Contractor hired to remove tsunami dock from beach
SEATTLE (AP) - A Port Townsend company hired to remove a 185-ton chunk of Japanese tsunami debris that washed ashore on a remote Washington beach in December hopes to complete the removal by the end of March.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration selected The Undersea Company to do the work.
The 65-foot-long dock is located on a beach within the boundaries of both Olympic National Park and NOAA's Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary.
Most of the dock is made of a foam-type material encased in steel-reinforced concrete.
NOAA says the Undersea Company will work with the sanctuary, national park and local partners to remove the dock by dismantling it on the beach and removing the pieces by helicopter.
Most of the cost - about $478,000 - is expected to come from money provided to NOAA by the government of Japan. The rest of the removal will be paid for by NOAA's Office of National Marine Sanctuaries and the national park.
Based on a serial number, the government of Japan confirmed the dock was lost during the March 2011 tsunami.
#Tsunami Debris MT @GeorgiaStraitBC: Contractor hired to remove tsunami dock from beach via @komonews http://t.co/fvY475txeB #pugetsound
This ranks right up there with some of the most wasteful uses of taxpayers money, in terms of stupid, not in dollars .The damn thing floats.Pull it off at high tide and find a place that needs a floating dock as a breakwater or recreational moorage at a marine park.Spending ½ $M to destroy a perfectly usable structure is typical government BS.
Thank God they didn't hire Kiewit Construction. They already cost tax payers millions of dollars on the 520 floating bridge  project!Â
I am glad to hear that it is an in-state contractor.
So, Â as one of our vassal states, Â Japan is forking over "most of the cost".
Just let it sit there! tourist attraction, Â no different than old shipwrecks. Â We have far too many government workers trying to justify their paychecks. Â
Wouldn't it be better to save these and use them for the 520 bridge? They're obviously a lot tougher then the stuff we're building hereÂ
Wow, seriously? $478,000? Is it just me or is this price overly outrageous and is a prime example of why this country is in the financial state it is in?
Better idea and much cheaper too! Tow it out and blow it up.Â
@Tattooed_Angel2 I think the majority of that cost will go to what needs to be done to protect the environment. It is in a marine sanctuary, so every precaution to prevent an invasive species must be taken. In addition, preventing any toxins it may have in it from escaping into the environment is of great importance.  It is also in a very remote part of the state & there is no access except by helicopter, as I am pretty sure you cannot easily or safely put a boat ashore there. Yeah, it sounds like a lot of money, but in the long run your idea will cost us more.