Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCommittee of the Whole February 13 2007WMATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL Committee Of The Whole February 13, 2007 Council Chair Carl Weimer called the meeting to order at 5:35 p.m. in the Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington, Present; Absent: Barbara Brenner None Dan McShane Seth Fleetwood Laurie Caskey- Schreiber L. Ward Nelson Sam Crawford 1. DISCUSSION OF EPA REPORT ON SWIFT CREEK ASBESTOS SITE (AB2007- 092) Lori Cohen, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Office of Environmental Cleanup Associate Director, introduced her Swift Creek team. Several agencies are involved in Swift Creek, including the federal, state, and local governments. Swift Creek is a major landslide off Sumas Mountain. People have been taking that material to use as fill or for other uses. Naturally occurring asbestos is in the material. They have a particular health concern with this area. The EPA encouraged the Corps of Engineers to not allow people to move the material off -site, due to potential health concerns. Now there is a stockpile. The EPA has characterized the material. When people do normal activities in that area, the asbestos gets into their breathing zone and can cause a potential increased risk of getting cancer. When dredging occurs, stockpile the material until the EPA can figure out a better solution for disposing of the material. They know the creek must be dredged to prevent flooding. A number of agencies are working together on this problem. The EPA, under the superfund program, has some limitations in spending superfund money for this particular kind of site, because it is naturally- occurring asbestos. They are exempt from working on naturally occurring asbestos sites, by law, except when the material is moved. That's why they were able to work in this area. Julie Wroble, EPA Risk Assessor, described naturally occurring asbestos. With naturally occurring asbestos (NOA), the danger is from fine airborne fibers that are breathed into the lung. A crew gathered and tested samples of the material. The concentrations range from .1 percent to 4.4 percent asbestos, with a mean of about 1.7 percent. Those concentrations are high. While sampling in the area, they used air monitors to see if fibers were getting into the breathing zone. Then they designed a sampling plan to test ongoing activities that occur in the area. They did activity -based sampling, which is a new technique. They tested activity one, which was digging and loading the material. Activity two was spreading the dredged material. Activity three was recreational activity along the creek. Actinolite fiber and chrysotile fiber were collected from samples. Most were chrysotile fiber bundles. Fibers were getting into the breathing zone of the people involved Committee of the Whole, 2/13/2007, Page 1 1 in the sample activities. Risk estimates for some activities exceeded EPA's risk 2 management range. 3 4 The data set Was small. They only looked at a few activities. They only looked at 5 the dredged material from the creek. They didn't look at areas where this material has 6 come to be located or areas away from the bank. The risks could be higher if someone has 7 asbestos dust in their homes. The risk could be lower for those who live farther away. 8 Some of the activities that exceeded the normal range included walking, farming, 9 gardening, and dredging and hauling. 10 11 Gary Palcisko, Washington State Department of Health, stated asbestos causes lung 12 cancer and mesothelioma. The Department of Health is obtaining data from the State 13 cancer registry to find out if anyone in the area has gotten cancer. They are also going to 14 look at asbestosis, which is not a cancer. If they find that people in this area are showing 15 more cancers, they have to find out if they were exposed to the cancer in any other way. 16 They will finish this review in three months. The results will be mailed to citizens in the area 17 and others. 18 19 Cohen read a summary of the concerns from neighbors in the area. They are 20 concerned about stockpiled material remaining on their property, property values 21 decreasing, potential exposures, and personal health. They want to know the solutions to 22 this problem and where else this material has been taking by flooding and other means. 23 There are three areas to focus on. One area is to determine the additional human health 24 information that is necessary to collect in this area. So far, they have focused on the 25 stockpiled material. An important first step is to inventory the material to find out where 26 it's gone. They need to think about what to do this summer. This problem is going to 27 continue for hundreds of years. It's a very long -term problem. A lot of agency 28 collaboration needs to happen. The County will want to have a strong role to work with the 29 community. 30 31 Nelson stated the finding is that the material is hazardous, the material shouldn't be 32 taken off site, they have a site that is currently at capacity, and there are property owners 33 who are gravely concerned. He asked why the County would want to take the lead on this 34 problem. Cohen stated other counties with risk areas have wanted to take the lead in 35 working directly with the residents and managing institutional controls. The counties 36 received grant funds to work with the residents. The local health departments worked with 37 property owners about appropriate disposal of the materials. 38 39 Brenner stated she thought the material could be spread and covered, such as being 40 put under roads. She asked if that is not an option anymore. Cohen stated it isn't an 41 option right now because of the need for road maintenance. They don't want to expose 42 road maintenance workers. It may be an option in the future. They will look at the option. 43 44 Brenner stated this is not new information from the last presentation. They can't 45 keep stockpiling the material. Cohen stated the EPA was asked to characterize the material 46 and help determine whether or not it was a hazard. The EPA spent a lot of money, time, 47 and effort to do what it was asked. Now, they all need to look at the situation and figure 48 out a plan. Find some additional storage area. 49 50 Brenner asked how far away they can move the material. Cohen stated it's a matter 51 of finding the appropriate location, and figuring out how much it would cost to take it to that 52 location. There isn't a limit on how far the material is taken, as long as it is managed 53 appropriately at that location. Committee of the Whole, 2/13/2007, Page 2 1 2 Caskey- Schreiber stated internal discussions need to take place with legal counsel, to 3 figure out how to minimize the liability to the County taxpayers. It is her understanding 4 that if the County moves the material, it becomes liable. 5 6 McShane stated they will have to do a cost - feasibility analysis of a variety of 7 alternatives. It is difficult to predict the level of funding support from the EPA. He sees that 8 as the difficulty the County will have. He hopes the State will be honest about the amount 9 of money that is or will be available or not available. 10 11 Cohen stated that the Army Corps of Engineers is another important agency to get 12 involved. They typically deal with the flooding issue, with an asbestos component. Also talk 13 with the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), as another potential source of 14 funding. The EPA has made sure that the State Department of Ecology, State legislature, 15 and Governor are aware if its findings and the serious need for funding. 16 17 Weimer asked if there will be ongoing health risk assessment work. Cohen stated 18 nothing is planned right now. The Department of Ecology has offered the County $66,000 19 to do additional health studies. There are plans to meet and discuss the next steps, 20 including an inventory of the material. People are interested in having their homes 21 sampled. 22 23 Brenner stated FEMA used to buy out flooded properties. 24 25 Cliff Villa, EPA Regional Counsel, stated that the FEMA has funds to purchase 26 properties in the flood plain in certain situations. He doesn't know how that would apply in 27 this case, but it's an idea worth exploring. 28 29 Nelson stated that rather than the County taking the lead, they could enter a 30 collaborative agreement among various agencies, assuming mutual liability. Otherwise, it 31 will be difficult to get collaboration. They must be concerned about the property owners. 32 Cohen stated there is potential for something like that. They could figure out which liability 33 share is appropriate for which agency. 34 35 Villa stated there are things that the EPA can do and other things that the County 36 can do. 37 38 (Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.) 39 40 McShane stated risk based assessment is fairly easy, but analysis of different 41 approaches is difficult. One idea to consider is modeling and theorizing the needs based on 42 projections that go out about 300 years. Some assumptions will have to be made. 43 44 Karen Frakes, Prosecutor's Office, stated she has met with Dan Gibson and he has 45 been working on this. This issue will come up in the future. 46 47 2. CONSIDERATION OF APPEAL FILED BY MAX HURLBUT REGARDING APL06- 48 0032, AN ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION REGARDING CORRECTIONS NOTICE 49 (AB2006 -470) 50 51 McShane moved to go into executive session at 6:30 p.m. for 30 minutes to 52 discuss the last three agenda items. 53 Committee of the Whole, 2/13/2007, Page 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Motion carried unanimously. 3. DISCUSSION OF POTENTIAL LAND ACQUISITION (AB2007 -018) 4. LEGAL DISCUSSION REGARDING STORMWATER PHASE 2 (AB2007 -018) OTHER BUSINESS AD30URN The meeting adjourned at approximately 7:05 p.m. Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription The Council approved these minutes on March 13 , 2007. %otI I I I I I I!!J /I/ ATTE � Y C 0 Tana 4BrpvgTawvollf, 4—�ona1 Clerk WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON Carl Weimer, Council Chair Committee of the Whole, 2/13/2007, Page 4