Here’s the data; my rebuttal to the Renton Council President’s letter on the Asphalt Plant

The Council President seemed to be defending the placement of an asphalt plant in this sensitive natural area next to the Cedar River and over Renton’s sole-source aquifer

A reader wrote to me and said their friend wrote to City Council about the asphalt plant. Their friend got a lengthy response from the Council President, and they asked for my thoughts on this letter.  I said it had some similarities to the message that the Public Works Director had put out a few days earlier, but no longer had the sections that I had easily debunked in this blog post.  This letter offered a new set of arguments, probably also promulgated by Renton’s Public Works Director.  These argument are equally wrong.

The note the reader sent from the Council President is shown in sections in red below, and my responses are in green.  My responses are not copyrighted so, please feel free to send them back in response to his letter.

Council President: As part of the internal environmental review, the Public Works Department evaluated the potential contamination risk to the city’s drinking water sources by the proposed site activities and determined the risk should not cause concern for the following reasons:

The city’s Maplewood Wells do not pump from the shallow Cedar Valley Aquifer. The Maplewood Wellfield is drilled into the deep production aquifer (confined aquifer) that is encountered from approximately 135 to 345 feet below ground surface. The Maplewood Wells are located approximately 3.2 miles from the proposed Asphalt Plant .

Randy’s response:  Renton’s wellfield monitoring study makes it clear that the aquifer is an underground river that  flows from Cedar Valley recharge areas (including near the Asphalt plant) to the Maplewood Golf Course wellfield area, and then to the areas near our downtown wells.  Water can easily move underground, and the dissolved contaminants like benzene and heavy metals will not be completely filtered out.

We’re not pumping fossil water out of our aquifer.  We’re pumping water that has accumulated in the aquifer recharge zone during the last decade or so.  The water is not sealed off from the surface, or else the aquifer would be empty.  Renton is pumping billions of gallons per year from the aquifer.  We don’t need to intentionally introduce heavy metals and other contaminants from new and recycled asphalt into it. We should remain assertive about protecting our recharge zones with whatever means we have available.

Council President: The city’s Downtown Wells are located approximately 5 miles away from the proposed Asphalt Plant. Which is an even lower risk due to the length of time it would take to travel the 5 miles underground, and the sampling wells between the plant and our wells that would provide ample notice of a change in groundwater constituents.

Randy’s response: Our downtown wells are on the same aquifer, and have had issues with local contamination in the past.  While I was on Council we once had to temporarily shut off a downtown well because of detection of a dry cleaning chemical, and switch many highland residents to Maplewood service.  The episode was memorable because switching the water direction in city distribution pipes dislodged built-up sediment in our water mains, and we soon had thousands of residents concerned about their water.  Maplewood and Downtown wells provide redundancy, although if either group goes down for any length of time we may have to begin rationing. 

Council President: The Maplewood Aquifer has a low contamination susceptibility rating based on the depth of the wells and the confined layer of silty clay which acts as a barrier that inhibits the downward migration of hazardous chemical spills or other releases of contaminants on the surface.

Randy’s response: The wellfield study that we commissioned before building Maplewood does not show a magic “confining layer of silty clay” that protects our aquifer if an asphalt company drills a hole into it and inserts toxic runoff.  Rather it shows sand and gravel.  There is no guaranteed layer that protects Renton’s drinking water from highly-toxic surface contaminants, which is why I helped put in place an aquifer protection ordinance over 30 years ago.  See the chart below for sediment details.  This is one of many helpful charts that the Public Works Director and Council could find in Renton’s Wellfield Study.

Council President: The risk to our aquifer as stated above are is extremely low because of the natural rock and layers of silt that buffers our deep water sources, … 

See above for the lack of any meaningful layer of rock that protects our aquifer.  But even if our Public Works Director’s fairy godmother had placed a  20-foot-thick layer of sandstone 200 feet below the surface, it would be perforated at the asphalt plant location by this coal mine. This photo was taken on the exact same piece of property the asphalt plant is proposed for. 

One does not need an engineering degree to understand that these abandoned tunnels, which may go as deep as 500-1000 feet below the surface elevation, could easily enable injected water to get into all layers of the aquifer.

Council President: …and the monitoring wells in advance of our production wells that will provide ample warning to address any issues that could impact them in the future, whether from the asphalt plant or other contamination from vehicles, gas stations, septic systems, etc.

Randy’s response:   It sounds like our Public Works director came up with this statement, and this statement is a frighteningly naive.  Yes, we have monitoring wells, but they are our last-ditch protection to avoid getting poisoned, not some sort of routine feedback system that tells us to backoff on dumping asphalt runoff into the water.  If these wells detect serious contaminants, we will have to immediately shut down all potential sources of the contamination, and likely all wells within the vicinity. It could take years to reverse the environmental damage, and may require relocation of wells at extraordinary expense, as it has for Water District 90.  Their well is only about 7000 feet from ours.

Council President: Stormwater runoff is not injected directly into the aquifer.  The contamination risk is further mitigated by on-site requirements of the asphalt plant.

Randy’s response: I’ve covered this statement in detail in a blog entry here.  The onsite treatment will only remove 30-60 percent of deadly contaminants, per the King County Surface Water manual.  The still-highly-contaminated water will then be injected into our aquifer.

Council President: Primary and secondary containment for on-site, above ground, hazardous material storage facilities (one 10,000-gallon diesel tank and one 10,000-gallon emulsified asphalt tank). Any spills from those tanks would be confined to the containment areas to allow for cleanup.

Randy’s response: Renton’s fire chief expressed enormous concerns about the storage of these products in an area that lacks fire hydrants.  His letter of warning speaks for itself, and neither the Council President or Public Works Director are in a better position to determine this risk.  While they will probably not leak out under normal conditions, it’s anybody’s guess what will happen if we have an earthquake, flood, landslide, or coal-mine sinkhole on the site, all familiar events that I have personally seen in this valley.

Council President: A spill prevention and response plan are required for the project.
Monitoring of secondary containment areas.

Randy’s Response: These plans work fine if you run a forklift into a tank.  They will fail if there is a natural disaster (see above)

Council President: As stated above, Stormwater runoff will not be injected into the aquifer.

Randy’s response: Yes it will.  That is what this study explains.

Council President: The proposed Asphalt Plant project will reduce the amount of impervious area that currently exists on the site. The stormwater from the impervious areas on the site will be collected in a storm water collection system. Stormwater quality treatment will be provided using an oil/water separator, lined biofilter swales, a settling vault, and a large sand filter before being discharged into an infiltration gallery to infiltrate the runoff into the ground. These facilities are required in accordance with the current King County Surface Water Design Manual, which are the same standards as the City of Renton Surface Water Design Standards. This is treated stormwater that will be infiltrated into the ground.

Randy’s response: As I said above, the King County Surface Water Design Manual says only 30 to 60 percent of the toxins will be removed.  The rest will be injected into our aquifer. In the CP’s own words “will be infiltrated into the ground.”

Council President: Since the proposed Asphalt Plant’s storm water system infiltrates the onsite stormwater runoff, any spill of hazardous materials on the site will be contained onsite making it easier to clean-up and prevents the stormwater runoff from reaching the Cedar River.

Randy’s response: On every day of the year, carcinogenic toxins from this plant will be injected into Renton’s aquifer recharge zone by design.  They will get there by being aerated from the asphalt production process, and landing on surfaces, where they will be washed into the runoff drainage system by rain or someone hosing down the equipment or pavement.  This will not happen just when there is a spill.  It will happen all the time.

If there is a fire, which is a very common occurrence at asphalt plants, all the water dumped during fire suppression will overwhelm the onsite retention pond and go into the Cedar River.  Tacoma’s asphalt plant caught on fire four years ago and it took about a million gallons of water to extinguish it.

Council President: If a spill of hazardous material were to occur, it would result in an emergency response with King County, federal and state agencies enforcing clean-up and long-term groundwater monitoring to verify the spill has been cleaned-up and there are no impacts to ground water, surface waters or adjacent properties.

Randy’s response: This is magical thinking and far from reassuring.  There is no environmental impact statement for this project, even though Renton Council and Fire Chief are on record saying there should be one.  Now, we’re acknowledging there may be toxic spills requiring federal and state agencies, and saying we’re happy to have this over our sole source aquifer.

Council President: Regarding the notion that the city can use eminent domain to acquire and condemn the land of the proposed site, that assertion is not accurate as well. To condemn land, the City has to have an actual public use (which includes acquiring land to protect its water supplies from pollution). The City would have an extremely difficult time proving that the acquisition of property outside its boundaries and a significant distance away (as explained above) from its water supplies is truly an authorized public use of the City’s condemnation power. As stated above, internal and external reviews of the asphalt plant project and the risks it poses determined that the plant poses little risk to the City’s water supplies.

Randy’ response: Renton’s Public Works Director refuses to read Renton’s Wellfield Protection studies and has instead become an advocate of Lakeside Industries. He’s telling fairy tales about how contaminants injected into our aquifer recharge areas could never get into our water.  As long as he is doing that, Renton’s case is more difficult to make.  But if someone who understands wells and aquifers takes over, it’s an easy case to make.  Protecting our water is as public of a use as you can get.  And the site is currently vacant.  

If needed, the law on eminent domain is very clear. This law has been used by Seattle to purchase 91,000 acres of property.  Renton can use it to purchase 25 acres. If our lawyers don’t know how to do it, we should hire other lawyers.

RCW 8.12.030.   Every city and town …within the state of Washington, is hereby authorized … to condemn land or property… either within or without the limits of such city …for the purpose of protecting such supply of fresh water from pollution.

And ideally a sale could be negotiated without the use of eminent domain.  If I was Council President we would likely already be planning our new park on this property, with a plaque recognizing Lakeside Industries for the cooperation in the negotiated settlement that saved our valley and our water supply for future generations.  The plaque would also recognize all the regional, state, tribal, and private agencies that have offered grants for this to happen.

Council President: Additionally, residents also already raised their concerns through the permitting and litigation process and were unsuccessful in their attempts to convince several layers of reviewers that the plant poses an unreasonable risk to any water supply.

Randy’s response: The concerns raised concerned the Cedar River’s water quality and the impact on salmon.  Late in the process the applicant said he would resolve these concerns by drilling a hole into Renton’s aquifer recharge zone, and dumping the contaminated water into the hole instead of letting it flow into the river.  The water was judged too contaminated for the river, but no one spoke up about the fact that it was too contaminated for our aquifer.  Our previous Public Works Director  would have, but our current one is an advocate for the asphalt plant.  Living on the Olympic Peninsula, and having worked for Renton only a short time, he has no investment in our water supply, and he’s showing no desire to protect it.  The Council needs to step in.  There are many other threats that are a few miles away from our wells, like the Cedar Hills landfill, Cedar Grove Compost, and Olympic Pipeline that our past Public Works Director took active surveillance and -if necessary -intervention of, but our current Public Works Director obviously thinks they are too far away to worry about.

Council President: If the City wants to attempt to condemn the property, it would need new convincing evidence of danger to its water supply to overcome any opposition from the property owner in litigation. I’m afraid that new convincing evidence just is not there.

Randy’s response: As one can see from reading the falsehoods of our Public Work Director, he needs to be replaced soon.  This is true as well of everyone who is still siding with him.  At the same time that I was actively working with our Previous Public Works Director to protect Renton’s well field, our current Public Works director, Martin Pastucha,  was Public Works director in Santa Monica where he was getting his city in trouble for spilling raw sewage on the beach.  People need to decide who to trust with the future of their water supply.

Council President: There undoubtedly will still be some who will persist in believing that there is an imminent danger, despite all of the facts I’ve stated, but I hope that you will not be one of them and will rest a little easier as a result of seeing this information. Trust that if there was an issue to be concerned about here, I would be ringing the alarm bells as loud as anyone. However, I do try to see issues through a reasonable and rational lens when I evaluate things, and in doing so, I’m convinced that there is no reason for alarm in this instance. I truly hope this helps.

Randy’s response: The Council could take a straight-forward action to alleviate all the concerns and improve the quality of life for everyone in this valley.  That would be a better choice than leaving some residents “believing there is an imminent danger.”    When I worked in aerospace I would not have called this a success, nor would I have called it success as City Council President.

And there is a real danger to our wells.  Water District 90’s wells are only a short distance away, and their engineers have determined they will have to be closed due to the asphalt plant.  When Water District 90s well stop pumping upstream, our wells (pumping hundreds of millions of gallons per year) will eventually get Water District 90’s contaminants.

One of the most alarming concerns about the failure of Renton’s leaders to act on this threat to the water supply is that this is politically an easy one to solve.  Our Council Members get to be heros.  And not just heros to residents of Renton, but also heros to the Tribes, State Fisheries, King County Council, the King County Executive, County residents, rafters, sports fishermen, recreationalists, and environmentalists.  There are several agencies that have offered grant money to help pay for this purchase.  But by not acting on behalf of residents now, when it is politically easy, it raises the question whether this council would act on residents behalf when its politically difficult, and requires standing up to King County, the state, or the federal government.  Renton’s elected officials are not elected to just passively watch events unfold, they are there to protect Renton’s interests.

Our businesses and home builders also need us to have reliable clean water.  Restaurants don’t need bad press about contaminants being found in Renton’s monitoring wells.

Asphalt shortages haven’t stopped home building, but shortages of clean water sure have. Even Seattle’s system has had to ration in the past.  Renton’s system has been a bright spot, and we’ve built capacity for our city to grow by 60 percent and still have enough water for residents while fighting three fires simultaneously. This kind of capacity is a gift for home builders, as we’re always able to accommodate their future water needs.  This goes away if we start getting toxic chemicals, even in very small amounts, in our aquifer. Building will stop, and we will get in a fight as we try to get some of Seattle’s water.

In a recent publication by the building industry, builders gave this warning:

[“Water is becoming economically unavailable,” says Karn, a longtime member of the NAHB’s Environmental Issues Committee who currently chairs its Water Issues Task Group and is founder of Denver-based consultancy Consilium Design. “What we’re seeing across the West are increasing costs and, in some cases, just lack of availability of water. Tap fees are going through the roof.”

He points to the city of Thornton, Colorado, which recently proposed to increase tap fees by 62%.  “That’s $40,000 a door just to have the right to have water,” Karn says, noting other examples in the region that are making development increasingly expensive. “Most jurisdictions here, you can’t annex your property if you’re not bringing the water with you.”]

Council President:

James Alberson
Renton City Council President

Data Sources and further explanations can be found here:

• Where’s the poison? Renton’s Public Works Director should read Renton’s well field study
• When is condemnation appropriate?
• Renton administration preparing to call government scientific and engineering data “misinformation”
• Renton’s visionary Mayor Barbara Shinpoch was a champion in protecting our drinking water
• Asphalt plant will only remove 30%-60% of deadly contaminants before injecting runoff into our aquifer
• Renton water customers could be on the hook for an additional ten million dollars per year
• Coal mine tunnels at asphalt plant would further increase risk to Renton’s drinking water
• Renton City Council must protect our drinking water before it is too late