4 Responses to “Seward Ship’s Drydock- No Containment”

1. anonymous
   May 22nd, 2009 @ 4:35 pm

   Seward Ships could have solved the containment problem a long time ago. But they are so bullheaded that they will spend a dime of resistance to save a nickel of compliance.

2. Fourtimesfour
   May 23rd, 2009 @ 11:48 am

   As quoted from RBCA website “‘In 2007 the Environmental Protection Agency carried out an assessment which determined that Seward Ship’s Drydock did not rank as a Superfund Site. However, with the data gathered to make this determination the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) has declared the facility a Contaminated Site. In spite of years of effort to end this contamination of our environment, the waste generating operations are still being carried out with inadequate containment, allowing the pollution to continue. The Alaska Department of Law has assigned the Deputy Attorney General of Environmental Issues to help bring this facility into compliance. We will continue to assist the agencies in this effort.”‘
   After seeing photos posted from 2005 matching the ones from Carol just a couple days ago….
   Obviously the Seward Ships wants nothing to do with changing its ways, so How do you MAKE them?

3. Russ
   May 23rd, 2009 @ 6:10 pm

   I will attempt to answer Fourtimesfour’s question pasted from above in the space allowed:

   “Obviously the Seward Ships wants nothing to do with changing its ways, so How do you MAKE them” “Fourtimesfour”

   When hundreds of yards of contaminated, used sandblast grit was illegally dumped by the Shipyard operator onto residential property on Nash Rd in 2004 it came to RBCA’s attention that the shipyard did not have the Federal permits required for such facilities that could have prevented that incident from occurring. We then learned that the State had no specific regulations regarding Best Management Practices for Shipyards which may have prevented this also. We began our effort to compel both the Shipyard operator and the city to get the required permits.

   RBCA and other concerned citizens then started documenting and reporting all of the obvious violations. The shipyard (and City) now have the required permits but the shipyard still resists creating adequate containment to prevent their wastes from winding up in the air and bay. (One can see how the shipyard should be containing their waste generating operations by simply observing how the vessels at SMIC are properly contained while being sandblasted and painted.) The DEC and Department of Law have been attempting to force the shipyard to comply for years now. Weak laws and a resistant operator have made it difficult and time consuming.

   RBCA discovered that the statute regarding containing dust generated by sandblasting is sorely inadequate. The current statute requires the operator to take “reasonable precautions” which leaves too much room for interpretation. Basically the State and Shipyard have been debating what is “reasonable” and what is “unreasonable” for the entire period. We soon realized that the language in the statute needed to be strengthened in order to enforce adequate containment of waste generating activities.

   The same debate has been ongoing between DOL, DEC, and the RR (owner) and Aurora Energy (operator) over the coal transfer facility’s dust emissions regarding what is or isn’t “reasonable” concerning their efforts to prevent the chronic coal dust that the harbor and those downwind endure. It is our strong belief that the law’s intention is to prevent anyone’s airborn emissions from effecting anyone else and so I have been working closely with the DEC and Palin’s Administration to help create a stronger statute that is more readily enforced and therefore more effective at preventing fugitive dust from escaping industrial facilities. We have made much progress in this endeavor.

   Last year the DEC hired a contractor to review similar facilities in the lower forty-eight and see how they prevent fugitive dust. They also contracted a study to examine other state’s statutes regarding both fugitive dust and Shipyard Best Management practices. The report is in and the DEC and DOL expect to have a report for the public very soon. This should be followed shortly thereafter by new stronger language and regulations to prevent fugitive dust from effecting those downwind and specific regulations for shipyards in Alaska.

   Sorry for the long-winded answer, its been a very, very long process. In spite of the absence of visible improvements at the shipyard I am confident that the State’s plan to tighten the statute and the City’s current scrutiny of the lease and maintenance and operating agreement will eventually compel the shipyard to do the right thing and end this unnecessary pollution once and for all.

   Carol Griswold should be commended for her tireless efforts to educate the city and public regarding these easily preventable threats to our environment and public health.

   Our new Harbormaster, Kari Anderson should also be commended for all of the improvements at containing wastes and preventing pollution at both SMIC and in our small boat harbor.

4. Andy
   May 31st, 2009 @ 2:53 pm

   Its good to have this information out there. I think theres alot of people who dont know this is going on. Kinda ironic reading this article with the ACE hardware advert floating off to the right of my browser window. “ACE now has garden supplies in stock”
   I wonder if they have mystery bags of ’sand’ based fertilizer for sale there too. I hear it helps with soil drainage.