Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 36
36
licensed motor carriers and are paid by the dray. The market the policy is not unexpected, although the total cost may
is highly competitive and, as a result, drayage truckers earn in- ultimately be higher or lower than current projections. The
comes below those of truckers in other comparable markets.33 effects of the concessions requirements, if allowed, could be
In justifying this requirement, the Port of Los Angeles said that unexpected because such a provision is unprecedented in
requiring carriers to use employee drivers would enable the the United States.
port to hold carriers accountable for maintaining trucks and
for employing properly credentialed drivers. The port also ar-
Restrictions on Disposal
gued that the requirement would reduce the number of trucks
of Port Dredging Spoil
needed to provide drayage.34
The concession requirements, and the employee driver Policy Description
provision in particular, have prompted legal challenges by
To maintain adequate channel depths for shipping, the U.S.
ATA and the Federal Maritime Commission (FMC). At pres-
Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) is responsible for dredg-
ent, both ports have implemented the initial phase of the
ing major navigation routes. The disposal of dredged material,
Clean Truck Program, which includes the ban on pre-1989
trucks and the requirement for carriers to obtain concession known as dredging spoil, has often been a contentious issue
agreements. In addition, all trucks entering port terminals and one affected by multiple policy decisions. Dredged mate-
must be registered in the ports' Drayage Truck Registry. rial may contain industrial contaminants that have built up in
the sediment of navigation channels. On-land disposal of this
material may affect local habitats. Ocean disposal of dredged
Policy Impacts material may affect fish habitats, water quality, and other as-
The Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach commissioned pects of the marine environment.
studies to estimate the likely impacts of the Clean Truck Pro- Regulation of the disposal of dredging spoil is a shared re-
gram on the drayage fleet, on the competitiveness of the ports, sponsibility between EPA and USACE. After USACE has
and on the freight transportation system in general. These approved a project from an economic and engineering per-
analyses considered not just the environmental provisions but spective and prepared a dredging management plan, EPA
also the other provisions of the program.35 These analyses pre- must still approve the disposal of the dredging spoil. Disposal
dicted that the Clean Truck Program would result in the clo- of dredged material into inland waters is governed by Section
sure of some carriers and an increase in the cost of drayage 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA). Disposal of dredged ma-
service. One analysis, commissioned by the Port of Los Ange- terial into ocean waters is governed by the Marine Protection,
les, estimated that drayage costs would increase by $1.1 billion Research and Sanctuaries Act, also known as the Ocean
per year at the Port of Los Angeles alone.36 For the state Dumping Act. State and local authorities also get involved in
drayage truck rule, CARB estimated that 23,000 to 32,000 these decisions when they oppose disposal sites that are under
drayage trucks will be subject to vehicle retrofit and replace- consideration.
ment requirements at a total cost of $1.1 and $1.5 billion.37 If an area has been designated a Superfund site, USACE sus-
The cost to an individual truck owner would be approximately pends dredging maintenance activities in that portion of the
$10,000 if covered under Phase I (primarily retrofits) or river until after a Record of Decision (ROD) has been signed
$33,000 if covered under Phase II (vehicle replacement). and remedial actions have been completed by the principal re-
sponsible parties under the Comprehensive Environmental
Response Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA).
Unexpected Impacts Interpretation of the Resource Conservation and Recovery
The ports have studied the potential impacts of this pol- Act (RCRA) is another source of legal complexity in the disposal
icy extensively. The increase in drayage costs resulting from of dredging materials. The USACE policy is that dredged
materials are not a solid waste and thus not subject to solid
waste regulations under RCRA. Some Federal and state
33Boston Consulting Group, "San Pedro Bay Ports Clean Truck Program: CTP
agencies do not concur with this policy. As a result, there is
Options Analysis," prepared for the Port of Los Angeles, March 2008, p.4,
a considerable amount of confusion about the application
http://www.portoflosangeles.org/CAAP/CTP_Analysis.pdf
34Port of Los Angeles, "Los Angeles Harbor Commission Approves Clean Truck of solid waste regulations to contaminated sediments in
Program Concession Agreement," May 15, 2008. different states.38
35For a list of relevant studies, see p. 37 of the Boston Consulting Group's March
2008 analysis, http://www.portoflosangeles.org/CAAP/CTP_Analysis.pdf
36Boston Consulting Group, p. 80.
37CARB, Technical Support Document: Regulation to Control Emissions from In- 38Great Lakes Dredging Team, Decision Making Process For Dredged Material
Use On-Road Diesel-Fueled Heavy Duty Drayage Trucks, October 2007. Management, October 13, 1998.
