Eco Extortion and threat to boatyards on Puget Sound

Edward Thieme":18vqzrjj said:
<stuff clipped>
I am 67 years old and realize I have lived during the best of times there will ever be in the USA,<more stuff clipped>

Hmmmmm... 2010 - 67 = 1943

The "best of times" is a relative thing and I believe some in every generation since the beginning of mankind have said things were getting worse. Here's a short list of positive (and not so positive) things that have happened in the U.S. since 1943

Major events - (numbers are an approximation from various web sites)
1942-1945 - About 100,000 Japanese americans were relocated to US internment camps and held without charge.
1945 -WWII ended - 60-72M total deaths, 400K+ U.S. deaths
1948 - Truman orders the integration of the U.S. armed forces.
1950-1953 The Korean War 2.5-3.5 M total deaths, 36k U.S. deaths
1955-1968 (plus or minus depending on who's definition you want to use) The Civil Rights Movement. Depending on your race and attitude, you might not think the period before 1968 was the best of times.
1956- A federal ruling took effect, and led to a United States Supreme Court decision that declared the Alabama and Montgomery laws requiring segregated buses to be unconstitutional. African Americans are permitted to ride on the same buses as white Americans.
1959-1975 The Vietnam War 2.3+M deaths, 58k U.S. deaths
1990-1991 First Gulf War - 100k deaths, 300 U.S. deaths
911 attacks 2003 - Approximately 3K U.S. deaths
2001 - Present - Afghanistan and Iraq, 100K+ total deaths, 5000+ U.S. deaths

Now 1975 - 1990 - Mostly good times, and we did have a few good years in the 1990's without much in the way of war (and 5 or so years in the late 40's).

Environmental issues
1972 - DDT banned (many companies argued against this like it would be the end of the world).
1973 - Endangered species act passed - Bald eagles (already protected under other laws) are one of the first species to be listed.
2007 - Bald Eagles Removed from ESA listing (probably a result of a combination of the DDT ban and regulations put in place by the ESA)
1969 - Time magazine article about a fire on the Cuyahoga River, a tributary feeding Lake Erie at Cleveland, Ohio highlights how polluted Lake Erie is at the time (MAN those were good times)
1972 - Congress passes the clean water act
2010 - The water quality in Lake Erie is MUCH improved relative to the 1960's - some (including me) would claim that this is in large part due to some of those pesky regulations passed by Congress in the 70's and later.
1975 - The first wide-spread use of catalytic converters in the U.S. (contributing to the eventual phase out of leaded gasoline) - The initial designs dramatically reduce CO and unburnt fuel emissions, later designs introduced in 1981 also reduce NOx emissions.
1975-2010 The number of stage 1 smog alerts drops from several 100/year to just a few per year. Man those earlier times (say late 60's to mid 70's), those were good times.
1987 - After a great deal of data showed the relationship between the loss of ozone in the atmosphere and the use of CFC's, the Montreal Protocol (officially the Protocol on Substances That Deplete the Ozone Layer) treaty was signed.
2010 - Due to the very long life span of CFC's in the atmosphere, it's not yet 100% when/if the ozone will fully recover. However, recent data suggests that we may have turned the corner and ozone depletion is happening and a much lower (near zero rate).
1976-1978 The toxic waste dump site at Love Canal is discovered and investigated by the local newspaper, the Niagara Gazette. Residents are evacuated in 1978 - man those were good times....
1980 - Partially in response to Love Canal (and many other hazardous waste dumps) Congress passes the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA- AKA Superfund Act).
2010 - 1,270 sites listed on the National Priority List for cleanup under the Superfund act. 340 have been de-listed (usually due to being cleaned up) and 63 new sites have been proposed. Those were some good times before this and other pesky governmental regulations about chemical dumping.

1975 - The corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) regulations are first enacted by US Congress. This was mostly a response to the 1973 Arab oil embargo. The average passenger car sold in the U.S. gets about 20MPG.
2010 - The average passenger car sold the U.S. gets about 32MPG. Some of this increase is due to CAFE and some due to the increase in oil prices. There was an increase of about 5 MPG between 1979 and 1982 as the CAFE standards increased rapidly during that time. Much of the recent increase is due to high gas prices.

Other random stuff.
1983 - 14% of the U.S. population wear seat belts. Deaths due to motor vehicles are about 1 per 5500 people. per year in the U.S.
2010 - over 83% of the U.S. population wear seat belts. Deaths due to motor vehicles are about 1 per 7000 per year in the U.S. Man - those earlier times when we didn't wear seat belts, didn't have child restraint seats or airbags and cars weren't safety crash tested and designed with protective crumple zone, THOSE were the good times.

1949 - Life expectancy at birth in the U.S. - 66.3 years
2010 - Life expectancy at birth in the U.S. - 78+ years
Man, those earlier times when people died younger were so much better.

I could go on -but not everything that's happened in the past 67 years has been great and not everything that's happened in the past 67 years is in obvious decline. While overall wages are down over the past few years (in inflation adjusted $'s), the average person in the U.S. is making far more money relative to 1943. We live longer, we're healthier overall and many of the most egregious environment wrong doings have been put into check or reduced. So, when I look across the entire 67 years (and admittedly I've only been on this planet for 49 of those), I see many, many things that are better today than they've ever been before. I know that I certainly don't want to go back to the environmental regulations that were in place when I was born in 1961.
 
Roger you're right in the cases you stated. We certainly don't want to turn the Puget Sound area into a waste land like East Germany. However I believe that PSA and their lawyers have sued people who contribute three hundreds of one percent of the copper in Puget Sound according to the articles written about this travesty of justice. And to top it off they are not suing because of elevated levels of a harmful discharge, they are suing because a report wasn't filed on time. A report that the Department of Ecology told the boatyards to delay. The boat yards were doing as the government requested. PSA and their lawyers are suing for the money, period. This is not going to help Puget Sound. It's only going to line the pockets of lawyers, fill the coffers of groups affiliated with PSA and bankrupt the boatyards. PSA is a vile organization. Maybe you think vile is to harsh, but given the circumstances and filing a few days before Christmas which one can only assume was designed to ruin the holidays for the boatyard owners and all their employees, I can think of a lot harsher words that probably are better but unprintable in this forum.
Forrest
 
forrest":33dlbqhi said:
Roger you're right in the cases you stated. We certainly don't want to turn the Puget Sound area into a waste land like East Germany. However I believe that PSA and their lawyers have sued people who contribute three hundreds of one percent of the copper in Puget Sound according to the articles written about this travesty of justice. And to top it off they are not suing because of elevated levels of a harmful discharge, they are suing because a report wasn't filed on time. A report that the Department of Ecology told the boatyards to delay. The boat yards were doing as the government requested. PSA and their lawyers are suing for the money, period. This is not going to help Puget Sound. It's only going to line the pockets of lawyers, fill the coffers of groups affiliated with PSA and bankrupt the boatyards. PSA is a vile organization. Maybe you think vile is to harsh, but given the circumstances and filing a few days before Christmas which one can only assume was designed to ruin the holidays for the boatyard owners and all their employees, I can think of a lot harsher words that probably are better but unprintable in this forum.
Forrest

Well, I'm not sure you and I had read the same thread. In one case the outfit being sued claims it because they didn't file a report on time. Yet PSA claims that the main issue with the outfits that were sued is the continued discharge of copper and heavy metals at much high than acceptable levels. I'm trying to get hold of the filings of these companies so I can learn the truth for myself but it certainly isn't my sense that the boat yards were doing what the government requested. Rather it's my sense that the government wasn't enforcing the regulations already in place and the boatyards knew (from their own filings) that they were out of compliance.
 
On another aspect of this thread - the claim that boat yards only contribute 0.3% of the copper to the sound. The study that is cited to back up this claim is one that was funded by the Northwest Marine Trade Association (a business and lobbying group to which many boat yards belong). I've written their director of government affairs officer requested a copy of the study so I can personally look at it to see how those conclusions were drawn. It may very well be the case that this number is correct. I don't know but I won't state it as fact until I've looked at the study myself.

Regardless, it seems to me that there are two concerns with copper and other heavy metals - the total amount put into the sound AND the concentration at which it is discharged. The reason why the latter is a concern is that the lethality of any heavy metal is concentration dependent - e.g. it kills at high concentrations but not at lower ones. Hence, it seems entirely possible that a lot of storm runoff at relatively low concentration may contribute more total copper to the sound without ever creating the concentrations necessary to be lethal. Similarly, it seems entirely possible that a small number of discharges to the sound at high concentration may be more lethal (especially near the discharge) even the total copper input to the sound is low. So bottom line, I'm not willing to assume that this 0.3% number is unimportant until I more fully understand the entire picture. From my limited reading to date (about 100 pages of material not referenced in this thread), my sense is that it's scientifically reasonable to focus on small numbers of point source polluters that emit high concentrations of copper and heavy metals.
 
Roger, You can find the information on the discharge data at the Dept of Ecology website, look under WPLCS. It takes a bit of hunting to find it, but it is there. I believe that the two biggest issues that PSA has with these 4 yards are the amounts of copper and lead at the discharge sites. Stormwater discharge averages are in the 40 to 50 ppb for copper. The 4 boat yards listed in the suit have hit much higher levels, with the yard mentioned in the Three Sheets article hitting above 7000 ppb. It is these high concentrations that can be harmful to salmon. 60 ppb can kill salmon. All four of the yards are in the Ship Canal/Portage Bay area I believe. Salmon migrating past these yards are at a much higher risk than salmon migrating past a stormwater discharge pipe. The other issue is that these 4 yards have not followed the law that requires them to prepare plans on how they can lower discharge levels. These plans are 2 years overdue, and these 4 yards continue to have discharges above the benchmarks. PSA dropped one of the yards from the suit because they said they felt that the yard was making an effort to meet the benchmarks.

Those of us that live on, or near the shores of Puget Sound are responsible for most of the copper that gets washed into the waters. Individuals probably contribute more pollutants than all industries combined. The leading culprit for copper may be automobile brake pads. PSA and other groups, plus government agencies, are working to get copper out of brake pads, a very tough challenge. PSA also reached an agreement with the State of Washington in January to build more catchment ponds to keep the waters that wash over roadways from flowing directly into the Sound thus lowering the stormwater pollution levels.

Estuaries by nature are very susceptible to degradation due to pollution. Heavy metals, siltation, eutrophication (excessive nutrients from sewage etc) are all taking a toll on the health of our waters. Hood Canal has dead zones in it due to the heavy nutrient loads from septic tank leeching and a number of other pollution sources. Dead zones. I have read that Killer Whales that frequent Puget Sound, have the highest levels of heavy metal pollutants (mainly PCB's) than any other mammal, anywhere.

I don't know if PSA is doing the right thing or not, but after reading the reported discharge levels for all of the boat yards on Puget Sound, I can see that the 4 yards listed are not helping the health of the Sound, and that they are not following the law. Should they change their practices? I think so. Should I change some of my practices? I thnk so.

Robbi

"We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them" Albert Einstein
 
Interesting....

The head of the environmental organization that threatened to sue five Seattle-area boatyards abruptly left his position this week, following half a year of controversy and criticism.

Bob Beckman left his job as Puget Soundkeeper Alliance’s executive director on Wednesday, less than a year after taking on the position. Beckman has been at the center of a controversy that started last December. That's when PSA threatened to sue five boatyards for alleged violations of the Clean Water Act. The move caused a major backlash in the marine industry, angering boaters and business owners and straining the previously collaborative relationship between PSA and the Northwest Marine Trade Association, which represents boatyards.

Beckman could not be immediately reached for comment, and PSA board president Tom Diller declined to say what prompted his departure and whether he left the organization voluntarily.

:idea: One of those "resign or we'll fire you" scenarios? I say probable based on :
Asked whether he thinks the legal action has impacted PSA’s reputation, Wilke said yes.

But the article also quotes others that he was only doing what the board ordered him to.

George Harris, president of the Northwest Marine Trade Association, said Beckman, who publicly defended the PSA’s legal action, had indicated in conversations “that he wasn’t 100 percent in line with his board.”

Harris said while he doesn’t agree with the PSA’s stick-versus-carrot approach, he also feels Beckman isn’t solely to blame. “I think he’s been sort of vilified all along,” Harris said. “I think he was just carrying out the request of his board. I don’t know that he’s necessarily the bad guy. His job was to carry out this action. And he did it, because that was his job.”

Seems a past cooperative relationship is now severely damaged.

http://threesheetsnw.com/blog/archi...ThreeSheetsNorthwest+(Three+Sheets+Northwest)
 
What I find interesting is a statement in an older article about a proposal made in 2005 by the Department of Ecology:
Copper pollution is measured in parts per billion, or ppb, and the Ecology department proposed limiting it to 229 ppb for boatyards on saltwater and 77 for those on the freshwater ship canal in Seattle.

After NMTA negotiations with PSA and DoE, the limits were set even lower (but higher than PSA wanted):
It limits copper discharge to an average of 14 ppb per year, with a cap of 29 ppb for any single sample—much stricter than what was originally proposed.

(Full article here: http://threesheetsnw.com/blog/archives/1245)

Why interesting to me? In my last water bill was a report of the water quality provided by the miniciple water district, and there is information about at what levels of contamination requires action on the water districts part.

The level for copper content before the water district has to take any action? 1300 ppb. That is almost 100 times higher than the level a boat yard has to acheive. So, in theory, the water coming out of the spigots at the marina could have a higher copper content than the runoff allowed of the boat yard.

So after $77,000 in fees to PSA'a lawyers, and $6000 to two other environmental groups designated by PSA what has really been acheived? Throw in the boat yards attorneys fees and my guess is that over $100,000 has been removed from the boat yards, money that could have gone to filtration systems or other things that would have a direct positive effect on water quality.
 
Back
Top