A TTACHMENT I

CONTROLLED AND UNCON TROLLED AVERAGE SUMM ER WEEKDAY
LOCOMOTIVE INVENTORI ES FOR HOUSTON

- GALVESTON

- BRAZORIA AND
DALLAS

- FORT WORTH AREAS FOR SELECT YEARS 2012, 2 014, 2017, 2020, 2023, 2026, AND 2028

# C ONTROLLED AND


# U NCONTROLLED 

# A VERAGE


# S UMMER 

# W EEKDAY



# L OCOMOTIVE 

# I NVENTORIES

FOR 

# H OUSTON



# - G

ALVESTON



# B RAZORIA AND 

# D ALLAS



# - F ORT



# W ORTH 

# A REAS FOR 

# S ELECT



# Y EARS 

# 2012, 2014, 2017,

2020, 2023, 2026, AND


# 2028

Final

Prepared for:

Texas Commission on Environmental Quality

Air Quality Division

Prepared by:

Eastern Research Group, Inc.

April 30, 2015

### ERG N o

. 0345.00.003.002



## T EXAS 

## R

AILROAD 

## SIP E MISSION 

## C ONTROLLED AND 

## U NCONTROLLED 

## A VERAGE 

## S UMMER 

## W EEKDAY 

## R AILROAD 

## I NVENTORIES FOR 

## H OUSTON



## - G

ALVESTON



## - B RAZORIA AND 

## D ALLAS



## - F ORT 

## W ORTH 

## A REAS 

## F OR 

## S ELECT 

## Y EARS 

## 2012, 2014, 2017, 2020, 2023, 2026,

A ND 2028

TCEQ Contract No. 582

- 15

- 50416 Work Order No. 582

- 15

- 51538

- 02

- FY2015

- 11

Prepared for:

Cody McLain Texas Commission on Environmental Quality

Emissions Assessment Section P. O. Box 13087 Bldg. E, Room 335 Austin, TX 78711

- 3087

Prepared by:

Heather Perez

Eastern Research Group, Inc. 1600 Perimeter Park Drive
Suite 200 Morrisville, N C 27560

April 30, 2015

### i Table of Contents

1.0 Introduction

................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 1

- 1

2.0 Data Collection

................................ ................................ ................................ ... 2

- 1

2.1 Union Pacific

................................ ................................ ........................... 2

- 2

2.2 Kansas City Southern

................................ ................................ .............. 2

- 3

2.3 Texas & Northern Railway

................................ ................................ ...... 2

- 3

2.4 South Plains Lamesa Railroad

................................ ................................ 2

- 3

2.5 Watco Companies

................................ ................................ ................... 2

- 3

2.6 Switch Yard Locations

................................ ................................ ............. 2

- 3

3.0 Processing of Local Data

................................ ................................ .................... 3

- 1

3.1 Line

- Haul Data

................................ ................................ ........................ 3

- 1

3.1.1 Un ion Pacific Railroad Data Processing

................................ ...... 3

- 1

3.1.2 Kansas City Southern Railroad

................................ .................... 3

- 1

3.1.3 Burlington Northern Santa Fe

................................ ..................... 3

- 1

3.1.4 Class II and Class III Line

- Haul Data

................................ .......... 3

- 1

3.2 Switch Yard Data

................................ ................................ ..................... 3

- 2

4.0 Em ission Factors

................................ ................................ ................................ 4

- 1

4.1 VOC and NO
x 

### by Tier

................................ ................................ .............. 4

- 1

4.2 VOC and NO
x 

### by Year

................................ ................................ .............. 4

- 2

5.0 Allocation of Class I Line

- Haul Emissions

................................ ......................... 5

- 1

5.1 Class II/III Line

- Haul Emissions Allocation

................................ .......... 5

- 2

6.0 Projection Factors

................................ ................................ .............................. 6

- 1

7.0 Results

................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 7

- 1

8.0 References

................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 8

- 1 Appendix A

. Locomotive Emission Control Programs in Texas, 2008

- 2040

............. A

- 1

### ii List of Tables

Table 2

- 1. Summary of Data Solicitation Effort

................................ ............................... 2

- 1
Table 4

- 1. Uncontrolled Emission Factors from 2009 EPA Technical Highlights

Publication(g/gal)*

................................ ................................ ............................... 4

- 2
Table 4

- 2. NO x 

### Emission Factors by Year (g/gal)*

................................ .......................... 4

- 3

Table 4

- 3 . VOC Emission Factors by Year (g/gal)*

................................ ........................ 4

- 4

Table 6

- 1. AEO

- based Growth Factors for Locomotive Activities

................................ .. 6

- 2
Table 7

- 1. Ozone Season Daily Controlled NO X 

### Emissions (tons)by Year for the Dallas/

Fort Worth

- 9 County Area

................................ ................................ .................. 7

- 1
Table 7

- 2. Ozone Season Daily Uncontrolled NO X 

### Emissions (tons) by Year for the

Dallas/ Fort Worth

- 9 County Area

................................ ................................ ..... 7

- 2
Table 7

- 3. Ozone Season Daily Controlled VOC Emissions (tons) by Year for the Dallas/

Fort Worth

- 9 County Area

................................ ................................ .................. 7

- 2
Table 7

- 4. Ozone Season Daily Uncontrolled VOC Emissions (tons) by Year for the

Dallas/ Fort Worth

- 9 County Area

................................ ................................ ..... 7

- 3
Table 7

- 5. Ozone Season Daily Controlled NO X 

### Emissions (tons) by Year for the Dallas/

Fort Worth

- 4 County Area

................................ ................................ .................. 7

- 3
Table 7

- 6. Ozone Season Daily Uncontrolled NO X 

### Emissions (tons) by Year for the

Dallas/ Fort Worth

- 4 County Area

................................ ................................ ..... 7

- 3
Table 7

- 7. Ozone Season Daily Controlled VOC Emissions (tons) by Year for the Dallas/

Fort Worth

- 4 County Area

................................ ................................ .................. 7

- 4
Table 7

- 8. Ozone Season Daily Uncontrolled VOC Emissions (tons) by Year for the

Dallas/ Fort Worth

- 4 County Area

................................ ................................ ..... 7

- 4
Table 7

- 9. Ozone Season Daily Controlled NO X 

### Emissions (tons) by Year for the

Houston/Galveston/Brazoria Area

................................ ................................ ....... 7

- 4
Table 7

- 10. Ozone Season Daily Uncontrolled NO X 

### Emissions (tons) by Year for the

Houston/Galveston/Brazoria Area

................................ ................................ ....... 7

- 5
Table 7

- 11. Ozone Season Daily Controlled VOC Emissions (tons) by Year for the

Houston/Galveston/Brazoria Area

................................ ................................ ....... 7

- 5
Table 7

- 2. Ozone Season Daily Uncontrolled VOC Emissions (tons) by Year for the

Houston/Galveston/Brazoria Area

................................ ................................ ....... 7

- 6

### iii List of Figures

Figure 2

- 1

. Class I, II, and III Rail Yard Locations in Texas

................................ ........... 2

- 5

### 1

- 1



## 1.0 I ntroduction

The objective of this Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) project is to develop v olatile organic compound (VOC) and nitrogen oxide (NO
x 

### ) controlled and

uncontrolled locomotive emissions estimates for years 2012, 2014, 2017, 2020, 2023, 2026, and 2028 to aid in State Implementation Plan (SIP) development for the eight

county Houston

- Galveston

- Brazoria (HGB) , the nine

- cou nty Dallas

- Fort Worth (DFW) 1997 eight

- hour ozone nonattainment areas , and the four

- county DFW 1997 one

- hour

ozone nonattainment area

. During project development, activity data for 2014 were not available. Therefore, Eastern Research Group ( ERG) obtained activity data from 2013 as this represented the most recent available data at the time the project began

. ERG
collected a ctivity data for calendar year 2013 , updated activity factors for future years,
and used those factors to develop ozone season weekday emission inventories for

locomotives

. ERG developed t rend data for both controlled and uncontrolled criteria emissions for years 2008 to 2040

.

One improvement of this inventory over previous efforts is its bottom

- up approach that integrates significant am ounts of locally provided data. While previous efforts have

relied partially on a top

- down approach adjusting national inventory data to quantify state and county level activity and emissions, recent trends in inventory development have emphasized increase d spatial resolution that is not well served by modifying

national

- level data. For that reason, the TCEQ sought inventory effort s built on detailed, locally

- based activity and emissions data

.

The Texas Locomotive SIP Emissions Inventory include s Class I, II, and III railroad activity and emissions by rail segment for the following counties: the eight HGB eight

hour ozone nonattainment counties including Brazoria, Chambers, Fort Bend, Galveston, Harris, Liberty, Montgomery, and Waller ; the nine DFW eight

- hour ozone nonattainment counties including Collin, Dallas, Denton, Ellis, Johnson, Kaufman, Parker, Rockwall, and Tarrant ; and the four DFW one

- hour ozone nonattainment counties including Dallas, Denton, Collin, and Tarrant

. Th is report describe s th e inventory approach, including initial collection of local data, emission s calculations, and spatial allocations used to develop the Locomotive SIP inventory.

### 2

- 1



## 2.0 D ata Collection

A primary objective of the Texas Locomotive SIP Emissions Inventor y is to include rail companies operating in the state of Texas in the inventory effort. To meet this objective,

ERG solicited line

- haul and yard data from all Class I, II, and III railroad companies operating in Texas. All railroad members listed in the American Short Line and Regional Railroad Association (ASLRRA) as operating in Texas were included, as well as Class I rail companies Union Pacific (UP), Burlington Northern

– Santa Fe (BNSF), and Kansas

Cit y Southern (KCS)

. Additional input was requested from the Texas Department of Transportation and the Texas Transportation Institute (ASLRRA 2011). Approximately

47 different contacts were identified and ERG contacted the organizations via phone and

email to solicit quantita tive and/or qualitative data

.

Table 2

- 1 identifies the contacts and summarizes t he responses received from this

outreach effort

. The remainder of this section describes the data received.

Table 2

- 1 . Summary of Data Solicitation Effort

Agency/Company Name Contact Name Contact Phone Response
Alamo Gulf Coast Railroad

--- ( 210 ) 208

- 4417 No Response

Alliance Terminal Railroad Tine Nelson, General Manager, Operations ( 817 ) 224

- 7152 No Response

Angelina & Neches River Railroad Co. Laura Ricks, Information Systems ( 936 ) 634

- 4403 No Response

Austin Western Railroad

--- ( 512 ) 246

- 0738 Received

Blacklands Railroad Walt Defebaugh, President ( 903 ) 439

- 0738 No Response

Border Pacific Railroad Co.

--- ( 956 ) 487

- 5606 No Response

Brownsville & Rio Grande Int'l Railroad Norma Porres (956) 831

- 7731 No Response Burlington Northern Santa Fe Mike Clift, and Laura Fiffick (800) 795

- 2673 No Response

Corpus Christi Terminal Railroad Brent Azzo (904) 223

- 1110 No Response Dallas, Garland & Northeastern Railroad --- (972) 808

- 9800 No Response

Fort Worth & Western Railroad Bill Parker (817) 222

- 9798, x

102 No Response Galveston Railroad, L. P. Brent Azzo (904) 223

- 1110 No Response Gardendale Railroad, Inc. Greg Wheeler (618) 632

- 4400 No Response Georgetown Railroad Company

--- (512) 869

- 1542 No Response Kansas City Southern Kevin McIntosh (Government Relations) (816) 983

- 1987 Received

Janet Sommerhauser (Environment) (816) 983

- 1603 No Response

Kiamichi Railroad Co. Seth Rutz, GM (580) 916

- 7601 No Response
Moscow, Camden & San Augustine Railroad --- (404) 652

- 4000 No Response

### 2

- 2 Table 2

- 1 . Summary of Data Solicitation Effort

Agency/Company Name Contact Name Contact Phone Response Panhandle Northern Railroad, LLC

--- (806) 273

- 3513 No Response Pecos Valley Southern Railway Co. Billy Edwards, Operations Mgr (432) 445

- 2487 Received

Plainsman Switching Co., Inc.

--- (806) 744

- 0118 No Response Point Comfort & Northern Railway
Co. Brent Azzo (912) 964

- 5337 No Response

Port Terminal Railroad Association

--- (713) 393

- 6500 No Response Rio Valley Switching Company Greg Wheeler (956) 971

- 9111 ext.

117 No Response

Rockdale, Sandow & Southern Railroad Co. Brent Azzo (912) 964

- 5337 No Response

Sabine River & Northern Railroad David Clark (409) 670

- 6751 No Response

San Antonio Central Railroad Larry Jensen (620) 231

- 2230 Received

South Plains Lamesa Railroad Ltd. Shad Wisener (806) 828

- 4841 Received Southern Switching Company Greg Wheeler (325) 677

- 3601 No Response Temple & Central Texas Railway, Inc.

--- (254) 778

- 8300 No Response

Texas & Northern Railway Co. Mr. Tracy Larson Edwards (903) 656

- 6762 Received

Texas Central Business Lines Corporation --- (972) 775

- 1853 No Response

Texas DOT

– Rail Jackie Ploch (512) 416

- 2621 Received

Texas DOT

- Environmental Affairs Air Quality contact (512) 416

- 2691 No Response Texas Gonzales & Northern Railway
Co. --- (830) 540

- 3788 No Response

Texas

- New Mexico Railroad Co., Inc.

--- (806) 221

- 3150 No Response Texas North Western Railway Co.

--- (972) 386

- 0117 No Response

Texas Northeastern Railroad Dave Geraci (817) 527

- 4913 No Response Texas Pacifico Transportation Company Ltd. Jorge Gonzalez Chozas, VP Operations (325) 277

- 3102 No Response

Texas Rock Crusher Railway Co. Andy Scheriger (325) 643

- 5105 No Response

Texas South

- Eastern Railroad Co.

--- (859) 881

- 6588 No Response
Texas Transportation Institute Les Olson (979) 862

- 2846 No Response

Timber Rock Railroad

--- (409) 385

- 6611 Received

Union Pacific Jon Germer (402) 544

- 2235 Received West Texas & Lubbock Railway

--- (806) 785

- 8668; (806) 221

- 3150 (operating office) No Response

Western Rail Road Company Frank Caballero (830) 625

- 8084 No Response Wichita, Tillman & Jackson Railway
Co. Martin Cicalla (940) 723

- 1852 No Response



### 2.1 Union Pacific

Union Pacific (UP) is one of the largest Class I rail companies operating in Texas with over 6,300 miles of track and more than 7,700 employees in Texas alone. In response to
ERG’s dat a solicitation, UP provided a 15

- page .pdf document that contained line

- haul and yard data for all activities in Texas for the year 201 3 . Line

- haul mileage, annual

### 2

- 3

average million gross tons (MGT) per mile, fuel usage, train counts, and emission estimates for HC, CO, NO
x 

### , and PM were provided by county and track segment. The emission estimates were calculated using current U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) emission factors, and the fuel usage was calculated based on the system

- wide

averag e fuel consumption rate for 2013 . Yard data were provided by county for 211 “yard job equivalent s , ” which is equal to one switch locomotive operating 24 hours a day. The activity data were then provided in terms of estimated annual fuel use in gallons, based

on an EPA activity factor of 226 gallons per day (gal/day) of operation.

2.2 Kansas City Southern

KCS provided 2013 fuel usage and gross ton miles for 13 distinct routes (e.g., Port Arthur to Beaumont, Houston to Beaumont, Corpus Christi to Robstown, etc.) as well as maps of these routes

. They also provided number of engines and gallons of fuel pumped

at each of seven yard locations in Texas.

2.3 Texas & Northern Rail way

T exas & Northern Railway provided information on a single yard location in Lone Star

. T he data include d coordinate locations, annual fuel use, annual hour s of operation, and
number of engines for 2013

.

2.4 South Plains Lames a Railroad

South Plains Lamesa Railroad provided information on Slaton yard in Lubbock County

. D ata included coordinates, annual fuel use, annual hour s of operation, and number of engines

.

2.5 Watco Companies

Watco Companies provided with information on Austin Western, Timber Rock, San Antonio Central, and Pecos Valley Railroads

. Data include d engine counts, average daily hours of use, and headquarter locations.

2.6 Switch Yard Locations

Switch yards have historically been under

- represent ed in inventory efforts due to the lack of available data and low response to data requests

. Because identif ying more yard
locations and estimat ing emissions that were not accounted for in previous inventories was a priority in this project, ERG examined s witch yard data carefully

.

ERG reviewed previously identified yard locations against rail networks from the Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS) and the Texas Natural Resources Information System as well as satellite imagery via Google Earth

. Two yar ds were removed due to

### 2

- 4

lack of substantiation from these related data layers, and some yard coordinates were shifted slightly to better match the network and/or imagery data

. S tate wide rail
networks and satellite imagery w ere also reviewed systematically t o identify potential new yards

. Potential new yards were identified as areas with several rail segments parallel to each other and off of the main tracks according to either rail network

. In many cases, these yards also had visible train activity in satell ite imagery and indications of support equipment or trucking facilities nearby

. These potential yard locations were reviewed by several staff members, and those that seemed questionable
were removed.

ERG also researched p otential and future yards online vi a web sites from transportation departments, trade associations, r ailroad company websites, as well as industry trends

sites as listed in Appendix A

. The 334 switch yards identified in Texas for this inventory are shown in Figure 2

- 1.

### 2

- 5 Figure 2

- 1

. Class I, II, and III Rail Yard Locations in Texas

### 3

- 1



## 3.0 P rocessing of Local Data

3.1 Line

- Haul Data

3.1.1 Union Pacific Railroad Data Processing

ERG converted UP’s .pdf data to text using Adobe Acrobat and then importe d the data

into M icrosoft Excel

. L ine

- haul fuel use and emissions data were summarized at the county level and hydrocarbon ( HC ) was converted to VOC by multiplying by 1.053 , and

NO x 

### emissions were estimated using the fuel

- based emission factors and methodo logy
described in Section 4

.

3.1.2 Kansas City Southern Railroad

KCS provided 2013 fuel usage and gross ton

- miles for several distinct routes (e.g., Port Arthur to Beaumont, Houston to Beaumont, Corpus Christi to Robstown, etc.) as well as maps of these routes

. ERG compared t hese maps against rail segment maps in a geographic information system ( GIS ) to identify the E mission Inventory System ( EIS ) shapes affiliated with each route

. Total route fuel usage was divided among the segments in that route based on segme nt length, and e missions were calculated using

segment

- level fuel usage

. The route from Ashdown, AR to Shreveport, LA was not processed because it is outside of Texas boundaries.

3.1.3 Burlington Northern Santa Fe

BNSF did not provide updated data for 2013; howe ver, they did respond to a previous data request for the 2011 inventory effort

. To maximize use of locally

- provided data, their previous 2011 county

- level fuel usage was extrapolated to 2013 using a growth

factor derived from their R

- 1 data as described in Section 6

. Then the 2013 emission factors were used to recalculate 2013 emissions as described in Section 4

.

3.1.4 Class II and Class III Line

- Haul Data

No Class II or III Railroad companies provided line

- haul data

. As a result

, ERG used

other locall y

- based da ta sources to estimate 2014 activity levels. The Eastern Regional Technical Advisory Committee (ERTAC) previously collaborated with the F ederal

R ailroad A dministration (FRA) , the ASLRRA, and members of the Class II and III Railroad communities to develop a ctivity and emissions profiles for Class II and Class III railroads for 2008 (Bergin et. al, 2009). The ASLRRA compiles data from the Class II and III railroads every few years, including total industry fuel use for locomotives and total Class II/III route miles. Unfortunately, at this time there are no newer data, so the

2008 activity data were grown to represent 2013 activity. ERG used t he U.S. Energy Information Administration’s (EIA) latest Annual Energy Outlook (AEO) to estimate the fuel usage growth b y year and applied this growth rate directly to the fuel usage data before applying emission factors as further described in Section 6

.

### 3

- 2

3.2 Switch Yard Data

The final yard list includes 42 UP yards, 42 BNSF yards, 12 KCS yards , and 238 Class II/III yards for a total of 334 yards

. Most respondents provided f uel usage data such

that emissions were calculated directly using emission factors in grams/gallon as described in Section 4.0

. For data that did not include fuel use, ERG developed the most appropriate surro gates possible to fill in the gap s in activity data

. For example, BNSF’s previous yard work included emissions but not fuel use

. Without supporting data on the activity or emission factors used to develop BNSF’s 2011 emissions data, ERG estimated
the fuel usage in gallons in 2011 by dividing the emissions by the 2011 emission factors (grams per gallon)

. The fuel usage data was then projected to 2013

. Watco provided engine count and daily hours of operation

. To calculate fuel usage, ERG first calculated

an a verage Class II/III fuel usage rate from data provided by Class II/III railroad companies in Texas to get a n average value of 10.05 gallons per hour ( gal/hr )

. ERG also

used local Class I data to determine that the average railroad company uses 5.39% of
the ir total fuel for switch operations

. Assuming that the engines work 365 days per year, the total fuel use was calculated by yard using the following equation:

S G = L * DH *365 days per year * FR * S

Where

S G = t otal a nnual f uel use (gal)

L = n umber of lo comotives

DH = d aily h ours of use (hr)

FR = f

uel us age rate (gal/hr) = 10.05 gal/hr

S = p ortion of total fuel that is used in switch operations

Example:

Austin Western Railroad has 13 locomotives with an average daily use of 12 hours each

.

SG = 13 *12 hr/day * 365 days/yr * 10.05 gal/hr * 0.0539

Switch (gal) = 30,844

For yard locations that were identified during searches but that did not match any of the locally

- submitted data, a more general approach to activity and emissions estimate s was needed

. Fir st, because ERG received relatively comprehensive data submittals from the Class I rail lines in the past, we assumed that these other switch yards were likely related

to small Class II and III rail lines

. Per the 2011 TCEQ Locomotive inventory and current GIS calculations, there are 2,247.66 miles of Class II and III rail lines in Texas

. Using a Class II/III fuel use factor of 2,797.74 gallons per mile, obtained from the ASLRR and 2011 TCEQ Inventory, ERG calculated the total Class II/III fuel use as follo ws:

### 3

- 3 2,247.66 mi *2,797.74 gal/mi = 6,288,368 gallons of fuel

Using the previously defined value of 5.39% of total fuel being consumed by switch operations, ERG estimated a statewide switch fuel use of 338,850 gallons for Class II/III yards

. B ecause we had total fue l estimates from six small line

- haul companies, we estimated their switch fuel use as 5.39% of the total and subtracted this “known” fuel
use from the statewide total to avoid double

- counting

. The result was a statewide total of
262, 509 gallons for Class II/III switch operations

. Given there are 220 Class II/III yard s , t his fuel usage data equates to roughly 1, 193 gallons of fuel per year per yard. This equates to about 120 operating hours a year or only a couple of hours a week at ea ch of these switching yards

.

### 4

- 1



## 4.0 E mission Factors

With fuel usage estimates established for all activity data, ERG could apply fuel

- based
emission factors to estimate emissions

. ERG compiled emission factors fo r Class I and Class II/III line

- haul and yard locomotives from various references

. This section provides the source documents and calculations involved in identifying emission factors for the listed pollutants.

The EPA Technical Highlights publication, “Emission Factors for Locomotives” (EPA 2009) provides em ission factors on a gram per brake horsepower

- hour ( g/bhp hr ) basis
and then converts them to a grams per gallon basis with a factor based on the usable power of the locomotive engine

. The conversion requires a factor of 20.8 bhp hr/ gal for large line

- haul locomotives

, 18.2 bhp hr/gal for small line

- haul locomotives

, and 15.2 bhp hr/gal for yard locomotives. The g/gal emission factors can also be converted to an energy basis for use if the heating value of diesel fuel is known

. The conversion to grams emitted per ton

- mile of freight hauled ( g/ton

- mile ) is calculated based on data collected by the Association of American Railroads for revenue ton

- miles and fuel consumption

, which shows approximately one gallon of diesel fuel hauls 400 ton

- miles of freight.

4.1 VOC and NO x 

### by Tier

The 2009 EPA Technical Highlights publication includes emission rates for hydrocarbons (HC) and nitrogen oxide (NO
x 

### ) for line

- haul and yard locomotives in g/bhp

- hr

. ERG converted these emission rates to g/ga l by locomotive type

. These emission factors were used to develop the uncontrolled emissions inventory

. The 2009
EPA Technical Highlights publication also lists expected fleet average emission factors

for NO
x 

### and HC by calendar year and locomotive type

, which are listed in S ection 4 .4

.

ERG applied conversion factors to develop the emission factors as needed. Volatile organic compounds (VOC) emissions are estimated to be 1.053 times the HC emissions provided (EPA

, 2009)

. Table 4

- 1 shows the uncontrolled emission factors in g/gal for the criteria pollutants that were used to develop uncontrolled emission estimates for all SIP years

.

### 4

- 2 Table 4

- 1 . Uncontrolled Emission Factors from

2009 EPA Technical Highlight s Publication(g/gal)*

Uncontrolled Source Category Code ( SCC ) VOC NO
x Large Line

- Haul 2285002006 10.5 270.4 Small Line

- Haul 2285002007 9.2 236.6
Yard 2285002010 16.2 264.5 *EPA 2009



### 4.2 VOC and NO x 

### by Year

The 2009 EPA Technical Highlights publication (EPA 2009) lists expected fleet average

emission factors that account for fleet turnover for NO
x 

### and HC by calendar year and locomotive type. ERG include d these emission factors for l arge l ine

- h aul , small line

haul, and large yard for the various inventories

.

T he conversion factors listed in Section 4.1 apply for VOC

. VOC emissions are estimated to be 1.053 times the HC emissions provided (EPA 2009)

.

T ables 4

- 3 through T able 4

- 9 list the emission factors by year from 2006 to 2040 for

NO x 

### and VOC

. The emission factors are in g/gal and in each table the emission factors

are desegregated by large line

- haul, large switch, and small railroads.

### 4

- 3 Table 4

- 2 . NO x 

### Emission Factors by Year (g/gal)*

Calendar Year L arge L ine

- haul



### SCC 2285002006 L arge S witch 

### SCC 2285002010 S mall R ailroads



### SCC 2285002007

2006 180 250 242
2007 175 249 242 2008 169 243 242
2009 165 241 242

2010 157 236 242

2011 149 235 242

2012 144 227 242
2013 139 225 242
2014 135 217 242
2015 129 215 240 2016 121 208 239
2017 114 206 237 2018 108 202 236

2019 103 200 233

2020 99 187 231

2021 94 185 228

2022 89 177 225
2023 84 172 223
2024 79 162 220
2025 74 150 217 2026 69 144 215
2027 65 138 212 2028 61 132 209
2029 57 126 206

2030 53 119 203
2031 49 112 200
2032 46 105 197
2033 43 98 193
2034 40 91 190
2035 37 84 187 2036 35 77 184

2037 33 71 180 2038 31 67 177
2039 29 63 174
2040 28 60 171 * EPA 2009

### 4

- 4 Table 4

- 3 . VOC Emission Factors by Year (g/gal)*

Calendar Year L arge L ine

- H aul



### SCC 2285002006 L arge S witch



### SCC 2285002010 S mall R ailroads



### SCC 2285002007

2006 10.00 15.80 12.32
2007 9.79 15.80 12.32 2008 9.48 15.27 12.32
2009 9.16 15.27 12.32

2010 8.74 14.85 12.32

2011 8.11 14.74 12.32

2012 7.48 14.00 12.32
2013 6.84 14.00 12.32
2014 6.42 13.37 12.32
2015 6.00 13.27 12.32 2016 5.37 12.64 12.32
2017 4.84 12.43 12.32 2018 4.42 12.11 12.32
2019 4.11 12.00 12.32

2020 3.79 11.06 12.32

2021 3.58 10.95 12.32

2022 3.37 10.32 12.32
2023 3.16 10.00 12.32
2024 2.95 9.37 12.32
2025 2.74 8.42 12.32 2026 2.63 8.00 12.32
2027 2.42 7.69 12.32 2028 2.21 7.27 12.32
2029 2.11 6.84 12.32
2030 2.00 6.53 12.32
2031 1.79 6.11 12.32
2032 1.68 5.79 12.32
2033 1.58 5.37 12.32
2034 1.47 4.95 12.32
2035 1.37 4.63 12.32 2036 1.26 4.21 12.32
2037 1.26 3.90 12.32 2038 1.16 3.79 12.32
2039 1.16 3.58 12.32
2040 1.05 3.37 12.32 * EPA 2009

### 5

- 1



## 5.0 A llocation of Class I Line

- Haul Emissions

The yard activity/emissions data received were specific to individual yard locations, therefore, no further spatial allocation wa s needed

. For yards for which ERG had no locally

- provided data, ERG divided the statewide fuel use evenly among the 231 yard

locations

. For line

- haul data, t o facilitate processing and to protect c onfidential b usiness

i nformation (CBI)

, ERG aggregated line

- haul rail activity and emissions to the county

level and then reallocated the activity and emissions back to rail segments w ithin each

county to meet format requirements of the NEI

. This was necessary because r ailroad track identification information was limited to mile markers and segment IDs that are specific to individual rail lines ’ network s and do not relate to any publica lly available railway networks to allow for accurate spatial mapping of rail activities.

ERG allocated Class I line

- haul emissions to rail segments based on segment

- specific railroad traffic data (ton miles) obtained from the Department of Transportation (BTS, 2009). Th e BTS dataset categorize s the segments’ level of ac tivity into ranges of million gross ton miles ( MGTM ) and was populated by the Federal Railroad Administration ( FR A )

. ERG divided e missions between all mainline segments using these activity ranges as a proxy to allocate more emissions to segments with higher Class I activity

.

ERG reallocated t he county emission sums to the segments by multiplying the county emissions by the segment’s allocation value divided by the sum of the allocation values for all links within the county as follows:

Where:

E iL 

### = e missions of pollutant i per link L (tons/year).

E iC 

### = e missions of pollutant i per county C (tons/year).

A L 

### = a ll ocation value for link L per activity category from public BTS

dataset.

A LC 

### = s um of allocation values for all links in county C from public BTS

dataset.

The spatial inventory was developed from confidential data from FRA very similar to the publically

- av ailable BTS rail dataset, so segment IDs were generally consistent with those used in EIS, thus facilitating later data processing

.

### 5

- 2

5.1 Class II/III Line

- Haul Emissions Allocation

The ERTAC Rail paper (Bergin 2011) extract ed links that were identified as owned or operated by specific Shortline or Regional Railroads from the FRA

- provided proprietary shapefile to create a shapefile of Class II/III mainline rail segments. Because Class II/III railroads are less likely to use rail segments tha t are heavily tra veled by Class I railroads, the activity

- based approach used for Class I lines is not appropriate for small line

- haul

rail activities . Instead, Class II/III line

- haul emissions were allocated to rail segments using segment length as a proxy.

The county emission sums were reallocated to the segments by multiplying the county emissions by the segment’s length divided by the sum of the length for all links within the county as follows:

Where:

E iL 

### = e missions of pollutant i per link L (tons/year).

E iC 

### = e missions of pollutant i per county C (tons/year).

l L 

### = a llocation value for link L per activity category from public BTS

dataset.

l LC 

### = s um of allocation values for all links in county C from public BTS

dataset.

### 6

- 1



## 6.0 P rojection Factors

Because activity data were requested for only 2013, projection factors were required to backcast and forecast activity data from 20 12 to 20 28 using 2013 as the baseline

. ERG obtained data for UP, BNSF, and KCS from the Fe deral Railroad Administration’s Complete Class I Railroad Annual Reports (R

- 1) for years 2008 through 2013

. By creating a ratio of annual fuel use in gallons, company

- specific percent change values

were calculated and used to adjust provided 2013 or 2011 d ata to backcasted 2008 activity levels

. For Class II and III lines and for forecasted years for all companies, actual fuel use is not available, and a different approach is required

. ERG used U.S. Energy
Information Administration (EIA) Annual Energy Outlo ok (AEO) for year 20 13 (EIA 2014) as the baseline year to backcast activity to 2008 and to forecast ( project ) future activity levels through 2040

. The AEO provides detailed annual projections in billion ton miles traveled through year 2040

. These future pr ojections show little to no growth in rail industry over the time period of interest

. ERG verified t he trend data in EIA AOE using the historic and projected data published by the Association of American

Railroads ( AAR 2014) and the U.S. Bureau of Transpor tation Statistics ( BTS 2000).

ERG matched the p rojected activity to the appropriate future year emission factors provided in Table 6

- 1

. The AEO

- based growth factors account for implementation of federal rules that occur relative to the year that the locomotive engine was originally manufactured, such that the full benefit of the rule would occur in the future once fleet turnover was completed. Additional adjustments were made to future year emission estimates to account for compliance with emission co ntrol area sulfur standards and

Texas Emissions Reduction Plan ( TERP ) investments. The TERP program provides
grants to eligible businesses to reduce emissions from polluting vehicles and equipment. For rail applications, this typically involves repowering or replacing switch engines. A complete list of control programs addressed in this inventory is presented in Appendix

B

. As BNSF, KCS, and UP provided data for Texas inventory use, the TERP reductions were already included in their estimates. The remaining TERP projects were for smaller

Class II and III rail lines

. ERG used the TERP project data to sum the NO
x 

### reductions over time for each project and then summed by year to get total annual tons of NO
x 

### avoided due to TERP projects

. The NO X 

### tonnage was then added to the uncontrolled inventory to correctly account for the increased emissions that would be present were it not for the TERP projects.

For the controlled emissions

, ERG also applied reductions related to the Texas Low
Emission Diesel Program ( TxLED )

. The TxLED Program is implemented to reduce emissions of nitrogen oxides from diesel

- powered motor vehicles and non

- road equipment and involves a 6.2% NO x 

### reduction in the 110 central and eastern c ounties that are impacted by this regulation, which includ e all of the counties examined in this
SIP effort.

### 6

- 2 Table 6

- 1 . AEO

- based Growth Factors for

Locomotive Activities

Year C hange from Baseline 2013

2012 1.136752

2013 1.00 0000
2014 1.021696

2017 1.023011

2020 1.067719

2023 1.107824
2026 1.130178
2028 1.132807



### ERG also investigated whether the recent reduction in gasoline prices would change oil and gas activity in the United States and Texas in future years

. G iven that this change in price occurred recently, no studies or reports addressing this issue were found

. In researching the topic using Google searches and Google scholar searches

, news articles mentioning possible impact s were found

. However the articles were speculative and
fai led to give any actual data that could be utilized to create or adjust growth factors

.

### 7

- 1



## 7.0 R esults

The results of implementing the emission estimation methodology and emission projection procedures for the years 2012, 2014, 2017, 2020, 2023, 2026, and 2028 ar e presented in Table 7

- 1 through Table 7

- 12. In these tables, all locomotive emissions have been summed up to the county level . Tables 7

- 1 through 7

- 4 present the daily controlled
and uncontrolled NO x 

### and VOC emissions by the nine DFW counties. Tables 7

- 5 through

7

- 8 present the daily controlled and uncontrolled NO X 

### and VOC emissions by the four DFW counties. Tables 7

- 9 through 7

- 12 present the daily controlled and uncontrolled

NO x 

### and VOC emissions for the eight HGB counties.

Table 7

- 1

. Ozone Season Daily Controlled NO X 

### Emissions (tons) by Year for the Dallas/ Fort Worth

- 9 County Area

County Name Daily NO X Emissions (tons/day)

2012 2014 2017 2020 2023 2026 2028

Collin 0.364 0.365 0.319 0.298 0.272 0.239 0.219

Dallas 1.685 1.652 1.487 1.388 1.283 1.101 1.002

Denton 2.144 2.089 1.769 1.606 1.416 1.190 1.056

Ellis 1.052 1.018 0.864 0.784 0.693 0.581 0.515

Johnson 1.650 1.620 1.396 1.277 1.142 0.966 0.864

Kaufman 0.519 0.498 0.421 0.382 0.336 0.281 0.249

Parker 0.789 0.758 0.641 0.581 0.511 0.429 0.380

Rockwall 0.024 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.024

Tarrant 6.136 6.010 5.317 4.914 4.479 3.801 3.429

Total 14.362 14.035 12.239 11.254 10.157 8.611 7.738

### 7

- 2

Table 7

- 2

. Ozone Season Daily Uncontrolled NO X 

### Emissions (tons) by Year for the Dallas/ Fort Worth

- 9 County Area

County Name Daily NO X Emissions (tons/day)

2012 2014 2017 2020 2023 2026 2028

Collin 0.656 0.694 0.695 0.725 0.753 0.768 0.770

Dallas 4.484 4.572 2.963 3.084 3.195 3.255 3.121

Denton 4.290 4.461 4.462 4.655 4.829 4.926 4.937

Ellis 2.190 2.256 2.156 2.249 2.333 2.380 2.385

Johnson 3.468 3.602 3.261 3.403 3.530 3.601 3.610

Kaufman 1.038 1.063 1.064 1.111 1.153 1.176 1.179

Parker 1.579 1.617 1.619 1.690 1.754 1.789 1.793

Rockwall 0.025 0.026 0.026 0.027 0.028 0.029 0.029

Tarrant 15.517 15.895 10.983 11.462 11.892 12.131 12.160

Total 33.247 34.186 27.230 28.407 29.467 30.054 29.984



### Table 7

- 3

. Ozone Season Daily Controlled VOC Emissions (tons) by Year for the Dallas/ Fort Worth

- 9 County Area

County Name Daily VOC Emissions (tons/day)

2012 2014 2017 2020 2023 2026 2028

Collin 0.020 0.019 0.015 0.013 0.012 0.011 0.010

Dallas 0.101 0.095 0.082 0.073 0.067 0.057 0.051

Denton 0.119 0.106 0.080 0.066 0.057 0.049 0.041

Ellis 0.059 0.052 0.040 0.033 0.028 0.024 0.020

Johnson 0.093 0.085 0.067 0.057 0.050 0.043 0.037

Kaufman 0.029 0.025 0.019 0.016 0.013 0.011 0.010

Parker 0.044 0.038 0.029 0.024 0.021 0.017 0.015

Rockwall 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.002 0.002

Tarrant 0.361 0.336 0.280 0.244 0.221 0.185 0.163

Total 0.826 0.759 0.613 0.526 0.472 0.400 0.349

### 7

- 3

Table 7

- 4

. Ozone Season Daily Uncontrolled VOC Emissions (tons) by Year for the Dallas/ Fort Worth

- 9 County Area

County Name Daily VOC Emissions (tons/day)

2012 2014 2017 2020 2023 2026 2028

Collin 0.025 0.027 0.027 0.028 0.029 0.030 0.030

Dallas 0.126 0.130 0.130 0.136 0.141 0.144 0.144

Denton 0.166 0.172 0.173 0.180 0.187 0.191 0.191

Ellis 0.082 0.084 0.084 0.088 0.091 0.093 0.093

Johnson 0.126 0.132 0.132 0.138 0.143 0.146 0.146

Kaufman 0.040 0.041 0.041 0.043 0.045 0.046 0.046

Parker 0.061 0.063 0.063 0.066 0.068 0.069 0.070

Rockwall 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001

Tarrant 0.469 0.486 0.487 0.508 0.527 0.537 0.539

Total 1.097 1.137 1.138 1.188 1.232 1.257 1.260



### Table 7

- 5

. Ozone Season Daily Controlled NO X 

### Emissions (tons) by Year for the Dallas/ Fort Worth

- 4 County Area

County Name Daily NO X Emissions (tons/day)

2012 2014 2017 2020 2023 2026 2028

Collin 0.364 0.365 0.319 0.298 0.272 0.239 0.219

Dallas 1.685 1.652 1.487 1.388 1.283 1.101 1.002

Denton 2.144 2.089 1.769 1.606 1.416 1.190 1.056

Tarrant 6.136 6.010 5.317 4.914 4.479 3.801 3.429

Total 10.328 10.116 8.893 8.205 7.450 6.330 5.705



### Table 7

- 6

. Ozone Season Daily Uncontrolled NO X 

### Emissions (tons) by Year for the Dallas/ Fort Worth

- 4 County Area

County Name Daily NO X Emissions (tons/day)

2012 2014 2017 2020 2023 2026 2028

Collin 0.656 0.694 0.695 0.725 0.753 0.768 0.770

Dallas 4.484 4.572 2.963 3.084 3.195 3.255 3.121

Denton 4.290 4.461 4.462 4.655 4.829 4.926 4.937

Tarrant 15.517 15.895 10.983 11.462 11.892 12.131 12.160

Total 24.947 25.622 19.103 19.927 20.669 21.080 20.988

### 7

- 4

Table 7

- 7

. Ozone Season Daily Controlled VOC Emissions (tons) by Year for the Dallas/ Fort Worth

- 4 County Area

County Name Daily VOC Emissions (tons/day)

2012 2014 2017 2020 2023 2026 2028

Collin 0.020 0.019 0.015 0.013 0.012 0.011 0.010

Dallas 0.101 0.095 0.082 0.073 0.067 0.057 0.051

Denton 0.119 0.106 0.080 0.066 0.057 0.049 0.041

Tarrant 0.361 0.336 0.280 0.244 0.221 0.185 0.163

Total 0.601 0.556 0.457 0.396 0.358 0.302 0.266



### Table 7

- 8

. Ozone Season Daily Uncontrolled VOC Emissions (tons) by Year for the Dallas/ Fort Worth

- 4 County Area

County Name Daily VOC Emissions (tons/day)

2012 2014 2017 2020 2023 2026 2028

Collin 0.025 0.027 0.027 0.028 0.029 0.030 0.030

Dallas 0.126 0.130 0.130 0.136 0.141 0.144 0.144

Denton 0.166 0.172 0.173 0.180 0.187 0.191 0.191

Tarrant 0.469 0.486 0.487 0.508 0.527 0.537 0.539

Total 0.786 0.815 0.816 0.852 0.884 0.902 0.904



### Table 7

- 9

. Ozone Season Daily Controlled NO X 

### Emissions (tons) by

Year for the Houston/Galveston/Brazoria Area

County Name Daily NO X Emissions (tons/day)

2012 2014 2017 2020 2023 2026 2028

Brazoria 1.201 1.167 0.998 0.908 0.807 0.677 0.603

Chambers 0.023 0.023 0.020 0.019 0.018 0.016 0.014

Fort Bend 2.563 2.503 2.126 1.931 1.707 1.435 1.275

Galveston 0.688 0.675 0.587 0.542 0.489 0.419 0.378

Harris 8.691 8.444 7.408 6.822 6.181 5.232 4.705 Liberty 2.844 2.788 2.451 2.259 2.050 1.737 1.563

Montgomery 1.061 1.037 0.886 0.811 0.723 0.616 0.552

Waller 0.194 0.187 0.158 0.143 0.126 0.106 0.094

Total 17.265 16.823 14.634 13.435 12.100 10.236 9.183

### 7

- 5

Table 7

- 10

. Ozone Season Daily Uncontrolled NO X 

### Emissions (tons) by

Year for the Houston/Galveston/Brazoria Area

County Name Daily NO X Emissions (tons/day)

2012 2014 2017 2020 2023 2026 2028

Brazoria 2.381 2.473 2.464 2.565 2.660 2.711 2.717

Chambers 0.064 0.071 0.065 0.065 0.067 0.067 0.068

Fort Bend 5.087 5.297 5.300 5.530 5.737 5.851 5.865

Galveston 1.267 1.316 1.316 1.373 1.425 1.453 1.456

Harris 15.626 16.123 16.101 16.785 17.408 17.751 17.792 Liberty 5.022 5.205 5.211 5.439 5.643 5.756 5.770
Montgomery 2.063 2.142 2.144 2.237 2.320 2.367 2.372

Waller 0.395 0.406 0.405 0.422 0.437 0.446 0.447

Total 31.906 33.033 33.005 34.415 35.697 36.402 36.488



### Table 7

- 11

. Ozone Season Daily Controlled VOC Emissions (tons) by

Year for the Houston/Galveston/Brazoria Area

County Name Daily VOC Emissions (tons/day)

2012 2014 2017 2020 2023 2026 2028

Brazoria 0.068 0.061 0.047 0.039 0.034 0.029 0.025

Chambers 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001

Fort Bend 0.142 0.128 0.097 0.080 0.070 0.060 0.051

Galveston 0.039 0.036 0.029 0.025 0.022 0.019 0.017

Harris 0.506 0.464 0.380 0.328 0.295 0.248 0.217 Liberty 0.166 0.154 0.127 0.110 0.099 0.083 0.073
Montgomery 0.059 0.053 0.041 0.034 0.030 0.027 0.023

Waller 0.011 0.009 0.007 0.006 0.005 0.004 0.004

Total 0.992 0.906 0.729 0.623 0.557 0.470 0.410

### 7

- 6

Table 7

- 2

. Ozone Season Daily Uncontrolled VOC Emissions (tons) by

Year for the Houston/Galveston/Brazoria Area

County Name Daily VOC Emissions (tons/day)

2012 2014 2017 2020 2023 2026 2028

Brazoria 0.093 0.096 0.097 0.101 0.105 0.107 0.107

Chambers 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.002

Fort Bend 0.198 0.206 0.207 0.216 0.224 0.228 0.229

Galveston 0.052 0.053 0.054 0.056 0.058 0.059 0.059

Harris 0.667 0.686 0.687 0.717 0.744 0.759 0.761
Liberty 0.218 0.226 0.227 0.236 0.245 0.250 0.251
Montgomery 0.080 0.083 0.083 0.087 0.090 0.092 0.092

Waller 0.015 0.015 0.015 0.016 0.017 0.017 0.017

Total 1.324 1.369 1.371 1.431 1.484 1.514 1.518

### 8

- 1



## 8.0 R eferences

1. Association of American Railroads, “Class I Railroad Statistics”, U.S. Railroad

Ton

- Miles (bil), July 15, 2014.

2. ASLRRA

. Railroad Members

. 2011

. http://www.aslrra.org/our_members/Railroad_Members/results.cfm?CFID=36 899488&CFTOKEN=278f8ad87ff8a2fd

- CBB218F6

- 19B9

- B58B

7E8F55543E7A3D9B . Accessed January 20, 2012.

3. Bureau of Transportation Statistics, 2009. National Transportation Atlas Databases

- National Rail Network 1:2,000,000. Washington, DC, Publisher: Bureau of Transportation Statistics.

4. U.S. Bureau of Transportation Statistics. Washington, D.C. 2000. “ Ton

- Miles of Freight by Mode: 1975

– 2025. ” The Cha nging Face of Transportation. Report No.
BTS00

- 007.

5. M. Bergin, M. Harrell, J. McDill, M. Janssen, L. Driver, R. Fronczak, R. Nath, and D. Seep. “ERTAC Rail: A Collaborative Effort in Building a Railroad

- Related Emissions Inventory Between Eastern States A ir Protection Agencies and Participation with the Railroad Industry.” Presented at the 18th Annual International Emission Inventory Conference, Baltimore, MD, April 14

- 17, 2009.

6. M. Bergin, M. Harrell. “ERTAC Rail Emissions Inventory; Part 3: Class II and I II Locomotives.” Memorandum to L. Driver. February 2, 2011.

7. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). National Emissions Inventory Report. Appendix C: Emission Factors. 2005.

8. U.S. Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy Outlook 2014 with project ions to 2040, Table A7 Transportation Sector Key Indicators and Delivered Energy Consumption, DOE/EIA

- 0383ER, April 2014.

9. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). EPA Technical Highlights: Emission Factors for Locomotives. Office of Transportation and Air Quality,

EPA

- 420

- F

- 09

- 025, April 2009. htt p://www.epa.gov/otaq/regs/nonroad/locomotv/420f09025.pdf

10. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Report to Congress on Black Carbon, EPA

- 450/R

- 12

- 001, March 2012.

11. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency/Office of Transportation and Air Quality, The 2011 Natio nal Emissions Inventory, September 2013.

12. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency/Office of Transportation and Air Quality, Technical Highlights: Emission Factors for Locomotives, EPA

- 420

- F09

- 025, April 2009

.

### A

- 1 Appendix A. Internet Research for Exi sting and Potential Yard Locations

L ocation Y ard Name R ailroad S tatus L inks

Beaumont Beaumont Yard UP Existing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rail_yards
Fort Worth Davidson Yard UP Existing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rail_yards

Houston Englewood Yard UP Existing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rail_yards
Kendleton Kendleton Yard KCS Existing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rail_yards

Slaton Slaton Yard BNSF/South Plains Lamesa Railroad Existing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rail_yards

La Porte Strang Yard UP Existing h ttp://iaspub.epa.gov/enviro/fii_query_detail.disp_program_f acility?p_registry_id=110035015079

Dallas Miller Yard UP Existing http://iaspub.epa.gov/enviro/fii_query_detail.disp_program_f acility?p_registry_id=110035273398 Eagle Ford San Antonio UP New http://missionrailpark.com/

San Antonio Southton Rail

Yard UP & BNSF Existing http://southtonrailyard.com/about.html

Dallas KCS Rail Yard KCS Existing http://wikimapia.org/10547329/Kansas

- City

- Southern

- Rail

Yard

San Antonio Alamo Junction

Rail Park UP & BNSF Proposed http://www.alamojunction.com/

Big Spring UP Proposed http://www.bigspringherald.com/content/rail

- yard

- could

- be

possibility Port Corpus Christi Commission (PCCA) BNSF/KCS/U

P Proposed http://www.progressiverailroading.com/intermodal/news/Texa

s

- port

- awards

- rail

- yard

- contract

-- 36514

B etween Hearne and Mumford,

Texas UP Proposed http://www.progressiverailroading.com/union_pacific/news/U nion

- Pac ific

- Railroad

- proposes

- to

- build

- one

- of

- Texas

- largest

classification

- yards

- Hearne

- mayor

- says

-- 31785

Houston Port Terminal

Railroad (PTRA) North Yard KCS, NS,

BNSF Existing http://www.ptra.com/index.php/about

- us/ptra

- yards.html http://www.usa.com/frs/union

- pacific

- railroad

- settegast

yard.html

Houston PTRA

Manchester Yard UP/BNSF Existing http://www.ptra.com/index.php/about

- us/ptra

- yards.html

### A

- 2 Appendix A. Internet Research for Exi sting and Potential Yard Locations

L ocation Y ard Name R ailroad S tatus L inks

Houston PTRA Pasadena

Yard UP/BNSF Existing http://www.ptra.com/index.php/about

- us/ptra

- yards.html

Houston PTRA Storage

Yard UP Existing http://www.ptra.com/index.php/about

- us/ptra

- yards.html

Houston Settsgast Yard UP Existing http://www.railfanguides.us/tx/houston/map1/index.htm

Dallas KCS Dallas Yard KCS Existing http://www.railroadforums.com/forum/showthread.php?12220

- KCS

- yard

- near

- dallas

- or

- fort

- worth

Wylie KCS Wylie Yard KCS, NS,
BNSF Existing http://www.railroadforums.com/forum/showthread.php?12220

- KCS

- yard

- near

- dallas

- or

- fort

- worth

Dallas Dallas Garland &

Northeastern (DGNO) at Mockingbird yard BNSF, KCS,

TNER, and
UP Existing http://www.railroadforums.com/photos/showphoto.php/photo /23775/title/dgno

- at

- mockingbird

- yarddallas

- tx/cat/562

Dallas Mockingbird yard DGNO Existing http://www.railroadforums.com/photos/showphoto.php/photo /23775/title/dgno

- at

- mockingbird

- yarddallas

- tx/cat/562

Galveston Texas

International Terminals UP Existing http://www.up.com/customers/coal/ports

- docks/tx

terminals/index.htm

Robertson County UP Proposed http://www.uprr.com/newsinfo/releases/capital_investment/2 014/1002_tx

- railyard.shtml

Blue Mound Alliance Railyard BNSF Existing http://www.waymarking.com/waymarks/WM73KD_BNSF_Alli ance_Railyard_Blue_Mound_Texas

### B

- 1 

## Appendix B

. Locomotive Emission Control Programs in Texas,

2008

- 2040 *

Rail 2008 to 2040 Control Programs

Year Programs Application Notes Source

2008 to

2040 TxLED 110 Counties 6.2% Reduction in NO

x https://www.tceq.texas.gov/assets/public/leg al/rules/rule_lib/adoptions/09001114_aex.p df

2008 TERP Statewide NO
x reduced by 4507 tons this year to various counties (listed in detail in the TERP table) https://www.tceq.texas.gov/assets/public/co mm_exec/pubs/sfr/079_08.pdf

Control of Emissions of Air Pollution for Locomotive Engines and Marine Compression

- ignition Engines Less than 30 Liters per Cylinder Nationwide, Incorporated into EPA's EF's already More stringent PM and NO

x standards for remanufactured locomotives starti ng in 2008.

- Full implementation of the rule will result in PM reductions of 90% and NO

x reductions of 80% compared to current 2008 standards. http://www.epa.gov/nonroad/420f08004.pdf

2008 to 2011 Control of Emissions of Air

Pollution for Locomotive Engines and Marine Compression

- ignition Engines Less than 30 Liters per Cylinder Nationwide, Incorporated into EPA's EF's already More stringent PM and NO

x standards for new locomotives starting in 2008. http://www.epa.gov/nonroad/420f08004.pdf

2009 TERP Statewide NO
x reduced by 4392 tons https://www.tceq.texas.gov/assets/public/co mm_exec/pubs/sfr/079_08.pdf

2010 TERP Statewide NO
x reduced by 4509 tons https://www.tceq.texas.gov/assets/public/co mm_exec/pubs/sfr/079_08.pdf

2011 TERP Statewide NO
x reduced by 4327 tons https://www.tceq.texas.gov/assets/public/co mm_exec/pubs/sfr/079_08.pdf

2012

Fuel Sulfur limit Nationwide, Incorporated into EPA's EF's already Sulfur content of diesel fu el limited to 15 ppm starting in June. Included in EPA's Diesel fuel emission factors for locomotives. http://www.epa.gov/OTAQ/fuels/dieselfuels/ index.htm

### B

- 2 

## Appendix B

. Locomotive Emission Control Programs in Texas,

2008

- 2040 *

Rail 2008 to 2040 Control Programs

Year Programs Application Notes Source

TERP Statewide NO
x reduced by 3

, 225 tons https://www.tceq.texas.gov/assets/public/co mm_exec/pubs/sfr/079_08.pdf

2012 to 2014 Control of Emissions of Air

Pollution for Locomotive Engines and Marine Compression

- ignition Engines Less than 30 Liters per Cylinder Nationwide, Incorporated into EPA's EF's already New locomotives required to apply Tier 3 standards to remanufactured and new locomotives to reduce PM and NO

x emissions

. Also creates new idle

re duction requirement for new and remanufactured locomotives. http://www.epa.gov/nonroad/420f08004.pdf

2013 TERP Statewide NO
x reduced by 3

, 349 tons https://www.tceq.texas.gov/assets/public/co mm_exec/pubs/sfr/079_08.pdf

2014 TERP Statewide NO
x reduced by 3

, 349 tons https://www.tceq.texas.gov/assets/public/co mm_exec/pubs/sfr/079_08.pdf

2015 to

2040 Control of Emissions of Air

Pollution for Locomotive Engines and Marine Compression

- ig nition Engines Less than 30 Liters per Cylinder Nationwide, Incorporated into EPA's EF's already New locomotives required to use Tier 4 high

- efficiency catalytic after treatment technology. http://www.epa.gov/nonroad/420f08004.pdf

2015 TERP Statewide NO
x reduced by 1

, 473 tons https://www.tceq.texas.gov/assets/public/co mm_exec/pubs/sfr/079_08.pdf

2016 TERP Statewide NO
x reduced by 649 tons https://www.tceq.texas.gov/assets/public/co mm_exec/pubs/sfr/079_08.pdf

2017 TERP Statewide NO
x reduced by 638 tons https://www.tceq.texas.gov/assets/public/co mm_exec/pubs/sfr/079_08.pdf

2018 TERP Statewide NO
x reduced by 608 tons https://www.tceq.texas.gov/assets/public/co mm_exec/pubs/sfr/079_08.pdf

2019 TERP Statewide NO
x reduced by 608 tons https://www.tceq.texas.gov/assets/public/co mm_exec/pubs/sfr/079_08.pdf

### B

- 3 

## Appendix B

. Locomotive Emission Control Programs in Texas,

2008

- 2040 *

Rail 2008 to 2040 Control Programs

Year Programs Application Notes Source

2020 TERP Statewide NO
x reduced by 608 tons https://www.tceq.texas.gov/assets/public/co mm_exec/p ubs/sfr/079_08.pdf

2021 TERP Statewide NO
x reduced by 608 tons https://www.tceq.texas.gov/assets/public/co mm_exec/pubs/sfr/079_08.pdf

2022 TERP Statewide NO
x reduced by 608 tons https://www.tceq.texas.gov/assets/public/co mm_exec/pubs/sfr/079_08.pdf

2023 TERP Statewide NO
x reduced by 608 tons https://www.tceq.texas.gov/assets/public/co mm_exec/pubs/sfr/079_08.pdf

2024 TERP Statewide NO
x reduced by 608 tons https://www.tceq.texas.gov/assets/public/co mm_exec/pubs/sfr/079_08.pdf

2025 TERP Statewide NO
x reduced by 598 tons https://www.tceq.texas.gov/assets/public/co mm_exec/pubs/sfr/079_08.pdf

2026 TERP Statewide NO
x reduced by 534 tons https://www.tceq.texas.gov/assets/public/co mm_exec/p ubs/sfr/079_08.pdf

2027 TERP Statewide NO
x reduced by 482 tons https://www.tceq.texas.gov/assets/public/co mm_exec/pubs/sfr/079_08.pdf

2028 TERP Statewide NO
x reduced by 482 tons https://www.tceq.texas.gov/assets/public/co mm_exec/pubs/sfr/079_08.pdf

2029 TERP Statewide NO
x reduced by 324 tons https://www.tceq.texas.gov/assets/public/co mm_exec/pubs/sfr/079_08.pdf

2030 TERP Statewide NO
x reduced by 149 tons https://www.tceq.texas.gov/assets/public/co mm_exec/pubs/sfr/079_08.pdf

2031 TERP Statewide NO
x reduced by 149 tons https://www.tceq.texas.gov/assets/public/co mm_exec/pubs/sfr/079_08.pdf

2032 TERP Statewide NO
x reduced by 149 tons https://www.tceq.texas.gov/assets/public/co mm_exec/pubs/sfr/079_08.pdf

* Note: only the NO

x and VOC reductions were used in the development of future emissions estimates f or this report.