Page 10
Commentary
Watered-down promises
EPA extends comment period on the Superfund clean-tip plan for
the Willamette River, which drew protests for doing too little
BY STEPHEN QUIRKE
varying combinations of gravel, clay and
to see how that happened: the polluting
sand. The caps would be monitored to see
industries have been putting pressure on
how quickly they are destroyed by erosion.
elected officials for several years, and
arly this month the EPA released its
“Companies that collectively make
officials redirected that pressure at the EPA.
draft plan to remove toxic
In an Environment and Economy
contamination from the bottom of the billions of dollars a year have dumped their
Subcommittee meeting in September, Rep.
Willamette River. The plan represents the waste in the river at the expense of human
beings,” said Rahsaan Muhammad, a PHCG
Kurt Schrader (D) told an EPA official, "... I
culmination of 16 years of study, a federal
organizer. “Bayer CropScience, Chevron,
am concerned about EPA’s approach to that
mandate to remove toxic substances, and
Gunderson, Exxon, BP, Shell, Schnitzer
harbor.... And I am worried about the
extensive jockeying from government
Steel, Toyota, the U.S.
science that is involved in
agencies, polluting industries and
Navy, should pay their
this,” adding “you are
community and environmental groups.
fair share. They are
supposed to do a cost
The plan stumbled out of the gate at 2
not paying their fair
effectiveness analysis....
p.m. June 8 and critics took aim
"In
no
way
shape
or
form
share.”
And that is not what I am
immediately.
Earlier that day the does the plan address
seeing in the report”
“It’s a huge deal,” says Mary Ann Warner
Yakama's concerns or needs Schrader then interrupted
EPA
announced they
of the Portland Harbor Community
would extend the
for clean healthy fish. This
EPA employee Mathy
Coalition. “It’s just beyond me how they
comment period on
Stanislaus six times
could actually put out this plan and think
plan is entirely not protec
their draft plan to a
before
letting him explain
that it was OK.”
tive of Yakama's treaty
total of 90 days -
the work the EPA had
On June 24, the Portland Harbor
resources."
Community Coalition held a 50-person press giving people until
« ROSE LONGORIA done.
Sept.
6
to
submit
YAKAMA NATION'S SUPERFUND
Earlier that year
conference downtown, blasting the EPA’s
COORDINATOR
comments.
Schrader told the
draft plan, which would leave 92 percent of
River advocates at
Oregonian “Every time
the 10-mile stretch “toxic to both people and
the
PHCC say that is
they try to defund the
wildlife indefinitely,” the Coalition said.
still not enough time,
EPA, I vote against that.
The plan - dubbed Alternative I - calls
But when people start gnawing at the edges,
for removing just 150 acres of the toxic stew and are asking for a total of 120 days.
“The fact is that a lot of migrant families
where it’s hurtful to Oregon’s economy and
at the bottom of the river. A stunning 1,876
that eat from this river leave during the
only gets marginal benefit, we have to think
acres of contaminated sediment would be
summer to visit their families. That kind of
about that.”
left alone to see how well it recovers on its
cuts into their 60 day comment period,”
In a telephone press conference unveiling
own - relying on the flow of up-stream
the draft plan on June 8, EPA officials
sediments to simply cover the pollution over says Mary Ann Warner.
Warner and many other river advocates
repeatedly described it as the most
an uncertain period of time (A technique
argue that the EPA’s plan represents a
“balanced” plan among eight alternatives
called “monitored natural recovery.”).
giveaway
to
big
polluters.
And
it
’
s
not
hard
they
were considering (alternatives B-I).
Another 64 acres would be “capped” with
STAFF WRITER
E
Street Roots • July 1-7, 2016
When asked whether they believed this
alternative represented a balanced approach
to the treaty rights of the Yakama Nation -
which relies heavily on local fisheries - EPA
Region 10 Administrator Dennis McLerran
responded “We do,” adding,
“What we heard from tribes is that they
would like to see a watershed approach that
actually goes beyond just the cleanup of the
site itself.... they want to see a cleaner
river, they want to see the risks reduced.
They did not create this pollution. They did
not create this insult to the river, so they
would like to see a very aggressive cleanup
here.”
When asked if he thought the plan met
treaty obligations to the tribes, McLerran
responded “We do.”
One of the people listening in to that
press conference was Rose Longoria,
Yakama Nation’s Superfund Coordinator. “I
was very troubled .... and rather surprised
by his response. I think the only thing that
was mentioned by Dennis McLerran that we
considered was the loading to the Columbia
River. That is probably the only thing that I
can see where EPA slightly heard Yakama
and our concerns. But in no way shape or
form does the plan address Yakama’s
concerns or needs for clean healthy fish.
This plan is entirely not protective of
Yakama’s treaty resources.” *
“Allowing these toxins to remain in the
river to be covered up or washed down to
the Columbia River is unacceptable, and
even more than unacceptable, it is a
violation of our human rights and it is a
violation of the Yakama Nation’s treaty
rights.”
Rather than balancing the needs of
various river users, Longoria says the
agency chose to strike a balance between
“the needs of industry and business and
profits.
“I’m rather disillusioned, quite frankly,
she said. “It seems that EPA has made a
decision, and that decision is very much on
the side of appeasing the industries so that
they will sign on to moving forward with
clean up. It seems to me they understood
what industry would accept, and that’s what
they proposed - that’s what they built the
proposal around. And they’re moving
forward with that, and I’m having a hard
time seeing how we get a different plan
that’s actually more beneficial to the
resources, the people and Yakama’s treaty
rights.”
In 2011, Senators Ron Wyden and Jeff
Merkley joined Reps. Blumenauer and
Schrader for a tour of the Portland Harbor
hosted by Vigor Industrial, one of the EPA’s
responsible parties. Months later they
signed a letter to EPA Administrator Lisa
Jackson describing the Portland Harbor as
“a regional gateway to global markets” that
generated tax revenue while “getting people
back to work.”
The letter then suggested that “as EPA
performs its evaluation, it is imperative to
consider the economic impacts of EPA’s
decisions on our community,” adding “In
this time of limited resources and budget
constraints ... the Portland Harbor
conversation about cleanup options should
be focused on where this point of
diminishing returns lies.”
At a Feb. 9 Portland City Council work
See PROMISES, page 11