By Karen Robes Meeks
The Port of Portland’s ongoing efforts to clean up contamination at its most active marine terminal, Terminal 4, will continue under a preliminary agreement recently reached between the port and the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Port officials last summer reached out to the EPA to figure out how to best move forward on remediating Terminal 4, which is located within the Portland Harbor Superfund site. Operations that were discontinued 20 years ago caused much of the contamination.
The EPA identified the next cleanup steps and outlined the areas of a preliminary agreement that would involve looking at the best technical solutions for remediation. With a thisdocument in place, both agencies will now negotiate to formalize the agreement.
“We’re committed to a cleanup that protects our community and environment and excited to further the significant work that we’ve already accomplished at Terminal 4,” said Port Executive Director Curtis Robinhold. “We’re proud to stand with the others, public and private, who have committed to moving cleanup forward at Portland Harbor.”
Showing posts with label EPA. Show all posts
Showing posts with label EPA. Show all posts
Friday, February 9, 2018
Friday, January 27, 2017
Matson Fined for Honolulu Molasses Spill
By Mark Edward Nero
The US Environmental Protection Agency has reached a settlement agreement with Matson Terminals Inc. regarding federal Clean Water Act violations relating to a September 2013 molasses spill into Honolulu Harbor, the EPA announced.
Matson has agreed to pay a civil penalty of $725,000, according to the EPA.
From Sept. 8 to Sept. 10, 2013, Matson spilled roughly 233,000 gallons of sugarcane molasses into Honolulu Harbor during ship-loading activities, the EPA said. The spill occurred from a section of pipe that the Hawaii Department of Transportation found was leaking in 2012, and reported to Matson.
The molasses discharge killed an estimated 25,000 fish in the harbor and damaged coral reefs in the area.
Matson no longer ships molasses from Honolulu Harbor after it reached an agreement with the state of Hawaii in 2015 to cease transporting molasses through Honolulu Harbor, remove the molasses distribution system, pay for re-growing corals that were damaged or destroyed, and reimburse related cleanup costs.
“Dockside facilities must ensure their operations do not pollute nearshore waters,” Alexis Strauss, the EPA’s acting regional administrator for the Pacific Southwest said in a statement. “The Honolulu Harbor spill affected marine life, coral reefs and kept residents and visitors from enjoying the city’s incomparable coastal environment.”
The EPA’s civil action followed a January 2015 criminal action taken by the US Attorney’s Office against Matson, in which Matson paid a $400,000 fine plus restitution of $600,000 after pleading guilty to criminal charges of unlawfully discharging molasses into Honolulu Harbor. Under the terms of the plea agreement, the restitution was divided equally between the Waikiki Aquarium to support coral reef programs and invasive algae cleanups and Sustainable Coastlines Hawaii to inspire local communities to care for coastlines through beach cleanups.
The US Environmental Protection Agency has reached a settlement agreement with Matson Terminals Inc. regarding federal Clean Water Act violations relating to a September 2013 molasses spill into Honolulu Harbor, the EPA announced.
Matson has agreed to pay a civil penalty of $725,000, according to the EPA.
From Sept. 8 to Sept. 10, 2013, Matson spilled roughly 233,000 gallons of sugarcane molasses into Honolulu Harbor during ship-loading activities, the EPA said. The spill occurred from a section of pipe that the Hawaii Department of Transportation found was leaking in 2012, and reported to Matson.
The molasses discharge killed an estimated 25,000 fish in the harbor and damaged coral reefs in the area.
Matson no longer ships molasses from Honolulu Harbor after it reached an agreement with the state of Hawaii in 2015 to cease transporting molasses through Honolulu Harbor, remove the molasses distribution system, pay for re-growing corals that were damaged or destroyed, and reimburse related cleanup costs.
“Dockside facilities must ensure their operations do not pollute nearshore waters,” Alexis Strauss, the EPA’s acting regional administrator for the Pacific Southwest said in a statement. “The Honolulu Harbor spill affected marine life, coral reefs and kept residents and visitors from enjoying the city’s incomparable coastal environment.”
The EPA’s civil action followed a January 2015 criminal action taken by the US Attorney’s Office against Matson, in which Matson paid a $400,000 fine plus restitution of $600,000 after pleading guilty to criminal charges of unlawfully discharging molasses into Honolulu Harbor. Under the terms of the plea agreement, the restitution was divided equally between the Waikiki Aquarium to support coral reef programs and invasive algae cleanups and Sustainable Coastlines Hawaii to inspire local communities to care for coastlines through beach cleanups.
Tuesday, October 28, 2014
Matson Pleads Guilty to Harbor Spill
By Mark Edward Nero
Matson Inc. said Oct. 21 that it has pled guilty and agreed
to pay $1 million to settle charges that it spilled more than 230,000 gallons
of molasses into Honolulu Harbor in September 2013.
Under the agreement, Matson Terminals pleaded guilty to two
counts of violating the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899. The charges had been
filed by the US Attorney’s Office in Hawaii in response to the spill, which
occurred on Sept. 9 and 10, 2013 when the molasses leaked at Pier 52 through a
hole in a pipe. About 233,000 gallons of molasses spilled into Honolulu Harbor.
The spill is believed to have caused or contributed to the
deaths of about 25,000 fish and much of the reef in both the harbor and nearby
Keehi Lagoon.
“Matson has cooperated with the US Attorney’s office and the
EPA Criminal Investigation Division throughout their investigation of the
September 2013 molasses incident,” Matson President and CEO Matt Cox said in a
statement announcing the resolution. “While we regret the incident, we are
focused on resolving the matter, subject to the court’s approval of the
agreement. We continue to cooperate with the state and the EPA in an effort to
address impacts from the incident.”
Of the $1 million Matson has agreed to pay, $400,000 is a
fine, while $600,000 is a community service payment. Of that amount, half is to
be donated to the Waikiki Aquarium, while the other $300,000 is earmarked for
the Sustainable Coastlines Hawaii environmental organization, which organizes
local beach cleanups.
Matson, which halted its molasses pipeline system at the harbor’s
Sand Island terminal after the spill, said it has yet to resolve any civil
claims by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency or claims by the state of Hawaii
arising from the spill.
The agreement is still subject to approval by the US
District Court.
Tuesday, March 4, 2014
Fuel Regulation Increases Pollution, Shipping Leaders Testify
By Mark Edward Nero
An incoming maritime fuel regulation from the Environmental Protection Agency could crowd roads and increase onshore air pollution, shipping industry leaders testified before a Congressional committee in Washington DC March 4.
At issue was a new rule requiring the use of high-cost, ultra-low sulfur fuels in ships operating within the 200 nautical mile boundary of the North American Emission Control Area, or ECA. The rule was discussed during a maritime transportation regulations hearing before the US House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure’s Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation.
Shipping industry leaders, including Rod Jones, President and CEO of the CSL Group, and Bill Terry of Eagle Rock Aggregates, testified that the new rule, intended to curb harmful emissions, could actually result in the opposite effect, while increasing shipping costs and clogging roadways.
The CSL Group operates throughout the Americas and globally, specializing in short sea shipping. Eagle Rock Aggregates, based in Richmond, California, relies on short sea shipping to transport the building materials it produces, which are used for the construction of roadways and buildings.
Jones’ testimony highlighted concerns that the EPA failed to consider all sectors of the shipping industry in setting this new standard, particularly vessels engaged in short sea shipping. The EPA calculated anticipated cost increases at three percent, but focused only on trans-oceanic shipping, whose vessels travel within the ECA for only a fraction of their voyage. For short sea shipping vessels, which spend nearly all of their time within the ECA, the new fuel requirement means cost increases 10 times that of the EPA’s estimates, in turn spelling higher shipping prices and a greater reliance on less environmentally-friendly land-based shipping modes, like truck and rail.
“CSL calculated that, on average, each ship would bear about $815,000 of additional annual fuel costs,” Jones said in his written testimony. “For CSL alone, the cost could exceed 14 million dollars per year.”
In his testimony, Terry described the new rule’s widespread impacts, saying that for construction companies such as his, increased shipping costs mean higher prices for construction materials.
“The ECA will now penalize our business model that by all accounts, is eco-friendly based on the favorability of marine transportation,” he said.
Jones and Terry recommended that the EPA adjust its policy so that short sea shipping vessels are required to use the new, more expensive fuel mandated by the rule up to 50 nautical miles from shore, instead of to the ECA’s boundary of 200 nm.
An incoming maritime fuel regulation from the Environmental Protection Agency could crowd roads and increase onshore air pollution, shipping industry leaders testified before a Congressional committee in Washington DC March 4.
At issue was a new rule requiring the use of high-cost, ultra-low sulfur fuels in ships operating within the 200 nautical mile boundary of the North American Emission Control Area, or ECA. The rule was discussed during a maritime transportation regulations hearing before the US House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure’s Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation.
Shipping industry leaders, including Rod Jones, President and CEO of the CSL Group, and Bill Terry of Eagle Rock Aggregates, testified that the new rule, intended to curb harmful emissions, could actually result in the opposite effect, while increasing shipping costs and clogging roadways.
The CSL Group operates throughout the Americas and globally, specializing in short sea shipping. Eagle Rock Aggregates, based in Richmond, California, relies on short sea shipping to transport the building materials it produces, which are used for the construction of roadways and buildings.
Jones’ testimony highlighted concerns that the EPA failed to consider all sectors of the shipping industry in setting this new standard, particularly vessels engaged in short sea shipping. The EPA calculated anticipated cost increases at three percent, but focused only on trans-oceanic shipping, whose vessels travel within the ECA for only a fraction of their voyage. For short sea shipping vessels, which spend nearly all of their time within the ECA, the new fuel requirement means cost increases 10 times that of the EPA’s estimates, in turn spelling higher shipping prices and a greater reliance on less environmentally-friendly land-based shipping modes, like truck and rail.
“CSL calculated that, on average, each ship would bear about $815,000 of additional annual fuel costs,” Jones said in his written testimony. “For CSL alone, the cost could exceed 14 million dollars per year.”
In his testimony, Terry described the new rule’s widespread impacts, saying that for construction companies such as his, increased shipping costs mean higher prices for construction materials.
“The ECA will now penalize our business model that by all accounts, is eco-friendly based on the favorability of marine transportation,” he said.
Jones and Terry recommended that the EPA adjust its policy so that short sea shipping vessels are required to use the new, more expensive fuel mandated by the rule up to 50 nautical miles from shore, instead of to the ECA’s boundary of 200 nm.
Friday, March 2, 2012
Port of LA Receives Climate Award From EPA
The Port of Los Angeles has been named an inaugural recipient of the US Environmental Protection Agency’s Climate Leadership Awards, which recognize businesses and organizations that show outstanding leadership in response to climate change.
The EPA recognized LA in its supply chain leadership category, pointing out the port’s greenhouse gas reduction goals, comprehensive air quality tracking, GHG inventories and emissions management.
The environmental agency particularly commended the port for its 2006 adoption of a green leasing policy that includes environmental requirements in tenant lease agreements, including air emission controls, water, stormwater and sediment quality assessments, and energy audits on terminal buildings to identify energy savings.
“This award is testament to the City of Los Angeles’ and the port’s ongoing efforts to effectively balance economic growth and sustainable business practices,” LA Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa said.
The Climate Leadership Award was given in conjunction with the Association of Climate Change Officers, the Center for Climate and Energy Solutions and The Climate Registry. Other companies also receiving awards included IBM, Ford Motor Co. and Gap Inc.
“I commend The Port of Los Angeles on its exemplary leadership in cutting carbon pollution that harms our climate and threatens our health,” Gina McCarthy, an assistant administrator for EPA’s Office of Air and Radiation, said.
“The Port of Los Angeles and all of our Climate Leadership Award winners demonstrate that organizations who are taking action to mitigate climate change are also operating more efficiently, more innovatively and more competitively,” McCarthy said.
Thursday, March 1, 2012
Port of LA Receives Climate Award From EPA
The Port of Los Angeles has been named an inaugural recipient of the US Environmental Protection Agency’s Climate Leadership Awards, which recognize businesses and organizations that show outstanding leadership in response to climate change.
The EPA recognized LA in its supply chain leadership category, pointing out the port’s greenhouse gas reduction goals, comprehensive air quality tracking, GHG inventories and emissions management.
The environmental agency particularly commended the port for its 2006 adoption of a green leasing policy that includes environmental requirements in tenant lease agreements, including air emission controls, water, stormwater and sediment quality assessments, and energy audits on terminal buildings to identify energy savings.
“This award is testament to the City of Los Angeles’ and the port’s ongoing efforts to effectively balance economic growth and sustainable business practices,” LA Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa said.
The Climate Leadership Award was given in conjunction with the Association of Climate Change Officers, the Center for Climate and Energy Solutions and The Climate Registry. Other companies also receiving awards included IBM, Ford Motor Co. and Gap Inc.
“I commend The Port of Los Angeles on its exemplary leadership in cutting carbon pollution that harms our climate and threatens our health,” Gina McCarthy, an assistant administrator for EPA’s Office of Air and Radiation, said.
“The Port of Los Angeles and all of our Climate Leadership Award winners demonstrate that organizations who are taking action to mitigate climate change are also operating more efficiently, more innovatively and more competitively,” McCarthy said.
The EPA recognized LA in its supply chain leadership category, pointing out the port’s greenhouse gas reduction goals, comprehensive air quality tracking, GHG inventories and emissions management.
The environmental agency particularly commended the port for its 2006 adoption of a green leasing policy that includes environmental requirements in tenant lease agreements, including air emission controls, water, stormwater and sediment quality assessments, and energy audits on terminal buildings to identify energy savings.
“This award is testament to the City of Los Angeles’ and the port’s ongoing efforts to effectively balance economic growth and sustainable business practices,” LA Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa said.
The Climate Leadership Award was given in conjunction with the Association of Climate Change Officers, the Center for Climate and Energy Solutions and The Climate Registry. Other companies also receiving awards included IBM, Ford Motor Co. and Gap Inc.
“I commend The Port of Los Angeles on its exemplary leadership in cutting carbon pollution that harms our climate and threatens our health,” Gina McCarthy, an assistant administrator for EPA’s Office of Air and Radiation, said.
“The Port of Los Angeles and all of our Climate Leadership Award winners demonstrate that organizations who are taking action to mitigate climate change are also operating more efficiently, more innovatively and more competitively,” McCarthy said.
Tuesday, February 21, 2012
UP Reaches Settlement in Coal, Oil Spills
Union Pacific Railroad and the US Environmental Protection Agency have reached a settlement regarding spills of coal and oil by trains along railroad lines in three Western U.S. states.
“We have secured a settlement that will help prevent spills, protect water quality, and improve the safety of Union Pacific’s operations in 20 communities across Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming,” EPA regional administrator Jim Martin said in announcing the settlement.
Specifically, UP had been accused of causing six oil spills within the three states in 2003 and 2004, and also three spills of loads of coal in Colorado during the same time period. The EPA also said the company had an inadequate spill prevention, control and countermeasure program in place at the time.
Under the agreement, UP is required to pay a $1.5 million fine, $1.4 million of which would be deposited into the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund, which is used by federal agencies to respond to oil spills.
The remaining $100,000 would be deposited in the US Treasury for the coal spills and stormwater violations.
The settlement also requires UP to develop a management and reporting system to ensure compliance with EPA regulations, and storm water requirements at 20 rail yards in Colorado, Utah and Wyoming.
As part of that, UP is required by the EPA to name an environmental vice-president, who would be responsible for complying with oil spill prevention and stormwater control requirements at the 20 rail yards.
“Union Pacific has already begun putting necessary measures in place,” Martin said, “and we will ensure they continue to do so.”
“We have secured a settlement that will help prevent spills, protect water quality, and improve the safety of Union Pacific’s operations in 20 communities across Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming,” EPA regional administrator Jim Martin said in announcing the settlement.
Specifically, UP had been accused of causing six oil spills within the three states in 2003 and 2004, and also three spills of loads of coal in Colorado during the same time period. The EPA also said the company had an inadequate spill prevention, control and countermeasure program in place at the time.
Under the agreement, UP is required to pay a $1.5 million fine, $1.4 million of which would be deposited into the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund, which is used by federal agencies to respond to oil spills.
The remaining $100,000 would be deposited in the US Treasury for the coal spills and stormwater violations.
The settlement also requires UP to develop a management and reporting system to ensure compliance with EPA regulations, and storm water requirements at 20 rail yards in Colorado, Utah and Wyoming.
As part of that, UP is required by the EPA to name an environmental vice-president, who would be responsible for complying with oil spill prevention and stormwater control requirements at the 20 rail yards.
“Union Pacific has already begun putting necessary measures in place,” Martin said, “and we will ensure they continue to do so.”
Tuesday, April 12, 2011
Tacoma Port Faces $32.7 Million Suit by EPA Over Wetlands Destruction
Federal environmental officials have filed a federal lawsuit against the Port of Tacoma alleging that efforts by port officials to eradicate a potentially devastating agricultural pest led to the destruction of environmentally sensitive wetlands on the Tacoma Tideflats.
The United States Environmental Protection Agency filed the lawsuit April 1 in US Western District Court claiming that actions by the port, three contractors and the state of Washington, led to the clearing of 4.4 acres of wetlands at the Hylebos Marsh in late 2008 and the discharge of dredged material and organic debris into the Hylebos Waterway – all without the required federal environmental permits. The suit also highlights an earlier incident in 2006 where the port allegedly destroyed a nearby acre of wetlands.
The EPA is seeking nearly $33 million in penalties and the restoration of the affected wetlands by the defendants.
According to the EPA, the tract – located between the Blair and Hylebos waterways – was composed of wetlands that provided wildlife habitat and prevented contaminants from entering Puget Sound. The tract contained mature forested wetlands prior to the damage.
The filing claims that in October of 2008, the port contracted with New York-based DEMCO, Inc., to conduct “clearing, grubbing, and subsequent leveling of [Hylebos Marsh].” DEMCO then subcontracted with Tacoma-based contractor Waka Group to perform the work.
The port was attempting to eradicate an invasive vineyard snail infestation on its property at the request of the US Department of Agriculture and Washington State Department of Agriculture. The wetlands area was described at the time as "ground zero" for the infestation.
Officials from the Washington Department of Agriculture told the Tacoma News Tribune in September 2010 that the vineyard snail had potentially serious economic impacts to the state's wheat, hay and barley crops if the pest was not contained within the wetlands and eradicated. If the port lost the at-the-time three-year battle with the snail, said WDA officials, the state's cereal crops could be quarantined and lose their annual multi-million value as exports.
However, according to the EPA, the USDA order to the port stated that plowing and grading was only acceptable in non-wetland areas.
The EPA also alleges that the US Army Corps of Engineers informed the port that mechanized land clearing for snail eradication in wetlands would require a permit under the Clean Water Act.
According to the filing, "between approximately October 2008 and November 2008, the Port of Tacoma and/or persons acting on its behalf used excavators, bulldozers, trackhoes, and other mechanized land-clearing equipment to discharge dredged material and organic debris to approximately 4.4. acres of wetlands at Hylebos Marsh."
The discharged material and debris included, "rocks, dirt, and biological materials, all of which constitute 'pollutant[s]," the filing said.
At the time, the port was faced with the potential that the snail clean up could threaten the progress of the since-abandoned $1.2 billion NYK Blair-Hylebos container terminal. Moving to eradicate the snail as quickly as possible to avoid a possible federally forced shutdown of construction due to the infestation, the port proceeded with the wetlands excavating and grading without a permit.
The EPA investigation into the 2008 incident also uncovered over an acre of destroyed wetlands the port filled in August 2006 adjacent to the former Kaiser Aluminum Smelter. The port and its Kent, Wash.-based contractor Scarsella Brothers used heavy equipment to dump approximately 1,920 cubic yards of "soil, rocks, asphalt and concrete" into 1.13 acres of the wetlands, according to the EPA suit. This work was allegedly conducted without the proper federal permit.
The EPA points out that the affected wetlands drain directly into Commencement Bay, a major South Puget Sound waterway and that Puget Sound is an environmental priority for EPA in the Pacific Northwest. Wetlands like Hylebos Marsh, the EPA said, play a critical filtration role in preventing dangerous contaminants from entering Puget Sound.
The lawsuit seeks to force the port and other defendants to restore the wetlands areas cited as well as pay fines that have accumulated to approximately $32.7 million. The EPA is also seeking reimbursement of all legal costs arising from the case.
The port has not commented publicly about the suit, however, in the past the port has not defended its actions to move forward in 2008 on the snail eradication project.
“Honestly, we just blew it,” port environmental manager Tony Warfield told the News Tribune in September 2010.
Since 2008, the port director has been replaced and new procedures to track environmental issues on construction projects have been implemented by the port.
The port, which was served with an order by the EPA in September 2010 to restore the Hylebos March wetlands, has offered to swap restored wetlands areas nearby to compensate for the damaged wetlands at the heart of the suit.
The United States Environmental Protection Agency filed the lawsuit April 1 in US Western District Court claiming that actions by the port, three contractors and the state of Washington, led to the clearing of 4.4 acres of wetlands at the Hylebos Marsh in late 2008 and the discharge of dredged material and organic debris into the Hylebos Waterway – all without the required federal environmental permits. The suit also highlights an earlier incident in 2006 where the port allegedly destroyed a nearby acre of wetlands.
The EPA is seeking nearly $33 million in penalties and the restoration of the affected wetlands by the defendants.
According to the EPA, the tract – located between the Blair and Hylebos waterways – was composed of wetlands that provided wildlife habitat and prevented contaminants from entering Puget Sound. The tract contained mature forested wetlands prior to the damage.
The filing claims that in October of 2008, the port contracted with New York-based DEMCO, Inc., to conduct “clearing, grubbing, and subsequent leveling of [Hylebos Marsh].” DEMCO then subcontracted with Tacoma-based contractor Waka Group to perform the work.
The port was attempting to eradicate an invasive vineyard snail infestation on its property at the request of the US Department of Agriculture and Washington State Department of Agriculture. The wetlands area was described at the time as "ground zero" for the infestation.
Officials from the Washington Department of Agriculture told the Tacoma News Tribune in September 2010 that the vineyard snail had potentially serious economic impacts to the state's wheat, hay and barley crops if the pest was not contained within the wetlands and eradicated. If the port lost the at-the-time three-year battle with the snail, said WDA officials, the state's cereal crops could be quarantined and lose their annual multi-million value as exports.
However, according to the EPA, the USDA order to the port stated that plowing and grading was only acceptable in non-wetland areas.
The EPA also alleges that the US Army Corps of Engineers informed the port that mechanized land clearing for snail eradication in wetlands would require a permit under the Clean Water Act.
According to the filing, "between approximately October 2008 and November 2008, the Port of Tacoma and/or persons acting on its behalf used excavators, bulldozers, trackhoes, and other mechanized land-clearing equipment to discharge dredged material and organic debris to approximately 4.4. acres of wetlands at Hylebos Marsh."
The discharged material and debris included, "rocks, dirt, and biological materials, all of which constitute 'pollutant[s]," the filing said.
At the time, the port was faced with the potential that the snail clean up could threaten the progress of the since-abandoned $1.2 billion NYK Blair-Hylebos container terminal. Moving to eradicate the snail as quickly as possible to avoid a possible federally forced shutdown of construction due to the infestation, the port proceeded with the wetlands excavating and grading without a permit.
The EPA investigation into the 2008 incident also uncovered over an acre of destroyed wetlands the port filled in August 2006 adjacent to the former Kaiser Aluminum Smelter. The port and its Kent, Wash.-based contractor Scarsella Brothers used heavy equipment to dump approximately 1,920 cubic yards of "soil, rocks, asphalt and concrete" into 1.13 acres of the wetlands, according to the EPA suit. This work was allegedly conducted without the proper federal permit.
The EPA points out that the affected wetlands drain directly into Commencement Bay, a major South Puget Sound waterway and that Puget Sound is an environmental priority for EPA in the Pacific Northwest. Wetlands like Hylebos Marsh, the EPA said, play a critical filtration role in preventing dangerous contaminants from entering Puget Sound.
The lawsuit seeks to force the port and other defendants to restore the wetlands areas cited as well as pay fines that have accumulated to approximately $32.7 million. The EPA is also seeking reimbursement of all legal costs arising from the case.
The port has not commented publicly about the suit, however, in the past the port has not defended its actions to move forward in 2008 on the snail eradication project.
“Honestly, we just blew it,” port environmental manager Tony Warfield told the News Tribune in September 2010.
Since 2008, the port director has been replaced and new procedures to track environmental issues on construction projects have been implemented by the port.
The port, which was served with an order by the EPA in September 2010 to restore the Hylebos March wetlands, has offered to swap restored wetlands areas nearby to compensate for the damaged wetlands at the heart of the suit.
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
Tacoma Port Refuses to Pay "Unfair" EPA Fine
Officials at the Port of Tacoma are refusing to pay a nearly $220,000 negotiated penalty levied by the Environmental Protection Agency over the port's failure to provide documents on the cleanup of the former Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corp. smelter site.
The port bought the 97-acre Blair Waterway site from Kaiser back in 2003 with the idea to redevelop the property. Under the federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act program, which is administered by the state Department of Ecology, the port was required to prove that it could pay to clean up the site. Port officials say that the EPA claims that the port repeatedly failed to provide the required documentation by the yearly deadline. The EPA does not comment on pending violations.
Between 2003 and 2008, the port spent millions refurbishing the site in preparation for development of a shipping terminal. In 2008, though, the EPA received directions to begin closely monitoring Resource Conservation and Recovery Act program cases. This led to a federal audit of the state Department of Ecology's RCRA program, including the Kaiser property clean up, and the discovery of the port's missed paperwork deadlines.
After more than a year of negotiations, the port and EPA reportedly failed to come to terms on settling the potential fines from the paperwork violations.
The EPA reportedly wants the port to pay $231,600 in fines, an offer which port officials have refused. While port officials have not specified what they consider fair, they believe the EPA's suggested amount is much too high.
“A small reduction is not what we are after. We are after being treated fairly,” Sue Mauermann, the port’s director of environmental programs, told the Tacoma News Tribune.
EPA officials argue that non-compliance with the paperwork requirements means that more work falls on the shoulders of federal employees to keep the port in compliance--work that adds up in total costs.
With both sides now at loggerheads over the issue, the next step will likely come in the form of an official fine against the port from the EPA. Ironically, because the port missed some of the paperwork deadlines by up to four weeks, and the fines are based on a $37,500 per day of violation levy, the EPA could wind up assessing an official fine that is much greater than the negotiated amount. If the port continues to fight the fines, the whole affair could wind up in federal court, though instances of such cases going this far are rare.
Thursday, January 7, 2010
Fidley Watch: Doublethink
(As seen in the January 2010 issue of Pacific Maritime Magazine)“Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one’s mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them.” George Orwell
In 2008, Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa accepted half a million dollars in campaign contributions from Change to Win, a Washington, D.C.-based labor coalition substantially funded by the Teamsters. Change to Win has long fought to disenfranchise independent truckers at the Port of Los Angeles. In our March Fidleywatch we suggested that Change to Win’s campaign contribution might influence the Mayor to opt for organized labor’s Clean Trucks Program that had independent truckers forced out of their jobs at the Port.
Last week the City of Los Angeles reported that Mayor Villaraigosa spent $120,000 on a nine-day trip to meet with world leaders and European dignitaries in Copenhagen, Berlin and London to discuss global warming. According to the City, part of that trip was paid for by the Port of Los Angeles.
Change to Win has calculated that independent truck drivers (those forced out of work at the Port of Los Angeles) earn an average of $6 an hour, after expenses.
According to Change to Win’s calculations, the port-funded Mayor’s trip would have paid the wages of an independent truck driver for 10 years.
Not only can the Mayor bask in the glow from all the international stars with whom he mingled in Copenhagen, he can absorb some reflected light from the recently bestowed Orwellian-sounding “Environmental Justice Achievement Award” recently awarded him by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
According to the EPA, “Environmental Justice is the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies. EPA has this goal for all communities and persons across this Nation. It will be achieved when everyone enjoys the same degree of protection from environmental and health hazards and equal access to the decision-making process to have a healthy environment in which to live, learn, and work.”
The most recent award was given to the Mayor-supported Clean Trucks Program (CTP), “for significantly reducing the impact of diesel truck pollution on economically disadvantaged people living near port facilities.”
The CTP Partnership includes the Port of Long Beach, the Port of Los Angeles and the Clean Air Action Plan (CAAP) Stakeholder Group. The CAAP Stakeholder Group, includes, among others: The Natural Resources Defense Council, Coalition for Clean Air, the Port of Los Angeles, the International Brotherhood of Teamsters , East Yard Communities for Environmental Justice, and The Center for Community Action and Environmental Justice.
The City of Los Angeles recently reported a $400 million deficit, and the Mayor can spend $120,000 to fly to Copenhagen for nine days, come back to accept an award for working to furlough port-area wage earners making $6 per hour …the very people he claims to want to help.
Justice? More like doublethink.
Chris Philips, Managing Editor
Thursday, October 8, 2009
Four LA Port Tenants Named in EPA Pollution Complaints
The United States Environmental Protection Agency has filed complaints against four Port of Los Angeles tenants alleging violations of the Clean Water Act.
The administrative complaints– which allege the firms failed to develop adequate storm water pollution plans, failed to develop on-site monitoring plans, failed to use best management practices to prevent storm water runoff pollution and discharged pollutants via storm water runoff without required federal permits– seek penalties of up to $177,000.
The four firms are San Pedro Forklift, Marine Technical Services, Eagle Marine Services, Ltd., and American Marine Corporation.
"Marine industries are responsible for managing their operations to protect the harbor and beaches from industrial runoff," said Alexis Strauss, Water Division director for the EPA's Pacific Southwest region. "EPA will continue to ensure that facilities hold the proper permits and implement required water pollution control measures."
The administrative complaints– which allege the firms failed to develop adequate storm water pollution plans, failed to develop on-site monitoring plans, failed to use best management practices to prevent storm water runoff pollution and discharged pollutants via storm water runoff without required federal permits– seek penalties of up to $177,000.
The four firms are San Pedro Forklift, Marine Technical Services, Eagle Marine Services, Ltd., and American Marine Corporation.
"Marine industries are responsible for managing their operations to protect the harbor and beaches from industrial runoff," said Alexis Strauss, Water Division director for the EPA's Pacific Southwest region. "EPA will continue to ensure that facilities hold the proper permits and implement required water pollution control measures."
