•• .... 

RECEIVED 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency SEP 1 0 Z01Z 

and 	 FFICE OF 0 Oregon Department ofEnvironmental Quality EANUP 

National Priorities List Deferral Agree~fRONMENTAL CL 

Astoria Marine Construction Company Site, Astoria, Oregon 

I. PURPOSE 

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10, conducted a preliminary assessment 

and site investigation at the Astoria Marine Construction Company facility located in 

Astoria, Oregon, CERCLIS ID # OR0002392793, and determined that it qualifies for 

placement on the National Priorities List. In March 2011, the EPA proposed the Site to the 

NPL. 

Clatsop County officials, along with members ofthe Oregon Legislature and the U.S. Senate,. 

in a series ofmeetings conducted in 2011 and in letters to the EPA in November 2011 and 

January 2012 (Attachments A and B), requested that the EPA defer final listing ofthe Site on 

the NPL while the Oregon Department ofEnvironmental Quality oversees response actions 

under state authority. In October 2011, EPA Region 10 outlined certain criteria that the 

Astoria Marine Construction Company and DEQ would need to satisfy in order for the EPA 

to consider a deferral ofthe Site (Attachment C). 

Based on AMCCO and DEQ meeting the deferral criteria, the EPA is deferring the final 

listing ofthe Site on the NPL while DEQ completes necessary investigations and response 

actions at the Site. Once the required response actions at the Site are successfully completed, 

it is expected that the EPA will have no further interest in considering the Site for listing, 

unless there is a release or potential for release that poses an imminent threat to human health 

or the environment. In addition, when response actions are completed, the Site will be 

removed from the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability 

Information System. 

This agreement describes the steps the Oregon Department ofEnvironmental Quality will 

take to ensure that adequate response actions are completed at the Site, which contains 

contaminated upland soils and inter-tidal and submerged sediments. 

II. IMPLEMENTATION 

A. 	State Program- DEQ is authorized under state law to implement a hazardous waste 

cleanup program which should ensure that response actions at the Site are carried out and 

that these actions are protective of human health and the environment. Furthermore, DEQ 

has sufficient capabilities, resources, expertise and authorities to ensure that a CERCLAprotective cleanup1 is conducted and to coordinate with the EPA, Tribal governments, 

other interested agencies and the public on different phases ofimplementation. 

1 The tenn CERCLA-protective cleanup is defined in OSWER Directive 9375.6-11, Guidance on Deferral ofNPL Listing 

Determinations While States Oversee Response Actions (May 3, 1995), and further explained with respect to this deferral 

action in the letter from Daniel D. Opalski, Director of EPA Region 10 Office ofEnvironmental Cleanup, to Nina DeConcini, 

DEQ Northwest Regional Administrator (Oct. 26, 2011) (Attachment C). 

1 
... t .... 

B. 	 Site Eligibility- The State ofOregon has expressed interest in having the Site listing 

deferred and in DEQ overseeing the response at the Site under state law. DEQ agrees to 

pursue response actions at the Site in a timely manner. The EPA and DEQ agree that a 

deferral should address the Site sooner than, and at least as quickly as EPA would expect 

to respond. 

The Site is included in the CERCUS inventory and has been assessed and scored for 

listing on the NPL. The State will not request, nor utilize, Federal trust fund money to 

implement any portion ofthe actions required by this Agreement. 

C. 	 Community Acceptance- DEQ provided outreach to the affected community in a letter 

dated April20, 2012. DEQ explained to the community the differences between a 

response action under state law pursuant to the terms ofthe proposed Deferral Agreement 

and a response conducted under the National Contingency Plan and requested feedback 

from the community. DEQ documented this outreach to the EPA and presented the 

results ofthe feedback it received from the community. The response from the 

community was largely supportive ofEPA deferring the Site to DEQ oversight, and was 

documented in a letter to the EPA dated May 30,2012 (Attachment D). 

D. Cleanup Levels- DEQ will pursue a CERCLA-protective cleanup ofthe Site that will be 

substantially similar to a CERCLA response. The response action will be protective of 

human health and the environment, as generally defined for individual human exposure 

by an acceptable risk level for carcinogens between 104 and 1 o-6 (using 10-6 risk level as 

the point ofdeparture for determining remediation goals for alternatives) and for noncarcinogens a Hazard Index of 1 or less, and no significant adverse impacts to ecological 

receptors. The response action(s) will also treat hot spots of contamination to the extent 

feasible. DEQ will give preference to solutions that will be reliable over the long term. In 

addition, DEQ will ensure that any remedy selected at the Site will comply with all 

applicable or relevant and appropriate2 federal requirements and more stringent 

applicable or relevant and appropriate State requirements to the maximum extent 

practicable under DEQ's state authorities. 

Soils, sediments, air, surface and groundwater will be investigated and assessed as part of 

the comprehensive risk assessment conducted at the AMCC site. The comprehensive risk 

assessment will include an assessment of potential dioxin contamination at the site, as 

well as the consideration ofpotential exposure pathways to residents and sensitive 

populations that might exist in and around Jeffers Slough as it winds south and west of 

the industrial property and into residential areas. The EPA anticipates that the CERCLAprotective remedy includes the recognition that groundwaters ofthe United States are 

valued natural resources, and that response actions will ensure the remedies are protective 

by restoring contaminated groundwater to beneficial uses. 

E. 	 Natura,! Resources Trustees- DEQ will promptly notify the appropriate state and federal 

trustees for natural resources ofdischarges and releases at the Site that are injuring or 

2 The phrase "applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements" shall be defmed by reference to Section 121 ofCERCLA, 

42 U.S.C. § 9621, the National Contingency Plan (see 40 C.F.R. § 300.5 defmitions of"applicable requirements" and 

"relevant and appropriate requirements"), and applicable EPA Guidance. 

2 
I 0 • ~ .,t 

may injure natural resources, and include the trustees, as appropriate, in activities at the 

Site. The State shall, consistent with CERCLA and the NCP, seek to coordinate necessary 

assessments, evaluations, investigations, and planning with State, Tribal and Federal 

trustees. 

F. 	 Tribal Participation - DEQ has entered into and follow the terms ofMemorandums of 

Understanding with all Tribal governments that have elected to participate in the response 

actions. Furthermore, DEQ will support efforts to fund Tribal governments at levels that 

allow substantive participation in response actions performed under this Agreement. 

Ill. PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS 

A. 	 Roles and Responsibilities - DEQ has responsibility, with minimal EPA involvement, to 

provide for a timely CERCLA-protective cleanup under state authority and to support the 

public's right of participation in the decision-making process. The EPA's role will 

generally be limited to review ofDEQ semi-annual and annual reports and consultation 

on the proposed remedy. However, the EPA may request reports, data, or other 

documentation related to the remedial activities at the Site, as it deems appropriate, or 

arrange for DEQ to provide certain draft documents for EPA review as they are prepared. 

The EPA will not provide financial assistance for site activities to the State, Tribes or the 

community during a deferral. 

In the event that community members or Tribal governments request that EPA reconsider 

deferral ofthe Site or request EPA's intervention in response actions, EPA will meet with 

DEQ to discuss the community and/or Tribal government concerns and to review the 

response actions in light ofthis Agreement, the Tribal MOUs, and EPA's NPL Deferral 

Guidance, and make a decision regarding whether terminating the deferral is warranted. 

B. 	 Schedule for Performance - A proposed schedule of events for the Site cleanup is set 

forth in the following table. The dates in the table are subject to change. EPA shall be 

notified of a change in Target Completion Date as soon as DEQ becomes aware that such 

a change is necessary or unavoidable. 

Task Target Completion 

Date 

Complete Phase I Remedial Investigation June 2013 

Prepare Removal Work Plan (if needed) August 2013 

Complete additional Remedial Investigation (ifneeded) September 2013 

Complete Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment October 2013 

Complete Feasibility Study December 2013 

Proposed Remedial Action Public Comment Period January-February 2014 

Record ofDecision April2014 

Remedial Design May-July 2014 

Implement Remedial Action August-October 2014 

C. 	 Documentation Submissions to EPA- DEQ will make available all Site data, reports, and 

other documentation to the EPA upon request. 

3 
..-. ... ,JJ. 

D. DEQ Reporting to EPA- DEQ will provide management briefings to the EPA at least 

annually on whether the conditions in this Agreement are being met and the progress in 

the investigation, assessment and response actions. In addition, DEQ will report to the 

EPA at least semi-annually on any difficulties that it is having meeting the conditions of 

this Agreement. Following the submission ofa report required or requested, the EPA may 

request a briefing or meeting with DEQ to discuss the report(s). 

E. 	 Proposed Remedial Action- DEQ will briefthe EPA on the proposed remedial action 

(Draft Record ofDecision StaffReport) before and after soliciting public comment. 

IV. COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION 

DEQ will ensure public involvement that is substantially similar to the intent ofthe National 

Contingency Plan , in accordance with the Community Involvement Plan finalized for the 

Site by DEQ in July 2012 (Attachment E). DEQ will ensure the following actions are 

undertaken: 

A. 	Site files will be maintained at the DEQ project manager's office. 

B. 	 Site related documents will be available at one or more locations near the Site. 

C. 	 Site-related information will be provided to community groups. 

D. Through the Community Involvement Plan or other agreement with AMCCO, the 

affected community will be able to acquire technical assistance in interpreting 

information with regard to the nature ofthe hazard, investigations, and studies conducted, 

and implementation decisions at the Site. 

V. COMPLETION OF STATE RESPONSE ACTION 

Certification and Confirmation - Once DEQ considers the response action at the Site to be 

complete, it will certify to the EPA, the Tribal Governments with which it has MOUs, and 

the affected community that the remedy has been successfully completed and intended 

cleanup levels achieved. As part ofthe certification, DEQ will submit for EPA review a 

response action completion documentation substantially similar to that described in the June 

1992 OSWER Direct "Remedial Action Report; Documentation for Operable Unit 

Completion" (OSWER Directive 9355.0-39FS). 

The EPA will review the certification and supporting information, and may choose to initiate 

a deferral completion inquiry to confirm the certification. The EPA will work with DEQ to 

address any data deficiencies hindering the confirmation and agree to a time frame for 

completion ofthe inquiry. Ifthe response at the Site is confirmed as complete, the Site will 

not be further evaluated for NPL listing unless the EPA receives information of a release or 

potential release at the site which poses a significant threat to human health or the 

environment. Upon completion ofresponse actions and confirmation by the EPA, the Site 

will be removed from CERCLIS. 

4 
I ~ •• I 

VI. AGREEMENT TERMINATION AND MODIFICATION 

The EPA may terminate this Deferral Agreement at any time after providing 30 days notice 

to DEQ. This Deferral Agreement may be terminated ifthe response is not CERCLAprotective, is unreasonably delayed, inconsistent with this Deferral Agreement, does not 

adequately address the concerns ofthe affected community or Tribal governments with 

whom DEQ has MOUs, or for other appropriate reasons, such as the State's inability to 

enforce compliance or the absence of appropriate funding to complete the response action. 

DEQ may also choose at any time, after 30 days notice to the EPA, to terminate this Deferral 

Agreement for any reason. During any 30-day notice period required by this paragraph, EPA 

and DEQ agree to meet to discuss the decision to terminate this Deferral Agreement. 

Upon termination ofthis Deferral Agreement, the EPA will consider taking any necessary 

response actions including initiating the rulemaking process to formally list the Site on the 

NPL. EPA and DEQ will coordinate efforts to notify the community ofthe termination ofthe 

deferral or this Agreement. These actions will assure the public that the EPA will continue to 

respond at the Site. At EPA's request, DEQ will provide to the EPA all information in its 

possession regarding the Site to the extent permitted by State law. 

This Deferral Agreement adheres to EPA's "Guidance of Deferral ofNPL Listing 

Determinations While State's Oversee Response Actions" dated May 3, 1995. Furthermore, 

this Deferral Agreement may be modified at any time upon agreement of both parties. 

Notwithstanding any provision ofthis Deferral Agreement, EPA and DEQ retain their 

respective authorities and reserve all rights to take any and all response actions authorized by 

law. 

VII. AGREEMENT APPROVALS 

Nina 

DEQ 

DeConcini 

Northwest Region 

&UiY1~ Administrator Office 

~~' ofEnvironmental Cleanup 

Oregon Department ofEnvironmental Quality Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10 

}-; 7r 20/2--	 rd.?'Aoa 

I 	 / Date 	 Date 

ATTACHMENTS 

A. November 30, 2011letter from U.S. Senators Ron Wyden and JeffMerkley to EPA Region 10. 

B. 	January 12, 2012 letter from Clatsop County Board ofCommissioners to Dan Opalski ofEPA 

Region 10. 

C. 	 October 26, 2011letter from EPA Region 10 to DEQ Northwest Region Administrator outlining 

'NPL Deferral requirements. 

D. May 30, 2012letter from DEQ to EPA Region 10 summarizing Community Acceptance 

response. 

E. 	 July 2012 DEQ Community Involvement Plan for Astoria Marine Construction Company Site. 

5 
Attachment A 

tinitcd ~tatts ~cnatc WASHINGTON, DC 20510 

November 30, 2011 

Dennis J. McLerran 

EPA Region 10 Administrator 

1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900 

Seattle, W A 981 01 

Dear Mr. McLerran: 

We are writing to ask your assistance relating to the potential for cleanup ofthe Astoria Marine 

Construction Company (AMCC) site. As you know a large group of community and state 

leaders, along with the business owner have been engaged for more than a year discussing a 

variety ofissues associated with cleaning up the site and finding the appropriate responsible 

parties. There have been a number ofdiscussions about whether listing the AMCC site on the 

Superfund National Priorities List (NPL) will assist in this cleanup. In your letter ofOctober 26, 

2011, to the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ), you indicate that funding 

certainty to complete the remedial investigation and feasibility study (RI/FS) must be obtained 

by December I, 2011. Because the AMCC is diligently searching many past and potentially outof-date insurance policies, we ask that you extend that date, at the very least. until February, 

2012. This period oftime will allow the Oregon DEQ, the AMCC, and the County to determine 

ifthere are any yet to be determined insurance policies to assist in that effort. Providing an extra 

few months will still enable the EPA to make a decision related to a listing on the NPL by March 

2012. 

We encourage the EPA to work as closely as possible with Clatsop County, AMCC, and the 

State ofOregon to ensure the greatest amount of local involvement in determining an approach 

to cleaning up the site. Providing the community with a specific explanation regarding the 

process for apportioning cleanup will have the added benefit of ensuring that EPA will work 

collaboratively with the community towards cleaning up the Lower Columbia. We would also 

ask that the EPA use every available authority to work with the Department of Defense to 

determine the responsibility for this cleanup ofthe United States Navy, for whom AMCC 

performed extensive boat maintenance work. 

And as a final note, we want to voice our concern that the AMCC is a small. family O\vned 

business that has consistently provided jobs in a very low income area. The owner does not have 

the financial capacity to sign an agreement with either the EPA or the Oregon DEQ to commit to 

financing the RI/FS. 
,.•. 


We urge you to take the current economic climate and the limited resources of the company into 

consideration as you move forward with your decision. Every available effort made to sustain the 

normal operations ofthis important employer in Astoria is appreciated. 

Please keep our offices informed of your decision. 

· Sincerely, 

Ron Wyden 

JbAJeff Merkley ~ United States Senator United States Senator 
. \ 

Attachment B 

(lCiatsop (lCountp 

Board of Commissioners 

800 Exchange St., Suite 410 

Astoria, Oregon 97103 

www.co.clatsop.or.us 

Phone 

Fax 

January 25, 2012 

(503)325-1000 

(503) 325-8325 

Daniel D. Opalski, Director 

Region 10, United States Environmental Protection Agency 

1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900 

Seattle, Washington 98101-3140 

Subject: NPL Listing ofthe Astoria Marine Construction Company (EPA-HQ-SFUND-2011-0075) 

Dear Mr. Opalski: 

On behalfofthe Clatsop County Board of County Commissioners, I am requesting an additional 

extension oftime to consider the Superfund National Priorities List (NPL) ofthe Astoria Marine 

Construction Company (AMCC) site. The identification ofpossible insurance coverage on the site 

appears to offer funding to start the remedial investigation. 

As outlined by Mr. Bowler on January 23,2012, the Progressive Corporation has agreed by letter to 

assume the defense of Astoria Marine Construction Company in the claims related to the Astoria 

Harbor. Under Oregon law, the "defense" ofthe claim would include remedial investigation costs. We 

expect that Progressive will issue a more formal "reservation ofrights" letter in the near future that will 

outline the policies on which Progressive is accepting the claim, as well as possibly providing additional 

information about other coverage. (Paraphrased for brevity.) 

In the May 6, 2011letter EPA indicated ''the DEQ will need to ensure a reliable source offunding to 

accomplish the remedial investigation and feasibility study". It appears that a reliable source of funding 

may have been identified and that a listing at this time would be premature pending a complete 

understand ofthe status ofinsurance coverage. 

We look forward to further collaboration and communication as this process continues. 

Sincerely, 

Peter 

Board 

Huhtala 

Chair 

~ 

Copy: Senator Ron Wyden 

Senator Jeff Merkley 

Jason Ritzert, Representative's Office 

State Senator Betsy Johnson 

State Representative Deborah Boone 

Nina Deconcini, DEQ 

Port ofAstoria 

Tim Fastabend, AMCCO 
... .. . Attachment C • 

. . 

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY . .REGION 1-0 . 

· 1,200 Sixth Avenue, Sulte·eao· . Seattle, WA 00101-3140 OFFICE OF 

ENVIRONMENTAL 

ClEANUP . 

.-, 	 . .l 

..· 

Nina':Oeconcilri 

NOrthwest Region Administrator 

· Oregqn Depa,z.:tr;nentofEnvironmental Quality 


2020. SW Fourth Avenue_, SuiteAOO ·· · 


Portland, Oregon ·97201-4987 


Re: Deferral Criteria for final ~Llisting ofthC! Astoria Marine Construction Company 

.. 	 Dear Ms. DeConcini: 

·· In March ofthis year, the U.S. Environmental P.iotection Agency Region .10 proposed the Astoria 

·.. Marine Construction Company site foritlclusionon the Superfund National Priorities List. This action 

·. : ·was suppoited'by then-Governor Kulongoski in a letter dated September 21, 2010. In his letter of 

Apri128, 2011, providing comnients on the proposed listing, the Chair of'the Clatsop CountY Board of 

Comlnissioners requested that ~e EPA delay making a final decision on listing the site to th.e NPL. 

·While the Board ofCommissioners supported cleanup ofthe site, the :a·6ard also expressed concern · 

regarding the potential Impacts to AMCC's viab~ity and the services and jobs provided by the company. 

The :Soard expressed an inter~t inexploring other posSible options.for seCuring the cleanup ofthe ~ite. .· . .. 

In response, tl,le EPAagreed to delay making a nnallisting decision until March 2012. . 

In a ¢eeting etw~n the EPA ~d the.Oregon Department ofEnv.ironmeiital Qulllity on August lQ, . 

2011_, theDEQ requested that the EPA provide ctiteria ~at EPA would evaluate to determitle whether to· 

defer the final:Iisting ofthe AMCC site on the NfL while the DEQ oversees invesqgationa:nd cleanup. ; . . . 	 . 

; . 

. .In det¢rminlng whether to defer this site to the D~Q, certam conditions, aioutlin~(Un the EPA'~ · guidance on Deferral ofNPL ListingD~erminatjons w'b.ile States ·Oversee Response Actions (dated May 


3,.l99S) must be met. A cqpy of~s guj.dance is -;enclo~e<I for DEQ's reference. Informed b.Y our. .· 


· experience where we have deferred other.sites, frPs letterprovides.additionai detail and clafificationon a 

few ofthe key elemen~ that willbe considered by the EPA in determinirig whether a deferral is 

.appropriate. 

As stated in the May 1995 guidance, the purpose:ofdeferral is to address sites more quickly tha.ti the 

.· .·	EPAwould otherwis¢ address Ulem. hi order to achieve this purpqse, the:PEQ will 'need t~ ensure a 


reliable source of fuiicling to aceomplish the remedial investigation and feasibility study. The EPA. 


Un.derstands t1utt AMCC is currently seeking coverage determinations from its insurance carriers. 


.. AMC¢ will need to ob~ a dlity ~o def~d deten.:nination, or an:·eqirlvalent and reliable assuranc,:e of · 


.· ·. funding~ to proVide certainty that funding will be availa~ie to compiete the:RJIFS. Oiven the irilportance · 


.. ofa reliable funding source, AMCC shoUld obtain a ducy to defend detennination or'equivalent funding 


mechanism,by;December 1' 201.1. . 	 . . 

. ~ . ·. . 
------------------:--------"7 ...------.--..........--------:---:-----~· :~=

.... _; 

·	.1.. Assuran~e tliat a Compre.:..en.sive~nvtronmelltal.Respons~ C()mpensatio~, and Liability Act :. . .,. 

· equivalent Remedial Investigation 8Jld Feasibility wiD.be conducted at the AMCC: sJte. · 

The RifFS should defu.le tlie sev¢ty·and areai extent-ofoohWnfuation both, on the:site as w~ll ~the ..· 


semments adjacent to the ~ite. The boundaries ofth~ AMCC site Will be determined by. the extent of 


Contamination with consideration ofcohtamin@t.~tion froiil the uplands tO g:rOundwater andto 


open water$. The·RifFS soope_ofwQrk tll:et¢fot~i:Showd ~t l,·e·restricted to the ar~ that w~ 

investigated urider EPA's site investigation. · 


..A CERCLA~equivalent IU.!FS also will determ.ine applicable orrelevant ~d apprQpriate 


· requirements; assess associated human health ri~, inclUding rislCs associated with subsistence ·· · 


.	consumption ofseafood and ecOlogical riSks, especiallyill sens~tive habitats and critical habitatS of 

species protected.bythe .E:n:d.angere:d $peci~ ~ct; and·eValuate remedial rutemativ~. Eyal~tion of 

:r:emedlal alternatives i.i:lcludes .eonsideratlon ofvarious remedial technologies that when · imPlemented: · · · 

• 	 are protective ofht,un$1h~th and the environment; · 

• meet ARARs to the maximum extent practicable underDEQ's state authorities; 

~ treat/remove sources to-the extent practicable, or otherwise oontain sourceS; and 

• 	 ai~ reliabie over·tliel~ng·tertn, · · 

Awork plan,'~pung and analySis plan, quality assuranceiqualitY oontro1 plan.and health and 


safety plan·also will need to be Pt'epared. · · · · 


2. Assurances that the·r~medy selected for impJementati~n at the AMCC site will be a CERCLA­

.. pro_tecti17e ~e&ilup and will be'!ni~sta)ltially simllar to.JfCERCLA response. . · 

The DEQ will ~ef'd to -d¢ritonstrate selection ofa C;EI'{Cl..A~protective cl~up ofthe site that is ·· :· 

substantiallysimilar to a CERCLA response/to clarify Ute standard''subStan.tially·similar to a· 

CERCLA re5Po11Se~"the EPA expects-tl:tat:. . . . 

• 	 DEQ willse1ect a response actib.Q. will be pi:otective ofhliillati health·ancJ the enVironment~ as 

genenilly defined by a l 0.,. to a 10~ risk range fur catcinqg~, jn.dex of1·or less for 

non-carcinogens B.tld an_ecolo,Pcal risk above·relevant screening level ecological rl$k Ycdues~ .•. 

• 	· PEQ vvlll~e th_Eit t.her~edy sele~ at the.sitewill complyWith, Federal.AJtARS and 

more stringent StateARAR requirements to.the.~um ext~tpracticable Uild~DEQ's 

state·authorities, oontrOls;or ellininates!sour¢es anclis.effective~ eost-~ffecti.ve and ~eliab1e~ ·. · 

• 	 DEQ will.ensure ~atgroundwater is ~tore~lto its high~t benefiCial use, to the extent .· practicable. · · 	 · · -· 

Although ~e ggi~ee generallyprovides for ep Ml:\:UW r~ew l?Y the EPA, the agencies may need 

to establish aprotocol.for more frequent conimuni~on anQJ~PA involvement to.address specific · 

· issues concetiling.cmRCL,A prot~ven:~.TJ;e EP.A. qo~i9ers ~RCLA.~prot~ye cl~up .to 'be . 

one thalmeets fcXl~ and more stringent state.ARAR.s. How~er, the E~A recogxiizes Ulat ifthe site 

is defen;ed, it W()tild'be·!idCJresse(llindei' stateAUthontie~ whichmay give riseto questions · . : . 

. <:lQncerning CERCLAprotectiveness ai).d diff~enc~s between..$tate and federal authorities..Such :. · 

·cc>nsidetatiorts would.be particularly p~eiitjn 11: s~~on S:ucli.as where we,may lac~ solid · · 

2 
~ ·. ·.....:· . 	. 

.assurances regardii:ig the availability of funding for-the remedial action and therefore the distinct 

.::.' : .	po8sibility..~tthe ~te would-be referred baqk to ~EPA. For thes~ reasons, ifthe EPA determiri~ . . 

that the RJIFS is in.Sufficienfor the cleanup_i$ not cERCLA-protective,·EPA tfiay exercise its . ·" 

~uthority to terminate thedeferral agreement-and list the site on the NPL. · 

When the DEQ b~lieves that the remedy has'been completed, the State shall.certify to the Region 

and the affected cOimnunitythat the remedy meets the standards ofa CERCLA-protective cleanup. 

As part ofthis certifieation,J:he State shan submit t<t the Region.remedi81 action completion 

doc~entation similar to EPA's "Remedial Action:Report" (OSWER Directive 9355.0-39FS}. : 

.· 3! . Asiuraneethat an ~ppropJ1ate enforcement·meChanism willbeJn plaee during the 


_ investigation and potential cleanup of the AMCC site• 


. The EPA will.need..i:irm assU,ranceJ,hatthe necessary investigation anc;I feasibility study W,ill be · . 

completed withoutrequiring federafSuperfuild program enforcement or funding. From discussions 

b~een the DEQ and the EPA to date, it is our understanding that DEQ is not committing froni its 

own resour~s the funding to conduct the investigation ~d any necessary cleanup at the site. Ifthis. 

cdntinues to be the ~e, a deferral agreement will r:equire a signed, enforceable agreement between 

the DEQ and the resp~nsible party(~} to conduct the RYFS. Specifica1ly, EPA would expect to be 

asSUred thaftbe enforceable ~gr~ent(s) prdvides ror the following: . ., 

·a. 	 All necessary investigation work to cllaracterize the full nature and extent of contamination · 'MD: be completed in a ·timely manner~ · 

b. 	 Work ~ot funded by.t;esponsible parti~ will.also be completed in a timely manner (or 

con~enfW:ith wor.k funde(fby resp(jnsible·parties). 

c. 	 Th~ R1 and FS work will result in timely.preparation ofproposed plans(s) and I'ee9rd(s} of . decision. ·· 	 · · · · 

d. 	 Filial cleanUp decision-makin~ will ~twith the DEQ. 

. Beyond the enforceable agr~ent, the DEQ ,will need to pres~t a plan that clearly demonstrates 

how DEQ intends to comple~e the RI/FS should one or more ofthe patties become recalcitrant, fail 

to perfoi'ID: ot withdt:aw·from.the agreement. The plen should detail the,.stq>s and a schedule for the 

implementation ofenforcement actions, the i4entification ofother available funding sources . · 

including state programs and a description offlow funding would be re<Iuested from such sources,. 

and an explanation ofhow and when'the site would be refet!ed back to the EPA for pla(;emeilt on the 

~L in th~ event the RIIFS, proposed plan orrecord ofdecision cannot be completed under the · 

defeml. 

Should a decision be made that a reD:i:edial and/or removal action is necessary; the EPA will need :_ . 

firm assunm:ce that the DEQ and the responsible p&Dty have a signed, enforceable agreement to 

conducdh~: cleanup and .fu~e operation and·:maintenarice ofthe site. 

Note that the EPAritay pmsue recovery under its own authorities ofthe costs it has incurred rel.ated ·td:the si~~ . · · .. · ·: · 

·.. 	 .. 3 
--------;----"'"--~--.---~~-:--~-----~~. '· :. . 

. .. · 

4. 	 Preserv~tion ofthe rights.ofthe FederafN~tural ~esource Trustees 

AtNPt SiteS, under the Stiperfund1~w, the EPA is reqUitedto eoor~te assessments~ . 

.inv~g~tions ·.an4 planning with.the Federal N:at;uraLR.~ource Tntst~es; Ifa ~te is listed.on the~ 

NPL the statute oflimitationS for the Trustees to file Natural Resource Dauiage Assessment claims 

· · · ·runs 'for three years from th¢ ootnpietion of're~Uedial actions. Hpwever, under deferral the statute of 

... ·limitations would beinuch soone~\a.nd jt is ~clear ~ow.-tb,e deferral-agreement wo~d affe~. t_he 

rights o£the TruStees to r~vernaj:unil x:~UI¥e dBip.ages. The EPA's intereSt is to protect the rights 

·ofits·federal partners, and we have;sigqificant·concerns that thedeferral action inaY lh::nit the ... .. . 

. TntS!eeS' ability to be:fQlly C~;tgag~<lln the cleanup investigations, pbmning an,~recovery natu@l 

·~esource damages, ifappropriate. Therefore~ ~requested ~Y. the T~ees, ~CCmustenter ~to an· 

ligreement.tolling the applicable statute oflimitations to enab.le full partiCipation by the Trustees. 

. This tolling agreement shquldbe exe~ted COJ1~eQ.twith a final.deferral action. The.EPA: exp~ts 

that the DEQ will facili.tatethe.signirig ofthis agreement and assure ~at theTrust~e·s .role· 

: ·· · throughout the cleanup pioce8S·wil1 no:t:be Impaired. Any:final deferral will be contingent upon·a. 

signed tolling agreement, ifone is.'r¢quested bythe.Tms~ees. 

. . 5. Assura~ee of support for 'fribaUilVC)lvemenl : 

TheEPA.bas.both a feder~ trust~~pnsibilityto Tribes and a gove(lUD.ent-to-gov~ent relationship with Tribes. This assmes the Tribe$ that they will be consulte9 an(i have'their .. 

· · 	 viev.rpoints considered·in;any EP:AiactiYity f,Qat-wo1.1ld a:ffect;them,. To pr~erve tribal rights.for.· 

involvement, the EPA would neec:J. 8sS91.'811~ from PEQthat they would:agtee to develop a 

Memoranda ofUnderstanding with any affected tribe that w()uld desenoe·thelr government-to'- ·· 

.	government relationsbjp th~ planiliilg, inveStigation ~4 cleanup process. Such an agreement-may · 

also require funding to the affected 1ribes, where api)ropriate, tq ~~their fil11 participation in the · Cleanup process. · · ; · . · · · · .. · · · 

. 	 . 

6. 	 Assurance ofsupport ofconpnunity involvement ··~· . . 	 . 

We know the.DEQ shares our>mterest ilte~g meaningftil comm~ty engagement in the Site. . 

·.Gleailup process. TQ help <mSUre WOrmed coln.mwiity involvement at·thi~ site, we woli,ld expect the. 

DEQ to develop community fuvolvemtmt plan. Al~o, funding will n~ to be provided for 

..~mtnurtity tecpmcal,assiStanc~ (similm.' to·EPA's Te.cbnical-AssiStance _Grants). Ir'the site is . ·· 

.:deferred; DEQ ~ould havefunding strategies in pla~ to ad~ess .this need. : . 

. . 

·.,-.· · I hope thatthis le_tter.clarifies the EPA's n~·m¢Valuating th~ pote~tial deferral.ofNPLlisting to DEQ 

response authorities. The EPA is eo~tt~ to provide ¢di~pnal information about our deferral . 

process, as needed. As we discussed,~ EfA w~1.1ld n~oo written assi.lrance,6ttlie above eiementsno 

.iater than Decer.t+ber 31, 2011, ~o defer·a finallisting ofAMCC to the NP.t. We woUld then expect·to · · 

h~ve ·in place no later thanJanuary 31,.2012~ a'Mitten c:J.eferral:~greeme.nt sigl)ed by the DEQ and the 

EPA. inoorporating these assutanc~, th~ other. eleinents of~e d~ferral gwdance·aDd a,schedule for. .. 

completiQn ofthe tent~alinvestigatiolll~ib~ty: stu4y. ·. .: · · 

·:' 

·.·. 

4 
I 

Ifyou have any questions or comments, please feel free to contact me at 206-553-1855. 

Sim.cerely, 

~~ I. Daniel D. Opalski 

Director 

Enclosure 

cc: 	 Senator Betsy Johnson 

Senator Jeff Merkley 

Senator Ron Wyden 

Representative Deborah Boone 

Chuck Hannan, DEQ, NW Region 

Keith Johnson, DEQ, NW Region 

Duane Cole, Clatsop County Board ofCommissioners 

Don Fastabend, AMCC 

Tim Fastabend, AMCC 

5 

.. .... ·.·.. Attachment D 

John A Kitzhaber, MD, Governor 

regon Department of Environmental Quality 

Northwest Region Portland Office 

2020 SW 4th Avenue, Suite 400 

Portland, OR 97201-4987 

(503) 229-5263 

Fax: (503) 229-6945 

1TY: 711 

May 30,2012 

Dan Opalski 

Director, Office of Environmental Cleanup 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10 

1200 SW Sixth Ave., Suite 900 

Seattle, WA 98101-3140 

Subject: Astoria Marine Construction Company Community Acceptance Letter responses 

Dear Mr. Opalski, 

In April, the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) mailed 48 'Community 

Acceptance' letters to neighbors, local governments, and community stakeholders regarding 

the potential for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to defer the Astoria Marine 

Construction Company (AMCCO) facility from placement on the National Priorities List (NPL) 

and allow site investigation and remediation to proceed under the direction of DEQ. These 

letters requested feedback from the Astoria and greater community on whether they 

supported the potential Deferral of the AMCCO site from the NPL. 

DEQ requested feedback on Community Acceptance In order to meet EPA conditions for 

making a final NPL Deferral decision per your October 26, 20111etter to DEQ and Item 2.f of 

EPA's May 1995 NPL Deferral Guidance. The purpose of this letter is to inform you of the 

responses received by DEQ. 

The 48 letters were mailed to the list of persons and organizations shown In Attachment A to 

this letter. A summary of the resultsa. 	 Five of the 48 letters were returned as undeliverable, all from private properties located 


near AMCCO. 


b. 	 DEQ did not receive responses of any kind from 30 addressees. 

c. 	 DEQ received 13 responses to the Community Acceptance letter. 

d. 	 10 of the responses supported a Deferral of the site from the NPL and oversight by DEQ. 

e. 	 Two of the organizations informed DEQ that they did not plan to provide a response. 

f. 	 One of the responses stated a preference that the site proceed to NPL listing. 

Based on the responses received, DEQ has concluded that the majority of the community 

contacted is supportive of AMCCO being deferred from NPL listing. 
• 'I .. 

As we have stated in prior meetings, DEQ is committed to involving the public In this project 

under a Deferral decision, and Is preparing to send out our draft Community Involvement Plan 

as the next step In engaging the community and affected stakeholders. 

DEQ looks forward to continuing to consult with EPA Region 10 in order to satisfy conditions 

that will allow a Deferral of the AMCCO site from the NPL to the state of Oregon for oversight of 

Investigation and cleanup activities. 

Sincerely, 

Nina DeConclnl, 


DEQ Northwest Region Administrator 


Attachment A- Summary table of letters sent and responses. 


Cc: 	 Tim Fastabend, AMCCO 

Carson Bowler, Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt 

Dick Pedersen, DEQ Director 

DEQ ECSI File #1898 
---

.... ' 

.:...· . . 

Peter ..j1-fuhtala. !Cl~tS.()I> COl:J~~ !Defer to DEQ 


Matt 
 ivanNess iCREST iDefertoDEQ 

Louise /soi.llday · .... · ·.· 'ioregon Dept of State Lands .. !Defer to DEQ -­

Herb ....... ..... ··- Fior~,: .... · :. fiort~i'Astori~ ···-·-- ........ · · !Deter to DEQ ----

Coreen iBergholm iresident 1Defer to DEQ_______ 

Jim .... !wells !Salmo_n for All, Inc. toeferto DEQ -- --­

B.~tsy ..... JiohllS.()n . ~t~~e Sena,~()r .. iDefer to DEQ 


Tim 
 . jJ<>S.i. . .. .. ... .. !!i.l_la_I!.I.C>.o.k C:e>~nty .JDefer to DEQ --,----·__ 

Paul tBenolt !Sity of A,stori~ !Defer to DEQ (v) 

1 

Deborah ··· !'soon~ · ·· ·· · lstate Representative !:- ~-fe_r_t _c.; ::..!...c,_____ .._,

Fritz [Kurt !city ofWarrenton !No plan to respond 


Debrah !Marriott !LCREP iNo pia!! to respond 


Peter a. 
 !Hengestag !Hengestag Family Living Trust jNo Preference to Agency 

.... .. (r~s.ldent) !Keep on NPL 

Arthur a~E!~ :clatsop Diking District 5 ..iNR 

Mike iseppa ·· · ........ ciaisop wa1:~r oii otstrlct . !,_N_R __ ~~~~----_-_:_--~-=--=--=-= Brett . _]VandenHeuvel i(:olumbia Rlverkeepers . ;-!N_R______ ______ 

Jesse pones iNCWA j_NR 

Kal !Aloha !resident iNR 

S.~E!phen ~/ ~ary ll~nE! ;.....!.. .. ~ow,~r~ ... .. . . ~~sid~nt · ·... : · · .·.·. N_R_ __________ 

Tom and Charlotte ............... Gnlazd(l\_'".~ .... .. r~slden.~. ...................... ........-N_R____ _____ _ -4 

Noel jGraf .jresident iNR 

Matthew Leon ;Hall jresident iNR •resident :-N-R_____ __,_ ____
 Margaret jHartzell 
 !-------------------­ Joseph . .. Her~an :resident 'NR

;---------·­

~~lfld C /. ch~l!e. ~ . [Hillard ·· resident :NR 
 ... .--- - ----------1 

Trent Hines .resident :NR 

Helena Hines resident -- ------ Cheryl . iJohnson :resident :NR 

Paul J. I Nenita H. iMegrath :resident iNR 

David iNelson [resident .•. . . /NR 

tvllcha_el Leroy .. !Newton resident -' .. .. . . . . _) NR ·--­ 'NR -----I Dennis :o'Connor lres.tdent ... ---------------{
 Miguel/ Letlca · TRaya !resident 'NR 


Jeanne 'l R.~eves ·· ~esldent iNR .. _.. --­---- ----­ Glenn \Russell !resident 'NR 

A~y . )Russell lresi_d_ent iNR 

Arthur ;Sagen !resident jNR '-'--'..'---------- ---­ J~e.l / f{uth _E•. Schulbach · ~estdeni NR 

~-----------

Martha . iStephens :resident NR- ----------· Jac .. !Stocker !resident :

· -

NR 

~~--- ----- ------ Mark )Tanguay •resident NR 

..------------­ Matthew . :r~rabochia !r.E!sident NR 

Debbie .l rr~f~t~~n ... !resi~E!Ilt NR 

Nate <3 r~f. .- . _:rE!S.i~ellt 'RTS 

Robin iHllfard :resident :RTS '--'-----·- ---­

Sandra iMead .:resident iRTS
 !- ­

Robin !Tussing ;resident iRTS 

Estate of \Black !Sagen Christine (Black) Estate iRTS 

--------------!,, ____ .l _ I 

KEY: NR - No response; RTS - letter came back with 'Return to Sender' (undeliverable); 

ltv) - verbal resoonse w/letter coming (as of 5/30/12\ 
.. . .... 
 Attachment E 

Community Involvement Plan 


Astoria Marine Construction Company 


Astoria, Oregon 


July 2012 


Community involvement is an important part of the investigation and cleanup of contaminated 

properties. Understanding community priorities, issues and concerns can help the Oregon Department 

of Environmental Quality make better decisions about the cleanup and build connections to the 

communities we serve. DEQ takes seriously our vision: "To work collaboratively with all Oregonians for 

a healthy, sustainable environment." 

Oregon DEQ's intent is to listen to and engage with the Astoria community, surrounding communities, 

and regional stakeholders to ensure that we consider their views as we guide the cleanup at the Astoria 

Marine Construction Company. This plan is our roadmap for ensuring that Astoria and regional 

stakeholders can effectively interact during the project. 

Who are your DEQ primary contacts? 

Chuck Harman, Project Manager- 503-229-5125; harman.charles@deq.state.or.us 

Marcia Danab, Northwest Region Communications and Outreach - 503-229-6488; 

danab.marcia@deq.state.or.us 

Keith Johnson, Cleanup Section Manager- 503-229-6431; johnson.keith@deq.state.or.us 

What you can find in this plan 

How would you like to be involved? 

Community Involvement Action Plan 

Site History 

What's going to happen next? 

Further investigation is needed on the site to more fully define the environmental and health risks the 

site poses from historic releases of contaminants over its long history of ship building and refurbishing. 

DEQ is proceeding with developing an investigation and cleanup plan with Astoria Marine, with the 

assumption that site oversight will be deferred from the Federal cleanup program by EPA Region 10 to 

the State. DEQ will take on the oversight role for the project, guiding and approving work plans 

developed by Astoria Marine and their consultant. 

At important stages of the project, DEQ will communicate with the community and key regional 

stakeholders to inform them of the proposed work, inform and educate them about that work, and allow 

them the opportunity to question, comment or make recommendations, before approving moving 

forward. 

A brief history of the Astoria Marine Construction Company site operations and environmental 

issues. 

Astoria Marine Construction Company was incorporated in 1926. In 1955, the Company had 

approximately 1,100 employees, but by 1960, the company had decreased in size to 15 employees due 

to a downturn in military ship building. Between 1926 and the 1940s, the Company manufactured and 

repaired wooden-hulled sail- and motor-powered fishing boats. During WW II, the facility was converted 

to build military craft such as wooden-hulled mine sweepers. In the 1960s, the Navy contract ended and 
.•' ' ~ ,. 

July 16, 2012 

operations at the site consisted primarily of fishing and tow boat repair. In 1962, due to the reduction in 

business, the owner, Joe Dyer, decided to sell the company. At that time 15 employees, including Don 

Fastabend, bought the company from Joe Dyer. After 1985, Astoria Marine began working primarily on 

fishing boats. Over time, Don Fastabend bought out other partners and is now the sole owner. 

Until 1989, the company used copper-based paints containing organotins, notably tributyl tin, known as 

TBT. TBT is used as an anti-fouling agent to keep grass, marine organisms, and barnacles off boat 

bottoms. TBT is known to be toxic to marine organisms. In approximately 1989, it became illegal to use 

paints containing this compound, except for larger vessels, primarily based on effects observed in 

shellfish and marine snails in harbors contaminated by TBT. 

In 1996, DEQ received a complaint describing poor waste management practices, including storage of 

hull sand-blasting grit. Subsequent inspections verified certain aspects of the complaints and the 

Company took actions to remove significant amounts of the sand blast grit. In 2009, the Environmental 

Protection Agency, through a contractor, completed a Site Inspection investigation that collected soil, 

groundwater and Lewis and Clark River sediments. The sampling results show elevated concentrations 

of several metals and several man-made compounds at levels that pose human health and ecological 

threats. In 2011 , EPA moved to place Astoria Marine Construction Company on the National Priorities 

List, but in 2012, placed the listing on hold in order to allow DEQ and the Company to work out a plan 

that would allow the deferral of cleanup oversight to occur under Oregon guidance. 

The Oregon Department of Environmental Quality is developing this plan in collaboration with Astoria 

Marine, members of the community, local stakeholders, Tribes and other state and federal agencies 

who are interested in the site. 	 · 

If you have questions about the project, this community involvement plan, or would like additional 

information please contact Marcia or Chuck 

How would you like to be involved? 

There are many different ways you can be involved in the Astoria Marine Construction Company 

investigation and cleanup. In this plan we have identified activities to respond to three primary types of 

community involvement needs. 

• 	 Staying informed -A community member or stakeholder would like to stay informed about the 

cleanup through mailings, website and news articles. 

• 	 Actively participating - A community member or stakeholder would like to participate in a 

Community Advisory Group. This group could review draft documents, interact with the 

Department of Environmental Quality project manager, site owner (or representative) and 

consultants in order to make sure the decision-making process fully incorporates the concerns 

of the community. 

Cleanup Process and Lines of Communication 

A cleanup project· usually follows a sequence of an investigation, analysis of investigation results, and 

review of possible actions that will clean up contamination that is determined to pose a risk to human 

health and the environment. These steps can sometimes be complex and costly to implement. At 

significant milestones in the investigation and review of cleanup options, DEQ will prepare materials to 

present to the public and other stakeholders before finalizing decisions. 

Below is a brief summary of the steps typically involved when completing a cleanup: 

A. 	 Remedial Investigation-This investigation will be very thorough and is intended to collect 

enough data so that DEQ Gan analyze all possible human health and ecological risks. This 

Community Involvement Plan 	 2 Oregon Department of Environmental Quality 
... 
 ,. 

July 16, 2012 

typically entails sampling of soils, groundwater, surface water, and sediments, and can also 

include analysis of air or subsurface vapors. 

B. 	 Risk Assessment - Once sufficient data has been collected, an analysis of the expected 

exposure risks, both human health (for instance, exposure through drinking water) and 

ecological (for instance, direct toxicity to sediment-dwelling organisms) is completed. This step 

in the process refines the actual extent of contamination in different media (soil, groundwater, 

air, surface water and sediments) that actually poses a risk. 

C. 	 Feasibility Study - The Feasibility Study proposes a range of possible remedial actions that will 

eliminate the risk posed by the contamination. The Feasibility Study presents alternatives that 

must be protective (eliminate unacceptable health risk), and also weighs several other factors 

such as the ability to implement the proposed remedy, the cost of the cleanup and the reliability 

of the cleanup over the long term.· 

D. 	 Record of Decision -After considering the alternatives presented in the Feasibility Study, DEQ 

will then select one of the alternatives in a report called a Record of Decision. The Record of 

Decision can select a mix of several proposed remedial alternatives. Before finalizing the 

Record of Decision, DEQ will seek formal public comment. 

E. 	 Remedial Action - Once the cleanup plans are finalized, the responsible party will then perform 

the work. At the conclusion of the remedial actions, and review by DEQ, a Certificate of 

Completion is issued, verifying that all the cleanup goals identified in the Record of Decision 

were met. 

F. 	 Operation. Maintenance and Monitoring- Following completion of the remedy, and depending 

on the nature of the remedies implemented, there are usually requirements for maintaining 

elements of the remedy by monitoring for a specific period of time to ensure that the remedy is 

working as intended. 

Attachment A to this Plan provides a more detailed, but still summary-level outline of the process and 

opportunities for .updating and involving the community during the work that will proceed on the site. 

DEQ fully intends to communicate and consult the public and stakeholders prior to and during these 

stages of the cleanup at the Astoria Marine Construction Company. DEQ will work to inform the public 

in a manner that is understandable and approachable. At each key stage, DEQ will consider the 

public's and stakeholder's comments on the plans and proposals and incorporate them appropriately 

into our decision making. DEQ is seeking input on how members of the community would like to be 

informed and involved. 

DEQ will consider each comment we receive, and will attempt to address all input and requests that we 

receive, in a manner that is consistent with Oregon cleanup laws and other applicable federal and state 

regulations. 

Community Demographics 

Astoria has a population of 9,737; a land area of 6.16 square miles; a water area of 3.95 square miles; 

and a population density of 1,581 .97 people per square mile according to the US Census Bureau 

estimate of July 1, 2009. 

Initial List of Possible Organizations, Stakeholders and Community members 

The list below represents the initial governments, organizations, Tribes or individuals that DEQ would 

regularly communicate with and involve at key points in the project. However, DEQ recognizes that 

additional community members or organizations may also want to be involved and informed on the 

project and we will include them. 

Community Involvement Plan 	 3 Oregon Department ofEnvironmental Quality 
July 16, 2012 

Community and Local Government: 

1. City of Astoria Government 

2. City of Warrenton Government 

3. Clatsop County Government - Board of Commissioners 

4. Clatsop County Diking District No. 5 

5. Clatsop Community College 

6. Tillamook County Government- Board of Commissioners 

7. Columbia River Estuary Study Task Force (CREST) 

8. North Coast Watershed Association (NCWA) 

9. Lower Columbia River Estuary Partnership (LCREP) 

10. Port of Astoria Commission 

11 . Columbia River Keeper 

12. Oregon Dept of State Lands 

13. Oregon Dept. of Human Services (health) 

14. Oregon Dept. of Fish and Wildlife 

15. Salmon for All 

16. Columbia Land Trust 

17. Clatsop Soil and Water Conservation District 

18. Northwest Power and Conservation Council 

19. Bonneville Power Administration 

20. Private Residences near Astoria Marine 

Federal Agencies. Trustees and Tribal Governments: 

1. Army Corps of Engineers (Portland District) 

2. Chinook Tribe 

3. Clatsop-Nehalem Confederated Tribes 

4. Cowlitz Tribe 

5. Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde 

6. National Marine Fisheries Service 

7. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

8. Nez Perce Tribe 

9. Siletz Tribe 

10. Umatilla Tribe 

11 . U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services 

12. National Park Service (Fort Clatsop National Memorial) 

13. Warm Springs Tribe 

14. Yakama Nation 

Legislative: 

1. State Senator Betsy Johnson 

2. State Representative Deborah Boone 

3. U.S. Senator Ron Wyden 

4. U.S. Senator Jeff Merkley 

5. U.S. Representative Susan Bonamici 

Media: 

1. Local newspaper- Daily Astorian 

2. Local radio - KAST, KMUN (local public radio station) 

3. State radio - Oregon Public Broadcasting 

Community Involvement Plan . 4 Oregon Department ofEnvironmental Quality 
... 
 ,• 

July 16, 2012 

Community Involvement Action Plan I Priorities for 2012 

General: 

a. 	 Maintain lines of communication with the community and stakeholder group members 

b. 	 Update DEQ mailing lists for notifications and important documents. 

c. 	 Started planning for initial kick-off and then periodic community meetings. 

January - March 2012 

Significant milestones completed: 

a. 	 Identify initial contacts with City and County government, local community groups, and other 

potential local or regional stakeholder groups to raise awareness of Community Involvement 

Plan and solicit ideas for interacting and informing the community. 

b. 	 Establish a list of organizations and individuals who will be contacted during implementation of 

remedial investigation and activities. 

c. 	 Draft Community Involvement Plan and share/coordinate with EPA Region 10. 

April-June 2012 

Significant Community involvement milestones completed: 

a. DEQ sends out Community Acceptance letter to primary community organizations and 

members. Conversations with community members will be used to inform development of the 

Community Involvement Plan. 

b. After Community Acceptance responses are received, DEQ will share a draft of the Community 

Involvement Plan with Community and Stakeholders, and solicit further conversations on how 

best to proceed. 

c. Finished initial contact list for important notifications through mail and email. 

d. Established DEQ Astoria Marine Construction website. 

e. Finalize draft Community Involvement plan and held meeting with community on June 26th. 

f. Determine if a formal community group is an appropriate vehicle for involving and informing the 

community. DEQ does want to know if community members may need financial assistance to 

support some independent technical review and support. 

Project Milestones: 

a. 	 DEQ-Astoria Marine Construction Company Order on Consent for Remedial 

Investigation/Feasibility Study finalized and signed. 

b. 	 Establish Memorandum of Understanding with each participating Tribe. 

c. 	 First meeting and presentation to community. 

July-September 2012 

Significant Community involvement milestones anticipated: 

a. 	 Finalize Community Involvement Plan based community feedback and input. 

b. 	 Complete DEQ and Tribal Government-to-Government Memorandums of Understanding. 

c. 	 Initial formation of Community Advisory Group. 

d. 	 Possible Community site visit [NOTE: Before conducting such a visit, DEQ would need to seek 

permission of the owner.] 

Project Milestones: 

a. 	 Finalize Deferral Agreement and complete Deferral process with EPA 

b. 	 Initial draft of Remedial Investigation Proposal, followed by a Remedial Investigation/Feasibility 

Study Work Plan submitted to DEQ. 

c. 	 Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study Work Plan approved by DEQ. 

d. 	 Initiation of field activities for Remedial Investigation. 

Community Involvement Plan 	 5 Oregon Department ofEnvironmental Quality 
'•. ,'•, 

July 16, 2012 

October-December 2012 


Significant Community Involvement milestones anticipated: 


a. Review of draft Remedial Investigation report. 

b. Community group meeting with presentation of summary of Remedial Investigation results 

Project Milestones: 

a. Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study field work started. 

b. Initial report of field results from Remedial Investigation. 

With all milestone activities: 

a. Update information repositories 

b. Update Astoria Marine contact list 

c. Update Astoria Marine web site and add technical documents section 

d. News releases 

e. Respond to incoming requests for information and presentations 

f. Fact sheets 

As needed 

a. Update information repositories 

b. Update Astoria Marine contact list 

c. Update Astoria Marine website and add technical documents section 

d. News releases 

e. Respond to incoming requests for information and presentations 

f. Fact sheets 

g. Share technical documents with CAG and post to website 

Ongoing Community Involvement Activities 

Fact Sheets: DEQ will issue topic specific fact sheets about cleanup activities, significant milestones in 

the investigation, technical information, and project findings. Fact sheets will be mailed to the AMCC 

contact list, and be posted on the DEQ Astoria Marine Construction Company Web page. 

Mass Media: When appropriate, DEQ will issue press releases to inform the news media of major 

events and items of general public interest. DEQ will also respond to incoming inquiries for information 

from the press. 

Meetings: The DEQ Project manager and community group members will be available to attend 

regularly scheduled meetings of community groups and neighborhood associations upon request. 

Open Houses and Workshops: The DEQ Project manager and designated community action group 

members will consider whether there is community interest in holding open houses and workshops to 

make information widely available at significant milestones in the investigation and cleanup process. 

Project Mailing List: DEQ will maintain and regularly update the Astoria Marine contact list to make 

sure stakeholders and neighbors receive information about the site. To get on the contact list, send a 

request by email, phone or mail to Chuck Harman at DEQ. 

Information Repositories: DEQ will provide all significant documents and information on our web site. 

In order to allow access to persons that do not have access to computer information systems, DEQ will 

also establish hard copies of important information and documents at the Astoria library. Information 

may also be requested from DEQ's Northwest Region office. 

Community Involvement Plan 6 Oregon Department of Environmental Quality 
July 16, 2012 

Web Sites: DEQ will maintain a project web site where most publicly available information about the 

project can be viewed. 

lnfonnal Public Review: DEQ will ensure interested stakeholders have access to draft documents and 

will provide reasonable review times. The community will provide their comments back to DEQ in a 

reasonable timeframe. These comments will be shared with the DEQ project team, and then placed in 

the administrative record, but they may not receive a written response from DEQ. 

Formal Public Comment Opportunity: Official public comment periods will be established and 

advertised as required by Oregon Cleanup Law when the Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study 

is completed and the proposed remedial action plan is issued. Opportunity to comment will be provide 

Technical Assistance: Community members may need technical assistance to interpret, understand 

and provide input on some of the technical details inherent in remedial investigations and actions. If 

community members request technical assistance, DEQ will identify available services or resources to 

ensure all who wish have the tools to understand and interact in the cleanup process. If the community 

decides that it would like to retain an independent technical consultant (or equivalent) DEQ will work to 

find funding, if needed to support such assistance. 

Citizens Advisory Groups: If formed, an Astoria Marine Community Advisory Group can be a conduit 

for information between project managers and the community. During initial conversations and 

meetings, DEQ will identify key community officials or organizations that can lead a discussion about 

gauging interest in forming a more formal advisory group. 

Outreach to targeted populations: In addition to measures outlined elsewhere in this document, 

special efforts may be taken to reach the following parts of the affected Community: 

Subsistence anglers: Work with community groups and agencies to communicate with 

subsistence fishing populations who may be at additional risk . 

... Recreational users: The Oregon Department of Human Services generally takes on 

communications and warnings for recreational users and DEQ will work with DHS not develop 

messages. DHS will develop messages and determines locations for informational signing in 

locations such as boat launches and community parks. Have interagency information booths or 

displays at boat and fishing shows and other local events. 

Non-English speaking: EPA will translate information into other languages if there is sufficient 

need and interest. 

Tribal populations: DEQ will work with each Tribal government interested in the AMCC site to 

identify the specific information and education needs for Tribal members. DEQ will solicit Tribal 

review at important milestones in the investigation and cleanup of the site, likely concurrently 

with the CAG and other stakeholders. 

Contact Information 

DEQ Project Manager 

Chuck Harman 

Remedial Action Project Manager 

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality - NWR 

2020 SW 4th Avenue, Suite 400 

Portland, OR 97201-4987 

(503) 229-5125 (ph) 

(503) 229-6899 (fx) 

Community Involvement Plan 7 Oregon Department ofEnvironmental Quality 
July 16, 2012 

harman.charles@deq.state.or.us 

DEQ Cleanup Section Manager 

Keith Johnson 

Manager- NWR Cleanup Section 

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality - NWR 

2020 SW 4th Avenue, Suite 400 

Portland, OR 97201-4987 

(503) 229-6431 (ph) 

(503) 229-6899 (fx) 

johnson.keith@deg.state.or.us 

DEQ Communications and Outreach Specialist 

Marcia Danab 

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality - NWR 

2020 SW 4th Avenue, Suite 400 

Portland, OR 97201-4987 

(503) 229-6488 (ph) 

(503) 229-6899 (fx) 

danab.marcia@deq.state.or. us 

Oregon Health Authority 


Sujata Joshi 


Astoria Marine Construction Company 


Tim F astabend 


(address to be filled in later) 


Carson Bowler 


Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt 


1211 SW 5th Ave., Ste. 1900 


Portland, OR 97204 


(503) 796-2078 (phone - direct) 

(503) 796-2900 (fx) 

cbowler@schwabe.com 

Consultant (tbd) 

Community Involvement Plan 8 Oregon Department ofEnvironmental Quality 
July 16, 2012 

Attachment A 


ASTORIA MARINE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY 


OUTLINE OF IMPORTANT PROJECT STAGES AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR 


INVOLVEMENT 


The following presents an outline ofthe important stages and decision points that would occur during an Oregon 

DEQ-lead cleanup project that includes a remedial investigation, feasibility study and remedial action 

implementation. This outline provides important information to parties that may want to be informed and 

potentially involved with DEQ as a cleanup project proceeds at the Astoria Marine Construction Company site. 

This outline represents the expected project stages in anticipation ofthe AMCCO site being deferred to the 

Oregon DEQ from EPA through a National Priorities List Deferral Agreement. · 

This outline was developed from DEQ's standard scopes ofwork for the remedial investigation and feasibility 

study, plus remedial action stages. No investigation or remedial work would proceed without DEQ approval under 

the terms ofthe Consent Order that will be put in place to satisfy the NPL Deferral requirements. 

Project Milestone or Document & Content Timing/Sequence 

Community Acceptance Letter 

- Letter asking for community's input on whether NPL 

Deferral should occur. 

Action to satisfy NPL Deferral 

requirements and prior to Deferral from 

EPA. 

Community Involvement Plan · 

- Description of how DEQ will involve public and major 

stakeholders 

Prior to Deferral Agreement from EPA 

Project Kickoff Meeting (public) After Consent Order with DEQ is signed. 

- Introductions of primary contacts and stakeholders Likely completed before a Deferral 

- Project Description Agreement between EPA and DEQ is 

- Project Plan and timeline finalized. 

- Community Involvement Plan 

- DEQ and Tribes Coordination 

Remedial Investigation Proposal 

- Summary document that outlines the tasks that will be 

completed in the remedial investigation 

Pre-cursor to full Remedial Investigation 

Plan submittal. 

Remedial Investigation Work Plan 

- Detailed Work Plan for data collection to determine the 

nature and extent of contamination and to complete a risk 

assessment. 

- Evaluation of contaminant exposure pathways and 

receptors. 

- Evaluation of beneficial uses of land and water in area 

im_Q_acted bycontamination. 

Prior to implementation of Remedial 

Investigation. 

Requires DEQ approval before sampling 

can occur. 

Remedial Investigation Implementation (2-3 months) 

- Monthly updates on work completed. 

- Some site visits 

After approval of Remedial Investigation 

Work Plan 

Remedial Investigation Report (draft) 

- Draft report that presents remedial investigation results. 

- Finalized after community comments are reviewed. 

After completion of remedial investigation 

and prior to completion of risk 

assessment and feasibility study 

Supplemental Remedial Investigation Work Plan (if 

needed) 

- If remedial investigation finds that additional data. 

collection is necessary, additional work will be proposed. 

After review of remedial investigation 

report, if findings indicate further sampling 

is needed to fill data gaps. 

Human Health Risk Assessment Report 

- Analysis of human health threat. 

As part of final Remedial Investigation 

and before Feasibility Study 

Ecological Risk Assessment Report 

- Analysis of threat to ecological species. 

As part of final Remedial Investigation . 

and before Feasibility_ Study 

Community Involvement Plan 9 Oregon Department ofEnvironmental Quality 
July 16, 2012 

Project Milestone or Document & Content Timing/Sequence 

Interim Removal Assessment Report 

- Analysis to determine if immediate removal actions are 

needed to reduce significant site risks. 

- Recommends if removal is needed. 

Following Remedial Investigation and risk 

assessments. 

Interim Removal Work Plan (if needed) 

- Description of removal actions proposed, site controls and 

post-removal restoration. 

Following Remedial Investigation and risk 

assessments - if it is determined that an 

interim removal action is needed. 

Feasibility Study 

- Analysis of a range of remedial action alternatives that will 

remove human health and ecological risks 

- AMCCO will propose one of the remedy alternatives or a 

combination of the evaluated alternatives. 

Following Remedial Investigation and risk 

assessments. 

Record of Decision or ROD (DEQ) 

- DEQ's documentation of selected remedy, based on 

alternatives evaluated and proposed in Feasibility Study. 

- Selected DEQ remedy could be similar to AMCCO 

proposal or combination of alternatives. 

- Record of Decision will go out for public comment. 

- Record of Decision will be finalized after public comment. 

Following submittal of Feasibility Study 

Order on Consent for Remedial Action (DEQ) Following DEQ Record of Decision 

Remedial Action Work Plan 

- Detailed_Qian for remedial actions based on ROD. 

Following Record of Decision 

Remedial Action Implementation (4-6 months) 

- Site preparation and implementation of remedial actions. 

- Weekly updates and some site visits. 

Following approval of Remedial Action 

Work Plan 

Remedial Action Completion Report 

- Description of actions taken and any modifications 

necessary_ during_implementation. 

Following completion of remedial actions. 

Operation, Maintenance and Monitoring Plan 

- Description of any ongoing maintenance or due care 

needed to maintain remedy. 

- Description of periodic monitoring of remedy (e.g. cap 

inspection - if part of remedy) and reporting schedule. 

Originally outlined in Record of Decision. 

Following completion of remedial actions. 

Certificate of Completion (DEQ) After acceptance of remedial action 

completion report and Operation, 

Maintenance and Monitoring_ Plan. 

Order on Consent Closed (DEQ) 

Community Involvement Plan 10 Oregon Department ofEnvironmental Quality