I took a little heat from one of our new councilmembers, who took issue with yesterday’s piece, “Continuing Parlor Tricks”. Therein, I used a bad choice of words, suggesting final action might
The Herald’s utility as an organ for community information is sometimes sorely tested - especially when things get controversial or confusing. Of course, it’s not that they don’t want citizens
Almost everyone of us has been significantly touched by the revolution of digitized information and the internet. And if you want to see what’s happening to electronic libraries, go to the Library of
When Environmental Impact Statements (EIS) are prepared, more than one development model might be evaluated. But a no-action alternative is always required as a baseline reference. Convention
A couple of days ago Sam Taylor had an article in the Bellingham Herald and subsequent blog on the subject of public campaign finance. The state house voted to allow communities to finance local elec
Yesterday we all received our ballots for the presidential primary election. We are expected to fill them out and mail them in by February 19. The instructions are complicated and confusing - as see
The economy has become the new crisis. Congress is working urgently to pass an economic stimulus package to renew confidence in the system. This allows a dialogue to open up around how economic grow
You were earlier given good reasons to reconsider the Planning Committee’s recommendation to expand the Bellingham UGA by Mr. Horowitz. Allow me to give you some more p
Now that Bellingham has adopted a resolution signaling its desire to work with the County on the size of its UGA, the County has a tremendous opportunity to ensure t
Tomorrow the Bellingham Library Board of Trustees meets and will probably produce a plan for a new grand downtown library building and a bond issue of between 20 to 60 million dollars to pay fo
After many years of discussion over growth management issues, it seems little progress has been made towards implementing the plan. Few seem to disagree that most of the growth needs to be higher den
Below is a link to an opinion piece in today’s Los Angeles Times. It is written by a liberal - obviously a Democrat - and one who has supported the Clintons all these years. I also have supported th
Once you put water and sewer lines in, growth is inevitable. To all those who are late coming to the party, opposition to the unlawful expansion of these services by water districts and our county gov
Although technically immigration is a national issue, there are implications for Whatcom County due to the heavy agricultural base and proximity to the border. The League of Women Voters hosted a for
Friday afternoon, Whatcom County Superior Court Judge Ira Uhrig refused to dismiss the challenge to a conditional use permit that would have allowed the extension of water services outside of the urba
Lynden’s sales tax revenue has been declining for a few years, but now it appears that the city is prepared to do something about it (by the way, Ferndale and Blaine are facing the same issue).
Hundreds of citizens last night descended on Municipal Court in solidarity with the Hundred Acre Woods to express their opposition to Horizon Bank’s potentially disastrous development now calle
Oftimes it is far easier to criticize than to compliment. Is it too easy to forget how to acknowledge positive steps? At this week’s WAG meeting, Port official Mike Stoner, Mayor Dan Pike, City Plan
The proposed interim agreement for the Cornwall Landfill could have a harmful impact on humans and the environment.As I previously noted, the Port, the Department of Ecology (DOE,) and the City of Bellingham have not advised the public of the most controversial and legally questionable aspects of the proposal.This involves reducing the level of site cleanup through application of reduced standards. The interim action may involve dumping and leaving dioxin, in excess of normal cleanup levels, on site. Referred to as “containment,” and sometimes permissible under the Model Toxic Control Act (MTCA,) it is not appropriate for the Cornwall Landfill, as discussed below.
Cleanup Level
Method B is the cleanup level applicable under state law.WAC 173-340-740(4) states that Method B is the only method available for establishing soil cleanup levels at a MTCA site, with the exception of qualifying industrial properties. Cornwall Landfill does not meet the characteristics of an industrial site under WAC 173-340-745(1)(a)(i.)Therefore, cleanup levels must be determined based on Method B.
However, as noted in the interim agreement, the sediment dredged from Gate 3 can not meet this cleanup level.The Port is requesting approval to use Method C.This is not authorized under the MTCA and beneficial reuse of Gate 3 sediment is not a viable option.It appears that DOE will nevertheless allow this because the interim action has been allowed to reach the public comment stage after months of internal discussion.
The large discrepancy in the dioxin cleanup levels under Method B and Method C, as reflected in the interim report, should be noted.Under Method B, the TEQ measurement (a method of quantifying dioxin) is 11.Under Method C, the TEQ is 1500.In other words, Method C increases the human risk of developing cancer from exposure to dioxin a hundred fold.I do not think the residents of Bellingham would willingly agree to accept this increased cancer risk.Cancer rates are already quite high in WhatcomCounty.
The Port notes that Gate 3 sediment exceeds the Method B cleanup level by a small amount.There is no such thing as exceeding soil cleanup levels for dioxin “by only a little.”The Method B dioxin level is based on the reasonable maximum exposure scenario.Any amount above this level exposes humans to unsafe levels of dioxin, a known carcinogen which is classified under state law as both a “priority contaminant of ecological concern” and a “persistent, bioaccumulative toxin.” WAC 173-340-7494 and WAC Chapter 173-333. Either you meet human safety standards or you do not.In this case, the interim action does not.
On-Site Containment of Hazardous Soils
Nor is it appropriate, as indicated by the Port, for the interim action to include containment of soils with hazardous substances above cleanup levels. This is not containment of a hazardous substance currently found at the Landfill. Rather, it is containment of a persistent, bioaccumulative toxin that is first being dumped at the Landfill as part of the interim action.This appears to violate the purpose of the MTCA, which is to protect the public by reducing hazardous contamination at identified sites.
Under WAC 173-340-700(4)(c), containment is appropriate only when the compliance monitoring program is designed to ensure the long-term integrity of the containment system (and other requirements of the WAC are met.)
The design plans for the interim agreement lacks long term integrity.First, as reflected in the interim agreement, containment of soils with hazardous substances is not the primary purpose of the interim action.It is, primarily, a stormwater proposal. This fact was emphasized by the Port to justify the low height of the berms that will surround the project area. Second, the waterproof sheet that will cover the Gate 3 sediment has a limited useful life of 4-5 years. There is no approved and funded cleanup plan that ensures proper handling of the dioxin contaminated soil within 4-5 years of the interim action.
Terrestrial ecological evaluation of the Cornwall Landfill should be required prior to considering the on-site containment of dioxin. Dioxin is a persistent, bioaccumulative toxin that enters the food chain, in part, through vegetation. For this reason, the MTCA requires a terrestrial ecological evaluation establishing site-specific cleanup standards for the protection of terrestrial plants and animals,WAC 173-340-7490.The Landfill will be developed as a park and shoreline trail, and will contain areas of grass and vegetated buffers. The interim report discusses on-site containment, but does not discuss standards for terrestrial protection.
The redeveloped site will also include commercial and residential buildings. Residential land use is generally the site use requiring the most protective cleanup levels. Because of this future land use, and the toxicity and persistence of dioxin, it would be appropriate for the Port to provide alternative proposals to on-site containment,WAC 173-340-430(7)(b)(ii.)However, they have failed to do so.
Background Levels of Dioxin
The argument that background levels of dioxin justify on-site containment of hazardous substances overlooks a crucial point.Although we are measuring the dioxin level of Gate 3 sediment, this is sediment that is underwater, and therefore, the affected media is water. Once the sediment is placed on top of the Cornwall Landfill, it has been brought on land and the affected media is soil (with a new possibility of impacting both water and air.) An interim action must be denied where it results in contamination of a new media.
A Sediment Site Characterization Evaluation of Bellingham Bay was conducted by DOE on June 26, 2007. See https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/gsp/DocViewer.aspx?did=3287.Surface sediment dioxin concentrations in BellinghamBay have decreased by a factor of 10 compared to previously reported concentrations. The decrease is the result of high rates of sedimentation deposition from the NooksackRiver.If Gate 3 sediment is used to cap the Landfill, then, over time, this site’s dioxin contamination will exceed the background level because it will not longer benefit from additional sediment deposition.
Foreclosure of Reasonable Alternatives
Pursuant to WAC 173-340-430(3,) where there is no final cleanup action, an interim action may not foreclose reasonable alternatives. The placement of Gate 3 sediment over 3.6 acres of the Landfill, at the cost of 3 million dollars, is clearly not a temporary action.Removing the cap after it is in place would increase the chance of environmental contamination and is not prudent.Moreover, safely removing the temporary cap would also be expensive.As a practical matter, once the sediment cap is placed on the Landfill, this will force the results of the final cleanup plan.
Wendy raises 2 issues: dioxin problems and process problems.
Here’s what I’ve learned about dioxin. We naturally consume 1 to 3 picograms (that’s parts per trillion) of this stuff per kilogram of body weight every day already, 95% from our food and the other 5% through various means. That means I ingest approximately 273 picograms of dioxin every day.
The World Health Organization (WHO) has suggested a maximum daily intake of 4 picograms per kg of body weight to be safe - whi. Lotsa people have been studying this going back more than 30 years. Those studies have shown that health issues don’t start showing up until a person ingests 14 picograms per kilogram of body weight every day for a long period.
Remember, this is *ingested* dioxin, not background dioxin.
Washington is one of 11 states that has a low limit for dioxin leanups. Natural background in this state has been set at 5.2 parts per trillion (ppt).
Our limit, for unrestricted residential uses is 11 ppt. 39 other states have a residential limit ranging from 18 ppt to 1000 ppt.
Our state limit for restricted commercial/industrial uses is 1500 ppt.
BUT….don’t confuse the allowable soil concentrations with the WHO recommendations. Remember, you have to *ingest* the dioxin for it to be a problem, which is why commercial/industrial numbers are so high, adults generally don’t eat dirt. Children ingest a lot of dirt so the residential limits are lower.
Here’s the plan: remove silt from the harbor, at an average dioxin level of 15 ppt, and use it as a cover for the Cornwall landfill which needs to be covered as part of it’s confinement. The dredge spoils are then spread across the site, covered with a geomembrane, which is all buried under 2 to 3 feet of residential quality soils.
As a taxpayer I support this completely, since the alternative is to unnecessarily haul away material that is suitable to cap the landfill, then haul in even more clean material to cover the landfill. Your alternative would require the port to sell even more bonds that have to be paid for by taxpayers - hence, my comment in another post that the port is you and me.
I’m not trying to downplay the problem with dioxin, it is very dangerous and we need to be careful with it, but I don’t see how the plan to use dredge spoils that nearly meet residential standards for surface contact is a bad idea, especially since it will be buried where no one can come into contact with it.
So let me reiterate:
WA State natural background levels: 5.2 ppt WA unrestricted residential limit: 11 ppt Gate 3 dredge average dioxin level: 15 ppt WA State restricted comm’l/ind’l: 1,500 ppt
If you ever have a problem with access, process or anything else just give me a call and I will guarantee that your concerns are heard by my fellow commissioners and our Executive Director. My number is 360-201-7199
2.3.2 GATE 3 SEDIMENT QUALITY The Gate 3 sediment was tested for total metals, tributyl tin (TBT), volatile organic compounds(VOCs), semivolatile organic compounds (SVOCs), pesticides, PCBs, and dioxins/furans.
Dioxin concentrations for Gate 3 sediment planned for dredging ranged from 6.2 to 27.3 nanograms/kilogram (ng/kg) [2,3,7,8 TCDD toxicity equivalency (TEQ)] in the initial testing conducted using EPA Method 8290 for dioxins/furans analysis, as shown in Table 1.
Follow-up dioxins/furans testing was conducted for composite and discrete core samples from DMMU POB 1 and POB 2 using a different analytical method (EPA Method 1613B) to confirm the original results. The dioxin TEQ concentrations for the follow-up analyses of the composite samples were 22.4 ng/kg and 9.6 ng/kg for DMMUs POB 1 and POB 2, respectively, which are slightly higher than, but consistent with, the original analyses using EPA Method 8290.
The sediment characterization report for the Gate 3 project (Landau Associates 2010) should be reviewed for a more detailed discussion of sediment quality analyses conducted for the Gate 3 project, including dioxins/furans.
Gate 3 sediment quality was compared to proposed soil cleanup levels to evaluate the potential for beneficial reuse of the Gate 3 sediment to affect Site environmental conditions.
Because the Gate 3 sediment will be contained under a low permeability cap in conjunction with affected Site media, is itself a low permeability material, and will not be in constant contact with Site groundwater (see Section 3.2.4), protection of groundwater quality is not considered a complete migration pathway.
As a result, MTCA Method B cleanup levels based on direct contact for unrestricted land use are the proposed levels to evaluate the potential impacts of Gate 3 sediment on Site environmental conditions. (Method C cleanup levels based on direct contact for industrial land use also are presented in Table 1 for the purpose of providing additional information.)
As shown in Table 1, the sediment sample for DMMU POB 3 exceeded the proposed soil cleanup level for dioxins/furans but was well below the MTCA Method C cleanup level.
Similarly, the follow-up analysis of DMMU POB 1 using EPA Method 1613B exceeded the proposed soil cleanup level for dioxins/furans, but was also well below the Method C cleanup level.
Onsite containment of hazardous substances above cleanup levels can be a valid cleanup action component if the requirements of MTCA are met.
Based on these considerations, Gate 3 sediment is considered appropriate for beneficial reuse at the Site, provided dioxins/furans or other contaminants are prevented from leaching into groundwater, provided sediment is properly capped, and provided the cap integrity is ensured through institutional controls.
Mike, to portray this as a matter of children eating dirt is a disservice to the public who elected you to office, and reflects a lack of understanding regarding persistent, bioaccumulative toxins. You fail to mention impacts to plants and wildlife, or the possibility of stormwater run-off, which is the primary source of dioxin contamination in Puget Sound. None of the numbers you throw around are relevant except for the numbers pertaining to state cleanup levels. It is troubling that you advocate a proposal that does not comply with state requirements.
Shane you’ve picked a part of a paragraph but not the whole thing, which actually states: ““I am not trying to downplay the problem with dioxin, it is very dangerous and we need to be careful with it, but I don?t see how the plan to use dredge spoils that nearly meet residential standards for surface contact is a bad idea, especially since it will be buried where no one can come into contact with it.”
Dear reader, note the opening sentence and the final words of that paragraph.
If you have a better idea,as I told Wendy, then tell me what it it is and I will champion it.
When all I hear is complaints I tend to go a little tone deaf, which is why I have such a hard time listening to Mike Malloy. When people complain I assume they think they know more about an issue than I do and I want to learn more so I have a clear understanding of the issue.
So, I will ask both Shane and Wendy once again, publicly on this forum what their better idea is? Then, when you’ve shown me that the scientists I’ve learned from are wrong, which is entirely possible, then I will jump on board with you.
Call or write: 360-201-7199, .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) or personal .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)
6 Comments