98% or 480 out of the 490 comments I evaluated did not support the current proposal and pleaded for a residential clean-up.
The other 10 comments were disbursed as follows: 6 were in support of the current proposal, 3 were comments relating directly to water quality, 1 was a neutral thank you.
2 Quick notes about public comment.............
1. I thought public comments were readily available to the public.....am I wrong? In order to access the 665 pages of public comment I had to contact DEQ's Scott Graham, and he had to set up a file transfer account for me. Next, I had to register with the service and create a password. Later that day he transferred the file and I was able to upload it in the form of a PDF. This seems awfully inconvenient for a currently active public document.
2. The figures I came up with from the comments probably have human error of 0-15%. I just hand tallied the comments based on "in favor" or "not in favor and would like residential SSCL". The 10 comments that did not fit my format were described above.
In Favor of the Current Proposal
1. Hutigg - Obviously they would like to see the site be cleaned up as fiscally frugal as possible. The corporation submitted a very lengthy and unorganized comment that outlines ways to remediate the site "cost effectively". We'll see if the DEQ acts on any of Hutigg's suggestions.
2. & 3. Scott Street Partners & Zip Beverage - These guys just want something done as soon as possible. The investigation and mild remediation has been going on for over a decade and they are probably getting real sick of it. If the site specific clean-up level gets elevated by the DEQ to residential these guys will be involved for much longer than they want to. Also, this would probably mean continued restriction on the large vacant chunk of land owned by Scott Street Partners which they may be paying property taxes on without the power to use it.
4. Missoula Economic Partnership (MEP) - This group has no connection with any other stakeholders. I spoke with Melanie Brock, the Director of Strategic Initiatives for MEP. Melanie told me that MEP has no contact with any other stakeholders in support of DEQ's current proposal. She said that the comment was based on MEP's mission for business retention and expansion. She did say, however, that Zip Beverage was an investor with MEP.
5. An X White Pine Sash Employee - This man obviously has some sentiment for the work he did, and I respect that. I cannot speak for what he feels or knows about the mill.
6. A Commercial Real-Estate Sales Associate - This comment's foundation are pretty apparent. It's a prime spot for new industry to move in! Money, money, money!!
Water Concerns
There were three total comments pertaining to just water. The Clark Fork Coalition, Mountain Water Company, and the Missoula County Water Quality Advisory Committee more or less submitted the same comments. In fact, they were conceived by the same people. Chris Brick, Science Director for the Clark Fork Coalition told be that the comment were the result of a collaborative effort. Members of both the Mountain Water Company and the Clark Fork Coalition are active in the Water Quality Advisory Committee. These experts got together and discussed the current proposal for White Pine Sash and settled on a comment which they each submitted individually. The comments did not pertain to a site specific clean-up level, but did plead for more aggressive excavation of contaminated soil and the removal of a settling well.
Of all the comments I read, this one has to make the most sense........
"If someone took a dump in your grandmother's living room, why would you have to debate about how much of it to clean up?"
Do one thing every day that scares you. Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure. It is our light, not our darkness that most frightens us. See the link below for more info.
ReplyDelete#fear
www.ufgop.org