The Port of Bellingham, in coordination with the City of Bellingham, is submitting an Interim Clean-Up Plan to the Department of Ecology (DOE) that would amend the existing Whatcom Waterway Consent Decree and Clean-Up Plan.The Interim Clean-Up Plan would allow the Overwater Walkway, (OWW) connecting BoulevardPark to the Cornwall Landfill, to be constructed before full clean-up of the Landfill.
The Interim Clean-Up Plan, if approved by DOE, would allow the Port to use dioxin contaminated sentiment dredged from SqualicumHarbor in the clean-up of the Cornwall Landfill. Normally, state law prohibits the re-use of contaminated sediment, but there is a special provision being cited by the Port that allows for a permit exemption for “beneficial” re-use.
The City is agreeing to this proposal because it facilitates their need to ensure the OWW is on schedule so no ear-marked federal funds are forfeited. Additionally, they also need to have the Consent Decree amended because when it was drafted in 2007, it omitted any reference to the OWW by “mistake.”
The most troubling aspect is the quiet agreements being made between the City, Port, and DOE, who all share a very cozy relationship, on matters of public health and safety. By the time information is released to the public, it is almost certain the requested amendments will have been informally approved by DOE.The Toxic Cleanup Program manager and MTCA site manager are reviewing and providing comment on the draft Interim Clean-up Plan, amendments to the Consent Decree, and the SEPA checklist, as well as written concurrence with the basic proposal concepts before this matter is released for public review and comment.
Printed below is the letter I submitted to DOE setting out my concerns, as well as hyperlinks to the documents I am relying upon as evidence.I hope others will add their voices in objecting to the re-use of dioxin contaminated sediment at the Cornwall Landfill, as well as the lack of open, transparent government indicated through these actions.
Site Manager, Bellingham Bay Demonstration Pilot Project manager
DOE, Northwest Regional Office
Toxic Clean-Up Program, NW Region
Sent via email on March 7, 2010
Dear Ms. McInerney:
The City of Bellingham Parks and Recreation Department, in coordination with the Port of Bellingham, has requested that the Department of Ecology (Toxics Cleanup Program) approve amendment of the Whatcom Waterway 2007 Consent Decree and Clean-up Action Plan (the Consent Decree), which governs remediation of the Cornwall Landfill under the Washington Model Toxic Control Act. The Parks Department requested that the Consent Decree include a “missing” reference to a future Overwater Walkway (OWW) that will connect BoulevardPark to the Cornwall Landfill. The Parks Department asserts that the OWW was included in City planning efforts since 2002, and was omitted from the Consent Decree by error. (http://bit.ly/dJFHAZ ).
This assertion is incorrect and fails to reflect the City’s true intention, which is toinclude the OWW in a proposed Interim Clean-Up Plan for the Cornwall Landfill.The draft Interim Clean-Up Plan allows development of the OWW without full remediation of the Cornwall Landfill.It may also allow re-use of dioxin contaminated sediment as part of the interim clean-up, which has not yet been disclosed to the public. (Interim Clean-Up Plan at http://bit.ly/facx1band DOE letter to Port at http://bit.ly/hNz30W and Port letter to DOE at http://bit.ly/fQpY5X; and City internal discussion regarding interim plan at http://bit.ly/e26kJN ).
Amending the Consent Decree is premature until the City reaches a settlement with the Lummi Nation regarding OWW impacts to Lummi treaty rights. Concurrence from Lummi Nation is necessary for permit approvals by the federal government.A letter from the Lummi’s does not indicate that settlement is imminent. The Lummis question whether the City has the financial ability to make a fair settlement offer.They also remain unconvinced that the OWW is either necessary or properly mitigated.(http://bit.ly/h0JqGG ).
The Parks Department alleges that the OWW has been planned since 2002.However, the documents cited by the Parks Department prior to 2008 are either drafts or visioning statements. And the City’s primary source of funding for this project, the Greenway Levy III, was not available until 2006.
The Greenway Levy III was approved by the public pursuant to special election held on May 26, 2006.The public approved this levy for “acquisition, development and maintenance of greenways, open space, parks and trails.”No specific projects, including the OWW, were identified in the language of the levy. This has not stopped the Parks Department from making allegations that the OWW was approved by public vote. (http://bit.ly/fR04yo ).
A City Council ordinance, dated March 13, 2006, includes “illustrative guidelines” of levy projects. (Ordinance 2003-03-033, above hyperlink.)The ordinance allocated 4 million dollars for a “Future Waterfront Redevelopment Trail.”This description indicates that little more was determined about the future trail other than its location within the waterfront redevelopment area.If the OWW had been an established Parks project at the time of the Greenway Levy III vote, it would have been specifically identified in the City ordinance, but it was not.Other projects, such as expansion of the Bay to Breaker trail, or the future Samish Crest Hiking trail, were specifically identified.
Moreover, the OWW violates the only requirement for the future trail… that it be located in the waterfront redevelopment district. The OWW begins at BoulevardPark and does not reach the waterfront redevelopment district until the last section of OWW lands at the Cornwall Landfill.Therefore, the funds for the OWW have not been authorized pursuant to either public vote or City Council Ordinance.
The Parks Department may have appropriated 4 million dollars from the Greenway Levy III for the OWW, but this is not synonymous with public support. The project has always been controversial. Citizens who supported the OWW were hand-picked for appointment to local committees, which subsequently revised the language used in the original levy and ordinance in order to justify the OWW.
Other documents cited by the Parks Department in support of their position include the Capital Facilities Plan; the Parks, Recreation and Open Space Plan; the City Transportation Improvement Plan; and the Waterfront District Draft Sub-Area Plan.However, the Parks Department cites to the entire document, rather than the specific provision and page within the document, which is often only one or two sentences.This fails to provide a proper context and discourages efforts to substantiate the Parks Department evidence.For example, the referenced draft 2009 SMP includes the OWW among projects that may be established or enhanced for public shoreline access. (2009 draft SMP, Page 12; http://bit.ly/f7HmxZ ). The Parks Department should be required to provide specific citation and documentation.
An underlying implication in citing these documents is also misleading. The Parks Department believes these lengthy, technical documents establish City planning efforts justifying development.These documents reflect only the City’s intent to allocate resources toward developing specific proposals. It does not establish that these proposals can actually be developed.That determination can not be made until necessary data is developed and analyzed, and public hearings required under SEPA, the SMA, the GMA, or local law, have been completed.
Nevertheless, the City is treating the OWW as a “done deal” that is not subject to question.In fact, the Staff Report for the OWW conditional use permit prepared by the Planning Department repeatedly cited to the time and resources expended on this project as justification for permit approval. It is inappropriate for the City to treat preliminary work and expense mandated under state and federal law as a valid justification for moving forward with the project, while ignoring public controversy or valid and timely raised objections.
A related and equally important concern is that the Parks Department posted information on a sign located at Boulevard Park, as well as its website and other publicly issued documents, such as the 2010 Waterfront District Draft Sub-Area Plan (Chapter 7, Pages 67, 69; http://bit.ly/f66KKv), that failed to inform the public of its rights. The public was not advised that the OWW was merely a proposed project subject to permit review and public input.
A sign was placed at BoulevardPark on May 17, 2010, prior to the public hearing under SEPA and the SMA.The sign stated that “the Boulevard Park Over-Water Walkway will connect BoulevardPark to the new Bellingham Waterfront District (former GP site). This project is included in the City Comprehensive Plan, the voter-approved Greenway Levy III, and the City’s Shoreline Master Program.”Technical details and project completion dates were listed. (http://bit.ly/hgi9YX ).By treating the OWW as an approved project, public input was discouraged.
Review of the comment tracker for the OWW documents reveals itscontroversial nature.(http://bit.ly/eJBKUr ). A frequent objection was based on the unnecessary expense of the OWW when an existing parallel multi-modal route, the SouthBay trail, already connects Fairhaven to downtown Bellingham.In addition, there is also a parallel bicycle lane on State Street.(See map at http://bit.ly/gkcQg0; and Bellingham Waterfront Lands Analysis Final Report, 2007, BST Associates, http://bit.ly/gzOxqL, Page 20) .
Finally, after the OWW is developed, the City and Port intend to construct a park on the Cornwall Landfill that will contain a shoreline trail. The Parks Department ignores the potential to connect the future park at Cornwall Landfill to the South Bay trail, although this potential is mentioned in the 2010 Waterfront District Draft Sub-Area Plan, (Chapter 7, Page 69, stating that, “this park could be accessed in the future via a pedestrian bridge over the railroad tracks from the South Bay trail.)This connector could be used in lieu of the OWW.However, neither project is a transportation necessity, as trail connectivity already exists in this area.
The totality of facts establish that the Parks Department is requesting that the Consent Decree be amended not because the OWW has an extensive planning history, but because it wants the OWW development to move forward quickly, unimpeded by obstacles such as public objection, or the Port’s plan to re-use dioxin contaminated sediment in partial remediation of the Cornwall Landfill.
I have reviewed an email indicating that you agreed to the City and Port’s request to include the OWW in the Consent Decree and have advised the Attorney General’s Office of the same. (http://bit.ly/h5grHY ).Please do not be misled by the Parks Department.If the Consent Decree is amended to include the OWW, the Parks Department will attempt to use it to squelch any public objections to the Interim Clean-Up Plan.
For the reasons above, and on behalf of the public interest, I ask that the request by the Parks Department to amend the Consent Decree be denied.
I was at the Port meeting where this was discussed, so it is not a secret.
It looks like the single largest factor that will determine the economic viability of this Waterfront Project, is the cost of removing and dumping the contaminated materials.
You are very knowledgeable on this subject, and I was hoping that you could explain some of this in regular English, so the rest of us could understand.
What should we be doing with the dredge spoils form this harbor dredging?
How contaminated is this soil? Is the containment natural, rather than man-made here locally.
All soil has some contamination from air pollution, doesn’t it?
What would you propose we do with all the contaminated materials that need cleaning up on the Waterfront?
What are the cost differences between how you would propose cleaning this up, and the current proposal?
I guess I was hoping that you had some solutions, and would keep the problem of how to pay for all of this in your mind as well, as in the end we do have to pay for this cleanup, and if the costs are astronomical, it will make it tough to come up with the money.
Please don’t read between the lines, as my questions are meant to simply obtain answers and understanding from you from your specialized knowledge in this area, not to put you on the spot.
What’s the smart way to do this cleanup considering all the critical parameters people are having to juggle?
Karl, as you are obviously aware, the contaminated sediment will come from maintenance dredging to restore navigable water depths at Floats F&G, Gate 3 in the Squalicum outer harbor. Disposing of this hazardous material is one of the Port?s routine operating costs. This is not an issue connected to remediation of MTCA sites required under the Consent Decree, or the use of Greenway Levy III funds. Muddling these issues is an attempt to inappropriately externalize operating costs to the general public. In plain English, your questions, while important, are not relevant to the OWW and clean-up of Cornwall Landfill.
The OWW, and all waterfront redevelopment district projects under the jurisdiction of the Shoreline Management Act, must be developed under ?No Net Loss? standards. There should be no development unless funds are available to meet this standard, as well as to fully remediate the development site. This is what the public was promised and what the public should be provided.
The real secret that everyone has skated on is the hydric woodwaste slurry suspended over the bottom several feet of the “concentrating eddy” of the “inner harbor”. That unhealthy smell at low tide anywhere from Squalicum Beach, past the foot foot of Cornwall, along the shore all the way to the north side of Boulevard Park is caused by a cloud of oxygen-starved, decaying logboom bark mixed with suspended pulping solids - a suffocating mass of probably dioxin-laden, long-term death.
What to do with the muck? The Legislature already approved the concept of a “Contained Aquatic Disposal”. How about filling the ASB with the stuff we shouldn’t leave in the bay? Our best experts from fourteen jurisdictions ate sandwiches at public expense for ten years to develop nine strategies for dealing with the problem. These options ranged between 160,000 o 500,000 cubic yards of removal, none of it from the ASB. Then the Port bought the property, cooked up the theory of “Natural Recovery” and by themselves in a month produced a tenth plan, leaving everything in the bay, but mucking out the ASB so they can turn Whatcom County’s best water treatment opportunity into a yacht basin.
Fooey. I have earlier referred to this idea as Bellingham’s Billion Dollar Boondoggle. Forget that, fill it up! Afterwards, place clarifiers for different regimes of industrial, sanitary and urban stormwater treatment. It is ideally located at the bottom of the major development drainages. It would intercept and treat major sanitary volumes without requiring expensive pumping to Fairhaven. It would obviate the need to do an extremely expensively, compact and technical expansion at Post Point. It could collect stormwater from most of our urbanized area - now acknowledged as the single largest threat to the nearshore habitat of the Salish Sea (not to mention salmonid survival). It could treat the sewage overflows we currently dump into the bay at the very base of the structure. It would accommodate industry and job creation.
Best of all, it comes equipped with an approved outfall in mid-bay, with its own buoy and a state approved mixing zone! What a way to win, win, win, for the environment and ratepayers.
Too bad no one will even bother to evaluate that potential. Oh well, ratepayers will probably all be able to afford yachts soon and need a berth at the Port’s new marina!
Where would you like to see the dredge spoils placed?
This language is gobbledygook to me.
connected to remediation of MTCA under the Consent Decree inappropriately externalize operating costs The OWW, and all waterfront redevelopment district projects under the jurisdiction of the Shoreline Management Act
must be developed under ?No Net Loss? standards fully remediate the development site
In plain English, your questions, while important, are not relevant to the OWW and clean-up of Cornwall Landfill
Maybe you - and we - need to face the fact that we have screwed ourselves on this. The Port screwed up. GP sold us a bridge - for $10 we bought a three hundred million dollar liability. Our community has made some bad decisions through its elected officials.
And there is no practical and cost effective solution. So for you to keep asking is actually your refusal to accept the unthinkable - that we have a gawd awful toxic waterfront that is financially impossible for us to clean up. GP offered to sell us a bill of goods. And we suckers bought it.
Shuffling toxic dirt a few hundred feet to another place on the waterfront does not fix anything. That stuff will migrate up and poison our kids and grand kids who walk and play and work down there. We have a love canal. We have a very serious mess and it will take Federal help to make it useable again.
Lucy McInerney of WA DOE has been supervising this project since 1995 - and I quit attending her meetings 10 years ago. She and DOE have still not tested the worst polluted places down there. They are still hiding how toxic our waterfront is.
There is no way for us as a community to make that place safe for humans. Doug, the answer you want does not exist. Face it.
One of the things your site brings that is valuable, is the opportunity for any one to share their view and quite frequently educate others. Many writers have gained specific knowledge in areas the rest of us only know from a distance, and have tendency to accept our government leaders or the local newspapers opinions to shape our views.
Probably more than any other forum I turn to, the writers (and readers) on NW Citizen are simply an excellent source for comprehensive information. Whether is the waterfront, land use, political, or social issues, the writers and readers surprise me with their insight that is not found in other venues.
While you and I probably agree that the Champagne flowed in Atlanta the day the Port bought the GP Site for $10, regretfully we must clean it up, as we now own it.
The key to salvaging this project without bankrupting the City, the Port, or both, will remain our responsibility forever, until we solve it.
What we need, (and so do government officials) is the wisdom of Wendy the Great to assist us in untangling this Gordian Knot.
Educate us please.
How do we solve this problem?
The public awaits people bearing solutions to our problems, and not problems to our solutions.
Many of the great leaders who sold us on this ?unbelievable, once in a lifetime opportunity? have left public service, so maybe the current crop is ready to consider new solutions.
Might as well listen to new ideas, as we don?t have the money for the old ideas.
There is no magic bullet. A positive or can do attitude will not solve that which is too large. Oh yes, the toxic mess is ours - but that does not mean there is a solution lurking somewhere that just needs to be revealed by some optimistic smart person.
$300 million would solve the problem - and it would involve shipping it all out to some Eastern Oregon place that lets toxic mush sit for hundreds of years. Or - find a company to mine the entire area for the mercury. There certainly is a lot of it. There are places down there where you can walk over it and it oozes up. Unless the Enviro agencies have covered it up with sand or asphalt to hide it from us.
Maybe $400 million is needed. Burying it under caps or sand, clay and asphalt are methods that have failed in the past (down there) and will not make the area safe for humans.
Can you handle the truth? Well, take it somewhere that humans do not walk over it. Expensive? You bet. We need Federal help. What would help is for the WA DOE and the Port to be truthful about what is down there. Being honest about your problem is the start. We as a community are still in denial.
I could be wrong, but it appears Wendy?s point with regard to the Over Water Walkway (OWW) relates to the City?s attempt to circumvent the clean up process by constructing the OWW before a full clean-up of the landfill. The City and Port and planning to incorporate the OWW as part of the ?interim? clean up plan.
Is moving forward with the OWW prior to a full clean up appropriate?
Does the Port?s re-use of dioxin contaminated sediment meet the beneficial re-use requirements?
I have not followed this issue closely, so if any one has better information, then I would gladly defer to them. The fill that will be dredged is predominantly silt directly from Squalicum Creek which runs adjacent to the Bellingham Cold Storage and sloughs into that corner of the harbor through the entrance there.
While most of this fill should be clean, one cannot assume that that is completely clean fill, as it has laid underneath the boats moored in that section of the harbor.
Whether it is bottom paint or stuff that has accidentally fallen overboard, I don’t really know for sure HOW contaminated this fill is.
One of the items that get thrown around is dioxin contamination, It is my understanding that there is naturally occurring contamination that comes from air pollution. I simply do not know of any source of dioxin pollution that could contaminate this fill form Squalicum Creek. Maybe there is something I don’t know about. In fact I am sure there is much I don’t know about, so my question is more of an open question.
The word dioxin is scary, but some dioxin is naturally occurring, or maybe a better description is common around us. Sorta like gamma rays and sunshine. I’ll take a couple of gamma rays after a long winter.
It is a question of understanding the true containments and the true risks.
Doug, I thought I already answered your question. Read on!
According to an earlier available presentation on the Sediment Management Work Group’s website, actual project costs for contaminated sediment removal range between $220 and $1,670 per cubic yard. G-P’s consultants and the multi-agency “consensus based” Bay Action Group detail options ranging between 160,000 and 1,900,000 cubic yards of sediment removal. At the low end of this comparative actual project cost scale, really cleaning up all the contaminated sediments would cost $418,000,000. The high-end, at $1670/cubic yard, would cost over $1.5 billion.
Of course, then the Port decided to leave it all in place and only muck out the ASB lagoon for their marina.
Please remember that the entire so-called clean up contemplates only 35 tons of mercury - 15 in the Chem-fix slab and maybe 20 in the bay. Based upon industry standard estimates for tons of pulp produced, G-P used somewhere between 400 and 600 tons of mercury during their tenure. Mill Manager Franklin, when pressed, told me they replaced at least 15 tons per year. Not only does no one know where it is, no one in authority will even ask for a detailed accounting.
From some of my (old= old prices) notes:
*Honeywell International has been deemed the responsible party for mercury contamination in Onondaga Lake in New York. The state alleges that for over 24 years the company dumped 165,000 pounds of mercury into the lake. The Lake is listed as a federal Superfund site. The state cleanup plan, which may take 17 years to complete, calls for the company to dredge and cap over 2,329 acres at a cost of $2.33 billion. The company is arguing for a cleanup that involves limited dredging and caps 355 acres. Honeywell’s plan would cost the company $210 million. The pollution stemmed from a former Allied Chemical plant which closed in 1986. Associated Press on 07/30/2004
*The soil at a former chlor-alkai plant in Sweden is contaminated with high levels of dioxin, lead, solvents and mercury. The facility ceased operations in 1923. Previous investigations thought that some 5.7 tonnes of soil were contaminated, however, recently these estimations increased to 15 tonnes. Cleanup is projected to cost SKR118 million (US$15.2 million).
*The ongoing cleanup of contaminated sediment in the Thea Foss waterway in Tacoma, Washington is expected to cost $62 million. There are growing concerns, however, that over time the waterway may become re-contaminated by many of the same pollutants currently being removed from the sediment. Storm drains which funnel storm water contaminated with mercury, waste oil, road tar, lawn fertilizers and other pollutants still drain onto the waterway and over time concentrations may become high enough to warrant additional cleanup. The City now spends $550,000 annually attempting to trace the contaminated run-off to the responsible parties. The Thea Foss waterway was added to the Superfund list about 20 years ago. Associated Press on 02/10/2003
*17 employees at EniChem’s Priolo, Italy facility have been arrested for deliberately causing environmental pollution. Mercury levels in wastewater being discharged by the facility has been found to have 20,000 times the amount of mercury than legally allowed and the incidence of tumors and fetal abnormalities among the local population is 5 times higher than the national average. The facility used mercury cells in the manufacture of chlorine. The Financial Times Ltd on 02/10/2003
*A federal judge in Maine ordered the former owner of a closed chemical manufacturing facility to pay for an independent study to determine if remediation of mercury contamination in the Penobscot River and Penobscot Bay is necessary and the extent of the existing harm to the river. If it is deemed necessary the company, Mallinckrodt Inc., will pay for the cleanup. Mallinckkrodt operated the facility, which made chemical products used by paper companies, from 1967 to 1982. Subsequently, defunct HoltrChem Manufacturing Inc. owned the facility from 1993 to 2000. After Holtrachem’s demise, Mallinckkrodt had agreed to dispose of 80 tons of mercury left at the site and remediate 3.7 miles of the river near the facility. The judge found that mercury in sediment down river from then facility may pose a threat to public health and the environment. Associated Press on 07/29/2002
*On July 11, 2002, it was reported that mercury contamination at and emanating from a North Carolina battery manufacturing plant will cost Duracell over $18.8 million to remediate. Mercury contamination at the plant and polluting a nearby creek was originally discovered in 1981. Since then, the company has spent $13 million to remove 30,000 tons of contaminated soil from at and around the plant. The company has already agreed to spend an additional $5.8 million to add 17 wells to the ongoing pump and treat operation to remove mercury from groundwater. The company will incur additional expenses as it must also come up with a cleanup plan to remediate more contaminated soil found on and beyond the facility’s grounds. Associated Press 7/11/02
*On July 13, 2002, it was reported that Honeywell International has finally reached an agreement with the EPA which will require the company to cleanup mercury contamination at a former HoltraChem manufacturing facility in North Carolina. Honeywell reportedly kept the factory open for more than a decade because it was cheaper to keep it open rather than face the massive cleanup costs once they closed the facility. The site, which made chlorine and caustic soda from 1963 to 2000, is contaminated with some 15 tons of Mercury must be removed from soil and groundwater as well as from piping, tanks and equipment. The cleanup may entail demolishing the facility. Former plant workers have filed suit against Honeywell alleging they suffered brain damage from inhaling mercury while working at the facility. Associated Press 7/13/02
Now, to answer your question again: How do we pay for it? By preserving the water treatment potential of the site. By possibly using it as a repository AND servicing various regimes of water treatment there. By abandoning the six-Bellis-Fairs commercial, foo foo boutique destruction of the Central Business District and focusing on jobs that add value and create wealth. By saving the rate and tax payers of Bellingham from the Billion Dollar Boondoggle that creating an unnecessary yacht basin and foreclosing on future jobs entails.
It’s really that simple. Get the Port out of the condominium and shop business and back into the business of being a port. Let’s recruit business that can pay decent wages with the surplus industrial water supply and excess water treatment capacity the public already owns. We will never pay for it by waiting on tables.
I unleashed a dragon with my questions. Thanks for the info.
I do know that local disposal is the cheapest, and while some at the Port desire the lagoon for yachts, they ain’t got $1.5 BILLION.
That is a lot of mercury unaccounted for. I’ll bet we both know exactly where it is. In the Bay.
Between the cost for treating storm-water and disposing of seriously contaminated waste, this lagoon is worth revisiting. The Devil is in the details and folks understanding in pain and honest English what we are up against.
It seems like the public needs a jargon free understanding of the issues, which brings me to Burke’s Law.
Public support and understanding is inversely proportional to the scientific jargon.
Thanks for providing some useful information. Do you happen to have links to the websites where you obtained the cost figure ($220 - $1,670 per cubic yard) and the quantity (160,000 to 1,900,000 cubic yards)? Thanks.
Also, not challenging your calculations, but wouldn?t the low end estimate of removing 160,000 cubic yards at $220 per cy cost $35.2 million. Am I missing something? Where does the $418 mil come from?
The presentation those disposal numbers were taken from used to be located on the Sediment Management Work Group’s website. The author was Paul Doody of Blasland, Bouck & Lee. I can’t find it there now. This is the old link which for some reason won’t display properly on this comment, so I am going to try to trick it here: smwg(dot)org(slash)Doody(space)-(space)Env(space)Dredging(slash)index(dot)htm
The volume numbers came from DOE and the remedial options produced by the so-called Bay Action Group, that group of 14 jurisdictions whose work of ten years was replaced by the Port’s Alternative K within a month of the $10 payment to Georgia-Pacific. The options are outlined and linked at this FOWC archive page: http://www.skookum.us/fowcweb/alternatives.htm
As to the cost range, you’re right. I quickly lifted this stuff from earlier work at http://www.skookum.us/fowcweb/costs.htm There, I was looking at the cost range for the big clean up, writing,
“According to a presentation on the Sediment Management Work Group’s website, actual project costs for contaminated sediment removal range between $220 and $1,670 per cubic yard. G-P’s consultants and the multi-agency “consensus based” Bay Action Group detail options ranging between 160,000 and 1,900,000 cubic yards of sediment removal. At the low end of this comparative actual project cost scale, really cleaning up all the contaminated sediments would cost $418,000,000. The high-end, at $1670/cubic yard, would cost over $1.5 billion.”
Doug and Tip, this is not about the costs of redeveloping the waterfront. If that is your interest, post your own article, but do not attempt to ignore the inconvenient truth regarding the City and Port?s attempt to mislead the public regarding the OWW and site remediation.
Since you refuse to accept my word, maybe you will accept the statements of the Port and City taken from the hyperlinks I provided. The Port advised the City attorney it was proposing an ?interim action at the Cornwall landfill? for the ?placement and beneficial reuse of material from the Gate 3 dredging and float replacement project.?
The City attorney then advised staff members about the ?Port’s proposal to perform an interim action at the Cornwall Avenue Landfill Site. They are proposing placing materials dredged from the marina on the Site for a number of reasons. As this Site may someday become a public park and is included in the Waterfront District, I wanted to make sure that the placement of this material and design of its placement did not present issues related to future land use activities.?
Parks Project Engineer Gina Austin then advised that, ?I don?t see any fatal flaw other than the possible impacts of installing upland piling for the OWW.. there is the possibility that we would be driving piles through the cap and liner proposed by the Port.?
The Port submitted an Interim Action Preliminary Site Plan to DOE. DOE stated that it did not identify any fatal flaws, but advised that this ?does not indicate that Ecology agrees that a dioxins/furans soil cleanup level for industrial use is appropriate.?
DOE listed a number of potential concerns: 1) demonstration must be made that contaminants in the material will not exacerbate groundwater problems at the site. This should consider not just the immediate drainage from the spoils but any leaching over time as the material is exposed to air. Sediments are typically in an anaerobic state. When brought to an upland condition, they will be exposed to air. This could release metals currently tied up in the sediment. This may require a pilot project, and 2) the weight of the material may squeeze out leachate from the landfill, increasing the leachate head within the waste and increasing discharges until this head dissipates. This may require installation of a leachate collection system, and 3) Landfill gas may be pushed out by consolidation of the waste. Gas monitoring should be stepped up and a plan in place to extract gas, should the monitoring show a problem.
From Puerto Vallarta, I’m just wondering if anyone has proposed filling those empty gondolas rumbling through town around the clocclock with this stuff? Hope all the text I entered survives tthe site software. Thanks.
16 Comments