DAY 1 00:33:32 Support: Marielle Larson: Here's the link to the icebreaker for the morning: https://app.mural.co/t/uwpsi3167/m/uwpsi3167/1664388891162/a7ad92e86f451b721e89b4e2d70f12e7f3d98be0?sender=u3292d90ed0896ab04fc66427 00:34:23 Support: Marielle Larson: Here's the Mural we'll use to capture reflections on some of the barriers, solutions, and resources that'd be helpful related to PCBs: https://app.mural.co/t/uwpsi3167/m/uwpsi3167/1664388892448/035bb06edb5a681f660551954de6fa22ddf03dd8?sender=u3292d90ed0896ab04fc66427 00:38:44 Robert Mott: will presentationsslides be shared? 00:40:00 Support: Marielle Larson: Yes, presentation slides and the recording will be shared 00:43:23 Support: Katrina Radach (she/her), PSP: Icebreaker for the morning: https://app.mural.co/t/uwpsi3167/m/uwpsi3167/1664388891162/a7ad92e86f451b721e89b4e2d70f12e7f3d98be0?sender=u3292d90ed0896ab04fc66427 00:43:58 Support: Marielle Larson: Icebreaker for the morning: https://app.mural.co/t/uwpsi3167/m/uwpsi3167/1664388891162/a7ad92e86f451b721e89b4e2d70f12e7f3d98be0?sender=u3292d90ed0896ab04fc66427 00:46:05 Support: Marielle Larson: If you press alt + double click in the table, you can also add a sticky note in Mural 00:46:43 Heidi Siegelbaum: You can increase the typeface by clicking on the letter + icon 00:48:05 Alan Chapman: you can turn off cursors, by clicking on your name 00:52:53 Support: Marielle Larson: Here's the link to the icebreaker for the morning: https://app.mural.co/t/uwpsi3167/m/uwpsi3167/1664388891162/a7ad92e86f451b721e89b4e2d70f12e7f3d98be0?sender=u3292d90ed0896ab04fc66427 00:53:12 Support: Marielle Larson: Here's the link for the feedback on PCBs: https://app.mural.co/t/uwpsi3167/m/uwpsi3167/1664388892448/035bb06edb5a681f660551954de6fa22ddf03dd8?sender=u3292d90ed0896ab04fc66427 00:53:46 Tom Agnew: Please trouble shoot Andy's audio which fades in and out and is unintelligible some of the time 00:55:40 Tom Agnew: thank you 00:56:42 Emily Majcher: Can you repeat what the different colors mean in the mural? 00:57:17 Bob Johnston: On the mural, is it possible to "comment" on what some else has posted? 00:58:10 Sandra O'Neill: I cannot see the PCB mural. I can only see the icebreaker mural. 00:58:16 Heidi Siegelbaum: You could also respond by using a different color text in the same sticky 00:59:13 Support: Marielle Larson: Here's the link for the feedback on PCBs: https://app.mural.co/t/uwpsi3167/m/uwpsi3167/1664388892448/035bb06edb5a681f660551954de6fa22ddf03dd8?sender=u3292d90ed0896ab04fc66427 01:01:24 Andy James: Please put questions and comments for the speakers in chat, as they come up. We will help facilitate getting through them at the end of their talks. 01:13:37 Debra Williston: For those on east coast, can you tell them average PCBs in sediments in urban areas? For example for the Lower Duwamish Waterway superfund site, the surface sediments surface weighted average concentration is 172 µg/kg dw based on 2018 data. 01:17:26 Patrick Moran: the "regional trend map" for the PNW coast had a 2006 citation date. Is that really the most recent complete set of PDB data in herring from the "Region" ? 01:20:21 Bob Johnston: For Louisa - thank you for very nice presentation! When you say “Puget Sound resident salmon” do you mean the delayed released hatchery king salmon or is there another source of “naturally occurring” salmon that reside in Puget Sound year-round? 01:28:35 James West: For Patrick Moran -- the 2006 data are the most recent for the coast. We have only sampled coast herring that one time. We expect those concs have not changed much. 01:31:13 Sandra O'Neill: Bob, Residency in Chinook salmon is a natural life history variant. Resident Chinook salmon have been document along the fjords associated with the BC coast but these residents will have fewer PCBs because the surrounding pelagic food web is pretty clean. 01:32:00 James West: For Bob J. As I understand it, the "delayed release program" to "create resident Chinook salmon in Puget Sound" was discontinued many years ago. Sandie O'Neill can confirm details on that 01:35:01 Alan Chapman: Jim, Bob J: can we assume that ocean reared chinook were not included in the adult chinook data? 01:37:50 Amy Waterman: Jasper continues Sampson's great work:-)) 01:39:31 Trevor Needham: Is this published anywhere? This is a great reference for proof of concept for source track-down in building materials. 01:41:22 Jess Huybregts (Ecology WQ): Trevor: Here's the 2016 review of Source Tracing Programs: https://your.kingcounty.gov/dnrp/library/2016/kcr2778/kcr2778-txt.pdf 01:41:54 Richard Jack: Some of these sources tracing methodologies are described and cataloged in here. https://your.kingcounty.gov/dnrp/library/2016/kcr2778/kcr2778-txt.pdf 01:42:26 Richard Jack: Jess beat my typing :D 01:42:54 Trevor Needham: Thank you! 01:45:13 Sandra O'Neill: In response to Alan Chapman's question. Adult salmon caught in rivers and in terminal fisheries would have been a mix of ocean migrants and residents. PCB concentrations ranged from 10 ppb to 240 ppb. Whereas the targeted resident Chinook sampling takes place in the winter months when ocean migrants would not be in Puget Sound. 01:45:24 Jess Huybregts (Ecology WQ): Another good resource is our LDW Source Control webpage: https://ecology.wa.gov/Spills-Cleanup/Contamination-cleanup/Cleanup-sites/Lower-Duwamish-Waterway/Source-control You can find our Source Control Strategy and also Seattle's and King County's Source Control Implementation Plans (SCIPs). 01:49:28 James West: Further to Sandie's response to Alan Chapman: Louisa's main status slide (the map) was limited to the residents Sandie referred to. I believe the slide Louisa showed comparing "Puget Sound" Chinook with the oceanic coastal stocks is the mix of ocean migrants and residents. 01:50:26 Jess Huybregts (Ecology WQ): Here's our PCBs in Building Materials webpage (scroll down for the Guidance Document and Focus Sheet): https://ecology.wa.gov/Regulations-Permits/Guidance-technical-assistance/Dangerous-waste-guidance/Common-dangerous-waste/Construction-and-demolition/PCBs-in-buildings 01:52:05 Jason Quigley - Skagit County: I work in stormwater for Skagit County, which holds a Phase II Muni Stormwater permit. We are being told that the next stormwater permit cycle (2024-2028) will likely have requirements around PCBs, primarily in O&E and through the new, business source control inspection program. In my mind, there will be things to identify on a site for this work, including demolition sites. If we are not seeing sample results that are exceeding standards, at least in the one near shore sample site, how important would a sampling plan be to preparing for this work and how complex would that need to be? I would love to go all out, but my question is since we have lots of responsibilities already and our human and financial resources are constantly being stretched thin. 01:56:50 Jess Huybregts (Ecology WQ): Hi Jason, I am hopeful that the PCBs in Building Materials guidance will be helpful to our MS4 permittees who may need to meet O&E requirements. 01:57:19 Jess Huybregts (Ecology WQ): Also, please comment during the formal public comment period planned for this summer. https://ecology.wa.gov/Regulations-Permits/Permits-certifications/Stormwater-general-permits/Municipal-stormwater-general-permits/Municipal-stormwater-permit-reissuance 01:58:35 Jason Quigley - Skagit County: Thank you all. 01:58:46 Support: Marielle Larson: Rachel, for the building program, how are you thinking about collaboration with other building retrofit programs related to other objectives (e.g., energy sustainability, affordability, etc.)? 02:00:36 Support: Marielle Larson: For ease of reference, here's the PCB Mural board again in case the presentation on Puget Sound sparked any thoughts on barriers, solutions, and resources that would be helpful: Here's the link for the feedback on PCBs: https://app.mural.co/t/uwpsi3167/m/uwpsi3167/1664388892448/035bb06edb5a681f660551954de6fa22ddf03dd8?sender=u3292d90ed0896ab04fc66427 02:01:25 Andy James: I am curious on thoughts on opportunities to speed up the time lines for clean up and remediation - it seems like this all takes a long time and wondering if it needs to. I know the time frames reflect the systems we have but perhaps there are ways to do better. Thoughts? 02:02:28 jeff brown: no 02:03:49 Jess Huybregts (Ecology WQ): Andy - That's definitely the advantage of the Early Action Area cleanups in the Lower Duwamish Waterway. The hotspots were known so get it out of the system! Of course there needs to be long term monitoring of cleaned up areas to see if there's recontamination AND focused source control to find and prevent ongoing sources. 02:08:58 Jess Huybregts (Ecology WQ): Marielle - That's a great question/observation. Our focus with this project is on exterior building materials because that's what's exposed to stormwater. It's also focused on buildings planned for demo and reno. We know that will not get at ALL of the PCB sources that way but tackles situations and substances with the greatest risk to impact stormwater and surface waters. And like Rachel said, we're not going for perfection, just trying hard to make PROGRESS and prioritize! I will bring your thought to our Project Team for consideration as we develop our final deliverable, the proposal for next steps and what an Abatement Program might look like. Thank you! 02:11:35 jeff stern: Great question Andy and a great topic for follow-up workshop. Many issues with the current process that delay achieving risk reduction - both in getting to cleanup and in identifying and cutting off sources. Even the Early Actions in the LDW took 5 to 15 years to complete. 02:15:01 Richard Jack: Is there perhaps an opportunity to develop a producer takeback program for old light ballasts before they leak or fail? Exchange your old potentially containing fluorescent light ballast and receive a modern LED at a discount. They have drop in LED tubes that replace old fluorescent tubes in the same fixture and only require removing the ballast (for disposal). 02:18:35 Support: Marielle Larson: Thanks Jess! I agree that it's important to focus on progress over perfection. Focusing on buildings that are planned for demolition or renovations makes a lot of sense. It seems like those opportunities may not overlap as much with other building retrofit programs. I know how challenging it can be to get buy-in from building owners, so was curious. Thank you! 02:20:12 Rachel McCrea: Responding to Richard - Light ballasts are one thing, but the building materials I was referring to are mostly paint and caulk. Doubt a take back program would work for this. To emphasize that these PCBs in Building Materials are not trivial, here is a spattering of PCB concentrations found: building caulk range from 1 ppm to 250,000 ppm (or 25% PCBs). High conc. paint was 500 ppm, but majority of paint samples between 1 - 32 ppm. Moss (found at base of building for example) at 763 ppm. 02:20:38 Jess Huybregts (Ecology WQ): Hi Richard, We do have a PCB light replacement program for schools (a PCB CAP reco): https://ecology.wa.gov/Waste-Toxics/Reducing-toxic-chemicals/Product-Replacement-Program/PCB-lights 02:27:29 Richard Jack: Yes I'm aware of the CAP recommendation. I guess I was thinking of pointing at the Monroe district settlement as a "stick" to encourage a much bigger program to proactively get those ballasts out of circulation in schools and other institution settings with aging infrastructure, universities, jails, etc - in collaboration with other energy efficiency programs. 02:29:01 Richard Jack: Monroe PCB settlement for those out of the area. https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/times-watchdog/275m-verdict-for-toxic-exposures-at-monroe-school-adding-to-swelling-cost/ 02:32:48 Robert Mott: Bridge paint (think mostly railroads) used to use paint that was very high in PCBs to maintain long term flexibility. e.g. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/308016270_PCB_in_River_Elbe_-_characteristics_occurrence_and_trends_as_well_as_causes_and_effects_of_increased_release_in_2015 02:38:08 jeff brown: does that change with seasonal changes 02:40:14 Robert Mott: The primary issue was related to maintenance and repair. The removed paint falling into the river. 02:42:54 Trevor Needham: How does it compare when normalized to lipid or organic carbon? 02:44:11 Brandee Era-Miller: Trevor, normalization to lipid or organic carbon did not change the results appreciably. 02:48:06 Rachel McCrea: I appreciate the attention to different flow conditions that David is explaining. It is one thing to speak about annual average loading and it is quite another to be able to describe loading associated with specified flow scenarios. 02:50:41 Andy James: I am not 100% sure I understand the role of the Task Force - was it mainly mean to to provide input on study design? or was a greater role envisioned? Can/should this model applied elsewhere? (assuming it is not already being applied elsewhere) 02:53:29 Adriane Borgias: The Task Force was established as a way to find and reduce sources of PCBs, in a sense a direct implementation approach for a TMDL. Its primary task initially was to create a comprehensive plans. The studies that have been conducted support the actions in the plan, although there are additional actions I the plan too. 02:53:31 Greg Allen, EPA Chesapeake Bay Program: Adriane Can you say more about how the analysis in Table 9 Control Actions was used strategically? 02:53:44 Dev Murali: In terms of mass balance what is the load from groundwater? 02:53:52 Adriane Borgias: Link to the plan: https://srrttf.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/2016_Comp_Plan_Final_Approved.pdf 02:54:32 jeff brown: that does cover that 02:55:53 Bob Johnston: For Adriane - looks like we have to do everything everywhere all at once! 02:58:12 Greg Allen, EPA Chesapeake Bay Program: We had the exact same thought in Chesapeake Bay to come together effectively to avoid a Bay-wide TMDL 02:58:46 Alan Chapman: It seems that litigation stymies collaboration, but collaboration requires meaningful progress and accountability. It seems that the accountability was not efficient to avoid regulations. Similar to water rights issues related to ownership rather than water management. 02:58:48 David Dilks: @Dev: Groundwater PCB load was on the order of 150 mg/day for each of the three (2014, 2015, and 2018) survey events. 02:59:02 Brandee Era-Miller: Link to the Biofilm report: https://apps.ecology.wa.gov/publications/SummaryPages/2203002.html 02:59:45 James West: Re: the urgency/difficulty in speeding up the process. Puget Sound is home to at least two ESA listed species. One, Southern Resident Killer Whales (SRKW), are listed as "endangered", They prey on, and are contaminated by, the Chinook salmon Louisa reported on in her talk. Chinook are listed as threatened. PCBs reduce the population viability of threatened Chinook salmon, and hence the prey base for endangered SRKW. Interdicting PCBs from this pelagic food web (plankton->herring->Chinook->SRKW) could be a key goal in terms of prioritizing actions. Phytoplankton may be a key entry point for PCBs in this food web, possibly pointing to PCB inputs to the surface waters in Puget Sound (as opposed to movement of PCBs from sediment sinks to the water column). Does it make sense to try to evaluate the relative contribution of land-based PCB sources (that Rachel described) to plankton (via stormwater, etc), and prioritize actions to prevent that conveyance? SRKW may not otherwise survive our remediation timeline.... 03:00:22 Support: Marielle Larson: Here's the Mural again: https://app.mural.co/t/uwpsi3167/m/uwpsi3167/1664388892448/035bb06edb5a681f660551954de6fa22ddf03dd8?sender=u3292d90ed0896ab04fc66427 03:00:28 Cleo Neculae: Can you please repost the link to the Mural? 03:02:03 William Hobbs: Main Spokane River Regional Toxics Task Force website: https://srrttf.org/ 03:03:39 James West: Do other Regions have PCB/ESA species interactions that may influence remediation actions? 03:08:46 Adriane Borgias: "Adriane Can you say more about how the analysis in Table 9 Control Actions was used strategically?" I assume you are asking how were the control actions implemented? An important aspect of the Task Force is that it does not have a regulatory authority in and of itself. So the Control Actions are a collection of anything that could possibly be done to address the situation -- regardless of the who. Some of the actions fall within the normal purview of an individual member (a city government, for example) who would review and determine if and how to implement the action. The overall accountability has ultimately been the Measurable Progress evaluation and whether or not we are getting to water quality standards. Here is a link to a PRELIMINARY draft of that document . . . the final version will be published soon by Ecology. http://srrttf.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/7-SRRTTF_EvaluationOfMP_FINAL-08.15.2022.pdf 03:10:14 Adriane Borgias: "I am not 100% sure I understand the role of the Task Force - was it mainly mean to to provide input on study design? or was a greater role envisioned? Can/should this model applied elsewhere? (assuming it is not already being applied elsewhere)" Here is a link to the Memorandum of Agreement, which spells out the vision and purpose for the Task Force: http://srrttf.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/SRRTTF-MOA-Final-1-23-2012.pdf 03:12:49 Adriane Borgias: "For Adriane - looks like we have to do everything everywhere all at once!" Yes, with a water quality standard in parts per quadrillion, the goal is ambitious. It comes down to doing what we can when we can and leveraging the energy of the community to address the important issues. This is why periodically stepping back and asking ourselves "how are we doing?" is important. 03:12:58 Andy James: @Adrianne - thank you - I am also curious about post Task Force reflections - would you recommend following this approach again, if you were to start over? or just go straight to a TMDL process? 03:15:41 Adriane Borgias: "It seems that litigation stymies collaboration, but collaboration requires meaningful progress and accountability. It seems that the accountability was not efficient to avoid regulations. Similar to water rights issues related to ownership rather than water management." One way to think about this is that the public decision making process is a continuum. On the one side is the voluntary collaborative process where people agree and sometimes agree to disagree. Collaboration also requires commitment to action. Somewhere in the middle is the legal process which sets up a win/lose dynamic and commits to action. On the other side is the regulatory framework where the decisions are already. 03:21:23 jeff brown: yes 03:21:40 Richard Jack: In the Spokane, is the EPA TMDL iteration also going to end up in a no discharge scenario similar to Ecology's roadblock, or a variance? If a variance, would that be Ecology's responsibility or EPA's? 03:22:01 Adriane Borgias: @Adrianne - thank you - I am also curious about post Task Force reflections - would you recommend following this approach again, if you were to start over? or just go straight to a TMDL process? -- I have been involved in several collaborative processes in my career. The defining characteristic is that the participants share a common goal, vision, and desire. Although they may differ on how to get there. Overall I am supportive of this type of decision making. It might be harder to get to an answer but the solution can be more creative and rigorous than a more direct approach. It is not necessarily either/or and this collaborative process can continue after the TMDL is developed. A TMDL is essentially a "pollution budget" and once that is created, the real work of implementation and taking actions begins. 03:26:37 Adriane Borgias: "In the Spokane, is the EPA TMDL iteration also going to end up in a no discharge scenario similar to Ecology's roadblock, or a variance?" EPA is taking the lead on the TMDL and it remains to be seen what comes out of that. Here is a link to the website, which is what we know so far: https://www.epa.gov/tmdl/spokane-river-pcb-tmdls 03:26:48 Lisa Dally Wilson: Richard Jack - excellent question regarding EPA PCB TMDL outcomes. Although EPA is ‘doing’ the TMDL, Ecology will be responsible for implementing the TMDL outcomes. 03:27:24 Adriane Borgias: "If a variance, would that be Ecology's responsibility or EPA's?" A variance is a rulemaking that would undertaken by Ecology and approved by EPA. 03:30:58 James West: For Brian, how many PCB congeners are in your Binational Congener Set? 03:31:28 Robert Mott: which congeners as well? 03:34:19 Laura Shira: For fish sampling - can you talk about how the 2 sites/lake decision was made? And how locations were selected? If you could choose, how would you change the # and location of sites? 03:36:02 James West: Also for Brian, did you control for fish age in your time trend analyses? Esp. for lake trout. 03:40:49 Brian Nickel: Are these data not also available through the Water Quality Portal (the public-facing website for CDX water quality data)? https://www.waterqualitydata.us/ 03:42:50 William Hobbs: Brian Lenell - sediment core ER92 (possibly Lake Erie). There are pretty high concentrations through the surface sediments. Is this recent or continued contamination or mobility/redistribution of PCBs. 03:45:52 Brian Lenell: James West - We analyze for 119 PCB congeners 03:49:11 Support: Katrina Radach (she/her), PSP: Reminder - Here's the link for the feedback on PCBs: https://app.mural.co/t/uwpsi3167/m/uwpsi3167/1664388892448/035bb06edb5a681f660551954de6fa22ddf03dd8?sender=u3292d90ed0896ab04fc66427. If folks have feedback for gearing up for day two of this symposium, please add your feedback on the bottom prompt in the Mural board. Thank you in advance! 03:50:51 Brian Lenell: Laura Shira - The sites were identified long ago for trying to target offshore locations. With different sites trying to capture separate geographic areas of each lake. We ideally want to pick sites that are not as easily influenced by tributaries or site specific human activity. 03:52:09 Brian Lenell: James West - I should have mentioned in my presentation, we determine fish age of the lake trout through their maxillary bones. We then composite similarly aged fish together to control for age. 03:53:23 Andy James: Are there a separate set of Superfund sites, in addition to the Great Lakes Legacy Act sites? If so, are you able to compare the success/clean up rates and costs between the programs? 03:54:01 Andy James: And how do you coordinate with superfund? 03:55:36 Emily Majcher: I What are the most common remediation approaches are you employing at these sites? Dredging? Active capping? 04:10:03 Emily Majcher: Is there any resource recovery (fish concentration) monitoring before-during-after these remediation projects? (sorry, not recalling if Brian's sites aligned with these efforts) 04:13:06 Dev Murali: Have you done any beneficial use of contaminated sediments to minimize costs versus off-site disposal? This will be in line with remediation and restoration efforts. I will be curious to know those projects. 04:14:43 Adriane Borgias: Very interesting to hear what is happening in other "ponds" 04:17:53 Rachel McCrea: Joel - Please don't forget the importance of source tracing and control, as explained re: PCBs in Building Materials 04:21:29 James West: Adding to Joel's wrap-up - simplistically -- let's not forget "new" inputs to water bodies from legacy terrestrial sources (stormwater remediation vs sediment cleanup) 04:22:26 Robert Mott: I do not believe TSCA allows 500ppm. 04:22:34 Jess Huybregts (Ecology WQ): Thanks Adrian. Transformers are a good example. 04:25:09 Alan Chapman: What are the alternatives in the new PCBs contributed by products on the market? 04:25:48 Support: Katrina Radach (she/her), PSP: Reposting the Mural Link - https://app.mural.co/t/uwpsi3167/m/uwpsi3167/1664388892448/035bb06edb5a681f660551954de6fa22ddf03dd8?sender=63338566-bdec-4668-a177-19378f6b86fb Please add your thoughts and insights! Feedback gearing up for day 2 is appreciated! 04:26:09 Adriane Borgias: Regarding allowable PCB inadvertently generated: For any purposes under this part, inadvertently generated non-Aroclor PCBs are defined as the total PCBs calculated following division of the quantity of monochlorinated biphenyls by 50 and dichlorinated biphenyls by 5. 04:26:48 Robert Mott: Caulk, paint and electrical uses in government buildings (Federal, State, County, and Municipal)built prior to 1980 remains the largest exposure zone for most persons. 04:27:36 Adriane Borgias: I won't be able to attend tomorrow, I appreciate the seminar today! DAY 2 00:29:36 Support: Marielle Larson (she/her) UW PSI: Good morning! As you're settling in, please feel free to revisit the Mural and add your thoughts: https://app.mural.co/t/uwpsi3167/m/uwpsi3167/1664388892448/035bb06edb5a681f660551954de6fa22ddf03dd8?sender=u3292d90ed0896ab04fc66427 00:32:43 Support: Marielle Larson (she/her) UW PSI: Good morning! As you're settling in, please feel free to revisit the Mural and add your thoughts: https://app.mural.co/t/uwpsi3167/m/uwpsi3167/1664388892448/035bb06edb5a681f660551954de6fa22ddf03dd8?sender=u3292d90ed0896ab04fc66427 00:40:45 Carol Maloy: Having gotten permission from Andy, I'd like to take advantage of this professional group focused on toxics and share a job opening we have at Pierce County. This is a lead position that will include leading toxics monitoring: https://www.governmentjobs.com/careers/piercecountywa/jobs/3865899/water-quality-monitoring-project-lead?keywords=water%20quality&pagetype=jobOpportunitiesJobs. Please share. 00:40:48 Support: Marielle Larson (she/her) UW PSI: Good morning! As you're settling in, please feel free to revisit the Mural and add your thoughts: https://app.mural.co/t/uwpsi3167/m/uwpsi3167/1664388892448/035bb06edb5a681f660551954de6fa22ddf03dd8?sender=u3292d90ed0896ab04fc66427 00:41:12 Support: Marielle Larson (she/her) UW PSI: Thanks Carol! 00:53:42 Andy James (UW Tacoma): You mentioned nutrient programs and are showing information on other contaminants - can you comment of the extent to which water quality management is coordinated across these different issues? Is there a lot of coordination between pollutants and nutrients (for example)? 00:54:29 William Hobbs: Chesapeake Bay PCB Story Map: https://chesbay.maps.arcgis.com/apps/MapSeries/index.html?appid=8c7f6ba4881e47a499aad4564e883242 00:54:33 Brandee Era-Miller: Are the PCB impairments based on fish tissue concentrations only? What PCB thresholds are the fish tissue concentrations to? 00:54:54 Brandee Era-Miller: compared to 00:55:57 Trevor Needham: There is a consent decree for the entire Chesapeake Bay for N, P, and sediment. PCBs and other toxics are managed at a watershed level 00:57:36 Support: Marielle Larson (she/her) UW PSI: Here is the link to the story map that Greg is presenting: https://chesbay.maps.arcgis.com/apps/MapSeries/index.html?appid=5101cfb66c25450fbd721084c4106265 00:57:41 Leonard Schugam: While portions of the Bay mainstem are not listed as impaired for PCBs in fish tissue there are fish consumption advisories for migratory fish (e.g., striped bass) https://mdewin64.mde.state.md.us/WSA/FCA/index.html 00:59:01 jeff stern: Is impairment increase a product of getting data from more areas? i.e, already impaired just not documented? 01:01:53 Cleo Neculae: Great map! A suggestion for the developers of the map to include links to the TMDL reports for water bodies with existing TMDLs. 01:03:36 Brandee Era-Miller: It would be cool to see more about each state's PCB impairments. What numerical thresholds are used, how much data is needed to determine an impairment, etc. 01:08:38 Andy James (UW Tacoma): Are the method 1668 data for pathways like WWTP and stormwater available? How do you all share this information? 01:16:50 Robert Mott: What is the impact PCB remediation has on other priority pollutants? 01:20:38 Dev Murali: With PCB cleanup other collocated chemicals of concern such as chlordane, dioxins can also be reduced and risk minimized with time. Baseline and performance monitoring will track the remedial progress 01:25:17 ruth cassilly: can you put the link to the MD MS4 guidance document in the chat 01:26:06 jeff brown: and or in mural 01:26:40 Support: Marielle Larson (she/her) UW PSI: https://mde.maryland.gov/programs/water/TMDL/DataCenter/Pages/TMDLStormwaterImplementation.aspx 01:26:46 Dev Murali: For Anacostia River usethe link below:https://restoretheanacostiariver.com/arsp-home 01:29:17 Laura Shira: Is it possible to share presentation slides at the end of the symposium? 01:29:45 Support: Marielle Larson (she/her) UW PSI: Yes, we'll follow-up with both the presentation slides and the recording 01:30:19 Bob Johnston: For Greg Allen: Thank you for awesome presentation! Are all the PCB impairments in Chesapeake Bay caused by fish tissue concentrations? Which species? What is the fish tissue threshold based on? What is the relationship between the PCB and nutrient TMDLs for Chesapeake Bay? Is it possible to develop multi-parameter TMDLs? 01:32:53 Robert Mott: The chart shows % impaired, not how impaired. Number count vs concentration 01:34:14 Louisa Harding: I agree with Brandee Era-Miller's comment above. It would be great to see/compare what numerical thresholds are used to determine impairment across the various regions. 01:37:16 Brandee Era-Miller: Doesn't the Delaware River Basin Commission have a basin-wide PCB process (TMDL?). 01:37:39 Emily Majcher: Yes, DRBC has a basin wide TMDL 01:38:39 Brandee Era-Miller: Are there lessons learned from DRBC's work that could be adopted for the Chesapeake? 01:38:41 Trevor Needham: Bob Johnston- The fish tissue concentrations are used to determine impacts to human health through fish consumption. The specific levels can vary. 01:39:58 Alan Chapman: Are the fish advisories general or address different cultural behaviors? 01:42:11 Support: Marielle Larson (she/her) UW PSI: As we transition to the next presentation, here's the Mural for ease of reference to share barriers, solutions, and resources that would be helpful: https://app.mural.co/t/uwpsi3167/m/uwpsi3167/1664388892448/035bb06edb5a681f660551954de6fa22ddf03dd8?sender=u3292d90ed0896ab04fc66427 01:42:48 Emily Majcher: Andy - we do not have a central database and methods differ between the jurisdictions in the CB unfortunately 01:44:09 Emily Majcher: cont.-- [Various attempts have been made to compile data in fish, water, and sediment to date in a data release] 01:46:02 Emily Majcher: In cases where POTW permits include PCB monitoring requirements, these are available in DMRs, but are not compiled to my knowledge 02:02:59 Robert Mott: what is the current level of PCBs in the Bay vs the 16pg impairment level? 02:04:06 Andy James (UW Tacoma): Regarding the slide/chart on reductions from the City of Wilmington - can you say more about this project/program? I thought I heard it was a result of system cleanouts and am interested in hearing more on what was done. 02:07:01 jeff brown: he did mention a reduction after the pipes were cleaned out of sludge and other sediment that it had been collecting 02:10:59 Todd Keyser: https://dnrec.alpha.delaware.gov/waste-hazardous/remediation/watar/ 02:18:11 William Hobbs: John Cargill - the WATAR program: is site selection targeted or probabilistic? 02:20:49 Todd Keyser: William Hobbs, sampling has occurred in uplands to determine presence of PBTs and waterway sampling based upon 303d listing and proximity to known upland source. We have combined both approaches but lean towards targeted. 02:20:58 Greg Allen, EPA Chesapeake Bay Program: Great story John! Gives us hope. Love the photos 02:21:38 Todd Keyser: https://dnrec.alpha.delaware.gov/waste-hazardous/remediation/watar/pcb-mass-loading/ 02:22:03 Todd Keyser: PCB mass loading reports statewide in above link 02:26:14 Andy James (UW Tacoma): How are the clean ups for the top 10 waste sites funded? 02:28:15 Todd Keyser: Andy, it is a mixture. The Amtrak sites are voluntary cleanup with Amtrak paying. There are a large portion of VCP. Some have been state lead with no viable RP. Some have been through federal and state BF with funding from both of those sources. In water will be a mix of VCP and state lead. 02:30:30 Todd Keyser: https://dnrec.alpha.delaware.gov/waste-hazardous/remediation/watar/cbr4/ 02:30:37 Todd Keyser: CBR4 link 02:30:47 Brandee Era-Miller: Is it called Sedimite? Can you give some links to info about it? 02:30:48 jeff brown: very good and inforative 02:31:20 Todd Keyser: sedimite: http://www.sedimite.com/sedimite 02:31:51 Todd Keyser: WATAR videos on DNREC YouTube shows use of sedimite as well 02:32:28 Todd Keyser: https://dnrec.alpha.delaware.gov/waste-hazardous/remediation/pfas/ 02:32:48 Todd Keyser: PFAS in surface water at bottom of that page 02:33:25 Todd Keyser: https://dnrec.alpha.delaware.gov/waste-hazardous/remediation/watar/cbr4/ CBR4 link again 02:39:27 Todd Keyser: Greg was a huge proponent for innovation! 02:40:37 Emily Majcher: Greg C. DRBC was instrumental in helping the Baltimore Urban Waters Partnership start to tackle PCBs in the greater Baltimore region. 02:40:58 Todd Keyser: Northeast Corridor electrified railway between D.C and Boston, MA 02:43:35 jeff stern: In you mass loadings, you mentioned both overlans and groundwater. What was the breakdown between these two? How is Delaware focused its work today and how do you think it will change going forward? 02:44:08 Todd Keyser: Overland was clearly the largest contributor. Groundwater was essentially null. 02:47:25 Ashley Geiger: Zones 3, 4, 5 have the highest levels of water column PCBs (up to 10,000 pg/L). Zone 6 are 200-1,000 pg/L. 02:47:54 Support: Marielle Larson (she/her) UW PSI: We'll see everyone back at 11:30. In the meantime, please feel free to add ideas to the Mural https://app.mural.co/t/uwpsi3167/m/uwpsi3167/1664388892448/035bb06edb5a681f660551954de6fa22ddf03dd8?sender=u3292d90ed0896ab04fc66427 02:58:36 Robert Mott: Ashley - Are those high PCB levels after removal of suspended solids? 03:10:57 Ashley Geiger: Those are ambient water column levels in the tidal portion of the Mainstem and Bay. 03:32:39 Greg Allen, EPA Chesapeake Bay Program: Does EPA manage all of the contracts for dredging and processing of dredge materials? 03:33:46 Dev Murali: Navigational dredging is not covered as part of remediation. Who pays for the navigation? 03:33:51 jeff brown: how do those cad cells hold up over time 03:35:43 William Hobbs: How do you monitor the CAD cells? 03:39:29 Andy James (UW Tacoma): What does the ongoing engagement with stakeholders and public look like? I imagine questions around the effectiveness of CAD cells might keep coming up. 03:39:35 William Hobbs: Are there other coastal sites that you're aware of that have used CAD cells? 03:42:18 Bob Johnston: Sinclair Inlet in Puget Sound has a CAD 03:42:27 Sandra O'Neill: US Naval site in Bremerton (Sinclair Inlet) used a CAD. 03:42:37 Aimee Kinney: Yesterday, Jim West commented on his concerns about the amount of time it takes to complete large CERCLA cleanups like this and the Lower Duwamish. What are the most time-intensive parts of the process and do you have any thoughts on ways to move through major roadblocks more quickly? 03:44:03 Natalie Burgo: early action , NTCRA, maybe mention we had 2 RODS 03:44:57 Aimee Kinney: What is NTCRA? 03:45:11 Dawn Fulsher: With the potential for increased sea level rise and higher frequency of storm events associated with climate change will CAD cells possibly need engineering alterations for additional protection? 03:46:51 Colin Kelly: Does the harbor freeze during the winter? Is there any threat that the CAD cell may face the threat of puncture like the Grasse River? 03:51:23 Greg Allen, EPA Chesapeake Bay Program: New method EPA 1628 Low res-SIM is of interest 03:52:00 Cleo Neculae: The Green/Duwamish Pollutant Loading Assessment includes PCBs, cPAHs, phthalates, and three metals. 03:53:04 Bob Johnston: Persistent Problem: Global Challenges to Managing PCBs “Ten million tonnes of PCB-containing materials remain >30 years after production ended, with many countries lacking the capacity or regulatory structures to achieve environmentally sound management by 2028, as prescribed by the Stockholm Convention.” https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.est.2c01204 03:53:44 Robert Mott: Are we remediating the chemicals that get the press attention (all meanings of the term) or the ones creating the greatest hazard in that community? 03:54:36 Robert Mott: Gors with the questions raised by last presenter. 03:57:15 Support: Marielle Larson (she/her) UW PSI: As a reminder, Mural will be open until next Friday (2/3) to add suggestions to inform next steps for collaboration: https://app.mural.co/t/uwpsi3167/m/uwpsi3167/1664388892448/035bb06edb5a681f660551954de6fa22ddf03dd8?sender=u3292d90ed0896ab04fc66427 03:57:19 Bob Johnston: In the US, 1 in 2 women and 1 in 3 men will develop cancer in their lifetime, so how can the 1x10-6 risk factor be justified in the risk calculation for fish consumption? Clearly seafood is not driving the risk of cancer, actually seafood is much healthier choice than many other foods from a health perspective. For example, what is the dose of harmful chemicals in a hot dog?! 03:58:20 Brandee Era-Miller: or cheese, other animal products with high fat and higher on the food chain... 03:59:11 Angela Tagnani: Does anyone have PCB data on restaurant grease? If so, I would be very interested in seeing it. 04:00:08 Richard Jack: The "tolerated" magnitude of carcinogens via FIFRA compared to our cleanup universe is embarrassing and depressing 04:02:03 Greg Allen, EPA Chesapeake Bay Program: @Angela I think there is data on FOG samples from wastewater pipes, if that would be of interest 04:02:39 Angela Tagnani: Yes- that would be great. Where would I find that? Thank you! 04:03:18 Emily Majcher: https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/sir20225012 04:03:23 Brandee Era-Miller: Will a recording of the presentations be available to share outside this group? 04:03:26 Robert Mott: Some (most?) FOG is captured in many places to avoid wastewater violations. Is that then burned? 04:03:37 Support: Marielle Larson (she/her) UW PSI: Yes, the recording will be made publicly available 04:03:57 Brandee Era-Miller: Awesome. Thanks! So much good stuff here. 04:04:03 Gary Jones: Will there be a "report" prepared that summarizes the concentrations of PCBs in the watersheds, the monomers being found, known sources, and remediation approaches? 04:04:09 Richard Jack: PCB Concentrations in food documented here. Butter is high like you'd expect, Vegetable oil is not. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7759298/ 04:04:39 Greg Allen, EPA Chesapeake Bay Program: emajcher@usgs.gov Emily Majcher USGS can point to FOG sample results 04:05:01 Carol Maloy: In case anyone missed it: Having gotten permission from Andy, I'd like to take advantage of this professional group focused on toxics and share a job opening we have at Pierce County, WA. This is a lead position that will include leading toxics monitoring: https://www.governmentjobs.com/careers/piercecountywa/jobs/3865899/water-quality-monitoring-project-lead?keywords=water%20quality&pagetype=jobOpportunitiesJobs. Please share. For questions, please contact carol.falkenhaynmaloy@piercecountywa.gov. 04:05:08 Emily Majcher: I posted the link to the USGS report above 04:05:31 Heidi Siegelbaum: Great job and thanks to the organizers and presenters- really interesting and quite hopeful 04:06:05 Robert Mott: Just a technical aside, yellow dyes aren't sources of PCBs. Dyes do not use dichlorbenzidine (or its salts) as a raw material. 04:06:11 Angela Tagnani: Where is the USGS report? 04:06:15 Angela Tagnani: Thank you for posting, but I don't see it.