We will soon see our county government’s true colors flying. Will it be appropriate growth management, or them managing to get around it? Just how far will they push sprawl?
This week’s issue of the Whatcom Independent has a front page story on the Bellingham Police targeting WWU students who park their cars overnight - or technically 24 hours - at the curb on city
I recently met with local and state officers from the Washington State Grange. These remarkably grass-rooted, family-oriented organizations can be formed with as few as 13 members. At least f
A few decades ago two governments pursued vastly different strategies to manage transportation. Seattle invested huge money in new highways, spending billions of dollars. Vancouver, BC invested in a
You don’t need to be Nostradamus to make this prediction: Bellingham city officials are about to waste precious staff time and taxpayer resources preparing an environmental impact statem
It looks like another legislative session and another missed opportunity to deal with transportation problems in the state, especially around Seattle. Both political parties seem to ignore some of th
Yesterday the city council tabled the library bond issue. In its present form, it is probably permanently gone. The project was a concoction from former mayor Mark and was intended to provide a park
Unlike graffiti, it’s easy to avoid the unclaimed posts on what serves as the Herald’s exchange of political thought, and even more anonymous sites passing themselves off as political commentary. Tha
TBL, or Triple Bottom Line, is a nifty concept that says we want to be evaluating and measuring projects on the basis not only of economic, but environmental and societal values as well. TBL i
In the ongoing discussion over land use, no one has brought up what potential impact the financing of city and county government has in the land use decision making process. The fact is that tax reve
With all due reverence for Messrs Jefferson and Reagan, a government that governs less is not always a government that governs best. Consider Ecology’s performance the last twenty some years. And loo
What are we thinking? Or do we think at all? I drove to Portland this weekend to visit my daughter. Now I admit to being one of those hyper-mileage nuts. I own a hybrid and averaged 47 mpg. That’
After an extended hiatus, the battle over Chuckanut Ridge has begun to heat up again. In one corner: landowners Horizon Bank and David Edelstein. In the other corner: thousands of local resid
Karen Frakes is legal advisor to the Whatcom County Council,.though I will leave it to you to decide who she really represents. She’s a deputy in Dave McEachran’s office.
I have to laugh, although in no way does it mean I am laughing at the state and county Republican Party, who I do respect and support. At a national level, however, the Republican Party has lost all
Allowing residential development on farmlands is turning straw into gold. Like most land use decisions, it is distributing wealth. So it is very much of interest who is granted this power, and how t
Today’s Herald features a local story entitled, “Mayor taking tougher stance with Port on waterfront”. It’s high time someone started considering the City’s interests in this fiasco!<br
I’m amazed at the response our Administration and Congress have taken toward news that the economy might be in trouble. Their idea is to write a bunch of checks to spur consumer spending. Tha
Isn’t it fair to ask the city council to establish and consistently follow a procedure for when public comment will be allowed? Is it good open government to say beforehand that no public commen
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