Who doesn't want to clean up trucks in Oakland?
Posted August 4, 2011 in Curbing Pollution, Environmental Justice, Health and the Environment
This afternoon Alameda County Supervisors Nate Miley and Scott Haggerty are hosting a hearing to “give local Port truckers an opportunity to share their concerns about the Drayage Truck Rule.” Why is Alameda County revisiting these important public health protections for Oakland residents living along the busy 880 freight corridor? It is puzzling given that both Supervisors are board members of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District and they each have messages on their webpages: “We care about the environment.” With a big green leaf icon.
This hearing plays to calls from local truck companies that do not want to follow the state clean up schedule for diesel rigs serving big ports and rail yards. Roughly 2.800 diesel trucks that travel through Oakland neighborhoods suffering from some of the highest asthma rates in the state, have yet to apply simple soot filters according to the drayage truck registry. These trucks are polluting roughly ten times the amount of soot as the 1,750 newer trucks with modern controls servicing the Port of Oakland and the additional 1,700 that have invested in soot filter retrofits according to information obtained from this registry.
Former Alameda County Health Department Director and Health Officer Dr. Anthony Iton spoke frequently of the need to address diesel pollution in Oakland neighborhoods: “As you are aware, West Oakland asthma hospitalization rates are 2.3 times the County average and West Oakland residents experience a 2.5 times greater lifetime risk of cancer than Bay Area residents in general, in no small part due to dirty diesel trucks.”
I urge the Alameda County Supervisors to heed the advice of their health department and consider the health toll of diesel truck pollution on the surrounding community. Please support the preservation of the drayage truck regulation to give residents of West Oakland, East Oakland and communities along 880 the relief from oppressive diesel pollution that they need.
Comments are closed for this post.
Comments
Ronald Light — Aug 5 2011 01:59 PM
Diane, you and I had this conversation outside the CARB building in June. I thought you understood both the economic reality and the urgent practicalities of the situation for Port truckers, but obviously you don't. Extending the NOx deadline will give the 2,700 trucks now without filters the headroom they need to go ahead and pay for immediate retrofits to reduce PM 2.5 emissions. Otherwise, they move their trucks outside the Port and continue to operate without filters. As you are quite aware, the way the rule now stands it requires trucks to be retrofitted with PM filters in 2012 and 2013, then be banned altogether from California ports in 2014. As you also well know, the original intent of the NOx reduction requirement of the drayage rule was to require the purchase of NOx filters, not for owner operators to have to buy new truck replacements for their newly retrofitted trucks. Diane, you attempt to reduce a complex issue into the dictum of a simple ideology, and that's both misleading and intellectually dishonest for your readers.
Diane Bailey — Aug 6 2011 01:02 AM
Hi Ron. I agree that this is pretty complicated and not an easy situation for port truck owners. The community surrounding freight hubs like the Port of Oakland, however, has suffered the consequences of truck pollution for too long. Upgrading to 2007 or newer clean trucks is the best choice. It was clear since early discussions of the drayage truck rule that NOx retrofits were a gamble; nobody could predict whether they would be verified and widely available.
Community health should be the first priority.
Ronad Light — Aug 7 2011 05:28 AM
Diane, thank you for admitting that "NOx retrofits were a gamble." On what basis can we justify the state of California formulating public policy on a "gamble?" Having lost that gamble, small truckers operating at the Port of Oakland face an additional 250 million dollar expense for mandatory truck replacement. That figure's for used 2007 or better engine model trucks that are unavailable in sufficient number to matter. Thus, it's more appropriate to quote new truck replacement costs, valued at half a billion dollars! Where's that money going to come from during a recession? As to your comment about truck pollution at freight hubs and community health, if you attended the Supervisors' hearing you heard Oakland City Council Member At-large Rebecca Kaplan publicly attest to the fact that non-drayage trucks bear far more responsibility for dirty diesel emissions in West Oakland than do Port trucks. Imagine that: CARB is targeting the wrong trucks!
Alan Osofsky — Aug 7 2011 12:04 PM
I880 and I80 run right through Oakland. I contend that there are more trucks on those 2 corridors than are at the Port on any given day. The trucks on those 2 corridors will be allowed to emit more emmissions than those at the Port. Where is the logic in that?
How does that concept benefit the residents in Oakland?
Diane Bailey — Aug 7 2011 05:07 PM
Alan and Ron, you raise important points. However, if you look at most of the trucks traveling West Oakland streets like 7th and frequenting nearby yards, they are carrying containers. It is not easy to upgrade all of these trucks and we appreciate all your efforts and those of all port truck owners thus far.
We may be surprised by new NOx retrofits becoming verified in the near future; one SCR device achieving 80 percent NOx control for certain trucks has already been verified (see http://www.arb.ca.gov/diesel/verdev/vt/cvt.htm). No one was gambling on these products as the only compliance pathway though. They have always been regarded as a potentially cheaper alternative to purchasing new or moderately used trucks in the context of the drayage truck regulation.
Millions of dollars of public funding have gone towards early assistance with drayage truck reg compliance. We hope you will continue to work with the air district and other agencies to find grants, affordable loans and other kinds of assistance towards achieving a truly clean fleet.
Libby Stahl — Aug 7 2011 06:23 PM
If the truck isnt clean it isnt a PORT Truck, the filters work but we can not combat the fact that nonport trucks, dirty trucks, come to all the warehouses at the Port, they use 7th street and Grand Ave because you only have to be clean to enter the Port Terminals. CARB made a mistake my allowing on road trucks the extension but no one will admit this. This rule isnt fair to the Port truckers or the neighborhoods. This fight will continue until Fed Ex, UPS, delivery and post office trucks, etc. are required to be clean. Port truck drivers cant do it all themselves. All big rigs are not PORT trucks. Get educated
Ronad Light — Aug 9 2011 01:16 PM
Diane, you do realize that come 2014, 2,000 2005-2006 engine model trucks--all having incurred expensive PM filter retrofits only one year earlier--will have to be scrapped from the drayage fleet? Add to that 700 2004 model trucks with just two-year old exhaust retrofits, plus some 1,700 1994-2003 trucks, many retrofitted with taxpayer dollars. Tell me, where is the logic in that? Moreover, one intent of the Truck and Bus rule modification was to bring the drayage rule into alignment with emissions reduction schedules for all other classes of diesel trucks. Thus, the official "environmental position" is unfair, unjust, illogical and promotes a chaotic situation for Port truckers. Finally, I ask you, how can you use environmental justice to justify putting out of business very many hard-working people--almost all first-generation immigrants and people of color--who sacrificed to buy newer model trucks and comply with requirements for expensive exhaust retrofits? If you have a fair and practical solution, we'd like to hear it.