Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Sequim Dump Monitoring topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
County weighs $84,000 monitoring request for former Sequim dump site; reimbursement possible
Summary
County staff presented a three‑year monitoring proposal for the former Sequim landfill site that would add two monitoring wells and three years of sampling at an estimated $84,000; staff said much cleanup is done, sampling trended lower, and Ecology may reimburse up to 50% after monitoring, but the county could defer the work or seek lower bids.
Clallam County staff asked commissioners to consider a one‑time administrative request to fund the first year of a three‑year groundwater monitoring plan for the former Sequim dump (Lake Creek Landfill). The consultant‑recommended plan would add two monitoring wells in year one and conduct three years of sampling to document that the site remains below risk thresholds and to seek a ‘clean bill of health’ from the Washington Department of Ecology.
Staff said consultants (Anchor QEA) recommended the additional wells and monitoring because the site’s initial “hot spot” soil contamination was removed and follow‑up sampling of remaining soils and groundwater has trended lower. Staff reported that the cleanup work had mostly met expectations and that Ecology offers programs that could reimburse about 50% of monitoring costs after successful monitoring and reporting.
The requested $84,000 was not included in the administrative recommended budget. Staff said they asked a second consultant (SCS Engineers) to review the Anchor plan and expected a site visit to seek potential cost savings; the county could also defer monitoring for a year if the board preferred to prioritize other budget items. Staff noted the site remains listed in the state’s database as a former dump site, which provides context for why the county may want to pursue the monitoring and final closure now.
Ending: Staff will obtain SCS Engineers’ assessment of Anchor’s proposal, seek any cost savings, and return to the board with a recommendation; commissioners may defer funding until next year if they prefer.
