PORT ANGELES — The state Department of Ecology released the preliminary test results of 85 soil samples last week taken from areas not disturbed by human activity in and around Port Angeles last fall.
The preliminary test results show that 45 of the 85 samples exceed Ecology’s cleanup level of dioxin, a carcinogen, of 11 parts of dioxin per trillion parts of soil in residential areas.
Three of the samples contained 30 parts per trillion of dioxin, including one that was 76 parts per trillion.
On Thursday, three Ecology staff members answered questions about the results.
They were Rebecca Lawson, regional manager of Ecology’s toxics cleanup program; Marian Abbett, Rayonier project manager; and Connie Groven, Rayonier off-site soil sampling manager.
Are dioxins common?
Answers not in quotation marks are paraphrased.
Q: Are dioxins common in any community?
Groven: “We believe that to be true.”
Q: Are dioxin levels in Port Angeles similar to other communities with mills, such as Port Townsend?
Abbett: “We don’t know that. We don’t have any other sites similar to this in other towns to make that comparison.”
Q: Why was Port Angeles tested?
Lawson: Ecology conducted the testing in order to determine if Rayonier Inc. is responsible for dioxin contamination off its 75-acre property at the end of Ennis Street on the Port Angeles waterfront.
Dioxin is among the contaminants known to have been emitted by the pulp mill that operated there for 68 years before it closed in 1997.
The Rayonier property has been an Ecology cleanup site since 2000.
Ecology will analyze the dioxin found in the samples taken throughout Port Angeles to determine where it came from. That report will be released in the spring.
Ecology will extend the boundaries of the Rayonier cleanup site if the company is determined to be responsible for dioxin contamination in the samples.
The federal Environmental Protection said that the Rayonier property was moderately contaminated — a 2 or 3 on a scale of 10 — in 2000.
Q: Do the sampling results point to a potential health risk?
Abbett: “We don’t know that. The study was not designed to evaluate health risk to humans or animals. We don’t have that answer.”
Lawson: “We don’t want to speculate to what concentrations might be in other parts of the property.”
Q: Since the samples were taken from areas where soil has not been disturbed by human activity, does Ecology believe that people are in general not likely to come in contact with that soil enough to be at risk?
Lawson: “Yes, that is correct. We were trying to find the least disturbed areas. It definitely applies that people are not spending a lot of time in the soil or doing a lot of activity that disturbs the soil.”
Q: Why did Ecology release a preliminary report?
Lawson: The preliminary results, which show the levels of contamination in each sample, were released before the sources are determined because Ecology told property owners that it would provide that information as soon as it was available.
Q: Why does the state have a cleanup level of 11 parts per trillion for residential areas?
Abbett: The state’s standards are based on a one-in-one-million risk for causing cancer. It assumes a soil ingestion rate of 200 milligrams per day over a six-year time frame.
“For a small child, 200 milligrams a day is considered a very large amount of soil.”
“We don’t want to see their excess rate to be one in a million.”
Q: The federal Environmental Protection Agency has set a cleanup level of 1,000 parts dioxin per trillion parts soil. Why do the EPA and Ecology differ on cleanup standards for dioxin?
Abbett: The state’s cleanup levels are a result of a citizen’s initiative, the Model Toxics Control Act, passed in 1989.
“That was the acceptable threshold for excess cancer risk put into law … The regulation came out of that law.”
“The state law is more stringent, more conservative.”
Q: What are the next steps in this study?
Lawson: “We will do our evaluation, and identify what the next steps are. We don’t know what those next steps may be right now.”
Groven: A public review period will be held in May after the draft final report is released.
Q: Will property owners be required to do any cleanup?
Lawson: “We’re not going to ask anyone to do any cleanup.”
“One sample does not define a cleanup site.”
Q: Will a property owner be required to do any cleanup before selling property upon which dioxin has been found?
Lawson: “There is no reason I know of that they wouldn’t be able to sell their property. They are not on some list as a contaminated site.”
Q: Will there be any cleanup if a source can be identified?
Lawson: “The study is just at the beginning. We don’t even know after this study if we will have the full answer to that.”
Q: What is dioxin?
Groven: “Dioxins are a family of chemicals, and have a similar chemical structure and similar biological affects. They are an unintentional by-product of human and natural processes. They don’t break down easily in the environment.
“… Many people are exposed to small levels when they consume food, milk, breath air or by having skin contact … They are formed through combustion, waste incineration, several industrial processes, such as bleaching of pulp at the Rayonier mill and other types of chemical manufacturing.”
Q: Since dioxins can be a by-product of a wide range of activities, does Ecology believe that it will be able to determine a specific source?
Lawson: “We are not sure that we will be able to define a source from this study. We designed this study to help us define a source. We don’t know if we will be successful.”
Q: What is the cleanup standard for industrial property?
Lawson: “The cleanup level jumps to 1,460 parts per trillion” for industrial property.
Q: Has the cleanup threshold for dioxin been an issue in negotiations with Rayonier?
Lawson: “Cleanup levels haven’t been set for the site yet. We haven’t talked about cleanup levels for dioxins or really another parameters specifically.”
Q: What would you tell property owners who are concerned by the amount of dioxin found in a sample taken on their property, or if they have questions about removing soil where the sample was taken?
Lawson: “We recommend that they call us if they have questions.”
Abbett: The letter sent to property owners says that there are “basic healthy actions they can take. They can make sure they wash their hands, take their shoes off” in order to not bring soil into their home.
“It’s a great recommendation for anything in the soil. It’s just good hygiene measures.”
Property owners concerned about the sampling results can phone Groven by phoning 360-407-6524 or by e-mailing her at cgro461@ecy.wa.gov.
________
Reporter Tom Callis can be reached at 360-417-3532 or at tom.callis@peninsuladailynews.com.
