Election Section

Commentary: Pacific Steel Needs to Do More About Pollution By Peter F. Guerrero

Tuesday November 22, 2005

After 25 years of community pressure to stop polluting Berkeley, Albany, El Cerrito and Kensington neighborhoods, Pacific Steel Casting is finally planning to take steps to curb its levels of emissions. We appreciate the recent announcement that Pacific Steel will take additional steps to reduce toxic air pollution from its West Berkeley plant but more needs to be done. 

A long-standing source of community complaints, Pacific Steel Casting is a remnant of Berkeley’s industrial past. Operating for over 74 years, Pacific Steel Casting is one of the last remaining steel foundries on the West Coast. When it was built, Berkeley’s Oceanview neighborhood was a manufacturing district but today the area is undergoing rapid change as old industrial buildings are converted to residential housing and artist studios. Despite these demographic changes, PSC operates today as if the environmental protection revolution of the 1970s never occurred, with one of its three casting facilities operating WITHOUT pollution abatement equipment. That it has been a source of irritation to its neighbors is understandable. 

By its own admission, Pacific Steel releases some serious pollutants including manganese, nickel, formaldehyde, benzene, and phenol, chemicals that are both known and suspected carcinogens as well responsible for adverse neurological, respiratory, and reproductive health effects. Reducing or eliminating these emissions is a matter of extreme importance. 

Until PSC’s recent announcement, the reduction of these toxic emissions awaited the results of a health risk assessment (HRA) required by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). Citizens were dubious that the HRA would have much of an effect since risk assessment is historically associated with regulatory inaction. For example, in over three decades since the passage of a federal law to control the thousands of toxic chemicals manufactured in the U.S., only a handful have been regulated.  

So, it made sense for PSC to take common-sense steps now to address the problem, among them: 

• Improving general housekeeping, such as closing factory doors during production hours, and training employees in these procedures. 

• Substituting less toxic chemicals for more toxic chemicals used in the manufacturing process. 

• Re-engineering manufacturing processes to reduce waste and pollution. 

• Installing pollution control equipment on parts of the plant not currently controlled. 

• Making sure existing equipment is operating properly. 

None of these are exotic or unreasonable steps in light of the high number of complaints about PSC. In fact, they are considered best management practices by industry because they not only result in better community relations, but also improve the bottom line by making operations more efficient and reducing the potential liabilities associated with worker and community exposure to toxic chemicals. 

Let’s look at the specifics: 

First, PSC is improving its housekeeping by closing doors on one of its facilities. While this is a step in the right direction, PSC should be required to close all of its doors while operating. Continuing to keep some doors open allows the wind to carry out pollutants before they can be captured by pollution control equipment. 

Second, ventilation fans will be shut down after hours. While this will reduce the release of pollutants into the environment, it does not reduce the pollutants themselves. Eventually, they will be released if not controlled. Turning off fans only delays the release of the pollutants to the time when the fans are turned on. 

Third, bringing additional fresh air into the facility also does little to solve the problem. In the 1970s environmentalists used to say “dilution is not the solution.” The solution is ending the pollution in the first place, period. 

Fourth, training employees on these new housekeeping procedures is good. Employees also need to be held accountable for implementing them consistently. 

Fifth, installing an “odor neutralizer” could be a good thing or it could be cosmetic. If it involves perfuming pollutants, then it should not be allowed. If it involves reducing pollutants, then that’s good. BAAQMD should make sure it’s the latter. 

Sixth, testing alternative, less toxic chemicals to use in the manufacturing process is good. However, PSC shouldn’t give up due to initial disappointing results. It should continue to look at less toxic alternatives. “Green Chemistry” is a booming field; in fact, a recent Noble Prize went to three green chemists. 

Finally, installing pollution control equipment on parts of the plant currently without them is long overdue and a significant step in the right direction. It is unclear, however, whether this equipment will only reduce odors or reduce particulate emissions as well. As anyone who lives in West Berkeley or the other affected communities knows, a grimy dust settles on everything left outside. Particulates are a culprit in asthma and other respiratory disorders. Efforts need to be undertaken to also reduce particulate emissions. 

As its recent announcement indicates, PSC can be a better neighbor. After all, among its clients are you and I—the taxpayers of California—who are paying PSC to cast parts for the Bay Bridge retrofit. We deserve a good neighbor in exchange. PSC should continue working with BAAQMD to identify further steps it can take to ensure a cleaner and healthier environment. 

 

Peter F. Guerrero is a member of the West Berkeley Alliance for Clean Air and Safe Jobs, a community group seeking to clean up Pacific Steel.