From Stark
Whatcom Docs, a group of more than 170 local physicians concerned about potential health impacts from coal trains passing through Bellingham, has issued an open letter to local labor leaders, calling for a health impact assessment on SSA Marine’s Gateway Pacific Terminal project planned for Cherry Point.
The letter asks labor leaders to join the medical group in seeking the health study.
The letter comes in response to an earlier open letter from labor leaders, contending that health risks from the Gateway Pacific Terminal project had been exaggerated.
Labor’s letter was a response to this report on possible health risks, issued by the doctorsw.
I’m proud to see my doctor’s name on this list and am delighted the doctors are reaching out to the unions to join with them in promoting the health of our community. I hope the unions will respond positively and lobby for a Health Risk Assessment along with the EIS as the doctors have proposed.
The negative health impacts of coal are well documented. In reality, this shouldn’t even be an issue, how much negative impact is too much???
The Washington State Dept of Ecology has a standard that is supposed to apply to all industries, those standards require that industry uses BAT and BAP, Best Available Technology and Best Available Procedures. There is NO, Aim for mediocrity, involved, no such thing as, “good enough”.
We all know that what is being proposed for the Gateway Terminal is NOT the Best Available Technology or Best Available Procedures. This shouldn’t even be a matter for discussion.
Tell SSA that we want a completely closed system of moving coal, or we will CLOSE them down. That means closed rail cars, too. BAT and BAP
I should have added that we don’t want open coal piles dumped on the ground, either, where they will pollute the ground water. BAT and BAP.
It’s clear that the Whatcom Docs overreached and misrepresented the facts in their original analysis. For the unions, discounting their arguments was like fishing in a barrel. Neither I nor the Whatcom Docs (or the two mayoral candidates) want lots of coal trains going up and down the coast everyday. (By the way, there are coal trains going up and down the coast right now, enroute to BC.) But arguing that the problem is with dust from the cars is not well understood and probably ridiculous. The problem, if people are honest about this, is a mixture of things: philosophical/scientific (exporting a non-renewable to China in massive quantities so China can add to the world’s CO2 problems), financial (clearly not good for tourism or waterfront development), and the quality of life (and their property values) for those living near the rail line. No one wants to hear more trains at all hours than we’re already hearing right now. Let’s be honest about that. And making specious arguments is not going to help.
So I’m glad Whatcom Docs is trying to save face by shifting to a more inquisitive position (let’s do research) than an overly confident declarative one. Any findings might help in the scoping/commenting process. But they also might hurt, if the data is not sufficiently damning. I think other approaches to this issue, with all due respect, would be more helpful.
Halloween is just around the corner and some people would like to dress trains up as the biggest boogeyman coming or going but maybe they should really consider dressing up as a John Deere Tractor or a gravel road or maybe even a pot bellied stove, don’t ya know:
Trains rank among the lowest contributors of Emissions:
Trains only contribute 0.8% of the state total PM2.5 and only 0.3% of PM10 emissions way behind farming equipment 34%, road dust 32% and wood stoves 7%, according to Washington Department of Ecology…
AFY!!theheelotsheepdog!!!
The claim that there is coal dust from the train cars is well established in Australia, where they have put monitors all along the train route. Just because the US has set no acceptable limits and done nothing to monitor the coal dust, doesn’t mean that its’ not happening.
BAT and BAP demands that the coal cars ALL be covered, anyway. Why has the dept of ecology not required applied the same rules to coal trains that they apply to other industries?
The coal dust from the terminal remains a huge concern, which SSA refuses to address. Keep the coal dust out of the air and off the ground with a CLOSED system, or be CLOSED DOWN.
Notice that the supporters of the coal dump never address any of the real facts of the negative impact, just call others alarmists.
SSA and their union supporters seem to be counting on their political connections and favored treatment by the state dept. of ecology to push thing through. I notice that they aren’t making anymore claims about using surfactants, though.
@Ed. The Whatcom DOCs did not over-reach at all. Doctors are practitioners of the precautionary principle and their letters were more about raising concerns and then documenting why those conditions could or should be examined. Coal dust was certainly part of this, but greatly increased diesel particulates (DPM), issues relating to increased emergency response times, and noise were also addressed. Diesel emissions are slowly improving in trains and trains are more efficient than semis, but DPMs are still a function of how much work is done by the nearly 27,000 additional locomotives that will traverse our city annually by 2026. Since cargo hauled in 2002 was about 6 million metric tons and total projected with this project and existing tonnage could be somewhere around 66 million metric tons per year, the doctors are perfectly justified in raising this concern.
I’m not disagree’s with Mr. Galt’s objectives. Stop this freakin’ thing. But I’m just saying the Whatcom Docs did a bad job of making their case; they made the union’s rebuttal too easy. And they’re politically tone deaf. This isn’t Australia, as much as we might want it to be in this case. We’re locked into a process right now. We have to make a case based on the hard data and laws available to us in this country. And as I mentioned before, the coal dust argument maybe one of the least compelling arguments we could bring to the table.
Bob, with the utmost respect, if you read the report and you read the labor union’s rebuttal. the rebuttal is far more compelling. If the data ultimately proves damning (dust, diesel emissions, etc.), great. Again, though, I think there are more convincing ways to approach this. We’re all on the same side here. It’s how we win in the end.
@Ed. The rebuttal sounds convincing because its messages were likely created in a PR firm and are absolutely meant to sound convincing. This is the work of spin doctors and not real doctors. The likely candidates are Smith and Stark—SSA Marine’s PR firm—whose motto is: When business needs public agreement, Smith & Stark apply their experience and strategic thinking to creating the right solution. There is nothing in this mission about protecting our health or the public’s interest, but that is actually in our doctors’ mission.
Now as to studies from Australia and elsewhere, medical research is tough because any given condition is likely the result a whole host of ever changing environmental factors. One way these myriad factors are systematically removed from consideration is by looking at the impacts over a broad set of conditions which could include widely removed or geographically independent observations. If, for instance, coal mines in India, Idaho, and Istanbul are all associated with a specific condition consistently then you are starting to narrow down causation to something associated with coal mines rather than something local. This breadth of geography actually strengthens the argument rather than weakens it.
I would also urge you to take a close look at the wood smoke argument. If you visit the Puget Sound Clean Air Agency website you will find the following line in their Air Toxics fact sheet: In the Puget Sound area, diesel particulate matter (DPM) accounts for most of the potential cancer risk from all air toxics (see http://www.pscleanair.org/airq/basics/Air%20Toxics%20Fact%20Sheet%201-31-11.pdf). PSCAA is concerned about wood smoke, but diesel particulates are clearly worse in their minds. You will also see that the agency found that risks were higher around the ports where we also see increases in childhood asthma.
Ed Simpson – We don’t need more definitive laws and regulations because we have BAT, BAP. Just enforce it!
How much pollution and are you willing to accept? Just enough to aggravate a child’s asthma, but not enough to cause Black lung? Just enough to put a senior citizen on oxygen, but not enough to kill him? That’s the reason that the state requires that all industries to the best that they can possibly do to prevent degrading the environment.
Demand that the coal trains and the terminal use the Best Available Technology and Best Available Procedures. If SSA won’t institute a closed coal moving system, CLOSE them down.
The trains that are running through Whatcom County right now, should be covered. That would be the Best Available Procedure. Make the state apply their own regulations equally and fairly. No more favoritism and political influence.
I think that it’s about time for SSA officials to put out a statement retracting and correcting all the lies that were put out by Craig Cole. I’m really tired of having to explain to people that Ferndale will not receive any tax benefit from the coal terminal, not the library, not the schools and not the general fund. Cole told everyone that that Ferndale would benefit and even made radio ads saying it.
Where are the retractions. I want to hear the corrections on KGMI, and in public forums.
I want to hear the retractions regarding the closed coal system that was going to put zero coal into the air. I want hear a retraction on the statement that since they weren’t going to cover the coal piles, they would spray them with surfactants. Now, we’re hearing that they will spray them with water. They keep changing their lies but they never retract them.
The fact is that almost ALL the tax revenue from this terminal will go to the state general fund.
How much poison is acceptable? Do don’t taste cyanide to see if it will kill you. Why would breathing coal dust be any different?
@John Galt. As much as I appreciate your passion and vigor, coal dust is likely much less of a human health issue than diesel particulates. That is not to say that the dust will not impact certain people in certain places, but the diesel emissions with a host of particles in the one billionth of a meter size range are the most scary for the broadest range of people.
Mr. Ferris, It is clear from your comments that you do not believe that labor is capable of a cogent response to the Whatcom Docs letter. While my first reaction was to be offended, after reflection I am choosing to accept the slight as a left handed compliment.
Not bad for a knuckle dragging bus driver and a couple of hammer swingers, was it? Mark Lowry
Lowry, There is no cogent response when the argument being put forth defies same…logic, clarity and convincing argument…..but why don’t you go down to the tracks and suck it all up before it gets to the rest of us, you surely have the mouth for it…and the damage to your logic seems to have been already done..so…
But your knuckle dragging swipe, while meant to impugn intellectualism and contrast it to non-intellectualism as if it were not the domain of the hammer swinger, is actually an affront to hammer swingers and neanderthals who could, believe it or not, actually arrive at a different conclusion than your shilling diatribe from the banks of the river Denial……
@shaun. Jeezus H. At least Bob owns his position with some dignaty. Do yourself a favor and turn in for the evening. You do no credit to your position.
Bob Ferris – That may be, that the diesel particulate will impact a wider range of people, but the coal dust from the terminal site is much more controllable and while it may affect a smaller portion of the county, it will have a very large and even greater negative impact on the area around the terminal because we have the trains, as well.
If SSA refuses to control the coal dust, they shouldn’t be allowed to operate in WA State. Why not stop the source of the problem, instead of focusing on the trains? The State Dept of Ecology has regulations that require that the best known practices be followed. Open coal piles, directly on the ground, are not the best known procedures and they are not what SSA promised in their dog and pony shows.
What about the diesel particulate from heavy equipment at the terminal, as well?
The ILWU influenced their political cronies in California to shut down a coal terminal that was completely covered, so we know that it is possible.
Why not stop the coal at the terminal, so you won’t have to worry about the increase in trains?
Mr. Lowry, So Don Stark at Smith and Stark was stealing your lines in August when he made the wood smoke argument and I rebutted it? http://blogs.bellinghamherald.com/politics/politics/whatcom-docs-raise-health-concerns-about-coal-shipments/. If that is the case, I apologize and withdraw my comments regarding spin doctors.
And I never have and never will refer to you or your colleagues as knuckle-draggers. I have spent far too much time swinging a hammer and driving school buses to ever feel comfortable demeaning those activities. If I have created that impression I apologize for that as well.
Apology accepted and snarky comment withdrawn. I am the first to advance the nobility of honest labor. I owe nobody an apology for doing a blue-collar job that has real value, and to punch the clock does not mean that I am incapable of abstract thought. I know that you understand this as well. I wish that those that do not have the long view history would realize the bitter irony that we find ourselves facing. Crushing forces that are beyond our control have put us at odds with historical supporters, and have aligned us with supporters that we are not comfortable with. We did not make this bed. We just have responsibilities as husbands, mothers and fathers that don’t seem to be possible in our community without a game changer; and soon. I would love to have the luxuries of choice that many seem to assume that are available if only we had the wisdom to choose wisely. It is far from that simple.
I’s came across an interesting email;
From: Greg Stern
To: Gary Goldbaum
CC: gpt_archive; Jeffrey Hegedus; Tyler Schroeder
Date: 10/13/2011 4:35 PM
Subject: Fwd: Assessment of health impacts and the proposed Gateway Pacific Terminal project
Attachments: WCHD and the GPT Project.rtf
Gary- I am sending this in response to your phone call today requesting background on the health
issues around the transport of coal through Washington State and your county. This is information I sent to one of the Bellingham City Council members last week regarding our approach to evaluating the potential health impacts of the proposed Gateway Pacific Terminal and related coal transport.- Greg
—————————————-
Attached is an explanation I sent in July to the Whatcom County medical community in of the role of the Whatcom County Health Department in the assessment of the health impacts of the Gateway Pacific Terminal Project that has been proposed for Cherry Point in Whatcom County, and a summary of the EIS development and permitting process.
WCHD has received queries from the State Department of Health and from other county health
departments in response to a request by Whatcom Docs, a group of Whatcom physicians, for a
comprehensive Health Impact Assessment in addition to the EIS. The attached document describes the components of EIS development and review that address impacts to health that could potentially result from terminal operations and from the transport of freight to the terminal. The contractor selected to perform the environmental impact assessment will have to address the issues that will be defined by the lead agencies in the EIS scoping process.
The attached document describes the elements of the environment defined by the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) that pertain to many of the potential human health impacts that can be addressed within an assessment leading to an EIS. In addition, the CDC has been working on incorporating assessments of health impact into reviews for projects under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), which is summarized at http://www.cdc.gov/healthyplaces/NEPAfaq.htm
The proposed Gateway Pacific Terminal Project will be reviewed in a joint NEPA/SEPA process, with
Whatcom County and the Department of Ecology as SEPA co-lead agencies and the US Army Corps of Engineers the NEPA lead agency. It is my understanding that the applicant is required to pay for the environmental assessment, and for the assessment of health risks that are determined to be within the scope of the required EIS, as determined by the provisions of SEPA and NEPA. I am not aware of another mechanism that would require the applicant to pay for a Health Impact Assessment not integrated into the EIS. An HIA was performed for the SR 520 bridge replacement, but that is a state project and the legislature required the HIA and allocated funds to contract with Public Health Seattle-King County and the Puget Sound Clean Air Agency to perform the HIA. (see
http://www.kingcounty.gov/healthservices/health/ehs/~/media/health/publichealth/documents/hia/SR520HealthImpactAssessment.ashx )
Please contact me if you have questions about the project or the review process in regard to potential health impacts. If you have specific health concerns, please send them in writing so that they may be included in the public record and included in the deliberations for the scoping of the EIS. It helps to be as specific as possible with questions and concerns about potential impacts, so that they can be quantified and their significance determined.
Greg Stern, MD, Health Officer
Whatcom County Health Department
So my question is John, how will an additional Health Impact Statement as the W’doc’s are calling for, be paid for and another good question is in the opinion of Dr Greg Stern our public health officer; will the current review under the EIS with guidance from SEPA and NEPA be sufficient?
Could it be that the so-called Whatcom Doc’s current demands be more political than anything else, calling for something that is not really needed and has no funding?
AFY!!theheelotsheepdog!!!
AFY – The cost of the study was addressed the meeting a few weeks ago. Private funds will be raised to pay for it. It won’t be difficult. There are a whole lot of people with a vested interest in maintaining the health of Whatcom County.
Maybe we could get Patty Murray to include the cost of the Health Impact Study in her S.942 bill. It pays for the environmental studies on the SSA end of it. Why not on the side of the public, as well?
As far as I know if people want to raise private funds to do just about any study, there’s not a law against it.
Does DR Greg Stern our public health officer think the current EIS review with guidance from SEPA & NEPA, is sufficient to do the job without any additional Health Impact Assessment; is a good question for someone to ask, methinks!
I understand that only a few weeks ago he strongly asserted that very fact, Jack!
AFY!!theheelotsheepdog!!!
AFY, It doesn’t really matter one way or the other, if the study is privately funded. The private group can fund their own study and submit it.
It’s already obvious that SSA is far too well politically connected to leave the evaluation up to the state, not to mention the fact that the state gains all the benefits from the terminal and Whatcom County bears all the negative impacts.
Sorry JG, IMHO there is no company in or out of this state today that can just buy a permit in this state today.
IMHO if anything the permit process will lean more left than right in the state of Washington as compared to many of the other states.
Dropping a half million project into our county is hugely positive overall for our county also IMHO.
AFY!!theheelotsheepdog!!!
Sorry that’s half billion!
AFY!!theheelotsheepdog!!!
JG, gotta to go, it’s a pleasure to have a discussion with someone who may not agree with you but doesn’t end up in the gutter to make one’s argument.
Thanks,
AFY!!theheelotsheepdog!!!
AFY, the state dept of ecology only revised the ordered mitigation for the un-permitted ground work because the law suit exposed the preferential treatment that SSA received and it made the state look as though they were incapable of overseeing and evaluating the project.
Patty Murray’s husband has worked for SSA since he got out of college and an SSA employee bragged to me that Murray would make the law suit go away.
280 alleged jobs over a ten year period is nothing and that is all Whatcom County is getting from this project. Not the tax revenue, not the jobs, and all the negative impacts.
JG well I’s reckon I have more faith in our dear county/state government to be able to be fair in this issue than you, don’t ya know.
AFY!!theheelotsheepdog!!!
So down at the labor hall and up at the local rag factory taking the name of some folks’ lord in vain is considered a cogent and dignified response and pointing that out is verboten? On what planet? if not Pluto where?