ILWU Opposing Oakland Coal Exports

By Mark Edward Nero

Longshore workers and marine clerks who move cargo at the Oakland and San Francisco seaports have rejected a developer’s plan to export coal through the former Oakland Army Base.

International Longshore and Warehouse Union elected officials said Sept. 18 that coal is an “undesirable, low-value cargo” and a “broken promise” on the part of the developer, and that longshore workers stand by community members in opposition to the plan, which would potentially bring nine million tons of coal passing through their neighborhoods on trains each year.

The rank and file members of ILWU Local 10 and ILWU Local 34 were the members that voted to oppose the handling of coal at the site.

“When the developers of the project were seeking tax money and public support to develop the Oakland Army Base, they talked about exporting cargoes like grain and potash,” ILWU Local 34 President Sean Farley said. “They made a ‘no coal’ promise to workers, the community and elected officials, and they need to make good on that promise. Waterfront space is in short supply on the West Coast, and it would be a mistake to lock Oakland into a decades-long lease with a coal industry that many say is dying. Coal proposals have failed up and down the West Coast, and Oakland shouldn’t become the dumping ground for dirty, low value cargoes that no one else wants.”

After the Oakland City Council granted the California Capital and Investment Group (CCIG) the right to develop the former Army base adjacent to the Port of Oakland, CCIG planned to build the Oakland Bulk and Oversized Terminal (OBOT) on the site.

The OBOT is expected to be completed in 2017 and handle up to nine million tons of commodities a year – including 4.5 billion tons of coal – brought in by rail and loaded onto ships bound for other countries, according to the terminal’s builder and operator. The terminal’s legal representation contends that coal is one of many commodities city officials knew might be exported from the facility when they agreed to the development.

US House Passes Coal Protection Bill

HR 3409, a group of bills that could affect the status of numerous coal terminal projects in the Pacific Northwest if it becomes law, has passed the US House of Representatives on a 233-175 vote.

The five bills, informally known as the “Stop the War on Coal Act,” are sponsored by Rep. Bill Johnson (R-OH) and were approved by the House Sept. 21. They include provisions to prevent the Interior Department from instituting new coal mining regulations that could harm the industry until at least Dec. 31, 2013, plus push back EPA Clean Air Act regulations.

One lawmaker, Congressman Peter Defazio (D-OR) lobbied to have the bill amended to include a study to examine the impacts that coal dust can have as its being transported. The amendment, which was blocked by the Republican majority, would have required the US Department of Transportation and the Environmental Protection Agency to issue a report to Congress about fugitive coal dust within six months of the bill’s passage.

Opponents in Washington and Oregon claim the dust is one of the primary reasons they are trying to put the brakes on numerous proposals to import coal from inland states by train and then ship it to countries in Asia.

Among the largest coal export proposals is at the Port of Longview, where Millennium Bulk Terminals has applied for permits to build a $600 million terminal in a bid to become one of the biggest coal exporters in North America.

Several of the other larger coal export related port expansions are also now undergoing the formal permitting process, including Gateway Pacific Terminal at Cherry Point in Washington state; Kinder Morgan Terminals at St. Helen’s, Oregon; and Coyote Island Terminal at the Port of Morrow.

Now that HR 3409 has passed the House, it goes on to the Democrat-controlled Senate for a vote.

Seattle City Council Opposes Coal Export Projects

On a unanimous vote, the Seattle City Council May 29 decided to oppose the development of coal export terminals within the Pacific Northwest, saying that at least half-dozen proposals in development would cause too much environmental damage.

“This goes against what we stand for from a climate change standpoint,” councilman Mike O’Brien said regarding the proposed terminals, which would see coal brought in to coastal terminals in Washington state and Oregon via train from Wyoming and Montana, then shipped to China and other Asian countries.

Coal companies have submitted permits to build export terminals near the ports of Westward, Morrow, Bellingham and Longview, where Millennium Bulk Terminals has applied for permits to build a $600 million facility in a bid to become one of the largest coal exporters in North America.

Terminal proposals, but no formal permit requests as of yet, have also surfaced in Coos Bay and Hoquiam.

One estimate says that if all the facilities are built, they’d move at least 100 million tons of coal annually throughout the Pacific Northwest.

With the proposals, however, has come vocal opposition from environmentalists, who say coal imports would bring more air and noise pollution to the Pacific Northwest.

In response to the controversy, numerous state and regional officials and entities, including Oregon Gov. John Kitzhaber, Washington state Ecology Director Ted Sturdevant and the US Environmental Protection Agency have all called for a comprehensive study to determine the full potential cumulative environmental effects of the coal export proposals.

But despite the vocal opposition, proponents of the various projects say they’re in support partially because of the positive economic impact they could have on the surrounding communities.

Numerous terminal proponents spoke on their behalf prior to the Seattle council’s vote on the anti-coal resolution, including SSA Marine senior project manager Joe Ritzman. SSA is proposing the Gateway Pacific Terminal at Cherry Point.

Ritzman said that the projects could bring hundreds of jobs to the area as well as much needed tax revenue to local governments. Mike Elliott, chair of the Washington state legislative board of the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen was another voice speaking against the anti-coal resolution.

“We view this as an attack on our jobs,” Elliott told the council prior to the vote.

The Council was not swayed however, and Seattle became the largest city so far to formally oppose building more coal import terminals. Other municipalities that have also passed measures so far include Hood River, Oregon and three Washington cities, Camas, Marysville and Washougal.