Sponsor-Whale and Ale
|
|
| |
Search by Artist or Event Name |
|
Our Suggestions:
|
 |
Archive
-
November, 2011
-
October, 2011
-
September, 2011
-
August, 2011
-
July, 2011
-
June, 2011
-
May, 2011
-
April, 2011
-
March, 2011
-
February, 2011
-
January, 2011
-
December, 2010
-
November, 2010
-
October, 2010
-
September, 2010
-
August, 2010
-
July, 2010
-
June, 2010
-
May, 2010
-
April, 2010
-
March, 2010
-
February, 2010
-
January, 2010
-
December, 2009
-
November, 2009
-
October, 2009
-
September, 2009
-
August, 2009
-
July, 2009
-
June, 2009
-
May, 2009
-
April, 2009
-
March, 2009
-
February, 2009
-
January, 2009
-
December, 2008
-
November, 2008
-
October, 2008
-
September, 2008
-
August, 2008
-
July, 2008
-
June, 2008
-
May, 2008
-
April, 2008
-
March, 2008
-
February, 2008
-
January, 2008
-
December, 2007
-
November, 2007
-
October, 2007
Home  Random Extras Long Beach pipe firm must pay $1.3 million for oil discharges
|
|
Long Beach pipe firm must pay $1.3 million for oil discharges |
PDF
|
| Print |
|
E-mail
|
|
Written by Zamna Avila
|
|
Thursday, 28 January 2010 |
Pacific Pipeline Systems LLP recently accorded to pay $1.3 million and discontinue use of about 70 miles of pipeline to resolve a complaint filed in the federal court in Los Angeles for the discharge of crude oil in Pyramid Lake, about 60 miles from the city.
The Justice Department and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency announced that the Long Beach-based oil transport company would discontinue the use of a section of pipeline through an unstable section of the Tehachapi Mountains to resolve a Clean Water Act violation. Pacific Pipeline must relocate the pipeline to more stable geological areas or improve its resistance to earth.
In March 2005, a landslide caused a portion of the company’s underground pipeline that runs through Bakersfield to fail. The break discharged more than 3,000 oil barrels, which flowed into Pyramid Lake, part of the California Aqueduct and potential drinking water supply. The water was not impaired by the discharge because it is designated as a secondary drinking water source and at the time was not being used for that purpose.
Andrew Helmlinger, a lawyer for the EPA, said that even though there weren’t any long-term damages, the agency looked the potential damage that may have occurred in settling the dispute, such as heavy rain.
“It was very important for the EPA to make sure that the potential drinking waters are protected,” Helmlinger said.
|
|
|
Sponsor - Available Space
This space is available.
Box Size is 160x200.
Your ad could be here.
Call (310)519-1442
for more information.
|
Advertise with Us!
Deliver your message to thousands of readers every day.
Our readers are influential opinion makers, community activists, local business owners, and politicians.
Learn more about ads with our 2012 Ad and Publication Schedule.
Call our office at (310)519-1016
or email us for more information.
|
|
