1

Coal Train Fact Checkfor the

League of Women Votersby

Bob Vance, P.E.

2/7/2013

2

Disclaimers and Disclosures

• Evaluation based upon Experience and Public Documents

Not Representing URS Corporation Not Representing an Engineering Society Not Representing the Sierra Club or Other Environmental Advocacy

Group No Personal Contact with Railroads or Port Developer Not Necessarily Representing any Opinions of Janet Nail

• Disclosures

- Employment History includes Many Coal Projects - Likes Train Travel, but Open-Minded about Coal Trains

2/7/2013

3

Fun Fact Check

Convinced Janet and Monte to Travel by Train on Vacation: 100 % True

2/7/2013

4

Agenda

• Basis of the Export Coal Controversy

• Issues of Concern to Washington Citizens

• Facts in Common with Pro-Coal and Anti-Coal Shipment Advocates

• Fact Check of Each Issue of Concern

• Conclusions and Recommendations from One Private Citizen

2/7/2013

5

Export Coal Controversy

• Over 10,000 people have attended public hearings for permitting of a proposed Export Coal Shipping Terminal

– Opinions pro and con appear to be evenly divided, but maybe more con

– Terminal Owner = Gateway Pacific

– Port Location = Cherry Point, Washington near Bellingham

– Coal Buyer = China to supplement local coal supplies for power generation

– Coal Terminal Capacity = 50 million tons/year (transfers coal from rail to ship)

– Coal Source = Powder River Basin, Wyoming

– Additional Projects totaling 50 to 100 million/yr have been proposed, but not yet ready for permitting

2/7/2013

6

Issues of Concern

• The following issues are the most controversial:

– Coal is a Hazardous Substance

– Powder River Coal Improves Air Quality

– Trains will Deposit a Layer of Coal across Washington

– Coal Trains Cause Excessive Delays to Highway Traffic and Emergency Vehicles

– Existing Rail System Can Support Additional Traffic

– Dust Control Measures at the Port Trans-Loading Facility will be Adequate

2/7/2013

7

Facts not-in-Dispute

• Number of Coal Trains

– Basis = 50 million tons coal/year

– Open hopper cars hold 100 to 125 tons coal; use 115 tons/car

– Coal trains consist of 100 to 125 cars; use 115 cars/train

– Not a math test, but each train contains 115 x 115 = 13,225 tons coal

– Loaded Trains/year = 50,000,000 tons/13,225 tons = 3,781

– Loaded Trains/day = 10 each minimum (reality = 8 to 12)

– Empty trains need to return to Wyoming for another Load, so Total Trains/day = 16 to 24

2/7/2013

8

Facts not-in-Dispute

• Length of a Coal Train

– Basis = 5 locomotives and 115 hopper cars

– Length of hopper car = 60 ft

– Length of locomotive = 80 ft

– Length of coal train = 5 x 80 + 115 x 60 = 7,300 ft

– 7,300 ft = 1.4 miles

2/7/2013

9

Facts not-in-Dispute

• Coal Train Routing

– Powder River Basin to Spokane via BNSF RR = 900 miles

– BNSF Lines to Bellingham from Spokane

Hi-Line over Stephens Pass: 380 miles, but 3,000 ft elevation gain and capacity limited by Cascade Tunnel

Mid-Columbia Line over Stampede Pass: 510 miles, but 3,000 ft elevation gain

Water Level Route along Columbia River and Coast: 660 miles, but minimal elevation gain and heavy duty track

- Preferred Route for Loaded Trains = Water Level Route

- Preferred Route for Empty Trains = Mid-Columbia Route (or Water Level Route if space is available)

2/7/2013

10

Facts not-in-Dispute

• Uncontrolled Coal Dust Losses from Open Top Hopper Cars are a Significant Problem

– Losses vary with wind speed, train speed, time of year, and load shape

– Average Loss = 600 lbs/car per Norfolk Southern study (east coast RR)

– OK, just a little more math:

600 lbs/car x 115 cars/train = 69,000 lbs/train 69,000 lbs/train x 3,800 trains/yr x 1 ton/2000 lbs = 130,000 tons/yr

– “Dusting” significantly degraded track structure on routes leaving the Powder River Basin limiting train speed

– BNSF spent more than $100 million dollars cleaning and replacing track ballast in Wyoming in 2009 and 2010

– Most losses occur in early portion of journey (visual observations and particulate collectors)

2/7/2013

11

Fact Check # 1

• Issue: Coal is a Hazardous Substance

– Coal is a naturally occurring substance composed primarily of carbon, but also contains the following:

Heavy metals in ppm (parts per million) range: Examples = Arsenic and Beryllium

Coal contains Mercury in ppb (parts per billion) range Coal contains Sulfur: 0.5 to 5% range Coal contains ash: 5 to 10% range

– E.U. Classification: Not considered Dangerous

– Raw Coal is also not considered hazardous by the U.S. EPA due to toxicity or other characteristic

– Principal hazard of Raw Coal is dust in enclosed spaces

2/7/2013

12

Fact Check # 1: Coal is Hazardous?

• Environmental concerns with coal occur mostly after combustion

- Sulfur and fly ash emissions are regulated by the EPA

- Heavy metals, mercury, and bottom ash emissions are not currently regulated by the EPA

• Current status of coal cleanup from Mesa, WA train wreck: not hazardous, but still a little “messy”

• Bob’s Fact Check Rating: 10% True (only because coal is a clean-up nuisance)

2/7/2013

13

Fact Check # 2

• Issue: Powder River Coal Improves Air Quality

– Environmental Advantage: Low Sulfur (< 0.5% Sulfur) instead of the 4% Sulfur in Chinese Coal

– Advantage: Powder River Coal – Reduces Acid Rain

– Heat Content: 8,000 Btu/lb instead of the 12,000 Btu/lb in Chinese coal

– Disadvantage: Powder River Coal – Requires 50% increase in consumption to produce an equivalent amount of power

– Ash and metals in Powder River and Chinese Coal are probably about the same

– Not a silver bullet

– Bob’s Fact Check Rating: 75% True (reduces sulfur emissions from combustion)2/7/2013

14

Fact Check # 3

• Issue: Coal Trains will Deposit a Layer of Coal Across Washington

– Since March, 2011, BNSF requires coal shippers to mitigate coal dust during transportation by

ÖUsing modified loading chutes to shape coal in hopper cars (rounded contours – no angles)

Ö Spraying a surfactant or “topper” on coal cars (just like hair spray)

- Above measures reduce coal losses by at least 85% (BNSF) and as much as 95 to 99% (Norfolk Southern)

2/7/2013

15

Fact Check # 3: Deposit Layer of Coal?

2/7/2013

• Photo of Loaded BNSF Coal Hopper in Pasco Rail Yard

- Bread Loaf Shape- At 95% spraying efficiency, coal

dust losses are reduced from 130,000 tons/yr to 6,500 tons/yr

• Particulate collectors have confirmed that dusting decreases as the coal cars move out of Wyoming

• Bob’s Fact Check Rating: 10% True (Coal dust losses have been mitigated and most dusting occurs at start of journey, not in Washington state)

16

Fact Check # 4

• Issue: Coal Trains Will Cause Traffic Delays

- Train Length = 1.4 miles- Approximate Train speed through Pasco = 10 mph (City Council)- Approximate Train Speed through Seattle = 30 mph (WDOT)- Use 20 mph as average

- Here’s a little more math to check grade crossing times:

1.4 miles / 20 mph x 60 min/hr + 1 min (open and close gates)= 5.2 min/train 5.2 min x 20 trains/day (10 loaded + 10 empty) = 104 min/day (almost 2 hrs)

- Need to have alternative routes for emergency responders

- Bob’s Fact Check Rating = 90%True (public policy should promote grade crossing elimination)

2/7/2013

17

Fact Check # 5

• Issue: Existing Rail System Can Support Additional Traffic

– State and Federal governments have invested in passenger rail on the West Side (more than $500 million)

– Coal Trains should not impact successful Amtrak and Sound Transit train schedules

– Approximate Current Traffic versus Route Capacity per WDOT

Hi-Line: 30 trains/day with a capacity of 30 trains/day No Room Mid-Columbia Line: 15 trains/day with a capacity of 30 Room Water Level Route: 40 trains/day with a capacity of 60 Room West Coast: 50 trains/day with a capacity of 80 Room, but north of Seattle

could be a bottleneck

- Bob’s Fact Check Rating = 90%True (OK to add 20 trains/day, but BNSF needs to confirm)

2/7/2013

18

Fact Check # 6

• Issue: Dust Control at the Port Trans-Loading Facility will be Adequate

– Fugitive dust must be controlled every time coal is transferred from one container to another or when it changes direction

– Standard dust control techniques include the following:

Wet Dust Suppression (sprays) with water @ 2 gal/ton Wet Dust Suppression with surfactant (hair spray) @0.2 gal/ton Dry Dust Collectors with fabric filters (baghouse and fans like a vacuum cleaner)

- Additional dust mitigation measures identified for use at the Port Facility include:

Covered Conveyors Telescoping Chutes (used in ship loading) Enclosed Rail Car Dumping Facility

2/7/2013

19

Fact Check # 6: Dust Control at Port is Acceptable?

- Most controversial item at the Port Facility is a proposed 100-acre, uncovered coal storage pile

- Fugitive dust from open storage can be controlled by

ÖWet dust suppressionÖCompaction using heavy equipment

- Estimated cost of the Port Facility = $700 million (should include purchase of adequate dust control equipment, but need to confirm during permitting)

- Rely on Washington Department of Ecology to enforce state and federal fugitive dust regulations

- Bob’s Fact Check Rating = 90%True (conventional technology)

2/7/2013

20

Fact Check Summary

• Bob’s Fact Checks are based on shipping 50 million tons of coal/yr:

– Coal is a hazardous substance – 10% True (messy, but not hazardous)

– Powder River Basin coal improves air quality – 75% True (reduces acid rain only)

– Coal Trains will leave a layer of dust across our state – 10% True (mitigating measures significantly reduce coal losses)

2/7/2013

21

Fact Check Summary

• Bob’s Summary for shipping 50 million tons coal/yr (continued):

– Coal Trains will cause delays at highway crossings – 90% true (local input from emergency responders needed)

– Existing Rail System can accommodate new coal trains – 90% true (needs to be confirmed by the BNSF RR)

– Port Trans-Loading Terminal can be operated without adverse affects on air quality – 90% True (dust suppression and dust collection are conventional technology)

2/7/2013

22

Conclusion

• A Chinese proverb seems appropriate:

– Sooner is better

– Slower is too late

• It’s nice to see the City of Pasco taking an active interest in the possibility of increased rail traffic!

2/7/2013