Northport Waterfront Cleanup Project

PROJECT BACKGROUND

The Washington State Department of Ecology is directing and funding an investigation and cleanup of smelter-related metals contamination on Northport’s City Park and boat launch waterfront area. 

The project area includes all permanently and seasonally exposed areas of the Columbia River bank and shore directly next to the Northport Town Park and boat launch. From the river, this area is between Smelter Rock downstream to the Northport Highway 25 Bridge, and is associated with the historic Le Roi Smelter that was located at and around the park. The area remains polluted by smelter wastes that were dumped and dispersed along the shore.

Our goal is to assess options for protecting people and restoring the near-shore and shoreline environment next to the park. We look forward to working with local government, businesses, and residents during the investigation and cleanup process to understand your concerns and the community’s vision for the waterfront.

The draft Remedial Investigation was completed in October 2019. We will hold a comment period for it when the draft Feasibility Study Report that lays out cleanup options is also ready. We are planning to finish developing cleanup options by late 2020.

During the feasibility study work, we are planning to hold a public meeting to share the investigation results and start discussing options for cleanup. The purpose of having a public meeting prior to public comment on the reports is we’d like to incorporate the community’s Town Park shore improvement and development ideas into the cleanup options.

CONTAMINATION

The information in the draft Remedial Investigation Report will help Ecology understand where contamination exists and develop options for cleaning it up.

However, based on past investigations in this area, we know several metals are present in smelter wastes in this area:

Metal levels known to be present do not pose an immediate, acute human health risk. However, long-term exposure may increase the risk of certain health problems. You can take simple actions to protect yourself and your family from exposure.

RELATED CLEANUP SITES

Teck pegged with U.S. tribes’ $1.6M legal bill

Aug. 20, 2020 11:00 a.m

A previous ruling holds Teck Metals liable for response costs incurred by the confederated tribes

Historic pollution from the Trail smelter, the Columbia River, and an in-progress lawsuit filed by Colville tribes versus the mining giant Teck Resources was at the centre of an agreement in an American courtroom earlier this month.

On Aug. 6, Teck Resources agreed to pay another $1.6 million to confederated tribes south of the border to cover their legal costs associated with ongoing litigation related to pollutants the Trail plant dumped into the river from early industry days up until 1995.null

There has been only one ruling in the case to date, and it holds Teck Metals Ltd. (TML) liable for response costs amassed by the plaintiffs – the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation – during these years-long legal proceedings.

“Because the remedial investigation/feasibility study and the litigation are ongoing, the plaintiffs continue to incur costs,” explained Chris Stannell, Teck spokesperson.

“TML is paying those costs as they are incurred … this $1.6-million payment represents further response costs incurred by the tribal plaintiffs covering the period from Jan. 1, 2014 to Dec. 31, 2019,” he said.

“The litigation is ongoing, and is not expected to conclude before 2023 at the earliest.”

The Aug. 6 settlement agreement comes almost four years to the day since a Washington federal judge awarded the tribes more than $8.25 million from Teck under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) for costs relating to the pollution that contained heavy metals such as lead and arsenic.

“We have consistently said that if there are real risks to human health or the environment associated with historical emissions from Trail Operations, either in Canada or in the U.S., Teck will take appropriate steps to address them,” Stannell told the Times.

“We have spent over US$125 million to date on studies of the Upper Columbia River in the United States to determine if there are real risks to human health or the environment, and the results to date indicate that the water is clean, the fish are as safe to eat as fish in other waterbodies in Washington State, and the beaches are safe for recreation – other than those affected by contamination not associated with Teck.”

The Trail smelter has been operating on the banks of the Columbia River since 1896, 10 miles north of the Canada-United States border.

The company has acknowledged in court that, between 1930 and 1995, the plant intentionally discharged nearly 10 million tons of slag and effluent directly into the Columbia River from its mining and fertilizer operations in Trail.

The tribes sued Teck in July 2004 to recover costs to deal with the pollution. Shortly thereafter, Washington state intervened as a plaintiff. 

In June 2006, Teck signed a settlement agreement with the U.S. EPA stating, the company is voluntarily funding and conducting a remedial investigation and feasibility study to evaluate the nature and the extent of contamination; determine if unacceptable risk to human health or the environment exists as a result of any contamination; and determine whether action is required to mitigate any unacceptable risk. 

At that time, the company agreed to provide over $1 million per year to the Colville and Spokane Tribes, Washington State and the Department of the Interior to for their participation and review on an ongoing basis.

Senior U.S. District Judge Lonny Suko previously awarded the tribes $8.25 million – $4.9 million stemming from litigation and $3.4 million from expenses related to water investigative studies – incurred through the end of 2013, along with prejudgment interest. 

Teck appealed Suko’s Aug. 2016 ruling, though it was upheld by the U.S. Ninth Circuit two years later.

Human Health Risk Assessment Perspectives from CCC

Mindy Smith, M.D. M.S.
CCC Board Secretary

In concert with EPA’s release of the draft Upper Columbia RI/FS Human Health Risk Assessment (HHRA), I was asked to work with Citizens for a Clean Columbia (CCC) board members to give our sense of public and CCC perceptions about the document and process of sharing information.

These impressions are based on a fairly recent public meeting and discussions with board members and people from the town of Northport (population about 350 people). We will be interested to see how many of our questions the HHRA addresses, or whether a different forum or report will be required.

One question goes back to 2004, which is when soil removal due to lead contamination on properties within Northport was based on a lead threshold of or exceeding 1000 ppm. Residential soil cleanup voluntarily conducted by Teck between from 2015 – 2018, however, used a threshold of 700 ppm. What does this mean to the future of Northport properties with between 700 – 1000 ppm? EPA is working on this issue separately, and we strongly support this effort to extend cleanup to properties with lead levels at 700 ppm or more.

At the meeting, EPA shared how they estimated the probability of adverse human health effects from lead. However, this information does not address questions about specific human health effects, both past and future. While much of this is outside EPA’s purview, the concerns about remediation and provision of adequate surveillance and monitoring, such as air monitoring, to ensure future protection against adverse health effects from contamination seems relevant. Without knowing which lead level will be selected for remediation, these concerns remain. 

There’s on-going interest in soil amendments to reduce lead exposure in areas that do not meet removal action levels and in expanses of undisturbed land. Citizens are asking whether other cutting-edge technologies are being considered as amendments such as hemp or fungus (bioremediation). And what changes in soil contamination occur as areas are burned or otherwise altered. I, along with others, worry that effective amendments will not be found, and that hand washing will provide insufficient protection.

These and other concerns go to the heart of community questions about past and future health effects, influence on property values, availability of legacy funding, additional sampling, and the perceived need for reinstated and expanded air monitoring.

From my perspective, I am also concerned about whether the HHRA will truly reflect risk as it is difficult to know the cumulative effect of contaminants, and there is no clear way to combine lead and non-lead risks into a single risk assessment. Further, the gravity-flow and pumped creek-impoundment water systems used for irrigation and sometimes drinking, like my own water system, have not been evaluated.

While I have confidence in the good will of most of those involved in this process on both sides of the border and the impressive work done over the past 14 years, I do not have confidence in the current administration and whether sufficient clean-up and monitoring will occur now and in the future.

At the state level, the Washington Department of Ecology Air Monitoring Program disappointed us when they

said they had insufficient manpower to apply for an EPA grant for air monitoring in our area. When we suggested citizen volunteers could be trained in data collection, they disagreed.

This is despite DOE’s 2017 report entitled “Preliminary Review and Evaluation of Available Air Quality Monitoring Data and Consideration of Potential Present-Day Health Risks.”  This report recommended updated air monitoring be conducted in our area to analyze heavy metals known to be emitted from the Trail smelter which “may further contribute to potential human health impacts.” On the other hand, Ecology’s Toxics Cleanup Program has provided invaluable assistance, including current work to consider further cleanup of the Northport Park shoreline area.

It will be interesting to read the draft HHRA. We’re eager and hopeful to see how many community-based questions will be successfully or fully addressed. EPA’s RI/FS Remedial Project Manager has thus far been very responsive to our comments. Further, to ensure that the public is well informed about the HHRA and able to provide input, EPA has agreed to a 60-day public comment period and will be providing two webinars. In that positive vein, CCC remains very committed to supporting the outreach process and, as necessary, helping collate public input with EPA.

The draft Human Health Risk Assessment is available on EPA’s website: Click here to view

EPA 2020 Soil Cleanup of Northport, Washington

During the next couple of months, the EPA will clean up the soil on 16 properties located within Northport town limits. EPA has determined that this cleanup is warranted to address a threat to
people’s health from exposure to lead in their soil. EPA is working with property owners, the Mayor of Northport, and the Northport Town Council to schedule and conduct soil cleanup activities.

CLEANUP PLANS


In August, EPA will begin the soil cleanup in the town of Northport. With the consent of property owners, cleanup will begin at residential properties and common use areas. Common use areas include the Lyn Kaste Gould Memorial Park, the lawn at the Northport Community Library, the play area at the Northport Community Garden, the lawn at the Northport American Legion vacant lot, and the lawn at the Northport Welcome Center. EPA estimates the entire cleanup to take 8 to 10 weeks. Work will be done during the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. Monday through
Saturday. While the cleanup is taking place, you will see construction equipment such as dump trucks, excavators, graders, and water trucks working in town. EPA and its contractors will make every effort to be a good neighbor while the project is underway

CONTROLLING DUST


EPA and its contractors will control dust where cleanup activities are taking place. They will apply water to surfaces and air monitoring instruments will be placed at the properties being cleaned up to ensure dust is controlled effectively.

BACKGROUND INFORMATION


Areas for soil removal were identified based on an October 2019 review of 2004 data reports of properties within Northport town limits with lead levels near or above 700 ppm (parts per million). When these areas were first evaluated in 2004, cleanup was not conducted because EPA’s removal action level at the time was 1,000 ppm. The threshold of 700 ppm is the same level EPA used when working with Teck American to clean up 18 residential properties outside of Northport town limits from 2015 – 2018. The use of this lower threshold represents advances in scientific understanding of the adverse developmental effects of lead to young children and babies. EPA’s October 2019 reevaluation documented the condition and layout of each of the properties identified in 2004. This included interviews with each property owner about changes to property use since the 2003/2004 soil sampling. Cleanup actions will focus on lawns, gardens, and play areas with a high likelihood of exposure to contaminated soil. Based on possible use changes, EPA collected and analyzed additional soil samples to better delineate the contaminated area. The results of the October 2019 removal site evaluation provide the information that supports the planned time-critical removal action.

FOR MORE INFORMATION

If you have questions or concerns, please contact the following people:

Technical Information

  • Monica Tonel, EPA On-Scene Coordinator
  • Call: 206-348-2692 (mobile)
  • Email: tonel.monica@epa.gov

General Information

  • Kay Morrison, Community Involvement Coordinator
  • Call: 800-424-4372, ext. 8321
  • Email: morrison.kay@epa.gov

The Wall Unseen

While a border wall is built to the south — There exists a border wall to the north

Not built of concrete and steel — But of money, politics, and diplomacy

It’s not visual, but can be visualized — It’s existence seen circumstantially

When trespassed it grants sanctuary — To Canadian toxins and slag illegally

Squatters claiming possession adversely — To Columbia’s riverbed in perpetuity

Tho harmful to fish and benthics alike — Efforts at needed remediation

Result in collision — Against this wall unseen

Behind this wall extortionists lie — Wearing top hats, pinstripes, and tails

Canada making threats of reciprocation — If the U.S. pursues Columbia’s remediation

For past transboundary violations — by U.S. rust belt corporations

To this threat our government is complying — Hostaging Columbia, her inhabitants dying

Polluters escaping by recrimination — Victims subsidizing culpable corporations

Better both Nations not shield — Their transgressing corporations

For both Nations in violation — The Boundary Waters Treaty 1909

By allowing their pollutants — To cross the border line

The wall unseen is government — Constructed to protect their polluters

~  Old Man River

Mindy Smith and the Rev. Martin Wells: Much is at stake in Columbia River treaty’s update

Thurs., July 4, 2019, 8:52 p.m.

By Mindy Smith and the Rev. Martin Wells

Maps of the Columbia River circulating in the U.S. often stop at the international border, as though the world beyond is unknown. Rivers, forests and wildlife don’t recognize such borders. For thousands of years salmon returned to spawn along this undivided river. Indigenous people lived and buried their dead here.

The international border is the 49th parallel, drawn in London and Washington, D.C., across the river-watershed home for indigenous people and fish and wildlife. Despite the political line, we remain one region with shared and binding history, culture and economy. Americans and Canadians together.

One tie that binds us together is reciprocal education. Community Colleges of Spokane and Selkirk College are jointly hosting the sixth annual international conference “One River – Ethics Matter” in Castlegar, B.C., on May 30-31.

Castlegar is located at the confluence of rivers, the Kootenay and Columbia. With worsening forest fires and massive salmon die-offs from warming downstream reservoirs, the ethics conference will spotlight youth at risk, climate change, and renewing the Columbia River Treaty.

Indigenous, religious and academic leaders will gather to discuss the Columbia River’s past and future, ethics, and in the words of the Northwest Roman Catholic bishops’ Columbia River Pastoral Letter, actions we must take “to effect a spiritual, social and ecological transformation of the watershed.” 

Only one-sixth of the Columbia River Basin is in Canada, producing about 40 percent of the water flowing into the Pacific Ocean. In especially warm years with little snow, that number climbs toward 50 percent. With climate change, the Columbia’s cold, water-rich Upper Columbia is increasingly valuable.

Just as tribes gathered at Kettle Falls to trade goods and fish for ocean salmon, people today engage in regional commerce. Canadians travel to Spokane, Colville, Sandpoint, Bonners Ferry and many other communities. Americans travel north, experiencing beautiful British Columbia. Canadian and American flags fly side-by-side. Dollars trade hands in a robust, regional border economy.

The Peace Arch at the border between the two countries near Vancouver, B.C., is inscribed: “Children of a common mother,” symbolizing enduring friendship across a long international border. Here, outside the Columbia Basin, Canadians’ and Americans’ political leaders met in 1964 to complete the Columbia River Treaty that would devastate the Upper Columbia.

The Columbia River Treaty manages for two purposes only: hydropower and flood risk. The treaty is silent on health of the river, riparian habitat, survival of salmon and salmon-based cultures, and indigenous sovereignty. Once, 16 million to 30 million salmon returned to the Columbia River Basin annually, the world’s richest salmon river. Under the current treaty, the river is managed as a dam-machine that generates wealth for some at costs to others.

The treaty authorized the construction of four major water storage dams – one in Montana and three in B.C., setting in place American-Canadian joint governance of the international Columbia River. Building these dams and reservoirs required logging, bulldozing and flooding vast wildlife and fisheries-rich forested valleys of the Upper Columbia. Hugh Keenleyside Dam near Castlegar, B.C., forced 2,300 people from their homes.

Treaty negotiations began a year ago. Much is at stake for the Upper Columbia on both sides of the border. Negotiations are closed to the public.

Regional citizens, acting as a “community of the Columbia,” are striving to influence their destiny through learning about and urging that an updated international river treaty get right what the original treaty got wrong. Health of the river – “Ecosystem-based Function” including restoring salmon above Grand Coulee Dam – needs to be added as a third treaty purpose coequal with hydropower and flood risk. The river needs a voice.

“If you are not at the table, then you’re on the menu.” Canada has invited aboriginal First Nations into the treaty negotiation sessions as observers. We remain hopeful that American negotiators will also invite the aboriginal Columbia Basin tribes.

Against a backdrop of historic wrongs and unfolding climate change, stewardship and justice-based river governance is within our grasp. Water is fundamental. Water is life. As the indigenous tribes who speak Syilx, one of the Columbia’s indigenous languages, have memorialized in their Water Declaration, “When we take care of the land and water, then land and water take care of us. This is our law.”


Mindy Smith, MD, MS, is a family physician and medical editor who works with Citizens for a Clean Columbia advocating for the Columbia River ecosystem. The Rev. Martin Wells is retired bishop of the Eastern Washington, Idaho and Wyoming Synod of the Evangelical Lutheran Church

January 2019 Newsletter

Who are we?

Citizens for a Clean Columbia (CCC) is a volunteer organization focused on advocating for the health of the Upper Columbia River (UCR) and Lake Roosevelt.

Phase 3 Sediment Study

As noted in our July 2018 newsletter, this study is part of the Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS) and has 5 elements:

  • Sediment bed mapping to identify locations of sediment texture classes and depositional areas
  • Nature and extent of sediment chemical and physical properties
  • Sediment porewater to characterize concentrations of bioavailable metals to which sediment organisms are exposed
  • Toxicity identification evaluations (biological effects on benthic species of representative surface samples in the laboratory
  • Characterization of benthic invertebrate communities in sediment

To address difficulties in obtaining surface sediment samples with a clamshell bucket grab sampler in areas of the UCR containing finer sediments intermixed with gravel and cobble, a freeze grab sampling method was tested. Freeze grab sampling is a modified version of freeze core sampling and was tested using a device consisting of a metal pan with multiple 5-inch-long rods protruding from the bottom to extract heat from the sediment (see below). Frozen sediment adheres to the device and, once retrieved, is placed into plastic bags or steel bowls until thawed. This method had not been tested before and innovations in the field were required to address some of the difficulties encountered.

The study demonstrated that the freeze grab sampler was successful for obtaining samples in areas dominated by gravel but not for those areas where the surface sediment was dominated by cobble. CCC provided comments on the study report asking for greater specification of procedures and the use of sensor data to assess whether overlying water or groundwater was drawn into the sediment.

There has also been concern with prior porewater sampling techniques about the lack of ability to obtain a sufficient volume of porewater for chemical analyses without drawing in overlying water or groundwater and while avoiding oxygenation. In response to this concern, a pilot study was completed to determine if the Trident probe could be used to successfully obtain porewater samples from the variety of substrates in the UCR and across the range of sampling conditions encountered with respect to water depths, velocities.

The study results demonstrated that the Trident probe successfully collected porewater as confirmed by water quality parameters such as temperature, and pH without evidence of field contamination in water up to 37.7 feet deep, current speeds up to 5.7 feet per second, and from a range of bottom types including sand and cobbles. The samples were collected in an oxygen-free glovebox. CCC reviewed the study report and requested additional detail about the devices (original and modified) and how sampling depth is determined.

Mindy Smith, CCC secretary

Soil Amendment Technology Evaluation Study (SATES)

The purpose of this study is to identify and field test soil amendment technologies that could cost-effectively reduce long-term potential for human exposure to lead in shallow soils in the UCR area. CCC provided comments on the phase I draft data summary report.

This report provides a comprehensive assessment of the soil chemical, mineralogical and physical properties of the test plots including vegetation conditions; the latter assessment was conducted by the Colville Confederated Tribes prior to soil sampling. These data will serve as baseline for monitoring the effects of the soil amendment alternatives. The following amendments are being considered for inclusion in the bench testing effort: soluble phosphorus, biosolids, wood ash, biochar and compost.

Each of the 6 test plots covered an area of 100 x 100 feet. The initial phase of the sampling was to evaluate the spatial variation of arsenic, lead, and pH in near-surface soil and assess duff thickness. For this phase, discrete soil samples were collected from each test plot in August 2017 and analyzed for lead and arsenic. Sampling areas were then backfilled and plugged with wooden plugs to prevent resampling at the same locations during the second part of this phase of the study. Mean lead levels in the soil from 0 to 3 inches ranged from 216 to 566 mg/kg with a variation (standard deviations as a percent of the mean) ranging from 47% to 124%.

Sampling for soil characterization was completed in October 2017 using the four test plots highest in lead concentration and sampling from 16 test pits – 2 feet wide, 2 feet long, and 18 inches deep. Characteristics measured included total solids, arsenic, lead, Ph, and duff thickness; soil physical properties including a description, bulk density, hydraulic conductivity moisture holding; and target analyte list metals (aluminum, antimony, arsenic, barium, beryllium, cadmium, calcium, chromium, cobalt, copper, iron, lead, magnesium, manganese, nickel, phosphorus, potassium, selenium, silver, sodium, thallium, vanadium, and zinc). These were later filled in with local soil and capped with a wooden board.

Thirty field duplicates from immediately adjacent soil samples were obtained to assess data precision (field and laboratory). Only 2 of the samples had a relative percent difference (RPD) for lead exceeding 50% (the set value for acceptable deviation). Of four discrete field duplicate samples, six of 88 total analyte pairs exceeded 50%; five, however, were from a single sample. Of the 630 samples analyzed for lead, arsenic and total solids, 175 (27.7%) were J qualified (estimated).

Mindy Smith, CCC secretary

Residential Soils Voluntary Removal Action Conducted in 2018

A second residential soil sampling program (2016) was conducted as part of the UCR RI/FS conducted at 136 residential properties and 8 tribal allotments. Six had lead levels of above 600 parts per million in some areas. TAI volunteered to perform removal actions at four residential properties. The other two were referred to the Washington State Department of Ecology for follow-up.

Surface soil removal was performed in October 2017 with approximately 141 cubic yards removed and disposed to the Stevens County Landfill near Kettle Falls, WA. Following excavation, TAI restored the properties in accordance with property owners’ requests. The work, however, was suspended in late 2017 due to seasonal weather conditions and resumed in Spring 2018, beginning with pre-removal soil sampling to better define areas for removal actions. TAI conducted soil removal activities in August and September 2018 with approximately 3,255 cy of soil excavated from areas on three properties. Excavated soil was again disposed to the Stevens County Landfill and properties restored in accordance with property owners’ requests. All removal activities conducted in 2017 and 2018 were overseen by full-time US EPA personnel.

Mindy Smith, MD, MS

Technical Advisor Report

My efforts over the past five months focused on the phase 3 sediment toxicity pilot studies, soil amendment technology evaluation (SATES) study, aerial delineation study, and the wildlife toxicity reference value (TRV) report. I performed no work in January 2019 due to the partial government shut down. CCC used my reviews in preparing their comments to EPA.

I reviewed the draft memorandum on results of the freeze grab sediment sampling pilot study. The procedure offers the capability to collect sediment samples under some conditions where the Van Veen sampler does not function. Sample size with the freeze grab sampler is much lower than with the Van Veen sampler and the various shapes of the retrieved samples will require development of a rubric to determine sample depth. There was also a concern that methanol could enter the river during freeze grab sampling.

Results presented in the draft pore water pilot study memorandum were encouraging. The trident probe was able to collect 625 milliliter samples in 40 to 60 minutes from a variety of sediment compositions. I requested that more information be presented on the internal volume of the sampler and collection tubing to better evaluate purge volumes, as well as more information on potential mixing with wash water as the sample is drawn through the sampler and tubing. I also requested that the data be made available on the RI/FS database website.

I observed SATES soil collection for the bench-scale studies on October 18, 2018. My previous concerns about soil moisture, rain and the use of x-ray fluorescence (XRF) measurement of lead in soil turned out not to be issues. The soil was dry, the weather cooperative, and the XRF was used to determine which 2-foot-square subplots were sampled. All soil was collected in one day for the composite high-lead sample to test the potential soil amendments in the bench-scale studies to be undertaken soon. Amendments to be tested are phosphorus fertilizer, biosolids, wood ash, biochar, woody debris and compost. Although formal results on analysis of the high-lead composite soil sample are not yet available, preliminary XRF analyses indicated that the lead level will be high enough to perform the bench-scale amendment study.

I reviewed the draft aerial delineation study in October. This study will develop models of the transport and deposition of stack emissions from Trail to the Upper Columbia River (UCR) area. The primary concern with the draft was the proposed use of soil lead and arsenic levels adjacent to the smelter to validate the models. Soil lead levels next to the smelter were not only influenced by stack emissions; these areas were also subject to dust from ore handling and maintenance activities as well as differential deposition due to various stack heights over time. An additional concern was the assumption that a relatively smooth decrease in deposition would occur as distance from the smelter increased. Local topography and meteorological conditions could easily result in regions of enhanced or diminished deposition in the UCR area.

A continuing concern with the draft final wildlife TRV report was the lack of reference vetting by EPA or any of the participating parties. The TRV report also references the chemicals of potential concern (COPC) refinement document, which is still in draft and has not been issued. I suggested the TRV report issue after the COPC refinement document. Deer and elk are not addressed in the TRV report. Significant populations of both are present in the UCR area. I suggested TRVs be derived for both populations.

Joe Wichmann, PhD; CCC Technical Advisor

Soliciting T-shirt Ideas

CCC is looking for some good ideas for our new T-shirt logo. We have finally run low on our stock so if you have some good ideas, please forward them to Hilary Ohm at hilary@highwaterfilters.com.

Want to be More Involved?

CCC welcomes new members. Our next General Member Meeting will be in the fall. Please join us. We will post updated information on the website.

We are still looking for a new webmaster. This would involve maintaining our website and posting new information to it about once a month. If anyone out there is interested in helping us with this, please contact Mindy Smith (smithm69@msu.edu).

With questions for the EPA project managers, contact Monica Tonel for information on human health studies at Tonel.Monica@epa.gov and Kathryn Cerise for information on ecological studies at Cerise.Kathryn@epa.gov. Kira Lynch is responsible for the Soil Amendment Technology Evaluation Study and can be reached at Kira.Lynch@epa.gov. Concerns may also be directed to the EPA assistant region 10 administrator Michelle Pirzadeh (Pirzadeh.Michelle@epa.gov).

Mindy Smith, CCC secretary