Pollution Task Force to Meet for Last Time on L.A. Port

Shortly after taking office in 2001, Mayor James K. Hahn pledged to curtail air pollution at the Port of Los Angeles, where diesel-belching ships, trains and trucks have stirred fears over the impact on public health.

But as he prepares to leave office next week, Hahn has yet to put a comprehensive plan in place to cut port pollution. Indeed, the Los Angeles-Long Beach port complex has emerged as Southern California’s single worst air polluter in the last five years despite mounting evidence of serious long-term risks for cancer, asthma and other respiratory ailments throughout the region.

Toxic air linked to port operations hovers over freeways and rail lines that stretch from the port to the rail yards of East Los Angeles and the storage warehouses of the Inland Empire.

Today, Hahn’s clean air task force -- which includes top air regulators and industry representatives -- will meet for the last time to complete its recommendations on how to fulfill Hahn’s pledge and roll back pollution to 2001 levels at the fast-growing port, the nation’s largest. Some of the 68 initiatives outlined in the group’s report would require major investment in new ship engines, electric “plug-ins” for docked vessels and replacement of older trucks and locomotives with cleaner models.

The health benefits for the region could be profound. Significantly reducing diesel emissions and nitrogen oxides would result in 2,200 fewer premature deaths by 2025 and thereby save billions in healthcare costs, according to a study by the state Air Resources Board prepared for the task force.

“We hope very much that this plan is going to be carried forward,” said Sam Atwood, spokesman for the South Coast Air Quality Management District. “If we’re going to have any hope of cleaning the air, it’s got to start at the port.”

But implementing the clean-air plan could take up to 20 years and cost at least $11 billion, which would be shared by industry, the port and government, officials said. At the same time, industry concerns have mounted over the ballooning costs of the plan and its effectiveness.

“Most of the assumptions regarding technology availability, emissions, performance and costs are speculative ... and not well-documented,” Union Pacific attorney and task force member Carol A. Harris wrote in a letter last week to port officials.

Others disagree. Matt Haber, deputy director of the air division at the regional headquarters of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, said his agency plans to support the recommendations, adding that the task force “shows amazing leadership in coming this far.” He said it could serve as a national model for reducing pollution.

“It certainly lays out what can be done,” Haber said.

At its meeting today, the 21-member task force is expected to approve a report that will reach the mayor’s desk Friday, just six days before he leaves office.

Hahn spokesman Yusef K. Robb said the administration remains committed to seeing emissions at the port reduced to 2001 levels.

“If the report delivers what we asked for, which is a viable, real way to accomplish ‘no net increase,’ we’ll forward it to the commission forthwith and recommend that they pass it,” Robb said.

Whatever Hahn decides, Mayor-elect Antonio Villaraigosa will soon find himself at the center of the port debate. Villaraigosa officially takes office July 1, after winning a May runoff election.

“We are reviewing the group’s work and look forward to reviewing closely their recommendations,” said Joe Ramallo, a Villaraigosa spokesman. “I know they’ve been working very hard on this.”

‘Diesel Death Zone’

Port air pollution was hardly an issue in the spring of 2001 when Hahn, a San Pedro resident, began stumping for votes in the Los Angeles Harbor area. But a handful of residents told him they were alarmed by a 1999 study that found the lifetime cancer risk from air pollution in the port area to be higher than 2,000 cases per million people.

The study by the South Coast Air Quality Management District included a map showing a sharply higher cancer risk in San Pedro, Wilmington, Long Beach and portions of the freeway corridors that serve the port. The mapped area spawned the nickname “Diesel Death Zone.”

Ships, trucks and railroad locomotives all burn diesel fuel, and experts blame diesel fumes for 71% of the cancer risk tied to air pollution in the Los Angeles region.

Residents pressed Hahn for a promise to reduce port pollution. In October 2001, in response to a request from Hahn, the Board of Harbor Commissioners established an environmental policy aimed at achieving one ultimate goal: no net increase in air emissions or traffic operations from future port operations.

The port’s staff was directed to return to the commission with a clean-air plan within 60 days.

But officials were only beginning to grasp the magnitude of the problems they faced when a wave of Asian imports helped push air pollution levels at the port higher and faster than anticipated. Since 2001, cancer-causing particles from diesel emissions at the port have soared by nearly 64%, and nitrogen oxides increased almost 42%, according to the task force’s report.

It wasn’t until March 2003 that the anti-pollution effort got a jump-start when the port settled an environmental lawsuit by agreeing to spend $50 million on emission controls. This included using new technology that allowed giant container ships docking at the port to plug into on-shore power lines, allowing them to turn off their diesel engines.

The port also installed exhaust-cleaning equipment and paid millions of dollars to truck drivers to help them upgrade to cleaner-burning vehicles.

But air pollution levels continued to climb, as scientists documented links between pollutants such as diesel fumes and an array of respiratory ailments, including asthma.

Long-term exposure to diesel exhaust “is likely to pose a lung cancer hazard to humans, as well as damage the lung in other ways, depending on exposure,” according to one EPA assessment.

A study published by USC researchers last fall found that air pollution can stunt the growth of some children’s lungs so seriously that they may face lifelong health problems or even premature death. Fine particles of the kind found in diesel fumes were determined to be of special concern.

And a separate report from a USC researcher last fall found abnormally high levels of two kinds of respiratory cancer in some areas downwind of the ports in southeastern Los Angeles County. High levels of mouth and throat cancer were detected in Long Beach along the 710 Freeway, the most popular freeway for trucks serving the ports.

When the port’s clean-air plan was released last July, it was immediately criticized as narrow and simplistic by residents and Hahn. The mayor responded by creating the task force, which includes representatives from the EPA, the state air board and the regional air district.

But since the team crafted its 68 potential clean-air initiatives in March, opposition has been slowly building among industry representatives. Issues range from the cost of implementing the plan to the effectiveness of new technology.

Concerns that the panel may be overstating future air pollution have been repeatedly raised by the Pacific Maritime Shipping Assn., which represents shippers and terminal operators. If future pollution levels are inflated, all other findings built upon those estimates are unreliable, said Vice President Michele Grubbs.

“I don’t think the task force is going to be able to achieve the goals of Mayor Hahn,” Grubbs said. “Right now, we can’t see how this document in its current form can be used by policymakers.”

Meanwhile, the biggest fight on the port issue is expected to center on who should pay for cutting pollution.

The Port of Los Angeles cannot afford to foot that bill alone, said Charles Turner, a port finance officer. Even if the port were to commit all of its net revenue to the effort for 20 years, it would still fall short, he said.

But Wilmington activist Jesse Marquez and other area residents believe that the shipping companies, railroads, retailers and others profiting from port trade should shoulder much of the costs.

Residents “see and realize that air pollution has a significant effect on their children’s health, the public’s health, and these costs are being borne by the public, not the polluter.”