Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutord1989-1001 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 FILE REF: 1 -89: SNP INTRODUCED BY: Consent PROPOSED BY: PLANNING DATE: N —rem} — 9, 1 A 8 9 ORDINANCE NO. :• 11 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE TEXT OF THE WHATCOM COUNTY SHORELINE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM TO ALLOW THE LAND APPLICATION OF WASTE WATERS USED IN PROCESSING FRUITS AND VEGETABLES AS A CONDITIONAL USE WHEREAS, Bellingham Frozen foods, Inc. has applied for a text amendment to the Shoreline Management Program to allow the land application of waste waters used in processing fruits and vegetables as a conditional use; and WHEREAS, pursuant to RCW 90.58.120 legal notice was published in the Westside Record Journal and Lynden Tribune on Wednesdays, September 27, October 4 and October 14, 1989; and in the Bellingham Herald on Saturdays, September 30, October 7 and October 14, 1989; and WHEREAS, a Determination of Nonsignificance was issued by the Deputy SEPA Official on September 27, 1989; and WHEREAS, the Planning staff recommendation was favorable; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on this matter on October 17, 1989, and heard all public testimony on the issues and after due deliberation accepted the findings and conclusions as recommended by staff and unanimously passed a motion recommending to Council approval of the requested text amendment. WHEREAS, the Council held a public meeting on November 16, 1989, to consider the Planning Commission recommendation. NOW THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL: 1. The Shoreline Management program is hereby amended as follows: Modify Section 6.13.5B(2) of the regulations for waste disposal under the Port and Industrial Section to read as follows: Disposal or storage of solid or other industrial wastes is not permitted on shorelines; provided that liquid waste treatment development requiring either a shoreline location or a site for which an alternative is not available may be permitted; and further provided that land application of waters used in the Drocessina of fruits and vegetables is permitted as a conditional use. 2. The Council finds the public health, safety and general welfare are promoted by this change. 3. The Council adopts the following findings and conclusions developed by the staff . and the Planning Commission: FINDINGS A. Bellingham Frozen Foods desires to dispose of water used in the processing of fruits and vegetables on land that the company owns adjacent to the Nooksack River as an alternative to sanitary sewer service. B. This has the potential for water quality problems depending on the exact nature of the processing water. However, it does have the benefit of returning water 0 1 2 3 4 5 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 FILE REF: 1- 8 >:SMP Page 2 to the Nooksack system as opposed to discharging it into Bellingham Bay and it more closely resembles organic agricultural wastes than it does normal industrial liquid wastes. C. The Shoreline Management Program regulations prohibit disposal of industrial wastes on shorelines although allowing liquid waste treatment and disposal of agricultural wastes. D. The Washington Administrative Code requires a Department of Ecology review of the waste water facilities utilized in the discharge of the liquid waste. and also a state waste discharge permit. These reviews require extensive technical analysis of the specific request. E. The requested amendment would conditionally allow land application of waste water from the processing of fruits and vegetables. This requires a public hearing with public notice and notice to surrounding property owners. It also allows both the County and Ecology to accept or reject the proposal based on the conditional use criteria and/or to condition it as may be necessary to ensure adequate environmental protection and prevent any significant offsite impacts to the neighborhood. CONCLUSIONS The requested amendment permits the necessary flexibility in the Shoreline Management Program to allow consideration of alternative methods of discharge of liquid waste from fruit and vegetable processing. The state requirements and the conditional use process ensure that adequate protection of the environment and surrounding neighborhood can be provided if such a use is allowed. If such protection can be provided and land discharge approved there is the potential positive advantage of returning water to the Nooksack River system, the ground water or other water bodies as opposed to Bellingham Bay. 4. Adjudication of invalidity of any of the sections, clauses, or provisions of this Ordinance shall not affect or impair the validity of the Ordinance as a whole or any part thereof other than the part so declared to be invalid. PASSED this 16th day of November 1989 ATTEST: Clerk of the Council APPROVED AS TO FORM: Dave Cottind am Civil Dep Prosecuting Attorney HATCOM COUNTY U CIL HA,TCOM COUNTY , W NOTON ald`G. HaXey,/Cffairperso ZOVED,/ ( ) VETOED Shirley Van Z nten, C6dnty Executive Date October 25, 1989 Agency Report File Ref: 1- 89:SMP WHATCOM COUNTY PLANNING AGENCY REPORT IN THE MATTER OF AMENDING THE TEXT OF THE WHATCOM ) COUNTY SHORELINE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM TO ALLOW THE LAND ) FIND:NGS, REASONS APPLICATION OF WASTE WATERS USED IN PROCESSING FRUITS ) AND MOTION AND VEGETABLES AS A CONDITIONAL USE ) WHEREAS, Bellingham Frozen foods, Inc. has applied for a text amendment to the Shoreline Management Program to allow the land application of waste waters used in processing fruits and vegetables as a conditional use; and WHEREAS, pursuant to RCW 90.58.120 legal notice was published in the Westside Record Journal and Lynden Tribune on Wednesdays, September 27, October 4 and October 14, 1989; and in the Bellingham Herald on Saturdays, September 30, October 7 and October 14, 1989; and WHEREAS, a Determination of Nonsignificance was issued by the Deputy SEPA Official on September 27, 1989; and WHEREAS, the Planning staff recommendation was favorable; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on this matter on October 17, 1989, and heard all public testimony on the issues and after due deliberation accepted the findings and conclusions as recommended by staff and unanimously passed a motion recommending to Council approval of the requested text amendment. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: FINDINGS OF FACT AND REASONS FOR ACTION 1. A quorum of Commission members was present during the hearing and subsequent discussion. 2. Statutory requirements were met regarding legal notice and SEPA review. 3. The Planning Commission unanimously concurred with the findings and conclusions as developed by staff. 4. The Planning Commission unanimously voted to make the following recommendation: Modify Section 6.13.5B(2) of the regulations for waste disposal under the Port and Industrial Section to read as follows: Disposal or storage of solid or other industrial wastes is not permitted on shorelines; provided that liquid waste treatment development requiring either a shoreline location or a site for which an alternative is not 1 Agency Report October 25, 1989 File Ref: 1- 89:SMP available may be permitted; and further provided that land application of waters used in the processing of fruits and vegetables is permitted as a conditional use. WHATCOM COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Commissioners present at hearing: David Simps� f airman nl \ Daniel W. Tayl Secretary SIMPSON, VAN DALEN, FUNKHOUSER, BAIJOT, HEERINGA, ERNST and ALMSKAAR Attachments: 1. Staff Report 2. Draft Ordinance File #0.1- 89:SMP Staff Report October 12, 1989 -- Page 1 WHATCOM COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT APPLICANT: BELLINGHAM FROZEN FOODS, INC. REQUEST The request is for an amendment to the official Whatcom County Shoreline Management Program regulations for waste disposal set out in the Port and Industrial section, Section 6.13.5B.(2). The amended section with new language underlined reads as follows: Disposal or storage of solid or other industrial wastes is not permitted on shorelines; provided that liquid waste treatment development requiring either a shoreline location or a site for which an alternative is not available may be permitted; and further provided that land application of waters used in the processing of fruits and vegetables is permitted as a conditional use. LOCATION Port and Industrial section of the Shoreline Management Program. Specific projects could potentially be allowed in any of the Shoreline areas of Whatcom County. STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS Pursuant to RCW 90.58.120 legal notice was published in the Westside Record Journal on Wednesdays, September 27, October 4 and October 11, 1989, and in the Bellingham Herald on Saturdays, September 30, October 7 and October 14, 1989. The SEPA Responsible Official issued a Determination of Non - significance on September 27, 1989. REGULATORY EFFECTS OF THE REQUEST This text change would create the opportunity for food processing firms to use land discharge of processing waters even within a shorelines area as opposed to discharging into municipal sewer systems. To accomplish this an applicant would be required to obtain a shoreline conditional use. This requires a public hearing including notification to adjacent property owners, allows the County and Ecology to establish specific conditions and required the conditional use criteria be met for a permit to be issued. ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION HISTORY The City of Bellingham is working towards state and federal compliance to provide secondary treatment for its sewage. This will create major cost increases making industries like Bellingham Frozen Foods who now discharge large volumes of process water seek more cost effective solutions. Bellingham Frozen File #01- 89:SMP Staff Report October 12, 1989 -- Page 2 Foods has land adjacent to the Nooksack Rover that may be an appropriate location for land discharge of their processing water. However, in pursuing the requirements it was discovered that our shoreline regulations prohibited "disposal or storage of solid or other -industrial wastes" "on shorelines ". This led to the request for a Shoreline Management Program text change. ANALYSIS The intent of the regulations is clear and there is no room for interpretation that food processing waters are not industrial wastes. However, it does appear that this creates an unnecessary restriction on a substance that may be relatively benign. It also establishes an outright prohibition for activities that would receive enough state and local review that they would be adequately evaluated on an individual basis without the necessity for automatic prohibition. There is the potential positive benefit of returning water to the Nooksack River or other surface water bodies as opposed to discharging fresh water directly to Bellingham Bay. As water supply becomes more critical in terms of balancing fisheries' needs against the needs of agricultural, residential and industrial use this factor could become significant. Food processing waste water is not of a type typically associated with an industrial development. Waste water generated by fruit and vegetable processing more closely resembles organic agricultural wastes such as crop residue and liquid manure than liquid waste products from other types of industrial activities. The use and /or disposal of organic agricultural wastes in the shoreline is not prohibited by the shoreline program and is an activity that is conducted with some regularity on agricultural lands located in the shorelines especially those adjacent to the Nooksack River. The premise behind land disposal of industrial waste water from the processing of fruits and vegetables is that plants would utilize the nutrients and presumably absorb other elements, with the water evaporating, recharging groundwater and /or eventually flowing to surface water bodies. Problems might include a build up of solids which were in suspension in the waste water, excessive nutrient loading, excessive oxygen demand which could result in odor problems, and the presence of residuals from herbicide and pesticide applications to the fruits and vegetables which could concentrate and affect the groundwater or adjacent surface water body. The key to understanding the nature of the problem will be knowing the chemical composition of the waste water, its quantity and the ability of the specific site selected to receive it without impact on surface or ground waters. Food disposal of any industrial waste including food processing waste water would come under zoning scrutiny in one form or another. Because this concept is a new one it does not exactly fit present categories and a determination has to be made whether to consider it under the solid waste provisions which require a conditional use, whether it is covered under agricultural processing which also requires a conditional use, or whether it is not addressed at all and is prohibited in which case a zoning text amendment will be required. Staff Report File #01- 89:SMP October 12, 1989 -- Page 3 Disposal of food processing waste water may also require a Health Department utilization permit or may be interpreted as an activity totally preempted by the state similarly to waste regulated under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit Program. However no matter what other reviews may occur at the local level the Department of Ecology would evaluate a specific project for disposal of food processing waste water at two levels. 1. Construction of Waste Water Facility Review. WAC 173 -240 provides that prior to the construction or modification of industrial waste water facilities, engineering reports, plans and specifications shall be submitted and approved by Ecology. Operations and maintenance manuals are required to be submitted to Ecology for approval during construction of such facilities. The engineering report must include a detailed analysis of a particular project, including the quantity, quality, and characteristics of all process waste water and disposal methods; analysis of receiving water, including applicable water quality standards and how such standards will be met outside any applicable dilution zones; detailed outfall analysis; depth to ground water and ground water movement through the year; water balance analysis of the project; and overall effects of the proposed facility on ground water in conjunction with any other land application facilities in the area. In addition, the engineering report must include scientifically based statements that the project will meet applicable permit effluent limitations and /or pretreatment standards. Additional requirements are found in WAC 173 - 240 -130. According to WAC 173 - 240 -120, Ecology will review and approve the engineering reports, plans and specs and operation and maintenance manuals to ensure that each project will be designed, constructed, operated and maintained to meet effluent limitations of a state waste discharge permit and to meet the policies set forth in RCW 90.48 and 90.50 regarding prevention and control of water pollution. 2. State Waste Discharge Permit. After submission of the engineering report and other documentation required by WAC 173 -240, projects of this sort are required to apply for a State Waste Discharge Permit under WAC 173 -216. Permit applications under this section are subject to the additional requirement of public notice. Public hearings may be requested by interested persons. If issued, a state Waste_ Discharge Permit will specify all conditions necessary to prevent and control waste discharge into state waters. Conditions will include pretreatment requirements, conditions necessary to meet applicable water quality standards for surface water and to preserve and protect beneficial uses for ground water; any monitoring or reporting requirements specified by the Ecology and schedules of compliance with FWPCA. State Waste Discharge Permits are designed to satisfy the requirements under Section 307 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. The factors set forth above, including the extensive review requirements of the Department of Ecology with respect to land application, the fact that the activity is similar to certain types of normal agricultural practices and the fact that the activity will not interfere with the use of shoreline areas to any greater degree than would the practice of agriculture, provide sufficient Staff Report File #01- 89:SMP October 12, 1989 -- Page 4 basis for a conclusion that the amendment would not result in an inappropriate use of the shorelines of the county. The shoreline conditional use process itself provides additional safeguards by introducing a mandatory public hearing at the local level and providing local government and Ecology the opportunity to accept or reject a proposal based on the criteria for a conditional use and to condition it as necessary. A conditional use must be in compliance with the following five criteria: 1. The proposed use will be consistent with the policies of RCW 90.58.020 and this program. 2. The proposed use will not interfere with normal public use of public shorelines. 3. The proposed use of the site and design of the project will be compatible with other permitted uses within the area. 4. The proposed use will cause no unreasonable adverse effects to the shoreline environment designation in which it is to be located. 5. The public interest suffers no substantial detrimental effect. All of these criteria will be useful, but criteria 1, 4 and 5 will be particularly apropos to insure no environmental or neighborhood degradation as a result of this practice. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS FINDINGS 1. Bellingham Frozen Foods desires to dispose of water used in the processing of fruits and vegetables on land that the company owns adjacent to the Nooksack River as an alternative to sanitary sewer service. 2. This has the potential for water quality problems depending on the exact nature of the processing water. However, it does have the benefit of returning water to the Nooksack system as opposed to discharging it into Bellingham Bay and it more closely resembles organic agricultural wastes than it does normal industrial liquid wastes. 3. The Shoreline Management Program regulations prohibit disposal of industrial wastes on shorelines although allowing liquid waste treatment and disposal of agricultural wastes. 4. The Washington Administrative Code requires a Department of Ecology review of the waste water facilities utilized in the discharge of the liquid waste and also a state waste discharge permit. These reviews require extensive technical analysis of the specific request. Staff Report File #0% 89:SMP October 12, 1989 -- Page 5 5. The requested amendment would conditionally allow land application of waste water from the processing of fruits and vegetables. This requires a public hearing with public notice and notice to surrounding property owners. It also allows both the County and Ecology to accept or reject the proposal based on the conditional use criteria and /or to condition it as may be necessary to ensure adequate environmental protection and prevent any significant offsite impacts to the neighborhood. CONCLUSIONS The requested amendment permits the necessary flexibility in the Shoreline Management Program to allow consideration of alternative methods of discharge of liquid waste from fruit and vegetable processing. The state requirements and the conditional use process ensure that adequate protection of the environment and surrounding neighborhood can be provided if such a use is allowed. If such protection can be provided and land discharge approved there is the potential positive advantage of returning water to the Nooksack River system, the ground water or other water bodies as opposed to Bellingham Bay. RECOMMENDATION The Planning Department recommends approval of the requested amendment to the County's Shoreline Management Program as follows: Disposal or storage of solid or other industrial wastes is not permitted on shorelines; provided that liquid waste treatment development requiring either a shoreline location or a site for which an alternative is not available may be permitted; and further provided that land application of waters used in the processing of fruits and vegetables is permitted as a conditional use.