Atlantic Basin News: NYCEDC Wants MORE Trucks at Pier 11. Beaks Promise to Red Hook on Public / Cultural Use in Portion of Pier's Shed. UPDATE: Star Review Confirms Phoenix Move

The New York City Economic Development Corporation (EDC) has just put out an RFP (Request for Proposals) for an operator for 100% of the Pier 11 shed, a structure that lies along the Eastern edge of the Atlantic Basin on the Red Hook waterfront (on the left of the photo, above). A portion of this shed and surrounding site, including 600 feet of Atlantic Basin water frontage, was supposed to be the home of PortSide NewYork and their ship, the Mary A. Whalen, which they use for their cultural, educational and community outreach programs. PortSide is now looking for a new home as they have been kicked out of the Atlantic Basin and the EDC's promise to allow them to make a permanent home at this site has been withdrawn. The EDC, through the new RFP, is asking for a respondent (developer) to sub-lease the site to operate and develop "cargo industrial warehousing and distribution operations".

You can see and download the RFP here.

The creation of this RFP must mean that Phoenix Beverages, the beer trucking company that currently uses the Pier 11 shed for recycling and garbage, will be moving out of that site and consolidating their entire operations at Pier 7, at the bottom of Atlantic Avenue. This is where most of their activities already take place.

UPDATE (10/10/12): The Red Hook Star Review (story HERE) confirms that Phoenix Beverages will consolidate their operations at Pier 7. The Star Review story, however, makes no mention of PortSide's inauspicious removal from the plans for the Pier 11 shed and Atlantic Basin, nor the fact that the EDC's new RFP excludes ANY community use, public space, waterfront access at the site, as was promised.

It would seem like an obvious and logical move to accommodate Phoenix at a single location - in fact, many of us have been advocating for this for a while. The main reason Phoenix (a.k.a. Long Feng Trucking) trucks have been a problem for our neighborhoods is because of the EDC's insistence, when the final and contentious deal was done in 2009, that Phoenix split their operations between Pier 7 (bottom of Atlantic Ave) and Pier 11(bottom of Pioneer Street), which meant that their trucks had to shuttle through local streets between the two locations, noisily rattling and racing through Red Hook and Columbia Street's residential neighborhoods, imperiling pedestrians along the way. This problem was "solved" when community uproar about broken promises (my post here), which were made to keep the trucks on "internal roads" within the container terminal, forced politicians to step in and, with the co-operation of the Teamsters, the Phoenix truck drivers were directed to use the BQE to get from one end of the neighborhood to the other. If the comments on this blog are anything to go by, trucks re-routing along the often congested BQE regularly costs the drivers up to 30 additional minutes (without overtime pay) at the end of their work day - something I bet they'll be happy to be rid of, when (or if) this consolidation at Pier 7 does take place.

But that doesn't mean we'll have fewer trucks coming in and out of the Pier 11/ Atlantic Basin location.

Unfortunately, the RFP - calling for 100% of the shed to be used for "cargo industrial warehousing and distribution operations" - will mean MORE trucks for this site. If what we suspect is happening, Phoenix's 200+ truck trips a day will come in and out of their Pier 7 location (Atlantic Ave), and the operations of the new "developer" at Pier 11 will bring additional truck trips in and out of the Red Hook location (as of yet unknown in weight, size, number and type), entering and exiting on Bowne Street, feeding out into our neighborhoods and onto our streets.

That doesn't sound like what we were promised back in 2009.

You see, one of the assurances made to our community when the deal was done to move Phoenix to the Red Hook waterfront - and, inexplicably into BOTH Piers 7 and 11 (when they only ever wanted one pier) - was that, when Phoenix moved in to Pier 11, a portion of the shed and the surrounding site around the Atlantic Basin would be allocated for community, cultural use, public and open space, accommodation of the Brooklyn Greenway, waterfront access, transportation, etc.

It must be remembered that previous EDC plans, Community Board 6 guidelines for the development of Piers 7-12, and Red Hook's own 197a Plan, have all called for industrial maritime use to be maintained on the waterfront, but also called for the creation of community-friendly elements - we're talking open space, public access to the water, cultural and educational uses, and better waterborne public transportation. In 2007, when the Red Hook Container Terminal secured its lease to remain on the Red Hook waterfront, that lease fulfilled the requirement for significant maritime-industrial use of the piers. The Container Terminal retained Piers 7, 8, 9, 9a and 10. After that lease was signed, the only remaining parcel of property that could possibly be used to fulfill the other needs -  those for the community-friendly elements - was the Atlantic Basin and the Pier 11 shed. That was all that was left!

That's why, in 2009 when we found out that the EDC wanted to also "take over" the Pier 11 shed (and the Atlantic Basin) by leasing it to Phoenix Beverages, the community was in full revolt.

In an attempt to placate community concerns about the Phoenix plan - including questions about congestion, pollution, appropriate use of precious, publicly-owned waterfront land, etc. - the local non-profit organization, PortSide New York, was tapped by the EDC to take on the task of making the "community-friendly elements" a reality, using part of the shed and a 600 foot length of the Atlantic Basin. At the time I wrote it was a "small concession", but at least it was something! Representatives from the EDC, including Vice Presidents Venetia Lannon and Andrew Genn, assured us at meeting after meeting that PortSide was an integral part of the whole deal, and we were told we shouldn't worry about being shut out or cut off from the waterfront to which our community - both residential and commercial - was craving more connection.

That's what we were promised.

Well, that promise was broken. Initially, things seemed to be heading in the right direction. Since 2009, PortSide has been given the opportunity to create a few very successful events in the Atlantic Basin using temporary, short-term permits. There were "Tanker Concerts" (pic below) in collaboration with with local venue, "Jalopy", the Dutch Flat Bottomed Boats event (pic above), community sailing trips with tall ship, Clipper City, and more. But, earlier this year, PortSide were inauspiciously kicked out, ridiculed by the Port Authority as being like a "gypsy" camping out at "Terminal 2 at JFK" ... and now, they are looking for a new home - possibly, at great loss to our community, outside of Brooklyn.

To add insult to injury, we see now that the EDC is not even looking for a replacement for PortSide. They want to take over the whole site for warehousing and industrial use. There is no mention of the community-friendly elements - not even accommodation of the long and carefully planned Brooklyn Greenway! Why are they ignoring the clearly articulated needs of our community? This goes against all of the rhetoric previously coming out of government and the community itself.

Time after time - in Red Hook's 197a Plan, to the 2003 and 2006 Community Board 6 Guidelines for the development of Piers 7-12, in statements from local representatives, Red Hook Civic Association, the EDC and even the Port Authority themselves - the consensus has been that our mixed use neighborhood needed more access to the waterfront, more public space, waterborne transportation, connection of local businesses to the waterfront - what everyone called a "balanced" use of the waterfront.

Even recent studies, including efforts supported by the City, have called for more "balanced use of the waterfront".

The Vision 2020 NYC Comprehensive Waterfront Plan, which was hashed out in 2010, stated that the area around the Atlantic Basin and the adjacent cruise terminal should be assessed for further "public use", "active water related public use", "proper alignment of Brooklyn Greenway", "recreational and educational programming" (my post here).

If the EDC is looking for someone to develop 100% of the Pier 11 shed for industrial use and warehousing, doesn't that torpedo any possibility of realizing these community-friendly elements?

Can someone tell me, what was the point of that whole Vision 2020 thing?!!

Just to list a few of the broken promises made by the EDC about uses for this site:

*Phoenix trucks will use internal roadways
*Inclusion of Governors Island Ferry
*More public waterborne transportation - East River Ferry, perhaps?
*Enable creation of new home for PortSide NewYork
*Berth and 600 foot water frontage for Mary A. Whalen and other commercial boats on Atlantic Basin
*Open space
*Recreational / educational uses
*Increased public access
*Community use for Cruse Terminal / Parking lot
*Accommodation of Brooklyn Greenway
*Creation of view-ways
*Connection to Van Brunt Street commercial strip

..... and the list goes on!

Yet again, the EDC is letting our community down. Depriving us of meaningful access to our publicly owned waterfront. Making bad decisions that impact our community with trucks and pollution - I haven't even mentioned the EDC's role in bringing unmitigated, polluting cruise ships to our residential neighborhood, spreading asthma-inducing emissions over our kids' heads and into their lungs (an evil notorious enough to have a cameo in Spike Lee's new movie, "Red Hook Summer"), and the EDC's role in sending relentlessly noisy helicopters into our air space.

I really don't know what the EDC is thinking - but shouldn't we let them know a few of our thoughts?

Maybe people would like to attend one of these site visits:


Should NYCEDC elect to keep the RFP open for additional Submission Dates, additional information sessions/site visits will be held at 10AM on the following days:

Tuesday, October 30, 2012
Tuesday, February 5, 2013
Tuesday, May 7, 2013


Those who wish to attend should RSVP by email to Pier11SubleaseRFP@nycedc.com 

From the EDC's RFP - click to enlarge

.

More Work To Be Done - Container Ships, Helicopters and Diesel Generators

The excellent news of last month, concerning the deal to bring shore power to the Brooklyn Cruise Terminal, has made many in our community, including me, feel like we've actually gotten something done here in Red Hook. This success could also make many of us feel like we can 'take a breather' from the work of trying to address challenges in our neighborhood - and to our residents - from pollution and other threats to our quality of life.

However, there is still more work to be done.

Concerning the shore power deal, obviously this is a great result, and the fact that this 5 year deal will allow the plan at the Brooklyn Cruise Terminal to move forward is a good thing. Especially while the process to bring about a long term solution - i.e. the case requesting the creation of a permanent "shore power tariff" - is still weaving its circuitous and protracted way through the Public Service Commission and elsewhere - perhaps to be nudged along by the NYC Council Resolution (that still hasn't had a hearing) at the City's Committee on Waterfronts.

But, as I've said all along, and as I was quoted (below) in the article (here) from the Metropolitan Waterfront Alliance's newsletter, WaterWire, this Brooklyn shore power plan should just be a "first step".

"The use of shore power in Brooklyn should set the example for the rest of our city's ports where similar 'green' practices could and should be implemented, with resultant health benefits for all New Yorkers."

"So, bravo Brooklyn, and let's keep pushing towards a healthier, cleaner and greener future - for our ports, for our city, and for all of our residents."

So while we're all feeling good about the Cruise Terminal plan, unfortunately, in the foreseeable future, ships will still be idling their extra-dirty diesel engines at the end of our residential streets.

I'm referring to container ships, such as the ones that visit the Brooklyn Container Terminal. As the Caribbean Princess pulled out of its berth yesterday (having spent Mothers Day idling at the end of my family's street) I thought - Wow, if all goes to plan, this time next year the Princess and the Queen Mary 2 will have kicked their smoking and idling habits.

Cool!

However, I woke this morning to see the belching smokestacks of the ship, Grande Marocco (a "roll on roll off" container ship docked at the Brooklyn Container Terminal which has an unimpressive "E" efficiency rating on ShippingEfficiency.org - here). There it was, idling, carcinogenic and asthma inducing smoke belching out of its funnels - constantly - as was going to be the case for its entire stay in our neighborhood (TUESDAY UPDATE: The Grande Marocco is in its second day of constantly idling on our waterfront - 24 hours and counting!). The sad fact is, these ships burn the same dirty diesel (bunker fuel) that the cruise ships do while they're idling in port, and there should be a plan to make sure that their emissions aren't harming our residents unnecessarily either.

As I've previously said, this is the unfortunate reality for ALL ships visiting the ports of New York and New Jersey. They're all idling. They're all burning extra-dirty diesel and blowing harmful substances into our air, (equivalent to the emissions of 7.8 Million cars, according to the Environmental Defense Fund), and whether it's Brooklyn, Staten Island or Manhattan in NYC, or Elizabeth, Newark or Bayonne in New Jersey, we all share the same air. Actually, the fouled air from the New Jersey ports (the largest in our region) generally blows towards New York City - especially Brooklyn and Staten Island - due to prevailing winds. So shouldn't there be a comprehensive plan to get shore power and similar emissions eliminating and life saving practices established throughout our area's ports, with all types of ships - cruise and container?

This has been the case in California and elsewhere on the West Coast, where shore power has been used for many years at multiple ports, with all types of ships. In communities such as Long Beach and Los Angeles, where the two largest ports in the country abut dense residential populations, the strategy implemented over the last decade has been to make their ports as clean as possible. Not just the through the use of cleaner diesel, but by the widespread use of shore power - allowing the ships to "cold iron" - i.e. turn off their engines, thereby eliminating, not just reducing, the harmful substances that compromise the health of the ports' neighbors and nearby residents. In LA there has also been a successful and comprehensive "clean truck program" (something that is sorely needed here in New York, though a similar but less robust plan, yet to be instigated, is being championed by Rep. Jerrold Nadler and the Coalition for Healthy Ports). In these ways, the burden of the operation of that city's ports is being taken off their residents - especially the many who are already vulnerable.

This should also be the case in ports of New York and New Jersey, the third largest in the country.

The great thing about using shore power, is that it not only eliminates the harmful substances that I have written about extensively in this blog - SOx, NOx and Particulates - substances that are (as noted by the EPA and others) carcinogens, asthma inducing, contribute to heart and lung disease and to premature mortality - even premature birth and low birth weight outcomes. But the use of shore power also significantly reduces CO2 and other greenhouse gases and lessens our reliance on oil - yes, that "foreign oil" we're all trying to wean ourselves off. Actually, the ships will be buying their electricity from us - from domestic sources - from our City's utilities - rather than giving their money to oil companies. These are all good things, right? Can anyone say, "Win, Win, Win"?

It's true, there are regulations coming in the next number of years that will compel all ocean going ships to use cleaner fuel while in North American waters, including in our harbors and ports, and that will bring great improvements to our nation's air quality and health benefits to many Americans. But, where there is port activity that abuts dense residential populations - as is the case in Red Hook and many of our city's and region's (aka NJ) ports - surely the use of the most clean practice should be the goal. Why should we settle for the reduction of the pollution and the resultant environmental and health burden on our residents, when its elimination is possible - as is the case when ships use shore power while in port? There's no good reason why we should. Not when there are so many benefits, and especially when we're talking about real people - often the most vulnerable - with real lives whose health is, and will continue to be, compromised by the continuation and acceptance of the status quo.

So, we need to work toward this goal - the goal of creating the cleanest port operations possible in our residential neighborhoods. We need to make our representatives aware of our concerns about the matter of the container ships, too (as well as the other cruise ships in Manhattan and New Jersey). And, the press needs to play its part in getting the information out to the wider public and to expose the facts.

On the latter point - about the press - I'm not holding my breath. The most disappointing thing about the fight for the cruise ship shore power plan was that the press coverage that was needed to push the issue forward and to help get the information out was so lame - absent for a great part. When the facts were coming out, through statements made by such "fringe elements" as the EPA and the Port Authority themselves, the press never quoted them nor helped get the information out - information that would have informed the public and precipitated the serious attention and response that was required. There was nothing on the subject from the New York Times or even the Brooklyn newspapers for over a year. In fact, a journalist from the Brooklyn Paper told me that a story was written on the shore power plan and the health burden that was being carried by our residents as a result of the ship pollution - including statements from the Port Authority about the shore power plan potentially saving Brooklyn residents $9 Million per year in health costs - but, apparently, the Brooklyn Papers' editor decided not to publish the story. I sent the editor,"Gersh", a couple of emails about that. His response was that he couldn't comment on the decision not to publish it - he referred me to a PR company. I guess he had another "my bike was stolen" story to fit in.

Considering this history of the press' dereliction of duty, it seems like we can't count on them to do the job. So it's up to us. OK?

Which brings me back to my broader point.

It's also up to us to make sure that we, the residents of Red Hook, etc., don't continue to have stuff shoved into our neighborhood that wouldn't be accepted anywhere else. Development or activities that are meant to bring broader economic benefit should not happen at the expense of our quality of life, result in added pollution, serious congestion or anything else.

So - Helicopters!

What's the story? It seems like there are rules in place that are meant to limit their flying - one after another after another - over our neighborhood. But it seems as though the helicopter operators aren't exactly obeying those rules. Apparently, it's our old friends at the NYCEDC who have created this mess by redirecting helicopters over Red Hook, rather than over the West Side or Brooklyn Heights. It's the EDC that is now dealing with this mess. The EDC is the agency that brought to our neighborhood: the cruise terminal, without shore power, aesthetic considerations or public access; Phoenix Beverages - without pollution mitigation to address the expanded operations of the container port and snapping up the prime location of Pier 11 ... for garbage and recycling; the agency that wants to create a tug boat parking lot in the Atlantic Basin, without requiring the use of cleaner fuel or other pollution mitigating practices.

On a positive note, the EDC Maritime Department did negotiate the deal to make the shore power plan happen.

There is a Facebook group called Redhook Noisecopters (here) that has been addressing this helicopter menace.

Here's their advice -

Please call Patricia Ornst, director of Aviation at the EDC. This is the person responsible for re routing Tourist helicopters over Red Hook Brooklyn 212-312-4226 or you can

email her at patricia.ornst@nycedc.com

They advise residents to direct complaints to 311 and to our representatives as well.

Red Hook's City Rep. is Councilmember Sarah Gonzalez. Her details are here.

Brad Lander represents the Columbia Waterfront District. His details are here.

Another thing - the Christie's Auction House diesel generator.

The local blog, Fifty Car Pileup, has noted in a post (here) that Christie's, the art auction house that stores its wares in the converted warehouse on Imlay Street, is illegally running a diesel generator, constantly, outside of their premises. First, it's ironic that Christie's, who have to carefully maintain the climate and air quality inside their art storage facility, don't seem to give a hoot about the deterioration of air quality that their generator is creating outside. Second, Christie's are new to the neighborhood - do they have to be such inconsiderate neighbors? Third, why do they need to use such a generator - why can't they get their power from the grid?

Brownstoner has taken up this story and will hopefully deliver this story to a wider audience - and get some action to address this matter. Fifty Car Pile Up also has some video footage of the generator, some facts about its fuel consumption (It is stated that the generator uses "39.3 gallons of diesel fuel an hour..as if 40 semi trucks were constantly idling on our block"), and there are some further statements about the harmful effects of diesel emissions - ones of which readers of this blog should be well aware.

Fifty Car Pileup asks -

Why is Christie's choosing to endanger the health of folks in Red Hook instead of purchasing power from the grid?

Sign our online petition

Tweet about @ChristiesInc irresponsible generator

Email Christie's PR department

WEDNESDAY UPDATE - Fifty Car Pileup has an update today, here - with a response from Christies stating they intend to use the generator only for "four or five months". That's 24/7 ..... constantly idling ... wow!

Fifty Car pileup rightly states,

"I'm baffled why they chose to begin storing art at this facility when it lacked sufficient electrical power from Con Ed. Before this facility came into use last year, Christie's was utilizing other locations for art storage. The fact is, Christie's choice to use a generator to warehouse art in Red Hook is detrimental to the health of our community."

Lastly, I believe that The Word On Columbia Street blog is closing shop. I'll be sad to see it and its publishers go. This blog has been covering the Columbia Waterfront and Red Hook for years and has not only operated as a publication supporting community events and local enterprises, it has played an important and invaluable role in raising awareness of many community issues - especially ones relating to pollution and quality of life, including the Cruise Ship shore power plan, the container ship issue, Phoenix's trucks, the uses of the Atlantic Basin, the ASI salt pile, the BQE trench, the Brooklyn Greenway and more - so I must commend them on their excellent and important efforts.

I wish Chris and his family all the best in their travels and adventures - it's been great knowing you and much success in whatever you do. Hope to see you back here in the not too distant future.

For the rest of us .... there's more work to be done.

.

California's Proposition 23 May Undercut Clean Port Initiatives - NATION-WIDE

For those of us who are advocating for cleaner and greener ports - including the reduction or elimination of cancer causing and otherwise harmful sulfur, nitrogen and particulate emissions from ship and truck smokestack pollution and the reduction of the negative health impacts that the activities of ports have on the residents of port cities and, most acutely, on the residential neighborhoods that the ports abut - the recent news that there is a possibility for the successful adoption of an Oil Industry bankrolled initiative on the ballot in California this November - Proposition 23 - is a worrying development.

Proposition 23 (given the rather Orwellian title, "California Jobs Initiative") is an attempt to roll back California's Clean Air Law - AB32. "Prop 23" is sponsored by Valery Energy and Tesaro, two Texas based Oil refining companies, as well as by David and Charles Koch (pronounced "Coke"), the billionaire brother owners of the oil giant Koch Industries, who have also financed the dissemination of climate change misinformation, fought legislation to address climate change or reduce pollution, and successfully lobbied the EPA to refrain from naming formaldehyde, a chemical produced by Koch Industries, as being a "known carcinogen" - which it is. The Koch brothers have also been involved, though keeping a low profile, in other political activities including their support of the "Tea Party" and establishing "grass roots" organizations such as "Americans for Prosperity", a group that opposed health care reform. Their many activities were detailed by Greenpeace earlier this year in a report titled, "Koch Industries: Secretly Funding the Climate Denial Machine.", and more recently in Jane Mayer's revelatory article in the New Yorker, "Covert Operations: The Billionaire Brothers who are Waging War against Obama".

There are many troubling things about Prop 23, and not only that it aims to wind back greenhouse gas regulation enacted in AB-32 - a law that, as the LA Times reports," is designed to cut the state's emission of greenhouse gases to 1990 levels by the end of this decade" with a significant chunk of these reductions coming through "regulations aimed at fostering alternative fuels and generating electricity from solar, wind and other alternative energy sources."

If the attack on greenhouse gas reduction/clean energy legislation wasn't troubling enough, the worry is that the adoption of Prop 23 will have flow-on effects to other anti-pollution measures that are in place in California. One of these may be the many clean port initiatives that have been implemented in California over the last number of years, including the initiatives to connect cruise and container ships to "shore power" while they are in port, allowing them to turn off their extra-dirty diesel burning engines (a practice called "cold ironing") instead of "idling" in port - as ships do in Red Hook, Brooklyn and throughout the Ports of New York and New Jersey, for example.

The news from Long Beach, California, via this article from Kristopher Hanson in the Press-Telegram, is this -

Policy experts believe Proposition 23, which seeks to suspend AB 32, California's landmark greenhouse gases law, could have significant impacts on recent measures passed to curb port emissions.

Among them are rules approved or pending by the California Air Resources Board to slash emissions from ships, trucks and trains - pollution generators blamed for thousands of cancer and heart disease cases annually in communities surrounding San Pedro Bay.

For example, the Air Resources Board in late 2007 adopted a plan requiring that ships turn off their auxiliary engines, use exhaust filters or plug into electrical outlets while visiting ports.

That measure could be suspended under Prop 23.

The article continues -

As for the health impacts of AB 32's suspension, a nonpartisan report estimates Prop 23 would probably lead to increased hospitalizations and public health costs.

The study was issued by the California Legislative Analyst's Office.

"Suspending some (CARB) measures could halt air quality improvements that would have public health benefits, such as reduced respiratory illnesses," the report notes. "These public health benefits translate into economic benefits, such as increased worker productivity and reduced government and business costs for health care."

The ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles are considered the largest fixed source of emissions in the state, with freight ships alone spewing more than 400,000 tons of carbon dioxide - a greenhouse gas - into local skies in 2008, according to the South Coast Air Quality Management District.

Port pollution is also a prime reason why children in communities around the ports suffer from the highest asthma rates in California.

As for potentially life-threatening illness, the ports are again a top contributor.

Numerous epidemiological studies show about 1,200 out of every million people locally develop cancer from air toxins during their lifetime.

However, the federal government lists the "acceptable" cancer rate from air pollution as no higher than 10 in a million.

Another article in the Press-Telegram, by Art Marroquin, conveyed the information that an updated "Clean Air Action Plan" for the Ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles was "expected to reduce the risk of cancer from port-related diesel emissions by 85 percent over the next decade".

If the previous reporting is right, these potential savings in human life and health costs will also be under threat if Prop 23 is adopted.

This is truly troubling, and if the proponents of the status quo, polluters and protectors of 'oil profits at the expense of human health' that support Prop 23 are successful, it doesn't bode well for the expansion of such pollution mitigating and life saving measures in other port cities outside of California, including ours.

For example, the "Clean Truck Program" that has been started in California was challenged in court recently, but the supporters of the program won (article here) and that program will continue - for now. There's also a similar program being proposed for the Ports of New York and New Jersey, initiated by Rep. Jerry Nadler, with the legislation being written to hopefully avoid such litigation. This was a matter that was extensively discussed in the New York City Council's Committee on Waterfronts' hearing convened in June titled, "Oversight - Clearing the Air: Greening New York City's Working Waterfront". My post here. (A full transcript of the hearing can be found at the NYC Council site, here).

So we have to make sure that Proposition 23 doesn't succeed - doesn't get in the way of these green port initiatives - and make sure that the people who are funding it and the politicians who support it, like California's Assemblyman Dan Logue (story here) and others, know that we know what they're up to.

If Prop 23 is defeated and California can succeed in reducing greenhouse emissions, while also reducing harmful emissions such as the type created by the activities of ports - including sulfur, nitrogen oxides and particulates from dirty diesel burning ships, trucks and trains - then we can all hope for such much needed improvements in our port cities and look forward to the accompanying health benefits to our port-side residents.

.

"NO IDLING" - Facts about Ship Pollution.

This is what 12,400 cars idling at the end of your residential street looks like.


Anyone annoyed at the idling buses ringing Coffey Park in the mornings, or chugging their fumes in front of your house? This ship is creating the equivalent asthma causing particulate matter (PM) of 6,000 big diesel buses, idling at the end of your residential street.


According to a Port Authority statement, the estimated monetized health cost to Brooklyn residents of these harmful yet avoidable emissions, just from the cruise ships visiting Brooklyn, is $9 million - per year.


On the West Coast, the news is that the act of plugging a container ship into "shore power" (allowing it to stop idling its extra dirty diesel engines) has the effect of taking 33,000 cars off the road - with the flick of a switch.


As the summer break starts, and as the ships continue to visit Red Hook, Brooklyn, and the rest of our city's ports - and idle - despite our city's otherwise strict "NO IDLING" rules, I wanted to put this information at the top of my blog again.

You can also find a quick "NO IDLING" fact sheet HERE.

Just a reminder of what the real impact is of these ships - and of the already known solutions being used elsewhere, but unfortunately not yet in New York, that can take this burden off the residents of port communities - especially our most vulnerable - our kids.

Rep. Jerrold Nadler and Mayor Bloomberg re-commit to Sunset Park Container Terminal

In my one of my previous posts, commenting on the challenges regarding the long-term viability - both environmentally and practically - of the Red Hook Container Port, I referred to the proposal to develop a Container Port at Sunset Park - something that was part of the City's 1999 "Strategic Plan for the Redevelopment of the Port of New York". This part of the plan had seemed to have fallen of the agenda for the last number of years, but a recent announcement from the City has put the proposed Sunset Park terminal back in the spotlight.

Regarding the announcement, Rep. Jerrold Nadler made this comment -

“This blueprint will reaffirm the City’s commitment to preserving, protecting and investing in our precious maritime and industrial infrastructure, and will build upon the Mayor’s support of the development of a major container port in Sunset Park"

Nadler is referring to the City's newly announce Waterfront Vision and Enhancement Strategy (WAVES).

From the City's press release (here) -

"The WAVES strategy – to be developed over the next nine months – will include two core components: the Vision 2020 – The New York City Comprehensive Waterfront Plan that will establish long-term goals for the next decade and beyond, and the New York City Waterfront Action Agenda that will set forth priority initiatives to be implemented within three years. Together, the initiatives will provide a blueprint for the City’s waterfront and waterways, and focus on the following categories: open space and recreation, the working waterfront, housing and economic development, natural habitats, climate change adaptation and waterborne transportation."

I wrote about the "Vision 2020" thing in a previous post (here) where I mentioned the opportunity to attend meetings, comment on-line and to have a say in the direction of the plan.

The interesting this about the latest announcement was the serious re-committal to the Sunset Park Container Port from the Mayor, Speaker Quinn and Rep. Nadler.

Jerry Nadler has long been a supporter of a container port at Sunset Park, saying that this location's larger size and proximity to the proposed "cross harbor freight rail tunnel", of which he is the strongest advocate, gave it a logical advantage.

Nadler went on, as quoted in this Brooklyn Eagle story (here) about the merits of the proposal -

"Our roads cannot handle the truck traffic that exists today, let alone the projected increases of the coming years. For that reason, the trucking of freight is not now and has never been a sustainable or long-term solution.”

Nadler seems to be saying here that the transportation of freight should, whenever possible, be done by rail, thereby alleviating the toll taken on the environment, roads and buildings by heavy truck traffic.

This damage is something that Red Hook knows a bit about as we suffer from not only the harmful emissions from the ships at the container and cruise terminals, but the pollution, congestion and structural damage done to our buildings by trucks - with more to come with the imminent relocation of Phoenix Beverages to Pier 11 and 7, bringing 200 more truck trips a day to our neighborhood's streets. Red Hook's terminal has no rail connection, so is totally reliant on trucks to move its freight - something that Nadler says is neither "sustainable" nor a "long-term solution".

What this re-commitment to the Container Terminal at Sunset Park means for the Red Hook terminal is unclear. When the City had plans to shut down the Red Hook terminal in 2006, one of the main objections, made by Nadler, Quinn and others, was that Brooklyn needed a container terminal, and until the alternately proposed Sunset Park terminal was up and running, the inefficient and under-productive operation at Red Hook should be maintained.

However, Nadler and the City, in the recent press release, talk of the "protection" of the maritime and industrial infrastructure. Phoenix Beverages, who NYCEDC President, Seth Pinsky, referred to as the "new anchor tenant for the Red Hook Container Terminal" has a 20-year lease on the Red Hook Piers giving the Container Terminal operators, American Stevedoring (ASI), by proxy, control of a majority of Pier 11 for that time (though ASI only has a 10-year lease of the piers - supposedly). So whether that means that the Red Hook terminal would continue operating despite a Sunset Park terminal coming on line - whenever that might be - is hard to say.

What is clear is that there is some serious thinking going on about the long-term plans for the city's waterfront - that can be seen in the City's WAVES Strategy.

If that means that we're thinking of smarter, cleaner and more balanced ways to use the waterfront then I'm all for it.

If it means that the City is serious about hearing from the residents about what they want and need from their waterfront, then I say "great" and encourage you to make your voices heard at meetings (schedule here) or by making comments on-line (here).

If it means there's a push to create a cleaner Port of New York, with less reliance on trucks and more on rail with new rail links, the building of shore power infrastructure and the promotion of no-idling "cold ironing" for the ships - wherever they dock - then, to paraphrase Dennis Holt, from the Brooklyn Eagle ...

Bring it on.

.

ASI's Cold Ironing Promise - I'm (still) not holding my breath.

I should be more excited about the latest reporting from Gary Buiso at the Brooklyn Courier (here), and also from The Word on Columbia Street blog (here), that American Stevedoring (ASI) is committed to pursuing the practice of "cold ironing" at the Brooklyn Container Terminal on the Red Hook waterfront, despite what is described as "resistance" from the Port Authority. Matt Yates, ASI's spokesperson, is saying that it will happen, stating that the container port operators think that "cold ironing" will be easily implemented at the port because the practice could be "accomplished without the need for the type or scale of modifications for cruise ship berth."

Yates' point was made in response to the Port Authority's statements on this matter, which noted that the creation of "shore power" infrastructure and the practice of "cold ironing" were currently only being pursued with cruise ships at the Brooklyn Cruise Terminal. The Port Authority has a huge role in this, obviously, as they (and we) own the piers and without their commitment, financially and otherwise, it's hard to see how the decisions, planning and investments required to make this a reality will be made. Additionally, the Cruise Terminal proposal was aided by the input of funds from an EPA grant that essentially doubled the Port Authority's initial $3 million commitment. As far as I know, neither ASI nor the Port Authority has applied for such funding regarding the container terminal.

ASI's case, however, is bolstered by the backing of Community Board 6, with this quote from the Courier Article -

"Community Board 6 definitely backs the effort, unanimously approving the installation of “appropriate infrastructure” at Piers 8-10 last week."

“We are really in favor of expanding” cold ironing, said board member David Reiss."

My lack of enthusiasm regarding the container terminal operator's statements is not because I don't think it would be a great thing if they became a reality. It's more a mixture of slight cynicism regarding ASI's newly-found "conscience" regarding the environmental impact of their operations on their residential neighbors, combined with questions about the realistic, long-term, big picture practicalities of the plan, especially considering the uncertainty regarding the Port Authority's coming on-board with this proposal.

Regarding the realistic practicalities, I'm not sure that the assertions of ASI and the "un-named expert" regarding the "ease" of implementing "cold ironing" with container ships, as opposed to cruise ships, is supported by the experience at other ports. It doesn't exactly gel with what I've read regarding the implementation of such practices on the West Coast - as has happened at Long Beach and the Port of Los Angeles and many others - where large (but worthwhile) investments have had to be made over the last decade, regardless of what kinds of ships are using the infrastructure. What has also been stated before (by the Port Authority and others) is that often it is harder to implement such practices with container and cargo ships as there is no "standard" yet for the plug in cables, power requirements, etc., and to co-ordinate such standardization between many and various shipping companies is harder than dealing with a handful of cruise operators (or one, like Carnival, as is the case at Brooklyn's Cruise Terminal). The latter point is acknowledged by Yates in saying that "agreements with the cargo companies will also be required".

Of course, I'm all for "cold ironing" all along the Brooklyn Waterfront, (I was quoted as saying so in the Courier article), but what I've also realized since delving into this world of port emissions and the challenges they pose to our port communities, is that the problems in our neck of the woods - in Red Hook and on the Brooklyn waterfront - are only a part of the huge challenges being faced by our entire city and region with port emissions - that's the "big picture". The Ports of New York and New Jersey are the third largest in the United States with their operations spread around the entire metropolitan area, from Brooklyn, to Newark-Elizabeth in New Jersey, Howland Hook in Staten Island and others. Despite the PANYNJ Ports' huge size and capacity, and their forecast for strong growth and expansion in the coming years, they are doing less than many of the other ports around the country regarding mitigating port pollution and addressing the impact of their operations on often vulnerable residents.

Admittedly, there have been some positive moves in mitigating this pollution - particularly with the newly announced "clean truck program". But apart from this program - in its early stages and limited as it may be - and some other measures (the conversion of some PANYNJ cranes to electricity or cleaner diesel engines, and the purchase of some cleaner train locomotives for the NJ ports) the only other major pollution mitigating proposal has been the EPA assisted "cold ironing" effort at the Cruise Terminals in Brooklyn, and eventually in Manhattan.

The Port Authority will have to deal with these big problems sooner or later - hopefully sooner. As shown by the clean truck initiative, and the other measures I noted, they have started to acknowledge that they have a role in reducing the negative health impacts their operations are having on the residents of this city, and they are being regularly reminded of the fact that air quality standards around their ports do not meet EPA standards. I'm also sure that the PA and the City of New York has taken note of the recent study that showed that the monetized health costs of the operations of the much smaller (10th largest) Port of Charleston were estimated to be $81 million a year - a figure that would surely be drastically extrapolated upward regarding our larger ports and more densely populated region.

So, as the Port Authority (hopefully) starts to address their port pollution responsibilities and follows the lead set by other ports around the country, they will surely be looking at how and where to implement their new health-improving initiatives. Where will they spend the money to build "shore power" infrastructure? Where will be the best place to co-ordinate with the shipping companies - to create the biggest impact and benefits? Where will they get most bang for their buck? My guess is that they will try to address the bigger ports first - the ones on the New Jersey side specifically. At those locations the investments that they make could result in "shore power" infrastructure that could service the majority of the ships bringing containers into New York and reduce the emissions from those ships significantly. The good thing about that would be that this would also improve air quality throughout our city. (My argument has always been that the port pollution issue wasn't of concern for only the closest communities to the ports, but for the entire city - air pollution doesn't pay any attention to neighborhood or state borders, and as the carcinogenic air pollution created at Red Hook's ports wafts through all of our neighboring areas - Cobble Hill, Carroll Gardens, Park Slope and beyond, so does the pollution from New Jersey permeate the entire metropolitan area.) But, realistically, that would also suggest that the Red Hook Container Terminal - the smallest in size and capacity under the PA's control - would be fairly low on the list for economically viable solutions.

In the long run, the Port Authority has also stated their intention to relocate the Container Terminal to a larger, potentially more efficient and (what some say) more suitable location in Sunset Park. The PA's Executive Director, Chris Ward, has made such statements regarding Red Hook in the last year, asking "Is this where we want our last working containerport?", suggesting Sunset Park would be a better location, and the operators of the terminal have stated their willingness to move their operations to wherever the PA thought was appropriate. Representative Jerrold Nadler has also been a supporter of this idea, with the Sunset Park location's connection to Nadler's pet project - the cross-harbor freight rail tunnel - a logical bonus.

So my point is, with the long-term future unknown, with no commitment from the Port Authority, and with questions about its economic and logistic feasibility, is it realistic to expect that "cold ironing" will come to the Brooklyn Container Terminal any time soon?

ASI has made statements like this before. In July 2009, after the awarding of the previously mentioned EPA grant to the PA for the "shore power" infrastructure at the Brooklyn Cruise Terminal, ASI made a statement that they too were now pursuing "cold ironing" at the Container Terminal, as Matt Yates stated, "as quickly as regulatory and logistical conditions allow". I wrote a post (here), questioning their sincerity, considering the contradictory statements coming out of the Port Authority at the time, including this quote from Steve Coleman at the PA, from a Waterwire article (here) -

"There are not enough container vessels calling at the Brooklyn Container Terminal that are configured to receive shore power to offset the high cost of installing the shore power infrastructure."

So, keeping all of this in mind, and given ASI's not so good record regarding their concern for the community around them (four letters - S.A.L.T!) I'm sticking to my last statement on this matter -

"I'm not holding my breath."

But - not to be too cynical - I would certainly be thankful if the ASI statements lead to actions.

If I am being cynical, I can imagine that maybe ASI will get special treatment from the Port Authority. After all, Chris Ward, the PA's Executive Director, used to work for ASI. In 2005 the future of the container terminal was under threat with the City's plan to re-imagine the use of the Red Hook waterfront. Eventually, under great political pressure from ASI campaign donation recipients, Rep. Nadler, Council Member David Yassky and Speaker Christine Quinn (story here), the container terminal's future was secured with a 10-year, no-bid lease to ASI. Apparently it was ASI or no-one, despite their operations being the least profitable and productive of all the Port Authority piers - employing around 70 workers. Last year, ASI also got the deal to regain control of Pier 11 at the Atlantic Basin, taken over in 2005 by the NYC Economic Development Corporation (NYCEDC) when they acquired Pier 12, the eventual site of the Cruise Terminal. ASI's regaining of Pier 11 was done by proxy through a murky "deal" with the Port Authority, facilitated by the Maritime Division of the NYCEDC through their 20-year lease with Phoenix Beverages, allowing Phoenix to relocate to the Red Hook waterfront at both Piers 11 and Pier 7 - even though Phoenix said they only needed one. (ASI now includes Pier 11 as being part of their property, not Phoenix's, on the plan on their web site). As a condition of both the 10-year initial lease to ASI and the more recent Phoenix deal that expanded the operations of the container terminal, neither party was asked to make any concessions to the community regarding port pollution mitigation (no Environmental Impact Studies were required). Nothing done with the ships, nor with the container-carrying trucks and the accompanying traffic congestion, nor was their any commitment to allow waterfront access, open space, waterborne transportation, etc., despite those elements being part of Red Hook's 197a plan, articulated in Community Board 6 guidelines, and supported widely in the community.

Despite Red Hook getting a raw deal from the Port Authority (and others) in these last examples, it is possible that the Port Authority, along with the City of New York, will start planning - again - for the long term health and prosperity of the community. Perhaps they'll come on board with "shore power" infrastructure for the container terminal, but I, for one, will understand if they don't. They've got bigger fish to fry, and not unlimited resources. I can see why they'd be happy to get the Cruise Terminal up and running, expand the practice to the Manhattan based cruise terminal, and then try to get a comprehensive "shore power" plan up and running for their major and most polluting container and cargo ports first - i.e. the big ones in New Jersey. I'm sure they'll have to prioritize and plan for their future needs - deciding where and how they can use their resources.

Maybe this will be an opportunity to re-evaluate the use of the Red Hook waterfront - to think about long-term goals and the real needs of the community, and to think about the big picture/vision thing. What are the impacts on our neighborhood of the plans for Governor's Island - a mere (almost literal) stone's throw from Red Hook's waterfront? Does the long-term future of a "green" Container Port lie elsewhere - in Sunset Park, as suggested by the PA, with rail connection and the investments made for the appropriate "shore power" infrastructure there? Will an extra cruise terminal be added in Red Hook? What can be done to reconnect Red Hook's residents and businesses to the waterfront?

Whatever the future, it's important in the medium term to try to make our Red Hook port as clean as possible - clean trucks (all of them) and better truck routes, cold ironing for the cruise ships (at least), low-sulfur fuels and speed limits for the ships visiting the container terminal (this will be helped in the coming years by the recent IMO ruling on the North American Emissions Control Area - see previous post), the conversion to electric cranes and other port machinery.

But if there is the opportunity to look at the big picture, the Port Authority and City need to think it through, come forward with their ideas and lay out their plans - long term and otherwise. They need to work with our community so that Red Hook residents and businesses can keep working towards a more productive, vibrant, cleaner and healthier neighborhood - especially on our waterfront.

From the EPA: IMO Adopts Proposal for USA ECA ... let me explain.

Yes, I know that's a lot of three letter acronyms in one sentence, but it's good news for port communities and the health of the citizens of this country (and continent) as a whole. Let me explain.

The IMO is the International Maritime Organization (an agency of the United Nations). In early 2009, the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) had asked the IMO, on behalf of the US Government, to create a 230-mile buffer zone in the waters around the United States within which ships would have to use lower sulfur fuel, thereby reducing emissions including SOx, NOx, and Particulate Matter. This buffer zone, jointly requested by the Canadian government, is called the North American Emissions Control Area (ECA).

The good news has come, via an EPA press release (here), that this proposal has been adopted by the IMO, despite some protests from the cruise industry in particular, (story here). These protests came despite the fact that the EPA has stated that cruise ship pollution alone kills 8,300 people a year in the US and Canada.

This rule will apply to all large commercial ships using these waters - including container ships, oil tankers and cruise ships. Currently these ships commonly use extra-dirty diesel or bunker fuel that has sulfur levels up to 1000 times more than regular diesel and the resultant emissions contain substances that the EPA has labeled "likely carcinogens".

The EPA press release states -

"Enforcing the stringent ECA standards will reduce sulfur content in fuel by 98 percent - slashing particulate matter emissions by 85 percent, and nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions by 80 percent. To achieve these reductions, tougher sulfur standards will phase in starting in 2012, ultimately reaching no more than 1,000 parts per million by 2015."

Also this from EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson -

“This is a change that will benefit millions of people and set in motion new innovations for the shipping industry. We’re gratified by the IMO’s decision to help keep our air clean and our communities healthy ..... The sulfur, particulate emissions and other harmful pollutants from large ships reach from our ports to communities hundreds of miles inland -- bringing with them health, environmental and economic burdens. Cleaning up our shipping lanes will be a boon to communities across North America.”

Also, the press release goes on to state that as a result of the cleaner air, "nearly five million people will experience relief from acute respiratory symptoms in 2020 and as many as 14,000 lives will be saved each year."

Again, this will be phased in over a number of years, and its implementation will not diminish the need for the further cleaning of ships and the activities of ports through the use of "shore power" and the creation of "clean truck" programs. But it's certainly a great step forward and will bring great health benefits to the residents of port communities such as Red Hook, Brooklyn, the greater City of New York and the nation as a whole.

Ships Vs. Trucks - It's the Sulphur, stupid! (and all that other nasty stuff)

We've had some good news in the last week or so regarding the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey announcing the first steps toward implementing a "clean truck program" at their ports, including Brooklyn's Red Hook Container Terminal. The Word on Columbia Street blog has a post (here) on the announcement from the Port Authority via the EPA (press release here). This is part of the Port Authority's clean air strategy that was announced in October 2009.

It's a welcome announcement, and one for which I'm thankful, having encouraged such a plan in my second ever post on this blog, (here). But when I say "first steps", it's because this is only the beginnings of what really should be a more robust plan to replace the dirty, older trucks with cleaner, newer ones, thereby reducing diesel emissions from those sources at the ports and in our communities while providing better conditions for the drivers.

As John Petro, Urban Policy Analyst at the Drum Major Institute for Public Policy, writes in this article, titled, "Killing at the Seaport: Port Pollution a Silent Killer" -

The PA of NY/NJ clean port program "isn't nearly as ambitious as it should be. The Port Authority currently has money available to replace 630 dirty trucks, but this is only about one quarter of the number of trucks that need to be replaced."

The overall "Clean Air Strategy" plan, in fact, which addresses mitigating pollution from all sources at the ports (trucks, ships, port machinery, harbor craft, trains, etc.), proposes reductions of SOx, NOx and particulate matter (PM) and sets a goal for reducing these harmful emissions by 30%. However, John Kaltenstein, Clean Vessels Program Manager for Friends of the Earth, writes this in his article in "Sustainable Shipping", titled "The Big Apple's big shipping pollution problem", comparing and contrasting the efforts of the East and West Coast ports -

"The ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach (the largest port complex in the United States), however, set a more impressive benchmark five years ago, with a goal of 45% emission reductions by 2012. According to 2008 data, they have achieved 35% reductions so far."

Which brings me, again, to the ships.

The Port Authority's "Clean Air Strategy" seems fairly tame regarding mitigating pollution from the ships themselves. The main proposals seem to center around a "vessel speed reduction incentive program", some other incentives to use lower sulphur fuels in the ports, and the plan to have cruise ships hook up to "shore power" at the Brooklyn Cruise Terminal and, sometime in the future, at the Manhattan Cruise terminals. It's all good, but there's no mention here of looking at expanding the use of "shore power" to container and cargo ships, as is being done on the West Coast and elsewhere.

Now, I hear you say, "but ships are the least of our problems".

An often repeated statement at meetings convened by New York City Economic Development Corporation and the Port Authority, when the plans for the expansion of the Red Hook container terminal were announced last year, (without Environmental Impact Study nor proposals for pollution mitigation at the port), was that "ships are the most efficient and cleanest way to move goods around the globe"... so, what were we worried about?

This is part of the common wisdom that shipping as generally "clean" and that the pollution that it creates, in the big picture, is not worth worrying about. In a recent NY Times article, "Slow Trip Across Sea Aids Profit and Environment", by Elizabeth Rosenthal, the subject is the speed reduction measures that shipping companies, such as Danish giant, Maersk, are undertaking in order to reduce emissions from their ships and to save money. This is called "slow (or super-slow) steaming". Again, it's a good idea, and one that reduces consumption of fuel and emissions from the ships by up to 30%. But what got me a little bristly was, in the article, when the writer states -

"Of course, mile per mile, shipping even at conventional speeds is far more efficient than road travel. Shipping a ton of toys from Shanghai to northern Germany churns out lower emissions than trucking them south to Berlin afterward."

But which emissions - and where do they have their impact? The concerns regarding shipping relate not to only to its overall polluting impacts on the globe - which some argue are not worth worrying about - but to the impact that shipping pollution has locally on the cities and contiguous port communities in which ships dock.

It's true that shipping any given tonnage of goods over a long distance is more energy efficient and creates less greenhouse gasses (mainly CO2) than trucks would. It's also important to acknowledge that the impact of ships' CO2 emissions is still substantial, and efforts to reduce shipping's contribution to CO2 emissions should be of extremely high importance.

This, from Marc Gunther at "The Energy Collective" (here) -

According to Richard Branson’s new NGO, which is called the Carbon War Room, the global shipping fleet is the equivalent of the sixth most polluting country in the world:

Annual CO2 emissions currently exceed one million tons and are projected to grow to 18% of all manmade CO2 emissions by 2050. Yet existing technology presents an opportunity for up to 75% gains in efficiency, with required investments repaid in just a few years.

Perhaps this is what he's talking about - (article here)

Still, ton-for-ton, shipping does create less CO2 than trucks or trains, and no-one gets sick or dies from inhaling CO2, right? - at least at these concentrations.

The real villains in the shipping pollution story, from the point of view of their negative impact on the health of humans - particularly on residents of port communities and their home cities - are the other pollutants :- Sulphur Oxides (SOx), Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) and particulate matter (PM).

These are the substances that the EPA described as "likely carcinogens" that also contribute to asthma, other lung and heart disease (among others) and contribute to the creation of smog. These are the substances that are created by the burning of extra-dirty diesel, as ships currently do while idling in port and at sea, at concentrations far above that of truck and train pollution with sulphur at levels up to 2000 times more than regular diesel. This is one of the reasons there are cancer clusters around ports, globally.

At the Ports of New York and New Jersey, the contribution of ships to the total pollution created by the port are as follows (by their own 2006 numbers) -

Ocean-going Vessels (ships)

SOx - 91%

NOx - 47%

Particulates - 62%

CO2 - 33%

As a comparison, here is the contribution from trucks -

Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles (trucks)

SOx - 1%

NOx - 25%

Particulate - 12%

CO2 - 37%

So, even though there's the recognition that truck pollution is a big problem that needs to be urgently addressed, it's clearly the ships that are creating the lion's share of the non-CO2 pollution - particularly when it comes to Sulphur, with a 91% contribution, and particulates with 62%.

John Kaltenstein's aforementioned article, noting that business at the Ports of NY and NJ has grown 100% since 1998, and is projected to double by 2020, puts the impact of these ship emissions in stark relief -

"EPA estimates that, in 2002, marine vessels in the port complex produced about 7,200 metric tonnes of nitrogen oxide, 570 metric tonnes of fine particulate matter, and 4,600 metric tonnes of sulphur dioxide.

A report from Environmental Defense Fund asserts that these ship emissions are equivalent to the emissions from 7.8 million new cars. Moreover, a recent study commissioned by the Coastal Conservation League finds that air emissions from an expanded Charleston, SC port could result in up to $81 million per year in monetized health costs."

This is something I wrote about here. John continues -

"Since the NY-NJ Port Authority dwarfs the Port of Charleston (Charleston has less than one-third the container volume of NY-NJ and less than one-eighth its cargo volume), its health costs, as well as premature mortality figures, are likely much greater." (my emphasis)

That's what we're worried about.

Yes, shipping is "more efficient" than trucks or trains - but it's really beside the point.

Shipping has a real responsibility to address its significant global impact - both with CO2 and these other dangerous emissions. When one of the world's biggest ships, in one year, creates as much SOx as 50 million cars - yes, 50 million! - it's a problem for the planet (check out this story). But additionally and importantly, it's the harmful health impact and resultant cost of shipping's SOx, NOx and PM emissions on the residents of cities and port communities that the shipping companies and operators of ports must address, and address urgently.

The Port Authority should be attacking this matter more aggressively. The "clean truck program" is a good start (a small but significant first step towards instigating a comprehensive and port-wide clean truck initiative and producing associated health benefits to the port communities). But the Port Authority's efforts on reducing emissions from the ships themselves need to be bolder. More initiatives moving toward the use of "shore power" at the container and cargo terminals around the area so ships can "turn off" and stop idling while in port. Strict regulations for the use of lower sulphur fuels in the area's ports and surrounding waters - preempting the U.S Government request, through the EPA, asking the International Maritime Organization to create a 240-mile emissions control area (ECA) - a pollution buffer zone - around the nation's coastline. (my post here)

This is what is needed from the Port Authority to ensure that ships truly live up to their somewhat ill-deserved environmentally friendly reputation. It's what's needed to reduce these emissions that the EPA describes as, "harmful to the pubic generally, and especially to our children, the elderly, people with lung disease, those who exercise outside, and low-income and minority communities located near ports."

So, good work of the truck front - but let's also deal with the elephant in the room.

The ships.

I'll leave the last word to Kim Thompson-Gaddy, a resident of Newark, Co-Chair of the North Jersey Environmental Justice Alliance and mother of three asthmatic children, who at Drum Major Institute's Marketplace of Ideas event, "Improving the Air and Job Quality at Our Nation's Ports" on October 14, 2008, discusses why she advocated creating a coalition to address the unhealthy air quality in the neighborhoods surrounding the ports of Newark and New Jersey.

Her words - "Environmental Health Injustice"

West Coast Action on Port Emissions. East Coast ... not so much.

(Container ship idling at Red Hook Container Terminal, Jan. 2010)

I've recently set up a Google news alert for "port emissions". You know how it works - Google will search the web for any news that contains the words you have selected, and then send the search results to your email address - daily, hourly, however often you would like. I also have "Port Emissions" selected as a customized "section" in my Google news page.

These are some of the headlines from the recent couple of weeks -

Five Years of the Green Port Policy - the Long Beach Port Transformed

Oakland Port Bans Aging, Emissions-Belching Trucks

Port of LA in talks to purchase zero-emission trucks

Port of Seattle cuts sulphur emissions

Cold-ironing to have electrifying effect on California port

Notice a trend here?

That's right. These are all stories regarding West Coast city initiatives to reduce harmful emissions from their ports by mitigating the impact of the carcinogenic, extra-dirty diesel smokestack emissions from container, cargo and cruise ships, and also through measures to reduce pollution from trucks, port machinery and other sources. Whether it be Long Beach, California, which has cut emissions from trucks by 80%, 5 years ahead of schedule, through their "clean truck program", or the Port of Seattle, where cruise ships can turn off their idling engines while in port by plugging into the city's electricity grid by the use of "shore power", or the Port of Los Angeles, which has been allowing container ships to plug into "shore power" since 2004, most of this good news has been coming from the West Coast.

These actions have been taken in response to the growing awareness of the dangers posed to human health from port emissions. I have written about these health dangers a lot in this blog - there are statements from the EPA about these matters on the sidebar of this blog - and you can do your own search if you're curious. However, there is one other matter I have not touched on in my writing on this blog - the human health costs - in dollars - of not dealing with port emissions. This recent extensive study, done in response to the proposed expansion of the East Cost port of Charleston, South Carolina, estimates the cost of the health care burden posed by the expanded port to be $81 million per year. Some of the headings included in the "Adverse Health Impacts" section of the study include - "premature mortality", "asthma-related emergency", "chronic bronchitis", "heart attack", etc.

In the newspaper in which this study is cited (above) there is also an opinion piece (here) written by William J. Hueston, M.D., president of the Charleston Medical Society, where he states -

"A new port, or any another industry with significant emissions, should do a cost analysis to determine the costs associated with remediating the air quality problems that they are expected to create. Just as a developer is required to add emergency medical services in order to build a large new subdivision, the port must examine the impact of expansion and add appropriate pollution control measures."

This in particular resonated with me, considering the expansion of the operations of the Red Hook Container Terminal, both in trucks and shipping, that is being created by the relocation of Phoenix Beverages to the Brooklyn Piers - all without any Environmental Impact Study.

The doctor continues -

"As concerned physicians who care for the health of our community, we must insist that the port industry address the air quality issue and its associated health care costs immediately. Otherwise, we can anticipate paying for the consequences with our limited resources, and ultimately with our own health."

So, it's obvious. Here on the East Coast, we're not really getting it.

That's not to say there's nothing going on. There is the action being taken to establish "shore power" at the Brooklyn Cruise Terminal - though not at the Container Terminal. You can read my many posts on this subject at your leisure. Once it is up and running, Brooklyn will be the only terminal using this practice on the East Coast. There is also yesterday's news regarding the Ports of New York and New Jersey moving toward instigating a "clean truck program".

Here's the story -

Port of New York and New Jersey's Programme to Reduce Port Emissions

Here's an excerpt -

"Examples of these actions include replacement of the oldest and most polluting trucks serving the port, installation of shorepower capability at the Brooklyn Cruise Terminal, retrofit of two switcher locomotives serving the Port's on-dock rail operations with GenSet systems, and modernisation of cargo handling equipment used by terminal operators leasing space from the Port Authority,"

Sounds pretty good, but, as you can see, there's nothing about "shore power" for the container and cargo ships here. It's true that the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey is moving forward with "shore power" at the Brooklyn Cruise Terminal and seems to be proceeding with plans to start a "clean truck program" at their ports. Both of these initiatives have been helped, I believe, through the recent EPA Diesel Emission Reduction grants, which are part of the broader Recovery Act, that were awarded to the Port Authority last year. My post on this story from July, 2009 is here.

These are the pertinent paragraphs from the EPA's press release regarding the grants -

Port Authority of New York & New Jersey – Shore Power Installation at the Brooklyn Cruise Terminal ($2,858,200): This project will install the land-side electrical infrastructure necessary for cruise vessels calling at the Brooklyn Cruise Terminal to hook up to shore power while docked, eliminating the need to operate on-board generators. Carnival Cruise Lines has committed to use the facility.

Port Authority of New York & New Jersey – Regional Truck Replacement Program ($7,000,000): This project will replace up to 636 model year 1993 and older drayage trucks that service Port Authority facilities with cleaner, 2004 and newer model year trucks by offering truckers 25% off the cost of the newer truck.

But my point is, there's nothing here or in the previous story in relation to the pollution from ships - no initiatives to encourage container and cargo ships to use "cleaner" diesel while coming in to port or while "hoteling" (this is the term used for when the ships are docked and idling their diesel engines), let alone any articulation of a path towards instigating "cold ironing" at the ports, where ships turn off their polluting diesel engines completely by plugging-in to "shore power".

This is despite the fact that it is the ships that are the main contributor to the diesel emissions problem at the ports. It is the ships that use the extra dirty diesel that creates emissions that have Sulphur Ox levels at least 90 times greater than the fuel used in trucks - more if the ships use "bunker fuel". The same goes for their creation of smog-forming, greenhouse gas, Nitrogen Ox, not to mention particulate matter at levels that threaten the health of those who breathe them in.

I don't have exact statistics for the Ports of New York and New Jersey, but as can be seen by this breakdowns of diesel emissions from the Port of Long Beach, it's clear that it is the ships that contribute the lion's share of the diesel emissions at ports.


It's also clear that it's the emissions from the ships that have to potential to be the most drastically reduced - in fact cut to almost zero - when the practice of using "shore power" can be introduced.

The "clean truck program" proposed by the Port Authority is a worthy one, and as seen by the success of such a program in Long Beach, can reduce emissions from trucks by 80% in pretty short time. However, without real action in addressing the emissions from the ships themselves, the problem will persist and the health effects and costs will continue to be borne by the residents surrounding the ports, and throughout the city itself.

What are the health effects of this inaction - what are the costs? The Charleston study, cited above, should give us some ideas. Charleston is the 10th largest port in the U.S., with the Ports of New York and New Jersey coming in third - behind Long Beach and Los Angeles. The port of Charleston moved 2/5 of the containers handled by the Ports of NY and NJ in 2006. So if the health care costs of their expanded operation is said to be $81 million per year, what is the health care burden and resultant cost to the City of New York and its residents? Only a comprehensive study, such as the one done in Charleston, will tell us, but surely it is huge.

Added to this is the fact that shipping activity is growing world wide. The Ports of NY and NJ will be seeing more shipping, and larger, post-Panamax ships (brought about by the imminent increase in ship size allowed by soon to be completed improvements in the Panama Canal) over the coming years. They are planning for it. The Ports of NY and NJ are dredging channels and looking at options for the raising of the height of the Bayonne Bridge to allow for these ships.

For an eye-opening look at how polluting these large ocean going vessels are, have a look at this article, from the English "Daily Mail" newspaper - How 16 ships create as much pollution as all the cars in the world.

This should be a big issue - not just for Red Hook and Brooklyn, but for our city and region as a whole. The fact that so little comes up in my Google alert on this issue, though certainly not a scientific survey, is telling. In our city, and seemingly on the East Coast in general, there is little coverage of this issue in the news - print, radio or TV - and not much more in blogs. I'm always coming across West Coast blogs and web sites focusing on these issues, and there are regular stories in the media on the actions those cities are taking in addressing the problems of port pollution. We, on the East Coast, are letting ourselves down.

Until there is more attention given to these issues here in New York, and unless the operators of our city's ports, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, take real action to, as the Professor from Charlotte stated, "address the air quality issue and its associated health care costs immediately" we can, again quoting the doctor, "anticipate paying for the consequences with our limited resources, and ultimately with our own health."

In other words, the reality for the residents of greater New York, courtesy of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, will be as shown in the photos below - taken by a resident of Red Hook / Columbia Street.


Ships idling their dirty diesel engines while in port, spreading their harmful emissions over our residential neighborhoods. Meanwhile, it's the residents, especially the most vulnerable, who will bear the burden of the resultant health costs - physically and monetarily.








Maybe the Port Authority could take a lead from the guiding principles of the "Green Port Policy" of the Port of Long Beach - as stated in the first article I linked to at the top of this post.

The Green Port Policy of Long Beach is based on five guiding principles:

• Protect the community from harmful impacts of Port operations
• Distinguish the Port as a leader in environmental stewardship
• Promote sustainability
• Employ best available technology
• Engage and educate the community

The taking up of such principles by our Port Authority could be the beginning of a bi-coastal Green Port Policy and a welcome acknowledgment by the operators of ports of their responsibility to ensure their operations don't harm the residents in the communities of which they are a part, or impact their home cities with huge health care costs - on both coasts.