Development of a Fugitive Dust Handbook for the WRAP
Paper # 1134
Richard J. Countess Countess Environmental, 4001 Whitesail Circle, Westlake Village, CA 91361
Chatten Cowherd, Jr. Midwest Research Institute, 425 Volker Boulevard, Kansas City, MO 64111
ABSTRACT
This paper describes the development of a comprehensive fugitive dust handbook prepared for the
Western Regional Air Partnership’s (WRAP) Dust Emissions Joint Forum (DEJF). The handbook
contains separate, stand-alone chapters for eight major fugitive dust source categories with the chapters
grouped into two broad categories, as follows: (a) Mechanically Generated Fugitive Dust that include
agricultural tilling, construction and demolition, materials handling, paved roads, and unpaved roads;
and (b) Wind Generated Fugitive Dust that includes agricultural wind erosion, open area wind erosion,
and storage pile wind erosion. The handbook addresses the estimation of uncontrolled fugitive dust
emissions and emission reductions and costs associated with demonstrated control techniques. The
methods for estimation of emissions draw primarily from AP-42 and secondarily from alternate methods
adopted by state and local air control agencies in the WRAP region. Sources of data are identified and
default values are presented for emission factor correction parameters, source extent/activity levels, and
control efficiencies for natural mitigation and add-on control measures. Data sources for costs of add-on
controls are also presented, along with step-by-step case studies for calculating control measure costeffectiveness. In addition, regulatory formats and compliance tools are discussed. Other items
appended to the handbook include a discussion of test methods used to quantify fugitive dust emission
rates; a summary of alternative emission estimation methods not addressed in the main body of the
handbook, as well as methods that are still in the “developmental” stage and have not been approved by
federal or state agencies; and a step-wise method to calculate the cost-effectiveness of different fugitive
dust control measures.
INTRODUCTION
The Western Regional Air Partnership’s (WRAP) Dust Emissions Joint Forum (DEJF) selected
Countess Environmental (CE) and Midwest Research Institute (MRI) to prepare a fugitive dust
handbook and an associated website (www.wrapair.org/forums/dejf/fdh) for accessing the information
contained in the handbook. The material presented in the handbook addresses the estimation of
uncontrolled PM2.5 and PM10 fugitive dust emissions and emission reductions achieved by
demonstrated control techniques for eight major fugitive dust source categories. The handbook focuses
on fugitive dust emissions “at the source” and does not evaluate factors related to the transport and
impact of emissions on downwind locations where ambient air monitoring occurs. The format of the
handbook follows that included in two previous fugitive dust control measure guidance documents
prepared by MRI (Cowherd et al., 1988; USEPA, 1992). The methods for estimating emissions draw (a)
from established methods published by the USEPA, specifically AP-42: Compilation of Air Pollutant
Emission Factors, and (b) from alternate methods adopted by state and local air control agencies in the
WRAP region such as the California Air Resources Board, Clark County, Nevada, and Maricopa
County, Arizona (Countess Environmental, 2001). Sources of data are identified and default values for
emission factor correction parameters, source extent/activity levels, control efficiencies, and emission
reductions by natural mitigation and add-on control measures are provided in tables throughout the
handbook.
The handbook and associated website are intended to: (a) support technical and policy evaluations
by WRAP members, stakeholders, and other interested parties when addressing specific air quality
issues and when developing regional haze implementation plans; (b) incorporate available information
from both the public and private sectors that address options to reduce fugitive dust emissions in areas of
the country classified as nonattainment for PM10; and (c) provide a comprehensive resource on
emission estimation methodologies and control measures for the following eight fugitive dust source
categories: agricultural tilling, construction and demolition, materials handling, paved roads, and
unpaved roads as well as windblown dust emissions from agricultural fields, exposed open areas, and
material storage piles.
The material in the handbook and posted on the website will be updated at regular intervals as new
information becomes available. The handbook is not intended to suggest any preferred method to be
used by stakeholders in preparation of SIPs and/or Conformity analyses but rather to outline the most
commonly adopted methodologies currently used in the western US. The information contained in the
handbook has been derived from a variety of sources each with its own accuracy and use limitations.
Because many formulae and factors incorporate default values that have been derived for average US
conditions, area specific factors should be used whenever they are available. Additionally, the input
terms (commonly referred to as “correction factors”) used in any given emission factor equation
presented in the handbook were obtained using a specific test methodology and are designed to give an
estimate of the emission from a specific activity or source under specific conditions. As a result the
emission estimate must be used appropriately in any downstream application such as dispersion
modeling of primary PM emissions.
FEATURES OF THE HANDBOOK
The handbook has several distinct features that give it a major advantage over the use of AP-42 or
other resource documents. The handbook is a comprehensive document that contains all the necessary
information to develop control strategies for major sources of fugitive dust. These features include:
(a) extensive documentation of emission estimation methods adopted by both federal and state agencies
as well as methods in the “developmental” stage; (b) detailed discussion of demonstrated control
measures; (c) lists of published control efficiencies for a large number of fugitive dust control measures;
(d) example regulatory formats adopted by state and local agencies in the WRAP region; (e) compliance
tools to assure that the regulations are being followed; and (f) a detailed methodology for calculating the
cost-effectiveness of different fugitive dust control measures, plus sample calculations for control
measure cost-effectiveness for each fugitive dust source category.
The handbook contains a preface, executive summary, introduction and separate, stand-alone
chapters for eight fugitive dust source with the chapters grouped into two broad categories, mechanically
generated fugitive dust and wind generated fugitive dust. Mechanically generated fugitive dust sources
include: Agricultural Tilling, Construction and Demolition, Materials Handling, Paved Roads, and
Unpaved roads. Wind generated fugitive dust sources include: Agricultural Wind Erosion, Open Area
Wind Erosion, and Storage Pile Wind Erosion. Each chapter contains a discussion of characterization of
the source emissions, established emissions estimation methodologies, demonstrated control techniques,
regulatory formats, compliance tools, a sample control measure cost-effectiveness calculation, and
references.
An extensive glossary and a series of appendices are also included in the handbook. Appendix A
contains a discussion of test methods used to quantify fugitive dust emission rates. Appendix B includes
a summary of emission estimation methods developed by various groups for several fugitive dust source
categories not addressed in the main body of the handbook, as well as a summary of emission estimation
methods for categories addressed in the handbook that either are still in the developmental stage and
have not been approved by federal or state agencies, or were developed many years ago and have fallen
out of favor. Appendix C contains a step-wise method to calculate the cost-effectiveness of different
fugitive dust control measures.
Regulatory Formats Fugitive dust control options have been embedded in many regulations for state
and local agencies in the WRAP region. Regulatory formats specify the threshold source size that
triggers the need for control application. The handbook contains examples of regulatory format
language obtained from local air quality districts within California, for Clark County, NV, and for
Maricopa County, AZ.
Compliance Tools A compliance plan is typically specified in local air quality rules addressing fugitive
dust. Compliance tools such as record keeping, site inspection and on-site monitoring assure that the
regulatory requirements, including application of dust controls, are being followed. The handbook
identifies source-specific compliance tools for each of the fugitive dust source categories.
Source(s) for Fugitive Dust Emission Factors
The methods for estimation of fugitive dust emissions draw primarily from AP-42 and secondarily
from alternate methods adopted by state and local air control agencies in the WRAP region. The sources
for the uncontrolled PM2.5 and PM10 emission factors included in the handbook are summarized in
Table 1.
Table 1. Source(s) of Fugitive Dust Emission Factors*
CATEGORY
Agricultural Tilling
Construction/Demolition
AP-42
N/A
N/A
Materials Handling
Paved Roads
Unpaved Roads
13.2.4 (Jan. 1995)
13.2.1 |(Dec. 2003)
13.2.2 (Dec. 2003)
Agricultural Wind Erosion
Open Area Wind Erosion
Storage Pile Wind Erosion
N/A
13.2.5 (Jan. 1995)
13.2.5 (Jan. 1995)
CARB
7.4 (Jan. 2003)
Buildings: 7.7 (Sept. 2002)
Roads: 7.8 (Aug. 1997)
N/A
7.9 (July 1997)
Non-farm roads: 7.10 (Aug. 1997)
Farm roads: 7.11 (Aug. 1997)
7.12 (July 1997)
N/A
N/A
OTHER
MRI (1999)
MacDougall (2002)
* Includes section number from AP-42 or CARB’s Emission Inventory Procedural Manual
and date that the information was last revised
Agricultural Tilling The current version of AP-42 (i.e., the 5th edition) does not address agricultural
tilling even though a PM10 emission factor for fugitive dust generated by agricultural tilling was
developed by MRI in 1983 and adopted by the EPA in their 4th edition of AP-42. CARB’s emission
estimation methodology includes emission factors for five distinct agricultural land preparation
operations as well as monthly activity profiles for different crops.
Construction and Demolition AP-42 contains a section (Section 13.2.3) on heavy construction
operations. However, the emission factor methodology contained in AP-42 was not included in the
handbook because it relies on a single-valued emission factor for total suspended particulate (TSP)
based on only one set of field tests. MRI’s emission estimation methodology includes estimates for
average as well as worst-case conditions for four different scenarios: (a) only area and duration are
known, (b) amount of earth moved is known in addition to total project area and duration, (c) more
detailed information is available on duration of earth moving and other material movement, and (d)
detailed information on number of units and travel distances is available.
Materials Handling Emissions from materials handling depend on the silt and moisture content of the
material. Thus, the handbook contains a table of typical silt and moisture contents of materials at
various industries that can be used as default values in the PM2.5 and PM10 emission factor equations.
Paved Roads The handbook contains recommended default silt loadings (needed for the emission factor
equations) for normal baseline conditions and for wintertime baseline conditions for public paved roads,
as well as typical silt content and silt loading values for paved roads at industrial facilities. CARB
estimates separate dust emissions for four classes of paved roads: (1) freeways/expressways, (2) major
streets/highways, (3) collector streets, and (4) local streets.
Unpaved Roads Dust emissions from unpaved roads have been found to vary directly with the fraction
of silt (particles smaller than 75μm in physical diameter) in the road surface materials. Thus, the
handbook contains recommended default silt values for industrial unpaved roads and for public unpaved
roads. It should be noted that the ranges of silt content for public unpaved roads vary over two orders of
magnitude. Therefore, the use of data obtained for the specific study area is strongly recommended.
CARB includes separate emission estimation methods for non-farm roads and farm roads.
Agricultural Wind Erosion Since AP-42 does not address agricultural wind erosion, the methodology
adopted by CARB is presented as the primary emissions estimation methodology in the handbook.
CARB’s methodology is based on major modifications to the wind erosion equation developed by the
USDA in the 1960s for the estimation of wind erosion on agricultural land.
Open Area and Storage Pile Wind Erosion The AP-42 emission estimation methodology for these two
source categories relies on threshold friction velocities. Thus, the handbook includes published
threshold friction velocities for several different barren surfaces. The MacDougall emission estimation
method for open area wind erosion involves the following six steps: (a) categorizing vacant land based
upon the potential of the parcels to emit fugitive dust during high winds; (b) identifying wind tunnel
based emission factors for different vacant land categories; (c) developing a meteorological data set for
the study area; (d) determining land type reservoirs, threshold wind velocities, wind events, and rainfall
events; (e) developing emission inventory specific emission factors; and (f) applying emission inventory
specific emission factors to each of the vacant land categories.
Published Control Efficiencies
An extensive compilation of fugitive dust control measures that have been implemented by
jurisdictions designated by the USEPA as nonattainment for federal PM10 standards are presented in the
handbook. A partial list of these control measures is presented in Table 2. The published PM10 control
efficiencies for individual fugitive dust control measures vary over relatively large ranges as reflected in
the table. This may reflect differences in the operations as well as the test methods used to determine
control efficiencies. The user of the handbook is cautioned to review the assumptions included in the
original publications (i.e., references identified in each chapter of the handbook) before selecting a
specific PM10 control efficiency for a given control measure. It should be noted that MRI found no
significant differences in the measured control efficiencies for the PM2.5 and PM10 size fractions of
unpaved road emissions based on repeated field measurements of uncontrolled and controlled emissions.
Thus, without actual published PM2.5 control efficiencies, the user may wish to utilize the published
PM10 control efficiency values for both size fractions.
Table 2. Fugitive Dust Control Measures Applicable for the WRAP Region
Source Category
Control Measure
Agricultural Tilling
Reduce tilling during high winds
Roughen surface
Modify equipment
Employ sequential cropping
Increase soil moisture
Use other conservation management practices
Water unpaved surfaces
Limit on-site vehicle speed to 15 mph
Apply dust suppressant to unpaved areas
Prohibit activities during high winds
Implement wet suppression
Sweep streets
Minimize trackout
Remove deposits on road ASAP
Limit vehicle speed to 25 mph
Apply water
Apply dust suppressant
Pave the surface
Plant trees or shrubs as a windbreak
Create cross-wind ridges
Erect artificial wind barriers
Apply dust suppressant or gravel
Revegetate; apply cover crop
Water exposed area before high winds
Construction/Demolition
Materials Handling
Paved Roads
Unpaved Roads
Wind Erosion
(agricultural, open area,
and storage piles)
Published
PM10 Control
Efficiency
1 – 5%
15 – 64%
50%
50%
90%
25 - 100%
10 – 74%
57%
84%
98%
50 – 70%
4 – 26%
40 – 80%
>90%
44%
10 – 74%
84%
>90%
25%
24 – 93%
4 – 88%
84%
90%
90%
Control Measure Cost-Effectiveness
A sample cost-effectiveness calculation is included in the handbook for each fugitive dust source
category where a specific control measure is used to illustrate the basic calculation procedure. Each
sample calculation includes the entire series of steps that are discussed below in the section addressing
Appendix C. The steps include calculating uncontrolled emissions, controlled emissions, emission
reductions, control costs, and control measure cost-effectiveness values for PM10 and PM2.5. In
selecting the most advantageous control measure for a given real or hypothetical situation, the same
calculation procedure is used to evaluate each candidate control measure (utilizing the control measure
specific control efficiency and cost data), and the control measure with the most favorable costeffectiveness and feasibility characteristics is identified. The sample calculations included in the
handbook contains estimates of capital costs and annual costs determined by Sierra Research for the San
Joaquin Valley APCD’s 2004 PM10 SIP. The specific control measures used in the sample costeffectiveness calculation included in the handbook for each fugitive dust source category are presented
in Table 3.
Table 3. Control Measures Included in Sample Cost-Effectiveness Calculations
Fugitive Dust Source Category
Agricultural Tilling
Construction/Demolition
Materials Handling
Paved Roads
Unpaved Roads
Agricultural Wind Erosion
Open Area Wind Erosion
Storage Pile Wind Erosion
Control Measure
Reduce number of tilling passes by 25%
Install gravel apron at trackout egress points
Continuous water spray at conveyor transfer point
Use of a PM10 efficient street sweeper
Watering roads twice a day at an industrial site
Apply mulch to the barren field
Apply gravel to dirt parking lot
Erect 3-sided enclosure around the pile
Appendix A: Emission Quantification Techniques
This appendix contains a discussion of two basic test methods used to quantify fugitive dust
emission rates, namely: (a) the upwind-downwind method that involves the measurement of upwind
and downwind particulate concentrations, utilizing ground-based samplers under known meteorological
conditions, followed by a calculation of the source strength (mass emission rate) with atmospheric
dispersion equations; and (b) the exposure-profiling method that involves simultaneous, multipoint
measurements of particulate concentration and wind speed over the effective cross section of the plume,
followed by a calculation of the net particulate mass flux through integration of the plume profiles.
Appendix B: Alternative Emission Estimation Methods
This appendix includes a discussion of emission estimation methods developed by various groups
for several fugitive dust source categories not addressed in the main body of the handbook. It also
includes emission estimation methods for categories addressed in the main body of the handbook that
are either still in the developmental stage and have not been approved by federal or state agencies, or
were developed many years ago and have fallen out of favor. Because many of these methods have not
been peer-reviewed, the reader is cautioned in the use of the emission factors included in these emission
estimation methods. The emission estimation methods include: USEPA methods for agricultural tilling
and harvesting, active storage pile wind erosion, and uncovered haul trucks; CARB methods for
agricultural harvesting and for cattle feedlots; emission estimation methods developed by
AeroVironment for miscellaneous minor fugitive dust sources (leaf blowers, equestrian centers,
landfills, and truck wake turbulence of unpaved shoulders); a Desert Research Institute (DRI) method
for unpaved shoulders; and four methods for open area wind erosion: the Draxler method, the UNLV
method, the Great Basin Unified APCD method, and the DEJF method.
Appendix C: Methodology for Calculating Cost-Effectiveness of Control Measures
In compiling information on control cost-effectiveness estimates for the fugitive dust handbook, CE
and MRI discovered that many of the estimates provided in contractor reports prepared for PM10 SIPs
contain either hard to substantiate assumptions and/or unrealistic assumptions. Depending on which
assumptions are used, the control cost-effectiveness estimates can range over one to two orders of
magnitude. Rather than presenting existing cost-effectiveness estimates in the handbook, a detailed
methodology to calculate cost-effectiveness of different control measures was developed. It is
recommended that current cost data and assumptions that are applicable to the particular circumstances
be used to calculate the cost-effectiveness of different control options. The steps necessary to calculate
the cost-effectiveness for different fugitive dust control measures are listed below. This methodology
was employed to calculate the cost-effectiveness for each sample control application published in the
handbook for each of the eight fugitive dust source categories addressed in the main body of the
handbook.
Step 1: Select a specific control measure for the fugitive dust source category of interest.
Step 2: Specify the basic parameters required to calculate uncontrolled and controlled emissions for the
specific source (applicable emission factor equation, parameters used in the emission factor
equation, source extent/activity level, characteristics of the source, control measure
implementation schedule/frequency and application rate)
Step 3: Calculate the annual uncontrolled emission rate as the product of the emission factor and the
source extent (from Step 2).
Step 4: Determine the control efficiency for the selected control measure. This may involve either (a)
using a published value, (b) calculating the control efficiency based on comparing the controlled
emissions estimate derived from the applicable emission factor equation with the uncontrolled
emissions estimate derived from the same emission factor equation, or (c) specifying the desired
control efficiency which then will entail determining the appropriate level of control to achieve
the desired control efficiency.
Step 5: Calculate the annual controlled emissions rate (if not already calculated in step 4) as the product
of the annual uncontrolled emission rate (from Step 3) multiplied by the quantity 1 minus the
fractional control efficiency (from Step 4).
Step 6: Calculate the reduction in emissions as the difference between the annual uncontrolled emission
rate (from Step 3) and the annual controlled emission rate (from Step 5).
Step 7: Gather cost estimates for implementing the selected control measure (capital costs; annual
operating, maintenance, overhead, and enforcement/compliance costs)
Step 8: Calculate the annualized capital investment cost as the product of the annual capital cost and the
capital recovery factor (CRF), where CRF is calculated as follows:
CRF = [i (1 + i )n ] / [(1 + i)n – 1]
where, i = annual interest rate (fraction), n = number of payment years
Step 9: Calculate the total annualized cost by combining the annualized capital investment cost (from
Step 8) with annual operating, maintenance, overhead, and enforcement/compliance costs (from
Step 7).
Step 10: Calculate the cost-effectiveness of the selected control measure by dividing the total
annualized costs (from Step 9) by the emissions reduction. The emissions reduction is
determined by subtracting the controlled emissions (from Step 5) from the uncontrolled
emissions (from Step 3).
REFERENCES
CARB, 2003. Emission Inventory Procedural Manual Volume III: Methods for Assessing Area Source
Emissions, California Air Resources Board, Sacramento, CA. November.
Countess Environmental, 2001. Recommendations for Estimating Emissions of Fugitive Windblown and
Mechanically Resuspended Road Dust Applicable for Regional Scale Modeling, final report prepared for
the Western Governors’ Association, September
Cowherd, C., et al., 1988. Control Of Open Fugitive Dust Sources, EPA-450/3-88-008, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, September.
MacDougall, C., 2002. Empirical Method for Determining Fugitive Dust Emissions from Wind Erosion
of Vacant Land, memorandum prepared for Clark County Department of Air Quality Management, June.
Midwest Research Institute, 1999. Estimating Particulate Matter Emissions From Construction
Operations, Kansas City, Missouri, September.
Sierra Research, 2003. Final BACM Technological and Economic Feasibility Analysis, prepared for the
San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD, March.
U.S. EPA, 1995. Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors. AP-42. Fifth Edition, Research
Triangle Park, NC, September.
U.S. EPA, 1992. Fugitive Dust Background Document and Technical Information Document for Best
Available Control Measures. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air and Radiation,
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. September.
KEY WORDS
Fugitive Dust, Handbook, Control Measures, Control Efficiency, Cost-Effectiveness