Activists, South Coast Eye CEQA Challenge To L.A. Port Railyard Project

A large railyard project proposed for the Port of Los Angeles is drawing strong opposition from the South Coast air district and environmentalists over the project’s environmental review, with the agency and activists arguing that air quality impacts have not been adequately addressed and the plan likely violates the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

The expected air pollution impacts from the project must be addressed because it is located in an environmental justice area and it is expected to be one of the largest intermodal facilities in the nation, the groups charge. The area near the port is home to some of the worst air quality in the nation.

But proponents of the project, including labor unions, say it will create thousands of jobs in Los Angeles areas hit hard by unemployment. The port also says the project is necessary to help accommodate future growth of container and goods movement at the port, which is one of the largest in the country.

The Port of Los Angeles Feb. 1 closed a public comment period on a draft environmental impact report (EIR) under CEQA for the Southern California International Gateway (SCIG) project. SCIG would involve construction of an intermodal railyard that would transfer cargo containers between trucks and railcars. The Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) railroad company would operate the facility under a 30-year lease with the port.

The project would provide an additional near-dock intermodal rail facility to meet current and future cargo container demands, the EIR says. Construction of the project is planned for 2013-2015, the EIR says.

In Feb. 1 comments to the Port of Los Angeles, South Coast air district officials say air quality impacts of the SCIG must be better evaluated and mitigated because “the railyard will be one of the largest intermodal facilities in the nation, and will be located near residences, schools, and a veterans center.”

Based on the draft EIR, the project would generate particulate matter (PM) and smog-forming emissions that would exceed CEQA significance thresholds by more than 300% and 2,300%, respectively, the district says.

The draft EIR does not contain any mitigation for smog-forming emissions and the only mitigation for PM is street sweeping, the letter says. “Zero emission technologies such as electric trucks to transport containers between the ports and railyard could be deployed early in the operational life of the railyard, and deployment of [cleaner] tier 4 locomotives could be accelerated.”

The port should also use its authority to set environmental conditions as part of project approvals for rail facilities, the district says. “It is essential that the port get the particulars regarding this project right during the initial project approval. As the ports and local governments throughout the region are aware, the railroads have a history of using federal law to block environmental mitigation for their activities. The railroad would likely use the same legal strategy for any mid-course corrections to reduce the environmental impacts after project approval.” Copies of letters are available at InsideEPA.com. See page 2 for details. (Doc ID: 2389779)

South Coast and the railroads are currently locked in a litigation battle over the district’s anti-idling rules for locomotives, which have to date been rejected by courts (see related story, p1).

The Natural Resources Defense Council, Coalition for Clean Air and other groups in a Feb. 1 comment letter to the port argue that the EIR is flawed partially because zero-emission technologies to move cargo containers are trivialized as an alternative. “A legally defensible [CEQA] analysis would consider whether zero-emission container movement could begin to be phased in by 2020,” the letter states.

The EIR also fails because it provides an “overly rosy” picture of how the SCIG fits into the region’s ability to comply with federal and state clean air standards, the environmental groups argue. “The EIR itself shows that the SCIG project will not help achieve federal and state clean air standards on time because it shows significant increases in emissions.”

An environmentalist noted that there is a significant difference of opinion between the local labor and trade unions supporting SCIG and the environmental groups opposing it. “There are a lot of jobs at stake,” the source noted.

The SCIG website, maintained by BNSF, says the project would be the greenest intermodal rail facility in the

country. If approved, SCIG will reduce truck trips between the port and current railyards from 24 miles to 4 miles, thus

improving air quality, the website says. The SCIG project would create 22,000 port-related jobs, according to the website.