CAG Board Members
Michael Pouncil, Chair
Doug Larson
Sarah Taylor
Casimera Tadewaldt
Jan Zuckerman
Clancy Terry
November 19, 2024
Participating
Laura Knudsen, EPA
Caleb Shaffer, EPA
Hunter Young, EPA
Cassie Cohen Portland Harbor Community Coalition
Participants: 54 online, several more at PHCAG meeting location
Michael Pouncil
· Introduction: tonight’s meeting has been recorded.
- Oregon DEQ has paused its air quality permitting process for Zenith Energy’s Portland terminal. The public hearings we previously detailed have been cancelled. For more, see DEQ’spress release and visit its Zenith project page.
- Land Acknowledgement.
- The Tributary Alliance and PHCAG will honor Bob Salinger at Green Anchors Industrial Park November 23, 3pm.
- Friday Nov 29 noon-4 Braided River Gallery Lloyd center, family crafting workshops.
- Saturday Dec 21 Baby Sasquatch hut at the Lloyd Center, noon-4.
A moment of silence in remembrance of Bob Salinger.
__________
Presentation
Gasco Project Area
NW Natural (the Working Party) presented and answered questions about the Preliminary Design Report (equivalent to a 30% Design Report) for the Gasco Project Area cleanup engineering.
Community comments are due to WRAG by November 26, 2024 for inclusion with their technical feedback to EPA.
WRAG’s Role
The Willamette River Advocacy Group (WRAG) manages the Technical Assistance Grant (TAG) through EPA, which provides our community with a Technical Advisor to help us understand the cleanup designs and channel our input back to EPA. The Portland Harbor Community Advisory Group (PHCAG) will be in collaboration with WRAG through these important presentations, discussions, and comment periods for each project area’s early remedial designs.
|
|
Presentation: Bob Wyatt, Sediment Remediation Preliminary Design Report, Gasco Sediments Site:
Sediments overview: Gas & Coke operations, gas was produced out of coal during the early to mid 1900’s. This led to contamination in the uplands and in the sediment. We have been working on this with EPA for 25 years. In 2017 the Record of Decision (ROD) was made available. 2021 we submitted the first preliminary design, a treatability study on how to mix materials with the sediments. This led to the field pilot.
Field Pilot Study update: performed stabilization and solidification (ISS) tests at the site. A second preliminary design report was submitted one month ago, mixing materials in place to act as a lock for chemicals and prevents groundwater from moving that material to Portland Harbor. This reduces mobility of the chemicals and also creates excess material. Excess material (swell) is removed by excavation. Water quality monitoring stations collected water from different levels to see if there were disruptions in the 49 water columns from this management. There was no disruption. This process doesn’t expose contamination. Habitat benches can be configured as part of the process.
We will also submit interim and final design reports. This process will treat intermediate, near shore and riverbank. Navigation channels will be fully dredged. Contamination at this site is deep, this is where materials will mix with contaminates.
Cleanup Vision in the report:
Habitat bench after dredging a cap will be placed. Where there is a slope there is not much surface for habitat – so we contour benches that allow for resting areas. Goal is to optimize to create a good habitat and one as large as possible for this area.
Q&A for Bob Wyatt
Q: Have you applied any low frequency flood events, including the sediment surface and habitat efforts?
A: Rocks will be the new habitat, which could be affected by flooding. We’ll keep observing. The design itself will include those kinds of issues and identify methods we would use in the event we encounter some.
Q: When you put the columns down the ground is filling the hole. Does it get disturbed significantly when you pull the auger back out again through the deposited ground?
A: Once the auger starts mixing in it starts blending those sediments deeper and deeper. The consistency is very smooth. It’s very even. One of the things that we tested was how smooth and consistent that mix was. The moon pool helped contain all those materials. The system minimizes disruption.
Q: Does drilling into the edge of an adjacent column, deflect the auger?
A: We actually have GPS positioning sensors on the entire length of that auger. And we can determine whether it’s completely vertical or not. And we were able to establish that we can maintain that verticality. No deflection issues.
Q: Bacteria, have you considered mixing any biologics in this cement technology?
A: This technology is not usually used in conjunction with other technologies. The more things you mix in, the more likely you’ll risk having permeability problems.
Q: We have GPS positioning sensors on the entire length of that auger. We can determine whether it’s completely vertical or not. And so we, were able to establish that we can maintain that verticality. I’m wondering kind of how that looks and knowing that water can. A jagged rock smooths pretty quickly and these things can wear down and move. Also, the depth of contamination.
A: Some of the contaminates are as deep as 30’. Regarding sediment binding, the ISS binds this in a way to reduce leachability. Will be a lot stronger than loose sediments.
Q: It does not seem that a climate change impact analysis was performed.
A: Climate change is something that is evaluated as part of design. Flooding would change the hydro dynamic conditions of the river. An increasing threat, greater river flow. we have requirements that folks design to, future design conditions for those scenarios. And so all of that is baked into the design.
Q: The upcoming political transition. Is NW Natural planning to go to DC in the new year and speak directly with new leadership on Portland Harbor issues? Is NW Natural committed to fulfilling cleanup responsibilities in spite of future deregulation?
A: We continue to be committed to this cleanup. Negotiations of agreements to get this cleanup done are underway. We don’t see anything changing about that.
Q: Resting areas for the salmon so they can get a break from the current – has this been incorporated into the design?
A: Because we’re still in conceptual design or preliminary design for some of these factors, you know, what we can say for sure is, looks like this technology will be effective, with a habitat friendly area.
Q: With this new technology, I think you mentioned we’re creating an impervious barrier for our contaminated groundwater from leaving your site going to the river. What’s going to happen to that contaminated groundwater now?
A: We have a groundwater control and containment system in the upland that we’ve been operating for DEQ for more than a decade to prevent that condition from occurring. we’re trying to figure out what else we can do to make sure we have done everything in our power to assure we don’t have a recontamination condition.
Q: What is the habitat going to be comprised of?
A: It’s a rounded rock material. The ability of material placed at the bottom of the river to withstand those forces. Right now what we have is a placeholder in our preliminary design, a larger rounded rock material that can hold up against those forces.
Q: Please describe what the standards will be for the dewatered fluids if discharged into the city’s public owned treatment works.
A: we will not be generating liquids that will go into the city POTW. We will be dredging. So the ISS material will be adding fluids. What will we remove from the river post treatment will be the swell material, which will be a solid material.
Q: The buffer area that you mentioned that the core of engineers is requesting or requiring. Is anything going to happen there in terms of remediation?
A: We’ll fully dredge that.
Q: We know from Ross Island and also Willamette Cove that the increasing problem of cyanobacteria is kind of revealing one of the impacts of increasing water temperature. I’m curious if there has been or there’s going to be any study in this scope with how increasing water temperature might interact with the ISS material or the contaminants that are there, and water temperature in general.
A: The material that we’re using, and the service will be creating won’t really be affected by a variation in temperature.
Q: About monitoring. How will monitoring results be shared? And how will this information be incorporated into the communications approach in the community impacts mitigation plan.
A: We will be doing extensive monitoring for water quality as well as air monitoring during construction. We’re looking into how to share that monitoring. It would be so cool if we could do real time sharing.
Q: The document notes potential resue of material treated with ISS. How would that work and who would regulate it?
A: Reuse of material is a pretty important concept and it’s essentially recycling materials instead of just disposing them in a landfill. because the material is going to be treated, we believe it’s safe to reuse or will be safe to reuse in certain conditions.
Q: How certain is it that you can already use that existing barge company you’re contracting with. How certain is it that you can already use that existing barge company and then maybe the broader question is like can any of the other PRPs use that company?
A: I have a high level of confidence that we can use the same. Methodologies that we’ve already used in Portland as recently as 2020. Once cleanup starts in the harbor there will be more barge companies available.
Q: Rising ground water tables could contribute to accelerated migration of contaminants to impact the success of the cap and removing clean up.
A: One of the things that we look at are both current and future river conditions. Land conditions and current and future groundwater conditions. For our uplands work and the groundwater there, we’re working with DEQ, and we’ll be evaluating treatment methods for cleaning the uplands up that will take into account any future conditions. If we see an increase in the amount of water that moves in that direction it won’t be affected.
Q: I’ve never seen a human engineering system that didn’t have some design failure point. I’m curious as if that design threshold was ever looked at for this particular project and why you think you’re below that risk level. How long are you on the hook for the plan?
A: Design tolerances – we want to identify where all the contaminates reside. We have a tight grid of 3D data points. We’ll perform another sampling in 2025. Objective is to make sure we have treatment of all of these materials by establishing parameters for post construction.
Q: Why are drought, extreme heat not factored into your remedial design?
A: We will have requirements for plantings and especially in the mitigation areas and annual monitoring to ensure adequate growth and establishment of vegetation in areas where it’s required.
Q: How many acres does the remedy span? And how much material will be brought in relative to being removed.
A: The full area is about 40 acres including the ISS area and the dredge area. But we’re going to be removing from the river essentially an equal volume.
Q: What’s the timeframe for the remedy?
A: Guessing less than 2 years to begin. Then this project will be ongoing over multiple (3-4) years, we have to consider fish windows.
Q: Is there any way in the near future that we could have those working on habitat talk with PHCAG?
A: We’re in the preliminary level regarding location of habitat and what will be the best materials for that habitat and which habitats are most important. Those conversations have to happen first but we can certainly connect with you when we are able to do so cohesively.
__________
Presentation: Bob Wyatt, Sediment Remediation Preliminary Design Report, Gasco Sediments Site:
Sediments overview: Gas & Coke operations, gas was produced out of coal during the early to mid 1900’s. This led to contamination in the uplands and in the sediment. We have been working on this with EPA for 25 years. In 2017 the Record of Decision (ROD) was made available. 2021 we submitted the first preliminary design, a treatability study on how to mix materials with the sediments. This led to the field pilot.
Field Pilot Study update: performed stabilization and solidification (ISS) tests at the site. A second preliminary design report was submitted one month ago, mixing materials in place to act as a lock for chemicals and prevents groundwater from moving that material to Portland Harbor. This reduces mobility of the chemicals and also creates excess material. Excess material (swell) is removed by excavation. Water quality monitoring stations collected water from different levels to see if there were disruptions in the 49 water columns from this management. There was no disruption. This process doesn’t expose contamination. Habitat benches can be configured as part of the process.
We will also submit interim and final design reports. This process will treat intermediate, near shore and riverbank. Navigation channels will be fully dredged. Contamination at this site is deep, this is where materials will mix with contaminates.
Cleanup Vision in the report:
Habitat bench after dredging a cap will be placed. Where there is a slope there is not much surface for habitat – so we contour benches that allow for resting areas. Goal is to optimize to create a good habitat and one as large as possible for this area.
Q&A for Bob Wyatt
Q: Have you applied any low frequency flood events, including the sediment surface and habitat efforts?
A: Rocks will be the new habitat, which could be affected by flooding. We’ll keep observing. The design itself will include those kinds of issues and identify methods we would use in the event we encounter some.
Q: When you put the columns down the ground is filling the hole. Does it get disturbed significantly when you pull the auger back out again through the deposited ground?
A: Once the auger starts mixing in it starts blending those sediments deeper and deeper. The consistency is very smooth. It’s very even. One of the things that we tested was how smooth and consistent that mix was. The moon pool helped contain all those materials. The system minimizes disruption.
Q: Does drilling into the edge of an adjacent column, deflect the auger?
A: We actually have GPS positioning sensors on the entire length of that auger. And we can determine whether it’s completely vertical or not. And we were able to establish that we can maintain that verticality. No deflection issues.
Q: Bacteria, have you considered mixing any biologics in this cement technology?
A: This technology is not usually used in conjunction with other technologies. The more things you mix in, the more likely you’ll risk having permeability problems.
Q: We have GPS positioning sensors on the entire length of that auger. We can determine whether it’s completely vertical or not. And so we, were able to establish that we can maintain that verticality. I’m wondering kind of how that looks and knowing that water can. A jagged rock smooths pretty quickly and these things can wear down and move. Also, the depth of contamination.
A: Some of the contaminates are as deep as 30’. Regarding sediment binding, the ISS binds this in a way to reduce leachability. Will be a lot stronger than loose sediments.
Q: It does not seem that a climate change impact analysis was performed.
A: Climate change is something that is evaluated as part of design. Flooding would change the hydro dynamic conditions of the river. An increasing threat, greater river flow. we have requirements that folks design to, future design conditions for those scenarios. And so all of that is baked into the design.
Q: The upcoming political transition. Is NW Natural planning to go to DC in the new year and speak directly with new leadership on Portland Harbor issues? Is NW Natural committed to fulfilling cleanup responsibilities in spite of future deregulation?
A: We continue to be committed to this cleanup. Negotiations of agreements to get this cleanup done are underway. We don’t see anything changing about that.
Q: Resting areas for the salmon so they can get a break from the current – has this been incorporated into the design?
A: Because we’re still in conceptual design or preliminary design for some of these factors, you know, what we can say for sure is, looks like this technology will be effective, with a habitat friendly area.
Q: With this new technology, I think you mentioned we’re creating an impervious barrier for our contaminated groundwater from leaving your site going to the river. What’s going to happen to that contaminated groundwater now?
A: We have a groundwater control and containment system in the upland that we’ve been operating for DEQ for more than a decade to prevent that condition from occurring. we’re trying to figure out what else we can do to make sure we have done everything in our power to assure we don’t have a recontamination condition.
Q: What is the habitat going to be comprised of?
A: It’s a rounded rock material. The ability of material placed at the bottom of the river to withstand those forces. Right now what we have is a placeholder in our preliminary design, a larger rounded rock material that can hold up against those forces.
Q: Please describe what the standards will be for the dewatered fluids if discharged into the city’s public owned treatment works.
A: we will not be generating liquids that will go into the city POTW. We will be dredging. So the ISS material will be adding fluids. What will we remove from the river post treatment will be the swell material, which will be a solid material.
Q: The buffer area that you mentioned that the core of engineers is requesting or requiring. Is anything going to happen there in terms of remediation?
A: We’ll fully dredge that.
Q: We know from Ross Island and also Willamette Cove that the increasing problem of cyanobacteria is kind of revealing one of the impacts of increasing water temperature. I’m curious if there has been or there’s going to be any study in this scope with how increasing water temperature might interact with the ISS material or the contaminants that are there, and water temperature in general.
A: The material that we’re using, and the service will be creating won’t really be affected by a variation in temperature.
Q: About monitoring. How will monitoring results be shared? And how will this information be incorporated into the communications approach in the community impacts mitigation plan.
A: We will be doing extensive monitoring for water quality as well as air monitoring during construction. We’re looking into how to share that monitoring. It would be so cool if we could do real time sharing.
Q: The document notes potential resue of material treated with ISS. How would that work and who would regulate it?
A: Reuse of material is a pretty important concept and it’s essentially recycling materials instead of just disposing them in a landfill. because the material is going to be treated, we believe it’s safe to reuse or will be safe to reuse in certain conditions.
Q: How certain is it that you can already use that existing barge company you’re contracting with. How certain is it that you can already use that existing barge company and then maybe the broader question is like can any of the other PRPs use that company?
A: I have a high level of confidence that we can use the same. Methodologies that we’ve already used in Portland as recently as 2020. Once cleanup starts in the harbor there will be more barge companies available.
Q: Rising ground water tables could contribute to accelerated migration of contaminants to impact the success of the cap and removing clean up.
A: One of the things that we look at are both current and future river conditions. Land conditions and current and future groundwater conditions. For our uplands work and the groundwater there, we’re working with DEQ, and we’ll be evaluating treatment methods for cleaning the uplands up that will take into account any future conditions. If we see an increase in the amount of water that moves in that direction it won’t be affected.
Q: I’ve never seen a human engineering system that didn’t have some design failure point. I’m curious as if that design threshold was ever looked at for this particular project and why you think you’re below that risk level. How long are you on the hook for the plan?
A: Design tolerances – we want to identify where all the contaminates reside. We have a tight grid of 3D data points. We’ll perform another sampling in 2025. Objective is to make sure we have treatment of all of these materials by establishing parameters for post construction.
Q: Why are drought, extreme heat not factored into your remedial design?
A: We will have requirements for plantings and especially in the mitigation areas and annual monitoring to ensure adequate growth and establishment of vegetation in areas where it’s required.
Q: How many acres does the remedy span? And how much material will be brought in relative to being removed.
A: The full area is about 40 acres including the ISS area and the dredge area. But we’re going to be removing from the river essentially an equal volume.
Q: What’s the timeframe for the remedy?
A: Guessing less than 2 years to begin. Then this project will be ongoing over multiple (3-4) years, we have to consider fish windows.
Q: Is there any way in the near future that we could have those working on habitat talk with PHCAG?
A: We’re in the preliminary level regarding location of habitat and what will be the best materials for that habitat and which habitats are most important. Those conversations have to happen first but we can certainly connect with you when we are able to do so cohesively.
__________
|
Recent Comments