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
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorsWe are Portland State students who care about the urban rivers of the Pacific Northwest. Archives
May 2018
Categories
All
|