Opinion ID: 4536539
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Public Input

Text: After it became clear in April 2015 that the terminal was going to be devoted to the storage, handling and loading of coal, the City announced a public hearing, the first step in a nearly year-long public process to assess the health and safety consequences of handling and storing coal at the terminal. Before the September 21, 2015, public hearing, OBOT submitted to the City a “Basis of Design” describing the basic framework for the terminal, and submitted a report by HDR Engineering claiming that coal dust pollution from coal-filled rail cars and terminal operations would be “negligible.” Intervenors submitted expert reports prepared by Dr. Phyllis Fox and Sustainable Systems Research, LLC. OBOT V. CITY OF OAKLAND 39 The Fox report identified flaws in the HDR report proffered by OBOT and concluded that the terminal would cause adverse health and environmental impacts. The Sustainable Systems Research report estimated potential air emissions from coal-filled rail cars waiting to be unloaded, finding they would emit hundreds of tons of coal dust annually. Nearly 600 people requested to speak at the hearing. Many, including prominent health and air pollution experts, testified that a coal terminal would endanger nearby residents of West Oakland. Dr. Muntu Davis, Public Health Director of Alameda County, testified that West Oakland already “had lots of sources of pollution” and that the residents there had “poor health outcomes” and existing “issues with air quality.” Likewise, Dr. Bart Ostro, former chief of the air pollution epidemiology section for the California EPA and author of over 100 peer-reviewed studies on the health effects of air pollution, foresaw “significant increases in coal dust” and stated that those increases would “affect the public health of the people of Oakland.” A local dockworker—formerly a nurse— explained that she stopped accepting coal trans-loading jobs at the Port of Stockton because of the negative impacts of coal dust on her health. At the hearing’s conclusion, the City Council voted unanimously to solicit additional public comments, requested more evidence from stakeholders, and instructed City staff to review and summarize the evidence submitted. City staff subsequently sent follow-up questions to interested parties and, in October 2015, received responses from OBOT, labor organizations, environmental groups including Intervenors, the Alameda County Public Health Department, the Bay Area Quality Management District, the U.S. EPA, and the East Bay Regional Park District. 40 OBOT V. CITY OF OAKLAND In early 2016, the City negotiated a contract with the consulting firm Environmental Science Associates (“ESA”) to analyze the health and safety impacts of storing and handling coal in West Oakland. The City Council approved the ESA contract on May 3, 2016. ESA issued its report on June 23, 2016. Contemporaneous with the City Council retaining ESA, Councilmember Dan Kalb commissioned Dr. Zoë Chafe, Ph.D., MPH, to analyze and summarize findings on the potential health impacts and safety risks posed by OBOT’s proposed terminal. Dr. Chafe issued her report on June 22, 2016. The City accepted additional comments in June 2016, including a detailed report by the Public Health Advisory Panel, a coalition of prominent Bay Area physicians and public health experts. Fifteen other physicians, scientists, and public health professionals endorsed the Panel report. The Director of the Alameda County Public Health Department also concurred with the Panel’s conclusions.