Message
From:
Sent: To: Subject:
Kelly, Albert [/0=EXCHANGELABS/OU=EXCHANGE ADMINISTRATIVE GROUP (FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=08576E43795149E5A3F9669726DD044C-KELLY, ALBE] 10/9/2017 2:30:33 PM rich.gold@hklaw.com Re: PH baseline sampling - EPA comments on draft WP and SOW
I am headed back to D.C. Available for a cal 1. Perhaps we could meet this afternoon or in the morning
Sent from my iPad
> On Oct 7, 2017, at 10:53 AM, "ri c h .gold@hklaw.com" < ri c h .gold@hklaw.com> wr ot e: >
> Interesti ngly you were not copi ed 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 inconsistent not only with what you have been sayi ng but al so 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 starti ng Monday am fy i. I ' m avai 1abl e al 1 weekend. Thi s is purely Sean and
Cami. We are two weeks out from 1osi ng the opportunity to get in the water thi s y e a r . Ri ch > > Ri ch Gold | Hoi 1and & Knight
> Practice Group Leader > Public Policy & Regulation Group > 800 17th Street, N.W., Suite 1100<x-apple-data-detectors://0/l> > Washington, D .C<x-apple-data-detectors://0/l>. 20006
> T 202 .45 7.7143<tel:202.457.7143> | M 202.669.9003<tel :202.669.9003>
> Ri ch.Gold@hklaw.com<mai1t o :Ri ch.Gold@hkl aw.com> | @HK_PPR > > Begin forwarded message: >
> From: "Peter Saba" <psaba@schn.com<mai 1t o :psaba@schn.com>> > T o : "Gold, Ri chard (WAS - X77143)" <ri c h .gold@hklaw.com<mai1t o :ri c h .gold@hkl aw.com>>, "Schweitzer, Howard" cHSchweitzerOcozen.comcmai1t o :HSchweitzerOcozen.c o m > Subject: FW: PH baseli ne sampli ng - EPA comments on draft WP and SOW
> > PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL / JOINT DEFENSE COMMUNICATION / ATTORNEY CLIENT WORK PRODUCT > > We did receive 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 RODas i ssued, 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 baseli ne for 1ong-term moni tori n g . Here are some excerpts:
> > Intro, Page 1 [A Good Start] >
>
Commented [A10]: EPA' s objecti ves di ffer 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 EPA' 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 Objecti v e s , p p . 4-5 >
>
Commented [A14]: EPA' s objecti ves di ffer 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 EPA' s objectives and
pianned evaluati ons. >
Sierra Club v. EPA 18cv3472 NDCA
Tiers 8&9
ED 002061 00116765-00001
>
Commented [A15]: Technology assignments can be eval uated during design phase but not with
1imi ted data to be col 1ected under the PDI.
>
>
Commented [A16]: [Refi ni ng the Food Web Model] Achi evi ng thi s goal is not the intent of the
PDI. Concentrations that were estimated using the FWM should not be recalculated.
>
>
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. Primary purpose for data col 1ection 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 ; evaluati on of any recovery si nee
2004 not valid p . 15 >
>
Commented [A21]: The pri mary purpose is to col 1ect an unbi ased basel ine data set to enabl e
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 sampl e 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 valid 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 sediment sampli ng data
col 1ected under 1ong-term moni tori ng) to eval uate natural recovery. >
>
Commented [A22]: The work pi an and Table 8 states that the surface sediment data will be used
to evaluate natural recovery changes si nee 2004. Although 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 valid stati sti cal approach for evaluati 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 ly 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 ROD' s data needs or objecti v e s . Wi thout usi ng
the data quality objecti ve process to fulfill a speci fi c data need of the ROD' s deci si on framework, the
outcomes of these evaluati ons will be anci11 ary to and not di rectly infl uence remedi al deci si on maki n g . >
>
Commented [A42]: The ROD states that sediment data will be used to delineate remedy areas;
not fi sh trends and "background 1oadi ng" . >
>
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 al1
of the 428 surface sedi ment samples are unbi a s ed.
>
>
Commented [A45]: Fi sh tracki ng resul ts 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 1ong-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 sedi ment sampl ing is to col 1ect sampl es over
ti me to develop "equi val ency"- determi ni ng incomi ng load or sedi ment quality that would di ctate what
cleanup wi th natural recovery could achieve. PDI will not obtai n suffi ci ent data to eval uate current background concentrati ons. >
>
Commented [A47]: Detai 1ed sampl ing resul ts 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 developi 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 d not be recal cul a t ed. 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 .
Sierra Club v. EPA 18cv3472 NDCA
Tiers 8&9
ED 002061 00116765-00002
>
>
Commented [A49]: The primary purposes for this AOC/SOW are to col 1ect data for Pre-RD SMA
delineation, whi ch will assist with al1ocation and to col 1ect baseli ne data to establish existing si te
condi tions 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 rely informed by
Pre-RD SMA deli neati on and baseli ne sampli ng and more appropri ate for the design phase that is outsi de
thi s AOC/SOW. >
> > From: Ebright, Stephanie [mai1t o :EBRIGHT.STEPHANIE@EPA.GOV] > Sent: Friday, October 06, 2017 4:59 PM > T o : Peter Saba <psaba@schn.comcmai1t o :psaba@schn.c o m ; Loren R . Dunn (LDunn@bdlaw.comcmai1t o :LDunn@bdlaw.com>) <LDunn@bdlaw.com<mai1t o :LDunnObdlaw.com>>; greg.Christianson
(greg.christiansonOmorganl ewis.comcmai 1t o :greg.christianson@morganl ew is.com>) cgreg.christiansonOmorganlewis.comcmai1t o :greg.christianson@morganlewis.c o m ; Karen TRAEGER (karen.traegerOexternal.total.comcmai1t o :karen.traegerOexternal.total.com>) ckaren.traeger@external.total.comcmai1t o :karen.traegerOexternal.total.c o m ; 3 .W. Ring (JWRi ng@ri ngbenderlaw.comcmai1t o :JWRi ng@ringbenderlaw.com>) clWRi ng@ri ngbenderlaw.comcmai1t o :IWRi ng@ri ngbenderl a w . c o m ; Chri sti ne L. Hei n (CHein@ri ngbenderlaw.comcmai1t o :CHein@ringbenderlaw.com>) cCHein@ringbenderl aw.comcmai1t o :CHein@ringbenderlaw.com; richard.george (richard.george@pgn.comcmai1t o :richard.georgeOpgn.com>)
crichard.georgeOpgn.comcmai1t o :richard.georgeOpgn.c o m > Cc: Sheldrake, Sean cshe1drake.sean@epa.govcmai1t o :sheldrake.seanOepa.g o v ; Grandi netti, Cami cGrandi netti.Cami@epa.govcmai1t o :Grandi netti.Cami@epa.gov; Opal sk i, Dan cOpalski.Dan@epa.govcmai1to:Opal sk i.Dan@epa.gov; Pirzadeh, Mi chel 1e cPirzadeh.Michel1e@epa.govcmai1t o :Pirzadeh.Michel 1e@epa.gov; Bi 1brey, Sheryl
cBi1brey.Sheryl@epa.govcmai1t o :Bi1brey.Sherylepa.gov; Cora, Lori cCora.Lori@epa.govcmai1t o :Cora.Lori@epa.g o v ; Ingemansen, Dean clngemansen.Dean@epa.govcmai1t o :Ingemansen.Dean@epa.g o v ; Mackey, Cyndy cMackey.Cyndy@epa.govcmai1t o :Mackey.Cyndy@epa.g o v ; Nearhood, lenni fer
cNearhood.lennifer@epa.govcmai1t o :Nearhood.lennifer@epa.g o v > Subject: PH baseli ne sampli ng - EPA comments on draft WP and SOW > > SETTLEMENT COMMUNICATION >
> Hi al 1 , >
> 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 > U.S. Envi ronmental Protecti on Agency, > 1200 Si xth Av enue, ORC-113 > Seattle, WA 98101 > 206.553.0774 (phone)
> 206.553.1762 (fax) > >
> ______________________________
Counsel Regi on 10
>
> 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 bel ieve you received thi s e-mai 1 in error, 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-mai 1 as a cl ie 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. > <PHPRD_WP_sentEPA (092217)_EPA comments(100617).pdf> > <PH-Pre-RD SOW-RLSO_10-6-17.docx>
Sierra Club v. EPA 18cv3472 NDCA
Tiers 8&9
ED 002061 00116765-00003