Health Impact Assessment: Proposed Cleanup Plan for the Lower Duwamish Waterway Superfund Site

Photo: Patrick Robinson, West Herald

HIA Public Comment Report June 2013

June 2013 1 Photo: Paul Joseph Brown Table of Contents

Executive Summary and Recommendations 4 Health Impact Assessment Authors Introduction 9 William Daniell, University of Effects of the proposed cleanup plan Linn Gould, Just Health Action on local residents 14 BJ Cummings, Cleanup Coalition/ Technical Advisory Group Effects of the proposed cleanup plan Jonathan Childers, on Tribes 20 Amber Lenhart, University of Washington

Effects of the proposed cleanup plan on subsistence fishing populations 25

Institutional controls and health 30

Effects of the proposed cleanup plan on workers and employment in local industries 33

Other considerations 35

Addenda 37

Technical Advisory Group

2 Health Impact Assessment We are indebted to the many agencies, organizations, and individuals who have contributed their time, information, and expertise to this project. A complete list of acknowledgments will be published in the Final HIA Report.

This project and report is supported by a grant from the Health Impact Project, a collaboration of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and The Pew Charitable Trusts; and also by the Rohm & Haas Professorship in Public Health Sciences, sponsored by the Rohm & Haas Company of Philadelphia.

The views expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Health Impact Project, The Pew Charitable Trusts, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, or the Rohm & Haas Company.

Acknowledgments & Disclaimer Photo: Derrick Coetzee

June 2013 3 Executive Summary and Recommendations

Photo: Linn Gould, Just Health Action

BACKGROUND Advisory Committees, individual community advisors, and More than a century of industrial and urban wastes a “Liaison Committee,” with representatives from EPA, have contaminated Seattle’s lower Duwamish River. other agencies, and potentially responsible parties. Focus The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) placed the groups were conducted with Duwamish Tribe members lower Duwamish River on the Superfund List in 2001. and urban subsistence fishers. On February 28, 2013, EPA released its Proposed Plan for cleanup of the site. EPA will accept public comment whose health might be on the Plan until June 13, 2013. affected by the cleanup? The Plan calls for capping in place or removing highly Local residents: Two residential neighborhoods, South contaminated river sediments, plus enhanced and natural Park and Georgetown, border the Duwamish River and recovery for moderately or low-level contaminated sedi- Superfund site. A high percentage of residents are foreign- ments. Resident fish and shellfish will be less contaminated born and people of color, particularly in South Park. Average but probably still unsafe for human consumption, even household income in both neighborhoods is much lower after the 17-year period of active cleanup and monitored than the county average, and poverty rates are higher. recovery. Health status is relatively poor compared to the rest of health impact Assessment (HIA) Seattle, with higher existing rates of child asthma hospital- ization, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and lung cancer. Three partner organizations—UW School of Public Health, There are also more industrial emissions, contaminated Just Health Action, and the Duwamish River Cleanup sites, and vehicular pollution than in the rest of the city. Coalition/Technical Advisory Group—conducted a Health Impact Assessment of EPA’s Proposed Plan. Affected Tribes: Three Native American Tribes are po- This assessment did not examine alternate cleanup tentially affected by the cleanup. The Duwamish Tribe’s scenarios, although many of the HIA findings and recom- ancestral lands include the Duwamish River watershed. mendations are probably transferable to whatever remedy The and Tribes are federally EPA selects for its final cleanup decision. recognized Tribes with treaty-guaranteed, usual and The HIA focused on four vulnerable populations whose accustomed fishing places in the central health and well-being might be affected by the proposed region. Both Tribes actively manage seafood resources cleanup. The HIA was guided by Resident and Tribal on the Duwamish River.

4 Health Impact Assessment There are no publicly available health data for these health risk and any risk after cleanup should be limited Tribes. However, census and health data for Native and manageable with wash facilities at public beaches. Americans in Washington State and King County reveal high Construction-related increases in air and noise levels of health problems and risk factors including poverty, pollution, and in rail and truck traffic, could affect the unemployment, infant mortality, smoking, obesity, diabetes, health of local residents. However, with the proposed heart disease, cirrhosis, asthma, and mental distress. construction strategy, updated fuel standards, and Subsistence fishers: Many people fish on the Duwamish standard EPA policies, there should be limited impact River for salmon, which are non-resident fish and consid- on local residents, beyond the existing high levels of ered safe to eat. However, some people catch resident fish pollution and traffic. and shellfish as a food source. This population includes Cleanup construction will generate new jobs, with Asian and Pacific Islanders; a variety of immigrant com- beneficial impacts on health for those employed. It is munities and people of color; low-income, homeless, and uncertain whether or how many jobs will be given to food-insecure populations; and urban American Indians local residents. and Alaska Natives (aside from the affected Tribes). Environmental improvements from the cleanup will increase aesthetics of the river and surrounding Workers in local industries: The Lower Duwamish River areas. This may spur reinvestment in Georgetown and area is home to Seattle’s and King County’s largest concen- South Park. Community revitalization could stimulate tration of industry, including the Duwamish Manufacturing a number of beneficial phenomena including physical Industrial Center and Port of Seattle. The manufacturing, improvement of housing, streetscapes, and open wholesale trade, transportation, warehousing, and utilities space, growth in community businesses and services, industries in this area employ at least 30,000 workers. In and increased employment and reduced crime. general, these jobs pay good “family” wages. The major Gentrification often occurs alongside community potential health impact of concern relates to employment. revitalization and is already occurring in Georgetown Employment is one of the strongest favorable determi- and South Park. Any cleanup-spurred reinvestment nants of health and well-being. will contribute to this trend. Gentrification can bring health-favorable community benefits. However, these how might health be affected by are most likely to benefit higher-income residents, and the cleanup? harmful impacts are most likely to affect lower-income The proposed cleanup will reduce health risks from sea- residents. food consumption and contact with sediments and the • Affected Tribes shoreline. However, residual contamination in sediment, fish, and shellfish will still be higher than Puget Sound Tribal health consequences of chemical contaminants background after cleanup, and EPA predicts resident are likely to be substantially worse than projected by seafood will still be unsafe for human consumption. The EPA risk assessment and predictive models. These necessary fishing advisories will be more restrictive than models only account for biomedical disease outcomes elsewhere in Puget Sound, will be required for at least 40 and do not incorporate fundamental aspects of Tribal years, and could persist in perpetuity. health and well-being, such as the importance of accessibility to local natural resources, maintenance • Contaminant dispersion during construction of cultural traditions, and the significance of self- The health concerns related to cleanup construction determination. The EPA risk assessment also does not activity include possible escape of contaminants out- consider that river-related risks are compounded by side construction zones. The magnitude of this appears existing Tribal health disparities and cumulative risks low, however, if environmental dredging technologies, from chemical and non-chemical stressors. best management practices, and skilled operators are Furthermore, although the cleanup will create a employed. cleaner environment for all, inequity between the gen- • Local residents eral population and the Tribes may actually increase. Most local residents do not eat resident fish from the Resident seafood consumption will be relatively safe river, but many visit beaches. EPA predicts the cleanup at a rate typical for the general population rate (e.g., will approach but may not meet goals for arsenic con- 1 meal per month), but not at the Tribes’ seafood tact on some publicly accessible beaches. The existing consumption rates.

June 2013 5 Institutional controls, such as fish advisories, people, people of color, immigrants, and non-English restrict how much seafood can be safely harvested. speakers, and particularly for children. These restrictions may violate Tribal fishing rights. They • Institutional controls also may affect food security, prompting some Tribal The assessment of affected Tribes and subsistence fish- members to eat less healthful foods. Physical health ers identified important issues related to institutional may still be affected, since some Tribal members may controls (ICs). We identified additional issues that have harvest fish in spite of warnings, to protect their cultur- not been considered in the Proposed Plan which may al and spiritual health. affect cost considerations. It is highly likely that habitat renewal will benefit The Proposed Plan does not appear to follow EPA Tribal health, because the environment and species of guidance to evaluate ICs as rigorously as any other cultural importance will be enhanced. This will allow response alternative. For example, the EPA Feasibil- more ceremonies on the river, as well as pride, owner- ity Study included hundreds of pages about various ship, and empowerment, all of which are important determinants of Tribal health. cleanup alternatives, but only 7 pages about ICs, plus only 3 pages in the 82-page “Detailed Cost Estimates” • Subsistence fishers Appendix. The estimated cost of ICs is relatively low Fishing practices could be affected substantially during compared to an example of enhanced community and after active cleanup. Urban subsistence fishing outreach (Palos Verdes Shelf Superfund Site) that was is poorly characterized, but people fish in many local featured in the EPA Environmental Justice Analysis ac- waters, including the Duwamish River, and in spite of companying the Proposed Plan. advisories and posted signs. Reasons for fishing and for This is consistent with a pattern identified by the choosing locations include a wide variety of cultural, U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) in a 2005 traditional, practical, aesthetic, and convenience review of EPA’s IC practices. GAO determined that EPA influences. has increasingly relied on ICs over time but inconsis- It is very likely that some fishers and their families tently considers all the necessary factors to ensure will be exposed to chemical contaminants in seafood that planned controls will be adequately implemented, during and after the cleanup. Fishing activity might monitored, and enforced. decrease during active cleanup, but it is likely that The implementation of ICs increases already exist- some people will continue to fish there. Many alterna- ing cumulative risks among Tribal and subsistence fish- tive locations are subject to fish advisories, particularly er populations by adding a psychosocial stressor that within close travel distances. After the active cleanup, is likely to have additional health ramifications. In ad- the cleaner and restored habitat may entice fishing. Al- dition, the application of ICs increases already existing though seafood will pose less health risk at that point, inequities among vulnerable populations by expecting the persisting risks could still be substantial for people them to modify their behavior when cultural, spiritual, with high rates of fish consumption. or food security reasons prohibit change. Some subsistence fishers who are not able to fish elsewhere or purchase fish will likely experience food • Local workers and nutritional insecurity. A fish diet has health Manufacturing, wholesale trade, transportation and benefits, particularly for children, and these benefits warehousing businesses in the Lower Duwamish area can be lost if fish consumption is reduced. Other pro- face a variety of pressures that could influence their tein sources cost more than self-caught fish, leading to productivity and economic viability, and that could economic hardship. A dietary void could be filled with stimulate changes in land use analogous to ongoing cheaper, less healthful choices. residential gentrification in local neighborhoods. Social and cultural traditions could be disrupted It is plausible that the proposed cleanup of the if fishers reduce or discontinue fishing. There is not Lower Duwamish River and related decisions could enough information to assess how likely this would be, add to existing unfavorable pressures on local indus- but the loss of social ties could be an important impact tries, with net loss of jobs or reduction in hours of on health and well-being. employment. Alternatively, it is plausible that existing These potential impacts on subsistence fishers businesses and employment could benefit substantially would pose disproportionate harm for lower-income if the cleanup reversed the constraints and stigma of

6 Health Impact Assessment a blighted river, and if this stimulated industry revital- opportunities ization and economic robustness. Seattle is at the cusp of a new era. Beginning with the This assessment considered four major categories cleanup, and accompanied by source control and natural of possible cleanup-related effects: cleanup job creation, restoration efforts, the Lower Duwamish River and cleanup costs and business liability, business uncertainty, surrounding area have a chance to become a regional and industry revitalization. Any potential effects of the asset and symbol of pride, rather than an environmental proposed cleanup plan on workers and employment in stigma. There will be opportunities to turn river cleanup the Lower Duwamish area industries would not occur and restoration into a national model for healthful in a vacuum. Therefore, the assessment also considered and sustainable coexistence of industry, Tribes, and the context in which any cleanup-related effects would community. It will be a challenging task to find the occur. optimal balance between economic, traditional, subsis- The assessment findings will be summarized in our tence, and recreational uses. However, the alternative— Final HIA Report. Meanwhile, our findings are provided turning away from this opportunity—will create challenges in a detailed addendum in this report. and problems of its own. In this report, we provide recommendations to pursue equitable and sustainable what’s missing from this picture? revitalization, including a proposed Duwamish Valley Identifying information gaps is an important goal for any Revitalization Task Force. HIA, almost as important as identifying health impacts. One important gap is the limited planning for institutional equity controls, as discussed earlier. The health consequences of It is critical that there be meaningful and collaborative residual chemical contamination and institutional controls participation with the affected communities in all efforts are potentially substantial, and these could pose dispro- to prevent harm from the cleanup, maximize benefits, portionate harm for the Tribes and lower-income subsis- and promote health equity. tence fishing households. It is not possible to adequately The City of Seattle and King County are Potentially assess these potential health impacts, given the gaps in Responsible Parties for the cleanup, and they are also information. responsible for protecting and improving the health and Another important gap in the Plan is the lack of formal well-being of all people in their jurisdictions. At face connection to a source control plan. The cleanup goals value, cleaning up the Duwamish River will address both for contaminant reduction, and the certainty of achieving responsibilities. However, without targeted interventions, those goals, depend critically on the timing and extent of the proposed cleanup could result in unanticipated source controls. It is not possible to fully assess the harms to vulnerable populations, and continue or even potential health impacts of residual contamination with- exacerbate existing health inequities. out knowing the timing and extent of source controls. The EPA, City, and County each have prominent Adding clear source control goals and objectives to the policies that make commitments to consider equity, race, Plan, and defining required source control programs and/or justice in decision-making. We call upon each to and actions, could reduce uncertainty and contribute to uphold these commitments in planning the cleanup and improved health outcomes by defining requirements to related actions, and in planning for predictable health reduce pollutant loading to the site. effects of those actions.

* The following chapters provide more information about each recommendation

June 2013 7 recommendations* Directed to EPA Construction measures Actions to protect Tribal health • negotiate transport routes and associated mitigation • collaborate with Tribes to more fully address their measures for cleanup-related truck and rail traffic with health concerns about the river cleanup. potentially affected residents. • Restore Tribes’ traditional resource use in accordance • use modern clean engines or those with best available with Treaty Rights. emission controls, cleanest available fuels, and “green • Ensure that site-related institutional controls are remediation” techniques to minimize air emissions, temporary, not permanent. plus effective noise and light minimization measures • Establish a “Revitalization Fund” to enhance Tribal during active cleanup. empowerment and health, until institutional controls are removed. Jobs for community members • Provide cleanup job training and placement assistance to local community members. Directed to City of Seattle and King County Equity policies Institutional controls • Apply institutional controls, including educational • Ensure equity in all policies and efforts for environ- signage and washing stations, at local beaches until ment and community development, in accordance health protective standards are met. with Seattle’s Race and Social Justice Initiative and King • Institutional controls should go beyond restrictive and County’s Equity and Social Justice Ordinance. informational actions, such as fish advisories. Interven- Community revitalization tions should emphasize positive alternatives, such as • Foster local economic strength and sustainable access identifying, encouraging, and providing options for safe to needs. fishing and healthful fish consumption. There is a clear • Enhance human and natural habitat in local neighbor- need for innovative thinking. hoods. • Efforts to promote safer fishing should acknowledge • Increase community engagement by sup