1. CITY OF NEW YORK
DEPARTMENT OF CITY PLANNING
Division of Housing, Economics & Infrastructure Planning
Memorandum
TO: Jennifer Gravel, Nicholas Moore, Stacy Passmore
FROM: Samantha Lee
DATE: May 27, 2014
RE: Fugitive Dust Study
Background: The OIUS study recommends regulatory amendments (in zoning and the air code)
that would better control fugitive dust from unenclosed material piles, for example requiring
that open piles of materials be covered when not operational, when feasible. This may cause
confusion for compliance and enforcement if the term ‘operational’ and ‘feasible’ are not
defined. How should the requirements be written for optimal effectiveness and clarity?
Scope:
Geography: Large North American Cities or metropolitan areas with industry and
contemporary regulations to address this issue. Examples include:
i. Chicago
ii. Los Angeles metro area
iii.San Francisco
iv. Boston
v. Detroit
vi.Philadelphia
vii.Washington State
viii.Washington D.C.
ix.Albuquerque

2. Summary:
The EPA sets the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), which requires individual
states to formulate a State Implementation Plan (SIP). The SIP consists of multiple programs
for regulation and review by the state to ensure that the NAAQS are met. The cities are then
required to release the SIP to the public first, hold hearings at which the public can comment,
and then submit the plan to the EPA for approval. The research attached contains the EPA’s
NAAQS to Particle Pollution as well as the municipal rules and regulations in order to adhere
to the EPA’s standards.
The research conducted was specifically targeted at regulations controlling unenclosed
material piles, but because the two topics are closely related, the resulting research also
touched upon the general regulations for restricting fugitive dust emissions.
The different municipalities researched had a wide range of results. Chicago had the most
information on unenclosed material piles, as its large Petcoke piles have long been a hotly
contested issue, whereas Detroit had no regulations on fugitive dust emissions (that could be
found). Besides Detroit, other states included in the study such as Boston, Philadelphia and
Washington D.C. did not have specific rules on unenclosed material piles but simply a vague
statement stating to use “effective precautions or measures” or to simply have the piles
covered whenever possible. The municipalities that did have specific regulations on
unenclosed material piles or on fugitive dust emissions include Chicago, Los Angeles, San
Francisco, Washington State and Albuquerque.
The primary dust control requirements within the scope of the research include a certificate
of operation or permit, no dust beyond the property line, an opacity limit, water/chemical
suppressants, pile covers (or wind breaks) whenever possible, monitors to measure the
particulate matter concentration in the air, a third-party or licensed inspector to survey the
operations as well as regular check-ups by the department that enforces the regulations.
Certificates of operation and permits can be used as methods to notify the department that a
facility will be conducting operations that might emit fugitive dust. It is also another method
to ensure that a facility has, and is knowledgeable of, its fugitive dust plan. A certificate or
permit will only be issued if the measures are in place and if they are operable at all times.
The opacity limit applies to the darkness of the emissions. San Francisco’s Portland Cement
Manufacturing regulations prohibit emissions that are equal to or exceed 10% opacity for more
than three minutes in any one-hour period. Both San Francisco and Philadelphia measure the
opacity level using the Ringelmann Chart, which is published by the United States Bureau of
Mines. Other municipalities use other guidelines or create their own.
Water/chemical suppressants are used to moisten the material or stockpiles. By moistening
the material, it weighs the material down more and increases its density. This way, the
material cannot be as easily be picked up by the wind.
Most municipalities enforce that pile covers be used whenever the unenclosed material piles
are inactive. Boston mandates that the inactive piles must be covered with “secured poly
material” while Los Angeles states that “temporary coverings” be installed (but does not

3. explain what that entails). Most of the municipalities do not address the material or where
these covers can be found, but it is a common and simple method for the involved facilities.
Windbreaks are barriers used to reduce and redirect wind. They usually consist of a linear
planting of trees or shrubs, but can be made of other materials. As wind blows against a
windbreak, air pressure builds up on the windward side (the side towards the wind), and large
quantities of air move up and over the top or around the ends of the windbreak. Windbreak
structure—height, density, number of rows, species composition, length, orientation, and
continuity—determines the effectiveness of a windbreak in reducing wind speed and reducing
fugitive dust emissions.
Particulate Matter monitors measure the levels of particulate matter in the air and also
records data so the department responsible can collect and ensure that the facility is taking
the appropriate measures. Both Chicago and San Francisco mandate that all facilities must
obtain PM10 monitors and place them at upwind and downwind points. The Chicago’s Air
Pollution Code states that the Reportable Action Level is the positive difference between the
upwind minors and the down monitors that will trigger response activities. The Reportable
Action Level varies based on the value of the difference and based on the concentration of
PM10 detected.
Los Angeles has a Dust Control Supervisor that is required to be part of the facility to ensure
compliance with the rules and regulations for fugitive dust. He/she would have to complete a
Fugitive Dust Control Class and have been issued a valid Certificate of Completion. On the
other hand, San Francisco must hire an independent third party to conduct inspections for
visible dust and keep records of those inspections. Los Angeles’ Dust Control Supervisor would
appear efficient because he/she would have to be on-site for part of the day, but problematic
because he/she is part of the facility itself and might be partial to the employer. San
Francisco’s regulation on inspections is also problematic because its Health Code does not
specify what these “third-party inspector” entails. The code did not explain how these
inspectors are certified, how/where to hire them, or the prices the inspectors can charge.
Another problem is that by allowing the facility to hire its own inspector might lead to hiring
inefficient ones or brokering a deal with the inspector so the regulations do not have to be
met.
The department responsible for enforcing the regulations typically collects the records from
the PM10 monitors as well as written reports by the owner or operator of the facility to
ensure that the regulations are met. Tests or demonstrations are done on a regular basis
either by the department or inspector to confirm that the proper precautions are enforced
and can operate at a moment’s notice.

4. City Code Activity Regulations
Chicago Air Pollution Petcoke, Metcoke,
Coal & Non-Coke/
Non-Coal
Both Coke & Coal and
Non-Coke & Non-
Coal: Certificate of
operation, no dust
beyond property line,
opacity must not
exceed 10%, tests on
quarterly basis, PM10
monitors.
Non-Coke/Non-Coal:
post next to pile
(does not past 30 ft),
cannot be within 50
ft of waterways,
must stop when there
are high winds, water
and other
suppressants.
Coke/Coal: entirely
surrounded by roof
and walls, monthly
updates, water
suppressants.
Los Angeles Unsure Facilities involving
bulk material
Apply chemical
stabilizers, when
windy apply water to
at least 80% of
stockpile, install
temporary coverings,
3-sided enclosure
that extend to, at
least, top of pile,
Dust Control
Supervisor
San Francisco Health Code Construction Wetting down areas
when visibly dry,
analysis of wind
direction, PM
monitors (upwind and
downwind),
recordkeeping, third-
party inspections,
hotline for
community members,
installing dust
curtains, plastic tarps
or windbreaks,
department reviews
PM results on weekly
basis

5. Air Quality Portland Cement
Manufacturing
facilities
No cement facility
can emit equal/
greater than 10%
opacity more than 3
minutes in any 1-hour
period. One or more
of the following
methods: must be
covered and have
wind breaks
installed, water and/
or soil stabilizers to
reduce windblown
dust, operational
water truck must be
onsite at all times,
and/or, in areas
surrounding piles, soil
stabilized by water,
and/or non-toxic soil
stabilizers
Boston Air Quality Construction Inactive piles and
excavated materials
should be covered
with secured poly
material, or hydro
seeded
Detroit
Philadelphia Health Code Any facility involved
with any substance
that could be
scattered by the wind
or is susceptible to
being wind-borne
Must take effective
precautions or
measures to prevent
air contamination.
Washington State Puget Sound Clean Air Not Specified. Wet or chemical
suppressants,
surfacing roadways/
parking areas with
asphalt, concrete or
gravel, reducing
vehicle speeds,
treating low-traffic
areas with water/
chemical stabilizers,
cleaning vehicle
undercarriages,
covering or wetting
truck loads

6. Washington D.C. Particulates (Air
Quality)
Not Specified. Use closed silos,
closed bins or other
enclosures that are
adequately vented, if
none of these options
are available,
keeping material
wetted, covered, or
otherwise in non-
dusty condition
Albuquerque Environmental
Protection
All sources of fugitive
dust
Active Stockpiles:
wet suppressant on
regular basis, wind
breaks, reducing
vehicle speeds or
other traffic calming
measures, restricting
access to stockpile
areas during non-
work hours.
Inactive Stockpiles:
stable outer curst,
dust suppressants,
restricting access to
stockpiles, wind
breaks