The Port of Port Townsend has until the wet season to become compliance with the Department of Ecology or the Port could face a $10,000 fine per day per violation.

The Department of Ecology is waiting a response from the Port of Port Townsend, after a non-approved system was put into place allowing copper and zinc to enter the port’s waters, threatening the quality of water and its marine life such as salmon.

However, officials at the Port said a plan is being implemented and are working with Ecology to get its last area of the boatyard in compliance.

The letter

In a letter addressed to the Port’s Executive Director Sam Gibboney, dated June 20, the Port is “currently not in compliance with condition S7 of the Boartyard General Permit.”

According to Department of Ecology News Media Relations Specialists Larry Altose, the Port of Port Townsend operates under a general permit, which allows the Port to operate without having to apply for a permit for every single thing it does as the Port has multiple uses within the community.

“The Port hasn’t been compliant in a couple of years,” Altose said, noting amounts of copper and zinc exceeding the allowable discharge amount are flowing into the water, contaminating the marine life. “This is the priority for us.” 

Altose explained copper and zinc affect the way salmon see and smell, making it more difficult for them to get away from predators. 

In the letter to the Port, it acknowledged a letter the department received from the Port on April 20 seeking to comply with the Boatyard General Permit. 

“The Department of Ecology staff have reviewed the letter and previous correspondence and permit monitoring data from the Port of Port Townsend,” the June 20 letter stated. “The Port is currently not in compliance with condition S7 of the Boatyard General Permit. The Port’s inability to meet the benchmark values in the permit triggered the level three response requirement under permit condition S7.”

The letter addressed an engineering report the Port submitted to the department. However, it could not be approved because the department “did not believe the proposed treatment system would be capable of achieving the treatment levels as specified in the permit.”

“Instead of correcting the deficiencies in the proposed system, the Port instead chose to install the system that was proposed but not approved,” the letter stated. “Ecology exercised its enforcement discretion during the 2017-18 wet season to evaluate the performance of the system.”

Atlose told The Leader, since the system has been in place, the Port continues to exceed benchmarks, or restrictions, on what is allowed to be discharged into the port.

He explained, for copper, the Port limit should not exceed 50 micrograms per liter on average or a seasonal average of 147 micrograms per liter.

When it comes to zinc, the Port should not exceed 85 micrograms per liter on average or 90 micrograms per liter during the seasonal average.

According to the Department of Ecology, there have been several times the Port was above 2,000 micrograms per liter for copper, and it continuously exceed the benchmark for zinc.

“The port has been non-compliant for several years,” Altose said, noting a level three response is the highest response before actions are taken to try to solve the issue. “We are disappointed we haven’t heard from the report after receiving feedback to (fix) the solution.”

When asked if it was common for an organization to proceed without approval from the Department of Ecology, Altose said, “It’s not common, but it is not out of the blue.”

The Port

According to Gibboney, the Port has been working with the Department of Ecology to become compliant, but she noted Ecology has not received a response from the Port since June 20, as the Port is still working towards a plan of action.

“Three of the four areas of the port are compliant,” Gibboney told The Leader, noting it has been a struggle to get the last area compliant.

She said a system was in place at the Port previously, which became out of compliance with Ecology. It was since “rehabilitated,” being updated from a combination of sand to a mixed-media formula, which addressed the action plan Ecology has previously put into place.

Gibboney addressed the fact the Port proceeded with an unapproved system, saying if they did not move forward, the port would have been in a new violation with Ecology on meeting deadlines for a corrective action plan.

“We felt we had to comply with the deadline,” Gibboney said.

Gibboney said the Port’s Board of Commissioners recently approved a capital project plan, implementing the next steps the Port plans to put into action, which includes deploying Chitosan.

What’s next?

Looking ahead, Gibboney said the Port is always actively updatings its place on how to keep its work and progress of the Port moving forward, while keeping water quality in mind.

“We are never done when it comes to the stormwater system,” she said. “We are always monitoring it and adapting.”

The Department of Ecology explained there are a number of alternatives from here.

The department’s hope is to be able to work with the Port to find solutions to the system and move forward.

“We are open to discussions,” Altose said, adding the department is willing to develop a plan, which works for both parties. “It’s important. It’s about the water quality.”

According to the letter, if the Port is noncompliant before the start of the wet season, which Altose said begins in September or October, the Port can face a penalty of $10,000 per violation per day.

Gibboneys was not worried about the penalty, saying there are plenty of tactics to get organizations, such as the Port, to move forward, believing the Port and Department of Ecology would be working together.

“I don’t want to be dismissive, but it’s a tool for the department to use to achieve compliance,” Gibboney said. “Our plan, is we will have our efforts in place before the wet season.”