HomeMy WebLinkAboutNatural Resources August 10 19991
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
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
Natural Resources Committee
August 10, 1999
The meeting was called to order at 9:30 a.m. by Committee Chair Connie
Hoag in the Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington.
Also Present:
Kathy Sutter
DISCUSSION
Absent:
Tom Brown
1. PRESENTATION BY CANADIAN AND AMERICAN CITIZENS
REGARDING THE MINING OF JUDSON LAKE (AB99 -295)
Jack Reimer, Canada, stated residents are concerned about a project to mine
gravel from the Canadian portion of Judson Lake. He distributed information (on
file). The proposal is to extract 2 million tons of gravel from the northern portion of
the lake, over five years. Judson Lake straddles the Canadian and U.S. border.
There are 82 acres on the American side and 27 on the Canadian side of the lake.
The proposal is to mine the 27 acres on the Canadian side to a depth of 40 feet. As
the lake currently sits, it is about 6 feet deep throughout the lake in general. The
dredging would be deposited on the west side of the lake. The depth varies from 6
feet to 1 -2 feet during the low water period.
Hoag questioned the depth on the American side of the lake, believing it was
deeper. Reimer stated 1995 was one of the lowest water periods on the lake. In a
study done by consultants of the mining proposal, they estimated the lake at
roughly 6 feet throughout.
Reimer stated the proposal is to dredge the lake with an overhead dredge
line to remove the dredging to the west side of the lake, and then move it to a
permanent stockpile via a conveyor belt. There is a roadway to be constructed that
goes below the high water mark, goes around the lake, and brings the material out
via Clearbrook Road on the Canadian side. Nearby Laxton Lake had a similar
project done in the early 1990's. The owner of Judson Lake is trying to do the
same. Laxton Lake was similar to Judson Lake, but has become a deepwater lake
at this point. That is what the owner is trying to do with Judson Lake.
Part of the project also entails construction of a dike to be built parallel along
the line of the U.S. /Canadian border. The reason for the dike is to prevent the
dredging process from disturbing the waters on the U.S. side.
Richard Holmquist, 582 Sprague Valley Drive, discussed the current concerns
of the Americans regarding the proposal and concerns regarding groundwater.
Mining into the groundwater poses risks for contamination of the
Sumas /Abbottsford Aquifer, and is against the bylaws on both sides of the border.
Natural Resources Committee, 8/10/99, Page 1
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
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
If contamination occurs, then the wells to the south of the border would be
affected. He demonstrated the hydrology flow of the water. There was a similar
deepening project on Laxton Lake. It affected local wells to the south of that
project.
Gerald Holmquist, resident, stated his wells were contaminated by the Laxton
Lake project because of the sulfur and iron flow that happened with that project.
They continue to get the sulfur smell.
Richard Holmquist continued to state there are potential risks to the aquifer
in the future because of exposed conditions from farming practices around the lake,
such as over - fertilization from manure or pesticide use of the raspberry fields that
neighbor the lake. Another concern is the level of the lake. One environmental
concern is about removing the semi - permeable lakebed. The mining operation
proposes to dig down to 40 feet on the Canadian side. The lake and underlying
aquifer are similar during a high water period. During a low water period, the
groundwater drops below the level of the lake, and the lake is perched above the
groundwater. If the semi - permeable lakebed is removed, then the new level will
drop to the groundwater level. This will be critical during low water periods as the
groundwater fluctuates between ten and fifteen feet. The proposed 3 to 1 slope of
shoreline would also mean a change in shoreline water levels of 30 to 45 feet.
Under these conditions, growing natural vegetation would be very difficult. During
low water periods, the U.S. side of the lake may completely dry up. They predict
the lake will drop 10 feet when the lakebed is removed. Given the lake is, on
average, six feet deep, this will effectively drain the U.S. water. The State Fish and
Wildlife Department have said the drying up of the U.S. side will have a disastrous
effect on the local bird and wildlife population. This lake is central to a major
migratory flight path, and functions as a primary rest stop for migrating birds. A
disruption to this sanctuary would have a significant impact.
There are concerns regarding local agriculture. A mining operation that close
to prime farmland would have an economic impact to local farmers. The lake is
used by farmers on both sides of the border for irrigation. There have been no
specifics on the height, width, and type of materials to be used to create the dike.
Dust pollution from the transportation of the gravel is also a concern. There is the
potential for the production of significant airborne dust, which would have a
detrimental affect on the local farmers and their crops. Dust can affect the
photosynthetic process of the crops and encourage pests. Another concern is the
noise pollution from equipment running during long hours. There is an international
joint commission boundary waters treaty, which applies to bodies of water used for
irrigation, such as Judson Lake. This proposed operation would be in violation of
that treaty because it will affect the natural flow of water across the border, and will
also affect the level of the lake. The proposal is an attempt to make a lot of money
for the owner, at a great expense to the environment, neighbors, and local farmers.
Every environmental agency has come out in opposition of the project. They are
asking for a formal letter to the Abbotsford City Council opposing this project, and
that a representative be sent directly to the City Council.
Natural Resources Committee, 8/10/99, Page 2
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
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
Dawson asked if an environmental impact statement had been done. Reimer
replied one has not been done. The amount of gravel the owner proposes to
remove is just below the trigger point for the requirement of an environmental
impact study on the Canadian side.
Hoag asked about the depth of the lake. Gerald Holmquist responded that
the lake is generally not over six feet deep. During the high waters of winter, there
is the possibility that they could have as much as 12 feet of water. It varies
considerably, depending on what is happening with the lake on the Canadian side.
There is a petition signed by 40 people.
Reimer stated the owner's consultant determined the groundwater is 10 to
12 feet below lake level. At various high water periods, the groundwater is actually
in the lake.
Hoag stated the concern is that the groundwater will be below the American
side when it goes down, and it will drain the American side of the lake. She asked
about Laxton Lake and the difference in geology between the two lakes. Gerald
Holmquist responded that Laxton Lake gained the water, but lost all the necessities
for the filtration system.
Hoag asked about the 1995 low water being the result of a change in the
culvert between Laxton and Judson. They ended up with more water in Laxton and
not as much in Judson. Gerald Holmquist stated that was true.
Reimer described an irrigation canal connecting the two lakes. When Laxton
Lake was deepened, the owner was trying to create a deep water lake. It was in
his best interest to keep as much water in Laxton as possible. He clogged or
dammed the irrigation canal. There are culverts that act as high water flood
protection. The natural flow of water between the two lakes no longer happens.
He also discussed culverts. The Canadians also have issues regarding trucking and
transportation. There would be 140 truckloads of gravel per day that would come
down the road.
Dawson asked about drainage of the lake. Gerald Holmquist responded all
the areas are connected. There probably is a certain overflow that goes
underground or into Pangborn Lake.
Dawson asked about using the waters for irrigation and permitting for
irrigation use. Gerald Holmquist responded they have a permit. Because of what
happened with Laxton Lake, the water available has been jeopardized.
Reimer stated there is also Canadian irrigation.
Dawson stated she supported a letter to the Abbotsford City Council and to
Mayor Ferguson. She suggested that she and Hoag go to an Abbotsford City
Council meeting to present the letter personally.
Natural Resources Committee, 8/10/99, 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
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
Richard Grout, Manager of the Bellingham Office of the State Department of
Ecology, spoke about their involvement and concerns. They will send their own
letter to the jurisdiction. The points they will raise will be that there will be lake
level impacts. There will be at least a partial draining of the lake as a result of this
activity. There will be stream flow impacts because of the groundwater infiltration
from the lake. There is no surface water drainage from this lake, except at very
high water conditions. The drainage from the lake is subsurface. This may result in
an interruption of that, which would adversely impact both Johnson Creek and the
Sumas River. There are likely to be impacts from the construction of the berm
across the lake. There has been no assessment of those impacts. They would
clearly interrupt the hydrologic flow in the lake. There is an issue with the treaty
on boundary waters. He has a call into one of the Attorneys General who deals
with the international treaties. There was a letter from the Department of Fish and
Wildlife that did not represent the State of Washington, and was retracted by the
author.
Hoag suggested making a recommendation to full Council and have a draft
letter before the Council.
The committee concurred.
2. PRESENTATION BY THE PIPELINE SURVIVORS ASSOCIATION
REGARDING PIPELINE SAFETY (AB99 -296)
Shirley Fuller Nielsen, 6287 Siper Road, Sumas, stated that making Whatcom
County a better and safer place includes preserving and protecting the resources.
She was speaking as an individual who experienced the Williams pipeline explosion
on February 8, 1997, and also as a member of the Pipeline Survivors Association.
Citizens have the right to object to anything that takes away from the joy,
usefulness, and pleasure associated with the use of their land and property. They
are objecting to anything on Sumas Mountain that poses a risk to the environment
or their health and well being. Williams has had nine leaks, ruptures, or explosions
in Washington and Idaho since 1994. Land movement aggravated by heavy rains
caused most incidents.
Karen Frakes, Senior Civil Deputy Prosecutor, apologized for interrupting,
and stated she was concerned that this issue would be before the Council as a
quasi - judicial matter that is pending. She talked with Council Member Hoag and
Mr. Nielsen about this presentation. Currently, there is an application for expansion
of a mining pit that is close to this property. One of the major issues in that
situation is pipeline safety. She understood that an environmental impact
statement (EIS) has been required and there will be a hearing on the EIS where the
Nielsens and anyone else can make their comments on pipeline safety and their
concerns specific to that area. That is very likely to come before the County
Council on appeal. She agreed with Mr. Nielsen during their conversation that it
was very important to stay away from the specifics of that situation, and to instead
talk generically about pipeline safety. She didn't think it was appropriate, and
could possibly taint the present Council members as decision - makers, in an appeal
Natural Resources Committee, 8/10/99, Page 4
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
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
situation. She apologized for interrupting and stated she wanted to warn the
Council of that situation.
Hoag stated she requested a legal opinion from Frakes about this situation
prior to the meeting. She was told by Frakes that, as long as they were talking
about the pipeline in general, and nothing having to do with the project and its
possible impacts on the pipeline, they would be okay.
Frakes stated she told Hoag she would check with the Department to find out
more about he administrative approval situation. She spoke with Doug Goldthorpe,
who told her pipeline safety and the incident that occurred two years ago are very
relevant to the question of whether or not administrative approval will be granted.
It is difficult to know where to draw the line. Her advice was that they shouldn't
get into the specifics of that pipeline and that incident, because it is all relevant to
what is very likely to come up for appeal.
Hoag stated the specifics of that pipeline and that incident was prior to an
application for a quarry expansion. That is not what they are discussing. They are
not discussing the quarry expansion. They are talking about the pipeline and safety
issues. She questioned whether these people have just as much right to comment
on pipeline safety as anyone else in Whatcom County. Frakes responded she was
not saying they don't have a right to comment. She was trying to say it may taint
the Council members as decision - makers later on. It is a call the Council members
have to take. There is a risk they may be tainting themselves as decision - makers if
they listen to the specifics. All of the facts that pertain to this prior incident and the
history of the safety in that particular location are being raised by the Pipeline
Survivors Association in the context of that administrative approval. She believed it
is all very relevant to that procedure.
Sutter stated what is being said is that any mention of that pipeline or the
specifics of that incident should be done in general. They should speak in very
general terms about safety of pipelines and not specifically what happened there.
Brenner asked for clarification on the authority Frakes had based her opinion.
She believed becoming tainted was a result of ex parte communication. This is not
ex parte. This is an open meeting. Frakes responded that ex parte can be in the
context of a public meeting. The other side is not at the meeting.
Brenner stated the other side could be present, just like anyone else. Frakes
stated a quasi - judicial proceeding is a contained proceeding. It doesn't take place
over many months. This is advertised as a presentation by one side. She thought
the Council members were taking a big risk by hearing these facts that she knew
would be brought up in the context of this expansion. These facts are very relevant
to that expansion. It is the Council members' choice to make, but she believed
they are taking a risk of disqualifying themselves as decision - makers down the line.
As far as her opinion she rendered, it is consistent with the City attorney's opinion.
Natural Resources Committee, 8/10/99, Page 5
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
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
Don Nielsen, 6287 Siper Road, stated he requested clarification from Frakes
because he did not want to put anyone in harm. He had a very long conversation
in which Frakes told him they could only speak in generic terms. They have no
intention of getting into areas they know they are not supposed to. He asked her
to call him if something else came up. That was the end of a very friendly
conversation. It is up to the Council members to decide if they want to know about
pipelines and their experiences and concerns with this particular pipeline.
Sutter stated they wanted to know, but they wanted the information in the
appropriate context. If they listen to testimony now that will have bearing on the
gravel pit expansion, then there is a possibility they will have to disqualify
themselves from making any kind of a decision when that decision comes before
them. She questioned whether they would rather make the presentation at this
meeting, and not have them be able to vote on the gravel pit expansion, or wait
and give the presentation within that context.
Don Nielsen stated there is a misunderstanding. They were told Planning
and Development would come to them and explain the procedures in the system.
Hoag stated they have been dealing with pipeline safety. This group has had
immense dealings with pipeline safety and have done a lot of research. They asked
to bring that information to the Council. As long as it does not pertain to the
quarry, then she will permit discussion. She contacted Karen Frakes prior to this
meeting because she wanted to ensure they weren't putting themselves in a
position they should be. The advice given by Frakes was that, as long as it didn't
touch on the quarry issue, discussion would be allowed. She pointed out there are
things that happen all the time, including the explosion with Olympic Pipeline that
will have a bearing on the quarry expansion. However, there are things that they
are exposed to that does not taint or disqualify them from making a decision on the
quarry. The type of information general to pipeline safety and specific to the
Williams pipeline these people live on, she would allow. If there were anything
regarding the quarry or the possible impacts of the quarry, she would not allow it.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A. Beginning of tape two, side A.)
Shirley Nielsen stated they have not mentioned the quarry.
Hoag stated it sounded like Frakes was saying the Nielsens could not present
their information. She knew they have done much studying on the safety of
pipelines. She wanted to hear what they have to say because it is relevant to the
action the committee is taking. Frakes agreed that they are all exposed to
information. However, when they are receiving information specifically from one
side of a controversy, that is when they get into trouble.
Hoag stated they aren't receiving the information regarding that controversy.
Frakes responded that she was fearful, when she heard the opening comments.
She wanted to forewarn the Council members that they need to keep a close eye on
this.
Natural Resources Committee, 8/10/99, Page 6
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
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
Hoag stated they would keep a close eye on it.
Brenner asked about the presentations made at the last committee meeting
from the pipelines. Frakes responded there isn't anything pending with them. In
this situation, they know there is an administrative approval pending on the quarry.
Pipeline safety is one of the primary issues involved in that proceeding.
Brenner stated they had presentations by four pipeline companies during the
last meeting. Frakes responded they aren't proponents or opponents in this
particular situation. In this situation, the landowner is on one side and the Pipeline
Survivors Association is on the other side.
Shirley Nielsen commented about the Williams Company. There have been
nine ruptures, leaks, and explosions in Washington and Idaho since 1994. Most
were caused by land movement aggravated by heavy rains or by aging or
improperly maintained pipes. There is data to back that up.
Dawson stated she felt uncomfortable hearing this testimony and felt she
would have to abstain and leave.
Hoag questioned Dawson's reason for feeling as if she must abstain and
leave. This is the same information the Williams Company discussed at the last
meeting. The committee asked about their actions regarding land movement.
Sutter stated Dawson has a right to abstain if she wishes. She is not on the
committee and is not required to be present.
Hoag stated she wanted to know because she didn't want Dawson to later be
able to judge the matter while the committee can't.
Dawson stated she felt it would be a very generic presentation. Because
they are directly involved, she felt uncomfortable.
Shirley Nielsen stated the committee members need to forget about the
quarry. She was just a citizen concerned about pipeline safety who had some facts.
Hoag stated these people came to her after the meeting with the pipeline
companies. The Nielsens told her some of the information given by the pipeline
companies was PR and fluff. They also told her they had done a lot of research on
pipeline safety and would like to bring information to the committee. That is the
information the committee looked for at the last meeting. They've heard from the
companies and she wanted to hear from the public.
Brenner stated Williams said they have a very good track record. If the
company makes a proclamation about the quality of their company, it has a right to
be challenged if someone feels it is not accurate.
Natural Resources Committee, 8/10/99, Page 7
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
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
Debra Benner, 4460 Minnaker Road, Sumas, stated this is not specific to the
Nielsen's site. Williams Pipeline runs from Canada to Mexico. She lives along the
pipeline. What the Nielsen's have to say about pipeline safety for Williams concerns
everyone that lives along the pipeline, not just the quarry.
Don Nielsen stated some of his comments were responses to Williams'
presentation two weeks ago. However, if there is a problem, he will not make his
comments.
Hoag stated it is appropriate for the public to respond to the comments from
Williams Pipeline. She was very much bothered by the fact she cleared it with legal
staff prior to the meeting, and now there are people trying to provide information
and they and the Council are getting pushed and pulled every which way.
Sutter stated they need to keep their purpose in mind, which is to send a
letter to the Office of Pipeline Safety and the resolution regarding Olympic Pipeline.
Hoag stated she wanted to hear information regarding the public's view of
pipeline safety and the responses to the Pipelines' presentations. She would not
tolerate any more interruptions.
Nielsen continued her presentation. Recent events in Bellingham have
heightened public concern and interest in how vulnerable they are and how much
they do not know about pipelines and accompanying regulation. This could happen
again. The people affected by the Olympic explosion have been receiving
counseling for the stress they have endured. Neil Clement, Whatcom County
Emergency Services Manager, recently left information regarding post- stress
syndrome for her neighbors, along with the names of doctors to contact. Post -
stress syndrome can last for up to ten years after an event. Two and a half years
later, many of her neighbors are still suffering. She asked that the Council
members ensure pipelines are thoroughly and regularly tested, monitored, and
maintained. They should do everything in their power to get federal regulations
changed and improved so the companies are inspected often and regularly, are
accountable, that the Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS) operates more responsibly,
and that the National Transportation and Safety Board (NTSB) fully audits the OPS
more often. Pipelines must have cathodic protection. Cathodic protection can
deteriorate. There needs to be block valves, check valves, and relief valves at
intervals of no more than five miles. Internal and external tests, including the
smart pig, need to be done. Some pipelines are not big enough to accommodate
the smart pig to go through. The companies must ensure the lines are at the
proper depth and have not moved. Training of operators and controllers must be
improved. Double- walled pipes, if needed, and breaker walls should be used.
Pipeline companies should not police themselves. Responsibility must be
established in the event of catastrophe. She was concerned about the high risk of
another explosion and a forest fire, the emergency teams in the community, the
communication and care of the neighborhoods, the pipeline companies' computer
systems and whether they have backup systems and are Year 2000 (Y2K)
compliant. She questioned when was the last update to the hardware and
Natural Resources Committee, 8/10/99, Page 8
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
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
software. They realize pipelines are the safest and most efficient means of
transporting liquid fuels and natural gas, but they must all work together to ensure
more safety for everyone and the environment. Sumas Mountain is in a seismic
activity region. There is a known landslide area there. They have to remain
cognizant of the risks involved.
Hoag asked about the deterioration of cathodic protection. Shirley Nielsen
stated she did not have any data to back it up, but it was in one of the reports she
received.
Brenner stated one of the pipeline companies mentioned it during the
committee meeting.
Hoag questioned whether they could discuss anything having to do with the
explosion. Frakes stated that was difficult. She didn't know what connection they
were drawing between the quarry and the explosion. She assumed they would
draw some connection.
Shirley Nielsen stated they were not drawing any connection.
Frakes stated it is hard for her to know what is going to come out. Just
talking about the explosion would not be a problem. The problem is when they
start to draw the connection between the explosion and the quarry activity.
Sue Tommervik, 6080 Hoff Circle, Everson, gave national statistics from the
Office of Pipeline Safety regarding natural gas. She was told that natural gas is
clean and safe, but it is not. According to the OPS statistics, natural gas explosions
are divided into two different segments. One segment is the transmission system,
which Williams is. Regarding the transmission operations, there have been 1,084
incidents, 39 fatalities, and 189 injuries since 1986. They've also caused $238
billion worth of property damage. If they add the distribution system to those
transmission figures, there would be 2,884 incidents, 280 deaths, and 1,294
injuries. Regarding crude oil and gas, there were 3,003 incidents, 35 deaths, and
247 injuries. Natural gas causes more damage in terms of human injury and life
than oil or gas. The difference is that the environmental damage is less extreme.
In Missouri in 1989, there were five explosions in four months. Three people died
from those explosions. Missouri declared a State emergency and required
inspection of all the gas lines at that time. Another explosion happened in New
Jersey and destroyed eight apartment buildings, injured 100 people, and created
fires that couldn't be stopped because they didn't have the automatic shut -off
valves. Because of the heat, the firefighters could not get to the valves or contain
or extinguish the fires. The lack of remote operated and /or automatic valves on the
system seriously impeded the company's capability to rapidly stop the gas flow to
failed pipeline segments. The lines in this County don't have the automatic shut -off
valves, either. They need to press for this upgrade. 11% of natural gas lines have
the automatic shut -off valves. They have been installed in urban environments, but
not anywhere near in proportions that the NTSB has recommended. The primary
problem is they can't stop the leaks, even when they are identified. When it does
Natural Resources Committee, 8/10/99, Page 9
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
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
create a fire, it is difficult to get to the lines because of the heat. They also don't
have leak detection systems. It is not adequate to walk the line once per year and
sniff. There are areas where they can install the technology to detect hydro-
carbons and alert them of leaks.
Hoag asked about hydrocarbon sensing. Tommervik responded that she
couldn't answer authoritatively on whether hydrocarbon sensing would work on the
Williams line.
Hoag asked about the function of the automatic shut -off valves. Tommervik
responded she didn't have an answer about how they work. She was going by the
NTSB recommendations, but there is some conflict in the industry about how they
work. Williams company officials had problems getting to the lines to shut off the
manual valves. Part of the problem was the traffic on the bridge over the
Nooksack.
Hoag stated the committee recommended remote shut -off valves for that
very reason. She questioned Tommervik's opinion on remote shut -off valves.
Tommervik stated they would be better. The issue is the speed of being able to
shut down the pipeline.
Brenner asked about the length of time the fire was under control.
Tommervik responded that it took them 45 minutes to reach the manual valves and
close off that portion of the pipeline. The gas then had to burn out of that line.
There were approximately 500,000 gallons that had to burn. If they had remote
valves, she questioned whether they could have shut them off sooner. The fire
burned for an hour and a half. They were concerned at the time about a forest fire
starting.
Brenner asked if they now have a neighborhood plan if something else were
to happen. Tommervik responded they don't. Privately, her family created a path
to get out.
Tommervik discussed the standards of construction. One of the dangers is
that there are problems putting a pipeline on a slope. Another issue is that pipeline
trenches can serve as conduits for surface or groundwater. Standards have been
developed for pipelines on slopes. They have to install breaker walls. Pipelines are
supposed to be bedded in sand so they are not in contact with larger boulders that
would dent the pipe. They build retaining walls of sandbags to protect them from
water erosion. This was not code in 1956, which was when the line was installed.
They should be asking questions about the construction details of these pipelines.
They are on slopes around Samish Park. If they combine this fact with the fact
they are not required to do regular testing, it makes a bad situation. She
questioned whether she could talk about the Golder Report, which was the study
that was done to identify the causes of the explosion in the Williams line.
Brenner stated it was a public report. Frakes responded they are free to read
the report, but didn't think it was appropriate to hear someone's rendition of what
Natural Resources Committee, 8/10/99, Page 10
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
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
the report says. Roland Middleton, who is involved in the administrative process,
feels it is an area they shouldn't get into.
Tommervik stated pipeline explosions occur as a result of landslides, which
occur as a result of rainfall. She had been hearing there are predictions of
increasing rainfall in the future. In March of this year, there was a Washington
State Senate workshop on climate change, and was presented by the University of
Washington and the National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration. According to
their analysis, the area is due for an increase in rainfall of 4.5% by the year 2025
and 9% by 2050. These pipelines will still be in the ground. They also estimate a
1% temperature increase per decade. In El Nino years, that temperature only goes
up by 1/2 %, so a 1% increase is very significant.
Hoag asked about whether they can hear about land movement in that area.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape two, side A.)
Roland Middleton, Planning and Development Services Land Use Division
Manager, responded that land movement is a serious issue regarding pipeline
safety. His only concern is keeping this body neutral for when they hear it to this
particular area. He had no issue regarding hearing information on statistics. He
would be concerned about them hearing information about land movement in that
particular area.
Hoag explained the process regarding what they can and can't hear about
and who should receive the information.
Tommervik discussed older pipelines. Many were installed in the 1940's
through the 1960's. Because they are aging, there will be more accidents. There is
some controversy about the aging process of the lines. The NTSB tried to come up
with a standard about how old these lines could get, but they couldn't do it. The
issue is more specifically whether they are maintained and inspected properly.
Corrosion can vary depending on the types of soils around the pipes. Older lines
leak more often than newer lines, as determined by the New Jersey Institute of
Technology. Pipelines built before 1940 leaked at 20 times the rate of pipes built in
the 1980's.
Brenner asked about the age of pipelines in the County. Middleton
responded that many of the rights -of -way were purchased in the 1940's and
1950's. Williams was the first to go in during 1955 or 1956. Many others were
installed in the 1970's.
Tommervik stated the inspection of the pipelines is not required, only
optional. They should be required. They should have double - walled pipes in
sensitive areas, they should not go on slopes at all, and should have regular depth
monitoring. The lines should be flagged more frequently and should have some
kind of automatic or remote shut -off valve. They should also have better leak
detection systems. The OPS doesn't have a very good performance record. They
Natural Resources Committee, 8/10/99, Page 11
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
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
need more inspectors to do their job. Permanent instruments should be monitoring
these lines. At the County government level, the counties have a lot to do with
what happens around the pipelines. Pipelines aren't mentioned in the Critical Areas
Ordinance at all. They should be. The easements around the pipelines should be
larger.
Dawson asked about how depth monitoring is done. Tommervik responded
they have an instrument that senses how deep the pipe is.
Tommervik requested the County examine and re- evaluate zoning around
the pipelines.
Hoag asked about seam welds on the older pipes. Tommervik stated she
didn't know anything about that.
Don Nielsen spoke about the testimony given by the pipelines at the Natural
Resources Committee two weeks ago. The concern with the older pipelines is the
thinness of the metal. In sensitive areas, heavier metal will be used. This original
1956 model pipe is thin. It is important to know if this is the same pipe that
continually explodes. Apparently, there has been tremendous improvement in how
the metals are made and how the welding has improved. The old pipes had seams.
A lot of the new pipes do not. The new plastic pipes are under about 40 pounds of
pressure. OPS gave direction to every gas pipeline that there is trouble with the
plastic pipe of one particular manufacturer. The Williams' 26 -inch line is the pipe
that always has the problem, not their 30 -inch line.
Hoag stated she received information from Arco regarding the questions she
posed during the last meeting. She had not heard from any of the other
companies.
3. DISCUSSION OF LETTER TO PIPELINE SAFETY COMMISSION (AB99-
294)
Hoag stated there was a substitute draft letter that added a fourth bullet
item.
Sutter stated she did not have any problem with the letter. She did a re-
write of the letter, which she would provide.
Dawson suggested mandating upgrades.
Hoag suggested language regarding extra precautions on slopes and
retrofitting with new technology over time. She also suggested adding language to
review the thickness of the walls of pipes that have ruptured in the past to
determine if there is a correlation.
The committee concurred to add, "Determine if there is a correlation between
the thickness of the pipe and the occurrence of pipeline failures."
Natural Resources Committee, 8/10/99, Page 12
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
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
Sutter stated there should also be a requirement for an upgrade anytime
there is a repair done. Middleton stated they would have to repair to the federal
standards, which doesn't require an upgrade.
Hoag stated she would propose language at the evening meeting.
Brenner proposed another bulleted item regarding the development of
emergency neighborhood evacuation plans. The Office of Pipeline Safety tells the
pipelines what to do. A part of pipeline safety is making sure they get people out of
the area in a timely manner. The pipeline companies should come up with
neighborhood evacuation plans.
Tommervik stated her neighbors would appreciate an emergency
neighborhood response plan from the pipeline companies. As clarification, a lot of
the old lines can't accommodate smart pigs because they can't get through the
valves. She suggested the letter state, at minimum, retrofit the valves so smart
pigs can get through them.
Hoag stated they will make the changes and bring them before the Council.
DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL
1. RESOLUTION URGING FEDERAL AGENCIES TO DELAY OLYMPIC
PIPELINE RE- OPENING (AB99 -299)
Sutter stated she created a substitute that would not contain substantive
changes, only word order changes.
Hoag stated she only had typo changes.
Hoag suggested bringing this forward to full Council.
The committee concurred.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 11:37 a.m.
Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription
ATTEST:
Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Connie Hoag, Committee Chair
Natural Resources Committee, 8/10/99, Page 13