MIDWEST RESEARCH INSTITUTE
MRI
EPORT
STUDY OF CONSTRUCTION RELATED MUD/DIRT CARRYOUT
FINAL REPORT
July 26, 1983
EPA Contract No. G8-02-3177, Work Assignment 21
MRI Project No. 4862-1(21)
Prepared for:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Air Programs Branch - Region V
230 South Dearoorn
Chicago, Illinois 60504
Attn: Lino Castanares
MIDWEST RESEARCH INSTITUTE 425 VOLKER BOULEVARD, KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI 64110
816753-7600
-------
MRI WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006-Suite 250,1750 K Street, N.W. . 202293-3800
-------
STUDY OF CONSTRUCTION RELATED MUD/DIRT CARRYOUT
by
Phillip Englehart
John Kinsey
Midwest Research Institute
FINAL REPORT
~uly 26, 1983
EPA Contract No. 68-02-3177, Work Assignment 21
MRI Project No. 4862-L(21)
Prepared for:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Air Programs Branch - Region V
230 South Dearborn
Chicago, I~linois 60604
Attn:
Lino Castanares
MIDWEST RESEARCH INSTITUTE 425 VOLKER BOULEVARD, KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI 64110 -816 753-7600
-------
PREFACE
This report was prepared by Midwest Research Institute (MRI) under
Work Assignment 21 of Contract No. 68-02-3177 from the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. Mr. Lino Castanares was the EPA Project Officer. Work
conducted in this project was performed in MRI's Air Quality Assessment
Section under the overall direction of Dr. Chatten Cowherd) Jr. The prin-
cipal author of the report was Mr. Phillip Englehart. Mr. John Kinsey was
the project leader and an author of this report. Messrs. D. Griffin and
S. Cummins contributed to the collection and analysis of field samples.
MRI would like to express its gratitude to Mr. Mike Connolly of the
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency who lent his valuable assistance during
site selection and who participated in the actual collection of the samples
in the field.
Approved for:
July 26) 1983
i i
-------
CONTENTS
Preface.
Figures.
Tables.
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
1.0
2.0
Introduction.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . .
Field Sampling Program
. . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .
2.1 Description of sampling sites. . . . . . . . . .
2.2 Sampling and analysis procedures. . . . . . . .
2.3 Laboratory analyses and results. . . . . . . . .
3.0 Data Analysis. . . . . . . .
3.1 Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.2 Objective 1 - Characterization of mud/dirt
carryout associated with construction
act i vi ties. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.3 Objective 2 - Estimating the emissions
increase due to construction related mud/dirt
carryout . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.4 Objective 3 - Development of a statistical
model for emissions associated with
construction-related mud/dirt carryout . . . .
4.0 Conclusions. .
. . . . . . .
. . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . . . . .
5.0
References. .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . .
Appendix - Field data forms and silt analysis procedure.
i i i
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . . . .
i i
iv
iv
1
3
3
4
9
12
12
12
14
17
23
24
A-I
-------
FIGURES
Number
2-1 Location of sampling sites. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2-2 Sampling locations for Phase I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2-3 Sampling locations for Phase II. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
A-I Survey questionnaire. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
TABLES
Number
1-1 Estimated Deposition and Removal Rates. . . . . . . . . . . .
2-1 Physical Characteristics of Mud Carryout Sampling Sites. . . .
2-2 Road Surface Loadings - Phase 1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2-3 Road Surface Loadings - Phase II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3-1 Comparison of Roadway Surface Silt Loadings. . . . . . . . . .
3-2 Estimated Parameters for Exponential Fit of
sL = A Exp(-bx)+(sL) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3-3 PaveS Road Emission Fac£or Equation Parameters. . . . . . . .
3-4 Mud Carryout Emissions Increase. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3-5 Summary of Calculated Emissions Increase by Particle Size
Fraction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3-6 Emissions Increase (~E) by Site Traffic Volume. . . . . . . .
3-7 Emissions Increased (~E) by Construction Type. . . . . . . . .
3-8 Comparison of Temporal Variations in TSP Emissions Increases
(~E) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
A-I Field Data Form for Phase I. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
A-2 Field Data Form for Phase II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
A-3 Silt Analysis Procedures. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
iv
Page
5
7
8
A-4
Page
2
6
10
11
13
15
16
18
19
20
21
22
A-2
A-3
A-6
-------
1.0
INTRODUCTION
Several recent studies have identified traffic entrained dust from
paved roads as both a major source of total suspended particulate (TSP) in
urban areas and a leading contributor to exceedances of the ambient air
quality standards.! Though not directly comparable because of differences
in methodology and intrinsic study area characteristics, all of these
studies arrived at similar conclusions. That is: reentrained dust from
paved roadways has an annual impact of 10 to 30 ~g/m3 at most urban TSP
sampling sites and constitutes 10 to 50% of the particulate emissions in
these areas.
Despite these findings, relatively little attention has been focused
directly on the problem of controlling paved roadway fugitive emissions.
The existing literature does suggest that the most realistic approach would
involve reducing the amount of street surface material available for reen-
trainment. This strategy is based on the results of extensive work con-
ducted by Midwest Research Institute (MRI) in the quantification of paved
roadway dust emissions, which indicates that the rate of dust reentrainment
(and thus, fugitlve emissions attributable to the roadway) is positively
related to the amount of silt-sized material « 75 ~m physical diameter) on
the traveled portions of the streets.2
Order of magnitude estimates for the processes important in the deposi-
tion and removal of dust on paved roads (Table 1.1) indicate that mud/dirt
carryout is the primary contributor to material reentrained from paved
surfaces.3
In this study MRI evaluated the secondary air quality impacts asso-
ciated with mud carryout from eight active construction sites in the
Minneapolis/St. Paul metropolitan area. The overall goals of this research
were to define the extent of construction related mud/dirt carryout and to
establish the physical and technical bases necessary to develop appropriate
control strategies for this source.
The following sections describe the field sampling activities and re-
sults of the mud carryout determination conducted under this program. The
sampling portion of the study was performed in two phases with the first
phase consisting of sampling at three sites with three sets of data, and
the second phase consisting of sampling at five additional sites with two
sets of data. Phase I was funded under a project sponsored by the Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency (MPCA), and Phase II constituted Work Assignment
No. 21 of EPA Contract No. 68-02-3177. The data collected during the MPCA
program was combined with that gathered in the follow-on EPA study to re-
late mud/dirt carryout (and resulting traffic entrained dust emissions) to
physical parameters which characterized the level of construction activity.
1
-------
TABLE 1-1.
ESTIMATED DEPOSITION AND REMOVAL RATESa
Deposition process
Typical
rate
(lb/curb-
mile/day)
Biological debris
20
Typical
rate
Removal (lb/curb-
process mil e/day)
Reentrainment 100
Displacement 40
Wind erosion 20
Rainfall runoff 50
Sweeping 35
Mud and dirt carryout
Litter
100
40
Ice control compounds
10
Dustfa11
10
10
Pavement wear and
decomposition
Vehicle-related (including
tire wear)
17
Spi 11 s
< 2
Erosion from adjacent
areas
20
a Source:
Reference 3.
2
-------
2.0 FIELD SAMPLING PROGRAM
2.1 DESCRIPTION OF SAMPLING SITES
Three separate sites were selected for sampling during Phase I. Site
No.1 was a project involving the construction of a large commercial office
building on a 10-acre site. Samples were collected after a large portion
of the building had already been erected. The on-site traffic consisted
mostly of workers entering and leaving the project with some delivery of
building materials such as concrete and steel.
Site No.2 was a large subdivision consisting of the construction of
91 single-family dwellings. Mud carryout samples were taken early in the
project during the laying of utilities with some on-site grading taking
place. Traffic in and out of the subdivision consisted of passenger vehi-
cles and light-duty trucks of the construction workers.
Site No.3 was a small subdivision of multi-family dwellings (condo-
miniums) located on a cul-de-sac. Most of the buildings had already been
erected when sampling began but a significant amount of building material
was still being delivered. Toward the end of the study period, final grad-
ing was performed preparatory to the paving of curbs and streets. Traffic
entering and leaving the site generally consisted of on-site residents,
construction workers, and heavy trucks and other construction vehicles.
In Phase II, five additional sites were selected for mud carryout sam-
pling. Site No.4 involved the construction of a large industrial park on
approximately 150 acres. Samples were collected during the installation of
the underground utilities with some concrete work also occurring on-site.
Because of the diffuse nature of the project, there were numerous points of
access being used by the vehicular traffic entering and leaving the site.
Traffic in and out of the project consisted of both light- and heavy-duty
vehicles.
Site No.5 was a project consisting of the construction of a 13-story
office building with an' associated 4-deck parking garage. Activities oc-
curring on-site during sample collection included minor excavation work,
pile driving, and the pouring of concrete pile caps. The two main points
of access to the site for vehicular traffic included both an employee en-
trance and a delivery entrance, although a number of other points were also
used as well. Vehicular traffic entering and leaving the site consisted
mostly of passenger vehicles and light trucks with some delivery of con-
struction material by medium and heavy-duty trucks.
Site NO.6 involved the construction of a commercial office building
and associated paved city street on a 5-acre site. The only traffic into
and out of the site were heavy-duty trucks delivering building materials.
3
-------
The construction workers themselves parked their vehicles along the exist-
ing paved road (North Service Drive) instead of on the site. A major por-
t i on of the mud carryout associ ated with Site 6 was generated duri ng
excavation work for a new city sewer line along the north perimeter of the
North Service Drive.
Site No.7 was a IS-acre subdivision of 22 single and multifamily
residences. During sampling, earthmoving for the installation of under-
ground utilities was occurring. Traffic in and out of the site consisted
mainly of construction workers along with some miscellaneous heavy vehicles.
The final site sampled (No.8) was a construction project involving a
small commercial office building on a 2-acre site. During sampling, some
grading and earthmoving was being performed on-site along with the pouring
of concrete footings. Traffic entering and leaving the site consisted of
construction workers alQng with the delivery of concrete.
Figure 2-1 shows the location of each of the sampling sites; a general
summary of their physical characteristics is provided in Table 2-1.
2.2 SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS PROCEDURES
During Phase I, samples of the street surface loadings were collected
at specific locations relative to the site point(s) of access with the ad-
jacent paved road as shown in Figure 2-2. Two samples (A, C) were obtained
from the immediate access between the construction site and adjoining paved
roadway with two additional samples (B, D) collected approximately 320 m
(- 0.2 miles) in either direction along the paved road. It should be noted
that some of the B-D sample pairs were composited prior to analysis for silt
content. A total of three sets of samples were collected at each mud carry-
out site.
In Phase II, two additional points were sampled as shown in Figure 2-3.
These additional samples were collected to better define the spacial distri-
bution of the silt and surface loading along the adjacent paved road. As
with Phase I, some of the C-F sample pairs were composited prior to analysis
for silt content. Due to inclement weather in the Twin Cities, only two
sets of samples were collected at each site during Phase II.
Samples of the mud/dirt found on the paved roadway surface were gener-
ally collected from a 3.2 m x 2.6 m (10.5 ft x 8.5 ft) area in the travel
lane used by traffic entering and leaving the site. A portable vacuum
cleaner was used to collect the samples from the road. The attached brush
on the collection inlet was used to slightly abrade surface compacted mate-
rial, and to remove dust from the crevices of the road surface. Vacuuming
was preceded by broom sweeping if a large amount of material or large ag-
gregates were present. The field data forms used for mud carryout sampling
are shown in Appendix A for Phases I and II, respectively.
The characteristics of the vehicular traffic entering and leaving the
site, and on the adjacent paved road, were determined by both automatic and
manual means. The vehicular characteristics included: (a) total traffic
4
-------
,..",-.--.. \. ' .---.... r.... ..,,--- " ( I) , . ~.. ,...., ....
~';c' ' l. ~ (jjJ :' --- N ' " '-"'-r- ' , , ' ,
~'~\ ,~~ ~ ;,::.~:J.~.'~ ~.'~-;1.~~..c~'U'~~%:'~' i_. ~) 1;.:)1 fF
,"'t"ff ~~ ',,': 1!iI::!~';~'W:'~';~;' , 11_' I],=" .. = .... r.Y)
>~.y ()~ I .~;)~tir\~";~:::';';,~,~ ~ ":', i~ ~-~, 'iE: '- x- ~f\_~
?%Q 7 ~ J~.":~?G;~f.;;~;<:::"T~' :.' :~J!.' ,~'''c.rtlI1~~ &"V ~O/ ,,~ ~.. v-'-,-
E1 " '~,"-' ',-.--,. .' .;'.' '''-,I-, ,- " Pin.. :'\\ ~ I ~ -----'
-' .~ '~"'«ii~<.~";:,;",~{.:'~, :",~~:. ::'.'-; :.~.:::' " - ,.-'i/. .--
'J 'j-c)"'."''' : j (:' ': ',"~:':<:"'''::;". ~J'. "':',, -,,,.. - "r.~"'Y S):f5 II- ~I) u '\ -/\
!~"",:"o:' "!'.:,i:.:,>:~~,', "':,:'.::<;L::~M~.",~" "~ '+hi ~,~~ :!;~~ /" r,p '~. " ~)J ~.. '- \)
I' ~ """ . "--,., "," ~ "\ 1 " , -/'., - ,,.,..... .JJ.J
f. , '. ~ ~"I ,,,,--~,,"'<~"'i,*, w. ~ ~ ......., I ' C I -
"'T', ,omo,'.," - :''-'i,,:.;~ "{::.'. :'C " ~.i. ,,,, , .~ , .-- Ct ! ~. ~ dJ7 "I : ..
":""~~:\D";'::;:~;~~~Xi~;1~;\r~.~t~l'~~.L ."~~,=' :: ", IJ~ ",' :,9;~~~ F'
L'~"'" I i,,- .~' ~ 4.. "~"~)~~~'."~,.' ~~" ,,"'- ~;. f1U!~ [Y-i' ~~~ ,,~~. ~ ~IW\~.= J'L- :/.. !:- ~::;:'~':,':';? ~,~ ()~' a
" to."'" -,-).. ~ '.I N..". I ""111. J ~ I ~ o' I "".,' C'o. fff.. YJ.. \\:!>
"',.. '15' ~ f::) . I ',rf,„.\ .~ "M..... \ \9>~'~:~' i' .. lIJ : ~ aU\ i: '()'\: 11.'\:5 ~ ~ 1 o :" ~'( ~: ' ~1;':: i,'. ",' """'!BJ':" ~.. . (Ci{~l
0-. . ~ VII.. .,~ '.~ ~pr :....-"" -- N.6_~;.~ruTi~"-'': ",,"~'..fJ..~'''~... ' ~ ':#.;.... .'~" .
:i/~.*\\~~~, .' '.!;,:'~ ' ~~c( I 7'~~t ~~~:':':::"~':}." ,,,.::./i:::::~ ()r .... ~sJ:t'" 2'--'-, ": ,j'''" " ~\U;;
~. \"~'-~~"'~ I~:''''": N , ~ t,~ ~ ~.I ~.' i IU..".L S. --,'t.a..~,",ii~~,.,'Sitel,:,~-7't:'":~-';':o\~"V.I",Utt .- Ie '~lf.J... ~L.(..
..;:1. \'1..- ::tIt., " ,~ (10 ~~« <:. ~. Ite 6 WH '"" ..,., ,,:...'oj' .. . .,,;.
{ ~::-;.~~, "'. -" 1 I I' \ ; ~ ('J> -;1.1:-., ::, ',",' ",''':,."..",., I '= I~~~~ 0 ~' I $I..;:" ,J
,.~\ I .. '" "I~" i I,(,~~ '~'_"'_"~"'" :1,., c'k... ,,'J.-'I, ,.~ 0.-
:; ,.:Ii! .. ~~v" u I ,.:Y ''/'''F,~ .! \\ \\~.. . \ . "I :1 I .Ij F'l.CO" Heill!li-'~~ ~j,. ,..::;,.: I~" u'--,
- "1::"" .. .r. 2~::Y ,: y..... '~' '! !/,; . I . "" ~.-:... I ~ ~:.- or r-...iA .U-= ~ II ~A ~ j ~
-'/- .~t1.~ . GOlda!:'." ,-~i;1~-;i ;$!. "~~~" '':,~ ~,_." :~~ '::;. "I C-J~ -" IQ1 It. .. '1 \J 11. ~ ~io/ ~..
~ ,eSite 8J;.' . ,Vall." ....- .. "'~":" ~~ - . ~~' ,:" l/..s~- P. ~I-~L ~ ~ f;I ii ~ I . I '1 ~...~ W, I .", . . T .
ot;t.'.. , .' 'I ' ;; i'<..J"".'>j'\':'~" .. !f,~ I. ". i"V-1 i "} I
E~ eSit~7,I"':?.Jd:~::::" 'L~t7':,~.~'h<-}_',~/". ;....:.. c:,"~'~~ '~~ .Site 41/ " ... }-~~ 'I' - .. /, .;~u -
.~~ t£-":.. ,'" . r .-:-.J. ~"r-:: ...~ (JJ 1..,-- ,.,,,,,. ..i~. ~.;:. ., IU" M, "'''I'''!~ .. . '. ...!...' ~ L. ,. .;
~ . ~ """"~.J. " ill"" IJ.l!j ~ ... @ .. ...;'T:I.v!n . H.', ."".t..,: ~ .,..-r.iI \! fC'IH J.
, . f!!; 1:""- . t ... . w -.:~ fl! ..J , Sf 1$1. .. .. ''-'- i u .. ,
,.:rV'-:-:':'~ \,,\,-ST;LOUISPAIK ~/(.....! .' T:~ I. J7\ . '~;. --. .K:~ .~,.._~ ~.- r -~ J ';
'i,~I!~ETDHKA~: '",,~. ~ ~'-A.'.",.-" ~r--,~ N£A 'nll; Ii i ~;:;: I .~i". ~~~~. ''£\\"'~~''''='' ~ ,:. ,;.,. .~~.. ,..
. '" " . .,-'~ ":'p:", /: . ~~~ '
-f(,~;', V~, ~~ ',''>. -, ('~ i 10 ~ j tl':v... j 1< 7" . ::~I;' . :/i;;A]"'Hr;'~fIt u " "~~ ,,~/... ~"L ~:~/" -bur}~
>~'i~'~~-,~-l" "1?\ -=: :; DI~ ~ ~''-' u~~ :.;l MI~~. ':::-., ~j' ~~.~ff.ll Sl ''''1 'or ..,;~ ~:" ,.~ft"" ,'"
;, -':" ,<)\..; J,. .. -,/' ~ ,-.I I!~..." ,11 /';-.Lf/~n.:j: ..~ -.."",,,", '::: ,',.1
r";;" -: >\. '.. . -;::--Y-, '1M .. I ~~ ,-="/.. ~{ S""I ~. ~ "
" "......,IEL' " ~./ t;--..;,~ ~ ' ,,,'I~ ,,' 18 r.:::.:.:" ~..1', ~ ; .. '" ~.!!."I -_:"-:; J -..
,.' ( .. ~IO 7 .. 'I~ ~~~"\(!i~I,"?,.:iT!!:', ~~-":': '. '1.1. " I ~!""~~~t:T C3
- '(- '"' " n,: - ,," ..." ,,', , "-=~~ r f\ (U ~ '61 '" ... ~ '-.."'. r--. ~..
,-~~~'.:' '~:1 :~,Ej. t,f G."~ ~i~::~~~~f~~t\: ~..~~~~\~'t.~1t1'~:::£"~~i.~ . . .~' ), I~~ "-
,--..l:d--!)-'{" '~~~~<~.'„"~s~~:.:~D~:~;:~:I::>;~ i::-:.": ~.~.~~~~I~"'U\~, \~ ':~~~~~Jv .~\.~_... I ~
l,i~," .-=,'-,~ ',,", f:~ -" '-rf,,,,' ~j':'a::-:; ....It:;~, X I':, '::H~~:" ~ n A",""'" C\... ,., (0 ~
':,--:"" V (l~~/ :;:i.:,~"~, :>:::".' ~li,: .','. ,::. ", '~;" ~f' ~ ," '1-;";{. ~..(. V' . 1 I ~ J ~ ~:.:u"u
~ ~, ,~~ ,: "~7 .~ 7-:~:' ,', ;:pr;J~;: 'p.~~~~:'/; ~; <~:~~i y 1 ~ ULo.y " '. (J - ~ ~~!' Ctl1lt.
£;~ ~, ~" ;<-~,~,I:,),~"F~,,2i'~~~;_'--,::F':".' ~, .,~~'~.,~':':. \I'~~ ~~ -" ~. "~"~- .u(;)%Ii:. ',,~. -=---~~- -- --,"" ..
,-=--.." ~....,.,.. ~'...; ,-::,: ":- ~ .:~ ~2:E~ L~'~;">~ V /j ~~'1) -,' ." ,"~::.}.; ,) &>,,- .. I'" T'~ / :
" ~...> "';:::::..:.:.,~ "'~": ' ,',,~ ,,;-:,:,"'~, ::;;.;F~)'.:-r'~. I. no-' hili 0 ,J) r:; ""=~-
-- '.~, "'~"~~~~~"~';:1f'~~~~;~:;:S;~:"::4"~::i (". ~G (I \' \ ~rv\~~
' ~:Y'v--:,:..~T~ !:::,:' ,'",:;It:", i' ~"', ' ," :! ' I ~ ~ I \\ ,".J.. .\< L~.....
,,:"7 " 1"'- ~':~"A;:j: ',:'.c-' "auINiL',.',;,{,j . 1.0 c:::;:J ~=--:: ~~ MINNEAPOLIS II
...,.,,' " "'.., , I :m ~ '.'!.tal.! ,- '" ...~: ," ~ to 1 ~.. ST PAUL
-VS c c~' ,',I ~t~'~,;.'...'~;i;.. ..~~" > ~~I'-.J " \1 . I
.:: ~ I t l. ..~~...rdI--!, .'.:.. ~ ..~.~ ~:~ Vall"~= ~'-"'L. \ K....'- "_., 1 Mateo I 2 1 t MI". I
Figure 2-1.
Sampling site locations.
5
-------
TABLE 2-1. PHYSICAL CHARACTER I STI CS OF t1UD Cft.RRYOUT SJI.t1PLlNG SITES
Speed
No. of vehicles No. of limit ADT on
Construction Size of No. of entering/ travel lanes on paved adjacent
Site location Type of activity construction access leaving site on adjacent road paved road(s)
number of site construction during sampling site (acres) points (vehicles/day) paved road (mph) (vehicles/day)
1 County Road B-2 Commercial office Building con- 10 1 > 100 4 40 4,300b
and Sne 11 i ng building struction
Avenue
2 Carsgrove . Single fanli ly Installation of 42 1 25-50 2 35 1,300
Meadows-970 residential underground
County Road C utilities
3 lower Afton Multifamily Installation of 4 1 > 100 2 50 3,200b
Road and residential streets,
Morningside curbs, and
Dri ve gutters
m 4 Energy Park Industrial park Installation of lOa MuH ip Ie > 100 2 30 3,300b
Drive underground
utilities
5 Norman Center Commercial office Buil di ng excava- 4 3 < 25 4 30 2,600b
Drive - 84th building tion and pi Ie
and Normandale driving
6 Hwy 36 North Commercial office Installation of 5 2 25-50 2 30 750
Service Drive building underground
(Hoffman utilities and
Elec.) curbs
7 Hilloway Road, Single/multi- Grading and in- 15 2 < 25 2 20 640
Cloverly Way fami ly stallation of
residential underground
utilities
8 County Road 61 Commercial office Earthmoving and 2 3 < 25 2 30 3,700
and North building pile driving
Hwy 12
Frontage Road
--
a Approximate area of the site active at the time of sampling. Actual site is much larger (- 150 acres).
b Represent average of ADT counts supplied by MPCA as well as counts taken by MRI.
-------
CONSTRUCTION SITE
, ~
. ' r---ACCESS POINT --1 J
..... ................... ................ ....' ~ F" ..... ......................... "."."".;'''.''.''1 I I : " I
r]2~I~f fr&~ill~ - ~~~ ~~214ili_~1Itc i.0~101
1--3.2 m--!!-3.2 m--., j:-3.2 m ----I 1--3.2 m1
~321.9 m------l 321.9 m .
Figure 2-2. Sampling locations for Phase I.
7
-------
CONSTRUCTION SITE
0::>
; I' I-- --' J;
""""';';';"~y"""",,! \"""""""(~Y""""""','j f ; 1"";"'\"(6),,""""""'" ACC ESS POI NT i I f ~ ,I I, I
!iliillJJ£ FEdEli rBti lli i- ~AVED ROAD 2.':m 1I@:~ ~&@]w~ ~m~
! (I I ~ f I I ~ I.:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:.:-:-:.:-:.:-A r ~-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:.:-:-:-:-:.:-:-:-:.:-;J r r t:-:-:-:.:-:-:.:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:.:.....t
3.2m~3.2m~' '\--3.2m 3.2m--t .\--3.2m--t !--3.2m
'--- "J 160 m "J 1 60 m -----1
321 .9 m
321 .9 m
Figure 2-3.
Sampling locations for Phase II.
-------
count, (b) mean traffic speed, and (c) vehicle mix. Total vehicle count on
the adjacent paved road was determined by using pneumatic-tube counters or
was obtained from local transportation agencies. In order to convert the
traffic counts taken at the access point to equivalent light-duty (2-axle)
vehicles, vehicle mix summaries were tabulated through interviews with con-
struction personnel and by observing the vehicles parked on-site. The
vehicle mix summaries recorded the percentage of each vehicle type in each
major category. From this information, the total counts were corrected to
the total number of light-duty vehicles passing through the point of access
to the construction site.
The speed of the traveling vehicles was taken to be the posted speed
limits of the roadway adjacent to the construction project. As a check,
speeds of the vehicles were determined through visual estimate. Typical
wei ghts of the vari ous types of vehi cl es were estimated by consulting
(a) automobile literature concerning curb weights of vehicles and (b) dis-
tributors of medium duty and semitrailer type trucks as to their curb
weights.
On-site construction activity was determined by interviews with con-
struction personnel. Information collected in this manner included:
duration of construction, percentage of completion, types of activities
occurring on-site (i.e., grading, etc.), estimate of source extent (i.e.,
cubic yards of material moved), number and type of vehicles entering and
leaving the site, and control measures employed (if any). A special form
was developed for this purpose, a copy of which is included in Appendix A.
2.3
LABORATORY ANALYSES AND RESULTS
The samples collected in the field were transported back to MRI for
silt analysis. The procedure followed was generally the same as that used
in previous MRI studies but was abbreviated slightly due to the large num-
ber of samples to be analyzed. The actual procedure used for the analysis
of silt content (% < 74 ~m) is shown in Appendix A.
Table 2-2 and 2-3 present the road surface loadings determined under
Phases I and II of the field sampling program. At least one measurable
precipitation event occurred between each set of samples collected. All
the information from both studies was combined into one data set for
analysis as discussed in Section 3.
9
-------
lABLE 2-2.
ROAD SURFACE LOADINGS - PHASE I
Site No.
Sample
set No.
Date
'samp Ie
co 11 ec ted
Sampling location A b
Total surface Silt content
loading (g/m2)a (weight %)
Sampling location B b
Total surface Silt content
loading (g/m2)a (weight %)
Sampling location C
Total surface Silt contentb
loading (g/m2)a (weight %)
Sampling location D b
Total surface Silt content
loading (g/m2)a (weight %)
1 1 7/20/82 120 11 3.0 7.3 1,300 11 32 2.2
2 8/3/82 1,000 8.5 2.4 6.5 1,200 14 13 2.2
3 8/18/82 81 1.2 2.3 6.7 24 10 8.3 1.9
2 1 7/21/82 510 12 2.7 8 3c 1,100 7.2 7.0 8.3c
. c 5.0c
2 8/2/82 750 11 5.3 5.0c 160 6.3 6.9
3 8/17/82 110 7.8 1.5 9.5 47 7.2 11 9.Sc
3 1 7/21/82 d 9 3e 0.8 14c 19 12 0.8 14c
2 8/2/82 2,000d ll~ 1.4 c 31 2.2 0.8 7.9c
740d 7.9c
3 .8/17/82 620 4.6e 0.7 9.3 12 3.0 0.7 9.3c
a Rounded to two significant figures.
<:) b
Percent < 200 mesh (74 ~m). Results rounded to two significant figures.
c Silt content of a combined sample obtained from locations Band D.
d Includes bicycle lane sample adjacent to sampling location A.
e Weighted average silt content of the samples collected from the bicycle lane and traveled portion of the roadway.
-------
TABLE 2-3.
ROAD SURFACE LOADINGS - PHASE II
Date Total surface loading ~~/m2)a Silt content (weight %)e
Sampling Sample sample Site No. S ite No. Site No. S 1 te No. Site No. Site No. Site No. Site No. Site No. Site No.
location set No. co 11 ected 4 5 6 7 8 4 5 6 7 8
A 1 09/20-09/21 560 320c 540c 310 80 6.0 11c 11 12 23
2 10/18-10/19 680 3.200C.d 1,200 240 340 4.4 5.2c 19 18 16
B 1 09/20-09/21 190 24 3.7 2.5 5.7 7.4 19 4.4
2 10/18-10/19 5.9 280 35 32 94 29 19 13 17 17
C 1 09/20-09/21 b 2.5 24 1.7 b 7.0 7.4 7.3
3.1b 3.6b
2 10/18-10/19 8.5 2.6 23 6.5 8.4 13
o 1 09/20-09/21 80 49 49 120 14 3.7 2.5 3.2 13 16
2 10/18-10/19 28 60 660 160 130 9.4 4.9 12 11 12
E 1 09/20-09/21 11 33 23 2.5. 21 2.5 1.1 1.2 18 11
2 10/18-10/19 6.5 87 20 400 160 13 1.9 3.0 15 18
F 1 09/20-09/21 b 6.6 b 16
3.1b 3.6b
2 10/18-10/19 8.5 8.2 21 6.5 3.4 13
a Rounded to two significant figures.
b Samples C and F composited prior to analysis.
c Average of A samples from two access points.
d Reflects mound of earth covering curb to provide access for heavy vehicles.
e Percent < 200 mesh (74 ~m). Results rounded to two significant figures.
o
-------
3.0
DATA ANALYSIS
3.1
INTRODUCTION
This study had three major objectives with regard to construction re-
lated mud/dirt carryout. These were:
1. To characterize paved road surface loadings associated with uncon-
trolled mud/dirt carryout from typical construction activities in the Twin
Cities metropolitan area.
2. To estimate the increase in emissions due to mud/dirt carryout from
active construction sites.
3. To develop a statistical model that relates traffic entrained dust
emissions associated with mud/dirt carryout to physical parameters which
characterize the level of construction activity and climatic conditions.
The following is a description of the analysis performed as related to
the above objectives.
In interpreting the results of this study, it is important to bear in
mind that the sampling and site characterizations were conducted at discrete
widely separated intervals in time. Consequently, the surface loadings re-
flected the cumulative effects of sequential construction processes, most
of which were not monitored. Despite this limitation it is felt that the
program yielded valuable information, particularly with respect to Objec-
tives 1 and 2.
3.2
OBJECTIVE 1 - CHARACTERIZATION OF MUD/DIRT CARRYOUT ASSOCIATED WITH
CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES
As stated in Section 2, surface loading samples were collected at
various distances from the access point of the construction project, de-
pending upon site and roadway characteristics. The most common distances
for sample collection were 10 m and 320 m in either direction from the
point of access. Only during Phase II were samples collected at inter-
mediate points at a distance of about 160 m from the site entrance.
Statistics based on the surface loading samples collected at 10 and
320 m are presented in TaQle 3-1, along with similar measurements from two
previously compiled urban road data sets. The means for the other two data
sets represent typical background values (- 1 g/m2) for urban areas. The
data indicate that silt loadings found near construction site access points
(10 m) are approximately 40 times greater than background. Silt loadings
at 320 m from the access point are in the range of background, with 85% of
the values less than 1 g/m2. At distances ranging from 50 to 220 m from
12
-------
TABLE 3-1.
COMPARISON OF ROADWAY SURFACE SILT LOADINGS
Data base
Number of
samples
(n)
Mean
(g/m2)
Sil t 1 oadi ng
Standard
deviation
(g/m2)
Range
(g/m2)
Current study:
Samples collected 10 m
from access point
22
41. 9
46.0
0.348-157
Samples collected 320 m
from access point
21
0.387
0.650
0.0632-3.02
Urban roads - a
4 U.S. Cities
43
0.910
0.898
0.040-4.23
Urban roads - b
12 U.S. Cities ,c
72
1. 44
2.09
0.140-10.7
a
Source:
Reference 2.
b
In order to provide data comparable to that collected by MRI in the
current study and in the paved road study (Ref. 2), two assumptions
were made. The first assumption was that travel lanes contain 12% of
total curb-to-curb loading, with the second being that average par-
ticle size distributions of road surface loading were applicable and
could be used to obtain the silt fraction. Both assumptions are" based
on data contained in the survey report.
c
Source:
Reference 4.
13
-------
the access point (Phase II sites), 75% of the silt loading values were
greater than 1 g/m2. This would suggest that significant carryout of mate-
rial from construction sites is limited to less than 300 m from the site.
The light loadings at 320 m indicate that an appropriate background
value, at least for the specific sites evaluated if not for the entire Twin
Cities area, should be lower than that indicated by previous studies. The
primary reason for the low loadings (at 320 m) probably involves the fact
that the majority of the roads sampled were relatively new, and in good-to-
excellent condition. Previous survey programs with samples obtained for a
vari ety of pavement conditions, found that these roads (i. e., good to
excellent condition) exhibit substantially lighter loadings than roads in
fair to poor condition.
In order to estimate the increase in emissions due to mud/dirt carry-
out (Objective 2) it was necessary to define an operational background load-
ing. Review of the sampling data (for 320 m) indicated that six samples
with silt loading values ranging from 0.0632 to 0.279 g/m2, could be consid-
ered as representative background values. These samples were designated as
background based 08 their location relative to the source, as well as pave-
ment and traffic conditions. The average of these samples, 0.104 g/m2, pro-
vided the operational background value for the remainder of the data analy-
sis. It should be noted that selection of a background level of 1 g/m2
(i.e., factor of 10 higher) would only decrease the resulting emissions esti-
mates by about 10% since they are most directly tied to the magnitude
of the carryout immediately adjacent to the access point of the site.
3.3
OBJECTIVE 2 - ESTIMATING THE EMISSIONS INCREASE DUE TO CONSTRUCTION
RELATED MUD/DIRT CARRYOUT
A two-step approach was used to estimate the increase in emissions due
to mud/dirt carryout from the construction sites evaluated in this study.
The first step involved fitting the data collected under Objective 1 to an
exponential decay function of the form:
sLx = A exp(-bx) + (sL)O
sL = silt loading at distance x (mass/area);
A = constant (mass/area);
b = constant (length 1);
x = distance away from the site entrance (m);
(sL)O = background silt loading = 0.104 g/m2
The estimated parameters (A, b, x*) for each sample pair are presented in
Table 3-2.
(1)
where:
The second step combined the results of the above procedure with the
size-specific predictive emission factor equations developed by MRI to esti-
mate the distance dependent increase in particulate emissions due to con-
struction associated mud/dirt carryout.2 More specifically, the increase
in emissions (dE) over a specific distance (x*) was evaluated by:
14
-------
TABLE 3-2. ESTIMATED PARAMETERS FOR EXPONENTIAL FIT OF
sLx = A Exp(-bx)+(sL)o
Site No. / Sample set
Set 1 Set 2 Set 3
sample pair A b x*a A b x* A b x*
Site 1/
A-B 14.9 -0.015 348 110 -0.024 305 0.950 -0.0092 276
C-D 176 -0.018 436 195 -0.022 363 2.58 -0.012 293
Site 2/
A-B 75.2 -0.020 343 92.0 -0.020 358 10.4 -0.018 281
C-D 91. 6 -0.016 433 10.8 -0.012 418 3.42 -0.0040 944
Site 3/
A-B 317 -0.035 242 113 -0.0303 242 39.4 -0.033 189
C-D 2.91 -0.020 184 0.698 -0.0205 109 0.420 -0.019 91
Site 4/
A-C 43.8 -0.027 237 19.8 -0.0082 679
D-F 3.43 -0.015 202 2.09 -0.0034 979
Site 5/
A-C 59.1 -0.034 196 245 -0.026 315
D-F 1. 29 -0.0089 320 16.8 -0.017 318
Site 6/
A-C 74.5 -0.020 345 331 -0.028 294
D-F 1.71 -0.014 218 142 -0.038 201
Site 7/
A-C 56.1 -0.043 154 55.2 -0.022 293
D-F 18.0 -0.090 609 66.9 -0.019 362
Site 8/
A-C 28.2 -0.020 292 68.2 -0.0088 774
D-F 3.58 -0.016 238 27.0 -0.0070 846
a Distance of mud/dirt carryout impact in meters from access point, see test for
explanation.
15
-------
x* x*
~E(x*) = fo f [A exp(-bx) + (sL)O]dx - fO f[(sL)O]dx
(2)
where:
~E(x*) = increase in emissions (mass/vehicle pass);
f( ) = MRI predictive emission factor equation (mass/vehicle
distance traveled);
x = distance from site access point;
x* = distance at which construction site impact becomes
negligible (length).
The MRI predictive emission factor equation is:
P
EF = k s Lx
0.5
(3)
where:
EF = emission factor (g/vehicle . kilometer) and k and Pare
empirical correction parameters based on particle size
(Table 3-3).
TABLE 3-3.
PAVED ROAD EMISSION FACTOR
EQUATION PARAMETERS (by
particle size fraction)
Particle size fraction
(aerodynamic diameter)
k (g/VKT)
P
< - 30 IJm
< 15 IJm
< 10 IJm
< 2.5 IJm
5.87
2.54
2.28
1. 02
0.9
0.8
0.8
0.6
The distance at which the construction site impact becomes negligible
(x*), was defined as that point where the silt loading decayed to one stan-
dard deviation above the operational background (0.104 g/m2 + 0.075 g/m2 ~
0.180 g/m2). The standard deviation refers to the six measurements that
were averaged to produce the background silt loading. The x* value was
determined for each sample set based upon the exponential fit of the ob-
served silt loading measurements. It should be noted that the integration
was performed separately in each direction from the access point because
16
-------
there were often large differences in loading depending upon construction
and access road traffic patterns. The resultant estimates were then added
to obtain total emissions increase.
The results of the analysis are presented for individual sample sets
in Table 3-4, and are summarized by particle size fraction in Table 3-5.
Assuming that the mean (x) is representative of the entire construction
sequence, then for a 1,000 ADT paved road adjacent to a site, and a 12
. month project, the additional emissions of TSP would be approximately
18 tons/year. This result suggests that the increased emissions associated
with construction related mud/dirt carryout are a temporary.but potentially
significant emissions source. This may be particularly true in developing
suburban areas where there are usually very few traditional point emissions
sources.
3.4 OBJECTIVE 3 - DEVELOPMENT OF A STATISTICAL MODEL FOR EMISSIONS
ASSOCIATED WITH CONSTRUCTION-RELATED MUD/DIRT CARRYOUT
As implied earlier, incomplete characterization of source activities
prevented the development of formal statistical models to "explain" the in-
crease in mud/carryout associated emissions. However, the data are suffi-
cient to allow at least semiquantitative examination of the relative
importance of several factors i nfl uenci ng the emi ss ions increase (LlE)
associated with active construction sites. These factors include:
1.
2.
3.
Influence of site-associated traffic volume;
Influence of adjacent roadway traffic volume;
Influence of type of construction (i.e.,
residential); and -
Influence of phase of construction.
commerci a 1 or
4.
Much of the fo 11 owi ng ana lys is re 1 i es on compariSons of means (x) for
vari ous subcategori es of the data set. The resul ts must be interpreted
cautiously due in part to the small sample sizes involved. The computed
t-statistics may be viewed as indicators of potentially important relation-
ships; however, the indicated significance is likely to be "inflated" be-
cause no adjustment is made for multiple comp~risons on the same observa-
tions.
17
-------
TABLE 3-4. MUD CARRYOUT EMISSIONS INCREASE
(g/vehicle pass)
Site No. / a < 15 !-Ima < 10 !-Ima a
< ~ 30 !-1m < 2.5 !-1m
sample set TSP IP PM-10 FP
Site 1
Set 1 80 22 20 7.8
Set 2 100 . 27 24 9.5
Set 3 3.2 1.3 0.84 0.44
Site 2
Set 1 72 21 19 7.3
Set 2 44 13 12 4.6
Set 3 14 5.1 4.6 1.8
Site 3
Set 1 64 16 15 5.8
Set 2 28. 8 7.2 2.8
Set 3 10 3.2 2.8 1.1
Site 4
Set 1 15 4.9 4.4 1.7
Set 2 28 9.4 8.5 3.3
Site 5
Set 1 15 4.8 4.3 1.7
Set 2 76 20 18 7.1
Site 6
Set 1 30 9 8.1 3.2
Set 2 110 28 25 9.7
Site 7
Set 1 28 9 8.1 3.2
Set 2 48 14 13 5
Site 8
Set 1 14 4.6 4.2 1.6
Set 2 95 29 26 10
a Aerodynamic diameter.
18
-------
TABLE 3-5.
SUMMARY OF CALCULATED EMISSIONS
INCREASE BY PARTICLE SIZE
FRACTION (g/vehicle pass)
Particulate Standard
size Mean deviation
fractiona (x) (a) Range
< "" 30 IJm 46 34 3.2-110
< 15 IJm 13 8.9 1. 3- 28
< 10 IJm 12 8.0 0.84-25
< 2.5 IJm 4.6 3.1 0.44-9.7
a Aerodynamic diameter.
Factor 1 - Site-Associated Traffic Volume
A comparison of ~E for two levels of site-associated traffic volume
was conducted based on only the first set of samples from each site. These
samples were used because they had the most reliable information on site-
associated traffic volumes. This comparison is summarized in Table 3-6.
As expected, the sites with higher traffic volum.es show substantially
greater increases in emissions than did those with relatively low traffic
volumes. Taken over all particle size fractions, the emission increase is
approximately 2.5 times greater for sites with> 25 vehicles/day than for
those with < 25 vehicles/day. A t-statistic calculated for the TSP data
set could not be considered significant at the 90% level. This result is
indicative of the fact that there is substantial variability in ~E within
traffic volume categories, particularly for the sites with> 25 vehicles/
day.
Factor 2 - Adjacent Paved Road Traffic Volume
The second analysis was based on emissions increases averaged for the
two or three site visits, and ADT counts obtained by MRI during the program
(and/or supplied by the MPCA). If more than one ADT count was available
for a road adjacent to the site, an average value was computed and used in
the analysis.
19
-------
TABLE 3-6.
EMISSIONS INCREASE (~E) BY SITE TRAFFIC VOLUMEa
Sites with> 25 veh./day Sites with < 25 veh./day
Particle Standard Standard
size b Mean deviation Mean deviation
fraction (x) (a) Range (x) (a) Range
< ,.., 30 IJm 52 28 15-80 19 7.8 14-28
< 15 IJm 15 7.5 4.9-22 6.1 2.5 4.6-9
< 10 IJm 13 6.7 4.4-20 5.5 2.3 4.2-8.1
< 2.5 IJm 5.1 2.6 1.7-7.8 2.2 0.88 1.6-3.2
a ~E expressed in g/vehicle
pass.
b Aerodynamic diameter.
The relationship between emissions increase and ADT was determined by
calculating Spearman1s rank correlation.5 The analysis indicated a positive
relationship significant at approximately the 90% level. The most logical
explanation for the positive .relationship is that higher traffic volumes
carry the mud/dirt from the site to greater distances and spread the mate-
rial more uniformly over the road surface. This in turn leads to a greater
emissions increase per vehicle pass.
Factor 3 - Type of Construction
The third comparison was based on sample sets from the commercial and
residential construction sites. This comparison is summarized in Table 3-7.
As indicated, commercial sites apparently produce higher emissions increases
than residential sites. Taken over all particle size fractions, the ~E is
approximately 1.6 times greater for commercial sites than for residential
sites. The calculated t-statistic indicates that this difference is signi-
ficant beyond the 90% level. .
20
-------
TABLE 3-7.
EMISSIONS INCREASED (~E) BY CONSTRUCTION TYPEa
Commercial Residential
Particle Standard Standard
size Mean deviation Mean deviation
fractionb (x) (a) Range (x) (a) Range
< ~ 30 !-1m 65 39 14-110 39 22 10-72
< 15 !-1m 18 10 4.6-28 11 6 3.2-21
< 10 !-1m 16 . 9.3 4.2-25 10 5.4 2.8-19
< 2.5 !-1m 6.3 3.6 1.6-9.7 3.9 2.1 1.1-7.3
a ~E expressed in g/vehicle pass.
b Aerodynamic di ameter.
Part of this difference may be attributed to the different natures of
commercial and residential construction. Commercial construction usually
occurs at sites considerably smaller than a subdivision and is generally
completed in a shorter time than residential construction. Housing contrac-
tors often complete only a few homes before initiating work on other houses
in the same tract. As a result, commercial construction presents a much
more concentrated activity offering a greater potential for mud/dirt carry-
out.
Factor 4 - Influence of Phase of Construction
Table 3-8 presents comparisons that emphasize the temporal variability
in increases in TSP emissions. For Sites 1 to 3, the first two sample sets
were collected during periods when on-site activities included grading, in-
stallation of underground utilities, and actual building construction.
Based on the survey information it appears that the projects were 50 to 75%
completed when sample sets 1 and 2 were taken. In other words, the samples
were collected approximately midway through the construction process. The
third set of samples were taken after most of the site activity was com-
pleted.
21
-------
TABLE 3-8.
COMPARISON OF TEMPORAL VARIATIONS IN TSP EMISSIONS
INCREASES (LlE)a
Standard
Mean deviation
Site/sample sets (x) (a) Range Phase of construction
Sites 1-3
(sets 1-2): 65 26 28-100 Middle
Sites 1-3
(set 3): 9.1 5.5 3.2-14 Near completion
Sites 4-8
(set 1): 21 7.9 14-30 Initial
Sites 4-8
(set 2): 71 33 28-110 Post-initial
a LlE expressed in g/vehicle
pass.
For example, at Sites 1 and 3, roads and curbs were already installed
to the sample collection. As indicated, the emissions increase for
earlier period is approximately seven times greater than that of the
sample period.
prior
the
last
For Sites 4 to 8, samples collected near the beginning of construction
projects (~ 5 to 10% of the work completed) were compared with those col-
lected about 3 weeks later in the process. The data suggest that the emis-
sions increase due to carryout, changes considerably over this relatively
short time period with the emissions increases (for set 2) being approxi-
mately 3.5 higher than those collected during the beginning phases of con-
struction.
22
-------
4.0
CONCLUSIONS
Based on a~ analysis of the field sampling data as discussed in Sec-
tion 3, a number of conclusions can be drawn concerning the increase in
emissions (~E) associated with mud/dirt carryout from active construction
sites. These include:
Silt loadings collected near the access point of active construc-
tion sites are much heavier than those found on typical urban
paved roads.
Enhanced surface loadings associated with active construction are
discernable out to distances of approximately 300 m in either
direction from the site access point.
Calculated increases in emissions (~E) associated with mud/dirt
carryout from active sites indicate that this is a temporary but
significant source of particulate emissions.
There appears to be a positive relationship between site-associ-
ated traffic volumes and the magnitude of the emissions increase
as calculated in this study.
The results of this study indicate that the increase in emissions
on adjacent paved roads due to mud/dirt carryout is greater for
roads with higher traffic volumes (ADT).
Commercial construction projects produce a greater increase in
emissions (65 g/vehicle pass-TSP) than do residential sites (39 g/
vehicle pass-TSP). However, residential sites may have an in-
fluence on the ambient air quality for a longer period of time.
The overall increase in emissions varys according to the phase of
construction with relatively low values in the early stages of
construction, increasing values of ~E with higher site activity
levels, and finally reduced ~E values in the later stages of ac-
tive construction.
Further research would be necessary to determine more quantita-
tive relationships between all of the above factors relative to
different types of construction projects.
23
-------
5.0
REFERENCES
1.
National Assessment of the Urban Particulate Problem. Volume I: Sum-
mary of National Assessment. U.S. EPA, Research Triangle Park, NC.
EPA-450/3-76-024.
2.
Cowherd, Chatten, Jr., and Phillip J. Englehart, "Paved Road Particu-
late Emissions," EPA Contract No. 68-02-3158, Technical Directive No.
19, Midwest Research Institute, Kansas City, MO, December 29, 1982.
3.
PEDCo Environmental, "Control of Reentrained Dust From Paved Streets,"
EPA-907/9-77-007, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III,
Kansas City, MO, August 1977.
4.
Sartor, James D. and Gail B. Boyd, "Water Pollution Aspects of Street
Surface Contaminants," EPA-R2-72-081, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Washington, D.C., November 1972.
Hollander, Myles and Douglas A. Wolfe, Nonparametric Statistical Methods,
Wiley and Sons, New York, 1973.
5.
24
-------
o
APPENDIX
FIELD DATA FORMS AND SILT ANALYSIS PROCEDURE
A-I
-------
TABLE A-l.
FIELD DATA Fa Rf.1 FOR PHASE I.
MIDWEST RESEARCH INSTITUTE
Mud Carryout Sample
Sample No.
MRI Project No.
Date
Recorded By
Type of Material Sampled:
Site of Sampling:
Type of Pavement: Asphalt/Concrete
Traffic Count
Vehicles/ -
No. of Traffic Lanes
Surface Condition
SAMPLI NG METHOD
1. Sampling device: Portable vacuum cleaner (broom sweep first if loading is heavy)
2. Sampling depth: Loose surface material
3. Sample container: Metal or plastic bucket with sealed poly liner
4. Gross sample specifieations:
(a) 1 sample within 100 m of the air sampling site
(b) composite of up to 3 increments: lateral strips of 1 m minimum width extending
from curb to curb
(c) total sample weight of at least 4.5 Kg
Indicate deviations from above method:
SAMPLING DATA
Sample Vac Surface Quantity
No. Bag Time Area of Sample
A-1
A-2
A-3
B-1
B-2
B-3
DIAGRAM
Sample Vac Surface Quantity
No. Bag Time Area of Sample
C-1
C-2
C-3
0-1
0-2
D-3
CONSTRUCTION SITE
I-
"""""'1...........1
U>~::8~: ~i';:::~::>:::~~:::~~~
~ ft.':l::~"":::~:;
I I
I ~
r:- - ft .--1
6/82
:F:@i!
I::»~<:::::::~~~{:::::::>I - - --
I
I
st
i- _ft.-j
ft ~-----j
ft.
-I
I
i I
I I
. I I
-- ~~}i-
~ f I
i I.
. I
I JI~@!
~ _ft'-1
ft.~
~
ft'-1
A-2
-------
Sample No.
MRI Project No.
.. -_..p-,.', ~--... "'-.'....- .
. n. ...."."hh~'
"--~"--"._' '---'-.------'----'--..---.--..-
MIDWEST RES. .{CH INSTITUTE
Mud Carryout Sample
Date
Recorded By
Type of Material Sampled:
Site of Sampling:
Type of Pavement: Aspha It / Concrete
SAMPLING DATA
Traffic Count
Vehicles/
No. of Traffic Lanes
Sample Vac Surface Quantity
No. Bag Time Area of Sample
A-1
A-2
A-3
B-1
B-2
B-3 '
C-1
C-2
C-3
:>
I
W
~
!~(S I~I
1-'-"-- -r- .- --I
I I I
I I I
r-ft.T-ft.~
COMME NTS:
Surface Condition
Sample Vac Surface Quantity
No. Bog Time Area of Sample
0-1
0-2
0-3
E-1
E-2
E-3
F-1
F-2
F-3
CONSTRUCTION SITE
r ft.~ ~
;1:;;;:c~,:;;1 ! I : ~'--, p 51 I
flliGWITlliill\- - - - - - N~~~~ s~~1~ ss~~~~
ft~- ft'l r-ft.~ ~- ft'-ij-_ft'l
TABLE A-2. FIELD DATA FORM FOR PHASE II.
-------
Figure .4,-1
QUESTIONNAIRE FOR CONSTRUCTION SITE PERSONNEL
1.
Type of construction activity (check one)
a.
b.
c.
Residential
Commerci a 1
Industria 1.
-
Additional description (Le., multi unit, residential or suburban
commercial, etc.)
2.
How long have you worked at this location?
Note:
In the case of a multi-year project, we are only interested in
the current season.
3.
How long is the job projected to last?
4.
What percentage of the work is completed?
%
5.
What construction activities are you currently performing?
6.
What construction activities have you been performing over the past
week to ten days?
7.
What is the construction activity IS source extent which is currently
being performed (e.g., tons of earth moved/day or yards of concrete
poured/day)?
8.
Estimate the number of daily vehicle passes through the site entrance
(check 1).
a. <25 vehicles
b. 25-50 vehicles
c. 51-100 vehicles
d. >100 vehicles
If more than 100, approximately how many?
vehicles/day
A-4
-------
9.
What types of vehicle enter the site daily and what percentage of the
traffic is of each type?
Vehicle Type
Percent
a.
b.
c.
d.
Cars
Pickups/Vans
Med. Duty Trucks
Other
%
%
%
%
10.
Do you employ control measures to keep dust down?
If yes, what type?
11.
What is the usual frequency and intensity of application? When was the
most recent application?
A-5
-------
TABLE A-3.
SILT ANALYSIS PROCEDURES
o
1.
Select the appropriate 8-in. diameter, 2-in. deep sieve sizes. Recom-
mended U.S. Standard Series sizes are: 3/8 in., Nos. 4, 20, 40, 100, 140,
200, and a pan. Comparable Tyler Series sizes can also be utilized. The
No. 20 and the No. 200 are mandatory. The others can be varied if the
recommended sieves are not available or if buildup on one particular sieve
during sieving indicates that an intermediate sieve should be inserted.
Obtain a mechanical sieving device such as a vibratory shaker or a
Roto-Tap(without the tapping function).
2.
3.
Clean the sieves with dry 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.
Obtain a balance (capacity of at least 2,600 g (3.5 lb)) and record make,
capacity, smallest division, date of last calibration, and accuracy.
4.
5.
6.
Tare sieves and pan.
weights.
After nesting the sieves in order from the largest to the smallest open-
ings with pan at the bottom, transfer the dried sample (immediately after
drying) into the top sieve. Should the sample require splitting, the
subsample should weigh between 300 and 1,000 grams. 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.
Check the zero before every weighing.
Record
7.
Place nested sieves into the mechanical shaking device and sieve for 5 min.
Remove pan containing minus No. 200 and weigh. Replace pan beneath the
sieves and sieve for another 5 min. Remove pan and weigh. When the dif-
ference between two successive pan sample weightings spaced 5 min apart
(where the tare of the pan has been subtracted) is less than 3.0%, the
sieving is complete. (However, as a check on the efficiency of this
method, one sample per site per visit (generally sample A) was sieved and
weighed at 10 min intervals for a maximum of 40 min or until a 3.0% vari-
ation was obtained.)
8.
In the 40 min sieve analysis, weigh each sieve and its contents and re-
cord the weight. In the 20 min sieve analysis, weigh and record only the
bottom pan weight. Check the zero of the scale before all weighing oper-
ations.
9.
Collect the laboratory sample and place the sample in a separate con-
tainer if further analysis is expected.
10.
Calculate the percent of mass less than the 200 mesh screen (74 ~m).
This is the silt content.
A-6
------- |