Message
From:
Sent: To: Subject:
Kelly, Albert [/0=EXCHANGELABS/OU=EXCHANGE ADMINISTRATIVE GROUP (FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=08576E43795149E5A3F9669726DD044C-KELLY, ALBE] 10/5/2017 7:30:12 PM rich.gold@hklaw.com Re: Grids and transects issue
Keep pushing
Sent from my iPhone
> On Oct 5, 2017, at 3:18 PM, "rich.gold@hklaw.com" < rich.gold@hklaw.com> wr ot e: >
> Step forward fyi. > > Rich 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 .Ccx-apple-data-detectors://0/l>. 20006 > T 202.457.7143<tel :202.457.7143> | M 202.669.9003<tel:202.669.9003> > Ri ch.Gold@hkl aw.comcmai1t o :Ri ch.Gold@hklaw.com> | @HK_PPR
> > Begin forwarded message: > > From: Peter Saba <psaba@schn.com<mai1t o :psaba@schn.c o m > D a te: October 5, 2017 at 12:16:46 PM PDT
> T o : "ri c h .gold@hklaw.comcmai1t o :ri c h .gol d@hkl aw.com>" <ri c h .gold@hklaw.comcmai1t o :ri c h .gold@hkl aw.com>>, "HSchweitzer@cozen.comcmai1t o :HSchweitzer@cozen.com>" cHSchweitzer@cozen.comcmai1t o :HSchweitzer@cozen.c o m > Subject: FW: Grids and transects issue
> > PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL / JOINT DEFENSE COMMUNICATION / ATTORNEY CLIENT WORK PRODUCT > > EPA Region 10 has now confi rmed that the issue is not grid versus transect, it is the movement step in the grid approach. That is of course different than what they said on Monday. They have now confi rmed
that they will agree to use of the gri d approach if we eli mi nate the movement step. We are checki ng on what this means for the recovery trend analysis and whether this is acceptable to the group. > > More detai1 in the emai1 from Mat below.
> > From: Mat Cusma > Sent: Thursday, October 05, 2017 11:29 AM > T o : Jason Conder cJConder@Geosyntec.comcmai1t o :JConder@Geosyntec.com; Peter Saba cpsaba@schn.comcmai1t o :psaba@schn.c o m ; Hans Feige chfeige@feige.uscmai1t o :hfeige@feige.u s ; Anne
Fitzpatrick cAFitzpatrick@Geosyntec.comcmai1t o :AFitzpatrick@Geosyntec.com; betsy.ruffl e@aecom.comcmai1t o :betsy.ruffle@aecom.com> ; Fred WOLF (frederick.wolf@total.comcmai1t o :frederick.wolf@total.com>) cfrederick.wolf@total.comcmai1t o :frederick.wolf@total.c o m ; 'Karen E. Traeger' ckaren.traeger@total.comcmai1t o :karen.traeger@total.c o m ; Blomgren, Nathan F
(nathan.bl omgren@chevron.comcmai1t o :nathan.blomgren@chevron.com>) cnathan.blomgren@chevron.comcmai1t o :nathan.blomgren@chevron.c o m ; Marquez, Christy (ChristyMarquez@chevron.comcmai1t o :ChristyMarquez@chevron.com>) cChri styMarquez@chevron.comcmai1t o :Chri styMarquez@chevron.c o m ; Nathanson, Ki rsten L.
cKNathanson@crowel1.comcmai1t o :KNathanson@crowel 1 .c o m ; George, Gerald cGeraldGeorge@dwt.comcmai1t o :GeraldGeorge@dwt.c o m ; Debbi e Deetz Si 1va cDebbie.Deetz.Si 1va@evrazna.comcmai1t o :Debbie.Deetz.Si 1va@evrazna.c o m ; Drew Gi1pin (Drew.Gi 1pin@evrazna.comcmai1t o :Drew.Gi1pin@evrazna.com>) cDrew.Gi 1pin@evrazna.comcmai1t o :Drew.Gi1pin@evrazna.c o m ; Ei1een Tierney
(Ei1een.Tierney@evrazna.comcmai1t o :Ei1een.Ti erney@evrazna.com>) cEi1een.Tierney@evrazna.comcmai1t o :Ei1een.Tierney@evrazna.com; Loren R . Dunn cLDunn@bdlaw.comcmai1t o :LD un n@ bdlaw.com; 'David C. We be r' cDWeber@bdlaw.comcmai1t o :DW eb er @b dl aw .c om; Li nda Baker cl baker@i ntegral-corp.comcmai 1t o :1baker@i ntegral -corp.c o m ; Chri sti ne L. Hei n
cCHein@ri ngbenderlaw.comcmai1t o :CHein@ri ngbender la w. co m; J .W. Ri ng (JWRing@ri ngbenderlaw.comcmai1t o :JWRing@ri ngbenderlaw.com>) cJWRing@ringbenderlaw.comcmai1t o :JWRing@ringbenderlaw.com; Mark Strandberg (mstrandberg@ri ngbenderl aw.comcmai1t o :mstrandberg@ri ngbenderlaw.com>) cmstrandberg@ri ngbenderlaw.comcmai1t o :mstrandberg@ri ngbend er la w. co m; Howard Cumberl and
chcumberland@Geosyntec.comcmai1t o :hcumberland@Geosyntec.com; Scott Rowlands csrowlands@Geosyntec.comcmai1t o :srowlands@Geosyntec.c o m ; christopher.bozzini@pgn.comcmai 1t o :christopher.bozzini@pgn.com> ; richard.george (richard.george@pgn.comcmai1t o :richard.george@pgn.com>)
Sierra Club v. EPA 18cv3472 NDCA
Tiers 8&9
ED 002061 00117281-00001
<richard.george@pgn.com<mai1t o :richard.georgeOpgn.com>>; jim.dragna
(ji m.dragnaOmorganlewi s .com<mai1t o :ji m.dragnaOmorganlewis.com>)
<ji m.dragna@morganlewis.comcmai1t o :jim.dragnaOmorganlewis.c o m ; greg.christianson
(greg.chri stianson@morganlewis.comcmai1t o :greg.christiansonOmorganlewis.com>)
<greg.christianson@morganlewis.com<mai1t o :greg.christiansonmorganlewis.c o m ; denise.fel1ers
(denise.fel 1ers@morganl ewi s .com<mai1t o :denise.fel1ersOmorganlewis.com>)
<denise.fel 1ersOmorganl ew is.com<mai1t o :deni s e .fel1ersOmorganlewis.c o m ; Kei th Kroeger
<KKroeger@Geosyntec.com<mai1t o :KKroegerOGeosyntec.c o m
> Subject: RE: Grids and transects issue
>
> PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL / JOINT DEFENSE COMMUNICATION / ATTORNEY CLIENT WORK PRODUCT
>
> Based on Jason's conversation with Karl, the conference cal 1 with EPA Region 10 counsel this morning,
and a fol1ow-up phone cal 1 between Peter (and me) and Dan Opal sk i, it has been made cl ear that EPA's
remai ni ng techni cal threshold issue is not sedi ment sampl ing based on T ransects v s . Gri d s , but the steps
in our sample piacement methodology (Work Pi an Appendi x B) that cal 1 for shi fti ng certai n samples to
reoccupy 2004 sample 1ocations (Section B l , Steps 2 and 4). At al1 1evels, EPA has now indicated its
wi11ingness to accept the unbi ased gri d approach, but they are uncomfortable rei ntroduci ng bi as by movi ng
sample 1ocati ons wi thi n randomly selected gri d cel 1s .
>
> As a group, we need to deci de how cri ti cal it is for us to be al1owed to "scooch" sample 1ocati ons to
get the informati on we need. I would 1i ke Jason's (and other techni cal folks') input on the issue:
>
>
Recogni zi ng we ca n't perfectly reoccupy sample 1ocati ons anyway (as Li nda and Howard recently
noted), how much resoluti on mi ght we 1o s e , or how much uncertai nty mi ght we introduce, by compari ng
unbi ased 1ocati ons from 2018 wi th the nearest neighbors from 2004?
>
>
Expecti ng that some unbi ased grid 1ocati ons are 1ikely to fall near 2004 sample points, do we
really expect to need to move 108 sample locations to achieve the needed certai nty in our trend analysis?
>
>
Is there a possi ble trade-off to be considered between number of SMA del ineati on sampl e
1ocati ons and reoccupati on samples, or has that opti mi zati on already been performed?
>
> We need to deci de in pretty short order whether we can accommodate the mi ddle ground wi thout 1osi ng our
abi1ity to draw meani ngful recovery trend conclusions from the data.
>
> Mathew Cusma, P.E.
> Di rector, Envi ronmental Remediation | SCHNITZER STEEL INDUSTRIES, INC.
> 299 S.W. Cl ay Street, Suite 350 | Portland, Oregon | 97201
> Mai ling Address: Post Offi ce Box 10047 | Portland, Oregon | 97296
> T e l : 503.265.6339 | mcusmaOschn.com<mai 1t o :mcusma@schn.com> | Cel 1 : 503.209.6057
> [SchnitzerlD-pri nt_small_pms]
> PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL / JOINT DEFENSE COMMUNICATION / ATTORNEY CLIENT WORK PRODUCT
>
> ______________________________
>
> NOTE: Thi s e-mai1 is from a 1aw fi rm , Hoi 1and & Knight LLP ("H&K") , and is intended sol ely 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 di sclose 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.
Sierra Club v. EPA 18cv3472 NDCA
Tiers 8&9
ED 002061 00117281-00002