West Coast coal terminal drawing Montana comments
Opponents and supporters of coal exporting speak out
A proposed bulk coal exporting terminal in Washington state has drawn comments from opponents and supporters in Montana as concerns are raised about potential impacts by trains hauling the coal from Montana to the seaport.
The deadline for commenting on the proposed Millennium Bulk Terminal at Longview, Wash., was Nov. 18. According to the Northern Plains Resource Council, hundreds of comments were submitted by Montanans to the Army Corps of Engineers. Across the Pacific Northwest, more than 150,000 comments have been submitted in opposition to the proposed terminal, according to NPRC.
Issues addressed by the comments include health risks from increased diesel fumes, coal dust and noise; traffic delays caused by long trains, especially to emergency responders; costs to taxpayers of infrastructure projects needed to address increased train traffic; decreased property values along railway tracks; and various air and pollution concerns.
Arch Coal is the company proposing construction of a bulk terminal at Longview. It’s also the company that holds leases on the state-owned Otter Creek coal tracts in southeastern Montana and the proposed Tongue River railroad to access the coal tracts.
The Washington State Department of Ecology earlier this year announced it would include comments from Montanans in an environmental impact statement for a proposed bulk coal shipping terminal at Cherry Point, on Puget Sound north of Seattle.
Montana Attorney General Tim Fox joined North Dakota Attorney General Wayne Stenehjem on Nov. 20 in issuing a joint comment asking regulators in Washington state to follow the law.
“As one of the most trade-dependent states in the nation, Washington knows full well the importance of access to global markets,” Fox said in a press release. “Montana is simply asking that Washington regulators follow established law in conducting their reviews.”
In their joint comment, Fox and Stenehjem expressed concerns about the Washington state EIS burdening or preventing interstate commerce in violation of the commerce clause in the U.S. Constitution; pre-empting Congress’ exclusive prerogative to regulate in the area of extraterritorial regulation of air pollutants; usurping federal prerogatives with respect to international commerce and foreign policy; including speculative and indirect impacts; and requiring impossible assessments of foreign environmental impacts. They also expressed concern that the Washington state EIS “appears to have been designed to hinder development of any coal export terminals.”
“Access to overseas markets is vital to Montana’s economy,” Fox said. “In addition to providing 1,300 direct jobs currently, coal mining provides a significant number of indirect jobs, generates tens of millions of dollars for Montana’s schools and local governments every year, and helps provide Montana state government with regular budget surpluses. Increased access to overseas markets will mean more family-wage jobs for Montanans, more money for Montana schools and a greater likelihood of future state budget surpluses.”