August, 27 2015, 04:15pm EDT
For Immediate Release
Contact:
Email:,info@earthjustice.org
SEATTLE, Wa.
Today, a group of Seattle-area environmental groups and the Sierra Club appealed a King County Superior Court Judge's July ruling which said the Port of Seattle did not need to conduct an environmental review before allowing the Terminal 5 at the Port of Seattle to be used as a home port by Shell Oil's Arctic drilling fleet. Additionally, the appeal challenges the Superior Court's decision that turning Terminal 5 into a homeport for Shell's Arctic drilling rigs was the same use as the previous container shipping terminal.
Earthjustice filed the appeal on behalf of Puget Soundkeeper Alliance, Washington Environmental Council, the Sierra Club and Seattle Audubon to the Washington State Court of Appeals, Division I.
"The Port of Seattle is supposed to be accountable to the public, but it has continually shut the public out of this process. The Port has circumvented the permitting and environmental review processes it is supposed to follow," said Earthjustice Staff Attorney Patti Goldman.
"Our waterways are not for sale to the highest bidder. If the Shell drilling rig and its support vessels are allowed to return to Seattle without environmental review, the costs incurred by the public include a significant loss of public use of the waterway, an increased risk to Elliott Bay and the Duwamish River from spills and in-water repairs, as well as a loss of public accountability and trust," said Chris Wilke, Executive Director and Puget Soundkeeper of Puget Soundkeeper Alliance.
"We are compelled to resort to this appeal because of our ongoing concern for the health of Puget Sound. The lack of public process and environmental review by the Port creates concern that grave harm will come to the birds, whales, and other marine life in our waters from these oil industry vessels. We have no choice but to continue speaking for the wildlife that cannot speak for itself," said Brian Windrope, Executive Director of Seattle Audubon.
Background: Earthjustice filed the original challenge in King County Superior Court on behalf of Puget Soundkeeper Alliance, The Sierra Club, Washington Environmental Council, and Seattle Audubon Society in March. The coalition asked the court to vacate the Port of Seattle's lease with Foss Maritime to house Shell Oil's Arctic drilling fleet because the Port violated the State Environmental Policy Act by failing to conduct any environmental review.
The lawsuit charges that the Port violated environmental laws by converting Terminal 5 from a container terminal into a Shell homeport; the Port needed to conduct a public review of the environmental and community impacts of making this change.
Citing Shell Oil's record of environmental impacts from leaking oil, potential discharges from repairing Arctic-damaged vessels as well as a lack of public process, the groups asked the Port to block the lease via a letter dated January 28, 2015. The letter urged the Port to find a new tenant that creates high-quality, sustainable jobs that reflect the community's values, further specifying the need for a full vetting and public process. The lawsuit seeks to safeguard those core values and the need to push the Port to be a leader in sustainability.
A separate legal proceeding concerning the Terminal 5 lease is ongoing. The City of Seattle Department of Planning and Development, which issues and enforces shoreline permits, has determined that the Port needs a new permit before homeporting Shell's Arctic drilling fleet at Terminal 5. The current permit authorizes use of Terminal 5 as a cargo terminal, and the City has determined that, under its shoreline rules, a cargo terminal entails the transshipment of cargo as a business from one location to another, and that homeporting Shell's Arctic drilling fleet needs a new City permit because it consists of overwinter mooring of the vessels, maintenance and repairs, and outfitting them for the drilling operation, not transshipping cargo. Both the Port and Foss Maritime Company have appealed the City's interpretation. The City Hearing Examiner held a trial ending this week and will decide whether to uphold the City's interpretation after receiving post-hearing briefs. If the interpretation is upheld, the City may pursue enforcement actions to require the Port to obtain a new permit, which have been placed on hold pending outcome of the hearing.
Online Version: https://earthjustice.org/news/press/2015/groups-appeal-seattle-judge-s-decision-allowing-shell-to-use-the-city-as-arctic-drilling-homeport
Earthjustice is a non-profit public interest law firm dedicated to protecting the magnificent places, natural resources, and wildlife of this earth, and to defending the right of all people to a healthy environment. We bring about far-reaching change by enforcing and strengthening environmental laws on behalf of hundreds of organizations, coalitions and communities.
800-584-6460LATEST NEWS
Plastics Summit 'Die-In' Highlights Need to Cut Production
Demonstrators—some wearing fish masks to highlight how plastic pollution impacts marine biodiversity—gathered in front of a 28-foot banner that used plastic trash bags to spell out: "Plastic is poisoning us. Cut production now."
(Photo: Ben Powless/Survival Media Agency)
Participants in the die-in—which followed the weekend's "March to End the Plastic Era" through the Canadian city—held smaller signs with similar messages, demanding that governments and industry "stop fueling climate chaos."
As Common Dreamsreported last week, new research from the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in California shows that planet-heating pollution from the plastics industry is equivalent to that of about 600 coal-fired power plants, and 75% of the greenhouse gas emissions from plastic production are released before the plastic compounds are even created.
The protesters also highlighted that more than 180,000 Ekō members have signed a petition urging action on plastic pollution. The petition specifically calls for banning all plastic waste exports from the European Union and fully implementing the Basel Convention within the bloc, while the summit has a global focus and the plan is to have a treaty by the end of this year.
After countries agreed to draft a treaty two years ago, the latest talks in Kenya last year were flooded by fossil fuel and chemical lobbyists and ended with little progress, increasing attention on the Canadian meeting that began Tuesday and is scheduled to run through Monday.
"It's a crucial moment of this process," Andrés Gómez Carrión, chair of the negotiations and an Ecuadorian diplomat in the United Kingdom, toldReuters on Monday. "One of the biggest challenges is to define where the plastics lifecycle starts and define what sustainable production and consumption is."
Petrochemical-producing countries including China, Iran, and Saudi Arabia "have opposed mentioning production limits" while E.U. members, island nations, and Japan aim to "end plastic pollution by 2040," the news agency reported. The United States supports that timeline but "wants countries to set their own plans for doing so" and submit pledges to the United Nations.
"We are facing a global plastics crisis that requires urgent, global action. Reducing plastic production needs to be a core component of the solution," Christy Leavitt, campaign director at Oceana in the United States, said in a statement. "Countries must act now to stop the flood of plastic pollution that is harming our oceans, climate, health, and communities by starting at the source to reduce its production."
"The U.S. should support a strong, legally binding plastics treaty that addresses the full life cycle of this persistent pollutant from extraction and production to use and disposal," Leavitt added. "Now is the time for the United States to show its support to reduce plastic production, eliminate unnecessary single-use plastics, prohibit hazardous chemicals in plastics, and establish mandatory targets for reuse and refill systems. The United States and the world must act before it's too late."
Greenpeace last month installed a 15-foot monument outside the U.S. Capitol to send President Joe Biden a message.
"He can be the president who put an end to the plastic pollution crisis, or he can be the one who let it spiral out of control," Greenpeace oceans director John Hocevar said of Biden. "We're calling on him to stand up to plastic polluters like Exxon and Dow and put us on a greener and healthier path."
The petrochemical industry, Reuters noted, "argues that production caps would lead to higher prices for consumers, and that the treaty should address plastics only after they are made."
Sam Cossar-Gilbert of Friends of the Earth International emphasized the need to resist corporate pressure in a statement Tuesday.
"A people-powered movement and some governments are proposing ambitious steps to address the plastic problem, like regulating the harmful waste trade, single-use bans, and reducing global plastic production," said Cossar-Gilbert. "But multinational corporations will also be lobbying with their false solutions, distractions, and delays. Only by stamping out corporate capture can we deliver a new global treaty to end plastic pollution."
Mageswari Sangaralingam from the green group's Malaysian arm, Sahabat Alam Malaysia, stressed the need for strong waste management policies, given that Global South countries have become dumping grounds for richer nations' discarded plastic.
"Waste colonialism, whether in the form of trade in plastic waste and other hidden plastics, perpetuates social and environmental injustice," said Sangaralingam. "However, ending the plastic waste trade without reducing plastic production will likely trigger more dumping, cause toxic pollution, and contribute to the climate crisis. The global plastics treaty is an opportunity to plug loopholes and address policy gaps to end plastic pollution."
Most Popular