The Lower Duwamish Waterway Group (LDWG) will officially release their “Draft Final Feasibility Study” tomorrow, OCT. 18, outlining clean-up options for EPA to review. They will choose an option to move ahead in accordance with the designated Superfund site, the lower five miles of the polluted Duwamish River.

The LDWG is represented by the Port of Seattle, City of Seattle, King County, and The Boeing Company. The PDF of the entire 13-section summary totals 682 pages, the “Executive Summary,” a boiled down version, a mere 42 pages.

The West Seattle Herald asked Duwamish River Cleanup Coalition (DRCC) Coordinator B.J. Cummings, back from her yearlong sabbatical trip around the world, to decipher some of the water and soil issues in the summary.

“The DRCC has two science consultants carefully reviewing the options released in this new summary,” said Cummings. “It is important to understand that these proposed solutions are written by the polluters, not by the EPA. The EPA eventually will edit this ‘menu’ and release its own proposal. The LDWG funded all investigations and cleanup debates. We call the LDWG the ‘big four,’ the City, County, Port, and Boeing meaning these are the responsible parties for polluting the river. Ultimately, others will be identified and will contribute toward the Superfund.

“A Superfund site cleanup was initially paid for by taxes the government placed on polluting industries like oil companies and chemical manufacturers. This is still the law but the government has not collected these taxes in way over a decade.”

The Lower Duwamish River was declared a Superfund site in 2001.

“The only way sites get cleaned up is by polluting parties coming up with the money. This makes it extremely important that the community have the wherewithal to closely oversee the process, including the science and plans. There has to be a counterweight to the polluters who have been liable. We are a heck of a lot lighter in weight than they are, but that’s what we’ve got, and there is a lot on the line here.

“In the document, four goals have been set up by the EPA. Two are environmental, two are health related, though they all actually relate.

“Goal one: Protect the critters and worms that live on the base of the Duwamish river bottom, called benthic organisms. Who cares about bugs and worms? Well, these creatures move up the food chain and are eaten by fish, birds, otters, and of course, people eat the fish.

“Goal two: Protect fish, birds and wildlife.

“Goal three: Protect people coming into contact with mud and other sediments from the Duwamish River, especially people walking dogs and kids playing on beaches.

“Goal four: Protect people from eating the seafood.”

“Where each proposal falls short is that not a single alternative is expected to protect human health. One alternative costs over a billion dollars calls for dredging the river the entire five miles. They don’t address what to do with ongoing pollution once they complete dredging. Three weeks ago the EPA ordered Boeing to treat its storm water going into the river out of Slip 4, a major polluting source.”

That’s good news, but there are other slips with pollutants spilling into the river that have not been addressed.

“It doesn’t work if source control isn’t part of the cleanup. The public should let elected officials know what they think. Sometimes elected officials are not directly informed by groups or committees within their departments making the decisions.”

Dredging and capping are mentioned. Neither addresses the ongoing pollution pouring into the river.

Cummings explained that “dredging” means removing a substantial layer of polluted soil from the river bottom and transporting it elsewhere. “Capping” means bringing in new soil material to place on top of the polluted soil to bury it, a “cleanish barrier” she calls it.

“The problem with capping is that the river sits right on top of an earthquake fault line, so in an earthquake the clean soil would not stay put.

“The other option relied heavily on, in this report, is ‘natural recovery’ with ‘institutional controls.’ ‘Natural recovery’ means you don’t dredge or cap anything. You let the upriver water flow and naturally cover up the polluted soil down stream.”

She hinted that this option is basically doing nothing.

“’Institutional controls’ means you tell people not to fish anymore. This is the cheapest option, and the path of least resistance, unless the public resists. So we have to object to make sure this option is not the path of least resistance.

“We need to pay attention to what it means to leave some of our poorest communities out of the benefit of this cleanup. I have heard horribly disparaging remarks about spending $100 million ‘to protect the dumb people fishing on the Duwamish River.’ We see poor, immigrant, tribal, and homeless populations fishing it as a way of life and necessity.”

Cummings also pointed out that when the South Park Bridge’s pilings are removed to make way for the new bridge, the EPA and Superfund site will enter the equation as caution must be taken when displacing the soil under the bridge while it may expose PCB’s. She wants to stress that, contrary to urban myth, the old South Park Bridge was not removed as a result of the Superfund site.

“A fair number of people think there is a connection, but it is not related.”

To review the documents go to: www.ldwg.org and then on the upper right click on the “FS Quick Links.”

The DRCC will post the results of the study now being done by their consulting scientists, in about two weeks. Meetings will follow, beginning in November she estimated.