EPA-908/1-78-003
SURVEY OF FUGITIVE DUST
FROM COAL MINES
FEBRUARY, 1978
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION 8, DENVER, COLORADO 80295
-------
40
SURVEY OF FUGITIVE DUST
FROM COAL MINES
Prepared by
PEDCo-Environmental, Inc.
Chester Towers
11499 Chester Road
Cincinnati, Ohio 45246
Contract No. 68-01-4489
Project No. 3311
EPA Project Officer: E. A. Rachal
Prepared for
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Region VIII
Office of Energy Activities
Denver, Colorado 80295
February 1978
-------
FOREWARD
This report is issued by the Environmental Protection Agency to
present technical data of interest to a limited number of readers.
Copies are available free of charge, while they last, from the Office of
Energy Activities, Environmental Protection Agency, Region VIII, 1860
Lincoln Street, Denver, Colorado 80295. The document may also be
ordered from the National Technical Information Service, 5285 Port Royal
Road, Springfield, Virginia 22161.
This report was furnished to the Environmental Protection Agency by
PEDCo Environmental, Inc., Chester Towers, 11499 Chester Road, Cincinnati,
Ohio 45246, in fulfillment of Contract No. 68-01-4489. The contents of
this report are reproduced herein as received from PEDCo Environmental,
Inc. The opinions, findings, and conclusions expressed are those of the
author and not necessarily those of the Environmental Protection Agency.
Mention of company or product names is not to be considered as an endorse-
ment by the Environmental Protection Agency.
m
-------
CONTENTS
Page
SUMMARY
1 . INTRODUCTION 5
2. SAMPLING METHODOLOGY 9
Description of the Methodology Used 10
Advantages and Disadvantages 20
Problems Encountered 24
Proposed Modifications 25
3. DATA ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY 27
Dispersion Equations 27
Statistical Tests 33
Fallout Function 34
Data Validation 38
4. RESULTS 40
Calculated Emission Rates 40
Fallout Rates 50
Emission Rates at Different Mines 55
5. EMISSION FACTORS FOR MINING OPERATIONS 62
6. EVALUATION OF EMISSION FACTORS 71
Comparison of Factors for Different Mines 71
Comparison with Previous Emission Factors 72
Comparison with Ambient Data 73
Accuracy of Emission Factors 75
REFERENCES 77
APPENDICES
A MINING OPERATIONS AT THE MINES SAMPLED 79
B DOWNWIND AMBIENT PARTICULATE CONCENTRATIONS 82
C DATA USED IN DISPERSION CALCULATIONS FOR EACH 98
SAMPLING PERIOD
D PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTIONS FOR SELECTED 104
MINING SOURCE SAMPLES
E PROCEDURES FOR PARTICLE SIZE DETERMINATION 11 Q
IV
-------
FIGURES
No. Page
2-1 Typical Sampler Array 15
2-2 Samplers Downwind of Area and Line Sources 16
2-3 Sample Field Data Sheet 19
3-1 Flow Diagram of Data Analysis Procedures 28
3-2 Source Depletion Factors by Stability Class 35
for Ground Level Sources
4-1 Average Emission Rates versus Distance 52
4-2 Composite Size Distribution Curves for 56
Major Mine Emission Sources
4-3 Emission Rates from Storage Piles 60
5-1 Predicted Downwind Concentrations as a Function 67
of Wind Speed
-------
TABLES
NO. Ea2e
1 Emission Factors for Individual Coal 2
Mining Operations
1-1 Characteristics of Surface Coal Mining 7
2-1 Operations Sampled at Each Mine 11
4-1 Apparent Emission Rates for Draglines 41
4-2 Apparent Emission Rates for Haul Roads 42
4-3 Apparent Emission Rates for Shovel/Truck Loading 43
4-4 Apparent Emission Rates for Blasting 44
4-5 Apparent Emission Rates for Truck Dump 45
4-6 Apparent Emission Rates for Storage Pile 46
4-7 Apparent Emission Rates for Miscellaneous 47
Operations
4-8 Measured Concentrations Downwind of Exposed 49
Areas
4-9 t-Test Values for Pairs of Emission Rates 51
4-10 Mass Median Diameters of Downwind Samples 53
4-11 Variations in Calculated Emission Rates 57
4-12 Initial Emission Rates by Operation and Mine 59
5-1 Emission Factors for Coal Mining Operations (To 63
be Used in Conjunction with a Fallout Function)
5-2 Regional Scale Emission Factors for Coal Mining 64
Operations (No Fallout Function Required)
5-3 Example Calculations of Annual Emissions 69
from a Surface Coal Mine
6-1 Comparison of Measured and Predicted Annual 74
Average Concentrations
-------
SUMMARY
There are several significant sources of particulate
air pollution at surface coal mines. Emission factors were
developed for individual mining operations at five different
Western surface mines; the factors presented in this report
apply only to Western coal mines.
The sampling method used to determine emission rates
was upwind-downwind ambient sampling, with subsequent use of
an atmospheric dispersion equation to relate ambient concen-
trations and emission rates. • Sampling periods were only
about one hour so that meteorological conditions and the
mining operations would remain fairly constant, but were
long enough to ensure that the activity was representative
and that a measurable particulate loading was obtained.
Samplers were placed downwind at two heights and three or
four different distances from the source to provide an
averaging effect in calculating emission rates.
By sampling simultaneously at several distances, it was
hoped that a source depletion factor, or fallout function,
could be developed from the data. However, the apparent
emission rates did not consistently decrease with distance
from the source. A published fallout function, in the form
of a negative exponential relation with distance and the
inverse of wind speed, was used in developing the emission
factors.
Emission factors for the significant mining sources are
summarized in Table 1. These values are the initial emis-
sion rates from the sources and must be used in conjunction
-------
Table 1. EMISSION FACTORS FOR INDIVIDUAL COAL MINING OPERATIONS
Operation
Dragline
Haul roads
w/watering
no watering
Shovel/Truck
loading
coal
overburden
Blasting
coal
overburden
Truck dump
bottom dump
end dump
overburden
Storage pile
Drilling
coal
overburden
Fly-ash dump
Train loading
Topsoil removal
scraping
dumping
Front-end
loader
Units
lb/yd3
a
Ib/veh-mi
Ib/ton
Ib/blast
Ib/ton
Ib/acre-hr
Ib/hole
Ib/hr
Ib/ton
lb/yd3
Ib/ton
Mine
A
N.W.
Colo.
.0056
6.8
.014
1690b
.014
1.
•
3.9
•
B
S.W.
Wyom.
.053
13.6
17.0
.007
.020
C
S.E.
Mont.
.0030b
3.3b
.002b
25.1
14.2
.005
6 u, where u is in
1.5
.0002
D
Cent.
N.D.
.021
11.2
•
78.1
.027
m/sec
.35
.03
.12
E
N.E.
Wyom.
4.3
.0035
.037B
72.4
85.3
.007,
.002b
.22
a Only veh-mi by haul trucks; travel by other vehicles on haul roads
(pickup trucks, ANFO trucks) is incorporated into these values.
These values were all noted to be somehow atypical and should not h«
used without first determining the limitations to their applicabilitv
described in this report. applicability
-------
with a fallout function in predicting ambient air quality
impact from a mine. If the dispersion model to be used does
not have provision for considering fallout, alternative
regional-scale emission factors which already include a
reduction for fallout are also presented in the report. The
regional emission factors should not be used to predict con-
centrations within 5 km of mining operations.
According to the emission factors in Table 1, haul road
traffic would almost always be the largest particulate
source at a surface coal mine. Other major sources would be
open storage piles and the dragline operation. Sampling for
one source, exposed areas, produced data which could not be
converted into an emission factor. It is estimated that
exposed areas would also be a major source.
The mass median diameter for most samples was in the
range of 10 to 35 microns, indicating a high percentage of
material outside the respirable size range and subject to
deposition. There was no significant difference in the size
distribution of emissions from different operations at the
mines.
The expected variation (in terms of standard deviation)
in emission rates for an operation during different time
periods at the same mine is about 60 percent of the mean
value. This is much lower than the variation in an opera-
tion's emission rate for different mines, and it explains
why separate emission factors were derived for the individual
mines, to be applied to others on the basis of similar
climate, geology, and operating characteristics. Individual
emission factors are estimated to generally be accurate
within a factor of two.
It should be emphasized that this is the first com-
prehensive sampling study at coal mines for the specific
purpose of determining particulate emission rates. Additional
-------
work is needed to quantify emission rates from some sources
that were not successfully sampled and to define the deposi-
tion rate of the emissions with distance from the sources.
Design of these future studies should benefit from the
critique of the sampling design of the present study included
herein.
Availability of reliable emission factors for mining
sources does not, by itself, ensure that accurate estimates
of the air quality impacts from mines can be made. This
also requires a model that correctly simulates dispersion of
the emissions throughout the surrounding area. Current
dispersion models may not be adequate because of some features
usually associated with the mines: rugged terrain, sources
in pits or at ground level, wind speed-related emission
rates, wind channeling, and poorly defined source locations.
Further development may be required in this area also.
-------
1. INTRODUCTION
A large number of new surface coal mines will be opened
in the Western states in future years to meet the nation's
energy needs. Under various state and federal laws, the air
quality impacts of proposed mines must be determined prior
to approval. Three stages at which approval and an air
quality analysis may be required are: 1) environmental
impact statement, 2) review for prevention of significant
air quality deterioration, and 3) construction or operating
permit.
In order to perform these air quality analyses, reli-
able estimates of particulate air pollution emissions from
Western coal mines are urgently needed. The purpose of the
present study is to provide such emission estimates.
There are several different sources of particulate
emissions at the mines. The operations which are significant
air pollution sources have been identified, but no sampling
had been done prior to the present study to measure the
emission rates from these sources. Many analyses of the
air quality impacts from proposed or existing mines have
already been performed; these analyses have used emission
factors adapted from similar activities such as construction
and quarrying or based on the best judgment of those perform-
ing the analyses.
Separate emission factors were developed for each of
the major fugitive dust sources associated with surface coal
mining. This will permit emission estimates by operation to
-------
be made from readily available information concerning opera-
tion of a mine, and the tailoring of estimates for the
entire mine to the types of operations which are present.
Sampling data to develop the emission factors were
obtained at five different mines so that atypical conditions
at one mine would not bias the values. Sampling at several
different mines also permits the determination of expected
variability in emission rates between different mines. Two
of the five mines were in Wyoming and one each was in
Colorado, Montana, and North Dakota.
Table 1-1 briefly summarizes some of the climatolog-
ical, geological, and topographical data for these mines.
Information on mining operations at each mine can be found
in Appendix A. The surrounding terrain varies greatly from
mine to mine, but all have sparse to moderate vegetation and
semiarid climate.
There is also considerable variation in mining methods
at the different mines. One uses open pit mining rather
than strip mining. Overburden is removed by truck and
shovel instead of dragline, and the coal is removed in
benches because of the seam thickness. At another mine, the
coal seam is inclined at a 23 percent slope. The dragline
moves up and down the side of the mountain forming an open
strip with the same slope as the seam. These differences in
mining techniques between mines are quite common and are the
primary reason that emission factors have been developed by
operation rather than solely on the basis of tons of coal
mined.
Emission factors are presented in this report for 12
different surface coal mining operations:
0 Dragline
0 Haul road traffic
0 Drilling
Shovel/Truck loading
o
-------
Table 1-1. CHARACTERISTICS OF SURFACE COAL MINES
Mine Location
A N.W.
Colorado
B S.W.
Wyoming
C S.E.
Montana
D Central
N. Dakota
E N.E.
Wyoming
Type of
coal mined
Sub-
bituminous
Sub-
bituminous
Sub-
bituminous
Lignite
Sub-
bituminous
Terrain
Moderately
steep
Semi-rugged
Gently rolling
to semi-rugged
Gently rolling
Flat to gently
rolling
Vegetative
cover
Moderate ,
sagebrush
Sparse,
sagebrush
Sparse-moder-
ate , prarie
grassland
Moderate ,
prarie grass-
land
Sparse,
sagebrush
Mean Mean
Surface soil annual annual
type and wind precipi-
erodibility speed, tation,
index mph in.
Clayey, 5.1
loamy (71)
Arid soil 13.4
with clay
and alkali
or carbonate
accumulation
(86)
Shallow clay 10.7
loamy deposits
on bedrock
(47)
Loamy, loamy 11.2
to sandy (71)
Loamy, sandy, 13.4
clayey, and
clay loamy
(102)
15
14
11-16
17
14
-------
0 Blasting
0 Truck dumping
0 Open storage piles
0 Train loading
0 Topsoil removal
0 Fly-ash dump
0 Front-end loader
0 Overburden dumping
Extensive sampling was done for one other source, exposed
areas, but no emission factor could be developed.
A unique and significant feature of the emission factor
data presented in this report is that it considers the fall-
out of large particles. This is important for at least two
reasons:
0 Health effects research data clearly indicate
that adverse effects are associated with re-
spirable particles rather than the large par-
ticles which fall out within a short distance
of the source.
0 Diffusion models which do not include such a
fallout function would tend to overpredict
ambient concentrations with increasing dis-
tances from the source and, as a result, may
predict the existence of an air quality prob-
lem where none in fact would exist.
The methods used to sample for emissions from the
mining operations are discussed in detail in Chapter 2. The
data analysis methods used to translate sampled ambient
concentrations into emission rates are discussed in Chapter
3. Chapter 4 presents results of the data analysis. Chapters
5 and 6 present the emission factors calculated for each of
the operations and evaluations of expected accuracy, varia-
tions between sampling periods and between mines, agreement
with values previously used, and consistency with ambient
air quality data measured in the vicinity of some Western
mines.
-------
2. 'SAMPLING METHODOLOGY
Emission rates from unconfirmed fugitive dust sources
such as those at surface mines cannot be measured by the
standard procedures used to determine emissions from stacks.
Recent work to develop generally applicable measurement
methods for fugitive emissions has produced three basic
methods:
0 Quasi-stack sampling
0 Roof monitor sampling -
0 Upwind-downwind sampling
As the name implies, quasi-stack sampling involves the
temporary confinement or enclosure of emissions from the
source and passage through a regular cross-section duct for
measurement. Roof monitor sampling requires that the fugi-
tive emissions initially be discharged into an interior
space. Neither of these methods is applicable for sampling
at surface coal mines because of the large areas over which
the dust is emitted.
The sampling method employed was upwind-downwind sampling
for particulate matter in the ambient air. Emission rates
were determined by use of atmospheric dispersion equations
which relate emissions and ambient concentrations. These
equations assume Gaussian distribution of the particulate
matter about the plume centerline in both the horizontal and
vertical planes as it moves downwind.
Mining sources do not actually have constant emission
rates nor do they have well-established plumes. However,
the irregular puffs of dust can be represented by an equivalent
-------
symmetric distribution if a sufficiently long averaging
period is used.
Gaussian dispersion equations require data on average
wind speed, wind direction, distance from the source to the
sampler, and atmospheric stability class. The specific
form of the equations and the assumptions made in back-
calculating emission rates based on net downwind concentra-
tions are discussed in Chapter 3.
This chapter describes the procedures used to sample
mining operations, discusses the advantages and disadvant-
ages of the specific methods used, and briefly describes
some of the problems encountered while implementing the
field sampling program.
DESCRIPTION OF THE METHODOLOGY USED
Mining Operations Sampled
Fifteen different mining operations were identified as
significant fugitive dust sources at VJestern coal mines. It
was intended that these operations would be sampled at each
of the five mines where they were present. The number of
sampling periods for each operation was determined based on
its expected importance to total mine emissions, with the
major sources being delegated most of the samples.
As shown in Table 2-1, seven of the operations were
sampled several times at each of the mines: haul road
craffic, draglines, shovel/truck loading, truck dumping,
olasting, open storage piles, and exposed areas. However,
fower than the desired number of samples were obtained for
seme of the other operations. For example, topsoil removal
was not being conducted at four of the mines during the time
that sampling crews were present. In some cases, the opera-
tion was unique to a single mine. Front-end loaders for
10
-------
Table 2-1. OPERATIONS SAMPLED AT EACH MINE
Operation
Dragline
Haul road traffic
Shovel/Truck loading
Blasting
overburden
coal
Truck dump
Storage piles
Exposed areas
Drilling
Fly-ash dump
Train loading
Topsoil removal
Front-end loaders
Graders
Bucket wheel
Overburden dump
Total
A
8
10
6
1
6
6
4
1
3
0
0
45
No. of sampling
Mine
BCD
10 6
10 10
6 4
2
2 2
2 4
8 4
6 4
0 2
0
4
0 0
44 42
6
9
0
2
6
4
3
0
10
1
0
41
periods
E Total
8
10
2
2
4
4
2
5
0
0
4
41
30
47
26
13
22
22
21
5
3
9
10
1
0
0
4
213
11
-------
truck loading and bucket wheels are examples. In other
cases, no appropriate sampling locations could be found.
Therefore, more confidence can be placed in resulting emis-
sion factors for the major operations than in those for
operations which occur at only one mine or which were not
sampled repeatedly.
Sampling Equipment
Standard high volume sampling units, General Metal
Works Model GMW T-2200, were used. The units were set on
tripods instead of in shelters so that they would be more
portable. The tripod stands have standard roofs to prevent
deposition and to control intake velocity. Filter holders
were utilized to facilitate sample changing. Short-term
samples of approximately one hour were taken; the actual
running times for each period were manually controlled and
recorded on data sheets.
A Bendix Aerovane recording wind instrument was located
at a central location at each mine. The anemometer was
placed at a height of 2.4 m. A hand-held wind speed indi-
cator was also used for all sampling periods, in case local
topography rendered the recorded data unrepresentative of
actual conditions in the plume. The Bendix instrument ran
continuously and produced a single strip chart for each
sampling period at each mine. Time on the charts was syn-
chronized daily with the watch used to record start and stop
times for each sampling period.
Records of other weather conditions necessary to esti-
mate atmospheric stability (e.g., cloud cover and solar
intensity) were routinely recorded on the data sheets de-
scribed elsewhere in this chapter.
Three Onan gasoline-powered generators Cone 5 kw and
two 3 kw) provided power for all the sampling equipment
12
-------
operated during the field study. One generator was avail-
able to run each of the two sets of samplers downwind of
ogerations; the third was used with the upwind samplers.
Generators were located so that their engine exhaust did not
interfere with the sampling.
A nucleopore filter holder and pump were used to collect
samples on 47 mm diameter millipore filters for determination
of particle size distribution. A total of 67 millipore
samples were taken, or about six percent of the number of hi
vol samples. The exposed millipore filters were returned to
the laboratory for microscopic determination of particle
size distribution. It was assumed that all particles had
the same density in order to calculate mass distribution by
particle size.
Sampler Heights
Hi vol samples were taken simultaneously at two different
heights (1.2 and 2.4 m) during almost half the 213 sampling
periods to provide information on vertical distribution of
particulate concentrations in the plume. Ideally, concen-
trations would have been obtained at four or more vertical
points in the plume to completely define the gradient with
height, such as was done with the vertical profile sampler
3 4
used in some previous fugitive dust sampling studies. '
However, it was thought to be more important in this study
to sample at several downwind distances to evaluate fallout
than to completely define the vertical profile of the plume
at a single distance. If several samplers were used in both
dimensions simultaneously, the complexity of the resulting
array would have compromised the portability of the sampling
configuration and resulted in far fewer total sampling
periods. The sampling configuration described below was
agreed upon as optimum (for an initial sampling of surface
coal mines) for providing many samples of different mining
13
-------
operations and a reasonably large number of samplers in the
plume during each sampling period.
Sampler Configuration
A total of 12 high volume samplers were available for
deployment. Normally, two samplers were placed together at
a remote upwind location, four were placed in a line down-
wind of a source at 1.2 m height, and the remaining six
were placed at 1.2 and 2.4 m heights at three distances
downwind of another source. In this manner, two sampling
periods could be conducted either concurrently or sequen-
tially. Because of the difficulty in setting up in two
different parts of the mine and monitoring two mining opera-
tions at one time, the two groups of samplers were frequently
run on the same operation at once. This was still con-
sidered to be two sampling periods in reporting.the data.
The most commonly used downwind distances were 10, 20,
30, and 40 m. For some operations such as blasting or drag-
line, plume development and/or personnel safety required
that greater distances be used. At mines C, D, and E, sam-
pling distances were less standardized and at mine E the
mining company placed additional downwind samplers in the
array. The data from the company's samplers have also been
included in the estimates of emission rates.
There were no differences in sampling configurations
for line sources (such as haul roads) and area sources (such
as truck dumping). For line sources, the samplers were
placed in line with the wind direction at the beginning of
the sampling period rather than perpendicular to the source.
A typical sampling setup with samplers at both 1.2 and 2.4 m
heights is shown in Figure 2-1. Photographs of the samplers
in the mines are presented in Figure 2-2.
Two samplers were placed at an upwind or crosswind
location at the mine, usually remote from the operation
14
-------
Figure 2-1. Typical sampler array.
-------
Area source
Line source
Figure 2-2. Samplers downwind of area and line sources,
16
-------
being sampled. The upwind or background concentrations were
subtracted from measured downwind concentrations to obtain
the net contribution from the source being studied. For
obvious reasons, the upwind samplers were run for approxi-
mately the same time periods as the downwind samplers.
Locations distant from the activity being sampled and from
other dust-producing' operations were selected so that brief
reversals of wind direction during a sampling period did not
produce a contribution from the source and thereby render
the site useless as a measure of incoming particulate con-
centration. A disadvantage of not having an immediate
upwind sampling location was that other sources at the mine
might also contribute to the concentrations downwind of the
source being investigated; the remote upwind site did not
account for any such contribution.
In a few cases where source impact on the upwind sam-
plers was suspected, lower background concentrations measured
at other (downwind) samplers during the same time period or
the preceding or following sampling period were substituted.
Selection of Sampler Locations
Sampling equipment was normally moved at least once per
day to different locations to sample different operations.
The sequence of sampling was determined by the PEDCo field
engineer, with approval by the mine contact man. The general
sampling locations were preselected during initial visits to
the five mines.
One consideration in selection of the operations to be
sampled for that day was wind direction, so that samplers
could be placed in a convenient direction from the operation
being sampled. The intent was to minimize interferences
from other fugitive dust sources and prevent any possible
safety hazards.
17
-------
Estimation of Initial Plume Dispersion
The value desired for use in the dispersion equations
is the standard deviation of the initial plume dispersion,
a in the vertical plane and a in the horizontal plane.
A value of 1.5 m for a has been found through experimental
zo
work to be representative for highway sources, so values of
3 to 5 m were used for haul road traffic. For other
sources, a was estimated as the total initial plume height
6
(if it was visible) divided by 2.15. For horizontal plume
dispersion, a was estimated as the initial plume width
(side of source perpendicular to wind direction) divided by
4.3, as recommei
sion Estimates.
4.3, as recommended in the Workbook of Atmospheric Disper-
7
Data Records
For each one-hour sampling period, a separate data
sheet was used to record information on the location of
sampling, filter numbers, meteorological data, and mining
activity observed. Examples of mining activity are the
number of haul trucks and other vehicles using the mine road
during the sampling period, the number of bucketsful of
overburden lifted during the period, or the area blasted.
Notation was made on the data sheet whether the fixed met
station was representative of wind conditions at the sam-
pling location or whether the hand-held instrument's data
should be used.
Data sheets were also used to indicate any problems
that occurred during a sampling period. Such information as
wind shift, sampling equipment malfunction, and nonrepre-
sentative activity during sampling times were recorded to
explain inconsistencies in the data collected.
A sample of one of the data sheets produced during the
sampling activity is shown in Figure 2-3.
18
-------
MINE A DATE 7/7/77
OPERATION final loot;*] LOCATION NO. /
NOTES ON / sV.ou«( lSc.w. wd. \oucWt
OPERATION ^
ACTIVITY PARAMETERS: COUNT (USE MARKS):
g PER HAUL TRUCK III!
D PER OTHER VEHICLE
D PER BUCKETFUL
D PER HOUR
D PER TON OF COAL
D PER ACRE
D PER LOAD
H OTHERzWVi o«r trocK. TOTAL: <-)
SIZE OF SOURCE:
Ar«~ ac.op'N
WIDTH PERPENDICULAR TO WIND, M 15 ( t« do«t> /
INITIAL VERTICAL PLUME DISPERSION, M 1
PARTICLE SIZE DATA TAKEN? gJYES QNO
(MARK SAMPLE NOS. BESIDE HI-VOL SAMPLER NOS.)
PHOTOS TAKEN ? QYES 0NO
NO ON FILM ROLL
PLACE SKETCH ON BACK
MET DATA: ^ = V*J?*
— • T«fcvp.= if 5 f
TIME SINCE RAIN ZM Viours
SOLAR INTENSITY g| STRONG
D MODERATE
D SLIGHT
INITIAL WIND DIRECTION 2HO°
(DIRECTION FROM SAMPLER TO SOURCE)
CAN FIXED MET STATION BE USED
FOR WINDS AT THIS SITE DYES
23 NO
TIME IN PLUME, MIN 6O
HAND HELD INSTRUMENT
TIME »DIR <
I'un t-to
1 • — , —
Jl^S Z35
r.so z.3$
I-.ZS ^^O
;PD *vfX
"i~
e
"2"
JL
t:oo T.HS 7
7.: OS 7. MO
Z: 10 tMO
a: IS Z35
^'.7.0 -2.MO
Z^5" Z35
•Z.:30 ^40
AV . Z38.8
DOWNWIND SAMPLES: START TIME |:3\ OFF TIME £.:Bl
HT REL TO SAMPLER FILTER FLOW RATE
DIST/HT.M PLUME £,M NO. NO. INIT FINAL
\ 6'3 SO M&
UPWIND SAMPLES: PROBLEMS DURING SAMPLING
START TIME »:57 OFF TIME 1: 5 1 C
LOCATION -z. L
SAMPLER NOS. | -2. L
FILTER NOS. C.T.T. t, t| g
_S_
•7
_S_
J_
T. |
(LATER)
MEAS NET
CONC CONC
IE S
WIND SHIFT (OUT OF PLUME)
SAMPLING EQPT MALFUNCTION
NON-REP. MINING ACTIVITY
OTHER voaui'n^ o.fci C.:I:K« coo.1
FLOW - INIT 40 B8 UJ b.+wt^ 4^ook
FLOW - FINAL 3T ss
CONCENTRATIONS
-------
Quality Control
The high volume samplers were calibrated immediately
prior to the field work at each mine and again at the com-
pletion of the field work. One in every 25 filters was a
blank that was sent out with the other filters and returned
unused for reweighing. The quality assurance procedures
outlined in the Quality Assurance Handbook for Air Pollution
Measurement System were used for filter preparation, for
sample collection and analysis, and in auditing the particu-
p
late data generated.
ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES
There were several advantages and disadvantages asso-
ciated with the specific sampling method described above.
In the following section, these factors are briefly discussed,
Advantages
Advantages associated with the method used are:
0 The samplers are near the mining operation,
hence they are almost always being impacted
by the plume from the operation.
0 Several different portions of the plume are
sampled simultaneously, providing an averag-
ing effect in calculating emission rates.
The portability of the sampling gear per-
mitted all mining operations to be sampled.
The use of an array of samplers set at
different distances theoretically permitted
the fallout rate to be calculated directly
20
-------
The mining operation could be described in
great detail because the sampling crew was
close to the operation and the sampling
period was relatively short.
Setting the sampling array close to the
mining operation minimized the relative
impact and interference from other emis-
sion sources.
The proximity also permitted a fairly pre-
cise estimate of the time-in-plume to be
made.
The high concentrations in the plume near
the source ensured that filters would
collect measurable loadings during the
short sampling period.
Disadvantages
There were also some disadvantages associated with the
methodology used. Varying in seriousness with the operation
being sampled, these disadvantages are as follows:
The source strength (emission rate) must
be calculated based upon an assumption
concerning plume dispersion. In this
study, a Gaussian plume was assumed.
Using only two sampler heights can result
in an incomplete understanding of the
plume's vertical profile.
Sampling very close to a mining operation
can result in the collection of some heavier
particles which would otherwise settle near
the source.
The initial plume dispersion—a critical
factor in calculating the apparent emission
rate—has to be estimated visually.
The short sampling period increased the
chance that emissions were non-representative
during sampling.
21
-------
PROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED
Any sampling network, no matter how well designed in
theory, will encounter unanticipated problems which result
in data limitations or the need for design modifications.
The methodology that has been described thus far is no
exception. In the following few paragraphs, the major
problems encountered are briefly discussed.
Mining Operations Did Not Always Produce Stationary Points
of Plume Origin
The equations used to back-calculate apparent emission
rates assume that the point of origin of a plume is station-
ary. This was not always the case. A good example is the
dragline operation. The bucket scoops up the overburden,
the boom swings in an arc, the bucket is elevated and then
lowered, and the material is dumped. The point of origin of
the emissions, the bucket, moves great enough distances to
cause the plume centerline to vary considerably. The result
was that the sampler array was not always directly or com-
pletely in the plume. Topsoil removal was another operation
with this type of problem.
Hand-held Wind Instrument Did Not Always Produce Adequate
Data
The hand-held instrument could not measure wind speeds
of less than about five miles per hour. Also, it only made
instantaneous rather than continuous measurements. The
combined impact of these two facts was that wind data taken
at the sampling site were not accurate during periods of low
or variable wind speeds. Selection of most appropriate wind
data (remote continuous or on-location intermittent) was
made at the conclusion of the sampling period.
22
-------
Instances of Inconsistency Between Sampling Crews Occurred
Two different sampling crews participated in the
study. Near the end of the project, it was noted that there
was some variation in the ways the two crews handled their
assignments. Differences were noted in the methods used to
estimate distances from mining operations and between
samplers, in the frequency with which the sampling array was
moved to keep it within the plume, in judgment as to what
constituted a suitable sampling site, in judgment as to
where to sample for the impact of exposed areas, and in
judgment as to where and how often particle size samples
should be taken.
An attempt was made to account for these differences in
the subsequent data analysis steps. However, sampling data
for a few sampling periods were voided because of these
inconsistencies.
Not All Sampling Locations Could Meet Necessary Criteria
In order of priority, decisions as to where to place a
sampling array were based upon the following criteria: the
mining operation had to be active, the sampling site had to
be physically safe for the sampling crew, the site had to be
physically accessible, and the site had to be downwind of
the mining operation. In some cases, there was only one
feasible location and the wind never blew in the proper
direction to use that location. In other cases, the opera-
tion simply was not active during the five to ten days the
sampling crew was present at the mine. In still other
cases, it was not possible to sample in a physically safe or
accessible location.
Difficult to Determine Time-in-Plume
Most mining operations emit dust in a discontinuous
fashion, producing puffs of dust varying in intensity and
23
-------
frequency. As a result, there was frequently no visible
plume with which the sampling crew could relate. Not being
able to define the plume clearly, they were consequently
unable to time the duration of the period during which the
samplers were in the plume.
A related problem was the highly variable emission
rates observed for sources caused primarily by wind erosion,
such as storage piles and exposed areas. Emission rates
were negligible with low or moderate wind speeds but were
very high during periods with high winds. For these sources,
many sampling periods only confirmed that emission rates
were negligible.
No Empirical Determination of Fallout
Theoretical calculations indicate that much of the
fallout of heavier particles occurs in the first 100 m from
a source. It was hoped that this study would yield an
empirically determined fallout rate which could be compared
to the theoretical one. Unfortunately, the data were too
scattered to provide this information.
0 The reduction in apparent emission rates
with distance from the source was not
as consistent as was expected.
0 Review of the particle size distribution
data yielded no relationship between mass
median particle size and downwind dis-
tance from the source.
0 Analysis of the relationship between mass
median particle size and type of opera-
tion proved inconclusive.
Low Wind Speeds
In the Gaussian dispersion equation, there is an inverse
relationship between wind speed and ambient concentrations
24
-------
With low wind speeds (i.e., less than 1.0 m/sec), ambient
concentrations are predicted to approach infinity if the
emission rate remains constant. At the same time, heavier
particles are predicted to fall out much more quickly with
low wind speeds than would otherwise be the case. The
interactive result of these two processes is that the ability
to estimate emission rates decreases dramatically as wind
speeds approach zero. A related problem is that at low wind
speeds the wind direction tends to vary, thus causing the
sampling array to be in the plume a lower percentage of the
sampling time.
High Filter Loadings Cause Quality Assurance Problems
Emissions from operations such as blasting, dragline,
coal loading, and coal dumping produced downwind concentra-
tions of such great magnitude that they caused filters to
become overloaded with particulate matter. No matter how
well handled, some of this material was lost. An attempt
was made to alleviate this problem by sampling for shorter
periods of time for those operations which emitted at very
high rates.
PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS
If the study were to be redone now in light of the
results obtained, the following changes in the study design
would be made:
1. The high volume samplers would be spaced further
apart in order to better measure the rate of de-
position. Typical spacings would be 50 m.
25
-------
2. Some of the sampling would be done at controlled
sampling locations by having the mining equipment
operate at other than their normal locations.
This would also permit use of a continuous wind
speed and direction instrument at the sampling
location.
3. Samples for particle size analysis would be taken
simultaneously at different distances from the
source.
4. Wind erosion sources (e.g., exposed areas, storage
piles) would only be sampled during periods with
moderate to high wind speeds.
5. Background concentrations would be measured imme-
diately upwind of the sources as well as at remote
locations. This would prevent interference from
other sources in the mine. The remote upwind
sites would still be needed in case the wind
reversed during sampling.
6. The project manager would be at each mine during
part or all of the sampling period to ensure
consistency of sampling procedures.
26
-------
3. DATA ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY
The steps involved in calculating emission factor.- for
the coal mining operations are shown as a flow diagram > u
Figure 3-1. The most important step is the conversion of
downwind ambient concentrations into corresponding emission
rates with a dispersion equation. The forms of this equa-
tion and input data requirements are discussed below.
Other data analysis procedures which are discussed
include tests to determine the degree of variation among the
estimates of emission rates from individual samples; the
method for incorporating consideration of fallout into the
emission factors; and the criteria for eliminating certain
data points from the emission factor development process.
DISPERSION EQUATIONS
Emission rates for fugitive dust sources were estimated
from short-term (approximately one-hour) high volume samples
taken at known distances downwind of the sources. Two
Gaussian dispersion equations were used—one for line sources
and the other for area sources. In both cases, the nut
downwind (downwind minus upwind) concentrations at each of
the samplers were substituted into the equation with other
appropriate input data to calculate the apparent source
strength. Therefore, four to six estimates of source strength
were generated for each sampling period.
27
-------
Samples
taken
at mines
Wind data
and other
data from
field sheets
Dispersion
equations
Laboratory
analysis
Apparent emission
rates at down-
wind distances
determined with
dispersion eqn
Statistical tests
- height
- distance
- mine to mine
variation
Quality assurance
procedures
Ambient
concentrations
determined
Subtract up-
wind to get net
concentrations
Some data eliminated:
- not in plume
- atypical operation
- improper sampling
configuration
- interferences
Some data eliminated:
- outliers
- rates increase
greatly with
distance
Particle
size data
i
Fallout
function
Average all
emission rates
at same distance
from operation at
each mine
J
*
Emission factors
by operation
and mine
^
Some data eliminated:
- too few data
points at one
distance
Emission factors
for use without
fallout function
Figure 3-1
Flow diagram of data analysis procedures.
28
-------
The line source dispersion equation is:
2q
(eq.l)
sin z 0 u
z
where x = plume centerline concentration at
a distance x downwind from the
mining source, g/m^
q = line source strength, g/sec-m
<|> = angle between wind direction and
the line source
a = the vertical standard deviation of
plume concentration distribution at
the downwind distance x, for the pre-
vailing atmospheric stability and
including an initial a , m
Z
u = mean wind speed, m/sec
The calculated values of q were converted to an emission
rate per vehicle by dividing by the traffic volume during
the sampling period.
The area source dispersion equation is:
Q
X = (eq.2)
tra a u
y z
where Q = area source strength, g/sec
a = the horizontal standard deviation
v of plume concentration distribution
at the downwind distance x, for the
prevailing atmospheric stability and
including an initial a , m
, a , u = same as above
29
-------
These equations assume that sampling is done along the
plume centerline. For line sources, this is a reasonable
assumption because the emissions occur at ground level and
have an initial vertical dispersion (a ) of 3 to 5 m.
zo
Therefore, the plume centerline is at 1.5 to 2.5 m height,
the same as the sampler heights. Field personnel made an
effort to position samplers so that this relationship was
maintained even in rough terrain. Horizontal dispersion
does not enter into the calculation for line sources. The
sampling time must be corrected for any brief period of time
when the wind reverses so that the samplers are upwind of
the line source.
For area sources, it is not possible to sample contin-
uously along the plume centerline because of varying wind
directions and possibly because of varying emission heights
(e.g., shovels and draglines). The problem of varying wind
direction was accounted for by first determining the resultant
wind direction relative to the line of samplers, trigono-
metrically calculating the horizontal distance from the
sampler to the plume centerline (y), and then determining
the reduction from centerline concentration with the follow-
ing equation:
reduction factor = exp - j
If the samplers were completely out of the plume for part of
the sampling period but this was not reflected in the resul-
tant wind direction, the percent of time that the samplers
were within the plume was estimated and emission rates were
corrected by dividing by this fraction.
Differences in the height of sampling and height of
emission release were accounted for in the area source
dispersion equation with an additional exponential expression
if the average difference in height could be determined.
30
-------
Field personnel noted heights of area source emission on
data sheets for later use in dispersion calculations. If
possible, sampling heights were adjusted to be the same as
the emission heights. The exponential expression used to
determine the reduction from centerline concentration is:
reduction factor = exp
-w~\
where H = average vertical distance from plume
centerline to samplers, m
Values of a and a are a function of downwind distance
(x) and stability class. For the relatively short distances
of x involved in sampling the mining operations, a linear
relation between x (in meters) and a and a simple exponen-
tial variation between x and a were determined to be suffi-
59
ciently accurate: '
a = c(x + XQ) (eq.3)
az = a(x + xQ)b (eq.4)
Values for a, b, and c in equations 3 and 4 above are sum-
marized in the table below. They were calculated from data
on atmospheric dispersion (within 0.1 km of sources) that
9
were presented in the User's Guide for HIWAY.
Stability
class
A
B
C
D
E
F
a
0.183
0.147
0.112
0.0856
0.0762
0.0552
b
0.945
0.932
0.915
0.870
0.837
0.816
c
0.280
0.197
0.132
0.086
0.065
0.042
31
-------
The x term in equations 3 and 4 is a virtual distance used
to simulate the effect of the initial plume dispersion; it
is calculated by substituting the estimated o or aZQ
value into the appropriate equation along with an x value of
zero. The a and a values were obtained from visual
yo zo
observations of the plume's initial horizontal and vertical
dispersion during each sampling period.
These estimates of horizontal and vertical dispersion
were empirically determined for ground-level sources.
Studies of pollutant concentrations downwind of ground-
level sources (mainly highways) have shown that Gaussian
distributions can describe actual concentrations reasonably
well within 100 meters of the source, but that model-predicted
concentrations at these distances are quite sensitive to
certain input data which may not be accurately measured:
0 Initial plume dispersion, due to mechanical
mixing of the air or uniform emission over
an area
0 Wind speed, which varies with height above
ground level
0 Estimated atmospheric stability, which may
be locally affected by mechanical mixing
or by plume buoyancy
There are also some reasons why particulate concentra-
tions would deviate from a Gaussian distribution—primarily
deposition and lack of reflection off the ground. However
many of these inaccuracies cancel out because the calculated
.emission rates are subsequently used in a Gaussian model to
estimate ambient concentrations.
All field measurements were made in metric units so
that conversions would not be necessary in order to use the
dispersion equations.
32
-------
STATISTICAL TESTS
Evaluation of variations in the emission rates calculated
from separate downwind samples was of greatest interest in
the statistical tests.
The first test planned was to compare emission rates
determined from samplers at 1.2 m height with those at 2.4
m height to evaluate how well the actual plume followed the
predicted Gaussian dispersion in the vertical plane. If the
dispersion function is correct, there should not be any
difference in values calculated from samples taken simul-
taneously at the two heights. The test to determine whether
the measured difference is significant is the t-test, in
which the paired data points are used to determine a t-value
which is compared to standard limiting t-values for specified
levels of significance:
t = - - - (eq.5)
where d = the difference between two paired
data points
n, = n2 = number of data pairs
If the calculated t-value exceeds the standard value, the
assumption that the difference is zero is rejected.
The second test evaluated changes in concentration with
distance from the source. According to the particle deposi-
tion theory described in the following section of this
chapter, apparent emission rates should decrease with dis-
tance from the source. The t-test can also be used to
determine whether the measured reduction in emission rates
is significant. Also, emission rates can be plotted versus
33
-------
distance to see if they match the theoretical fallout func-
tion; and observed fallout rates can be compared with par-
ticle sizes of material at different distances from the
source by regression analysis to determine the correlation
between these two parameters.
Finally, the relative variation in emission rates for
different samples at one mine compared to emission rates for
an operation in separate mines was evaluated. This evaluation
determined whether a single emission factor should be devel-
oped for each operation or whether distinct emission factors
should be developed for regional areas from the data for
each mine. The test was accomplished by calculating stan-
dard deviations, as the measure of variation, for all the
samples of an operation at a mine and for the average values
determined for each mine.
FALLOUT FUNCTION
The deposition of small airborne particles has been
investigated extensively and shown to be a function of
ground-level particulate concentration and settling velocity.10
The rate of deposition is best described numerically in
terms of a source depletion factor (Q/Q ), the ratio between
X O
the apparent emission rate (Q ) at a distance x downwind and
H
the initial emission rate (QQ). Theoretical depletion
factors for different stability classes are presented graphi-
cally in Figure 3-2.
The curves in Figure 3-2 are specific for a wind speed
of 5 m/sec and particles with a settling velocity of 5 cm/
sec. For other wind speeds or settling velocities, the
source depletion factor from Figure 3-2 should be adjusted
as follows:
34
-------
1.0
settling velocity = 5cm/$ec
wind speed = 5m/sec
5 10
Downwind distance, km
Figure 3-2. Source depletion factors by stability class for
ground level sources.
Source: Meteorology and Atomic Energy. U.S. Atomic Energy
Commission, Oak Ridge, Tennessee. Publication
Number TID-24190. July 1968.
35
-------
Vd2/U2
(eq.6)
The deposition velocity (v^) may be greater than the
gravitational fall velocity (v ) for the same size particles
because it also includes such nongravitational removal
mechanisms as surface impaction, electrostatic attraction,
adsorption, and chemical interaction. The average v for
mining emissions, based on a mass median diameter of 22 u
and an average density of 2.0 g/cm , would be about 3
cm/sec. Therefore, a value of 5 cm/sec for v, appears to
be appropriate for use unless specific test data produce an
alternative value.
As can easily be seen from Figure 3-2, deposition may
greatly reduce downwind air quality impact. For a neutral
stability class (D) and an average wind speed of 5 cm/sec,
only about 40 percent of initial emissions would remain in
suspension 1.0 km downwind and only 17 percent at 10 km.
Therefore, it is critical that fallout be considered in
developing emission factors from downwind ambient particu-
late measurements.
The procedure used to determine fallout rates was to
first plot calculated emission rates as a function of
distance, then attempt to empirically define an average
settling velocity (vd) for the emissions. Next, initial
emission rates (QQ) were calculated from Figure 3-2 and
equation 6 for apparent emission rates at all downwind dis-
tances. For each operation at a mine, the Q values were
averaged to arrive at an emission factor. In order to
reduce the number of calculations, the Q values at each
J^
distance were averaged before calculating Q values. Averag-
ing Qx values also smooths the plot of emission rate versus
distance and permits the fallout rate to be determined more
readily.
36
-------
Emission factors developed on the basis of initial
emission rates (Q ) will absolutely require the use of some
fallout function when they are subsequently applied in
modeling air quality impact. This fallout function can
easily be incorporated into computerized dispersion models.
Its format is:
= exp
avdx
u
(eg.7)
Where a, b
v
x
u
= constants which are a function of
stability class
= settling velocity, cm/sec (use 5.0
unless better data are available)
= downwind distance, m
= wind speed, m/sec
Constants for each stability class were obtained by curve
fitting to approximate the curves shown in Figure 3-2. The
resulting values are summarized below:
Stability
class
A
B
C
D
E
F
a
0.120
0.135
0.183
0.115
0.160
0.114
b
0.14
0.15
0.18
0.30
0.30
0.40
For air quality analyses in which only regional scale
modeling-is required, the use of a fallout function may be
avoided by using a reduced emission factor which already
assumes a certain amount of fallout. Development of emis-
sion factors for use without a fallout function is discussed
in Chapter 5.
37
-------
It was previously mentioned that the equations used to
estimate emissions assume perfect reflection of the plume
after it strikes the ground. Probably, very little of a
dust plume is actually reflected. However, by sampling at
several different distances away from the source, this loss
of source strength by impact with the ground is seen as part
of the reduction in apparent emission rate with distance and
is incorporated into the fallout function. This is one of
the big advantages of sampling at several distances downwind
rather than attempting to obtain a complete profile of the
plume at only one downwind point.
DATA VALIDATION
Data were eliminated at various times during the emis-
sion factor development process for several reasons, as
indicated in Figure 3-1. In the field, a few samples were
voided because of torn filters or excessive loadings. In
addition, notes recorded on the field data sheets subse-
quently caused some samples to be eliminated because the
samplers were not in the plume, the mining operation during
the sampling period was atypical, the samplers were improper-
ly placed relative to the source, or other sources severely
interfered with sampling of the intended source.
After emission rates were calculated, some more data
were eliminated as individual outliers or because apparent
emission rates were shown to increase greatly with distance
downwind of the source (indicative of unusual plume disper-
sion conditions or source interferences). Finally, some
data were eliminated when initial emission rates were deter-
mined from downwind apparent emission rates because at some
downwind distances there were only one or two data points;
this would have overweighted these values and biased the
resulting emission factor.
38
-------
Negligible emission rates were included in determining
average emission factors, unless they were eliminated for
one of the above reasons.
The data which were dropped and reasons for their
elimination are shown in the data summaries in the next
chapter. A total of 20.5 percent of the original data was
disqualified before being used to estimate emission factors.
The bulk of this, 9.7 percent of the data, was samples from
exposed areas where concentrations increased with downwind
distance. Most of the remainder, 8.3 percent of the data,
was eliminated due to problems with sampling noted on the
field data sheets.
39
-------
4. RESULTS
CALCULATED EMISSION RATES
Emission rates were calculated from each of the down-
wind hi vol samples collected (approximately 1050) , using
the dispersion equations described in Chapter 3. The ambient
concentrations for each sampling period are listed in Appen-
dix B by operation and mine. Other data used in the dis-
persion equations, such as wind speed, stability class,
initial plume dispersion, and background concentration, are
presented by sampling period in Appendix C. These data were
used to calculate the apparent emission rates summarized in
Tables 4-1 through 4-7. The data are grouped by mining
operation in these tables to facilitate comparisons.
Several background and downwind samples were also taken
by the mining company at mine E. Either two or three samplers
were placed in an arc at the same downwind distance during
each sampling period. The emission rates calculated from
these samples are not included in Tables 4-1 through 4-7,
but they were used coequally with the data in these tables
in developing emission factors. The mining company data are
summarized below. Background samples taken by the company
are incorporated in Appendix C.
Operation
Haul roads
Sampling
period
1
3
5
7
Downwind Apparent
distance, m emission rates Units
49
49
49
49
1.8,
2.7,
4.5,
1.7,
2.4
2.4
4.8
1.8
Ib/veh-mi
Overburden
blasting
177
18.0, 38.8
31.9
Ib/blast
Truck dump-
coal
Overburden
shovel
1
3
1
3
5
44
44
142
142
142
1.
2.
4.
6,
2,
8.
4,
8.
5
7
1
2
,
0
,
.2
.2
8
.9
2
,
,
.4
!g
0.
2.
0.
7
1
7
Ib/truck
Ib/truck
40
-------
Table 4-1. APPARENT EMISSION RATES FOR DRAGLINES
Mine
A
B
C
D
Sampling
period
foist
1
2
Dist
3
4
Dist
5
Dist
1
2
Dist
3
4
5
6°
7
8
9
10
Dist
1
2
3
4
5
6
Dist
1
2
3
4
5
6
Apparent
30m
.05
.05
40m
40m
.03
.02
50m
3.9
4.9
70m
4.5
3.9
1.9
2.0
1.3
1.5
2.7
.9
70m
.05
.02
.10
.06
.10
.17
75m
.45
.58
.36
.36
.26
.21
At 1.
40m
.05
.04
50m
.01
.01
50m
65m
4.8
5.0
80m
5.8
5.6
5.8
4.0
1.0
1.4
.9
.8
78.5m
.13
.05
.14
.06
.19
.23
83.5m
.56
.80
.41
.45
.34
.53
emission rate, Ib/bucketful
2 m ht
50m
.10
.05
60m
.02
.01
60m
.03
.01
80m
5.5
6.1
90m
6.8
1.9
1.8
1.5
1.0
.9
87m
.09
.09
.18
.10
.26
.34
92m
.62
.62
.26
.64
.38
.27
70m
.02
.02
70m
.04
.03
100m
6.6
7.1
1.8
1.1
95.5m
.09
.27
100m
.72
.29
.33
.34
At
30m
.07
50m
.01
40m
.02
50m
4.1
70m
1.3
1.8
1.5
.6
70m
neg
.03
.22
75m
.97
.41
2.4 m
40m
.08
60m
.01
50m
a
65m
1.0
80m
4.7
4.0
1.3
.9
78.5m
.07
.01
.11
83.5m
1.02
.47
ht
50m
.08
70m
.02
60m
.02
80m
7.2
90m
6.5
5.3
1.1
.8
87m
-06
.10
.18
92m
.92
.93
Filter lost.
Samplers not in plume.
Data not used to estimate emission factor because of large
increases in apparent emission rates with distance.
41
-------
Table 4-2. APPARENT EMISSION RATES
FOR HAUL ROADS
Mine
A
B
C
D
E
Sampling
period
Dist
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
xa
2a
3a
4*
5
6
7
8
9
10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Dist
1*
3
4
5
6
Dist
7
B
9
Dist
1
2a
3a
4
5
6
7
8
Apparent emission rate,
At
10m
6.6
2.8
3.2
1.8
3.4
6.8
5.9
2.4
1.7
11.5
10.6
21.0
21.1
19.0
22.1
16.0
15.0
12.6
12.9
.9
.9
.3
.5
1.0
.9
3.5
3.2
2.7
2.8
5m
10.6
7.8
7.5
7.2
5m
6.9
8.0
13.8
B.5m
2.3
1.7
1.9
1.4
4.5
3.9
.8
.7
1.2 m
20m
7.9
3.8
5.2
2.1
1.7
4.9
3.5
1.9
1.4
12.7
14.2
18.8
20.4
17.8
22.7
10.6
11.6
5.0
7.4
2.2
2.5
1.2
1.9
2.7
2.8
4.1
0.3
4.6
6.1
13.5m
10.6
12.3
8.4
B.4
12m
6.7
15.1
15.4
17m
3.7
4.1
2.8
2.8
7.0
6.0
1.1
1.4
ht
30m
9.8
4.5
4.7
2.9
2.7
6.4
1.4
2.2
1.8
14.0
12.6
16.7
16.5
c
11.5
9.0
15.9
8.1
12.1
:7
.9
.7
.4
.6
.4
.4
.0
.8
3.4
22m
14.7
10.4
6.6
10.7
19m
11.5
13.6
16.7
25. 5m
4.4
3.7
4.7
3.2
7.9
7.3
2.4
2.0
40m
18. Ob
18. 8b
K
21.0°
K
13.0°
5.2
.4
.7
2.4
3.6
5.7
30.5m
19. 5e
8.5
2 Cm
12.4
34m
3.7
4.2
9.0
3.1
Ib/VMT
At 2.4 in
10m.
3q
. y
1.9
2.0
3.9
1.2
8.5
13.0
11.1
6.5
5.0
.9
.3
.7
5.2
2.9
5m
10.8
4.4
5m
6.0
13.9
8.5m
1.6
1.6
4.1
.8
20m
6.0
2.8
1.3
3.4
1.1
9.9
12.2
9.7
7.9
3.9
.81
.6
1.5
5.0
4.0
13.5m
6.4
5.4
12m
6.1
15.6
17m
2.7
2.5
4.9
1.5
ht
30m
6. 8
2.9
1.9
3.1
1.0
8.7
11.6
8.5
9.6
6.1
.1
1.1
2.1
3.2
2.5
22m
5.2
3.0
19m
8.7
7.5
25.5m
3.4
2.3
5.7
2.0
No watering.
Insufficient sample set.
c Filter torn.
Samplers not in plume.
e Data outlier—more than 3 std. aev. from mean.
42
-------
Table 4-3. APPARENT EMISSION RATES FOR
SHOVEL/TRUCK LOADING
Mine
A
B
C
E
Sampling
period
foist
1
2
3
Dist
4
5
6
Dist
1
2
3
5a
Dist
1
2
3
4
Dist
1
2
3
4
At
15m
.18
15m
.12
1.08
.89
30m
.58
.54
.08
.20
50m
.23
.13
.14
.09
20m
.31
.17
.21
.21
Apparent
emission rate, Ib/truck
1.2 m ht
30m
.06
.09
.13
30m
.21
.95
1.33
40m
.57
.61
.19
.16
58.5m
.24
.20
.14
.09
28.5m
.37
.41
.31
.18
45m
.17
.10
.12
45m
.23
1.11
1.76
50m
.46
.44
.18
.17
67m
.27
.26
.21
.04
37m
.43
.41
.42
.45
60m
.12
.10
60m
.46
.20
75.5m
.32b
.16b
45.5m
.27
.34
At
30m
.07
15m
.19
30m
.47
.16
50m
.20
.07
20m
.27
.20
2.4 m
45m
.09
30m
.19
40m
.52
.14
58.5m
.22
.09
28.5m
.20
.28
ht
60m
.12
45m
.19
50m
.43
.15
67m
.16
.13
37m
.13
.33
Samplers not in plume.
Insufficient sample set.
43
-------
Table 4-4. APPARENT EMISSION RATES FOR BLASTING
Mine
Sampling
period
Coal blast
B
C
D
E
Dist
!j
1
2
1
2
Dist
1
Dist
2
Apparent emission rate/ Ib/blast
100m
17.8
17.1
69.1
58.5
200m
45.3
100m
24.2
Overburden blast
A
C
E
Dist
1
Dist
1
2
Dist
1
2
100m
1323
30m
10.2
11.2
67m
52.9
64.2
At 1.2
108.5m
17.7
20.5
72.1
50.9
208.5m
46.0
108.5m
33.9
110m
849
38.5m
13.1
9.4
73m
79.3
56.1
m ht
117m 125.5m
19.5
17.4 18.5
90.6
42.5 34.0
217m
32.2
117m 125.5m
24.6 30.1
120m
559
47m 55.5m
11.0 13.6
11.3
80m 86m
79.2 46.8
64.0
At 2.4
100m 108.
6.6b 21.
37.6 44.
200m 208.
36.6 40.
30m 38.
8.8 6.
m ht
5m 117m
5 16.0
4 c
5m 217m
7 35.0
5m 47m
0 9.5
67m 73m SOir
20.4 23.
3 18.0
Improper sampling configuration—samplers on highwall
above blast area.
Inconsistent data point; removed as an outlier.
Sampler malfunction.
44
-------
Table 4-5. APPARENT EMISSION RATES FOR TRUCK DUMP
Mine
A
B
C
D
E
Sampling
period
^*^
foist
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
Dist
la
2a
3
4
Dist
1
2
3^
4
5
6
Dist
1
2
3
4
Apparent emission rate, Ib/truck
At
10m
.32
.55
1.33
.41
.33
.03
2.7
2.5
30m
.26
.42
20m
2.2
.9
5.8
7.1
3.6
2.7
8.5m
.19
.27
.19
.70
1.2 m
20m
.36
.83
1.44
.22
.30
.03
2.0
1.8
38.5m
.42
.44
26m
4.4
1.2
9.5
11.6
6.3
3.4
17m
.49
.86
.43
.88
ht
30m 40m
.55
.65
.73
.51
.45
.11
2.1 2.1
2.2
47m 55.5m
.71
.76 .80C
32m 38m
6.3 5.7
1.8
14.0
15.3 12.7
8.0 7.4
3.2
25.5m 34m
.60
.81 1.3
•34
2.0 2.5
At
10m
2.7
30m
.02b
20m
1.8
7.8
2.1
8.5m
.20
.25
2.4 m
20m
.90
38.5m
.41
26m
2.1
9.4
3.3
17m
.45
.31
ht
30m
1.7
47m
.35
38m
2.0
7.2
4.0
25.5m
.61
1.7
Samplers not in plume.
Data outlier—more than 3 std. dev. away from mean.
Insufficient sample set.
Atypical operation (only two trucks in 80 minutes); not
used to estimate emission factor.
45
-------
Table 4-6. APPARENT EMISSION RATES FOR STORAGE PILE
Mine
A
B
C
D
Sampling
period
^^"
Foist
1
Dist
2
3
4
5
6
Dist
1
2
3
4
Dist
5
6
Dist
7a
8a
Dist
la
2a
3a
4a
Dist
1
2
3
4
«
Apparent emission rate
175m
17.7
30m
9.3
.2
.9
21.3
.4
25m
64.5
88.5
63.6
41.7
35m
9.6
12.9
30m
50.3
43.0
60m
50.6
250.9
147.3
62.7
25m
2.8
.8
3.1
4.3
At 1.
190m
33.1
40m
5.4
.7
.9
14.5
2.1
40m
105.7
100.7
58.5
57-9
45m
13.4
10.4
40m
79.9
41.7
70m
52.8
322.2
169.9
25.2
33.5m
1.5
2.1
3.5
5.8
2 m ht
205m
25.4
50m
10.8
1.2
1.4
20.3
0
55m
133.0
95.0
69.3
75.9
55m
14.6
9.3
50m
97.6
91.5
80m
106.3
444.4
173.4
160.0
42m
5.0
1.9
6.9
6.4
70m
161.4
97.2
65m
12.5
60m
113.0
90m
554.1
130.7
50.5m
.2
0
At
175m
20.9
30m
8.1
1.0
1.7
13.7
.5
25m
58.4
16.2
35m
6.0
30m
28.4
60m
38.3
, Ib/hr
2.4 m ht
190m 205m
30.4 30.1
40m 50m
8.2 7.8
.1 0
.4 1.5
17.4 15.8
1.0 1.1
40m 55m
72.5 115.1
47.4 55.5
45m 55m
10.7 7.8
40m 50m
35.4 51.3
70m 80m
41.0 56.3
45.6 139.0 204. T
25m
0
2.2
33.5m 42m
1.3 1.5
4.1 26
Severe interference from other
estimating emission factor.
sources; not used in
46
-------
Table 4-7. APPARENT EMISSION RATES FOR
MISCELLANEOUS OPERATIONS
I Sampling
period
At 1.2 m ht
Coal drilling, Ib/holc
E
Dist
1
2
5m 13.5m 22m
.20 .30 .28
.16 .17 .07
Overburden drilling, Ib/hole
A
C
. Dist
b ^
1
2
5.6m 15m 24.4m
.004 .41 1.4
.13 .86 3.6
Overburden shovel, Ib/truck
E
Dist
1
2
3
4
5
6
20m 25m 30m
2.6 1.5 2.2
2.5 4.2 5.0
1.0 .94 1.0
1.0 .82 1.8
1.9 1.6 1.5
2.1 2.6 5.7
Fly-ash dump, Ib/hr
A
Dist
lc
2
3
10m 20m 30m
3.7 4.7 4.7
2.4 1.7 3.9
Overburden dump, Ib/truck
E
Train
C
E
Diai_
l
loading,
Bi§t
1
2
3
4 .
2d
*1
5d
15m 20m 25m
.29 .22 .27
.23 .17 .26
Ib/car
12m 20.5m 29m
.025 .004 .027
.006 .016 .014
.024 .014 .045
.010 .014 .012
Topsoil removal-scraper, Ib/VMT
D
Topso
D
Dist
1
2
3
4
5
30m 34m 38m
75.3 110.4 81.3
368.9 176.2 438.7
731.2 767.8 1154.7
172.5 260.3 228.8
217.3 289.0 138.9
il dumping-scraper, Ib/VMT
Dist
1
2
3
4
5
5m 10m 15m
28.1 30.0 20.7
21.4 15.3 21.7
33.5 29.8 20.3
13.1 10.4 7.4
38.6 32.2 26.2
Front-end loader, Ib/bucket
D
Dist
1
80m 88m 97m
.4 .6 .8
30.5m
.32*
33.9m
7.2a
35m
7.0
1.6
5.3
30m
.45a
37.5m
.004
.016
42m
554.7
321.2
256.3
20m
26.4
27.0
31.0
105m
.7
At 2.4 m
5m
.55
5.6_m
1.5
2Qm
2.8
.57
1.5
10_m
2.1
I5_m
.25
, 1.2m
.008
.011
30m
20.6
357.8
5m
5.5
22.1
13.5m
.04
15m
.90
25m
3.4
.70
1.9
20m
1.8
20m
.16
20_i_5m
.004
.010
34m
97.3
480.5
10m
23.3
15.6
ht
22m
0
24.4m
2.0
30m
3.4
1.0
2.4
30m
3.6
25m
.14
29m
.001
.027
38m
71.4
536.7
15m
17.9
11.9
Insufficient sample set.
Samplers out of plume.
Severe interference from other sources.
Data voided because of inadequate wind measurements, air
turbulence near source and samplers, and excessive recn-
trainod material.
47
-------
Emission rates were not determined for one of the
sources sampled—exposed areas. During most of the sampling
periods, particulate concentrations increased with distance
downwind from the edge of the source, as shown in Table 4-8.
These values would have produced highly erratic emission
rates at different distances. The increases in concentra-
tion with distance downwind are so consistent that they
appear to be related to the way in which the plume is formed
rather than to a sampling problem. Also, there is no obvious
relationship between wind speed and measured downwind con-
centrations. In analyzing these data, no alternative method
of estimating emissions from this source could be found.
Some variations in the indicated emission rates for
each of the other operations would be expected. Specifically,
it is anticipated that apparent emission rates would decrease
with distance from the source as a result of fallout, because
fallout is not considered in the basic dispersion equations.
Also, emission rates would be expected to vary from mine to
mine due to differences in soil type, equipment, climate,
controls, etc. However, if concentrations are in fact in a
Gaussian distribution about the plume centerline, there
should not be any difference between emission rates calcu-
lated from the samplers at 1.2 m height and those at 2.4 m
height.
These hypotheses were tested statistically- For 242
data sets where there were samples taken simultaneously at
1.2 and 2.4m height, a higher emission rate was calculated
at the 1.2 m sampler height on 173 occasions. The samplers
at 1.2 m had emission rates that averaged 14 percent higher
than the emission rates for the samplers at 2.4 m. Using a
t-test, the difference in emission rates associated with the
two groups of samplers was determined to be statistically
significant at the 95 percent confidence level for three of
the mining operations but not significant for three others.
48
-------
Table 4-8. MEASURED CONCENTRATIONS DOWNWIND OF EXPOSED AREAS
Mine
A
B
C
D
E
Sampling
period
Dist
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
5
6
Dist
1
2
3
4
Dist
1
2
3
1
2
3
4
Downwind concentrations , ug/m
At 1.2 m ht
10m 20m 30m 40m
103 253 171
377 603 313
423 322 347 349
490 240 338 297
1376 1865 1979 2431
1480 1944 2139
3846 4716 9309
4842 6199 6433 6407
1398 2310 2565
1602 2203 2446 2771
At 2.4 m ht
10m 20m 30m
689 742 1111
815 1325 1640
398 850 991
Samplers within exposed area
82 77 109
86 111 171 81
99 168 117 134
106 117 165
Om 10m 20m 30m
213 100 172 109
457 317 474
598 567 270 559
298 143 228
119 134 153 153
144 66 104
65 95 94 117
120 32 74
64 42 117
Om 10m 20m
429 409 1705
91 74 110
98 105 66
Background
concentration
64
64
88
88
84
84
84
84
84
84
32
32
32
32
87
105
105
a
a
a
a
Wind speed,
m/sec
.8
1.0
.4
.4
7.2
7.2
8.2
8.2
7.5
7.5
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
5.7
9.7
8.8
4.8
4.8
6.2
6.2
VO
Wind reversal at start of sampling period; no upwind samplers.
-------
The t-test values are shown in Table 4-9. These tests indi-
cated some problems with the assumption of Gaussian distri-
bution. Possible reasons for non-Gaussian plume dispersion
near ground level might be variation in wind speed with
height above ground or imperfect plume reflection off the
ground.
FALLOUT RATES
A similar comparison of emission rates determined at
two different distances from the source was made. For the
559 data sets in which emission rates were available for
samples taken simultaneously at two consecutive distances
and at the same height, the apparent emission rate decreased
with distance on only 200. Contrary to expectations, emis-
sion rates increased an average of 19 percent when they were
from a sampler that was 10 m further from the source. The
t-tests indicated that these increases were significant (95
percent confidence level) for two of the six major mining
operations, as shown in Table 4-9. These data do not support
the fallout theory described in Chapter 3, which should have
shown one to seven percent reductions in emission rates per
10 m interval and total reductions of about 10 percent
between 10 and 40 m.
Curves of average emission rate versus distance are
shown for the major operations in Figure 4-1. Only about
half of these curves have negative slopes. Data for storage
piles could not be included in this figure because emission
rates varied so much with wind speed that average values
were not meaningful.
Although the occurrence of fallout is not obvious from
the sampling data, the large particle sizes of the material
in the plumes would indicate that it is taking place. Mass
median diameters for 67 samples taken on millipore filters
and analyzed microscopically are shown in Table 4-10. The
50
-------
Table 4-9. t-TEST VALUES FOR PAIRS OF EMISSION RATES
en
Operation
With height
Dragline
Haul roads
Shovel/T Idg
Blasting
Truck dump
Storage pile
With distance
Dragline
Haul roads
Shovel/T Idg
Blasting
Truck dump
Storage pile
No. of
data
pairs
35
67
24
15
21
42
86
146
58
38
60
73
Av difference
in emission
rate, 1.2 to 2.4 m
-0.173
-2.518
-0.051
-14.56
-0.159
-8.50
Av difference
in emission
rate, x to x+10 m
0.186
0.215
0.033
-20.418
0.480
12.775
t-test
value
0.77
4.83
2.36
2.35
0.31
1.89
0.95
0.79
1.59
0.99
2.02
2.53
t value at
which diff
is significant
2.03
2.00
2.06
2.13
2.08
2.02
1.99
1.98
2.00
2.02
2.00
2.00
5 percent risk level,
-------
-p
0)
•*
o
a
3
0
15
10-
CO
0)
4J
(0
^
0
.4
X
%*
-P
X) 2
_i •••
.1
•P
S3 40
20
O
-P
\
XI
A (part)
Dragline
> D (part)
10 20 30 40
-l 1_
Haul roads
Shovel/truck loading
D.
Truck dump
A,B,C,D,E = mine
50 60 70 80 90
Downwind distance, m
100 110 120 130
Figure 4-1. Average emission rates versus distance.
52
-------
Table 4-10. MASS MEDIAN DIAMETERS OF DOWNWIND SAMPLES
Operation
Dragline
Haul roads
Shovel/Truck
loading
Distance,
Sample m
Bla
B2
B3
B8
B14
B15
C8
C9
D7
A5
A6
A17
A18
A19
A7
Average
E6
E7
B4
B5
B6
B7
Cl
C2
C3
C4
C5
D3
D4
A8
A9
A10
All
A12
A13
Average
El
E3
B9
BIO
C12
A16
Average
65
80
85
80
90
90
80
80
85
105
35
60
40
50
35
20
20
30
30
30
30
30
30
20
20
20
15
15
10
10
20
30
20
20
20
30
50
55
60
45
Median
mass
diameter,
u
12.8
11
7.9
9.2
36
35
37
18
28.7
25
16.2
26.5
12
15
36
22
16
20
26.5
11
47
26
35.5
22
36
25
33
22
17.4
22
13.5
24.5
12.4
16.5
27.5
24
44
50
9.4
16.2
24.6
8.4
25
% by
weight
< 3u
.00
.00
2.56
1.08
.00
.07
.05
.00
.02
.00
.00
.00
.17
.22
.02
.03
.00
.15
.00
.00
.11
.00
.02
.00
.00
.00
.00
.24
.00
.34
.00
.00
.06
.11
.12
.25
1.57
.07
.10
1.05
Wind speed ,
mph
8
13
12
13
7
8
10
8
16
1
4
<1
<1
<1
4
8
6
8
10
14
2
6
7
8
7
6
10
9
<1
<1
<1
1
2
4
6
6
<1
1
6
1
These sample numbers do not correspond with sampling periods
53
-------
Table 4-10 (continued). MASS MEDIAN DIAMETERS OF
DOWNWIND SAMPLES
Operation
Coal blast
Overburden
shovel
Exposed
areas
Truck
dump
Overburden
dump
Storage
pile
Fly-ash
dump
Train loading
Topsoil
removal
Distance,
Sample m
Cll
E5
B12
B13
C13
Average
E2
E4
Bll
C14
Dl
D2
Al
A2
A3
A4
Average
E8
B16
C6
D10
Average
A14
A15
Average
CIO
D5
D6
Average
110
20
40
30
?
10
20
30
40
30
30
20
20
20
20
10
30
60
10
10
60
25
30
?
Median
mass
diameter,
u
22.5
29
13
21.5
16
17
11.7
58
17
11.3
32.5
26
13
16
20.8
14
22
24.6
18.5
14.5
35.5
23
10.8
12.4
11
28
28
29
28
% by
weight
< 3u
.09
.01
.05
.44
.47
.90
.20
.27
.00
.00
.00
.03
.15
.07
.03
.00
.07
.45
.00
.45
1.14
.02
.04
.11
Wind speed,
mph
10
7
18
17
4
7
7
8
6
8
8
1
6
2
3
14
7
12
2
3
9
10
14
20
54
-------
full size distributions for the 67 samples are shown in
Appendix D; the laboratory analysis procedures are described
in Appendix E. Differences in particle sizes for separate
samples of the same operation were found to be greater than
differences in particle sizes between operations. The
uniformity of particle sizes for emissions from different
sources is shown in the composite size distribution curves
presented in Figure 4-2. Also, no reduction in average
particle size with distance from the sources was noted with
these data. Therefore, the particle size data do not pro-
vide any assistance in quantifying fallout rates.
A recent field study using the same sampling methods on
better defined particulate line sources (highways) produced
data which definitely demonstrated a reduction in apparent
emission rate with distance. The mass median diameter of
the reentrained dust from streets was determined to be 15 u
and the settling velocity (v,) which best fit the sampling
data was 5 cm/sec. Five cm/sec is a conservative estimate
of the settling velocity of fugitive dust from coal mines,
based on median particle size compared to that for reen-
trained dust from streets.
The subsequent data analyses in this report continue to
assume that deposition of the larger particles is occurring,
but that this fallout has been masked by the non-ideal
sampling conditions (primarily reentrainment and source
interferences) at the mines.
EMISSION RATES AT DIFFERENT MINES
Variations in emission rates between mines were reviewed
next. These variations were measured in terms of the stan-
dard deviations, expressed as a percent of the mean values,
of the data sets. Standard deviations were determined at
two levels: for all of the calculated emission rates for an
operation at one mine, and for the average emission rates
55
-------
10 IS 90 »0 40 SO »0 70 »0 tl tO
tS_
tl
01
to
•0
70
SO
40
M
30
o
•H
•H
CO
o
•H
-P
^
(0
' LEGEND
1~ Haul roads
Shovel/truck Idg.-
Dragline
T~ Truck dump
Storage areas
Exposed areas
Other sources
10
so
Percentage
to
Figure 4-2. Composite size distribution curves for major
mine emission sources
56
-------
for an operation from all the mines. The resulting values
are shown in Table 4-11. For all mining operations except
shovel/truck loading, the emissions varied less between
different sampling periods at one mine than they did between
mines. In most cases, the standard deviation of the values
for all mines was greater than the average emission rate,
indicating substantial differences in the mine-to-mine
emission rates. This finding adds support to the intent
expressed earlier of reporting the emission factors sepa-
rately for each mine rather than developing an average
emission factor for each operation to be used at all Western
mines.
The average emission rates at various downwind dis-
tances (most were previously shown in Figure 4-1) were
combined with the fallout function described in Chapter 3 to
calculate an average initial emission rate for each opera-
tion at each mine. These values are shown in Table 4-12.
Although the very wide variations in storage pile emis-
sion rates are not readily apparent from the data in Table
4-11, they were obvious early in the data analysis and were
observed to be closely related to wind speed during the
sampling period. Therefore, the calculated emission rates
for individual sampling periods at a mine were not averaged
to determine the emission factor for storage piles. Instead,
an initial emission rate (QQ) was calculated for each sam-
pling period. The resulting values from all the mines were
plotted against wind speed, as shown in Figure 4-3.
Although more than half the sampling periods had low
wind speeds and emission rates, a linear relationship
between these two parameters can be hypothesized. The 16
data points in Figure 4-3 have a linear regression correla-
tion of 0.90. The slope of the line of best fit through the
origin in 15.83:
57
-------
Table 4-11. VARIATIONS IN CALCULATED EMISSION RATES
Standard deviation, as % of mean
Operation
All emission rates det'd
from one mine
A B C D E
Av emission
rates from
different mines
Dragline
Haul road
traffic
Shovel/Truck
loading
Blasting
Truck dump
Storage pile
Drilling
73
60
122
69
39
55
42
76 26
113 68
45
66
48
32
39
89
91
45
40
34
68
74
60
33
43
73
78
154
71
32
171
121
126
100
58
-------
Table 4-12. INITIAL EMISSION RATES BY
OPERATION AND MINE
Operation Mine
Av
initial
emission
rate Units
Resulting
units for
Conversion emission
factor factor
Dragline
A
B
C
D
0.10
4.0
0.18
0.66
Ib/bucket
18 yd3/bkt
75
60
32
lb/yd3
Haul roads A
Be
B
C
D
E
Shovel/
Truck
loading
Blasting
Truck dump
Drilling
A
B
C
E
D
E.
A
B
C
D
E
C
E
6.8
17.0
13.6
3.3
11.2
4.3
0.81
0.85
0.24
0.42
1694
25.1
14.2
78.1
72.4
85.3
0.8
2.5
0.6
4.9
0.8
0.25
1.5
0.22
Ib/veh-mi
Ib/truck
Ib/blast
Ib/truck
Ib/hole
Ib/veh-mi
56 tn/trk
120
120
120
56 tn/trk
120
120
180
120
120
Ib/ton
Ib/blast
Ib/ton
Ib/hole
Fly-ash
dump
Train
loading
Topsoil
removal
Front-end
loader
A
C
Dd
D
D
3.9
0.016
385
30
1.18
Ib/hr
Ib/car
Ib/veh-mi
Ib/scoop
"™
100 tn/car
21 yd3/
.02 mi
9.5
ton/scoop
Ib/hr
Ib/ton
lb/yd3
Ib/ton
No watering of roads during these sampling periods;
watering during others.
Blasting of overburden; other sampling periods are for
coal blasting.
Overburden dumping.
Scraping mode; other emission rate is for dumping mode.
59
-------
Figure 4-3.
3 4 S
Wind speed, m/sec
Emission rates from storage piles.
60
-------
emission rate, Ib/hr = 15.83 u (eq.8)
where u = average wind speed,
m/sec
This emission rate includes emissions from equipment
working the pile as well as from wind erosion. All three of
the mines with data used in this analysis had storage piles
with surface areas of about 10 acres. It is assumed that
emissions would vary with the surface area of storage piles
(for estimating emissions from piles of different sizes).
Therefore, the emission factor for storage piles is expressed
in Ib/acre-hr:
emission factor, Ib/acre-hr = 1.6 u (eq. 9)
Because data from three of the mines were used to
generate the general relationship, separate emission factors
by geographic area cannot be developed.
61
-------
5. EMISSION FACTORS FOR MINING OPERATIONS
Emission factors were determined from the initial emis-
sion rates presented in Table 4-12 by converting those
values into equivalent ones in more applicable units. The
resulting emission factors by operation and mine are shown
in Table 5-1. They ale to be U6e.d only -in conjunct-ion w-ith
the. fallout 6unc.ti.on de4cvu.bed in Piguie. 3-2 and equation 7.
For applications where fallout cannot be efficiently
incorporated and where important air quality impacts all
occur at greater than 5 km distance from the mining opera-
tions, other emission factors can be adapted for direct use.
The following assumptions have been made for these regional
scale emission factors:
0 Minimum distance of impact = 5 km
0 Average wind speed =5.0 m/sec
0 Average stability class = D
The resulting values are obtained by multiplying the factors
in Table 5-1 by 0.24. Although the fraction of initial
emissions remaining in suspension at distances greater than
5 km would be less than 0.24, additional deposition beyond
that point is minimal (see Figure 3-2); this assumption
represents a conservative estimate of a mine's ambient
impact at long distances. For areas where the average
annual wind speed is significantly different than 5.0 m/sec,
the multiplier can be calculated as 0.245//u. Emission
factors for use without separate consideration of fallout
are summarized in Table 5-2.
62
-------
Table 5-1. EMISSION FACTORS FOR COAL MINING OPERATIONS
(TO BE USED IN CONJUNCTION WITH A FALLOUT FUNCTION)
Operation
Dragline
Haul roads
w/watering
no watering
Shovel/Truck
loading
coal
overburden
Blasting
coal
overburden
Exposed areas
Truck dump
bottom dump
end dump
overburden
Storage pile
Drilling
coal
overburden
Fly-ash dump
Train loading
Topsoil removal
scraping
dumping
Front-end
loader
Units
lb/yd3
Ib/veh-mi
Ib/ton
Ib/blast
Ib/ton
Ib/acre-hr
Ib/hole
Ib/hr
Ib/ton
lb/yd3
Ib/ton
Mine
A
.0056
6.8
.014
1690d
c
.014
B
.053
13.6
17.0
.007
c
c
.020
1.6 u , wher
c
3.9
C
.0030
3.3b
.002
25.1
14.2
c
.005
e u is in
1.5
.0002
D
.021
11.2
78.1
c
.027
m/sec
.35
.03
.12
E
4.3
.0035
.037
72.4
85.3
c
.007
.0026
.22
c
Only veh-mi by haul trucks; travel by other vehicles on haul roads
(pickup trucks, ANFO trucks) is incorporated into these values.
Atypical watering conditions, probably minimum rather than average.
Sampling was done for this operation, but no emission factor could
be developed.
Atypical blast, probably maximum rather than average.
Not all emissions from overburden dumping.
63
-------
Table 5-2. REGIONAL SCALE EMISSION FACTORS FOR COAL
MINING OPERATIONS (NO FALLOUT FUNCTION REQUIRED)
Operation
Dragline
Haul roads
w/watering
no watering
Shovel/Truck
loading
coal
overburden
Blasting
coal
overburden
Exposed areas
Truck dump
bottom dump
end dump
overburden
Storage pile
Drilling
coal
overburden
Fly-ash dump
Train loading
Topsoil removal
scraping
dumping
Front-end
loader
Units
lb/yd3
Ib/veh-mi
Ib/ton
Ib/blast
Ib/ton
Ib/acre-hr
Ib/hole
Ib/hr
Ib/ton
lb/yd3
Ib/ton
Mine
A
.0013
1.6
.003
406°
.003
B
.013
3.3
4.1
.002
.005
C
.0007
.8b
.0005
6.0
3.4
.001
D
.005
2.7
18.7
.006
0.4 u, where u is in m/sec
.9
.4
neg
.08
.01
.03
E
1.0
.0008
.009
17.4
20.5
.002
.0005
.05
Only veh-mi by haul trucks; travel by other vehicles on haul roads
(pickup trucks, ANFO trucks) is incorporated into these values.
Atypical watering conditions, probably minimum rather than average.
Maximum rather than average.
Not all emissions from overburden dumping.
64
-------
Using the above emission factors, total emissions from
each operation at the five mines were calculated. The
relative importance of the sources was approximately the
same at each of the mines, with the haul road being the
largest source and generally responsible for twice as many
emissions as the next largest source. The general ranking
of sources in descending order is:
Haul roads
Open storage pile
Dragline
Fly-ash dump (if present at mine)
Front end loader (if used for truck loading)
Topsoil removal
Blasting
Truck dump
Drilling
Shovel/Truck loading (unless also used for overburden;
then second largest source)
Train loading
If emissions from exposed areas were included as a source,
it would rank about fourth.
The emission factors were obtained from sampling during
the summer, usually the driest time of year. However,
emissions for many of the major operations are caused by
mechanical breakdown of newly exposed material and are not
highly dependent on surface moisture content or temperature.
Also, operations such as topsoil removal are limited primarily
to the summer months. Therefore, it is recommended that the
factors for most operations be applied directly with annual
activity data to calculate annual emissions, rather than
attempting to adjust for seasonal differences in emission
rates. ,
The exceptions to this recommendation are the two
sources which are primarily caused by wind erosion and for
which emission factors are in units of Ib/hr—storage piles
65
-------
and fly ash dumps. For these two sources, annual emissions
should be determined by multiplying the hourly rate by 24
and then by the number of days per year with no precipita-
tion (>0.01 inch) or snow cover.
The source for which no emission factor could be devel-
oped, exposed areas, is a large enough source that some
emission estimate should be included in coal mine analyses.
A procedure for estimating emissions from this source, based
on USDA's wind erosion equation, is presented in Appendix A
to the EPA publication Development of Emission Factors for
Fugitive Dust Sources. For the soil and climatic conditions
at the five mines sampled, this calculation procedure would
indicate emission rates ranging from 0.4 to 1.0 ton/acre-yr.
For calculating maximum short-term concentrations near
mines, the emission factors presented in Tables 5-1 or 5-2
would be used with peak activity rates. One point con-
cerning prediction of maximum concentrations should be
noted. With steady-state Gaussian models, maximum concen-
trations are predicted to occur at very low wind speeds.
However, the fallout function also contains the wind speed
parameter, so when fallout is incorporated into the model
maximum concentrations no longer occur with very low winds
(because particles settle out too quickly). As shown in
Figure 5-1, maximum concentrations are predicted at wind
speeds of about 2 m/sec with B stability, 3.5 m/sec with C
stability, and 6 m/sec with D stability under the combined
effects of dispersion and deposition.
The emission factors in Tables 5-1 or 5-2 can be used
directly for mines with the same climatic conditions, soil
types, and operating characteristics as any of the mines
surveyed. The geographic locations of the five mines are:
66
-------
2.0
1.5
C
o
-H
-p
OJ
o
8 w
-H
OJ
.5
B Stability
1000 m
1300m
5000 m
I I T
C Stability
_L
J_
_L
1300m
1700m
3000m
D Stability
2000 m
2300m
SOOOm
3456
Wind speed, m/sec
8,3
Figure 5-1. Predicted downwind concentrations as a function of wind speed.
-------
Mine Area
A Northwest Colorado
B Southwest Wyoming
C Southeast Montana
D Central North Dakota
E Northern Wyoming
If no emission factor was developed for a particular mining
operation in one of these five areas, a factor for the most
similar other area or an average of the factors for the
other areas should be used.
Sample calculations of annual emissions for a mine in
Northwest Colorado are presented in Table 5-3.
For Western mining areas other than those which were
sampled, the climate, geology, and operating characteristics
should be compared with those of the five mines tested (see
Tables 1-1 and A-l) to find the area most representative.
Some arbitrary judgments may be involved, so the rationale
for selection of appropriate emission factors should be
documented. These factors are not meant to be used for
Eastern or Midwestern surface coal mines.
There may be some situations in which very little
information on the mining operations at a proposed mine is
available, but a preliminary estimate of particulate emis-
sions is needed for planning purposes. Also, it would be
desirable to have an estimate of the degree of variation in
total emissions between different mines. Therefore, total
emissions per ton of coal mined were calculated for each of
the five mines tested, using the mine-specific factors in
Table 5-1 and corresponding operational data. The values
obtained from that exercise are:
68
-------
Table 5-3. EXAMPLE CALCULATIONS OF ANNUAL EMISSIONS
FROM A SURFACE COAL MINE
Source Activity rate
Topsoil 0.5 yd depth x 190,000 yd
removal surface area = 95,000 yd
2
Overburden 40 yd av depth x3190,000 yd
removal = 7 , 600 , 000 yd
2
Interburden 15 yd av depth x 190,000 yd
removal x 2.2 ton/yd = 6,270,000 ton
(shovel/trk)
Coal loading 1,000,000 toVyr
(frt-end Idr)
Drilling 512 holes/day x 260 days/yr =
133,120 holes/yr
Blasting 2/day x 260 days/yr
Haul roads 10.0 mi/round trip x 40,000
(coal) trips/yr (10 ton v 50 ton/truck)
= 400,000 VMT/yr
Haul roads 2.2 mi/round, trip x 125,400
(inter- trips/yr = 275,880 VMT/yr
burden)
Truck dump 1,100,000 ton/yr
Storage pile enclosed storage (silos)
Train Idg 1,100,000 ton/yr
Fly ash dump 275 day/yr w/no ppt x
24 hr/day
Other sources for which emission factors
were not developed
Exposed 142 acres
areas
Access road 41 veh/day x 6.0 mi/round
traffic trip x 314 days/yr =
76,752 VMT/yr
TOTAL
Emission
factor
.35 Ib/yd^ +
.03 Ib/yd
.0056 Ib/yd3
.037 ( loading) +
.002 (dumping)
.12 Ib/ton
.22 Ib/hole for
half, 1.5 lb/
hole for half
58.5 Ib/blast-
obdn; 49.8 lb/
blast-coal
6.8 Ib/VMT
6.8 Ib/VMT
.014 Ib/ton
negligible
.0002 Ib/ton
3.9 Ib/hr
1200 Ib/acre-yr
4.4 Ib/VMT
Emissions,
Ib/yr
36,100
42,560
244,530
120,000
114,480
28,160
2,720,000
1,876,000
14,000
200
25,740
170,400
337,700
5,729,870
(2865 ton/yr
69
-------
Particulate emissions,
Mine Ib/ton of coal
A 1.5
B 1.9
C 1-0
D 1.2
E 1.0
These estimates of emissions from the entire mines do
not include point sources, such as crushers, or exposed
areas. The range in emissions from lowest to highest (1.0
to 1.9) is a factor of slightly less than two. This amount
of difference does not appear to preclude the use of an
overall emission factor for providing a preliminary esti-
mate. The median value of 1.2 Ib/ton can be used for this
purpose.
The sampling was all done with the mining operations
being conducted in their routine manner. Therefore, there
was little opportunity to compare the same operations being
controlled and not being controlled. At mine B, watering of
haul roads was done during some sampling periods but not
during others; as indicated in Table 5-1, watering resulted
in a 20 percent reduction in emission rates. The average
emission rates from haul roads from all mines with con-
sistent watering was 7.0 Ib/veh-mi. For the two mines where
no watering was done for extended periods, the average emis-
sion rate was 14.1 Ib/veh-mi. By this method, watering is
estimated to reduce emissions by 50 percent. The latter
value compares well with other measurements of the effec-
tiveness of watering reported in the literature.11'12
70
-------
6. EVALUATION OF EMISSION FACTORS
COMPARISON OF FACTORS FOR DIFFERENT MINES
One method of evaluating the emission factors presented
in Table 5-1 is to compare factors derived for an operation
at different mines and determine whether they have the same
ranking (from highest to lowest emission rate) as they do on
the basis of appearance. This method would not identify any
procedural or systematic problems, but might point out non-
representative values that resulted from sampling during a
period with low wind speed, shortly after a rain, etc.
For the dragline operation, emissions from mine C may
be too low. They appeared to be of the same magnitude as
those from mines B and D and much greater than those from
mine A, which has very rocky overburden.
Emissions from haul roads seem to be appropriate rela-
tive to one another. It was observed that watering may have
been done more frequently than normal during the sampling
periods at mine C.
The emission factor for shovel/truck loading at mine C
also appears to be low in comparison with the factors at
other mines. The single factor for shovel/truck ..loading of
overburden obtained at mine E seems to be high in relation
to the factors for loading of coal. Although overburden is
normally dustier than coal, it probably does not produce 10
times as much dust using the same equipment, as would be
indicated by the emission factors at mine E.
As noted in Table 5-1, the emission rate for blasting
at mine A is not typical; it should be considered as a maxi-
mum rate rather than an average. The relative factors for
71
-------
blasting at the other mines all appear reasonable in relation
to one another. Truck dumping and drilling, the remaining
two mining operations for which emission factors were
developed at more than one mine, both had apparently con-
sistent factors at different mines.
COMPARISON WITH PREVIOUS EMISSION FACTORS
In April 1976, a literature review was performed to
identify emission estimates for mining operations. In
terms of total emissions from a coal mine, the values pre-
sented in that report are comparable to those in Table 5-1.
However, the previous values were not intended to be used
with a fallout function, so they would yield much higher
ambient concentrations. Comparing the emission factors for
individual mining operations, the previous estimates for
dragline and coal loading were much higher than the new
emission factors, truck dumping values were about the same,
and the previous haul road estimates were much lower than
the new factors:
Previous emission New emission
Operation estimate factor
Dragline 0.0875 .003-.053 lb/yd3
Haul roads 0.8-2.2 3.3-17.0 Ib/veh-mi
Shovel/Truck loading 0.05 .002-.014 Ib/ton
Truck dump 0.02 .005-.027 Ib/ton
Subsequent to the above literature review, a study was
performed to determine emission factors for lignite mining
in North Dakota. For two mines that were sampled for one
month each, suspended particulate emission rates of 4.91 and
2
13.69 g/sec/mi were determined. Using the emission factors
in Table 5-1 for comparison, total initial mine emissions of
72
-------
2
9.08 and 17.92 g/sec/mi were calculated. The latter values
do not include contributions from exposed areas or crushers.
The factors in the present report produce slightly higher
total mine emission rates than factors from the recent North
Dakota report.
The recent North Dakota study also measured settleable
particulate by means of dustfall jars. The calculated
emission rates for settleable particulate indicated that
suspended particulate at sampling distances of 1.5 to 6 km
from the source was only 11 percent of total initial emissions,
According to Figure 3-2, material remaining in suspension at
these distances would be 25 to 50 percent of initial emis-
sions (under the meteorological conditions at the time of
the sampling).
COMPARISION WITH AMBIENT DATA
The most important evaluation of the emission factors
is whether they result in the prediction of reasonable
ambient particulate concentrations. Four mines were found
for which there were operational data and extensive perim-
eter sampling at 1 to 6 km from the sources. The simple
area source dispersion equation presented as equation 2 was
used with the emission estimates to predict concentrations.
This model was not expected to give extremely good estimates
because it assumes that all the emissions are from a single
area source and that the sampler is in the plume for the
percent of time indicated by a wind rose.
The measured and predicted concentrations are shown in
Table 6-1. The emission factors combined with the fallout
function gave reasonably close predictions for about half of
the sampling locations but predicted low for the other half.
The underpredictions are apparently not related to the fall-
out function because all of the low values would still be
73
-------
Table 6-1. COMPARISON OF MEASURED AND PREDICTED ANNUAL AVERAGE CONCENTRATIONS
Mine
location
North
Dakota
North
Dakota
Northern
Wyoming
North-
west
Colorado
Sampling
site
1
2
3 „
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
Dist,
mi
1.4
Stab
class
D
u,
m/sec
6.17
V
198
Within active mining
1.7
3.7
D
D
7.38
6.57
235
512
Within active mining
1.6
3.0
1.9
2.2
1.4
0.7
1.3
1.1
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
Haul road
2.0
0.6
D
D
7.24
7.60
6.66
5.36
5.36
5.36
5.36
4.0
221
415
263
314
194
108
185
156
°z' Ql
m g/sec
72 45.4
area
84
165
area
79 22.4
137
92
108 26.5
71
42
68
59 11.2
Time in
plume
.25
.30
.16
.28
.20
.19
.33
.41
.46
.37
.14
^
.41
.45
.32
.46
.40
.40
.30
.36
.41
.36
.28
Predicted
cone,
ug/m
17
14
1.3
7.3
1.3
3.4
4.6
17
65
17
3.8
adjacent to site
4.0
4.0
281
87
98
35
.13
.67
.22
.32
1.0
63
Measured
arith mean,
ug/m
34
50
39
78
53
112
26
96
117
41
47
32
63
Measured
cone minus .
backgrd, ug/m
8.5
15
6.4
22
10
22
6
76
87
21
31
16
47
n.a. = data not available
-------
low even if the deposition factor (Qx/QQ) were removed.
They could be due to sources for which emission estimates
were not included, such as exposed areas, but more likely
are caused by mining operations nearer than the centroid of
the single area source that have a larger than predicted
impact on measured concentrations.
ACCURACY OF EMISSION FACTORS
A technical manual describing the upwind-downwind
sampling method concluded that emission rates could be
determined within ±10 to ±50 percent of the actual rates
with this method if a carefully designed sampling program
including replicate samples, a range of operating conditions,
and appropriate instrumentation were employed. A brief
sampling program without sample replication was estimated to
provide data within a factor of two to five of actual emis-
sions.
The average difference in emission rates of 14 percent
for data from the two sampler heights was attributed to non-
Gaussian plume dispersion. The resulting deviation from
actual emission rates was probably less than this amount and
was probably an overestimate because of the greater number
of samples at the 1.2 m height.
Another indication of non-Gaussian dispersion was the
increase in apparent emission rates with distance from the
source. If this was caused by the vertical wind speed
gradient hindering the plume from dispersing upward or by
reentrainment, then all the predicted values would be too
high. The magnitude of the overprediction would be at least
the difference between the average rates at the nearest
samplers and the average rates at all samplers, or about 20
percent.
The extrapolation of emission rates determined during
the sampling periods to annual emissions probably did not
75
-------
bias the resulting values, as discussed in Chapter 5. If it
did, it would have caused an overestimate of the annual
emission rates.
The elimination of some data points during the data
analysis steps tended to reduce the final emission factors
because most of the data removed were higher than average
values. Likewise, the incorporation of a fallout function
even though the data did not demonstrate its occurrence
resulted in lowering the regional scale emission factors and
ambient concentrations predicted with the initial emission
rates.
The comparisons with previous emission factors for
surface coal mining operations and with ambient concentra-
tions near mines indicated that the factors from the present
study are either the right order of magnitude or too low.
Some of the above analyses indicated the emission
factors might be higher than actual emission rates and some
indicated they might be lower. Considering all of these
evaluations, it is concluded that the factors are probably
accurate within a factor of two except for those operations
identified at the beginning of this chapter:
Dragline at mine C
Shovel/Truck loading at mine C
Shovel/Truck loading of overburden at mine E
Blasting at mine A
76
-------
REFERENCES
1. Evaluation of Fugitive Dust Emissions from Mining.
Task 1 Report: Identification of Fugitive Dust Sources
Associated with Mining. PEDCo-Environmental, Inc.,
Cincinnati, Ohio. Prepared for U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Industrial Environmental Research
Laboratory, Cincinnati, Ohio. April 1976.
2. Technical Manual for the Measurement of Fugitive
Emissions. Volume 1: Upwind/Downwind Sampling Method
for Industrial Emissions. Volume 2: Roof Monitor
Sampling Method for Industrial Fugitive Emissions.
Volume 3: Quasi-Stack Sampling Method for Industrial
Fugitive Emissions. TRC-The Research Corporation of
New England, Wethersfield, Connecticut. Prepared for
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Industrial
Environmental Research Laboratory, Research Triangle
Park, North Carolina. April and May 1976.
3. Development of Emission Factors for Fugitive Dust
Sources. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
Triangle Park, North Carolina. Publication Number EPA-
450/3-74-037. June 1974.
4. Quantification of Dust Entrainment from Paved Roadways.
Midwest Research Institute, Kansas City, Missouri.
Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. March 1977.
5. Sklarew, R. C., D. B. Turner, and J. R. Zimmerman.
Modeling Transportation Impact on Air Quality. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle
Park, North Carolina. January 1973.
6. Technical Guidance for Control of Industrial Process
Fugitive Particulate Emissions. Appendix C: Example
Preliminary Dispersion Analysis. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina. Publication Number EPA 450/3-77-010. March
1977.
7. Turner, D. B. Workbook of Atmospheric Dispersion Esti-
mates. U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Wel-
fare, Cincinnati, Ohio. Publication Number AP-26. May
1970.
8. Quality Assurance Handbook for Air Pollution Measure-
ment Systems. Volume II: Ambient Air Specific Methods.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle
Park, North Carolina. November 1976.
77
-------
9. User's Guide for HIWAY, A Highway Air Pollution Model.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle
Park, North Carolina. Publication Number EPA-650/4-74-
008. February 1975.
10. Meteorology and Atomic Energy. U.S. Atomic Energy
Commission, Oak Ridge, Tennessee. Publication Number
TID-24190. July 1968.
11. Sheeny, J. P-, W. C. Achinger, and R. A. Simon.
Handbook of Air Pollution. U.S. Public Health Service,
Division of Air Pollution, Cincinnati, Ohio. Publi-
cation Number AP-44. 1968.
12. Evaluation of Fugitive Dust Emissions from Mining.
Task 2 Report: Assessment of the Current Status of the
Environmental Aspects of Fugitive Dust Sources Asso-
ciated with Mining. PEDCo-Environmental, Inc., Cin-
cinnati, Ohio. Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protec-
tion Agency, Industrial Environmental Research Labora-
tory, Cincinnati, Ohio. June 1976.
13. Supplement No. 5 for Compilation of Air Pollutant
Emission Factors. Second Edition. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Caro-
lina. Publication Number AP-42. April 1975.
14. Crawford, J. and J. K. Miller. Determination of Par-
ticulate Emission Factors from Lignite Mining Opera-
tions. North Dakota State Department of Health, Divi-
sion of Environmental Engineering, Bismarck, North
Dakota. November 1976.
78
-------
APPENDIX A
MINING OPERATIONS AT THE MINES SAMPLED
-------
Table A-l. CHARACTERISTICS OF THE COAL MINES SAMPLED
oo
o
Parameter
Production rate
Coal transport
Stratigraphic
data
Coal analysis
data
Surface dispo-
sition
Storage
Blasting
Required information
Coal mined
Av. unit train frequency
Overburden thickness
Overburden density
Coal seam thickness
Parting thickness
Spoils bulking factor
Active pit depth
Moisture
Ash
Sulfur
Heat content
Total disturbed land
Active pit
Spoils
Reclaimed
Barren land
Associated disturbances
Capacity
Frequency , coal
Frequency , overburden
Area blasted, coal
Area blasted, overburden
Units
106
ton/yr
per day
ft
Ib/cuyd
ft
ft
%
ft
%
%, wet
%, wet
Btu/lb
ac
ac
ac
ac
ac
ac
ton
per wk
per wk
sq ft
sq ft
A
1.13
n.a.
21
4000
9,35
50
22
52
10
8
.46
11000
168
34
57
100
-
12
n.a.
4
3
16000
20000
B
5.0
n.a.
80
3705
15,9
15
24
100
18
10
.59
9632
1030
202
326
221
30
186
n.a.
4
.5
40000
-
Mine
C
9.5
2
90
3000
27
n.a.
25
114
24
8
.75
8628
2112
87
144
950
455
476
-
3
3
-
-
D
3.8
n.a .
65
-
2,4,8
32,16
20
80
38
7
.65
8500
1975
—
—
—
—
-
n.a.
7
n.a.
30000
n.a.
Ea
12. Ob
2
35
-
70
n.a.
-
105
30
6
.48
8020
217
71
100
100
_
46
48000
7b
7b
—
-
Based on 1974 data.
Estimate.
-------
Table A-2. MINING EQUIPMENT AT THE MINES SAMPLED
Mine No. Major operating equipment
Mine No. Major operating equipment
1 770 Bucyrus-Erie dragline
1 650 Bucyrus-Erie dragline
2 Cat 627 scrapers
2 7400 loaders
6 Haul trucks 56 ton
6 Tractors
2 Overburden drills 40 yd
1 D-4 coal drill
11 Pick-ups
2 Moter graders
1 988 front-end loader
2 Water trucks 6000 gal
10 WABCO coal haulers 120 ton
4 WABCO ash haulers 75 ton
3 Cat 657 scrapers 44 cu yd
1 Cat 633 scraper 34 cu yd
1 Cat 641 water wgn 11000 gl
1 WABCO 65C water wagon
11000 gal
1 DAMCO 6000 rotary drill
150 ft/hr
1 Auger drill 200 ft/hr
1 Chicago Pneumatic T650W
rotary drill
4 Cat D9G dozers
2 Cat D9H dozers
1 Cat992 front-end loader
10 cu yd
1 Michigan 380 dozer
1 Cat 834 dozer
1 Michigan 275 B cable reel
1 Cat 16G patrol
1 Cat 16H patrol
1 Marion 8200 drgln 75 cu yd
1 Page 732 dragline 20 cu yd
1 B-E 60-R rotary drill
120 ft/hr
2 B-E 195B pwr shvls 18 cuyd
2 Marion 8050 drgln 60 cu yd
1 Marion 360 dragline
2 B-E 550&280B coal shovels
1 B-E 1050 stripping shovel
C 6 Cat D8/u dozers
2 Cat D9/u dozers
2 Cat D9/c dozers
3 Cat 631-C tractor-scrapers
2 Cat 980 front-end loaders
2 Cat 992 front-end loaders
10 Euclid CH120 coal haulers
3 Cat 660 coal haulers
3 Cat water tankers 8000 gal
1 Cat water tanker 6000 gal
3 Service trucks
2 14-6 Motor graders
2 B-E 45R overburden drills
1 Failing RB-2 coal drill
1 B-E 60P blast hole drill
1 Cat D-9 cushion pusher
1 Ford 5000 farm tractor
Da 1 B-E 1250B dragline 32 cuyd
1 Marion 181M shovel 17 cuyd
1 B-E 85B shovel 5.5 cu yd
5 Haul trucks 180 ton
4 Euclid 24 TDT haul trk 60t
10 Cat DW20 haul trucks 45 t
1 Unit rig 196 ton
1 HD-41 tractor dozer
2 D-9 tractor dozers
2 D-8 tractor dozers
1 Paris 2-1/4" coal drill
1 Cat 988 front-end loader
6.5 cu yd
1 Water truck, 7,000 gal
Ea 2 B-E 295B shovels 24 cu yd
2 B-E 295B shovels 20 cu yd
5 Dart diesel dump 75 ton
17 End dump trucks 120 ton
8 Lectrahaul trucks 120 ton
1 Terex end dump trk 170 ton
3 Michigan dozers
1 Motor grader model 12
1 Coal drill
1 Cat 988 front-end loader
2 Water trucks 10,000 gal
Based on 1974 data.
81
-------
APPENDIX B
DOWNWIND AMBIENT PARTICULATE CONCENTRATIONS
-------
Table B-l. DOWNWIND PARTICULATE CONCENTRATIONS
MINE A
Down-
wind
Operation/ dist,
sample m
Dragline
1 30
40
50
30
40
50
2 30
40
50
3 50
60
70
4 50
60
70
50
60
70
5 40
55
70
40
55
6 40
55
70
7 75
90
105
75
90
105
8 75
90
105
75
90
105
Vert
dist
from
-------
Table B-l (continued). DOWNWIND PARTICULATE
CONCENTRATIONS MINE A
Operation/
sample
Haul roads
10
Drilling
1
Down-
wind
dist,
m
14
29
43
14
29
43
16
26
36
16
26
36
Vert
dist
from
-------
Table B-l (continued). DOWNWIND PARTICULATE
CONCENTRATIONS MINE A
Operation/
sample
Truck dump
4
5
6
Down-
wind
dist,
m
10
20
30
10
20
30
10
20
30
Vert
dist
from
t,
m
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Hor
dist
from
-------
Table B-2.DOWNWIND PARTICULATE CONCENTRATIONS
MINE B
Operation/
sample
Dragline
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Down-
wind
dist,
m
50
65
80
50
65
80
50
65
80
70
80
90
70
80
90
70
80
90
70
85
100
70
85
100
70
85
100
70
80
90
70
80
90
70
80
90
100
70
80
90
100
Vert
dist
from
1,
m
-1.3
-1.3
-1.3
-.1
-.1
-.1
-1.3
-1.3
-1.3
-1.3
-1.3
-1.3
-.1
-.1
-.1
-1.3
-1.3
-1.3
-1.3
-1.3
-1.3
-1.3
-1.3
-1.3
-.1
-.1
-.1
-3.8
-3.8
-3.8
-2.6
-2.6
-2.6
-3.8
-3.8
-3.8
-3.8
-3.8
-3.8
-3.8
-3.8
Hor
dist
from
-------
Table B-2 (continued). DOWNWIND PARTICULATE
CONCENTRATIONS MINE B
Operation/
sample
Haul roads
8
9
10
Down-
wind
dist,
m
10
20
30
10
20
30
14
29
43
57
14
29
43
14
29
43
Vert
dist
from
-------
Table B-2 (continued). DOWNWIND PARTICULATE
CONCENTRATIONS MINE B
Operation/
sample
Down-
wind
dist,
m
Vert
dist
from
4,
m
Hor
dist
from
-------
Table B-3. DOWNWIND PARTICULATE CONCENTRATIONS
MINE C
Operation/
sample
Dragline
1
2
3
4
5
6
Haul roads
1
2
Down-
wind
dist,
m
70
70
79
79
87
87
70
79
87
96
70
79
87
70
79
87
70
79
87
96
70
79
87
70
79
87
70
79
87
96
10
20
30
40
10
20
30
10
20
30
Vert
dist
from
-------
Table B-3 (continued). DOWNWIND PARTICULATE
CONCENTRATIONS MINE C
Operation/
sample
Drilling
1
2
Down-
wind
dist,
m
6
6
15
15
24
24
6
15
24
34
Vert
dist
from
-------
Table B-3 (continued). DOWNWIND PARTICULATE
CONCENTRATIONS MINE C
Operation/
sample
Truck dump
3
4
Vert
Down- dist
wind from
dist, ft,
m m
32 -10.0
32 -8.6
41 -10.0
41 -8.8
50 -10.0
50 -8.8
32 -10.0
41 -10.0
50 -10.0
59 -10.0
Hor
dist
from
m
5.7
6.7
7.7
8.7
9.6
10.6
7.7
9.7
11.6
12.5
Net
cor.c,
ug/nP
238
18
309
313
419
241
281
280
374
416
Storage pile
1
2
3
4
60 -6.3
70 -6.3
80 -6.3
60 -5.1
70 -5.1
80 -5.1
60 -6.3
70 -6.3
80 -6.3
90 -6.3
60 -6.3
70 -6.3
80 -6.3
60 -5.1
70 -5.1
80 -5.1
60 -6.3
70 -6.3
80 -6.3
90 -6.3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1560
1595
2807
1326
1240
1488
5470
6895
8306
9076
4265
4830
4307
1485
3952
5072
1815
716
3973
2844
Vert Hor
Down- dist dist
wind from from Net
Operation/ dist, ft, ft, cone,
sample m m m ug/m^
91
-------
Table B-4. DOWNWIND PARTICULATE CONCENTRATIONS
MINE D
•iMBMBBOB
Operation/
Dragline
1
2
3
4
5
6
Haul roads
1
2
B^OOB
Down-
wind
diet,
m
75
84
92
100
75
75
84
84
92
92
75
84
92
100
75
75
84
84
92
92
75
84
92
100
75
84
92
100
5
5
15
15
25
25
5
15
25
35
no^na
Vert
dist
from
4,
m
-3.8
-3.8
-3.8
-3.8
-3.8
-2.6
-3.8
-2.6
-3.8
-2.6
-3.8
-3.8
-3.8
-3.8
-3.8
-2.6
-3.8
-2.6
-3.8
-2.6
-3.8
-3.8
-3.8
-3.8
-3.8
-3.8
-3.8
-3.8
-.3
.9
-.3
.9
-.3
.9
-.3
-.3
-.3
-.3
HE=S«C
Hor
diet
from
4,
m
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
BBBBBBOl^
Net
cone,
ug/nr
1475
15B5
1577
1631
898
1498
1095
1389
763
1258
1047
1062
608
610
808
911
892
914
1128
1821
925
1078
1082
838
672
1475
668
756
3783
3305
2766
2857
2915
2490
6711
6992
4515
3728
••••••^••^•••••••i
Down-
wind
Operation/ diit,
•ample m
Haul roads
3 5
5
14
14
22
22
4 5
14
22
31
5 5
5
14
14
22
22
6 5
14
22
31
7 5
5
12
12
19
19
8 5
12
19
26
9 5
5
12
ia
19
19
••^^M
Vert
diet
from
*,
m
-.3
.9
-.3
.9
-.3
.9
-.3
-.3
-.3
-.3
-.3
.9
-.3
.9
-.3
.9
-.3
-.3
-.3
-.3
-.3
.9
-.3
.9
-.3
.9
-.3
-.3
-.3
-.3
-.3
.9
-•3
.9
-.3
.9
••^•HKHBiMiM
Hor
di«t
from 'J«t
4, cone,
m ug/m3
391
320
312
170
361
116
268
362
255
411
1123
565
906
525
531
238
1079
913
860
558
653
454
434
356
568
400
750
975
695
508
1002
809
766
699
U99
657
267
-------
Table B-4 (continued). DOWNWIND PARTICULATE
CONCENTRATIONS MINE D
Vert
Down- dist
wind from
Operation/ dist, *r
m m
Net
cone,
ug/m^
Topsoil dump (scraper)
1 5
10
15
20
2 5
10
15
5
10
15
3 5
10
15
20
4 5
10
15
5
10
15
5 5
10
15
20
Topsoil removal
1 30
34
38
30
34
38
2 30
34
38
42
3 30
34
38
30
34
38
-.3
-.3
-.3
-.3
-.3
-.3
-.3
.9
.9
.9
-.3
-.3
-.3
-.3
-.3
-.3
-.3
.9
.9
.9
-.3
-.3
-.3
-.3
(scraper)
-.3
-.3
-.3
.9
.9
.9
-.3
-.3
-.3
-.3
-.3
-.3
-.3
.9
.9
.9
7201
6152
3421
3763
6154
3589
4326
1588
5475
3554
6858
5004
2879
3323
3185
2060
1238
5354
3102
2001
6280
4286
2948
3020
1704
2310
1583
466
2035
1390
6914
3055
7075
8363
12149
11800
16507
5944
•/ «/T*>
7385
7672
93
-------
Table B-4 (continued). DOWNWIND PARTICULATE
CONCENTRATIONS MINE D
Down-
wind
Operation/ dist,
sample m
Topsoil
4
5
Storage
1
2
3
4
removal
30
34
38
42
30
37
41
45
pile
25
34
42
34
42
25
25
34
42
50
25
34
42
25
34
42
25
34
42
50
Vert
dist
from
-------
Table B-5. DOWNWIND PARTICULATE CONCENTRATIONS
MINE E
Down-
wind
Operation/ dist,
sample m
Haul roads
1 8
17
26
8
17
26
493
2 8
17
26
34
49a
3 8
17
26
8
17
26
49a
4 8
17
26
34
49a
5 8
17
26
8
17
26
49a
6 8
17
26
34
49a
7 8
17
26
8
17
26
a
49
Sampled by the
Vert
dist
from
m
-.3
-.3
-.3
.9
.9
.9
-.3
-.3
-.3
-.3
-.3
-.3
-.3
-.3
-.3
.9
.9
.9
-.3
-.3
-.3
-.3
-.3
-.3
-.3
-.3
-.3
.9
.9
.9
-.3
-.3
-.3
-.3
-.3
-.3
-.3
-.3
-.3
.9
.9
.9
-.3
mining
Hor
dist
from Net
t , cone ,
m ug/nr
693
794
748
427
575
571
188
500
877
619
509
256
727
788
1051
548
711
510
376
550
791
704
764
341
1350
1502
1341
1106
1053
964
487
1160
1287
1237
1258
517
308
321
553
271
425
458
238
company .
Down-
wind
Operation/ dist,
sample m
Haul roads
8 8
17
26
34
49a
Drilling
1 5
14
22
30
2 5
14
22
5
14
22
Vert
dist
from
m
-.3
-.3
-.3
-.3
-.3
.7
.7
.7
.7
.7
.7
.7
1.9
1.9
1.9
Hor
dist
from
m
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0
0
0
Net
cone,
ug/m^
281
393
464
585
252
2723
1862
1127
111
2116
1049
255
1307
132
0
Shovel/Truck loading-coal
1 20
20
28
28
37
37
2 20
28
37
46
3 20
20
28
28
37
37
4 20
28
37
46
6.3
5.1
6.3
5.1
6.3
5.1
6.3
6.3
6.3
6.3
6.3
5.1
6.3
5.1
6.3
5.1
6.3
6.3
6.3
6.3
1.0
0
1.0
0
1.0
0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0
1.0
0
1.0
0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1191
1031
1059
655
954
311
652
1163
911
537
855
822
806
817
859
762
880
558
1061
735
Shovel/Truck loading-overburden
1 20
20
25
25
30
30
142a
142a
-1.3
-.1
-1.3
-.1
-1.3
-.1
-1.3
-1.3
2.7
3.7
4.1
5.1
5.6
6.6
16.0
41.0
2569
2510
1232
2426
1361
1825
679
317
95
-------
Table B-5 (continued). DOWNWIND PARTICULATE
CONCENTRATIONS MINE E
Operation/
sample
Vert
Down- dist
wind from
dist, t,
m m
Hor
dist
from
m
Net
cone.
ug/m
Shovel/Truck loading-overburden
2
3
4
5
6
Coal blast
1
2
^•*— -«— *^^^«
a
20 -1.3
25 -1.3
30 -1.3
35 -1.3
142a -1.3
20 -1.3
20 -.1
25 -1.3
25 -.1
30 -1.3
30 -.1
142a -1.3
142 -1.3
20 -1.3
25 -1.3
30 -1.3
35 -1.3
142a -1.3
22 -1.3
22 -.1
28 -1.3
28 -.1
33 -1.3
33a --1
158 -1.3
a
158 -1.3
22 -1.3
28 -1.3
33 -1.3
39 -1.3
1583 -1.3
200 -3.8
208 -2.6
217 -3.8
200 -2.6
208 -3.8
217 -2.6
100 -13.8
108 -13.8
117 -13.8
126 -13.8
4.7
6.1
7.6
9.0
66.0
1.2
2.2
2.2
3.2
3.4
4.4
5.0
30.0
3.2
4.2
5.4
6.4
55.0
6.3
7.3
8.6
9.6
11.0
12.0
41.0
66.0
8.3
10.6
13.0
15.3
91.0
43.0
44.0
46.0
42.0
43.0
45.0
21.0
23.0
25.0
27.0
2255
2633
2676
2668
646
4572
2298
3406
2263
2841
2802
262
205
4117
2369
4427
3231
308
2739
2106
1548
1839
1172
1558
267
240
2531
2053
2730
2178
403
2289
2194
1456
1851
1939
1587
2627
3347
2203
2485
Vert
Down- dist
wind from
Operation/ dist, €,
sample m m
Overburden blast
1 74 -16.3
81 -16.3
89 -16.3
96 -16.3
197a-16.3
2 74 -16.3
81 -16.3
89 -16.3
74 -15.1
81 -15.1
89 -15.1
197a-16.3
1973-16.3
Exposed areas
1 10 1.2
10 2.4
20 1.2
20 2.4
30 1.2
30 2.4
2 0 1.2
10 1.2
20 1.2
30 1.2
3 0 1.2
0 2.4
10 1.2
10 2.4
20 1.2
20 2.4
4 0 1.2
10 1.2
20 1.2
30 1.2
Truck dump-coal
1 9 -1.8
19 -1.8
28 -1.8
9 -.6
19 -.6
28 -.6
49a -1.8
493 -1.8
Hor
dist
from
«,
m
29.0
31.0
34.0
36.0
78.0
24.0
26.0
29.0
19.0
21.0
24.0
64.0
53.0
3.0
6.9
10.9
4.0
7.9
11.9
19.5
20.5
Net
cone,
ug/m-*
1094
1502
1359
740
394
1327
1064
1097
1265
1323
616
479
445
n.d.
n.d.
n.d.
n.d.
n.d.
n.d.
n.d.
n.d.
n.d.
n.d.
n.d.
n.d.
n.d.
n.d.
n.d.
n.d.
n.d.
n.d.
n.d.
n.d.
2487
2177
1485
2187
1765
1130
656
70Q
Sampled by the mining company.
n.d. = no datas no upwind samples
-------
Table B-5 (continued). DOWNWIND PARTICULATE
CONCENTRATIONS MINE E
Operation/
sample
Down-
wind
dist,
m
Vert
dist
from
m
Hor
dist
from
t,
m
Net
cone,
ug/m3
Truck dump-coal
2
3
4
9
19
28
38
49a
8
17
26
8
17
26
49a
8
17
26
34
49a
-1.8
-1.8
-1.8
-1.8
-1.8
-1.8
-1.8
-1.8
-.6
-.6
-.6
-1.8
-1.8
-1.8
-1.8
-1.8
-1.8
-1.8
5.
8.
12.
16.
21.
3.
8.
13.
4.
9.
14.
24.
25.
5.
10.
15.
20.
26.
0
9
9
8
5
9
8
7
9
8
7
4
4
9
8
7
6
4
2169
2301
1505
1125
941
2103
1313
689
2536
711
1221
666
675
3785
1803
1349
1294
642
Truck dump-overburden
1
2
3
4
15
20
25
15
20
25
15
20
25
30
15
20
25
15
20
25
15
20
25
30
-.3
-.3
-.3
.9
.9
.9
-.3
-.3
-.3
-.3
-.3
-.3
-.3
.9
.9
.9
-.3
-.3
-.3
-.3
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
788
460
460
611
309
210
623
360
437
609
201
-
219
97
263
128
157
175
220
175
Down-
wind
Operation/ dist,
sample m
Train loading
1 10
20
30
40
2 10
20
30
40
3 10
10
20
20
30
30
4 10
10
20
20
30
30
5 10
20
30
40
Vert
dist
from
m
-1.
-1.
-1.
-1.
-1.
-1.
-1.
-1.
-1.
-.
-1.
-1.
-.
-1.
-.
-1.
-1.
-.
-1.
-1.
-1.
-1.
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
3
3
3
Hor
dist
from
m
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
.d.
.d.
.d.
.d.
.d.
.d.
.d.
.d.
.d.
.d.
.d.
.d.
.d.
.d.
.d.
.d.
.d.
.d.
.d.
.d.
.d.
.d.
.d.
.d.
Net
cone,
ug/m3
3136
1474
943
1919
1416
2050
383
1041
2047
2022
1340
1155
1041
1223
281
372
127
105
123
117
329
254
263
150
Sampled by the mining company.
Samplers not in plume.
n.d. = not determined
97
-------
APPENDIX C
DATA USED IN DISPERSION CALCULATIONS FOR
EACH SAMPLING PERIOD
-------
Table C-l. SAMPLING PERIODS AT MINE A
Operation
Dragline
Haul roads
Drilling
Shovel/
Truck
loading
>
Overburden
blast
Exposed
areas
Fly-ash
dump
Truck dump
Storage
pile
Sample
no.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
Wind
speed ,
m/sec
.4
.4
.4
.4
1.8
1.8
.4
.4
1.6
1.6
.9
.9
.4
.4
.9
.9
.4
.4
.9
.5
.5
.4
.4
1.3
1.3
2.4
4.2
1.5
1.5
.7
1.2
2.7
.9
1.5
.4
2.6
.9
.7
.5
.9
.7
Stab
class
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
A
A
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
A
A
B
B
B
B
B
A
C
B
B
B
C
B
B
B
A
B
Init
plume
ht, m
5
5
5
5
5
5
8
8
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
2
7
7
7
7
7
7
100
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
25
25
25
25
25
25
Init
plume
width ,
m
25
25
25
25
10
10
5
5
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
5
20
20
20
20
15
15
100
50
50
50
8
8
8
8
8
8
100
100
100
100
100
100
Sample
time,
min
60
60
65
65
60
60
60
60
50
50
60
60
60
60
50
50
52
52
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
73
45
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
52
70
60
55
66
60
Time
in
plume,
%
100
100
100
100
100
100
40
25
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
0
90
90
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
90
100
60
80
90
100
100
60
75
Ac-
tiv-
ity
rate
28
28
62
62
65
65
62
71
14
14
12
12
10
10
10
10
8
8
2
11
11
7
7
7
4
1
1
1
1
7
1
3
6
8
5
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
Back-
ground
cone,
ug/m3
88
88
88
88
64
64
64
64
88
88
88
88
88
88
88
88
88
88
88
88
88
88
88
87
87
88
113
113
113
60
60
42
60
42
42
42
42
60
60
60
42
n.a. = not applicable
99
-------
Table C-2. SAMPLING PERIODS AT MINE B
Operation
Dragline
Haul roads
Shovel/
Truck
loading
Coal blast
Exposed
areas
Truck dump
Storage
pile
Sample
no.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1
2
3
4
1
2
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Wind
speed ,
m/sec
3.6
3.6
5.8
5.8
5.4
5.4
3.1
3.1
3.6
3.6
3.7
3.7
4.7
4.7
6.2
6.2
1.1
1.1
.5
.5
.6
.6
.4
.4
3.0
3.0
7.2
7.2
8.2
8.2
7.5
7.5
3.7
3.7
7.6
7.6
6.7
6.7
.8
.8
3.2
3.2
Stab
class
C
C
D
D
D
D
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
D
D
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
D
D
D
D
D
D
C
C
D
D
D
D
B
B
C
C
Init
plume
ht, m
5
5
5
5
5
5
10
10
10
10
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
8
8
8
8
75
75
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Init
plume
width,
m
25
25
5
5
25
25
40
40
40
40
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
9
9
9
9
75
75
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
17
17
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
Sample
time,
min
44
44
56
56
45
45
36
36
41
41
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
45
45
44
44
46
46
24
24
60
60
50
50
48
48
26
26
37
37
20
20
30
30
50
50
Time
in
plume,
%
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
83
83
71
71
Ac-
tiv-
ity
rate
25
25
29
29
25
25
35
35
56
56
32
32
35
35
29
29
5
5
1
1
8
8
10
10
1
1
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
6
6
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
Back-
ground
cone,
ug/m3
131
131
131
131
131
131
125
125
125
125
152
152
152
152
152
152
125
125
125
125
153
153
153
153
153
153
84
84
84
84
84
84
153
153
123
123
123
123
108
108
108
108
n.a. = not applicable
100
-------
Table C-3. SAMPLING PERIODS AT MINE C
Operation
Dragline
Haul roads
Drilling
Shovel/
Truck
loading
Train
loading
Coal blast
Overburden
blast
Truck dump
Storage
pile
Sample
no.
1
2
3
4
5
6
1-
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1
2
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
1
2
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
Wind
speed,
m/sec
3.6
3.6
4.0
4.0
5.4
5.4
2.7
2.7
3.1
3.1
3.6
3.6
3.1
3.1
2.7
2.7
3.6
3.6
3.6
3.6
3.6
3.6
4.9
4.9
4.5
4.5
5.4
5.4
3.6
3.6
3.6
3.6
3.6
3.6
6.3
8.9
6.7
6.7
Stab
class
B
B
B
B
C
C
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
C
C
C
C
C
C
B
B
B
B
C
C
B
B
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
Init
plume
ht, m
15
15
15
15
15
15
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
1
1
10
10
10
10
5
5
5
5
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
15
15
15
15
Init
plume
width ,
m
50
50
50
50
50
50
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
2
2
15
15
15
15
5
5
5
5
6
6
12
12
15
15
15
15
30
30
30
30
Sample
time,
min
60
60
43
43
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
55
55
60
60
30
30
45
45
60
60
44
44
40
40
13
13
10
10
60
60
55
55
17
19
27
35
Time
in
plume,
%
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
70
70
100
100
100
100
Ac-
tiv-
ity
rate
65
65
56
56
53
53
20
20
22
22
24
24
20
20
32
32
1
1
9
9
13
13
35
35
26
26
1
1
1
1
21
21
20
20
1
1
1
1
Back-
ground
cone,
ug/m3
89
89
89
89
89
89
89
89
89
89
89
89
89
89
89
89
89
89
59
59
59
59
89
89
89
89
89
89
61
61
89
89
89
89
146
146
146
146
n.a. = not applicable
101
-------
Table C-4. SAMPLING PERIODS AT MINE D
Operation
Dragline
Haul roads
Coal blast
Truck dump
Topsoil
dump
(scraper)
Topsoil
removal
(scraper)
Storage
pile
Front-end
loader
Sample
no.
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1
2
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
1
Wind
speed ,
m/sec
6.3
7.2
7.2
7.2
6.3
5.8
5.4
5.4
5.4
5.4
5.8
5.8
4.0
4.0
4.5
4.0
4.0
4.5
6.2
6.2
6.2
6.2
6.7
2.2
3.2
3.4
3.1
3.6
5.8
6.2
7.2
7.2
7.6
.9
.9
1.3
1.3
2.7
Stab
class
D
D
D
D
D
D
C
C
D
D
C
C
C
C
C
B
B
C
D
D
D
D
D
B
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
A
A
A
A
B
Init
plume
ht, m
10
10
10
10
10
10
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
30
30
20
20
20
20
20
20
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
20
20
20
20
5
Init
plume
width,
m
12
12
12
12
12
12
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
40
40
15
15
15
15
15
15
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
158
158
158
158
10
Sample
time,
min
31
42
35
35
33
34
47
47
59
59
60
60
69
69
62
43
43
20
30
80
80
32
37
20
25
27
25
25
31
35
34
18
23
91
91
64
64
21
Time
in
plume,
%
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
78
78
100
Ac-
tiv-
ity
rate
20
15
24
18
24
20
5
5
5
5
20
20
9
9
7
1
1
2
4
2
2
4
5
6
11
9
9
7
4
4
4
4
4
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
19
Back-
ground
cone,
ug/m3
94
94
94
101
101
101
119
119
70
70
103
103
62
62
62
115
115
126
125
125
125
128
128
85
81
81
81
81
158
158
158
158
158
102
102
103
103
122
n.a. = not applicable
102
-------
Table C-5. SAMPLING PERIODS AT MINE E
Wind
Sample speed,
Operation
Haul roads
Drilling
Shovel/
Truck
loading-
coal
Shovel/
Truck
loading-
overburden
Coal blast
Overburden
blast
Exposed
areas
Truck dump-
coal
Truck dump-
overburden
Train
loading
no.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
1
2
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
1
2
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
5
m/sec
3.7
3.7
3.1
3.1
3.4
3.4
2.5
2.5
4.1
4.1
2.5
2.5
2.3
2.3
3.6
3.6
3.1
3.1
2.7
2.7
2.6
2.6
3.7
3.7
4.9
4.9
6.3
6.3
3.1
3.1
2.7
2.7
6.2
6.2
5.4
5.4
n.d.
n.d.
n.d.
n.d.
n.d.
Stab
class
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
C
C
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
C
C
B
B
C
C
B
B
B
B
C
C
C
C
n.d.
n.d.
n.d.
n.d.
n.d.
Init
plume
ht, m
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
1
1
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
30
30
35
35
0
0
0
0
6
6
6
6
3
3
3
3
5
5
5
6
6
Init
plume
width,
m
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
3
3
15
15
15
15
10
10
10
10
10
10
40
40
10
10
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
10
10
10
10
12
12
12
12
6
6
6
5
5
Sample
time,
min
53
53
60
60
45
45
44
44
39
39
48
48
61
61
43
43
28
28
30
30
8
8
8
8
78
78
72
72
30
30
30
30
60
60
60
60
35
46
83
87
87
Time
in
Ac-
tiv-
plume , ity
%
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
rate
37
37
46
46
29
29
28
28
2
2
16
16
20
20
4
4
9
9
5
5
1
1
1
1
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
11
11
10
10
21
21
21
21
44
50
100
100
100
Back-
ground
cone,
ug/m3
105
105
145
145
120
120
166
166
676
676
64
64
64
64
112
112
112
112
112
112
128
128
77
77
n.d.
n.d.
n.d.
n.d.
55
55
55
55
480
480
157
157
28
28
28
43
43
n.a. = not applicable
n.d. = not determined
103
-------
APPENDIX D
PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTIONS
FOR SELECTED MINING SOURCE SAMPLES
-------
Table D-l.
PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTIONS FOR SELECTED
MINING SOURCE SAMPLES
Size
range ,
<3.08
3.08
4.36
6.17
8.72
12.33
17.44
24.66
34.88
49.33
>49.33
Size
range,
<3.08
3.08
4.36
6.17
8.72
12.33
17.44
24.66
34.88
49.33
>49.33
Size
range ,
<3.08
3.08
4.36
6.17
8.72
12.33
17.44
24.66
34.88
49.33
>49.33
Sample Al
Sample A2
Sample A3
Sample A4
Truck dump Truck dump Truck dump Truck dump
@20m
0.00
0.03
0.26
2.92
11.00
25.27
60.51
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Sample A6
Dragline
@35m
0.00
0.00
0.26
3.63
10.24
23.16
16.39
46.33
0.00
0.00
0.00
Sample All
Haul road
@30m
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.19
16.76
28.43
53.63
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
@20m
0.00
0.15
1.65
4.80
9.90
14.93
23.77
44.80
0.00
0.00
0.00
Sample A7
Dragline
@35m
0.00
0.02
0.13
0.25
2.42
6.85
5.54
0.00
22.15
62.65
0.00
Sample A12
Haul road
@20m
0.00
0.06
0.16
2.23
6.30
10.68
0.00
0.00
80.58
0.00
0.00
@20m
0.00
0.07
0.41
0.64
1.81
6.52
19.76
40.97
0.00
29.81
0.00
Sample A8
Haul road
@10m
0.00
0.00
0.44
0.75
1.41
13.93
22.52
15.92
45.04
0.00
0.00
Sample A13
Haul road
@20m
0.00
0.11
0.28
0.94
1.51
6.42
15.14
17.12
24.22
34.26
0.00
@20m
0.00
0.03
0.62
2.51
5.67
24.06
51.06
16.04
0.00
0.00
0.00
Sample A9
Haul road
@10m
0.00
0.34
1.24
3.12
16.51
18.67
35.22
24.90
0.00
0.00
0.00
Sample A14
Fly ash
dump
@10m
0.00
0.45
1.68
3.58
13.47
0.00
80.82
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Sample A5
Dragline
§105m
0.00
0.01
0.19
0.32
1.49
3.36
7.14
33.64
0.00
53.86
0.00
Sample A10
Haul road
@20m
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.55
0.77
13.12
18.56
17.49
49.50
0.00
0.00
Sample A15
Fly ash
dump
@60m
0.00
1.14
2.65
7.19
13.84
23.48
51.69
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
105
-------
Table D-l (continued). PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTIONS FOR
SELECTED MINING SOURCE SAMPLES
Sample A16 Sample A17 Sample A18 Sample A19 Sample Bl
Coal Dragline Dragline Dragline Dragline
Size
range ,
<3.08
3.08
4.36
6.17
8.72
12.33
17.44
24.66
34.88
49.33
>49.33
Size
range ,
<3.08
3.08
4.36
6.17
8.72
12.33
17.44
24.66
34.88
49.33
>49.33
Size
range ,
<3.08
3.08
4.36
6.17
8.72
12.33
17.44
24.66
34.88
49.33
>49.33
loading
@45m
0.00
1.05
4.47
16.91
29.83
0.00
47.73
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Sample B2
Dragline
@80m
0.00
0.00
3.81
8.09
3.81
53.83
30.46
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Sample B7
Haul road
@30m
0.00
0.11
0.29
0.81
2.28
10.14
5.22
22.12
0.00
59.03
0.00
@60m
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.58
3.26
9.23
13.05
73.87
0.00
0.00
Sample B3
Dragline
@85m
0.43
2.13
8.47
18.86
29.05
41.06
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Sample B8
Dragline
@80m
0.00
1.08
4.05
10.28
25.68
41.04
17.87
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
@40m
0.00
0.17
0.72
3.40
11.53
38.04
46.13
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Sample B4
Haul road
@30m
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.71
2.34
4.73
24.09
7.57
0.00
60.57
0.00
Sample B9
Coal
loading
@50m
0.00
1.57
6.04
11.00
20.71
42.28
18.41
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
@50m
0.00
0.22
0.63
1.80
3.38
28.68
27.05
38.24
0.00
0.00
0.00
Sample B5
Haul road
@30m
0.00
0.15
0.83
1.17
18.22
42.16
0.00
37.47
0.00
0.00
0.00
Sample BIO
Coal
loading
@55m
0.00
0.01
0.23
2.36
7.27
10.27
38.76
41.09
0.00
0.00
0.00
@65m
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.84
8.64
34.21
55.31
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Sample B6
Haul road
@30m
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.72
4.08
2.88
0.00
46.16
46.16
Sample Bll
Truck dump
@30m
0. 00
w • v W
0.27
1.10
2 03
*• • w J
5.03
12.61
31.12
25.87
21.97
0.00
0.00
106
-------
Table D-l (continued). PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTIONS FOR
SELECTED MINING SOURCE SAMPLES
Sample B12 Sample B13 Sample B14 Sample B15 Sample B16
Exposed Exposed Dragline Dragline Storage
Size
range ,
<3.08
3.08
4.36
6.17
8.72
12.33
17.44
24.66
34.88
49.33
>49.33
Size
range
<3.08
3.08
4.36
6.17
8.72
12.33
17.44
24.66
34.88
49.33
>49.33
Size
Range /
<3.08
3.08
4.36
6.17
8.72
12.33
17.44
24.66
34.88
49.33
>49.33
area
@40m
0.00
0.05
1.09
2.32
7.64
27.77
61.13
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Sample Cl
Haul road
@30m
0.00
0.00
0.04
0.11
1.24
3.51
4.97
14.04
19.87
56.21
0.00
Sample C6
Storage
pile
@60m
0.00
0.45
1.89
3.15
6.21
22.12
36.70
12.21
17.27
0.00
0.00
area
@30m
0.00
0.44
1.04
2.23
3.73
9.72
13.75
32.41
36.68
0.00
0.00
Sample C2
Haul road
@30m
0.00
0.02
0.10
0.57
2.83
10.29
12.95
0.00
0.00
73.24
0.00
Sample C8
Dragline
@80m
0.00
0.05
0.18
0.23
0.78
1.10
2.07
8.78
16.56
46.84
23.42
@90m
0.00
0.00
0.05
0.03
0.29
0.55
3.88
17.57
24.86
17.58
35.17
Sample C3
Haul road
@20m
0.00
0.00
0.02
0.24
0.86
2.44
4.14
7.80
22.07
62.43
0.00
Sample C9
Dragline
@80m
0.00
0.00
0.10
0.29
3.27
9.25
13.09
74.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
@90m
0.00
0.07
0.19
0.53
0.00
2.53
16.73
6.76
19.12
54.08
0.00
Sample C4
Haul road
@20m
0.00
0.00
0.21
1.22
0.00
4.85
0.00
38.81
54.91
0.00
0.00
Sample CIO
Train
loading
@25m
0.00
0.02
0.05
0.51
2.18
4.10
2.90
24.60
0.00
0.00
65.65
pile
@30m
0.00
0.07
0.63
2.33
5.26
14.88
18.04
46.75
12.03
0.00
0.00
Sample C5
Haul road
@20m
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.09
0.73
3.44
3.90
16.53
31.19
44.12
0.00
Sample Cll
Coal blast
@110m
0.00
0.09
0.62
0.53
1.98
5.61
23.82
22.44
0.00
0.00
44.91
107
-------
Table D-l (continued). PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTIONS FOR
SELECTED MINING SOURCE SAMPLES
Sample C12 Sample C13 Sample C14 Sample Dl Sample D2
Coal Exposed Truck dump Truck dump Truck dump
Size
range ,
<3.08
3.08
4.36
6.17
8.72
12.33
17.44
24.66
34.88
49.33
>49.33
Size
range,
<3.08
3.08
4.36
6.17
8.72
12.33
17.44
24.66
34.88
49.33
>49.33
Size
range,
<3.08
3.08
4.36
6.17
8.72
12.33
17.44
24.66
34.88
49.33
>49.33
loading
@60m
0.00
0.10
0.68
0.83
2.34
4.42
6.25
35.35
50.02
0.00
0.00
Sample D3
Haul road
@15m
0.00
0.00
0.15
0.33
0.00
5.24
19.78
34.94
39.55
0.00
0.00
Sample D8
Topsoil
dump
@20m
0.00
0.05
0.22
0.63
1.19
1.69
9.55
13.50
19.11
54.05
0.00
area
7
0.00
0.47
1.79
3.81
10.75
6.75
0.00
0.00
76.43
0.00
0.00
Sample D4
Haul road
@15m
0.00
0.24
0.54
1.65
3.23
14.18
31.54
48.63
0.00
0.00
0.00
Sample D9
Topsoil
dump
@20m
0.00
0.00
0.09
0.52
2.21
4.16
2.94
0.00
23.53
66.56
0.00
@40m
0.00
0.00
0.42
2.78
13.44
47.51
35.85
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Sample D5
Topsoil
removal
<§30m
0.00
0.04
0.44
1.03
1.29
5.02
6.45
25.54
30.98
29.21
0.00
Sample DID
Storage
pile
@10m
0.00
0.00
0.52
1.36
3.20
6.33
10.23
0.00
20.47
57.90
0.00
<§30m
0.00
0.00
0.06
0.43
0.84
3.75
6.75
13.64
30.87
43.66
0.00
Sample D6
Topsoil
removal
?
0.00
0.11
0.23
1.46
5.27
8.42
12.83
15.54
14.66
41.48
0.00
Sample El
Coal
loading
@20m
0.03
0.09
0.30
0.64
1.40
2.34
3.31
7.02
9.93
37.47
37.47
@30m
0.00
0.00
0.32
1.91
4.75
10.75
17.74
7.17
0.00
57.36
0.00
Sample D7
Dragline
@85m
0.00
0.02
0.19
1.04
2.77
6.36
5.54
19.56
33.21
31.32
0.00
Sample E2
Truck
dump
@10m
0.48
0.42
3.42
6.53
14.62
28.76
5.09
Onn
» u u
40.69
0.00
0.00
108
-------
Table D-l (continued). PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTIONS FOR
SELECTED MINING SOURCE SAMPLES
Size
range ,
<3.08
3.08
4.36
6.17
8.72
12.33
17.44
24.66
34.88
49.33
>49.33
Sample E3
Coal
loading
@30m
0.05
0.20
0.56
0.44
2.33
2.71
4.38
6.19
8.76
24.79
49.58
Sample E4
Truck dump
@20m
0.02
0.18
0.07
0.62
2.27
0.49
6.97
3.94
22.32
0.00
63.13
Sample E5
Overburden
shovel
@20m
0.00
0.01
0.34
0.81
3.19
5.80
23.70
10.31
14.58
41.26
0.00
Sample E6
Haul road
@20m
0.00
0.03
0.70
1.70
4.04
10.00
44.48
22.86
16.18
0.00
0.00
Sample E7
Haul road
<§20m
0.00
0.00
0.32
0.68
1.91
21.59
20.37
14.40
40.74
0.00
0.00
Sample E8
Overburden
Size dump
range, @10m
<3.08
3.08
4.36
6.17
8.72
12.33
17.44
24.66
34.88
49.33
>49.33
0.00
0.00
0.31
1.27
4.14
9.36
28.70
6.24
0.00
49.97
0.00
109
-------
APPENDIX E
PROCEDURES FOR PARTICLE SIZE DETERMINATION
-------
Samples for particle size analysis were collected at
the same locations as some of the downwind hi vol samples.
A nucleopore filter holder and pump were used to obtain the
particulate samples on 47 mm millipore filters. Samples
were taken for a shorter time period than the corresponding
hi vols so that distinct particles could easily be observed
as a result of the light loading on the filter media. No
effort was made to determine the weight of material collected
or to calculate concentrations from the millipore samples.
The 67 samples were labeled and transported to the
laboratory in individual plastic containers.
A wedge was cut from each filter and a slide prepared
by wetting the wedge with fluid of refractive index 1.55 and
covering it with a cover slip. A Porton reticle of field
2
area 0.0492 mm was used to define the counting area. The
particle size distributions in four of these fields were
determined using a polarizing microscope.
The majority of particles on all slides were roughly
square in cross section, so a cubic shape factor was assumed.
The number of particles in the four fields in each of 11
size ranges was counted and recorded. Distribution of
particles by weight was calculated by computer. A uniform
density for all particles was assumed. Finally, mass median
diameter for each sample was determined by plotting the
percentages by weight in each size range cumulatively on log
probability paper. In most cases, the resulting curves were
nearly linear.
A Polaroid photograph at 100X magnification was taken
of each slide. The photographs are not necessarily of one
of the four fields which was counted. One photograph for
each of the five mines is shown in Figures D-l through D-5.
Ill
-------
Figure D-l. Particles from haul roads at mine A at 20 m
distance, 100X.
Figure D-2. Particles from storage piles at mine B at 30 m
distance, 100X.
112
-------
•. .>.*
Figure D-3. Particles from coal blasting at mine C at 110 m
distance, 100X.
Figure D-4. Particles from dragline operation at mine D at
85 m distance, 100X.
113
-------
Figure D-5. Particles from truck dump at mine E at 10 m
distance, 100X.
114
-------
1. REPORT NO. 2
EPA-908/1-78-003
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Survey of Fugitive Dust from Coal Mines
7. AUTHOR(S)
Kenneth Axetell, Jr.
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
PEDCo Environmental, Inc.
Chester Towers, 11499 Chester Road
Cincinnati, Ohio 45246
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region VIII, Air Planning & Operations Section
Denver, Colorado 80295
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.
5. REPORT DATE
February 1978
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
3311
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
68-01-4489
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Final
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
U.S. EPA Project Officer - E. A. Rachal, Air Planning & Operations Section
16. ABSTRACT
Particulate sampling was performed at five Western surface coal
mines for the purpose of developing emission factors for individual min-
ing operations. The sampling method for these unconfined fugitive dust
sources was upwind/downwind ambient sampling, with two upwind samplers
and either four or six samplers in the plume for each sampling period.
Emission rates were determined by use of atmospheric dispersion equation
relating emissions and ambient concentrations. A total of 213 sampling
periods were evenly distributed among the five mines.
Emission factors were produced for 12 mining operations: dragline,
haul roads, shovel/truck loading, blasting, truck dump, storage pile,
drilling, fly-ash dump, train loading, topsoil removal, front-end loader
and overburden dumping. One other source, exposed areas, was sampled
extensively but yielded unexplainable data that could not be used to
develop an emission factor.
The study was also designed to evaluate the fallout or deposition
rate of particulate from the coal mining sources. However, the apparent
emission rates calculated from concurrent samples taken at different dis
tances from the source did not show a consistent decrease with distance
to indicate that fallout was occurring.
17.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
«. DESCRIPTORS
Descriptors :
Coal Mines
Particulates
Emission Factors
Mining
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Unlimited.
b. IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
Identifier:
Western United States
Fugitive Emissions
Particle Size Distribu
tion
19. SECURITY CLASS (This Report}
Unclassified
20. SECURITY CLASS (This page)
c. COSATI Field/Group
21. NO. OF PAGES
114
22. PRICE
.
EPA Form 2220-1 (R»v. 4-77) PREVIOUS EDITION is OBSOLETE
------- |