Switchboard, from NRDC › Melissa Lin Perrella's Blog

NRDC Sues Railroads Over Diesel Pollution

2011-10-21T21:57:22Z

Melissa Lin Perrella, Staff Attorney, Southern California Air Project, Santa Monica

This week, NRDC and two of our environmental justice allies—East Yard Communities for Environmental Justice and Center for Community Action and Environmental Justice—filed a lawsuit against BNSF and Union Pacific, the two largest freight moving railroad companies in the country. This lawsuit targets diesel pollution created by seventeen yards in the state. Our lawsuit has received significant coverage, including in the LA Times and Associated Press.

We brought this lawsuit because there is a better way to move freight in this country. Millions of Californians are exposed to toxic levels of pollution from BNSF and UP’s operations. The California Air Resources Board (CARB) has found that communities even 8 miles away from some of BNSF and UP’s rail yards suffer from increased cancer risk. These health impacts are created by diesel exhaust emitted by the trucks, trains, and other vehicles and equipment that are used to move cargo in and out of BNSF and UP’s facilities. Almost every week, the scientific community releases new studies showing the toxicity of diesel exhaust, which is associated with premature death, cancer, cardiovascular and respiratory disease, and even obesity and diabetes. Some researchers have even found a correlation between diesel exhaust and premature birth and lower IQ in children. Communities closest to rail yards, and particularly kids and the elderly, are the most susceptible.

Our lawsuit is precedent setting because it asks a court to recognize that diesel particulate matter is a hazardous waste under the federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. RCRA provides for comprehensive regulation of solid and hazardous waste, and protects public health and the environment from “imminent and substantial endangerment.”

BNSF and UP do not deny that they are making people sick. Instead, the railroads have stated in response to our lawsuit that our case unreasonably attacks the goods movement industry, and that the railroads are in compliance with existing regulations. They even play the victim and say that we fail to acknowledge everything they have done to clean-up their operations.

First, despite any clean-up initiatives the railroads have adopted, CARB data reveals that the health risks for communities near rail yards still remain unacceptably high. Neither BNSF nor UP can deny this. Let’s take BNSF’s San Bernardino rail yard as an example. This is one of the yards that BNSF will say it is working with the state to clean-up. However, data from the state indicates that even after all of BNSF’s mitigation measures are implemented, communities close to that yard still face a cancer risk in 2015 that is nearly 50 times greater than what the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach say is acceptable for freight projects. And in 2020, that risk remains high—nearly 30 times greater than what the ports deem tolerable. So, let’s be serious. BNSF can’t expect to be congratulated when their “best efforts” yield these levels of toxic pollution.

Second, the railroads have a menu of pollution-control solutions at their fingertips. For starters, the railroads should be expeditiously modernizing their locomotives and equipment. Older locomotives and equipment are extremely polluting and need to be replaced with cleaner models. We are asking the court to require BNSF and UP to invest in cleaner equipment and bring those replacements into urban rail yards immediately to provide relief to fence line communities. The railroads continue to use old, inefficient, polluting equipment as a cost-cutting measure, moving the health costs of their operations onto communities. That’s unacceptable. Let me be clear: we are NOT asking the court to shut the rail yards down. We’re asking for clean-up measures that have already been demonstrated at many rail yards (even by BNSF and UP) without disruption.

Third, BNSF and UP say that they are already complying with environmental regulations. This is misleading. Rail yards as “facilities” are not regulated. There is zero oversight over them. The railroads don’t need a permit to emit pollution the way a refinery or power plant does. As a result, no one is looking at the totality of emissions from all the trains, all the trucks, and all the equipment at each facility. That’s the problem and that’s what this lawsuit targets.

Fourth, our “attack” on BNSF and UP is warranted. One of UP’s yards is just 350 feet from Stevens Middle School in Long Beach. Communities close to rail yards are needlessly subsidizing the costs of shipping TVs and tennis shoes with their health. CARB has concluded that for every $1 spent to clean-up pollution from this industry, the state gets up to $8 back in health impacts avoided. So, when people ask if now is the right time to bring this lawsuit given our country’s economic turmoil, my response is that it’s the perfect time and it’s long overdue.

Every day we hear about new environmental hazards—risks from using cell phones, mercury in fish, and BPA in baby bottles. Sometimes I feel like my world is caving in and that that there is no safe space to hide. I often feel like I don’t know what hazard I should deploy my resources towards first in order to protect my family. With that said, what’s particularly sad for families in San Bernardino, Commerce, West Long Beach and the multitude of other communities near rail yards is that while they can use earpieces to talk on their phones, avoid eating fish and buy glass bottles, they can’t avoid breathing. They inhale toxic diesel fumes as they walk to the bus stop, play at school, and sit on their porch on a hot summer’s night. There is no safe space for these families to hide. That is why this mess needs to be cleaned up, and cleaned up now.

Major Shipping Lines Commit To Slash Emissions

2011-04-14T23:09:07Z

Melissa Lin Perrella, Staff Attorney, Southern California Air Project, Santa Monica

This week, two major shipping lines, Maersk and APL, announced that they will use low-sulfur fuel while in the Port of Singapore. These efforts constitute an extension of Maersk and APL’s clean fuel programs in North America, and go above and beyond existing regulatory requirements.

Five years ago, Maersk began using low-sulfur fuels in North America, and has since cut its sulfur oxide emissions by 95% and fine particles by 86%. APL’s decision will result in similarly outstanding emissions reductions and lead to more lives saved. APL alone makes 900 ship calls per year at the Port of Singapore. Sulfur oxide and fine particulate matter are associated with a myriad of public health impacts, including premature death, increased cancer risk, a host of respiratory illnesses, and adverse birth outcomes like premature birth and low birth-weight. Children, the elderly, and anyone living in close proximity to ports are disproportionately affected by such emissions. Moreover, you do not need to live next to a port to be impacted by ship pollution. In California, 80 percent of the population (27 million Californians) are exposed to ship pollution due to geography and wind patterns.

My work at NRDC has focused primarily on reducing pollution from ships, trucks and trains that visit California ports. While we have a long way to go before we “green” the freight transportation system, efforts like those made by Maersk and APL demonstrate that it’s not just environmentalists that are at the forefront of the sustainability movement—industry leaders are there too.

California's Clean Shipping Fuel Rules Win In Court Today

2011-03-28T22:46:13Z

Melissa Lin Perrella, Staff Attorney, Southern California Air Project, Santa Monica

Today, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recognized California’s severe air pollution problem and gave the state the green light to protect its citizens from ship-related exhaust. In a unanimous decision, the Ninth Circuit ruled that California has the authority to require ocean-going vessels that visit this state’s ports use cleaner marine fuels.

California’s “Vessel Fuel Rules” have the opportunity to be one the most health protective regulations ever adopted. The rules require thousands of vessels that ship our TVs, tennis shoes and cars over the Pacific and to our ports to use less polluting fuel starting 24 nautical miles from California’s shore. Over the course of six years, between 2009 and 2015, these rules will prevent 3,500 premature deaths.

Eighty percent of Californians are exposed to air pollution from large ocean-going vessels as their exhaust drifts inland. Every day, these vessels spew toxic diesel particulate matter (PM) in an amount equivalent to 150,000 big rig trucks driving 125 miles daily. While people living close to ports are particularly affected, wind patterns, geography, and meteorology transport vessel-generated air pollution well beyond our coastline and into too many of our lungs.

The shipping industry, led by PMSA (Pacific Merchant Shipping Association), launched a legal challenge against the rules arguing that the rules were “preempted” by the federal Submerged Lands Act, and that they violated the Dormant Commerce Clause.

The Submerged Lands Act was adopted in 1953 to restore state rights in the submerged lands within three miles offshore to promote the harvesting of oil and gas from the ocean seabed. There is nothing in the Submerged Lands Act that suggests that Congress intended the Act to prevent coastal states from regulating offshore air pollution from ships. Nonetheless, PMSA vigorously maintained that California does have not have the legal authority to regulate farther than 3 miles from its coastline (the regulations reach 24 nautical miles from shore).

In a 45-page opinion, the Court told PMSA that it “reads too much into the [Submerged Lands Act] and what Congress intended to achieve,” and that the association failed to raise any facts demonstrating that the shipping industry was sufficiently harmed to sustain its Commerce Clause challenge.

Indeed, PMSA told the district court that compliance with the Vessel Fuel Rules is not technically impossible or even difficult. It failed to show that the requisite fuel was unavailable or would adversely affect operations. And the facts demonstrated that the cost of compliance, once passed on to the consumer is minimal—we’re talking an extra dime on a plasma TV—whereas the cost to a person’s life dealing with a lifetime of asthma can be astronomical.

The Court concluded by stating:

"In the end, we acknowledge the unusual characteristics and circumstances of the Vessel Fuel Rules. We are clearly dealing with an expansive and even possibly unprecedented state regulatory scheme. However, the severe environmental problems confronting California (especially Southern California) are themselves unusual and even unprecedented. Under the circumstances, we do not believe that the Commerce Clause or general maritime law should be used to bar a state from exercising its own police powers in order to combat these severe problems."

The message is clear. It is time for the shipping industry to get on board or get out the way. California is moving forward to protect its citizens, and now has the Ninth Circuit firmly behind it.

BNSF may have a new leader, Warren Buffet, but it's up to the same old railroad shenanigans

2010-10-08T21:08:29Z

Melissa Lin Perrella, Staff Attorney, Southern California Air Project, Santa Monica

In an effort to push its projects through the environmental review process, BNSF has reached an all time low. BNSF is working overtime to dispute the scientific link between air pollution from its operations and cancer. And BNSF is urging government agencies to back away from health protective policies that require industry to minimize their air pollution levels if they want project approval.

Last year, members of the public, including NRDC, urged the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to study the cancer risk associated with a BNSF proposed 500-acre rail yard project in Edgerton, Kansas. Thousands of pages of comments and scientific studies were provided to the Army Corps to demonstrate the health risks associated with diesel particulate matter (diesel PM), and to request that the Army Corp take a closer look at the cancer risks posed by BNSF’s project before giving the railroad company the green light to build its facility. (Diesel PM is a component of diesel exhaust, and is emitted by locomotives, cargo handling equipment, and heavy duty trucks that service rail yards). I blogged about BNSF’s Kansas project in August 2009 and twice this year.

In response, BNSF hired the Center for Toxicology and Environmental Health (CTEH) who drafted a memo disputing studies relied upon by U.S. EPA and the California Air Resources Board that found a link between diesel PM and cancer. BNSF gave CTEH’s memo to the Army Corps, and the agency relied upon it to declare that BNSF’s Kansas rail yard had no possibility of creating any significant impacts on the environment or public health. This past June, Elana Shore of Greenwire provided a fascinating chronology of CTEH’s connection to industry and how the Center repeatedly concluded that “everything was fine” with respect to Chinese drywall, pollution left behind by Chevron in the Ecuadorian rainforests, oil spilled in Louisiana, and a flood of toxic coal ash in Tennessee.

As if this weren’t bad enough, BNSF is now mounting a campaign to urge the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach to roll-back health standards that aim to protect local communities from projects that increase cancer risk.

By way of background, in November 2006, the Ports adopted a landmark Clean Air Action Plan that included a requirement that all new projects meet a “10 in 1 million” excess residential cancer risk threshold if they want approval. In other words, all new projects must demonstrate that if one million people are equally exposed to the project’s emissions, no more than 10 of those people will be likely to develop cancer if they are exposed to its pollution for 70 years. To provide context, EPA aims to minimize the number of people exposed to a lifetime cancer risk greater than 1 in a million. The practical effect of the Ports’ policy is that new projects will be required to maximize their use of cleaner equipment and vehicles if they want to move forward. This policy enables economic growth while reducing the impact of that growth on local communities.

BNSF is now urging the Ports to overturn their policy. This week, at a joint Port of Los Angeles and Long Beach meeting, BNSF and its team of lobbyists, the Pacific Merchant Shipping Association, and the Los Angeles and San Pedro Chambers of Commerce vigorously urged the Ports to overturn their “10 in a million” cancer risk policy. This is the case even though the Ports’ policy has been on the books for four years, and a number of projects have been subject to it.

The motives behind BNSF’s campaign are abundantly clear. BNSF has a large, hotly contested, very lucrative project near the Ports in the environmental review process as we speak. There can be no doubt that the company is becoming increasingly worried that its project may not meet the Ports’ health standards and that it needs a way out.

BNSF’s self-interested attempts to dispute the link between diesel PM and cancer flies in the face of reputable government and health agencies. California identified diesel PM as a toxic air contaminant based on its potential to cause cancer and other adverse health problems, including respiratory illness and increased risk of heart disease, way back in 1998 after a 10-year scientific assessment process. U.S. EPA classifies diesel exhaust as a likely carcinogen, and numerous other agencies and health organizations have done the same, including the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, International Agency for Research on Cancer, World Health Organization, and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

The Ports’ health risk standards were developed based on input from U.S. EPA, the California Air Resources Board, the South Coast Air Quality Management District, in addition to local universities, and environmental and community groups.

BNSF’s attempts to unravel decades of scientific studies and recent public health victories at the Ports need to stop. The health of communities from the Midwest to the West Coast are at stake.

We can create jobs and save lives at the same time in Kansas

2010-02-02T23:58:25Z

Melissa Lin Perrella, Staff Attorney, Southern California Air Project, Santa Monica

Yesterday, I blogged about the lawsuit NRDC filed that challenges the permit the United States Army Corps issued to Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway Company (BNSF) to construct and operate a massive rail yard near Gardner, Kansas. The Kansas City Star highlighted the lawsuit in an article yesterday. Today, I’d like to focus on an important aspect of our lawsuit that has not received much attention in the press—that is, how BNSF’s project can be cleaner, and promote jobs and public health safeguards.

The proposed facility near Gardner markets itself as a “shovel-ready” job site so it can apply for and receive funding from ARRA (the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009), the federal stimulus bill. We certainly support new jobs coming to the Gardner region, but measures exist now to ensure that the Gardner rail yard operations are cleaner for people and the local environment and won’t cause as many pollution-related problems down the road. Solutions include the use of locomotives, trucks, and equipment that meet the most stringent EPA emissions standards as well as the use of electric vehicles and equipment. Idling of locomotives, trucks, and equipment can be reduced through idling control devices, idling restrictions, and truck electrification stops, all of which reduce air pollution and save fuel. Fleet modernization programs can be adopted to progressively retire older, more polluting vehicles and equipment, and put newer, cleaner models into service. Many of these measures have been successfully implemented by other similar facilities, including BNSF rail yards in California, and ports nationwide.

In fact, the Army Corps, in issuing permits for projects in the LA-region, has considered many of these measures in connection with port expansion projects. It is curious why the federal government has chosen to look the other way with respect to projects in Kansas. Further, NRDC was not alone in suggesting that the Corps and BNSF incorporate meaningful air pollution mitigation into the project. The United States Environmental Protection Agency and Kansas Department of Health and Environment separately recommended the same. Instead of heeding this advice, the Corps relied on promises from BNSF that the project would result in less pollution over time to respond to concerns that the project would jeopardize public health. However, even if BNSF’s promises hold true (which is a point of contention in our lawsuit), doesn’t it still make sense to have a project that is protective of public health from the get-go? The Corps should be fostering projects that provide long-term local jobs and minimize public health impacts, and demanding such projects from permit applicants. That is what they have done in Los Angeles. The only question is why they aren’t doing it in Kansas.

Could Gardner, Kansas be the Next Los Angeles?

2010-02-01T18:46:35Z

Melissa Lin Perrella, Staff Attorney, Southern California Air Project, Santa Monica

Gardner might have a shot at becoming one of the smoggiest cities in the country if a mega rail yard goes forward as planned. Today, NRDC joined local and state advocates in challenging a permit the US Army Corps of Engineers issued to Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway Company (BNSF) to construct and operate a major rail yard 30 miles southwest of Kansas City. This rail yard will be huge, as will its environmental impacts for those living near the facility.

The rail yard will operate twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week and contribute to the construction of a massive logistics park to be located right next to the rail yard. Some accounts indicate that the logistics park will have warehousing capacity of up to 12 million square feet. These projects will permanently alter the existing environmental landscape. Over 1,000 acres of agricultural open space and fields will be paved over and replaced with multiple rail tracks, cranes, buildings, warehouses, roadways, and storage areas for shipping containers and truck chassis.

By 2025, BNSF will send 110 trains daily through Gardner, and the rail yard and logistics park will generate nearly 33,500 vehicle trips to the area every day. Many of the vehicles and equipment used to sustain these large industrial facilities will be diesel-powered and emit diesel exhaust, a known carcinogen.

In our lawsuit, we argue that the Army Corps’ issuance of the permit to BNSF was illegal because the Corps failed to comply with bedrock environmental laws before granting the permit. Specifically, the Corps failed to adequately report the public health impacts of this massive project—leaving those who will work at the facility and live close by uninformed of the health risks associated with the project. Further, BNSF failed to adopt many of the measures readily available to it to reduce air pollution from the project, such as using trucks and locomotives that meet the most stringent emissions standards, and alternative-fuel cargo handling equipment.

I blogged about this project last August. At that time, I was pressuring the Corps to perform a full environmental study of the project before issuing the permit. Unfortunately, the Corps declined to take our advice.

In many ways, the circumstances surrounding this project have gotten worse since I last wrote about it. The estimates on the number of vehicles that will visit the project have grown, as has the size of the logistics park. Further, in my last blog, I noted how the Army Corps refused to analyze the cancer risk generated by the diesel emissions from all of the locomotives, trucks and equipment that will sustain project operations. Since that time, not only has the Corps refused to correct this error, it has relied on memos by BNSF-hired consultants to refute the connection between cancer risk and diesel exhaust exposure. It's one thing if the Army Corps fails to study a public health impact; it's another thing entirely when the agency refutes that the impact even exists. Such tactics are reminiscent of the charades adopted by big tobacco companies in the wake of public concern over the health effects of smoking. That’s nothing to be proud of.

Our objectives in the lawsuit are two-fold: (1) make sure that if the rail yard is built, it is as clean as possible so that health risks are minimized, and (2) ensure that decisionmakers and the public are fully informed of the environmental consequences of the project before they move forward.

This lawsuit is not about shutting down the project. It’s about requiring our federal government to disclose the facts so that the public can be educated and informed. It’s about making sure that those living and working near the facility aren’t unnecessarily exposed to toxic emissions when cleaner locomotives, trucks, and cargo handling equipment are readily available. Our government owes us at least this much.

Six-Million Dollar Air Filtration Program Approved

2009-12-11T01:15:07Z

Melissa Lin Perrella, Staff Attorney, Southern California Air Project, Santa Monica

An important agreement was reached today. It’s an agreement that will protect the health of some of our most vulnerable populations. It’s also an agreement that demonstrates that with hard work, community groups, environmentalists, and government agencies can come together to make good things happen. Today, the Port of Los Angeles, South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), and community and environmental organizations formed a partnership to allocate $6 million for air filtration systems in schools located near the Port.

The rates of childhood asthma in communities adjacent to the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach are 21.9%, compared to 15.6% for the Los Angeles region overall and 14.2% nationally. Further, we know that children are more susceptible to air pollution than adults. The California Office of Health Hazard Assessment advises that:

"Children are often more susceptible to the health effects of air pollution because their immune systems and developing organs are still immature. . . Irritation or inflammation caused by air pollution is more likely to obstruct their narrower airways. It may also take less exposure to a pollutant to trigger an asthma attack or other breathing ailment due to the sensitivity of a child's developing respiratory system. Exposure to toxic air contaminants during infancy or childhood could affect the development of the respiratory, nervous, endocrine and immune systems, and could increase the risk of cancer later in life."

It is for these reasons and others that in 2008, my colleague Adrian Martinez took the lead in negotiating a community fund that will provide mitigation projects for the communities of San Pedro and Wilmington—two communities that are disproportionately impacted by air pollution generated by operations at the Port of Los Angeles. Part of the fund included $6 million dedicated to placing air filtration systems in harbor-area schools. Who with sufficient expertise would do the work, however, remained an open question.

Over the last seven months, I have worked intensely with the Port and SCAQMD staff to find a way to pull our funds and expertise together for the betterment of harbor area children. The result was a memorandum of agreement whereby the Port will allocate $6 million to SCAQMD, an agency with expertise in air filtration systems, to administer a comprehensive, five year, school air filtration program.

By no means are air filtration systems the solution for Los Angeles’ air pollution problem. They should never be used to justify siting a new school in close proximity to a freeway, railyard, port, or other polluting facility. In fact, they only provide partial relief for children from dangerous particulate matter while they are indoors; they provide zero protection for children sitting in the courtyard at lunch time or swinging across monkey bars at recess. However, they are an affordable “no-duh” measure for existing schools. In short, they are the least we can do.

Thus, it’s with great pride that I celebrate the agreement that was reached today. However, I acknowledge that the biggest challenge remains, that is, reducing air pollution at the source so that air filtration programs are a thing of the past.

Clean Truck Programs Celebrate One-Year Anniversary

2009-10-01T18:32:40Z

Melissa Lin Perrella, Staff Attorney, Southern California Air Project, Santa Monica

Today marks the 1-year anniversary of the Clean Truck Programs at the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach. These programs are measurably tackling the high rate of premature death, the heightened cancer and respiratory illness risk, and the 20 percent childhood asthma rate in diesel-soaked Southern California communities.

By banning the oldest trucks outright, and incentivizing the purchase of newer, cleaner vehicles, Los Angeles officials have removed 2,000 of the dirtiest rigs from service and helped business put nearly 6,000 clean-burning and alternative fuel trucks on the road.

Port trucking had become a killer and cost the Los Angeles region an annual $1.7 billion in the form of operational inefficiencies, community costs, and, above all, impacts on public health. These systematic failures can be largely attributed to motor carrier deregulation, which enabled trucking companies to downsize their fleets and contract with thousands of individual haulers who operated their own rigs. Study after study showed that this workforce only averaged $10-11 an hour. With these wages, drivers could only afford old, decaying, diesel-spewing trucks that put their lungs, public health and the local environment at risk.

To address these market failures, environmental and labor organizations came together to form a powerful coalition. We advocated that unless financially secure firms assumed responsibility for proper fleet maintenance, smog-belching trucks would reappear a few years from now, causing children, residents and workers to once again wheeze their way to the emergency room. As a result, the Port of Los Angeles requires trucking companies to meet environmental, safety, and security standards in exchange for access to the terminal gates, instead of placing these costs on under-paid truck drivers.

The Los Angeles Clean Truck Program also relies on attractive financial incentives to make environmental compliance economically advantageous for both small and large companies. Amidst a recession, over $500 million in private investment has been leveraged to date. And with new truck sales down 60 percent nationwide, dealers and manufacturers in Southern California are seeing business up by one-third versus last year. The real-world impact of the Clean Truck Program is undeniable. In just 12 months, the port's goal of cutting truck toxins by 80 percent is three years ahead of schedule, and equivalent to removing 200,000 cars from the freeways.

But these major successes remain under attack by industry associations that threaten to stall or reverse the emissions reductions achieved. The American Trucking Associations has vigorously litigated to kill key components the Clean Truck Program, even though its member companies signed onto the plan that streamlines operations and improves efficiency. The trucking lobby is arguing that federal law prevents ports from conditioning port access on meeting safety, environment, and security-based requirements.

Congress has the power to update federal law to remove any doubt that ports can enact solutions that compliment green business growth and protect public health. And Congressional action won't just benefit Southern California; trade hubs across the country, including Newark, Houston, Norfolk and Seattle, are facing similar health and environmental challenges that Los Angeles officials took head on. The communities in these freight transportation corridors are also looking for a solution.

The Los Angeles Clean Truck Program provides a clear roadmap for forward-looking businesses to compete without dirty trucks and cheap labor. Federal lawmakers must recognize the importance of this program and protect local governments that are attempting to responsibly tackle localized air pollution. Specifically, they must provide assurances to environmental and customer-minded port officials in Oakland, New York and New Jersey who have publicly indicated that, like Los Angeles, they too want to reap the long-term benefits of comprehensive clean-up plans.

The Port of Los Angeles Clean Truck Program was adopted after years of studies, advocacy work, and planning. It is a landmark program that delivers clean air and sustainable jobs. Most importantly, it has a proven track record of success. As we celebrate the program's first year, Congress should embrace this local green-growth model and take action to protect it.

For more information about the Clean Trucks Program see:

David Pettit's NRDC Blog Posts

NRDC Press Release: LA Ports Meet Clean Air Goals Years Ahead of Schedule

Daily Breeze Article: More than 5,000 trucks meet Clean Trucks Program standards at ports

Army Corps Concludes No Significant Impacts From Major Railyard Proposed For Kansas

2009-08-10T18:48:24Z

Melissa Lin Perrella, Staff Attorney, Southern California Air Project, Santa Monica

I recently returned from a trip to Gardner, Kansas. Gardner is about 30 miles from Kansas City and home to roughly 17,000 people. Just outside of the town are rolling green hills and rural farmland as far as the eye can see. It's the kind of place where property is measured by the acre instead of by the square foot. It's the kind of place where kids run through sprinklers on hot sticky days as their parents sit with neighbors in lawn chairs sipping ice tea or a cold Budweiser. And it's the kind of place where people buy "American" and talk about their personal connection with the land. But it's also the proposed site for a new BNSF mega railyard, and that's what drew me there.

The Army Corps of Engineers is considering issuing a permit that will give BNSF the green light to construct a 500 acre intermodal facility just outside of Gardner. And there are already plans to build a 2.8 million square foot warehouse and distribution center right next door. This quiet stretch of land and its neighboring 600 acre Mildale Park may soon see 4,000 heavy duty diesel trucks a day and scores of idling locomotives and dirty switch engines. A local high school is ¾-mile downwind and residential subdivisions are just a ½ mile away.

Before the Corps can issue a permit, it must comply with NEPA---the National Environmental Policy Act---and study the environmental effects of issuing the permit, including the operation of the railyard. Consistent with NEPA, the Corps performed an environmental assessment (EA) and released the document last month. Shockingly, however, the Corps concluded that there was no chance that any significant environmental effects would occur from the massive project, and that a more comprehensive "environmental impact statement" (EIS) was unnecessary.

The Corps' conclusion was contrary to everything I knew about railyards, and so I felt compelled to go to Gardner to see the site for myself. I traveled with Andrea Hricko of USC and Angelo Logan of East Yard Communities For Environmental Justice, and together, with other experts, we spoke to the local community about the potential environmental and public health impacts from the project.

Since 2004, the California Air Resources Board has conducted nearly twenty health risk assessments of railyards throughout California. The result? Residents living even miles away from polluting railyards, including those owned and operated by BNSF, face increased cancer risks from the stew of emissions generated at the site. However, the Corps didn't even bother to assess cancer risk in its EA. It avoided the analysis entirely by urging that cancer risk from diesel emissions is scientifically uncertain. The irony in all of this is that the Corps has approved and defended multiple environmental documents issued in California that it helped prepare and that included cancer risk assessments. It's unbelievable how the Corps would assess cancer risk and disclose that information with regards to projects in California, but look the other way for a project in Kansas.

The Corps is accepting comments on their EA until August 16, 2009. NRDC will urge the Corps to perform a full EIS, and take a harder look at the environmental consequences of the proposed project and to disclose those impacts to the public. Our early assessments indicate that the Corps may have underestimated air pollution from the project, including smog-forming NOx and emissions of toxic PM. Such pollution is associated with increase asthma, cancer risk, premature death, premature birth, and with even affecting the IQ of unborn children.

I went to Gardner focused on the air quality impacts of the project but left seeing the project for what it really was---not just a project that would foul the air, but one that would rob the area of an irreplaceable park, potentially contaminate local drinking water, and bring noise, lights, containers, trains and trucks to essentially virgin land. I learned that to build the site, BNSF has to relocate 9,100 feet of stream in addition to wetlands, and that townspeople are concerned that storm water runoff from the facility will pollute local streams that feed into Hillsdale Lake---the sole source of drinking water for four counties and approximately 30,000 families.

I went to Kansas thinking that I'd be seen as an "outsider," but in the end there's not much difference between me and the townspeople of Gardner. We all want the same things---clean air, clean water, open space for our kids to play. And so as I stood on the corner of 191st and Four Corners Road---home to the proposed BNSF site---I was saddened not just by the potential loss of this land for the people of Johnson County, but by the realization that one day, long, long ago, Los Angeles likely looked much the same. Angelinos can only do so much to turn back the hands of time, but for Gardner there's still hope.

Comments requesting that the Corps perform an EIS for the BNSF Gardner Intermodal facility must be RECEIVED by August 16, 2009 and can be sent via email to Joshua.A.Marx@usace.army.mil or to:

Mr. Joshua Marx

US Army Corps of Engineers

Kansas City Regulatory Office

402 Federal Building, 601 East 12th Street

Kansas City, Missouri, 64106-2896

To review coverage about the proposed BNSF Intermodal Facility see:

http://www.kansaspublicradio.org/newsstory.php?itemID=16844

http://www.kansascity.com/news/politics/story/1367378.html

http://www.kansascity.com/news/neighborhood/olathe/story/1370861.html?storylink=pd

http://voices.kansascity.com/node/5352

New studies link air pollution to premature birth and low IQ in children

2009-07-21T00:26:44Z

Melissa Lin Perrella, Staff Attorney, Southern California Air Project, Santa Monica

I'm a mom. While pregnant, I, like every other mom I know, compiled a mental list of all the "to do's" and "not do's" in order to give my baby the best shot in life. I took folic acid supplements more than a year before conception. While pregnant, I took all the birthing, breastfeeding, and baby care classes I could possibly squeeze in. And I sidelined the margaritas from my favorite Mexican joint along with coffee, soft cheese, and sushi. My husband even pumped my gas.

In most instances, with a little education and a lot of will power I was able to avoid all of the "bad" things. I just made different, smarter choices. But two recent studies are likely to leave pregnant women with few options, unless of course, they can hold their breath.

Today, the Associated Press reported that the quality of air that pregnant women breathe can affect the IQ of their children. Researchers studied 249 children borne by women in New York City who wore backpack air monitors during the last few months of their pregnancy. The children were given IQ tests at age 5, before starting school. The children exposed to the most air pollution before birth scored lower than children with less exposure.

Last month, the Los Angeles Times reported that women exposed to air pollution from freeways and congested roads are much more likely to give birth to premature babies. A team of scientists from UC Irvine and UCLA studied babies born in Long Beach, near the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, and in adjacent Orange County--areas with several major freeways, scores of daily commuters, and thousands of heavy-duty trucks that deliver goods to and from the ports. The scientists reviewed the birth records of more than 81,000 infants, and found that the risk of having a baby born before 30 weeks of gestation increased 128% for women who lived near the worst traffic-generated air pollution. Further, preeclampsia increased 42% for women who lived in those areas. Preeclampsia is a serious illness that involves high blood pressure, and can endanger the baby and the mother.

That's sobering news to a mom like me who lives in Los Angeles--the region with the worst air quality in the nation. It also makes NRDC's on-going work more urgent and relevant. From cleaning up the ships and trucks at the ports to suing government agencies to ensure Los Angeles has a shot at meeting federal air quality standards, we're working overtime for a whole new generation of Angelinos. Talk about a daily dose of inspiration.

Breathing Room: Economic Downturn at Ports Provides an Opportunity to Rethink Railyard Projects

2009-07-09T21:29:02Z

Melissa Lin Perrella, Staff Attorney, Southern California Air Project, Santa Monica

The LA Times and the Cunningham Report recently reported that cargo projections at the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach are down--way down. The Times stated that at the Port of Long Beach, "trade volumes have been knocked back all the way to 2003 levels . . . wiping out all of the trade gains recorded during the boom years of 2004 through 2007." Indeed, while the ports' previous cargo forecasts predicted that the ports would reach capacity (43 million TEUs) by 2023, the ports are now revising their predictions, concluding that they won't reach full capacity until more than a decade later-until 2035.

This is significant because any delay in reaching capacity calls into question the purpose and need for various port expansion projects. For instance, a 2006 study jointly conducted by both ports concluded that off-dock railyards were needed ASAP because "the demand for off-dock railyards will outstrip the existing capacity . . . in the 2010 or 2015 timeframe." (The study indicated that if the ports had 0% growth, capacity would be reached by 2015; at 3% growth, capacity would be reached by 2010). This study, in many ways provided the justification for two highly controversial railyard projects located in communities near the port: the Southern California International Gateway Project (SCIG) and expansion of the existing Union Pacific intermodal facility (UP Expansion). But times have changed. Unfortunately, however, the ports' mantra of "build more now" has not.

Instead of justifying new projects on the basis that the ports are bursting at the seams with cargo, now, the ports say that new infrastructure projects are necessary to remain competitive--to keep existing customers, and attract new business. As a result, it seems difficult to envision any scenario where the ports would not rationalize the need for more concrete.

The proposed SCIG and UP Expansion projects are hotly contested because they create an incompatible land use problem where highly industrial, highly polluting activities occur right next to homes, schools, daycare centers, parks and churches. USC and UCLA have documented especially high levels of pollution near sources of traffic (such as freeways and railyards). And USC's studies show that children living near heavy traffic pollution are more likely to have asthma and reduced lung function. Adults are at risk, too. The California Air Resources Board found that railyards--including the UP facility--create elevated cancer risks for nearby residents because of all of the polluting trains and trucks that visit those facilities.

Despite these risks, the SCIG project is proposed to be built within one mile of eight different schools and at least one daycare center. Air pollution samples taken from a school near the proposed site--Hudson Elementary--indicate that the children attending that school already breathe some of the dirtiest air in the region. An earlier LA Times piece reported that a volunteer group of mothers conducted traffic counts next to Hudson with USC researchers, tallying 580 big rig trucks in an hour. To make matters worse, the proposed SCIG site is in close proximity to the existing UP facility (which the ports want to expand) and all of its industrial operations. The UP facility is within a quarter mile from a large residential area and several schools, including Hudson Elementary and Stephen's Jr. High School.

Times are tough and everyone is scrambling to find a way to rebuild the economy. But if any two projects should give Angelinos cause for concern, it's the proposed SCIG and UP Expansion. The downturn in the economy provides an opportunity to rethink, at the very least, the timing of these projects and more importantly, cleaner alternatives that could take their place. Such alternatives must avoid building railyards in neighborhoods. The risks are simply too high, and we all deserve better.

Smooth Sailing

2009-07-06T20:47:29Z

Melissa Lin Perrella, Staff Attorney, Southern California Air Project, Santa Monica

I used to practice law at a major corporate law firm. Most cases ended with money exchanging hands--one corporation that breached a contract would pay monetary damages to another. Sure, sometimes the monetary damages were huge, causing a shift in business practices and maybe a firing here or there, but in the grand scheme of things these cases and the court decisions emanating from them had little impact on the daily lives of normal folks.

However, on Tuesday evening, just as many of us were bathing our kids before bedtime or preparing our evening meal, the Eastern District Court of California issued a decision that will prevent more than 3,500 premature deaths and nearly 100,000 asthma attacks over the next six years. See the LAT coverage about this public health victory.

As discussed in the LAT article, the state of California was given the green light, despite a lawsuit filed by the shipping industry, to require ocean going vessels that visit California's ports to use cleaner fuels. These ships are huge, as are their emissions. The main engines on these vessels tower five stories high and produce enough power to sustain 30,000 homes. And their daily particulate matter emissions are the equivalent of 150,000 big rig trucks traveling 125 miles per day. Why are ships so dirty? Part of the problem is that they generally use "bunker fuel," which is over 1,500 times dirtier than the fuel used by big rig trucks. But California's new regulations will change that.

And it's amazing what simply requiring ships to use cleaner fuel can do. The regulations will reduce diesel particulate matter emissions by 74 percent and sulfur oxides by over 80 percent. The South Coast Air Quality Management District filed a brief with the court saying that it would be "impossible" for the Los Angeles region to meet federal air quality standards without the State's rules; that's because ship emissions are such a huge slice in our state's pollution pie. It's for this reason why NRDC helped defend California's new rules in court.

Further, California's rules would cost the shipping industry less than one percent of the total cost of a typical trans-Pacific voyage, and in their lawsuit, the shipping industry admitted that these costs aren't unreasonable or overly burdensome. And they didn't even assert that compliance with the rules was technically infeasible or even difficult.

In response to the court's decision, the shipping industry stated that they favor international standards instead of states acting alone. Truth be told, we'd all like a global solution to ship pollution, but we need one that addresses the disproportionate pollution burden California bears as this nation's gateway to international trade.

As the LAT's reports, federal and international efforts are underway to try to address ship pollution. But those efforts aren't as health protective as California's new rules nor are they set in stone. For instance, federal EPA is proposing new engine and fuel standards for U.S. flagged ships. The federal fuel standard, if adopted, wouldn't kick-in until 2015--one year after the Los Angeles region is required to meet federal air quality standards. And EPA's proposal doesn't cover foreign flagged ships--the ships that frequent our harbors to satisfy this nation's insatiable appetite for cars, ipods and cheap tennis shoes.

So, while I support and applaud federal and international efforts to tackle ship pollution, California can't wait for someone else to solve its pollution problems or conveniently pass the buck. And thankfully, our justice system agrees it shouldn't have to.