1

 Law Office of Robert Ukeiley

507 Center Street ◦ Berea, Kentucky 40403 ◦ tel.859-986-5402 ◦ fax.866-618-1017

Robert Ukeiley

rukeiley@igc.org

VIA EMAIL

March 24, 2014

Lucy Edmondson

EPA Region 10,

Washington Operations

Office, 300 Desmond Drive SE., 

Suite 102, 

Lacey, WA 98503.

Email: Edmondson.lucy@epa.gov

RE: Idaho, Northern Ada County PM10 Second Ten-Year Maintenance Plan and

Pinehurst PM10 Contingency Measures

EPA–R10–OAR–2013–0247

Dear Ms. Edmondson:

On behalf of the Sierra Club and its many thousands of members and supporters who are 

at risk of adverse impacts of exporting coal mined in the Powder River Basin (PRB) via ports on 

the West Coast, we are writing to comment on the United States Environmental Protection 

Agency’s (EPA) proposal to approve a second 10-year PM10 maintenance plan for Northern 

Ada County (Maintenance Plan). EPA must disapprove the Maintenance Plan because, as 

explained below and as the picture below demonstrates, the Maintenance Plan fails to protect 

these areas from dramatic increases in PM10 caused by coal exports. 
2

The Northwest is facing at least three new coal export facilities in Washington and 

Oregon that would export coal mined in the Powder River Basin (PRB) to Asia. Coal would be 

transported via rail to the ports and then shipped abroad. Finally, trains carrying tar sands and/or 

Bakken oil to refineries may also rapidly increase. EPA did not address coal exports and tar 

sands/oil transport causing increased locomotive traffic and fugitive coal emissions in the 

maintenance areas. It is imperative that the Maintenance Plan adequately address these increases 

in PM10 emissions to ensure the PM10 National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) is 

maintained. 

I. COAL EXPORT TERMINAL AND NORTHERN ADA COUNTY 

Coyote Island Terminals, LLC which is owned by Ambre Energy North America 

(“Ambre”) has proposed to build a coal export terminal in Boardman, Oregon. Ambre will have 

a coal export capacity of approximately 8.5 million tons per year during the second maintenance 

period. See Ex. 1 at Slide 4. This will result in 1.6 loaded trains per day and presumably an 

equal number of unloaded trains per day, amounting to over 3 trains per day. See Ex. 1 at Slide 

6. The Union Pacific rail line which can service Ambre runs through the Northern Ada County 

maintenance area. See Ex. 1 at Slide 5; EPA-R10-OAR-2013-0247-0007 at 5-16. 

Some alternative train routings for the two Washington coal export proposals at Bellingham and 

Longview could also utilize this UP track.
3

II. THE MAINTENANCE PLAN FAILS TO PROTECT KENT, SEATTLE AND 

TACOMA FROM INCREASING PM10 EMISSIONS FROM COAL EXPORT 

TRAINS.

A. THE SIP DOES NOT ENSURE THAT THE PM10 NAAQS WILL BE 

MAINTAINED. 

The coal export trains create a substantial risk of Northern Ada County violating the 

PM10 NAAQS in the future. Therefore, EPA cannot approve this maintenance plan because it 

does not “ensure” maintenance. See 42 U.S.C. § 7505a(a). EPA’s complete failure to address 

increasing PM10 emissions from coal trains serving export terminals is arbitrary and capricious. 

See The Lands Council v. McNair, 537 F.3d 981, 987 (9th Cir. 2008).

Specifically, the 2008 emission categories and future year emission inventories include 

locomotives. However, the emission inventories do not include fugitive dust from coal trains. 

See Appendix D, 5-12 to 5-20. In contrast, for a recent PM10 maintenance plan for Washington 

State, EPA did include fugitive dust from coal trains in its emission inventories. 78 Fed. Reg. 

78,311, 78,313 (December 26, 2013). EPA offers no explanation of why it is treating the PM10 

maintenance plan for Washington differently than the PM10 maintenance plan for Idaho and 

there is none.

In addition, Idaho’s submission did not increase the number of locomotives in the 

maintenance area for the future year emission inventories to account for coal export trains. 

Rather, the submission uses a generic factor to slightly increase the number of locomotives.

This generic factor results in a decrease in nonroad PM10 emissions from 257.8 tons per 

year in 2008 to 135.8 tons per year in 2023. See Appendix D, pages 7-14 & 7-16. However, this 

decrease contradicts the fact that proposed coal terminals will greatly increase emissions from 

the locomotives, including fugitive coal, and thus is arbitrary and capricious. Therefore, EPA 

must disapprove the submittal.

B. EPA’S METHODOLOGY FROM THE WASHINGTON PLANS 

UNDERPREDICTS PM10 EMISSIONS FROM COAL TRAINS

Above, we explain why EPA must disapprove Idaho’s submission. EPA should not try to 

add in an analysis of coal train impacts at this point because the public would be denied a chance 

to comment on this analysis. 

However, if EPA did try to add a coal train impacts analysis and used the same 

methodology as for the Washington maintenance plans, that analysis would be flawed for the 

reasons explained below. 

The Washington Maintenance Plan’s fugitive coal dust calculation is derived from a 

paper entitled “A Study of Fugitive Coal Dust Emissions in Canada,” November 2001, by 
4

Douglas L. Cope and Kamal K. Bhattacharyya (Cope 2001). See Ex. 2. Cope 2001 was not 

published. Ex. 2 at iii. It had a “limited” technical review. Id. 

The Washington Maintenance Plan assumes 177 days of precipitation per year. 

However, Cope 2001 acknowledges that “Hot and dry weather ‘up route’ of the emissions can 

influence the emissions at the point of observation.” Ex. 2 at 17. The Powder River Basin and 

Idaho, which are up route of the maintenance areas, are very dry areas and can be very hot during 

the summer. However, the Washington Maintenance Plan does not take this factor into its 

calculations. 

Similarly, the 2011 Washington emission inventory does not take into account fugitive 

coal dust emissions from “empty” rail cars returning to the mines. Yet, this is a source of 

emissions. See Ex. 2 at 35. Sometimes, this is because the coal in the car is frozen and thus does 

not get fully dumped out before the return trip. Ex. 2 at 41.

It also very well could be the case that the emission factor used in the Maintenance Plan 

double counts the control. The basic emission factor that Cope used, 0.1 * (0.62*D)0.6, stated 

that it was based on 75% control. Ex. 2 at 28-29. Yet, despite the fact that the basic emission 

factor explicitly stated it already had built in a 75% control factor, Cope determined that it was 

an uncontrolled emission factor and added in a provision to his formula to account for control. 

Id.

The basic formula also picks the low end of the range for coal loss versus the high end or 

middle. That is, the range is 0.5 to 3% of the total car load. The formula which the Maintenance 

Plan ultimately relies on used 0.5%. Id. at 44. 

Also, EPA uses a scaling factor for TSP to PM10 of 0.75 for truck loading, which is the 

most similar situation to coal trains. Id. at 47. Yet, the Maintenance Plan uses a 0.5 scaling 

factor. Thus, a scaling factor of 0.5 is inappropriate.

EPA acknowledges that the percent of dust control measures remaining at the end of the 

journey effects the amount of fugitive coal dust. Ex. 1 at Slide 9, 14. However, EPA’s formula 

does not take that factor into account. 

According to BNSF, each coal car releases 500-2000 lbs of coal dust per trip, and thus a 

typical 125 car train could lose up to 250,000 lbs of coal per trip.1The Washington Maintenance 

Plan assumes 85% control from a topping agent or surfactant that is applied to the top of loaded 

coal cars at the mine. This "requirement" is from a BNSF tariff to require the use of surfactants 

on PRB coal. In late 2013, the Surface Transportation Board (STB) finally approved this tariff

but it has no enforcement mechanism and is essentially voluntary. Industry has been quoted as

 

1

See Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway, “Coal Dust FAQ,” Mar 2011, 

http://www.coaltrainfacts.org/docs/BNSF-Coal-Dust-FAQs1.pdf.
5

saying that many coal shippers are simply ignoring the tariff—only 30% of coal shippers were 

applying surfactants as of late 20112. Even if coal shippers do not ignore the tariff, surfactants 

wear off over the rail route and are not 85% effective—likely closer to 0% the further the coal 

gets from the mine like in Idaho. Further evidence and expert commentary on the inaccuracy of 

the 85% control efficiency assumption can be found at pages 7-9 of Phyllis Fox’s Fugitive 

Particulate Matter Emissions from Coal Train Staging at the Proposed Coyote Island Terminal, 

attached as Ex. 3 and incorporated herein by reference. 

C. THERE IS RELIABLE EVIDENCE THAT INDICATES THE 

UNREGULATED INCREASE IN COAL EXPORT TRAINS MEANS THE 

MAINTENANCE PLAN DOES NOT ENSURE THAT THE PM10 NAAQS 

WILL BE MAINTAINED

There is other reliable evidence that indicates the unregulated increase in coal trains 

means the maintenance plan does not ensure that the PM10 NAAQS will be maintained. For 

example, Sierra Club had a modeling expert prepare an evaluation of the ambient air quality 

impacts of the proposed Ambre Energy’s Coyote Island Terminals in Morrow, Oregon 

(Morrow). Khanh Tran produced a report entitled, “The AERMOD Modeling of Air Quality 

Impacts of the Proposed Morrow Pacific Project.” See Ex. 4. The Morrow project involves 

trains to deliver approximately 8.5 million tons per year. The modeling analysis used an annual 

emission figure of 12.8 tons per year PM2.5 from train cars and 0.92 tons per year from tug 

boats. Ex. 4 at 5. AERMOD, the model used in Mr. Tran’s analysis, does not distinguish 

between PM10 and PM2.5 in terms of modeled impacts. Thus, results for PM2.5 could be 

assumed to be PM10 if the emissions were PM10. 

Even with the relatively low level of emissions at the Morrow facility, the modeling 

analysis predicted an impact of 388.6 ug/m3 with open trains and closed barges. Ex. 4 at 20. 

This value exceeds the PM10 NAAQS. The Open trains scenario is the appropriate one to look 

at because there is no requirement for the trains passing through the maintenance area to be 

covered. This modeling analysis is a strong indication that the Maintenance Plan will not 

maintain the PM10 NAAQS in light of the train traffic anticipated for the proposed coal export 

terminals.

III. CONCLUSION

If you have any questions, or require any addition data, please do not hesitate to contact 

us. Otherwise, we appreciate your careful consideration of these comments on this very 

important matter. We look forward to EPA’s disapproval of the PM10 maintenance SIP 

submission.

 

2 Tavanger, Sayeh, “Some shippers not complying with BNSF coal dust tariff,” Nov 3, 2011, 

Platts Energy Week, WUSA 9

accessedhttp://www.wusa9.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=173329
6

Sincerely,

Robert Ukeiley

Counsel for Sierra Club