In-Water Hull Cleaning: Responses to Key Issues Received from the Public
Key Issue / Public Comments From Outreach
Paint plumes
x Paint plume may be more indicative of softer paints
x Paint plume standard does not necessarily address copper coming
off harder paints during cleaning
x International paint rep - Should be fairly easy to determine paint
plume that comes from a non-biocide because fouling is usually
brown or green. Copper paints usually come in black, blue, and
red colors.
x Paint plume not an acceptable means to determine compliance-is
too nebulous of a reference, should look to industry to determine
reference from a business standpoint, am impressed that Port will
take on management of the information over time for the Permit
x More dialogue needs to occur about the paint plume standard in
order to flush out how this will happen or be enforced
x Paint plume may be too subjective.
x Can a plume come from a non-copper paint? How can we know if
the paint is copper or not?
x Criteria is to use a plume as way to determine if BMPs are being
applied effectively; focusing on paint plume may be a naïve
approach to addressing copper pollution
x An item that is missing is the intent of the permit is to ensure that
the diver doesn’t remove ANY paint from hull cleaning. Another
thing that I believe is missing is the limitation of cleaning pad.
Port Response
The presence of a visible plume of paint is the most conclusive
mechanism to observe the use of inappropriate cleaning
practices. Further, it confirms that paint is being removed from
the hull.
Preventing the removal of paint was supported by several
comments receiving during the public comment period.
The Federal NPDES Vessel General Permit also prohibits the
presence of a visible plume of paint in non-impaired waters (VGP
Section 2.2.23). As such, this standard is already a benchmark
for enforcement. The Port’s approach to prohibit paint plumes
during cleaning is consistent with this existing federal standard.
The California Professional Divers Association cites in its BMP
Manual that, their BMP objectives are to “Prevent paints….from
entering the water and sediments” (#1), and “Keep paint intact
on the hull…” (#2). The Port’s approach is consistent with this
and should help provide enforcement for these objectives.
The San Diego Port Tenants Association Draft BMPs for Copper
Hull Paints states as their BMP objectives to “Prevent
paints….from entering the water and sediments” (#1), “Keep
paint intact on the hull…” (#2), and “Make sure NOT to remove
ANY paint (#4)”. The Port’s approach is consistent with this and
should help provide enforcement for these objectives.
-1-
In-Water Hull Cleaning: Responses to Key Issues Received from the Public
Key Issue / Public Comments From Outreach
Effectiveness
x
x
x
Don’t know if BMP’s can affect reduction of copper, as copper may
enter water in multiple ways (i.e., leaching).
What does this permit mean to overall TMDL copper reduction?
How much does it actually reduce copper?
What does this mean in the end in terms of copper loading – what
is the benefit and how does this translate to RWQCB?
Port Response
In-water hull cleaners are identified as responsible parties in the
Regional Water Quality Control Board regulatory document, the
SIYB TMDL Technical Report. They are considered a stakeholder
and, as such, are responsible for implementing BMPs and
reducing pollution from their activities. Reducing the pollutant
loads associated with in-water hull cleaning is required by the
SIYB TMDL.
There is no data that shows the effectiveness of BMPs on the
copper deposits. This will need to be studied as BMPs are
implemented. The hull cleaning industry is encouraged to
conduct studies to determine the effectiveness of hull cleaning
BMPs; in particular the differences in copper loading from each
cleaning tool (i.e. white pad, purple pad, rotary brush, etc). If
the studies clearly indicate that specific BMPs are found to be
more effective than others, they may become mandatory
minimum requirements at a later date.
-2-
In-Water Hull Cleaning: Responses to Key Issues Received from the Public
Key Issue / Public Comments From Outreach
Enforcement – who/how
x How will Harbor Police enforce the permit? Harbor Police not
trained in identifying a paint plume or if the plume was paint or
not.
x Concerned whether Harbor Police Department will be able to
identify a paint plume without being educated or go through BMP
course. Should be cautious about going down this path.
x Who is going to police the regulation?
x Need more clarification on how Port will do visual inspection
x Respond in a more educated way as to how the Harbor Police will
monitor the infractions of the divers
x
x
x
Will the marinas and yacht clubs be responsible for
monitoring/policing divers in their facilities?
Marinas can have greater control over dive companies, like which
are allowed on property
Don’t blame or use the marina operators as your policeman. We
have no control nor should be have any control of what a boater
does on his personal property and boat.
Port Response
The Port’s Environmental & Land Use Management Department
(ELUM) will take the lead role for enforcement of this Permit.
The process will follow the existing protocol that is in place for
enforcement of the Port’ stormwater ordinance and related code
section (Article 10 of Port Code). Similar to the stormwater
program, ELUM is able to enforce certain code provisions of the
Port through the administrative penalty process. This entails the
use of warnings, Administrative Citations, Penalties and fines,
using and escalated enforcement structure for repeat offenses.
ELUM will conduct regular dock-walk inspections of marinas to
observe hull cleaning activities. ELUM will also coordinate with
HP to familiarize HP of the Permit requirements. HPD’s role in
the enforcement process will be to assist in ensuring all hull
cleaners operating on Port Tidelands have valid permits, they will
not be responsible for verifying a paint plume. HP will also assist
in enforcement if a confrontational issue arises. While in the
field, HP may do regular checks to verify hull cleaning permits. If
HP observes what is anticipated to be inappropriate hull cleaning
activities, they will contact ELUM staff.
Marinas are not required nor are they obligated by this regulation
to monitor the hull cleaners. However, their efforts to control
polluting activities within their facilities can complement and
strengthen the water quality benefits of this Permit. Marina staff
will be encouraged to contact the Port if they observe hull
cleaners conducting business inappropriately; however, this is
not currently required.
-3-
In-Water Hull Cleaning: Responses to Key Issues Received from the Public
Key Issue / Public Comments From Outreach
BMPs
x Port asked PTA to participate in developing BMPs that could be
referred to in permit. CDPA participated and provided their BMP
manual to PTA to use. PTA then produced 3-page BMP document.
x What are the multiple BMP program options as stated?
x Concerned that a general consensus was not reached on BMP’s by
SDPTA and CPDA
x Why does your matrix continually refer to BMP Standards (CPDA)?
As has been discussed in all of the meetings, the tenants (marina
operators and boat yards) DO NOT agree with the CPDA BMP’s.
x As far as I am concerned we have our BMP’s and they should be
presented to the marinas and boatyards as the ones we adopt and
therefore that which is referenced in the ordinance. Most likely this
is what the Port wanted all along, to not take a stand and be a
party to the established BMP’s.
x SDPTA BMP program does not exist, what is its merit? How does it
stand up to CDPA’s program?
x Can a boat owner get a copy of the BMP’s?
x The Code unnecessarily adds a limitation that the BMPs must be
“economically sound.”
x Proper application of paints combined with proper cleaning, means
the paint could last longer. Proper cleaning can extend
effectiveness of paint
x Port is not going to change how cleaning process is done, industry
should develop BMP standards
x Who will participate in developing the BMP requirement?
x Who qualifies to be able to identify the new BMP standards?
x Is there a summary list of BMP’s for the divers?
x The proposed Code and permit are unacceptably vague as to what
Best Management Practices are required. This ambiguity in the
Code and permit makes them nearly impossible to enforce. Lack of
specific requirements invites arguments from permit-holders about
whether a particular practice is or is not a required Best
Management Practice and makes the permitting system
meaningless. To fix this problem, make one of the following
Port Response
While efforts were made to develop a clear concise single set of
BMPs, consensus from outside parties on a final set of BMPs was
not achieved. Findings were presented during the public
meetings that led to the decision to allow for the use of multiple
BMP programs, provided that they are able to reduce pollution
from in-water hull cleaning activities.
The permit does not reference or endorse any BMPs specifically,
but will reference those known to exist. Examples to date
include the California Professional Divers Association BMP
Certification Manual. Additionally, the San Diego Port Tenants
Association has developed BMPs for boats having copper hull
paint. The Port will provide references to both of those
documents and will ask both organizations to have the
information provided on their respective websites.
Several comments have been focused on the BMP requirements
in the Draft Permit as being too vague or non-specific. The Port
acknowledges that the Draft Permit does not require specific
BMPs, but rather requires use of BMPs consistent with the hull
cleaning industry. This approach is consistent with BMP
requirements found in existing NPDES stormwater permits. Port
should not place itself in a position of telling an industry how to
run its businesses
Due to the fact that much of the hull cleaning activity is under
water, visual observations of cleaning (i.e. tools being used, less
abrasive efforts, etc) are difficult. The regulatory and
enforcement process used for ensuring compliance with Permit
conditions needs to be non-subjective. As written, many of the
existing BMPs considered in both the CPDA and SDPTA BMPs use
“less/least abrasive” terminology that takes into consideration a
variable set of conditions. Many BMPs require training and
judgment to determine the appropriate cleaning tool and/or
-4-
In-Water Hull Cleaning: Responses to Key Issues Received from the Public
changes:
1.
Require all permit-holders to have at least one staff
member who has a valid BMP certification from the California
Professional Divers Association. This staff member would then be
responsible for training any additional employees.
2.
List in the Code what Best Management Practices are
required.
Port needs to keep BMPs flexible to allow business owner to take
care of and be responsible for employees, etc.
Approach presented by Port is a better approach for whole
industry- It Leaves control of BMP to business owner, it is in their
concern to preserve their customer’s paint as long as possible.
cleaning frequency – both of which are dependent on paint type,
age, boat use, and other conditions. Therefore it is more
appropriate to use a visual means to validate or verify the use of
BMPs.
x
Please remember the divers have NO STAKE AT All in the Water
Board’s order but it seems you are setting the BMP’s as if they are
a stakeholder. This action would never take place in Boatyards or
Shipyards in where they have an NPDES permit.
In-water hull cleaners are identified as responsible parties in the
Regional Water Quality Control Board regulation, SIYB TMDL
Technical Report. They are considered a stakeholder and, as
such, are responsible for implementing BMPs and reducing
pollution from their activities.
x
The Code revisions do not specify which “industry” it is referring to
when it requires the use of Best Management Practices generally
recognized by “the industry.”
What is the definition of industry standard BMP’s? Have we
completely dropped the BMP’s we worked over the past months to
develop?
The Permit language will be revised to clearly indicate it is the
hull cleaning industry that is being referred to when the Permit
references “industry standard BMPs’.
Paints are coming out faster than what divers can adjust BMPs for,
and gain knowledge on how to clean new paints.
Should engage with paint manufacturers to create BMPs for
emerging products based on field testing.
BMPs should come from manufacturers of paint product. The
information should then be passed on to the applicators, then to
the divers and boat owners.
CPDA can test and create BMPs for new products, CPDA has
formulated BMPs for 50 common copper hull paint products used
in California
The industry of hull cleaning, along with paint manufacturers are
the best source to drive the changes needed and have the most
knowledgeable about the paints and their properties. The Port
would support this effort and hope it is coordinated.
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
To address the public comments, the Port is proposing to revise
the Permit language and require that in-water hull cleaning
businesses develop BMP plans that they will use when
conducting their business. The BMP plan will include all of the
BMPs that the company intends to use to ensure that they do not
produce a visible paint plume while cleaning.
Many public comments and diver input suggested that a diver
needs to know what kind of paint they are cleaning to clean it
correctly. The hull cleaning BMPs standards (CPDA, SDPTA)
identify different cleaning protocols for the different types of
paint. Thus, adherence to the BMP standards requires the hull
cleaner to know what paint he is cleaning.
-5-
In-Water Hull Cleaning: Responses to Key Issues Received from the Public
Key Issue / Public Comments From Outreach
Education/Training
x Let’s educate boaters and divers on how to properly clean the
bottom of boats. Can we provide names of other BMP education
programs? What are other the other BMP programs available?
Where did we get this information?
x The education and book keeping requirements presented in the
Permit are vague
x The record-keeping requirement should specify that businesses
must not only track the dates of training and the persons trained,
but also keep a copy of the training materials used.
x Require all permit-holders to have at least one staff member who
has a valid BMP certification from the California Professional Divers
Association. This staff member would then be responsible for
training any additional employees.
x As marina operator, how will we know which divers have gone
through training?
Will a list of divers who have had
training/permitted be posted on the Port’s website?
x Who audits the training that the diver company is giving to their
divers?
x
It is not clear what the Port is asking for: suggest provide some
baseline requirements of what the Port wants from the companies,
and what standards are for education program and BMPs
Port Response
The Port will require verification that education occurred prior to
businesses being permitted. Part of the application process will
be to verify training records prior to obtaining a Permit from the
Port.
To be able to obtain a Permit, a business will need to show the
materials used to train their employees, the names of employees
trained and the training dates. If using a formal program,
documentation of the program would be necessary indicating the
dates that training occurred. To address the comments on this
issue, the Draft Permit language will be revised so that the
education requirement clearly describes what record-keeping is
necessary.
As businesses bring on new employees, they will be required to
ensure they are trained prior to conducting work, and will need
to have their training logged and in their files. As such, marinas
should know that all Permitted divers have met the training
requirements.
Hull cleaners need to be aware of the different cleaning
techniques and practices available and understand how to use
cleaning tools in a manner the best minimizes the amount of
copper getting into the water from the cleaning activity.
Hull cleaners need to understand and recognize the significance
of a visible paint plume and how to stop their activity and move
to a less abrasive technique.
Hull cleaners should be aware of the type of paint they are
cleaning (copper-based, biocide-containing or non-biocide paint)
and know the proper means to clean each.
-6-
In-Water Hull Cleaning: Responses to Key Issues Received from the Public
x
x
x
x
Can training be performed in-house via lecture, reading, testing,
etc or will companies be required to be "certified" via the San
Diego Professional Dive Association or some other similar
organization? If allowed in-house, the requirement sounds similar
to training programs (in form, not content) required for workman’s'
compensation insurance. If not, my argument/concern would be
that an agency such as EDD does not require outside training to
satisfy its training requirements, therefore why would the Port in
this case?
Can the BMP training be provided in-house? If not, what specific
organizations can provide such training? What are their credentials
and their class schedules?
You do not address who's going to do the training, who's
certificated to do the training etc. At least with the State of CA
DockWalker program, the State set up training, booklets, and a
certification process, your permit process has none of these
provisions.
How will divers get certified by the permit date?
Training can occur through in-house training or a formal training
program. The training will need to ensure that employees 1)
have read and fully understand the Permit conditions and, 2) can
conduct their business in a manner that does not result in a
visible plume of paint.
Organizations such as the CPDA conduct frequent training
programs on several environmental related issues that may
impact marinas and would be a useful tool for hull cleaning
companies to consider. However, at this time, formal training is
not a requirement to fulfill the education requirement identified
in the Permit.
-7-
In-Water Hull Cleaning: Responses to Key Issues Received from the Public
Key Issue / Public Comments From Outreach
Permit
x Who will the Port manage and issue permits to track the
associated education or certification?
x Will the date of the permit be linked in any way to the date of the
insurance? If not, who will audit the insurance expirations?
Port Response
The ELUM department will be responsible for managing and
issuing the permits. ELUM will receive permit applications, route
them between departments, and provide approvals and issue
permit cards.
The ELUM department will also be responsible for conducting
visual inspections/observations and enforcement (refer to
response to comments – Enforcement)
Audit and Risk Management Departments will process the
insurance paperwork. This department will follow its standard
protocols for reviewing and verifying adequate insurance
coverage as part of this task.
-8-
In-Water Hull Cleaning: Responses to Key Issues Received from the Public
Key Issue / Public Comments From Outreach
Permit
x The BMP requirement applies to any in-water hull cleaning, but
permits are only required for those who perform in-water hull
cleaning as a business/commercial activity. This means that
amateur, untrained individuals are free to engage in in-water hull
cleaning and continue polluting the bay. Will this result in cleaner
water?
Port Response
The Port recognizes that some boat owners may elect to self
clean their own boat hulls. Permits will NOT be required for this
activity because it is not a business operation. However, these
boaters will be expected to clean in a manner that minimizes
pollutant loads during cleaning, similar to the requirements being
placed on the in-water hull cleaning businesses.
The proposed Port Code Amendment includes a provision that
prohibits any person from cleaning in a manner that creates a
visible paint plume and requires any person performing hull
cleaning to use Best Management Practices.
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
The permit is only for commercial hull cleaning businesses, not for
private individuals.
Approach presented by Port is a better approach for whole
industry- the business owner has direct contact with their own
divers so they can control them more.
In the Coronado Cays, we have two marina and hundreds of
private docks without public access, how to you propose to force
homeowners to buy permits?
Is the diving company being permitted?
The idea that a permit is needed to clean a hull in the water is yet
another bureaucratic screw up.
We do not need more regulation in the Port of San Diego.
Does the owner buy the permit or the cleaner? What if a boat
owner or yacht club or rental operator owns multiple boats; then
would it be one Permit per owner or per boat?
Does this apply every time our diver scrubs seaweed off the
bottom?
Will each diver carry a copy of their company’s permit?
The Permit has no mention of size of boat, or type of boat - are we
talking kayaks and skiffs to be included in this permit?
The permit requirement applies only to those engaging in inwater hull cleaning as a business/commercial activity. It is NOT
for boat owners or the general boating public.
The Draft In-Water Hull Cleaning Permit is specifically intended
for businesses (or sole proprietorships) not for employees within
in business.
As required under existing Port Code (Section 8.05), all
businesses operating on tidelands must be permitted or under
lease. Requiring permits to operate a business on Port Tidelands
ensures businesses are all subject to the same rules/regulations.
Additionally, Permits are a mechanism to identify those properly
operating on tidelands. The use of Permit is consistent with
existing processes and is used for activities on Port leases, park,
and for conducting special events.
-9-
In-Water Hull Cleaning: Responses to Key Issues Received from the Public
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
The Permit excludes the Government which is the largest boat
owner in the Bay, which truly defeats the whole purpose of the
permit getting a cleaner Bay.
What happens/ will happen at the US Navy bases? Does the
Permit apply here?
After reading the draft permit, it appears that the permit doesn't
apply to vessels of the US Navy when at US Navy bases. Is this
correct?
I feel the fee is a bit high, explanation that the revenue is to be
directly used to better the marine environment is presented at your
meeting, I'm sure that will help mitigate concern.
In today's depressed economy creating new fees just for the sake
of raising fees in an industry that is already crippled, plus many
companies has closed their doors is a very bad decision and will
not net you your goal of a clean Bay.
Please respond to the question as to why there needs to be a “fee”
in these economic times for a permit fee for diver companies when
the Port is not hiring any more staff (head count) or extending
normal working hours. You need to justify the fee cost that will be
passed on to the boat owners.
There is concern over the permit fee. The fee is supposed to be
for processing, but does the Port have the staff to do this. If there
is no staff increase, how will the staff accomplish this?
Feel the permit process is basically paying something for nothing
and now the Port can track you.
As a boat owner and property owner in San Diego (rentals), I feel
that this is just another way to generate money for the city/county
general fund
The Permit is required for all areas under the Port’s jurisdiction.
The U.S. Naval bases and operations are not on Port Tidelands
and are under Federal authority. As such, they are not subject
to the Port’s rules and regulations. The Port does not have
jurisdictional authority over their land or operations and the
Permit does not apply to them.
A nominal fee has been shown to help level the playing field and
make sure all that are conducting business are willing to be held
accountable.
To clarify the concerns raised in the comments, the proposed
Permit fee is $250. It will cover the full term of the Permit
through April 1, 2013; it is NOT an annual fee.
The Permit Fee is not intended to be revenue generating. It will
be used to cover only time spent to process Permits.
Departments needed to process Permits: ESD, ARMS, Finance,
Clerk’s Office
While comments supported using a fee to administer education
or monitoring, it was determined that the Port cannot take
money for those reasons.
- 10 -
In-Water Hull Cleaning: Responses to Key Issues Received from the Public
Key Issue / Public Comments From Outreach
Paints
x Divers, paint manufacturers and boaters should work together to
determine appropriate cleaning for each paint/paint type and
propose methods to properly clean the different paints.
x Concerned about challenge to divers about knowing about all of
the different paint, especially with all of the new alternative paints
coming up.
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Boater has Intersleek 900 on his own boat and has been self
cleaning his own boat. He found it to be a challenge to find a
diver who could or would be willing to do what may be considered
unique cleaning requirements of Intersleek 900
Many in diving industry have embraced Intersleek 900 and other
alternative products, but application is an issue.
Divers can help reduce copper by talking to owners about
transitioning to non-copper paints.
It is hard to see inputs of copper from hard paints.
Get rid of the polluting bottom paints and what little amount of a
problem the boating community contributes to the total problem
will be gone in a few years.
Need to use non-toxic paints, because no toxin is acceptable
Education on alternatives needs to be provided to boatyards. It
can be given by coating manufacturers.
It is challenging to boater to weed through the number of different
paints available - may seem like an insurmountable task
Please provide names of plumeless paint, as believe most paints
will create plume
Need affordable alternative paints
Boaters may need more information before willing to spend money
on alternative paints
Port Response
Many public comments and diver input suggested that a diver
needs to know what kind of paint they are cleaning to clean it
correctly.
Hull cleaners and the boating community should become more
engaged in selecting the hull paints used on their boats.
BMPs standards (SDPTA, CPDA) identify different cleaning
protocols for the different types of paint. Thus, adherence to the
BMP standards requires the hull cleaner to know what paint he is
cleaning.
The Port encourages the use of non-copper hull paint products.
Several paint manufacturers are developing non-biocide products
that can serve as alternatives to copper. The Port strongly
recommends using these products.
The Port recently completed a study on safer alternative to
copper hull paints. The report evaluates non-copper hull paints
in terms of performance, longevity, and cost. It concluded that
viable alternatives are currently available for use. The report is
available on the Port’s website at
http://www.portofsandiego.org/environment/copper-reductionprogram.html.
- 11 -
In-Water Hull Cleaning: Responses to Key Issues Received from the Public
x
x
Mission Bay Paint produces a paint plume. Other similar softer
ablative paints can create the biggest paint plumes
There are some paints that are not considered ablatives but create
a plume when cleaned. This will make them uncleanable by the
new standards.
If a paint cannot be cleaned using less abrasive techniques
without the creating a visible paint plume, then they should not
be cleaned.
Several of the existing BMPs state that soft ablative hull paints
should not be cleaned. The Draft Permit supports this BMP
standard by enforcing when a visible paint plume is observed.
- 12 -
In-Water Hull Cleaning: Responses to Key Issues Received from the Public
Key Issue / Public Comments From Outreach
Miscellaneous
x Will permit be re-drafted after receiving comments?
x How will these comments (from workshop) be used by the Port?
x Who are in the Port’s internal team? Does it include any outside
people?
x Appears at times that the legal aspects are moving faster than
knowledge.
x Not enough information provided to the boat owners, need to
provide more information to them
x How many boat owners attending? Only three?
x Put permit process schedule out on “The Log” so boat owners can
become more aware and increase boater knowledge
x The benefit is not limited to boating community-but to every
citizen using the Bay.
x Doesn’t appear Port changing way cleaning is done in a way that
reduces copper in water
x If goal is to decrease pollution – need to define quantitative
objectives, so we can work towards goal.
x What alternatives are out there? How can we address the copper
issue other than through bottom paints?
x Has the Port considered other strategies, such as building a culvert
or flushing strategies
x What about all the contamination of the past years of clean sitting
on the bottom with in Shelter Island basin?
x How can the metal content go down with in the basin with how
many years of bottom cleaning?
x You might be able to cure what goes in now, but you are not doing
any thing about what is there from the past cleanings. Any basin
for that matter
Port Response
The Port’s internal team, consisting of staff from Environmental
& Land Use Management, Real Estate, Communications, Harbor
Police, Legal, and Strategic Management, has carefully reviewed
the comments and discussed the potential for Permit
modifications. The Port’s role must be consistent and changes
must be allowable based on the Port Act. When it is determined
that the comments should result in a Permit modification, it is
duly noted in the responses to comments.
In Water Hull Cleaning is only one prong of a multi-pronged
approach to the copper conditions. Other programs and actions
are underway to find and control pollution sources, evaluate
alternative hull paints, and encourage state initiatives to reduce
copper. You can find further information on the full program at
the http://www.portofsandiego.org/environment/copperreduction-program.html.
- 13 -
In-Water Hull Cleaning: Responses to Key Issues Received from the Public
x
Will there be another workshop after this workshop?
Currently there are no other public workshops prior to taking this
item before the Board. If it is determined that another workshop
is necessary, it will be publicly noticed using the same process as
was used for noticing the previous workshops (via email, web
postings, and through a press release).
- 14 -
In-Water Hull Cleaning: Responses to Key Issues Received from the Public
Key Issue / Public Comments From Outreach
Science
x Is there documentation stating divers contribute more than 5%?
Schiff (SCCRWP) report states divers contribute approximately 5%.
What data is available or references that state other value?
x Difficult to understand what the source of turbidity may be – can
we take a water sample and send it to lab to determine copper
levels? So when enforcement action is necessary in response to
paint plume, would it be possible to grab a water sample for
analysis?
x There is discrepancy in what is known and what is said about how
much copper gets into water from hull cleaning. Science from a
couple studies says it is low, but it may be higher, especially if a
copper paint is not cleaned properly. It is a complicated issue.
x There is no science that supports that input from hull cleaning is
higher that 5%
x Would like to see studies that discuss deleterious effects of copper,
how it is hazardous to marine life.
x Want to see the real science behind statements that copper is
harmful to marine environment and how the permit and BMP
standards will reduce the problem.
x While no boat owner would dispute the fact our Bay has pollutants
in it, we would dispute the main cause is from us
x Make the monitoring reports, such as reports showing toxicity,
available to everyone, Port doesn’t seem to be forthcoming with
the studies.
x Provide the “science” document that the Port and the RWQCB have
that “proves” there is a copper problem in the Yacht Basin.
x Include information as to the basis for the required permit. Rather
than merely assuming there is a significant copper problem and
passing along this assumption as seems to be happening, it would
be helpful to point to specific citations of research that establish
that there is significant copper pollution and that it comes in large
degree from hull cleaning.
Port Response
The Port has put together a compilation of scientific reports and
studies that have occurred in California and particularly in San
Diego Bay. They were conducted by various parties, including
regulatory agencies, academia, and consultants, all with a high
degree of scientific expertise in water quality (Scripps Institute of
Oceanography, Southern California Coastal Research Project, and
RWQCB). These reports present the status of the bay’s water
quality, pollution inputs, and pollution sources. Many are
focused on Copper, its sources, and its impacts on the
environment.
As a response to several comments generated during the public
comment period, the Port has put together a dedicated web
page to hold all of the scientific literature related to copper
pollution in SIYB and the bay, and will facilitate its availability to
the public. The web page is located at
http://www.portofsandiego.org/environment/copper-reductionprogram.html.
The intent is to keep this page current. As new studies/reports
become available, they will be added to the webpage.
- 15 -