Long Beach chokes on coke dust

Long Beach has a coke problem.

It is not the white, powdery drug from Columbia that troubles area residents. Black dust fallout from four open petroleum coke pits, from loading equipment and from transport vehicles at the ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles has become a major concern to port employees, home owners and environmentalists.

While debate rages over the substance's impact on public health and the environment, sooty residue on boats, nearby homes and public structures is visible evidence that coke dust is a problematic reality.

Despite previous proposals and regulatory measures, coke producers and handlers have historically managed to skate around the South Coast Air Quality Management District's edict that this potentially dangerous product must be housed and transported in ãcleanerä ways.

Area residents and port employees fear coke dust, which can carry for miles in the wind, will continue to be a significant environmental air pollutant and potential health hazard in Long Beach and area communities unless stricter measures are taken.

Both the U.S. Customs Service and the Los Angeles Fire Department have discontinued their operations on Terminal Island due to health concerns stemming from coke-dust exposure.

"I don't go for long walks by the marina anymore because I'm worried about what the coke dust will do to my lungs," said Emily Green, nurse and homeowner at the Harbor Place Tower in downtown Long Beach. "You don't have to be a scientist to know we have a problem. My balcony is covered in soot. I canât believe this has been allowed to go on for so long."

Petroleum coke is a cancer-causing byproduct of oil refining. Deemed by California pollution regulators to be too dirty to be used as fuel for domestic power plants, it is shipped via the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach to Asia and Australia. While not listed as a toxic substance, petroleum coke contains arsenic, cadmium, chromium and beryllium, elements all known to be health hazards in concentrated amounts, according to the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.

With the passage of Prop. 65 in 1986, coke was included on a list of substances classified as carcinogens.

The coke-dust dilemma came to a head for the first time in the early 1980s. Concern was concentrated in communities close to the harbors and refineries, including Wilmington, San Pedro and West Long Beach.

However, coke dust travels, much like coal dust, according to Fred Wilkinson, plant supervisor for Fording Coal Mine in British Columbia.

"On a given day, dust from these products can travel many miles, depending on wind currents and velocity," Wilkinson said. "I live 17 miles from the storage areas for the mine, and on some days the soot on our windows is quite noticeable."

In recent years, coke-dust complaints have come from communities as far away as Seal Beach. Although no studies have been conducted upon the particulates found on Cal State Long Beachâs campus, coke dust is a potential environmental concern, according to Wilkinson.

Extensive studies point to coke dustâs role in polluting Long Beach's air. Evidence unearthed during air-quality assessments by the Air Quality Management District in 1994, 1997 and 1998 substantiated claims there were high levels of coke dust in coastal Long Beach. These studies found the level of coke particulate matter exceeded the federal standard of 50 micrograms per cubic foot in several areas of Long Beach and surrounding communities.

In May 1997, Long Beach's Hudson Elementary School test site reported 58 micrograms of dust per cubic foot, with coke making up an estimated 25 percent of the dust, according to the Air Quality Management District.

A 1996 study financed by the Port of Long Beach showed that petroleum coke accounted for 21 percent of air samples taken.

Growing tension between coke handlers and producers and the public recently resulted in new legislation. On June 11, 1999, the Air Quality Management District, empowered by the state and federal governments to monitor air quality and enforce anti-pollution laws, approved amendments to its 1983 Rule 1158, which calls for open coke piles in Long Beach and surrounding areas to be enclosed.

Further, the coke industry has been asked to improve loading and transportation methods.

Nonetheless, despite promises made by the ports and their coke customers, citizens remain concerned coke dust will continue to be a problem in Long Beach and surrounding communities. They may have reason to worry.

The industry has spent the last 17 years obtaining exemptions from Air Quality Management District rules, which originally called for coke piles to be enclosed by 1985.

While some measures have been taken to reduce this pollutant, almost 20 percent of the coke -- or 70,000 metric tons on a daily average -- remains in open piles waiting for export, according to the National Resources Defense Council. Many feel coke producers, shippers and the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach have placed profit above public safety.

"Those companies and the ports should have spent that time and money cleaning up their operations," Long Beach City Council member Ray Grabinski said. "If they had done what needed to be done, we wouldnât be here still fighting for a cleanup."

The economics behind the ãcoke tradeä also may deter the industry from spending money on its cleanup. Petroleum coke sold for $175 per metric ton until 1998, according to Standard and Poorâs commodity estimates. However, the Asian economic crisis of 1998 and 1999 not only drove the price of coke down, but the demand for this cheap fuel slackened, according to Port of Los Angeles Executive Director Larry Keller.

"The area's largest coke exporter, Los Angeles Export Terminal, has suffered from a severe decline in orders from Far East nations," he said. "While Asian economics have turned around and sales are picking up, export levels have not yet reached 1997 highs."

Coke exporters at the Port of Long Beach that utilize open-pile storage methods, such Arco, AIMCOR and the Metropolitan Stevedore Co., have all felt the pinch.

The Port of Long Beach also has experienced a drop in revenue from coke exports.

The $4.4 million the port earned from coke tariffs in 1997 is more than it did in 1999, port authorities said. Citizens are concerned, for it would seem unlikely the port would live up to its pledge of spending $25 million in coke storage and transport improvements.

Some question whether $25 million would solve the coke problem at the Port of Long Beach.

Since 1983, spokesman Art Wong said, the port has spent $50.2 million to "clean" up coke on its Pier G bulk-loading complex.

And, according to a letter written by former Board of Harbor Commissioner George Murchison to the Air Quality Management District, elimination of open-coke storage by Rule 1158 would cost the Port of Long Beach $20 million without significantly improving air quality.

Los Angeles Export Terminal once touted its $200 million operation as "the world's most advanced facility [for coke export], which utilizes the latest technology to benefit local residents and businesses through improved environmental protection systems."

Apparently, however, that didn't convince the fire department and customs agency to keep their headquarters at Terminal Island, even though domes have been constructed to enclose the largest open coke pile at Los Angeles Export Terminal.

If the LAXT's state-of-the-art coke export practices are seen by various citizens and agencies as unsafe, what measures are needed to make the Port of Long Beach's older coke export facilities "clean?" While the Air Quality Management District has ordered that coke piles be enclosed and handling methods be improved at both ports by Dec. 31, 2002, Long Beach Assemblyman Alan Lowenthal believes stricter measures are in order.

He has drafted AB 1775, which would impose stricter regulations on the industry.

"Enough is enough," Lowenthal said. "We can't stand by and watch the coke industry finagle extensions from the AQMD any further."