CERCLA-linked environmental impact and benefit analysis: Evaluating remedial alternatives for the Portland Harbor Superfund Site, Portland, Oregon, USA
Authors: McNally Amanda D , Fitzpatrick Anne G , Mirchandani Sera , Salmon Matthew , Edwards Deborah A 
Published: October 2017

Abstract

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

Key Points
Environmental costs and benefits of Portland Harbor Superfund Site remedial alternatives developed by the US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) were evaluated using SiteWise™ adapted for sediments and a project-specific environmental cost-benefit analysis tool for scoring environmental metrics. More than 25 environmental metrics were quantified, scored, and aggregated into a CERCLA-linked Microsoft Excel®-based tool that calculated an overall environmental impact and benefit analysis (EIBA) score for each remedial alternative. Benefit scores were lower for the larger alternatives, which were costly compared to the benefits of smaller alternatives; small decreases in surface weighted average concentrations (SWAC) and risk for more aggressive alternatives were outweighed by the increased impacts. The tool is sensitive to assumptions—CERCLA criteria weighting factors, dredge production rates, and waste transportation and disposal scenarios—but the EIBA sustainability rankings of the USEPA remediation alternatives are robust with respect to these parameters.