Duwamish River Cleanup Coalition at HPAC, on “polluters’ plan”


That video is from three months ago today, when the Duwamish River Cleanup Coalition gave river tours after releasing its report on a community-created vision of the polluted waterway’s future (our full report is here). Last night at the Highland Park Action Committee‘s environmentally themed meeting (earlier reports here and here), DRCC’s Cari Simson told the group about the latest turn in the road to that cleanup: A coalition of those she described as “the polluters,” referencing the contamination that has made part of the river a Superfund site, has released its own draft report regarding the future cleanup — a “draft feasibility study” (officially announced here) – and DRCC isn’t liking what it’s seeing so far. Read on to hear why – and to hear about upcoming events (boat tour, kayaking tours and more) in which you can participate:

duwamishsunrise.jpg

(August 2008 photo by John LaSpina)
One of DRCC’s main missions is to gather public comment about the federal Superfund cleanup of the toxins that have fouled the river from years of pollution – “5 1/2 miles of the river bottom” and sites along its shores. (“Superfund” is explained on this DRCC webpage.) Simpson notes it’s not just industrial pollution, residential neighborhoods contribute too — “every time you hit the brakes, every time you flush.” She says that besides the environmental implications, there are millions of dollars at stake in the cleanup, so it’s important for nearby neighborhoods to know what’s going on. (And practical concerns – one question she fielded last night was “Would you walk barefoot near the Duwamish?” given the sediment contamination in the area. Without exactly saying “no,” she did discuss suggestions such as leaving your shoes outside after a walk in riverfront parks, and if you take a dog for a walk, washing its feet upon return.)

The draft issued by the Lower Duwamish Waterway Group – a coalition whose members are listed as the port, the city, the county and Boeing – was published April 24; links to individual sections are online here. Its proposals are “wholly inadequate” in DRCC’s view, according to Simson, who added, “What we’ve seen and heard already from this draft is
(that it’s) like sending your child to clean up his room, and he comes out with one piece of paper and says it’s done.” In DRCC’s view, the proposal “is trying to make arguments that doing less of a cleanup is a good thing.”

Her group also is concerned about what they say is an absence of discussion of “green jobs” — “There’s no mention of green job training, though thousands of people could be getting work out of this cleanup.” She said there also will be an EPA meeting coming up about the cleanup, “and we want to pack the house.”

Her group is reviewing the LDWG draft now and expects to have its own draft “bulleted list of issues” out soon. In the meantime, comments are being accepted on the LDWG’s draft till June 22; here’s how to have a say (Simson suggested it’s even appropriate to say you’re having trouble making it through the report, if that turns out to be the case), though she says a more important draft for public comment will be out this fall, and then yet another version of the proposal in a year.

One event you’ll want to attend to find out more from a variety of groups is the annual Duwamish River Festival, coming up August 8th. (Last year, that’s where we learned more about the Superfund cleanup – here’s our story, which led 4 months later to this followup). Simson said a few spaces remain on a free boat tour coming up June 13reservations here — and kayak tours are starting in July. There’s lots more information on the DRCC website.

4 Replies to "Duwamish River Cleanup Coalition at HPAC, on "polluters' plan""

  • Dave May 19, 2009 (11:09 am)

    Please, yes, ‘polluters’ but give me a break, these folks are under CERCLA and in some cases MTCA jurisdiction and are called Potential Responsible (or Liable) Parties (PLP / PRP). Let’s scrutinize the proposals and stop drinking the leftist Kool-Aid. Lest not forget the City of Seattle’s own liability.

  • Mike May 19, 2009 (11:26 am)

    The Duwamish head is one of the most toxic waterways in the USA. Why? Long ago creosote was used to treat pilings, these pilings were then floated along the Duwamish head. There were/are many other companies using toxic chemicals for industry along the Duwamish Head. Heavy metals still to this day polute the Duwamish head and make it deadly to eat shellfish from that area. This is why you see those signs in multiple languages warning of toxic sediments that pollute the water way and will make you sick or kill you if you eat shellfish from that area. Notice the park the Port of Seattle provided has double and some times triple fencing to keep you from walking on the sediment? There’s a reason.

  • WSB May 19, 2009 (11:47 am)

    The city is actually one of the LDWG members, as noted above.

  • Anders May 20, 2009 (11:19 am)

    You know what would be original and refreshing? If people criticizing a proposal, or quoting those criticizing a proposal, actually READ THE DOCUMNENT THEY ARE CRITICIZING. If they did, they would begin to understand why the Feasibility Study points out that the more dredging performed, the lower the net environmental benefit. This is due to several factors. For one, when dredging is performed, sediment and associated contaminants are stirred up, increasing exposure of these chemicals to fish and other biota. Second, the more dredging that is performed, the more sediment has to be trucked to landfills which means more air emissions, noise, and impacts to communities from truck traffic. These are just two examples. The parties who authored the FS did not make this stuff up – these are well documented and studied effects of cleanups.

    It’s time to stop always looking for a good guy and a bad guy on environmental problems, and begin to truly work together. Using emotionally charged terms like “polluters” and “toxic dumping ground” (one I hear often in the media) do not help the conversation and just further confuse and mislead those who are outside the process. These are very complex problems, and so there should be some appreciation that some base knowledge is needed to fully understand the issues.

    Let’s move past the rhetoric, shall we?

Sorry, comment time is over.