Marine Pollution ControlMarine Pollution Control
8631 West Jefferson Avenue
Detroit, MI 48209 USA
313.849.2333 - 24/hour

11320 E Lakewood Blvd., #11
Holland, MI 49424
800-521-8232 – 24/Hour

GSA Contract #: GS-10F-0268R
Need help using GSA?  Click here.

Senators want higher liability for Great Lakes oil spills


Michigan's senators are asking the Department of Transportation to make sure oil pipelines crossing underneath the Great Lakes are classified as "offshore" so that owners would have to pay the full costs of cleaning a spill

GRAND RAPIDS, Mich. (AP) — Michigan’s U.S. senators want the Department of Transportation to make sure oil pipelines crossing underneath the Great Lakes are treated as “offshore” and not “onshore” to ensure the owners will have to pay the full cost of a cleanup if there is a spill.

Sens. Gary Peters and Debbie Stabenow, both Democrats, sent U.S. Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx a letter on Tuesday urging him to make sure underwater pipeline segments in and around the Great Lakes are classified as separate “offshore” facilities.
The senators wrote the finding has “significant consequence,” because under the Oil Pollution Act the liability for cleanup costs for owners or operators of onshore facilities are capped at $634 million, “whereas companies operating pipelines classified as offshore facilities are required to demonstrate they have sufficient resources to pay for all cleanup costs.”

Read more:

In response: Company reacted properly after 1980 spill


The Company’s records show that Enbridge (then known as Lakehead Pipe Line Co. Inc.) acted quickly on July 28, 1980, when a release of approximately five barrels of light crude oil in the Hiawatha National Forest were detected, notifying the Michigan Department of Natural Resources immediately following release confirmation that day. On July 29, 1980, we notified the Michigan Public Service Commission and the U.S. Forest Service. The spill was cleaned up following all the standards and requirements of that time.

In 2011, a decision was made to check for any remaining impacts related to the 1980 release while preparing for a valve replacement project in the area. Under an amendment to our existing right-of-way permit, we excavated land around our maintenance project and removed soil from the area.

Read more:

Worker in critical condition after being exposed to cyanide while on the job

April 27, 2016

DETROIT (WXYZ) - Emergency crews saved a worker's life after he was exposed to the potentially deadly chemical cyanide.

It happened at the US Ecology plant in southwest Detroit. That employee is alive, but he is listed in critical condition. It happened around 6:00 pm (Tuesday evening).

Officials were called in for a level 1 HAZMAT situation, when  an employee went into cardiac arrest after becoming ill. He had been exposed to cyanide - his lungs badly burned.

When emergency crews arrived, the employee was unresponsive.  They were able to resuscitate him and transport him to an area hospital where he was listed in critical condition.

Read more:

Shell shuts wells to Brutus platform after spill off Louisiana


A 2,100-barrel oil spill in the U.S. Gulf of Mexico forced Royal Dutch Shell on Thursday to shut in all wells that flow to its Brutus platform, federal regulators said.
The U.S. Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE) said a 2 mile by 13 mile (about 3 km by 21 km) sheen was visible in the sea about 97 miles off the Louisiana coast.
The sheen is near Shell's Glider Field, a group of four subsea wells whose production flows through a subsea manifold to the Brutus platform, which sits in water with a depth of 2,900 feet (884 m).

Exxon Lawsuit Signals the Start of a Big Tobacco-Style Showdown for Oil and Gas


Exxon (now ExxonMobil) is showing signs that it’s gearing up for history’s largest ever battle over the future of fossil fuels and climate change.
The oil and gas titan has been sowing the seeds of climate change denial since the 1980s, when it and other energy giants created the Global Climate Coalition to aggressively lobby Congress and lawmakers to their side, and away from environmentalists concerned over early evidence of global warming. 
As the seeds began to grow, doubt and a fierce anti-science mentality flowered among public opinion. In 2002, the coalition disbanded, explaining that it had “served its purpose by contributing to a new national approach to global warming.”