This page intentionally left blank.

City of Portland
Comments on the Proposed Plan for the
Portland Harbor Superfund Site
September 2016

Contents
Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 4
EQUITY AND ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE....................................................................................................... 6
1.

Environmental justice ....................................................................................................................... 6

2.

Fish Advisories Future Updates...................................................................................................... 7

3.

Housing Justice.................................................................................................................................. 7

4.

Outreach to Underserved Communities ........................................................................................... 7

COMMUNITY INTERESTS AND ACCEPTANCE ................................................................................................ 9

5.

Confined Disposal Facility (CDF)........................................................................................................ 9

6.

Economic Opportunities - Jobs ....................................................................................................... 10

7.

Economic Opportunities Redevelopment .................................................................................... 10

8.

Communicating Cleanup Progress .................................................................................................. 10

9.

Earthquake Preparedness ............................................................................................................... 11

10.

Prioritize Areas With High Public Use ......................................................................................... 12

11.

Future Land Use - Public Access & Industrial Use ....................................................................... 12

TRANSPARENCY........................................................................................................................................... 13
12.

Opportunities for Future Input ................................................................................................... 13

13.

Risk Communication ................................................................................................................... 13

14.

Air Toxics ..................................................................................................................................... 13

15.

Short-Term Impacts of Dredging................................................................................................. 13

16.

Fish Advisories Communication Strategy ................................................................................. 14

17.

Shallow Water Zone .................................................................................................................... 14

18.

Consistent Level of Risk Reduction ............................................................................................. 14

19.

Meeting State and Local Requirements ...................................................................................... 15

ACCURACY ................................................................................................................................................... 16
20.

Cost Estimates ............................................................................................................................. 16

21.

Missing Data for Areas at River Mile 6 and River Mile 11 .......................................................... 16

22.

Climate Change ........................................................................................................................... 17

23.

Compensatory Mitigation Calculations....................................................................................... 17

24.

Uncertainties in the Conceptual Site Model (CSM) .................................................................... 17

25.

Contaminated Riverbanks ........................................................................................................... 18

26.
Uncertainties Regarding EPAs Assumptions on Ex-Situ Treatment Facilities & Transloading
Facilities .................................................................................................................................................. 18
27.

Technology Assignment at Cathedral Park ................................................................................. 19

28.

Map Presentation of Remedy in Swan Island Lagoon ................................................................ 19

BALANCE ..................................................................................................................................................... 20
29.

Risk Management Goals ............................................................................................................. 20

30.

Cost Effectiveness ....................................................................................................................... 21

31.

Technology Assignments: Time to Achieve Protectiveness and Acres of Active Remedy .......... 21

32.

Community Acceptance .............................................................................................................. 22

IMPLEMENTABILITY/FLEXIBILITY ................................................................................................................. 23
33.

Separate Cleanup Areas .............................................................................................................. 23

34.

Protection of City Infrastructure ................................................................................................. 23

35.

Consideration of Flood Management Needs .............................................................................. 24

36.

Time Frame for Mitigation .......................................................................................................... 24

37.

Stability of Beach Mix Backfill ..................................................................................................... 25

38.

Administrative Efficiencies .......................................................................................................... 25

39.

Consideration of Critical Site Factors that Limit Implementation .............................................. 25

40.

Attainability of Preliminary Remediation Goals.......................................................................... 25

41.

Disposal issues ............................................................................................................................ 26

42.

Flexibility ..................................................................................................................................... 27

ACKNOWLEDGING UNCERTAINTY............................................................................................................... 28
43.

Human Health Risk Models ......................................................................................................... 28

44.

Attainability of PRGs ................................................................................................................... 28

45.

Spatial Scale Application of PRGs................................................................................................ 28

46.

Discrepancies Between Residual Risk Calculations and Baseline Risk Calculations ................... 29

47.

Construction Project Duration .................................................................................................... 29

Conclusions and Recommendations ........................................................................................................... 30

Introduction
The City of Portland (City) has reviewed the Environmental Protection Agencys (EPAs) Proposed
Remedial Cleanup Plan (Proposed Plan) for the Portland Harbor Superfund Site (Site) and provides the
following comments. We (the City) have a unique role in Portland Harbor and our (the Citys) Proposed
Plan review process and comments reflect that role. We are a steward of this important community
resource, a regulator, and a potentially responsible party who may ultimately be liable for some of the
cleanup costs. We also have the responsibility to spend public funds and resources judiciously and on
efforts that benefit the community as a whole. Because of our role and many interests, the City became
involved early in the process to support efforts to investigate river contamination and provide EPA with
the information required to inform a cleanup plan. The City is very pleased that this important process
continues to move forward, and are hopeful that our community will have a final Record of Decision
(ROD) as expeditiously as possible.
The Citys comments on the proposed plan are based on input from all parts of our community. To
facilitate broad outreach, the City held meetings throughout the community, held a public forum,
conducted a community survey, and provided grants to community-based organizations to expand
outreach to underrepresented communities. The Citys goal was to encourage all Portlanders to share
their thoughts during the comment period so that City comments reflect those of our community.
There are diverse environmental, economic, social, and public health considerations that will shape the
approach to the Portland Harbor Cleanup. The Willamette River supports critical ecosystems and
multiple human uses. It also is a part of the cultural heritage of multiple Tribal Nations. Because of this
wide spectrum of significance, there are many stakeholders taking an interest in the cleanup, and the
City fully understands the challenges EPA is facing in seeking a balance in the Proposed Plan that
achieves an effective cleanup in a reasonable timeframe and at a reasonable cost. Although we have
questions and are requesting specific changes to some elements of the Proposed Plan, overall, the City
supports EPAs approach. We are requesting that our comments be addressed in EPAs response to
comments or in the ROD, as appropriate. We believe EPA strikes an adequate balance by requiring
active cleanups in areas with the highest contamination while allowing larger areas with less
contamination to be addressed through institutional controls and natural processes.
The Citys comments are organized by the broad themes expressed to the City during its outreach:

Equity And Environmental Justice It is important to the City that everyone has access to
opportunities necessary to satisfy essential needs, advance their well-being, and achieve their
full potential. This includes consideration of basic fairness and the environmental justice
implications of the remedy.
Balance The remedy must address health and environmental risk, but also strike a balance
among the other factors that EPA considers in selecting remedy, which include long-term
effectiveness, short-term effectiveness, implementability, cost, and reduction of toxicity,
mobility, and volume of contamination.
Community Interests and Acceptance The remedy must be consistent with long-term
community interests, including a healthy river and economic development.

Transparency EPA should provide additional information on certain issues where the basis
for decisions or an approach was not clear.
Implementability/Flexibility The remedy will need to be flexible enough to accommodate
new data and Site-specific information collected during the design phase, while providing
clear guidance on what the remedy must achieve.
Accuracy Using accurate, complete information to the extent practical is essential for an
effective remedy. There are a number of concerns about accuracy that were identified during
the Citys review.
Uncertainty The work preceding the Proposed Plan includes a Remedial Investigation and a
Feasibility Study (RI/FS). Uncertainty in the results of a RI/FS exist at every cleanup site
because it is impossible to obtain perfect data, and scientific models used to study the Site
cannot account for every piece of information that may or may not be available. This
uncertainty needs to be considered in risk management and cleanup decisions, and the ROD
needs to acknowledge these uncertainties.

EQUITY AND ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE

The cleanup must consider all Portlanders by providing equal benefits to the cross-section of people and
businesses that interact with the river within Portland Harbor. The City received input from groups with
common and sometimes conflicting interests. The City is providing the following comments in the
interest of promoting a practical degree of equity and fairness in establishing the cleanup requirements
and technical approach. In striving to achieve equity in the cleanup, it is incumbent upon EPA to
consider environmental justice issues and public engagement with multiple local communities.
1. Environmental justice
A human health risk assessment was performed for the Site which showed that health risks from
exposure to contaminants in the river are highest for populations consuming large amounts of resident
fish from the Site (Proposed Plan, p. 18-19). As a result, it makes sense that areas used more frequently
by the most impacted or underserved and underrepresented1 populations should have a more
aggressive schedule for cleanup. The City has identified the areas of Willamette Cove, Swan Island
Lagoon, and Cathedral Park all public areas easily accessible to shoreline fishing as needing a more
aggressive cleanup schedule than described in the Proposed Plan in order to address environmental
justice concerns.
The City requests that these environmental justice concerns be addressed first in the sequencing of the
cleanup. Sequencing should be planned with a goal of achieving protective concentrations in areas with
high public use as soon as possible, which means these areas should be cleaned up first. Specifically,
Willamette Cove, Swan Island Lagoon, and Cathedral Park should be prioritized in cleanup sequencing
over other areas of the Site.
Secondly, EPA has assigned different remedial action levels (RALs) to different areas of the Site, called
sediment decision units (SDUs), in the preferred alternative (Proposed Plan, p. 66). The City notes that
there are cleanup areas near each other with different RALs, even though they have the same uses. For
example, the SDU at Willamette Cove has a less conservative RAL than the SDU at Cathedral Park, which
is further downstream. Since both SDUs are expected to provide future recreational and fishing
opportunities for the public, it is unclear why these two SDUs would have different RALs. This scenario
also creates the potential for contaminated material left in place at the upstream SDU to re-contaminate
the downstream area, which could impact the ability to achieve cleanup goals at the downstream SDU.
The City recognizes that the RALs are not cleanup goals, but rather, are used to determine areas of
active remediation, which will achieve interim risk targets so that monitored natural recovery can be
effective. However, it is important to the City that public beaches, where subsistence fishers have easy
access to the river and shoreline fishing, each receive similar protection, and that the final remedy
minimize recontamination at Cathedral Park to maximize both short and long-term effectiveness. The
City requests that this discrepancy in RAL assignments be evaluated and reconciled to be consistent in
terms of the human uses in the areas described above.
Consuming fish is the activity that results in the greatest health risk at the Site, and it was evaluated in
the risk assessment on both Site-wide and river-mile basis (Proposed Plan, p. 18). Some fish, such as
1

Most impacted populations include Native Americans, African Americans, immigrants and refugees, people
experiencing houselessness, as well as pregnant and nursing mothers, infants, children, and low-and no-income
residents.

smallmouth bass, do not roam throughout the entire 10 mile stretch of the river during their lifetime,
but rather, only in smaller areas (approximately one river mile). As a result, earlier cleanup in smaller,
localized areas may make it safer to eat certain fish from those locations sooner, even while the Sitewide cleanup is on-going.
Once these localized areas are remediated, please evaluate the effectiveness of the RALS in achieving
interim remediation goals at the scale of an exposure area for smallmouth bass fishing, which is one
river mile. The evaluation should center the exposure area on the beaches and fishing areas at
Cathedral Park, Willamette Cove, and Swan Island Lagoon.
2. Fish Advisories Future Updates
The remedy in the Proposed Plan relies on institutional controls, such as fish advisories, to protect the
public while recovery of the river is on-going (Proposed Plan, p. 32). The City recognizes the need for fish
advisories on a Site-wide scale, but believes that more fish may be eaten sooner on localized scales if
areas that are more heavily used for fishing are a priority for cleanup, as described in comment #1. The
City recognizes that this benefit would apply only to fish with small home ranges, such as smallmouth
bass. The City requests that EPA address the feasibility of easing fish advisories for small home-range
fish species in localized areas when the monitoring data indicate that fish caught from these exposure
areas have recovered enough to do so.
3. Housing Justice
It is probable that cleanup activities will need to occur in areas where houseless people are living. The
City requests that EPA provide ample and adequate notice, with appropriate engagement notification
strategies, before beginning the cleanup in areas where houseless people are living.
4. Outreach to Underserved Communities
A critical component to aligning the cleanup with regional goals and addressing community interests is
an inclusive and meaningful engagement process that reaches all communities. Public engagement is
extremely important to ensure that the members of underserved communities have equal access to
understandable information about the Site. Regulations require that EPA review the Community
Involvement Plan prior to the initiation of remedial design (RD) to determine whether it should be
revised to describe further public involvement activities during RD and remedial action (RA) that are not
already addressed or provided for in the Community Involvement Plan2. The City has heard from the
community that current public engagement efforts are not adequate. This is particularly important given
the large areas of monitored natural recovery (MNR) that has been proposed for this Site. It is necessary
that the public has a reliable way to stay informed on the progress of the cleanup and be engaged. The
City would like to work with EPA and other government agencies to ensure the long-term Community
Involvement Plan meets the needs of our communities. The City looks forward to partnership
opportunities with EPA and other local government agencies to ensure community perspectives are
understood and considered in every stage of cleanup process. The City request that EPA reevaluate its
current Community Involvement Plan to ensure it meets the needs of the public, and in particular our

40 CFR 300.435(c)(1).

most impacted communities. We also request that EPA dedicate additional resources for engagement
that is conducted in a culturally responsive manner.

COMMUNITY INTERESTS AND ACCEPTANCE

Community acceptance will be improved with a remedy that meets the cleanup goals established by EPA
within a reasonable timeframe, one that is protective of the multiple uses of the river, and one that is
aligned with the Citys long-term vision and goals addressed in Portlands 2035 Comprehensive Plan3,
Climate Action Plan4 and Portland Watershed Management Plan5. The City is asking EPA to respond to
the comments below in order to address these needs and improve community acceptance of the
Proposed Plan. The City also seeks a remedy that will promote economic development through:
1) A locally-sourced work force for cleanup activities,
2) Local contracting for construction material, equipment and services
3) Increased investment in the Harbor area
5. Confined Disposal Facility (CDF)
An on-Site confined disposal facility (CDF) is proposed as an option for disposal of contaminated
sediment dredged from the river (Proposed Plan, p.31). As the Proposed Plan document describes, a
CDF would be built on land adjacent to the river and extend into the river. It would be isolated from the
surrounding environment, and its presence would convert open water to dry land (Proposed Plan, p.31).
The City recognizes that this method of disposing contaminant sediment produces fewer carbon
emissions than transporting sediment to a landfill, increases efficiency of the cleanup which saves
money, and lowers risks from hauling the sediment to an off-Site disposal facility designed for hazardous
waste, the closest of which is in eastern Oregon.
While the City recognizes the above benefits, it appreciates that there is significant public concern
regarding recontamination potential from the CDF because of leakage or failure, particularly in the event
of a subduction zone earthquake. The Port of Portland conducted a 60% design exercise, which
evaluated the integrity of a CDF located in Slip 1, but it is not clear whether those findings may be similar
at other locations. Based on the Proposed Plan, it is not clear that EPA has selected a located for a CDF.
Based on community concerns, the City requests that an on-Site CDF not be considered as part of the
remedy.
If an off-Site CDF is used for the Site, the City has the following requests:

Engage the community and address concerns about all facets of its development.
Describe how EPA has evaluated and considered issues related to CDF integrity, or how it will
further evaluate these issues moving forward.
Clarify the location(s) being considered for placement. The Proposed Plan mentions Terminal
4 as an option, but it is not clear how certain this location is, or what other locations are being
considered.

http://www.portlandoregon.gov/bps/70936
http://www.portlandoregon.gov/bps/article/531984
5
http://www.portlandoregon.gov/bes/article/107808
4

6. Economic Opportunities - Jobs

Cleaning the river can provide near-term job opportunities for the local job sector, and a clean river will
provide increased economic opportunities by reducing economic uncertainties and promoting
development along the river.6 EPAs Workforce Development and Training Program provides a means to
enable and enhance these opportunities, such as though grants for programs that recruit, train, and
place local, unemployed and under-employed residents with the skills needed to secure full-time
employment in the environmental field7.
The City values and supports diversity and is dedicated to advancing equity in public contracting by
increasing opportunities for State of Oregon certified Minority, Women and Emerging Small Business
enterprises (M/W/ESB). We encourage and support the use of strategies that promote the use of
M/W/ESB contractors and mentoring opportunities between large and small M/W/ESB firms. The City
has set a goal of 20% of PTE awards for prime consultant and sub-consultant contracts to State of
Oregon certified M/W/ESB firms. We would like to see performing parties set similar targets for the
work that lies ahead.
The City appreciates EPAs ongoing efforts for workforce development. However, given the magnitude
and complexity of the Site, the City requests that EPA use the opportunity to expand the job
development program, and provide additional resources specific to Portland Harbor for local work
force training. The City would also like to see every action possible in the ROD to ensure that local
companies have preferential treatment in the contracting process in all stages of the cleanup.
7. Economic Opportunities Redevelopment
The selection of a remedy will help ease the economic uncertainty which can impede redevelopment.
The City requests that EPA foster brownfield reuse through sequencing the remedy to allow vacant sites
or sites with redevelopment plans to proceed separately and earlier than other sites. The City
encourages EPA to work with prospective property owners and use its existing brownfield
redevelopment tools to facilitate property transactions including grants, comfort letters, bona fide
prospective purchaser work agreements and prospective purchaser agreements.
8. Communicating Cleanup Progress
The City has heard from the public the concern that fish advisories are not effective at deterring fish
consumption. This may be due in part to the manner in which fish advisories are communicated. It is in
the interest of the community that institutional controls such as fish advisories be kept to a minimum,
and that the cleanup occurs so that advisories can be lifted or eased as early as possible. The City
acknowledges that fish advisories are necessary to protect human health, and that monitoring will be
conducted to evaluate short and long-term effectiveness of the remedy (Proposed Plan, p. 33). The City
also acknowledged that some fish advisories may be required due to upstream contaminants not related
to the remedy.
The Proposed Plan states that statutory 5-year reviews of the remedy will be performed (Proposed
Plan, p.33). In the event that the remedy does not achieve cleanup goals in the anticipated time
6
7

ECONorthwest 2012. Portland Harbor: Industrial Land Supply Analysis. Portland, Oregon. June 2012.
https://www.epa.gov/grants/fy16-environmental-workforce-development-and-job-training-grants

10

frame, the 5-year plan must include information on how corrective actions will be evaluated and
modified to improve remedy performance. Additionally, we request that the 5-year plan describe how
the results of monitoring could impact fish advisories both Site-wide and on a more localized scale,
and how these results will be communicated to the public to inform the community about progress
being made in the river cleanup.

9. Earthquake Preparedness
The northwest coast of the United States has significant earthquake risk from a rupture along the
Cascadia Fault. Although the effects of the earthquake would be attenuated somewhat from the coast
to the Portland region, the strength and duration of shaking is still projected to be significant. Portland
also has several shallow faults that run under the City, including one that abuts the Superfund study
area in the Linnton neighborhood. The City has heard community concerns about the integrity of the
remedy in the event of an earthquake, and acknowledges that an earthquake could have impacts on the
City and Portland Harbor remedy. For example, an earthquake could cause sediment caps to crack, be
displaced, or otherwise leak.
The west bank of the river along the Site also contains Oregons Critical Energy Infrastructure Hub (Hub),
a group of fuel infrastructure facilities. Almost all of the facilities in the Hub are located within 0.25 mile
of the rivers edge, within the floodplain. The Hub receives and distributes more than 90% of the fuel
that powers the State of Oregon, including all of Oregons major liquid fuel port terminals, liquid fuel
transmission pipelines and transfer stations, natural gas transmission pipelines, a liquefied natural gas
storage facility, and high-voltage electric substations and transmission lines.
Additional contamination of the Site from these infrastructure facilities due to a major earthquake is
likely unless current owner-operators act to prevent it. Fortunately, seismic retrofitting of existing
infrastructure is possible, and could significantly reduce the risk of massive earthquake-induced spills.
The Hub is a center of economic activity. It seems unwise to proceed with the Portland Harbor cleanup
without consideration of potential recontamination from existing facilities and operations.
The National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program was established in 1977 as a result of the
Earthquake Hazard Reduction Act ((PL) 95124), with the goal of reducing risks to life and property in
the United States that results in earthquakes8. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is
one of the primary federal agencies implementing the program, and provides a number of publications
to guide policy makers in resilience planning and reducing risks from earthquakes.
The City request that EPA work with FEMA, the City, and other local government agencies to include
all appropriate measures in the ROD and RD/RA to address recontamination risks associated with a
catastrophic earthquake. In addition to remedy selection, design and action, the City request that the
fuel tank farms within the Site be evaluated as a potential source of recontamination in the event of
an earthquake. After we have invested hundreds of millions of dollars in this cleanup, we want to
make sure that we do everything in our power to keep it clean.

https://www.fema.gov/national-earthquake-hazards-reduction-program

11

10. Prioritize Areas With High Public Use

As mentioned previously, project sequencing to prioritize areas used by populations most impacted by
the contamination would provide environmental justice benefits and increase community acceptance of
the Proposed Plan. The more quickly cleanup goals are achieved in these areas, the more quickly people
will be able to safely increase their fish meals per year, and the more accessible these open spaces will
be to the community. The City requests that EPA focus attention on areas easily accessible to the
public for fishing, namely Willamette Cove, Swan Island Lagoon, and Cathedral Park, for initial cleanup
efforts.
11. Future Land Use - Public Access & Industrial Use
EPA must ensure that the Site-wide remedy and the remedial design for specific areas be consistent with
the anticipated future land uses of Portland Harbor established by the City.
Every Superfund remedy must be selected with consideration of future land use (CERCLA Land Use
Directive, OSWER No. 9355.7-04, 1995 reaffirmed in the directive to Superfund National Policy
Managers, OSWER 9355.7-06P in 2001). Oregon has unique land use laws that require development of
enforceable land use plans and Portlanders are passionate about their involvement in planning the Citys
future land use.
Portland recently adopted an updated comprehensive land use plan to guide development and
investment in the City for the next 20 years, as well as a Climate Action Plan, and the City has enacted
detailed zoning overlays that apply to Portland Harbor. These requirements and development standards
define, protect and enhance the anticipated future uses in Portland Harbor, including industrial lands
that support middle-wage incomes, habitat protection, critical flood control, and public access to
recreation.
Much of Portland Harbor is designated as prime industrial land and thus the selected remedy and any
associated technology assignments should not create physical or economic barriers to redevelopment
on this economically valuable land. It is especially important that prime industrial land that is currently
vacant be allowed to build docks or dredging moorages as needed to access the federal navigation
channel. Portlands land use planning also provides specific community visions for how public access,
riverine habitat and flood storage potential will be maintained and improved. Portlanders have worked
hard to incorporate the right mix of uses in Portland Harbor. This includes extensive plans for greenways
and human access trails in some areas of the Harbor.
Portlands land use planning process has created a clear vision of the anticipated land uses in Portland
Harbor. In short, Portlanders anticipate that all land in Portland Harbor will be used to fill multiple
community needs. The City requests that EPA engage City land use planners and the communities in
and around Portland Harbor to ensure that anticipated future land uses in each area of the river are
not impaired by the remedy, and that EPA provide flexibility in the RODs application of cleanup
technologies to be consistent with the detailed planning in place for current and anticipated land use.

12

TRANSPARENCY
Community acceptance can only be accomplished if the community understands the reasoning behind
EPAs decisions and approaches. The City identified several aspects of the Proposed Plan that are
difficult to assess without additional clarification.
12. Opportunities for Future Input
Members of the public have expressed concerns that there will not be opportunities for adjustments
should the remedy not perform as planned. The City understands that if the remedy is not performing as
expected, as shown through long-term monitoring, conditions may be re-evaluated and the remedy may
be adjusted to ensure protectiveness is achieved. We ask that EPA develop a response that describes
the process for revising the remedy if it is not effective, and identify an ongoing public involvement
process that will engage the public about the cleanups process.
13. Risk Communication
The Proposed Plan describes unacceptable human health and ecological risks from exposures in the
Portland Harbor. However, some uses of the Harbor currently meet acceptable risk levels in many
areas9. For example, as shown in the human health risk assessment, children may recreate on river
beaches without the threat of unacceptable health risks from contact with the beach sediment or the
river water10. In addition, health risks are below levels of concern for workers who come in direct
contact with river sediment at 44 of the 47 river segments evaluated in the risk assessment11. Please
provide more information about exposure scenarios and locations where risks from the Harbor are
already at acceptable levels.
14. Air Toxics
The City has heard concerns from the public related to the potential for air toxics from the release into
the air of contaminants found in the sediment. Due to community concerns, please address the
potential for volatilization of PCBs from sediment.
15. Short-Term Impacts of Dredging
During the Citys public input period, it was apparent that there was insufficient information in the
Proposed Plan about the short-term impacts of dredging. The City appreciates discussion in the
Proposed Plan of potential contaminant release and resuspension through the physical act of dredging
(Proposed Plan, p.29). Please also discuss the following short-term impacts and how they were
considered in the remedy: potential damage to the ecological community at the bottom of the river,
increased diesel emissions due to transportation of sediment to and from the Site, and potential
increase in contaminant concentrations in fish tissue for short periods of time.

EPA 2016. Portland Harbor Remedial Investigation Report, Final. Prepared for the Lower Willamette Group,
Portland, OR. Integral Consulting Inc., Mercer Island, WA; Windward LLC, Seattle, WA; Anchor QEA, LLC; Seattle,
WA, Kennedy/Jenks Consultants, Portland, OR. As modified by U.S. EPA. April, 2016.
10
Kennedy/Jenks 2013. Portland Harbor RI/FS, Final Remedial Investigation Report, Appendix F, Baseline Human
Health Risk Assessment. Portland, OR. March 2013. Table 5-18 and Table 5-57.
11
Kennedy/Jenks 2013. Table 5-43.

13

16. Fish Advisories Communication Strategy

The Proposed Plan discusses fish advisories as an institutional control for the Site, and presents
recommended ingestion rates for fish from the Portland Harbor in terms of number of meals per ten
year period. This advisory is confusing and impractical because people generally do not think about or
track their diets in terms of such a long time frame.
The Oregon Health Authority (OHA) has also issued a fish advisory that includes the Portland Harbor12 ,
however, the OHA fish advisory is different from the one cited by EPA. In the Proposed Plan (p. 37, p.
59), EPA acknowledges the discrepancy and states that the OHA advisory is not a part of the Superfund
response. The conflicting advisories add to the publics confusion about the recommendations on
maximum fish consumption from Portland Harbor.
To help the public better understand the fish advisories, please describe the reasons for the
differences in advisories from the different agencies. The City also encourages EPA to partner with
OHA in developing a means to communicate this process to the public.
Please revise the communication strategy for the EPA advisory so that it is more meaningful to the
public. Due to the high reliance on fish advisories at the Site, the City would like EPA to perform a
study to assess the effectiveness of fish advisories, to ensure they are successful in protecting the
public.
17. Shallow Water Zone
The FS defines three depth zones in the river and attempts to minimize impacts in the zone with the
greatest fish use, described as the shallow zone. The FS states that, [t]he determination of 4 feet
NAVD88 as the boundary [of the shallow zone] for this region was based on an assumed cap thickness of
3 feet (if capping were to be applied) and a mean low water level (MLLW) elevation of 7 feet NAVD88.
This boundary is does not account for the actual utilization of habitat by the 14 species listed under the
Endangered Species Act for the Willamette River. In the City-sponsored Willamette Fish Study
conducted by ODFW13, juvenile salmonid use was predominant in areas of shallow water habitat which
was sampled as low as 3 meters below the water surface elevation, which, in two of the years sampled,
was measured at 3 feet NAVD88. The shallow zone from this study is deeper than the shallow zone
defined in the FS. In addition, the EPAs definition of shallow zone will, in many years, be fully exposed
and not inundated during many months of the year. Please provide justification for how EPA defined
the shallow zone in relation to actual fish use.
18. Consistent Level of Risk Reduction
The Proposed Plan states that Alternative I is a modification of Alternative E, which allows for a more
consistent level of risk reduction in all areas of the Site. (Proposed Plan, p. 47). It is not clear whether
this statement is intended to refer to risk levels achieved, or percent risk reduction over a certain area.
Please clarify what is meant by the phrase consistent level of risk reduction and explain how that
was technically evaluated and applied to arrive at the combined RAL designations in Alternative I. The
12

https://public.health.oregon.gov/HealthyEnvironments/Recreation/FishConsumption/Pages/fishadvisories.aspx#
table
13
Friesen, T.A., J.S. Vile, and A.L. Prlbyl. 2007. Outmigration of Juvenile Chinook Salmon in the Lower Willamette
River, Oregon. Northwest Science, Vol. 81, No. 3.

14

City notes that Table 17 of the Proposed Plan may be related to this statement, and requests
clarification on what is represented in this table as well.
19. Meeting State and Local Requirements
Portlanders need to understand whether and how the remedy will meet our State and local laws. The
City requests that EPA provide an explanation of its Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate
Requirements (ARARs) and To Be Considered (TBC) selection process specifically regarding these
location-specific or action-specific state and local laws:

State Historic Preservation Office laws ORS chapters 358 and 390;
Fish Passage Laws ORS 509.580 through 509.910 which protect fish during and after remedy
construction;
Balanced cut and fill requirements of Portland City Code 24.50 which ensure flood resiliency
The Willamette River Greenway laws and Statewide Planning Goal 15, ORS 390.310 and the
Greenway requirements promulgated by the City in Portland City Code 33.440 to comply with
State law; and
Local noise ordinances that set maximum permissible sound levels and prohibit specific noise
disturbances in Portland City Code 18.10 and 18.12.

The City acknowledges that EPA does not have to consider these laws unless they meet EPA selection
criteria (for example laws have to be in effect, consistently applied and be more stringent than federal
requirements). However, these laws have been considered ARARs at other cleanup sites in Oregon (for
example the Zidell cleanup14 and the Teledyne Wah Chang Superfund Site). The City requests that EPA
explain to the community how compliance with federal standards will protect our community to the
same extent as these specific state and local laws.

14

Maul Foster Alongi. 2004. Feasibility Study, Zidell Waterfront Property. Appendix G. Prepared for ZRZ
Realty Company, Inc. , Portland, OR. December 2, 2004.
15

ACCURACY
During the review of the Proposed Plan, the City identified areas where information was incomplete or
inaccurate. The following comments are focused on key issues related to accuracy that could potentially
impact the remedy. These issues are important to the City and we encourage EPA to consider them
during the preparation of the ROD and in their response to comments on the Proposed Plan.
20. Cost Estimates
The City believes the Proposed Plan underestimates the actual cost of Alternative I by as much as 50% to
100%. The City is concerned about the accuracy of EPAs Proposed Plan cost estimates, particularly the
assumptions about construction parameters such as sediment management area footprints, continuous
dredging, volumes dredged and thickness and/or types of capped layers (Proposed Plan, p.37). In
addition, the State of Oregon requires compensation for use of state-owned submerged and
submersible lands to implement a remedial action (see Oregon Administrative Rule 141-145). These
costs are not included in the cost evaluation, but are needed to provide a more complete understanding
of remedy costs.
While these inaccuracies may or may not impact final remedy selection, the cost evaluation presents a
misleading estimate of the total remedy cost to the public, and could impact the willingness of
performing parties to step forward and lead the larger cleanup efforts.
Please recalculate the costs incorporating more realistic construction and monitoring assumptions,
current discount factors, and compensation costs for use of state-owned land.
21. Missing Data for Areas at River Mile 6 and River Mile 11
The FS and the Proposed Plan do not include all applicable data collected by the City and the River Mile
(RM) 11E Group, which is a group of potentially responsible parties investigating the contamination at
RM 11 East. As previously requested by the Lower Willamette Group (LWG) the RM11E Group, the City
requests the following RM 6E and RM 11E data be incorporated into the RI/FS database and the
Administrative Record of the ROD, and be acknowledged within the ROD so that, at a minimum, these
data can be used in the RD/RA process and to support remedy selection as will be presented in the
ROD:

RM 6E Focused Sediment Characterization Field and Data Report (GSI, 2014)

RM 11E Focused Sediment Characterization Bank Soil and Debris Field and Data Report
(2010)
RM 11E Supplemental Data Report: Archived Bank Soil and Sediment Re-Analysis (GSI,
2013)
RM 11E Final Supplemental Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study Field Sampling and
Data Report (GSI, 2014)
RM 11E Final Porewater Characterization Report (DOF, SEE, GSI, 2015)

By excluding the most recent RM 6E and RM 11E data, the areas of contamination evaluated in the FS
and presented in the Proposed Plan (Proposed Plan, Figure 11) do not depict updated conditions in
those areas. The assignment of technologies based on inaccurate data could result in incorrect volumes
and acreages designated for remediation, which would also affect the accuracy of cost estimates and
16

implementation issues associated with the remedy. The City requests that the Record of Decision
acknowledge this more recent data so that it might be used to more accurately identify areas for
active remediation during remedial design.
22. Climate Change
The Proposed Plan does not account for the potential risks associated with climate change as required in
Executive Order 13653 (Nov. 1, 2013). Specifically, the FS fails to account for the potential for increasing
frequency of floods due to climate change, including climate impacts from the Columbia River in the
Portland Harbor study area, which are different and temporally offset from the impacts in the
Willamette River itself. EPAs Climate Change Adaptation Technical Fact Sheet15 provides specific steps
for addressing climate change for contaminated sediment remedies, including evaluation of
vulnerabilities and identification of adaptation measures to provide additional resiliency16. Additional
Site-specific scientific studies are also available17. The City requests that EPA update its climate change
evaluation to be more accurate and to develop a climate change adaptation plan for the cleanup.
23. Compensatory Mitigation Calculations
Habitat mitigation requirements under the various alternatives are not described in a meaningful level
of detail in the Proposed Plan or the FS. Alternative I requires compensatory mitigation for an estimated
34 acres at a cost of $36.4M (Proposed Plan, p. 64-65). The city is concerned that the compensatory
mitigation acreage could be underestimated, which could significantly impact cost estimates. In
addition, the City is concerned that different remedial technologies could limit or prevent the use of
valuable habitat areas for compensatory mitigation.
Please clarify the calculation of compensatory mitigation acreage in the Proposed Plan, and
acknowledge the need to maintain flexibility in technology selection so that areas appropriate for
compensatory mitigation may be used accordingly.
24. Uncertainties in the Conceptual Site Model (CSM)
The Site Background section of the Proposed Plan (p. 4-7) provides a discussion of the physical
conditions and uses of the Site, contamination sources and distribution, contaminant release
mechanisms, and risk components (i.e., exposure pathways, routes of exposure, and receptors). Figure
3 in the Proposed Plan also includes a pictorial representation of the CSM for the Site. The CSM should
15

EPA 542-F-15-009
https://semspub.epa.gov/work/HQ/177110.pdf
17
Hamlet, A. F., M. M. Elsner, G. S. Mauger, S.-Y. Lee, I. Tohver, and R. A. Norheim, 2013: An overview of the
Columbia Basin Climate Change Scenarios project: Approach, methods, and summary of key results. AtmosphereOcean, 51, 392-415, doi:10.1080/07055900.2013.819555. [Available online at
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/07055900.2013.819555]
16

Climate Leadership Initiative, University of Oregon (2009): Hamilton, R.,Doppelt, B., Adams, S., & Vynne, S.
Projected Future Conditions in the Lower Willamette River Subbasin of Northwest Oregon: Clackamas, Multnomah
& Washington Counties. Eugene, OR. Retrieved January 9, 2014, from
http://www.theresourceinnovationgroup.org/storage/LW_ModelResults_Full_Final12.09.pdf.
Tohver, I., A.F. Hamlet, and S-Y. Lee. (In review). Impacts of 21st century climate change on hydrologic extremes in
the Pacific Northwest region of North America. Submitted to Journal of the American Water Resources Association.

17

provide the technical foundation for making decisions about exposures and developing appropriate
response actions that will be effective based on Site conditions. The City believes that EPAs CSM needs
more details on river hydrodynamics to provide an adequate foundation for the preferred alternative.
Please provide a more detailed discussion of river hydrodynamics and deposition to better
understand EPAs selection of MNR in Alternative I.
25. Contaminated Riverbanks
The proposed plan includes remediation of over 19,000 feet of river bank. The City has concerns that the
RI and baseline risk assessments do not provide the necessary information for understanding the nature
and extent of contamination in river bank soil. Without this information, there is an inadequate
foundation for establishing cleanup goals or developing reasonable, effective remedial actions for river
banks. EPA should review the Oregon Department of Environmental Qualitys (DEQs) most recent
Upland Source Control Summary Report18, where the DEQ has identified the presence of uncontrolled
river bank contamination. EPA should include these river banks in the maps and discussion. For example,
DEQs Summary Report identifies uncontrolled bank contamination at the Crawford Street Corporation
cleanup site19, but this is not shown on the maps or discussed in the Proposed Plan or FS. Additionally,
contaminated river banks are not always contiguous to an area identified to an area of active
remediation, so integrated cleanup of the in-water area and river bank will not occur (i.e., the FS states
on page 4-7 Contaminated beach areas under RAO 1 are assumed to only be addressed in areas
adjacent to SMAs for each alternative)20. Currently, the Proposed Plan only states that Additional
contaminated river banks may be addressed by EPA or DEQ under its uplands source control actions (p.
12) which suggests that nothing may be done to address this issue. Please discuss in the ROD how
source control will be addressed at these non-contiguous river bank areas to protect the investment
being made to clean up the Site. The ROD should also identify all contaminated river banks that are
identified in DEQs 2016 Portland Harbor Summary Report.
26. Uncertainties Regarding EPAs Assumptions on Ex-Situ Treatment Facilities & Transloading
Facilities
EPA assumes a large amount of dredged sediment and excavated river bank soil will be transported by
barge outside of the Site and treated at an upland facility before it is disposed of at an appropriate
landfill. Transportation and disposal of contaminated materials is a significant concern to the public and
there are many underlying assumptions related to cost, implementability, and schedule that are not
readily clear. For example, EPA assumes that a transloading facility will be at an off-Site location along
the Columbia River and once treated, the dredged sediment will be transferred to a land-based mode of
transportation such as truck or rail. However, the Proposed Plan also mentions the possibility of an onsite transloading facility (Proposed Plan, p. 31). In addition, the timeframe for use of the transloading
facility is not clear.
The City would like clarification on EPAs assumptions about the location of a transloading facility, and
asks for flexibility to more fully evaluate the feasibility of a transloading and treatment facility within
18

DEQ 2016. Portland Harbor Upland Source Control Summary Report. Portland, Oregon. November 21, 2014.
Updated March 25, 2016.
19
DEQ, Environmental Cleanup Site Information #2363.
20
EPA, CDM Smith, 2016. Portland Harbor Feasibility Study Report, Final. Seattle, WA. June, 2016.

18

the Site. Ultimately, if a transloading facility is going to be located in the Harbor, the City requests that
EPA work with the City to find an optimal location with the least amount of negative impact on the
community.
If land within the Harbor is used for construction staging or dewatering before off-Site transport of
contaminated materials, we recommend that the Sites not be held in these temporary uses for longer
than ten years and be returned to the market for long-term industrial reuse as soon as practicable. If
a time period longer than ten years is necessary, the City requests that a transloading facility not be
located in the Harbor.
27. Technology Assignment at Cathedral Park
The Proposed Plan technology assignments adjacent to Cathedral Park are based on inaccurate
information. The FS21 (Figure 1.2-4b) shows maintenance dredging areas adjacent to the boat ramp and
fishing pier. The City has no plans or need to conduct maintenance dredging at these two locations (as
accurately portrayed in the 2012 Draft FS (Figure 2.4-3c) and supported by the Cathedral Park Master
Plan22). As the Proposed Plan (p.11) and the FS (Figure 3.6-2d) show, this area is erosional, as evidenced
by the need to add additional riprap at the toe of the Park boat ramp in 2010 (404 permit NWP-2009567). Please remove these maintenance dredge areas off the shore of Cathedral Park, as shown in FS
Figure 1.2-4b, and use the appropriate information for technology assignments for these areas.
28. Map Presentation of Remedy in Swan Island Lagoon
The maps in the Proposed Plan depicting Alternative I do not show that the area of remediation in Swan
Island Lagoon includes the back of the lagoon (Proposed Plan, Figure 19a, Figure 19e). Please clarify
whether the remedy extends to the back of the lagoon, and revise and reissue the map to accurately
reflect the proposed remedy.

21

Anchor QEA, LLC, Windward Environmental, LLD, Kennedy/Jenks Consultants, Integral Consulting, Inc. 2012.
Portland Harbor RI/FS, Draft Feasibility Study. Prepared for The Lower Willamette Group. Portland, OR. March 30,
2012.
22
http://www.portlandoregon.gov/parks/article/469520

19

BALANCE
Under the National Contingency Plan, EPA is required to evaluate potential cleanup alternatives against
multiple criteria and use this evaluation to select a preferred remedy23. EPA must first determine that
the remedy passes the threshold criteria of protectiveness and meeting ARARs. It then considers the five
balancing criteria:

Long- effectiveness
Short-term effectiveness
How well the remedy works in reducing the toxicity, mobility and volume of the contamination
The ability to implement the remedy
The cost of the remedy

There are trade-offs in valuing one criterion over another, and weighing these factors against each other
on a large complex Site like Portland Harbor is challenging. The Site is over 10-miles long and conditions
are different across those 10 miles. Additionally, even though an enormous amount of work has been
completed to date, there remains uncertainty about conditions such as the rate of natural recovery of
sediment contamination, the extent of contamination in some areas, and the actual exposures and risks
that may occur at the Site. Making decisions considering these uncertainties required EPA to apply risk
management principles and conduct a qualitative balancing of these criteria to identify the Proposed
Cleanup Plan.
There are tradeoffs among achieving the different criteria, and the City supports EPAs efforts in
identifying a plan that strikes a balance, despite knowing that it will not satisfy every party. For example,
dredging and removing all contamination from the entire 10-mile Site would be clearly permanent in the
long-term, but would take decades and would be done at an enormous environmental and economic
cost. However, because most of the contamination is concentrated in small areas dispersed throughout
the Site, a more balanced approach focuses on removal and capping of sediment in those most highly
contaminated areas, and addressing broader areas with less contamination to be managed using natural
recovery. This is the approach presented by EPA in the Proposed Plan, and this approach reduces a large
percentage of the Site risks in a relatively short time frame, at a cost that can be fairly apportioned to
the responsible parties to avoid years of court battles that would further delay the cleanup.
29. Risk Management Goals
The results of the risk assessments performed during the RI/FS are meant to serve as the basis for the
cleanup, unacceptable risk to humans and the environment must be cleaned up protective levels.
However, beyond the risk assessments, a number of decisions are required to determine how best to
manage those risks in ways best suited to meet cleanup goals. The City notes that the primary goal of
the cleanup is to provide a river that is protective of people and the environment, and that
protectiveness is defined by acceptable risk levels described in law and guidance. These acceptable risk
levels consider the fact that we live in an industrial society that uses chemicals, yet we also need to limit
the amount of chemicals we are exposed to on a daily basis.

23

40 CFR 300.430 (e)(9)(ii).

20

The City recognizes that the cleanup is not intended to remove all contamination from the river, and
that many areas of the Site are already within the acceptable risk range for several uses of the river.
These uses include: recreational swimming, recreating or working at many of the beaches, exposure to
sediment that may occur as a result of in-water work or low-frequency fishing in many areas, and
temporary use of beaches by houseless populations.
The Proposed Plan manages risks that are above acceptable levels through the active remedy, interim
risk targets, institutional controls, monitored natural recovery, and long-term monitoring. The City again
notes that given the tools available to address contamination at the Site, the Proposed Plan strikes an
acceptable balance in managing the risks through a focus on risk reduction by active remediation in the
areas of the river that are most contaminated. However, the City does not believe that the risk
management component of remedy selection is adequately communicated in the Proposed Plan. Please
further describe the considerations of EPAs risk management process in the Proposed Plan.
30. Cost Effectiveness
It is EPAs duty to ensure that cleanup costs are not excessive24. In evaluating different alternatives,
there is a point at which each additional acre of dredging provides less and less reduction of overall
contamination, despite the same cost of cleanup per acre. This incremental benefit, or cost
effectiveness, was evaluated in the Proposed Plan (p. 67), but it is not clear how it was evaluated against
the other balancing criteria in remedy selection. It is also not clear how time to achieve the remedial
goals was incorporated into decision-making.
Please describe the selection of Alternative I in terms of incremental benefits in contaminant
reduction, and describe in clear, understandable language, how this was considered with the other
balancing factors.
31. Technology Assignments: Time to Achieve Protectiveness and Acres of Active Remedy
The City recognizes that many of the remedial technologies considered for the Portland Harbor could
achieve protectiveness over time, and that an explicit difference between the technologies is the time it
takes to reach the protectiveness goal. Remedies that require more dredging generally achieve
protectiveness sooner than remedies that rely on natural processes to allow the river to recover.
However, both technologies can reach the desired goal of a clean river. The time it takes to achieve
protectiveness is an important consideration in balancing the appropriate technology assignments for a
remedy, as there are trade-offs in these decisions. For example, a cleanup with more dredging can
provide a benefit to the community and environment, however, it is often more expensive and more
disruptive to ecological communities in the short-term. In addition, dredging could result in more diesel
emissions and other air quality concerns than natural recovery, because dredging would require the
transport of removed sediment to a disposal facility, as well as the transport of clean sediment into the
Site to fill in the dredged areas of the river. As a result of these trade-offs, the City notes that both
dredging and natural recovery are effective and both are needed to achieve a healthy river. The City
believes EPA has generally struck an adequate balance in using the different types of technologies in the
Proposed Plan to achieve protectiveness in a reasonable time frame.

24

40 CFR 300.430 (f)(5)(ii)(D).

21

As part of the technology assignment section of the Proposed Plan, EPA decides how many acres of the
Site to assign active remedies. This decision is based a number of factors, including how elevated the
contaminant concentrations are in different areas. As shown in the FS and Proposed Plan, the
contamination within Portland Harbor is not evenly distributed throughout the Site. Instead,
contamination is concentrated in several discrete areas in the river. EPA has designated these areas of
higher contaminant concentrations as sediment management areas (SMAs). By focusing active
remedies (dredging, capping) primarily on the SMAs, a significant percentage of risk at the Site is
reduced, even though the areas of active remediation only cover a small proportion of the total area of
Site. For example, EPA has stated in their public presentations that because contaminant
concentrations are concentrated in SMAs, applying active remedies to these areas as described in
Alternative I would address 85% of the risk from fish ingestion25. The City believes that EPA has
generally struck an adequate balance between acres assigned to the active remedies, such as capping
and dredging, in the areas of the Site that are most contaminated, and the less disruptive remedies,
such as monitoring the natural recovery of the river, in areas that have lower levels of contamination or
are already considered protective for some uses. One area that is not adequately addressed in the
Proposed Plan is the time needed to achieve protectiveness for each of the alternatives considered.
Please clearly lay out the timeline for each remedy to achieve cleanup goals. Include the cumulative
time needed for baseline sampling, remedial design, and remedial action in the timeline.
32. Community Acceptance
Community acceptance, as discussed in the next section, is an important factor in a remedys success,
and a consideration that EPA must account for in selecting a remedy. EPA must assess which
components of the remedy the community supports, has reservations about or opposes26.
The City heard from many in the community who would like to see a more aggressive cleanup and fish
advisories lifted as soon as possible, as well as many who would like to keep cleanup cost down and had
concerns over the impacts from cleanup activities and construction. It is not likely that a remedy will
have 100% acceptance by all members of the community, the City asks that EPA carefully consider
community concerns and describe in detail how balancing community concerns with other factors
was considered in remedy selection.

25

EPA 2016. Portland Harbor Superfund Site. Presentation to the Public. Microsoft PowerPoint Presentation.
August 2016. Portland, Oregon.
26
40 CFR 300.430(e)(9)(I).

22

IMPLEMENTABILITY/FLEXIBILITY
The cleanup of Portland Harbor will be a massive effort requiring many years of design and construction,
followed by long-term monitoring to track performance of the cleanup across the entire 10-mile Site. In
representing the public interest of Portlanders, the City encourages EPA to seek opportunities and
approaches to move the project forward quickly and efficiently. We are a large public entity, and are
familiar with implementing projects at this scale (e.g. The Big Pipe, transportation planning, and utility
infrastructure. We also have a detailed understanding of Site conditions and history, and feel we can
offer an important perspective on the organization and implementation of this cleanup.

33. Separate Cleanup Areas

In the Proposed Plan (p. 65) EPA identifies the expectation for the project to be implemented in a
phased or sequenced approach that considers prioritization of discrete areas for risk reduction,
sequencing of design and construction, and other factors and potential effects of upstream work on
downstream areas. The City agrees with this concept because large projects such as the Portland Harbor
cleanup are most efficiently and effectively implemented by organizing the work into manageable
elements that can be executed in logical, sequenced manner. In addition to the construction
sequencing, another important consideration for Portland Harbor is that there are many different
businesses that operate in specific areas over a span of 10 miles. These entities will be involved in
specific portions of the cleanup, but not all of the cleanup. This will make it difficult for all parties to
agree upon and act together on a single cleanup action. The remedy has the best chance of timely
implementation if the areas that can or should move forward first, are able to do so without having to
wait for all parties to be ready to move together.
Given the extent of the project area and the number of parties involved in the cleanup, the City
recommends that EPA incorporate operable units (or similar legal mechanism) into the ROD. The
National Contingency Plan states that a site can be broken down into smaller units to expedite the
completion of total site cleanup 40 CFR 300.430(a)(1)(ii)(A). To expedite the cleanup, the City believes
that Portland Harbor should be broken down into smaller areas so that it can be addressed
individually or in groups to build to a complete set of settlements and cleanup actions for the entire
river.
34. Protection of City Infrastructure
The City maintains critical public utilities that enter or cross the river including outfalls, water mains,
sanitary lines and other utilities. Currently, the City has a water main crossing just upstream of the St.
Johns Bridge and a sanitary force main crossing just upstream of the Railroad Bridge. The City will have
to build additional utilities to accommodate Portlands growth. The continued operation and ability to
make repairs to public infrastructure is a fundamental consideration of the implementability of a
remedy.
EPA must to take into account the continued operation of all public utilities in technology assignments,
remedy selection, remedy design and in the use of institutional controls which will ensure unimpaired
service. Some technologies simply may not be implementable with certain existing
utilities. Precautionary measures will be needed to avoid impacts during construction and provide for
long-term access for emergency and routine repair. To the extent that the remedy considers relocation
or any other alteration to these utilities, these costs should be factored into remedy costs. Likewise,
23

additional future costs for the City to access or maintain the utilities because of the remedy is a
remedy cost that needs to be transparent in the cost estimates. The City encourages a close dialogue
with EPA to mitigate these issues and related costs.
35. Consideration of Flood Management Needs
EPA is required by Executive Order 11988 (as amended by Executive Order13690) to improve the
Nation's preparedness and resilience against flooding. The City agrees that FEMA flood rise regulations
are a key ARAR (Proposed Plan, p. 34). The City qualifies for federally-backed flood insurance and
federal disaster assistance because it follows the floodplain standards of the National Flood Insurance
Program. Portland also qualifies for the Community Rating System incentives which result in a 25%
discount on flood insurance. For EPA to ensure resilience against flooding, EPAs remedy should be
consistent with National Flood Insurance Program requirements administered by FEMA (44 CFR 9, 44
CFR 60 and 44 CFR 65), Oregon statewide land use planning Goal 7 (OAR 660-015-0007), Metro Regional
Government Title 3 requirements and Portland City Code 24.50. The City requests that EPA ensure that
remedy selection and design adequately consider flood management and not impair the Citys ability
to maintain its qualification for its favorable status under the National Flood Insurance Program.
The Proposed Plan states that a HEC-RAS model will be run on the remedy selected in the ROD to ensure
that flood rise management complies with regulatory requirements throughout the Site (Proposed Plan,
p. 29) The City is the local jurisdiction that evaluates compliance with FEMAs requirement for no
increase in the base (100-year) flood elevations. FEMA has concurred with the Citys definition of no
rise to mean less than 0.005 feet of rise, such that the rise would be equal to 0.00 feet when rounded
and reported to the hundredth of a foot. This definition should be used in evaluating compliance with
FEMA 44 CFR 9 ARAR identified in Table 2.1-3 of the FS.
Considering the significant volumes of proposed sediment removal and filling, the potential impacts of
lost flood storage need to be carefully evaluated. While the Proposed Plan indicates the preferred
alternative would result in a net removal, the analysis should also consider whether the removal is
hydraulically equivalent to the fill. That is, fill placed below a particular elevation should be balanced
by removal below that same elevation.
The evaluation of compliance with Federal flood rise management requirements needs to be updated
periodically. Cut and fill amounts and location may change during remedial design based on Site-specific
factors. Additionally, remedies are likely to be sequenced over a number of years in different areas of
the river, with the potential to cause temporary flood rises. Therefore, the ROD may not accurately
evaluate the eventual remedy if it is refined during the remedial design phase. The ROD should describe
how the HEC-RAS evaluation will be revised during individual project phases to assure that there are
no cumulative effects of flood rise.
36. Time Frame for Mitigation
All alternatives assume one year for demobilization and mitigation (Proposed Plan, p.37-48). Based on
the Citys experience with in-river restoration work, a five to ten year period of time is more realistic
time-frame to carry out mitigation responsibilities (pre-design, design, permitting, construction, and
post-construction monitoring). Please update this assumption to at least 5 years.

24

37. Stability of Beach Mix Backfill

Alternative I includes dredging the Intermediate Area (13 acres) and Shallow Areas (41 acres) and
capping approximately 64 acres of contaminated sediment using engineered and armored caps
(Proposed Plan, p. 64). The Proposed Plan states that areas assigned to dredge/cap will be backfilled to
existing grade with a beach mix cover (p. 35). The beach mix cover provides valuable fish habit. Because
parts of the river are erosional, measures should be required to ensure that it will stay in place. Please
explain design considerations to account for and counter any erosional forces on beach mix backfill.
38. Administrative Efficiencies
The City encourages EPA to incorporate an efficient process into the ROD for making anticipated
adjustments to the remedy that will help implement remedial design. This will allow reasonably
foreseeable adjustments to be made to the general, Site-wide remedy concept presented in the ROD
without delaying cleanup to complete EPAs administrative processes to prepare Explanations of
Significant Differences or ROD amendments. If EPA anticipates that such administrative processes are
likely to be needed, it should clearly explain this and include these processes in the overall remedy
timelines that are presented to the public.
39. Consideration of Critical Site Factors that Limit Implementation
In applying their decision process to select technology assignments at various locations, it appears as
though EPA did not consider location-specific factors that would limit the implementation of a selected
remedy. The presence of over-steepened slopes, public utilities, piling fields, and other factors all impact
the feasibility, cost, and duration of a selected remedy at a localized scale, and need to be considered in
the technology assignments.
The City requests that factors specific to localized cleanup areas be considered in technology
assignments, and flexibility be granted for adjustments due to these factors if needed.
40. Attainability of Preliminary Remediation Goals
Portland Harbor is located at the bottom of the 11,500 square mile Willamette River watershed. Point
and non-point sources throughout the watershed contribute to low level contamination entering
Portland Harbor. The cleanup is designed to address contamination currently within the Site. However,
the river will continue to bring low levels of contamination into Portland Harbor, and some of these
contaminants may hinder the ability to meet the preliminary remediation goals (PRGs) for water, tissue,
and sediment. An example of upstream contamination is demonstrated by the presence of a fish
advisory due to mercury upstream of Portland Harbor in the Willamette River27.
Consideration of background is important because PRGs need to be attainable, and some of the riskbased PRG concentrations are less than the naturally occurring or anthropogenic background
concentrations, meaning that PRGs may not be attained. If remediation goals are not reached, the
cleanup and associated monitoring could continue in perpetuity.

27

http://www.oregon.gov/oha/news/Pages/OHA%20issues%20statewide%20advisory%20recommending%20limit
ed%20bass%20consumption.aspx

25

For these reasons, it is common at cleanup Sites to require parties to achieve background
concentrations as the remedial goal when there are known upstream sources. EPA makes this statement
in the Feasibility Study (page ES-5) If background concentrations are higher than the risk-based PRG,
EPA defaults to background concentration, as a matter of policy.
However, in the case of Portland Harbor, EPA has not used upstream background concentrations to set
achievable remediation goals for surface water or tissue, and has not used background concentrations
that appropriately characterize chemicals coming into the Site for sediment PRGs.
The Proposed Plan confirms that on a Site-wide scale, none of the alternatives achieve surface water
PRGs for PCBs and 2,3,7,8-TCDD eq. (p. 61). This confirms the need to use background surface water
concentrations for PRGs. The Proposed Plan states that there are insufficient data from which to
compute defensible background concentrations in surface water, but one of the objectives of the Round
3A sampling effort was to collect data to support the FS evaluation of remedial alternatives, including
monitored natural recovery, potential recontamination of sediment from surface water, and background
conditions. Previously, the LWG calculated background values for surface water, and presented those in
Section 7 of the Draft Final RI Report28.
While the Feasibility Study does calculate some background sediment concentrations, which are
incorporated into remediation goals where appropriate, background sediment concentrations were not
calculated based on data collected immediately upstream of the Site, but rather, three miles upstream,
at RM 15. Background sediment concentrations were also calculated for a limited number of chemicals.
Parties involved in the cleanup need to have a reasonable understanding of the contaminant
concentrations entering the Site from upstream. Ignoring upstream issues, such as mercury, could make
meeting remediation goals impossible and make MNR less effective, whereas incorporating existing
background data into PRG development provides an accurate, attainable, and measurable path towards
Site closure. The City wants an effective cleanup that can be realistically measured against actual
upstream conditions.
The City requests that EPA use the surface water data collected at RM11W and RM16 (minus outliers)
to calculate and provide background concentrations for surface water, and adjust PRGs accordingly, in
accordance with EPA policy. In addition, achievable tissue PRGs should be modeled from background
sediment values when the risk-based tissue PRG requires a sediment concentration below
background. Finally, we request that baseline monitoring establish new background concentrations
for sediment that represent the remedies currently being implemented in the downtown reach (e.g.
data collected from around RM 12), and that remedial goals be adjusted to result in an implementable
remedy.
41. Disposal issues
The Proposed Plan states that all principle threat waste (PTW) is assumed to be disposed at a Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Subtitle C disposal facility. Subtitle C disposal facilities are
28

Integral Consulting, Inc., Windward Environmental LLC, Kennedy/Jenks Consultants, and Anchor QEA LLC. 2011.
Portland Harbor RI/FS Remedial Investigation Report, Draft Final. Prepared for the Lower Willamette Group,
Portland, OR. Integral Consulting Inc., Mercer Island, WA; Windward LLC, Seattle, WA; Anchor QEA, LLC; Seattle,
WA, Kennedy/Jenks Consultants, Portland , OR. August 29, 2011.

26

designed for RCRA hazardous waste and other high concentration wastes. Subtitle D disposal facilities
are designed for lower concentration wastes. The costs for disposal are greater in a Subtitle C disposal
facility than a Subtitle D disposal facility. Ex-situ treatment should reduce the toxicity, mobility, or
volume of the PTW, precluding the need for disposal at a Subtitle C facility. Please incorporate flexibility
on disposal issues that can be more appropriately defined during remedial design.
42. Flexibility
The Portland Harbor Superfund Site is large and complex. While substantial, the existing information we
have on the Site is dated. EPA needs to incorporate flexibility into its decisions on remedy selection,
remedy design, and remedy construction, to consider the new data that will be collected during
design. With flexibility, EPA will be able to make better decisions as new information is gathered during
the remedial design phase of the project.

27

ACKNOWLEDGING UNCERTAINTY
Uncertainty in the results of an RI/FS exist at every cleanup Site because it is impossible to obtain
perfect data, and scientific models used to study the Site cannot account for every piece of information
that may or may not be available. Therefore, uncertainty is accepted as inherent in the cleanup process,
and remedies are based on a risk management approach that considers the uncertainties about the Site.
Risk management decisions are meant to determine how to manage risk in a way best suited to protect
human health and the environment. In the case of Portland Harbor, the uncertainty is significant
because of the large scale of the project, the dynamic nature of the physical system and inherent
unknowns in characterizing a river environment. The City acknowledges the challenges EPA is facing in
developing a cleanup Plan in the face of this uncertainty. Listed below are comments and observations
we made during our review of the Plan as they relate to uncertainty and risk management decisions by
EPA.
43. Human Health Risk Models
The human health risk assessment was based on estimates of peoples exposures to contaminants in the
water, sediment, and fish, as well as estimates about the toxicity of those contaminants. While the
estimates are based on scientific information and methods, they still create uncertainties in the risk
assessment results. It is important to acknowledge the uncertainties of the risk assessment process, as
the results provide the underpinnings for the entire cleanup. The City would like to emphasize that a
risk-based cleanup goal is an estimate of a protective concentration, and that protectiveness may be
better represented by a range of values to capture some of this uncertainty. This is acknowledged in
EPAs directive on risk management29, which specifies a range within which EPA tries to manage risk.
The City recognizes that EPA applied risk management principals in considering the uncertainties
behind the risk assessment models, and requests flexibility in remedy selection that continues to
acknowledge those uncertainties as they are better understood.
44. Attainability of PRGs
As discussed previously, it is important to set achievable cleanup goals so that there are definitive end
points to the cleanup process. Given the lines of evidence approach to EPAs assessment of natural
recovery effectiveness, the City feels there is uncertainty in the period of attainability of PRGs through
MNR. The City requests additional information about EPAs planned monitoring program and how
those results will be used in assessing the success of MNR.
45. Spatial Scale Application of PRGs
Human health risk assessments are performed based on exposure areas that are sized according to the
population and scenario being evaluated. For example, to evaluate risks to a person eating smallmouth
bass caught while fishing at one location, the Portland Harbor risk assessment looked at tissue collected
within a one-mile stretch of river surrounding that location, because smallmouth bass generally do not
swim outside of a one mile area. To evaluate risks from fish that swim longer distances, such as carp, the
risk assessment looked at data that spans a larger area. Alternatively, assessing risk for and area and
29

EPA 1991. Role of the Baseline Risk Assessment in Superfund Remedy Selection Decisions, Office of Solid Water
and Emergency Response, Washington, 1991, OSWER Directive 9355.0-30.

28

location that does not match its use will yield inaccurate results. The same concept applies in the
application of risk-based PRGs. EPA applied many of the PRGs to locations and at spatial scales that are
inconsistent with the exposure scenarios for which they were developed, and regardless of whether
there was unacceptable risk for a given location. Please identify and explain the uncertainties of
remedy selection that result from this approach.
46. Discrepancies Between Residual Risk Calculations and Baseline Risk Calculations
Baseline risk assessments were performed in the RI, and used in the development of PRGs. As part of
the FS, EPA calculated residual risk concentrations based on predicted conditions in the river after
completion of each alternative remedy. The residual risk calculations were inconsistent with the
methods used in the baseline risk assessment, particularly in regards to size of exposure areas. Please
address the uncertainties involved in using a residual risk assessment to measure remedy
effectiveness that is based on methods that differ than those used in the baseline risk assessment.
47. Construction Project Duration
The City believes that the time duration of the active Portland Harbor cleanup (i.e., sediment dredging
and capping and river bank excavation and restoration) described in EPAs Proposed Plan is likely
underestimated. For example, using a dredging schedule that consists of 24-hours, 7-days a week
dredging, and the time considered for staging and mobilization/demobilization of a barge are both
optimistic. Please comment on the uncertainties related project construction duration and schedule.

29

Conclusions and Recommendations

The City appreciates the substantial efforts made by EPA to develop the Plan, and we share EPAs desire
to publish a ROD by the end of 2016. The City recognizes that there is a diversity of interests and
opinions regarding the cleanup plan, and all stakeholders objectives cannot be satisfied. Alternative I
strikes a balance of active remediation in highly contaminated areas, natural recovery in suitable areas
with less contamination, institutional controls to limit adverse exposure to contaminants, and long-term
monitoring of the system to evaluate the effectiveness of the remedial actions.
The City has heard many opinions from its constituents all of which are valid perspectives. On balance,
we believe that this Plan represents a reasonable starting point to move forward with the cleanup. What
is most important at this critical time is to get the cleanup started at the areas of highest exposure (high
use public fishing areas) and the most contaminated areas. These first steps include collecting new data
to define current conditions to finalize contamination footprints and designs. During and after remedy
implementation, the City supports routine monitoring to measure the impacts of the hot spot cleanups
on other areas of the Site. Finally we recognize there may be a need for additional active remediation in
the future if the system does not respond favorably, or if recontamination occurs.

30