Fugitive Dust from Coal Train

Factors Effecting Emissions 

& Estimating PM2.5

Robert Kotchenruther

EPA Region 10

NW-AIRQUEST 2013 
Background

The main reason I looked into this topic was to adpublic comment EPA received in relation to our feregister notice, which proposed approving WA DeEcology’s 2008 baseline emissions inventory (EI) Tacoma. The comment came from the Sierra Club and sugthe Tacoma 2008 EI was deficient for not discussaccounting for fugitive dust from coal trains in thI was asked to see what could be estimated aboutrain fugitive dust impacts in Tacoma. 
Background

Based on US Coal export data*, coal exports from ‘Seattle’ export district (includes Tacoma up throCanadian boarder) were as follows:So there was some level of coal transported in 20probably through Tacoma).*http://www.eia.gov/coal/

Year Coal Exported (tons)2008 305812009 3652602010 35002042011 48544512012 4746960
Why is this an area of interest now generally? 

3⁄4 There is growing interest from Asian markets in U.S. export coal. 3⁄4 Currently there are 7 proposed or existing coal export terminals along the 

 (4 U.S. & 3 Canadian). 

3⁄4 Coal transport could increase quickly. 

Existing and proposed coal export capacity. 

(in millions of tons) 

BC Canada 2012 2017 2022

Prince Rupert 0.0 1.5 5.0 N. Vancouver 0.0 2.0 5.0 Roberts Bank 5.0 8.0 15.0 

Washington

Cherry Point 0.0 27.5 52.5 Grays Harbor 0.0 0.0 5.0 Longview 0.0 27.5 48.0 

Oregon

St. Helens 0.0 5.0 21.0

Boardman 0.0 3.5 8.5 Coos Bay 0.0 0.0 10.0

Totals 5.0 70.0 139.0 (Source: Whiteside et al., 2012) 
Coal Transport and Source Location 

3⁄4 The majority of export coal would come from the Powder River Basin (PRB3⁄4 Based on current pricing, BNSF would be the primary U.S. rail carrier from 

Rail routes from PRB to proposed U.S. Pacific Northwest Coal Termina

Powder R
Coal Train Frequency Based on Projected Capacit

3⁄4 The number of coal trains per day on rail routes would significantly increasterminals are built. 

Proposed coal export capacity and number of projected loaded coal trains pBC Canada 2022 (10

6 tons) Loaded trains per day*

Prince Rupert 5.0 0.9 N. Vancouver 5.0 0.9 Roberts Bank 15.0 2.8 

Washington

Cherry Point 52.5 9.8 Grays Harbor 5.0 0.9 Longview 48.0 8.9 

Oregon

St. Helens 21.0 3.9

Boardman 8.5 1.6 Coos Bay 10.0 1.9Totals 139.0 25.8 

(*assumes 14,750 tons per train, 125 cars per trains; there will be an equal number of empty trains 
Some Communities will be Impacted More than O

3⁄4 Some transit portions have multiple route options, some only one. 3⁄4 Every BNSF coal train from the PRB to PNW would go through ‘the funnel’ (3⁄4 Three BNSF routes from Spokane to pacific terminals (all would be utilized). 

BNSF – Pacific Northwest Rail Map 

‘The funnel’

Sandpoint, ID – Spokane, WA

Three Routes from Spokane to coast

Stevens PassStampede Pass *(empty returns only) 

Columbia River Gorge 
Community Concerns 

There are a range of community coincreased coal train traffic, some of 3⁄4 Air quality impacts from fugitive 

& increased diesel emissions 

3⁄4 Ecological impacts of coal dust 

3⁄4 Derailments 

3⁄4 Longer rail cross3⁄4 Rail infrastructurcost burden on loca3⁄4 ‘Nuisance dustinon cars/homes 

3⁄4 Rail congestion adverse impacts ocustomers (e.g., container ports, ag 

3⁄4 Long term climate impacts 
Factors Effecting the Amount of Fugitive Coal D

Coal Trains. Car and load geometryrail car dimensions coal load profile total exposed surface area of coal Coal physical propertiescoal moisture content coal size distribution Trip specifics train speeds throughout route load jostling in route total journey length weather: wind, precipitation, temp Dust controlscontrol measure effectiveness and percent remaining at end of journey 
Dust control measures 

Rail lines have an economic incentive to reduce fugitive coal dust ... coal dust in track ballast increases the frequency and cost of track maintenance and can lead to derailments. In 2010 BNSF and Union Pacific conducted a field evaluation of coal dust suppressant technologies.

3⁄4 Trackside and train-board aerosol monitors were used. 

3⁄4 1633 coal trains treated with various dust suppressant technologies. 

>85% dust suppression was achieved with:Specific load profile guidelines and applying a topper agent to loaded coal As of October 2011 BNSF’s Coal Loading Rule requires coal shippers to use measures achieving > 85% dust suppression. 
Estimating Fugitive Coal Dust Emissions from Co

No clear information about how much coal is lost through fugitive dust in tVarious sources give a range of 0.5% to 3% of total coal transported is lost dust when there are no dust control measures. Wind tunnel experiments (1983) have estimated losses on the order of 0.9 1100 km journey. 
Canadian EI Example 

Canadians EI’s have been using a distance based equation based on a repor“A Study of Fugitive Coal Dust Emissions in Canada” (Cope and BhattacharyThe base equation is (for total suspended particulate, TSP):Emissions Factor (kg/tonne) = 0.1*(0.62*D)0.6

 Where  D = total distance travelled by rail cars (km) This equation gives 0.5% coal loss over a 1100 km transit, so on the low end 

uncontrolled coal fugitive dust losses. Their recommended equation for TSP estimates yearly emissions including 

precipitation (P), emissions controls (CE), and estimating emissions for only 

of the total rail trip. 

Emissions Factor (kg/tonne) = 0.1*(0.62*D)0.6 * (365-P)/365 * (SD/D) * (10

 Where  D = total distance travelled by rail cars (km)  SD = rail segment estimation emissions for (km)  P = number of days in the year with measureable precipitation (ra CE = Control efficiency of any applied dust control measures (%). 
Example: Applying Canadian Method to Tacoma 

WRAP and AP-42 recommended a PM2.5 / TSP ratio of 0.15 (Cope and Bhattacharyya used 0.2, from US EPA AP-42 c. 2000) 

PM2.5 Emissions Factor = 0.15 * TSP Emissions Factor (kg/tonne) 

Example for Tacoma WA using Cope and Bhattacharyya (2001) formula. 

(Emissions Factor (kg/tonne) = 0.1*(0.62*D)0.6 * (365-P)/365 * (SD/D) * (

Assumptions: SD = 40 km, D = 2414 km (1500 mi), PM2.5/TSP EF =  all Seattle export district coal exported through Tacoma  all projected Cherry Point coal exported through Tacom

Tacoma nonattainment area estimated coal train fugitive PM2.5 (tons per y

For comparison, the Ecology Tacoma 2008 SIP EI lists yearly emissions of PM1199 TPY for Residential wood combustion

& 411 TPY for onroad sources 

Year Control Efficiency (%) # Precipitation days Coal Exported (tons) Tacoma NAA PM22008 0 161 30581 0.32009 0 146 365260 4.42010 0 190 3500204 33.52011 85 (3 months) 166 4854451 44.42012 85 177 4746960 7.3

2017* 85 168 27500000 44.5

2022* 85 168 52500000 84.9

*projected
Uncertainties with Canadian method: Many, b

give us an estimation method. Questions / unknowns / simplifications • Some evidence for nonlinear dust loss over journey (more earlier on), b

assumes linear • Majority of dust lost may be through ‘dusting events’. Some sections of more prone to dusting events based on topography, typical winds, typical • Effectiveness of controls may wear off throughout journey, leading to mthe journey. • Does not account for emissions from ‘empty’ return trains (coal residue dust) • Fugitive dust is directly related to train speed, train speeds make be slowcities(?) • How variable is the coal size distribution? 

• How variable is coal moisture content? • How important are seasonal effects (winter/summer – temperature / hu• Effects of precipitation are simplified. 

However, for estimating annual emissions the importance of some of the 

may be reduced. 
Other activity around coal train fugitive dust?

For the Gateway Pacific Terminal at Cherry Point WA An environmental impact statement (EIS) is being developed under guideNational Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the State Environmental PoAir quality is one of many environmental impacts under review. Uncertain if this will lead to measurements and/or improved fugitive duThe agencies coordinating the EIS are  U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,  WA State Department of Ecology, and  Whatcom County EIS Timeline: 9/2012 – 1/2013 Public input on scope of EIS 

3/2013 EIS scoping summary report issued (summary of comm~2014 Issue draft EIS ~2014/2015 Issue final EIS 
Other activity around coal train fugitive dust?

Dan Jaffe (UW Prof.) will conduct a short trackside study based on ‘crowdDuration: 4-6 weeks 

Location: North of Seattle (?) Time: Summer/Fall 2013 Currently proposing to measure  PM1, 

 PM2.5,  PM10,  TSP, and  Met. variables 
Selected References:

BNSF, 2010, Summary of BNSF/UP Super Trial 2010, http://www.bnsf.com/customers/pdf/coal-super-trial.pdf

Cope and Bhattacharyya, 2001, A Study of Fugitive Coal Dust Emissions in CUnpublished Report Prepared for the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Cowherd, 2006, Background Document for Revisions to Fine Fraction Ratios 42 Fugitive Dust Emission Factors, 

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/ch13/bgdocs/b13s02.pdf

US EPA, 2013, AP-42 Emissions Factors, http://www.epa.gov/ttnchie1/ap42

Whiteside et al., 2012, Heavy Traffic Ahead: Rail Impacts of Powder River BAsia by Way of Pacific Northwest Terminals, http://heavytrafficahead.org/p

Traffic-Ahead-web.pdf
Thank you for 

your attention!