Duwamish River Cleanup Coalition

Transcription

1 Community Coalition for Environmental Justice Duwamish Tribe ECOSS Georgetown Community Council Green-Duwamish Watershed Alliance People for Puget Sound Puget Soundkeeper Alliance Washington Toxics Coalition Waste Action Project September 12, 2002 Ms. Allison Hiltner U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1200 Sixth Avenue, ECL 111 Seattle, WA Dear Ms. Hiltner: The Duwamish River Cleanup Coalition has previously submitted comments on the Lower Duwamish Waterway Group s (LDWG) Phase I Remedial Investigation, Ecological Risk Assessment, Human Health Risk Assessment, and Early Action Candidate Site Identification. Following these reviews, we met with you, other EPA technical review and source control staff and the Department of Ecology s technical review and source control staff to review our comments on these documents and to discuss our concerns about the overall direction and process contained or implied therein. We are concerned that LDWG has been permitted to engage in a procedure and course of study that is fundamentally flawed. Technical staff from EPA and Ecology have been conducting a thorough and critical review of LDWG s work to date, and have identified many of the same weaknesses, inconsistencies and flawed analyses that DRCC has included in its comments, as well as others. Indeed, EPA and Ecology staff pointed to the need for fundamental reassessments of some of the basic building blocks of the RI, RAs and Site Identification documents, such as the use of Theissen polygons, selection of Contaminants of Concern, and determination of arsenic background levels. EPA suggested, we believe correctly, that the flaws were substantial enough that LDWG s Site Identification document, built on the assumptions and analyses contained in the RI and RAs, may not be usable and could be replaced entirely by an EPA generated product. The meeting both bolstered our confidence in EPA and Ecology s rigorous review of LDWG s products, and increased our concern about the ultimate use of these documents. We would like to continue this discussion with EPA and request an opportunity to meet again with the Project Managers regarding procedural matters and public involvement prior to EPA s

2 transmittal of its comments on these documents to LDWG. We are not certain that the public review process communicated to the community at large is still accurate, and believe that it would be in everyone s best interest to clarify the public s role before further any further work is directed. It is important that the public review process for any amended or replacement documents be made clear prior to EPA s direction to LDWG to revise these documents, and before EPA s comments are distributed to the public. Given our substantial lack of confidence regarding the applicability and utility of the work LDWG has conducted to date, we were somewhat hampered and reluctant to invest heavily in review of the Data Gaps Analysis submitted to EPA by LDWG. Given that the identification of data gaps flows directly from the questionable analysis, technical and procedural approaches adopted by LDWG, it seems apparent that the document will have to change substantially, but EPA has not yet determined what direction those changes will need to reflect. We therefore request an opportunity to review a revised Data Gaps document when it is available. This request extends to all revised or replacement documents developed for the Phase I Superfund cleanup. In the meantime, we have prepared some brief comments on the Data Gaps document submitted, and look forward to discussing these issues with you further. General Comments The document is sorely lacking in substance and detail. The document states, "This memorandum does not provide specific details for proposed studies," but provides no information on when these details will be developed. DRCC expected that LDWG would provide information about missing and proposed studies in the data gaps document, the role of each data gap in meeting specific uncertainties on COPCs, toxicity, pathways of exposure, etc., and related information on the feasibility of filling specific data gaps. Instead, the document provides only a partial list of data gaps and does not apply any criteria to their ranking in relation to Early Actions or to the Phase 2 RI. DRCC expects that specific studies will be designed, approved, performed and evaluated by EPA well before the Phase 2 RI gets underway. Since it is the role of the Phase 2 RI to be the complete RI, it should not proceed until it is clear that new data to be collected will fill the necessary data gaps. This Data Gaps document provides no such assurance. No framework is articulated for deciding which Data Gaps will be pursued and which will be abandoned based on determinations such as "would require a resource intensive research effort," 2

3 "of uncertain feasibility," "are not a LDWG requirement," etc. There is no information defining the Data Gaps in terms of how they will be filled from a data quality perspective. Because there is no framework for Data Quality Objectives (DQOs), it is impossible to distinguish between Data Gaps that are infeasible and those that the LDWG simply does not want to do. For example, addressing the issue of sample size is a standard DQO that could be calculated from the existing data to provide a framework of whether or not it is feasible to meet that Data Gap. There is a complete lack of prioritization within areas of concern and between areas. The only ranking of Data Gaps are those that LDWG does not want to address, i.e., they cost too much, agencies will have to assist in drafting these data gaps, etc. This is not a ranking procedure. There is also no framework or methodology defined for how data gaps will be ranked. This is critical, as there are limited funds and many data gaps. If the Phase 2 RI is to include analysis from the collection of new samples to generate new data, which is projected to begin in 2003, there is not enough detail in this document to adequately review what is being proposed. The section 4.0 Summary passes off the details into "field and laboratory study plans to be developed in coordination with the agencies and other interested parties as part of the scoping process for the Phase 2 RI. When will this process occur and how will the public have access to participate? There are not currently any additional deliverables defined for this process aside from the Data Gaps analysis. Finally, the Data Gaps document continues to ignore issues that DRCC, EPA and Ecology have commented on repeatedly over the course of the past year, including evaluation of subsurface sediments, groundwater contamination, and neglected exposure pathways for people and wildlife. Because these issues have been previously dismissed by LDWG, relevant data gaps are not addressed here. It appears that LDWG believes that if an issue is ignored long and often enough, it will simply go away. We find this lack of resolution both frustrating and unacceptable. Summary of data gaps identified here: Water Quality and porewater chemistry need to be updated and confirm the 1999 report. Sediment contamination needs to be assessed spatially and vertically in the LDW. There is a need for information on sediment dynamics including three-dimensional movement and deposition rates. Tissue contamination must be updated and conducted using whole animals; for human health and ecological endpoints The process must clearly indicate when and how the sources of contamination will be identified in this process. 3

4 Body burdens of key contaminants must be determined in the local population. These contaminants include arsenic, lead, mercury, PCB s, dioxins, and phthalates at the least, and perhaps more, depending on consultation. PCB congener data need to be collected for LDW juvenile and adult salmon Water Quality The Data Gaps report assumes that all previous documents provide complete and accurate data regarding LDW contamination, sources and threats, as do the HHRA and RI. Details of data contained in some other documents are not discussed in any detail, and the conclusions are accepted without critical review (i.e., King County s 1999 CSO Water Quality Assessment). Yet, the conclusions contained therein have not been independently assessed or the data verified. In fact, the King County report is three years old and uses data that are older still. The conclusions of such reports cannot be assumed as complete and accurate without independent confirmation. To this end, the water quality and porewater chemistry and resulting analyses need to be at least confirmed if not updated by an independent survey of the LDW system. Sediment chemistry The Data Gaps report points out that the field investigation will include further investigation of the extent, nature and degree of sediment contamination. Not enough detail is provided on what sediment chemistry data gaps will be addressed and filled for the Phase 2 RI. This document is the place to identify and specify the data gaps to be filled. A simple table describing data gaps by location and chemical would provide the basis for further comment and assist in determining priorities. Once again, there is no framework for analysis and no Data Quality Objectives. In particular, the investigation should assess the depth of contamination and not restrict the investigation to the surface sediments that are labile and mobile. Sediment distribution and flux The investigation must include examination of the mobility, distribution and deposition patterns of sediment in the LDW. Current information does not address the nature of the sedimentation issues, yet this is critical for knowing what to clean up and where. The lighter sediments are the more organic fractions, the more recent depositions and the part of the sediment fraction that contains most of the contaminants, especially chemicals associated with particles. PCB s and metals are in this category. The LDW is tidal, receives stormwater and other inputs that may contain contaminants and will be sources of erosion and deposition. All of these must be understood before the sources are well characterized and the present and future sites of contamination clearly delineated. 4

5 Tissue chemistry The RI must include whole animal measurements to assess human and other animal health issues. The HHRA uses data from muscle tissue only, with few exceptions. Yet there are no data to show that none of the fat or organ contaminants are consumed. In wildlife, it is certain that all of the tissue is consumed. For people, cooking of whole fish or crabs will certainly commingle tissue types. Furthermore, when preparing and consuming crabs, some fish, etc., organs and fat are not always strictly separated; internal organs of crabs are, in fact, favored by some people. These tissue samples must be addressed as a data gap and included in the exposure assessments. Body Burdens The HHRA uses national data for lead in humans to assess the risks of lead exposure, notably for children using the IEUBK model. The problem with this approach is that the current body burdens for the local population are not known. These data may be available from the state Department of Health (DOH), but if not, then must be determined for key contaminants that are known to accumulate and for which the current information indicates body burdens are an important source. The reason for this has been explained in comments on the HHRA, but to sum briefly, if the present body burdens for lead, for example, are 7-9 ug/dl in local children, not 2-2.5,a s is the case nationally, then local children are close to the level at which health effects are observed. For such children with already high levels, ANY additional lead is likely to raise body levels to the dangerous level. The same is true for at least arsenic, mercury, PCB s, and dioxins. Groundwater The assumptions for groundwater data needs are nearly identical to those for surface waters; the present documents assume that no additional data are needed, yet, this assumption has no hard data to confirm. DRCC has provided comments about specific groundwater data needs previously (see our August 14, 2002 Comments on the Phase I RI/ERA/HHRA). It is critical that groundwater chemistry, fate and transport be completely evaluated throughout the Duwamish River valley to determine inputs and sources that may be continuing to contribute to elevated sediment chemical concentrations within the LDW> Arsenic The sediment distribution information for arsenic is not sufficient. The most pressing need is for better depth profiles, but overall the sediment data are not complete. It is also necessary to determine what levels in sediments trigger human health concerns, as the Sediment Management Standards are not developed for human health protection. We know from LDWG s HHRA that arsenic is a major human health risk, but we do not know what sediment levels are protective, 5

6 nor what background levels are. These are critical issues that we have discussed in some detail in prior comments and meetings with EPA and Ecology. Toxicity assessment While laboratory based toxicity testing is usually beyond the scope of a RI, something must be done to assess the toxicity of the mixture of contaminants in the LDW especially in fish. The mixture is characterized and known, and is not an unlimited dataset. Some initial work should be conducted to assess the toxicity of the mixture of metals and organics in the LDW, especially to children and from consumption of contaminated fish. Use patterns The HHRA and RI do not have sufficient data to completely and accurately assess human use patterns, including recreational use, fish consumption patterns, inhalation exposure during recreation, commercial fisher exposures. These data need to be collected in this next phase. PCB Congener Data for Salmon We have commented previously on the need for PCB congener data to better characterize impacts on juvenile and adult salmon in the LDW (see our August 14, 2002 Comments on the Phase I RI/ERA/HHRA). The Washington State Department of Health and others will also be submitting comments on this issue. Specific Comments Section 1.0 Introduction Footnote 2 on Page 2 indicates that results from the Early Actions may not be completed prior to completion of the Phase 2 RI. While we anticipate that this will be the case, there is no description of how eventual Early Action monitoring results will be folded into the Phase 2 RI/FS and implementation process. Further, it is currently unclear to us how the lack of definition in this Data Gaps document will eventually be translated into a process for further defining and filling data gaps prior to development of the Phase 2 RI/FS. Section 2.0 Uncertainties Identified in Phase I (page 2) DRCC is not pleased with the methodology used to make recommendations in the Data Gap process. Though LDWG assigned a low, medium, and high valuation to levels of uncertainty, effect of the uncertainty on risk estimates, and feasibility of filling the data gap, there was not any quantitative methodology described for providing how these were evaluated other than a 6

7 "qualitative cost:benefit basis." The Low, Medium and High categories are too limited to address the variety of issues related to Data Gaps. Many of the issues involve a fundamental lack of means to make an assessment; others simply lack a sample or adequate sample size. Uncertainties and data gaps should be carried forward based upon their scientific priority and feasibility and not removed based upon their cost. It is important for the cleanup to significantly reduce risks in the LDW. If one specific data gap that has significant cost could provide data that results in significant risk reductions, it should not be neglected. Table 2.1. Groundwater and Porewater Chemistry Data Because there was no data presented on groundwater or porewater in the RI, it is unreasonable for LDWG to conclude that no fieldwork is necessary. As to groundwater, no information is presented as to when and how the Data Gaps and DQOs for the site-specific investigations will be developed? It was assumed that they would be presented in this document. Similarly, if the existing information on COPC sources was performed for the RI, their Data Gaps could be better characterized here. These need to be presented prior to the Phase 2 RI. For fate and transport of sediments, limited data was presented in the RI, especially related to sediment deposition rates and turbation of sediments by tides and vessels (i.e., prop wash). If these data gaps will be identified in conjunction with other agencies and parties, the process by which this will be accomplished prior to the Phase 2 RI needs to be described here. Table 2-1. Sediment Chemistry Data There is not enough background information in Sections 2.2 and 2.3 to describe the methods and prioritization for the collection of additional surface sediment data. Table 2-1. Porewater Chemistry Data It is not clear how the porewater chemistry data were used to establish that the "sediment and tissue data are sufficient to estimate risk." Please provide some analysis of the relationship between porewater sample data and sediment and tissue data and what rationale was used to make a determination of low risk. Table 2-1. Fate and Transport of Sediments No cohesive overview of sources is provided in the Fate and Transport of Sediments section (Page 4, Table 2-1). LDWG states that these data needs will be identified in the FS work plan. Once again, DRCC expected that the data gaps would be identified in the Data Gaps document. It is essential that these be provided to and reviewed by the public, as anticipated. When will this task be performed and what data gaps are identified to proceed with that work plan? 7

8 If there are sources of arsenic from cement kiln dust along shorelines of the LDW, these could be responsible for elevated arsenic levels in the river. Indeed, there seems to be little other explanation for recorded surficial sediment concentrations. Surface chemistry results either from resuspension of buried sediments or local, ongoing sources. Since no investigation of this matter has been presented, it should be considered as a major Data Gap. Fate and Transport of sediments, groundwater and upland runoff all need to be thoroughly studied. DRCC's review of the Duwamish/Diagonal CSO cleanup provides an example of the need for better understanding of the processes contributing to sediment contamination. Examination of samples used for bioassays found 4-methyphenol in 6 of the 7 samples collected in September of DRCC noted that 3 samples (DUD200, DUD204, and DUD206) had levels were over the SMS/CSL but this chemical is not a major COPC. The point is that there are ongoing sources of contamination that could impact bioassay results and other measures of organism abundance and health that need to be addressed in a comprehensive source program. The Data Gap issues the lack of a methodology to assign associations of COPCs at sites with any number of other factors that relate to the origin of the chemical in these sediments. These include sediment characterization as to transport, origin, TOC, co-occurrence with other COPCs, etc. Section Benthic Invertebrates This section neglects two fundamental gaps mentioned in the RI: (1) community ecology data (e.g. Triad data) and (2) bioassays. In addition to this general comment, some more detailed questions relating to Table 2-2 follow. Table 2-2. Spatial coverage of sediment chemistry data for COPCs. If COPCs measured in benthic invertebrates lack data for a set of COPCs identified in footnote "a" (Page 7), then some evaluation of these results using a HQ process needs to be performed. Table 2-2 TBT Concentrations in Benthic Invertebrate Tissues It is not clear how benthic invertebrate samples will be collected only from areas with high sediment concentrations if there are still locations where TBT has not been analyzed in the sediments. The selection of sites for TBT sampling in benthic organisms requires a more complete set of sediment data for TBT. This is not clearly stated and provides a further example of the lack of prioritization and guidelines for staging of Data Gap studies. Table 2-2. Use of sediment standards and guidelines DRCC agrees that additional bioassay (toxicity) tests should be performed to assess potential toxicity. Which ones and how they will address data gaps need to be addressed in this document. 8

9 Merely stating that these bioassays will be developed in coordination with agencies and interested parties lacks specificity leaves the question of public review unresolved. Table 2-2. Use of sediment standards and guidelines NOAA and several other agencies have established guidelines for reference areas. Please explain what is meant by the lack of suitable reference area. Table 2-2 Limited toxicity data available for crab If crab is representative of upper trophic level benthic invertebrates, a more complete set of TRVs is needed to provide a basis for developing reliable HQs. The highest COPCs identified in the RI as lacking data for TRVs for benthic invertebrates include arsenic, cadmium, copper and zinc, of which arsenic and copper were specifically identified as having high potential to effect TRV outcomes (Table A-7-13 of the ERA in the RI). If appropriate toxicity studies cannot be found, then an alternative species should be selected and used. In addition, the data gaps should be identified as high priority, encouraging NMFS, the University, or some other agency to perform some studies to fill the data gap. Table 2-2 Site Utilization by Crabs There has been much discussion about the lack of crabs in the LDW. There is no discussion in this document about how this lack of samples will be addressed should not enough samples be found. Section Fish DRCC has been waiting for there to be a fish meeting to address the large number of fish issues expressed in the April 2002 Exposure and Effects meeting. DRCC still believes such a meeting would be helpful. Because many of the fish sampling agencies also have interest in some of the Data Gap issues mentioned in Table 2-3, such a meeting could coordinate and combine sampling so that a larger number of samples could be collected in combination to address Data Gaps and allow better connection between the data sets for the Phase 2 ERAs. The other major Data Gap not mentioned in this section is the lack of use of toxicity data for mixtures of COPCs in fish. There is a wealth of data that could be analyzed to determine if there is agreement with the TRVs for individual compound COPC TRVs. Since the eventual decision to remove sediments will be based upon a probable combination of COPCs at some locations, these existing data appear to set an important baseline. Performing an analysis to relate existing mixture toxicity studies (especially NOAA studies) should be considered as a Data Gap. 9

10 Section Wildlife The primary data gap for wildlife is the unexplained high concentrations of COPCs in some wildlife samples, despite the HQs that indicate lower ratios. This uncertainty is addressed in the improved collection of prey samples, but the design of such studies is critical and should be based upon better dietary studies of the wildlife species used a Receptors. Table 2-4 Waterfowl Tissue Chemistry Data The word "waterfowl" is not the proper word for the avian dietary of eagles. Gulls, grebes, and herons are not waterfowl. Obtaining permits for the collection of gulls would not be difficult, as well as for the most common waterfowl in the diet mallards and Canada geese. Table 2-4 Proportion of Prey Types, including fish species, in wildlife diets There are additional studies performed in this region are applicable to fill data omissions in the ERA. DRCC has provided several references and feels that a review of this data is a data gap. The previous inclusion of information from heron contaminant data from the LDW was helpful in reassessing the HQs for herons. Similar data exist for eagles in nearby Hood Canal, which could help determine which prey items may be the source of potentially elevated concentrations in the LDW. In the Mahaffey et al (2001) study, birds rather than fish were found to be the primary source of the PCBs. Additional work has been done on the BC coast that could be helpful as well (Elliott and Norstrom 1998). Mahaffey, M. S., K. M. Ament, A. K. McMillan, and D. E. Tillitt Environmental contaminants in bald eagles nesting in Hood Canal, Washington, Report USFWS, Olympia, WA. Elliott, J. E. and R. J. Norstrom Chlorinated hydrocarbons and productivity of eagle populations on the Pacific coast of Canada. Environ. Tox. Chem. 17(6) Table 2-4 Site Use for Sandpiper Several mechanisms are available to help fill data gaps on site use. For example, a color banding study of spotted sandpipers would clearly determine the home range and individual preferences for prey items. This would provide a much clearer way to perform a risk calculation than the "limited habitat survey" mentioned in Table 3-3. A video camera on an osprey nest would allow data collection on the species and size of fish brought back to estimate exposure. With additional observations of arrival direction, the percent time foraging in the LDW could be calculated. These data gaps should be reviewed in Table

11 Table 2-4 Uncertainties in application of available TRVs DRCC believes that there are significant Data Gaps in the variation of diet that could account for significant exposure. Previous modeling for King County (1999) focused upon area and not upon variation in diet in the model and thus avoided increasing the risk from that aspect of the uncertainty in exposure. It is not only additional samples that need to be collected, but more data on the actual samples that wildlife eat need to be better characterized. For several higher trophic level species it appears that these species may actually have HQs greater than 1 as a result of exposure either through alternative trophic levels (i.e., higher on the food chain and thus more exposed than predicted) or through foraging habits that allow more exposure than anticipated, or both (i.e., eagles feeding on a sudden large number of dead seals, thus being exposed to a higher trophic level of contaminated prey as well as a foraging prey item not typically significant in the diet). Table 3-2. Benthic Invertebrate Samples for Spotted Sandpipers Spotted sandpiper data not only needs to assess the exposure to the spotted sandpipers but to the surrogates as well. It may be possible to assess the exposure of spotted sandpipers to certain COPCs by collecting feathers and blood samples from individuals trapped in the LDW. Table 3-2. Crab samples for Crab Speciation of arsenic needs to be performed to help differentiate the types of arsenic in crab. Table 3-2. Pacific Staghorn Sculpin Samples for Wildlife Please explain the origin of the size defining lengths for whole body fish samples for wildlife species. It may be just as important to sample the rarely eaten but more highly contaminated larger fish than the average size fish as prey items. Table 3-2. Shiner Perch Samples for Wildlife Since shiner perch arrive in the LDW in late April or May, and give birth in the LDW, it is essential to sample them at the appropriate time so as not to bias the contaminant load by early or size biased samples. Section Sediment Bioassays DRCC welcomes a process to comment upon the development of bioassays to be integrated into the RI/FS process but expected it to be outlined in the Data Gaps document. Significant work on Early Actions should not be performed prior to the establishment of a bioassay framework linked to the ERA process, with sampling locations directly linked to Early Action and reference sites, 11

12 and with protocols that will reliably measure success when the Early Actions are completed Site Usage Studies The Data Gaps identified in this section are critical to the ultimate success of the cleanup: selection of a methodology by which determine the movement of fish and shellfish within the LDW in relation to the effectiveness of Early Actions. Considering the importance of this issue, more detail in the selection of a model species and also the use of caged studies needs to be designed prior to specific Early Actions so they are comprehensive for the entire LDW. Once again, DRCC would like to review these models, but it is not clear when this review and selection will occur. As a final note, we are concerned that there has not been, to date, any systematic, multi-tiered and defensible program capable of determining if the river will be clean after implementation of cleanup actions. There is no identification in the Data Gaps document of the need for such a program. While there step by step processes for cleanup under Superfund, they should all be linked by a QAPP (Quality Assurance Project Plan). What are the DQOs for the end results required? What assurances exist that these goals are delineated throughout each step of the process? The QA gap is essentially a totally separate process that has not received the attention it needs. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Data Gaps document. We look forward to reviewing other commenters letters and EPA s response to the Waterway Group. Sincerely, BJ Cummings Community Coordinator 12