NRDC, Teamsters threaten shipping lines over SoCal terminal development

NRDC, Teamsters threaten shipping lines over SoCal terminal development An environmental group and a leading labor union are threatening to challenge any future development at Southern California container terminals unless shipping lines approve the projects with the two organizations before hand, according to documents obtained by American Shipper.
   The threats were contained in recent letters sent to the heads of several major shipping lines by the National Resources Defense Council and the International Brotherhood of Teamsters.
   The letters, which were not released to the public, warn the shipping lines' heads that any terminal development plans must meet certain demands or the two groups will not 'let the process continue without challenge.'
   Nearly four years of threatened legal actions by the NRDC have stalled billions of dollars in planned development at the neighboring ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles.
   Today, commissioners at the Port of Los Angeles will attempt to pass a development plan for the port's Tra-Pac terminal, already stalled for more than three years by threatened suits over the project's required environmental impact documents. The attempted vote is the first by either port since the Port of Long Beach withdrew an expansion plan for their Pier J terminal three years ago under pressure from groups including the NRDC.
   In the letters, the NRDC and Teamsters demand that any terminal development plans must include steps to reduce existing sources of pollution at the terminal as well as steps to reduce potential pollution from any development. State and federal authorities, while able to pass separate regulations affecting current terminal operations, require no such mitigation of existing sources as a caveat for additional development.
   The letters also offer no details of what the groups refer to as 'reasonable proposals' to obtain their 'approval,' though a settlement between the Port of Los Angeles and the NRDC in 2002 over a terminal development project eventually cost the port and shipping line close to $100 million in added pollution mitigation programs and other costs.
   In the letters, the NRDC and Teamsters make clear that even if the two ports' current environmental plans are not passed, the two groups will still expect shipping lines to meet the requirements set forth in the port plans.
   'We are aware,' said the letters, 'that various associations you belong to are, in fact, opposing key provisions of the ports Clean Air Action Plan. Obviously, if these provisions are defeated, you will not be able to consider them as mitigating factors.'
   The letters also make clear that the two groups do not consider any current alternative environmental proposals by industry associations as viable to elicit an 'approval' from the groups.
   To date, nearly all the major industry associations involved in goods movement at the two ports, while opposing the ports' CAAP to some degree, have supported the California Air Resources Board's proposed regulations covering port pollution.
   The NRDC refused to comment on specifics of the letter, while the Teamsters referred comment back to the NRDC.
   While the letters indicate that the shipping lines are somehow involved in developing their own terminals, in reality all Southern California port development plans are created and implemented by the Long Beach and Los Angeles port authorities.
   The letters were not sent to officials at the two ports. ' Keith Higginbotham