Environmental group may sue state over new boatyard permit
Jun 21 2010 in Environment by Deborah Bach
The environmental watchdog group that threatened to sue five Seattle-area boatyards over water-borne pollution says it may sue the state over a new draft permit governing boatyards unless the document is significantly revamped.
And it’s not the only group that is critical of the permit, which would impact about 100 boatyards around the state and is expected to take effect in October.
In a 20-page letter, Puget Soundkeeper Alliance (PSA) accuses the Washington Department of Ecology, which drafted the Boatyard General Permit, of performing “contortions to avoid imposing the water quality protections of the [federal] Clean Water Act on boatyards.”
The letter says the permit fails to ensure that runoff from boatyards won’t violate water quality standards, and that it contravenes an agreement struck between Ecology, PSA and the Northwest Marine Trade Association after both parties appealed the previous Boatyard General Permit issued in 2005. Without substantial changes, the letter says, it’s “very likely” PSA will appeal the permit and/or take legal action against Ecology.
PSA’s executive director, Bob Beckman, said in an interview that he’s “appalled” by the terms of the permit.
“At every turn, it just kind of ignores where we’ve been and what we agreed to in a well-negotiated agreement,” he said. “It’s incomprehensible. If you wanted to build a permit that would pull in the most heat and cause the most ruckus, this is the permit. It’s just kind of a thumb in the eye.”
In December, PSA threatened to sue five boatyards over alleged violations of the federal Clean Water Act. Four of the five yards have settled with PSA out of court, and the fifth settlement is pending. The PSA contends that some boatyards have been dragging their heels in implementing water treatment systems that would help lower levels of copper and other pollutants that flow into Puget Sound.
Several boatyards installed water treatment systems before the economy tanked, but others say they can’t afford the costly treatment systems and that it didn’t make sense to invest in them until they knew what the water standards would be in the new boatyard permit.
The draft permit sets stricter limitations for zinc and for copper coming from boatyards locatedon saltwater, and a more lenient limit for lead, as well as lower copper limitations for boatyards on freshwater. It also includes a controversial hardship provision that would give struggling boatyards five years to install water treatment systems . Those yards, which would have to apply for and be granted a hardship certification from Ecology, would be protected for the duration of the permit from citizen lawsuits like the ones brought by PSA in December.
But they would also be subject to more stringent pollution limits based on water quality, rather than the more lenient “technology-based” benchmarks – based on the water treatment methods currently available – that would apply to the other yards.
The hardship provision has become a point of contention for both the PSA and NMTA, which represents boatyards, and other groups that provided written feedback to Ecology before a May 28 deadline for comments.
Beckman said the hardship certification will be “totally arbitrary,” since the permit does not specify the eligibility criteria. In its written comments, the NMTA said the hardship provision won’t be feasible for most boatyards, since they won’t be able to consistently meet the stricter pollution limits with the technology currently available. Similarly, the Port of Edmonds said Ecology is “inappropriately punishing” boatyards that receive the hardship provision.
“No rational boatyard would choose to have lower concentration limits imposed for the accommodation of just some additional time to purchase and install treatment system equipment,” the Port wrote.
Two boatyards expressed concern about the permit, saying it is confusing, contains reporting requirements that small yards don’t have the resources to meet and could cause additional hardship by requiring boatyards that have installed water treatments to invest in additional technology if they are unable to meet pollution benchmarks.
The permit is also drawing criticism from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). In a letter, NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries Service said the permit should use limits based on water quality rather than technology, does not require frequent enough water sampling by boatyards and does not adequately require boatyards to take remedial action to lower pollution levels.
NOAA notes that the geographic area covered by the permit includes areas containing seven endangered salmon and steelhead species , three threatened or endangered rockfish species and the endangered southern resident killer whale.
Even with the stricter pollution limits specified in the permit, NOAA said, boatyards will be allowed to release levels of copper and zinc that could be harmful to marine life. Noting that the federal Environmental Protection Agency can object to a state permit if it doesn’t comply with water standards needed to protect threatened or endangered species, NOAA said it will “encourage the EPA to object to the issuance of this permit.”
Ecology declined to discuss the feedback, saying it will comment when it issues the new five-year permit, likely in October. Whether the permit will be altered to reflect the input from stakeholders remains to be seen. Beckman, for one, believes it will be.
“On so many levels,” he said, “it seems like it was not their best effort.”
Big BOY said on June 28, 2010
This is just the issue that was causing the issues back in December 2009 when PSA threatened to sue and did in fact file on some of the yards. Yards are settling to avoid a 3 – 5 year legal battle which they feel they would win however, the cost will be $300,000+ instead of $30.000. Do the math. Sorry about the yards that rushed to install equipment that now may not meet the standard. Waiting to know the standards was the recommendation of DOE and that got the “Guilty 5″ sued.
PSA should get a real life. find real science and not liberal arts greenies that don’t know what they are doing. PSA MUST fire all of its attorneys They are the only beneficiaries of this action. PUGET SOUND SURE HAS NOT Benefitted from PSA.
Bob said on June 21, 2010
PSA has become an irritant to boating life in the Sound. They are hostile to all that is good and wonderful about this area from their twisted,self-righteous perspective. They have to be stopped if boating is going to continue in the future. Who knows, maybe the wholesale destruction of our way of life IS their long term objective.