It was a victory for environmental groups and the Yakama Nation. They said the federal government didn’t do a good enough job evaluating the risks of invasive species that might be hidden in the piles of trash.

Too bad for Hawaii that they didn’t have a back up plan. The garbage pile is growing to monster size. They’re trying to find other ways to get rid of it.

See the full story on Yahoo News.

But as one of our tour guides reminded me, “It’s what you can’t see that will hurt you.”

The Portland Harbor may be the city’s least understood environmental problem. No one sees the river sediments that are contaminated with PCBs, heavy metals and pesticides. Nor can we spot the toxic groundwater that leaches into the river, carrying pollutants like DDT and dioxin.

This week, I was part of a group that toured the Superfund area on a boat trip sponsored by the Portland Harbor Community Advisory Group. I’m just beginning to understand the issue and I’m no expert by any stretch of the imagination.

So with that in mind, here are some impressions from the trip.

The former Arkema site, described as "ground zero" of the lower Willamette River. In the 1940s and 1950s, the company manufactured pesticides. The groundwater is contaminated with DDT, hexavalent chromium and benzene. A hidden plume leaches the pollutants into the river.

This Is Taking A Long Time

The lower Willamette River was declared a Superfund site in 2000. Ten years later and we’re still waiting for the clean up to start. About $75 million has been spent just studying the problem. Judy Smith with EPA says that’s because – even by Superfund standards – this is an unusually complex mess.

First, it’s a big site, more than 11-miles long from downtown Portland to Sauvie Island.

There’s also a lot of blame to go around. The EPA has identified more than 100 parties it says are responsible for the pollution and need to pay for the clean up.  Getting them to work together isn’t simple, but Smith says the level of cooperation in Portland is pretty good.

The clean up won’t be simple either. It helps to think of this as a collection of toxic hot spots, each requiring a different kind of clean up plan. What works in one spot may not work at another. Some toxins, such as PCBs, are widespread through the lower river. Other chemicals, like DDT, are in one or two isolated locations.

Smith says a clean up plan should be completed in the next year or two. That will be followed by a period of public comment and then EPA makes a final decision. So we’re still a few years away until the work begins. But early clean up is underway at a few locations.

There’s Lots Of Room For Improvement

This trip changed my mind about what we can do to improve wildlife habitat along the lower Willamette.

Beforehand, it seemed to me this was a hopeless cause, that there was little habitat left worth trying to save or restore.

That’s still true along the river near downtown. But as you go further downstream, I saw lots of riverbank that hadn’t been developed. In some spots there was only 50 or 100 feet between docks. Elsewhere there were long stretches of empty waterfront.

Some of the bigger empty areas could be restored as marshes and wetlands – safe havens for salmon, otters, beaver, herons and other wildlife. In the smaller sections, we could replant the riverbank with native trees and bushes. Even a strip ten feet wide along the river can help. Sand and gravel can be placed along the water’s edge, providing salmon friendly habitat. That’s already happening in some places.

At the federal level, a group of agencies and tribes will lead efforts to restore the lower Willamette once the clean up work is completed. Portland has its North River Reach plan, which would require companies that develop the riverfront, to also pay for habitat restoration. But businesses are fighting it in court.

It’s naive to think that the lower Willamette River can return to the way it was 100-years ago. No one expects that. But I’m now convinced there are plenty of opportunities for improvement, and that this working section of the river can support both industry and more wildlife.

For More Information:

EPA Portland Harbor Superfund

Portland Harbor Community Advisory Group

Portland Harbor Natural Resource Damage Assessment

Trains carrying garbage from Hawaii would pass under Cape Horn. Photo by Aubrey Russell

UPDATE: The Oregonian reports that a federal judge in Spokane has blocked the garbage shipments until the end of August. The O quotes the judge as writing, “There are serious questions relating to whether the USDA adequately analyzed the environmental impacts of shipment and receipt of Hawaiian waste.”

EARLIER:

A coalition of environmental groups, and the Yakama Nation, are suing to stop Hawaii from shipping garbage through the Columbia River Gorge.

The garbage shipments received final approval this week from the Agriculture Department.

The suit says USDA didn’t do a good enough job studying the risks – which the groups say include invasive plants and insects that could damage rare ecosystems and the area’s fruit crop.

In a press release, the coalition says its particularly concerned about the Mediterranean fruit fly, which has been eradicated on the mainland U.S., and the spotted winged drosophila, an Asian species currently entering Oregon from California. Oregon State University is leading efforts to control the spread of the drosophila.

“The Columbia Gorge region should not be used as the garbage can for Hawaiian trash,” writes Michael Lang, Conservation Director of Friends of the Columbia Gorge. “Federal agencies have failed to ensure the protection of the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area from invasive plants and insects that would be transported via Hawaiian garbage through the Gorge and dumped in an open landfill.”

The plan is to ship garbage from Hawaii to Longview, Washington where it would be loaded on trains that would carry the garbage through the Gorge and dumped at a landfill in Klickitat County. The first shipment could arrive as soon as Friday.

Other groups joining the suit are the Northwest Environmental Defense Center and Columbia Riverkeeper.

Trash from the island of Oahu is piling up at an industrial park near Honolulu where it awaits shipment to the mainland. The trash is wrapped in large plastic bales that are breaking apart and leaking.

I also spoke this morning with State Senator Mark Hass, one of the co-sponsors of ban-the-bag legislation. He’s got some interesting insights on why the Portland City Council voted for a resolution, instead than passing a real law.

One of the first things Hass told me is that he’s pleased with the vote in Portland. “It’s good to have another player on the team,” he said.

And here’s a new twist on why the Portland vote went down the way it did. Hass says that if the city council had approved a full ban, the chemical industry may have tried to overturn it through a voter referendum. That’s exactly what happened last year in Seattle when city leaders tried to impose a 20-cent fee on plastic bags. Even in liberal Seattle, 53% of voters said they didn’t want that.

Hass told me if that were to happen in Portland, it would make it next to impossible to get support for a statewide ban. Besides, he said, business leaders prefer a statewide approach so the rules would be consistent everywhere in Oregon.

Ban The Bag In Eugene

The Lane Bus Project is holding an informational event about plastic bags tonight in Eugene. Time is 7:00pm at the Davis’ Restaurant and Bar, 94 West Broadway. Among the speakers is Brock Howell of Environment Oregon. EO and Surfrider are hoping for ban-the-bag votes in Bend, Hood River, Oregon City, Lake Oswego, Cannon Beach and Lincoln City.

For more information see: Lane Brewhaha: Paper or Plastic: Are Either Fantastic?

Related Stories:

Portland City Council Endorses Plastic Bag Ban

VIDEO: Mayor Adams Supports Ban The Bag At Downtown Rally

This afternoon, the council voted unanimously to support a statewide ban on single use plastic bags, and a five cent fee on paper bags. The proposed ban would start in 2012.

Success depends on the legislature approving it, but they don’t meet until 2011. So what happens if Oregon’s lawmakers say no? In that case, the council says they’ll  look at passing a bag ban law in Portland.

Two weeks ago, the city seemed on the verge of approving a plastic bag ban.

There was a large “ban the bag” rally outside city hall, and a promise from Mayor Sam Adams to bring a draft ordinance before the council. Ban supporters were hoping that by getting Portland to pass a ban, the rest of Oregon would follow.

It didn’t work out that way.

State Senator Mark Hass, one of the sponsors of a statewide ban, asked Adams to hold off. Hass came awfully close to passing a ban in 2010. He’s putting together new legislation he says is winning support across the state.

Hass believes that if Portland goes it alone on the issue, it’ll hurt his chances for a statewide ban. Adams listened.

So instead of Portland leading Oregon on this issue, it’s the other way around.

Environmental groups are pleased with this compromise.

Environment Oregon and Surfrider issued press releases praising the vote.

“Today marks a momentous milestone on the path to a statewide ban, says Environment Oregon. “This is not a Republican versus Democrat, conservative versus liberal, or a rural versus urban issue. State senators and representatives of both aisles and representing diverse constituents support statewide legislation.”

Related Stories:

VIDEO: Mayor Adams Supports Ban The Bag At Rally

Down, Not Out. Plastic Bag Ban Will Return Says The Bill’s Sponsor

The colorful show was part rally, part celebration, as the Ban The Bag movement kicked off a season of activism they hope will bring about a statewide ban on single use plastic bags.

Portland Mayor Sam Adams provided the headline of the day, repeating his announcement that the city will have a draft ordinance to ban plastic bags ready for public review by the end of the week.

Details of what’s in the draft ban are still under wraps. But that seemed to matter little to supporters who say getting Portland on board now, and approving bans in other Oregon cities, will give them the momentum they need when the legislature looks at the issue early next year.

Oregon came very close to approving a plastic bag ban during the 2010 special session. Sponsors of a ban thought they had the grocers association on board, but last minute objections killed the idea. Back in February, State Senator Mark Hass told me that the grocers and retailers were concerned about how much more it would cost them to switch from plastic to paper bags.

The Oregonian reports that Hass and co-sponsor State Senator Jason Atkinson are reviving the bill for the 2011 session, with a big change that appears to be winning over grocers. The bill allows them to charge customers a nickel for paper bags.

Video: Ban The Bag Rally Portland

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j8WlFYKqdjs

A Day Of Action

The rally was the second event of a closely choreographed “Day Of Action.”

It kicked off this morning before the Portland City Council when supporters called on city leaders to pass the ban.

One of them was Stiv Wilson of the 5 Gyres Project. His testimony included graphic descriptions of the junk he found floating in the ocean during a four week tour of the North Pacific Gyre in January.

He asked council members to imagine being 2000 miles of land and finding PVC pipe, shotgun shells and toothbrushes. “Everything you see in the grocery store is out there,” he said. “You can pick it up with your hand.”

He and the others who testified say Portland has a critical role to play in the statewide movement for a ban.

Among them, Nastassja Pace of Oregon Surfrider. Surfrider is a key player behind the proposed ban. “Portlanders are ready to ban the bag,” she told the council. “We need your help. Leadership in Portland will help lead the way for statewide legislation.”

Celebration Tonight

The day wraps up with a celebration at the headquarters of Keen Footwear, 926 NW 13th Ave, Portland. Beer will be served.

Related Story:

Down, Not Out. Plastic Bag Ban Will Return Says The Bill’s Sponsor

Today’s city council meeting opened with about 15-minutes of testimony on why Portland should ban single use plastic bags. The chambers were filled with ban supporters. When it was over, Adams announced that a draft ordinance for a plastic bag ban would be ready by the end of the week. The crowd erupted into cheers.

After coming oh-so close to a statewide ban on plastic bags earlier this year, ban supporters have taken the time to regroup and re-energize the movement.

Stiv Wilson of the 5 Gyres Project kicked off this morning’s testimony with some graphic descriptions of the junk he found floating in the Ocean during a four week tour of the North Pacific Gyre in January.

He asked council members to imagine being 2000 miles of land and finding PVC pipe, shotgun shells and toothbrushes. “Everything you see in the grocery store is out there,” he said. “You can pick it up with your hand.”

He and the others who testified say Portland has a critical role to play in the statewide movement for a ban.

Nastassja Pace is with Oregon Surfrider, one of the group’s that keep the bag ban afloat. “Portlanders are ready to ban the bag,” she told the council. “We need your help. Leadership in Portland will help lead the way for statewide legislation.”

They acknowledged that banning bags won’t solve all the problem, but that it would be an important first step.

Status of a Statewide Ban

Oregon lawmakers were extremely close to banning plastic bags during this year’s special session. But one of the sponsors, State Senator Mark Hass told me in February that last minute opposition from grocers forced him to withdraw the legislation. Hass said that grocers were legitimately worried about the higher costs of replacing plastic bags with paper ones.

According to the Oregonian, Hass and co-sponsor Jason Atkinson are preparing a new version of the ban the bag bill for next year. It includes a nickel charge for paper bags – and the stores get to keep the money.

That may be exactly that retailers and grocers need to get behind the ban. And if that happens, it probably is unstoppable.

PGE's coal fired Boardman Power Plant. Photo from Ted Timmons

The news must have landed at PGE like a ton of coal.

Oregon DEQ says its looking at three options for an early closure of PGE’s coal-fired power plant at Boardman. They call on the utility to spend millions more to keep the plant running, or shutting it down a lot earlier than PGE wants.

The Big Picture

To see where this is going, let’s back up for a moment. There’s only one approved plan – so far – that allows PGE to continue operating the Boardman power plant. It allows the plant to generate electricity by burning coal until 2040. But PGE would have to install about $500 million in new pollution controls to bring down emissions of nitrogen oxide, sulfur dioxide.

This doesn’t include any controls on greenhouse gases. None are required for now, but pretty much everyone expects they will be required in the near future. Since Boardman is the state’s biggest single source of greenhouse gas, the costs of new controls could be substantial.

PGE, no surprise, would like to avoid having to pay for all that. So earlier this year it proposed a plan where it would shut down Boardman by 2020, and only have to spend about $40 million on pollution controls. That proposal was rejected by DEQ a couple of weeks ago.

DEQ’s Options

The 2020 Plan: Boardman shuts down by the end of 2020, and PGE spends $320 million on reducing pollution.

The 2018 Plan: The plant closes by the end of 2018, and PGE pays about $100 million for new controls.

The 2015-2016 Plan: Boardman shuts down in late 2015 or early 2016. The cost of pollution controls drops to $35 million

DEQ says it chose these options because it thinks they can be approved by the EPA. It’s now taking comments from the public, plans on holding hearings in September, with a goal of approving a final plan before the end of the year.

Environmental Reaction

Oregon Sierra Club, which has been leading the campaign to shut down Boardman, is praising DEQ for the new proposals. The group wants Boardman closed in 2014. While DEQ doesn’t go that far, it does get us closer.

In a statement, Cesia Kearns of the Coal Free Oregon Campaign writes:

“The options DEQ has proposed demonstrate clearly that PGE can and should phase-out their dirty and dangerous Boardman coal-fired power plant earlier than the 2020 they are currently proposing. We already know that it is better for public health and the environment in Oregon if Boardman is phased out soon. The options offered by DEQ today further detail how it will also be cheaper to phase the plant out sooner than PGE is currently considering.”

PGE Reaction

The utility is not happy with the DEQ options. It wants to keep Boardman running until 2020, but at a lower cost. It says it needs the extra time to plan and develop cleaner sources of electricity to replace the plant.

According to PGE President and CEO Jim Piro:

“We put forward a plan for Boardman that we believe reached a good balance between cost, risk and environmental benefits. We’ll do a complete analysis, but we’re disappointed that DEQ didn’t allow that plan to proceed. On the face of it we believe the new options DEQ put forward today may reflect an extreme interpretation of federal rules that won’t make sense for our customers or our state. We want to work with DEQ to find a better way to transition this resource around the 2020 timeframe.”

The Next Steps:

DEQ sets up an advisory committee to do further study, which starts meeting in July. An updated version of this plan would be ready for public hearings in September. But the agency is taking comments now and they can be emailed to, deqoptionspge@deq.state.or.us.

For More Information:

Draft DEQ Proposal for Early Shutdown of the PGE Boardman Plant

PGE Reaction

Sierra Club Reaction

PGE's coal fired Boardman Power Plant. Photo from Ted Timmons

Hearings before the Public Utility Commission are usually pretty dull events. But Wednesday’s hearing in Portland promises to be very, very different.

That’s because environmental groups are rallying the troops, urging them to show up in huge numbers.

Their message to the PUC? Shut down the Boardman coal-fired power plant by 2014.

The hearing could be a climatic moment in the campaign to close Oregon’s only coal-fired power plant. Boardman’s reputation as a source of dirty power is well deserved. It’s the biggest single source of carbon emissions in the state, a major contributor to the haze you see in the Columbia River Gorge and elsewhere, and spews 15,000 tons of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide and over 200 pounds of mercury annually.

So What Do We Do About It?

There are three options before the PUC. Here’s a brief look at all of them.

Closing Boardman by 2014: This is the option favored by environmental groups. Under this scenario, PGE (which owns most of Boardman and operates the plant) would have to spend about $40 million in 2011 to reduce emissions of mercury and nitrogen oxide. But Boardman would have to be completely shut down three years later, and PGE would have to find other sources of electricity.

Arguments in favor: Best results for the environment by taking the state’s only coal-fired power plant off line. Robin Everett of the Oregon Sierra Club says Boardman has been allowed to operate for too long. “It’s the biggest polluter in the state. It’s time for them to clean it up. And the best way to do that is to shut it down.”

Arguments against: Steve Corson of PGE says a 2014 closure doesn’t give the utility enough time to find other sources of power. One possibility is replacing Boardman with a natural gas fired plant. But Corson says the utility also wants to explore other ideas such as converting Boardman into a plant that runs on biomass. A few more years, says Corson, also lowers the costs of shutting down the plant and finding those other sources.

Allowing Boardman to operate until 2040: If PGE were continue operating the plant for another 30-years, it would have to install more than $520 million in new pollution controls.

Arguments in favor: No one is enthusiastic about this option. It’s PGE’s second choice and environmental groups are appalled by the idea.

Arguments against: There’s a lot of uncertainty in a 30-year plan. New carbon controls under consideration by the EPA – or if Congress acts on climate change legislation – both could significantly raise the costs of operating Boardman. PGE customers could be on the hook for higher electricity bills to pay for pollution controls way beyond the $520 million already in the works.

Closing Boardman by 2020: PGE’s favorite option. The utility would still have to reduce emissions of mercury, nitrogen oxide and sulfur. But it would avoid paying the $520 million costs of new controls needed to keep the plant running until 2040. This option, also requires approval by Oregon DEQ. The agency recently rejected PGE’s 2020 plan, but says it’s studying other options.

Arguments in favor: Corson says this gives PGE enough time to explore a variety of replacement sources of power, keeps down the costs of shutting the plant and finding those new sources, and avoids an unknown future of new carbon controls.

Arguments against: The Sierra Club says PGE is working off flawed information. It says the utility overestimates the future costs of natural gas, and underestimates the savings from investments in efficiency. They say it’s wrong to keep putting money into coal generated electricity.

Details On The Hearing:

The hearing starts at 6:30pm in the auditorium of the Portland Building, 1120 SW 5th Ave. But environmental groups are holding briefing on the issues for the public starting at 5:30pm, and a press conference at 6:00pm. They’re also hoping people will show up early to sign up to testify.

I’ve written about these toxic chemicals before. They’re called “persistent pollutants” because it takes years or even decades before they break down in the environment. Over time they get into the food chain and become a threat to the health of people, animals and fish.

The latest news is that DEQ says it now has a better idea of where these chemicals come from and how they get into Oregon’s waterways. It’s also suggesting ways to reduce the level of these chemicals in the environment, so they pose less of a danger.

What’s the best way to control them? DEQ says the answer is prevention.

Some ideas under consideration:

• Banning some of the pollutants.
• Requiring businesses to design products that use less of the chemicals.
• Phasing out some of the chemicals when safer alternatives become available.
• Educating the public on the risks of these chemicals, and the best way to dispose of products that contain them.

Where do they come from?

• Household products such as medications, disinfectants, perfumes and the non-stick coating used in cookware.
• Flame retardants, known as PBDEs are used in electronics and furniture. Oregon and Washington have banned the most common types of PBDEs.
• Pesticides, whether they’re used on the farm, in forests, or on the lawns and gardens of our homes.
• Legacy pollutants, such as DDT, are still a problem even though they may have been banned decades ago.

What’s next?

In the coming year, DEQ will set “trigger levels” for these pollutants in our wastewater. 52 of Oregon’s largest wastewater systems will have to monitor how much of these chemicals are being discharged into our rivers and streams. If a chemical goes above the “trigger level”, officials will have to design a plan to reduce it in the wastewater. These plans are due by July of 2011.

Today, DEQ released a report on persistent pollutants to the Legislature. This worked is mandated under Senate Bill 737, approved by lawmakers in 2007.

The prevention measures outlined in the report may require new rules, or new laws, to make sure they’re carried out.

For More Information:

Oregon DEQ: Addressing Priority Persistent Pollutants in Oregon’s Water

Related Story:

Oregon’s Dirty Dozens