Skip to main content

Abrasion and Dust Control in Cement Plant Material Handling

Cement and aggregate handling equipment wears out and makes dust at the same places: the points where hard, dry material is dropped, turned, crushed, or loaded. UTEC Industrial designs, engineers, machines, fabricates, and installs custom material handling systems for aerospace and heavy industry from its Spokane Valley, WA facility, integrating Allen-Bradley PLC and motion control with in-house CNC machining, heat treating, and stress relief. This article covers where dust exposure concentrates in a cement plant, which MSHA exposure rules and EPA opacity limits apply at those points (including the status of MSHA's stayed 2024 silica rule), how wet suppression, enclosure, and filtration perform, why liner hardness alone does not rank wear life under impact, and what sensing and control keep dust and wear systems working. Both problems are settled early in the build chain, design → engineering → parts machining → fabrication → assembly → weld fatigue → stress relief → drives → controls → tuning → monitoring, because drop heights, chute geometry, and liner seats are fixed at the design and fabrication links long before a collector fan is tuned.

Why is cement and aggregate handling both abrasive and dusty?​

The materials are hard, and the process keeps making fines. Crushed-stone plants process limestone, granite, dolomite, traprock, sandstone, quartz, and quartzite, and cement clinker is described by EPA as gray, glass-hard, spherically shaped nodules about 0.125 to 2.0 in (0.32 to 5.1 cm) across. AP-42 lists the particulate sources at a cement plant as quarrying and crushing, raw material storage, grinding and blending in the dry process, clinker production, finish grinding, and packaging and loading, with raw material storage piles, conveyors, storage silos, and unloading facilities as additional sources.

Moisture helps only briefly. Surface wetness makes fine particles agglomerate on or stick to larger stones, which suppresses dust, but AP-42 notes that as crushing and attrition create new fines and evaporation lowers the moisture content, the suppressive effect diminishes and may disappear. Uncontrolled emissions are generally greater in arid regions and in summer, when evaporation is higher. Composition matters for health as well as wear: a 2025 review of crushing and grinding studies found crystalline silicon dioxide made up 10 to 70 percent of the dust at crusher workplaces.

The same particles that escape as dust are the abrasive inside every chute, skirt, chain joint, bearing seal, and wheel-rail contact downstream. A handling design that lets fines escape at one transfer point can spread the wear problem down the line (EPA AP-42 Section 11.6-2025, §11.6.1 and §11.6.2; EPA AP-42 Section 11.19.2-2004, §11.19.2.1 and §11.19.2.2; Nuruldaeva et al. 2025, International Journal of Safety and Security Engineering vol. 15 no. 3).

Where does dust exposure concentrate in a cement plant?​

At the handling points, not at the kiln. Mwaiselage and co-authors took 120 personal total-dust samples from 80 workers in eight occupational groups at a cement factory in Tanzania. The geometric-mean exposures ranked the groups as follows:

Occupational groupGeometric-mean total dust (mg/m³)Probability of exceeding the 10 mg/m³ total cement dust limit
Cranes38.6496%
Packing21.3088%
Crusher13.4873%
Cement mill3.2316%
Kiln2.8714%
Raw mill1.855%
Maintenance1.162%
Administration0.290.01%

The three highest groups, cranes, packing, and crusher, all work at material-handling points. The kiln group, the hottest part of the plant, sat in the lower half, below the cement mill. The study is from a non-U.S. plant and is best read for the relative ranking of areas, not as U.S. compliance data.

For a specifying engineer, the ranking says where the money goes: an enclosed and pressurized crane cab, an enclosed packing and loadout station, and a captured crusher discharge address the three groups most likely to exceed the limit. A handling upgrade that improves kiln-area dust while leaving the packing line open treats the smallest part of the exposure (Mwaiselage et al. 2005, Annals of Occupational Hygiene vol. 49 no. 6, pp. 511-519).

Which dust-exposure rules govern a cement plant and its quarry?​

MSHA's, because cement plants and their quarries are mines under the 1979 MSHA–OSHA Interagency Agreement, which states that MSHA jurisdiction includes alumina and cement plants and assigns to MSHA milling operations including crushing, grinding, sizing, drying, calcining, and kiln treatment. At a surface cement plant the enforced exposure rules are two sections of 30 CFR Part 56:

  • §56.5001, exposure limits. Except for asbestos, exposure to airborne contaminants shall not exceed, on a time-weighted-average basis, the threshold limit values adopted by the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists in its 1973 edition, with excursions permitted only to the levels that document allows.
  • §56.5005, control of exposure. Control is to be, insofar as feasible, by prevention of contamination, removal by exhaust ventilation, or dilution with uncontaminated air. Where accepted engineering controls have not been developed, or the nature of the work requires it (for example, while controls are being established), employees may work for reasonable periods above permissible levels if protected by respirators approved by NIOSH under 42 CFR Part 84, under a respiratory protection program meeting ANSI Z88.2-1969.

Read as a design brief for handling equipment, the sequence §56.5005 lists says: keep the dust in the material, then capture it at the source, and only then dilute it.

OSHA's general-industry silica standard, 29 CFR 1910.1053, is the contrast case. It sets an action level of 25 µg/m³ and a permissible exposure limit of 50 µg/m³ as 8-hour time-weighted averages and requires engineering and work-practice controls first, with respirators as a supplement. It applies at OSHA-jurisdiction sites, such as a cement distribution terminal not located on mine property or a concrete batch plant, and does not govern the cement plant itself (MSHA and OSHA Interagency Agreement 1979, Part B para. 6 and Appendix A; MSHA 30 CFR Part 56-2026, §56.5001 and §56.5005; OSHA 29 CFR 1910.1053-2016, paragraphs a, b, c and f).

What is the status of MSHA's 2024 respirable silica rule?​

It is published but stayed, and it is not the limit MSHA enforces at a cement plant today. MSHA's respirable crystalline silica rule, 30 CFR Part 60, was published on April 18, 2024. As written, it sets a permissible exposure limit of 50 µg/m³ as a full-shift, 8-hour time-weighted average, requires feasible engineering controls first, and states that rotation of miners is not an acceptable administrative control. Its compliance dates were April 14, 2025 for coal mines and April 8, 2026 for metal and nonmetal mines.

Those dates did not take effect as planned:

  • The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit stayed compliance with the rule on April 11, 2025, before either compliance date.
  • MSHA delayed the metal and nonmetal conforming amendments indefinitely, pending judicial review, in a Federal Register notice dated April 6, 2026.
  • MSHA Program Information Bulletin P26-01, issued April 9, 2026, states that MSHA continues to enforce the existing metal and nonmetal standards in 30 CFR 56.5001, 56.5005, 57.5001, and 57.5005.

The status is time-sensitive and should be re-checked before an exposure basis is written into a contract. For equipment design the stay changes less than it seems: both the enforced §56.5005 and the stayed Part 60 put engineering controls ahead of respirators, and Part 60 also ranks them ahead of administrative controls, so enclosure, capture, and suppression designed into the handling equipment satisfy the direction of either rule (MSHA 30 CFR Part 60-2024, §60.1, §60.10 and §60.11, compliance stayed; MSHA PIB P26-01-2026).

What EPA limits apply to cement plant transfer points, bins, and loadout?​

Cement plants fall under EPA's National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for the portland cement industry, 40 CFR Part 63 Subpart LLL. Its affected sources include each kiln, clinker cooler, raw mill, finish mill, raw material dryer, and open clinker storage pile. At major sources it also covers raw material, clinker, and finished product storage bins, conveying system transfer points (including those associated with coal preparation), bagging, and bulk loading and unloading systems. Crushers are not covered by the subpart regardless of their location.

The limits that touch handling equipment are:

  • Handling points at major sources. Storage bins, conveying system transfer points, bagging systems, bulk loading and unloading systems, raw and finish mills, and existing raw material dryers must not exceed 10 percent opacity.
  • Open clinker storage piles. The pile must follow the fugitive dust control measures in the plant's operation and maintenance plan.
  • Kilns and clinker coolers. Particulate matter is limited to 0.07 lb per ton of clinker for existing kilns and existing clinker coolers and 0.02 lb per ton of clinker for new ones, which sets the duty of the cooler dust collector the clinker conveyors sit beside.

Opacity is judged visually at each point, so a transfer point that puffs dust at every surge is an emission problem as well as a housekeeping one. The design lever is the same for both: enclose the drop, match the exhaust to the air the falling material drags in, and keep the enclosure sealed where the belt enters and leaves (EPA 40 CFR Part 63 Subpart LLL-2026, §63.1340, §63.1343 Table 1 and §63.1345).

What EPA limits apply at aggregate crushing, screening, and conveying plants?​

Aggregate plants fall under a different EPA rule: 40 CFR Part 60 Subpart OOO, the new source performance standard for nonmetallic mineral processing plants. It applies to each crusher, grinding mill, screening operation, bucket elevator, belt conveyor, bagging operation, storage bin, and enclosed truck or railcar loading station. Fixed sand and gravel or crushed stone plants of 25 tons per hour or less and portable plants of 150 tons per hour or less are exempt, and an affected facility subject to Subpart F or I, or following such a facility in the plant process, is not subject to OOO.

Table 3 of the subpart sets fugitive-emission opacity limits by facility type and by the date band in which the affected facility commenced construction, modification, or reconstruction:

Affected facilityCommenced construction, modification, or reconstruction after Aug. 31, 1983 but before Apr. 22, 2008Commenced construction, modification, or reconstruction on or after Apr. 22, 2008
Grinding mills, screening operations, bucket elevators, transfer points on belt conveyors, bagging operations, storage bins, enclosed truck or railcar loading stations10% opacity7% opacity
Crushers without a capture system15% opacity12% opacity

Two design consequences follow. A facility built, modified, or reconstructed on or after April 22, 2008 has less margin, 7 percent rather than 10 at a conveyor transfer point, so a chute design that passed at an older plant may not pass at a new or modified one. A crusher with a capture system is no longer in the crusher row, so the choice between capture and open discharge changes which limit the crusher is read against. The plant's permit engineer should confirm each facility's date band before the equipment is specified (EPA 40 CFR Part 60 Subpart OOO-2026, §60.670 and Table 3).

How much does wet suppression reduce transfer-point dust?​

At an aggregate plant, a great deal. AP-42's crushed-stone emission factors compare plants running wet suppression with the same plants without it:

SourceUncontrolled total PM (lb/ton)Controlled total PM (lb/ton)
Conveyor transfer point0.00300.00014
Tertiary crushing0.00540.0012
Screening0.0250.0022

At a conveyor transfer point the controlled factor is about 95 percent lower, and PM-10 falls from 0.00110 to 0.000046 lb/ton. The moisture content of the study group ranged from 0.21 to 1.3 percent without wet suppression and from 0.55 to 2.88 percent with it, and AP-42 notes that wet material typically contains more than 1.5 percent water. Because a small amount of moisture carries over down the line, sources other than crushers do not need their own direct water sprays. These factors carry D and E ratings, so they indicate order of magnitude, not a design value for a particular plant.

At a cement plant, water stops at the raw mill. A dry-process plant reduces raw material moisture to less than 1 percent before or during grinding, and portland cement is a hydraulic material, so water cannot be the control from the raw mill onward. Quarry and crushing stages can use sprays; raw meal, clinker, and cement handling rely on enclosure, capture, and filtration instead (EPA AP-42 Section 11.19.2-2004, §11.19.2.2 and Table 11.19.2-2; EPA AP-42 Section 11.6-2025, §11.6.1).

How are transfer points enclosed, ventilated, and filtered?​

AP-42 separates two kinds of dust at a cement plant. Fugitive sources include quarrying, vehicle traffic, raw material storage piles, and clinker storage piles, and they are controlled by water sprays with or without surfactants, chemical dust suppressants, wind screens, and process modifications that reduce drop heights or enclose storage. Process fugitive sources include materials handling and transfer, raw milling in dry-process plants, and finish milling, and their dust is typically captured by a ventilation system and collected in fabric filters, sometimes with one or more mechanical collectors ahead of the filter.

Several details from AP-42 bear on handling-equipment design:

  • The collected dust is returned to the process, so the collectors count as process units as well as pollution control devices; a collector outage is a production problem.
  • The industry uses shaker, reverse-air, and pulse-jet fabric filters and some cartridge units, but most newer facilities use pulse-jet filters.
  • Process fugitive systems are reported to achieve typical outlet loadings of 45 mg/m³ (0.02 gr/acf).

NIOSH's Dust Control Handbook for Industrial Minerals Mining and Processing is the public reference for control technology at drilling, crushing, screening, conveyance, bagging, loadout, and transport in mineral processing, which covers cement raw materials and aggregates. As engineering reasoning rather than a figure from these sources, the failure mode to design out is the enclosure without matched exhaust: falling material drags air into a chute, and if the hood does not remove at least that air, the enclosure runs under positive pressure and blows dust out at the belt entry, skirt seals, and inspection doors (EPA AP-42 Section 11.6-2025, §11.6.2; Cecala et al. 2019, NIOSH Publication No. 2019-124; MSHA 30 CFR Part 56-2026, §56.5005).

Why does a harder liner steel pay off less at drop points?​

In laboratory tests a harder steel did lose less mass, but its advantage shrinks where lumps strike. Ratia and co-authors tested a structural steel of about 154 to 162 HB against wear-resistant steels in three hardness classes, about 368 to 403 HB, 445 to 456 HB, and 469 to 492 HB, using granite abrasive in two high-stress abrasion tests (a crushing pin-on-disc and a uniaxial crusher) and one impact-abrasion test (an impeller-tumbler). Their findings, stated by hardness class:

  • Hardness helped in every test. Higher hardness led to lower mass loss for all materials and methods.
  • Impact weakened the benefit. In impact-abrasion the positive effect of hardness was substantially smaller than in the high-stress abrasion tests. The authors note this may partly reflect wear concentrated at unshielded sample edges, where the ductile structural steel deformed into burrs instead of losing mass.
  • The first step matters most. In the uniaxial crusher, the difference between the structural steel and the wear-resistant steels was large, but the dependence of wear on hardness among the wear-resistant steels was much weaker.
  • Mechanism shifts. Surface roughness of the structural steel after high-stress abrasion was at least 70 percent higher than that of the wear-resistant steels, and its near-surface hardness rose by 100 to 160 HV from work hardening, against about 30 to 50 HV for the roughly 400 HB class.

For a cement or aggregate plant, this separates the liner zones. Where material slides under pressure, as along a chute floor, moving up in hardness class pays. Where lumps of clinker or crushed stone strike from a height, as at a drop point or crusher discharge, the step from a 400 HB class to a 500 HB class bought less in these tests, so, as a design judgment rather than a finding of the paper, toughness, edge support, and a lower drop height deserve as much attention as hardness (Ratia et al. 2013, Tribology Online vol. 8 no. 2, pp. 152-161, Table 1 and §4).

How do insert liners and material-on-material chutes cut wear?​

By making the flowing material wear against itself instead of the liner. Grasser and co-authors used discrete element modeling to study 35 geometries of wear liners with inserts in mining chutes, varying the insert spacing and exposure height relative to the particle size. At the optimum geometry the particle flow shifted to a less severe regime: sliding velocity dropped, the flowing particles moved over particles trapped between the inserts rather than over the liner, and wear-related quantities fell by up to one order of magnitude, extending the chute's service life. The study reports the result as a function of spacing and height relative to particle size; the specific ratios need the full paper, and a chute for a given plant should be modeled or trialed with its own material.

The approach fits cement and aggregate service because the material supplies its own wear surface. Two conditions decide whether it works:

  • The bed has to stay put. Inserts that trap a stable layer of stone or clinker protect the liner; a geometry that lets the trapped layer wash out under surge returns the wear to the steel.
  • The material has to be known. Particle size, moisture, and stickiness decide whether a bed forms or builds up and plugs the chute. ANSI/CEMA 550-2020 is the standard for classifying bulk materials and defining the characteristics that affect conveyability, and a chute designer starts from that classification of the actual material.

A named failure mode for an insert liner is build-up: damp or sticky fines that fill the pockets, bridge the chute, and force a manual cleanout, which then becomes the maintenance exposure described below (Grasser et al. 2024, Powder Technology vol. 436, article 119450; ANSI/CEMA 550-2020).

How do maintenance and cleanup tasks expose crews to dust and moving parts?​

The dustiest moments are often not normal running. The 2025 crushing and grinding review found that dust concentrations near emission sources averaged 1.5 to 4 times the maximum permissible concentration and rose sharply during spill cleanup, visual inspection of bunker filling at inspection grilles, and dry cleaning, while conveyor operators who spent up to 30 to 35 percent of working time in isolated control cabins breathed air low in dust. The same tasks put people close to moving equipment, and Part 56 sets the minimum conditions:

  • Conveyor pulleys must not be cleaned manually while the conveyor is in motion (§56.14202).
  • Repairs or maintenance are performed only after the power is off and the machinery is blocked against hazardous motion (§56.14105).
  • Electrically powered equipment is deenergized and its power switches locked out, with signed warning notices at the switch (§56.12016).
  • No one enters a bin, hopper, or silo until supply and discharge have stopped and the supply and discharge equipment is locked out, and the entrant wears a harness and lifeline tended by a second person (§56.16002).

Each rule has a design answer that also cuts dust exposure. Spill-reducing skirting and belt cleaners adjustable from outside the guard reduce cleanup. Inspection cameras and level sensors replace trips to inspection grilles. Cleanout doors sized for a tool rather than a person, and chute geometry that does not build up, reduce the need for entry at all (Nuruldaeva et al. 2025; MSHA 30 CFR Part 56-2026, §56.12016, §56.14105, §56.14202 and §56.16002).

What sensing, controls, and interlocks keep dust and wear systems working?​

Dust control fails quietly unless the control system watches it. The intelligence layer ties collectors, conveyors, and wear parts together:

  • Collector permissives. As design practice, the conveyor start sequence waits for the collector fan to be proven running and the filter differential pressure to be in range, so material never moves through an unventilated enclosure. A rising differential pressure flags blinded bags, and a sudden drop flags a broken bag, before either shows as opacity.
  • Start-up warnings and stops. Where the whole conveyor is not visible from the starting switch, §56.14201 requires a visible or audible warning and a start within 30 seconds or a second warning, and an unguarded conveyor next to a travelway needs emergency stop devices or railings under §56.14109.
  • Chute and belt sensing. As design practice, plugged-chute switches at transfer points, belt-drift switches, and belt speed sensors catch the build-up and misalignment that cause spillage, and spill cleanup is one of the tasks where dust concentrations rise sharply.
  • Wear tracking. As design practice, liner thickness measured at each planned stop, trended against tonnage, turns liner replacement into a scheduled task rather than a hole in a chute.
  • PLC and safety logic. Logix 5000 controllers organize code into continuous, periodic, and event tasks, and safety functions run in a separate safety task in a GuardLogix 5580, rated up to SIL 3 and PL e (Cat. 4) with a safety partner and up to SIL 2 and PL d (Cat. 3) without one. IEC 60204-1:2016 addresses the machine's electrical equipment from the supply connection onward.

Sensors in this service need enclosures and seals rated for fine, abrasive dust, because a switch packed with cement fines is a stop device that no longer stops. UTEC Industrial, a Rockwell Automation Recognized System Integrator, builds UL 508A control panels and integrates Allen-Bradley PLC control into the handling equipment it supplies (MSHA 30 CFR Part 56-2026, §56.14109 and §56.14201; Rockwell Automation 1756-RM094N-EN-P-2025; Rockwell Automation 1756-RM012J-EN-P-2025; IEC 60204-1:2016).

What should a cement or aggregate producer specify for abrasion and dust control?​

A specification that asks only for a conveyor of a given capacity leaves the dust and wear decisions to the vendor's defaults. A complete specification defines:

  • Air rule and limit. Whether each point falls under Subpart LLL or Subpart OOO, and for OOO, the construction, modification, or reconstruction date band that sets a 10 or 7 percent opacity limit at transfer points.
  • Exposure basis. 30 CFR 56.5001 and 56.5005 as the enforced basis, with a note to re-check the status of the stayed Part 60 silica rule before the contract is signed.
  • Material. Classification of the actual material, lump size, moisture range, and temperature at each point, including whether wet suppression is possible there or the point is downstream of drying.
  • Wear zones. Which surfaces see sliding abrasion and which see impact, so hardness class, toughness, and insert or material-on-material liners are chosen by zone rather than one plate for the whole chute.
  • Drop heights and enclosures. The fall height at each transfer, the enclosure, and the exhaust rate the enclosure needs.
  • Maintenance access. Cleanout doors, liner-change lifting points, lockable disconnects at each drive, and a bin entry method that satisfies §56.16002.
  • Controls. Collector permissives, chute and belt sensors, wear-tracking data, and the PLC and safety platform.

Along the build chain, liner seats, chute frames, and skirt structures are machined and welded parts that take continuous impact and vibration, so their fit, weld fatigue, and stress relief decide whether a liner stays in place. UTEC Industrial stress-relieves and machines welded frames in-house and performs factory acceptance testing, so the specified interlocks and wear parts are proven before shipment (ANSI/CEMA 550-2020; EPA 40 CFR Part 60 Subpart OOO-2026, Table 3; EPA 40 CFR Part 63 Subpart LLL-2026; MSHA 30 CFR Part 56-2026, §56.5001, §56.5005 and §56.16002).

Related Articles

References​

  • EPA AP-42, Fifth Edition, Volume I, Section 11.6: Portland Cement Manufacturing. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2025.
  • EPA AP-42, Fifth Edition, Volume I, Section 11.19.2: Crushed Stone Processing and Pulverized Mineral Processing. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2004.
  • Nuruldaeva, G., Isakhanova, A., Kumar, D., Kumar, B. (2025). "Occupational Hazards in Mineral Ore Crushing and Grinding: A Literature Review." International Journal of Safety and Security Engineering, 15(3), 415-426. DOI 10.18280/ijsse.150302.
  • Mwaiselage J, Bråtveit M, Moen BE, Yost M (2005). "Variability in Dust Exposure in a Cement Factory in Tanzania." Annals of Occupational Hygiene, 49(6), 511-519. DOI 10.1093/annhyg/mei013
  • MSHA and OSHA. Interagency Agreement Between the Mine Safety and Health Administration and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. U.S. Department of Labor, 1979.
  • MSHA 30 CFR Part 56-2026: Safety and Health Standards—Surface Metal and Nonmetal Mines. U.S. Department of Labor, 2026.
  • OSHA 29 CFR 1910.1053-2016: Respirable Crystalline Silica. Occupational Safety and Health Administration, 2016.
  • MSHA 30 CFR Part 60-2024: Respirable Crystalline Silica. Mine Safety and Health Administration, 2024.
  • MSHA PIB P26-01-2026: Silica Enforcement for Metal and Nonmetal and Coal Mines. Mine Safety and Health Administration, 2026.
  • EPA 40 CFR Part 63 Subpart LLL-2026: National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants From the Portland Cement Manufacturing Industry. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2026.
  • EPA 40 CFR Part 60 Subpart OOO-2026: Standards of Performance for Nonmetallic Mineral Processing Plants. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2026.
  • Cecala AB, O'Brien AD, Schall J, et al. Dust Control Handbook for Industrial Minerals Mining and Processing, 2nd ed. DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 2019-124 (RI 9701). NIOSH, 2019.
  • Ratia V, Valtonen K, Kemppainen A, Kuokkala V-T (2013). "High-Stress Abrasion and Impact-Abrasion Testing of Wear Resistant Steels." Tribology Online, 8(2), 152-161. DOI 10.2474/trol.8.152
  • Grasser D, Corujeira Gallo S, Barnett MR, Pereira MP (2024). "Design principles for wear liners with inserts in mining chutes." Powder Technology, 436, 119450. DOI 10.1016/j.powtec.2024.119450
  • ANSI/CEMA 550-2020: Classification and Definitions of Bulk Materials. Conveyor Equipment Manufacturers Association, 2020.
  • Rockwell Automation 1756-RM094N-EN-P-2025: Logix 5000 Controllers Design Considerations. Rockwell Automation, 2025.
  • Rockwell Automation 1756-RM012J-EN-P-2025: GuardLogix 5580 and Compact GuardLogix 5380 Controllers Safety Reference Manual. Rockwell Automation, 2025.
  • IEC 60204-1:2016 (Ed. 6.0): Safety of Machinery -- Electrical Equipment of Machines -- Part 1: General Requirements. International Electrotechnical Commission, 2016.

Ready to Discuss a Material Handling System?​

UTEC Industrial designs, engineers, machines, fabricates, and installs custom material handling systems for heavy industry, from the stress-relieved structure and drives to the Allen-Bradley PLC controls, tuning, and monitoring that run them, at its Spokane Valley, WA facility. Send UTEC the application, loads, and duty cycle to start a system review.

Request a Quote →

Questions? Call (509) 922-1832 or email sales@utec.co

Last updated on