Proposed Coal Yard at Port of L.A. Raises Concerns About Soot : Health: A planned 120-acre storage facility on Terminal Island could pose a hazard for people living downwind, officials warn.

Long Beach officials are concerned that black dust blowing into the city from the Port of Los Angeles will increase if the port builds a new storage yard for coal, petroleum coke and other coal byproducts.

Residents in the city’s southwestern area already complain about the soot generated by a smaller, 42-acre storage yard in the port.

The new yard, which would be 120 acres and closer to the Long Beach border, would generate a deadly dust in nearby neighborhoods and schoolyards, threatening the health of residents, city officials said.

“Daily we have to wipe off our desks. It is so black and greasy that it’s hard to wear white sleeves,” said Bonnie Sharp, who manages 401 condominium units along Ocean Boulevard in downtown Long Beach, about 5 miles from the existing yard. “It gets inside even with the windows shut.”

When the storage yard expands and moves closer to Long Beach, “it’s going to be just awful,” Sharp said.

The new yard is proposed by Los Angeles Export Terminal Corp. for Pier 300 beyond the south end of Earle and Barracuda streets on Terminal Island. The existing yard is further west across the main channel of Los Angeles Harbor near Miner Street in San Pedro.

The proposed $180-million yard eventually would store up to 20 million tons of coal and petroleum coke and allow the Los Angeles terminal to dominate the coal-export market. It would bring 5,900 jobs to the region, and is expected to be completed by 1996, port administrators said.

The materials are exported mainly to Japan, Taiwan and Korea, where they are used for fuel and in manufacturing steel and other products, port officials said.

“This is a cheap and dirty byproduct of the petroleum industry that then gets sent to foreign countries that don’t have the restrictions we do,” Councilman Ray Grabinski said.

A 1991 study published by the American Journal of Public Health concluded that Long Beach children suffered a high rate of serious lung damage as a result of long-term exposure to air pollution. Although the study, which monitored 500 Long Beach residents over 11 years, did not mention the port’s open yard, it attributed the damage to petroleum industries, city officials said.

“(The yard) could have a potentially devastating impact on the community,” Councilman Alan S. Lowenthal said.

Los Angeles Harbor officials said they plan to improve their storage methods.

“The controls on dust would be more extensive and more efficient than those at the existing facility,” said Don Rice, director of environmental management for Los Angeles Harbor.

Currently, a water sprinkling system and water trucks moisten the coal and coke piles to prevent particles from blowing. The new yard would use computerized controls to drench the piles in a water fog sprayed from 160-foot poles. Enclosed conveyor belts would transfer the materials from the yard onto ships.

“It is very high-tech,” Rice said. “It’s going to be a much better situation than what’s out there currently.”

But Long Beach officials want the port to consider housing the coal and coke in a warehouse instead of an open yard.

“For them to leave this outside and think a sprinkling of water will make a difference is ludicrous,” Grabinski said.

At a Port of Long Beach facility that exports coal and petroleum coke, most of the materials are covered. One company exports the materials from a 42-acre site where the coal and coke are stored in five covered sheds. A second company operates a 10-acre facility where the petroleum coke is kept in old grain silos. Officials also are constructing a building to house coal. In the meantime, the coal is doused with water.

The Port of Los Angeles has ruled out an enclosed facility because it is too expensive and not as safe, especially if a fire breaks out, said T.L. Garrett, an environmental scientist for the port.

Long Beach officials wrote a letter criticizing the port’s draft of an environmental report on the project. The letter, mailed Tuesday, also has been sent to the Los Angeles mayor and Los Angeles City Council members who are responsible for issuing expansion permits for the port.

Rice would not respond to the city’s individual complaints about the report but said he will address them formally during a public hearing scheduled May 26.