HomeMy WebLinkAboutPublic Works October 6 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
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
Special Public Works Committee
October 6, 1998
The meeting was called to order at 7:05 p.m. by Committee Chair Barbara Brenner in the
County Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington.
Also Present:
Marlene Dawson
Tom Brown
Absent:
None
DISCUSSION REGARDING INFECTIOUS WASTE PROCESSING AND DISPOSAL
AT RECOMP (AB98 -344)
Brenner stated that this is a fact - finding hearing on infectious waste issues. Whatcom
County has become a regional infectious waste - processing county. She reported that she has
filed an appeal with the State Pollution Control Hearings Board and requested a stay regarding
Recomp's expansion of their infectious waste processing facility.
Brenner asked representatives from State agencies to speak first.
Jamie Reynolds, Northwest Air Pollution Authority (NWAPA), stated that they are the
regulatory agency for air quality in Skagit, Whatcom, and Island counties. One of their roles is
permitting sources of air pollution. Recomp is considered a source of pollution because they
burn medical waste. If one applies for a permit to burn medical waste, then one must meet
certain criteria to be licensed by the State. One must submit reports and allow frequent, periodic
inspections of the facility. The facility must demonstrate that they are using best available
control technology for the control of air pollution, must install continuous emission monitoring
for specific pollutants, must do periodic source testing of the stack to verify their monitoring
system is providing correct information. In addition, new federal guidelines regulate municipal
solid waste incinerators and also medical waste as a separate facility. If Recomp were to
Special Public Works Committee, 10/6/98, Page 1
I continue burning medical waste, they would be subject to the new federal rules. They would
2 meet the new rules, except for mercury. Taking care of the mercury problem is a simple fix.
3 The only permit application Recomp is required to receive from NWAPA for autoclaving is for
4 the steam created by the autoclaving process. Nuisance odors can be a cause for significant fines
5 by NWAPA. The nearest autoclaving facility is in Spokane, and the air pollution authority in
6 that area did not even know there was an autoclave in the area. That means there have been no
7 complaints. Due to this information, NWAPA is not putting any further regulations on Recomp
8 for potential nuisance odor. In 1996, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) knew that
9 they were going to pass these more stringent rules for incineration of medical waste. By doing
10 so, they knew they would drive a lot of small generators out of the business of burning. A study
11 they did on alternatives showed that nuisance odors were not an issue. The NWAPA permit
12 focuses on the natural gas fired boiler, and nothing else.
13
14 Brenner questioned when they applied for the NWAPA permit. Reynolds stated that he
15 thought they received the application for the Notice of Construction a few months ago. It was
16 his understanding that Recomp would long -haul municipal waste and autoclave medical waste.
17
18 Brenner stated that in their plan, there is no mention of shutting down their incinerators.
19 There is nothing in writing that says they are planning to shut the incinerator down. Reynolds
20 stated that, as long as they keep their permit current, they can incinerate.
21
22 Brenner stated that this autoclave was moved down from Canada. Reynolds stated that
23 he was aware of that. He spoke with the inspector. The autoclave up there was sterilizing
24 medical waste and also foreign waste. The inspector stated that she suspected the odor problems
25 from the Canada operation were due to the foreign waste.
26
27 Brenner stated that the inspector told her that they could smell cooked items. Also, she
28 sent to NWAPA information about problems with autoclaves in other areas of the country. In
29 addition, the autoclave in the Spokane area is much smaller than the Recomp proposal. She was
30 concerned that NWAPA did not do enough research. Reynolds stated that if there are nuisance
31 odors, they have the power to take care of it.
32
33 Brown asked for clarification about mercury levels. Reynolds explained that there are
34 trace levels of several hazardous chemicals that can certainly be found at Recomp. Existing air
35 pollution control equipment that is in place at Recomp can readily capture certain metals. The
36 one metal that cannot be captured is mercury because it is a liquid at room temperature and it
37 vaporizes at a much lower temperature.
38
39 Brown questioned whether they would be operating their incinerator under any
40 circumstances if they did not renew their permit with NWAPA. Reynolds stated that they would
41 not. If they fail to renew the current permit, it would expire. If they wish to reapply, they would
42 go through a new permit process.
Special Public Works Committee, 10/6/98, Page 2
2 Brenner stated that the autoclave that emitted odors was a half -mile from residential
3 areas. The Recomp autoclave has 27 houses that border the facility.
4
5 Bob Parker, State Department of Labor and Industries (L &I) Industrial Hygiene
6 Supervisor, stated that he supervises the agency that evaluates worker exposures to bloodborne
7 pathogens. Regarding medical waste and bloodborne pathogens, they regulate everything from
8 initial generation of pathogens in laboratories or hospitals to handling at the waste facility. They
9 have a complex regulation that requires employers to develop a written program to address how
10 they will handle biological materials as well as specifying which workers would be exposed.
11 They must provide workers with protective equipment and information on how to clean
12 contaminated surfaces, train workers on health hazards associated with HIV, HBV, Hepatitis C,
13 and Tuberculosis. They have to offer Hepatitis B vaccinations to the workers. If a worker was
14 exposed, the employer must send the worker to a health care facility to begin treatment if they
15 haven't had the vaccine or if they are exposed to AIDS. The employer also has to record and
16 document any training that is provided, as well as any exposure incidents.
17
18 (Clerk's Note: Council Member Hoag came in at 7:25 p.m)
19
20 Brenner asked about incidents of workers being exposed at Recomp. Parker explained
21 that Recomp was cited three or four years ago for lack of a written program, training, Hepatitis
22 vaccinations, and personal protective equipment. Recomp provided documentation of
23 compliance to the Department, the program was reviewed and approved, and the individuals who
24 were offered vaccinations provided documentation that they were provided or they declined.
25
26 Brown asked about transportation of infectious waste. Parker stated that waste has to be
27 packaged in leak - proof, sealed containers. Customarily, the hospitals are required to put the
28 infectious materials in red bags. They then repackage that in some kind of cardboard box or
29 drum cylinder.
30
31 Dawson questioned how many people in the State have gone to the hospital due to
32 exposure. Parker stated that he knew of some incidents, and the most recent that he knew of was
33 three or four years ago.
34
35 Brown questioned whether the Stericycle contamination in southern Washington was the
36 same type of system. Parker stated that it is not. They throw material down a chute to a
37 chopper. There was a flap that was missing and bio- aerosol was blown back to the workers.
38
39 Brenner stated that those workers were stuck with needles. Stericycle violations were
40 almost exactly the same violations that Recomp was in violation of three or four years ago.
41
Special Public Works Committee, 10/6/98, Page 3
I Peter Christensen, State Department of Ecology (DOE) Action Section Supervisor,
2 introduced John Keeling; DOE staff Engineer. DOE adopts standards for solid waste handling.
3 They adopt them at the direction of the legislature. They provide regulatory oversight, technical
4 assistance, and permit review. They do not issue any permits. The local jurisdictional health
5 department issues the permits. Medical waste is treated in the same way as solid waste. There
6 are four other medical waste facilities in the state. There are no statewide solid waste
7 requirements specifically for the storage, treatment, or handling of medical waste. It is not
8 classified as a special waste and is treated as solid waste. Some health departments regulate
9 some aspect of medical waste. Whatcom County is one of those counties. There are certain
10 permit requirements from the local health department, which are a general description of the
11 facility, identifying the types of waste that will be handled at the facility, a plan of operation that
12 addresses worker safety requirements, an inspection schedule, a log of operations, and
13 documentation to show that the wastewater treatment system has been reviewed by the
14 department. All of these requirements have been met by Recomp. All medical waste handling
15 facilities in the state are currently permitted as either transfer stations or "other." Disposal
16 facilities do not generally keep separate records on medical waste. Medical waste is a solid
17 waste.
18
19 Brenner asked which type of pollutants DOE regulates. Christensen stated that the
20 authority to regulate pollutants is delegated to local authorities. NWAPA has delegation.
21
22 Jamie Randalls, NWAPA explained which agencies regulate the different types of
23 pollution. The Clean Air Act of Washington allows the formation of local air authorities. Those
24 counties that choose not to be in a local air authority fall to the DOE by default. The only county
25 in Western Washington that is not in a local air authority is San Juan County.
26
27 Brenner questioned who had oversight on heavy metals pollution.
28
29 John Keeling, DOE Engineer, explained that DOE regulates wastewater.
30
31 Brenner stated that autoclaves emit heavy metals and organic compounds in their
32 wastewater. Keeling explained that the DOE Water Quality Division will be involved in the
33 permitting process of the waste water (State Waste Discharge Permit).
34
35 Brenner questioned what there would be a State Environment Protection Act (SEPA)
36 review for. Keeling stated that if there is a potential for any environmental impact, then the
37 agency makes a SEPA determination. He believed that there needs to be a determination of
38 whether a SEPA review should be done. The SEPA official for the agency with the first permit
39 is with the City of Ferndale.
40
41 Brenner stated that the only SEPA review the City of Ferndale does is regarding whether
42 or not there is an expanded building. There is no SEPA review by Ferndale on discharge.
Special Public Works Committee, 10/6/98, Page 4
I Keeling stated that will be addressed through the State Waste Discharge Permit. It could happen
2 that the lead agency does not do a complete SEPA review if they don't have jurisdiction on
3 certain issues.
4
5 Hoag asked about whether other states regulate medical waste differently than
6 Washington State. Christensen stated that a Washington State legislative committee is
7 researching the issue of medical waste.
8
9 Brenner stated that 44 states do regulate medical waste differently. Some states call it
10 hazardous or dangerous waste.
11
12 Keeling stated that the legislature is currently studying medical waste. DOE is assisting
13 them. They will make findings known and legislate accordingly.
14
15 Brenner stated that she sat with other agency officials on the State Infectious Waste
16 Technical Advisory Committee ten years ago. They made recommendations then, and not one
17 was followed up on. It is important to act locally.
18
19 Dawson questioned Randalls about whether the Recomp autoclave is going to have
20 emissions. Randalls stated that there will be minimal emissions. The primary emissions will
21 come from the combustion of natural gas in the boiler to provide steam for the autoclave.
22
23 Bill White, State Department of Health (DOH), stated that the agency has a mission that
24 was developed in conjunction with a Senate subcommittee that has been looking at this issue for
25 the last six or eight months. He introduced other DOH staff, including Wayne Turnburg and
26 Cami Johnson. He gave background information on Turnburg and Johnson.
27
28 The DOH does not have any regulatory role regarding medical waste. There is not a
29 DOH role in the review or approval of solid waste facilities. They do provide technical
30 assistance to jurisdictions in areas they may have expertise.
31
32 (Clerk's Note: End of side one, tape one)
33
34 White continued to state that their primary role in this area is to provide information. The
35 DOH has three points to their official position regarding the public health aspect of this issue.
36 One is that there is only a low risk to the general public from direct contact to biomedical waste
37 treatment facilities. There is no evidence of disease transmission to people who live around
38 facilities. They do find that there is a higher risk to workers in those conditions.
39
40 Brown questioned the involvement by the State in this autoclave. White stated that they
41 were asked to review a draft operational plan. Their comments have been incorporated into the
42 final plan. They are focused on the treatment technology.
Special Public Works Committee, 10/6/98, Page 5
1
2 Hoag asked about contagion involved in medical waste. White stated that he believed the
3 concern was about infectious agents and that is what he spoke to. There is no indication in the
4 epidemiological evidence that suggests that infectious disease is transmitted because of facilities.
5 If there are chemical discharges of some sort, effects may occur.
6
7 Brenner questioned the number of epidemiological studies that have been done on
8 workers, general populations, or other issues. Johnson stated that she has not seen any.
9
10 Brenner introduced Wayne Turnburg, author of Biohazardous Waste and a DOH
11 employee.
12
13 Cami Johnson, DOH, stated that she is assigned from the Center for Disease Control
14 (CDC) and works with the noninfectious conditions epidemiology group.
15
16 Turnburg stated that he is a Public Health Advisor with the State DOH.
17
18 Brenner questioned whether there was any epidemiological evidence that communities
19 are not becoming infected indirectly through workers from infectious waste facilities. Johnson
20 stated that those studies have not been done. There hasn't been an impetus to do those studies.
21 She cautioned that a study of that type would be like looking for moving targets.
22
23 Turnburg agreed. The Stericycle study was the first in the nation.
24
25 Hoag stated that she believed that disease transmission had been studied and that it had
26 been found that it wasn't happening. Johnson stated that there aren't studies.
27
28 Brenner questioned how much money a comprehensive epidemiological study costs.
29 Johnson stated the Stericycle investigation was well over $20,000. That was from the State's
30 perspective. There were five organizations that were involved and thousands of man - hours.
31
32 Dawson questioned whether restaurant workers or members of the public would
33 generally have more exposure to illness. Johnson stated that is difficult to answer. If medical
34 waste is appropriately handled and people understand what they are handling, then the risk could
35 be kept at a minimum.
36
37 Brenner stated that one of the State's positions is that there are indirect risks to
38 communities when there are large amounts of infectious waste amassed in one location.
39 Regional disposal is a new phenomenon. Turnburg agreed that it is a new phenomenon. A
40 survey was just done in New York that came up with 70% of the laboratories shipping out their
41 materials. Cautions should be observed when amassing medical waste in one place for
42 treatment.
Special Public Works Committee, 10/6/98, Page 6
1
2 Brenner stated that Recomp is planning to autoclave at 255 degrees for 30 minutes. She
3 stated that there is evidence that the minimum time for this temperature is 50 minutes if using
4 metal containers. When using plastic containers, as Recomp will be using, the time must be
5 increased significantly. Turnburg agreed. The goal is to have steam contact with the waste. If
6 that can't be achieved, then the heat has to be transferred through the material. This is a reason
7 for spore testing of the waste. If it can be proven that the spores are being killed, then it is
8 evidence the process is being conducted properly. Recomp would have to kill those spores. If
9 30 minutes doesn't do it, the time would have to be increased.
10
11 Brenner stated that the numbers should be established prior to approval of the permit.
12
13 Brown asked who would be doing the testing for spores.
14
15 Brenner answered that it is in Recomp's plan of operation to train their own employees to
16 do the testing on a once every two week cycle.
17
18 Dawson stated that smaller and more autoclaves in the State would require testing and
19 training of more employees, which would create a higher possibility of mistakes. She questioned
20 whether that reasoning would be an argument for regional facilities. Turnburg stated that
21 whoever operates the facilities should be properly trained. As long as there is training, it doesn't
22 matter how many facilities there are. The training is crucial.
23
24 Brown asked about storage requirements for infectious waste and time requirements for
25 autoclaving. Turnburg stated that the primary storage requirement would be to have the storage
26 capacity. Storage under refrigeration would keep odors down.
27
28 Brenner stated that Recomp's plan of operation does not specify how long they will store
29 the medical waste.
30
31 Hoag asked for clarification on the process of sterilizing by steam contact. Turnburg
32 stated that the most effective process is one in which the steam is in contact with the waste. If
33 steam can't contact waste, then the temperature and the pressure must be raised. It would be
34 similar to a pressure cooker.
35
36 Hoag questioned whether there is a disadvantage to opening the containers to expose the
37 waste to the steam. Turnburg stated that the downside is the potential contact of the workers
38 with the waste. That exposure should be minimized.
39
40 Hoag questioned whether he recommend they keep the waste closed and extend the
41 autoclave time or opening the waste for better sterilization. Turnburg stated that the workers
42 should not be opening the bags.
Special Public Works Committee, 10/6/98, Page 7
2 Brenner read sections from Turnburg's book that addressed conscientious, dependable,
3 skilled operators; correct methods of packaging to insure steam penetration of the load; proper
4 loading of the unit; approved sterilizer with demonstrated reliability, and; adequate exposure
5 period that provides complete steam penetration of the entire load and insures microbial
6 destruction with a safety margin. Other sections addressed metal container versus plastic bag
7 use, which performed poorly.
8
9 Dawson questioned Turnburg about whether he was satisfied with Recomp's plan.
10 Turnburg stated that the most critical element is the steam sterilization process. Recomp is going
11 to have to determine, once they get started, whether their time and temperature is adequate.
12
13 Brenner stated that should be determined before permit approval, not after.
14
15 Brenner opened the public hearing and the following people spoke:
16
17 Vic Showell, 631 Marine Drive, stated that counting on the Health Department to protect
18 them is like counting on the devil to go to church. Medical waste is also produced by genetic
19 engineering firms which create diseases.
20
21 Brenner remembered that she forgot to ask the local Health Department to speak.
22
23 Regina Delahunt, County Health and Human Services Environmental Health Services
24 Manager, spoke on their role of regulating medical waste and solid waste. At the local level, the
25 Health Department issues the actual permit for the facility. At the Recomp facility, the County
26 Health Department regulates how all solid waste at the facility is handled. As it has been stated,
27 medical waste is not treated any differently than other solid waste. Recomp is regulated locally
28 in how medical waste is handled at their facility. Recomp is required by State law to have a plan
29 of operation. Recomp's plan of operation has to include how the medical waste is to be handled
30 at the facility. The plan has to be approved and has to be followed. Recomp has an extensive
31 plan of operation that deals with medical waste, the incinerator, the composting facility, and
32 everything that happens at that facility. Facilities are required to notify the Health Department
33 when they want to change any method of operating at the facility. Recomp notified the County
34 that they wanted to add an autoclave process. They were required to change their plan of
35 operation and submit it to the Health Department, which they did. It is not an action where a
36 new permit would need to be approved. The Health Department would just need to approve a
37 change to their operation. They received the plan, sent it to DOH and DOE for comment. Since
38 there are no specific requirements as far as what needs to be done in their plan of operation, then
39 the County Health Department reviews it to insure that it meets general health and safety
40 requirements. The County approved the amendment to their plan.
41
Special Public Works Committee, 10/6/98, Page 8
I Chuck Benjamin, Health and Human Services Department Director, thanked Council
2 Member Brenner for having this meeting. He explained that the local health department is in the
3 position of administrative approval once all the requirements have been satisfied. He would like
4 to see a plan to educate the public, provide recommendations to the Public Health Advisory
5 Board, would like a memo of understanding with all agencies involved that clearly identifies all
6 roles and responsibilities.
7
8 Brenner asked when Recomp requested a permit. Delahunt said she thought it was
9 submitted in March.
10
11 Brenner questioned why the Board of Health was not notified when the Health
12 Department received an application for a change in the operation. Benjamin stated that the initial
13 report that they requested had to do with the different waste technologies and their effectiveness.
14 That was completed in November 1997. He apologized for the lack of notification to the Board
15 of Health by the Health Department.
16
17 Brenner stated that she could not find any regulation about when the approval had to be
18 given. She believed that the County has an obligation to delay approval if there is a question
19 about safety. Benjamin stated that the County Prosecutor advised him that, once the criteria are
20 met, the County is responsible for granting approval. He believed that they could not hold back
21 approval even if new regulations are being considered. Granted approval does not preclude
22 Recomp from complying with any new local, State, or federal regulations that may be created.
23
24 Brenner stated that the County was able in the past to make Recomp wait when they were
25 dealing with the composting issue, even though Recomp threatened a lawsuit then. When the
26 new County regulations went into effect, Recomp couldn't meet the standards.
27
28 Brown questioned whether the local health department could do the spore testing.
29 Delahunt stated that they can do that, however it is the facility's responsibility to do the testing
30 and provide the results to the agencies.
31
32 Brown asked about the procedure when the bags come out of the autoclave. Delahunt
33 stated they are then put on a truck or train for long haul. They are classified as solid waste.
34
35 Brenner questioned the level of the Health Department's inspection. Delahunt stated that
36 the standard is to go to the facility a minimum of once per month. They spend an hour or two at
37 the facility.
38
39 Benjamin stated that if they found any difficulties with the operation, inspections would
40 be more frequent.
41
Special Public Works Committee, 10/6/98, Page 9
I Brenner questioned whether the Health Department staff has talked to the Recomp
2 workers. Delahunt stated that the inspector talks to them when she does the inspection.
3
4 Brenner stated that workers have safety concerns.
5
6 (Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side B.)
7
8 Hoag stated that when she went to a senate hearing on infectious waste she learned that
9 some facilities shred medical waste so that it was no longer recognizable. Delahunt said there is
10 no indication that Recomp will be shredding.
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
Brenner questioned where the bags go after sterilization. Delahunt stated that they go to
the landfill in eastern Washington.
Brenner asked how they get there. Delahunt stated that they are transported either by
truck or rail. The plan is that Recomp can incinerate, autoclave, or do both.
Brenner acknowledge the elected officials in attendance.
Emily Weaver, 2935 Leeward Place, stated that it is late in the process for the public to
speak. Her concern is for people like Fred Ferman who was a worker at Recomp. He has
recovered some of his health since leaving Recomp's employ, but will never recover all of his
health. She asked what percent of waste brought in to Recomp will actually go into the
autoclave. She requested that the County impose testing by an outside agency.
Ann Anderson, 2615 Island View Lane, Lummi Island, stated that corporate profits
always come ahead of concerns about environmental pollution and workers' safety.
Jim Johnston, Department of Fish and Wildlife Fisheries Biologist, stated that his
department has no regulatory authority over this issue. There are no rules or regulations about
this issue, so there can be no enforcement. He spoke about run off from ash piles at Thermal
Reduction ( Recomp's predecessor) killing fish in Clay Pit Pond. There was heavy metal
leaching into Clay Pit Pond. There has been no testing of metals in the pond since those days
(1980's). He questioned where the fluid is now going to go, its effects on the fish in the waters,
and whether wildlife can act as a vector of infectious disease to humans.
Rita Foley, South Lake Whatcom, stated that they need inspectors. The County should
hire people and train them.
Yvonne Goldsmith, 5840 Church Road, Council Member and Mayor of the City of
Ferndale, questioned why the City of Ferndale was not involved in this issue. Recomp should
have advised them that this was in the works. She felt the "buck" is being passed from one
Special Public Works Committee, 10/6/98, 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
agency to the other. She is also very disappointed in Recomp's lack of information and
recommended that the State be made aware that the document is flawed.
Wayne Larsen, 3096 Thornton Road, Ferndale, spoke against Recomp and stated that the
bureaucracy has stumbled. The Health Department has not done any research.
Eleanor King, 2465 Heights Drive, Ferndale, asked that testing be done before it gets
started.
Mike Reilly, 6012 Oscar Court, Ferndale, stated that he would like answers from the
State agencies. No one is taking responsibility. The Health Department should have Recomp
pay for an independent tester.
Jim Austin, Recomp Attorney, stated that he hoped that this meeting would be an
informational session. He understood that people have questions, and he requested the
opportunity to do a video presentation. He was told that there would not be time to do so. He
invited Council Members and the public to come to the facility and get their questions answered.
Dawson questioned from which jurisdiction the autoclave was purchased and why they
wanted to sell it. Austin stated that it was purchased from British Columbia. They were getting
out of that part of the business. They purchased it from Browning Ferris Industries (BFI).
Brenner stated that she talked to the B.C. officials about why BFI sold the autoclave.
There had been complaints about odors. Austin stated that the she did not talk to BFI, and that
the B.C. officials would not know why BFI made the decision to sell the autoclave.
Brenner questioned why Recomp did not inform the Health Department or NWAPA
about legitimate, confirmed odors. Austin stated that he did not have any such information and
was not sure that it was true.
Brenner stated that it was true. There were numerous complaints that were either
confirmed, suspect, or unregistered. Austin stated that was a legitimate question. They would be
happy to share any information with the public. They were told that they could not make a
formal presentation at this meeting.
Brenner stated that they were invited to speak.
Austin stated that the focus of the meeting was on Recomp's business.
Dawson requested a copy of the letter from the Greater Vancouver Regional District
(GVRD) about the complaints.
Special Public Works Committee, 10/6/98, Page it
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
Hoag questioned whether BFI was currently running Recomp. Austin stated that there
has been a tremendous amount of misinformation concerning this matter, including the
information in the invitation to this meeting. BFI does not manage Recomp's imported
infectious waste operation. BFI does not own or operate Recomp. BFI is in the business of
collecting medical waste from generators of medical waste, such as hospitals. It has contracted
with Recomp for Recomp to receive that waste and dispose of it. Recomp accepts that waste
under contract with BFI. It charges BFI for Recomp's service in disposing of that waste, in the
same manner that Recomp charges Sanitary Service Company for the waste that it collects for
the County and other jurisdictions. BFI is a collection company. It has no involvement in,
affiliation with, or ownership of Recomp's facility. There is no interest whatsoever.
Brenner stated that a Bellingham Herald article said that BFI employees were the ones
that handled and managed the infectious waste. Austin stated that, when medical waste comes to
the site and in order to reduce the amount of people who are involved, the plan is to load the
waste directly into the incinerator. It is not put on the tipping floor or allowed to be mingled
with other waste. It is specially handled. The BFI people who bring the waste into the facility
are involved in loading it into the incinerator. That doesn't mean that they manage the facility.
Recomp manages them.
Brenner stated that the article shows that BFI employees are also sterilizing the infectious
waste. Austin stated that not everything in the Herald is true.
Brenner stated that the State Senate believes that BFI manages and owns the facility.
Austin stated that they are then wrong.
Perry Parsons, 1010 E. Maple, Bellingham, stated that medical waste is primarily
composed of polyvinyl chloride (PVC) which produces a chemical called dioxin. Dioxin is
known to cause sterilization, endocrine disruption, neurological, and other problems. Allowing
Recomp to handle medical waste endorses the use of PVCs. Instead, they should be finding
alternatives.
Cindy Franklin, 921 Highland Drive stated that she was shocked and angry about the
decision - making process. She felt that Pete Kremen, County Executive, and Benjamin were
more worried about being sued by Recomp than they are about the people. Eight years ago, she
was involved in an initiative process to ban the importation of medical waste into Whatcom
County.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape two, side A)
Franklin continued to explain that, at the time that ban was illegal because it violated
Recomp's right to interstate commerce. Today, they are importing six times more, at
Special Public Works Committee, 10/6/98, Page 12
I approximately 300 tons per month. Frank Mosconi said in an editorial that it is unconstitutional
2 to limit the importation of medical waste.
3
4 Lowell Haugen, Tacoma, stated that he is interested in the processing and handling of
5 infectious and bio- hazardous waste. His background is in sterilization, biology, and in the
6 hospital field. Incineration is almost extinct. Steam sterilization is the method of choice if
7 properly done. It is early in the regulatory process. He used to own the plant in Spokane. Steam
8 sterilization can be done in a pressure cooker, boil, gravity sterilization (an autoclave in the
9 doctor's office), or high vacuum sterilization (air is extracted out of the machine and steam is
10 injected). Sterilization has a finite limit. It is not effective after about 200 cubic feet in the
11 equipment used today. This is the biological testing method used in every hospital, once per
12 week, to verify that the autoclave works. It will not work in an autoclave of 800 cubic feet or
13 larger. Sterilization equipment must be kept at a size of 200 cubic feet or less. Sterilization
14 cannot happen in a plastic bag or a cardboard box.
15
16 Dawson questioned why incineration is becoming history. Haugen stated that it merely
17 converts one form of pollution to another form. Medical waste incineration is not very viable for
18 the future.
19
20 Brown questioned Haugen's profession. Haugen stated that he has been in the equipment
21 supply business for the medical equipment industry. He writes policy and procedures for
22 hospital.
23
24 Adam Carmel, 1225 Fairhaven, Bellingham, questioned how difficult or expensive it
25 would be to monitor inspections at Recomp. He questioned how long will it take for a problem
26 to be solved once a problem has been found. He also asked about increasing the frequency of the
27 inspections by the Health Department.
28
29 Carl Weimer, Resources Executive Director, stated that he was glad to hear that a task
30 force may be formed and hoped that a budget is provided to support the Health Department. He
31 read from a report from British Columbia about incinerators and autoclaves. He also questioned
32 about SEPA review from the City of Ferndale.
33
34 Charlene French, 5044 LaBounty, Ferndale, stated that she is Recomp's neighbor. They
35 have been horrible neighbors. They have smoke, odor and noise. NWAPA has been out
36 numerous times. By the time they get there, the wind has shifted and the odor is gone. There is
37 also noise due to the railroad spur, which was noisy. The ash pile is still there and they have
38 removed the buffer.
39
40 Robert French, 5044 LaBounty, Ferndale, also stated that Recomp is noisy and odorous.
41 It has a significant impact on the neighborhood. Ferndale is lead agency, but they lean on other
42 agencies to make the decision for them. There needs to be more responsibility of government.
Special Public Works Committee, 10/6/98, Page 13
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
Dawson questioned Benjamin about federal regulation of importation of medical waste
Brenner stated that the County can limit how much waste Recomp brings into the
County.
Brown stated that the County can impose taxes to pay for inspections.
Dru Saunders, Bellingham, was angry that the decision to allow the permit came before
this public hearing. He encouraged the immediate discontinuation of incineration by any legal
means.
Christie Quinones, Bellingham, stated that she is 13 years old. She is the future and will
have to suffer the consequences of living with the pollution life long.
Seth Vidana, 1330 Lahti Drive, Bellingham, stated that emissions compromise the
immune system. Also communicable disease depends on a problem with the human immune
system to have an effect.
Barbara Quinones, Bellingham, stated that she was angry that the public health officials
can't see a problem, but her 13- year -old daughter can see a problem.
Richard Severson, 3435 Robertson Road, Ferndale, stated that he is a steam engineer.
There are many types of steam. A doctor told him that surgical tools sterilized by autoclave
would be effective, but not if a bunch of garbage is added to the autoclave. He was very
concerned about pollution in Clay Pit Pond. There are also problems with the Nooksack River
and the Ferndale Treatment Plant. As an engineer, he doubts whether their autoclave would
work.
Julie Peterson, 1245 Toledo Street, stated that she was concerned about the transportation
of the infectious waste to the community.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape two, side B)
Barbara Schultz, 7897 Santa Fe Trail, Sumas, stated that there should be someone on call
24 hours to respond to complaints.
Pat Alesse, 2845 Alderson Road, Birch Bay, thanked the Council Members for their
efforts.
Eli Thompson, 268 Barrel Springs Road, stated that the generators of infectious waste are
using too many PVCs. There are different options to use instead of the PVCs.
Special Public Works Committee, 10/6/98, Page 14
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
David Hunter, 819 Mason Street, stated that he is a local attorney. It is a constitutional
problem for local jurisdiction to prevent importation of these kinds of materials. Taxing is an
option. The Council could develop significant regulatory procedures with regard to waste that
goes into Recomp. People depend on government to protect its health. If the County charges
Recomp, then Recomp will increase their costs to the public. He is willing to pay more taxes to
have the government protect the safety of the public.
Brown stated that as long as the taxation is done equally, the County can levy whatever is
justified for inspection and testing.
Brenner stated that there is competition in the County. If Recomp raises their cost,
they'll be out of business. She did not agree on a general tax to do something that is exclusive to
one facility.
Hunter agreed that taxes can be raised equally.
Brenner questioned whether limiting the amount of infectious waste would be
unconstitutional. She has been told by other attorneys that they can set limits and it has nothing
to do with the constitution as long as they don't limit where it came from. Hunter agreed.
Brown questioned whether the County can require codes on County roads to require
special packaging for medical waste. Hunter stated that there is a very old Supreme Court case
about mud flaps. The question is whether that was a fact -based decision. His immediate
suspicion is that they could do that.
Brenner closed the public hearing.
(Clerk's Note: The committee took a short break at 10:25 p.m)
Brenner recommended the Health Department work on strict limitations on how much
can be processed at any one location, and ensure that there are regulations that no mode of
operation will be allowed until there are local standards for the mode of operation has been
established.
Dawson recommended independent analysis, and the size of the autoclave should be
looked into. Also, she was concerned about the incineration. She wanted to require dioxin
testing.
Brown stated that they need to implement a tax on medical solid waste that would pay for
independent testing.
Special Public Works Committee, 10/6/98, Page 15
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
Brenner stated that it should not be called solid waste. It should be called infectious
waste.
Brown stated that they also should look at placing regulations on County roads that the
waste has to be in the same type of container that is used ship it other contaminated waste. He
suggested a double container, unbreakable plastic drum. The County definitely needs to know
the size of the autoclave. If possible, he would like to see about hiring Haugen to consult with
the County.
Brenner stated that she wanted to see a full time public agency representative at a facility
to do indoor air quality monitoring with the cost borne by the facility.
Hoag questioned whether the County could require that all medical waste be autoclaved.
They should then set strict standards for the autoclave, and require unscheduled independent
testing of both the effluent and the spores.
Brenner questioned whether they are required to treat the waste. Delahunt stated that it is
solid waste, they would not have to treat it.
Benjamin stated that anything coming in through the medical waste stream has to be
treated in accordance with the plan of operation. Delahunt was referring to the State law. If they
did not treat it, they would be violating their plan of operation. The issues that the public and the
Council members have raised are issues that the Task Force needs to take a close look at. She is
assuming that this list is for the Task Force.
The committee concurred.
Benjamin clarified that the Public Health Advisory Board would create a special Task
Force to look at this issue, similar to the task force they created to look at bloodborne pathogens.
He urged that Brenner be the Council representation on the Infectious Waste Task Force.
Hoag questioned what would happen if they did not follow their plan of operation, per
State law. Benjamin stated that it is the local responsibility to take action. There is a process set
up for that.
Brenner stated that they should get the Task Force created immediately and their review
should not take forever.
39 Benjamin stated that they will be holding another public hearing on renewing Recomp's
40 permit, which takes effect January 1, 1999. He has reservations that everything can be done by
41 then. He will attempt to get a legal opinion on the issuance of a conditional permit or a
42 temporary permit. If he is again told by legal advice that he can't do that, he may have to go
Special Public Works Committee, 10/6/98, Page 16
I ahead and issue the permit. If there are any new regulations that come along, Recomp will be
2 held to those regulations.
3
4 Brenner suggested that the County seek outside, free legal advice. She recommended a
5 firm out of Seattle that is familiar with this issue.
6
7 Hoag questioned why the County would renew the permit if they have never taken care
8 of their ash pile. Delahunt stated that the DOE regulates the ash. They are under an agreed order
9 with DOE for a schedule for removal of the ash.
10
11 Brenner stated that they have been in violation with that ash pile for at least ten years.
12 They go to the DOE and the DOE always gives them an extension.
13
14 Hoag questioned whether that is taken into consideration when renewing the permit.
15 Benjamin stated that they do, except DOE authorizes it. There have been allegations of
16 contamination, but he is not aware of any proof.
17
18 Weimer stated that there is a letter in the file from DOE saying that everything Recomp is
19 doing is okay. There was an order for them to cover their ash pile, which is still not covered.
20
21 Brenner stated that the County can require them to remove their ash pile.
22
23 Hoag questioned Weimer about whether there was an order to cover the ash piles, which
24 was never done. Delahunt replied that, when the County renews permits, they talk to all of the
25 other agencies that have regulatory authority. They are asked if there is compliance with all
26 applicable laws and regulations. Unless someone tells them that they are not in compliance, the
27 County doesn't have a reason to withhold the permit.
04:?
29 Hoag stated that citizens have brought problems to the County's attention. It is the
30 Health Department's duty to check out the complaints. Delahunt stated that they do.
31
32 Hoag questioned whether the County can withhold the permit if they are not complying
33 with State regulations. Delahunt stated that they are required to be in compliance with other
34 applicable laws and regulations.
35
36 Brenner stated that the County can implement stricter regulations than the State. Recomp
37 dictates to the DOE what they will and will not do.
38
39 ADJOURN
40
41 The meeting was adjourned at 10:52 p.m.
90
Special Public Works Committee, 10/6/98, Page 17
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription
ATTEST:
Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Barbara Brenner, Committee Chair
Special Public Works Committee, 10/6/98, Page 18