Environmental groups threaten to sue Port of Long Beach over air pollution

Two environmental groups on Wednesday gave the Port of Long Beach 90 days to reduce diesel soot and smog or face a lawsuit in federal court.

The 13-page ultimatum from the Natural Resources Defense Council and the Coalition for a Safe Environment is a prerequisite for a lawsuit that is likely to ignite a protracted battle over how to manage the potentially cancer-causing pollution spewed into the air from ships, big rigs and locomotives at the busy port.

The letter of intent to sue was hand-delivered to Long Beach Mayor Bob Foster, Long Beach Board of Harbor Commissioners President Mario Cordero and port Executive Director Richard Steinke.

“We want the court to take over the whole thing at once in order to enforce a new priority of public health over profit,” said David Pettit, senior attorney for the defense council. “We think that will require court appointment of a port czar to force the port to use currently available technology to fix the problem.

“If it works here,” he added, “it will work at every port in the nation where there’s a diesel pollution problem.”

Foster defended his city’s track record on pollution. “We are very serious here about making sure the air is cleaner, and doing it as quickly as possible,” he said. “It’s the No. 1 health issue in Long Beach.”

The environmental groups’ strategy differs radically from previous legal challenges against the port that targeted specific polluters or flaws in environmental impact reports. Instead, it seeks to have the port complex treated as a single entity subject to court-monitored benchmarks and progress reports.

The groups chose not to sue the adjacent Port of Los Angeles, pending resolution of ongoing negotiations.

The lawsuit would be brought under the federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, which was designed to protect the public from harm by sites contaminated with hazardous waste. In this case, the waste includes thousands of tons of microscopic diesel particulates emitted each year by freight haulers.

“The argument that dangerous materials released into the air would be subject to the RCRA seems to be a plausible and innovative way to try to deal with the issue. I suspect it is untested,” said Sean Hecht, executive director of the UCLA Environmental Law Center.

“No one knows, however, whether a court will find this is such an urgent problem that it is willing to fashion the remedy and timetables the petitioners are asking for.”

In an interview, Cordero said the legal action didn’t make sense, given that the Los Angeles and Long Beach port officials a year ago approved a Clean Air Action Plan to slash port-generated pollution 45% by 2012.

Implementation of that plan, aimed at reducing emissions from its fleet of 16,800 heavy-duty diesel trucks, is a year behind schedule.

“We have the most progressive and aggressive environmental plan in the nation when it comes to air quality,” Cordero said. “But we’re not finished with it yet. We plan to be finished with this plan very soon. So I’m surprised by this action being taken.”

Jack Kyser, chief economist with the Los Angeles County Economic Development Corp., expressed dismay over the legal tactic, which he warned “could choke off a lot of international trade” and result in price hikes of imported goods.

“Sometimes, people don’t understand the ultimate consequences of what they do,” he said. “Start stocking up on your tennis shoes and other necessities.”

Environmental attorneys, however, argued that the port plan, while “well written,” lacked enforceable deadlines.

Studies estimate that diesel exhaust from freight transport contributes to 2,400 premature deaths statewide each year -- with 50% occurring in the South Coast Air Basin.

louis.sahagun@latimes.com