Saturday, May 4, 2013

"PT Paper landfill permit in limbo State, county want mill to test water, give financial plan"

"Port Townsend Paper Corp.’s 40-year-old landfill is at the core of a controversy over the mill’s response to environmental rules.

The landfill is the only active ash landfill in the state that has a permit for supposedly inert material, according to state and county regulators. 

That level of permitting requires neither quarterly groundwater monitoring tests nor proof the mill has the financial means to close the landfill when it is full.

That now raises questions from the state Department of Ecology (DOE), from Jefferson County Public Health and from opponents of the mill’s $55 million biomass-burning cogeneration project. Several are calling for more stringent regulations on the landfill. The landfill, currently about 25 acres, sits in the middle of a 250-acre parcel owned by the mill.

 The site is located between the mill and Fort Townsend State Park.

Mill officials respond that the landfill is “basic” and qualifies as an inert-material landfill. They add that the landfill has the capacity to accept ash, even with the increased volume that would be coming from the proposed biomass plant, for decades into the future.

“We still believe we have 30-plus years, even when we add the new ash,” said Eveleen Muehlethaler, vice president of environmental affairs for the mill.

Closer look
Government regulators, however, are taking a closer look.
For the past 18 months, Jefferson County and DOE have discussed upgrading the landfill’s regulations through a limited purpose landfill permit (LPL). Unlike the current basic regulations that apply to an inert landfill, the LPL would require quarterly testing of the groundwater beneath the landfill. It would also require financial assurance that the company has the resources to safely close the landfill.

Although the state oversees environmental regulations, the landfill portion falls under the jurisdiction of the county health department. (DOE can appeal county health department decisions.) The county has yet to issue a 2012 permit, so the landfill is operating under the 2011 permit, which lists the landfill’s contents as inert. Mill officials think that is appropriate.

“We are still an inert waste site,” said Muehlethaler. “The rules haven’t changed. The site hasn’t changed. The material hasn’t changed. That site is an inert site.”

“We have a basic simple permit,” agreed Roger A. Loney, president of Port Townsend Paper Corp. The mill tested groundwater under the landfill for 12 years, until 2004, according to DOE officials. 

Those tests indicated that chemicals from biomass ash and lime grit, waste products of the pulp-making process, were not leaching into the groundwater.

County and DOE regulators say they would like the mill to restart the tests. PT Paper has agreed, but not yet on a permanent basis.

In a statement released to the Leader on June 6, mill officials say they have agreed “to conduct some additional groundwater monitoring to characterize current conditions” and will do some additional groundwater sampling. They do not specify how many wells or how long the tests will run. Mill officials have not said whether they will object to a shift to an LPL permit.

Landfill targeted

Opponents of PT Paper’s plans to expand the burning of biomass have targeted the inert landfill permit for concern and an avenue for appeal.

Several, including Gretchen Brewer, director of PT AirWatchers, and Dave McWethy, an activist not associated with a group, spoke at the Jefferson County Board of Health meeting in May, urging an upgrade of the mill’s landfill permit to an LPL. 

AirWatchers is one of several environmental groups that have appealed a permit for PT Paper’s biomass plans to an administrative panel and now the state Court of Appeals.

McWethy said the landfill permit should come up again at the June 21 county health board meeting, set for 2:30 p.m. at the health department, 615 Sheridan St. in Port Townsend.
“They are getting an unreasonable special deal that does not protect health or the future finances of the people in Jefferson County,” said McWethy.

“It is a big issue,” said Brewer. “For one, it [the landfill] is up there on top of the bluff and there’s a question over whether there’s runoff down into [Port Townsend Bay] or into the groundwater.”
McWethy and Brewer question the toxicity of the ash and lime grit. They ask what assurance currently exists that the mill will deal with the landfill once it is full.

Brewer noted that the landfill, because it is regulated by a county agency, is one of the only PT Paper issues that local voters can influence. 

All three Jefferson County commissioners sit on the county health board, which oversees the county’s environmental health department

The department regulates not just the PT Paper landfill, but seven others located in this county.

McWethy has called for a public hearing on the mill’s landfill. 

But that has never been done before, according to Pinky Feria Mingo, the county’s environmental health specialist and the point person on the landfill. 

Prior to coming here, she spent 20 years with the state hazardous waste and toxic reduction program.

Although the mill is not currently required to do groundwater testing, the county does conduct biannual inspections of the mill’s operating regulations to ensure it is following proper protocols, Feria Mingo said.

Feria Mingo did a personal inspection of the landfill last month. She made a few suggestions for changes, but said she “did not find the mill grossly out of compliance with its existing permit.” She would not specify what concerns she had until she has discussed them with the mill.

“There are always improvements that can be made,” she said, adding that it is typical to find minor problems and work to resolve them to ensure safety.

Biomass triggers study

The biomass proposal has triggered new scrutiny of all aspects of the mill’s operation. Early in the process, the mill estimated that because the biomass plan would have the mill burn roughly double its current amount of biomass, it would also double the ash waste going to the landfill.

That’s not the case, Muehlethaler said. “It would not double the ash because it will be burned more completely,” she said. She added, however, that the volume would go up and the landfill would fill up faster.

Muehlethaler also said the mill has been conservative in its past calculations of how long the landfill will be able to accept the ash. She estimated it has a life of more than 30 years.

The landfill area consists of glacial till and clay, Muehlethaler said. Clay was mined from the site and used to line the treatment ponds used to aerate PT Paper’s water emissions. The landfill was located there to take advantage of the clay, which seals or inhibits water filtration.

In a June 7 statement, the mill said that when the landfill “reaches capacity, as identified in the closure plan, the company will notify the health department, filling will stop and the landfill will be graded, a soil cover will be constructed, and the cover vegetated.”

Mill officials declined to say whether they already have a fund or other instrument to pay for a closure plan.

Landfills elsewhere

DOE is taking a harder look at the landfill.

Peter Lyon, regional manager for the Waste 2 Resources Program for the DOE, oversees landfills in 12 counties. He points to Mount Solo Landfill in Cowlitz County, where there is concern that the county could get stuck with the bill to bring the private landfill back into compliance with regulations, since the landfill isn’t being monitored. The owners are facing bankruptcy, he said.

“In this case, if Port Townsend Paper doesn’t exist, then who is left?” asked Lyon. “I can tell you the state doesn’t do this. Who’s most concerned about ash? You have to ask yourself, ‘Who would be responsible?’”

Lyon said most mills prove their compliance by pre-funding a landfill closure plan by putting money in a trust fund, insurance, a surety bond or a letter of credit.

Some 47 miles west of Port Townsend, at the Nippon Paper Industries paper mill in Port Angeles, Nippon “uses the financial assurance instrument option test, based on the financial position of Daishowa North America Corp., the parent company, to guarantee the amount of the current closure and post-closure estimate, which totals $2,330,996 [USD],” Lyon wrote.
For some 13 years – between 1991 and 2004 – PT Paper was permitted as an LPL, did water monitoring and was required to provide an annual audit of its financial assurance.
“But our records do not show that they ever performed an audit,” Lyon said. “That doesn’t mean they didn’t do one, but we don’t have any information showing there was an audit.”

DOE: Not ‘inert’

DOE has a lengthy history in how it has decided to classify PT Paper’s solid waste matter. Changing regulatory language led to the more stringent LPL permit in existence between 1991 and 2004, which was replaced by a less stringent inert permit from 2004 until the present. It is presently managed by the county health department.

The county permit for inert materials has remained in effect since 2004 “with some modifications,” according to Lyon.

In 2011, after Lyon reviewed the history, he wrote, “In view of these circumstances, Ecology finds that it is not appropriate to consider PTPC’s boiler ash and lime grits as an inert waste.”
Memos have been flying since the first of the year over what to do about PT Paper’s permit, with DOE director Ted Sturdevant coming to Port Townsend in February to discuss what action to take. Sturdevant could not be reached for this story.

“I think there are questions about whether there has been adequate monitoring of the wells,” said Laurie G. Davies, Waste 2 Resources Program manager for the state. Davies oversees landfills throughout the state.

Concern about pH

One of the concerns Lyon raised is the pH level of ash and lime grit, and its impact on groundwater and human health.

“What’s happened is we’ve become increasingly concerned about high alkaline waste,” said Lyon. “The pH is a concern for us. Our understanding of pH has changed.

“The pH [of groundwater] should not exceed pH 8.5 and the material they are putting in [the landfill] is well over 8.5, and upwards of over pH 12. That is a concern,” Lyon said.

Lyon said DOE began advising people in 2007 that any waste that has the potential to cause leachate with a pH of greater than 8.5 “does not meet the criteria as inert.”

Although Lyon said he understands the mill has done annual testing of the ash and little has changed regarding that, there is concern about the impact on groundwater.

“We don’t know if the Port Townsend Mill is affecting groundwater and the reason we don’t know is because we don’t have [groundwater] samples,” Lyon said. “The mill may have samples, but they haven’t shared with us.”

Mill officials acknowledge the pH of its solid waste can get as high as pH 12 and say the pH is tested routinely. But in a written statement, officials said exposure to the landfill ash could only occur in new ways, such as “through direct contact or transport by groundwater.”

“These possible pathways are addressed by regulations, past and current health department permits, agency review and oversight, and the company’s operations plan,” the mill wrote in a statement, adding that the landfill is posted for no trespassing and locked gates block an access road.

“PTPC has worked closely with both agencies to make sure that the landfill complies with the applicable standards and that people and the environment are protected,” officials wrote. “When agencies requested additional measurement, evaluation and/or monitoring information, the company provided the requested information.”

Mill officials also note that Port Townsend has lower-than-state-average precipitation – 18 annual inches.

“Our average annual rainfall is low,” said Muehlethaler, adding that there isn’t enough water to push the dense grit and ash, with a concrete-like consistency, down into the groundwater.
Muehlethaler said one of the reasons the mill bought the land was because it had a clay deposit. The clay was scooped out for use in lining the mill’s treatment pond.

“The hole that we left behind is what we’re filling up,” Muehlethaler said, saying the remaining clay and glacial till is serving as a natural liner.

Barium an issue

Ultimately, the question about pH has to do with whether barium, a chemical that can be harmful to human health, is leaching into the groundwater. 

Eating or drinking large amounts of barium compounds that dissolve in water or in the stomach can cause changes in heart rhythm or paralysis in humans, according to a public health statement put out by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services in 2007.

According to DOE, one of the last tests of barium done as of 2004 showed a level of barium at 245 micrograms. The state’s groundwater quality standard for barium is 1,000 micrograms per liter.
Liners and politics

One of the requirements for an LPL is an impermeable liner, an issue little discussed in the exchange of memos. DOE’s Davies acknowledges that a liner would increase the landfill’s costs. Not all landfills have liners, according to both Davies and Feria Mingo.

Davies said in an interview May 31 that mill officials “had raised concerns about what a fully loaded LPL” might include. She said there are no hard estimates yet on the cost of groundwater monitoring or a liner.

But, she said, “It was the company’s first reaction [that] it would be an economic burden.”
The county’s Feria Mingo said June 11 that the company could request a variance to the liner condition in the LPL.

“You can request a variance and the Landau report would be a good start to support that variance,” she said, referencing a study, which the mill points to as proof the landfill should still be considered inert, done by Landau Associates.

“They have to prove it’s not going to impact groundwater or cause harm. If we get groundwater monitoring, that’s the key indicator. We do have a lot less rain and that was one of the considerations for the inert permit.”

At a meeting in February that DOE director Sturdevant attended, minutes indicate that Sturdevant “stated his involvement came from concerns that the decision to move from inert to limited-purposed landfill came out of left field from PTPC’s perspective.”

Further discussions
Mill officials declined to discuss the financial assurance issue in an interview, instead referring to a statement that said discussions with regulators continue.

“After some discussions between the two agencies and the company, it was recognized that the waste material and site conditions remain unchanged,” the mill’s statement said.

“It was agreed that the waste is most appropriately classified as inert and discussions continue regarding reinitiating groundwater monitoring and other operational and regulatory issues. The company will continue to work with both agencies to address any concerns they have regarding the landfill and how solid waste is managed.

“The company will work closely with Ecology and the health department to ensure an accurate analysis of the waste occurs, and that the waste is appropriately classified and managed to protect human health.”

Inert, with benefits
According to documents, state and county regulatory agencies appear to be leaning toward issuing the mill a new permit for 2012 that reestablishes environmental monitoring and financial assurances – sort of a modified LPL.

“I don’t think we’re determined not to call it an inert,” said Feria Mingo on June 11. “We want to protect public health and I don’t care what it’s called.”

DOE’s Davies indicated that agency also wants to reestablish groundwater monitoring and financial assurance.

“Ecology understands that [Jefferson County Public Health] plans to reissue PTPC’s inert waste landfill permit with additional conditions that will reestablish environmental monitoring and financial assurance requirements,” wrote Davies in a letter to Dr. Tom Locke on May 2. Locke is the county’s public health officer.

Once the biomass project is online, Davies indicated in that same letter that there could be discussions on how to designate the waste material.

“Ecology reserves the right to revisit the designation issue once PTPC produces additional data,” Davies wrote.

There is no deadline for the county to issue a new permit.

But if the health department and the mill can’t agree on the permit terms, the mill first would appeal to Locke. If Locke concludes the mill needs an LPL and the mill disagrees, the issue could end up before the Jefferson County Board of Health."

Source


So Who in Jefferson County is Giving the PT Paper Mill a Free Pass to Poison the Port Townsend residents, air, marine life, water and soil? Or is that a Myth? Is there any Toxins coming out of the Mill or not?  Sure seems to be TOXIC to me, Port Townsend Newcomer, Investigative Blogger Crystal Cox.

PTPC, pH Level of Ash, Lime Grit, Groundwater, Human Health, Fort Townsend State Park, Gretchen Brewer, Dave McWethy, Landfill Closure Plan, Letter of Credit, Trust Fund, Surety Bond, Ted Sturdevant, Laurie G. Davies

No comments:

Post a Comment