Sierra Club Sues to Stop Stockton Rail Expansion

By Mark Edward Nero

Environmental organization the Sierra Club is suing to stop the Port of Stockton from moving forward with a $7.4 million rail expansion project that would double the port’s freight capacity. Weeks after the port’s May 4 approval of a contract, the Sierra Club has filed a lawsuit against the deal in San Joaquin County Superior Court in Central California. Earthjustice, a nonprofit law group in San Francisco, is representing the Sierra Club in the legal action.

The contract was awarded to engineering and construction company Industrial Railways to build 22,000 feet of new track - enough to allow the port to double its capacity from six bulk unit trains per week to 12.

The port says the increased capacity is needed because the port’s rail operations are so busy that they’re operating at 120 percent of capacity. The port says it saw about 97,000 rail cars in 2014, an average of more than 265 a day.

The lawsuit states that rail shipments of coal and emissions of coal dust from the open-topped freight cars could cause “impaired lung function, cardiovascular disease and developmental disorders.” The suit requests that a full state environmental review be conducted.

The port, however, has maintained that a full review isn’t required because the project consists primarily of replacing existing rail and California’s environmental rules provide exemptions for repair or maintenance of existing facilities.

The Sierra Club maintains that exemptions don’t apply in this case, since the project would add new rail lines and associated infrastructure, thereby expanding the port’s rail capacity and increasing the scale of the port’s operations.

Judge to Review Seattle Terminal Litigation

By Mark Edward Nero

A Superior Court judge on March 20 agreed to hear a case brought by environmental groups that are challenging a recently signed contract enabling Foss Maritime to lease terminal land at the Port of Seattle.

Under the terms of the lease, Foss is able to use the premises specifically as a transportation facility in which quantities of goods or container cargo are stored without undergoing any manufacturing process, transferred to other carriers or stored outdoors in order to transfer them to other locations.

But in her order granting a review of the case, Judge Mariane Spearman wrote that the permitted uses under the terms of the lease “seem to contradict the expected uses outlined in the Port of Seattle’s staff briefing memo” and that the outlined usage activities “appear to be qualitatively different” than those by Terminal 5’s previous tenant, Eagle Marine Services.

On Feb. 9, the port signed the two-year lease with Foss Maritime, giving Foss the right to short-term moorage and vessel operations along 50 acres at the port’s 156-acre Terminal 5, which is currently undergoing renovation.

On March 2 however, a coalition of five environmental groups filed a challenge against the port’s lease on the grounds that the lease would change the use of Terminal 5 by converting it into a homeport for Shell’s Arctic drilling fleet.

The lawsuit was filed by Earthjustice in King County Superior Court on behalf of Puget Soundkeeper Alliance, the Sierra Club, the Washington Environmental Council and the Seattle Audubon Society.

It is the plaintiffs’ position that the port acted illegally when it entered the lease because it relied on an exemption to bypass State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) review. The plaintiffs also said that they’re concerned about toxic runoff from vessel repairs and maintenance as well as water pollution from the vessels while at the port and during transit.

The lease, according to the plaintiffs, would allow Shell’s drill ships to be housed at the port, including one, the Noble Discoverer, which the plaintiffs claim was the subject of eight felony convictions in December 2014 and more than $12 million in fines and community service, including for discharging oil-contaminated water in violation of water pollution laws.

In her ruling, Judge Spearman ordered the plaintiffs and defendants to begin negotiations on a resolution, which she would then review.