NOTÍCIAS
Clipping 20 de Fevereiro de 2009
voltar»
Wis. proposes tough new Great Lakes ballast rules
O estado de Wisconsin propõe duras regras para deslastro nos Grandes Lagos
2/20/2009, 6:45 p.m. EST
By TODD RICHMOND
The Associated Press |
|
|
MADISON, Wis. (AP) — Oceangoing ships would have to meet some of the nation's strictest ballast water quality standards before they could dock in Wisconsin's Great Lakes ports under regulations state officials proposed Friday.
The plan is designed to block new invasive species from hitching rides in oceangoing vessels' ballast water and overwhelming native Great Lakes ecosystems. The state Department of Natural Resources estimates more than 180 nonnative fish, plants, insects and organisms have entered the Great Lakes since the 19th century, wrecking food chains, ruining beaches and jeopardizing tourism.
"We continue to believe the best way to fix this is with strong federal legislation," said Todd Ambs, administrator of the DNR's water division. "This is not our preferred approach. But we can't wait any longer."
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in December adopted ballast discharge permit regulations requiring commercial ships to dump it at sea or rinse their tanks with salt water to kill organisms in residual water or mud. Environmentalists criticized those provisions, however, saying they only mirrored current U.S. Coast Guard policy.
Minnesota and Michigan set up their own discharge permit programs before the EPA completed its permit package. The other Great Lakes states, except Wisconsin, added their own specifications to the EPA rules.
Wisconsin began crafting its own add-on regulations last year. But the National Wildlife Federation challenged them as too weak, the Lake Carriers Association, which represents Great Lakes-only shipping, challenged them as too strong and state water officials ended up waiving their right to amend the federal package.
Under the new plan, oceangoing vessels would have to pay $1,200 to apply for a 5-year permit allowing them to discharge ballast water at Wisconsin's Lake Michigan and Lake Superior ports. They'd also have to pay an additional $345 each year they hold the permit.
Gov. Jim Doyle's budget proposal, released this week, estimates the fees would generate about $460,000 by 2011 and cover three positions to run the program.
The ships would have to meet limits on the number of living organisms allowed in discharged ballast water.
Existing oceangoing ships would have to meet a standard 100 times stricter than limits suggested by the International Maritime Organization by 2012, assuming viable water treatment technology is available by then. New York has an identical 100-times-tougher regulation.
Read more at http://www.examiner.com/a-1863131~Wis__proposes_tough_new_Great_Lakes_ballast_rules.html?cid=rss-Wisconsin_Headlines
The big clean up
20 Feb 2009
Port pollution control has taken on a life of its own, as Stevie Knight finds out
O controle da poluição em portos tomou uma vida própria, diz Stevie Knight
" E não estamos apenas falando sobre as fontes de poluição aqui - que incluem ar, ruído, resíduos, de lastro e de esgoto da água, bem como do petróleo -, mas também a legislação que os portos têm de lidar com a manter no topo do jogo."
Pollution is akin to that mythical Hydra to deal with: sort out one head and another comes at you from a different angle.
And we are not just talking about the sources of pollution here - which include air, noise, waste, ballast and bilge water, as well as oil - but also the legislation that ports have to deal with to keep on top of the game.
Since the 1996 IMO Protocol put in place what is known as the "precautionary approach", anything that might be likely to result in pollution is now prohibited. More than one port worker has said that though worthwhile, the regulations are hard to keep on top of - updates just keep coming through and the implications aren't always obvious.
But far from being another burden, the measures, in many cases, have helped clarify an ambiguous situation. For example, ship's captains, once forced to make a decision between saving money by dumping at sea or generating a bill for the ship's owners, now can show the company a legitimate invoice, says David Jacobs, senior consultant for CWA.
Of course, there are the notorious cases where companies have simply shipped their waste to economies that have not yet robust antipollution measures in place - resulting in, for example, the dumping of 900 tonnes of waste and hazardous material from New Jersey at Tamil Nadu's Tuticorin Port, the discovery of harmful substances - sent from New York - at Kochi Port and similarly, and the practice of dismantling of 'toxic' ships like Blue Lady andClemencau on the beaches of India.
So there are huge discrepancies between the developed and emerging economies, who often are left playing 'catch-up' with regulations, facing lengthy court actions to enact basic measures which even then may prove to be ineffective - Tuticorin port's action demanded that the waste, once discovered, was returned to New Jersey but it was still sitting there three years later.
...
It is the big clean up. And though it might take a while to get the world on board, many ports are putting their money where the ingenuity is - to everyone's benefit.
Read more at http://www.portstrategy.com/archive101/2009/january_-_february/environment_managing_pollution/pollution_-_the_big_clean_up
voltar»
|
