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 harborcomments@epa.gov

– 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 (