Preservation of Historic Industrial Buildings vs. Public Health - here's one city's Horror Story

In 1996, a Hoboken, New Jersey resident watched silently as unidentified drops of liquid slowly dripped from the ceiling of the apartment on to a counter top in his/her home.

The recently redeveloped five-story brick building was located in a heavily populated, mostly residential section of Hoboken.

In the early to mid 1990's, the historic building, (which served as a former mercury vapor lamp and connector switch manufacturing facility for General Electric from 1910 to 1965), was converted into 16 residential apartments and artist studios.

The project was permitted by the NJ Department of the Environment (DEP) and the City of Hoboken in New Jersey. Like the WA State Department of Ecology, the New Jersey Environmental Department relies on consultant studies completed by former property owners and/or other entities responsible for clean up.

After discovering the mercury, the apartment's residents asked state health officials to investigate the drops. The health inspector found liquid mercury under the building's wooden floor boards and in the walls. Mercury vapor was detected in the air with monitors.Additional tests revealed unacceptable levels of mercury contamination in children living in the area.

The Army Corps of Engineers and EPA were called in.

The Corps assisted the EPA in evacuating and relocating the 16 families and 20 businesses that occupied the contaminated area.

The Federal government purchased the property from the owners and all of the displaced residents and businesses were moved to safe locations.

The building's windows were removed and the brick walls were inspected for mercury contamination. The brick was contaminated and the entire structure had to be removed. An air handling system was set up to filter out mercury vapors during remediation. Other measures included closing surrounding sidewalks, placing a fence around the contaminated area and installing air monitors to measure mercury vapor and dust in the neighborhood.

The concrete slab and subsurface piping was removed and mercury contaminated soils were excavated from the site.

"The Mercury contamination was overwhelming and truly a health hazard to anyone on or around it." said Neil Ravensbergen, project engineer for the remediation. "It's a shame to loose a piece of history, but it was a benefit to the overall environment."

Pure liquid mercury found on the site was recycled and mercury contaminated building material was disposed of at an approved hazardous waste landfill.

Don't think it could happen here?

At the former GP industrial site, Port of Bellingham consultant studies recommend that residential occupancy be banned on the first floor of some of the proposed structures in certain areas.

The Port's consulting firm also recommended that Mercury Vapor monitors be installed around new structures to monitor mercury vapors in and around buildings on the re-developed site.

I wonder, is this the kind of "clean up" and "re-development" our community is willing to live with?

What is the definition of an "acceptable" risk in regards to public health in Bellingham?

Well, here's what a former NJ DEP official had to say about private companies conducting the environmental studies: " The system is fatally flawed. The DEP relies on private companies, who have a legal and economic stake in minimizing the cost of clean-up," said Bill Wolfe, a former DEP analyst. "This is unfreakingbelievable. The private sector makes the decisions and the DEP and the public have been cut out of the process. This is like a police chief saying that we have so much crime we are going to ask criminals to turn themselves in." http://blog.nj.com/hobokennow/2007/10/new_jersey_admits_privatized_c.html

Background:

The Grand Street Mercury site consisted of two former mercury vapor lamp and mercury connector switch production plants that were later renovated. One building was converted into apartments. The other building was to become townhomes, but had not been completed at the time contamination was found, and the townhomes were never finished, according to EPA. The surrounding area is a mix of residential and commercial properties.http://ehscenter.bna.com/pic2/ehs.nsf/id/BNAP-6PTG9S?OpenDocument

EPA orders clean up of Condos: http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/8b75cea4165024c685257359003f022e/812e723ef644211285257266006ddf33!OpenDocument

Hoboken City website: http://www.hobokennj.org/index.html Grand rennovation project

ATSDR Study: http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/HAC/PHA/grand/gsm_p1.html

Hobokennnow: http://blog.nj.com/hobokennow/2007/10/new_jersey_admits_privatized_c.html

Former Poulsbo Mayor arrested for Sexual Assault and Stalking

Breaking News: The Seattle Times just announced that Richard Mitchusson, former Mayor of Poulsbo, (1985-1995) was arrested this afternoon for suspicion of assault and stalking.

"A sheriff's spokesman said Mitchusson, 70, a Poulsbo resident, was accused of "certain actions, conduct and demeanor" that included unwanted personal advances and inappropriate sexual contact with at least three women at their homes or workplaces within the past 15 months. The investigation was conducted at the request of Poulsbo Police."

Mitchusson was booked on two counts of fourth-degree assault with sexual motivation and one count of stalking.

Bail was set at $50,000.

Seattle Times Article: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2008925529_webmayor.html?syndication=rss

Seattle PI: http://www.seattlepi.com/local/6420ap_wa_former_mayor_arrest.html?source=rss

KING TV http://www.king5.com/localnews/stories/NW_032509WAB-poulsbo-mayor-arrest-KC.6ffed1ad.html?rss

Kitsap Sun, http://www.kitsapsun.com/

Toxic Contamination in Bellingham Bay Sediments

What are the hazards associated with Open Water Disposal of Toxic Marine Sediments?

The Encyclopedia of Public Health tells us that "there are three main direct public health risks from open water dumping: (1) occupational accidents, injuries, and exposures; (2) exposure of the public to hazardous or toxic materials washed up on beaches; and (3) human consumption of marine organisms that have been contaminated by open water disposal. Periodically, medical and other wastes from both legal and illegal dumping have washed up on beaches, resulting in exposure to beachgoers and, in some cases, the closure of beaches until the wastes could be removed. Consumption of fish and shellfish contaminated from radioactive wastes may pose a serious problem worldwide because of nuclear waste dumping in the oceans."

The Washington State Department of Ecology has compiled a database that stores all measurable toxic sediment contamination in Puget Sound.

John Dohrmann, of the Puget Sound Water Quality Action Team tells us the "best available estimate is that out of 3,200 square miles of submerged lands, 6.4 square miles are so contaminated as to require active cleanup. One square mile can be addressed through capping in place. The other 5.4 square miles will require dredging of between 3.9 and 12.4 million cubic yards. The larger dredging volume would cover a football field with a pile half a mile high."

Bellingham Bay has 12 listed clean up sites (including two former superfund sites related to G.P. and the Oeser Corporation Superfund site) that will require dredging and capping to address toxic sediment contamination that threatens the health and safety of Bellingham residents.

Concern about public health impacts of toxic marine sediments led to the creation of the Puget Sound Water Quality Authority. In 1987, the Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan was developed. The goal of the Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan is:

"To reduce and ultimately eliminate adverse effects on biological resources and humans from sediment contamination throughout the Sound by reducing or eliminating discharges of toxic contaminants and by capping, treating or removing contaminated sediments."

Toxic chemicals in urban hotspots such as Bellingham have been shown to harm shellfish, finfish, humans and Puget Sound wildlife.

Shell fish and fin fish may accumulate contaminants from water, sediments, or food in their tissues. This can result in concentrations of the contaminant many times higher than those found in the environment. The degree of bioaccumulation depends on the level of exposure and the mechanisms by which the organism expels, stores, or metabolically breaks down the contaminant. Other organisms, including humans that depend on shell fish or fin fish for food may also accumulate contaminants.

Public outrage over toxic sediment contamination was the catalyst for the creation of the Puget Sound Water Quality Authority in 1985 and the adoption of the Puget Sound National Estuary Program in 1988.

Beginning in the 1980's, scientists began to report that toxic marine sediments were causing diseases, like cancer and heavy metal toxicity, in fish, shellfish and humans who consumed sea food. Out of concern for public health and safety, state and county Public Health Departments began issuing warnings about consuming fish and shellfish from numerous contaminated sites. (But not Bellingham).

Public concern about the health effects of open water disposal sites led to the closure of about half of the disposal sites in Puget Sound. Only six open water disposal sites, including Bellingham Bay, remain open in the Puget Sound region today.

Nationally, state governments have closed open water disposal sites after testing revealed that open water disposal sites sites create new public health hazards. For example, sites have been closed in New York Harbor, Chesapeake Bay and the State of Maryland has banned open water disposal beginning in 2010. http://cedb.asce.org/cgi/WWWdisplay.cgi?0304797

Governor Granholm of Michigan signed an Executive Directive in 2004 prohibiting toxic material disposal in Michigan's waters.

But here in Bellingham, the city of subdued excitement, we are planning to allow the Port (with ecology's blessing) to dredge toxic marine sediment from a number of clean up sites and dump it right back into Bellingham Bay or the Rosario Open Water Disposal sites, without the benefit of aquatic confinement, protective skirting or capping.

Here's an interesting side note - the City of Bellingham, along with the Lummi Nation, submitted letters opposing the creation of an Open Water Disposal Site in Bellingham Bay in the 1980's due to concerns about public health...

Not one elected official (from the city, county, port or state) has raised questions about potential health consequences associated with open water disposal, despite the fact that this is an issue that has created significant public controversy across America, Canada and other nations.

We can not allow Bellingham Bay to be the dumping ground for toxic materials. The toxins contained in dredged sediment could pose significant health dangers to fish, other indigneous aquatic life, wildlife and human beings. Especially vulnerable are pregnant women, infants and small children.

We have an obligation (out of concern for our health and well being) to insist that toxic sediment is placed in confined aquatic disposal sites. Yes, it costs a little more. But - we're worth the expense.

In fact, state and federal government should place a cap over the 78,887 cubic yards of toxic marine sediment that has already been dumped in the Bellingham Bay site.

Why would anyone dump toxic sediment in a shallow bay - knowing that the contamination can be redistributed and threaten public health?

Washingtonians have always depended on natural resources from Puget Sound to fuel the economy. It is our responsibility as economic and environmental stewards of our future to take action to protect Bellingham Bay from additional toxic contamination.

Background Information:

Bellingham Bay Cleanup sites

Bellingham Bay Sites -- Updated April 2004
Bellingham Bay Demonstration Pilot -- Updated November 24, 2003
Central Waterfront Updated May 12, 2006
Cornwall Avenue -- Added September 28, 2004
Georgia Pacific Log Pond -- Updated May 2, 2006-->
Habitat Action Team -- Updated June 27, 2003
R. G. Haley -- Added July 21, 2004
Harris Avenue Shipyard -- Added June 10, 2003
Holly Street Landfill -- Updated September 2004
I & J Waterway -- Updated September 7, 2005
Little Squalicum Park -- Updated April 25, 2006
Weldcraft Steel & Marine -- Updated November 2006
Whatcom Waterway/Georgia-Pacific Site -- Updated September 20 2007
Exxon Mobil Oil Corp-Bellingham - Added January 7, 2004
Shell Multi-Site VCP -- November 17, 2008

Health Risks Associated with Toxic Marine Sediment: http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=1412&page=155

Restoration Market place (Eagle Harbor, WA restoration results) http://www.restorationmarketplace.org/?id=114

John Dohrmann is a Technical and Policy Specialist with the Puget Sound Water Quality Action Team, responsible for a variety of issues, including sediment contamination. He has a bachelor's degree in fishery biology from New College and studied biological oceanography at the University of Washington.

Bellingham Bay Open Water Disposal site

Are you aware that the Port of Bellingham is planning to dump dredged material from a number of local clean up projects in a open water disposal site located in Bellingham Bay and, perhaps the Straits of Rosario?

What is open water disposal? (See figure above).

Open-water disposal is a state and federal approved dredged material disposal program where dredged material is placed at designated sites in oceans, estuaries, (a bay may be a large estuary) rivers and lakes in a manner that dredged material is not isolated from the adjacent waters during placement. Placement is generally via release from pipelines, barges or hoppers. (Dredged Sediment is released into the environment from a pipe or by opening the bottom of a barge and allowing the material to drift down to the bottom).

Open water sites can be either dispersive or non-dispersive (retentive or non-retentive) depending on whether the sediment is transported out of the site or remains within the designated boundaries. Generally, clean or mildly contaminated sediments are disposed of in open water, although the disposal of highly contaminated material can also be considered with appropriate control measures.

Regardless of the type of in-water disposal, placing dredged materials in the aquatic area raises several key concerns, including sediment and water quality, sediment transport, water circulation, impacts to fisheries, and impacts to biological communities, especially endangered/threatened species.

Sediments placed in water must meet sediment quality regulations outlined in the Dredged Material Evaluation Framework. The majority of sediment disposed in the estuary's aquatic area consists of coarse, clean sand dredged from maintained navigation channels. This material must meet the water and sediment quality standards (SQS).

After sediment is placed in an open water disposal site, some or all of it is eventually transported to other areas, potentially resulting in adverse impacts to shallow productive areas and fishing areas, resulting in an increase in dredging requirements on other projects. (Creating a cycle of dredging and additional clean up).

The sediment transport patterns at in-water sites need to be assessed prior to disposal. Disposing of material in-water usually creates a mound or otherwise obstructs water flow. Consequently, water circulation patterns in the vicinity of the disposal site are altered. These changes can have detrimental effects. For instance, unexpected erosion or accretion can occur downstream from the disposal site. Conversely, the changes can sometimes be beneficial. For example, the scouring of the channel can be increased. In all cases, the potential effects that may result from circulation changes need to be assessed prior to undertaking disposal.

In-water disposal often results in the direct smothering of benthic organisms at the disposal site and indirect impacts to organisms living down current from the site. Disposal often impacts commercial fisheries by decreasing the size and depth of net drifts, potentially creating snags in fishing areas, and obstructing fishing access with dredging equipment.

As of 2003, the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) biennial report states that 78,883 cubic yards of dredged material has been disposed at the Bellingham Bay open water disposal site. The USACE estimate that the site can absorb up to 181, 500 cubic yards over the next 50 years. The Bellingham Bay site was closed in the 1960’s, but re-opened in the 1980s. There is no record of the contaminants that were dumped during the 1950s and 60s. Nor has the site been monitored for contaminants since it was re-opened during the 1980s.

Who can use the site? We don’t have all of the answers, but in the I & J Waterway PSDDA Sediment Characterization Sampling and Analysis Plan, RETEC (Port of Bellinham Consultant) estimates that dredged materials that pass chemical and biological guidelines may be disposed of at the Rosario Straits dispersive site, or the Bellingham Bay non-dispersive open water disposal site as part of the proposed clean up project.

Additional information regarding the dredging of the I & J Waterway can be found on the Dept of Ecology website under the I & J Waterway PSDDA Characterization and Sampling Analysis Plan.

Hence, the Port of Bellingham plans to use the Bellingham Bay site, or the Rosario site to dispose of “low level” contaminated dredged materials from the I&J Waterway, the Whatcom Waterway and Squalicum Harbor clean up. All of the materials contain low to high levels of contaminants.

The Bellingham Bay disposal site has been used off an on since the 1960’s or earlier to dispose of contaminated sediments. Early dredged materials were not tested for contaminate levels prior to dumping. To date, the site has not undergone testing to determine toxicity levels or the suitability of the site for future dredged material disposal. Local tribes have long referred to the Bellingham Bay site as a dead zone for fishing.

The USACE publishes biannual DMMP reports on the Region 10 website. The reports are easily accessed through Ecology’s Aquatic Lands Cleanup webpage. Scroll down to the bottom of the page. Click the DMMP Biennial Reports link under the “other links” heading and you will be taken to the Region 10 website with four DMMP reports for Puget Sound.

Again, there is very little information published on the Bellingham Bay open water disposal site.

To date, reports state that only partial monitoring studies have been completed for the Bellingham Bay Disposal site. The WA State Department of Natural Resources (DNR) has recently placed Bellingham on a list of proposed open water disposal sites to be evaluated, tested and monitored over the next two years by a private consulting firm. By statutory requirement, DNR provides, manages, and monitors aquatic land disposal sites on state owned aquatic lands for materials dredged from rivers, harbors, and shipping lanes. Currently, permits to dispose dredged materials at the Bellingham Bay site are issued by the Army Corps of Engineers DMMP program. Federal law does not require publication of permits for open water disposal.Bellingham is one of twelve open water dredged material disposal sites in Washington. (Six are currently in use).

EPA diver report: Disposal of Dredged-material at Open-water Sites

What: The Region 10 Dive Team participated in an interagency effort to assess benthic conditions at dredged-material open-water disposal sites in Bellingham and Padilla Bays, located near Bellingham and Anacortes, WA, respectively.

Why: At Bellingham Bay there was concern that the 58 acre marine disposal site lacked the capacity to contain additional dredged material from Corps of Engineers and Georgia Pacific dredging projects. At Padilla Bay, state resource agencies wanted to evaluate the effect of disposing of 150,000 cubic yards of sandy Swinomish Channel dredged material on an existing silt bottom. It was believed that a sandier substrate might improve Dungeness crab habitat at the disposal site.

Where: Center coordinates for the disposal sites are: 48o 49' 40" N Lat. and 122o 31' 30" W Long. in Bellingham Bay; 48o 31' 04" N Lat. and 122o 33' 05" W Long. in Padilla Bay. When: The Bellingham Bay site was inspected in February 1979 and April 1982. The Padilla Bay site was inspected in April 1982.

How: Benthic observations were made along transects radiating out from the approximate center of the disposal areas. A buoy was located near the center of each site. Still photographs were taken. No sediment samples were taken. Results: In 1979 at Bellingham Bay, the divers noted that 1) the bottom was composed mainly of compacted clay and silty sand, 2) the profile in the disposal area was very uneven (hummocky), and 3) some of the dredged material was located outside of the established disposal site (it was unclear whether the cause was "drift" from the site or short-dumping).

By 1982, the profile at the Bellingham Bay site appeared to be much more even and the dredged material appeared to have settled. No evidence of erosion was observed and benthic animals were recolonizing the area. In Padilla Bay, the divers noted that despite the disposal of sandy dredged material, the dominant substrate still appeared to be silt. Based on the observations, the interagency dive teams recommended that continued dumping could occur at both disposal sites. http://yosemite.epa.gov/r10/OEA.NSF/Investigations/Dive+Sediment

I have dozens of reports and studies on this topic, if anyone would like additional information. I can be reached by e-mail under the about me tab on the right hand side of the page. Please include an e-mail so I can send you PDF copies of the reports.

Reference materials:

Seattle PI Article regarding disposal of PCB contaminated sediment: http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/331350_port12.html

Links to other sediment management agency sites
US Army Corps of Engineers Seattle District Homepage
Dredged Material Management Office - US Army Corps of Engineers Seattle District
Dredged Material Management Program (DMMP)/Puget Sound Dredge Disposal Analysis (PSDDA) Clarification Papers
DMMP Biennial Reports
Environmental Protection Agency Region 10 Homepage
EPA Region 10 Sediment Links
Washington Department of Natural Resources Homepage
Puget Sound Water Quality Action Team Homepage
Puget Sound Protocols

Open Water Disposal Techniques (great pictures)
http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/workshops/08apr-doer/9_OpenWaterDisposal_Bailey.pdf

I&J Waterway document: http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/tcp/sites/blhm_bay/sites/I_and_J_Waterway/I&J%20Seds%20RIFS%20App%20B%20Text.pdf

Michigan Governor bans open water disposal of certain chemicals in Lake Michigan
http://www.michigan.gov/gov/0,1607,7-168--84861--,00.html

Erosion of Cohesive Dredged Material in
Open-Water Disposal Sites
http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/elpubs/pdf/drp1-07.pdf

Toxic Contaminants of Sediments in Puget Sound http://gbic.tamug.edu/gbeppubs/T3/gbnepT3_51-56.pdf

Applicable Washington Administrative Code authorizing open water disposal of dredged materials WAC 332-30-166
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/WAC/default.aspx?cite=332-30-166

Should all of Georgia Pacific's Buildings be preserved?

In 1996, a Hoboken, New Jersey resident watched silently as unidentified drops of liquid slowly dripped from the ceiling of the apartment on to a counter top in his/her home.

The recently revamped five-story brick building was located in a heavily populated, mostly residential section of Hoboken.

In the early to mid 1990's, the historic building, (which served as a former mercury vapor lamp and connector switch manufacturing facility for General Electric from 1910 to 1965), was converted into 16 residential apartments and artist studios. The project was permitted by the City of Hoboken.

The apartment's residents asked state health officials to investigate the drops. The health inspector found liquid mercury under the building's wooden floor boards and in the walls. Mercury vapor was detected in the air with monitors.

Additional tests revealed unacceptable levels of mercury contamination in children living in the area. The Army Corps of Engineers and EPA were called in.

The Corps assisted the EPA in evacuating and relocating the 16 families and 20 businesses that occupied the contaminated area. The Federal government purchased the property from the owners and all of the displaced residents and businesses were relocated to safe locations.

The building's windows were removed and the brick walls were inspected for mercury contamination. The brick was contaminated and the entire structure had to be removed. An air handling system was set up to filter out mercury vapors during remediation. Other measures included closing surrounding sidewalks, placing a fence around the contaminated area and installing air monitors to measure mercury vapor and dust in the neighborhood.

The concrete slab and subsurface piping was removed and mercury contaminated soils were excavated from the site.

"The Mercury contamination was overwhelming and truly a health hazard to anyone on or around it." said Neil Ravensbergen, project engineer for the remediation. "It's a shame to loose a piece of history, but it was a benefit to the overall environment."

Pure liquid mercury found on the site was recycled and mercury contaminated building material was disposed of at an approved hazardous waste landfill.

At the former GP industrial site, Port of Bellingham consultant studies recommend that residential occupancy be banned on the first floor of some of the proposed structures in certain areas.

The consulting firm also recommended that Mercury Vapor monitors be installed around structures, (after remediation and clean up), to monitor mercury vapors in and around buildings on the re-developed site.

I wonder, is this the kind of "clean up" and "re-development" our community is willing to live with?

What is the definition of an "acceptable" risk in regards to public health in Bellingham?

Hoboken website: http://www.hobokennj.org/index.html

USAC Engineers story about the building: http://www.hq.usace.army.mil/cepa/pubs/oct03/story13.htm

Public Confidence Reports on Drinking Water

Want to know what’s in your drinking water?

One way to find out is to check your Consumer Confidence Report (CCR), which the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency requires all water systems to provide their customers each year.

The City of Bellingham tests its drinking water for more than 150 substances. The City of Bellingham's Consumer Confidence Report can be found here: http://www.cob.org/documents/pw/lw/water-brochure.pdf

According to recent reports, up to 5,000 families and businesses rely on Lake Whatcom for drinking water.

What is the best source of water for a public drinking water system?

Here's what the Washington State Department of Health has to say: Without extensive treatment provisions, the use of a properly constructed well that taps a protected groundwater aquifer is the safest source of drinking water. A connection with another public water system that meets all drinking water standards is also a good option. Water that is open to the atmosphere and vulnerable to surface water runoff is not safe to drink without complete treatment.

Sources at risk include lakes, rivers, streams and improperly constructed springs. Shallow or poorly constructed wells may also be unsafe.

Why do surface water sources need special treatment to make them safe?

Surface water sources are open to contamination from human and animal waste and other pollution. Consequently, they are particularly susceptible to contamination by organisms such as bacteria, viruses, and parasites that can cause serious illness and disease. Two parasites that cause waterborne illness are Giardia and Cryptosporidium. Giardia is the cause of an illness commonly known as “backpacker’s disease.” Cryptosporidium is the organism that caused over 400,000 illnesses and 100 deaths in Milwaukee, Wisconsin in 1993.

What special requirements are surface water systems subject to?

Public water systems with surface water sources are subject to extensive federal and state requirements to protect public health. Both Group A and Group B surface water sources are subject to requirements identified in Part 6 of the Washington State Board of Health drinking water regulations, Chapter 246-290 WAC. These regulations comply with the federal Surface Water Treatment Rule (SWTR) and include filtration, disinfection, operating, monitoring, and reporting requirements.

What treatment is required for surface water sources?

Studies of waterborne disease outbreaks have shown that properly designed and operated treatment systems, which include both filtration and disinfection, are effective in preventing waterborne illness.

If surface water is not adequately treated, what is a public water system’s
responsibility to inform the people who drink it?

Everyone who might use the water needs to be told that it is not safe to drink. The system must give written notice to every user and repeat it every three months. All new users must be informed immediately.

DOH PUB. # 331-207
This and other publications are available on the Internet: http://www.doh.wa.gov/ehp/dw

Is there an aquifer in Whatcom County that could provide a safe, reliable source of drinking water for 95,000 or more citizens?

Yes.

There is an aquifer (source of groundwater) that is large enough to serve all 95,000 current users, if we choose to use it.

Why are we avoiding exploring this alternative?

Beats me.

Please see GW Quantity study for WRIA 1: http://wria1project.whatcomcounty.org/documents/USU/GWQuantity_task1_4_Final.pdf

Great Lakes Danger Zones

The Center for Public Integrity just posted a sobering draft of an investigation on contamination in the Great Lakes on it's site:

"For more than seven months, the nation’s top public health agency has blocked the publication of an exhaustive federal study of environmental hazards in the eight Great Lakes states, reportedly because it contains such potentially “alarming information” as evidence of elevated infant mortality and cancer rates." Sheila Kaplan - author.

The Center's headline reads, "Here’s the report that top officials of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention thought was too hot for the public to handle — and the story behind it."

Why would the Center for Disease Control want to withhold important health information?

Michael Gilbertson, a Canadian biologist and one of three peer reviewers, "told the Center that the study has been suppressed because it suggests that vulnerable populations have been harmed by industrial pollutants. “It’s not good because it’s inconvenient,” Gilbertson said. “The whole problem with all this kind of work is wrapped up in that word ‘injury.’ If you have injury, that implies liability. Liability, of course, implies damages, legal processes, and costs of remedial action.The governments, frankly, in both countries are so heavily aligned with, particularly, the chemical industry, that the word amongst the bureaucracies is that they really do not want any evidence of effect or injury to be allowed out there.”

The entire article and a draft of the investigation is published on the Center for Public Integrity's website: http://www.publicintegrity.org/projects/entry/359/

Photo of Lake Huron pending (waiting for permission from Sea Grant Michigan) http://www.miseagrant.umich.edu/)

Medical Care for Dangerously Mentally Ill Offenders reduces Crime

SSB 5698 title: An act relating to case management services for dangerous mentally ill offenders (DMIO)

BACKGROUND
In 1999, the legislature passed a measure that provides services for dangerously ill offenders that provides medical treatment for up to five years after release from prison. The legislation authorized the Department of Social and Health Services to contract with Regional Support Networks (RSN) to provide these services.

SUMMARY OF PUBLIC TESTIMONY
(In Support) The purpose of this legislation is to try to get a consistent, systemic approach across RSN systems. Four RSNs contract directly with the Mental Health Division to serve as case managers for these programs. Ten additional counties provide services without RSN oversight.

A recent study conducted by the Washington Institute of Public Policy http://www.wsipp.wa.gov/rptfiles/07-03-1901.pdf shows that these programs are effectively reducing recidivism. There has been a 45% reduction in felony offenses and a 38% reduction for new offenses post discharge from prison. The benefit-cost analysis in that report indicated that the reductions in Dangerously Mentally Ill Offender (DMIO) recidivism generated financial benefits to taxpayers that were less than program costs.

(The cost study was based on the records of 114 DMIO participants who were released between
July 1, 2002, and December 31, 2003, and for whom cost data were available. For pre-release
transitional services and two years of post-release services, costs averaged $19,390 per person. Expenditures were highest in the first six months then declined in each successive six-month period).

There is a liability question of liability protections for service providers. The cost to society of not having such programs available across the state is far greater than the cost without the program.

(Opposed) There is no question that this is an effective program. In 2001, the North Sound Regional Support Network (RSN) looked into taking this program. The RSN chose not to because at that time the Washington Governmental Entity Pool insurance company indicated that the RSN would be charged $50,000 per offender for the program. (Keeping an inmate behind bars in Monroe costs taxpayers $36,836 a year, according TO the Washington State Department of Corrections. That figure does not include medical care for mentally ill patients).

Currently the insurance company has indicated a complete unwillingness to cover the RSN if the RSN takes on this program. The North Sound clients are being served by the same providers under the current system. The counties that are currently covering this population are self-insured. The name of the program is unfortunate and should be reconsidered. The liability protections provided by statute are inadequate.

Fiscal Note: no impact

The SSB can be read at: http://apps.leg.wa.gov/documents/billdocs/2007-08/Pdf/Bills/Senate%20Bills/5698-S.pdf

The Substitute Senate Bill Report is here: http://apps.leg.wa.gov/documents/billdocs/2007-08/Pdf/Bill%20Reports/Senate/5698.SBR.pdf

And the Fiscal Note is here: https://fortress.wa.gov/ofm/fnspublic/showPackage.asp?RecordID=pdfs/2007/p17435.pdf

Mentally ill patients are ill served in USA (Updated)

In an August 2003 article, titled “US notches world's highest incarceration rate,” http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0818/p02s01-usju.html, the Christian Science Monitor estimated that more than 5.6 million Americans are in prison or have served time there. (That's 1 in 37 adults living in the United States, the highest incarceration level in the world)." Sasha Abramsky, the author of, "Ill-Equipped: U.S. Prisons and Offenders with Mental Illness, tells us, "There are three times as many men and women with mental illness in U.S. prisons as in mental health hospitals. The rate of mental illness in the prison population is three times higher than in the general population."

Over the last 30 years, we have cut treatment, services and care to the point that we have criminalized mental illness, replacing our hospital treatment system with incarceration, abuse and neglect. Our mentally ill wander the streets with no access to treatment. They are arrested for minor violations and then they are held in jail for extended periods of time with no treatment available even by court order.

Former Whatcom County Sheriff, Senator Dale Brandland, knows first hand how a lack of consistent access to medication and treatment can lead a mentally ill patient back to jail.

In an attempt to protect the mentally ill and society at large, Senator Dale Brandland has introduced two bills to protect mentally ill patients from lapses in medical coverage when they are jailed or hospitalized. http://www.senaterepublicans.wa.gov/news/2008/brandland/013108MentallIll.htm

The Democratic Caucus has not issued a statement on this measure.

SB 6584 would require DSHS to suspend, not terminate, medical assistance benefits for any person enrolled in medical assistance who becomes incarcerated in a correctional institution or inmate for mental diseases (IMD).

In a 2004 letter, the Center for Medicaid and Medicare Services encouraged state medicaid directors to "suspend" and not "terminate" Medicaid services while a person is an inmate of a correctional institution. Federal guidelines allow for public assistance to be provided to persons on home detention, who do not receive food and shelter from a penal institution.

State law provides that a person who is an inmate of a correctional institution or an inmate for mental diseases (IMD) is not eligible for medical assistance.

SUMMARY OF BILL REPORT: “Suspended medical benefits must be reinstated immediately upon the person’s release, without requiring a new application. DSHS may not require an inmate to recertify eligibility for public assistance while he or she is incarcerated, but if the inmate’s recertification date has passed, DSHS may require the inmate to recertify immediately following release. DSHS must provide public assistance benefits to eligible persons on home detention. DSHS must accept and process public assistance applications from jail inmates who do not have an established release date, and from any inmate who is within four months of an established release date. DSHS must extend its expedited medical assistance review program to all inmates who are likely to be eligible for medical assistance benefits, even if the person was not enrolled in public assistance within five years prior to incarceration.”

Why is this important? Today, jails and prisons have become de facto mental health institutions. Sheriffs, corrections professionals, prosecutors, defense attorneys and criminal justice advocates agree that this is a function that they are poorly equipped to serve.

A Human Rights Watch report released in 2003, documented that one in five jail inmates and one in six prisoners is mentally ill, and the number of mentally ill in prison exceeds the number of patients in mental health hospitals. Consequently, incarcerated prisoners receive little or no treatment while in jail or prison. The study, “I’ll equipped: US Prisons and Offenders with Mental Illness” documented that the mentally ill are punished by prison staff for displaying symptoms of their illness, such as head banging, self mutilation and suicide attempts. Many wind up in solitary confinement where isolation can push them into acute stages of psychosis.

The study concluded that the high rate of incarceration of the mentally ill is a consequence of under funded, disorganized and fragmented community health services. Neither private health care insurance - nor public health care benefits guarantee that those who are mentally ill will receive the health care they need to function in society. Many are poor and homeless, or struggling with substance abuse. If they do commit a crime, they are jailed and lose the limited benefits they had prior to incarceration.

FISCAL NOTE
Fiscal Note for SB6584: The Department does not anticipate any fiscal impact with this legislation https://fortress.wa.gov/ofm/fnspublic/showPackage.asp?RecordID=pdfs/2008/p19133.pdf

SB 6583 would change the definition of “categorically needy” so people who are in custody because of mental diseases would not have to prove 6 continuous months of spending on medical bills to qualify for health coverage.

BACKGROUND
Under the state medical plan, a citizen may qualify for health coverage under the Medicaid program if that person is "categorically needy," meaning that the person is disabled, blind, or voer 65 years of age and meets income limits. DSHS has ste needy income limits at $637 per month for a single person or $956 for two persons. A disabled person whose income exceeds this amount, but who has medical expenses that effectively reduce his/her income below this level may qualify for medicaid under the "medically needy" program, but only if the person can prove that he/she spent all of his/her "excess income" on medical bills for six months. Persons who are released from a correctional institution or institute for mental diseases are unable to qualify for Medicaid under the "medically needy" program due to the requirement to proving six months worth of medical spending. DSHS may change the income limit for the categorically needy and medically needy Medicaid programs within parameters authorized by the federal government without sacrificing matching funds.

SUMMARY OF BILL REPORT
DSHS services must set the categorically needy income limit which determines eligiblity for Medicaid Coverage for citizens who are disabled, blind or over the age of 65, at a level that is at least 100 percent of the federal poverty level.

SUMMARY OF PUBLIC TESTIMONY
(In suppport) "This makes it easier for mentally ill inmates to qualify for benefits while they are in prison or hospital. Not having benefits contributes to recidivism. Many organizations support this bill. Without coverage, people put off getting care until they have to go to the emergency room. Prevention is less costly and more effective. Administration costs would be saved by shifting people out of the medically needy program. May thousands of people would be able to access timely medical care due to this legislation. The bill would help older people access dental care. Disabled inmates released from jail can't qualify for spend down during the critical first months following release." (No one testified against the measure).

FISCAL NOTE
Fiscal Note: https://fortress.wa.gov/ofm/fnspublic/showPackage.asp?RecordID=pdfs/2008/p19310.pdf

Granted, this is only the beginning, but let's hope that Senator Brandland's bills recieve the support they need to be enacted by the legislature.

Additional information on this topic can be found at the following links:

"I'll Equipped: US Prisons and Offenders with Mental Illness" Report:
http://www.hrw.org/reports/2003/usa1003/

Dissident Voice:
http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Articles9/Berkowitz_Mentally-Ill-Incarcerated.htm

Mental illness and the Criminal Justice System: http://www.mhcc.org.au/projects/Criminal_Justice/aetiology.html

Lake Whatcom Treatment Center

In regards to recent questions about my sources of information regarding my story about the extension of water service to the Lake Whatcom Treatment Center – please see below.

How long does a Conservation Easement Last?

“A Conservation Easement lasts in perpetuity. Title to the land may change, but the easement remains.” Whatcom Land Trust Web Site under Frequently asked Questions: http://www.whatcomlandtrust.org/default.php?faq

“An easement is a voluntary agreement between a property owner and a land trust in which the land owner donates to the land trust specific property rights in exchange for the land trust’s promise to protect the conservation values of the property forever. The land owner retains ownership of the land with the ability to sell it or pass it on to heirs, and may receive an income tax benefit from the easement donation.”

“Each easement is unique to the site and the owner’s personal wishes. A single feature can be preserved, development can be limited or the entire landscape may be conserved…” The Land Trust is responsible for ensuring that the terms of the easement are honored.

A copy of the Whatcom Land Trust Easement for the Lake Whatcom Treatment Center can be obtained by visiting the Whatcom County Assessor’s Office and requesting it. I considered printing it, but in lieu of the “attacks” that have been launched against me, I'm urging opponents to go get a copy for themselves. No one is paying me to do your research. - Parcel #380324 168197 0000.

Treatment Center caught in center of debate about development in Lake Whatcom Watershed: http://www.bellinghamherald.com/102/story/182879.html

Whatcom Land Trust Newsletter:
http://www.whatcomlandtrust.org/Steward-Spring_2003.pdf

Whatcom Watch Article linking Vineyard Development Proponents to Lake Whatcom Treatment Center project: http://www.whatcomwatch.org/php/WW_open.php?id=900

Lake Whatcom Water and Sewer District Construction Standards: http://www.lwwsd.org/info/engdocs.asp Brief description below:

2.1.2 Minimum Pipe Size
Minimum pipe size for new or replaced water lines is eight (8) inches in diameter. Dead end lines are only permitted where there is a cul-de-sac and where it is not possible to make a loop. Blow offs or fire hydrants shall be installed at the end of a dead end line.

Feasibility Studies:
Definition of a Feasibility Study: a preliminary analysis of a proposed business idea, plan, project, or strategy to provide an overview of the primary related issues and to assist a project proponent to determine if the proposed project is a viable strategy, financially and operationally. It may also include an analysis of POTENTIAL scenarios and a recommendation on the best solution to use. Feasibility studies are prepared by project proponents -- not the government agency being petitioned for service, not neighboring property owners.

What a Feasibility Study is not: a contractual agreement to provide services. Feasibility studies are a basic analysis submitted by a project proponent. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feasibility_report

Whatcom County Council decision: Please see January 28, 2003 regular meeting minutes.
http://www.co.whatcom.wa.us/council/2003/minutes/council/0128.pdf

Domestic water systems are included in the Growth Management Act's definition of rural services according to the Dept of Health's Interim Planning Guidance for the Municipal Water Law (DOH Publication#331-256) attachment 8.

WA State Dept of Health Water System data: Water System Id - 00653 http://www4.doh.wa.gov/SentryInternet/SingleSystemViews/ExceedSingleSys.aspx

There’s much more, but I risk boring everyone to death. Let’s call it a day.

When, if ever, is it Appropriate to Withhold Essential Water Service from Seriously ill Patients?

For years, the Lake Whatcom Treatment Center has provided badly needed mental health services to the seriously mentally ill. The non-profit treatment center cares for 350 patients, half who are from Whatcom County. Approximately 67 patients live at the Agate Bay Residential Facility at any given time. Considering how underserved the mentally ill are in other communities across the nation, we are very lucky to have a facility like the Center in Whatcom County.

30 years ago, a policy designed to move mentally ill patients out of centralized state hospitals resulted in the construction of a handful of local treatment centers. The idea of removing patients and reinstalling them into programs – in patient – out patient – in their home communities -- near families and friends was a good one. But in most communities, it was never effectively implemented. The money that was supposed to be saved by eliminating state hospital beds never followed the patients to the community. The costs of providing a diverse range of programs for a variety of mentally ill patients turned out to be much more expensive than originally anticipated. As a result, more and more mentally ill persons are winding up in jail, untreated, because there is no other place for them to go.

Today, a higher percentage of mentally ill people are jailed than in 1936, an unenlightened era where mental illness was punished, rather than treated. Many communities can’t come close to providing the level of care provided by the LWTC.

The Lake Whatcom Residential Treatment Center has historically had an inadequate supply of water during summer months. Ten years of studies demonstrate the presence of bacteria that can signal fecal contamination is present in well water. In 2003, E. coli was found in the system. Improving public sanitation and providing a clean water supply are the two steps needed to prevent most water-borne diseases and deaths.

In 2005, the Treatment Center approached the Lake Whatcom Water and Sewer District and requested permission to hook up to the Districts Agate Heights water system. At the time, grant money was available for this kind of project. But in July of 2007, the Water District voted to reject all bids on the Lake Whatcom Residential Treatment Center Water System Improvement Project and directed staff to work with the Treatment Center to apply for additional grant money to reduce the district’s share of the costs and to have value engineering done. The motion passed.

In October of 2007, in an attempt to address LWTC water quality and inadequate fire flow issues, the Whatcom County Council denied an appeal from the Squalicum Valley residents, who fear that the waterline extension is somehow a cover up for extending water service to a proposed high end gated community development on Squalicum Mountain.

On Friday, January 22, 2008, Whatcom County Superior Court Judge Ira Uhrig remanded the City and Squalicum residents challenge of the Conditional Use Permit because the County did not properly notify the public and concerned parties of the hearing regarding the delivery of water service into "rural" lands. The reopening of the case will allow opponents to introduce arguments that the Water and Sewer District has no right to make any new hookups.

In an E-mail posted two days ago on the Lake Whatcom Discussion thread, Greg Kirsch, Squalicum Valley Community Association, told Rick Dudley, Executive Director of the Treatment Center “That your foundation and the treatment center are willing to be used as pawns in that game is what it is.” (What ever that is supposed to mean).

Apparently, Kirsch and other Squalicum Valley residents believe that the Treatment center is somehow involved in a back room deal between the water district and the proposed Vineyard Development to deliver water to the top of Squalicum mountain. In the next round of public hearings, the Squalicum Valley residents intend to introduce the argument that the Water and Sewer District suppressed details about an agreement with the proponents of the proposed Vineyard gated community. In other words, the City and Squalicum residents are holding the patients at the LWTC hostage until they can force the County and Water District to deny the proposed Vineyard Development project water service. Never mind that the two projects are unrelated.

Executive Director Dudley referred Kirsch to a 2003 agreement between the LWTC and the Whatcom Land Trust in which the LWTC entered into a three way transaction to protect the beautiful 75 acre wooded tract from future development. In the agreement, Whatcom County agreed to give up its 2028 purchase option in return for the LWTC providing a conservation easement to the Land Trust.

On the same Lake Whatcom discussion thread, Jenny Billings, LWTC facilities director, told the Squalicum Valley residents that the Whatcom Land Trust agreement contains a clause that prohibits any and all development except development that would benefit the Treatment Center. According to Billings, the land trust agreement states that water lines can not extend past the new tank and that sewer lines can not be placed on the Treatment Center’s property.

The Squalicum Valley Association asserts that the LWTC doesn’t need an 8 inch water main and that the installation of an 8 inch main is proof positive that the Water District intends to provide service to the Vineyards site from the new LWTC line. But both Washington State and Whatcom county fire marshal regulations require 8 inch mains to provide fire flow to the 22,000 square foot building. Additionally, the Center’s existing fire hydrants are already fed by 8 inch water lines.

The legal challenge raises a thorny question. When, if ever, is it appropriate for a City or grassroots community association to endanger the health and safety of seriously ill mental health patients who reside in a licensed mental health treatment facility by delaying badly needed water service? Is it fair or ethical to hold the LWTC hostage in a war to prevent a proposed development by a different development group?

What purpose does this lawsuit serve except to punish the patients who reside in the facility?

60% of our nation's mentally ill are in jail on any given day. These statistics tell me that in retrospect, we haven't come very far as a society after all.

Thank you to the members of the Whatcom County Council, Commissioners of the Lake Whatcom Water and Sewer District and the Lake Whatcom Treatment Center for attempting to address ten years of serious water quality and fire flow issues.

Thumbs down to the City of Bellingham and the Squalicum Valley Community Association residents for exposing seriously ill patients to waterborne illness and possible death by fire. It is never socially acceptable to hold seriously ill patients hostage in order to achieve other goals. The center already exists at the site. Closing the Center means that we will have to build a new, expensive treatment center in town or risk throwing patients out in the street.

I hope nothing happens to Center patients while the City and Squalicum residents tie up the courts with bogus claims of backroom deals and carpet-bagger development schemes for the LWTC project.

New Twist on Washington Organ Donations

Are you an organ donor in the state of Washington? (Do you have a little “heart” on your Driver’s License)?

If so, a King County Judge has ruled that you, along with 2.6 million other drivers in Washington; have given consent to allow local government to harvest and sell your body organs, skin and bone to medical research facilities for a profit. How on earth did this happen? The judge ruled, in a recent lawsuit, that driver's licenses bearing a donation “heart” allow the county to sell or donate body parts to science as well as allowing organs to be transplanted into a living person. Family members are outraged that body organs are being harvested and sold, but apparently do not have the legal authority to stop someone from harvesting a loved one's body parts.

Earlier in the year, KIRO TV reported that the King County Medical Examiner’s Office has been harvesting brains from the corpses of mentally ill clients, selling the brains to research facilities and quietly pocketing the money. The investigators tell us that the county has collected $1.5 million in revenue from the sale of brains.

This grizzly practice is taking place, even though family members have not signed consent forms allowing King County to harvest or sell the brains of loved ones.

The WA State Department of Licensing (DOL) site clearly states that your organ donation will save lives. But it does not inform donors that they are also consenting to donate their body to medical science or allowing their body organs to be sold to medical research facilities across the nation. Of course, some people may be perfectly comfortable with donating their bodies to science, but others may have strong feelings about having their body parts removed and sold to the highest bidder. I believe we should have a choice. Detailed documentation is listed under the investigations tab at KIRO News.

The DOL expressed surprise at the court's interpretation of the organ donor designation and has promised to change the way it recruits organ donors, but DOL workers are not trained to do much more than check a box indicating an individual’s willingness to be an organ donor.

If you want to opt out of donating your corpse to science, write the Living Legacy Registry at 11245 SE 6th Street, Suite 100, Bellevue, WA 98004. The only way to be removed from the list is to send a letter to the Living Legacy Registry removing your self from the list.

For those who want to remain organ donors, the Legacy has a web site where organ donors can specify how their organs will be used after death.

https://www.livinglegacyregistry.org/register/form/donor.cfm?CFID=4355587&CFTOKEN=84394549