Pollution factors don't support Chamber's enthusiasm for port

By Dana Beach

Wednesday, June 11, 2008

Upton Sinclair famously said, "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it." So it appears to be with the Charleston Chamber of Commerce and the proposed new port terminal.

The Chamber's Thom Penney and Wilbur Johnson, in their recent Post and Courier column, applaud this project as if it were the second coming for our region. Yet their commentary is riddled with factual inaccuracies and omissions which, if corrected, paint a very different and troubling picture.

On the same day the Penney/Johnson column ran, the front page headline stated, "Vehicle exhaust is biggest pollutant." The article revealed that our region is within a hair's breadth of exceeding federal air quality standards. This should be adequate cause for concern simply because of the impacts of air pollution on public health. But as the article reports, regions that violate federal air standards may also have road construction restricted, a point that should concern Chamber members whose businesses depend on a functional transportation system.

The article provided additional information on the disturbing status of air in our region but the basic point was not new. We've known for some years that the region is facing serious air pollution problems.

In March 2004, a Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) report, "Harboring Pollution: The Dirty Truth about U.S. Ports," gave the port of Charleston an "F" grade for its air quality protection effort, noting that the port "has made virtually no effort to reduce air pollution from its operations." For the second year in a row, the American Lung Association gave Charleston an "F" for particulate matter pollution. It warns, "Breathing particulate pollution can kill. It is the most dangerous, and deadly, of the widespread outdoor air pollutants." This pollutant is primarily produced by ships and trucks and is linked to a broad array of health problems including asthma, stroke, heart disease and cancer. The State Ports Authority's Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) of the proposed terminal concluded that the terminal emissions would exceed federal standards for particulate matter standards by approximately 30 percent.

Penney and Johnson brush this threat off by stating that the port will begin to use low-sulfur diesel fuel in their yard equipment this fall, reducing air emissions from these sources by 10 percent. What they fail to mention is that only 10 percent of port-related pollution comes from yard equipment. The remaining 90 percent is produced by ships and trucks approaching and leaving the terminals. Consequently, low-sulfur fuels in port equipment will reduce the port's regional pollution load by only 1 percent.

Thompson and Penney state that the Ports Authority "has the means to finance construction without public subsidy of the new marine terminal." Here again, the complete story is helpful. First, unlike private businesses operating in the region, the SPA does not pay one dime of property taxes, thus removing the most valuable property in the state from local tax rolls. This is a huge public subsidy.

The Chamber will undoubtedly respond that this is appropriate because the port supports other jobs in the state. But the same is true for the private warehouses, the trucking companies, and other private operators involved with shipping. For that matter, it is true for Mr. Johnson's law firm and Mr. Penney's architectural firm. All of these businesses pay substantial property taxes. Not to do so does indeed constitutes a public subsidy.

Second, as the authors state, the General Assembly has already appropriated $182.5 million for a terminal access road. The cost will exceed $300 million. Beyond that, the EIS states that the terminal will require adding two more lanes on I-26 from the access road to I-526. This project will cost more than $300 million. This brings total public subsidies to more than $600 million, not including the very real and substantial health and traffic congestion costs.

At no point in the article did the authors mention the lack of rail service to the new terminal. Yet rail is the only solution for intolerable levels of congestion on I-26. It may also substantially reduce the amount of air pollution from the terminal. Further, because virtually all new terminals being built world-wide have rail access, the lack of rail at the Navy Base also represents a competitive disadvantage for the port. In spite of that, the SPA has consistently ignored or denied the importance of rail. The ill effects of that mistake are now evident in the gridlock and declining air quality in the region.

Thompson and Penney assert that the SPA is "committed to … port facilities that are as environmentally sound as possible." Yet a 2008 survey of the 10 largest container ports in the nation by James Cannon of Energy Futures, Inc. presents a different picture. Cannon writes, "Charleston is the only port among the top ten U.S. container ports not to grant Energy Futures an interview during the researching of this report. It is also the only port that does not list a director of environmental protection among its port personnel." None of this remotely indicates a sincere commitment to protecting environmental and human health.

The Chamber should move beyond the stage of blindly defending a poorly conceived, unnecessarily expensive, and health-threatening project and honestly discuss the very serious issues that face this region. Our salaries, health, and quality of life depend on it.

Dana Beach is the executive director of the Coastal Conservation League.