Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNatural Resources March 25 2008WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL Natural Resources Committee March 25, 2008 Committee Chair Carl Weimer called the meeting to order at 9:40 a.m. in the Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington. Present: Absent: Seth Fleetwood Bob Kelly Also Present: Sam Crawford Barbara Brenner COMMITTEE DISCUSSION 1. UPDATE AND DISCUSSION ON SEDIMENT MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES, POTENTIAL SWIFT CREEK SITE HEALTH RISKS, POTENTIAL HEALTH RISKS RESULTING FROM HISTORIC OFF -SITE PERSONAL AND COMMERCIAL USE OF SWIFT CREEK SEDIMENT, PROPOSED INDOOR AIR SAMPLING EVENT, AND COMMUNITY NOTIFICATION PLANNING (AB2008 -083) Jeff Hegedus, Health Department, stated they provide an update on and discuss sediment management strategies, including offsite storage and use sites. They had an opportunity to do indoor air quality sampling at residences along South Pass Road. A lot of people with technical expertise are here today to talk about sediment management and potential health effects. Paul Pittman, Public Works Department, submitted and read from information (on file) on the Swift Creek Sediment Management Update. At this point, they are relying on State and federal funding. Whatcom County is incapable of taking this on locally. There isn't a good contingency plan if the County doesn't get that funding. Keep that in mind as they move forward. Weimer asked if part of the $210,000 was set aside for a staff person to coordinate. Pittman stated the project costs may take up all of that money. They have to refine the project costs to know whether money will be left for a staff position. Fleetwood asked about a contingency if they don't get funding. He asked if there is a particular funding request. Pittman stated that in addition to the federal funding request to initiate the Army Corps of Engineers, they will request $3 -5 million from the State this fall. If the County doesn't get either of those funding sources, it won't have funds to actively manage the sediment. Hegedus stated that the Public Works Department is working hard to manage the sediment. They must continue to understand the risk they're talking about from this material. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and State Department of Health (DOH) are here to give presentations. Natural Resources Committee, 3/25/2008, Page 1 Julie Wroble, EPA Risk Assessor, gave a presentation and discussed the nature of asbestos and history of its use. The main type of asbestos at Swift Creek is chrysotile. There are other types of asbestos at Swift Creek as well. Asbestos is mainly a concern if it's breathed into the lungs. It's not as much a problem if left undisturbed in soil. Health effects associated with asbestos include lung cancer, mesothelioma, asbestosis, and problems with the lung pleura. People tend to think that naturally- occurring asbestos isn't a concern, but it is. Because of latency, some of the diseases can take 10 to 30 years to develop. Someone exposed when young is more likely to get sick from an asbestos - related disease than someone exposed later in life. Dust generating activities can relate these fibers into the air. Children are smaller and closer to the ground, so the concentrations can be higher. She described the work the EPA did in 2006 at Swift Creek. Risk assessment is always uncertain. They did limited sampling. The actual risk could be higher or lower, depending on concentrations at different times. Risk varies depending on how often and how long one is exposed. Additional exposures to asbestos during routine activities in the vicinity of these materials at other locations could add to the risk. The material has been spread throughout the community. She's concerned that other exposure could happen. The EPA went to the site in November to help stabilize the piles. The EPA removal program staff did some earthwork at that time. They tried to shore up the sides of the creek so the piles wouldn't erode into the creek. They also sprayed the piles with a sticky substance to minimize dust blowing off the piles. While this work was being done, staff did more air sampling. The information obtained corroborated with earlier sampling. Fleetwood stated that experts must let the County know the risk so the County can make an assessment. He asked if the EPA will make an opinion on the level of risk so the Council can make decisions. Wroble stated the EPA presented the risks in its report last February. The EPA benchmark is that the EPA requires action when the cancer risk exceeds one in 10,000. There are a few activities at Swift Creek for which the level is exceeded. That's why the EPA continues to be concerned about this site. The EPA recommends broadening the scope to look wider in the community at where else this material is located. Fleetwood asked if the EPA is satisfied that they know the risks, and that will direct the solutions, or if they still want to evaluate the risk. Wroble stated the 2006 study was focused just on the material and the piles. That may present a greater risk for the people who live right there. There could be populations who have greater exposure, such as people who used materials for driveways. A child who has frequent, daily contact with the material could have higher risks. She personally would like more data, but she doesn't think they will find that the risks will be lower or go away. When they investigate farther from the site, they may find the material has dissolution. In terms of the material at the site, the asbestos levels are high enough to warrant concern with any kind of handling and exposure. Fleetwood asked if Ms. Wroble would like to expand the investigation of the risk. Wroble stated do that, or start taking steps to manage the risk. Those steps are what they're working on now. Fleetwood asked what those steps are. Hegedus stated Mr. Pittman and the Public Works Department are working on what to do with the material. They are being supported by the EPA's attempts at risk assessment. Natural Resources Committee, 3/25/2008, Page 2 1 Congress is working on a bill that bans the importation, manufacture, and use of 2 asbestos products. This sediment is aggregate. The bill put a cap on asbestos content at 3 .25 percent, the level that is unacceptable. The Swift Creek sediment averages 1.7 percent, 4 which is much higher than the acceptable level in the bill. 5 6 The agencies are attempting to identify excess death rates by its activity -based 7 sampling. The technical conclusion at this point is that there has been sufficient risk 8 assessment work done to know that they don't want people making driveways out of this 9 material, for example. The assessment validates their original action to prohibit removal of 10 the material from the site for that purpose. 11 12 The question they are working on now is what to do with the sediment. There is no 13 easy answer. "There is no quick solution. 14 15 Weimer asked if they are confident that they know the risk, given the limited data. 16 He asked if they don't need to do any more data collection on the site, and if they may need 17 to do more data collection off -site. Wroble stated that is correct. She would support more 18 off -site sampling. 19 20 Weimer stated they have data showing potential risk, but they don't see any 21 increased health effects in the community. Wroble stated it is reassuring. If they started to 22 see disease in the community, it would be the tip of the iceberg, given the latency of the 23 effects. If they found one person who is sick, there would probably be 100 more who will 24 be sick. Also, a very small population is exposed. Each person has different genetic 25' susceptibility. The EPA set its standard because it doesn't want people in communities to 26 get sick from different environmental pollutants. Some programs are more strict. 27 28 They are in the process of developing national guidance, which supports collecting 29 activity -based sampling. Internationally, people are beginning to collect data from air 30 samples. 31 32 Crawford stated the EPA lowered the arsenic standard from 50 parts per billion (ppb) 33 to 10 ppb. The Council lowered the local standard to that level before the EPA did. The 34 County Health Officer extrapolated that the lowered standard would save one person from 35 arsenic poisoning every 700 years. He asked the true health effect over time if they never 36 addressed this problem. He asked to quantify the asbestos risk in the same way. Wroble 37 stated calculate the risk of one in 10,000. Gathering data from homes may provide more 38 information on the broader effects. 39 40 Crawford asked if they don't know the number of exposures. Wroble stated they 41 know that asbestos causes cancer in people. They also have good ideas about how much 42 exposure it takes to make people sick from these occupational cohorts, where large 43 numbers of workers got sick and died from asbestos - related diseases. Therefore, she has 44 much more confidence in extrapolating that down to environmental levels. She is very 45 confident in the risks they calculated. They would have to know how many people in the 46 local community had that exposure level. They don't know where the material is. That is a 47 big data gap. 48 49 Crawford asked if Swift Creek is really unique. He asked if the situation at Swift 50 Creek is happening in other locations in the county where they haven't found. Hegedus 51 stated they have no information of another source of these materials at these levels. These 52 are very specific formations. 53 Natural Resources Committee, 3/25/2008, Page 3 Pittman stated (inaudible) there are some other locations around the county, but it's not widespread, It's localized in spots. None are moving at the rate Swift Creek is moving. Crawford asked if it's possible that geology leading to asbestos exists somewhere on the side of Mt. Baker, for example. Pittman stated there may be other creeks similar to Swift Creek. What makes Swift Creek unique is the amount of sediment that comes off the landslide and is transported by the creek, which is really a very small creek. It transports hundreds of thousands of cubic yards of material each year. Other places may have pockets with similar mineralogy. Hegedus stated that just because the material exists doesn't mean it causes illness. There needs to be an exposure pathway. If the material exists on the side of a mountain somewhere, and people occasionally hike through the area, it's much different than when people shovel the material into a pickup truck and breathe the dust. In those other cases, he doesn't have any indication that there is an exposure pathway that causes concern the way Swift Creek does. Crawford stated they did some analysis about various ways to deal with the Swift Creek issue. One option was forming a basin at the bottom of the mountain. He asked where they are with those options. Pittman stated the County requested funds from the Army Corps of Engineers to do a general investigation. The Corps would assess preliminary alternatives for effectiveness to capture sediment and mitigate health risks. The Corps would also assess costs. It would take several years to assess the alternatives. At the end, the County would have a list of projects to implement. Crawford asked if it's possibility to develop a Public Works project with multiple benefits, such as flood control, asbestos containment, water reservoir, recreation, or other benefits. Pittman stated that is definitely possible. The scope of the Swift Creek, both in project size and cost, is getting larger. Without substantial funding sources, options are limited to the funds they have on hand. Hegedus stated that given the- risk assessment and what they know about the content, the question comes up about off -site use of the material. They don't have any data on these locations. The people who may have used the material should be notified, receive information, and receive recommendations. They must get ready to do that by having a County website that provides information to residents who may have used the material. The Health Department will issue a press release with a fact sheet for those people who have used the material. Weimer asked if there is a plan to find out who have used the material on their property. He asked if there will be more indoor air testing. (Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.) Hegedus stated there will be a need for more data gathering as the project moves forward. There is no plan now to do activity -based sampling on actual driveways, although that may happen in the future. There is a proposal to do indoor air quality sampling. The sampling event is being designed. Homeowners on South Pass Road have expressed an interested in doing that indoor air sampling. He described the sampling effort and introduced Dr. Karen Larsen. Dr. Karen Larsen, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) Environmental Health Scientist, stated they generally rely on environmental data collected Natural Resources Committee, 3/25/2008, Page 4 by environmental agencies. They don't have a pool of money for testing. However, they have a small pool of money to use on a data gap that is a question of exposure. She proposed to the ATSDR that it provide money to support samples analysis. They will use micro - vacuums to collect samples in homes. They will also set up air monitors to do an activity sweep to measure what people are exposed to from housecleaning. The ATSDR will ask four questions. The first is whether the people at the site have likely been exposed to asbestos. The answer for Swift Creek is that it is likely. The second question is whether they need more information on exposure. The answer is that they do, for people who live near the site. The third question is whether the proposed study will fill the data gap. The answer is that they will get very good information from looking at a few homes closest to the site. They can use that information for off -site areas, and may not have to do a study of other homeowners who have driveways, for example. The last question is whether this informs public health decisions. The answer is that it will. The data gap, when used, will inform decisions on recommendations. In the next couple of weeks, she will meet with her staff in Atlanta to go through the proposal. She also submitted the study protocol. Weimer stated that if he had a driveway made of this stuff, he would want to know the worst case scenario and whether the material would have to be hauled away. Larsen stated the ATSDR would provide a list of guidelines. It's not a regulatory agency. Hegedus stated he doesn't anticipate that residents will have to remove their driveways. Naturally- occurring asbestos doesn't fit neatly into Model Toxics Control Act cleanup requirements or superfund site requirements. There isn't a regulatory framework or a financial funding system for this kind of site. Fleetwood asked if the County has any control over whether the ATSDR study is funded. Larsen stated the County could write a letter of support for the proposal. Hegedus stated the indoor air quality sample may be partially funded by the County through a grant from the Washington State Department of Ecology, through its Site Hazard Remedial Action grant. They have $80,000 for two years for this type of thing. Larsen stated ATSDR will partner with staff from the County Health Department to do her proposed sampling. Fleetwood asked if the local government is obligated by the State or federal government to act on this issue. He asked if the unacceptable risk level identified obligates the County to act. Hegedus stated there are no legal requirements currently. There would be issues if the site becomes a superfund site. The State is considering whether the sediment meets the definition of a solid waste. The State Department of Ecology currently has the opinion that it is not a Model Toxics Control Act site, but that it may be if they remove the material from the site and deposit it elsewhere. Legal conclusions have not yet been drawn. Fleetwood asked how they define moving the material off -site. Hegedus stated that it would be off -site if someone takes the material off the site and uses it for a purpose, especially if the sediment contaminates groundwater. Fleetwood asked if removing sediment from the creek bed and storing it on the slope is not considered off -site. Hegedus stated that's correct. It's not considered off -site. Natural Resources Committee, 3/25/2008, Page 5 Barbara Trejo, Washington State Department of Health, handed out the State DOH Health Consultation for Swift Creek (on file). They found no elevated level of disease, but continue to minimize asbestos exposure, because there is uncertainty about asbestos exposure and toxicity in terms of the work EPA did. The DOH concurs with the EPA's risk calculation estimates for activity sampling. The DOH recommends that regular activity on those dredge piles be considered a public health hazard. The DOH knows the material has been moved off -site and people are using it for driveways and other uses. However, they don't know the associated risk level. They must fill that data gap. The community must be informed of the risk from using the material. Offer steps to reduce their exposure as much as possible. Weimer asked if the County is actively trying to find where the material went off -site. He asked if the Public Works Department or State Department of Transportation, ever used the material. Hegedus stated that isn't occurring currently. It may occur. They are interested to know where the material was deposited, especially if the school system used the material. There are a lot of issues with getting that information. The first step is to simply make notification. Crawford stated there is no way to ever know. Homes sell, and new owners don't know the source of the building materials. There isn't a practical way of figuring it out. Brenner asked if anyone has talked about providing grant money or low- interest loans to people in the area who must cover their driveways. Hegedus stated they haven't discussed it yet. The next step is to give public notice and provide information and recommendations. They haven't discussed funding for residents. Weimer asked if lignosite would work to seal dust. Hegedus stated it depends on how, when, and where the material was used. Tom Westergreen, Great Western Lumber, stated the EPA report can be interpreted differently. There may be risk, but also opportunities to do things. It's not practical to ensure there is no risk. The EPA report should be redone with that point of view. See if there are practical things to reduce the risk without shutting down everything. He's one of the people who has been exposed. He understands the health risk. However, he is concerned about tracking where the material has gone and the possible new liability for people who have used the material. Most of the time, the material was covered when it was used for driveways. There is a reduced risk. The material has gone down the Sumas River all the way to Canada. It's been on the banks for the last 50 years. They can follow that exposure track, but haven't. That is a health risk to consider. Keep neighbors of the area in the loop. This is also a flooding issue that began when the Army Corps of Engineers did work in the area in the 1970's. His company has had to do its own flood protection work since the Corps did that work. The Corps recently stopped his company from doing that work and asked him to provide information on the names and addresses of all the contractors he used and a list of locations where all the material has gone. He wants to know who will protect his property from flooding now that the work has been stopped. That creek will fill up and Natural Resources Committee, 3/25/2008, Page 6 spread the material all around his mill and its 70 employees. He's not getting answers on that problem. Hegedus stated he appreciates Mr. Westergreen's situation. This is the first time he's heard that anyone has asked for names, addresses, and locations. At this point, he intends to do the County's duty and make people aware that the County has learned of a risk in the community. Brenner asked if there is an effort to buy easements or property in the area to stockpile more sediment. Hegedus stated that in the short-term sediment management scope, they realize they need to do something with that sediment to keep the water in the creek. The Public Works Department currently has an easement to stockpile material, but it's running out of room. He's not aware of any other negotiations. John Hutchings, Public Works Department, indicated negotiations to expand storage area are happening. Larry Meades, Oat Coles Road, stated they should test individuals, site locations, and off -site locations before fear mongering the community. If they don't know the real hazard, then don't scare the community with a problem. He knows where the material is and who has it, but no one has talked to him. Test the material first, before they scare people. Putting information on the website isn't a solution. They are doing it backwards. Get answers first before they put out information on possible hazards. Many people played in and around the creek during childhood, and no one has ever had any health problems. He's used this material under buildings, under roads, and in fields. Most of it is covered, but some of it is not. Many horse arenas in the area have this material. He has offered to share this information, but no one has asked. Mr. Westergreen's dredging activities are a service to everyone in the community because it prevents a lot of the material from going downstream. OTHER BUSINESS There was no other business. ADJOURN The meeting adjourned at 10:59 a.m. Jill Nixon, V "(t%JtW1Vfbv4 F` fiption v.�011� Y C p • O COUNTY e � 'J, WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON Dana Brown -Dev .en ncild erk Carl Weimer, Committee Chair * NO Natural Resources Committee, 3/25/2008, Page 7