Unregulated Pollution Threatening Resurrection Bay
Seward, AlaskaCourtesy of Insugent 49
Patience is a word heard time and time again over the past 19 months in matters relating to the disposal of industrial waste from the Seward shipyard.
Patience has likewise been urged when it comes to concerns about air quality and water quality surrounding the same Seward shipyard.
But patience is wearing thin for a group of people who have decided it's time to take legal action to correct a myriad of problems pointed out more than a year ago.
The pollution at the shipyard continues today despite letters of warning and a notice of violation from Federal and State agencies.
Members of two conservation advocacy groups claim the City of Seward and Seward Ship's Drydock (SSD) each have had plenty of time to obtain Federal permits and put together the required Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for the shipyard and the Seward Marine Industrial Center as well as the Seward Small Boat Harbor and Seward Ship's Chandlery. Without such permits, there is no way to enforce compliance of the Clean Water Act.
Since the pollution continues in spite of the diplomatic efforts of the groups, the Resurrection Bay Conservation Alliance (RBCA), and Alaska Community Action on Toxics (ACAT) feel their best chance to gain compliance with Federal environmental laws, is to pursue litigation under the Citizens Lawsuit Provision of the Clean Water Act.
Since the first phone call to the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) in August 2004, the State agency tasked with oversight of air and water quality, and solid waste issues has spent much effort tracking a string of environmental complaints involving operations at the Seward shipyard.
Pollutants on land
An initial phone call dealt with numerous truckloads of used sandblast grit being hauled from the shipyard to a residential property a few miles away. Property owner and Seward City Council member Dorene Lorenz said she planned to use the sandblast waste as fill material.
News reports of the situation caught the attention of some Seward residents who questioned the use of potentially contaminated industrial waste to fill in an area that was close to wetlands, salmon streams, and neighboring water wells.
When test results indicated above-acceptable levels of diesel range organics and residual range organics in the sandblast waste, DEC said the industrial solid waste was polluted, and should be taken to an approved landfill with a liner. At that time there was not a lined landfill on the Kenai Peninsula. A year later the Kenai Peninsula Borough (KPB) opened its first lined landfill that could accept this type of contaminated waste.
Laboratory testing also indicated the waste piles contained tributyltin (TBT), a biocide specifically designed to kill aquatic and marine life. TBT is an anti-foulant agent added to marine paints to protect the hulls of vessels from the drag caused by marine organisms attaching to the hull.
Tributyltin is one of the most poisonous substances on earth and it is intentionally released into the aquatic environment. It has been widely used to treat the pilings and lumber used in docks and piers. It is even used to treat nets and pens in some fish farms around the world. In high concentrations it kills all aquatic and marine organisms it comes in contact with. As little as two parts per trillion can cause imposex in many crustaceans, which is the formation of male sexual characteristics on female organisms. TBT bioaccumulates in fish, and other marine life which we consume, and in turn shows up in humans. In mammals, high levels of TBT can be damaging to the endocrine glands, as well as the reproductive and central nervous systems, bone structure, and the gastrointestinal tract. According to the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, sea otters from both Seward and Valdez have tested positive for TBT. Historically, TBT has been shown to accumulate in the sediments of harbors and marinas and even shipping lanes.
According to Cornell University (1993)," shipyard workers in the lower forty-eight exposed to TBT dust and vapors while repairing a submarine developed breathing problems, irritated skin, headaches, colds, flu, fatigue, dizziness and stomach aches." TBT can also irritate the eyes, skin, and mucous membranes. Prolonged exposure can cause liver and kidney damage in humans as well. There is very little data on human exposure to TBT available in the United States, and unfortunately our Government doesn't acknowledge foreign research.
SSD maintains TBT coatings are illegal, and that they use Copper (cupric oxide) based paints now. According to the MSDS (Material Safety Data Sheet) for cupric oxide, exposure in humans can cause irritation to the respiratory tract, symptoms may include coughing, sore throat, and shortness of breath. When heated, this compound may give off copper fume, which can cause symptoms similar to the common cold, including chills and stuffiness in the head. Ingestion may cause paralysis, coma, or death from shock or renal failure. Causes skin irritation, redness, and pain. Causes eye irritation with redness, and pain. It may cause permanent eye damage. Prolonged or repeated skin exposure may cause dermatitis. Prolonged or repeated exposure may cause discoloration of the skin or hair, blood and liver damage, ulceration and perforation of the nasal septum, runny nose, metallic taste, and atrophic changes and irritation to the mucous membranes. Persons with pre-existing skin disorders, impaired liver, kidney, or pulmonary function, or pre-existing Wilson's disease may be more susceptible to the effects of this material. Cupric oxide based paint is currently the coating of choice at SSD.
In the 1990s, concerns about the effects of TBT on the environment led the State of Alaska to ban TBT-laced paints on certain boats. However it is still allowed on some vessels. There is a Global ban of TBT set for 2008.
Although tests showed the presence of TBT in the sandblast waste piles, neither State, nor Federal agencies addressed environmental thresholds for the toxic substance. They only concerned themselves with human thresholds. We feel comprehensive environmental testing is warranted to evaluate the risk to our environment as well as public health.
The Borough Solid Waste Department doesn't have any testing requirements targeting either TBT or cupric oxide prior to accepting waste for disposal at the landfill. These are the antifouling agents commonly found in commercial marine paints. Solid waste officials have indicated they will consider adjusting their screening requirements to include these contaminants in the future. We encourage this additional safeguard before accepting waste into the landfill.
SSD says it doesn't use paints with TBT when painting vessels, and that it also identifies old coatings on vessels, before beginning sandblast operations to remove it. The presence of TBT in the used sandblast grit indicates that some of the hulls worked on by SSD contain the toxic substance. Some of the layers of paint are decades old on vessels, making not only what is currently applied relevant, but what was applied many years ago also relevant when dealing with paint waste. We question the accuracy of any field tests for pesticides and heavy metals. With our research indicating there is no field test for TBT (technically a pesticide), or even a laboratory in the state of Alaska equipped to analyze for TBT, this further complicates the situation.
Initially, DEC was shown only an estimated 170 cubic yards of shipyard sandblast waste in piles on the Lorenz property. To attempt to minimize the leaching of contaminants into the ground, DEC eventually required those piles to be covered with tarps to combat the eroding effects of snowfall and rainfall, until they could be disposed of properly. Months later, when DEC officials finally realized they had only been shown half of the contaminated sandblast waste piles on the Lorenz property, they ordered the remaining piles to be covered as well, until they could also be removed and properly disposed of. After wintering uncovered adjacent to wetlands, salmon streams, and water wells we feel a comprehensive full site assessment is warranted.
Approximately 364 cubic yards of contaminated sandblast waste was eventually hauled to the Kenai Peninsula Borough's newly opened lined landfill in September 2005. SSD claimed to have also hauled sandblast waste to the borough landfill in 1992, 1995, 1997 and 2000. The Borough's official records indicate disposals only took place in 1997, 2000, and 2005. In '97 the borough says SSD disposed of 120 cubic yards, and in 2000 the borough says SSD disposed of 160 cubic yards. There are no official records for any disposals by SSD prior to, or in '92, or '95. The Borough started keeping records in '92. This brings the total disposed of at the only legal disposal facility, from their 18 years of operation to approximately 644 cubic yards.
Using their own generation figure of 120 cubic yards of grit purchased annually, and eighteen years in operation on this site, this totals approximately 2,160 cubic yards generated. (We won't attempt to calculate the toxic paint's mass, most of it probably blew and/or washed into Resurrection Bay long ago anyway.) This brings the conservative total estimate of "unaccounted for" contaminated sandblast waste to 1,516 cubic yards. RBCA has received many reports of numerous past dump sites of shipyard sandblast waste from 1987-2004. Kenai Peninsula Borough Records indicate that the approximately 364 cubic yards of contaminated sandblast waste disposed of in 2005 weighed in at 726.41 tons, or 1.99 tons per cubic yard. Using this figure to calculate potential weight, there is quite possibly over 3000 tons of potentially contaminated shipyard sandblast waste unaccounted for.
D.J. Whitman, General Manager of SSD, said some of the problems could originate in the adjacent Seward Marine Industrial Center (SMIC) uplands area, where vessel owners, and other private repair companies also sandblast, paint, and repair vessels with a permit from the City of Seward, Harbormaster Department.
"Unfortunately, these operations are basically unregulated. Upon completion of sandblast and paint operations it is the responsibility of the permit holder to reclaim and dispose of spent grit in accordance with environmental regulations, but there is no enforcement of this policy," D.J. Whitman, SSD General Manager wrote in a Dec. 14, 2004, letter to DEC. He added, "If and when a permit holder does clean up their area, the spent sandblast grit is loaded up into a dump truck, hauled off and dumped at various locations in and around Seward, without any testing or record keeping. It should be noted that several of the vessels that are sandblasted and recoated in the City-managed repair area are of aluminum construction and still utilize TBT-based anti-fouling coatings; which is the coating of choice for this type of vessel as cupric oxide (copper-based) marine coatings are not recommended for aluminum-hulled vessels."
Air pollution
As public involvement grew, other worries surfaced about the effect the sandblast waste had on air and water quality at the shipyard operated by Seward Ship's Drydock (SSD). Concerned citizens filed numerous complaints with DEC and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regarding dust emissions, over-sprayed paint, lack of storm water controls, and off-site dumping.
SSD leases 20 acres of City-owned property in the 100-acre Seward Marine Industrial Center on the east side of Resurrection Bay. The full-service shipyard company does sandblasting, painting, fabrication, welding, machine work, mechanical work, and electrical work. People in Seward need only look across the bay to see the 23,000-square-foot tent-covered repair berth, the center of the environmental complaints. Despite its 110-foot height, the white, tent-like structure is dwarfed against a scenic backdrop of the rugged Kenai Mountains and hanging glaciers.
The repair berth is open to the air on either end, so whenever shipyard workers are sandblasting a vessel's hull, a dust cloud is usually visible to people in town. This concerns many sectors of the public. There is a fish processing plant adjacent to this facility. There is a state beach used for recreation adjacent to the facility. There is a city campground and recreational area adjacent to the facility. Fourth of July Creek has been used as a release site for silver salmon fry in past years. There is even a current proposal to acclimate salmon fry in a huge rearing pen off of the beach adjacent to SMIC. Without complete containment for waste-generating activities at SSD all of these folks and enterprises are at unnecessary risk. These adjacent areas are not only dusted with the sandblast dust plume regularly, but are also often hit with over-sprayed paint in windy conditions. For eighteen years.
Shipyard workers scrape the vessels' hulls free of loose paint, mussels, and barnacles before continuing the process with hydro-blasting, and sandblasting until the hull is bare and ready for a new coat of paint. This type of work is done both under the tented repair berth and at an adjacent site in the open air with no containment whatsoever, year round, in some of the most extreme weather in Alaska. SSD claims they only use low pressure water to clean hulls, because high pressure water would further concentrate contaminants, and make the run off more likely to exceed State and Federal contaminant thresholds for process water.
For months, concerned citizens took photographs to document dust clouds during the uncontained sandblasting and then sent the photos to DEC and EPA. When RBCA was notified of employee health complaints they forwarded their concerns to OSHA, as well, to address employee exposure implications. A neighboring contractor filed complaints when the dust cloud covered their work site causing them to shut down, and also when over-sprayed paint landed on their vehicles.
Citing fugitive dust emissions and an air pollution nuisance at the shipyard, DEC issued a Notice of Violation to SSD in May 2005.
In response, SSD said it would use a different type of sandblasting grit that would create less dust. The shipyard operator said they would install wind screens on both ends of their repair berth and the adjacent work area, but the wind screens have yet to be put into operation. In fact, just last month concerned citizens photographed further instances of sandblasting without proper containment measures. In such a windy area anything short of full containment will obviously be ineffective.
Pollution of Resurrection Bay
EPA entered the scene in January 2005 with letters to both SSD and the City of Seward, regarding storm water discharges at the shipyard and the necessity of getting a Multi-Sector General Permit to comply with National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NDPES) requirements.
In an onsite inspection in April 2005, EPA noticed four sump drains with sediment traps designed to catch potentially contaminated sediment in the four corners of the low-lying vessel transfer pit that connect to an outfall pipe draining directly into Resurrection Bay. These traps are meant to be periodically cleaned out to keep contaminated waste from reaching the bay. SSD said the drains and outfall pipe only receive storm water implying that storm water contained no contaminants. They said process waste water from the shipyard infiltrated the ground and didn't flow into the bay.
The EPA thought otherwise.
In a warning letter in September 2005, EPA said based on the proximity of the sump drains to industrial activities at the site and the lack of Best Management Practices (Industry Standards) at the shipyard, it had reason to believe "the sump drains do receive and eventually discharge process waste water, including pressure wash water and hydro-blasting water, into Resurrection Bay."
The EPA letter ordered SSD to obtain an individual waste water discharge permit unless it could show that pressure-washing and hydro-blasting water wasn't being allowed to enter the bay.
In the same letter, EPA reiterated its position that SSD should continue its efforts to get MSGP and NPDES permits to comply with the Clean Water Act.
EPA said enforcement of NDPES permitting violations could result in civil penalties of up to $32,500 per day, per violation.
In response, SSD said it had hired an engineering firm to complete its application for the MSGP, which would include a document outlining their proposed Best Management Practices and a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan.
SSD submitted a Notice of Intent to the EPA in September 2005 that demonstrates how they propose to comply with the Multi-Sector General Permit. But the deadline for compliance has long passed. As a result, the shipyard operator should be charged for each subsequent violation, but that hasn't happened, claims RBCA and ACAT. To date, no fines have been levied.
Referencing EPA's concerns about waste water discharges, SSD said vessels are washed in repair berths that sit more than 35 feet from the low-lying vessel transfer pit and no drainage occurs to the transfer pit within which are the four sump drains connected to the outfall pipe to the Bay. The site is unpaved, which allows filtration into the subsurface, according to SSD. RBCA and ACAT maintain that potentially contaminated storm water run off and process waters still reach Resurrection Bay, especially in the winter months when the ground is frozen.
The EPA offered a simple solution to prevent the storm water and process waters migration into Resurrection Bay; pave and enclose the work area. If the waste generating activities were contained to start with, no potentially contaminated waste or waters could ever reach the environment.
Despite EPA's warning letter of seven months ago, SSD has yet to complete the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), or acquire the NPDES permit for the sump drains. There have been no efforts to change how process waters, or storm waters from the shipyard, drain into Resurrection Bay.
Just north of the fenced shipyard is Seward Marine Industrial Center (SMIC), available as a drydock storage and repair site for various vessel owners, and as a final resting place for many derelict vessels. The EPA is likewise requiring the City to prepare a SWPPP and to obtain a Multi-Sector General Permit for this area.
The City disputes the requirement, saying City employees aren't conducting any industrial activities at SMIC. The City leases space to vessel owners who do the work themselves or contract someone else to work on their boat.
The City requires any person working on a vessel at SMIC to sign the City's uplands boat work policy, which spells out procedures for containment, collection, removal and disposal of used oil, sandblast grit, paint and other industrial materials. A DEC inspection of SMIC in 2004 revealed many issues of concern.
RBCA and ACAT contend the City should exert greater effort to ensure that requirements of the uplands boat work policy are being carried out at SMIC and in the small boat harbor. Otherwise, the boat work policy is nothing but paper, RBCA says. If the Seward Harbormaster Department is unwilling to enforce the City's own environmental regulations, how can anyone else be expected to comply?
Activities are nothing new
Members of the Resurrection Bay Conservation Alliance and Alaska Community Action on Toxics have seen some progress since concerned citizens first voiced concerns in the fall of 2004, but they contend the City and the regulatory agencies should have been exercising oversight ever since shipyard operations began in the mid-1980s. There have been reports of improperly dumped sandblast waste grit going back 18 years. According to our research of City, State, and Federal documents, the City never addressed these reports or passed them on to DEC or EPA.
The City of Seward applied for a storm water permit for a ship haul-out and repair facility in 1985, but the application process was never completed so EPA never issued a permit.
Eventually the City decided to enter into a sole source lease with SSD for operation and maintenance of the shiplift facility. Because this lease needs to be renewed every five years, the City has always had a regular opportunity to ensure that SSD is following the requirements spelled out in the lease and M&O (Maintenance and Operating) agreement. All legally binding agreements with the City (or any government entity for that matter) require compliance with all Federal, State, and local environmental laws.
SSD has a separate lease with the City for the 20-acre shipyard site. When renewing this lease in 2001, the City added a section dealing with environmental issues. According to the latest lease, SSD "will not cause or permit the premises to be used to generate, manufacture, refine, transport, treat, store, handle, dispose, transfer, produce or process any hazardous substance, except in compliance with all environmental laws."
The lease also states neither the lessee nor any other occupant of the premises should permit the release of any hazardous substance onto the premises. This lease also requires compliance with all Federal, State, and local environmental laws.
In its initial 1988 lease with the City, SSD was required to complete a totally enclosed structure that would completely contain a vessel up to 300 feet in length by 1991. Even at that early date, the City recognized the importance of totally containing the hydro-blasting, sandblasting and painting activities. The required EPA permits could not be obtained without complete containment to prevent contaminants from reaching the elements in the first place.
But instead of meeting a 1991 deadline for building an enclosed repair berth, it was an additional 10 years before SSD could find a structure that would meet zoning requirements for earthquake and fire, as well as stand up to high winds common to the area. Yet the tented berth still failed to meet containment requirements for the permits, and the city lease. The section (3.01) and language in the original city lease, requiring an enclosed structure for vessels up to 300' no longer exists in the lease. The current tented repair berth is 220'X110' with open ends and a sandblast waste covered work area.
Seward City Council members recently debated whether to renew the maintenance and operating leases with SSD for another five-year term. Because of the environmental issues and ongoing investigations, the council has voted five times to allow only temporary 90-day lease extensions. The shipyard's owner and general manager both addressed council at the last meeting April 10, 2006 demanding a full lease extension, claiming all environmental issues were amended. The Seward City council decided to address the shipyard's lease extension or renewal at the next City Council meeting on April 24, 2006.
City Council members expressed concern about what would happen to the City owned shiplift facility if the SSD lease wasn't renewed. "The City would have to find another operator for the facility. In the meantime there would be a loss of business and a loss of jobs, which would deal an economic blow to the area", said Seward City Councilman Bob Valdatta.
Systemic failure led to mess
The piecemeal approach to investigating and enforcing environmental regulations seem to guarantee failure from the outset. The lack of coordination within, and between the EPA, DEC, City of Seward, and U.S. Coast Guard has made it difficult to enforce obvious violations of numerous laws, regulations, and city ordinances.
In a July 2004 inspection report, Trevor Fairbanks with the DEC industrial waste water program said he observed," sandblasting and power washing of boats being done on the south side of SSD's main repair berth on a bed of spent sandblast material. All of the work is done over open ground with no containment measures", he wrote.
This information was passed on to the EPA one month later in an e-mail Trevor Fairbanks wrote to Misha Vakoc, Stormwater Coordinator with EPA, Region 10 in Seattle. Fairbanks said neither the shipyard nor the City had the required storm water permits. Yet the EPA waited several months until citizens filed complaints in December 2004 before it began moving on the issue.
The Seward Small Boat Harbor and nearby Seward Ship's Chandlery are other areas that appear to fall under NDPES program requirements for a storm water permit.
The State of Alaska is attempting to assume primary responsibility for the NPDES program. If that happens, DEC's waste water permitting program will be renamed the Alaska Pollutant Discharge Elimination System program and DEC will unseat EPA as the agency that issues and enforces waste water permits in Alaska. RBCA and ACAT doubt that reducing the EPA's oversight would improve enforcement of industrial water issues in the Seward area. We need more oversight, not less.
Several concerned citizens recently photographed bilge water or ballast water being drained directly onto the ground from the US Coast Guard vessels Acorn and Maple while they were being worked on at SSD. The photos show the water landing on sandblast waste covered ground beneath the vessels and flowing into drainage ditches that eventually drained into Resurrection Bay.
The USCG contracts regularly with SSD for work on a number of its vessels. According to their own Maintenance Manual, the USCG has the responsibility to ensure the waste is collected, stored, and disposed of properly. The Alaska Marine Highway should monitor their waste as well. A State ferry is dockside now, waiting to be hauled out at Seward Ship's Drydock. A USCG vessel is next in line. It's very disappointing to see our tax dollars perpetuate this issue rather than correct it.
Because the USCG vessels and State ferries are too large to fit in the tent-covered repair berth, work is done outdoors adjacent to the tent-like structure. USCG vessels and State ferries are allowed to use bottom-hull paints containing cupric oxide and other biocides. Even the marine paints available to the general public on hardware store shelves come with the warning "toxic to fish", and "dispose of properly" because they are all designed to kill marine life.
When recently informed of the ongoing problems at the Seward shipyard, a Coast Guard JAG officer in Washington, D.C., said he would investigate these potential contract violations, because all Coast Guard contract requirements hold the civilian contractor to the highest environmental standards.
An attorney with the Congressional Committee on Water Resources and the Environment in Washington, D.C. said this situation is precisely what the Clean Water Act was designed to prevent.
Even within a single agency - the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation - there seems to be a disconnect among its air, water, solid waste, and contaminated sites divisions that prevent a coordinated response.
Although dozens of truckloads of sandblast waste grit were hauled off from the Lorenz property and taken to the borough landfill, the neighbors say tons of sandblast waste remains behind, both on the surface, and buried, with some buried as backfill for utility lines just 100 feet from a residential water well. The DEC has resisted addressing this issue.
Concerned citizens have found sandblast waste dumped at other sites in the Seward vicinity, including a residential lot in Harborview Subdivision and on a play area near a communal well on Nash Road. DEC wrote letters to the property owners, inquiring where the waste material came from, but DEC Solid Waste officials say it's not within their responsibility to deal with these complaints - it falls under DEC's Contaminated Sites program. The Contaminated Sites program cannot respond without analytical data suggesting it's a contaminated site, which cannot be obtained without the owner's permission, and costs thousands of dollars for the lab analysis. ACAT and RBCA sampled the Harborview sandblast waste and found it contaminated and passed this information on to the appropriate DEC employee, and even took them to see it in person. Yet it remains 100 feet from residential water wells, one supplying a family that includes a nursing mother, almost two years later.
Disgusted at this lack of response, concerned citizens went to the play area in the trailer court and scraped up the potentially contaminated shipyard sandblast waste and took it the Borough's Hazardous Waste Disposal Day. The DEC was also shown this site. They say they wrote a letter, and that that is all they can do.
In their complaints to DEC, concerned citizens said they saw sandblast waste throughout the shipyard and surrounding area: in uncovered piles, spread on the road, scattered on the ground and piled up on the beach. Swallows have been observed in some of those piles. They build their nests in the tent structure.
In a December 2004 meeting with the DEC, concerned citizens learned that SSD admitted routinely dumping hydro-blast waste consisting of mussels, barnacles, and paint chips on the shoreline. Reportedly, the shipyard manager told the DEC that," they have always left it there, and that the seagulls just love it."
Concerned citizens saw sandblast waste routinely stored under the eaves of the tent-covered repair berth, so that when snow and rainwater fell off the roof, it soaked through the waste piles. Paint residue is soluble, sandblasting grit is not.
Without containing the waste-generating activities, the waste becomes mixed with snow and winds up plowed onto the beach and outlying areas. The facility is surrounded by wetlands, creeks, and Resurrection Bay. With a gravel-surfaced work area the waste is allowed to wash into the ground except for the months the ground is frozen, when run off flows downhill to the bay.
Irony
SSD reportedly purchased between 120-150 cubic yards of recycled glass sandblast grit material annually, for the four years they used recycled glass. SSD made large purchases that created the demand to make the glass recycling program viable in Alaska. In response to claims from SSD management that part of the dust emission problem is due to the type of grit they use - the recycled glass - the DEC ordered them to use a copper slag mine tailing material called Kleen Blast, an abrasive mine by-product that contains traces of several heavy metals like lead, mercury and copper, for sandblasting instead of the recycled glass grit.
Alaskans for Litter Prevention and Recycling (ALPAR) is concerned that the glass recycling program in the state could cease if DEC's concerns about air quality lead to a ban of using inert recycled glass for sandblast grit.
The recycling group says there is an extremely limited market in Southcentral Alaska for this material and doubts it could find an alternate market if SSD discontinued buying the high-value, end-use product. Glass recycling in Alaska could end without this consumer.
Although Kleen Blast advertises that all toxic heavy metals within it are usually non-detectable, or at least below regulatory levels, RBCA and ACAT would much rather see the shipyard use the blasting grit made from recycled glass. Glass is inert and SSD's demand supported glass recycling in Alaska.
Summary
Though systemic problems have prompted citizen action, there are several positive changes that have recently occurred.
SSD hired an engineering firm to compile a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan and is currently negotiating for their NPDES permit from EPA.
At the insistence of the DEC, they hauled some contaminated sandblast waste from the Lorenz property to the new lined landfill in late September 2005.
SSD purchased windscreen for its repair berths but its efficacy is yet to be determined.
Because of the severe toxicity of TBT and cupric oxide, the Kenai Peninsula Borough Solid Waste Department may consider adding testing for TBT and cupric oxide to its landfill screening regulations. And we do have a new lined landfill for toxic waste.
Finally, statewide shipyard environmental issues have been brought to the attention of the City of Seward, the Kenai Peninsula Borough, the Alaska DEC, the EPA, NOAA, US Coast Guard, US Fish and Wildlife Service, Alaska Marine Highway, State Legislators and members of the U.S. Congress.
With all of the State and Federal vessels, agencies, and lawmakers involved it seems that they could all work together and correct this situation. It would seem if you aren't part of the solution then you are still part of the problem. We must not allow Resurrection Bay to be used as a mixing zone any longer!
Even though sandblast waste laced with antifoulant marine paint is obviously contaminated, SSD has repeatedly failed to properly contain, store, or dispose of it. SSD has also failed to comply with provisions of the Clean Air Act, and the Clean Water Act. These acts are designed specifically to prevent toxins from reaching the environment. RBCA and ACAT have exhausted every administrative remedy available, including recent efforts in both Juneau and Washington, D.C.
Without completely containing the waste generating activities, compliance is unachievable, contend RBCA and ACAT. Other coastal states have shipyard laws that compliment and reinforce the Federal laws. We deserve the same safeguards for our environment. The science is there, and the solutions are there; only compliance is missing.
RBCA and ACAT have reached the conclusion, that to protect the healthy ecosystem of Resurrection Bay as well as the health of our fellow citizens, the persuasion of court action is necessary to compel the City of Seward and SSD to comply with Federal Environmental Laws. Enough is enough.
Senator Lisa Murkowski recently wrote in a letter regarding environmental complaints at Seward Ship's Drydock, "I support the regulatory efforts of State and Federal agencies to ensure that any company complies with State and Federal environmental and labor protection laws. Alaska's clean air and clean water must be protected for future generations."
by Russ Maddox, Ressurection Bay Conservation Alliance