August 8, 2007                               Kristen French 

Last night, August 7, DHEC held an informal public meeting to answer questions from the public regarding Kinder Morgan’s proposed expansion of its Shipyard Creek Terminal importing capacity.  There was a good turnout, approximately 80-100 concerned citizens attended, and many of those present asked questions.  Ample time was given to all who wanted ask questions, and the DHEC moderator, Nancy Whittle, did a nice job ensuring that all questions were addressed, although we weren’t always satisfied with the answers.

Rhonda Banks Thompson, Director of the Engineering Services Division of DHEC’s Bureau of Air Quality gave a brief overview of DHEC’s actions concerning KM’s permit requests since the April 17 public hearing.  She noted that the public comment period was extended to May 29 in response to a request from the City of North Charleston and that DHEC had been inundated with public comments (great work everybody!) which have played a strong role in the continuing work DHEC is doing on these permits.  In May, DHEC performed unannounced inspections of the Kinder Morgan (KM) facility during off-loading operations and found violations.  While she did not go into the details of these violations (but see Post & Courier article), when questioned further, she explained that KM had been cited and notified of these violations and that at least some of the problems have been corrected.  Fines for these violations have not been determined yet, and KM is required to issue a response/report to the citation by August 21, 2007.  This response will be made available to the public.

Ms. Thompson also informed us that there is not a set time frame for making a decision on whether these permits will be issued.  DHEC is taking their time to compare practices at other similar facilities around the country, and they have strongly recommended that KM do the same.  DHEC is also examining permits issued to dry bulk handling facilities in other parts of the country.  I personally feel that these actions, as well as the Comprehensive Compliance Inspection performed in May, are a direct response to the many public concerns and questions we have raised.  In the past, DHEC’s oversight of KM has been minimal.  While the current response is long overdue, it is a vast improvement.

Art Rudolph ( This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it ) was the spokesperson for Kinder Morgan at last night’s meeting.  Many questions were directly addressed to him, and he addressed most questions directly, although many times the audience was not satisfied with his answers.  To be fair to him, he did apologize on KM’s behalf on two issues:  first, he apologized for the lack of responsiveness of KM to the community in the past several months and promised to do better in the future.  While we have heard this promise before, we were also told by DHEC that KM is now open to a Citizens Advisory Panel, which gives some indication that KM is serious about better relations with the community.  Secondly, when confronted, Rudolph apologized profusely for the incident of “dock washing” (see Ken Bonerigo’s video of this incident).  This involved used of a clam shell to lift water from the river and dump it onto the dock in order to wash coal residue off the dock and into the river.  Rudolph stated quite adamantly that “this will never happen again” and that it is not a practice condoned by KM.  While he seemed quite sincere, we will of course be watching to keep KM accountable to this promise.

Unfortunately, Rudolph towed the company line on other issues.  He never admitted to any wrong doing in the past or currently (with the exception of the dock washing mentioned above) even though KM has been cited repeatedly by DHEC and the EPA at this facility and even though there are outstanding violations that have yet to be addressed.  This was rather disappointing but not unexpected.  In addition, Rudolph is maintaining KM’s assertion that they did not know who Ken Bonerigo was when they saw him filming their operations from his jon boat on July 18, 2007.  He stated that they are required to report any suspicious activity to the Coast Guard, due to port security regulations.  However, since Ken has been filming publicly for months and has not kept this secret from KM and has in fact been sending the videos to DHEC, it seems unlikely that KM had no idea that this might in fact be Ken.  It seems to me that they could have at least called Ken and asked him before they called the Coast Guard.

Nancy Button, President of the Rosemont Neighborhood Association, and several other Rosemont residents raised health concerns about air quality in their neighborhood.  They also asked for better responsiveness from KM and some way to report strange smells that occasionally waft into their neighborhoods from the surrounding industrial complexes (DHEC has a 24 hour emergency response number: 888-481-0125).  In the past, Rosemont residents have also issued complaints to DHEC regarding coal dust on or in their homes.  Concerns were also expressed regarding the blockage of emergency vehicles by train traffic on Meeting Street in North Charleston.  While some emergency vehicles can be dispatched from either side of the railroad tracks, police are restricted by their jurisdictions and may be hampered by train traffic.

After several citizens (including Bob King, of North Charleston City Council) repeatedly asked what it would take for DHEC to deny the renewal permit or the expansion permit, Ms. Thompson admitted that the permit(s) would almost certainly be issued at some point, although she expected that the permits would be much tighter in what they require for compliance from KM.  At this, many people cried out angrily, and I heard at least one person say, “then we are wasting our time here.”  While I agree that this disclosure is very discouraging, I want to remind everyone that our efforts are making a difference.  DHEC is taking the public’s concerns very seriously, and these permits, which normally would have been issued within a month of the April public hearing, are being indefinitely delayed while DHEC writes more rigorous permits and sets up better monitoring.  Another important detail that came out at the hearing is that DHEC basically cannot deny a permit unless there are current violations, and even then it is quite difficult for DHEC to deny a permit to an existing facility (in fact, they do not normally factor current violations into their decision, but in this case they are doing so).  Because of limitations in SC state law, DHEC cannot consider past violations in deciding whether to issue a permit; however, current violations are a different matter.  Since there are outstanding violations, these should be taken into consideration (in this case, KM has been informed that the expansion permit will not be issued until all current violations are corrected or until a compliance order is in place).  While I would still expect that DHEC would issue a permit, I would also ask that they require KM to rectify all current violations and install the new safety systems that DHEC will likely recommend on the current facility before the expansion permit is considered further.  Obtaining the expansion permit should be contingent upon meeting these requirements and demonstrating full compliance for at least one year, in my opinion.

In addition, I would ask of DHEC that no decision be made on either permit until the continuous monitoring system that they are planning to install is in place and has been working well for at least 3 months.  While the once a day sampling has not shown any violations of PM 2.5 emissions limits, continuous monitoring may show different results.  In fact, although one of the DHEC spokespersons present denied it, I believe that the current air quality monitoring has been inadequate to determine compliance, based on the fact sthat there has been extremely limited monitoring of night-time operations and that visual inspection of the Cooper River Marina property, boats moored there, and homes in the Rosemont neighborhood reveals coal dust sediment.  If we can see so much coal dust, there is certainly plenty of dust that we can’t see, and if DHEC’s monitoring has not detected it, we need to find out why not.

Considerable water quality monitoring of the immediate area must also be done to determine whether KM’s operations are contaminating Shipyard Creek and the nearby Cooper River.  Although I personally requested a thorough update from the Water Quality Division be made at this meeting, no such update was offered, and the only Water Quality representative that was available at last night’s meeting seemed unable to answer any of the questions put to him.

Some of the improvements that DHEC expects to recommend:

*        Fogger system rather than wet suppression system to control coal dust on the storage pile.

*        Application of crusting agents to coal in rail cars to minimize coal dust as trains transport the coal.  Currently, KM is trying a wet suppression system, but it is unclear how long it would take for the coal to dry out enough to be dusty again.  In addition, KM pointed out that some of the downstream customers won’t accept coal treated with crusting agents.  We have asked for the names of these companies.

*        Formation of a Citizens Advisory Panel.

Some of the questions that were not adequately addressed:

*        Is coal potentially explosive or not?  DHEC said that coal cannot be confined in a completely enclosed space due to the potential for explosion.  Rudolf later contradicted this statement by saying that coal is not explosive at all.  He did say that it can ignite if it becomes too hot and that the pile is monitored for hot spots 24 hours a day.

*        What is the stability of the land where the new coal pile is proposed to be located?  When asked why KM is not considering enclosed storage, such as silos, Rudolf said that the ground would not be able to handle the weight of the silos.  In addition, he mentioned that the ground is highly contaminated.  If the ground is not stable enough to support silos, is it stable enough to support a massive pile of coal (~300,000 tons)?  If the ground is contaminated, will it be cleaned up completely before storage begins?  If not, why not?  If not, wouldn’t the weight of the coal pile force contaminants from the ground into ground water?

*        If the land where the coal pile is to be located is not stable enough for silos, how are you so sure that the four new 3 million gallon liquid storage tanks that are planned to be installed will be on stable ground?

*        What is the storm management plan, and how will it deal with storm surge and >100 mph winds?

Some possible opportunities:

*        DHEC is willing to meet with smaller community groups.  Any community group can invite DHEC to come and answer more questions about KM and other concerns.  These type meetings tend to foster a more constructive dialogue.  Contact Nancy Whittle (803-896-8967).

*        Citizens Advisory Panel.  Let’s follow up with Art Rudolph to find out more about forming a Citizens Advisory Panel and keeping communications open with KM.

*        Give DHEC more feedback.  Give specific feedback about what we want.  While it is probably impossible to remove KM from the Shipyard Creek Terminal, there are many possible improvements to ask for.  Let’s take advantage of DHEC’s responsiveness and take Rudolf at his word that he wants to work with the community by holding him to it.

*        Be vigilant.  If you see any operations resulting in fugitive emissions or see off-loading occurring without booms in place, call the local DHEC office immediately.  They have expressed a willingness to come out and investigate any reports, so let’s use that avenue.  Best contacts are probably: Mark Hiott, Program Manager (843-953-0150); Susan Yates, Air Section Manager (843-953-0150); Ashley Auerbaach, Water Quality (843-953-0185).  Remember, they are only a couple of miles away from the Cooper River Marina, so they should be able to respond quickly.

*        Put pressure on the State Legislature.  Let your representatives in the State Legislature know how you feel about the Kinder Morgan facility and also let them know that we need to stop limiting DHEC’s ability to consider past bad behavior by companies when reviewing permit applications.  While companies should have an opportunity to correct past mistakes, a track record of non-compliance is an important consideration for future business activity.

I was pleased to see that both the Charleston City Paper and the Post and Courier were represented at the meeting.  Katy Stech has already filed a story in today’s (Aug 8) P&C and Stratton Lawrence is planning to do a follow up in the City Paper.

If you have any questions or feel that I’ve left something out, please contact me: This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it

In addition, please contact Nancy Whittle (DHEC Community Liaison, 803-896-8967, This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it ) to give any feedback on last night’s meeting.  She has informed me that there will be a debriefing meeting at DHEC to discuss the meeting, and any community feedback on the meeting will be greatly appreciated.