EPA/600/R-05/134
January 2006
Environmental Technology Verification
Dust Suppressant Products
Midwest Industrial Supply, Inc.'s EnviroKleen
Prepared by
Midwest Research Institute RTI International
HRTI
INTERNATIONAL
Under a Cooperative Agreement with
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
&EPA
ETV EW ET
-------
THE ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY VERIFICATION
PROGRAM
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
ET
ETV Joint Verification Statement
KRTI
INTERNATIONAL
TECHNOLOGY TYPE: DUST SUPPRESSANT
APPLICATION:
CONTROL OF DUST ON UNPAVED ROADS
TECHNOLOGY NAME: EnviroKleen
COMPANY:
ADDRESS:
WEB SITE:
E-MAIL:
MIDWEST INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY, INC.
1101 3rd STEET SE
CANTON, OH 44707
PHONE: 800-321-0699
FAX: 330-456-3247
http://www.midwestind.com/
custserv^midwestind.com
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has created the Environmental Technology
Verification (ETV) Program to facilitate the deployment of innovative or improved
environmental technologies through performance verification and dissemination of information.
The goal of the ETV Program is to further environmental protection by accelerating the
acceptance and use of improved and cost-effective technologies. ETV seeks to achieve this goal
by providing high-quality, peer-reviewed data on technology performance to those involved in
the design, distribution, financing, permitting, purchase, and use of environmental technologies.
ETV works in partnership with recognized standards and testing organizations; stakeholder
groups, which consist of buyers, vendor organizations, permitters, and other interested parties;
and with the full participation of individual technology developers. The program evaluates the
performance of innovative technologies by developing test plans that are responsive to the needs
of stakeholders, conducting field or laboratory tests (as appropriate), collecting and analyzing
data, and preparing peer-reviewed reports. All evaluations are conducted in accordance with
rigorous quality assurance (QA) protocols to ensure that data of known and adequate quality are
generated and that the results are defensible.
The Air Pollution Control Technology (APCT) Verification Center, a center under the ETV
Program, is operated by RTI International (RTI) in cooperation with EPA's National Risk
Management Research Laboratory. The APCT Center has evaluated the performance of a dust
suppressant product for control of dust on an unpaved road.
-------
ETV TEST DESCRIPTION
A field test program was designed by RTI and Midwest Research Institute (MRI) to evaluate the
performance of dust suppressant products. Five dust suppressants manufactured or distributed
by three firms were tested in this program. The field test for Midwest Industrial Supply's
EnviroKleen was conducted at two sites: Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri (FLW), and Maricopa
County, Arizona (MC). Test/QA plans for the field testing at FLW and MC were developed and
approved by EPA in July 2003. These test/QA plans describe the procedures and methods used
for the tests. The July 2003 versions of the test/QA plans were based on October 2002 versions
and subsequent test/QA plan addenda (dated February 2003). The goal of each test was to
measure the performance of the products relative to uncontrolled sections of road over a 1-year
period. Field testing was planned quarterly over a 1-year period; however, some logistical
difficulties related to winter weather and then maintenance activities on the roads of interest
arose, and the test/QA plans were revised (Rev 3) to address those issues. At FLW, testing
occurred per the test/QA plan for three roughly 6-month periods. At MC, testing was conducted
for only two quarterly test periods, per the test/QA plan. At FLW, two of those test periods are
summarized below and are considered most representative of product performance; the third
testing period at FLW occurred after unexpected road maintenance, and those data may be seen
in the verification report. At MC, one of the two test periods is summarized below and is
considered representative of product performance; data from the second testing period at MC
that occurred after unexpected road maintenance may be seen in the verification report. The
verification report also contains 90 percent confidence limits for the data collected during all of
the test periods at each site. Emissions measurements were made for total particulate (TP),
particulate matter less than or equal to 10 micrometers (|-im) in aerodynamic diameter (PMio),
and for particulate matter less than or equal to 2.5 |_im in aerodynamic diameter (PM2.s).
One of the host facilities for the field test program, FLW, is a U.S. Army base. The test site used
unpaved Roads P and PA in training area (TA) 236. Roads P and PA are the main access routes
to TA 236 and are traveled by truck convoys, as well as traffic into and out of TA 236.
EnviroKleen was applied to test section B located on Road PA; test section F, located on Road P,
was left untreated as the experimental control. Section 3.1 of the verification report provides a
figure showing the test locations. Testing at FLW was conducted during October 2002, May
2003, and October 2003.
The other host facility for the field test program, MC, is located on Broadway Road (a county
road) near the towns of Buckeye and Wintersburg, Arizona. The sections used for dust
suppressant testing were on portions of the road constructed of shale. The road typically
experiences approximately 150 vehicle passes per day, with the majority of passes by light-duty
cars and trucks. Much of the traffic appears to be associated with local residents commuting to
their workplaces and thus occurs during the early morning and late afternoon hours. Test
sections were located on Broadway Road east of 355th Avenue. EnviroKleen was evaluated on
the section immediately east of 355th Avenue. The uncontrolled measurements were conducted
on a separate section of Broadway Road. Section 3.1 of the verification report provides a figure
showing the test locations. Testing at MC was conducted during May 2003 and August 2003.
Table 1 presents test conditions for key parameters that may affect the performance of dust
suppressants on unpaved roads.
-------
Table 1. Test Conditions
Parameter
Initial application rate, 1/m2
Follow-up application rate, 1/m2
Time between application and testing, days
Precipitation during test week, cm
Precipitation during week before testing, cm
FLW,
October 2003
1.4
0.43
120
0.2
1.8
Precipitation between application and testing, total, cm 39
Soil moisture during test weeks, % — uncontrolled road 0.62-1 .5
Soil moisture during test weeks, % — controlled road
Soil silt during test weeks, % — uncontrolled road
Soil silt during test weeks, % — controlled road
0.48-0.58
1.7-5.4
1.1-4.3
FLW, MC,
May 2003 May 2003
1.4 0.83
0.32 0.27
77 70
3.7 0
3.2 0
24 1.3
0.01-1.8 0.22
1.3 0.14
1.5^.3 4.7
1.3 1.0
The EnviroKleen product was analyzed using an array of chemical and toxicity tests. The results
of these tests are included in the appendices to the verification report. A summary of the toxicity
data is presented in Table 2.
Table 2. Toxicity Test Results
Species
Ceriodaphnia dubia
Fathead minnow
Americamysis bahia
Acute LC50
for survival
>1,000 mg/L (48-hr)
> 1,000 mg/L (96-hr)
>1,000 mg/L (96-hr)
Chronic LCSO
for survival
> 1,000 mg/L (7-d)
>1,000 mg/L (7-d)
> 1,000 mg/L (7-d)
Chronic ECSO
> 1,000 mg/L (7-d),
reproduction
> 1,000 mg/L (7-d),
growth
> 1,000 mg/L (7-d),
growth, fecundity
d = day
EC50 = effective concentration which affects 50% of sample population
hr = hour
LC50 = lethal concentration which kills 50% of sample population
LOEC = lowest observed effective concentration
mg/L = milligrams per liter
NOEC = no observed effect concentration
VERIFIED TECHNOLOGY DESCRIPTION
This verification statement is applicable to Midwest Industrial Supply 's EnviroKleen, which is a
hydrotreated, hydrocracked, hydroisomerized, high-viscosity synthetic isoalkane. The material
safely data sheet (MSDS) for EnviroKleen is retained in the RTI project files and is available at
http://www.midwestind.com/Droblemsolver/Droductmaterials/EKMSDS.Ddfraccessed July
2005].
ill
-------
VERIFICATION OF PERFORMANCE
The overall reduction in particulate matter emissions achieved by the EnviroKleen dust
suppressant compared to uncontrolled sections of road is shown in Table 3.
Table 3. Summary of Test Results
Test location
FLW, October 2003
FLW, May 2003
MC, May 2003
Average control efficiency, %
TP
81
>99
78
PM10
>87
>98
91
PM25
20
>90
87
Noted events
Rain events the day before test.3
Rain events the morning of test.b
None.
a All test sections were wet from rain the previous day. The uncontrolled section was heavily
potholed and another section was used for the test. MRI used traffic to dry the road before
testing.
b Rainfall in the morning meant that the uncontrolled section of the road was wet and another
section was used for the test.
The APCT Center QA officer has reviewed the test results and quality control data and has
concluded that the data quality objectives given in the generic verification protocol and test/QA
plan have been attained. EPA and APCT Center QA staff have conducted technical assessments
at the test organization and of the data handling. These confirm that the ETV tests were
conducted in accordance with the EPA-approved test/QA plan.
This verification statement verifies the effectiveness oi Midwest Industrial Supply's EnviroKleen
to control dust on unpaved roads as described above. Extrapolation outside that range should be
done with caution and an understanding of the scientific principles that control the performance
of the technologies. This verification focused on emissions. Potential technology users may
obtain other types of performance information from the manufacturer.
In accordance with the generic verification protocol, this verification statement is valid,
commencing on the date below, indefinitely for application of Midwest Industrial Supply's
EnviroKleen to control dust on unpaved roads.
Signed by Sally Gutierrez
Sally Gutierrez, Director
National Risk Management Research
Laboratory
Office of Research and Development
United States Environmental Protection
Agency
9/25/2005 Signed by Andrew Trenholm 9/16/2005
Date Andrew R. Trenholm, Director Date
Air Pollution Control Technology
Verification Center
IV
-------
Environmental Technology Verification
Report
Dust Suppressant Products
Midwest Industrial Supply, Inc.'s
EnviroKleen
Prepared by:
RTI International
Midwest Research Institute
EPA Cooperative Agreement No. CR829434-01-1
RTI Project No. 09309
EPA Project Manager:
Michael Kosusko
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
Air Pollution Prevention and Control Division
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
September 2005
-------
Environmental Technology Verification Report Dust Suppressant Products: EnviroKleen
Notice
RTI International (RTI) and Midwest Research Institute (MRI) prepared this document
with funding from RTFs Cooperative Agreement No. CR829434-01-1 with the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Mention of corporation names, trade names, or
commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use of specific
products.
: RTI International is a trade name of Research Triangle Institute.
VI
-------
Environmental Technology Verification Report Dust Suppressant Products: EnviroKleen
Acknowledgments
The authors acknowledge the support of all of those who helped plan and conduct the
verification activities. In particular, we would like to thank Michael Kosusko, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) project manager, and Paul Groff, EPA's quality
assurance manager, both of EPA's National Risk Management Research Laboratory in Research
Triangle Park, North Carolina. We would also like to acknowledge the assistance and
participation of Joe Proffitt and staff at Fort Leonard Wood, Eric Mayer and staff at Maricopa
County, and of all the Midwest Industrial Supply, Inc., personnel who supported the test effort.
Funding for this verification effort was provided from multiple sources, including EPA's
Environmental Technology Verification Program, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and Midwest
Industrial Supply, Inc. (the participating vendor).
For more information on EnviroKleen dust suppressant, contact:
Mr. Todd Hawkins
Midwest Industrial Supply, Inc.
1101 3rd Street SE
Canton, Ohio 44707
Telephone: (800) 321-0699
Fax: (330) 456-3247
Email: custserv@midwestind.com
Web site: http://www.midwestind.com/
A draft report with additional information on environmental and toxicological analysis
conducted by the Civil Engineering Research Foundation (CERF) may be obtained from
Midwest Industrial Supply, Inc.
For more information on verification testing of dust suppressant and soil stabilization products,
contact:
Ms. Debbie Franke
RTI International
P.O. Box 12194
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27709-2194
Telephone: (919) 541-6826
Email: dlf@rti.org
Web site: http://etv.rti.org/apct/index.html
vn
-------
Environmental Technology Verification Report Dust Suppressant Products: EnviroKleen
Abstract
Dust suppressant products used to control particulate emissions from unpaved roads are
among the technologies evaluated by the Air Pollution Control Technology (APCT) Verification
Center, part of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Environmental Technology
Verification (ETV) Program. The critical performance factor for dust suppressant verification is
the dust control efficiency (CE). CE was evaluated in terms of total particulate (TP), particulate
matter less than or equal to 10 micrometers (|im) in aerodynamic diameter (PMi0), and
particulate matter less than or equal to 2.5 jim in aerodynamic diameter
Midwest Industrial Supply, Inc., submitted the EnviroKleen dust suppressant to the
APCT Center for testing. The test/quality assurance (QA) plans, prepared in accordance with the
Generic Verification Protocol (GVP), addressed the site-specific issues associated with these
1-year verification tests. The 1-year testing was conducted at two sites: Fort Leonard Wood,
Missouri, and Maricopa County, Arizona. Testing at Fort Leonard Wood was conducted during
October 2002, May 2003, and October 2003. Testing at Maricopa was conducted during May
2003 and August 2003. This verification report summarizes the results of the 1-year test. The
verified CE will be based on all tests at each site, as specified in the test/QA plans. Test
conditions were measured and documented.
Vlll
-------
Environmental Technology Verification Report Dust Suppressant Products: EnviroKleen
Table of Contents
Page
Notice vi
Acknowledgments vii
Abstract viii
List of Figures x
List of Tables x
List of Acronyms/Abbreviations xi
1.0 Introduction 1
2.0 Summary and Discussion of Results 2
2.1 Verification Results 2
2.2 Laboratory Toxicity TestResults 5
2.3 Discussion of QA/QC 5
2.4 Deviations from Test Plan 6
3.0 Test Conditions 9
3.1 General Test Site Conditions 9
3.1.1 Traffic 11
3.1.2 Area Climatic Conditions 12
3.1.3 Background Particulate Concentration 15
3.2 Application of Dust Suppressant 16
3.3 Conditions During Dust Suppressant Test Runs 19
4.0 References 21
Appendix A - Environmental Testing A-l
Appendix B - Chemical Testing B-l
Appendix C - Method 24 Results C-l
IX
-------
Environmental Technology Verification Report Dust Suppressant Products: EnviroKleen
List of Figures
1 Test locations at FLW 10
2 Test locations at MC 11
3 Application of EnviroKleen product at FLW 18
4 Application of EnviroKleen product at MC 18
List of Tables
1 Summary of Test Results for EnviroKleen (No Road Maintenance) 3
2 Summary of Test Results for EnviroKleen (After Road Maintenance Occurred) 4
3 DQOs versus Final Control Efficiency Variability for EnviroKleen 6
4 Summary of Test Event Deviations for FLW 7
5 Summary of Test Event Deviations for MC 7
6 Weekly Weather for FLW 12
7 Weekly Weather for Buckeye, Arizona 14
8 Summary of Precipitation for All Test Periods at FLW andMC 15
9 Measured Background PM Concentrations at FLW 15
10 Estimated Background Contribution to Sampler Catch at FLW Compared to Mean
Blank Filter Data 16
11 Background Concentration Measurements at Palo Verde, Arizona 16
12 Application History 17
13 Test Parameters 19
14 Road Surface Properties 21
-------
Environmental Technology Verification Report
Dust Suppressant Products: EnviroKleen
List of Acronyms/Abbreviations
ADEQ Arizona Department of Environmental Quality
ADT average daily traffic
ANOVA analysis of variance
APCT air pollution control technology
AZMET Arizona Meteorological Network
BOD biological oxygen demand
CE control efficiency
cfm cubic feet per minute
CI confidence interval
cm centimeters
COD chemical oxygen demand
DQO data quality objective
DPW Directorate of Public Works
ECso effective concentration, 50 percent
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
ETV environmental technology verification
FLW Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri
ft feet
g grams
g/mL grams per milliliter
gal gallons
GPS global positioning system
GVP generic verification protocol
hi-vol high volume
in inches
km kilometer
1 or L liters
Ib pounds
LCso lethal concentration, 50 percent
LOEC lowest observed effective concentration
1pm liters per minute
jig micrograms
|im micrometer
m meters
MC Maricopa County, Arizona
mg milligrams
min minutes
ml milliliters
mph miles per hour
MRI Midwest Research Institute
MSDS material safety data sheet
NA not applicable
NOEC no observed effect concentration
PM particulate matter
XI
-------
Environmental Technology Verification Report Dust Suppressant Products: EnviroKleen
parti culate matter equal to or less than 10 jim in aerodynamic diameter
PM2.5 particulate matter equal to or less than 2.5 jim in aerodynamic diameter
QA quality assurance
QC quality control
RSD relative standard deviation
RTI RTI International
s seconds
TA training area
TCLP toxicity characteristic leaching procedure
TP total particulate
WAF water accommodated fractions
yd yard
xn
-------
Environmental Technology Verification Report Dust Suppressant Products: EnviroKleen
1.0 Introduction
The objective of the Air Pollution Control Technology (APCT) Verification Center, part
of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) Environmental Technology Verification
(ETV) Program, is to verify, with high data quality, the performance of air pollution control
technologies. One such set of air pollution control technologies consists of products used to
control dust emissions from unpaved roads. Dust suppressant products, in general, are designed
to alter the roadway by lightly cementing the particles together or by forming a surface that
attracts and retains moisture. Control of dust emissions from unpaved roads is of increasing
interest, particularly related to attainment of the ambient parti culate matter (PM) standard. The
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a new ambient standard for PM in 1997
that specifies new air quality levels for particulate matter less than or equal to 2.5 micrometers
(|j,m) in aerodynamic diameter
The APCT Center's verification of dust suppression products started with a preliminary
3-month testing program at Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri (FLW). The objective of this
preliminary test program was to develop a cost-effective technique to measure the relative
performance of dust suppressant products. The more common, but resource intensive, exposure
profiling method to measure fugitive dust was compared to a mobile dust sampler. It was
concluded that the mobile dust sampler could be used for future testing. A total of seven dust
suppressant products were evaluated in the preliminary testing. Seven reports documenting the
performance of these products were finalized in November 2002. 2
After completion of the preliminary study, a 1-year field test program was designed by
RTI and Midwest Research Institute (MRI) to evaluate the performance of dust suppressant
products. Five dust suppressants manufactured or distributed by three firms were tested in this
program. One of those dust suppressants was EnviroKleen developed by Midwest Industrial
Supply, Inc. EnviroKleen is a synthetic organic dust control agent. The material safety data
sheet (MSDS) for EnviroKleen indicates that it is a hydrotreated, hydrocracked, hydroisomerized,
high-viscosity synthetic iso-alkane. The MSDS for EnviroKleen is retained in the RTI project
files and is available on Midwest Industrial Supply's Web site
(http://www.midwestind.com/problemsolver/productmaterials/EKMSDS.pdf) [accessed July
2005].
The field test program for EnviroKleen was conducted at two sites: FLW and Maricopa
County (MC), Arizona. In July 2003, test and quality assurance (QA) plans for the field testing
at FLW and MC were developed and approved by EPA.3'4 The July 2003 versions of each
test/QA plan were based on an October 2002 version and a subsequent test/QA plan addendum
(dated February 19, 2003, for FLW, and February 10, 2003, for MC). These test/QA plans
describe the procedures and methods used for the tests. The goal of each test was to measure the
performance of the products relative to uncontrolled sections of road over a 1-year period. Field
testing was planned quarterly over a 1-year period; however, some logistical difficulties related
to the weather and maintenance activities on the roads of interest arose, and the test/QA plans
were modified (Rev 3) to address these issues. At FLW, test periods occurred per the test/QA
plan for three roughly 6-month periods during October 2002, May 2003, and October 2003. At
-------
Environmental Technology Verification Report Dust Suppressant Products: EnviroKleen
MC, testing was conducted per the test/QA plans for only two quarterly test periods, during May
2003 and August 2003. Emissions measurements were made for total particulate (TP),
particulate matter less than or equal to 10 |am in aerodynamic diameter (PMio), and for PM2.5.
This report contains only summary information and data from the 1-year test program, as
well as the verification statement related to the dust control efficiency (CE) measured for
EnviroKleen during testing at FLW and MC. Complete documentation of the test results is
provided in a separate test report5 for FLW and MC and a data quality audit report.6 Those
reports include the raw test data from product testing and supplemental testing, equipment
calibration results, and QA and quality control (QC) activities and results. Complete
documentation of QA/QC activities and results, raw test data, and equipment calibration results
are retained in MRI's files for 7 years.
The results of the tests are summarized and discussed in Section 2. The conditions in
which the tests were conducted are presented in Section 3, and references are presented in
Section 4.
2.0 Summary and Discussion of Results
Verification tests were conducted over a 1-year period on Midwest Industrial Supply's
EnviroKleen dust suppressant as applied to unpaved roads at FLW and MC. Original plans
called for testing to occur on a quarterly basis; however, one quarterly test was abandoned due to
persistently unfavorable wintertime weather at FLW. In addition, at MC, the original test site
(Lower Buckeye Road) was disturbed after the original treatment. As a result, a 6-month (rather
than 1-year) verification study was conducted with quarterly measurements at a second site
(Broadway Road) in MC.
The mobile dust sampling system used in this test program provides quantitative
information on relative emissions levels. The mobile system consists of a high-volume (hi-vol)
PMio cyclone combined with a PM2.5 cyclone. The sampler inlet sits above the densest portion of
the dust plume, immediately behind the test vehicle. In this location, the sampler collects PM
that is truly airborne. The hi-vol sampler is operated with a nozzle matched to the test vehicle's
travel speed to best approximate isokinetic sampling. The test plans provide additional details
on the construction and operation of the mobile sampler.
The results of the quarterly tests are summarized in Section 2.1. The results of laboratory
toxicity tests on the product are included in Section 2.2. The results of QC checks performed
during these quarterly tests are summarized in Section 2.3. Deviations from the test plans are
discussed in Section 2.4.
2.1 Verification Results
Tables 1 and 2 present summary statistics for results from each test period. The mobile
sampler provides a test result in terms of parti culate mass collected per distance traveled
[milligrams per 1,000 feet (mg/1,000 ft)]. The tables show the number of days after product
-------
Environmental Technology Verification Report
Dust Suppressant Products: EnviroKleen
application, the mean controlled and uncontrolled emissions values, and the resulting CEs. The
relative standard deviation (RSD) for the emissions values is shown in parentheses.
The uncontrolled and controlled emissions values for the mobile dust sampler are means
of five replicate measurements. Each of the five replicate measurements consisted of twelve
passes over a 500-ft length test section of the treated road segment, to total approximately 6,000
ft of distance covered. Detection limits were set at two standard deviations above the average
filter blank correction for sample mass. Values below the detection limits (quantification level)
were included in the averaging process at half the detection limit.
Table 1 presents data for the test periods when no unexpected road maintenance occurred
between product application and testing. These data are considered the most representative of
the product's performance. Table 2 presents data when unexpected road maintenance occurred.
These data provide an example of performance under the described circumstances.
Table 1. Summary of Test Results for EnviroKleen (No Road Maintenance)
Test period
Uncontrolled
emissions, mg/1,000 ft
(RSD, %)
TP
PM10
PM25
Time since
last
application,
days
Controlled emissions,
mg/1,000 ft
TP
(RSD, %)
PM10
PM25
Control efficiency, %
TP
PM10
PM25
FLW
October 2003a
May 2003b
7.9
(59)
9.1
(14)
0.68
(78)
1.2
(21)
1.5
(27)
0.71
(29)
120
77
1.5
(39)
<0.14C
(0.0)
0.15
(44)
0.02
(1.8)
1.2
(11)
<0.07C
(0.0)
81
>99
>87
>98
20
>90
MC
May 2003
50
(76)
14
(84)
3.7
(65)
70
11
(68)
1.2
(59)
0.49
(41)
78
91
87
a All test sections were wet from rain the previous day. The uncontrolled section was heavily potholed and another
section was used for the test. MRI used traffic to dry the road before testing.
b Rainfall in the morning meant that the uncontrolled section of the road was wet and another section was used for
the test.
0 All values were below the detection limit.
-------
Environmental Technology Verification Report
Dust Suppressant Products: EnviroKleen
Table 2. Summary of Test Results for EnviroKleen (After Road Maintenance Occurred)
Test period
Uncontrolled
emissions, mg/1,000 ft
(RSD, %)
TP
PM10
PM25
Time since
last
application,
days
Controlled emissions,
mg/1,000 ft
TP
(RSD, %)
PM10
PM25
Control efficiency, %
TP
PM10
PM25
FLW
October 2002a
9.5
(36)
2O
.3
(55)
2.5
(41)
127
6.0
(32)
0.63
(96)
<0.65b
(0.0)
37
72
>74
MC
August 2003C
74
(34)
24
(47)
4.5
(37)
84
55
(69)
16
(49)
1.0
(53)
25
34
77
a Unexpected road maintenance activity occurred at FLW in September 2002 prior to the October 2002 test series.
After consideration, it was decided to continue with planned testing; however, in retrospect, the treated surface
evaluated during this test series was not representative, and controlled values from the test series should be viewed
as conservatively low.
b All values were below the detection limit.
0 Unexpected road maintenance activity appeared to have occurred at MC after the time of the May 2003 visit and
prior to the August 2003 test series. The entire test road appeared to have been bladed. The vendor interviewed
persons living near the test site who remarked that the road had been bladed prior to the test visit. In this case, the
control efficiency values from this test series should be viewed as conservatively low.
The dust emissions CE is calculated as follows:
CE = 100 x (eum - ecm)/eum Eq. 1
CE = control efficiency (percent)
eum = uncontrolled emissions value expressed as sample mass divided by the
cumulative length of road traveled by the mobile sampler (mg/1,000 ft)
ecm = controlled emissions value expressed as sample mass divided by the
cumulative length of road traveled by the mobile sampler (mg/1,000 ft).
where:
Control efficiencies can vary considerably between test periods, and some of the
variation can be related to two factors: the time since the most recent application and the
application rate of the dust suppressant. A complete history of the test road treatment is given in
Section 3.2. The time since the most recent application is shown in Tables 1 and 2, in addition to
information on road maintenance activities and rainfall. Beyond the application rate and the
time since application factors, additional variation can arise from changing site conditions. For
example, unplanned road maintenance occurred at both sites, as noted in Table 2. In addition,
precipitation before or during a field testing campaign could cause variation in both uncontrolled
and controlled test results. That is to say, measured emissions could change after precipitation
so that back-to-back tests would not necessarily be "replicates" in the sense of having identical
-------
Environmental Technology Verification Report Dust Suppressant Products: EnviroKleen
test conditions. MRI always attempted to dry the road with traffic to the point that it appeared
visibly dry before beginning a test period.
2.2 Laboratory Toxicity Test Results
A sample of EnviroKleen was taken when the product was applied at FLW. The product
was sent to ABC Laboratories, Columbia, Missouri, and to Tri-State Laboratories, Inc.,
Youngstown, Ohio, for analysis. The following test methods were used in accordance with the
test/QAplan:3
• Environmental/Chemical Testing
- EPA Method 247 Volatile Organics
- EPA Method 405.18 5-day Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) of product
- EPA Method 410.49 Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD)
- EPA Method 131110 Toxicity Characteristics Leaching Procedure (TCLP)
- EPA Method 601 OB10 Inorganics/Metals
- EPA Method 601 OB10 Title 22 Metals
- EPA Method 8260B10 Volatile Organics
- EPA Method 827010 Semivolatile Organics
- EPA Method 8270D10 Semivolatile Organics
- EPA Method 8270D10 Pesticides and Herbicides
• Effluent Toxicity Testing
- EPA600/4-90/027F11 Acute toxicity: Water fleas lethal concentration, 50 percent
(LCso), Fathead minnow LCso, and Mysid shrimp LCso
. T /^
50,
- EPA/600/4-91/00212 Chronic Toxicity: Water fleas LC50, Fathead minnow LC
and Mysid shrimp LCso-
See Appendices A and B for the environmental and chemical test results,
respectively.13'14 RTI also conducted Method 24 tests on the product samples;15 see Appendix
C for these results.
2.3 Discussion of QA/QC
The testing process was based on the approved Generic Verification Protocol for Dust
Suppression and Soil Stabilization Products (GVP);16 the Test/QA Plan for Testing of Dust
Suppressant Products at Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri, Rev 3 (July 24, 2003 );3 and the Test/QA
Plan for Testing of Dust Suppressant Products atMaricopa County, Arizona, Rev 3 (July 24,
2003).4 The MRI task leader and QA manager verified that the quality criteria specified in these
test plans (Sections 3.4 and A4, respectively) were met (see Section 2.4) for the overall test (the
within-site, -suppressant, and -particle size fraction variability was often higher than planned).
Assessments specified in Section 8 of the GVP were performed. Reconciliation of the data
quality objectives (DQOs) with test results is summarized in Table 3. Data from all three test
-------
Environmental Technology Verification Report
Dust Suppressant Products: EnviroKleen
periods are included in the analysis, including those data collected during the test period
following unexpected road maintenance.
Table 3. DQOs versus Final Control Efficiency Variability for EnviroKleen
TP
PM10
PM25
FLW
MC
FLW
MC
FLW
MC
Number of
test periods
3
2
3
2
3
2
Final CE,
fractional
0.72
0.51
0.86
0.62
0.60
0.82
90% Confidence Interval
Lower
limit
0.67
0.43
0.83
0.56
0.51
0.79
Upper
limit
0.77
0.59
0.88
0.69
0.68
0.85
Half
width
0.053
0.078
0.027
0.066
0.085
0.028
DQOa
0.064
0.11
0.033
0.086
0.093
0.041
Is the half-width
interval less than the
DQO (i.e., DQO
met)?
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
a Final CE DQO is interpolated from Table 6 of the test/QA plans using the equation:
Half width DQO = -0.2295 CE + 0.22972.
In all cases, the testing process and the resulting data were determined by the MRI QA
manager to have met the specified quality criteria, although there were significant uncontrollable
plan deviations related to field conditions.
The RTI quality manager has reviewed the above information (including the deviations
from the test plan, noted in Section 2.4), has sampled the data against the specified criteria, and
concurs with the MRI assessment that the DQOs were met for the overall test. The APCT
director has determined that the data are usable as intended in the planning documents.
2.4 Deviations from Test Plan
Significant deviations from the test/QA plan are discussed below and are shown in
Tables 4 and 5 for FLW and MC, respectively. Changes in the application dates are also
summarized in the tables.
The FLW test/QA plan stated that background PM concentration values would be
collected from an ambient PM monitor; however, the monitoring station in question collects only
meteorological data and does not contain a PM monitor. Therefore, MRI operated a background
PM sampler at the Range 12 building [located approximately 1 kilometer (km) east of the test
section] where line electrical power was available.
-------
Environmental Technology Verification Report
Dust Suppressant Products: EnviroKleen
Table 4. Summary of Test Event Deviations for FLW
Project activities
Unexpected road maintenance
End of 1st test period
Suppressant reapplication
End of 2nd test period
Suppressant reapplication
End of 3rd test period
Suppressant reapplication
Road traffic increased with
construction
End of 4th test period
Planned date
Not planned
September 2002
September 2002
January 2003
January 2003
April 2003
April 2003
Not planned
July 2003
Actual date
September 16, 2002
October 12-14, 2002
October 18-28, 2002
Not performed because of
consistently bad weather
March 8, 2003
May 24-26, 2003
June 14, 2003
July 21-October 10, 2003
October 10-12, 2003
Test series"
Not applicable
(NA)
5U, 5C
NA
None, per
modified Test/
QAplan
NA
5U, 5C
NA
NA
5U, 5C
15U means five uncontrolled replicate measurements; 5C means five controlled replicate measurements.
Table 5. Summary of Test Event Deviations for MCa
Test event deviations
Initial suppressant application, site #2
End of 1st test period
Suppressant reapplication
Unexpected road maintenance
End of 2nd test period
Planned
February 2003
May 2003
May 2003
Not planned
August 2003
Actual
March 5, 2003
May 13-15, 2003
May 14, 2003
Late July 2003
August 6-7, 2003
Test series1"
NA
5U, 5C
NA
NA
5U, 5C
a Due to early, unauthorized test road disturbance, this summary is based on Rev 3 of the test/QA plan,
which specified 6 months of testing (two quarterly test periods).
b5U means five uncontrolled replicate measurements; 5C means 5 controlled replicate measurements.
The FLW and MC test/QA plans stated that the CE "will be determined relative to its
decay over time and with traffic." Because the vendor chose to reapply the dust suppressants
following each test period, this was not achievable. At least three test series between
applications would have been required to calculate a CE decay rate. Moreover, the decay rate
would have changed from application to application because of the increasing inventory of dust
suppressant in a specific road segment.
The projected schedule for the dust suppressant tests at FLW called for four quarters of
planned tests starting in June 2002. The time between test series was originally planned to be
approximately 90 days, to represent seasonal differences in CE; however, not all of the planned
four quarters of testing were conducted. Testing was conducted for three 6-month periods at
FLW and was conducted for two quarterly test periods at MC.
As noted earlier, damage to the original controlled test section led to the revision of the
MC test/QA plan. This revised plan substituted a 6-month study, with test periods in May and
August, in place of the original year-long verification program and four test periods.
-------
Environmental Technology Verification Report Dust Suppressant Products: EnviroKleen
Both the FLW and MC test plans mentioned a pneumatic traffic counter and a data logger
for on-site wind measurements; however, neither of these was deployed during the test program.
Instead, training records supplied by the Army were used to estimate the total convoy traffic
during the field program at FLW. Maricopa County Department of Transportation personnel
were asked to provide an estimate for the average daily traffic (ADT) value for the Arizona test
site. Traffic data are described in Section 3.1.1. The Army supplied meteorological records for
both the Forney Army Airfield (located within 5 km of the test site) and the Bailey wind station
(located immediately west of the test site). Meteorological data for the MC site were obtained
through AZMET (Arizona Meteorological Network) for a station 12 km to the east of the
Broadway test site. Meteorological data are described in Section 3.1.2.
Deviations during the individual test periods at FLW and in MC are discussed in the
following paragraphs.
October 2002 Test Period at FL W. Both the field tests and the reporting of results
occurred later than originally called for in the test/QA plan. The delay in testing was directly
due to the unexpected road maintenance during the week of September 16, 2002, which occurred
at the request of a Directorate of Public Works (DPW) contractor. This action required a delay
of approximately 2 weeks to assess the extent to which the treated surface had been affected and
whether testing of the surface would produce results useful to the program. Based on anecdotal
information from the grader operator as well as photograph of the surface, it was determined that
the surface had been covered with loose material (pulled from the side of the road). Subsequent
discussions between DPW, the product vendors, RTI, and MRI led to general agreement to
continue with conducting a first series of tests in October 2002.
January 2003 Test Period at FLW. As noted above, persistently unfavorable winter
weather during January and February 2003 forced the abandonment of the second quarterly test.
May 2003 Test Period at FLW. During the field audit conducted on May 26, 2003, it
was determined that the PM2.5 background monitor operated at a flow of approximately 9 liters
per minute (1pm) [0.32 cubic feet per minute (cfm)] rather than the target of 16.7 1pm (0.59 cfm).
Because the background concentration was used only to estimate the maximum contribution that
ambient PM levels could contribute to the mass collected by the mobile sampler, the contribution
for PM2.5 was conservatively estimated using the PMio background level. This point is discussed
further in Section 3.1.
Another deviation concerned the location of the uncontrolled test section during the
May 26, 2003, tests. On that day, a portion of uncontrolled test section (Section F in the test
plan) was still damp from rain during the morning of May 25. For that reason, an uncontrolled
150-m (500-ft) section farther west along the same road was substituted.
October 2003 Test Period at FL W. Both the field tests and the reporting of results
occurred later than originally called for in the test/QA plan. The delay in testing was due to
rainfall over Labor Day weekend. Testing was rescheduled for Columbus Day weekend. No
quarterly test report was prepared pending preparation of the final report.
-------
Environmental Technology Verification Report Dust Suppressant Products: EnviroKleen
Rainfall on the day before MRI's arrival left all sections damp. In addition, the
uncontrolled test site (Section F) was so heavily potholed that the mobile sampler could not be
safely operated at the designated vehicle speed. Uncontrolled tests were moved to an untreated
section of the same road to the west that exhibited better drainage than Section F. As noted
earlier, MRI used traffic to dry the road before beginning a test series.
May 2003 Test Period at MC. The speedometer on the test vehicle was inoperative
because of a fuse problem. For that reason, vehicle speed was monitored using a new handheld
global positioning system (GPS) unit. The GPS readings were checked against a rental car's
speedometer and were found to agree within 2 miles per hour (mph) at 25 and 35 mph.
A filter used on test run CKO-131 did not pass initial audit during the tare weighing, but
was not reweighed as required by MRI SOP-8403.
August 2003 Test Period at MC. No quarterly report was prepared for this test period,
pending preparation of the final report. Test speeds were monitored using the same handheld
GPS as used during the May 2003 tests. Some unexpected road maintenance appeared to have
occurred since the time of the May 2003 visit. The entire test road in MC appeared to have been
bladed. The vendor interviewed persons living near the test site who remarked that the road had
been bladed prior to the test visit.
3.0 Test Conditions
3.1 General Test Site Conditions
The test/QA plans for FLW and MC document the sites and road sections used during
dust suppressant testing.
One of the host facilities for the field test program, FLW, is a U.S. Army base. The test
site at FLW used unpaved Roads P and PA in training area (TA) 236. Roads P and PA are the
main access routes to TA 236 and are traveled by truck convoys, as well as traffic into and out of
TA 236. Test sections A, B, C, and D are located on Road PA, while test section E is located
along Road P. EnviroKleen was applied to test section B. Other products tested during this
program were applied to the other test sections. The sixth test section (F), also located on Road
P, was left untreated as the experimental control. Figure 1 shows the test locations at FLW.3
The other host facility for the field test program, MC, is located on Broadway Road (a
county road) near the towns of Buckeye and Wintersburg, Arizona. The sections used for dust
suppressant testing were on portions of the road constructed of shale. The road typically
experiences approximately 150 vehicle passes per day, with the majority of passes by light-duty
cars and trucks. Much of the traffic appears to be associated with local residents commuting to
their workplaces and thus occurs during the early morning and late afternoon hours. Test
sections were located on Broadway Road east of 355thAvenue. EnviroKleen was evaluated on
the section immediately east of 355th Avenue. The uncontrolled measurements were conducted
on a separate section of Broadway Road. Figure 2 shows the test locations at MC.4
-------
Environmental Technology Verification Report
Dust Suppressant Products: EnviroKleen
Figure 1. Test locations at FLW
10
-------
Environmental Technology Verification Report
Dust Suppressant Products: EnviroKleen
Figure 2. Test locations at MC
3.1.1 Traffic
All sections of the test site at FLW were exposed to military traffic, consisting of 2.5- and
5-ton trucks, as well as sport-utility type vehicles (such as Chevrolet Blazers). This traffic
occurred during training days (typically Monday through Friday). Based on records supplied by
the Army, an estimated 3,650 convoy vehicles traveled over the test surface during the entire
field program. This does not include other Army-related traffic, for which records are not kept.
Furthermore, additional light-duty vehicular traffic took place due to recreational use of the fort
during weekends. Finally, an additional 60 passes by a Ford F-250 pickup occurred during each
of the test periods. (Note that testing took place on days with no scheduled Army training
activities.)
From July 21, 2003, to the final test series in October 2003, the EnviroKleen test section
at FLW experienced additional traffic associated with construction activities in TA 236. This
traffic, which occurred Monday through Friday, averaged 40 loaded (27 ton) dump truck passes,
40 empty (11 ton) dump truck passes, and 30 to 50 car/pickup passes per day.
The Arizona test section was exposed to the naturally occurring traffic along Broadway
Road in MC. Traffic consisted mostly of light-duty vehicles such as cars and pickups, with a
11
-------
Environmental Technology Verification Report
Dust Suppressant Products: EnviroKleen
few passes by school buses during weekdays. Based on the county's plans to pave the road in
the future, an approximate value of 200 ADT can be applied to the test section. (The ADT level
was measured at 247 in March 2004, approximately 7 months after the conclusion of the field
measurements.) An additional 60 to 120 passes by a Ford F-150 pickup occurred during each of
the test periods.
3.1.2 Area Climatic Conditions
Table 6 presents the weekly weather over the entire FLW verification period (i.e., from
June 2002 when the product was first applied until the final set of tests in October 2003). These
data were collected at Forney Airfield, which is located approximately 5 km (3 miles) north-
northeast from the test section. (Note that the Forney station operating hours were 0600-2100
Monday through Friday, 0700-1500 Saturday, and 1100-1900 Sunday. The temperature extremes
are officially valid for those timeframes.)
Table 6. Weekly Weather for FLW
Site weather
Week
beginning
06/02/02
06/09/02
06/16/02
06/23/02
06/30/02
07/07/02
07/14/02
07/21/02
07/28/02
08/04/02
08/11/02
08/18/02
08/25/02
09/01/02
09/08/02
09/15/02
09/22/02
09/29/02
10/06/02
10/13/02
10/20/02
10/27/02
11/03/02
11/10/02
11/17/02
Air temp, °C (°F)
Maximum
32 (90)
31 (87)
33(91)
33 (92)
33 (92)
36 (97)
35 (95)
37 (98)
37 (99)
36 (97)
31 (87)
33 (92)
29 (85)
31 (88)
32 (90)
31 (87)
27(81)
32 (89)
20 (68)
18 (64)
19 (67)
11 (52)
22(71)
18 (64)
18 (65)
Minimum
13(56)
14(58)
13(56)
19(66)
20 (68)
20 (68)
18(64)
19(67)
21 (69)
16(61)
18(64)
20 (68)
17(62)
17(63)
14(58)
17(63)
8(46)
16 (60)
5(41)
1(33)
2(36)
0(32)
2(36)
-2 (28)
0(32)
Precipitation, cm (in.)
Liquid
2.2 (0.88)
1.2(0.48)
0(0)
0.61 (0.24)
2.0 (0.79)
1.0(0.41)
0.03(0.01)
2.6(1.0)
0.03(0.01)
0.2 (0.07)
4.1(1.6)
0.89(0.35)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
3.6(1.4)
0(0)
0.58(0.23)
0.48(0.19)
0.56 (0.22)
5.1(2.0)
4.1(1.6)
1.8(0.72)
1.7(0.65)
0(0)
Frozen
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
(continued)
12
-------
Environmental Technology Verification Report
Dust Suppressant Products: EnviroKleen
Table 6. (continued)
Site weather
Week
beginning
11/24/02
12/01/02
12/08/02
12/15/02
12/22/02
12/29/02
01/05/03
01/12/03
01/19/03
01/26/03
02/02/03
02/09/03
02/16/03
02/23/03
03/02/03
03/09/03
03/16/03
03/23/03
03/30/03
04/06/03
04/13/03
04/20/03
04/27/03
05/04/03
05/11/03
05/18/03
05/25/03
06/01/03
06/08/03
06/15/03
06/22/03
06/29/03
07/06/03
07/13/03
07/20/03
07/27/03
08/03/03
08/10/03
08/17/03
08/24/03
Air temp, °C
Maximum
16(61)
15(59)
11 (52)
18 (65)
4(40)
18(65)
21 (70)
6(43)
13(56)
19 (67)
23 (74)
14 (57)
12 (54)
4(40)
24 (76)
25 (77)
22 (72)
25 (77)
29 (85)
27(81)
29 (85)
22(71)
30 (86)
30 (86)
26 (79)
26 (79)
31 (87)
25 (77)
28 (83)
29 (84)
32 (90)
34 (94)
34 (93)
36 (96)
35 (95)
37 (98)
33(91)
34 (94)
39(102)
37 (98)
Minimum
-6 (21)
-9(15)
-4 (24)
1(33)
-12(11)
-7(19)
-6 (22)
-14 (7)
-19 (-2)
-10(14)
-15(5)
-4 (24)
-6 (22)
-14 (6)
-7(20)
-8(17)
4(39)
0(32)
2(35)
0(32)
9(48)
5(41)
10(50)
14 (57)
9(48)
9(48)
9(48)
9(48)
13(56)
14 (57)
13(56)
19(66)
17(63)
21 (69)
14(58)
17(63)
18(64)
18(65)
21 (69)
21 (69)
Precipitation, cm (in.)
Liquid
0.03(0.01)
1.7(0.68)
0.38(0.15)
3.7(1.4)
3.4(1.4)
1.3(0.52)
0.43(0.17)
0.33(0.13)
0.43(0.17)
0.38(0.15)
0.69 (0.27)
2.7(1.1)
2.1(0.83)
1.7(0.66)
0.05 (0.02)
1.7(0.66)
3.6(1.4)
2 (0.7)
0.03(0.01)
4.7(1.8)
0.91 (0.36)
4.2(1.7)
1.7(0.67)
2.3 (0.92)
3.2(1.3)
2.1 (0.83)
1.6(0.63)
3.7(1.4)
6.6 (2.6)
2(0.6)
2.6(1.0)
0(0)
1.2(0.46)
3.9(1.5)
0.03(0.01)
4.0(1.6)
0.1 (0.04)
0.03(0.01)
1.5(0.59)
4.2(1.6)
Frozen
0(0)
16 (6.2)
0(0)
0(0)
34(14)
0.8(0.3)
0(0)
4.8(1.9)
4.3(1.7)
0(0)
7.9(3.1)
2 (0.9)
0.3(0.1)
18 (7.2)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
(continued)
13
-------
Environmental Technology Verification Report
Dust Suppressant Products: EnviroKleen
Table 6. (continued)
Site weather
Week
beginning
08/31/03
09/07/03
09/14/03
09/21/03
09/28/03
10/05/03
10/12/03
Air temp, °C (°F)
Maximum
28 (82)
31 (87)
29 (84)
29 (85)
20 (68)
24 (76)
23 (74)
Minimum
12 (54)
14 (57)
7(45)
11(52)
4(39)
8(47)
8(46)
Precipitation, cm (in.)
Liquid
6.4 (2.5)
2.0 (0.78)
3.3(1.3)
3.8(1.5)
1.7(0.68)
1.8(0.72)
0.2 (0.07)
Frozen
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
Table 7 contains weekly weather data for the MC site for the period of March to August
2003. The meteorological data were taken at a station in Buckeye maintained by the Roosevelt
Irrigation District. The station, located at latitude 33° 24' north and longitude 112° 41' west, lies
approximately 12 km (8 miles) to the east of the Broadway test site.
Table 7. Weekly Weather for Buckeye, Arizona
Site weather
Week
beginning
03/02/03
03/09/03
03/16/03
03/23/03
03/30/03
04/06/03
04/13/03
04/20/03
04/27/03
05/04/03
05/11/03
05/18/03
05/25/03
06/01/03
06/08/03
06/15/03
06/22/03
06/29/03
07/06/03
07/13/03
07/20/03
07/27/03
08/03/03
Air temperature, °C (°F)
Maximum
27 (80)
30 (86)
27(81)
31 (88)
32 (90)
33(91)
30 (86)
31 (88)
32 (90)
29 (85)
39(102)
40 (104)
42(108)
41(105)
42 (107)
42(108)
44(111)
43(110)
43(109)
46(115)
43(109)
39(103)
43(109)
Minimum
4(40)
7(45)
4(39)
8(47)
4(40)
2(35)
7(44)
6(42)
8(47)
7(44)
9(48)
15(59)
16 (60)
20 (68)
15(59)
17(62)
18(64)
21 (70)
20 (68)
26 (79)
24 (75)
22 (72)
23 (74)
Precipitation, cm (in.)
0(0)
0(0)
0.97(0.38)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
0.30(0.12)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
0.1(0.05)
0.38(0.15)
2.4 (0.96)
0(0)
14
-------
Environmental Technology Verification Report
Dust Suppressant Products: EnviroKleen
A summary of the precipitation for all the test periods at FLW and MC is shown in
Table 8.
Table 8. Summary of Precipitation for All Test Periods at FLW and MC
Parameter
Precipitation during test week
Precipitation during week before testing
Precipitation between application and testing, total
FLW,
weekly precipitation
range, cm
0.2-3.7
0.58-3.2
17-39
MC,
weekly precipitation
range, cm
0
0-2.4
1.3-2.9
3.1.3 Background Particulate Concentration
During the FLW test series, TP and PMio background concentrations were measured
approximately 1 km (0.6 miles) east of the test site. Background concentration data are
presented in Table 9.
Table 9. Measured Background PM Concentrations at FLW
Concentration, jig/m3
Date
10/12/02
10/13/02
10/14/02
5/24/03
5/26/03
10/11/03
10/12/03
10/13/03
Average
Maximum
PM10
7.1
6.5
9.1
19
19
13
5.7
7.2
11
19
TP
14
16
28
23
38
19
7.9
14
20
38
Because of the previously mentioned problem with the PM2.5 background monitor at
FLW (see Section 2.4), it was not possible to measure background PM2.5 concentrations
accurately. Therefore, the PM2.5 concentration was assumed equal to the PMio concentration
value. This yielded a conservatively high estimate for the contribution of background PM
concentrations to the PM2 5 sample mass catches at FLW.
Estimates made of the contributions to net sampler catches at FLW by background
concentrations of TP and PMio are also conservatively high because estimates assume a
30-minute (min) sampling period. As noted in the test/QA plan, the hi-vol sampler is activated
only when passing over the test section; 12 passes over a 500-ft test section at 25 mph is only
160 s or 2.7 min. The conservatively high estimates of background contributions to sampler
15
-------
Environmental Technology Verification Report
Dust Suppressant Products: EnviroKleen
catches at FLW are compared to blank filter data in Table 10. Background mass contributions
were estimated by multiplying background concentration times flow rate and sampling time to
arrive at a mass collected that could have been contributed by ambient air.
Table 10. Estimated Background Contribution to Sampler Catch at FLW
Compared to Mean Blank Filter Data
Average estimated background contribution
Average blank filter weight
Weight, mg
TP
0.67
2.5
PM10
0.37
2.2
PM25
0.0055
0.029
The estimated background contributions are significantly lower than the mean blank filter
masses collected at FLW. Thus, background PM contributed negligibly to the net catches for the
mobile sampler. The Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) maintains the Palo
Verde ambient air monitoring site at 36248 W. Elliott Road. The Palo Verde monitoring site is
16 km (10 miles) from the general test site area. PMi0 and PM2.5 are monitored on a one-day-in-
six basis using reference method dichotomous samplers. The site was established to determine
background concentrations on a regional scale.
The ADEQ provided the data in Table 11 for the Palo Verde site.
Table 11. Background Concentration Measurements at
Palo Verde, Arizona
Concentration, jig/m
Date
5/9/03
5/15/03
5/21/03
PM10
24
103
41
PM25
9.0
20
12
Note that the May 15 and May 21, 2003, values represent the highest and second highest
concentrations monitored at the Palo Verde site in 2003 through May 21. Conservatively high
estimates of background contribution were developed for the MC site in the same manner as
described above for FLW. Based on these assumptions, background particulate would account
for no more than 3.5 mg of PMio or 0.010 mg of PM2.5 sample mass. The mean sample mass
corresponding to the EnviroKleen entries in Tables 1 and 2 was more than five times higher than
these maximum background contributions.
3.2 Application of Dust Suppressant
MRI observed and documented all steps in the various applications of the dust
suppressant to the road test section. EnviroKleen is applied as received and requires no mixing
with water for application. Table 12 presents the application intensity for both FLW and MC as
determined through use of sampling pans located on a grid each time the product was applied.
16
-------
Environmental Technology Verification Report
Dust Suppressant Products: EnviroKleen
Table 12. Application History
Date
Application intensity
Mean,
1/m2
(gal/yd2)3
Standard
deviation,
1/m2 (gal/yd2)
Comments
FLW
June 7-8, 2002
October 26,
2002
March 8, 2003
June 14, 2003
1.4 (0.30)
0.27 (0.060)
0.32 (0.071)
0.43 (0.096)
0.097 (0.021)
0.097 (0.021)
0.04 (0.009)
0.04 (0.01)
Applied in five passes, very even spray pattern. The final
pass on June 8 applied 0.25 1/m2. Value shown represents
total of June 7 and 8 treatments.
Applied in two passes.
Applied in three passes.
Applied in four passes. Applied using pallet-mounted
spray system housed in box truck.
MC
March 5, 2003
May 14, 2003
0.83(0.18)
0.27 (0.061)
0.050(0.011)
0.13(0.028)
Applied in four passes, very even spray pattern.
Applied in four passes, upon completion of the first
quarterly test. Pull-behind trailer used rather than spray
truck used in March 2003 application.
a The mean is based on the total amount applied to the surface of the road summed over all passes.
Three different pieces of spray equipment were used to apply the product. As noted in
Table 12, the June 14, 2003, application at FLW and the May 14, 2003, application at MC relied
on pallet- and trailer-mounted spray systems, respectively. All other applications were by a
spray truck. Figure 3 shows application of EnviroKleen product at FLW, and Figure 4 shows
application of product at MC.
17
-------
Environmental Technology Verification Report
Dust Suppressant Products: EnviroKleen
Figure 3. Application of EnviroKleen product at FLW
Figure 4. Application of EnviroKleen product at MC
18
-------
Environmental Technology Verification Report
Dust Suppressant Products: EnviroKleen
Treatment of the 270-m (900-ft) long road segment required approximately 1 man-hour
using the spray truck. Treatment using the trailer- and pallet-mounted systems required
approximately 50 percent more effort because of time required to set up the system.
3.3 Conditions During Dust Suppressant Test Runs
Table 13 presents the dates and times when dust suppressant testing was conducted at
FLW and MC, including the length of road measured and meteorological conditions during each
test run. As discussed previously, Tables 6 and 7 present the climatic conditions for the week
during which the dust emissions tests were conducted.
Table 13. Test Run Parameters
Run
Test section
Date
Test
start
time
Total distance,
m(ft)
Temperature,
°C (°F)
Barometric
pressure,
mm Hg
(in. Hg)
FLW
CKO-2
CKO-13
CKO-23
CKO-24
CKO-35
CKO-2 11
CKO-2 12
CKO-230
CKO-23 1
CKO-232
CKO-1022
CKO-1028
CKO-1029
CKO-1030
CKO-1031
CKO-14
CKO-15
CKO-16
CKO-17
CKO-18
CKO-206
CKO-207
CKO-208
CKO-209
CKO-2 10
CKO-1023
Uncontrolled
Uncontrolled
Uncontrolled
Uncontrolled
Uncontrolled
Uncontrolled
Uncontrolled
Uncontrolled
Uncontrolled
Uncontrolled
Uncontrolled
Uncontrolled
Uncontrolled
Uncontrolled
Uncontrolled
EnviroKleen, B
EnviroKleen, B
EnviroKleen, B
EnviroKleen, B
EnviroKleen, B
EnviroKleen, B
EnviroKleen, B
EnviroKleen, B
EnviroKleen, B
EnviroKleen, B
EnviroKleen, B
10/12/02
10/12/02
10/13/02
10/14/02
10/14/02
05/24/03
05/24/03
05/26/03
05/26/03
05/26/03
10/12/03
10/13/03
10/13/03
10/13/03
10/13/03
10/13/02
10/13/02
10/13/02
10/13/02
10/13/02
05/24/03
05/24/03
05/24/03
05/24/03
05/24/03
10/12/03
10:36
16:50
17:14
9:28
16:21
16:15
16:40
16:16
16:45
17:08
15:35
11:07
11:28
11:49
12:12
14:36
15:08
15:33
15:57
16:23
12:20
12:53
13:25
14:09
14:41
16:28
1,829 (6,000)
1,829 (6,000)
1,829 (6,000)
1,829 (6,000)
1,829 (6,000)
1,829 (6,000)
1,829 (6,000)
1,829 (6,000)
1,829 (6,000)
1,829 (6,000)
1,829 (6,000)
1,829 (6,000)
1,829 (6,000)
1,829 (6,000)
1,829 (6,000)
1,829 (6,000)
1,829 (6,000)
1,829 (6,000)
1,829 (6,000)
1,829 (6,000)
1,829 (6,000)
1,829 (6,000)
1,829 (6,000)
1,829 (6,000)
1,829 (6,000)
1,829 (6,000)
22 (72)
23 (74)
13 (56)
13 (55)
19 (66)
24 (75)
26 (78)
26 (78)
26 (78)
24 (76)
24 (76)
21 (69)
23 (73)
23 (74)
24 (76)
19 (66)
17 (63)
14 (58)
14 (57)
13 (56)
24 (75)
24 (76)
25 (77)
27 (80)
27 (80)
26 (78)
745 (29.4)
744 (29.3)
753 (29.6)
749 (29.5)
747 (29.4)
733 (28.8)
733 (28.8)
735 (29.0)
735 (29.0)
737 (29.0)
734 (28.9)
729 (28.7)
729 (28.7)
729 (28.7)
730 (28.8)
752 (29.6)
752 (29.6)
753 (29.6)
753 (29.6)
753 (29.6)
732 (28.8)
729 (28.7)
729 (28.7)
729 (28.7)
732 (28.8)
734 (28.9)
(continued)
19
-------
Environmental Technology Verification Report
Dust Suppressant Products: EnviroKleen
Table 13. (continued)
Run
CKO-1024
CKO-1025
CKO-1026
CKO-1027
Test section
EnviroKleen, B
EnviroKleen, B
EnviroKleen, B
EnviroKleen, B
Date
10/12/03
10/12/03
10/12/03
10/12/03
Test
start
time
16:52
17:15
17:38
18:01
Total distance,
m(ft)
1,829 (6,000)
1,829 (6,000)
1,829 (6,000)
1,829 (6,000)
Temperature,
°C (°F)
24 (76)
24 (76)
22 (71)
19 (66)
Barometric
pressure,
mm Hg
(in. Hg)
733 (28.8)
733 (28.8)
732 (28.8)
732 (28.8)
MC
CKO-111
CKO-112
CKO-131
CKO-132
CKO-133
CKO-406
CKO-407
CKO-413
CKO-414
CKO-415
CKO-121
CKO-127
CKO-128
CKO-129
CKO-130
CKO-408
CKO-409
CKO-410
CKO-411
CKO-412
Uncontrolled
Uncontrolled
Uncontrolled
Uncontrolled
Uncontrolled
Uncontrolled
Uncontrolled
Uncontrolled
Uncontrolled
Uncontrolled
EnviroKleen, B
EnviroKleen, B
EnviroKleen, B
EnviroKleen, B
EnviroKleen, B
EnviroKleen, B
EnviroKleen, B
EnviroKleen, B
EnviroKleen, B
EnviroKleen, B
05/13/03
05/13/03
05/15/03
05/15/03
05/15/03
08/06/03
08/06/03
08/07/03
08/07/03
08/07/03
05/14/03
05/14/03
05/14/03
05/14/03
05/14/03
08/06/03
08/06/03
08/06/03
08/06/03
08/06/03
17:05
17:40
8:32
9:04
9:42
11:42
12:53
8:30
8:52
9:11
8:55
13:49
14:15
14:49
15:14
13:31
13:50
14:14
14:35
14:56
3,658 (12,000)
3,658 (12,000)
3,658 (12,000)
3,658 (12,000)
3,658 (12,000)
1,829 (6,000)
1,829 (6,000)
1,829 (6,000)
1,829 (6,000)
1,829 (6,000)
3,658 (12,000)
3,658 (12,000)
3,658 (12,000)
3,658 (12,000)
3,658 (12,000)
1,829 (6,000)
1,829 (6,000)
1,829 (6,000)
1,829 (6,000)
1,829 (6,000)
34 (94)
33 (92)
24 (76)
24 (76)
26 (79)
41 (106)
43 (110)
34 (93)
35 (95)
35 (95)
24 (76)
37 (98)
37 (98)
37 (99)
36 (96)
44(112)
43 (110)
46(115)
47(116)
46(115)
734 (28.9)
734 (28.9)
734 (28.9)
734 (28.9)
734 (28.9)
737 (29.0)
735 (29.0)
735 (29.0)
737 (29.0)
734 (28.9)
730 (28.8)
734 (28.9)
734 (28.9)
732 (28.8)
730 (28.8)
735 (29.0)
734 (28.9)
737 (29.0)
735 (29.0)
737 (29.0)
Road surface samples were collected on a section each day that section was tested. The
surface samples were analyzed for moisture and silt (i.e., fraction passing 200 mesh upon dry
sieving). Table 14 presents the moisture content and silt content results for both FLW and MC.
With the exception of test periods when unexpected road maintenance occurred (i.e., October
2002 at FLW and August 2003 at MC), the silt content of the treated road surface tends to be less
than that for the untreated road section.
20
-------
Environmental Technology Verification Report
Dust Suppressant Products: EnviroKleen
Table 14. Road Surface Properties
Test Section
Date
Moisture Content, % Silt Content, %
FLW
Uncontrolled
EnviroKleen
10/12/023
10/13/023
10/14/023
5/24/03
5/26/03
10/12/03
10/13/03
10/13/03
10/13/023
10/13/023
5/24/03
10/12/03
10/12/03
0.4
0.63
0.75
1.8
0.01
1.4
1.5
0.62
0.99
0.97
1.3
0.58
0.48
1.6
1.5
1.7
4.3
1.6
3.0
5.4
1.7
3.5
5.5
1.3
1.1
4.3
MC
Uncontrolled
EnviroKleen
5/14/03
8/6/03b
8/6/03b
5/14/03
8/6/03b
0.22
0.32
0.32
0.14
0.31
4.7
8.8
9.2
1.0
3.5
a Unexpected road maintenance activity occurred at FLW in September 2002 prior to
the October 2002 test period.
b Unexpected road maintenance activity appeared to have occurred at MC after the
time of the May 2003 visit and prior to the August 2003 test period.
4.0 References
1. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Part 50.7, National Primary and Secondary Ambient
Air Quality Standards for Paniculate Matter. July 18, 1997.
2. ETV. 2002. Reports of 3-Month Test of Dust Suppression Products, Preliminary Testing.
RTI International, Research Triangle Park, NC and Midwest Research Institute, Kansas City,
MO. November, http://etv.rti.org/apct/documents.cfm
3. ETV. 2003. Test/QA Plan for Testing of Dust Suppressant Products at Fort Leonard Wood,
Missouri, Rev 3 dated July 24, 2003. RTI International, Research Triangle Park, NC and
Midwest Research Institute, Kansas City, MO. http://etv.rti.org/apct/documents.cfm
21
-------
Environmental Technology Verification Report Dust Suppressant Products: EnviroKleen
4. ETV. 2003. Test/QA Plan for Testing ofDust Suppressant Products at Maricopa County,
Arizona, Rev 3 dated July 24, 2003. RTI International, Research Triangle Park, NC and
Midwest Research Institute, Kansas City, MO. http://etv.rti.org/apct/documents.cfm
5. MRI (Midwest Research Institute). 2005. Test Report for EnviroKleen, Section B at Fort
Leonard Wood, Missouri, and West Section at Maricopa County, Arizona. Midwest
Research Institute, Kansas City, MO. Report may be obtained from RTI International.
6. MRI (Midwest Research Institute). 2005. Audit of Data from Testing of Dust Suppressant
Products at Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri and Maricopa County, Arizona. Midwest
Research Institute, Kansas City, MO. Report may be obtained from RTI International.
7. U.S. EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 2000. Test Method 24, Determination of
Volatile Matter Content, Water Content, Density, Volume Solids, and Weight Solids of
Surface Coatings. Office of Solid Waste. Washington, DC.
8. U.S. EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 2000. Test Method 405.1, Standard
Operating Procedure for the Analysis of Biochemical Oxygen Demand in Water. Region 5,
Chicago, IL.
9. U.S. EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 1993. Methods for Chemical Analysis of
Water and Wastes. EPA/600/4-79/020. Cincinnati, OH. (Includes EPA Method 410.4,
Chemical Oxygen Demand.)
10. U.S. EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 1998. SW-846, Test Methods for Evaluating
Solid Waste, Physical/Chemical Methods. Office of Solid Waste, Washington DC. (Includes
the following tests: Method 1311, TCLP - Toxicity Characteristics Leaching Procedure;
Method 6010 - Inorganics by ICP; Method 8260 - VOCs by GC/MS; and Method 8270 -
SVOCs by GC/MS.
11. U. S. EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 1993. Methods for Measuring the Acute
Toxicity of Effluents and Receiving Waters to Freshwater and Marine Organisms.
EPA/600/4-90/027.
12. U.S. EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 1994. Short-Term Methods for Estimating
the Chronic Toxicity of Effluents and Receiving Water to Freshwater Organisms. EPA/4-
91/002.
13. ABC Laboratories, Inc. 2002. Acute and Chronic Toxicity of Dust Suppression Products A,
B, E, Perma-Zyme 11X, and Soil Sement Engineered Formula to Ceriodaphnia dubia,
Fathead Minnow (Pimephalespromelas), and Americamysis bahia. Columbia, MO.
September.
14. Tri-State Laboratories, Inc. 2002. Laboratory Analysis Report. Youngstown, OH. July.
Report may be obtained from RTI International.
22
-------
Environmental Technology Verification Report Dust Suppressant Products: EnviroKleen
15. Peterson, M. 2002. "Laboratory analysis report for dust suppressants." E-mail and
attachments from M. Peterson, RTI, to D. Franke, RTI. November 18.
16. ETV. 2004. Generic Verification Protocol for Dust Suppression and Soil Stabilization
Products. RTI International, Research Triangle Park, NC.
23
-------
Environmental Technology Verification Report Dust Suppressant Products: EnviroKleen
Appendix A
Environmental Testing
A copy of ABC Laboratories' summary report for aquatic toxicity testing on five dust
suppression products13 is retained in the RTI International project files. The results for
EnviroKleen are summarized below.
Solution Preparation
Solutions were prepared on a weight-to-volume basis for all compounds. Liquid sample
EnviroKleen was not water soluble and was conducted as the water accommodated fraction
(WAF). The Liquid sample EnviroKleen was weighed out into 20 ml glass vials and mixed
directly into beakers to stir overnight.
Test Design
Where preliminary testing indicated no mortality at concentrations of 1,000 milligrams
per liter (mg/L), abbreviated or limit studies were performed. Acute studies run as limit tests
were conducted with a control and a single concentration at 1,000 mg/L. Chronic studies were
conducted with a control and three test levels: 250, 500, and 1,000 mg/L. All other studies were
conducted with five, or six test levels and a control.
Statistical Analysis
Statistical analysis of the concentration versus effect data was performed using a custom
computer program, ToxCalc. This program is designed to calculate the lethal concentration, 50
percent (LCso) / effective concentration, 50 percent (ECso) statistic and its 95 percent confidence
interval (CI), as applicable, using the appropriate EPA recommended analysis. Statistical
significance of comparison of means for Ceriodaphnia dubia, fathead minnow, and
Americamysis bahia survival and reproduction, growth, and fecundity was determined by
hypothesis testing using either Fisher's Exact test or Dunnett' s test. Point estimates testing to
calculate the LCso or ECso was determined with the Trimmed Spearman-Karber method.
Generally, the statistical approach was as follows: Analysis of each endpoint between
samples was evaluated by first analyzing the data for normality and homogeneity of variances
with Shapiro-Wilk's Test and Kolmogorov D's Test before comparison of means. If the data
were normally distributed and the variances were homogeneous, then analysis of variances
(ANOVA) was used for the weight data, along with Fisher's Exact Test or Dunnett's procedure
for comparing the means. Survival data were analyzed using Fisher's Exact test, and growth or
reproduction data were analyzed using Dunnett's. If the assumptions of normality or
homogeneity of variance were not met, transformations of the survival data were employed to
allow the use of parametric procedures. If transformations (e.g., arc sine-square root
transformation) of the survival data still did not meet assumptions of normality and
homogeneity, then the nonparametric test, Steel's Many-One Rank Test, was used to analyze
these data.
A-l
-------
Environmental Technology Verification Report Dust Suppressant Products: EnviroKleen
47551 Ceriodaphnia dubia Acute Tests (August 20-22, 2002)
This test was conducted as a limit test with levels of control and 1,000 mg/L. Mortality
was 0 percent in both the control and the 1,000 mg/L concentration. The 48-hour LCso for
survival was greater than (>) 1,000 mg/L. The no observed effect concentration (NOEC) was
1,000 mg/L and the lowest observed effective concentration (LOEC) was >1,000 mg/L.
47552 Fathead Minnow Acute Tests (August 14-21, 2002)
This test was conducted as a multi-concentration test with levels of control, 62.5, 125,
250, 500, and 1,000 mg/L. Mortality was 0 percent in the control and all test concentrations.
The 96-hour LC50 for survival was >1,000 mg/L. The NOEC was 1,000 mg/L and the LOEC
was >1,000 mg/L.
47553 Americamysis bahia Acute Tests (August 22-26, 2002)
This test was conducted as a limit test with levels of control and 1,000 mg/L. Mortality
was 0 percent in both the control and the 1,000 mg/L concentration. The 96-hour LCso for
survival was >1,000 mg/L. The NOEC was 1,000 mg/L and the LOEC was >1,000 mg/L.
47554 Ceriodaphnia dubia Chronic Tests (August 21-28, 2002)
This test was conducted as a multi-concentration test with levels of control, 250, 500, and
1,000 mg/L. Mortality was 0 percent in the control and 0, 10, and 10 in the 250, 500, and 1000
mg/L test levels, respectively. The 7-day LCso for survival was >1,000 mg/L. For survival, the
NOEC was 1,000 mg/L and the LOEC was >1,000 mg/L. The 7-day ECso for reproduction was
>1,000 mg/L. For reproduction, the NOEC was 1,000 mg/L and LOEC was >1,000 mg/L.
47555 Fathead Minnow Chronic Tests (August 14-21, 2002)
This test was conducted as a multi-concentration test with levels of control, 62.5, 125,
250, 500, and 1,000 mg/L. Mortality was 3 percent in the control. Mortality was 10, 10, 3, 3,
and 3 percent in the 62.5, 125, 250, 500, and 1,000 mg/L test levels, respectively. The 7-day
LCso for survival was >1,000 mg/L. For survival, the NOEC was 1,000 mg/L and the LOEC was
>1,000 mg/L. The 7-day EC50 for growth was >1,000 mg/L. For growth, the NOEC was 1,000
mg/L and the LOEC was >1,000 mg/L.
47556 Americamysis bahia Chronic Tests (August 29- September 5, 2002)
This test was conducted as a multi-concentration test with levels of control, 250, 500, and
1,000 mg/L. Mortality was 15 percent in the control. Mortality was 15, 8, and 5 percent in the
250, 500, and 1,000 mg/L test levels, respectively. The 7-day LCso for survival was >1,000
mg/L. For survival, the NOEC was 1,000 mg/L and the LOEC was > 1,000 mg/L. The 7-day
EC50 for growth was >1,000 mg/L. For growth, the NOEC was 1,000 mg/L and the LOEC was
>1,000 mg/L. The 7-day EC50 for fecundity was >1,000 mg/L. For fecundity, the NOEC was
1,000 mg/L and the LOEC was >1,000 mg/L.
A-2
-------
Environmental Technology Verification Report Dust Suppressant Products: EnviroKleen
Appendix B
Chemical Testing
Tri-State Laboratories' analysis report of five dust suppression products14 is retained in
the RTI International project files. The results for EnviroKleen are included on the pages that
follow.
B-l
-------
TSL
Tri-State
Laboratories, Inc.
2870 Salt Springs Road • Youngstown, Ohio 44509
Ph: (330) 797-8844 • Fax: (330) 797-3264 * 1-800-523-0347
E-mail: trislabs@aol.com
Laboratory Analysis Report
Client: RTI
Attn: DEBBIE FRANKE
PO BOX 12 194
RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK, NC 27709
Date Sampled:
Time Sampled:
Date Received: 6/14/2002
Report Date: 7/15/2002
Comments:
Analyte
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Aisenic-TCLP
BariumTCLP
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Cadmium
Chromium
Chromium-TCLP
Copper
Iron
Lead-TCLP
Lead
Manganese
Mercury-TCLP
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium-TCLP
Selenium
Silver
Silver-TCLP
Thallium
Zinc
Herbicides
Pesticides
Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons
Semi- Volatile Organic Compounds
TCLP-Semi-Volatiles
TCLP-Volatiles (VOC)
Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC)
Result
1.0
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
25.0
BDL
BDL
0.12
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
0.137
SEE ATTACHED
SEE ATTACHED
SEE ATTACHED
SEE ATTACHED
SEE ATTACHED
SEE ATTACHED
SEE ATTACHED
Unit
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/L
mg/L
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/L
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/L
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/L
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/L
mg/kg
mg/kg
rag/L
nog/kg
mg/kg
mg/L
mg/kg
rag/kg
Lab Number: 22061406
Sample ID: B-MIDWEST KANSAS CITY
Sample Description:
Sampler Name:
Sample Matrix;
PO#:
Detection
Limit
0.47
0.047
0.14
0.10
0.040
0.047
0,0074
0.020
0.023
0.023
0.020
0.023
0.50
0.10
0.12
0.047
0.001
0,0012
0.047
0.16
0.19
0.023
0.020
0.12
0.047
Aqueous
19820
Method
200.7
200.7
200.7
601GB
601 OB
200.7
200.7
6010B
200.7
200.7
6010B
200.7
200.7
6010B
200.7
200.7
7472
245;2
200.7
6010B
200.7
200.7
6010B
200.7
200.7
8270
8270
8270/610
8270A/625
1311/8270
1311/8260
8260/624
Analysis
Date
6/19/2002
6/19/2002
6/19/2002
' 6/19/2002
6719/2002
6/19/2002
6/19/2002
6/19/2002
6719/2002
6/19/2002
6/19/2002
6719/2002
6/19/2002
6/19/2002
6719/2002
6/19/2002
6/21/2002
6721/2002
6719/2002
6/19/2002
6/19/2002
6/19/2002
6719/2002
6719/2002
6/19/2002
6/19/2002
6/19/2002
6/19/2002
6719/2002
6/19/2002
6/17/2002
6/17/2002
Analyst
SCB
SCB
SCB
SCB
SCB
SCB
SCB
SCB
SCB
SCB
SCB
SCB
SCB
SCB
SCB
SCB
SCB
SCB
SCB
SCB
SCB
SCB
SCB
SCB
SCB
JP
JP
JP
JP
JP
JP
JP
-------
BDL = Below Detection Limit
Results approved by:
John Pflugh, Lab Manager
Scott Bolaro, QA/QC Officer
-------
TRI-STATE LABORATORIES
2870 Salt Springs Road
Youngstown, OH 44509
Phone: (330) 797-8844/1-800-523-0347
Fax: (330) 797-3264
Client: RTT
Sample: 22061406
Sample Description: B
Date Received: 06.14.02
Date Analyzed: 06.19.02
Date Reported: 07.15.02
HERBICIDES
Method#: 8270
COMPOUND
CONCENTRATION (mg/L)
MDL (mg/L)
2,4-D
Silvex
BDL
BDL
0.145
0.145
Surrogates
DCAA
Recovery
86
Accept, Limits
35-114
-------
TRI-STATE LABORATORIES
2870 Salt Springs Road
Youngstown, OH 44509
Phone: (330) 797-8844/1-800-523-0347
Fax: (330) 797-3264
Client: RTI Date Received: 06.14.02
Sample: 22061406 Date Analyzed: 06.19.02
Sample Description: B Date Reported: 07.15.02
PESTICIDES
Method #: 8270
COMPOUND CONCENTRATION (mg/L) MDL(mg/L)
TECHNICAL CHLORDANE BDL 0.008
ENDRIN BDL 0.003
HEPTACHLOR BDL 0.003
LIN DANE BDL 0.003
METHOXYCHLOR BDL 0.033
TOXAPHENE BDL 0.073
Surrogates Recovery Accept Limits
TCMX 80 35-114
DBCP 92 43-116
-------
TRI-STATE LABORATORIES
2870 Salt Springs Road
Youngstown, OH 44509
Phone: (330) 797-8844/1-800-523-0347
Fax: (330) 797-3264
Client: RTI Date Received: 06/14/02
Sample: 22061406 Date Analyzed; 06/19/02
Sample Description: B Date Reported: 06/28/02
POLYNUCLEAR AROMATIC HYDROCARBONS
Method #: 8270
COMPOUND CONCENTRATION (mg/kg) MDL(mg/kg)
Acenaphthene BOL 50
Acenaphthylene BDL 50
Anthracene BDL 50
Benzo [a] anthracene BDL 50
Benzo [a] pyrene BDL 50
Benzo [b] fluoranthene BDL 50
Benzo [k] fluoranthene BDL 50
Benzo [g,h,l] perylene BDL 50
Chrysene BDL 50
Dibenzo [a,h] anthracene BDL 50
Fluoranthene BDL 50
Fluorene BDL 50
Indeno {1,2,3-cd) pyrene BDL 50
Naphthalene BDL 50
Phenanthrene BDL 50
Pyrene BDL 50
Surrogates Recovery Accept.Limits
Nitrobenzene-d5 67 23-123
2-Fluorobiphenyl 66 30-107
p-Terphenyl 87 18-129
BDL = below detection limit
MDL = method detection limit
-------
TRI-STA TE LABORA TORIES
2870 Salt Springs Road
Youngstown, OH 44509
Phone: {330) 797-8844/1-800-523-0347
Fax: (330) 797-3264
Client: RTI
Sample: 22061406
Sample Description: B
Date Received: 06/14/02
Date Analyzed; 06/19/02
Date Reported: 06/28/02
BASE/NEUTRAL & ACTO COMPOUNDS: PRIORITY POLLUTANTS
Method #: EPA 8270
COMPOUND
Acenaphtene
Acenaphthytene
Anthracene
Benzidine
Benzo fa] anthracene
Benzo [a] pyrene
3,4-Benzofluoranthene
Benzo (g,h,i) perylene
Benzo (b) fluoranthene
Benzo (k) fluoranthene
Bis (2-chloroethoxy) methane
Bis (2-chloroethyl) ether
Bis (2-chloroisopropyl) ether
Bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthaiate
4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether
Butyl benzyl phthaiate
Carbazole
2-Chloronaphthalene
4-Chlorophenyl phenyl ether
Chrysene
Dibenzo [a,h] anthracene
1,2-Dichlorobenzene
1,3-Dichlorobenzene
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine
Diethyl phthaiate
Dimethyl phthaiate
Di-n-octyt phthaiate
2,4-Dinitrotoluene
2.6-Dinitrotoluene
Di-n-octyl phthaiate
1,2-Diphenylhydrazine (as azobenzene)
CONCENTRATION (mg/kg)
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
MDL (mg/kg)
50
50
50
500
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
500
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
BDL = below detection limit
MDL = method detection iimft
Iof2
-------
Client: RTI
Sample; 22061406
COMPOUND
Fluoranthene
Ftuorene
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorobutadiene
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
Hexacnloroethane
Indeno (1,2,3-cd) pyrene
Isophorone
Naphthalene
Nitrobenzene
N-Nitrosodimethylamine (as diphenylamine)
N-Nltrosod f-n-propylamine
N-Nitrosodiphenylam ine
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
2-Chlorophenol
2,4-Dichlorophenol
2,4-Dimethylphenol
4,6-Dinitro-o-cresol
2,4-Dinitropheno!
2-Methyl phenol
3&4-Methy1 phenol
2-Nitrophenol
4-Nitrophenol
Pentachlorophenol
Phenol
2,4,5-Trichlorophenol
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol
4-Chloro-3-Methyl Phenol
Benzole Acid
2.3,7,8-tetracnloro-dibenzo-p-dioxin
CONCENTRATION (mg/kg)
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
ABSENT
MDL {mg/kg}
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
Surrogates
Nitrobenzen-d5
2-FluorobiphenyJ
p-Terphenyl
Phenol-d6
2-Fluorophenol
2,4,6- Tribromopnenol
Recovery
67
66
87
92
80
58
AcceptLimits
35-114
43-116
33-141
11-94
25-100
16-123
BDL = below detection limit
MDL = method detection limit
2 of 2
-------
TRI-STATE LABORATORIES
2870 Salt Springs Road
Youngstown, OH 44509
Phone: (330) 797-8844/1-800-523-0347
Fax:(330)797-3264
Client: RTI
Sample: 22061406
Sample Description: B
Date Received: 06.14.02
Date Analyzed: 0649.02
Date Reported: 06.28.02
TCLP SEMI-VOLATILES - GC/MS
Method #: 1311/8270
CONCENTRATION (mg/L) MDL (mg/L)
BDL 0.575
BDL 0.112
BDL 0.112
BDL 0.112
BDL 0.112
BDL 0.112
BDL 0.112
BDL 0.575
BDL 0.288
BDL 0.575
BDL 0.575
COMPOUND
Cresols
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
2,4-Dinitrotoluene
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachloro-1,3-butadiene
Hexachloroethane
Nitrobenzene
Pentachlorophenol
Pyridme
2,4,5-Trichlorophenol
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol
Surrogates
Nitrobenzene-dS
2-Flurobiphenyt
p-Terphenyl
Phenol-d6
2-Fluorphenol
2,4,6-Tribromophenol
Recovery
78
77
100
93
79
68
Accept.LJmits
35-114
43-116
33-141
25-100
11-94
16-123
BDL = below detection limits
MDL = method detection limit
GC/MS = gas chromatography/mass
spectrometry
-------
TRI-STATELABORATORIES
2870 Salt Springs Road
Youngstown, OH 44509
Phone: (330) 797-8844/1-800-523-0347
Fax: (330) 797-3264
Client; RTI
Sample: 22061406
Sample Description: B
Date Received: 06.14.02
Date Analyzed; 06.17.02
Date Reported; 06.28.02
TCLP VOLATILES - GC/MS
Method #: 1311/8260
COMPOUND
Benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chlorobenzene
Chloroform
1,2-Dichloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethene
Methyl ethyl ketone (2-Butanone)
Tetrachloroethene
Trichloroethene
Vinyl Chloride
CONCENTRATION (mg/L)
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
MDL (mg/L)
2.14
2.14
2.14
2,14
2,14
2.14
2,14
2.14
2.14
4.28
Surrogates
Dibromofluorobenzene
Toluene-d8
Bromoflurobenzene
Recovery
114
94
99
Accept Limits
86-118
88-110
86-115
BDL = below detection limit
MDL = method detection limit
GC/MS = gas chromatography/mass spectromatry
-------
TRI-STATE LABORATORIES
2870 Salt Springs Road
Youngstown, OH 44509
Phone: (330) 797-8844/1-800-523-0347
Fax:(330)797-3264
Client: RTI Date Received: 06.14.02
Sample: 22061406 D«te Analyzed: 06.14.02
Sample Description: B Date Reported: 06.22.02
WATER
Method #: 8269
COMPOUND CONCENTRATION MDL(mg/kg)
Acetone BDL H
Benzene BDL 2.5
Bromobenzene BDL 2,5
Bromochloromethane BDL 2.5
Bromodlchtoromettiane BDL 2.5
Bromofbrm BDL 2-5
Bromomethane BDL 5
2-Butanone BDL ff
n-Butylbenzene BDL 2.5
sec-Butylbenzene BDL 2.5
tert-Butylbenzene BDL 2,5
Carbon Tetrachloride BDL 2.5
Chlorobenzene BDL 2.5
Chforoethane BDL 5
Chtoroform BDL 2.5
Chloromethane BDL 5
2-Chtorotoluene BDL 2.5
4-Chlorotoluene BDL 2.5
1,2-Dibromo-3-chlorapropane BDL 2.5
Dlbromochloromethane BDL 2.5
1,2-Dlbrainoethane BDL 2.5
Dibromomethane BDL 2.5
1,2-Dichtorobenzene BDL 2.5
1.3-Dlchtorobenzene BDL 2.5
1,4-Dichlorobenzene BDL 2.5
Dichlorodifluoromethane BDL 5
1.1-Dichloroethane BDL 2.5
1,2-Dichkxoethane BDL 2.5
1,1 ,-Dfehloroelhene BDL 2.5
cis-1.2-Dichloroethene BDL 2.5
trans-1.2-Dlchloroethene BDL 2.5
1,2^)ichloropropane BDL 2.5
1,3-Dichtoropropane
BDL 2.5
2,2-Dlchtoropropane BDL 2.5
1,1-Dichloropropene BDL 2.5
Ethyl Benzene SDL *.5
Hexachlorobutadiene BDL 2.5
BDL = below detection limit
MDL = method detection limit
Iof2
-------
Client: RH
Sample: 22061406
COMPOUND
CONCENTRATION
MDL(mgfcg)
2-Hexanone
Isopropylbenzene
p-lsopropyltoluene
Methylene Chloride
Methyl Isobutyl Ketone
Naphthalene
rv-Propylbenzene
Styrene
1,1,1 ,2-Tetrachloroethane
1 , 1 ,2,2-Tetrachtoroethane
Tetrachloroethene
Toluene
1 ,2,3-Trichlorobenzene
1 ,2,4-Trichkjrobenzene
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
1 , 1 ,2-Trichloroethane
Trichtoroethene
Trichlorofluoromethane
1 ,2,3-Trichtoropropane
1 ,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
1 ,3,5-TrimethylbenEene
Vinyl Chloride
m,p-Xytene
o-Xytene
Surrogates
Dibromofluorobenzene
Toluene-d8
Bromofluorobenzene
SDL
BDL
ftP^i
BDL
tf+f\t
BDL
rt^Hl
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
f^.f^S
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
nr^i
BDL
Recovery
114
94
99
25
2.5
2C
.0
2e
.O
nc
£o
2e
.9
2.5
2m
.5
2K
,0
2.5
2,5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2f
.5
2,5
2E
.5
5
2.5
2E
,O
2c
,9
2.5
2c
.O
AcceptLimlts
86-118
88-110
86-115
BDL = below detection limit
MDL - method detection limit
2 of 2
-------
Environmental Technology Verification Report
Dust Suppressant Products: EnviroKleen
Appendix C
Method 24 Results
Table C-l shows the results of the Method 24 analysis for EnviroKleen.
15
Table C-l. Summary of EPA Method 24 Analysis for EnviroKleen
Sample ID
EnviroKleen
ASTM D1475
Density,
g/mL
0.8473
ASTM D2369
Total Volatiles,
wt %
10.57
ASTM D3792
Water,
wt%
0.00
NOTE: Each value is the average of two measurements.
C-l
------- |