Environmental Law and Policy Center Dr. Stuart Batterman, Ph.D.

Clean Water Action Detroit Hispanic Development Corporation

East Michigan Environmental Action Council Ecology Center

Great Lakes Environmental Law Center Michigan Environmental Council

Natural Resources Defense Council Dr. Kathryn Savoie, Ph.D.

Sierra Club Michigan Chapter

January 29, 2010

Mr. Robert Parsons Public Involvement/Hearing Officer Michigan Department of Transportation P.O. Box 30050 Lansing, MI 48909 parsonsb@michigan.gov

SENT BY U.S.MAIL AND EMAIL

Re: Comments on the Final EIS for the Detroit Intermodal Freight Terminal

Dear Mr. Parsons:

The Environmental Law and Policy Center, Dr. Stuart Batterman, Ph.D., Clean Water Action, Detroit Hispanic Development Corporation, East Michigan Environmental Action Council, Ecology Center, Great Lakes Environmental Law Center, Michigan Environmental Council, Natural Resources Defense Council, Dr. Kathryn Savoie, Ph.D., Sierra Club Michigan Chapter (“Citizen Commenters”), hereby submit the following comments regarding the Final Environmental Impact Statement (“Final EIS”) for the proposed Detroit Intermodal Freight Terminal (“DIFT”) prepared by the Michigan Department of Transportation (“MDOT”). Several of the above-signed groups previously submitted comments on the Draft EIS in spring of 2005, noting concerns with a number of deficiencies under NEPA.1 Primary among these comments was a lack of demonstrated need for increased intermodal freight capacity justifying the so-called “build” alternatives presented in the Draft EIS. Accompanying this lack of established need was a failure to adequately assess harmful air pollution that would fall on the local community, and to commit to measures for mitigating this pollution. If MDOT truly believes the need for this project exists and that there are no better alternatives, it must provide clear justification in the

1 Letter from Shannon Fisk, ELPC Staff Attorney, to Robert Parsons, MDOT, Re: Comments on Draft EIS for proposed Detroit Intermodal Freight Terminal, August 16, 2005 (“DEIS Comments”).

1

Final EIS and make real, solid commitments to mitigate air pollution and other negative impacts from the DIFT. To date, it has not.

Since the Draft EIS was issued, the economy of Michigan has fallen into an even worse state, especially the automotive industry that would supposedly serve as a major user of the expanded capacity. The nation as a whole has experienced the worst recession in over fifty years. MDOT, nevertheless, continues to plow forward with a now $650 million project to meet an unsupported need. It does so without providing updated need figures, without looking at improvements to existing yards that could serve any need that will exist, without completing a cost-benefit analysis that shows whether the $650 million will be well spent or whether a smaller project is more justified, without meaningfully assessing the air quality impacts on families, children and the elderly who live nearby, and without committing to adequate mitigation measures for the many negative impacts of the project. The agencies push forward having paid short shrift to the real concerns and critiques included in public comments on the 2005 Draft EIS, as evident from the sparse response to comments and thin changes in the Final EIS. In fact, it appears that MDOT used the entire intervening time since June 2005 to come up with a slightly smaller version of its original project as the Preferred Alternative, rather than truly responding to the needs and concerns of DIFT’s neighbors and the people and economy of Michigan as a whole. It is notable that no public meeting was held prior to or after the unveiling of the Preferred Alternative in the Final EIS to explain the new alternative to the community and concerned parties in time for informed and meaningful comment. The Final EIS does little to address the problems described in our original comments. As such, we believe that the Final EIS continues to fail to comply with the requirement of NEPA that the DIFT proposal, reasonable alternatives to the DIFT, and the impacts of both the DIFT and its alternatives be thoroughly and objectively evaluated. In particular, and as explained below, the Final EIS is legally and factually deficient because it:

Arbitrarily relies on overstated need projections that are not supported by the record;

Does not rigorously explore and objectively evaluate no-expansion alternatives;

Fails to take a hard look at air quality impacts, including the health impacts of the increased air pollution that the DIFT would cause;

Improperly discounts the environmental justice impacts of the DIFT on minority and low-income communities;

Ignores the cumulative environmental impacts that the DIFT and other major transportation projects being planned by MDOT would have on Southwest Detroit and South Dearborn;

Neglects to address significant water quality impacts that would result from the expansion and paving of Junction Yard;

Does not discuss ways to mitigate the significant environmental and community impacts of the DIFT.;

2

We are commenting on this Final EIS because of our serious concerns about the environmental and community impacts that the DIFT would have on Southwest Detroit and South Dearborn. As described in our comments on the Draft EIS, these communities have long been exposed to elevated levels of air pollution and heavy-truck traffic congestion due to the longtime dominance of industrial development in the area. In recent years, however, both Southwest Detroit and South Dearborn have experienced a revival, with dozens of new homes being built and commercial districts being filled with small, locally-owned businesses. In fact, Southwest Detroit was the only neighborhood in the City of Detroit that increased population during the 1990s. Numerous community groups have worked to encourage this revitalization by engaging in long term planning, promoting local businesses, and working to develop parks and recreational facilities.

The DIFT would unnecessarily threaten this revitalization by bringing increased air pollution, truck traffic, and the displacement of houses and businesses to neighborhoods that already bear a disproportionate share of the burdens of industrial development. Therefore, the Citizen Commenters call on MDOT to thoroughly and objectively consider alternative ways to meet intermodal capacity needs in metropolitan Detroit without imposing additional disproportionate burdens on Southwest Detroit and South Dearborn. In particular, MDOT should consider an alternative that combines improvements in existing yards in terms of physical layout and operations/management with rail connectivity improvements and adequate buffers, and mitigates measures to protect the surrounding communities from any increases in pollution that will occur. If MDOT can show that such improvements do not meet legitimate capacity needs through a technical analysis of the yards and possible improvements, MDOT should only move forward with the DIFT after a reanalysis of the air quality and other negative impacts as set forth below, and only after making solid and enforceable commitments to mitigate these impacts as a core part of the project.

I. INTRODUCTION

To provide a framework for analyzing the many shortcomings of the Final EIS, we begin by reiterating the purpose and requirements of the primary applicable environmental law, the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”), 42 U.S.C. § 4321, et seq, as set forth in our previous comments on the Draft EIS.

Through NEPA, Congress declared a “broad national commitment to protecting and promoting environmental quality.” Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council, 490 U.S. 332, 348 (1989) (“Methow Valley”). Congress’ chosen tool for achieving such environmental protection is a procedural one – NEPA requires an agency proposing a major project to prepare an environmental impact statement for such project. The EIS process involves three main elements. First, the agency must define the purpose and goals of the proposed project. Second, the agency must “rigorously explore and objectively evaluate all reasonable alternatives” for achieving the purpose and goals of the project. 40 C.F.R 1502.14(a). Finally, the agency is required to take a “hard look” at the environmental consequences of the reasonable alternatives.Baltimore Gas & Elec. Co. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 462 U.S. 87, 97 (1983).

The EIS process is supposed to serve two critically important functions. First, it helps agencies make fully informed and well-considered decisions by ensuring that significant environmental impacts are not overlooked or underestimated. Methow Valley, 490 U.S. at 349. Second, the EIS process provides important information about a project to the public, which may

3

then, in turn, assist the agency in making better decisions through the comment process. DuBoisv. U.S. Dep’t of Agriculture, 102 F.3d 1273, 1285-86 (1st Cir. 1996). The goals of NEPA, however, will be achieved only if the agency fully and objectively analyzes all reasonable alternatives and their environmental impacts, and this analysis is provided to the public. Another key component of NEPA is the duty to mitigate identified negative impacts, most notably air quality impacts. 23 U.S.C. 109(h); D.C. Federation of Civic Associations v. Volpe, 459 F.2d 1231, 1242 (D.C. Cir. 1971)

As these comments will demonstrate, the Final EIS for the DIFT Project fails to satisfy these key requirements of NEPA.

II. MDOT FAILED TO PROVIDE MEANINGFUL OPPORTUNITIES FOR THE COMMUNITY TO LEARN ABOUT AND COMMENT ON THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE.

Despite the many years since issuance of the Draft EIS and the selection of Preferred Alternative that was not included in the Draft EIS, MDOT has done little to keep the community informed of the changes. We echo the concerns of many local community groups that there has not been enough engagement or enough time for the public to fully assess the Preferred Alternative. MDOT must ensure compliance with public participation requirements in state and federal environmental justice policies, as well as those under NEPA. As stated by FHWA Policy 6640.23 implementing federal Executive Order 12898, MDOT and FHWA must

Provid[e] public involvement opportunities and consider[ ] the results thereof, including providing meaningful access to public information concerning the human health or environmental impacts and soliciting input from affected minority and low-income populations in considering alternatives during the planning and development of alternatives and decisions.2

Such meaningful access to public information and continuing solicitation of input from the community has not occurred here. Based on the inadequate process described below, MDOT should extend the public comment period, schedule the necessary public meetings and hearings, engage and inform the community regarding the Preferred Alternative, and fully respond to community concerns in a revised Final EIS before issuing a Record of Decision.

The Draft EIS for the DIFT project was released in the summer of 2005 with no preferred alternative. In November of 2008, MDOT had a public meeting to announce a preferred alternative for the project. These meetings dealt entirely with the physical characteristics of the Preferred Alternative and little to no information on air quality or other community impacts.3

The Final EIS for the DIFT was not released until December 2009. On December 7th,Representative Tlaib convened a small meeting of Southwest Detroit community leaders and representatives of MDOT. At this meeting, MDOT announced that the release of the Final EIS was pending. Numerous people present at the meeting requested a 60-day comment period for the Final EIS. MDOT did provide a 45-day comment period, with comments due January 29, 2009; however, this comment period fell over the holidays. At the December 7th meeting, Lisa

2 Emphasis added. 3 See Attachment 1, MDOT, “Detroit Intermodal Freight Terminal (DIFT) Study Public Meetings,” available at http://www.michigan.gov/documents/MDOT_DIFT_Briefing_presentation_124979_7.pdf

4

Goldstein from Southwest Detroit Environmental Vision also stressed the importance of MDOT holding a public meeting well in advance of the comment deadline to announce release of the Final EIS, explain the project to the community, and answer questions. She indicated that, over the long duration of the DIFT EIS process, there has been significant turnover in leadership at community organizations and of residents in the impacted areas. The project has been in limbo for so long that many are completely unaware of it and others are not aware of all of the changes that have taken place since MDOT originally proposed the DIFT. Community leaders present at the meeting concurred that it was very important for MDOT to take this action. As of mid-January 2009, MDOT had still not scheduled a meeting.

Ms. Goldstein then received a notice on Friday, January 22, that MDOT would be putting an item on the Detroit River International Crossing Local Advisory Committee meeting schedule for Wednesday, January 27th to give a DIFT update. This meeting, a mere two days before the close of the public comment period, is entirely inadequate to meaningfully inform the public about the Preferred Alternative. Nor is a two-day notice period for the meeting sufficient, or MDOT’s reliance on community organizations to alert others to the meeting. MDOT should extend the comment period, schedule another public meeting and provide adequate notice of this meeting to the community so those that are impacted by the project have an opportunity to become informed and to meaningfully comment on the Final EIS.

III. THE FINAL EIS CONTINUES TO EMPLOY AN IMPERMISSIBLY NARROW PURPOSE AND LACK SUPPORT FOR THE PURPORTED NEED.

Our previous comments note six critiques of MDOT and FHWA’s assessment of need, none of which the agencies respond to in any meaningful way in their response to comments or changes to the Final EIS. The need statement therefore remains unsupported, arbitrary, and capricious. This violation of NEPA is even more pronounced given the changes in the state and national economies since the Draft EIS.

A. The Importance of the Purpose and Need Statement.

As described in our previous comments, an agency’s first step in preparing an environmental impact statement is to “specify the underlying purpose and need” for any project that it proposes. 40 C.F.R. § 1502.13. The purpose and need identified by an agency are of critical importance because they are the baseline by which the reasonableness of various alternatives is measured. City of Carmel-By-The-Sea v. U.S. Dep’t of Transp., 123 F.3d 1142, 1155 (9th Cir. 1997); Simmons v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 120 F.3d 664, 666 (7th Cir. 1997).

An inadequately supported statement of need not only indicates a lack of real world justification for a project, but also undermines the accuracy of the rest of the EIS process by providing an inaccurate basis for comparing alternatives and weighing the costs and benefits of a proposed project. See, e.g., Natural Resources Defense Council v. U.S. Forest Serv., 421 F.3d 797 (9th Cir. Aug. 5, 2005) (“NRDC”) (Forest Service’s reliance on erroneous market demand projections rendered EIS for forest plan invalid); Hughes River Watershed Conservancy v. Glickman, 81 F.3d 437, 446-48 (4th Cir. 1996) (reliance on inflated projections of economic benefit from project violated NEPA); North Carolina Alliance for Transp. Reform, Inc. v. U.S. Dept. of Transp., 151 F.Supp. 2d 661, 688 (M.D.N.C. 2001). Reliance on an unsupported need

5

statement, therefore, undermines the twin goals of informed agency decisionmaking and informed public participation in the process that NEPA is designed to ensure.

B. The Final EIS Relies on an Impermissibly Narrow Purpose.

While MDOT claims to employ a broad purpose, the agency narrows this purpose by using a goal focused on expanding capacity and functionally defining capacity as inherently requiring footprint expansion. The result is that, as explained in more depth below, the agency only looked in detail at alternatives that include a physical expansion of the existing facilities. The agency’s singular focus on physical expansion as the only means for gaining capacity is summarized in this (unsupported) response to a comment on capacity: “[a] terminal needs more space to gain more capacity.”4 MDOT also holds on to a bright line between capacity and efficiency, failing to recognize that improvements in efficiency can effectively expand capacity by increasing throughput. To the extent that MDOT believes efficiency and capacity are completely unrelated, it must support this assertion in the record.

MDOT focused on expansion as the sole creator of capacity without any real inquiry into the capacity improvements in the freight system that could be accomplished through non-expansion options, such as maximizing existing space and employing forward-looking operations and management practices. Indeed, there is no inquiry into the current practices of rail operators at all. MDOT also fails to look at these measures in combination solely with interconnectivity improvements that could be accomplished without physical expansion, improvements that MDOT acknowledges would improve the efficiency and productivity of the yards.5 MDOT’s sole focus on one means of meeting the broad public purpose of the DIFT project is in violation of NEPA, as it prevented the consideration of reasonable alternatives. SeeSimmons v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 120 F.3d 664, 666 (7th Cir. 1997).

C. The Final EIS Lacks Critical Information For Assessing the Reasonableness of the Need Projections, and Fails to Respond to Comments About the Draft EIS.

1. MDOT fails to support its claim that the Final EIS takes into account the recent recession and a supplemental EIS should be prepared.

Rather than provide a transparent and updated analysis of projected demand that takes into account how the worst recession in over fifty years impacts the projections, MDOT includes a short note that “[t]he commodity flow model was rerun in April 2008 for 2030 with similar findings [that the high end of the lift ranges are optimistic but reasonably so in light of the long time horizon].”6 No updated Commodity Flow Model Report is provided to the public. Nor does the Final EIS present the April 2008 results or the assumptions and data that went into the updated modeling. Without this key information, the need determination is unsupported and highly questionable. We note that in April 2008, the economy had yet to reach its lowest point. Thus, the April 2008 runs do not fully account for the rescession and likely overstate need.

4 FEIS at 7-19. 5 See FEIS at 2-8 to 2-9 (“Addressing these rail connection problems would improve the efficiency of the yards, increase the productivity of freight trains…”) 6 FEIS at 2-5.

6

Given the centrality of economic conditions and forecasts to determining need for the DIFT, MDOT should prepare a supplemental EIS that includes a full analysis of the changed economic conditions and how these conditions impact need. A supplemental EIS is required where “[t]here are significant new circumstances or information relevant to environmental concerns and bearing on the proposed action or its impacts.” 40 C.F.R. 1502.9(c)(1)(ii). The changed economy is a significant new circumstance that is related to environmental concerns and bears on the action’s impacts because it directly reduces the need to expand the existing terminals, and thus the need to incur the accompanying additional air pollution.

MDOT itself notes that “[r]egional and national economic conditions have softened causing a reduction, for a time, in the demand for all kinds of transportation, including intermodal.”7 However, it does not discuss what economic conditions, how deep of a reduction in demand, or for what amount of time. The agency merely includes a short conclusory note that “IH [sic] Global Insight… see[s] the freight demand increasing significantly as the economy rebounds in 2010 and beyond.”8 Again, notably missing from this statement is any data or assumptions or specific justifications backing up the general assertion that freight demand will increase. The public does not know whether this statement is in relation to the economy nationwide or is a projection impacting Detroit. Nor is there any estimate of what “significantly” means in terms of demand increases, let alone how the supposed increase matches up with the DIFT capacity expansion. As noted in our previous comments, the DIFT is significantly over-building even relative to its own dated projections – with an expectation to accommodate 50 to 100 percent more lifts than are projected to exist in the project horizon. There is no information about whether and how the IH Global Insight information was included in the (omitted) April 2008 need projections. Finally, the Final EIS lacks any discussion of uncertainty surrounding the economic recovery and how this uncertainty will impact need.

The decline of Detroit’s automotive industry since issuance of the Draft EIS is discussed in an article by a senior economist at the Federal Reserve Bank.9 It is highly unlikely that the Detroit automakers will ever fully recover from their loss of prominence in the market. As put forth by the Federal Reserve economist,

Today, even the terminology has adjusted to the new reality: Chrysler, Ford, and GM are now referred to as the Detroit Three (no longer as the Big Three), since the market structure in the U.S. automobile industry has changed from a Big Three model to a “Big Six” model.10

Ford has already indicated that it has no need for the DIFT. While Daimler Chrysler is supportive, it is hard to imagine how this one company can justify the huge increase in capacity that will come with the DIFT (an increase that again is far beyond even MDOT’s demand projections). The Final EIS also notes the cessation or slowing of other business that has led the operators to scale back their own plans for expansion.

7 FEIS at 7-19. 8 FEIS at 7-19. . 9 See Attachment 2, Klier, Thomas, “From tail fins to hybrids: How Detroit lost its dominance of the U.S. auto market,” Economic Perspectives, 2Q 2009, available at http://www.chicagofed.org/digital_assets/publications/economic_perspectives/2009/ep_2qtr2009_part1_klier.pdf 10 Id. at 14.

7

In sum, the Final EIS fails entirely to show that it took into account the state of the economy in determining the project need. A supplemental EIS is required to fully evaluate the changed economic circumstances in a transparent manner.

2. MDOT fails to respond in a meaningful way to numerous substantive technical comments on the Draft EIS.

Rather than provide any substantive response to many of the technical comments we raised for the Draft EIS, MDOT gave conclusory statements on some topics, omitted responses to others, and made only minor changes in the need section of the Final EIS that do not address our comments. Our 2005 comments raised the following issues:

(1) the Commodity Flow Model projections are disputed by intermodal operators; (2) the projections ignore recent trends in intermodal freight demand; (3) the projections are not based on all relevant factors; (4) the Draft EIS likely underestimates existing capacity; (5) the range of the projected lift deficiency is so large as to be suspect; and (6) the DIFT is designed to induce demand, not satisfy it.11

Inadequacies in the agency’s response to comments are as follows. Regarding the “sheer range of the projected lift deficiency” in 2025, and the operators’

own figures that show a demand increase well below MDOT’s low-end projections, MDOT fails to address the inconsistencies and huge gaps in any meaningful way. Apparently the enormous disparities in need projections between the operator and MDOT analyses – ranging over several hundred thousand lifts, or almost equal to the entire existing capacity – is justified due to the “horizon year being more than 20 years in the future.”12 A long planning horizon does not absolve MDOT from “[p]resenting accurate market demand information [ ] necessary to ensure a well-informed and reasoned decision, both of which are procedural requirements under NEPA.” See NRDC, 421 F.3d at 812. The fact that MDOT’s model omits a factor considered very important by lift operators for projecting future demand strongly suggests that the model itself is flawed. MDOT’s omission of this factor – rerouting of business to other cities – resulted in a lowend demand projection over 20 percent higher than the intermodal operator forecasts taking the factor into account. MDOT notably does not try to incorporate this factor into its own model to see whether the results are in keeping with the terminal operator projections. Thus, there is no way for the public to determine whether the projections are consistent with each other. MDOT must ensure the integrity of its analysis by incorporating this factor and rerunning the model. See40 C.F.R. 1502.24. With respect to questionable lift capacity, MDOT only references the same analysis and adds that “[t]erminals can operate over capacity but, like roads, do not do so efficiently.”13 This statement fails to respond in any meaningful way to the comment’s point that the terminals in actuality accommodated approximately 16 percent more lifts than their claimed capacity in 1998.

11 DEIS Comments at 3-6. 12 FEIS at 7-20 (“The FEIS states the position of the railroads that reviewed the forecasts of the Action Alternatives. They indicated that the high end of each 2025 forecasted lift range are optimistic, but reasonably so, in light of the horizon year being more than 20 years in the future.”) 13 FEIS at 7-19.

8

The response gives no explanation as to where the actual capacity stops and the over capacity contributing to inefficiency begins. Nor does it give any real world evidence of this diminishing efficiency or its total impact on lift performance at the terminals in question. MDOT also fails entirely to respond to our previous comment on existing capacity regarding static capacity versus dynamic capacity. This comment raised the potential of “information-communications and management capability for efficient and effective linehaul transit” as keys improving capacity in areas such as Detroit. The closest statements approximating an answer to this comment are as follows:

Comment: “It is unclear how only expansion alternatives can meet the purpose and need and why improvements at the existing yards in the area would not improve efficiency and also capacity.”

Response: “The alternatives noted in the comment on improving existing rail yards are covered in Section 3. One such option is Alternative 2. But, increasing the size of the terminals, in response to the forecast demand, will create a more efficient intermodal system. Improvements to the tracks in the area will also increase efficiency, but these improvements do not increase terminal capacity.”14

***

Comment: “It has not been shown how capacity can be increased by means other than expansion.”

Response: “A terminal needs more space to gain more capacity. Some limited increase in efficiency on the existing terminal space, by paving or stacking, containers higher, can be gained.”15

Neither of these responses directly addresses our point regarding static versus dynamic capacity. The responses also do not indirectly address our comment, as they discuss only how physical changes can improve capacity (in terms of improvements to tracks) and efficiency (paving and stacking containers higher). MDOT fails to acknowledge the relationship between throughput and size. In other words, if a railroad can offload a container in half the time, then the existing space can handle approximately twice as much volume. Finally, neither of them in any way assess what capacity and efficiency increases could be achieved at the existing railyards using a full suite of available operational, management, and physical changes, thereby reducing the need for a physical expansion. Nowhere in Section 3 does MDOT discuss such an alternative, contrary to MDOT’s assertion in the quoted response. It is telling that MDOT cannot point to any specific analysis in the Final EIS, either of the railways’ current operating and management practices or how improvements in operation and management, along with physical upgrades to existing facilities, can reduce or eliminate the need to build additional physical capacity. The alternative that it cites, Alternative 2, only discusses physical changes – closing or maintaining certain gates and streets, and rechanneling of traffic – and not improvements through advances in management and operation practice.

14 FEIS at 7-19 (emphasis added). 15 FEIS at 7-19.

9

With respect to inducing demand, MDOT provides a short response that “[c]apacity and demand are separate. The DIFT Preferred Alternative will not ‘create’ demand, but respond to it.”16 This response does not in any way explain how one can respond to demand by building capacity that, as noted above, exceeds the high end of the projected demand, in some instances by several hundred thousand lifts.

3. MDOT fails to establish that the public should take responsibility for certain capacity shortfalls inherent in the need determination

MDOT also fails to discuss whether there is sufficient justification for the public to take on the task of meeting the railways’ future needs through measures proposed in the build alternatives. As noted by the Ohio Department of Transportation in its Inter-modal Freight Strategy:

The cause of transportation problems can be public or private in origin. For example, deferred maintenance of a private freight facility does not constitute a public responsibility, even if rehabilitation of that facility confers benefits to the public.17

Applying this principle for determining whether public funding of rail improvements is justified to the DIFT, we are concerned that the rail companies will be garnering public funds to implement maintenance that they should fund (in whole or in large part) themselves. For example, as noted above, MDOT acknowledges that paving can improve efficiency. Moreover, as cited in our prior comments and as taken up in more detail below regarding alternatives, it is general industry knowledge that paving surfaces at terminals can improve efficiency and thus increase capacity.18 Yet the railyards involved in DIFT are to a large extent unpaved or have seriously deteriorated road surfaces (like Livernois, which MDOT claims consists of gravel and disintegrating asphalt). The paving of these yards therefore is not being done under DIFT merely as a public benefit to reduce air pollution, but to enhance efficiency and capacity for the railways in a manner that suggests neglect or underinvestment by the railways in running their businesses. Thus, the justification for the public to support this means of improving freight has not been demonstrated.

Alternative 1, the No Action alternative, fails to discuss whether the rail companies would undertake such paving themselves in order to improve efficiency and capacity. The No Action alternative description instead merely discusses continued operation of certain terminals

16 FEIS at 7-18. 17 Wood, Howard, Deputy Director of Planning, Ohio Department of Transportation, “Ohio Inter-modal Freight Strategy,” October 2006, at 9 (emphasis added), available at http://www.dot.state.oh.us/Divisions/TransSysDev/ProgramMgt/Freight/Documents/Ohio%20Freight%20Strategy_v3.pdf 18 DEIS Comments at 8, citing New York State Department of Transportation, I-87 Multimodal Corridor Study, Kenwood Intermodal Yard Expansion, at 2.12-3 to 2.12-5, available at https://www.nysdot.gov/regional-offices/region1/project-repository/i87MultiModalStudy/documents/august2004/2-12-kenwood-080504.pdf (“there are some cost effective options available to add track capacity without reconfiguring the yard”; “Paving the area where the intermodal storage tracks are located would also improve transloading operations”; “Another factor limiting growth and productivity in the yard is the insufficient amount of paved trailer parking areas.”)

10

using certain routes.19 The need determination is unsupported without an analysis of whether the companies would or should on their own pave their facilities to increase efficiency and capacity absent the massive physical expansion enabled by the government (as taken up below, this failure is in violation of the duty to evaluate all reasonable alternatives as well). Indeed, the railways have no incentive to consider paving on their own because MDOT apparently now is offering to foot the bill. We note that paving is not an ancillary cost of the DIFT, but a major expenditure at nearly $16 million for the CSX terminal, over $17 million for Triple Crown, and $20 million for NS Intermodal.20 In these lean economic times, the people of Michigan should not be saddled with a cost that should be borne by the companies. MDOT has stated that the railroads will contribute financing commensurate with their benefit. For the reasons set forth above, the railroads should bear a substantial portion of the costs of paving the terminals, as well as of other benefits to the railroads like those associated with maintenance of improved viaducts.

IV. MDOT CONTINUES TO FAIL TO CONSIDER A FULL RANGE OF PRUDENT AND FEASIBLE ALTERNATIVES.

A. MDOT Failed to Consider a Non-Expansion Alternative.

Our prior comments note MDOT’s failure to consider a full range of prudent and feasible alternatives, and its singular focus on footprint expansion.21 As set forth in these comments, MDOT did not respond to our comments about ways to improve efficiency and capacity at the existing rail yards as an alternative to physical expansion. We thus incorporate here by reference our prior comments.

B. MDOT Should Include Updated Information For the Range of Alternatives.

The Final EIS includes cost information for the Preferred Alternative in 2008 dollars, yet omits any updated cost information for the other alternatives or alternatives that MDOT omitted completely. MDOT should include updated cost information for a full range of prudent and feasible alternatives. In addition, MDOT should conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis for each of the alternatives. In the absence of such analyses, the public and decision-makers cannot assess whether the enormous investment and significant environmental harms from the DIFT should be incurred, or whether there are more cost effective means for meeting any capacity needs. The changed economic climate since 2005 – in the nation, and specifically in Michigan – demands such an assessment.

Inaccurate and misleading economic information can “defeat the purpose of an EIS by impairing the agency's consideration of the adverse environmental effects and by skewing the public's evaluation of the proposed agency action.” NRDC, 421 F.3d at 811 (internal quotes omitted); Hughes River Watershed Conservancy v. Glickman, 81 F.3d 437, 446 (4th Cir. 1996), revised analysis approved after remand, 165 F.3d 283 (4th Cir. 1999) (“The use of inflated economic benefits in this balancing process may result in approval of a project that otherwise would not have been approved because of its adverse environmental effects.”). Such misrepresentation of costs has occurred here.

19 See, e.g., FEIS at 3-5 (Livernois-Junction Yard – discussing gates and paths to reach those gates). 20 DIFT Preferred Alternative Report, August 2008, at 48-49. 21 DEIS Comments at 7-8.

11

The need to provide updated air quality information for a full range of alternatives is taken up below.

V. THE FINAL EIS INCLUDES A SKEWED AIR QUALITY ANALYSIS BASED ON OMISSIONS, ERRORS AND MISREPRESENTATIONS THAT UNDERREPORTS THE NEGATIVE IMPACTS OF THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE.

Once again, the air quality analysis is among the most deficient sections of the EIS. We have identified numerous errors in the analysis as follows:

Downplaying the large increases in air toxics, diesel particulate matter, and other harmful pollutants that will occur;Failing to reevaluate the air quality impacts of a full range of alternatives; Using unsupported calculations of PM from roads to imply more benefits than will actually occur;Omitting over 100 tons per year of PM10 and nearly 28 tons per year of PM2.5 that will occur nearby the DIFT as a result of displaced traffic; Including contradictory statements about the benefits from relocating businesses and omitting pollution associated with the new locations; Erroneously concluding that the project need not show general conformity; Failing to conduct an adequate analysis of relative health impacts from air toxics and diesel PM;Including conflicting pollutant burden forecasts; Failing to meet the requirements of the hot-spot ruling for assessing local PM impacts; Failing to show that levels of PM2.5 will not exceed health-protective standards;

Perhaps most importantly, the Final EIS leaves out any firm commitments to any specific mitigation measures that would reduce the negative air quality impacts and improve air for the community. MDOT must go back and revise the air quality analysis, include specific mitigation as a core aspect of the project, and subject the new analysis and mitigation to public comment.

A. Overview of the Final EIS Air Quality Analysis.

The Final EIS does little to improve on the faulty Draft EIS in terms of air quality. Our prior comments noted the following deficiencies in the Draft EIS:

(1) Failing to assess health impacts on local communities, despite regulatory requirements and the availability of modeling techniques;

(2) Hiding the negative air quality impacts from the project by factoring in possible air quality benefits from unrelated government programs;

(3) Deceptively attributing air quality benefits to the Action Alternatives with respect to reductions in particulate matter through paving;

(4) Omitting discussion of the mix of vehicles that will use the DIFT; (5) Failing to adequately consider air toxics; and (6) Failing to provide an overview of current air quality and health status in the area.

12

The Final EIS makes no changes to the original “Air Quality Analysis” for the various alternatives, but adds an “FEIS Preferred Alternative Air Quality Analysis.”22 It is our understanding based on representations by MDOT staff that no new technical reports were issued in conjunction with the Final EIS. Thus, the only changes to the air quality analysis are contained in the new section 4.8.7 regarding the preferred alternative.

We note that the lack of an updated technical report prevented us from reviewing the calculations underlying the new figures contained in Section 4.8.7, such as the burden figures for the Preferred Alternative. This lack of transparency is of great concern. Without access to the assumptions used and calculations themselves, we cannot confirm whether they are appropriate for estimating the air pollution impacts of the Preferred Alternative or make full comments on their shortcomings and recommended changes. Thus, we had to rely on the previous March 2005 Air Quality Impact Analysis Technical Report (“Air Quality Technical Report”) and assume most aspects of the analysis remained the same for the Preferred Alternative. The Final EIS includes the following opening statement on the new Section 4.8.7:

This air quality section covers the analysis for the FEIS. Since the Air Quality Protocol (Appendix E) was developed, analysis methodologies have changed. This analysis for the FEIS reflects updates in intermodal activity for the No Action and Preferred Alternatives, as well as updates to monitor data and emission factors. Since the project began, the Southeast Michigan Council of Governments (SEMCOG) has updated the horizon year of its Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) to 2030.

The updated air quality analysis was not done for the DEIS Build alternatives, because the Preferred Alternative represents what the railroads have agreed to. So, the earlier Practical Alternatives are no longer considered practical and updating data to 2030 is not fruitful as the air quality analysis was not a determining factor in the decision-making process that arrived at the Preferred Alternative.23

It goes on to summarize specific topics included in the new section.24 Based on this analysis, MDOT concludes that “the project has been found to conform to the Clean Air Act.”25

B. The Preferred Alternative Will Greatly Increase Air Pollution In the Surrounding Area.

While MDOT downplays the overall reductions in air quality from the Preferred Alternative, the sum of the air quality analysis is that pollution will increase significantly relative to the NEPA baseline in numerous ways. We generally note the confusing nature of the discussion in Section 4.8.7, due in large part to attempts to downplay the negative air quality impacts of the DIFT. MDOT nowhere provides a summary of its overall conclusions and their implications for mitigation. Most egregiously, MDOT still compares many air quality impacts to the 2004 existing conditions, implying that the DIFT will improve air quality. This comparison is

22 FEIS at vii, 4-135 to 4-177 23 FEIS at 4-135. 24 FEIS at 4-135 to 4-136. 25 FEIS at 4-136.

13

inappropriate under NEPA, as the relevant question is the whether the Preferred Alternative will increase air pollution relative to No Action in the future (notably, as listed below, some pollutants will even increase over today’s levels under the Preferred Alternative). Highlighting the comparison to current conditions falsely attributes improvements in air quality to the DIFT, when these improvements in actuality are due in large part to heightened federal measures to combat air pollution. The DIFT will deprive local residents of the full benefits of these measures.

Since MDOT did not provide a clear summary itself, we combed Section 4.8.7 and compiled a list of conclusions to answer the key NEPA question. With the exception of a very few minor improvements, the Preferred Alternative will worsen air quality, depriving community residents of the benefits intended under new federal programs. The Preferred Alternative will result in:

Increased terminal activity that will increase butadiene, formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, and acrolein at the terminals by 83 to 178 percent compared to No Action in 2030, as well as increase formaldehyde and acetaldehyde by 33 and 38 percent, respectively over existing 2004 levels.26

Total mobile source air toxics (MSAT) burdens from the terminals and roads in excess of No Action levels, at increases of 8 percent for benzene, 40 percent for butadiene, 79% for formaldehyde, 88 percent for acetaldehyde, and 75 percent for acrolein.27

Increased diesel particulate matter (DPM) at the terminals of about 80% over No Action in 2030 and increased total DPM (terminals and roads) of approximately 30%28, depriving local residents of the full benefits of cleaner diesel fuel and cleaner engines under federal law.Increased NOx and VOC of 45 percent and 17 percent, respectively, at the terminals and roads over No Action in 2030, due to increased intermodal activity.29

Concerning increases in truck traffic near the Wyoming monitor that will result in an increase in PM2.5 by 2030.30

The few small improvements in the project area for the Preferred Alternative versus No Action in 2030 include a reduction in roadway MSATs ranging from 1.8 percent to 3.2 percent31

(reductions that are notably far-outweighed by increases at the terminals) and a decrease in DPM from roads of 1.7%.32 As set forth below, the large reductions in PM claimed by the Final EIS are unsupported paper reductions. Despite these clear and disturbing increases in air pollution, the Final EIS includes no assessment of or serious commitment to mitigate air pollution. The Final EIS can even be viewed as stepping back from the Draft EIS in this respect. U.S. EPA has cautioned that serious

26 FEIS at 4-151. 27 FEIS at 4-152. 28 FEIS at Table 4-31, Preferred Alternative terminal DPM of 0.70 versus No Action terminal DPM of 0.40; Preferred Alternative total DPM of 1.26 versus No Action total DPM of 0.97. 29 FEIS at 4-137 and 4-145. 30 FEIS at 4-140 and 4-143, Table 4-29 (PM2.5 levels for Wyoming-Dix of 0.053 under the Preferred Alternative and 0.051 under No Action in 2030). 31 See FEIS at 4-153, Table 4-32. 32 FEIS at Table 4-31, Preferred Alternative road DPM of 0.056 versus No Action road DPM of 0.057.

14

consideration must be given to mitigation and commitments should be included to the greatest extent feasible.

C. Perpetuation of Errors in the Draft EIS Resulted in a Failure to Compare the Air Quality Impacts of Various Action Alternatives.

As the Final EIS carries forward the entire Draft EIS Air Quality Analysis verbatim, and only updates a limited set of information for the Preferred and No Action Alternatives in Section 4.8.7, the air quality analysis is inadequate and in violation of NEPA. The result of this cursory treatment is that the Final EIS, like the Draft EIS, nowhere performs the required assessment of relative air quality impacts among a full set of alternatives. The Draft EIS contained numerous errors and omissions in the assessment of the reviewed alternatives, and the Final EIS does nothing to correct them. Nor does the Final EIS amend the Draft EIS’s failure to consider the air quality impacts of alternatives that MDOT omitted entirely. Most notably, MDOT still fails to evaluate air impacts from an Action Alternative consisting of capacity increases achieved through paving and other non-expansion options.33 We thus incorporate our prior air quality comments by reference. In sum, the Final EIS still omits the required assessment of health impacts (relying instead on a so-called “burden” analysis), still fails to look at the current air quality and health status of affected populations, still treats paving as an inherent part of an expansion alternative instead of a no-expansion build alternative, still includes background reductions achieved through other government programs, still omits a discussion of the vehicles mix under various alternatives, and still fails to adequately assess toxics34.

That the air quality analysis “was not a determining factor in the decision-making process,” (FEIS at 4-135), is not a legally cognizable excuse for omitting this analysis, but highlights exactly the problem. The air quality analysis was and remains so skewed towards the Preferred Alternative as to give project proponents a shield and eliminate any incentive to seriously consider other, less harmful alternatives. It is just this kind of distortion that NEPA is designed to avoid. NEPA requires agencies to take a meaningful look at the environmental consequences of the proposed action upfront and not simply “rationalize or justify decisions already made.” 40 C.F.R. § 1502.5; Center for Biological Diversity v. United States Forest Service, 349 F.3d 1157, 1166 (9th Cir. 2003); Simmons v. United States Army Corps of Engineers, 120 F.3d 664, 670 (7th Cir. 1997) (agency cannot “ram through a project before first weighing the pros and cons of the alternatives”). Courts have consistently invalidated Environmental Impact Statements that do not take an objective approach and instead appear crafted to support a “preordained determination.” Washington County v. United States Department of the Navy, 357 F. Supp. 2d 861, 874 (E.D.N.C. 2005) (stating that the Navy violated NEPA because it failed to fairly and objectively consider available alternatives and instead, “reverse engineered” a predetermined objective).35

33 See DEIS Comments at 12. 34 Notably the Final EIS states that the methodologies for doing such assessments have changed since the Draft EIS, when MDOT claimed (erroneously) that such analyzes could not be done. 35 See also Metcalf v. Daley, 214 F.3d 1135, 1142 (9th Cir. 2000) (holding that an agency's NEPA analysis “must be taken objectively and in good faith, not as an exercise in form over substance, and not as a subterfuge designed to rationalize a decision already made”); Citizens Against Burlington, Inc. v. Busey, 938 F.2d 190, 196 (D.C. Cir. 1991) (holding that EIS should not be a “foreordained formality.”)

15

D. The PM Analysis Biases the Final EIS Towards the Preferred Alternative By Creating Fictional Reductions in PM From Paving Roads.

By focusing on paving as the primary means for reducing PM air impacts, and using unsupported and highly inappropriate silt values for its before-and-after calculations of PM from roads, MDOT creates fictional reductions from paving that are unlikely to be realized. This paper exercise misleads the public and decisionmakers by claiming non-existent air pollution reductions to net against real increases in harmful mobile source air pollution. Such flawed analysis and misrepresentations are in violation of NEPA. 40 C.F.R. 1502.14 (agency shall present detailed data enabling a reviewer to may evaluate the comparative merits of alternatives), 1502.16 (agency shall evaluate the environmental impacts), and 1502.24 (agency shall ensure the integrity of analyses in an EIS).

MDOT selected high and unsupported silt values for currently unpaved roads to estimate existing conditions, then used exceptionally low, unrealistic, inappropriate and unsupported silt values for future paved roads. The result is an alleged significant reduction in PM emissions from paving the roads under the Preferred Alternative. This mishandling of road emissions is of grave concern, as MDOT relies on PM reductions from paving to offset harmful emissions from significantly increased vehicle traffic for the Preferred Alternative:

On the Livernois-Junction Yard, the greater truck activity, compared to the No Action Alternative, means the hydrocarbon (HC), nitrogen oxide (NOx), volatile organic compounds (VOCs), diesel particulate matter (DPM), benzene, formaldehyde, acetaldehyde and acrolein burdens will be higher. The paving of the yard will substantially reduce particulate matter compared to No Action.36

***

Therefore, the Preferred Alternative’s PM2.5 terminal burden will be less than one fourth the 2004 condition. The principal change will come with paving the Livernois-Junction Yard. Though PM2.5 is a small fraction of the particulate matter on the unpaved yard, the yard is so big that the portion which is unpaved produces a large quantity of pollution.37

It is this trade-off that allows MDOT to claim that the Preferred Alternative will not result in negative PM air quality impacts, a cost that would otherwise give the project proponents pause in light of other alternatives and/or require specific mitigation to move forward with the Preferred Alternative. MDOT must correct its error by collecting site specific silt values for paved and unpaved roads, recalculating the expected PM emissions, and using these revised calculations in its burden and hot spot analyses. U.S. EPA Region 5 also noted the Draft EIS’s inappropriate emphasis on paving as a means for reducing PM2.5 impacts from the DIFT. Specifically, Region 5 states:

The DEIS suggests that rail yards will be paved and asserts that paving the yards will greatly reduce the PM2.5 impacts of this project. Air quality data from

36 FEIS at 1-21. 37 FEIS at 1-26.

16

speciation monitors in the area show that road dust contributes a small percentage of PM2.5 to ambient concentrations. Consequently, while control of road dust at this facility may be warranted, such efforts do not address what are likely to be the most significant impacts of this proposed facility. Focusing primarily on control for the road dust category may overlook more significant and cost-effective mitigation options.38

MDOT’s position appears to be that “a drive through of the neighborhood” and “comments received at public meetings,” in addition to a preliminary general finding in another context that “dust control related to PM is an issue that may need further attention,” are sufficient indicators of a PM2.5 problem from roads to counter U.S. EPA’s speciation monitors.39 These vague and qualitative statements do not sufficiently address the quantitative monitoring data cited by U.S. EPA. Moreover, MDOT relies on its calculations of road PM and paving to respond to U.S. EPA40, even though (as taken up below in detail) these calculations are flawed from the outset and fail to follow U.S. EPA’s recommended procedure. MDOT used U.S. EPA’s AP-42 Sections for paved and unpaved roads to calculate emissions from terminal roads.41 AP-42 includes equations and circumstances under which the equations can be used, recommendations on tailoring the equations depending on the particular application and ranges of field-testing and sampling data, all to assist in calculating PM emissions from roads. Silt on a road is one variable in the road calculations and a large determinant of the PM from roads.42 Because silt values can vary considerably for both paved roads and unpaved roads, in both public/urban and industrial settings, and even from industry to industry and location to location, AP-42 strongly recommends collection of site-specific silt data to use in estimating emissions:

The limited data on silt loading values for [paved] industrial roads have shown as much variability as public roads. Because of the variations of traffic conditions and the use of preventive mitigative controls, the data probably do not reflect the full extent of the potential variation in silt loading on industrial roads. However, the collection of site specific [sic] silt loading data from industrial roads is easier and safer than for public roads. Therefore, the collection and use of site-specific silt loading data is preferred and is highly recommended.43

***

It should be noted that the ranges of silt content vary over two orders of magnitude. Therefore, the use of data from this table [for unpaved roads] can

38 FEIS at A-7 to A-8 (emphasis added). 39 See FEIS at A-7 (emphasis added). 40 FEIS at A-7. 41 Air Quality Technical Report at 33. 42 Attachment 3, AP-42 Section 13.2.1, Paved Roads, at 13.2.1-2: “Dust emissions from paved roads have been found to vary with what is termed the ‘silt loading’ present on the road surface as well as the average weight of vehicles traveling the road. The term silt loading (sL) refers to the mass of silt-size material (equal to or less than 75 micrometers [µm] in physical diameter) per unit area of the travel surface.” Available at http://www.epa.gov/ttnchie1/ap42/ch13/ 43 AP-42 Section 13.2.1 for Paved Roads, at 13.2.1-10 (emphasis added).

17

potentially introduce considerable error. Use of this data is strongly discouraged when it is feasible to obtain locally gathered data.44

***

[T]o retain the quality ratings when addressing a group of unpaved roads, it is necessary that reliable correction parameter values be determined for the road in question. The field and laboratory procedures for determining road surface silt and moisture contents are given in AP-42 Appendices C.1 and C.2.45

Despite these clear and strong warnings against using non-site-specific data, MDOT did not follow U.S. EPA’s AP-42 guidance and failed to collect any data from existing paved and unpaved roads.46 It instead stabbed at figures for silt loading for all of the roads and scenarios (and did so in a way that systematically biases the analysis in favor of the build alternatives, as described below).47 This failure is highly inappropriate and unwarranted in this case. Silt values can easily be collected from the existing project railyards to measure both current and future emissions.48 MDOT gives no reason why it could not conduct this sampling for such a key parameter. The exclusion of the site-specific silt data is in violation of NEPA requirements. See 40 C.F.R. 1502.22(a) (requirement to include information where it is essential to a reasoned choice among alternatives)49 and 1502.24 (agency shall ensure the integrity of analyses in an EIS). Not only did MDOT fail to collect the necessary site-specific silt measurements, but it selected inappropriate silt values without any supporting data or other real basis for its determinations, again in violation of the NEPA requirement to ensure the integrity of the analysis. An appropriate silt value under AP-42 must reflect the urban/public versus industrial nature of the road, as well as other factors such as frequency of use, type of vehicle using the road, and similarity of industry. Even when these factors are aligned, the resulting calculations are considerably less reliable than when site-specific data is used. AP-42 specifies that “[i]n the event that site-specific values cannot be obtained, an appropriate value for [a paved] industrial road may be selected from the mean values given in Table 13.2.1-4, but the quality rating of the

44 Attachment 4, AP-42 Section 13.2.2, Unpaved Roads, at 13.2.2-1 (emphasis added). Available at http://www.epa.gov/ttnchie1/ap42/ch13/.45 AP-42 Section 13.2.2 for Unpaved Roads at 13.2.2-6. 46 Air Quality Technical Report at 33. 47 Id.48 Future because some of the railyards contain only paved roads, and so would not be prone to the carry-over of silt from unpaved roads that MDOT claims occurs at facilities with a combination of paved and unpaved roads. Regarding site specific measurement of silt, AP-42 notes that “[t]he silt fraction is determined by measuring the proportion of the loose dry surface dust that passes through a 200-mesh screen, using the ASTM-C-136 method. Silt loading is the product of the silt fraction and the total loading, and is abbreviated ‘sL’. Additional details on the sampling and analysis of such material are provided in AP-42 Appendices C.1 and C.2.” Section 13.2.1 for Paved Roads, at 13.2.1-2. 49 “When an agency is evaluating reasonably foreseeable significant adverse effects on the human environment in an environmental impact statement and there is incomplete or unavailable information, the agency shall always make clear that such information is lacking. (a) If the incomplete information relevant to reasonably foreseeable significant adverse impacts is essential to a reasoned choice among alternatives and the overall costs of obtaining it is not exorbitant, the agency shall include the information in the environmental impact statement.”

18

equation should be reduced by 2 levels.” MDOT again failed to follow the AP-42 guidance and provided only a cursory and unsupported qualitative justification for its selected silt values:

A silt content of 10 percent was used for unpaved roads emissions at Delray, Triple Crown and CP Oak. A silt content of five percent was used for the Livernois-Junction terminal for the existing condition because the road was reported to be a combination of gravel, soil, and decaying asphalt. The other terminals contain only paved roads within their terminals. For the No Action Alternative, a silt content of five percent was used for paved roads within terminals that also contained unpaved roads. It was assumed that silt from unpaved roads would be carried onto the paved roads at these terminals. A silt content of one percent was used for the Livernois-Junction terminal, CN/Moterm, and CP Expressway for the existing condition and No Action alternative. For all future build scenarios, a silt content of 0.5 percent silt50 was assumed for paved roads.

The dust emissions from industrial sites and local streets were forecasted for CP Oak, the Livernois-Junction Yard, and CN/Moterm. Again, a silt content of one percent was assumed for paved roads and 10 percent silt content was used for travel on unpaved roads within industrial properties.51

This discussion contains numerous problems, as set forth below:

First, the statement completely omits any reference to the AP-42 silt tables, as required by Sections 13.2.1 and 13.2.2.Second, and perhaps most importantly, the unsupported silt content of 10 percent for unpaved roads at Delray, Triple Crown and CP Oak is far higher than the vast majority of silt figures provided by AP-42 for unpaved roads at all types of industrial sites. Table 13.2.2-1 lists 9 different industries divided into 15 different categories. Of these 15 different categories, 11 of them report mean silt values of 4.3 to 8.5 percent, or 15 to 57 percent lower than the silt level assumed by MDOT. Only one reports a mean of 10 percent. The other categories are of questionable relevance to railyard roads. That MDOT significantly overestimated silt from unpaved roads is consistent with U.S. EPA’s speciation monitoring results cited above. Third, and related to point 2, MDOT makes no attempt to analogize the railyard roads to any of the industries included in Table 13.2.2-1 to justify its selection of 10 percent.Fourth, despite this failure to link its selection to Table 13.2.2-1, MDOT does not provide any data from another source to support the 10 percent.Fifth, MDOT provides no support for its assertion that the gravel, soil and decaying

50 We note that the emission calculation tables in the Air Quality Technical Report use a 0.5 g/m2 silt value, not percentage. We assumed equivalency based on MDOT’s representations in the Final EIS. If in fact the units are different, MDOT should provide the conversion so that the assumed silt values can be compared to the value ranges in AP-42. 51 Air Quality Technical Report, at 33 (describing use of AP-42 Sections 13.2.1. and 13.2.2.2 for paved and unpaved roads, respectively).

19

asphalt existing road surface at Livernois equates to a 5 percent silt value. It simply appears that MDOT cut its unsupported unpaved road figure in half with no basis. Moreover, this description is inconsistent with the more recent description in the DIFT Preferred Alternative Report, which states “[a]lthough much of the Livernois-Junction Yard is now unpaved, the ground is highly compacted and generally clay.”52

This description again is more consistent with lower silt/PM and U.S. EPA’s speciation monitoring data. MDOT must confirm which description is more accurate and the appropriate silt factor for the type of surface.Sixth, the above paragraph appears to contain conflicting values for the Livernois-Junction existing condition silt value – 5 percent and 1 percent. We reviewed the data sheets in the Air Quality Technical Report and it seems as if 1 percent is in reference to paved roads, as opposed to the gravel/soil/asphalt road (although the report uses grams per square meter, a unit that cannot be directly converted to percent silt).Seventh, and similar to point 5, MDOT provides no support that existing paved roads at facilities with unpaved roads would have a 5 percent silt load. Again it appears that MDOT arbitrarily cut the unpaved road figure in half to account for some carryover of silt from unpaved roads to paved roads. There is nothing in the record that supports this high silt value for paved roads at facilities with some unpaved roads. Eighth, and on a level of high importance with point 2, the assumed 0.5 g/m2 silt value for paved roads in all future build scenarios is extremely low, not in keeping with the figures in AP-42 for industrial paved roads, and otherwise unsupported.MDOT again failed to link this figure to any value provided in the relevant AP-42 table, Table 13.2.1-4, “Typical Silt Content and Loading Values for Paved Roads at Industrial Facilities.” Notably, this value is more than ten times lower than the lowest mean value in g/m2 reported for any of the industries (7.4 g/m2 for municipal solid waste landfills). The only industrial paved road range that it falls within is that for iron and steel production, which reports a lower lowest value. However, the mean for this industry is 9.7 g/m2. Indeed, the figure chosen by MDOT is equal to the AP-42 recommended silt value for non-analogous public paved roads.53 The industrial paved roads at the terminals do not exhibit any of the baseline criteria for using this value as the assumed silt content. Nor has MDOT made any other showing that 0.5 g/m2 is an appropriate estimate of silt from these roads, especially in the absence of enforceable commitments to apply stringent methods for reducing PM from roads (which the Final EIS does not discuss at all for the DIFT).54 In sum, use of this extremely low value is totally unsupported, arbitrary, and capricious. Ninth, MDOT makes no adjustment to its figures to account for the down-rating of the calculation results due to the use of non-site-specific data. It instead puts forth the figures as a given, with no words of caution about the inaccuracies inherent in the numbers. This misrepresentation of the calculations fails to provide the hard look and necessary discussion of uncertainty required for informed decision-making by the

52 DIFT Preferred Alternative Report, August 2008, at 18. 53 See AP-42 Section 13.2.1, at 13.2.1-9, Table 13.2.1-3 (0.5 is the recommended default silt loading factor for public paved roads with high average daily traffic of at least 5,000 vehicles per day and worst case conditions). 54 Such methods could include regular vacuum sweeping and silt data collection to ensure compliance, along with application of various suppressants. See, e.g., Attachment 5, ADM Haul Roads, Truck Traffic Fugitive Control Strategy and Monitoring Plan.

20

public and officials.55

We identified additional problems with the silt values by reviewing the data sheets provided in the 2005 Air Quality Technical Report. MDOT provided no explanation for doubling the silt from 5 percent for “unpaved roads” at the existing Livernois-Junction terminal to 10 percent for unpaved roads under the No Action alternative. This huge increase in silt, according to MDOT making the gravel/soil/asphalt road at Livernois-Junction equivalent to a completely unpaved road56, is highly unlikely and again makes paving the terminal more beneficial from a PM perspective. Nor are these unsupported choices in silt factors a minor consideration. PM emissions are directly related to the silt loading percent, so will increase or decrease proportionate to the silt figure.57

In sum, the road calculations systematically and egregiously overestimate emissions from the existing facilities and under the future No Action scenario, while severely underestimating emissions from newly paved roads in the future. This unsupported and inappropriate analysis skews the air quality assessment in favor of the Preferred Alternative (and all build alternatives) by attributing improvements in air quality that will not actually happen to paving. These claimed reductions in PM are then used to balance out the huge increases in PM that will result from increased vehicle traffic under the Preferred Alternative. MDOT must go back and collect the require site-specific silt data, redo its PM calculations using this data, reassess total air quality impacts based on these revised figures, and revise the Final EIS accordingly. During this analysis, MDOT must include an alternative that employs paving and other improvements to the existing facilities to increase efficiency and capacity, as discussed below and in our previous comments.

E. The Final EIS Omits Large Quantities of PM10 and PM2.5 Indirect Emissions From Displaced Traffic.

While MDOT claims paving accounts for the reduction in PM emissions, it does not explain a feature of the Preferred Alternative that eliminates over 111 tons per year of PM10 and nearly 28 tons per year of PM2.5 relative to existing conditions and No Action. This reduction appears to be larger than the claimed reductions from paving, and accounts for the lower PM emissions associated with the Preferred Alternative relative to No Action. It is our understanding that these emissions represent traffic along John Kronk Road, which will be eliminated from that road when it is incorporated into the terminal footprint. However, this traffic will not be eliminated entirely, but displaced elsewhere in the surrounding area. It is thus an indirect impact of the Preferred Alternative that must be fully accounted for in the Final EIS. See 40 C.F.R. 1502.16(b) and 1508.8(b) (agency must look at indirect effects, “which are caused by the action and are later in time or farther removed in distance, but are still reasonably foreseeable,”

55 As one NEPA legal scholar has noted, “When a quantitative model is used, the agency should always report confidence intervals and if possible conduct a sensitivity analysis, determining whether the conclusions hold up if the assumptions are tweaked.” Farber, Daniel A. (2009) "Confronting Uncertainty under NEPA," Issues in Legal Scholarship: Vol. 8 : Iss. 3 (Balancing the Risks: Managing Technology and Dangerous Climate Change), Article 3. Available at: http://www.bepress.com/ils/vol8/iss3/art3. MDOT did not provide any confidence intervals or sensitivity analyses for the silt values. 56 As noted above, MDOT’s assumption of 10 percent silt for existing unpaved roads at several terminals is an significant overestimate. 57 See, e.g., AP-42 Section 13.2.2 Equation 1a: E = k (s/12)a (W/3)b

21

including “growth inducing effects and other effects related to induced changes in the pattern of land use, population density or growth rate, and related effects on air and water and other natural systems”); 40 C.F.R. 93.153(b) (applicability of general conformity is based on the sum of all direct and indirect emissions) and 93.152 (“indirect emissions” “are caused by the Federal action, but may occur later in time and/or may be further removed in distance from the action itself”); Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council, 490 U.S. 332 (1989) (agency must take a hard look at indirect effects); Highway J Citizens Group v. United States DOT, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 84205, at *40-43 (E.D. Wis., September 14, 2009).

As an initial matter, MDOT must clarify on the record that these emissions do in fact represent John Kronk Road traffic. The emission inventory for the Livernois-Junction terminal burden analysis includes categories for “fugitive dust” and “industrial activity.” These categories in turn are each broken out into paved and unpaved roads, creating four categories of emissions for which MDOT uses AP-42 sections for paved and unpaved roads to calculate emissions. For the existing conditions and all alternatives except the Consolidation Alternative, the emissions from industrial activity paved roads are 111.43 tpy of PM10 and 27.86 tpy of PM2.5, based on 761,000 vehicle miles traveled (VMT). The Consolidation Alternative zeros out this line item by reducing the VMT to zero, implying that this source/function disappears entirely under this alternative. However, it is not clear from either the Final EIS text or the calculations exactly what source/function these emissions represent. MDOT must clearly explain on the record the source of these amounts of PM10 and PM2.5, how this source ceases to exist for terminal burden emissions inventory purposes, and whether the equivalent emissions are transferred elsewhere in the project area.

As noted above, it is our understanding based on conversations with the Corradino Group that the line item represents John Kronk Road, which will be incorporated into the terminal footprint under the Preferred Alternative.58 The road, while public under existing conditions, was included in the terminal burden analysis for all scenarios to create a universal baseline for comparison. It is also our understanding based on these conversations that the traffic will not disappear entirely, but relocate as the traffic finds new routes. Under NEPA’s indirect effects requirements, MDOT must include a full discussion of the air pollution that will be displaced and relocated as a result of incorporating John Kronk road into the terminal footprint. The roadway burden analysis shows an increase in PM10 and PM2.5 on Perimeter Road (the replacement for John Kronk) of only 0.04 and 0.02 tpy, respectively.59 Thus, the displaced truck traffic is not accounted for anywhere else in the air quality analysis. MDOT must correct this large omission that alone makes the Preferred Alternative appear preferable to No Action in terms of air quality impacts.

F. The Final EIS Contains Statements Contradicting Claims of PM Benefits From Shutting Down Local Businesses.

On a similar note, MDOT must explain the apparent contradiction between claiming decreases in traffic-related pollution from relocated business and assertions that these businesses and others will locate near the terminal area. According to MDOT, net truck volumes in the

58 Telephone calls between Ted Stone and Meleah Geertsma, January 26 and 27, 2010. 59 See FEIS at 4-143, Table 4-29. We note that the Corradino Group confirmed that these emissions should be zeroed out for the existing conditions and No Action alternative road burden analysis to avoid double-counting them, since the emissions are already incorporated in the terminal burden analysis.

22

community will decrease when the Preferred Alternative is built because the truck traffic from the 29 businesses that are relocated will no longer be in the community.60 The Final EIS also states that these businesses will likely relocate in the Southwest Detroit community nearby the terminal61, and that the DIFT will generate additional business development of logistics and support businesses62. These statements contradict each other with regards to air quality, unless it is MDOT’s (erroneous) position that it need not account for indirect air pollution in its analysis. To the extent that there will be traffic emissions associated with relocated businesses, these emissions must be included in the Final EIS as indirect effects (and be counted towards triggering general conformity).

G. MDOT Must Revisit Its Determination that General Conformity is Not Required for PM10 and PM2.5.

Based on the erroneous road PM calculations and omission of indirect emissions from displaced traffic and businesses, MDOT concluded that the DIFT project would not need to show general conformity for PM2.5 and PM10.63 These errors and omissions require MDOT to go back and determine whether, on the basis of revised calculations, the DIFT will require showing general conformity. Because the displaced traffic alone is associated with over 100 tpy of PM10,it is highly likely that the DIFT triggers general conformity.

H. The Final EIS Still Omits the Required Quantitative Analysis of Air Toxics and Diesel PM, Thereby Failing to Assess the Loss of Health Benefits Attributable to Increases in These Pollutants.

That the DIFT will increase air toxics and deprive area residents and workers of the benefits of new federal regulation to control these harmful air pollutants is made clear in the following sentence:

The sum of the terminal and roadway burdens indicates the Preferred Alternative will increase MSATs relative to taking no action in 2030.

What is missing from this statement (outside of a comparison to any other no-expansion and expansion alternatives) is any sense of either the scale of the increases or the loss of health benefits attributable to those increases. As noted in the introduction to this section, the amounts of air toxics expected under the Preferred Alternative far exceed those under No Action. MDOT avoids any comparison of health impacts from these differences by describing various claimed uncertainties and insufficiencies in current assessment tools.64 However, MDOT’s assertions are both incomplete and incorrect, as a quantitative analysis of toxic emissions, dispersion modeling, and health risks is feasible within the scope of U.S. EPA approved tools and guidance.

60 FEIS at 4-237. 61 FEIS at 4-94 (“Businesses potentially affected were primarily industrial. They were likely to relocate in or near the terminal area in which they are now located, minimizing job loss in the terminal area.”) 62 FEIS at 4-99. 63 FEIS at 4-156. 64 FEIS at 4-148 to 4-149.

23

In particular, emissions modeling at the project level for mobile sources, including diesel exhaust, can be accomplished with US EPA’s emissions models, including MOBILE6.2 but preferably the newer EPA MOVES model, which provides better treatment of particulate and toxics emissions. This model can be driven by trip characteristics specific to the project. The availability of MOVES in 2009 essentially negates arguments presented regarding the application of MOBILE6.2. Moreover, MDOT does not note that MOBILE6.2 can be used to estimate spatially and temporally resolved emissions inventory for mobile sources relevant to the DIFT and local impacts, including absolute and relative trends, as used by US EPA and presented in a peer-reviewed publications.65

With respect to dispersion modeling, the CALINE series of models are simply one set of specific tools for roadway impacts. Much broader capabilities are provided in EPA’s AERMOD dispersion model, including the ability to handle road and railway sources with initial dispersion characteristic of mobile sources. These models are extensively used to develop both short (hourly to daily) and long term (seasonal to annual average) concentrations that are appropriate to assessment of acute and chronic exposures. Further, they have improved dispersion algorithms and meteorological processors compared to CALINE. This applies to both conventional pollutants like PM2.5 and toxics like benzene. Sufficient meteorological data is available to drive this model MDOT provides no reference to this model, which is an approved US EPA regulatory model, and suitable for this task.66 Indeed, US EPA funded an application of AERMOD for a Detroit area rail yard.67

The availability of emission and dispersion models to predict concentrations of conventional and toxic pollutions would allow comparison with reference levels, guidelines, and standards. These include reference concentrations used by US EPA that represent risk-based levels, as well as the State of Michigan Air Toxics System’s Initial Threshold Screening Level/Initial Risk Screening Level (ITSL/IRSL) used in permitting and other analyses.(5) Finally, US EPA and others has extensive experience and guidance for conducting exposure and risks analyses that are relevant to the proposed project, including exposure information, toxicity information, dosimetry, time activity patterns and many details needed to conducted integrated and cumulative exposure and risk analyses. The body of guidance available and routinely used by US EPA and others for risk assessment is extensive and routinely used in a wide variety of situations. The arguments presented by MDOT are completely generic and non-responsive to community and public health concerns, and in fact is inconsistent with the summary that is

65 Attachment 6, Cook R, Isakov V, Touma JS, Benjey W, Thurman J, Kinnee E, et al. 2008. Resolving local-scale emissions for modeling air quality near roadways. Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association 58(3): 451-461, available at www.epa.gov/AMD/peer/products/186343_Cook_AIR.pdf 66 Attachment 7, Cimorelli, A. J., S. G. Perry, A. Venkatram, J. C. Weil, R. J. Paine, R. B. Wilson, R. F. Lee, W. D. Peters, and R. W. Brode, 2005: AERMOD: A dispersion model for industrial source applications Part I: General model formulation and boundary layer characterization. J.Appl.Meteor., 44, 682-693, available at http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=get-abstract&doi=10.1175/JAM2227.1; and Attachment 8, Perry, S. G., A. J. Cimorelli, J. C. Weil, A. Venkatram, R. J. Paine, R. B. Wilson, R. F. Lee, and W. D. Peters, 2005: AERMOD: A dispersion model for industrial source applications Part II: Model performance against seventeen field-study databases. J.Appl.Meteor., 44, 694-708, available at www.epa.gov/AMD/peer/products/105393_Perry_Air.pdf. 67 Attachment 9, Yadav V, et al. The Midwest Rail Study (Phase 1), presented at the Midwest Air Quality Summit, Grafton, IL, Oct. 29, 2009, available at transportationsummit.ladco.org/Turner_MidwestRailStudy_WUSTL_091029.pdf. This project was sponsored as a US EPA RARE Project with involvement of Michigan DEQ and others. ITSL/IRSL levels for the State of Michigan can be accessed at http://www.deq.state.mi.us/itslirsl/

24

presented in the document where site emissions such as benzene, 1,3-butadiene, and diesel exhaust are summarized as known or probably human carcinogens.

Even assuming that MDOT’s assertions are correct (which as explained above they are not), they suffer from one core error: none of them prevent MDOT from making a useful comparison among the alternatives. MDOT fails to show why the alleged inadequacies would impact the assessment of MSAT health impacts in a way that obscures the relative benefits or detriments of the alternatives. In other words, the cited concerns are likely to bias the analyses in the same direction, or introduce the same degree of uncertainty, for all of the alternatives. As long as the same approach and set of assumptions is used for each, the tools provide a useful basis of comparison for NEPA purposes – they will show the relative benefits on a scale that enables comparison.

Instead of making any attempt to apply what is known and what can be done with current state-of-the-art assessment tools, MDOT simply concludes that “the relevance of the unavailable or incomplete information is that it is not possible to make a determination of whether any of the alternatives would have ‘significant adverse impacts on the human environment.’”68 This statement is entirely unsupported. First, as described above, MDOT’s assessment is incomplete and incorrect. Second, the Final EIS fails to address our previous comment about the use of HYROAD, “an alternative microscale transportation model used to simulate the effects of traffic, emissions, and dispersion” that is “specifically designed to determine concentrations of carbon monoxide, PM, and air toxics,” to estimate emissions.69 Third, MDOT also fails to explain why other studies of MSAT health impacts in proximity to roadways have no impact on the ability to assess MSAT health impacts for DIFT. The agency merely concludes, without explanation, that

FHWA cannot evaluate the validity of these studies, but more importantly, they do not provide information that would be useful to alleviate the uncertainties listed above and enable FHWA to perform a more comprehensive evaluation of the health impacts specific to this project.70

The cited studies do appear to alleviate some of the uncertainties. First, the DATI provides MSAT monitoring data, one of the supposed gaps cited by the Final EIS.71 The DEARS study investigates exposure along many parameters that could be used to inform exposure assumptions and/or field studies for DIFT. The Final EIS does not respond to any of the other studies that we cited in our comments on the Draft EIS. MDOT’s continued failure to assess the health effects of the DIFT MSATs pollution violates the Federal Aid Highway Act and its implementing regulations, 23 U.S.C. § 109(h), D.C. Federation of Civic Assocations v. Volpe, 459 F.2d 1231, 1242 (D.C. Cir. 1971), as well NEPA, 40 C.F.R. 1508.27.

68 FEIS at 4-150. 69 FEIS at 4-148 (discussing only CALINE3 and CAL3QHC) and DEIS Comments at 10. 70 FEIS at 4-150. We note that if FHWA’s assertion is that it lacks the expertise to assess these studies, it should consult with other agencies that do have the expertise. In addition, it is ironic that while FHWA does not have the expertise to evaluate the studies’ validity, it does have the expertise to decide they provide no useful information. 71 FEIS at 4-148 (“FHWA is also faced with a lack of monitoring data in most areas for use in establishing project-specific MSAT background concentrations”); and 4-150 to 4-151 (DATI includes air toxics monitoring data).

25

I. The Final EIS Contains Conflicting Pollutant Burden Forecasts for “SW Detroit/E Dearborn.”

MDOT must explain apparent inconsistencies in its pollutant burden forecasts contained within the Final EIS, inconsistencies which appear to favor the Preferred Alternative and which were not included in the Draft EIS. On page 4-123 of the Final EIS (which is essentially unchanged from the Draft EIS), Table 4-22a reports the terminal burdens for 2004 and 2025 in terms of annual tons of pollutants. This table reports PM2.5 emissions in 2025 at the “SW Detroit/E Dearborn” terminal of 47.3 tons and 41.6 tons for the No Action and Alternative 4 alternatives. Then, in Table 4-26a, the Final EIS reports PM2.5 annual tons in 2004, 2015 and 2030 for the No Action and Preferred Alternatives, where the Preferred Alternative is a “variation of Alternative 4,” FEIS at 3-36.72 Table 4-26a reports annual PM2.5 emissions at SW Detroit/E Dearborn of 26.0 tons and 30.9 tons in 2015 and 2030, respectively, for the No Action alternative. Most notably, the table also reports annual PM2.5 emissions at SW Detroit/E Dearborn of a mere 8.8 tons and 14.9 tons in 2015 and 2030, respectively. In other words, for very similar build alternatives and locations, the two tables report vastly different burden estimates for 2025 and 2030: 41.6 tons for Alternative 4 in 2025 versus 14.9 tons for the Preferred Alternative in 2030 (not to mention the low of 8.8 tons for the Preferred Alternative in 2015).

Differences in the scope of the alternatives and/or the estimating methodologies between the two tables do not appear to account for this huge difference.73 Overall lower PM emissions may be expected for Alternative 4 relative to the Preferred Alternative due to the change in project scope. However, a portion of the decreases are attributable to the cancellation of the Moterm expansion, and this action will have little to no impact on the SW Detroit/E Dearborn figures noted above. There is nothing in the record supporting that the termination of the trailer loading operation at the Michigan Central Depot, the other difference between Alternative 4 and the Preferred Alternative, will have such a huge impact on project PM2.5 emissions. We note with respect to cessation of trailer loading that it does not appear that this change has been accounted for in the burden estimate for the No Action alternative, as the Final EIS estimates are the same as the Draft EIS estimates. This omission would make the No Action and any other non-expansion alternatives look relatively worse in terms of PM2.5 burden than the Preferred Alternative. Table 4-26a also notes that the PM2.5 burden figures for 2015 and 2030 include a corrected MOBILE6.2 error. This error – which causes the program to underestimate the benefits of the 2007 heavy duty diesel standards74 – would have had a similar magnitude of impact on the No Action and the Preferred Alternatives, again failing to explain the relatively much greater difference between the two tables for the Preferred Alternative.

In sum, the PM2.5 pollutant burden analyses in the same document contain inconsistencies that bias the Final EIS towards the Preferred Alternative. MDOT must either fully explain or correct these inconsistencies before moving forward with a Record of Decision.

72 As explained in more detail in the FEIS, “The difference between the Preferred Alternative and Alternative 4 is that CP’s Expressway operation (trailer loading) at the Michigan Central Depot has ended and CN has opted not to expand its existing Moterm terminal. The foorprint for the Preferred Alternative is smaller than the footprint for Alternative 4, or Alternative 3 (Figure 1-1c).” FEIS at 1-3 to 1-4. 73 We note that MDOT did not include any updated air quality technical report for the Final EIS, so we cannot use modeling results to determine the cause of the difference. 74 http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/conformity/high0406.htm

26

J. The Final EIS Fails to Meet the General Requirements of the Hot Spot Rule for PM10 and PM2.5.

The Final EIS also impermissibly uses qualitative measures to assess potential PM hot spot problems, thereby avoiding the required quantitative assessment of increases in local concentrations that will occur as a result of the project. This shortcut is in violation of the hot spot conformity regulations, as set forth below.

1. Conformity determinations must be made according to procedures contained in EPA regulations.

The Clean Air Act mandates that EPA “with the concurrence of the Secretary of Transportation, shall promulgate criteria and procedures for demonstrating and assuring conformity in the case of transportation plans, programs, and projects.” 42 U.S.C. § 7506(c)(4)(B). This conformity section establishes “the unqualified requirement in the statute that the federal government not approve a transportation activity unless that activity has complied with the conformity rules.” Sierra Club v. EPA, 129 F.3d 137, 140 (D.C. Cir. 1997). Conformity with regards to localized impacts of CO, PM10 and PM2.5 is governed by the substantive duty expressed in 40 C.F.R. 93.116 and the procedural requirements laid out in 40 C.F.R. 93.123.

Specifically, the substantive component of localized conformity provides that “[t]he FHWA/[Federal Transit Authority] project must not cause or contribute to any new localized ... PM2.5 violations or increase the frequency or severity of any existing . . . PM2.5 violations in ... PM2.5 nonattainment and maintenance areas.” 40 C.F.R. 93.116(a). This rule then prescribes the method that must be used to make the demonstration. A project listed in Section 93.123(b)(1) only meets this bar:

if it is demonstrated that during the time frame of the transportation plan (or regional emissions analysis) no new local violations will be created and the severity or number of existing violations will not be increased as a result of the project. The demonstration must be performed according to the consultation requirements of Sec. 93.105(c)(1)(i) and the methodology requirements of Sec. 93.123.

Id. (emphasis added). In turn, two sets of methodology requirements contained in 40 C.F.R. 93.123 apply to PM2.5. Section 93.123(b) establishes the specific methods to be performed for the analysis of PM2.5, while Section 93.123(c) establishes the “general requirements” to be applied in localized conformity determinations for all pollutants (i.e., CO, PM10, and PM2.5).

Under Section 93.123, MDOT cannot rely solely on qualitative methods for assessing hot spot concerns to meet the obligation imposed by Section 93.116. The quantitative method prescribed by Section 93.123(b) is not yet mandated by the hot spot rule, as EPA has yet to promulgate quantitative modeling guidance and announce such guidance in the Federal Register. See 40 C.F.R. 93.123(b)(4). The directive in Section 93.116, however, requires the use of the methods prescribed by Section 93.123(c), including quantitative analytical steps required by this

27

section. The rules do not contain an exemption to this regulatory requirement for DIFT.75 The obligation created under NEPA to obtain the information necessary to make a reasoned choice among alternatives, 40 C.F.R. 1502.22, is not affected by the hot spot rule and also applies to agency decisions in this case. The general requirements prescribed by Section 93.123(c), therefore, provide the minimum requirements that must be satisfied to make the demonstration required by Section 93.116(a). MDOT’s failure to perform the conformity determination in accord with the criteria and procedures promulgated in Section 93.123(c) is contrary to law. Section 93.123(c) contains several quantitative obligations that MDOT must meet. The general requirements are stated as follows:

(c) General requirements.

(1) Estimated pollutant concentrations must be based on the total emissions burden which may result from the implementation of the project, summed together with future background concentrations. The total concentration must be estimated and analyzed at appropriate receptor locations in the area substantially affected by the project. (2) Hot-spot analyses must include the entire project, and may be performed only after the major design features which will significantly impact concentrations have been identified. The future background concentration should be estimated by multiplying current background by the ratio of future to current traffic and the ratio of future to current emission factors.

In other words, the regulatory method requires that MDOT determine the baseline air quality atthe hot spot locations; estimate the additional pollution that will result from the proposed Project by calculating and comparing the ratios between current traffic and future traffic after the Project opens for service, with the emission factors that represent the best estimate of emissions from current and future vehicles using the facility; add the expected change in vehicle emissions to a future background concentration; and then compare the resulting air quality with the NAAQS. MDOT instead conducted a “qualitative” assessment pursuant to informal guidance issued by EPA and FHWA.76 However, similar to the rule itself, nothing in the guidance exempts MDOT from compliance with the general requirements of 93.123(c). To the extent that EPA and FHWA claim that it does, their interpretation of the guidance is in conflict with the regulations themselves and so is untenable. The guidance itself states that “[q]uantitative PM2.5or PM10 hot-spot analyses will be required when appropriate methods and modeling guidance

75 While MDOT may attempt to argue that 93.123(b)(2) grants an overall license to replace quantitative analysis with qualitative factors to meet Section 93.116, this argument is without ground. Section 93.123(b)(2) states that qualitative consideration is allowed “[w]here quantitative analysis methods are not available” (emphasis added). The bar for avoiding all quantitative analysis of local hot spots, including that required under 93.123(c), therefore is significantly higher than the bar for avoiding modeling required under 93.123(b)(1). To meet the former, MDOT must show that quantitative methods are not “available,” period. This is a much harder burden to meet than to show that EPA has not approved a quantitative modeling method and announced its approval in the Federal Register. And MDOT has made no attempt to make the required showing. See Final EIS at 4-157 (making only a general statement that “[h]ot-spot conformity for PM2.5 and PM10 is determined on a qualitative basis per 40 C.F.R. 93.123(b)(4) until appropriate methods and modeling guidance are available for quantitative analysis.”) 76 FEIS at 4-158, referencing the 2006 “Transportation Conformity Guidance for Qualitative Hot-spot Analyses in PM2.5 and PM10 Nonattainment and Maintenance Areas” (“2006 PM Hot-Spot Guidance”).

28

are available.”77 This statement can be read consistently with the regulatory language that qualitative analyses are permissible only when “quantitative analysis methods are not available.” 40 C.F.R. 93.123(b)(2). As set forth in these comments, appropriate methods and modeling guidance for a quantitative analysis are available, whether or not EPA has formally approved a given approach through publication in the Federal Register. MDOT must use such a quantitatiapproach to assess PM10 and PM2.5

ve hot spots.

2. The Final EIS’s conformity analysis omits necessary information regarding baseline air quality, additional localized air pollution from the DIFT, and total impact in relation to the NAAQS.

The Final EIS does not include the required quantitative information for baseline air quality, additional localized air pollution from the DIFT, and the combined impact in comparison to the NAAQS, in violation of the hot-spot rule. U.S. EPA also noted the failure to conduct such an analysis.78 While MDOT did provide background monitoring data, it failed to discuss whether this background in combination with increased concentrations from additional DIFT pollution will comply with the 2006 NAAQS (which as explained below is one appropriate metric) or the health-protective standards that are likely to take their place in the near future. MDOT must provide this quantitative comparison, based on revised PM calculations that correct the errors and omissions discussed above. As set forth above with regards to MSATs, the tools are available to conduct this analysis.

K. NEPA Requires an Analysis of Impacts That Goes Beyond Basic Conformity With the Dated PM2.5 NAAQS.

MDOT essentially claims – in error – that it need only assess PM2.5 air quality in terms of conformity with the dated 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS to meet NEPA requirements.79 We acknowledge that formal conformity with the revised 24-hour NAAQS of 35 µ/m3 is not required until one year after the area is designated nonattainment for the revised NAAQS. However, during this period prior to the effective date of the conformity requirement for the revised NAAQS, NEPA requires that the impact of emissions from the project be analyzed against the 2006 revised and remanded NAAQS, as well as the standard that is likely to take its place in the near future. NEPA additionally requires assessment of any health impacts that might occur below these standards, consideration of any alternatives that will reduce air pollution or even improve existing air quality, and mitigation to prevent any harms from air pollution. To the extent that these analyses go beyond the Draft EIS and Final EIS for DIFT, they are required either due to the gaps in these documents or as supplements. See 40 C.F.R. 1502.9(c)(1)(ii) (agency shall prepare a supplement to a draft or final EIS where “[t]here are significant new circumstances or information relevant to environmental concerns and bearing on the proposed action or its impacts.”)

77 2006 PM Hot-Spot Guidance, at 2-3. 78 FEIS at A-7. 79 FEIS at 4-158 and 4-161.

29

1. NEPA requires a full discussion of environmental impacts and consideration of other environmental laws and policies.

NEPA includes the obligations to “provide” to the decisionmaker and the public “full and fair discussion of significant environmental impacts,” as well as to “inform decisionmakers and the public of the reasonable alternatives which would avoid or minimize adverse impacts or enhance the quality of the human environment.” 40 C.F.R. 1502.1. The term “significantly” is defined by the NEPA regulation to include actions that threaten to violate a federal, state, or local law designed to protect the environment. See 40 CFR 1508.27(b)(2), (b)(10). Along the same lines, an environmental impact statement “shall state how alternatives considered in it and decisions based on it will or will not achieve the requirements of sections 101 and 102(1) of the Act and other environmental laws and policies.” 40 C.F.R. 1502.2(d) (emphasis added). These other environmental laws and policies include the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, as well as Michigan’s own Rule 901 and the Michigan Environmental Protection Act (“MEPA”). Thus MDOT’s obligation with respect to PM2.5 includes, at a minimum, a full assessment of whether emissions from the Preferred Alternative will violate the CAA or state laws by causing or contributing to violations of health-protective PM2.5 air quality standards, whether the Preferred Alternative will otherwise adversely affect the human environment by contributing to the kinds of adverse health effects associated with exposure to PM2.5 and the full mixture of mobile vehicle-related pollutants that have been identified in the recent health effects research, and whether alternatives are available to avoid or minimize these adverse impacts, or even to “enhance” the human environment.

2. MDOT must consider compliance with MEPA in the Final EIS.

The Michigan Environmental Protection Act, or MEPA, is a state environmental law that must be fully considered in the Final EIS. MEPA is based in the Michigan Constitution, which establishes the protection of public health, welfare, and the environment as a paramount concern for state government. For example, Article IV, section 51 of the Michigan Constitution provides:

The public health and general welfare of the people of the state are hereby declared to be matters of primary public concern. The legislature shall pass suitable laws for the protection and promotion of the public health.

Similarly, Art. IV, section 52 of the Michigan Constitution provides:

The conservation and development of the natural resources of the state are hereby declared to be of paramount public concern in the interest of the health, safety and general welfare of the people. The legislature shall provide for the protection of the air, water and other natural resources of the state from pollution, impairment and destruction.

As the Michigan Supreme Court has made clear, this text imposes a mandatory duty on the Michigan Legislature to protect the environment. State Highway Commission v. Vanderkloot,392 Mich. 159, 179-180 (1974).

30

The Legislature carried out this duty by passing MEPA, a “world famous” statute that was one of the first to provide citizens with a legal tool to protect the environment from public or private degradation. Ray v. Mason County Drain Commissioner, 393 Mich. 294, 298 & n.1 (Mich. 1975). MEPA allows for “any person” to bring a court action for “the protection of the air, water, and other natural resources and the public trust in these resources from pollution, impairment, or destruction.” M.C.L. 324.1701(1). If the individual bringing the MEPA case can demonstrate that a proposed action would or is likely to “pollute, impair, or destroy” the environment, then the defendant must demonstrate that there is “no feasible and prudent alternative” that would achieve the objective of the proposed action, and that the proposed action is “consistent with the promotion of the public health, safety, and welfare in light of the state’s paramount concern for the protection of its natural resources from pollution, impairment and destruction.” M.C.L. 324.1703(1). In reviewing a MEPA case, a court may evaluate the adequacy of any applicable “standard for pollution or for an antipollution device or procedure” and “direct the adoption” of a more stringent standard if the court finds that standard to be “deficient.” M.C.L. 324.1701(2). In other words, MEPA requires both an evaluation of alternatives to a polluting action, and the adoption of more stringent pollution control standards if the existing standards under other applicable laws are not adequate.

In addition to authorizing citizen suits against a proposal that would pollute the environment, MEPA also requires “in administrative, licensing, or other proceedings” that pollution, impairment, or destruction “shall be determined” and provides that polluting “conduct shall not be authorized or approved” if there is a feasible and prudent alternative. M.C.L. 324.1705(2). MEPA’s requirements are “supplementary to existing administrative and regulatory procedures,” M.C.L. 324.1706, apply to all state agencies, State Highway Comm’n,392 Mich. at 183-84; Genesco, Inc. v. Mich. Dept. of Envtl. Quality, 645 N.W.2d 319, 325 (Mich. App. Ct. 2002), and are to be read in pari materia with any other statute that relates to natural resources. Michigan Oil Co. v. Natural Resources Comm’n, 406 Mich. 1, 33 (Mich. 1979). Therefore, as expressly noted in the NEPA regulations, see 40 C.F.R. 1502.2(d), MDOT is required to follow MEPA’s mandate and to satisfy the requirements of MEPA in reviewing the DIFT. State Highway Comm’n, 392 Mich. at 182-83.

It is important for the Agency to keep in mind that mere compliance with the basic requirements of the Clean Air Act and NEPA is not sufficient to satisfy MEPA. Instead, MEPA provides “a mechanism under which more stringent limitations may be imposed than required by federal law.” Her Majesty the Queen in Right of the Province of Ontario v. City of Detroit, 874 F.2d 332, 344 (6th Cir. 1989). This means that to the extent that the Clean Air Act and NEPA fail to adequately protect air, water, climate, and other natural resources, or MDOT interprets these acts in a way that fails to do so, MEPA requires the Agency to select less damaging alternatives and to apply more stringent standards.

3. MDOT must consider compliance with Rule 901 in the Final EIS.

In addition, recognizing the potential for harms from air pollution that result even when a source is in compliance with other laws and regulations, Michigan passed a law in 1965 to provide broad protection to the public against air pollution. This law, now codified as Rule 901, see Southeastern Oakland County Incinerator Authority v. Dept. of Natural Resources, 176 Mich. App. 434, 437 (Mich. App. 1989) (“SOCIA”), states as follows:

31

Notwithstanding the provisions of any other department rule, a person shall not cause or permit the emission of an air contaminant or water vapor in quantities that cause, alone or in reaction with other air contaminants, either of the following: (a) Injurious effects to human health or safety, animal life, plant life of significant economic value, or property. (b) Unreasonable interference with the comfortable enjoyment of life and property.

Mich. Admin. Code R. 336.1901 (emphasis added). “Air contaminant,” as discussed above, is defined broadly under Michigan law as “dust, fume, gas, mist, odor, smoke, vapor, or any combination thereof.” MCL § 324.5501(a). This broad term thus applies to PM2.5 and air toxics. As clearly stated in its outset, Rule 901’s protective reach applies regardless of other regulations; in the case of PM2.5, regardless of the conformity requirements and even the remanded 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS (described below). Moreover, it prohibits MDOT from approving a project that would allow injurious levels of air contaminants (“a person shall not… permit the emission”), as well as gives MDOT the authority to require additional controls or protective measures beyond those mandated under other regulations and NEPA itself. See SOCIA, 176 Mich. App. at 440-441 (upholding MDEQ’s use of Rule 901 to require a greater isolation distance of a landfill than specifically required under another regulation).

4. Pursuant to MEPA and Rule 901 as interpreted through NEPA, MDOT must consider PM2.5 air quality impacts from the various alternatives under health-protective standards.

After correcting its improper and erroneous PM calculations as noted above, MDOT must evaluate project plus background levels relative to health-protective standards. This means that, at minimum, MDOT must compare the combined impact against the 2006 annual PM2.5 NAAQS of 15 µg/m3 and the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS of 35 µg/m3. U.S. EPA’s revision of the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in 2006 was based upon “significant new circumstances or information relevant to environmental concerns” that bear on the impacts of the proposed Project. U.S. EPA’s revision of the NAAQS reflects new evidence obtained from nearly 2000 health effects studies conducted since 1996 when EPA last completed its review of the health effects of PM2.5. U.S. EPA’s revision of the NAAQS for PM2.5 presents a benchmark for identifying significant environmental impacts not evaluated in the Draft EIS, namely the likelihood that emissions from the project will violate the revised NAAQS for PM2.5. Moreover, MEPA and Rule 901 (on their own and as applied through NEPA) require MDOT to evaluate PM2.5 impacts against a PM2.5 annual standard in the range of 12-14 µg/m2

and a 24-hour standard of 25 µg/m2. U.S. EPA is in the process of responding to a remand of the 2006 PM2.5 annual standard by the U.S. District Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in American Farm Bureau Federation v. EPA, 559 F.3d 512 (February 24, 2009). As noted by the American Farm Bureau court, EPA is to consider setting the NAAQS at levels recommended by the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee, which are 12-14 µg/m2 for the annual standard and 25-35 µg/m2 for the 24-hour standard. Id., slip op. at 14-22. These health protective standards govern the analysis of alternatives in this case. Under these standards, the existing background levels alone threaten health, as they are in the range of 12.23 to 13.33 µg/m2 (annual) and 31.7 to

32

34.3 µg/m2 (24-hour).80 MDOT thus cannot add the PM2.5 pollution expected from the DIFT without including firm commitments to significant mitigation measures that will offset any contributing pollution and make in-roads at reducing the excess background levels. As set forth below, such commitments are not made in the Final EIS. Modeling tools are now available and suitable for the purpose of assessing the impacts of exposure to some of these pollutants on human health. Therefore, we request that further action to implement the DIFT be withheld until a revised Final EIS is prepared to fully disclose these impacts, and consider the alternatives and mitigation options available to eliminate, avoid or minimize these impacts as required by NEPA, 23 U.S.C. § 109(h), MEPA, and Rule 901.

L. The Final EIS Must Include Specific Mitigation for Increases In Harmful Pollutants like Air Toxics and Diesel Particulate Matter, as Well as For Improving Air Quality in the Project Area Overall.

While the Final EIS clearly finds that levels of air toxics, diesel particulate matter and other pollutants will increase at terminal areas and from the project overall, it fails to include (a) any evaluation of specific mitigation measures in terms of their feasibility and likely impact on air quality, or (b) any real commitments to specific mitigation measures, or (c) plans to monitor future air quality to determine whether the project (with or without the mitigation measures) is resulting in harmful air quality. We noted these omissions in our initial comments, as did U.S. EPA. In its comments on the Draft EIS, Region 5 notes the glaring deficiency as follows:

EPA is concerned that no mitigation is proposed or discussed in the DEIS for air quality impacts. There are numerous mitigation actions and strategies that should be discussed and applied to the alternatives for construction and for terminal operational activity. These are actions that complement EPA’s National Clean Diesel Campaign to reduce diesel emissions… EPA has found that there are multiple cost effective measures to reduce PM2.5 emissions.

Region 5 goes on to list numerous specific measures such as anti-idling measures, use of auxiliary power units for trains, and use of on-road fuels for trucks and equipment in the yards. In conclusion, Region 5 recommends that “the FEIS include an evaluation of these mitigation measures and commitments to the maximum extent possible.”81 Rather than follow U.S. EPA’s recommendation in the Final EIS, MDOT included a thin general paragraph noting the development of a future action plan to reduce pollution. This nod is wholly inadequate.

An agency must consider “appropriate mitigation measures” in its discussion of alternatives. 40 C.F.R. 1502.14(f) (“Alternatives including the proposed action”). The agency also must, in the course of determining environmental impacts, determine the “natural or depletable resource... conservation potential of various… mitigation measures.” 40 C.F.R. 1502.16(f) (“Environmental consequences”). Thus, discussion of mitigation is subject to the same hard look requirements as the rest of the EIS. FHWA describes the responsibility under NEPA to include mitigation in an EIS:

80 FEIS at 4-161. 81 FEIS at A-5 (emphasis added).

33

The mitigation of impacts must be considered whether or not the impacts are significant. ("Forty Most Asked Questions and Answers on the CEQ Regulations" Number 19a). Agencies are required to identify and include in the action all relevant and reasonable mitigation measures that could improve the action.

***The CEQ regulations define mitigation as:

Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action.

Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation.

Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment.

Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations during the life of the action.

Compensating for the impact by replacing or providing substitute resources or environments.

-- 40 CFR 1508.20Mitigation: Avoid --> Minimize --> Repair or Restore --> Reduce over time -->

Compensate

This ordered approach to mitigation is known as "sequencing" and involves understanding the affected environment and assessing transportation effects throughout project development. Effective mitigation starts at the beginning of the NEPA process, not at the end. Mitigation must be included as an integral part of the alternatives development and analysis process.82

In sum, the agency cannot take shortcuts, but must take a hard look up front at all appropriate mitigation measures, determine their impact on the environment, and include commitments to specific measures in the Final EIS. MDOT failed once again to do so here.

The Final EIS does not even purport to include mitigation measures for the negative air quality impacts from operation of DIFT discussed above. Instead, the Final EIS section on mitigation only discusses control of air pollution during construction83, omits air quality impacts (including construction) from the Green Sheet “Mitigation Measures,” and lists a future action plan to control pollution from operation only under the title “Community Enhancements.” This scant nod to reducing air quality impacts from operation of the DIFT, ostensibly community enhancement, consists only of a vague general paragraph:

82 FHWA, “NEPA and Transportation Decisionmaking: Mitigation of Environmental Impacts,” available at http://www.environment.fhwa.dot.gov/projdev/tdmmitig2.asp 83 FEIS at 5-6.

34

MDOT will work with SEMCOG, MDEQ, and the private sector to create an action plan that includes short-term and long-term objectives aimed at reducing fugitive dust, diesel truck idling, fuel consumption, or diesel emissions to limit PM2.5 emissions in the study area defined by the map shown in Figure 3-16 of this FEIS. The action plan will identify priorities for future federal air eligible transportation projects through programs such as Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) and the Midwest Clean Diesel Initiative. The action plan will be implemented during design and construction phases, and sustained through the maintenance and operations of the facilities. Activities could also include outreach activities to inform commercial operations and residents on air pollution control strategies. The actual projects will be generated from the community and its partners who will develop project proposals.

This paragraph is utterly inadequate to meet NEPA’s mitigation requirements. First, the paragraph includes no analysis of specific measures, but simply lists the goals (reductions in dust, idling, fuel consumption, and emissions) of such measures without discussing any means for achieving them. Second, needless to say, the statement does not include the conservation potential of any mitigation measures. This omission makes it impossible to gauge how effective mitigation will be in reducing the negative air impacts of the DIFT.

Third, even if the Final EIS had described available measures and their conservation potential, the actual plan and the measures it will include is to be developed entirely in the future through an undefined process that involves plan development by agencies and the private sector (with a nod to proposals by the community). This reference to an amorphous future plan is not in keeping with FHWA’s charge “to identify and include in the action all relevant and reasonable mitigation measures that could improve the action” by addressing mitigation from the beginning, not as a tack on to the end after the full public EIS process (and its accompanying access to the courts) has run its course. It also cannot be considered “an evaluation” of mitigation measures, let alone “commitments to the maximum extent possible” per U.S. EPA’s comment. Notably, the Final EIS discusses U.S. EPA’s “Midwest Clean Diesel Initiative” as a source of mitigation funding, while U.S. EPA itself describes DIFT mitigation as a “complement [to] EPA’s National Clean Diesel Campaign.”84 This implies that mitigation should be internally funded by the project budget and not be dependent on funding from external programs. We note that the Final EIS does not even contain the anticipated mitigation measures described in the March 2005 Air Quality Impact Analysis Technical Report. This report lists specific measures such as engine idling reduction programs for trucks and locomotives (auxiliary power units for trucks and automatic shut-off devices for idling locomotives), use of electrified truck parking areas, and use of alternative fuels for handling equipment (natural gas and hybrids).85 The report then states “[i]t is anticipated that the Final EIS will contain agreements that mandate specific air quality mitigation measures, which will be defined as the project advances.”86 We were not able to identify any such agreements in the Final EIS or explanation for why none were included.

MDOT’s response to air quality mitigation comments is inadequate and contains both inaccuracies and errors. First, MDOT refers back to the incomplete and vague Section 5 critiqued

84 See FEIS at A-5 (emphasis added). 85 Air Quality Technical Report at 49. 86 Id.

35

above. Second, MDOT appears to think that the Final EIS goes further than it actually does, as the agency claims in the Response to Comments that “[a]ll vehicles will be subject to idle controls while at the terminal.”87 Such idle controls are not included in the Green Sheet, nor are there any commitments to enforce idling controls elsewhere in the Final EIS. Third, MDOT cites that because conformity supposedly has been shown, and because MDEQ and U.S. EPA are responsible for enforcement of air quality rules and regulations, there is no need for project-related air quality monitoring.88 This statement is in error for several reasons. First, as shown in these comments, the air quality analysis for PM10 and PM2.5 is highly flawed and corrections of the flaws would show potential air quality violations. Project-specific monitoring is required to ensure that these violations do not occur. Second, air quality monitoring is a critical tool for triggering implementation of mitigation measures, such that measures are fine-tuned to actual exceedances of air quality standards. It is thus a “relevant and reasonable mitigation measure that could improve the action.” Finally, we note an inconsistency between Section 5.12 on mitigation of construction air quality impacts and the Green Sheet Community Enhancements discussion of construction air quality. The former contains the word “may” regarding a construction emissions reduction plan, while the latter says “shall.” MDOT must confirm that this plan is mandated, and specify the measures that “shall” be included.

For these reasons, MDOT must go back and conduct the omitted evaluation of mitigation measures for air pollution during facility operation. It must discuss availability and feasibility of specific measures, estimate the expected air pollution reductions, and include commitments to implement specific measures. Our prior comments directed MDOT to the techniques included in the proposed regulations for reducing air pollution at intermodal rail yards by the State of California, which have since been adopted.89 U.S. EPA’s comments provide other mitigation options. In addition, MDOT must address mitigation for the residents living along John Kronk who will be impacted by the truck traffic along this road getting from Livernois to the new gate at Martin, including acquisition of these residences. To the extent that the current construction mitigation discussion in the Final EIS falls short on these criteria (analysis of specific measures, expected emissions reductions, and enforceable commitments), MDOT must redo the construction mitigation evaluation and commitments as well.

VI. THE FINAL EIS DOES NOT ADEQUATELY ASSESS OR MITIGATE ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE IMPACTS.

While MDOT acknowledges the disproportionate impact on minority and low income communities in the Final EIS, it fails to both identify all of the types of disproportionate impacts and to fully consider practicable alternatives and mitigation measures. Our prior comments lay out the framework for the environmental justice analysis, as well as several deficiencies in the Draft EIS’s analysis.90 In the time since the Draft EIS, the country elected a president who ran on a platform that includes strengthening of federal environmental justice programs.91 Governor

87 FEIS at 7-73. 88 FEIS at 7-73. 89 Attachment 10, Final Regulation Order, Section 2479, Regulation for Mobile Cargo Handling Equipment at Ports and Intermodal Rail Yards, available at http://www.arb.ca.gov/ports/cargo/documents/cheregulationamended120309.pdf90 DEIS Comments at 13-14. 91 See Attachment 11, “Barack Obama and Joe Biden: Promoting a Health Environment,” at 7 (Obama and Biden will “will also work to ensure that environmental health issues in the wake of man-made or terrorist disasters are

36

Granholm issued Executive Directive 2007-23, which emphasis the state’s “obligation to advance policies that foster environmental justice, social well-being, and economic progress. This Directive calls upon all state agencies to “assure implementation in a manner that maximizes the promotion of environmental justice while minimizing or eliminating potential adverse or disproportionate social, economic, or environmental impact.” While we applaud MDOT for amending its findings to confirm that environmental justice communities will be disproportionately impacted92, MDOT must clarify the impacts, as well as analyze and commit to specific mitigation measures that will adequately address the disparity.

MDOT continues to fall far short with regards to air quality disproportionate impacts. We noted several shortcomings in MDOT’s analysis in our prior comments.93 These same comments apply to the Final EIS. MDOT still has not conducted the required analysis of air quality and public health impacts; also, as set forth elsewhere in these comments, the analysis that MDOT did do is rife with omissions and errors that undercount the pollution from the Preferred Alternative. Also, MDOT again fails to confirm that there will be disproportionate air quality impacts on the communities. MDOT does not list these impacts in its general statement upfront, but only notes housing, employment, and cultural resources impacts.94 While MDOT does discuss air quality impacts, it does so in a manner that suggests the agency believes there will be no disproportionate air quality impact.95 The changes that are anticipated clearly show that the communities of concern will be disproportionately impacted. As set forth in the air quality section, levels of numerous pollutants, primarily those with local impacts, will increase relative to No Action and to regional levels. Moreover, MDOT omits any qualitative discussion of how the existing health status of the impacted community will contribute to the disproportionate health impact. We echo U.S. EPA in stressing the need to discuss increased sensitivity of chidren and the elderly, household attributes impacting on exposure (such as lack of air conditioning), and lack of insurance coverage and so access to routine health care.

The shortcomings in MDOT’s proposed mitigation for air quality impacts on communities of concern mirror those for mitigation of air quality impacts generally. MDOT falsely claims large PM benefits from paving, and fails to assess or commit to any specific additional measures.96 We have noted shortcomings for mitigation of noise impacts elsewhere in these comments.

VII. THE FINAL EIS DOES NOT ADEQUATELY ASSESS STORMWATER IMPACTS.

The Final EIS continues to suffer from a lack of detail and contradictory statements about the impact that the DIFT would have on water quality. We noted issues with the stormwater discussion in the Draft EIS in our previous comments.97 These comments raised the lack of detail about the actual system to be installed and the ability of Detroit’s combined sewer to

promptly addressed by federal, state and local officials [and] will work to provide low-income communities the legal ability to challenge policies and processes that adversely affect the environmental health of low-income and minority communities.”) 92 FEIS at 4-89. 93 DEIS Comments at 15. 94 FEIS at 4-89. 95 FEIS at 4-91 to 4-92. 96 FEIS at 4-93. 97 DEIS Comments at 16-17.

37

handle the additional runoff. The Final EIS provides little to address these issues in its discussiof two possible stormwater management syste 98

onms.

Since the Draft EIS, it has become increasingly questionable whether necessary improvements to Detroit’s Combined Sewer Overflow Tunnel will be built.99 This lack of adequate treatment capacity re-enforces that water quality may be threatened by the Preferred Alternative if option 1 is selected. We note that the Final EIS provides no basis to conclude that such treatment will not be necessary. Instead, the Final EIS merely punts by stating that “[w]hether any treatment will be required is not known.”100 This statement is inadequate. MDOT must provide information on the expected content of the stormwater runoff in addition to the projected volumes so that it can make a reasonable prediction, following consultation with MDEQ, whether option 1 or option 2 will be appropriate. Nor does the Final EIS provide an adequate description of what is meant by “detention on site in pipes”101 so that the public may be informed of the costs and additional environmental impacts of such on-site facilities. Finally, MDOT must confirm that the selected plan for stormwater management will comply with anti-degradation requirements, whether through the NPDES permitting process or some other mechanism. In addition to these shortcomings in the direct effects assessment, the Final EIS does not provide any information on indirect effects from stormwater management. Any necessary treatment of stormwater will involve additional energy and sludge disposal costs.

Basically, the Final EIS does not explain in any meaningful way:

what, if any, wastewater treatment there will be, what alternatives there are for wastewater treatment,what the quality will be of the wastewater after whatever level of wastewater treatment is performed, what the effect on the human environment will be of pollutants that are discharged or otherwise loaded to waters, what the effect on the human environment will be of the operation of wastewater treatment.

For these reasons, MDOT must redo its analysis of water quality impacts.

VIII. THE FINAL EIS FAILS TO ADEQUATELY MITIGATE NOISE IMPACTS.

While the Final EIS recognizes that noise impacts will occur at several sensitive receptors, it only considers and requires a single mitigation measure while ignoring other available means for reducing noise impacts. The Green Sheet notes that “[p]roject noise levels exceed FWA Noise Abatement Criteria at several locations adjacent to terminals.” Walls are proposed to reduce this noise. Nowhere in the Final EIS does MDOT consider other available measures for reducing noise impacts. Such measures include, but are not limited to102:

98 FEIS at 4-201. 99 See Attachment 12, Stormwaterauthority.org, “Detroit Cancels Costly Combined Sewer Overflow Tunnel,” June 1, 2009, available at http://www.stormwaterauthority.org/library/view_article.aspx?id=1311.100 FEIS at 4-201. 101 FEIS at 4-201. 102 See Attachment 13, City of Carson Planning Commission Staff Report, Alameda Street Sound-wall and Noise Mitigation Workshop, November 24, 2009 (discussing ways to use $1 million in noise mitigation funds provided to

38

Retrofitting homes with increased insulation of windows, walls, doors, and ceilings; Working with the city to establish a Quiet Zone to reduce or eliminate horn noise; Special track work at turnouts; Limits on hours of operation103;Installation of continuously welded rail, improved ballast sections, and vibration mats to mitigate ground borne sound vibration.

MDOT also appears to put sole responsibility for increased container handling noise on Detroit and Dearborn.104 This is an inadequate response regarding mitigation of project-related noise. Residents have repeatedly complained about the noise being generated by these lifts at the current rates of operation at the facility, which will only increase with the DIFT. MDOT must work with the cities to determine whether existing ordinances sufficiently limit so-called “impulse noise” and whether adequate means for enforcing the ordinance exist. If the ordinance is insufficient or the cities lack the means for enforcing it, MDOT should include additional mitigation measures to address impulse noise. These may include noise monitoring to determine whether or not ordinance levels have been exceeded.

the city by the Alameda Corridor Transporation Authority) http://ci.carson.ca.us/content/files/pdfs/planning/sr/2009-11-24/wall.pdf; Attachment 14, RailwayPeople.com, Alameda Corridor, USA (describing track noise mitigation measures), available at http://www.railwaypeople.com/rail-projects/alameda-corridor-usa-33.html; Attachment 15, Utah Transit Authority, Mid-Jordan TRAX Line Frequently Asked Questions, available at http://www.rideuta.com/projects/midjordanlightrail/faq.aspx; Attachment 16, San Joaquin Council of Governments, Draft Program Environmental Impact Report for the 2007 San Joaquin County Regional Transportation Plan (“San Joaquin Draft EIR”), at 6-18 (discussing improvements in acoustical insulation of residential units), available athttp://www.sjcog.org/docs/pdf/Transportation/draft_RTP_EIR.pdf 103 MDOT appears to claim that limitations on hours of rail activity such as train assembly to reduce noise impacts cannot be imposed because they would violate the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution. FEIS at 7-77. This claim is without merit. Even-handed regulations that do not discriminate against out-of-state businesses do not violate the Commerce Clause unless they impose an excessive burden on commerce: “[w]here the statute regulates even-handedly to effectuate a legitimate local public interest, and its effects on interstate commerce are only incidental, it will be upheld unless the burden imposed on such commerce is clearly excessive in relation to the putative local benefits.” Pike v. Bruce Church, 397 U.S. 137, 142 (1970). There is no evidence in the record that tailored limits on hours of operation would be “clearly excessive” in relation to the noise impact reduction benefits. Other projects have considered limitations on hours of operation as mitigation for impacts. See Attachment 16, San Joaquin Draft EIR at 6-18. 104 FEIS at 7-59.

39

IX. THE FINAL EIS FAILS TO ADEQUATELY ASSESS CUMULATIVE IMPACTS.

Our previous comments highlighted MDOT’s failure to provide a detailed and quantified analysis of cumulative impacts, rather than just a list of vague generalities and conclusory statements.105 The Final EIS does little to nothing to build on this inadequate analysis. We note additional specific concerns in these comments.

A. The Final EIS Provides an Incomplete and Misleading Assessment of Cumulative Air Impacts.

We have identified numerous shortcomings in the discussion of cumulative air quality impacts. These deficiencies range from omitting entire categories of impacts to failing to include specific aspects of others. MDOT must revise its air quality cumulative impacts analysis to amend its errors.

If MDOT does not assess air quality impacts under the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS as part of its primary air quality analysis (which as set forth above, it must do), MDOT has to include discussion of this standard and others in the cumulative impacts section in light of impending changes to the NAAQS. U.S. EPA is in the midst of significantly tightening the current NAAQS for PM2.5, ozone, and SO2. As noted above, U.S. EPA is likely to lower the annual PM2.5standard to 12-14 µg/m2 and may lower the 24-hour standard to as low as 25 µg/m2.106 U.S. EPA also has proposed introducing a new 1-hour SO2 standard in the range of 50-100 ppb, based on threats to health from short-term SO2 exposures. 74 Fed. Reg. 64,810 (December 8, 2009). Finally, the agency recently proposed tightening the 8-hour ozone standard to 60-70 ppb to ensure protection of public health. 75 Fed. Reg. 2,938 (January 19, 2010). Ironically, while MDOT talks extensively in the Final EIS about federal and state efforts to reduce pollution (including references to the cleaner engines and fuels in the cumulative impacts analysis107), it omits any reference to these new standards. The changes in the NAAQS are reasonably foreseeable future actions. MDOT therefore must include a quantitative discussion of whether the air pollution from DIFT, in combination with that from all other past, present and reasonably foreseeable actions, may violate any of these tightened NAAQS. PM2.5 is of most concern, given the errors in MDOT’s PM2.5 analysis, the high background levels of PM2.5, and the severity of the harm caused by PM2.5 exposure, especially to children and the elderly.

In addition, the inadequacies of the so-called “commitments” to “try to improve air quality”108 cited in the cumulative impacts section are noted elsewhere in these comments. The air quality mitigation and community benefits measures in sum are not specific, not reasonably foreseeable due to the weaknesses of the alleged commitments, and not accompanied by any quantification of expected benefits. Thus, they should not be counted in the cumulative impacts

105 DEIS Comments at 17, citing, e.g., City of Carmel-By-the-Sea v. U.S. Dept. of Transp., 123 F.ed 1142 (9th Cir. 1997) (cumulative impacts analysis must carefully consider the combined impacts of reasonably foreseeable future projects, including detailed and quantified information). 106 U.S. EPA is responding to a remand of the annual standards by the U.S. District Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in American Farm Bureau Federation v. EPA, 559 F.3d 512 (February 24, 2009). As noted by the American Farm Bureau court, EPA is to consider setting the NAAQS at levels recommended by the CASAC, which are 12-14 µg/m2 for the annual standard and 25-35 µg/m2 for the 24-hour standard. Id., slip op. at 14-22. 107 FEIS at 4-252. 108 FEIS at 4-252.

40

assessment as a factor reducing the expected total impact. To the extent that MDOT wishes to rely on them in assessing cumulative impact, it must correct these deficiencies.

B. The Final EIS Omits Cumulative Vibration Impacts.

The Final EIS omits vibration impacts entirely from the cumulative impacts section for the Preferred Alternative109, despite recognition elsewhere that vibrations from the Preferred Alternative will add to existing vibrations at the Beard School. Disturbingly, the Preferred Alternative will result in a 66 percent increase in the number of trains passing by the Beard School – 10 additional trains on top of the current 15 trains.110 The cumulative impacts analysis nowhere discusses the implications of this huge increase in vibrations at the school. This omission of an analysis of past impacts in combination with the expected DIFT impacts is unacceptable. MDOT must discuss the potential disruptive impacts of this increased vibration at the Beard School on education of students, not simply note the numeric increase. See 40 C.F.R. 1508.7 (cumulative impact is the impact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions); 40 C.F.R. 1508.8 (“effects” and “impacts” are synonymous, and include “social” implications).111

Moreover, MDOT must propose mitigation for these impacts. That less frequent vibrations occur “in the absence of intermodal train activity”112 is not a cognizable excuse for omitting mitigation. MDOT must consider “The mitigation of impacts… whether or not the impacts are significant[, as]… Agencies are required to identify and include in the action all relevant and reasonable mitigation measures that could improve the action.”113 MDOT provides no legitimate excuse of excluding mitigation to reduce increased vibration impacts at the school that can disrupt the educational process. Instead, its position appears to be that only vibrational impacts causing “structural damage” require mitigation.114 This position is inconsistent with both the definition of effects and the mitigation requirements described above. MDOT acknowledges that vibrational levels “get to the level of annoyance” at the Beard School. Such annoyance is not a minor issue, as it can significantly disrupt the educational process. Mitigation should be required.

X. CONCLUSION.

As set forth above, the Final EIS for the proposed DIFT continues to fail to satisfy the requirements of NEPA and other environmental laws and policies. MDOT has not demonstrated that there is a need for the full capacity expansion anticipated in the DIFT; has failed to thoroughly and objectively evaluate a No Expansion alternative despite industry evidence that such an alternative can meet the project purpose and any legitimate need; has failed to adequately consider significant air quality, environmental justice, water quality, vibration and

109 FEIS at 4-250 to 4-253 (discussing only noise impacts). 110 FEIS at 4-196 to 4-199. 111 As described in the Encyclopaedia of Occupational Health and Safety, Vol. 1, by Jeanne Mager Stellman, vibration can impair “the complex central processes that relate input to output (e.g., learning, memory, decision-making).” 112 FEIS at 4-199. 113 FHWA, “NEPA and Transportation Decisionmaking: Mitigation of Environmental Impacts.” 114 FEIS at 7-80.

41

42

cumulative impacts; and has not taken a hard look at specific measures for mitigating such impacts or made the necessary commitments to mitigation. We call on MDOT to comply with its duty to fully and objectively study available No Expansion alternatives, to take a hard look at the negative impacts from the Preferred Alternative, and to meet community concerns by making solid and enforceable commitments to mitigate any unavoidable impacts.

Thank you for your time and thoughtful consideration.

Sincerely,

Meleah Geertsma, J.D., M.P.H. Staff Attorney and Public Health Specialist Environmental Law and Policy Center 35 East Wacker Drive, Suite 1300 Chicago, IL 60601 www.elpc.orgmgeertsma@elpc.org 312-795-3713

_______/s/_______________________Brad Van Guilder, Ph.D. Community Organizer Ecology Center

_______/s/_______________________Stuart Batterman, Ph.D. Professor of Environmental Health Sciences University of Michigan School of Public Health

_______/s/_______________________Kathryn Savoie, Ph.D. Co-founder, Communities for a Better Rail Alternative

_______/s/_______________________Shannon Fisk AttorneyNatural Resources Defense Council

_______/s/_______________________Angela Reyes Executive Director Detroit Hispanic Development Corporation

_______/s/_______________________Noah Hall Executive Director Great Lakes Environmental Law Center

43

_______/s/_______________________Diana Copeland Executive Director East Michigan Environmental Action Council

_______/s/_______________________Anne Woiwode State Director Sierra Club Michigan Chapter

_______/s/_______________________Brad Garmon Land Programs Director Michigan Environmental Council

_______/s/_______________________Susan Harley Policy Associate Clean Water Action

Det

roit

Inte

rmod

alFr

eigh

t Ter

min

al (D

IFT)

Stu

dyPu

blic

Mee

tings

N

ovem

ber 1

0, 2

008

Nov

embe

r 12,

200

8N

ovem

ber 1

3, 2

008

Det

roit

Inte

rmod

alFr

eigh

t Ter

min

al S

tudy

Det

roit

Inte

rmod

alFr

eigh

tTe

rmin

al S

tudy

Detro

it is o

ne of

the t

op

inter

moda

lmar

kets

in the

na

tion

Capa

city o

f term

inals

and c

oord

inatio

n of r

ail

lines

is in

adeq

uate

Addr

esse

s nee

ds of

int

ermo

daltr

ansp

ortat

ionin

south

east

Mich

igan

Det

roit

Inte

rmod

alFr

eigh

t Ter

min

al S

tudy

Purp

ose

To su

ppor

t the e

cono

mic c

ompe

titive

ness

of

south

east

Mich

igan a

nd th

e stat

e by i

mpro

ving

freigh

t tran

spor

tation

oppo

rtunit

ies an

d eff

icien

cies f

or bu

sines

s and

indu

stry.

To su

ppor

t the e

cono

mic c

ompe

titive

ness

of

south

east

Mich

igan a

nd th

e stat

e by i

mpro

ving

freigh

t tran

spor

tation

oppo

rtunit

ies an

d eff

icien

cies f

or bu

sines

s and

indu

stry.

Det

roit

Inte

rmod

alFr

eigh

t Ter

min

al S

tudy

NEE

D

Addit

ional

inter

moda

lterm

inal c

apac

ity

Bette

r coo

rdina

tion b

etwee

n rail

term

inals

Bette

r inter

face b

etwee

n pub

lic ro

ad sy

stem

(prim

arily

inter

state

freew

ays)

and r

ail fa

cilitie

s

Effic

iency

of bu

sines

s and

indu

stry

Bette

r con

necti

vity b

etwee

n rail

road

s

Det

roit

Inte

rmod

alFr

eigh

t Ter

min

al S

tudy

U.S

./Can

adia

n Fr

eigh

t Flo

ws

Thru

Mic

higa

n

Det

roit

Inte

rmod

alFr

eigh

t Ter

min

al S

tudy

Proj

ecte

d 20

25 In

term

odal

Dem

and

Dema

nd(lif

ts/ye

ar)

Low

High

Curre

ntCa

pacit

y(lif

ts/ye

ar)

Defic

iency

(lifts/

year

)

Total

495,0

0077

6,000

345,0

0015

0,000

to43

1,000

Det

roit

Inte

rmod

alFr

eigh

t Ter

min

al S

tudy

Stud

y C

hron

olog

y

1993

-94:

Early

Ass

essm

ent o

f Nee

d and

Visi

on20

01:

Feas

ibility

Stud

y20

02:

Envir

onme

ntal Im

pact

State

ment

(EIS

) Star

ted

2003

:EI

S Al

terna

tives

Exp

ande

d Bas

ed on

Pub

lic In

put

2004

:EI

S Pr

epar

ed in

Pre

limina

ry Fo

rm fo

r MDO

T/Re

view

2005

:DE

IS P

rese

nted t

o Pub

lic20

09FE

IS to

be P

rese

nted t

o Pub

lic

Det

roit

Inte

rmod

alFr

eigh

t Ter

min

al S

tudy

Inte

rmod

alTe

rmin

al

Loca

tions

Det

roit

Inte

rmod

alFr

eigh

t Ter

min

al S

tudy

Live

rnoi

s-Ju

nctio

n Ya

rd

Det

roit

Inte

rmod

alFr

eigh

t Ter

min

al S

tudy

CP/

Expr

essw

ay T

erm

inal

Det

roit

Inte

rmod

alFr

eigh

t Ter

min

al S

tudy

CP/

Oak

Ter

min

al

Det

roit

Inte

rmod

alFr

eigh

t Ter

min

al S

tudy

CN

/Mot

erm

Term

inal

Det

roit

Inte

rmod

alFr

eigh

t Ter

min

al S

tudy

Alte

rnat

ive

1

“No

Actio

n”As

sume

s rail

road

s will

deve

lop ex

isting

int

ermo

dalra

il yar

ds in

south

east

Mich

igan

witho

ut fed

eral

and s

tate g

over

nmen

t fund

ing

assis

tance

and o

versi

ght.

Det

roit

Inte

rmod

alFr

eigh

t Ter

min

al S

tudy

“Impr

ove/E

xpan

d”Pr

opos

es im

prov

emen

ts to

four e

xistin

g inte

rmod

alra

il ter

mina

ls op

erate

d by C

SX, C

anad

ian N

ation

al,

Cana

dian P

acific

and N

orfol

k Sou

thern

.

Alte

rnat

ive

2

Det

roit

Inte

rmod

alFr

eigh

t Ter

min

al S

tudy

Alte

rnat

ive

3

“Con

solid

atio

n”Pr

opos

es in

termo

dalo

pera

tions

of al

l four

Cl

ass I

railro

ads w

ill be

cons

olida

ted at

the

Liver

nois-

Junc

tion Y

ard a

rea.

Det

roit

Inte

rmod

alFr

eigh

t Ter

min

al S

tudy

Alte

rnat

ive

4“C

ompo

site O

ptio

n”Pr

opos

es in

termo

dalo

pera

tions

of C

SX, N

orfol

k So

uther

n and

Can

adian

Pac

ific be

cons

olida

ted at

the

site o

f the L

ivern

ois-Ju

nctio

n Yar

d in S

outhw

est D

etroit

, wh

ile im

prov

ing/ex

pand

ing th

e exis

ting C

N/Mo

term

Inter

moda

lTer

mina

l

Det

roit

Inte

rmod

alFr

eigh

t Ter

min

al S

tudy

Oth

er A

ltern

ativ

es C

onsi

dere

d

Use O

ther S

malle

r Site

s

Deve

lop G

reen

field

Sites

Det

roit

Inte

rmod

alFr

eigh

t Ter

min

al S

tudy

Publ

ic E

ngag

emen

t

Loca

l Adv

isory

Coun

cil M

eetin

gs -

30

Publi

c Mee

tings

-14

Scop

ing M

eetin

gs O

pen t

o Pub

lic -

2

Publi

c Hea

rings

–4

Addit

ional

Form

al Pu

blic M

eetin

gs -

3

Det

roit

Inte

rmod

alFr

eigh

t Ter

min

al S

tudy

Publ

ic C

omm

ents

700

page

s of

Tra

nscr

ipts

and

Com

men

ts13

00 In

divi

dual

Com

men

ts

The “

No A

ction

”alte

rnati

ve is

not a

ccep

table

Minim

ize th

e “foo

tprint

”of th

e Live

rnois

Junc

tion

Yard

expa

nsion

No ex

pans

ion of

CN/

Moter

mint

o the

Stat

e Fa

irgro

unds

Get tr

ucks

out o

f the n

eighb

orho

ods.

Det

roit

Inte

rmod

alFr

eigh

t Ter

min

al S

tudy

Publ

ic C

omm

ents

Detro

it City

Cou

ncil:

Four

Res

olutio

nsEa

rly in

the p

rojec

t thre

e aga

inst D

IFT

Four

th an

d late

st –a

gains

t “No

Acti

on”a

ndstr

essin

g coo

pera

tion w

ith S

W D

etroit

resid

ents.

Wor

king w

ith th

e Sou

thwes

t Detr

oit

Comm

unity

on ite

ms re

lated

to:

Infra

struc

ture

Air Q

uality

Econ

omic

Deve

lopme

nt

Det

roit

Inte

rmod

alFr

eigh

t Ter

min

al S

tudy

Pref

erre

d A

ltern

ativ

e

Alter

nativ

e 4 “C

ompo

site O

ption

”with

out

expa

nsio

n at

CN/

Mote

rman

d with

out C

P Ex

pres

sway

at Li

vern

ois/Ju

nctio

n Yar

d

Prop

oses

inter

moda

lope

ratio

ns of

CSX

, Nor

folk

South

ern

and C

anad

ian P

acific

be co

nsoli

dated

at

the si

te of

the Li

vern

ois-Ju

nctio

n Yar

d in

south

west

Detro

it

Det

roit

Inte

rmod

alFr

eigh

t Ter

min

al S

tudy

Pref

erre

d A

ltern

ativ

e re

spon

ds to

pub

lic c

omm

ents

by:

Redu

cing t

he “f

ootpr

int”o

f Live

rnois

-Junc

tion

Yard

(no C

P Ex

pres

sway

)No

t exp

andin

g the

CN/

Moter

mTe

rmina

l into

the

State

Fair

grou

nds

Prom

oting

colla

bora

tive e

fforts

betw

een M

DOT,

the

Com

munit

y and

the R

ailro

ads t

o imp

rove

Liv

erno

is-Ju

nctio

n Yar

dPr

ovidi

ng di

rect

truck

acce

ss to

Live

rnois

-Ju

nctio

n Yar

d via

major

road

ways

Det

roit

Inte

rmod

alFr

eigh

t Ter

min

al S

tudy

Prop

osed

Acr

eage

to b

eA

cqui

red

Alte

rnat

ive 2

– Im

prov

e/Exp

and

Alte

rnat

ive 3-

Cons

olid

ate

Alte

rnat

ive 4-

Co

mpo

site

Pref

erre

dAl

tern

ative

Al

t. 1-

No

Act

ion

Liv-

Jct

CP/

Expw

ayCP

/Oak

CN/

Mote

rmLi

v-Jc

tLi

v- Jct

CN/

Mote

rmLi

v-Jc

t

024

.512

6035

384

265

3516

9So

urce

: T

he C

orra

dino

Gro

up o

f Mic

higa

n, In

c.

Det

roit

Inte

rmod

alFr

eigh

t Ter

min

al S

tudy

Prop

osed

to b

e Pr

oper

ties

Acq

uire

d

Alte

rnat

ive 2

– Im

prov

e/Exp

and

Alte

rnat

ive 3-

Co

nsol

idat

e Al

tern

ative

4-

Com

posit

e Pr

efer

red

Alte

rnat

ivePo

tent

ial

Acqu

isitio

n Al

t. 1-

No

Act

ion

Liv- Jct

CP/

Expw

ayCP

/Oak

CN/

Mote

rmLi

v-Jc

t Li

v- Jct

CN/

Mote

rmLi

v-Jc

t

Sing

le Fa

mily

0

00

00

7129

028

Multi

ple F

amily

0

00

00

124

04

Busin

esse

s/ In

stitu

tions

0

111

60

6451

029

Sour

ce:

The

Cor

radi

no G

roup

of M

ichi

gan,

Inc

.

Det

roit

Inte

rmod

alFr

eigh

t Ter

min

al S

tudy

DEI

S -A

ltern

ativ

e 3

FEIS

Pre

ferr

ed A

ltern

ativ

e

Det

roit

Inte

rmod

alFr

eigh

t Ter

min

al S

tudy

22 fe

wer

bus

ines

ses

to b

e ac

quire

d

96 fe

wer

acr

es to

be

acqu

ired

Det

roit

Inte

rmod

alFr

eigh

t Ter

min

al S

tudy

Split

of i

nter

mod

altr

uck

traf

ficbe

twee

n W

yom

ing

( 63%

) and

Liv

erno

is(3

7%).

Det

roit

Inte

rmod

alFr

eigh

t Ter

min

al S

tudy

Det

roit

Inte

rmod

alFr

eigh

t Ter

min

al S

tudy

Det

roit

Inte

rmod

alFr

eigh

t Ter

min

al S

tudy

Key

Fea

ture

s Gr

ade S

epar

ation

at C

entra

l Ave

nue

Barri

er W

alls D

esign

ed to

also

Red

uce N

oise a

nd V

isual

Impa

ctsPa

ving o

f Live

rnois

-Junc

tion Y

ard

Econ

omic

Deve

lopme

nt St

udy

Conti

nued

Invo

lveme

nt in

Air Q

uality

Issu

esLo

cal R

oad I

mpro

veme

nts In

cludin

g Side

walks

, Stre

etsca

ping

and L

ightin

gCo

mmun

ity R

epre

senta

tion i

n Pro

ject D

evelo

pmen

t La

ndsc

aped

Buff

erJo

b Tra

ining

Opp

ortun

ities

Det

roit

Inte

rmod

alFr

eigh

t Ter

min

al S

tudy

Ben

efits

Perm

anen

t net

jobs g

ained

•

In ter

mina

l are

a: +2

,300+

•St

atewi

de: 4

,500+

Cons

tructi

on jo

bs (F

TEs):

620 i

n pea

k ye

ar

Fewe

r long

haul

truck

s on I

-94 a

nd I-

75•

Redu

ces c

onge

stion

•Re

duce

s emi

ssion

s •

Impr

oves

safet

y

Det

roit

Inte

rmod

alFr

eigh

t Ter

min

al S

tudy

Ben

efits

(con

tinue

d)Mo

re ef

ficien

t, inte

grate

d tra

nspo

rtatio

n sys

tem

prom

otes b

usine

ss

Gove

rnme

nt re

venu

e gain

$1.1

billio

n (20

08 $’

s)

Elim

inatio

n of W

aterm

an/D

ix Ga

te at

Liver

nois

Junc

tion Y

ard

Term

inal G

ates a

t Live

rnois

A ven

ue an

d Wyo

ming

Av

enue

only

Det

roit

Inte

rmod

alFr

eigh

t Ter

min

al S

tudy

Proj

ect C

osts

-A

Pub

lic

Priv

ate

Part

ners

hip

Alte

rnat

ive

4 M

odifi

ed im

prov

emen

ts (

% a

re G

ov /

RR

)•

Term

inal

s -

$222

mill

ion

50%

/ 50

%•

Ext

erna

l rai

l lin

es -

$91

mill

ion

50%

/ 50

%•

Roa

ds -

$84

mill

ion

100

% /0

%•

Land

Acq

uisi

tion/

Rel

ocat

ion

$10

4 m

illio

n 1

00%

/ 0%

**•

Est

imat

e To

tal C

apita

l Cos

t $

501

mill

ion

**La

nd w

ill b

e le

ased

bac

k to

the

railr

oads

at f

air m

arke

t val

ue

Det

roit

Inte

rmod

alFr

eigh

t Ter

min

al S

tudy

Sum

mar

yTo

tal p

roje

ct c

ost i

s ap

prox

imat

ely

$501

m

illio

nG

over

nmen

t’s s

hare

app

roxi

mat

ely

$344

milli

on s

prea

d ov

er 1

0 ye

ars

Rai

lroad

’s s

hare

is a

ppro

xim

atel

y $1

57

milli

on s

prea

d ov

er 1

0 ye

ars

A 6

9% (G

ov),

31%

(Rai

lroad

) pub

lic

priv

ate

partn

ersh

ip

Det

roit

Inte

rmod

alFr

eigh

t Ter

min

al S

tudy

Nex

t Ste

psC

ontin

ue In

volv

emen

t of C

omm

unity

and

R

ailro

ads

Fina

l Env

ironm

enta

l Im

pact

Sta

tem

ent

(FE

IS):

Ear

ly to

Mid

200

9

Rec

ord

of D

ecis

ion:

With

in 2

mon

ths

ofFE

IS

Firs

t pha

ses

of th

e pr

ojec

t cou

ld b

egin

in20

10 (f

undi

ng d

epen

dent

)

Det

roit

Inte

rmod

alFr

eigh

t Ter

min

al S

tudy

Ques

tions

/Com

men

ts

2 2Q/2009, Economic Perspectives

Thomas H. Klier

Thomas H. Klier is a senior economist in the Economic Research Department at the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago. He thanks William Testa, Rick Mattoon, and Anna Paulson, as well as seminar participants at Temple University, for helpful comments. Vanessa Haleco-Meyer provided excellent research assistance.

Introduction and summary

3Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago

Literature review

FIGURE 1

The Detroit Three’s U.S. market share, 1955–2008

Notes: The Detroit Three are Chrysler LLC, Ford Motor Company, and General Motors Corporation. Over the 1955–79 period, the market share is measured for passenger cars only. From 1980 onward, it is measured for light vehicles (both passenger cars and light trucks, such as minivans, sport utility vehicles, and pickup trucks). The shaded areas indicate official periods of recession as identified by the National Bureau of Economic Research; the dashed vertical line indicates the most recent business cycle peak.Sources: Author’s calculations based on data from Ward’s Automotive Yearbook, various issues; Ward’s AutoInfoBank; and White (1971).

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

1956 ’60 ’64 ’68 ’72 ’76 ’80 ’84 ’88 ’92 ’96 2000 ’04 ’08

percent

4 2Q/2009, Economic Perspectives

From mid-1950s to 1980: Imports and oil prices challenge Detroit

5Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago

FIGURE 2

Foreign brand import share of U.S. passenger car sales, 1955–80

Source: Author’s calculations based on data from Ward’s Automotive Yearbook, various issues.

percent

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

1955 ’56 ’57 ’58 ’59 ’60 ’61 ’62 ’63 ’64 ’65 ’66 ’67 ’68 ’69 ’70 ’71 ’72 ’73 ’74 ’75 ’76 ’77 ’78 ’79 ’80

6 2Q/2009, Economic Perspectives

Unsafe at Any Speed: The Designed-In Dangers of the American Automobile

FIGURE 3

U.S. retail gasoline prices, 1970–2008

Notes: Real dollar values are in 2000 dollars. The shaded areas indicate official periods of recession as identified by the National Bureau of Economic Research; the dashed vertical line indicates the most recent business cycle peak.Sources: Author’s calculations based on data from the U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration; and White (1971).

dollars per gallon

0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

1970 ’72 ’74 ’76 ’78 ’80 ’82 ’84 ’86 ’88 ’90 ’92 ’94 ’96 ’98 2000 ’02 ’04 ’06 ’08

Real

Nominal

7Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago

FIGURE 4

U.S. consumer response in auto size purchased to oil shocks

A. 1979–80index

Small passenger cars

0

40

80

120

160

200

Jan. Mar. May July Sept. Nov. Mar. May July Sept. Nov.Jan.1979 1980

B. 2007–08index

0

40

80

120

160

200

Jan. Mar. May July Sept. Nov. Mar. May July Sept. Nov.Jan.2007 2008

Notes: Market shares of automobiles and nominal price of gasoline were indexed to 100 in January 1979 for panel A and in January 2007 for panel B. Prior to 1980, large cars were referred to as full-size cars. Because of the rising popularity of light trucks, I included large light trucks with large cars in panel B. Light trucks include vehicles such as minivans, sport utility vehicles, and pickup trucks.Sources: Author’s calculations based on data from Ward’s Automotive Yearbook, 1980 and 1981; Ward’s AutoInfoBank; and U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration.

Leaded gasoline

Full-size passenger cars

Small passenger cars

Unleaded gasoline

Large passenger cars and large light trucks

8 2Q/2009, Economic Perspectives

From 1980 to 1996: Detroit stagesa comeback

9Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago

FIGURE 5

U.S. light vehicle sales, 1960–2008

Notes: Light vehicles are passenger cars and light trucks, such as minivans, sport utility vehicles, and pickup trucks. The shaded areas indicate official periods of recession as identified by the National Bureau of Economic Research; the dashed vertical line indicates the most recent business cycle peak.Sources: Author’s calculations based on data from the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis from Haver Analytics; and White (1971).

millions of units

0

5

10

15

20

1960 ’72 ’74 ’76 ’78 ’80 ’82 ’84 ’86 ’88 ’90 ’92 ’94 ’96 ’98 2000 ’02 ’04 ’06 ’08’62 ’64 ’66 ’68 ’70

FIGURE 6

The Detroit Three’s net income, 1980–2007

Notes: The Detroit Three are Chrysler LLC, Ford Motor Company, and General Motors Corporation (GM). The data series on Chrysler net income ends in 1997. In 1998, Chrysler merged with Daimler; it was sold to Cerberus Capital Management LP, a private equity company, in 2007. The shaded areas indicate official periods of recession as identified by the National Bureau of Economic Research; the dashed vertical line indicates the most recent business cycle peak.Source: Author’s calculations based on data from Compustat, accessed through Wharton Research Data Services.

billions of dollars

1980 ’83 ’86 ’89 ’92 ’95 ’98 2001 ’04 ’07–40

–30

–20

–10

0

10

20

30

GMFordChrysler

10 2Q/2009, Economic Perspectives

Systems (EDS) in 1984, as well as Hughes Aircraft in 1985. Chrysler bought Gulfstream in 1985 and AMC in 1987. All three automakers acquired major stakes in car rental companies during the late 1980s. Ford bought Jaguar in 1990, and GM acquired a majority of Saab in the same year. However, most of these transactions were unwound within a decade, and with the exception of the AMC acquisition,25 the car com-panies then acquired have since either been sold or are currently for sale. In any case, the acquisitions took up valuable time and attention of the companies’ management back then. And so the recovery of the three Detroit carmakers took twists and turns along the way. It also involved changes in top management and leadership. GM is a case in point.

During the early 1980s, GM’s leadership decided the best way to beat the foreign-based competition was to automate the production of automobiles when-ever possible with the help of sophisticated technology. As a result, the company invested heavily in new capital equipment. It turned out to be a costly experiment, since it raised GM’s cost structure to the point that its North American auto business was barely breaking even during the late 1980s—a time of very strong industry

sales (Ingrassia and White, 1994, p. 20). In terms of

product design, “GM by 1985 was dead last in the industry” (Ingrassia and White, 1994, p. 93). GM also made an effort to learn from the leader in lean production at the time: In 1984 an entity called NUMMI (New United Motor Manufacturing Inc.), representing a joint venture between GM and Toyota, began producing vehicles at a previously idle GM plant in Fremont, California. In the following year, GM established a new division called Saturn. It was to demonstrate that the company could successfully compete in the market for smaller cars by implementing

off the assembly line at its new plant in Spring Hill, Tennessee, in 1990. Yet, according to Ingrassia and White’s (1994, p. 12) assessment of GM, “by January 1992, ‘the General’ stood closer than the world knew to the brink of collapse. Its management had lost touch with its customers and with reality.” In 1993, GM’s bond rating dropped to BBB+, barely qualifying as invest-ment grade;26 it was a far cry from the AAA rating the

Chrysler’s bonds had recovered to investment grade

FIGURE 7

The Detroit Three’s bond ratings, 1980–2008

Notes: The Detroit Three are Chrysler LLC, Ford Motor Company, and General Motors Corporation (GM). In 1998, Chrysler merged with Daimler; it was sold to Cerberus Capital Management LP, a private equity company, in 2007. A rating of BBB or above represents an investment grade bond; a bond is considered investment grade if it is judged by a rating agency as likely enough to meet payment obligations that banks are allowed to invest in it.Source: Author’s calculations based on Standard and Poor’s Domestic Long-term Issuer Credit Rating data from Bloomberg.

rating

AAA

AA

A

BBB

BB

B

CCC

CC

1980 ’02’98 2000 ’04 ’06 ’08’88 ’90 ’92 ’94 ’96’82 ’84 ’86

GM Ford Chrysler Daimler

11Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago

TABLE 1

in the United States

Volkswagen 1978Honda 1982Nissan 1983Toyota 1984Mitsubishi 1987Subaru 1989BMW 1994Mercedes 1997Hyundai 2005Kia 2009

Note: BMW means Bayerische Motoren Werke (Bavarian Motor Works).Source: Automobile companies’ websites.

Time BusinessWeek Forbes

12 2Q/2009, Economic Perspectives

FIGURE 8

Light truck share of U.S. auto sales, 1980–2008

Notes: The Detroit Three are Chrysler LLC, Ford Motor Company, and General Motors Corporation. Light trucks include vehicles such as minivans, sport utility vehicles, and pickup trucks.Source: Author’s calculations based on data from Ward’s AutoInfoBank.

percent

1980 ’82 ’84 ’86 ’88 ’90 ’92 ’94 ’96 ’98 2000 ’02 ’04 ’06 ’080

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Foreign automakers

Detroit Three

13Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago

From 1996 to 2008: Detroit on the defensive—again

14 2Q/2009, Economic Perspectives

Conclusion

Ward’s Automotive Yearbook

15Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago

16 2Q/2009, Economic Perspectives

Baily, Martin Neil, Diana Farrell, Ezra Greenberg, Jan-Dirk Henrich, Naoko Jinjo, Maya Jolles, and Jaana Remes, Increasing Global Competition and Labor Productivity: Lessons from the U.S. Automotive Industry

Benjamin, Daniel K., PERC Reports

Bennett, Jeff, and Sharon Terlep,Wall Street

Journal

Carlton, Dennis W., and Jeffrey M. Perloff, Modern Industrial Organization

Cooney, Stephen,

Cooney, Stephen, James M. Bickley, Hinda Chaikind, Carol A. Pettit, Patrick Purcell, Carol Rapaport, and Gary Shorter,

Cooney, Stephen, and Brent D. Yacobucci,

Dyer, Jeffrey H., and Kentaro Nobeoka,

StrategicManagement Journal

Fieleke, Norman S., ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science

Gomez-Ibanez, Jose A., and David Harrison, Jr.,

American Economic Review

Helper, Susan, and Mari Sako,

Sloan Management Review

Ingrassia, Paul, and Joseph B. White,Comeback: The Fall and Rise of the American Automobile Industry

Katz, Abraham,

Klier, Thomas H., Economic

Perspectives

Klier, Thomas H., and Joshua Linn,

Klier, Thomas H., and Daniel P. McMillen,

Journal of Regional Science

__________,Economic Perspectives

Kwoka, John E., Jr., Journal of

Industrial Economics

Maynard, Micheline, The End of Detroit: How the Big Three Lost Their Grip on the American Car Market

McAlinden, Sean P.,

__________,

17Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago

__________,

McCarthy, Tom, Auto Mania: Cars, Consumers, and the Environment

Nader, Ralph, Unsafe at Any Speed: The Designed-In Dangers of the American Automobile

National Academy of Engineering, Committee on Technology and International Economic and Trade

-mobile Panel; and National Research Council, Commission on Engineering and Technical Systems, The Competitive Status of the U.S.

in Determining International Industrial Competitive Advantage

Rubenstein, James M., The Changing U.S. Auto Industry: A Geographical Analysis

White, Lawrence J.,Journal of

Industrial Economics

__________, The Automobile Industry since 1945

Womack, James P., Daniel T. Jones, and Daniel Roos, The Machine that Changed the World

Yacobucci, Brent D.,

Yacobucci, Brent D., and Robert Bamberger,

11/03 Miscellaneous Sources 13.2.1-1

13.2.1 Paved Roads

13.2.1.1 General

Particulate emissions occur whenever vehicles travel over a paved surface such as a road or parking lot.Particulate emissions from paved roads are due to direct emissions from vehicles in the form of exhaust, brakewear and tire wear emissions and resuspension of loose material on the road surface. In general terms,resuspended particulate emissions from paved roads originate from, and result in the depletion of, the loosematerial present on the surface (i.e., the surface loading). In turn, that surface loading is continuouslyreplenished by other sources. At industrial sites, surface loading is replenished by spillage of material andtrackout from unpaved roads and staging areas. Figure 13.2.1-1 illustrates several transfer processes occurringon public streets.

Various field studies have found that public streets and highways, as well as roadways at industrialfacilities, can be major sources of the atmospheric particulate matter within an area.1-9 Of particular interestin many parts of the United States are the increased levels of emissions from public paved roads when theequilibrium between deposition and removal processes is upset. This situation can occur for various reasons,including application of granular materials for snow and ice control, mud/dirt carryout from constructionactivities in the area, and deposition from wind and/or water erosion of surrounding unstabilized areas. In theabsence of continuous addition of fresh material (through localized trackout or application of antiskidmaterial), paved road surface loading should reach an equilibrium value in which the amount of materialresuspended matches the amount replenished. The equilibrium surface loading value depends upon numerousfactors. It is believed that the most important factors are: mean speed of vehicles traveling the road; theaverage daily traffic (ADT); the number of lanes and ADT per lane; the fraction of heavy vehicles (buses andtrucks); and the presence/absence of curbs, storm sewers and parking lanes.10

The particulate emission factors presented in the previous version of this section of AP-42, datedOctober 2002, implicitly included the emissions from vehicles in the form of exhaust, brake wear, and tirewear as well as resuspended road surface material. EPA included these sources in the emission factor equationfor paved roads since the field testing data used to develop the equation included both the direct emissionsfrom vehicles and emissions from resuspension of road dust.

This version of the paved road emission factor equation only estimates particulate emissions fromresuspended road surface material 28. The particulate emissions from vehicle exhaust, brake wear, and tirewear are now estimated separately using EPA’s MOBILE6.2 27. This approach eliminates the possibility ofdouble counting emissions. Double counting results when employing the previous version of the emissionfactor equation in this section and MOBILE6.2 to estimate particulate emissions from vehicle traffic on pavedroads. It also incorporates the decrease in exhaust emissions that has occurred since the paved road emissionfactor equation was developed. The previous version of the paved road emission factor equation includesestimates of emissions from exhaust, brake wear, and tire wear based on emission rates for vehicles in the1980 calendar year fleet. The amount of PM released from vehicle exhaust has decreased since 1980 due tolower new vehicle emission standards and changes in fuel characteristics.

13.2.1-2 EMISSION FACTORS 11/03

13.2.1.2 Emissions And Correction Parameters

Dust emissions from paved roads have been found to vary with what is termed the "silt loading"present on the road surface as well as the average weight of vehicles traveling the road. The term siltloading (sL) refers to the mass of silt-size material (equal to or less than 75 micrometers [ m] in physicaldiameter) per unit area of the travel surface. The total road surface dust loading consists of loose materialthat can be collected by broom sweeping and vacuuming of the traveled portion of the paved road. Thesilt fraction is determined by measuring the proportion of the loose dry surface dust that passes through a200-mesh screen, using the ASTM-C-136 method. Silt loading is the product of the silt fraction and thetotal loading, and is abbreviated "sL". Additional details on the sampling and analysis of such materialare provided in AP-42 Appendices C.1 and C.2.

The surface sL provides a reasonable means of characterizing seasonal variability in a paved roademission inventory. In many areas of the country, road surface loadings 11-21 are heaviest during the latewinter and early spring months when the residual loading from snow/ice controls is greatest. As notedearlier, once replenishment of fresh material is eliminated, the road surface loading can be expected toreach an equilibrium value, which is substantially lower than the late winter/early spring values.

11/03 Miscellaneous Sources 13.2.1-3

Figu

re 1

3.2.

1-1.

Dep

ositi

on a

nd re

mov

al p

roce

sses

.

13.2.1-4 EMISSION FACTORS 11/03

CWsLkE5.165.0

32

Table 13.2-1.1. PARTICLE SIZE MULTIPLIERS FOR PAVED ROAD EQUATION

Size rangea Particle Size Multiplier kb

g/VKT g/VMT lb/VMTPM-2.5c 1.1 1.8 0.0040PM-10 4.6 7.3 0.016PM-15 5.5 9.0 0.020PM-30d 24 38 0.082

a Refers to airborne particulate matter (PM-x) with an aerodynamic diameter equal to or less thanx micrometers.

b Units shown are grams per vehicle kilometer traveled (g/VKT), grams per vehicle mile traveled(g/VMT), and pounds per vehicle mile traveled (lb/VMT). The multiplier k includes unit conversionsto produce emission factors in the units shown for the indicated size range from the mixed unitsrequired in Equation 1.

c Ratio of PM-2.5 to PM-10 taken from Reference 22.d PM-30 is sometimes termed "suspendable particulate" (SP) and is often used as a surrogate for TSP.

13.2.1.3 Predictive Emission Factor Equations 10

The quantity of particulate emissions from resuspension of loose material on the road surface due tovehicle travel on a dry paved road may be estimated using the following empirical expression:

(1)

where: E = particulate emission factor (having units matching the units of k),k = particle size multiplier for particle size range and units of interest (see below),sL = road surface silt loading (grams per square meter) (g/m2),W = average weight (tons) of the vehicles traveling the road, andC = emission factor for 1980's vehicle fleet exhaust, brake wear and tire wear.

It is important to note that Equation 1 calls for the average weight of all vehicles traveling theroad. For example, if 99 percent of traffic on the road are 2 ton cars/trucks while the remaining 1 percentconsists of 20 ton trucks, then the mean weight "W" is 2.2 tons. More specifically, Equation 1 is notintended to be used to calculate a separate emission factor for each vehicle weight class. Instead, onlyone emission factor should be calculated to represent the "fleet" average weight of all vehicles travelingthe road.

The particle size multiplier (k) above varies with aerodynamic size range as shown inTable 13.2.1-1. To determine particulate emissions for a specific particle size range, use the appropriatevalue of k shown in Table 13.2.1-1.

The emission factors for the exhaust, brake wear and tire wear of a 1980's vehicle fleet (C) wasobtained from EPA’s MOBILE6.2 model 28. The emission factor also varies with aerodynamic size range

11/03 Miscellaneous Sources 13.2.1-5

as shown in Table 13.2.1-2.

Table 13.2.1-2. EMISSION FACTOR FOR 1980'S VEHICLE FLEET EXHAUST, BRAKE WEAR AND TIRE WEAR

Particle Size Rangea

C, Emission Factor for Exhaust,Brake Wear and Tire Wearb

g/VMT g/VKT lb/VMTPM2.5 0.1617 0.1005 0.00036PM10 0.2119 0.1317 0.00047PM15 0.2119 0.1317 0.00047PM30

c 0.2119 0.1317 0.00047

a Refers to airborne particulate matter (PM-x) with an aerodynamic diameter equal to or lessthan x micrometers.

b Units shown are grams per vehicle kilometer traveled (g/VKT), grams per vehicle miletraveled (g/VMT), and pounds per vehicle mile traveled (lb/VMT).

c PM-30 is sometimes termed "suspendable particulate" (SP) and is often used as a surrogatefor TSP.

Equation 1 is based on a regression analysis of numerous emission tests, including65 tests for PM-10.10 Sources tested include public paved roads, as well as controlled anduncontrolled industrial paved roads. All sources tested were of freely flowing vehicles travelingat constant speed on relatively level roads. No tests of "stop-and-go" traffic or vehicles underload were available for inclusion in the data base. The equations retain the quality rating of A (Bfor PM-2.5), if applied within the range of source conditions that were tested in developing theequation as follows:

Silt loading: 0.03 - 400 g/m2

0.04 - 570 grains/square foot (ft2)

Mean vehicle weight: 1.8 - 38 megagrams (Mg)2.0 - 42 tons

Mean vehicle speed: 16 - 88 kilometers per hour (kph)10 - 55 miles per hour (mph)

Note: There may be situations where low silt loading and/or low average weight will yieldcalculated negative emissions from equation 1. If this occurs, the emissions calculated fromequation 1 should be set to zero.

13.2.1-6 EMISSION FACTORS 11/03

To retain the quality rating for the emission factor equation when it is applied to aspecific paved road, it is necessary that reliable correction parameter values for the specific roadin question be determined. With the exception of limited access roadways, which are difficult tosample, the collection and use of site-specific silt loading (sL) data for public paved roademission inventories are strongly recommended. The field and laboratory procedures fordetermining surface material silt content and surface dust loading are summarized in AppendicesC.1 and C.2. In the event that site-specific values cannot be obtained, an appropriate value for apaved public road may be selected from the values in Table 13.2.1-3, but the quality rating of theequation should be reduced by 2 levels. Also, recall that Equation 1 refers to emissions due tofreely flowing (not stop-and-go) traffic at constant speed on level roads.

Equation 1 may be extrapolated to average uncontrolled conditions (but including naturalmitigation) under the simplifying assumption that annual (or other long-term) average emissionsare inversely proportional to the frequency of measurable (> 0.254 mm [ 0.01 inch]) precipitationbyapplication of a precipitation correction term. The precipitation correction term can be appliedon a daily or an hourly basis 26.

For the daily basis, Equation 1 becomes:

E = k sL W

CPNext 2 3

14

0 65 1 5. .

(2)

where k, sL, W, and C are as defined in Equation 1 and

Eext = annual or other long-term average emission factor in the same units as k,P = number of “wet” days with at least 0.254 mm (0.01 in) of precipitation during the

averaging period, and N = number of days in the averaging period (e.g., 365 for annual, 91 for seasonal,

30 for monthly).

Note that the assumption leading to Equation 2 is based on analogy with the approach used todevelop long-term average unpaved road emission factors in Section 13.2.2. However, Equation2 above incorporates an additional factor of "4" in the denominator to account for the fact thatpaved roads dry more quickly than unpaved roads and that the precipitation may not occur overthe complete 24-hour day.

For the hourly basis, equation 1 becomes:

(3)E = k sL W

CP

Next 2 31

120 65 1 5. . .

where k, sL, and W, and C are as defined in Equation 1 and

11/03 Miscellaneous Sources 13.2.1-7

Eext = annual or other long-term average emission factor in the same units as k,P = number of hours with at least 0.254 mm (0.01 in) of precipitation during the

averaging period, andN = number of hours in the averaging period (e.g., 8760 for annual, 2124 for season 720 for monthly).

Note: In the hourly moisture correction term (1-1.2P/N) for equation 3, the 1.2 multiplier isapplied to account for the residual mitigative effect of moisture. For most applications, thisequation will produce satisfactory results. However, if the time interval for which the equationis applied is short, e.g., for one hour or one day, the application of this multiplier makes itpossible for the moisture correction term to become negative. This will result in calculatednegative emissions which is not realistic. Users should expand the time interval to includesufficient “dry” hours such that negative emissions are not calculated. For the special casewhere this equation is used to calculate emissions on an hour by hour basis, such as would bedone in some emissions modeling situations, the moisture correction term should be modified sothat the moisture correction “credit” is applied to the first hours following cessation ofprecipitation. In this special case, it is suggested that this 20% “credit” be applied on a basis ofone hour credit for each hour of precipitation up to a maximum of 12 hours.

Note that the assumption leading to Equation 3 is based on analogy with the approach used todevelop long-term average unpaved road emission factors in Section 13.2.2.

Figure 13.2.1-2 presents the geographical distribution of "wet" days on an annual basisfor the United States. Maps showing this information on a monthly basis are available in theClimatic Atlas of the United States23 . Alternative sources include other Department ofCommerce publications (such as local climatological data summaries). The National ClimaticData Center (NCDC) offers several products that provide hourly precipitation data. In particular, NCDC offers Solar and Meteorological Surface Observation Network 1961-1990 (SAMSON)CD-ROM, which contains 30 years worth of hourly meteorological data for first-order NationalWeather Service locations. Whatever meteorological data are used, the source of that data andthe averaging period should be clearly specified.

It is emphasized that the simple assumption underlying Equations 2 and 3 has not beenverified in any rigorous manner. For that reason, the quality ratings for Equations 2 and 3 shouldbe downgraded one letter from the rating that would be applied to Equation 1.

13.2.1-8 EMISSION FACTORS 11/03

Figu

re 1

3.2.

1-2.

Mea

n nu

mbe

r of d

ays w

ith 0

.01

inch

or m

ore

of p

reci

pita

tion

in th

e U

nite

d St

ates

.

11/03 Miscellaneous Sources 13.2.1-9

Table 13.2.1-3 (Metric Units). RECOMMENDED DEFAULT SILT LOADING (g/m2)VALUES FOR PUBLIC PAVED ROADSa

High ADT roadsb Low ADT roadsNormal conditions 0.1 0.4Worst-case conditionsc 0.5 3a Excluding limited access roads. See discussion in text. 1 g/m2 is equal to 1.43

grains/ft2

b High ADT refers to roads with at least 5,000 vehicles per day.c For conditions such as post-winter-storm or areas with substantial mud/dirt

carryout.

During the preparation of the background document (Reference 10), public road siltloading values from 1992 and earlier were assembled into a data base. This data base isavailable in the file named “r13s03-1b.zip” located on the World Wide Web at the Internet URL“http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/ch13/related/c13s02-1.html”. Although hundreds of publicpaved road silt loading measurements had been collected, there was no uniformity in samplingequipment and analysis techniques, in roadway classification schemes, and in the types of datareported. Not surprisingly, the data set did not yield a coherent relationship between silt loadingand road class, average daily traffic (ADT), etc., even though an inverse relationship between siltloading and ADT has been found for a subclass of curbed paved roads in urban areas. Furthercomplicating the analysis is the fact that, in many parts of the country, paved road silt loadingvaries greatly over the course of the year, probably because of cyclic variations in mud/dirtcarryout and in use of anti-skid materials. Although there were strong reasons to suspect that theassembled data base was skewed towards high values, independent data were not available toconfirm the suspicions.

Since the time that the background document was prepared, new field sampling programshave shown that the assembled silt loading data set is biased high for “normal” situations.24 Justas importantly, however, the newer programs confirm that substantially higher than “normal” siltloadings can occur on public paved roads. As a result, two sets of default values are provided inTable 13.2.1-3, one for “normal” conditions and another for worst-case conditions (such as afterwinter storm seasons or in areas with substantial mud/dirt trackout). The “normal” silt loadingdata base is available in the file “r13s03-1a.zip” located on the World Wide Web at the InternetURL “http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/ch13/related/c13s02-1.html”.

The range of silt loading values in the data base for normal conditions is 0.01 to 1.0 forhigh-ADT roads and 0.054 to 6.8 for low-ADT roads. Consequently the use of a default valuefrom Table 13.2.1-3 should be expected to yield only an order-of-magnitude estimate of theemission factor. Public paved road silt loadings are dependent upon: traffic characteristics(speed, ADT, and fraction of heavy vehicles); road characteristics (curbs, number of lanes,parking lanes); local land use (agriculture, new residential construction) and regional/seasonalfactors (snow/ice controls, wind blown dust). As a result, the collection and use of site-specificsilt loading data is highly recommended. In the event that default silt loading values are used,the quality ratings for the equation should be downgraded 2 levels.

13.2.1-10 EMISSION FACTORS 11/03

Limited access roadways pose severe logistical difficulties in terms of surface sampling,and few silt loading data are available for such roads. Nevertheless, the available data do notsuggest great variation in silt loading for limited access roadways from one part of the country toanother. For annual conditions, a default value of 0.015 g/m2 is recommended for limited accessroadways.9,22 Even fewer of the available data correspond to worst-case situations, and elevatedloadings are observed to be quickly depleted because of high traffic speeds and high ADT rates. A default value of 0.2 g/m2 is recommended for short periods of time following application ofsnow/ice controls to limited access roads.22

The limited data on silt loading values for industrial roads have shown as muchvariability as public roads. Because of the variations of traffic conditions and the use ofpreventive mitigative controls, the data probably do not reflect the full extent of the potentialvariation in silt loading on industrial roads. However, the collection of site specific silt loadingdata from industrial roads is easier and safer than for public roads. Therefore, the collection anduse of site-specific silt loading data is preferred and is highly recommended. In the event thatsite-specific values cannot be obtained, an appropriate value for an industrial road may beselected from the mean values given in Table 13.2.1-4, but the quality rating of the equationshould be reduced by 2 levels.

11/03 Miscellaneous Sources 13.2.1-11

Tabl

e 13

.2.1

-4 (M

etric

And

Eng

lish

Uni

ts).

TY

PIC

AL

SILT

CO

NTE

NT

AN

D L

OA

DIN

G V

ALU

ES F

OR

PA

VED

RO

AD

S A

TIN

DU

STR

IAL

FAC

ILIT

IES a

Indu

stry

No.

Of

Site

s

No.

Of

Sam

ple

s

Silt

Con

tent

(%)

No.

Of

Trav

elLa

nes

Tota

l Loa

ding

x 1

03

Silt

Load

ing

(g/m

2 )

Ran

geM

ean

Ran

geM

ean

Uni

tsb

Ran

geM

ean

Cop

per s

mel

ting

13

15.4

-21.

719

.02

12.9

-19.

545

.8-6

9.2

15.9

55.4

kg/k

mlb

/mi

188-

400

292

Iron

and

stee

l p

rodu

ctio

n9

481.

1-35

.712

.52

0.00

6-4.

770.

020-

16.9

0.49

51.

75kg

/km

lb/m

i0.

09-7

99.

7

Asp

halt

batc

hing

13

2.6-

4.6

3.3

112

.1-1

8.0

43.0

-64.

014

.952

.8kg

/km

lb/m

i76

-193

120

Con

cret

e ba

tchi

ng1

35.

2-6.

05.

52

1.4-

1.8

5.0-

6.4

1.7

5.9

kg/k

mlb

/mi

11-1

212

Sand

and

gra

vel

pro

cess

ing

13

6.4-

7.9

7.1

12.

8-5.

59.

9-19

.43.

813

.3kg

/km

lb/m

i53

-95

70

Mun

icip

al so

lid w

aste

land

fill

27

——

2—

——

1.1-

32.0

7.4

Qua

rry

16

——

2—

——

2.4-

148.

2a

Ref

eren

ces 1

-2,5

-6,1

1-13

. V

alue

s rep

rese

nt sa

mpl

es c

olle

cted

from

indu

stri

al ro

ads.

Pub

lic ro

ad si

lt lo

adin

g va

lues

are

pre

sent

ed in

Ta

ble-

13.2

.1-2

. D

ashe

s ind

icat

e in

form

atio

n no

t ava

ilabl

e.b

Mul

tiply

ent

ries b

y 10

00 to

obt

ain

stat

ed u

nits

; kilo

gram

s per

kilo

met

er (k

g/km

) and

pou

nds p

er m

ile (l

b/m

i).

13.2.1-12 EMISSION FACTORS 11/03

13.2.1.4 Controls6,25

Because of the importance of the silt loading, control techniques for paved roads attempteither to prevent material from being deposited onto the surface (preventive controls) or toremove from the travel lanes any material that has been deposited (mitigative controls). Covering of loads in trucks, and the paving of access areas to unpaved lots or construction sites,are examples of preventive measures. Examples of mitigative controls include vacuumsweeping, water flushing, and broom sweeping and flushing. Actual control efficiencies for anyof these techniques can be highly variable. Locally measured silt loadings before and after theapplication of controls is the preferred method to evaluate controls. It is particularly important tonote that street sweeping of gutters and curb areas may actually increase the silt loading on thetraveled portion of the road. Redistribution of loose material onto the travel lanes will actuallyproduce a short-term increase in the emissions.

In general, preventive controls are usually more cost effective than mitigative controls. The cost-effectiveness of mitigative controls falls off dramatically as the size of an area to betreated increases. The cost-effectiveness of mitigative measures is also unfavorable if only ashort period of time is required for the road to return to equilibrium silt loading condition. Thatis to say, the number and length of public roads within most areas of interest preclude anywidespread and routine use of mitigative controls. On the other hand, because of the morelimited scope of roads at an industrial site, mitigative measures may be used quite successfully(especially in situations where truck spillage occurs). Note, however, that public agencies couldmake effective use of mitigative controls to remove sand/salt from roads after the winter ends.

Because available controls will affect the silt loading, controlled emission factors may beobtained by substituting controlled silt loading values into the equation. (Emission factors fromcontrolled industrial roads were used in the development of the equation.) The collection ofsurface loading samples from treated, as well as baseline (untreated), roads provides a means totrack effectiveness of the controls over time.

13.2.1.5 Changes since Fifth Edition

The following changes were made since the publication of the Fifth Edition of AP-42:

1) The particle size multiplier was reduced by approximately 55% as a result ofemission testing specifically to evaluate the PM-2.5 component of theemissions.

2) Default silt loading values were included in Table 13.2.1-2 replacing theTables and Figures containing silt loading statistical information.

3) Editorial changes within the text were made indicating the possible causesof variations in the silt loading between roads within and among differentlocations. The uncertainty of using the default silt loading value wasdiscussed.

11/03 Miscellaneous Sources 13.2.1-13

4) Section 13.2.1.1 was revised to clarify the role of dust loading inresuspension. Additional minor text changes were made.

5) Equations 2 and 3, Figure 13.2.1-2, and text were added to incorporatenatural mitigation into annual or other long-term average emission factors.

6) The emission factor equation was adjusted to remove the component ofparticulate emissions from exhaust, brake wear, and tire wear. The parameter Cin the new equation varies with aerodynamic size range of the particulatematter. Table 13.2.1-2 was added to present the new coefficients.

7) References were rearranged and renumbered.

References For Section 13.2.1

1. D. R. Dunbar, Resuspension Of Particulate Matter, EPA-450/2-76-031, U. S.Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, March 1976.

2. R. Bohn, et al., Fugitive Emissions From Integrated Iron And Steel Plants,EPA-600/2-78-050, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH, March 1978.

3. C. Cowherd, Jr., et al., Iron And Steel Plant Open Dust Source Fugitive EmissionEvaluation, EPA-600/2-79-103, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH,May 1979.

4. C. Cowherd, Jr., et al., Quantification Of Dust Entrainment From Paved Roadways,EPA-450/3-77-027, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC,July 1977.

5. Size Specific Particulate Emission Factors For Uncontrolled Industrial And Rural Roads,EPA Contract No. 68-02-3158, Midwest Research Institute, Kansas City, MO, September1983.

6. T. Cuscino, Jr., et al., Iron And Steel Plant Open Source Fugitive Emission ControlEvaluation, EPA-600/2-83-110, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH,October 1983.

7. J. P. Reider, Size-specific Particulate Emission Factors For Uncontrolled Industrial AndRural Roads, EPA Contract 68-02-3158, Midwest Research Institute, Kansas City, MO,September 1983.

8. C. Cowherd, Jr., and P. J. Englehart, Paved Road Particulate Emissions,EPA-600/7-84-077, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH, July 1984.

13.2.1-14 EMISSION FACTORS 11/03

9. C. Cowherd, Jr., and P. J. Englehart, Size Specific Particulate Emission Factors ForIndustrial And Rural Roads, EPA-600/7-85-038, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,Cincinnati, OH, September 1985.

10. Emission Factor Documentation For AP-42, Sections 11.2.5 and 11.2.6 — Paved Roads,EPA Contract No. 68-D0-0123, Midwest Research Institute, Kansas City, MO, March 1993.

11. Evaluation Of Open Dust Sources In The Vicinity Of Buffalo, New York, EPA ContractNo. 68-02-2545, Midwest Research Institute, Kansas City, MO, March 1979.

12. PM-10 Emission Inventory Of Landfills In The Lake Calumet Area, EPA ContractNo. 68-02-3891, Midwest Research Institute, Kansas City, MO, September 1987.

13. Chicago Area Particulate Matter Emission Inventory — Sampling And Analysis, ContractNo. 68-02-4395, Midwest Research Institute, Kansas City, MO, May 1988.

14. Montana Street Sampling Data, Montana Department Of Health And EnvironmentalSciences, Helena, MT, July 1992.

15. Street Sanding Emissions And Control Study, PEI Associates, Inc., Cincinnati, OH,October 1989.

16. Evaluation Of PM-10 Emission Factors For Paved Streets, Harding Lawson Associates,Denver, CO, October 1991.

17. Street Sanding Emissions And Control Study, RTP Environmental Associates, Inc., Denver,CO, July 1990.

18. Post-storm Measurement Results — Salt Lake County Road Dust Silt Loading Winter1991/92 Measurement Program, Aerovironment, Inc., Monrovia, CA, June 1992.

19. Written communication from Harold Glasser, Department of Health, Clark County (NV).

20. PM-10 Emissions Inventory Data For The Maricopa And Pima Planning Areas, EPAContract No. 68-02-3888, Engineering-Science, Pasadena, CA, January 1987.

21. Characterization Of PM-10 Emissions From Antiskid Materials Applied To Ice- And Snow-Covered Roadways, EPA Contract No. 68-D0-0137, Midwest Research Institute, KansasCity, MO, October 1992.

22. Fugitive Particulate Matter Emissions, EPA Contract No. 68-D2-0159, Work AssignmentNo. 4-06, Midwest Research Institute, Kansas City, MO, April 1997.

23. Climatic Atlas Of The United States, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, D.C.,June 1968.

11/03 Miscellaneous Sources 13.2.1-15

24. Written communication (Technical Memorandum) from G. Muleski, Midwest ResearchInstitute, Kansas City, MO, to R. Myers, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, ResearchTriangle Park, NC, September 30, 1997.

25. C. Cowherd, Jr., et al., Control Of Open Fugitive Dust Sources, EPA-450/3-88-008,U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, September 1988.

26. Written communication (Technical Memorandum) from G. Muleski, Midwest ResearchInstitute, Kansas City, MO, to B. Kuykendal, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,Research Triangle Park, NC, September 27, 2001.

27. EPA, 2002b. MOBILE6 User Guide, United States Environmental Protection Agency,Office of Transportation and Air Quality. EPA420-R-02-028, October 2002.

28. Written communication (Technical Memorandum) from P. Hemmer, E.H. Pechan &Associates, Inc., Durham, NC to B. Kuykendal, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,Research Triangle Park, NC, August, 21, 2003.

11/06 Miscellaneous Sources 13.2.2-1

13.2.2 Unpaved Roads

13.2.2.1 General

When a vehicle travels an unpaved road, the force of the wheels on the road surface causespulverization of surface material. Particles are lifted and dropped from the rolling wheels, and the roadsurface is exposed to strong air currents in turbulent shear with the surface. The turbulent wake behindthe vehicle continues to act on the road surface after the vehicle has passed.

The particulate emission factors presented in the previous draft version of this section of AP-42,dated October 2001, implicitly included the emissions from vehicles in the form of exhaust, brake wear,and tire wear as well as resuspended road surface material25. EPA included these sources in the emissionfactor equation for unpaved public roads (equation 1b in this section) since the field testing data used todevelop the equation included both the direct emissions from vehicles and emissions from resuspension ofroad dust.

This version of the unpaved public road emission factor equation only estimates particulateemissions from resuspended road surface material 23, 26. The particulate emissions from vehicle exhaust,brake wear, and tire wear are now estimated separately using EPA’s MOBILE6.2 24. This approacheliminates the possibility of double counting emissions. Double counting results when employing theprevious version of the emission factor equation in this section and MOBILE6.2 to estimate particulateemissions from vehicle traffic on unpaved public roads. It also incorporates the decrease in exhaustemissions that has occurred since the unpaved public road emission factor equation was developed. Theprevious version of the unpaved public road emission factor equation includes estimates of emissionsfrom exhaust, brake wear, and tire wear based on emission rates for vehicles in the 1980 calendar yearfleet. The amount of PM released from vehicle exhaust has decreased since 1980 due to lower newvehicle emission standards and changes in fuel characteristics.

13.2.2.2 Emissions Calculation And Correction Parameters1-6

The quantity of dust emissions from a given segment of unpaved road varies linearly with thevolume of traffic. Field investigations also have shown that emissions depend on source parameters thatcharacterize the condition of a particular road and the associated vehicle traffic. Characterization of thesesource parameters allow for “correction” of emission estimates to specific road and traffic conditionspresent on public and industrial roadways.

Dust emissions from unpaved roads have been found to vary directly with the fraction of silt(particles smaller than 75 micrometers [ m] in diameter) in the road surface materials.1 The silt fractionis determined by measuring the proportion of loose dry surface dust that passes a 200-mesh screen, usingthe ASTM-C-136 method. A summary of this method is contained in Appendix C of AP-42. Table13.2.2-1 summarizes measured silt values for industrial unpaved roads. Table 13.2.2-2 summarizesmeasured silt values for public unpaved roads. It should be noted that the ranges of silt content vary overtwo orders of magnitude. Therefore, the use of data from this table can potentially introduce considerableerror. Use of this data is strongly discouraged when it is feasible to obtain locally gathered data.

Since the silt content of a rural dirt road will vary with geographic location, it should be measuredfor use in projecting emissions. As a conservative approximation, the silt content of the parent soil in thearea can be used. Tests, however, show that road silt content is normally lower than in the surroundingparent soil, because the fines are continually removed by the vehicle traffic, leaving a higher percentageof coarse particles.

13.2.2-2 EMISSION FACTORS 11/06

Other variables are important in addition to the silt content of the road surface material. Forexample, at industrial sites, where haul trucks and other heavy equipment are common, emissions arehighly correlated with vehicle weight. On the other hand, there is far less variability in the weights ofcars and pickup trucks that commonly travel publicly accessible unpaved roads throughout the UnitedStates. For those roads, the moisture content of the road surface material may be more dominant indetermining differences in emission levels between, for example a hot, desert environment and a cool,moist location.

The PM-10 and TSP emission factors presented below are the outcomes from stepwise linearregressions of field emission test results of vehicles traveling over unpaved surfaces. Due to a limitedamount of information available for PM-2.5, the expression for that particle size range has been scaledagainst the result for PM-10. Consequently, the quality rating for the PM-2.5 factor is lower than that forthe PM-10 expression.

11/06 Miscellaneous Sources 13.2.2-3

Table 13.2.2-1. TYPICAL SILT CONTENT VALUES OF SURFACE MATERIALON INDUSTRIAL UNPAVED ROADSa

IndustryRoad Use Or

Surface MaterialPlantSites

No. OfSamples

Silt Content (%)

Range Mean

Copper smelting Plant road 1 3 16 - 19 17

Iron and steel production Plant road 19 135 0.2 - 19 6.0

Sand and gravel processing Plant road 1 3 4.1 - 6.0 4.8

Material storagearea 1 1 - 7.1

Stone quarrying and processing Plant road 2 10 2.4 - 16 10

Haul road to/frompit 4 20 5.0-15 8.3

Taconite mining and processing Service road 1 8 2.4 - 7.1 4.3

Haul road to/frompit

1 12 3.9 - 9.7 5.8

Western surface coal mining Haul road to/frompit

3 21 2.8 - 18 8.4

Plant road 2 2 4.9 - 5.3 5.1

Scraper route 3 10 7.2 - 25 17

Haul road (freshly graded) 2 5 18 - 29 24

Construction sites Scraper routes 7 20 0.56-23 8.5

Lumber sawmills Log yards 2 2 4.8-12 8.4

Municipal solid waste landfills Disposal routes 4 20 2.2 - 21 6.4aReferences 1,5-15.

13.2.2-4 EMISSION FACTORS 11/06

(1a)

(1b)

The following empirical expressions may be used to estimate the quantity in pounds (lb) ofsize-specific particulate emissions from an unpaved road, per vehicle mile traveled (VMT):

For vehicles traveling on unpaved surfaces at industrial sites, emissions are estimated from the followingequation:

and, for vehicles traveling on publicly accessible roads, dominated by light duty vehicles, emissions maybe estimated from the following:

where k, a, b, c and d are empirical constants (Reference 6) given below and

E = size-specific emission factor (lb/VMT)s = surface material silt content (%)

W = mean vehicle weight (tons)M = surface material moisture content (%)

S = mean vehicle speed (mph)C = emission factor for 1980's vehicle fleet exhaust, brake wear and tire wear.

The source characteristics s, W and M are referred to as correction parameters for adjusting the emissionestimates to local conditions. The metric conversion from lb/VMT to grams (g) per vehicle kilometertraveled (VKT) is as follows:

1 lb/VMT = 281.9 g/VKT

The constants for Equations 1a and 1b based on the stated aerodynamic particle sizes are shown inTables 13.2.2-2 and 13.2.2-4. The PM-2.5 particle size multipliers (k-factors) are taken fromReference 27.

11/06 Miscellaneous Sources 13.2.2-5

Table 13.2.2-2. CONSTANTS FOR EQUATIONS 1a AND 1b

ConstantIndustrial Roads (Equation 1a) Public Roads (Equation 1b)

PM-2.5 PM-10 PM-30* PM-2.5 PM-10 PM-30*

k (lb/VMT) 0.15 1.5 4.9 0.18 1.8 6.0

a 0.9 0.9 0.7 1 1 1

b 0.45 0.45 0.45 - - -

c - - - 0.2 0.2 0.3

d - - - 0.5 0.5 0.3

Quality Rating B B B B B B*Assumed equivalent to total suspended particulate matter (TSP)“-“ = not used in the emission factor equation

Table 13.2.2-2 also contains the quality ratings for the various size-specific versions of Equation 1a and1b. The equation retains the assigned quality rating, if applied within the ranges of source conditions,shown in Table 13.2.2-3, that were tested in developing the equation:

Table 13.2.2-3. RANGE OF SOURCE CONDITIONS USED IN DEVELOPING EQUATION 1a AND1b

Emission FactorSurface SiltContent, %

Mean VehicleWeight

Mean VehicleSpeed Mean

No. ofWheels

SurfaceMoistureContent,

%Mg ton km/hr mph

Industrial Roads(Equation 1a) 1.8-25.2 1.8-260 2-290 8-69 5-43 4-17a 0.03-13

Public Roads(Equation 1b)

1.8-35 1.4-2.7 1.5-3 16-88 10-55 4-4.8 0.03-13

a See discussion in text.

As noted earlier, the models presented as Equations 1a and 1b were developed from tests oftraffic on unpaved surfaces. Unpaved roads have a hard, generally nonporous surface that usually driesquickly after a rainfall or watering, because of traffic-enhanced natural evaporation. (Factors influencinghow fast a road dries are discussed in Section 13.2.2.3, below.) The quality ratings given above pertain tothe mid-range of the measured source conditions for the equation. A higher mean vehicle weight and ahigher than normal traffic rate may be justified when performing a worst-case analysis of emissions fromunpaved roads.

The emission factors for the exhaust, brake wear and tire wear of a 1980's vehicle fleet (C) wasobtained from EPA’s MOBILE6.2 model 23. The emission factor also varies with aerodynamic size range

13.2.2-6 EMISSION FACTORS 11/06

as shown in Table 13.2.2-4

Table 13.2.2-4. EMISSION FACTOR FOR 1980'S VEHICLE FLEET EXHAUST, BRAKE WEAR AND TIRE WEAR

Particle Size Rangea

C, Emission Factor forExhaust, Brake Wear

and Tire Wearb

lb/VMTPM2.5 0.00036PM10 0.00047PM30

c 0.00047

a Refers to airborne particulate matter (PM-x) with an aerodynamic diameter equal to or lessthan x micrometers.

b Units shown are pounds per vehicle mile traveled (lb/VMT). c PM-30 is sometimes termed "suspendable particulate" (SP) and is often used as a surrogate

for TSP.

It is important to note that the vehicle-related source conditions refer to the average weight,speed, and number of wheels for all vehicles traveling the road. For example, if 98 percent of traffic onthe road are 2-ton cars and trucks while the remaining 2 percent consists of 20-ton trucks, then the meanweight is 2.4 tons. More specifically, Equations 1a and 1b are not intended to be used to calculate aseparate emission factor for each vehicle class within a mix of traffic on a given unpaved road. That is, inthe example, one should not determine one factor for the 2-ton vehicles and a second factor for the 20-tontrucks. Instead, only one emission factor should be calculated that represents the "fleet" average of 2.4tons for all vehicles traveling the road.

Moreover, to retain the quality ratings when addressing a group of unpaved roads, it is necessarythat reliable correction parameter values be determined for the road in question. The field and laboratoryprocedures for determining road surface silt and moisture contents are given in AP-42 Appendices C.1and C.2. Vehicle-related parameters should be developed by recording visual observations of traffic. Insome cases, vehicle parameters for industrial unpaved roads can be determined by reviewing maintenancerecords or other information sources at the facility.

In the event that site-specific values for correction parameters cannot be obtained, then defaultvalues may be used.In the absence of site-specific silt content information, an appropriate mean valuefrom Table 13.2.2-1 may be used as a default value, but the quality rating of the equation is reduced bytwo letters. Because of significant differences found between different types of road surfaces andbetween different areas of the country, use of the default moisture content value of 0.5 percent inEquation 1b is discouraged. The quality rating should be downgraded two letters when the defaultmoisture content value is used. (It is assumed that readers addressing industrial roads have access to theinformation needed to develop average vehicle information in Equation 1a for their facility.)

The effect of routine watering to control emissions from unpaved roads is discussed below inSection 13.2.2.3, “Controls”. However, all roads are subject to some natural mitigation because ofrainfall and other precipitation. The Equation 1a and 1b emission factors can be extrapolated to annual

11/06 Miscellaneous Sources 13.2.2-7

(2)

average uncontrolled conditions (but including natural mitigation) under the simplifying assumption thatannual average emissions are inversely proportional to the number of days with measurable (more than0.254 mm [0.01 inch]) precipitation:

where:

Eext = annual size-specific emission factor extrapolated for natural mitigation, lb/VMT

E = emission factor from Equation 1a or 1b

P = number of days in a year with at least 0.254 mm (0.01 in) of precipitation (seebelow)

Figure 13.2.2-1 gives the geographical distribution for the mean annual number of “wet” days for theUnited States.

Equation 2 provides an estimate that accounts for precipitation on an annual average basis for thepurpose of inventorying emissions. It should be noted that Equation 2 does not account for differences inthe temporal distributions of the rain events, the quantity of rain during any event, or the potential for therain to evaporate from the road surface. In the event that a finer temporal and spatial resolution is desiredfor inventories of public unpaved roads, estimates can be based on a more complex set of assumptions. These assumptions include:

1. The moisture content of the road surface material is increased in proportion to the quantity ofwater added;

2. The moisture content of the road surface material is reduced in proportion to the Class A panevaporation rate;

3. The moisture content of the road surface material is reduced in proportion to the trafficvolume; and

4. The moisture content of the road surface material varies between the extremes observed in thearea. The CHIEF Web site (http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/ch13/related/c13s02-2.html) has a filewhich contains a spreadsheet program for calculating emission factors which are temporally and spatiallyresolved. Information required for use of the spreadsheet program includes monthly Class A panevaporation values, hourly meteorological data for precipitation, humidity and snow cover, vehicle trafficinformation, and road surface material information.

It is emphasized that the simple assumption underlying Equation 2 and the more complex set ofassumptions underlying the use of the procedure which produces a finer temporal and spatial resolutionhave not been verified in any rigorous manner. For this reason, the quality ratings for either approachshould be downgraded one letter from the rating that would be applied to Equation 1.

13.2.2.3 Controls18-22

A wide variety of options exist to control emissions from unpaved roads. Options fall into thefollowing three groupings:

1. Vehicle restrictions that limit the speed, weight or number of vehicles on the road;

13.2.2-8 EMISSION FACTORS 11/06

2. Surface improvement, by measures such as (a) paving or (b) adding gravel or slag to a dirtroad; and

3. Surface treatment, such as watering or treatment with chemical dust suppressants.

Available control options span broad ranges in terms of cost, efficiency, and applicability. For example,traffic controls provide moderate emission reductions (often at little cost) but are difficult to enforce. Although paving is highly effective, its high initial cost is often prohibitive. Furthermore, paving is notfeasible for industrial roads subject to very heavy vehicles and/or spillage of material in transport. Watering and chemical suppressants, on the other hand, are potentially applicable to most industrial roadsat moderate to low costs. However, these require frequent reapplication to maintain an acceptable level ofcontrol. Chemical suppressants are generally more cost-effective than water but not in cases of temporaryroads (which are common at mines, landfills, and construction sites). In summary, then, one needs toconsider not only the type and volume of traffic on the road but also how long the road will be in servicewhen developing control plans.

Vehicle restrictions. These measures seek to limit the amount and type of traffic present on theroad or to lower the mean vehicle speed. For example, many industrial plants have restricted employeesfrom driving on plant property and have instead instituted bussing programs. This eliminates emissionsdue to employees traveling to/from their worksites. Although the heavier average vehicle weight of thebusses increases the base emission factor, the decrease in vehicle-miles-traveled results in a lower overallemission rate.

11/06 Miscellaneous Sources 13.2.2-9

Figu

re 1

3.2.

2-1.

Mea

n nu

mbe

r of d

ays w

ith 0

.01

inch

or m

ore

of p

reci

pita

tion

in U

nite

d St

ates

.

13.2.2-10 EMISSION FACTORS 11/06

Surface improvements. Control options in this category alter the road surface. As opposed to the“surface treatments” discussed below, improvements are relatively “permanent” and do not requireperiodic retreatment.

The most obvious surface improvement is paving an unpaved road. This option is quiteexpensive and is probably most applicable to relatively short stretches of unpaved road with at leastseveral hundred vehicle passes per day. Furthermore, if the newly paved road is located near unpavedareas or is used to transport material, it is essential that the control plan address routine cleaning of thenewly paved road surface.

The control efficiencies achievable by paving can be estimated by comparing emission factors forunpaved and paved road conditions. The predictive emission factor equation for paved roads, given inSection 13.2.1, requires estimation of the silt loading on the traveled portion of the paved surface, whichin turn depends on whether the pavement is periodically cleaned. Unless curbing is to be installed, theeffects of vehicle excursion onto unpaved shoulders (berms) also must be taken into account in estimatingthe control efficiency of paving.

Other improvement methods cover the road surface with another material that has a lower siltcontent. Examples include placing gravel or slag on a dirt road. Control efficiency can be estimated bycomparing the emission factors obtained using the silt contents before and after improvement. The siltcontent of the road surface should be determined after 3 to 6 months rather than immediately followingplacement. Control plans should address regular maintenance practices, such as grading, to retain largeraggregate on the traveled portion of the road.

Surface treatments refer to control options which require periodic reapplication. Treatments fallinto the two main categories of (a) “wet suppression” (i. e., watering, possibly with surfactants or otheradditives), which keeps the road surface wet to control emissions and (b) “chemical stabilization/treatment”, which attempts to change the physical characteristics of the surface. The necessaryreapplication frequency varies from several minutes for plain water under summertime conditions toseveral weeks or months for chemical dust suppressants.

Watering increases the moisture content, which conglomerates particles and reduces theirlikelihood to become suspended when vehicles pass over the surface. The control efficiency depends onhow fast the road dries after water is added. This in turn depends on (a) the amount (per unit road surfacearea) of water added during each application; (b) the period of time between applications; (c) the weight,speed and number of vehicles traveling over the watered road during the period between applications; and(d) meteorological conditions (temperature, wind speed, cloud cover, etc.) that affect evaporation duringthe period.

11/06 Miscellaneous Sources 13.2.2-11

Figure 13.2.2-2 presents a simple bilinear relationship between the instantaneous controlefficiency due to watering and the resulting increase in surface moisture. The moisture ratio "M" (i.e., thex-axis in Figure 13.2.2-2) is found by dividing the surface moisture content of the watered road by thesurface moisture content of the uncontrolled road. As the watered road surface dries, both the ratio M andthe predicted instantaneous control efficiency (i.e., the y-axis in the figure) decrease. The figure showsthat between the uncontrolled moisture content and a value twice as large, a small increase in moisturecontent results in a large increase in control efficiency. Beyond that, control efficiency grows slowly withincreased moisture content.

Given the complicated nature of how the road dries, characterization of emissions from wateredroadways is best done by collecting road surface material samples at various times between water truckpasses. (Appendices C.1 and C.2 present the sampling and analysis procedures.) The moisture contentmeasured can then be associated with a control efficiency by use of Figure 13.2.2-2. Samples that reflectaverage conditions during the watering cycle can take the form of either a series of samples betweenwater applications or a single sample at the midpoint. It is essential that samples be collected duringperiods with active traffic on the road. Finally, because of different evaporation rates, it is recommendedthat samples be collected at various times during the year. If only one set of samples is to be collected,these must be collected during hot, summertime conditions.

When developing watering control plans for roads that do not yet exist, it is stronglyrecommended that the moisture cycle be established by sampling similar roads in the same geographicarea. If the moisture cycle cannot be established by similar roads using established watering controlplans, the more complex methodology used to estimate the mitigation of rainfall and other precipitationcan be used to estimate the control provided by routine watering. An estimate of the maximum daytimeClass A pan evaporation (based upon daily evaporation data published in the monthly ClimatologicalData for the state by the National Climatic Data Center) should be used to insure that adequate wateringcapability is available during periods of highest evaporation. The hourly precipitation values in thespreadsheet should be replaced with the equivalent inches of precipitation (where the equivalent of 1 inchof precipitation is provided by an application of 5.6 gallons of water per square yard of road). Information on the long term average annual evaporation and on the percentage that occurs between Mayand October was published in the Climatic Atlas (Reference 16). Figure 13.2.2-3 presents thegeographical distribution for "Class A pan evaporation" throughout the United States. Figure 13.2.2-4presents the geographical distribution of the percentage of this evaporation that occurs between May andOctober. The U. S. Weather Bureau Class A evaporation pan is a cylindrical metal container with a depthof 10 inches and a diameter of 48 inches. Periodic measurements are made of the changes of the waterlevel.

The above methodology should be used only for prospective analyses and for designing wateringprograms for existing roadways. The quality rating of an emission factor for a watered road that is basedon this methodology should be downgraded two letters. Periodic road surface samples should becollected and analyzed to verify the efficiency of the watering program.

As opposed to watering, chemical dust suppressants have much less frequent reapplicationrequirements. These materials suppress emissions by changing the physical characteristics of the existingroad surface material. Many chemical unpaved road dust suppressants form a hardened surface that bindsparticles together. After several applications, a treated road often resembles a paved road except that thesurface is not uniformly flat. Because the improved surface results in more grinding of small particles,the silt content of loose material on a highly controlled surface may be substantially higher than when thesurface was uncontrolled. For this reason, the models presented as Equations 1a and 1b cannot be used toestimate emissions from chemically stabilized roads. Should the road be allowed to return to an

13.2.2-12 EMISSION FACTORS 11/06

uncontrolled state with no visible signs of large-scale cementing of material, the Equation 1a and 1bemission factors could then be used to obtain conservatively high emission estimates.

Figure 13.2.2-2. Watering control effectiveness for unpaved travel surfaces

0

25

50

75

100

0 1 2 3 4 5

Moisture Ratio, M

Con

trol E

ffici

ency

(%)

11/06 Miscellaneous Sources 13.2.2-13

The control effectiveness of chemical dust suppressants appears to depend on (a) the dilution rateused in the mixture; (b) the application rate (volume of solution per unit road surface area); (c) the timebetween applications; (d) the size, speed and amount of traffic during the period between applications;and (e) meteorological conditions (rainfall, freeze/thaw cycles, etc.) during the period. Other factors thataffect the performance of dust suppressants include other traffic characteristics (e. g., cornering, track-onfrom unpaved areas) and road characteristics (e. g., bearing strength, grade). The variabilities in theabove factors and differences between individual dust control products make the control efficiencies ofchemical dust suppressants difficult to estimate. Past field testing of emissions from controlled unpavedroads has shown that chemical dust suppressants provide a PM-10 control efficiency of about 80 percentwhen applied at regular intervals of 2 weeks to 1 month.

13.2.2-14 EMISSION FACTORS 11/06

Figu

re 1

3.2.

2-3.

Ann

ual e

vapo

rati

on d

ata.

11/06 Miscellaneous Sources 13.2.2-15

Figu

re 1

3.2.

2-4.

Geo

grap

hica

l dis

tribu

tion

of th

e pe

rcen

tage

of e

vapo

ratio

n oc

curr

ing

betw

een

May

and

Oct

ober

.

13.2.2-16 EMISSION FACTORS 11/06

Table 13.2-2-5. EXAMPLE OF AVERAGE CONTROLLED EMISSION FACTORSFOR SPECIFIC CONDITIONS

PeriodGround Inventory,

gal/yd2Average ControlEfficiency, %a

Average ControlledEmission Factor,

lb/VMT

May 0.037 0 7.1

June 0.073 62 2.7

July 0.11 68 2.3

August 0.15 74 1.8

September 0.18 80 1.4a From Figure 13.2.2-5, 10 m. Zero efficiency assigned if ground inventory is less than 0.05 gal/yd2.

1 lb/VMT = 281.9 g/VKT. 1 gal/yd2 = 4.531 L/m2.

Petroleum resin products historically have been the dust suppressants (besides water) most widelyused on industrial unpaved roads. Figure 13.2.2-5 presents a method to estimate average controlefficiencies associated with petroleum resins applied to unpaved roads.20 Several items should be noted:

1. The term "ground inventory" represents the total volume (per unit area) of petroleum resinconcentrate (not solution) applied since the start of the dust control season.

2. Because petroleum resin products must be periodically reapplied to unpaved roads, the use ofa time-averaged control efficiency value is appropriate. Figure 13.2.2-5 presents control efficiency valuesaveraged over two common application intervals, 2 weeks and 1 month. Other application intervals willrequire interpolation.

3. Note that zero efficiency is assigned until the ground inventory reaches 0.05 gallon per squareyard (gal/yd2). Requiring a minimum ground inventory ensures that one must apply a reasonable amountof chemical dust suppressant to a road before claiming credit for emission control. Recall that the groundinventory refers to the amount of petroleum resin concentrate rather than the total solution.

As an example of the application of Figure 13.2.2-5, suppose that Equation 1a was used toestimate an emission factor of 7.1 lb/VMT for PM-10 from a particular road. Also, suppose that, startingon May 1, the road is treated with 0.221 gal/yd2 of a solution (1 part petroleum resin to 5 parts water) onthe first of each month through September. Then, the average controlled emission factors, shown inTable 13.2.2-5, are found.

Besides petroleum resins, other newer dust suppressants have also been successful in controllingemissions from unpaved roads. Specific test results for those chemicals, as well as for petroleum resinsand watering, are provided in References 18 through 21.

11/06 Miscellaneous Sources 13.2.2-17

Figu

re 1

3.2.

2-5.

Ave

rage

con

trol

eff

icie

ncie

s ov

er c

omm

on a

ppli

cati

on in

terv

als.

13.2.2-18 EMISSION FACTORS 11/06

13.2.2.4 Updates Since The Fifth Edition

The Fifth Edition was released in January 1995. Revisions to this section since that date aresummarized below. For further detail, consult the background report for this section (Reference 6).

October 1998 (Supplement E)– This was a major revision of this section. Significant changes tothe text and the emission factor equations were made.

October 2001 – Separate emission factors for unpaved surfaces at industrial sites and publiclyaccessible roads were introduced. Figure 13.2.2-2 was included to provide control effectiveness estimatesfor watered roads.

December 2003 – The public road emission factor equation (equation 1b) was adjusted to removethe component of particulate emissions from exhaust, brake wear, and tire wear. The parameter C in thenew equation varies with aerodynamic size range of the particulate matter. Table 13.2.2-4 was added topresent the new coefficients.

January 2006 – The PM-2.5 particle size multipliers (i.e., factors) in Table 13.2.2-2 weremodified and the quality ratings were upgraded from C to B based on the wind tunnel studies of a varietyof dust emitting surface materials.

References For Section 13.2.2

1. C. Cowherd, Jr., et al., Development Of Emission Factors For Fugitive Dust Sources,EPA-450/3-74-037, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC,June 1974.

2. R. J. Dyck and J. J. Stukel, "Fugitive Dust Emissions From Trucks On Unpaved Roads",Environmental Science And Technology, 10(10):1046-1048, October 1976.

3. R. O. McCaldin and K. J. Heidel, "Particulate Emissions From Vehicle Travel Over UnpavedRoads", Presented at the 71st Annual Meeting of the Air Pollution Control Association, Houston,TX, June 1978.

4. C. Cowherd, Jr, et al., Iron And Steel Plant Open Dust Source Fugitive Emission Evaluation,EPA-600/2-79-013, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH, May 1979.

5. G. Muleski, Unpaved Road Emission Impact, Arizona Department of Environmental Quality,Phoenix, AZ, March 1991.

6. Emission Factor Documentation For AP-42, Section 13.2.2, Unpaved Roads, Final Report, MidwestResearch Institute, Kansas City, MO, September 1998.

7. T. Cuscino, Jr., et al., Taconite Mining Fugitive Emissions Study, Minnesota Pollution ControlAgency, Roseville, MN, June 1979.

8. Improved Emission Factors For Fugitive Dust From Western Surface Coal Mining Sources,2 Volumes, EPA Contract No. 68-03-2924, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U. S.Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC.

11/06 Miscellaneous Sources 13.2.2-19

9. T. Cuscino, Jr., et al., Iron And Steel Plant Open Source Fugitive Emission Control Evaluation,EPA-600/2-83-110, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH, October 1983.

10. Size Specific Emission Factors For Uncontrolled Industrial And Rural Roads, EPA ContractNo. 68-02-3158, Midwest Research Institute, Kansas City, MO, September 1983.

11. C. Cowherd, Jr., and P. Englehart, Size Specific Particulate Emission Factors For Industrial AndRural Roads, EPA-600/7-85-038, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH,September 1985.

12. PM-10 Emission Inventory Of Landfills In The Lake Calumet Area, EPA Contract 68-02-3891, WorkAssignment 30, Midwest Research Institute, Kansas City, MO, September 1987.

13. Chicago Area Particulate Matter Emission Inventory — Sampling And Analysis, EPA ContractNo. 68-02-4395, Work Assignment 1, Midwest Research Institute, Kansas City, MO, May 1988.

14. PM-10 Emissions Inventory Data For The Maricopa And Pima Planning Areas, EPA ContractNo. 68-02-3888, Engineering-Science, Pasadena, CA, January 1987.

15. Oregon Fugitive Dust Emission Inventory, EPA Contract 68-D0-0123, Midwest Research Institute,Kansas City, MO, January 1992.

16. Climatic Atlas Of The United States, U. S. Department Of Commerce, Washington, DC, June 1968.

17. National Climatic Data Center, Solar And Meteorological Surface Observation Network 1961-1990;3 Volume CD-ROM. Asheville, NC, 1993.

18. C. Cowherd, Jr. et al., Control Of Open Fugitive Dust Sources, EPA-450/3-88-008,U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, September 1988.

19. G. E. Muleski, et al., Extended Evaluation Of Unpaved Road Dust Suppressants In The Iron AndSteel Industry, EPA-600/2-84-027, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH,February 1984.

20. C. Cowherd, Jr., and J. S. Kinsey, Identification, Assessment And Control Of Fugitive ParticulateEmissions, EPA-600/8-86-023, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH, August1986.

21. G. E. Muleski and C. Cowherd, Jr., Evaluation Of The Effectiveness Of Chemical Dust SuppressantsOn Unpaved Roads, EPA-600/2-87-102, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH,November 1986.

22. Fugitive Dust Background Document And Technical Information Document For Best AvailableControl Measures, EPA-450/2-92-004, Office Of Air Quality Planning And Standards, U. S.Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, September 1992.

23. Written communication (Technical Memorandum) from P. Hemmer, E.H. Pechan & Associates,Inc., Durham, NC to B. Kuykendal, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research TrianglePark, NC, August, 21, 2003.

13.2.2-20 EMISSION FACTORS 11/06

24. MOBILE6 User Guide, United States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Transportationand Air Quality. EPA420-R-02-028, October 2002.

25. Written communication (Technical Memorandum) from G. Muleski, Midwest Research Institute,Kansas City, MO, to B. Kuykendal, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research TrianglePark, NC, Subject “Unpaved Roads”, September 27, 2001.

26. Written communication (Technical Memorandum) from W. Kuykendal, U. S. EnvironmentalProtection Agency, to File, Subject “Decisions on Final AP-42 Section 13.2.2 Unpaved Roads”,November 24, 2003.

27. C. Cowherd, Background Document for Revisions to Fine Fraction Ratios &sed for AP-42 FugitiveDust Emission Factors. Prepared by Midwest Research Institute for Western Governors Association,Western Regional Air Partnership, Denver, CO, February 1, 2006.