by Ecology, they were technically in violation of the 2005 Boatyard General Permit. This opened the way for PSA to deliver its Christmas gift of a letter with the intent to sue. George Harris, president of the

NMTA, admits to being caught by surprise by the Puget Soundkeeper Alliance’s actions. “The tragic flaw I made was thinking everyone would stay calm until we heard from Ecology on the latest permit requirements.” One estimate for a Level 3 report for

CSR Marine came in at $37,000. “The reports are expensive,” Chip White said. “Ecology isn’t processing them and would prefer we didn’t submit them. So what are we supposed to do? What are the benchmark numbers? How much water do we treat? The two acres on Commodore Way creates 54,000 gallons of storm water with one inch of rain. PSA would have us produce distilled drinking water out of that before we discharge it. We can’t afford to make a mistake in installing the wrong treatment system and we can’t decide that until we know what Ecology wants.” Bob Beckman, Puget Sound Alliance

Executive Director, is sympathetic to the plight of the boatyards but unrepentant about issuing the intent to sue letter. “We’re not oblivious to the economics of the issue. We know the boatyards are stressed and that’s reflected in our settlement agreements. There were no penalty monies in the first two settlements.” But he also called the five boatyards

the worst offenders in a critical salmon habitat. “The 2005 permit is still in place, even if we don’t have a new permit from Ecology. All of the yards were widely out of compliance with the older state requirements. We prefer to work cooperatively with businesses, but when cooperation doesn’t lead to compliance the Clean Water Act gives us the means to force them into action. It’s a great tool. “We offered a grace period to the

boatyards during the pilot study,” Beckman added. “But in September of last year, we informed all the boatyards in the state that we were monitoring their DMRs (Discharge Monitoring Reports) and that we expected them to be in compliance with the 2005 permit. We had one response. One. It was a

“We’re environmentalists, we’re committed to doing our part.

We saw it [spenting $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] as a cost of doing business. But we’re also a small yard and have to manage the economic burden of the investment.”

Patti Segulja-Lau, Dunato’s Marine

missed opportunity for the boatyards to communicate directly with us. We targeted the worst offenders.” Patti Segulja-Lau at Dunato’s

Marine is adamant in her disagreement about the boatyard being widely out of compliance. “We have been proactive about installing new procedures and new equipment before they even began the pilot program. Each time our levels have come down. We are now ready to start testing our new system to see what the levels are now. The only thing we didn’t do according to our Boatyard General Permit was to file the Level 3 report with Ecology, who told us not to. When we received the letter from PSA, we went ahead and filed it with Ecology anyway. It made no difference to (PSA). It’s odd.” The threat of a lawsuit by Puget

Sound Alliance comes during a time in which boatyards have made significant strides in reducing the numbers of pollutants coming from their facilities. Since January 2006, Puget Sound boatyards have reduced the levels of copper pollution entering the region’s waterways by over 50 percent, according to a study by Arcadis U.S., Inc, an engineering consulting firm hired by the NMTA. In all, the Arcadis study determined, boatyards contribute about .03 percent (that’s 3 hundredths of 1 percent) of the copper entering Puget Sound. In comparison, automobile brake pads account for an estimated 40 percent. PSA’s threat to sue bothers NMTA’S

Harris when he sees how far the industry has come in so short a time. “This is an industry that’s spending hundred of thousands of dollars to clean up the problem,” Harris said. “And we’re seeing very positive results. Five years ago copper ppb were over 3,000. We’re now under 500 ppb and we’re getting them closer to 50. And you want to sue the boatyards because they haven’t gotten to 29 ppb yet?”

Storm water discharge with copper

levels at 29 ppb is the number the joint pilot study between PSA, NMTA and Ecology showed was achievable with new filtration systems. Bottom paint is, of course, the

problem. Copper creates the anti- fouling properties that make it attractive for reducing marine growth. But once the boat is in the yard, the copper can end up in the storm water runoff by pressure washing the hull or the scraping and sanding done in preparation of applying new paint. Salmon, it turns out, are particularly sensitive to even small traces of the metal in the water. Copper diminishes their sense of smell, leaving them more vulnerable to predators and reduces their capacity to find prey. A boater himself, with a Westbay

45 on Lake Union, Beckman said, “The future is source elimination. We need to get rid of copper bottom paint. We’re at the nascent stage of a project with the NMTA to look for alternative kinds of bottom paint. But until we get there, it’s critical to reduce the copper getting into the water with better treatment systems. Some boatyards have already made the effort. And they’re upfront about the cost by charging boaters an environmental fee. It will cost us boaters more. This whole process won’t be without costs and it won’t be without pain. But it’s no excuse.” Segulja-Lau doesn’t know how

many more costs Dunato’s Marine can absorb and remain in business. There’s also the damage to the company’s reputation. “We’ve been here since 1970 and this whole situation has made me physically sick. None of us deserved this. Not us, not CSR or Yachtfish or Yarrow Bay, none of us. We’re not the horrible people PSA is making us out to be.”

48° N

48° NORTH, APRIL 2010 PAGE 39 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