Wrangling Continues Over Disposal of Contaminated Sediments in the Bay

Al Hanners, a graduate of the University of Wisconsin-Madison, is a writer and retired geologist.

A barrage of hype dealing with Bellingham Bay began on March 20, 2002, with two splashy, front-page articles in The Bellingham Herald. They reported a proposal that mercury contaminated sediments from the Whatcom Waterway should be disposed of by dumping them into the Georgia-Pacific wastewater lagoon. Further, that process would balance redevelopment of the Bellingham Bay waterfront.

That was before the Department of Ecology held an informational meeting the following evening on the proposal for the lagoon. The public is weary of years of wrangling over rationalizations about what to do with the mercury in Bellingham Bay. Still, questions by hard core environmentalists at the meeting brought out significant facts.

The headline of The Herald editorial on March 31, 2002 said, “Idea for G-P Waste Worth a Look.” I’ve been looking and I am not comfortable with what I see. Here are some of the main issues.

Mercury must be methylated in order to enter fish and human bodies. Would moving mercury and organic matter from the Whatcom Waterway, to a higher, warmer place in the bay, expedite the rate of creating and releasing methylmercury? Would the current plan for the Georgia-Pacific lagoon create a humongous generator of methylmercury? That was not specifically discussed at the meeting on March 21, 2002, but “expert” testimony in response to questioning leads to that conclusion.

“Expert” testimony was given at the same meeting that Bellingham Bay has “healed itself” by covering mercury contaminated sediments including those in the Whatcom Waterway with up to six feet of sterile sediments. Why does the Whatcom Waterway need to be dredged when it will never be deep enough for large ships, and as industries that could have used the waterway already have left the city?

A number of geologists and geophysicists believe the greatest danger to structures in Bellingham Bay and the waterfront could be from a tsunami, a huge wave 30 or even 60 feet high, generated by a submarine earthquake. However, expert testimony at the meeting of March 21, 2002 conceded that danger from a tsunami had not been considered.

In a sense, that is not surprising. Peter May, et al. of the University of Washington published “Anticipating Earthquakes” in 1989. They rated the political prospect of earthquake risk reduction in 13 cities from Bellingham to Portland and placed them in groups. Bellingham was placed in the group of most risk of lack of preparedness.

All Bellingham citizens know that redevelopment of the waterfront is extremely important to the future of their city. The big question is whether special interests will dominate the redevelopment for what purpose. Will there be de facto exclusion of public input?

The lagoon as a dump site for sediments contaminated with mercury from the Whatcom Waterway would have all the conditions necessary for generating an enormous quantity of methylmercury and passing it into the air. Twenty-one acres would be used as a dumpsite—that’s huge! It is 32 feet deep and the bottom four feet contain mercury-contaminated sediments accumulated since the lagoon went into service in 1979. The water level is four feet above the mean upper tide level; that’s high, much higher than where the newly dumped sediments were before being dumped there.

My concern is that at least the upper part of sediments in the dump would be at seasonally warm temperatures and at temperatures higher than before being dredged. The water would be anaerobic; the sediments would contain mercury and organic matter at temperatures where anaerobic bacteria are well known to create methylmercury. It would be passed into the air and into living organisms including ourselves. Would not the plan increase the health problem caused by mercury in Bellingham Bay?

The earth’s unstable crust has been likened to the skin of an orange. Remove part of the skin of an orange, replace it, and then slide the piece to one side. That will slide the piece over the skin still in place on one side, and leave a depressed gap on the other side.

The North American and South American plates are sliding relatively westward at about the rate fingernails grow. The Atlantic Ocean is widening on the east. To the west, the North American continent is sliding over the Pacific Plate and forming mountains, creating volcanoes, and causing earthquakes. That’s the big picture. Our coast has not had a great earthquake on the order of 8.0 on the Richter scale in the last 300 years while coasts of the rest of American continents remain seismically active. Can our own coast remain quiet? That is the big question.

In detail, smaller pieces of the Pacific plate dive under the North American continent from California to Vancouver Island. The piece diving under us is called the Juan de Fuca plate, and the zone where it dives is called a subduction zone. The edge of the North American plate where the Juan de Fuca plate begins to dive is offshore. Hence, when there is movement between the two plates, a submarine earthquake results. Geological evidence indicates that the two plates remain stuck together for a time, and then move generating a great submarine earthquake and a tsunami.

The term tsunami is of Japanese origin and began to be introduced to American English about the middle of the 20th century after the distinction between wind-generated waves and those caused by submarine earthquakes became better understood. Tsunamis steepen and increase in height as they enter shallow water. Waves on the order of 30 feet high are common; waves 60 feet high have been recorded.

David Engebretson, professor of geology at Western Washington University, warned in a Bellingham Herald article on November 7, 1989 that, “It is almost certain that a great earthquake—on the magnitude of 8.0 or more—will occur in this region.” He added that, “Great earthquakes occurred in this region 300, 1000, 1600, 1700, 2700, 3100 and 3400 years ago…As it has been 300 years since the last earthquake, we are due another anytime.” Science News in February 27, 1990, said that Brian Atwater, of the U.S. Geological Survey, had found evidence of several tsunamis in coastal sediments of this region.

No, I don’t mean politics; that already is fluid. I refer to earthquakes causing fill, and soft, unconsolidated sediments, to shake like Jell-O in a bowl. That is called liquefaction. A great deal of the waterfront is built on fill; moreover, most or all of the waterfront at depth rests on soft sediments largely deposited by the Nooksack River.

Here is another quotation from Peter May, et al. (“Anticipating Earthquakes”): “Perhaps the greatest source of seismic vulnerability for ports results from the fact that port facilities in this region tend to be built on alluvial plains and extensive fill areas.” And you will recall that Peter May, et al., placed Bellingham in the category of the most politically vulnerable to earthquake damage. Bellingham, you have experts right next door at the university. Why not use them?

Redevelopment of the waterfront will have as much to do with the future of Bellingham as just about anything else this decade. We need to face the fact that fishing has declined, probably forever, and that industries that could have shipped at the waterfront have left town. In spite of valiant efforts by some of the members of the present Bellingham City Council to retain infrastructure necessary for industries paying family-wage jobs, special interests have prevailed. Like it or not, Bellingham has become a retirement, medical, and retail city, although very importantly, a city with a university.

Are Georgia-Pacific and Trillium our white knights? What recommends them outside of a great public relations campaign? Georgia-Pacific owns land, but how does Trillium fit in? Let’s look at their track records. Both have had difficulties managing their own affairs, they have had financial difficulties. Georgia-Pacific made unwise contracts for energy, something of its own doing. It was finished off by Enron when it spiked prices for electricity.

I don’t know the source of Trillium’s problems, but I strongly suspect they made unwise management decisions. On the environmental side, Georgia-Pacific’s profit from its chlorine plant caused the Bellingham Bay problem. As for Trillium, many environmentalists do not find Trillium’s track record commendable.

Would visions for the waterfront succeed with a seedy downtown Bellingham close by? There is plenty of lip service for revitalizing downtown Bellingham, but the speakers don’t walk the walk. More new buildings downtown now exacerbate the problem instead of moving us in the correct direction.

Why can’t city government understand why Barkley Village prospers while downtown Bellingham struggles? Downtown Bellingham is being strangled by inadequate parking as everybody knows, but the right people don’t concede. However, when I told Foster Rose, past City Council member, that Bellingham needed more parking downtown, he replied, “That’s what I’ve been saying.”

Development of Bellingham’s waterfront has three main issues: scientific and environmental, economic, and political. The development pattern I have observed over some 20 years in Bellingham (great blue herons excepted) is this: city government officials meet with special interests and agree on a plan. Then, if required by law or if considered politically expedient, there is a public hearing. The last step is for special interests and government to go ahead and do what they planned to do before public input.

The steps are different in an environmental impact statement. Early in the process, there is a “scoping” meeting where public input is invited. Then the government is required to respond to questions, and again citizens are allowed to respond to the draft environmental statement.

Certainly an environmental impact statement should be required regarding the seismic hazards. I think the Bellingham City Council would be wise to hold early scoping meetings on plans to redevelop the waterfront even where the law does not require such a meeting.

Graphics reproduced with the permission of the Minister of Public Works and Government Services Canada, 2002. Courtesy of Natural Resources Canada, Geological Survey of Canada.