From Stark
BELLINGHAM – Whatcom County has selected environmental consulting company CH2M Hill to play a key role in the preparation of an environmental impact statement to evaluate the Gateway Pacific Terminal coal and bulk cargo pier proposed at Cherry Point.
The environmental impact statement is a critical part of the governmental review process for the terminal. In preparing the statement, the consulting company will work with government agencies to help determine the likely economic and environmental side effects from the terminal, and what its owner, SSA Marine of Seattle, should be required to do to avoid them.
Whatcom County, the Washington Department of Ecology, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers are cooperating to oversee the environmental review process for the proposed terminal and the BNSF Railway Co. projects that will be required to get trains bearing coal and other cargoes to the site.
BNSF officials say they can handle the load by doubling the six-mile railroad line that extends west from the main line at Custer to the existing industries at Cherry Point. The new SSA pier is proposed for a site between the BP Cherry Point refinery and Alcoa Intalco Works aluminum smelter.
But environmental organizations, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and many residents of Bellingham have argued that the environmental review process should also study the environmental, health and traffic impacts of increased rail traffic through communities along the rail lines that link Cherry Point to Powder River Basin coal mines.
That issue will be hotly debated during the preliminary “scoping” phase of the environmental study process, which is expected to begin in summer 2012. The public, along with other government agencies and Indian tribes, will be asked to give their views on this and other environmental impacts that they believe should be included in the environmental impact statement process.
After that input is received in writing and via public hearings, Whatcom County, the Department of Ecology and the Army Corps of Engineers will decide the matter and the environmental impact research process will get under way in earnest. That process is expected to take well over a year.
Whatcom County Council will be asked to approve the contract with CH2M Hill during a June 5, 2012, council meeting. The cost of the contract has not yet been spelled out, but that cost will be borne by SSA and perhaps the railroad, not by Whatcom County or other taxpayer-supported governmental agencies, according to a press release from the Washington Department of Ecology.
Ain’t that amazing, And VECO Bill Allen cleaned up the Exxon Valdez too?
For sale by owner…Just Like Alaska, by a couple Texan’s Judges.
CH2M, @ 2 Many Meetings!
Joe Hazlewood meets VECO Bill…Bill meets Ted…CH2M another Gay Marrage to VECO…and now for the 311 Grand Illusion Hour…meet Pete Kremen, a local Taco Time Favorite…have we got another clean up for you!
Environmental Review? It’s science BAC .2!
CH2MHill is also the favored contractor of the state and county government for such projects. That could be a problem, but they are probably the most qualified contractor in the state for to evaluate a project like this.
The longer the environmental impact studies take, the likelier the terminal will not be needed. For example, news released today indicate India’s economic growth dropped to 5.3% for the first three months of 2012, compared to 9.2% a year earlier. China is trying for a soft landing because of its lowered growth forecasts. The price of oil is down to $86.48 per barrel (today’s WTI price), a $20/barrel drop in a month’s time. Clearly, we are headed for another round of recession and it is likely this “restructuring” will be more dire than in 2008-2009. Of course, this has been predicted for some time.
In a recession/depression coupled with high fuel prices (the most likely scenario), there will be little incentive for China to buy US coal at present prices. Their hope is that once the terminal is built the US will be forced to sell coal at lower prices in order to generate cash to buy more ticky-tacky items from Chinese manufacturers.
The best solution is still to leave the coal in the ground. Even from a business perspective that discounts the environmental costs, it would be better to wait on China’s desperation after they have used up all the coal they can get from Australia.
Walter – I have been thinking like you, that time is on our side with this project and against the sale of the coal to China, partially because the weak dollar is bound to recover, but there are other signs that the pro-coal interests are way ahead of us.
There was an article in the WSJ about mining companies shutting down coal operations in Australia due to low profitability, companies like, Rio Tinto, BHP and Xstrata. The reasons given was the high cost of doing business and a stronger Australian dollar ($1.03 US) and coming environmental taxes. The cost of producing a ton of coal in Australia has gone from $31.60 in 2006 – $71.50 this year, while the price of ton of coal is declining to below $100/ton for the first time in a year and a half.
On the other hand, the federal government is charging $1.11 per ton for coal from leases in the Powder River Basin. Of course that doesn’t include the costs of bringing it out of the ground, but, as you can see, the government makes PRB coal a real bargain. Add in the newly renewed IMF loans and the US is practically giving the coal away for free.
A cardinal rule of oversight studies like this one is that the party paying the bill gets first priority in the findings.
So this review will likely be canted towards any mitigation side that will allow the proposal to go ahead
no matter what the impacts are.
Rubie – Considering that the oversight of the coal dust has been delegated to the EPA, which refuses to even measure coal dust, there is little hope that there will be any mitigation required at all. That is the reason that we need the BAP, BAT standards, it’s the only way to do an end around on the lax federal oversight.
Watch for the off site mitigation in lieu of payment to Whatcom county, administered by the Puget Sound Partnership that was reported last December.
My prediction is that the determination will be that it is impossible to estimate the amount of environmental damage from the coal terminal because there are no standards or measured pollution in terms of coal dust in the air to fall back on and that the PSP will be delegated as the governing authority to watch over and assess mitigation fees from SSA. PSP will also be granted control of how the funds will be used because any mitigation on site, will be deemed useless.
This is what will happen unless we insist on BAP, BAT standards. It’s a done deal.
SJ says:
First, I know that CH2M Hill is a reputable firm and local to our area, BUT the fact that John Lovenburg was a VP and Director at CH2M Hill until September 2011 and then was hired as VP Environmental at BNSF in October 2011 and is currently working for BNSF seems to be a large potential conflict of interest. Or at least does not inspire confidence that CH2M Hill will do everything in their power to remain objective even when they promise to do so. I believe that CH2M Hill should not be selected to do the EIS for the proposed GPT because of this potential conflict of interest. The county should pick a firm that has no ties past or present to any of the applicants, SSA and BNSF on this project.