Port of Oakland Works to Clear the Air

Discussions between the Port of Oakland and its West Oakland neighbors over the past year have resulted in some innovative additions to the Port's remodeling plans which may make regional history while keeping West Oakland residents healthier and happier.

The Port's Vision 2000 plan, adopted in September 1997, included comprehensive changes to the Port to create an intermodal rail terminal, new marine terminal space and berths, and improved public access to the waterfront. (See May/June 1998 issue.) Although the community welcomed the Port's initial meetings to describe the planned changes, the perception of economic benefits began to be eclipsed by the potential health effects of dust and diesel exhaust from additional truck trips and construction activities.

The environmental impact studies done for the plan identified air quality as an impact which could not be totally mitigated, and noted that many sources of air pollution were not under the Port's control. However, local air pollution was of particular concern to West Oakland residents. According to local activist Willie Keyes of West Oakland Neighbors, with 20% of West Oakland children already suffering from asthma, the Port's activity was seen as "literally killing us".

Mitigation measures included in the Vision 2000 environmental plans already carried a price tag of $50 million, and it seemed to West Oakland residents that they were not making headway with requests to add measures which would further protect their community. They turned to the Golden Gate Environmental Justice Law Clinic, under the direction of attorney Alan Ramo, and took the Port to court. In February 1998, without admitting fault, the Port settled with West Oakland Neighbors and agreed to confer with the community on appropriate mitigation measures. At the end of 9 months of meetings, the Port adopted a package of mitigation measures, and pledged $9 million directly to air quality mitigation.

Jim McGrath, Environmental Manager for the Port, says that although it was not clear that West Oakland residents were more heavily impacted by Port-generated air pollution than others in the region, diesel emissions are obviously important to public health, and the Port concluded that it was necessary to be a part of the solution for offsetting diesel pollution instead of waiting for changes in regulations at the state and federal level.

Settlement money allowed West Oakland Neighbors to hire a researcher, who consulted with other West Coast ports on possible mitigation techniques. The community feels that the funds were not enough to solve the problems, according to Keyes, but he believes the settlement provided a "foot in the door" and the community continues to benefit from participating in the discussions.

Ramo says that during the months since the settlement, good progress has been made, and he is hopeful that a new relationship between the Port and the community has been established. He is particularly pleased that "the Port has seemingly acknowledged its obligation to improve the quality of life in West Oakland, and its need to offset the impacts of pollution".

Part of the settlement will add funding for cost-effective ways to reduce emissions at or near the Port, through the mitigation measures adopted by the Port Commission as part of the final Environmental Impact Report:

• Engine replacement and add-on exhaust treatment for cargo handling equipment ($5.25 million). Calculations of emissions reductions showed the cost of this measure would be $20,000/ton of pollutants, twice the Port's cost-effectiveness standard of $10,000/ton, but offsetting this was the local reduction in particulates from diesel exhaust. It was also more cost-effective than many of the other proposed measures. The add-on exhaust treatment will be done as a pilot project, to evaluate whether there are adverse effects such as reduced engine life or increased maintenance costs which would discourage owner participation in a full-scale program.
• Retrofits and add-on exhaust treatment for cargo trucks serving the Port ($1.57 million). A subsidy for complete replacement of diesel truck engines was initially proposed; recalculating emissions reductions showed that this would not be cost-effective, and the impacts would be less locally beneficial than those from the cargo-equipment retrofits. Engine retrofits would be prioritized for those pieces of equipment which have the longest useful life expectancy. If other mitigation measures are infeasible or less expensive than expected, their funding would be added to the $1.48 million designated for the truck retrofit program. The add-on exhaust treatment will be a pilot project similar to the one for cargo equipment.
• Subsidies for replacement of AC Transit diesel bus engines with cleaner engines ($700,000). This amount will fund replacement engines for 27 buses, with particular attention to vehicles which operate on routes serving West Oakland. In addition, the Port and AC Transit may consider a Memorandum of Understanding to create a joint training facility for diesel engine repair and retrofit drawing on AC Transit's experience in this field, saving costs for both agencies through economies of scale, and providing potential jobs for West Oakland residents.

In addition, the Port will be attempting to implement other unusual air pollution mitigations:

• A demonstration project to equip a diesel tugboat with a new engine meeting California emissions standards for new diesel engines, or an add-on exhaust treatment. Tugboat diesel engines are heavy polluters but have an extremely long lifespan, so they are seldom replaced. A successful project could lead to significant reductions in tugboat emissions.
• Installation of pollution control equipment at industrial facilities in the vicinity of the Port (Precision Cast, and possibly Red Star Yeast) to reduce reactive organic gas (ROG) emissions.
• Requiring train switching equipment operating at the terminal to use newer diesel engines which meet new federal regulations.
• Providing electric connections at one of the new berths, allowing tugboats to shut down on-board engines used to provide power for the vessel while berthed.
• Persuading the California Air Resources Board (CARB) to establish a heavy-duty diesel truck testing station near the Port.
• Locating and utilizing an electric-powered dredge for harbor improvements.

These measures give the Port a "leadership role in the area" in addressing local impacts of air pollution, according to Jean Roggenkamp of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), who hopes that successful mitigation techniques will be shared with BAAQMD and CARB. Ramo says the lawsuit resulted in a landmark decision on the part of the Port which has resulted in the most stringent plan in the country to mitigate diesel emissions. However, these measures are still not sufficient to mitigate impacts to insignificant levels, an effort which may require actions at the state and federal levels as well, since trains and ships are federally regulated.

Also, because of the innovative nature of many of the mitigation measures, they may still fall short of achieving the desired results. Continued effort by Port staff will be required to evaluate the effectiveness of the measures, and monitoring required under state law will be particularly critical. Staff mitigation monitoring reports will be sent to the Port Commission and will be public. Both the Port and the West Oakland community also intend to keep their dialogue going, so that if changes need to be made in the plans, everyone can agree on how to "clear the air".

• Port of Oakland, Jim McGrath, 510-272-1175, http://www.portofoakland.com
• West Oakland Neighbors, Willie Keyes, 510-601-0928
• Golden Gate University Environmental Justice Law Clinic, Alan Ramo, 415-442-6647, http://www.ggu.edu/schools/law/clinics/eljc.htm
• Bay Area Air Quality Management District, Jean Roggenkamp, 415-771-6000, http://www.baaqmd.gov