Community sharing concerns about coal

About 100 trains already thunder through Spokane daily. Now imagine 48 more, each stretching over a mile-and-a-half, filled with coal, leaving coal dust and diesel fumes in their wake. This is the proposal currently being pursued by multinational coal companies and the reason why 50 concerned citizens gathered earlier this week on the roof of downtown Spokane’s Saranac Building to hear Robin Everett, associate regional representative of Sierra Club’s “Beyond Coal” Campaign, speak about the dangers associated with this massive project. Paul Dillon and Bart Mihailovich, co-founders of Down to Earth and co-hosts of “Down to Earth,” a weekly environmental news and perspective current affairs program on KYRS, introduced Everett, who has been travelling throughout Washington to spread the campaign’s message. “The impact to Spokane is bigger than any other city in Washington,” Everett said. “Spokane will be the entry point for all the coal coming into Washington from Montana and Wyoming - you guys get hit no matter where it goes from there, but receive no economic advantages.” Everett’s intention with this first visit, she explained, was simply to introduce the concept and to initiate a dialogue in Spokane, so that when the “Beyond Coal” campaign returns in October for its “Coal Hard Truth” Forum, a larger event that will draw more experts and speakers, our community will already be educated, organized, and ready to take action. Everett quickly sobered the crowd with details of the coal proposal. Two of the world’s largest coal mining and processing companies, Arch Coal and Peabody Energy, are proposing to strip-mine 130 million tons of coal each year from the Powder River Basin in Montana and Wyoming, export it via train through Spokane, and ship it from the west coast of Washington to China and other coal-hungry Asian markets. The two companies in charge of developing the proposed exporting ports in Longview and Cherry Point, Wash., are Millennium Bulk Logistics, Inc., and SSA Marine, respectively. According to Everett, moving 130 million tons of coal each year would require approximately 24 fully-loaded, 1.5-mile long trains, passing through Spokane every day, and an equal number of empty cars going the opposite direction, destined for another load. The Sierra Club has many concerns about this project, Everett explained, the primary one being the potential contribution to climate change. “Coal is the number one culprit for global warming,” Everett said. “And this project stands to undermine all the progress we’ve made towards phasing coal out of our state.” Washington recently passed legislation phasing out the state’s only coal-fired power plant by 2025. The U.S. has the largest coal reserves in the world, and Everett suggested to the audience that if the country can resist the pressure to extract it, even for a couple of years, the foreign, coal-hungry markets may be forced to look for alternative sources of energy. In addition to concerns over global warming, Everett described the grave impacts that increased coal dust, diesel exhaust, and noise from the extra production will have on our health. According to the “Beyond Coal” campaign, BNSF studies indicate that a single coal car can lose as much as 500 pounds of coal during transit. This coal dust, Everett warned, contains heavy metals that are linked to cancer, birth defects, heart disease, and increased asthma and lung disease in children. Diesel exhaust emissions are also known to be harmful to human health, and with 48 additional trains idling as they inch through increased rail traffic, Everett says Spokane residents have reason to be concerned. Diesel exhaust, according to the Spokane Regional Clean Air Agency, is made up of tiny, high toxic particles that penetrate human lungs and remain there indefinitely to create or worsen heart and lung conditions. The health impacts are so concerning, Everett explained, that a group of 160 physicians in Whatcom County, where one of the new ports is proposed, have organized to oppose the project. One of these doctors, Dr. Frank James, apparently relayed the gravity of the situation to an audience in Bellingham by stating, “To get 160 doctors to say one thing about anything is amazing - it’s that bad. People will die from this project.” Noise pollution and traffic congestion were also identified as by-products of the proposal, as was the danger of having more trains refueling directly above the Spokane Valley – Rathdrum Prairie Aquifer, Spokane’s sole source of drinking water. Everett estimates that the companies will need to secure at least 20-30 permits before they can move ahead with their plans. Once they apply for permits, a process will begin to determine the scope of the Environmental Impact Statement (a study required by state and federal law). She anticipates that the companies will argue for a very limited scope - that only impacts caused by actual construction of the ports should be considered. Consequently, she urges individuals to write letters during the scoping process demanding that impacts to Spokane also be considered, and that the gravity of those impacts justify holding a special scoping hearing in Spokane. She also recommended writing a letter to the Commissioner of Public Lands, Peter Goldmark, asking that the Department of Natural Resources not approve the aquatic leases needed to construct the ports. This action, she said, can be done now. Everett says she is encouraged by the interest she is seeing from citizens - 400 people showed up for her presentation in Bellingham and 300 in Mt. Vernon. “Right now, we are only in the very beginning stages of a multi-year process,” she said. “It is great to be so organized this early. Sometimes we don’t get involved until the bulldozers come in, and that is often too late. We definitely have time on our side on this issue.” Mihailovich, who is also the Spokane Riverkeeper, summed up the issue for our community as follows: “We stand to gain nothing from the activity, but we have a lot to lose.”