Message
From:
Sent: To: Subject:
Kelly, Albert [/0=EXCHANGELABS/OU=EXCHANGE ADMINISTRATIVE GROUP (FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=08576E43795149E5A3F9669726DD044C-KELLY, ALBE] 10/9/2017 2:52:56 PM rich.gold@hklaw.com Re: PH baseline sampling - EPA comments on draft WP and SOW
5 works provided my piane gets out of Dal 1as on ti me which it shoul d . Your pi ace or mi ne whatever convenient for you
Sent from my iPad
> On Oct 9, 2017, at 9:51 AM, "rich.gold@hklaw.com" < rich.gold@hklaw.com> wr ot e: > > Let us know if 5 today works and where best > > Ri ch Gold | Hoi 1and & Knight > Practice Group Leader > Public Policy & Regulation Group > Hoi 1and & Kni ght LLP > 800 17th Street N.W., Suite 1100 | Washi ngton, DC 20006 > T 202.457.7143 | M 202.669.9003 > ri c h .gold@hkl aw.com | www.hklaw.com
> Add to address book | View professional biography > > > > > ---- Origi nal Message----> From: Kelly, Albert [mai1t o :kelly.albert@epa.gov] > Sent: Monday, October 09, 2017 10:34 AM > T o : G o l d , Ri chard (WAS - X77143) <ri c h .gol d@hkl aw.com> > Subject: R e : PH baseli ne sampli ng - EPA comments on draft WP and SOW > > I 1and at 4. We can do in person thi s eveni ng or in the morni n g . Or otherwi se as works for y o u . Getti ng ready to take off for Dal 1as > > Sent from my iPad > On Oct 9, 2017, at 9:32 AM, "ri c h .gold@hklaw.com" < ri c h .gold@hklaw.com> wr ot e: I 'm around. Whatever best for y o u . Name a ti me and I'll coordi nate with Peter Ri ch Gold | Hoi 1and & Knight Practi ce Group Leader Public Poli cy & Regulati on Group Hoi 1and & Knight LLP 800 17th Street N.W., Sui te 1100 | Washi ngton, DC 20006 T 202.457.7143 | M 202.669.9003 ri c h .gold@hklaw.com | www.hklaw.com
_____________________________________________
Add to address book | Vi ew professi onal bi ography -----Ori gi nal Message---- From: Kelly, Albert [mai1t o :kel1y .albert@epa.gov] Sent: Monday, October 09, 2017 10:31 AM T o : G o ld, Ri chard (WAS - X77143) < ri c h .gold@hklaw.com> Subject: R e : PH baseline sampling - EPA comments on draft WP and SOW I am headed back to D.C. Avai1able for a cal 1. Perhaps we could meet thi s afternoon or in the morni ng Sent from my iPad > On Oct 7, 2017, at 10:53 AM, "rich.gold@hklaw.com" < rich.gold@hklaw.com> wr ot e: > > Interesti ngly you were not copi ed on emai1s markup of the work pi a n . > It removes any possi bi 1ity that the data will impact the remedy
Sierra Club v. EPA 18cv3472 NDCA
Tiers 8&9
ED 002061 00116751-00001
> 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 decide what to do on the ERA 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 al1 weekend. This is purely Sean and Cami. We are two weeks > out from 1osing the opportunity to get in the water thi s y e a r . Rich > > Rich Gold | Hoi 1and & Knight > Practice Group Leader > Public Pol icy & Regul ati on Group > 800 17th Street, N.W., Suite 1100<x-apple-data-detectors://0/l> > Washi ngton, D .C<x-apple-data-detectors://0/l>. 20006 T > 202.457.7143<tel:202.457.7143> | M 202.669.900B<tel:202.669.9003> > Ri c h .Gold@hklaw.com<mai1t o :Ri ch.Gold@hklaw.com> | @HK_PPR > > Begin forwarded message:
>
> From: "Peter Saba" <psaba@schn.com<mai 1t o :psaba@schn.c o m > T o : "Gol d , Ri chard (WAS - X77143) " > <ri ch .gol d@hkl aw. com<mai 1t o :ri c h .gol d@hkl aw. c o m , "Schwei tzer, > Howard" <HSchweitzer@cozen.com<mai1t o :HSchweitzer@cozen.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 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 emai 1 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-1 ine data for 1ong-term moni tori ng of remedy effecti veness) 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 time, 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 mi 11io n. > > 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 f1avor. Data that will be col 1ected by this 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 vesdiffer 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 Objectives, p p . 4-5
>
>
Commented [A14]: EPA' s objecti vesdiffer 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. >
>
Commented [A15]: Technology assi gnments can be evaluated duri ng desi gn phase but not with
1imi ted data to be col 1ected under the PDI. >
>
Commented [A16]: [Refining 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.
>
>
Commented [A17]: [Human Heal th Ri s k s ; Background Condi ti ons] Not rel evant for thi s phase of
sampl in g.
>
> Evaluati ng Background, p . 13 wi th 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 Upriver Reaches is for comparison to site
concentrati ons usi ng an equivalency analysi s .
>
> Can only evaluate natural recovery goi ng forward from 2018 sampli n g ;
Sierra Club v. EPA 18cv3472 NDCA
Tiers 8&9
ED 002061 00116751-00002
> 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 with previ ously col 1ected 2004 samples is stati sti cal ly invalid because 108 of 428 surface sampl e 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 evaluate natural recovery. >
>
Commented [A22]: The work pi an and Table 8 states that the surface sedi ment data will be
used to evaluate natural recovery changes si nee 2004. Although a compari son of 2018 surface sediment data
reoccupyi ng 2004 sample 1ocati ons (bi ased data) with previ ousl y col 1ected 2004 samples may indi cate
natural recovery trends, it is stati sti cally invalid. A valid 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
> the Agreement-In-Principie] >
29 [Speci fi cal 1y referenced in
>
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 del ay 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 with or support the ROD' s data needs or objecti v e s . Without 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 influence remedi al deci si on maki n g . >
>
Commented [A42]: The ROD states that sedi ment data will be used to del ineate remedy areas;
not fi sh trends and "background 1oadi ng" . >
> >
Commented [A43]: RAL curves presented in the ROD should not be revised.
>
Commented [A44]: The proposed pi an is not suffi ci ent for recal cul ati 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 river. 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
speci es can be associ ated wi th remedi al outcomes. >
>
Commented [A46]: Pri mary purpose for upstream sediment 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 concentrations. >
>
Commented [A47]: Detai1ed 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
esti matedusi ng the FWM shoul d not 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 risks.
>
were
>
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 , propeller 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 [mai 1t 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>) > cLDunnObdlaw.comcmai1t o :LDunnObdlaw .com; g r eg.christianson > (greg.christiansonOmorganlewi s .comcmai1t o :greg.chri stiansonOmorganl ew > i
Sierra Club v. EPA 18cv3472 NDCA
Tiers 8&9
ED 002061 00116751-00003
> s.com>) > <greg.christianson@morganlewis.com<mai1t o :greg.christiansonOmorganlew > i > s .c o m ; Karen TRAEGER > (karen.traeger@external.total.comcmai 1t o :karen.traeger@external.total. > com>) > <karen.traegerOexternal.total.com<mai1t o :karen.traeger@external.total. > c o m ; 3 .W. Ring > (JWRing@ringbenderlaw.com<mai1t o :JWRing@ringbenderlaw.com>) > <JWRi ng@ri ngbenderlaw.com<mai1t o :JWRing@ringbenderlaw.com> > ; > Christine L . Hein > (CHein@ringbenderlaw.com<mai1t o :CHein@ringbenderlaw.com>) > <CHei n@ri ngbenderl aw. comcmai 1t o :CHei n@ri ngbenderl aw. c o m ; > ri chard.george > (richard.georgeOpgn.comcmai1t o :richard.georgeOpgn.com>) > cri chard .georgeOpgn.comcmai 1t o :ri chard.george@pgn.c o m > C c : Sheldrake, Sean > csheldrake.seanepa.govcmai1t o :sheldrake.sean@epa.gov; Grandinetti, > Cami cGrandi netti .Cami@epa.govcmai 1t o :Grandi netti .Cami@epa.gov; > Opal ski , Dan cOpalski .Dan@epa.govcmai 1to:Opal ski .Dan@epa.gov; > Pi rzadeh , Mi chel 1e > cPi rzadeh.Mi chel 1e@epa.govcmai 1t o :Pi rzadeh.Mi chel 1e@epa.g o v ; > Bi 1brey, Sheryl > cBi 1brey.Sheryl@epa. govcmai 1t o :Bi 1brey.Sheryl@epa. g o v ; C o ra, Lori > cCora.Lori@epa.govcmai 1t o :Cora. Loriepa.gov; Ingemansen, Dean > clngemansen.Dean@epa.govcmai1t o :Ingemansen.Dean@epa.gov; Mackey, > Cyndy cMackey.Cyndy@epa.govcmai1t o :Mackey.Cyndy@epa.gov; Nearhood, > Jennifer > cNearhood.Jennifer@epa.govcmai1t o :Nearhood.Jennifer@epa.g o v > Subject: PH baseline sampling - 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, > Stephani e > > Stephanie Ebright, Assistant Regional Counsel U.S. Envi ronmental > Protection Agency, Region 10 > 1200 Si xth Avenue, ORC-113 > Seattl e , WA 98101 > 206.553.0774 (phone) > 206.553.1762 (fax) > >
> ______________________________
>
> NOTE: This e-mai 1 is from a 1aw firm, Hoi 1and & Kni ght LLP ( "H&K" ), and is intended solely for the
use of the indi vi dual(s) to whom it is addressed. If you beli eve you recei ved thi s e-mai1 in error, pi ease noti fy the sender immedi ately, 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 cl ient 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 scl ose anythi ng to H&K in reply that you expect it to hoid in confi dence. If you properly 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 privi 1ege that may be avai 1able 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 00116751-00004