Jan. 27, 2006
SACRAMENTO -- Southern California air regulators, joined by a broad
coalition of environmental and community groups, urged the California Air
Resources Board today to reject a fatally flawed agreement with two major
railroads to reduce air pollution from locomotives.
“Locomotives are a major source of air pollution in the Southland,
responsible for more smog-forming emissions than one and a half million
cars,” said William Burke, Ed.D., Governing Board Chairman of the South
Coast Air Quality Management District.
“We can’t afford to allow a weak and unenforceable agreement, reached in
secret negotiations between the state and the railroads, to be a major
strategy for protecting public health from these harmful emissions.”
Wallerstein and other AQMD officials testified at a California Air
Resources Board (CARB) board meeting today in Sacramento, urging CARB board
members to reject the current agreement and renegotiate a stronger one with
public participation from community groups and other air quality agencies.
Sixteen environmental, health and community groups -- from the Natural
Resources Defense Council to the San Pedro and Peninsula Homeowner’s
Coalition -- joined AQMD today in expressing concerns about the railroad
agreement and calling for its rejection.
In June 2005, without any public input or public meetings, CARB announced
a voluntary memorandum of agreement with Union Pacific Railroad Co. and BNSF
Railway Co. -- the two largest freight railroads serving the state -- to
reduce locomotive emissions. Since its adoption, AQMD officials have
expressed serious concerns about weak and vague provisions in the agreement
and its overall lack of enforceability.
One of the most troubling provisions of the agreement is the release
clause or so-called “poison pill,” which allows the railroads to terminate
portions of or the entire agreement if any local government or agency adopts
a measure overlapping any provisions in the CARB agreement. At an October
2005 public hearing on the agreement, scores of community members,
environmentalists and elected officials spoke in strong opposition to the
agreement and specifically the poison pill provision. During the meeting,
CARB’s Board directed its staff to clarify the release clause. Earlier this
month, CARB staff issued an addendum on the release clause but has not
modified the MOU itself.
“CARB’s latest attempt to clarify its troubled agreement falls flat,”
Burke said. “It does nothing to address our concerns on the impact of the
release clause.”
AQMD’s concerns over CARB’s agreement highlight fundamental differences
of opinion between the two agencies on the best and fastest way to reduce
locomotive emissions.
CARB asserts that state and local agencies such as itself and AQMD are
severely limited by federal law from regulating the railroads, and that at
the state and local level, voluntary agreements are the best means available
to reduce locomotive emissions. Based on extensive legal research by three
of the most highly qualified attorneys in the nation in this field, AQMD
officials believe that local air districts, local governments and the state
Legislature do have authority in certain instances to regulate railroads.
Consequently, AQMD adopted its first railroad regulation in October 2005,
requiring 19 major Southland rail yards to perform emissions inventories by
October 2006 and submit health risk assessments to AQMD by January 2007.
AQMD’s Governing Board is scheduled next month to consider adopting two
additional regulations requiring railroads to minimize emissions and to keep
records for locomotive idling and to restrict idling under specific
situations. AQMD also is supporting legislation in Sacramento this year to
reduce locomotive emissions.
“Californians deserve a better plan to protect their lungs from harmful
diesel locomotive emissions,” Burke said. “AQMD plans to move forward with
consideration of regulations as well as proposed legislation that will
ensure locomotive and rail yard emission reductions.”
AQMD is the air pollution control agency for Orange County and major
portions of Los Angeles, San Bernardino and Riverside counties.
-#- |
