The Cornwall Landfill is contaminated with hazardous waste. The Washington Model Toxic Control Act (MTCA), enacted by Initiative, requires the investigation and clean-up of contaminated sites to protect human health and the environment. As a temporary solution, the Port and City of Bellingham are proposing an “Interim Action,” which is an early action that will result in partial cleanup. The port and city are seeking approval from the Washington Department of Ecology (DOE) to cap part of the site to reduce stormwater run-off. The public is not being advised that this cap will contain dioxin-contaminated sediment dredged from Squalicum Harbor.

DOE recently opened a public comment period on the proposal, which will expire July 6, 2011. However, when relevant information is not disclosed there is no meaningful opportunity for comment and participation. Materials drafted by DOE for the public fail to state that the level of dioxin in the dredged sediment exceeds permitted levels for open water disposal, or direct contact for unrestricted land use.

To find this information, the public must wade through the Amendment to the Consent Decree, a lengthy legal and technical document that incorporates the interim agreement. Although the Amendment is hyperlinked on the DOE website, it is unlikely the general public will read the entire document. Even if the document is reviewed, it does not contain clear, unequivocal language that can be readily understood. (See Sec. 2.3.2 of the Amendment.) It should not require special technical expertise to understand what will occur during an interim agreement, and if it does, DOE should use plain English to educate the general public.

Some information is simply not reflected in the Amendment to the Consent Decree at all. For example, the contaminated sediment requires a special permit exemption from DOE under “beneficial reuse” regulations. However, the beneficial reuse provisions are not addressed or analyzed to establish they are being properly applied. It is questionable whether the regulations authorize the beneficial reuse of sediment containing dioxin, a persistent hazardous waste, on a site slated for high-use, medium density recreational, residential and commercial shoreline redevelopment.

Dioxin is exceeded in toxicity only by radioactive waste. There is no known safe dose or "threshold" below which dioxin will not cause cancer. The EPA is still in the process of developing remediation technologies for the cleanup of dioxin-contaminated soils and sediments. It enters the food chain and accumulates in the fatty tissues of humans and animals.

Other information is not explained in a complete context. The public notice states that dredged material will be trucked to 300 W. Laurel for “handling” before being placed at the Cornwall site. This site will be used to dry and “de-water” the sediment, exposing dioxin to air and land, increasing the likelihood that dioxin will contaminate the environment. It is contrary to any waste management protocol to move dioxin contaminated sediment to multiple locations because it can move between water, air, and soil. As previously noted by DOE, the cleanup of dioxin contaminated sites can itself be a potential source of dioxin exposure.

The technology proposed for the sediment cap at the Cornwall Landfill is intended to protect against stormwater run-off. It does not adequately protect against environmental exposure to dioxin. A waterproof plastic sheet will be placed over the sediment cap, which will be held in place with sandbags. The plastic sheet has an expected life of 5 years, while the half-life of dioxin is substantially longer. And the port and city are on record as having no source of funding for a full cleanup of the 12 Waterfront MTCA sites, including the Cornwall Landfill.

In an attempt to keep remediation and redevelopment costs low, the port, city and DOE are willing to endanger public health and environmental safety. Cleanup levels are meant to apply to a contaminated site, not to the materials used as part of the cleanup solution. These facts are not being clearly and directly disclosed to allow for an open community discourse. Relates issues, such as the equity of publicly subsidizing port operating expenses, or requiring habitat restoration as part of the interim action, are not being discussed.

Unfortunately, it is clear DOE intends to approve this action. It has been engaged in discussion and review of the interim agreement with the port, the city and their attorneys and consultants for the last 7 months, but provided public notice only in the last two weeks. Construction, which is due to begin in September, was scheduled to accommodate the port prior to the public comment period being opened. This indicates that public comment is not anticipated to have any impact on the interim agreement.

If you believe the public has a right to be informed and participate in the public process, and/or do not believe that dioxin should be used as a part of an interim cleanup action, please contact the Bellingham City Council, the mayor, the port and DOE and voice your concerns before July 6, 2011. citycouncil@cob.org; dpike@cob.org; mikes@portofbellingham.com; RSWA461@ECY.WA.GOV.

Summary of what DOE, the port, and city do not want you to know:

1. The Interim Agreement will use dioxin contaminated sediment dredged from Squalicum Harbor to “cap” the Cornwall Landfill.
2. Dioxin is one of the most toxic substances known. It has an extremely long half-life, readily enters the food chain, and is difficult to destroy. It can enter the environment through water, air, or soil. It causes cancer in humans and impacts reproductive functions.
3. The interim action fails to meet normal Method B cleanup levels for dioxin/furans. DOE has not determined if less protective cleanup levels will be authorized, but since they have allowed the interim agreement to proceed this far, this is the most likely outcome.
4. The interim action could result in dioxin/furans leaching into the groundwater from a number of events, including: a rise in groundwater levels, shoreline flooding, earthquake, landslide, or liquefaction of the landfill.
5. The Interim Agreement was proposed after updated DOE standards for open water disposal prevented the port from using this disposal method for its required maintenance dredging. Upland disposal is much more expensive.
6. This action is being proposed to save the cost of purchasing new upland sediment, even though the use of sediment cap is not an established action under the final cleanup plan.
7. The contaminated sediment will be placed on a site planned for high-use, medium density recreational, residential, and commercial shoreline redevelopment. There will be public parks, shoreline trails, and public access to the water at this site.
8. The port will use a plastic sheet, with a 5-year useful life, to cover the dioxin contaminated sediment cap. The sheet will be held in place with sandbags.
9. The contaminated sediment will be spread on another waterfront site before it is relocated to the Cornwall Landfill. Sediment containing dioxin should not be moved to various locations because of increased chance of environmental contamination.
10. The port and city have not been required to identify a funding source for final site cleanup, although they have previously stated they lack funds to proceed with waterfront MTCA cleanup.
11. Total cubic yards of sediment used in the cap will be determined based on bid results for marina maintenance dredging, and will be between 24,000 and 40,000 cubic yards. There is no requirement the sediment cap be the optimal amount required on the site.
12. Use of the sediment will require a MTCA permit exemption under “beneficial reuse” provisions. There is no analysis to establish whether requirements for beneficial reuse are met. It is questionable whether beneficial reuse provisions were intended to apply to dioxin.
13. The Interim Agreement is exempt from normal state and local permits, but must still comply with substantive requirements. However, the Interim Agreement fails to correctly analyze the applicable legal standards under the Shoreline Management Act, the Bellingham Critical Area, the federal Clean Water Act, etc.
14. The city advised the port that development of the Cornwall Overwater Bridge may require piercing the environmental cap (the plastic sheet) that overlays the dioxin contaminated sediment. The Port responded that “any party that wants to develop a project within any of the Waterfront District sites needs to pull their own weight. For example, if a developer wants to build on the Cornwall Landfill site, or somewhere on GP West, they need to design their project to be consistent with the defined institutional controls and monitoring requirements.” In other words, it appears there will not be adequate oversight for future development, despite contrary assurances to DOE.
15. DOE, the port and the city have been engaged in negotiations and discussions for at least 7 months and the parties have already reached agreement. The public comment period was opened in June and will expire in July. Construction on the action was scheduled for September, before the public comment period even commenced. Public comment is an empty but required formality.