Puget Sound Nutrient General Permit Formal Public Comment Period

Submitted By

413 Results

Search Type

Sort:

Sort Results By

Comment From: Leigh Bangs

7/22/21 @ 12:00 AM

THIS EMAIL ORIGINATED FROM OUTSIDE THE WASHINGTON STATE EMAIL SYSTEM - Take caution not to open attachments or links unless you know the sender AND were expecting the attachment or the linkDear Ms. Ott,Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the ...↓Puget Sound Nutrient General Permit. Clean water is important to me personally, and we are glad to see the Department of Ecology requiring Puget Sound utilities to transition to more protective sewage treatment standards. As you know, many cities and counties have already implemented nutrient-removal technology, from Shelton to Spokane. It’s time for all utilities in the region to step up and to do so quickly. While we want this permit to move forward, we would also like to call your attention to three areas of improvement that are needed:1. Seattle, King County, and Tacoma are the largest dischargers, contributing over 70% of the nitrogen load, and they need to move further and faster during this permit term. They need to implement actual reductions in the next five years while also developing Nutrient Reduction Evaluation with a deadline of construction by 2030 to avoid them extending this out multiple decades.2. The nutrient load action levels remain too permissive. Ecology set these at the 99th percentile upper confidence limit of current loads, even though no one advocated for this permissive of a statistic. This inadvertently allows tons of nitrogen pollution above safe levels for Puget Sound to protect a number that simply triggers planning activities.3. Ecology should not delegate responsibility for determining what represents “reasonable” technology to individual plants. Ecology must maintain the responsibility to determine what constitutes “All Known and Reasonable Technology.”In closing, while you may hear false claims that the science is uncertain or that cleaning up sewage really won’t make a big difference, please know that I disagree. Now is the time to reduce sewage pollution. Puget Sound, its waters, and the communities that rely on it deserve this protection.While I haven't worked in the industry in a long time, I do have a master's degree in environmental engineering, and I do think tertiary treatment is the right thing for all of Puget Sound, particularly when we are trying to literally "save the whales," or orcas in this case, oyster beds, salmon, recreational beaches, etc.Sincerely, Leigh Bangs 4314 193rd Ave SEIssaquah, WA 98027

No attachments

Comment From: Peggy Butler

7/22/21 @ 12:00 AM

No attachments

Comment From: Mark Blitzer

7/22/21 @ 12:00 AM

THIS EMAIL ORIGINATED FROM OUTSIDE THE WASHINGTON STATE EMAIL SYSTEM - Take caution not to open attachments or links unless you know the sender AND were expecting the attachment or the linkDear Ms. Ott,Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the ...↓Puget Sound Nutrient General Permit. Clean water is important to me personally, and I am glad to see the Department of Ecology requiring Puget Sound utilities to transition to more protective sewage treatment standards. As you know, many cities and counties in our state have already implemented nutrient-removal technology, from Shelton to Spokane. It’s time for all utilities in the region to step up and to do so quickly. I hadn't realized that King County Metro is so lacking in advanced sewage treatment upgrades! Especially given the recent failures at West Point in Seattle where raw sewage has been discharged into Puget Sound more than once.While we want this permit to move forward, we would also like to call your attention to three areas of improvement that are needed:1. Seattle, King County, and Tacoma are the largest dischargers, contributing over 70% of the nitrogen load, and they need to move further and faster during this permit term. They need to implement actual reductions in the next five years while also developing Nutrient Reduction Evaluation with a deadline of construction by 2030 to avoid them extending this out multiple decades.2. The nutrient load action levels remain too permissive. Ecology set these at the 99th percentile upper confidence limit of current loads, even though no one advocated for this permissive of a statistic. This inadvertently allows tons of nitrogen pollution above safe levels for Puget Sound to protect a number that simply triggers planning activities.3. Ecology should not delegate responsibility for determining what represents “reasonable” technology to individual plants. Ecology must maintain the responsibility to determine what constitutes “All Known and Reasonable Technology.”In closing, while you may hear false claims from some parties that the science is uncertain or that cleaning up sewage really won’t make a big difference, please know that I disagree. Now is the time to reduce sewage pollution. Puget Sound, its waters, and the communities that rely on it deserve this protection.Sincerely, Mark Blitzer 8047 Earl Ave NWSeattle, WA 98117

No attachments

Comment From: Leslie Yamada

7/22/21 @ 12:00 AM

No attachments

Comment From: Claudia Hevel

7/22/21 @ 12:00 AM

THIS EMAIL ORIGINATED FROM OUTSIDE THE WASHINGTON STATE EMAIL SYSTEM - Take caution not to open attachments or links unless you know the sender AND were expecting the attachment or the linkDear Ms. Ott,Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the ...↓Puget Sound Nutrient General Permit. Clean water is important to me personally, and we are glad to see the Department of Ecology requiring Puget Sound utilities to transition to more protective sewage treatment standards. As you know, many cities and counties have already implemented nutrient-removal technology, from Shelton to Spokane. It’s time for all utilities in the region to step up and to do so quickly. While we want this permit to move forward, we would also like to call your attention to three areas of improvement that are needed:1. Seattle, King County, and Tacoma are the largest dischargers, contributing over 70% of the nitrogen load, and they need to move further and faster during this permit term. They need to implement actual reductions in the next five years while also developing Nutrient Reduction Evaluation with a deadline of construction by 2030 to avoid them extending this out multiple decades.2. The nutrient load action levels remain too permissive. Ecology set these at the 99th percentile upper confidence limit of current loads, even though no one advocated for this permissive of a statistic. This inadvertently allows tons of nitrogen pollution above safe levels for Puget Sound to protect a number that simply triggers planning activities.3. Ecology should not delegate responsibility for determining what represents “reasonable” technology to individual plants. Ecology must maintain the responsibility to determine what constitutes “All Known and Reasonable Technology.”In closing, while you may hear false claims that the science is uncertain or that cleaning up sewage really won’t make a big difference, please know that I disagree. Now is the time to reduce sewage pollution. Puget Sound, its waters, and the communities that rely on it deserve this protection.although I do not live in Washington State now, I grew up there and both of my children and my father live there. This is very important to me.Sincerely, Claudia Hevel 1001 Suffolk WayLos Altos, CA 94024

No attachments

Comment From: David Habib

7/22/21 @ 12:00 AM

No attachments

Comment From: Tom Weir

7/22/21 @ 12:00 AM

No attachments

Comment From: Wendy Eakle

7/22/21 @ 12:00 AM

No attachments

Comment From: Anonymous Anonymous

7/20/21 @ 8:35 AM

Very disappointed to see after all of the meetings, workshops, time put in on following Ecology and the Preliminary Draft Permit that the Action Levels changed by a reduction of 6000 lbs/year from the Preliminary Draft to the Draft. I feel this is di...↓

No attachments

Comment From: City of Sequim (Pete Tjemsland)

7/14/21 @ 5:50 AM

The treatment facilities with outfalls west of Point Wilson (Port Townsend WA) Should not be included in this permit or discussion. We are all outside of Puget Sound. Please remove us from this permit and discussion.

Thanks

Pete

No attachments

Comment From: WASWD (Judi Gladstone)

7/02/21 @ 5:51 AM

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: Erica Fot

6/28/21 @ 3:24 PM

In Section S4, it is recommended to spell out TIN at least initially.

No attachments

Comment From: Joe Dell

1/25/19 @ 12:00 AM

I would like to see the following….. And further more….. Also please consider….

No attachments

[ Previous Page / Next Page ]