- The audience was told that the source of contamination has stopped, but was given no empirical evidence to support that assertion. There’s a possibility that the Waterway's depositional characteristics could become erosional. The Army Corps of Engineers is currently considering changing the delta of the Nooksack River, which could lead to just such a change in characteristics. That's just one scenario. The Caustic Groundwater Plum (CGP), which has mercury concentrations as high as 12,500 parts per millions (24 ppm is acceptable in an upland environment and 0.41 is acceptable in an aquatic environment), is mobile, albeit very slow. One expert has estimated that the CGP will hit the Log Pond in a few decades. (There is no costing in the 2006 WW FS for long-term monitoring.) The Port has made it clear it has no intention of cleaning the CGP. It just intends to cap it.
- There was mention of the Bellingham Bay Demonstration Pilot Team. The audience was told that "we continue to meet." That’s simply not an honest characterization. All the stakeholders—all the tribes, all the governmental authorities—have not met in years. The Port, Ecology, and the City? Yeah, they meet. The others? The tribes, for example, were not involved, in any substantive way, in the creation of the latest RI/FS and EIS for the Whatcom Waterway. The City and the Port have repeatedly used the Demo Pilot Team in name only to engender a sense of legitimacy for their cleanup plans. But the full Demo Pilot Team has not met in years and most of its stakeholders have had no say in the decision-making process for 2006 Whatcom Waterway RI/FS.
One of the Port’s consultants at Retec, Anne Fitzpatrick, a primary contributor to the Remedial Investigation, referred to the "high levels of mercury" in the ASB, even though that is actually false. The comparative map she showed left out the fact that the ASB or treatment lagoon is an upland site, which means that it has very low levels of mercury. The ASB averages 6 ppm. What's considered acceptable in an upland site, according to MTCA, for ground-floor residences? 24 ppm.
The problems as we see it
At the root of our concerns is the fact that the Port’s cleanup priorities are not in the best long-term interests of citizens or habitat. It really is all about the marina in the ASB. No secret there. As the "landowner" ("...trustee of our publicly owned assets."), the Port can certainly entertain that land-use dream. But is spending a dime of MTCA funds on the marina development the responsible thing to do? It does not appear to be. Does the focus of the cleanup around this land-use dream compromise the options for the best cleanup at a reasonable cost? Yes. That much is prima facie obvious. The priorities for cleaning up the Whatcom Waterway appear to be completely backwards.
The Foundation will continue to help the public better understand what's at stake in this process.
- There was mention of the Bellingham Bay Demonstration Pilot Team. The audience was told that "we continue to meet." That’s simply not an honest characterization. All the stakeholders—all the tribes, all the governmental authorities—have not met in years. The Port, Ecology, and the City? Yeah, they meet. The others? The tribes, for example, were not involved, in any substantive way, in the creation of the latest RI/FS and EIS for the Whatcom Waterway. The City and the Port have repeatedly used the Demo Pilot Team in name only to engender a sense of legitimacy for their cleanup plans. But the full Demo Pilot Team has not met in years and most of its stakeholders have had no say in the decision-making process for 2006 Whatcom Waterway RI/FS.
One of the Port’s consultants at Retec, Anne Fitzpatrick, a primary contributor to the Remedial Investigation, referred to the "high levels of mercury" in the ASB, even though that is actually false. The comparative map she showed left out the fact that the ASB or treatment lagoon is an upland site, which means that it has very low levels of mercury. The ASB averages 6 ppm. What's considered acceptable in an upland site, according to MTCA, for ground-floor residences? 24 ppm.
The problems as we see it
At the root of our concerns is the fact that the Port’s cleanup priorities are not in the best long-term interests of citizens or habitat. It really is all about the marina in the ASB. No secret there. As the "landowner" ("...trustee of our publicly owned assets."), the Port can certainly entertain that land-use dream. But is spending a dime of MTCA funds on the marina development the responsible thing to do? It does not appear to be. Does the focus of the cleanup around this land-use dream compromise the options for the best cleanup at a reasonable cost? Yes. That much is prima facie obvious. The priorities for cleaning up the Whatcom Waterway appear to be completely backwards.
The Foundation will continue to help the public better understand what's at stake in this process.
The Log Pond
Again, the priorities appear misdirected. The cap on the Long Pond is failing, although the Port, paradoxically, considers it a success. The southwest corner of the Log Pond shows a subsurface mercury concentration (a "hot spot") of 153 parts per million (ppm). (This sample read 65 ppm just a few years ago. Why the dramatic change? What's the "source" of the increase in mercury levels?) At the cap level, right next to the open marine environment? With the understanding that 0.41 ppm is an acceptable level of mercury concentration in a marine environment, take a look at the rising levels of mercury in the graph to the right.
Please see the Foundation’s Healthy Bay Resolution and its Healthy Bay Principles.
Again, the priorities appear misdirected. The cap on the Long Pond is failing, although the Port, paradoxically, considers it a success. The southwest corner of the Log Pond shows a subsurface mercury concentration (a "hot spot") of 153 parts per million (ppm). (This sample read 65 ppm just a few years ago. Why the dramatic change? What's the "source" of the increase in mercury levels?) At the cap level, right next to the open marine environment? With the understanding that 0.41 ppm is an acceptable level of mercury concentration in a marine environment, take a look at the rising levels of mercury in the graph to the right.
Please see the Foundation’s Healthy Bay Resolution and its Healthy Bay Principles.
Rising levels of mercury at the cap level
in the Log Pond by sample.
in the Log Pond by sample.
The Whatcom Waterway & The Log Pond
As an upland site, the treatment lagoon or ASB has low levels of mercury. Regardless of depth (surface, shallow subsurface, or subsurface), the ASB is simply not particularly "dirty" with regard to the mercury, a bioaccumulative neurotoxin. Beneath the surface in the open aquatic environment—the Log Pond, for example—you find extremely high concentrations of mercury. The Log Pond's "interim" cap is now considered "permanent," even though it's eroding and has subsurface concentrations of mercury as high as 153 ppm. What's considered acceptable in an aquatic environment? 0.41 ppm.
RI/FS Meeting on 10/26/2006
It’s important to realize that the Ecology's role in cleaning up sites is both advisory and regulatory in nature. The RI/FS documents that are being distributed to the public were written principally by the Port of Bellingham and their primary consultants, Retec. The Whatcom Waterway RI/FS is not Ecology's plan. It's the Port's plan.
We have many concerns about this document. For now, here are some concerns about the October 26th presentation.
- During a "history" of the Whatcom Waterway cleanup plans, no one mentioned the last and still-binding Feasibility Study and EIS for the Whatcom Waterway site, the Modified Preferred Alternative, which details a higher level of cleanup of the Waterway by using the ASB or treatment lagoon as a Confined Disposal Facility (CDF). Note how the evaluative criteria used to compare and contrast the 2006 alternatives appears suspect when held against the last FS and EIS.
It’s important to realize that the Ecology's role in cleaning up sites is both advisory and regulatory in nature. The RI/FS documents that are being distributed to the public were written principally by the Port of Bellingham and their primary consultants, Retec. The Whatcom Waterway RI/FS is not Ecology's plan. It's the Port's plan.
We have many concerns about this document. For now, here are some concerns about the October 26th presentation.
- During a "history" of the Whatcom Waterway cleanup plans, no one mentioned the last and still-binding Feasibility Study and EIS for the Whatcom Waterway site, the Modified Preferred Alternative, which details a higher level of cleanup of the Waterway by using the ASB or treatment lagoon as a Confined Disposal Facility (CDF). Note how the evaluative criteria used to compare and contrast the 2006 alternatives appears suspect when held against the last FS and EIS.
The table above is the Port's evaluation of its preferred alternatives' (5 and 6) compliance with the Model Toxics Control Act in the FS for the Whatcom Waterway (October 2006). The table to the left is G-P's evaluation using the previous preferred alternative (J) from 2002, represented in the new RI/FS as 3 and 4. The same underlying data leads to opposite conclusions, because the owner of the property has changed.
An RI/FS is not a direct result of Ecology's work, but that of the landowner's. In this case, the landowner is the Port of Bellingham, which uses its all-consuming desire for a marina as the basis of the cleanup. In 2002, the landowner was Georgia-Pacific. What was G-P’s all-consuming desire?
The "consideration of public concerns" is simply erroneous.
An RI/FS is not a direct result of Ecology's work, but that of the landowner's. In this case, the landowner is the Port of Bellingham, which uses its all-consuming desire for a marina as the basis of the cleanup. In 2002, the landowner was Georgia-Pacific. What was G-P’s all-consuming desire?
The "consideration of public concerns" is simply erroneous.
NOTES
If you write Ecology, please let us know about it at info@bbayf.org. We're tracking comments.
Read the Whatcom Waterway RI/FS & EIS by going here. (Online documents lack the appendices.) You can also go to Ecology's office on Railroad Street to pick up a free CD-ROM. Compare the 2006 FS & EIS to the 2002 FS & EIS—they're both available at the link above. Tip: Closely examine the data tables.
If you write Ecology, please let us know about it at info@bbayf.org. We're tracking comments.
Read the Whatcom Waterway RI/FS & EIS by going here. (Online documents lack the appendices.) You can also go to Ecology's office on Railroad Street to pick up a free CD-ROM. Compare the 2006 FS & EIS to the 2002 FS & EIS—they're both available at the link above. Tip: Closely examine the data tables.
Introduction
Below is a response to Ecology’s first informational meeting. Since that time, Ecology had a second informational meeting, participated in the Foundation’s Cleanup Forum, and held one public hearing. Each time, Ecology’s story remained pretty much the same. They appear quite determined to select alternative 5 or alternative 6. This would be a terrible mistake and would thoroughly violate the trust of Whatcom County's citizens in the State’s oversight in cleanup matters. We’re deeply troubled by the apparant willingness to overlook profound problems in the Port’s cleanup plans for the Whatcom Waterway site. We’re hoping that the Department of Ecology recognizes the profound concerns of the citizens of Whatcom County—after all, they’re the real owners of this property—and create a new RI/FS that focuses on getting as much mercury as possible out of the Whatcom Waterway.
Official Position
Please look over the Foundation’s official position on cleaning the Whatcom Waterway, which is comprised of a Resolution and a set of Principles. The Foundation’s position would require that Ecology develop a new RI/FS.
Over 7,000 Voices
Mitch Friedman, the President and Founder of the Bellingham Bay Foundation, has personally delivered the over 6,400 signatures of the Healthy Bay Initiative to the Deparment of Ecology. It’s of utmost importance to the Foundation to honor the hopes implicit in those signatures. These are the voices of thousands upon thousands of citizens demanding that the maximum amount of contaminents, including mercury, be removed from the Whatocom Waterway, unless technically impractical. To learn more about the Healthy Bay Initiative, please go here.
The Foundation gathered several hundred petition signatures from citizens demanding that the Department of Ecology reject Alternative 5 and Alternative 6 and, instead, focus on the removal, not the capping, of mercury in the Whatcom Waterway. These signatures were delivered to the Department of Ecology.
Finally, the Whatcom Waterway Public Hearing on December 11th delivered a strong and unmistakable message to Ecology—reject Alternative 5 and Alternative 6 and get the mercury out of the Whatcom Waterway. Over 70 people attended the hearing. 32 people testified and not one of them expressed support for Ecology’s preferred alternatives. Everyone, without exception, demanded the removal of mercury from the Whatcom Waterway.
Below is a response to Ecology’s first informational meeting. Since that time, Ecology had a second informational meeting, participated in the Foundation’s Cleanup Forum, and held one public hearing. Each time, Ecology’s story remained pretty much the same. They appear quite determined to select alternative 5 or alternative 6. This would be a terrible mistake and would thoroughly violate the trust of Whatcom County's citizens in the State’s oversight in cleanup matters. We’re deeply troubled by the apparant willingness to overlook profound problems in the Port’s cleanup plans for the Whatcom Waterway site. We’re hoping that the Department of Ecology recognizes the profound concerns of the citizens of Whatcom County—after all, they’re the real owners of this property—and create a new RI/FS that focuses on getting as much mercury as possible out of the Whatcom Waterway.
Official Position
Please look over the Foundation’s official position on cleaning the Whatcom Waterway, which is comprised of a Resolution and a set of Principles. The Foundation’s position would require that Ecology develop a new RI/FS.
Over 7,000 Voices
Mitch Friedman, the President and Founder of the Bellingham Bay Foundation, has personally delivered the over 6,400 signatures of the Healthy Bay Initiative to the Deparment of Ecology. It’s of utmost importance to the Foundation to honor the hopes implicit in those signatures. These are the voices of thousands upon thousands of citizens demanding that the maximum amount of contaminents, including mercury, be removed from the Whatocom Waterway, unless technically impractical. To learn more about the Healthy Bay Initiative, please go here.
The Foundation gathered several hundred petition signatures from citizens demanding that the Department of Ecology reject Alternative 5 and Alternative 6 and, instead, focus on the removal, not the capping, of mercury in the Whatcom Waterway. These signatures were delivered to the Department of Ecology.
Finally, the Whatcom Waterway Public Hearing on December 11th delivered a strong and unmistakable message to Ecology—reject Alternative 5 and Alternative 6 and get the mercury out of the Whatcom Waterway. Over 70 people attended the hearing. 32 people testified and not one of them expressed support for Ecology’s preferred alternatives. Everyone, without exception, demanded the removal of mercury from the Whatcom Waterway.
