|
|
| (18 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| == Coal Kills Baltimore == | | == East Coast == |
| Baltimore, Maryland has the second largest national coal exports, with over 7 million tons exported annually<ref name=":0">https://www.eia.gov/coal/production/quarterly/pdf/t13p01p1.pdf</ref>. This is only second to Norfolk, Virginia which exports over 9 million tons annually. Baltimore’s coal export industry faces differing degrees of welcomeness by city officials and residents. On one hand, coal is viewed as “an important commodity to the port”. However, environmental activists and health-conscious community members see the ports’ expansion as a source of unjust pollution to the south Baltimore community.<ref>https://thedailyrecord.com/2017/08/14/coal-exports-a-boon-for-port-of-baltimore/</ref>
| |
|
| |
|
| === Community Testimonies === | | === Baltimore, Maryland === |
| Many of the Baltimore residents that face a higher risk of coal exposure are the people who live and work near the location of the terminals and railroads (CSX and Norfolk Southern). Several oral histories and interviews have documented Baltimore resident’s personal experiences with the terminals and the CSX railroad specifically. One resident who lives less than a block from the CSX coal facility recounts seeing coal dust “[fly] off the tops of their cars” when leaving the port. She testifies that coal dust and soot has coated her home interior completely, from her furniture to her window seals, even turning her white rug completely black in just under four years.<ref>https://earthjustice.org/article/costs-of-coal-exports-part-iii-margaret-fox-of-maryland</ref> Another Baltimore who lives and directs a community garden just blocks from the CSX coal export recalls watching large swaths of dust blow off uncovered coal dust piles that are the size of a football field.<ref>https://earthjustice.org/article/costs-of-coal-exports-part-iv-jason-reed-of-maryland</ref> Both testimonies allude to these coal terminals being the main contributor to the unusually large concentration of respiratory illness within communities closest to the terminal.
| | Baltimore, Maryland has the second largest national coal exports, with over 7 million tons exported annually (only second to Norfolk, Virginia's 9 million). Like in Hampton Roads, people living near the coal terminals in Baltimore's Curtis Bay have higher rates of asthma compared to other areas. An explosion in 2021 at the facility brought increased attention to the issue. In July 2025, a John Hopkins study linked high instances of dust pollution to times when the wind is blowing across the terminal, or when bulldozers are active on the site. About a week later, the state of Maryland issued the terminal, which is owned by CSX, a new operating permit that required the operators to build a wind fence around the terminal to mitigate the coal dust. |
|
| |
|
| === 2021 Explosion ===
| | ''Read more about the activism in Baltimore at: [[Baltimore, MD]]'' |
|
| |
|
| ==== '''([https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sJVrWtOSCcE Explosion at CSX facility in Curtis Bay shakes residents, workers nearby])''' ==== | | === Roda, Virginia === |
| On December 30, 2021, an explosion at the CSX coal terminal heightened existing concerns about coal exports in Baltimore, especially for Curtis Bay residents. For years, residents have expressed their concerns about risks to public health and safety that the coal air pollution poses. Many remarks harp on the consistent stench of coal and the constant dust film that covers cars, kiddy pools, and barbeque grills. These frustrations and concerns came to a head when a supposed “propane tank explosion at the CSX Coal Pier in Curtis Bay” frightened residents with a loud “boom”, accompanied by many shattered windows.<ref>https://www.baltimorebrew.com/2021/12/30/long-before-todays-explosion-curtis-bay-residents-complained-about-black-grit-from-the-csx-coal-terminal/</ref> Though no injuries were reported, several residents and community organizations took this opportunity to call for the removal of the CSX coal facility, citing long-held concerns about air quality., respiratory health, and the overwhelming number of similar pollutant industries located in Baltimore.<ref>https://www.trains.com/trn/news-reviews/news-wire/baltimore-councilwoman-calls-for-csx-coal-facility-to-be-shut-down/?fbclid=IwAR13-kPtR434SmWfBRCjp9WAPsRvUivDusOVvnW60Qrz_HUPyuEFVqpxr8c</ref>
| | Roda, Virginia is a small town surrounded on three sides by nine mountaintop removal coal mines, and subject to heavy coal traffic. A [[:File:1-s2.0-S1352231012001781-main.pdf|study by North Carolina State University for the Southern Appalachian Mountain Stewards and the Sierra Club]] found that the community of Roda contends with exposure to particulate matter containing coal dust at levels far above what is considered safe. In 2009, the Virginia Air Pollution Control Board heard this report, and voted unanimously to take steps to deal with coal dust in Roda.<ref name=":0">[https://web.archive.org/web/20250731023638/https://www.blueridgeoutdoors.com/newswire/black-dust/ Harlan, W. Black Dust. ''Blue Ridge Outdoors.'' May 22, 2009.] </ref> <ref>[https://voicesinthedust.org/File:Climate_of_Capitulation-_Roda_Coal,_Dust_and_Inequality_Vivian_E._Thomson.pdf Thomson, V. Climate of Capitulation. 3 Roda: Coal, Dust, and Inequality. 2017.]</ref> |
|
| |
|
| Despite receiving more than $60 million for upgrades between 2017 and 2022, the CSX Curtis Bay facility admitted “inadequate ventilation” and a lack of methane monitoring led to the explosion. As CSX sought ways to improve on their safety measures and mend community relations, the only tangible changes that occurred was a one month shutdown of the facility and a $120,000 OSHA fine<ref name=":1">https://www.wypr.org/wypr-news/2022-12-30/one-year-later-a-south-baltimore-communitys-quest-for-no-more-coal</ref>— a seemingly mild slap on the wrist, considering the cost of community health and safety.
| | == West Coast == |
|
| |
|
| Maryland state officials have failed to address the concerns of the Baltimore community. After the explosion, when asked if dangerous fumes or particulates were emitted, the Maryland Dept. of the Environment announced that they would allow the railroad companies to track and monitor emissions.<ref name=":1" /> Residents appear to be struggling for autonomy when it comes to the economic pursuits of their community, as the neighborhood is also home to a medical waste incinerator, a rendering plant, various chemical factories, and a sewage treatment plant, and the Quarantine Road Landfill.<ref name=":1" />
| | === Oakland, California === |
| | In the early 2010s, developers planned to redevelop the Oakland Army Base as the Oakland Bulk & Oversized Terminal (OBOT). Though the new terminal initially promised to only transport low dust cargo, it emerged that the terminal had quietly agreed to ship millions of tons of coal per year. At first, the City of Oakland tried to prevent the coal by passing an ordinance and resolution banning coal handling at the proposed terminal. However, OBOT sued and won in federal district court. Later, the City tried to terminate OBOT's lease, and OBOT again sued and won, this time in Alameda County Superior Court. Despite these blows to the movement, activists have not given up and continue to be vocal in their opposition to the coal. |
|
| |
|
| === The Investigation ===
| | ''Read more about No Coal in Oakland and anti-coal activism in Oakland at: [[Oakland, CA]]'' |
| In July 2022, the results following the investigation into the CSX facility explosion, entitled ''Curtis Bay Piers Coal Facility Explosion Investigation: Cause & Origin Evaluation''<ref name=":2">https://environmentalintegrity.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/Curtis-Bay-Coal-Terminal-Explosion-Investigation-by-GHD-Group.pdf</ref>, was published. GHD, an environmental and business consulting company, surveyed the Curtis Bay neighborhood and found residual coal dust deposits up to 12 blocks west of the facility. These findings coincide with likely location of coal traveling through the facilities escape tunnel and open feeder holes, especially when aided by the wind. GHD also conducted coal dust samples from the facilities conveyor belts to understand where combustion may have begun. They found that entrained methane from the coal was the source of the initial combustion in a localized flammable atmosphere, and subsequent combustions were fueled by an increased density of airborne coal dust located within the facility's North Reclaim Tunnel. This localized flammable atmosphere, in which the explosion began, was aided by significantly low rates of ventilation. Adequate ventilation allows for the coal to efficiently dissipate and disperse from the internal tunnel, and with a reduced rate of dispersal, methane can build to dangerous levels. Reflective of the investigation, CSX applied GHD's investigative finding into their redesign of the North Reclaim Tunnel, which included "monitoring devices, higher air flow, additional water sprays, skirting of conveyors, grounding of equipment and installation of electrical fixtures to meet appropriate electrical codes."<ref name=":2" />
| |
|
| |
|
| === Activism === | | === Richmond, California === |
| Though CSX boasts about “setting new standards in environmental stewardship”<ref name=":1" /> with a $60 million investment into Curtis Bay, the community has yet to be convinced of the statements authenticity. Invested environmental activists and long-time Curtis Bay residents have long opposed the establishment of CSX. Principally, activists are angry with CSX at failing to keep coal dust from becoming airborne as it travels from the Virginia Appalachian region by train. The only existing measure of containing the coal consist of spraying coal dust mountains with water to keep them in place. The short-term vision of the Curtis Bay community is demanding CSX pay for the environmental damages it has inflicted, including providing medical relief funds to ease the unyielding burden of the less than 3,000 residents. As for their long-term goals, community activists want CSX to discontinue exporting coal altogether and shift to cleaner energy sources. In 2022, citizens of Curtis Bay filed a $5 million class-action lawsuit against CSX following the explosion. Greg Sawtell, one co-president of the [https://ilovecurtisbay.com/ Community of Curtis Bay Association,] expressed his support for the lawsuit saying, “It’s a breaking point. If you don’t step up and respond when a facility of that size literally blows up in your backyard and threatens your life, I don’t think we can say we have a community, and the concern is we won’t have a community if we don’t take a stand right now.”<ref>https://thedailyrecord.com/2022/10/19/curtis-bay-residents-file-5m-lawsuit-propose-class-action-over-csx-coal-facility-explosion/</ref> Notable community action groups include the [https://ilovecurtisbay.com/ Community of Curtis Bay Association], the [https://www.sbclt.org/ Southern Baltimore Community Land Trust], Free Your Voice
| | As in Hampton Roads, the terminals in Richmond are very close to residential areas, causing chronic health issues. After years of community organizing, in 2020, the city of Richmond passed an [[:File:ORDINANCE NO. 05-20 N.S.pdf|ordinance]] phasing out the handling of coal and petcoke in the city over three years. After the ensuing legal battle with the three fossil fuel companies, the City of Richmond and the Levin-Richmond Terminal Corporation reached a settlement to phase out the handing of coal and pet-coke by 2026. Included in the [[:File:Richmond Settlement Agreement and Exhibits-all signatures.pdf|settlement]] are new mitigation measures to contain some of the coal dust at the Levin Terminal. Open transport systems will be enclosed, wind fences will be erected, and a total of 140 new misting dust-suppressors will be installed. These measures are intended to protect local residents from fugitive dust emissions until coal and petcoke are phased out in 2026. <ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20250731025916/https://earthjustice.org/press/2021/richmond-city-council-and-levin-terminal-reach-monumental-settlement-to-phase-out-handling-of-coal-and-petcoke Richmond City Council and Levin Terminal Reach Monumental Settlement to Phase Out Handling of Coal and Petcoke in the City By 2026. ''EarthJustice.org.'' November 12, 2021.] </ref><ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20250731030041/https://nocoalinoakland.info/richmond-coal-exports-to-end-by-2026-ej-advocates-celebrate-agreement/ Richmond coal exports to end by 2026; EJ advocates celebrate agreement. ''No Coal In Oakland.'' November 18, 2021.] </ref> |
|
| |
|
| === Solutions === | | == Midwest == |
| Among the many cries of outrage, residents have produced many suggestions to the city for improving the issue of pollution. For instance, directly after the explosion, the Sierra Club and the Chesapeake Climate Action Network (CCAN) called upon the Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE) to require CSX to monitor coal-related pollutants and make this information accessible to the public. They also called upon MDE to set “appropriate pollution limits” to protect the health and safety of Curtis Bay residents. According to Diana Dascalu-Joffe, who is the Senior General Counsel at CCAN, the necessary pollution limits would need to "set the strictest standards possible"<ref>https://www.sierraclub.org/maryland/blog/2013/06/curtis-bay-residents-call-stronger-pollution-control-csx-coal-export-facility</ref> in order to seriously address the "industrial pollution burden" forced upon Curtis Bay residents for over a century. Some of the strictest national standards possible include: "Enforceable limits on emissions, full enclosure of the terminal to reduce dust from entering the community, and per ton mitigation fees to be paid to neighboring communities to address the negative impacts of having 14 million tons of coal per year transferred through South Baltimore communities."<ref>https://ilovecurtisbay.com/2023/08/17/curtis-bay-calls-upon-gov-moore-and-mde-to-deny-csx-operating-permit-renewal-application-declare-just-transition-from-coal/</ref>
| | [[:File:Storage Control of Emissions from Handling and Storing Bulk Materials January 2019.pdf|Control of Emissions from Handling and Storing Bulk Materials. City of Chicago. January 25, 2019.]] |
|
| |
|
| == No Coal in Oakland == | | === Oak Creek, Wisconsin === |
| [coming soon]
| | Oak Creek |
|
| |
|
| Oakland Bulk & Oversized Terminal, LLC, vs. City of Oakland (Case No. 16-CV-7014)
| |
|
| |
| == No Coal in Richmond ==
| |
| [coming soon]
| |
|
| |
| https://nocoalinoakland.info/richmond-coal-exports-to-end-by-2026-ej-advocates-celebrate-agreement/
| |
|
| |
| https://earthjustice.org/press/2021/richmond-city-council-and-levin-terminal-reach-monumental-settlement-to-phase-out-handling-of-coal-and-petcoke
| |
|
| |
| == Oak Creek ==
| |
| [see 'Wind Fence' doc] | | [see 'Wind Fence' doc] |
|
| |
|
| Line 46: |
Line 35: |
| https://racinecountyeye.com/2019/09/25/public-notice-on-we-energies-oak-creek-plant-effective-october-2019/ | | https://racinecountyeye.com/2019/09/25/public-notice-on-we-energies-oak-creek-plant-effective-october-2019/ |
|
| |
|
| == Roda, Virginia ==
| | [[:File:WE Energies Neighborhood Letter 2.4.19 FINAL Oak Creek WI.pdf|We Energies. February 5, 2019.]] |
| | |
| [coming soon]
| |
| == Documents ==
| |
| [upload CSX GHD investigation here!]
| |
|
| |
|
| '''No Coal in Oakland'''
| | == Beyond the United States == |
|
| |
|
| [[:File:Gray modeling report v2.pdf|Gray, H. Modeling PM Air Quality Impacts of the Proposed OBOT Facility. October 6, 2017.]] | | * [[:File:Central Queensland Coal Network.pdf|Coal Dust Management Plan, QR Network. February 22, 2010.]] |
|
| |
|
| == References == | | == References == |
East Coast
Baltimore, Maryland
Baltimore, Maryland has the second largest national coal exports, with over 7 million tons exported annually (only second to Norfolk, Virginia's 9 million). Like in Hampton Roads, people living near the coal terminals in Baltimore's Curtis Bay have higher rates of asthma compared to other areas. An explosion in 2021 at the facility brought increased attention to the issue. In July 2025, a John Hopkins study linked high instances of dust pollution to times when the wind is blowing across the terminal, or when bulldozers are active on the site. About a week later, the state of Maryland issued the terminal, which is owned by CSX, a new operating permit that required the operators to build a wind fence around the terminal to mitigate the coal dust.
Read more about the activism in Baltimore at: Baltimore, MD
Roda, Virginia
Roda, Virginia is a small town surrounded on three sides by nine mountaintop removal coal mines, and subject to heavy coal traffic. A study by North Carolina State University for the Southern Appalachian Mountain Stewards and the Sierra Club found that the community of Roda contends with exposure to particulate matter containing coal dust at levels far above what is considered safe. In 2009, the Virginia Air Pollution Control Board heard this report, and voted unanimously to take steps to deal with coal dust in Roda.[1] [2]
West Coast
Oakland, California
In the early 2010s, developers planned to redevelop the Oakland Army Base as the Oakland Bulk & Oversized Terminal (OBOT). Though the new terminal initially promised to only transport low dust cargo, it emerged that the terminal had quietly agreed to ship millions of tons of coal per year. At first, the City of Oakland tried to prevent the coal by passing an ordinance and resolution banning coal handling at the proposed terminal. However, OBOT sued and won in federal district court. Later, the City tried to terminate OBOT's lease, and OBOT again sued and won, this time in Alameda County Superior Court. Despite these blows to the movement, activists have not given up and continue to be vocal in their opposition to the coal.
Read more about No Coal in Oakland and anti-coal activism in Oakland at: Oakland, CA
Richmond, California
As in Hampton Roads, the terminals in Richmond are very close to residential areas, causing chronic health issues. After years of community organizing, in 2020, the city of Richmond passed an ordinance phasing out the handling of coal and petcoke in the city over three years. After the ensuing legal battle with the three fossil fuel companies, the City of Richmond and the Levin-Richmond Terminal Corporation reached a settlement to phase out the handing of coal and pet-coke by 2026. Included in the settlement are new mitigation measures to contain some of the coal dust at the Levin Terminal. Open transport systems will be enclosed, wind fences will be erected, and a total of 140 new misting dust-suppressors will be installed. These measures are intended to protect local residents from fugitive dust emissions until coal and petcoke are phased out in 2026. [3][4]
Midwest
Control of Emissions from Handling and Storing Bulk Materials. City of Chicago. January 25, 2019.
Oak Creek, Wisconsin
Oak Creek
[see 'Wind Fence' doc]
https://www.jsonline.com/story/communities/south/news/oak-creek/2019/02/13/we-energies-build-large-windscreen-combat-coal-dust-oak-creek/2856580002/
https://racinecountyeye.com/2020/01/24/oak-creek-neighbors-renew-coal-dust-concerns-after-fence-falls/
https://www.sierraclub.org/press-releases/2018/01/clean-power-coalition-demands-better-air-monitoring-we-energies
https://racinecountyeye.com/2019/09/25/public-notice-on-we-energies-oak-creek-plant-effective-october-2019/
We Energies. February 5, 2019.
Beyond the United States
References