Message
From: Sent: To:
Subject: Attachments:
rich.gold@hklaw.com [rich.gold@hklaw.com] 10/7/2017 3:51:52 PM Kelly, Albert [/o=ExchangeLabs/ou=Exchange Administrative Group (FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/cn=Recipients/cn=08576e43795149e5a3f9669726dd044c-Kelly, Albe] Fwd: PH baseline sampling - EPA comments on draft WP and SOW PHPRD WP sentEPA (092217)_EPA comments(100617).pdf; ATT00001.htm; PH-Pre-RD SOW-RLSO_10-6-17.docx; ATT00002.htm
Interestingly you were not copied on emai 1s markup of the work pi a n . It removes any possi bi 1ity that the data will impact the remedy selected by the ROD and is inconsi stent not only with what you have been saying but also what Mi chel1e has made cl ear several ti m e s . The Pre-RD group will have to deci de what to
do on the EPA proposal on its cal 1 Tuesday at 5. We should catch up before th en. Peter is in town for WH infrastructure mtg Tuesday starting Monday am fy i. I 'm avai1able al 1 weekend. This is purely Sean and Cami. We are two weeks out from 1osing the opportunity to get in the water this y e ar. Rich
Rich Gold | Hoi 1and & Knight
Practi ce Group Leader
Public Policy & Regulation Group
800 17th Street, N.W., Suite 1100<x-apple-data-detectors://0/l>
Was hi ngton, D .C<x-appl e-data-detector.s.-../.ZD./l>......2.0il0.6__________________ ,
T 202.457.7143<tel :202.457.7143> |!____
_______ !
Ri c h .Gol d@hkl a w .com<mai 1t o :Ri c h .Go! d@Fil<la w .com> ] @HK_P"PR
Begin forwarded message:
From: "Peter Saba" <psaba@schn.com<mai1t o :psabaOschn.com>> T o : "Gold, Ri chard (WAS - X77143)" <ri c h .gol d@hklaw.com<mai1t o :ri c h .gold@hklaw.com, Howard" cHSchweitzerOcozen.com<mai 1t o :HSchweitzer@cozen.c o m Subject: FW: PH baseline sampling - EPA comments on draft WP and SOW
"Schwei tz er,
PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL / JOINT DEFENSE COMMUNICATION / ATTORNEY CLIENT WORK PRODUCT
We did recei ve the EPA comments on the Work Pi an at 5 PM today. As per our concern, at first 1ook my view is that they are going to be very problematic with the group. I am going to forward my emai1 to the
group that I sent to try to put these comments in context, keep the group calm and suggest a path forward. But even I am very skepti cal that we can bridge the fundamental difference in objecti ves between the Region 10 staff (implement the ROD as issued, obtai n base-1i ne data for 1ong-term moni tori ng of remedy effectiveness) and the Pre-RD Group (obtai n data to support a more cost-effective remedy to the
extent that the data warrants). This is the core issue, and I can see these comments being the final straw that everyone says that we have been wasti ng our ti m e , that Regi on 10 staff remai n unchecked, and that even if we get agreement on getting the data, staff will come up with every reason they can not to uti1ize it to modi fy the remedy so we will have also wasted over $17 million.
I am provi di ng the attachments with the EPA comments not because I expect you to go through them in any detai1, but just so you have a flavor. Data that will be col 1ected by thi s effort will be much better and more current than the data EPA used to come up with thei r RO D, but based on these comments such data cannot be used for anythi ng beyond setti ng the basel ine for 1ong-term moni tori n g . Here are some
excerpts:
Intro, Page 1 [A Good Start]
Commented [AlO]: EPA's objectives differ from many of those identified by the Pre-RD Group in
thi s work pi a n . Some of Pre-RD objectives are not ROD requi red or consi stent with EP A's objectives and pianned evaluations.
Commented [All]: Technology assignments can be evaluated during design phase but not with
1imi ted data to be col 1ected under the PDI.
Data Use Objectives, p p . 4-5
Commented [A14]: EPA's objectives differ from many of those identi fi ed by the Pre-RD Group in
thi s work pi a n . Some of Pre-RD objectives are not ROD requi red or consi stent with EP A's objectives and
pianned evaluati ons.
Commented [A15]: Technology assi gnments can be evaluated duri ng design phase but not with
1imi ted data to be col 1ected under the PDI.
Commented [A16]: [Refi ning the Food Web Model] Achieving this goal is not the intent of the
PDI. Concentrations that were estimated using the FWM should not be recalculated.
Sierra Club v. EPA 18cv3472 NDCA
Tiers 8&9
ED 002061 00114485-00001
Commented [A17]: [Human Health Risks; Background Conditions] Not relevant for this phase of
sampl in g .
Evaluating Background, p . IB with same comment on p . 14
Commented [A19]: Evaluati on of background concentrati ons is beyond the scope of thi s phase of
work. Pri mary purpose for data col 1ecti on in Downtown and Upri ver Reaches is for compari son to si te
concentrati ons usi ng an equivalency analysi s .
Can only evaluate natural recovery goi ng forward from 2018 sampl in g ; eval uati on of any recovery si nee 2004 not vaiid - p. 15
Commented [A21]: The pri mary purpose is to col 1ect an unbi ased baseli ne data set to enable
compari son to future unbi ased sedi ment sampli ng data col 1ected under 1ong-term moni tori ng to evaluate
natural recovery. A compari son of 2018 surface sedi ment data from reoccupi ed 2004 sample 1ocati ons wi th
previ ously col 1ected 2004 samples is stati sti cally invalid because 108 of 428 surface sample 1ocati ons
are bi ased samples. A vaiid stati sti cal approach for evaluati ng MNR for the Si te must be based on a compari son of unbi ased surface sedi ment data (i.e ., 2018 baseli ne data and future sedi ment sampli ng data
col 1ected under 1ong-term moni tori ng) to evaluate natural recovery.
Commented [A22]: The work pi an and Tabie 8 states that the surface sedi ment data will be used
to evaluate natural recovery changes si nee 2004. Al though a compari son of 2018 surface sedi ment data reoccupyi ng 2004 sample 1ocati ons (bi ased data) wi th previ ously col 1ected 2004 samples may indi cate
natural recovery trends, it is stati sti cal ly invalid. A vai id stati sti cal approach for eval uati ng MNR for
the Si te must be based on a compari son of unbi ased surface sediment data (i.e ., 2018 baseli ne data and
future sedi ment sampli ng data col 1ected under 1ong-term moni tori ng) to evaluate natural recovery.
Data Evaluati on Secti on 3.3, p . 28 - 29 [Speci fi cal 1y referenced in the Agreement-In-Pri nci pie]
Commented [A40]: Many of the work elements descri bed below represent revi si ti ng the RI/FS and
will result in si gni fi cant delay in remedy implementati o n .
Commented [A41]: Many of the evaluati on statements in thi s secti on are beyond the scope of thi s
phase of work and not consi stent wi th or support the R O D 's data needs or objectives. Wi thout usi ng the
data quality objective process to ful fi 11 a speci fi c data need of the R O D 's deci si on framework, the
outcomes of these evaluati ons will be anci11 ary to and not di rectly influence remedi al deci si on maki n g .
Commented [A42]:The ROD states that sediment data will be used to delineate remedy areas; not
fish trends and "background 1oading" .
Commented [A43]:RAL curves presented in the ROD should not be revi se d.
Commented [A44]:The proposed pi an is not suffi ci ent for recalculati ng SWACs because not al 1 of
the 428 surface sediment samples are unbi ased.
Commented [A45]: Fi sh tracki ng results should not be used to refi ne the extent and segmenti ng
of the ri v e r . The pri mary objective for the fi sh acousti c tracki ng study is to establi sh the home range
of the speci es used in long-term bi ologi cal moni tori ng to inform the degree to whi ch that species can be
associ ated wi th remedi al outcomes.
Commented [A46]: Pri mary purpose for upstream sediment sampli ng is to col 1ect samples over ti me
to develop "equivalency"- determining incoming load or sediment quality that would di ctate what cleanup
wi th natural recovery could achi e v e . PDI will not obtai n suffi ci ent data to eval uate current background
concentrations.
Commented [A47]: Detai1ed sampli ng results obtai ned for remedi al design will be needed to
update active remedi al footpri n t s. The surface and subsurface sediment samples col 1ected duri ng the PDI
will not be suffi ci ent to defi ne SMAs-but can assi st in devel opi ng the SMA 1ocati ons to be further
defi ned through addi ti onal sampli ng as part of remedi al design.
Commented [A48]: These evaluati ons are not the intent of the PDI. Concentrati ons that were
esti mated usi ng the FWM shoul dnot be recal cul ated. Fi sh ti ssue data can be used to inform fi sh
advi sori es but not calculate fi sh consumpti on ri s k s .
Commented [A49]: The pri mary purposes for thi s AOC/SOW are to col 1ect data for Pre-RD SMA
deli neati o n , whi ch will assi st wi th al1ocati on and to col 1ect baseli ne data to establi sh exi sti ng si te
condi ti ons for long-term moni tori n g . Notably, technology assignments wi thi n SMAs are based on other
informati on components (e.g. erosi on/deposi ti o n , si o p e , propel 1er wash) that are not enti rel y informed by
Pre-RD SMA deli neati on and baseli ne sampli ng and more appropri ate for the desi gn phase that is outsi de
thi s AOC/SOW.
From: Ebright, Stephanie [mai 1to :EBRIGHT.STEPHANIE@EPA.GOV] Sent : Fri day, October 06, 2017 4: 59 PM
Sierra Club v. EPA 18cv3472 NDCA
Tiers 8&9
ED 002061 00114485-00002
T o : Peter Saba <psaba@schn.com<mai1t o :psaba@schn.c o m ; Loren R. Dunn (LDunnObdlaw.com<mai1t o :LDunn@bdlaw.com>) <LDunn@bdlaw.com<mai1t o :LDunn@bdl aw. c o m ; greg.christianson (greg.christiansonOmorganlewis.comcmai 1t o :greg.christiansonOmorganl ew is.com>) <greg.christiansonOmorganlewis.comcmai1t o :greg.christianson@morganlewis.c o m ; Karen TRAEGER (karen.traegerOexternal.total.comcmai 1t o :karen.traeger@external.total.com>) ckaren.traeger@external.total.comcmai1t o :karen.traegerOexternal.total.c o m ; 3 .W. Ri ng (JWRi ng@ringbenderlaw.comcmai1t o :JWRi ng@ri ngbenderl aw.com>) clWRi ng@ri ngbenderlaw.comcmai1t o :IWRi ng@ri ngbenderlaw.com>>; Chri sti ne L . Hei n (CHein@ringbenderlaw.comcmai1t o :CHein@ri ngbenderlaw.com>) cCHein@ringbenderlaw.comcmai1t o :CHein@ringbenderlaw.com> > ; richard.george (richard.george@pgn.comcmai1t o :richard.georgeOpgn.com>) crichard.george@pgn.comcmai1t o :richard.georgeOpgn.c o m Cc: Sheldrake, Sean csheldrake.sean@epa.govcmai1t o :sheldrake.sean@epa.gov; Grandinetti, Cami cGrandi netti.Cami@epa.govcmai1t o :Grandi netti.Cami @epa. g o v ; Opal sk i, Dan cOpalski.DanOepa.govcmai1to:Opal sk i.Dan@epa.gov; Pirzadeh, Mi chel 1e cPirzadeh.Michel1e@epa.govcmai1t o :Pirzadeh.Michel1e@epa.gov; Bi1brey, Sheryl cBi1brey.Sheryl@epa.govcmai1t o :Bi1brey.Sheryl@epa.gov> > ; Cora, Lori cCora.Lori@epa.govcmai1t o :Cora.Lori@epa.g o v ; Ingemansen, Dean clngemansen.Dean@epa.govcmai1t o :Ingemansen.D e a n @ e p a . g o v ; Mackey, Cyndy cMackey.Cyndy@epa.govcmai1t o :Mackey.Cyndy@epa.g o v ; Nearhood, Jenni fer cNearhood.Jenni fer@epa.govcmai1t o :Nearhood.Jennifer@epa.gov Subject: PH baseli ne sampli ng - EPA comments on draft WP and SOW
SETTLEMENT COMMUNICATION
Hi all,
Pi ease see attached comments from EPA on the Pre-RD Group's draft Work Pi an as well as the SOW.
Thanks, Stephanie
Stephanie Ebright, Assistant Regional Counsel U.S. Envi ronmental Protection Agency, Regi on 10 1200 Sixth Avenue, ORC-113 Seattle, WA 98101 206.553.0774 (phone) 206.553.1762 (fax)
NOTE: Thi s e-mai1 is from a 1aw firm, Hoi 1and & Knight LLP ("H&K"), and is intended solely for the use of the individual(s) to whom it is addressed. If you beli eve you recei ved thi s e-mai1 in e r ro r, pi ease notify the sender immediately, delete the e-mai1 from your computer and do not copy or disclose it to anyone else. If you are not an exi sti ng cli ent of H&K, do not construe anythi ng in thi s e-mai1 to make you a cli ent unless it contai ns a speci fi c statement to that effect and do not di sclose anythi ng to H&K in reply that you expect it to hoid in confi dence. If you properl y received thi s e-mai1 as a cli e n t , co counsel or retai ned expert of H & K , you should mai ntai n its contents in confi dence in order to preserve the attorney-client or work product privilege that may be avai1able to protect confidentiality.
Sierra Club v. EPA 18cv3472 NDCA
Tiers 8&9
ED 002061 00114485-00003