loosened or turned under by plowing, disking,
harrowing, one-waying, etc. There is a predictive emission factor equation in
AP-42, §11.2.2 for the estimation of dust emissions from agricultural tilling.
E = k(5.38)(s)°"6 kg/ha
E = k(4.80)(s)°"5 Ib/acre
where s = silt content (percent) of surface soil (default value of
18 percent)
k = particle size multiplier (dimensionless)
3.2 DERIVATION OF PM10 EMISSION FACTOR
Field measurement tests are cited in AP-42 §11.2.2, "Agricultural Till-
ing," and provide the basis for deriving the PMi0 emission factor. In this
instance, AP-42 provides an aerodynamic multiplier to convert total suspended
particulate value to a PM10 value. The particle size multiplier, k, is given
as 0.21 for PM10.
3.3 RECOMMENDED PM10 EMISSION FACTOR(S)
If a silt value can be obtained, the emission Factor eauation (with an
AP-a2 rating of 3) 's:
E10 = (0.21)(5.38)(s)°'S kg/ha
= l.l(s)°"6 kg/ha
= 1.0(s)°"6 Ib/acre
If a silt value cannot be obtained, a default value of 18 percent is
used, and the emission factor equation (with a C rating) is:
E1Q = (0.21)(5.38)(18)°'S kg/ha
= 6.4 kg/ha
= 5.7 Ib/acre
7
-------
The above equations are based solely on information currently contained in
AP-42. Silt content of tested soils ranged from 1.7 to 88 percent.
3.4 REFERENCE DOCUMENTS
AP-42, §11.2.2 (with its references), including
Cuscino, T. A., Jr., et a!., The Role of Agricultural Practices in Fugitive
Dust Emissions, California Air Resources Board, Sacramento, CA, June 1981.
-------
SECTION 4.0
AGRICULTURAL HARVESTING OF COTTON
4.1 BACKGROUND
Mechanical harvesting of cotton involves three unit operations: harvest-
ing, trailer' loading (basket dumping), and transport of trailers in the
field. Particulate emission factors from these operations were developed by
sampling downwind concentrations and then applying atmospheric diffusion
models. These emissions factors are shown in AP-42. Emissions are related to
machine speed, basket and trailer capacity, lint cotton yield, free silica
content, and transport speed. The particulates are composed mainly of raw
cotton dust and solid dust, which contains free silica.
4.2 BASIS FOR DERIVATION OF PM10 EMISSION FACTOR
Field measurement tests are cited in AP-42, §6.16. These tests produced
the particulate emission factors presented in Table 3 (AP-42 Table 6.16-2).
Emission factors are for total respirable particulate < 7 urn mean aerodynamic
diameter.
4.3 RECOMMENDED PM10 EMISSION FACTOR(S)
PM10 factors are closely represented by the factors presented in Table 3
(< 7 urn mean aerodynamic diameter). The factors are based on average machine
speed of 1.34 m/s (3.0 mph) for .pickers and 2-.2S m/s (5.03 mph) for strippers,
on a basket capacity of 109 kg (240 Ib), on a trailer capacity of six baskets,
on a lint cotton yield of 63.0 metric tons/km2 (1.17 bales/acre) for pickers
and 41.2 metric tons/km2 (0.77 bale/acre) for strippers, and on a transport
speed of 4.47 m/s (10.0 mph).
4.4 REFERENCE DOCUMENTS
AP-42, §6.16, including
Snyder, J. W., and T. R. Blackwood, Source Assessment: Mechanical Harvest-
ing of Cotton - State of the Art, EPA-600/2-77-107d, U.S. Environmental Pro-
tection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, July 1977.
-------
TABLE 3. PARTICIPATE EMISSION- FACTORS FOR COTTON HARVESTING OPERATIONSa
(Table 6.16-2 from AP-42)
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: C
Harvesting
Type of
Pickerc
Two-row,
Stripped
Two -row,
Two- row,
Four-row
Weighted
harvester
with basket
. pulled trailer
with basket
, with basket
average5
kg_
km 2
0.46
7.4
2.3
2.3
4.3
Ib
mi 2
2.6
42
13
13
24
Trailer
loading
kg_
km 2
0.070
0.092
0.092
0.056
Ib
mi
0.
-
0.
0.
0.
2
40
52
52
32
Transport
kg_
km 2
0.43
0.28
0.28
0.28
0.28
Ib
mi 2
2.5
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
kq
km
0.
7.
2.
2.
4.
Total
2
96
7
7
7
6
Ib
mi 2
5.4
44
15
15
26
^Emission factors are from Snyder, 1977 for particulate of < 7 urn mean diameter.
Not applicable.
jFree silica content is 7.9%: maximum content of pesticides and defoliants is 0.02%.
Free silica content is 2.3%: maximum content of pesticides and desiccants is 0.2%.
eThe weighted stripping factors are based on estimates that 2% of all strippers are
four-row models with baskets, and of the remainder, 40% are two-row models with
pulling trailers and 60% are two-row models with mounted baskets.
-------
SECTION 5.0
AGRICULTURAL HARVESTING OF GRAIN
5.1 BACKGROUND
Mechanical harvesting of grain includes three operations: (1) crop han-
dling by harvest machine, (2) loading of harvested crop into trucks, and
(3) transport by trucks on the field: Particulate emission rates from these
operations were developed by sampling downwind concentrations and then apply-
ing atmospheric diffusion models. These emission rates/factors are given in
AP-42 Table 6.17-1. Emissions are related to combine speed,, combine swath
width, field transport speed, truck loading time, truck capacity, and truck
travel time.
5.2 DERIVATION OF PM10 EMISSION FACTOR
Field measurement tests are cited in AP-42 §6.17. These tests produced
the particulate emission factors/rates in Table 4 (AP-42 Table 6.17-1) Emis-
sion factors are for total respirable particulate of < 7 ym mean aerodynamic
diameter and also are estimates of PM10 factors.
5.3 RECOMMENDED PM10 EMISSION FACTOR(S)
PM10 factors are closely represented by the factors presented in AP-42
Table 4 (< 7 urn mean aerodynamic diameter). Assumptions are an average com-
bine speed of 3.36 m/s, combine swath width of 6.07 m, a field transport speed
of 4.48 m/s, a truck loading time of 6 min, a truck capacity of 0.52 km2 for
wheat and 0.029 km? for sorghum, and a filled truck travel time of 125 s per
load.
5.4 REFERENCE DOCUMENTS
AP-42, §6.17, including
Wachter, R. A., and T. R. Blackwood, Source Assessment: Harvesting of Grain,
State of the Art, EPA 600/2-79-107f, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, NC, July 1977.
11
-------
TABLE 4. EMISSION RATES/FACTORS FROM THE HARVESTING GRAINa
(Table 6.17-1 from AP-42)
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: 0
Emission rate
Wheat
Operation lb/h mg/s
Sorghum
"Ib/h mg/s
Emission factorc
Wheat
Sorghum
1b/mi2 g/km2 lb/mi2 g/km2
Harvest
machine 0.027 3.4 0.18 23.0
Truck
loading 0.014 1.8 0,014 1.8
Field
transport 0.37 47.0 0.37 47.0
0.96 170.0 6.5 1,100.0
0.07 12.0 0.13 22.0
0.65 110.0 1.2 200.0
^From Wachter, 1977 for particulate of < 7 ym mean aerodynamic diameter.
"Assumptions from Wachter, 1977 are an average combine speed of 3.36 m/s.
combine swath width of 6.07 meters, and a field transport speed of 4.48 m/s.
cln addition to Note b, assumptions are a truck loading time of 6 min, a truck
capacity of 0.052 km2 for wheat and 0.029 km2 for sorghum, and a filled truck
travel time of 125 s/load.
-------
SECTION 6.0
WASTE DISPOSAL BY BURNING
6.1 BACKGROUND
Open burning is used to dispose of both industrial and agricultural
wastes. Various burning emission factors are reported In AP-42, §2.4, but
there is no indication .of "exact" particle size. Dominant activities in-
fluencing emission levels are firing techniques, moisture content, and "fuel"
type.
6.2 BASIS FOR DERIVATION OF PM10 EMISSION FACTOR
Total particulate values for open and agricultural burning in AP-42
Tables 2.4-2 and 2.4-3 are footnoted as being mostly submicron, and thus
should represent PM10 emission factors well.
6.3 RECOMMENDED PM10 EMISSION FACTOR(S)
It is assumed that all emission factors given in Tables 5 to 7 (AP-42
Tables 2.4-1 to 2.4-3) are < 10 ymA. As a result, the attached AP-42
Tables 2.4-1, 2.4-2, and 2.4-3 are representative also of PM10 emission
factors.
6.4 REFERENCE DOCUMENTS
AP-42, §2.4 (with its references).
13
-------
TABLE 5. EMISSION FACTORS FOR OPEN BURNING OF NONAGRICULTURAL MATERIAL
(Table 2.4-1 from AP-42)
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: B
Sulfur Carbon VOC Nitrogen-
Source Particulate oxides monoxide Methane Nonmethane oxides
Municipal refuse
kg/Mg
Ib/ton
Automobile
components'"
kg/Mg
Ib/ton
8
16
50
100
0.5
1
Neg.
Neg.
42 6.5
85 13
'
62 5
125 10
15
30
16
32
3
6
2
4
aOata indicate that VOC emissions are approximately 25% methane, 8% other
saturates, IQ% olefins, 42% others (oxygenates, acetylene, aromatics, trace
formaldehyde).
DReferences 2, 7 from AP-42, §2.4.
GReference 2 from AP-42, §2.4. Upholstery, belts, hoses, and tires burned
together.
14
-------
TABLE 6. EMISSION FACTORS AND FUEL LOADING FACTORS FOR
OPEN BURNING OF AGRICULTURAL MATERIALS3
(Table 2.4-2 from AP-42)
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: B
Particulateb
Refuse category
F el d crops
Jnspec i f ied
Sun . ng rscnniques
iot s ign i f i canre
Asparagus
3an ey
Corn
Cotton
Grasses
Pi neapple^
Ricen
Saf f lower
Sorghum
Sugar cane'
Headf i re burn i ng^
Alfalfa
Bean (red)
Hay (wi Id)
Oats
Pea
^heat
i.
3ackf i re burn ing
Alfalfa
3ean (red) , pea
-lay (wi Id)
Oars
theat
<' Te crops
^eeds
Jnspec i f ied
'ussian -histle
'umoi eweed)
"u i es (wild reeds )
- ^ -. -. ,_ d , ! , Tl
"Spec : 5<2
- ' .7-opd
-oo i e
^or ' COT
-JOC330
::-erry
wi ^rus (orangs.
' emon )
Da^e paim
- ' "une
fla 1 nut
kg/Mg i
i 1
20
11
7
4
8
4
4
9
9
2.5-3.5
23
22
16
22
16
1 1
14
7
8
1 1
6
3
3
; '
3
-
j
2
3
10
4
3
5
4
2
6
3
4
2 .
3
b/ron
21
40
22
14
8
16
8
9
18
18
6-8.4
45
43
32
44
31
22
29
-14
M
21
13
5
15
22
5
5
6
4
6
21
3
6
'0
7
4
12
6
9
3
6
Carbon
monox i de
kg/Mg
58
75
78
54
38
50
56
41
72
38
30-41
53
93
70
68
74
64
60
72
75
68
54
26
42
154
17
25
23
21
24
53
22
40
28
28
16
57
21
28
21
24
id/ton
1 17
150
157
108
176
101
112
83
144
77
60-81
106
186
139
137
147
128
1 19
148
150
136
108
51
35
309
34
^ ->
46
42
49
1 '6
44
31
56
57
33
! 14
42
57
42
47
VOCC
Methane
kg/Mg
2.7
10
2.2
2
0.7
2.2
1
1.2
3
1
0.6-2
4.2
5.5
2.5
4
4.5
2
4.5
3
2
2
1.3
0.3
i .5
0.2
3.2
. 2
0.5
1
3.8
1.2
! .5
0.3
1.2
0.5
2
0.6
1
0.4
1
i b/ron
5.4
20
4.5
4
1 .4
4.5
2
2.4
6
2
1 .2-3.8
3.5
11
5
7.8
9
4
9
6
4
4
2.6
1 .7
3
0.5
5.5
2.5
2
i
2
7 .5
2.5
3
i .7
2.5
1
4
1 .2
2
0.7
2
Nonmethane
Kg/Mg
9
33
7.5
6
2.5
7.5
3
4
10
3.5
2-6
14
18
8.5
13
15
6.5
14
10
6.5
7
4.5
3
4.5
0.3
10
:
i
' .5
3
12
4
5
3
4
; .5
7
2
3.5
1
3
i b/ton
'8
66
15
12
5
15
6
8
20
7
4-12
28
36
1 7
26
29
13
29
19
13
1 4
Q
5
Q
.5
2 '
1
o
3
6
25
3
9
5
8
3
14
4
T
2
6
Fuel loading factors
(waste production)
Mg/ha
4 .5
3.4
3.3
9.4
3.3
6.7
2.9
6.5
8-46
l .3
5.6
2.2
3.6
5.6
4.3
1 .3
5.6
2.2
3.6
4 .3
5 .5
7 .2
0.2
- . 3
; .5
5.2
^
3.4
2.2
2.2
2.2
4.9
4.5
2.7
5.6
5.3
2.7
2.7
rons/acre
2
i .5
1 -7
4.2
1 .7
3.0
1 .3
2.9
3-17
0.3
2.5
1 .0
1 .6
2.5
1 .9
0.3
2.5
1 .0
' .6
I .9
2.5
3.2
0 . ',
. 3
.3
2.5
' .3
i . 3
' .0
: .0
1 .0
2.2
2.0
i ~)
2.5
2.6
I .2
' .2
(conti nued)
15
-------
TABLE 6 (continued)
K
Particul ate"
Refuse category
Forest residues"
Unspec i f ied
Hemlock, Douglas
fir, cedar13
Pcnderosa pine''
kg/Mg
8
2
5
1 b/ton
17
4
12
Carbon
monox i de
kg/Mg
70
45
98
1 b/ton
140
90
195
vocc
Methane
kg/Mg
2.8
0.6
1 .7
1 b/ton
5.7
1.2
5.3
Fuel loading factors
Nonmethane (waste
kg/Mg
9
2
5.5
Ib/ton Mg/ha
19 157
4
1 1
production)
tons/acre
70
found to be in the
from headfiring or
151
Note: References below are cited in AP-42, §2.4.
^Expressed as weight of pollutant emitted/weight of refuse material burned.
Re.erence 12. Particul ate matter from most agricultural refuse burning has been
suomicrometer size range.
C0ata indicate that VOC emissions average 22$ methane, 7.51 other saturates, 17$ olefins, 15$ acetylene,
38.5$ unidentified. Unidentified VOC are expected to include aldehydes, ketones, aromatics,
cycloparaf f ins,
References 12-13 for emission factors; Reference 14 for fuel loading factors.
f-or these refuse materials, no significant difference exists between emissions
b"ckf ir ing.
Factors represent emissions under typical high moisture conditions. If ferns are dried to <
moisture, particulate emissions will be reduced by 302, CO emissions 23$, VOC 74$.
^Reference 11. When pineapple is allowed to dry to < 20$ moisture, as it usually is, firing technique is
not important. When headfired at 20$ moisture, part icu'l ate emissions will increase to 11.5 kg/Mg
(23 Ib/ton) and VOC will increase to 6.5 kg/Mg (13 Ib/ton).
Factors are for dry (15$ moisture) rice straw. If rice straw is burned at higher moisture levels,
particulate emissions will increase to 14.5 kg/Mg (29 Ib/ton), CO emissions to 80.5 kg/Mg (181 Ib/ton),
.and VOC emissions to 11.5 kg/Mg (23 Ib/ton).
'Reference 20. See Section 8.12 for discussion of sugar cane burning. The following fuel loading
factors are to be used in the corresponding states: Louisiana, 8-13.6 Mg/ha (3-5 tons/acre); Florida,
11-19 Mg/ha (4-7. tons/acre); Hawaii, 30-48 Mg/ha (11-17 tons/acre). For other areas, values generally
increase with length of growing season. Use the larger end of the emission factor range for lower
.loading factors.
^See text for definition of headfiring.
See text for definition of backfiring. This category, for emission estimation purposes, includes
another technique used occasionally to limit emissions, called into-the-w i nd str iol ighti ng, wnich is
lighting fields in strips into the wind at 100-200-m (300-600-ft) intervals.
Orchard prunings are usually burned in piles. Thera are no significant differences in emissions
between burning a "cold oile" and using a roll -on tacnnique, where prunings are bulldozed onto the
emoers of a preceding fire.
flif orchard removal is "he purpose of a ourn , 66 Mg/ha (30 tons/acre) of *aste will be
~
"Reference
°Refersnce
qReference
10.
15.
16.
NO emissions estimated at 2 kg/Mg(4 Ib/ton)
16
-------
TABLE 7. EMISSION FACTORS FOR LEAF BURNINGa
(Table 2.4-3 from AP-42)
EMISSION 'FACTOR RATING: B
Particulateb Carbon monoxide Methane
VOCC
Nonmethane
Leaf species kg/MgIb/ton kg/MgIb/ton kg/MgIb/ton kg/MgIb/ton
Black Ash
Modesto Ash
White Ash
Catalpa
Horse
Chestnut
Cottonwood
American Elm
Eucalyptus
Sweet Gum
Black Locust
Magnolia
Silver Maple
American
Sycamore
California
Sycamore
Tu 1 i p
Red Oak
Sugar Maple
Unspecified
18
16
21.5
8.5
27
19
13
18
16.5
35
6.5
33
7.5
5
10
46
26.5
19
36
32
43
17
54
38
26
36
33
70
13
66
15
10
20
92
53
38
63.5
81.5 .
57
44.5
73.5
45
59.5
45
70
65'
27.5
51
57.5
52
38.5
68.5
54
56
127
163
113
89
147
90
119
90
140
130
55
102
115
104
77
137
108
112
5.5
5
6.5
2.5
8
6
4
5.5
5
11
2
10
2.5
1.5
3
14
8
6
11
10
13
5
17
12
8
11
10
22
4
20
5
3
6
28
16
12
13.5
12
16
6.5
20
14
9.5
13.5
12.5
26
5
24.5
5.5
3.5
7.5
34
20
14
27
24
32
13
40
28
19
27
25
52
10
49
11
7
15
69
40
23
References 13-19 from AP-42, §2.4. Factors are an arithmetic average of
results obtained by burning high and low moisture content conical piles,
'gnited either at the top or around the periphery of the bottom. The
nndrcw arrangement .-vas only tested on Modesto Ash, Catalpa, ^mer^can Elm,
Sweet Gum, Silver Maple, and Tulip, and results are included in :ne iver-
. ages for these species.
DThe majority of particulates is submicron in size.
cTests indicate that VOC emissions average 29% methane, 11% other satu-
rates, 33% olefins, 27% other (aromatics, acetylene, oxygenates).
17
-------
SECTION 7.0
AIRPORT RUNWAYS (UNPAVED)
7.1 BACKGROUND
Emissions from aircraft landings and takeoffs are caused by mechanical
entrainment of soil by aircraft wheel/surface contact and by wind erosion from
the aircraft wake. There is no directly applicable emission factor in
AP-42. However, unpaved road emissions are quantified in AP-42, §11.2.1, and
are believed to be appropriate for estimating emissions from unpaved airport
runways. Runways are a minor source (i.e., compared to rural unpaved
roads). Emissions vary with geographic area as reflected in dry days and soil
texture.
7.2 BASIS FOR DERIVATION OF PM10 EMISSION FACTOR
The unpaved road equation from AP-42, §11.2.1, should be used:
(if) (
-------
where s = silt content of runway surface material (default value of 12%)
This factor applies to dry dirt airstrips only. Default values are:
LTO average speed = 40 mph
ITtf mnway length = L mi
Plane weight = 1 ton
Number of wheels = 3
Precipitation days = 0
Wind erosion multiplier = 2
7.4 REFERENCE DOCUMENTS
«
AP-42 511.2.1 (with its references), and
Cowherd, C. Jr., et al., Emissions Inventory of Agricultural Tilling, Uhpaved
Roads and Airstrips, and Construction Sites, EF-A-450/3-74-085, U.S. Environ-
ment! Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, November 1974.
19
-------
SECTION 8.0
CATTLE FEEDLOTS
8.1 BACKGROUND
Particulate emissions from cattle feedlots result from surface distur-
bance (mechanical), exposed erodible surface (wind erosion), and vehicle traf-
fic (mechanical). The current AP-42 emission factor in §6.15 is based on
either feedlot capacity or feedlot throughput:
280 lb/day/l,000-head capacity (TSP)
27 ton/1, 000-head throughout (TSP)
Emissions are related to climate, soil texture, season, cattle density, nat-
ural mitigation of cattle in holding pens, and pen cleaning cycle.
8.2 BASIS FOR DERIVATION OF PM10 EMISSION FACTOR
The AP-42 TSP emission factors (Rating E) for cattle feedlots are made
specific to PM10 using an aerodynamic particle size multiplier (PM10/TSP) for
agricultural tilling found in AP-42, §11.2.2, assuming that TSP is equivalent
to PM30. Mechanical disturbance of loose soil causes emissions for both
cattle feedlots and agricultural till ing. The emission factor is derived as
follows:
TSP LTSP
/vhere the ratio,1 io = p. 21
TSP 0.33
8.3 RECOMMENDED PM10 EMISSION FACTOR(S)
The following calculated values represent emissions for cattle feedlots:
E10 = 0.21/0.33 x 280 lb/day/1, 000-head capacity = 180 lb/day/1, 000-head
capacity (70 kg/day/1, 000-head capacity)
or = 0.21/0.33 x 27 tons/1, 000-head throughput = 17 tons/1, 000-head
throughput (15 metric tons/1, 000-head throughput)
20
-------
8.4 ASSUMPTIONS AND CAVEATS
Suspended particulate from cattle feedlots is assumed to be of same
particle size distribution as from "generic" agricultural soil with 18 percent
silt fraction. In addition, TSP is assumed to be equivalent to PM30.
Emissions are related to climate and natural mitigation of cattle and cattle
density.
8.5 REFERENCE DOCUMENTS
AP-42, §6.15 and §11.2.2.
Cuscino, T. A., Jr., et a!., The Role of Agricultural Practices in Fugitive
Dust Emissions, California Air Resources Board, Sacramento, CA, June 1981.
Peters, J. A., and T. R. Blackwood, Source Assessment: Beef Cattle
Feedlots, EPA-600/2-77-107, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, NC, June 1977.
21
-------
SECTION 9.0
CONSTRUCTION SITE PREPARATION
9.1 BACKGROUND
The current AP-42 emission factor (related to particles < 30 umS) is
1.2 tons/acre/month for an entire construction site. However, three different
source activities usually comprise construction site preparation: topsoil re-
moval (generally with scrapers), earthmoving (cut and fill operations), and
truck haulage. These are represented separately in the sections below to
produce estimated PM10 emission factors for each activity.
The most applicable reference document (Kinsey, 1983) indicates that the
ambient PM10 concentration (C) downwind of road construction activity is
related to surface silt content, (s), traffic density (Td), and surface
moisture (M) by:
at a downwind distance of 50 m. Therefore, PM10 emission factors should also
be related to similar parameters.
9.2 BASIS FOR DERIVATION OF PM10 EMISSION FACTORS
The PMLO emission factors were determined, from TSP emission- ^actors
(back-calculated using dispersion modeling) and an average ?M10/TS? ratio
measured in the field.
9.2.1 Measured Emission ^actors for Construct"' on Sits ^ggant'on
The data in Table 8 were presented by J. S. Kinsey et a 1 . in Study of
Construction Related Dust Control.
Three different construction activities were tested and are separated
oelow' by run number:
Run Nos. AH-1 and AH-2 = Topsoil removal
Run Nos. AH-4, Ari-5, AH-7, and AH-10 = Earthmoving (cut and fill)
Run Nos. AH-11 and AH-12 = Aggregate hauling (on dirt)
22
-------
TABLE 3. CALCULATED EMISSION FACTORS FOR CONSTRUCTION-RELATED FUGITIVE OUST.3
(Table 5-4 from Kinsey, 1983)
Run
No.
AH-1
AH-2
AH-3
4H-4
AH-5
AH-6
AH-7
AH-9
AH- 10
AH-1 1
AH- 12
AH- 13
AH- 14
AH- 15
AH- 16
AH- 17
AH- 18
AH- 19
Control
scenario cl
Uncontrol led
Uncontrol led
Uncontrol I ed
Uncontrol 1 ed
Uncontrol 1 ed
Uncontrol led
Uncontrol led
Uncontrol led
Uncontrol fed
Uncontrol led
Uncontrol led
Control led
Uncontrol led
Control led
Control led
Control led
Control led
Control led
Average uncontrolled
Virtual
di stance
Stab1' M ty (a in
assification merers)
0
D
,C
8
0
0
C
a
0
c
c
0
c
D
c
B
0
c
83
83
50
35
33
83
50
35
83
50
50
83
50
83
50
35
83
50
.7
.7
.3
.1
.7
.7
.8
.1
.7
.8
.8
.7
.8
.7
.8
.1
.7
.8
Mean
Dispersion wind Net downwind Vehicle
coefficient speed concentration passes/
(a ) (m/s) (10~e g/nr) minute
6.01
6.01
7.49
9.12
6.01
6.01
7.49
9.12
6.01
7.49
7.49
6.01
7.49
6.01
7.49
9.12
6.01
7.49
4.4
5.1
4.1
3.1
3.8
3.0
4.9
2.8
6.7
5.5
5.8
3.1
3.4
5.6
6.2
4.6
8.0
3.4
13,292
16,996
595
7,642
3,281
292
124
676
977
604
2,448
249
845
159
1,472
564
384
219
1 .03
1.57
0.47
1 .12
' .26
0.94
0.07
0.86
0.38
0.21
0.38
0.51
0.68
0.39
0.54
0.59
0.60
0.74
emission factor
Average controlled emission
factor
TSP emission
factor3
Kg/ven-^m iD/VMT
21 .3
20.7
2.37
11.7
3.7'
0.932
3.98
1.21
2.73
7.26
17.2
0.567
1 .94
0.357
7.74
2.42
1 .92
1.14
7.92
2.44
75
73
3
11
' J
3
14
4
9
25
61
2
6
3
27
3
6
4
28
8
.5
.4
.11
. 5
-i
0 £.
.31
. I
.29
.'36
.8
.0
.01
.38
.04
. 5
.53
.81
.04
. 1
.66
TSP = particles < - 30 ymA
VMT = vehicle miles traveled.
23
-------
The TSP emission factors were calculated from test data obtained at a distance
of 50 m downwind of the construction activity. Ratios of PM10/TSP were also
obtained during the AH-test.series and are presented in Table 9.
9.2.2 Calculation of PM1Q Emission Factors
For topsoil removal, Tests AH-1 and AH-2 are applicable. The following
calculations were made to obtain estimated PM10 emission factors for this
activity:
Average TSP emission factor = 21-3 * 2G'7 k3/VKT = 21 kg/VKT'
Average PM10/TSP rafio = °-26 * °'27 =0.27
Therefore for topsoil removal:
Average PM10 emission factor = 0.27 x 21 kg/VKT = 5.7 kg/VKT
For earthmoving (cut and fill), Tests AH-4, AH-5, AH-7, and AH-10 are
applicable. The following calculations were made to obtain estimated PM10
emission factors for this activity.
Average TSP emission factor = n-7 * 3'71 * ^.98 * 2'78 k3/VKT = 5.54 kg/VKT
Average PM10/TSP ratio = °'22 + °-23 ;°'19 + °'25 = 0.22
Therefore for earthmoving (cut and fill):
Average PM10 emission factor = 0.22 x 5.54 kg/VKT =1.2 kg/VKT
For aggregate hauling (on dirt), Tests AH-11 and AH-12 are applicable.
The following calculations were made to obtain estimated ?M10 emission factors
for this activity:
Average TSP emission factor = 7-26 * [^-2 !<(?/VKT = 12.2 '
-------
TABLE 9. NET PARTICIPATE CONCENTRATIONS AND RATIOS
(Table 4-3 from Kinsey, 1983)
Net concentration
at 25 m (ug/m )
Test 10
AH-I
AH-2
AH-3
AH-4
AH-5
AH-6
AH- 7
AH-9
AH- 10
AH-1 1
AH-!2
AH- 13
AH- 14
AH- 15
AH- 16
AH- 17
AH- 13
AH- 19
TSP
19,781
36,639
' ,285
9,104
4,419
230
192
1 ,260
2,915
692
3,267
755
1,136
933
I ,345
835
303
295
IP
5,505
12,115
232
3,321
1,226
98
56
27
782
239
746
259
309
235
401
147
99
77
PM10
4,338
9,514
171
2,648
986
80
45
236
627
192
=11
212
24^
167
311
112
78
55
FP
1 ,461
3,295
39
769
344
37
17
176
214
78
177
96
106
60
121
40
29
16
Net concentration .
at 50 m (ug/m )
TSP
13,292
16,996
595
7,642
3,281
292
124
676
977
604
2,448
249
845
159
1,472
564
384
219
IP
4,303
5,799
1 19
2,517
965
107
33
146
298
166
706
51
218
94
281
95
76
70
PM,0
3,444
4,577
31
1 ,991
758
39 '
24
94
242
137
540
40
178
43
217
62
56
50
FP
1 ,194
1 ,698
1 I
721
288
36
6
62
79
48
178
13
84
15
78
14
19
14
Ratios (net
concentranon)
at 25 m
IP/
TSP
0.28
0.33
0.18
0.36
0.28
0.43
0.29
0.18
0.27
0.34
0.23
0.34
0.27
0.25
0.22
0.18
0.33
0.26
PM ./
TSP
0.22
0.26
0.13
0.29
0.22
0.35
0.23
0.19
0.22
0.28
0.17
0.28
0.22
0.13
0.17
0.13
0.26
0.19
' FP/
TSP
0.07
0.09
0.03
0.08
0.08
0.16
0.09
0.14
0.07
0.11
0.05
0.13
0.09
0.06
0.07
0.05
0.10
0.05
Ratios (net
concenTrarion )
at 50 m
IP/
TSP
0.32
0.34
0.20
0.33
0.29
0.37
0.27
0.22
0.30
0.27
0.29
0.20
0.26
0.59
0.19
0.17
0.20
0.32
PM1(-/
TSP
0.26
0.27
0.14
0.22
0.23
0.30
0.19
0.14
0.25
0.23
0.22
0.16
0.21
0.27
0.15
0.11
0. 14
0.23
FP/
TSP
0.09
O.'O
0.02
0. 38
0.09
0.12
0.05
0.09
0-.08
O.OB
0.07
0.05
0.10
0.09
O.O7
0.05
0. 10
0.05
25
-------
9.3 RECOMMENDED PM10 EMISSION FACTORS
Based on the above calculations, the estimated PM10 emission factors are:
E10 = 5.7 kg/VKT (20 Ib/VMT) for topsoil removal
The above factor applies only to: 15 m3 capacity pan scrapers; topsoil with a
< 56 percent silt; and surface moisture in range of 1.4 to 1.9 percent.
Elo = 1.2 kg/VKT (4.3 Ib/VMT) for earthmoving (cut and fill opera-
tions)
The above factor applies only to: 15-m3 capacity pan scrapers; soil with silt
content in range of 13 to 34 percent; and surface moisture in range of 2 to
11 percent.
E10 = 2.8 kg/VKT (10 Ib/VMT) for truck haulage
The above factor applies only to 9- to 13-m3 capacity dump trucks having three
to five axles; surface silt content in range of 17 to 20 percent; and surface
moisture of 1.3 percent.
9.4 REFERENCE DOCUMENTS
AP-42, §11.2 (with references), and
Kinsey, J. S., et al., Study of Construction Related Dust Control, Contract
No. 32200-07976-01, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Roseville, MN,
April 19, 1983.
26
-------
SECTION 10.0
DEMOLITION OF STRUCTURES
10.1 BACKGROUND
The demolition of structures involves two primary sources of emissions:
destruction by explosion or wrecking ball and site removal of debris. There
is no AP-42 factor for the first category, but PMIO emission factor equations
are available for on-site materials handling and vehicle traffic.
10.2 BASIS FOR DERIVATION OF PM10 EMISSION FACTOR
Current AP-42 equations can be used for the dismemberment and transport
of debris. Also available are two measured TSP factors for truck loading with
crushed limestone using a front-end loader. These emission factors can be
related to structural floor space as shown in the following sections and then
combined to produce a composite factor.
10.2.1 PM10 Emission Factor Calculations for Demolition of Structures
Three operations are necessary in demolishing and removing structures
from a site:
Mechanical or explosive dismemberment
Debris loading
On-site truck traffic
10.2.? Mechanical or Explosive Dismemberment
The f-M-st operation is addressed through the use of the AP--12 materials
Handling aauatlon,. slnca no emission factor data are available -or o'asting or
wrecking a building.
The proposed emission factor for dismemberment and collapse of a
structure can be estimated using the AP-42 equation for batch drop operations:
ir1'3
Eg = k(0.0032) x U4 Ib/ton
27
-------
where k = 0.35 for PM10
U = mean wind speed (default = 5 mph)
M = material moisture content (Default = 2%}
and Eg = 0.0011 Ib/ton (with default parameters)
This factor can be modified for waste tonnage related to structural floor
space. The following relationships were determined from a 1976 analysis by
Murphy and Chatterjee of the demolition of 12 commercial brick, concrete, and
steel buildings:
1 ft2 floor space = 10 ft3 original building volume
1 ft3 building volume » 0.25 ft* waste volume
1 yd3 building waste = 0.5 ton weight
Mean truck capacity = 30 yd 3 haulage volume
From these data, 1 ft2 of floor space represents 0.046 ton of waste mate-
rial, and a revised emission factor related to structural floor space can be
obtained:
En = 0.0011 Ib/ton °-Q462ton
2 ft
= 0.000051 Ib/ft
10.2.3 Debris Loading
The proposed emission factor for debris loading is based on two tests of
the filling of trucks with crushed limestone using a front-end loader, part of
the test basis for the batch drop equation in AP-42, §11.2.3. Crushed
limestone was considered closest in composition to the broken brick and
plaster found in demolished commercial buildings. The measured emission
factors for crushed limestone were 0.053 and 0.063 Ib/ton TSP. To convert the
average TSP factor, 0.058 Ib/ton, to a PM10 factor with source extent of
structural floor space, the previously determined estimate of 0.046 ton/ft2
and a particle size multiplier must be used. The result is the emission
factor for debris loading:
E, = k(0.058) Ib/ton - Q-046.t0n
,ft'
= 0.30093 Ib/ft'
where k = 0.35 is taken from the new recommended particle size multipliers
developed by Muleski (1987).
10.2.4 Qn-Site Truck Traffic
The proposed emission factor for en-site truck traffic is based on the
unpaved road equation from AP-42:
>
-------
where k = 0.36 for PMto
s = silt content (default = 12%)
S = truck speed (default = 10 mph)
W = truck weight (default = 22 tons)
w = truck wheels (default = 10 wheels)
p = number of days with precipitation (default = 0 days)
For a demolition site, 10-wheel trucks of mean 22-ton gross weight are
estimated to travel 1/4 mile on-site 'for each round trip to remove dry
debris. With this information and default values for the unpaved road
equation, the proposed emission factor for on-site truck traffic becomes:
. E - (0.36X5.9) "' ( ^ WVMT . 4.5
To convert this emission factor from Ib/VMT to lb/ft2 of structural floor
space, it is necessary to use the previously described relationships obtained
from a study by Murphy and Chatter jee.
Q.25 mi yd waste 10 yd volume yd _ Q 0023 m-j/ft2
30 yd waste 4 yd volume yd floor space 9 ft
and ET = 4.5 Ib/VMT x 0.0023 mi /ft 2
= 0.010 Ib/ft*
10.3 RECOMMENDED PM10 EMISSION FACTOR
The combined emission factor for building demolition, debris loading, and
truck traffic is thus:
E10 = Eg + EL + ET
= 0.000051 -» 0.00093 + 0.010 Ib/ft*
= 56 g/m2 (0.011 Ib/ft2) of demolished floor area
It ;s easily seen that emissions from on-site truck "rif^'c constitute the
overwnelming portion of PM10 emissions from building demolition ana removai.
10.4 REFERENCE DOCUMENTS
AP-42, §11.2 (with associated references), and
Muleski, G., C. Cowherd, Jr., and P. Englehart, Update of Fugitive Dust
Emission Factors in AP-42 Section 11.2, Final Report prepared by Midwest
Research Institute for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Contract
No. 68-02-3891, Assignment No. 19, July 14, 1987.
29
-------
Murphy, K. S., and S. Chatterjee, Development of Predictive Criteria for
Demolition and Construction Solid Waste Management, Final Report prepared
by Battelle Columbus Laboratories for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
NTIS ADA 033646, October 1976.
30
-------
SECTION 11.0
OFF-HIGHWAY VEHICLE TRAVEL
11.1 BACKGROUND
Travel on' natural unpaved surfaces by two- and four-wheel vehicles is
generally related to unpaved road traffic, but the current emission factor in
AP-42 is not deemed applicable. The mechanisms of dust generation are similar
to those for unpaved roads but the travel surface is not compacted.
11.2 BASIS FOR DERIVATION OF PM10 EMISSION FACTOR
A field study of vehicle travel on natural desert terrain in Kern County,
California, produced the data in Table 10.
TABLE 10. COMPARISON OF EMISSION FACTORS FOR ROAD 2
(Table 2 from Muleski et al., 1982)
Emission factor (Ib/veh-mi)
1 Predicted value a
2 Preliminary field valuea
1 \
2 Revised field, value
3at:o of 2 to i b
Ratio of 3 to 1 °,
< 50
7
10
16
1
2
ymA
.67
.0
.6
.30
.16
< 30 umA
6.06
8.52
14.2
1.40
2.34
< 10 umA
2.83
3.75
6.26
1.33
2.21
< 5 umA
1.53
2.01
3.35
1.31
2.19
< 3 umA
0.929
1.13
1.33
i 77
2.02
^Values taken from Table 1 of cited report.
Cimensionless.
Per the above table, a PM10 emission factor for 4-wheeled light-duty vehicle
traveling over essentially natural desert terrain was obtained by:
E10 = 6.26 Ib/VMT x 0.454 kg/lb x
=1.77 kg/VKT
31
-------
For off-road motorcycles it can be assumed that:
The emission factor for 4-wheeled vehicles can be corrected for the
number of wheels and weight as in MRI unpaved road equation.
Motorcycle weight =» 400 Ib (vehicle : rider).
Pick-up truck weight = 4000 Ib.
Therefore:
E10 = 1.77 kg/VKT x(^) * (f)
, = 0.25 kg/VKT
11.3 RECOMMENDED PM10 EMISSION FACTORS
The tentative PM10 emission factors for off-highway vehicle travel are:
E10 = 1.8 kg/VKT (6.3 Ib/VMT) for 4-wheel vehicles
E10 = 0.25 kg/VKT (0.89 Ib/VMT) for motorcycles
The above emission factors apply only to: soil silt = 28 to 31 percent; and
soil moisture = 0.5 to 1.0 percent.
11.4 REFERENCE DOCUMENTS
AP-42, §11.2.1 and
Muleski, G. E., and C. Cowherd, Jr., Measurement of Fine Particle Fraction
of Road Dust Emissions, Final Report Addendum, MRI Project No. 7267-1,
Kernridge Oil Company, McKittrick, CA, April 23, 1982.
32
-------
SECTION 12.0
MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE LANDFILLS
12.1 BACKGROUND
Municipal solid waste (MSW) landfills emit participates due to traffic,
materials handling, and covering waste with soil. Although no single emission
value for landfills is given in AP-42, many of the unit operations in MSW
landfilling practice fall into the generic operations discussed in Sec-
tion 11.2. Traffic is the most important source of particulate emissions.
12.2 BASIS FOR DERIVATION OF PM10 EMISSION FACTOR
In 1987 PM10 emission inventories were prepared for two landfills in the
Chicago area. Unit operations of interest in this study were travel on un-
paved roads, materials handling of cover and other fill materials, and dozer
activity (both on the access area proximate to the lift and in spreading
cover). Current AP-42 equations were used in these inventories. Handling and
compaction of MSW were deemed negligible in terms of dust emissions because of
the generally wet and/or containerized nature. Wind erosion of all materials
considered was found to be insignificant. The two landfills were adjacent to
one another, and thus no large variation in soil/surface characteristics was
noted.
Summary information is shown below:
Average daily receipts (yd3)
MSW
--Cover and other nater-'al
Cover material (yd3) used
dai ly
One-way travel distance (mi)
from gate to disposal area
Uncontrolled PM10 emission
rate (Ib/day)
Fraction of uncontrolled emis-
sion rate due to unpaved road
travel
Landfill 1
2,400
1,900
750
1.0
1,400
82%
Landfill 2
2,000
:00
1,200
0.33
1,000
-SJ
-------
Because the major portion of emissions is due to unpaved road traffic
(i.e.,'exclusive of dozer movement), it appears reasonable to obtain a rough,
preliminary estimate of emissions based on travel distance to the MSW disposal
site:
Landfill 1: (1,400 lb/day)/(2,400 yd3/day)/(1.0 mi)
or, 0.6 Ib/yd3/mi
Landfill 2: (1,000 lb/day)/(2,000 yd3/day)/(0.33 mi)
or, 1.5 Ib/yd3/mi
Average: 1 Ib/yd3/mi
12.3 RECOMMENDED PM10 EMISSION FACTOR (PRELIMINARY)
The recommended preliminary emission factor is:
E10 = 0.4 kg/m /mi
= (1 Ib/yd3/mi)
where the source extent is expressed as the product of: (1) the volume of MSW
disposed and (2) the distance between the gate and the disposal area. Note
that (2) may vary dramatically over the life of the facility, as the active
disposal area changes with time.
This preliminary emission estimate is subject to considerable uncer-
tainty. Major sources of uncertainty are discussed below:
a. The above estimate assumed that surface and traffic conditions,
operating practices, travel routes, excavated earth characteristics,
etc., at two adjacent landfills in the Chicago area are representa-
tive of MSW site conditions throughout the United States.
b. Because there are no applicable PM10 emissions data for dozer move-
ment at landfills, the AP-42 TSP dozer equation for overburden
removal at western surface coal mines was used. This introduces
considerable uncertainty because of: (1) the vastly different oper-
ating characteristics (e.g., speed, travel distance) between surface
coal mines and landfills and (2) use of a TSP model to estimate PM,Q
emissions. !
c. Both inventoried landfills regularly apply water to control dust and
thus improve visibility. (Control efficiency values of roughly 80
percent were found.) Common practice in the geographic area of
interest should be determined prior to using the estimate.
12.4 REFERENCE DOCUMENTS
Muleski, G., and D. Hecht, PMlo Emission Inventory of Landfills in the Lake
Calumet Area, MRI Final Report, EPA Contract No. 68-02-3891, Work
Assignment 30, September 23, 1987.
34
-------
SECTION 13.0
COARSE, DRY TAILINGS PONDS
13.1 BACKGROUND
Wind erosion of coarse, dry tailings ponds is currently not addressed in
AP-42. However, the discussion of wind erosion of storage piles in AP-42
§11.2.3.3 notes that factors influencing emissions are silt and moisture
content of the erodible surface and the threshold wind velocity.
13.2 BASIS FOR DERIVATION OF PM10 -EMISSION FACTOR
A 1983 study produced an average emission factor measured for particles
< 12 umA. This PM12 factor is specific to a particle size very close to PM10
and can thus be used to estimate PM10 emissions. Table 11 presents emission
factor test results for PM12 for an uncontrolled tailings pond.
TABLE 11. WIND EROSION EMISSION FACTOR TESTING
(Table 7 from Bonn, 1983)
Test
No.
,
2
3
4
5
5
-7
15
16
13
19
42a
43
Oate
3/28
5/23
5/29
6/15
~/'5
5/!5
5/'5
7/27
7/27
7/28
7/28
9/22
9/22
Tai 1 i
Product and (moisture)
d i 1 ut ion ( J)
Coherex 12:1
Coherex 9: 1
L i gnosu i fonate 8 : i
Coherex 12:1
Cone'-ex '2: '
'cnerex ? :
'_ i gnosu l fonare 3 : 1
L i gnosu 1 fonare 4 1
L i gnosu 1 fonate 3 : 1
Naico 655
Magnesium chloride
(tested on dry
section)
Uncontrol 1 ed
Uncontrol led
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.26
.33
.32
.46
.46
.23
.55
.28
.30
.10
.57
.37
.35
nos
(Silt)
(J)
0
0
4
i
1
2
3
0
1
5
0
]
.05
.03
.4
.6
.6
.3
.3
.3
.30
.30
.50
.50
.0
Thresnol d
veloci ty
(10 m hei
53
53
50
32
32
46
3 i
43
46
45
31
40
43
Test
veloci ty
gnt-mph )
50
50
50
40
40
50
40
50
50
50
40
45
50
Emission factor (x 0.001)
< 2 urn < 2. I am
(grams/Tii nute/sauare -nerer)
2
2
?
7"1
'6
3
285
1360
1 16
1500
73
25
.02
.53
.58
.2
.2
.331
.50
.8
.6
' .23
' .23
2.53
:.: 6
2 . ' '
:.C96
0. '30
54.0
216
18.2
2'3
17.2
3.10
35
-------
The average PM12 emission factor and threshold wind velocity can be
calculated from Tests 42a and 43 by:
- Average PM12 emission factor = 73.8 + 25.6 mq/mVmin of erosion time
=49.7 mg/m2/mir
Average threshold velocity = 40 + 43 mPh = 42 oiph x 0.447 Ol^i
2 mph
= 19 m/s
Assuming PM12 = PM10 and rearranging in equation form:
Eio - 49.7 Tv
where E10 = PM10 emission factor per unit surface ar-^ of exposed tailings
(mg/m2) per time period of interest
Tv = number of minutes wind velocity exceeds 19 m/s at 10 m above
surface during time period of interest
Application of the above equation requires detailed site-specific data
for both source parameters and meteorology. An acceptable procedure to
estimate the wind velocity term (Tv) would involve use of historical data from
a nearby operating weather station operated by the National Weather Service.
These data are available for many locations in the U.S. from the National
Climatic Data Center, Asheville, North Carolina. The actual procedure would
involve ordering the individual data points from lowest to highest wind speed
and then simply determining the percentage of observations that exceed the
calculated threshold velocity.
If the data are reported for 3-h periods and by the mean number of days
per year that winds exist in each period, the above equation could be modified
as follows:
- - 49 7 - = dQ 7 x '80 m1n N°- of
-' ^'' ' y'7 x -au
period year '~ "/A
where E10 = PM10 emission factor per unit surface area of exposed tailings
(mg/m2)
TVA = No. of days per year that winds exceed 33 knots (as indicated
by NCDC data) for each 3-h period
Due to the nature of how the wind data are collected and reported, it is
expected that very small (if any) Tu^ values will be shown for most reporting
stations and thus severely limit application of the above equation.
36
-------
13.3 RECOMMENDED PM10 EMISSION FACTOR
The following tentative emission factor is proposed for coarse, dry
tailings.
EIO = 50 TV mg/m2 (4.6 mg/ft2) of exposed tailings surface per unit
time period
where TV = number of minutes wind velocity exceeds 19 m/s (42 mph) at
10 m above surface during time period of interest (e.g.,
annual)
The assumptions which underlie the above estimate of PM10 emissions; are:
1. The emission factor for < 12 umA particles is essentially equal to
PM10.
2. A surface moisture content of 0.35 to 0.37 percent (dry conditions).
3. A surface silt content of 0.5 to 1.0 percent (coarse tailings).
13.4 REFERENCE DOCUMENTS
AP-42, §11.2.3.3 (with its references), and
Bohn, R. R., and J. D. Johnson, Dust Control of Active Tailings Ponds,
Contract No. J0218024, U.S. Bureau of Mines, Washington, DC, February
1983.
37
-------
SECTION 14.0
TRANSPORTATION TIRE WEAR
14.1 BACKGROUND
The particles emitted from vehicle tires are known to be related to
traffic type and use (roadway classification). AP-42 currently does not
report any factors to estimate tire wear emissions.
14.2 BASIS FOR DERIVATION OF PM10 EMISSION FACTOR
Several laboratory, and roadway studies have been made of particles
emitted from rubber tires of light-duty vehicles. After review of these
studies, the EPA developed a PM10 factor in a 1985 document, EPA 460/3-85-
005.
14.3 RECOMMENDED PM10 EMISSION FACTOR
The estimated PM10 emission factor is:
E10 = 1 mg/VKT (2 mg/VMT)
The above factor was developed for light-duty vehicles.
14.4 REFERENCE DOCUMENTS
Site Specific Total Paniculate Emission Factors for Mobile Sources, EPA 460/3-
85-005, Prepared for EPA, Ann Arbor, MI, by Energy and Env.ironmenta 1
Analysis, Inc., August 1985.
38
-------
SECTION 15.0
TRANSPORTATION BRAKE WEAR
15.1 BACKGROUND
The use of brakes in vehicle traffic causes emissions of asbestos-
containing 'brake material as the brake pads are worn away with each brake
application. Emissions are related to vehicle type, number of stops/mile and
to severity of braking. Currently no emission factor exists in AP-42.
15.2 BASIS FOR DERIVATION OF PM10 EMISSION FACTOR
Airborne particulate emissions have been determined as related to braking
action and corrected to PM10. These laboratory-derived factors are reported
in a 1985 report, EPA 460/3-85-005.
15.3 RECOMMENDED PM10 EMISSION FACTOR
The estimated PM10 factor is:
Elo = 7.8 mg/VKT (13 mg/VMT)
and applies to light-duty vehicles.
15.4 REFERENCE DOCUMENTS
Site Specific Total Particulate Emission Factors for Mobile Sources, EPA 460/3-
85-005, Prepared for EPA, Ann Arbor, MI, by Energy and Environmental
Analysis, Inc., August 1985.
39
-------
SECTION 16.0
ROAD SANDING/SALTING
16.i BACKGROUND
After sand/salt mixtures are applied to roads to increase traction on
snow and ice, vehicle traffic serves .to reentrain the participate,
particularly the silt fraction deposited in active lanes. Some additional
silt is formed by grinding. Emissions are much greater under dry road
conditions. A current AP-42 emission factor equation for loaded (industrial)
paved roads is relevant for short-term periods (hours to days) only, as the
sand/salt mixture is quickly depleted from the travel surface.
16.2 BASIS FOR DERIVATION OF PM10 EMISSION FACTOR
The following table presents typical mixtures of salt and sand for road
sanding:
Locality
Colorado
Kansas
Kansas City, MO
Overland Park, KS
Parts NaCl
1
1
1
1
Parts Sand
10 to 20
0 to 4
3 to 4
3
The above discussion is presented to show that road sand commonly in-
cludes a significant salt fraction. For purposes of emission factor develop-
ment, the salt and sand road loadings are treated separately below.
16.2,1 PMIO Emissions from Sand
The entire ?M10 fraction contained ~'n tne silt of tne aopiiea sand is
assumed to become airborne. The mass of emissions reentrained by road traffic
is related to sand quantity and size distribution. According to a Kansas City
road sand supplier, river sand is washed, with > 99.5 percent then being re-
tained on a 200-mesh (75-urn) screen. Missouri State sample analysis has shown
0.2 to 0.5 percent < 75 vm. A calculated mean silt has been reported at
0.35 percent. An analysis of PM10/PM75 ratios for western sandy soils gives
an average ratio of 0-.0026. See Table 12.
40
-------
o
LU
£
^j -*^
z co
< 01
^^
LU
LU >>
> cu
vi vi
c
Lu "
O ^
vi S
1 O
J i"
2 tw
LU T
Q£
CU
^j*
* ^3
CM tw
M>4 I-M
"*
LU
*
d
^
h*
* *.
(U
-o a-
-uJ C
(/I fQ
3 S-
-a
4j oj
(U 03
4J 4-1
VI
VI
"a
VI
^^
_J
< -C
ai
a ai
^O
^
F"*
.M"*
ai
o < a
o
c ai
"3 3
<:
m
j_,
*
'a.
VI
CM
j_(
*
p
a.
VI
*-^
^J
1
^B
a.
VI
HI
an
«s
CJ
m
^^
l«-
lr*~
t Q-
C^>
CNJ
^J
»
r^~
» a.
jt^i
1
^*
Q.
VI
--"*
w
U
^
QJ
=
U
VI
>^
^*
a.
co to
CO <
C^l \,Q
O Q\
~* ro
» * ^*
CO
10 LT)
O (^
T
O UO
*
o
H
-^ urt
PN. O
O^ 00
*O ^3
r*** »^
^^ vo
fN, O
<*> CSJ
«
r»v O
r*x »-^
no CM
o
M ,4
* *
O
r*s. MM
c^ '-O
* >
"" O
fX. MM
^o o
o
^^ ^r
^^ i
A O
i
on
to
CTI
CTI
LO
on
O
*<
on
**
CM
^
^.
CM
^
^
CTI
on
LO
*
LO
in
on
CO
o
CT>
CM
o
;*v.
f*>
a%
CO
CO
0
1
f*1
IT>
^r
0
CTI
T
to
co
T
CM
CO
on
CM
on
T
O
LO
T
tO
LO
^"
CTt
oo
CO
CO
o*>
p^.
LO
on
MM
^o
^3"
CO
T
m
^T
i
on
LO
^
^^
on
i""*
_
on
o
CM
on
LO
CTI
CM
«M
LO
CM
to
LO
CM
LO
LO
CM
^
CM
CM
CO
^J»
LO
CO
T
tO
CT*
T
tO
tO
,3.
LO
1
m
C7\
t-Q
^O
^o
CM
00
CM
MM
^*
CO
^Q
p^»
fV,
O
_4
^H
on
4
'
O
o
^^
^
on
,*
CO
CM
~
00
T
~*
tO
CM
_
0
on
O
ai
*
*
^
O)
^
o
a
o
o
Cft
CSJ
i
0
^-
o
o
o
tO
"3*
^T
O
.
o
MM
MM
*^
a
o
'-O
on
CM
o
o
0
V
en
c
>
ai
VI
U
O
VI
>
a
OJ
J^
,^m
VI
VI
fQ
(J
a.
E
^r
V
i/i
^-
u_
"c
(Q
U
u«
-M-
*
Q"
-MB
L/l
CU
OJ
s
o
-J
J
VI
c
3
03
(J
^
taM
^
C^
a
"o
c
JC
u
HI
H-
^
> ^
a. fa a
£ .^
-3 i
LO a. vi
O 3
H- -a
0 *J
VI VI
ai
a t *j
3 13
vi a aj
s = -a
a -o u
ai ai ai
-it ^
J- i_ O)
1 I u
VI
O S-
»- "O O)
VI t
VI VI
dj oj
4-> ra C
I4_ O) 1-
O S 3
o -a
o ai-a
-- ai
-C U
c a. C 4-
O) 0) (J
*^" c^ 4J
vi O i
= 0)
= 00
=.J= ^3
O ^J w
^-4 VI 4U
0
OJ S "4
^. r O
> -3
.4_i
vi -z
VI ^J 3
'Q 2 -^
a. i. cu
o u
O t4_
^J 01
^^ ^
W -A^
'^3 fQ -4^
c
3 fU
O vi
14^ ^J
( >,
VI CJ rt3
a £
3 4J
U VI
i
-------
The estimated PM10 emissions from road sanding are calculated as follows:
Elo = 2,000 f (s/100) Ib/ton of sand applied
= 7.5 g/metric ton (0.018 Ib/ton)
where f is the proportion of PM10 in the silt fraction of sand (default frac-
tion of 0.0026), and s is the silt content (percent) of the sand (default of
0.35 percent).
16.2.2 PM10 Emissions from Salt
Both calcium chloride and sodium chloride are used for treating icy
roads. Only PM10 emissions from sodium chloride (rock salt) will be estimated
since the amount of applied calcium chloride is usually'quite small.
The very finest screenings of rock salt of 98 to 99 percent purity con-
tain relatively large concentrations of anhydrite grains. A considerable
amount of this material is assumed to dry on the road and eventually to become
airborne as PM10, i.e., 0.2 percent of the total salt applied.
An estimate of PM10 emissions from the 98 to 99 percent pure salt is
based on an estimate of 5 percent of the salt remaining as a dried film on the
road pavement, and 10 percent of this salt film driven off as particles of
< 10 urn physical diameter. This latter number is based on a sonic sieve
analysis of powdered NaCl. PM10 emissions from salt applied to roads are cal-
culated as follows:
Elo = (0.05)(0.10)(2,000 lb)/ton of salt applied
= 10 Ib/ton of salt applied
16.2.3 Example Calculation of Annual PM10 Emissions from Sand/Sal-t
Application
An example calculation of yearly PM10 emissions from the State of Iowa
demonstrates the use of the sand and salt emission factors. In Iowa, the
typical aoplication rate of salt per snow day is known to be 510 Ib/mi; the
aoolication 'ate for sand is estimated at 1.000 "b/mi. Mean annual snow days
for Iowa are 10 days with 13,100 mi treated with sa it/sand '.'aoie 12). PM,0
emissions are calculated as follows:
1 nnn IK *** °-018 lb PMio
Elo = 13,100 1-lane mi x ^^ **nd x 2QOQ 1b $and
= 167,615 Ib/yr
= 84 ton/yr
As is snown above, the emissions from salt predominate.
42
-------
TABLE 13. MILEAGE OF TREATED HIGHWAYS AND TOLLWAYS,
AND MEAN ANNUAL SNOW DAYS BY STATE
(Table H-2 from McElroy, 1976)
State
Northeastern States
Maine
New Hampshire.
Vermont
Massachusetts
Connecticut
Rhode Island
New York
Pennsylvania
New Jersey
Delaware
Maryland
Virginia
North-Central States
Ohio
West Virginia
Kentucky
Indiana
1 11 i no i s
Michigan
Wisconsin
Minnesota
North Dakota
Southern States
Arkansas
Tennessee
North Carolina
Mississippi
Alabama
Georgia
South Carolina
Louisiana
Florida
Single-lane
kilometers
treated
x l,000a
12.1
11.3
7.4
15.1
15. 1.
8.4b
59.4
89.0
12.9
1.3
10.8
22.2
173. lb
27.2
34.9
25.3
62.9
37.8
40.0,
186.0°
in.ab
NA
NA
12.2
5.3
0.1
7.2
NA
NA
0.0
(continued)
43
Single-lane
miles
treated
x l,000a
- 7.5
7.0
4.6
9.4
9A
5.2b
36.9
55.3
8.0
0.8
6.7
13.8
107. 6b
16.9
21.7
15.7
39.1
23.5
25.0,
115. 6b
69. 5b
NA
NA
7.6
3.3
0.1
4.5
NA
NA
0.0
Mean annual
snow days0
30
30
20
18
15
12
20 -
18
7
5
8
5
10
12
5
8
9
20
18
15
10
3
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
0
-------
TABLE 13 (Continued)
State
West-Central States
Iowa
Missouri
Kansas
South Dakota
Nebraska
Colorado
Southwestern States
Oklahoma
New Mexico
Texas
Western States
Washington
Idaho-
Montana
Oregon
Wyoming
California
Nevada
Utah
Arizona
District of Columbia
- > dSKd
Hawaii
Single-lane
kilometers
treated
x-l,000a
21.1
51.5
41.7
96.9°
123.9°
3.9
NA
11.7
NA
24.6
16.1
3.2
29.3
20.3
9.7
NA
20.4
NA
1.3
NA
0.0
Single-lane
miles
treated
x l,000a
13.1
32.0
25. 9U
60. 2^
77.0°
2.4
NA
7.3
NA
15.3
10.0
2.0
18.5
12.6
6.0
NA
12.7
NA
1 0.8
NA
0.0
Mean annual
snow daysc
10
7
7
10
10
20
3
1C
3
15
20
20
20
20
5
10
20
10
7
^ *^
0
aSource: Hares, R. E., L. W. Zelazny, and R. E. Blaser, Effects of Deicing
Salts on Water Quality and Biota, Highway Research Board, National Cooperative
Highway Research Program Report 91 (1970).
°MRI estimates.
GSource: U.S. Department of the Interior, Geological Survey, The National Atlas
of the United States (1970).
NA = Not available.
44
-------
16.3 RECOMMENDED PMro EMISSION FACTOR(S)
The recommended PM10 factor for sand application to roads is:
E10 = 2,000 f (s/100) Ib/ton of sand applied
= 7.5 g/metric ton (0.018 Ib/ton)
where f is the proportion of PMIO in the silt fraction of sand (default value
of 0.0026), and s is the silt content (percent) of the sand (default of
0.35 percent).
The recommended PM10 factor for salt application to roads is:
E10 = 4.3 kg/metric ton (10 Ib/ton)
The above factors apply to typical application scenarios of river sand
and salt mixtures applied to snow and ice covered travel lanes. Emissions of
road sand mixture < 10 ym occur over long periods of time (weeks) following
road sanding. Runoff of PM10 fraction in melted ice and snow is assumed to be
offset by traffic grinding of the sand and salt mixture and creation of new
PM10 fractions.
16.4 REFERENCE DOCUMENTS
AP-42, §11.2.6 (with associated references), and
Cowherd, C. Jr., and M. A. Grelinger, Prediction of Inhalation Exposure to
Participates for New Chemical Review, Final Report prepared for EPA,
Washington, D.C. by Midwest Research Institute, October 1987.
Kaufmann, 0. W., editor, Sodium Chloride: The Production and Properties of
Salt and Brine, American Chemical Society Monograph Series, Hafner Pub-
lishing Co., New York, NY, 1968.
Kinsey, J. S., Mineral Characterization of Selected Soil Samples, Final Report
prepared by Midwest Research Institute for New Mexico University Physical
Sciences Laboratory, Las Cruces, NM, January 1986.
McElroy, A. 0., at al., Loading Functions for Assessment of Water Doi'u-
tion from Nonpoint Sources, EPA-600/2-76-151, Prepared for EPA,
Washington, DC, by Midwest Research Institute, May 1976.
45
-------
SECTION 17.0
UNPAVED PARKING LOTS
17.1 INTRODUCTION
Particle emissions are produced by vehicle traffic on any unpaved sur-
face, including parking lots. Average vehicle characteristics (such as speed,
weight, etc.) are dependent upon the size and purpose of lot. Source extent
(i.e., distance traveled in the lot) is also dependent upon those factors, as
well as the average fraction of the lot in use over an averaging time, driver
preference, orientation of entrance/exit(s) , and ultimate destination(s) ,
etc.
17.2 BASIS FOR DERIVATION OF PM10 EMISSION FACTOR
The AP-42 PM10 unpaved road predictive emission factor equation was used
to estimate travel emissions from vehicles in parking lots. This unpaved road
equation is:
- »« (fe) (Iff)
E . 2.! ,b/VMT
where: s = silt content of aggregate or road surface material (%)
"S = average vehicle speed, kph (mph)
W = average vehicle weight, Mg (tons)
w = average number of vehicle wheels
p = number of wet days (> 0.254 mm or 0.01 in of precioitation)
The emission factor is based on assumed values of:
Silt = 12 percent
Avg. No. of wheels = 4
Avg. weight = 3 tons (2.7 Mg)
and an assumed speed of 10 mph (16 kph) in the lot. Ten miles per hour was
assumed here to restrict attention to parking lots only.
The source extent used in the proposed emission factor equation, L+W
meters, assumed that the average one-way trip consists of driving between the
46
-------
middle of the lot and the exit. It is further assumed that the one-way dis-
tance is (L+W)/2 (i.e., the vehicle travels halfway down the perpendicular
dimension and halfway down the parallel dimension). Because each vehicle
parked must travel both legs of (l+W)/2, the total distance traveled by each
vehicle parked is 2 x (L+W)/2 = L+W.
17.3 RECOMMENDED PMlo EMISSION FACTOR
E10 = 0.2 "ngc^ (L + W) g/vehicle parked (in time period of interest)
where p = number of days/year with rain (Figure 11.2.1-1 in AP-42)
I = dimension of parking lot (m) perpendicular to aisles
W = dimension of parking lot (m) parallel to aisles
Several assumptions were made in obtaining the preliminary estimate.
These were described in Section 17.2. In addition, several caveats should be
noted:
a. The emission factor and the source extent may be very site-specific
in that' use of the lot may be by heavier vehicles, or may be shared
by a number of facilities (thus resulting in clusters, each'with
their own source extent). In addition, driver preference may result
in substantially higher travel speeds or in longer travel dis-
tances.
b. The equation recommended earlier will require that the total number
of vehicles parked per unit time be determined by counting or other
means. This may not be practical in all instances.
17.4 REFERENCE DOCUMENTS
AP-42 §11.2.
47
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
fP'.i J5c rt ~J In*;rui :t
------- |