This Wednesday (February 6), the Port of Long Beach received a letter from two environmental groups advising that the groups would sue in 90 days if port emissions are not reduced beginning immediately.  The Natural Resources Defense Council, a national group based in New York (but with a local office in Santa Monica), and the Coalition for a Safe Environment, a local grassroots group based in Wilmington, joined forces on the letter.  In it, they alert Mayor Bob Foster, Harbor Commission President Mario Cordero, and Port Executive Director Dick Steinke that they are not satisfied with the progress made in implementing the joint Clean Air Action Plan of Long Beach and Los Angeles.

 

The complaint is based on a federal statute known as the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, or RCRA.  Passed by Congress in 1976, the law regulates disposal of solid and hazardous waste.  The letter introduces the term “diesel particulate hazardous waste” to make the point that port diesel emissions contain elements, especially metals like lead, cadmium, arsenic and nickel, that are listed in the RCRA regulations on hazardous waste.

 

If you’ll bear with me through a few technical musings:  I have some familiarity with RCRA because I used to audit facilities for compliance with the regulations – both hazardous waste generators, and hazardous waste treatment, storage and disposal facilities (as they’re called under the law).  I’m not certain the argument made by the two environmental groups in their letter is actually supported by this law.  Specifically, I’m not sure the emissions from burning fuel can be considered a “waste” – either solid or hazardous.  I believe the U.S. environmental statutes are coordinated so that fuel combustion emissions are regulated by the Clean Air Act and not by the statutes on waste (and water discharges under the Clean Water Act, just to complete the picture).

 

However, I’m not an attorney or a RCRA expert, and doubtless it is these people who will be analyzing the letter and developing a response, or, if the environmental groups have their way, arguing these matters in a trial.  The letter concludes by saying the groups will seek “injunctive relief to end the imminent and substantial endangerment of public health” – which sounds to me like they want the emissions to stop if there’s no action to their liking within 90 days.

 

Why did the Port of Los Angeles not receive such a letter?  According to the subscription weekly Cunningham Report (an excellent information source for industry professionals and those with a keen interest in maritime matters), for now the environmental groups will continue to pursue negotiations with Port of Los Angeles over the TraPac terminal project EIR.  However, it’s certainly possible a similar letter may come to our sister port.

 

I’ll conclude by expressing my dismay over this turn of events.  It’s both a surprise – to me and to Long Beach city officials – and yet not a surprise.  As you know, I’ve been dreading the appearance of a lawsuit over any of the port environmental issues.  Whatever else it may accomplish, legal action – even the threat of it – diverts public resources from other constructive uses.

 

What’s the alternative?  I’m hoping that environmental and community groups can find common ground with ports and industry through a vision of a future system where technology helps move freight securely, quickly, and with minimal community impact.  This system might indeed lie several years in the future, but with a shared vision, we can work step by step to achieve it.