Message
From:
Sent: To: Subject:
rich.gold@hklaw.com [rich.gold@hklaw.com] 8/29/2017 5:40:13 PM Kelly, Albert [/o=ExchangeLabs/ou=Exchange Administrative Group (FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/cn=Recipients/cn=08576e43795149e5a3f9669726dd044c-Kelly, Albe] Re: Issues Unresolved
Yes
Rich Gold | Hol1and & Knight Practice Group Leader Public Policy & Regulation Group 800 17th Street, N.W., Suite 1100<x-apple-data-detectors://0/l>
WTas2h0i2n.4g5t7o.n7,14D3.<Ct<exl-a:p2p0l2e.-4d5a7t.a7-1d4eBt>ect|oirsj//0/l>_P.e_r_s2o0npapl _P6h_o_n_e__/_E_x_.__"_________ I
Rich.Gold@hklaw.com<mai 1t o :Ri c h .GoTdfiinaw7c6rrf>'"'t HFCl'PP'R-
On Aug 29, 2017, at 1:23 PM, Kelly, Albert <kel1y.albertOepa.gov<mai1t o :kelly.albertOepa.g o v wrote:
Would you be avai1able for a cal 1 at 3 eastern to go over this?
Sent from my iPhone
On Aug 29, 2017, at 8:37 AM, "ri c h .gold@hklaw.comcmai 1t o :ri c h .gol d@hklaw.com>" <ri c h .gold@hklaw.com<mai1t o :ri c h .gold@hklaw.com>> wr ot e:
Fyi for context
*
Cost - EPA staff told the RA that the total cost of the work efforts is $4.5M - there was no
detai1ed support of this position - we indicated that the cost, inclusive of EPA oversight estimates is
above $15M
*
Data uti1ization - there was nei ther push-back nor affi rmative acceptance of data uti1ization
from the study to reset background / refi ne and rescale the remedy and rescale
(thi s issue is a non-starter for haif the PRP group, would have like to hear affi rmati on of the iterns
1ai d-out in the presentati on)
*
Sediment samples - EPA RA was briefed that our dataset would only provide a stati sti cal power of
60% versus 80% by EPA's - she seemed caught off-guard when we explained that we have had several meetings
with her staff and using EPA's own power curve our dataset can to 75% power vs 80% - whi ch is essentially
withi n the margin of error of this work (no EPA staff in the meeting or on the phone refuted thi s
statement, the only sign was the EPA PM si tti ng down the table shaki ng hi s head - he is not bought in to
thi s process)
*
Work takeover clause deletion - EPA is not wi11ing to remove the clause for work takeover - this
is a key issue wi th some of the Pre-RD group members that were part of LWG si nee EPA took over thei r work
after 15-years and +130M$ of expenditure - thi s is an issues si nee once signed the AOC has the force of
Law
*
EPA RA did not outwardly agree to a restri ction on scope changes - I think we can get there but
would have expected just a simple agreement on this term
*
COC's - we explai ned the reasons why we wanted to 1imi t COC's to the focused ri sk / remedy
dri vers - tri ed to explai n it is not just a cost issues / but also jeopardizes the schedule and opens the
ENTIRE data set to rejection and questioni ng if some obscure / di ffi cuit chemicals that are not ri sk
dri vers do not have proper analyti cal recoveries or mi ss cali brati on targets. A l s o , the group expressed
concern and frustrati on that after spendi ng +130MS we know the key ri sk drivers and contami nate
di stribution
*
Di spute Resoluti on - RA did not support a peer revi ew panel and wanted to keep the di spute
process wi thi n the regi on - LWG parti ci pants indi cated thi s was a key issue gi ven the poor experi ence
from agency decisions in the past on key issues as background data / ri sk / fish consumption rates, e t c .
Sierra Club v. EPA 18cv3472 NDCA
Tiers 8&9
ED 002061 00115572-00001
She indicated that she would depend on K Gustafson as the new head of CSTAG to advise but the deci si on she seemed to indi cate would come from the region.
*
More Samples / Sampl ing by EPA - We ask if the agency had another party or how they would
achieve more samples or COC's - the response was vague - there was a short menti on of spl itti ng sampl es -
thi s would be 1ogi sti cally di ffi cult and would extend field execution well beyond our abi1ity to meet a
final work product date by June 2019. Agai n thei r response was vague
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.
Sierra Club v. EPA 18cv3472 NDCA
Tiers 8&9
ED 002061 00115572-00002