PROJECT UPDATE PORTLAND HARBOR RI/FS PRESENTATIONS · Project Update Portland Harbor RI/FS August 16, 2005 LWG frftoiKnfta: Summary of Today's Presentation • Project Timeline •

LOWER WILLAMETTE GROUP

PROJECT UPDATE PORTLAND HARBOR RI/FS

PRESENTATIONS

Do Note Quote or Cite: Preliminary Data and Draft Interpretation. All Content Subject to Change

August 16, 2005

9:00 - 9:05

9:05-9:15

9:15-9:25

9:25 - 9:40 9:40-10:15

10:15-10:30

10:30 -10:50 10:50-11:00

11:00-12:00

12:00-1:30

1:30-2:40

2:40 - 3:00

3:00 - 3:40

3:40 - 3:50

3:50 - 5:00

AGENDA Project Update

Portland Harbor RI/FS August 16, 2005

I. Workshop Goals

II. Summary of Presentation

III. Project Timeline

IV. RI Data Presentation a. Sediment Stability b. Surface & Subsurface Sediment

BREAK

c. Surface Water d. Fish and Invertebrate Tissue

V. Preliminary Human Health Risks

LUNCH

VI. Preliminary Ecological Risks

BREAK

VII. Initial Feasibility Impressions

VIII. Process for Identifying Additional Data Needs

IX. Panel Responses to Submitted Questions/ OPEN DISCUSSION

Lower Willamette Group

Project Update Portland Harbor RI/FS

August 16, 2005

LWG frftoiKnfta:

Summary of Today's Presentation

• Project Timeline • Rl Data Presentation • Human Health Risk Presentation • Ecological Risk Presentation • Initial Feasibility Impressions • Process for Identifying Additional Data

Needs • Panel responses to submitted questions &

open discussion

l*> Vm {hma at In* A>(n70wu£Ck(t(wi)>itan«rr><Mlihii>i(

Summary of Rl Data Presentation

• Physical System/Sediment Stability Overview • Sediment Chemistry Update

• Data Sources (LWG and Non-LWG)

• LWG Data Collection (Rounds 1 and 2)

• Nature and Extent of Selected Analytes

• Surface Water Update (Nov '04 and March '05)

• Round 1 Tissue Data Overview

LWG_

Summary of Human Health Presentation

• Receptors and exposure pathways that will be quantitatively evaluated in the baseline HHRA

• Preliminary risk evaluations: • Beach sediment (direct contact) • In-water sediment (direct contact) • Surface water (direct contact) • Fish and shellfish

• Species and chemicals contributing to risks from fish and shellfish consumption

Summary of Ecological Risk Presentation

• Time-line and current status of ERA deliverables

• Preliminary Risk Evaluation (PRE) - Objectives - Lines of evidence evaluated in PRE - Initial list of COPCs for aquatic organisms,

birds, and mammals - Representative chemicals displayed on maps

• Future deliverables and ERA process

LWG

Summary of Ecological Risk Presentation

• Benthic Interpretive Approach - Objectives - Data preparation for SQG evaluation

Hit/no-hit classification of bioassay data Chemistry data evaluation

- Evaluation of existing SQGs - Initiating Site-Specific Predictive Model - Future tasks and final deliverable

LWG L.m>MuuM»w DOXtfONMarOMr Arbl«m tuo £V«t Jtoamfkafe AH tm<m V

2

Summary of Initial Feasibility Presentation

• Review of Work Plan FS approach • Review of Work Plan remedial technologies • Preliminary chemical data integration

• Methods • Uncertainties • Maps presentation

* Future definition of Sediment Management Areas (SMAs)

• Process forward to the FS

Summary of Process for Identifying Additional Data Needs

• Review remaining Primary Project Elements • Review process to ID additional data needs • Review LWG submittals that will ID data

needs • Rl • Baseline Risk Assessments

• FS

• Review Comprehensive Round 2 Report

| 4wa__ I«W(iuorC*i îtwKpAu-wUa^b.'nr'.ux.vrrViMV*'''

Project Timeline Portland Harbor RI/FS

August 16, 2005

LWG v* rjfc-a ir ru, mtttmn Ifcas t*** ItotfnU*mt, A3 Ctxtm Xdfra w <

1

2

Portland Harbor Remedial Investigation Update

Gene Revelas/Laura Jones, Integral Consulting August 16, 2005

OVG _ .

Rl Data Presentation Outline

• Physical System/Sediment Stability Overview • Sediment Chemistry Update

• Data Sources (LWG and Non-LWG)

• LWG Data Collection (Rounds 1 and 2)

• Nature and Extent of Selected Analytes

• Preliminary Areas of High Concentrations

• Surface Water Data (Nov '04 and March '05) • Round 1 Tissue Data Overview

LWG •» (*>»>.-ilk: rnL-vxrt r*ilijM£»M»ra07-i4jrfc* VlCucira V^H.-taCKaif

Portland Harbor RI/FS Study Area

1

J

Physically-altered Riverbed

Physical System/Sediment Stability

• STA Survey (2000) • SPI Survey (2001) • Precision Bathymetry Time Series

(2002-2004) • Hydrodynamic/Sediment Transport

Modeling (2005-2006)

V- M-l wriZim. frfbatmwt —d rr*} * 1-7 feTyrv: I>*rt*

Sediment Trend Analysis (STA)® - Sept 2000 (GeoSea Consulting, Ltd, Brentwood Bay, B.C.)

SPI Benthic Regimes and Cross-sectional Areas

3

Sediment Transport Working Conceptual Model

Sediment Stability Summary

• "Short-term" (Rl time frame) surface sediment dynamics measured directly and used for Round 2 Effort (20-30 cm surface interval)

• Hydrodynamic/Sediment Transport Modeling is designed to address "long-term" sediment stability question: • Where are sediments eroded/deposited during

high flow events?

Sediment Chemistry Update Data Sources

"Historical" or Non LWG-Generated Data • 71 Sediment Surveys from 1990 through 2004

throughout Portland Harbor; historical Data mapped in Work Plan

• USACE DMMP Sampling (2005 - results pending)

LWG-Generated Data

• Round 1 - Shoreline (Beach) and Surface Sediments and Tissue Data

• Round 2A - Shoreline, Surface and Subsurface Riverbed Sediments

Sample Numbers and Types Coverage Time

Frame Surface ! Samples

Subsurface Samples

Norv-LWG RM 1-12 1990-2004 849 729

USACE DMMP RM 2-12 2005 86 72

LWG Data

Round 1 RM 2-10 2002 74 0 Round 2A

Q-30cm

30-200cm 200-400cm

400+cm

RM 2-11 2004 555

333 247 29

Total Samples 1564 1410

IMS try tewMn

1

1

2

LWG Surface Sample Collection

Round 1 • hand cores .0-15 cm) - shoreline surface (20 locations) • van Veen or power grab (0-15 cm) - riverbed surface (37 locations) A

Round 2A • hand cores (0-15 cm) - shoreline surface (25 locations) ^ L • power grab iO-30 cm) - riverbed w surface (523 locations including 6 : upstream areas) W *

LWG _

LWG Subsurface Sample Collection

Round 2A Vibracore Samples

• 213 cores collected at 200 locations

160- 14 ft cores 53 - 20 ft cores

• avg. recovery = 30%

• Cores sectioned and analyzed based on: • lithoiogy • field lab screens (FID/PID) • visual observations

Three Sediment Depth Intervals (l-IV) Mapped

Subsurface Core Segments B. C II = 30 to 200 cm (1-6.5 ft)

Deep Subsurface Core Segments D. E. F III = 200 to 574 cm (6.5-19 ft)

200-400 cm (n = 247) 400-574 cm (n = 29)

Surface Grabs and 4 A" Core Seg 1 = 0 to 30 cm (0-1 ft)

Analytes Mapped for Preliminary Nature and Extent Discussion

Selection Criteria Organics

• widely detected in • Total PCBs historical/LWG data • Total DDTs

• concentrations/spatial • Total PAHs distributions range widely • Bis2(ethylhexyl)phthalate

• metals and organics • Dioxin TEQ • bioaccumulative and non-

bioaccumulative compounds • likely focus in risk assessments Metals

• many other chemicals will • Mercury

be evaluated in the RI/FS • Arsenic (not mapped)

• for illustrative purposes today

tWG _ I".. ' "•

Preliminary Nature and Extent Disclaimer-"This is not a risked-based evaluation"

• Point out locations of "elevated" concentrations of 6 selected analytes that may become the focus of the risk assessments

• "Elevated" concentrations are defined as highest mapped range (red symbols) for 5 of 6 of the selected chemicals. For total DDTs, the two highest mapped ranges (red & orange symbols) define elevated

• Spatial trends based on the relative concentrations only, not risk-based levels

• Adjacent/nearby property place names are used as geographic reference points - not intended to imply sources

tWjG_ J v

Preliminary Nature and Extent Summary

• 30 Nearshore locations with elevated concentrations of one or more of the 6 selected chemicals • 19 along west bank (RM 11.5 to 3.3); all chemicals • 11 along east bank (RM 9.2 to RM 2); 5 of 6 chemicals (no

DDT)

" 3 Channel locations • RM 10.6 (Hg) • RM 6.2-6.3 (PAHs, BEHP) • RM 5.3-5.7 (PAHs)

OVG_ DeXelQmM wrij*. f+r&mimwj £mu *»J J>arrpn*3&-M. Uirn«SABrktl

Preliminary Nature and Extent Summary (cont.)

• Upstream and downstream ends of sampled area (including stations in Multnomah Channel) show generally low concentrations of the mapped analytes

• Subsurface high concentrations in some areas consistent with depositional patterns • Linnton Plywood (PAHs, dioxin)

• Kinder-Morgan (PAHs)

• PGE-Harbrton (PAHs)

Sediment Data - Rounds 1 & 2

LWG Cltie uU u** J4f Ceeea* SUNux »

5

i

••V . X ,v.-^ ;u,, •-• w,.


700 Total OOT (ugikg)

700 Frequency Detects

l — Frequency Undetects DETECTED RESULTS (MUM AWO »E(*CE«TIL£II 600 N % OETECTS Arith. Utao G« litln 2Sk SOW. 7Sik 95m

500 • uii n 2se uj n 71 12 ui

400

l \ 1 300 \ 200 • I _ _ 200 • \ 100 AI

0 • i

0 •

0 2

0

40

60

80

100

120

14

0

16

0

18

0

200

220

24

0

26 J

280

30

0

32

0

34

0

36

0

38

0

400

420

440

460

480

500

Concentration

6

' » — Vim \ ' m*.'" ' • ** ' " •' '" 'L : = Z : K S . . . f , . A - - - : - v " * # " r

S - ' X R : T R ? . &&*** ^=-r,

•/' rr-" ": . •" - -

Teat DOT M,V}) i (WO em !

••-

. *Fv

A-^ .. V- •

.

I ;.*r=r

- . -» • >• ' •(iV . . *-*••. •-. : - •

DOT<u*» rUfet-tt S> cm

MJmr-


Total PAHs (ug/kg)

—Frequency Detects —Frequency Undetects oetecteo results (hears aro percertaesi

n % OETECT5 Arith. Ucan Geo Mean rsm SOU 7SHi 9

Concentration

Sediment Data - Rounds 1 & 2 Bis(2-ethythexyl)phthalate (ug/kg)

Concentration

lwg .

» * •,«•.» »• •*

j y r r , : - J

^ v -*—1 •euss,


w

11


t-wa not r.

12

R


450 ARSENIC (mg/kg)

450 DETECTED RESULTS (MEANS ANO PERCENTILES)

400 X N % DETECTS Arith. Mean G«oUtin 2»h 50th 75th 95th

350 J\ U*L _ 1J01L _ _ ij? _ J H . JTL <W_ L"_

300

250

200

J \ —Frequtncy Detects | 300

250

200 r l\ 1

150 1 \ 100 / \ 50 / 0

c 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20 D

Concentration 2

LWG

13

Round 2A Surface Water Sampling Results

Laura Jones, Integral Consulting August 16, 2005

Overview

• Sample Collection Methods • Summary of Results for Selected Analytes

• Total PCBs

• Total DDT

• Total PAHs

• Dioxin/Furan TEQ

• Arsenic

• Transect Comparisons

LWG „

Surface Water Sampling Design

• Data Needs • Site Characterization • Ecological Risk Assessment • Human Health Risk Assessment • Food Web Modeling • Feasibility Study

• Sample Types • Single-Point Near Bottom Samples • Cross-Sectional River Transect • Single-Point Water-Column Samples

LWG •M.Kr—i (>»•»*fifc A.lMnltamrfttfteirMKK'UUM

2

Surface Water Sampling Design

• Sampling Techniques • Peristaltic Pump Method • High-Volume/XAD-2 resin columns

LWG

3

Sample Stations and Schedule

Stations • 23 stations • Peristaltic Pump Method at all stations • High-Volume/XAD-2 at 7 stations

Schedule • 3 events (early rainy season, late

winter/amphibian egg release, summer low-flow)

Current Status

Three sampling events completed Summer event completed July 2005 November 2004 and March 2005 data included in this presentation

Willamette River Flows During Round 2A Surface Water Sampling

November 2004 & March 2005 Surface Water Sampling Results

Total PCB Atodoti (ngl) PaMWfaC Nov 04 Mat 06

11% 25 U 27 U 59 J 154 W0I4 6% 25 U 26 U 136 J 136 J W004

Total PCB Corganars ,ngt) XAC Nc-t 04 Mat OS

I00S NA NA 023 J 33 J VTO13-1 100% NA NA 012 120 W013

Total DOT ;ng t! »«i»6c Nov 04 Mat 06

0 042 U 053 U NA NA NA 5% 0 43 U 051 U 12 12 W319

Total DOT (ngt) WO Nov TM Mat 06

10C% NA NA 004 J S3 J W015 100% NA NA 004 3 3 W015

Total PAH* jng Vi Pa-italbe Nov. "04 Mat 06

76% 2 4 U IS U 3 7 J 1340 J W012 56% 7 4 U 16 U 26 J 373 J WOO«

DwaoTEQipgl) XAC Nov tM Mat 05

100% NA NA 004 J 057 J W015 100% NA NA 003 J 051 J W015

Big a<»|<NB|illpttlhatatt '"gi-l Pan«alte Nov. "94 Mat 05

0% 220 1300 NA NA NA 0% 270 300 NA NA NA

&*i2a»>y»>a:gr$»»ia>a» IngA) XAC Nov 04 14% 4 3 3 6 33 0 J 330 J W015 0% 49 36 NA NA NA

Total Araanc (vgL) Nov '04 Mat 05

100% NA NA 033 0 67 W322 10C% NA NA 036 0 56 W302-2

taakfee Nov "04

LWC Uoo»iMrni>« DO Oun at I Vti ntcmiur.r, r>ci'Jld X>1»•*»,«

Total PCB Congeners - Transect Samples

LWC in, V*{V* arCiu Pub**.-!Dm£•»«« /*.-> tptttti-n. A5<rwti* W v--t to(«»ii»

6

'

Total Dioxin/Furan TEQ - Transect Samples

LWC L«1W iHt \ae »f t itm- f**itnvmDaa 0»? tBrffrtolV*, AH Ce*St& .faWr.f -C < 'n'ft

Round 2A Surface Water Reporting

Late August 2005 • Validated PCB Congener Data for Nov '04 Sampling

Event • All Validated Data for Mar '05 Sampling Event September 2005 • Data Report for Nov '04 and Mar '05 Sampling

Events • Field Sampling Report for July '04 Event January 2006 • Round 2A Surface Water Site Characterization

Report

LWG

Round 1 Tissue Data Overview

Gene Revelas, Integral Consulting August 16, 2005

LWG i*Abt£hc*.» ttr'M» Ot& tmr?matcm Mll«

Fish Tissue Sampling Period Subyearling Chinook Remaining species

Site Characterization Report

June 24 - 27, 2002 July 22 - November 10, 2002

October 12,2004

LWG

1

2

Crayfish and Sculpm Whole-body Tissue Total PCB and DDT Concentrations by River Mile.

Crayfish and Sculpm Whole-body Tissue HPAH and LPAH Concentralions by River Mile. Undetected are indicated in yellow.

Crayfish and Sculpin Whole-body Tissue Bis(2-Ethylhexyl) Phthalate and 2378-Dioxin TEQ Concentrations by River Mile. Undetected are yellow.

4

5

1

6

1

Preliminary Data Interpretation: Human Health

Laura Kennedy Kennedy/Jenks Consultants

August 16, 2005

Overview

• Human Health CSM • Receptors for Evaluation • Pathways for Evaluation • Process to Select Chemicals of Potential Concern • Preliminary Risk Evaluations

• Beach Sediment (Direct Contact) • ln-water Sediment (Direct Contact)

• Surface Water (Direct Contact) • Fish and Shellfish

• Conclusions (so far)

l

Receptors for Evaluation

• Dockside Workers • Recreational Beach Users • Transients • Fishers/Fish Consumers

• Recreational • Non-tribal • Native American

t•' Iimw Ota Prql ImrifrrttDm. AH ittjr.i n» <Ha>tt

LWC_ Cm X* pxn v da- Mm On -*c Dn? UcaprnmiM. AH C.-*:

Process to Select COPCs

• Compare maximum detected concentrations with screening values

• Beach Sediment: • Residential soil Region 9 PRGs for

recreational/transient beaches • Industrial soil Region 9 PRGs for dockside

worker beaches • In-water Sediment:

• Industrial soil Region 9 PRGs

LWG Cnm DtX' ! > - Oft Mw OUn uuf Pr̂ i Imrifnnjwt. «fl CrrltH I«f*.1 /» HM|»

Process to Select COPCs (cont'd)

• Surface Water: • Tap water Region 9 PRGs

• Groundwater Seeps: • Tap water Region 9 PRGs

• Fish and Shellfish: • All detected chemicals

LWG Crji. v_-. !mrffr-^zn. luc.-ri.is -

bridcr ¥fc(rS ' OMitrv+Jw

S Cf

y\ cM »• CfanXW C c/rV)Jl(/jf

/ €vt I 'j ) 0 )

Preliminary Risk Evaluations: Beach Sediment (Direct Contact)

• Dockside Worker Beach COPCs


• Recreational/Transient Beach COPCs


Risk Calculation Assumptions (RME): • Default soil exposure factors for industrial or residential

scenarios • Dockside Worker: 50 days per year for 25 years • Recreational Beach User (adult): 94 days per year for 30

years • Recreational Beach User (child): 94 days per year for 6

years • Transient 365 days per year for 2 years • Recreational Fisher 156 days per year for 30 years • Non-tribal Fisher: 104 days per year for 30 years • Native American Fisher: 260 days per year for 70 years • Assumptions apply to individual beaches


Preliminary RME risks

Preliminary Risk Evaluations: In-water Sediment (Direct Contact)

In-water COPCs

Preliminary Risk Evaluations: Surface Water (Direct Contact)

• Surface Water COPCs (to date)

Preliminary Risk Evaluations: Fish and Shellfish

• Species for HHRA: • Resident fish: Black crappie, brown bullhead,

carp, smallmouth bass • Shellfish: Crayfish • Large home range fish: Salmon, sturgeon,

lamprey (Native American consumers only)

LWG_ _


• Ranges of Risk: • Average and maximum/95 percent UCL tissue

concentrations • Whole body and fillet samples for fish species • Single species (non-tribal consumers only) and

multiple species diet • High, medium, and low fish ingestion rates for

adult non-tribal consumers

LWC fmlmiiart l>J* PrqUwrrnaUt*. MCrmhtt Smly-t nClKKt*


• Risk Calculation Assumptions: • Ingestion rates: 175 g/day (23 meals per month), 142

g/day (19 meals per month), 73 g/day (10 meals per month). 17.5 g/day (2 Y2 meals per month)

• Fish consumption at specified ingestion rate every day for 30 years (non-tribal) or 70 years (tribal)

• All fish consumed are from Portland Harbor • Tissue concentrations do not change over time or due to

preparation methods • For single species diet, only one type of fish, either fillet or

whole body, is consumed


Preliminary ranges of risks:




Chemicals that may result in Risk > 10 6 or HQ > 1 under any scenario:

1


* For Non-tribal Multiple-Species Rsh Consumption die! using whole body tissue data


ijMHr • • m m

• n WA n

Kfl

* For Non-tribal Multiple-Species Fish Consumption diet ussig whole body tissue data

>

8

Conclusions (so far)

• Fish consumption likely to drive human health risks

• In-water sediment and surface water EPCs required for 10 5 risks or HQ of 1 for direct contact scenarios:

Conclusions (cont'd)

Approximately 90 percent of risk for Tribal multiple species diet due to resident fish species Approximately 95 percent of noncancer hazards due to PCBs Approximately 95 percent of cancer risk due to PCBs and dioxins Further discussion needed on presenting risks from fish consumption given the assumptions and uncertainties

*iA«tmo«T» fk Vn * Ctt /Stwj Oa uW U CaU Uiu

Preliminary Ecological Risks

Lisa Saban, Windward Environmental August 16, 2005

Completed Major Ecological Risk Assessment (ERA) Deliverables

Portland Harbor Programmatic Work Plan: Ecorisk Approach in Appendix B

Preliminary Risk Evaluation (PRE) Approach Technical Memorandum

Toxicity Reference Value Selection Technical Memorandum

Benthic Interpretation Approach TM

Initial Food Web Model Approach TM

Technical Memoranda under Development

Revised Comprehensive ERA TM - under review/discussion with EPA GW pathway approach - under discussion with EPA (currently in GW SAP) FSP for benthic invertebrate tissue sampling - under discussion with EPA Water screening values - currently under review by EPA

Scfttrv iV~^ yrvUj Us ZPPr ltJ ^ Syf

Upcoming Major ERA Deliverables

• Preliminary Risk Evalua Hon

• Benthic Interpretative Report

• Food Web Model Reports

• Round 2 Comprehensive Risk

Assessment

• Baseline Ecological Risk Assessment

Round 1 Data Collected for ERA

• 110 whole body fish, clam, and crayfish tissue samples

• 35 fish stomach contents for prey identification (qualitative)

• 58 surface sediment sampling locations

• 12 multiplate stations for community analysis

Round 2 Data Collected for ERA

• 555 surface sediment chemistry locations

• 233 sediment toxicity locations • 25 shorebird beach sediment chemistry

locations

• 25 surface water chemistry locations • 4 composite whole-body tissue and 4 stomach

content samples of juvenile Chinook salmon • 20 juvenile Chinook stomach contents for prey

identification

LWG rv.VorC-U1/. NIvwiMe AhvCxflpaM AMf.rlar

Future Data Collection for ERA

• 10 multiplate stations for invertebrate tissue and community analysis (currently in progress)

• Additional invertebrate tissue

• Transition zone water sampling

.*« (Jrnm or OK Mimh Gmj Jwifmatsi.« Owe M ffo*

Preliminary Risk Evaluation

• PRE is first major deliverable in the ecological risk assessment process

• Available Round 1 and Round 2 data are used for initial risk calculations

• Initial risk calculations in the PRE are based on conservative assumptions

• Results of PRE risk calculations will provide initial list of ecological COPCs to focus future ERA iterations

Preliminary Risk Evaluation

• PRE will not evaluate risk to all receptor groups (invertebrates, aquatic plants, and amphibians/reptiles) due to availability of data

• PRE will not evaluate risk from all exposure pathways (direct toxicity to benthic invertebrates, surface water, transition zone water)

• Representative invertebrate tissue is a primary data gap identified in the PRE

LWC £*> fr,4nier> Xns> vai 6r»<rr«*as®«. VI iVctae Smtyr.-t •» rtar<«

1

jv*1-

Pisk. *" |t6(wirvt4

/ f ^ ' i M ' T R /

(XarCiA 1

o Y~ ivyvv^ws- rwî .,\ mr

Lines of Evidence Evaluated in PRE

• Tissue-residue approach - Comparison of tissue concentrations of Round 1 clam, crayfish, and fish receptors to tissue-residue toxicity reference values (TRVs)

• Dietary approach - Comparison of estimated dietary concentrations to dietary TRVs*

• Modeled egg approach - Comparison of estimated bird egg tissue concentrations to egg based TRVs

"Die! was based on available Round 1 tissue and BSAF/BAF modeled tissue

Hazard Quotient Approach

• Hazard quotients (HQs) derived from Round 1 tissue and sediment data:

HQ = EPC/TRV

• Conservative exposure point concentrations (EPCs) based on maximum tissue (or modeled tissue) and maximum sediment concentrations

• Toxicity reference values (TRVs) still under review by EPA and are subject to change

4

Initial COPCs for Aquatic Tissue

Chemical HQ >1-10 HQ >10-50 HQ >50-100 HQ > 100 Total PCBs X chromium X copper X lead X mercury X zinc X 4,4'-DDD X 4.4'-DDT X total DD I X

Fttmacn D*Ua4l*cfi toorrtosM. .U

Initial COPCs for Aquatic Tissue (cont'd)

Chemical HQ >1-10 HQ >10-50 HQ >50-100 HQ > 100

alpha-HCH X*

beta-HCH X*

delta-HCH X*

endrin X*

hexachloro-butadiene X*

BEHP X 'HQ based on HL NOTE; HQs < 1 for aU other chanicala

OS.*« Qlv« Ctr WN») N« «I*S» ImarmM. A3C.-wU•>» (VTM

_djv£L>w

^</TsbC^ ~ w: Lti

C , > -

- OtO

TÔQ " s^lvtMrn

D or <,0vJLf>\̂ >

b W P - U55

Initial COPCs for Fish Diet

Chemical HQ >1 -10 HQ >10-50 HQ >50-100 HQ > 100

Total PCBs X copper X

mercury X

zinc X

TBT X

total PAHs X

total DDT X

total PAHs X NOTE: HQs < 1 for ail cxher cfcemicaJs

f-nktcmn IM* vet P*MIt"!' HI.'Ius. AHlswUkS•»

/j friicblr 7 r^Cli — Nek <L£*-4v

<• yy\oêlcjL /j/~'rrv ̂ &T"

5

BEHP HQs in Round 1 sculpin tissue by location

Total dioxin TEQ HQs in Round 1 sculpin tissue by location

Total DDT HQs in Round 1 sculpin tissue by location

Total PCB Aroclor HQs in Round 1 sculpin tissue by location

LWG

BEHP HQs in Round 1 crayfish tissue by location

LWG

1

Total DDT HQs in Round 1 crayfish tissue by location

, 5

7

i

Total PCB Aroclor HQs in Round 1 crayfish tissue by location

8

Initial COPCs for Bird Eggs

Shorebird TEQ HQ: Measured vs. Modeled

V

V

A "/

- \%- '

^ - .

'W-- •

-~r?|

' %r

^ ^ -b |V^V|t VyA

>yr trw> % C$J!\

CUv^<; •-

OJ

Shorebird lead HQ: Measured vs. Modeled

Shorebird mercury HQ: Measured vs. Modeled

Shorebird total DDTs HQ: Measured vs. Modeled

Shorebird total PAHs HQ: Measured vs. Modeled

Shorebird total PCB Aroclors HQ: Measured vs. Modeled

Deliverables Following the PRE

• Results and Interpretation of the Benthic Toxicity Assessment Report will evaluate the benthic toxicity line of evidence

• Round 2 Comprehensive Report will evaluate ecological exposure of aquatic plants, invertebrates, fish and amphibians/reptiles to surface water based on Round 2 data

<*• MOM MS <>•*» AH C.-W-W r**|»

11

Deliverables Following the PRE

• Round 2 Comprehensive Report also will refine the risk calculations presented in the PRE

• Food Web Model Reports will present predicted tissue concentrations in receptors

• The Baseline Ecological Risk Assessment Report

tlVG,

Benthic Interpretive Approach

Mike Johns, Windward Environmental August 16, 2005

LWG

Benthic Interpretive Approach

• Characterizes the relationship between sediment chemistry and benthic invertebrate toxicity

• Evaluate the predictive relationship between sediment chemistry and toxicity by.

- comparison to existing SQGs - development of a site-specific predictive model

• Identify areas within the Study Area where chemical concentrations in sediment may pose risks to benthic organisms

Data Used:

• 233 co-located sediment chemistry and toxicity test samples

• 215 locations in the Study Area and 6 upstream locations (3 samples per upstream location)

• 10-day Chironomus tentans and 28-day Hyalella azteca sediment toxicity test

• Other existing data sets from Willamette River • Regional or nation wide data sets

LWG, LWG, fiOU A. vt* Aft (.vvrxuan*. Xff Qiu* it Oumtt

Bioassay Data Preparation for Evaluation to Existing SQGs

• Hit/No-Hit Identifications - used existing freshwater criteria: - Statistical Difference-Only - Sediment Quality Standard (SQS) - Clean-up Screening Level (CSL) - Defined new Substantial Effects Level (SEL) using CSL as template and changing the threshold levels

• Defined four individual bioassay endpoints and pooled endpoints

aye . W*j-.r-i3a» D* t~-V r*r4sw*;r> Md ZM.f CMIM W*-

Portland Harbor Round 2 Sedqual toxicity test results, RM 2-11


LWG

2

r



o

MA • ̂

Vs '^1 • A

. i \

3

i

Definition of Pooled Endpoints

• Minor Effects Level defined as any one of the four endpoints exceeding its individual SQS

• Moderate Effects Level defined as any one of the four endpoints exceeding the CSL level or two or more endpoints exceeding the SQS

• Substantial Effects Level defined as any one of the four endpoints exceeding the high effects level or two or more endpoints exceeding the CSL

LWC t.-vwrtkx."man* OiVftfa'tmOu. Utian^n ax OK? lautriecsac. \i, (.nut late .v.

Summary of Individual Endpoint Classification

Hit OamtfkaUua Chironomus Mortality

Chironomus (•rowth

Hyalella Mortality

Hyalella <.rowth

No KfTects Level

No Significant Difference

92 I48J 106

" Minor KfTects Level

Significant Difference

141 79 127 227

Minor KfTects Level SQS K7 45 61 K8

Moderate KfTects Level

CSL 42 21 34

" Substantial KfTects Level

SEL 15 4 14 °

• 100% dead not included a».«aQ^f—Cju rtajami£»sl MC

Portland Harbor

Round 2 preliminary toxicity test

results: data pooled

RM 2-6

4

Portland Harbor



RM 6-11

Portland Harbor



RM 2-11

Evaluation of Existing SQGs by Reliability Analysis

• None of the existing SQG sets performs well at any level of effect

• No one SQG set performs better than the others, and their level of conservatism varies greatly among endpoints and effects levels

• Need to develop site-specific predictive model

LWG

Next Steps:

• Further evaluation of chemistry data to focus analyte list on chemicals related to observed toxicity

• Development of Site-Specific Predictive Model

• Results and Interpretation of the Benthic Toxicity Assessment Report to be submitted November 1, 2005

LVVG rj .

Feasibility Study Impressions

Carl Stivers, Anchor Environmental ; August 16, 2005

LWG

Work Plan FS Approach

• Complete Baseline Risk Assessments • Refine Remedial Action Objectives • Identify Areas (Sediment Management

Areas) and Volumes of Sediment • Refine Remedial Technologies • Assemble Remedial Alternatives • Screen Remedial Alternatives • Evaluate Remedial Alternatives

4MB

Remedial Technologies (Work Plan) •Institutional Controls •Removal and Disposal •Natural Recovery • Confined Aquatic

• Unenhanced Disposal • Enhanced • Nearshore Confined

•In-situ Containment Disposal •In-situ Containment • New Upland Disposal • Thin Layer Capping Facility • Capping • Existing Upland Disposal • Nearshore berms/fills Facility

•In-situ Treatment •Removal and Treatment • Biological • Physical • Chemical • Chemical • Stabilization • Biological • Others • Stabilization

• Others

Preliminary Chemical Data Integration -Methods

• Preliminary qualitative analysis - primarily not risk-based

• Combined highest concentration category for all reviewed chemicals

• Used highest relative concentration only (with two exceptions below)

• Overlay bioassay substantial effects results • Overlay preliminary sculpin and crayfish tissue risk

info. • Consider potential risk driver bioaccumulative

compounds • PCBs (used top two relative highest categories) • DDTs(same)

Frtlmvy nd /Vat A'

Preliminary Chemical Data Integration -Uncertainty

( am pit It Uncertainty

Substantial ( ncertainty

Some Uncertainty

2

j

Other Inputs to Define Future Sediment Management Areas (SMAs)

• Complete risk assessments and refine areas with unacceptable risks

• Detailed analysis of sediment depths and related volumes

• Overlay physical environment • Overlay habitat types and restoration opportunities • Overlay nver and shoreline uses and potential future

uses • Source differences (e.g., groundwater vs. overwater

source)

LWC

Process Forward to the FS

• Define spatial or volumetric data gaps for FS level determinations

• Further define recontamination/source sampling and evaluation methods

• Physical/chemical process information • Engineering properties • Fate and transport processes

• Conduct Round 3 sampling (for the above) • Work Plan FS Approach

Cm V Or frtlinsrf fWH E»yt/*• iy» 'i if. Ur.«<M.WictvCVn*

Work Plan FS Approach

• Complete Baseline Risk Assessments • Refine Remedial Action Objectives • Identify Areas (Sediment Management

Areas) and Volumes of Sediment • Refine Remedial Technologies • Assemble Remedial Alternatives • Screen Remedial Alternatives • Evaluate Remedial Alternatives

LWC sm Arilbrnfna**+ AHiMm: S«/yrf imCtmt'

Process for Identifying Additional Data Needs

Keith Pine, Integral Consulting August 16, 2005

LWC |UW|lMroni>

Remaining Primary Project Elements

1. Complete Round 2: collect data to complete Rl and BLRA (late 2005)

2. Comprehensive Round 2 Report and Data Gaps Analysis (April 2006)

3. Round 3: collect data for FS and RI/BLRA data gaps (2006)

4. Draft Rl & BLRA Reports (summer2007)

5. Draft FS Deliverables (winter 2007)

LWC DO V*guaror AttmmtryPmjlotOMfafrrr.«fcx.« A-'lrntmr»l»*.,/ HHHH

Process for Identifying Additional Data Needs

1. Identify data gaps and data needs in remaining Round 2 deliverables

2. Develop FSPs to address data needs as they are identified

3. Identify all data gaps and remaining data needs in Round 2 Comprehensive Report

4. Develop FSP(s) to address remaining data needs identified in Round 2 Comprehensive Report

LWC go V* r-ilnmm Oix r\y< fc.rrrtanm. W cwre UHki v fhvqr

Data Gaps/Data Needs Evaluations -RI&BLRA

• Revised Phase 1 Hydrodynamic/ Sediment Transport Model Report (submitted 7/5/05)

• Ecological Preliminary Risk Evaluation (9/9/05)

» Benthic Interpretation Report (11/1/05) • Initial Food Web Model (11/4/05) • Round 3 Surface Water FSP (Fall 2005) • Round 2 Comprehensive Report

(Spring 2006)

Data Gaps/Data Needs Evaluations -Feasibility Study

• Step 2 Monitored Natural Recovery Report (11/3/05)

• Facility Siting Final Ranking Report (2006?) • Recontamination Studies (part of R3 SW FSP

development - fall 2005) • Sediment Management Area Data Needs

(part of Comprehensive Round 2 Report) • Background Data Needs (Approach TM

10/31/05)

Comprehensive Round 2 Site Characterization and Data Gaps Analysis

Report

• Summarize LWG and non-LWG sample data • Refine the conceptual site model « Present preliminary human health and

ecological risk evaluations • Identify chemicals and media that may pose

unacceptable risks * Identify preliminary SMAs • Identify potential historical and ongoing

sources of contamination

LWG

Project Update Portland Harbor RI/FS

May 24, 2006 Portland, OR

LOWER WILLAMETTE GROUP

Documents

PROJECT UPDATE PORTLAND HARBOR RI/FS PRESENTATIONS · Project Update Portland Harbor RI/FS August 16, 2005 LWG frftoiKnfta: Summary of Today's Presentation • Project Timeline •