Enviro group stands down on boatyard regs
Apr 19 2011 in Business of Boating, Environment by Deborah Bach
The new Boatyard General Permit will impact about 80 yards around Washington state.
An environmental watchdog group has decided not to appeal new water regulations governing Washington boatyards.
Seattle-based Puget Soundkeeper Alliance backed off from earlier suggestions that it may appeal the new Boatyard General Permit (BGP) issued by the Washington Department of Ecology last month. Some were concerned that the permit would be held up in a lengthy legal process if PSA appealed, as was the case with the previous boatyard permit issued in 2005.
It is good news for boatyards, which are already bracing for costly water-treatment measures to met the stricter regulations. A successful appeal by the PSA would likely make those regulations even harder to meet.
But PSA Executive Director Chris Wilke said the association decided an appeal would create regulatory uncertainty that would be counterproductive to the goal of cleaning up Puget Sound waters.
“We felt that the environment would suffer if there was another appeal and there was more reason for delay,” he said.
But Wilke made it clear PSA is not happy with the new permit, which sets stricter benchmarks for the amount of copper boatyards located on saltwater can flush into stormwater drains but more lenient copper benchmarks for boatyards on freshwater.
“Soundkeeper is disappointed with the newly issued 2011 BGP as it falls drastically short of scientifically-proven standards needed to protect fish and other marine life from harmful pollution such as copper, zinc, lead, suspended solids and petroleum,” PSA wrote in a statement about the permit.
“Copper, a common component of antifouling boat paint, is particularly toxic to fish, especially salmon. Without adequate controls or treatment, copper in boatyard runoff is routinely found to be in the highest concentrations of any industrial, commercial or residential stormwater source.”
Wilke said the decision not to appeal was partly influenced by efforts by the Northwest Marine Trade Association, which represents the state’s boatyards, to reduce water-borne pollution from boatyards flowing into Puget Sound.
The NMTA is leading efforts to create a law that would ban copper from paints used on boat bottoms by 2020. Additionally, the NMTA launched a Clean Boating Foundation that is developing a voluntary certification program to help marinas around the state implement environmentally friendly practices.
“There are people within the industry that are trying to get the source of the copper controlled as well,” Wilke said said. “We wanted to recognize that.”
In December 2009, PSA issued intent to sue letters to five Seattle-area boatyards over alleged violations of the federal Clean Water Act. All five boatyards settled with PSA out of court, paying legal fees totaling more than $77,000. The legal action strained the previously cooperative relationship between PSA and NMTA, angering many in the maritime industry.
PSA has said the legal action was prompted in part by frustration with Ecology for what it considered its failure to adequately enforce water regulations on boatyards while the new permit was pending. Wilke said Ecology inspectors indicated in recent discussions that “they’re going to have a zero-tolerance policy” on boatyards for providing required water-monitoring reports.
“They recognize that they’ve been lax about that previously,” he said.
PSA has no plans to target additional boatyards, Wilke said, and will instead “make every effort to work with them” before taking any legal action.
The NMTA has said the new permit is fair but will be challenging for boatyards, many of which will need to install costly water treatment systems to meet the new standards. With the deadline to appeal the permit passed, Peter Schrappen, the NMTA’s director of governmental affairs, said boatyards can now focus on meeting the requirements of the new permit, which takes effect June 1.
“We feel like it’s not a slam-dunk for our boatyards,” he said. “It’s still a tough permit, but at least we can get some certainty and know what we’re engineering to.”
Related Stories
Millions at stake with new boat tax proposal
New boatyard regs draw mixed reaction
Clean Boating Foundation gets grant, moves ahead
Boatyard rules delayed in wake of objections
Environmental group may sue state over new boatyard permit
New boatyard permit proposes tougher standards, protection from lawsuits
Chris Wilke said on April 26, 2011
For those only reading the comments, this started as a story about Soundkeeper NOT appealing the boatyartd permit in order to go give the industry more certainty about standards they can engineer to.
Captain John said on April 25, 2011
Chris you and BOB both claimed ignorance of copper free bottom paints, yet they have been around for a few years.. 2009 I seem to think that was the year PSA stated the WAR with the A BOMB on 5 boat yards. PSA’s fight should have been with DOE and not the low hanging fruit.. $44,000 to write five letters and file a suite is federal court.. pretty high priced attorney if you as me. WIth that don’t look for any contributions from me or my friends anytime soon.. Yes I did contribute yearly before 2009.
Captain John said on April 25, 2011
Saddly Chris is just a the same old story as the much hated Bob, BOB was the scapgoat.. PSA knows full well they went after great partners and enriched attorneys. Nothing was really done for the marine industry or Puget Sound. Most of the pollution that PSA was concerned about is road run off. Storm Water not from boat yards and they know it and have know it for years.. PSA ablility to sue under the environmental laws is a travisty of the law. Scum like then should be put in jail for RICO VIolations. All Boater want a clean environment and a healthy Salish Sea. PSA will never make that happpen BOATERS WILL.
Chris Wilke said on April 26, 2011
Sorry Captain John I have to take issue with what you state here. PSA does not exist to enrich attorneys. We have an all volunteer board and an all volunteer legal committee. You keep avoiding the fact that certain boatyards had a very significant unaddressed problem while others are proactive. Instead you try to reframe the issue as a war with the boatyards. I will say this again: the environment has already gained. One boatyard shut off an illegal discharge of pressure wash water, another built a treatment system that is getting great results. Send me an email and I’ll send you the numbers. The others have submitted their designs for treatment systems which, when approved and installed, will substantially clean the water- by up to 99%. The roadway runoff you refer to is constantly asserted as the source of the boatyard’s woes. Tell me this: how does roadway runoff averaging 30-50ppb copper get to be 200-7000ppb at the point of discharge with no input from the yard? You are being fed a line and you are falling for it. The rest of your comment is not worth responding to.
Deborah based on where this is headed, I recommend you shut this comment thread down. Please, any other legitimate questions out there feel free to call or send an email.
Dogger said on April 21, 2011
I find it interesting that it is widely known leaders of PSA use copper paint (the source of the problem) on their own stinkpots and routinely take them to boatyards thus contributing to the problem.
As a past contributor to PSA It is highly unlikely I would ever consider supporting this organization in the future.
Chris Wilke said on April 21, 2011
We are all learning on this! I don’t know who you refer to, and I certainly can’t speak for others, but in 2009, when I refinished my sailboat hull, the yard I dealt with did not know much about copper free alternatives. (They did have a stormwater treatment system and advanced BMPs, which I was glad to see). I chose a hard non-ablative low copper paint at the time. I learned about a copper-free paint several months later and immediately regretted my decision. But that was 2009, I have learned a lot since then and I already know which copper-free paint is compatible to go over my existing coating. I will be 8 years ahead of the new requirement when it goes into effect.
majorfish said on April 19, 2011
I haven’t seen any poll of the “entire boating community” or the marine community that says we were majorly pissed off. I’d bet that most boaters are conflicted. It’s a drag to have to spend more for environmental protection, but it’s not that much more, and boaters need to do our share along with everybody else.
Deborah Bach said on April 19, 2011
Thanks for the kind words, Chris. And thanks for your comments, Nigel and Mikkey. We encourage dialogue and debate; just please keep it (relatively) civil.
Chris Wilke said on April 19, 2011
Thanks Deborah for your thorough coverage of this story,
I would encourage anyone in the boating community with lingering questions about the legal actions in 2009-10 to please give us a call. Although Three Sheets NW covered both sides fairly well, there is still a lot of misinformation out there, and a lot of the other reporting and rumors have been highly- selective if not factually incorrect.
Chris Wilke
206-297-7002
chris@pugetsoundkeeper.org
Nigel Barron said on April 20, 2011
My issue is that PSA broke a collaborative relationship. You went for the low hanging fruit, the people with the shallow pockets so you could line the pockets of your law firm. $77,000 in legal fees and a $5,000 donation to help the environment? Sounds like a winner to me.
Chris Wilke said on April 20, 2011
Nigel I appreciate your perspective. I might feel the same way if I only had the information provided by the boatyards and their friends. If you would like to discuss this in more detail I’d be happy to provide you with another perspective. I’ll make just a few points here to address your comments directly:
1. The legal fees. The fact that 5 lawsuits were settled for $77k total is pretty low by today’s standards. Although I was not directly invovled at the time, I believe it could have been less than half that amount however had the defense attorneys not run up the bill the way they did. As an example, one yard did not retain an attorney and they settled for $5k total, a fraction of what the others paid.
2. The penalty amounts (mitigation funds-actually $6k total) were negotiated to be as low as possible in order to place as little of a financial burden on the yards, and to allow them to devote their limited resources to coming into compliance. Two of the yards actually got zero penalty, even though the CWA provides for penalties up to $37k per day. This was then cynically spun into “the attorneys were the only ones that benefitted”. Soundkeeper has absolutely no interest in supporting attorneys, our only mission is clean water. And we believe this can be done while having a thriving marine industry, but we all have to play by the rules.
3. Low hanging fruit? Soundkeeper has settled cases with the US Navy, nearly a dozen municipalities and many large industrial facilities.
4. Environmental benefit – An enhanced stormwater treatment system is already operational at one yard and is getting excellent results. Two others have submitted engineering plans to Ecology (one after consolidating their 2 operations) and another discontinued their pressure washing system to remove the primary pollution threat and no longer needs a permit.
I appreciate this has not been easy for any of us. Stormwater is a difficult and expensive problem to solve but the solutions are there and fully functional at many locations. I believe it is time to move past the bickering and to focus on implementing the larger solutions.
Nigel Barron said on April 21, 2011
1. $77k is not small change for a small business. It might be if you were to go after a state agency in the same manner, with hope for the same outcome but you didn’t. And I think $77k is what one yard paid.
2. If PSA cared about clean water, why did you go after symptoms instead of cause? According to the 2004 survey from the Marine Pollution Bulletin, the average 30ft boat painted with a copper bottom paint will release 25 grams of copper per month. With 1200 boats at Shilshole, even if we use the 30ft average (it is greater), at 25g per month, that’s 30 kilograms per month. The worst offenders of your boat yards are not even close to that.
3. Yes, low hanging fruit. I walk along Northlake Way when it rains and see untreated water running straight into the lake because there is not a storm drain to be found over that way. I go under the Aurora bridge in the rain and there is a waterfall of untreated water going into the lake. Why did you not require WSDOT to immediately fix the problem?
4. The one yard you keep referencing invested money in a water treatment system, that until recently no one even knew if it would do enough to meet the standard because the standard was not known.
No, you went for the low hanging fruit. Instead of going after the source, you went for the symptom. Instead of going for the largest source, the roads and storm drains, you went for a battle you and your attorneys could win against small business. And here we are. NMTA is actually doing something by sponsoring a bill to phase out copper paint. The real problem, not the small business you went after.
Chris Wilke said on April 21, 2011
My apologies for the lengthy responses, but allowing this misinformation to be repeated is not helping boatyards boaters or clean water. I have a feeling that many people react viscerally to the term “lawsuit”. People feel it is like the famous case of a $9 million settlement for spilled coffee perhaps? These cases are very different. Citizen enforcement of our nation’s water quality laws is an effective tool and has cleaned a lot of bad pollution around the country. We are a charitable organization to protect clean water which benefits everyone, especially boaters.
Nigel, with all due respect, it appears you are repeating inaccurate information that was given to you by your friends at the boatyards. I would prefer to discuss these issues with you directly, but as long as you respond on a public site, I will answer them in-kind. Apologies again to any others that prefer not see this stuff aired out in this way. Please consider giving me a call if you would like to discuss any of this in more detail: 206-297-7002
1. Nigel you stated: “$77k is not small change for a small business” and.”I think $77k is what one yard paid.” I actually just looked it up, the total for all 5 yards was $42,383.97 in PSA’s legal fees. The $77k probably included defendant’s atty. fees (I have no record of this so can’t confirm), So its about $8k per yard in PSA’s atty fees, not $77k. As I stated previously, this could have been substantially lower if defendants attorneys had not billed a bunch of time and then urged the clients to settle (I obviously can’t prove this, but this what appears to have happened).
2. You stated: “If PSA cared about clean water, why did you go after symptoms instead of cause?” We do care about clean water. That is our mission. I agree, copper leeching from boats is a big problem, however it is still completely un-regulated We are trying to fix that too. We just assisted NMTA with a bill to phase out copper paint that is due to take effect in 8 years (we wanted 3 years, NMTA wanted 15). However, stormwwater is the leading cause of all toxic pollution in the Sound, amounting to 75% of all toxics entering the Sound. Boatyards with untreated stormwater routinely have the highest concentrations of copper in stormwater found anywhere (commonly 100-200x higher than roadways). The adjusted water quality standard is just 7.2 ug/L for freshwater. The 2005 permit benchmark was too generous at 38ug/L according to fisheries scientists. Here are all the numbers from just one of the 5 facilities for the years 2008-2010: 5650, 7830, 522, 469, 199, 807, 1148, 584, 957, 545, 1410 ,2291. They were never even close to the permit standard. Salmon die at these levels, and this facility is but a few hundred feet from the fish ladder at the Ballard locks. They were required to install a treatment system by 2009, and didn’t. A competitor of theirs also had high numbers in 2008, and installed a stormwater treatment system as required. Their numbers went down by 98.5%! They charge an extra $35 per haulout to cover the cost. The first facility I mentioned now has submitted an engineered plan to install just such a system as a result of the litigation. As soon as Ecology approves it, they will have a permit requirement to install and operate this system.
3. You stated “Yes, low hanging fruit. I walk along Northlake Way when it rains and see untreated water running straight into the lake because there is not a storm drain to be found over that way. I go under the Aurora bridge in the rain and there is a waterfall of untreated water going into the lake. Why did you not require WSDOT to immediately fix the problem?” We did. WSDOT has now begun retrofitting their highways in 2010 in consultation with fisheries scientists according to a January 2010 settlement with PSA. (you may note that stormwater from highways however is on average is 1-2 magnitudes lower in copper than the numbers I showed above from one of the yards).
4. The one yard you keep referencing invested money in a water treatment system, that until recently no one even knew if it would do enough to meet the standard because the standard was not known” I am not sure what yard you are referring to, but that one I was referencing with the new treatment system did not have one at the time. The standard was known, it was in the permit.
You stated: “No, you went for the low hanging fruit. Instead of going after the source, you went for the symptom. Instead of going for the largest source, the roads and storm drains, you went for a battle you and your attorneys could win against small business. And here we are. NMTA is actually doing something by sponsoring a bill to phase out copper paint. The real problem, not the small business you went after.” I would argue that a facility discharging up to 1000 times above water quality standards is a “source”, but you differ, and this a matter of opinion I guess. The NMTA-sponsored bill is a worthwhile effort, and I applaud them. We were proud to assist them with this and help to make it stronger. It will begin to take effect in 8+ years for vessels under 65 feet. Hopefully many boaters and boatyards will voluntarily adopt the new paints before then.
Thanks for reading, we really hope to move beyond this soon.
mikey bamboo said on April 19, 2011
I agree, the PSA majorly pissed off the entire boating community …not just the yards. I don’t see much of a chance to repair their reputation unless they basically cease and desist. When you are asked to NOT attend the boat show by the organizers …there’s your clue.
Nigel Barron said on April 19, 2011
This is a very very very small step in rebuilding the relationship between PSA and the marine community. It will take a lot more than this to build back the trust they destroyed.