Harbor Oil Superfund Site

Portland, Oregon

Record of Decision

EPA ID: ORD071803985

June 28, 2013
i

PART 1

DECLARATION OF THE RECORD OF DECISION

SITE NAME AND LOCATION

The Harbor Oil Superfund Site (Site) is located at 11535 North Force Avenue, on 

approximately four acres adjacent to Force Lake, in an industrial area of northeast 

Portland, Oregon. The Site Facility began cleaning tanker trucks in the 1950s and began 

oil recycling in 1961. In collaboration with the Oregon Department of Environmental 

Quality (DEQ) the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) placed the Harbor Oil 

Facility on the National Priorities List (NPL) in 2003.

The EPA’s Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability 

Information System (CERCLIS) Site Identification Number is ORD071803985.

STATEMENT OF BASIS AND PURPOSE

This decision document, entitled Record of Decision (ROD), presents the basis for the 

determination that no remedial action is necessary for the Harbor Oil Site. EPA is the 

lead agency at this Site, and DEQ is the support agency. This ROD has been developed 

in accordance with the requirements of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, 

Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, 42 U.S. Code (USC) §9601 et. seq. as 

amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA), and 

to the extent practicable, the National Oil and Hazardous Substance Pollution 

Contingency Plan (NCP), 40 CFR Part 300. This decision is based on the Administrative 

Record for the Harbor Oil Site.

EPA Region 10, based upon the CERCLA risk management process, has selected the noaction remedy. DEQ does not concur with this decision. DEQ has been involved with 

the Harbor Oil Site for many years, reviewing planning documents and technical 

reports, conducting inspections, and assuring consistency with Oregon regulatory 

programs. DEQ concurs that the no-action decision is consistent with the NCP and 

follows the CERCLA risk-based decision process. However, the CERCLA risk decision 

process does not require compliance with potential ARARs, such as the individual and 

cumulative acceptable risk levels as defined by the Oregon Administrative Rule (OAR 

340-122-115), when the need for action under CERCLA is not warranted. Based upon 

these regulatory differences, DEQ disagrees with EPA’s conclusion that chemicals 

present at the Site do not pose an unacceptable risk because concentrations of some 
ii

individual chemicals are above Oregon’s regulatory standards for acceptable risk. At 

this time, DEQ does not consider contamination at the Harbor Oil Site to be of the same

magnitude as other NPL sites in the region, but DEQ believes that further study is 

needed to better support remedy selection. EPA’s decision that remedial action under 

CERCLA is not warranted at the Site does not prevent DEQ from taking action 

pursuant to State law. 

No action under CERCLA is warranted for the Harbor Oil Superfund Site. EPA has 

determined that no action is necessary to protect public health, welfare, or the 

environment. This decision is based on the Administrative Record for the Site; the 

background and the basis for this decision are documented in this ROD. Further 

CERCLA response action is not warranted because investigations have shown that past 

chemical releases at the Site did not result in significant levels or areas of contamination,

and there are no significant environmental impacts to Force Lake or the surrounding 

wetlands as a result of releases from the Site. The risk assessment shows that the health 

risks for industrial workers and recreational users of Force Lake, based on reasonable 

maximum exposure for the current and reasonably anticipated future land use, are 

within the CERCLA acceptable risk range.

Only if this Site were developed with homes could it pose an unacceptable health risk 

for people. However, Harbor Oil is an industrial operation on property reserved for 

industrial land use by the City of Portland’s Comprehensive Plan. The area is

designated as Industrial Sanctuary by the City of Portland, Oregon. Anticipated future 

land use for this Site is industrial; future residential use is unlikely. In addition, the land 

surrounding the Harbor Oil Site is protected wetlands and open space. 

STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS

This no-action decision is protective of human health and the environment at this Site

based on existing information and conditions for the current and reasonably anticipated 

future land use as industrial and open space. The no-action alternative is consistent 

with the NCP and EPA’s CERCLA decision process.

iv

CONTENTS

PART 1

THE DECLARATION OF THE RECORD OF DECISION.................................... i

LIST OF FIGURES........................................................................................................................ v

LIST OF TABLES.......................................................................................................................... v

LIST OF ACRONYMS ................................................................................................................ vi

PART 2

DECISION SUMMARY

SECTION 1........................................................................................................................ 9

SECTION 2...................................................................................................................... 14

2.1 HISTORICAL LAND USE.............................................................................................14

2.2 ENFORCEMENT/COMPLIANCE HISTORY ..............................................................20

2.3 INVESTIGATION HISTORY........................................................................................21

SECTION 3...................................................................................................................... 23

SECTION 4...................................................................................................................... 24

SECTION 5...................................................................................................................... 25

5.1 CONCEPTUAL SITE MODEL......................................................................................25

5.2 PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE SITE........................................................26

5.3 DATA SELECTION AND QUALITY CONTROL.......................................................28

5.4 CHEMICALS AND CHEMICAL GROUPS..................................................................28

5.5 SUMMARY OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION.........................................................29

5.6 NATURE AND EXTENT OF CONTAMINATION......................................................40

SECTION 6...................................................................................................................... 43

6.1 CURRENT LAND USES................................................................................................43

6.2 FUTURE LAND USES...................................................................................................43

6.3 SUMMARY ....................................................................................................................44

SECTION 7...................................................................................................................... 45

7.1 BASELINE RISK ASSESSMENTS...............................................................................45

7.2 HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT ....................................................................45

7.3 ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT...........................................................................48

SECTION 8...................................................................................................................... 54
v

8.1 GUIDANCE ....................................................................................................................54

8.2 HARBOR OIL SITE-SPECIFIC FACTORS..................................................................55

8.3 DEQ DOES NOT CONCUR...........................................................................................56

8.4 TRIBAL INPUT..............................................................................................................56

8.5 COMMUNITY INPUT ...................................................................................................57

SECTION 9...................................................................................................................... 58

REFERENCES................................................................................................................ 70

PART 3

RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY....................................................................................59

FIGURES

1-1 Location Map..........................................................................10

1-2 Harbor Oil Study Area................................................................12

1-3 Current Facility Features.............................................................13

5-1 RI Soil and Lake Sediment Sampling Locations.................................32

5-2 RI Groundwater Sampling, Surface Water Sampling, and Extraction Well 

Locations.............................................................................. 33

7-1 Interpolations of Total DDTs in Soil Relative to Risks to Shrew...............53

TABLES

5-1 Summary of Chemical Concentrations in Soils and Sediments.................37

5-2 Summary of Chemical Concentrations in Groundwater and Surface Water...39

7-1 Summary of Total Excess Cancer Risks and Noncancer Health Hazard (Hazard 

Index) under Reasonable Maximum Exposure....................................47

7-2 Hazard Quotients......................................................................49
vi

ACRONYMS

AOC agreement and order on consent

ARARs applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements

ATSDR Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry

BAF bioaccumulation factors

bgs below ground surface

BSAF biota-sediment accumulation factors

CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and 

Liability Act 

CERCLIS Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and 

Liability Information System

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

cm/sec centimeters per second

COPC Contaminant of potential concern

cPAH carcinogenic polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon

CSM conceptual site model

DDD dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane

DDE dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene

DDT dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane

DEQ Oregon Department of Environmental Quality

DQO Data Quality Objective

EMRI Energy and Material Recovery Incorporated

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

ERA ecological risk assessment

°F degree Fahrenheit

FS feasibility study

HHRA human health risk assessment
vii

HI hazard index

HOCAG Harbor Oil Community Advisory Group

HPAH high molecular weight polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons

HQ hazard quotient

LNAPL light non aqueous phase liquid

LOAEL lowest observed adverse effect level

MAO Mutual Agreement and Order

MCL maximum contaminant level

mg/kg milligram per kilogram

mg/L milligram per liter

NCP National Oil and Hazardous Substances Contingency Plan

NOAEL no-observed-adverse-effect level 

NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

NPL National Priorities List

OAR Oregon Administrative Rule

PA preliminary assessment

PAH polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon

PCBs polychlorinated biphenyls

PCE perchloroethylene

RAO remedial action objectives

RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

RFO refined fuel oil

RI/FS remedial investigation/feasibility study

RME reasonable maximum exposure

ROC Receptors of concern

ROD record of decision

RSL risk-based screening level

SARA Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986
viii

SI site investigation

SVOC semi-volatile organic compound

TCE trichloroethylene

TEQ toxic equivalent

TOC Total Organic Carbon

TPH total petroleum hydrocarbon

TRV Toxicity reference value

UCL upper confidence limit

ug/kg microgram per kilogram

ug/L microgram per liter

VG Harbor Oil Volunteer Group

VOC volatile organic compound
9

PART 2

DECISION SUMMARY

SECTION 1

SITE NAME, LOCATION, AND DESCRIPTION

The Harbor Oil Site is located in an industrial area of northeast Portland, Oregon

(Figure 1-1). The Site encompasses the Harbor Oil facility (Facility), an approximately 

4.2-acre parcel of property located at 11535 North Force Avenue, as well as the adjacent 

wetlands to the south and west of the Facility and Force Lake. The Study Area, as 

defined in the remedial investigation (RI, Windward et al 2012), refers to the areas 

sampled during the RI that include the areas that make up the Site, as well as a portion 

of North Lake. Figure 1-2 shows the approximately 19-acre Study Area, where soil, 

groundwater, sediment, and surface water samples were collected during the RI.

The surrounding area was once a World War II neighborhood called Vanport City that 

was destroyed in a 1948 flood. The Facility began cleaning tanker trucks in the 1950s 

and began oil recycling in 1961. A 1979 fire destroyed the Facility and released 

pollutants into the wetlands and Force Lake. After the fire, the Facility was 

reconstructed and expanded. The reconstruction added a soil berm along the south and 

northwestern facility boundary to prevent the flow of stormwater or other pollution 

into the wetlands. 

Activities at the Facility that may have released pollutants to the environment include 

cattle truck and tanker truck cleaning operations, road oiling for dust suppression, oil 

treatment and processing activities, the 1979 Facility fire, pesticide usage at the 

stockyards and city of Vanport, and stormwater drainage patterns.
10
11

Historical and current processes conducted at the Facility involve mixing, blending, and 

refining various types of oil, off-specification fuels, and oily waters to produce refined 

fuel oil (RFO). During 2011 and 2012, Facility operations also included treatment and 

processing of used oil, oily water, and other water for separation and blending. Harbor 

Oil, Inc. ceased doing business on the property in 1999. Energy & Materials Recovery, 

Inc. (EMRI) operated the Facility until 2011. Currently, the Facility treats and processes 

used oil, fuels, and oily water and is is operated by American Recyclers LLC.

Figure 1-3 shows the Facility features as of 2009. At that time and historically, a majority 

of the property was covered in gravel. In the fall of 2011, the Facility was paved with 

asphalt except for the westernmost portion. The Facility office/shop/warehouse 

building is located on the southeast side of the Facility, near the main entrance along 

North Force Avenue. The locations of known underground utilities at the Facility, 

including underground electric, stormwater, sanitary, and fuel lines, are shown on 

Figure 1-3. 

A tank farm and used oil processing area is located along the northeast side of the 

Facility. To the northwest of the tank farm and processing area was a large steel tank 

referred to as Tank 23. Tank 23 contained oily water and sludge. The contents of Tank 

23 were removed from the Facility in 2008.

Stormwater from the Facility is collected and treated on-Site near the southwest Facility 

boundary. Treated stormwater is discharged to the wetlands at a point southwest of the 

Facility under a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Industrial 

Stormwater Discharge Permit. The stormwater treatment system includes an oil-water 

separator. Catch basins are used to collect stormwater and convey it to the stormwater 

treatment system. Figure 1-3 illustrates the location of underground piping from the 

catch basins to the stormwater treatment system. The open area to the northwest of the 

new base-oil refining plant and stormwater treatment system is used for storage of 

vehicles, equipment, and materials. 
12
13
14

SECTION 2

SITE HISTORY AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES

2.1 HISTORICAL LAND USE

The Harbor Oil Facility is located at 11535 North Force Ave, on 4.2 acres adjacent to 

Force Lake, in an industrial area of northeast Portland. The following sections describe 

the various activities on the Site throughout history. Specific figures and references can 

be found in the RI report.

1940s

Based on a 1948 aerial photograph taken after the May 1948 Vanport flood, the area that 

is now the location of the Facility was essentially undeveloped in the late 1940s. Flood

waters covered most of the western and southern parts of the property. Piles of 

unknown materials were present at the Facility along with a railroad spur that was part 

of the Peninsula Terminal Railroad switching yard. 

The 1948 flood destroyed Vanport City, Oregon, that was located to the southwest of 

Force Lake. Vanport City was originally constructed in 1942 to house workers at 

shipyards located in Portland and in Vancouver, Washington. By the end of 1943, 

nearly 40,000 people lived in Vanport City. After World War II, it provided housing for 

returning service men and their families. Records from the period indicate that 

dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT) was applied to apartments in Vanport City by 

the county to control bedbugs and cockroaches.

A 1948 aerial photograph depicted vegetated areas to the south and southwest of the 

current Facility boundary that were above Force Lake at the 1948 flood stage, providing 

an overall indication of topographic highs and lows in the area. Low areas identified in 

the 1948 photograph were subsequently filled in several stages and brought to grade

with the remainder of the Facility. According to past studies, the property was 

incrementally filled in a general east to west direction as operations expanded.

1950s

A 1956 aerial photograph indicates that the railroad spur was no longer present in the 

1950s. A portion of the current office/shop/warehouse building was present, and there

appeared to be tanker trucks and a concrete slab located in the area where a tanker 
15

truck cleaning operation was later located. This concrete slab may have been the 

“cement washing basin” observed in 1973 where cattle and tanker trucks were cleaned. 

Past studies also indicated the presence of a C-shaped area of apparent fill material that 

was located in the area where the new base-oil refining plant and current stormwater 

treatment system are located.

Records indicate that a road dust suppression business was located at the Facility. Its 

operation used asphalt blended with lignite (waste paper mill liquor). Used oil was

apparently added to thin the mixture.

The portion of the Facility that was filled to current grade (and developed with 

structures) appears to have been limited to the eastern portion of the Facility. The 

C-shaped material was placed on the lower, as of yet unfilled, portion of the property. 

1960s

Oil-recycling activities at the Facility started in 1961. Harbor Distributing (type of 

business unknown) and Industrial Cleaning Systems (truck cleaning) also operated at 

the Facility at this time. There was also documentation of a pond with oil-stained soil 

that was filled sometime before 1964. The location of the pond was not identified. 

Aerial photographs from 1964 and 1966 show that development during this period was 

restricted to the southeastern half of the Facility. The office/shop/warehouse building 

and concrete slab were present during these years. It appears that the C-shaped area 

identified previously was also present during these years, with no apparent additional 

filling, although the 1966 aerial photograph is of poor quality, making interpretation 

difficult.

1970s

Aerial photographs from the 1970s shows that key Facility features (tank farms, offices, 

truck washing stand) were consistent with current features. The Site drainage patterns 

were different in that there was a drainage ditch on the north side of the Site that ran 

along the northern perimeter and then south along the western perimeter of the Site

where it discharged in the southwest corner of the Site into wetlands. The Site was still 

being filled from east to west during this time. There were numerous complaints of oil 

being discharged to the wetlands and Force Lake in the 1970s. DEQ investigated the 

Facility numerous times and ordered it to control stormwater runoff and install an oil 

water separator. The separator was installed in 1975, and the Facility received an 

NPDES permit for the discharge from the oil-water separator.
16

The Facility operated a truck cleaning operation during this time that utilized 

trichloroethylene (TCE) for oil tanker cleaning. The TCE was in a “closed” system that 

reused the TCE via distillation. Approximately ten percent of the business was cleaning 

oil tankers, the rest was cleaning cattle trucks. Based on site history, it is likely that 

some of the DDT present at the Site originated from the cattle truck cleaning operations. 

In October 1979, a major fire destroyed the Facility. The heat of the fire reportedly 

destroyed at least five 20,000-gallon storage tanks, resulting in the release of used oils 

and lesser volumes of waste paints. These materials flowed to the west and south across 

the Facility and into the wetlands and Force Lake. The quantity of material released is 

unknown.

1980s

A 1980 aerial photograph that was taken after the 1979 fire shows the 

office/shop/warehouse building had been expanded, the tank farm and used oil 

processing area had been rebuilt, and Tank 23 had been constructed. In addition, a new 

structure had been constructed in the area where the concrete pad was located. This 

structure housed the tanker truck cleaning operation.

The Facility was re-graded and covered with gravel when the Facility was rebuilt. 

Filling and regrading work continued and brought the Facility to its present 

topographic expression. An unlined holding pond was constructed in the southwest 

corner of the Facility to serve as an oil-water separator. The far northwestern portion of 

the Facility remained undeveloped. An earthen berm was constructed around the 

northwest and southwest sides of the Facility.

Records indicate that Facility operation remained substantially the same. The Facility

processed used oils and shipped off solvents and thinners. Surface runoff was directed 

to the unlined holding pond. When the pond filled up, the water under the surface of 

floating oil was pumped off the Facility to a “swamp on the exposition center 

property.” It is likely that the swamp refers to the wetlands adjacent to the Facility or 

across Force Avenue where an exposition center was built. 

The operator of the Facility, which had been called Chempro, changed its name to 

Harbor Oil, Inc., on September 23, 1983, and merged with Harbor Oil, Inc. (a 

Washington corporation) on October 31, 1985.

By 1984, Harbor Oil had installed a new oil-water separator that initially discharged 

into the drainage ditch near the west corner of the Facility. 
17

EPA conducted a preliminary assessment (PA) of the Facility in June 1984, followed by 

a Site investigation (SI) in 1985. As part of the SI, water in the stormwater treatment 

system was sampled and found to contain TCE. EPA did not propose to list the Site

based on the 1984 PA/SI.

1990s

In August 1990, Harbor Oil installed a wastewater treatment system to comply with 

City of Portland sanitary sewer discharge requirements. Stormwater discharges were 

altered to discharge on the southern boundary of the Site into adjacent wetlands. No 

significant change in operations occurred.

In June of 1995, DEQ notified owners and operators of the Facility of the agency’s 

proposal to place the property on its “Confirmed Release List” and “Inventory List.”

EMRI took over the operation on October 1, 1999 after Harbor Oil ceased doing 

business on the property. That same year, DEQ issued NPDES Industrial Stormwater 

Discharge Permit 1200-COLS to EMRI for the stormwater treatment system.

2000 to 2010

The only major change to the Facility during this period was the construction of a new

base-oil refining plant in the northwestern portion of the Facility in 2003. The 

construction of the new plant required that soils be excavated for construction of the 

new plant. These soils are currently stockpiled northwest of the base-oil refining plant, 

near the northern corner of the property. Evidence of oil impacts was apparent during 

the excavation and stockpiling of soil during construction of the base-oil plant. As the 

soil was being excavated, zones of “clean” soil (with minor or no visual indication of 

impact), were observed interspersed with layers or lenses of soil that had dark staining 

and a petroleum odor or that appeared to be saturated with oil. These layers or lenses 

were typically approximately one inch thick by several feet in length and were not 

continuous over the area of excavation but instead were patchy and were interspersed 

with soils with no or less substantial evidence of impact. In addition, field notes related 

to soil sampling conducted as part of the construction noted the presence of an oily 

sawdust layer, as well as the presence of coal fragments and miscellaneous debris.

Wells EW-1, EW-2, and EW-3 were installed within the granular backfilled foundation 

of the new base-oil refining plant. These wells were reportedly installed within the 

existing construction-related pits for light non-aqueous phase liquid (LNAPL)

collection. The presence of more than trace levels of LNAPL has never been identified 

in wells EW-1 through EW-3, and for that reason, they have never been used. 
18

The Facility continued to receive and process up to a maximum of 7.2 million gallons of 

used oil per year used oil during this period. 

EPA completed a second Site Investigation on July 27, 2001. The Harbor Oil Site was 

placed on the National Priorities List on September 29, 2003, primarily because wetland 

soils and sediments had elevated PCB concentrations. 

In 2004, the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR 2004) issued a 

public health assessment for the Facility. The assessment made the following findings:

 Exposure to chemicals found in the drainage area and wetlands adjacent to Force 

Lake represented a complete exposure pathway. Exposure to this area was not 

anticipated to result in adverse health effects. However, the existing data for this 

area were limited in sample number and geographic location.

 The level of contamination in fish tissue and information regarding populations 

that may consume fish from Force Lake was unknown, which limited the ability 

to completely characterize the risks to human health.

 Soils, groundwater, ambient air, soil vapor, and surface water pathways from the 

Facility were considered potential exposure pathways because of the lack of data 

for these pathways.

 Based on the existing environmental data, the Superfund Health Investigation 

and Education program considered the Study Area not to be an apparent public 

health hazard.

In May 2007, EPA entered into an Administrative Order on Consent (AOC) with some 

of the potentially responsible parties to conduct a remedial investigation/feasibility 

study (RI/FS) at the Site. The potentially responsible parties, known as the Harbor Oil 

Voluntary Group (VG), had previous or ongoing business affiliations with the Facility. 

The active participants of the VG are Avista Corp., Bonneville Power Administration, 

Chevron USA Inc., North Western Corp., Portland General Electric Co., Texaco 

Downstream Properties Inc., Texaco Downstream LLC, The Montana Power Co., Union 

Oil Co. of California, and Waste Management Disposal Services of Oregon Inc. 

In mid-2007, EMRI agreed to characterize the contents of Tank 23 under a separate AOC

with EPA. On August 16, 2007, EMRI collected samples from four locations in Tank 23. 

The samples indicated that the Tank did not contain any hazardous wastes as defined 

by RCRA.

In 2008, EMRI removed oil, water, and sludge from Tank 23 and transported the tank 

contents to another facility for treatment. Some of the sludge material was taken to 
19

Coffin Buttes Landfill located near Corvallis, Oregon. EMRI then cleaned the tank. EPA 

issued a notice of completion for the work on November 13, 2008. 

On July 24, 2009, a fire occurred at the Facility. No structural damage to the tanks was 

reported, and there was no evidence of a release of oil or oily water to areas beyond the 

secondary containment of the tank farm. 

2010 to Present

On October 15, 2010, the Facility operations were transferred to American Recyclers Inc. 

American Recyclers Inc. paved all the operation areas. The stormwater system for the

Facility was updated and improved to include a higher capacity of water filtration and 

a two-foot concrete containment wall was built around the perimeter of the main basins 

to prevent incidental access by wildlife in the area. Along with the concrete 

containment, an all-weather cover was installed over the stormwater system to prevent 

incidental contamination by any foreign debris from the trees overhanging the storm 

basins. The remaining shell of Tank 23 was removed. Concrete curbing was also 

installed in the areas of refinery operations to prevent any storm runoff from potentially 

contaminating the stormwater system.

Historical Summary:

The following historical land uses and events detail environmental impacts related to 

the Facility that could have resulted in releases of hazardous substances in various areas 

of the Site:

Cattle truck and tanker truck cleaning operations: Truck cleaning operations began in 

the 1950s and continued until 1994. Some of the DDT detected at the Site and adjacent 

wetlands are presumed to come from the cattle truck cleaning operations. 

Road oiling for dust suppression: There is evidence to suggest that the Facility road 

was oiled in the early 1970s and mid-1980s. This may have contributed petroleum, 

metals, and PCBs to the surrounding soils.

Oil treatment and processing activities: Oil-recycling activities began at the Facility in 

1961. The Facility currently treats and processes used oil, oily water, and other water at 

the Facility. Random spills may have resulted in releases of petroleum, metals, and 

PCBs to the surrounding soils.

1979 Facility fire: A fire destroyed the Facility in 1979 and reportedly resulted in 

releases of petroleum, metals and PCBs to the adjacent wetlands and Force Lake. 

Stormwater drainage patterns: During early operations at the Facility, stormwater and 
20

industrial wastewater likely drained to sumps and holding ponds located along the 

southwest and western Facility boundaries. Overflows from these areas drained into the 

adjacent wetlands. In the 1970s, a drainage ditch that discharged Facility stormwater to 

the wetlands was constructed along the northeast Facility boundary. The ditch directed 

stormwater to the western wetlands. The ditch remained operational until 2002 when it 

was filled. The current stormwater treatment system collects and treats all Facility 

stormwater prior to discharge into the wetlands southwest of the Facility via an NPDES 

permit. 

2.2 ENFORCEMENT/COMPLIANCE HISTORY

EPA is the lead agency for this Site; DEQ is the support agency. The Site was placed on 

the Superfund National Priorities List on September 29, 2003, with EPA identification 

number ORD071803985.

The following summarizes the known enforcement actions taken at the Facility by EPA 

or DEQ:

In August 1988, DEQ proposed to revoke Harbor Oil’s stormwater discharge permit 

because pollutants from the tanker truck cleaning operation were entering the 

stormwater treatment system, which was not designed to treat them. 

In June 1992, a DEQ Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) inspection 

resulted in DEQ citing Harbor Oil for storage of hazardous waste without a permit, 

failure to make hazardous waste determinations, and failure to retain Land Disposal 

Restriction forms. DEQ assessed a civil penalty of $10,777 for these violations, which 

Harbor Oil paid in May 1993.

In 1995, DEQ received periodic complaints of strong, acrid odors (fugitive emissions) 

from the Facility. The odors were documented by DEQ on December 11, 1995, and 

February 14, 1996. In 1996, Harbor Oil and DEQ entered into Mutual Agreement and 

Order (MAO) No. AQP-NWR-96-206, and Harbor Oil proposed to install an offgas/steam condensation system to reduce volatile organic and halogenated organic 

emissions produced from waste oil reprocessing operations.

On November 19, 1996, DEQ sent Harbor Oil a notice of noncompliance for violations 

of Oregon’s hazardous waste and used oil management regulations. By December 1996, 

Harbor Oil had taken actions to correct the violations.

In October 2000, DEQ issued a notice of non-compliance to the Facility for: 1) storage of 

drums outside the containment pad, and 2) a gap between the wall and pad along part 
21

of the south side of the used oil processing area. 

On August 20, 2001, the City of Portland notified EMRI that it was in violation of its 

stormwater permit because it failed to collect a sufficient number of samples for the 

year July 1, 2000 through June 30, 2001.

On May 31, 2007, EPA and the VG entered into an Administrative Settlement

Agreement and Order on Consent for RI/FS (Docket No. CERCLA-10-2007-0106). The 

VG agreed to conduct the RI/FS for the Site with oversight provided by EPA Region 10. 

The EPA and VG collaborated on completing the investigations, risk assessments, and 

evaluations leading to the decision. 

On August 10, 2007, an Administrative Settlement Agreement and Order on Consent

for Tank Characterization (Docket No. CERCLA-10-2007-0181) was entered into by the 

EPA and EMRI. EMRI completed the characterization of Tank 23 in 2008, and EPA 

issued a notice of completion for the work on November 13, 2008.

On June 12, 2012, the Facility received NPDES 1200 COLS Industrial Stormwater 

Discharge Permit from the City of Portland Department of Environmental Services. The 

permit will expire after 5 years.

2.3 INVESTIGATION HISTORY

Before the Superfund investigation at the Harbor Oil Site, there were eight previous

investigations by federal, state, and private entities. EPA allowed data from only one of 

the earlier studies to be incorporated into the RI/FS because of data quality concerns. 

Data from the other seven studies were not used in the RI/FS, but they did assist in 

guiding the RI data quality objectives (DQOs) and multi-media sampling strategy. 

Between 1990 and 2007, when the Voluntary Group entered into the AOC, the following 

investigations had been conducted in the vicinity of the Study Area:

 Heron Lakes Golf Club water quality sampling conducted by the City of 

Portland 2006 (Goodling 2007)

 Soil analysis results for the 2003 excavations required for the construction of the 

EMRI base-oil refining plant (Coles Environmental Consulting 2007)

 Harbor Oil PA/SI (Ecology and Environment 2001)

 Preliminary risk assessment problem formulation (Coles Environmental 

Consulting 2002)

 Peninsula Drainage District Number 1 Natural Resources Management Plan

(PEN 1 NRMP) (City of Portland 1997)
22

 Portland Stockyards SI and preliminary remediation plan (Golder Associates 

1990)

 Black & Veatch and RZA stockyards site assessment (RZA 1990, as cited in 

Golder Associates 1990)

 Sweet-Edwards/EMCON environmental audit, field investigation, and remedial 

alternatives assessment (Sweet-Edwards/EMCON 1988, as cited in Golder 

Associates 1990)

2008 Remedial Investigation

With EPA’s oversight, the VG conducted the field investigation for the RI during 2008

and 2009. The RI encompassed a 19-acre Study Area that includes the Harbor Oil 

Facility, Force Lake, North Lake, and wetlands west and south of the Facility that drain 

to Force Lake. Soil at the Facility, including the soil stockpile and soil berm, was 

sampled at 70 locations, wetland and ditch soil at 52 locations, Force Lake sediments at 

11 locations, surface water at 3 locations, and groundwater in 16 monitoring wells. The 

collected soil, sediment, groundwater, and surface water samples were analyzed under 

a comprehensive analytical protocol to identify chemicals present at the Site, and 

ultimately the nature and extent of contamination. EPA also surveyed Force Lake in 

2009 to characterize the population, diversity, and relative sizes of the resident fish. 

Section 5 discusses the results of the Remedial Investigation.
23

SECTION 3

COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION

EPA has worked with DEQ, the Nez Perce Tribe, the Yakama Nation, City of Portland 

Environmental Services, and the Harbor Oil Community Advisory Group (HOCAG) to 

complete the RI, the risk assessment, and evaluations leading to the no-action 

alternative decision. The agencies, Native American tribal representatives, and the 

citizens group are referred to collectively as “Stakeholders.” 

Interested community members formed the HOCAG, and EPA awarded a technical 

assistance grant to the HOCAG to fund technical advisors to review technical site 

documents. The grant began in June 2007. The group has scheduled monthly meetings, 

is an active participant in the RI/FS process, has learned about the release of chemicals 

at the Site, and has shared its concerns. The HOCAG met with representatives from the 

City of Portland, DEQ, State Health Authority, and representatives of two Native 

American Indian Tribes. Meetings occurred monthly during field sampling and the 

preparation of the RI report. Subsequent meetings occurred on an as-needed basis, as 

determined by the HOCAG. EPA participated in at least a half dozen meetings by 

sharing data, providing EPA experts for discussion, and responding to concerns raised 

by the HOCAG.

The Harbor Oil Community Engagement and Public Participation Plan was updated in 

November 2012 and included specific information for reviewing final documents at the

centrally located community information repository. 

Kenton Firehouse 503-823-0215 

North Portland Neighborhood Services 

8105 N. Brandon Street

Portland, Oregon
24

SECTION 4

SCOPE AND ROLE OF RESPONSE ACTION

The Harbor Oil NPL Site is addressed by this ROD, which documents the basis for the 

determination that no CERCLA action is necessary at this Site to protect human health 

or the environment. Based on existing information and conditions, this site does not 

pose an unacceptable risk to human health and ecological receptors based on reasonable 

maximum future exposure scenario. Therefore, as shown in the following sections of 

this document, action pursuant to CERCLA is not warranted at the Harbor Oil Site. 
25

SECTION 5

SUMMARY OF SITE CHARACTERISTICS

This section summarizes information obtained through Site investigations. It includes a 

description of the conceptual site model (CSM) on which the RI, risk assessment, and 

the no-action decision are based. The major characteristics of the Harbor Oil Site and the 

nature and extent of contamination are summarized below. Information that is more 

detailed is available in the RI and the Administrative Record for the Site.

5.1 CONCEPTUAL SITE MODEL

This section discusses the CSM for the Study Area. It is a schematic representation of 

the potential contaminant sources, contaminant release/transport mechanisms, 

potential exposure media, potential exposure route, and potential receptors that affect 

the distribution of chemicals at the Study Area. A summary of the key components of 

the CSM is provided below:

 Known or suspected sources of chemicals at the Facility and in the adjacent 

wetlands that appear to be associated with historical industrial operations at the 

Facility.

 Known or suspected mechanisms for the release of chemicals to Facility soils,. 

These include discharges from the former truck cleaning operations, spillage of 

petroleum products stored or handled at the Facility, application of used oils at 

the Facility roadway for dust suppression, release of oils and other materials 

present at the Facility during the 1979 Facility fire, and the overflow or discharge 

of oily rinsate/stormwater from sumps or an unlined pond formerly located in 

the southwestern portion of the Facility.

The primary migration pathway for chemicals appears to be historical direct discharge 

and transport via stormwater runoff. Chemicals were likely bound to soil particles and 

transported in surface water runoff from the areas of spillage or discharge to low-lying 

areas historically located to the south and west. The historic low-lying areas included 

existing wetlands and Force Lake to the south of the Facility, as well as areas of the 

existing Facility that were lower in elevation at the time but subsequently filled to 
26

match the existing grade. This fill history resulted in impacts to deeper soils in certain 

areas, relative to other portions of the Facility. 

Facility physical and operational modifications such as the termination of truck 

cleaning operations, installation of a stormwater collection and treatment system, and 

the placement of a hard-packed gravel and pavement cover throughout the Facility 

have mitigated the primary migration pathway (direct discharge and stormwater 

runoff). Other potential pathways (future erosion of soils, groundwater migration, 

sediment transport, and volatilization to air) were not found to be pathways of 

significance.

Future land uses in the Study Area are not anticipated to change from those currently 

established. Consequently, there was no need to adapt the CSM for for potential 

changes in migration or exposure pathways.

5.2 PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE SITE

The physical characteristics of the Study Area, including surface features, meteorology, 

surface water hydrology, geology, hydrogeology, demography, and land use, and 

ecology are summarized below and can be found in greater detail in the RI report:

 Surface features: The land surface of the Facility is relatively flat with a slight 

slope from northeast to southwest toward the wetlands and Force Lake. A soil 

berm extends along the northwest and southwest sides of the Harbor Oil Facility

to prevent untreated runoff from entering the adjacent wetlands.

 Meteorology: The Study Area is in a temperate marine climate characterized by 

wet winters and dry summers. The average annual amount of precipitation 

(primarily as rain) is 37 inches and the average annual temperature is 54 degrees 

Fahrenheit (°F).

 Surface water hydrology: The Study Area is located within the Columbia River 

floodplain, an area with numerous wetlands and small lakes. Force Lake, the 

main water body in the Study Area, is approximately 12 acres in size with an 

average depth of 2.5 feet. Inflows and outflows from Force Lake are limited, and 

thus Force Lake acts as a settling basin. No natural watercourses flow into Force 

Lake. Suspended solids that enter the lake tend to settle to the bottom, rather 

than being transported downstream. The area surrounding the Facility, shown 

in City documents as Peninsula Drainage District No. 1, is designed to 

artificially control groundwater and surface waters to prevent flooding. Water 
27

levels within the Drainage District are maintained by pumping excess water to 

the Columbia Slough.

 Geology: One non-native (i.e., fill) lithologic layer and several native lithologic 

layers are present beneath the Facility, as observed in borings. The native 

lithologic layers are consistent with a fluvial depositional environment of 

predominantly low energy (e.g., sediments deposited in swamps or marshes). 

This is indicated by the high percentage of silts and clays in most of the soil 

samples, with occasional changes to a fluvial depositional environment of 

moderate energy (e.g., sediment deposited from river or stream flooding) as 

indicated by the fine- to medium-grained sand layers detected in some of the soil 

samples. 

 Hydrogeology: Beneath the Facility, local hydrogeology is defined by three 

distinct groundwater zones (each separated by saturated silt deposits). Depth to 

uppermost groundwater beneath the Facility (shallow saturated zone) ranges 

from less than one foot to approximately six feet below ground surface (bgs), 

depending on location and the time of year. An intermediate depth saturated 

zone (37 to 48 feet bgs), and a deep saturated zone (greater than 90 ft bgs) are

present beneath the Facility. Based on water level measurements collected during 

the RI sampling events, groundwater flow is to the southwest in the shallow 

zone, with flow towards and discharge to Force Lake. Groundwater flow is to the 

west or southwest within the intermediate zone and alternates between the 

northwest and southwest in the deep zone. Studies have also demonstrated 

correlation between fluctuations in Columbia River stage and the fluctuation in 

intermediate and deep groundwater zones, with such fluctuations likely the 

result of tidal as well as seasonal influences. Vertical gradients in the upgradient 

and central portions of the Facility are largely downward; vertical gradients in 

the southern portion of the Facility trend upward during the dry season and 

alternate between upward and downward during the wet season.

 Demography and land use: The zoning and comprehensive plan designations 

for the Study Area indicate that the current and likely future land use 

designation at the Facility is industrial, particularly given the area’s designation 

as an Industrial Sanctuary. The current and likely future land use of the wetlands 

and Force Lake is as open space, indicating that these areas will continue to be 

used for recreation and as habitat for ecological receptors. Current human uses at 

the Study Area include the daily activities of workers at the Facility, as well as 
28

recreational activities in the wetlands and Force Lake (e.g., golf ball retrieval, 

fishing). Fishing occurs at Force Lake, but it is relatively infrequent compared 

with other locations throughout the area.

 Ecology: The Study Area is located within one of the natural resource areas 

developed by the City of Portland to mitigate the cumulative effects of 

development within a large ecosystem. The Study Area provides habitat for 

numerous birds and several species of mammals.

5.3 DATA SELECTION AND QUALITY CONTROL

Historical data sets were screened against data quality objectives (DQOs); following 

screening, only one historical data set was deemed suitable for use in the RI evaluations. 

Data reduction and computational methods used to aggregate data for the RI are 

discussed in detail in the RI report.

The majority of data available for use in the RI were collected in 2008 and 2009 as part 

of two phases of RI sampling. The sampling plan for these data was designed to collect 

representative data for use in the human health risk assessment (HHRA) and the 

ecological risk assessment (ERA) based on the human health scenarios and ecological 

receptors to be assessed. In addition, the sampling plan was designed to characterize 

the nature and extent of chemical concentrations within the Study Area. Methods for

analyzing the samples collected during the two phases of the RI sampling effort were 

approved by EPA in advance of sampling. 

Data generated from the sampling was validated and any data deemed unusable during 

the validation process was not used in the RI. Based on a review of these data, no issues 

were identified that would have adversely affected the usability of the data for risk 

assessment or site characterization purposes. 

5.4 CHEMICALS AND CHEMICAL GROUPS

Chemicals and/or chemical groups occurring at the Site at measured concentrations 

that approached or exceeded EPA’s screening values (specific to both media and 

exposure type as defined in the risk assessment) were identified in the RI report. 

Chemicals were grouped based on the similarity of chemical properties and potential 

release sources. The chemicals or chemical groups summarized here are those that have 

the most significant role in the risk-based remedial decision process and are further

discussed in Section 7: 

 TPHs, PAHs, and associated VOCs: TPHs, PAHs, and associated VOCs are of 
29

interest at the Study Area based on historical and current industrial activities, 

including oil treatment and processing and tanker-cleaning operations. 

 PCBs: PCBs are of interest at the Study Area based on their known presence in 

used oils, fuels, or other petroleum hydrocarbons processed and refined at the 

Facility. 

 Metals: Metals are of interest at the Study Area based on their presence in used 

oils or fuels processed and refined at the Facility, their use in various industrial 

applications, and their potential presence as a result of truck cleaning at the 

Facility. 

 DDT: Historical records of industrial activities at the Facility did not include any 

information documenting the use or handling of DDT at the Facility. However, 

the RI sampling results showed that DDT was detected in samples collected from 

the Study Area, with distribution patterns that suggest that DDT may have been 

released from historical livestock trailer washing operations in a portion of the 

Facility. DDT found across the larger Study Area may have been released as a 

result of typical pest control applications in the area. 

 Chlorinated solvents: Though only limited detections occurred, historical tanker 

cleaning operations at the Facility used TCE.

In addition to the chemicals or chemical groups listed above, the RI report discusses all 

other chemicals detected in samples collected from the Study Area as part of the RI. 

Dioxins/furans were not analyzed or evaluated in the RI because EPA’s initial site 

inspection documented that they were not associated with activities conducted at the 

Facility. 

5.5 SUMMARY OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION

The Superfund RI studied the type and amount of contamination at the Study Area and 

the possible risks to human health or the environment. The following compound classes

were analyzed for the Harbor Oil Site:

•TPHs 

•PAHs 

•cPAHs

•SVOCs
30

•VOCs 

•PCBs

•Pesticides

•Metals

All investigation activities were conducted in accordance with the EPA-approved 

Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study Work Plan for the Harbor Oil Site (Bridgewater et al 

2008), referred to as the RI/FS Work Plan. Sample locations are shown on Figures 5-1 

(soil and sediment) and 5-2 (groundwater and surface water). Table 5-1 shows the 

chemical concentrations in soil and sediment samples. Table 5-2 shows the chemical 

concentrations in groundwater and surface water samples. The RI was conducted in 

two phases. Phase 1 sampling was conducted in April and May 2008, and Phase 2 was 

completed in March and April 2009. Sampling results are summarized below. 

Additional sampling details and related figures can be found in the RI report.

5.5.1 SOIL

Surface or subsurface soil samples were collected at 61 locations on the Facility,

including 9 soil berm and 3 soil stockpile locations, as shown on Figure 5-1, for a total of 

139 soil samples collected within the Facility boundary beneath the gravel surface that 

was paved in the summer of 2011. The soil sampling results are shown in Table 5-1. Five 

metals (arsenic, chromium, copper, mercury, and zinc) exceeded DEQ’s state 

background concentrations. These metals also exceeded screening values that were 

specific to both media and exposure type as defined in the risk assessment in the RI. 

The screening level for each metal was the lowest value of the following sources: EPA 

ecological soil screening levels (Eco-SSLs; EPA 2007) protective of soil invertebrates, 

Oak Ridge National Laboratory soil data for invertebrates (Efroymson et al. 1997), or 

DEQ soil screening level values protective of terrestrial invertebrates (DEQ 2001). 

The concentrations of most metals were highest in the soils just below the gravel. 

Arsenic, chromium, and copper were found at higher concentrations in intermediate 

soils, 5 to 7 ft bgs, in areas that were sumps or ponds that were later filled in. PCB

concentrations were highest in the driveway area of the Facility, possibly related to 

historical application of oil for dust suppression. Only three of the Facility soil samples 

had PCB concentrations above screening levels; these samples were all in the Facility 

driveway. The maximum PCB concentration in Facility soils was 32 mg/kg. The 

highest concentrations of total DDTs (14 - 78 J mg/kg) were along the southern 
31

boundary of the Facility. With the exception of one location, there were no exceedances

of VOC screening values in Facility soils. The one location was SL-10, with a TCE value 

of 2.4 mg/kg and cis-1,2-Dichloroethene of 130 mg/kg. 
32

 Figure 5-1. RI Soil and Lake Sediment Sampling Locations
33

Figure 5-2. RI Groundwater Sampling, Surface Water Sampling, and Extraction Well Locations
34

Wetland and ditch soil samples were taken at 52 surface and 10 subsurface locations, for 

a total of 72 soil samples collected. The maximum PCB concentration in wetland soils 

was 4.2 mg/kg. The maximum concentration of total DDTs was 46 mg/kg. Only eight

of 72 samples had concentrations of total DDTs greater than 2 mg/kg. Maximum 

concentrations of metals were as follows: arsenic 53 mg/kg, chromium 149 mg/kg, 

copper 162 mg/kg, mercury 0.4 mg/kg, and zinc 748 mg/kg. These wetland and ditch 

samples were collected from soils in the top 6 inches of the surface, south of the Facility

boundary in a copse of trees and along the ditch on the western and southern boundary 

of the Facility, in the historical stormwater discharge area. Overall, the soil areas that 

have higher chemical concentrations do not cover a large area and are scattered. 

Chromium concentrations were higher throughout the ditch area. The maximum 

chromium concentration in the top 6 inches was 149 mg/kg. PCBs, SVOCs, and

chlorinated VOCs were not detected at concentrations that exceeded ecological 

screening levels. Maximum PCB concentration in the top 6 inches of wetland soils was 

4.2 mg/kg. The maximum concentration of a chlorinated solvent in the top 6 inches was 

PCE at 30 mg/kg. PCE was only detected twice out of 43 samples in wetland soils.

Total petroleum hydrocarbons were detected throughout the Site. The maximum 

concentration in soils was 25,000 mg/kg. Petroleum hydrocarbons were detected in a 

LNAPL sample up to 480,000 mg/kg. The LNAPL is located in the western side of the 

Site and is very limited in extent and thickness. In 2008 it was measured at 0.1 ft thick. 

Subsequent sampling in 2009 showed the thickness as only 0.01 ft or less. 

5.5.2 SEDIMENT

Force Lake sediment samples were taken at the surface at 11 locations and at subsurface

at three locations, as shown on Figure 5-1. Surface sediment samples were also taken at 

three locations in North Lake. This resulted in a total of 14 sediment samples. 

The sediment sampling results are shown in Table 5-1. Maximum concentrations 

present in Force Lake samples were: PCBs 131 μg/kg, TPH 2,300 mg/kg, total PAHs

1,060 mg/kg, arsenic 7 mg/kg, chromium 34 mg/kg, copper 72 mg/kg, mercury

0.3mg/kg , zinc 229 mg/kg, and total DDTs 250 μg/kg. PCBs were detected in 7 of the 

11 sediment samples and total DDTs were detected in all 11 sediment samples in Force 

Lake. Samples from North Lake were all less than those detected in Force Lake. 

Concentrations detected were either lower or similar to copper and arsenic

concentrations in Force Lake, and the concentrations were within background ranges 

and EPA’s screening values that were specific to both media and exposure pathway 

used in the risk assessment in the RI report.
35

5.5.3 SURFACE WATER

Surface water samples were taken at three locations in Force Lake as shown on Figure 

5-2, and the results are shown in Table 5-2. Only arsenic and copper were detected. 

Arsenic at a maximum of 1 μg/L was detected in all three samples, but the 

concentrations were below the federal water quality standard. Copper was detected at a 

maximum of 4 μg/L in only one sample, which is above the federal water quality 

standard. 

Monthly groundwater and lake elevations were taken between May 2008 and April 

2009. Lake elevations generally fluctuated with the seasonal groundwater levels as 

described in Section 5.2.

A survey to assess the population of fish present in Force Lake was completed in April 

2009. The survey results indicated that there is a small population of carp in Force Lake 

and a stunted pumpkinseed fishery.

5.5.4 GROUNDWATER

Eight new groundwater monitoring wells were installed and sampled as shown on 

Figure 5-2. In addition, seven existing monitoring wells and the plant well were also 

sampled. The wells were installed in three zones; shallow (12.5 to 15 ft bgs), 

intermediate (48 to 49.5 ft bgs), and deep (94 to 97 ft bgs). A total of 34 groundwater 

samples were collected within the Facility boundary during two phases over two years 

(2008 and 2009). Groundwater samples were analyzed for TPH, PAHs, VOCs, SVOCs, 

metals, organochlorine pesticides, and PCBs as Aroclors. The groundwater sampling 

results are shown in Table 5-2.

Analyte concentrations were generally low and infrequently detected. TPH, PAHs, 

benzene, metals, TCE, and total DDTs were detected at levels above screening values, 

MCLs, or background that are specific to the media and exposure pathways used in the 

risk assessment in the RI. Arsenic was detected at concentrations greater than the MCL

of 10 μg/L in six wells. The maximum arsenic concentration was 32.2 μg/L. The 

average arsenic concentration was 10 μg/L in shallow groundwater. Intermediate and 

deep groundwater concentrations were all below the MCL. These results are very 

similar to arsenic concentrations that may be expected for naturally occurring 

conditions in the Willamette Basin, as described in a U.S. Geological Survey entitled 

Arsenic in Groundwater of the Willamette Basin (Hinkle and Polette 1999) and in the 

Mollala-Pudding Subbasin Total Maximum Daily Load and Water Quality Management Plan

(DEQ 2008). Maximum concentrations in these studies were 2000 μg/L and 22 μg/L 
36

respectively. These studies support the conclusion that the concentrations of arsenic at 

the Site are not atypical and are unrelated to releases at the Facility, as discussed in the 

RI report. 

Lead was detected at a maximum concentration of 19.6 μg/L , which is above the 

federal drinking water standard, in one sample in 2001. Lead was not detected in 

samples collected from the same well in 2008 or 2009, or any other well on Site. All 

other metals were below their respective MCLs. Total DDTs were detected in four 

groundwater wells at a maximum estimated concentration of 0.24 μg/L. The estimated 

maximum concentration of total DDTs was slightly above the human health screening 

level of 0.20 μg/L for 4,4’-DDT. There is no MCL for DDT.

In 2000, TCE was detected at 6.1 μg/L, which is above the federal drinking water 

standard of 5 μg/L, in a deep (97 ft bgs) well located in the northeastern corner of the 

Facility. However, since no TCE was detected in shallow or intermediate monitoring 

wells or in the same well in 2008 or 2009, it was concluded that the TCE is not related to 

the Site. A 1990 investigation of the Portland Stockyards on regional chlorinated 

impacts to groundwater showed that TCE was present at up to 20 μg/L in deep 

groundwater in the surrounding area. This study and the lack of TCE present in 

shallow or intermediate groundwater at the Site demonstrate that the TCE in deep 

groundwater is not a result of releases from Harbor Oil.

In 2008, benzene was detected in one well at a concentration of 140 μg/L, which is

above the federal drinking water standard of 5 μg/L. However, in 2009 the benzene 

concentration was again below the standard in the same well. Benzene was not detected 

in any other well above the drinking water standard. 

During the 2008 sampling, a thin layer (about 1-inch thick) of floating petroleum 

product was found in one well. After more sampling and water level measurements, 

the floating product was less than one-quarter inch thick. Floating petroleum product 

was not identified in any other monitoring wells, or in any of the soil borings, 

indicating the single detection is very isolated. Based on water quality results, this

isolated floating petroleum product is not impacting groundwater. 

Aquifer slug testing was conducted in nine monitoring well locations. From the 2008 

slug test results, hydraulic conductivities ranged from 3.18 x 10-5 centimeter per second

(cm/sec) to 1.34 x 10-3 cm/sec within the Study Area and additional analyses of the 

results yielded an average hydraulic conductivity of approximately 4.37 x 10-4 cm/sec 

(1.24 ft/day) for the shallow groundwater. For the intermediate groundwater zone, 
37

hydraulic conductivities of 4.55 x 10-5 cm/sec and 3.30 x10-3 cm/sec were calculated 

for the Study Area yielding an average hydraulic conductivity of approximately 1.57 x 

10-3 cm/sec (4.44 ft/day). The deep zone yielded a hydraulic conductivity of 4.87 x 10-5 

cm/sec (0.138 ft/day).

Table 5-1. Summary of chemical concentrations in soils and sediments

Chemical Unit

Concentration or TEQ Range

(Mean Concentration or TEQ) Area(s) with Highest 

Facility Soil Wetland Soil Force Lake Sediment Detected Concentrations

TPH – gasoline range mg/kg 5.6 U – 3,800 (260)

DF = 62%

9.4 U – 58 U (nc)

DF = 4%

7.7 U – 80 U (nc)

DF = 9%

central part of facility near 

former tanker truck cleaning 

TPH – diesel range mg/kg 8.0 – 13,000 (1,700)

DF = 100%

7.4 U – 4,000 (400)

DF = 90%

16 – 270 (98)

DF = 100%

central part of Facility near 

former tanker truck cleaning 

and along nearby southwest

Facility boundary TPH – motor oil range mg/kg 38 – 12,000 (2,200)

DF = 100%

15 U – 6,600 (1,200)

DF = 94%

130 – 2,000 (760)

DF = 100%

Total TPH mg/kg 46 – 25,000 (4,100)

DF = 100%

15 U – 9,300 (1,500)

DF = 94%

150 – 2,300 (840)

DF = 100%

cPAH TEQ μg/kg 14.0 – 4,900 (565)

DF = 93%

38.0 – 5,200 (438)

DF = 96%

11.6 – 118 (61.9)

DF = 100%

central part of Facility near 

tanker truck cleaning and 

tank farm, and in one sample 

collected from soil berm in 

the west corner of Facility

Total PAHs μg/kg 36 J – 360,000 (13,000)

DF = 98%

200 J – 28,190 J (3,000)

DF = 98%

104 – 1,060 (560)

DF = 100%

Benzene μg/kg 1.0 U – 6,400 (140)

DF = 38%

1.6 U – 56 (6)

DF = 51%

1.1 U – 8.2 U (nc)

DF = 0%

central part of Facility near 

tank farm

Total PCBs μg/kg 4.9 J – 32,000 (2,000)

DF = 80%

32 U – 4,200 (400)

DF = 62%

32 U – 131 (80)

DF = 64%

east corner of Facility near 

entrance, central part of 

Facility near tanker truck 

cleaning, along U-shaped 

roadway extends from Facility

entrance around truck 

cleaning area

Arsenic mg/kg

0.7 – 20.6 J (3)

DF = 100%

1.5 – 53.1 (9)

DF = 100%

2.6 – 7 (6)

DF = 100%

west corner of Facility, area 

of former unlined holding 

pond/C-shaped area, and 

former drainage ditch to west 

of Facility

Chromium mg/kg 4.0 – 63 (20)

DF = 100%

6.6 – 149 (30)

DF = 100%

7.7 – 34 (30)

DF = 100%

west corner of Facility and 

former drainage ditch to west 

of Facility

Copper mg/kg 9.23 – 1,070 (100)

DF = 100%

10.3 – 162 (60)

DF = 100%

16.2 – 72 (53)

DF = 100%

west corner of Facility and 

area of former unlined 

holding pond/C-shaped area

Mercury mg/kg 0.03 – 6.69 (0.2)

DF = 45%

0.06 – 0.4 (0.2)

DF = 90%

0.06 U – 0.3 U (nc)

DF = 9%

area of former unlined 

holding pond/C-shaped area
38

Table 5-1. Summary of chemical concentrations in soils and sediments

Chemical Unit

Concentration or TEQ Range

(Mean Concentration or TEQ) Area(s) with Highest 

Facility Soil Wetland Soil Force Lake Sediment Detected Concentrations

Zinc mg/kg 35 – 718 J (200)

DF = 100%

37 – 748 (230)

DF = 100%

80 – 229 (200)

DF = 100%

west corner of Facility, area 

of former unlined holding 

pond/C-shaped area, former 

drainage ditch west of 

Facility, and area near current 

and former stormwater 

treatment system discharge 

points near southwest corner 

of Facility

Total DDTs

1

μg/kg 0.6 U – 78,000 J (8,000)

DF = 95%

2.7 J – 46,000 (3,000)

DF = 98%

22 J – 250 (160)

DF = 100%

central part of Facility near 

former truck cleaning, in the 

C-shaped area west of the 

former truck cleaning, along 

southwest Facility boundary 

TCE μg/kg 1.0 U – 2,400 (66)

DF = 11%

1.5 U – 15 U (nc)

DF = 5%

1.1 U – 8.2 U (nc)

DF = 0%

central part of Facility near 

former truck cleaning 

DF: detection frequency, J: estimated concentration, U: not detected (concentration shown is reporting limit), nc: not calculated, 

mg/kg: milligram per kilogram (parts per million), μg/kg: micrograms per kilogram (parts per billion (μg), TEQ: Toxic Equivalent

1

Total DDTs are the sum of all DDT related compounds (p,p'-DDT, o,p'-DDT, DDE, and DDD) in a sample
39

Table 5-2. Summary of chemical concentrations in groundwater and surface water 

Chemical

Water Concentration or TEQ Range (Mean Concentration or TEQ)

Area(s) with Highest Detected 

Unit Groundwater (Shallow) Concentrations

Groundwater 

(Intermediate and Deep)

Force 

Lake 

Surface 

Water MCL

TPH – gasoline range mg/L 0.25 U – 0.81 (0.22)

DF = 23%

0.25 U (nc)

DF = 0%

not 

analyzed

NA near tank farm and former C-shaped area

TPH – diesel range mg/L 0.25 U – 0.26 J (nc)

DF = 0%

0.25 U (nc)

DF = 0%

0.25 U 

(nc)

DF = 0%

NA

detected in only one groundwater 

sample from well A-18 near former Cshaped area

TPH – motor oil range mg/L 0.5 U (nc)

DF = 0%

0.50 U (nc)

DF = 0%

0.50 U 

(nc)

DF = 0%

NA

not detected

Total TPH mg/L 0.27 – 1.07 J (0.33)

DF = 23%

0.50 U (nc)

DF = 0%

0.50 U 

(nc)

DF = 0%

NA

near tank farm and former C-shaped area

cPAH TEQ μg/L 0.0910 U – 1.50 U (nc)

DF = 0%

0.0910 U – 1.40 U (nc)

DF = 0%

0.0910 U 

(nc)

DF = 0%

NA

not detected

Total PAHs μg/L 0.10 – 6.3 (1)

DF = 43%

0.10 U – 3.8 U (nc)

DF = 0%

0.10 U 

(nc)

DF = 0%

NA

near Facility exit and in area of base oil 

refining plant

Benzene μg/L 0.20 U – 140 (6)

DF = 29%

1.0 U (nc)

DF = 0%

1.0 U 

(nc)

DF = 0%

5

near tank farm, only one sample was 

above the MCL

Total PCBs μg/L 0.10 U – 0.96 U (nc)

DF = 0%

0.10 U – 0.92 U (nc)

DF = 0%

0.10 U 

(nc)

DF = 0%

NA

not detected

Arsenic μg/L 0.8 – 32.2 (10)

DF = 100%

0.2 U – 6.3 (3.4)

DF = 80%

0.9 – 1.0 

(1)

DF = 

100%

10

near tank farm

Chromium μg/L 5 U (nc)

DF = 0%

5 U (nc)

DF = 0%

5 U (nc)

DF = 0%

100 not detected

Copper μg/L 2 U – 5 (nc)

DF = 0%

2 U (nc)

DF = 0%

2 U – 4 

(nc)

DF = 

33%

1300

low variability in concentrations

Mercury μg/L 0.1 U (nc)

DF = 9%

0.1 U (nc)

DF = 0%

0.1 U 

(nc)

DF = 0%

2

not detected

Zinc μg/L 10 U – 80 (nc)

DF = 9%

10 U – 9,870 (nc)

DF = 20%

10 U (nc)

DF = 0%

NA plant well (PW-01), located in east corner 

of Facility

Total DDTs1μg/L 0.0071 J – 0.24 J (0.030)

DF = 43%

0.01 U – 0.048 (0.015)

DF = 50%

0.010 U 

(nc)

DF = 0%

NA

detected in shallow groundwater 

samples in some areas where 

concentrations of total DDTs in soil 

samples were highest (exit driveway, 

along southwest boundary of Facility)

TCE μg/L 0.20 U – 1.0 U (nc)

DF = 0%

1.0 U – 6.1 (nc)

DF = 17%

1.0 U 

(nc)

DF = 0%

5

detected only in plant well (PW-01) in 

east corner of Facility

a

DF: detection frequency, J: estimated concentration, U: not detected (concentration shown is reporting limit), nc: not calculated, mg/L: parts per 

million (mg/L), μg/L: parts per billion (μg/Kg), NA: Not Available, TEQ: Toxic Equivalent.

1 Total DDTs are the sum of all DDT related compounds (p,p'-DDT, o,p'-DDT, DDE, and DDD) in a sample
40

5.6 NATURE AND EXTENT OF CONTAMINATION

Summarized below are the key findings regarding the nature and extent of 

contamination. Additional details can be found by medium and by chemical or 

chemical group in the summary tables provided in Section 7.2 of the RI report. 

Chemical concentrations in soils were generally highest at the Facility, with the 

exception of selected metals, where the highest concentrations were measured in the 

wetlands near the west corner of the Facility. All soil samples were collected beneath a 

gravel layer of approximately one foot. The Site has since been paved with asphalt. 

The highest concentrations of chemicals detected on-Site were located in seven specific 

areas: in the central portion of the Facility; near the tank farm along the northeast 

Facility boundary; along the southwest Facility boundary; near the Facility entrance 

(east corner of the Facility); along the Facility roadway; in the area of the former unlined 

holding pond/C-shaped area; or in the west corner of the Facility. The locations with 

the highest chemical concentrations (which were usually greater than screening levels) 

varied by chemical: 

 The highest cPAH TEQs in soils were detected in the central portion of the 

Facility (near the tank farm and former truck-cleaning operation) and in one 

sample from the soil berm in the west corner of the Facility. 

 TPH concentrations in soils were highest near the former truck-cleaning 

operation and along the southwest boundary of the Facility. 

 The highest total PCB concentrations in soils were detected near the Facility 

entrance, in the central portion of the Facility, and along the Facility roadway.

 The highest concentrations of total DDTs in soils were detected in the central 

portion of the Facility, in the former C-shaped area where the unlined holding 

pond was located, and along the southwest boundary of the Facility and 

wetlands, where historical ponds and sumps that received drainage from the 

truck wash were located. 

 The highest concentrations of arsenic (and other metals) in soils were detected in 

the west corner of the Facility, near the C-shaped area where the unlined holding 

pond was located, and in the former drainage ditch.

In most cases, concentrations were highest in surface soil samples (both at the Facility 

and in the wetlands), except in areas where historical holding ponds or sumps were 

known to have been located. In these areas, concentrations were sometimes highest in 
41

intermediate soil samples but lower in deep soil samples, indicating that the extent of 

the highest concentrations was limited. 

Patterns of chemical concentrations in the wetlands are consistent with former drainage 

patterns at the Facility, as well as the location of historical sumps and holding ponds 

that were along the southwest Facility boundary (which may have extended into what 

is now considered the wetlands). Metals, PCBs, and total DDTs were all elevated in the 

wetlands adjacent to the Facility’s western and southern boundaries. However, the 

areal extent is not significant enough to have impacts to receptor populations. 

In general, detected concentrations of chemicals were limited to shallow groundwater, 

with detected concentrations low relative to human health screening levels or MCLs,

and of limited lateral extent. No plumes were discernible from the data. Detections of 

metals, dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane (DDD), six VOCs, and one SVOC in 

intermediate or deep well samples were attributable to non-Facility-related sources 

because detections were located upgradient of Facility operations or, with regard to 

DDD, to a possible well seal breach or drilling-induced drag-down of impacted soil into 

the screen interval at the MW-2i/B-4 well cluster location as discussed in the RI.

A thin layer (0.1 ft) of light non-aqueous phase liquid (LNAPL) was collected from

monitoring well GA-30 in 2008; only trace thicknesses (0.01 to 0.02 ft) have been 

observed in this well during follow-up monitoring. Trace thicknesses of LNAPL (0.01 ft

or less) have been observed in two of the precautionary (i.e., never used) extraction 

wells. The LNAPL appears to be the result of a petroleum spill. The maximum PCB 

concentration in the LNAPL was 26 mg/kg. No LNAPL has been observed in wells 

located along the downgradient boundary of the Facility. No LNAPL was observed in 

adjacent soil borings to GA-30. The LNAPL is very limited in extent, and downgradient

monitoring wells do not show elevated concentrations of SVOCs, VOCs, TPH, PAHs, 

metals, pesticides, or PCBs.

Chemical concentrations in Force Lake sediment and surface water were low relative to 

concentrations in Facility or wetland soils and were mostly lower than screening levels 

or, for metals, background concentrations. No lateral concentration gradients were 

apparent in lake sediments. Concentrations in Force Lake surface sediment were higher 

than those in Force Lake subsurface sediment. PCBs, total DDTs, and copper were the 

primary risk drivers for ecological receptors. There were no exceedances of ambient 

water quality criteria, with the exception of one copper exceedance.

With the exception of metals, chemical concentrations in North Lake sediment were 
42

usually lower than those in Force Lake sediment. Concentrations of metals in North 

Lake sediment were generally similar to those in Force Lake and to Oregon background 

concentrations. These results indicate that there is minimal transport of chemicals from 

Force Lake.
43

SECTION 6

CURRENT AND POTENTIAL FUTURE LAND AND RESOURCE 

USES

This section discusses the current and reasonably anticipated future land, groundwater,

and surface water uses at the Site. This information forms the basis for reasonable 

exposure assessment assumptions and risk characterization conclusions.

6.1 CURRENT LAND USES

The Site is currently occupied by an industrial Facility that processes petroleum 

products, petroleum waste, and petroleum-impacted wastewater. Similar operations 

have occupied the Site since 1961. The Facility and properties to the northwest, 

northeast, and southeast are zoned IG2, Industrial General 2. Property to the southwest 

is zoned OS, Open Space.

The City of Portland Quarter Section Zoning Maps 1827 and 1927 indicate that the 

Study Area is located within the PEN 1 NRMP area, and the Facility is zoned as IG2dh, 

as are the properties immediately to the northwest, northeast, and southeast. The “d” 

indicates that the Study Area is located in a Design Overlay Zone, which promotes 

conservation, enhancement, and continued vitality of areas of the City with special 

scenic, architectural, or cultural values. The “h” indicates the the Study Area is located 

in the Aircraft Landing Overlay Zone for the Portland International Airport. The 

property to the Southwest (wetlands) has a specific zoning of OShp. The “p” is 

reflective of an Environmental Overlay Zone, which limits new development to only 

“rare and unusual circumstances.”

Surrounding properties are used for a convention center, bulk transportation Facility,

and golf course. There are no residential areas adjacent to or near the property. 

6.2 FUTURE LAND USES 

The 2010 City of Portland Comprehensive Plan designates the Facility and surrounding 

properties as an Industrial Sanctuary. This designation is intended for areas where City 

policy is to reserve land for existing and future industrial development. Non-industrial 

uses are limited to prevent land use conflicts and to preserve land for industry. 

6.3 SUMMARY
44

The current and likely future land use of the Facility is industrial, as identified by the 

Industrial Sanctuary designation. The current and likely future land-use designation of 

the wetlands and Force and North Lakes are open space, indicating that these areas will 

continue to be used for recreation and as habitat. If the land-use designation were to 

change, additional analyses would be needed. Future residential land use is highly 

unlikely at the Site based on current and expected future land-use designations by the 

City of Portland. In addition, the NCP states, “the assumption of future residential land 

use may not be justifiable if the probability that the Site will support residential use in 

the future is small.”
45

SECTION 7

SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS

A baseline HHRA and ERA were performed to evaluate the potential for adverse 

human health and environmental effects to occur from exposure to site-related 

contaminants. Current and future risks were estimated under the assumption that no 

remediation or institutional controls were applied. The conclusions from the HHRA 

and ERA provide the basis for the no-action remedy. This section summarizes the 

results of the HHRA and ERA.

7.1 BASELINE RISK ASSESSMENTS

The baseline HHRA and ERA were summarized in Section 6.0 and presented in 

Appendices I and J, respectively, of the RI report.

7.2 HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT

The baseline HHRA presented human health risk estimates associated with potential 

exposures to chemicals in soil, wetland and lake sediment, surface water, groundwater, 

and fish caught in Force Lake. The exposure scenarios and assumptions assessed in the 

HHRA are based on current and reasonably anticipated future land use at the Site, and 

represent estimates of the reasonable maximum exposure. As a result, actual risks are 

unlikely to be underestimated. The following scenarios were evaluated in the HHRA:

 Industrial (construction/trenching) worker under reasonable maximum 

exposure (RME) scenario: evaluated risks to current and future workers exposed 

(ingestion, inhalation, and dermal) to contaminants in soil and groundwater 

during construction or excavation work conducted outdoors on the Facility

property.

 Future outdoor worker RME scenario: evaluated risks to future outdoor 

workers exposed (ingestion, inhalation, and dermal) to contaminants in soil in 

the event that different operations or activities are conducted at the Facility 

and/or that the gravel fill material and pavement that currently covers most of 

the Facility are removed.

 Industrial/commercial worker vapor intrusion scenario: evaluated risks to 

current and future workers exposed to contaminants in vapor (inhalation), while 
46

performing routine activities inside buildings on the Facility.

 Force Lake recreational user RME scenario: evaluated risks to current and 

future recreational users exposed (ingestion and dermal) to contaminants in 

wetland soil, lake sediment, and lake surface water during recreation-associated 

activities at Force Lake and in the surrounding wetlands, including bird 

watching, remote-control boating, golf ball retrieval, or fishing.

 Force Lake fish consumer RME scenario: evaluated risks to current and future 

fish consumers exposed (ingestion) to contaminants in fish caught in Force Lake.

Calculations performed in the HHRA assumed three different consumption rates 

(1.88 g/day or three (8-ounce) meals per year, 3.75 g/day or 6 meals per year, 

and 17.5 g/day or 28 meals per year). To sustain the consumption rate of 3.75 

g/day of fish for six adults would require five to ten times the number of fish 

observed during the 2009 Force Lake survey to be present in Force Lake. This 

information indicates that Force Lake could not support a significant and 

sustained level of fishing.

Table 7-1 summarizes the total excess cancer risk and noncancer health hazard 

expressed as hazard index (HI) for each of the scenarios evaluated under the RME 

scenario in the HHRA. When applicable, these risk estimates are the combined risks 

across the relevant exposure media. All excess cancer risk estimates were within or less 

than EPA’s acceptable cancer risk range of 10-6to 10-4. The overall HI (i.e., sum of 

noncancer hazard quotients [HQs]) was less than or equal to EPA’s threshold of unity 

(1) for all scenarios except the Force Lake fish consumer scenario. However, when target 

organ/effect HIs (e.g., developmental or nervous system endpoints) were calculated for 

this scenario, no target organ/effect HIs were greater than 1 because the effects of the 

various contaminants are not the same and the mechanisms of the effects are dissimilar. 

Consequently, application of the HI equation to a number of compounds that are not 

expected to induce the same type of effects or that do not act by the same mechanism 

could overestimate the potential for effects. Thus, the HI of three for the Force Lake fish 

consumer scenario likely overestimates the noncancer hazard.
47

Table 7-1. Summary of Total Excess Cancer Risks and 

Noncancer Health Hazard (Hazard Index) under Reasonable 

Maximum Exposure 

Scenario Name

Total Excess 

Cancer Risk Hazard Index

Industrial (construction/trenching) worker 

(cumulative risk across media) 3 × 10-6 1

Future outdoor worker 2 × 10-5 0.6

Industrial/commercial worker vapor intrusion 9 × 10-7

Not evaluated due to 

very limited to no 

VOCs in 

groundwater or soil

Force Lake recreational user (cumulative risk 

across media) 1 × 10-5

0.4

Force Lake fish consumer RME scenario 2 × 10-5 

3 (target organ/effect 

HIs were less than 

or equal to 1)

A screening assessment was also conducted to estimate risks based on a hypothetical 

residential use of the Site. This assessment indicated that excess cancer risks would 

likely be above the upper end of EPA’s target risk range (10-4) and that noncancer target 

organ/effect HIs would also be above EPA’s threshold (1) for adults and children. This 

potential risk, however, is based on residential land use at the Site. Based on current 

uses, zoning, and other land use plans, EPA does not consider residential use to be a 

reasonably likely future use scenario.

Uncertainties in the Human Health Risk Assessment

The HHRA included an uncertainty analysis of the assumptions used in the risk 

assessment to evaluate whether they would over or underestimate risk at the Site. The 

only parameters that were determined to have a high level of uncertainty and a 

potential to significantly affect the risk estimates were the utilization of biota-sediment 

accumulation factors (BSAF) and the fish consumption rate. The use of BSAFs to 

calculate the uptake of contaminants in sediments by fish are believed to have a lowmedium impact on the risk estimate and that impact is likely to overestimate the 

concentration of contaminants in fish. To assess the effect of various consumption rates 

on the overall risk estimates, the risk assessment evaluated three different consumption 

rates. Based on the fish surveys, the current fish population is not sufficient to support 

a consumption rate of 6 eight-ounce meals per year (3.75 g/day) for six anglers. 
48

However, at that rate, the lifetime excess cancer risk was within EPA’s acceptable risk 

range, and even if the consumption rate were raised to 28 meals per year (17.5g/day) 

the lifetime excess cancer risk would still not exceed the upper end of EPA acceptable 

cancer risk range (10-4). The risk assessment likely overestimates the risk posed by 

consuming fish from Force Lake. The risk assessment also likely overestimates risk to 

current Site workers because all samples were obtained from below an approximately 1-

ft gravel layer that will generally limit ingestion and dermal contact with contaminated 

media. 

There were no noncancer risks that exceeded an HI of 1, with the exception of

consumption of fish caught in Force Lake. However, the effects that resulted in a HI of 

3 for this scenario are not additive and thus not a reflection of an unacceptable noncancer hazard.

7.3 ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT

The baseline ERA presented risk estimates for benthic invertebrates, terrestrial 

invertebrates, fish, and wildlife species (mammals and birds) that may be exposed to 

chemicals in wetland soil, Force Lake surface sediment, Force Lake surface water, and 

aquatic or terrestrial biota (i.e., as prey through dietary consumption). The risk 

assessment was designed to be protective of the range of species that have been 

observed at or could use the Site. Conservative assumptions, such as the use of the 

lowest toxicity values and the use of either the maximum detected concentrations or 

upper confidence limits (UCLs) for estimating exposure, were used in an attempt to 

ensure that risk estimates, although uncertain, were conservative. Following EPA 

guidance, an additional screen of chemicals of potential concern (COPCs) was 

conducted to eliminate from further consideration COPCs that have lower 

concentrations than their respective background values. 

In this ERA, the following receptors of concern (ROCs), representing various feeding 

guilds, were evaluated:

 Invertebrates: aquatic benthic invertebrate community and wetland invertebrate 

community

 Fish: brown bullhead (omnivorous fish) and pumpkinseed (invertivorous fish) 

Birds: ruddy duck (invertivorous bird), great blue heron (piscivorous bird), and 

red-tailed hawk (higher-trophic-level carnivorous bird

 Mammals: shrew (invertivorous mammal) and Eastern cottontail (herbivorous 

mammal)
49

Table 7-2 provides a summary of hazard quotients (HQs) for all receptors of concerncontaminants of potential concern (ROC-COPC) pairs with effects-based HQs that were 

greater than one. Table 7-2 also presents HQs based on background (for metals) or 

reference area (for organic compounds) concentrations for comparison with those based 

on Study Area concentrations. 

Table 7-2. Hazard Quotients 

Contaminant 

of Potential 

Concern Matrix

NOAELBased HQLOAELBased HQ

Background or 

Reference 

Area LOAELBased HQ

Aquatic Benthic Invertebrate Community

DDD surface sediment 2.4 – 17 1.0 – 7.2 0.072 – 0.079

DDE surface sediment 6.4 – 110 1.3 – 22 1.0 – 1.5

Terrestrial Invertebrate Community

Chromium wetland soil 3.3 – 75 21

Copper wetland soil 0.21 – 25 0.72

Zinc wetland soil 0.31 – 6.2 0.72

Total HPAHs wetland soil 0.0056 – 3.2 0.003 – 0.022

Fish – Pumpkinseed

Copper diet 3.5 1.8 0.30

Fish – Brown Bullhead

Copper diet 2.1 1.1 0.18

Birds – Red-Tailed Hawk

Total DDTs diet 5.8 1.2 0.020 – 0.47

Mammals – Eastern Cottontail

Mercury diet 5.9 1.2 0.54

Mammals – Shrew

Mercury diet 65 13 5.7 – 15

Total DDTs diet 9.2 8.5 0.0053 – 0.41

DDD – dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane

DDE – dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene

DDT – dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane 

HPAH – high-molecular-weight polycyclic

aromatic hydrocarbon

LOAEL – lowest-observed-adverse-effect level 

NOAEL – no-observed-adverse-effect level

Bold identifies HQs greater than 1.0.
50

This table shows that lowest observed adverse effect level (LOAEL)-based HQs were 

greater than one for metals, DDD, dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene (DDE), and high 

molecular weight-PAHs (HPAHs) for at least one receptor (Table 7-2). LOAEL-based 

HQs were greater than one for DDE (aquatic invertebrates), DDD (aquatic 

invertebrates), chromium (terrestrial invertebrates), copper (terrestrial invertebrates), 

total DDTs (shrew), and zinc (terrestrial invertebrates). LOAEL-based HQs were also 

greater than one for mercury (shrew). Although there were HQs greater than one, only 

DDE for aquatic invertebrates, copper and chromium for terrestrial invertebrates, and 

mercury for shrew had HQs greater than 10. But mercury concentrations were within 

the range of Oregon DEQ background concentrations. This indicates that although there 

is the potential for risk, it is not significantly elevated over reference values. In addition, 

as discussed in the uncertainty evaluation below, there was no evidence that terrestrial 

invertebrates were absent from the Site in areas with elevated copper and chromium 

values.

7.3.1 Uncertainties in the Ecological Risk Assessment

Aquatic Benthic Invertebrate Community: DDD and DDE were the only COPCs with 

concentrations in sediment that were greater than screening levels; however, 

concentrations of total DDTs were less than the screening level, and the bioavailability 

of DDD and DDE would be limited because total organic carbon (TOC) concentrations 

in the sediment were high (up to 13.1% with an average of 7.1%), reducing the 

bioavailability of the contaminants. No COPCs were identified for surface water; 

therefore, no risks to the aquatic benthic invertebrate community from exposure to 

surface water are expected. 

As part of the uncertainty analysis, the potential exposure of aquatic benthic 

invertebrates to chemicals detected in nearby wetland soils and in shallow groundwater 

wells closest to Force Lake was evaluated. It was determined that shallow groundwater 

along the downgradient (i.e., south) side of the Facility is not expected to be a 

significant pathway of exposure for aquatic benthic invertebrates, because there were 

no COPCs in groundwater at concentrations that could pose risks to aquatic 

invertebrates. Also, the potential for unacceptable risk to aquatic benthic invertebrates

from the potential erosion of wetland soils into the lake is minimal because: 1) metals 

and PCB concentrations in wetland soils near Force Lake were low compared with 

screening levels; and 2) concentrations of total DDTs in lake sediment were much lower 

than those in wetland soils, which likely indicates that there is limited transport of 

wetland soils to Force Lake. 
51

Terrestrial Invertebrate Community: Four COPCs (chromium, copper, zinc, and total 

HPAHs) were identified for the terrestrial invertebrate community. HQs were above 1, 

but less than 10, except for copper (with HQs from 0.21 to 25 and a background HQ of 

0.72) and chromium (with HQs from 3.3 to 75 and a background HQ of 21). This 

assessment overestimated risk because the soil screening levels are conservative 

thresholds intended for screening only (i.e., they are not intended to serve as cleanup 

values); they do not take into account site-specific bioavailability. The exposure 

assumptions did not consider the TOC in wetland soils, which averaged 10 percent and 

had a maximum of 30 percent. The conservative screening level used for chromium is 

21 times greater than the background soil concentration. In addition, the chromium 

toxicity reference value (TRV) was based on chromium VI, a more toxic form of chrome 

than what is expected to be present at the Site. Finally, although soil concentrations 

were greater than soil TRVs, the limited areal extent of elevated COPCs is not large 

enough to have ecological relevance. In addition, earthworms were frequently observed 

during field sampling, including in those areas where metals concentrations were 

highest.

Fish: Three measures of assessment were evaluated for the two fish ROCs, 

pumpkinseed and brown bullhead: tissue-residue, surface water, and dietary dose. 

Copper was the only identified COPC having an exposure concentration greater than 

the LOAEL TRV, indicating the potential for adverse effects. However, the LOAELbased HQs were slightly above one (1.8 for pumpkinseed and 1.1 for brown bullhead). 

Consistent with the uncertainty evaluation conducted for the aquatic benthic 

invertebrate community, the potential for exposure to fish from shallow groundwater 

discharging into Force Lake is not expected to be a significant pathway of exposure. 

Uncertainties that may affect the fish ROC risk estimates include the use of literaturebased BSAFs (effect on risk estimates is expected to overestimate risk because high TOC 

in lake sediments was not considered) and the selected dietary composition for 

pumpkinseed (risks may be overestimated based on the assumption of aquatic benthic 

invertebrate prey). 

Birds: For birds (ruddy duck, great blue heron, and red-tailed hawk), all chemicals 

evaluated for exposure to the three ROCs, except total DDTs to the red-tailed hawk, had 

LOAEL-based HQs below one. The LOAEL-based HQ for total DDTs to the red-tailed 

hawk was slightly above one (1.2).

Uncertainties that may have affected the risk estimates include the use of literaturebased BSAFs and bioaccumulation factors (BAFs). The BAFs do not take into 

consideration site-specific TOC concentrations, as discussed previously. The effect of 

using BAFs on risk estimates is expected to overestimate risk. 
52

Mammals: For mammals (Eastern cottontail and shrew), 11 COPCs were evaluated 

based on the COPC screen. For Eastern cottontail, LOAEL-based HQs for mercury (1.2) 

were slightly greater than 1.0, indicating the potential for adverse effects. However, the 

background LOAEL-based HQ for mercury (0.54) was half that of the Study Area HQ, 

indicating that background contributions to the risk estimate were significant. For 

shrew, LOAEL-based HQs for mercury (13) and total DDTs (8.5) were greater than 1.0, 

indicating the potential for adverse effects. The background LOAEL-based HQs for 

mercury ranged from 5.7 to 15 (compared with a Study Area HQ of 13), indicating that 

background concentrations are an important consideration for mercury. Reference area 

LOAEL-based HQs for total DDTs were less than 1.0. Uncertainties that may affect the 

mammal risk estimates include the use of literature-based BAFs and BSAFs, and the 

very limited areal extent with soil concentrations of total DDTs or mercury that exceed 

reference values.

To further evaluate risks to shrew from total DDTs, a map (Figure 7-11) was created to 

evaluate the spatial extent of areas with concentrations that resulted in LOAEL-based 

HQs greater than 1.0. Shrew were assumed to consume both aquatic and terrestrial 

invertebrates; however, the majority of their COPC exposure (> 99%) can be attributed 

to concentrations of total DDTs in wetland soil (i.e., through the terrestrial food chain). 

Wetland areas with concentrations of total DDTs that resulted in area-wide HQs greater 

than 1.0 were limited to two small (10,000 sqft) areas, generally within the central 

portion of the wetlands between the Facility and Force Lake. The limited areal extent of 

elevated total DDTs is not large enough to have ecological relevance.
53

Figure 7-1. Interpolation of Total DDTs in Soil Relative to Risks to Shrew
54

SECTION 8

BASIS FOR THE NO-ACTION DECISION FOR THE HARBOR 

OIL SUPERFUND SITE

Based on the RI, the Risk Assessments, all the supporting information in the 

Administrative Record, and comments on the Proposed Plan, EPA has determined that 

the Site does not pose an unacceptable risk and therefore, that action under CERCLA is

not warranted for the Harbor Oil Superfund Site. This decision is documented in this 

ROD, supported by the Administrative Record, and summarized below.

8.1 GUIDANCE

OSWER DIRECTIVE 9355.0-30, “Role of the Baseline Risk Assessment in Superfund 

Remedy Selection Decision”, dated April 22, 1991, is relevant guidance for making 

remedy selection decisions in accordance with CERCLA and the NCP. The following 

excerpts summarize the parts of that Directive that pertain to the Harbor Oil Site and 

that EPA relied upon in making the no-action decision for the Site.

“RISKS WARRANTING REMEDIAL ACTION”

...As a general policy and in order to operate a unified Superfund program, EPA 

generally uses the results of the baseline risk assessment to establish the basis for taking 

a remedial action using either Section 104 or 106 authority. EPA may use the results of 

the baseline risk assessments to determine whether a release or threatened release poses 

an unacceptable risk to human health or the environment that warrants remedial action 

and to determine if a site presents an imminent and substantial endangerment. The risk 

assessment methodology for all sites should be the same regardless of whether the 

RI/FS or remedial design and remedial action is performed by EPA or potentially 

responsible parties.

Generally, where the baseline risk assessment indicates that a cumulative site risk to an 

individual using reasonable maximum exposure assumptions for either current or 

future land use exceeds the 10(-4) lifetime excess cancer risk end of the risk range, 

action under CERCLA is generally warranted at the site. For sites where the cumulative 

site risk to an individual based on reasonable maximum exposure for both current and 

future land use is less than 10(-4), action generally is not warranted, but may be 

warranted if a chemical specific standard that defines acceptable risk is violated or 

unless there are noncarcinogenic effects or an adverse environmental impact that 
55

warrants action. A risk manager may also decide that a lower level of risk to human 

health is unacceptable and that remedial action is warranted where, for example, there 

are uncertainties in the risk assessment results. Records of Decision for remedial actions 

taken at sites posing risks within the 10(-4) to 10(-6) risk range must explain why 

remedial action is warranted.

The cumulative site baseline risk should include all media that the reasonable 

maximum exposure scenario indicates are appropriate to combine and should not 

assume that institutional controls or fences will account for risk reduction. For 

noncarcinogenic effects of toxicants, unacceptable risk occurs when exposures exceed 

levels that represent concentrations to which the human population, including sensitive 

subgroups, may be exposed without adverse effect during a lifetime or part of a 

lifetime, as appropriate to address teratogenic and developmental effects.

...Unacceptable environmental risks also may prompt remedial action and may occur 

where there is no significant risk to human health. Threats or potential threats to 

sensitive habitats, such as wetlands, and critical habitats of species protected under the 

Endangered Species Acts are especially important to consider when determining 

whether to take an action under CERCLA Section 104 or 106...

8.2 HARBOR OIL SITE-SPECIFIC FACTORS

As described in the preceding sections of this ROD, the baseline human health and 

ecological risk assessments and the comparison of exposure concentrations to chemicalspecific standards demonstrates that there is no unacceptable risk to human health or 

the environment from the Site. Although potential risks to ecological receptors 

exceeded screening levels and the associated hazard indices were estimated to be above 

a Hazard Index of 1, the calculated risks likely overestimate risks, as explained in 

Section 7.2 of this ROD. In addition, there are no endangered or threatened species 

present at the Site and the areas with elevated soil contaminants are too small and 

discontinuous to have any effect on receptor communities. Since releases from the Site 

do not pose any unacceptable risks to human health or the environment, EPA has 

determined that action under CERCLA is not warranted for this Site.

At sites such as this one where no remedial action under CERCLA is warranted, then 

the CERCLA Section 121 cleanup standards for selection of a Superfund remedy, 

including the requirement to meet applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements 

(ARARs) such as the definition of acceptable risk levels in Oregon’s laws and 

regulations, are not triggered. CERCLA section 121 (a) requires only that those remedial 

actions that are "determined to be necessary ... Under section 104 or ... 106 ... be selected 

in accordance with section 121." If EPA determines that an action is necessary, the 
56

remedial action must attain ARARs, unless a waiver is invoked. Of course, sites that do 

not warrant action under CERCLA sections 104 or 106 may warrant action under 

another State or Federal statute, such as RCRA subtitle D requirements for the 

appropriate closure of a solid waste landfill, or the individual and cumulative 

acceptable risk levels as defined by the Oregon Administrative Rule (OAR 340-122-115).

8.3 DEQ DOES NOT CONCUR

Oregon DEQ does not concur with the decision for a no-action remedy at the Harbor 

Oil Site. The DEQ has been involved with this Site for many years; their involvement 

includes reviewing planning documents and technical reports, conducting inspections, 

and assuring consistency with Oregon regulatory programs. DEQ concurs that the noaction decision is consistent with the NCP and follows the CERCLA risk-based decision 

process. However, the CERCLA risk decision process does not require compliance with 

potential ARARs, such as the cumulative acceptable risk levels as defined by the 

Oregon Administrative Rule (OAR 340-122-115), when the need for action under 

CERCLA is not warranted. Based upon the differing federal and state standards, DEQ

disagrees with EPA’s conclusions that contaminants present at the Site do not pose an 

unacceptable risk because concentrations of some individual chemicals are above 

Oregon’s regulatory standards for acceptable risk. At this time, DEQ does not consider 

contamination at the Site to be of as great a magnitude as other NPL sites in the region, 

but has stated that further study is needed to better support a remedy selection. EPA’s 

decision that remedial action under CERCLA is not warranted at the Site does not 

prevent DEQ from taking action at this Site to comply with Oregon regulatory 

standards. 

8.4 TRIBAL INPUT

Six tribes within the boundaries of Region 10 were offered the opportunity for 

government-to-government consultation on the project in 2007. No tribe requested 

consultation at the time it was offered. Two tribes, the Nez Perce Tribe and the 

Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation entered into cooperative 

agreements with EPA for financial assistance to enable them to have meaningful 

engagement at the Site. All six tribes have been kept informed throughout the CERCLA 

process for this Site. EPA provided a second opportunity for government-togovernment consultation in March 2013 to all six tribes. No request for consultation has 

been received by EPA. The Nez Perce Tribe commented on the Draft Proposed Plan. 

They commented that it would be appropriate to apply Institutional Controls to prevent 

future residential development of the property. Because institutional controls are 

considered to be limited action, a risk must be present and an action must be triggered 
57

in order to select and implement institutional controls at the Site.

8.5 COMMUNITY INPUT

The Proposed Plan was released for public comment in November 2012. Following a 30-

day public comment period, a public meeting was held on December 6, 2012 at Historic 

Kenton Firehouse, 8105 N Brandon St. Portland, Oregon. At that meeting, EPA 

presented the findings of the RI and the preferred no-action alternative for the Harbor 

Oil Site and received public input. Public comments on the Proposed Plan received at 

the public meeting and via written correspondence are addressed in EPA’s 

Responsiveness Summary, Part 3 of this document. 
58

SECTION 9

DOCUMENTATION OF SIGNIFICANT CHANGES

The selected no-action alternative remained unchanged from the Proposed Plan to this 

Record of Decision.
59

PART 3

RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY

COMMENT 1:

The EPA received a package of letters from the Harbor Oil Community Advisory Group 

(HOCAG) that included all the correspondence from the HOCAG to EPA since the Site 

was listed on the NPL. All of these comments were considered by EPA at the time they 

were originally received. The “comment” submittal included the following letters: 

October 2004 Letter from Mark Stephan and other parties who would form the 

HOCAG to Dan Opalski, ECL Director--The letter identified concerns the parties had 

with EPA management of the project, including the identification of a new RPM, 

Attorney, project schedule, and regional priority, and identification of PRPs.

EPA Response: This comment does not address the preferred alternative. No 

response is required.

June 2006 Letter from Mark Stephan, HOCAG Chair, to Dan Opalski, ECL Director--

The HOCAG contends that EPA is ignoring the HOCAG and their concern with lack of 

progress in commencing the RI for the Site.

EPA Response: This comment does not address the preferred alternative. No 

response is required.

June 11, 2007 Memorandum from Mark Stephan, HOCAG Chair, to Chris Cora, RPMThe HOCAG expresses frustration with the lack of communication from EPA’s 

Regional (Seattle) office and identifies its expectations of EPA.

EPA Response: This comment does not address the preferred alternative. No 

response is required.
60

November 13, 2009 Letter from Mark Stephan, HOCAG Chair, to Chris Cora, RPM--

The HOCAG identifies six main concerns regarding the Draft Risk Assessments for the 

Site:

1) Without an understanding of the distribution of contaminants that would be 

presented in the Remedial Investigation Report, it is very difficult to 

determine whether appropriate risk evaluations have been completed. 

2) The approach used to group and average sample concentrations appears to 

have removed real and significant risks from the risk management decisionmaking process. 

3) The seasonal variability of concentrations in groundwater and surface water 

has not been defined sufficiently to evaluate site risks. 

4) Tissue samples should be collected to provide more accurate inputs to the 

risk assessment calculations.

5) Applicable requirements under Oregon cleanup rules have been ignored. 

EPA Response: The concerns identified in this letter were on draft versions of the 

Baseline Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessments for the Site. The 

comments submitted by the HOCAG were considered by EPA in its review. 

These documents were subsequently revised based in part on comments 

submitted by DEQ, EPA, and the HOCAG. 

May 14, 2010 Letter from Mark Stephan, HOCAG Chair, to Chris Cora, RPM-- The 

letter contained comments on the Draft Remedial Investigation Report.

EPA Response: The comments submitted by the HOCAG on the draft RI were 

considered by EPA in its review. This document was subsequently revised 

(including the addition of a fish consumption rate of 17.5 g/day) based in part on 

comments submitted by DEQ, EPA, and the HOCAG. 

October 18, 2010 Letter from Mark Stephan, HOCAG Chair, to Dan Opalski, ECL 

Director-- The HOCAG identifies concerns with the Draft Final Remedial Investigation 

Report for the Site. The concerns included the following:

1) The draft RI report documents two human health exposure scenarios 

(construction/trench worker and fish consumption) where EPA’s 

unacceptable target risk ranges were met. For ecological risk, the exceedances 

were associated with three chemicals of concern (COCs) for wildlife, two 

COCs for fish, and five COCs for terrestrial invertebrates. In addition, several 

COCs exceeded maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) for groundwater.
61

EPA Response: The HOCAG is incorrectly interpreting EPA’s unacceptable 

target risk ranges for Human Health. The HOCAG believed that 10-6 was the 

cancer risk threshold that triggers the need to evaluate remedial alternatives. In 

fact, EPA utilizes a 10-4 cancer risk threshold for triggering when remedial action 

should be considered. There were no single or additive risks posed by releases

from the Site that exceeded 10-4, the maximum risk value was 2x10-5. In regards 

to the Ecological risks, it was determined that Site releases do not pose 

unacceptable risks to ecological receptors for numerous reasons, including the 

following: use of literature values that over-estimated risks due to more 

stringent screening values, limited areal impacts and detection frequency, 

presence of soil invertebrates, availability of total organic carbon in sediments or 

soils, and background values for metals equivalent to site concentrations. 

2) The data sets utilized in the risk assessment do not characterize the site 

adequately. 

EPA Response: EPA does not concur that the data sets are inadequate for 

characterizing the Site. The data met EPA’s Data Quality Objective criteria and 

was sufficient to assess potential exposures. 

3) The fish consumption number used in the human health risk assessment 

should be increased to 17.5 grams per day and removal of the fish advisory 

signs should be added as a remedial action objective (RAO). 

EPA Response: At the HOCAG’s request, EPA included a consumption rate of 

17.5 g/day in the Exposure Assessment of the Final Human Health Risk 

Assessment. Even at that rate of consumption, the risk posed would not exceed 

EPA’s acceptable risk range. The placement of the fish advisory signs done by 

the Oregon Health Authority and was not conducted by or coordinated with 

EPA. The removal of the signs is the responsibility of the Oregon Health 

Authority.

4) Several stakeholders have expressed concerns about the process and 

standards that have been applied to the Harbor Oil Superfund Site. EPA 

needs to meet with the stakeholders. The appropriate process and standards 

need to be agreed upon and documented so everyone has the same 

expectations. 

EPA Response: The HOCAG concerns about the process and standards that have 

been applied at the Site were addressed by EPA during a December 15, 2010 
62

public meeting attended by HOCAG members, the Site RPM, an EPA risk 

assessor, an EPA attorney, and the EPA supervisor. At this meeting, EPA 

provided details on how the process and standards applied at Harbor Oil are 

consistent with EPA guidance for conducting a Remedial Investigation under 

CERCLA.

May 27, 2011 Letter from Mark Stephan, HOCAG Chair, to Chris Cora, RPM--The 

letter identified the following concerns: 

1) The HOCAG believes that "un-included data" (TPH and PCB soil data 

collected in 2003) should have been used in the RI, or new samples should 

have been taken at the same locations.

EPA Response: Use of the 2003 data would have reduced the exposure point 

concentrations from what was used in the Final Risk Assessment. Therefore, 

EPA’s risk assessment is using higher PCB concentrations than would have been 

obtained from including the 2003 data.

TPHd was not evaluated as a COPC in the risk assessment, and the maximum 

detected on-Site concentration of 13,000 mg/kg is less than the DEQ risk-based 

screening level (RSL) of 23,000 mg/kg (based on exposures for a constructionworker scenario). Consistent with the ATSDR 1999 Toxicological profile for TPH

, 85 percent of the total TPH value is presumed to be aliphatic hydrocarbons. 

The maximum detected concentration in the 2003 data is 103,000 mg/kg (5 ft bgs 

at HC-04). Considering TPHd a possible COPC, EPA calculated an exposure 

concentration of 10,096 mg/kg. This calculation is substantially influenced by 

the two detections of approximately 100,000 mg/kg at HC-04 and HC-07, both at 

4.5 - 5 ft bgs. Both samples apparently represent sidewall samples collected from

the excavation. Excluding these two results from the calculation, the resultant 

exposure concentration is 1,914 mg/kg. Both exposure concentrations are less 

than the DEQ RBC of 23,000 mg/kg for construction workers, and 70,000 mg/kg

for occupational exposure. However, the DEQ RBCs are based on the toxicity 

criteria for complex mixtures of aliphatic hydrocarbons for C9-C18 now available 

from the Superfund Technical Support Center. Using standard EPA default 

exposure factors for occupational exposures, EPA calculated a RBC of 7,700 

mg/kg, based on a noncancer hazard quotient of 1. This RBC is greater than the 

exposure concentration calculated for on-Site exposures at Harbor Oil using both 

the RI data set and the 2003 data with results from HC-04 and -07 excluded. 

Using the exposure concentration inclusive of data from HC-04 and -07 yields a 

hazard quotient of 1.3, rounded to 1. However, it seems inappropriate from the 
63

standpoint of a reasonable exposure assessment to use the calculated exposure 

concentration of 10,096 mg/kg site-wide, as it is substantially influenced by two 

values that are approximately an order of magnitude greater than any other 

reported values. Site-wide, exposures to TPHd are more appropriately 

represented by the exposure concentration of approximately 2,000 mg/kg.

2) The City of Portland's on-site stormwater sample indicates troubling 

pesticides and PCBs increases after on-site treatment. Additional sampling 

should be conducted.

EPA Response: The discharge of stormwater from the Facility is regulated by the 

Facility’s October 1 2011 NPDES Industrial Stormwater Discharge Permit. The 

permit requires the Facility to monitor for total PCBs four times per year for the 

first three years. The risk assessments for the Site determined that PCBs were not 

posing an unacceptable risk to ecological receptors or human health via exposure 

to sediments or surface water in Force Lake. The appropriate regulatory 

mechanism for controlling and monitoring current discharges is through the 

NPDES program.

3) There has been a recent report of oil-saturated soils exposed during trenching 

activities at the Site. The HOCAG is concerned that the Harbor Oil Site 

contains oil in areas that have been deemed 'clean' but obviously are not. 

EPA Response: EPA does not contest the fact that there are areas with significant 

volumes of uncontained oil at the Site. EPA has never claimed these areas are 

“clean.” The presence of oil (total petroleum hydrocarbons) is part of the 

conceptual site model and was evaluated in our Risk Assessments. The extent 

and concentration of uncontained oil do not result in unacceptable risks for 

worker exposure or as a source of groundwater contamination. The RI identifies 

areas that have been impacted by past spills; these are limited in extent, highly 

weathered, and non-mobile. 

4) The HOCAG expressed its view that EPA has the discretion to move forward 

with a Feasibility Study and that such action is warranted.

EPA Response: EPA is not required to conduct feasibility studies for sites where

the releases do not pose risks that exceed the risk ranges identified in the NCP. 

Considering the low risks posed by the Site, EPA believes its decision not to 

conduct a feasibility study is reasonable.

January 2, 2012 Letter from Mark Stephan, HOCAG Chair, to Dennis McLerran, EPA 

Region 10 Administrator--The letter identifies the following concerns:
64

1) Sediment bioassays: The Risk Assessment concluded that there were “no 

unacceptable risks to sediment-The HOCAG believes that, because the 

sample results show exceedances of some numeric criteria, sediment 

bioassays that account for the complex mixture and in-situ bioavailability of 

Force Lake sediment would be beneficial to validate the Risk Assessment 

conclusions. The HOCAG also believes that using biota-sediment 

accumulation factors (BSAF) and bioaccumulation factors (BAF) to model fish 

tissue contaminant concentrations from observed sediment concentrations 

introduces a high degree of uncertainty, and is not adequate to determine risk

to humans or ecological receptors at the Site. They recommended that fish 

tissue samples be collected from Force Lake and analyzed for PCB congeners, 

total DDTs, mercury, and lipids.

EPA Response: An assessment of various BSAFs from literature sources was

conducted in the Risk Assessments for the main COPC’s (arsenic, total PCBs, and 

total DDTs). That assessment determined that use of the BSAFs selected in the 

risk assessments is unlikely to result in a significant underestimation of the total 

excess cancer risk. Because conservative (i.e., health protective) BSAFs were 

used, the total excess cancer risk is more likely to be overestimated. Since the 

estimation is an order of magnitude greater than 10-4, it is reasonable to conclude 

the risks are within EPA’s acceptable risk range. Mercury was not identified as a 

COPC at the Site. Bioassays of Force Lake sediment and analysis of fish tissue 

samples is unwarranted given the results of the Risk Assessments.

2) US EPA method 1668 would provide a better estimate of the total PCB 

concentration in sediment as the sum of detected congeners. It also allows 

calculation of “dioxin-like” toxicity equivalents in sediment. It would also 

have the potential to support inferences about sources of the PCBs. Moreover,

these data should be collected using incremental sampling methods that 

provide a more reliable estimate of the mean or average concentration, while 

limiting the number of analyses. PCBs in sediment are likely to be weathered 

to the point where standard PCB Aroclor analysis may not be adequate to 

characterize the nature and extent of PCB contamination.

EPA Response: The sampling protocols for characterizing the Site met all the 

Data Quality Objectives in the Work Plan. Although PCBs account for a 

significant portion of the risk at the site, those risks are still an order of 

magnitude less risky than would justify taking action at the Site. EPA does not 

believe that changing methods would alter the ultimate result.
65

3) Stormwater analyses: Stormwater containing Harbor Oil contaminants of 

concern has been and continues to be discharged to Force Lake. Stormwater 

should be collected from the Site and analyzed for PCB congeners, DDTs, and 

mercury.

EPA Response: The RI characterized surface water and sediments, as influenced 

by stormwater discharges, in Force Lake. The results indicate that neither 

surface water nor sediments pose an unacceptable risk and demonstrates that 

stormwater discharges are not significantly contributing to risks. Stormwater 

discharges from the site are regulated by a National Priorities Discharge 

Elimination System permit for industrial stormwater. 

4) EPA should reconsider its finalization of the remedial investigation in order 

to conduct the analyses identified above.

EPA Response: EPA determined that there was insufficient basis to justify 

additional analysis to reduce the uncertainty when the major contributors of 

uncertainty have overestimated risks. The Site has been adequately 

characterized, and the releases do not pose an unacceptable risk.

COMMENT 2 (testimony given during the public meeting held on November 15, 

2012): I'm Dale Svart, and I'm on the board of directors of the Friends of Smith and 

Bybee Lakes. I also represent the Friends on the Smith and Bybee Lakes Advisory

Committee. And just to give you a -- first of all, I've only known about this whole EPA 

thing since I read the article in the Oregonian about three weeks ago, so this -- my 

comments might be a little disjointed because I just learned a bunch of stuff right here 

tonight, but I would like to make some comments about it just simply because ORRCO, 

Oil Re-Refining Company, is also a -- an oil re-refinery about a mile downstream from --

on North Suttle Road, and Bill Briggs -- Bill and I know each other fairly well. ORRCO 

was just required by DEQ to do a cleanup on -- at their Site because part of their Site is a 

wetland; it's part of Smith and Bybee Lakes. And one of their requirements for their 

cleanup was a bio-swale system that all of their surface water goes through before it 

enters the wetland, and I guess what I'd like to see at the Harbor Oils Site, just simply 

out of concern for future spills, potential levy failures, other hydrological events that 

may happen at the Site, it would be nice to see something other than just an oil/water 

separator for the -- for the surface water runoff at the Harbor Oils Site. So if EPA is 

going to essentially not become a partner in a cleanup on this Site, I'd like to see maybe 

DEQ consider taking this on and get some better surface water drainage happening. 

That's pretty much, at this point, my comment. I may write a written -- more written 

comments as I read more about this.
66

EPA Response: Comment noted. The Facility has a permit for discharging 

treated stormwater. Nothing about EPA’s decision here prevents actions or 

responses by any other agency or organization.

COMMENT 3 (testimony given during the public meeting held on November 15, 

2012):

Good evening. I'm Susan Barthel. I work for the City of Portland Bureau of 

Environmental Services, and I have just a very brief comment. The City of Portland is 

not convinced that the project work to date on the Force Lake wetlands portion -- Force 

Lake and wetlands portion of the Site is protective of human and environmental health. 

And that's it. Thank you.

EPA Response: EPA respectfully disagrees that the Site work to date is not 

protective of human health or the environment. The quality and quantity of RI 

data collected is sufficient to characterize releases that could pose risks at the 

Site. Considering the low levels of contaminant concentrations detected 

throughout the study area, EPA is justified in concluding that there are no 

sizable high-concentration releases at the Facility that would increase the 

uncertainty in the risk assumptions. Given the conservatism inherent in the 

assumptions, the risk assessment likely overestimates the risks posed by releases 

from the Site. 

COMMENT 4 (testimony given during the public meeting held on November 15, 

2012):

My name is Mark Stephan, and actually, it's S-T-E-P-H-A-N for the record. I am the 

chair of the Harbor Oil Community Advisory Group. This was a group of local citizens 

-- actually, Susan as well from -- representing the city's perspective. Small group of us 

from north Portland who were tracking the cleanup process for Superfund, have been 

doing so since 2004, and so for eight -- over eight years now, have been tracking what 

EPA has been doing and really overall had a sort of a few summary comments that we 

want to make, and it's as much actually for the public at large as it is for EPA. And it 

sort of backs a little bit of what Susan has just said. One thing that stands out for our 

group -- and I'll say it's not only our community advisory group, but also from what we 

understand from Susan, but also from other stakeholders; the Yakama nation, the Nez 

Perce. Other stakeholders were also actively tracking this Site, and I can't quote them or 

speak for them in an official capacity, but unofficially, I will say that there were a 

numerous number of stakeholder groups who all agree that the Site characterization 

was not adequate. Simply put, it was not adequate. Now, that said, it was not that we 

thought it was hugely inadequate. It wasn't like we thought this was just a, you know, 
67

enormous mischaracterization of the Site, but we thought that there were things that 

could have been done that should have been done, sampling and other sorts of things, 

which EPA already knows about. We sort of set it out for them for a while now. That 

then convinced us that then more could have been done to the characterization that 

would have made it proper. Part of the reason I mention that is because, as Chris 

pointed out, EPA's perspective -- and this is the Superfund law, basically, is that they 

basically have to find that there's no unacceptable risk. All right. That's the language. 

Really, what it means to us sort of laypeople is that they're basically saying from a legal 

perspective there is acceptable risk.

Right? No unacceptable risk. Take all the -- the no and the unacceptable out, they're 

saying that there is acceptable risk. And from a legal perspective, as they have 

characterized the Site, there is. There's not any question about that characterization 

leading to the conclusion that they've drawn, but from the community perspective, 

what acceptable risk is is not necessarily what EPA calls acceptable risk, and so I think 

from our perspective, there is unacceptable risk at the Site; ecological risk, potentially 

human health risk, maybe not in the short term, but over the longer haul, and so we are 

very concerned about that. The second point I want to make is that -- and I'll try to 

make it as quickly as I can. The way the law works, the way CERCLA works, the way 

the Superfund program works, is that these decisions are not simply scientific or 

scientific decisions. They are also administrative decisions. They are also on some level 

bureaucratic decisions, and I don't mean that in a negative way. They just simply are 

bureaucratic decisions. And the reason I say that is that if just a few things were a little 

bit different -- and, in fact, I don't think they will even need to be that different than 

where they are -- in fact, it depends on interpretation. Our sense again from the CAG's 

perspective was that it was in -- within EPA's discretion to move to the next step, that 

they did have under the law the discretion to move from the remedial investigation to 

the risk assessment and that kind of stuff to the feasibility study. If they had moved to 

the feasibility study, if they were going to -- if they would at this point move to the 

feasibility study, it would mean these ARARs would kick in, including Oregon law, and 

potentially would -- potentially would require a more thorough action of the Site than 

what is going to occur. As Chris pointed out, it may not. There's a balancing act that 

happens at the next step, and easily we could be back here -- if this were to occur, we 

could be back here a number of years from now and having this conversation. The EPA 

at that point can still say no action and it could have a whole list of reasons why that 

were true. The perspective of those of us in the community advisory group is that we 

would rather move to that next step than not, understanding that there is a really tough 

trade-off that the EPA has to make. The fact is is that the U.S. Congress is simply not 
68

giving them enough money and resources to do everything that they probably can and 

should do, and so they make these trade-offs. Okay? So, again, I can't emphasize it 

enough. It is within -- in our view, it is within the discretion of the EPA to move to the 

next step. They are choosing not to. We disagree with that choice. I think, generally 

speaking, the group respects the work, the hard work that Chris and others have done. 

We don't in any way want to disrespect that, but we simply disagree with the 

evaluation that it is an acceptable Site characterization and that it is also acceptable to 

not move to the next step. And we feel pretty strongly about that and felt strongly about 

that for a few years now; have really had no leverage over EPA in this regard. They're 

going to move forward as they're going to move forward from our perspective. We're 

going to accept it because we have no choice at this point to accept it. Now, is there 

possibilities for organizations like Friends of Force Lake and others in the community to 

step up to maybe talk with DEQ, to talk with others about more that can be done? 

Certainly. And that probably will be the next step for those of us in the community. But, 

again, from the perspective about this moment and -- and EPA's choice -- there really is 

a choice on their part -- we disagree with the choice. Thanks.

EPA Response: EPA respectfully disagrees that the characterization was 

inadequate to support the risk assessment and assess the risk posed by releases 

from the Site. All the Data Quality Objectives, as outlined in the Work Plan, 

were met. All media were characterized adequately to assess risks from any 

releases from the Site. Although EPA understands the different opinions by 

stakeholders, the National Contingency Plan identifies the degree of risk that 

triggers a requirement for remedial action. That threshold for risk was not met at 

this Site. 

COMMENT 5 (written comments received during the public comment period):

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Proposed Plan for the Harbor Oil 

Site. On behalf of the Harbor Oil Voluntary Group, Windward Environmental has 

reviewed the Proposed Plan, and agrees with EPA’s decision that no cleanup actions are 

required at the Site under EPA’s CERCLA guidance. As EPA states in the Proposed 

Plan, this decision is well supported by the results of the remedial investigation and 

baseline risk assessments, which found that risks do not pose unacceptable threats to 

humans or the environment based on the current and anticipated future uses of the site. 

The Voluntary Group appreciates the professionalism that was shown by EPA and its 

consultants throughout the project.

EPA Response: Comment noted. No response necessary.
69

END OF RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
70

References

ATSDR. 1999. Toxicological profile for total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH). Agency for 

Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, US Public Health Service, Atlanta, GA.

ATSDR. 2004. Public health assessment for Harbor Oil Incorporated, Portland, 

Multnomah County, Oregon. EPA Facility ID ORD071803985. Agency for Toxic 

Substances and Disease Registry, US Public Health Service, Atlanta, GA.

Bridgewater, GeoDesign, Windward. 2008. Remedial investigation/feasibility study: 

work plan for the Harbor Oil site. Prepared for the Voluntary Group for the 

Harbor Oil Site RI/FS. Bridgewater Group, Inc., Lake Oswego, OR; GeoDesign 

Inc., Portland, OR; Windward Environmental LLC, Seattle, WA. 

Coles Environmental Consulting. 2002. Review of existing environmental data for the 

Harbor Oil Site, Portland, Oregon: preliminary risk assessment problem 

formulation. Prepared for Energy and Materials Recovery, Inc. Coles 

Environmental Consulting, Inc., West Linn, OR.

Coles Environmental Consulting. 2007. Soil analysis results for the 2003 excavations 

required for construction of the EMRI base-oil plant: field notes, chain-of-custody 

forms, and laboratory analysis reports. Coles Environmental Consulting, Inc., 

West Linn, OR.

City of Portland. 1997. Natural resources management plan for Peninsula Drainage 

District No. 1. Bureau of Planning, City of Portland, Portland, OR.

DEQ. 2001. Guidance for ecological risk assessment: level II screening update. Waste 

Management and Cleanup Division, Oregon Department of Environmental 

Quality, Portland, OR.

DEQ. 2008. Molalla-Pudding Subbasin TRML & WQMP. December 2008 [online]. 

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, Portland, OR. Available from: 

http://www.deq.state.or.us/wq/tmdls/docs/willamettebasin/MolallaPudding

/MoPudExecutiveSummary.pdf.

Ecology and Environment. 2001. Harbor Oil preliminary assessment/site inspection, 

Portland, Oregon. Prepared for US Environmental Protection Agency Region 10, 

Seattle, WA. Ecology and Environment, Inc., Seattle, WA.

Efroymson RA, Will ME, Suter GW, II. 1997. Toxicological benchmarks for 

contaminants of potential concern for effects on soil and litter invertebrates and 

heterotrophic process: 1997 revision. ES/ER/TM-126/R2. Oak Ridge National 
71

Laboratory, US Department of Energy, Oak Ridge, TN.

EPA. 2007. Ecological soil screening levels (Eco-SSL) [online]. US Environmental 

Protection Agency, Washington, DC. Updated 8/14/07. Available from: 

http://www.epa.gov/ecotox/ecossl/. 

Golder Associates. 1990. Site investigation and preliminary remediation plan for 

Portland Stockyards. Prepared for Oregon Waste Systems. Golder Associates 

Inc., Portland, OR.

Goodling J. 2007. Personal communication (conversation between J. Goodling and S. 

Brown, Bridgewater Group, hydraulics of surface water bodies downstream of 

Force Lake). Superintendent, Heron Lakes Golf Course, Portland, OR. June 29,

2007.

Hinkle SR, Polette DJ. 1999. Arsenic in ground water of the Willamette basin, Oregon. 

Water-Resources Investigations Report 98-4205. US Geological Survey, Portland, 

OR.

Windward, Bridgewater, Hain, GeoDesign. 2012. Remedial Investigation Report for the 

Harbor Oil site. Prepared for the Voluntary Group for the Harbor Oil Site RI/FS. 

Windward Environmental LLC, Seattle, WA; Bridgewater Group, Inc., Lake 

Oswego, OR; Hain Associates, Inc., Portland OR; GeoDesign, Inc., Portland, OR.