Post by dieseljockey on May 27, 2009 14:07:22 GMT -5
Bill to Rein in Oakland Port Emissions Creates Flap
By Denis Cuff
Contra Costa Times
05/26/2009
A dispute about reducing diesel emissions from trucks, ships and trains at the Port of Oakland to protect public health is boiling over into the California Legislature.
Assemblyman Jerry Hill, D-San Mateo, has introduced a bill aimed at pressuring the city-owned port to speed up its efforts to curb diesel emissions, which elevate the cancer risk in parts of western Alameda and Contra Costa counties — especially in West Oakland.
"It's important to hold the port accountable for the pollution that is an important public health issue," said Hill, former chairman of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District board and a former member of the California Air Resources Board.
He contends the port has dragged its feet in cleaning up the air.
Hill's Assembly Bill 431 would require the port to take pollution-reduction measures equally as "stringent" as those taken by the Long Beach and Los Angeles ports.
The bill would leave it up to the nine-county Bay Area air-quality district to say whether the port was meeting the standard.
Officials with the port, maritime and railroad industries, and the California Chamber of Commerce oppose the bill as unwise state regulation of the nation's fifth-busiest port, a landlord attracting many private trucks, ships and trains.
"We believe this would add a duplicative set of regulation that would be counterproductive to the goal of improving air quality," said Richard Sinkoff, the port's director of environmental programs. "We want to move forward in cleaning up air. This is not the way to do it."
The debate moves to Sacramento this week when the Assembly Select Committee on Ports holds a hearing at 1:30 p.m. Wednesday in room 447 of the state Capitol to examine efforts by California ports to reduce diesel emissions.
"While the recession is putting new pressures on our ports, we still have to prepare for a future of greener ports," said Assemblywoman Bonnie Lowenthal, D-Long Beach, head of the select committee on ports.
The California Air Resources Board has passed a series of vehicle and fuel rules to cut port diesel emissions. One rule bars old diesel trucks from visiting ports after Jan. 1, 2010, unless they install diesel filters.
Bay Area air-quality regulators, environmentalists and some neighbors say the Port of Oakland should do more to improve air quality ahead of the regulatory deadlines.
The critics said the Oakland port has lagged behind the two Southern California ports, which have adopted freight container fees to fund clean-air measures, and adopted a ban ahead of the state deadline on old diesel trucks using ports.
"Instead of investing more in filters and other measures to reduce the toxic threat of diesel, the port is allowing the lungs of West Oakland residents be used as particulate filters," said Mark Ross, a Bay Area air board member on the Martinez City Council.
Sinkoff, the port's environmental director, said the port is committed to clean air, but the Los Angeles and Long Beach ports have more resources to fight pollution problems because those two ports, combined, handle seven times the volume of cargo that Oakland handles.
Plus, Oakland port container volumes this year are down about 15 percent from last year, he said.
Two other members of the Bay Area air board — Alameda County Supervisors Scott Haggerty, of Dublin, and Nate Miley, of Oakland, — said they oppose Hill's bill. They said they worry about the potential economic harm to the port, and they believe the port has made progress toward cleaning up diesel. "It's too early to use the sledgehammer approach," Haggerty said.
As a sign of progress toward cleaner air, port officials point to their adoption last month of a clean-air plan setting the framework for some $650 million in pollution-reduction measures through 2020.
Port commissioners also agreed last month to restore $5 million for diesel filter grants for truckers.
But many port critics, including the California Air Resources Board and federal Environmental Protection Agency, said the port's pollution plan is skimpy on detailed commitments.
"The port sets wonderful cleanup goals," said Doug Bloch, director of the Oakland Coalition for Clean and Safe Ports, "but then they have done almost nothing to follow through with details and commitments."
By Denis Cuff
Contra Costa Times
05/26/2009
A dispute about reducing diesel emissions from trucks, ships and trains at the Port of Oakland to protect public health is boiling over into the California Legislature.
Assemblyman Jerry Hill, D-San Mateo, has introduced a bill aimed at pressuring the city-owned port to speed up its efforts to curb diesel emissions, which elevate the cancer risk in parts of western Alameda and Contra Costa counties — especially in West Oakland.
"It's important to hold the port accountable for the pollution that is an important public health issue," said Hill, former chairman of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District board and a former member of the California Air Resources Board.
He contends the port has dragged its feet in cleaning up the air.
Hill's Assembly Bill 431 would require the port to take pollution-reduction measures equally as "stringent" as those taken by the Long Beach and Los Angeles ports.
The bill would leave it up to the nine-county Bay Area air-quality district to say whether the port was meeting the standard.
Officials with the port, maritime and railroad industries, and the California Chamber of Commerce oppose the bill as unwise state regulation of the nation's fifth-busiest port, a landlord attracting many private trucks, ships and trains.
"We believe this would add a duplicative set of regulation that would be counterproductive to the goal of improving air quality," said Richard Sinkoff, the port's director of environmental programs. "We want to move forward in cleaning up air. This is not the way to do it."
The debate moves to Sacramento this week when the Assembly Select Committee on Ports holds a hearing at 1:30 p.m. Wednesday in room 447 of the state Capitol to examine efforts by California ports to reduce diesel emissions.
"While the recession is putting new pressures on our ports, we still have to prepare for a future of greener ports," said Assemblywoman Bonnie Lowenthal, D-Long Beach, head of the select committee on ports.
The California Air Resources Board has passed a series of vehicle and fuel rules to cut port diesel emissions. One rule bars old diesel trucks from visiting ports after Jan. 1, 2010, unless they install diesel filters.
Bay Area air-quality regulators, environmentalists and some neighbors say the Port of Oakland should do more to improve air quality ahead of the regulatory deadlines.
The critics said the Oakland port has lagged behind the two Southern California ports, which have adopted freight container fees to fund clean-air measures, and adopted a ban ahead of the state deadline on old diesel trucks using ports.
"Instead of investing more in filters and other measures to reduce the toxic threat of diesel, the port is allowing the lungs of West Oakland residents be used as particulate filters," said Mark Ross, a Bay Area air board member on the Martinez City Council.
Sinkoff, the port's environmental director, said the port is committed to clean air, but the Los Angeles and Long Beach ports have more resources to fight pollution problems because those two ports, combined, handle seven times the volume of cargo that Oakland handles.
Plus, Oakland port container volumes this year are down about 15 percent from last year, he said.
Two other members of the Bay Area air board — Alameda County Supervisors Scott Haggerty, of Dublin, and Nate Miley, of Oakland, — said they oppose Hill's bill. They said they worry about the potential economic harm to the port, and they believe the port has made progress toward cleaning up diesel. "It's too early to use the sledgehammer approach," Haggerty said.
As a sign of progress toward cleaner air, port officials point to their adoption last month of a clean-air plan setting the framework for some $650 million in pollution-reduction measures through 2020.
Port commissioners also agreed last month to restore $5 million for diesel filter grants for truckers.
But many port critics, including the California Air Resources Board and federal Environmental Protection Agency, said the port's pollution plan is skimpy on detailed commitments.
"The port sets wonderful cleanup goals," said Doug Bloch, director of the Oakland Coalition for Clean and Safe Ports, "but then they have done almost nothing to follow through with details and commitments."