By Dave Gambrel
In Washington state several coal exporting projects have been proposed in recent years. Stevedoring Services of America (SSA), a respected Seattle-based firm since 1949, has partnered with coal producer Peabody Energy to propose Gateway Pacific Terminal at Cherry Point near existing deep water terminals. Ambre Energy has proposed Millennium Terminal at Longview, and Rail America has proposed a Gray’s Harbor Project at Hoquiam. Ambre Energy has also proposed a rail-to-barge terminal at Port of Morrow near Boardman, Ore.; a downstream business partner (Kinder-Morgan) would unload the barges and load ships at Port Westward Terminal near St. Helens, Ore. The Port of Coos Bay is studying a locally sponsored coal terminal at Coos Bay. Some projects have fallen by the wayside; others appear to be in a state of hibernation.
Gateway Pacific Terminal
Gateway Pacific Terminal, a deepwater, multimodal terminal for the export and import of dry bulk commodities between rail and ocean-going vessels, has been proposed within the Cherry Point Industrial Urban Growth Area near Bellingham. The project area would encompass approximately 1,500 acres with development occurring on approximately 334 acres. If approved, the proposal would include two materials handling and storage areas and a wharf and trestle. Associated development would include a rail connection and improvements with BNSF Railway’s Custer Spur Industrial rail line. At full operation, the facility would have the capacity to export and import 54 million metric tons per year of dry bulk commodities including, but not limited to coal, grain products, potash and calcined petroleum coke.
Pacific International Terminals has submitted development applications to Whatcom County and other agencies. In 1997, Whatcom County issued a shoreline substantial development permit and a major development permit for construction and operation of the terminal. Because of changes to the size and scope of the proposal, the county has determined that a new shoreline permit is required for the project. The project must undergo a full environmental review before the company can obtain a new shoreline permit or other permits required for the project.
More than 9,000 people participated during in-person scoping meetings in November and December 2012. In total, more than 124,000 scoping comments were collected between September 24, 2012, and January 22, 2013. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the state Department of Ecology and Whatcom County will conduct a coordinated environmental review of the Pacific International and BNSF applications under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). The agencies have determined that the proposed export terminal and associated rail expansion require an environmental impact statement (EIS).
The lead agencies are responsible for identifying and evaluating how the proposed project would affect the environment. Ecology will ensure the environmental reviews consider potential statewide effects of the project. Remaining steps in the environmental review process and estimated timelines are:
September 24, 2012, to January 21, 2013—Scoping and deciding what factors to analyze and what geographic area to consider: This step was recently completed. For details, please see www.eisgatewaypacificwa.gov.
Begin preparing draft EIS: The contractor, under the direction of the co-lead agencies, will prepare the draft EIS according to the results of the scoping process. The purpose of an EIS is to provide the public and agency decision makers with information on likely adverse effects of a proposed project, as well as reasonable alternatives and measures to reduce those effects.
2014 or later—Issue draft EIS, open public comment period, have public hearing: The draft EIS will be circulated so that the public and other agencies are given an opportunity to comment on its accuracy and content before it is finalized. The public will be invited to a public hearing about the draft EIS. The co-lead agencies will consider and respond to public comments in the final EIS.
2014 or 2015—Issue final environmental impact statement: The final EIS will include responses to the comments made on the draft EIS.
The Futurewise Direction
It would be extremely difficult to review 124,000 comments, and to develop a set of directions for the EIS process. Futurewise is a Seattle-based organization “working throughout Washington State to create livable communities, protect our working farmlands, forests and waterways, and ensure a better quality of life for present and future generations.” Futurewise has gone on record as opposing all coal terminals in the state, but in the comments following, its position statement has presented a set of concerns that covers literally every impact conceivable.
Position Statement
“Futurewise works to protect our state’s shorelines and to build healthy communities so the next generation can inherit a better world.
But corporate interests looking for a quick profit are fighting hard to export dirty coal through Washington state, threatening our communities and disrupting the world’s climate. That’s why today Futurewise staff, with the support of its board, filed a comment letter to Whatcom County, the state Department of Ecology, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to recommend that a programmatic Environment Impact Statement (EIS) be prepared to assess the individual and cumulative impacts of all of the potential coal ports in Washington and Oregon and to identify the mitigation necessary to maintain the region’s built and natural environments, human health and our state’s economy.
In our comment letter, we call for the lead agencies to evaluate more than 35 key issues that will probably have adverse impacts. These issues were broadly categorized into the follow impacts:
- Water Quality
- Air quality
- Fish and Wildlife
- Transportation
- Public Safety
- Downtown Bellingham
- Planned Industrial Capacity
- Cultural Resources
- Land and Shoreline Use
- Public and Environmental Health
Whether it is coal dust’s impact on local farms, increased ocean acidification that kills our shellfish industry, bisecting our cities and towns with dozens of mile-long coal trains, or blocking high-value manufactured goods and Washington-grown wheat and barley to be exported out of our ports—the proposed coal terminals and trains are likely to have a big impact on Washington state communities.”
Bitter invective comments against “quick” corporate profits suggests Futurewise’s reaction is considerably more emotional than it is informed. There is no guarantee of any profit; if and when there is a profit, it certainly would be painstakingly slow. The Futurewise request described would guarantee that nothing would happen quickly, and that project developers would be required to pay contractors for preparing 35 different EIS studies. Gateway developers would wind up spending millions before the first ton of coal would be loaded on a vessel, and many would have their careers on the line.
For those interested in seeing the complete list of Futurewise’s EIS concerns, go to http://futurewise.org and click on the breaking news section. The reader will find it thorough and well-conceived, lacking the emotion of the position letter while providing a clear path for EIS studies. It is over-reaching in several places.
The Washingtonian View
Except for a few summer months the weather in Seattle is usually rainy. Sometimes the clouds lift and one can see the Olympic Range across Puget Sound, Mount Baker to the north, Cascades to the east and Mount Rainier to the southeast. As a former Washington state citizen, the author implicitly understands why Washingtonians do not want anyone or anything to spoil their state. At one time Washingtonians were even adamant about not allowing Californians into their state. That idea lacked both common sense and Constitutional support, but it did illustrate their love of the land.
Many Washingtonians need jobs, and that inevitably leads to change. Unfortunately, they are told things about proposed new developments that are not true by people who do not share their concerns, and many of them wind up fighting against the very companies that have the vision, desire and funding to create new jobs. The economic fallout from the 2007 closure of the Georgia Pacific plant in Bellingham is still being felt throughout Whatcom County. Does it help matters when out-of-county or out-of-state protesters are bused in or fill the blogs with all kinds of scare statements? Most of them have little to nothing at stake in Whatcom County.
Commenting on a Few of the More Common Concerns
Selling Coal to China—Some people fear selling U.S. coal to China will result in air pollution that will come back to them in just a few days. Will Washington’s exporting policies prevent the Chinese from burning coal? Assuming we conclude the obvious—that the Chinese will keep on doing what they are doing now—operating coal-fired plants, we have to ask another question: If EPA actions forced U.S. utilities to switch to Powder River Basin coal because of its clean qualities, why are the environmentalists now objecting to the Chinese burning clean PRB coal? Wouldn’t this greatly improve the quality of the stack gases coming out of the Chinese power plants?
A detailed analysis of power plants in China by MIT researchers debunks the widespread notion that outmoded energy technology or the utter absence of government regulation is to blame for China’s notorious air-pollution problems. (http://web.mit.edu/ipc/publications/pdf/08-003.pdf)
The MIT findings suggest emissions levels from Chinese power plants, “depend almost entirely on the quality of the coal they use,” researcher Steinfeld said. “When they’re hit by price spikes, they buy low-grade coal.” Lower-grade coal, which produces high levels of sulfur emissions, can be obtained locally, whereas the highest-grade anthracite comes mostly from China’s northwest and must travel long distances to the plants, adding greatly to its cost. Contrary to what many outsiders believe, the Chinese state has substantially improved its ability to implement and enforce rules on technology standards. It has been slower, however, to develop such abilities for monitoring the day-to-day operations of energy producers.
Coal Dust from BNSF Trains Would Soil Seattle’s Pike Street Market: BNSF has three routes that lead from Spokane to Whatcom County, and would much rather take the one that avoids Seattle.
The route most likely to be taken would be the one that leaves Spokane and travels directly westward across Lincoln, Grant, Chelan and Snohomish counties to Everett, where it turns and heads straight north. This route is north of Seattle, and avoids it altogether.
People who fear coal dust must be unaware of BNSF Tariff 6041-B, which requires shippers to spray surfactant on coal after loading. They must also be unaware that Peabody has publicly committed to spraying its coal with surfactant. Most coal unit trains travel under contracts between the railroad and the coal buyers (electric utilities). These trains will be different. They will move under contracts between railroads and coal producers, or not at all. Coal producers will have to accept all of the provisions of the coal tariff, including the requirement to spray the coal with surfactant. If the surfactant does not do an adequate job, there are several types of covers that can be installed on the rail cars.
Endless Coal Trains Would Clog the Roads & Highways: Some opponents have suggested that up to 130 million tons per year would be shipped through Cherry Point, requiring endless numbers of coal trains that would clog highway crossings. Selling into the Pacific Rim market LAXT was never able to reach a level of 10 million tons; Westshore has never exported more than 8.2 million tons of U.S. coal. Case closed.
Gambrel is the former director of transportation for Peabody Energy Co., and was the company’s negotiator for the LAXT terminal in the Port of Los Angeles. He received his graduate education at the University of Washington and at Seattle University. He served as Peabody’s representative on the management committee of Dominion Terminal for 10 years, and managed the company’s ship chartering program. He can be reached at bunkgambrel@earthlink.net.
