PP A '-' •"• Envronmpnial Protp<-:,,-,- Agency Industrial Environmpnlal Research •— • ^» Office of Research and Development Laboratory Triangle park. North Carolina 2771' EPA-600/7-78-071 -|Q7Q 1978 PARTICULATE CONTROL FOR FUGITIVE DUST Interagency Energy-Environment Research and Development Program Report ------- RESEARCH REPORTING SERIES Research reports of the Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, have been grouped into nine series. These nine broad cate- gories were established to facilitate further development and application of en- vironmental technology. Elimination of traditional grouping was consciously planned to foster technology transfer and a maximum interface in related fields. The nine series are: 1. Environmental Health Effects Research 2. Environmental Protection Technology 3. Ecological Research 4. Environmental Monitoring 5. Socioeconomic Environmental Studies 6. Scientific and Technical Assessment Reports (STAR) 7. Interagency Energy-Environment Research and Development 8. "Special" Reports 9. Miscellaneous Reports This report has been assigned to the INTERAGENCY ENERGY-ENVIRONMENT RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT series. Reports in this series result from the effort funded under the 17-agency Federal Energy/Environment Research and Development Program. These studies relate to EPA's mission to protect the public health and welfare from adverse effects of pollutants associated with energy sys- tems. The goal of the Program is to assure the rapid development of domestic energy supplies in an environmentally-compatible manner by providing the nec- essary environmental data and control technology. Investigations include analy- ses of the transport of energy-related pollutants and their health and ecological effects; assessments of, and development of, control technologies for energy systems; and integrated assessments of a wide range of energy-related environ- mental issues. EPA REVIEW NOTICE This report has been reviewed by the participating Federal Agencies, and approved for publication. Approval does not signify that the contents necessarily reflect the views and policies of the Government, nor does mention of trade names or commercial products constitute endorsement or recommendation for use. This document is available to the public through the National Technical Informa- tion Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161. ------- EPA-600/7-78-071 April 1978 PARTICULATE CONTROL FOR FUGITIVE DUST by B. H. Carpenter G. E. Weant, III Research Triangle Institute P.O. Box 12194 Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27709 Contract No. 68-01-4141 Taskl Program Element No. EHE624 EPA Project Officer: Dennis C. Drehmel Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory Office of Energy, Minerals, and Industry Research Triangle Park, N.C. 27711 Prepared for U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY Office of Research and Development Washington, D.C. 20460 ------- ACKNOWLEDGMENT The authors wish to thank Mr. Chuck Mann of EPA's National Air Data Branch for his assistance with the computer output necessary for the completion of this project. Special appreciation is extended to Mr. Dick Paddock of RTI for his assistance in obtaining the computer output. ii ------- TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Acknowledgment ii List of Tables v Abstract 57 1.0 CONCLUSIONS 1 2.0 RECOMMENDATIONS 2 2.1 Agricultural Tilling 2 2.2 Construction Activity 3 2.3 Stockpile and Waste Heap Data Base 3 2.4 Unpaved Roads 4 2.5 Control Techniques for Reentrained Street Dust 4 3.0 INTRODUCTION 5 4.0 EMISSION SOURCES 6 4.1 Area Sources 6 4.2 Industrial Sources 13 4.3 Paved Roads 13 4.4 The Magnitude of the Emission Problem 16 4.5 Impact of Emissions on TSP 23 4.6 Projections of Future Emission Trends for Major Fugitive Dust Sources 24 5.0 CONTROL TECHNIQUES 26 5.1 Physical Stabilization 26 5.2 Wet Dust Suppression 35 5.3 Chemical Stabilization 37 5.4 Vegetative Stabilization 41 5.4.1 Coal Refuse Piles 41 5.4.2 Mineral Refuse Piles 45 Copper Tailings 48 Uranium Tailings 49 Iron Tailings 49 Other Metallic Tailings 49 5.4.3 Control Efficiency 49 ill ------- TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont'd) Page 5.5 Other Control Methods 5.0 5.5.1 Speed Reduction 50 5.5.2 Street Cleaning 51 5.5.3 Reduction of Fall Distances 52 5.5.4 Enclosure 52 5.5.5 Exhaust Systems 53 5.6 Effect of Fugitive Emission Reduction on AQCR's 53 6.0 REFERENCES 55 ------- LIST OF TABLES Table 1 Area Source Emissions from AQCR's That Do Not Meet TSP Standards 7 2 Industries that are Considered to be Significant Sources of Fugitive Emissions 14 3 Comparison of the Contribution of Source Categories to Total Emissions in Three Counties of North Carolina for 1973 15 4 Comparison of Fugitive Emissions with Total Point Source Emissions 17 5 Fugitive Dust Control Methods for Agricultural Sources 27 6 Fugitive Dust Control Methods for Transportation Sources 28 7 Fugitive Dust Control for Materials Handling Sources 29 8 Fugitive Dust Control for Stockpiles and Waste Disposal Heaps 31 9 Fugitive Dust Control Methods for Mining Operations 32 10 Fugitive Dust Control for Solids Beneficiation Sources 33 11 Fugitive Dust Control for Construction Sources 34 12 Fugitive Dust Control of Miscellaneous Sources 34 13 Materials that Reduced Soil Loss for 180 Days Ranked by 1971 Cost 38 14 Materials that Reduced Soil Loss for 120 Days Ranked by 1971 Cost 38 15 Materials that Reduced Soil Loss for 60 Days Ranked by 1971 Cost 39 16 Species Used for Mine-Spoil Revegetation 42 .17 Species Recommended for Mineral Tailings Reclamation 46 18 Effect of Speed Reduction on Emissions 50 19 Effect of Speed Reduction on Emissions in Seattle's Duwamish Valley 51 ------- 1.0 CONCLUSIONS 1. Fugitive dust sources are significant emitters of particulates in a majority of the AQCR's. Of the 150 AQCR's that do not meet the TSP standards, fugitive dust emissions exceed point source emissions in 139,' or 92 percent. In fact, fugitive emissions are 10 times greater than point source emissions in 58, or 39 percent of the AQCR's. 2. In most cases, unpaved roads provide the largest source of par- ti cul ate emissions in the AQCR's. Agricultural tilling and construction sources are also very important and in some cases are the largest emitters. 3. The reentrainment of particles from paved roads is a source of large quantities of particulates in mariy'AQCR's. 4. Industrial sources of fugitive emissions are plentiful and can have a substantial impact on surrounding areas. 5. Fugitive dust sources can contribute significantly to the TSP burden of an entire AQCR as well as having an impact in a localized area. 6. The relationship between pollutant exposure and human health has been demonstrated. Increased hospitalization rates have been observed with increased particulate pollutant exposure. 7. More attention should be given to the control of fugitive dust emissions because of their contribution to ambient dust loadings. 8. Control effectiveness for fugitive sources is highly variable and depends on such things as type of control, characteristics of the source, local climatic conditions, and source activity. 9. Present control technology for unpaved roads, agricultural tilling, and construction activity is inadequate. Reducing the emissions from these activities by the amounts reported in the literature has on-ty a small influence on fugitive emissions in most AQCR's. ------- 2.0 RECOMMENDATIONS 2.1 AGRICULTURAL TILLING Agricultural tilling has the potential to generate large amounts of particulate emissions, possibly including pesticide residues. Thus, an important source of potentially adverse health effects exists. A study to characterize this source is highly recommended. An initial procedure to follow may look like the following: 1. Arbitrarily select several agricultural sites and collect ambient air and soil samples for analysis. 2. Measure airborne concentration and respirable fraction. 3. Analyze samples for residual pesticide content. If this initial program does show potentially adverse levels of pesticide residuals, a more detailed program such as the following would be recommended. Stage 1 - (Approximately 3 months in duration) 1. Obtain data on types and quantities of agricultural pes- ticides used. Relate quantities to geographical use. 2. Relate types of pesticides to application patterns, both recommended and actual. Stage 2 - (Approximately 3 years in duration) 1. Establish test plots where various pesticides can be applied to different types of soils. Physically iso- late each plot from the effects of the other plots. 2. Design a sampling program using recommended sampling procedures, and periodically sample test plots for pesticide residues. 3. Analyze ambient air samples from around the test plots during tilling operations and characterize the collected particles for particle size, particle identity, and pes- ticide residue content. Relate pesticide residue content to particle type. ------- 4. Perform bioassay tests using Level I Environmental Assessment procedures. 5. Relate the results to the population at risk. 2.2 CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY Construction activity has the potential to generate large amounts of fugitive dust. Along with the activity itself, the stripped land is subject to dusting from wind action. The possibility exists for hazardous emissions depending on the nature of the soil and rock that are being worked. The potential of the materal getting into surrounding water supplies by runoff is also present. To study emissions from construction activity, the following guidelines may be used: 1. Examine excavation methods. 2. Evaluate the effectiveness and extent of use of current control techniques. 3. Design a sampling program for a detailed evaluation of con- trolled and uncontrolled emissions from various construction activities. At a minimum, evaluate excavation, scraping, hauling, other vehicle travel on roads, and blasting. 4. Evaluate the effectiveness and extent of use of methods to stabilize exposed sites. 5. Propose new control methods and examine their effectiveness and economic impact. 6. Examine data on construction activity sources to develop improved procedures for completing accurate emission inventories. 2.3 STOCKPILE AND WASTE HEAP DATA BASE An examination of data from the NEDS file indicated that very little data on these types of emissions are included. A major study on cataloging these types of sources should be conducted. Large amounts of raw materials and wastes are piled each year. An inventory of these sources would require a major effort but could be beneficial to a number of studies. ------- 2.4 UNPAVED ROADS The data base on unpaved roads and parking lots should be refined by using more detailed and site specific data. A good start has been made on unpaved roads by using localized emission factors based on local characteristics (e.g., silt content) and local climatic factors (precipitation/evaporation index and number of dry days). However, better data on the local activity factors (vehicle miles) are needed. These data can be collected from State and local governmental agencies. The control techniques for unpaved roads are inadequate. A detailed study of new control techniques should be initiated. 2.5 CONTROL TECHNIQUES FOR REENTRAINED STREET DUST Recent studies have shown that reentrained dust from streets is a major contributor to the TSP loadings in urban areas. This source of dust pollution is usually not subject to any control. Street cleaning techniques have been found to be ineffective in most cases for reducing dust emissions from paved roads. However, the data are inconclusive, and more studies to test and develop new techniques are needed. ------- 3.0 INTRODUCTION Many Air Quality Control Regions (AQCR's) do not meet the primary and/or secondary standards for total suspended particulates (TSP). This project has made an estimate of the impact of fugitive dust emissions (i.e., nonducted emissions) on the TSP in these AQCR's. In making this estimate, the relation- ships between fugitive dust emissions and emissions from other sources were examined in each AQCR. The relationship of emissions to ambient concentrations was not explored except in a general fashion by examining published information on this relationship. Existing control technology for fugitive dust sources was also examined. The effectiveness of control techniques applied to various sources was esti- mated. When possible, data on fractional efficiency of control were presented. ------- 4.0 EMISSION SOURCES The Air Quality Control Regions that do not meet the total suspended particulate standards were identified from a published report. Emissions in each of these AQCR's were then examined to define relative importance for the various emission source categories. 4.1 AREA SOURCES The emission sources examined were those over which man has some control. In most cases, these sources were classified as area sources by the National Emissions Data System (NEDS) and include dirt roads, landings and takeoffs from dirt airstrips, agricultural tilling, construction, open burning, slash fires, and coal refuse fires. In the case of the first four sources listed, the data were taken from an updated card file that used countywide emission factors and activity levels. The resultant emissions data are thought to be more accurate than the data that used nationwide emissions factors because they are corrected by local silt content, precipitation/evaporation indexes, and dry days per year. Data on emissions from open burning, slash fires, and burning coal refuse piles also were obtained from NEDS. Of course, other area sources such as paved roads should also be considered in the area source calculations. How- ever, data on these types of emissions could not be obtained on a nationwide basis. The emissions from each of the above sources are presented in Table 1 for each of the AQCR's that do not meet the TSP standards. These are referred to as area source emissions. The emissions for AQCR's 244 and 246 are not tabu- lated due to a lack of data in NEDS, open burning contains emission data for residential, industrial, and commercial refuse burning. The data for coal refuse piles were generated using an emission factor of 10 kg/m3 (17 lb/yd3) and assuming that 5 percent of the pile burns each year.2 ------- TABLE 1. AREA SOURCE EMISSIONS FRpM AQCR'S THAT DO NOT MEET TSP STANDARDS AQCR 3 East Alabama 4 Metropolitan Birmingham 5 Mobil e-Pensacola-Panama City-Southern Mississippi Interstate 7 Tennessee River Valley-Cumberland Mountains Interstate 8 Cook Inlet 9 Northern Alaska 11 Southeastern Alaska 12 Arizona-New Mexico-Southern Border Interstate 13 Clark-Mohave Interstate 14 Four Corners Interstate 15 Phoenlx-Tuscon 16 Central Arkansas 17 Metropolitan Ft. Smith Interstate 18 Metropolitan Memphis Interstate 19 Monroe-El Dorado Interstate 20 Northeast Arkansas 22 Shreveport-Texarkana-Tyler Interstate 24 Metropolitan Los Angeles 25 North Central Coast 26 North Coast 27 Northeast Plateau 28 Sacramento Valley 29 San Diego 30 San Francisco Bay Area 31 San Joaquln Valley 32 South Central Coast 33 Southeast Desert / D1rt Roads 53.8 94.7 271.6 158.2 2.0 12.7 0.9 50.5 5.6 179.1 80.6 293.1 89.4 29.1 79.6 151.3 219.6 184.7 43.7 66.9 16.9 115.7 38.5 73.4 225.9 14.9 16.3 iREA SOURCE EMISSIONS (103 tons/year) D1rt LTO's 0 0 0 0.1 0.4 0.6 Neg. 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.6 0 0 Neg. Neg. Neg. 0.1 0.7 Neg. Neg. Neg. 0.3 Neg. 0.4 0.1 Neg. 0.1 Agricultural Tilling 1.3 3.3 15.1 7.3 0.2 Neg. Neg. 64.3 164.4 50.4 331.5 26.6 2.4 9.2 20.6 100.4 18.3 182.8 36.5 3.8 5.6 43.0 11.4 44.2 402.4 25.4 285.7 Open Burning 2.6 5.0 4.4* 3.6 0 0.5 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.3* 2.5 0.6 1.0 0.2 1.8 0.4 2.7 9.3 0.3 0.2 Neg.* 1.1 1.2 4.2 1.5 0.1* 0.1* Construction 30.8 86.7 176.7 89.7 36.2 13.0 8.2 6.3 22.5 36.0 105.6 55.4 37.8 48.8 73.5 29.3 346.0 2431.3 87.7 57.6 4.4 331.6 346.0 1210.5 380.9 33.4 14.8 Slash Fires 0 0 7.1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Coal Refuse2 0 Neg. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ------- TABLE 1. (cont'd) 00 AQCR 35 Grand Mesa 36 Metropolitan Denver 37 Pawnee 38 San Isabel' 42 Hartford-New Haven-Springfield Interstate 43 New Jersey-New York-Connecticut Interstate 45 Metropolitan Philadelphia Interstate 47 National Capital Interstate 49 Jacksonville-Brunswick Interstate 52 West Central Florida 55 Chattanooga Interstate 58 Savannah-Beaufort Interstate 60 Hawaii 61 Eastern Idaho 62 Eastern Washington-Northern Idaho Interstate 63 Idaho 64 Metropolitan Boise 65 Burllngton-Keokuk Interstate 67 Metropolitan Chicago Interstate 69 Metropolitan Quad Cities Interstate 70 Metropolitan St. Louis Interstate 73 Rockford-Janesv1l1e-Belo1t Interstate 75 West Central Illinois 77 Evans vIlle-Owensboro-Henderson Interstati 78 Louisville Interstate 79 Metropolitan Cincinnati Interstate 80 Metropolitan Indianapolis 84 Wabash Valley / Dirt Roads 46.6 14.3 43.0 47.5 39.3 93.5 61.4 29.3 156.7 70.4 102.6 49.7 * 45.6 72.3 104.5 14.5 117.5 197.5 92.8 179.6 67.6 150.8 90.0 28.9 77.3 85.7 x 194.9 \REA SOURCE EMISSIONS (103 tons/year) D1rt LTO's Neg. 0.3 0.1 Neg. 0 Neg. Neg. 0 Neg. 0 0 0 0 Neg. 0.2 0.1 0.3 Neg. Neg. Neg. 0 0 Neg. Neg. 0 0 Neg. 0 Agricultural Tilling 18.8 27.9 159.9 23.7 0.9 1.7 3.4 1.9 3.5 0.9 0.8 1.3 8.1 140.7 290.1 208.7 42.6 51.7 30.0 48.1 30.1 28.9 70.5 19.1 1.3 7.8 12.5 60.7 Open Burning Neg. 0.2 . Neg. 0.1 0.5* 9.8 0 0.8 0.4* 0.1* 0.5 1.2 0.7 0.7* 0.7* 0.8* 0.5* 2.0 9.2 2.8 2.1* 1.1 1.7 0.7 1.0 2.4 1.7 1.2 Construction 17.6 130.3 25.7 36.6 193.0 1572.2 850.6 115.3 149.2 148.8 60.2 36.4 64.5 133.0 153.1 156.7 164.5 69.2 944.8 62.9 198.4 53.5 94.5 72.3 72.6 200.7 169.4 134.3 Slash Fires 0 0 0 0 0 0 Neg. 0 17.5 11.6 3.5 2.3 22.2 6.4 Neg. 22.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Neg. 0 Neg. 0 0 Coal Refuse 0.1 0 2.2 24.2 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Neg. 0 0 0 0.2 0 0 0 0 ------- TABLE 1. (cont'd) AQCR 85 Metropolitan Omaha-Council Bluffs Interstate 86 Metropolitan Sioux City Interstate 87 Metropolitan Sioux Falls Interstate 88 Northeast Iowa 89 North Central Iowa 91 Southeast Iowa 92 South Central Iowa 94 Metropolitan Kansas City Interstate 95 Northeast Kansas 96 North Central Kansas 97 Northwest Kansas 101 Appalachian 102 Bluegrass 1 03 Hunt 1 ngton-Ashl and-Portsmouth- Ironton Interstate 107 Androscoggln Valley Interstate 109 Down East 112 Central Maryland 113 Cumberland-Keyser Interstate 115 Metropolitan Baltimore 117 Berkshire 118 Central Massachusetts 119 Metropolitan Boston 120 Metropolitan Providence Interstate 121 MerHmac Valley-South New Hampshire Interstate 123 Metropolitan Detroit-Port Huron 124 Metropolitan Toledo Interstate 126 Upper Michigan t D1rt Roads 29.3 47.7 52.3 119.0 239.3 80.3 148.1 66.2 114.1 105.8 120.1 110.4 53.2 106.8 25.2 12.8 7.4 19.9 40.6 7.9 25.1 31.4 71.2 90.3 91.0 42.3 149.6 iREA SOURCE EMISSIONS (103 tons/year) D1rt LTO's 0 0 0 Neg. 0 0 0 0.2 Neg. 0 Neg. Neg. 0 0 Neg. Neg. 0 0 Neg. 0 Neg. o9 0 Neg. 0 0 Neg. Agricultural Tilling 16.6 46.9 60.0 50.4 50.0 31.3 63.2 17.1 34.8 101.4 308.1 1.0 4.7 6.8 1.2 0.5 1.7 2.1 1.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.6 0.7 5.9 7.3 3.5 Open Burning ' 1.0* 1.3* 0.2 3.9 2.2 1.8 5.3 3.1 2.2 2.4 1.2 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.3 0.1 1.2* 1.9 Neg. • •W*J • 0.1 o 1.9 0.9 0.3 0.9 0.1 Construction 70.4 16.9 6.2 40.0 27.3 19.1 65.4 133.6 44.6 31.9 19.3 32.0 43.9 72.3 36.4 18.8 4.7 7.7 62.9 4.7 13.9 62.1 39.1 77.4 353.7 89.4 55!3 Slash Fires 0.7 Neg. Neg. Neg. Neg. 0 Neg. 5 0.8 2.2 o Neg. »wg • Nea ncy • Neg. f««.*y • o o o o o o o \J o o \J 0 o u o \J 0 Coal Refuse? 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Q 66.7 o 0 o o o 1 7 1 » / o o o \j n u 0 o u 0 ------- TABLE 1. (cont'd). AQCR 128 Southeast Minnesota-La Crosse Interstate 131.. Mlnneapolls-St. Paul 132 Northwest Minnesota 133 Southwest Minnesota 137 Northern Missouri 140 B1111ngs 141 Great Falls 142 Helena 143 Miles City 144 Mlssoula 145 L1nco1n-Beatr1ce-Fa1rbury 146 Nebraska 147 Nevada 148 Northwest Nevada 151 Northeast Pennsylvania-Upper Delaware Valley Interstate 152 Albuquerque-Mid Rio 153 El Paso-Las Cruces-Alamogordo Interstate 155 Pecos-Permlan Basin 158 Central New York 161 Hudson Valley 162 Niagara Frontier 164 Southern Tier West 173 Dayton 174 Greater Metropolitan Cleveland 176 Metropolitan Columbus 177 Northwest Ohio 178 Northwest Pennsylvanla-Youngstown Interstate 178 Parkersburg-Marletta Interstate j 01 rt Roads 246.9 55.9 180.8 111.3 190.4 41.3 38.2 44.0 70.2 38.9 42.7 326.7 13.6 33.7 287.8 25.3 86.5 58.3 93.0 136.8 39.8 63.7 50.2 0.8 0.5 7.2 246.2 47.7 \REA SOURCE EMISSIONS (103 tons/year) Dirt LTO's 0 0 0 0 0.1 Neg. Neg. Neg. 0.1 Neg. 0 Neg. 0.1 Neg. Neg. 0 0.1 Neg. Neg. 0.2 Neg. Neg. 0 Neg. Neg. 0 0.1 Neg. Agricultural Tilling 119.9 8.8 95.1 101.8 103.1 89.6 159.4 55.6 202.1 13.7 21.8 809.2 130.5 40.3 12.4 2.7 75.2 90.5 14.8 7.5 4.3 11.8 12.8 4.3 17.3 37.8 9.3 2.0 Open Burning1 1.0* 0.1* 0.3* 0.1* 0.3* 0.2 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.1* 0.3* Neg. Neg. 0* 0.6 0.5 0.4 1.0 1.3 1.1 0.5 1.6 5.3 1.8 0.9 1.0* 0.3 Construction 101.8 257.5 48.5 34.9 58.0 5.3 4.6 6.5 3.1 6.9 34.1 98.8 2.6 7.9 382.2 18.5 96.7 9.6 97.2 169.4 89.6 47.6 120.5 410.1 178.6 81.5 227.0 46.3 Slash Fires 0 0 0 0 0 2.9 1.3 14.6 1.5 15.1 Neg. 0.1 Neg. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Coal Re fuse 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10.2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.1 0 0 Neg. ------- TABLE 1. (cont'd). AQCR 180 Sandusky 181 Stubenv1lle-W1erton-Wheel1ng Interstate 184 Central Oklahoma 186 Northeastern Oklahoma 187 Northwestern Oklahoma 190 Central Oregon 191 Eastern Oregon 193 Portland Interstate 194 Southwest Oregon 195 Central Pennsylvania 196 South Central Pennsylvania 197 Southwest. Pennsylvania 205 Black Hills-Rapid City 207 Eastern Tennessee-Southwestern Virginia Interstate 208 Middle Tennessee 209 Western Tennessee 211 Amarlllo-Lubbock 213 Brownsville-Laredo 214 Corpus Chrlstl -Victoria 215 Metropolitan Dallas-Forth Worth 216 Metropolitan Houston-Gal veston 217 Metropolitan San Antonio 219 Utah 220 Wasatch Front 222 Central Virginia 223 Hampton Roads 225 State Capital 226 Valley of Virginia 227 Northern Washington K 01 rt Roads 28.9 52.0 70.8 135.2 81.4 78.3 108.3 152.0 61.3 235.1 226.5 300.4 21.4 455.9 126.3 103.7 104.2 37.9 51.8 87.1 87.2 79.4 82.2 35.5 54.8 18.0 26.5 49.2 51.1 REA SOURCE EMISSIONS (103 tons/year) Dirt LTO's 0.1 Neg. 0 0 Neg. Neg. Neg. 0.2 Neg. Neg. 0 Neg. Neg. 0 Neg. 0 0.1 Neg. 0.1 Neg. 0 0.1 Neg. 0.1 Neg. 0 0 0 Neg. Agricultural Tilling 10.3 2.3 30.4 14.8 167.8 52.0 96.2 6.0 1.7 13.7 16.5 5.0 27.0 6.2 8.2 18.6 585.5 83.3 75.3 70.6 25.8 56.9 108.6 16.9 2.6 1.4 1.6 6.3 48.3 Open Burning ' 0.4 0.5 1.0 2.4 0.9 0.1 0.2 2.1 0.4 0* 0* 0* 0.1 2.3 0.7 0.5 0.5 0.3 0.4 2.2 1.9 0.9 0.2 Neg. 0.5 0.4 0.5 0.9 0.1 Construction 37.5 51.6 124.7 128.5 21.7 16.2 13.4 210.7 24.4 185.0 275.9 472.5 5.2 131.5 91.6 34.9 185.5 96.7 201.3 875.4 1030.3 306.3 34.5 149.0 42.3 88.2 58.2 51.0 23.4 Slash Fires 0 0 0 0 0 4.0 1.7 24.4 3.9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.5 0.1 0 0 0 0 0.9 Coal Refuse2 0 0.6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40.4 1.7 112.3 0 5.3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ------- TABLE 1. (cont'd). • • AQCR 228 Olympla-Northwest Washington 229 Puget Sound 230 South- Central Washington 234 Kanawha Valley 237 Lake Michigan 238 North Central Wisconsin 239 Southeastern Wisconsin 240 Southern Wisconsin 243 Wyoming AREA SOURCE EMISSIONS (103 tons/year) D1rt Roads 52.9 64.5 60.6 53.9 104.5 59.1 55.3 69.9 75.6 D1rt LTO's Neg. 0.1 Neg. 0 0.1 0 0 0 0 Agricultural Tilling 0.7 0.2 145.2 0.3 33.0 11.6 8.4 38.2 97.3 Open Burning 0.3 0.5 0.4 0.1 1.2 0.4 3.9 0.7 Neg. Construction 78.7 354.1 64.3 46.6 45.4 16.0 74.6 30.7 13.0 Slash Fires 3.8 1.9 0.2 0 0 0 0 0 0.3 Coal Refuse2 0 0 1.3 32.1 0 0 0 0 0 1. Includes residential, Industrial, and commercial. 2. Emission factor of 17 Ib/yd3 - assume 1/20 burns per year Neg. = Negligible < 0.5 x 103 tons/year *Data missing or Incomplete ------- The data for the dirt road emissions were calculated by multiplying the number of vehicle miles traveled by a local emission factor. The vehicle miles traveled were based on a nationwide population extrapolation of data from Kansas where an accurate accounting has been made. A discussion with EPA personnel indicated that a check of these data with results from St. Louis indicated that rural data were within approximately 50 percent while urban data could be as much as two orders of magnitude high.3 For inclusion in Table 1, the computed values for dirt roads have been reduced by one order of magnitude. This reduction was arbitrarily selected. Some reported data were incomplete or missing, and these occurrences are so noted by an asterisk. 4.2 INDUSTRIAL SOURCES Some industrial sources have the potential to contribute significant 4 fugitive dust emissions. A list of these sources is shown in Table 2. Within these industries, there may be many sources of fugitive emissions. Some of the most important include raw material and product piles, waste heaps, materials handling equipment, comminution equipment, furnaces, and dryers. A search of the NEDS file provided data on the total emissions, number of industrial sources, and the percentage of the sources that are controlled in each of the AQCR's that do not meet the TSP standards. The data are presented in Table 4, columns 3, 8, and 9, respectively (Section 4.4 presents Table 4). 4.3 PAVED ROADS One source of fugitive emissions has been virtually neglected until recently. Paved roads have been shown to be significant contributors to particulate emissions. A study conducted in Seattle's Duwamish Valley compared dust emissions from paved and unpaved roads to emissions from industry and other sources. The results follow: 13 ------- TABLE 2. INDUSTRIES THAT ARE CONSIDERED TO BE SIGNIFICANT SOURCES OF FUGITIVE EMISSIONS Process Chemical Manufacturing TNT - open waste burning Fertilizer - ammonia nitrate Pesticides Asbestos - chemical Process Food/Agriculture Alfalfa dehydrating Cotton ginning Grain terminals Grain terminals - country Grain processing Barley feed manufacture Other Primary Metals Aluminum Metallurgical coke Copper Ferroalloys Iron Steel Lead Molybdenum Barium Gold Beryllium Mercury Zinc Secondary Metals Aluminum Brass/Bronze Gray iron Lead Magnesium Steel foundry Zinc Malleable iron Nickel Zirconium Process Mineral Products Asphalt concrete Brick Castable refractories Cement Ceramics/clays Concrete batching Coal cleaning Glass Gypsum Lime Mineral wool Phosphate rock Stone quarrying Salt mining Potash production Calcium borate Magnesium carbonate Sand and gravel Diatomaceous earth Asbestos Special materials - open pit Others Wood Products Sulfate pulping Sulfite pulping Paperboard manufacturing Plywood/particle board Sawmi 11 Furniture Waste Disposal Government, commercial, institutional, and industrial open burning Sludge incineration Auto body burning Railcar burning 14 ------- Emissions Percent of Source (tons/yr) Total Emissions Heavy industry 1200 24.5 Vessels, trains, auto 1000 20.4 tailpipes, home heating Gravel roads (19 mi) 2100 42.9 Paved roads (110 mi) 600 12.2 Other data presented in this study showed that a car driven 12 km (7.5 mi) at 16 km/h (10 mph) on a wet gravel road picked up 36 kg (80 Ib) of mud. Average pickup from dirt parking lots was 0.34 kg (0.74 Ib) per vehicle. Thus, mud pickup from unpaved roads and parking lots can contribute significantly to the amount of material that is deposited on paved roads. Another study examined the contribution of various sources including paved roads to the total particulate emissions in three counties in North Carolina. The results are shown in Table 3. TABLE 3. COMPARISON OF THE CONTRIBUTION OF SOURCE CATEGORIES TO TOTAL EMISSIONS IN THREE COUNTIES OF NORTH CAROLINA FOR 1973 Source Point Unpaved Roads Paved Roads Other Area Sources EMISSIONS BY SOURCE Mecklenburg County 74.0 14.9 5.6 5.5 CATEGORY (% OF TOTAL EMISSIONS) Forsyth County 8.7 77.8 7.2 6.3 Guilford County 9.6 76.6 6.8 7.0 Tire.wear debris has been examined as a source of airborne particulate. One study estimated that this debris was a relatively minor source accounting for 2 to 3 percent of the suspended particulate associated with vehicles. 15 ------- 4.4 THE MAGNITUDE OF THE EMISSION PROBLEM To estimate the magnitude of the emission problem associated with fugitive dust, the emissions were compared to the total point source emissions for each of the AQCR's that did not meet either the primary or the secondary TSP standards. The results are shown in Table 4. The data in this table were taken from several sources. The total point source emissions data (column 3) were taken from NEDS. The data for AQCR 119 and subsequent AQCR's were taken directly from the current NEDS file while the o data for AQCR's 3 through 118 were taken from a report that listed 1973 data. The reason for the different data sources was a computer problem that did not allow the acquisition of current data for the lower numbered AQCR's. The total industrial source emissions data (column 4) were acquired from the current NEDS File. These are the total emissions from the industrial sources listed in Table 2 (i.e., those industries that have been identified as potentially significant sources of fugitive emissions). The area source emissions (column 5) are totals from Table 1. Again, these data represent emissions from dirt roads, dirt LTO's, agricultural tilling, open burning, construction, slash fires, and coal refuse piles. The annual emission densities (columns 6, 7, and 8) represent the emission data divided by the land area of the AQCR (column 3). The number of industrial sources (represented by the emissions from column 4) are listed in column 9 and were obtained from the current NEDS File. Column 10 presents data on the percentage of industrial sources currently controlled in each AQCR. A simple analysis of the data in Table 4 shows the following results: Number of AQCR's % of Total Point Source > Area Source 9 6.7 Area > Point 139 92.0 Area 5 times greater than point 97 64.7 Area 10 times greater than point 58 38.7 Data Missing 2 1.3 Totals 150 100.0 16 ------- TABLE" 4. COMPARISON OF FUGITIVE EMISSIONS WITH TOTAL POINT SOURCE EMISSIONS AQCR No. 3 4 5 7 8 9 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 22 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 35 Area (103 ml2) 6.2 10.9 33.4 15.8 43.5 316.7 34.6 20.9 30.8 99.1 29.6 13.3 64.9 2.6 12.8 13.1 26.3 9.1 19.7 15.5 12.6 20.7 3.7 6.9 30.8 5.5 30.5 18.9 EMISSI Total Point Source 24.8 643.3 199.8 338.6 1.3 13.1 2.9 36.8 76.2 36.3 53.2 46.2 13.1 13.9 29.0 29.8 154.1 64.1 5.3 18.3 8.3 28.4 16.9 26.5 101.2 5.4 80.5 5.5 ONS flO3 t/yee Total Industrial Source 23.0 230.4 91.1 67.4 0.8 0.3 1.6 41.9 79.0 8.9 44.7 13.2 23.3 7.1 12.1 6.4 56.9 42.1 2.3 18.2 5.2 26.2 15.3 4.5 46.9 3.8 42.3 0.5 irl Total Area Source! 88.5 189.7 474.9* 258.9 38.8 26.8 9.2 121.5 192.9 266.2* 520.8 375.7 130.6 87.3 175.5 281.4 586.7 2808.8 168.2 128.5 26.9* 491.7 397.1 1332.7 1010.8 73.8* 317.0* 83.1 ANNUAL EMISSIONS DENSITIES (tons/ml 2) Point 4.0 59.0 6.0 21.4 Neg. Neg. 0.1 1.8 2.5 0.4 1.8 3.5 0.2 5.3 2.3 2.3 5.9 7.0 0.3 1.2 0.7 1.4 4.6 3.8 3.3 1.0 2.6 0.3 Industrial 3.7 21.1 2.7 4.3 Neg. Neg. Neg. 2.0 2.6 0.1 1.5 1.0 0.4 2.7 0.9 0.5 2.2 4.6 0.1 1.2 0.4 1.3 4.1 0.7 1.5 0.7 1.4 Neg. Area 14.3 17.4 14.2 16.4 0.9 0.1 0.3 5.8 6.3 2.7 17.6 28.2 2.0 33.6 13.7 21.5 22.3 308.7 8.5 8.3 2.1 23.8 107.3 193.1 32.8 13.4 10.4 4.4 Number of Industrial Sources 1n AQCR 179 409 1032 539 14 19 18 91 94 68 197 182 61 129 80 117 271 742 81 273 120 317 131 167 358 49 182 20 Industrial Sources Controlled (*) 33.5 40.1 44.3 46.0 64.3 31.6 38.9 82.4 78.7 52.9 56.3 52.7 47.5 72.1 58.6 .25.6 42.1 50.5 66.7 24.5 32.5 44.8 71.0 57.5 41.9 55.1 71.4 100 ------- TABLE 4. (cont'd). AQCR No. 36 37 38 42 43 45 47 49 52 55 58 60 61 62 63 64 65 67 69 70 73 75 77 78 79 . §0 84 is Area (103 ml2) 5.0 15.7 17.0 3.5 5.0 4.5 2.3 23.9 7.9 5.9 6.0 6.4 18.7 19.4 55.0 1.6 7.1 6.0 4.9 6.5 3.4 9.4 5.6 0.9 3.8 3.0 10.2 1.5 EMISS Total Point Source 24.7 9.7 142.5 38.4 65.2 200.1 37.8 70.7 54.6 53.2 55.9 41.8 11.1 19.3 8.8 2.0 169.1 322.3 44.8 111.5 11.4 81.0 61.2 154.0 200.3 29.7 134.6 35.6 IONS (IP3 t/ye Total Industrial Source 5.0 0.5 9.8 9.8 42.5 104.0 15.2 10.1* 3.6 19.1 1.0 13.5 2.0 6.4 2.9 4.3 40.4 333.9 7.5 94.5 4.9 20.7 21.5 62.0 17.8 25.2 49.2 1.1 ill Total Area Source! 173.0 230.9 132.1 233.7* 1677.2 915.4 147.3 327.3* 160.5* 167.6 90.9 95.5* 326.4* 516.4* 493.3* 222.4* 240.4 1181.5 206.6 410.2* 122.2 317.5 182.3 103.8 288.2 269.3 391.1 88.7* ANNUAL EMISSIONS DENSITIES (tons/ml 2) Point 4.9 0.6 8.4 11.0 13.0 44.5 16.4 3.0 6.9 9.0 9.3 6.5 0.6 1.0 0.2 1.3 23.8 53.7 9.1 17.2 3.4 . 8-6 10.9 171.1 52.7 9.9 13.2 23.7 Industrial 1.0 Neg. 0.6 2.8 8.5 23.1 6.6 0.4* 0.5 3.2 0.2 2.1 0.1 0.3 0.1 2.7 5.7 55.7 1.5 14.5 1.4 2.2 3.8 68.9 4.7 8.4 4.8 0.7 Area 34.6 14.7 7.8 66.8 335.4 203.4 64.0 13.7 20.3 28.4 15.2 14.9 17.5 26 ."6 9.0 139.0 33.9 196.9 42.2 63.1 35.9 33.8 32.6 115.3 75.8 89.8 38.3 59.1 Number of Industrial Sources 1n AQCR 91 20 64 103 657 398 128 * 48 179 17 79 50 167 77 34 160 507 155 280 47 78 121 393 60 102 176 107 Industrial Sources Controlled (*) 94.5 80.0 96.9 35.0 73.8 65.6 87.5 * 79.2 81.0 47.1 72.2 74.0 65.9 45.5 61.8 37.5 61.5 54.2 47.1 29.8 5.1 42.1 70.5 36.7 68.6 67.6 53.3 CO ------- TABLE 4. (cont'd). AQCR No. 86 87 88 89 91 92 94 95 96 97 101 102 103 107 109 112 113 115 117 118 119 120 121 123 124 126 128 131 Area (103 ml2) 3.2 3.1 7.1 8.4 5.2 10.0 4.2 8.6 11.6 19.7 7.7 4.3 8.1 9.1 7.6 0.7 1.8 2.2 0.9 1.5 2.9 2.5 5.2 2.6 1.5 25.7 21.4 2.8 EHISSI Total Point Source 8.1 6.0 69.1 45.5 6.1 50.7 56.4 26.2 21.1 15.6 241.3 26.8 164.6 26.1 9.7 2.3 111.6 42.1 1.2 9.4 6.0 5.0 3.0 70.2 35.1 131.2 54.3 25.3 QMS MO3 t/yea Total Industrial Source 5.6 2.4 4.7 33.4 0.4 23.0 25.6 22.6 3.3 0.1 193.9 1.5 41.0 22.0 6.6 0.9 1.5 7.8 0.6 4.8* 3.2 1.9 2.0 21.5 1.8 62.4 1.9 * £1 Total Area Source' 112.8* 118.7 213.3 318.8 132.5 282.0 86.6 196.5 243.7 448.7 210.5 102.3 186.5 63.3 32.4 13.9 32.6* 106.9 13.0 39.4 93.7 112.8 169.3 450.9 139.9 208.5 369.6* 322.3* ANNUAL EMISSIONS DENSITIES (tons/ml2) Point 2.5 1.9 9.7 5.4 1.2 5.1 13.4 3.0 1.8 0.8 31.3 6.2 20.3 2.9 1.3 3.3 62.0 19.1 1.3 6.3 2.1 2.0 0.6 27.0 23.4 5.1 2.5 9.0 Industrial 1.8 0.8 0.7 4.0 0.1 2.3 6.1 2.6 0.3 Neg. 25.2 0.3 5.1 2.4 0.9 1.3 0.8 3.5 0.7 3.2* 1.1 0.8 0.4 8.3 1.2 2.4 0.1 * Area 35.3 38.3 30.0 38.0 25.5 28.2 20.6 22.8 21.0 22.8 27.3 23.8 23.0 7.0 4.3 19.9 18.1 48.6 14.4 26.3 32.3 45.1 32.6 173.4 93.3 8.1 17.3 115.1 Number of Industrial Sources in "AQCR 25 48 108 99 34 190 242 169 38 34 112 85 188 237 159 59 87 213 25 * 11 5 8 32 12 21 8 * Industrial Sources Controlled (*) 40.0 37.5 75.9 73.7 47.1 51.1 56.6 49.1 34.2 32.4 20.5 35.3 43.6 33.8 17.0 81.4 79.3 61.5 12.0 * 18.2 60.0 12.5 21.9 50.0 52.4 75.0 * ------- TABLE 4. (cont'd). ro AQCR No. 132 133 137 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 151 152 153 155 158 161 162 164 173 174 176 177 178 179 180 181 Area (103 ml2) 27.2 11.9 24.0 25.6 23.8 28.1 47.4 19.1 2.8 72.1 91.6 - 9.4 11.2 5.2 40.9 23.5 8.8 8.0 1.6 6.0 2.7 3.5 4.0 6.5 12.2 3.5 2.0 2.5 EMISS Total Point Source 20.5 18.2 70.4 3.9 0.4 11.9 6.2 11.3 7.9 89.6 37.2 1.3 110.8 24.3 15.1 30.2 74.8 26.6 2.0 32.6 35.9 150.1 20.0 18.4 169.5 92.0 193.3 256.1 IONS flO3 t/yei Total Industrial Source * * 49.1 * * 11.3 * 8.6 3.4 56.9 37.2 1.2 66.5 24.3 13.1 30.1 * 5.5 0.3 * 7.6 79.5 5.5 2.0 45.6 64.5 109.6 64.3 irJL Total Area Sourcel 324.7* 248.1* 351.9* 139.3 204.1 121.2 277.5 75.0 98.7* 1235.1* 146.8 81.9 692.6* 47.1 259.0 158.8 206.0 315.2 134.8 123.6 185.1 420.5 198.3 127.4 483.6* 96.3 77.2 107.0 ANNUAL EMISSIONS DENSITIES (tons/ml*) Point 0.8 1.5 2.9 0.2 Neg. 0.4 0.1 0.6 2.8 1.2 0.4 0.1 9.9 4.7 0.4 1.3 8.5 3.3 1.3 5.4 13.3 42.9 5.0 2.8 13.9 26.3 96.7 102.4 Industrial * * 2.0 * * 0.4 * 0.5 1.2 0.8 0.4 0.1 5.9 4.7 0.3 1.3 * 0.7 0.2 * 2.8 22.7 1.4 0.3 3.7 18.4 54.8 25.7 Area 11.9 20.8 14.7 5.4 8.6 4.3 5.9 3.9 35.3 17.1 1.6 8.7 61.8 9.1 6.3 6.8 23.4 39.4 84.3 20.6 68.6 120.1 49.6 19.6 39.6 27.5 38.6 42.8 Number of Industrial Sources in "AQCR * * 57 * * 12 * 9 4 283 20 7 72 18 23 46 * 9 1 * n 55 11 12 77 4 21 62 Industrial Sources Controlled (*) * * 24.6 * * 83.3 * 55.6 25.0 2.1 70.0 100 50.0 16.7 43.5 50.0 * 77.8 100 * 63.6 36.4 18.2 41.7 39.0 100 71.4 27.4 ------- TABLE 4. (cont'd). ro AQCR No. 184 186 187 190 191 193 194 195 196 197 205 207 208 209 211 213 214 215 216 217 219 220 222 223 225 226 227 228 Area (103 ml2) 7.2 10.6 16.3 25.5 40.6 19.7 12.6 10.3 5.1 6.6 12.6 15.9 13.0 9.8 38.2 9.6 16.3 15.2 12.3 28.7 38.1 10.5 19.3 1.6 3.9 8.6 16.0 12.2 EHISS1 Total Point Source 1.1 40.7 0.8 5.2 14.6 28.4 9.3 121.4 88.0 191.3 6.7 179.4 141.7 7.5 31.1' 1.6 14.4 43.9 38.5 19.4 9.4 30.4 48.1 15.6 18.1 225.5 7.7 12.0 ONS (IP3 t/yea Total Industrial Source 0.9 16.6 0.8 0.5 0.5 12.9 2.3 45.3 45.5 36.5 3.0 53.2 4.1 4.1 10.6 0.8 8.1 28.2 11.2 14.4 6.9 22.2 28.6 1.8 6.4 146.5 5.2 2.7 rl Total Area Sourcel 226.9 280.9 271.8 150.6 219.8 395.4 91.7 474.2* 522.6* 890.2* 53.7 601.2 226.8 157.7 875.8 218.2 328.9 1035.3 1145.2 443.6 226.0 201.6 100.2 108.0 86.7 107.4 123.8 136.4 ANNUAL EMISSIONS DENSITIES (tons/ml 2) Point 0.2 3.8 0.1 0.2 0.4 1.4 0.7 11.8 17.3 29.0 0.5 11.3 10.9 0.8 0.8 0.2 0.9 2.9 3.1 0.7 0.2 2.9 2.5 9.8 4.6 26.2 0.5 1.0 Industrial 0.1 1.6 0.1 Neg. Neg. 0.7 0.2 4.4 8.9 5.5 0.2 3.3 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.1 0.5 1.9 0.9 0.5 0.2 2.1 1.5 1.1 1.6 17.0 0.3 0.2 Area 31.5 26.5 16.7 5.9 5.4 20.1 7.3 46.0 102.5 134.9 4.3 37.8 17.4 16.1 22.9 22.7 20.2 68.1 93.1 15.5 5.9 19.2 5.2 67.5 22.2 12.5 7.7 11.2 Number of Industrial Sources in "AQCR 2 14 7 4 2 42 13 42 42 75 17 75 14 12 18 2 14 50 34 27 7 28 33 13 15 82 7 10 Industrial Sources Controlled (X) 50.0 42.9 0 25.0 100 73.8 61.5 35.7 54.8 50.7 88.2 61.3 7.1 66.7 33.3 0 78.6 50.0 44.1 37.0 100 67.9 57.6 69.2 60.0 73.2 57.1 70.0 ------- ro ro TABLE 4. (cont'd). AQCR No. 229 230 234 237 238 239 240 243 Area (103 ra12) 6.2 12.6 1.2 10.3 12.1 2.6 6.8 60.6 EMISS Total Point Source 11.0 15.2 32.0 68.6 48.3 63.0 3.4 14.8 [QMS (IP3 t/ye; Total Industrial Source • 4.3 1.2 0.3 3.8 11.3 7.5 0.7 2.7 »rl Total Area Sourcel 421.3 272.0 133.0 184.2 87.1 142.2 139.5 186.2 ANNUAL EMISSIONS DENSITIES (tons/ml2) Point 1.8 1.2 26.7 6.7 4.0 24.2 0.5 0.2 Industrial 0.7 0.1 0.3 0.4 0.9 2.9 0.1 Neg. Area 68.0 21.6 110.8 17.9 7.2 54.7 20.5 3.1 Number of Industrial Sources in "AQCR 19 6 2 16 27 9 4 10 Industrial Sources Controlled 00 47.4 66.7 100.0 56.3 70.4 66.7 25.0 40.0 l. * Includes dirt roads, dirt LTO's, agricultural filling, open burning, construction, slash fires, and coal refuse fires. Data missing or Incomplete ------- As a further illustration of the magnitude of these area source emissions, examine the effect of cutting them in half. Even with this, area source emissions in 129, or 86 percent of the AQCR's are still greater than the total point source emissions. 4.5 IMPACT OF EMISSIONS ON TSP The evaluation of the impact of emissions on air quality requires a complicated, site-specific calculation that is beyond the scope of this report. Therefore, this report must concentrate on published results to evaluate fugitive dust impacts. In a recent paper describing the impact of fugitive emissions on TSP, it was stated that in a large industrial city whose TSP loading was influenced by fugitive emissions, the TSP on an annual basis averaged 25 yg/m3 higher Q than industrial areas not influenced by fugitive emission sources. This paper also stated that the results from 20 tsites in five heavily industrialized cities indicated that fugitive emissions increased TSP by 10 yg/m3. In discussions with various EPA personnel, it was brought out that fugitive dust emissions from dirt roads have a relatively minor effect on TSP. This statement was based on the assumption that the particle size of the dust from dirt roads is such that most particles fall out of the air within short distances from the dirt roads and that most dirt roads are located in rural areas away from the sampling stations. However, the study performed in Seattle showed that 27 percent of the dust from vehicles traveling over dirt roads at 32 km/h (20 mph) was suspendable (less than 10 pro in size), while 41 percent was suspendable at 48 km/h (30 mph). Further evidence of the substantial impact of fugitive dust emissions comes from Massachusetts. An item appearing in a weekly publication reported that the air of southeastern Massachusetts had been declared a hazard to public health and that 80 percent of the particulates came from windblown sand and road dirt.10 A followup discussion with Massachusetts officials indicated that the episodes occurred during the winter months and were the result of the reentrainment of sand that was used for vehicle skid control. 23 ------- A study of air quality maintenance areas in North Carolina found that the emissions inventories for particulate matter in several counties did not provide enough emissions to account for the ambient air quality measurements obtained in urban areas. The study concluded that paved roads contributed the substantial amount of emissions necessary to make up the difference in TSP observations in urban sections. To account for this difference, the emission factor that was based on the Seattle study was raised by a factor of 2.3 for Mecklenburg County where vacuum street cleaning is used and by 3.5 for Forsyth and Guilford Counties where no vacuum street cleaning is used. As a result, an acceptable calibration of the Air Quality Display Model (AQDM) was achieved. The data on both emission quantities and impact of emissions on TSP imply a strong relationship between fugitive dust emissions and nonattainment in many AQCR's. It must be emphasized that the precision and reliability of the data base used for this analysis is unknown, basically because of the inconsis- tencies in sampling, testing, and recording methodologies used throughout the network. However, NEDS is the only data base available for a study of this type. Therefore, the approach has been to rely on a comparison of relative magnitudes and not on an exact quantification of each piece of data. 4.6 PROJECTIONS OF FUTURE EMISSION TRENDS FOR MAJOR FUGITIVE DUST SOURCES The projections of future emissions from unpaved roads, agricultural tilling, and construction are difficult because of the lack of sufficient past data. Linear regressions were performed on data for earth road mileage built 12 13 by State highway departments, acreages of harvested crops, and constant dollar value of new construction put in place. The projections, based on 1960 to 1970 data, show that by late 1979 no new unpaved roads will be built by State highway departments. Of course, this type of projection creates its own inconsistencies because obviously, unpaved roads will continue to be built. In addition, it is difficult to project the trend in vehicle activity on unpaved roads and the paving of unpaved roads. 24 ------- The projection of acreages of harvested crops was based on consecutive yearly data from 1965 to 1974. The projection shows an increase in acreage of 4 percent from 1975 to 1980 and an increase of about 8 percent from 1975 to 1985. The projection of construction activity is based on value of new con- struction in place. This is difficult to relate to construction acres but is the best information available. The data show a 25 percent increase from 1975 to 1980 and a 43-percent increase from 1975 to 1985. 25 ------- 5.0 CONTROL TECHNIQUES Fugitive dust can emanate from a variety of sources that require a multitude of different emission control alternatives. In many cases, control techniques are applicable to a variety of sources in different industries. To discuss controls, this section will examine the application of control methods to different sources, estimate their relative effectiveness, and comment on their limitations. The results of this effort are presented in Tables 5 through 12. This is followed by a discussion of the major types of control. 5.1 PHYSICAL STABILIZATION Physical stabilization methods can be used for controlling fugitive dust from inactive waste heaps, unpaved roads, and other sites. Physical stabili- zation requires the covering of the exposed surface with a material that pre- vents the wind from disturbing the surface particles. Common physical stabilizer materials for inactive waste heaps and steep slopes include rock, soil, crushed or granulated slag, bark, wood chips, and straw that are harrowed into the top few inches of the material. For dirt roads, paving is a common practice. However, paving is expensive and, in most cases, must be preceded by roadbed buildup and improvement to prevent over- driving by vehicle operators. Other methods of physical stabilization of these sources include covering with elastomeric films, asphalt, wax, tar, oil, pitch, and other cover materials. Very little information is available on the effectiveness of physical control methods. One reference cites an 85-percent control efficiency with paving and right-of-way improvement on dirt roads. This control efficiency is dependent on how much dirt is brought onto the road and later reentrained by passing vehicles. 26 ------- TABLE 5. FUGITIVE DUST CONTROL METHODS FOR AGRICULTURAL SOURCES Source Type of Control Relative Estimated Effectiveness* Remarks or Restrictions Fields Spraying & Dusting of Pesticides & Fertilizers Agricultural Activity Wind Breaks Chemical Stabilizers Crop Plantings VP P Liquifaction F to G Wet Suppression Orchard Heaters Possible interactions w/ plants. May be restric- tive due to cost - temp. May be restrictive due to cost and lack of markets for off-season crops. May be restrictive due to cost or inconven- ience of changing to liquified sprays. After the pesticides dry, they may be sub- ject to dusting. Continual turnover leads to low efficiency of control. Additional problems include the possible short supply of water and the inabil- ity of cultivating equipment to carry enough water. No effective control * Abbreviations used in this column for Tables 5 through 12 are: VP = very poor P = poor F = fair G = good 27 ------- TABLE 6. FUGITIVE DUST CONTROL METHODS FOR TRANSPORTATION SOURCES Source Type of Control Relative Estimated Effectiveness Remarks or Restrictions Unpaved Roads Paved Roads Transport of Fines by Truck or Trai n Off-Highway Travel Road Shoulders Wet Suppression Stabilization Paving Mashing Vacuuming Wetting Covering (tarps) Enclosure None Stabilization Vegetation VP P G Speed Reduction Variable P P F G F G Temporary Temporary Cost—without improve- ment of road leads to psychological over- dri vi nq Costly, temporary Costly, temporary Temporary only Problems occur during loading and unloading and from leakage. Also costly. 28 ------- TABLE 7. FUGITIVE DUST CONTROL FOR MATERIALS HANDLING SOURCES Source Type of Control Relative Estimated Effectiveness Remarks or Restrictions Conveyors, Elevators, and Feeders Sprays at trans- fer points In-Plant Hauling Loading and Unloading Railcar or truck Barqe or Ship Foam sprays Enclosure of transfer points and exhaust Complete enclo- sure and exhaus- ting to control device Scraper Wetting Stabilization Enclosure Exhausting Enclosure or hooding <5f hatches Reduction of fall distance Wet Suppression Pneumatic System Tarpaulins over holds Reduction of fall distance F to G F F to G F G P to F P to F G P to F P to F Can use water or water plus a surfactant. Cannot be used where wet product is intoler- able to later process steps. Could be costly Costly—must be ducted to control device. Used to remove sticking material from belt. Effective in combination with other controls. Wetting of transported material is a temporary control but is effec- tive for short hauls. Not cost effective for short hauls. Costly By use of rock ladders, telescoping chutes, etc. Only applicable if wet product can be tolerated. Costly May establish a positive pressure in hold. There- fore, venting may be needed. Still causes disturbance of surface. Depending on material, could become clogged. continued 29 ------- TABLE 7. (cont'd) Source Type of Control Relative Estimated Effectiveness Remarks or Restrictions Barge or Ship (cont'd) Bagging Canopy with exhaust Enclosure and exhaust of receiving hoppers Enclosure of receiving hoppers Enclosure of operation Exhausting of enclosure Reduction of fall distance Wet Suppression Enclosure Waste Disposal Wet Material Handling Stacking of Products Dumping Covered or enclosed hauling system Sprays Enclosure F to G F to G F to G P to F P to F G Requires a control device—costly. Requires a control device—costly. May lead to problems of equipment abrasion due to retained dust—requires periodic cleaning. Extra cost for control Use of telescoping chutes, rock ladders, hinged-boom conveyors, etc. Temporary only May not be feasible due to type or amount of material. May be impractical due to type of material or disposal area. May pre- sent additional problems such as solubilization of metals, etc. Costly P to F May be impractical 30 ------- TABLE 8. FUGITIVE DUST CONTROL FOR STOCKPILES AND WASTE DISPOSAL HEAPS Source Type of Control Relative Estimated Effectiveness Remarks or Restrictions Stockpiles Waste Disposal Heaps Coal Refuse Pile Fires Wetting Stabilization P Enclosure F to G Wind Screen VP Separation of F fines that are sent to enclosed areas Wetting P Stabilization P to F Vegetation F to G Physical F to G Stabilization Wetting VP Trenching VP Covering, etc. VP Continuous operations on stockpiles preclude effecti ve control. Same as wetting May not be practical for all types of operations. Extra cost Temporary only Efficiency depends on type of material, type of stabilizer, etc. Temporary May be expensive due to cost of pretreating (fertilizing, etc.). No effective control No effective control No effective control 31 ------- TABLE 9. FUGITIVE DUST CONTROL METHODS FOR MINING OPERATIONS Source Type of Control Relative Estimated Effectiveness Remarks or Restrictions Overburden Removal Drilling Blasting Excavating and Loading Wetti ng Water, foam or surfactant injection Hooding and collection system Wetting Water ampul steming Proper technique Wetting VP F to G VP VP P P Continuous activity negates effective control Baghouses are common controls—costly. No effective control No effective control No effective control Continual disturbance precludes effective control 32 ------- TABLE 10. FUGITIVE DUST CONTROL FOR SOLIDS BENEFICIATION SOURCES Source Type of Control Relative Estimated Effectiveness Remarks or Restrictions Crushing Screening Classifying Wetting Enclosure Hooding and ducting to con- trol device Wetting Housing or enclosure Hooding and ducting to control device Enclosure and ducting Wet Classifica- tion Closed pneumatic system P to F F F to G P to F F to G F G Depends on type of prod- uct and crusher. Wet- ting can cause clogging. Can have problems due to abrasion of equipment by enclosed particles. Efficiency depends on type and design of con- trol and associated equipment. Wetting can cause clogging of fine screens. Not applicable for materials that require low moisture for subsequent process steps. May increase maintenance charges due to abrasion of screens. Periodic cleaning necessary. Costly—may add signifir cant cost per unit of product, especially in high volume, low price industries such as crushed stone. Only applicable if material can be wet for next steps. Appli cabi1i ty depends on material 33 ------- TABLE 11. FUGITIVE DUST CONTROL FOR CONSTRUCTION SOURCES Source Type of Control Relative Estimated Effectiveness Remarks or Restrictions Excavating Heaping of Excavated Materials Wetting Wetting Stabilizing VP to P P F to G Vehicle Travel See Unpaved Roads (Table 7) Demolition None Continual working pre- cludes effective control. Temporary only Stabilizing with a bind- er is an effective control method that is applicable to short term heaping of excavated material. Demolition may cause high, short-term exposure to asbestos from bulding materials. TABLE 12. FUGITIVE DUST CONTROL OF MISCELLANEOUS SOURCES Source Relative Estimated Type of Control Effectiveness Remarks or Restrictions Roof Monitors Open Burning Incineration Cooling Tower Drift Ducting to control device None Control Device F to G F to G Effectiveness depends on type of material and type of control Costly No effective control 34 ------- 5.2 WET DUST SUPPRESSION Wet suppression of dust using either water or water plus a wetting agent can be employed for temporary control of fugitive dust from agricultural activity, cattle feedlots, unpaved roads, transport of raw materials or products, materials handling and benefiication, stockpiles, waste heaps, and mining and construction activities. The temporary nature of wet suppression restricts its usefulness. In cases when there is continual activity at the source, the suppressive must be repeatedly applied to be useful. This is due to the continual exposure of dry surfaces to climatic elements and is applica- ble to agricultural activity, unpaved roads, and stockpiles. Water has proven to be a poor suppressive due to its high surface tension. The high surface tension interferes with the wetting, spreading, and penetrating necessary for effective suppression. Sufface tension can be reduced by the addition of wetting agents. These agents increase the effectiveness of wet suppression by: 1. allowing particles to penetrate the water droplet, and thus exposing a larger water surface; 2. agglomerating particles in the droplet; 3. increasing the number of droplets per unit volume, the surface area, and the contact potential through increased efficiency of atomization; and 4. causing the liquid to wet faster and deeper and spread farther. In addition to being a temporary control measure, wet dust suppression cannot be used where either the product or the next stage of processing will not tolerate a wet product. Examples of these instances include grain pro- cessing and certain beneficiation processes that require dry classification. Drying steps can be taken but present additional environmental problems as well as added costs. The wet suppression of dust is usually accomplished by spraying the water either with or without a surfactant onto the surface of the exposed material. For many mining and construction roads and other surfaces, this is usually done by a special truck equipped with a tank for the liquid and 35 ------- a series of spray nozzles in the front and back. For the transport of products and raw materials, the carrier vehicle is usually passed under a series of spray bars where the liquid is dispersed onto the surface of the material. For materials handling and beneficiation sources, nozzles located at trans- fer points and at equipment intakes spray the liquid on the material. For stockpiles, nozzles spray the liquid onto either the pile or the material as it is being transferred. For feedlots, a spray system is also appropriate. The application of wet dust suppression to many fugitive dust sources is not feasible. These sources include agricultural activity, unpaved roads, and waste heaps. Reasons for the infeasibility include the potential shortages of water, magnitude of source, lack of suitable equipment for transporting and dispersing water, and the temporary nature of the control method. In recent years, a new wet dust suppression system has been introduced. The use of foam systems has become an important dust suppression method. Foam systems have been successfully applied to both hard rock drilling 18 1Q operations and transfer points of conveyors. ' These systems have advantages over untreated water in that they increase the wettability, thus requiring a smaller supply of wetting fluid, and in the case of drilling operations, they prevent over-injection of water into the hole which in turn can cause collaring of the bit and decreased penetration rates. Data on the control efficiency of wet dust suppression is minimal. One reference cited as much as 80 percent control for cattle feedlots, but this is very much dependent on soil conditions, local climatic conditions, number of cattle, activity level, and many other things. This same reference reported efficiencies of 30 to 67 percent for highly disturbed to nondisturbed storage piles, and efficiencies of 0 to 70 percent for construction site watering. Observations made by this author in several North Carolina granite quarries have shown substantially reduced emissions from processing plants, haulage roads, and drilling rigs using wet dust suppression with surfactants.17 36 ------- Control efficiencies from drilling storage piles and construction sites will depend on many factors, including type of material and percentage of fines, local climatic conditions, type of equipment being used, moisture, and activity rate. A recent study has examined the use of water sprays and foam on materials 19 handling processes. At a coal chain feeder-to-conveyor transfer point with a 3-ft material drop, water controlled 70 percent of the emissions while the foam spray controlled 91 percent. These numbers represent control with a spray under the belt as well as at the transfer point. Under-the-belt sprays were shown by this report to be effective in controlling dust at conveyor transfer points when used in conjunction with transfer point sprays. 5.3 CHEMICAL STABILIZATION Chemical stabilization requires the use of binding materials that, upon drying, bind with surface particles to form a protective crust. It acts in much the same way as physical controls by isolating the surface from climatic factors and is often used in combination with vegetative stabilization. Appli- cations of chemical stabilization are found on agricultural fields, unpaved roads, waste heaps, and excavation heaps. Evaluations of the suitability of various chemical stabilizing materials have been reported in the literature. In one study evaluating the cost and 20 effectiveness of 34 stabilizers, the evaluation criteria were cost, preven- tion of wind erosion, effect on plant germination and growth of tomatoes and beans, and ease of application. Those stabilizers that proved effective for reducing wind erosion from the piles for 180, 120, and 60 days are ranked by cost in Tables 13, 14, and 15. A later report presented the results of the Bureau of Mines tests on 70 different chemicals.21 Water and wind erosion tests were performed in the laboratory on applications of these chemicals to various types of mill tailings. The more effective chemicals of those tested are listed below in order of their 2 19 relative effectiveness based upon the cost required to stabilize 1 yd . Long-term effectiveness to wind erosion was not measured. The results of their ranking follow. 37 ------- TABLE 13. MATERIALS THAT REDUCED SOIL LOSS FOR 180 DAYS RANKED BY 1971 COST Product Manufacturer Nonerosion Rate (per acre) 1971 Cost ($) Ranked by Effectiveness Elvanol 50-42 Technical Pro- tein Colloid 5-V Geon 652 Aquatain ORTHO Soil Mulch Anionic Asphalt Emulsion AGRI-MULCH Soil Erosion Control Resin Adhesive Z-3876 E. I. du Pont 13 Ib Swift & Co. 108 Ib Goodrich Chemical 17 gal Larutan Corp. 68 gal Chevron Chemical 681 gal Phillips Petroleum 1226 gal Douglas Oil 954 gal Swift & Co. 571 gal 8.20 34.60 51.20 172.50 242.20 436.70 445.70 1,159.90 6 5 8 7 1 3 4 2 TABLE 14. MATERIALS THAT REDUCED SOIL LOSS FOR 120 DAYS RANKED BY 1971 COST Product Elvanol 50-42a Polyco 2460b Technical Pro- tein Colloid 5-V Polyco 2605C Geon 652 Curasol AE Gantrez ES-3351 Aqua tain ORTHO Soil Mulch Anionic Asphalt Emulsion ASRI -MULCH Soil Erosion Control Resin Adhesive Z-3876 Nonerosion Rate Manufacturer (per acre) E. I. du Pont Borden Chemical Swift & Co Borden Chemical Goodrich Chemical American Hoechst GAFd Larutan Corp. Chevron Chemical Phillips Petroleum Douglas Oil Swift & Co. 13 Ib 17 gal 108 Ib 17 gal 17 gal 42 gal 17 gal 68 gal 681 gal 1226 gal 954 gal 571 gal 1971 Cost ($) 8.20 26.90 34.60 40.80 51.20 89.70 103.10 172.50 242.20 436.10 445.70 1,159.90 Ranked by Effectiveness 9* 8 3 10* 7 11** 12** 5 4 2 6 1 Discontinued. Replaced by Polyco 2445. cReplaced by Polyco 2607. j jt - ,» Originally General Analine & Film Co. Tie. Tie. 38 ------- TABLE 15. MATERIALS THAT REDUCED SOIL LOSS FOR 60 DAYS RANKED BY 1971 COST Product Manufacturer Nonerosion Rate 1971 (per acre) Cost ($) Effectiveness Elvanol 71-30 CMC-7-H Elvanol 50-423 WICALOID Latex 7035 (AD) . Polyco 2460b SBR Latex S-2105a CMC-7-M Technical Pro- tein Colloid 5-V COHEREX . Polyco 2605d Gantrey An- 11 9 Geon 652 Curasol AE Gantrez ES-3351 Aquatain ORTHO Soil Mulch Aniom'c Asphalt Emulsion AGRI -MULCH Soil Erosion Control Resin Adhesive Z-3876 Experimental Discontinued. Replaced by Polyco E. I. du Pont Hercules Inc. E. I. du Pont Wica Chemical Borden Chemical Shell Chemical Hercules Inc. Swift & Co. Golden Bear Oilc Borden Chemical GAFe Goodrich Chemical American Hoechst GAFe Larutan Corp. Chevron Chemical Phillips Petroleum Douglas Oil Co. Swift & Co. Ashland Oil Co. d 2445. e 13 Ib 11 Ib 13 Ib 17 gal 17 gal 17 gal 43 Ib 108 Ib 170 gal 17 gal 40 Ib 17 gal 42 gal 17 gal 68 gal 681 gal 1223 gal 954 gal 571 gal 51 gal Replaced by Originally 6.90 7.30 8.20 14.40 26.90 27.40 28.40 34.60 34.60 40.80 43.60 51.20 89.70 103.10 172.50 242.20 436.. 0 445.70 1,159.90 ? Polyco 2607. General Analine 8 20 6 14* 18 13 16** 12 5 9 11 17** 7 19 15* 3 2 4 1 10 & Film Co. :Now Witco Chemical, Golden Bear Division. K Tie. ** ;Tie. 39 ------- 1. COHEREX - good wind resistance at coverage of 240 gal/acre at cost of $65/acre, good water-jet resistance at cost of $650/acre. 2. Calcium, sodium, ammonium lignosulfonates - effective stabilizers at coverage of 2400 Ib/acre at cost of $130 to $170/acre. 3. Compound SP-400, Soil Gard, and DCA-70 - wind and water resistant surfaces at coverage of 55, 90, and 50 gal/acre, respectively. Cost of about $130/acre. 4. Cement and milk of lime - effective stabilization at costs of about $190/acre. 5. Paracol TC 1842 - effective stabilizer at cost of about $250/acre. 6. Pamak WTP - effective at cost of $250/acre. 7. Petroset SB-1 - effective at cost of $250/acre. 8. Potassium silicate (Si02 to K20 ratio of 2.5) - effective at $450 to $950/acre. 9. PB-4601 - effective at $500/acre. 10. Cationic neoprene emulsion and Rezosol - effective at $500/acre. 11. Dresinol TC 1843 - effective at $500/acre. 12. Sodium silicates (Si02 to Na20 ratios of 2.4 to 2.9 to 1) - effective at about $200/acre, with calcium chloride additive, amount of sodium silicate was reduced. One reference has estimated control efficiencies of chemical stabilization on a number of sources. Examples of these estimates are as follows: Source Efficiency (%) Unpaved roads 50 Construction - completed cuts and fills 80 Agricultural fields 40 Tailings piles 80 Continuous spray of aggregate as it is piled 90 Cattle feedlots 40 The effectiveness of chemical stabilization of unpaved roads would seem to be extremely variable based on the amount of traffic. Heavy traffic would tend to break up the surface crust, pulverize particles, and eject them 40 ------- Into the atmosphere in much the same manner as if the road were untreated. Likewise, with cattle feedlots, the effectiveness would seem to be heavily depen- dent on the activity in the feedlot. It would seem that continuous spraying of aggregate as it is piled could be highly variable depending on such things as the quantity of fines in the mix, type of stone, etc. In addition, the activity level of the storage pile is also important. 5.4 VEGETATIVE STABILIZATION Vegetation can be effectively used to stabilize a variety of exposed surfaces. In many cases, modifications must be made to the surface or the surrounding terrain before effective stabilization can occur (e.g., fertili- zation, pH modification, and slope reduction). Vegetative stabilization for the control of fugitive dust is restricted to inactive areas where the vegetation will not be mechanically disturbed once it is started. These sources can include refuse piles (coal and mineral) and road shoulders. 5.4.1 Coal Refuse Piles Coal mining and preparation usually produce both fine and coarse waste materials. These materials consist of low grade coal, ash, carbonaceous 23 and pyritic shale, slate, clay, and sandstone. The principal problems encountered in the vegetative stabilization of coal refuse piles occur as a result of the acidic nature of the wastes and from the slopes of the piles' sides. Thus, chemical or physical treatment of the piles' components must be accomplished prior to effective stabilization. Chemical treatment usually involves the addition of a soil neutralizing material such as agricultural limestone. Other materials such as fly ash, mined phosphate rock, and treated municipal sewage sludge have also been used.23 Even with a neutralization pretreatment, it is recommended that acid-tolerant vegetative species be used for stabilization because the sulfide materials in the waste can oxidize to acid sulfates and thus lower the pH of the soils. Physical treatment of the piles usually involves such things as the burying of high pyritic materials, covering the spoils with a layer of top- soil, or grading to reduce slopes of the piles. A good premining restora- tion plan can be effective for efficient physical treatment methods. 41 ------- Many species of plants have been used for the stabilization of coal mine refuse piles. Table 16 shows species used for this purpose and 23 coded comments on their use. For a detailed discussion of these plants and their uses refer to reference 23. TABLE 16. SPECIES USED FOR MINE-SPOIL REVEGETATION 23 Vegetation GRASSES Alkali Sacaton Bahiagrass Bermudagrass Bl uegrass Bluestem Bottlebrush Squirrel tail Bromegrass (field, smooth) Deertongue Fescue Foxtail Grama (blue, sideoats) Indian Indian Ricegrass Millett Need! egrass Oatgrass (tall) Orchardgrass Povertygrass Prairie Sandreed Grass Redtop Reed Canarygrass Rye Ry egrass Sand Dropseed Sheep Sorrell Sorghum Switchgrass Timothy Weeping Lovegrass Wheat Wheatgrass Wildrye East +W ++W,D,S *C * +R,T +A ++ * +R,T,W •f + N +C,T * +W +C,R,T * +T +W * ++A,R,W * Midwest West Alk,D,S +W,D,S +C N + +D -H- + +C +D * * * ++ +C + +T + * +C,R,T *C,R,T • * +A -H-A,R,W ++A,R,W *T •H-Alk,D,S *D continued 42 ------- TABLE 16. (cont'd) Vegetation East Midwest West LEGUMES Alfalfa Birdsfoot Trefoil Cicer Milkvetch Clover (red, white) Crownvetch Flatpea Kudzu Lespedeza (Sericea, Kobe, Korean) Narrowleaf Trefoil Sweetclover SHRUBS AND VINES Arrowwood Black Chokeberry Bladder Senna Bristly Locust Buffaloberry Coral berry Greasewood Honeysuckle Indigobush Japanese Fleeceflower Juniper Matrimony Vine Multiflora Rose Olive (autumn, Russian) Rabbitbrush Russian Thistle Sagebrush (big) Saltbush Sassafras Scotch Broom Shadscale Silky Dogwood Sumac (fragrant, shining, skunkbush, smooth) + ++C * -H-C +A,C * ++A +Alk * •H-A,R +A * ++A,Alk,R N +A,W +A -H-C * •H-A ++A,R * +A +A +W +D +C * +D +Alk,S +Alk,D,S +D +Alk,D,S -H-Alk,D,S N ' +Alk,D,S +Alk,D,S +D,N -H-Alk,D,S continued 43 ------- TABLETS, (cont'd) Vegetation East Midwest West TREES Ailanthus Alder (black) Apple Ash (green, white) Aspen Austrian Pine Bald Cypress Birch (gray, river, white) Black Cherry Black Locust Black Walnut Caragana Cedar (red) Chestnut Oak Cottonwood Crabapple Dogwood Douglas Fir Elm (Siberian) Hazel nut Jack Pine Japanese Black Pine Larch (European, Japanese) Loblolly Pine Longleaf Pine Maple (red, silver, sugar) Mugho Pine Oak (bur, chestnut, red, white) Osage Orange Pitch Pine Ponderosa Pine Poplar (hybrid, yellow) Redbud Red Pine Scotch Pine Shortleaf Pine Spanish Pine ++A,R *C * N *A +A *A ++A,R ++A,R N,C * ++A,R +D * * +A,C * + (Japanese) -H-W *W +A +A +A (red) *A +A,C N,C +D,S,Alk +A ++A,W *A +A,C + * *D *D continued 44 ------- TABLETS, (cont'd) Vegetation East Midwest West Spruce (Norway, red, white) - * Sweetgum + + Sycamore ++ ++ Virginia Pine +A + White Pine + * Willow (tall) N + * Yucca +D + - Recommended •H- - Highly Recommended * - Used - Failed A - Recommended for acidic spoils (pH less than 5.5) Alk - Recommended for alkaline spoils C - Recommended for cooler climates D - Recommended for dry regions (less than 18 inches (46 cm) of precipitation per year) N - Native or volunteer plant, not necessarily recommended R - Recommended for rapid stabilization and erosion control S - Recommended for saline spoils T - Temporary or short-lived crop W - Recommended for warmer climates Blank - No information 5.4.2 Mineral Refuse Piles Mineral mining and beneficiation produce wastes in the form of over- burden, gangue, and tailings. Overburden and gangue do not usually present problems to vegetative stabilization. However, tailings can present varied and extreme problems due to a deficiency of nutrients, saline or toxic 23 properties, and variable pH. Most tailings stabilization is accomplished by first covering the waste with a layer of topsoil and then by establishing a vegetative cover. Without the topsoil cover, vegetation usually requires the assistance of other wind erosion preventatives such as mulches, chemical coatings, rapidly established plant covers, and watering.23 However, even with these aids, stabilization of many mineral wastes has not been effective. Table 17 shows some plant 45 ------- 23 species that have been used on various mineral tailings piles. Most species are very site-specific with small changes in topography, climate, and tailings composition affecting their growth success. TABLE 17. SPECIES RECOMMENDED FOR MINERAL TAILINGS RECLAMATION23 Vegetation East Midwest West GRASSES Bahiagrass Barley Bentgrass (fine) Bermudagrass Bluegrass Bromegrass Buffel Grass Fescue Indian Ricegrass Milomaize (see Sorghum) Pangolagrass Pubescent Wheatgrass Quack Grass Rye Ryegrass Saltgrass Sorghum Switchgrass Timothy Weeping Lovegrass Wheat Wheatgrass Wildrye (Russian) LEGUMES Alfalfa Birdsfoot Trefoil Clover Sweetclover D.P.W +P continued +Fe, Cu +Fe +Fe +Cu: Alk,S *Fe *P *Fe +Fe *Fe *Fe: R,T *P *P *Fe -H-V: R +Cu *U: +Cu: +Cu: +Cu: *0 *Cu *A1 •H-0 -Cu *Cu +Cu: -Cu +A1, •H-Cu +Cu -H-Cu +Cu: C C Alk C C,T Cu: ,U,V: D ,s W t Alk.S +Cu +Cu: D,S +Cu, V 46 ------- TABLE 17. (cont'd) Vegetation East Midwest West TREES, SHRUBS, AND VINES Alder +Fe Aspen +Mo: C Austrian Pine * Birch +Fe: Alk Black Locust +Fe *Fe Blue Palo Verde +Cu: Alk,D,S Bristlecone Pine +Fe Bristly Locust +Cu Cacti +Cu: D,W Caragana +Cu Cottonwood +Cu Creosote Bush +Cu: Alk,D,S Datura +Cu: Alk,D,S Desert Broom +Cu: Alk,D,S Desert Encelia +Cu: Alk,D,S Desert Tobacco +Cu: Alk,D,S Desert Willow +Cu: Alk,D,S Douglas Fir Eucalyptus +Cu: N,S Greasewood -Cu Hopseed Bush +Cu: Alk,D,S Isenberg Bush +A1 Jack Pine +Fe Japanese Black Pine +Fe Juniper +Cu,Mo Kochia +Cu .,,„«. Mesquite +Cu: Alk,D,S l^yrtle New Mexico Forestiera New Mexico Locust Olive (Russian) ... n Peru Pepper +Cu: Alk.D Poplar (hybrid) -H-Fe TjliCufll,, n c Rabbitbrush +Cu: Alk'D»s Red Pine +Fe _ ... c Ruby Sheepbush TJu: Alk'5 Russian Thistle ^u ... _ ca«Qkv.i,ch (hi*} +Cu: Alk.S Sagebrush (big; ... Saltbush continued 47 ------- TABLE 17. (cont'd) Vegetation East Midwest West Scouring Rush Cu: N Shortleaf Pine +Fe Spruce (Engelmann) +Mo: C Tamarisk +Cu: Alk,S + - Recommended ++ - Highly recommended * - Used - - Failed .Al - Bauxite spoils Alk - Recommended for alkaline spoils C - Recommended for cooler climates Cu - Copper tailings D - Recommended for dry regions (less than 18 in. of precipitation per year) Fe - Iron ore tailings Mo - Molybdenum tailings N - Native or volunteer plant, not necessarily recommended 0 - Oil shale P - Phosphate spoils R - Recommended for rapid stabilization and erosion control S - Recommended for saline spoils T - Temporary or short-lived crop U - Uranium spoils V - Vanadium spoils W - Recommended for warmer climates Copper Tailings— The establishment of vegetation on copper tailings is very site-specific. Even with piles in the same general geographic area, it is often difficult to establish the same type of vegetation. In the western United States, copper tailings have been stabilized with vegetation. In most cases, maintenance in the form of liming, fertilizing, and irrigating after planting is required. However, at Magma, Utah, a form of permanent vegetative stabilization seems to have been established with natural vegetation.invading the pile.23 48 ------- Uranium Tailings-- Uranium tailings in Colorado have been stabilized using sweet brome, sweetclover, cereal rye, barley, alfalfa, and various wheatgrasses.23 There has been very little invasion by natural species, and continual maintenance is required. Iron Tailings— The vegetative stabilization of iron tailings in Pennsylvania and Minne- sota has been relatively successful. Initial stabilization with grasses and legumes followed by the planting of woody plants seems to have been success- 23 ful. Invasion by native vegetation heightens the propspect of a permanent, maintenance-free stabilization site. Other Metallic Tailings— In most cases, plants tolerant to specific conditions must be applied to metallic tailings piles. Some success has been demonstrated with varieties of grasses on gold mining slimes and sands; some species of grasses have been found to be tolerant to lead and zinc; but little long-term success has been 23 demonstrated with rye on molybdenum tailings. 5.4.3 Control Efficiency The control efficiency of vegetative stabilization should vary con- siderably with differences in the amount and type of cover established on the tailings piles. One report estimates a control efficiency of from 50 to 80 percent. This estimate was made using the wind erosion equation and is not based on a measured efficiency. This same report estimates a 93-percent reduc- tion in windblown emissions with a combined chemical/vegetative stabilization program. It would seem reasonable to assume that these control efficiencies could be achieved. In fact, efficiencies of 100 percent should be approached with complete vegetative covering on some sources. 49 ------- 5.5 OTHER CONTROL METHODS Numerous other control methods are available for various sources of fugitive emissions. Some of the most important include speed reduction on unpaved roads, street cleaning of paved roads, reduction of fall distances for materials handling, and enclosure, hooding, and ducting. 5.5.1 Speed Reduction Reducing the speed of vehicles traveling over unpaved roads has been shown to reduce the dust emissions from such travel. A reduction in vehicle speed reduces both the pulverization of road material and the turbulent wake of the vehicle. A well-quoted source has shown the following results from vehicle travel at various speeds on dirt roads (Table 18). 18 TABLE 18. EFFECT OF SPEED REDUCTION ON EMISSIONS Average Vehicle Speed (mph) Dust Emissions (Ib/vehicle mile) Emissions Compared to Those at 40 mph (%) 40 35 25 15 2.50 1.47 0.70 0.48 100.0 58.8 28.0 19.2 In another report, the results of a study in Seattle's Duwamish Valley have shown comparatively higher emissions. In addition, this study showed significant reductions in the quantities of suspendable particulates with speed reduction. The results are shown in Table 19. 50 ------- TABLE 19. EFFECT OF SPEED REDUCTION ON EMISSIONS IN SEATTLE'S DUWAMISH VALLEY Vehicle Speed (mph) 30 20 10 Total Emissions (Ib/vehicle mile) 22.2 7.0 3.5 Suspendable Emissions (Ib/vehicle mile) 9 2 0.5 Total Emissions Compared to Those at 30 mph 100.0 31.5 15.8 Suspendable Emissions Compared to Those at 30 mph 100.0 22.2 0.1 5.5.2 Street Cleaning With the recent interest on reentrained dust from paved roads as a source of air pollution, attention has been focused on street cleaners as dust control devices. Essentially three types of cleaners are now in use: broom sweepers, flushers, and vacuum and regenerative air sweepers. Their effectiveness has not been overwhelmingly demonstrated. Streetside samples have shown concen- tration reductions but regional samplers have shown no reductions. Broom sweeping has been shown to reduce the average concentration of dust 24 in one study but has been shown to be ineffective in two others. It has been estimated that this type of sweeper picks up 20 percent of the material below 140 ym.25 Also, while recovering this paltry amount of material, the sweeper can actually generate air pollution by stirring up the dust and by moving the material from the curbs into the middle of the road where it can be reentrained by passing vehicles. Flushing showed significant particulate reduction in two studies and no effect in two other studies. In a fifth study, flushing showed no reduction in the average monthly concentration but did show reduction on days when flushing 94 took place. 24 Vacuum and regenerative air sweepers have been shown to be ineffective. 51 ------- Two studies on mud carryover control showed substantial reductions in 24 particulate concentrations. These studies involved manual cleaning at a construction site egress and strip paving and oiling of unpaved parking lots, roads, and shoulders on an areawide basis. 5.5.3 Reduction of Fall Distances During the transfer of dusty materials from a conveyor or stacker to another location such as another conveyor or a stockpile, the separation of the fine materials from the large materials can be caused by wind and/or the falling action of the material. A simple method to reduce dusting from these operations is to reduce the fall distances by using hinged-boom conveyors, rock ladders, telescoping chutes, lowering wells, or other devices. The hinged- boom conveyor can raise or lower the conveyor belt and, thus, reduce the fall distance at the transfer point. Rock ladders allow the material to fall small distances in a step-like fashion. By reversing the direction of travel on successive steps, the momentum that the material receives from the previous fall and the dusting are reduced. Telescoping chutes carry the material from the discharge point to the receiving point. Thus, the material is not exposed. Lowering wells, or perforated pipes, allow material to flow out of the pipe above the pile sur- face. The dusting from the impact of the falling material is retained inside the pipe, and the material is protected from wind action. 5.5.4 Enclosure Simple enclosure of a fugitive dust source is an effective control method in some cases. It has been applied to a number of sources including storage of products, loading and unloading operations, product bagging opera- tions, and classification operations. In process operations, periodic cleaning is necessary and may preclude application. The enclosure of sources without providing adequate exhaust is not applicable to sources where abrasive materials are handled. This is especially true in hard rock processing plants where a high quartz content of the rock abrades the equipment. Enclosure is also not applicable to sources whose dust would present the danger of explosion such as in many grain handling operations. 52 ------- 5.5.5 Exhaust Systems Many process sources of fugitive dust emissions can be controlled by the use of exhaust systems in combination with full or partial enclosure or full- er partial-coverage hoods and the associated ducting. Examples of sources amenable to this type of control include materials handling (i.e., conveyors, elevators, feeders, loading and unloading, product bagging, and stockpiling), solids beneficiation (i.e., crushing, screening, and other classifying), mining operations (i.e., drilling), and others (i.e., furnaces and dryers). Complete enclosure of conveyors, elevators, or feeders has been practiced. Another alternative is to enclose the transfer points. Hoods as well as enclosures can be used on many loading and bagging operations. For solid beneficiation processes, both enclosures and hoods are used. For drilling operations, enclosure of the drill hole and ducting to a baghouse mounted on the drill rig is used. Effectiveness of control is highly variable and dependent on many variables. Efficiencies of 90 percent and greater are considered appropriate. For example, 26 90 percent efficiency is attainable on the enclosure of BOF furnaces. No attempt has been made to provide detailed descriptions of ventilation practices. However, several excellent references are available on this subject (see references 27 and 28). 5.6 EFFECT OF FUGITIVE EMISSION REDUCTION ON AQCR'S To examine the effects of fugitive dust emissions reduction on total AQCR emissions, emissions from unpaved roads, agricultural tilling, and construction were reduced by appropriate measures reported in the literature. The reductions used were 50 percent for unpaved roads (see Section 5.3 for chemical stabilization effectiveness), 40 percent for agricultural tilling (see Section 5.3), and 30 percent for construction (see Section 5.2). The results of the emissions reduction are shown in the following summary: 53 ------- Total number of AQCR's not meeting TSP Standards Point > Area Area > Point Area 5x > Point Area lOx > Point Data Missing Before Emissions Reduction 150 9 139 97 58 2 After Emissions Reduction 150 17 131 68 38 2 54 ------- 6.0 REFERENCES 1. Office of Air and Waste Management, "State Air Pollution Implementation Plan Progress Report, January 1 to June 30, 1976," Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. EPA, EPA-450/2-76-026, October 1976. 2. Personal communication, Mr. Chuck Mann, NADB, EPA, Durham, May 9, 1977. 3. Ibid., March 30, 1977. 4. Personal communication, Mr. Gil Wood, NADB, EPA, Durham. 5. Roberts, J. W., H. A. Watters, C. A. Mangold, and A. T. Rossano, "Cost and Benefits of Road Dust Control in Seattle's Industrial Valley," J. APCA, 25(9), September 1975, pp. 948-952. 6. Haws, R. C. and H. L. Hamilton, Jr., "North Carolina Air Quality Main- tenance Area Analysis, Vol. Ill: TSP Dispersion Modeling and Analysis for Charlotte, Winston-Sal em, and Greensboro AQMA's for 1973, 1975, 1980, 1985," RTI Final Report, EPA Contract 68-02-1385, Task 15, April 1976. 7. Pierson, W. R. and W. W. Brachaczek, "Note on In-Traffic Measurement of Airborne Tire-Wear Particulate Debris," J. APCA, 25(4), April 1975, pp. 404-405. 8. National Air Data Branch, "1973 National Emissions Report, National Emission Data System (NEDS) of the Aeromatic and Emissions Reporting System (AEROS)," U.S. EPA, EPA-450/2-76-007, May 1976. 9. McCutchen, G., "Regulatory Aspects of Fugitive Emissions," paper in Sym- posium on Fugitive Emissions Measurement and Control, May 1976, Hartford, CT, EPA-600/2-76-246, September 1976. 10. Air/Water Pollution Report, Business Publishers, Inc., Silver Spring, MD, May 2, 1977, p. 177. 11. Personal communication, Mr. Steve Dennis, Massachusetts Department of Environmental Quality Engineering, Boston, May 27, 1977. 12. Bureau of the Census, Historical Statistics of the United States: Colonial Times to 1970, Bicentennial Edition, Part 2, Chapter Q, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1975. 13. Bureau of the Census, "Statistical Abstract of the United States, 1975," U.S. Department of Commerce, 1975. 14. U.S. Department of Commerce, "Construction Review," Vol. 22, No. 10, December 1976. 55 ------- 15. Dean, K. C., R. Havens, and M. W. Giants, "Methods and Costs for Stabilizing Fine-Sized Mineral Wastes," U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Mines, RI 7896, 1974. 16. Jutze, G. and K. Axetell, "Investigation of Fugitive Dust, Vol. 1: Sources, Emissions, and Control," EPA 450/3-74-036a, June 1974. 17. Meant, G. E., Ill, "Characterization of Particulate Emissions for the Stone-Processing Industry," RTI Final Report, Contract No. 68-02-02607, Task 10, U.S. EPA, Industrial Studies Branch, May 1975. 18. Metzger, C. L., "Dust Suppression and Drilling with Foaming Agents," in Pit and Quarry Magazine, March 1967, pp. 132-133 and 138. 19. Seibel, R. J., "Dust Control at a Transfer Point Using Foam and Water Sprays," U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Mines, TPR 97, May 1976. 20. Armbrust, D. V. and J. D. Dickerson, "Temporary Wind Erosion Control: Cost and Effectiveness of 34 Commercial Materials," J. of Soil and Water Conservation, July 1971, pp. 154-157- 21. Dean K. C., R. Havens, and M. W. Glantz, "Methods and Costs for Stabilizing Fine-Mineral Wastes," U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Mines, RI 7894, 1974. 22. Ibid., p. 4. 23. Donovan, R. P., R. M. Felder, and H. H. Rogers, "Vegetative Stabilization of Mineral Waste Heaps," EPA 600/2-76-087, April 1976. 24. Axetell, K. and J. Zell, "Control of Re-entrainment Dust from Paved Streets," EPA 907/9-77-007, August 1977. 25. Sartor, J. D., B. Boyd, and W. H. VanHorn, "How Effective is Your Street Sweeping," APWA Reporter, 39(4), 1972, p. 18. 26. Nichols, A. G., "Fugitive Emission Control in the Steel Industry," Iron and Steel Engineer, July 1976, pp. 25-30. 27. Committee on Industrial Ventilation, Industrial Ventilation, A Manual of Recommended Practice, 14th ed., 2nd Printing, American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists, Lansing, Michigan, 1977. 28. Environmental Control Division, Control of Internal Foundry Environment, Vol. 1, American Foundrymen's Society, Des Plaines, IL. 56 ------- TECHNICAL REPORT DATA (Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing) 1. REPORT NO. EPA-600/7-78-071 2. 3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO. 4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE Particulate Control for Fugitive Dust 5. REPORT DATE April 1978 6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE 7. AUTHOR(S) 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO Ben H. Carpenter and George E. Weant, HI 9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS Research Triangle Institute P.O. Box 12194 Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27709 10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO. EHE624 11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO. 68-01-4141, Task 1 12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS EPA, Office of Research and Development Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory Research Triangle Park, NC 27711 13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED Task Final; 12/76 - 12/77 14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE EPA/600/13 is. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES BERL-RTP project officer is Dennis C. Drehmel, Mail Drop 61. 919/541-2925. 16. ABSTRACT The report gives results of a study of particulate control for fugitive dust. Study results indicate that many Air Quality Control Regions (AQCRs) do not meet ambient air standards for particulates. In a majority of these ACQRs, the emissions from fugitive dust sources are higher than those from nonfugitive sources. In most cases, unpaved roads provide the greatest amount of emissions. Agricultural tilling and construction activity also contribute substantial amounts. The reentrainment of particles from paved roads also provides large quantities in urban areas. The study concludes that present control strategies for fugitive sources are inadequate. Even with reductions in fugitive emissions of 50% for unpaved roads, 40% for agricultural tilling, and 30% for construction, most of the 150 AQCRs that exceeded total suspen- ded particulate standards will still probably exceed them. In addition, area sources will still dominate all other emissions sources. Thus, more effective control mea- sures must be developed. 17. KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS DESCRIPTORS b.lDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS c. COSATI Field/Group Air Pollution' Dust Dust Control Roads Cultivation Construction Air Pollution Control Stationary Sources Particulate Fugitive Dust 13B 11G 02D 13M 13. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT 19. SECURITY CLASS (ThisReport) Unclassified >1. NO. OF PAGES 62 Unlimited 20. SECURITY CLASS (Thispage) Unclassified 22. PRICE EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73) 57 ------- |