HomeMy WebLinkAboutNatural Resources May 5 19982
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
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
Natural Resources Committee
May 5, 1998
The meeting was called to order at 11 a.m. by Committee Chair Connie Hoag in
the Council Committee Room, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington.
Also Present: Absent:
Tom Brown None
Kathy Sutter
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION
Hoag stated that the committee would first discuss agenda item #2, because it is a
little more confined.
1. DISCUSSION REGARDING MONITORING OF WELLS FOR AGRICULTURAL
CONTAMINANTS (AB98 -156)
Hoag stated that they had asked for information about an interim Council Water
Availability Policy from 1993 or 1994. Delahunt stated that they don't have the
information available, but plan to bring it forward at a later meeting.
Brown questioned whether he could see the document. Delahunt stated that they
would provide a copy to him.
Hoag questioned Delahunt about whether she had talked with the State
Department of Health (DOH). Delahunt stated that she checked with the State
Department of Agriculture. At the last meeting, they discussed a section of the Revised
Code of Washington (RCW) 17.21 that stated the director requiring submission of
records on a routine basis within prescribed areas. If there is a limited circumstance and
a limited area where that pesticide application information is necessary, then the State
Department of Agriculture could call that information in on a routine basis. The
provision was not meant to be a general provision for providing information to the
community.
Hoag questioned the other part of the provision where the Department of Health
could request the records. Delahunt stated that they could not on a routine basis. There
needs to be particular reasons for requesting the information. It is a complaint driven
system. The US Geological Service (USGS) has an application in on the fumigant
application records in the north Whatcom County area, in relation to the cooperative
study that they are doing. They are looking at levels in wells and land where the material
has been applied to see if there is a causal relationship. Local health departments may
also be able to do a call -in on records. It would be more effective to educate well owners
about what is happening.
Natural Resources Minutes, 5/5/98, Page 1
I Hoag stated that it is very difficult, expensive, and time - consuming for a private
2 well owner, no matter how well educated, to obtain information about what is going into
3 the groundwater around the well. Delahunt stated that there have been a lot of tests and
4 broad scans done about contaminates in the north County. There is information about the
5 contaminants in the County. Regarding organic contaminants, there are 15 or less that
6 have ever been detected in that area. They can tell the people what may be in their
7 groundwater. Also, the use of an herbicide by a neighbor doesn't mean that a well owner
8 has to test only for the chemicals in the herbicide. Geology, such as clay layers and
9 groundwater flow, is a significant factor in what should be tested for.
10
11 Hoag stated that well monitoring is the quickest, most efficient way to the source
12 of the information. 99% of the time it is the guy next door who is contaminating the well.
13 The person drinking the water doesn't know what data is available.
14
15 Sutter agreed with Delahunt. They need to educate the private well owner and
16 enlist the cooperation of the farming community. In addition, the County needs to have
17 groundwater studies regarding the groundwater flow paths. There is a $200 test that tests
18 for everything. If a well owner sees a neighbor spraying something that could get into
19 the groundwater, then the well owner should ask what it is.
20
21 (Clerks Note: End of tape one, side A.)
22
23 Sutter continued to state that the County can proceed with educational efforts and
24 with getting some help from Cooperative Extension, the Conservation District, and the
25 farming community.
26
27 Hoag stated that they invited the Farm Bureau to the meetings. Some of her
28 original suggestions came from the farmers. Their concern was for privacy. They don't
29 want to be harassed. They are afraid that people will try to shut them down out of fear.
30 The County needs to find a way to address their privacy as well as protect people's
31 health. The $200 test does not test for everything. The suggestions provided by Sutter do
32 not provide safe water. Her suggestion was that someone who purchases a product must
33 register where they will be applying that product.
34
35 Brown stated that the only people that would be required to report that
36 information would be the ones in Whatcom County. A majority of pesticides are
37 purchased outside of the County. Hoag's suggestion is not viable and gives false hope.
38 The new person with the Health Department should be given a chance to build the data.
39 Also, the land use problems in Canada contribute to problems in the United States.
40 Hoag's suggestion would provide a false sense of security. Groundwater is a bigger issue
41 than the person next door is. If a well owner is told to test for a particular product, he or
42 she may not be aware to test for the compounds in which the product may break down.
43
44 Delahunt suggested that they look at the existing regulations and put them in the
45 form of guidelines for private well owners.
46
Natural Resources Minutes, 5/5/98, Page 2
I Hoag questioned whether the Health Department notifies a new well owner if they
2 have located in an area that requires bottled water.
4 Chuck Benjamin, Health and Human Services Director, stated that they do not.
5 That is the responsibility of the seller and the seller's realtor.
7 Sutter stated that a legal action could be taken against a realtor if that information
8 is not revealed to the seller.
10 Craig MacConnell, Cooperative Extension, stated that most groundwater
11 contaminants are historical uses of products that are no longer registered for use because
12 they had chemical properties that allowed them to move through the soil and reach
13 groundwater. Products that are still used have a level of contamination below the
14 maximum contaminate level (MCL). Homeowner products would also have to be
15 registered. The groundwater that flows through Hoag's property has come from Canada.
16 Also, water associations and municipalities have a screen for what items they test for. A
17 private well owner may use the same screen to determine what to test for. Homeowners
18 could prioritize what to look for based on those screens. Lastly, it's important to look at
19 what to do in the future. Three federal agencies, the Environmental Protection Agency
20 (EPA), the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the U.S. Department of Agriculture
21 (USDA), collectively stated that the approach of agriculture and pesticide use to protect
22 the environment is the widespread adoption of integrated pest management. Through that
23 approach, the use of pesticides is restricted based upon scientific approaches. He
24 encouraged the County to use integrated pest management (IPM). State policymakers are
25 using IPM, which is a proscriptive approach for commercial farming in an
26 environmentally minded way. Cooperative Extension has had a grant project for the past
27 three years to help adopt the federal practice of integrated pest management. That
28 funding will end soon. There is evidence that the project is having an effect on the
29 growers in the County.
30
31 Hoag questioned the historical uses of 1,2 DCP. MacConnell stated that it is
32 being used in a very small quantity in a replacement product that has been developed.
33 The science about pesticides has evolved greatly. Along with that evolution is an
34 evolution in regulation.
35
36 Hoag stated that her purpose was to try and track chemicals that may in the future
37 be determined to be dangerous.
38
39 Benjamin stated that the extra position in the Health Department would give the
40 County the data needed to collate the information from all the studies and testing. The
41 Health Department has a position for a public health educator, which will be partly
42 devoted to water education. One drawback is that if a private owner tells a testing
43 company they don't want the Health Department to have their well information, then the
44 Health Department can't get that information.
45
Natural Resources Minutes, 5/5/98, Page 3
I Skip Richards, citizen, outlined some of the ideas that have been suggested. He
2 suggested that they convene a meeting of the stakeholders to develop guidelines. They
3 should use the appropriate Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 246.290 to develop
4 guidelines and translate that code into something more comprehensive that can be
5 understood. They could consider anonymous reporting by farmers.
7 Steve Skinner, representing AccuTech, stated that a company they are affiliated
8 with has come up with a chemical injection system that removes heavy metals from
9 water. They are also working on removing nitrates from the water. They currently have
10 samples of County water and are currently testing to see if their systems will clean up the
11 County water. Products are available to dairy farmers. Bacteria are added to manure,
12 which eats the nitrates. Bacteria are added to solid wastes only.
13
14 Delahunt encouraged Skinner to talk to the State Department of Health for their
15 approval.
16
17 Brown thanked the County staff for their annual weed program report.
18
19 (Clerks Note: The committee adjourned.)
20
21 2. DISCUSSION REGARDING THE AGENCY FOR TOXIC SUBSTANCES AND
22 DISEASE REGISTRY (ATSDR) AND A REPORT ON RECENT MEETING
23 (AB98 -156B)
24
25 Regina Delahunt, Health and Human Services Environment Services Manager,
26 introduced Anne Duffy with the State Department of Health (DOH). She works under
27 contract with the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) to assist
28 them in putting together information related to petitions such as the one that was
29 submitted by Whatcom County residents and the County Council.
30
31 Duffy distributed a fact sheet on what the ATSDR activities are. Their purpose
32 was to come into the community and meet with the petitioners. They realized that the
33 citizens want a comprehensive evaluation of all contaminants in the groundwater. It was
34 not specific to any health effect. They are gathering information in the area about other
35 activities and studies. The information will be pooled to review for information. They
36 will prepare a scoping report, which goes to a committee at ATSDR. It provides a
37 background of the area studies and conclusions and recommendations. The committee
38 will review the report and respond to the petitioners to answer their concerns. They will
39 decide what activities are appropriate for ATSDR to do.
40
41 Duffy explained how the DOH relates to ATSDR. The DOH secured a grant to
42 do ATSDR health activities, such as the health assessment. From the health assessment,
43 there will be answers to what a person has been exposed, who has been exposed, and the
44 health effects that might be experienced from the exposure. They also do health
45 consultations and education.
46
Natural Resources Minutes, 5/5/98, Page 4
I Delahunt stated that much of the work on the petition will be done by DOH staff
2 working within the contract with ATSDR. ATSDR is in the process of doing the
3 scoping. Once that is completed, it will go to Atlanta, where the determination will be
4 made as to whether or not ATSDR will do a health assessment.
6 Duffy stated that they have talked to the citizens and the State Department of
7 Ecology (DOE). After they understand the situation and present it, they will come back
8 and open it up to the public to express their concerns.
10 Hoag questioned whether it was appropriate for the Council to express concerns
11 currently. Duffy stated that it was.
12
13 Sutter questioned what ATSDR uses to determine whether or not they are going
14 to address the petition. Duffy stated that three categories have to be included. One is that
15 there are contaminants, second is that there was exposure, and third is that there are
16 concerns for health effects. All three of these conditions exist. Most likely ATSDR will
17 accept this petition. It would be about two months to put together the scoping report,
18 then another month for ATSDR to establish their committee, and then they will decide
19 and respond back to the petitioners.
20
21 Delahunt questioned whether this health assessment would be prioritized on a
22 national level. It may be the year 1999 or 2000 by the time this process is completed.
23
24 Duffy stated that they can still answer questions along the way. They can do a
25 series of health consultations in the meantime to answer specific questions along the way.
26 ATSDR was also approached by DOE to do studies for dermal and inhalation exposure to
27 groundwater contaminants. It is a separate issue, but will answer some questions for this
28 health assessment.
29
30 Hoag questioned whether they could check out some other issues. One is
31 regarding nitrates in the groundwater. She questioned whether they have studied a
32 connection between that and pre -term births. There are raised nitrate levels in a lot of
33 wells in the County. Duffy stated that she would look into it.
34
35 Hoag stated that she suspected that there is a link to cancer. There should be
36 more hard data. Also, she questioned the air quality where manure is sprayed. The
37 Northwest Air Pollution Authority told her that there have been no studies done on the
38 health effects of the manure in the air. She requested more information about any studies
39 that have been done on these issues.
40
41 Brown questioned whether the scoping process would examine whether other
42 contaminants have been applied. Duffy stated that they would examine the data that
43 already exists. If they don't see enough data, they will ask for more.
44
45 Brown questioned whether they have set any boundaries on where their scope of
46 work will focus. Duffy stated that the scoping area will be as the petitioners requested.
Natural Resources Minutes, 5/5/98, Page 5
2 Sutter questioned what the testing is based on and how they determine what to test
3 for. Duffy stated that they will see what is already there that they know of. There may
4 be information on the breakdown products of a certain compound that people may not
5 have tested for.
6
7 Sutter questioned how far back the study will go on pesticide use. Duffy stated
8 that they have data back to 1989. That is where they will start.
9
10 Delahunt stated that the next step would be an update to the Council after the
11 scoping report has been done.
12
13 Duffy stated that DOH is looking at the data that Whatcom County has compiled.
14 Late June may be appropriate.
15
16 Sutter stated that they would like a report at the time the report is created.
17
18 Duffy suggested an update by Richard Kaufman, ATSDR Regional
19 Representative, on June 30tH
20
21 Delahunt questioned Duffy about when the public availability sessions would be.
22 Duffy responded that would happen after the scoping report is done. They would then
23 know what direction they want to take. It would happen close to September.
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
Hoag announced that the committee would discuss the first item on the agenda.
The meeting was adjourned at 12:22 p.m.
Jill Nixon, Recording Secretary
ATTEST:
Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Connie Hoag, Council Member
Natural Resources Minutes, 5/5/98, Page 6