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

Lost and Found: where did all the Mercury Go?

Tonight, the City will meet to discuss finalizing the waterfront redevelopment master plan.

What's missing from the discussion? How do we account for and clean up mercury and other toxic industrial contaminants from the site?

Mercury is an invisible, odorless poison that can pollute oceans and rivers, contaminate our food and seep into the air, potentially causing severe health problems when ingested by humans.

A major source of mercury pollution is chlor-alkali chemical manufacturing plants.

Georgia Pacific operated a chlor-alkali plant at the Bellingham pulp and paper mill site, releasing mercury-laden water into surface treatment ponds on the site.

No one disputes the fact that the ground water and soil is contaminated with significant levels of mercury. During the 1970's, in an attempt to prevent mercury from moving to the bay from the soil and groundwater, Georgia Pacific retained a company to do what is called a "chem fix." For the sake of simplicity, A chem fix is a process that "cements" the contaminants in place.

The clean up was conducted without Dept of Ecology or EPA oversight, even though the site was on the Superfund list. Georgia Pacific admits to depositing 12 tons of mercury in the chemfix.

12 Tons of Mercury...

According to a 2005 analysis of Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) data by the environmental group Oceana, the nine chlor-alkali plants in operation in 2000 reported purchasing and ostensibly using 79 tons of mercury and releasing 14 tons. The other 65 tons could not be accounted for.

The industry and the EPA have speculated that the "lost" mercury may be caught in the infrastructure inside the facilities, but EPA analyses of contamination at closed plants have not found nearly enough to account for the discrepancy between the mercury consumption and emissions.

Where did the mercury go?

The enclosed paper demonstrates that the operators of former and existing chlor-alkali plants cannot account for the tons of mercury lost each year - for mercury that winds up in the ground, air and water.

What are the health risks for Americans living near or on top of old chlor-alkali plants?

FULL ISSUE PAPER IN PDFAdobe Acrobat file (size: 5.3 MB)

OUTLINE
Executive Summary
Introduction
NRDC Investigation Uncovers Further Cause for Alarm
EPA Studies Support Findings of Elevated Mercury Levels
The EPA Fails to Address the Mercury Problem
Recommendations
Appendix:
Detailed Sampling Results
Endnotes
Sources:

http://www.nrdc.org/health/effects/chlor/contents.asp

Department of Ecology Documents (including references to dumping dredged materials out in Bellingham Bay. (PSDDA)
http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/tcp/sites/whatcom/fs%20part%20003%20Vol%202%20-%20FS%20(Chapter%203%20through%204).pdf

Draft Supplemental Remedial
Investigation & Feasibility Study
Volume 2: FS Report
http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/tcp/sites/whatcom/oct_06_docs/Draft%20Supplemental%20Feasibility%20Study.pdf

Some of the original Chemfix documents: http://www.skookum.us/fowcweb/GP/chemfix/index.htm

Deja Vu?

"Just give the Chesapeake Bay back her 1970 water quality, and we will have plenty of crabs, and plenty of oysters, and plenty of rockfish, and we will have a good style of life again, you know. If we could get our regulators to work that out ... to improve our water quality --- the Chesapeake Bay could heal herself. But she's, she's dying daily." Don Pierce, Chesapeake Bay waterman (fisherman)

Don Pierce has been working the waters of Chesapeake Bay for 48 years. But Friday, on Earth Day, he was not feeling positive.

Too much phosphorus, too much fertilizer, too much sewage and agricultural runoff.

Pierce has observed the algae blooms in the 190 mile area of Chesapeake Bay that he works each summer and fall.

He told CNN reporter John King that there used to be 60 to 70 boats in his little town and in the 60's, the bay was teeming with clams, oysters, and striped bass. Now there are fewer than 20 boats. "My grandsons will not be watermen" said Pierce,

When asked who is trying to clean up the watershed, "We the people that live in the Chesapeake watershed mainly. We the people," he says."

Reminds me of Whatcom County. In the 60's Blaine had a fleet of fishing boats in the Harbor and fish were plentiful. Today, there are just a handful of boats left in the entire county and the shellfish have vanished from many beaches.

The State of Washington is blessed with abundant natural resources. Puget Sound and its bays are capable of generating billions of dollars in revenue for the state if we would just take care of it.

Everyone lives in a watershed. Its up to each of us as individuals to change the way we relate to the bay and the lakes, streams and rivers that support the Sound.

What did I do this weekend to celebrate Earth Day?

I filled one of those large black construction bags with garbage and refuse from the ditches in front of my house.

I will pay to have Sanitary Service haul it away.

John King, CNN Article: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/12/15/patersons-office-says-snl-went-too-far/

Not funny

To who ever it was who tried to block my son from pulling out of the driveway today.

Knock it off.

Dear Bellingham Police Department,

Please take note that we will not be threatened or harassed as we leave our home.

This is not funny nor is it ok.

Bellingham Bay Open Water Disposal Site

What is open water disposal?

Open-water disposal is a state and federal approved dredged material disposal program where unconfined 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 additional 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. Both the tribes and the City objected to the site, but it was crammed down our throats anyway.

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 mercury laced 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 for Bellingham Bay.

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 to dispose of contaminated sediments. Early dredged materials were not tested for contaminate levels prior to dumping.

To date, the site has not undergone thorough 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.

How can I learn more?

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).

An EPA diver report on Bellingham Open Water Disposal site:

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

There are dozens of reports and studies on this topic.

Reference materials:

Seattle PI Article regarding disposal of PCB contaminated sediment: http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/331350_port12.htmlLinks to other sediment management agency sitesUS Army Corps of Engineers Seattle District HomepageDredged Material Management Office - US Army Corps of Engineers Seattle District Dredged Material Management Program (DMMP)/Puget Sound Dredge Disposal Analysis (PSDDA) Clarification PapersDMMP Biennial ReportsEnvironmental Protection Agency Region 10 HomepageEPA Region 10 Sediment LinksWashington Department of Natural Resources HomepagePuget Sound Water Quality Action Team HomepagePuget Sound ProtocolsOpen Water Disposal Techniques (great pictures)http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/workshops/08apr-doer/9_OpenWaterDisposal_Bailey.pdfI&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.pdfMichigan Governor bans open water disposal of certain chemicals in Lake Michiganhttp://www.michigan.gov/gov/0,1607,7-168--84861--,00.htmlErosion of Cohesive Dredged Material inOpen-Water Disposal Siteshttp://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/elpubs/pdf/drp1-07.pdfToxic Contaminants of Sediments in Puget Sound http://gbic.tamug.edu/gbeppubs/T3/gbnepT3_51-56.pdfApplicable Washington Administrative Code authorizing open water disposal of dredged materials WAC 332-30-166http://apps.leg.wa.gov/WAC/default.aspx?cite=332-30-166

Who's winning - foreclosures or economic recovery?

Freddie Mac recently released a study that demonstrates that 43% of delinquent home loans are due to unemployment or curtailment of income (under employment). The report found that 25.5% of delinquent mortgages are due to illness or death in the family (over 47 million Americans are without medical insurance) and 16.2% of mortgage delinquency is due to excessive debt obligation.

Nevertheless, many lenders (loan servicers) continue to file foreclosure proceedings -- despite the fact that home owners have filed the proper paperwork to apply for modifications of their mortgages. And mortgage experts announced that Obama's latest options for refinancing or loan modification programs will not kick in for a few more quarters, leaving struggling, unemployed homeowners facing homelessness.

What is the result?

More bankruptcy filings.

Hence, unsecured creditors will receive little or nothing while bankruptcy attorneys attempt to prevent foreclosures on primary residences that have lost their value.

The lenders don't necessarily win either. A Chapter 13 can drag on for five years or longer before it is discharged. But a bankruptcy can help a family stay in their house with lower payments.

It appears, despite the president's best intentions, that we are caught up in a game of economic chicken. So, who do you think is going to blink first? The government or the lenders?

Free Foreclosure & Refinancing Counseling Free foreclosure and refinancing counseling is sponsored by the State of Washington

Making Home Affordable link to determine if you are eligible for a loan modification.

_________________________
Nolo defines unsecured debt as:

A debt that is not tied to any item of property. A creditor doesn't have the right to grab property to satisfy the debt if you default. The creditor's only remedy is to sue you and get a judgment. Compare secured debt. http://www.nolo.com/definition.cfm/term/18FCB241-F2F5-4A5B-8A7D43D2308DB8CE

From watch dogs, to attack dogs to sleaze dogs

This is the moment where I get to point out the obvious.

The attacks against Lisa McShane are not only unwarranted, they are dishonest, sleazy and designed to achieve a singular purpose -- to impugn Lisa's character, standing and reputation in the community.

In 2008, Lisa was employed by Governor Christine Gregoire to serve as a statewide Field Director for the Governor's bid for re-election against Dino Rossi.

The Governor can afford to be choosy.

She picked her campaign staff carefully, based on their talent, intelligence and ability to work closely and cooperatively with diverse groups across the state.

I don't blame Mr. Kirsch, Mr. Servais, Mr. Pratum or others for being frightened of Lisa McShane.

But the act of being intimidated by a talented and intelligent woman is not license to indulge in repetitive acts of character assassination or defamation.

If this abhorrent behavior is allowed to continue, the sleaze dogs will be setting the tone of each debate and it will be difficult to tease out the issues from the slime.

Now, it's not difficult to pick out logical fallacies in arguments. In pursuit of a healthier political climate, I would like to challenge readers to rise to the occasion and point out examples of illegitimate arguments in the media as they are published.

Let's send the sleaze dogs scampering home with their tails between their legs.

Here is a short list of logical fallacy descriptions:

Hasty Generalization: conclusion is based on insufficient or biased evidence. The author is rushing to a conclusion before he/she has all of the relevant facts.

Slippery Slope: conclusion is based on the premise that if A happens, then eventually through a series of steps, B,C, D....X,Y,Z will happen too. So, if we don't want Z to occur, we must make sure A does not occur either.

Genetic Fallacy: conclusion is based on an argument that the origins of a person, institution or idea determine its character or worth.

Circular Argument: the author restates the argument rather than publishing evidence to prove it.

Begging the claim: the conclusion that the author should prove is validated within the claim (common).

Post hoc ergo hoc: conclusion that is that if A occurred after B, then B must have caused A.

Straw Man: author oversimplifies his opponent's viewpoint then attacks it.

Either/or: conclusion oversimplifies the argument by reducing it to only two sides or choices.

Red Herring: diversionary tactic that avoids key issues by avoiding opposing arguments rather than addressing them.

Ad hominem: attacks the character of the person rather than their arguments or opinions.

Ad populum: emotional appeal that speaks to positive (patriotism, religion) or negative (terrorism) concepts rather than the real issue at hand.

There are others, but this ought to get you started.

Happy hunting!