CERCLA‐linked environmental impact and benefit analysis: Evaluating remedial alternatives for the Portland Harbor Superfund Site, Portland, Oregon, USA

Abstract

This analysis focused on evaluating the environmental consequences of remediation, providing indicators for the environmental quality pillar of 3 “pillars” of the Portland Harbor Sustainability Project (PHSP) framework (the other 2 pillars are economic viability and social equity). The project an environmental impact and benefit analysis (EIBA) and an EIBA‐based cost–benefit analysis. Metrics developed in the EIBA were used to quantify and compare remedial alternatives’ environmental benefits and impacts in the human and ecological domains, as a result of remedial actions (relative to no action). The cost–benefit results were used to evaluate whether remediation costs were proportionate or disproportionate to the environmental benefits. Alternatives B and D had the highest overall benefit scores, and Alternative F was disproportionately costly relative to its achieved benefits when compared to the other remedial alternatives. Indeed, the costlier alternatives with larger remedial footprints had lower overall EIBA benefit scores—because of substantially more air emissions, noise, and light impacts, and more disturbance to business, recreational access, and habitat during construction—compared to the less costly and smaller alternatives. Put another way, the adverse effects during construction tended to outweigh the long‐term benefits, and the net environmental impacts of the larger remedial alternatives far outweighed their small incremental improvements in risk reduction. Results of this Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA)‐linked environmental analysis were integrated with indicators of economic and social impacts of remediation in a stakeholder values–based sustainability framework. These tools (EIBA, EIBA‐based cost–benefit analysis, economic impact assessment, and the stakeholder values–based integration) provide transparent and quantitative evaluations of the benefits and impacts associated with remedial alternatives, and should be applied to complex remediation projects to aid environmental decision making. Integr Environ Assess Manag 2018;14:22–31. © 2017 The Authors. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of Society of Environmental Toxicology & Chemistry (SETAC)

Regional economic impact assessment: Evaluating remedial alternatives for the Portland Harbor Superfund Site, Portland, Oregon, USA

“…The present study illustrates a methodology for evaluating the regional economic impacts of Superfund remedial alternatives, an important consideration in evaluating alternatives at complex sediment sites with large potential costs. Regional economic impacts can be used—along with other economic, environmental, and social information—to develop a broad assessment of Superfund remediation alternatives (see Apitz et al this issue; Fitzpatrick et al this issue; McNally et al this issue; Ruffle et al this issue).…”

Application of probabilistic risk assessment: Evaluating remedial alternatives at the Portland Harbor Superfund Site, Portland, Oregon, USA

“…As a complement to the sustainability evaluation of USEPA's remedial alternatives analysis for the Site (see companion articles in this special series: Apitz et al this issue; Harrison et al this issue; McNally et al this issue), the present article describes a PRA performed to estimate the probable distributions of human health risks from consuming Portland Harbor fish under both current and postremedy conditions.…”

Tiered approach to sustainability analysis in sediment remediation decision making

“…For instance, the CERCLA process (USEPA, 1989) defines a set of threshold and balancing criteria that must be applied during the selection of a remedial alternative; indicators should thus be linked to these criteria to support regulatory decisions. Frameworks (generally Tier 2 and 3) have been developed in which a range of sustainability indicators and metrics were aggregated and linked to CERCLA decision criteria (AECOM, 2012(AECOM, , 2016McNally et al, 2018). The resulting net benefit scores were weighted by the importance assigned to criterion scores, and an incremental regulatory cost-benefit curve was generated.…”

“…Yet, explicit balancing of these tradeoffs between the three pillars (i.e., social, economic, and environmental) is not often carried out, due to lack of resources, tools, or data. In most regulatory frameworks, threshold criteria such as protection of human health and the environment (McNally, Fitzpatrick, Mirchandani, Salmon, & Edwards, 2018), are weighted more heavily than other factors. Stressors to the environment or the economy are experienced unevenly by different stakeholder groups (SGs-classes of stakeholders or organizations representing them); thus, consideration of stakeholder values and priorities must be reflective of a representative cross-section (Apitz et al, 2018).…”