managing to make source control happen at contaminated sediment sites prepared by: joan p. snyder...
TRANSCRIPT
Managing to Make Source Managing to Make Source Control Happen at Contaminated Control Happen at Contaminated
Sediment SitesSediment SitesPrepared by:
Joan P. SnyderStoel Rives LLP
900 SW Fifth Avenue, Suite 2600Portland, OR 97204
For Presentation at: Remediation of Contaminated Sediments International
Conference Platform Session B5, Abstract No. 332January 24, 2007
www.stoel.comwww.stoel.com
O r e g o n W a s h I n g t o n C a l I f o r n I a U t a h I d a h o
www.stoel.comwww.stoel.com
EPA Principles for Managing Contaminated Sediment Risks at
Hazardous Waste Sites
First Principle:
“Control Sources Early”
www.stoel.comwww.stoel.com
Sample of Sediment Sites Reviewed by EPA Contaminated Sediments
Technical Advisory Group (CSTAG):
• Kanawha River Site near Nitro, WV– www.epa.gov/reg3hwmd/super/sites/
WVSFN035516/index.htm
• Snow Creek/Choccolocco Creek systems in Anniston, AL (OU3 and OU4 of Anniston PCB site)– www.epa.gov/region4/waste/npl/nplal/
annpcbal.htm
www.stoel.comwww.stoel.com
Sample of Sediment Sites Reviewed by EPA Contaminated Sediments
Technical Advisory Group (CSTAG): (cont.)
• Portage Creek and Kalamazoo River in Kalamazoo, MI– www.epa.gov/glnpo/aoc/kalriv.html– www.epa.gov/region5/sites/kalproject
• Lower Duwamish Waterway in Seattle, WA– http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/tcp/sites/
lower_duwamish/lower_duwamish_hp.html– http://yosemite.epa.gov/r10/cleanup.nsf/sites/
lduwamish– http://www.ecy.wa.gov/pubs/0409043.pdf
www.stoel.comwww.stoel.com
Sample of Sediment Sites Reviewed by EPA Contaminated Sediments
Technical Advisory Group (CSTAG): (cont.)
• Portland Harbor, in Portland, OR – http://www.deq.state.or.us/lq/cu/nwr/
PortlandHarbor/jointsource.htm– http://yosemite.epa.gov/r10/cleanup.nsf/
sites/ptldharbor
Kanawha River Choccolocco Creek
Kalamazoo River
Lower Duwamish
Portland Harbor
www.stoel.comwww.stoel.com
Common Themes of CSTAG Reviews
• Need review and compilation of all available data and assessment of all potential contaminant sources
• Need to estimate at least qualitatively the relative contaminant loads from different sources and prioritize them
• Need to coordinate with Water Quality programs to address point sources (industrial and municipal wastewater and stormwater discharges)
• http://www.epa.gov/superfund/resources/sediment/cstag_sites.htm
www.stoel.comwww.stoel.com
Lessons Learned
• Not “one size fits all”– Some sites’ initial focus is on one
contaminant versus many– Some sites start as a follow-on to
upland cleanup while others start out as investigation of urban river system
www.stoel.comwww.stoel.com
Contaminants
Kanawha
Anniston
Kalamazoo
Duwamish
Portland Harbor
PCBs X X X X X
Dioxins X ? ? ?X X
Pesticides/ Herbicides
?X ?X
TPH/PAH ? ?X X
Phthalates X ?X
Other organic ? X ?X
Mercury X ? ?X ?X
Lead ? ? ?X ?X
Other Metals X ? X X
Other bacteria perchlorate
www.stoel.comwww.stoel.com
Lessons Learned
• There will be multiple sources
• Relative importance will vary
www.stoel.comwww.stoel.com
Contaminant Sources
Kanawha
Anniston
Kalamazoo
Duwamish
Portland Harbor
Contaminated upland site(s) X X X X XOver-water
activities? ? X X
Landfills X ? X X?Contaminated fill dirt X? X? ? X? XPublic Wastewater Treatment Plant
X? X X? (CSO)
(CSO)
www.stoel.comwww.stoel.com
Contaminant Sources
Kanawha
Anniston
Kalamazoo
Duwamish
Portland Harbor
Private Industrial Waste Discharge
X ? ? X X?
Public or private stormwater
X? ? ? X X
Agricultural runoff ? ? ? ? ?Upstream Sources, incl. tributaries
X X X X X
Other Sources Atmospheric
Deposition
Atmospheric Deposition
www.stoel.comwww.stoel.com
Lessons Learned
• Perception of your progress depends somewhat on your starting agenda
Perception of Progress
Not Started
Just Started
Well IntoClose to
Completion
Kanawha
Anniston
Kalamazoo
Duwamish
Portland Harbor
IDENTIFICATION
PRIORITIZATION
SOURCE CONTROL
www.stoel.comwww.stoel.com
Lessons Learned
• Multiple methods of source control will ultimately be required
www.stoel.comwww.stoel.com
Types of Source Control That
Have OccurredKanawh
a Anniston Kalamazo
o Duwamis
hPortland Harbor
Removal of contaminated upland soil
X X X XCapping of contaminated upland soil
X X X XOther upland cleanup X X XImprovements to landfills (e.g. capping, leachate collection)
X X
Issuance of TMDL for contaminants of concern
X
www.stoel.comwww.stoel.com
Types of Source Control That
Have OccurredKanawha Anniston Kalamazo
o Duwamis
hPortland Harbor
Stricter NPDES permits for industrial wastewater
X X
Stricter NPDES permits for public wastewater
X
Stormwater best management practices
X X X X
Stormwater treatment X X X XRiverbank stabilization/ capping
X X X
www.stoel.comwww.stoel.com
Lessons Learned
• Will be a multi-agency task
www.stoel.comwww.stoel.com
Lead/Support Agencies
Kanawha Anniston Kalamazoo Duwamish Portland Harbor
Lead EPA Cercla
EPA Cercla
EPA Cercla
State Cleanup
State Cleanup
Support
State Cleanup State Solid Waste/Landfills State Water &Waste Managem’ntState HealthEPA RCRAEPA Water QualityUSGSArmy CorpsDam operators
State Cleanup (RCRA)State WQArmy CorpsUS Fish & WildlifeDam operators
State CleanupState WQState Nat’l ResourcesState HealthState Public LandsUS Fish & WildlifeUSGSNOAA
EPA CERCLAState WQState Health EPA RCRAArmy CorpsKing CountyCity of SeattlePort of SeattleNOAA
EPA CERCLAUS Fish & WildlifeNOAAState HealthState Fish & WildlifeState Public LandsCity of PortlandPort of Portland
www.stoel.comwww.stoel.com
Interactions
• Formal Cleanup-focused Memoranda of Agreement between agencies– Duwamish, Portland
• Already existing enforcement-based agreements– Intergovernmental Agreements for
RI/FS– MOA delegating stormwater
enforcement
www.stoel.comwww.stoel.com
Interactions (cont.)
• Informal Work Groups– Lower Duwamish Source Control Work Group
and expanded Focus Group– Portland Harbor DEQ/EPA/Trustee Partner
technical team and DEQ/EPA/PRP technical team
• Informal coordination– E.g. interstate sources—AL/GA in Anniston– With Water Quality efforts (permits, TMDLs)
• Facilitated Discussions/mediation– Kalamazoo, of remediation and restoration
issues
www.stoel.comwww.stoel.com
Lessons Learned
• Will generate interest of stakeholders
– Citizen groups (5/5 sites)
– Tribal governments (3/5 sites)
www.stoel.comwww.stoel.com
Interactions
• Interaction with Community Advisory Groups
• Including in Expanded Focus Group• Public meetings
– During public comment periods– Informal updates– Educational meetings– Sharing data– Communications regarding specific site risks,
including fish consumption advisories
www.stoel.comwww.stoel.com
E.g., Portland Harbor Milestone Report
http://www.deq.state.or.us/lq/cu/nwr/PortlandHarbor/jointsource.htm
www.stoel.comwww.stoel.com
What Is Moving Source Control Forward?
• Early source assessment– Needed for conceptual site model– Allows prioritization and management
of resources• Narrowing priorities to site drivers• Loading sampling• “Early actions” to control identified
sources
www.stoel.comwww.stoel.com
What Is Moving Source Control Forward?
• Joint Source Control Strategy (Portland Harbor)
• Work groups to communicate and get information out
www.stoel.comwww.stoel.com
What Is Delaying Source Control?
• Data related– Complexity of sites– Large number of sources– Delays in sampling, issues of
sampling design– Lack of historical information
www.stoel.comwww.stoel.com
What Is Delaying Source Control?
• Not Data Related– Expecting answers to source control
questions that are “yes” or “no”– Screening levels too uncertain; lack of
cleanup standards or even site specific risk numbers
– Uncertainty in risk assessments– Fear of setting precedents (too
strict/not strict enough)
www.stoel.comwww.stoel.com
What Is Delaying Source Control?
• Not Data Related– Not realizing that source control should
be parallel to EPA cleanup process, rather than a serial step within that process
– Need to understand that effective source control must consider ALL pathways and contaminants, regardless of prior program decisions (e.g., NFAs)
– Insufficient resources (funding, staff)
www.stoel.comwww.stoel.com
Metrics for Success
• For the most part, yet to be developed– Direct measurement
• Sediment • Surface Water quality (may need high volume
sampling)• Fish tissue• Semipermeable Membrane Devices• Landfill leachate• Sediment traps, catch basin samples• Effluent/discharge sampling
www.stoel.comwww.stoel.com
Metrics for Success
– Tracking progress• By site• By permit• By river section • “Milestone Report”
– New approaches• Basinwide stormwater permits• Mass load tracking/modeling
– Continued re-evaluation• E.g. dam removal
www.stoel.comwww.stoel.com
The Headline We Are All Trying to Avoid
Fresh Contamination Taints Superfund Foss WaterwayThe News Tribune - Tacoma, Wash. * Oct 15, 2006
“Recent laboratory tests of bottom-dwelling critters exposed to [Thea Foss] Waterway sediment confirm it has been recontaminated. The problem is excess phthalates, or plasticizers, which enter the waterway through Tacoma's storm drain system, said EPA, city officials and others. . . . Portland-based PacifiCorp and two other utilities spent $8.5 million to clean up that part of the Superfund project. The rest of the Foss cleanup - costing more than $90 million - was coordinated by city officials.”
www.stoel.comwww.stoel.com
Additional Resources• www.epa.gov/superfund/resources/sediment --
EPA Web site on Contaminated Sediment Sites• http://cag-cd.net/I_Links.htm --
Anniston Community Advisory Group (CAG)• http://www.kalamazooriver.net/index.htm --
Kalamazoo River Watershed• http://www.portlandharborcag.org/
Superfund.html -- Portland Harbor CAG• http://www.duwamishcleanup.org/ --Duwamish
River Cleanup Coalition (incl. Report: “Restoring Our River: Protecting Our Investment: Duwamish River Pollution Source Control,” Dec 17, 2004)