Have you heard about this group. In the guise of cleaning up Puget Sound they target boat yards accusing them of polluting the sound. For a $50,000 dollar fee they will look the other way. The yards pay and avoid being closed down. Less costly than getting a lawyer. The money if paid doesn't go into cleaning anything up but rather pays their wages and promoted their cause further. They had on hell of a yelling match going on at the Seattle Boat Show. Sounds like pure ecological blackmail to me. I'm a boater and all in favor of cleaning up the water but this group is just wrong in their approach. There not making the problem better their just getting rich from it. If they cant pay or fix things they fold. Another loss of jobs for the Ballard Fremont area.
My Ballard Forum » Open Forum
PSA Puget Sound Alliance
(13 posts)-
Posted 5 months ago #
-
ballardgirl
offlineMemberYes, I have heard about this situation. There are 2 waterfront businesses I know of who have spent a bunch of money to satisfy the puget soundkeepers, and still got sued.
It's heartbreaking! I am all for protecting and cleaning up puget sound, but this is the wrong way to do it.
Posted 5 months ago # -
motorrad
offlineMemberI went looking for some info as to what the real story is as some of these outfits are dubious. I found this on psa's website.
http://www.pugetsoundkeeper.org/view-from-the-helm
Appears they actually funded 3 different groundwater filtering systems. Some boat yards have worked to comply. I also know that companies ignore fines with no consequences. Search for info on the the Salmon bay and gravel fines that have gone unpaid and issues in an old thread. If the government agencies won't enforce their own laws then some one can step in with a suit. Business as usual at all levels. It appears they do actually fund projects. This was from a cursory review of a few PSA documents. It appears you didn't do any research rather relying on sources at the boat show. Maybe you should do a little research and see what is actually going on if you really are in favor of cleaning up the water.
Posted 5 months ago # -
cdpenne
offlineMemberYep a little more research might be in order Jack. You are kindof off base.
Still since the subject has come up, it seems to me that it is pretty silly to go after the boat yards for the storm run off. That is literally the water that runs through the yard in a big rain and washes into the sound. So a boat comes out of the water and it's been in the water for at least a year leeching copper into the water from its bottom paint. The boat yard does a scrub and maybe some sanding to coat of paint which has already leeced most of it's copper into the sound. Then they put on some fresh paint loaded with copper (the more copper the better the paint) probably spill some in the process, and put the boat back in the waster. Then PSA comes along and says that and says to the boat yard you have to spill less paint, and contain your sanding dust. That's pretty much like treating cancer with fingernail clippers. I agree with PSA's goal but the approach to boat yards is basically retarded. Go after the paint manufacturers. Get some technology rolling here. There are some better paints being developed.
Posted 5 months ago # -
Thanks for pointing out my haste at posting without doing all of my homework. I'm just so frustrated with all of this green crap. The tankers coming into port have the most deadly type of bottom paint on them but are exempt from the regulations. Pleasure craft have to suffer the effects because we cant pull enough together to get a big lobby together. I have to pay every fee under the sun to have anything done on my hull. Most places I cant do any of the work myself. One wisp of dust and my equipment cords are unplugged and the boat can get impounded. I wish PSA would do some good work and go hassle the big guys for a change not the small yards trying to make a living. I'm going to go and look for some answers.
Posted 5 months ago # -
cdpenne
offlineMemberEarlier I stated that PSA's approach is retarded. Upon further reflection, I see the logic in it and realize how much thought has gone into it, underhanded, devious, and unfair as it might be.
It works like this..
The PSA cannot take on the consumer (the boaters), the marine industry (both recreational and commercial) nor the relevant industries directly. That's just too big a foe to wrestle with. It would be like trying to make boats illegal because they pollute.
The PSA doesn't have the bite or funding to take on any group directly except the smallest most vulnerable group- the applicators. The goal is simple- make it impossible to stay in business by applying the accepted herbicide. If there is no one and no where to apply the herbicide, the consumers can't buy it and the manufacturers can't sell it. Thus PSA puts pressure on both the consumer group and manufacturing group to fund a new herbicide by harassing the patsie in the middle. And if some applicators go out of business, and some people lose thier job, well that's just the cost of progress. And this business of helping to pay for filtration systems is really just a joke because why filter the run off when you are putting the product directly in the water on the bottom of a boat.I know it sucks, but it isn't going to go away. Get away from copper, at least heavy metal copper, and have a look at some of the newer green(er) paints and get your friends to do so also. The sooner everyone accepts that point the sooner everyone can get back to business.
Posted 5 months ago # -
motorrad
offlineMemberIt all adds up. A little copper here, a little benzine there. Boat yards can put a lot of crap on the ground/in the air/ water. Other industries get scrutiny too. The hoops that auto body shops have to jump through in some cities is brutal. The surfboard industry was just hammered and decimated. I am sympathetic to business, especially small business. But my research into the Missing Link issue was educational. I made phone calls and spoke to a lawyer/parties directly involved and tried to get others to talk which proved futile. The story you hear is NOT necessarily the honest truth. There are many motives and machinations and much politicism going on. Self interest abounds on both sides. These issues can provoke emotional knee jerk responses from both sides. Many antagonists push for all or nothing scenarios which often lead to absolutely nothing happening. That is the desired result by some. The recent plastic bag ban vote is a good example. These issues are a very complicated tight rope walk. Please look into the issues from BOTH sides to see if there could be a compromise. Seems everyone wants their way completely ALL the time. Just because someone else gets something they want, doesn't mean you lose. When the fines levied do not work, lawsuits are often the only option to try and bring offending companies around. There are some heavy handed 'watchdog' organizations. I ask that you get off your a$$ es and write a little less snark in the forums, and do a little research. And compromise is admirable. And rare.
I found it ridiculous when beach fires are being considered a threat to air quality when the cruise ships and container ships sit idling for days spewing soot and particulates. I also wish that there was more monitoring of ships dumping waste and sewage in the Strait and near shore. It happen more than you know.
Posted 5 months ago # -
cdpenne
offlineMemberWow Motorrad, now that's a rambling paragraph. Were you PUI? Too bad this thread didn't take off though, there is a lot of meat to bite into when it comes to the work of the the PSA and all the people who's lives they touch in some way. Oh well, I guess the hot topic is who will move over for whom on the side walk.
Posted 5 months ago # -
julesage
offlineMemberthese type issues are way more important than the sidewalk. i appreciate the knowledge here and the comments as i know nothing about it (the PSA) and am learning from these discussions.
Posted 5 months ago # -
cdpenne the stuff the taker ships use is far worse than the recreational boaters stuff and the bottom of just one boat covers acres of underwater. ((Oh I forgot they are exempt)).
Posted 5 months ago # -
cdpenne
offlineMemberJack, the large ships still are allowed to use a Tin based herbicide which was outlawed for smaller boats a few years back. I think the reasoning is that it is far more cost prohibitive to pull a 500-100 foot vessel out of the water and apply new paint. Also, those ships don't tend to sit around in one place too long. You wouldn't want tin on your boat anyway unless is Aluminum. Have you tried Vivid? Or Vivid Free?
Posted 5 months ago # -
InBetweenDays
offlineMemberJack Tar, I'm not sure what you mean that the "big guys" are exempt. Shipyards have to comply with their NPDES permit just like a boatyard does. So they too have limits on the pollutant levels that should be leaving their properties. And we're not talking about just a little copper here, there are instances of upwards of 5 mg/L of total copper coming off these boatyards.
PSA isn't just accusing any boatyard of polluting, they are looking specifically at boatyards that are continually out of compliance with their NPDES permit. I agree that is unfortunate that many of these boatyards will be put out of business due to the lawsuits, but a little housekeeping on the parts of these boatyards really can go a long way to keeping copper and other pollutants out of stormwater.
Posted 5 months ago # -
motorrad
offlineMemberWow cdp-at least my comment, rambling as it may have been, had points. Yours was just tedious.
Posted 5 months ago #
Reply
You must log in to post.