HomeMy WebLinkAboutNatural Resources June 30 19981
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
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
Natural Resources Committee
June 30, 1998
The meeting was called to order at 11:00 a.m. by Committee Chair Connie Hoag in the
Council Committee Room, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington.
Also Present:
Kathy Sutter
Tom Brown
Absent:
None
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL
1. DISCUSSION WITH THE STATE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND THE
AGENCY FOR TOXIC SUBSTANCE AND DISEASE REGISTRY REGARDING
HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENTS. (AB98 -156C)
(Clerk's Note: Most of the audiotape is inaudible. Minutes were taken from the audible
portions of the audiotape and the clerk's and chair's notes)
Regina Delahunt, Health and Human Services Environmental Services Manager, stated
that Richard Kaufman, Agency for Toxic Substance and Disease Registry (ATSDR) Regional
Representative, will brief the committee on the petition process and the health consultation that
ATSDR is performing at the request of the State Department of Ecology (DOE) on the
dermal /inhalation exposure to ethylene dibromide (EDB) and 1,2- dichloropropane (1,2 DCP).
David McBride, State Department of Health (DOH) will discuss their role in the assessment and
their plans for next year.
Kaufman stated that ATSDR had been petitioned and they try to respond in a way that is
most efficient for the people who requested the study. In this case, the DOH is already working
on this. They have their expertise and the resources to deal with this much more quickly than
ATSDR. ATSDR is going to coordinate with DOH on most of the studies. They've been asked
to perform specific consultations looking at the current groundwater data, health effects, and
other issues.
Sutter questioned whether this ties in with the funding that the County Council just
approved for the United States Geological Service (USGS) study. Delahunt stated that there is
no relation other than the data gathered from that study, which could be utilized by DOH. The
purpose of trying to coordinate all of the studies was so the data collected could be used for
different purposes.
Kaufman stated that they rely on data collected by other agencies. They are going to
Natural Resources Committee, 6/30/98, Page 1
look at the data that is already available.
2
3 Brown questioned whether there will be an outline available to the public regarding the
4 steps that they will go through to reach their conclusions. Kaufman stated that they have some
5 fact sheets they will make available that describes the health assessment process and general
6 terms. They could supplement that with a fact sheet that describes the site - specific activities and
7 timeline.
8
9 Kaufman stated that there will be more than one report. There will be an initial report in
10 October on the data that is currently available.
11
12 Delahunt questioned whether the petition still had to be accepted by ATSDR. Kaufman
13 stated that there is a formal process. He and Dan Guffie with Public Health are putting together
14 a scoping report, which will be the initial gathering of the data and facts about the site,
15 population, potential exposure pathway, etc. They will provide the information to a team of
16 scientists for formal acceptance of the agency. They expect to have a report done by the end of
17 July and a decision done by ATSDR headquarters in August. At this point, it is a formality.
18 There are specific criteria, which they would have to follow to accept the petition. They are not
19 waiting, however, for that formal process.
20
21 McBride stated that, in terms of the report that DOH would provide, DOH is committed
22 to having the health assessment ready in October.
23
24 Kaufman stated that one of the specific items of concern was about the dermal /inhalation
25 exposure polluting the drinking and groundwater and whether residents should be using bottled
26 water for showering, cooking, and other activities in the home because of that exposure. That
27 request was made to their Division of Toxicology in Atlanta. A draft report was put together,
28 but is not yet available for public release. They anticipate that would occur in July. He is free to
29 share the findings, however. The consultation was not intended to predict or evaluate potential
30 health effects associated with site - specific exposure. That means that this consultation did not
31 look at levels of contaminants in the groundwater and decide whether or not they are a problem.
32 It was simply to look at the contaminants EDB and 1,2 -DCP to determine whether the
33 inhalation/dermal routes were a concern. Both of the chemicals are soluble in the groundwater.
34 Specifically for EDB, there is very little evidence of toxic effects. There are some studies of
35 artificial exposure where reproductive effects have occurred. Other than that, there are no
36 known effects on any other part of the human body, including cancer. There are studies out there
37 that have looked for effects, but haven't found any. They generally look in occupational
38 exposure. Those are the ones that have the highest level of exposure and the ones most likely to
39 exhibit any kind of effect. The reproductive effects were only on sperm or semen.
40
41 Hoag questioned the type of reproductive effects and whether they were genetic changes.
42 McBride explained that the study indicated that it only effects sperm count, not genetic changes.
43 Cancer has been seen in laboratory animals.
44
Natural Resources Committee, 6/30/98, Page 2
I Kaufman stated that, in the lack of human evidence, they looked at animal studies. There
2 are effects on the animals. There are effects on other parts of the animal body, such as the
3 respiratory system. There are carcinogenic effects. The cancer does occur in the respiratory
4 tract when there has been inhalation exposure in the animals. On the basis of the animal
5 evidence, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has classified it as a probable carcinogen.
6 The Department of Health and Human Services has concluded that it may reasonably be
7 anticipated to be a carcinogenic. The 1,2 -DCP effects the nervous system. There is some
8 evidence of being a carcinogenic in animals. There was one study on DCP in animals, which
9 was inconclusive because there were flaws in the study. None of the agencies are able to classify
10 1,2 -DCP as to whether or not it can cause cancer in humans or animals. This chemical has been
11 studied for other health effects.
12
13 Sherm Polinder, 670 Polinder Road, Lynden, questioned the effect this has on animals.
14 McBride stated that the study shows the dosage levels.
15
16 Kaufman stated that there are studies out there that involve animals. The studies are done
17 in a laboratory setting. The difficult part is to extrapolate from animal effects to human effects.
18 The effects can be very different.
19
20 Hoag clarified that the speakers are reporting on the Bertrand Creek area exposure to
21 contaminated water. This report is whether or not these agents carry risks.
22
23 Kaufman stated that, due to the fact that all of the chemicals are in the air and can be
24 absorbed by the skin, there is a potential concern that people who are exposed to drinking water
25 with some level of these kind of pollutants can be exposed at a high enough level for a potential
26 health concern. They don't yet know what that level is. The Department of Health is working
27 on determining that level.
28
29 McBride stated that their role will be to go further in depth into exposure to look at both
30 dermal and inhalation. They will determine the safe level in drinking water.
31
32 Hoag questioned whether they would be looking at it separately from the drinking water
33 to people who are exposed not through drinking, but through inhaling. McBride stated that they
34 will look at that also.
35
36 Hoag stated that safe levels vary between individuals. It is important to know how it can
37 be absorbed. If it is a potential health risk, the public needs to be informed of that so they can
38 make their choices accordingly.
39
40 Brown questioned whether aeration treatment an option. McBride stated that such
41 methods would not work.
42
43 Chuck Benjamin, Health and Human Services, Director, asked at what point in time the
44 public meeting anticipated to be held, and how the public is going to be educated. Kaufman
Natural Resources Committee, 6/30/98, Page 3
I stated that they will be planning a public meeting and will need some help on it. More needs
2 study needs to be done to identify the wells and the levels.
3
4 Hoag explained that the people who are getting bottled water need to know as soon as
5 possible. Kaufman stated that they will be working with the Health Department, and whoever
6 has contact with the community people will assist them in getting the message out.
7
8 Sutter suggested updates to the media be used to keep everyone up to date.
9
10 Hoag stated that to hold a public meeting when they don't really know the full effects
11 would scare people. She preferred that the information go directly to the people who must use
12 bottled water.
13
14 Nancy Keene, citizen, questioned the reason for the hold up on the release to the public.
15 Kaufman stated that the document is being provided to agencies asking for any additional
16 questions or concerns that they may have. The director of the division is out of the country at
17 this time.
18
19 Keene stated that she was concerned that the document could be changed. Kaufman
20 stated that they will take all comments under consideration.
21
22 Hoag questioned whether the document could be entered into the record. Kaufman stated
23 that he did not have a problem providing the draft document as part of the record.
24
25 Kaufman stated that the bottom line is that the exposure pathways, inhalation and dermal,
26 for these kinds of contaminants are a potential concern.
27
28 Benjamin questioned whether there are preliminary safeguards that people could take if
29 they want to take them now. McBride stated that they would be supportive of them finding some
30 other means of drinking water and cooking water. For showering, the options would include
31 using clear water, not shower as long, or ventilate the bathroom. They are contaminants that are
32 potentially hazardous over long -term use. None of them are at levels to be toxic with short-term
33 exposure.
34
35 Brown questioned whether using a filter was an inexpensive solution. McBride stated
36 that the filter has to be monitored continuously, they can become saturated.
37
38 Delahunt stated that they will work with the Department of Health. When they provide
39 information to people about this preliminary work, they will also provide practical alternatives.
40
41 Hoag questioned whether the well use study has been done. Delahunt stated that it is
42 being done, and some of the sampling data is also being done. The Environmental Protection
43 Agency (EPA) and other agencies will do additional sampling.
44
Natural Resources Committee, 6/30/98, Page 4
I Brown questioned water for the animals and how this is effecting the livestock. McBride
2 explained that a study has not been done and rats are different then cows.
3
4 Kaufman stated that, when animals are being watered in an open space, the chemicals can
5 evaporate.
6
7 2. WHATCOM CONSERVATION DISTRICT PRESENTATION REGARDING A
8 MANURE MANAGEMENT ORDINANCE. (AB98 -254)
9
10 George Boggs, Whatcom Conservation District Coordinator, stated that the Portage Bay
11 Closure Response Strategy identified certain practices that were risky with regard to the
12 discharges into the streams and tributaries of the Nooksack River, which lead to Portage Bay.
13 Also, certain practices are careless in the way application is made. Since then, there was the
14 passage of the dairy nutrient management legislation, SB 6161. There was a question as to
15 whether or not that legislation eliminated the need for Whatcom County to pass the ordinance.
16 Reviewing the legislation, it doesn't look like it specifically addresses the type of behaviors that
17 result in fecal coliform discharges. It does provide that producers will have a conservation plan
18 by July, 2002 and it be implemented by the year 2003. Conservation plans describe good
19 management practices and set some limitations. They would expect that bad management
20 practices would be eliminated or discouraged. That in itself, given with timeframe of dealing
21 with the shellfish closures, does not solve the problem. From this, he requested the committee to
22 do several things. First of all, the committee should direct a County department or request the
23 Conservation District to reconvene the Portage Bay Closure Response Team in order to draft the
24 language of the ordinance. It would be appropriate to have the County Prosecutor or a
25 representative to participate in that drafting process. He also requested that they set an
26 aggressive timetable for action, so that it could be adopted by August 11, 1998. The reason for
27 the aggressive timeframe is that the recent preliminary data from the Total Maximum Daily Load
28 (TMDL) study shows that the highest loading of fecal coliform occurs from November through
29 March. Natural resources professions look at applications, post - harvest, to corn ground as the
30 major source of fecal coliform. They would like to have the ordinance in place to discourage the
31 activity in time to have a significant impact on the transport of fecal coliform to the Nooksack
32 River and Portage Bay.
33
34 Brown stated that he would like to see a public meeting in the timetable and to schedule
35 time to respond to their needs.
36
37 Sutter suggested a proposed ordinance would be the appropriate time for public input.
38
39 Hoag stated that it is difficult for dairymen to take time off for a Council meeting. She
40 suggested an evening committee meeting in Lynden. She would like input on the pros and cons
41 of this proposal. She would like the meeting to occur after a proposed ordinance has been
42 drafted.
43
44 Sherman Polinder, 670 Polinder Road, Lynden, questioned what would be in the
Natural Resources Committee, 6/30/98, 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
proposed ordinance. Hoag stated that there is a vague outline from the Portage Bay Closure
Response Strategy that they have been tossing around.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.)
Polinder stated that he believed the proposed ordinance would address the distribution of
solids during the winter months. He suggested holding a night meeting for the farmers.
John Gillies, Natural Resources Conservation Services (MRCS), explained that a night
meeting to discuss a proposed ordinance would be helpful. They need to specify the application
boundaries.
Boggs stated that they ought to remember that they have a farmer representative on the
Portage Bay Closure Response Team, as well as representatives from Cooperative Extension and
the Conservation District. The Team would work out the details and explain the science to the
Council.
Brenner stated that she was in favor of having an evening meeting and it should be in a
center part of the County, not in the Courthouse.
Sutter suggested having a public meeting on July 21St. The ordinance would be
introduced on July 14th and scheduled for Natural Resources Committee on July 28tH
Michael Knapp stated that they should probably have a formal public hearing.
Hoag stated that she would prefer to have the input from the farmers before it goes to the
full Council. Sutter concurred.
Hoag stated that animal waste is only a part of the picture of everything being addressed
with Portage Bay. It is not the only culprit. They need the Team or the lead agency to go
through the plan item by item. Someone should be overseeing the actions taken to address the
different issues.
Regina Delahunt, Health and Human Services Director Environmental Services Manager,
stated that the Drayton Harbor Advisory Committee requested that the County appoint a lead
agency in relation to shellfish issues. They sent that letter to the Executive.
Hoag stated that the request was for a County staff person to coordinate with the Drayton
Harbor Shellfish Protection District. She did not relate it to Portage Bay.
Brown stated that, in Council discussions, both districts were to be tied together and that
is the reason they requested staff. The staff would serve both districts.
Delahunt stated that she would clarify that with the Executive.
Natural Resources Committee, 6/30/98, 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
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
Brown moved to recommend that the Portage Bay Closure Response Team reconvene to
draft a manure management ordinance.
Motion carried unanimously.
The committee members discussed the scheduling timeline.
Brown stated that if this is going to affect what the farmer does this winter, then they
need as much advance notification as possible.
Boggs stated that this is going to be a very focused and short notice. It will be fairly easy
to deal with.
Hoag asked that the dairy people who are on the Response Team take into account the
input from the farmers when drafting the ordinance.
Boggs stated that there has been a lot of discussion about the effective ordinance. The
application after the harvest is going to be the following spring. The reason for that is that the
nutrients will be washed off and it becomes waste disposal. It doesn't make sense to spread
something that will just lay on the soil and be available for transport instead of being used by the
plant. Groundwater is also a consideration. Solids are not so problematic.
Hoag questioned whether they would regulate solids or liquids. Boggs stated that in the
upland areas, it may be okay to apply solids on grass.
Polinder stated that there are many kinds of terrain. Terminology has to be clarified.
Brown stated that this is the discussion that needs to happen after the ordinance is
created.
Hoag stated that it would be beneficial to get this out ahead of the time to give the
Response Team some direction on how inclusive this should be.
Delahunt stated that the ordinance will also have to take into account enforcement. She
was not aware of any County staff that would be available for enforcement.
Hoag stated that one of the items in the Portage Bay Response Strategy was a request for
enforcement.
Richard Grout, State Department of Ecology (DOE), stated that they also have the option
of possibly using the DOE dairy inspectors. They cannot legally enforce the ordinances, but it is
possible for DOE to have an agreement to enforce the County ordinance, or to refer the violation
to someone in the County. Also, it is important to keep in mind that they are discussing the
Natural Resources Committee, 6/30/98, Page 7
I application of manure in a location, during a time, and on a crop where there is agronomic
2 uptake of the nutrients. Applying the same manure on a location where there is no uptake, it is
3 waste disposal. That is a violation of State law.
4
5 Gillies stated that he liked the idea of applying the ordinance incrementally. They are not
6 going to get a lot of opposition. Farmers understand that it is a major problem. The grass issue
7 becomes more debatable. They could disregard the solids for now because they are not mobile.
8 There aren't a lot of bacteria compared to liquid. The real issue is corn stubble and bare land.
9
10 Brown stated that they should make sure that they address flood plain issues in
11 conjunction with this.
12
13 Hoag questioned the highest counts being in March and November. Boggs stated that
14 there is a high volume of water along with a high fecal coliform count.
15
16 Hoag questioned whether that high volume of water was due to flooding or high rains.
17 Gillies stated that it is called the first flush in the fall. Manure is applied in October, then there is
18 much rain from November through February. It is the first few storms that cause the run -off
19 event. In the spring, there are saturated soil conditions and manure goes out too early and there
20 is still much rain. The biggest problem is the wash -off from the rain. There are periodic floods,
21 but there are run -off events every year.
22
23 Hoag stated that if the majority of the problem is run -off from the rain and not the floods,
24 then it seems that picking out the flood plain does not address the problem. The majority of the
25 problem would be the bare ground. Gillies concurred.
26
27 Hoag questioned Polinder's opinion on that statement. Polinder agreed.
28
29 Hoag questioned whether they would specify corn stubble and bare ground. Gillies
30 stated that they would.
31
32 Hoag questioned Polinder's opinion on that statement.
33
34 Randy Korthus, 8185 Ravensburg Drive, Everson, explained that many of the berry
35 growers are putting on manure. They realize that the raspberries take a lot of the organic matter
36 out of the ground. The berry farmers are putting manure on in January and February, and then
37 fumigating and covering with plastic to get the planting done. This is a situation that is going to
38 be a problem.
39
40 Hoag stated that there is a difference between post - harvest and pre - planting.
41
42 Gillies stated that they plant in February. If they apply the manure a couple of weeks
43 prior to planting, and work it into the soil, that is reasonable.
44
Natural Resources Committee, 6/30/98, Page 8
I Hoag stated that a lot of farmers like to apply solids, not liquids, in January and February.
2 Those break down slowly and are just right for the crops that they are putting in. She
3 questioned whether it was reasonable to allow solids to be applied in January and February.
4 Gillies stated that was very reasonable.
5
6 Hoag stated that the ordinance could specify that there would be no post - harvest
7 application on corn stubble or bare ground through December, then allow solids to be applied in
8 January and February on bare ground. They could begin applying liquid in mid - February if the
9 conditions are appropriate.
10
11 Grout stated that the Shellfish Closure Response Team includes a broad spectrum of
12 people, including the Conservation District and Dairy Federation representative. He suggested
13 that they let that group create the proposed ordinance.
14
15 Hoag stated that she wanted to give them more direction.
16
17 Hoag stated that another item was no application to public roads or waterways. There
18 shouldn't be any problem with that.
19
20 Gillies stated that grass will utilize nutrients almost every month of the year. It is a
21 matter of temperance.
22
23 Brown stated that the growth is a lot slower.
24
25 Hoag questioned whether they could incorporate soil sampling to make determinations.
26 Gillies stated that would be a requirement for smaller farms through SB6161, which requires a
27 farm plan.
28
29 Hoag questioned whether the farmer is already required to do soil sampling through
30 S136161. Gillies stated that is correct.
31
32 Hoag questioned whether there was a way to allow for application during the winter
33 months if the soil tests show that the nutrients are needed. Gillies stated that the ordinance
34 cannot cover all of the many farming conditions. The conservation plan is very site - specific.
35 They do the prescriptive measures field -by -field.
36
37 Hoag questioned whether grass and pasture create a buffer between a stream and what is
38 applied, and whether it would then be less likely to run off of a grass field than bare ground. It
39 sounds like the main problem is from bare ground. A buffer may be appropriate.
40
41 (Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side B)
42
43 Hoag continued to state that she wanted the focus to be on -going after the major problem.
44 The public meeting will be held on July 21St
Natural Resources Committee, 6/30/98, 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
3. COMMITTEE TO APPOINT ONE MEMBER TO SERVE ON THE WATER UTILITY
COORDINATING COMMITTEE (AB98 -255)
Brown nominated Council Member Kathy Sutter.
Motion carried unanimously.
ADJOURN
The meeting was adjourned at 12:30 p.m.
Jill Nixon, Record Transcription
ATTEST:
Dana Brown- Davis, Council Clerk
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Connie Hoag, Council Member
Natural Resources Committee, 6/30/98, Page 10