Around noon on Saturday at Fisherman's Terminal, a crewmember aboard the fishing trawler Enterprise turned on the boat's winch from inside the engine room. He returned to the deck and saw hydraulic fuel leaking from a loose hose. He shut off the system immediately, but several gallons spilled into Salmon Bay.

Many of the crewmembers were on hand, and reacted quickly to contain the spill before it became too thin to clean up.

The crewmember admitted not tightening the hydraulic fuel hose enough, said Dick Walker, a spill response supervisor for the state's Department of Ecology.

"At some point, they got some booms around," Walker said as he inspected the clean up efforts. "That's what saved the day, and kept it from spreading around Salmon Bay."

Booms are floating tubes that help to contain spills in calm conditions.

A kayaker paddled by a few hundred feet away, oblivious to the minor spill.

Much of the boom used to contain the Enterprise's spill came from Ballard Oil, located across Salmon Bay. A crewmember pulled up in his pickup truck, and said he needed oil diapers (absorbent towels) and boom sections. The owner, Warren Aakervik, hustled over to a weathered wooden warehouse piled high with parts and equipment.

The two men moved quickly, but methodically, kicking up dust inside the warehouse. After a few minutes, the truck bed was packed with bags of oil diapers and booms.

The Department of Ecology recently gave the Port of Seattle three spill response kits including booms and other tools to be kept at Fisherman's Terminal. It was part of a $1.45 million grant approved by the Legislature.

None of that equipment was used, though, according to Walker. It was not clear why it was not used.

Walker and Jack McLean, a spill response consultant called in by the Enterprise, praised the actions of the crew. As they pointed out some oil diapers that had escaped the boom, the pair saw evidence of another, unrelated spill from an unknown source. This was older and too spread out to effectively contain. The only way to get rid of it was let it evaporate.

Crowded Waterway

The Enterprise spill is characteristic of many of the environmental issues facing the waterway connecting Puget Sound and Lake Washington.

"I see oil slicks floating by all the time down there," said Tom Bayley, CEO of CD Stimson, which owns waterfront property on the Ship Canal. Bayley is also a board member of Puget Soundkeepers Alliance, an environmental advocacy group.

Marinas, industry, recreational and commercial boats and Chinook salmon all share the waterway linking Puget Sound to Lake Washington. They share a peaceful, but oftentimes tense, coexistence.

Salmon Bay's and Lake Union's water quality has been a point of contention between environment groups and industry advocates in the past. The state and city are both in the process of implementing their own significant policy revisions that will affect the waterway.

The first part of new state fuel and oil spill regulations took effect on Nov. 25. The last portion will go into effect next October and is the most contentious regulation: pre-booming ships. This requires placing a boom to contain fuel in the water prior to fueling.

In the wake of the Point Wells spill on Dec. 30, 2003, the Legislature mandated a zero-spill program by 2006. The regulations only cover loading and unloading oil from commercial ships. Recreational boats are not included, even though they account for the greatest number of refuelings in the state each year. They typically use gasoline, which is less toxic than heavier fuels.

The new regulations do include refueling from trucks, which is becoming increasingly popular in the maritime industry.

The Legislature has not set aside any money for achieving its zero-spill goal, and spill response teams are already undermanned.

The Department of Ecology "doesn't have the manpower to respond," said Bayley. "All they can do is throw out little towels."

Walker's Spill Response Team has five members and is responsible for the northern Puget Sound district, which encompasses seven counties. Their effectiveness depends a great deal on local groups' response to spills.

Critics say the rules are a knee jerk response that is overly intrusive, costly and does not address the problems.

The real cause of oil spills is complacency, says Aakervik.

"I don't understand how someone could get so complacent in their job that they didn't maintain their gear," Aakervik said of the Point Wells spill. He is the single largest provider of fuel and oil on Salmon Bay and Lake Union, and prides himself on his company's safety record.

"I don't want you to believe you're not going to spill when you come to this facility," Aakervik said. "I want you to think you're going to, and be ready to deal with it if you do."

Walker sees it from a different angle: "It's like a seat belt. When is the best time to put a seat belt on? Right before a crash or when you get in the car?"

Most spills now are small, Walker said. "Fifty to one hundred gallons, that's a huge spill for industry these days."

The new regulations would not have affected the Enterprise spill, said Walker.

The new regulations, though, are written with larger spills in mind. It is a matter of risk assessment, according to Walker. The chances of a large spill are remote, but what are the consequences?

Some critics see it as a risk assessment issue, too.

"Of all the fuel transfers we've done here since 1961, I can't think of one that would've been helped by pre-booming," said Aakervik. Last year, Ballard Oil conducted 1,452 transfers and had three spills, all of which were one to two gallons in size. Recreational boats were responsible for two of the spills.

Pre-booming would be a greater risk, according to Aakervik, because it requires a person in a skiff working around docks and commercial fishing vessels.

"If I saw someone at my dock not doing what I told them, I wouldn't pre-boom," Aakervik said. "I wouldn't let them fuel."

The new spill regulations do not cover those that occur on land, which are the responsibility of the Washington Department of Transportation and local fire departments.

Shoreline Mitigation

The city of Seattle is currently writing the Shoreline Alternative Mitigation Plan. The goal is to protect Chinook salmon migrating through Salmon Bay and the Ship Canal while simplifying and shortening the permitting process for shoreline construction.

The Shoreline Alternative Mitigation Plan is under the auspices of the Manufacturing and Maritime Task Force and Restore Our Waters project, both of which are in Mayor Nickels' office. Funding is coming from the Office of Economic Development.

The plan "really focuses on the most common impacts of bulkheads, overhead coverage, removing vegetation, dredging, changing the slope or depth of the shoreline," said Jim Holmes, a planner at the Department of Planning and Development.

Indirect factors, such as street runoff, are not being considered.

"I don't think we can cover everything," Holmes said.

The new plan would not change whether or not mitigation is required. It offers an alternative way for applicants to fulfill the mitigation requirements.

"We're not reducing or increasing (shoreline protection), just offering an alternative," said Holmes.

Building a dock would still require mitigation, but it wouldn't have to on the same property.

"None of that would change under the Shoreline Alternative Mitigation Plan, except we'd have a more consistent way of enforcing it," Holmes said.

The existing plan was faulted for its inconsistent and unpredictable implementation, which is acknowledged in the preliminary plan available to the public.

Western Towboat, Inc. experienced this unpredictability when it applied for a building permit in 2003, and found out in the final meeting with the city, they would have to landscape an area on their property in order to get the permit. After several years, they came to an agreement with the city.

"The business community thinks this is a good thing," said John Kane, chairman of the Ballard/Interbay-Northend Manufacturing Center Action Committee. The industrial businesses that ring the shore have to make long-term investments in heavy machinery and facilities. A more predictable permitting process will make it easier for them to make investment decisions.

Mitigation projects carried out by the city would require minimal ongoing maintenance.

"In most cases we're talking physical changes, removing bulkheads and making shoreline water shallower," Holmes said. "We're not trying to create wetlands."

Whatever long-term care is required would be the city's responsibility, though maintenance fees are built into the process.

Failed alternative projects would be the city's responsibility, as well, Holmes said. Once an applicant pays in, it is relieved of its responsibility.

Holmes does not expect to see many businesses opt for off-site mitigation.

Runoff from public and private property is another problem in Salmon Bay and Lake Union. Boatyards have been required to collect their runoff, which can include the paint flakes when a boat gets "a cut and a shave." That is when a boat is taken out of the water and overhauled, and can include grinding off the paint on its hull and giving it a fresh coat.

Like other shipyards, Western Towboat, Inc. has built collection and drainage systems. However it is also responsible for collecting the runoff from two city streets that abut its property.

"I don't know why I should be responsible for the city's runoff," Shrewsbury said, co-owner of Western Towboat, Inc.

Dan Catchpole can be contacted via bnteditor@robinsonnews.com

Dan Catchpole

12/03/2006