United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
EPA/600/R-01/031
April 2001
SEPA Research and
Development
Particulate Emission Measurements from
Controlled Construction Activities
Prepared for
'..'.':*,. ~PA Headquarters Libnrv
Mail code 32C1
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
WashUy.on DC 20460
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Prepared by
National Risk Management
Research Laboratory
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
-------
FOREWORD
The U. S. Environmental Protection Agency is charged by Congress with pro-
tecting the Nation's land, air, and water resources. Under a mandate of national
environmental laws, the Agency strives to formulate and implement actions lead-
ing to a compatible balance between human activities and the ability of natural
systems to support and nurture life. To meet this mandate, EPA's research
program is providing data and technical support for solving environmental pro-
blems today and building a science knowledge base necessary to manage our eco-
logical resources wisely, understand how pollutants affect our health, and pre-
vent or reduce environmental risks in the future.
The National Risk Management Research Laboratory is the Agency's center for
investigation of technological and management approaches for reducing risks
from threats to human health and the environment. The focus of the Laboratory's
research program is on methods for the prevention and control of pollution to air,
land, water, and subsurface resources, protection of water quality in public water
systems; remediation of contaminated sites and-groundwater; and prevention and
control of indoor air pollution. The goal of this research effort is to catalyze
development and implementation of innovative, cost-effective environmental
technologies; develop scientific and engineering information needed by EPA to
support regulatory and policy decisions; and provide technical support and infor-
mation transfer to ensure effective implementation of environmental regulations
and strategies.
This publication has been produced as part of the Laboratory's strategic long-
term research plan. It is published and made available by EPA's Office of Re-
search and Development to assist the user community and to link researchers
with their clients.
E. Timothy Oppelt, Director
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
EPA REVIEW NOTICE
This report has been peer and administratively reviewed by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, and approved for publication. Mention of trade names or
commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.
This document is available to the public through the National Technical Information
Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161
-------
EPA/600/R-01/031
April 2001
Particulate Emission Measurements from
Controlled Construction Activities
By
Gregory E. Muleski and Chatten Cowherd, Jr.
Midwest Research Institute
425 Volker Boulevard
Kansas City, Missouri 64110-2299
EPA Contract No. 68-D-70-002
EPA Work Assignment Manager
Charles C. Masser
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Air Pollution Prevention and Control Division
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
Prepared for:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Research and Development
Washington, DC 20460
-------
Abstract
This report summarizes the results of field testing of the effectiveness of control I
measures for sources of fugitive particulate emissions found at construction sites. I
Tests of the effectiveness of watering of temporary unpaved travel surfaces on PM-10 —
emissions were performed in Beloit, Kansas during September 1999. The tested
operation was scraper transit. Tests of the effectiveness of paved and graveled access
aprons on mud/dirt trackout from unpaved truck exit routes were performed in
Grandview, Missouri during November 1999. In the latter tests, moisture content and
soil type were varied to determine whether watering of exit routes, while reducing on-
site emissions, might have an offsetting effect of increasing emissions attributable to
mud/dirt trackout controls in place.
-------
Contents
Abstract ii
Figures v
Tables vi
Acronyms and Abbreviations vii
Conversion Factors viii
Chapter 1 Introduction 1
Background 1
Historical Emission Factors 1
Recent Field Studies 2
Scope of the 1999 Field Study 3
Organization of the Report 4
Chapter 2 Air Sampling Methodology 5
Test Sites and Overview of Tested Operations 5
Air Sampling Test Methods 12
Ancillary Measurements 17
Data Reduction 19
Chapter 3 Test Site Results 23
Watering Control of Scraper Transit Emissions 23
Discussion of the Watering Test Results 28
Particle Size Data for Watered and Unwatered Travel Routes 34
Mud/Dirt Trackout Study Test Results 40
Discussion of the Mud/Dirt Trackout Results 44
-------
Chapter 4 Quality Assurance/Quality Control Activities 49
Quality Control 49
Data Audit 50
Data Assessment 51
Chapter 5 Summary and Conclusions 53
References 55
Appendices
A Site-Specific Test Plan, Revision 1 A-i
B Quality Assurance Project Plan, Revision 1 B-i
C North Central Kansas Technical College Sampling Data C-1
D Example Calculation — Run BY-201 D-1
E Second-Tier Meteorological Observations E-1
F Particle Sizing Data F-1
G Deramus Field Station Sampling Data G-1
IV
-------
Figures
2-1. NCKTC overview 6
2-2. Schematic illustration of test procedure for moving point source (NCKTC). ... 7
2-3. Overview of DPS test site 8
2-4. Trackout and sampling areas for Phase 1 (DPS) 10
2-5. Trackout and sampling areas for Phase 2 (DPS) 11
2-6. Trackout and sampling areas for Phase 3 (DPS) 12
2-7. Trackout and sampling areas for Phase 4 (DPS) 13
2-8. Sampler deployment at NCKTC 14
2-9. Cyclone preseparator operated at 40 cfm 15
2-10. Cyclone preseparator - cascade impactor operated at 20 cfm 16
3-1. Decay of moisture content with time after watering (NCKTC) 29
3-2. Decay of instantaneous control efficiency with time after watering (NCKTC) . 30
3-3. Decay of average control efficiency with time after watering (NCKTC) 31
3-4. Best fit lines for average control efficiency decay with time after watering
(NCKTC) 32
3-5. Exponential decay in surface moisture content with time after watering
(NCKTC) 34
3-6. Instantaneous PM-10 control efficiency versus surface moisture content
(NCKTC) 35
3-7. Comparison of instantaneous control efficiency with previously published
function (NCKTC) 36
3-8. Particle size distributions for 1998 uncontrolled scraper transit emissions
(BV runs) from reference 3 37
3-9. Comparison of particle size distributions for 1999 BY runs and 1998 BV runs 38
3-10. Correlation between PM-2.5/PM-10 ratio and PM-10 emission factor 39
3-11. Average control efficiency decay rates for PM-10 and PM-2.5 versus
relative humidity 41
3-12. Correlation between loading and moisture content for sandy soil in
conjunction with gravel apron (DPS) 47
-------
Tables
2-1. Moisture Content Determination 17
2-2. Silt Content Determination 18
3-1. Test Site Parameters 24
3-2. Isokinetic Correction Parameters (By Runs) 25
3-3. Plume Sampling Data 26
3-4. Emission Factors 28
3-5. Decay Rates Fitted by Least-Squares Linear Regression 31
3-6. Correlation Matrix 32
3-7. PM-2.5 Control Efficiency Values 40
3-8. Trackout Study Test Parameters 42
3-9. Surface Loading Results (DFS) 43
3-10. Summary Statistics for Loading Values 46
3-11. Control Efficiency Values 46
4-1. Data Quality Objectives 50
4-2. Critical and Non-Critical Measurements for Emission Factors 52
VI
-------
ACE
acfm
DPS
DQO
EPA
ICE
IFR
MRI
NCKTC
PM
PM-X
QA
vmt
Acronyms and Abbreviations
Average control efficiency
Actual cubic feet per minute
Deramus Field Station (located in Grandview, Missouri)
Data quality objective
Environmental Protection Agency
instantaneous control efficiency
Isokinetic flow ratio
Midwest Research Institute
North Central Kansas Technical College (located in Beloit, Kansas)
Particulate matter
Particulate matter less than X jirn in aerodynamic diameter
Quality assurance
Relative humidity
Silt loading
Vehicle miles traveled
vii
-------
Conversion Factors
Certain nonmetric units are used in this report for the reader's convenience. Readers
who are more familiar with the metric system may use the following to convert to that
system.
Nonmetric
ft
cfm
yd3
ton
Ib
Multiplied by
0.3048
1.70
0.7646
0.907
0.4536
Yields metric
m
m3/hr
m3
metric ton
kg
VIII
-------
Chapter 1
Introduction
This report summarizes the results of field testing of the effectiveness of control
measures for sources of fugitive particulate emissions found at construction sites.
Tests of the effectiveness of watering of temporary unpaved travel surfaces on PM-10
emissions were performed in Beloit, Kansas during September 1999. The tested
operation was scraper transit. Tests of the effectiveness of paved and graveled access
aprons on mud/dirt trackout from unpaved truck exit routes were performed in
Grandview, Missouri during November 1999. In the latter tests, moisture content and
soil type were varied to determine whether watering of exit routes, while reducing on-
site emissions, might have an offsetting effect of increasing emissions attributable to
mud/dirt trackout from higher moisture soils, even with trackout controls in place.
Background
Historical Emission Factors
Although it has long been recognized that construction activity forms an important
source of PM emissions throughout the United States, only limited research has been
directed to its characterization. The background document1 for AP-42, "Heavy
Construction Activities," notes that the section remained unchanged from its original
publication in 1975 for approximately 20 years because no new data had become
available during that time. Furthermore, the data supporting the original 1975 section
were based on a test method that could characterize only area-wide effects on air
quality. The 1975 emission factor for construction activities had the form
e = 1.2 ton/acre-month of activity
where e represents total suspended particulate (TSP) matter emissions.
The 1975 factor could neither distinguish overall variations in emissions between
different phases (e.g., land clearing, earthmoving, general construction) nor rank in
importance different emission categories (e.g., material handling, general vehicle
travel). Instead, all emissions from a particular construction site were "smeared"
uniformly in both a spatial and temporal sense. In other words, this assumed that all
-------
areas within the construction site emit at the same level and emissions are constant
from beginning to end of a construction project.
To at least partially address shortcomings in the AP-42 estimation method for specific
sites, a 1993 update1 supplemented the single-valued factor given above with a "unit
operation" approach. Under this approach, construction activities could be broken
down into generic operations (such as truck travel over an unpaved surface, site
preparation by graders or scrapers, or truck loading/dumping) and emissions from the
generic operations could be estimated on the basis of factors in other sections of
AP-42.
The unit operation approach itself had the following drawbacks:
1. Most of the factors had to be adapted from other industries - most notably,
surface coal mining. Because of differences in how equipment is operated
between different industries, there were concerns about how well emission
factors based on tests in one industry can predict emission levels from another
industry.
2. The measurement techniques used to characterize many of unit operations (in
other industries) were generally not capable of successfully isolating an
individual emission source. This was also true for the very limited amount of
data actually collected at active construction sites.
3. Because of limitations in the underlying data sets, the factors included in AP-42
did not use a consistent set of source activity measures. For example, the factor
for scraper loading was based on the distance that the equipment moves while
the factor for unloading referred to the mass of material deposited.
Recent Field Studies
Subsequent application of the AP-42 estimation methods at several western U.S.
construction sites2 suggested that earthmoving activities could easily account for 70 to
90 percent of the PM-10 emissions estimated for any single construction site. The
movement of aggregate materials forms another potentially important source of
particulate emissions at construction sites throughout the United States. In many
cases, bringing the site to final grade will necessitate either bringing material into the
site for fill or shipping excess cut material off-site. Besides the cut/fill operations, a
variety of other operations at construction sites require the loading, transport and
unloading of aggregate material.
These studies reaffirmed the need to develop more specific emission factors for
earthmoving and other construction operations in order to provide the greatest
improvement in reliability of estimates. However, earthmoving activities present a
-------
serious challenge in terms of planning emission test programs. Because the goal of an
earth moving project is to alter the physical landscape, a pre-test site survey conducted
4 to 6 weeks prior to the start of field testing may not provide an accurate
representation of the physical conditions that could be expected at the time testing
begins. Beyond the fact that general site conditions are changing, individual
earthmoving operations may restrict access for sampling purposes. For example, cuts
involve concave cross-sections, which limit how close one can physically locate air
sampling equipment near the open emission source.
In 1998, EPA sponsored a field testing program of earthmoving emissions at sites in
Menlo and Beloit, Kansas.3 To address the logistical difficulties in anticipating
earthmoving tests at active construction sites, the program relied on "captive"
operations in the sense that operations were largely controlled in orientation and
sequencing during testing. The captive operations employed scrapers of the same type
that are typically used at construction sites. The most important implications of the
"captive" nature of the tests are that (a) sources are favorably oriented with respect to
prevailing wind direction and (b) that the total operational cycle (loading, unloading, and
transportation) represents a fairly short period of time to facilitate testing. Emissions were
characterized from scraper loading ("cut"), unloading ("fill"), and transport operations at
a heavy equipment vocational school in Beloit, Kansas and at a private feedlot in
Menlo, Kansas. The 1998 test program3 confirmed past studies that had found that a
substantial fraction of PM (particulate matter) emissions from construction activities is
related to movement of earth and other materials around the site.
Scope of the 1999 Field Study
Because of the generally short-term nature of travel routes at construction sites,
operators throughout the United States commonly employ water to control PM rather
than relying on more expensive and efficient chemical dust suppressants. Although PM
emissions from watered unpaved roads have attracted attention since at least the early
1980s, only two tests of watering effectiveness had been conducted at construction
sites, prior to the 1999 field study. In addition to the simple scarcity of data specifically
referenced to construction sites, there have been concerns about how well test results
from unpaved roadways can be applied to temporary travel routes at construction sites.
Because temporary routes are not nearly as well constructed as roadways, available
data may not accurately reflect the efficiency afforded by watering at construction sites.
The first half of the 1999 field testing program, described in the body of this report, built
upon the 1998 program. MRI returned to North Central Kansas Technical College
(NCKTC) in Beloit, Kansas and examined the control efficiency of water applied to the
travel surface in controlling emissions from scrapers in transit. Testing spanned a
range of common water application rates as well as a range of ambient conditions
(such as relative humidity, cloud cover and solar radiation) that affect evaporation rates.
-------
The second half of the 1999 program was conducted at MRI's Deramus Field Station
(DPS) in Grandview, Missouri. These tests explored an unwelcome consequence of
watering unpaved travel surfaces at construction sites—namely, the increase in
mud/dirt trackout onto surrounding paved streets. For construction projects that require
imported fill or the need to truck out excess cut material, watered travel routes increase
the amount of mud and dirt carried from the site and deposited on the public paved
roads adjacent to the construction site. Thereafter, all vehicles (and not just those
associated with the construction project) can emit PM from the deposited material as it
is abraded and entrained from the paved roads. Of particular interest is identifying the
moisture level at which watering becomes "counterproductive"—in other words, the
point at which any net decrease in on-site travel emissions is more than offset by an
increase in off-site emissions from trackout.
The DPS facility provided a captive site for the testing of mud/dirt carryout. Again,
"captive" is used to indicate that MRI could tightly control experimental variables such
as the surface moisture content of the unpaved site access area as well as the number
and type of vehicles leaving the site. The impact of trackout emissions was measured
in terms of mass of mud/dirt per vehicle passing from the access apron to the paved
test strip.
Organization of the Report
The remainder of this report is structured as follows. Chapter 2 describes the sampling
and analysis procedures that were used in the field testing. Chapter 3 summarizes and
discusses the results obtained. Chapter 4 discusses the quality assurance/quality
control aspects of the program. Chapter 5 presents the conclusions drawn from the
program, and the list of references follows. The appendices contain data generated
during the program as well supporting information and documentation.
-------
Chapter 2
Air Sampling Methodology
Test Sites and Overview of Tested Operations
As noted in Chapter 1, the field program to quantify watering effectiveness as a dust
control was performed on "captive" operations at two different facilities. The first set of
tests took place in September 1999 at the North Central Kansas Technical College
(NCKTC) located near Beloit, Kansas. This is the same facility where MRI conducted
emission tests of scraper operations in 1998. Figure 2-1 presents a general layout of
the test site.
Testing at NCKTC was performed in conjunction with "hands-on" vocational training.
As part of their training, each morning students operating up to five scrapers formed a
cut of approximate dimensions 250 ft long, 70 ft wide, and 8 ft deep. The cut material
was stockpiled at the location shown in Figure 2-1. After lunch, the students replaced
the stockpiled material in the cut made during the morning.
The transit of empty scrapers (returning from the fill to the cut area) was selected as the
source to be tested. Note that, in contrast to the 1998 program that focused on cut/fill
operations, MRI requested that the empty scraper return route be placed to the south
(upwind) of the cut/fill locations. In keeping with the goal of characterizing control of
scraper transit emissions, this change prevented any confounding upwind source of PM
emissions from overlapping the plume from the source of interest.
Water was applied by a pickup truck towing a 1,000-gal tank fitted with a pump and
spray bar. To allow the entire 800-ft length of the return route in Figure 2-1 to be
watered in two passes, traffic was halted for approximately 5 minutes. The amount of
water applied was varied by towing the tank trailer at different speeds.
Scraper transit represents a "moving point" source that can be treated as a "line"
source. Figure 2-2 shows not only a schematic of the operations but also the basis for
the line source test methodology ("exposure profiling") described below in Air Sampling
Test Methods.
-------
Upwind Sampling
Tower
Empty scraper return route-
• • Downwind Sampling Towen
Stockpile area for
morning sessions
Full scraper route
250'
Material removed during
morning training session
200' by 70'
250' by 70'
North
Figure 2-1. NCKTC overview.
As long as the distance traveled during transit operation is substantially greater than the
downwind distance from path to the sampling array, then only a single vertical array of
samplers ("tower") is necessary to characterize the PM plume. In other words, because
the source is considered as uniformly emitting over the length of the operational pass, a
vertical array is sufficient to characterize the vertical distribution of concentration and
wind speed in the plume.
Two separate vertical sampling arrays ("towers") were used, so that tests could be
staggered over the 2- to 3-hr morning/afternoon training sessions. This provided for
more efficient tracking of control efficiency decay as the surface material along the
travel route dried after watering. Three emission tests were conducted after each
watering. Typically, "test 1" in a series began almost immediately after watering and
utilized the first sampling tower. The second test began about 45 minutes later using
the second sampling array. At approximately the midpoint of "test 2," MRI retrieved
samples from "test 1" and began the third test on the first tower.
-------
Diesel exhaust
Wind
15m±
Downwind
Sampli
Array
Direction of
travel
Upwind Sampler
Area swept out
by earthmovmg
equipment
Sampling Array Location
!
<
Moving Point Source
t t
Wind
t
Figure 2-2. Schematic illustration of test procedure for moving point source
(NCKTC).
7
-------
In addition to the participate concentration and wind measurements shown in
Figure 2-2, a number of other samples were necessary to characterize the source
conditions. These included surface samples from the scraper travel route and
meteorological observations, described below in Ancillary Measurements.
The second set of tests took place during November 1999 at MRI's Deramus Field
Station (DFS). At DFS, another captive operation was established to explore the
mud/dirt trackout aspects of road watering. Figure 2-3 presents an overview of the
facility. The test vehicle traveled from an unpaved access area onto the asphalt road.
After approximately 50 vehicle passes from the access area on to the paved road, a
sample of the loose material present on the paved surface was collected. Testing
spanned a range of soil surface moisture contents that would be expected for different
watering rates. As was the case for the NCKTC tests, surface soil grab samples were
collected over the test period to monitor the surface moisture content of the access
area.
uoara
Grass
LOT
Figure 2-3. Overview of DFS test site.
-------
The physical layout and driving patterns at the test site varied during different "phases"
of the test program, as described below. The site was prepared by first removing the
vegetative cover from three "access" areas adjacent to the asphalt road. Each area
consisted of a strip that was 25 ft long and 12 ft wide, oriented at right angles to the
road centerline. One access area was located near the southeast end of the 200-ft
long road segment shown in Figure 2-3. The other two access areas were located on
the north side of the road, near the mid-point of the segment.
Once the three access areas had been stripped of vegetation, MRI drove vehicles over
two areas to condition the exposed soil. Thus, those two access areas represented the
trackout potential attributable to the "native" soil in the area. This soil has a fairly high
clay content. In contrast, MRI dug out the third access area to a depth of approximately
6 inches and replaced the native soil with a 50/50 mixture of native soil and sand. The
soil/sand mixture was compacted before being driven over to generate a second set of
trackout samples. A wooden border placed along the boundary within the adjacent
access area prevented any mixing of the native soil and sand/soil mixture.
Prior to the start of a test, the access area was typically wetted using a garden hose
and hand-held sprayer. Target watering application rates were 0.25 and 0.5 gal/yd.2
Because the access areas were approximately 25 ft long by 12 ft wide, this required
roughly 8 or 16 gallons of water. The amount of water sprayed was estimated on the
basis of application time and volumetric flow rate. (The volumetric flow was determined
each morning by recording the time necessary to fill a 5-gal bucket.) Watered surfaces
were allowed to "sit" for at least 1 minute before being driven on. During the tests,
moisture analysis samples were composited from grab samples of surface soil taken
from the access area approximately every 15 to 20 minutes.
Phase 1 was a preliminary series of tests to characterize the spatial distribution of
mud/dirt trackout over the length of the road segment. Tests made use of the native
soil access area at the southeast end of the road segment (see Figure 2-4). All
trackout was generated by driving a full-size Chevrolet pickup truck (6100 Ib gross
vehicle weight) over the access area. Once 50 to 100 passes had been completed,
samples were collected from four nominally 20-ft long strips of the asphalt road surface,
beginning at the point where the last wheel of the pickup truck reached the pavement
(approximately 10 ft down the road from the middle of the access area). The test strips
were located on 40-ft centers, as shown in Figure 2-4. A second series of Phase 1
tests ("Phase 1 A") was conducted by exiting the other native soil access area near the
center of test road segment and traveling southwest on the test road. In that case,
samples were collected from two 20-ft strips, again beginning at the point where the last
wheel on the pickup truck reached the pavement.
-------
iJOtlTH
Figure 2-4. Trackout and sampling areas for Phase 1 (DPS).
Phase 2 involved uncontrolled (baseline) trackout from the sand/soil and native soil
access areas at the midpoint of the test road. As shown in Figure 2-5, vehicles exiting
the sand/soil and native soil areas traveled to the northwest and southeast,
respectively, to avoid any cross-contamination. Paved road surface samples were
collected from a 20-ft strip beginning at the point where the last vehicle wheel reached
the pavement. Again, the Chevrolet pickup truck was used to generate the mud/dirt
trackout. However, additional tests made use of a Ford dump truck with a gross vehicle
weight of 28,000 Ib.
10
-------
Roots.
Figure 2-5. Trackout and sampling areas for Phase 2 (DFS).
Phase 3 tests examined the effectiveness of a 20-ft long paved apron (beginning at the
point where all vehicle wheels had entered the roadway) in controlling mud/dirt trackout
from both the sand/soil mixture and the native soil. As a practical matter, some
Phase 2 and Phase 3 tests were conducted simultaneously. That is to say, the 20-ft
long Phase 2 test surface also served as the 20-ft long paved apron for Phase 3. In
this way, all Phase 3 tests referenced a clean paved apron. All passes were made with
the full-size pickup truck. The paved road surface sample was collected from a 20-ft
strip beginning at the end of the paved apron (see Figure 2-6).
11
-------
ijoarH
Figure 2-6. Trackout and sampling areas for Phase 3 (DPS).
Finally, Phase 4 evaluated the effectiveness of a 25-ft long gravel apron. The apron
consisted of 2-inch washed limestone and was located atop the two access areas used
in Phases 2 and 3. For that reason, new access areas were constructed from the
native soil and the sand/soil mixture, as shown in Figure 2-7. All passes were made
with the full-size pickup truck.
Air Sampling Test Methods
The test method employed at NCKTC - "exposure profiling" - has been recognized by
EPA as the characterization technique most appropriate for the broad class of open
anthropogenic dust sources, such as aggregate material transfer and vehicle travel over
paved/unpaved surfaces. Because the method isolates a single emission source while
not artificially shielding the source from ambient conditions (e.g., wind), the open source
emission factors with the highest quality ratings in EPA's emission factor handbook,
AP-42,1 are typically based on this approach.
12
-------
ttOttTH
Figure 2-7. Trackout and sampling areas for Phase 4 (DFS).
The exposure profiling technique for source testing of open particulate matter sources
is based on the same isokinetic profiling concept that is used in stack testing. The
passage of airborne pollutant immediately downwind of the source is measured directly
by means of simultaneous multipoint sampling over the cross section of the open dust
source plume. This technique uses a mass flux measurement scheme similar to EPA
Method 5 stack testing rather than requiring indirect emission rate calculation through
the application of a generalized atmospheric dispersion model.
The exposure profiling technique relies on simultaneous multipoint measurement of
both concentration and air flow (advection) over the effective area of the emission
plume. The technique uses a mass flux measurement scheme. Unlike traditional stack
sources, both the open dust source emission rate and the transport air flow are non-
steady. This requires simultaneous multipoint sampling of mass concentration and air
flow over the effective area of the emission plume. As noted in connection with
Figure 2-2, line sources require only a vertical array of samplers. In the testing of
scraper transit emissions at NCKTC, two vertical networks of samplers (Figure 2-8)
were positioned just downwind (5 m) and upwind from the edge of the source.
13
-------
5m t
Path of moving scraper
15ml
Cyclone preseparator (40 dm)
(mass flux profiling)
Cydone/3-st«ge cascade Impactor (20 dm)
(partide size profiling)
Wedding PM-10 sampler (40 dm)
Gill anemometer
Figure 2-8. Sampler deployment at NCKTC.
The primary air sampling device in the exposure profiling portion of the field program
was a standard high-volume air sampler fitted with a cyclone preseparator (Figure 2-9).
The cyclone exhibits an effective 50 percent cutoff diameter (D^,) of approximately
10 umA when operated at a flow rate of 40 cfm (68 m3/h).4 Thus, mass collected on the
8- by 10-inch backup filter represents a PM-10 sample. During each mass flux profiling
test, a Wedding and Associates high-volume PM-10 reference sampler was collocated
with one cyclone sampler for comparison purposes. Additional detail is contained in the
test and quality assurance (QA) plans prepared for the field exercise and presented in
the Appendices A and B to this report.
The test plan also referenced particle size profiling tests to determine vertical profiles of
particle size distribution. For this purpose, a second sampling system supplemented
the mass exposure profiling system described above. The second system also used a
high-volume cyclone preseparator but in a different sampling configuration. Here, the
cyclone was operated at a flow rate of 20 acfm over a 3-stage cascade impactor (see
Figure 2-10). At that flow rate, the cyclone and 3 stages exhibit D50 cut points of 15,
10.2,4.2, and 2.1 |imA. Again, details are provided in the test and QA plans.
14
-------
Cyclone
Filler Holder
Scab—Inches
Figure 2-9. Cyclone preseparator operated at 40 cfm.
In addition to the air sampling equipment, Figure 2-4 also shows that, throughout each
test, wind speed was monitored at two heights using R. M. Young Gill-type (model
27106} anemometers. Furthermore, an R. M. Young portable wind station (model
05305) recorded wind speed and direction at the 3.0-m height downwind. All wind data
were accumulated into 5-min averages logged with a 26700 series R. M. Young
programmable translator.
15
-------
Cyclone
Cascade
Impactor
Back-up
Rlter Holder
Scale—Indus
Figure 2-10. Cyclone preseparator - cascade impactor operated at 20 cfm.
16
-------
Ancillary Measurements
In addition to aerometric measurements described in Section 2.2, a number of other
samples/observations were necessary to characterize source conditions. The broad
categories of interest include surface material properties, operating parameters, and
ambient meteorological conditions.
At least one collected surface soil sample (from the unpaved scraper transit route at
NCKTC or the unpaved access area at DPS) was associated with each test. Sample
collection and analysis methods followed the guidelines given in Appendices C.1 and
C.2 to AP-42. Soil samples taken from the unpaved travel surfaces at both NCKTC and
DFS were collected with a dust pan and whisk broom, while the paved road surface dirt
samples associated with the DFS tests were collected by broom sweeping followed by
vacuuming.
Soil/road dust samples were analyzed for surface moisture content (by determining
weight loss upon drying). During the watering tests at NCKTC, surface soil grab
samples for moisture analysis were collected at least every half hour.
With the exception of those grab samples, all other samples (including the vacuum bag
samples from DFS) underwent dry sieving to determine the sub-200 mesh fraction.
Tables 2-1 and 2-2 present the procedures to determine moisture and silt contents,
respectively.
Table 2-1. Moisture Content Determination
1. Preheat the oven to approximately 110 °C (230 ° F). Record oven temperature.
2. Record the make, capacity, and smallest division of the scale.
3. Weigh the empty laboratory sample containers which will be placed in the oven to determine their tare weight.
4. Weigh containers with the lids on if they have lids. Record the tare weight(s). Check zero before each weighing.
5. Weigh the laboratory sample(s) in the container(s). For materials with high moisture content, ensure that any standard
moisture is included in the laboratory sample container. Record the combined weight(s). Check zero before each
weighing.
6. Place sample in oven and dry overnight. Materials composed of hydrated minerals or organic material like coal and certain
soils should be dried for only 1-1/2 h.
7. Remove sample container from oven and (a) weigh immediately if uncovered, being careful of the hot container; or (b)
place the tight-fitting lid on the container and let cool before weighing. Record the combined sample and container
weights). Check zero reading on the balance before weighing.
8. Calculate the moisture as the initial weight of the sample and container minus the oven-dried weight of the sample and
container divided by the initial weight of the sample alone. Record the value.
Additional measurements were necessary to characterize the service environment for
the NCKTC watering tests. These measurements include the following:
17
-------
Operating Parameters
• volume of water applied per unit area of travel surface
• travel speeds
Ambient Meteorological Conditions
• solar radiation
• cloud cover
relative humidity
pan evaporation
Note that these measurements were intended to provide a field representation of water
application and evaporative conditions during testing. These are viewed as second-tier,
semi-quantitative measurements to assess how well the primary variable (soil surface
moisture content) relates to environmental conditions.
Table 2-2. Silt Content Determination
1. Select the appropriate 20 cm (8-in) diameter, 5 cm (2-in) deep sieve sizes. Recommended 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 paniculate 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 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 1,600 g or 10 Ib) and record make, capacity, smallest division, date of last calibration,
and accuracy.
5. Weigh the sieves and pan to determine tare weights. Check the zero before every weighing. Record weights on the form.
6. After nesting the sieves in decreasing order with pan at the bottom, dump dried laboratory sample (preferably immediately
after moisture analysis) into the top sieve. The sample should weigh between - 400 and 1,600 g (0.9 and 3.5 Ib). This
amount will vary for finely textured materials; 100 to 300 g may be sufficient with 90 percent of the sample passes a No. 8
(2.36 mm) sieve. 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 sieving 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 weight of the pan has been subtracted) is less than 3.0 percent. Do not sieve longer than 40 min.
8. Weigh each sieve and its contents and record the weight on the form. Check the zero reading on the balance before every
weighing.
9. Collect the laboratory sample and place the sample in a separate container if further analysis is expected.
10. Calculate the percent of mass less than the 200 mesh screen (75 mm). This is the silt content.
To determine the volume of water applied per unit area of soil surface along the scraper
transit route at NCKTC, a series of tared sampling pans were placed across the test
surface. These were light-weight aluminum pans with an opening of approximately
4 inches by 8 inches. The bottom of each pan was lined with absorbent material to
avoid splashing of the water. Once the water was applied, the sampling pans were
retrieved and reweighed. The volume of water was determined by assuming water
18
-------
density of 1 g/crn3 and the application rate was found by dividing the volume of water
by the top area of the pan.
Travel speeds were monitored by accumulating the elapsed time required for several
scrapers to traverse a 100-ft distance in front of the sampling arrays.
Solar radiation during the test period was monitored by a Weathertronics Model 3010
mechanical pyranograph. This device produces a hard copy record of the intensity of
direct and scattered solar radiation. Visual observations of cloud cover (to the nearest
tenth) were taken at least hourly during test periods to supplement the pyranograph
results. Dry and wet bulb temperatures (from which relative humidity is determined)
from a sling psychrometer were also recorded at least hourly during tests.
The measurement of pan evaporation rate at NCKTC mimicked essential features of
the standard "Class A" evaporation measurement procedure. The standard procedure
requires that 7.5 inches of water be maintained in a pan with very specific dimensions
(10 inches high with a 47.5-inch inside diameter), construction details (material,
welding, etc.), and operational features (leveling, etc.). Given the goal to provide a
semi-quantitative measure of ambient conditions, MRI deployed a 48-inch galvanized
steel tank filled to 2 to 3 inches of the top with water. The tank was deployed early
during the testing exercise and the water level was measured each morning that MRI
crew members were present at the test site. A rain gauge was deployed in the
immediate vicinity of the tank and its contents were read each morning.
Data Reduction
The calculation of emission rates in the exposure profiling method used at NCKTC
relies on a conservation of mass approach. The passage of airborne paniculate (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 exposure profiling calculation procedure are discussed below.
Concentration of particulate matter measured by a sampler is given by:
m
C=-
QT
where C = particulate concentration (mass/volume)
m = net mass collected on the filter or substrate (mass)
Q = volumetric flow rate of the sampler (volume/time)
T = duration of sampling (time)
(2-1)
19
-------
The wind speed profile was developed from the two Gill anemometer data. The profile
assumes a logarithmic shape given by:
f , \
(2-2)
where U(z) = wind speed (length/time)at height z (length)
K = proportionality constant (length/time)
ZQ = roughness height of ground surface (length)
K and ZQ are the two parameters used to fit the profile.
The isokinetic flow ratio (IFR) is the ratio of a directional sampler's intake velocity to the
mean wind speed approaching the sampler. It is given by:
IFR =TTTT (2-3)
(aU)
where Q = volumetric flow rate (volume/time)
a = sampler intake area (area)
U = approach wind speed (length/time)
The IFR is of interest in the sampling of total particulate, because isokinetic sampling
(i.e., IFR = 1) ensures that particles of all sizes are sampled without bias. As such, the
ratio is of most interest in the particle size profiling tests. Specially designed nozzles
were available to maintain isokinetic properties (with ± 20 percent) for wind speeds in
the range of 5 to 20 mph when the samplers were operated at 20 acfm. Because the
primary interest in this program was directed toward PM-10 and PM-2.5 emissions,
sampling under moderately non-isokinetic conditions posed little difficulty. It is widely
recognized that 10 |imA and smaller particles have weak inertia! characteristics at
normal ambient wind speeds and therefore are relatively unaffected by anisokinesis.5
Exposure was calculated by:
E=(C-Cb)UT
(2-4)
where E = net particulate matter exposure (mass/area)
C = downwind concentration (mass/volume)
Cb = background concentration (mass/volume)
U = approach wind speed (length/time)
T = duration of sampling (time)
20
-------
Exposure varies with height over the extent of the plume. When exposure values are
integrated over the effective cross-section of the plume, the quantity obtained
represented the total passage of airborne particulate matter due to the road
H
A =fEdh
(2-5)
H
•I1
where A = integrated exposure (mass/length)
E = particulate exposure (mass/area)
h = height (length)
and the integration extended from 0 to the effective height "H" of the plume.
Because exposures are measured at discrete heights of the plume, a numerical
integration is necessary to determine A. The exposure is set equal to zero at the
vertical extremes of the profile (i.e., at the ground where the wind velocity equaled zero
and at the effective height of the plume where the net concentration equaled zero).
However, the maximum exposure usually occurred 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 1 m (as extrapolated
from the 2-m and 4.5-m values). The integration is then performed using the
trapezoidal rule. The emission factor is then found by dividing the integrated exposure
by the number of vehicle passes during sampling:
e=£ (2-6)
where e == particulate emission factor in terms of mass per vehicle-distance-
traveled (mass/length)
A = integrated exposure (mass/length)
N = number of vehicle passes during sampling (vehicles)
The control efficiency due to watering was determined by the percent reduction from
the average uncontrolled emission factor:
(2-7)
where c = instantaneous control efficiency (%)
eu = average uncontrolled emission factor (mass/length)
ec = controlled test emission factor (mass/length)
It is important to note that the efficiency determined for a specific test represents an
"instantaneous" control efficiency (ICE) that is applicable to a particular time after
21
-------
control application. Another important measure of control performance is "average"
control efficiency (ACE) which is related to instantaneous control efficiency in the
following way:
J
c(t)dt
(2-8)
where C(T) = average control efficiency during period ending T hours after
watering (%)
c(t) = instantaneous control efficiency t hours after watering (%)
T = time period over which average control efficiency is determined
(hours)
In practical terms, if the ICE for a test series shows a linear decay over time, such as:
c(t) = 100-mt (2-9)
where c(t) = instantaneous control efficiency at time t
m = decay rate
Then the corresponding average control value is also linear, but with half the decay
rate:
C(T)=100-yT (2-10)
where all variables are as defined above
For the DPS portion of the program, the primary results involved the surface loading
and surface silt loading. The (total) surface loading is the mass of sample collected
divided by the surface area sampled. The surface silt loading represents the amount of
loose material less than 200 mesh present per unit area on the paved surface. Silt
loading "sL" is found as
full -B empty ) + (B full -Btare)
where sL = silt loading (mass/area)
f = fraction of recovered material less than 200 mesh (mass)
Bfull = weight of the full vacuum bag (mass)
BemPty = weight of the empty vacuum bag after sample recovery (mass)
Btere = initial (tare) weight of the vacuum bag before sampling (mass)
a = paved road area swept (area)
22
-------
Chapter 3
Test Site Results
This section presents and discusses the results from the two-part field testing program.
The watering tests of scraper transit conducted at NCKTC are discussed first, and the
DFS mud/dirt carryout tests are discussed second. In spite of weather-related delays
(from rain and variable winds), the number of tests performed at both sites exceeded
the targets set in the Site-Specific Test Plan.
Watering Control of Scraper Transit Emissions
A total of 19 mass flux profiling tests were conducted at NCKTC during
September 1999. Table 3-1 presents the test site parameters associated with each
run. Note that the 19 tests are distributed over two uncontrolled test "series" (201, 601)
and five controlled test "series" (301,401, 501, 701,1001)." The tests in the
uncontrolled series were conducted simultaneously. Controlled tests were staggered in
time after watering to track the decay in control efficiency as the scraper travel surface
dried. Table 3-1 also shows the vehicle passes by the type of scraper in use during the
test. NCKTC operates three basic models of Caterpillar scrapers:
Elevating ("paddle")
Pan
Elevating ("paddle")
Nominal Capacity
11 yd3
20 yd3(heaped)
22yd3
EmptyWeight
16 ton
33 ton
36 ton
All tests, whether controlled or uncontrolled, were conducted on the same stretch of the
return route at the approximate mid-point. Note that, because of the orientation of the
operation with respect to the prevailing wind direction, all scrapers were empty when
they passed the sampling array (see Figure 2-1). The overall mean travel speed
measured during the tests was 11 mph. No significant differences in travel speed were
found between westbound and eastbound traffic or between watered and unwatered
surfaces.
The results of the tests of scraper transit emissions are given in Tables 3-2, 3-3, and
3-4. Table 3-2 presents wind speeds at the heights of the 40 cfm cyclone samplers.
23
-------
Table 3-3 contains the individual PM-10 exposure values at each sampling height in the
downwind vertical array. As discussed in Section 2, the point values of exposure are
integrated over the height of the plume to develop the PM-10 emission factors, which
are given in Table 3-4. Appendix C presents detailed spreadsheets for the BY runs and
Appendix D presents an example calculation.
Table 3-1. Test Site Parameters
Run no.
BY-201
BY-202
BY-301
BY-302
BY-303
BY-401
BY-402
BY-403
BY-501
BY-502
BY-503
BY-601
BY-602
BY-701
BY-702
u/c"
u
u
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
u
u
C
C
Equipment"
Cat 61 3
Cat 621
Cat 613
Cat 621
2-Cat613
3-Cat 621
2-Cal613
3-Cat 621
2-Cat613
3-Cat 621
2-Cat613
3-Cat 621
2-Cat613
3-Cat 621
2-Cat 613
3-Cat 621
2-Cat613
3-Cat 621
2-Cat 613
3-Cat 621
2-Cat 61 3
3-Cat 621
2-Cat 61 3
2-Cat 621
623
2-Cat 61 3
2-Cat 621
623
Cat 61 3
2-Cat 621
623
Cat 61 3
2-Cat 621
623
Date
9/15/99
9/15/99
9/16/99
9/16/99
9/16/99
9/17/99
9/17/99
9/17/99
9/17/99
9/17/99
9/17/99
9/22/99
9/22/99
9/22/99
9/22/99
Start
time
12:49
12:54
9:05
9:46
10:28
9:13
10:03
10:21
12:59
13:38
14:19
9:28
9:28
12:42
13:09
Duration
(min)
26
16
78
80
38
61
70
67
73
81
38
56
56
61
92
Operational
passes
20
14
15
11
40
60
42
63
36
24
37
56
41
59
40
57
40
73
45
73
19
34
36
35
18
36
35
18
2
45
22
5
57
27
Air temp
(°F)
75.0
76.0
64.5
64.5
67.0
59.5
69.0
69.0
75.0
78.0
78.0
58.0
58.0
78.8
80.0
Barometric
pressure
(in. Hg)
28.80
29.00
28.90
28.90
28.90
28.80
28.90
26.90
28.90
26.90
28.90
28.78
28.78
28.88
28.92
24
(continued)
-------
Table 3-1. (continued)
Run no.
BY-703
BY-1001
BY-1002
BY-1003
u/c"
c
c
c
c
Equipment11
2 -Cat 61 3
2-Cat 621
623
3-Cat613
2-Cat 621
623
2-Cat 61 3
2-Cat 621
623
2-Cat 61 3
2-Cat 621
623
Date
9/22/99
9/23/99
9/23/99
9/23/99
Start
time
13:50
8:44
9:26
10:14
Duration
(min)
76
81
54
46
Operational
passes
6
44
20
41
48
24
30
29
16
30
25
14
Air temp
(°F)
80.0
58.8
58.5
72.0
Barometric
pressure
(in. Hg)
28.92
28.50
28.50
28,55
' Uncontrolled/controlled test.
" All passes were by empty scrapers.
Table 3-2. Isokinetic Correction Parameters (By Runs)
Run
BY-201
BY-202
BY-301
BY-302
BY-303
BY-401
BY-402
BY-403
BY-501
BY-502
BY-503
BY-601
BY-602
BY-701
BY-702
BY-703
BY-1001
BY-1002
BY-1003
Wind speed
2ri
(cm/s)
111
103
240
307
298
211
312
346
289
274
260
254
254
365
372
384
160
151
148
(ft/min)
218
202
473
604
586
415
613
680
569
539
512
501
501
719
732
756
315
297
291
4.5m
(cm/s)
135
124
292
377
369
266
396
437
364
340
319
326
326
464
475
488
205
186
181
(ft/min)
265
244
575
743
727
523
780
860
716
669
627
642
642
913
935
960
403
367
357
7m
(cm/s)
147
135
320
416
408
295
442
486
405
376
350
364
364
517
532
544
229
206
200
(ft/min)
290
266
630
818
803
582
869
957
797
740
690
717
717
1017
1046
1072
451
406
394
Profiler
isokinetic flow ratios
2m
4.28
4.53
1.96
1.50
1.58
2.23
1.48
1.37
1.61
1.74
1.79
1.85
1.81
1.27
1.28
1.24
2.93
3.05
3.20
4.5m
3,51
3.82
1.62
1.24
1.27
1.76
1.19
1.07
1.51
1.89
1.49
1.43
1.43
1.02
0.99
0.97
2.27
2.52
2.59
7m
3.24
3.51
1.48
1.14
1.16
1.60
1.07
0.98
1.38
1.72
1.84
1.29
1.29
0.92
0.90
0.88
2.08
2.28
2.36
25
-------
Table 3-3. Plume Sampling Data
Run
BY-201
Sampling
height
(m)
2
4,5
7
PM-10
Sampling rate
mVhr
69.35
68.93
69.67
fP/min
40.82
40.57
41.01
Net PM 10
exposure
(m
-------
Table 3-3. (continued)
Run
BY-503
Sampling
height
(m)
2
4.5
7
PM-10
Sampling rate
m'/hr
68.06
69.16
69.54
ft'/min
40.06
40.71
40.93
NetPMIO
exposure
(mg/cm2)
0.2397
0.0542
0.0000
BY-601
2
4.5
7
68.57
67.94
68.52
40.36
39.99
40.33
0.2514
0.1128
0.0302
BY-602
2
4.5
7
66.99
68.01
68.52
39.43
40.03
40.33
0.1182
0.0567
0.0015
BY-701
2
4.5
7
68.03
69.13
69.50
40.04
40.69
40.91
0.1026
0.0120
0.0145
BY-702
2
4.5
7
69.71
69.06
69.88
41.03
40.65
41.13
0.2549
0.0000
0.0000
BY-703
2
4.5
7
69,56
69.13
69.64
40.94
40.69
40.99
0.5428
0.0843
0.0173
BY-1001
2
4.5
7
68.62
67.84
69.84
40.39
39.93
41.11
0.0173
0.0150
0.0343
BY-1002
2
4.5
7
67.41
68.57
68.79
39.68
40.36
40.49
0.0160
0.0190
0.0180
BY-1003
2
4.5
7
69.16
68.60
69.18
40.71
40.38
40.72
0.0295
0.0146
0.0206
27
-------
Table 3-4. Emission Factors
Run
BY-201
BY-202
Test conditions
uncontrolled
*
Silt
content
(%)
7.9
10.8
Moisture
content
(%)
3.8
4.6
PM-10
emission factor
(Ib/VMT)
1.798
1.133
BY-301
BY-302
BY-303
1.1 gal/yd*
"
M
14.9
•
M
17.5
12.4
7.14
0.164
0.251
0.153
BY-401
BY-402
BY-403
0.21 gal/yd*
•
N
9.58
"
•
19.2
10.1
8.51
0.168
0.297
0.386
BY-501
BY-502
BY-503
0.31 gal/yd2
M
«f
5.87
•
•
13.6
8.24
5.58
0.296
0.485
0.687
BY-601
BY-602
uncontrolled
•t
7.32
•
7.08
7.08
0.491
0.225
BY-701
BY-702
BY-703
0.14 gal/yd'
H
"
9.4'
•
"
12.0
6.46
3.86
0.224
0.391
1.154
BY-1001
BY-1002
BY-1003
0.54 gal/yd2
•
•
9.4*
M
"
14.3
8.68
8.12
0.052
0.098
0.107
Mean silt content found for site.
Table 3-4 also presents the soil surface moisture value associated with each test.
These values are averages of appropriate point values (from grab samples) along the
decay curves shown in Figure 3-1.
Discussion of the Watering Test Results
Control efficiency was determined as the percent reduction in the emission factor for
each test compared to the mean uncontrolled emission factor. The mean uncontrolled
PM-10 emission factor of 1.46 Ib/vmt was based on test series 201-202. Note that the
other uncontrolled test series (601-602) was not included in determining the mean,
because the 601 test series had been performed after rain at the site. Although the
route had visibly appeared uncontrolled during the test, gravimetric analysis of the 601-
series filters resulted in emission factors substantially below those from the 201 series.
The moisture content of the 601 series was also almost twice that for the 201 series.
28
-------
20
Symbol Test Series Water Apfed
A
-B
C
D
E
301
40t
501
701
1001
1.1 gal/yd2
— 021
0.31
0.14
0.54
Dry Bulb
Temp RH Cloud Cover
65 F
-66
77
80
63
50%
58%
34%
37%
71%
8/10
8/10
4/10
0/10
3/10
0.5
1.5 2 2.5
Time After Watering (hr)
Figure 3-1. Decay of moisture content with time after watering (NCKTC).
Figure 3-1 presented a time history of the moisture content after watering. Figure 3-2
provides a similar time history, except that the (instantaneous) control efficiency is
plotted against the mid-point time for each test. Figure 3-3, on the other hand, plots
average control efficiency values. Note that, due to the integration process described
in Chapter 2, average control efficiency values result in a "smoother^ time history.
Fitting the Figure 3-3 data to least-squares lines of the form:
C(t) = B-mt (3-1)
where C(t) = average control efficiency (%)
B = intercept (%)
m = decay rate (%-hr"1)
t = time after watering (hr)
provides a means to explore decay rates in terms of service environment variables.
Table 3-5 lists the test series and decay rates, and Figure 3-4 shows the lines of best
fit.
29
-------
120
100
80
*
X
•3
£
ui
1
s
a.
60
40
20
Line Test Series
A
B
C
D.
E
301
401
501
7QJL. .
1001
Water Applied Temp (°F) RH (%)
1.01
0.21
0.31
.&AA.
0.54
gal/ycJ2 65
66
77
BO
63
50
58
34
37
71
Cloud Cover
B/10
8/10
4/10
0/10
3/10
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
Time after watering (hr)
1.4
1.6
1.8
Figure 3-2. Decay of instantaneous control efficiency with time after watering
(NCKTC).
Also given in Table 3-5 are measures of the service environment in which water acted
as a control measure. Service environment variables include ambient variables such as
amount of water applied, ambient temperature, relative humidity, cloud cover, and solar
radiation. Recall that these are viewed as second-tier, semi-quantitative measurements
to assess how well the primary variable (surface moisture content) relates to
environmental conditions. Appendix E contains a listing of the second-tier
measurements.
30
-------
100
O.
s.
75
70
65 -
60
Line
A
B
C
D~
E
Test Series Water Applied Temp (°F)
301
401
501
701
1001
1.10 gal/yd2
0.21
0.31
" TTI4
0.54
65
66
77
80
63
RH(%) Cloud Cover
50
58
34
— 37"
71
8/10
8/10
4/10
0/W
3/10
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
Time after watering (hr)
1.6
1.8
Figure 3-3. Decay of average control efficiency with time after watering (NCKTC).
Table 3-5. Decay Rates Fitted by Least-Squares Linear Regression
Test
series
301
401
501
701
1001
Water
applied
(sal/yd2)
1.10
0.21
0.31
0.14
0.54
Dry bulb
temp.
<°F)
65
66
77
80
63
Wet bulb
temp.
fF)
55
57
59
62
57
Relative
humidity
(%)
50
58
34
37
71
Cloud
cover
(tenths)
8
8
4
0
3
Traffic
volume8
(veh/hr)
84
88
88
60
86
Intercept,
B(%)
99.4
99.5
99.4
99.8
99.9
Decay
rate
(%-nr-1)
6.71
7.68
13.70
12.40
2.65
r2
0.9717
0.9917
0.9957
0.9835
0.9930
Average value of operating passes per unit time over the three tests in each test series.
31
-------
100
70
65
60
Line
A
B"
C
D
" E
Test Series
301
"461
501
701
" 1001
Water Applied
1.10 gal/yd2
0.21
0.31
0.14
Temp (°F)
65
66
77
80
63
RH(%)
50
58
34
37
71
Cloud Cover
8/10
8/io" "~
4/10
0/10
3/10"'
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
Time after watering (hr)
Figure 3-4. Best fit lines for average control efficiency decay with time after
watering (NCKTC).
Table 3-6 presents the correlation matrix for the decay rate "m" against the different
measures of the service environment.
Table 3-6. Correlation Matrix
PM-10 decay rate
Water applied
Dry bulb temp.
Wet bulb temp.
Relative humidity
Cloud cover
Traffic rate
PM-10
decay rate
1
- 0.494
0.239
0.195
-0.964
-0.334
0.124
Water
applied
-0.494
1
- 0.402
- 0.689
0.263
0.517
0.273
Dry bulb
temp.
0.239
- 0.402
1
0.893
- 0.053
0.484
-0.647
Wet bulb
temp.
0.195
- 0.669
0.893
1
0.05
0.248
- 0.774
Relative
humidity
-0.964
0.263
- 0.053
0.05
1
0.301
- 0.271
Cloud
cover
-0.334
0.517
0.484
0.248
0.301
1
- 0.606
Traffic rate
0.124
0.273
-0.647
- 0.774
- 0.271
-0.606
1
32
-------
Table 3-6 shows that the PM-10 control efficiency decay rate is strongly correlated with
relative humidity. A least-squares regression of decay rate against relative humidity
results in:
m*= 22.8-0.283 (RH) (3-2)
where m* = estimated decay rate (%-hr1)
RH = relative humidity (%)
The r2 value for Equation 3-2 is 0.929.
Soil surface moisture content provides an alternate variable that might be used as a
basis for tracking the emission factor and control efficiency data developed from the
field tests. However, there is no readily available "starting point" for the moisture
content for which one could reasonably assume 100 percent control at time zero (i.e.,
when the road had just been watered). To illustrate this point, Figure 3-5 shows
exponential decay functions fitted to the moisture time histories shown earlier as
Figure 3-1. Extrapolated time-zero moisture values vary from 15 to 36 percent. Clearly,
one could reasonably expect that the higher initial moisture contents should be
associated with the higher water application rates. However, the extrapolations in
Figure 3-5 do not generally follow that trend.
Figure 3-6 plots the instantaneous control efficiency against the surface moisture
content associated with each test. The important aspects to notice about the figure are
the steep slope at fairly low moisture values and the more shallow slope at high
moisture levels. This is in keeping with past studies6'7 which found that control
efficiency data can be successfully fitted by a bilinear function, based on a "normalized"
surface moisture value. The normalization is performed by dividing by the uncontrolled
(unwatered) surface moisture content for the unpaved travel route. In this case, the BY
moisture data are normalized by 4 percent, which is the mean moisture value from
BY-201 and 202. Figure 3-7 compares the data collected in this study against a bilinear
fit proposed in an EPA guidance document.7 In general, the BY data match relatively
well with the EPA guidance model, showing a sharp rise in control efficiency as the
surface moisture content is raised to twice the uncontrolled value and a much slower
rise beyond that moisture level. Use of the EPA function to predict the watering data is
conservative in the sense that the predicted control efficiency values are somewhat
lower than the observed values.
33
-------
1.5 2 2.5
Time After Watering (hi)
Figure 3-5. Exponential decay in surface moisture content with time after watering
(NCKTC).
Particle Size Data for Watered and Unwatered Travel Routes
In addition to the mass flux profiling tests used to determine control efficiency values,
the NCKTC portion of the field program collected particle size information for the
particulate emissions. These data supplement the particle size data from the BV tests
conducted during the 1998 test program3. Figure 3-8 presents the data collected at the
2- and 4.5-m downwind sampling locations during six 1998 scraper transit tests. The
figure plots the cumulative fraction of PM less than the size shown on the horizontal
axis. Note that the fraction is based on particles up to 15 mm in aerodynamic diameter,
which is the 50 percent cutpoint for the cyclone operated at 20 acfm.4
34
-------
100
90
80
70
60 -
o
a.
40
30
20
10
Line
A
B
C
D
E
Test Series
301
401
501
701
1001
Water Applied Temp ("R RH(%) Cloud Cover
1.1 gal/yd2
0.21
0.31
0.14
0.54
65
66
77
SO
63
50
58
34
37
71
6/10
8/10
4/10
0/10
3/10
234
Ratio of Surface Moisture Contents
Figure 3-6. Instantaneous PM-10 control efficiency versus surface moisture
content (NCKTC).
Before discussing the new particle size information, it is important to recall the key
difference between the two data sets. The 1998 tests referenced uncontrolled
conditions while the 1999 program was directed toward control performance
characterization.
Consequently, in 1998 the downwind monitors encountered much higher downwind
concentrations and thus could collect adequate sample mass in a relatively brief period
of time. In 1999, on the other hand, the watered surfaces resulted in much lower
downwind concentrations, thus posing a problem in collecting adequate sample mass.
In general, only the 2-m downwind cyclone/cascade impactor combination collected
35
-------
100.0
90.0
80.0
70.0
g 60.0
o
I 50.0
2 40.0
Q.
30.0
20.0
10.0
0.0
• A
xC
xD
•£
Syflbol TestSeries WttarApplied Tenp(T) RH(%) OoudCcMer
A 301 1.10 gal/yC 65 50 8/10
B 401 021 66 58 8/10
C 501 0.31 77 34 4/10
D 701 0.14 80 37 OflO
E 1001 0.54 63 71 3/10
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
20
25
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
Figure 3-7. Comparison of instantaneous control efficiency with previously
published function (NCKTC).
adequate sample mass for the controlled test series. Appendix F contains detailed data
for the impactor tests.
Figure 3-9 compares particle size data collected during the 1999 tests at NCKTC with
the data collected in 1998. Solid and dashed lines indicate tests conducted on surfaces
which had or had not been watered, respectively. The vertical lines in Figure 3-9
indicate 1 standard deviation bounds on the geometric mean from the 1998 (BV) tests
36
-------
BV Transit Tests from Reference [3]
0.1 —
2.5
7.5
Particle Diameter (|imA)
Figure 3-8. Particle size distributions for 1998 uncontrolled scraper transit
emissions (BV runs) from reference 3.
(i.e., the data from Figure 3-8). The lefthand and righthand lines are for the 4.5-m and
2-m downwind sampling heights, respectively. In spite of difficulties collecting adequate
sample mass, the 1999 particle size data generally compare well with BV data.
An additional series of analyses were performed on the PM-2.5-to-PM-10 ratio (as
approximated by catches associated with the third impactor stage (50 percent cutpoint
of 2.1 urn in aerodynamic diameter) and the first stage (50 percent cutpoint of 10.2 \im
in aerodynamic diameter). The variation in the PM-2.5/PM-10 ratio was explored in
terms of variations in the following variables.
• mean PM-10 emission factor for a test series
• average control efficiency decay rate
• volume of water applied
37
-------
Q9
Q8
Q7
£0.6
9
I
as
E Q4
3
U
as
at
Irtfcstes 1 st
-------
0.700
0.600 -
0.500 -
0.400
0300
0.200
0.100 J
• BY-301 ZmDW
• BY-601 2mDW
• BY-401/5O1 2mDW
• BY-201 2ttiOW
^ BY-201 4. kn DW
• BY-701 2mOW
0.000
0.00
0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20
Avcnga PM-10 EmlMton Factor (IWvnrt)
1.40
1.60
Figure 3-10. Correlation between PM-2.5/PM-10 ratio and PM-10 emission factor.
more important component of PM-2.5 emissions than of PM-10 emissions and because
diesel exhaust is unaffected by watering, these observations lead to the logical
conclusion that watering scraper routes should give lower control efficiency for PM-2.5
than for PM-10.
As noted earlier, in order to collect adequate sample mass on the various media, the
cyclone/impactors were operated over the entire test series. As a result, it is not
possible to develop a time history of PM-2.5 control efficiency in the manner that PM-10
efficiency was presented in Figures 3-2 to 3-4. Instead, PM-2.5 control efficiency is
based on the average controlled emission factor determined over the test series.
Based on both the BV and BY test data, the average PM-2.5-to-PM-10 ratio for
uncontrolled tests is 0.267. When combined with the mean uncontrolled PM-10
emission factor of 1.46 Ib/vmt, this leads to a mean uncontrolled PM-2.5 emission factor
of 0.39 Ib/vmt. Because of difficulties collecting adequate sample mass on the impactor
substrates and backup filters during the watered tests, only impactor data from the
39
-------
401/501 and 701 test series are considered reliable. When the two sets of watered test
data are combined, an average PM-2.5-to-PM-10 ratio of 0.374 is obtained. These
ratios are used to develop the scaled emission factors shown in Table 3-7.
Table 3-7. PM-2.5 Control Efficiency Values
Test series
201
301
401
501
701
1001
Average PM-10
emission factor3 (Ib/vmt)
1.46
0.169
0.264
0.469
0.590
0.0857
Average PM-2.5
emission factor8 (Ib/vmt)
0.39
0.072
0.11
0.18
0.22
0.032
Average PM-2.5 control
efficiency (%)
U
62
72
54
44
92
Average PM-2.5 control
efficiency decay rate0
(%-hr )
a
9
14
23
28
4
° PM-10 emission factor found by averaging emission factors in Table 3-4 over each test series. PM-2.5 factors found by
scaling average PM-10 factors by 0.267 or 0.374, for uncontrolled or watered tests, respectively.
PM-2.5 control efficiency based on percent reduction in average PM-2.5 emission factor from average uncontrolled PM-2.5
factor (i.e., 0.39 Ib/vmt).
" Average decay rate based on assumed linear decay from 100% control at time zero and nominal 2-hour test period for test
series.
Uncontrolled test series.
Average control efficiency decay rates for PM-10 (from Table 3-5) and PM-2.5 are
compared against relative humidity in Figure 3-11. Control efficiency for PM-2.5
decayed at least 30 percent more quickly than did PM-10 control efficiency in each
case. In most instances, the rate of decay was at least 50 percent faster. The
difference between PM-10 and PM-2.5 control efficiency decay rates was greater for
low relative humidity values. In other words, under dry conditions, watering appears to
be far more effective in controlling coarse PM rather than fine PM emitted during
scraper travel operations.
Mud/Dirt Trackout Study Test Results
As noted in the Introduction, the second part of the field testing program explored an
unwelcome consequence of watering unpaved surfaces at construction sites—namely,
the increase in mud/dirt trackout onto surrounding paved streets. Testing employed a
captive site at MRI's Deramus Field Station (DPS). The captive nature of the operation
meant that one could tightly control experimental variables such as the moisture level of
the access area and the number and type of vehicles leaving the site. The impact of
trackout emissions was measured in terms of mass of mud/dirt deposited onto the
paved test area.
Table 3-8 presents test site parameters associated with the DFS field exercise. Tests
were conducted during an unseasonably warm period in November 1999. In the table,
40
-------
30
25
20
10
PM2.5
FM10
10 20 30 40 90
Maine Huridty (°4
60
7D
60
Figure 3-11. Average control efficiency decay rates for PM-10 and PM-2.5
versus relative humidity.
tests are referenced by a numerical code of the form "x-y" where "x" indicates the phase
and "y" indicates a sequential number to uniquely identify tests within a specific phase.
A total of 58 paved road surface samples were collected during the field exercise.
Table 3-9 presents the analysis results for those samples. In the table, the average
moisture content refers to average of the two to four composite samples collected while
captive traffic traveled over the access area during a given test. A thorough listing of
the sample data collected at DPS is provided in Appendix G.
41
-------
Table 3-8. TrackoutStud
Test ID
1-1
1-2
1-3
1A-1
2-1
2-2
2-3
2-4
2-5, 3-1
2-6, 3-2
2-7, 3-3
2-8, 3-4
2-9, 3-5
2-10, 3-6
2-11,3-7
2-12, 3-8, & 1A-2
2-13, 3-9
2-14, 3-10
2-15.3-11
2-16, 3-12
2-17
2-18
2-19
2-20
4-1
4-2
4-3
4-4
4-5
4-6
4-7
4-8
4-9
4-10
4-11
4-12
4-13
Date
11/8/99
11/9/99
11/9/99
11/10/99
11/10/99
11/10/99
11/10/99
11/10/99
11/11/99
11/11/99
11/11/99
11/11/99
11/11/99
11/12/99
11/12/99
11/12/99
11/12/99
11/12/99
11/12/99
11/12/99
11/15/99
11/15/99
11/16/99
11/16/99
11/17/99
11/17/99
11/17/99
11/17/99
11/17/99
11/17/99
11/17/99
11/17/99
11/18/99
11/18/99
11/18/99
11/19/99
11/19/99
/ Test Parameters
Vehicle
pickup
pickup
pickup
pickup
pickup
pickup
pickup
pickup
pickup
pickup
pickup
pickup
pickup
pickup
pickup
pickup
pickup
pickup
pickup
pickup
dump truck
dump truck
dump truck
dump truck
pickup
pickup
pickup
pickup
pickup
pickup
pickup
pickup
pickup
pickup
pickup
pickup
pickup
Type of test
calibration
calibration
calibration
calibration
uncontrolled
uncontrolled
uncontrolled
uncontrolled
uncont/paved apron
uncont/paved apron
uncont/paved apron
uncont./paved apron
uncont/paved apron
uncont./paved apron
uncont./paved apron
uncont. /pav.apr./calib.
uncont./paved apron
uncont/paved apron
uncont./paved apron
uncont./paved apron
uncontrolled
uncontrolled
uncontrolled
uncontrolled
gravel apron
gravel apron
gravel apron
gravel apron
gravel apron
gravel apron
gravel apron
gravel apron
gravel apron
gravel apron
gravel apron
gravel apron
gravel apron
Vehicle
start time
1600
1323
1533
950
1027
1440
1531
1621
1143
1340
1422
1519
1610
923
953
1045
1126
1344
1420
1523
1431
1430
956
958
953
1030
1104
1248
1330
1421
1535
1613
905
938
1025
901
948
Duration
(min)
45
60
26
19
19
18
19
18
26
16
21
18
18
15
22
17
15
19
14
18
61
61
60
58
21
16
16
17
21
22
22
20
24
27
23
19
18
Operational
passes
100
100
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
54
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
Air Temp
<°F)
73.9
75
73.5
61
63
70
67.5
65
57
61
60
59
58
61
63
65
68
70
73
72
62
62
40
40
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
62
63
65
38
39
42
-------
Table 3-9. Surface Loading Results (DPS
Test
ID
1-1
1-1
1-1
1-1
1-2
1-2
1-3
1-3
1-3
1-3
1A-1
1A-1
2-1
2-2
2-3
2-4
2-5
3-1
2-6
3-2
2-7
3-3
2-8
3-4
2-9
3-5
2-10
3-6
2-11
3-7
1A-2
3-8
2-12
2-13
3-9
2-14
3-10
2-15
3-11
2-16
3-12
2-17
2-18
2-19
2-20
Average moisture
content (%)
4.6
4,6
4.6
4.6
9.5
9.5
21.4
21.4
21.4
21.4
24.1
24.1
5.5
12.1
7.9
17.4
9.4
9.4
14.5
14.5
19.3
19.3
25.0
25.0
16.7
16.7
20.1
20.1
18.4
18.4
19.7
19.7
19.7
20.5
20.5
23.8
238
192
192
325
32.5
14.7
14.7
20.5
17.6
Soil
type
native
native
native
native
native
native
native
native
native
native
native
native
sandy
sandy
sandy
sandy
sandy
sandy
native
native
sandy
sandy
native
native
sandy
sandy
native
native
sandy
sandy
native
native
native
sandy
sandy
native
native
sandy
sandy
native
native
native
sandy
native
sandy
Vehicle
type
pickup
pickup
pickup
pickup
pickup
pickup
pickup
pickup
pickup
pickup
pickup
pickup
pickup
pickup
pickup
pickup
pickup
pickup
pickup
pickup
pickup
pickup
pickup
pickup
pickup
pickup
pickup
pickup
pickup
pickup
pickup
pickup
pickup
pickup
pickup
pickup
pickup
pickup
pickup
pickup
pickup
dump truck
dump truck
dump truck
dump truck
Distance (ft) from
access point
10
50
90
130
10
50
130
90
50
10
5
45
5
5
5
5
5
25
5
25
5
25
5
25
5
25
5
25
5
25
45
25
5
5
25
5
25
5
25
5
25
5
5
5
5
Total loading
(aim2)
1.54
0.20
0.57
0.21
2.27
1.32
4.40
2.96
6.40
7.88
13.67
12.03
2.48
6.81
4.02
7.34
4.73
1.80
9.33
2.78
4.00
2.31
16.52
11.48
3.66
2.20
9.34
6.59
1.57
1.30
8.46
8.37
13.29
2.17
1.87
6.86
4.28
5.00
3.56
6.21
4.08
19.07
8.37
13.46
11.41
Silt loading
(aim2)
0.26
0.03
0.06
0.02
0.16
0.13
0.35
0.19
0.61
0.40
0.90
0.97
0.44
0.72
0.54
0.93
0.99
0.45
1.52
0.50
0.87
0.66
1.46
0.76
0.83
0.45
1.59
1.01
0.33
0.24
0.87
0.94
1.62
0.50
0.34
1.57
0.85
0.49
0.49
0.95
0.63
4.12
2.29
3.00
3.41
43
(continued)
-------
Table 3-9. (continued)
Test
ID
4-1
4-2
4-3
4-4
4-5
4-6
4-7
4-8
4-9
4-10
4-11
4-13
4-12
Average moisture
content (%)
11.7
22.6
13.3
27.5
14.6
29.1
16.7
32.1
4.7
13.5
4.3
14.1
10.5
Soil
tyre
sandy
native
sandy
native
sandy
native
sandy
native
sandy
native
sandy
native
sandy
Vehicle
type
pickup
pickup
pickup
pickup
pickup
pickup
pickup
pickup
pickup
pickup
pickup
pickup
pickup
Distance (ft) from
access point
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
Total loading
(g/m2)
3.75
6.07
6.96
3.45
8.06
9.56
10.16
7.41
2.83
2.73
1.19
5.41
5.31
Silt loading
(aim1}
0.68
1.83
1.01
1.04
1.30
2,70
1.82
1.77
0.56
0.70
0.27
1.88
1.43
Discussion of the Mud/Dirt Trackout Results
Several considerations are necessary to place the DPS trackout results in the proper
context. First, because only limited traffic was present at the site, primary emphasis
was placed on the total loading in the immediate vicinity of the access point rather than
the spatial distribution of silt loading along the road. Had additional traffic been present,
the mud/dirt trackout material would have been more finely ground and more uniformly
"smeared" along the roadway. In other words, additional traffic would have crushed the
deposited material and carried it down (and across) the road.
Furthermore, the area used to calculate total and silt loading values was based on a
nominal width of 12.5 ft for each of the 20-ft long sampling strips. This approach was
taken (rather than using the actual pavement width for each strip) because the only
traffic on the test road was that supplied for purposes of testing. Mud/dirt was carried
out along the vehicle tracks and was not smeared over the full road width. That is to
say, for this sampling program, a linear measurement was more appropriate than an
area measurement.
Because of the interest in control effectiveness, emphasis was placed on a relative
measurement-namely, the percent reduction in total loading in the immediate vicinity of
the access point. That is to say, the absolute mass of material tracked out should not
be construed as necessarily representative of mud/dirt trackout from typical
construction sites. Tests at DFS were conducted with fairly light-duty vehicles traveling
over relatively short stretches of watered access areas. One would reasonably expect
"typical" amounts of mud and dirt trackout to be much higher than that measured here
because of the contributions of larger vehicles (with more weight and wheels) and
longer travel distances at construction site access areas.
44
-------
Additionally, the sampling method required cleaning the road surface. Thus, there was
no cumulative buildup of material on the roadway during the test exercise. Again, this
lowers the DPS silt and total loading results, as compared to what one would expect at
an actual construction site.
These points are illustrated when one compares the DPS results to those from an
earlier study.8 That 1994 study evaluated mud/dirt trackout onto a 1200 ft-long arterial
road segment from a construction site with extensive haulage of earth from the site.
During the approximate 3-month duration of the 1994 study, more than 5,000 vehicles
left the construction site. Those vehicle passes were supplemented by approximately
500,000 vehicle passes which further crushed and spread the trackout along the arterial
road.
The 1994 report8 presents a geometric mean silt loading between 2 to 4 g/m2 for
uncontrolled conditions, a value several times higher than the corresponding value of
0.67 g/m2 calculated from Table 3-9. Even more importantly, on-site roads in the 1994
study were not watered to control dust. Had the trackout been from watered roads, the
1994 study would have produced even higher silt loading values.
Examination of the data in Table 3-9 began by determining the correlation coefficient
between total loading values and moisture content of the access areas when data were
grouped by both soil type (native soil, soil/sand mixture) and control treatment
(uncontrolled, gravel apron, paved apron). Thus, six combinations (two soils and
three controls) were of interest.
A significant (5-percent level) correlation was found for only one combination of test
conditions - a gravel apron in conjunction with the sand/soil mixture. None of the other
combinations exhibited a discernible trend between moisture of the access area surface
and the amount of mud/dirt tracked onto the paved road. This was an unexpected
finding because one can reasonably expect that more material would be tracked out
from wetter access areas.
One other factor may affect the DPS trackout results. As one would expect, the access
areas became increasingly compacted as the surface was repeatedly watered and
driven over. Toward the end of the test program, both the native soil and the sand/soil
mixture had a hard crust several millimeters thick. It appeared that most trackout during
later tests was due to wetted loose material on the surface being carried out during the
first few passes.
For the five combinations of test conditions that did not produce significant correlations,
the surface loading values were simply averaged. Summary statistics for those cases
are shown in Table 3-10. Note that, for the uncontrolled conditions, the native soil
produced roughly twice as much trackout on average as did the sand/soil mixture.
45
-------
Table 3-10. Summary Statistics for Loading Values
Soil type
Native soil
Control measure
Uncontrolled
Grave! apron
Paved apron
Sand/soil mixture
Uncontrolled
Gravel apron
Paved apron
Sample size
7
6
6
10
6
7
Total loading (g/m2)"
11.0 + 3.8
5.8 ± 2.5
6.3 + 3.2
4.2 + 1.9
t>
2.2 + 0.8
* Entries represent arithmetic mean + standard deviation.
b This source condition exhibited a significant correlation between loading and moisture
content.
Table 3-11 presents control efficiencies based on percent reduction in mean loading
values. Little variation in control efficiency was seen, with values ranging from 42 to
48 percent. The 46 percent control for a gravel apron in conjunction with the native soil
compares fairly well with the 1994 study8 finding of 56 to 58 percent control for a gravel
apron. (The 1994 result is based on reduction in silt loading rather than total loading.)
Table 3-11. Control Efficiency Values
Soil type
Native
Sandy
Control measure
Gravel apron
Paved apron
Gravel apron
Paved apron
Total loading control efficiency
46%
42%
a
48%
* This source condition exhibited a significant correlation between loading and moisture
content. See discussion in text.
The most surprising finding from the DPS study was the relatively poor performance of
the gravel apron in combination with the sandy soil. As noted above, this combination
produced a statistically significant correlation between surface loading and access area
moisture content. That relationship is illustrated in Figure 3-12 for both total loading
and silt loading.
What is important to note in Figure 3-12 is that, for an access area moisture content
higher than 8 percent, the relationship predicts a total loading value at least comparable
to the mean uncontrolled value of 4.2 g/m2 in Table 3-10. In other words, the gravel
apron results in no net control when the sandy soil moisture content higher than about
8 percent. Moreover, for moisture contents higher than about 8 percent, the 25-foot
long gravel apron appeared to aggravate the amount of mud/dirt trackout from the
sandy soil access area.
46
-------
12
10
Sandy Soil
Gravel Apron
y = 0.6158x- 1.2028
RJ = 0 8704
y-0.09S8x-0.0272
R2 = 0.702
Silt Loading
6 8 10 12
ACCOM Are* Moteturv Content {%)
14
16
18
Figure 3-12. Correlation between loading and moisture content for sandy soil in
conjunction with gravel apron (DPS).
A further examination as to whether the gravel apron compounds trackout from the
sandy soil area was conducted. This involved culling 26 total loading data associated
with an access area moisture content of at least 8 percent from Table 3-9. The
distribution of tests is as follows:
Uncontrolled Tests
Gravel Apron Tests
Totals
Sand/Soil Mixture
8
5
13
Native Soil
7
6
13
47
-------
The uncontrolled and gravel apron test results were combined for each soil type and
then ranked lowest to highest to perform a Mann-Whitney "U" test9 The U test used
the sum of ranks to test the null hypothesis that, for moisture levels higher than
8 percent, trackout for the gravel apron is the same as that for uncontrolled. The null
hypothesis is tested against the alternative hypothesis that trackout from the two
surfaces is different. For both the sandy and the clay soils, the null hypothesis is
rejected at the 5 percent level of significance. In other words, for both soil types, total
loading trackout with the gravel apron was significantly different than when no apron is
used if the access area moisture content was at least 8 percent.
48
-------
Chapter 4
Quality Assurance/Quality Control Activities
This section discusses the quality control and quality assurance activities performed to
ensure that the data collected during this test program were of known and acceptable
quality (see Table 4-1). Additionally, the data collected during these activities and
conclusions derived from the data are assessed to ensure that conclusions are made
with respect to the program specific quality objectives. The goals for this work
assignment are:
• Develop uncontrolled and controlled PM-10 emission factors for watering of
unpaved scraper travel routs.
• Determine the PM-2.5 fraction of the PM-10 emissions from scraper travel
routes, with and without watering.
• Determine mud/dirt trackout rates from uncontrolled, unpaved soil surfaces onto
a paved roadway
• Determine mud/dirt trackout rates after application of each control measure.
To achieve these goals, Data Quality Objectives were established for the wind speed,
the concentration measurements, and the silt load. Each of the DQO control
parameters is described in the following section.
Quality Control
In order to ensure the quality of the work being performed, procedures were established
to control critical processes that would allow assessment of the data with respect to the
Data Quality Objectives. The control of the test activities in the field was established in
the test plans that governed the positioning of the sampling array, the movement and
operating parameters of the construction equipment. By monitoring the meteorological
conditions and adjusting the field activities accordingly, the acceptability of the sampling
activity in meeting the wind speed and direction objective was maintained and the
integrity of the sample data was ensured.
49
-------
The quality control activities for the sampling media and field measurement are defined
as either critical or non-critical (see Table 4-2). To ensure that the data collected are of
known quality, the sampling media were prepared in accordance with the quality control
requirements given in Table 2-4 of the QA Plan (Appendix B). In addition, the sampling
equipment was calibrated for the collection of critical data prior to acquiring the field
data. The calibration requirements for the sampling equipment and miscellaneous
instrumentation are given in QA Plan (Appendix B, Tables 2-5 and 2-6, respectively).
During the review of the quality control data and calibration documentation, the critical
calibration measurements were found to be documented and to meet the quality control
objectives. The sampling media were weighed and audited as required prior to use in
the field.
Table 4-1. Data Quality Objectives
Measurement
PM-10 emission factor
PM-10 concentration
PM-2.5 concentration
Wind speed
Wind direction
Filter weights
Moisture content
Silt Content
Silt Loading
Method
Mass flux profiling
High volume samplers
High volume cascade impaction
Gill anemometer
R. M. Young wind station
Analytical balance
Weight loss upon drying
Dry sieving
Vacuum sampling of road surface
Accuracy (%)
•
±10"
+ 15'
±10«
±10«
±10"
±1*
+ 10<
n
Precision (%)
±45"
±40°
+ 50*
+ 10"
_
±10"
±10'
±10'
+ 50°
Completeness (%)
e
'90
3 90
3 90'
3 90'
100
m
m
P
Because the emission factor is calculated from particle concentrations and wind speed, the approach taken here is to set
goals for the component measurements.
Refers to the range percent of replicate measurements made of uncontrolled conditions. See discussion in text.
*j At least one set of replicate measurements will be conducted for scrapers traveling over uncontrolled surface.
Based on audit of volumetric flow controller.
Based on range percent of co-located samplers. At least one test with co-located samplers will be conducted for the
uncontrolled transit tests.
Based on pre- and post-test settings of flow rate.
U Based on calibration with manufacturer-recommended device.
. Based on pre- and post-test co-locations of both unit in a steady air flow.
Refers to percentage of time during testing that wind lies within acceptable range of 3 to 30 mph and ±45° from perpendicular
. to linear path of moving point source.
' Based on Class S calibration weights.
Based on independent audit weights.
Based on independent analysis of a riffle-split sample.
m At least one sample from each test site will be riffle split for duplicate analysis. (This assumes that at least one paved road
sample obtained has a mass > 800 g).
n Because silt loading is calculated, the approach taken here is to set goals for the component measurements.
0 Refers to percent range of embedded co-located paved road surface loading samples.
p At least one embedded co-located sample will be collected.
Data Audit
The data collected during the field activities and the emission factor calculations were
audited as required by the QA Unit. The data were evaluated with respect to the
50
-------
measurement objectives as presented in the QA plan. The majority of the data audited
for these activities met the data quality objectives presented in Table 4-1.
Data Assessment
In assessing the data generated on this work assignment, the quality control process
and results were validated with respect to the DQO. The technical staff conducted an
internal assessment of the overall data quality generated during this work assignment.
In addition, an independent external assessment of the program was conducted by the
QA Officer. These assessments were performed in accordance with the requirements
cited in the Site Specific Test Plan and the QA Plan.
Three of the four DQOs were accomplished through activities during the field exercise;
verification was by work assignment personnel. The first DQO was the wind speed that
was verified to be between 3 and 20 mph during the sampling process using a
calibrated Gill anemometer. Next, the wind direction was checked using an R. M.
Young wind station to ensure that it was less than 45° from the perpendicular to the
moving point source. In meeting the requirements of the third DQO, field personnel
manually recorded the number of vehicular passes and the speed (100 ft per time).
When the field activity included the use of water to reduce the dust emissions, the
number of passes to distribute water and the rate (speed per distance) at which the
truck traveled were recorded.
The final DQO requirement for ensuring the quality of the results was the concentration
factor. The concentration factor included the sampling rate (m3/min) using calibrated
samplers, sampling media, silt load (mass per unit area) by sieving, and soil moisture.
The data assessment included a review of the calibration data, media preparation,
sample collection data, and sample analysis. The validation included the accuracy and
precision data generated by the calibration procedures and results obtained from split
(silt load) and co-located samples.
The assessment of the results and documentation found that the data generated for
this report were traceable, of known quality, and supportive of the conclusions cited in
this report. The field test activities, the results, and the conclusions cited herein were
found to validate the Data Quality Objectives as presented in the scope of the work
assignment.
51
-------
Table 4-2. Critical and Non-Critical Measurements for Emission Factors
Measurements
Critical
• Filter weights
• Sampler flow rates
• Wind speed
• Volume of earth moved
• Number of scraper passes
Comments
These three variables are used to calculate the mass flux over the plume area and
the emission factor.
These measurements are necessary to normalize the mass flux and obtain an
emission factor. The scraper count will be tallied during the test by individual
equipment ID. The total volume will be determined by multiplying the count for an
individual unit by its manufacturer-rated capacity.
Non-critical
* Elapsed time
• Pressure drop across filter
• Barometric pressure
• Ambient temperature
• Wind direction
• Horizontal wind speed
* Moisture content
• Silt content
Even though this quantity is needed to determine concentrations, its effect is
multiplied out in determining the emission factor. Furthermore, in determining
PM-2.5 to PM-10 ratios, only the relative filter catches are necessary.
These three variables are used to determine the sampling rate for a high-volume
sampler equipped with a volumetric flow controller (VFC) However, flow rate varies
only slightly over the possibly encountered range of each variable.
These variables are of interest primarily to ensure that conditions are suitable for
testing. In this way, the measurements are useful for operational decisions but do
not affect the calculated emission factor.
These measurements deal with the earthen material being handled. They do not
affect the calculated emission factor.
52
-------
Chapter 5
Summary and Conclusions
The following conclusions can be drawn from the field testing results and data
comparisons generated in this study:
1. As expected, PM-10 control efficiency afforded by watering of unpaved scraper
travel routes decays (from 100 percent) with time after water application. Using
the mean uncontrolled PM-10 emission factor (1.46 Ib/vmt) as a basis for control
efficiency calculation, the measured decay rates in the average control
efficiency vary from 2.65 to 13.7 percent/hr, for traffic rates in the range of 60 to
88 vehicles/hour.
2. The PM-10 control efficiency decay rate is strongly negatively correlated with
relative humidity. These results are consistent with the effects of humidity on
evaporation rate. A weak correlation exists for this data set between PM-10
control efficiency decay rate and water application rate.
3. The observed decay in instantaneous PM-10 control efficiency with soil surface
moisture content ratio closely matches the previously published bilinear
function. Doubling of the uncontrolled moisture content of a soil surface
produces a PM-10 control efficiency of approximately 75 percent. In general,
use of the EPA model leads to conservatively low estimates of control efficiency.
4. Because watering reduces only surface dust emissions and not diesel exhaust
emissions, PM-2.5 control efficiency decayed much more quickly than for
PM-10. The difference between PM-10 and PM-2.5 decay rates was greater for
low relative humidity values. In other words, under dry conditions, watering
appears to be far less effective in controlling fine PM rather than coarse PM
emitted during scraper travel operations.
53
-------
5. When a pickup truck was used for mud/dirt trackout, the trackout rate from the
mixture of sand and native (clay) soil was strongly positively correlated with the
soil moisture content. However, there was little effect of the moisture content on
the rate of trackout from the native soil alone. This may have resulted from the
increased ability of the native soil to be compacted during the trackout process.
This implies that soil compaction itself is an effective trackout control measure.
6. The average control efficiency afforded by the paved apron ranged from
42 percent for the native soil to 48 percent for the sand-soil mixture, based on
reductions in total trackout rate onto the paved road. The control efficiency
afforded by the paved apron ranged from 34 percent for the sand-soil mixture to
43 percent for the native soil alone.
7. Based on the reduction in the total trackout, the average control efficiency
afforded by the gravel apron was 46 percent for the native soil but insignificant
for the sand-soil mixture.
8. As compared to the total trackout rate, the silt trackout rate gives a poorer
indication of control efficiency afforded by paving or graveling because of lack of
roadway traffic at the captive test site. Such traffic tends to grind the tracked
soil and increase the silt component.
54
-------
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
References
Midwest Research Institute. Background Documentation forAP-42 Section 11.2.4,
Heavy Construction Operations. Prepared for U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC.
EPA Contract No. 68-DO-0123, Work Assignment No. 44. April 1993.
Midwest Research Institute. Improvement of Specific Emission Factors (BACM
Project No. 1) Prepared for South Coast Air Quality Management District.
SCAQMD Contract 95040, Diamond Bar, CA. March 1996.
Muleski, G. E., and C. Cowherd. Emission Measurements of Particle Mass and
Size Emission Profiles from Construction Activities. U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Air Pollution Prevention and Control Division, Research Triangle Park, NC.
EPA-600/R-99-091, NTIS PB-2000-102011. October 1999.
Baxter, T. E., D. D. Lane, C. Cowherd, Jr., and F. Pendleton. "Calibration of a
Cyclone for Monitoring Inhalable Particulates." Journal of Environmental
Engineering, 1986,112, 468-478.
Davies, C. N. "The Entry of Aerosols in Sampling Heads and Tubes."
Journal of Applied Physics. 2:921. 1968.
British
Muleski, G. E., and P. Englehart. "A Compilation of Estimation Methods for the
Control of PM10 from Unpaved Roads," Presented at the 82nd Annual Meeting of
the Air Pollution Control Association, New York, NY. 1989.
Cowherd, C., G. E. Muleski, J. S. Kinsey, and W. L. Elmore. Control of Open
Fugitive Dust Sources. EPA-450/3-88-008, NTIS PB89-103691. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards,
Research Triangle Park, NC. September 1988.
55
-------
8. Raile, M. M. Characterization ofMud/Dirt Carryout onto Paved Roads from
Construction and Demolition Activities. EPA-600/R-95-171, NTIS PB96-129028.
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Air Pollution Prevention and Control
Division, Research Triangle Park, NC. December 1995.
9. McGhee, J. W. Introductory Statistics. West Publishing Company, St. Paul, MN.
1985.
56
-------
I UNCONTROLLED ~|
Appendix A
Emission Measurements from
Controlled Construction Activities
Site-Specific Test Plan
Revision 1
Prepared for
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
Office of Research and Development
Air Pollution Prevention and Control Division
(MD-61)
Attn: Charles C. Masser
Work Assignment Manager
Under Subcontract to
Pacific Environmental Services, Inc.
EPA Contract No. 68-D-70-002
Work Assignment No. 2-04
MRI Project No. 4813-02
October 6,1999
A-i
-------
UNCONTROLLED
Emission Measurements from Controlled Construction Activities
Revision No.:l
October 6,1999
Preface
This test plan was prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency by Midwest
Research Institute (MRI) under Subcontract No. 68D7002-MRI, Work Assignment No. 2,
from Pacific Environmental Services, Inc. The prime contract for this effort is EPA
Contract 68-D-70-002, Work Assignment 2-04. Under this work assignment, MRI is
providing assistance in characterizing construction-related particulate matter emissions and
controls in terms of mass and particle size distribution.
Questions concerning this plan should be addressed to Dr. Chatten Cowherd, Work
Assignment Leader, at (816) 753-7600, Ext. 1586.
MIDWEST RESEARCH INSTITUTE
Chatten Cowherd, Ph.D.
Work Assignment Leader
Approved:
Andrew Trenholm
Program Manager
Thomas Grant, Ph.D., P.E.
Director
Applied Engineering
October 6, 1999
R4813-01-02 SSTPwpd
A-ii
-------
UNCONTROLLED |
Emission Measurements from Controlled Construction Activities
Revision No.: 1
October 6,1999
Document Control
This is an internally controlled document in accord with MRI's Standard Operating
Procedures (SOPs) MRI-0055. Requests for controlled documents are to be made through
Ms. Judy Kozak, MRI Document Control Coordinator.
Revision History
Revision 0: This site-specific test plan was prepared as a companion to the QAPP
produced for the work assignment.
Revision 1: "October 6, 1999" Revised to incorporate corrections and changes in the
text requested by EPA and PES.
Distribution
EPA: Charles Masser
PES: John Chehaske
MRI: Chatten Cowherd, Andrew Trenholm, Gregory Muleski, Mary Ann Grelinger
MRI QA Unit, MRI Archives
North Central Kansas Technical College: Lynn Dietz
R48I3-01-02 SSTP.»Txi
A-iii
-------
UNCONTROLLED
Emission Measurements from Controlled Construction Activities
Revision No.: 1
October 6,1999
Contents
Preface A-ii
Figures A-vi
Tables A-vi
Section 1. Introduction A-l
1.1 Summary A-l
1.2 Test Program Organization A-2
Section 2. Source Description A-4
2.1 Process Description A-4
2.2 Control Equipment Description A-7
Section 3. Test Program A-8
3.1 Objectives A-8
3.2 Test Matrix A-8
Section 4. Sampling Locations A-l 1
4.1 Sampling Locations A-l 1
4.2 Process Sampling Locations A-13
Section 5. Sampling and Analytical Procedures A-16
5.1 Test Methods A-16
5.2 Data Reduction A-22
5.3 Process Data A-25
Section 6. QA/QC Activities A-26
6.1 QC Procedure A-26
6.2 QA Audits A-26
6.3 QA/QC Checks for Data Reduction and Validation A-29
6.4 Sample Identification and Traceability A-30
Section 7. Reporting and Data Reduction Requirements A-31
7.1 Report Format A-31
7.2 Data Reduction and Summary A-31
Section 8. Plant Entry and Safety A-33
8.1 Safety Responsibilities A-33
8.2 Safety Program A-33
8.3 Safety Requirements A-33
PfulKulateCnussionMeasure-ControUedConsiruciion. wpd
A-iv
-------
UNCONTROLLED
Emission Measurements from Controlled Construction Activities
Revision No.:l
October 6,1999
Section 9. Personnel Responsibilities and Test Schedule A-34
9.1 Test Site Organization A-34
9.2 Test Preparation A-34
9.3 Test Personnel Responsibilities and Detailed Schedule A-34
Section 10. References A-37
Pax&u]atcEnussionMeaMire-C0nlrolledCom[niction.wpd
A-v
-------
UNCONTROLLED
Emission Measurements from Controlled Construction Activities
Revision No.:l
October 6, 1999
Figures
Figure 1-1. Project Organization Chart A-3
Figure 2-1. Typical Operating Distances for Earthmoving "Systems" Described in
Reference 3 A-5
Figure 2-2. Schematic Operation of Scrapers for Earthmoving Activities A-6
Figure 4-1. General Layout of Training Facility at North Central Kansas
Technical College A-12
Figure 4-2. Schematic Illustration of Test Procedure for Moving Point Source A-14
Figure 5-1. Sampling Equipment Deployment for Scraper Transit Tests A-17
Figure 5-2. Cyclone Preseparator Operated at 40 cfin A-19
Figure 5-3. Cyclone Preseparator-Cascade Impactor Operated at 20 cfm A-20
Tables
Table 3-1. Test Design A-9
Table 6-1. Quality Assurance Procedures for Sampling Equipment A-27
Table 6-2. Quality Assurance Procedures for Sampling Media A-28
Table 7-1. Table of Contents for the Test Report A-32
Table 7-2. Summary Formats for Test Data A-32
Table 9-1. Test Preparations and Assignments A-35
Table 9-2. Testing Schedule A-36
R4BIJ-OI-02 SSTP.wpd
A-vi
-------
UNCONTROLLED |
Emission Measurements from Controlled Construction Activities
Section 1
Revision No.: 1
October 6,1999
Page: 1 of 37
Section 1.
Introduction
1.1 Summary
This test plan presents the testing approach that Midwest Research Institute (MRI) will
use to characterize the amount and particle size distribution of particulate matter (PM)
emissions from certain controlled construction-related activities. Specifically, the activities
under consideration are those related to (a) the movement of large off-road construction
equipment along temporary unpaved travel routes and (b) mud/dirt trackout from unpaved
areas onto paved roads that border a construction site.
To address logistical difficulties, field testing of construction emissions will occur at
"captive" operations in the sense that operations can be largely controlled during testing.
Tests will be conducted at two locations:
• North Central Kansas (NCK) Technical College. This is a heavy equipment
vocational training facility located in Beloit, Kansas. The effectiveness of
watering as a control measure for unpaved travel routes will be tested at this site.
• Deramus Field Station. This 80-acre MRI facility is located in Grandview,
Missouri. The effectiveness of two to four trackout controls on two soil types will
be tested at this site.
Testing under this work assignment is planned for the period from August to October
1999. Testing of uncontrolled particulate emissions from construction-related activities
was recently performed by MRI at both of these sites under a prior work assignment.
Past studies have found that a substantial fraction of PM emissions from construction
activities is related to transport of earth and other materials around the site. Because of the
generally short-term nature of travel routes at construction sites, operators throughout the
United States commonly employ water to control PM emissions rather than relying on
more expensive chemical dust suppressants.
Although PM emissions from watered unpaved roads has attracted attention since at
least the early 1980s, only two watering tests have been conducted at construction sites. In
addition to the simple scarcity of data specifically referenced to construction sites, there are
concerns about how well watering tests of unpaved roads in other settings can be applied to
the construction sites. Because temporary routes are not nearly as well constructed as
conventional unpaved roadways, available data may not accurately reflect the efficiency
afforded by watering at construction sites.
A\
„,„,..-,.-„.„.....,» '
-------
UNCONTROLLED
Emission Measurements from Controlled Construction Activities
Section 1
Revision No. :1
October 6,1999
Page: 2 of 37
Mud/dirt trackout from construction sites constitutes a large component of
construction dust emissions in urban areas, where tracked mud/dirt substantially raise the
silt loadings on adjacent paved roadways. Trackout is observed to increase as soil moisture
increases, but this effect has not been quantified. There are a variety of candidate methods
for decreasing the accumulation of mud/dirt on tires or removing accumulated mud/dirt as
vehicles exit a construction site. However, the control efficiency test data for these
measures are limited.
1.2 Test Program Organization
Figure 1-1 presents the test plan organization, major lines of communication, and
names/phone numbers of responsible individuals.
R48l3-OI-Q2SSTF.wpd
A-2
-------
UNCONTROLLED
fiil*
135*?
1W13&
I S 2 *
6
S
1
3
739
g
orri
fTic
3 I
II
&
£
1
4)
« s
p £
** O so
11
"3 t-
S 8
-
x
00
u
•g S
< 5
C8
a
a
o
•c
I
I
O
•«
A
£
DC
R4813-01 -02 SSTP.wpd
A-3
-------
UNCONTROLLED |
Emission Measurements from Controlled Construction Activities
Section 2
Revision No.: 1
October6,1999
Page: 4 of 37
Section 2.
Source Description
2.1 Process Description
Earthmoving operations constitute a large, if not dominant, source of paniculate
emissions at heavy construction sites. Numerous process "systems" are available for the
purpose of earthmoving, and these systems often combine different machines. The
Caterpillar Performance Handbook lists the following options:
• Bulldozing with track-type tractors
• Load-and-Carry with wheel loaders
• Scrapers self-loading with elevator, auger, or push-pull configurations, or push-
loaded by track-type tractors
• Articulated trucks loaded by excavators, track loaders or wheel loaders
• Off-highway trucks loaded by shovels, excavators or wheel loaders
Selection of a "spread" of equipment for use at a construction site depends on
numerous factors, not the least of which includes the number and size of equipment readily
available to the earthmoving contractor. The need to transport material into or out of the
site also restricts what type of equipment can be used.
When different machine options are available, the most important consideration by the
contractor involves the typical operating distance. General haul distances for earthmoving
systems are shown in Figure 2-1, as found in the Caterpillar handbook.3 As can be seen,
scrapers can be economically operated over a wide range of haul distances and are the
primary equipment used for alternating cuts and fills. Scrapers have important advantages
in that they are highly mobile; can be operated under wide variety of underfoot conditions;
and can accomplish the entire operation of digging, transporting, and unloading in a single
cycle.
Figure 2-2 provides a schematic illustration of the earthmoving cycle for scrapers.
During the loading or "cut" operation, a scraper generally travels approximately 100 to
200 ft while material is being loaded.4 Once loaded, the scraper travels a haul route to a
"fill" or a stockpiling location, where the material is unloaded. The scraper again travels
approximately 100 to 200 ft during the unloading operation. The unloaded scraper then
returns to the cut location along a haul route to repeat the loading/unloading cycle.
R48IMH-02 SSTP.wpd
A-4
-------
UNCONTROLLED |
Emission Measurements from Controlled Construction Activities
Section 2
Revision No.: 1
October 6,1999
Page: 5 of 37
Dozer
Wheel Loaders
Scraper
Articulated Truck
Rear Dump Truck
Wagon
10 m
32 ft
100 m
328 11
1000 m
3280ft
10000 m
32.800 ft
HAUL DISTANCE
Figure 2-1. Typical Operating Distances for Earthmoving "Systems" Described in
Reference 3
R48l3-OI-02SSTP.»pd
A-5
-------
"G o ^~* "~
O (L> C
< <*> .2 S
s> '
0^ "K
1
o
U
a
on
.1
A
o
UJ
o
tt
I-
z
o
o
a
I"
\
§•
o o
c/o J
to
1 ~
o
•G
u
.S
o
s
5
I
I
2
u
o
i
(U
O.
O
01
1
I
A-6
-------
UNCONTROLLED
Emission Measurements from Controlled Construction Activities
Section 2
Revision No.: 0
Septembers, 1999
Page: 7 of 37
If the transported material is unloaded at a fill location, it can be compacted by
bulldozers and other equipment. Should the unloading instead occur at a stockpile
location, the material ultimately must be moved again. This typically involves a scraper
again transporting the material to on-site fill location; however, the stockpile may require
loading into trucks for transport to an off-site location.
Mud/dirt trackout constitutes a large component of construction dust emissions in
urban areas. The mud/dirt that is tracked by vehicles exiting construction sites raises the
silt loading on adjacent paved roads. This, in turn, causes elevated emissions from the
paved roads as the mud/dirt is pulverized and resuspended by vehicular traffic. In some
cases, surface watering for on-site control of construction dust may enhance trackout
emissions.
2.2 Control Equipment Description
Because the construction-related PM sources under consideration are open emission
sources, traditional pollution control devices such as cyclones and baghouses are not
applicable. In general, water applied by gravity or pressurized trucks is the most commonly
used dust control technique at construction sites. Water is frequently applied to the haul
routes within a site.
Because temporary routes traveled by scrapers are not nearly as well constructed as
conventional unpaved roadways, data from temporary routes will more accurately reflect
the efficiency afforded by watering at construction sites. The frequency and amount of
water added to the travel route per unit time will be varied to develop the basis for cost-
effective strategies for dust control of unpaved travel routes within the construction
industry.
Control measures for mud/dirt trackout usually consist of aprons or mechanical
devices at the vehicle exit points. These measures are intended to remove the mud/dirt
accumulations from tires as the vehicles exit the site onto adjacent paved roads.
R4HI3-01-02 SSTP.wpd
A-7
-------
UNCONTROLLED |
Emission Measurements from Controlled Construction Activities
Section 3
Revision No.: 1
October 6,1999
Page: 8 of 37
Section 3.
Test Program
3.1 Objectives
This test program will develop particulate control efficiency for (a) watering of
scraper travel routes and (b) application of two to four controls for mud/dirt trackout.
Specific objectives, in descending order of priority, are:
• Develop uncontrolled and controlled PM-10 emission factors for watering of
unpaved scraper travel routes.
• Determine the PM-2.5 fraction of the PM-10 emissions from scraper travel routes,
with and without watering.
• Determine mud/dirt trackout rates from uncontrolled, unpaved soil surfaces onto a
paved roadway.
* Determine mud/dirt trackout rates after application of each control measure (to
include a gravel access apron and at least one stationary metallic device).
3.2 Test Matrix
Table 3-1 presents the overall design of the testing program. In the table, "mass flux
profiling" refers to the method for determination of an individual emission factor/rate.
The exposure profiling test method is discussed in detail in Section 5. The term "particle
size profiling" is used to denote a test designed to characterize the particulate size
distribution at two heights. Because of the need to collect adequate mass of the smaller size
fractions, a single particle size test spans several mass flux tests. The particle sizing
technique is also discussed in Section 5.
Emission tests at NCK. Technical College will be conducted under a variety of
meteorological conditions (e.g., temperature, wind speed, cloud cover) and operating
conditions (e.g., weight and speed of vehicle equipment, number of vehicle passes per unit
time, and time of day). Of particular interest is on-site collection of pan evaporation
measurements so control efficiency decay rates for watering can be referenced to readily
available meteorological data. Because control efficiency is greatest immediately after
water is applied to the roadway and decays as the surface dries, testing will span a broad
range of times after watering, so reliable average control efficiency data are obtained.
Ao
,™,.,-,,™ ™—,~ "°
-------
UNCONTROLLED
Emission Measurements from Controlled Construction Activities
Section 3
Revision No.: I
October 6,1999
Page: 9 of 37
Table 3-1. Test Design
Operation
NCK Tech. College
Transit-Native Soil
Travel
surface
Uncontrolled
Watered:
Appl. 1
Watered:
Appl. 1a
Watered:
Appl. 2
Watered:
Appl. 2a
Pollutant
PM-10
PM-2.5
PM-10
PM-2.5
PM-10
PM-2.5
PM-10
PM-2.5
PM-10
PM-2.5
No. of
tests
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
Test method
Mass flux profiling
Particle size profiling
Mass flux profiling
Particle size profiling
Mass flux profiling
Particle size profiling
Mass flux profiling
Particle size profiling
Mass flux profiling
Particle size profiling
Approx.
time (min)
per test
15
75
30-60
120
30-60
120
30-60
120
30-60
120
Deramus Field Station
Trackout-Native Soil
Trackout-Sandy Soil
Uncontrolled
• Moisture 1
• Moisture 2
Control 1
* Moisture 1
• Moisture 2
Control 2
• Moisture 1
• Moisture 2
Control 3
• Moisture 1
• Moisture 2
Uncontrolled
• Moisture 1
• Moisture 2
Control 1
• Moisture 1
• Moisture 2
Control 2
* Moisture 1
• Moisture 2
Control 3
• Moisture 1
• Moisture 2
Surface loading
Surface loading
Surface loading
Surface loading
Surface loading
Surface loading
Surface loading
Surface loading
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Manual cleaning
Manual cleaning
Manual cleaning
Manual cleaning
Manual cleaning
Manual cleaning
Manual cleaning
Manual cleaning
60 min
60 min
60 min
60 min
60 min
60 min
60 min
60 min
R4813-01-02 SSTP.wpd
A-9
-------
UNCONTROLLED |
Emission Measurements from Controlled Construction Activities
Section 3
Revision No.: 1
October 6,1999
Page: 10 of 37
At the Deramus Field Station, trackout from bare soil areas on to a paved roadway will
be studied as a function of soil type, soil moisture and control method. The technique for
trackout quantification is discussed in Section 4.
R48I3-OI-02 SSTP.wpd A-10
-------
UNCONTROLLED
Emission Measurements from Controlled Construction Activities
Section 4
Revision No.: 1
October 6,1999
Page: 11 of 37
Section 4.
Sampling Locations
4.1 Sampling Locations
As noted earlier, testing will employ captive construction-related operations at two
different facilities. The first set of tests will take place at the North Central Kansas
Technical College (NCK Technical College) location near Beloit, Kansas. Figure 4-1
presents a general plant layout of the facility. Testing will be performed in conjunction
with the "hands-on" training of students at NCK Technical College. During the captive
earthmoving operation, students operating up to 5 scrapers will form a cut of approximate
dimensions 300 ft long, 100 ft wide and 8 ft deep. When that cut is completed, the
stockpiled material will be recovered and replaced.
AT NCK Technical College, there are seven scrapers available, as show below:
No. of units
3
1
3
Caterpillar model no.
621
623
613
Capacity (cu yd)
21
23
11
Type
Pan-type, single engine tractor
Elevating (paddle) type
Elevating (paddle) type
This test site affords an opportunity to examine the effect that different types of
scrapers have on emission levels. To the extent practical, MRI will work with NCK
Technical College staff to isolate individual scraper types during the testing. That is, if
only three teams (two students each) are to train on scrapers on any given day, MRI will
request that on one day the three pan scrapers be used and on the next day, the three
Model 613 units be used. If NCK Technical College plans call for four teams, MRI will
request that four elevating models be used.
R4313-OI-02 SSTP.wpd
A-ll
-------
UNCONTROLLED |
Emission Measurements from Controlled Construction Activities
Section 4
Revision No. :1
October 6,1999
Page: 12 of 37
1QOO'±
-H
=3
General Test Area
North
500' ±
Equipment Line
SHOP
Figure 4-1. General Layout of Training Facility at
North Central Kansas Technical College
R48l3-0!-02SSTPwpd
A-12
-------
I UNCONTROLLED |
Emission Measurements from Controlled Construction Activities
Section 4
Revision No. :1
October 6, 1999
Page: 13 of 37
The scraper in transit represents a "moving point" source that can be treated as a "line"
source. Figure 4-2 shows not only a schematic of the operation but also the basis for the
line source test methodology.
As long as the distance traveled during the transit operation is substantially greater
than the downwind distance from the path to the sampling array, then only a single vertical
array of samplers ("tower") is necessary to characterize the PM plume, hi other words,
because the source is considered as uniformly emitting over the length of the operational
pass, a vertical array is sufficient to characterize the vertical distribution of concentration
and wind speed in the plume.
A captive test site at MRI Deramus Field Station (Grandview, Missouri) will be used
to test mud/dirt trackout controls, in order to stage site conditions and trackout vehicles
during the study. An asphalt-paved (or otherwise improved) linear test strip approximately
200 feet in length will be used to determine the amount of material that is tracked from the
adjacent egress area (unpaved travel route at right angles to the paved test strip). The
unpaved travel route will include two soil types (one high and one low clay content) for
characterization of uncontrolled trackout (at varying moisture levels). In addition, from
two to four trackout control methods will be investigated. They will include a gravel
access apron and at least one stationary metallic device for removing the mud/dirt from
vehicle tires.
4.2 Process Sampling Locations3
In addition to the particulate concentrations and wind speed measurements necessary
(as described in Section 5) to determine emission rates, two other broad classes of
information will be collected during the field exercise at NCK Technical College. The first
class comprises operational features, such as the speed of the scraper. Because of the
"captive" nature of the earthmoving being tested, the operational parameters will be
established prior to the start of testing and will be controlled by the operators during test
periods.
The second supplementary class consists of aggregate material properties of the
unpaved travel surfaces. Of particular interest are the moisture and silt contents of the
surface material. Up to six composite samples (edge-to-edge) will be collected to
characterize the scraper transit surface soil at the NCK Technical College training facility.
During watering tests, a composite sample for moisture analysis will be collected every
30 min. Each composite sample will consist of 10 increments, each 12 in by 12 in in area.
8 The process is defined in terms of the operational parameters of the construction
equipment and the properties of the travel surface which constitutes the source of entrained
dust.
R4813-01-02 SSTP.»pd
A-13
-------
UNCONTROLLED
Diesel Exhaust
Wind
Emission Measurements from Controlled Construction Activities
Section 4
Revision No. :1
October 6,1999
Page: 14 of 37
Q Downwind
Sampling
Array
*s*&y&^?te>? •$#?•
gfaftt <*3-f~.s-%iv '^
Suspended
Dust Plume
45 ft (15 tn) ± Direction of Travel
16ft (5m)±
Area Swept Out by Scraper
Upwind Sampler
Figure 4-2. Schematic Illustration of Test Procedure for Moving Point Source
R4S13-01-02 SST? wpd
A-14
-------
I UNCONTROLLED |
Emission Measurements from Controlled Construction Activities
Section 4
Revision No.:l
October 6,1999
Page: 15 of 37
Sample collection and analysis will follow procedures contained in Appendices C.I and
C.2 in EPA's Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors (AP-42).5
At the trackout test site at the Deramus Field Station, no emission testing will be
performed, but the operational features of trackout vehicles (primarily a full-size pickup
truck) will be documented. In addition, the aggregate material properties of the test soil
surfaces, from which trackout originates, will be characterized, together with the silt
loadings on the paved test strip. For each test soil, a composite sample consisting of six
12 in by 12 in increments will be collected for silt and moisture analysis. For "point"
measurement silt loading on the paved test surface, each surface sample will be obtained by
cleaning a lateral strip (edge-to-edge) of the surface. A combination of sweeping with a
small broom and a vacuum cleaner (depending on surface loading) will be used to collect
each surface sample.
R48U-OI-02SSTP.wixl
A-15
-------
UNCONTROLLED
Emission Measurements from Controlled Construction Activities
Section 5
Revision No.: 1
October 6,1999
Page: 16 of 37
Section 5.
Sampling and Analytical Procedures
5.1 Test Methods
The exposure profiling test method will be used to quantify emissions from scrapers in
transit under different watering cycles. This method has been recognized by EPA as the
characterization technique most appropriate for the broad class of open anthropogenic dust
sources, such as moving point sources. Because the method isolates a singie emission
source while not artificially shielding the source from ambient conditions (e.g., wind), the
open source emission factors with the highest quality ratings in EPA's emission factor
handbook AP-425 are typically based on this approach.
The exposure profiling technique for emission testing of open particulate matter
sources is based on an isokinetic profiling concept. The passage of airborne pollutant
immediately downwind of the source is measured directly by means of simultaneous multi-
point sampling of mass concentration and air flow (advection) over the cross section of the
emission plume. Because both the emission rate and the air flow are non-steady,
simultaneous multipoint sampling is required. This technique uses a mass flux
measurement scheme testing rather than requiring indirect emission rate calculation
through the application of a generalized atmospheric dispersion model. As noted in the
previous section, the emission source—scrapers in transit—can be represented as a line
source.
As applied to line sources, the "exposure profiling" test method requires a vertically
oriented array of sampling points. A vertical network of samplers (Figure 5-1) is
positioned just downwind and upwind from the edge of the source. The downwind
distance of approximately 5 m is far enough that interference with sampling due to vehicle-
generated turbulence is minimal but close enough to the source that the vertical plume
extent can be adequately characterized with a maximum sampling height of 5 to 7 m. In a
similar manner, the approximate 15-m distance upwind from the source's edge is far
enough from the source that (a) source turbulence does not affect sampling, and (b) a brief
wind reversal would not substantially impact the upwind samplers. The 15-m distance is,
however, close enough to the line of the moving point source to provide the representative
background concentration values needed to determine the net (i.e., due to the source) mass
flux.
The primary air sampling device in the exposure profiling portion of the field program
will be a standard high-volume air sampler fitted with a cyclone preseparator (Figure 5-2).
R4SI3-OI-02 SSTP.wpd
A-16
-------
W ID — CT> [•-.
:| § 'A £ C
.> -B Z — c
"5 8 5 <«? «•
S S
Cl
HI
O
a:
i-
2:
o
E
a
o
U
I
S
C
tu
i
UJ
2c
73 ^
S"e
w i:
w L=-
u c:
™ (rt
C .^
tj
a
CO
_«
(3 *M*
8f
so ™
o £
s^ M>^
2 u
*Vt N
U u
O ~
"C
o
"V
S
u
S
3
C. S
1 o
o _
VI -
0 © E
«
i 2 -f 2
00 '£.''3 ~
\i § w =
^s^l:
I
H
L
2
u ^
4J
-------
UNCONTROLLED
Emission Measurements from Controlled Construction Activities
Section 5
Revision No.: 1
October 6,1999
Page: 18 of 37
The cyclone exhibits an effective 50% cutoff diameter (D50) of approximately 10 umA
when operated at a flow rate of 40 cfm (68 nrVh).6 Thus, mass collected on the 8- by 10-in
backup filter represents a PM-10 sample. During each mass flux profiling test, a Wedding
and Associates high-volume PM-10 reference sampler will be colocated with one cyclone
sampler for comparison purposes.
As noted in connection with the test matrix given in Table 3-1, "mass flux profiling"
describes tests that will be used to characterize mass emissions from scrapers in transit. In
this technique, samplers of the type shown in Figure 5-2 are distributed over the effective
height of the dust plume to determine the mass concentration of particulate at different
heights in the plume. In this way, the shape of the emission plume is defined and the
PM-10 emission factor is found by integrating the mass flux over the height of the plume
in the manner described in Section 5.2.
The test matrix given in Table 3-1 also references "particle size profiling" tests to
determine vertical profiles of particle size distribution data. This second sampling system
supplements the mass exposure profiling system described above. The second system also
uses a high-volume cyclone preseparator but in a different sampling configuration. Here,
the cyclone is operated at a flow rate of 20 acfm over a 3-stage cascade impactor (see
Figure 5-3). At that flow rate, the cyclone and 3 stages exhibit D50 cut points of 15,10.2,
4.2, and 2.1 umA. Particulate matter is collected on 4- by 5-in glass fiber impactor
substrates and the 8- by 10-in glass fiber backup filter. To reduce particle "bounce"
through the impactor, the substrates are sprayed with a grease solution that improves the
adhesion of the impacted particles. To determine the sample weight of particulate collected
on the interior surface, the interior surface is washed with distilled water into separate jar
which is then capped and taped shut. Upon return to MRI's main laboratories, the entire
wash solution will be passed through a Biichner-rype funnel holding an 47-mm glass fiber
filter under suction to ensure collection of all suspended material on the filter.
As noted in Section 3, a particle size profiling test will span three mass flux profiling
tests. This recognizes that, because a cyclone/impactor combination samples at a slower
flow rate and collects mass on more media, this type of sampler must be operated much
longer than the 40-cfm cyclones used to define the plume shape in the mass flux profiling
tests.
R«SI3-Oi-02 SSTP.«pd A- 1 O
-------
UNCONTROLLED |
Emission Measurements from Controlled Construction Activities
Section 5
Revision No. :1
October 6,1999
Page: 19 of 37
0 5
i 11 iI
Scala—Inches
Cyclone
Filter Holder
92-04 ctai sent 091192
Figure 5-2. Cyclone Preseparator Operated at 40 cfm
R4SI3-OI-02 SSTP.wpd
A-19
-------
UNCONTROLLED
Emission Measurements from Controlled Construction Activities
Section 5
Revision No.: 1
October 6,1999
Page: 20 of 37
Cyclone
Cascade
Impactor
Back-up
Filter Holder
Scale—Inches «-w <*•'««"
Figure 5-3. Cyclone Preseparator-Cascade Impactor Operated at 20 cfm
R48!3-Q1-02SSTF.wpd
A-20
-------
UNCONTROLLED
Emission Measurements from Controlled Construction Activities
Section 5
Revision No. :1
October 6,1999
Page: 21 of 37
Besides the air sampling equipment, Figure 5-1 also shows that, throughout each test
of scrapers in transit, wind speed will be monitored at two heights using R. M. Young Gill-
type (model 27106) anemometers. Furthermore, an R. M. Young portable wind station
(model 05305) will be used to record wind speed and direction at the 3.0 m height
downwind. All wind data are to be accumulated into 5- to 15-min averages logged with a
26700 series R. M. Young "programmable translator."
Additional measurements are necessary to characterize the service environment for the
watering tests of scrapers in transit. These measurements will include:
• volume of water applied per unit area of travel surface
• solar radiation
• cloud cover
• relative humidity
• pan evaporation
Note that these measurements are intended to provide a field representation of water
application and evaporative conditions during testing. These are viewed as second tier,
semi-quantitative measurements to assess how the primary variable (moisture content)
relates to environmental conditions. It should be noted that the evaporation rate from a
travel surface is strongly enhanced by the movement of scrapers or other mobile equipment
over the surface.
To determine the volume of water applied per unit area, a series of tared sampling pans
will be placed across the test surface. These will consist of lightweight aluminum pans
with an opening of approximately 32 square inches. The bottom of the pan will be lined
with absorbent material to avoid splashing of the water. Once the water is applied, the
sampling pans will be retrieved and reweighed. The volume of water will be determined by
assuming water density of 1 g/cm3. The application rate is found by dividing the volume of
water by the top area of the pan.
Solar radiation during the test period will be monitored by a Weathertronics Model
3010 mechanical polygraph. This device produces a hard copy record of the intensity of
direct and scattered solar radiation. Hourly visual observations of cloud cover (to the
nearest tenth) will supplement the pyranograph results.
Dry and wet bulb temperatures (from which relative humidity is determined) from a
sling psychrometer will be recorded hourly.
The standard "Class A" evaporation measurement procedure requires that 7.5 inches of
water be maintained in a pan with very specific dimensions (10 inch high by 47.5 inch
inside diameter), construction details (material, welding, etc.), and operational features
(leveling, etc.). CJiven the goal to provide a semi-quantitative measure of ambient
A-21
-------
UNCONTROLLED
Emission Measurements from Controlled Construction Activities
Section 5
Revision No.: 1
October 6,1999
Page: 22 of 37
conditions, MRI will make use of a galvanized steel tank with approximately the same
dimensions as a Class A pan and will fill the tank with water to the same relative height
(i.e., to 2.5 inch from the top). The tank will be deployed at the start of the testing exercise,
and the water level will be measured each morning and evening during the sampling trip.
A rain gauge will also be deployed in the immediate vicinity of the tank, and its contents
will be read each morning and evening as well.
Trackout emissions of PM-10 and PM-2.5 will be projected from the quantity of
mud/dirt per vehicle which passes from the egress area to the paved test strip, and its
contribution to silt loading. The method for collection and analysis of surface loading
(total and silt fraction) is described in Reference 5.
For the baseline (dry soil) uncontrolled condition (one series of tests for each soil
type), the trackout quantity will be measured by collecting surface samples from the paved
test strip at five regular distance intervals from the access end to the opposite end (200 ft
length). The total trackout will be determined by integrating the measured surface loadings
over the full length of the test strip.
For the other uncontrolled tests (with higher moisture levels on the unpaved travel
route) and for tests of trackout controls, the total trackout quantity will be based on
collection of surface materials in the immediate vicinity (within about 25 feet) of the
trackout point, with a scaling factor for extrapolation. Reducing the paved area to be
sampled will allow multiple access points for more effective back-to-back testing of several
uncontrolled/controlled conditions. As stated in Section 3.1, the trackout control measures
will include a gravel access apron and a stationary metallic device that spreads the tire tread
to remove mud/dirt accumulations.
5.2 Data Reduction
To calculate emission rates in the exposure profiling technique, 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 paniculate 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 are
described below.
The concentration of particulate matter measured by a sampler is given by:
C = m/QT
R48I3-OI-02 SSTT.wpd
A-22
-------
where C
m
Q
T
UNCONTROLLED |
Emission Measurements from Controlled Construction Activities
Section 5
Revision No.:l
October 6, 1999
Page: 23 of 37
paniculate concentration (mass/volume)
net mass collected on the filter or substrate (mass)
volumetric flow rate of the sampler (volume/time)
duration of sampling (time)
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 = Q / aU
where Q = volumetric flow rate of the sampler (volume/time)
a = sampler intake area (area)
U = approach wind speed (length/time)
This ratio is of interest in the sampling of total particulate, since isokinetic sampling
ensures that particles of all sizes are sampled without bias. As such, the ratio is of greatest
interest in the particle size profiling tests. Specially designed nozzles are available to
maintain ±20% isokinetic sampling for wind speeds in the range of approximately 5 to
20 mph (when the samplers are operated at 20 acfm). Because the primary interest in this
program is directed to I'M-10 and PM-2.5 emissions, sampling under moderately
nonisokinetic conditions should pose little difficulty. It is readily recognized that 10 urn
(aerodynamic diameter) and smaller particles have weak inertial characteristics at normal
wind speeds and therefore are relatively unaffected by anisokinesis.7
Nozzles are used on both the 20- and 40-cfm directional sampler units. However,
because of the lower intake speed, the 20-cfm cyclone/impactors have more favorable
isokinetic rations under typically encountered wind speeds. For this reason, only the total
particulate results based on the samples collected in 20-cfm units will be reported and
associated with an IFR value.
Exposure represents the net passage of mass through a unit area normal to the
direction of plume transport (wind direction) and is calculated (at each downwind sampling
height) by:
where E =
C =
cb =
U =
T =
E = (C-Cb)UT
net particulate exposure (mass/area)
downwind particulate concentration (mass/volume)
background particulate concentration (mass/volume)
approach wind speed (length/time)
duration of sampling (time)
R4SI3-OI-lHSST!>.wp(l
A-23
-------
UNCONTROLLED
Emission Measurements from Controlled Construction Activities
Section 5
Revision No.: 1
October 6, 1999
Page: 24 of 37
Because background concentrations are much smaller than source contributions to
downwind concentrations (except when control efficiency is very high), linear interpolation
and extrapolation are sufficient to characterize the vertical profile of background
concentration for application to all downwind sampling heights.
The 4.5-m wind speed will be interpolated from the 2-m and 7-m measurements. The
interpolation assumes a logarithmic wind profile of the form:
U(z) = Kln(z/Zo)
where U = wind speed (length/time)
z = height above ground (length)
K = proportionality constant (length/time)
z0 = roughness height of ground surface (length)
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 paniculate matter due to the source. For a line source, a one-
dimensional integration is used:
•I
Al = E dh
where Al =
E =
h —
H =
integrated exposure for a line source (mass/length)
net paniculate exposure (mass/area)
height above ground (length)
vertical extent of the plume (length)
Because exposures are measured at discrete point within the plume, a numerical
integration is necessary to determine the integrated exposure. For moving point (line)
sources, 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 1-m value of exposure is obtained by extrapolating the 2-m and 4.5-m
values. The effective height H is found by vertically extrapolating the net (i.e., downwind
R48l3-Ol-02SSTP.wpd
A-24
-------
UNCONTROLLED
Emission Measurements from Controlled Construction Activities
Section 5
Revision No,: 1
October 6, 1999
Page: 25 of 37
minus upwind) concentrations to a value of zero.b Finally, the integration is performed
using the trapezoidal rule.
The emission factor for paniculate matter is determined from the integrated exposure
by normalizing the emissions against some measure of source activity. For the tests of
scrapers in transit, the integrated exposure will be divided by the number of equipment
passes to obtain an emission factor in terms of mass emitted per equipment per unit
distance traveled during the operation. For tests of loading and unloading, the "operational
distance" traveled by the scrapers will be found by multiplying the total number of scraper
passes by the mean distance traveled (see Sections 4.2 and 5.3) during loading or
unloading. Both the operational distance and the total volume of earth loaded/unloaded
will be used to normalize the emission factor. Both sets will be reported.
5.3 Process Data
As noted in connection with Section 4.2, operational features, such as the speed of the
scraper, will be controlled by the "captive" nature of the earthmoving at the NCK
Technical College test site.
b Because past testing at the Beloit site has shown that most of the dust plume lies below the 7 m
sampling height, only minor uncertainties result from vertical extrapolation of the downwind concentration
profile from the value at 7 m to the background (upwind value) above 7 m.
R48U-0)-02SSTP.»pd A-25
-------
UNCONTROLLED
Emission Measurements from Controlled Construction Activities
Section 6
Revision No. :1
October 6, 1999
Page: 26 of 37
Section 6.
QA/QC Activities
6.1 QC Procedure
The Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) prepared for this test program is a
separate document that describes all the QA/QC activities for the project.
6.2 QA Audits
As part of the QA program for this study, routine audits of sampling and analysis
procedures are to 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 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 data obtained in the field and laboratory aids in the auditing
procedure.
Requirements for high-volume (hi-vol) sampler flow rates rely on the use of
secondary and primary flow standards. The Roots meter is the primary volumetric standard
and the BGI orifice is the secondary standard for calibration of hi-vol sampler flow rates.
The Roots meter is calibrated and traceable to a NIST standard by the manufacturer. The
BGI orifice is calibrated against the primary standard on an annual basis. Before going to
the field, the BGI orifice is first checked to assure that it has not been damaged. In the
field, the orifice is used to calibrate the flow rate of each hi-vol sampler. (For samplers
with volumetric flow controllers, no calibration is possible and the orifice is used to audit
the nominal 40 acfm flow rate.) Table 6-1 specifies the frequency of calibration and other
QA checks regarding air samplers.
A second pre-test activity is the preparation of the hi-vol filters for use in the field. In
this preparation, the filters are weighed under stable temperature and humidity conditions.
After they are weighed and have passed audit weighing, the filters are packaged for
shipment to the field. Table 6-2 outlines the general requirements for conditioning and
weighing sampling media. Note, the audit weighing is performed by a second, independent
analyst.
R48U-OI-02 SSTP.wpd
A-26
-------
UNCONTROLLED
Emission Measurements from Controlled Construction Activities
Section 6
Revision No.: 1
October 6,1999
Page: 27 of 37
Table 6-1. Quality Assurance Procedures for Sampling Equipment
Activity
Maintenance
All samplers
Calibration
Volumetric flow controller
Operation
Timing
Isokinetic sampling (cyclones)
Prevention of static deposition
QC check/requirement
Check motors, brushes, gaskets, timers, and flow measuring
devices at each plant prior to testing. Repair/replace as
necessary.
Prior to start of testing at each regional site, ensure that flow
determined by orifice and the look-up table for each volumetric
flow controller agrees within 7%. For 20 acfm devices (particle
size profiling), calibrate each sampler against orifice prior to
use at each regional site and every two weeks thereafter
during test period. (Orifice calibrated against displaced
volume test meter annually.)
Start and stop all downwind samplers during time span not
exceeding 1 min.
Adjust sampling intake orientation whenever mean wind
direction changes by more than 30 degrees for 2 consecutive
5-min averaging periods. Suspend testing if mean wind
direction (for two consecutive 5-min averaging periods) is
more than 45 degrees from perpendicular to linear path of the
moving point source.
Change the cyclone intake nozzle whenever the mean wind
speed approaching the sampler falls outside of the suggested
bounds for that nozzle for two consecutive 5-min averaging
periods. Suspend testing if wind speed falls outside the
acceptable range of 3 to 20 mph for two consecutive 5-min
averaging periods.
Cover sampler inlets prior to and immediately after sampling.
R4813-01-02 SSTP.wpd
A-27
-------
UNCONTROLLED
Emission Measurements from Controlled Construction Activities
Section 6
Revision No.: 1
October 6,1999
Page: 28 of 37
Table 6-2. Quality Assurance Procedures for Sampling Media
Activity
Preparation
Conditioning
Weighing
Auditing of weights
Correction for handling effects
Calibration of balance
OA check/reauirement
Inspect and imprint glass fiber media with identification
numbers.
Equilibrate media for 24 h in clean controlled room with
relative humidity of 40% (variation of less than ±5%
RH) and with temperature of 23°C (variation of less
than±rC).
Weigh hi-vol filters to nearest 0.05 mg.
Independently verify final weights of 10% of filters and
substrates (at least four from each batch). Reweigh
entire batch if weights of any hi-vol filters deviate by
more than ±2.0 mg. For tare weights, conduct a 100%
audit by a second analyst. Reweigh any high-volume
filter whose weight deviates by more than ±1.0 mg.
Follow same procedures for impactor substrates used
for sizing tests. Audit limits for impactor substrates are
±1.0 and ±0.5 mg for final and tare weights,
respectively.
Weigh and handle at least one blank for each 1 to
10 filters of each type used to test.
Balance to be calibrated once per year by certified
manufacturer's representative. Check prior to each
use with laboratory Class S weights.
R4S13-01.-MSSTP.wpd
A-28
-------
I UNCONTROLLED |
Emission Measurements from Controlled Construction Activities
Section 6
Revision No.: 1
October 6,1999
Page: 29 of 37
As indicated in Table 6-2, a minimum of 10% field blanks will be collected for QC
purposes. This involves handling at least 1 blank filter for every 10 exposed filters in an
identical manner to determine systematic weight changes due to handling steps alone.
These changes are used to mathematically correct the net weight gain due to handling. A
field blank filter is loaded into a sampler and then immediately recovered without any air
being passed through the media. Cyclone wash blanks are obtained by washing the devices
after they have been cleaned. Blanks have been successfully used in many MRI programs
to account for systematic weight changes due to handling.
After the particulate matter samples and blank filters are collected and returned from
the field, the collection media are placed in the gravimetric laboratory and allowed to come
to equilibrium. Each filter is weighed, allowed to return to equilibrium for an additional
24 h, and then a minimum of 10% of the exposed filters are reweighed by a second analyst.
If a filter fails the audit criterion, the entire lot will be allowed to condition in the
gravimetric laboratory an additional 24 h and then reweighed. The tare and first weight
criteria for filters (Table 6-2) are based on an internal MRI study conducted in the early
1980s to evaluate the stability of several hundred 8- x 10-in glass fiber filters used in
exposure profiling studies.
6.3 QA/QC Checks for Data Reduction and Validation
Whenever practical, all data collected in the study will be entered directly into bound
laboratory notebooks and standard data forms. All data are to be recorded in notebooks or
on standard data forms (examples are provided in the Appendix) using permanent black ink
and signed/dated by sampling personnel. Notebooks and data forms are to be inspected for
completeness and accuracy by the appropriate field supervisor at the end of each test. At
that time, data forms are grouped by test number and bound into 3-ring binders.
The data analysis procedures to be used for this project are procedures that have been
through several layers of validation in substantiating the performance of the method. It
should be noted that blank-corrected sample mass is considered quantifiable (and usable for
concentration calculation) only if it equals or exceeds three times the standard deviation for
the net weight gain of the field blanks. The procedures for conversion of particulate
concentrations to final end products are presented in Section 5.2.
The Field Team Leader or his/her designee will perform an independent check of the
calculations in any computer data reduction program. The Field Team Leader or his/her
designee will conduct an on-site spot check to assure that data are being recorded
accurately. After the field test, the QA officer or his/her designee will check data input to
assure accurate transfer of the raw data.
For this project, all records will be evaluated for the adherence to all procedures and
requirements. The items that will be reviewed include:
R48!3-01-02SSTP.wp
-------
UNCONTROLLED
Emission Measurements from Controlled Construction Activities
Section 6
Re vision No. :1
October 6, 1999
Page: 30 of 37
Gravimetric audit weighing for the assessment of the participate data,
Calibration and calibration criterion checks,
• The results of all blanks, and
• The validation of data process systems or procedures.
Selected data will be reconstructed, including tracing the calibration back to the
primary standards. Any software (spreadsheets) used to determine numerical values will be
checked by hand calculating all intermediate and final results for one run by referring to
original sources of data (i.e., field filter logs, filter weight logs, run sheets, sampler look-up
tables).
6.4 Sample Identification and Traceability
To maintain sample integrity, the following procedure will be used:
• Each filter will be issued a unique identification number. SOP MRl-8403
describes the numbering system that is employed to identify filter type, project,
and other information.
* The sample number will be recorded in a sample logbook along with the date the
sample is obtained. The sample number will be coded to indicate the sample
location and test series.
• Other pertinent information to be recorded includes short descriptions of sample
type or location, storage location, condition of sample, any special instructions,
and signatures of personnel who receive the sample for analysis.
• In order to conduct traceability, all sample transfers will be recorded in a notebook
or on forms. The following information will be recorded: the assigned sample
codes, date of transfer, location of storage site, and the name of the person
initiating and accepting the transfer.
All documented work will be reviewed by the project leader for completeness. The
field technical coordinator and crew chief are responsible for assuring that all samples are
accounted for and that proper traceability/tracking procedures are followed.
R4813-OI-02 SSTP wpd
A-30
-------
I UNCONTROLLED |
Emission Measurements from Controlled Construction Activities
Section 7
Revision No,: 1
October 6,1999
Page: 31 of 37
Section 7.
Reporting and Data Reduction Requirements
7.1 Report Format
The table of contents for the test report will be as shown in Table 7-1.
7.2 Data Reduction and Summary
Table 7-2 illustrates the summary format for the emission and particle size data
collected during the field testing.
R4813-014)2 SSTP.wpd
A-31
-------
I UNCONTROLLED |
Emission Measurements from Controlled Construction Activities
Section 7
Revision No.: 1
October 6,1999
Page: 32 of 37
Table 7-1. Table of Contents for the Test Report
Table of Contents
Preface
Figure
Tables
Introduction
Air Sampling Methodology
Test Results
Development of Emission Factors
Qa/qc Activities
References
Appendices
Table 7-2. Summary Formats for Test Data
Scraper Operation
Transit
No. of Tests
PM-1 0 Emission
Factor based on
travel distance
Range
Mean
PM-10 Emission Factor
based on volume
loaded/unloaded
Range
NA
Mean
NA
Scraper Operation
Unloading
Transit
No. of Tests
PM-2.5 to PM-10 Ratio
Ranae
Mean
R4813-01-02 SSTP.»Txd
A-32
-------
UNCONTROLLED |
Emission Measurements from Controlled Construction Activities
Section 8
Revision No.: 1
October 6, 1999
Page: 33 of 37
Section 8.
Plant Entry and Safety
8.1 Safety Responsibilities
The work assignment leader (C. Cowherd) and the field test leader (G. Muleski) are
both responsible for ensuring compliance with plant entry, health, and safety requirements.
The facility coordinator has the authority to impose or waive facility restrictions.
8.2 Safety Program
MRI has a comprehensive health and safety program that satisfies OSHA
requirements. The Technical Safety and Security Manual, Chemical Hygiene Plan, and
Field Operations Safety Manual include written procedures that cover: emergency
procedures, safe work practices, material safety data sheets, employee information and
training, medical monitoring, and use of personal protective equipment.
8.3 Safety Requirements
All MRI personnel will adhere to the host facility's procedures and safety
requirements. In particular, MRI personnel will:
1. confine activities to the test area to the extent possible
2. obtain a daily pass, as required by the host facility
3. wear hard hat, safety shoes, and safety glasses at all times in accordance with host
facility and MRI policy
4. have readily available first aid equipment and fire extinguisher
5. eat only in designated areas
R4S11-01-02 SSTP.vtpd
A-33
-------
I UNCONTROLLED |
Emission Measurements from Controlled Construction Activities
Section 9
Revision No.: 1
October 6, 1999
Page: 34 of 37
Section 9.
Personnel Responsibilities and Test Schedule
9.1 Test Site Organization
The key tasks and task leaders for MRI and the host facilities are as follows:
• Facility coordinator (L. Dietz for NCK Technical College)
• MRI work assignment leader (C. Cowherd)
• MRI field test leader (G. Muleski)
9.2 Test Preparation
Table 9-1 lists the preparations and responsibilities that are required for the field
program. A schedule is also presented.
9.3 Test Personnel Responsibilities and Detailed Schedule
MRI personnel will arrive at the host facility or at DPS by 8 am during each potential
test day during the field exercise. Upon arrival, the MRI field test leader will meet with the
facility coordinator (only at NCK Technical College) and then with the test team to: review
test plans for the day; communicate all necessary information ; and notify each other of any
problem or delay. Table 9-2 provides a detailed test schedule.
R4813-OI-02 SSTP wpd
A-34
-------
UNCONTROLLED
Emission Measurements from Controlled Construction Activities
Section 9
Revision No.: 1
October 6, 1999
Page: 35 of 37
Table 9-1. Test Preparations and Assignments
Preparation/ Assignment
Preparation of sampling media
Transportation of sampling media and equipment to initial test
site
On-site calibration of sampling equipment
Sample traceability (air and material samples)
Compilation of data forms by test number
Transportation of sampling media and equipment to second test
site or MR1
Analysis of air and material samples
Data reduction and reporting formats
QA review
Report to management
Report preparation
Responsibility
Field test leader
Field test leader
Field test leader
Field test leader
Field test leader
Field test leader
Field test leader
Field test leader
Senior QA officer or his designee
Senior QA officer or his designee
Work assignment leader
R4Sl.l-Oi-02SSTP.wpd
A-35
-------
UNCONTROLLED
Emission Measurements from Controlled Construction Activities
Section 9
Revision No.: 1
October 6,1999
Page: 36 of 37
Table 9-2. Testing Schedule
Date
7/26/99 - 7/30/99
9/9/99-9/10/99
9/13/99
9/13/99-9/14/99
9/14/99-9/24/99
9/25/99
10/15/99
10/18/99-10/25/99
11/8/99-12/3/99
12/13/99
12/23/99
Activity
Perform filter (tare) analysis
Prepare sampling equipment/supplies
Load equipment and transport equipment to
NCK Technical College
Establish on-site laboratory at NCK
Technical College
Conduct baseline uncontrolled tests at NCK
Technical College
Conduct controlled tests at NCK Technical
College
Return equipment and NCK Technical
College samples to main MRI laboratories
Establish test area at DPS
Conduct baseline uncontrolled tests at DPS
Conduct controlled tests at DPS
Complete sample analyses
Complete data reduction
Comments
Schedule to coordinate with
start of hands-on training
fall semester
Mil 3-01-02 SSTP.wpd
A-36
-------
I UNCONTROLLED
Emission Measurements from Controlled Construction Activities
Section 10
Revision No.: 1
October 6, 1999
Page: 37 of 37
Section 10.
References
1. Midwest Research Institute. Prototype Test and Quality Assurance Plan for
Construction Activities. EPA Contract 68-D7-0002, Work Assignment No. 1,
February 1998.
2. Midwest Research Institute. Background Documentation for AP-42 Section 11.2.4,
Heavy Construction Operations. EPA Contract No. 68-DO-0123, Work Assignment
No. 44. April 1993.
3. Caterpillar. Caterpillar Performance Handbook. 23rd Edition. Peoria, IL. 1992.
4. Nichols, H. L, Jr. Moving the Earth: The Workbook of Excavation. Third Edition.
McGraw-Hil 1, New York, NY. 1976.
5. US EPA. Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors. AP-42. Fifth Edition.
Research Triangle Park, NC. September 1995.
6. Baxter, T. E., D. D. Lane, C. Cowherd, Jr., and F. Pendleton. "Calibration of a
Cyclone for Monitoring Inhalable Particulates." Journal of Environmental.
Engineering, \ 12(3), 468. 1986.
7. Davies, C. N. "The Entry of Aerosols in Sampling Heads and Tubes." British Journal
of Applied Physics, 2:921. 1968.
R481J.lll-02SSTP.wpd
A-37
-------
-------
UNCONTROLLED
Appendix B
Emission Measurements from
Construction Activities
Quality Assurance Project Plan
Revision 1
Prepared for
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
Office of Research and Development
Air Pollution Prevention and Control Division
(MD-61)
Attn: Charles C. Masser,
Work Assignment Manager
Under Subcontract to
Pacific Environmental Services, Inc.
EPA Contract No. 68-D-70-002
Work Assignment 2-04
MRI Project No. 4813-02
Octobers, 1999
B-i
-------
UNCONTROLLED |
Preface
This quality assurance project plan was prepared for the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency by Midwest Research Institute (MRI) under subcontract number
68D7002-MRI, Work Assignment No. 2, from Pacific Environmental Services, Inc. The
prime contract for this effort is EPA Contract 68-D-70-002, Work Assignment 2-04.
Under this work assignment, MRI is providing assistance in characterizing construction-
related particulate matter emissions and controls in terms of mass and particle size
distribution.
Questions concerning this plan should be addressed to Dr. Chatten Cowherd, Work
Assignment Leader, at (816) 753-7600, Ext. 1586.
MIDWEST RESEARCH INSTITUTE
Chatten Cowherd, Ph.D.
Work Assignment Leader
Approved:
Andrew irenholm
Program Manager
Thomas J. Grant, Ph.D., P.E.
Director
Applied Engineering
October 6,1999
J:\4814\R4813-02 QAPP.wpd B -11
-------
I UNCONTROLLED ~[
EMISSION MEASUREMENTS FROM CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES
NORTH CENTRAL KANSAS TECHNICAL COLLEGE
QUALITY ASSURANCE PROJECT PLAN (QAPP)
REVISION 1
WORK ASSIGNMENT 2-04
EPA CONTRACT No. 68-D-70-002
PES SUBCONTRACT No. 68D70002
MRI WORK ASSIGNMENT No. 2
MRI PROJECT No. 4813-02
Approval for Midwest Research Institute:
Chatten Cowherd, Jr.
Work Assignment Leader
Jack Balsmger ^
Quality Assurance Officer
Andrew Trenholm
Program Manager
Date
LTate
Date'
Approval for Pacific Environmental Services
fohn Chehaske
Program Manager
Date
Approval for EPA:
Charles Masser '
Technical Coordinator, ORD
Quality Assurance, ORD
Date
Date
J:\4814\R4SI3m2 QAPP '>pd
B-iii
-------
UNCONTROLLED
Emission Measurements from Construction Activities
Revision No.: I
October 6, 1999
Distribution of QAPP:
EPA: Charles Masser, Nancy Adams
PES: JohnChehaske
MRI: Chatten Cowherd, John Hosenfeld, Mark Horrigan, Gregory Muleski,
Mary Ann Grelinger, MRI QA Unit, MRI Archives
Revision History:
Revision 0: This QAPP was prepared as a companion to the site-specific test plan (dated
June 12,1998) produced for the work assignment. The QAPP was designed to be in compliance
with the guidance document "EPA Guidance for Quality Assurance Project Plans" (EPA
QA/G-5). To aid in the review of this document versus applicable guidance, this document has
been structured to mimic the required classes and elements of QA/G-5. Sections 1 to 4 cover the
classes A to B given in the guidance document.
Revision 1: October 6, 1999—Revised to incorporate changes in text requested by
EPA and PES.
J:\4S14\R4B13-O2 QAPP.wpd
B-iv
-------
UNCONTROLLED |
Emission Measurements from Construction Activities
Revision No.: 1
October 6, 1999
Contents
Preface B-ii
Figures B-vi
Tables B-vi
Section 1. Project Management B-l
1.1 Project/Task Organization (A4) B-l
1.2 Problem Definition/Background (A5) B-6
1.3 Project Task Description B-6
1.4 Quality Objectives (A7) B-9
1.5 Project Narrative (A8) B-10
1.6 Special Training Requirements/Certification (A9) B-l2
1.7 Documentation and Records (A9) B-12
Section 2. Measurement/Data Acquisition (B) B-15
2.1 Sampling Process Design (Experimental Design) (Bl) B-15
2.2 Sample Handling and Custody Requirements (B3) B-l8
2.3 Analytical Methods Requirements (B4) B-20
2.4 Quality Control Requirements (B5) B-20
2.5 Instrument/Equipment Testing, Inspection and Maintenance
Requirements (B6) B-22
2.6 Instrument Calibration and Frequency (B7) B-22
2.7 Inspection/Acceptance Requirements for Supplies and
Consumables (B8) B-24
2.8 Data Acquisition Requirements (B9) B-24
2.9 Data Management (BIO) B-24
Section 3. Assessment/Oversight B-25
3.1 Assessments and Response Actions (Cl) B-25
3.2 Corrective Action B-27
3.3 Reports to Management (C2) B-30
Section 4. Data Validation and Usability (D) B-32
4.1 Data Review, Validation, and Verification Requirements (Dl) B-32
4.2 Validation and Verification Methods (D2) B-32
4.3 Reconciliation with User Requirements (D3) B-33
Section 5. References B-34
J:V48l4\R4813-OJQAJ'P.«pd
-------
I UNCONTROLLED |
Emission Measurements from Construction Activities
Revision No.: 1
October 6, 1999
Figures
Figure 1-1. Project Organization Chart B-5
Figure 1-2. Schematic Illustration Test Procedure for Moving Point Source B-8
Figure 3-1. QAPP Modification Record B-28
Figure 3-2. Corrective Action Report B-29
Tables
Table 1-1. Data Quality Objectives B-l 1
Table 2-1. Test Design B-16
Table 2-2. Testing Schedule B-17
Table 2-3. Critical and Non-critical Measurements for Emission Factors B-l8
Table 2-4. Quality Control Procedures for Sampling Media B-21
Table 2-5. Quality Control and Calibration Procedures for Sampling Equipment .. B-23
Table 2-6. Quality Control and Calibration Procedures for Miscellaneous
Instrumentation B-23
J:\48L4\R4BI3-02 QAFP.wpd
B-vi
-------
UNCONTROLLED
Emission Measurements from Construction Activities
Section I
Revision No.: 1
October 6,1999
Page: 1 of 34
Section 1.
Project Management
1.1 Project/Task Organization (A4)
The key personnel participating in the project are listed in this section. For Midwest
Research Institute (MRI), the Work Assignment Leader (WAL) is Dr. Chatten Cowherd
and Dr. Greg Muleski is the Field Test Leader (FTL). The Quality Assurance Officer
(QAO) for MRI is Mr. Mark Horrigan. Mr. Andrew Trenholm is the Program Manager
(PgM) for the overall contract. All individuals except Mr. Trenholm are located at MRI's
Kansas City office and any correspondence to them should be directed to
Midwest Research Institute
425 Volker Boulevard
Kansas City, Missouri 64110
(816)753-7500
Mr. Trenholm is located at MRI's North Carolina Office and correspondence to him
should be directed to
Midwest Research Institute
Crossroads Corporate Park
5520 Dillard Road, Suite 100
Gary, North Carolina 27511
(919)851-8181
A brief narrative of the project-specific roles and responsibilities is given below.
The program manager will assure corporate management that the work is conducted
in accordance with the quality assurance (QA) requirements. As PgM, Mr. Trenholm:
• Evaluates staff credentials to ensure that they have the requisite training and
experience necessary to complete the project.
• Ensures that the program is appropriately organized with effective lines of
communication and that program responsibilities and authorities for making
critical decisions are clearly understood.
• Ensures that the QAO is involved in the program from the planning stage
through the issuance of the final report.
g:\48l4\R4SI3-02QAPP.wpo "~l
-------
UNCONTROLLED
Emission Measurements from Construction Activities
Section 1
Revision No.: 1
October 6,1999
Page: 2 of 34
* Reviews QA Project Plans (QAPP) and project-specific Test Plan and Standard
Operating Procedures (SOPs). Ensures that program QA requirements are
addressed in the QAPP and SOPs. Ensures that the QAPP and SOPs are
reviewed and approved as required.
• Ensures that the work is adequately and appropriately inspected by the WAL and
that the results are reviewed.
• Reviews any audit reports from the QAO or the QA Unit and reviews and
evaluates responses from the PL. Ensures that the actions taken are timely and appropriate.
• Reports project status, problems, and corrective actions as required by the
contract, division Quality Management System (QMS), QA Program Plan, or
QAPP. Reports program status to division and corporate management.
• Reports audits conducted or directed by the EPA to corporate management and
the QA Unit. Prepares and routes responses to the audit reports through division
management and the program QAO.
• Reviews work products and reports to ensure that QA goals were met. Approves
technical reports.
Dr. Chatten Cowherd, the WAL, will have overall technical oversight of the
project. Dr. Cowherd will have day-to-day responsibility for the project and will
be responsible for conducting the work in accordance with the QA requirements.
The WAL is responsible for assuring Department management that the work is
conducted in accordance with the QA requirements, and he has the authority to
override project staff on QA matters. As WAL, Dr. Cowherd:
• Evaluates staff credentials to ensure that they have the requisite training and
experience necessary to complete the project.
* Ensures that the project is appropriately organized with effective lines of
communication. Ensures that project responsibilities and authorities for making
critical QA decisions are clearly understood.
• Ensures that the QAO is involved in the project from the planning stage through
the issuance of the final report, is fully informed, and is kept apprised of
program schedules.
• Coordinates the development of any required QAPPs and project specific SOPs.
Anticipates problems and helps define prevention, detection, and remedial action
g:\4814\R4813-02 QAPP.WPD
B-2
-------
UNCONTROLLED
Emission Measurements from Construction Activities
Section 1
Revision No.: 1
October 6,1999
Page: 3 of 34
systems. Ensures that program and work assignment QA requirements are
addressed in the QAPP. Ensures that QAPPs, Test Plans, and SOPs are
reviewed and approved as required.
• Approves, distributes, and enforces the QAPP and SOPs. Justifies and approves
modifications to and deviations from the QAPP and SOPs.
• Justifies deviations from MRI's division QMS and SOPs. Obtains approval for
deviations from division management.
• Routinely inspects the work and documents the results in the project records.
Ensures that the work is adequately and appropriately inspected and that the
results are reviewed. Reviews any audit/inspection reports from the QAO or the
QA Unit. Ensures that any problems detected by inspection or audit are
immediately communicated to the appropriate staff, that actions taken are timely
and appropriate, and that the actions taken are documented in the project records.
• Reports problems and actions taken to the PgM and the QAO.
• Reports project status, problems, and corrective actions to appropriate
management as required by the contract, division QMS, QA Program Plan, or
QAPP. Reports project status to program management.
• Reviews work products and reports to ensure that QA objectives have been met.
Ensures that critical data are adequately verified or validated. Approves all
technical reports.
The WAL will be assisted by the Field Test Leader (FTL), Dr. Greg Muleski,
who is responsible for providing oversight for the field testing program,
coordination with the host facilities, and providing data interpretation and
review. Dr. Muleski or his designee will have day-to-day responsibility for
decisions made on-site during the field exercise.
The MRI program QAO will be Mr. Mark Horrigan who is independent of the
technical management staff. He will conduct or direct audits as required, by
corporate QA policy, the QAPP, or at the request of the EPA. The QAO:
• Assists in preparing all QAPPs.
• Reviews and approves the QAPP, and reviews project reports.
• Conducts or directs the conduct of systems, performance evaluation, and data
audits as required and reviews reports as required by corporate policy, EPA, or
\J:>48H\R48l3-02Q/\PP.wpo "~*
-------
UNCONTROLLED
Emission Measurements from Construction Activities
Section 1
Revision No.: 1
October 6, 1999
Page: 4 of 34
the program management.
• Reports audit results along with any problems and corrective action requests to
the WAL and PgM, and division management.
• Reports project QA status to division management, and the Manager of Quality
Assurance.
The Manager of Quality Assurance reports to the Executive Vice President and
Chief Operations Officer. The personnel of the QA Unit conduct general audits
to assure corporate management and clients that work is conducted in
accordance with the QAPP, MRI, and division QMS, and MRI corporate QA
policy. The QA personnel have the authority to work directly with project
management and staff on QA matters and to communicate directly with client's
or subcontractor's QA staff.
The QA Unit's personnel have the authority to request immediate corrective
action for noncompliance to the MRI program (the MRI QA plan, division
QMS, and program QA requirements). Dr. Gene Podrebarac, Manager of
Quality Assurance, provides QA oversight for corporate management for all
programs. As a member of the QA Unit, Mr. Mark Horrigan, QAO, provides
QA oversight for this program.
Project staff report to the WAL. Project staff are responsible for conducting
work in accordance with division, program, and project QA requirements. They
have the authority to request information and help for problems from the PL, the
QAO, department management, and the QA Unit. Project staff and supervisors:
• Follow division QMS, the QA Program Plan, and any QAPP and SOPs.
• Obtain approval from the WAL for any deviations in the QA Program Plan,
QAPP, or SOP.
• Report work assignment status to the WAL.
• Immediately report problems to the WAL and the QAO and help resolve the
problems.
Figure 1-1 presents an organizational chart showing the management structure.
U:\4814\R48I3-02QAPP.WPD
B-4
-------
UNCONTROLLED
&
« * m
^ § S
5rt 3
e ? ~>
J= E 2
°"
i
1 *
2 ^ x
5 - S
|| §
5 *
S
|> s x
l! P
•^ ** S
S° ^
vS
1
.1 »
Dj -
g s X
11^
^1 ^
I 1
^| «
s
I
1
ta
f
Is 8
s | -
- Sj ^
ll 1
c
ID
.SO1 x
al §
1? s
£-1 £
,5 O S^
"* S-
" S
ji "g ^
- j S
s a s
|^ g
e
L,
9
ji S o
ffl S ^
3 a *"•
^3 £
!< i
I
u
&
**
•&
2
u
i
\J:V4814\R4813-02 CJAPP.wpo
B-5
-------
UNCONTROLLED
Emission Measurements from Construction Activities
Section 1
Revision No.: 1
October 6,1999
Page: 6 of 34
1.2 Problem Definition/Background (A5)
An earlier scoping study [1] and AP-42 background document [2] identified several
drawbacks in the limited information available for PM emissions from construction
activities. In general, the PM information references total suspended particulate (TSP)
and not the two size ranges of current regulatory interest—namely, PM-10 and PM-2.5.
A field program conducted during 1998 developed emission factor data for
construction activities related to scraper operations. The current program will build upon
the previous work. The present study will not only examine the effectiveness of watering
in controlling on-site dust emissions but also implications of a watering program.
Watering at construction sites can result in higher off-site PM emissions as material is
tracked onto surrounding paved surfaces where it is available for resuspension by passing
vehicles.
Because the emissions are not released through a stack, duct, or vent, standard EPA
reference test methods do not apply. Furthermore, because source characterization
requires (a) a shorter time duration for sampling and (b) encountering very high
particulate concentrations, EPA reference methods for ambient monitoring as written in
the CFR require modification when adapted for open source emission testing.
Note that, even though there are no directly applicable methods in the CFR, the test
method to be used has undergone extensive evaluation and review. EPA/ORD since the
1970s has published approximately 10 test reports based on the exposure profiling
method and performed a collaborative evaluation of the method during the 1980s.
Furthermore, OAQPS recommends exposure profiling for the testing of open dust sources
because the method isolates a single emission source while not artificially shielding the
source from ambient conditions (e.g., wind). The EPA open source emission factors with
the highest quality ratings are typically based on the exposure profiling method. In
addition, the surface material sampling procedures to be followed are also based on the
techniques included in AP-42 to characterize dust sources.
1.3 Project Task Description
The present study is directed toward the two major goals:
1. Characterize the PM-10 control efficiency of different amounts of water applied
to scraper travel routes under various traffic (vehicle weight and traffic volume)
and meteorological (temperature and evaporation rate) conditions.
J:W814*4813-02 QAPP.wpo
B-6
-------
2.
UNCONTROLLED
Emission Measurements from Construction Activities
Section 1
Revision No.: 1
October 6,1999
Page: 7 of 34
Examine the amount of material tracked from areas treated with different amounts
of water to paved surfaces.
Past studies have found that a substantial fraction of PM emissions from construction
activities is related to transport of earth and other materials around the site. Because of the
generally short-term nature of travel routes at construction sites, operators throughout the
United States commonly employ water to control PM emissions rather than reiving on more
expensive chemical dust suppressants.
Although PM emissions from watered unpaved roads has attracted attention since at
least the early 1980s, only two watering tests have been conducted at construction sites. In
addition to the simple scarcity of data specifically referenced to construction sites, there are
concerns about how well watering tests of unpaved roads in other settings can be applied to
the construction sites. Because temporary routes are not nearly as well constructed as
conventional unpaved roadways, available data may not accurately reflect the efficiency
afforded by watering at construction sites.
Mud/dirt trackout from construction sites constitutes a large component of construction
dust emissions in urban areas, where tracked mud/dirt substantially raise the silt loadings on
adjacent paved roadways. Trackout is observed to increase as soil moisture increases, but
this effect has not been quantified. There are a variety of candidate methods for decreasing
the accumulation of mud/dirt on tires or removing accumulated mud/dirt as vehicles exit a
construction site. However, the control efficiency test data for these measures are limited.
The first goal—namely, characterizing the effectiveness of water to control on-site dust
emissions—requires that air emission sampling be conducted to compare the mass of PM
emitted from controlled and uncontrolled travel routes. A scraper traveling over an unpaved
route constitutes a "moving point" emission source that can be treated as a "line" source.
That is to say, the source can be assumed to be uniformly emitting along the linear path of
the scraper. Figure 1-2 shows not only a schematic of the operations but also the basis for
the line source test methodology. As long as the distance traveled is substantially greater than
the downwind distance from the path to the sampling array, then only a single vertical array
of samplers ("tower") is necessary to characterize the PM plume. In other words, because
the source is considered as uniformly emitting over the length of the operational pass, a
vertical array is sufficient to characterize the vertical distribution of concentration and wind
speed in the plume.
Because the test method relies on ambient winds to carry emissions to the sampling
array, acceptance criteria for wind speed/direction are necessarily based on the results from
antecedent monitoring. That is to say, the immediate past record is used to determine
acceptability for the current or upcoming period of time. As a practical matter, this requires
that wind monitoring must be conducted immediately before starting a test. Testing does not
begin unless the mean conditions remain in the acceptable ranges of:
J:Vt8i4\R4813-02QAPI?.WPD
B-7
-------
UNCONTROLLED
Emission Measurements from Construction Activities
Section 1
Revision No.: 1
October 6,1999
Page: 8 of 34
Diesel Exhaust
Wmd
\
Downwind
Sampling
s Array
i*iift;l!^k
'• •" *' •,,1C''S'-"' ' "iji'^i-'
45 ft (15 m) t Direction of Travel
Area Swept Out by Scr^er
XTpwind Sampler
Figure 1-2. Schematic Illustration Test Procedure for Moving Point Source
J.Vt814\R48U-02 QAPP.wro
B-8
-------
UNCONTROLLED |
Emission Measurements from Construction Activities
Section 1
Revision No.: 1
October 6, 1999
Page: 9 of 34
1 Mean wind speed between 3 and 20 mph
2 Mean wind direction less than 45 degrees from the perpendicular to linear path of
the moving point source
for at least two consecutive 5-minute averaging periods. Similarly, testing is suspended if
the wind speed of direction move outside the acceptable ranges for two consecutive 5-minute
averaging periods. Sampling may be restarted if acceptable conditions return. In that case,
the same criterion of two consecutive acceptable 5-minute periods are followed to restart a
test.
In a like manner, nozzles are added/removed or inlets reoriented if the mean wind speed
of direction over two consecutive 5-minute averaging periods indicate the need for such
action. These changes in sampler inlet conditions can be made at any time during a test.
The actions are recorded on the run sheet. Nozzle placements are recorded on spaces in the
middle of the example run sheet give in Appendix B of the site-specific test plan. Because
reorientation applies equally to all samplers, that action is recorded in the general comment
section at the bottom of the run sheet.
The second goal of characterizing off-site implications of watering requires comparison
of the mass of mud/dirt carried onto paved surfaces. In this case, a surface sampling
program will be used collect the mud/dirt samples for size analysis. The material is collected
by vacuum cleaning predetermined areas of the roadway. A captive test site at MRI
Deramus Field Station (Grandview, Missouri) will be used to test mud/dirt trackout controls,
in order to control site conditions and vehicles during the study.
1.4 Quality Objectives (A7)
This test program will develop particulate control efficiency for (a) watering of scraper
travel routes and (b) application of two to four controls for mud/dirt trackout. Specific
objectives, in descending order of priority, are:
• Develop uncontrolled and controlled PM-10 emission factors for watering of
unpaved scraper travel routes.
• Determine the PM-2.5 fraction of the PM-10 emissions from scraper travel routes,
with and without watering.
• Determine mud/dirt trackout rates from uncontrolled, unpaved soil surfaces onto a
paved roadway.
J:\48l4\R4813-02QAPP.Wpa
B-9
-------
UNCONTROLLED
Emission Measurements from Construction Activities
Section 1
Revision No.: 1
October 6,1999
Page: 10 of 34
* Determine mud/dirt trackout rates after application of each control measure
There is no way to directly assess the accuracy of the emission factor or the mass
tracked onto a paved surface. The approach adopted here is to set goals for component
measurements that are combined. For example, particle concentration and wind speed are
multiplied together to produce point values of exposure, which are then integrated over
height to develop the emission factor. Thus, data quality objectives (DQOs) are established
for the wind speed and concentration measurements. Similarly, sample weights and sieve
results are combined to develop the "silt loading" value (which represents the mass of sub-
200 mesh material present per unit area of road surface). In that case, DQOs are established
for weighing and sieving the samples.
The measurement approaches employed here will undoubtedly reduce the uncertainty
associated with current estimates used in construction emission inventories. This statement
is based on the fact that currently available estimation tools are based on very limited data,
most of which has been collected outside the construction industry.
Because of the unsteady nature of ambient conditions and because emission levels will
increase as the watered surface dries out, multiple tests cannot necessarily be considered
replicate measurements. For this reason, precision DQOs for emission factors and silt
loadings apply only to uncontrolled conditions.
The data quality goals are presented in Table 1 -1.
1.5 Project Narrative (A8)
The overall objective for this work assignment is to provide improved information
regarding the control of PM-10 and PM-2.5 emissions from construction activities. As
discussed earlier and in the site-specific test plan (SSTP), previous studies have identified the
limitations with available data and prioritized field testing needs. Because of logistical
difficulties posed by the emission sources of interest in the work assignment, the field testing
program relies on "captive" operations to control site conditions.
Unlike traditional emission sources, construction-related activities result in open dust
sources. The exposure profiling method (as discussed in Section 2.2) is applicable to a wide
class of anthropogenic emission sources. Because the method effectively isolates the dust
contribution of a single emission source under investigation, exposure profiling is the EPA-
preferred emission measurement technique for open sources. Furthermore, because mud/dirt
trackout is a "precursor" to open dust emissions, neither traditional stack tests nor exposure
profiling is directly applicable. For that reason, the second objective of the work assignment
relies on measurement of the silt loading present on paved surfaces near trackout points.
J:\4814VR4813-02 QAPP.WPD
B-10
-------
UNCONTROLLED
Emission Measurements from Construction Activities
Section 1
Revision No.: 1
October 6, 1999
Page: 11 of 34
Table 1-1. Data Quality Objectives
Measurement
PM-10 emission factor
PM-10 concentration
PM-2.5 concentration
Wind speed
Wind direction
Filter weights
Moisture content
Silt Content
Silt Loading
Method
Mass flux profiling
High volume samplers
High volume cascade impaction
Gill anemometer
R. M. Young wind station
Analytical balance
Weight loss upon drying
Dry sieving
Vacuum sampling of road surface
Accuracy (%)
_ a
±10"
±15'
±10"
±10"
±10"
±10"
±10
_n
Precision (%)
±45"
±40"
±50'
±10"
-
±10"
±10'
±10'
±50°
Completeness (%)
__ c
290
&90
2901
290'
100
_ m
-J*
__ p
Because the emission factor is calculated from particle concentrations and wind speed, the approach taken here
is to set goals for the component measurements.
Refers to the range percent of replicate measurements made of uncontrolled conditions. See discussion in text.
At least one set of replicate measurements will be conducted for scrapers traveling over uncontrolled surface.
Based on audit of volumetric flow controller.
Based on range percent of co-located samplers. At least one test with co-located samplers will be conducted for
the uncontrolled transit tests.
Based on pre- and post-test settings of flow rate.
Based on calibration with manufacturer-recommended device.
Based on pre- and post-test co-locations of both unit in a steady air flow.
Refers to percentage of time during testing that wind lies within acceptable range of 3 to 30 mph and ±45° from
perpendicular to linear path of moving point source.
Based on Class S calibration weights.
Based on independent audit weights.
Based on independent analysis of a riffle-split sample.
At least one sample from each test site will be riffle split for duplicate analysis. (This assumes that at least one
paved road sample obtained has a mass £ 800 g).
Because silt loading is calculated, the approach taken here is to set goals for the component measurements.
Refers to percent range of embedded co-located paved road surface loading samples.
At least one embedded co-locate sample will be collected.
J:\4814tfl48l3-02 QAPP.wro
B-ii
-------
UNCONTROLLED
Emission Measurements from Construction Activities
Section 1
Revision No.: 1
October 6,1999
Page: 12 of 34
1.6 Special Training Requirements/Certification (A9)
This testing program will be conducted by personnel who have been trained in
performing air sampling for the determination of emission measurements.
1.7 Documentation and Records (A9)
1.7.1 General Discussion
All data collected in the study will be entered directly into bound laboratory
notebooks and standard data forms using permanent black ink and will be signed/dated by
sampling personnel. Notebooks and data forms are to be inspected for completeness and
accuracy by the appropriate field supervisor at the end of each test. At that time, data
forms are grouped by test number and bound into 3-ring binders. Appendix A in the test
plan [4] presented examples of the data forms to be used.
The work plan provided the reporting requirements for the work assignment. MRI
will combine the results obtained at the two host facilities in one test report. The report
will include hard copies of all data records specified in Section 1.6.2. The following
information will be included:
Sample Collection Records: These will include run sheets that record the date,
time, and location of sampling; sampler flow rates; operator; and key observations
(comments). In addition, filter log sheets will clearly identify which filter or other
collection media were used in specific samplers. Data forms are also used to record the
location; method of collection; and any field splits of bulk (earth) material samples taken
in connection with the emission tests.
Calibration Records: All sampler flow calibration records will be documented as
to operator: time/date of calibration; transfer standard identifier (serial number); date and
resulting of calibration of the transfer standard to the primary standard; key observations;
QC results; and any problems/corrective actions taken.
Corrective Action Reports: These reports will be summarized and discussed in the
final report as needed. If a corrective action report is directly applicable, it will be
included in the data package.
Laboratory Analysts Records: Laboratory analyses are primarily gravimetric.
Bound filter laboratory books are used to record the tare, final and audit weights of all air
sample collection media. Specially designed data forms are used to record the sieve and
pan weights used in the moisture and silt (minus-200 mesh) analyses for the bulk
samples.
J:\4814XR4813-02 QAPP.WPD
B-12
-------
UNCONTROLLED |
Emission Measurements from Construction Activities
Section I
Revision No.: 1
October 6,1999
Page: 13 of 34
Personnel Training Files: These records are maintained by MRI's QA Unit. They
are available for inspection but will not be supplied as part of the raw data.
General Field Procedures: Test procedures will be described and discussed in the
report.
Waste Disposal: No hazardous/special wastes will be generated. Disposal of
general solid waste (e.g., unused splits of bulk material samples) will be negligible.
Thus, no records will be made part of the data packet.
1.7.2 Data Reporting Package Format and Documentation Control
In recording raw data, MRI will follow documentation practices (SOPs MRI-0055
and MRI-0056) to assure data of known and defensible quality. These also will include:
• Information will be entered on standard data forms using permanent black ink.
See the test plan for example forms.
• Manual corrections will be made by drawing a line through the incorrect
information, leaving the original information intact and legible. Corrections will
be initialed, dated, and explained by the person making the correction.
• Corrections to any existing computer spreadsheet will involve modifying the
file; saving it under a new file name; and leaving the original intact.
• All recorded data will be traceable to a sampling location, sampling time,
instrument, operator, measurement method, calibration records, and final sample
results.
The test report will discuss data collection, QA/QC and sample results. It will be
accompanied by a series of appendices that contain the raw data and supporting
information. The FTC will assemble the raw data files (hard copies and, as necessary,
electronic versions). The FTC and WAL will jointly prepare the report. The WAL will
review the data package and attach it to the report as an appendix.
1.7.3 Data Reporting Package Archiving and Retrieval
MRI will archive the data for the period of time required by EPA's contract with
PES. The following record will be available:
• Personnel credentials
J:\4814\R4813-02QAPP.WPD D-13
-------
UNCONTROLLED
Emission Measurements from Construction Activities
Section 1
Revision No.: 1
October 6,1999
Page: 14 of 34
Project procedures, reports, and plans
All project internal correspondence, meeting minutes, etc.
Hard copy of all raw data and field records
1A4814*4813-02 QAPP.wm
B-I4
-------
UNCONTROLLED
Emission Measurements from Construction Activities
Section 2
Revision No.: 1
October 6,1999
Page: 15 of 34
Section 2.
Measurement/Data Acquisition (B)
Table 2-1 presents an overview of the testing program. In the table, "mass flux
profiling" refers to the method for determination of an individual emission factor/rate.
The exposure profiling test method is discussed in Section 2.2 of this QAPP and in even
more detail in the site-specific test plan. The term "particle size profiling" is used to
denote the test method designed to characterize the particulate size distribution at two
heights. Because of the need to collect adequate mass of the smaller size fractions, a
single particle size test spans several mass flux tests.
The third test method mentioned in Table 2-1—manual cleaning—refers to
characterization of the loose surface material present on the paved road surface. The
collection and analysis method are described in Appendices C.I and C.2 of AP-42,
respectively, Copies of those are included in the appendix to this QAPP.
2.1 Sampling Process Design (Experimental Design) (B1)
As discussed in the SSTP, past studies have found that a substantial fraction of PM
(paniculate matter) emissions from construction activities is related to transport of earth
and other materials around the site. Because of the generally short-term nature of travel
routes at construction sites, operators throughout the United States commonly employ
water to control PM emissions rather than relying on more expensive chemical dust
suppressants.
Mud/dirt trackout from construction sites constitutes a large component of
construction dust emissions in urban areas, where tracked mud/dirt substantially raise the
silt loadings on adjacent paved roadways. Trackout is observed to increase as soil
moisture increases, but this effect has not been quantified. There are a variety of
candidate methods for decreasing the accumulation of mud/dirt on tires or removing
accumulated mud/dirt as vehicles exit a construction site. However, the control
efficiency test data for these measures are limited.
Emission tests at NCK Technical College will be conducted under a variety of
meteorological conditions (e.g., temperature, wind speed, cloud cover) and operating
conditions (e.g., weight and speed of vehicle equipment, number of vehicle passes per
unit time, and time of day). Of particular interest is on-site collection of pan evaporation
measurements so control efficiency decay rates for watering can be referenced to readily
available meteorological data. Because control efficiency is greatest immediately after
water is applied to the roadway and decays as the surface dries, testing will span a broad
range of times after watering, so reliable average control efficiency data are obtained.
J V1814\R48! 3-02 QAPP wn>
B-15
-------
UNCONTROLLED
Emission Measurements from Construction Activities
Section 2
Revision No.: 1
October 6,1999
Page: 16 of 34
Table 2-1. Test Design
Operation
Travel
surface
Pollutant
No. of
tests
Test method
Approx.
time (min)
per test
NCK Tech. College
Transit-Native Soil
Uncontrolled
Watered:
Appl. 1
Watered:
Appl. 1a
Watered:
Appl. 2
Watered:
Appl. 2a
PM-10
PM-2.5
PM-10
PM-2.5
PM-10
PM-2.5
PM-10
PM-2.5
PM-10
PM-2.5
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
Mass flux profiling
Particle size profiling
Mass flux profiling
Particle size profiling
Mass flux profiling
Particle size profiling
Mass flux profiling
Particle size profiling
Mass flux profiling
Particle size profiling
15
75
30-60
120
30-60
120
30-60
120
30-60
120
Deramus Field Station
Trackout-Native Soil
Trackout-Sandy Soil
Uncontrolled
Moisture 1
Moisture 2
Control 1
Moisture 1
Moisture 2
Control 2
Moisture 1
Moisture 2
Control 3
Moisture 1
Moisture 2
Uncontrolled
Moisture 1
Moisture 2
Control 1
Moisture 1
Moisture 2
Control 2
Moisture 1
Moisture 2
Control 3
Moisture 1
Moisture 2
Surface loading
Surface loading
Surface loading
Surface loading
Surface loading
Surface loading
Surface loading
Surface loading
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Manual cleaning
Manual cleaning
Manual cleaning
Manual cleaning
Manual cleaning
Manual cleaning
Manual cleaning
Manual cleaning
60 min
60 min
60 min
60 min
60 min
60 min
60 min
60 min
At the trackout test site at the Deramus Field Station, no emission testing will be
performed, but the operational features of trackout vehicles will be documented. In
addition, the aggregate material properties of the test soil surfaces, from which trackout
originates, will be characterized.
J:<4814MM813-02 QAPP.WPO
B-16
-------
UNCONTROLLED
Emission Measurements from Construction Activities
Section 2
Revision No.: 1
October 6, 1999
Page: 17 of 34
Table 2-2 presents a projected schedule of activities during the test program.
Table 2-2. Testing Schedule
Date
7/26/99 - 7/30/99
9/9/99-9/10/99
9/13/99
9/13/99-9/14/99
9/14/99-9/24/99
9/25/99
10/15/99
10/18/99-10/25/99
11/8/99-12/3/99
12/13/99
12/23/99
Activity
Perform filter (tare) analysis
Prepare sampling equipment/supplies
Load equipment and transport equipment to
NCK Technical College
Establish on-site laboratory at NCK Technical
College
Conduct baseline uncontrolled tests at NCK
Technical College
Conduct controlled tests at NCK Technical
College
Return equipment and NCK Technical
College samples to main MRI laboratories
Establish test area at DPS
Conduct baseline uncontrolled tests at DPS
Conduct controlled tests at DPS
Complete sample analyses
Complete data reduction
Comments
Schedule to coordinate
with start of hands-on
training fall semester
The general test methodology of mass flux profiling is described in the SSTP.
Within this measurement framework, the critical and non-critical measurements described
in Table 2-3 will be made. In this sense, "critical" denotes that these measurements are
necessary to ensure that project objectives are met.
J \4S14\R4813-02 QAPP.WPD
B-17
-------
UNCONTROLLED
Emission Measurements from Construction Activities
Section 2
Revision No.: 1
October 6,1999
Page: 18 of 34
Table 2-3. Critical and Non-critical Measurements for Emission Factors
Measurement
Comments
Critical
• Filter weights
• Sampler flow rates
• Wind speed
• Volume of earth
moved
• Number of scraper
passes
These three variables are used to calculate the mass flux over the
plume area and the emission factor.
These measurements are necessary to normalize the mass flux
and obtain an emission factor. The scraper count will be tallied
during the test by individual equipment ID. The total volume will
be determined by multiplying the count for an individual unit by its
manufacturer-rated capacity.
Non-critical
• Elapsed time
• Pressure drop across
filter
• Barometric pressure
• Ambient temperature
• Wind direction
• Horizontal wind
speed
» Moisture content
• Silt content
Even though this quantity is needed to determine concentrations,
its effect is multiplied out in determining the emission factor.
Furthermore, in determining PM-2.5 to PM-10 ratios, only the
relative filter catches are necessary.
These three variables are used to determine the sampling rate for
a high-volume sampler equipped with a volumetric flow controller
(VFC). However, flow rate varies only slightly over the possibly
encountered range of each variable.
These variables are of interest primarily to ensure that conditions
are suitable for testing. In this way, the measurements are useful
for operational decisions but do not affect the calculated emission
factor.
These measurements deal with the earthen material being
handled.
They do not affect the calculated emission factor.
2.2 Sample Handling and Custody Requirements (B3)
The majority of environmental samples collected during the test program consists of
participate matter captured on a filter medium. Analysis will be gravimetric, as described
in Section 2.4. SOP MRI-8403 describes the procedure, which is summarized below.
To maintain sample integrity, the following procedure will be used. Each filter will
be stamped with a unique 7-digit identification number. A file folder is also stamped
with the identification number and the filter is placed in the corresponding folder.
Particulate samples are collected on glass fiber filters (8 in by 10 in) or on glass fiber
impaction substrates (4 in by 5 in). Prior to the initial (tare) weighing, the filter media are
equilibrated for 24 h at constant temperature and humidity in a special weighing room.
Impactor substrates are greased by spraying the collection surface with a solution of
140 g of stopcock grease in 1 L of reagent grade toluene. Thereafter, they undergo the
same tare weighing steps, as do the filters.
J:V48M*4BI3-02 QAPP.wpo
B-18
-------
UNCONTROLLED
Emission Measurements from Construction Activities
Section 2
Revision No.: 1
October 6,1999
Page: 19 of 34
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 at
least 24 hr until a second analyst reweighs them as a precision check. A minimum of
ten percent (10%) of the filters and collection media used in the field will serve as blanks
to account for the effects of handling. The QA guidelines pertaining to preparation of
sample collection media are presented in Section 2.5.
The filters are placed in their folders. Groups of approximately 50 are sealed in
heavy-duty plastic bags and stored in a heavy corrugated cardboard box equipped with a
tight-fitting lid. Unexposed filters are transported to the field in the same truck as the
sampling equipment and are then kept in the field laboratory.
Because the glass fiber impactor substrates are greased, they are not placed in the file
folders for transport. Instead, they are stored in specially designed frames that keep the
greased surfaces separate from one another and "face up." Cases that securely hold
stacks of the frames are used to transport the substrates to and from the field.
Once they have been used, exposed filters are placed in individual glassine envelopes
and then into numbered file folders. Groups of up to 50 file folders are sealed within
heavy-duty plastic bags and then placed into a heavy-duty cardboard box fitted with a lid.
Exposed and unexposed filters are always kept separate to avoid any cross-contamination.
When exposed filters and the associated blanks are returned to the laboratory, they are
equilibrated under the same conditions as the initial weighing. After reweighing, a
minimum of 10% of each type are audited to check weighing accuracy.
In addition to filters and collection media described above, a second set of samples is
collected to characterize the bulk material properties of the earth being moved. Of
particular interest are the surface moisture and silt (mass fraction below 200 mesh upon
dry sieving) contents. A composite sample consisting of a minimum of 3 increments will
be collected from both the loaded and unloaded material for each test. Sample collection
will follow procedures contained in Appendix C.I in EPA's Compilation of Air Pollutant
Emission Factors (AP-42,) [5].
In order to ensure traceability, all filter and material sample transfers will be recorded
in a notebook or on forms. The following information will be recorded: the assigned
sample codes, date of transfer, location of storage site, and the names of the persons
initiating and accepting the transfer. Data forms were included as an appendix to the site-
specific test plan.
J:\4814\R4813-02 QAPP.WFD
B-19
-------
UNCONTROLLED
Emission Measurements from Construction Activities
Section 2
Revision No.: 1
October 6,1999
Page: 20 of 34
2.3 Analytical Methods Requirements (B4)
All analytical methods required for this testing program are inherently gravimetric in
nature. That is, the final and tare weights are used to determine the net mass of
paniculate captured on filters and other collection media. The tare and final weights of
blank filters are used to account for the systematic effects of filter handling. Finally, the
determination of surface moisture and silt contents are also gravimetric in nature and are
described in Appendix C.2 of EPA's Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors
(AP-42) [5]. The following procedures are followed whenever a sample-related weighing
is performed:
• An accuracy check at the minimum of one level, equal to approximately the tare
weight and actual weight of the sample or standard. Standard weights should be
class S or better.
• The observed mass of the calibration weight (not including the tare weight) must
be within 1.0% of the reference mass.
• If the balance calibration does not pass this test at the beginning of the weighing,
the balance should be repaired or another balance should be used. If the balance
calibration does not pass this test at the end of the weighing, the samples or
standards should be reweighed using a balance that can meet these requirements.
2.4 Quality Control Requirements (B5)
Routine audits of sampling and analysis procedures are to 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 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 data obtained in the field
and laboratory aids in the auditing procedure.
To prepare hi-vol collection media (filters and impactor substrates) for use in the
field, filters and substrates are weighed under stable temperature and humidity conditions.
After they are weighed and have passed audit weighing, the filters are packaged for
shipment to the field. Table 2-4 outlines the general requirements for conditioning and
weighing sampling media. Note that the audits weights are performed by a second,
independent analyst.
J:\4814\K4613-02 QAPP.wn
B-20
-------
UNCONTROLLED
Emission Measurements from Construction Activities
Section 2
Revision No.: 1
October 6,1999
Page: 21 of 34
Table 2-4. Quality flnntrnl Procedures for Samnlinp Media
Activity
Preparation
Conditioning
Weighing
Auditing of weights
Correction for handling
effects
Calibration of balance
QC check/requirement
Inspect and imprint glass fiber media with identification numbers.
Equilibrate media for 24 h in clean controlled room with relative
humidity of 40% (variation of less than +5% RH) and with
temperature of 23 °C (variation of less than +1 °C).
Weigh hi-vol filters to nearest 0.05 mg.
Independently verify final weights of 10% of all filters and
substrates used in the field either to collect samples or as blanks
(at least four from each batch). Reweigh entire batch if weights of
any hi-vol filters deviate by more than +2.0 mg. For tare weights,
conduct a 1 00% audit by a second analyst after an additional 24 h
of equilibration. Reweigh any high-volume filter whose weight
deviates by more than +1 .0 mg. Follow same procedures for
impactor substrates used for sizing tests. Audit limits for impactor
substrates are +1 .0 and ±0.5 mg for final and tare weights,
respectively.
Weigh and handle at least one blank for each 1 to 10 filters of
each type used to test.
Balance to be calibrated once per year by certified manufacturer's
representative. Check prior to each use with laboratory Class S
weights.
As indicated in Table 2-4, a minimum of 10% field blanks will be collected for QC
purposes. This involves handling at least 1 blank filter for every 10 exposed filters in an
identical manner to determine systematic weight changes due to handling steps alone.
These changes are used to mathematically correct the net weight gain for the effects of
handling. A field blank filter is loaded into a sampler and then immediately recovered
without any air being passed through the media. This technique has been successfully
used in many MRI programs to account for systematic weight changes due to handling.
After the paniculate matter samples and blank filters are collected and returned from
the field, the collection media are placed in the gravimetric laboratory and allowed to
come to equilibrium. Each filter or substrate is weighed, allowed to return to equilibrium
for an additional 24 h, and then a minimum of 10% of the exposed filters are reweighed
by a second analyst. If a filter or substrate fails the audit criterion, the entire lot will be
allowed to condition in the gravimetric laboratory an additional 24 h and then reweighed.
The tare and first weight criteria for filters (Table 2-2) are based on an internal MRI study
conducted in the early 1980s to evaluate the stability of several hundred 8- x 10-in glass
fiber filters used in exposure profiling studies.
Because the test method relies on ambient winds to carry emissions to the sampling
array, acceptance criteria for wind speed/direction are necessarily based on the results
from antecedent monitoring. That is to say, the immediate past record is used to
J:HSI4\R4813-02 QAPP.Wl-D
B-21
-------
UNCONTROLLED
Emission Measurements from Construction Activities
Section 2
Revision No.: 1
October 6,1999
Page: 22 of 34
determine acceptability for the current or upcoming period of time. As a practical matter,
this requires that wind monitoring must be conducted immediately before starting a test.
Testing does not begin unless the mean conditions remain in the acceptable ranges of:
1. Mean wind speed between 3 and 20 mph.
2. Mean wind direction less than 45 degrees from the perpendicular to linear path of
the moving point source.
for at least two consecutive 5-minute averaging periods. Similarly, testing is suspended if
the wind speed or direction move outside the acceptable ranges of two consecutive
5-minute averaging periods. Sampling may be restarted if acceptable conditions return.
In that case, the same criterion of two consecutive acceptable 5-minute periods are
followed to restart a test.
2.5 Instrument/Equipment Testing, Inspection and
Maintenance Requirements (B6)
Inspection and maintenance requirements for sampling equipment are provided in
Table 2-5. Note that because the cyclone preseparator is cleaned between individual
tests, only limited maintenance is required.
2.6 Instrument Calibration and Frequency (B7)
Calibration and frequency requirements for the balances used in the gravimetric
analyses are given in Table 2-4.
Requirements for high-volume (hi-vol) sampler flow rates rely on the use of
secondary and primary flow standards. The Roots meter is the primary volumetric
standard and the BGI orifice is the secondary standard for calibration of hi-vol sampler
flow rates. The Roots meter is calibrated and traceable to a NIST standard by the
manufacturer. The BGI orifice is calibrated against the primary standard on an annual
basis. Before going to the field, the BGI orifice is first checked to assure that it has not
been damaged. In the field, the orifice is used to calibrate the flow rate of each hi-vol
sampler. (For samplers with preset volumetric flow controllers, no calibration is possible
but the orifice is used to audit the nominal 40 acfm flow rate.) Table 2-5 specifies the
frequency of calibration and other QC checks regarding air samplers.
Table 2-6 outlines the QC checks employed for miscellaneous instrumentation
needed.
i
JM814VR4S] J-02 QAPP WPO
B-22
-------
UNCONTROLLED
Emission Measurements from Construction Activities
Section 2
Revision No.: 1
October 6,1999
Page: 23 of 34
Table 2-5. Quality Control and Calibration Procedures for Sampling Equipment
Activity
Maintenance
• All samplers
Calibration
• Volumetric flow controller
Operation
• Timing
* Isokinetic sampling
(cyclones)
• Prevention of static
deposition
QC check/requirement
Check motors, brushes, gaskets, timers, and flow measuring
devices at each plant prior to testing. Repair/replace as
necessary.
Prior to start of testing at each regional site, ensure that flow
determined by orifice and the look-up table for each volumetric
flow controller agrees within 7%. For 20 acfm devices (particle
size profiling), calibrate each sampler against orifice prior to
use at each regional site and every two weeks thereafter during
test period. (Orifice calibrated against displaced volume test
meter annually.)
Start and stop all downwind samplers during time span not
exceeding 1 min.
Adjust sampling intake orientation whenever mean wind
direction changes by more than 30 degrees for 2 consecutive
5-min averaging periods. Suspend testing if mean wind
direction (for two consecutive 5-min averaging periods) is more
than 45 degrees from perpendicular to linear path of the
moving point source.
Change the cyclone intake nozzle whenever the mean wind
speed approaching the sampler falls outside of the suggested
bounds for that nozzle for two consecutive 5-min averaging
periods. Suspend testing if wind speed falls outside the
acceptable range of 3 to 20 mph for two consecutive 5-min
averaging periods.
Cover sampler inlets prior to and immediately after sampling.
Table 2-6. Quality Control and Calibration Procedures for
Miscellaneous Instrumentation
Instrumentation
Digital manometers
Digital barometer
Thermometer (mercury
or digital)
Gill anemometer
Watches/stopwatches
QC check/requirement'
Compare reading against water-in-tube manometers over range of
operating pressures using "Y" connectors and flexible tubing. Do not
use units which differ by more than 7%.
Compare against mercury-in-tube barometer. Do not use if more
than 0.5 in Hg difference in reading.
Compare against NIST-traceable mercury-in-glass. Do not use if
more than 3.0 C difference.
Conduct 4-point calibration of each unit over the range of 2 to
20 mph both before going to the field and upon return of the
equipment to MRI's main laboratories. Use factory-specified
anemometer drive device for calibration.
The field test leader will compare an elapsed time (> 1 hr) recorded
by his watch against the US Naval Observatory master clock. Do
not use if more than 3% difference. All crew members will
synchronize watches (to the nearest minute) at the start of each test
day.
' Activities performed prior to going to the field, except as noted.
J:V4814*4813-02 QAPP WF-D
B-23
-------
UNCONTROLLED
Emission Measurements from Construction Activities
Section 2
Revision No.: 1
October 6,1999
Page: 24 of 34
i
2.7 Inspection/Acceptance Requirements for Supplies and
Consumables (B8)
The primary supplies and consumables for this field exercise consist of the air and
substrate sample collection media as well as vacuum cleaner bags. Prior to stamping and
initial weighing (Table 2-4), each filter is visually inspected and is discarded for use if
any pin-holes, tears, or other damage is found. Similarly, vacuum bags are examined for
tears or other damage before tare weighing.
2.8 Data Acquisition Requirements (B9)
In addition to the field samples, MRI will also collect information on the physical
size and operational parameters of equipment used in the field exercise. To the extent
practical, physical characteristics will be obtained from the manufacturer or the
manufacturer's literature. Physical dimensions will be measured and recorded.
2.9 Data Management (B10)
After return to MRI's main laboratories, raw data will be transferred from data sheets
into computer spreadsheet programs to perform the calculations (described in Section 5.2
of the site-specific test plan) leading to net concentrations. In addition to raw data, the
spreadsheet also contains cells for data derived from field measurements (such as flow
rates determined from "look-up" tables using air temperatures and pressures). Cell
formulas are included on the spreadsheet so that the reader can readily determine how a
value is calculated. Validation activities are discussed in Section 4.0.
B-24
-------
UNCONTROLLED |
Emission Measurements from Construction Activities
Section 3
Revision No.: 1
October 6, 1999
Page: 25 of 34
Section 3.
Assessment/Oversight
The quality of the project and associated data are assessed within the project by the
WAL, project personnel and peer reviewers. Oversight and assessment of the overall
project quality are accomplished through the review of data, memos, audits, and reports
by the program and division management and, independently, by the QAO.
3.1 Assessments and Response Actions (C1)
The effectiveness of implementing the QAPP and associated SOPs for a project are
assessed through project reviews, field inspections, audits, and data quality assessment.
3.1.1 Project Reviews
The review of project data and the writing of project reports are the responsibility of
the WAL who also is responsible for the conduct of the first complete assessment of the
project. Although the project's data have been reviewed by the project personnel and
assessed as to whether the data meet the measurement quality objectives, it is the WAL
who must assure that overall the project activities meet the measurement and data quality
objectives. The second review process is a technical peer review conducted by a
technically qualified person who is familiar with the technical aspects of the project but
not involved in the conduct of project activities. The peer reviewer is to present to the
project leader an accurate and independent appraisal of the technical aspects of the
project.
The division management will assure that the project management systems are
established and functioning as required by division procedures and corporate policy. The
division management is the final reviewer before the QAO and is responsible for assuring
EPA that contractual requirements have been met. The QAO will conduct the final
review of the report before submittal to EPA.
3.1.2 Field Inspections
Field inspections may be conducted by the WAL or QA field auditor. Inspections
assess project activities that are considered important or critical to the requirements of the
project. These critical activities may include, but are not limited to, sample collection
and preservation, method development or validation, sample preparation, sample
analysis, or data reduction. Field inspections are assessed with respect to the QAPP,
r> -
J:\4814*4813-02 QAPP.4PD D-
-------
UNCONTROLLED
Emission Measurements from Construction Activities
Section 3
Revision No.: 1
October 6, 1999
Page: 26 of 34
SOPs, or other established methods, and are reported to the WAL and QAO. Any
deficiencies or problems found during the in-phase inspections must be investigated with
the results and responses or corrective actions reported in a Corrective Action Report
(CAR), as discussed later in this section.
3.1.3 Audits
Independent systematic checks to determine the quality of the data will be performed
during the conduct of this project. These checks will consist of a system and data audits
as described below. In addition, the internal quality control measurements will be used to
assess the performance of the analytical methodology. The combination of these audits
and the internal quality control data allows the assessment of the overall data quality for
this project.
The QAO is responsible for ensuring that audits are conducted as required by the
QAPP. The WAL is responsible for evaluating corrective action reports, taking
appropriate and timely corrective actions, and informing the QAO and PgM of the action
taken. The QAO is then responsible for ensuring that the corrective action was taken.
The system audit will be conducted by the QAO prior to the start of the project
activities. This audit will evaluate all components of the data gathering and management
system to determine if these systems have been properly designed to meet the quality
assurance objectives for this study. The system audit includes a careful review of the
experimental design, the test plan, and the procedures. This review includes personnel
qualifications, adequacy, and safety of the facilities and equipment, SOPs, and the data
management system.
The system audit starts with the review of the QAPP, the SSTP, and the associated
procedures and experimental design to ensure that they can meet the data quality
objectives for the study. During the system audit, the QAO will inspect project activities
and determine the laboratory's adherence to the SOPs and the QAPP. The QAO reports
any area of nonconformance to the project leader and division management through an
audit report. The audit report may contain corrective action recommendations. If so,
follow-up inspections may be required and should be performed by the QAO to ensure
corrective actions are taken. The system audit ends with a review of the report and an
audit of the records at the completion of the study.
The data audit, an important component of a total system audit, is a critical
evaluation of the measurement, processing, and evaluation steps to determine if
systematic errors have been introduced. During the data audit, the QAO, or his designee,
will randomly select data to be followed through the analysis and data processing. The
scope of the data audit is to verify that the data handling system is correct and to assess
the quality of the data generated.
I-V4814MU8 ] 3-02 QAPP.WFD
B-26
-------
UNCONTROLLED [
Emission Measurements from Construction Activities
Section 3
Revision No.: 1
October 6,1999
Page: 27 of 34
The data audit, as part of the system audit, is not an evaluation of the reliability of
the data presentation. The review of the data presentation is the responsibility of the
WAL and the peer reviewer.
3.1.4 Amendments and Revisions to the QAPP
This QAPP is designed to be a working tool for the staff conducting the study as well
as the management of MRI and EPA. As a working document, it may become necessary
to amend or revise the QAPP to reflect current activities. When there is a requirement to
update the QAPP to correct minor discrepancies that have no effect on the overall
conduct of the study or typing errors, an amendment (Figure 3-1) will be prepared and
submitted to the EPA WAM, and the MRI WAL for approval. The format of the
amendment record will be an assigned amendment number to the chapter/section where
the statement will be changed, the original statement, the reason for the change, and the
amended statement. The amended statement will use crossed-out text for deletions and
red-lined text for additions. The effective date of the amendment will be the date of the
submitted amendment unless otherwise noted.
When the changes involve major changes in the conduct of the study (i.e., changes in
the design, collection, or processing of samples or data), a revision of the affected chapter
in the QAPP will be required. When a chapter is revised, the entire chapter will be
replaced.
3.2 Corrective Action
Corrective action is the process that occurs when the results of an audit or quality
control measurement are shown to be unsatisfactory, as defined by the data quality
objectives or by the measurement objectives for each task. The corrective action process
involves the WAL and the QAO. In cases involving the analytical process, the corrective
action also will involve the analyst. A written report (Figure 3-2) is required on all
corrective actions.
The WAL will consult with appropriate staff having expertise in areas where
difficulties are experienced and will propose solutions to situations requiring corrective
action. Program management will be involved in the problem-solving discussions and
may have input into final decisions.
J:W8|4\R48I3-02QAPP.WPD
-------
UNCONTROLLED
Emission Measurements from Construction Activities
Section 3
Revision No.: 1
October 6,1999
Page: 28 of 34
QUALITY ASSURANCE PROJECT PLAN AMENDMENT RECORD
QAPP Title/Date: Quality Assurance Project Plan for
Origin Location:
WAL:
PgM:
QAO:
EPA WAM:
Midwest Research Institute
No. Section
Description
Statement:
Reason:
Amendment:
Statement:
Reason:
Amendment:
Statement:
Reason:
Amendment:
Statement:
Reason.
Amendment:
Figure 3-1. QAPP Modification Record
J:\48I4\R48I3-02QAPP.WPO
B-28
-------
I UNCONTROLLED
Emission Measurements from Construction Activities
Section 3
Revision No.: I
October 6,1999
Page: 29 of 34
Project No.:
Dace:
Corrective Action Report
Protect Title/Pucriolion:
Description of Problem:
Originator: Date:
Investigation ind Results:
Investigator: Date:
Corrective Action Taken:
Originator:
Cc: Project leader, Program Manager, Division Manager, QA Unit
Figure 3-2. Corrective Action Report
R
J:\4814\R48I W12QAPP.WPO O-Z
-------
UNCONTROLLED
Emission Measurements from Construction Activities
Section 3
Revision No.: 1
October 6, 1999
Page: 30 of 34
There are two types of corrective actions:
• Immediate corrective action is a quick response to improper procedures such as
malfunctioning equipment. The need for such an action is usually identified by
the analyst as a result of calibration checks and internal quality control sample
analysis. The WAL, who will be notified of the problem immediately, will then
take and document appropriate action. The WAL is responsible for and is
authorized to halt the work if it is determined that a serious problem exists.
• Long-term corrective action is used to prevent the recurrence of unanticipated
problems. The need for such action may be identified by audits. The long-term
corrective action steps consist of:
— Definition of the problem
— Investigation to determine the cause
— Determination of the appropriate corrective action
— Implementation of the corrective action
— Verification of the effectiveness of the corrective action by a follow-up
inspection.
The WAL is responsible for and is authorized to implement any procedures to prevent the
recurrence of problems.
3.3 Reports to Management (C2)
The status of the project will be reported to the WAL on a weekly basis by the
project staff. Any problems found during the analytical process requiring corrective
action will be reported immediately by the project staff to the WAL and the quality
assurance officer through the investigation and corrective action documentation. The
results of the in-phase inspection by the project or program management will be
documented in the project files and reported to the QAO. In-phase inspections conducted
by the QAO will be reported to management in the same manner as other audits.
Results of system audits, in-phase inspections, performance evaluations, and data
audits conducted by the QAO will be routed to the WAL for review, comments, and
corrective action, and forwarded to management. An assessment of the data will be sent
for management review. The performance evaluations, control issues, and corrective
action responses covered by the audit reports will be reviewed and approved by the
J:\4814\R4813-O2 QAW.WPD
B-30
-------
I UNCONTROLLED |
Emission Measurements from Construction Activities
Section 3
Revision No.: 1
October 6,1999
Page: 31 of 34
program manager, section manager, and division management. The results of all
assessments, audits, inspections, and corrective actions for the project will be summarized
and included in a quality assurance/quality assessment section in the final report.
The reporting requirements are a draft final report and a final report submitted as part
of the contractual obligation. Electronic deliverables in the form of data tables will also
be submitted.
D 7 I
J:M814W4SI3-02QAPP.WPD D-J 1
-------
UNCONTROLLED
Emission Measurements from Construction Activities
Section 4
Revision No.: 1
October 6,1999
Page: 32 of 34
Section 4.
Data Validation and Usability (D)
4.1 Data Review, Validation, and Verification Requirements
(D1)
The data analysis procedures to be used for this project are procedures that have been
passed through several layers of validation in substantiating the performance of the
method. The procedure for calculation of a raw particulate concentration requires a
sample mass and an associated sampler flow rate. It should be noted that blank-corrected
sample mass is considered quantifiable (and usable for concentration calculation) only if
it equals or exceeds three times the standard deviation for the net weight gain of the field
blanks. The procedures for conversion of particulate concentrations to final end products
are presented in Section 5.2 of the site-specific plan.
The FTL or his/her designee will conduct an on-site spot check to assure that data are
being recorded accurately. After the field test, the QAO or his designee will check data
input to assure accurate transfer of the raw data. The FTL or his designee will perform an
independent check of any computer data reduction program through an independent hand-
calculation of at least one test run. The FTL will report their findings to the WAL.
4.2 Validation and Verification Methods (D2)
For this project, all records will be evaluated for the adherence to all procedures and
requirements. The items that will be reviewed include:
Gravimetric audit weighing for the assessment of the particulate data
Calibration and calibration criterion checks
Results of all blanks
Validation of data process systems or procedures
Traceability and sample tracking
Selected data will be reconstructed, including tracing the calibration back to the
primary standards. Any software (spreadsheets) used to determine numerical values will
be checked by hand calculating all intermediate and final results for one run by referring
to original sources of data (i.e., field filter logs, filter weight logs, run sheets, look-up
tables for volumetric flow controllers).
J:\4814\R48I3-02 QAPP.WPD
B-32
-------
i
I UNCONTROLLED |
Emission Measurements from Construction Activities
Section 4
Revision No.: 1
October 6, 1999
Page: 33 of 34
4.3 Reconciliation with User Requirements (D3)
The data generated during the field exercise will be evaluated with respect to the user
requirements to estimate PM-10 and PM-2.5 emissions from controlled and uncontrolled
scraper travel and mud/dirt trackout. Recommendations for revisions to current AP-42
emission estimation methods will be presented in the test report.
J:l48l4\R48t3-02 QAPP.wro
B-33
-------
UNCONTROLLED
Emission Measurements from Construction Activities
Section 5
Revision No.: 1
October 6,1999
Page: 34 of 34
Section 5.
References
1. Midwest Research Institute. Prototype Test and Quality Assurance Plan for
Construction Activities. EPA Contract 68-D7-0002, Work Assignment No. 1.
February 1998.
2. Midwest Research Institute. Background Documentation for AP-42 Section 11.2.4,
Heavy Construction Operations. EPA Contract No. 68-DO-0123, Work Assignment
No. 44. April 1993.
3. Midwest Research Institute. Emission Factor Documentation for AP-42 Section
13.2.2—Unpaved Roads. Draft Report. EPA Contract No. 68-D2-0159, Work
Assignment 4-02. September 1997.
4. Midwest Research Institute. Emission Measurements of Paniculate Mass and Size
Emission Profiles from Construction Activities—Site-Specific Test Plan. EPA
Contract No. 68-D-98-027, Work Assignment 1-04. June 1998.
5. U.S. EPA. Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors. AP-42, Fifth Edition.
Research Triangle Park, NC. September 1995.
6. Baxter, T. E, D. D. Lane, C. Cowherd, Jr., and F. Pendleton. "Calibration of a
Cyclone for Monitoring Inhalable Particulates." Journal of Environmental
Engineering, 112(3), 468. 1986.
J:V4814*4813-02 QAPP.wro
B-34
------- |