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 , 201 4

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 PM 10 Second Ten

- Year Maintenance Plan and
Pinehurst PM 10 Contingency Measures
EPA

– R10

– OAR

– 2013

– 0247

Dear M s

. 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 writ ing 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 dem onstrates , the Maintenance Plan fails to protect these areas from dramatic increases in PM10 caused by coal exports.2

T he Northwest is facing at least three new coal export facilities in Washington and Oregon that would export coal mined in the P owder R iver B asin (PRB) to Asia . Coal would be transported via rail to the ports and then ship ped 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/oi l transport causing increased locomotive traffic and fugitive coal emissions in the
maintenance areas. I t 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
mainten ance 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

I I

. 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 t rains serving export terminals is arbitrary and capricious.
See The Lands Council v. McNair , 537 F.3d 981, 987 (9 th Cir. 2008)

.

Specifically, t he 20 08 emission categories and future year emission inventories include
locomotives . However, the emission inventories do not includ e 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 invento ries. 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 submi ssio n 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 submi ssion uses a generic factor to slightly increase the number of locomotives.

This gener ic 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 terminal s 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 CO AL 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, by4

Douglas L. Cope and Kamal K. Bhattacharyya (Cope 2001)

. See Ex. 2

. Cope 2001 was not published. Ex. 2 at iii. It ha d a “limited” technical review. I d.

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 2 011 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 th us 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 , state d

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 use s 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. 1 The Washington M aintenance Plan assumes 85% control from a topping agen t or surfactant that is applied to the top of loaded

coal cars at the mine

. T h is "requirement" is from a BNSF tariff to require the use of surfactants

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

but it has no enforcement mechanism and is essentially voluntary . I ndustry has been quote d 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 2011 2 . 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 furt her the coal gets from the mine like in Idaho

. Further evidence and expert commentary o n the inaccuracy of the 85% control efficiency assumption can be found at pages 7

- 9 of Phyllis Fox’s Fugitive

Partic ulate 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

T here 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 PM 10 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 b arges. 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.

I II

. 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 maintenan ce SIP
submission

.

2 Tavanger, Sayeh, “Some shippers not complying with BNS F coal dust tariff,” Nov 3, 2011, Platts Energy Week , WUSA 9
accessed http://www. wusa9 .com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=1733296 Sincerely,

Robert Ukeiley
Counsel for Sierra Club