Photo credit: Allison Frost/OPB
The need for increased community engagement in the Portland Harbor Superfund project seems to me a central issue. In comparing the Duwamish and Portland Harbor, there seems a significant difference in the levels of engagement between the two cities’ governing bodies and the communities most affected by the Superfund and the clean up process. Admittedly, the vantage point I gained on the Lower Duwamish River project was more in retrospect and is perhaps not a fair comparison with Portland Harbor. However, I believe Portland can learn from the mistakes and successes in Seattle. The communities from the neighborhoods of South Park and Georgetown and the Duwamish Tribe were driving forces insisting on more and better engagement with the City and Port of Seattle as well as the EPA. And most importantly, those communities pushed for better clean up technologies and it seems they helped the City and Port of Seattle recognize how essential it is to use technologies that remove more of the contaminants. The City of Portland recently conducted a survey of Portland residents on their priorities and opinions about the Portland Harbor cleanup. This was the first outreach by the City on the clean up and was not widely distributed, nor was it comprehensive in eliciting the full views of the public with its limited questions and “pick a box” format. I spoke with Delia Mendoza and Lucia Llano of the Portland Harbor Community Coalition last week, who both echoed Paulina Lopez from South Park about the need for community meetings with food and childcare provided and be culturally appropriate to successfully engage the various affected communities. We have heard from communities surrounding both the Lower Duwamish River and the Portland Harbor that being able to safely eat fish from these rivers are of utmost priority to them. The priorities for the City and Port understandably revolve around cost. It’s time to learn from the Duwamish and other Superfund clean up projects that while more expensive technologies that remove more contamination seem prohibitive from a cost analysis, lingering contamination or contamination that is spread from improper dredging or damaged caps are not worth the recontamination of our river, fish, and people. -Lola Goldberg
0 Comments
Photo from: https://popdevprogram.wordpress.com/2012/04/05/in-this-for-my-people-nia-robinson-on-race-the-environment-and-climate-change/ Environmental racism has a long history in the United States with wealthy white people in well-cared-for areas of cities and countrysides, while wastes are dumped and toxic industrial facilities sited along the homes of people of color and poor people (whom are more often people of color). Firstly, planners are often white and perpetuate this divide, not wanting a landfill or chemical refinery next to their homes. Second, it is known that wealthy, more highly educated neighborhoods of white people feel empowered to fight against any development in their area that would negatively impact them. As a result, attempts toward such developments are not even considered. People of color in this country have been oppressed by systematic racism in every form from every authoritative agency and have been disempowered to fight for their own civil rights. Environmental racism is about civil rights--“It is unlikely that this nation will ever achieve lasting solutions to its environmental problems unless it also addresses the system of racial injustice that helps sustain the existence of powerless communities forced to bear disproportionate environmental costs” (Geiser and Waneck 1983).
The environmental movement started in the 1970s and environmental activists are often well-educated white people focused on environmental conservation. For years a strong part of my own identity has centered on environmental conservation. While I have slowly become more aware of environmental justice issues, the focus of my activism has remained on conservation of forested lands and watersheds. I realize the privilege I have to choose my activism focus--being middle-class and white, I am not directly affected by environmental risks and inequalities that so many people of color and poor people cannot escape. I appreciate the opportunity to increase my awareness of environmental justice issues and the inseparable nature of social justice, environmental justice, and environmental conservation. -Lola Goldberg References: Geiser K and Waneck G 1983. PCBs and Warren County. Science for the People pp 13-17. This week, our readings focused on environmental justice, how it was used in Warren County, and how it may pertain to the Duwamish River and Portland Harbor superfund sites. Environmental racism is a way to describe the institutionalized system in which people of color are more likely to be exposed to environmental and health risks (Bullard, 1993). Environmental justice movement calls for equal protection and fair treatment for all against environmental and health risks, focusing on people of color and low-income communities (Gilliland, 2014). We focused on a case study in Warren County, North Carolina, where the state was interested in dumping PCB laden soil in a secure landfill in Warren County (Geiser & Waneck, 1983). This contributed to the issue of environmental racism since the county was the poorest county in the state, and also 65% black (Geiser & Waneck, 1983). As stated by “Warren County Citizens Concerned about PCBs” leader Ken Ferruccio: “landfills are placed in environmentally unsafe, but politically powerless areas (Geiser & Waneck, 1983).” The community laid down in the middle of the street to stop trucks from dumping PCBs in their neighborhood--the first-ever environmental justice protest by people of color that gained national attention (Geiser & Waneck, 1994). This protest was also the first time where the term “environmental racism” was used (Geiser & Waneck, 1994). Here’s a video of the protest: The work of community members of Warren County led to recognition by President Bill Clinton, who issued an executive order requiring the consideration of environmental justice issues in the course of federal agency policy making (Gilliland, 2014). The approaches to environmental justice by agencies have varied, but the actions taken at the Duwamish River Site are seen as groundbreaking and used as a reference for other CERCLA sites (Gilliland, 2014). Even so, EPA’s environmental justice analysis strongly suggested additional mitigation measures to counter adverse disproportionate impacts felt by communities reliant on the river for subsidence (Gilliland, 2014).
-Kristen Citations: Bullard, R. D. (1993). Confronting Environmental Racism: Voices from the Grassroots. Cambrige, MA: South End Press. Geiser, K., & Waneck, G. (1983). PCBs and warren county. Science for the People, 15(4), 13-17. Geiser, K., & Waneck, G. (1994). PCBs in Warren County. Unequal Protection: Environmental Justice and Communities of Color. San Francisco: Sierra Club Books. Gilliland, A. (2014) A Review of EPA’s First Environmental Justice Analysis in Conjunction with a CERCLA Remediation Plan. Retrieved fromhttp://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/events/environment_energy_resources/2014/03/43rd-spring-conference/conference_materials_portal/12-gilliland_alexandra-paper.authcheckdam.pdf The information that’s been reviewed addressing remediation technologies (MNR, capping and dredging) offers a small window of optimism. The best case scenario for clean up (of current technologies) of the river will allow for (limited) fish consumption to be safe after approximately twenty or thirty years. However, this is better that what we have currently, which is far from optimal, and we have to think in terms of generations and not just our life time when come to contaminated fish consumption..
Once the clean up begins Portland Harbor Community Action Group voiced that the St. Johns community does not want the storage of contaminates in the vicinity of terminal 4 or near the terminals north of the residential area in St. Johns. I was told by some of the community members that they have been impacted enough and wanted to make sure that know one else would have to go through the same exposure. This is very similar to what the Duwamish/South Park community in Seattle wanted, not just a clean river only, but the sediment cleaned as well. Community action members seem to believe that dredging is the best option, the community wants the contamination out! It appears that a combination of technologies will be the best option. Dredging in hot spots that are accessible and the use of proper tools to make sure contaminates are contained once captured lessens disturbance contamination. Dredging is expensive and the more efficient the technology the higher the cost. Capping is a good for remediation of particular contaminates that are sinkers, falling deep blow the river bottom (60-80 feet) or area that are without risk of navigational hazards and future development. Capping however is more cost effective than dredging, but it does incur constant monitoring from threats of shifting land, and it is not resistant to predicted earthquakes or flooding. Monitored natural recovery (MNR) or enhanced MNR is the least expensive but the results have a long time frame for recovery and places responsibility on future generations. These technologies for remediation are tied to policy and regulation and they places human health in a contamination game of roulette. We have know idea of the combination of 60 thousand chemicals that are legal and not been tested for contamination will be affecting us in harmful ways. Of those 60 thousand, only 200 have been regulated for safety and some uses of only 5 of these toxic substances have been restricted. Instead of using the precautionary principle for chemical regulation the regulatory system (EPA, FDA, etc.) in the United States has to prove actual harm in order to control or replace a dangerous chemical. The concern of contamination from the river, the removal of contaminated sediment, and the exposure from any of the remediation practices, we must not forget that bio-accumulation from the consumption of fish, by humans, raptures, fowls, herptiles, mammals, and invertebrates are a constant risk. If contaminated fish counts are improved there maybe a possibility that that possible responsible parties may wish to limit their financial responsibility for clean up and if the contaminated fish count is low, then why should they pay so much for a few people who consume contaminated fish. Being constantly vigilant and engaged is what made Duwamish/South Park communities resilient and successful in achieving an improved clean up and cleaner river. By Michael Pouncil Photo by Lola Goldberg
We had the opportunity to visit with representatives from many of the groups involved in the Lower Duwamish River Superfund site. The Duwamish river has a similar history to that of the Willamette--for thousands of years it was central to the lives of the native peoples of these lands--in this case the Duwamish tribe who spent their winters along its banks. The Duwamish people subsistence fished the river and travelled by canoe along its meandering course. After Chief Seattle of the Duwamish signed the treaty of 1855 allowing the City of Seattle to be built on their homeland, the river was straightened, deepened, and industrialized. The Duwamish river became a transportation hub for large ships and over the past century, a waste tank for wartime industry and rapid development that grew up around it. We visited the Duwamish Longhouse--a beautiful community center for the tribe to share their culture and history. The Duwamish tribe has been asserting their place in this landscape, having lived here for at least 12,000 years, according to Linda Dombrowski, the event coordinator who shared many tales of Duwamish history and of the river just across the street. Although the Duwamish community has their own visions for the river, they are willing to share the water and the land that contains it with their industrial neighbors. This surprised me. They only expect that the river be cleaned up so that all people’s needs for the river are possible, including fishing for subsistence. It’s not an easy task, but some assert it’s possible. We met B.J. Cummings, the founding coordinator of the Duwamish River Cleanup Coalition (DRCC) in 2001, to empower residents of South Park and Georgetown--the neighborhoods within the industrial sea along the Duwamish river. B.J. is a wealth of knowledge. She explained that Lake Washington was formerly the site of the City’s sewage dump, but after the affluent and largely white neighborhoods surrounding the lake complained, the City rerouted the sewage system to dump into the lower Duwamish river. Many communities have come together as very active agents influencing the process and plan for cleanup of the the superfund site. When we met with employees of the City of Seattle, the Port of Seattle, and the Environmental Protection Agency, they credited the DRCC and expressed gratitude for their persistent involvement pushing for stronger cleanup outcomes. Boeing, apparently did very well cleaning up their early action areas, using sophisticated technology to dredge contaminated river sediment without causing a spread of the contaminants. Using Boeing’s good example as well as documenting when dredging was poorly done for far less money, the DRCC continues to push for better cleanup methods. While communities of South Park have been highly vocal and active influencing stronger river cleanup, these low income communities--often communities of color--have not gotten the level of response that communities around Lake Washington received. Politics that govern cities have systematically left low income communities out of planning processes and adequate consideration. In “A Ladder of Citizen Participation,” Arnstein articulates the reason for citizen participation in processes affecting our public commons as a redistribution of power- giving voice to people so often excluded from the process (Arnstein 1969). This article was published in 1969 and yet still today citizen participation is often a box for government officials to check rather than fully listening and changing plans or designs based on feedback from the public- people who will be greatly affected by the decisions made. Furthermore, government rarely does outreach to underrepresented communities. Because of the strong and determined involvement by the DRCC and people of South Park, this dynamic may be slowly shifting for Seattle, however there is still a long way to go. -Lola Goldberg Sherry R. Arnstein (1969) A Ladder Of Citizen Participation, Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 35:4, 216-224, DOI: 10.1080/01944366908977225 We began our journey at the Duwamish Longhouse, this area of waterfront was the site of long houses along the shoreline where the tribe used to fish. Now we look out at the cleanup efforts and industrial uses The Community Engagement and Outreach Manager for the Duwamish River Cleanup Coalition, Paulina Lopez gave us a tour of her community in Southpark. A skatepark was built in attempt to help the community but is now seldom used because the graffiti has made the concrete too slippery to skate on. Stepping out of the skate park a mural that says “home” in 5 different languages representing the major demographics that comprise the Southpark community.
"White settlers came to the Seattle area in 1851, establishing a townsite they first called New York, and then, adding a word from the Chinook jargon meaning "by-and-by," New York-Alki.” -Seattle Municipal Archives
Discovering Seattle's deep history of industry, economic and community development put into perspective the complex issues revolving around development in both long and short term thinking. This past weekend I could see clearly how the past is still very present in today's world. The Duwamish River was a great example of this continued impact, for example the profound injustices demonstrated by the commandeering of the Duwamish tribe's land, to the negative effect the Superfund site has had on the health and safety of South Park's citizens. Although people have tried to control, utilize or tame the waters of the Duwamish, the problems morphed into systemic problems that possibly stemmed from the rivers complex history. -Katie Brief History of Seattle. Retrieved from http://www.seattle.gov/cityarchives/seattle-facts/brief-history-of-seattle This article told the story of Rob Bilott, an attorney who usually defended large chemical companies, taking a stance against DuPont (Rich, 2016). He was fighting them over a chemical called Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), found to have negative health effects on humans (Rich, 2016). Bilott fought an uphill battle over 16 years to have DuPont cease production of PFOA and pay for the harm they had caused (Rich, 2016). Now, DuPont is settling personal injury lawsuits at a rate of four cases a year, and they have ceased production of PFOA in 2013 (Rich, 2016). PFOA is a chemical found in teflon, a material used to coat pots and pans (Rich, 2016). This reading was especially jarring for me since I had just recycled some non-stick pots and pans earlier that week because the teflon coating was chipping off.
The New York Times article “The Lawyer Who Became DuPont’s Worst Nightmare,” tells the story of a corporate lawyer, Rob Bilott, who takes on an unlikely case for a small scale cattle farmer against one of the largest chemical corporations, DuPont. The case is unlikely not because it was doomed to fail, but because neither Bilott nor his corporate defense firm, Taft Stettinius & Hollister, had ever represented an individual, against a large corporation such as DuPont. Taft is known, instead, for defending these corporations from such lawsuits. Bilott became passionate about the case. He learned from DuPont’s own documents that for decades they had been hiding the knowledge that Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), a chemical they profit billions of dollars from is highly toxic. They had been researching PFOA in secret for many years but decided not to use an alternative even after they discovered PFOA caused multiple health problems for their employees and the animals DuPont tested it on. Bilott has since devoted his career to representing people harmed by PFOA after he filed a class action lawsuit for 70,000 people affected by PFOA tainted water (Rich 2016). The largest problem with PFOA, is that it, along with 60,000 other chemicals, was not regulated by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Chemicals are treated as innocent until proven guilty, as if they were people with inherent goodness. Furthermore, the process by which the EPA creates regulations for toxic substances is so specific and rigid that it regularly eliminates studies that are not done by the industry that seeks to profit from the substances they submit studies for, clearly exhibiting conflicts of interest (Boone et al 2015). Similarly, in Superfund site cleanup projects, the EPA reviews studies on remediation options that are prepared by the companies responsible for the contamination, as is the case with the Remedial Investigation Report (RI) and Feasibility Study (FS) for the Portland Harbor Superfund. The RI and FS were contracted by the Lower Willamette Group, which is comprised of ten of the 142 potential responsible parties for contamination at this site (Sunding and Buck 2012). It brings to question, for me, the legitimacy of such reports that are prepared or commissioned by companies seeking to profit from or limit their costs in such cleanup projects, and thereby potential rulings by the EPA.
-Lola Boone MD, Bishop CA, Boswell LA, Brodman RD, Burger J, et al 2014. Pesticide Regulation Amid the Influence of Industry. BioScience 64: 917-922. Rich Nathaniel 2016. The Lawyer Who Became DuPont’s Worst Nightmare. The New York Times Magazine. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/10/magazine/the-lawyer-who-became-duponts-worst-nightmare.html?_r=1 Sunding, David and Buck, Steven 2012. Economic Impacts of Remediating the Portland Harbor Superfund Site. The Brattle Group. The OBP article titled: Cleaning Up Toxic Contaminants in the Willamette River was more background on the issues of the Willamette and the clean up process, including the central questions, “what should the clean up entail, and who should pay for it?” Various involved parties discuss their beliefs on the plans, and engage with the community as we await the EPA’s National Review Board to review the plans. I think one of the major concerns is that concept of clean and what to trust is clean enough, and who is setting that standard. The EPA comments to the Lower Willamette Group, “statements regarding population...should not be designed to protect organisms on an individual basis...but to protect local populations and communities of biota,”(EPA 3:2009) further confuse the concept of what denotes clean especially if humans depend on the environment and vice versa. Decisions on how to clean up of the Willamette River seem to have to unravel and define many concepts.
The known history of legacy contamination, and the exact types of chemicals in the sediments are considered in the various types of cleanup. Another central debate occurring is the amount of clean necessary to reduce risk to both humans and the environment, “ there are clear criteria we have to achieve to actually protect human health and the environment. And so there, our goals are based on targets that reduce it to a certain level that we deem to be acceptable.” (Frost 2015) But reading about the EPA’s chemical regulation last week how “tests are typically conducted or funded by a pesticide's manufacturer.” (Boone et al. 917:2014), there seems to be a conflict of interest in what these chemicals actually do outside of the laboratory; the EPA has concerns that the Lower Willamette River Group (LWG) dismissed the chemicals of concern from evidence in the risk characterization sections of BERA. It seems like there is already a lot of mistrust and over complication in the complex decision containing many variables on how to approach the cleanup which can be a dividing process and a process that forces people to look at their values. -Katie Boone, M. et al . 2014 Pesticide Regulation amid the Influence of Industry. BioScience, 64, 917-922. doi:10.1093/biosci/biu138 EPA 2009 Preliminary EPA Comments on the Baseline Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessments 1-13. Frost, A. 2015 Cleaning Up Toxic Contaminants In The Willamette River. OPB. Retrieved from http://www.opb.org/news/article/cleaning-up-toxic-contaminants-in-the-willamette-river/ |
AuthorsWe are Portland State students who care about the urban rivers of the Pacific Northwest. Archives
May 2018
Categories
All
|