header image
 

Kitsap Sun -Blog

Watching out for whales could require listening

Sharon O’Hara recently brought up the idea of a listening device to help ship captains avoid running into whales. She mentioned a device used to listen for people hanging out in the wrong place, but she could have been talking about a series of buoys now being tested off the coast of New England. If we want to save the North Atlantic right whale from extinction, this idea could have a lot of merit.

See also my recent post about possible political interference in a recommendation to slow the speed of vessels.

In this Associated Press story, reporter Jay Lindsay visits a research vessel that tests a series of listening buoys.

“We’re listening to their chatter,” whale expert Christopher Clark said aboard the Shearwater, referring to the grunts and groans whales use to communicate. “They can’t keep their mouths shut.”In the past, tracking whales often depended on inefficient aerial surveys, which were limited by weather and how often the whales surfaced.

Now researchers listen for the whales using 13 underwater microphones attached to buoys off the coast of New England. Eventually, scientists hope to follow their movements closely enough so boats can slow down and post lookouts.

Fred Felleman, a longtime ocean observer and advocate for marine life, often talks about convincing the Navy to share data it collects from a series of hydrophones along the West Coast. He is convinced that the information could help track winter movements of orcas as well as understanding the travels of other marina mammals. He points out that even information released long after it has any strategic importance to the Navy could be useful to biologists. The Navy would simply need to coordinate with researchers and keep the data until the time was right to release it.
Meanwhile, regarding ship strikes, a team of researchers report findings from a study of whales that washed up dead in Washington state. Download the report from the Web site of Cascadia Research Collective.

ABSTRACT: Ship strikes of large whales cause mortalities worldwide, but there is uncertainty regarding the frequency and species involved. We examined 130 records (from 1980-2006) of large whale strandings in Washington State.Nineteen strandings (seven species) had evidence of ship-strikes. Fin whales (Balaenoptera physalus) had the highest incidence of antemortem ship strike (five of seven, with the remaining two possibly postmortem) and all but one occurring since 2002. Six gray whales (Eschrichtius robustus) suffered “possible ship strike” injuries, likely the result of their large numbers in the area, rather than high levels of ship strikes.

Only one possible ship-struck humpback whale was recorded, despite concentrations of humpbacks feeding within shipping lanes in this region.

This study shows dramatic differences in occurrences of ship-struck large whales by species, which we believe results from a combination of species’ vulnerability to ship strikes, and how likely a struck whale is to be caught up on the bow of a ship and brought to waters where it can be examined.

Ship fuels to stay dirty for a decade or more

http://blog.foe.org/portwatch/2008/04/ship-fuels-to-s.html

The IMO passed marine fuel standards last week that will postpone any relief from shipping emissions for a decade or more. The need for action by the U. S. Congress and other nations is more critical than ever before.

The shipping industry is spinning new international standards for ship fuel (bunker) as abig win, but the reality is that it will be more than a decade before there will be any relief from shipping fuel emissions – and even that is couched in a “review” before that date.

So people living near ports will be breathing air emissions from ships for more than another decade. How many cases of asthmas, premature deaths does that mean we have to suffer? The U. S. Congress must pass the Marine Vessel Emissions Act to require cleaner fuels right away.

Here is the actual IMO tiering:
Worldwide fuel standards: 3.5% sulfur content by 2012 and 0.5% by 2020.
Sulphur Emissions Control Areas: 1.0% sulfur content in 2010 and 0.1% in 2015.

Why is this so weak?

The average content of ship fuel (bunker) is already 2.7 percent (27,000 parts per million), less than the 3.5 percent proposed (35,000 parts per million sulfur) for 2012. So it will be meaningless until the 2020 tier, which is subject to review so the .5 percent (5,000 ppm) may never be achieved.
There are only two SECAs in the world: North Sea and Baltic. So no one outside that area will benefit unless other SECAs are created. The US has been preparing to petition for one, but who knows if that will go forward.
The standards in SECAs are much better but won’t really help unless we can get the U. S. to put one in place right away.

A coalition of groups recently pressed Congress to move on the Marine Vessels Emissions Act. See letter here.Download foe_catf_and_ccp_sign_on_marine_vessel_emissions_bill_4_7_2008_revised.doc

April 09, 2008 | Permalink

Comments
MARPOL Annex VI addresses three headline pollutants, COX, NOX and SOX.

NOX and SOX are regional in impact.
COX is global and relates to global warming.
SOX and NOX relate to health hazards, that is, they have an impact on mortality.

If you want to know how many “lives will be lost” (an expression of fatalities not mortalities) take a look at documents such as “Effects of long term exposure to particulates on mortality rates.” as that used by DEFRA (UK department of the environment) to determine policy.

Particulates in the UK (none of which is more than 35-40miles from the sea) range up to 34micrograms/M3 (ARIC). A safe level has been established at 21ppb. In some rural areas this is approached or exceeded only rarely and in only some urban areas is it exceeded on an annual average basis.

The report referred to suggests a 1microgram/m3 reduction will result in a corresponding change of around 2-6months in life expectancy.

Take a look at the Chemical Engineers Map of shipping pollution and the maximum concentrations are 1-2micrograms/m3.
These areas occur in the Caribbean, the north sea and a few other areas. These are regions where the life expectancy of the populations are the highest on the planet.

Not all shipping pollution reaches land and it is only in some areas that it does so where the pollution is already above the threshold or close enough that shipping pollution will cause the threshold to be exceeded.

The amount of shipping pollution actually intruding into populations is comparatively low. The impact of life expectancy will be low, of the order of a few weeks to maybe 1-2months, according to some.

The cost under the original MARPOL provisions would amount to a premium of $20-$70 a ton which could be readily amortised over a long voyage vessel operating in global areas and SECAs.

A switch to distillates, as advocated by FOE, Oceana etc would result in an increase in COX due to the necessary energy use at the refineries. The beneficiaries would be those people with the longest life expectancies, access to the best medical care, having the least stressful lives and enjoying the best nutrition.
However, anything that increases costs does impact on shipping.
Distillates currently cost around $900 a ton compared to $480 a ton for HFO and the revised MARPOL is expected to add 50% to cost of HFO i.e. $720 a ton, a $250 premium compared to the $20-$70 a ton the original MARPOL was expected to cost.

But that is just the money, there is a cost, in lives, from extreme solutions.
To find out what that impact is is difficult because there is a dearth of real data (nobody has asked the question or done the research) but you can consider an IMF report (Anne O’ Kreuger) on shipping costs and global economics and other papers on Sub-Saharan economies.
These economies are critically dependent on low shipping costs. Because they have a low level of investment they are even less efficient than other economies. Any increase in costs will impact on them and the victims will be some of the poorest people on the planet, with no medicines, living on the margins of starvation and malnutrition and having among the lowest life expectancies on the planet.

NOX: shipping produces around 3% of fossil fuel NOX, fossil fuel NOX is around 1% of anthropogenic NOX (the rest is from agriculture and biomass burning) and athropogenic NOX is around 10-12% of total NOX. Naturally produced NOX from bacterial action, electrical storms, volcanic action etc. far outweighs anthropogenic NOX so when Oceana says a switch to distillates will drastically reduce pollution, including NOX, a powerful greenhouse gas, they are right but cutting shipping NOX will not actually benefit global warming in the slightest and distillates will increase the CO2 burden.

SOX has a uncertain role in mortality (see report mentioned) but it is a global chilling agent, so much so that a Nobel Prize winning scientist suggests using missiles and artillery to project Sulfur into the atmosphere to counteract global warming and more recently others have suggested artificial volcanoes.

MARPOL seeks to reduce CO2 and NOX globaly through engine design and SOX from the fuel.

The balanced solution originally proposed would deliver benefits to a wealthy healthy long lived elite, OK fine, but with limited impact on fuel costs.
The Latest MARPOL changes induced by external pressure and ill-informed propaganda will deliver a marginally better improvement to that elite but now the costs are rocketing and this will claim an unknown number of lives from among the poorest and least well off people on the planet.

Is that the deal you want?

Posted by: Observer | April 10, 2008 at 06:34 AM

With eye southward Pacific Northwest ports begin air cleanup

Puget Sound Business Journal (Seattle) - April 21, 2008
http://seattle.bizjournals.com/seattle/stories/2008/04/21/focus11.html

Friday, April 18, 2008
Puget Sound Business Journal (Seattle) - by Steve Wilhelm Staff Writer

Looking over their shoulders at the environmental pressures on port operators in Southern California, the ports of Seattle and Tacoma have this year embarked on an ambitious, but voluntary, program to curb their own air emissions.

Approved by the two port commissions in January, with the Port of Vancouver, British Columbia, expected to follow, the plan is called the Northwest Ports Clean Air Strategy.

It doesn’t hurt that terminal and ship operators are looking over their shoulders also, at stiffer regulations being put together by the Environmental Protection Agency and the United Nations-based International Maritime Organization.

The good news for Puget Sound ports is that they don’t yet suffer from the air quality problems that have snarled the California ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles in lawsuits and stymied their expansion plans.

Two key differences between the regions are:

The Southern California urban area is chronically in “non-attainment” for federal air quality standards, which puts enormous legal and regulatory pressure on emitters of diesel particulates and sulfur dioxide. In the Puget Sound area, only Tacoma is in non-attainment, only intermittently, and chiefly due to wood smoke from home heaters.
Thousands of ocean containers leaving the ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles must be hauled 20 miles by truck, many of them soot-belching older models, right by residential neighborhoods on the way to rail yards in the center of Los Angeles. By comparison, most containers leaving Puget Sound ports are either loaded aboard trains at the docks, or after a short trip through industrial areas, to rail yards close to dockside.
Fred Felleman, a consultant for Friends of the Earth, points out that there’s a good deal of self-interest tied up in the port’s efforts. Diesel soot belched by ships and trucks at the ports has gotten more attention as emissions from cars and factories have gradually diminished.

Felleman warned that Puget Sound ports’ growth plans could run afoul of the air-quality-related limits that have thwarted the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach.

For the balance of this year, Seattle and Tacoma port officials are focused on developing incentives to encourage companies operating at the ports to fulfill the largely voluntary goals of the Clean Air Strategy. Port of Seattle Seaport Environmental Manager Stephanie Jones-Stebbins calls it “putting meat on the bones.”

“We have a lot more latitude (than Southern California ports) in how we can approach it, and we can do with what makes more sense,” she said. “We set the goal; oceangoing vessels, trucks, cargo handling equipment, will meet the standard in the way that suits best.”

This means that while the strategy has, for instance, set a 2010 goal for ships to reduce diesel particulates to the level that would be achieved by switching to certain low-sulfur fuel, the companies don’t have to take this approach. Vessel owners could, for instance, switch to shore power at dock or use some other approach.

Diesel particulates get the most attention because this is a type of pollution that can cause cancer, and it does so close to the point where it is emitted; the particles quickly settle to the ground and don’t affect people farther away. While the good news is that this means ports can focus on situations where particles and people are in proximity, the same quality also makes any failure to act more easily pinpointed.

A case in point is the recent Port of Seattle decision, under pressure from community activists, to convert a little-used section of Harbor Island to a truck parking lot, in an effort to attract owner-operators away from the Georgetown streets where those operators have been parking their rigs. While the new parking spaces won’t do anything to lower those trucks’ diesel emissions, it will get those emissions farther from Georgetown’s residential areas.

Cargo ships calling at the ports also don’t have to meet the goal at all, because local port operators have no legal jurisdiction over ships owned and flagged overseas. Ports along the West Coast are encouraging ships to meet air emissions goals in a variety of ways, with Southern California ports requiring higher fuel standards as a condition of long-term leases, while the Port of Vancouver, B.C., is adjusting berthing fees to give financial rewards for cleaner-burning ships.

Other goals set by the Northwest Ports Clean Air Strategy for 2010 include reaching:

A portwide equivalent of lower-emitting “Tier 2 and Tier 3″ engines for cargo handling equipment.
The particle-emitting equivalent of 1994 truck engines, or better. Some trucks in use don’t meet that standard.
The ports have set even stiffer goals for 2015, including cleaner fuel at dockside, cleaner engines for cargo handling equipment, and 2007 truck-engine levels for 80 percent of trucks.

Port of Seattle and Tacoma officials are approaching the entire question carefully, because while a few cargo-carrying companies operating at the ports are essentially tied there — such as terminal operators and regional ocean carriers like Totem Ocean Trailer Express — other companies are headquartered far away, with vessels arriving here only occasionally.

And while some companies’ operating machinery near the docks is mammoth, such as Maersk Line or Seattle-based SSA Marine, others are tiny, especially the one-person owner-operator trucks that shuttle ocean containers a mile or so between dockside and the intermodal rail yards.

While depending on voluntary standards may seem too passive, Sue Mauermann, director of environmental programs for the Port of Tacoma, points out that there’s evidence it’s been working, and adds that the ports have little enforcement power.

Already about 65 percent of the port’s oceangoing ships, including Maersk and K-Line, have switched to low-sulfur diesel when at dockside, she said. And Husky Terminal, which operates at the Port of Tacoma, is using low-sulfur fuels and even biodiesel.

“Here in the Northwest,” she said, “people are independent and want to blaze their own trail, and not be told what to do, but get ahead of the game and be seen to take it on themselves.”

Contact: swilhelm@bizjournals.com • 206-876-5427

Oil Spill Response Reaches New Level

By Christopher Dunagan
Monday, April 14, 2008

NEAH BAY

Worries about a disastrous oil spill along Washington’s outer coast have been eased somewhat, thanks to two vessels that will be stationed in Neah Bay.

On Monday, Crowley Maritime Corporation extended its contract to protect the coastline with a heavy, oceangoing tugboat scheduled for a yearlong deployment beginning July 1. In years past, state funding covered the tug only during winter months.

In another development, a 73-foot oil skimmer has been moved to Neah Bay to serve as a first-response vessel if a spill were to occur in the northwest corner of the state.

The two vessels are unrelated in purpose and funding, but together they provide a major advancement in protection, said Fred Felleman, a longtime advocate for increased spill-response capabilities in the Neah Bay area.

Neah Bay is considered the only safe port between Grays Harbor and Port Angeles. Oil-spill experts have long been concerned about the lack of emergency response equipment along a pristine coastline as well the treacherous entrance to the Strait of Juan de Fuca.

“Plugging the gap is what we’re talking about,” said Felleman, Northwest consultant for Friends of the Earth. “Neah Bay is the strategic port between these locations. This is the culmination of many years of work by many different people.”

The equipment will help protect beaches in Olympic National Park, Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary, three national wildlife refuges and various tribal lands.

The Legislature this year provided $3.65 million for the emergency response tug. Crowley agreed to extend its $8,500-a-day contract, leaving money for other contingencies.

“Every year, thousands of vessels carrying billions of gallons of oil make transits through the Strait of Juan de Fuca,” said Gov. Chris Gregoire in announcing the contract extension. “If we had a major oil spill in the strait, the costs to our environment, our economy and our quality of life could be astronomical.

“We must do all we can to protect our pristine shorelines,” she continued. “Keeping a response tug at Neah Bay year-round helps fulfill that mission.”

Long-term funding is still in doubt, although U.S. Sen. Maria Cantwell has proposed federal legislation to set up permanent funding, including contributions from the shipping industry.

Nearly 9,000 oil tanker and cargo ships pass through the strait each year, according to the Washington Department of Ecology. Cargo ships can carry 2 million gallons of fuel oil and tankers up to 36 million gallons of crude and other petroleum products.

Last week, the skimmer Arctic Tern moved into Neah Bay, where it will be available to contain and scoop up oil if something goes awry.

The skimmer is required under state rules adopted in 2006 to ensure adequate response to all areas of the state. The need to fill the gap between Grays Harbor and Port Angeles was well understood by the shipping industry, state regulators and environmentalists, said Richard Wright of Marine Spill Response Corporation, the region’s primary spill-response contractor.

“We took every piece of equipment that MSRC owns and calculated what it would take to get them all to 28 different points and how that would match up to time frames in the regulations,” Wright said.

The new station in Neah Bay was one result, he said.

The company will rotate captains licensed for 100-ton vessels in and out of the new station, while two trained members of the Makah Tribe serve as crew. Tribal members may eventually reach proficiency to become captain.

Issues still to be resolved at Neah Bay are a barge to offload oil from the skimmer and whether an existing oil-containment boom is adequate for heavy ocean waves.

Chad Bowechop of the Makah Tribe said he looks forward to working through those issues with MSRC. He said he’s also encouraged by recent discussions about including Makah fishermen in first-response training.

“The lesson we learned from the Exxon Valdez is if there is a commercial fishing fleet in the area, you should do everything you can to train and equip them,” he said.

For a discussion about water-related issues, check out the blog Watching Our Water Ways at kitsapsun.com.

© 2007 Kitsap Sun

The Neah Bay tug is smart insurance

Seattle Times - Editorial

Tuesday, April 15, 2008 - Page updated at 12:00 AM

Six times during the past winter season, the rescue tug at Neah Bay was called out to help ships in distress on Washington’s busy outer coastline and the entrance to the Strait of Juan de Fuca.

Paying for a tug to be on call is expensive, but it pales before the cost of ships drifting onto the rocks and causing major oil spills.Such recognition helped convince the state Legislature and Gov. Christine Gregoire to provide $3.7 million for year-round coverage. A contract extension was signed Monday, and the service begins in July.

Coverage in the past has run from early fall to mid-spring, but it ended early this year, when higher fuel costs tapped out available funds. Crowley Maritime Corporation will provide the full year of service.

Big ships can get into trouble quickly when they lose steering or propulsion. State-funded tugs have been on duty at Neah Bay since 1999, and they have responded to 40 calls for help.

The prospect of better weather in summer months is no assurance of smooth sailing. The 1991 Tenyo Maru disaster occurred in July.

Stable funding for emergency-response tugs is the key to protecting valuable fisheries and shellfish harvests, and equally abundant Puget Sound recreational activities and tourism.

Washington Sen. Maria Cantwell is pursuing congressional support for 12-month coverage of the strait. This topic will not go away, and without federal help it will be back before the Legislature in 2009.

Nine-thousand ships pass through the strait each year. History informs us it takes only one grounding or collision to do vast environmental damage and consume truly spectacular sums of money.

The daily cost of an on-call tug is expensive — $8,500, plus fuel. The absence of that insurance policy could be catastrophic.

Copyright © 2008 The Seattle Times Company

Alaska plan to assess oil risks

Financial Times
April 15, 2008

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/980ab0c2-0a79-11dd-b5b1-0000779fd2ac.html

By Sheila McNulty in Houston
Published: April 15 2008 03:43 |
Last updated: April 15 2008 03:43

Alaska is seeking bids to conduct a comprehensive risk assessment of the state’s oil and gas infrastructure to prevent a repeat of the corrosion and spills suffered in recent years at the Prudhoe Bay oilfield, the largest in the US.

The engineering analysis, for which bids are due by April 28, is being conducted on the instructions of Governor Sarah Palin. She ordered the audit  to take two years and cost $5m  after the biggest spill at the BP-operated Prudhoe Bay in 2006 revealed corrosion in the pipelines and forced the closure of half the oilfield.

The state has asked the legislature to provide $4.7m to fund a lawsuit against BP to compensate it for “several hundred million dollars” of oil tax and royalty revenue it lost during 2006 and 2007 because of what it called BP’s “failings”.

“Events of the last few years show the need to take a hard look at the adequacy of existing infrastructure and systems,” said Larry Hartig, commissioner of the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation.

BP, which has been under heightened scrutiny from US investigators and Congress in recent years following the spills in Alaska, a trading scandal and a refinery explosion in Texas, indicated it would work with the authorities on the audit.

“We have a long history of co-operating with state agencies, and we have systems and processes in place for safely managing our operations,” said Ronnie Chappell, BP spokesman.

Betty Schorr, Alaska’s industry preparedness program manager, said this was the first time the state had undertaken such a comprehensive assessment. It will select a contractor in June.

State contracts for first year-round rescue tug at Neah Bay

The strtegic value of the Port of Neah Bay between Port Angeles and Grays Harbor is finally being realized.  We are holding our breath for Senator Cantwell to find a long term federal solution to the tug like the tug escort requirements currently in place east of Port Angeles.  Fred
Monday, April 14, 2008

By The Associated Press
OLYMPIA — The state Ecology Department says it has extended a contract with Crowley Maritime to station an emergency tug at Neah Bay year around.

With $3.7 million approved by state lawmakers the contract extension runs will run through June of 2009.

Since 1999, a tug has been stationed through the winters at Neah Bay to help disabled ships and prevent oil spills during the stormy months.

This is the first time a tug will be stationed all year to protect the coast and Strait of Juan de Fuca

Copyright © 2008 The Seattle Times Company

Road repairs start in May

Ballard News Tribune

Tuesday, April 01, 2008

Sand stabilization may sound like an oxymoron, but that is exactly what the Seattle Department of Transportation promises with its federally funded repair plan for the portion of Golden Gardens Drive that collapsed during a rainstorm last December.

The city received $3 million to $4 million from the Federal Highway Administration’s Emergency Relief Program to restore the damaged 56-foot hole.

Five city transportation department representatives unveiled its “final” plan to an uneasy audience of about 90 at a March 24 public meeting at Golden Gardens Park Bathhouse. Many live in the neighborhood just north of the collapse and felt their voices were not heard before the plan was set in stone, or rather, sand.

HDR Inc., the hired contractors, will start in May for the six-month major re-construction project. They will reinforce and repair the hole extending about 10 feet beyond each edge. That stretch of the drive will lie within a 160-foot “soldier pile/tieback” wall. Soldier pile walls generally utilize steel beams driven into the ground to retain a soft soil and for sites not allowing excavation into the hillside below from both sides, and both are the case here. Signage and shared lane pavement markings, or sharrows, will be added for bicyclers the following spring.

After the presentation, one audience member said he cycles Golden Gardens Drive regularly, and made a comment that seemed to resonate with the crowd more than any other.

“I came to this meeting on the pretext of being invited to ask what we want to do with the road. It seems obvious that you already knew what you were doing. So why are we here? Can we debate other options?”

<!–

–>

[include_if_component:movie-file:-50:video.inc]

His comment was addressed to LeAnne Nelson, communications manager, and Kit Loo, projects manager, both with the Seattle Department of Transportation, who insisted there was no wiggle room in their design plan to stabilize and repave. They said that to qualify for the federal funding you must agree just to reconstruct without adding sidewalks, or widening the lanes, which they admitted are, in some places on the drive, under the city’s 10-foot width minimum standard.

“We can just fix the hole with the emergency funding,” said Nelson. “We can’t reconfigure the road.”

Loo said the “main issue for us is safety, and to maintain access of cars, emergency vehicles, and bicycles. We are battling nature.”

Someone asked if the federal funding would prevent future repairs along the troubled road.

<!–

[component:image-thumbnail:-2:360]
[component:image-cutline:-2]

–>

“To repave the entire road we estimate at over $20 million. We are trying to mitigate any future spots,” Loo said.

“It’s a crazy narrow road,” said Fred Felleeman, an environmental consultant and a founding member of Friends of Golden Gardens Park. Like others, he said he resented being left out of the decision-making process and would favor the drive becoming a one-way street with a two-way bicycle lane.

“The road is too narrow to safely squeeze in two lanes of traffic and two lanes of bicycles. I don’t see how that would violate the federal grant. It would preserve the road and make it more stable, and wouldn’t cost anymore. Why have options been taken off the table? Let’s be creative about this.”

Some neighbors chatted outside the beach house after the meeting.

“The (Ballard) Volkswagen dealership uses the road as a demo spot,” said Daniel Wren, who peddled to the meeting and suggested implementing speed bumps to slow down test-drivers and other four-wheel daredevils. “The car dealers say, ‘Once you get to Golden Gardens (Drive) open it up.’”

Felleeman laughed. “I know. I test drove one of their cars and that’s just what they told me, too, and I did!”

Wren suggested people, “Check out that huge crack a couple hundred feet past the railway tunnel. That’s the next to go, and is not even part of their plan. I talked to some maintenance workers up there who said that drainage is so bad that repairing this street is like pouring money down the drain.”

Reached the following day, Nelson acknowledged the strong audience reaction surprised her and said that, as a result of the meeting, supervisors at the transportation department “promise to look into the federal regulations of the grant to see if we are given other options on the plan.”

Steve Shay may be contacted at steves@robinsonnews.com

Oil-spill response vessel now stationed at Neah Bay

Overnight success - 10 years in the making.  Fred

Article published Apr 12, 2008


By Jim Casey, Peninsula Daily News

NEAH BAY — The oil skimmer Arctic Tern heas begun calling Neah Bay its homeport as the Makah reservation becomes a staging area for spill response on Washington’s outer coast.

Previously moored at the Port Angeles Boat Haven, the 73-foot diesel-driven craft will be captained by an officer of the Marine Spill Response Corp. and crewed by two Makah tribal members.

Chad Bowechop, ocean policy manager for the tribe’s new Office of Ocean Affairs, announced the move Wednesday as a milestone for the tribe.

The vessel began its station Thursday.

“It’s a pretty red-letter day for us,” Bowechop said.

The Makah, he said, long have worked with the Coast Guard and the nonprofit spill response corporation to build credibility.

“This is a real good example of tribal government working with industry to improve oil spill protection standards,” Bowechop said.Guarding vital resources
“What it represents to us is two things:

“We’ve prioritized oil spill prevention and response as a top issue.

“We’ve been able to use our treaty rights [to take fish and marine mammals] as the form to draw attention as a resource trustee as opposed to just a stakeholder.”

The Makah are heavily reliant on their fisheries.

“It’s essential for us to protect our treaty resources,” Bowechop said.

Richard Wright, spill response corporation vice president for the Pacific Northwest region, said the Arctic Tern is a self-contained skimming vessel.

“It has a collections system that advances through the water, and with booms out to either side corrals the oil,” he said.

Transferring the vessel to Neah Bay won’t reduce spill protection in Port Angeles, Wright said.PA still protected
“We have many other skimmers in Port Angeles already,” he said, notably the Park Responder.

Should another vessel be needed, he added, the Arctic Tern is only five hours away.

Skimmers also are stationed in Tacoma, Seattle, Everett, Anacortes and Bellingham, he said, and MSRC has a cooperative arrangement with its Canadian counterpart.

Vessels similar to the Arctic Tern are stationed at Anacortes and Bellingham, Wright said.

Seattle environmentalist Fred Felleman, a watchdog of oil spill dangers on the outer coast and in the Strait of Juan de Fuca, also applauded making Neah Bay the oil spill response staging area between Grays Harbor and Port Angeles.

For more information on the Marine Spill Response Corp., visit www.msrc.org.

Meanwhile, the Makah continue to press Congress for federal funding for a year-round rescue tug at Neah Bay.

The state Legislature passed year-round funding that may prove too little for 365 days of operation.

Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Mountlake Terrace, has included provisions for tug funded by the shipping industry.________
Reporter Jim Casey can be reached at 360-417-3538 or at jim.casey@peninsuladailynews.com.


if (!window.print) {
document.write(’<br><font face=”Arial, Helvetica” size=2>To print this article open the file menu and choose Print.</font><br>’);
} else { window.print(); }

Floating Cities, But Without a Sewer System

ENVIRONMENT

Am Johal

VANCOUVER, Canada, Mar 25 (IPS) - Cruise ships are dumping sewage in the waters off Canada’s coast, but the federal government seems content with voluntary compliance standards and loose regulations, according to civil society critics.

An average cruise ship discharges 1.3 million litres of waste water per day, according to the Vancouver Island Public Interest Research Group. Many cruise ships also burn fuel that has a 90-percent higher sulphur content than fuel used by cars.

Ross Klein, a professor at the school of social work at Memorial University of Newfoundland — and a former cruise enthusiast — told IPS, “Canada initially looked at regulating the cruise industry through voluntary guidelines in 2001 and 2002. We knew that they didn’t work. In 2004, regulations were passed under Transport Canada. [But the] regulations were somehow less stringent than the voluntary guidelines.”

“While the government says there are fines, there really isn’t an enforcement mechanism which actually works. They are less stringent in Canada than in American states like Washington or Alaska. Most of the cruise ship industry pay no taxes and are often in international waters. They shouldn’t be treated any differently in Vancouver than in Alaska or Washington. There’s no reason why British Columbia shouldn’t have equivalent regulations, particularly in protected areas,” he said.

Large multinational companies fly so-called flags of convenience to pay little or no taxes and do not have to meet basic labour or safety standards. Countries such as Panama, Burma, Cambodia, Lebanon, the Bahamas and Liberia allow such safe havens for the cruise industry.

A spokesperson for Norwegian Cruise Line (NCL) declined to answer specific questions, referring IPS to a brochure on the company’s environmental policies. It says that “All of NCL’s ships are equipped with state-of-the-art advanced wastewater treatment systems that treat black water and gray water to near drinking water standards.”

The brochure says that all NCL crew receive training on environmental procedures, and that each NCL ship has a designated environmental officer on board at all times to oversee environmental training and compliance.

Holland America could not be reached for comment.

The U.S.-based Blue Water Network, associated with Friends of the Earth, has estimated that 77 percent of ship waste comes from cruise ships. Two billion pounds is dumped into the oceans each year.

An Alaska-bound cruise ship along the west coast of North America generates about 28,000 gallons of sewage sludge. Approximately 150 cruises go to Alaska from Seattle, often stopping along the Canadian west coast. Environmental advocates have argued for a sludge intake pipe so sewage could be later used for fertiliser and other uses.

According to Kahea, the Hawaiian Environmental Alliance, “Each cruise ship carries an average of 3,000 people and produces as much sewage and waste as a mid-sized city. Tonnes of raw sewage, garbage and even hazardous waste are produced and disposed of each day by a single ship. This constant discharge of waste into our oceans is multiplied by dozens of ships operating every day in our precious oceans.”

Cruise ships do not have to comply with environmental and water quality protection laws that are required for municipalities, although some say they do so voluntarily.

The Clean Air Cruise Ship Act proposed by U.S. Senator Richard Durbin of Illinois and Congressman Sam Farr of California would allow no dumping of sewage, graywater or oily bilge within 12 miles of any shore.

It would also empower the Coast Guard and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to determine standards for sewage and graywater discharged beyond the 12 mile-point and charges the Coast Guard and EPA with enforcing the standards.

The bill would allow cruise ships to have their pollution control equipment inspected, protect cruise ship employees who report polluting activities onboard vessels, and allow citizens to launch civil actions against any vessel or carrier in violation of the act.

Howard Breen, formerly the marine campaign director with the non-profit Canadian organisation Travel Just, “The long and the short of it is that the industry is full of platitudes. Shipping as a whole has a past that is secretive and not very transparent. The shipping magnates do their business far from the prying eyes of the public.”

“In the last decade, the industry has ballooned to such a magnitude, their emissions tend to be massive, and the track record of the cruise ship industry has had fines of 90 million dollars levied — predominantly American,” he said. “In Canada, they’ve actually set back regulations from voluntary standards. These ships, despite their size, don’t have adequately sized holding tanks — unlike railways, airplanes or buses. This is clearly unsustainable with respect to waste disposal.”

Breen added that the discharging “can lead to the suffocation of the water columns, big lethal algae blooms that create larger dead zones in the ocean. This is not a benign substance being dumped into Canadian waters. Our ocean becomes an invisible landfill and a toilet for foreign guests.”

“This is greenwashing with terrible consequences,” said Breen. “You see the hospitality side of the industry and not the operational side.”

Fred Felleman, Northwest consultant for Friends of the Earth USA, said, “The cruise ships in Seattle go to Alaska through Canadian waters. Ships, being mobile dischargers, want low, uniform standards. There wouldn’t need to be port specific situations if they didn’t skirt around EPA regulations.”

“You would be hard-pressed to consider a vacation with sanitation facilities as something incidental and discharge permits for everything other than sewage. The U.S. regulatory regime is woefully inadequate. They are flagrant polluters. Alaska has had a much longer historic concern around this and has special authority to regulate cruise ships in a much more rigorous manner. The filters are pulling out the sludge with filters but then dump up it out offshore.”

***** + ENVIRONMENT: Household Chemicals Wreaking Havoc in Fish (http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=41364) + ENVIRONMENT: First Map of Human Impacts on Oceans Released (http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=41220) + ENVIRONMENT: Planetary Check-Up Starts With the Oceans (http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=40236)

(END/IPS/NA/EN/IF/AJ/KS/0 8)

.http://domino.ips.org/ips%5Ceng.nsf/vwWebMainView/14BE1F240EDA2FCCC125741700704107/?OpenDocument