Maryland environmental regulators are looking to tighten the screws on a massive coal export terminal in South Baltimore, but their plan has done little to convince residents in the surrounding neighborhood that the restrictions would protect the air they breathe.

Residents of Curtis Bay made that message clear Thursday night at an input meeting on the state’s proposed regulations, where they insisted that officials take bolder action to get coal out of the neighborhood.

Under the regulations proposed by the Maryland Department of the Environment, the railroad giant CSX would have to build large physical barriers to prevent coal dust from wafting off the open-air site and polluting the surrounding Curtis Bay community. The proposal, released by state environmental regulators in August, is the first time the permit for the CSX terminal has been renewed since an explosion at the site in late 2021 rocked the neighborhood and blew out windows.

Still galvanized in part by that event, more than 100 people assembled at Curtis Bay’s St. Athanasius church Thursday night, with virtually everyone who spoke insisting that the Department of the Environment deny CSX its permit entirely.

“These barriers will not be enough,” said Shashawnda Campbell, an environmental justice coordinator with the South Baltimore Community Land Trust, who argued that Curtis Bay residents have heard too many empty claims from state and industry officials about new measures they say will improve conditions. ”Deny the permit today and stand with the people. And if you do not do that, you will have to face the wrath of tomorrow from the people in this room.”

But as residents demand that regulators shut down the CSX terminal, officials with the Department of the Environment have argued that they don’t have that power, since the company is federally licensed to transport coal. Jay Apperson, a spokesperson for the agency, said regulators will listen to input for the community before making a final decision. “As with any permit application, our priorities are to protect the environment and public health,” he said.

Short of denying CSX a permit, the new regulations could offer the state an opportunity to clamp down on the site. The draft version, which would expire in September 2028, stops short of requiring CSX to enclose its terminal from above – as is the case with some storage facilities in other parts of the country – but the regulations would necessitate that barriers be higher than the facility’s massive coal mounds.

So far, CSX has stayed mum about these proposed restrictions. While a representative from CSX attended Thursday’s session in Curtis Bay — a departure from recent community meetings in the permitting process — he didn’t directly address the terms of the draft permit.

Company executive Brian Hammock noted that under federal “common carrier” laws, CSX is required to transport many types of commodities through Baltimore, among them coal.

He touted the importance of CSX’s nearly 140-year coal terminal to the Maryland economy, and pointed to measures the company has taken to both publicly monitor and suppress dust on the piers. Hammock also cited broader efforts CSX has taken protect the local environment, like capturing stormwater and purchasing three electric-powered trains to replace diesel engines at the Curtis Bay terminal.

But CSX has also hinted that it’s prepared to sue over strict regulations: The Jacksonville, Florida-based company has criticized the methodology of a state-backed report showing just how pervasive coal dust is in the Curtis Bay neighborhood, arguing that that any regulation based on its findings would violate Maryland law. That report, some of its authors said Thursday night, was accepted in recent days for publication in a peer-reviewed journal, “Science of the Total Environment.”

State officials seem to be preparing for a court fight.

In an email to members of the Curtis Bay community association last month, Maryland Senate President Bill Ferguson said that while it’s his understanding that CSX views the enclosure requirement “as too broad an imposition,” regulators are confident the plan will “survive any possible court challenge.” In the exchange shared with The Banner by the community association, Ferguson said state lawmakers would not be able to override federal law that allows CSX to transport coal through Baltimore, but said he and the environmental officials are confident the restrictions will help to protect the public health of residents in the area.

CSX would have about two years from the time the operating permit is issued before it would have to complete construction of a physical barrier, including 120 days to submit a plan to the state and 18 months to construct the enclosure.

Other provisions would require CSX to apply water to train cars loaded with coal entering its facility and upgrade existing water nozzles to mitigate dust where coal is moved from trains to conveyor belts. Those measures would have to be in place sooner than the physical barrier.

Members of the public have until Dec. 16 to submit comment on the proposed regulations.

Some who spoke at the meeting Thursday night called out elected leaders like Mayor Brandon Scott and Gov. Wes Moore for not showing up to the meeting or advocating against CSX’s permit. Councilwoman Phylicia Porter, the only elected official to speak at the event, echoed the position of the constituents in her district, calling on the Department of the Environment to deny the permit.

“You’ve ignored the problem for literally decades, but that has to stop,” Curtis Bay resident Angie Shaneyfelt told environmental regulators. Shaneyfelt said it’s been 15 years since she has opened the windows of her Curtis Bay home, and yet coal dust still finds its way inside. Despite her best efforts, her kids and her husband all have asthma. She, too, has now received treatment for asthma, she said.

“We are asking for this to be the beginning of a new chapter that doesn’t sacrifice or displace or dump on entire communities to increase profits,” said Shaneyfelt.

Some Curtis Bay advocates are frustrated by what they see as CSX’s repeated violations of its existing permit, even as the company has been under heightened scrutiny since the explosion.

Just last month, Greg Sawtell with the Community of Curtis Bay Association was outside the neighborhood recreation center, across the road from the coal piers, when he noticed what looked like smoke from a fire in the distance. The plume turned out to be debris stirred up by a vehicle doing maintenance work on the CSX railroad tracks, lifting fine, dark powder into the air as it plowed down the premises.

State environmental regulators issued a notice of violation over the incident, but not before Sawtell and others from the community approached the facility in an attempt to see what was going on. According to Sawtell, a CSX employee at the gate initially refused them information before saying, “It’s coal dust. What do you think it was?” The employee threatened to call the police on the concerned community members, according to Sawtell.

In a statement about the incident, a CSX spokesperson said the dust stirred up on the railroad tracks did not come from handling coal. The “routine maintenance” performed that day is critical to ensuring safe operating conditions for railroad equipment, and CSX brought in supplemental dust suppression equipment to finish its work, the spokesperson said.

While tensions between CSX and surrounding community have escalated in recent years, coal exports through the Port of Baltimore — the second-largest coal export port in the country — have been booming. Between CSX and a separate terminal across the water, coal exports through Baltimore surged to a historic peak last year, ballooning to almost 28 million short tons, a nearly eightfold increase since 2002.