Sue Lani Madsen: Millennium terminal is evidence of an EIS process run amok
The EIS wasn’t envisioned by Sen. Henry “Scoop” Jackson, D-Wash., when he introduced the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. The “detailed impact statement” requirement emerged as a compromise between competing egos, and the NEPA bill passed quickly just before Christmas recess that year, with little scrutiny.
NEPA was intended to apply to publicly funded projects. Later interpretations ruled that issuing a federal permit counts as federal spending. Jackson was reportedly frustrated by the expanding EIS process, especially when it shut down or delayed his own pet projects. Washington adopted a State Environmental Policy Act in 1971 mirroring NEPA.
An EIS doesn’t make a decision, it gathers information for decision-makers. Environmentalists quickly realized the litigation potential in vague environmental policy act language. Claim an EIS is flawed or inadequate, and delay, delay, delay. In response, an EIS is now as thick as a brick.
The Millennium Bulk Terminal hearing at the Spokane Convention Center on May 26 followed the Washington Department of Ecology’s usual routine. The purpose of a public hearing on a draft EIS is to “provide suggestions for improving the adequacy of the environmental analysis.” Most speakers were focused on outcomes rather than adequacy.
Supporters of the terminal applauded EIS conclusions that negative impacts are mostly unlikely or can be mitigated. Almost all of them mentioned new jobs.
A representative from a railroad workers union pointed out the focus on coal ignores the potential of new rail and port infrastructure to support soy, wheat and other commodity shipments. His concern was that without investment in modern shipping terminals for Washington, export activity could move to the Gulf States once the expanded Panama Canal opens.
Opponents were disappointed the EIS didn’t support their objections centered on global warming, railroads and coal dust. They took disappointment with the results as evidence that it must be inadequate.
No one in 1969 would have predicted an EIS tackling a global scope. Rep. Shelly Short, R-Addy, testified that life-cycle analysis from origin to product use is a precedent-setting expansion of the EIS process and suggested there wouldn’t be this scrutiny if it were any other commodity.
Globalizing the EIS relies on modeling complex relationships. One model predicts more carbon in the air, another cited by a project representative predicts less because U.S. coal burns cleaner than Asian coal. Either way, coal is going to be mined and burned.
Others objected to the EIS conclusions that the project “would not significantly affect rail safety,” painting visions of derailments and hazardous spills. There are many goods carried by rail that are worth worrying about, but coal isn’t one of them. No haz mat team response required, just a crew with shovels.
Waiting for a train to clear a crossing is not a new problem. According to testimony from Sheriff Ozzie Knezovich, Spokane Valley rail traffic peaked in 2006. Adding 16 additional trains through Spokane will not return traffic to the 10-year-old peak. Same old problem.
And then there’s coal dust. The EIS is very specific on coal dust. Mark out a square meter test plot. Measure 1/4 teaspoon of flour and divide into 365 teeny tiny little piles. Scatter one teeny tiny little pile across the test plot every morning. That’s how much coal dust to expect if you live within a few thousand feet of the terminal. Near the rail lines, it’s less. Try measuring less.
The EIS methodology measured actual coal dust from current coal trains and concluded no negative impacts, no exceeding of federal or state standards, no issues. It didn’t use models, it was reality. Protesters failed to suggest any improvements to the adequacy of the environmental analysis. It’s just more delay, delay, delay.
Dragging out permitting does not encourage private investment. If we want rail lines for freight or passenger use, or ports to serve the 95 percent of consumers who live outside the U.S., we need more predictability in doing business in Washington. The EIS process needs pruning.
Sue Lani Madsen can be reached at rulingpen@ gmail.com or on Twitter: @SueLaniMadsen.