Frank Heindel runs a grain merchandising office in Charleston and lives with his wife and three sons in Mount Pleasant, just one mile away from the Wando Welch State Port Authority terminal.
You have been involved in resisting the effort by the State Port Authority (SPA) to expand its port at the Charleston Naval Complex. Why?
This port expansion is not just a bad idea for the environment, but for our state’s economy and the health of people living near the proposed site. While we want to see economic development in South Carolina, that development should not come at the cost of the lives of our children or the health of our workforce.
Is there any evidence to suggest that exposure to pollution generated by burning diesel fuel is directly connected to human health risks?
We now have extensive medical evidence showing direct parallels between the diesel particle emissions from this source and a variety of deadly illnesses, including cardiovascular and pulmonary diseases. What’s worse, most of these ships burn what is called “bunker fuel,” a fuel so dirty and unrefined that it resembles black tar.
What is the SPA seeking to do?
The SPA is planning to construct a new three-berth container terminal on the old Charleston Navy Base, coupled with an access road and off-ramp that will run through the Charleston Neck community of Rosemont. Once completed, the volume of cargo moving through Charleston ports could double. In addition to more ships, the expansion will mean more than 10,800 vehicle trips per day on already congested I-26, with 70 percent coming from diesel trucks.
That sounds like a lot.
It is. Already an average of 1,956 vessels call on the Port of Charleston’s four terminals each year. These “mobile smokestacks” release between 500 and 1,000 pounds of hazardous pollutants during their stay in Charleston Harbor. That is between one and five million pounds of dangerous emissions going into the air near densely-populated neighborhoods in a region already listed by the American Lung Association as one of the most impaired in the nation for the most hazardous of the widespread air pollutants – fine particle pollution.
Are there alternatives?
Yes. Ports in other densely populated areas are requiring ships to burn cleaner fuels starting 25 miles out, plug in to electric power while in port, install particulate filters on trucks, and rebuild train and tug motors to drastically reduce this toxic pollution. The EPA is working on strengthening air pollution standards and encouraging ports to adopt measures to clean up their pollution. But the best and cheapest method is to locate new ports away from densely populated areas. Once upon a time we used to put landfills near rivers. We now see this is unwise. The same goes for expanding this port in an area so heavily populated that thousands will be impacted by air pollution and stuck in gridlock on I-26.
For more information: Nancy Vinson, Coastal Conservation League, 843-723-8035