Who gains from saving nature
Ledger 1 : 33 — For each dollar financing nature-based solutions in 2023, about $33 financed activities harmful to nature. (UNEP)
Cases / Chemical pollution · United States · 2016–2017

Portland Harbor Superfund cleanup plan (Willamette River, Oregon)

Nature's voice · report
No measurement of the harm done to me here is on record.
Did nature suffer? Not measured. Disputed
Not on record
  • The record does not name which of my species, waters, soils or forests were harmed.
What the record lacks: 1 not measured · 4 disputed See the gaps
Accounts of the harm differ
Is monitored natural recovery an adequate remedy for most of the harbour?
  • Communities and civil society Willamette Riverkeeper: Equated natural recovery with doing nothing. Willamette Week
  • Company or project A group of the companies that would pay for the cleanup: Praised the draft plan. Willamette Week
  • Government and regulators EPA: Chose in January 2017 a plan of active cleanup on 365 acres and natural recovery on about 1,774 acres. US EPA (archive)

In 2016 the US Environmental Protection Agency proposed dredging 150 acres of the Portland Harbor Superfund site and leaving 1,876 acres to monitored natural recovery. Its January 2017 decision chose active cleanup of 365 acres and natural recovery for about 1,774 acres.

$746 million to about $1.05 billionPlanned cost: draft plan to final decision
Figures as given in the record; one entry gives the draft cost as $750 million.

Status As of January 2017: EPA chose the final plan (365 acres active cleanup, about 1,774 acres natural recovery, about $1.05 billion); no later progress in the record.

What?
EPA moved from a draft plan (150 acres dredged, 1,876 acres natural recovery, $750 million) to a final plan (365 acres excavated and capped, about 1,774 acres natural recovery, about $1.05 billion) for the Portland Harbor Superfund site. US EPA (archive)
Where?
A 10-mile stretch of the Willamette River at Portland Harbor, Oregon. US EPA (archive)
When?
Draft plan reported 9 June 2016; final decision announced January 2017. US EPA (archive)
Who?
Gained
None on record
Lost
None on record
Harmed
None on record
Why?
Not stated in the record beyond the Superfund process; the record names eating resident fish as the greatest human risk.
How?
EPA selected excavation and capping for 365 acres and monitored natural recovery for about 1,774 acres of lower-contamination sediment. US EPA (archive)
5 of 6 questions answered from the record · open: who

What happened

The record, in order.

In June 2016 the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published a draft plan for the Portland Harbor Superfund site on the Willamette River in Oregon. It provided for dredging 150 acres and leaving 1,876 acres to monitored natural recovery, at a cost of $750 million (Willamette Week, 9 June 2016). Another record entry gives the draft figures as about 1,900 acres of natural recovery and a cost of $746 million.

A group of the companies that would pay for the cleanup praised the draft plan. Willamette Riverkeeper, a river conservation group, equated natural recovery with doing nothing (Willamette Week, 9 June 2016).

In January 2017 EPA chose a final plan for a 10-mile stretch of the Willamette River: active cleanup by excavation and capping of 365 acres, and natural recovery for about 1,774 acres of lower-contamination sediment. The cost was about $1.05 billion. Another entry gives the natural recovery area as about 1,700 acres.

The Port of Portland, described in the record as one of the responsible parties, said the cost could exceed $2 billion. The mayor supported the plan, stressing that local workers would do the work. EPA said the greatest risk to people was eating resident fish, and advised mothers and children not to eat them.

  1. 20169 June: Willamette Week reports EPA's draft plan: 150 acres dredged, 1,876 acres natural recovery, $750 million
  2. 20176 January: EPA announces its final plan: 365 acres active cleanup, about 1,774 acres natural recovery, about $1.05 billion

What was said

Claims, in the words of those who made them.

Where accounts differ

Each party's account, side by side, with its source. The record does not settle these points; it shows them.

Is monitored natural recovery an adequate remedy for most of the harbour?
Communities and civil society
Willamette Riverkeeper

Equated natural recovery with doing nothing.

Willamette Week
Company or project
A group of the companies that would pay for the cleanup

Praised the draft plan.

Willamette Week
Government and regulators
EPA

Chose in January 2017 a plan of active cleanup on 365 acres and natural recovery on about 1,774 acres.

US EPA (archive)
What will the cleanup cost?
Government and regulators
EPA

Cost of about $1.05 billion in the January 2017 decision, up from $746 million in the draft.

US EPA (archive)
Company or project
Port of Portland (described as one of the responsible parties)

The cost could exceed $2 billion.

How it looked

What was shown, beside what was recorded.

Shown

  • A draft plan to dredge 150 acres and leave 1,876 acres to monitored natural recovery, at a cost of $750 million.
    EPA, as reported by Willamette Week · Willamette Week
  • The mayor supported the plan, stressing that local workers would do the work.
    Mayor of Portland (as described in the record)

Recorded

  • EPA's final plan of January 2017 chose excavation and capping of 365 acres and monitored natural recovery for about 1,774 acres of lower-contamination sediment along a 10-mile stretch of the Willamette River, at a cost of about $1.05 billion.
    US EPA (archive)
  • The draft plan's cost was $746 million, rising to $1.05 billion in the final plan; the natural recovery area fell from about 1,900 acres to about 1,700 acres.
  • EPA said the greatest human risk was eating resident fish and advised mothers and children not to eat them.

Who gained

Money that reached nature, beside money that stayed elsewhere.

Reached nature or the ground

Not published
No figure published.

Gained elsewhere

Not totalled
Currency: USD · Window: . All figures cover the same period. * Estimate built from cited figures.

Responses on record

  • Port of Portland (2017): The cost could exceed $2 billion.

In court and with insurers

Every proceeding and every insurer decision on record.

Lawsuits and rulings

No court case on record. No court has ruled on this case.

Insurers

No insurer decision on record.

What nature saw

Outcomes measured on the ground, and nature's note.

Nature's report opens this page. Below: further outcomes measured on the ground.

Area to be cleaned actively (draft, 2016)
150 acres
EPA draft plan, as reported by Willamette Week, 9 June 2016
Area left to monitored natural recovery (draft, 2016)
1,876 acres
Another entry gives about 1,900 acres
Area to be cleaned actively (final, 2017)
365 acres
Excavation and capping; EPA, January 2017
Area left to monitored natural recovery (final, 2017)
About 1,774 acres
Lower-contamination sediment; another entry gives about 1,700 acres

What we don't know

Undisclosed, unproven, untried: recorded as data.

Nature

  • Not measured Harm to nature: The record holds no measurement of harm to nature.
  • Disputed Is monitored natural recovery an adequate remedy for most of the harbour?

Accounts

Record

  • Disputed Figures for the draft plan differ between record entries: 1,876 acres of natural recovery and $750 million in one, about 1,900 acres and $746 million in another.
  • Disputed Figures for the final plan differ: about 1,774 acres of natural recovery in one entry, about 1,700 acres in another.

Did the harm stop?

The record does not say whether the cleanup has been carried out or whether the contamination has fallen.

Who paid?

The record says the companies responsible for the contamination would pay for the cleanup; it does not give shares.

Sources

Voices on record: — Company or project✓ Government and regulators— Courts✓ Press and investigations— Communities and civil society— Researchers

Government and regulators

Press and investigations

Connected cases

Related matters, and cases linked to this one through the same organisations, with the role each played in both.
Terms used on this page

Institutions

EPA
The US Environmental Protection Agency.

Science and environment

PFOA (C8) and PFAS
PFAS are a large family of human-made chemicals that persist in the environment and the body; PFOA, also called C8, is one of them and was used to make Teflon.