Course:ECON371/UBCO2011WT1/GROUP4/Article1
Link to class main page:
Article Link
Major seafood processor agrees to civil penalty
Summary
In Alaska, waste from the fishing industry is a major problem. In 2009, 1.8 million metric tonnes of fish were caught in Alaskan waters, and the head, tails, and guts—which account for over half of this mass—need to be disposed of. In other locations this waste is turned into animal feed. However, in Alaska, this is seen as a losing proposition and instead companies apply for permits to pipe ground-up waste back into the ocean. When this is not carried out with appropriate monitoring and attention, it can prove fatal to existing ecosystems by smothering bottom dwelling sea life and creating dead zones.
The EPA in the United States contends that Trident Seafood Corp had more than 480 violations of its Clean Water Act when disposing of fish waste from its Alaskan facilities, over a five year period. Some waste patches on the sea floor were 50 acres in size. In a settlement between the EPA and Trident, the seafood company will pay a fine of $2.5 million dollars and commit to investing $30 million dollars in a waste processing plant and other controls. Trident claimed that the violations came as a complete surprise, however the EPA suggested that Trident have had issues like this in the past.
Analysis
The ability of an area to support an ecosystem that provides us with food is an ecosystem service. The pollution—in the form of macerated fish waste—would effectively kill off the ecosystems on the sea floor in the areas affected. The EPA, in its settlement with Trident, valued the damage to the aquatic ecosystems at $2.5 million dollars and committed them to $30 million worth of abatement costs.
One of the reasons why seafood companies tend to break regulations is that dumping waste to the ocean is much easier than installing facilities of waste treatment or investing in technological innovation, which could increase their economic profit. Waste disposal into the ocean is also a common problem of open access and free riders. The ocean is a public good, which causes seafood companies to have incentives to ignore the environmental impacts of their production process and also defeats the chance that socially efficient equilibrium can be achieved.
Although fish waste is a natural pollutant, it could lead to harmful effect in oxygen level, salinity, temperature, pH level and food web to the overall abundant sea organisms. According to the article, more than 1 acre of seafloor could face the risk of dead zone, entire ecosystem of the area is being disrupted and biodiversity could mitigate. This is an essential issue because ocean has been playing a key role in shaping our economics and social welfare. Alaska Bristol’s Bay is an economic environment for any other fishery, seafood or tourism company and individuals, damage to its ecosystem can lead to unsustainability in providing natural resources for production and consumption, including renewable and non-renewable ones. Productivity of fish industry can decrease in next several years if damage still continues. Besides, the opportunity to enjoy utility from experiencing natural landscapes and habitats would reduce too. In addition, excluding part of disposal that is used for fish meal or fish oil, accounting for under fifty percent, the rest of disposal of fish organisms is way of wasting useful resources. Some good portion is being wasted and polluting the ecosystem as well. In long term, people should make effort to utilize every part of Alaska fish. This process will cost but benefit too, in both economic and environmental aspects.
The Trident’s agreement will reduce waste, protect Alaska water, which is essential habitat for seafood industry, improve environmental quality and create efficiencies that will serve as a model of best business practices for the seafood processing industry. In addition, when Trident’s plants goes to work, it would bring more jobs to operate the plants. The company could pay in total more than what it damaged, including penalty and investment in waste control; however, this investment will benefit Alaska environment, economic habitat, and maintain sustainability for future generation.
Another issue presented here is that Trident's large violation (480 Clean Water Act violations) is purposely continuous in long time from 2005-2010. This does not only imply weakness in monitoring and management of responsible organization but also point out difficulty of court process. Over last three years, EPA gave notice of its intend to charge Trident for the company's violations; district court was also set up; however burden of proof made it harder to complete judgment and give penalty to prevent violations; thus contributing to the company's continuous regulation breaking.
Prof's Comments
The key thing I take away from this article is that the company has been avoiding paying abatement cost. A 2.5 million dollar fine isn't much if the company was able to avoid paying the $30 million in abatement cost it has now agreed to pay for several years.
You also suggest that it would be better to put the offal to other uses, rather than disposing of it. In Alaska, where transportation costs to ship the fish meal to markets where it can be used is high, the most efficient thing to do may be to dispose of the waste. Remember that the total costs and benefits need to be considered.
7.5/10