Wet Dust Suppression
Coal dust pollution in Southeast Newport News and Lambert's Point are primarily mitigated using wet suppression methods that consist of spraying water, or water with chemical additives, over coal storage piles, railcars, and/or transloading equipment with a system of sprinklers and water trucks. Water application is in theory adjusted based on terminal activity and ambient meteorological conditions. According to a representative from Norfolk Southern, most coal-carrying railcars are sprayed with chemicals when they leave the coal mines, minimizing the dust emissions en route to terminals.[1]
Wet Dust Suppression in Hampton Roads
History
1920s: Water suppression of coal dust emissions is mentioned in the record as early as the 1920s, when the Chesapeake and Ohio (C&O) Railroad Company installed a custom pipe system to spray water on coal-filled railcars where and when the cars were emptied through overturning.[2]
1950s: Following pressure by the Garden-Shores Civic League, the City of Newport News hired a chemical engineering firm to measure the amount of coal in airborne particles. This study found that at least in one location in Southeast Newport News 45% of airborne dust was un-combusted coal. In response, the Newport News City Council compelled C&O to install equipment to create a water fog over the coal piers to suppress dust and led Newport News City Council to pass an air pollution ordinance.[3]
1980s: Community activism that included residents' complaints to Virginia Air Pollution Control Board (APCB) led the APCB to conduct additional research on the factors that influenced coal dust emissions and develop a wet suppression approach that was more effective.
Subsequently, the water suppression infrastructure was expanded in Southeast Newport News.[4] Some sources cite the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (VA DEQ) and claim new water suppression system at the terminals in Southeast Newport News reduced coal dust emissions by 80%.[5] However, this claim has not been substantiated.
Today
Despite decades of dust control using water suppression, nearby residents continue to report that coal dust negatively impacts local air quality, outside and in their homes, leaves dust films on outdoor and indoor surfaces, harms quality of life, and requires residents and property owners to bear high air filtration costs.[4] That said, it is commonly held that coal dust pollution in Southeast Newport News was worse before the water suppression sprinkler system was upgraded in the 1980s. Residents also describe seeing sprinklers that are frequently off. There are also reports from residents that the sprinklers are not turned on until winds are very fast.[6]
The Dominion Terminal now used 79 sprinklers, turned on about four times per day or more depending on the weather, as well as a water truck dispatched to locations not covered by the sprinklers.[7] The Kinder Morgan Bulk Terminals use a system of 44 sprinklers to spray water that suppresses dust emissions from the piles and transloading equipment. In 2022, Kinder Morgan spokesperson Amy Baek claimed the Kinder Bulk Morgan Terminals used 20,000 gallons of water every hour to suppress dust emissions.[4]
Water suppression is argued to be effective at fairly low cost.[8] The terminals in Southeast Newport News and Lambert's Point have fought against other dust mitigation methods, not because they do not work, but because of their associated price tag,[9][6] even though costs are small as a fraction of the terminals' annual revenue.[10]
Types of Surfactants
In general, dust suppressants should be durable, protective, easy (meaning they do not significantly impede transportation processes), cost-effective, and non-toxic. A variety of formulas are on the market, including oils, waste oils, oil emulsions, latex sealants, lignin derivatives, polyacrylamides and proprietary formations, each with their own drawbacks.
Currently, there is no documentation that can independently verify the projected PM control efficiencies for most of these options.[11]
- Plain or mist water sprays
- Commonly installed at conveyor transfer points, rotary dumpers, hoppers, and stockpiles.
- Rely on fine water droplets (typically 10–200 µm) to adhere to dust and settle it out of the air
- Mist cannons or Dry Fog systems
- Ultrafine droplets (<10 µm) form an airborne “blanket” that agglomerates dust in enclosed areas like hoppers.
- Surfactant‑enhanced sprays
- Addition of surfactants reduces water surface tension to improve adhesion to fine, hydrophobic coal dust. This method enhances capture efficiency and conserves water compared to plain sprays
- Foam suppression: Foam mixes water, air, and a foaming agent to create a lasting layer that traps dust at high‑impact zones (e.g., conveyor ends, crushers) with minimal moisture addition
- Products like Nbco DustBind, DustBind Plus, DustLock, HAUL‑EZE, and HAULAGE‑DC are polymer or salt-based additives applied via spray. They form a flexible crust over coal to prevent wind erosion and self-heating, especially during rail transport and stockpile storage
Concerns
Some of the chemicals are environmentally toxic and present potential problems if spray run-off and spillage is allowed to fall onto ground unprotected by a collection pad.
Additionally, measuring the efficiency of these solutions is very difficult, and is still a developing process.
Documents
- Han, F. et al. A review of water-based suppressants for coal dust suppression. September 24, 2024.
- Railroads of Port Adopt Coal Sprinkle: Growing demand for Sprinkled Coal Said to Be Made by Trans-Shippers, Daily Press, November 23, 1927
- Ohio Office of Air Pollution Control, Reasonably Available Control Measures for Fugitive Dust Sources (Part 1), September 1980
- Ohio Office of Air Pollution Control, Reasonably Available Control Measures for Fugitive Dust Sources (Part 2), September 1980
- Ohio Office of Air Pollution Control, Reasonably Available Control Measures for Fugitive Dust Sources (Part 3), September 1980
- Ohio Office of Air Pollution Control, Reasonably Available Control Measures for Fugitive Dust Sources (Part 4), September 1980
- City Planning Commission Meeting Minutes, City of Newport News, May 2, 2018
- Email Correspondence between Richard Posner of Dust Solutions, Inc. and Repair Lab Team Member, 2023
- Repair Lab, Coal Dust in Southeast Newport News is a Nuisance and There Are Solution (Corrected), August 2024
- Wituschek E. et al. Coal Dust Control: Recommended practices for loading, unloading and transporting coal by rail. Regional Report No. 86-17. April 1986.
References
- ↑ Lawlor, Newport News, Coal Terminals Looking Into Wind Fence, Daily Press, August 1, 2011.
- ↑ Railroads of Port Adopt Coal Sprinkle: Growing demand for Sprinkled Coal Said to Be Made by Trans-Shippers, Daily Press, November 23, 1927.
- ↑ C&O to Install Costly Equipment for Control of Air Pollution in NN, Daily Press, December 12, 1956.
- ↑ 4.0 4.1 4.2 Vogelsong, Virginia Will Begin Monitoring Air Pollution around Hampton Roads Coal Terminals: Residents of Newport News’ East End Say There’s Been Too Many Studies and Too Little Action, Virginia Mercury, April 19, 2022.
- ↑ Seeking VA DEQ reference.
- ↑ 6.0 6.1 [./File:CPC_Minutes_5.2.18.pdf City Planning Commission Meeting Minutes], City of Newport News, May 2, 2018.
- ↑ Lawlor, Coal dust, piles an issue for southeast Newport News, Daily Press, July 16, 2011, Updated: August 18, 2019.
- ↑ Ohio Office of Air Pollution Control, Reasonably Available Control Measures for Fugitive Dust Sources (Part 2)], September 1980.
- ↑ [./File:Notes_on_email_correspondence_between_Richard_Posner_of_Dust_Solutions.pdf Email Correspondence with Richard Posner, President of Dust Solutions Inc.], 2023.
- ↑ Repair Lab, [./File:Wind_Fences_and_Domes_Report_Repair_Lab_2024_(corrected).pdf Coal Dust in Southeast Newport News Is a Nuisance and There Are Solutions (Corrected)], August 2024.
- ↑ Han, F. et al. A review of water-based suppressants for coal dust suppression. September 24, 2024.