Puget Soundkeeper Alliance Versus the Boatyards

What has it all been about?

By Jeffrey D. Briggs

With a marine industry already

staggering from the global economic collapse, five Seattle-area boatyards were pushed closer to the brink by the threat of a lawsuit from an environmental watchdog group. In late December 2009, (just before the Christmas holidays) Puget Soundkeeper Alliance (PSA) sent the five marinas a letter with the intent to sue for violating the federal Clean Water Act. Two of the Lake Union boatyards

– Dunato’s Marine Services and Yachtfish Marine – have settled with PSA. Yarrow Bay Marina in Kirkland has reached a settlement agreement in principle, while CSR Marine with its two freshwater locations is continuing negotiations with the nonprofit organization. But Patti Segulja-Lau, general

manager for Dunato’s, can’t help but wonder what it’s all been about. The settlement “is going to cost us about $20,000 in legal fees,” she said, “And at the end of the day, nothing got better. Not a single cent has gone to improve water quality.” CSR Marine is in the middle of

negotiations with PSA and Chip White, environmental and safety manager for the three CSR Marine locations, couldn’t discuss the details of the proposed settlement. But he did agree with Segulja-Lau, “The only ones getting rich from this are the lawyers. Not a damn thing is being done for the environment or the boatyards.” When weighing the costs of engaging in a lengthy lawsuit against

PSA, Segulja-Lau said Dunato’s Marine had to make a business decision. “We couldn’t afford to fight Puget Soundkeeper Alliance in court. Under the Clean Water Act, we had everything to lose and (PSA) had nothing to lose. If we spent three years and a quarter of a million dollars for a judge to say we’re right and they’re wrong, we’re still out three years and a quarter of a million dollars. PSA can walk away with no liability.” Since 2007, Dunato’s Marine has

spent $80,000 to $90,000 on two water treatment systems to catch storm water and reduce the amount of toxic chemicals from entering the water from its location on the north end of Lake Union. “We made these commitments willingly,” Segulja-Lau said. “We’re environmentalists, we’re committed to doing our part. We saw it as a cost of doing business. But we’re also a small yard and have to manage the economic burden of the investment.” With two boatyards inside the

Ballard Locks, CSR Marine is looking at an even larger investment. White estimates that it will cost over $250,000 to upgrade just the two-acre yard on Commodore Way. “We’re starting to see a little light at the end of the tunnel again,” he said, “but it’s been a tough two years economically. We didn’t pay any Christmas bonuses this year for the first time. We’ve been moving the pop machines to look for quarters. And we don’t even know what benchmarks we’re trying to achieve. We can’t invest

“We partnered with NMTA and PSA on the study. Then, without so much as a visit or a phone call, we get a letter saying they’re going to file a lawsuit for lack of compliance. And we still don’t know what the compliance benchmarks are.” Chip White, CSR Marine

48° NORTH, APRIL 2010 PAGE 38

this kind of money until we know what the standards are.” Part of this whole legal firedrill

has been created by inaction from the Washington State Department of Ecology. A bureaucratic Catch-22 has left the boatyards without guidance and given PSA an opening for the potential lawsuit. In 2005 Ecology reissued the Boatyard General Permit, setting new limits for copper at 229 part per billion (ppb) for boatyards on saltwater and 77 ppb on the more sensitive freshwater ship canal. PSA appealed the permit regulations, saying they were too lenient. At the same time, the permit was also appealed by the Northwest Marine Trade Association (NMTA), representing the marine industry, arguing the new standards were too onerous. In 2007, the NMTA, PSA and Ecology agreed to run a pilot project testing three different water treatment systems. CSR Marine was one of the participating boatyards in the project. “We’ve been involved since day

one in finding new and better ways to prevent toxins from escaping the yard,” White said. “We partnered with NMTA and PSA on the study. Then, without so much as a visit or a phone call, we get a letter saying they’re going to file a lawsuit for lack of compliance. And we still don’t know what the compliance benchmarks are.” At the end of the pilot project,

Ecology was to develop the new benchmarks and reissue the permit. In the meantime, it informed the boatyards it wouldn’t be accepting any Level 3 reports, an expensive and extensive engineering report on how to mitigate pollutants, while it was drafting the new permit. That was in June 2008. And

everyone is still waiting to see the new permit. Ecology did not return phone calls to clarify the permit status. The latest rumors are that a draft permit will be available in April 2010, which begins a 60 to 90-day review process. But then all the parties involved have been hearing similar rumors from Ecology since the fall of 2008. The agency has previously cited state budget problems and personnel shortages for the lack of progress in drafting the new permit. Puget Soundkeeper Alliance got

tired of waiting. When boatyards didn’t file their Level 3 report, as instructed Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80  |  Page 81  |  Page 82  |  Page 83  |  Page 84  |  Page 85  |  Page 86  |  Page 87  |  Page 88  |  Page 89  |  Page 90  |  Page 91  |  Page 92  |  Page 93  |  Page 94  |  Page 95  |  Page 96