Today, the Bellingham City Council is being asked to authorize an ordinance, drafted by staff, amending the budget to include a DOE grant to remediate the R.G. Haley site. Normally, such matters do not warrant much consideration.  However, in the case of R.G. Haley, a very toxic shoreline site adjacent to the Cornwall Avenue Landfill, I have concerns about how the grant will be spent.  

In particular, it is important to ensure that some of the funding is not spent for an interim action, a temporary action allowed under the Model Toxic Control Act prior to clean up of a contaminated site.  This allows development to occur on a site before remediation is complete.  In this case, there is a possibility the grant would be used to extend the interim clean-up action occurring at Cornwall Avenue Landfill to R.G. Haley.  A provision in the ordinance drafted for city council approval, reflected as “Task 3,” would permit this to occur.

This is problem because the interim action at the Cornwall Landfill involves the use of dioxin-contaminated sediment dredged from Squalicum Harbor, Gate 3, by the port after the sediment was determined to be too contaminated for open-water disposal.  It was convenient for the port to dispose of this toxic material at the Cornwall site because upland disposal is extremely expensive.  The city foolishly agreed to accept this sediment to save the expense of purchasing clean, nontoxic dirt during future reconstruction of a public shoreline park, as well as residential and commercial development.  

The port, the city and DOE entered into an interim agreement at Cornwall Landfill ostensibly because the dioxin contaminated sediment is “temporarily” needed to prevent water quality degradation.  As a practical matter, risk of contamination from removing the dumped dredge, and the cost and logistics of relocation to an approved upland disposal facility, makes the toxic sediment a permanent part of the Cornwall site.

The public was never advised that the dredged sediment is too contaminated to meet normal health standards for carcinogenic exposure.  Instead, the port quietly requested that DOE authorize “onsite containment of hazardous substances” above permissible MTCA cleanup levels for future residential and recreational shoreline use. (Amendment to Agreed Order, Page 2-4, 2-5.)  If approved by DOE, this will raise human exposure to persistent bio-accumulative toxins 100 fold.  (And the “safe” level established by Washington state has been established through updated studies to be too low.)

The amount of sediment dumped at the Cornwall site was based on what the port needed to dredge, not the amount of sediment necessary for redevelopment activities.  A large mountain of dioxin-contaminated sediment, covered in plastic held in place with sandbags, currently sits at Cornwall.  It appears to be a greater volume than the site can accommodate. There will be a likely attempt to spread the toxic dirt to the R.G. Haley site, which will be justified as another necessary interim action.  

The major distinction between the two sites is that the port is the primary lead for the Cornwall Landfill, while the city is the primary lead for the R.G. Haley site.  If the clean-up level is reduced at the R.G. Haley site, the city will need to make the request to DOE.  Because transparency has been lacking throughout the waterfront development process, the public needs to be informed of plans and proposals for R.G. Haley to ensure that dioxin is not being spread over an even greater area of the waterfront.