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

-------