Excellent article. Exposing Kershner’s fake news and racist statement should be material for front page article’s in Bellingham’s local newspapers.

Elisabeth,

Thanks so much for taking the time and making the effort to carefully investigate these awful accusations against Satpal Sidhu. I am not surprised to find that these claims from his political opponent are completely unsupported.

On a personal level, I have gotten to know Satpal over the past couple of years, mostly to talk about local water issues. Satpal and I often disagree on problem definitions and solutions, but we always enjoy interesting and respectful conversations. I think Satpal is a decent, very well intentioned public servant, and I am glad that he serves the public interest on the Whatcom County Council.

Aside from the usual  Whatcom County smear, the despicable attack does reveal that this site apparently is still leaching, leaking, flooding toxic waste into the flloundering herring beds.  Many barrells of toxins leaching into ditches and possible injection wells left abandoned?

Keven Ranker and Doug Erickson can work together turn this nasty lemon into lemonade and insist that DOE actually do its job and clean up the mess now.    Its been almost 20 years of leaching.  Erickson can put his environmental credentials from WWU to work on this on going toxic leak crisis!

At least something good can come of this. 

Nice reporting, as usual.

If this is ‘smear’, it’s the best-documented smear I’ve ever seen. Clearly the industrial-scale activities leading to the environmental degredation occurred on Mr Sidhu’s watch (have you seen the pictures from that time, and the statements of EPA that no remedies were taken from their earlier site visit when Sidhu was running the show - apparently for years?). “VP of Operations” is not a title that is without the burden of responsibility and accountability.

Ok, let’s give him the benefit of the doubt. Will be interested to see Mr. Sidhu’s actual documentation - in this forum, I presume - of his efforts to remedy this. For me, it’s not about what Kershner or Britt or Sidhu says. Right now it’s about what the very plain documents from that time show us.

Hello Sam,

Believe it or not, I spent several hours reviewing the documents listed on the DOE TreOil Cleanup site before writing this article. Let me share an excerpt from one of the documents I reviewed that I believe identifies for the record, who owned TreOil; and, who Whatcom County and the Washington Department of Ecology ultimately determined is/was responsible for the cleanup of former TreOil site. I hope that you and other NW Citizen readers find it as interesting as I did.

The excerpt begins at the bottom of page 2 of the DOE Water Compliance Inspection Report (HWTR) dated July 11, 2006. 0n the Department of Ecology Cleanup website. The entry was compiled by Doug Knutson, one of several DOE inspectors who visited the site. 

Removal of Boneyard:

A large amount of disused industrial/commercial equipment/debris, such as vehicles, tanks, piping, boilers, refrigeration equipment, trailers, sandblast grit, and refractory concrete dust/chunks has been accumulated on the site. Some of the equipment was brought onsite recently by TG Energy for use in the planned biodiesel production operation. Some of the equipment, particularly boilers, in-place piping, and the fractional tower, is associated with the Tall Oil Plant formerly operated by TreOil. Other materials, such as the accumulation of yellow grease and black grease is associated, according to Mr. Caleb, with the recently aborted plan by another company (Whole Energy) to start a biodiesel plant on site. Some material is associated with the incinerator manufacturing business conducted by Enerwaste. Additional structures and material on site, such as the temporary sandblast structure, and equipment shed appear to be associated with business ventures that Mr. Caleb was not familiar with. Other material, including abandoned vehicles, working vehicles, and a container full of equipment appear to be associated with employees of Enerwaste (Tom Dutcher/David Sullivan). In addition, a vehicle and trailer onsite appear to be associated with an acquaintance of principles or employees of either Enerwaste or Whole Energy. Mr. Sullivan was also cited by Mr. Caleb as working  for TG Energy, although it is not clear whether in the capacity of an employee or contractor. In addition to the Tall Oil, incinerator manufacture and abortive grease-to-fuel operation, a sandblast operation was conducted under a temporary structure, and a large number of bags of bagged sandblast grit has been accumulated. TG Energy asked the inspectors whether the site would have to have all materials removed prior to start-up of production. There appear to be three types of cleanup issues associated with this property, each which should be addressed separately.

Page 3.

The first involves the removal of abandoned equipment and non-hazardous materials onsite. My understanding from the discussions was that Whatcom County may authorize start-up of operations prior to completion of cleanup operations, provided that the removal of abandoned equipment and materials on-site proceeds in a reasonably expeditious manner, and in accordance with a schedule acceptable to the County. Much of the abandoned material on-site must be removed, not only to provide room to conduct the biodiesel operation, but also to comply with provisions of a Whatcom County Ordinance which only allows accumulation of disused equipment if it is associated with the operation of the industrial facility conducted at the site. Mr. Caleb made known his wish that the regulatory agencies issue compliance orders with compliance timelines so that he could use this as a justification to expedite removal of the extraneous materials and equipment by the other parties involved. Mr. Mak Kaufman noted in his separate report that covered the stormwater aspects of the site: “From the perspective of Ecology’s National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) construction and industrial stormwater general permit regulations and the Water Pollution Control Act (RCW 90.48) regulations there is nothing that would prohibit TG Energy from producing biodiesel onsite while any potential required clean-up actions are taking place.”

And, finally, an “ Oily water in sumps at building containing two boilers. Sump at the corners of the north end of this building contained an oily liquid. One of the inspectors recalled an enforcement action by the Department of Ecology which had occurred at the site a number of years ago. A penalty of $4,000 dollars was levied in 1991 against TreOil, but was not paid. It is unclear whether the oily sumps are connected to the drain-field located toward the trailers. It is unclear what the relationship is, if any, of the septic field, the commercial drainage field mentioned during the inspection, and the permitted injection well mentioned during the inspection. 

So, a penalty of $4,000 dollars was levied in 1991 against TreOil. Which, DOE states was not paid. That said, TG Energy’s representative, Mr. Caleb, is quoted as stating that TG Energy was willing to conduct cleanup of the site, after receiving compliance orders. 

As always, I’m looking forward to reading your response.

My response? The same as before. The documents are irrefutable: this happened on Satpal Sidhu’s watch, he was VP of Operations. There is photographic evidence from that time, and it doesn’t look much different than the recent images in the Herald of ongoing pollution (but apparently you didn’t include the ‘92 photographs in your link, or maybe you did and I missed them).  Will he be providing any documents or other evidence of his attempts to clean up the mess that was created back then? Even a memo notifying the “owners” that he was concerned about the pollution being caused by his operation? Anything? Did he indicate any remorse at all about this when you talked to him?

The documents are irrefutable? And, all this took place  on Satpal’s watch? Never mind the results of subsequent investigations and publications. 

You can honestly make a statement like this without even blinking?  

Oh, by all means - enlighten me.  priviledged enlightened one!

This article is not about the history of the Treoil site, it’s about Satpal Sidhu’s involvement, right?

The (apparent) facts:

—Sidhu was VP of Operations 1988 to at least March 1992 (when he wrote letter stating they’d be in ‘production’ by June)

—EPA inspectors do a site inspection in November 1991 (referred-to later, but I haven’t seen any written documentation of that inspection). 

—In  August 1992 an inspection is done by EPA inspectors Elardo/Knutson with explicit photographic documentation.  (It would help the readers here if you added the photographs taken at that time to see the extent of the mess.) In that report, it clearly states: the gates are locked, the site is not operating, no cleanup efforts - at least in a portion of the site - have been made since the 11/91 inspection.

These are simple clear facts. Nothing complicated, nothing obfuscated by talking about subsequent operators of the site.

If one really wanted to make the facts match a scenario where Sidhu was not responsible, perhaps it could be asserted that the huge mess was made between April and August of 1992 when Sidhu claims (no evidence offered) that he wasn’t in charge. But the 8/92 reference to the 11/91 contamination, the fact the facility was not operating in 1992, (at least by August), the simultaneous financial crisis (bills and fines not paid, apparently no one working there), and the sheer industrial-scale of the contamination in the 8/92 pictures certainly wouldn’t support a case exonerating Sidhu.

Sidhu should explain why and how he allowed this to happen, and what his efforts were at the time and since to remedy the situation shown in the August 1992 photographs and report.

Or maybe not. Maybe he’s getting a pass on this one by the self-described environmentalists that support him, and will continue to support him?

Good morning, Sam.

I have a very busy morning scheduled, but I wanted to let you know that I will respond in detail to your comment before the end of the day. 

Before I respond, I would like to ask , have you ever worked in a chemical plant or refinery?  

Thank you, 

Elisabeth

No response needed. Again, what we say or think here is irrelevant to what happened. The ball is still in anyone’s court, especially Mr. Sidhu’s, to provide additional documentation from 1991-1992 indicating why he wasn’t responsible for this as VP of Operations, and/or any effort on his part to remedy this environmental disaster.

By the way, does anyone have the current numbers of what the EPA, state or local government has spent this year on the cleanup? It might’ve been stated in the Herald, I don’t recall.

Seems like Sam and Kathy perhaps had some help with the “research” or source? Maybe they can provide thatsource  information for the edification of the observers?    If it was paid for, how much was spent?   I wonder how long they held onto this information, launching a last minute smear campaign is unseemly, even for our local Republicans.

Tim I’m reading the same stuff you are, in real time. I’ve never discussed this with Kershner, and I don’t think I’ve seen or talked to her in a year. You can find the August 13, 1992 pictures of the Treoil site just by googling “Satpal Sidhu Treoil”. This “research” you refer to ain’t rocket science.

Also not sure what’s “last minute” about Kershner’s effort to publicize this. Sidhu has 2 years before he’s up for election - I know because the election cycle is for the office position I used to hold. Meanwhile, the author states that Kershner has made the information available to NW Citizen as she’s developed it.

I first found out about this issue when Wendy Harris posted in social media about Sidhu’s involvement with the Treoil mess when the Herald first had an article about it, I think in the early months of this year. Of course, I don’t see all of Harris’ posts, but I got the impression she only mentioned it one time, and since has been silent on the matter.

I’ll bet Kershner wishes this nasty Treoil business had been revealed and known in her 2015 council race against Sidhu. Checking the new council district map, it appears she won’t be able to challenge him in 2017 unless he were to run At Large, they now live in different districts.

I’m confused?  I thought you liberals were pro-environment and anti-oil?  Seems that  if a fellow liberal is involved though,  there is no need to investigate and anyone who thinks otherwise is obviously involved in a smear campaign.   I just don’t get you people.

 If you are true to what you stand for,  you should be all for getting to the bottom of why Mr. Sidhu polluted our Mother Earth.  If he was a conservative, I’m sure you would take a different stand.  This is why we  become more and more divided.

So, we have a hazardous clean-up site. Doesn’t matter if it’s TreOil, Georgia Pacific or the Port of Bellingham Marina.

Here’s what we do know. (And, I am certain this is going to be very boring material, if you are a commenter who is blaming a single individual for contamination at a particular site). So, if all you want to do is make disparaging remarks and hurl insults, do yourself a favor and move on. This comment will bore you to tears.

In 1989, the state of Washington adopted the Model Toxics Control Act (MTCA) in order to avoid the confusion and delays associated with the EPA Superfund program. The MTCA requires potentially liable persons to assume responsibility for cleaning up contaminated sites. For the purposes of this discussion, Ecology doesn’t normally conduct a cleanup, when a potentially liable person can be identified. When a potentially liable person is identified, DOE supervises the clean-up and requires the liable parties to pay for the clean-up.

Ecology is not directly involved in the clean-up of a site. The level of Ecology’s involvement in a particular clean-up can take place in a number of different ways.

First, a Voluntary Clean-up Program allows a property owner to clean-up their site, without Ecology oversight.

Second, we have what is commonly known as  a Consent Decree, which is a legal agreement filed in court that spells out in detail the terms under which the clean-up will take place by the potentially liable person(s). DOE also allows landowners, whose contribution to contamination on the site is determined minimal, to settle their liability by paying for some of the clean-up costs, rather than actually conducting the clean-up work themselves. 

Third,  we have a Purchaser Consent Decree. In this situation, the applicant must demonstrate that they will contribute substantial resources towards the clean-up agreement, after purchasing the property. 

Fourth, we have Agreed Orders. An agreed order is not filed in court nor is it considered a settlement. But it is an administratively binding order by Ecology with the potentially liable person(s). An Agreed Order must spell out the activities that must occur for Ecology not to pursue legal action. Agreed Orders are also subject to public review.

Still with me? It’s obvious that there are a number of options for potentially liable parties  choose from once it is determined that they are required to clean up a contaminated site. The range of options include informal agreements such as the aforementioned consent decree and agreed orders; and, a more flexible option that allows potentially liable parties to seek technical assistance through a voluntary clean-up program. These tools allow Ecology to take an active role in clean-up activities by providing assistance to potentially liable persons and assuring the property owner that the site can be cleaned up quickly, without having to go through a lengthy formal process.

I shouldn’t even have to mention that I could write an entire article on this topic. Nevertheless, (and this is important) if a responsible party fails to comply with an enforcement order, Ecology can clean-up the site and eventually recover the costs of the clean-up from the responsibly liable parties. Additionally, local governments can apply for grants to assist neighborhoods and citizens affected by contaminated sites to facilitate public review of the cleanup. See Chapter 173-321 WAC for additional information. 

So, by all means, continue your search for a scape-goat, knowing full well that at some point, DOE will create an action plan, which includes design, construction, operation and monitoring of clean up actions.

And, when all is said and done, Ecology, not a local lynch mob, will determine who the financially liable parties are.

I don’t know much about Whatcom County politics, but I do recognize sloppy reasoning when I see it. The “arguments” being put forth by Kathy Kershner and Sam Crawford are based on innuendo and guilt by association, not any solid evidence. Satpal Sidhu may have been responsible for the environmental damage revealed in the August 1992 DoE report (although proving that requires more evidence than Ms. Kersher presented), but he is clearly not responsible for anything else that happened after that, as he had left TreOil Indutries before that. Mr. Crawford’s statement that the environmental damages revealed in recent photographs are the same as those in 1992 is patently ridiculous. A comparative glance at both sets of photos is enough to prove that. And for him to suggest that nothing else untoward happened on the site for a quarter century, despite biodiesel refineries and other operations going on there, is just plain NUTS.

These kinds of smears are being concocted by small minds to feed other small minds, which I also notice happening on Facebook. Wannabe politicians like Ms. Kershner and Mr. Crawford are poisoning the waters of political discourse in Whatcom County by this smear campaign against Mr. Sidhu. They’d better be careful, for they might have to drink the same waters themselves one day.