Hudson River PCBs Superfund Site Second Five-Year Review. Community Advisory Group Workshop May 5, 2016

Transcription

1 Hudson River PCBs Superfund Site Second Five-Year Review Community Advisory Group Workshop May 5, 2016

2 Agenda (Presentations) Overview of Five-Year Review Guidance Summary of First Five-Year Review (2012) Approach for Second Five-Year Review

3 Overview of Five-Year Review Guidance

4 Support and Guidance EPA five-year review guidance documents include: Comprehensive guidance Fact sheet (Five-Year Review Process in the Superfund Program) Frequently asked questions and answers Additional memos and technical guidance are also available

5 Support and Guidance Overview The purpose of a five year review is to evaluate the implementation and performance of a remedy to determine if the remedy is or will be protective of human health and the environment Triggers to complete a five-year review From start of construction of Remedial Action Every five years after that Continue until contaminants do not pose a risk to human health or environment Statutory review Policy reviews

6 Support and Guidance CERCLA 121(c): If the President selects a remedial action that results in any hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants remaining at the site, the President shall review such remedial action no less often than each five years after the initiation of such remedial action to assure that human health and the environment are being protected by the remedial action being implemented. In addition, if upon such review it is the judgment of the President that action is appropriate at such site in accordance with section [104] or [106], the President shall take or require such action. The President shall report to the Congress a list of facilities for which such review is required, the results of all such reviews, and any actions taken as a result of such reviews.

7 Roles and Responsibilities EPA conducts the five-year review and the community involvement activities EPA selects the team to participate in the five-year review and defines the roles and responsibilities for each team member Team members typically include those that have been involved in the site/project. Examples of team members could include state and federal agencies, the CAG, and other technical experts Support agencies provide technical input and participate in the review process Potentially Responsible Party provides information as requested by EPA and can review and comment on the report EPA makes the determination on the protectiveness of the remedy

8 Components of the Five-Year Review Develop schedule Schedule in terms of previous review(s) Data needs Time needed for input Establish a review team Remedial Project Manager Technical experts (engineers, risk assessors, attorneys, etc.) Federal and State Natural Resource Trustees Community Involvement Coordinator Community and technical representatives

9 Components of the Five-Year Review (continued) Community Involvement Community Involvement Coordinator serves as liaison to the community Public notice required at the start and end of the review Includes additional communication on the findings of the five-year review Additional or enhanced community involvement activities determined by community needs and interests Includes a review of existing Community Involvement Plan by EPA for potentially helpful information Could include community interviews regarding the site

10 Contents of a Five-Year Review Report Introduction, site background, and chronology Include updates and changes since last review Remedial actions Describes actions for all operable units Includes Operation, Maintenance and Monitoring (OM&M) and Monitored Natural Attenuation (MNA) as appropriate Progress since last five-year review Includes follow-up actions from last review Results of implemented actions

11 Contents of a Five-Year Review Report (continued) Description of the review process Identifies team members Schedule Document review and data evaluation Notifications and other outreach activities Technical assessment Three questions used to determine whether a remedy is protective Issues Addresses potential issues from previous review Discussion of any concerns raised

12 Contents of a Five-Year Review Report (continued) Recommendations and follow-up Protectiveness statements Statement made for each Operable Unit Statement for site as a whole Next review Gives date for completion of next five-year review

13 Assessing the Protectiveness of the Remedy Question A: Is the remedy functioning as intended by the decision documents? Determine how the remedy measures up to the requirements in the ROD Assess the effectiveness of institutional controls Determine if other actions are needed

14 Assessing the Protectiveness of the Remedy (continued) Question B: Are the exposure assumptions, toxicity data, cleanup levels, and remedial action objectives used at the time of the remedy still valid? Are standards still applicable? Have they changed since the last review? Assess if there are new exposure pathways Have new contaminants been identified? Other site changes considered

15 Assessing the Protectiveness of the Remedy (continued) Question C: Has any other information come to light that could call into question the protectiveness of the remedy? Typically includes elements not related to the protectiveness of the remedy (as covered in question A and B) Covers issues such as potential land use changes, and natural disasters

16 Determine the Protectiveness of the Remedy Determination is made for each Operable Unit (with a remedy) and the remedy for the site as a whole Based on data collected and observations made Protectiveness selected from five categories Protective Short-term protective Will be protective Protectiveness determination deferred Not protective Protectiveness determined based on answers to three assessment questions

17 Questions?

18 Summary of First Five-Year Review (2012)

19 2012 Five-Year Review Report Contents Introduction Site Chronology Site Background Remedial Actions Five-Year Review Process Technical Assessment Issues, Recommendations, and Follow-Up Actions Protectiveness Statement Next Review

20 2012 Five-Year Review: Introduction, Site Chronology, and Site Background

21 2012 Five-Year Review Remedial Actions Remedy selection and implementation Operable Units for this site: OU 1 - Remnant sites: 1984 ROD OU 2 - In-river sediments (Dredging): 2002 ROD OU 3 - Rogers Island action OU 4 - Floodplains

22 2012 Five-Year Review Process Administrative components (listed team members etc.) Community involvement (narrative) Document review (list) Data review Water quality monitoring Engineering and Quality of Life Performance Standards Fish monitoring River sediment evaluation Site inspection

23 2012 Five-Year Review Technical Assessment Question A: Is the remedy functioning as intended by the decision documents? OU 1 (Remnant sites): Currently protective as intended, but requires institutional controls for long-term protectiveness OU 2 (In-river sediments) : Remedy being implemented in accordance with 2002 ROD

24 2012 Five-Year Review Technical Assessment Question B: Are the exposure assumptions, toxicity data, cleanup levels, and remedial action objectives used at the time of the remedy still valid? OU 1: No changes to physical conditions that would change protectiveness. Institutional control needs to be implemented to ensure that future use does not compromise the integrity of the cap system Mentions OU 4 (Floodplains) to address low-lying areas adjacent to the Remnant Deposits OU 2: RAOs identified in 2002 are still valid and appropriate for the Site

25 2012 Five-Year Review Technical Assessment Question C: Has any other information come to light that could call into question the protectiveness of the remedy? No other information has come to light that could call into question the protectiveness of the remedies Technical Assessment Summary: Remnant Deposit functioning as intended by 1984 ROD Remedy in 2002 ROD protective of human health and the environment. Selected remedy under construction.

26 2012 Five-Year Review - Issues, Recommendations, and Follow-up Actions Issue: (OU-1) The 1984 ROD does not include institutional controls Follow-up actions: Additional sampling adjacent to CU 1 Sampling completed by NYSCC and area dredged by GE in 2015 based on analysis of this data EPA will evaluate surface sediment data from River Sections 2 and 3 as part of the 2012 and 2013 dredging seasons Evaluation completed in 2013 of surface sediments in River Sections 2 and 3 (downstream deposition study)

27 2012 Five-Year Review - Issues, Recommendations, and Follow-up Actions (continued) Follow-up actions (continued): Determine if there are more effective outreach techniques to communicate fish advisories and fishing restrictions to the public May be additional locations that require dredging to allow passage of vessels in the channel or to access shallow dredge areas

28 2012 Five-Year Review Protectiveness Statement OU 1: The remedy at the formerly exposed Remnant Deposits (OU1) at the Hudson River PCBs Superfund Site currently protects human health and the environment as the in-place containment and cap system prevents human exposure, and the perimeter fencing and signage continue to be maintained. However, in order for the remedy to be protective in the long-term, institutional controls need to be implemented to ensure that future use of the Remnant Deposits does not compromise the integrity of the cap system or result in unsafe exposures.

29 2012 Five-Year Review Protectiveness Statement OU 2: Based on data collected and reviewed to date, EPA expects that the remedy at OU2 will be protective of human health and the environment upon completion. In the interim, human exposure pathways that could result in unacceptable risks are being controlled. Sitewide: EPA anticipates that once the institutional control has been implemented at OU1 and the dredging and MNA remedy have been completed at OU2, the remedies at the Hudson River PCBs Superfund Site will be protective of human health and the environment. In the interim, exposure pathways that could result in unacceptable risks are being controlled.

30 2012 Five-Year Review Appendices Appendix A: Comparison of ROD and Sediment Sampling and Analysis Program (SSAP)-based Estimates of the Reduction in Surface Sediment Overall reduction comparable to ROD estimates (better in RS-1, less in RS-2 and as expected in RS-3) Appendix B: Evaluation of Surface Sediment Concentrations in River Section 1 Decrease in PCB concentrations between SSAP and 2011 Special Studies

31 Questions?

32 Approach for Second Five-Year Review

33 Remedy Status Reminder for OU-2 Dredging completed (2015) Entering MNA Phase (2016) Ongoing data collection and evaluation Assessing project against RAOs

34 Components of the Five-Year Review Process Develop schedule Establish team Involve community Notification of five-year review Document review Evaluate the remedy Ongoing Data Collection Technical Evaluations Conduct interviews regarding site Make site observations/inspections Develop report Review/comment

35 Develop Schedule Evaluate data needs (water, sediment, fish etc.) Schedule for ongoing interactions with the review team Collect data during summer of 2016 Technical evaluations in fall of 2016 Gather input and collaborate with support agencies Public comment anticipated early 2017 Due date for report 4/23/2017 Goal develop draft schedule in next few weeks

36 Establish Team Team will include representatives of NYSDEC NYSDOH Federal Natural Resource Trustees NOAA USFWS One or more CAG members Technical Advisor Other community representatives as appropriate

37 Considerations Regarding Establishing Team Technical Experts (examples) Scientists/Engineers Biologist/Toxicologist (fish and sediment data) Risk Assessors (human health and ecological) Statistical expertise Regulatory specialists (experienced with FYR) Attorney/legal advisor (EPA site attorney) Others Resources include EPA, USACE, NYS and other Federal Agencies EPA will define roles and responsibilities

38 Involve Community Community involvement process is defined by the fiveyear review guidance and the existing Community Involvement Plan (examples): Identify community concerns Provide information about the schedule and the five-year review process How community members and groups can contribute information Where to find written documents about the review What the protectiveness statements mean What happens after the review is complete

39 Notification of Five Year Review Public Notice (complete) Posted on EPA Region 2 webpage and published in Post Star and Times Union newspapers Press Release (complete) Distributed to Upper and Lower river media contacts, Hudson River Listserv and elected officials Ongoing opportunities for community involvement: Participation in five-year review workshops (announced in advance to the CAG and via Listserv and press advisory) Public input via or letter Public comment period

40 Document Review for Remedy Evaluation Types of documents to be reviewed (for example) Record of Decision Project annual reports Remedial Design reports Data regarding the evaluation of the effectiveness of the remedy Water, sediment and fish data Cap performance data River hydrodynamic flow data Other

41 Making Information Available Making documents/data available to review team EPA to identify where documents will be available The documents are also available at the repositories Most documents are available on the EPA website Other documents as identified can be provided EPA will be available to assist with providing information and data

42 Evaluate The Remedy Question A: Is the remedy functioning as intended by the ROD? Question B: Are the exposure assumptions, toxicity data, cleanup levels, and remedial action objectives used at the time of the remedy still valid? Question C: Has any other information come to light that could call into question the protectiveness of the remedy?

43 Remedial Action Objectives Reduce the cancer risks and non-cancer health hazards for people eating fish from the Hudson River by reducing the concentration of PCBs in fish. Measures Fish risk-based targets and goals Data needs PCB concentration in fish Analysis planned Data trends (consideration of lipid-normalized and wet weight data) Other considerations Institutional Controls (NYS consumption advisories and regulations)

44 Remedial Action Objectives Reduce the risks to ecological receptors by reducing the concentration of PCBs in fish. Measures Comparison to ecological risk-based criteria Data needs PCB concentrations in fish Analysis planned Data Trends Other considerations

45 Remedial Action Objectives Reduce PCB levels in sediments in order to reduce PCB concentrations in river (surface) water that are above surface water Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Regulations (ARARs). Measures Comparison to ARARs Data needs Ongoing water and sediment monitoring programs Analysis planned Evaluate data trends Other considerations

46 Remedial Action Objectives Reduce the inventory (mass) of PCBs in sediments that are or may be bioavailable. Measures Consider sediment percent reduction from dredging and by MNA by River Section Data needs Continued sediment monitoring Analysis planned Incorporate information from additional sediment studies Other considerations

47 Remedial Action Objectives Minimize the long-term downstream transport of PCBs in the river. Measures Downstream sediment transport from higher concentration areas to lesser concentration areas and to the Lower River Load to lower river Data needs Ongoing water data and sediment collection Analysis planned Sediment and water data trends and reduction load to lower river Other considerations

48 Conduct Interviews Provide additional information about the site conditions/status Could include (for example): Support agencies Local officials Community groups Residents and businesses Others as necessary Interviews to be conducted by EPA Scope of interviews tailored to remedy

49 Site Inspections Remnant Deposit Sites (OU1): EPA/NYS will continue to inspect the site Inspections ongoing Dredging Project (OU2): EPA has an inspection requirement as part of the remedial action and will continue to oversee and inspect Special techniques needed for inspection of underwater areas

50 Develop Report Document will follow EPA guidance template Introduction, site background, and chronology Will mostly include information from 2012 review with appropriate updates Remedial actions Describes actions for all operable units (OUs 1-4) Will include OM&M and MNA Progress since last five-year review Will include follow-up actions for last review (as described in 2012 review presentation) Results of implemented actions

51 Develop Report (continued) Document review and data evaluation Data review to include: Load calculations 2016 sediment data 2015 and 2016 (spring) fish data Baseline, RAMP, off-season, and OM&M water data Cap surveys Notifications and other outreach activities Technical assessment The data and analyses above will be used to develop responses to the three questions

52 Develop Report (continued) Issues Discussion of new or ongoing concerns from support agencies Recommendations and follow-up Protectiveness statement Statements will be for OUs 1 and 2 (OU 4 is ongoing) Statement for site as a whole Next review

53 Next Steps In the short-term: Select review team Establish process for interaction Establish meeting schedule Next CAG meeting Next five-year review workshop Questions

54 For More Information For more information: Gary Klawinski Project Director Hudson River Field Office 187 Wolf Road Suite 303 Albany, NY Phone: (518) (866) Larisa Romanowski Community Involvement Coordinator Hudson River Field Office 187 Wolf Road Suite 303 Albany, NY Phone: (518) (866)