State’s Cleanup vs. RE Sources’ Position

One of the most striking differences between the Washington Department of Ecology’s preferred remedy* and RE Sources’ position is that the Ecology remedy presents two vastly different cleanups for the Whatcom Waterway and Georgia-Pacific’s former treatment lagoon, known as the ASB, whereas the North Sound Baykeeper position for these two sites is consistent.

The Ecology remedy calls for capping contamination in the Whatcom Waterway (with limited dredging) and dredging it in the ASB. Although capping in the Whatcom Waterway is cheaper, it is a far less protective solution than dredging and removal. We ask that the protective solution of dredging and upland disposal afforded to the ASB, also be applied to the Whatcom Waterway.

The cleanup standard that Ecology will use is called the Bioaccumulation Screening Level (BSL), which is 1.2 parts per million (ppm) mercury in sediment. This represents the mercury concentration in the sediment where Ecology believes there is a risk posed to people who eat seafood from local waters. The BSL was derived from a modeling effort.

RE Sources believes that the more stringent Maximum Cleanup Level, (MCL) of 0.59 ppm mercury in sediment, should be used as the cleanup standard. The MCL is the level at which Ecology believes that some adverse effects to marine organisms may occur, and it was derived from hundreds of actual tests.

We are advocating use of the more stringent MCL, in place of the BSL, because we believe the BSL to be an underestimate of bioaccumulative effects. The BSL model relies on some assumptions that are faulty. The first is that mercury concentration in the sediment is proportional to tissue from crabs caught in the same area. Crabs, however, are very mobile and should not be used to model potential mercury uptake, unless they are confined to the area in question. Secondly, the consumption rate used in the model is faulty: the consumption rate is low and assumes consumption by a 154-pound person. The BSL also does not account for the increased sensitivity of developing babies and the young. In light of all of the problems with the BSL, we believe that the more conservative MCL should be used as the default cleanup standard.

Ecology considers three feet to be the depth at which disruption to the sediment layer is possible, be it from anchor drag, propeller wash, biologic activity or storm and tidal activity. Thus, the preferred remedy will focus on making sure that top three feet of sediments is clean. In most cases, this will mean that a three-foot cap will be placed over contamination. In the ASB, however, the Ecology-preferred remedy will call for complete removal of the contamination. In the Whatcom Waterway, surrounding areas and ASB, RE Sources is calling for complete removal of the mercury above the MCL. In the Whatcom Waterway, this extends down to approximately 11 feet.

RE Sources is recommending complete removal because it is the most protective and safest way to minimize mercury accumulation in the food chain over the long term. Mercury removal takes into account changing conditions, such as the increased storm and wind activity associated with global warming that can cause increased and deeper disruption to sediments. Removal of mercury is particularly important in areas that have been shown to be erosional and in areas with a high amount of biological activity, where formation of the most toxic form of mercury, methylmercury, is most likely.

The Ecology remedy will call for all of the contaminated sediment that is dredged to be taken to a certified upland waste disposal facility in a dry environment. We, at RE Sources, agree with this position. Use of a certified upland disposal site to dispose of mercury-contaminated sediments is more protective than other disposal solutions. This is because these landfills are contained with a liner system and any runoff from the site is minimized by its location in a dry environment and contained by a leachate collection system.

According to the Ecology remedy, the ASB dredging is necessary to convert it to a marina, per the Port of Bellingham’s (the land owner’s) land-use design. We believe that the ASB should be returned to aquatic habitat because the area that the ASB now occupies was once aquatic habitat. Hundreds of acres of aquatic habitat and tidelands have been filled in Bellingham Bay, and we believe restoration of that habitat is a positive step for the overall aquatic ecosystem. We acknowledge that marina habitat will not be of the highest quality; it will be up to the port and citizens of Bellingham to ensure that the habitat and water quality in the marina, if permitted, is of the highest quality possible.

To get more information on the cleanup and to obtain a copy of the Department of Ecology draft decision making document or Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study for the Whatcom Waterway and ASB, go to the Department of Ecology Web site: http://www.ecy.wa.gov.

*The Ecology remedy to which this article refers is the pre-October 10 draft remedy. I believe that the draft remedy prior to October 10 will be very similar to that released after October 10. Due to the publication schedule of the Whatcom Watch and the limited comment period associated with the Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study, I believed it’s best to get the information out to those interested in the cleanup, rather than wait until it was too late to be involved and make substantive comments. To view an update to this article, go to http://www.re-sources.org/baykeeper.htm.