Opinion by Barbara Quinn, Co-Editor
One glaring problem with the scheme to dump so-called “non-hazardous” Superfund dredge spoils in Ross Island Lagoon – which some proponents call an “elegant solution”– is that the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) definition of “non-hazardous” sediments does not mean NOT hazardous.
The Willamette River bottom sediments that could be transported from the lower Willamette Superfund site and dumped onto Ross Island Lagoon, are NOT the least toxic in the river as proponents claim. They are somewhere between the most concentrated with contaminants – and the least contaminated.
The EPA term “non-hazardous” is a regulatory label that helps them manage a cleanup. It does NOT imply safe exposure for humans or the environment.
The whole 11-mile Superfund site is laced with PCBs, petroleum byproducts, lead, mercury, cadmium, arsenic, chromium, dioxins and DDTs, but the least concentrated sediments will not be dredged at all. They will be left in the river for “natural recovery.” Those sediments cover the vast majority of the 11-mile site between Rivergate and the Broadway Bridge.
EPA’s label of “non-hazardous” sediments has generated plenty of controversy especially in regard to PCBs, the most potent carcinogen and hormone disruptor in our river. Groups such as the Natural Resources Defense Council and Hudson Riverkeeper argue that PCB levels allowed in so-called “non-hazardous” sediments are outdated and biologically unsafe, since PCBs are highly toxic and bioaccumulate at far lower concentrations.
Others who disagree with EPA’s non-hazardous definition are the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, some tribes such as the Duwamish in Seattle, and Dr. David Carpenter, a prominent public health physician and environmental health researcher at the State University of New York at Albany. He insists “There is no such thing as a ‘safe level” of PCBs.”
In-water disposal facilities have failed
The so called “elegant solution” of placing contaminated sludge in a hole in a volatile river system that floods and has the potential to wash off the sand cap exposing the toxins to the current is as insane as it sounds. Yet proponents like to point to the science behind aquatic disposal sites.
The fact is, such sites have failed in several locations such as New Bedford Harbor, Mass.; Commencement Bay, Wash.; and the Lower Duwamish Waterway, Wash. Failure is usually due to floods, storms, erosion or animal activity. In-water disposal is an unacceptable option in a volatile river that floods such as the Willamette River.
Also alarming is the fact that there is nothing to stop water laced with toxins from leaking through the porous gravel and sand surrounding the hole and entering the groundwater under the river. From there it would invade the water column through the natural exchange between the two. (See opinion May 2026 North Peninsula Review “Environmentalists, others jump on the Good Ship Lollipop with scheme to fix Ross Island,”Barbara Quinn).
Danger of recontamination
These toxic chemicals can recontaminate the river and devastate its ecosystems by altering water chemistry, poisoning wildlife, and triggering the collapse of the food web, according to the National Institutes of Health.
Most do not break down over time that we can measure and they become more toxic as they move up the food chain from small animals and plants to larger fish and the people who eat them.
Those would be the subsistence fishers and Native American tribes who regard the lower Willamette as part of their traditional fishing territory. These are the very environmental justice communities that Ross Island dump proponents claim will be aided by their plan.
In-water disposal does NOT adequately protect environmental justice communities, or North and NW Portlanders or our river ecosystem as proponents tout. And when toxins get loose in the river, whose responsibility will it then be to address it? We’d simply be back to square one with large companies unwilling to pay for cleanup — again – though in a different location.
In a recent interview, U.S. Rep. Maxine Dexter said any proposed disposal option “must be safe. It must be data-driven. We can’t continue to burden the community.”
The only safe, data-driven solution for storage of dredged, toxin-contaminated sediments is a lined, land-based waste facility.
Barbara Quinn is a long-time community activist who was a member of the Portland Harbor Community Advisory Group from 2007 to 2017.