june 29, 2016 fs/pp presentation to pci group benson hotel ... · 2015 fs to 2016 fs flow chart...
TRANSCRIPT
June 29, 2016 FS/PP Presentation to PCI Group Benson Hotel, Portland, Oregon EPA Attendees: Kristine Koch Elizabeth Allen Anne Christopher Cami Grandinetti Lori Houck Cora PCI Group: Attendance Sheet Attached Purpose of Meeting: At request of PCI group, EPA presented information about the FS/Proposed Plan EPA Presentation Attached Notes: Questions raised related to:
SDU breakdown of costs
Added riverbanks to FS and PP- how were they selected? (some were included/some not)
FS assumption- residual layer after dredging- what role does confirmation sampling play?
2015 FS to 2016 FS flow chart changes- have the rules changed?
LWG and PCI can only do so much outreach. Public looks to EPA for info. Looks like Alt H will eliminate the fish advisory. Is EPA going to better explain that to the public?
Steps forward from PP to ROD?
Status of the disputes to the FS? Meeting ended.
Portland HarborSuperfund Site
Presentation to the PCI Group
June 30, 2016
Kristine Koch, U.S. EPA Region 10
Lower Willamette River
2
3
Key Parts of Portland Harbor Cleanup
Early Action
Cleanup
In-RiverCleanup
Source control
Basis for Action• Unacceptable risk to human health
• Most exposure/risk – fish consumption• PCBs and dioxins/furans site wide• DDx and PAHs on localized scale
• Unacceptable risk to ecological receptors• Focus on Ecological Significance• Most risk to birds, fish, and mammals – fish
consumption• Benthic risk – primarily groundwater, pesticides
and metals4
Contaminants
• 64 Contaminants of Concern (COCs)– Sediment/river banks (24)– Biota (17)– Surface Water (27)– Pore Water (groundwater) (39)
5
Focused COCs
• Focused COCs– PCBs– PAHs– DDx– Dioxins/Furans
• Most widespread• Most associated risk• Addresses other COCs
6
Example Remedial Action Level Curve
7
Example of Contaminant Distribution
8PCBs
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
≤9 >9 ‐ 50 >50 ‐ 75 >75 ‐ 200 >200 ‐ 500 >500 ‐ 750 >750 ‐1,000
>1,000
Freq
uency
Concentration Bins
Detect
Non‐Detect
Example of Contaminant Distribution
9
Sediment
Removal
ALL ALTERNATIVES
Are Different Combinations of:
Natural RecoveryContainment
Dredging Capping Enhanced NaturalRecovery (ENR)
Monitored NaturalRecovery (MNR)
Institutional Controls
• Whole River– Fish consumption advisories
• Capped Areas – Waterway Use Restrictions or Regulated
Navigation Areas (RNAs)– Land Use/Access Restrictions
14
Why Use MNR?
• Upriver Sediment Load– 82 percent passes through site– 18 percent retained
• 277 million kg/year
– Lower contaminant concentrations– Transitional River System
15
Evidence Evaluated for MNR
• Deposition rates – bathymetric survey• Consistency of deposition/erosion• Sediment grain size• Anthropogenic factors – propeller wash• Surface-to-subsurface sediment ratio• Waves
16
Summary of Technology Assignments
17
AltDredge Volume
Dredge Areas
Dredge/Cap Areas Cap Areas In-Situ
Areas ENR MNR Construction Timeframe Cost
(Cu Yd) (Acres) (Acres) (Acres) (Acres) (Acres) (Acres) (Years) ($M)B 659,000 72 6 23 7 100 1,966 4 451C 790,000 87 6 30 5 97 1,948 5 497D 1,226,000 132 11 45 3 87 1,900 6 654
E 2,204,000 204 15 66 0 60 1,838 7804870
F 5,100,000 387 32 118 0 28 1,634 131,3171.371
G 8,294,000 572 47 185 0 20 1,391 191,7311,777
H 33,487,000 1632 106 535 0 0 0 629,4469,525
I 1,855,000 167 17 64 0 60 1,876 7746
811
Preferred Alternative
Areas Modified from Alternative E
• SDU 5.5E – Alternative F• SDU 6.5E – Alternative B + PTW• SDU 6NAV – Alternative B + PTW• SDU 6W – Alternative D• SDU 7W – Alternative F• Areas outside SDUs – PTW only
18
Preferred Alternative
19
Preferred Alternative Technologies
Addresses 85% of the Risk
20
EPA’s Evaluation CriteriaThe Proposed Cleanup Plan must:
Protect Human Health and the Environment Comply with Federal and State Environmental Laws
It must achieve the best balance of: Long-term Effectiveness and Permanence Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, and Volume through Treatment Short-term Effectiveness Implementability Cost
These criteria are considered after public comment period:
State/Tribal Acceptance Community Acceptance
Containment Natural RecoveryRemoval
ALTERNATIVES
High Cost and Construction Impacts Low $$$$
Low Uncertainty High? ???
Alternatives have Different Features and Effects
Outcomes of Preferred Alternative @ t=0• Address majority of PTW• Minimize Institutional Controls for RAO 2• Minimize recontamination from riverbanks• Maintain Alternative E fish consumption rates• Minimize river use restrictions (caps)• More consistent risk reduction• Reduces impacts to habitat
23
Tell us what you think• Comment period: June 9 – September 6, 2016• All documents are on EPA’s web site:
http://go.usa.gov/3Wf2B• Can comment by
– e-mail [email protected]
– MailAttn: Harbor Comments U.S. EPA, 805 SW Broadway, Suite 500Portland, OR 97205
– Electronic comment box: https://www.epa.gov/or/forms/comment-epas-proposed-cleanup-plan-portland-harbor-superfund-site
– Orally at a public meeting
Nameami
--1vkVl ~
S~~~. ~
- loti & \d
Name
()a"",: fA t1..d. ('I\..~ (J)r,' CDr-a.
~<.? rr (IZ~ J.
JeA.V\~~ \A. Sll.(
Name
~~~~W ts:
EdGOI'I.)o
Name
)lAIli"rTA ;11,~
L/~ ~nJ1.i,
#J~ 9tdA
.IJ.en-e )"11.1111)< atlt~
~~kt ~CM/~
~~ll..A- ~\V'..'\U
~?okrJo~ ~Q./l'" O.,t-r. ~
Name
l\. l (