Seafood processors seek limited mixing zones for bacteria limits; DEQ says dash-1 narrows pathway, conservation groups urge safeguards

House Bill 3,814, as amended (dash-1), would require the Environmental Quality Commission and the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) to allow a portion of a receiving water body to be treated as a mixing zone for bacteria criteria in permits for seafood processors. The issue centers on how bacteria indicators established to protect recreational contact and shellfish harvesting are applied where the effluent originates from processing cold‑blooded seafood rather than warm‑blooded sources.

Lori Steele, executive director of the West Coast Seafood Processors Association, told the committee processors are not seeking an exemption from bacteria limits but are seeking a reasonable permitting pathway that accounts for the lower human-health risk associated with bacteria from nonhuman sources. "By not differentiating between human and nonhuman sources, the rule implies a false equivalency of risk," she said, adding the industry had worked with DEQ on the dash‑1 language.

Amy Wentworth, senior director of environmental health and safety for Pacific Seafood, said seafood processors already follow strict food‑safety and sanitizing protocols and that indicator bacteria such as fecal coliform are associated with warm‑blooded animals, not seafood. She cited an EPA review recognizing a much lower risk signaled by indicator bacteria from nonhuman sources and said a mixing zone would still require best available treatment technology.

Nut graf: DEQ officials told the committee they have no formal position on the bill but have worked with industry to develop the dash‑1 amendment and believe it narrows the focus sufficiently to allow permitting that protects public health and the environment. Conservation and recreational water‑quality advocates, however, urged additional sideboards and site‑specific safeguards.

Ryan (DEQ) said the agency’s permitting staff engaged with industry over the last 12–18 months and that other West Coast states have found ways to provide mixing‑zone options under limited circumstances for bacteria from cold‑blooded sources. He told the committee the dash‑1 amendment provides a narrowed approach that DEQ believes could allow protective permits to be issued. DEQ emphasized permits must still protect beneficial uses of the receiving water body, such as recreation and aquaculture.

Charlie Plyman of Surfrider Foundation said the organization could not support the current draft because he had not had sufficient time to discuss requested public-health sideboards with the bill’s proponents and DEQ; he requested additional site‑specific source tracking and other measures consistent with neighboring states’ approaches.

The industry warned that without a clear pathway for mixing zones seafood processors would face permit limits they could not meet, potentially forcing some operations to close. "Without a mixing zone and without the availability of a treatment technology to meet the human fecal source standards, we will not be able to operate with a viable permit," Lori Steele told the committee.

Ending: Committee questions focused on whether treatment upgrades were feasible and on whether the dash‑1 language provides adequate protection for recreational and shellfish uses. DEQ said it would continue technical work with industry and stakeholders; no vote was taken March 20.