United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Air
P'annin^and Standards
Research Triangle ."ark NC 27711
EPM-45C/3-&8-308
September 1988
Air
CONTROL OF
OPEN FUGITIVE
DUST SOURCES
7
-------
EPA-450/3-38-008
CONTROL OF OPEN FUGITIVE DUST SOURCES
FINAL REPORT
by
C. Cowherd, G. E. Muleski, and J. S. Kinsey
Midwest Research Institute
425 Volker Boulevard
Kansas City, Missouri 64110
EPA Contract No. 68-02-4395
Work Assignment 14
MRI Project 8985-14
William L. Elmore, Project Officer
Emission Standards Division
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
September 1988
-------
This report has been reviewed by the Emission Standards Division of the Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, EPA, and approved for publication. Mention of trade names or commercial products is not
intended to constitute endorsement or recommendation for use. Copies of this report are available through
the Library Services Office (MD-35), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park NC
27711, or from National Technical Information Services, 5285 Port Royal, Springfield VA 221 61.
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We wish to acknowledge the significant contributions of a number of
individuals to the success of this project. Much of the information
contained in this report was developed at a cooperative working session
attended by U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), State, local
program, and contractor personnel. Without their cooperation in sharing
data, discussing control strategies, and reviewing document drafts, this
study would not have been possible. The individuals who made significant
contributions and their organizational affiliations are listed below.
Frances Beyer, MRI
Chat Cowherd, MRI
Francis Daniel, APCD, Va.
Jim Dewey, Region V
Ken Durkee, ESD
Larry Elmore, ESD
Chuck Fryxell, San Bernardino County APCD, Calif.
Lynn Kaufman, MRI
Susan Kulstad, Region I
Ed McCarley, TSO
Greg Muleski, MRI
Duane Ono, Region IX
Tom Pace, AQMD
Butch Smith, MRI
Ken Woodard, AQMD
i i i
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
SECTION 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1-1
1.1 CONTROL OPTIONS 1-1
1.2 SCOPE OF THE DOCUMENT 1-3
SECTION 2.0 PAVED ROADS 2-1
2.1 PUBLIC PAVED ROADS 2-3
2.1.1 Estimation of Emissions 2-4
2.1.2 Demonstrated Control Techniques for
Public Paved Roads 2-6
2.2 INDUSTRIAL PAVED ROADS 2-10
2.2.1 Estimation of Emissions 2-10
2.2.2 Demonstrated Control Techniques for
Industrial Paved Roads 2-11
2.3 EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVE CONTROL MEASURES 2-11
2.3.1 Preventive Measures 2-11
2.3.1.1 Salting/Sanding for Snow and Ice 2-14.
2.3.1.2 Carryout from Unpaved Areas and
Construction Sites -.. 2-16
2.3.1.3 Other Preventive Control Measures 2-17
2.3.2 Mitigative Measures' 2^17
2.3.2.1 Broom Sweeping of Roads 2-18
2.3.2.2 Vacuum Sweeping of Roads 2-22
2.3.2.3 Water Flushing of Roads 2-25
2.4 EXAMPLE DUST CONTROL PLAN 2-28
2.5 POTENTIAL REGULATORY FORMATS 2-29
2.5.1 General Guidelines 2-29
2.5.2 Example SIP Language for Reduction of
Public Paved Road Surface Contaminants.. 2-32
2.6 REFERENCES FOR SECTION 2 2-35
SECTION 3.0 UNPAVED ROADS 3-1
3.1 ESTIMATION OF EMISSIONS FROM UNPAVED ROADS 3-2
3.2 DEMONSTRATED CONTROL TECHNIQUES FOR UNPAVED ROADS 3-6
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
3.3 EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVE CONTROL MEASURES 3-10
3.3.1 Source Extent Reductions 3-10
3.3.2 Surface Improvements 3-10
3.3.2.1 Paving 3-10
3.3.2.2 Gravel/Slag Improvements 3-11
3.3.2.3 Vegetative Cover -3-11
3.3.3 Surface Treatments 3-12
3.3.3.1 Watering 3-12
3.3.3.2 Chemical Treatments 3-16
3.4 EXAMPLE DUST CONTROL PLAN 3-23
3.4.1 Example Water Program 3-23
3.4.2 Example Chemical Dust Suppressant Program 3-23
3.5 POTENTIAL REGULATORY FORMATS 3-24
3.6 REFERENCES FOR SECTION 3 3-29
SECTION 4.0 STORAGE PILES 4-1
4.1 ESTIMATION OF EMISSIONS 4-1
4.1.1 Materials Handling 4-3
4.1.2 Wind Erosion..... 4-4
4.1.2.1 Emissions and Correction
Parameters-. 4-4
4.1.2.2 Predictive Emission Factor
Equation 4-5
4.1.3 Wind Emissions From Continuously Active
Piles 4-17
4.2 DEMONSTRATED CONTROL TECHNIQUES 4-18
4.3 EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVE CONTROL MEASURES 4-20
4.3.1 Chemical Stabilization 4-20
4.3.2 Enclosures 4-21
4.3.3 Wet Suppression Systems 4-24
4.4 EXAMPLE DUST CONTROL PLAN—WATERING OF COAL
STORAGE PILE 4-24
4.5 POTENTIAL REGULATORY FORMATS 4-24
4.6 REFERENCES FOR SECTION 4 4-24
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
Page
SECTION 5.0 CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION ACTIVITIES 5-1
5.1 ESTIMATION OF EMISSIONS 5-2
5.1.1 Construction Emissions 5-2
5.1.2 Demolition Emissions 5-3
5.1.2.1 Dismemberment 5-3
5.1.2.3 Debris Loading . 5-4
5.1.2.4 Onsite Truck Traffic 5-4
5.1.2.5 Pushing Operations 5-4
5.1.3 Mud/Dirt Carryout Emissions 5-5
5.2 DEMONSTRATED CONTROL TECHNIQUES 5-5
5.2.1 Work Practice Controls 5-7
5.2.2 Traditional Control Technology 5-8
5.3 EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVE CONTROL MEASURES 5-9
5.3.1 Watering of Unpaved Surfaces 5-9
5.3.1.1 Control Efficiency 5-9
5.3.1.2 Control Costs.... 5-13
5.3.1.3 Enforcement Issues 5-13
5.3.2 Wet Suppression for Materials Storage
and Handling .. 5-14
5.3.2.1 Control Efficiency 5-14
5.3.2.2 Control Costs..... 5-19
5.3.2.3 Enforcement Issues— ... 5-19
5.3.3 Portable Wind Screens or Fences 5-20
5.3.3.1 Control Efficiency 5-20
5.3.3.2 Control Costs 5-22
5.3.3.3 Enforcement Issues.. 5-23
5.3.4 Drilling Control Technology 5-23
5.3.4.1 Control Efficiency 5-23
5.3.4.2 Control Costs 5-24
5.3.4.3 Enforcement Issues 5-25
5.3.5 Control of Mud/Dirt Carryout 5-25
5.3.5.1 Control Efficiency 5-25
5.3.5.2 Control Costs 5-27
5.3.5.3 Enforcement Issues 5-27
5.4 EXAMPLE DUST CONTROL PLAN 5-28
5.5 POTENTIAL REGULATORY FORMATS 5-28
5.5.1 Permit System 5-32
5.5.2 Opacity Standards 5-35
5.5.3 Other Indirect Measures of Control
Performance 5-35
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
5.5.4 Example Rule 5-36
5.5.4.1 Conditions for Construction 5-36
5.5.4.2 Control Mud/Dirt Carryout 5-38
5.5.4.3 Control of Haul Road Emissions... 5-38
5.5.4.4 Stabilize Soils at Work Sites 5-38
5.5.4.5 Record Control Application 5-38
5.5.4.6 Modification of Permit
Provi s i ons 5-38
5.6 REFERENCES FOR SECTION 5 5-41
SECTION 6.0 OPEN AREA WIND EROSION 6-1
6.1 ESTIMATION OF EMISSIONS 6-7
6.1.1 "Limited" Erosion Potential 6-7
6.1.2 "Unlimited" Erosion Potential 6-16
6.2 DEMONSTRATED CONTROL TECHNIQUES 6-17
6.3 EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVE CONTROL MEASURES 6-18
6.3.1 Chemical Stabilization 6-18
6.3.2 Wind Fences/Barriers 6-18
6.3.3 Vegetative Cover 6-21
6.3.4 Limited Irrigation of Barren Field 6-23
6.4 EXAMPLE DUST CONTROL PLAN—COVERING UNPAVED
PARKING LOT WITH LESS ERODIBILE SURFACE
MATERIAL.... 6-23
6.5 POTENTIAL REGULATORY FORMATS.... 6-25
6.6 REFERENCES FOR SECTION 6 6-29
SECTION 7.0 AGRICULTURE '. 7-1
7.1 ESTIMATION OF EMISSIONS 7-1
7.1.1 Tilling 7-1
7.1.2 Wind Erosion 7-2
7.1.2.1 Simplified Version of Wind
Erosion Equation 7-2
7.1.2.2 New Wind Erosion Prediction
Technology 7-19
7.2 DEMONSTRATED CONTROL TECHNIQUES 7-20
7.2.1 Tilling 7-20
7.2.2 Wind Erosion 7-23
VI 1 1
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
Page
7.3 EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVE CONTROL MEASURES 7-24
7.3.1 Tilling 7-24
7.3.2 Wind Erosion 7-24
7.3.2.1 Vegetative Cover 7-24
7.3.2.2 Tillage Practices 7-25
7.3.2.3 Windbreaks and Wind Barriers 7-27
7.3.2.4 Strip-Cropping 7-28
7.3.2.5 Limited Irrigation of Fallow
Field 7-28
7.4 POSSIBLE REGULATORY FORMATS 7-29
7.5 REFERENCES FOR SECTION 7 7-30
APPENDIX A OPEN DUST SOURCE CONTROL EFFICIENCY TERMINOLOGY A-l
APPENDIX B ESTIMATION OF CONTROL COSTS AND COST EFFECTIVENESS B-l
APPENDIX C METHODS OF COMPLIANCE DETERMINATION FOR OPEN SOURCES.. C-l
APPENDIX D PROCEDURES FOR SAMPLING SURFACE/BULK MATERIALS D-l
APPENDIX E PROCEDURES FOR LABORATORY ANALYSIS OF SURFACE/BULK
SAMPLES ..,,.... E-l
APPENDIX F FUGITIVE EMISSIONS PUBLICATIONS CURRENTLY ON FILE..... F-l
APPENDIX G EXAMPLE REGULATIONS G-l
APPENDIX H FOOD SECURITIES ACT H-l
-------
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Fugitive participate emissions are emitted by a wide variety of
sources both in the industrial and in the nonindustrial sectors. Fugitive
emissions refer to those air pollutants that enter the atmosphere without
first passing through a stack or duct designed to direct or control their
flow.
Sources of fugitive particulate emissions may be separated into two
broad categories: process sources and open dust sources. Process sources
of fugitive emissions are those associated with industrial operations that
alter the chemical or physical characteristics of a feed material. Open
dust sources are those that entail generation of fugitive emissions of
solid particles by the forces of wind or machinery acting on exposed
materials.
Open dust sources include industrial sources of particulate emissions
associated with the open transport, storage, and transfer of raw,
intermediate, and waste aggregate materials and nonindustrial sources such
as unpaved roads and parking lots, paved streets and highways, heavy
construction activities, and agricultural tilling. Generic categories of
open dust sources are listed in Table 1-1. In some instances, the term
fugitive dust may be further restricted to include only nonindustrial
sources.
1.1 CONTROL OPTIONS
Typically, there are several options for control of fugitive
particulate emissions from any given source. This is clear from the
mathematical equation used to calculate the emission rate:
R = M e (1 - c)
where: R = estimated mass emission rate
M = source extent (i.e., surface area for most open dust sources)
e = uncontrolled emission factor, i.e., mass of uncontrolled
emissions per unit of source extent
c = fractional efficiency of control
1-1
-------
TABLE 1-1. GENERIC CATEGORIES OF OPEN DUST SOURCES
1. Unpaved Travel Surfaces
• Roads
• Parking lots and staging areas
• Storage piles
2. Paved Travel Surfaces
" Streets and highways
• Parking lots and staging areas
3. Exposed Areas (wind erosion)
• Storage piles
• Bare ground areas
4. Materials Handling
• Batch drop (dumping)
• Continuous drop (conveyor transfer, stacking)
• Pushing (dozing, grading, scraping)
- Tilling
1-2
-------
To begin with, because the uncontrolled emission rate is the product of
the source extent and uncontrolled emission factor, a reduction in either
of these two variables produces a proportional reduction in the
uncontrolled emission rate.
Although the reduction of source extent results in a highly
predictable reduction in the uncontrolled emission rate, such an approach
in effect usually requires a change in the process operation. Frequently,
reduction in the extent of one source may necessitate the increase in the
extent of another, as in the shifting of vehicle traffic from an unpaved
road to a paved road. The option of reducing source extent is beyond the
scope of this manual and will not be discussed further.
The reduction in the uncontrolled emission factor may be achieved by
process modifications (in the case of process sources) or by adjusted work
practices (in the case of open sources). The degree of the possible
reduction of the uncontrolled emission factor can be estimated from the
known dependence of the factor on source conditions that are subject to
alteration. For open dust sources, this information is embodied in the
predictive emission factor equations for fugitive dust sources as
presented in Section 11.2 of EPA's "Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission
Factors" (AP-42).
The reduction of source extent and the incorporation of process
modifications or adjusted work practices which reduce the amount of
exposed dust-producing material are preventive techniques for control of
fugitive dust emissions. This would include, for example, the elimination
of mud/dirt carryout onto paved roads at construction and demolition
sites.
On the other hand, mitigative measures involve the periodic removal
of dust-producing material. Examples of mitigative measures include:
cleanup of spillage on travel surfaces (paved and unpaved) and cleanup of
material spillage at conveyor transfer points.
1.2 SCOPE OF THE DOCUMENT
Prior to the use of this manual, the reader should have a general
idea of what sources within the specified jurisdictional boundary may
require additional control programs to achieve desired air quality goals.
This determination may be based on a prior total suspended particulate
1-3
-------
(TSP) inventory of the area, discussions with field inspection personnel,
or any other information source. Because the cost of many open dust
source controls is directly related to the area of the source (e.g.,
surface area of a storage pile to be chemically stabilized, roadway area
to be swept or flushed, etc.), the user may employ the ratio:
Uncontrolled emission rate
Source surface area
to prioritize sources for control. Regulatory personnel may wish to also
combine this ratio with some measure of the affected population (e.g.,
zoning areas or population density within a certain distance of the
source). This would be in keeping with guidance provided in a recent EPA
draft urban dust policy.
The purpose of this document is to provide regulatory personnel with
sufficient information to develop control plans for open dust sources of
PM10 (i.e., particulate matter emissions no greater than 10 microns (ym)
in aerodynamic diameter). Each section deals with a different source
category:
Section 2.0~Paved Roadways
a. Public
b. Industrial
Section 3.0~Unpaved Roadways
a. Public
b. Industrial
Section 4.0—Storage Piles
Section 5.0—Construction/Demolition Activities
Section 6.0—Open Area Wind Erosion
Section 7.0—Agriculture
Each section begins with an overview of the source category,
describing emission characteristics and mechanisms. Following this,
available emission factors are presented to provide a basis for analyzing
the operative nature of control measures. Next, demonstrated control
techniques are discussed in terms of estimating efficiency and determining
costs of implementation. Suggested regulatory formats explain the
"philosophy" used in implementing the preceding technical discussions in
1-4
-------
viable regulations and compliance actions. Example regulations for each
source category are presented in an appendix. These examples are
predicated on a permit and penalty system as outlined in Table 1-2.
Control agencies may issue construction, operation, and use permits to
owners of many sources of fugitive PM10 emissions. These permits can be
used to specify the conditions or activities that must be provided or
undertaken by the source to ensure attainment of the PM10 emission
reduction goals of the Agency's control plan. A permit system also may
specify permit fees and compliance penalties which can be used to offset
the costs of administering an inspection and enforcement program.
Specific sources that may be appropriate for inclusion in a permit system
include the following sources.
• Industrial roads • Feed lots
• Storage piles • Staging areas
• Construction/demolition sites • Off-road recreational areas
• Vacant lots • Land disposal sites
• Parking lots • Landfills
In addition, a series of other appendices are also included which
discuss terminology used in this manual, a general costing procedure used
for open dust source controls and general recordkeeping/inspection
procedures.
1-5
-------
TABLE 1-2. PERMIT AND PENALTY SYSTEM
Permits
1. Any Control Agency may establish, by regulation, a permit that
requires, except as provided below, that before any person engages in any
activity which will cause the issuance of fugitive PM10 emissions, such
person obtain a permit to do so from the control officer of the agency.
2. A permit system shall:
a. Ensure that the activity for which the permit was issued shall
not prevent or interfere with the attainment or maintenance of the Federal
PM10 standard. Attainment can be demonstrated through dispersion modeling
of ambient concentrations resulting from source emissions.
b. Prohibit the issuance of a permit unless the control officer is
satisfied, on the basis adopted by the Control Agency, that the activity
will comply with all applicable orders, rules, and regulations of the
agency.
3. The control, officer may impose conditions on the permit to ensure
that the provisions of 2(a) and (b) are met. The control officer, at any
time, may require from an applicant, or the holder of a permit, such
information, analyses, plans, or specifications which will disclose the
nature, extent, quantity, or degree of fugitive PM10 emissions which are,
or may be, discharged by the source for which a permit was issued or
applied. • . .
4. The Control Agency may adopt a schedule of fees for the
evaluation, issuance, and renewal of permits to cover the cost of the
agency programs related to the permitted sources.
5. Exemptions:
a. Size;
b. Duration; and
c. Location
Penalties
la. Any person who violates any PMIO fugitive dust order, permit,
rule, or regulation of the Control Agency is guilty of a misdemeaner and
is subject to a fine of not more than one thousand dollars ($1,000), or
imprisonment in the county jail for not more than 6 months, or both.
Ib. Each infraction on each day during any portion of which a
violation of paragraph l(a) occurs is a separate offense.
(continued)
1-6
-------
TABLE 1-2. (continued)
Penalties (continued)
2a. Any person who negligently emits an air contaminant in violation
of any PM10 fugitive dust order, permit, rule, or regulation of the
Control Agency pertaining to emission regulations or limitations is guilty
of a misdemeanor and is subject to a fine of not more than ten thousand
dollars ($10,000), or imprisonment in the county jail for not more than
9 months, or both.
2b. Each infraction on each day during any portion of which a
violation occurs is a separate offense.
3a. Any person who emits PM10 fugitive dust in violation of any
order, permit, rule, or regulation of the Control Agency pertaining to
emission regulations or limitations, who knew of the emission and failed
to take corrective action within a reasonable time under the circum-
stances, is guilty of a misdemeanor and is subject to a fine of not more
than twenty five thousand dollars ($25,000), or imprisonment in the county
jail for not more than 1 year, or both.
For the purposes of this paragraph, "corrective action" means the
termination of the emission violation or the grant of a variance from the
applicable order, permit, rule, or regulation.
3b. Any person who, knowingly and with intent to deceive, falsifies
any document required to be kept pursuant to any order, permit, rule, or
regulation of the Control Agency is guilty of a misdemeanor and is punish-
able as provided in paragraph 3(a).
3c. Each infraction on each day during any portion of which a
violation occurs constitutes a separate offense.
1-7
-------
2.0 PAVED ROADS
Particulate emissions occur whenever a vehicle travels over a paved
surface, such as public and industrial roads and parking lots. These
emissions may originate from material previously deposited on the travel
surface, or resuspension of material from tires and undercarriages. In
general, emissions arise primarily from the surface material loading
(measured as mass of material per unit area), and that loading is in turn
replenished by other sources (e.g., pavement wear, deposition of material
from vehicles, deposition from other nearby sources, carryout from
surrounding unpaved areas, and litter). Because of the importance of the
surface loading, available control techniques either attempt to prevent
material from being deposited on the surface or to remove (from the travel
lanes) any material that has been deposited. Table 2-1 presents estimated
deposition rates for paved roads. Note that these estimates date from a
1977 report and may not accurately reflect current trends.1
The following sections present a discussion of the various types of
paved sources, available emission factors, viable control measures, and
.methods of determining controlled emission levels.
While the mechanisms of particle deposition and resuspension are
largely the same for public and industrial roads, there can be major
differences in surface loading characteristics, emission levels, traffic
characteristics, and viable control options. For the purpose of
estimating particulate emissions and determining control programs, the
distinction between public and industrial roads is not a question of
ownership but rather a question of surface loading and traffic
characteristics.
Although public roads generally tend to have lower surface loadings
than industrial roads, the fact that these roads have far greater traffic
volumes may result in a substantial contribution to the measured air
quality in certain areas. In addition, many public roads in industrial
areas often are heavily loaded and traveled by heavy vehicles. In that
instance, better emission estimates would be obtained by treating these
roads as industrial roads. In an extreme case, a road or parking lot may
have such a high surface loading that the paved surface is essentially
2-1
-------
TABLE 2-1. ESTIMATED DEPOSITION RATESa
Typical rate,
Deposition process Ib/curb-mi/day
Mud and dirt carryout 100
Litter 40
Biological debris 20
Ice control compounds 10
Dustfall 10
Pavement wear and decomposition 10
Vehicle-related (including tire wear) 17
Spills <2
Erosion from adjacent areas 20
aSource: EPA-907/9-77-007.1 As noted in the text, these
estimates date from 1977 and may not accurately reflect
current conditions or deposition at a specific location.
2-2
-------
covered and is easily mistaken for an unpaved road. In that event, use of
a paved road emission factor may actually result in a higher estimate than
that obtained from the unpaved factor, and the road is better
characterized as unpaved in nature rather than paved.2
As noted in the introduction, the reader, prior to using this manual,
should have a general idea of what paved roads in his/her jurisdiction
require additional controls. Furthermore, he/she should also have a
general idea of what sources are contributing significantly to increased
surface loadings on the roads requiring control. For example, heavy
trucks may spill part of their load onto public roads in industrial areas,
or large amounts of salt and sand may be applied during winter months.
Prior to use of the information in this section, the reader should
formulate preliminary answers to the following questions:
1. What paved roads are heavily loaded and thus likely to contribute
a disproportionate share of emissions?
2. What sources are likely to contribute to these elevated surface
loadings?
3. Who is the responsible party for each source identified in
2 above? .
4. Can the carryout/deposition from each identified source be
prevented or must the affected roadway be cleaned afterward?
5. Should any responsible party be granted an exclusion and on what
basis?
2.1 PUBLIC PAVED ROADS
As discussed above, the term "public" is used in this manual to
denote not only ownership of the road but also its surface and' traffic
characteristics. Roads in this class generally are fairly li'ghtly loaded,
are used primarily by light-duty vehicles, and usually have curbs and
gutters. Examples are streets in residential and commercial areas and
major thoroughfares (including freeways and arterials).
2-3
-------
2.1.1 Estimation of Emissions
The current AP-42 PM10 emission factor for urban paved roads is: 3
e = 2.28 (sL/0.5)o.s (g/VKT)
(2-1)
e = 0.0081 (sL/0.7)o.s (Ib/VMT)
where: e = PM10 emission factor, in units shown above
s = surface silt content, fraction of material smaller than
75 ym in diameter
L = total surface dust loading, g/m2 (grains/ft2)
VKT = vehicle kilometers traveled
VMT = vehicle miles traveled
The above equation is not rated in AP-42 (see Appendix A).
The product sL represents the mass of silt-size dust particles per
unit area of the road surface and is usually termed the "silt loading."
As is the case for all predictive models in AP-42, the use of site^-
specific (i.e., measured—using the methodology presented in Appendices D
and E—for the sources under consideration) values of si is strongly
recommended. However, because measurement is not always feasible, AP-42
presents default values for use. Tables 2-2 and 2-3 present a summary of
silt loadings as a function of roadway classification and the scheme used
to classify roadways, respectively. In general, roads with a higher
traffic volume tend to have lower surface silt loadings. This
relationship is expressed in the empirical model presented in Reference 4:
sL = 21.3/(Vo.M) ' (2-2)
where: sL = surface silt loading (g/m2)
V = average daily traffic volume (vehicles/d)
Several items should be noted about Table 2-2 and Equation (2-2).
First, samples are restricted to the eastern and midwestern portions of
the country. While these can be considered representative of most large
urban areas of the United States, it is generally believed that surface
silt loadings in the Southwest can be quite higher. Available data,
2-4
-------
TABLE 2-2. SUMMARY OF SILT LOADINGS (sL) FOR PAVED URBAN ROADWAYSa
Roadway category
City
Baltimore
Buffalo
Granite
City, 111.
Kansas City
St. Louis
All
Local
streets
Xg (g/m2)
1.42
1.41
—
—
—
1.41
Collector
streets
n Xg (g/m2) n
2 0.72 4
5 0.29 2
—
2.11 4
—
7 0.92 10
Major
streets/ Freeways/
highways expressways
Xg (g/m2) n Xg (g/m2) n
0.39 3
0.24 4
0.82 3
0.41 13
0.16 3 0.022 1
0.36 26 0.022 1
Reference 3. X_ = geometric mean based on corresponding n sample size.
Dash = not available. To convert g/m2 to grains/ft2 multiply g/m2 by
1.4337.
TABLE 2-3. PAVED URBAN ROADWAY CLASSIFICATIONa
Roadway category
Freeways/expressways
Major streets/highways
Collector streets
Local streets
Average
daily
traffic
(vehicles)
>50,000
> 10, 000
500-10,000
<500
Lanes
>4
>4
2b
2c
^Reference 3.
DRoad width > 32 ft.
cRoad width < 32 ft.
2-5
-------
however, do not necessarily support this suspicion; the following compares
surface silt loadings from Table 2-2 and two counties in Arizona:
Street classification
Arterial /major
Collector
Table 2-2
0.36
0.92
Geometric mean sL (g/m2)
Maricopa Co.5
0.057
0.10
Pima Co.5
0.067
0.13
These differences may be partially the result of different measurement
techniques and/or of lower measured silt fractions of materials on the
Arizona roads. Once again, the use of site-specific data is stressed.
2.1.2 Demonstrated Control Techniques for Public Paved Roads
As mentioned in the introduction to this section, available control
methods are largely designed either to prevent deposition of material on
the roadway surface or to remove material which has been deposited in the
driving lanes. Measurement-based efficiency values for control methods
are presented in Table 2-4. Note that all values in this table are for
mitigative measures applied to industrial paved roads.
In terms of public paved road dust control, only very limited field
measurement data are available. One reference was found that could be
used to indirectly quantify emission reductions and this, too, is for
mitigative measures. Estimated PM10 control efficiencies (Table 2-5) were
developed by applying Equation (2-1) to measurements before and after road
cleaning.6 Note that these estimates should be considered upper bounds on
efficiencies obtained in practice because no redeposition after cleaning
is considered. Note also that these estimated emission control
efficiencies for urban roads compare fairly well with measurements at
industrial roads. No airborne mass emission measurements quantifying
control efficiency were found.
In general terms, one would expect that demonstrated, control
techniques applied to industrial paved roads could also be applied to
public roads. One important point to note, however, is that it is
generally recognized that mitigative measures decrease in effectiveness as
2-6
-------
TABLE 2-4. MEASURED EFFICIENCY VALUES FOR PAVED ROAD CONTROLS3
Method
Cited
efficiency
Comments
Vacuum sweeping 0-58 percent
Water flushing
Water flushing
followed by
sweeping
46 percent
69-0.231 Vc'd
96-0.263 Vc'd
Field emission measurement (PM-15)
12,000-cfm blower0
Reference 7, based on field measurement
of 30 ym particulate emissions
Field measurement of PM-15 emissions
Field measurement of PM-15 emissions
Reference 8, except as noted. All results based on measurements of air
emissions from industrial paved roads. Broom sweeping measurements
.presented in Section 2.3.2.1.
PM10 control efficiency can be assumed to be the same as that tested.
^Water applied at 0.48 gal/yd*.
Equation yields efficiency in percent, V = number of vehicle passes since
application.
TABLE 2-5. ESTIMATED PM10 EMISSION CONTROL EFFICIENCIES3
Estimated PM10
Method efficiency, %
Vacuum sweeping
34
Improved vacuum sweeping1
37
Reference 6. Estimated based on measured initial and residual <63 urn
loadings on urban paved roads and Equation (2-1). Value reported
represents the mean of 13 tests for each method. Broom sweeping mean
(18 tests) given in Section 2.3.2.1.
Sweeping improvements described in Reference 6.
2-7
-------
the surface loadings decrease. Because mitigative measures are less
effective for public paved roads, a recent EPA draft urban dust policy
stresses the importance of preventive measures, especially in instances
where no dominant or localized source of road loading can be identified.
Example sources would include: (1) unpaved areas adjacent to the road;
(2) erosion due to storm water runoff; and (3) spillage, from passing
trucks. Corresponding examples of preventive measures include:
(1) installing curbs, paving shoulders, or painting lines near the edge of
the pavement; (2) controlling storm water or using vegetation to stabilize
surrounding areas; and (3) requiring trucks to be covered and to maintain
freeboard (i.e., distance between top of the load and top of truck bed
sides). In instances where the source of loading can be easily identified
(e.g., salt or sand spread during snow or ice storms) or the effects are
localized (e.g., near the entrance to construction sites or unpaved
parking lots), either preventive or mitigative measures could be
prescribed. Table 2-6 summarizes Agency guidance on nonindustrial paved
road preventive controls.
There are few efficiency values for any of the preventive measures
presented in Table 2-6.. Because these measures are designed to prevent
deposition of additional material onto the paved surface, quantitative
measurements before and after the control are generally not possible and
interpretation of results are complicated. For example, based on ambient
TSP monitoring results over a 3-month period, immediate and continuous
manual cleaning of the access area to a construction site was estimated to
result in -30 percent control.1 It is unclear, however, what effect
seasonal variation in the monitoring data has on the estimate of
30 percent. Also, because this estimate is based on ambient air
concentrations, use of the value may be inconsistent with the other effi-
ciency estimates given in this chapter. Consequently, one very important
further development deals with efficiency estimates for preventive
measures.
A recent update of AP-42 Chapter 11.2 (Fugitive Dust Sources)--
compared measured controlled emissions with estimates based on the reduced
loading values, using the industrial paved road model presented in the
next section.2 Despite the fact that the reduced surface loadings were
2-8
-------
TABLE 2-6. NONINDUSTRIAL PAVED ROAD DUST SOURCES AND PREVENTIVE CONTROLS
Source of deposit on road
Recommended controls
— Sanding/salt
— Spills from haul trucks
Construction carryout and
entrainment
Vehicle entrainment from
unpaved adjacent areas
Erosion from stormwater washing
-onto streets
Wind erosion from adjacent
areas
-- Other
— Make more effective use of
abrasives through planning,
uniform spreading, etc.
— Improve the abrasive material
through specifications limiting
the amount of fines and material
hardness, etc.
~ Rapid cleanup after streets become
clear and dry
~ Require trucks to be covered
~ Require freeboard between load and
top of hopper
— Wet material being hauled
— Clean vehicles before entering road
— Pave access road near site exit
— Semicontinuous cleanup of exit
-- Pave/stabilize portion of unpaved
areas nearest to paved road
— Storm water control
~ Vegetative stabilization
— Rapid cleanup after event
~ Wind breaks
— Vegetative stabilization or
chemical sealing of ground
~ Pave/treat parking areas, drive-
ways, shoulders
~ Limit traffic or other use that
disturbs soil surface
— Case-by-case determination
2-9
-------
often outside the range of the underlying data base, predictive accuracy
was found to be quite good, both for vacuum sweeping and water flushing.
For those two controls, the available data suggest that adequate estimates
of controlled emission can be obtained from the predictive models. For
flushing combined with broom sweeping, however, the estimates
substantially overpredicted (by approximately a factor of 5) controlled
emissions versus the measured values.
2.2 INDUSTRIAL PAVED ROADS
As noted earlier, emission estimation for paved roads depends less
upon its ownership and more upon its surface material and traffic
characteristics. In this manual, the term "industrial" paved road is used
to denote those roads with higher surface loadings and/or are traveled by
heavier vehicles. Consequently, some publicly owned roads are better
characterized as industrial in terms of emissions. Examples would include
city streets in heavily industrialized areas or areas of construction as
well as paved roads in industrial complexes.
2.2.1 Estimation of Emissions
The current AP-42 PM10 emission factor for industrial paved roads
e = 220 (sl_/12)o.3 (g/VKT)
(2-3)
e = 0.77 (sL/0.35)°.3 (Ib/VMT)
where: e = emission factor, in units given above
sL = surface silt loading, g/m2 (oz/yd2)
The above equation is rated "A" in AP-42 (see Appendix A).
Alternatively, AP-42 presents a single-valued emission factor for use
in lieu of Equation (2-3) for PM10 emissions from light-duty vehicles on
heavily loaded industrial roads:
e = 93 (g/VKT)
(2-4)
e = 0.33 (Ib/VMT)
2-10
-------
where e is as defined above. These single-valued emission factors are
rated "C" (see Appendix A). Although no hard and fast rules can be
provided, Table 2-7 summarizes a recommended decision process for
selecting industrial paved road emission factors.
Table 2-8 presents a summary of silt loading values for industrial
paved roads associated with a variety of industries. As is the case with
all AP-42 Chapter 11.2 emission models, the use of site-specific data is
strongly recommended.
2.2.2 Demonstrated Control Techniques for Industrial Paved Roads
As noted in Section 2.1.2, the vast majority of measured control
efficiency values for paved roads are based on data from industrial
roads. Consequently, the information presented earlier in Table 2-4 is
more applicable to this class of road.
Mitigative measures may be more practical for industrial plant roads
because (1) the responsible party is known; (2) .the roads may be subject
to considerable spillage and carryout from unpaved areas; and (3) all
affected roads are in relatively close proximity, thus allowing a more
efficient use of cleaning equipment. Preventive measures, of course, can
be used in conjunction with plant cleaning programs and prevention is
probably the preferred approach for city streets in industrialized areas
with many potential sources of paved road dust. As before, the lack of
efficiency values for preventive measures remains an important data gap
and requires further investigation.
2.3 EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVE CONTRutTMEASURES
2.3.1 Preventive Measures
These types of control measures prevent the deposition of additional
material's on a paved surface area. As a result, it is difficult to
estimate their control effectiveness. For mitigative controls, before and
after measurement (of surface loadings or of particulate emissions) is
possible; clearly, this is not the case for preventive measures. Limited
field data suggest that a 12-month construction project (without preven-
tion programs) could result in an additional 18 tons/yr of TSP emissions
from an adjacent paved road with 1,000 vehicle passes per day.9 In this
instance, one would expect that PM10 emissions would increase by approxi-
mately 10 tons/yr. As noted before, however, field data available to
2-11
-------
TABLE 2-7. DECISION RULE FOR PAVED ROAD EMISSION ESTIMATES
Silt loading Average vehicle
(sL), g/m2 weight (W), Mg Use model
SL <2
SL <2
sL>2d
2 15a
W
W
W
W
W
> 4
< 4
> 6
< 6
< 6
Equation (2-3)
Equation (2-1)
Equation (2-3)
Equation (2-3)
Equation (2-4)
aFor heavily loaded surfaces (i.e., sL > -300 to 400 g/m2, it
is recommended that the resulting estimate be compared to
that from the unpaved road models (Section 3.0 of this
manual), and the smaller of the two values used.
2-12
-------
TABLE 2-8. INDUSTRIAL PAVED ROAD SILT LOADINGS*
Industry
Copper smelting
Iron and steel
production
Asphalt batching
Concrete batching
Sand and gravel
processing
No. of
sites
1
6
1
1
1
No. of
samples
3
20
3
3
3
Silt, percent
Range
[15.4-21.71
1.1-35.7
(2.6-4.61
(5.2-6.0)
(6.4-7.91
w/w
Mean
(19.01
12.5
(3.31
(5.51
(7.11
No. of
travel
lanes
2
2
1
2
1
Silt loading^
Range
[188-4001
0.09-79
[76-1931
[11-121
[53-951
g/m2
Mean
[2921
12
(120J
(121
[70]
Reference 3. Brackets indicate values based on only one plant visit.
-------
estimate the effectiveness of preventive programs are extremely limited
and often difficult to interpret. This data gap requires further
development.
Instead of assigning control effectiveness values for preventive
measures, regulatory personnel may choose to require all responsible
parties (e.g., general contractors, street departments spreading salt and
sand, businesses/homeowners with unpaved parking lots and driveways) to
either submit control plans or agree to agency-supplied programs. Note
that frequent watering of access areas should be discouraged (if possible)
because that practice may compound carryout problems.
As early as 1971, EPA recommended reasonable mud/dirt carryout
precautions including:
• Watering or use of suppressants at construction/demolition, road
grading, and 1'and clearing sites.
• Prompt removal of materials deposited upon paved roadways.
• Covering of open trucks transporting material likely to become
airborne.
While most states have adapted many of EPA's recommendations to their own
regulations, the vast number-and spatial-distribution of potential
mud/dirt carryout points, as well as the large number of potentially
responsible parties, make enforcement very difficult to plan and
administer. Consequently, smaller jurisdictive areas (such as cities and
counties) should be used in monitoring carryout enforcement.
Note that these local agencies include several other than those
involved in air pollution per se. For example, building permits may be
used to require carryout controls with building inspectors enforcing the
regulations. Finally, it is clear that some agreement with the local
public works department would be necessary to implement modifications in
street sal ting.and sanding procedures or to ensure prompt cleanup (see
Appendix G).
2.3.1.1 Salting/Sanding for Snow and Ice. After winter snow and ice
control programs, the heavy springtime street loadings found- in certain
areas of the country are known to adversely affect ambient PM10
concentrations. For example, data collected in Montana indicates that
road sanding may produce early spring silt loadings 5 to 6 times higher
2-14
-------
than the mean loadings in Table 2-2.3 Because that increase corresponds
to roughly a fourfold increase in the emission level, it is clear that
residual surface loadings represent an important source potentially
requiring control. As indicated in Table 2-6, appropriate controls may
include: (a) clean-up as soon as practical, (b) the use of improved
materials, and (c) improvements in planning or application methods. Note
that option (a) uses mitigative controls which are discussed in
Section 2.3.2. The preventive options are discussed below.
Some municipalities have experimented by supplementing or replacing
their usual snow/ice control materials with other harder and/or coarser
materials. Because the choice of usual materials is based upon local
availability (salt, sand, cinders) and price, it is clear that changes in
materials applied will generally result in higher costs. However, the use
of antiskid materials with either a lower initial silt content or greater
resistance to forming silt-size particles will result in lower road
surface silt loadings. Only limited field measurements comparing
resultant silt contents and no measurements of silt loading values have
been identified; consequently, it is not possible at this time to
accurately estimate the control efficiency.afforded by .use of improved
materials. Local agencies should design small-scale sampling programs
(using the paved road sampling method presented in Appendix D) to estimate
the differences in resulting silt loadings and then apply Equation (2-1)
to determine a control efficiency value appropriate for their situation.
Improvements in planning and application techniques limit the amount
of antiskid material applied to roads in an area. As was the case with
improved materials, no field data are known to exist. However, an
adequate estimate of area wide control efficiency can be obtained by
(a) comparing the amounts of material applied, (b) assuming that both
applications are equally subject to formation of fines, removal, etc.,
(c) assuming that both resultant silt loadings are substantially greater
than the "baseline" (i.e., prewinter) value, and (d) using
Equation (2-1). For example, if a community, through better planning,
uses 30% less antiskid material, than the resultant silt loadings may be
expected to be 30% lower. Use of Equation (2-1) would then indicate an
effective PM10 control efficiency of 24.8%. Note that if assumption (c)
2-15
-------
above does not hold, the estimated control efficiency should be viewed
only as an upper bound.
2.3.1.2 Carryout from Unpaved Areas and Construction Sites. Mud and
dirt carryout from unpaved areas such as parking lots, construction sites,
etc., often accounts for a substantial fraction of paved road silt
loadings in many areas. The elimination of this carryout can
significantly reduce paved road emissions.
As noted earlier, quantification of control efficiencies for
preventive measures is essentially impossible using the standard
before/after measurement approach. The methodology described below
results in upper bounds of emission reductions. That is, the control
afforded cannot be easily described in terms of percent but rather is
discussed in terms of mass emissions prevented.
Furthermore, tracking of material onto a paved road results in
substantial spatial variation in loading about the access point. This
variation may complicate the modeling of emission reductions as well as
their estimation, although these difficulties become less important as the
number of unpaved areas in an area and their access points become larger.
For an individual access point from an unpaved area to a paved road,
let N represent the daily number of vehicles entering or leaving the
area. Let E be given by:
5.5 g/vehicle for N < 25
E = {
13 g/vehicle for N > 25
where E is the unit PM10 emission increase in g/vehicle (see
Section 5.1). Finally, if M represents the daily number of vehicle passes
on the paved road, then the net daily emission reduction (g/d) is given by
E x M, assuming complete prevention.
The emission reduction calculated above assumes that essentially all
carryout from the unpaved area is controlled and, as such, is viewed as an
upper limit. In use, a regulating agency may choose to assign an
effective level of carryout control by using some fraction of the E values
given above to calculate an emission reduction. Also, the regulatory
2-16
-------
agency could choose a percent control efficiency and substantiate
compliance with testing data.
The methods used to control carryout consist of either mitigative
measures on the paved road or preventive measures at the unpaved area or
construction site. Discussion of these measures are presented in
Sections 2.3.2, 3.3, and 5.3.
Finally, field measurements of the increased paved silt loadings
around unpaved areas may also be used to gauge the effectiveness of
control programs. A discussion of this is found in Section 2.5.
2.3.1.3 Other Preventive Control Measures. As shown in Table 2-6,
numerous other preventive controls have been proposed for certain sources
of paved road silt loadings. These controls range from wind fences in
desert regions to keep sand off highways and other roads to measures
designed to prevent losses of materials transported in trucks. No data
are known to exist that quantify the PM10 emission reductions attributable
to these controls. It is recommended that, if the use of one or more of
these controls is contemplated in an area, the local control agency design
small-scale field tests of the surface loadings (as.described in
Appendix D) before and after implementation to determine a reasonable
estimate of the efficiency. Note that, in the design of any program of
that type, particular attention must be paid to spatial variations in both
sources and controls applied. For example, while a program for wind
fences in desert areas would present few complications in assessing
control, a program to assess the impact of, say, storm water control or
haul truck restrictions, must include provisions for the localized (and
possibly, random) nature of the source and its effects on surrounding
roads.
2.3.2 Mitiqative Measures
While preventive measures are to be preferred under the EPA urban
dust policy, some sources of road dust loadings may not be easily
controlled by prevention. Consequently, some mitigative measures may be
necessary to achieve desired goals. This section discusses demonstrated
mitigative measures. -
2-17
-------
2.3.2.1 Broom Sweeping of Roads. Mechanical street cleaners employ
rotary brooms to remove surface materials from roads and parking lots.
Much of their effect is cosmetic, in the sense that, while the roadway
appears much cleaner, a substantial fraction of the original loading is
emitted during the process. Thus, there is some credence to claims that
mechanical cleaning is as much a source as a control of particulate
emissions. Note, however, that mechanical sweeping may be the only viable
option for rapid cleanup of antiskid materials throughout the snow season.
Measurement-based control efficiency for industrial roads (Table 2-4)
and estimated efficiencies for urban roads (Table 2-5) both indicate a
maximum (initial) instantaneous control of roughly 25 to 30%. Efficiency,
of course, can be expected to decrease after cleanup.
Cost elements involved with broom sweeping include the following
capital and operating/maintenance (O&M) expenses:
Capital: Purchase of truck or other device
O&M: Fuel, replacement brushes, truck maintenance, operator labor
Cost data presented in Reference 10 provides the following estimates
for a broom sweeping program:
Initial capital expense: 6,580 to 19,700 $/truck
Annual O&M expense: 27,600 $/truck
All costs are based on April 1985 dollars. Determination of the
number of trucks can be based on an assumption that 3 to. 5 mi of road can
be cleaned per unit per shift.11 Additional cost data for a broom
sweeping program is provided in Table 2-9. ^
Enforcement of a broom sweeping dust control program would ideally
consist of two complementary approaches. The first facet would require
the owner to maintain adequate records that would document to agency
personnel's satisfaction that a regular cleaning program is in place.
(See Appendix C for a suggested recordkeeping format.) The second
approach would involve agency spot checks of controlled roads by taking a
material sample from the road. The latter approach is discussed in
Section 2.5. The sampling method should be essentially the same as that
used in the development of the current AP-42 predictive equations. As
noted earlier, an estimate of the controlled PM10 emission level could
then be obtained.2
2-18
-------
TABLE 2-9. MISCELLANEOUS OPERATION/DESIGNaAND COST DATA FOR
BROOM SWEEPING PAVED ROADS
Purchase price: $18,000 (1978)
$20,000 (1980)
Estimated life expectancy: 5 yr
Approximate annual operating cost during 1981: $65,100—No. 1
$57,000—No. 2
Fuel consumption: 3 mi/gal
Cleaning capacity: 69,700 ftVh at 3 mph
Vehicle weight: 5,000 Ib
Width of area cleaned per pass:. 7.5 ft
Normal sweeping speed: 3 to 5 mile/h
Reference 11. Purchase cost is actual cost in year purchased; other
costs in 1981 dollars.
2-19
-------
Records must be kept that document the frequency of broom sweeping
applied to paved surfaces. Pertinent parameters to be specified in a
control plan and to be regularly recorded include:
General Information to be Specified in the Plan
1. All road segments and parking locations referenced on a map
available to both the responsible party and the regulatory agency
2. Length of each road and area of each parking lot
3. Type of control applied to each road/area and planned frequency
of application
4. Any provisions for weather (e.g., % in of rainfall will be
substituted for one treatment)
Specific Records for Each Road Segment/Parking Area Treatment
1. Date of treatment
2. Operator's initials (note that the operator may keep a separate
log whose information is transferred to the environmental staff's data
sheets)
3. Start and stop times on a particular segment/parking lot, average
speed, number of passes
4. ' Qualitative description of loading before and after treatment
5. Any areas of unusually high loadings, from spills, pavement
deterioration
General Records to be Kept
1. Equipment maintenance records
2. Meteorological log (to the extent that weather influences the
control program—see above)
3. Any equipment malfunctions or downtime.
In addition to those items related to control applications, some of
the regulatory formats suggested in Section 2.5 require that additional
records be kept. These records may include surface material samples or
traffic counts. A suggested format for recording paved surface samples
(following the sampling/analysis procedures given in Appendices D and E)
is presented as Figure 2-1. Traffic counts may be recorded either
manually or using automatic devices (low frequency, I/season, 1/yr).
2-20
-------
Type of Materiel Sampled: ___^_^_
Site of Samplir.c: _ ,
Tvoe of ?aveme~-.r: Asohoir/Concrefe
No. cr Trcrfic Lanes
.Surface Condition
i
Sample No. j Vac. Sag
• I
i
I
i
i
. ! .
i
Time
^occficn*
•
•
• 3 room
; Sweot?
Sample Area (y/n)
'• i
. ; i
i
; j
; i
*'Jse code :iven on plant map for segment icer.fification and indicate sample
iocatior. cr, mao.
Figure 2-1. Example paved road sample log.
2-21
-------
2.3.2.2 Vacuum Sweeping of Roads. Vacuum sweepers remove material
from paved surfaces by entraining particles in a moving air stream. A
hopper is used to contain collected material and air exhausts through a
filter system in a open loop. A regenerative sweeper functions in much the
same way, although the air is continuously recycled. In addition to the
vacuum pickup heads, a sweeper may also be equipped with gutter and other
brooms to enhance collection.
Instantaneous control efficiency (cf. Appendix A) values were given
earlier in Table 2-4. Available data show considerable scatter, ranging
from a field measurement showing no effectiveness (over baseline
uncontrolled emissions) to another field measurement of 58 percent. An
average of the field measurements would indicate a efficiency of
34 percent. In addition, the estimated upper limits for PM10 control of
urban roads (Table 2-5) compare fairly well with that average. Recall
that very adequate controlled emission estimates were obtained using the
industrial paved road model given as Equation (2-3). It is recommended
that material loading samples be employed, if possible, in conjunction
with the model to obtain a better estimate of control effectiveness.
Cost elements involved with vacuum sweeping include the following
capital and operating/maintenance (O&M) expenses:
Capital: Purchase of truck or other device
O&M: Fuel, replacement parts, truck maintenance, operator labor cost
data presented in Reference 10 provides the following estimates for a
vacuum sweeping program
Initial capital expense: 36,800 $/truck
Annual O&M expense: 34,200 $/truck
All costs are based on April 1985 dollars. Determination of the
number of trucks necessary can be made by assuming that 6 mi can be swept
per unit per 12 h.11 Additional cost data for a broom sweeping program is
provided in Table 2-10.
Enforcement of a vacuum sweeping dust control program would ideally
consist of two complementary approaches. The first facet would require
the owner to maintain adequate records that would document to agency
personnel's satisfaction that a regular cleaning program is in place.
(See Appendix C for a suggested recordkeeping format.) The second
2-22
-------
TABLE 2-10. MISCELLANEOUS OPERATION/DESIGNaAND COST DATA FOR
VACUUM SWEEPING PAVED ROADS
Purchase price: $72,000 (1980)
Estimated life expectancy: 5 yr
Approximate annual operating cost during 1981: $214,000
Fuel consumption: 4 mi/gal
Hopper capacity: 10 yd3
Vacuum blower capacity: 12,000 ft3/min
Vehicle weight: 32,000 Ib
Width of area cleaned per pass:b 5 ft
Normal sweeping speed: 5 mi/h
Velocity at suction head: N/A
Type of dust control system (i.e., wet or dry): Wet
Reference 11. Purchase cost is actual cost in year purchased; other
costs in 1981 dollars. _
Multiple passes required.
2-23
-------
approach would involve agency spot checks of controlled roads by taking a
material sample from the road. As before, the second approach is discussed
in greater detail in Section 2.5. Note that some sample collection may be
necessary to estimate control performance.
Records must be kept that document the frequency of vacuum sweeping
paved surfaces. Pertinent parameters to be specified in a control plan
and to be regularly recorded include:
General Information to be Specified in the Plan
1. All road segments and parking locations referenced on a map
available to both the responsible party and the regulatory agency
2. Length of each road and area of each parking lot
3. Type of control applied to each road/area and planned frequency
of application
4. Any provisions for weather (e.g., ^ in of rainfall will be
substituted for one treatment; no sprays during freezing periods, etc.)
Specific Records for Each Road Segment/Parking Area Treatment
1. Date of treatment
2. Operator's initials (note that the operator may keep a separate
log whose information is transferred to the environmental staff's data
sheets)
3. Start and stop times on a particular segment/parking lot, average
speed, number of passes
4. Qualitative description of loading before and after treatment
5. Any areas of unusually high loadings, from spills, pavement
deterioration, etc.
General Records to be Kept
1. Equipment maintenance records
2. Meteorological log (to the extent that weather influences the
control program—see above)
3. Any equipment malfunctions or downtime
In addition to those items related to control applications, some of
the regulatory formats suggested in Section 2.5 require that additional
records be kept. These records may include surface material samples or
traffic counts. A suggested format for recording paved surface samples
(following the sampling/analysis procedures given in Appendices D and E)
2-24
-------
was presented in Figure 2-1. Traffic counts may be recorded either
manually or using automatic devices.
2.3.2.3 Water Flushing of Roads. Street flushers remove surface
materials from roads and parking lots using high pressure water sprays.
Some systems supplement the cleaning with broom sweeping after flushing.
Note that the purpose of the program is to remove material from the road
surface; in some industries, water is regularly applied to roads to
directly control emissions (i.e., as in unpaved roads). Unlike the two
sweeping methods, flushing faces some obvious drawbacks in terms of water
usage, potential water pollution, and the frequent need to return to the
water source. However, flushing generally tends to be more effective in
controlling particulate emissions.
Equations to estimate instantaneous control efficiency values are
given in Table 2-3. Note that water flushing and flushing followed by
broom sweeping represent the two most effective control methods (on the
basis of field emission measurements) given in that table.
Cost elements involved with broom sweeping include the following
capital and operating/maintenance (O&M) expenses:
Capital: Purchase of truck or other device
O&M: Fuel, replacement parts (possibly including brushes), truck
maintenance, operator labor, water
Cost data presented in Reference 10 provides the following estimates
for a flushing program;
Initial capital expense: 18,400 $/truck
Annual O&M expense: 27,600 $/truck
All costs are based on April 1985 dol'lars. Determination of the number of
trucks required can be based on the assumption that 3 to 5 mi can be
flushed or flushed and broom swept per unit per 8-h shift,
respectively.11 Additional cost/design data are provided as Table 2-11.
Enforcement of a road flushing (possibly supplemented by broom
sweeping) program could consist of two approaches, as before. The first
facet would require the owner to maintain adequate records that would
document to agency personnel's satisfaction that a regular cleaning
program is in place. (See Appendix C for a suggested recordkeeping
format.) The second approach would involve agency spot checks of
2-25
-------
TABLE 2-11. MISCELLANEOUS OPERATION/DESIGN AND COST DATA FOR
FLUSHING PAVED ROADS
Purchase price:
Estimated life expectancy:
Approximate annual operating cost during 1981:
Vehicle weight (dry):
Water tank capacity:
Normal vehicle speed:
Water pressure at nozzles:
Vehicle weight (wet):
Fuel consumption:
Water flow at nozzles:
Hopper capacity:
Daily water consumption:
Degree of water treatment:
$68,000 (1976)
10 yr
$57,000
N/A Ib
8,000 gal
4 mi/h
50 psig
N/A Ib
7 mi/gal
188 gal/min
40 yd3
30,000 gal
1,800 gal/mi,
Reference 11. Purchase cost is actual cost in year purchased; other
costs in 1981 dollars.
2-26
-------
controlled roads by taking a material sample from the road. Recall that,
while resulting estimates of controlled emissions should be adequate for a
flushing program, the estimates are probably substantially overestimated
in a flushing/broom sweeping program.
Records must be kept that document the frequency of broom sweeping
applied to paved surfaces. Pertinent parameters to be specified in a
control plan and to be regularly recorded include:
General Information to be Specified in the Plan
1. All road segments and parking locations referenced on a map
available to both the responsible party and the regulatory agency
2. Length of each road and area of each parking lot
3. Type of control applied to each road/area and planned frequency
of application
4. Provisions for weather (e.g., program*suspended for periods of
freezing temperatures)
Specific Records for Each Road Segment/Parking Area Treatment
1. Date of treatment
2. Operator's initials (note that the operator may keep a separate
log whose information is transferred to the environmental staff's data
sheets) .
3. Start and stop times on a particular segment/parking lot, average
speed, number of passes
4. Start and stop times for refilling tanks
5. Qualitative description of loading before and after treatment
6. Any areas of unusually high loadings, from spills, pavement
deterioration, etc.
General Records to be Kept
1. Equipment maintenance records
2. Meteorological log (to the extent that weather influences the
control program—see above)
3. Any equipment malfunctions or downtime
In addition to those items related to control applications, some of
the regulatory formats suggested in Section 2.5 require that additional
records be kept. These records may include surface material samples or
traffic counts. A suggested format for recording paved surface samples
2-27
-------
(following the sampling/analysis procedures given in Appendices D and E)
was presented in Figure 2-1. Traffic counts may be recorded either
manually or using automatic devices.
2.4 EXAMPLE DUST CONTROL PLAN
To illustrate the use of material in this chapter, this section
presents an example control plan. Unlike the other open dust sources
considered in this manual, preventive control of paved roads (and
especially public paved roads) requires that control be applied to a wide
variety of contributing loading sources. Furthermore, the contribution of
any individual loading source to the total silt loading on any roadway is,
at present, impossible to determine. Consequently, the approach taken in
this example will employ area wide silt loading reductions and will also
use limited field sampling to gauge the effectiveness of the program.
Suppose a control agency determines that a 10% decrease in urban
paved road emissions is necessary to meet some goal. Equation (2-1) shows
that a 10 prcent decrease in the PM10 emission factor requires (a) a
10 percent reduction in traffic volume, (b) a 12% decrease in silt
loading, or (c) some combination of traffic and silt loading reductions.
Suppose that traffic reductions are not considered .feasible and. suppose
further that the agency desires a uniform 12 percent decrease in area wide
silt loadings rather than staggering loading decreases as a function of
road lengths and traffic volumes.
The types of controls that could be applied to loading sources
include: use of improved antiskid materials, rapid cleaning of snow/ice
control methods, haul truck ordinances (e.g., covering, freeboard, etc.),
and paving unpaved access points. Selection of sources to be controlled
depend on a variety of factors, such as the perceived relative
contribution of a source to an area's silt loading values, responsibility
for enforcement of any new ordinances, etc.
In general, unless there is good reason to suspect that one source
category is responsible for a substantial fraction of the paved road
loading in an area, it is probable that a series of controls will be
employed (see Section 2.5.2). Assessment of the (combined) effectiveness
of the controls implemented will generally be based on the field sampling
measurements discussed in Appendices D and E.
2-28
-------
2.5 POTENTIAL REGULATORY FORMATS
2.5.1 General Guidelines
Clear and specific enforceable plan provisions are needed to gain
credit for claimed emission reductions in State implementation plans
(SIP's), which for paved road dust sources will likely rely on record-
keeping, reporting, and surrogate factors rather than short-term mass
emissions or opacity limits. Surrogate factors will include control
program regulations, permits, or intergovernmental agreements to institute
programs such as vacuum sweeping, mud/dirt carryout precautions, spill
cleanup, erosion control, and/or measures to prevent or mitigate
entrainment from unpaved adjacent areas. Record review of control
programs (e.g., vacuum sweeping, road sand/salt application, etc.) and
field checks (i.e., road silt loading sampling) will provide the likely
means of compliance determination for these sources. Because paved road
emissions are directly related to the surface silt loading, the most
reliable regulatory formats are based on loading. Formats viable for
other open dust sources—including opacity measurements, visible emissions
at the property line—are generally not applicable for paved roads because
of the lower unit emission.levels involved (e.g., there are usually no
visible plumes from a vehicle pass).
Many States currently have regulations related to the control of
paved roads. Colorado, for example, may require a control plan from any
party that repeatedly deposits materials which might create fugitive
emissions from a public or private roadway. Note, however, that no
quantitative determination of loading levels is specified.
An alternative format is presented below to suggest how a
quantitative method could be incorporated in a regulation. Figure 2-2
presents a possible format for use with public paved road sources. In
this example, if the silt loading on a road with an average traffic volume
of 2,000 vehicles per day ever exceeds 2.9 g/m2 (the "action level"), the
regulatory agency may require the responsible party (e.g., a construction
site with mud/dirt carryout) or the owner of the road to reduce the silt
loading to a level less than the action level. The action level is an
agency-supplied multiple of either baseline measurements or the surface
silt loading predicted by Equation (2-2) and should correspond to
2-29
-------
INi
I
00
O
00
E
CD
CD
z
I—I
Q
O
_l
I—
_l
t—4
I/O
UJ
CJ
u.
o:
At higher
traffic levels,
cleaning becomes
impractical because
of safety.
10,000
DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUME (veh/day)
100,000
Figure 2-2. Possible use of "action levels" to trigger paved road controls.
-------
minimum percent control efficiency level. The means of reduction will be
left to the discretion of the responsible party and could consist of
either preventive or mitigative controls. The maximum allowed silt
loading requirement could be made part of a construction permit (as
discussed in Section 5 of this manual) or an enforceable intergovernmental
agreement. Note that additional traffic due to the construction activity
should be included in the daily traffic volume used to determine the
action level for the affected roadways. In addition, a request for permit
should be accompanied with a description of the control technique(s) that
will be employed. Similarly, intergovernmental agreements should clearly
and specifically describe control techniques and associated recordkeeping
and reporting requirements.
The field measurement of silt loading could either be made a
requirement of the responsible party or be assigned to agency inspection
personnel, or a combination of the two could be used. In either event,
certain features of the measurement technique must be specified:
1. The sampling method used to determine silt loading for compliance
inspection should conform to the technique used to develop the AP-42 urban
paved road equation. That technique is specified in Appendix 0 and should
be made part of an SOP for regulatory personnel or part of the
construction permit.
2. Arrangements must be made to account for spatial variation of
surface silt loading. Possible suggestions include (a) visually
determining the heaviest loading on the road and selecting that spot for
sampling, (b) sampling the midpoint of the road length segment of
interest, and (c) sampling preselected (possibly on the basis of safety
considerations) strips on the road surface (note that the samples may be
aggregated).
3. Provision should be made to grant a "grace period" following a
spill or other accidental increase in loading. An 8-h period is suggested
to allow time for the responsible party to clean the affected area. This
allowance should be made part of a construction or other permit.
For industrial paved roads, an approach similar to that described
above could be applied as well, using agency-supplied action levels. Note
that these levels could be specific to individual roads, apply to all
2-31
-------
roads in a plant, or be based on plant traffic levels. Because most
plants will contain many roads, the regulatory agency may choose to set
plant-wide goals (such as vacuum sweeping each road twice per week) rather
than source-specific programs.
The control efficiency equations presented in Table 2-4 provide
another potential regulatory format for industrial paved road sources.
This approach involves inspection of both plant road cleaning records and
traffic counts. By combining the two sets of information, regulatory
personnel would be able to determine average efficiency values for the
plant's controlled paved roads. Provision must be made to collect traffic
information. The traffic data may require more frequent inspection visits
than surface loading samples; however, analysis is more easily
accomplished. Surface loading sampling provides an additional means for
checking the success of achieving the estimated control efficiency.
2.5.2 Example SIP Language for Reduction of Public Paved Road Surface
Contaminants
Public paved roads are important PM10 sources in areas across the
country. Unlike the industrial sources described in this manual, control
of municipal paved roads generally requires a close working agreement
between various government bodies and the general public.
A number of States have developed enforceable regulations, permit
conditions, or provisions in intergovernmental agreements (between State
agencies, and with municipalities) that attempt to address sources
contributing to the silt loading of paved roads. The following example
regulations are drawn from existing State regulations and
'intergovernmental agreement provisions.
Material Transport
-- No person shall cause or permit the handling or transporting of
any material in a manner which allows or may allow controllable
particulate matter to become airborne. Visible dust emissions
from the transportation of materials must be eliminated by
covering stock loads in open-bodied trucks or other equivalently
effective controls.
— Earth or other material that is deposited by trucking and
earth-moving equipment on paved streets shall be reported to the
2-32
-------
(local Department of Sanitation at ) and removed
immediately subject to safety considerations by the party or
person responsible for such deposits.
Motor Vehicle Parking Areas
— Effective , no person shall cause, permit, suffer, or
allow the operation, use, or maintenance of an unsealed or unpaved
motor vehicle parking area.
Low use parking area exemption: Motor vehicle parking area
requirements shall not apply to any parking area from which less
than (e.g., 10) vehicles exit on each day. Any person seeking
. such an exemption shall: (1) submit a petition to the Control
Officer in writing identifying the location, ownership, and
person(s) responsible for control of the parking area, and
indicating the nature and extent of daily vehicle use; and
(2) receive written approval from the regulating agency that a low
use exemption has been granted.
Erosion and Entrainment From Nearby Areas
— The City of • will revegetate, pave, or treat by using
water, calcium chloride, or acceptable equivalent materials the
following: paved road shoulders and approach aprons for unpaved
roads and parking areas that connect to paved roads, which are
within the City's right-of-ways or under the City's control and
within X feet (e.g., 25) of roadways [specify location or entire
roads by name], in amounts and frequencies as is necessary to
effectively control PM10 emissions to a level of x percent control
efficiency (e.g., paving~90 percent; vegetation per specified
requirements—50 percent; chemical treatment per specified
requirements—70 percent). [Include list of roads in memorandum
of understanding and specify whether those areas will be
revegetated, paved, or treated.]
— If loose sand, dust, or dust particles are found to contribute to
excessive silt loadings on nearby paved roads, the Control Officer
shall notify the owner, lessee, occupant, operator, or user of
said land that said situation is to be corrected within a
specified period of time, dependent upon the scope and extent of
2-33
-------
the problem, but in no case may such a period of time exceed x
(e.g., 2) days.
The Control Officer, or a designated agent, after due notice,
may enter upon the subject land where said sand or dust problem
exists, and take such remedial and corrective action as may be
deemed appropriate to relieve, reduce, or remedy the existent dust
condition, where the owner, occupant, operator, or any tenant,
lessee, or holder of any possessory interest or right in the
subject land, fails to do so.
Any cost incurred in connection with any such remedial or
corrective action by the Control Officer shall be assessed against
the owner of the involved property, and failure to pay the full
amount of such costs shall result in a lien against said real
property, which lien shall remain in full force and effect until
any and all such costs shall have been fully paid, which shall
include, but not be limited to, costs of collection and reasonable
attorney's fee therefore.
Road Sanding/Salting and Traffic Reduction
-- The City of \ will, beginning with the (year) winter
season, restrict the use of sand used for anti skid operations to
a material with greater than x percent (e.g., 95) grit retained by
a number 100 mesh sieve screen and a degradation factor of x.
— The City of will provide alternative traffic flow
patterns—such as a by-pass plan to reduce vehicular traffic
(especially truck traffic) in the central business district to
reduce the effects of vehicular reentrainment.
-T. The City of will conduct its vacuum street sweeping
throughout the year with wintertime sweeping done whenever shaded
pavement temperatures—as determined by the use of infrared
thermometer—allow for the application of water spray from the
vacuum sweeper without jeopardizing the safety of pedestrian and
vehicular traffic on the swept areas. The street vacuuming
program shall be designed to provide for maximum sweeping efforts
throughout the winter and spring months and shall provide for
adequate personnel and equipment to ensure thorough cleanup when
2-34
-------
possible within temperature and safety constraints. As soon as
temperature conditions permit (melt periods), the City will begin
vacuuming the road sand/salt loadings from streets per the
following priority schedule: [include schedule in memo of
understanding], (Quality control provisions for recordkeeping/
reporting requirements are presented in Section 2.3.2.2 and
Appendix C.2.1. of this report.)
2.6 REFERENCES FOR SECTION 2
1. Axetell, K., and J. Zeller. 1977. Control of Reentrained Dust from
Paved Streets. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
EPA-907/9-77-007.
2. Muleski, G. E. 1987. Update of Fugitive Dust Emission Factors in
AP-42 Section 11.2. Final Report, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Contract No. 68-02-3891, Work Assignment No. 19.
3. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1985. Compilation of Air
Pollution. Emission Factors, AP-42. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.
4. Cowherd, C., Jr., and P. J. Englehart. 1984. Paved Road Particulate
Emissions. EPA-600/7-84-077. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, D.C.
5, Engineering-Science. 1987. PM-10 Emissions Inventory Data for the
Maricopa and Pima Plannings Areas. EPA Contract No. 68-02-3888, Work
Assignment No. 35.
6. Duncan, M., et al. 1984. Performance Evaluation of an Improved
Street Sweeper. EPA Contract No. 68-09-3902.
7. Eckle, T. F., and D. L. Trozzo. 1984. Verification of the
Efficiency of a Road-Oust Emission-Reduction Program by Exposure
Profile Measurement. Presented at an EPA/AISI Symposium on Iron and
Steel Pollution Abatement, Cleveland, Ohio. October 1984.
8. Cowherd, C., Jr., and J. S. Kinsey. 1986. Identification,
Assessment and Control of Fugitive Particulate Emissions.
EPA-600/8-86-023, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
Triangle Park, North Carolina.
9. Englehart, P. J., and J. S. Kinsey. 1983. Study of Construction
Related Mud/Dirt Carryout. EPA Contract No. 68-02-3177, Work
Assignment No. 21. July 1983.
10. Kinsey, J. S., et al. 1985. Control Technology for Sources of
PM1(?. Draft Final Report, EPA Contract No. 68-02-3891, Work
Assignment No. 4. September 1985.
2-35
-------
11. Cuscino, T., Jr., et al. 1983. Iron and Steel Plant Open Source
Fugitive Emission Control Evaluation, EPA-600/2-83-110, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina. October 1983.
2-36
-------
3.0 UNPAVED ROADS
As is the case for paved roads, participate emissions occur whenever
a vehicle travels over an unpaved surface. Unlike paved roads, however,
the road itself is the source of the emissions rather than any "surface
loading." Within the various categories of open dust sources in
industrial settings, unpaved travel surfaces have historically accounted
for the greatest share of particulate emissions in industrial settings.
For example, unpaved sources were estimated to account for roughly
70 percent of open dust sources in the iron and steel industry during the
1970's. Recognition of the importance of unpaved roads led naturally to
an interest in their control. As a result of these control programs, the
portion of total open source dust emissions due to unpaved travel surfaces
has decreased dramatically over the past 5 to 10 years. Nevertheless, the
need for continued control of these sources is apparent.
This section presents a discussion of the various types of unpaved
sources, available emission factors, viable control measures, and methods
to determine compliance of controlled sources.
Travel surfaces may be unpaved for a variety of reasons. Possibly
the most common type of unpaved road is that found in rural regions
throughout the country; these roads may experience only sporadic traffic
which, taken with the often considerable road length involved, makes
paving impractical.
Other important travel surfaces are found in industrial settings.
During the 1980's, industry has paved many previously unpaved roads as
part of emissions control programs. Some industrial roads are, by their
nature, not suitable for paving. These roads may be used by very heavy
vehicles or may be subject to considerable spillage from haul trucks.
Other roads may have poorly constructed bases wh:ich make paving
impractical. Because of the additional maintenance costs associated with
a paved road under these service environments, emissions from these roads
are usually controlled by regular applications of water or chemical dust
suppressants.
In addition to roadways, many industries often contain important
unpaved travel areas. Examples include scraper traffic patterns related
3-1
-------
to stockpile/reclaim activities in coal yards, compactor traffic in areas
proximate to lifts at landfills, and travel related to open storage of
finished products (such as coil at steel plants). These areas may often
account for a substantial fraction of traffic-generated emissions from
individual plants. In addition, these areas tend to be much more
difficult to control than stretches of roadway (e.g., changing traffic
patterns make semipermanent controls impractical, increased shear forces
from cornering vehicles rapidly deteriorate chemically controlled
surfaces, chemical suppressants may damage raw materials or finished
products, etc.).
3.1 ESTIMATION OF EMISSIONS FROM UNPAVED ROADS
As was the case for paved roads, unpaved roads may be divided into
the two classes of public and industrial. However, for the purpose of
estimating emissions, there is no need to distinguish between the two,
because the AP-42 emission factor equation takes source characteristics
(such as average vehicle weight and road surface texture) into
consideration:1
F - n fil / Vf S^ r W 1 " A (365-p)
t = 0.61 (^-) (— ; ( - ) (-) _
12 48 .2.7 4 . 365
(3-1)
F 9 1 t *\ f S\ A°*7 °"5
E = 2.1 (— ) (— ) (-)
_
12 30 3 4 365
where: E = PM10 emission factor in units stated
s = silt content of road surface material, percent
S = mean vehicle speed, km/h (mil/h)
W = mean vehicle weight, Mg (ton)
w = mean number of wheels (dimensionless)
p = number of days with >0.254:mm (0.01 in.) of precipitation
per year
Using the scheme given in Appendix A, the above equation is rated "A" in
AP-42. Measured silt values are given in Table 3-1. As is the case with
all AP-42 emission factors, the use of site-specific data is strongly
encouraged.
3-2
-------
TABLE 3-1. TYPICAL SILT CONTENT VALUES OF SURFACE MATERIAL ON INDUSTRIAL
AND RURAL UNPAVED ROADS3
I
CO
Industry
Copper smelting
Iron and steel production
Sand and gravel processing
Stone quarrying and processing
Taconite mining and processing
Western surface coal mining
Rural roads
Road use or
surface material
Plant road
Plant road •
Plant road
Plant road
Haul road
Service road
Access road
Haul road
Scraper road
Haul road
(freshly graded)
Gravel
Dirt
Crushed limestone
Plant
sites
1
9
1
1
1
1
2
3
3
2
1
2
2
Test
samples
3
20
3
5
12
8
2
21
10
5
1
5
8
Silt, weight
Range
15.9-19.1
4.0-16.0
4.1-6.0
10.5-15.6
3.7-9.7
2.4-7.1
4.9-5.3
2.8-18
7.2-25
18-29
NA
5.8-68
7.7-13
percent
Mean
17.0
8.0
4.8
14.1
5.8
4.3
5.1
8.4
17
24
5.0
28.5
9.6
Note: NA - Not applicable
Reference 1 (AP-42).
-------
The number of wet days per year, p, for the geographical area of
interest should be determined from local climatic data. Figure 3-1 gives
the geographical distribution of the mean annual number of wet days per
year in the United States. Maps giving similar data on a monthly basis
are available from the U.S. Department of Commerce.2
It is important to note that for the purpose of estimating annual or
seasonal controlled emissions from unpaved roads, average control
efficiency values based on worst case (i.e., dry, p = 0 in Equation (3-1))
uncontrolled emission levels are required. This is true simply because
the AP-42 predictive emission factor equation for unpaved roads, which is
routinely used for inventorying purposes, is based on source tests
conducted under dry conditions.1 Extrapolation to annual average
uncontrolled (including natural mitigation) emissions estimates is
accomplished by assuming that emissions are occurring at the estimated
rate on days without measurable precipitation, and conversely are absent
on days with measurable precipitation. This assumption has never been
verified in a rigorous manner; however, MRI's experience with hundreds of
field tests indicate that it is a reasonable assumption if the source
operates on a fairly "continuous" basis.
The uncontrolled emission factor for a specific unpaved road will
increase substantially after a precipitation event as the surface dries.
However, in the absence of data sufficient to describe this growth as a
function of traffic parameters, amount of precipitation, time of day,
season, cloud cover, and other variables, uncontrolled emissions are
estimated using the simple assumption given above. Prior MRI testing has
suggested that for unpaved travel areas, surface moisture levels
approximately twice that for dry conditions afford control of roughly 75
to 90 percent.3 Between the dry, uncontrolled moisture level (typically
<2 percent) and approximately 3 to 4 percent, a small increase in moisture
content may result in a large increase in control efficiency. Beyond this
point, control efficiency grows slowly with increased moisture content.
These relationships are discussed in greater detail in the following
section.
3-4
-------
CO
I
cn
0 SO 100 200 300 400 100
110
MIUS
Figure 3-1. Mean annual number of days with at least 0.01 in of precipitation.-'
-------
3.2 DEMONSTRATED CONTROL TECHNIQUES FOR UNPAVED ROADS
There are numerous control options for unpaved travel surfaces, as
shown in Table 3-2. Note that the controls fall into the three general
categories of source extent reductions, surface improvements, and surface
treatment. Each of these is discussed in greater detail in the following
sections.
Source extent reductions. These controls either limit the amount of
traffic on a road to reduce the PM10 emission rate or lower speeds to
reduce the emission factor value given by Equation (3-1). Examples could
include industrial plant bussing programs for employees, restriction of
roads to only certain vehicle types, or strict enforcement of speed
limits. In any instance, the control afforded by these measures is
readily obtained by the application of the equation.
Surface improvements. These controls alter the road surface. Unlike
surface treatments (discussed below), these improvements are largely "one-
shot" control methods; that is, periodic retreatments are not normally
required.
The most obvious surface improvement is, of course, paving an unpaved
road. This option is expensive and is probably most applicable to high
volume (more than a few hundred passes per day) public roads and
industrial plant roads that are not subject to very heavy vehicles (e.g.,
slag pot carriers, haul trucks, etc.) or spillage of material in
transport. Clearly, control efficiency estimates can be obtained by
applying the information of Section 2.0 of this manual; this is discussed
in greater detail in Section 3.3.
Other improvement methods cover the road surface material with
another material of lower silt content (e.g., covering a dirt road with
gravel or slag, or using a "road carpet" under ballast). Because
Equation (3-1) shows a linear relationship between the emission factor and
the silt content of the road surface, any reduction in the silt value is
accompanied by an equivalent reduction in emissions. This type of
improvement is initially much less expensive than paving; however, the
reader is cautioned that maintenance (such as grading and spot
reapplication of the cover material) may be required.
3-6
-------
TABLE 3-2. CONTROL TECHNIQUES FOR UNPAVED TRAVEL SURFACESa
Source extent reduction: Speed reduction
Traffic reduction
Source improvement: Paving
Gravel surface
Surface treatment: Watering
Chemical stabilization".
- Asphalt emulsions
- Petroleum resins
- Acrylic cements
- Other
aTable entries reflect EPA draft guidance on urban fugitive
.dust control.
DSee Table 3-3.
3-7
-------
Finally, vegetative cover has been proposed as a surface improvement
for low traffic volume roads. Note, however, that because vehicle related
emissions would be quite low, this method is probably intended to control
wind erosion of the road surface. As such, this technique is discussed in
Section 5.0 of this manual.
Surface treatments. Surface treatment refers to those control
techniques which require periodic reapplications. Treatments fall into
the two main categories of (1) wet suppression (i.e., watering, possibly
with surfactants or other additives), which keeps the surface wet to
control emissions, and (2) chemical stabilization, which attempts to
change the physical (and, hence, the emissions) characteristics of the
roadway. Necessary reapplication frequencies may range from several
minutes for plain water under hot, summertime conditions to several weeks
(or months) for chemicals.
Water is usually applied to unpaved roads using a truck with a
gravity or pressure feed. This is only a temporary measure, and periodic
reapplications are necessary to achieve any substantial level of control
efficiency. Some increase in overall control efficiency is afforded by
wetting agents which reduce surface tension.
Chemical dust suppressants (Table 3-3), on the other hand, have much
less frequent reapplication requirements. These suppressants are designed
to alter the roadway, such as cementing loose material into a fairly
impervious surface (thus simulating a paved surface) or forming a surface
which attracts and retains moisture (thus simulating wet suppression).
Chemical dust suppressants are generally applied to the road surface
as a water solution of the agent. The degree of control achieved is a
direct function of the application intensity (volume of solution per
area), dilution ratio, and frequency (number of applications per unit
time) of the chemical applied to the surface and also depends on the type
and number of vehicles using the road. Chemical agents have also been
proven to be effective as crusting agents for inactive storage piles and
for the stabilization of exposed open areas and agricultural fields. In
both cases, the chemical acts as a binder to reduce the wind erosion
potential of the aggregate surface. The use of chemical agents to control
these sources is discussed in other chapters of this manual.
3-8
-------
TABLE 3-3. CHEMICAL STABILIZERS3
C.
Type: Bitumens
Product
AMS 2200, 2300®
Coherex®
Docal 1002®
Peneprime®
Petro Tac P®
Resinex®
Retain®
Type: Salts
Product
Calcium chloride
Dowflake, Liquid Dow4
DP-10®
Dust Ban 8806®
Dustgard®
Sodium silicate
Type: Adhesives
Product
DLR-MS®
300-1®
Acrylic
Bio Cat
CPB-12®
Curasol AK®
DCL-40A, 1801
DC-859, 875®
Dust Ban®
Flambinder®
Lignosite®
Norlig A, 12®
Orzan Series®
Soil Card®
1803®
Manufacturer
Arco Mine Sciences
Witco Chemical
Douglas Oil Company
Utah Emulsions
Syntech Products Corporation
Neyra Industries, Inc.
Dubois Chemical Company
Manufacturer
Allied Chemical Corporation
Dow Chemical
Wen-Don Corporation
Nalco Chemical Company
G.S.L. Minerals and Chemicals Corporation
The PQ Corporation
Manufacturer
Rohm and Haas Company
Applied Natural Systems, Inc.
Wen-Don Corporation
American Hoechst Corporation
Calgon Corporation
Betz Laboratories, Inc.
Nalco Chemical Company
Flambeau Paper Company
Georgia Pacific Corporation
Reed Lignin, Inc.
Crown Zellerbach Corporation
Walsh Chemical
aSource: Reference 4, as cited by Reference 5.
3-9
-------
Finally, note that some chemical dust suppressants may contain a
considerable fraction of hydrocarbons. While these mixtures are generally
not very volatile, regulators in areas with ozone problems should balance
the benefits of dust control with the cost of a potential VOC emission
increase.
3.3 EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVE CONTROL MEASURES.
3.3.1 Source Extent Reductions
These control methods act to reduce the emission rate due to traffic
on a road. As noted in Section 3.2, control efficiency values are easily
obtained by use of Equation (3-1).
The reduction may be obtained by banning certain vehicles (such as
employees' cars) or strictly enforcing speed limits. Some of these
methods (e.g., employee bussing) will require capital and operating and
maintenance (O&M) expenditures, while others (e.g., speed reductions) may
only require indirect costs associated with increased travel times.
Consequently, identification of cost elements and estimation of costs are
highly dependent upon the option(s) selected to reduce source extent, and
no attempt is made here to generalize costs.
3.3.2 Surface Improvements
3.3.2.1 Paving. Control efficiency estimates for paving previously
unpaved roads may be based on the material presented in Section 2.0 of
this manual. Inherent in this process is estimating the silt loading on
the paved surface; it is recommended that the reader use Table 2-2 or 2-7
for public and industrial roads, respectively. Alternatively, for public
roads, the reader may wish to employ Equation (2-2) to estimate silt
loading as a function of the daily traffic volume. Note, however, that
use of the equation implies that curbs will be installed after paving.
Cost elements identified for paving are as follows:
Capital: Operating equipment (graders, paving equipment), paving
material (asphalt, concrete), and base material
O&M: Patching materials, labor for patching, and equipment
maintenance
Reference 6 provides the following cost estimates (April 1985
dollars) for asphaltic paving:
Initial capital expense: $44,700-$80,200/mile
3-10
-------
Annual O&M costs: $6,600-$ll,900/mile
These estimates are based on resurfacing every 5 years and "15 percent
opportunity costs." Reference 7 estimates a cost of $140,000/mile (1983
dollars) to paved industrial unpaved roads. Because of the variety of
cost estimates, it is strongly recommended that the reader obtain quotes
from local paving contractors.
3.3.2.2 Gravel/Slag Improvements. As noted earlier, these types of
improvements replace the present road surface material with a lower silt
content material. Note that this method may increase road maintenance
costs as the new aggregate fractures. This cost may be avoided by
installing a "road carpet." Because Equation (3-1) indicates a linear
relationship between silt content and emission levels, control efficiency
can be estimated.by determining the reduction in silt content. For
example, if a road with a 12 percent silt content is recovered with a
gravel (with an equilibrium silt content of 5 percent; see Table 3-1),
then a 58 percent control efficiency would be expected.
Identified cost elements for these improvements follow:
Capital: Material (including "road carpet," if applicable),
application equipment, and labor
O&M: Periodic grading including equipment and labor
No cost estimates were found in the reference documents used as the basis
for this document. Because of the differences in local availability of
cover materials (and civil engineering fabrics) and the amount of surface
preparation, compaction, and maintenance required for various road types,
it is recommended that the reader obtain quotes from local contractors.
3.3.2.3 Vegetative Cover. As noted by Turner et al.,
"... vegetative covers are obviously impractical for roads and
facilities with construction activity . . . vegetative covering may be a
practical control option for many inactive sites, but it is likely to be
impractical for areas of continuing activity and areas that will not
support a relatively dense vegetative cover."5
Consequently, vegetation is probably a viable control option only for
inactive area wind erosion and is discussed elsewhere in this manual.
3-11
-------
3.3.3 Surface Treatments
3.3.3.1 Watering. The control efficiency of unpaved road watering
depends upon (a) the amount of water applied per unit area of road
surface, (b) the time between reapplications, (c) traffic volume during
that period, and (d) prevailing meteorological conditions during the
period. While several investigations have estimated or studied watering
efficiencies, few have specified all the factors listed above.
An empirical model for the performance of watering as a control
technique has been developed.a The supporting data base consists of
14 tests performed in four states during five different summer and fall
months. The model is:
C - 100 - °'8 ? d t (3-2)
where: C = average control efficiency, percent
P = potential average hourly daytime evaporation rate, mrn/h
d = average hourly daytime traffic rate, (h-i)
i = application intensity, L/m2
t = time between applications, h
Estimates of the potential average hourly daytime evaporation rate may be
obtained from
0.0049 x (value in Figure 3-2) for annual conditions
p = 0.0065 x (value in Figure 3-2) for summer conditions
An alternative approach (which is potentially suitable for a
regulatory format) is shown as Figure 3-3. This figure is adapted from
11 field tests conducted at a-coal-fired power plant. Measured control
efficiencies did not correlate well with either time or vehicle passes
after application. However, this is believed due to reduced evening
evaporation (logistics delayed the start of testing until 3 p.m. and
testing continued through the early evening). Surface moisture grab
samples were taken throughout the testing period, and not surprisingly,
these show a strong correlation with control efficiency.
Figure 3-3 shows that between the average uncontrolled moisture
content and a value of twice that, a small increase in moisture content
results in a large increase in control efficiency. Beyond this point,
control efficiency grows slowly with increased moisture content. Although
3-12
-------
MEAN ANNUAL CLASS A PAN EVAPORATION
(In Inches)
°'*|7* _|Based_on period 1946-55
Figure 3-2. Annual evaporation data.-'
-------
100%
% 75%
o
O
o
r-H
I
QL.
50% L
25% r
95%
RATIO OF CONTROLLED TO
UNCONTROLLED SURFACE
MOISTURE CONTENTS
Figure 3-3. Watering control effectiveness for unpaved travel surfaces,
3-14
-------
it is possible to fit hyperbolas to the data, the relatively simple
bilinear relationship shown in the figure provides an adequate descrip-
tion. Furthermore, this relationship is applicable to all particle size
ranges considered:
_ 75 (M-l) 1 < M < 2 ,3 .,,
c " 62+6.7M 2 < M < 5 ^~J;
where: c = instantaneous control efficiency, percent
M = ratio of controlled to uncontrolled surface moisture contents
Costs for watering programs include the following elements:
Capital: Purchase of truck or other device
O&M: Fuel, water, truck maintenance, operator labor
Reference 6 estimates the following costs (1985 dollars):
Capital: $17,100/truck
O&M: $32,900/truck
The number of trucks required may be estimated by assuming that a
single truck, applying water at 1 L/m2, can treat roughly one mile of road
every hour.
Enforcement of a watering program would ideally consist of two
complementary approaches. The first facet would require the owner to
maintain adequate records that would document to agency personnel's
satisfaction that a regular program is in place. (See Appendix C for a
suggested recordkeeping format.) The second approach would involve agency
spot checks of controlled roads by taking either traffic counts or
material grab samples (Appendices D and E) from the road. For example,
the moisture or silt content of the traveled portion of the roadway could
be measured and compared against a minimum acceptable value. As noted
earlier, estimates of the PMlo control efficiency could then be obtained
from Equations (3-2) and (3-3), respectively.
Records must be kept that document the frequency of water applied to
unpaved surfaces. Pertinent parameters to be specified in a control plan
and to be regularly recorded include:
General Information to be Specified in the Plan
1. All road segments and parking locations referenced on a map
available to both the responsible party and the regulatory agency
3-15
-------
2. Length of each road and area of each parking lot
3. Amount of water applied to each road/area and planned frequency
of application (alternatively, a minimum moisture level could be
specified)
4. Any provisions for weather (e.g., % in of rainfall will be
substituted for one treatment; program suspended during freezing periods;
watering frequency as a function of temperature, cloud cover, etc.)
5. Source of water and tank capacity.
Specific Records for Each Road Segment/Parking Area Treatment
1. Date of treatment
2. Operator's initials (note that the operator may keep a separate
log whose information is transferred to the environmental staff's data
sheets)
3. Start and stop times on a particular segment/parking lot, average
speed, number of passes
4. Start and stop times for tank filling.
General Records to be Kept
1. Equipment maintenance records
2. Meteorological log (to the extent that weather influences the
control program, see above)
3. Any equipment malfunctions or downtime.
In addition to those items related to control applications, some of
the regulatory formats suggested in Section 3.4 require that additional
records be kept. These records may include surface material samples
(following the sampling/analysis procedures given in Appendices 0 and E)
or traffic counts. Traffic counts may be recorded either manually or
using automatic devices.
3.3.3.2 Chemical Treatments. As noted in Section 3.2, some
chemicals (most notably salts) simulate wet suppression by attracting and
retaining moisture on the road surface. These methods are often
supplemented by some watering. It is recommended that control efficiency
estimates be obtained using Figure 3-3 and enforcement be based on grab
sample moisture contents (see Appendices D and E).
The more common chemical dust suppressants form a hard cemented
surface. It is this type of suppressant that is considered below.
3-16
-------
Besides water, petroleum resins (such as Coherex®) have historically
been the products most widely used in the iron and steel industry.
However, considerable interest has been shown at both the plant and
corporate level in alternative chemical dust suppressants. As a result of
this continued interest, several new dust suppressants have been
introduced recently. These have included asphalt emulsions, acrylics, and
adhesives. In addition, the generic petroleum resin formulations
developed at the Mellon Institute with funding from the American Iron and
Steel Institute (AISI) have gained considerable attention. These generic
suppressants were designed to be produced onsite at iron and steel
plants.9 Onsite production of this type of suppressant in quantities
commonly used at iron and steel plants has been estimated to reduce
chemical costs by approximately 50 percent.9
In an earlier test report, average performance curves were generated
for four chemical dust suppressants: (a) a commercially available
petroleum resin, (b) a generic petroleum resin for onsite production at an
industrial facility, (c) an acrylic cement, and (d) an asphalt
emulsion.10 (Note that at the time of the testing program, these
suppressant types accounted for roughly 85 percent of the market share in
the iron and steel industry.) The results of this program were combined
with other test results to develop a model to estimate time-averaged PM10
control performance. This model is illustrated as Figure 3-4. Several
items are to be noted:
• The term "ground inventory" is a measure of residual effects from
previous applications. Ground inventory is found by adding together the
total(volume (per unit area) of concentrate (not solution) since the start
of the dust control season. An example is provided below.
• Note that no credit for control is assigned until the ground
inventory exceeds 0.05 gal/yd2.
• Because suppressants must be periodically reapplied to unpaved
roads, use of the time-averaged values given in the figure are
appropriate. Recommended minimum reapplication frequencies (as well as
alternatives) are discussed later in this section.
• Figure 3-4 represents an average of the four suppressants given
above. The basis of the methodology lies in a similar model for petroleum
3-17
-------
0.25
(liters/m2)
0.5 0.75
1.25
a
LU
CD
•=c z
>- o
O Z
Z
-------
resins only.10 However, agreement between the control efficiency
estimates given by Figure 3-4 and available field measurements is
reasonably good.
As an example of the use of Figure 3-4, suppose that Equation (3-1)
has been used to estimate a PM10 emission factor of 2.0 kg/VKT. Further,
suppose that starting on May 1, the road is treated with 0.25.gal/yd2 of a
(1 part chemical to 5 parts water) solution on the first of each month
until October. In this instance, the following average controlled
emission factors are found:
Period
May
June
July
August
September
Ground
inventory,
gal/yd2
0.042
0.083
0.12
0.17
0.21
Average
control
efficiency,
percent3
0
68
75
82
88
Average
controlled
emission
factor,
kq/VKT
2.0
0.64
0.50
0.36
0.24
aFrom Figure 3-3; zero efficiency assigned if ground inventory is less
than 0.05 gal/yd2.
A form which could be used as part of a recordkeeping format is presented
in Section 3.4.
In formulating dust control plans for chemical dust suppressants,
additional topics must be considered. These are briefly discussed
below.
Use of paved road controls on chemically treated unpaved roads.
Repeated use of chemical dust suppressants tend, over time, to form fairly
impervious surfaces on unpaved roads. The resulting surface may admit the
use of paved road cleaning techniques (such as flushing, sweeping, etc.)
to reduce aggregate loading due to spillage and track-on. A field program
conducted tests on surfaces that had been flushed and vacuumed 3 days
earlier.10 (The surfaces themselves had last been chemically treated
70 days before.) Control efficiency values of 90 percent or more (based
on the uncontrolled emission factor of the unpaved roads) were found for
each particulate size fraction considered.
3-19
-------
The use of paved road techniques for "housekeeping" purposes would
appear to have the benefits of both high control (referenced to an
uncontrolled unpaved road) and potentially relatively low cost (compared
to followup chemical applications). Generally, it is recommended that
these methods not be employed until the ground inventory exceeds
approximately 0.2 gal/yd2 (0.9 L/m2). Plant personnel should, of course,
first examine the use of paved road techniques on chemically treated
surfaces in limited areas prior to implementing a full-scale program.
Minimum reapplication frequency. Because unpaved roads in industry
are often used for the movement of materials and are often surrounded by
additional unpaved travel areas, spillage and carryout onto the chemically
treated road require periodic "housekeeping" activities. In addition,
gradual abrasion of the treated surface by traffic will result in loose
material on the surface which should be controlled.
It is recommended that at least dilute reapplications be employed
every month to control loose surface material unless paved road control
techniques are used (as described above). More frequent reapplications
would be required if spillage and track-on pose particular problems for a
road.
Weather considerations. Roads generally have higher moisture
contents during cooler periods due to decreased evaporation. Small
increases in surface moisture may result in large increases in control
efficiency (as referenced to the dry summertime conditions inherent in the
AP-42 unpaved road predictive equation).n In addition, application of
chemical dust suppressants during cooler periods of the year may be
inadvisable for traffic safety reasons.
Weather-related application schedules should be considered prior .to
implementing any control program. Responsible parties and regulatory
agency personnel should work closely in making this joint determination.
Compared to the other open dust sources discussed in this manual,
there is a wealth of cost information available for chemical dust
suppressants on unpaved roads. Note that many salt products are delivered
and applied by the same truck. For those products, costs are easily
obtained by contacting a local distributor.
3-20
-------
For other chemicals, identified cost elements include:
Capital: Distributor truck, tanks, pumps, piping
O&M: Chemical suppressants, water, fuel, replacement parts, labor
Many plants contract out application and thus have minimal capital
expenditures.
Because each plant faces a unique set of needs, no attempt has been
made here to include all possible costs involved in a dust control
program. For example, some facilities may be forced to install new
storage tanks while others may only need to refurbish unused tanks in the
plant. Still others may find it more efficient to retain an outside
contractor to store and apply the suppressants. Extensive discussions,
comparing rental and capital expenses, have been prepared; one is shown in
Appendix B.
In order to provide preliminary estimates of costs associated with
chemical dust suppressants, the reader may employ the following average
costs:
Chemical suppressant cost, 1985 $/ga1
Salts
Other
Small lot
0.70a
2.60b
Bulk
0.46a
1.48C
aCost includes delivery and application.
°FOB costs for 55-gal drums.
CFOB; note that at the time this manual was prepared, bulk costs of
suppressants are slightly lower than that stated.
Delivery and contracted application costs may be estimated by increasing
bulk costs by 10 and 15 percent, respectively.
At application intensities and dilution ratios common in the iron and
steel industry, an adequate estimate of applied unit costs for chemical
suppressants is $3,000 per treatment per mile of unpaved road.10 For
treatments at the higher intensities recommended by the chemical supplier,
the corresponding unit cost is approximately $5,000 per treatment per
mile.11 Note that in the iron and steel industry, lighter application
3-21
-------
intensities have been found to be more cost-effective over typical time
intervals between treatments.10
Enforcement of a chemical dust control program would ideally consist
of two complementary approaches. The first facet would require the owner
to maintain adequate records that would document to agency personnel's
satisfaction that a regular program is in place. (See Appendix C for a
suggested recordkeeping format.) The second approach would involve agency
spot checks of controlled roads by taking a material sample from the
road. The latter approach is discussed in Section 3.4. The sampling
method should be essentially the same as that used in the development of
the current AP-42 predictive equations.
Records must be kept that document the frequency of chemicals applied
to unpaved surfaces. Pertinent parameters to be specified in a control
plan and to be regularly recorded include the following.
General Information to be Specified in the Plan
1. All road segments and parking locations referenced on a map
available to both the responsible party and the regulatory agency
2. Length .of each road and area of each parking lot
3. Type of chemical applied to each road/area, dilution ratio,
application intensity, and planned frequency of application
4. Provisions for weather.
Specific Records for Each Road Segment/Parking Area Treatment
1. Date of treatment
2. Operator's initials (note that the operator may keep a separate
log of whose information is transferred to the environmental staff's data
sheets)
3. Start and stop times on a particular segment/parking lot, average
speed, number of passes, amount of solution applied
4. Qualitative description of road surface condition.
General Records to be Kept
1. Equipment maintenance records
2. Meteorological log (to the extent that weather influences the
control program—see above)
3. Any equipment malfunctions or downtime.
3-22
-------
In addition to those items related to control applications, some of
the regulatory formats suggested in Section 3.4 require that additional
records be kept. These records may include surface material samples
(following the sampling/analysis procedures given in Appendices D and E)
or traffic counts. Traffic counts may be recorded either manually or
using automatic devices.
3.4 EXAMPLE DUST CONTROL PLAN
As an illustration of the use of material given earlier, this section
considers an example dust control plan. In this example, it is assumed
that a minimum of 75 percent average control is required on an
uncontrolled unpaved road. Traffic and meteorological parameters for the
road are given below:
Hours of operation: 9 h/day, 250 days/yr
Traffic volume: 25 vehicle passes/h
Average daylight evaporation rate: 0.2 mm/h
3.4.1 Example Water Program
If the above assumptions are substituted, Equation (3-2) may be used
to estimate the necessary hourly watering requirements:
75 < 100 - °-8<°
or,
> 0.16
Thus, any watering program that applies at least 0.16 L/m2 of water for
every hour between applications would result in an estimated average
control of at least 75 percent. Some example programs are presented
below.
- 0.48 L/m2 (0.11 gal/yd2) every 3 h
• 0.40 L/m2 (0.088 gal /yd 2) every 2 1/2 h
• 0.72 L/m2 (0.16 gal/yd2) every 4 1/2 h
3.4.2 Example Chemical Dust Suppressant Program
Figure 3-3 may be used to design a chemical suppressant program
resulting in a minimum of 75 percent average control. The figure
3-23
-------
indicates that 75 percent average control is achieved over 2 weeks with a
ground inventory of 0.41 L/m2 (0.09 gal/yd2) and over 1 month with a
0.56 L/m2 (0.125 gal/yd2) ground inventory. Thus, any of the following
programs would result in a minimum of 75 percent average control:
• 0.45 gal/yd2 of 4 parts water to 1 part chemical applied with any
reapplication every 2 weeks, monthly reapplications after ground
inventory is at least 0.125 gal/yd2
• 0.88 gal/yd2 of a 6:1 solution applied initially, token reapplica-
tions every following month
• 1.0 gal/yd2 of 10:1 solution applied initially, 0.38 of 10:1 solu-
tion 2 weeks later, token reapplications every following 30 days
Note that many other plans meeting the 75 percent minimum could also be
formu1ated.
3.5 POTENTIAL REGULATORY FORMATS
There are numerous regulatory formats possible for unpaved roads.
For example, some state rules have been developed using opacity readings
to determine compliance. The Tennessee and Ohio visible emission methods
are discussed in detail in Appendix C. Michigan and Illinois formulated
rules based on opacity, and both resulted in considerable debates of
merit.
It is important to note that opacity has yet to be related to
emission levels from roads. (As discussed in Appendix C, Indiana has a
current program which will attempt to correlate mass emission levels with
opacity readings.) One often-raised question deals with prevailing wind
speeds during opacity readings; ambient air concentrations (and hence,
opacity levels) tend to be greater under lower wind speeds. Consequently,
for a road with even a constant emission rate, opacity readings would vary
indirectly with wind speed.
Recordkeeping offers another compliance tool for unpaved road dust
controls. The level of detail needed varies with the control option
employed. Table 3-4 summarizes the level of detail required for the
various controls discussed in Section 3.3.
Recordkeeping, together with traffic records as required, will allow
the regulator to estimate control performance for a variety of control
programs. For example, use of the watering model presented as
3-24
-------
TABLE 3-4. RECORDKEEP-ING REQUIREMENTS FOR UNPAVED ROADS
Control
Level of detail
Comments
OJ
I
ro
Paving
Gravel ing
Vegetation
Watering
Chemicals (salts)
Chemicals
Minimal level, starting date of
paving, type, etc.
Minimal level, starting date of
graveling, gravel specifications
grading/reapplication dates
See comment
Extensive, covering each day/
time of application, meteoro-
logical conditions, amount of
water applied, traffic records
Fairly extensive, dates of applica-
tions and subsequent waterings
Moderate, dates and operating
parameters for each application
Additional records required if paved road
controls employed (see Section 2.0)
Before and after measurements of silt
content recommended
Not generally applicable for traffic
sources
Collection of grab samples for moisture
recommended
Collection of grab samples for moisture
recommended
Field samples recommended to bound
control efficiency (see text)
-------
Equation (3-2), together with traffic, application, and meteorological
records, would allow one to estimate average control efficiency.
Moreover, use of Figure 3-4, together with the form shown as Figure 3-5,
allows estimation of chemical suppressant efficiency between
applications. Figure 3-6 shows a completed form corresponding to the
example in Section 3.3.3.2.
While recordkeeping affords a convenient method of assessing long-
term control performance, it is important that regulatory personnel have
"spot-check" compliance tools at their disposal. One such tool was
mentioned earlier in connection with Figure 3-3. Rules could be written
specifying a minimum surface moisture content (thus, corresponding to a
minimum control efficiency) to be maintained on an unpaved surface which
is watered or treated with salts. Inspection personnel would then collect
grab samples for moisture analysis to determine compliance following the
procedures in Appendices 0 and E.
For chemically (other than salts) controlled surfaces, it has been
found that Equation (2-3) tends to overestimate the controlled emission
factor (and thus, underestimate instantaneous control efficiency).10 In
"this way, an inspector could collect an unpaved sample with a whisk broom
and dustpan, and after laboratory analysis for silt content, have a
conservatively low estimate of control efficiency due to the chemical
treatment. .If a rule is written to maintain a certain level of
efficiency, the inspector could then instruct the responsible party to
reapply the chemical or use paved road controls (if feasible).
3-26
-------
:;iii:i i IIIK ir> i;M-IININC iiMir.vi D I ) i c ..< \ iii
1 ill _-nu. i ! >
(rt^\ /yd'/:)
l i) 1 1 l.i 1. i < ilV
!\Ti i i O
( W.M 1 irr : r.lii-'iii )
• .
,
.
.
(Jr in u ul
n VI--TI 1. or y
((j.^l /y.i:.')
0(1 r^D
'iir i oil
(days )
' USE Til
Av(;-rarji- 1 U - 1 O
Control C/. )
IG
-------
win .-i SIIITI i IIK Di-: ii T "• > j
5^* /
•
(Jr in ii id
nv«.-ri t. or y
Qol /yii:.')
Oil T4O
^k ^k « J *\
O.OtZ
O.O83
^ 1 O rfT*
O. /2S
_* >x •*
O./fe 7
^* •% ^h A
O.2O&
•
~
:'n-r i oil
(d^ys )
1 LIGE Til
31
3O
1
31
3O
Avi^ra.jiv PH- 1 O
Control (7.)
1C CCAIJL !
^ AV
43
75
<•% *%
02
^^\ x%
BB
—
Figure 3-6. Example' completed log.
-------
3.4 REFERENCES FOR SECTION 3
1. Environmental Protection Agency. Compilation of Air Pollution
Emission Factors (AP-42). Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.
September 1985.
2. Climatic Atlas of the United States. U.S. Department of Commerce,
Washington, D.C. June 1968.
3. Final Report, MRI Project No. 8162-L. Industrial Client. December
1985.
4. Rosbury, K. D. 1984. Fugitive Dust Control Techniques at Hazardous
Waste Sites. Interim Technical Report No. 1—Proposed Field Sampling
Plan, Contract No. 68-02-3512, WA 61, U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory, Cincinnati,
Ohio. March 1984.
5. Turner, J. H., et al. 1984. Fugitive Particulate Emissions From
Hazardous Waste Sites. Prepared for the U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio. September 1984.
6. Kinsey, J. S., et al. 1985. Control Technology for Sources of
PM10. Draft Final Report, EPA Contract No. 68-02-3891, WA 4.
September 1985.
7. Cuscino, T., Jr., 6. E. Muleski, and C. Cowherd, Jr. Iron and Steel
Plant Open Source Fugitive Emission Control Evaluation. EPA-600/2-
83-110, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle
Park, North Carolina. October 1983.
8. Cowherd, C., Jr., and J. S. Kinsey. 1986. Identification,
Assessment and Control of Fugitive Particulate Emissions.
EPA-600/8-86-023, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
Triangle Park, North Carolina.
9. Russell, D., and S. C. Caruso. 1984. The Relative Effectiveness of
a Dust Suppressant for Use on Unpaved Roads Within the Iron and Steel
Industry. Presented at EPA/AISI Symposium on Iron and Steel
Pollution Abatement, Cleveland, Ohio. October 1984.
10. Muleski, G. E., and C. Cowherd, Jr. Evaluation of the Effectiveness
of Chemical Dust Suppressants on Unpaved Roads. EPA-600/2-87-102,
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina. November 1987.
11. Muleski, G. E., T. Cuscino, Jr., and C. Cowherd, Jr. 1984. Extended
Evaluation of Unpaved Road Dust Suppressants in the Iron and Steel
Industry. EPA-600/2-84-027, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. February 1984.
3-29
-------
4.0 STORAGE PILES
Inherent in operations that use minerals in aggregate form is the
maintenance of outdoor storage piles. Storage piles are usually left
uncovered, partially because of the need for frequent material transfer
into or out of storage.
Dust emissions occur at several points in the storage cycle, during
material loading onto the pile, during disturbances by strong wind
currents, and during loadout from the pile. The movement of trucks and
loading equipment in the storage pile area is also a substantial source of
dust.
4.1 ESTIMATION OF EMISSIONS
The quantity of dust emissions from aggregate storage operations
varies with the volume of aggregate passing through the storage cycle.
Also, emissions depend on three correction parameters that characterize
the condition of a particular storage pile: age of the pile, moisture
content, proportion of aggregate fines, and friability of the material.
When freshly processed aggregate is loaded onto, a storage pile, its
potential for dust emissions is at a maximum. Fines are easily -
disaggregated and released .to the atmosphere'upon exposure to air currents
from transfer operations or high winds. As the aggregate weathers,
however, potential for dust emissions is greatly reduced. Moisture causes
aggregation and cementation of fines to the surfaces of larger particles.
Field investigations have shown that emissions from certain aggregate
storage operations vary in direct proportion to the percentage of silt
(particles <75 urn in diameter) in the aggregate material.'--7 The silt
content is determined by measuring the proportion of dry aggregate
material that passes through a 200-mesh screen, using ASTM-C-136 method.
Table 4-1 summarizes measured silt and moisture values for industrial
aggregate materials.
Total dust emissions from aggregate storage piles are contributions
of several distinct source activities within the storage cycle:
4-1
-------
TABLE 4-1. TYPICAL SILT AND MOISTURE CONTENT VALUES OF MATERIALS AT VARIOUS INDUSTRIES
i
ro'
Industry
Iron and steel production3
~
Stone quarrying and processing
Taconite mining and processing0
Western surface coal mining
^References 2 through 5. NA = not
Reference I.
cReference 6.
Reference 7.
Material
Pel let ore
Lump ore
Coal
Slag
Flue dust
Coke breeze
Blended ore
Sinter
Limestone
Crushed 1 imestone
Pellets
Tai 1 ings
Coal
Overburden
Exposed ground
appl icable.
No. of
test
samples
10
9
7
3
2
1
1
1
1
2
9
2
15
15
3
Silt, percent
Range
1.4-13
2.8-19
2-7.7
3-7.3
14-23
1.3-1.9
2.2-5.4
NA
3.4-16
3.8-15
5.1-21
Mean
4.9
9.5
5
5.3
18.0
5.4
15.0
0.7
0.4
1.6
3.4
11.0
6.2
7.5
15.0
No. of
test
samples
8
6
6
3
0
1
1
0
0
2
7
1
7
0
3
Moisture, percent
Range
0.64-3.5
1.6-8.1
2.8-11
0.25-2.2
NA
NA
NA
0.3-1 .1
0.05-2.3
2.8-20
NA
0.8-6.4
Mean
2.1
5.4
4.8
0.92
NA
6.4
6.6
NA
NA
0.7
0.96
0.35
6.9
NA
3.4
-------
1. Loading of aggregate onto storage piles (batch or continuous drop
operations).
2. Equipment traffic in storage area.
3. Wind erosion of pile surfaces and ground areas around piles.
4. Loadout of aggregate for shipment or for return to the process
stream (batch or continuous drop operations).
4.1.1 Materials Handling
Adding aggregate material to a storage pile or removing it usually
involves dropping .the material onto a receiving surface. Truck dumping on
the pile or loading out from the pile to a truck with a front-end loader
are examples of batch drop operations. Adding material to the pile by a
conveyor stacker is an example of a continuous drop operation.
The following equation is recommended for estimating emissions from
transfer operations (batch or continuous drop):
E = k(0.0016) • . 4 (kg/Mg)
/M* i<4 .
(?)
(4-1)
U l'3
(5)
E = k(0.0032) - — r-j- (Ib/ton) .
M -1- «^
(?)
where: E = emission factor
k = particle size multiplier (dimensionless)
U = mean wind speed, m/s (mph)
M = material moisture content, percent
The particle size multiplier k varies with aerodynamic particle diameter
as shown below:
Aerodynamic Particle Size Multiplier, k
<30 um <15 urn
-------
For emissions from equipment traffic (trucks, front-end loaders,
dozers, etc.) traveling between or on piles, it is recommended that the
equations for vehicle traffic on unpaved surfaces be used (see
Section 3-0). For vehicle travel between storage piles, the silt value(s)
for the areas among the piles (which may differ from the silt values for
the stored materials) should be used.
4.1.2 Wind Erosion
Dust emissions may be generated by wind erosion of open aggregate
storage piles and exposed areas within an industrial facility. These
sources typically are characterized by nonhomogeneous surfaces impregnated
with nonerodible elements (particles larger than approximately 1 cm in
diameter). Field testing of coal piles and other exposed materials using
a portable wind, tunnel has shown that (a) threshold wind speeds exceed
5 m/s (11 mph) at 15 cm above the surface or 10 m/s (22 mph) at 7 m above
the surface, and (b) particulate emission rates tend, to decay rapidly
(half life of a few minutes) during an erosion event. In other words,
these aggregate material surfaces are characterized by finite availability
of erodible material (mass/area) referred to as the erosion potential.
Any natural crusting of the surface binds the erodible material, thereby
reducing the erosion potential.
4.1.2.1 Emissions and Correction Parameters. If typical values for
threshold wind speed at 15 cm are corrected to typical wind sensor height
(7-10 m), the resulting values exceed the upper extremes of hourly mean
wind speeds observed in most areas of the country. In other words, mean
atmospheric wind speeds are not sufficient to sustain wind erosion from
aggregate material surfaces. However, wind gusts may quickly deplete a
substantial portion of the erosion potential. Because erosion potential
has been found to increase rapidly with increasing wind speed, estimated
emissions should be related to the gusts of highest magnitude.
The routinely measured meteorological variable which best reflects
the magnitude of wind gusts is the fastest mile. This quantity represents
the wind speed corresponding to the whole mile of wind movement which has
passed by the 1-mi contact anemometer in the least amount of time. Daily
measurements of the fastest mile are presented in the monthly Local
Climatological Data (LCD) summaries. The LCD summaries can be obtained
4-4
-------
from the National Climatic Center, Asheville, North Carolina. The
duration of the fastest mile, typically about 2 min (for a fastest mile of
30 mph), matches well with the half life of the erosion process, which
ranges between 1 and 4 min. It should be noted, however, that peak winds
can significantly exceed the daily fastest mile.
The wind speed profile in the surface boundary layer is found to
follow a logarithmic distribution:
u(z) = fa In(f-) (z > zQ) (4-2)
o
where: u = wind speed, cm/s
u* = friction velocity, cm/s
z = height above test surface, cm
z0 = roughness height, cm
0.4 = von Karman's constant, dimensionless
The friction velocity (u*) is a measure of wind shear stress on the
erodible surface, as determined from the slope of the logarithmic velocity
profile. The roughness height (ZQ) is a measure of the roughness of the
exposed surface as determined from the y-intercept of the velocity
profile, i.e., the height at which the wind speed is zero. These
parameters are illustrated in Figure 4-1 for a roughness height of 0.1 cm.
Emissions generated by wind erosion are also dependent on the
frequency of disturbance of the erodible surface because each time that a
surface is disturbed, its erosion potential is restored. A disturbance is
defined as an action which results in the exposure of fresh surface
material. On a storage pile, this would occur whenever aggregate material
is either added to or removed from the old surface. A disturbance of an
exposed area may also result from the turning of surface material to a
depth exceeding the size of the largest pieces of material present.
4.1.2.2 Predictive Emission Factor Equations. The emission factor
for wind-generated particulate emissions from mixtures of erodible and
nonerodible surface material subject to disturbance may be expressed in
units of g/m2-yr as follows:
N
Emission factor = k £ P. (4-3)
4-5
-------
lotn
o.s
SPEED AT Z
IOm
Figure 4-1. Illustration of logarithmic velocity profile.
-------
where: k = particle size multiplier
N = number of disturbances per year
P^ = erosion potential corresponding to the observed (or probable)
fastest mile of wind for the ith period between disturbances,
The particle size multiplier (k) for Equation 4-3 varies with
aerodynamic particle size, as follows:
AERODYNAMIC PARTICLE SIZE MULTIPLIERS FOR EQUATION 4-3
<30 ym <15 ym <10 ym <2.5 ym
1.0 0.6 0.5 0.2
This distribution of particle size within the <30 ym fraction is
comparable to the distributions reported for other fugitive dust sources
where wind speed is a factor. This is illustrated, for example, in the
distributions for batch and continuous drop operations encompassing a
number of test aggregate materials (see AP-42 Section 11.2.3).
In calculating emission factors, each area of an erodible surface
that is subject to a different frequency of disturbance should be treated
separately. For a surface disturbed daily, N = 365/yr, and for a surface
disturbance once every 6 mo, N = 2/yr.
The erosion potential function for a dry, exposed surface has the
following form:
P = 58 (u* - u*)z + 25 (u* - u*)
(4-4)
P = 0 for u* < u*
where: u* = friction velocity (m/s)
u£ = threshold friction velocity (m/s)
Table 4-2 presents the erosion potential function in matrix form.
Because of the nonlinear form of the erosion potential function, each
erosion event must be treated separately.
4-7
-------
TABLE 4-2. EROSION POTENTIAL FUNCTION
"*• *
m/s u. =
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.0
2.2
2.4
2.6
2.8
3.0
0.2
0
7
19
36
57
83
114
149
188
233
282
336
394
457
525
0.4
0
0
7
19
36
57
83
114
149
188
233
282
336
394
457
0.6
0
0
0
7
19
36
57
83
114
149
188
233
282
336
394
0.8
0
0
0
0
7
19
36
57
83
114
149
188
233
282
336
1.0
0
0
0
0
0
7
19
36
57
83
114
149
188
233
282
P
-------
Equations 4-3 and 4-4 apply only to dry, exposed materials with
limited erosion potential. The resulting calculation is valid only for a
time period as long or longer than the period between disturbances.
Calculated emissions represent intermittent events and should not be input
directly into dispersion models that assume steady state emission rates.
For uncrusted surfaces, the threshold friction velocity is best
estimated from the dry aggregate structure of the soil. A simple hand
sieving test of surface soil (adapted from a laboratory procedure
published by W. S. Chepil9) can be used to determine the mode of the
surface aggregate size distribution by inspection of relative sieve catch
amounts, following the procedure specified in Section 6. The threshold
friction velocity for erosion can be determined from the mode of the
aggregate size distribution, as described by Gillette.10 This conversion
is also described in Section 6.
Threshold friction velocities for several surface types have been
determined by field measurements with a portable wind tunnel.10-^ These
values are presented in Tables 4-3 and 4-4 for industrial aggregates and
Arizona sites. Figure 4-2 depicts these data graphically.
The fastest mile of wind for the periods between disturbances may be
obtained from the monthly LCD summaries for the nearest reporting weather
station that is representative of the site in question.11* These summaries
report actual fastest mile values for each day of a given month. Because
the erosion potential is a highly nonlinear function of the fastest mile,
mean values of the fastest mile are inappropriate. The anemometer heights
of reporting weather stations are found in Reference 15, and should be
corrected to a 10 m reference height using Equation 4-2.
To convert the fastest mile of wind (u+) from a reference anemometer
height of 10 m to the equivalent friction velocity (u*), the logarithmic
wind speed profile may be used to yield the following equation:
(4-5) u* = 0.053 u|o
where: u* = friction velocity (m/s)
uto = fastest mile of reference anemometer for period between
disturbances (m/s)
4-9
-------
TABLE 4-3. THRESHOLD FRICTION VELOCITIES—INDUSTRIAL AGGREGATES
Threshold wind
Material
Overburdena
Scoria (roadbed
Threshold
friction
velocity,
m/s
1.02
1.33
velocity at
Roughness
height,
cm
0.3
0.3
10 m
actual
21
27
(m/s)
0?5 cm
19
25
Ref.
7
7
material)d
Ground coala
(surrounding coal
pile)
Uncrusted coal pilec
Scraper tracks on
coal -pile3'0
Fine coal dust on
concrete pad
0.55
1.12
0.62
0.54
0.01
0.3
0.06
0.2
16
23
15
11
10
21
12
10
7
7
12
^Western surface coal mine.
DLightly crusted.
cEastern power plant.
4-10
-------
TABLE 4-4. THRESHOLD FRICTION VELOCITIES—ARIZONA SITES1
Location
Threshold
friction
velocity,
m/sec
Roughness
height,
(cm)
Threshold
wind velocity
at 10 m,
m/sec
Mesa - Agricultural site 0.57
Glendale - Construction site 0.53
Maricopa - Agricultural site 0.58
Yuma - Disturbed desert 0.32
Yuma - Agricultural site 0.58
Algodones - Dune flats 0.62
Yuma - Scrub desert 0.39
Santa Cruz River, Tucson 0.18
Tucson - Construction site 0.25
Ajo - Mine tailings 0.23
Hayden - Mine tailings 0.17
Salt River, Mesa 0.22
Casa Grande - Abandoned 0.25
agricultural land
0.0331
0.0301
0.1255
0.0731
0.0224
0.0166
0.0163
0.0204
0.0181
0.0176
0.0141
0.0100
0.0067
16
15
14
8
17
18
11
5
7
7
5
7
8
4-11
-------
For narrowly sized, finely divided materials only
1 -_,
Aggregate size
(distribution' mode U*, Measured
(in) (mm) (cm/s)
1
Gravel >
Coarse
Sand "<
Fine
Sand ~*
— — —
r-
0.3
0.2
0.1
"
0.05
, 001
<-
8
7
6
4
3
-
2
__
1
0.5
-
0.1
0.02
-
""*
~" n-.
-
—
p
|-
—
150
Undisturbed coal pila
Scoria
Undisturbed coal pila
Uncrusled coal pile
IflA 1 W/<* Overburden
Disturbed coal pile
Coal pila (scraper IracKs)
Ouna Hals
Agricultural sites
Ground coal
tn AI CW) / c""sl«iclion sila
OU— O-'-y '/$ Finucoaldusl
Scrub dosed
Oisluibud desorl
Construction site and disluibud prairiu soil
Abandoned agricultural land
Huvlal channels
Mine liiilirujs
0
Figure 4-2. Scale of threshold friction velocities.
-------
This assumes a typical roughness height of 0.5 cm for open terrain.
Equation 4-5 is restricted to large relatively flat piles or exposed areas
with little penetration into the surface wind layer.
If the pile significantly penetrates the surface wind layer (i.e.,
with a height-to-base ratio exceeding 0.2), it is necessary to divide the
pile area into subareas representing different degrees of exposure to
wind. The results of physical modeling show that the frontal face of an
elevated pile is exposed to wind speeds of the same order as the approach
wind speed at the top of the pile.
For two representative pile shapes (conical and oval with flat-top,
37 degree side slope), the ratios of surface wind speed (us) to approach
wind speed (ur) have been derived from wind tunnel studies.11 The results
are shown in Figure 4-3 corresponding to an actual pile height of 11 m, a
reference (upwind) anemometer height of 10 m, and a pile surface roughness
height (ZQ) of 0.5 cm. The measured surface winds correspond to a height
of 25 cm above the surface. The area fraction within each contour pair is
specified in Table 4-5.
The profiles of us/ur in Figure 4-3 can be used to estimate the
surface friction velocity distribution around similarly shaped piles,
using the following procedure: -
1. Correct the fastest mile value (u+) for the period of interest
from the anemometer height (z) to a reference height of 10 m
(uto) using a variation of Equation 4-2, as follows:
n+ - + In (10/0.005) , .
Uio - u in (z/0.005) (4'6)
where a typical roughness height of 0.5 cm (0.005 m) has been
assumed. If a site specific roughness height is available, it
should be used.
2. Use the appropriate part of Figure 4-3 based on the pile shape
and orientation to the fastest mile of wind, to obtain the
corresponding surface wind speed distribution (u*), i.e.,
4-13
-------
Flow
Direction
Pile A
Pile B1
Pile 82
Pile B3
Figure 4-3. Contours of normalized surface wind speeds, u./u .
4-14
-------
TABLE 4-5. SUBAREA DISTRIBUTION FOR REGIMES OF Uj/u,.
Percent of pile surface area (Figure 4-3)
Pile subarea Pile A Pile 81 Pile B2 Pile 83
0.2a
0.2b
0.2c
0.6a
0.6b
0.9
1.1
5
35
-
48
-
12
_
5
2
29
26
24
14
_
3
28
-
29
22
15
3
3
25
-
28
26
14
4
4-15
-------
3. For any subarea of the pile surface having a narrow range of
surface wind speed, use a variation of Equation 4-2 to calculate
the equivalent friction velocity (u*), as follows:
0.4 u+
u* = ^ -0.10 u+ (4-8)
1n 0^
From this point on, the procedure is identical to that used for a
flat pile, as described above.
Implementation of the above procedure is carried out in the following
steps:
1. Determine threshold friction velocity for erodible material of
interest (see Tables 4-3 and 4-4 or Figure 4-2 or determine from mode of
aggregate size distribution).
2. Divide the exposed surface area into subareas of constant
frequency of disturbance (N).
3. Tabulate fastest mile values (u+) for each frequency of
disturbance and correct them to 10 m (u*o) using Equation 4-6.
4. Convert fastest mile values (uto) to equivalent friction
velocities (u*), taking into account (a) the uniform wind exposure of
nonelevated surfaces, using Equation 4-5, or (b) the nonuniform wind
exposure of elevated surfaces (piles), using Equations 4-7 and 4-8.
5. For elevated surfaces (piles), subdivide areas of constant N into
subareas of constant u* (i.e., within the isopleth values of us/ur in
Figure 4-3 and Table 4-5) and determine the size of each subarea.
6. Treating each subarea (of constant N and u*) as a separate
source, calculate the erosion potential (Pj) for each period between
disturbances using Equation 4-4 and the emission factor using
Equation 4-3.
7. Multiply the resulting emission factor for each subarea by the
size of the subarea, and add the emission contributions of all subareas.
Note that the highest 24-h emissions would be expected to occur on the
windiest day of the year. Maximum emissions are calculated assuming a
single wind event with the highest fastest mile value for the annual
period.
4-16
-------
The recommended emission factor equation presented above assumes that
.all of the erosion potential corresponding to the fastest mile of wind is
lost during the period between disturbances. Because the fastest mile
event typically lasts only about 2 min, which corresponds roughly to the
half-life for the decay of actual erosion potential, it could be argued
that the emission factor overestimates particulate emissions. However,
there are other aspects of the wind erosion process which offset this
apparent conservatism:
1. The fastest mile event contains. peak winds which substantially
exceed the mean value for the event.
2. Whenever the fastest mile event occurs, there are usually a
number of periods of slightly lower mean wind speed which contain peak
gusts of the same order as the fastest mile wind speed.
Of greater concern is the likelihood of overprediction of wind
erosion emissions in the case of surfaces disturbed infrequently in
comparison to the rate of crust formation.
4.1.3 Wind Emissions From Continuously Active Piles
For emissions from wind erosion of active storage piles, the
following total suspended particulate (TSP) emission factor equation is
recommended:
E = l'9 (I75) (^Sr} (H) (k9/d/hectare)
(4-9)
E = 1.7 (L) (H) () (Ib/d/acre)
where: E = total suspended particulate emission factor
s = silt content of aggregate, percent
p = number of days with >0.25 mm (0.01 in.) of precipitation per
year
f = percentage of time that the unobstructed wind speed exceeds
5.4 m/s (12 mph) at the mean pile height
The fraction of TSP which is PM10 is estimated at 0.5 and is
consistent with the PM10/TSP ratios for materials handling (Section 4.1.1)
and wind erosion (Section 4.1.2). The coefficient in Equation (4-9) is
taken from Reference 1, based on sampling of emissions from a sand and
4-17
-------
gravel storage pile area during periods when transfer and maintenance
equipment was not operating. The factor from Reference 1, expressed in
mass per unit area per day, is more reliable than the factor expressed in
mass per unit mass of material placed in storage, for reasons stated in
that report. Note that the coefficient has been halved to adjust for the
estimate that the wind speed through the emission layer at the test site
was one half of the value measured above the top of the piles. The other
terms in this equation were added to correct for silt, precipitation, and
frequency of high winds, as discussed in Reference 2. Equation (4-9) is
rated in AP-42 as C for application in the sand and gravel industry and D
for other industries (see Appendix A).
Worst case emissions from storage pile areas occur under dry windy
conditions. Worst case emissions from materials handling (batch and
continuous drop) operations may be calculated by substituting into
Equation (4-9) appropriate values for aggregate material moisture content
and for anticipated wind speeds during the worst case averaging period,
usually 24 h. The treatment of dry conditions for vehicle traffic
(Section 3.0) and for wind erosion (Equation 4-9), centering around
parameter p, follows the methodology described in Section 3.0. Also, a
separate set of nonclimatic correction parameters and source extent values
corresponding to higher than normal storage pile activity may be justified
for the worst case averaging period.
4.2 DEMONSTRATED CONTROL TECHNIQUES
The control techniques applicable to storage piles fall into distinct
categories as related to materials handling operations (including traffic
around piles) and wind erosion. In both cases, the control can be
achieved by (a) source extent reduction, (b) source improvement related to
work practices and transfer equipment (load-in and load-out operations),
and (c) surface treatment. These control options are summarized in
Table 4-6. The efficiency of these controls ties back to the emission
factor relationships presented earlier in this section.
In most cases, good work practices which confine freshly exposed
material provide substantial opportunities for emission reduction without
the need for investment in a control application program. For example,
pile activity, loading and unloading, can be confined to leeward
(downwind) side of the pile. This statement also applies to areas around
4-18
-------
TABLE 4-6. CONTROL TECHNIQUES FOR STORAGE PILES
Material handling
Source extent reduction
Source improvement
Surface treatment
Wind erosion
Source extent reduction
Source improvement
Surface treatment
Mass transfer reduction
Drop height reduction
Wind sheltering
Moisture retention
Wet suppression
Disturbed area reduction
Disturbance frequency reduction
Spillage cleanup
Spillage reduction
Disturbed area wind exposure
reduction
Wet suppression
Chemical stabilization
4-19
-------
the pile as well as the pile itself. In particular, spillage of material
caused by pile load-out and maintenance equipment can add a large source
component associated with traffic-entrained dust. Emission inventory
calculations show, in fact, that the traffic dust component may easily
dominate over emissions from transfer of material and wind erosion. The
prevention of spillage and subsequent spreading of material by vehicle
tracking is essential to cost-effective emission control. If spillage
cannot be prevented because of the need for intense use of mobile
equipment in the storage pile area, then regular cleanup should be
employed as a necessary mitigative measure.
The evaluation of preventative methods which change the properties or
exposure of transfer streams or surface material are discussed in the
following section.
4.3 EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVE CONTROL MEASURES
Preventive methods for control of windblown emissions from raw
material storage piles include chemical stabilization, enclosures, and
wetting. Physical stabilization by covering the exposed surface with less
erodible aggregate material and/or vegetative .stabilization are seldom
practical control methods for raw-material storage piles.
To test the effectiveness of chemical stabilization controls for wind
erosion of storage piles and tailings piles, wind tunnel measurements have
been performed. Although most of this work has been carried out in
laboratory wind tunnels, portable wind tunnels have been used in the field
on storage piles and tailings piles.16,17 Laboratory wind tunnels have
also been used with physical models to measure the effectiveness of wind
screens in reducing surface wind velocity.11
4.3.1 Chemical Stabilization
A portable wind tunnel has been used to measure the control of coal
pile wind erosion emissions by a 17 percent solution of Coherex® in water
applied at an intensity of 3.4 L/m2 (0.74 gal/yard2), and a 2.8 percent
solution of Dow Chemical M-167 Latex Binder in water applied at an average
intensity of 6.8 L/m2 (1.5 gal/yard2).16 The control efficiency of
Coherex® applied at the above intensity to an undisturbed steam coal
surface approximately 60 days before the test, under a wind of 15.0 m/s
(33.8 mph) at 15.2 cm (6 in.) above the ground, was 89.6 percent for TP
4-20
-------
and approximately 62 percent for IP and FP. The control efficiency of the
latex binder on a low volatility coking coal is shown in Figure 4-4.
Cost elements for chemical stabilization are presented in
Table 4-7. The cost of a system for application of surface crusting
chemicals to storage piles is $18,400 for the initial capital cost and
$0.006 to $0.Oil/ft2 for annual operating expenses based on April 1985
dollars.18 Tables 4-8 and 4-9 provide recordkeeping forms for application
of chemical dust suppressants.
4.3.2 Enclosures
Enclosures are an effective means by which to control fugitive
particulate emissions from open dust sources. Enclosures can either fully
or partially enclose the source. Included in the category of partial
enclosures are porous wind screens or barriers. This particular type of
enclosure is discussed in detail below.
With the exception of wind fences/barriers, a review of available
literature reveals no quantitative information on the effectiveness of
enclosures to control fugitive dust emissions from open sources. Types of
passive enclosures traditionally used for open dust control include three-
sided bunkers for the storage of bulk materials, storage silos for various
types of aggregate material (in lieu of open piles), -open-ended buildings,
and similar structures. Practically any means that reduces wind
entrainment of particles produced either through erosion of a dust-
producing surface (e.g., storage silos) or by dispersion of a dust plume
generated directly by a source (e.g., front-end loader in a three-sided
enclosure) is generally effective in controlling fugitive particulate
emissions. However, available data are not sufficient to quantify
emission reductions.
Partial enclosures used for reducing windblown dust from large
exposed areas and storage piles include porous wind fences and similar
types of physical barriers (e.g., trees). The principle of the wind
fence/barrier is to provide an area of reduced wind velocity which allows
settling of the large particles (which cause saltation) and reduces the
particle flux from the exposed surface on the leeward side of the fence/
barrier. The control efficiency of wind fences is dependent on the
physical dimensions of the fence relative to the source being
4-21
-------
100
80
o
c
CD
"o
60
LLJ
o 40
"c
o
o
20
6.8 /m2(l.5 gal/yd2) of
2.8% Solution in Water
Tunnel Wind
Speed = 17 m/s (38 mph)
at 15 cm (6.0 in)
Above the Test Surface
Key:
o
D-
•OTP
•a IP
I
1
1
0 12 3 4
Time After Application (Days)
Figure 4-4. Decay in control efficiency of latex binder applied to
coal storage piles.LS
4-22
-------
TABLE 4-7. CAPITAL AND O&M ITEMS FOR CHEMICAL STABILIZATION
OF OPEN AREA SOURCES
Capital equipment
• Storage equipment
Tanks
Railcars
Pumps
Piping
• Application equipment
Trucks
Spray system
Piping (including winterizing)
O&M expenditures
• Utility or fuel costs
Water
Electricity
Gasoline or d'iesel fuel
• Supplies
Chemicals
Repair parts
• Labor
Application time
Road conditioning
System maintenance
4-23
-------
TABLE 4-8. TYPICAL FORM FOR RECORDING CHEMICAL DUST SUPPRESSANT CONTROL PARAMETERS
Application
Type of Dilution intensity, Equipment Operator
Date Time chemical ratio gal/yd Area(s) treated used initials Comments
-------
TABLE 4-9. TYPICAL FORM FOR RECORDING DELIVERY OF CHEMICAL DUST SUPPRESSANTS
Chemical Quantity Delivery
Date Time delivered delivered agent .Facility destination3 Comments
i
IX)
ui
aDenote whether suppressant will be applied immediately upon receipt or placed in storage.
-------
controlled. In general, a porosity (i.e., percent open area) of
50 percent seems to be optimum for most applications. Wind fences/
barriers can either be man-made structures or vegetative in nature.
A number of studies have attempted to determine the effectiveness of
wind fences/barriers for the control of windblown dust under field
conditions. Several of these studies have shown both a. significant
decrease in wind velocity as well as an increase in sand dune growth on
the lee side of the fence.19-22
Various problems have been noted with the sampling methodology used
in each of the field studies conducted to date. These problems tend to
limit an accurate assessment of the overall degree of control achievable
by wind fences/barriers for large open sources. Most of this work has
either not thoroughly characterized the-velocity profile behind the
•
fence/barrier or adequately assessed the particle flux from the exposed
surface.
A 1988 laboratory wind tunnel study of windbreak effectiveness for
coal storage piles showed area-averaged wind speed reductions of -50 to
70 percent for a 50 percent porosity windbreak with height equal to the.
pile height and length equal to the pile base. The windbreak was located
three pile heights upwind from the base of the pile. This study also
suggested "that fugitive dust emissions on the top of the pile may be
controlled locally through the use of a windbreak at the top of the pile."
Based on the 1.3 power given in Equation (4-1), reductions of -50 to
70 percent would correspond to -60 to 80 percent control of material
handling PM10 emissions. Estimation of wind erosion control requires
source-specific evaluation because of the interrelation of ut and u* (for
both controlled and uncontrolled conditions) in Equation (4-14).
This same laboratory study showed that a storage pile may itself
serve as a wind break by reducing wind speed on the leeward face
(Figure 4-3). The degree of wind sheltering and associated wind erosion
emission reduction is dependent on the shape of the pile and on the
approach angle of the wind to an elongated pile.
One of the real advantages of wind fences for the control of PM10
involves the low capital and operating costs.21,23 These involve the
following basic elements:
4-26
-------
• Capital equipment:
— Fence material and supports
~ Mounting hardware
• Operating and maintenance expenditures:
— Replacement fence material and hardware
— Maintenance labor
The following cost estimates (in 1980 dollars) were developed for
wind screens applied to aggregate storage piles:24
• Artificial wind guards:
-- Initial capital cost = $12,000 to $61,000
• Vegetative wind breaks
— Initial capital costs = $45 to $425 per tree
Due to the lack of quantitative data on costs associated with wind
screens, it is recommended that local vendors be contacted to obtain more
detailed data for capital and operating expenses. Also, since wind fences
and screens are relatively "low tech" controls, it may be possible for the
site operator to construct the necessary equipment using site personnel
with less expense.
As with other options mentioned above, the main regulatory approach
involved with wind fences and screens would involve recordkeeping by the
site operator. Parameters to be specified in the dust control plan and
routinely recorded are:
General Information to be Specified in Plan
1. Locations of all materials storage and handling operations to be
controlled with wind fences referenced on a plot plan available to the
site operator and regulatory personnel
2. Physical dimensions of each source to be controlled and
configuration of each fence or screen to be installed
3. Physical characteristics of material to be handled or stored for
each operation to be controlled by fence(s) or screen(s)
4. Applicable prevailing meteorological data (e.g., wind speed and
direction) for site on an annual basis
Specific Operational Records
1. Date of installation of wind fence or screen and initials of
installer
4-27
-------
2. Location of installation relative to source and prevailing winds
3. Type of material being handled and stored and physical dimensions
of source controlled
4. Date of removal of wind fence or screen and initials of personnel
involved
General Records to be Kept
1. Fence or screen maintenance record
2. Log of meteorological conditions for each day of site operation
4.3.3 Wet Suppression Systems
Fugitive emissions from aggregate materials handling systems are
frequently controlled by wet suppression systems. These systems use
liquid sprays or foam to suppress the formation of airborne dust. The
primary control mechanisms are those that prevent emissions through
agglomerate formation by combining small dust particles with larger
aggregate or with liquid droplets. The key factors that affect the degree
of agglomeration and, hence, the performance of the system are the
coverage of the material by the liquid and the ability of the liquid to
"wet" small particles. This section addresses two types of wet
suppression systems--liquid sprays which use water or water/surfactant
mixtures as the wetting agent and systems which supply foams as the
wetting agent.
Liquid spray wet suppression systems can be used to control dust
emissions from materials handling at conveyor transfer points. The
wetting agent can be water or a combination of water and a chemical
surfactant. This surfactant, or surface active agent, reduces the surface
tension of the water. As a result, the quantity of liquid needed to
achieve good control is reduced. For systems using water only, addition
of surfactant can reduce the quantity of water necessary to achieve a good
control by a ratio of 4:1 or more.25,26
The design specifications for wet suppression systems are generally
based on the experience of the design engineer rather than on established
design equations or handbook calculations. Some general design guidelines
that have been reported in the literature as successful are listed below:
1. A variety of nozzle types have been used on wet suppression
systems, but recent data suggest that hollow cone nozzles produce the
greatest control while minimizing clogging.27
4-28
-------
2. Optimal droplet size for surface impaction and fine particle
agglomeration is about 500 urn; finer droplets are affected by drift and
surface tension and appear to be less effective.28
3. Application of water sprays to the underside of a conveyor belt
improves the performance of wet suppression systems at belt-to-belt
transfer points.29
Micron-sized foam application is an alternative to water spray
systems. The primary advantage of foam systems is that they provide
equivalent control at lower moisture addition rates than spray
systems.29 However, the foam system is more costly and requires the use
of extra materials and equipment. The foam system also achieves control
primarily through the wetting and agglomeration of fine particles. The
fol-lowing guidelines to achieve good particle agglomeration have been
suggested:30
1. The foam can be made to contact the particulate material by any
means. High velocity impact or other brute force means are not
required.
2. The foam should be distributed throughout the product material.
Inject the foam into free-falling material rather than cover the product
with foam.
3. The amount applied should allow all of the foam to dissipate.
The presence of foam with the product indicates that either too much foam
has been used or it has not been adequately dispersed within the
material.
Available data for both water spray and foam wet suppression systems
are presented in Tables 4-10 and 4-11, respectively. The data primarily
included estimates of control efficiency based on concentrations of total
particulate or respirable dust in the workplace atmosphere. Some data on
mass emissions reduction are also presented. The data should be viewed
with caution in that test data ratings are generally low and only minimal
data on process or control system parameters are presented.
The data in Tables 4-10 and 4-11 do indicate that a wide range of
efficiencies can be obtained from wet suppression systems. For conveyor
transfer stations, liquid spray systems had efficiencies ranging from 42
to 75 percent, while foam systems had efficiencies ranging from 0 to
4-29
-------
TABLE 4-10 SUMMARY OF AVAILABLE CONTROL EFFICIENCY DATA FOR WATER SPRAYS
Ref.
No. Type of process Type of material
25 Chain feeder to Coal
belt transfer
Belt-to-belt Coal
transfer
27 Grizzly transfer Run of mill sand
to the bucket
elevator
•F*
CO
o
28 Conveyor trans- Coal
port and
transfer
Process design/
operating parameters Control system parameters
3 ft drop, 8 tons coal per load 8 sprays, 2.5 gal/min, above
belt only
8 sprays. 2.5 gal/min and one
one spray on underside of
belt
Not specified 8 sprays, 2.5 gal/min above
belt only8
8 sprays, 2.5 gal/min and one
one spray on underside of
belt3
Not specified Liquid volume 757 ml
Liquid volume 1,324 ml
Liquid volume 1,324 mLe
Liquid volume 1.324 mLf
1 belts 0.91 m and 1.07 m 3 spray bars/belt, underside
widths, "500 m length of tall pulley, 5-10 cc
H 0/s per bar, Delevan
"Fanjet" sprays
Measurement technique3
Personnel samplers.
Type 1 test scheme
Personnel samplers.
Type 1 test scheme
Personnel samplers,
Type 1 test scheme
Personnel samplers.
Type 1 test scheme
Personnel samplers.
Type 1 test scheme
Personnel samplers.
Type 1 test scheme
Personnel samplers.
Type 1 test scheme
Personnel samplers.
Type 1 test scheme
Personnel samplers.
Type 1 test scheme^
Test
No. of data
tests rating
10 C
4 C
10 C
4 C
NA C
NA C
NA C
NA C
NA D
Control
effi-
ciency,
percent1"
RP 56
TP 59
RP 81
TP 87
RP 53
RP H2
RP 46
RP 58
RP 54
RP 54
RP-65-76
RAM samples are from Realtime Aerosol Monitors, light scattering type instruments. Type 1 tests include measurements of a single source with and without control.
"Test rating scheme defined in Section 4.4.
'IP = Total particulate; RP = respirable paniculate.
Control applied at a point five transfers upstream.
^Water+1.5 percent surfactant.
Water*2.5 percent surfactant.
^Individual test values not specified; no airflow data or QA/QC data.
-------
TABLE 4-11. SUMMARY OF AVAILABLE CONTROL EFFICIENCY DATA FOR FOAM SUPPRESSION SYSTEMS
Ref. Process design/
No. Type of process Type of material operating parameters
27 Belt-to-belt 30-nesh glass sand Sand temp. ~120°F
transfer
Belt-to-bin 30-»esh glass sand Sand temp. "120°F
transfer
Bulk loadout 30-mesh glass sand Sand temp. ~120°F
Screw-to-belt Cleaned run-of- 174 tons/h, sand temp. ~190°F
transfer mine sand
Bucket elevator Cleaned run-of- 179 tons/h, sand temp. "190°F
discharge mind sand
^ Belt-to-belt Cleaned run-of- 193 tons/h. sand temp. "190°F
1 transfer mine sand
CO
I—"
Feeder bar Cleaned run-of- 191 tons/h, sand temp. "WF
discharge mine sand
Grizzley transfer Dried run of mine Hot specified
to bucket sand
elevator
25 Cnain feeder to Coai 3-ft drop, 8 tons coal per load
belt transfer
Belt-to-belt Coal Not specified
transfer
Control system parameters
Not specified
Nqt specified
Not specified
.
Moisture = 0.25 percent
Moisutre = 0.18 percent
Moisture = 0.18 percent
Moisutre - 0. 19 percent
Foam rate - 10.5 ft /ton sand
Liquid rate * 0.38 gal/min
Foam rate = 8.2 ft3/ton sand
Liquid rate - 0.34 gal/min
Foam rate - 7.5 ft /ton sand
Liquid rate - 0.20 gal/min
50 psi HO, 2.5 percent
reagent, four nozzles 15 to
20 ft3 foam applied1*
50 psi HO, 2.5 percent
reagent, four nozzles 15 to
20 ft3 foam applied6
Measurement technique3
Personnel samplers.
Type 1 test scheme
Personnel samplers.
Type 1 test scheme
Personnel samplers.
Type 1 test scheme
Grav/RAM samplers,
Type 1 scheme
RAM/personnel samplers.
Type 1 test scheme
RAM/personnel samplers.
Type 1 test scheme
RAM/personnel samplers.
Type 1 test scheme
Personnel samplers.
Type 1 test scheme
Personnel samplers.
Type 1 test scheme
Personnel samplers.
Type 1 test scheme
Personnel sampler*.
Type 1 test scheme
Test
No. of data
tests rating
NA C
NA C
NA C
4 C
5 C
8 C
6 C
2 C
1 C
1 C
9 C
Control
effi-
ciency,
percent1
RP 20d
RP 33d
RP 65d
RP 10d
RP Bd
RP ?d
RP 2d
RP 92
RP 74
RP 68
RP 9f.
TP 9?
RP 71
(continued)
-------
TABLE 4-11. (continued)
Ref. Process design/
No. Type of process Type of material operating parameters Control system parameters
27 Grizzley Dried run-of-mine Not specified Foam rate « 4.
sand Liquid rate -
Foam rate = 2.
Liquid rate -
Liquid volume
Liquid volume
Liquid volume
8 ft3/ton sand
0.18 gal/mi n
6 ft3/ton sand
0.13 gal/min
1,420 mL
1,330 mL
764 mL
Measurement technique3
Personnel samplers.
Type 1 test scheme
Personnel samplers.
Type 1 test scheme
Personnel samplers,
Type 1 test scheme
Personnel samplers,
Type 1 test scheme
Personnel samplers.
Type 1 test scheme
J'RAM samples are from Realtime Aerosol Monitors, light scattering type instruments. Type 1 tests include measurements of a single source with
Test rating scheme defined in Section -1.4.
'RP = respirable particulate.
Efficiency based on concentrations only.
1
OJ
ro
Control
Test effi-
No. of data ciency,
tests rating percent0
2 C RP 0
NA C RP 0
NA C RP 91
NA C RP 73
NA C RH tfi
and without control.
-------
92 percent. The data are not sufficient to develop relationships between
control or process parameters and control efficiencies. However, the
following observations relative to the data in Tables 4-10 and 4-11 are
noteworthy:
1. The quantity of foam applied to a system does have an impact on
system performance. On grizzly transfer points, foam rates of 7.5 ft3 to
10.5 ft3 of foam per ton of sand produced increasing control efficiencies
ranging from 68 to 98 percent.31 Foam rates below 5 ft3 per ton produced
no measurable control.
2. Material temperature has an impact on foam performance. At one
plant where sand was being transferred, control efficiencies ranged from
20 to 65 percent when 120T sand was handled. When sand temperature was
increased to 190°F, all control efficiencies were below 10 percent.31
3. Data at one plant suggest that underside belt sprays increase
control efficiencies for respirable dust (56 to 81 percent).2<*
4. When spray systems and foam systems are used to apply equivalent
moisture concentrations, foam systems appear to provide greater control.31
On a grizzly feed to a crusher, equivalent foam and spray applications
provided 68 percent and 46 percent control efficiency, respectively.
Capital and O&M cost elements for wet suppression are shown in Table 4-12.
In estimating the wind erosion control effectiveness of wet
suppression, it can be assumed that emissions are inversely proportional
to the square of the surface moisture content. The emission/moisture
dependence is embedded in the agricultural wind erosion equation as
described in Section 7. It also appears in the observed relationship
between the role of emissions from an unpaved road and the surface
moisture content, as illustrated in Figure 3-3.
In addition, a relationship between surface moisture content and
daily moisture addition has been developed from field studies of storage
piles exposed to natural precipitation. The results of that research are
illustrated in the example problem to be presented at the end of this
section.
Costs associated with wet suppression systems include the following
basic elements:
4-33
-------
TABLE 4-12. WET SUPPRESSION SYSTEM CAPITAL AND O&M
COST ELEMENTS
Capital equipment
• Water spray system
Supply pumps
Nozzles
Piping (including winterization)
Control system
Filtering units
• Water/surfactant and foam systems only
Air compressor
Mixing tank
Metering or proportioning unit
Surfactant storage area
O&M expenditures
• Utility costs
Water
Electricity -
• Supplies
Surfactant
Screens
• Labor
Maintenance
Operation
4-34
-------
• Capital equipment:
— Spray nozzles or other distribution equipment
— Supply pumps and plumbing (plus weatherization)
— Water filters and flow control equipment
— Tanker truck (if used)
• Operating and maintenance expenditures:
— Water and chemicals
— Replacement parts for nozzles, truck, etc.
— Operating labor
— Maintenance labor
Reference 6 estimates the following costs (in 1985 dollars):
• Regular watering of storage piles:
— Initial capital cost = $18,400 per system
• Watering of exposed areas:
— Initial capital cost = $1,053 per acre
— Annual operating cost = $25 to 67 per acre
The costs associated with a stationary wet suppression system using
chemical surfactants for the unloading of limestone from trucks at
aggregate processing plants (in 1980 dollars)-have been estimated at:
capital = $72,000; annual = $26,000. Typical costs for wet suppression of
materials transfer operations are listed in Table 4-13.
As with watering of unpaved surfaces, enforcement of a wet
suppression control program would consist of two complementary
approaches. The first would be record keeping to document that the
program is being implemented and the other would be spot-checks and grab
sampling. Both were discussed previously above.
Records must be kept that document the control plan and its
implementation. Pertinent parameters to be specified in a plan and to be
regularly recorded include:
General Information to be Specified in Plan
1. Locations of all materials storage and handling operations
referenced on plot plan of the site available to the site operator and
regulatory personnel
2. Materials delivery or transport flow sheet which indicates the
type of material, its handling and storage, size and composition of
storage piles, etc.
4-35
-------
TABLE 4-13. TYPICAL COSTS FOR WET SUPPRESSION OF MATERIAL
TRANSFER POINTS
Source method
Initial cost,
April 1985
dollars5
Unit operating cost,
April 1985 dollars5
Railcar unloading station 48,700
(foam spray)
Railcar unloading station 168,000
(charged fog)
Conveyor transfer point 23,700
(foam spray)
Conveyor transfer point 19,800
(charged fog)
NR
NR
0.02 to 0.05/ton material
treated
NR
^Reference 18. NR = not reported.
January 1980 costs updated to April 1985 cost by Chemical Engineering
Index. Factor = 1.315.
^Based on use of 16 large devices at $10,500 each.
Based on use of three small devices at $6,600 each.
4-36
-------
3. The method and application intensity of water, etc., to be
applied to the various materials and frequency of application, if not
continuous
4. Dilution ratio for chemicals added to water supply, if any
5. Complete specifications of equipment used to handle the various
materials and for wet suppression
6. Source of water and chemical(s), if used
Specific Operational Records
1. Date of operation and operator's initials
2. Start and stop time of wet suppression equipment
3. Location of wet suppression equipment
4. Type of material being handled-and number of loads (or other
measure of throughput) loaded/unloaded between start and stop time (if
material is being pushed, estimate the volume or weight)
5. Start and stop times for tank filling
General Records to be Kept
1. Equipment maintenance records
2. Meteorological log of general conditions
3. Records of equipment malfunctions and downtime
4.4 EXAMPLE DUST CONTROL PLAN—WATERING OF .COAL" STORAGE-PILE .
Description of Source
• Conically shaped pile (uncrusted coal)
• Pile height of 11 m; 29.2 m base diameter; 838 m2 surface area
• Daily reclaiming of downwind face of pile; pile replenishment
every 3 d affects entire pile surface (Figure 4-5)
• LCD as shown in Figure 4-6 for a typical month
• Coal surface moisture content of 1.5 percent <
Calculation of Uncontrolled Emissions
Step 1; In the absence of field data for estimating the threshold
friction velocity, a value of 1.12 m/s is obtained from Table 4-3.
Step 2: Except for a small area near the base of the pile (see
Figure 4-5), the entire pile surface is disturbed every 3 d, corresponding
to a value of N = 120/yr. It will be shown that the contribution of the
area where daily activity occurs is negligible so that it does not need to
be treated separately in the calculations.
4-37
-------
Prevailing
Wind
Direction
Circled values
refer to us/ur
* A portion of Cg is disturbed daily by reclaiming activities,
Area
ID
A
B
"s
ur
0.9
0.6
0.2
Pile Surface
_%_ Area (m2)
12 101
48 402
i
40 335
838
Figure 4-5. Example 1: Pile surface areas within each wind speed regime,
4-38
-------
Local Climatological Data .X>*«
MONTHLY SUMMARY
30 I 3.3 IM
3
•IOA1L: I
tr
o
z
ex
13
30
0
10
13
12
20
29
29
22
29
I 7
2 1
10
10
0 I
33
27
32
24
22
32
29
07
34
1
30
30
33
29
— a.
5 c
_l C
t . i Q_
C (./l
5.3
10.5
2.4
I I .0
11.3
M.I
19.6
10.9
3.0
14.6
22.3
7.9
7.7
4 . 5
6.7
13.7
M.2
4 . 3
9.3
7.5
0.3
17.1
2.4
5.9
1 .3
2. 1
8.3
3.2
5.0
3 . l
4.9
WIND
0
Q.
c: a.
>• £
15
6.9
10.6
6.0
M . 4
M . 9
19.0
19.3
M.2
a. i
15.1
23.3
3.5
5.5
9.5
3:8
3.3
1 .5
5.3
0.2
7.8
0.5
7.3
8.5
3.8
M.7
12.2
3.5
8.3
6.6
5.2
5.5
FA
H
^
o ""
UJ
c. s
IS
10
16
1 7
1 5
23
13
•13.
12
1 4
1 S
15
16
15
9
3
STEST
HE
z
0
c:
o
17
35
01
02
1 3
I 1
30
30
30
1 3
12
29
! 7
13
1 3
! 1
35
34
31
35
24
20
32
13
02
32
32
25
32
32
3 1
25 1
^
C
2
i
2
3
c
c
7
a
9
l 0
! 1
t
5
5
7
2
9
2C
21
22
23
24
2?
25
27
29
30
1 3 '•
Figure 4-6. Daily fastest miles of wind for periods of interest.
4-39
-------
Step 3; The calculation procedure involves determination of the
fastest mile for each period of disturbance. Figure 4-6 shows a
representative set of values (for a 1-mo period) that are assumed to be
applicable to the geographic area of the pile location. The values have
been separated into 3-d periods, and the highest value in each period is
indicated. In this example, the anemometer height is 7 m, so that a
height correction to 10 m is needed for the fastest mile values.
From Equation (4-6)
,,+ „+ In (10/0.005)
ui° ~ U7 In (7/0.005)
uto = 1.05 ut
Step 4; The next step is to convert the fastest mile value for each
3-d period into the equivalent friction velocities for each surface wind
regime (i.e., us/ur ratio) of the pile, using Equations 4-7 and 4-8.
Figure 4-5 shows the surface wind speed pattern (expressed as a fraction
of the approach wind speed at a height of 10 m). The surface areas lying
within each wind speed regime are tabulated below the figure.
The calculated friction velocities are presented in Table 4-14. As
indicated, only three of the periods contain a friction velocity which
exceeds the threshold value of 1.12 m/s for an uncrusted coal pile. These
three values all occur within the us/ur = 0.9 regime of the pile surface.
Step 5; This step is not necessary because there is only one
frequency of disturbance used in the calculations. It is clear that the
small area of daily disturbance (which lies entirely within the us/ur =
0.2 regime) is never subject to wind speeds exceeding the threshold value.
Steps 6 and 7; The final set of calculations (shown in Table 4-15)
involves the tabulation and summation of emissions for each disturbance
period and for the affected subarea. The erosion potential (P) is
calculated from Equation (4-4).
4-40
-------
TABLE 4-14. EXAMPLE 1: CALCULATION OF FRICTION VELOCITIES
3-day
period
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
mph
14
29
30
31
22
21
16
25
17
13
uj
m/s
6.3
13.0
13.4
13.9
9.8
9.4
7.2
11.2
7.6
5.8
uto
mph
15
31
32
33
23
22
17
26
18
14
m/s
6.6
13.7
14.1
14.6
10.3
9.9
7.6
11.8
8.0
6.1
u* =
us/ur { 0.2
0.13
0.27
0.28
0.29
0.21
0.20
0.15
0.24
0.16
0.12
0.1 u+
0.6
0.40
0.82
0.84
0.88
0.62
0.59
0.46
0.71
0.48
0.37
(m/s)
0.9
0.59
1.23
1.27
1.31
0.93
0.89
0.68
1.06
0.72
0.55
TABLE 4-15. EXAMPLE 1: CALCULATION OF PM10 EMISSIONS3
Pile Surface
3-Day
period
2
3
4
u*, m/s
1.23
1.27
1.31
u* - ut ,
m/s
0.11
0.15
0.19
P, g/m
3.45
5.06
6.84
Total PM10
ID
A
A
A
emissions
Area,
m
101
101
101
= 780
kPA,
g
170
260
350
aWhere uJ = 1.12 m/s for uncrusted coal and k = 0.5 for PM10.
4-41
-------
For example, the calculation for the second 3-d period is:
P2 = 58(1.23-1.12)2+25(1.23-1.12)
= 0.70+2.75 = 3.45 g/m2
The PM10 emissions generated by each event are found as the product
of the PM10 multiplier (k = 0.5), the erosion potential (P), and the
affected area of the pile (A).
As shown in Table 4-15, the results of these calculations indicate a
monthly PM10 emission total of 780 g.
Target Control Efficiency: 60 percent
Method of Control: Daily watering of erodible surfaces of coal pile
(2 gal/m2)
Demonstration of Control Program Adequacy: Wind-generated dust
emissions are known to be strongly dependent (inverse square) on moisture
content as described in Section 4.3.3. In addition, coal storage pile
surface moisture, M, is correlated with weighted precipitation, Pw, as
follows:3
Mc = 0.13 Pw + 1.41 (4-10)
where: M = surface moisture content (percent)
4 d
pw = I pn exp[-(n - 0.5)] (mm)
n=l
Pn = daily precipitation or watering amount (mm) for the nth day
in the past
For uniform daily water application, Pw - Pn.
Uncontrolled PM10 wind erosion emissions, EU, from the storage pile
were shown to be 780 g for the month. To achieve a control efficiency of
60 percent, calculate the controlled emissions, EC, using the following
relationship.
4-42
-------
Ec = Eu (1 - 0.60)
= 312 g
The inverse square relationship of wind emissions with surface
moisture content can be written as follows:
(M)2
E
~ =
Solving for the controlled surface moisture content, MC, using an
uncontrolled moisture content, MU = 1.5 percent, produces:
MC = MU ^ = 2.4 percent
c
To achieve this moisture content, use Equation 4-10 to determine the
daily water application rate.
.M,. - 1.41
p - _i=
. w 0.13
= 7.4 mm
Convert this daily watering amount to gal/m2 of erodible pile surface
to obtain a recommended daily water application rate of 1.95 gal H20/m2.
The upper pile area where Us/Ur > 0.9 is the only surface which needs
to be controlled in the example month since this area has been shown to
produce virtually all the emissions. In this instance, it is only
necessary to water the pile surface impacted by winds producing Us/Ur
values > 0.9. This area can be estimated from Figure 4-5 if the 0.9
subarea is rotated about the pile center to represent the possible
360 degree impact of winds on the pile.
The surface area to be controlled is equivalent to the area of a cone
with base diameter of about 21.3 m. This upper cone has an area of
53 percent of the entire coal pile surface, e.g., about 450 m?.
Consequently, 900 gal of water applied daily to the 450 m2 of erodible
surface will achieve a control efficiency of 60 percent.
4-43
-------
4.5 POTENTIAL REGULATORY FORMATS
There are several possible regulatory formats for control of dust
emissions from storage piles. Opacity standards are suitable for a
standard observed at the point of emissions, such as continuous drop from
a stacker; however, they may not be legally applied at the property line.
For wet suppression and chemical stabilization, suitable
recordkeeping forms, such as those provided above, would provided evidence
of control plan implementation. In addition, simple measurements of
moisture level in transferred material or of the crust strength of the
chemically treated surface could be used to verify compliance. In
addition, the loading as well as the texture of material deposited around
the pile could be used to check whether good work practices are being
employed relative to pile reclamation and maintenance operations. The
suitability of these measurements of surrogate parameters for source
emissions stems from the emission factor models which relate the
parameters directly to emission rate.
4.6 REFERENCES FOR SECTION 4
1. Cowherd, C., Jr., et al. Development of Emission Factors for. Fugi-
tive Dust Sources. EPA-450/3-74-037. U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. June 1974.
2. Bonn, R., et al. Fugitive Emissions from Integrated Iron and Steel
Plants. EPA-600/2-78-050. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. March 1978.
3. Cowherd, C., Jr., et al. Iron and and Steel Plant Open Dust Source
Fugitive Emission Evaluation. EPA-600/2-79-103. U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. May 1979.
.4. Bohn, R. Evaluation of Open Dust Sources in the Vicinity of Buffalo,
New York. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, New York, New
York. March 1979.
5. Cowherd, C., Jr., and T. Cuscino, Jr. Fugitive Emissions Evaluation.
Equitable Environmental Health, Inc., Elmhurst, Illinois. February
1977.
6. Cuscino, T., et al. Taconite Mining Fugitive Emissions Study.
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Roseville, Minnesota. June 1979.
7. Axetell, K., and C. Cowherd, Jr. Improved Emission Factors for Fugi-
tive Dust from Western Surface Coal Mining Sources. 2 Volumes. EPA
Contract No. 68-03-2924, PEDCo Environmental, Inc., Kansas City,
Missouri. July 1981.
4-44
-------
8. Cowherd, C., Jr. "Background Document for AP-42 Section 11.2.7 on
Industrial Wind Erosion." EPA Contract No. 68-02-4395, Midwest
Research Institute. July 1988.
9. Chepil, W. S. "Improved Rotary Sieve for Measuring State and
Stability of Dry Soil Structure." Soil Science Society of America
Proceedings., 16:113-117. 1952.
10. Gillette, D. A., et al. "Threshold Velocities for Input of Soil
Particles into the Air by Desert Soils." Journal of Geophysical
Research. 54(C10):5621-5630.
11. Studer, B. J. 8., and S. P. S. Arya. "Windbreak Effectiveness for
Storage Pile Fugitive Dust Control: A Wind Tunnel Study." Journal
of the Air Pollution Control Association. 38:135-143. 1988.
12. Muleski, G. E. "Coal Yard Wind Erosion Measurements. Final Report
prepared for Industrial Client of Midwest Research Institute, Kansas
City, Missouri. March 1985.
13. Nicking, W. G., and J. A. Gillies. "Evaluation of Aerosol Production
potential of Type Surfaces in Arizona." Submitted to Engineering-
Science. Arcadia, California, for EPA Contract No. 68-02-388. 1986.
14. Local Climatological Data. Monthly Summary Available for each U.S.
Weather Station from the National Climatic Center. Asheville, North
Carolina 28801.
15. Changery, M. J. National Wind Data Index Final Report. National
Climatic Center, Asheville, North Carolina, HCO/T1041-01 UC-60.
December 1978.
16. Cuscino, T., Jr., G. E. Muleski, and C. Cowherd, Jr. Iron and Steel
Plant Open Source Fugitive Emission Control Evaluation.
EPA-600/2-83-110, NTIS No. PB84-1110568. U. S. Environmental Protec-
tion Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. October 1983.
17. Bohn, R. R., and J. D. Johnson. Dust Control on Active Tailings
Ponds. Contract No. J0218024. U.S. Bureau of Mines, Minneapolis,
Minnesota. February 1983.
18. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. Control Techniques for
Particulate Emissions From Stationary Sources—Volume 1.
EPA-450/3-81-005a. Emission Standards and Engineering Division,
Research Triangle Park, N.C. September 1982.
19. Chepil, N. S., and N. P. Woodruff. "The Physics of Wind Erosion and
Its Control." In Advances in Agronomy, Vol. 15, Academic Press, New
York. 1963.
4-45
-------
20. Carries, D., and D. C. Drehmel. "The Control of Fugitive Emissions
Using Windscreens." In Third Symposium on the Transfer and
Utilization of Particulate Control Technology (March 1981),
Volume IV, EPA-600/9-82-005d, NTIS No. PB83-149617. April 1982.
21. Larson, A. G. Evaluation of Field Test Results on Wind Screen Effi-
ciency. Fifth EPA Symposium on Fugitive Emissions: Measurement and
Control, Charleston, South Carolina. May 3-5, 1982.
22. Westec Services, Inc. Results of Test Plot Studies at Owens Dry
Lake, Inyo County, California. San Diego, California. March 1984.
23. Radkey, R. L., and P. B. MacCready. A Study of the Use of Porous
Wind Fences to Reduce Particulate Emissions at the Mohave Generating
Station. AV-R-9563, AeroVironment, Inc., Pasadena, California.
1980.
24. Ohio Environmental Protection Agency. 1980. Reasonably Available
Control Measures for Fugitive Dust Sources. Columbus, Ohio.
September 1980.
25. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. Non-Metallic Processing
Plants, Background Information for Proposed Standards.
EPA-450/3-83-001a, NTIS No. PB83-258103. Research Triangle Park,
North Carolina. March 1983.
26. JACA Corporation. Control of Air Emissions from Process Operations
in the Rock Crushing Industry. EPA-340/1-79-002. U. S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., p. 15. January 1979..
27. U.S. Bureau of Mines. Dust Knockdown Performance of Water Spray
Nozzles. Technology News, No. 150. July 1982.
28. Courtney, W., and L. Cheng. Control of Respirable Dust by Improved
Water Sprays. Published in Respirable Dust Control Proceedings,
Bureau of Mines Technology Transfer Seminars, Bureau of Mines
Information Circular 8753, p. 96. 1978.
29. Seibel, R. Dust Control at a Conveyor Transfer Point Using Foam and
Water Sprays. Bureau of Mines, Technical Progress Report 97.
May 1976,
30. Cole, H. Microfoam for the Control of Source and Fugitive Dust Emis-
sions. Paper 81-55.2. Presented at the 74th Annual Meeting of the
Air Pollution Control Association, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. June
1981.
31. Volkwein, J. C., A. B. Cecala, and E. D. Thimons. Use of Foam for
Dust Control in Minerals Processing. Bureau of Mines RI 8808. 1983.
4-46
-------
5.0 CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION ACTIVITIES
Construction and demolition activities are temporary but important
sources of PM10 in urban areas. These activities involve a number of
separate dust-generating operations which must be quantified to determine
the total emissions from the site and thus its impact on ambient air
quality. Also, the specific type of activities which are conducted onsite
will depend of the nature of the construction or demolition project taking
place.
In the case of construction, a project may involve the erection of a
building(s), single- or multifamily homes, or the installation of a road
right-of-way. Operations commonly found in these types of construction
projects consist of: land clearing, drilling and blasting, excavation,
cut-and-fill operations (i.e., earthmoving), materials storage and
handling, and associated truck traffic on unpaved surfaces.
In addition, secondary impacts associated with construction sites
involve mud/dirt carryout onto paved surfaces. The additional loading
caused by carryout can substantially increase PM10 emissions on city
streets over the life of the project.
With regard to demolition, a particular project may involve the
razing and removal of an entire building(s), a major interior renovation
of a structure, or a combination of the two. Dust-producing operations
associated with demolition are: mechanical or explosive dismemberment;
debris storage, handling, and transport operations; and truck traffic over
unpaved surfaces onsite.
Like construction, demolition activities can also create mud/dirt
carryout onto paved surfaces with its associated increase in emissions.
Also, since building debris is usually being removed from the site,
spillage from trucks can also be of concern in increasing the amount of
surface loading deposited on the paved street(s) providing access to the
site. The generic sources of PM10 involved in construction and demolition
sites are shown in Table 5-1.1
5-1
-------
TABLE 5-1. GENERIC OPEN DUST SOURCES ASSOCIATED WITH
CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION SITES
Construction Sites
Pushing (land clearing and earthmoving)
Drilling and blasting
Batch drop operations (loader operation)
Storage piles (soil and construction aggregates)
Exposed areas
Vehicle traffic on unpaved surfaces
Mud/dirt carryout onto paved surfaces
Demolition Sites
• Explosive and mechanical dismemberment (blasting and wrecking
ball operations)
Pushing (dozer operation)
Batch drop operations (loading debris into trucks)
Stprage piles (debris)
Exposed areas
Vehicular traffic on unpaved surfaces
Mud/dirt/debris carryout onto paved surfaces
This section presents a discussion of available emission factors,
demonstrated control techniques, alternative control measures, and
possible formats for determining compliance for controlled construction
and demolition sites. It must be cautioned, however, that the information
presented is for generic sites and site-specific analyses will be
necessary for compliance determination.
5.1 ESTIMATION OF EMISSIONS
5.1.1 Construction Emissions
At present, the only emission factor available in AP-42 is 1.2 tons/
acre/month (related to particles <30 urn Stokes1 diameter) for an entire
construction site. No factor has been published for demolition in
AP-42. However, PM10 emission factors have been developed for
construction site preparation using test data from a study conducted in
Minnesota for topsoil removal, earthmoving (cut-and-fill), and truck
haulage operations.2 For these operations, the PM10 emission factors
based on the level of vehicle activity (i.e., vehicle kilometers traveled
or VKT) occurring onsite are:3
5-2
-------
• Topsoil removal: 5.7 kg/VKT for pan scrapers
• Earthmoving: 1.2 kg/VKT for pan scrapers
• Truck haulage: 2.8 kg/VKT for haul trucks
PM10 emissions due to materials handling and wind erosion of exposed areas
can be calculated using the emission factors presented in Sections 4.0 and
6.0, respectively.
5.1.2 Demolition Emissions
For demolition sites, the operations involved in demolishing and
removing structures from a site are:
• Mechanical or explosive dismemberment
• Debris loading
• Onsite truck traffic
• Pushing (dozing) operations
5.1.2.1 Dismemberment. Since no emission factor data are available
for blasting or wrecking a building, the first operation is addressed
through the use of the revised AP-42 materials handling equation:3,"
• ,, 1.3
( " )
En = k(0.0016) Z7? , , (5-1).
/MX
where Eg = PM10 emission factor in kg/Mg of material
k = particle size multiplier = 0.35 for PM10
U = mean wind speed in m/s (default =2.2 m/s)
M = material moisture content in percent (default = 2 percent)
and Eg = 0.00056 kg/Mg (with default parameters)
The above factor can be modified for waste tonnage related to
structural floor space where 1 m^ of floor space represents 0.45 Mg of
waste material (0.046 ton/ft2).3 The revised emission factor related to
structural floor space (using default parameters) can be obtained by:
En = 0.00056 kg/Mg • °'45 Mg
= 0.00025 kg/m2
5-3
-------
5.1.2.3 Debris Loading. The emission factor for debris loading is
based on two tests of the filling of trucks with crushed limestone using a
front-end loader which is part of the test basis for the batch drop
equation in AP-42, § 11.2.3.5 The resulting emission factor for debris
loading is:3
E, = k(0.029) kg/Mg - °'45 Mg
= 0.0046 kg/m2
where 0.029 kg/Mg is the average measured TSP emission factor and k is the
particle size multiplier (0.35 for PM10).
5.1.2.4 Ons ite Truck Traffic. Emissions from onsite truck traffic
is generated from the existing AP-42 unpaved road equation presented in
Section 3.0 above.5
E - 1-7 k (fa) C|i) (577)°' 7 ^°'5(^s^) (5-2)
where E = PM10 emission factor in kg/vehicle kilometer traveled (VKT)
k = particle size multiplier = 0.36 for PM10 .
s = silt content in percent (default = 12 percent)
S = truck speed in km/h (default = 16 km/h)
W = truck weight in Mg (default =20 Mg)
w = number of truck wheels (default = 10 wheels)
p = number of days with measurable precipitation
(default = 0 days)
and ET = 1.3 kg/VKT (with default values)
The above factor is converted from kg/VKT to kg/in* of structural
floor space by:3
E = 0.40 km . 1 m3 waste . 7.65 m3 volume . 1.3 kg
23 m3 waste 4 m3 volume 0.836 m2 floor space VKT
= 0.052 kg/m2
5.1.2.5 Pushing Operations. For pushing (bulldozer) operations, the
AP-42 emission factor equation for overburden removal at Western surface
5-4
-------
coal mines can be used.5 Although this equation actually relates to par-
ticulate <15 ymA, it would be expected that the PM10 emissions from such
operations would be generally comparable. The AP-42 dozer equation is:
Ep . 0.45 (S)|'| (5.3)
where E_ = PM10 emission rate in kg/h
S = silt content of surface material in percent
(default = 6.9 percent)
M = moisture content of surface material in percent
(default = 7.9 percent)
and Ep = 0.45 kg/h (with default parameters)
Finally, PM10 emissions due to wind erosion of exposed areas can be
calculated as discussed in Section 6.0. In general, these emissions are
expected to be minor as compared to other sources.
5.1.3 Mud/Dirt Carryout Emissions
Finally, the increase in emissions on paved roads due to mud/dirt
carryout have been developed based on surface loading measurements at
eight sites.s Tables 5-2 and 5-3 provide these emission factors in terms
of gm/vehicle pass which represent PM10 generated over and above the
"background" for the paved road sampled. Table 5-2 expresses the emission
factors according to the volume of traffic entering and leaving the site
whereas Table 5-3 expresses the same data according to type of
construction.
5.2 DEMONSTRATED CONTROL TECHNIQUES
As discussed above, similar generic open dust sources exist at both
construction and demolition sites. Therefore, similar types of controls
would also apply. In this, section, a discussion is provided on the
various techniques available for the control of open dust sources
associated with construction and demolition. Detailed information on
control efficiency, implementation cost, etc., will be presented in
Section 5.3 below.
5-5
-------
TABLE 5-2. EMISSIONS INCREASE (aE) BY SITE TRAFFIC VOLUMEa
Sites with >25 vehicle/d
Particle Standard
size Mean, devia-
fractionb x tion, a Range
<~30 ym 52 28 15-80
<10 urn 13 6.7 4.4-20
<2.5 urn 5.1 2.6 1.7-7.8
aAE expressed in g/vehicle pass.
Aerodynamic diameter.
TABLE 5-3. EMISSIONS INCREASE (A£)
Commercial
Particle Standard
size . Mean, devia-
fractionb x tion, a Range
<~30 urn 65 39 15-110
<10 urn 16 9.3 4.2-25
<2.5 um 6.3 3.6 1.6-9.7
Sites with <25 vehicle/d
Standard
Mean, devia-
x tion, a
19 7.8
5.5 2.3
2.2 0.88
BY CONSTRUCTION TYPEa
Residential
Standard
Mean, devia-
x tion, o
39 22
10 5.4
3.9 . 2.1
Range
14-28
4.2-8.1
1.6-3.2
Range
10-72
2.8-19
1.1-7.3
j*AE expressed in g/vehicle pass.
Aerodynamic diameter.
5-6
-------
5.2.1 Work Practice Controls
Work practice controls refer to those measures which reduce either
emissions potential and/or source extent. These will be discussed below
for both construction and demolition activities.
For construction activities, a number of work practice controls can
be applied to reduce PM10 emissions from the site. These include paving
of roads and access points early in the project, compaction or stabiliza-
tion (chemical or vegetative) of disturbed soil, phasing of earthmoving
activities to reduce source extent, and reduction of mud/dirt carryout
onto paved streets. Each of these techniques is pretty much site-
specific. However, subdivisions, for example, can be constructed in
phases (or plats) whereby the amount of land disturbed is limited to only
a selected number of home sites. Also, subdivision streets can be
constructed and paved when the utilities are installed, thus reducing the
duration of land disturbance.
Finally, increased surface loading on paved city streets due to
mud/dirt carryout can be reduced to mitigate secondary site impacts. This
may involve the installation of a truck wash at access points to remove
mud/dirt from the vehicles prior to exiting the site or periodic cleaning
of-the street near site entrances.. All of these techniques require
preplanning for implementation without substantially interfering with the
conduct of the project.
In the case of demolition sites, the work practice controls which can
be employed are far more limited than is the case of construction.
Normally, demolition is an intense activity conducted over a relatively
short time frame. Therefore, measures to limit emissions potential or
source extent are not usually possible. The only technique which seems
feasible is the control of carryout onto paved city streets. This could
be conducted by installing a truck wash and grizzly to remove mud and
debris from the vehicles as they leave the site. Also the use of
freeboard over the load will reduce blow-off dust from the truck beds. It
should also be remembered that asbestos removal is also of concern at some
sites which involve additional controls not normally necessary for most
demolition activities.
5-7
-------
As a final note, there are no quantitative control efficiency values
for any of the above work practices. Estimates can be obtained by a site-
specific analysis of alternative site preparation schemes based on the
planned level of activity for the entire project using the emission
factors provided in Section 5.1 above. For mud/dirt carryout, a
quantitative value for control efficiency could be obtained if street
surface loading data for uncontrolled (i.e., those which do not employ any
measures to reduce carryout) and controlled sites were collected. Also,
alternative methods for reducing mud/dirt carryout could be explored by a
properly designed study of available techniques.
5.2.2 Traditional Control Technology
In addition to work practices, a.number of open source controls are
also available for reducing PM10 emissions from construction and
demolition sites. These traditional controls are: watering of unpaved
surfaces; wet suppression for materials storage, handling, and transfer
operations; wind fences for control of windblown dust; and water injection
and filters for drilling operations. Each will be discussed briefly with
detailed information included in Section 5.3 below.
The use of water is probably the most widely used method to control
open source emissions. However, very little quantitative data are
available on the efficacy of wet suppression for the control of fugitive
PM10. This is especially true for materials storage and handling
operations. Some limited data are available for watering of unpaved
surfaces, but estimation of control efficiency (and thus a watering
control plan) is difficult. Those data which are available are presented
below.
It should be noted that wet suppression of unpaved surfaces using
chemical dust palliatives has not been included in the list of available
controls for construction/demolition. This is due to the fact that the
temporary nature of these operations generally preclude their use. The
same travel surface is not used for extended periods which is usually
required for cost-effective application of chemical suppressants. The
only possibility that might be considered is the use of hydroscopic salts
which require only one application at the beginning of the project.
Therefore, the use of chemical suppressants will not be discussed further
in this section.
5-8
-------
With regard to wind fences, only three studies have been identified
for this particular control technique which attempt to quantify the degree
of control achieved. Wind fences (and other types' of barriers) are
extremely cost effective in that they incur little or no operating and
maintenance costs. For this reason wind fences are an attractive control
alternative for windblown PM10 emissions.
Finally, both water injection and fabric filters have been used to
control dust generation during drilling operations. Since this is a
relatively minor source associated with construction operations, these
controls do not offer significant emissions reductions. It should be
noted, however, that drilling may be important at certain sites.
5.3 EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVE CONTROL MEASURES
In this section, the various alternative control measures for
fugitive PM10 at construction and demolition sites will be discussed in
some detail. Included in this discussion will be the manner in which each
technique controls emissions, methods for estimating control efficiency.,
an identification of cost elements to be considered, and available cost
estimates for each in terms of capital and operating expenditures. Each
control will be presented in the order shown previously in Section 5.2.
5.3.1 Watering of Unpaved Surfaces
5.3.1.1 Control Efficiency. Watering of unpaved roads is one form
of wet dust suppression. This technique prevents (or suppresses) the fine
particulate from leaving the surface and becoming airborne through the
action of mechanical disturbance or wind. The water acts to bind the
smaller particles to the larger material thus reducing emissions
potential.
The control efficiency of watering of unpaved surfaces is a direct
function of the amount of water applied per unit surface area (liters per
square meter), the frequency of application (time between reapplication),
the volume of traffic traveling over the surface between applications, and
prevailing meteorological conditions (e.g., wind speed, temperature,
etc.). As stated previously, a number of studies have been conducted with
regard to the efficiency of watering to control dust, but few have
quantified all parameters listed above.
5-9
-------
The only specific control efficiency data which are available for
construction and demolition involve the use of watering to control truck
haulage emissions for a road construction project in Minnesota.2 Using
the geometric means of the important source characteristics (i.e., silt
content, traffic volume, and surface moisture) and the regression equation
developed from the downwind concentration data, a PM10 control efficiency
of approximately 50 percent was obtained for a water application intensity
of approximately 0.2 gal/yd2/hour.
It should be noted that truck travel at road construction sites is
only somewhat similar to travel on unpaved roads. The road bed surface is
generally not as compacted as a well-constructed unpaved road. There are
also subtle differences in surface composition. Care should be taken,
therefore, in estimating control efficiency for noncompacted surfaces.
For more compacted unpaved surfaces found in construction and
demolition sites, an empirical model for the performance of a watering as
a control technique has been developed. The supporting data base consists
of 14 tests performed in four states during five different summer and fall
months. The model is:1
100 - °'8 ? d * (5-4)
where C = average control efficiency, in percent
p = potential average hourly daytime evaporation rate in rnm/h
d = average hourly daytime traffic rate in vehicles per hour
i = application intensity in l/m2
t - time between applications in h
The term p in the above equation is determined using Figure 5-1 and the
relationship:
rO.0049 e (annual average) (5-5a)
p = 10.0065 e (worst case) (5-5b)
where p = potential average hourly daytime evaporation rate (mm/h)
e = mean annual pan evaporation (inches) from Figure 5-1
An alternative approach (which is potentially suitable for a
regulatory format) is shown as Figure 5-2. This figure was presented
earlier in Section 3.0.
5-10
-------
/;>?\ \in
ased on period 1946
Figure 5-1. flean evaporation for the United States.
-------
100%
o
z
fs,
b
Cd
O
ca
H
z
£-
o
IS
z
<:
H
en
z
7578
, 957.
257,
RATIO OF CONTROLLED TO UNCONTROLLED
SURFACE MOISTURE CONTENTS
Figure 5-2. PM-10 control efficiency for watering unpaved roads.
5-12
-------
Figure 5-2 shows that, between the average uncontrolled moisture
content and a value of twice that, a small increase in moisture content
results in a large increase in control efficiency. Beyond this point,
control efficiency grows slowly with increased moisture content.
Furthermore, this relationship is applicable-toall size ranges
considered: ^\
75 (M-l) 1
-------
3. Application intensity (gal/sq yd) and frequency (a minimum
moisture content may be specified as an alternative)
4. Type of application vehicle, capacity of tank, and source of
water
Specific Records to be Kept by Truck Operator
1. Date and time of treatment
2. Equipment used (this should be referred back to dust control plan
specifications)
3. Operator's initials (a separate operators log may be kept and
transferred later to permanent records by site operator)
4. Start and stop time, average speed, and number passes
5. Start and stop time for filling of water tank
Specific Records to be Kept by Site Operator
1.. Equipment maintenance logs
2. Meteorological log of general conditions (e.g., sunny and warm
vs. cloudy and cold)
3. Records of equipment breakdowns and downtime
An example permanent record form which may be. used to record the above
information is shown in Figure 5-3.
In addition to the above, some of the regulatory formats suggested in
Section 5.4 require that records of surface samples or traffic counts also
be kept. A suggested format for recording surface samples is shown in
Figure 5-4. Traffic data may be recorded either manually or by automated
counting devices.
5.3.2 Wet Suppression for Materials Storage and Handling
5.3.2.1 Control Efficiency. Wet suppression of materials storage
and handling operations is similar to that used for unpaved surfaces.
However, in addition to plain water this technique can also use water plus
a chemical surfactant or micronized foam to control fugitive PM10.
Surfactants added to the water supply allow particles to more easily
penetrate the water droplet and increase the total number of droplets,
thus increasing total surface area and contact potential. Foam is
generated by adding a chemical (i.e., detergent-like substance) to a
relatively small quantity of water which is then vigorously mixed to
produce small bubble, high energy foam in the 100 to 200-um size range.
5-14
-------
ClImalic parameters
Application Ainli. temp. Dalo7amt. of Equipment Operator
Dale Time intensity (gal/yd2) Area(s) treated (°f) last rainfall usetl initials Comments
en
i
en
Figure 5-3. Typical form for recording watering program control parameters.
(Sources: Unpavecl surfaces, exposed areas, storage piles)
-------
icmoiinc -cr~
Unocved .-,occs
--ere.
3ecorceo ;•,
SAMPLING DATA
1
| Scmcia
1 No
Time
i • *
Surface i-
Area I -esrn
j sjtucrtr : ''.• '•
.59 ::ce c-ver o
zs *cr segment
'CSte S
Figure 5-4. Unpaved road sample log.
5-16
-------
The foam uses very little liquid volume, and when applied to the surface
of the bulk material, wets the fines more effectively than untreated
water.
As with watering of unpaved surfaces, the control efficiency of wet
suppression for materials storage and handling is dependent on the same
basic application parameters. These include: the amount of water, water
plus surfactant, or foam applied per unit mass or surface area of material
handled (i.e., liters per metric ton or square meter); if not continuous,
the time between reapplications; the amount of surfactant added to the
water (i.e., dilution ratio), if any; the method of application including
the number and types of spray nozzles used; and applicable meteorological
conditions occurring onsite.
Wet suppression can be applied to material storage and handling
operations by a variety of methods depending on the material and how it is
being handled. For construction sites, soil and construction aggregates
may be batch transferred to or from storage using loaders or by truck
dumping. In these cases, water (with or without chemicals) could be
applied with a water cannon or spray bar to the material prior to or
during load-in or load-out. Foam may be a good alternative in such
instances when the material is handled repeatably over the period of a
day. Foam can be applied once in the handling process (e.g., as it is
initially loaded into trucks) and the binding action of the bubbles will
carry through subsequent handling operations.
For demolition sites, water, etc., can be applied with a cannon to
wrecking operations as well as to building debris being moved (pushed)
with dozers and transferred into trucks by end-loaders. Control of
transfer operations can also be augmented using portable wind fences to
provide a wind break to reduce dust generation and improve application of
water to the load during transfer to haul trucks. Wind fences are
discussed later in this discussion.
Available control efficiency data for wet dust suppression for
materials handling and storage are practically nonexistent. However,
certain limited information was compiled by Cowherd and Kinsey which can
be used to estimate control efficiencies.1
5-17
-------
For suppression using plain water, the most applicable efficiency
information available is for feeder to belt transfer of coal in mining
operations. Control efficiencies of 56 to 81 percent are reported for
respirable particulate (particles <~ 3.5vmA) at application- intensities of
6.7 to 7.1 L/Mg (1.6 to 1.7 gal/ton), respectively. Assuming that respir-
able particulate is essentially equivalent to PM10, the above control
efficiencies would be representative of similar controls for construction/
demolition. (The above application intensities were estimated assuming
5 min to discharge 7 Mg of coal and 1.4 L/min/spray nozzle.)
In the case of foam suppression, the most appropriate data available
are for the transfer of sand from a grizzly. Using the respirable
particulate control efficiencies at various foam application intensities
(and assuming respirable particulate is equivalent to PM10), the following
equation was developed by simple linear regression of the data compiled by
Cowherd and Kinsey:1
C = 8.51 + 7.96 (A) (5-7)
where: C = PM10 control efficiency in percent
A = application intensity in ft3 foam/ton of material
A coefficient of determination (r?) of 99.97 percent was obtained for the
above equation based on the three data sets used in its derivation.
An alternate approach (which is potentially suitable for regulatory
formats) involves the use of the recently developed materials handling
equation soon to be published in AP-42. This equation was presented as
Equation 5-1 above. By determining the "uncontrolled" moisture content of
the material and again after wet suppression, the control efficiency can
be determined by:
CE = 100(EU-EC)/EU (5-8)
where CE = PM10 control efficiency in percent
Eu = "uncontrolled" PM10 emission factor
EC = "controlled" PM10 emission factor
5-18
-------
The above calculations would necessitate the determination of the amount
of water added to the material by laboratory analysis. This could be
accomplished by taking grab samples of the material before and after
application of the wet suppression technique being employed.
5.3.2.2 Control Costs. Costs associated with wet suppression
systems include the following basic elements:
• Capital equipment:
— Spray nozzles or other distribution equipment
-- Supply pumps and plumbing (plus weatherization)
— Water filters and flow control equipment
— Tanker truck (if used)
• Operating and maintenance expenditures:
— Water and chemicals
— Replacement parts for nozzles, truck, etc.
-.- Operating labor
— Maintenance labor
Reference 6 estimates the following costs (in 1985 dollars):
• Regular watering of storage piles:
~ Initial capital cost = $18,400 per system
• Watering of exposed areas:
— Initial capital cost = $1,053 per acre
— Annual operating cost = $25 to 67 per acre
The costs associated with a wet suppression system using chemical
surfactants for the unloading of limestone from trucks at aggregate
processing plants (in 1980 dollars) have been estimated at: capital =
$72,000; annual = $26,000. These costs are based on a stationary system
and may not be indicative of those used at construction and demolition
sites.
5.3.2.3 Enforcement Issues. As with watering of unpaved surfaces,
enforcement of a wet suppression control program would consist of two
complementary approaches. The first would be record keeping to document
that the program is being implemented and the other would be spot-checks
and grab sampling. Both were discussed previously above.
Records must be kept that document the control plan and its
implementation. Pertinent parameters to be specified in a plan and to be
regularly recorded include:
5-19
-------
General Information to be Specified in Plan
1. Locations of all materials storage and handling operations
referenced on plot plan of the site available to the site
operator and regulatory personnel
2. Materials delivery or transport flow sheet which indicates the
type of material, its handling and storage, size and composition
of storage piles, etc.
3. The method and application intensity of water, etc, to be applied
to the various materials and frequency of application, if not
continuous
4. Dilution ratio for chemicals added to water supply, if any
5. Complete specifications of equipment used to handle the various
materials and for wet suppression
6. Source of water and chemical(s), if used
Specific Operational Records
1. Date of operation and operator's initials
2. Start and stop time of wet suppression equipment
3. Location of wet suppression equipment
4. Type of material being handled and. number of loads (or other
measure of throughput) loaded/unloaded between start and stop
time (if material is being pushed, estimate the volume or weight)
5. Start and stop times for tank filling
General Records to be Kept
1. Equipment maintenance records
2. Meteorological log of general conditions
3. Records of equipment malfunctions and downtime
In addition to the above, some of the regulatory formats suggested in
Section 5.4 below require that records of material samples be kept. A
suggested format for this purpose is shown in Figure 5-5.
5.3.3 Portable Wind Screens or Fences
5.3.3.1 Control Efficiency. The principle of wind screens or fences
is to provide a sheltered region behind the fenceline to allow
gravitational settling of larger particles as well as a reduction in wind
erosion potential. Wind screens or fences reduce the mechanical
turbulence generated by ambient winds in an area the length of which is
many times the physical height of the fence.
5-20
-------
Storage Pile Data
Date.
Recorded by.
AGGREGATE CHARACTERISTICS
I—f
Type: Coal I |; Coke I |; Iron Orel I; Other
Nominal Size: in.
Weight Density: tons/cu. yd.
Silt Cantent; '. %
PILE CONFIGURATION
Total Volume: Ground Area.
Average Height.
acres
ft.
Configuration:
Location within Plant Boundaries:.
Avg. Quantity On Hand (tons;cu. yd. )
Avg. Quantity Put Through
Storage (tons;cu. yd. )
Avg. Duration of Storage (days)
WINTER
SPRING
SUMMER
FALL
ANNUAL
MATERIALS HANDLING EQUIPMENT
Stationary:
Mobile:
MITIGATIVE MEASURES
3/76
Figure 5-5. Storage pile sampling sheet
5-21
-------
As stated previously, wind fences and screens are applicable to a
wide variety of fugitive dust sources. They can be used to control wind
erosion emissions from storage piles or exposed areas as well as providing
a sheltered area for materials handling operations to reduce entrainment
during load-in/load-out, etc. Fences and screens can be portable and thus
capable of being moved around the site, as needed.
The control efficiency of wind fences is dependent on the physical
dimensions of the fence relative to the source being controlled. In
general, a porosity (i.e., percent open area) of 50 percent seems to be
optimum for most applications. Note that no data directly applicable to
construction/demolition activities were found. According to a recent
field study of small soil storage piles, a screen length of five times the
pile diameter, a screen-to-pile distance of twice the pile height, and a
g
screen height equal to the pile height was found best. Various problems
were noted with the sampling methodology used, however, and it is doubtful
that the study adequately assessed the particle flux from the exposed
surface. These problems tend to limit an accurate assessment of the
overall degree of control achievable by wind fences/barriers for large
open sources.
While not entirely applicable to construction/demolition activities,
results of a laboratory wind tunnel study were used to estimate 60 percent
to 80 percent control efficiencies for materials handling emissions.
5.3.3.2 Control Costs. As stated above, one of the real advantages
of wind fences for the control of PM10 involves the low capital and
operating costs. These involve the following basic elements:
• Capital equipment:
~ Fence material and supports
— Mounting hardware
• Operating and maintenance expenditures:
— Replacement fence material and hardware
— Maintenance labor
The following cost estimates (in 1980 dollars) were developed for
wind screens applied to aggregate storage piles:10
• Artificial wind guards:
— Initial capital cost = $12,000 to 61,000
5-22
-------
• Vegetative wind breaks:
~ Initial capital cost = $45 to 425 per tree
Due to the lack of quantitative data on costs associated with wind
screens, it is recommended that local vendors be contacted to obtain more
detailed data for capital and operating expenses. Also, since wind fences
and screens are relatively "low tech" controls, it may be possible for the
site personnel to construct the necessary equipment with less expense.
5.3.3.3 Enforcement Issues. As with other options mentioned above,
the main regulatory approach involved with wind fences and screens would
involve recordkeeping by the site operator. Parameters to be specified in
the dust control plan and routinely recorded are:
General Information to be Specified in Plan
1. Locations of all materials storage and handling operations to be
controlled with wind fences referenced on a plot plan available
to the site operator and regulatory personnel
2. Physical dimensions- of each source to be controlled and
configuration of each fence or screen to be installed
3. Physical characteristics of material.to be handled or stored for
each operation to be controlled by fence(s) or screen(s)
4. Applicable prevailing meteorological data (e.g., wind speed and
direction) for site on an annual basis
Specific Operational Records
1. Date of installation of wind fence or screen and initials of
installer
2. Location of installation relative to source and prevailing winds
3. Type of material being handled and stored and physical dimensions
of source controlled
4. Date of removal of wind fence or screen and initials of personnel
i nvo1ved
General Records to be Kept
1. Fence or screen maintenance record
2. Log of meteorological conditions for each day of site operation
5.3.4 Drilling Control Technology
5.3.4.1 Control Efficiency. Another type of control to be discussed
is the use of water injection or fabric filters for drilling operations.
5-23
-------
Both of these controls are generally directly associated with the drilling
equipment when it is purchased and is an integral part of the system.
As might be expected, water injection used on rock drills involves
the application of water either into the hole being drilled by a piston
pump or to a ring around the top of the hole to control dust generation.
Also, dust ejector systems equipped with small fabric filters or water
sprays use compressed air to eject dust particles from the hole into a
tube for removal from the drilled area.
At present, there are no data available for the PM10 control
efficiency associated with either system used to reduce emissions from
drilling operations. It might be expected, however, that a fabric filter-
based system should be more efficient than wet suppression in most cases.
5.3.4.2 Control Costs. Cost elements associated with drilling
control systems are as follows:
• Capital equipment:
— Spray nozzles, pumps, and distribution plumbing for wet
suppression system
~ Air compressor, air lines, and filter components for dry
ejection system ;
-- Water filters and flow control equipment, as required
~ Water tank, if needed
• Operating and maintenance expenditures:
-- Water and chemicals, if used
— Replacement bags, etc. for dry systems
— Replacement parts for nozzles, pumps, etc.
— Operating labor
— Maintenance labor
Jutze et al. estimate the following costs (in 1980 dollars) for
drilling operations in aggregate processing facilities:10
• Water injection systems:
— Initial capital cost = $4,700
• Dust ejection to fabric filter:
~ Initial capital cost = $14,600
Specific cost data should be obtained from manufacturers relative to the
capital costs associated with the above systems to update the above. No
information is available at present for O&M costs for such systems.
5-24
-------
5.3.4.3 Enforcement Issues. As with the other methods discussed
previously, the regulation of drilling emissions would involve at least
some recordkeeping as part of the overall emissions control plan for the
site. The parameters to be specified in the plan and subsequently
recorded by onsite personnel include:
General Information to be Specified in Plan
1. Location of all drilling operations to be conducted referenced to
a plot plan of the site available to the site operator and
regulatory personnel
2. Schedule for all drilling operations to be conducted onsite,
number of holes to drilled, equipment used and hours of operation
3. Complete specifications of drilling and dust control equipment
for each rock drill to be used
4. Amount of water to be used per unit time for wet systems or
airflows for dry systems
5. Source of water and chemical(s), if used, and tank(s)
capacity(ies)
Specific Operational Records
1. Date of operation and operator's initials
2. Start and stop time of drilling and control equipment
3. Number of holes drilled between start and stop time
4. Start and stop time for tank filling
General Records to be Kept
1. Equipment maintenance records
2. Meteorological log of general conditions
3. Records of equipment malfunctions and downtime
Because of the relatively confined nature of drilling operations,
regulatory formats different from those discussed previously may be
possible. For example, opacity as a measure of performance could be a
viable approach. This is discussed further in Section 5.4 below.
5.3.5 Control of Mud/Dirt Carryout
5.3.5.1 Control Efficiency. Mud and dirt carryout from construction
and demolition sites often accounts for a temporary but substantial
increase in paved road emissions in many areas. Elimination of carryout
can thus significantly reduce increases in paved road emissions.
5-25
-------
At present, the efficacy of various methods to prevent or reduce
mud/dirt carryout have not been quantified. These techniques include both
methods to remove material from truck underbodies and tires prior to
leaving the site (e.g., a temporary grizzley with high pressure water
sprays) as well as techniques to periodically remove mud/dirt carryout
from paved streets at the access point(s). The following method has been
developed, however, to conservatively estimate the reduction in mass
emissions due to carryout using the data contained in Reference 6.
As noted earlier, quantification of control efficiencies for
preventive measures is essentially impossible using the standard
before/after measurement approach. The methodology described below
results in conservatively high control estimates in terms of emissions
prevention. That is, the control afforded cannot be easily described in
terms of a percent reduction but rather is discussed in terms of mass
emissions prevented. Furthermore, tracking of material onto a paved road
results in substantial spatial variation in loading about the access
point. This variation may complicate the modeling of emission reductions
as well as their estimation.
For an individual access point from a paved road to a typical
construction or demolition site, let N represent the number of vehicles
entering or leaving the area on a daily basis. Let E be given by:
5.5 g/vehicle for N < 25
E = {
13 g/vehicle for N > 25
where E is the unit PM10 emission increase in g/vehicle pass (see
Section 5.1). Finally, if M represents the daily number of vehicle passes
on the paved road, then the net daily emission reduction (g/day) is given
by ExM, assuming complete prevention.
The emission reduction calculated above assumes that essentially all
carryout from the unpaved area is either prevented or removed periodically
from the paved surface and, as such, i's viewed as an upper limit. In use,
a regulatory agency may choose to assign an effective level of carryout
control by using some fraction of the E values given above to calculate an
emission reduction.
5-26
-------
Finally, field measurements of the increased paved silt loadings
around unpaved areas may also be used to gauge the effectiveness of
control programs. A discussion of this is found in Section 2.4.
5«,3o5o2 Control Costs. The individual cost elements associated with
the prevention of mud/dirt carryout will vary with the method used. For
traditional street cleaning, the costs elements discussed in Section 2.0
would apply to construction and demolition sites as well. In this case,
however, only the amount of surface to be cleaned would be limited to the
area(s) near access point(s). For an onsite grizzley/water spray system,
the cost elements are as follows:
• Capital equipment:
— Grizzley, catch basin, and clarifier (as needed)
— Spray nozzles, pumps, and distribution plumbing
— Water tank, filters, and flow controllers, as required
• Operating and maintenance expenditures:
— Water and replacement nozzles, plumbing, etc.
— Removal of wastewater or residues, as required
~ Operating labor
— Maintenance labor
At present, no cost data are available for the prevention of mud/dirt
carryout.
5.3.5.3 Enforcement Issues. As with some other techniques, two
complimentary approaches can be used for enforcement of mud/dirt carryout
control. These are recordkeeping and grab sampling. The later would
include the sampling of the paved surface loading near access points to
determine the level of prevention being achieved by the method(s)
employed. Surface sampling is discussed in more detail above.
Adequate records must be kept to document the types and level of
preventative measures being taken to control mud/dirt carryout from the
site. Appropriate parameters to be specified in the control plan and
rigorously recorded are:
General Information to be Specified
1. A detailed plot plan available to both the site operator and
regulatory personnel showing site access points and impacted
paved city streets.
5-27
-------
2. Details on the control method to be applied at each access point
including the amount and types of vehicles entering and exiting
the site on a daily basis at each.
3. For mitigative control techniques (i.e., surface cleaning), a
description and schedule for implementation of the control method
to be employed (see Section 2.0 above).
4. For preventive control techniques (e.g., onsite grizzley),
specifications on the type(s) of equipment to be used and
operation and maintenance of the system.
5. Source of water, if used.
Specific Records to be Kept by Site Operator (Mitigative Controls)
1. Date of cleaning operation and operator's initials.
2. Other applicable cleaning parameters as specified in Section 2.0
above.
General Records to be Kept
1. Equipment maintenance records.
2. Meteorological log of general conditions.
3. Records of equipment malfunctions and downtime.
In addition to the above, some of the regulatory formats suggested in
Section 5.4 require that records of material samples also be kept. A
suggested format for this purpose has been shown previously in
Section 2.4.
5.4 EXAMPLE DUST CONTROL PLAN
To illustrate the development of an appropriate dust control plan for
construction and demolition sites, Figure 5-6 provides example calcula-
tions for the demolition of a 167,200 m2 (200,000 ft2) building located on
a one acre site in an urban area. These calculations include the
determination of uncontrolled PM10 emissions, methods used for control,
and demonstration of the adequacy of the various methods to achieve a
target control efficiency of 90 percent.
5.5 POTENTIAL REGULATORY FORMATS
In this section, regulatory formats will be discussed relative to the
control of fugitive PM^Q emissions at construction and demolition sites.
This section discusses a permit system, recordkeeping, measures of control
performance, and enforcement as well as an example rule which implements
5-28
-------
• Source Description:
167,200 m2 (floor space) building on a one acre site
1 access point to a paved city street (2,000 ADT)
30 vehicles/day removing building debris
30 days project duration
• Assumptions:
No detailed data are available for debris removal activities
No dozing will be performed onsite
Negligible exposed areas
8 h/day operation
• Calculation of Uncontrolled Emissions:
From Section 5.1.2 the uncontrolled PM10 emissions from
dismemberment, debris loading, and onsite traffic are calculated
as:
EQLJ = (Eg + EL + Ej) kg/m2 x m2 floor space
= (0.00025 + 0.0046 + 0.052) kg/m2 x 167,200 m2
= 9.5 Mg PM10
For mud/dirt carryout from haul trucks entering and leaving the site, the
mean increase in paved road emissions is calculated using Table 5-2 for
sites with greater than 25. vehicles/day:
EMQ = 13 g/vehicle pass x 2,000 vehicles/day x 30 days
= 780 Mg PMlo emissions
Therefore, the total emissions over the duration of the project
are:
ET = EDLT + EMD = 9'5 M9 + 78° M9
= 789.5 Mg total PMi0 emissions
• Target Control Efficiency: 90%
• Methods of Control:
— Wet suppression of debris handling and transfer (6.7 L/Mg
application intensity)
— Watering of unpaved travel surfaces (2 L/m2/h application)
~ Broom sweeping/flushing for removal of mud/dirt carryout
Figure 5-6. Example PM10 control plan for building demolition.
5-29
-------
Demonstration of Control Program Adequacy:
As stated in Section 5.3.2.1, an efficiency of 56% is typical for
wet suppression of debris transfer. Thus, the controlled
emissions would be:
ECL = 0.0046 kg PM10/m2 x 167,200 m* x (1 - 0.56) = 0.34 Mg PM10
Using water for dust control from unpaved surfaces, Equations 5-4
and 5-5 as well as Figure 5-1 will allow calculation of controlled
emissions (assuming the site is located in Los Angeles,
California):
p = 0.0049 e = 0.0049 (60 inches) = 0.29 mrn/h
and
c . 100 -
0.8(0.29K30/8H1)
= 99.6%
Therefore, the controlled PM10 emissions for haul truck traffic
would be:
ECT = 0.052 kg/m2 x 167,200 m2 x (1 - 0.996)
= 0.035 Mg PMm from haul trucks
Finally, for removal of mud/dirt carryout using a combination of
broom sweeping and flushing, no prevention efficiency data are
available. However, if it is assumed that the emissions increase
on the paved road for this source is reduced by 90 percent,
78 Mg PMi0 from mud/dirt carryout (see Section 5.3.5.1).
From the above calculations, the overall reduction in PMlo due to
the various controls employed would be:
EC = ECL + ECT + ECMD
= 0.34 + 0.035 + 78
= 78 Mg PMiQ after control
Figure 5-6. (continued)
5-30
-------
Thus,
CE = T E CT x 100% = 789789"578 x 100 = 90.1%
As shown, the target control efficiency of 90 percent has not only
been achieved but exceeded.
Figure 5-6. (continued)
5-31
-------
the permit system. Example regulatory formats are provided for the
following sources associated with construction/demolition: unpaved roads,
haul roads, disturbed soil, mud carryout. These example formats provide a
starting point for development of construction rules in a specific area.
5.5.1 Permit System
The first regulatory approach involves the implementation and
enforcement of a permit program for construction and demolition sites.
This has been used to some extent in the Denver metropolitan area for
large construction projects and offers promise as a general regulatory
format.
A permit system would require the site owner or operator to file an
application with the appropriate regulatory agency having jurisdiction.
This permit application would include the specific dust control plan to be
implemented at the site which would involve the individual elements
discussed in Section 5.3.
The air permit for construction and demolition sites would be coupled
to the standard building or demolition permit process whereby no permit to
conduct such activity would be issued by the county or city until such :
time that the air permit is approved. To reduce the burden of processing
large numbers of such permits, a de minimus level would be established
whereby construction and demolition projects below a certain cut-off size
would not require an air permit. This de minimus level would depend on
local factors such as the amount of emissions reduction required to meet
the applicable PMi0 NAAQS. For the sake of further discussion, a
de minimus level of <25 vehicles entering and leaving the site per day for
construction was used to determine the emissions increase associated with
mud/dirt carryout and thus might be used for this purpose.5
As part of the permit application, recordkeeping should be one-of the
main conditions for approval. Records of site activity and control should
be submitted to the regulatory agency on a monthly basis as indicated
above.. These records must be certified by a responsible party as to their
completeness and accuracy. All site records should be maintained by the
local agency for the duration of the project.
To enforce the dust control plan submitted as part of the permit
application, field audits of key control parameters should be made by
5-32
-------
regulatory personnel. The results of these audits would then be compared
to site records for that period to determine compliance with permit
conditions. If differences are found between application of the
control(s) observed onsite and those recorded by site operating personnel,
this would constitute a violation and would be grounds for further
enforcement action. An example form to be used by regulatory personnel
during inspection of the site is shown in Figure 5-7. .To illustrate this
process an abbreviated example will be given.
Assume a large demolition project consisting of the demolishing of a
block of buildings is to be conducted in a large metropolitan area. The
site dust control plan calls for watering of all truck routes to and from
the active demolition every two hours as well as cleanup of mud/dirt
carryout from the access point on a twice daily basis. Also, watering of
debris during demolition and load-out to haul trucks is to be conducted on
days without measurable rainfall. An agency inspector observes the site
activity from the public street for a period of 3 hours.. During this
period, no water truck is observed to be in operation and debris are not
watered prior to loading into trucks.
At the end of the month, the inspector checks-the submittal from the
site operators and finds start and stop times for the water truck operator
which indicates operation during the observation period. The inspector
also notes that the water cannon used for debris control was broken down
and was in a repair shop. It is clear from this analysis that the
operator is in clear violation of the dust control plan for watering of
unpaved surfaces. In this case, a citation or other enforcement action
could be taken against the site operator.
As noted by the above example, no quantitative data are required for
enforcement of the dust control plan. This eliminates the need for a set
performance standard (e.g., opacity limits) against which the site
operator is evaluated. This approach is, however, predicated on the fact
that strict implementation of the dust control plan will achieve certain
reductions in PM10 emissions associated with site operation.
5-33
-------
1. Type of construction activity (check one)
a. Residential
b. Commercial
c. Industrial
Additional description (i.e., multi unit, residential or suburban
commercial, etc.)
2. How long have you worked at this
location?
Note: In the case of a multi-year project, we are only interested in
the current season.
3. How long is the job projected to
last?
4. What percentage of the work is completed,
percent?
5. What construction activities are you currently performing?
6. What construction activities have you been performing over the past
week to 10 days?
7. What is the construction activity's source extent which is currently
being performed (e.g., tons of earth moved/day or yards of concrete
poured/day)?
8. Estimate the number-of daily vehicle passes through the site entrance
(check 1).
9. What types of vehicle enter the site daily and what percentage of the
traffic is of each type?
Vehicle type Percent
a. Cars
b. Pickups/vans
c. Medium duty trucks
d. Other
10. Do you employ control measures to keep dust down? If yes, what type?
11. What is the usual frequency and intensity of application? When was
the most recent application?
Figure 5-7. Questionnaire for construction site personnel.
5-34
-------
5.5.2 Opacity Standards
Another regulatory format which could be used is the use of visible
emissions (i.e., opacity) as a semi quantitative measure of the performance
of the dust control measure being employed. One state, Tennessee, has
developed a formalized procedure for reading and recording of visible
emissions (VE) from fugitive sources which is the basis for enforcement of
a VE standard.
The use of visible emissions for determination of compliance for
fugitive.dust sources has been discussed previously in this document and
thus will not be belabored here. In general, fugitive sources are
extremely diffuse in nature and the plume generated is dependent on a
number of factors including wind speed and the physical dimensions of the
source. Therefore, it is difficult, if not impossible, to derive even
semiquantitative relationships between particulate mass and visible
emissions for most source types and thus a measure of control performance.
There is one particular source at construction sites where observa-
tion of visible emissions might be used with some degree of confidence as
an enforcement tool. This source is rock drills which emit dust from one
confined area (i.e., the hole being drilled) and thus might be considered
as a point emissions source under traditional definitions. Additional
work will be necessary, however, to determine appropriate visible emis-
sions limits for rock drills based on the control techniques currently
available.
5.5.3 Other Indirect Measures of Control Performance
The final regulatory format to be presented in this section relates
to various indirect measures of control performance. These could be used
in conjunction with or in lieu of the other approaches discussed above.
They will, however, require more effort and expense to implement but
should be at least somewhat defensible as measures of control efficiency.
The most obvious approach to indirectly measuring control performance
involves the collection and analysis of material samples from various
sources operating onsite. For mud/dirt carryout, collection of surface
samples at site access points and analysis of these samples for silt con-
tent would indicate the efficacy of control for this particular source.
The silt loadings obtained could be compared with "typical" surface
5-35
-------
loading values for similar uncontrolled sites to determine the degree of
loading (and thus emissions) reductions achieved. This would, of course,
necessitate the availability of a data base of "uncontrolled" silt load-
ings due to mud/dirt carryout for a wide variety of construction and demo-
lition sites for comparison with site-specific data. An example form to
be used for collection of paved surface loading samples has been provided
previously in Section 2.4 above which has been reproduced as Figure 5-8.
Another indirect measure of control efficiency is the collection and
analysis of material samples from unpaved surfaces and materials handling
and storage operations. In this case, analysis of the moisture content of
these samples would indicate the amount of water applied and thus the
degree of control achieved by wet suppression. Appropriate equations pre-
sented in Section 5.3 would be used to determine control efficiency based
on the. sample data.
5.5.4 Example Rule
The following is a discussion of an example regulatory format for
construction activities. A more detailed discussion is presented in
Appendix G.
5.5.4.1 Conditions for Construction.
Conditions for Construction; No person shall engage in any
construction-related activity at any work site unless all of the
following conditions are satisfied:
(1) Oust control implements in good working condition are available
at the site, including water supply and distribution equipment
adequate to wet any disturbed surface areas and any building
part up to a height of 60 feet above grade.
(2) A dust control plan is approved by the APCO which demonstrates
that an overall x percent (e.g., 75 percent) reduction of PMiQ
emissions from construction/demolition and related activities
will be achieved by applying reasonably available control mea-
sures. Such measures may include, but need not be limited to,
the following: application of water or other liquids during
dust-producing mechanical activities including earth moving and
demolition operations; application of water or other liquids to
or chemical stabilization of, disturbed surface areas; surround-
ing the work site with wind breaks to reduce surface erosion;
restricting the access of motor vehicles on the work site;
securing loads and cleaning vehicles leaving the work site;
enclosing spraying operations; and other means as specified by
the APCO.
5-36
-------
"OCC '_3OC:nc
No.
MR I Project No.
Dare
Recorcea 3v
Typ« of Mcferiai Samoied:
iife of Samciino: _
Type of rcvemer:::
sohair/Concrete
No. of Traffic Lanes
Surface Condition —
Samp i a No.
Vac. Sag
rime
Location'
Sample Area
5 room
Sweot?
Figure 5-8. Example paved road sample log.
5-37
-------
(3) The owner and/or operator is in possession of a currently valid
permit which has been issued by the APCO. (Example permit
attached, see Figures 5-9 and 5-10).
5.5.4.2 Control Mud/Dirt Carryout.
Street Cleaning; No person shall engage in any dust-producing
construction related activity at any work site unless the paved
streets (including shoulders) adjacent to the site.where the con-
struction-related activity occurs are cleaned at a frequency of not
less than x (e.g., once) a day unless,
(1) vehicles do not pass from the work site onto adjacent paved
streets, or
(2) vehicles that do pass from the work site onto adjacent paved
streets are cleaned and have loads secured to effectively pre-
vent the carryout of dirt or mud onto paved street surfaces.
The measures used to clean paved roads may include, but are not
•
limited to: water flushing, vacuum sweeping, and manual cleaning of the
access point.
5.5.4.3 Control of Haul Road Emissions.
Construction Site Haul Roads: No person shall allow the operation,
use, or maintenance of any unpaved or unsealed haul road of more than
x (e.g., 50) feet in .length at any work site engaged in any construe--
tion-related activity, unless no more than x (e.g.,.10) vehicular-
trips are made on such haul road per day and vehicular speeds do not
exceed x (e.g.,10) miles per hour.
5.5.4.4 Stabilize Soils at Work Sites.
Stabilization of Soils at Completed Work Sites: No owner and/or
operator shall allow a disturbed surface site to remain subject to
wind erosion for a period in excess of x (e.g., 6) months after
initial disturbance of the soil surface or construction-related
activity without applying all reasonably available dust control mea-
sures necessary to prevent the transport of dust or jdirt beyond the
property line. Such measures may include, but neeaAto be limited to:
sealing, revegetating, or otherwise stabilizing the soil surface.
5.5.4.5 Record Control Application. The owner and or operator shall
record the evidence of the application of the control measures. Records
shall be submitted upon request from APCO and shall be open for inspection
during unscheduled audits.
5.5.4.5 Modification of Permit Provisions
The provisions of this permit may be modified after sufficient
construction is completed by the mutual consent of the APCO and the
permittee; or, by the APCO if it determines that the stipulated controls
5-38
-------
THIS PERMIT WILL BE PROMINENTLY DISPLAYED IN THE
ONSITE CONSTRUCTION OFFICE
Location: No. of Acres:
Name of Project:
PERMITTEE: Telephone No.
Address:
Prime Contractor: Telephone No.
Subcontractor: Telephone No.
Issue Date of Permit: Expiration Date of Permit:
PERMIT NO: FEE $ RECEIPT NO.
THE PERMITTEE SHALL COMPLY WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
1. (Reference to local APCD regulation for construction/demolition-
related activities)
2. The PERMITTEE is responsible for dust control from commencement of
project to final completion. Areas which will require particular
ATTENTION:
a. Unimproved access roads used for entrance to or exit from
construction site. .
b. Areas in and around building(s) being constructed.
c. Dirt and mud deposited on adjacent improved streets and roads.
3. If wind conditions are such that PERMITTEE cannot control dust,
PERMITTEE shall shut down operations (except for equipment used for
dust control).
4. The PERMITTEE is responsible for ensuring his contractor(s) and/or
subcontractor(s) and all other persons abide by the conditions of the
permit from commencement of project to final completion.
5. The PERMITTEE also is subject to compliance with all applicable State,
county, and local ordinances and regulations. Issuance of this permit
shall not be a defense to violation of above-referenced statutes,
ordinances, and regulations.
6. Onsite permit conditions (attached)
Air Pollution Control Division (date)
Figure 5-9. Example dust permit.
5-39
-------
ONSITE PERMIT CONDITIONS
Condition
number
6a.
Source Minimum
category3 control efficiency
(e.g., unpaved (e.g., 80 percent)
roads)
Control measure
(e.g., chemical stabi-
lization, 39 percent
cal 1 in water and
supplemental water-
ing)
Appl i cat ion
level (frequency
amount, etc.)
(e.g., sufficient
to maintain an
average surface
moisture content
of 2 times the
the of f road soi 1
moisture)
Recordkeeping
(e.g. , log of salt
solution and
supplemental
water volume,
time, and date)
Report i ng
requirements
Records submitted
upon request (in
writing) and
open for inspec-
tion during un-
scheduled
audits)
Other source categories that also could be regulated with permit conditions include open areas, grading, streets, and haul
trucks.
en
i
Figure 5-10. Example permit for construction/demolition activities.
-------
are inadequate. Deviations from the dust control plan (e.g., increased
source activity) may result in modifications to the permit.
5.6 REFERENCES FOR SECTION 5
1. Cowherd, C., Jr., and J. S. Kinsey. 1986. Identification,
Assessment and Control of Fugitive Particulate Emissions.
EPA-600/8-86-023, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
Triangle Park, North Carolina.
2. Kinsey, J. S., et al. 1983. Study of Construction Related Dust.Con-
trol. Contract No. 32200-07976-01, Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency, Roseville, Minnesota. April 19, 1983.
3. Grelinger, M. A. 1988. Gap Filling PM10 Emission Factors for
Selected Open Area Dust Sources. EPA-450/4-88-003, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina.
4. Muleski, G. E. 1987. Update of Fugitive Dust Emission Factors in
AP-42 Section 11.2. Final Report, U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Contract 68-02-3891, Work Assignment 19.
5. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1985. Compilation of Air
Pollution Emission Factors, AP-42. U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.
6. Englehart, P. J., and J'. S. Kinsey. 1983. Study of Construction
Related Mud/Dirt Carryout. EPA Contract 68-02-3177, Assignment 21.
July 1983.
7. Kinsey, J. S., et al. 1985. Control Technology for Sources of
PM10. Draft Final Report, EPA Contract 68-02-3891, Assignment 4.
September 1985.
8. Zimmer, R. A., et al. 1986. Field Evaluation of Wind Screens as a
Fugitive Dust Control Measure for Material Storage Piles.
EPA-600/7-86-027, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
Triangle Park, North Carolina. July 1986.
9. ' Struder, B. J. 8., and S. P. S. Arya. 1988. Windbreak Effectiveness
for Storage Pile Fugitive Dust Control: A Wind Tunnel Study.
Journal of the Air Pollution Control Association, 38;135-143.
10. Ohio Environmental Protection Agency. 1980. Reasonably Available
Control Measures for Fugitive Dust Sources. Columbus, Ohio.
September 1980.
5-41
-------
6.0 OPEN AREA WIND EROSION
Dust emissions may be generated by wind erosion of open agricultural
land or exposed ground areas on public property or within an industrial
facility.
With regard to estimating particulate emissions from wind erosion of
exposed surface material, site inspection can be used to determine the
potential for continuous wind erosion. The two basic requirements for
wind erosion are that the surface be dry and exposed to the wind. For
example, if the contaminated site lies in a swampy area or is covered by
unbroken grass, the potential for wind erosion is virtually nil. If, on
the other hand, the vegetative cover is not continuous over the exposed
surface, then the plants are considered to be nonerodible elements which
absorb a fraction of the wind stress that otherwise acts to suspend the
intervening soil.
For estimating emissions from wind erosion, either of two emission
factor equations are recommended depending on the credibility of the
surface material. Based on the site survey, the exposed surface must be
placed in one of two erodibility classes described below. The division
between these classes is best defined in terms of the threshold wind speed
for the onset of wind erosion.
Nonhomogeneous surfaces impregnated with nonerodible elements
(stones, clumps of vegetation, etc.) are characterized by the finite
availability ("limited reservoir") of erodible material. Such surfaces
have high threshold wind speeds for wind erosion, and particulate emission
rates tend to decay rapidly during an erosion event. On the other hand,
bare surfaces of finely divided material such as sandy agricultural soil
are characterized by an "unlimited reservoir" of erodible particles. Such
surfaces have low threshold wind speeds for wind erosion, and particulate
emission rates are relatively time independent at a given wind speed.
For surface areas not covered by continuous vegetation, the
classification of surface material as either having a "limited reservoir"
or an "unlimited reservoir" of erodible surface particles is determined by
estimating the threshold friction velocity. Based on analysis of wind
erosion research, the dividing line for the two erodibility classes is a
6-1
-------
threshold friction velocity of about 50 cm/s. This somewhat arbitrary
division is based on the observation that highly erodible surfaces,
usually corresponding to sandy surface soils that are fairly deep, have
threshold friction velocities below 50 cm/s. Surfaces with friction
velocities larger than 50 cm/s tend to be composed of aggregates too large
to be eroded mixed in with a small amount of erodible material or of
crusts that are resistant to erosion, i
The cutoff friction velocity of 50 cm/s corresponds to an ambient
wind speed of about 7 m/s (15 mph), measured at a height of about 7 m. In
turn, a specific value of threshold friction velocity for the erodible
surface is needed for either wind erosion emission factor equation
(model).
Crusted surfaces are regarded as having a "limited reservoir" of
erodible particles. Crust thickness and strength should be examined
during the site inspection, by testing with a pocket knife. If the crust
is more than 0.6 cm thick and not easily crumbled between the fingers
(modulus of rupture >1 bar), then the soil may be considered hon-
erodible. If the crust thickness is less than 0.6 cm or is easily
crumbled, then the surface should be'treated as having a limited reservoir
of erodible particles. If a crust is found beneath a loose deposit, the
amount of this loose deposit, which constitutes the limited erosion
reservoir, should be carefully estimated.
For uncrusted surfaces, the threshold friction velocity is best
estimated from the dry aggregate structure of the soil. A simple hand-
sieving test of surface soil is highly desirable to determine the mode of
the surface aggregate size distribution by inspection of relative sieve
catch amounts, following the procedure specified in Figure 6-1. The
threshold friction velocity for erosion can be determined from the mode of
the aggregate size distribution, following a relationship derived by
Gillette (1980) as shown in Figure 6-1.'
A more approximate basis for determining threshold friction velocity
would be based on hand sieving with just one sieve, but otherwise follows
the procedure specified in Figure 6-2. Based on the relationship
developed by Bisal and Ferguson (1970), if more than 60 percent of the
6-2
-------
IOOO
C1
CO
o
*
u
o
OJ
c
o
o
•r—
u
x»
o
01
i.
IQQ ,
10
4 567891
O.I
10
|OO
Aggregate Size Distribution Mode (inn)
Figure 6-1. Relationship of threshold friction velocity to size distribution mode,
-------
FIELD PROCEDURE FOR DETERMINATION OF THRESHOLD FRICTION VELOCITY*
1. PREPARE A NEST OF SIEVES WITH THE FOLLOWING OPENINGS: 4 mm, 2 mm,
1 mm, 0.5 mm, 0.25 mm. PLACE A COLLECTOR PAN BELOW THE BOTTOM SIEVE
(0.25-mm OPENING).
2. COLLECT A SAMPLE REPRESENTING THE SURFACE LAYER OF LOOSE PARTICLES
(APPROXIMATELY 1 cm IN DEPTH FOR AN UNCRUSTED SURFACE), REMOVING ANY
ROCKS LARGER THAN ABOUT 1 cm IN AVERAGE PHYSICAL DIAMETER. THE AREA
TO BE SAMPLED SHOULD NOT BE LESS THAN 30 cm x 30 cm.
3. POUR THE SAMPLE INTO THE TOP SIEVE (4-mrn OPENING), AND PLACE A LID ON
THE TOP.
4. ROTATE THE COVERED SIEVE/PAN UNIT BY HAND USING BROAD SWEEPING ARM MO-
TIONS IN THE HORIZONAL PLANE. COMPLETE 20 ROTATIONS AT A SPEED JUST
NECESSARY TO ACHIEVE SOME RELATIVE HORIZONTAL MOTION BETWEEN THE SIEVE
AND THE PARTICLES. . .
5. INSPECT THE RELATIVE QUANTITIES OF CATCH WITHIN EACH SIEVE AND
DETERMINE WHERE THE MODE IN THE AGGREGATE SIZE DISTRIBUTION LIES,
I.E., BETWEEN THE OPENING SIZE OF THE SIEVE WITH THE LARGEST CATCH AND
THE OPENING SIZE OF THE NEXT LARGEST SIEVE.
*ADAPTED FROM A LABORATORY PROCEDURE PUBLISHED BY W. S. CHEPIL (1952). s
Figure 6-2,
6-4
-------
soil passes a 1-mrn sieve, the "unlimited reservoir" model will apply; if
not, the "limited reservoir" model will apply.3 This relationship has
been verified by Gillette (1980) on desert soils.2
If the soil contains nonerodible elements which are too large to
include in the sieving (i.e., greater than about 1 cm in diameter), the
effect of these elements must be taken into account by increasing the
threshold friction velocity. Marshall (1971) has employed wind tunnel
studies to quantify the increase in the threshold velocity for differing
kinds of nonerodible elements.1* His results are depicted in terms of a
graph of the rate of corrected to uncorrected friction velocity versus LC
(Figure 6-3), where LC is the ratio of the silhouette area of the
roughness elements to the total area of the bare loose soil. The
silhouette area of a nonerodible element is the projected frontal area
normal to the wind direction.
A value for l_c is obtained by marking off a 1-m x 1-m surface area
and determining the fraction of area, as viewed from directly overhead,
that is occupied by nonerodible elements. Then the overhead area should
be corrected to the equivalent frontal area; for examp.le, if a spherical
nonerodible element is half embedded in the surface, the frontal area is
one-half of the overhead area. Although it is difficult-to estimate Lc
for values below 0.05, the correction-to-friction velocity becomes less
sensitive to the estimated value of Lc.
The difficulty in estimating LC also increases for small nonerodible
elements. However, because small nonerodible elements are more likely to
be evenly distributed over the surface, it is usually acceptable to
examine a smaller surface area, e.g., 30 cm x 30 cm.
Once again, loose sandy soils fall into the high credibility
("unlimited reservoir") classification. These soils do not promote crust
formation, and show only a brief effect of moisture addition by
rainfall. On the other hand, compacted soils with a tendency for crust
formation fall into the low ("limited reservoir") credibility group. Clay
content in soil, which tends to promote crust formation, is evident from
crack formation upon drying.
6-5
-------
cr>
U
QJ
S-
o
U
10
3 4 5 6 7 U 0 I
-K
ID
3 4 567891
2 3 4567891
10
-4
10
-3
10
-2
10
L
Figure 6-3. Increase.in threshold friction velocity with LC.
-------
The roughness height, ZQ, which is related to the size and spacing of
surface roughness elements, is needed to convert the friction velocity to
the equivalent wind speed at the typical weather station sensor height of
7 m above the surface. Figure 6-4 depicts the roughness height scale for
various conditions of ground cover.6 The conversion to the 7-m value is
discussed below.
6.1 ESTIMATION OF EMISSIONS
6.1.1 "Limited" Erosion Potential
In the case of surfaces characterized by a "limited reservoir" of
erodible particles, even the highest mean atmospheric wind speeds are
usually not sufficient to sustain wind erosion. However, wind gusts may
quickly deplete a substantial portion of the erosion potential. Because
erosion potential has been found to increase rapidly with increasing wind
speed, estimated emissions should be related to the gusts of highest
magnitude.
The routinely measured meteorological variable which best reflects
the magnitude of wind gusts is the fastest mile. This quantity represents
the wind speed corresponding to the whole mile of wind movement which has
passed by the 1-mi contact anemometer in the least amount of time. Daily
measurements of the fastest mile are presented in the monthly Local Clima-
tological Data (LCD) summaries. The LCD summaries may be obtained from
the National Climatic Center, Asheville, North Carolina. The duration of
the fastest mile, typically about 2 min (for a fastest mile of 30 mph),
matches well with the half life of the erosion process, which ranges
between 1 and 4 min. It should be noted, however, that peak winds can
significantly exceed the daily fastest mile.
The wind speed profile in the surface boundary layer is found to
follow a logarithmic distribution:
u'z> - o ln r (2 > V (6-D
o
where: u = wind speed, cm/s
u* = friction velocity, cm/s
z = height above test surface, cm
ZQ = roughness height, cm
0.4 = von Karman's constant, dimensionless
6-7
-------
High Rise Buildings.
(30+Floors)
Suburban
Medium Buildings*
(Institutional )
I
O
LU
z
x
O
D
O-
ae.
Suburban
Residential Dwellings
Wheat Field
Plowed Field
Zo ( cm)
1000
Natural Snow
800-
—600-
-—400-
I—200-
100
-80.0-
-60.0-
—40.0—
-20.0-
10.0
•8.0-
-6.0-
-4.0-
• 2.0-
1.0
-0.8-
-0.6-
—0.4.
-0.2-
0.1
Urban Area
Woodland Forest
Grassland
Figure 6-4. Roughness heights for various surfaces,
6-8
-------
The friction velocity (u*) is a measure of wind shear stress on the
erodible surface, as determined from the slope of the logarithmic velocity
profile. The roughness height (ZQ) is a measure of the roughness of the
exposed surface as determined from the y-intercept of the velocity
profile, i.e., the height at which the wind speed is zero. These
parameters are illustrated in Figure 6-5 for a roughness height of 0.1 cm.
Emissions generated by wind erosion are also dependent on the
frequency of disturbance of the erodible surface because each time that a
surface is disturbed, its erosion potential is restored. A disturbance is
defined as an action which results in the exposure of fresh surface
material. On a storage pile, this would occur whenever aggregate material
is either added to or removed from the old surface. A disturbance of an
exposed area may also result from the turning of surface material to a
depth exceeding the size of the largest pieces of material present.
The emission factor for wind-generated particulate emissions from
mixtures of erodible and nonerod.ible surface material subject to
disturbance may be expressed in units of g/m2-yr as follows:
. N
Emission factor = k I P. . (6-2)
where: k = particle size multiplier
N = number of disturbances per year
P.J = erosion potential corresponding to the observed (or probable)
fastest mile of wind for the ith period between disturbances,
g/m2
The particle size multiplier (k) for Equation 6-2 varies with
aerodynamic particle size, as follows:
AERODYNAMIC PARTICLE SIZE MULTIPLIERS FOR EQUATION 6-2
<30 um <15 urn <10 urn <2.5 ym
1.0 0.6 0.5 0.2
6-9
-------
10m —
I
>-l
o
iofn
0.5
SPEED AT Z
WlND -5f££D AT lOrn
Figure 6-5. Illustration of logarithmic velocity profile.
-------
This distribution of particle size within the <30 urn fraction is
comparable to the distributions reported for other fugitive dust sources
where wind speed is a factor. This is illustrated, for example, in the
distributions for batch and continuous drop operations encompassing a
number of test aggregate materials (see AP-42 Section 11.2.3).
In calculating emission factors, each area of an erodible surface
that is subject to a different frequency of disturbance should be treated
separately. For a surface disturbed daily, N = 365/yr, and for a surface
disturbance once every 6 mo, N = 2/yr.
The erosion potential function for a dry, exposed surface has the
following form:
P = 58 (u* - u*)2 + 25 (u* - u*) (6-3)
P = 0 for u* < u*
where: u* = friction velocity (m/s)
ut = threshold friction velocity (m/s)
Because of the nonlinear form of the erosion potential function, each
erosion event must be treated separately.
Equations 6-2 and 6-3 apply only to dry, exposed materials with
limited erosion potential. The resulting calculation is valid only for a
time period as long or longer than the period between disturbances.
Calculated emissions represent intermittent events and should not be input
directly into dispersion models that assume steady state emission rates.
For uncrusted surfaces, the threshold friction velocity is best
estimated from the dry aggregate structure of the soil. A simple hand
sieving test of surface soil (adapted from a laboratory procedure
published by W. S. Chepil5) can be used to determine the mode of the
surface aggregate size distribution by inspection of relative sieve catch
amounts, following the procedure specified in Figure 6-2. The threshold
friction velocity for erosion can be determined from the mode of the
aggregate size distribution, as described by Gillette.5 This conversion
is presented in Figure 6-1.
6-11
-------
Threshold friction velocities for several surface types have been
determined by field measurements with a portable wind tunnel. These
values are presented in Tables 6-1 and 6-2 and Figure 6-6.
The fastest mile of wind for the periods between disturbances may be
obtained from the monthly LCD summaries for the nearest reporting weather
station that is representative of the site in question.7 These summaries
report actual fastest mile values for each day of a given month. Because
the erosion potential is a highly nonlinear function of the fastest mile,
mean values of the fastest mile are inappropriate. The anemometer heights
of reporting weather stations are found in Reference 8, and should be
corrected to a 10 m reference height using Equation 6-1.
To convert the fastest mile of wind (u+) from a reference anemometer
height of 10 m to the equivalent friction velocity (u*), the logarithmic
wind speed profile may be used to yield the following equation:
u* = 0.053 uto (6-4)
where: u* = friction velocity (m/s)
uto = fastest mile of reference anemometer-for period between
disturbances (m/s)
This assumes a typical roughness height of 0.5 cm for open terrain.
Equation 6-4 is restricted to large relatively flat areas with little
penetration into the surface wind layer.
Implementation of the above procedure is carried out in the following
steps:
1. Determine threshold friction velocity for erodible material of
interest (see Tables 6-1 and 6-2 and Figure 6-6 or determine from
mode of aggregate size distribution).
2. Divide the exposed surface area into subareas of constant
frequency of disturbance (N).
3. Tabulate fastest mile values (u+) for each frequency of
disturbance and correct them to 10 m (uT0) using Equation 6-5.
6-12
-------
TABLE 6-1. THRESHOLD FRICTION VELOCITIES
Material
Overburden3
Scoria (roadbed
Threshold
friction
velocity
(m/s)
1.02
1.33
Roughness
height
(cm)
0.3
0.3
Threshold wind
velocity at 10 m (m/s)
z0 = Actual z0 = 0.5 cm
21 19
27 25
Ref.
2
2
material)3
Ground coal3
(surrounding coal
pile)
Uncrusted coal pilec
Scraper tracks on
coal pile3'5
Fine coal dust on
concrete padc
0.55
1.12
0.62
0.54
0.01
0.3
0.06
0.2
16
23
15
11
10
21
12
10
2
2
^Western surface coal mine.
Lightly crusted.
GEastern power plant.
5-13
-------
TABLE 6-2. THRESHOLD FRICTION VELOCITIES—ARIZONA SITES
Location
Threshold
friction
velocity,
m/sec
Roughness
height,
cm
Threshold
wind velocity
at 10 m,
m/sec
Mesa - Agricultural site 0.57
Glendale - Construction site 0.53
Maricopa - Agricultural site 0.58
Yuma - Disturbed desert 0.32
Yuma - Agricultural site 0.58
Algodones - Dune flats 0.62
Yuma - Scrub desert 0.39
Santa Cruz River, Tucson 0.18
Tucson - Construction site 0.25
Ajo - Mine tailings 0.23
Hayden - Mine tailings 0.17
Salt River, Mesa 0.22
Casa Grande - Abandoned 0.25
agricultural, land
0.0331
0.0301
0.1255
0.0731
0.0224
0.0166
0.0163
0.0204
0.0181
0.0176
0.0141
0.0100
0.0067
16
15
14
8
17
18
11
5
7
7
5
7
8
6-14
-------
For narrowly sized, finely divided materials only
1 1
Aggregate size
distribution rpode y't Measured
(in) (mm) (cm/s)
Gravel ^
Coarse
Sand "<
Fine
Sand "
— — — — — — — —
0.3
0.2
0.1
>
0.05
0.01
*•-
a
7
6
5
4
3
-
2
_
1
0.5
-
0.1
0.02
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
_
-
—
150
Undisturbed coal pile
Scoria
Undisturbed coal pile
Uncrusled coal pile
j nn Overburden
Disturbed coal pile
Coal pile (scraper tracks)
Dune llala
Agricultural sites
Ground coal
cn Construction sila
t>U Finn coal dust
Scrub dusoil
Oisltirbod dusuM
Construction sila and disturbed pruiiie soil
Abandonud ngiicullurul land
Fluvial channels
Mine tailings
0
Figure 6-6. Scale of threshold friction velocities.
-------
4. Convert fastest mile values (ut0) to equivalent friction
velocities (u*), using Equation 6-4.
5. Treating each subarea (of constant N and u*) as a separate
source, calculate the erosion potential (P.j) for each period
between disturbances using Equation 6-3 and the emission factor
using Equation 6-2.
6. Multiply the resulting emission factor for each subarea by the
size of the subarea, and add the emission contributions of all
subareas. Note that the highest 24-h emissions would be expected
to occur on the windiest day of the year. Maximum emissions are
calculated assuming a single wind event with the highest fastest
mile value for the annual period.
The recommended emission factor equation presented above assumes that
all of the erosion potential corresponding to the fastest mile of wind is
lost during the period between disturbances. Because the fastest mile
event typically lasts only about 2 min, which corresponds roughly to the
half-life for the decay of actual erosion potential, it could be argued
that the emission factor overestimates particulate emissions. However,
there'are other aspects of the wind erosion process which offset this
apparent conservatism:
1. The fastest mile event contains peak winds which substantially
exceed the mean value for the event.
2. Whenever the fastest mile event occurs, there are usually a
number of periods of slightly lower mean wind speed which contain
peak gusts of the same order as the fastest mile wind speed.
Of greater concern is the likelihood of overprediction of wind
erosion emissions in the case of surfaces disturbed infrequently in
comparison to the rate of crust formation.
6.1.2 "Unlimited" Erosion Potential
For surfaces characterized by an "unlimited reservoir" of erodible
particles, particulate emission rates are relatively time independent at a
given wind speed. The technology currently used for predicting
agricultural wind erosion in the United States is based on variations of
the Wind Erosion Equation.11,12 This prediction system uses erosion loss
estimates that are integrated over large fields and long-time scales to
6-16
-------
produce average annual values. A simplified version of the agricultural
wind erosion equation is presented in Section 7.1.2.
6.2 DEMONSTRATED CONTROL TECHNIQUES
Wind erosion of exposed areas is a recognized source of particulate
air pollution associated with the mining and processing of metallic and
nonmetallic minerals. Preventive methods for control of windblown
emissions from open areas consist of wetting, chemical stabilization, and
enclosures. Physical stabilization by covering the exposed surface with
less erodible aggregate material and/or vegetative stabilization are also
practical control methods for certain categories of open areas.
Wind erosion control of soil surfaces is accomplished by stabilizing
erodible soil particles. The stabilization process is accomplished in
three major successive stages: (a) trapping of moving soil particles,
(b) consolidation and aggregation of trapped soil particles, and
(c) revegetation of the surface.13
The trapping of eroding soil is termed "stilling" of erosion. This
may be effected by roughening the surface, by placing barriers in the path
of the wind,.or by burying the erodible particles during tillage.
Trapping is accomplished naturally by soil crusting resulting from rain
followed by a slow process of revegetation. It should be stressed that
the stilling of erosion is only temporary; to effect a permanent control,
plant cover must be established or plant residues must be maintained.
In bare soils containing a mixture of erodible and nonerodible
fractions, the quantity of soil eroded by the wind is limited by the
height and number of nonerodible particles that become exposed on the
surface. The removal of erodible particles continues until the height of
the nonerodible particles that serve as barriers to the wind is increased
to a degree that affords complete shelter to the erodible fractions. If
the nonerodible barriers are low, such as fine gravel, a relatively large
number of pieces are needed for protection of soil from wind erosion. The
gravel in such a case would protect the erodible portion more by covering
than by sheltering from the wind. Thus all nonerodible materials on the
ground that control erosion have an element of cover in addition to the
barrier principle which protects the soil. The principles of surface
barriers and cover are, therefore, inseparable.
6-17
-------
The above principles extend to almost all elements used in wind
erosion control. All of these control methods are designed to (a) take up
some or all of the wind force so that only the residual force, if any, is
taken up by the erodible soil fractions; and (b) trap the eroded soil, if
any, on the lee side or among surface roughness elements or barriers,
thereby reducing soil avalanching and intensity of erosion.
In the sections that follow, various control methods are discussed
with respect to their characteristics and effectiveness in controlling
open area wind erosion. Methods include vegetative cover, soil ridges,
windbreaks, crop strips, chemical stabilizers, and irrigation.
6.3 EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVE CONTROL MEASURES
This section evaluates alternative controls for open area wind
erosion. Relevant control cost information is presented in Section 4.3.
6.3.1 Chemical Stabilization
A portable wind tunnel has been used to measure the control of coal
surface wind erosion emissions by a 17 percent solution of Coherex® in
water applied at an intensity of 3.4 L/m2 (0.74 gal/yd2), and a
2.8 percent solution of Dow Chemical M-167 Latex Binder in water applied
at an average .intensity of 6.8 L/m2 (1.5 gal/yd2).11* The control
efficiency of Coherex® applied at the above intensity to an undisturbed
steam coal surface approximately 60 d before the test, under a wind of
15.0 m/s (33.8 mph) at 15.2 cm (6 in) above the ground, was 89.6 percent
for TP and approximately 62 percent for IP and FP. The control efficiency
of the latex binder on a low volatility coking coal is shown in
Figure 6-7.
6.3.2 Wind Fences/Barriers
Wind fences/barriers are an effective means by which to control
fugitive particulate emissions from open dust sources. The principle of
the wind fence/barrier is to provide an area of reduced wind velocity
which allows settling of the large particles (which cause saltation) and
reduces the particle flux from the exposed surface on the leeward side of
the fence/barrier. Wind fence/barriers can either be man-made structures
or vegetative in nature.
Windbreaks consist of trees or shrubs in 1 to 10 rows, wind and snow
fences, solid wooden or rock walls, and earthen banks. The effectiveness
6-18
-------
100
80
o
c
CD
"o
60
LLJ
o 40
"c
o
o
20
6.8 /m2(i.5 gal/yd2)of
2.8% Solution in Water
Tunnel Wind
Speed = 17 m/s (38 mph)
at 15 cm (6.0 in)
Above the Test Surface
Key:
I
I
I
1 2 3 4
Time After Application (Days)
Figure 6-7. Decay in control efficiency of latex binder applied to
coal storage piles.13
6-19
-------
of any barrier depends on the wind velocity and direction, shape, width,
height, and porosity of the barrier.
Nearly all barriers provide maximum reduction in wind velocity at
leeward locations near the barrier, gradually decreasing downwind.
Percentage reductions in wind velocities for rigid barriers remain
constant no matter what the wind velocity.^
Direction of wind influences the size and location of the protected
areas. Area of protection is greatest for perpendicular winds to the
barrier length and least for parallel winds.
The shape of the windbreak indicates that a vertically abrupt barrier
will provide large reductions in velocity for relatively short leeward
distances, whereas porous barriers provide smaller reductions in velocity
but for more extended distances.
Height of the barrier is, perhaps, the most important factor
influencing effectiveness. Expressed in multiples of barrier height, the
zone of wind velocity reduction on the leeward side may extend to 40 to
50 times the height of the barrier; however, such reductions at those
distances are insignificant for wind erosion control. If complete control
is desired, then barriers must be placed at close intervals.
Tree windbreaks and various artificial barriers are discussed below.
Tree windbreaks. One-, two-, three-, and five-row barriers of trees
are found to be the most effective arrangement for planting to control
wind erosion. The type of tree species planted also has a considerable
influence on the effectiveness of a windbreak. The rate of growth governs
the extent of protection that can be realized in later years.
Artificial barriers. Snow fences, fences constructed of board or
lath, bamboo and willow fences, earthen banks, hand-inserted straw rows,.
and rock walls have been used for wind erosion control on a rather limited
scale. Because of the high cost of both material and labor required for
construction, their use has been limited to where high value crops are
grown or where overpopulation requires intensive agriculture.
In the United States, the application of artificial barriers for wind
erosion control has been limited. Snow fences constructed from strips of
lath held together with wire have been used for protecting vegetable
crops. Such fences provide only a relatively short zone of protection
against erosion, approximately 10 times the height of the barrier.
6-20
-------
Effectiveness. A number of studies have attempted to determine the
effectiveness of wind fences/barriers for the control of windblown dust
under field conditions. Several of these studies have shown both a
significant decrease in wind velocity as well as an increase in sand dune
growth on the lee side of the fence.13,15-17 The degree of emissions
reduction varied from study to study ranging from 0 to a maximum of about
90 percent depending on test conditions.is,ia A summary of available test
data contained in the literature on the control achieved by wind fences/
barriers is provided in Table 6-3.
Various problems have been noted with the sampling methodology used
in each of the studies conducted to date. These problems tend to limit an
accurate assessment of the overall degree of control achievable by wind
fences/barriers for large, open sources. Most of this work has either not
thoroughly characterized the velocity profile behind the fence/barrier or
adequately assessed the particle flux from the exposed surface.
6.3.3 Vegetative Cover
Natural vegetative cover is the most effective, easiest, and most
economical way to maintain an effective control of wind erosion. In
addition to the crops such as grasses, wheat sorghum, corn legumes, and
cotton, crop residues are often placed on fallow fields until a permanent
crop is started. All of these methods can remove 5 to 99 percent of the
direct wind force from the soil surface.^
Effectiveness. Grasses and legumes are most effective because they
provide a dense, complete cover. Wheat and other small grains are
effective beyond the crucial 2 or 3 mo after planting. Corn, sorghum, and
cotton are only of intermediate effectiveness because they are planted in
rows too far apart to protect the soil.
After harvesting, vegetative residue should be anchored to the
surface.20 Duley found that legume residues decay rapidly, while corn and
sorghum stalks are durable.21 He found wheat and rye straw more resistant
to decay than oat straw.2"-
Maintenance. Excessive tillage, tillage with improper implements,
and overgrazing are the major causes of crop cover destruction. Effective
land management practices must be instituted if wind erosion is to be
controlled.
6-21
-------
TABLE 6-3. SUMMARY OF AVAILABLE CONTROL EFFICIENCY DATA FOR WIND FENCES/BARRIERS
Material or control parameter
Reference No. 16
Reference No. 18
cr>
i
ro
ro
Type of fence/barrier
Porosity of fence/barrier
Height/length of fence/barrier
Type of erodable material
Material characteristics
Incident wind speed
Lee-side wind speed
Parti cut ate measurement technique9
Test data rating
Measured particulate control efficiency0
Textile fabric
50 percent
1.8 (n/50 m
Flyash
Percent H20 = 1.6
Percent <30 pro = 14.7
Percent <45 pm = 4.6
Average (no screen) = 4.3 m/s (9.7 mph)
Average (upwind) = 5.32 m/s (11.9 mph)
Average = 2 m/s (4.0 mph) or 64 percent
reduction
U/0 = hi-vol and hi-vol w/SSI (11 tests)
C
TP = 64 percent (average)
TSP = 0 percent (average)
Mood cyclone fence
50 percent
3 ra/12 m
Mixture of topsoil and coal
Unknown
Maximum 27 m/s (60 mph)
Unknown
U/D - Bagnold catchers (one test)
C
TP = 88 percent (average)
?Hi-vol = high volume air sampler; hi-vol w/SSI = high volume air sampler with 15 umA size-selective inlet, SSI.
DData rated using criteria specified in Section 4.4.
CTP = total particulate matter, TSP = total suspended particulate matter (particles <~30 jjmA).
-------
For grazing, the number of animals per acre should be controlled to
maximize the use of grass and still maintain sufficient vegetative cover.
Stubble mulching and minimum tillage or plow-plant systems of farming
tend to maintain vegetative residues on the surface when the land is
fallow. Stubble mulching is a year-round system in which all tilling,
planting, cultivating, and harvesting operations are performed to provide
protection from erosion. This practice requires the use of tillage
implements which undercut the residue without soil inversion.
6.3.4 Limited Irrigation of Barren Field
The periodic irrigation of a barren field controls blowing soil by
adding moisture which consolidates soil particles and creates a crust upon
the soil surface when drying occurs.23 The amount of water and frequency
of each irrigation during fallow to maintain a desired level of control
would be a function of the season and of the crusting ability of the soil.
6.4 EXAMPLE OUST CONTROL PLAN—COVERING UNPAVED PARKING LOT WITH LESS
ERODIBLE SURFACE MATERIAL
Description of Source ;
• Dirt parking lot of dimensions 100 m x 100 m
• Uniform daily disturbance by traffic
• Sample of surface material shows size distribution of 0.56 mm
• LCD as shown in Figure 6-8 for example month
Calculation of Uncontrolled Emissions: Wind erosion emissions from
the parking lot can be calculated using the procedure described in AP-42
Section 11.2.7. Implementation of this procedure for a uniformly
distributed area is carried out in the following steps:
1. Determine threshold friction velocity for surface material from
the mode of the size distribution. As seen from Figure 6-1, a
mode of 0.56 mm corresponds to a threshold friction velocity of
52 cm/s (ut).
2. Divide the exposed surface area into subareas of constant
frequency of disturbance, N. In this instance, N = 365/yr
applies to the entire lot.
3. Convert the daily fastest mile values as shown in Figure 6-8 at
7 m above the surface, to equivalent friction velocities, u*,
using the following variations of Equation 6-1:
6-23
-------
Local Ciimatoiogical Data
MO.'MHLY SUMMARY
HIND
s
0
z
=>
cr
i:
30
0
0
13
12
20
29
29
22
• 1 4
29
1 7
21
0
0
01
33
27
32
24
22
32
29
07
31
30
30
33
34
29
_ nCSJJLlANI
SPCfO M.P.il.
5.3
10.5
2.4
1 1 .0
1 . 3
I ! . 1
19.6
10.9
3.0
14.6
22.3
7.'7
4.' 5
6.7
13.7
1 1 .2
4.3
9.3
7.5
10.3
17. 1
2.4
5.9
1 1 .3
2. 1
8.3
8.2
5..0
3. 1
4.9
o
a.
0 3
<= a
» X
15
6.
10.6
6.0
M.4
11.9
19.0
9.8
1 i .2
8. 1
15. 1
23.3
13.5
15.5
9.6
8.8
13.3
1 1 .5
5.8
0.2
7.8
0.6
7.3
8.5
8.8
.7
2.2
8.5
8.3
6.6
5.2
5.5
FASTEST
MILE
i —
• o
1_|0
• It s
15
c
10
16
oil
1 7
15
fi
19
41
1 4
f
6
16
9
8
. UJ
• £
0
17
36
01
02
13
1 1
30
30
30
13
12
29
17
13
13
M
35
34
31
35
24
20
32
13
02
32
32
26
32
32
31
25
FOS THE MONTH: 1
30 | 3.3 1
— -
i . I
31
29
ICUTf: 1 1
•
5
a
22
i
2
3
4
e
6
7
g
9
12
I
12
13
1 4
15
16
7
19
' 9
20
21
22
23
24
26
27
23
29
30
^ J
Figure 6-8.
Daily fastest miles of wind at 7 meters for
periods of interest.
6-24
-------
u0 - 1.05 u
u* = 0.053 u"["0
4. Calculate the erosion potential, P.,-, for each day (period between
disturbances) using the following equation (see Table 6-4):
Pi = 58 (u* - u*)2 + 25 (u* - u*)
* *
P. = 0 for u < u.
where: u* = friction velocity (m/s)
ut = threshold friction velocity (m/s)
5. Sum all P.,- for the 31 days of interest, and multiply by the wind
erosion PM10 multiplier, 0.5, and the affected surface area, A.
This can only be done when the disturbance pattern is uniform
over the entire erodible surface for each period between
disturbances. The resulting uncontrolled emissions are:
E = kPA
=0.5 (32.81)(10,000)
= 164 kg
Target Control Efficiency: 70 percent
Method of Control; Cover parking lot with any material having a high
enough u£ to achieve 70 percent control efficiency.
Demonstration of Control Program Adequacy: Resulting control
efficiencies for different ut values can be calculated as shown in
Table 6-5. From these calculations, it can be seen 'that the parking lot
must be covered with a material having a u^ of greater than 0.64 m/s,
after the loose surface material reaches an equilibrium state under the
daily influence of traffic.
6.5 POTENTIAL REGULATORY FORMATS
Potential regulatory formats for control of open area wind erosion
are listed in Table 6-6. These focus on appropriate measures for compli-
ance determination. An example regulation is presented in Appendix G.
6-25
-------
TABLE 6-4. CALCULATION OF DAILY EROSION POTENTIALS
FOR UNIFORMLY DISTURBED SURFACE
Day
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
Total
ut.
mph
9
14
10
16
15
29
30
17
15
23
31
23
18
22
13
21
15
12
14
16
16
25
14
15
17
16
16
13
10
9
8
utot
mph
9.4
14.7
10.5
16.8
15.8
30.4
31.5
17.8
15.8
24.2
32.6
24.2
18.9
23.1
13.6
22.0
15.8
12.6
14.7
16.8
16.8
26.2
14.7
15.8
17.8
16.8
16.8
13.6
10.5
9.4
8.4
u*.
m/s
0.22
0.35
0.25
0.40
0.37
0.72
0.75
0.42
0.37
0.57
0.77
0.57
0.45
0.55
0.32
0.52
0.37
0.30
0.35
0.40
0.40
0.62
0..35
0.37
0.42
0.40
0.40
0.32
0.25
0.22
0.20
*
uf
m/s
0.52
0.52
0.52
0.52
0.52
0.52
0.52
0.52
0.52
0.52
0.52
0.52
0.52
0.52
0.52
0.52
0.52
0.52
0.52
0.52
0.52
0.52
0.52
0.52
0.52
0.52
0.52
0.52
0.52
0.52
0;52
'
Erosion
potential,
g/m2
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
7.32
8.82
0.00
0.00
1.40
9.88
1.40
0.00
0.80
0.00
0.00
0.00
0,00
0.00
0.00
0.00
3.08-
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
32.7
6-26
-------
TABLE 6-5. EROSION POTENTIAL (g/m2) FOR DIFFERENT VALUES OF u£ (m/s)
Day
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
Totals
u*,
m/s
0.22
0.35
0.25
0.40
0.37
0.72
0.75
0.42
0.37
0.57
0.77
0.57
0,45
0.55
0.32
0.52
0.37
0.30
0.35
0.40
0.40
0.62
0.35
0.37
0.42
0.40
0.40
0.32
0.25
0.22
0.20
Control
0.520
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
7.39
8.63
0.00
0.00
1.46
9.94
1.46
0.00
0.72
0.00
0.06
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
3.15
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
32.81
0
0.550
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
5.99
7.14
0.00
0.00
0.58
8.36
0.58
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2.10
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
24.76
25
0.580
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
4.69
5.76
0.00
0.00
0.00
6.90
0.00
0.00
"0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.15
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
18.50
44
+
ut
0.610
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
3.50
4.48
0.00
0.00
0.00
5.53
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.31
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
13.83
58
0.640
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2.42
3.31
0.00
0.00
0.00
4.28
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
' 0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
10.01
69
0.670
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.44
2.24
0.00
0.00
0.00
3.12
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
o.bo
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
6.80
79
0.700
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.56
1.28
0.00
0.00
0.00
2.07
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
3.91
88
0.730
0.00
0.00
0.00
• 0.00
0.00
0.00
0.42
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.13
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
.0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.55
95
efficiency,
percent
6-27
-------
TABLE 6-6. METHODS FOR COMPLIANCE DETERMINATION
Source types
Permits
Field audits
Work practices
(recordkeeping)
Emission measurement
CT>
i
ro
00
Construction
areas
Vacant lots
Unpaved parking
lots
Feed lots
Staging area
Yes
Yes-cond.
on area dist.
Yes
Yes-cond.
on size-
where alloned
Yes
Off-road Yes
recreation area
Land fills
Land disposal
(spreading)
Retired farm
land
HpO mining
Dry washes 4
river beds
Unpaved air
strip
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Threshold friction velocity
Moisture content
Visible erosion (scouring)
Threshold friction velocity
Moisture content
Visible erosion (scouring)
Threshold friction velocity
Moisture content
Moisture content
Threshold friction velocity
Moisture content
Visible erosion (scouring)
Threshold friction velocity
Moisture content
Visible erosion
Threshold friction velocity
Moisture content
Visible erosion
Wet stabiIization
Chemical stabilization
Wind fences
Chemical stabilization
vegetation cover
1% ground cover)
Graveling
Chemical stabilization
Wet suppression (sprinklers)
Wind fences
Wet stabiIization
Chemical stabilization
Wind fences
Limit area disturbed
Limit vehicles (activity
emissions)
Limit working face
Wet suppression access
and working area
• Vegetation cover
Chemical stabilization
Vegetative cover
Wind fences
Vegetative cover
-perennial (% ground cover)
Vegetative cover
. -perennial (% ground cover)
Prohibit motor vehicles
Set stabiIIzation
Chemical stabilization
% V.E. at property line/source
PM.Q/TSP concentration at
property 11ne
% V.E. at property line/source
PM.Q/TSP concentration at
property line
% V.E. at property line/source
PM]0/TSP concentration at
property line
% V.E. at property line/source
PM)0/TSP concentration at
property Iine
% V.E. at property line/source
PM.Q/TSP concentration at
property line
% V.E. at property line/source
PM.Q/TSP concentration at
property line
% V.E. at property line/source
PM)0/TSP concentration at
property line
-------
6.6 REFERENCES TO SECTION 6
1. Gillette, 0. A., J. Adams, D. Muhs, and R. Kilh. 1982. Threshold
Friction Velocities and Rupture Moduli for Crusted Desert Soil for
the Input of Soil Particles into the Air. Journal of Geophysical
Research, 87, 9003-9015.
2. Gillette, D. A., et al. 1980. Threshold Velocities for Input of
Soil Particles Into the Air by Desert Soils. Journal of Geophysical
Research, 85(C10), 5621-5630.
3. Bisal, F., and W. Ferguson. 1970. Effect of Nonerodible Aggregates
and Wheat Stubble on Initiation of Soil Drifting. Canadian Journal
of Soil Science, 50, 31-34.
4. Marshall, J. 1971. Drag Measurements in Roughness Arrays of Varying
Density and Distribution. Agricultural Meteorology, 8, 269-292.
5. Chepil, W. S. 1952. Improved Rotary Sieve for Measuring State and
Stability of Dry Soil Structure. Soil Science Society of America
Proceedings. 16, 113-117.
6. Cowherd, C., and C. Guenther. 1976. Development of a Methodology
and Emission Inventory for Fugitive Dust for the Regional Air
Pollution Study. EPA-450/3-76-003. Prepared for U.S. EPA, Office of
Air and Waste Management, Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.
7. Gillette, D. A., et al. Threshold Velocities for Input of Soil
Particles Into the Air by Desert Soils. Journal of Geophysical
Research, 85(C10), 5621-5630.
8. Axetell, K., and C. Cowherd, Jr. 1984. Improved Emission Factors
for Fugitive Dust From Surface Coal Mining Sources. Volumes I and
II, EPA-600/7-84-048. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Cincinnati, Ohio. March 1984.
9. Muleski, G. E. 1985. Coal Yard Wind Erosion Measurement. Final
Report. Prepared for Industrial Client of Midwest Research
Institute, Kansas City, Missouri. March 1985.
10. Changery, M. J. 1978. National Wind Data Index Final Report.
HCO/T1041-01 UC-60. National Climatic Center, Asheville, North
Carolina. December 1978.
11. Woodruff, N. P., and F. H. Siddoway. 1965. A Wind Erosion
Equation. Soil Sci. Soc. Amer. Proc, 29(5), 602-608.
12. Skidmore, E. L., and N. P. Woodruff. 1968. Wind Erosion Forces in
the United States and Their Use in Predicting Soil Loss. USDA, ARS,
Agriculture Handbook No. 346. 42 pp.
6-29
-------
13. Chepil, N. S., and N. P. Woodruff. 1963. The Physics of Wind
Erosion and Its Control. In Advances in Agronomy. Vol. 15,
A. G. Norman, Ed., Academic Press, New York, New York.
14. Cuscino, T., Jr., et al. 1983. Iron and Steel Plant Open Source
Fugitive Emission Control Evaluation. EPA-600/2-83-110. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina. October 1983.
15. Carnes, D., and D. C. Drehmel. 1982. The Control of Fugitive
Emissions Using Windscreens. In Third Symposium on the Transfer and
Utilization of Participate Control Technology (March 1981). Vol. IV,
EPA-600/9-82-005d, NTIS No. PB83-149617. April 1982.
16. Larson, A. G. 1982. Evaluation of Field Test Results on Wind Screen
Efficiency. In Fifth EPA Symposium on Fugitive Emissions:
Measurement and Control, Charleston, South Carolina. May 3-5, 1982.
17. Westec Services, Inc. 1984. Results of Test Plot Studies at Owens
Dry Lake, Inyo County, California. San Diego, California.
March 1984.
18. Radkey, R. L., and P. B. MacCready. 1980. A Study of the Use of
Porous Wind Fences to Reduce Particulate Emissions at the Mohave
Generating Station. AV-R-9563, AeroVironment, Inc., Pasadena,
California.
19. Zingg, A. W. 1954. The Wind Erosion Problem in the Great. Plains.
Trans Geophysics Union. 35, 252-258.
20. Chepil, N. S., N. P. Woodruff, F. H. Siddoway, and L. Lyles. 1960.
Anchoring Vegetative Mulches. Agricultural Engineering, 41,
754-755.
21. Duley, F. L. 1958. U.S. Department of Agriculture Agronomy
Handbook, 136, 1-31.
22. Lyles, L., and N. P. Woodruff. 1962. How Moisture and Tillage
Affect Soil Cloddiness for Wind Erosion Control. Agricultural
Engineering, 43, 150-153, 159.
23. Guideline for Development of Control Strategies in Areas With
Fugitive Dust Problems. 1977. OAQPS No. 1.2-071. U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina. October 1977.
24. Jutze, G., and K. Axetell. 1974. Investigation of Fugitive Dust,
Volume I—Sources, Emissions, and Control. EPA-450/3-74-036a. U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina. June 1974.
6-30
-------
7.0 .AGRICULTURE
Fugitive dust from agricultural operations is suspected of
contributing significantly to the ambient particulate levels of many
agricultural counties. Such agricultural operations include (a) plowing,
(b) disking, (c) fertilizing, (d) applying herbicides and insecticides,
(e) bedding, (f) flattening and firming beds, (g) planting, (h) culti-
vating, and (i) harvesting. These operations can be generically
classified as soil preparation, soil maintenance, and crop harvesting
operations. As discussed in Section 6, dust emissions are also generated
by wind erosion of bare or partially vegetated soil. This section will
focus on emissions from both wind erosion and agricultural tilling opera-
tions that are designed to (a) create the desired soil structure for the
crop seed bed and (b) to eradicate weeds.
7.1 ESTIMATION OF EMISSIONS
7.1.1 Tilling
The mechanical tilling of agricultural land injects dust particles
into the atmosphere as the soil is loosened or turned under by plowing,
disking, harrowing, one-waying, etc. AP-42 presents a predictive emission
factor equation for the estimation of dust emissions from agricultural
tilling:!
E = k(5.38)(s)°-s kg/ha
E = k(4.80)(s)°-s lb/acre
where: s = silt content (percent) of surface soil (default value of
18 percent)
k = particle size multiplier (dimensionless)
The particle size multiplier, k is given as 0.21 for PM10. The above
equations are based solely on field testing information cited in AP-42.
Silt content of tested soils ranged from 1.7 to 88 percent.
7-1
-------
7.1.2 Hind Erosion
The technology currently used for predicting agricultural wind
erosion in the United States is based on variations of the Wind Erosion
Equation.1,2 This prediction system uses erosion loss estimates that are
integrated over large fields and long time scales to produce average
annual values.
7.1.2.1 Simplified Version of Wind Erosion Equation. Presented
below is a procedure for estimating windblown or fugitive dust emissions
from agricultural fields. The overall approach and much of the data have
been adapted from the wind erosion equation, which was developed as the
result of nearly 40 yr of research by the U.S. Department of Agriculture
to predict-topsoil losses from agricultural fields.
Several simplifications have also been incorporated during the
adaptation process. The simplified format is not expected to affect
accuracy in its present usage,, since wind erosion estimates using the
simplified equation are almost always within 5% of those obtained with the
original USOA equation. Most of the input data are not accurate to ±5%.
7.1.2.1.1 Windblown dust equation. .The modified equation is of the
form:
E = kalKCL'V (7-1)
where: E = PM10 wind erosion losses of tilled fields, tons/acre/yr
k = 0.5, the estimated fraction of TSP which is PM10
a = portion of total wind erosion losses that would be measured
as suspended particulate, estimated to be 0.025
I = soil erodibility, tons/acre/yr
K = surface roughness factor, dimension!ess
C = climatic factor, dimensionless
I' = unsheltered field width factor, dimensionless
V = vegetative cover factor, dimensionless
As an aid in understanding the mechanics of this equation, "I" may be
thought of as the basic erodibility of a flat, very large, bare field in a
climate highly conducive to wind erosion (i.e., high wind speeds and
temperature with little precipitation) and K, C, L' , and V as reduction
7-2
-------
factors for a ridged surface, a climate less conducive to wind erosion,
smaller-sized fields, and vegetative cover, respectively.
The same equation can be used to estimate emissions from: (1) a
single field, (2) a medium-sized area such as a valley or county, or
(3) an entire AQCR or state. Naturally, more generalized input data must
be used for the larger land areas, and the accuracy of the resulting
estimates decreases accordingly.
7.1.2.1.2 Procedures for compiling input data. Procedures for
quantifying the five variable factors in Equation (7-1) are explained in
detail below.
Soil Erodibility, I. Soil credibility by wind is a function of the
amount of credible fines in the soil. The largest soil aggregate size
normally considered to be erodible is approximately 0.84 mm equivalent
diameter. Soil credibility, I, is related .to the percentage of dry
aggregates greater than 0.84 mm as shown in Figure 7-1. The percentage of
nonerodible aggregates (and by difference the amount of fines) in a soil
sample can be determined experimentally by a standard dry sieving
procedure, using a No. 20 U.S. Bureau of Standards sieve with 0.84-mm
square openings.
For areas larger than can be field sampled for soil aggregate size '
(e.g., a county) or in cases where soil particle size distributions are
not available, a representative value of I for use in the windblown dust
equation can be obtained from the predominant soil type(s) for farmland in
the area. Measured credibilities of various soil textural classes are
presented in Table 7-1.
If an area is too large to be accurately represented by a soil class
or by the weighted average of several soil classes, the map in Figure 7-2
and the legend in Table 7-2 can be used to identify major soil deposits
and average soil erodibility on a national basis. Other soil maps are
available from the Soil Conservation Service branch of the U.S. Department
of Agriculture.
Values of I obtained from Figure 7-1, from Table 7-1, or from soil
maps can be substituted directly into Equation (7-1).
7-3
-------
100
..u.
-.1....
50
7D a3
DRY1 JCIL AGGIEGATE3
Figure 7-1. Soil erodibility as a function of particle size.
7-4
-------
LLL/dl401-7at, p. 1-
TABLE 7-1. SOIL ERODIBILITY FOR VARIOUS
SOIL TEXTURAL CLASSES
Predominant soil textural class
Sanda
Loamy sanda
Sandy loamd
Clay
Silty clay
Loam
Sandy clay loama
Sandy claya
Silt loam
Clay loam
Silty clay .loam-
Silt
Erodibil ity, I,
tons/acre/yr
220
134
36
86
86
56
56
56
47
47
: 38
38
aVery fine, fine, or medium sand.
7-5
-------
U. 1. DfPAHIUINT OF AGRICULTURE
GENERAL SOIL MAP OF THE UNITED STATES
SOU CONSERVATION SIKVICI
I
cn
Figure 7-2. Generalized soil map of the United States.
-------
LLL/dl401-7at, p. 2
TABLE 7-2. LEGEND FOR SOIL MAP IN FIGURE i-i
Al, A2 Seasonally wet soils with subsurface clay accumulation
A3- A5 Cool or cold soils with subsurface clay accumulation
A6- A8 Clays
A9, A10 Burnt clay soils
All- A13 Dry clay soils with some cementation
01- D6 Arid soils with clay and alkali or carbonate
accumulation
El Poorly-drained loamy sands
E2 Loamy or clayey alluvial deposits
E3- E8 Shallow clay loam deposits on bedrock
E9 Loamy sands in cold regions
E1Q, E12 Loamy sands in warm regions
Ell, E13, E14 Loamy sands in warm, dry regions
HI, H2 Wet organic soils.; peat and muck
II Ashy or amorphous soils in cold regions
12 Infertile soils with large amounts of amorphous material
13 Fertile soils of weathered volcanic ash
14 Tundra; frozen soils
15, 16 Thin loam surface horizon soils
17 Clay loams in cool regions
18- 110 Wide varying soil material with some clay horizons
111 Rocky soils shallower than 20 in, to bedrock
112 Clay loams in warm, moist regions
113 Clay loams in cold regions
(continued)
7-7
-------
LLL/dl401-7at, p. 3
\iBLE 7-2 'Continued'
114 Clay loams in temperate climates
Ml- M4 Surface loam horizon underlain by clay
M5 Shallow surface loams with no underlying clays
M6- MS Surface loamy soils
M9- M14 Semiarid loams or clay loams .
M15, M16 Dry loams
01, 02 Clays and sandy clays
SI- S4 Sandy, clay, and sandy clay loams
Ul Wet silts with some subsurface clay accumulation
U2- U6 Silty loams with subsurface clay accumulation
U7 Dry silts with thin subsurface clay accumulation
VI- V2 Clays and clay loams
V3- VS. . Silty clays ,
XI- X5 Barren areas, mostly rock with some included soils
7-8
-------
Surface Roughness Factor, K. This factor accounts for the resistance
to wind erosion provided by ridges and furrows or large clods in the
field. The surface roughness factor, K, is a function of the height and
spacing of the ridges, and varies from 1.0 (no reduction) for a field with
a smooth surface to a minimum of 0.5 for a field with the optimum ratio of
ridge height (h) to ridge spacing (w).
The relationship between K and h2/w is shown in Figure 7-3. The
value of K to be used in Equation (7-1) should be rounded to the nearest
0.1 because of the large variations inherent in ridge measurement data.
In cases where there are extreme variations of h or w within a field,
determination of the K value should be limited to either 0.5 for a ridge
surface or 1.0 for an unridged surface.
For county or regional areas, K can best be determined as a function
of crop type, since field preparation techniques are relatively uniform
for a specific crop. Average K values of common field crops are shown in
Table 7-3. When the K (or L1 or V) factors are based on crop type,
separate calculations of windblown dust emissions must be made for each
major crop in the survey area. This procedure is explained and
demonstrated later in this presentation.
• Climatic Factor, C. Research has indicated that the fate of soil
movement by wind varies directly as the cube of wind velocity and
inversely as the square of soil surface moisture. Surface moisture is
difficult to measure directly, but precipitation-evaporation indices can
be used to approximate the amount of moisture in soil surface particles.
Therefore, readily available climatic data can provide a quantitative
indicator, of relative wind erosion potential at any geographic location.
The C factor has been calibrated using the climatic conditions at the '
site of much of the research—Garden City, Kansas—as the standard base
(C = 1.00). At any other geographic location, the C factor for use in
Equation (7-1) can be calculated as:
C = 0.345 -V—j (7-2)
(PE)
7-9
-------
a:
O
(—
a
<
LL
CO
CO
ai
z
X
O
^)
O
(T
UJ
O
£
-------
LLL/dl401-7at, p. 4
TABLE 7-3. VALUES OF K, L. AND V FOR COMMON FIE_D CROPS
Crop
Alfalfa
Barley
Beans
Corn
Cotton
Grain hays
Oats
Peanuts
Potatoes
Rice
Rye
Safflower
Sorghum
Soybeans
Sugar beets
Vegetables
Wheat
K
1.0
0.6
0.5
0.6
0.5
0.8
0.8
0.6
0.8
0.8
0.6
1.0
0.5
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
L, ft
1000
2000
1000
2000
2000
2000
2000
1000
1000
1000
2000
2000 •
2000'
2000
1000
500
200C
V, Ib/acre
3000
1100
. 250 •
SCO
250
1250
1250
250
400
1000
1250
• 1500
900
250
100
100
1350
7-11
-------
where: W = mean annual wind velocity, in mph, corrected to a standard
height of 30 ft
PE = Thornthwaite's precipitation-evaporation index
= 0.83 (sum of 12 monthly ratios of precipitation to actual
evapotranspiration)
Monthly or seasonal climatic factors can be estimated from
Equation (7-2) by substituting the mean wind velocity of the period of
interest for the mean annual wind velocity. The annual PE value is used
for all calculations of C.
Climatic factors have been computed from Weather Bureau data for many
locations throughout the country. Figure 7-4 is a map showing annual
climatic factors for the USA. C values for use in Equation (7-1) may be
taken from appropriate maps like this when preparing regional emission
surveys. For emission estimates covering smaller areas, Equation (7-2)
may be used to obtain C.
Unsheltered Field Width Factor. L'. Soil erosion across a field is
directly related to the unsheltered width along the prevailing wind
direction. The rate of erosion is zero at the windward, edge of the field
and increases approximately proportionately with distance downwind until,
if the field is large enough, a maximum-rate of soil movement is reached.
Correlation between the width of a field and its rate of erosion is
also affected by the soil credibility of its surface: the more erodible
the surface, the shorter the distance in which maximum soil movement is
reached. This relationship between the unsheltered width of a field (L),
its surface credibility (IK), and its relative rate of soil erosion (L1)
is shown graphically in Figure 7-5. If the curves of Figure 7-5 are used
to obtain the L1 factor for the windblown dust equation, values for the
variables I and K must already be known and an appropriate value for L
must be determined.
L is calculated as the distance across the field in the prevailing
wind direction minus the distance from the windward edge of the field that
is protected from wind erosion by a barrier. The distance protected by a
barrier is equal to 10 times the height of the barrier, or 10 H. For
example, a row of 30-ft high trees along the windward side of a field
reduces the effective width of the field by 10 x 30 or 300 ft. If the
7-12
-------
I NOTE: ISOPI.ETHS FOR SEVERAL WESTERN AND NORTH EASTERN STATES WERE NOT AVAILABLE AT THE TIME THIS FIGURE WAS PREPARED. FACIOk,
(OR THESE AREAS CAN BE CALCULATED FROM EQUATION 7-2.
ANNUAL CLIMATIC FACTOR C
ORIGINAL DRAWING 4-17-68, D. V. ARMBRUST.
ARK., IA., KY., LA., TENN., W. VA. ADDED
11-24-71, N. P. WOODRUFF.
Figure 7-4. Climatic factor used in wind erosion equation.
-------
OJ
+->
T3
"oJ
O)
LT)
OJ
7-14
-------
prevailing wind direction differs significantly (more than 25 degrees)
from perpendicularity with the field, L should be increased to account for
this additional distance of exposure to the wind. The distance across the
field, L is equal to the field width divided by the cosine of the angle
between the prevailing wind direction and the perpendicularity to the
field:
For multiple fields or regional surveys, measurement and calculation
of L values become unwieldy. In region-wide emission estimates, average
field widths should be used. Field width is generally a function of the
crop being grown, topography of the area, and the amount of trees and
other natural vegetation in or adjacent to the farming areas that would
shelter fields from erosive winds. Since the windblown dust calculations
are already split into individual crop type to accurately consider
variations in K by crop, average L values have also been developed by
crop; they are presented in Table 7-3. These values are representative of
field sizes in relatively flat terrain devoid of tall natural vegetation,
such as found in laege areas of the Great Plains. The L values in
Table 7-3 should be divided by 2 in areas with moderately uneven terrain
and by 3 in hilly areas. Additionally, the average field width factors
should be divided by 2 to account for wooded areas and fence thickets
interspersed with farmland.
Vegetative Cover Factor, V. Vegetative cover on agricultural fields
during periods other than the primary crop season greatly reduces wind
erosion of the soil. This "cover most commonly is crop residue, either
standing stubble or mulched into the soil. The effect of various amounts
of residue, V, in reducing erosion is shown quantitatively in Figure 7-6,
where IKCL1 is the potential annual soil loss (in tons/acre/yr) from a
bare field, and V is the fractional amount of this potential loss which
results when the field has a vegetative cover of V, in Ib of air-dried
residue/acre. Obviously, the other four variables in Equation (7-1) — I,
K, C, and L'—must be known before V can be determined from Figure 7-6.
7-15
-------
I
(—•
cr>
Figure 7-6. Effect of vegetative cover on relative emission rate.
-------
The amount of vegetative cover on a single field can be ascertainec
by collecting and'weighing clean residue from a representative plot or by
visual comparison with calibrated photographs. The weight obtained by
either measuring method must then be converted to an equivalent weight of
flat small-grain stubble before entering Figure 7-6, since different crop
residues vary in their ability to reduce wind erosion. Detailed
descriptions of the measuring methods or conversion procedures are too
complex for this presentation. Interested readers are referred to the
USDA for these descriptions.
The residue left on a field when using good soil conservation
practices is closely related to the type of crop. Table 7-3 presents
representative values of V for common field crops-when stubble or mulch is
left after the crop. These values should be used in calculating windblown
dust emissions unless a knowledge of local farming practices indicates
that some increase or decrease is warranted. Note that three of the five
variables in the windblown dust equation are determined as functions of
the crop grown on the field.
7.1.2.1.3 Summary. The estimated emissions in. tons/acre/yr may now
be calculated for each field or group of fields as the product of the five
variables times the constant "a".estimated to be 0.025, and the particle
size multiplier for PM10 estimated to be 0.5.
For regional emission estimates, the acreage in agriculture should be
determined for each jurisdiction (e.g., county) by crop. "I" and "C"
values can be determined for individual jurisdiction, with the remaining
three variables being quantified as functions of crop type. The emission
calculations are best performed in a tabular format such as the one shown
in Table 7-4. The calculated emissions from each crop are summed to get
agricultural wind erosion emissions by jurisdiction and these are totaled
to get emissions for this source category for the entire region.
7.1.2.1.4 Appropriate Usage of Results. Inherent variabilities in
the many parameters used in the windblown dust equation cause the results
to be less accurate than emission estimates for most other sources.
However, the rough estimates provided by the proposed procedure are better
than not considering this source at all in particulate emission inventory
7-17
-------
TABLE 7-4. CALCULATION SHEET FOR ESTIMATION OF DUST FROM WIND EROSION
Juris- I, C, K, L, V, L1, V, E, = Total
diction Based on Climatic Surface Field Veget. Length Veget. alKC- Kmins lout
(County) Soil Type Factor Crop Acres Roughness Length Cover Factor Factor I.' V' By Cro[i
Alfalfa
Barley
Beans
Corn
Cotton
Potatoes
Sorghum
Soybeans
Sugar
Beets
Vegets.
Wheat
. Etc.
Total. "__""."'"
(List of
Crops
Grown in
Juris-
diction)
Total
-------
work. Inclusion of this source category, possibly with some qualifying
statement as to its relative accuracy, gives an indication of its
contribution to regional air quality.
The estimation procedure is not intended for use in predicting
emissions for short time periods, nor can it be used in determining
emission rates for enforcement purposes.
7.1.2.2 New Wind Erosion Prediction Technology. New technology for
prediction of agricultural wind erosion is currently being developed by
the U.S. Department of Agriculture. This undertaking was recently
described by L. J. Hagen as follows.3
Currently, the U.S. Department of Agriculture is taking a
leading role in combining erosion science with data bases and
computers to develop what should be a significant advancement
in wind erosion prediction technology. In 1986 an initial
group composed of Agricultural Research Service (ARS) and Soil
Conservation Service (SCS) scientists was formed to begin
development of a new Wind Erosion Prediction System (WEPS).
Additional scientists are now being added to the group to
strengthen specific research and technology development
areas. The objective of the project is to develop replacement
technology for the Wind Erosion Equation.
The primafy user of wind erosion prediction technology is
the USDA Soil Conservation Service, which has several major
applications. First, as a part of the periodic National
Resource Inventory, it collects data at 300,000 primary
sampling points, and at central locations, calculates the
erosion losses occurring under current land use practices.
The analyzed results are used to aid in developing regional
and national policy.
Second, SCS does conservation planning of wind erosion
control practices to assist farmers and ranchers in meeting
erosion tolerances. Implementation of adequate conservation
plans preserves land productivity and reduces both onsite and
offsite damages. Conservation planning requires a prediction
system that will operate on a personal computer and produce
answers in a relatively short time. In addition, WEPS must
serve as a communication tool between conservation planners
and those who implement the plans.
Various users also undertake project planning in which
erosion prediction is used to evaluate erosion and deposition
in areas impacted by the project. In this application, more
time and resources may be expended than in conservation
planning to collect input data and make analyses. Project
7-19
-------
planning Is typically carried out by multidisciplinary teams
including field personnel who collect needed input data.
Other users of wind erosion prediction technology
represent a wide range of problem areas. Often their problems
will require development of additional models to supplement
WEPS in order to obtain answers of interest. Some of these
diverse problem areas include evaluating new erosion control
techniques, estimating long-term soil productivity changes,
calculating onsite and offsite economic costs of erosion,
finding deposition loading of lakes and streams, computing the
effects of dust on acid rain processes, determining impact of
management strategies on public lands, and estimating
visibility reductions near airports and highways.
From the preceding survey of user needs, it is apparent
that the prediction technology must deal with a wide range of
soil types and management factors. Wind erosion prediction
technology also must caver a broad range of climatic and
geographic regions in the United States. The major impact of
wind erosion is in the Great Plains, but erodible areas in the
Great Lakes region, the semiarid western United States, and
windy coastal regions are all affected.
7.2 DEMONSTRATED CONTROL TECHNIQUES
7.2.1 Tilling
Operational modifications to tilling of the soil include the use of
novel implements or the alteration of cultural techniques to eliminate
some operations altogether. All operational modifications will affect
soil preparation or seed planting operations. Furthermore, the suggested
operational modifications are crop specific. Estimated PM10 efficiencies
for agricultural controls are presented in Table 7-5.
The punch planter is a novel implement which might have applications
for emissions reduction from planting cotton, corn, and lettuce. The
punch planter is already being used in sugar beet production. The punch
planter punches a hole and places the seed into it, as opposed to
conventional planters which make a trough and drop the seeds in at a
specified spacing. The advantage is that punch planters can leave much of
the surface soil and surface crop residues undisturbed. Large-scale use
of the punch planters would require initial capital investments by the
farming industry for new equipment.
7-20
-------
TABLE 7-5. ESTIMATED PM-10 EFFICIENCIES FOR AGRICULTURAL CONTROLS3
Control technique
Punch planter
Herbicides
Sprinkler irrigation
Laser-directed land
pi ane
Develop high qual ity
alfalfa
Double crop corn
with wheat
Aerial seeding
Estimated control
Operation
affected Cotton .• Barley
Planting 50
Cultivation or 100 25a
soi 1 preparation
Land planing 90 90
Land planing 30 30
or floating
All soil preparation
operations
Disking or plowing
Planting
ef f iciency
Alfalfa
25a
90
30
75
50
(percent) by crop
Rice Corn
50
b 100
c 90
30 30
50d
3
for applicable techniques
Process
Wheat tomatoes
25a 100
90 90
30 30
50
Lettuce
50
100
90
30
^Eliminates only some soil preparation operations, whereas in other cases, all cultivation operations are eliminated.
Herbicides already applied by airplane for majority of acreage.
^Flood irrigation necessary.
Fifty percent control only for double-cropped acreage.
eSeeding already performed by airplane for majority of acreage.
-------
Herbicides for weed control is a cultural practice which could reduce
emissions from cultivation for most new crops with wide enough spacing for
cultivation and for some close-grown crops like wheat. Much of the
preplant tillage of wheat soil is for weed control. The use of
herbicides, however, must be balanced against potential increased
herbicide emissions caused by wind and by water runoffs.
Sprinkler irrigation is an existing cultural technique which could
produce fugitive emission control for any crop which is currently
irrigated by surface watering systems. Sprinkler irrigation eliminates
the need for extensive land planing operations which surface irrigation
requires. However, the capital investment for sprinkler irrigation
equipment and the increased costs of pumping the water are major
deterrents.
The laser-directed land plane is a novel implement which might yield
some emissions controls for surface-irrigated crops. Laser-guided grading
equipment has been used in construction for years and can be expected to
reduce the amount of land planing required due to its more precise
leveling blade. This device might be retrofitted to existing land planes,
but capital investment funds are required.
The development of long lasting varieties of alfalfa with high leaf
protein content would help to reduce emissions, because present practices
require replanting every 3 to 5 yr. New varieties already exist which can
last up to 20 yr, but the protein content is low. If longevity and
quality could be combined, the soil would not have to be prepared so
often, thus yielding a subsequent reduction in emissions.
Double-cropping corn with wheat or other grain instead of corn with
corn might reduce fugitive emissions. Since corn provides so much
stubble, it must be plowed or disked under. The beds must then be formed
and shaped for the next corn seed planting. . If wheat or another grain
were grown on a bedded field, then corn could be planted on the beds after
the wheat harvest and stubble removal. The beds would require only
reshaping. This would eliminate a plowing or disking operation and a bed-
forming operation while adding a less dusty wheat stubble removal
operation.
7-22
-------
Finally, aerial seeding, which is already used in rice production,
would probably reduce emissions somewhat from alfalfa and wheat
production. However, at least in the case of wheat, the aerially applied
seed must be covered. This covering operation will produce dust, but it
may be less dust than a ground planting operation would produce.
7.2.2 Wind Erosion
Agricultural wind erosion control is accomplished by stabilizing
credible soil particles. The stabilization process is accomplished in
three major successive stages: (a) trapping of moving soil particles,
(b) consolidation and aggregation of trapped soil particles, and
(c) revegetation of the surface.3
The trapping of eroding soil is termed "stilling" of erosion. This
may be effected by roughening the surface, by placing barriers in the path
of the wind, or by burying the erodible particles during tillage.
Trapping is accomplished naturally by soil crusting resulting from rain
followed by a slow process of revegetation. It should be stressed that
the stilling of erosion is only temporary; to effect a permanent control,
plant cover must be established or plant residues must be.maintained.
In bare soils containing a mixture of erodible and nonerodible
fractions, the quantity of soil eroded by the wind is limited by the
height and number of nonerodible particles that become exposed on the
surface. The removal of erodible particles continues until the height of
the nonerodible particles that serve as barriers to the wind is 'increased
to a degree that affords complete shelter to the erodible fractions. If
the nonerodible barriers are low, such as fine gravel, a relatively large
number of pieces are needed for protection of soil from wind erosion. The
gravel in such a case would protect the erodible portion more by covering
than by sheltering from the wind. Thus all nonerodible materials on the
ground that control erosion have an element of cover in addition to the
barrier principle which protects the soil. The principles of surface
barriers and cover are, therefore, inseparable.
The above principles extend to almost all elements used in wind
erosion control. All of these control methods are designed to (a) take up
some or all of the wind force so that only the residual force, if any, is
taken up by the erodible soil fractions; and (b) trap the eroded soil, if
7-23
-------
any, on the lee side or among surface roughness elements or barriers,
thereby reducing soil avalanching and intensity of erosion.
In the sections that follow, various control methods are discussed
with respect to their characteristics and effectiveness in controlling
erosion. Methods include vegetative cover, soil ridges, windbreaks, crop
strips, chemical stabilizers, and irrigation.
7.3 EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVE CONTROL MEASURES
7.3.1 Tilling
The estimates of emission control efficiency for each tillage control
technique discussed above are given in Table 7-5. These estimates are
derived from consideration of the reduced level of soil disturbance
associated with the specified control technique.
As evidenced by the discussion in Section 7.2, many of the
demonstrated control techniques are capital-intensive. In other words,
identified cost elements typically include the capital expense to purchase
a new implement.
O&M costs are assumed to be equal to those with the older equipment
and, as such, need not be considered in assessing cost effectiveness.
Based on the fact that control of tillage practices.would fall under
soil conservation rather than environmental regulations (as discussed
below), no cost data for control of tillage practices are presented in
this section.
7.3.2 Wind Erosion
7.3.2.1 Vegetative Cover. Natural vegetative cover is the most
effective, easiest, and most economical way to maintain an effective
control of wind erosion. In addition.to the crops such as grasses, wheat
sorghum, corn legumes, and cotton, crop residues are often placed on
fallow fields until a permanent crop is started. All of these methods can
remove 5 to 99 percent of the direct wind force from the soil surface.1*
Effectiveness. Grasses and legumes are most effective because they
provide a dense, complete cover. Wheat and other small grains are
effective beyond the crucial 2 or 3 mo after planting. Corn, sorghum, and
cotton are only of intermediate effectiveness because they are planted in
rows too far apart to protect the soil.
7-24
-------
After harvesting, vegetative residue should be anchored to the
surface.s Duley found that legume residues decay rapidly, while corn and
sorghum stalks are durable.6 He found wheat and rye straw more resistant
to decay than oat straw.
Maintenance. Excessive tillage, tillage with improper implements,
and overgrazing are the major causes of crop cover destruction. Effective
land management practices must be instituted if wind erosion is to be
controlled.
For grazing, the number of animals per acre should be controlled to
maximize the use of grass and still maintain sufficient vegetative
, N
cover.
Stubble mulching and minimum tillage or plow-plant systems of farming
tend to maintain vegetative residues on the surface when the land is
fallow. Stubble mulching is a year-round system in which all tilling,
planting, cultivating, and harvesting operations are performed to provide
protection from erosion. This practice requires the use of tillage
implements which undercut the residue without soil inversion.
7.3.2.2 Tillage Practices. The soil surface can be made cloddy and
rough in order to control erosion by developing a surface barrier. Such
practices include: '(&) regular tillage processes to prepare seedbeds and
to control weeds for crop production; and (b) emergency tillage practices
used specifically to bring clay to the surface for possible increased
cloddiness and to roughen the land to prevent wind erosion.
Regular tillage. It is important that all tillage operations be
conducted sparingly because tillage leads to soil surface smoothing and
•clod pulverization. Soil moisture at time of tillage has an effect on
cloddiness. Different soils have differing moisture contents at which
soil pulverization is most severe. More clods are produced if the soil is
either extremely dry or moist than if it contains an intermediate moisture
content.7
The type of tillage implement used, also has an influence on soil
cloddiness and surface roughness.7 A study conducted with a moldboard
plow, a one-way disk, and a subsurface sweep in controlled soil moisture
conditions demonstrated that cloddiness is more dependent on the type of
machinery than soil moisture content. The moldboard plow produced a
7-25
-------
rougher, more cloddy surface with higher mechanical stability of clods
than the one-way disk or subsurface sweeps. Tillage implements used in
stubble mulch farming, with the exception of chisel cultivators, usually
do not leave a ridged, rough surface. Subsurface sweeps provide a smooth
surface and are advantageous insofar as they allow the vegetation to
remain erect.
It is important that planting and seeding equipment preserve as much
residue as possible, keep the soil surface rough and cloddy, and also,
place the seed in moist, firm soil to promote rapid germination. Major
types of planters available for small grains include hoes, single and
double disks, deep furrow drills, and seeding attachments on one-ways and
cultivators.
Emergency tillage. Emergency tillage to provide a rough, cloddy
surface is a temporary measure, and its only purpose is to create an
erosion-resistant soil surface in a short period of time. It is a last
resort measure to be implemented when vegetative cover is depleted by
excessive grazing, drought, improper or excessive tillage, or by growing
crops that produce little or no residue or when potentially severe erosive
conditions are expected.
The most common implements used are listers, duckfoot cultivators,
and narrow-tooth chisel cultivators. The effectiveness of any of the
above in creating cloddiness depends upon soil moisture, texture, and
density. Cloddiness of soil is increased markedly by increasing density;
also, the cloddiness potential of soils with a high clay content is
greater than for sandy soils. Speed of travel, depth of tillage, spacing
between tillage point carriers, and type of part also influence the degree
of cloddiness. Speeds of 5.6 to 6.4 km/h (3.5 to 4.0 mph) provide the
optimum degree of cloddiness.
As for depth, 7.6 to 15.2 cm (3 to 6 in) brings up compact clods.
Spacing of lister and chisel must be governed by severity of erosion and
the presence or absence of crops. Close spacing creates a rougher
surface. However, if a crop is involved and there is a possibility of
saving part of it, then wide spacings of 122 to 137 cm (48 to 54 in)
should be used to both provide roughness for control and permit the crop
to grow.
7-26
-------
Listers and narrow chisels are most: effective types of tillage
points. Listers produce a high degree of roughness and are especially
effective in sandy soils where clods can be produced by deep tillage.
Chisel cultivators require less power and destroy less crop than do
listers.
7.3.2.3 Windbreaks and Wind Barriers. Windbreaks consist of trees
or shrubs in 1 to 10 rows, crops in narrow rows, snow fences, solid wooden
or rock walls, and earthen banks. Windbreaks function as surface barriers
to control wind erosion; i.e., they take up or deflect a sufficient amount
of the wind force to lower the wind velocities to the leeward below the
threshold required to initiate soil movement. The effectiveness of any
barrier depends on the wind velocity and direction, shape, width, height,
and porosity of the barrier.
Nearly all barriers provide maximum reduction in wind velocity at
leeward locations near the barrier, gradually decreasing downwind.
Percentage reductions in wind velocities for rigid barriers remain
constant no matter what the wind velocity.5
Direction of wind influences the size and location of the protected
areas. Area of protection is greatest for perpendicular winds to the
barrier length and least for parallel winds.
The shape of the windbreak indicates that a vertically abrupt barrier
will provide large reductions in velocity for relatively short leeward
distances, whereas porous barriers provide smaller reductions in velocity
but for more extended distances.
Height of the barrier is, perhaps, the most important factor
influencing effectiveness. Expressed in multiples of barrier height, the
zone of wind velocity reduction on the leeward side may extend to 40 to
50 times the height of the barrier; however, such reductions at those
distances are insignificant for wind erosion control. If complete control
is desired, then barriers must be placed at close intervals.
One-, two-, three, and five-row barriers of trees are found to be the
most effective arrangement for planting to control wind erosion. The type
of tree species planted also has a considerable influence on the
effectiveness of a windbreak. The rate of growth governs the extent of
protection that can be realized in later years.
7-27
-------
7.3.2.4 Strip-Cropping. The practice of strip-cropping consists of
dividing a field into alternate strips of erosion-resistant crops and
erosion-susceptible crops or fallow. Erosion-resistant crops are the
small grains and other crops that cover the ground rapidly. Erosion-
susceptible crops are cotton, tobacco, sugar beets, peas, beans, potatoes,
peanuts, asparagus, and most truck crops.
Strip-cropping controls erosion by reducing soil avalanching, which
increases with width of eroding field.. Since avalanching depends on field
credibility, the appropriate width of strips required varies with factors
that influence erodibility, such as soil texture, wind velocity and
direction, quantity of crop residue, and degree of soil cloddiness and
surface roughness.
Available data indicate that directional deviation of erosive winds
from the perpendicular requires narrower strips, and that required width
of the strip increases as soil texture becomes finer, except for clays and
silty clays subject to granulation.
Strip-cropping alone will not fully control wind erosion; it must be
used in conjunction with other measures, such as stubble mulching, to be
fully effective. In combination with strip-cropping, the supplementary
practices need not be as intensive as they would have to be for large
fields.
Row crop spacing. The relative effectiveness of different row
spacings for wind erosion control has not been fully evaluated. In
theory, the closer the row spacing, the more effective is the protection
afforded against erosion. Most closely spaced crops are erosion resistant
once they are established. Sorghum, corn, cotton, and other crops
normally planted in rows 102 to 107 cm (40 to 42 in) apart are not as
resistant. Experiments have shown that some of these crops can be grown
in more closely spaced rows without being detrimental to crop yield.
Orientation of crop rows to the prevailing erosive winds has an
effect on erosion. The relative amount of erosion from soil planted to
wheat in rows 25.4 cm (10 in) apart is 6 times greater when the wind is
blowing parallel to rows than when it blows perpendicular to the rows.3
7.3.2.5 Limited Irrigation of Fallow Field. The periodic irrigation
of a barren field controls blowing soil by adding moisture which
7-28
-------
consolidates soil particles and creates a crust upon the soil surface when
drying occurs.a The amount of water and frequency of each irrigation
during fallow to maintain a desired level of control would be a function
of the season and of the crusting ability of the soil. The drawback to
irrigation control concerns the availability of water, cost of water, and
interference with farming activities on the cropland.9
7.4 POSSIBLE REGULATORY FORMATS
The Food Security Act (FSA) contains two provisions which may
significantly reduce dust emissions from agricultural tilling. The first
provision requires a conservation plan on all land which is designated as
"highly erodible" for either wind or water erosion. Plans must be filed
by 1990 and implemented by 1995 in order for the land owner to be eligible
for government (USDA) program benefits such as insurance and subsidies.
The second provision is the 45-mi11 ion-acre Conservation Reserve Program
(CRP), a procedure for taking highly erodible cropland out of production
and establishing a vegetative cover upon it.
The EPA is beginning to work with the U.S. Department of Agriculture
(USDA) to explore ways in which reduction of PM10 in populated areas can
be accomplished in part by the provisions of the FSA. The following
information relative to rural fugitive dust-has been obtained:
1. Many farms with highly erodible land (HEL) are already practicing
wind erosion control but almost all HEL will need to make changes to
comply with the FSA.
2. The air in cities (and smaller towns) surrounded by agricultural
land should be cleaner because of both the CRP and HEL controls required
by the FSA.
3. Towns and cities do care about reducing the impact of dust
storms. There is perhaps less concern in the small, agriculturally
oriented towns.
4. The CRP could provide substantial additional reductions in PM10
in populated areas if more of the farmland near cities were incorporated
into the CRP (buffer zone). This buffer could be accomplished through
zoning or by increasing the acceptable bid in the buffer area. The legal
aspects of such approaches are being investigated.
7-29
-------
REFERENCES TO SECTION 7
1. Woodruff, N. P., and F. H. Siddoway. 1965. A Wind Erosion
Equation. Soil Sci. Soc. Amer. Proc, 29(5), 602-608.
2. Skidmore, E. L., and N. P. Woodruff. 1968. Wind Erosion Forces in
the United States and Their Use in Predicting Soil Loss. USDA, ARS,
Agriculture Handbook No. 346. 42 pp.
3. Hagen, L. J. 1988. New Wind Erosion Model Developments in the
USDA. In Proceedings of the 1988 Wind Erosion Conference, Texas Tech
University, Lubbock, Texas. April 11-13, 1988.
4. Cuscino, T. H. Jr., J. S. Kinsey and R. Hackney. 1981. The Role of
Agricultural Practices in Fugitive Dust Emissions. Final Report
prepared by Midwest Research Institute for the California Air
Resources Board, Sacramento, California.
5. Chepil, N. S., and N. P. Woodruff. 1963. The Physics of Wind
Erosion and Its Control. In Advances in Agronomy, Vol. 15,
A. G. Norman, Ed., Academic Press, New York, New York.
6. Zingg, A. W. 1954. The Wind Erosion Problem in the Great Plains.
Trans Geophysics Union, 35, 252-258.
7. Chepil, N. S., N. P. Woodruff, F. H. Siddoway, and L. Lyles. 1960.
Anchoring Vegetative Mulches. Agricultural Engineering, 41,
754-755.
8. Duley, F. L. 1958. U.S. Department of Agriculture Agronomy
Handbook, 136, 1-31.
9. Lyles, L., and N. P. Woodruff. 1962. How Moisture and Tillage
Affect Soil Cloddiness for Wind Erosion Control. Agricultural
Engineering, 43, 150-153, 159.
10. Guideline for Development of Control Strategies in Areas With
Fugitive Dust Problems. 1977. OAQPS No. 1.2-071. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina. October 1977.
11. Jutze, G., and K. Axetell. 1974. Investigation of Fugitive Dust,
Volume I—Sources, Emissions, and Control. EPA-450/3-74-036a. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina. June 1974.
7-30
-------
APPENDIX A.
OPEN DUST SOURCE EMISSION FACTOR RATING AND CONTROL
EFFICIENCY TERMINOLOGY
-------
APPENDIX A. OPEN DUST SOURCE EMISSION FACTOR RATING AND CONTROL
EFFICIENCY TERMINOLOGY
A.I EMISSION FACTOR RATING TERMINOLOGY
In AP-42, the reliability of emission factors is indicated by an
overall Emission Factor Rating ranging from A (excellent) to E (poor).
These ratings take into account the type and amount of data from which the
factors were calculated. Note that measurements underlying each emission
factor are rated on a similar scale of A to D.
The use of a statistical confidence interval may seem desirable as a
more quantitative measure of the reliability of an emission factor.
Because of the way an emission factor data base is generated, however,
prudent application of statistical procedures precludes the use of
confidence intervals unless the following conditions are met:
• The sample of sources from which the emission factor was
determined' is representative of the total population of such
sources.
• The data collected at an individual source are representative of
that source (i.e., no temporal variability resulting from source
operating conditions could have biased the data).
• The method of measurement was properly applied at each source
tested.
Because of the almost impossible task of assigning a meaningful confidence
limit to the above variables and to other industry-specific variables, the
use of a statistical confidence interval for an emission factor is not
practical.
The following emission factor ratings are applied to the emission
factors:
A - Excellent. Developed only from A-rated test data taken from many
randomly chosen facilities in the industry population. The source
category is specific enough to minimize variability within the source
category population.
B - Above average. Developed only from A-rated test data from a
reasonable number of facilities. Although no specific bias is
evident, it is not clear if the facilities tested represent a random
A-l
-------
sample of the industry. As in the A-rating, the source category is
specific enough to minimize variability within the source category
population.
C - Average. Developed only from A- and B-rated data from a
reasonable number of facilities. Although no specific bias is
evident, it is not clear if the facilities tested represent a random
sample of the industry. As in the A rating, the source category is
specific enough to minimize variability within the source category
population.
D - Below average. The emission factor was developed only from A-
and B-rated test data from a small number of facilities, and there
may be reason to suspect that these facilities do not represent a
random sample of the industry. There also may .be evidence of
variability within the source category population. Limitations on
the use of the emission factor are footnoted in the emission factor
table.
E - Poor. The emission factor was developed from C- and D-rated test
data, and there may be reason to suspect that the facilities tested
do not represent a random sample of the industry. There may be
evidence of variability within the source category population.
Limitations on the use of these factors are always footnoted.
Because the application of these factors is somwhat subjective, the
reasons for each rating are documented in the background files maintained
by the Office of Air Quality Procedures and Standards (OAQPS).
A.2 CONTROL EFFICIENCY TERMINOLOGY
Some control techniques often used for open dust sources begin to
decay in efficiency almost immediately after implementation. The most
extreme example of this is the watering of unpaved roads where the
efficiency decays from nearly 100 percent to 0 in a matter of hours (or
minutes). The control efficiency for broom sweeping and flushing applied
in combination on a paved road may decay to zero in 1 or 2 days. Chemical
dust suppressants applied to unpaved roads can yield control efficiencies
that will decay to zero in several months. Consequently, a single-valued
control efficiency is usually not adequate to describe the performance of
most intermittent control techniques for open dust sources. The control
A-2
-------
efficiency must be reported along with a time period over which the value
applies. For continuous control systems (e.g., wet suppression for
materials transfer), a single control efficiency is usually appropriate.
Certain terminology has been developed to aid in describing the time
dependence of open dust control efficiency. These terms are:
1. Control lifetime is the time period (or amount of source
activity) required for the efficiency of an open dust control measure to
decay to zero.
2. Instantaneous control efficiency is the efficiency of an open
dust control at a specific point in time.
3. Average control efficiency is the efficiency of an open dust
source control averaged over a given period of time (or number of vehicle
passes).
From the above definitions, it is clear that average control
efficiency is related to instantaneous control efficiency by the following
general equation:
C(X) =
C(x)dx
where: x = tJme (or number of vehicle passes) after application
X = time (or number of vehicle passes) over which an average
efficiency is desired
c = instantaneous control efficiency
C = average control efficiency
Field tests of certain paved and unpaved road dust controls indicate that
instantaneous control efficiency may be adequately represented as a linear
function of time (or vehicle passes):
c(x) = a-bx
where a and b are constants, and b>0. In that case, average control
efficiency is given by
c(X) = a 5x
A-3
-------
APPENDIX B.
ESTIMATION OF CONTROL COSTS AND COST EFFECTIVENESS
-------
APPENDIX B.
ESTIMATION OF CONTROL COSTS AND COST EFFECTIVENESS
Development and evaluation of particulate fugitive emissions control
strategies require analyses of the relative costs of alternative control
measures. Cost analyses are used by control agency personnel to develop
overall strategies for an air pollution control district or to evaluate
plant specific control strategies. Industry personnel perform cost
analyses to evaluate control alternatives for a specific source or to
develop a plant-wide emissions control strategy. Although the- specifics
of these analyses may vary depending upon the objective of the analysis
and the availability of cost data, the general format is similar.
The primary goal of any cost analysis is to provide a consistent
comparison of the real costs of alternative control measures. The
objective of this section is to provide the reader with .a methodology that
will allow such a comparison. It will describe the overall structure of a
cost analysis and provide the resources for conducting the analyses.
Because cost data are continuously changing, specific cost data are not
provided. However, sources of cost information and mechanisms for cost
updating are provided.
The approach outlined in this section will focus on cost effectiveness
•as the primary comparison tool. Cost effectiveness is simply the ratio of
the annualized cost of the emissions control to the amount of emissions
reduction achieved. Mathematically, cost effectiveness is defined by:
C* • XR ^
3-1
-------
where: C* = cost effectiveness, S/mass of emissions reduction
Ca = annualized cost of the control measure, S/year
AR = reduction (mass/year) in annual emissions
This general methodology was chosen because it is equally applicable to
different controls that achieve equivalent emissions reduction on a single
source and to measures that achieve varied reductions over multiple
sources.
The discussion is divided into three sections. The first section
describes the general cost analysis methodology, including the various
types of costs that should be considered and presents methods for
calculating those costs. The second identifies the primary cost elements
associated with each of the fugitive emissions control systems. The final
section identifies sources of cost data and discusses methods for updating
cost data to constant dollars, and includes example calculation cases for
estimating costs and cost effectiveness.
B.I GENERAL COST METHODOLOGY
Calculation of cost effectiveness for comparison of control measures
or control strategies can be accomplished in four steps. First, the
alternative control/cost scenarios are selected. Second, the capital
costs of each scenario is.calculated. Third, the annualized costs for
each of the alternatives is developed. Finally, the cost effectiveness is
calculated, taking into consideration the level of emissions reduction.
The general approach for performing each of the above steps is
described below. This approach is intended to provide general guidance
for cost comparison. It should not be viewed as a rigid procedure that
must be followed in detail for all analyses. The reader may choose or may
be forced through resource or informational constraints to omit some
elements of the analysis. However, for comparisons to be valid, cautions
that should be observed are: (1) all control scenarios should be treated
in the same manner; and (2) cost elements that vary radically between cost
scenarios should not be omitted.
B.I.I Select Control/Cost Scenarios
Prior to the cost analysis general control measures or strategies
will have been identified. These measures or strategies will fall into
one of the major classes of fugitive emission control techniques that were
B-2
-------
identified. The first step in the cost analysis is to select a set of
specific control/cost scenarios from the general techniques. The specific
scenarios will include definition of the major cost elements and identifi-
cation of specific implementation alternatives for each of the cost
elements.
Each of the general control techniques identified in Chapter 4 has
several major cost elements. These elements include capital equipment
elements and operation/maintenance elements. For example, the major cost
elements for chemical stabilization of an unpaved road include:
(a) chemical acquisition; (b) chemical storage; (c) road preparation;
(d) mixing the chemical with water; and (e) application of the chemical
solution. The first step in any cost analysis is definition of these
major cost elements. Information is provided in Section B.2 on the major
cost elements associated with each of the general techniques.
For each major cost element, several implementation alternatives can
be chosen. Options within each cost element include such choices as
buying or renting equipment; shipping chemicals by railcar, truck tanker,
or in drums via truck; alternative sources of power or other utilities;
and use of plant personnel or contractors for construction and main-
tenance. The major cost elements and the implementation alternatives for
each of these elements for the chemical stabilization example described.
above are outlined in Table B-l.
B.I.2 Develop Capital Costs
The capital costs of a fugitive emissions control system are those
direct and indirect expenses incurred up to the date when the control
system is placed in operation. These capital costs include actual
purchase expenses for capital equipment, labor and utility costs
associated with installation of the control system, and system startup and
shakedown costs. In general, direct capital costs are the costs of
control equipment and the labor, material, and utilities needed to install
the equipment. Indirect costs are overall costs to the facility incurred
by the system but not directly attributable to specific equipment items.
Direct costs cover the purchase of equipment and auxiliaries and the
costs of installation. These costs include system instrumentation and
interconnection of the system. Capital costs also include any cost of
B-3
-------
site development necessitated by the control system. For example, if a
fabric filter on a capture/collection system requires an access road for
removal of the collected dust, this access road is included as a capital
expense. The types of direct costs typically associated with fugitive
emissions control systems include:
• Equipment costs • Painting
• Equipment installation • Insulation
Instrumentation • Structural support
• Duct work • Foundations
• Piping • Supporting administrative structures
• Electrical • Control panels
• Site development • Access roads or walkways
• Buildings
Indirect costs cover the expenses not attributable to specific
equipment items. Items in this category are described below^:
1. Engineering costs—includes administrative, process, project, and
general; design and related functions for specifications; bid analysis;
special studies; cost analysis; accounting; reports; purchasing; procure-
ment; travel expenses; living expenses; expediting; inspection; safety;
communications; modeling; pilot plant studies; royalty payments during
construction; training of plant personnel; field engineering; safety
engineering; and consultant services.
2. Construction and field expenses—includes costs for temporary
field offices; warehouses; craft sheds; fabrication shops; miscellaneous
buildings; temporary utilities; temporary sanitary facilities; temporary
roads; fences; parking lots; storage areas; field computer services;
equipment fuel and lubricants; mobilization and demobilization; field
office supplies; telephone and telegraph; time-clock system; field-
supervision; equipment rental; small tools; equipment repair; scaffolding;
and freight.
3. Contractor's fee—includes costs for field-labor payroll;
supervision field office; administrative personnel; travel expenses;
permits; licenses; taxes; insurance; field overhead; legal liabilities;
and labor relations.
B-4
-------
4. Shakedown/startup—includes costs associated with system startup
and shakedown.
5. Contingency costs—the excess account set up to deal with
uncertainties in the cost estimate, including unforeseen escalation in
prices, malfunctions, equipment design alterations, and similar sources.
The values for these items will vary depending on the specific
operations to be controlled and the types of control systems used.
Typical ranges for indirect costs based on the total installed cost of the
capital equipment are shown in Table B-2.
B.I.3 Determine Annualized Costs
The most common basis for comparison of alternative control system is
that of annualized cost. The annualized cost of a fugitive emission
control system includes operating costs such as labor, materials,
utilities, and maintenance items as well as the annualized cost of the
capital equipment. The annualization of capital costs is a classical
engineering economics problem, the solution of which takes into account
the fact that money has time value. These annualized costs are dependent
on the interest rate paid on borrowed money or collectable by the plant as
interest (.if available-capital is used), the useful life of the equipment
and depreciation rates of the equipment.
The components of the annualized cost of implementing a particular
control technique are depicted graphically in Figure B-l. Purchase and
installation costs include freight, sales tax, and interest on borrowed
money. The operation and maintenance costs reflect increasing frequency
of repair as the equipment ages along with increased costs due to infla-
tion for parts, energy, and labor. On the other hand, costs recovered by
claiming tax credits or deductions are considered as income. Mathe-
matically the annualized costs of control equipment can be calculated
from:
Ca = CRF (Cp) + CQ + 0.5 CQ (B-2)
where: Ca = annualized costs of control equipment, $/year
CRF = Capital Recovery Factor, I/year
Cp = installed capital costs, $
CQ = direct operating costs, $/year
B-5
-------
0.5 = plant overheac factor
The various components of this equation are briefly described below.
The annualized cost of capital equipment is calculated by using a
capital recovery factor (CRF). The capital recovery factor combines
interest on borrowed funds and depreciation into a single factor. It is a
function of the interest rate and the overall life of the capital
equipment and can be estimated by the following equation:
CFR = l(1"'n (B-3)
where: i = interest rate, annual percent as a fraction)
n = economic life of the control system (year)
The other major components of the annualized cost are operation and
maintenance costs (direct operating costs) and associated plant overhead
costs. Operation and maintenance costs generally include labor, raw
materials, utilities, and. by-product costs or credits associated with day-
to-day operation of the control system. Elements typically included in
this category, are: 1
1. Utilities—includes water for process use and cooling; steam;
electricity to operate controls, fans, motors, pumps, valves, and
lighting; and fuel, if required.
2. Raw materials — includes any chemicals needed to operate the
system.
3. Operating labor — includes supervision and the skilled and
unskilled labor needed to operate, monitor, and control the system.
4. Maintenance and repairs — includes the manpower and materials to
keep the system operating efficiently. The function of maintenance is
both preventive and corrective, to keep down-time to a minimum.
5. By-product costs— in systems producing a salable product, this
would be a credit for that product; in systems producing a product for
disposal, this would be the cost of disposal.
6. Fuel costs — includes the incremental cost of the fuel, where more
than the normal supply is used.
B-6
-------
Another component of the operating cost is overhead, which is a
business expense not charged directly to a particular part of the process
but allocated to it. Overhead costs include administrative, safety,
engineering, legal, and medical services; payroll, employee benefits;
recreation; and public relations. As suggested by Eq. B-2, these charges
are estimated to be approximately 50 percent of direct operating costs.
B.I.4 Calculate Cost Effectiveness
As discussed in the introduction to this section the most informative
method for comparing control measures or control strategies for particulate
fugitive emissions sources is on a cost-effectiveness basis. Mathemati-
cally, cost effectiveness is defined as:
c* = s
where: C* = cost effectiveness, $/mass of emissions reduced
Ca = annualized cost of control equipment, $/year
AR = annual reduction in particulate emissions, mass/year
The annualized cost of control equipment can be calculated using
Equation B-2. The annual reduction in particulate emissions can be
calculated from the following equation: • .
AR = M e c (B-4)
where: M = annual source extent
e = uncontrolled emission factor (i.e., mass of uncontrolled
emissions per unit of source extent)
c = average control efficiency expressed as a fraction
The methodology for calculating annualized costs and sources of data
on costs of fugitive emissions control systems are contained- in this
section.
B.2 COST ELEMENTS OF FUGITIVE EMISSIONS CONTROL SYSTEMS
The cost methodology outlined in Section B.I requires that the analyst
define and select alternative control/cost scenarios and develop costs for
the major cost elements within these scenarios. The objective of this
subsection is to assist the reader in identifying the implementation
alternatives and major cost elements associated with the emission reduction
B-7
-------
techniques. For open dust sources, the control techniques addressed are:
wet dust suppression; surface cleaning; and paving.
Implementation alternatives for open dust source emission control
measures are presented in Tables B-3 through B-5. Table 8-3 presents
implementation alternatives for water and chemical dust suppressant
systems. Table B-4 presents alternatives for three types of street
cleaning systems—sweeping, flushing, and a combination of flushing and
broom sweeping. Table B-5 presents alternatives for streets or parking lot
paving.
After the control scenarios are selected, the analyst must estimate
the capital cost of the installed system and the operating and maintenance
costs. The indirect capital costs elements are common to all systems and
were identified in Table 8-2. The direct capital cost elements and direct
operation and.maintenance cost elements which are unique to each type of
fugitive emission control system are identified in Tables 8-6 through
8-11. These costs are provided for dust suppressant programs for open dust
sources in Table 8-6, street cleaning programs in Table 8-7, paving in
Table 8-8, and wet suppression systems, for process sources in Table 8-9.
B.3 SOURCES OF COST DATA ...
Collection of the data to conduct a cost analysis can sometimes be
difficult. If a well defined system is being costed, the best sources of
accurate capital costs are vendor estimates.. However, if the system is not
sufficiently defined to develop vendor estimates, published cost data can
be used. Table B-10 presents sources of cost data for both paved and
unpaved roads.
Often published cost estimates are based on different time-valued
dollars. These estimates must be adjusted for inflation so that they
reflect the most probable capital investments for a current time and can be
consistently compared. Capital cost indices are the techniques used for
updating costs. These indices provide a general method for updating
overall costs without having to complete in-depth studies of individual
cost elements. Indices that typically are used for updating control system
costs are the Chemical Engineering Plant Cost Index, the Bureau of Labor
Statistics Metal Fabrication Index, and the Commerce Department Monthly
Labor Review.
B-8
-------
Operation and maintenance cost estimates typically are based on vendor
or industry experience with similar systems. In the absence of such data,
rough estimates can be developed from sources 3 and 6 in Table 3-10.
B-9
-------
REFERENCE FOR APPENDIX B
1. PEDCo Environmental, Inc. Cost Analysis Manual for Standards Support
Document. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. November 1978.
B-10
-------
TABLE B-l. IMPLEMENTATION ALTERNATIVES FOR STABILIZATION OF AN
UPAVED ROAD
Cost elements/implementation alternatives
I. Purchase and Ship Chemical
A. Ship in railcar tanker (11,000 to 22,000 gal/tanker)
B. Ship in truck tanker (4,000 to 6,000 gal/tanker)
C. Ship in drums via truck (55 gal/drum)
II. Store Chemical
A. Store on plant property
1. In new storage tank
2. In existing storage tank
a. Needs refurbishing
b. Needs no refurbishing
3. In railcar tanker
a. Own railcar
b. Pay demurrage
4. In truck tanker
a. Own truck
b. Pay demurrage
5. In drums
B. Store in contractor tanks
III. . Prepare Road
A. Use plant-owned grader to minimize ruts and low spots.
B. Rent contractor grader
C. Perform no road preparation
IV. Mix Chemical and Water in Application Truck
A. Put chemical in spray truck
1. Pump chemical from storage tank or drums into application
truck
1. Pour chemical from drums into application truck, generally
using forklift
B. Put water in application truck
I. Pump from river or lake
2. Take from city water line
V. Apply Chemical Solution via Surface Spraying
A. Use plant owned application truck
B. Rent contractor application truck
B-ll
-------
Cost item
TABLE B-2. TYPICAL VALUES FOR INDIRECT CAPITAL COSTS
Ranges of values
Engineering
Construction and field
expenses
Contractor's fee
Shakedown/startup
Contingency
8 to 20 percent of installed cost. High
value for small projects; low value for
large projects
7 to 70 percent of installed cost
10 to 15 percent of installed cost
1 to 6 percent of installed cost
10 to 30 percent of total direct and indirect
costs dependent upon accuracy of estimate.
.Generally, 20 percent is used in a study
estimate
8-12
-------
TABLE 3-3. IMPLEMENTATION ALTERNATIVES FOR OUST SUPPRESSANTS APPLIED TO
AN UNPAVED ROAD
Program implementation alternative
Dust
suppressant type
Chemicals Water
I. Purchase and Ship Dust Suppressant
A. Ship in railcar tanker (11,000 to X
22,000 gal/tanker)
B. Ship in truck tanker (4,000 to 6,000 gal/ X
tanker)
C. Ship in drums via truck (55 gal/drum)
II. Store dust suppressant
A. Store on plant property
1. In new storage tank X
2. In existing storage tank X
'a. Needs refurbishing X
b. Needs no refurbishing X
3. In railcar tanker
a. Own railcar X
b. Pay demurrage X
•III. Prepare Road
' "A. ' Use plant-owned grader to minimize ruts and low X
spots
B. Rent contractor grader X
C. Perform no road preparation X
IV. Mix Dust Suppressant/Water in Application Truck
A. Put suppressant in spray truck
1. Pump suppressant from storage tank or drums X
into application truck
2. Pour suppressant from drums' into application X
truck, generally using forklift
3. Put water in application truck
1. Pump from river or lake X
2. Take from city water line X
V. Apply suppressant solution via surface spraying
A. Use plant owned application truck X
B. Rent contractor application truck X
X
X
X
X
X
X
B-13
-------
TABLE 8-4. IMPLEMENTATION ALTERNATIVES FOR STREET CLEANING
Broom-
Program implementation alternative sweeping
I. Acquire Flusher and Driver
A. Purchase flusher and use
plant driver
B. Rent flusher and driver
C. Use existing unpaved road
watering truck
II. Acquire Broom Sweeper and Driver
A. Purchase broom sweeper and X
use plant driver
B. Rent broom sweeper and X
driver
III.. Fill Flusher Tank with Water
A. Pump water from river or lake
B. Take water from city line
IV. Maintain purchased flusher
V. Maintain purchased broom sweeper X
Flushing
and
broom-
Flushing sweeping
. X X
X X
X X
X
X
X' X
X X
X X
X
B-14
-------
TABLE B-5. IMPLEMENTATION ALTERNATIVES FOR PAVING
Program implementation alternative
L. Excavate Existing Surface to Make Way for Base and
Surface Courses
A. 2-in. depth
B. 4-in. depth
C. 6-in depth
II. Fine Grade and Compact Subgrade
III. Lay and Compact Crushed Stone Base Course
A. 2-in. depth
B. 4-in. depth
C. 6-in depth
IV. Lay and Compact Hot Mix Asphalt (Probably AC1-20-150)
Surface Course
A. 2-in. depth
B. 4-in. depth
C. 6-in depth
B-15
-------
TABLE 3-6. CAPITAL EQUIPMENT AND O&M EXPENDITURE ITEMS FOR
DUST SUPPRESSANT SYSTEMSa
(Open Sources)
Capital equipment
• Storage equipment
Tanks
Railcar
Pumps
Piping
• Application equipment
Trucks
Spray system
Piping (including winterizing)
Q&M expenditures
• Utility or fuel costs
Water
Electricity
Gaso.line or diesel fuel
• Supplies
Chemicals
Repair parts
• Labor
Application time
Road conditioning
System maintenance
aNot all items are necessary for all systems. Specific items
are dependent on the control scenario selected.
B-16
-------
TABLE 8-7. CAPITAL EQUIPMENT AND O&M EXPENDITURE ITEMS FOR
STREET CLEANING
Capital equipment
• Sweeping
Broom
Vacuum system
• Flushing
Piping
Flushing truck
Water pumps
O&M expenditures
• Utility and fuel costs
Water
Gasoline or diesel fuel
• Supplies
Replacement brushes
• Labor
Sweeping or flushing operation
Truck maintenance
• Waste disposal •
TABLE B-8. CAPITAL EQUIPMENT AND O&M EXPENDITURES ITEMS FOR
PAVING
Capital equipment
• Operating equipment
Graders
Paving application equipment
Materials
Paving material (asphalt or concrete)
Base material
O&M expenditures
Supplies
Patching material
Labor
Surface preparation
Paving
Road maintenance
Equipment maintenance
B-17
-------
TABLE B-9. CAPITAL EQUIPMENT AND O&M EXPENDITURE ITEMS FOR
WET SUPPRESSION SYSTEMS (PROCESS SOURCES)
Capital equipment
• Water spray systems
Supply pumps
Nozzles
Piping (including winterization)
Control system
Filtering units
Water/surfactant and foam systems only
Air compressor
Mixing tank
Metering or proportioning unit
Surfactant storage area
O&M expenditures
• Utility costs
Water .
Electricity
• Supplies
Surfactant
Screens
• Labor
Maintenance
Operation
B-18
-------
TABLE B-10. PUBLISHED SOURCES OF FUGITIVE EMISSION CONTROL
SYSTEM COST DATA
1. Cuscino, Thomas, Jr., Gregory E. Muleski,and Chatten Cowherd, Jr. Iron
and Steel Plant Open Source Fugitive Emission Control Evaluation.
EPA-600/2-83-110, NTIS No. PB84-110568, U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. October 1983.
2. Muleski, Gregory E., Thomas Cuscino, Jr., and Chatten Cowherd, Jr.
Extended Evaluation of Unpaved Road Oust Suppressants in the Iron, and
Steel Industry. EPA-600/2-84-027, NTIS No. PB84-154350, U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina. February 1984.
3. Cuscino, Thomas, Jr. Cost Estimates for Selected Dust Controls
Applied to Unpaved and Paved Roads in Iron and Steel Plants. EPA
Contract No. 68-01-6314, Task 17, U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region V, Chicago, Illinois. April 1984.
4. Richardson Engineering Services, Inc. The Richardson Rapid
Construction Cost Estimating System: Volume I-Process Plant
Construction Estimating Standards. 1983-84 Edition.
5. Robert Snow Means Company, Inc. Building Construction Cost Data.
1979. '
6. Neveril, R, V. Capital and Operating Costs of Selected Air Pollution
Control Systems. EPA-450/5-80-002. GARD, Inc. December 19-78.
8-19
-------
TABLE S-ll. EXAMPLE CALCULATION CASE: COST AND COST-EFFECTIVENESS
ESTIMATE FOR TYPICAL OPEN SOURCE CONTROL
This table lists the steps necessary to calculate the cost effectiveness for two control
alternatives for stabilizing unpaved travel surfaces. Following the list of nine steps is an
example problem illustrating the calculations. Table B-12 through B-16 are referenced in the
calculations in Table B-11.
Step 1—Specify Desired Average Control Efficiency (e.g., 50, 75, or 90 percent)
Step 2—Specify Basic Vehicle, Road and Cl imatologicaI Parameters for the Particular
Road of Concern' ' '•
Required venicle characteristics include:
1. Average Daily Traffic (ADT)—this is the number of vehicles using the road
regardless of direction of travel (e.g., on a two lane road in an iron and steel plant, 100
vehicles in one direction, and 100 in the other direction during a single day yields 200
ADT);
2. Average vehicle weight in short tons;
3. Average number of vehicle wheels; and
4. Average vehicle speed in mph.
Required road characteristics include:
1. Actual length of roadway to be controlled in miles;
2. Width of road to be controlled;
3. Silt content (in percent)—for an existing road, these values should be measured;
however, for a proposed plant, average values shown in AP-42 can be used;
4. Surface loading (for paved roads) in Ib/mile—this is the total loading on a I I
traveled lanes rather than the average lane loading; and
5. Bearing strength of the road-At this time, just a visual estimate of low, moderate,
or high is required. ' ' ' _
Required cIimatologicaI characteristics (applicable 'on Iy to watering of unoaved '
roads): potential evaporation in mm/h—the value depends on both the location and the rnonrh
of concern. Control efficiency data in this report for watering unpaved roads assume a
location in Detroit, Michigan, in the summer.
Step 3—Calculate the Uncontrolled Annual Emission Rate as the'Product of the Emission
Factor and the Source Extent
The emission factor (E) should be calculated using the equations from AP-42.
The annual source extent (SE) is calculated as 365 x ADT x average one way trip
distance.
Step 4—Consult the Appropriate Control Program Design Table to Determine the 7irne
Between Applications and the Application intensity
Select the approoriate taole
Taol e
conta i n i ng
Control technique i nformat ion
Coherex® applied to unpaved roads Tabie 3-'2
Petro Tac applied to unpaved roads Taoie 3-13
(cont i nuea)
B-20
-------
TABLE B-ll. (continued)
Verify that the vehicle and road character i ST i cs listed in Step 2 are similar to those
listed in the footnotes of the selected table. If they are significantly different, the
table cannot be used.
Step 5 — Calculate the Number of Annual Applications Necessary by Dividing 365 by the
Days Between Application (from Step 4T
Step 6 — Calculate the Number of Treated Miles Per Year by Multiplying the Actual Miles
of Road to be Controlled (from Step 2) by the Number of Annual Applications (from Step 5)
Step 7— Consult the Appropriate Program Implementation Alternatives Table and Select the
Desired Program Implementation Plan"
Table
conta i n i ng
Control technique i nf or-Tiat ion
Coherex* applied to unpaved roads Table B-15
Petro Tac applied to unpaved roads Table 9-'6
Step 8 — -Calculate Tota1 Annual Cost by Annual izing Capital Costs and Adding to Annual
OperaFion and Maintenance Costs '
To annualize capital investment, the capital cost is multiplied by a capital recovery
factor which is calculated as follows:
CRF = • [ i ( 1 H ) n ] / ( ( 1 t- i ) n - 1 ]
where CRF = capital recovery factor
i = annual interest rate fraction
n = number of payment years
Scale total annual cost by rat-io of actual road width in feet divided by 40 ft.
Step 9--Calculate Cost Effectiveness by Dividing Total Annual COSTS
(from Step 8) by the Annual Uncontrolled Emission Rate (from Step 5) and
by Desired Control Efficiency Fraction (from. Step 1)
Example calculation. The following is an example cost-effectiveness calculation for
controlling PM-IO using Coherex® on an unpaved road -in a Detroit, Michigan, plant.
Step 1 — Specify Desired Average Control Efficiency
Desired average control, efficiency = 90 percent
Step 2 — Specify Bas ic' Veh ic I e, Road, and Cl imatologi ca I Parameters
for tine Particular Road of Concern
Required vehicle characteristics:
1. Average daily traffic = 100 vehicles per day;
2. Average venicle weight = 40 ST;
3. Average number of vehicle wheels = 6; and
4. Average vehicle speed = 20 mpn
(continued)
B-21 '
-------
TABLE B-ll. (continued)
Required road characteristics
1. Actual length of roadway to be controlled = 6.3 miles;
2. Width of roadway = 30 ft;
3. Silt content = 9.1 percent
4. Bearing strength of road = moderate
Step 3—Calculate Uncontrolled Annual Emission Rate as the Product
of theTEmission Factor and the Source Extent
0.7 0.5
s S W w 365-p
72 30 3 4 365
where E = emission factor
k = 0.36 for PM-10 (from Section 3.0 of this manual)
s = 9.1 percent (given in Step 2)
S = 20 mph (given in Step 2)
W = 40 ST (given in Step 2)
w = 6 (given in Step 2)
p = 140 (as per Figure-3-I for Detroit, Michigan)
E = 4.98 Ib/VMT
SE = 365xADTxaverage one-way trip distance
days vehicles 6.3 miles
SE = 365 xlOO —i x
year day 2 veh i cIe
SE = 115,000 VMT/year
Emission rate = ExSE .
1 short ton •
Emission rate = 4.98 lb/VMTx115,000 VMT/yearx-
2,000 Ib
Emission rate = 286 tons of P^IQ per year
Step 4—Consult the Appropriate Control Program Design Table To Determine the Times
Between Applications and the Application Intensity
Use Table B-12.
The vehicle and road characteristics listed in Step 2 are similar to those in the
footnotes of Table 2-1.
From Table 8-12:
Application intensity = 0.83 gal. of 20 percent solution/yd
(initial application)
= 1.0 gal. of 12 percent solution/yd
(reapplications)
Application frequency = once every 47 days
(continued)
8-22
-------
TABLE B-ll. (continued)
Step 5—CalcuiaTe the Number of Annual Applications Necessary by
Dividing 565 by the Days Between Apol cations (from Step 4)
365 appl ications
'lo. of annual appl ications = —- = 77.7
47 year
Step 6—Calculate the Number of Treated Miles Per Year by Multiplying the Actual Miles
of Road to Be Controlled (from Step 2) by the Number of Annual Applications (from Step 5)
appl ications
No. of treated miles per year = 6.3 miles x 7.77
year
= 49 treated miles/year
Step 7—Consult the Appropriate Program Implementation Alternatives
Table~and Select the Desired Program Implementation Plan
From Table B-14, the following implementation plan and associated costs are anticipated:
COST
Lin i t cost
Capital 5/TreatedS/Actual
Selected alternative investment, £ mile mile
!. Purchase Coherex® and ship in truck tanker 4,650
2. Store in newly purchased storage tank 30,000
3. Prepare road with plant owned grader 630
4. Pump water from river or lake 5,000 135
5. Apply chemical with plant owned • 70,000
application truck (includes labor • .
to pump water and Coherex® and
apply solution)" - .
105,000 - 4',785 6"30~
Step 8—Calculate Total Annual Cost by Annual izing Capital Costs and Adding rp Annual
Operation and-Maintenance Costs •
Calculate annual capital investment (PI) = capital investmentxCRF
CRF = [i(1vi)nl/[(1+i)n-1l
CRF = capital- recovery factor
i = 0.15
n = 10 years
CRF = 0.199252
PI = 105,000x0.199252 = 520,900/year
Calculate annual operation and maintenance costs (MO)
MO = 54,785/treated milex49 treated miles/year *
actua I mi Ies
5630/actual mile x 6.3
year
= 5238,000/year
(continued)
B-23
-------
TABLE 8-11. (continued)
Calculate total cosr (0) = PUMO
D = J20,900/year+$238,000/year
= S258,900/year
Scale total cost by actual road width:
30 ft
Actual total cost for a 30-ft wide road = $258,900/yrx-
40 ft
= $194,200/yr
Step 9—Calculate Cost Effectiveness by Dividing Total Annual Costs (from Step 8) by the
Annual Uncontrolled Emission Rate (from Step 3) and by the Desired Control Efficiency
Fraction (from Step 1)
$194,200/year
Cost effectiveness =
286 ST/yearxO.9
= $754/short ton of PM1Q reduced
B-24
-------
TABLE B-12. ALTERNATIVE CONTROL PROGRAM DESIGN FOR COHEREX*
APPLIED TO TRAVEL SURFACES3 b
Average
percent
control
desired
50
75
90
Vehicle
passes between
applications
23,300
11,600
4,650
Days
as
100
233
116
47
between appli
a function of
300
78
39
16
cations
ACT
500
47
23
9
Calculated time and vehicle passes between application are
based on the following conditions:
Suppressant application:
• 3.7 L of 20 percent solution/m2 (0.83 gallon of
20 percent solution/yd2) initial application
• 4.5 L of 12 percent solution/m2 (1.0 gal. of 12 percent
solution/yd2); reapplications
Vehicular.traffic:
• Average weight—Mg (43 tons) -.-
• Average wheels—6
• Average speed--29 km/h (20 mph)
, Road structure: bearing strength—low to moderate
DPM-10 = Particles <10 umA.
cFor reapplications that span time periods greater than
365 days, the effects of the freeze-thaw cycle are not
incorporated in the reported values.
8-25
-------
TABLE B-13. COST ESTIMATES FOR IMPROVEMENT OF PAVED TRAVEL
SURFACES
Annual operating
Initial cost (April 1985
Source/control method (April 1985 dollars)a dollars)3 D
Paved road-sweeping 6,580-19,700/truck 27,600/truck
Paved road-vacuuming 36,800/truck 34,200/truck
Paved road-flushing 18,400/truck 27,600/truck
aJanuary 1980 costs updated to April 1985 cost by Chemical Engineering
.Index Factor = 1.315. Reference 20.
Cost per mile depends on nature of process and the site.
8-26
-------
TABLE B-14. ALTERNATIVE CONTROL PROGRAM DESIGN FOR PETRO TAG
APPLIED TO TRAVEL SURFACES'1 °
Average
percent
control
desired
50
75
90
Vehicle
passes between
applications
92,000
47,800
21,200
Days
as
100
920
478
212
between applications
a function of ACT
. 300
307
159
71
500
184
96
42
Calculated time and vehicle passes between application are
based on the following conditions:
Suppressant application: 3.2 L of 20 percent solution/m2
(0.7 gal of 20 percent solution/yd2); each application
Vehicular traffic:
• Average weight—Mg (30 tons)
• Average wheels—9.2
• Average speed--22 km/h (15 mph)
, Road structure: bearing strength—low to moderate
DPM-10 = particles <10 umA.
GFor reapplications that span time periods greater than
365 days, the effects of the freeze-thaw cycle are not
incorporated in the reported values.
B-27
-------
TABLE B-15. IDENTIFICATION AND COST ESTIMATION OF COHEREX:
CONTROL ALTERNATIVES
Program implementation alternatives
Cost
I. Purchase and ship Coherex®
A. Ship in railcar tanker (11,000-22,000
gal/tanker)
B. Ship in truck tanker (4,000-6,000
gal/tanker)
C. Ship in drums via truck (55 gal/drum)
II. Store Coherex®
A. Store on plant property
1. In new storage tank
2. In existing storage tank
a.. Needs refurbishing
b. Needs no refurbishing
3. In railcar tanker
a. Own railcar
b. Pay demurrage
4. In truck tanker
a. Own truck
b. Pay demurrage
5. In drums
B. Store in"contractor tanks
III. Prepare road
A. Use plant-owned grader to minimize
ruts and low spots
B. Rent contractor grader
C. Perform no road preparation
IV. Mix Coherex® = and water in application
truck
A. Load Coherex®= into spray truck
1. Pump Coherex® = from storage tank
or drums into application truck
2. Pour Coherex® = from drums into
application truck, using forklift
$4,650/treated mile
$4,650/treated mile
$7,040/treated mile
$30,000 capital
$5,400 capital
-0-
-0-
$20, $30, $60/treated
mi le
-0-
$70/treated mile
. -0-
$140/treated jnile
$630/actual mile
$l,200/actual mile
-0-
Tank—0 (included in
price of storage
tank)
Drums—$1,000 capital
$l,000/treated mile
(continued)
B-28
-------
TABLE B-15. (continued)
Program implementation alternatives
Cost
8. Load water into application truck
1. Pump from river or lake
2. Take from city water line
V. Apply Coherex® = solution via surface
spraying
A. Use plant owned application truck
B. Rent contractor application truck
$5,000 capital
$40/treated mile
$70,000 capital+$135/
treated mile for
tank or $270/treated
mile for drums
Tank—$500/treated
mile
Drums—$l,000/treated
mile
B-29
-------
TABLE B-16.
IDENTIFICATION AND COST ESTIMATION OF PETRO TAG
CONTROL ALTERNATIVES
Program implementation alternatives
Cost
I. Purchase and ship Petro Tac
A. Ship in truck tanker (4,000-6,000 gal/
tanker)
B. Ship in drums via truck (55 gal/drum)
II. Store Petro Tac
A. Store on plant property
1. In new storage tank
2. In existing storage tank
a. Needs refurbishing
b. Needs no refurbishing
3. In railcar tanker
a. Own railcar
b. Pay demurrage
4. In truck tanker
a. Own truck
b. Pay demurrage
5. In drums
B. Store in contractor tanks
III. Prepare road
A. . Use plant owned grader to minimize
ruts and low spots
B. Rent contractor grader
C. Perform no road preparation
IV. Mix Petro Tac and water in application
truck
A. Load Petro Tac into spray truck
1. Pump Petro Tac from storage tank
or drums into application truck
2. Pour Petro Tac. from drums into
application truck, generally using
forklift
Load water into application truck
1. Pump from river or lake
2. Take from city water line
$5,400/treated mile
$ll,500/treated mile
$30,000 capital
$5,400 capital
-0-
-0-
$20, $30, $60/treated
mile
-0-
$70/treated mile
-0-
$140/treated mile
$630/actual mile .
$l,200/actual mile
-0-
Tank - 0 (included in
price of storage
tank)
Drums--$l,000 capital
$l,000/treated mile
$5,000 capital
$40/treated mile
(continued)
B-30
-------
TABLE 8-16. (continued)
Program implementation alternatives
Cost
V. Apply Petro Tac solution via surface
spraying
A. Use plant-owned application truck
B. Rent contractor application truck
$70,000 capital+$135/
treated mile for
tank or $270/treated
mile for drums
Tank--$500/treated
mile
Drums—$1,000/treated
mile
3-31
-------
APPENDIX C.
METHODS OF COMPLIANCE DETERMINATION FOR OPEN SOURCES
-------
APPENDIX C. METHODS OF COMPLIANCE DETERMINATION FOR OPEN SOURCES
Once a specific PM10 control strategy has been developed and
implemented, it becomes necessary for either the control agency or
industrial concern to assure that it is achieving the desired level of
control. As stated previously, the control efficiency actually attained
by a particular technique depends on its proper implementation. This
section will discuss methods for determining compliance with various
regulatory requirements relating to PM10 control strategies. These
methods include visual observations and recordkeeping of key control
parameters.
C.I METHOD FOR DETERMINING VISIBLE EMISSIONS
Visible emission methods have been adopted by a number of states as a
tool for compliance. Although opacity observations at the property line
have commonly been employed in earlier fugitive dust control regulations,
recent court decisions in Colorado and Alabama have found that rules of
that type are unconstitutional (failing to provide equal protection). It
is strongly recommended that property-line opacity observations serve only
as an indicator of a potential problem, thus "triggering" further
investigation. Source-specific opacity determinations, on the other hand,
have long been a court-tested approach to regulation. The following
section describes two states' approach to fugitive dust regulation using
visible emission methods.
C.I.I Tennessee Visible Emission Method
The State of Tennessee has developed a method (TVEE Method 1) for
evaluating visible emissions (VE) from roads and parking lots.1 The
following discussion focuses on TVEE Method 1 (Ml) in the technical
areas: (1) reader position/techniques; and (2) data reduction/evaluation
procedures. Table C-l summarizes the relevant features of TVEE Ml.
C.I.1.1 Reader Position/Techniques. As indicated in Table C-l, TVEE
Method 1 specifies an observer location of 15 ft from the source. In most
cases, this distance should allow an unobstructed view, and at the same
time meet observer safety requirements.
C-l
-------
TABLE C-l. SUMMARY OF TVEE METHOD 1 REQUIREMENTS (Ml)
Reader position/techniques
• Sun in 140° sector behind the reader.
• Observer position -15 ft from source.
• Observer line of sight should be as perpendicular as possible to both
plume and wind direction.
• Only one plume thickness read.
• Plume read at ~4 ft directly above emitting surface.
•• Individual opacity readings taken each 15 s, recorded to nearest
5 percent opacity.
• Readings.terminated if vehicle obstructs line of sight.
• Readings terminated if vehicles passing in opposite direction creates
intermixed plume.
Data reduction
• 2-min time-averages consisting'of eight consecutive 15 s. readings.
Certification
• Per Tennessee requirements
C-2
-------
Ml also specifies that the plume be read at ~4 ft directly above the
emitting surface. This specification presumably results from field
experiments conducted to support the method. It is probably intended to
represent the point (i.e., location) of maximum opacity. While there is
no quantitative supporting evidence, it seems likely that the height and
location of maximum opacity relative to a passing vehicle will vary
depending upon ambient factors (wind speed and direction) as well as
vehicle type and speed.
Implied in the Ml specification that the plume be read ~4 ft above
the emitting surface, is the fact that observations will be made against a
terrestrial (vegetation) background. The results of one study using a
conventional smoke generator modified to emit horizontal plumes, indicated
that under these conditions observers are likely to underestimate opacity
levels. More specifically, the study found that as opacity levels
increased, opacity readings showed an increasing negative bias. For
example, at 15 percent opacity, the observers underestimated opacity by
about 5 percent, and at 40 percent opacity, observations averaged about
11 percent low.2 Black plumes were underestimated at all opacity levels..
... Ml specifies that only one plume thickness 'be read. It includes
qualifying provisions that: (1) readings terminate if vehicles passing in
opposite directions create an intermixed plume; but (2) readings continue
if intermixing occurs as a result of vehicles moving in the same direc-
tion. Unlike (1), the latter condition is considered representative of
the surface. The intent here is probably to minimize the influence of
increasing plume density which results from "overlaying" multiple plumes.
C.I.1.2 Data Reduction/Evaluation Procedures. There are two basic
approaches that can be used to reduce opacity readings for comparison with
VE regulations. One approach involves the time-averaging of consecutive
15-s observations over a specified time period to produce an average
opacity value.
In the development of Ml, the State of Tennessee concluded that a
short averaging period—2 min (i.e., eight consecutive 15-s readings) was
appropriate for roads and parking lots, as these sources typically produce
brief, intermittent opacity peaks.
C-3
-------
Although not specified in Ml, VE from open sources could be evaluated
using time-aggregating techniques. For example, the discrete 15-s
readings could be employed in the time-aggregating framework. In this
case, the individual observations are compiled into a histogram from which
the number of observations (or equivalent percent of observation time) in
excess of the desired opacity may then be ascertained. The principal
advantage of using the time-aggregate technique as a method to reduce VE
readings is that the resultant indicator of opacity conditions is then
compatible with regulations that include a time exemption clause. Under
time exemption standards, a source is permitted opacity in excess of the
standard for a specified fraction of the time (e.g., 3 min/h). The
concept of time exemption was originally developed to accommodate
stationary source combustion processes.
Without more detailed supporting information, it is difficult to
determine which of the two approaches is most appropriate for evaluating
VE from open sources. With respect to time-averaging, statistics of
observer bias in reading plumes from a smoke generator do indicate at
least a slight decrease in the "accuracy" of the mean observed opacity
value as averaging time decreases. In Ml (2-min average), this is
reflected in the inclusion of an 8.8 percent buffer for observational
error. This buffer is taken into account before issuing a Notice of
Violation.i
One potential problem with applying time-averaging to opacity from
roads and parking lots, is that the resulting average will be sensitive to
variations in source activity. For example, interpreting one conclusion
offered in support of Method 1, it is likely that under moderate wind
conditions a single vehicle pass will produce only two opacity readings
> 5 percent.1 Averaging-these with six zero (0) readings yields a 2-min
value below any reasonable opacity standard. Yet, under the same
conditions with two or more vehicle passes, the average value will suggest
elevated opacity levels. While there is no information available on the
use of time aggregation for open source opacity, it appears that this
approach would more easily accommodate variations in level of source
activity. For this reason alone, it may be the evaluation approach better
suited to roads and parking lots.
C-4
-------
C.I.2 Ohio Draft Rule 3745-17-(03)(B)
The State of Ohio submitted a fugitive dust visible emission
measurement technique which the EPA proposed to approve in the Federal
Register on January 2, 1987. Unlike the Tennessee method, the Ohio draft
rule contains provisions for sources other than roads and parking lots.
Average opacity values are based on 12 consecutive readings. Table C-2
summarizes the Ohio method; as can be seen from the table, many features
of the Ohio draft rule are similar to TVEE Method 1. Consequently, the
remarks made earlier in this section are equally applicable here.
C.I.3. Correlation of Mass Emissions with Opacity Measurements
A current program conducted by the State of Indiana is intended to
establish the correlation between the opacity of a plume generated by
vehicles traveling on the road, and the PM10/TSP mass emission
measurements. The desired end-product is a PM10 mass estimation tool
using silt content and opacity as input values. Visible emission readings
(VE) will be taken by 12 readers currently certified in EPA Method 9. All
VE readings will be performed in accordance with the techniques described
in Ohio Draft Rule 3745-17-(03)(B), as far as. practical. To assure that
all the .readers view the same area, the receiving area boundaries shall be
clearly indicated by flags, stakes, or other indicating devices. The
highest and lowest readings from each set shall be discarded leaving
10 sets of readings for evaluation.
It is anticipated that the results of this study will be available in
the fall of 1988.
C.2 RECORDKEEPING AND OPEN DUST SOURCE CONTROLS
Parameter monitoring and associated recordkeeping may play important
roles in determining open dust source compliance. Detailed records are
particularly important for periodic dust control measures (as discussed in
Appendix A) because effectiveness must be averaged over the periods
between applications. The following discussion presents recordkeeping
requirements for the six source categories presented in Chapters 1.0
through 6.0. Each discussion builds upon the regulatory formats suggested
earlier in the body of this manual.
C-5
-------
TABLE C-2. SUMMARY OF OHIO DRAFT RULE 3745-17-(03)(B)
Reader position/techniques
Roadways and parking lots:
Line of vision approximately perpendicular to plume
direction.
Plume read at ~4 ft above surface.
Readings suspended if vehicle obstructs line of sight;
subsequent readings considered consecutive to that taken
before the obstruction.
Readings suspended if vehicles passing in opposite
direction create an intermixed plume; subsequent readings
considered consecutive to that taken before intermixing.
If unusual condition (e.g., spill) occurs, another set of
readings must be conducted.
All other sources: . .
Sun behind observer.
Minimum of 15 ft from source.
Line of sight approximately perpendicular to flow of
fugitive dust and to longer axis of the emissions.
Opacity observed for point of highest opacity.
C-6
-------
C.2.1 Paved Roads and Parking Lots
Records must be kept that document the frequency of mitigative
measures applied to paved surfaces. Pertinent parameters to be specified
in a control plan and to be regularly recorded include:
C.2.1.1 General Information to be Specified in Plan.
1. All road segments and parking locations referenced on a map
available to both the responsible party and the regulatory agency:
2. Length of each road and area of each parking lot;
3. Type of control applied to each road/area and planned frequency
of application; and
4. Any provisions for weather (e.g., % in. of rainfall will be
substituted for one treatment).
C.2.1.2 Specific Records for Each Road Segment/Parking Area
Treatment
1. Date of treatment;
2. Operator's initials (note that the operator may keep a separate
log whose information is transferred to the environmental staff's data
sheets);
3. Start and stop times on a particular segment/parking lot, average
speed, number of passes;
4. For flushing programs, start and stop times for refilling tanks;
5. Qualitative description of loading before and after treatment;
and
6. Any areas of unusually high loadings from spills, pavement
deterioration, etc.
C.2.1.3 General Records to be Kept.
1. Equipment maintenance records;
2. Meteorological log (to the extent that weather influences the
control program—see above); and
3. Any equipment malfunctions or downtime.
In addition to those items related to control applications, some of
the regulatory formats may require that additional records be kept. These
records may include surface material samples or traffic counts. A
suggested format for recording paved surface samples (following the
sampling/analysis procedures given in Appendices 0 and E) is presented as
C-7
-------
Figure D-4 in Appendix D. Traffic counts may be recorded either manually
or using automatic devices; suggested formats are given as Figures C-l and
C-2, respectively.
C.3 UNPAVED ROADS
Recordkeeping requirements for unpaved roads were summarized in
Table 3-5. The following lists pertinent parameters to be monitored.
General Information to be Specified in the Plan
1. All road segments and parking locations referenced on a map
available to both the responsible party and the regulatory agency;
2. Length of each road and area of each parking lot;
3. Type of chemical applied to each road/area, dilution ratio,
application intensity, and planned frequency of application; and
4. Provisions for weather.
Specific Records for Each Road Segment/Parking Area Treatment
1. Date of treatment;
2. Operator's initials (note that the operator may keep a separate
log of whose information is transferred to the environmental staff's data
sheets);
3. Start and stop times on a particular segment/park ing lot, average
speed, number of passes, amount of so-lution applied; and
4. Qualitative description of road surface condition.
General Records to be Kept
1. Equipment maintenance records;
2. Meteorological log (to the extent that weather influences the
control program—see above); and
3. Any equipment malfunctions or downtime.
In addition, material samples may be taken as well as traffic counts
as part of the regulatory formats given- in Section 3.4. Unpaved road
sampling is discussed in Appendix D; traffic samples may be recorded on
Figures C-l and C-2.
C-8
-------
Rood Location:
Road Type:
Sampling Start Time: Srop Time:
Vehicle Type Axles./V/heels 1 23456739 10 Tofci
Figure C-l. Manual traffic count log.
C-9
-------
Counter
ID No.
Site Location
Start Count
Oate/TJme
Stoo Count
Oa re/7; me
Secorce-- ,
ay • i
1
Figure C-2. Example pneumatic traffic count log,
C-10
-------
C.3 REFERENCES FOR APPENDIX C
1. Telecon. Englehart, P., Midwest Research Institute, with Walton, J.
Tennessee Division of Air Pollution Control. Nashville, Tennessee.
September 1984.
2. Rose, T. H. Evaluation of Trained Visible Emission Observers for
Fugitive Opacity Measurement. EPA-60/3-84-093, U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, October 1984.
C-ll
-------
APPENDIX D.
PROCEDURES FOR SAMPLING SURFACE/BULK MATERIALS
-------
APPENDIX D. PROCEDURES FOR SAMPLING SURFACE/BULK MATERIALS
The starting point for development of the recommended procedures for
collection of road dust and aggregate material samples was a review of
American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM) Standards. When
practical, the recommended procedures were structured identically to the
ASTM standard. When this was not possible, an attempt was made to develop
the procedure in a manner consistent with the intent of the majority of
pertinent ASTM Standards.
D.I UNPAVED ROADS
The main objective in sampling the surface material from an unpaved
road is to collect a minimum gross sample of 23 kg (50 Ib) for every
3.8 km (3 miles) of unpaved road. The incremental samples from unpaved
roads should be distributed over the road segment, as shown in
Figure D-l. At least four incremental samples should be collected and
composited to form the gross sample.
The loose surface material is removed from the hard road base with a
whisk broom and dustpan. The material should be swept carefully so that
the fine dust is not injected into the atmosphere. The hard road base
below the loose surface material should not be abraded so as to generate
more fine material than exists on the road in its natural state.
Figure D-2 presents a data form to be used for the sampling of
unpaved roads.
D.2 PAVED ROADS
Ideally, for a given paved road, one gross sample per every 8 km
(5 miles) of paved roads should be collected. For industrial roads, one
gross sample should be obtained for each road segment in the plant. The
gross sample should consist of at least two separate increments per travel
lane, or each 0.5 mile length should have a separate sample.
Figure D-3 presents a diagram showing the location of incremental
samples for a four-lane road. Each incremental sample should consists of
a lateral strip 0.3 to 3 m (1 to 10 ft) in width across a travel lane.
The exact width is dependent on the amount of loose surface material on
the paved roadway. For a visually dirty road, a width of 0.3 m (1 ft) is
sufficient; but for a visually clean road, a width of 3 m (10 ft) is
needed to obtain an adequate sample.
0-1
-------
H-
= 4.0tm (3 Mi.)
-H
O
ro
ro
-Sample Slrip 20cm (0 in.) Wide
L= 1.6km (I Mi.)
Figure D-l. Location of incremental sampling sites on an unpaved road.
-------
Sc.-npie
No.
iurrcca
Area
"Jse code g^ven on plant map for segment identification and indicate sample
iocaf.cn on map.
Figure 0-2. Sampling data form for unpaved roads.
D-3
-------
-Okm (5 Mi.) of similar road type
Increment I
Figure D-3. Location of incremental sampling sites on a paved road.
-------
The above sampling procedure may be considered as the preferred
method of collecting surface dust from paved roadways. In many instances,
however, the collection of eight sample increments may not be feasible due
to manpower, equipment, and traffic/hazard limitations. As an alternative
method, samples can be obtained from a single strip across all the travel
lanes. When it is necessary to resort to this sampling strategy, care
must be taken to select sites that have dust loading and traffic
characteristics typical of the entire roadway segment of interest. In
this situation, sampling from a strip 3 to 9 m (10 to 30 ft) in width is
suggested. From this width, sufficient sample can be collected, and a
step toward representativeness in sample acquisition will be accomplished.
Samples are removed from the road surface by vacuuming, preceded by
broom sweeping if large aggregate is present. The samples should be taken
from the traveled portion of the lane with the area measured and recorded
on the appropriate data form. With a whisk broom and a dust pan, the
larger particles are collected from the sampling area and.placed in a
clean, labeled container (plastic jar or bag). The remaining smaller
particles are then swept from the road with an electric broom-type vacuum
sweeper. The sweeper must be equipped with a preweighed, prelabeled,
disposable vacuum bag. Care must be taken when installing the bags in the
sweeper to avoid torn bags which can result in loss of sample. After the
sample has been collected, the bag should be removed from the sweeper,
checked for leaks and stored in a prelabeled, gummed envelope for
transport. Figure D-4 presents a data form to be used for the sampling of
paved roads.
Values for the dust loading on only the traveled portion of the
roadway are needed for inclusion in the appropriate emission factor
equation. Information-pertaining to dust loading on curb/beam and parking
areas is necessary in estimating carry-on potential to determine the
appropriate industrial road augmentation factor.
0.3 STORAGE PILES
In sampling the surface of a pile to determine representative
properties for use in the wind erosion equation, a gross sample made up of
top, middle, and bottom incremental samples should ideally be obtained
since the wind disturbs the entire surface of the pile. However, it is
D-5
-------
Type of Mcteric. Scrnoiec:
Site of ic.T.oii":
No. oi T.-cffic -cnes
Tvoe of ?averr.e-r: iiana.t/Cmcret
Surface oncirior.
Sarap",a NC. ;Vac.Sag; Ti-.a ;
"Use code jiven on plant map for segment identification and indicate sample
location on map.
Figure 0-4. Sampling data form for paved roads.
D-6
-------
impractical to climb to the top or even middle of most industrial storage
piles because of the large size.
The most practical approach in sampling from large piles is to
minimize the bias by sampling as near to the middle of the pile as
practical and by selecting sampling locations in a random fashion.
Incremental samples should be obtained along the entire perimeter of the
pile. The spacing between the samples should be such that the entire pile
perimeter Is traversed with approximately equidistant incremental
samples. If small piles are sampled, incremental samples should be
collected from the top, middle, and bottom.
An incremental sample (e.g., one shovelful) is collected by skimming
the surface of the pile in a direction upward along the face. Every
effort must be made by the person obtaining the sample not to purposely
avoid sampling larger pieces of raw material. Figure 0-5 presents a data
form to be used for the sampling of storage piles.
In obtaining a gross sample for the purpose of characterizing a
loadin or load-out process, incremental samples should be taken from the
portion of the storage pile surface: (1) which has been formed by the
addition of aggregate material; or (2) from which aggregate material is
being reclaimed.
0-7
-------
Type or Material Sampled:.
Si^e or Sampling:
SAMPLING METHOD
i. Sampling device: pointed shovel
2. Scmpling depth: 10 - 15 cm ( 4- -6 inches )
3. Sample container:' metal or plastic bucket with sealed poly liner
-. Gross sample specifications:
(a) ! sample of 23kg (50 ib .) minimum for every pile sampled
(b) composite of 10 increments
5. Minimum sortion of stored material (at one site) to be sampled: 25%
SAMPLING DATA
Scrrcie
No.
•
'- -
T'rr*-
.
!
Lccsricn (Refer ra .-res)
i
Surface
Area
-
i
Oeorh
•
Qucnri ry
of Scmcie
! _ i
j
i
i
Figure D-5. Sampling data form for storage piles.
D-8
-------
APPENDIX E.
PROCEDURES FOR LABORATORY ANALYSIS OF SURFACE/BULK SAMPLES
-------
APPENDIX E. PROCEDURES FOR LABORATORY ANALYSIS OF SURFACE/BULK SAMPLES
E.I SAMPLES FROM SOURCES OTHER THAN PAVED ROADS
E.I.I Sample Preparation
Once the 23 kg (50 Ib) gross sample is brought to the laboratory, it
must be prepared for silt analysis. This entails dividing the sample to a
workable size.
A 23 kg (50 Ib) gross sample can be divided by using: (1) mechanical
devices; (2) alternative shovel method; (3) riffle; or (4) coning and
quartering method. Mechanical division devices are not discussed in this
section since they are not found in many laboratories. The alternative
shovel method is actually only necessary for samples weighing hundreds of
pounds. Therefore, this appendix discusses only the use of the riffle and
the coning and quartering method.
ASTM standards describe the selection of the correct riffle size and
the correct use of the riffle. Riffle slot widths should be at least
three times the size of the largest aggregate in the material being
divided. The following quote describes the use of the riffle.1
"Divide the gross, sample by using a riffle. Riffles
properly used will reduce sample variability but cannot
eliminate it. Riffles are shown in Figure E-l, (a) and (b).
Pass the material through the riffle from a feed scoop, feed
bucket, or riffle pan having a lip or opening the full length
of the riffle. When using any of the above containers to feed
the riffle, spread the material evenly in the container, raise
the container, and hold it with its front edge resting on top
of the.feed chute, then slowly tilt it so that the material
flows in a uniform stream through the hopper straight down
over the center of the riffle into all the slots, thence into
the riffle pans, one-half of the sample being collected in a
pan. Under no circumstances shovel the sample into the riffle
.riffle, or dribble into the riffle from a small-mouthed
container. Do not allow the material to build up in or above
the riffle slots. If it does not flow freely through the
- slots, shake or vibrate the riffle to facilitate even flow."
The procedure for coning and quartering is best illustrated in
Figure E-2. The following is a description of the procedure: (1) mix the
material and shovel it into a neat cone; (2) .flatten the cone by pressing
the top without further mixing; (3) divide the flat circular pile into
equal quarters by cutting or scraping out two diameters at right angles;
E-l
-------
reed Chute
Riffle Sampler
- (a)
Riffle Sucked and
Separate Feed Chute Stand
Co)
Figure E-l. Sample dividers (riffles).
E-2
-------
Figure E-2. Coning and quartering.
E-3
-------
(4) discard two opposite quarters; (5) thoroughly mix the two remaining
quarters, shovel them into a cone, and repeat the quartering and
discarding procedures until the sample has been reduced to 0.9 to 1.8 kg
(2 to 4 Ib). Samples likely to be affected by moisture or drying must be
handled rapidly, preferably in an area with a controlled atmosphere, and
sealed in a container to prevent further changes during transportation and
storage. Care must be taken that the material is not contaminated by
anything on the floor or that a portion is not lost through cracks or
holes. Preferably, the coning and quartering operation should be
conducted on a floor covered with clean paper. Coning and quartering is a
simple procedure which is applicable to all powdered materials and to
sample sizes ranging from a few .grams to several hundred pounds.-
The size of the laboratory sample is important—too little sample
will not be representative and too much sample will be unwiekily.
Ideally, one would like to analyze the entire (jross sample in batches, but
this is not practical- While all ASTM standards acknowledge this
impracticality, they disagree on the exact size, as indicated by the range
of recommended samples, extending from: 0.05 to 27 kg (0.1 to 60 Ib).
The main principle in sizing the laboratory sample is to have
sufficient coarse and fine portions to be representative of the material
and to allow sufficient mass on each sieve so that the weighing is
accurate. A recommended rule of thumb is to have twice as much coarse
sample as fine sample. A laboratory sample of 800 to 1,600 g is
recommended since that is the largest quantity that can be handled by the
scales normally available (1,600-g capacity). Also, more sample than this
can produce screen blinding for the 8 in. diameter screens normally
available.
E.I.2 Laboratory Analysis of Samples for Silt Content
The basic recommended procedure for silt analysis is mechanical, dry
sieving after moisture analysis. A step-by-step procedure is given in
Tables E-l and E-2. The sample should be oven dried for 24 h at 230°F
before sieving. The sieving time is variable; sieving should be continued
until the net sample weight collected in the pan increases by less than
3.0 percent of the previous net sample weight collected in the pan. A
minor variation of 3.0 percent is allowed since some sample grinding due
to interparticle abrasion will occur, and consequently, the weight will
E-4
-------
TABLE E-l. MOISTURE ANALYSIS PROCEDURE
1. Preheat the oven to approximately 110°C (230°F). Record oven
temperature.
2. Tare the laboratory sample containers which will be placed in the
oven. Tare the containers with the lids on if they have lids. Record
the tare weight(s). Check zero before weighing.
3. Record the make, capacity, smallest division, and accuracy of the-
scale.
4. Weigh the laboratory sample in the container(s). Record the combined
weight(s). Check zero before -yeighing.
5. Place sample in oven and dry overnight.*
6. Remove sample container from oven and (a) weigh immediately if
uncovered, being careful of the hot container; or (b) place tight-
fitting lid on the container and let cool before weighing. Record the
combined sample and container weight(s). Check zero before weighing.
7. Calculate the moisture as the initial weight of the sample and
container minus the oven-dried weight of the sample and container
divided by the initial weight of the sample alone. Record the value.
8. Calculate the sample weight to be used in the silt, .analysis as the
oven-dried weight of the sample and container minus the weight of the
container. Record the value.
aOry materials composed of hydrated minerals or organic materials like
coal and certain soils for only 1-1/2 h. Because of this short drying .
time, material dried for only 1-1/2 h must not be more than 2.5 cm
(1 in.) deep in the container.
E-5
-------
TABLE E--2. SILT ANALYSIS PROCEDURES
1. Select the appropriate 8-in. diameter, 2-in. deep sieve sizes. Recom-
mended U.S. Standard Series sizes are: 3/8 in., No. 4, No. 20,
No. 40, No. 100, No. 140, No. 200, and a pan. Comparable Tyler Series
sizes can also be utilized. The No. 20 and the No. 200 are mandatory.
The others can be varied if the recommended sieves are not available
or if buildup on one particulate sieve during sieving indicates that
an intermediate sieve should be inserted.
2. Obtain a mechanical sieving device such as vibratory shaker or a Roto-
Tap.
3. Clean the sieves with compressed air and/or a soft brush. Material
lodged in the sieve openings or adhering to the sides of the sieve
should be removed (if possible) without handling the screen roughly.
4. Obtain a scale (capacity of at least 1,600 g) and record make,
capacity, smallest division, date of last calibration, and accuracy
(if available).
5. Tare sieves and pan. Check the zero before- every .weighing. Record
weights.
6. After nesting the sieves in decreasing order with pan at the bottom,
dump dried laboratory sample (probably immediately after moisture
analysis) into the top sieve. Brush fine material adhering to the
sides of the container into the top sieve and" cover the top sieve with
a special lid normally purchased with the pan.
7. Place nested sieves into the mechanical device and sieve for 20 min.
Remove pan containing minus No. 200 and weigh. Replace pan-beneath
the sieves and sieve for another 10 min. Remove pan and weigh. When
the differences between two successive pan sample weighings (where the
tare of the pan has been subtracted) is less than 3.0 percent, the
sieving is complete.
8. Weigh each sieve and its contents and record the weight. Check the
zero before every weighing.
9. Collect the laboratory sample and place the sample in a separate
container if further analysis is expected.
E-6
-------
continue to increase. When the change reduces to 3.0 percent, it is
thought that the natural silt has been passed through the No. 200 sieve
screen and that any additional increase is due to grinding.
Both the sample preparation operations and the sieving results can be
recorded on Figures E-3 and E-4.
E.2 SAMPLES FROM PAVED ROADS
E.2,1 Sample Preparation and Analysis for Total Loading
The gross sample of paved road dust will arrive at the laboratory in
two types of containers: (1) the broom swept dust will be in plastic
bags; and (2) the vacuum swept dust will be in vacuum bags.
Both the broom swept dust and the vacuum swept dust are weighed on a
beam balance. The broom swept dust is weighed in a tared container. The
vacuum swept dust is weighed in the vacuum bag which was tared and
equilibrated in the laboratory before going to the field. The vacuum bag
and its contents should be equilibrated again in the laboratory before
weighing.
The total surface dust loading on the traveled lanes of the paved
road is then calculated in units of kilograms of dust on the traveled
lanes per kilometer of road. When only one strip of length is taken
across the traveled lanes, the total dust loading on the traveled lanes is
calculated as follows:
rn -HTI
L . Ji-1 .(Z-l)
where: m^ = mass of the broom swept dust, kg
mv = mass of the vacuum swept dust, kg
i = length of strip as measured along the center!ine of the road,
km
When several incremental samples are collected on alternate roadway
halves as shown in Figure Y-3, the total surface dust loading is
calculated as follows:
m , -HTI ,+m .-mi
51 vl bb vb
E-7
-------
Sample No:
Mate.'iai:
Split Sample Balance:
Make
Smallest1 Division
Total Sample Weight:
(Excl. Container)
Number of Splits:
Split Sample Weight (before drying)
Pan •*• Sample:
Pan:
Wet Sample:
Oven Temperature:
Date In
Time In
Drying Time _
Dare Our
Tirr.e Out
Marerial Weigh: (crr-3.- drying)
Pan - Material:
Pan:
Dry Sample:
MOISTURE CONTENT:
(A) Wet Sample Wf._
(B) Dry Sample Wt. _
(C) Difference Wf.
C X 100-
% Moisture
Figure E-3. Example moisture, analysis form
E-8
-------
Sample No:
Material:
Split Sample Salance:
Make
Capaciry
Srr.cilesf Division
Maferial Weight (after drying)
Pan T Maferial:
Pan:
Dry Sample:
Final Weight:
% s;ir -
Weigh t< 200 Mesh
Total Net Weignf
X 100 =
SIEVING
Time: Srarf:
Initial (Tare):
20 min:
30 min:
40 min:
Weight (Pan Only)
SIZE DISTRIBUTION
Screen
3/8 in.
4 mesh
10 mesh
20 mesh
&Q mesh
Tare Weight
(Screen)
Final Weight
(Screen + Sample)
Net Weight (Sample)
%
!
1 i
! !00 mesh !
UO mesh
200 mesh
Pan
Figure E-4. Example silt analysis form.
E-9
-------
m 0+m +m +m
b2 v2 b6 v6
-
0 -j-0
2 *6
where: m. = mass of broom sweepings for increment i, kg
bi
m = mass of vacuum sweepings for increment i, kg
v
i
i = length of increment i is measured along the road center! ine,
km
E.2.2 Sample Preparation and Analyses for Road Dust Silt Content
After weighing the sample to calculate total surface dust loading on
the traveled lanes, the broom swept and vacuum swept dust is composited.
The composited sample is usually small and requires no sample splitting in
preparation for sieving. If splitting is necessary to prepare a
laboratory sample of 800 to 1,600 g, the techniques discussed in
Section E.I.I can be used. The laboratory sample is then sieved using the
techniques described in Section E.I. 2.
E.3 REFERENCES FOR APPENDIX E
1. D2013-72. Standard Method of Preparing Coal Samples for Analysis.
Annual Book of ASTM Standards, 1977.
2. Silverman, L., et al . Particle Size Analysis in Industrial Hygiene,
Academic Press, New York, 1971.
E-10
-------
APPENDIX F.
FUGITIVE EMISSIONS PUBLICATIONS CURRENTLY ON FILE
-------
APPENDIX F. FUGITIVE EMISSIONS PUBLICATIONS CURRENTLY ON FILE
The following pages present the results of an EPA literature
search of fugitive PM10 emissions.
F-l
-------
TITLE
AUTHOR
SPONSOR
DATE
PUB. NO.
CA Air Fesou.-03-:
12/01/37
N/A
": ~ z o f N e w = r. d f*i oa : f i e a 3 * r> ~ : z ~. ^. ••
nd t'ev
os re
CONTRACTOR N/A
CONTACT Meneoroker ,
HARD COPY
.- a\ men
TITLE
AUTHOR Cusoinc.
SPONSOR CA Air Fesourzes r:oard
DATE 06/01,31
PUB. NO. AFP/F-31/133
CONTRACTOR MRI
CONTACT N/A
HARD COPY
TITLE
AUTHOR
SPONSOR
DATE
PUB. NO.
Measurement aria Control of Air Pollution Frodu.c = c b'.- Hioni-ja
Cor, = iruo- i on
Sundcui.st. Carl P.. Kenneth D. Pi r,k sr.Tian . Earl C. :=hirlev
CA Deot. o-r Tr ansoort At i on
04/01/30
TL-60414O
CONTRACTOR N/A
CONTACT N/A
HARD COPY
TITLE
AUTHOR
SPONSOR
DATE
PUB. NO.
-sn i ir uuai-v anwaro= -or ar i o_: a = ;""ait=r: ;-r.a
and Air :- roor aiTi-=-: Fu-^i 1 1 '•• 5 Dus^ Fclic'-/ and (-.sview cr N.^ r i -n
Secor.dar.- Amoien~ Air Guality Stanoarc's tor Part i cui ate .'•1r."
P'r o p o sea .- o 1 i o v 3 1 s t e m em a n d N o 1 1 o e o + F' r c p o sad P u 1 e m a ^ : n a
i=r
EPA/QA-CFS
07/01/37
FecJs.ral Feaister
CONTRACTOR N/A
CONTACT N/A
HARD COPY
TITLE
Air Foil'.;-: on Cont.-oi Teohn : sues t or. Nor.-Me~ a 1 1 i c '-linerais
AUTHOR N/A
SPONSOR EPA/CAQFS
DATE 08/01/52
PUB. NO. EPA-450/~-31—M4
CONTRACTOR N/A
CONTACT N/A
HARD COPY
TITLE
AUTHOR
SPONSOR
DATE
PUB. NO.
Evaluation of Contribution of Wind Blown Dust from the De
Levels of F'artioulate Matter in Desert communities
Reczrd. Frank A.. Lisa A. Bac:
EPA/CAQFS
OS/01/SO
E F' A - 4 5 0 / 2 - 3 0 - O 7 3
CONTRACTOR GCA
CONTACT N/A
HARD COPY
TITLE
AUTHOR
SPONSOR
DATE
PUB. NO.
Air Pollutant Control Tsohnioues for Crusr.eo Stone and Br
Industry
Kothari. Atul. and Fichard Gerstle
cxsn 31 o ns
EPA/OAQPS
05/01/SO
E P A - J. 3 0 / 7 - S 0 - 01 9
CONTRACTOR PEI
CONTACT N/A
HARD COPY
TITLE
AUTHOR
SPONSOR
DATE
PUB. NO.
Development of a Methodol oay and Emission Inventor-.' for F-.
Dust for the Regional Air Pollution Study
Cowherd. Chatten. and Christine Guenther
EF'A/C'AOPS
01/01/7C
E p A - 4 3 O / - - 7 A — .-> O ~
CONTRACTOR MRI
CONTACT N/A
HARD COPY
F-2
-------
V4/13.33
FUGITIVE =.'.•'• I '•-• -= I C-r.:'r. .- LrL !:.. AT l:
-• >C - CT,,:-! .- -V I - 7 ! CT
TITLE
PM1O '= I .= Development •.: u i c e 1 i r: e
AUTHOR NA
SPONSOR EPA/QAQFS/CFDD
DATE 06/01/37
PUB. NO. EPA-450/2-5i-001
CONTRACTOR N/A
CONTACT N/A
HARD .'COPY Y
TITLE
AUTHOR
SPONSOR
DATE
PUB. NO.
Invest i gat i on of F'j.citi -.5 Dust: Volume I - '••Eources, im: s
Control
=ione. =nc
Jutze, Georse and Kenneth Axtsll
EPA/OAQFS/CFDD
06/01/74
EPA-430/3-7 4-036-a
CONTRACTOR PEDCo
CONTACT Dune ar. Da.ii•F.
HARD COPY Y
TITLE
AUTHOR
SPONSOR
DATE
PUB. NO.
Invest:cation ot Fucitivs Dust: Volume II - Control Str
Regulatory Approach"
J utre. Get
anc! Kenneth Axetell
EPA/OAQPS/CFDD
06/01/74
EPA-430/3-74-03cb
CONTRACTOR PEDCo
CONTACT Dunosr, David P.-
HARD COPY Y
TITLE
AUTHOR
SPONSOR
DATE
PUB. NO.
Control Techniques for Particulate Emissions from Stationa.
Sources - '.'olume 1
N/A
EPA/OAQPS/EbED
09/01/32
E p A - 4 5 0 / 3-81- 0 0 5 -a
CONTRACTOR N/A
CONTACT N/A
HARD COPY
TITLE
AUTHOR
SPONSOR
DATE
PUB. NO.
Control : ecnni'quss -For Part i cul at'e Emi s si ons f r o.n Statior
Sources - Volume '2
N/A
EPA/OAGPS/ESED
<~>9/<">i /32
EPA-450/3-e1-003b
CONTRACTOR N/A
CONTACT N/A
HARD COPY
TITLE
AUTHOR
SPONSOR
DATE
PUB. NO.
Assessment and Control ot Chrvsotile Asbestos.Emissi ons
Poads
Serra. Robert K. , and Michael A. Connor. Jr.
from U noa ve c
EPA/OAGPS/E5ED
OS/01/SI
EPA-4-o/.j.-.i 1 -006
CONTRACTOR MRI
CONTACT El mere. W.L.
HARD COPY Y
TITLE
AUTHOR
SPONSOR
DATE
PUB. NO.
National Air Pollution Control Techni c-ues Advisorv
Minutes of Meeting - Decemcer 2 and 3, 193O
N/A
EPA/CAQPS/ESED
01/14/31
N/A
CONTRACTOR N/A
CONTACT Farmer. Jack
HARD COPY
TITLE
AUTHOR
SPONSOR
DATE
PUB. NO.
Technical Guidance -for Control of Industrial Process i-'j.c:
Particulars Emissions
Jutze, George A. et al
EPA/OAGFS/EEED
O3/01 ,'77
EPA-430/7-77-010
CONTRACTOR PEDCo
CONTACT Wood. Gilbert H.
HARD COPY Y
F-3
-------
04.' 15'S3
TITLE
AUTHOR
SPONSOR
DATE
PUB. NO.
r^. _ _ —> —*.—_- -M.—. .-.-_•}
•E=r:=3 - CfB User's Manual
A::etsll, Kenneth. Jo-fin b. Watson, Thompson u-. Face
EPA/OAGFS/MDAD
O5/01/S7
EPA-450/4-33-014P
CONTRACTOR PEI
CONTACT Pace. Thomp-so;
HARD .-COPY
TITLE
Ex amc 13 Mcceli.-ic: to Illustrate SIP Devel ooment -for the
AUTHOR Anderson, Michael, et ?.l
SPONSOR EPA/OAGPS/MD AD
DATE 05/01/97
PUB. NO. EPA-450/--S7-012
CONTRACTOR TRC
CONTACT N/A
HARD COPY
TITLE
AUTHOR
SPONSOR
DATE
PUB. NO.
Compilation ot Air Pollutant Emission Factors - Volume I: btarionar
F'oint and Area Sources
N/A
EPA/QAGFS/MDAD
(")9/O i /S*
AP-42
CONTRACTOR N/A
CONTACT Joyner, Whitmel
HARD COPY
TITLE
AUTHOR
SPONSOR
DATE
PUB. NO.
R'eceotor Mocel :echnical Series - A Guide to the Use of hac'Or
Analysis ana Multiole Regression (FA/MP) seohniaues in Source
Apportionment
Kiov. Paul J.. Theo.J. Kneio. Joan.M. Daisev
EPA, OAQPS . hD AD
07/01/35
EPA-450/ 4-S5-007
CONTRACTOR NYU Medical Center
CONTACT Pace, Thompson G.
HARD COPY
TITLE PMl'O" and Fugitive Dust in the Soutnwest - Ambient Impact. '=,01
and Femedies ' '-
AUTHOR N/A
SPONSOR EPA/QAQPS,hDAD
DATE O7/01/35
PUB. NO. EPA-450/4-55-008
CONTRACTOR PEI
CONTACT Pace. Thompson G.
HARD COPY
TITLE Dispersion of Airborne F'articulates in Surface Coal Mines. Data
Analvsi s
AUTHOR N/A
SPONSOR
DATE
PUB. NO.
EPA/QAGPS/MDAD
01/01/S5
EPA-450/4-65—'/Oi
CONTRACTOR TRC
CONTACT N/A
HARD COPY
TITLE
AUTHOR
SPONSOR
DATE
PUB. NO.
Receptor Model Technical Series - Summary ot Particle Identification
Techniques: -'volume IV
Weant, Gecrcs E., J. Calvin Thames
EPA/QAGPS/rDAD
06/01 ,-83
EPA-450/ 4-S."-'."'IS
CONTRACTOR Enaineeri na-S'ci ence
CONTACT
HARD COPY
TITLE
Particulate ^..-issicn Factors tor the Cons-ructio
on rioc-recate ; - c .. = ~ r ••.
AUTHOR
SPONSOR
DATE
PUB. NO.
Record. Frank. William T. Harnett
EFA/CAGPS.T-'.'AD
02/01 /S.T
N/A
CONTRACTOR GCA
CONTACT Soul
HARD COPY
nsr1 and. James
F-4
-------
FUr-iT:!. E EM IrSICN'S F L'BL I'I AT I ONS
CL'RF.Er-J7LY 0:J FILE
TTTLE Characterization cf FM10 ?.no i SF1 -ir Quality .-round '.'.'-s = t =rn -zu
Coal Mines
AUTHOR N/A
SPONSOR EPA/OAGPS/MDAD
DATE 08/01/82
PUB. NO. EPA-450/4-83-004
CONTRACTOR PEDCo i< TFC
CONTACT Pace. Thompson
HARD ;EOPY
TITLE
AUTHOR
SPONSOR
DATE
PUB. NO.
Receotor Model -ecnnical 3aries - Overview of F.eceptor Model
Application to Particuiate source Apportionment: Volume I
Core, John E.
EPA/OAGP3/MDAD
07/01/31
EPA-45O/ 4-81-01 = 5.
CONTRACTOR N/A
CONTACT N/A
HARD COPY
TITLE
Receotor Model Tecnnicsl Senas - Chemical Mass Balance:
AUTHOR Cora. John E.
SPONSOR EPA/CAQPS/MDAD
DATE 07/01/31
PUB. NO. EPA-450/4-81-0 lib
CONTRACTOR N/A
CONTACT N/A
HARD COPY
TITLE
AUTHOR
SPONSOR
DATE
PUB. NO.
Assessment of Fugitive Part i-rui at e Emission r-actors for
Processes
Zoller. .John M. . and -2. Thomas Ps-rnke, thomas A. Janszsn
EPA/CAGPS/MDAD
09/0i/~g
EPA1450/3-73-107
CONTRACTOR PEDCo
CONTACT . Masser. Charles
HARD COPY Y
TITLE
AUTHOR
SPONSOR
DATE
PUB. NO.
Guideline for Development of Control Strategies in.Areas
Fuaitive Dust Problems • " .
Richar 3. George
EPA/CAGFS/MDAD
10/01/77
EPA-450/2-77-02=
CONTRACTOR TRW
CONTACT Safriet. -Dallas
HARD COP'-''
TITLE
Quantification o-f Dust Entrainment -from F'aved Foacwavs
AUTHOR
SPONSOR
DATE
PUB. NO.
Cowherd, Chatten. and Christine M. Maxwell. Daniel W. ••Jelson
EPA/OAGF3/MDAD
07/O1/77
EP A - 4 5 0 / 3-77-•:• 2 7
CONTRACTOR MRI
CONTACT Mann. Char 1= =
HARD COPY Y
TITLE
Performance Evaluation Guide for Laroe Flow Ventilation 3vsterns
AUTHOR
SPONSOR
DATE
PUB. NO.
Kemner. W.F.. R.W. Gerstle.
EPA/CAGPS/SSCD
O 7 / O 1 / ft 4
EPA-340/1-34-012
CONTRACTOR PEDCo
CONTACT
HARD COPY Y
Por 11 and Carrier, t P1 an t ! ns c< ec t i or. 3u i de
Saunders. F'amel a
TITLE
AUTHOR
SPONSOR
DATE
PUB. NO.
Orf. D.J.. F:.W. Gerstle, D.J. Loud in
EPA/ OAuF'S/SSCD
06/O1/S2
EPA-34O/1-32-007
CONTRACTOR PEE-Co
CONTACT Saunders. Pamela
HARD COPY
F-5
-------
FUG IT I'. 'E E:
Z C T .- f < O C 1_l p j_
:TLr"~N FILE
TITLE
Ferrous F o LI n d r y I n •= o = c ~ : o n G LI i c e
AUTHOR Shah. P., A. Trenholm
SPONSOR EFA/OAGPS/SSCD
DATE 01/01/92
PUB. NO. EPA-340/1-S1-003
CONTRACTOR MR I
CONTA.CT Saunders. Ramsl
HARD-COPY Y
TITLE
AUTHOR
SPONSOR
DATE
PUB. NO.
Summary of Factors Af-fsctina Compliance by Ferrous Foundries.
Volume I - Text: Final Report
Wallace, D. . P. Quarles. .= . Kielty, A. Trenholm .' -
EPA/QACPS/SSCD
i.') 1 / 01 / S 1
EPA-340/1-50-O20
CONTRACTOR MRI
CONTACT Saunaers. Pamela
HARD COPY
TITLE
AUTHOR
SPONSOR
DATE
PUB. NO.
Contrcl of Air E;7i:
Crushing Industry
N/A
EPA/OAQPS/'SSCD
O1/01/79
EPA-34O/1-79-002
ssi on 3 from Process Ocerations in tne t-ock
CONTRACTOR JACA
CONTACT Saundsrs. Pamela
HARD COPY
TITLE
AUTHOR
SPONSOR
DATE
PUB. NO.
Guidelines tor Evaluation or Visible Emissions L=rtitication,
Field Procedures. Legal Aspects, and Background Material
Missen. Robert and Arnold Stein
EEPA/OAQFS/SSCD
04/01/75
EPA-340/1-73-007
CONTRACTOR PES
CONTACT Malmbera, 'Kenneth B.
HARD COPY Y " •
TITLE
AUTHOR
SPONSOR
DATE
PUB. NO.
Eva.1 Liat i on' of. the Ef.f set i ve'ness .of Chemical Dust Suppressants on
Unpaved Roads
Muleski. G.E.. and C. Cowherd
EPA/GRD/AEERL
11/01/37
E P A-6 00/2-37-102
CONTRACTOR MRI
CONTACT McCr i11i s, Rob ert C.
HARD COPY Y
TITLE
AUTHOR
SPONSOR
DATE
PUB. NO.
Project Summary: Pilot Demonstration of th<
Fugitive Particle Control
Williams. R. Lockwood, and Michael Duncan
ur t a i
s t em -for
EPA/ORD/AEERL
03/01/S7
E F' A — 6 00 / S 7 — 3 6 — O 4 1
CONTRACTOR A.P.T.. Inc.
CONTACT Harmon. Dale
HARD COPY Y
TITLE
AUTHOR
SPONSOR
DATE
PUB. NO,
Lime and Cement Industrv Particuiate Emissions:
Report - Volume II. Cement Industry
ce L,ate
Kinsey.
EPA/DRD/AEERL
02/01/37
EPA-600/7-S7-007
CONTRACTOR MRI
CONTACT Harmon. Dale L.
HARD COPY Y
TITLE
AUTHOR
SPONSOR
DATE
PUB. NO.
Project Summary:
Contrcl Measure -for Material Storage Piles
Zimmer, Robert A., and Kenneth A.-:etell. Thomas C. Ponder
EPA/OPD/AEERL
11/01/86
EPA-600/S7-86-027
CONTRACTOR REI
CONTACT Harmon. Dale L.
HARD COPY Y
F-6
-------
r>4/ 1 3/98
FUGITIVE "MISS I CMS c '- 'fL T C AT I QMS
CURRENTLY ON FILE
TITLE
AUTHOR
SPONSOR
DATE
PUB. NO.
Iron find cteei Industry h'ar 11 cul ate tmissions: Source Latecorv
Report
Jeftery, John and Joseph Vay
EFA/CRD/AEERL
10/O1/S6 •
E P A-600/7-56-036
CONTRACTOR GCA
CONTACT Harmon. Dale L.
HARD .'COPY Y
TITLE
AUTHOR
SPONSOR
DATE
PUB. NO.
Critical F.'eyi ew of Goen Source F'articulate Emission Measur ement s:
Part II - .uield Comparison
P'yle, Bobby E. and Joseph D. McCain .' .
EPA/OPD/AEERL
08/01/56
ER'A-600/2-36-0/2
CONTRACTOR Southern Research I.nst.
CONTACT McCrillis. Pober-.C.
HARD COPY Y
TITLE
AUTHOR
SPONSOR
DATE
PUB. NO.
Identification. Assessment, and Control of Fugitive Particula~e
tmissions
Cowhera. Chatten. and John S. Kinsey
EPA/ORD/AEEPL
08/01/36
EPA-600/3-36-023
CONTRACTOR MRI
CONTACT Harmon. Dale L.
HARD COPY Y
TITLE
AUTHOR
SPONSOR
DATE
PUB. NO.
Project Summary: Technical Manual - Hood System Capture c-f Process
fugitive Particulate Emissions
K'ashdan. E.R.. and D.W. Coy. J.H. Spivey, T. Cesta, H.D. Goodfsilow
tPA/QPD/AEEPL
06/01/56
EPA-600/3 7-56-016
CONTRACTOR RTI
CONTACT Harmon. Dale L.
HARD COPY Y
TITLE
AUTHOR
SPONSOR
•DATE
PUB. NO.
F'roject Summary: Size Specific F'art i cul ate Emi ssi on Factors fcr
Industrial and Rural Roads: Source Cateoory F:eport
Cowherd. Chatten and Fhillio J. -Enclehart
i
EPA/CRD/AEEPL
<:> 1 / 01/56
EPA-60O/S7-S5-O51
CONTRACTOR MRI
CONTACT Har.T.0,-. Dale L.
HARD COPY Y
TITLE
AUTHOR
SPONSOR
DATE
PUB. NO.
Project Summary: Performance evaluation o-f an Improved 3t.-=e~
Sweeper
Duncan. Michael, and Poop Jain. Shui-Chow Yung, Por.ald Patterson
EPA/OPD/AEERL
O5/01/35
E P1 A - 6 0 0 / S 7 - a 3 - 0'!' 3
CONTRACTOR A.P.T.. Inc. •
CONTACT Harmon. Dale L
HARD COPY Y
TITLE
Paved Road F'articulate Emissions. - Source Category Pepor-
AUTHOR
SPONSOR
DATE
PUB. NO.
Cowherd. Chatten. and Phillip J. Ena 1 ehart
EPA/CPD/AEERL
O7/O1/34
EPA-6OO/7-S4-O-7
CONTRACTOR MRI
CONTACT Harmon. Dale L.
HARD COPY Y
TITLE
AUTHOR
SPONSOR
DATE
PUB. NO.
F'ro.iect Summary; Improved Street Sweepers for Controlling 'JrD
Innal ab 1 e F'articulate Matter
Calvert, Seymour, et al
EPA/CPD/AEEPL
O4/01/S4
EPA-cOO/S7-S4-O2l
CONTRACTOR A.P.T.. Inc.
CONTACT Kuykendal. William »
HARD COPY Y
F-7
-------
04.' 13/88
"C'JRF.'ENTLr' ON FILE*
TITLE
AUTHOR
SPONSOR
DATE
PUB. NO.
Extended Evaluation cf Unoavsd F'oad D
and Steel In a u s t r y
Muleski, G.E., ana Thomas Cuscino. Jr., Chatten Cowherd.
EPA/ORD/AEERL
O2/01/84
EPA-iOO/2-34-O2/
CONTRACTOR MRI
CONTACT McCr i 1 1 i s . Robert: C
HARD -'COPY
TITLE
AUTHOR
SPONSOR
DATE
PUB. NO.
I^ron and Steel Plant CD en source Fugitive Emission Control
tvaluation
Cuscino. Thomas and Grecory E. Muleski, Chatten Cowherd
EPA/ORD/AEERL
08/01/33
EPA-600/ 2 - 9 3 - 1 10
CONTRACTOR MRI
CONTACT McCrillis. RoPert
HARD COPY Y
TITLE
AUTHOR
SPONSOR
DATE
PUB. NO.
Demonstration ci the Use of charged Poo in Controllina Fuciti
•from Larae-Soale Industrial Sources
-e Lust
Brook/nan, Edward
ERA/ORD/AEERL
06/01/33
EPA-600/2-3 3-04 4
and Kevin
Kelly
CONTRACTOR TRC
CONTACT N/A
HARD COPY
TITLE
AUTHOR
SPONSOR
DATE
PUB. NO.
Third Svmcosium on the iransfer and Utilization of Farticulate
Control Technology - Volume IV: Atyoioal Applications
Vanditti. F.R. and J.A. Armstronc, M. Durham
EPA/ORD/AEERL
07/01/82
EPA-600/9-S2—:>05d
CONTRACTOR Denver Research Institute
CONTACT N/A
HARD COPY . ."
TITLE
AUTHOR
SPONSOR
DATE
PUB. NO.
Project Summary: Spray Charging an
Particle b..r.i=sicn Control
a Traoping Scrubber for Fugitive
Yuna, ShLii-Chcw, and Julie Cur ran. Seymour Calvert-'
EPA/ORD/AEERL
12/01/31
EPA-600/S7-31-125
_.
CONTACT Drehmel, Dennis C.
HARD COPY Y
TITLE
AUTHOR
SPONSOR
DATE
PUB. NO.
F'roceedi n cs : Fourth Symposium on t-ucitive Emissions:
and Control (New Orleans, LA, May 1930)
Wibberley, C.S., Compiler
EPA/CRD/'AEERL
12/01 /£•<:.'
E P A - A 0 0 / 9 - 3 0 - O 4 1
CONTRACTOR TRC
CONTACT Harris. D. Bruce
HARD COPY
TITLE
AUTHOR
SPONSOR
DATE
PUB. NO.
Evaluation of Road Carpet for Control of Fuc-itive Emissions from
Unpaved F:oads
Tackett. K.M., and T.R. Elackwocd. W.H. Hedlsy
EPA/ORD/AEERL
]_ (') /('i 1 / .j('i
N/A"
CONTRACTOR Monsanto Research
CONTACT Drehmel. Dennis C.
HARD COPY
TITLE
AUTHOR
SPONSOR
DATE
PUB. NO.
Second Symposium on the Transfer and Utilization of Particulate
Control Technolcay: Volume IV - Special Aoplications for Air
Pollution Measurement and Control
Venditti, F.R.. and J.A. Armstrona, Michael Durham
EPA/ORD/AEERL
09/<"?! /£0
EPA-cOO/9-SO—:>3?d
CONTRACTOR Denver Research Institute
CONTACT N/A
HARD COPY
F-8
-------
cr M T c c j n f-15 F
:•£• —IMTI -^ MM tr
J P!_ 7 I
TITLE
En v i r on merit si t-. = = = = SiT.>=nt ; f Iron Castino
AUTHOR Baldwin, V.H.
SPONSOR EP A / ORD /AEERL
DATE 01/01/30
PUB. NO. EPA-600/2-30-021
CONTRACTOR RTI
CONTACT Hencriks. Pooert '.'.
HARD -COPY
TITLE
AUTHOR
SPONSOR
DATE
PUB. NO.
Assessment of Methods for Control of Fugitive Emissions from
Roads
Brookman, Edwars T. . ar,2 Deborah K. Martin
EPA/ORD/AEERL
11/01/79
EPA-600/7-7 ?-2 39
CONTRACTOR TRC
CONTACT Drehmel. Denni's C.
HARD COPY
TITLE
Fuaitive Emi =3i on-B trom Iron Foundries
AUTHOR
SPONSOR
DATE
PUB. NO.
Wallace. Dennis. Chatter. Cowherd. Jr.
EPA/OPD/AEERL
08/01/7?
EPA-AOO/7-79-195
CONTRACTOR MRI
CONTACT Hendriks. Robert V.
HARD COPY
TITLE
Third SyiTipcsi urn on i-ucitive Emissicns Measurement and Control
AUTHOR King, J.. Compi1er
SPONSOR EPA/ORD/AEERL
DATE 08/01/79
PUB. NO. EPA-AOO/7-79-182
CONTRACTOR TRC
CONTACT Harris.' D. Bruce
HARD COPY Y
TITLE
AUTHOR
SPONSOR
DATE
PUB. NO.
Setting Priorities .-for Control of Fugitive Particu.iate tmi = sions
from C5en. Sources
Cooper, D.W.. and J. £. Sullivan, et al •'
EPA/CPD/AEERL
08/01/79
EPA-cOO .'7-79-196
CONTRACTOR Harvard Universitv
CONTACT Drehmel . Dennis C.
HARD COPY
TITLE
Iron and Steel Plant Open Source Fugitive Emission Evaluation
AUTHOR
SPONSOR
DATE
PUB. NO.
Cowherd. Chatten and Russel Bonn, Thomas Cuscino. Jr.
EPA/QRD/AEERL
05/0i/79
EPA — iO<".'/ ^ — 79~ 1 O."\
CONTRACTOR MR I
CONTACT Hendriks. Robert '.'.
HARD COPY Y
TITLE
AUTHOR
SPONSOR
DATE
PUB. NO.
Assessment o-f Road Carpet tor Control of Fucitive Emissions from
Unoaved Roads
B1ac kwood. T.R.
EPA/ORD/AEEFL
O5/01/79
E P A-60O/7-79-113
CONTRACTOR Monsanto Fesearcn
CONTACT Drehmel. Dennis C.
HARD COPY
TITLE
AUTHOR
SPONSOR
DATE
PUB. NO.
Symposium on the Transfer and Utilization of Particulate Control
Techncl ogv: '.'olume 4 - Fuaitive Dusts and Sampling. Analv = := and
Characterization of Aerosols
Vendditti, F.R., and J.A. Armstrona, Michael Durham
EPA/ORD/AEERL
O-i'/01 / , 9
E F' A - 60 'I1 / 7 - 7 9 - 0 4 4 d
CONTACT
HARD COPY
h In
Drehmel. Dennis C.
F-9
-------
4/ 15/88
FUGITIVE EMISS
ICr:S FL'&LICATI
Y OM FILE
TITLE
Assessment of t~e L!3= rr i-ugitive Emission control lev. ess
AUTHOR
SPONSOR
DATE
PUB. NO.
Daugherty. D.P. arid D.W. Coy
EFA/ORD/AEERL
"><"'
EPA-600/7-79-O45
Particulate Control for Fuaitive Dust
CONTRACTOR RTI
CONTACT Drenmel.
HARD .'COPY Y
Dsnnis C
TITLE
AUTHOR N/A
SPONSOR EPA/ORD/AEEPL
DATE 04/01/78
PUB. NO. EFA-600/7-73-071
CONTRACTOR N/A
CONTACT N/A
HARD COPY Y
TITLE
Particulate Control for Fuaitive Dust
AUTHOR
Weant. Georae E.. and Ben H. Caroentsr
SPONSOR EPA/ORD./AEERL
DATE 04/01/73
PUB. NO. EPA-600/7-73-O71
CONTRACTOR RTI
CONTACT N/A
HARD COPY
TITLE
Fuaitive Emissions from Intscrated Iron and Steel Plants
AUTHOR
SPONSOR
DATE
PUB. NO.
Bohn, Pussel -and ihomas CO.scino, Jr.. Chatten Cowherd. Jr.
EPA/ORD/AEERL
03/01/73
EPA-600/2-78-O50
CONTRACTOR MRI
CONTACT ' Hen dr i k s . Rot sr t '.-'.
HARD COPY Y
TITLE
Second Symposium on. Pugiti've Emissions: Measurement and Control
AUTHOR King, J. , Commpiler
SPONSOR ERA/GRD/AEERL
DATE 12/01/77
PUB. NO. EPA-600/7-77-148
CONTRACTOR TRC
CONTACT Harris. D. Brucs
HARD COPY
TITLE
AUTHOR
SPONSOR
DATE
PUB. NO.
Use of Electrostatically Cnarcsd Foa for Control of Fugitive Dus-
Emissions
Hoenig, Stuart A.
EPA/ORD/AEERL
11/01/77
EPA-600/7-77-131
CONTRACTOR Arizona University
CONTACT N/A
HARD COPY
TITLE
Development of F'roceduras for the Measurement of Fugitive Emissions
AUTHOR
SPONSOR
DATE
PUB. NO.
Kalika. P.W., and P.E. Kenson. P.T. Bartlstt
EPA/ORD/AEEPL •
12/01/7a
EPA-600/2-7A-284
CONTRACTOR TRC
CONTACT N/A
HARD COPY
TITLE
Symposium on Fuaitive Emissions Measurement and Contro
AUTHOR Helming, E.M.. Compiler
SPONSOR EPA/ORD/AEERL
DATE 09/01/76
PUB. NO. EPA-600/2-76-246
CONTRACTOR TRC
CONTACT Statnick. Rc-Dsrt M.
HARD COPY Y
F-10
-------
04.* 13/33
FUGITIVE EMISSIONS PUBLICATIONS
CURRENTLY UN FILE
TITLE
AUTHOR
SPONSOR
DATE
PUB. NO.
Technical Manual fcr the Measurement of Fugitive Emission;
Moni.tor Samolina Method for Inaustrial Fuaitive Emissions
Kenson. R.E. and R.T. Partlett
EFA/CRD/AEEF:L
OS/'"'I /76
EPA-600/2-76-OS9b
CONTRACTOR TRC
CONTACT Statnick. Robert M.
HARD -'COPY Y
TITLE
AUTHOR
SPONSOR
DATE
PUB. NO.
Technical Manual -for the Measurement of Fucitive Emissions:
Quasi-Stack Sampling Method for Industr i al ~ Fu.gi t i ve Emissions
Kolnsbero, H.J. and P.M. Kalika. R.E. Kenscn, W.A. Marrone'
EPA/CRD/AEERL
05/01/76
E P A - & 0 0 / 2 - 7 i - 0 8 9 c
CONTRACTOR TRC
CONTACT Statnick, Robert M.
HARD COPY Y
TITLE
AUTHOR
SPONSOR
DATE
PUB. NO.
Technical Manual for the Measurement of Fugitive Emissions:
Upwind/Downwind Sampling Method for Industrial Emissions
Kolnsberg, Henry J.
EPA/GRD/AEEFL.
04/01/76
EPA-600/2-76-089a
CONTRACTOR TRC
CONTACT Statnick, Robert M.
HARD COPY Y
TITLE
AUTHOR
SPONSOR
DATE
PUB. NO.
Windbreak Effectiveness for Storage Rile Fugitive Dust Control:
A Wind Tunnel Study
Bill man. Barbara J., and S.P.£. Arva
EPA/ORD/ASRL
06/01/85
EPA-600/3-95-OS9
CONTRACTOR North Carolina State Univ
CONTACT Snyder, William H. . - •
HARD COPY Y • '
TITLE
AUTHOR
SPONSOR
DATE
PUB. NO.
Development of Measurement Methodology for'Evaluating Fugitive
Particulate Emissions
Uthe. Edward E. . and John M Livinaston, et ai / -4
EPA/ORD/ASRL
05/01/91
EPA-600/2-81-07O
CONTRACTOR SRI International
CONTACT N/A
HARD COPY
TITLE
Dust Transport in Maricopa County, Arizona
AUTHOR
SPONSOR
DATE
PUB. NO.
Suck, S., and E. Upchurch, J. Erock
EPA/ORD/ASRL
09/01/79
EPA—60O/7—79—082
CONTRACTOR Universitv of Texas
CONTACT N/A
HARD COPY
TITLE
Regional Air Pollution Study: Fugitive Dust Survey and Inventory
AUTHOR Griscorn. Robert W.
SPONSOR EPA/ORD/ASRL
DATE O4/01/7S
PUB. NO. EPA-cOO/4-73-020
CONTRACTOR Rockwell International
CONTACT N/A
HARD COPY
TITLE
AUTHOR
SPONSOR
DATE
PUB. NO.
User's Guide: Emission Control Technologies and Emission Factors
for Unpaved Road Fugitive Emissions
N/A
EPA/ORD/CERI
09/01/87
EPA-625/5-S7/022
CONTRACTOR JACA
CONTACT Kuluiian, Norman
HARD COPY Y
F-ll
-------
04/15/33
FUGTTIVE EMISS IONS F'L'E-L I CAT I
CURRENTLY QN FILE
TITLE
User's LTLUCS: Fugitive Dust Control Demons" r at i en bturies
AUTHOR Beggs, Thomas W.
SPONSOR EFA/CRD/CERI
DATE 01/01/85
PUB. NO. EPA-600/8-S4-032
CONTRACTOR JACA
CONTACT N/A
HARD .'COPY Y
TITLE
AUTHOR
SPONSOR
DATE
PUB. NO.
A Method tor Estimating Fugitive F'art i c.ul ate Emi ssi ons From
Hazardous Waste Sites
Turner, James H., Marvin
EPA/ORD/CI
O9/01/S4
N/A
Branscome. et si
CONTRACTOR RTI
CONTACT dePercin. Raul P.
HARD COPY Y
TITLE
AUTHOR
SPONSOR
DATE
PUB. NO.
Project Summary: Improved Emission Factors -for Fugitive Dus
Western Surface Coal Mining Sources
Axetell. Kenneth, and Chatten Cowhers, Jr.
t from
EPA/GRD/IEFL - CI
07/01/84
EPA-600/S7-34-048
CONTRACTOR MR I.
CONTACT N/A
HARD COPY
TITLE
F'roject Summary: Fugitive Dust -from Western Surface Coal Mines
AUTHOR
SPONSOR
DATE
PUB. NO.
Cook. Frank and Ar1o Hendrikson, L. David Maxim. Paul R.. Saundsrs
EPA/ORD/IERL - CI
10/01/80
EPA-600/FS7-80-133
CONTRACTOR Mathematics. Inc.
CONTACT Bates, Edward R.
HARD COPY Y
TITLE
AUTHOR
SPONSOR
DATE
PUB. NO.
Demonstration o-f Nonpoint Pollution Abatement Throu.ah Improved-
Street Cleaning Practices
Pitt. Robert
EPA/OPD/MERL
08/01/79
EPA-600/2-79-161
i
CONTRACTOR Woodward-Clvde
CONTACT N/A
HARD COPY
TITLE
RACT Determination for Five Industrv Categories in Florida
AUTHOR
SPONSOR
DATE
PUB. NO.
Hawks. Ron L., and Steve P. Schlesser. et al
EPA/Peaion IV
11/Ol/SO
EFA-904/9-S1-O67
CONTRACTOR PEI
CONTACT N/A
HARD COPY
TITLE
AUTHOR
SPONSOR
DATE
PUB. NO.
RACT-Level Control Opacity Data for Procsss and Non-Process
Fugitive Dust Sources
Spawn, F'eter and Matthew Sutton, Je-ftery E-ibeau. Tern Fitzgerald
EPA/Pec ion V
07/01/S4
N/A
CONTRACTOR GCA
CONTACT Dewey, James A.
HARD COPY Y
TITLE
AUTHOR
SPONSOR
DATE
PUB. NO.
Cost Estimates -for Selected Fuaitive Dust Controls Applied to
Unoaved and Paved Roads in Iron and Steel F'lants
N/A
EPA/Peaion V
04/26/34
N/A
CONTRACTOR MRI
CONTACT MacDCwe11, Wi11iam
HARD COPY
F-12
-------
04 / 13/88
ii'T''E EMI c-£ I r'NS F UEL I CAT I CNS
!l CURRENTLY ~ON FILE
AUTHOR
SPONSOR
DATE
TITLE
AUTHOR
^n ''-'Deer.-,' . rnP'* i^r f-'-'-Qltiv- Dust Emission Sources:
i-cm | n^ -j- ''-• S ^3. Recommendations and t;;amoles
N/A
EPA'. I'-eaion vv CONTRACTOR N/A
CONTACT Torres. Lucien
HARD -'COPY Y
nation o-f process Fuaitive Emissions in the Major Non-Attai nms
at- c.j: Region y: Volume I
Bh*< 1 a. Vinod
SPONSOR EPA,f--:eQlon
DATE <-)._•./i M ,<=j-r~
PUB. NO. N/A ' ""'
CONTRACTOR RES
CONTACT N/A
HARD COPY Y
TITLE ' Fugitive Dust Emission Study
AUTHOR Wil=on? A.L>
SPONSOR EPA,-|:-s,n' -3n VI
DATE 02/i;.i/^°n l
.PUB. NO.'. •EPA-'3r)£/o_7o_,.xj2
CONTRACTOR Enaineerina-5cisnc=
CONTACT N/A
HARD COPY
TITLE
Con 1
Reentrai nsd Dust -from R.aved Streets
AUTHOR
. Kenneth and Joan Zel 1
SPONSOR EA/|:-eaion.VII.
DATE
PUB.NQ.
CONTRACTOR PEDCo
CONTACT Durst, Dewayne
HARD COPY Y
TITLE
AUTHOR
TITLE
DATE
AUTHOR
Sur\ pv- Q.f i-uoitive Dust -from Coal Mines
CONTRACTOR RE I
CONTACT N/A
HARD COPY
Axet=ll, Kenneth
,^£;A-M-eaion VIII
«Ji/».> j /7Q
EP'A-or.g/ 1-73-003
Fugitive Dust Emission Inventory, Wasatch. Utah
AUTHOR N/A
SPONSOR EPA, |t
CONTRACTOR REI
CONTACT N/A
HARD COPY
eaion VIII
'.' / .' i.' ] _/ — tr
E^~ ^'-'S/ 1 -76-001
Fugihive Dust Emissions trom the. Proposed Vienna Unit No. ?
^ Edw
-------
04/15/33
FUGITIVE EMI££IQN£ FUPLICATICNi
CURRENTLY Of I FILE
TITLE
AUTHOR
SPONSOR
DATE
PUB. NO.
Fort Carson Fugitive Dust. Generation and transport •-•
Learned
Schanche, Garv W. . and Martin J. Sas'oi e
U.S. Army CERL
1 1 / 01 / 9 1
CERL-TR-N-117
CONTRACTOR N/A
CONTACT N/A
HARD -COPY
TITLE
Fuaitive Dust Emissions -from Construction Haul Roses
AUTHOR Struss. 3.R. and W.J. Mikucki
SPONSOR U.S. Army CERL
DATE O2/01/'^
PUB. NO. CERL-SB-N-17
CONTRACTOR N/A
CONTACT N/A
HARD COPY
TITLE
Dust Control tor Haul Roads
AUTHOR
SPONSOR
DATE
PUB. NO.
Bohn. Russel. and Thomas Cuscinc. Dennis Lane, st al
U.S. Bureau of Mines
O2/01/91
BUM!NES-OFR-130-81
CONTRACTOR MR I
CONTACT N/A
HARD COPY
TITLE
Fuaitivs Dust Studv of an Ooen
Coal Mine
AUTHOR
SPONSOR
DATE
PUB. NO.
Marple. Virgil, and Kenneth Rubow. Orville Lantto
U.S. Bureau of Mines
•O9/O1/3O
BUMINES-OFR-24-82
CONTRACTOR Minnesota University
CONTACT N./A
HARD COPY
END OF REPORT
Total Records Printed =
F-14
-------
APPENDIX G.
EXAMPLE REGULATIONS
-------
APPENDIX G. EXAMPLE REGULATIONS
This appendix presents example regulations for the source categories
presented in Sections 2.0 through 7.0 of this manual. Examples are
provided for:
• Joint Memorandum of Understanding
• Public Paved Roadways
• Industrial Paved Roadways
• Unpaved Roadways
• Storage Pile
• Construction/Demolition
• Open Areas
• Water Mining
G-l
-------
EXAMPLE - JOINT MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING (MOU)
G-2
-------
[Note: This MOU contains example regulatory language to supplement that
found in the example public paved road regulation (page G-8
through 6-11.)]
EXAMPLE MOU TO CONTROL WINTERTIME SANDING
AND OTHER PM10 EMISSIONS FROM PUBLIC ROADWAYS
JOINT MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
This JOINT MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING, executed this th
day 198 , by and between the CITY OF , a municipal
corporation located in County, State of ,
and the STATE OF . DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION,
an agency of the State of having its principal office
in , County of , State of ,
WITNESSETH;
WHEREAS, recurring violations of the Federal ambient air quality
standard for particulate matter having an aerodynamic diameter less than
or equal to 10 microns (PM10) in the City of • the City
of ^ and the State of ' Department of Environmental
Protection (DEP) have agreed to enter into a Joint Memorandum of
Understanding which will provide for attainment with Federal and State
PM10 standards as expeditiously as practicable, but not later
than . 198 ; and
WHEREAS, as a"result of monitoring done by the Department of
Environmental Protection showing violations of the State's ambient air
quality standards for PM10 (reference, e.g. Appendix A), the City
of has agreed to develop a control strategy to reduce
PM10 levels by implementing a downtown revitalization project (reference,
e.g. Appendix.B), by using coarse grained abrasive materials for the
wintertime road sanding operations, by vacuum sweeping streets to achieve
PM10 emission reductions; by controlling nearby erodible surfaces; and by
controlling mud/dirt carryout onto paved roads from unpaved parking lots
in the area.
WHEREAS, both parties agree to operate and conduct said program in
accordance with the understandings expressed herein,
NOW, THEREFORE, the City of and the State
of Department of Environmental Protection, through
their authorized representatives, enter into this Memorandum of
Understanding, as follows:
I. PURPOSE
The purpose of this Memorandum is to:
A. Establish and set forth procedures and responsibilities for each
party to be followed in the implementation of the agreed upon
control strategy for the City of ; and
G-3
-------
B. Establish and set forth procedures for making a determination as
to the effectiveness of said control strategy program.
II. PROCEDURES AND RESPONSIBILITIES
The procedures and responsibilities of the parties under this
Memorandum are as follows:
A. The City of will, beginning with the (year) winter
season, restrict the use of sand used for antiskid operations to
a material with greater than x percent (e.g., 95 percent) grit
retained by a number 100 mesh sieve screen and a degradation
factor of x.
The material will be tested in conjunction with Department of
Transportation, Division of Materials and Research, to
determine the degradation value using standardized methods and
the results will be reported to the [DEP] no later
than , 198_.
The City of will provide alternative traffic flow
patterns, such as a bypass plan to reduce vehicular traffic
(especially truck traffic), in the central business district to
reduce the effects of vehicular reentrainment.
B. The City of will use the material described in
II.A. on streets within (area description, e.g. one-
, half mile radius of the Main/State Street intersection) which
include, as a minimum, the following areas (street names are
shown for example purposes):
1. Main Street - from Maple Street to North Street.
2. State Street - from Third Street to State Street Place.
3. Mechanic Street - from State Street to include
Industrial/Street.
4. Academy Street - from Main Street to Third Street.
5. Riverside Street - from Main Street to Chapman Street.
6. Chapman Street - from Main Street to Riverside Street.
7. Parsons Street - from State Street to Park Street.
8. Dyer Street - from State Street to Park Street.
9. Second Street - from Academy Street to Blake Street.
10. Third Street - from Academy Street to Blake Street.
G-4
-------
C. The City of will revegetate, pave, or treat by using
water, calcium chloride, or acceptable equivalent materials the
following: paved road shoulders and approach aprons for unpaved
roads and parking areas that connect to paved roads, which are
within the City's right-of-ways or under the City's control and
within X feet (e.g., 25) of roadways [specify location or entire
roads by name], in amounts and frequencies as is necessary to
effectively control PM10 emissions to a level of x percent
control efficiency (e.g., paving—90 percent; vegetation per
specified requirements—50 percent; chemical treatment per . .
specified requirements—70 percent). [Include list of roads in
memorandum of understanding and specify whether those areas will
be revegetated, paved, or treated.]
D. The City of will conduct its vacuum street
sweeping throughout the year with wintertime sweeping done
whenever shaded pavement temperatures as determined by the use
of infrared thermometer—allow for the application of water
spray from the vacuum sweeper. The City of
shall, based upon the expertise of Department of
Transportation Materials and Research Division Personnel, gear
the wintertime sweeping program to the pavement temperatures
which will allow water spray on the streets without jeopardizing
the safety of pedestrian and vehicular traffic on the swept
areas.
The street vacuuming program will be designed to provide for
maximum sweeping efforts throughout the winter and spring months
with less frequent sweeping done as the streets become cleaner
into the summer and fall periods. Street sweeping shall require
cleaning the entire street, including the driving lanes, for the
removal of street sand from winter sanding and road sealing, and
the removal of heavy street loadings due to other sources of
dirt and debris.
As soon as temperature conditions permit (melt periods), the
City will begin vacuuming the roads and/salt loadings from
streets listed under II.B. The period for completing vacuuming
of said streets shall not exceed x days (e.g. 2 days). Street
sweeping shall be done no less than x (e.g, monthly) during the
summer and fall periods, and shall include daily cleaning near
areas where soil material is deposited onto streets from
activities such as—but not limited to—construction and
excavation projects.
The City of shall submit (e-g«,
monthly) reports to the [DEP], due 30 days from the end of the
(month), which documents the implementation of the street
sweeping requirements. Reports shall satisfy the quality
control provisions for recordkeeping and reporting requirements
as identified in Section 2.3.2.2 and Appendix C.2.1 of the
Control of Open Fugitive Dust Sources.
G-5
-------
E. The City of will, upon the failure to reduce
particulates to acceptable levels, develop contingency plans of
importing a better quality material for wintertime sanding
operations.
F. During the period of the program, the [DEP] will maintain a
particulate monitoring network—including TSP and Inhalable
Particulates—designed to reflect the status of ambient air
quality and the effectiveness of the control strategy.
G. During the period of the program, the [DEP] will provide the
City of with a (e-9- monthly) summary of
its air quality monitoring results, including basic findings
which it construes to violate Federal ambient air quality
standards.
H. Staff representatives of both the City of and the [DEP]
will meet at least once every 2 months to evaluate the
effectiveness of the control strategy and to determine whether
alternative controls are needed.
CITY OF
Date By
STATE OF
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
Date . By
6-6
-------
EXAMPLE - PUBLIC PAVED ROAD REGULATION
NUMBER 1
G-7
-------
PAVED ROADS AND PARKING AREAS
General Description
Description; The purpose of this rule is to reduce the amount of
particulate matter, especially the amount of fine particulate matter
(PM10), reentrained in the ambient air as a result of motor vehicle
traffic on paved roadways and to control sources that are contributing to
particulate matter loadings on the roadways.
Definitions
a. Dust: Particulate matter, excluding any material emitted directly in
the exhaust of motor vehicles and other internal combustion engines.
b. Particulate matter: Any material emitted or entrained into the air as
liquid solid particles or gaseous material which becomes liquid or
solid particles at ambient temperatures.
c. PM10: Particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter of a nominal
10 micrometers or less as measured by reference or equivalent methods
that meet the requirements specified for PMlo in 40 CFR Part 50,
Appendix J.
d. Silt: Fine particulate matter that will pass through a No. 200 sieve
as measured using the "Procedures for Sampling Surface/Bulk Materials"
in Appendix D of the Control of Open Fugitive Dust Sources.
Requirements
a. Mud/Dirt carryout: No person shall cause or permit the handling or
transporting or storage of any material in a manner which allows or
may allow controllable particulate matter to become airborne. Dust
emissions from the transportation of materials must be minimized by
covering stock loads in openbodied trucks or other equivalently
effective controls.
b. Motor vehicle parking areas: Effective , no person shall
cause, permit, suffer, or allow the operation, use, or maintenance of
an unsealed or unpaved motor vehicle parking area.
Low use parking area exemption: Motor vehicle parking area
requirements shall not apply to any parking area from which less
than (e.g., 10) vehicles exit on each day. Any person seeking
such an exemption shall: (1) submit a petition to the Control Officer
G-8
-------
in writing identifying the location, ownership, and person(s)
responsible for control of the parking area, and indicating the nature
and extent of daily vehicle use; and (2) receive written approval from
the regulating agency that a low use exemption has been granted.
Spills; Earth or other material that is deposited by trucking and
earth-moving equipment on paved streets shall be reported to the
(local Department of Sanitation at ) and removed within
hours (example 8 hours) subject to safety considerations by the party
or person responsible for such deposits.
Erosion and entrainment from nearby areas: If loose sand, dust, or
dust particles are found to contribute to excessive silt loadings on
nearby paved roads, the Control Officer shall notify the owner,
lessee, occupant, operator, or user of said land that said situation
is to be corrected within a specified period of time, dependent upon
the scope and extent of the problem, but in no case may such a period
of time exceed x days (e.g., 3 days).
The Control Officer, or a designated agent, after due notice, may
enter upon the subject land where said sand or dust problem exists,
and take such remedial and corrective action as may be deemed
appropriate to relieve, reduce, or remedy the existent dust condition,
where the owner, occupant, operator, or any tenant, lessee, or holder
of any possessory interest or right in the subject land, fails to do
so.
Any cost incurred in connection with any such remedial or corrective
action by the Control Officer shall be assessed against the owner of
the involved property, and failure to pay the full amount of such
costs shall result in a lien against said real property, which lien
shall remain in full force and effect until any and all such costs
shall have been fully paid, which shall include, but not be limited
to, costs of collection and reasonable attorney's fee therefore. (In
addition to recovering the costs of the corrective action, the
regulatory agency may also want to have the ability to access a
penalty such as the ones listed in Table 1-2).
G-9
-------
EXAMPLE - INDUSTRIAL PAVED ROAD REGULATION
G-10
-------
Regulation
Paved roadway emissions shall be controlled to a level reflecting
x percent reduction of uncontrolled PM10 emissions.
Compliance Techniques
Compliance with this regulation shall be determined using the
following:
1. Control efficiencies as given in Table 2-4; or
2. Silt sampling to establish the level of control performance
obtained for paved roadway controls.
2a. Silt sampling shall be performed in the manner described in
Appendix D, Section D.2 of this manual. Analyses shall comply with the
requirements of Appendix E of this manual.
2b. Level of control performance shall be established by silt
loading sampling as follows:
i. Sampling shall be taken of the source in its uncontrolled state
ii. Sampling shall be taken after control application (sL2);
iii. Sampling, shall be taken prior to reapplication of control
(sL3); and
iv. Average control efficiency (in %) shall be calculated as
follows:
100% x i-4
1
1 l
1 2 '
^*
•H
SL,
;
0.3
+
sL31
[SLlJ
1
[Note that if this rule was applied to urban roadways, a 0.8 (rather than
0.3) power would be used in the calculation.]
G-ll
-------
EXAMPLE - ROAD REGULATION
6-12
-------
REGULATION 4—PARTICULATE MATTER
RULE—UNPAVED ROADS
General Description
a. Description; The purpose of this rule is to reduce the amount of
particulate matter, especially the amount of fine particulate (PM10)
entrained in the ambient air as a result of emissions from unpaved
roads.
Definitions
a. For the purpose of this rule, public unpaved roads shall be defined as
an unsealed or unpaved open way used by motor vehicles maintained for
general public travel.
b. For the purpose of this rule, Haul Road shall be defined as an open
way used by motor vehicles to transport materials to, from, and/or
within a work site that is not covered with one of the following:
concrete, asphaltic concrete, asphalt, or other materials, as
specified by the air pollution control officer (APCO).
c. Dust; Particulate matter, excluding any materials emitted directly in
the exhaust of motor vehicles and other internal combustion engines,
from portable brazing, soldering or.welding equipment, and from
piledrivers.
d.. Particulate matter; Any material emitted or entrained into the air as
liquid or solid particles.
e. PM10: Particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter of a nominal
10 micrometers or less as measured by reference or equivalent methods
that meet the requirements specified for PM10 in 40 CFR Part 50,
Appendix J.
f. Reasonably available dust control measures: Techniques used to
prevent the emission and/or airborne transport of dust and dirt from
an unpaved road including: application of water or other liquids,
covering, paving, enclosing, shrouding, compacting, stabilizing,
planting, cleaning, or such other measures the APCO may specify to
accomplish equal or greater control.
G-13
-------
Requirements
a. Public unpaved roads:
1. The APCO may require any person to undertake reasonably available
dust control measures to mitigate mass PM10 emissions from public
unpaved roads. The dust control measures may only be required or
amended on the basis of substantial evidence that the mass
emissions from the public unpaved roads causes or contributes to
violations of the Federal ambient air quality standard for PM10.
2. Upon making the determination that dust control measures are
required, the APCO shall require any person who maintains public
unpaved roads of more than x (e.g., 50) feet in length, unless no
more than x (e.g., 10) vehicular trips are made on such unpaved
roads and vehicular speeds do not exceed x (e.g., 35) miles per
hour, to submit a dust control plan which demonstrates an
overall x percent (e.g., 75 percent) reduction of PM10 emissions
by applying reasonably available control measures.
b. Haul roads:
1. No person shall allow the operation, use, or maintenance of any
unpaved or unsealed haul road of more than x (e.g., 50) feet in
length at any work site engaged in any manufacturing or
commercial-related activity, unless no more than x (e.g., 10)
vehicular trips are made on such haul road per day and vehicular
speeds do not exceed x (e.g., 10) miles per hour.
2. The owner and/or operator is in possession of a currently valid
• permit which has been issued by the APCO.
Record Control Application
The owner and/or operator shall record the evidence of the application of
the control measures. Records shall be submitted upon request from the
APCO, and shall be open for inspection during unscheduled audits.
G-14
-------
EXAMPLE - STORAGE PILE REGULATION
G-15
-------
REGULATION 4—PARTICULATE MATTER
RULE-STORAGE OF BULK MATERIALS
General
a. The purpose of this Rule is to reduce the amount of particulate
matter, especially the amount of fine particulate matter (PM10),
entrained in the ambient air related to the loading or unloading of
open storage piles of bulk materials.
Definitions
a. For the purpose of this rule, open storage piles of bulk materials,
hereinafter referred to as "storage piles", are defined as follows:
1. All storage piles of the material at a manufacturing or commercial
location which have a total volume of more than x (e.g., 100)
cubic meters, or,
2. Any storage piles at a manufacturing or commercial location having
a total annual volumetric throughput of all stored material of
more than x (e.g., 10,000) cubic meters, or,
3. Any single storage pile at a manufacturing or commercial location
having a volume of x (e.g., 42) cubic meters.
b. Storage pile related activities: Defined as the loading, unloading,
conveyance or transporting of bulk materials at a manufacturing or
commercial location.
c. Disturbed surface: A portion of the earth's surface, or materials
placed thereon, which has been physically moved, uncovered,
destabilized, subdivided, or otherwise modified, thereby increasing
the potential for e'mission of dust and dirt.
d. Dust: Particulate matter, excluding any materials emitted directly in
the exhaust of motor vehicles and other internal combustion engines,
from portable brazing, soldering or welding equipment, and from
piledrivers.
e. Dust control implements: Tools, machines, and supplies adequate to
prevent entrainment of dust in ambient air, and to prevent dirt or
other material from being tracked or dropped onto public roads from
motor vehicles leaving the work site.
G-16
-------
f. Particulate matter; Any material emitted or entrained into the air as
liquid or solid particles.
g. PM10: Participate matter with an aerodynamic diameter of a nominal
10 micrometers or less as measured by reference or equivalent methods
that meet the requirements specified for PM10 in 40 CFR Part 50,
Appendix J.
h. Reasonably available dust control measures: Techniques used to
prevent the emission and/or airborne transport of dust and dirt from
storage piles including: application of water or other liquids,
covering, paving, enclosing, shrouding, compacting, stabilizing,
planting, cleaning, or such other measures the Air Pollution Control
Officer (APCO) may specify to accomplish equal or greater control.
i. Unsealed or unpaved haul road: An open way used by motor vehicle to
transport materials to, from, and/or within a work site that is not
covered with one of the following: concrete, asphaltic concrete,
asphalt, or other materials as specified by the APCO.
Requirements
a. No person shall engage in the storing, loading, unloading, conveying
or transporting of bulk materials unless a dust control plan is
approved by the APCO which demonstrates that an overall x percent
(e.g., 75 percent) reduction of PM10 emissions from storage piles and
related activities will be achieved by reasonably available
measures. Such measures may include, but are not limited to, the
following: application of water or chemical suppressants, application
of wind breaks or wind fences, enclosure of the storage piles,
enclosure of conveyor belts, minimizing material drop at transfer
point, securing loads and cleaning vehicles leaving worksite, and
other means as specified by the APCO.
b. The owner/operator is in possession of a currently valid permit which
has been issued by the APCO.
Control Mud/Dirt Carryout
a. Street cleaning: No person shall engage in any dust-producing storage
pile related activity at any work site unless the paved streets
(including shoulders) adjacent to the site where the storage pile-
related activity occurs are cleaned at a frequency of not less than x
(e.g., once) a day unless:
6-17
-------
1. Vehicles do not pass from the work site onto adjacent paved
streets, or
2. Vehicles that do pass from the work site into adjacent paved
streets are cleaned and have loads secured to effectively prevent
the carryout of dirt or mud onto paved street surfaces.
Haul Roads
No personal shall allow the operation, use, or maintenance of any unpaved
or unsealed haul road of more than x (e.g., 50) feet in length at any work
site engaged in any storage pile-related activity, unless no more than x
(e.g., 10) vehicular trips are made on such haul road per day and
vehicular speeds do not exceed x (e.g., 10) miles per hour.
Stabilization of Soils at Work Sites
No owner and/or operator shall allow a disturbed surface site to remain
subject to wind erosion for a period is excess of x (e.g., 1) months after
initial disturbance of the soil surface or construction related activity
without applying all reasonably available dust control measures necessary
to prevent the transport of dust or dirt beyond the property line. Such
measures may include, but need not be limited to: sealing, revegetating,
or otherwise stabilizing the soil surface. -
Record Control Application .
The owner and/or operator shall record the evidence of the application of
the control measures. Records shall be submitted upon request from APCO,
and shall be open for inspection during unscheduled audits.
G-18
-------
EXAMPLE - CONSTRUCTION/DEMOLITION REGULATION
G-19
-------
REGULATION 4—PARTICULATE MATTER
RULE—CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION ACTIVITIES
General Description
a. Description; The purpose of this Rule is to reduce the amount of
particulate matter, especially the amount of fine particulate matter
(PM10) entrained in the ambient air as a result of construction and/or
demolition related activities.
Exemptions
The following projects and activities are exempt from the requirements of
this Rule:
a. Buildings or other improvements with combined floorspace less than x
(e.g., 3,000) square feet.
b. Disturbed surface areas less than x (e.g., 4,000) square feet.
c. Any construction-related activity occurring entirely within an
enclosure from which no visible particulate matter escapes.
Definitions
a. Construction and/or demolition-related activity; Any onsite
mechanical activity preparatory to or related to the building,
alteration, maintenance, or demolition of an improvement on real
property, including: grading, excavation, filling, transport and
mixing of materials, loading, crushing, cutting, planning, shaping,
breaking, or spraying.
b. Disturbed surface: A portion of the earth's surface, or materials
placed thereon, which has been physically moved, uncovered,
destabilized, subdivided, or otherwise modified, thereby increasing
the potential for emission of dust and dirt.
c. Dust; Particulate matter, excluding any materials emitted directly in
the exhaust of motor vehicles and other internal combustion engines,
from portable brazing, soldering or welding equipment, and from
piledrivers.
d. Dust control implements: Tools, machines, and supplies adequate to
prevent entrainment of dust in ambient air, and to prevent dirt or
other material from being tracked or dropped onto public roads from
motor vehicles leaving the work site.
G-20
-------
e. Particulate matter; Any material emitted or entrained into the air as
liquid or solid particles.
f. PMi0: Participate matter with an aerodynamic diameter of a nominal
10 micrometers or less as measured by reference or equivalent methods
that meet the requirements specified for PM10 in 40 CFR Part 50,
Appendix J.
g. Reasonably available dust control measures; Techniques used to .
prevent the emission and/or airborne transport of dust and dirt from a
site including: application of water or other liquids, covering,
paving, enclosing, shrouding, compacting, stabilizing, planting,
cleaning, or such other measures the Air Pollution Control Officer
(APCO) may specify to accomplish equal or greater control.
h. Site; The real property upon which construction and/or demolition
related activity occurs.
i. Unsealed or unpaved haul road; An open way used by motor vehicle to
transport materials to, from, and/or within a work site that is not
covered with one of the following: concrete, asphaltic concrete,
asphalt, or other materials as specified by the APCO.
Conditions for Construction and/or Demolition .
No person shall engage in any construction-related activity at any work
site unless all of the following conditions are satisfied:
a. Dust control implements in good working condition are available at the
site, including water supply and distribution equipment adequate to
wet any disturbed surface areas and any building part up to a height
of 60 feet above grade.
b. A dust control plan is approved by the APCO which demonstrates that an
overall x percent (e.g., 75 percent) reduction of PM10 emissions from
construction/demolition and related activities will be achieved by
applying reasonably available control measures. Such measures may
include, but need not be limited to the following: application of
water or other liquids during dust-producing mechanical activities
including earth moving and demolition operations; application of water
or other liquids to or chemical stabilization of, disturbed surface
areas; surrounding the work site with wind breaks to reduce surface
erosion; restricting the access of motor vehicles on the work site;
G-21
-------
securing loads and cleaning vehicles leaving the work site; enclosing
spraying operations; and other means, as specified by the APCO.
c. The owner and/or operator is in possession of a currently valid permit
which has been issued by the APCO. (Example permit attached, see
Figure 5-9).
Control Mud/Dirt Carryout
a. Street cleaning: No person shall engage in any dust-producing
construction related activity at any work site unless the paved
streets (including shoulders) adjacent to the site where the
construction-related activity occurs are cleaned at a frequency of not
less than x (e.g., once) a day unless:
1. Vehicles do not pass from the work site onto adjacent paved
streets, or
2. Vehicles that do pass from the work site onto adjacent paved
streets are cleaned and have loads secured to effectively prevent
the carryout of dirt or mud onto paved street surfaces.
Haul Roads
No person shall allow the operation, use or maintenance of any unpaved or
unsealed haul road of more than x (e.g., 50) feet in length at any work
site engaged in any construction-related activity, unless no more than x
(e.,g., 10) vehicular trips are made on such haul road per day and
vehicular speeds do not exceed x (e.g., 10) miles per hour.
Stabilization of Soils at Work Sites
No owner and/or operator shall allow a disturbed surface site to remain
subject to wind erosion for a period in excess of x (e.g., 1) months after
initial disturbance of the soil surface or construction related activity
without applying all reasonably available dust control measures necessary
to prevent the transport of dust or dirt beyond the property line. Such
measures may include, but need not be limited to: sealing, revegetating,
or otherwise stabilizing the soil surface.
Record Control Application
The owner and/or operator shall record the evidence of the application of
the control measures. Records shall be submitted upon request from APCO,
and shall be open for inspection during unscheduled audits.
G-22
-------
Modifications of Permit Provisions
The provisions of this permit may be modified after sufficient
construction is completed by the mutual consent of the APCO and the
permittee; or, by the APCO if it determines that the stipulated controls
are inadequate. Deviations from the dust control plan (e.g., increased
source activity) may result in modifications to the permit.
G-23
-------
EXAMPLE - OPEN AREA REGULATION
G-24
-------
REGULATION 4—PARTICULATE MATTER
RULE—OPEN AREAS OF FUGITIVE DUST
General
a. The purpose of this Rule is to reduce the amount of particulate
matter, especially the amount of fine particulate matter (PM10),
entrained in the ambient air as a result of emissions from open areas.
Definitions
a. For the purposes of this rule, an open area is an exposed ground area
on public property, private real property or within an industrial or
commercial facility subject to wind erosion, which causes particulate
matter emissions.
b. Dust; Particulate matter, excluding any materials emitted directly in
the exhaust of motor vehicles and other internal combustion engines,
from portable brazing, soldering or welding equipment, and from
piledrivers.
c. Particulate matter; Any material emitted or entrained into the air as
liquid or solid particles.
d. PM10: Particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter of a nominal
10 micrometers or less as measured by reference or equivalent methods
that meet the requirements specified for PM10 in 40 CFR Part 50,
Appendix J.
e. Reasonably available dust control measures; Techniques used to
prevent the emission and/or airborne transport of dust and dirt from
an open area including; application of water or other liquids,
covering, paving, enclosing, shrouding, compacting, stabilizing,
planting, cleaning, or such other measures the Air Pollution Control
Officer (APCO) may specify to accomplish equal or greater control.
Requirements
a. Parking lots, truck stops, driving, etc.;
1. No person shall operate, maintain, use, or permit the use of any
area larger than x (e.g., 5,000) square feet for the parking
storage, or servicing of more than x (e.g., 6). vehicles in any one
day, unless a dust control plan is approved by the APCO which
demonstrates an overall x (e.g., 75) percent reduction of PMlo
G-25
-------
emissions from such an area will be achieved by reasonably
available measures. Such measures may include, but are not
limited to, adequate use of chemical dust suppressants,
application of water, paving and other means, as specified by the
APCO.
b. Vacant lots;
1. No person shall disturb or removal soil or natural cover from any
area larger than x (e.g., 5) acres and cause or permit the area to
remain undeveloped for a period in excess of x (e.g., 1) months,
unless a dust control plan is approved by the APCO which
demonstrates an overall x (e.g., 75) reduction of PM10 emissions
from such an area will be achieved by reasonable available
measures. Such measures may include, but are not limited to,
application of adequate chemical dust suppressants, enclosures,
revegetation and other means, as specified by the APCO.
2. No person shall cause, suffer, allow or permit a vacant lot, or an
urban or suburban open area, to be driven over or used by motor
vehicles, trucks, cars, cycles, bikes, or buggies, unless a dust
control plan is approved by -the APCO, which demonstrates an
overall x (e.g., 75) percent reduction of PM10 emissions from such
an open area will be achieved by reasonably available measures.
Such measures may include, but are not limited to, adequate use of
chemical dust suppressants, application of water, paving, barring
access, and other means, as specified by the APCO.
c. Off-road vehicles; No person shall cause, permit, or allow the
conduct of off-road vehicle racing.or motorcross racing within the
designated boundaries of the Group I area unless adequate dust control
measures are provided and approved in advance by the Control
Officer. Motorcross racing will only be permitted at a permanent
motorcross race course within the nonattainment area. Permanent
motorcross race courses shall be registered with and permitted by the
Control Officer.
G-26
-------
d. Industrial, manufacturing and commercial staging areas:
1. No personal shall allow the operation, use or maintenance of an
industrial, manufacturing or commercial staging area larger than x
(e.g., 5,000) square feet, unless a dust control plan is approved
by the APCO which demonstrates an overall x (e.g., 75 percent)
reduction of PM10 emissions from the staging area will be achieved
by reasonably available measures. Such measures may include,, but
are not limited to, adequate use of chemical suppressants,
application of water, paving and other means, as specified by the
APCO.
Record Control Application
The owner and/or operator shall record the evidence of the application of
the control measures. Records shall be submitted upon request from APCO,
and shall be open for inspection during unscheduled audits.
G-27
-------
EXAMPLE - OPEN AREA REGULATION (WATER MINING)
G-28
-------
REGULATION 4—PARTICULATE MATTER
RULE—WATER MINING ACTIVITIES
General
a. The purpose of this Rule is to reduce the amount of particulate
matter, especially fine particulate matter (PM10) entrained in the
ambient air related to water mining activities. .
Definitions
a. For the purpose of this Rule, water mining activities are defined as
those activities related to the production, diversion, storage or
conveyance of water which has been developed for export purposes.
b. Dust: Particulate matter, excluding any materials emitted directly in
the exhaust of motor vehicles and other internal combustion engines,
from portable brazing, soldering or welding equipment, and from
piledrivers.
c. Particulate matter; Any material emitted or entrained into the air as
liquid or solid particles
d. PMioJ Particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter of a nominal
10 micrometers or less as measured by reference or equivalent methods
that meet the requirements specified for PM10 in 40 CFR Part 50,
Appendix J.
e. Reasonably available dust control measures: Techniques used to
prevent the emission and/or airborne transport of dust and dirt from
water mining activities including: application of water or other
liquids, covering, paving, enclosing, shrouding, compacting,
stabilizing, planting, cleaning, or such other measures the Air
Pollution Control Officer (APCO) may specify to accomplish equal or
greater control.
Requirements
No person shall engage in any water mining activity unless all of the
following conditions are satisfied:
a. A dust control plan is approved by the APCO which demonstrates that an
overall x (e.g., 75) percent reduction from water mining activities
will be achieved by applying reasonably available control measures.
Such measures may include, but are not limited to, revegetation,
G-29
-------
chemical stabilization, application of wind fences and other means as
specified by the APCO.
b. The owner/operator is in possession of a currently valid permit which
has been issued by the APCO.
Record Control Application
The owner and/or operator shall record the evidence of the application of
the control measures. Records shall be submitted upon request from APCO,
and shall be open for inspection during unscheduled audits.
G-30
-------
APPENDIX H.
FOOD SECURITIES ACT
-------
APPENDIX H. FOOD SECURITY ACT
Several provisions of the Food Security Act of 1985 encourage the
reduction of soil erosion on highly erodible cropland. The provisions are
known as the Conservation Reserve, Conservation Compliance and
Sodbuster. Under the Conservation Reserve, the Agricultural Stabilization
and Conservation Service (ASCS) will share costs of retiring highly erod-
ible cropland by establishing permanent ground cover and making annual
rental payments on the converted cropland.
Conservation Compliance and Sodbuster are provisions that discourage
the production of crops on highly erodible land if the land is not
protected from erosion. Conservation Compliance asks farmers to develop a
soil conservation plan by January 1, 1990, to remain eligible for certain
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) program benefits not just on the
highly erodible part, but on all the land farmed. Under the Sodbuster
provision, a farmer will lose USDA program benefits unless he follows a
conservation plan if he plows highly erodible land not recently used for
crop production.
More than one in every four U^S. cropland acres is considered highly
erodible by water and wind. The Soil Conservation Service (SCS) estimates
there are 344 million acres of "highly erodibVe" land. Of this total, 118
million acres are cropland. In all, almost 25 percent of the agricultural
land total in the U.S. is considered "highly erodible." See Table H-l for
a summary. Of these, more than 70 percent currently have annual water and
wind erosion rates higher than the natural rate of soil replacement.
For land to be considered "highly erodible," potential maximum
erosion must be more than eight times the rate at which the soil can main-
tain continued productivity. For individual farm fields, one-third or at
least 50 acres must be rated "highly erodible" for the entire field to be
classified as such. The SCS determines if a field is "highly erodible" by
consulting soil maps or by visiting the site. SCS representatives predict
potential erosion using the Universal Soil Loss Equation for water and the
Wind Erosion Equation for wind.
H-l
-------
TABLE H-l. HIGHLY ERODIBLE LAND IN THE UNITED STATES (EXCLUDING ALASKA)
Source: SCS 1982 National Resources Inventory
STATE
Alabama
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
. . Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Puerto Rico
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
TOTAL
HIGHLY
ERODIBLE
CROPLAND
1,406,800
1,103,500
724,600
756,400
6,124,800
69,900
22,600
202,500
1,083,100
130,600
2,649,500
4,108,800
2,203,200
8,214,800
10,594,600
3,140,800
288,100
248,800
641,500
101,200
617,800
1,636,100
1,786,100
6,298,900
9,558,100
6,632,200
75,900
3-5,100
214,400
1,593,000
1,994,300
1,717,200
2,271,500
2,347,700
4,699,200
969,000
3,780,800
256,800
3,900
469,700
1,703,400
2,513,100
13,903,000
615,000
196,100
1,612,900
2,396,100
605,900
3,421,800
174,500
117,915,600
HIGHLY ERODIBLE AGRICULTURAL
LAND WITH POTENTIAL
FOR
CONVERSION TO CROPLAND
6,150,400
5^237,900
6,719,900
4,493,700
8,019,100
373,800
85,900
860,700
5,632,800
460,800
2,258,000
2,229,300
1,836,300
2,704,300
5,665,200
4,501,100
4,072,400
4,891,300
981,900
405,900
1,902,400
1,721,700
3,443,600
8,161,900
12,524,500
12,853,500
759,000 .
792,500
292,500
5,879,100
4,793,900
5,527,000
3,317,500 .
3,064,800
9,368,700
3,158,100
4,829,300
259,000
123,600
2,388,000
6,383,100
6,001,900
35,589, 100
1,077,600
1,166,600
5,813,200
3,649,100
3,202,800
3,179,000
6,943,300
225,747,000
H-2
-------
Potential crop acreage eligible for the Conservation Reserve Program
is illustrated in Figure H-l for 1986. A conservation reserve of 40 to
45 million acres will be established by 1990. Highly erodible cropland
acreage will be placed into the reserve at the rates shown in Table H-2.
Where practicable, at least one-eighth of the total conservation reserve
acreage should be devoted to trees. Priority will be given, where appro-
priate, to the establishment of shelterbelts, windbreaks, stream borders,
filter strips of permanent grass, or trees that significantly reduce
erosion. By June 1988, over 25 million acres of U.S. cropland had been
committed to the Conservation Reserve Program. Table H-3 presents number
of CRP contracts, contracted acreages, and erosion reduction figures by
state. However, these figures do not distinguish between wind and water
erosion.
H-3
-------
Share of State's
Total Cropland
0 -
5 percent
5-10 percent
10. - 15 percent
15-20 percent
20 - 30 percent
30 percent and over
Figure H-l. Cropland eligible for the Conservation Reserve, 1986.
-------
TABLE H-2. CONSERVATION RESERVE ACREAGE, CROP YEARS 1986-90
Range 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990
Million acres
Minimum* 5 15 25 35 40
Maximum 45 45 45 45 45
aThe Secretary may reduce the number of acres placed in the reserve by up
to 25 percent if rental payments are expected to be significantly lower
in the following year.
H-5
-------
TABLE H-3. CONSERVATION RESERVE PROGRAM: ALL SIGNUPS (1-6)
EROSION REDUCTION ON CRP ACRES BY STATE*
State
ALABAMA
ALASKA
ARKANSAS
CALIFORNIA
COLORADO
DELAWARE
FLORIDA
GEORGIA
HAWAII
IDAHO
ILLINOIS
INDIANA
IOWA
KANSAS
KENTUCKY
LOUISIANA
MAINE
MARYLAND
MASSACHUSETTS
MICHIGAN
MINNESOTA
MISSISSIPPI
MISSOURI
MONTANA
NEBRASKA
NEVADA
. NEW JERSEY
NEW MEXICO
NEW YORK
NORTH CAROLINA
NORTH DAKOTA
OHIO
OKLAHOMA
OREGON
PENNSYLVANIA
CARIBBEAN
SOUTH CAROLINA
SOUTH DAKOTA
TENNESSEE
TEXAS
UTAH
VERMONT
VIRGINIA
WASHINGTON
WEST VIRGINIA
WISCONSIN
WYOMING
CRP
Contraccs
7,057
36
2,068
402
5,015
16
1,620
10,398
I
2,758
9,013
5,313
2', 371
22,137
6,227
998
623
242
2
3,123
'20,315
3,742
15,958
5,401
9,912
4 '
16
1,'422
1,083
4,093
10,098
3,439
6,565
1,736
1,579
5
4,709
6,137
7,73.9
13,951
872
3
1,930
3,373
25
11,232
645
Contracted
Acres
435,153
24,374
155,673
157,574
1,674,322
i52
92,353
511,737
85
668,250
395,954
215,543
1,494,625
2,227,709
358,924
78,512
27,152
7,091
25
128,663
1,530,997
543,323
1,303,269
1,982,517
1,057,945
1,448
364
459.J054
' 40,317
104,374
1,761,762
143,767
943,169
489,443
58,634
240
206,472
993,058
349,464
3,157,612
218,574
184
49,534 •
342, 503
498
412,882
214,551
Erosion
Reduced
Tons/year
7,916,994
117,197
2,554,347
2;215,125
42,516,794
5, 453
1,496,895
6,694,^67
340
10,764,212
8,733,713
3,842,287
28,927,241
37,766,457
12,784,253
L, 227, 611
202,102
91,356. ,
. 190
1,600,888
26,341,367
13,029,389
25,286,409
26,302,958
24,957,020
18,852
• 3/734
19,019,292 ••
530,612
1,808,723 •
27,633,624
2, 193,068
22,266,135
5,528,071
1,067,529
11,216
2,825,790
12,673,077
8,383,186
115,523,541
3,682,163
2,101
371, 146
U,466, 364
4,492
6,570,939
2,840,518
U.S. Total
239,409
25,525,393
530,304,735
*Arlzona, Conneccicuc, New Hampshire, and Rhode Island do not have any
participation in CRP chus far.
H-6
------- |