P-003, in: A.K. Bullard, D.T. Dahlen (Chairs), Remediation and Management of Contaminated Sediments—2015. Eighth International Conference on Remediation and Management of Contaminated Sediments (New Orleans, LA; Jan 12–15, 2015). ISBN 978-0-9819730-9-8, ©2015 Battelle Memorial Institute, Columbus, OH. www.battelle.org/sedimentscon

Finding the Right Balance in Remedy Selection between Sound Science, Politics, Stakeholders and Cost Effectiveness

Panel Discussion Tuesday

Moderator

Stephen J. Ells (U.S. EPA, Office of Sediments Remediation and Technology Innovation) Chair of the Contaminated Sediments Technical Advisory Group

Panelists

Todd S. Bridges (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers) Steven C. Nadeau (Honigman Miller Schwartz and Cohn LLP)—

Coordinating Director of the Sediment Management Work Group (SMWG) Douglas J. Sarno (Forum Facilitation Group, LLC)

Randy Sturgeon (U.S. EPA, Region 3) Large sediment sites are very complex, and accurately predicting the level of risk reduction and short-term impacts of every alternative is challenging. However, decisions must be made in the face of these uncertainties. CERCLA requires that every remedy be cost effective, and the NCP requires that all remedies balance short-term impacts with long-term effectiveness and give consideration to state and community acceptance. Partly due to the huge costs at stake here, most sites have large numbers of stakeholders with varied interests in the sites.

The panel will discuss the indirect costs as well as all the indirect benefits of remediation and the need to focus more on risk communication and more structured decision making in achieving socioeconomic goals. The panel will provide ideas on overcoming controversy as we approach remedy decision-making, minimizing “political” decision making at the very end of the process, and developing more private-public partnerships. Lessons learned from effective community involvement programs at a few large sites will be discussed.

1

Finding the Right Balance…

Todd S. Bridges, Ph.D. Senior Research Scientist, Environmental Science

U.S. Army Engineer Research and

Development Center Vicksburg, MS

2

“Finding the Right Balance in Remedy Selection Between Sound Science, Politics, Stakeholders and Cost Effectiveness”

• First, the problem is NOT the result of tension/conflict between science, politics, stakeholders, costs

• The problem is the result of conflicts among the multiple objectives parties want to achieve with a project… – and these objectives (and

how they are applied to make decisions) are being concealed within the “process”

Provocative Assertions • How can a decision-making process for a project that

takes 20+ years ever be considered transparent in practical terms? – Nobody will be able to consistently and reliably follow the

process, so no-one will fully understand what determined the decision.

• Parties are being excluded from critical aspects of the decision making process. – “Public meetings” are not a reliable indicator of

inclusiveness, when you aren’t in the backroom where the real negotiations occur.

– “If you aren’t at the table, then either you or your interests are on the menu”

• The openness of the process will be inversely proportional to the number of lawyers with a hand in decision making. – The prime directive of lawyers is to take maximal

advantage of information they have that their opponents do not have.

3

4

Planning Objectives

• Reduce risk to public safety from catastrophic storm inundation

• Reduce damages from catastrophic storm inundation

• Promote a sustainable ecosystem

• Restore and sustain diverse fish and wildlife habitats, and

• Sustain the unique heritage of coastal Louisiana by protecting historic sites and supporting traditional cultures

Risk Metrics

• Population Impacted • Residual Damages • Life-Cycle Costs • Construction Time • Employment Impacted • Indirect Environmental

Impact • Direct Wetland Impacts • Historic Properties Protected • Historic Districts Protected • Archeological Sites

Protected

Louisiana Coastal Protection and Restoration Objectives and Metrics

LaCPR Weightings Results

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

0.00.1

0.20.3

0.40.5

0.6

0.10.2

0.30.4

0.50.6

Envi

ronm

enta

l Obj

ectiv

es

National E

conomic O

bjectives

Regional Economic Objectives

ABCDEFGHOutliers

6

Contributions to Rankings Across Scenarios

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

3 5 4 2 18 7 17 6 19 8 20 21 1 9 10 23 22 12 11 24 13 26 15 25 14 27 16

Alternative Plan

Util

ity s

core

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10Scenario 1 Metric:PU-1: A

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

3 5 4 2 18 7 17 6 19 20 8 9 21 10 1 22 23 11 12 24 13 26 15 25 14 27 16

Alternative Plan

Util

ity s

core

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10Scenario 2 Metric:PU-1: A

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

3 5 4 2 18 7 17 6 1 19 8 20 21 9 10 23 22 12 11 24 13 26 15 25 14 27 16

Alternative Plan

Util

ity s

core

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10Scenario 3 Metric:PU-1: A

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

3 5 4 2 18 7 17 6 19 20 8 9 21 10 1 22 23 11 12 24 13 26 15 25 14 27 16

Alternative Plan

Util

ity s

core

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10Scenario 4 Metric:PU-1: A

7

• The cure for what plagues decision-making at complex sites is complete transparency: – Explicit consideration of all objectives – Quantitative analysis of the trade offs

among objectives – Fully open deliberation about all the

trade offs

Finding the Right Balance in Remedy Selection Between Sound Science,

Politics, Stakeholders & Cost-effectiveness – Panel Discussion

Steven C. Nadeau Eighth International Conference on Remediation & Management of

Contaminated Sediments New Orleans, Louisiana

Steven C. Nadeau - Honigman Miller Schwartz and Cohn Coordinating Director - Sediment Management Work Group (SMWG)

(313) 465-7492 snadeau@honigman.com

Contaminated Sediment Sites are Complex, with Numerous Challenging Issues

– RI/FS phases at mega sites are taking over a decade at great expense (the Willamette and Passaic Rivers cost over $100m plus for the RI/FS phases)

– Challenging and often contentious and lengthy risk assessment issues often occur, typically driven by very conservative assumptions

– Remedy evaluation and selection can be very difficult with layers of additional conservatism built upon a very conservative base (remedial Investigation, risk assessment and modeling)

– While grappling with the above, risks are on-going

2

Contaminated Sediment: A Costly National Challenge

• Grasse River (NY) ROD: $243M • Gowanus Canal (NY) ROD: $506M • Lower 8 Miles of the Passaic River (NJ) Proposed

Plan: up to $1.7B • Lower Duwamish Waterway (WA) ROD: $350M • Lower Fox River (WI) Remedy: approx. $700M

3

CERCLA Remedy Selection Criteria

- CERCLA, the National Contingency Plan (NCP) and the Sediment Guidance require that remedial alternatives be evaluated on overall protectiveness, short-term impacts and long-term effectiveness and must be cost-effective, among other factors

4

Possible Solutions for Traditional CERCLA Sediment Sites

• Boston Workshop (2011) 58 invited participants from EPA, USACE, Mass DEP, Industry, and Consultants

• Bold Challenge: Within the existing Superfund framework (i.e., CERCLA and the NCP), how can we achieve better results at contaminated sediment sites in one half the time and at one half the cost?

5

Five Opportunities Emerged

1. Project Vision 2. Stakeholder Engagement 3. Optimize Risk Reduction

• Strategic Use of Early Actions • Sequential Risk Management

Analysis 4. Incentivize Progress Toward

Risk Reduction 5. Collaboration

6

Strategic Use of Early Actions

• Efficient and accelerated process for addressing obvious sources and contributors to site risks

• Main objective: Accelerating risk reduction

• Distinct from main objective of pilot studies:

• Understanding site-specific issues

• Reducing uncertainties • Evaluating what is feasible

7

Early Action Process 1 • Site enters Superfund

2

• Concurrently develop CSM • Screen & prioritize areas of the site

• Areas clearly requiring action (“Action Areas”) • Areas not requiring action (“No Action Areas”) • Areas that cannot be classified with available data (“Action

Undetermined Areas”) • Evaluate continuing external sources

3 • Implement Early Action(s) • Use post-construction monitoring data to refine CSM &

reduce uncertainties

4 • Proceed with RI/FS

• Collect additional data, as needed • Evaluate previously identified Action Undetermined Areas

8

Use of Sequential Risk Management

9

Sequential Risk Management

10

CERCLA’s Cost-Effectiveness Requirement

• National Policy: – Remedies must be cost-effective. Cost-effective

means that costs must be proportional to the overall remedial effectiveness.

• 40 CFR §300.430 (f)(1)(ii)(D) – “[I]f the difference in effectiveness is small but the

difference in cost is very large, a proportional relationship between the alternatives does not exist.”

• Preamble to the NCP, 55 Red Reg 8728 (March 8, 1990)

– Regions must select remedies that are cost-effective (2005 Guidance, p. 7-17).

11

12

Remedy/Cost-Effectiveness Proportionality

Stakeholder Involvement Challenges

• The challenge of achieving “transparency” – Communicating uncertainty to

stakeholders – Managing expectations about

what can and cannot be achieved, in reality

– Evaluating alternatives in terms of relevant measures of performance that will unfold over decades

13

Broadsweeping Possible Solution-Sustainable Sediment Management

• Adopt and implement practices and policies that help to balance, achieve and maintain interdependent environmental, social and economic goals.

14

•Reduce sediment risks

•Restore green infrastructure •Revitalize waterfronts

Sustainable Sediment Management Goals

1) Maintain productive and healthy aquatic ecosystems

2) Enhance community and societal benefits (Quality of Life) 3) Support commerce and economic growth

15

Socio-economic Challenge: Common Ground for Ecology and Revitalization

16

Current Sediment Management Process: • Isolated from socio-economic considerations • Does nothing to encourage creativity and cooperation;

limits the possibilities • Impairs meaningful discussion of options to support both

ecological and socio-economic goals

Recipe for a More Productive Path: Approach for Sustainable Sediment Management

• Prioritize big-picture, multi-dimensional, watershed-scale thinking and conceptual creativity

• Incentivize progress for sediment management by promoting collaborative public-private partnerships

• Focus on achieving environmental and socio-economic goals →

17

•Reduce sediment risks •Restore green infrastructure •Revitalize waterfronts

Summary

• Sediment management is a watershed-scale issue that begs for proactive, holistic, regional perspectives.

• The current approach is reactive, site-based, disconnected from socio-economic considerations, and does little to encourage cooperation at any level.

• Sustainable solutions would benefit from an attractive value proposition that helps communities address multiple challenges:

– Addressing sediment quantity and quality

– Restoring green infrastructure

– Revitalizing urban waterfronts

Contact info

Steven C. Nadeau, Esq. Honigman Miller Schwartz and Cohn LLP Coordinating Director, Sediment Management Work Group Phone: (313) 465-7492 Fax: (313) 465-7493 snadeau@honigman.com Visit the SMWG website: www.smwg.org

19

16360141.1

Why Do Some Stakeholders Get Loud and Aggressive?

1. Because they care passionately 2. Because they don’t feel heard or respected 3. Because it works

Effective Decisions Require:

Balance Inclusion

5 Things You Can’t Force Stakeholders to Do

1. Change their position 2. Trust you 3. Trust each other 4. Show up 5. Care

5 Important Things That Take Time and the Right

Approach 1. Building trust 2. Building credibility 3. Creating shared purpose 4. Creating shared knowledge 5. Creating common ground

Advisory Groups Actually Work

• Balanced representation • In depth learning • Focus on what matters to people • Build relationships over time • Identify areas of agreement

Battelle 2015 Contaminated Sediment Conference

Randy Sturgeon EPA Remedial Project Manager

EPA Region 3 January 13, 2015

Dredging Works!

Balance What? http://scalesmuseum.com/Beam%20Scales.html

Dredging Works!

Big influences to remedy selection Fish/shell fish consumption rate Bioaccumulative COC? Current and potential future risk Current and potential future use of water body Minimize reliance on ICs IMBY or NIMBY

Dredging Works!

How well can you sell a position that you can live with?

CERCLA is all about cleaning up the environment. However, if we are going to spend money why not get the biggest benefit for society?

Dredging Works!

Betterment: Better Not! Reuse/Redevelopment

Dredging Works!

AWI Site: Portsmouth, VA

Dredging Works!

Best Practices Facilitate connections External to Internal External to External

Think win-win-win

Dredging Works!

Big Ideas? Less reviewers and more people involved that have a

vested interest in the project schedule: consider a project management team that includes RPM(s) from outside the region

Provide for the RPM(s) project management coaches that have no vested interest in the site (Incident Command System)

Dredging Works!

One last observation Orange is the new black

50 is the new 40

Billion is the new million

Dredging Works!