Reso. No. _____
RESOLUTION NO. ______
RESOLUTION BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RICHMOND OPPOSING
FACILITIES THAT ENGAGE IN HANDLING AND STORAGE OF COAL AND PETCOKE IN
THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY REGION AND URGING STRINGENT REGULATION OF SUCH
FACILITIES BY THE BAY AREA AIR DISTRICT
WHEREAS, the City of Richmond in the past has expressed its concern over coal and related fossil fuels. In 2015, a City Council resolution opposed the transport and export of coal and petroleum coke. The Council declared its concern over the emissions of coal dust during the transportation of coal. It noted that the transportation of coal in open cars and the accumulation of coal on or near rail lines have been known to create public safety hazards:1 and
WHEREAS, the Council also noted that increased rail traffic in California from coal can lead to an increase in diesel emissions in communities along rail lines.
Other nearby jurisdictions have shared these concerns. For example, the City of Oakland has actively opposed the transport of fossil fuels by rail; and
WHEREAS, the City of Richmond has also taken action regarding the storage of coal and petcoke at the Levin-Richmond Terminal. The city passed an ordinance requiring the phase out of the handling of coal and petcoke over a three-year period. The ordinance responded to complaints by many residents about the harmful effects of coal and petcoke dust on them.
Ultimately, the city reached an agreement with the Terminal’s owners that required the implementation of dust-control measures and the phasing out of coal and petcoke by the end of 2026; and
WHEREAS, emissions of coal dust can occur when products are handled and stored at bulk transfer facilities. Coal handling has been shown to significantly increase ambient fine particulate matter (PM2.5) and coarse particulate matter (PM10). These emissions can arise from operations such as the loading and unloading of cars, and the transfer of material between unloading, storage, and loading. Another source of emissions is the storage of materials in piles or silos, particularly in high wind conditions; and
WHEREAS, the health effects of PM2.5 are well-documented. According to the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, small particle pollution can affect both human health and the heart. Numerous studies have linked particle pollution to premature deaths, nonfatal heart attacks, irregular heartbeats, aggravated asthma, decreased lung function, and increased respiratory symptoms, such as irritation of the airways, coughing or difficulty breathing;2 and
WHEREAS, inhaling fine coal dust has been directly linked to increased asthma rates, chronic bronchitis, emphysema, and reduced lung capacity. Adverse health effects can range from minor respiratory symptoms or work loss to severe consequences including asthma and heart attacks, adverse birth outcomes, emergency room visits and hospitalizations, and neurological and cognitive impacts;3 and
WHEREAS, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency concluded that “[s]ignificant quantities of fugitive dust from pet coke storage and handling operations present a health risk.” The agency expressed particular concern about particles that are 10 micrometers in diameter or smaller (PM10) because those particles generally pass through the throat and nose and enter the lungs;4 and
WHEREAS, dust from coal and petcoke can contain toxic heavy metals including arsenic, lead, and chromium. These toxic materials can have significant adverse health effects; and
1 City of Richmond Resolution No. 48-15.
2 https://www.epa.gov/pm-pollution/health-and-environmental-effects-particulate-matter-pm 3 See, e.g., Hendryx, M., Zullig, K. J., & Luo, J. (2020). Impacts of coal use on health. Annual Review of Public Health, 41(1), 397–415. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-publhealth-040119-094104 (linking coal dust exposure to a wide spectrum of health issues, including cardiovascular diseases, respiratory illnesses, and birth defects) 4 https://19january2017snapshot.epa.gov/petroleum-coke-chicago/health-effects-petroleum-coke_.html
Reso. No. _____
WHEREAS, dust from coal and petcoke can have significant impacts on fish and wildlife and on water quality in nearby public trust waterbodies such as San Francisco Bay. The transit routes for uncovered coal trains run immediately alongside the San Francisco Bay, its estuary system, and its key tributaries, presenting an immediate threat of toxic deposition into navigable waters.
Such deposition would directly undermine regional investments in water quality and habitat restoration; and
WHEREAS, proponents have proposed the approval of a facility, known as the Oakland Bulk and Oversized Terminal (OBOT), at a location on the former Oakland Army Base. The proponents have indicated that the terminal will receive shipments of coal on rail lines, store the coal, and then transfer the coal onto ships for transport; and
WHEREAS, the residents of Richmond stand in solidarity with the residents of Oakland in their opposition to the handling and storage of coal and petcoke, given the well-documented adverse health effects from these activities;5 and
WHEREAS, proponents of the proposed OBOT facility have emphasized OBOT’s “commitment toward unparalleled environmental responsibility” at the terminal. They have promised that their “preeminent concern regarding the acceptance and handling of all commodities is the mitigation and elimination of fugitive dust such that the ambient air would actually improve” as a result of the project;6 and
WHEREAS, the Bay Area Air District (the Air District) has indicated that it will consider additional controls on sources of fugitive coal and petcoke dust as part of its commitment to strengthen regulatory controls on fugitive dust; and
WHEREAS, the City of Oakland, alongside neighboring municipalities such as Richmond and Berkeley, has historically voted to oppose the transport and storage of hazardous fossil fuels, including coal and petcoke, due to the documented public health and safety concerns.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City of Richmond opposes the transport of coal and petcoke through the city and through nearby cities. The City also opposes the handling and storage of coal at the proposed OBOT facility in Oakland.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City urges the Air District to adopt measures that would strengthen regulation of coal and petcoke as components of fugitive dust.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City urges the Air District to ensure that any air permit it issues to the OBOT facility fully protects Oakland and other Bay area residents from exposure to dangerous coal and petcoke emissions.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City urges the Air District, as part of its consideration of any air permit for the OBOT terminal, first to perform a comprehensive review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) of all potentially significant environmental impacts from the terminal. No agency has yet undertaken a review that examined the environmental impacts associated with the handling and storage of coal and petcoke at the proposed OBOT terminal. The City strongly supports Assembly Bill 40, which would require such a review under CEQA.
BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED, that the City Council directs the City Manager and City Staff to transmit copies of this Resolution to the Oakland City Council, the Air District, the California State Legislature, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to ensure that our community's opposition is officially recorded and recognized in all pending permit evaluations and legal proceedings.
******************
5 See, e.g, Ostro, et al., The impact of coal trains on PM2.5 in the San Francisco Bay Area, AIR QUALITY, ATMOSPHERE & HEALTH, March 20, 2023 at p. 7, available https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11869-023- 01333-0
6 Letter from TLS to Hon. Mayor Libby Schaaf (July 15, 2015).
Reso. No. _____
***THE CLERK’S OFFICE WILL COMPLETE THE INFORMATION BELOW****
I certify that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Richmond at a regular meeting thereof held on Mmmm dd, yyyy, by the following vote:
AYES: AYES:
NOES:
ABSTENTIONS:
ABSENT:
CLERK OF THE CITY OF RICHMOND
(SEAL)
Approved:
Mayor
Approved as to form:
City Attorney
State of California }
County of Contra Costa : ss.
City of Richmond }
I certify that the foregoing is a true copy of Resolution No. _____, finally passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Richmond at a regular meeting held on Mmmm dd, yyyy.
_______________________________________
Pamela Christian, Clerk of the City of Richmond