Posts Tagged ‘pollution’
BP, Halliburton Ready to Rumble
A pox on both their houses. Legal battles surrounding the Deepwater Horizon 2010 drilling disaster will be just as messy—and way lengthier—than the spill incident itself.
The latest shots in what bids to be a never-ending exercise in passing the buck and liability were fired last month when oil giant BP went to court in New Orleans claiming that the U.S. contractor Halliburton (you know – Iran, Dick Cheney? That Halliburton) botched the cement work on the doomed oil rig. Read the rest of this entry »
Coal export plans a dirty business for the PNW
Hey kids! Here’s an idea: Let’s inundate the global market with our cheap dirty coal! We won’t be burning and polluting the atmosphere here in the U.S., merely transporting the coal on 1.5-mile long trains through densely populated areas of the Pacific Northwest, where it will be exported to foreign markets. We’ll boost our exports, help our balance of trade and create jobs!
That’s the gist of the coal industry’s argument for proposals to export tens of millions of tons of coal through the Pacific Northwest to China and other Asian nations.
But major organizations including the Sierra Club, the Sierra Student Coalition, Climate Solutions and Washington Physicians for Social Responsibility are gearing up to derail the coal train idea. Read the rest of this entry »
Groups use energy security scare tactic in opposing EPA
Talk about turning logic on its head: Four right-wing, anti-big government groups contend the EPA is “abusing” air-quality laws because the agency’s MACT (maximum achievable control technology) utility rules will force coal-fired electrical plants to shut down, thus jeopardizing the security and reliability of the U.S. power supply.
A recent petition by the Institute for Liberty, Americans for Prosperity, Center for Rule of Law, and the Freedom Through Justice Foundation is asking EPA to “look at the facts on electric reliability and its Utility MACT rule, which the agency is rushing to finalize in November.”
The coalition’s petition contends the EPA is rushing to judgment and questions the EPA’s assumptions on electric reliability. “EPA has never taken reliability seriously,” it says. “The message of this petition is simple: slow down, do the job right, and do not put reliable electric service at risk.” Read the rest of this entry »
Blog Action Day: A few drops of mercury can spoil your lunch
A few measly drops of mercury can contaminate a twenty-acre lake and the fish that happen to reside there, and you can thank coal-fired plants for that largesse.
A Sierra Club article by Dashka Slater, “This Much Mercury… How the coal industry poisoned your tuna sandwich,” explains a situation in which people who think they are eating healthy are in fact poisoning themselves.
It’s a lengthy, compelling and well-researched article, well worth a read on Blog Action Day.
Chevron, Ecuador and the forever lawsuit
Back in May I wrote about Chevron’s stubborn refusal to settle an $18 billion lawsuit over oil pollution in Ecuador.
Chevron is on trial in Ecuador for widespread contamination of Amazonian land and water resources in the 1970s by Texaco, which Chevron purchased in 2001. Plaintiffs suing Chevron are challenging the adequacy of a $40 million remediation effort that Texaco completed in 1998. A court-appointed expert in the Ecuadorian litigation has recommended that Chevron be held liable for up to $27.3 billion in damages. In February, an Ecuadoran judge fined the San Ramon oil major $9.5 billion over oil-field contamination in a portion of the Amazon rain forest where Texaco used to drill, working as a partner with the government-run Petroecuador. The fine could increase to $18 billion. Read the rest of this entry »
Trident to pay hefty fine for clean water violations in Alaska
Trident Seafoods Corp., one of the world’s largest seafood processors, will pay a $2.5 million civil penalty and invest more than $30 million to upgrade seafood processing waste controls to settle alleged violations of the Clean Water Act (CWA).
The settlement with the EPA and the Justice Department will reduce discharges of seafood processing waste by more than 100 million pounds each year, they said in a joint announcement. The settlement was filed September 28 in federal court in Seattle and is subject to a 30-day public comment period. Read the rest of this entry »
No Concessions from Chevron on Ecuador or Anywhere Else
Among the developments at Chevron’s recent raucous annual shareholder meeting was the oil company’s stubborn refusal to settle an $18 billion lawsuit over oil pollution in Ecuador.
Chevron is on trial in Ecuador for widespread contamination of Amazonian land and water resources in the 1970s by Texaco, which Chevron purchased in 2001. Plaintiffs suing Chevron are challenging the adequacy of a remediation effort that Texaco completed in 1998. A court-appointed expert in the Ecuadorian litigation has recommended that Chevron be held liable for up to $27.3 billion in damages. In February, an Ecuadoran judge fined the San Ramon oil major $9.5 billion over oil-field contamination in a portion of the Amazon rain forest where Texaco used to drill, working as a partner with the government-run Petroecuador. The fine could increase to $18 billion. Read the rest of this entry »
Easy as ABC to cut on-dock ship pollution
The Port of Seattle‘s At-Berth Clean Fuels Program is reducing on-dock vessel emissions of sulfur dioxide by at least 80 percent and diesel particulate matter by 60 percent, helping the region to meet its clean-air targets.
The program, known as ABC Fuels, was formally unveiled this month in a demonstration aboard Matson Navigation Company‘s container ship Manoa, which was docked at the port’s Terminal 18 container facility and using low sulfur diesel fuel to power its auxiliary engines.
“ABC Fuels reduces emissions where it makes the greatest difference,” said Phil Lutes, Deputy Managing Director of the port’s Seaport Division. “When ships are in port, they’re close to where people work and live. Switching to low sulfur diesel when they’re ties up at our piers means cleaner air for our region.”
One challenge is the cost-differential between regular fuel and low sulfur fuel, Lutes says. Low sulfur fuel is more highly refined and thus more expensive. The ABC program helps compensate shipping lines for the transition to low sulfur fuel.
ABC Fuels was developed as a collaborative effort by the port and shipping lines that call Seattle in order to meet the goals of the Northwest Ports Clean Air Strategy, a joint effort by the ports of Seattle, Tacoma and Port Metro Vancouver in British Columbia, and their private sector partners to reduce maritime related air emissions.
Vessels participating in ABC Fuels agree to use low sulfur fuel (0.5 percent or less) in their auxiliary engines while docked in Seattle. In exchange, the Puget Sound Clean Air Agency helps defray the cost of the more expensive low sulfur fuel by providing participating vessels with $1,500 for each port call.
“The financial incentive helps vessel operators make the transition to the cleaner fuels,” says Lutes.
So far 37 ships from six container lines and one cruise line are participating in ABC Fuels. Those ships have made 91 stops at Seattle since January and represent about 35 percent of the vessels that make frequent calls at the Port. Sulfur dioxide emissions from those vessels have declined by more than 20 tons.
Participating shipping lines include APL, CMA CGM, China Ocean Shipping Company (COSCO), Hapag Lloyd, Maersk Line, Matson Navigation, and Norwegian Cruise Line.
The port is is contributing about $450,000 this year to the Puget Sound Clean Air Agency for emission reduction activities, including the ABC Fuels program.
Dennis McLerran, the agency’s executive director, said the program “achieves immediate and significant emissions reductions when ships are in port, to the benefit of all who live and breathe in surrounding areas. We hope to see other larger container carriers and cruise lines take advantage if this program.”
Speaking aboard the Manoa while holding samples showing the dramatic difference in appearance between low-sulfur and regular diesel fuel, Lisea Swanson, Director of Environmental Affairs for Matson, said, “Protecting the environment is very important to our business and a major part of of core values.
“Matson appreciates the cooperative efforts that have allowed us to participate in this voluntary program to burn cleaner fuels at dock. It is safer and easier to comply with than similar programs in other jurisdictions.”
Cruise ship pollution grows
Cruising is a big deal here in Seattle, bringing lots of tourists, their vacation dollars and economic development into the Emerald City. But those dramatic white behemoths also have a dark side – mainly in the pollution they pour into the world’s oceans and into the air.
The international ocean environmental group Oceana reports that pollution from cruise ships is a growing problem. Now there’s an understatement.
One example: Except for California and Alaska, “lax state and federal anti-pollution laws allow cruise ships to dump untreated sewage from sinks and showers and inadequately treated sewage from toilets into state waters,” the organization says.
Once ships are three miles from shore, they can dump untreated sewage from toilets. “This puts our coastal environment at risk from the threats of bacteria, pathogens and heavy metals generated in these waste streams.”
Some hard, dark numbers produced by Oceana:
Each day, cruise ships generate an astonishing amount of pollution:
- 25,000 gallons of sewage from toilets
- 143,000 gallons of sewage from sinks, galleys and showers
- Seven tons of garbage and solid waste
- 15 gallons of toxic chemicals
- 7,000 gallons of oily bilge water
And without adequate regulation and attention, the problem will worsen because the cruise industry itself is growing, along with new cruise ships, cruise terminals and added destinations.
The cruise industry enjoys some sweet pollution exemptions. Under the Clean Water Act, cities and industries are required to obtain a permit to treat and discharge wastes. These permits ensure that sewage treatment systems are effective, and that both the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and that the public know how much pollution is actually being discharged.
“Yet cruise ships are not required to have discharge permits,” Oceana reports. “They can dump sewage into the oceans without monitoring or reporting what they release. As a result, neither the government nor the public know how much pollution is released, and there are no means for citizen enforcement.”
