# Appendix B-6

Development of 2011 Railroad Component for National Emissions Inventory

### 1

MEMORANDUM

TO: Laurel Driver/US EPA

FROM: Heather Perez, Susan McClutchey, and Richard Billings/ERG

DATE: September 5, 2012

SUBJECT: Development of 2011 Railroad Component for National Emissions Inventory

1.0 Introduction

As part of Work Assignment 5-07 under EPA Contract EP-D-07- 097, entitled “Mobile

Source Emission Inventories

– FY12, ” ERG developed growth factors for Class I and Class II and III railroads that were applied to the 2008 emission values developed for the Nati onal Emission Inventory (NEI) to approximate emission levels in 2011. The emissions we re allocated to line haul shape IDs and yard locations based on 2008 allocations. ERG provided the EPA with

the 2011 estimated railroad emissions as an Access database for inclusion into EIS staging tables by the EPA WAM.

This report documents the development of the growth factors (Section 2), application of these growth factors to 2008 data are discussed in Section 3 along with a summary of the 2001 emissions estimates. Lastly A listing of references used in this study are presented in Section 4.

2.0 2008/2011 Railroad Growth Factors

Railroad freight traffic data were obtained from a variety of sources including the Department of Transportation’s Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS) and Surface Transportation Board, The Department of Energy’s Annual Energy Outlook (AEO), the American Association of Railroads (AAR), and the American Short Lines and Regional Rai lroad

Association.

Initially growth rates were reviewed as reported f or the AEO’s 2012 reference case

. These rates were developed relative to billions of ton miles traveled. Data that specifically covered the period from 2008 to 2011 were not included in the data table, so earlier reports (2008-2011) were compiled and reviewed. When the separate reports were evaluated toget her, the actual and projected annual growth rates were inconsistent. This observat ion suggested that the commercial rail freight market had a high degree of uncertainty associated with i t for the study period.

### 2

This observation about the volatility of the market was substantiated when agg regated quarterly rail traffic data from the BTS were reviewed. Their data showed a p eak in 2008 followed by a significant decline in activity for multimodal rail traffic. Gra dually the rail freight market was returning to the 2008 activity level, though the 2011 data point suggests that activities were slightly under the 2008 peak. Note that the rail traffic data p resented in Figure 1 is for intermodal freight traffic and is only provided as a general indicator of rail acti vities.

Figure 1. Intermodal Rail Traffic 2002 to 2012

ERG compiled railroad freight traffic data from the 2008 and 2011 R-1 reports submitted by all Class I rail lines to the Surface Transportation Board. The R-1 data are more comprehensive than the BTS’s intermodal study as it includes all freight shippe d by Class I railways. For the most part, the R-1 data follow the Trends noted in Figure 1 with one e xception:

the Soo Line saw an increase in traffic of over 45%. The Soo Lines business activit ies were investigated to understand the anomaly in their freight traffic data. The Soo Line ac quired the Dakota, Minnesota and Eastern Railroad and the Iowa, Chicago & Eastern Railroad in late 2008

. It is believed that this merger is the cause of the increased activity repo rted by the Soo line.

When all the rail traffic data are aggregated, the Soo line’s freight traffic has a relatively small impact on the overall trend as it is the smallest of the Class I railway s. The percent change from 2008 to 2011 for total ton-miles (including the Soo line) is -2.479.

### 3 Table 1. Class I Railroad Ton Miles Activity for 2008 and 2011

Total Revenue Ton

- miles of Freight (thousands) Total non- Revenue

Ton

- miles of Freight (thousands) Total Revenue and non

Revenue Ton- miles of Freight (thousands) % change

from 2008

to 2011

2008 2011 2008 2011 2008 2011

BNSF 664,384,072 648,431,637 5,997,398 6,117,197 670,381,470 654,548,834

- 2.362

CSXT 248,121,469 228,394,651 347,234 1,216,165 248,468,703 229,610,816

- 7.590

GTC 53,452,403 51,253,084 624,848 518,201 54,077,251 51,771,285

- 4.264

KCSR 29,624,261 30,485,863 6,077 1,338,343 29,630,338 31,824,206 7.404

NS 195,343,113 191,712,562 273,331 1,267,931 195,616,444 192,980,493

- 1.348

Soo 23,681,180 34,581,354 241,414 333,090 23,922,594 34,914,444 45.948

UP 562,629,694 544,397,317 5,187,410 5,485,720 567,817,104 549,883,037

- 3.158

Total 1,789,913,904 1,745,533,115 -2.479



### ERG also tried to obtain rail freight trend data from the Association of American Railroads (AAR), but their current posted data only extend back to 2009. It was noted tha t the

AAR data are used in the in the BTS’s National Transportation Statistics and are similar to the

data in Table 1.

Because Class II and III rail operations are often affected differently b y changes in the economy than Class I railways, data were obtained from the American Short Line s and Regional Railroad Association to assess their growth rate for the study period. Unfortunately , freight traffic data in terms of ton-miles was not available, so information regarding e mployee hours for 2008 and 2011 were evaluated, quantifying a decline in activity of 8.37 percent. It is pos sible that this decline overstates the actual change in Class II and III rail traffi c, as employee efficiency may also change during periods of economic uncertainty.

Lastly, it should be noted that growing the 2008 data using these measures does not account for improved locomotive efficiency. Because the price of railroad fuel increa sed over the study period and because fuel usage is such a large component of rail finances ; when demand declines, railways often use their newer, more efficient locomotives and retire the older engines to reduce their system-wide fuel consumption. Under these conditions, less fuel would be needed to move cargo, suggesting that actual 2011 emissions may be slightly less than t hose estimated for this project.

3.0 Emissions Estimate Summary

The railroad component of the 2008 NEI was provided by ERTAC. ERTAC revised their data since the 2008 NEI was posted. Prior to scaling the 2008 data to represent 2011, the 2008 NEI data set was amended to include the updates in the latest version of the ERTAC da ta. Note there were no changes to the Class I line haul operations which represent t he largest rail emission source. The latest 2008 ERTAC data set for Class II/III line haul operations containe d additional state and railroad provided data as well as an updated fuel use factor. These revi sions were re applied to the county level and re-aggregated to match the latest ERTAC data set . The yard

### 4

engine data also had slightly different emissions and record counts. The new yard emis sions were summed and reallocated to new yards which were assigned unique IDs and EIS/ GIS point

locations.

The growth factors developed in Section 2 were applied to the updated 2008 railroad emission estimates using the following equation to approximate 2011 emissions:

EE 2011ij 

### = EE 2008ij 

### × (1+ GF i 

### /100)

Where:

EE 2011ij 

### = 2011 railroad emission estimate for operation type i and pollutant j (Tons/Yr)

EE 2008ij 

### = 2008 railroad emission estimate for operation type i and pollutant j (Tons/Yr)

GF i 

### = 2011/2008 growth factor for operation type i (Class 1 railroad and all yard operations = -2.475percent and Class 2 and 3 operations = -8.37 percent)

i 

### = Rail operation type (Class 1 line haul, Class 2 and 3 line haul, and yard operations)

j 

### = criteria pollutant and regulated HAPs.

The 2011 emissions using the above approach are presented in Table 2 along with the updated 2008 values for each locomotive category. HAP emissions for each locomotive cat egory are presented in the Appendix of this report.

Table 2. 2008 and 2011 Annual Emission Estimates by Locomotive Category (Tons)

Pollutant Class I Class II/III Switch Total

2008 2011 2008 2011 2008 2011 2008 2011

CO 110,969 108,218 4,631 4,244 9,231 9,002 124,830 121,463

NH 3 347 339 14 13 28 27 389 379

NO X 754,433 735,731 47,035 43,100 74,431 72,586 875,899 851,417

PM 10 25,477 24,846 1,158 1,061 2,105 2,053 28,740 27,960

PM 25 23,439 22,858 1,065 976 2,042 1,991 26,546 25,826

SO 2 7,836 7,642 327 300 624 608 8,787 8,550

VOC 39,952 37,000 1,829 1,676 5,125 4,998 46,905 43,674

### 5

4.0 References

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Documentation for Locomotive Component of the National Emissions Inventory Methodology (NEI), May 3, 2011, http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/net/2008inventory.html

.

Department of Transportation / Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS), Multim odal Transportation Indicators, February 2012. http://www.bts.gov/publications/multimodal_transportation_indicators/ february_2012/html/rail_r evenue_ton_miles.html

Surface Transportation Board, Complete Annual R1 forms (2008-2011). http://www.stb.dot.gov/econdata.nsf/f039526076cc0f8e8525660b006870c9?OpenView

The Department of Energy, Annual Energy Outlook (AEO), June 2012. http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/data.cfm

American Association of Railroads (AAR), Class I Railroad Statistics, May 10, 2012. http://www.aar.org/~/media/aar/Industry%20Info/AAR-Stats-2012-05-10.ashx

Timmons, Richard; American Short Lines and Regional Railroad Association. Short L ines Today-Employee Hours (2006-2011), February 22, 2012. http://www.aslrra.org/images/news_file/AASHTO_SCORT_Feb_22_2012.p df

.

### Appendix A

– 2011 HAP Emissions by Locomotive Category

### A-1 Table A

- 1

. 2011 HAP Emissions by Locomotive Category (Tons per year)

Pollutant Class I

E missions Class II/III Switch Total

1,3-Butadiene 113.899 4.866 9.186 127.950

2,2,4-Trimethylpentane 82.974 3.758 11.208 97.940

Acenaphthene 0.738 0.032 0.060 0.830

Acenaphthylene 10.413 0.445 0.850 11.708

Acetaldehyde 659.298 28.164 53.178 740.640

Acrolein 109.648 4.684 8.845 123.176

Ammonia 338.587 13.276 26.958 378.820

Anthracene 2.461 0.105 0.201 2.767

Arsenic 0.009 0.000 0.001 0.010

Benz[a]Anthracene 0.395 0.017 0.032 0.444

Benzene 90.721 3.875 7.317 101.913

Benzo[a]Pyrene 0.070 0.003 0.006 0.079

Benzo[b]Fluoranthene 0.157 0.007 0.013 0.176

Benzo[g,h,i,]Perylene 0.078 0.003 0.006 0.088

Benzo[k]Fluoranthene 0.128 0.005 0.011 0.144

Beryllium 0.696 0.030 0.058 0.783

Cadmium 0.696 0.030 0.058 0.783

Carbon Dioxide

-- 1,617,263.311 3,283,729.797 4,900,993.109

Carbon Monoxide 108,217.732 4,243.692 9,001.821 121,463.245

Chromium (VI) 0.049 0.002 0.004 0.056

Chromium III 0.096 0.004 0.008 0.108

Chrysene 0.292 0.012 0.024 0.329

Ethyl Benzene 74.000 3.351 9.996 87.348

Fluoranthene 1.840 0.079 0.151 2.070

Fluorene 3.417 0.146 0.279 3.842

Formaldehyde 1,519.044 64.891 122.519 1,706.454

Hexane 203.501 9.216 27.490 240.207

Indeno[1,2,3-c,d]Pyrene 0.067 0.003 0.006 0.075

Lead 2.088 0.089 0.173 2.350

Manganese 0.051 0.002 0.004 0.057

Mercury 0.696 0.030 0.058 0.783

Naphthalene 63.268 2.702 5.193 71.163

Nickel 0.163 0.007 0.013 0.183

Nitrogen Oxides 735,730.789 43,099.979 72,586.140 851,416.909

Phenanthrene 13.805 0.590 1.127 15.521

PM 10 Primary (Filt + Cond) 24,845.831 1,060.928 2,052.942 27,959.702

PM 2.5 Primary (Filt + Cond) 22,858.165 976.001 1,991.354 25,825.519

### A-2 Table A

- 1

. 2011 HAP Emissions by Locomotive Category (Tons per year)

Pollutant Class I

E missions Class II/III Switch Total

Propionaldehyde 225.701 10.222 30.489 266.411

Pyrene 2.591 0.111 0.213 2.914

Styrene 77.700 3.519 10.496 91.715

Sulfur Dioxide 7,641.578 299.635 608.406 8,549.619

Toluene 118.400 5.362 15.994 139.757

Volatile Organic Compounds 37,000.155 1,675.721 4,998.128 43,674.003

Xylenes (Mixed Isomers) 177.601 8.043 23.991 209.635