HomeMy WebLinkAboutNatural Resources June 2 1998I WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
2 Natural Resources Committee
3
4 June 2, 1998
5
6 The meeting was called to order at 11:00 a.m. by Committee Chair Connie Hoag in the
7 Council Committee Room, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington.
8
9 Also Present: Absent:
10 Tom Brown None
11 Kathy Sutter
12
13 1. PRESENTATION OF THE BELLINGHAM BAY PILOT PROJECT (AB98 -225)
14
15 Regina Delahunt, Health and Human Services Environmental Services Manager, stated
16 that Mike Stoner has been very active in the pilot project. He will provide background on the
17 project. The County is a participant in the project.
18
19 Mike Stoner, Port of Bellingham, explained some of the environmental problems in
20 Bellingham Bay. They are looking at ways to clean up sediment contamination, build up habitat
21 for salmon, and develop more public access to the waterfront. The work group includes federal
22 and State representatives, tribes, local government, and businesses. The project is going to be
23 implemented under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). There will be an environmental
24 impact statement that will describe the entire project and a number of alternatives for ways to
25 perform the clean -up activities. The scoping notice alerts the public that this project is
26 beginning. It provides an outline of what the proponents think that the project should look like.
27 There will be a public comment meeting on June 25, 1998.
28
29 In Puget Sound in the early 1980's, some of the agencies responsible for looking at the
30 health of Puget Sound began identifying high levels of contamination in the urban abatements.
31 Some of the bottom fish and shellfish were impacted by that contamination. At that time, there
32 were no sediment quality standards. Several federal and State agencies worked together to try
33 and figure out what to do. Through those early years, an approach was developed for
34 determining sediment quality standards. By 1991, the State adopted standards for Puget Sound.
35 The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), through their superfund program, demanded
36 action by the polluters. That got a lot of work done, but also burned up resources in legal fights
37 and dueling biologists. The clean up took longer to become implemented than necessary. The
38 Army Corps of Engineers, the EPA, the State Department of Ecology (DOE), and the State
39 Department of Natural Resources proposed that a new cooperative approach be tried in the Puget
40 Sound area. Bellingham has been selected for a pilot program and potential model for
41 comprehensive environmental actions. There is now a workgroup of 15 local and State agencies
42 and jurisdictions. There are five sites that have been identified as clean up sites, which include
43 the Whatcom waterway site. That location is the largest, most well - defined problem in
44 Bellingham Bay. It includes mercury- contaminated sediments that extend beyond the waterway.
45 Georgia - Pacific includes an improved effluent treatment system that includes primary treatment
46 at their site. There is some sediment contamination in the Bay, so that is the second known area
Natural Resources Committee, 6/2/98, Page 1
I of contamination. The third area is an old municipal landfill called the Cornwall Avenue
2 landfill. It was a city garbage dump from 1955 to 1965. The bank has never been contained.
3 There is wave erosion of the old garbage dump.
4
5 Hoag questioned whether that area has identified chemical problems. Stoner replied that
6 it does. This site is typical of most city dumps. There is some metals contamination, such as
7 copper and lead. It is currently discharging into the Bay at low levels.
9 Stoner continued to state that the fourth site is the Harris Avenue shipyard. It has been
10 active for about 100 years. There is sediment contamination in the water that consists of metals
11 that are associated with bottom paints in boat - building. The fifth site is the Olivine site. There
12 was an experimental garbage incinerator that was active in the 1970s. It was also the location of
13 the manufacturing of refractory brick, using olivine as the mineral. That site is owned by the
14 Port of Bellingham. It was recently demolished. It also has a small amount of sediment
15 contamination.
16
17 Hoag questioned whether the main concern on the landfill spot was about erosion or
18 sediment contamination. Stoner replied that it is a combination. The presumption is that the
19 remedy will include some sort of bank stabilization and a low - permeability cap to ensure that
20 rainfall does not infiltrate the garbage and spread leachate that goes into the Bay. There is some
21 sediment contamination around the edge of the landfill that will have to be remedied as well.
22
23 Stoner continued to state that the workgroup has also looked at historical areas, which
24 might be potential sites. There are five of those areas, as well, including the Bellingham
25 shipyard at Squalicum Harbor, the Weldcraft shipyard, another small shipyard, Boulevard Park
26 (the site of an old coal gasification operation), and the Taylor Avenue oil dock.
27
28 The workgroup has a subcommittee responsible for various topics. In this pilot project,
29 they want to not only clean up the sediments, but also address the issues that are coming to a
30 head because of the salmon listing. One subcommittee looked at each of the small creeks that
31 empty into the Bay. They determined that an appropriate habitat restoration plan for this part of
32 the Bay is to rebuild habitat along the estuarine areas of each creek. They are trying to build
33 little pockets of habitat along the shoreline that will benefit salmon runs. There is another
34 subcommittee that is looking at land use. They are trying to do a clean up and habitat restoration
35 within the context of a waterfront that provides for mixed uses. There are about I million cubic
36 yards of contaminated sediment. That volume is contaminated at a low level. It is different than
37 drums of hazard waste or solid waste. The problem is measured in low part per million ranges.
38 The contamination is bound by the sediment particles themselves. Organisms that live in the
39 mud and eat the sediment are eating the toxic contaminants in the sediment. Contamination
40 technologies include capping those sediments in place. This would involve covering the
41 sediment by about 3 to 6 feet of sand. That fix is cheap, do -able, and proven technologies.
42
43 Brown questioned whether the reduction in the depth would affect anything. Stoner
44 stated that it depends on what the depth would be. If it is far enough out to be out of the wave
45 zone, it is very stable. There must be geo -tech surveys to ensure that there isn't a seismically
46 unstable slope. They can engineer for that. The inter -tidal area can be engineered for as well. In
Natural Resources Committee, 6/2/98, Page 2
I the federal channels, capping these sediments is not an option if they were to accommodate for
2 navigation and commerce along the waterfront. These are the areas that they would have to
3 dredge the materials that are contaminated.
4
5 Brown questioned whether there is an estimate of how much dredging would have to be
6 done. Stoner replied that the estimate is 700,00 — 1,000,000 cubic yards of material.
7
8 Stoner continued to state that there are three approaches to disposing of the dredged
9 sediment. One is to take it to an upland landfill, a classic containment technology. With this
10 method, side berms are built, along with a leachate collection system under the landfill. The
11 sediments are loaded into the facility, then installed with a low - permeability cap.
12
13 Brenner questioned whether the cost of $85 per cubic yard would include the
14 transportation cost. Stoner stated that it would. Whatcom County is not the place to build one of
15 these things. They are looking at the Roosevelt landfill operation in eastern Washington. The
16 unit cost includes dredging, de- watering the material, loading, transport, and a tip fee.
17
18 Another approach is called a near -shore confined disposal. They could build in along the
19 waterfront by constructing a large dike, back - filling the material behind the dike, then installing
20 a cap. The benefit of this approach is that, at the Cornwall site, it creates the armor for the bank
21 that is needed anyway. Two problems would be solved. Upland property would also be created.
22 These have been used a number of times in the Puget Sound and they work well. This
23 technology has been used all over. Because, there is such a concern about the toxicity of the
24 contaminants and the proximity to the environment, there is an enormous amount of effort that
25 goes into the science and engineering to design these things properly. That is why they are so
26 expensive. One drawback to this approach is that, anywhere on the shoreline is a valuable
27 habitat these days. Because of the salmon habitat, the resource agencies are reluctant to approve
28 any kind of a fill that removes aquatic land from the environment.
29
30 The third technology is called confined aquatic disposal. This is a technology that looks
31 for or creates a hole to put the mud, which would be away from the shoreline. The dredge
32 material is deposited in the pit, then capped with 3 to 6 feet of sand that acts as a substrate. This
33 technology is cheaper, at $28 per cubic yard. They can use dredge buckets and barges that can
34 move a great deal of material at once. The benefit here is that they would be cleaning up the
35 mud.
36
37 Brown questioned what is in the cap material and if there is anything that is mixed with
38 expandable polymers. Stoner stated that it is not necessary with this kind of material.
39
40 Brenner questioned whether any dredging would create contaminants spreading in the
41 water. Stoner replied that loss into the water is one of the problems when material has to be
42 dredged and re- deposited. The estimate is a 5% loss. That loss is contained within the dredge
43 disposal area by other technologies. The loss can be minimized and reduced. Minimizing the
44 loss is a term and condition of the permit.
45
46 Brown questioned whether he had a location in mind. Stoner stated that they do.
Natural Resources Committee, 6/2/98, Page 3
2 Stoner stated that the last proposal is called a confined aquatics disposal approach where
3 they build in habitat features. One of the things to do in Bellingham Bay is restore habitat for
4 salmon runs and other aquatic organisms. That critical habitat tends to be in the inter -tidal and
5 shallow sub -tidal areas. They could build more areas of those types to encourage the growth of
6 more critical habitat.
7
8 Sutter stated that changing the landscape is going to change the wave actions and flows.
9 She questioned whether that would be affected. Stoner stated that they would address that in the
10 design phase. They would ensure that the facility is designed and configured so that it is not in
11 conflict with currents and wave action.
12
13 Sutter questioned what they would use for a berm material. Stoner replied that they
14 would use sand.
15
16 Brenner stated that each option has good points and bad points. She questioned whether
17 they could use variations of the different solutions. Stoner stated that they will begin to look at
18 the problem areas and these types of technologies. They will build a range of alternatives for
19 how to use these technologies to fix the problems and restore habitat. Over the course of the
20 summer, they will try and present this information in a way that is helpful to the public. One
21 alternative will be arranged around this type of technology. Another technology will focus on
22 the near -shore approach. There are a couple of locations that they have identified as most
23 favorable for the near -shore technology. One is the Georgia - Pacific log pond. It has a very high
24 level of mercury contamination and a near shore fill could be easily designed and built to solve
25 that problem and create capacity.
26
27 Stoner stated that they are starting to focus in on disposal sites. They are looking at the
28 possibility of using confined aquatic disposal technology in one area, but maintaining the water
29 depth so there could be barge activity. They would try to find a balance between cleaning up the
30 contamination, restoring habitat, and providing for appropriate upland land use.
31
32 Hoag questioned what happens to the contaminants when they leach out of a container at
33 the landfill. Stoner stated that there is a leachate collection system that collects whatever comes
34 out of this mass of material. It is typically run through a treatment system.
35
36 (Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A. Side B is defective. Begin tape two.)
37
38 Stoner stated that materials in sediments don't present a groundwater problem. These
39 technologies are most favorable because they are at the bottom of the environmental gradient.
40 There is not groundwater pressure pushing water up through the material. Most of the material
41 has a high affinity for the sediment particles. The geo- chemistry is such that the material will
42 remain saturated and is typically anaerobic.
43
44 Hoag questioned whether there are other locations that have done this. Stoner stated that
45 another part of the expense is the monitoring costs. There are annual monitoring requirements
46 that are very detailed and expensive. They take samples in the cap over the years to see if there
Natural Resources Committee, 6/2/98, Page 4
I is any diffusion of material through the cap. Fixing a cap would be simple.
2
3 Hoag questioned how long the technology has been used. Stoner stated that it has been
4 used for decades, but over the past ten years they've been engineered and monitored for this
5 specific purpose, according to the standards that recently have been established. They can look
6 at old ones. They and the material are still there and in place. The more recent ones have been
7 monitored from the beginning. They have proven to be quite stable. They want to improve on
8 the track record by doing it by a cooperative approach, rather than spending money in the
9 courtrooms. They also want to do the project in a way that addresses the salmon listing.
10
11 Brown questioned when the project will happen. Stoner stated that this is a three -phase
12 project. They are in the middle of phase I, the planning phase. The planning phase requires the
13 development of an environmental impact statement, selection of an alternative, and selection or
14 approval by the agencies. That will occur sometime in March of 1999. They are also starting
15 phase II, which is a more detailed investigation of some of the sites. That will probably extend
16 another year beyond the planning phase. Phase III is the final design, permitting, and
17 construction. The most realistic scenario would be to do the construction in the year 2001.
18
19 Delahunt stated that is a fast -track timeline for a project of this nature.
20
21 Brown questioned the cost of creating habitat without the project. Stoner stated that it is
22 $250,000 to $265,000 per acre for just doing the disposal. It is more expensive.
23
24 Hoag stated that the last option allows groundwater to come in, then seepage would go
25 through the berm. She questioned whether that was allowed. Stoner stated that it is a feature
26 that needs to be designed in. Groundwater discharge may flow into the material. The design
27 phase includes leachate testing.
28
29 Brown questioned whether it is possible to capture the groundwater and move it around.
30 Stoner stated that is more expensive. There is a lot of lab work and engineering work built into
31 these designs.
32
33 Hoag questioned whether the lab testing of the leachate would meet a standard guideline.
34 Stoner stated that it would. There are water quality standards for the receiving body of water.
35 There are also safety factors built in.
36
37 Hoag stated that she was concerned about the dredge material and groundwater
38 collectively and over time contaminating the sediment outside of the berm. Stoner responded
39 that was the point that people are trying to work out.
40
41 Brown stated that they could widen the berm, if there is excess seepage over time. Stoner
42 stated that was correct. If that problem came up, there are a number of design directions that
43 could address that.
44
45 Brown questioned whether they would also investigate groundwater movement prior to
46 locating a site. Stoner stated that they would.
Natural Resources Committee, 6/2/98, Page 5
2 Stoner stated that a lot of the natural mechanisms that would disturb the contamination
3 buried under the cap have been designed for in these technologies. For each of the technologies,
4 there is a different set of natural mechanisms that they have to design for. They are all proven
5 technologies. The more cost - effective approaches would cost between $25 million to 30 million.
6 One of the reasons that they are so expensive is because there is so much effort put into
7 designing them right.
9 Hoag questioned what the County's role is in this. Stoner stated that it is to pay for it.
10 Also, the County has been involved by dealing with environmental health problems as they come
11 up. The County is interested in addressing these issues.
12
13 Sutter questioned whether the dumpsite has been capped. Stoner replied that it has not.
14 That is why the Port has been involved. Georgia - Pacific is responsible for the mercury
15 contamination in the Whatcom waterway. The Port, the City of Bellingham, and the State
16 Department of Natural Resources (DNR) have been identified as potential liable parties for
17 Cornwall. The shipyard is a Port facility. The Port and the DNR are the parties working on that
18 one.
19
20 Brenner questioned what would happen if responsible businesses go out of business and
21 no longer contribute. Stoner responded that they are talking to a group of key players that may
22 help pay for the project. That includes Georgia - Pacific, the Port of Bellingham, the City of
23 Bellingham, and the State. He assured that they don't have to worry about Georgia - Pacific
24 going out of business. They have been very supportive at the table and have provided a large
25 part of the funding for the environmental impact statement. They want to address the
26 contamination.
27
28 Dave Chessom, student, questioned why they want to go in and dig all of this stuff out
29 instead of leaving it in when the natural sedimentation in the Bay, being 1" — 2" per year, only
30 has 4 "of active biological layer. Stoner stated that sedimentation in the Bay is at least an inch
31 per year. Natural recovery is the way to go. The agencies have said that areas within the Bay
32 that are predicted to recover within a 10 -year period are the areas that they prefer to let recover
33 naturally. They look only at areas that can't recover naturally. In Whatcom waterway, the Port
34 has to do regular dredging as part of the maintenance of that waterway depth.
35
36 Sutter questioned what they have been doing with the fill since they have been dredging
37 contaminated materials. Stoner stated that there hasn't been any dredging in Whatcom waterway
38 for approximately 17 years. There had been some dredging many years ago. The Tom Glenn
39 spit is all dredge material. In the past 20 — 30 years, some of the materials were deposited at the
40 Star Rock disposal site. That location has been sampled to determine if it is an environmental
41 problem. There are a couple of locations at either end of the disposal site with problems that
42 need to be fixed.
43
44 Hoag questioned how long ago Georgia - Pacific began using mercury at their plant.
45
46 Anita White, citizen, stated that 1967 was when they built that facility. They still
Natural Resources Committee, 6/2/98, 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
discharge mercury today, but in lesser amounts.
Stoner stated that, in the beginning, they were discharging 7 — 10 pounds per day. When
they look at mercury concentrations, there is a plume that is highest around the old outfall.
Chesson questioned the percentage of the contamination that will be spread back into the
Bay when they begin digging up the sediment. Stoner stated that 5% would be left, but silk
curtains and other technologies can be used to minimize the dispersal of that into the Bay.
White questioned whether the Eagle Harbor site used plastic liners. Stoner stated that
they did not. That site would include a deep -water cap for a part of it, then a near -shore fill.
ADJOURN
The meeting was adjourned at 12:35p.m.
Jill Nixon, Records Transcription
ATTEST:
Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Connie M. Hoag, Council Member
Natural Resources Committee, 6/2/98, Page 7