Roseville Rail Yard Mitigation and Monitoring

1
Roseville Rail Yard Mitigation
and Monitoring
Meredith Kurpius EPA Region 9 January 24, 2008

2
Outline

• Background
• Risk Assessment
• Monitoring
• Mitigation Measures

3
Background on Rail Yard

• J.R. Davis Rail Yard
• In operation since 1905
• Located in Roseville, CA (15 miles east of
  Sacramento)
• Operated by Union Pacific (UP) Railroad
• The largest classification yard operated by Union
  Pacific west of the Mississippi

4
Recent Concerns

• Rail yard expansion in 1996
• Citizen complaints regarding odors and air toxics
  
• Placer County APCD concerns about diesel PM and
  its impact on public health

5
Setting of Roseville Rail Yard

• About 4 miles long
• Oriented in northeast-southwest direction
• Approx. 31,000 locomotives stop at facility each
  year (additional 15,000 trains passed through on
  northside tracks)
• 98 of UPRRs Northern CA traffic moves through
  the facility
• Maintenance, service and classification yard
  (24/7 operation)

6
Layout of Roseville Rail Yard
7
Risk Assessment Contribution of Diesel PM by
Area and Activity
8
CARB Modeling Results
9
Layout of Roseville Rail Yard
Areas of highest risk
service yard
hump-trip
10
Roseville RY Service Yard
11
Agreement Between UP and Placer County APCD (2004)

• Mitigation Plan
• -reduce additional 10 of DPM emissions from
  rail yard 2005-2007
• -UPRR indicated they had reduced emissions by
  15 since the
• initiation of the Risk Assessment in 2000
  (25 total reduction)
• Grant Program
• -provide grants at least 150,000 between
  2005-2007 to achieve one
• ton DPM emissions reduction from other
  sources of background
• emissions in Roseville area
• Monitoring Plan
• -provide at least 100,000 to monitor DPM
  emissions from the rail
• yard

12
Air Monitoring Project Objectives

• Determine, through monitoring, localized air
  pollutant impacts from the UPRR facility
• Verify effectiveness of mitigation measures over
  time
• Improve accuracy of future modeling analyses
• Provide feedback to the public

13
Air Monitoring Sites

• Denio-Pool
• Next to service yard
• Denio Downwind (dirty)
• Pool Upwind (clean)
• Church-Vernon
• Next to hump/trim
• Church Downwind
• Vernon Upwind

14
Air Monitoring Measurements

• Nighttime sampling from 10pm to 5am to optimize
  upwind/downwind pairing
• PM2.5
• Manual FRM (both 7 hour and 24 hour samples)
• Continuous BAM
• NO
• NOx
• Black carbon

15
Air Monitoring ResultsBlack Carbon
16
Air Monitoring ResultsPM2.5
17
Air Monitoring ResultsNO
18
Air Monitoring ResultsNOx
19
Additional Placer County-EPA Analysis of Size
resolved Aerosols, summer, 2005

• Diesel exhaust was characteristic of idling
  engines
• Confirms the prior ARB estimates 2004
• Supports the UPRR installation of anti idling
  protocols and hardware
• Diesel concentrations were in good agreement with
  prior ARB estimates
• Confirms the ARB/OEHHA modeled risk factors in
  the 2004 report
• Nighttime enhancements of sulfur similar to RRAMP
  nighttime NO data

20
Additional Placer County-EPA Analysis of Size
resolved Aerosols, summer, 2005

• Most of the fine organic matter seen at the Denio
  site was regional and natural, not from rail yard
  operations
• The PAH concentrations, on the other hand, were
  rail yard associated
• PAHs occurred primarily in the ultrafine (lt 0.1
  ?m) size mode, leading to both high lung
  deposition and new options for mitigation
• Heavy PAHs were higher in molecular weight, and
  thus more toxic, than diesel truck data

21
Molecular weight of rail yard diesel PAHs versus
truck PAHs
Mass of benzoapyrene
22
Main Mitigation Strategies

• Idling reductions
• -hardware (Smart Start Technology)
• -operations/policy
• Low-sulfur diesel fuel for intrastate switchers
  and locomotives
• Switcher fleet replacement/upgrade
• Emission control from service test repair area
  (e.g., HOOD project)

23
HOOD Project

• ALECS Advanced Locomotive Emission Control
  Systems
• Demonstration that a single set of emissions
  control equipment in an exhaust stack could
  simultaneously treat up to 10 stationary
  locomotives (idling or undergoing testing)
• PM, NOx, SOx and VOC reductions

24
Concept of ALECS at Service Test and Repair Area
25
Bonnet Pre-Docking
26
Locomotive Test Setup

27
Demonstration Test Construction
Emissions Control Subsystem deployed in Roseville
28
HOOD Test Observations

• Accomplished significant cleanup of NOx and PM
• NOx control exceeded expectations (gt95)
• PM control looks to be a little less than
  expected (lt99)
• Sound reduction about 7 dB
• Emissions control equipment performed reliably
• Bonnet and ducting worked, but design improvement
  needed to be more robust
• Some control aspects need improvement

29
Stay Tuned

• Mitigation measures still being implemented
• Discussions underway about permanent installation
  of HOOD system at UPRR
• Trend analysis with 3 years of monitoring data
• Additional year of monitoring this summer
• HOOD system went to Long Beach for maritime
  application
• Need more info?
• Contact Meredith Kurpius, 415-947-4534,
  kurpius.meredith_at_epa.gov

30
(No Transcript)
31

• Extra slides

32
RRAMP Monitoring Strategy

• Utilize two pairs of upwind/downwind site
  locations
• Minimize non-UPRR emissions sources between each
  pair
• Optimize pair orientation to the prevailing wind
  direction
• Optimize time of year with predominance of
  prevailing wind summer months
• Utilize continuous monitors, including
  aethalometers, to select those periods of time
  when wind blows from upwind to downwind

33
RRAMP Project Duration

• 3 Years (2005-2007)
• Coincides with implementation of mitigation
  measures from UP/PCAPCD agreement
• Could extend beyond 2007
• Main sampling program during 2-3 month period
  each year
• Some monitors may remain year-round
• Main field program began August 2005

34
Diurnal Considerations

• Emissions from Rail Yard fairly constant
  throughout the day/night.

35
 
Diurnal Considerations Nighttime Wind Rose for
Roseville June-July
Persistent winds at night
36
HOOD Testing Completed

• Testing conducted Sept. 7, 2006 through Sept 20,
  2006
• Testing performed by Engine, Fuel, and Emissions
  Engineering, Inc.
• CARB and South Coast AQMD also conducted testing.