STATE OF WASHINGTON
DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY
In the Matter of Remedial Action by:

AGREED ORDER
No. DE 8938

The Port of Seattle

TO:

Port of Seattle
Attention: Mr. Tay Yoshitani
P.O. Box 1209
Seattle, Washington 98111
TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................ 3
I.
II.
JURISDICTION ................................................................................................................... 3
III. PARTIES BOUND............................................................................................................... 3
IV. DEFINITIONS ..................................................................................................................... 4
V.
FINDINGS OF FACT .......................................................................................................... 6
VI. ECOLOGY DETERMINATIONS....................................................................................... 8
VII. WORK TO BE PERFORMED .......................................................................................... 10
VIII. TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF ORDER ....................................................................... 21
A. Public Notice............................................................................................................... 21
B. Remedial Action Costs ............................................................................................... 22
C. Implementation of Remedial Action........................................................................... 22
D. Designated Project Coordinators ................................................................................ 23
E. Performance ................................................................................................................ 24
F. Access ......................................................................................................................... 25
G. Sampling, Data Submittal, and Availability ............................................................... 25
H. Public Participation ..................................................................................................... 26
I. Retention of Records................................................................................................... 27
J. Resolution of Disputes ................................................................................................ 28
K. Extension of Schedule................................................................................................. 29
L. Amendment of Order .................................................................................................. 30
M. Endangerment ............................................................................................................. 31
N. Reservation of Rights .................................................................................................. 31
O. Transfer of Interest in Property ................................................................................... 32
P. Compliance with Applicable Laws ............................................................................. 33
Q. Financial Assurance .................................................................................................... 34
R. Indemnification ........................................................................................................... 37
S. Land Use Restrictions ................................................................................................. 38
IX. SATISFACTION OF ORDER ........................................................................................... 38
X.
TERMINATION OF 2010 AGREED ORDER ................................................................. 38
XI. ENFORCEMENT .............................................................................................................. 38

Agreed Order No. DE 8938
Page 2 of 43

EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT B
EXHIBIT C
EXHIBIT D
EXHIBIT E
EXHIBIT F

Cleanup Action Plan
Site Diagram of Port of Seattle Terminal 91 Facility
Releases Requiring Corrective Action
Public Participation Plan
Contamination Contingency Work Plan
Schedule

Agreed Order No. DE 8938
Page 3 of 43

I.

INTRODUCTION

The mutual objective of the State of Washington, Department of Ecology (Ecology) and
the Port of Seattle (Port) under this Agreed Order (Order) is to provide for remedial action at a
facility where there has been a release or threatened release of hazardous substances. This Order
requires the Port to implement the Cleanup Action Plan (CAP) (attached hereto as Exhibit A),
including the installation of certain remedial actions and the completion of compliance
monitoring. The Order also requires the Port to address contamination in the Upland Area of the
Terminal 91 Facility (defined below), including any units newly identified during
implementation of the CAP. Ecology has determined that these actions are necessary to protect
human health and the environment.
II.

JURISDICTION

This Agreed Order is issued pursuant to the authority of the Model Toxics Control Act
(MTCA), RCW 70.105D.050(1). This Order also satisfies the requirements of WAC 173-303646 through -64630.
III.

PARTIES BOUND

This Agreed Order shall apply to and be binding upon the Parties to this Order, their
successors and assigns. The undersigned representative of each Party hereby certifies that he or
she is fully authorized to enter into this Order and to execute and legally bind such Party to
comply with the Order. The Port agrees to undertake all actions required by the terms and
conditions of this Order. No change in ownership or corporate status shall alter the Port's
responsibility under this Order. The Port shall provide a copy of this Order to all agents,
contractors, and subcontractors retained to perform work required by this Order, and shall ensure
that all work undertaken by such agents, contractors, and subcontractors complies with this
Order.

Agreed Order No. DE 8938
Page 4 of 43

IV.

DEFINITIONS

Unless otherwise specified herein, the definitions set forth in Chapter 70.105D RCW and
Chapter 173-340 WAC shall control the meanings of the terms used in this Order.
1.

1998 Order means Agreed Order No. DE 98HW-N108, entered in 1998 by

Ecology, the Port, Burlington Environmental Inc., then a wholly owned subsidiary of Philip
Services Corp. ("Philip"), and Pacific Northern Oil Corporation ("PNO") for the purpose of
conducting a remedial investigation/feasibility study (RI/FS).
2.

2010 Order means Agreed Order No. DE 7321, entered in 2010 by Ecology and

the Port for the purpose of completing the work required by the 1998 Order, with modifications
that reflected circumstances that had changed since the 1998 Order.
3.

Agreed Order or Order: Refers to this Order and each of the exhibits to the Order.

All exhibits are integral and enforceable parts of this Order. The terms "Agreed Order" or
"Order" shall include all exhibits to the Order.
4.

Dangerous Waste means any solid waste designated under the procedures of

WAC 173-303-070 through -100 as dangerous, extremely hazardous, or mixed waste.
Dangerous wastes are hazardous substances under RCW 70.105D.020(10).
5.

Discrete Unit means an area affected by the release of Hazardous Substances at

Terminal 91, within either the Upland or the Tank Farm Affected Area, that requires
investigation or remediation separate from and in addition to the CAP.
6.

Hazardous Substances has the meaning provided by RCW 70.105D.020(10).

7.

Parties: Refers to the State of Washington, Department of Ecology, and the Port

of Seattle.
8.

Port: Refers to the Port of Seattle.

9.

Permit means dangerous waste facility permit WAD000812917, issued to the Port

pursuant to 70.105 RCW for this facility. This definition will also apply to any successor permit
to permit WAD000812917 for this facility.

Agreed Order No. DE 8938
Page 5 of 43

10.

Site: The Site is referred to as the Port of Seattle, Terminal 91. The Site includes

areas where releases of Hazardous Substances originating from the Terminal 91 Facility have
come to be located, and is generally located at 2001 West Garfield Street, Seattle, Washington.
The Site is defined by the extent of contamination caused by the releases of Hazardous
Substances and may include both submerged lands and uplands. The Site, as currently known to
exist, is depicted in Exhibit B to this Order. The Site is comprised of three separate and distinct
areas: (1) the Tank Farm Affected Area; (2) the Submerged Lands Area; and (3) the Upland
Area. The Site constitutes a Facility under RCW 70.105D.020(5).
11.

Submerged Lands Area means that part of the Terminal 91 Facility covered by

marine waters, generally located on the southern portion of the Terminal 91 Facility and adjacent
to Piers 90 and 91, as generally depicted in Exhibit B.
12.

Tank Farm Affected Area comprises the Tank Farm Lease Parcel and any areas

where Hazardous Substances originating from the Tank Farm Lease Parcel have come to be
located. The term "Tank Farm Affected Area" has the same meaning that the term "Site" was
given under the 1998 Order. The Tank Farm Affected Area, as believed to be located as of the
date of this Order, is depicted generally in Exhibit B.
13.

Tank Farm Lease Parcel consists of approximately four acres within Terminal 91

shown in Exhibit B. The Tank Farm Lease Parcel formerly was the site of a tank farm,
demolished in 2005, which had for a time operated as a Dangerous Waste facility.
14.

Terminal 91 Facility means the real property owned by the Port of Seattle

encompassing approximately 216 acres and located at 2001 West Garfield Street, Seattle,
Washington, as depicted in Exhibit B. This definition is based on the current definition of
"facility" found in WAC 173-303-040 (for purposes of implementing a corrective action).
15.

Upland Area means that part of the Terminal 91 Facility other than the

Submerged Lands Area and the Tank Farm Affected Area, as generally depicted in Exhibit B.

Agreed Order No. DE 8938
Page 6 of 43

V.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Ecology makes the following findings of fact, without any express or implied admissions
of such facts by the Port:
1.

The Site is located on the northern side of Elliott Bay generally at 2001 West

Garfield Street, Seattle, Washington. The Site is located on Smith Cove and the Smith Cove
Waterway on the Elliott Bay waterfront. The Site location is generally depicted in the diagram
attached to this Agreed Order as Exhibit B.
2.

The Site is listed on the Department of Ecology's Hazardous Sites List as "Seattle

Port Terminal 91," under Facility Site ID No. 24768 with a hazard ranking of 1.
3.

The Port is the current owner of the entire Terminal 91 Facility which covers

approximately 216 acres, of which the Tank Farm Lease Parcel covers approximately four acres.
4.

A tank farm was built on the Tank Farm Lease Parcel in or about 1926. The Tank

Farm Lease Parcel was operated by various oil companies until December 1941 when the United
States Navy took possession of the entire Terminal 91 Facility through condemnation. In about
1972, the Navy declared the Terminal 91 Facility as surplus. The Port began managing the
Terminal 91 Facility, and in 1976 the Port acquired the Terminal 91 Facility. The Terminal 91
Facility remains under the Port's management and ownership at the present time. The Port
removed all of the tanks and a number of buildings at the Tank Farm Lease Parcel as part of a
MTCA independent interim remedial action reported in October 2005.
5.

Burlington Environmental Inc. and its predecessors and successors will herein be

referred to as "Philip." Philip operated the Tank Farm Lease Parcel from about June 1971, when
it began leasing the Tank Farm Lease Parcel from the Port, through September 1995 when its
occupancy ended. Philip operated the Tank Farm Lease Parcel as a regulated dangerous waste
management facility on or after November 19, 1980, the date which subjects facilities to federal
RCRA permitting requirements under 40 C.F.R. § 264, and Chapter 173-303 WAC,
Washington's Dangerous Waste Regulations.

Agreed Order No. DE 8938
Page 7 of 43

6.

On November 14, 1980, EPA was notified of dangerous waste management

activities on the Terminal 91 Lease Parcel when the Part A form of the RCRA permit application
was filed. Pursuant to the November 14, 1980, notification, EPA issued identification number
WAD000812917 for this facility.

EPA received a Part B portion of the RCRA permit

application to obtain a final status permit for a dangerous waste treatment, storage and disposal
facility on November 8, 1988. There were numerous revisions to the draft Part B application,
but the Final Status Facility Permit was issued July 22, 1992, with an effective date of
August 22, 1992. The Port was named as a permittee since the Port owns the property. Active
dangerous waste operations ceased at the permitted Tank Farm Lease Parcel in September 1995,
and Ecology approved the above-ground closure work in 2003.
7.

Hazardous Substances have been released into the environment at this Site.

Hazardous Substances have been detected in either soil or groundwater at the Site as detailed in
reports generated under the 1998 and 2010 Orders. Those Hazardous Substances detected at the
Site included, but are not limited to, total petroleum hydrocarbons, volatile organic compounds,
semi-volatile organic compounds, polychlorinated biphenyls, and metals.
8.

In 1998, Ecology entered into Agreed Order No. DE 98HW-N108 (the "1998

Order") with the Port, Philip, and PNO.
9.

In December 2003, the State of Washington resolved certain claims against Philip

relating to the cleanup of the Site in a consent decree filed in United States Bankruptcy Court, In
re Philip Services Corporation, 310 B.R. 802 (Bankr. S.D. Tex. 2004) (No. 03-37718-H2-11).
10.

The Port has performed various remedial actions with respect to various releases

at the Terminal 91 Facility pursuant to its registration in Ecology's Voluntary Cleanup Program
under the application submitted March 10, 1999. Such remedial actions were performed to
address corrective action requirements imposed by the Permit, and have generally been reported
to Ecology as part of the cleanup of the Upland Area.

Agreed Order No. DE 8938
Page 8 of 43

11.

On June 29, 2010, Ecology and the Port entered into the 2010 Order, which

required the Port to develop a draft cleanup action plan (DCAP) for the Tank Farm Affected
Area and address contamination in the Upland Area of the Site.
12.

Under the 2010 Order, the Port developed a DCAP. The DCAP and related State

Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) determination of non-significance were issued by Ecology for
public comment. After the public comment period, Ecology selected the remedy and the cleanup
action plan was approved in a letter from Ecology to the Port on December 15, 2010. This
cleanup action plan (CAP) is attached as Exhibit A.
VI.
1.

ECOLOGY DETERMINATIONS

The Port is an "owner or operator" as defined in RCW 70.105D.020(17), of a

"facility" as defined in RCW 70.105D.020(5). A Final Status Dangerous Waste Permit was
issued July 22, 1992, to Philip as operator and the Port as owner of the property. Under WAC
173-303-64630(3), Ecology is requiring the owner of a facility to fulfill the corrective action
responsibilities through this Agreed Order issued pursuant to the Model Toxics Control Act
(MTCA).
2.

Based upon all factors known to Ecology, a "release" or "threatened release" of

"Hazardous Substance(s)" as defined in RCW 70.105D.020(25) and RCW 70.105D.020(10),
respectively, has occurred at the Site.
3.

Based upon credible evidence, Ecology issued a PLP status letter to the Port dated

July 3, 1996, pursuant to RCW 70.105D.040, -.020(16), and WAC 173-340-500.

After

providing for notice and opportunity for comment, reviewing any comments submitted, and
concluding that credible evidence supported a finding of potential liability, Ecology issued a
determination that the Port is a PLP under RCW 70.105D.040 and notified the Port of this
determination by letter dated August 15, 1996.
4.

Pursuant to RCW 70.105D.030(1) and -.050(1), Ecology may require PLPs to

investigate or conduct other remedial actions with respect to any release or threatened release of

Agreed Order No. DE 8938
Page 9 of 43

Hazardous Substances, whenever it believes such action to be in the public interest. Based on
the foregoing facts, Ecology believes the remedial actions required by this Order are in the public
interest.
5.

The remedial actions undertaken by the Port described in Section V.10 and in

relation to the development and implementation of the Data Gaps Investigation Work Plan are
subsumed under this Order and shall be considered an integral part of the Work to be Performed.
The Data Gaps Investigation Work Plan involves activities that are being conducted to collect
additional information necessary to proceed with a detailed design for the final cleanup for the
Tank Farm Affected Area.
6.

Unless otherwise specified, Ecology will use the definitions and requirements for

allowable financial assurance mechanisms set forth in the current financial assurance rules
covering closure and post-closure in 40 C.F.R. § 264.141-.143, 40 C.F.R. § 264.145, 40 C.F.R. §
264.151, and WAC 173-303-620 will be the definitions and requirements for allowable financial
assurance for corrective action under this Order. Ecology will apply these definitions and
requirements to this corrective action, except that the words "corrective action" shall be
substituted for the words "closure" or "post-closure" in the above listed regulations as needed to
produce this result.
7.

In the absence of final federal regulations governing financial assurance for

corrective action, Ecology's Financial Assurance Officer will use the following resources as
guidance in implementing the financial assurance provisions of this Order:
a.

The Financial Assurance for Corrective Action Proposed Rule, 51 Fed.

Reg. 37853 (Oct. 24, 1986);
b.

The financial assurance provisions of Corrective Action for Releases from

Solid Waste Management Units Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 61 Fed. Reg.
19432 (May 1, 1996);

Agreed Order No. DE 8938
Page 10 of 43

c.

The Interim Guidance on Financial Responsibility for Facilities Subject to

RCRA Corrective Action (U.S. EPA, Sept. 30, 2003); and/or
d.

Any other guidance applicable to financial assurance and corrective action

that may be available at the time.
Ecology intends to use the financial assurance provisions of the Corrective Action for
Solid Waste Management Units at Hazardous Waste Management Facilities, 55 Fed. Reg. 30798
(July 27, 1990), as secondary guidance. Unless otherwise specified herein, where the language
of this Order conflicts with these rules, proposed rules, notices, and guidance documents, the
language of this Order will prevail.
VII.

WORK TO BE PERFORMED

Based on the foregoing Facts and Determinations, it is hereby ordered that the Port
perform or ensure the performance of the following remedial actions and that these actions be
conducted in accordance with Chapter 173-340 WAC (MTCA) unless otherwise specifically
provided for herein.
A.

Work to Be Performed under the CAP
The Port's obligations in relation to the Tank Farm Affected Area are to complete work

identified in the approved CAP.
Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Ecology Determinations, it is hereby agreed
that the Port shall perform the following remedial actions and that these actions be conducted in
accordance with Chapter 173-340 WAC and applicable provisions of Chapter 173-303 WAC,
unless otherwise specifically provided for herein. All work undertaken pursuant to this Order
shall be developed and performed, as appropriate and approved by Ecology, in accordance with
the approved Work Plans and all other applicable federal and state regulations.

More

specifically:
1.

Cleanup Action Plan. Exhibit A to this Order contains the CAP for the site.

Except where specifically provided in this Order, Exhibit A is incorporated by reference

Agreed Order No. DE 8938
Page 11 of 43

and is an integral and enforceable part of this Order. The Port shall implement the
cleanup action described in the CAP in accordance with requirements of WAC 173-303400 and the items established in 1 through 6 below in this Section (A).
2.

Schedule.

The remedial actions for the Tank Farm Affected Area will be

conducted consistent with the Tank Farm Affected Area Project Schedule in Exhibit F to
this Order, which shall replace the schedule included in the CAP.
3.

Data Gaps. If data gaps exist, then either Ecology or the Port may propose

additional work to fill the data gaps subject to Section VIII.L of this Order. If parties
cannot agree on the need for additional work to fill data gaps, this would trigger the
conflict resolution protocol described under Section VIII.J.
4.

Engineering Design. Consistent with the schedule in Exhibit F, the Port shall

prepare the engineering design for the cleanup action described in the CAP in accordance
with the requirements of WAC 173-340-400(4).

The engineering design shall be

completed in the following three stages: (i) design basis memorandum (30% Design), (ii)
draft engineering design Report (EDR) (90% Design), and (iii) final EDR (100%
Design).
a.

Design Basis Memorandum (30% Design). The Port shall submit a

Design Basis Memorandum (DBM) to Ecology at approximately the 30 percent
completion stage of the design process. The intent of the DBM is to utilize the
information collected during the Data Gap Investigation Work Plan, Terminal 91
Tank Farm Affected Area, 2011 (approved October 17, 2011) to present the
general engineering concepts and criteria used for design of the cleanup action.
The DBM will include all components of the selected remedy, including the
presumptive remedies specified in the CAP.

The DBM will include design

concepts and objectives, the rationale for major design decisions, preliminary
layout drawings of major design components, and a list of anticipated

Agreed Order No. DE 8938
Page 12 of 43

construction plans and technical specifications to be included in the Draft EDR.
Ecology will review the DBM and provide comments to the Port. Ecology's
comments on the DBM will be addressed during preparation of the Draft EDR,
and the DBM will not be reissued as a stand-alone document.
b.

Draft Engineering Design Report (90% Design). In accordance with

the Schedule (Exhibit F), the Port shall submit a draft EDR to Ecology in
accordance with the requirements of WAC 173-340-400(4) and the CAP. The
EDR shall build on the information contained in the DBM and address Ecology's
comments on the DBM and shall document the detailed engineering concepts,
objectives, and criteria used for design of the cleanup action.

Information

contained in the EDR will be of sufficient detail to provide for the development
and review of construction plans and specifications for all components of the
selected remedy, including presumptive remedies specified in the CAP. The EDR
will include a detailed implementation plan including an implementation
schedule. The implementation schedule will include a critical-path Gantt chart
timeline showing anticipated dates and timeframes for all post-EDR deliverables
and cleanup action elements.
The EDR may be a single document containing plans for all elements of
the cleanup action, or the Port may choose to establish separate EDRs specific to
particular elements or groups of elements of the cleanup action. The EDR itself
shall contain the information indicated below with an asterisk (*). For other
required deliverables/activities below, if the EDR does not contain the
deliverable, the EDR shall propose a schedule and due date for submitting, or
carrying out, the respective document or action:
1)

Construction Plans and Specifications (CPS) consistent with WAC

173-340-400(4)(b).* The CPS document will include design drawings and

Agreed Order No. DE 8938
Page 13 of 43

specifications sufficient to proceed with construction, and will provide the
basis for development of a detailed cost estimate. All permits necessary to
complete the cleanup will be identified and included with the CPS*.
2)

A Construction Health and Safety Plan.

3)

A Construction Quality Assurance (CQA) Plan.*

4)

Documentation of the establishment of exposure and other

institutional controls consistent with WAC 173-340-440. Consistent with
the

CAP,

a

combination

of

institutional

controls

and

public

communications must be implemented.
5)

An implementation schedule for all components of the cleanup

action.*
6)

An Operation and Maintenance Plan (O&M Plan) consistent with

WAC 173-340-400(4)(c) for long-term care of the remedy components
including the containment wall, asphalt cover, LNAPL recovery system,
and other components required to ensure that the remedy remains
protective of human health and the environment.
7)

A Compliance Monitoring Plan (CMP) consistent with the

requirements of WAC 173-340-410 that specifies the types and frequency
of monitoring to be performed to document the performance of the cleanup
action. The CMP will include a Monitored Natural Attenuation (MNA)
Monitoring Plan.
c.

Revised EDR.

Ecology shall review the draft EDR and provide

comments. In accordance with the Schedule (Exhibit F), the Port shall submit a
revised EDR that addresses Ecology's comments. Ecology will then approve the
revised EDR as the final deliverable, approve the revised EDR with changes or
conditions, or disapprove the revised EDR and provide additional comments to

Agreed Order No. DE 8938
Page 14 of 43

the Port. If Ecology disapproves the revised EDR, the Port shall revise the EDR
to address Ecology's comments and submit a new revision within forty-five (45)
days of receiving Ecology's latest comments. This process shall be repeated, as
necessary, until a satisfactory EDR is submitted, or a determination is made under
paragraph VIII.J (Resolution of Disputes) below.
5.

Implementation of Cleanup Action. The Port shall implement the cleanup

action in accordance with the approved EDR, any approved plans submitted after the
EDR has been approved, and applicable requirements in WAC 173-340-400(6). After
completing any construction required by the EDR, the Port will prepare and submit a
cleanup Implementation Report (i.e., as-built report) (Implementation Report).

The

Implementation Report will be prepared in accordance with WAC 173-340-400(6)(b) and
will include as-built drawings, documentation developed pursuant to the CQA Plan, and
documentation for implementation of institutional controls. The approved EDR may
propose whether there will be a single Implementation Report for the entire remedy, or
multiple Implementation Reports for selected remedial components. As required by
WAC 173-340-400(6)(c), a revised cost estimate will be included in the cleanup
Implementation Report with a copy of a revised financial assurance document.
The cleanup Implementation Report (or, Reports, if multiple reports are required
for preparation) shall be submitted as "Draft" by the due date(s) established in the
approved EDR. Ecology shall review each draft Implementation Report and provide
comments.

Within forty-five (45) days of receiving Ecology's comments on an

Implementation Report, the Port shall submit a revised report as the final deliverable.
Ecology will then approve the revised report, approve the revised report with changes or
conditions, or disapprove the revised report and provide additional comments to the Port.
If Ecology disapproves a revised Implementation Report, the Port shall revise the report

Agreed Order No. DE 8938
Page 15 of 43

to satisfactorily address Ecology's comments and submit a new revision within thirty (30)
days of receiving Ecology's latest comments.
6.

Operation and Maintenance, and Compliance Monitoring.

Following

completion of the construction of the cleanup action, the Port will implement the
approved O&M Plan and CMP.
7.

Construction Discoveries in the TFAA. The Port may conduct remedial actions

with respect to unanticipated discoveries encountered within the Tank Farm Affected
Area in compliance with the Contamination Contingency Plan (Exhibit E).
B.

Work to Be Performed in the Submerged Lands Area
To the extent that Hazardous Substances are discovered in the Submerged Lands Area,

the Parties agree that it is not practicable at this time to address any such contamination until
potential contributing upland sources can be identified and remedied. Additional information
would be required to do so; for example, identifying and addressing sources potentially
contributing to such contamination, including sources such as stormwater that originated from
other industrial properties in the area surrounding the Terminal 91 Facility. The necessity for
and the practicability of remediation in the Submerged Lands Area will be reevaluated by the
agency as it continues to monitor the site through the review of the quarterly progress reports and
future changes to environmental regulations, but no later than 10 years after the effective date of
this Order.
C.

Work to Be Performed for Releases Not Addressed by CAP
1.

For Known Discrete Units: For Discrete Units of which the Port is aware as of

the effective date of this Order, the Port has the obligations identified below. These
known Discrete Units are identified and listed in Exhibit C hereto.
a.

For Discrete Units listed in Subpart A of Exhibit C (Discrete Units to Be

Addressed During Redevelopment), Ecology has determined that these releases
do not pose an immediate threat to human health and the environment.

Agreed Order No. DE 8938
Page 16 of 43

Accordingly, remedial action for them shall be done in conjunction with the
Port's redevelopment of these areas. If the Port has not initiated redevelopment
and remedial actions in this area within ten (10) years of the effective date of this
Order, the Port shall conduct the remedial actions on a schedule approved by
Ecology regardless of the status of the Port's redevelopment. Such work shall be
conducted, reported and evaluated as described in Subsection VII.C.1.b.
b.

For Discrete Units listed in Subpart B of Exhibit C (Discrete Units to Be

Addressed under Work Plans and Schedules), the Port shall:
1)

Submit a work plan (or other appropriate documentation needed

for completion) to Ecology for addressing the contamination within a time
frame agreed to by Ecology. Any such work plan, once approved in
writing by Ecology, becomes an integral and enforceable part of this
Order. The scope and detail of any such work plan shall be commensurate
with the scope and complexity of the appropriate cleanup action
necessary, and should be submitted for review and approval by Ecology.
2)

Within ninety (90) days of completing the approved remedial

action, the Port shall submit a written report describing the actions taken.
3)

Ecology shall evaluate such remedial actions to determine whether

they meet the substantive requirements of Chapter 173-340 WAC and
whether Ecology believes that further remedial action is necessary.
Exhibit C shall be updated to reflect Ecology's determination.
2.

For Newly Discovered Discrete Units:
a.

The parties may discover new Discrete Units at the Terminal 91 Facility,

which may require a formal amendment of this Order. Section VIII.L requires
formal amendment of this Order in the event of "substantial" changes to the work
to be performed, with "minor" changes to be documented without formal

Agreed Order No. DE 8938
Page 17 of 43

amendment. For purposes of releases under subsection VII.C.2, additional work
to address them shall be considered "substantial" if the releases are of a kind that
would generally be addressed under an agreed order in their own right. Based on
previous investigations and site history at the Terminal 91 Facility, non-exclusive
examples of minor releases and/or minor changes to remedial actions include:
1)

releases subject to the Contamination Contingency Plan;

2)

closure, site assessment, and remediation of releases from USTs

used for petroleum storage (subject to language in example 5);
3)

releases affecting soil but not groundwater;

4)

routine disposal of contaminated soil excavated as part of

construction activities;
5)

releases affecting groundwater in which the only hazardous

substances over cleanup levels are petroleum-related and the extent of the
contamination plume does not appear to be extensive;
6)

removal of accumulated petroleum product from excavation water

in cases where construction excavations extend below the water table;
7)

installation and operation of product recovery/product monitoring

wells or other structures such as product recovery/product monitoring
vaults;
8)

application of ORC or other commonly used remedial products

to groundwater to assist in degrading petroleum constituents; and
9)

cleaning,

decommissioning

in

place,

and/or

removal

of

underground fuel pipelines.
b.

For contamination discovered in the context of Port construction activities

that is a reportable release under WAC 173-340-300, the Port will follow the

Agreed Order No. DE 8938
Page 18 of 43

Contamination Contingency Work Plan, attached as Exhibit E hereto.

The

Contamination Contingency Plan is an integral and enforceable part of this Order.
1)

Within ninety (90) days of completing a remedial action under the

Contamination Contingency Plan (including any interim remedial actions),
the Port shall submit a written report describing the actions taken. In
addition, the Port's next quarterly report shall include a revised version of
Exhibit C listing the release under Subpart C of Exhibit C (Discrete Units
Addressed under the Contamination Contingency Plan).
2)

Ecology shall evaluate such remedial actions to determine whether

they meet the substantive requirements of Chapter 173-340 WAC and
whether Ecology believes that further remedial action is necessary.
3)

If a remedial action the Port conducts under the Contamination

Contingency Plan is an interim action as defined in WAC 173-340-430,
any final cleanup action for that action shall be conducted under the
procedures in either subsection VII.C.1.a or VII.C.1.b. Ecology and the
Port shall consult to determine which subsection's procedures the cleanup
action will proceed under, and shall update Exhibit C to include the
newly-discovered Discrete Units in accordance with Section VIII.L,
through either the informal or formal process. In the event the Port and
Ecology disagree, Ecology shall make the final decision, subject to dispute
resolution under Section VIII. J.
c.

For newly-discovered releases of hazardous substances and

Discrete Units the Port finds outside the context of construction, the Port shall
report the Units pursuant to Section VII.G.
d.

The Port's obligations to address newly discovered Discrete Units

pursuant to Subsection VII.C 2 are subject to relief if the Port demonstrates that

Agreed Order No. DE 8938
Page 19 of 43

the contamination is the result of a plume for which the Port would not be
considered an "owner or operator" pursuant to RCW 70.105D.020(17)(b)(iv) (or
similar provision granting relief for the owner of land affected by a migrating
plume of Hazardous Substances).
D.

General Requirements Applicable to All Work Performed Under This Section
1.

Data Reporting. The Port shall follow the reporting guidelines in WAC 173-

340-840 for all parts of this Order unless otherwise agreed to by both Ecology and the
Port in writing. All data generated pursuant to this Order shall be submitted to EcologyNWRO, including all outlier and duplicate data. In addition, all sampling data generated
pursuant to this Order shall be submitted to Ecology-NWRO as copies of the original
reported laboratory data sheets, in tabulated data format and in an electronic format
approved by Ecology for all referenced environmental media.

Laboratory detection

limits and practical quantitation limits shall be reported for each constituent concentration
detected.
2.

Progress Reports.

The Port shall submit status reports to Ecology-NWRO

quarterly on or before January 20, April 20, July 20, and October 20 of each year, and
continuing until all of the requirements of this Order are completed to Ecology's
satisfaction. The submittal shall address the three-month activity period ending twenty
(20) days before the report is due. The Port shall include the following in each status
report:
a.

All work conducted pursuant to this Agreed Order during the last three

month period;
b.

Occurrence of any problems, how problems were rectified, deviations

from the work plans and an explanation of all deviations;
c.

Projected work to occur in the upcoming three months;

Agreed Order No. DE 8938
Page 20 of 43

d.

Summaries of significant findings, changes in personnel, summaries of

significant contacts with all federal, state, local community, and public interest
groups;
e.

Monitoring data collected pursuant to the CMP, not separately reported,

(as copies of the original laboratory reporting data sheets, and in tabulated data
format) for which quality assurance procedures are completed during the threemonth period;
f.

Information collected pursuant to the approved O&M Plan necessary to

document to continued performance of the cleanup action;
g.

Any newly discovered releases at the Terminal 91 Facility, and the Port's

proposed classification of such releases (that is, under either Subpart A, B, or C of
Exhibit C); and
h.

An updated version of Exhibit C to this Order to reflect any newly

discovered releases and their classification for remedial action, when the
classification is approved by Ecology.
E.

Deliverables
Once approved in writing by Ecology, all deliverables the Port submits to Ecology under

this Order are incorporated by reference and become enforceable parts of this Order, as if fully
set forth herein.

During the performance of work under an approved deliverable, field

modifications to the submittal may be agreed to orally by the Project Coordinators. In such case,
the Port shall submit a description of the field modification to Ecology's Project Coordinator in
writing within seven (7) days after the oral agreement, and Ecology's Project Coordinator shall
provide written confirmation of the agreed modification. Such field modifications would be
subject to VIII.L's terms concerning amendments to the Order.
//
//

Agreed Order No. DE 8938
Page 21 of 43

F.

Remedy for Insufficient Progress
If, at any time after the first exchange of comments on drafts, Ecology determines that

insufficient progress is being made in the preparation of any of the deliverables required by this
section, Ecology may, after providing written notice and a reasonable opportunity to cure,
complete and issue the final deliverable.
G.

Reporting Newly Discovered Releases
The Port shall provide notice by email to Ecology of any newly-identified release(s) of

hazardous substances at the Terminal 91 Facility as required by WAC 173-340-300 (or any
successor provision).

The Port shall provide such notice as soon as practical following

confirmation of the release, but in no case beyond the 90-day reporting requirement established
by WAC 173-340-300. The Port shall also include a report of the newly identified releases in the
quarterly progress report as described in Section VII.D.2 of this Order; inclusion in the quarterly
report may satisfy the reporting requirement if timely. Newly-identified releases need not be
reported if no report would be required under WAC 173-340-300. With the report, the Port shall
propose for Ecology's review and approval an appropriate framework for responding to the
discovery under this Order, either VII.C.1.a (to be addressed in redevelopment); VII.C.1.b (to be
addressed through a release-specific work plan and schedule), or through the VII.C.2.b., the
Contamination Contingency Plan (for releases discovered and addressed during construction).
Ecology shall respond to the Port's proposed classification within ninety (90) days of receiving
the quarterly report, either approving the classification, disapproving it, or requesting further
information. Once Ecology has approved the classification, the Parties shall update Exhibit C as
necessary to incorporate the newly identified release and approved classification.
VIII. TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF ORDER
A.

Public Notice
RCW 70.105D.030(2)(a) and WAC 173-340-600(11)(c) require that, at a minimum, this

Order be subject to concurrent public notice. Ecology shall be responsible for providing such

Agreed Order No. DE 8938
Page 22 of 43

public notice and reserves the right to modify or withdraw any provisions of this Order should
public comment disclose facts or considerations which indicate to Ecology that this Order is
inadequate or improper in any respect.
B.

Remedial Action Costs
The Port shall pay to Ecology costs incurred by Ecology pursuant to this Order and

consistent with WAC 173-340-550(2). These costs shall include work performed by Ecology or
its contractors for, or on, the Site under Chapter 70.105D RCW, including remedial actions and
Order preparation, negotiation, oversight, and administration. These costs shall include work
performed both prior to and subsequent to the issuance of this Order. Ecology's costs shall
include costs of direct activities and support costs of direct activities as defined in WAC 173340-550(2). The Port shall pay the required amount within ninety (90) days of receiving from
Ecology an itemized statement of costs that includes a summary of costs incurred, an
identification of involved staff, and the amount of time spent by involved staff members on the
project. A general statement of work performed will be provided upon request. Itemized
statements shall be prepared quarterly.

Pursuant to WAC 173-340-550(4), failure to pay

Ecology's costs within ninety (90) days of receipt of the itemized statement of costs will result in
interest charges at the rate of twelve percent (12%) per annum, compounded monthly.
Pursuant to RCW 70.105D.055, Ecology has authority to recover unreimbursed remedial
action costs by filing a lien against real property subject to the remedial actions.
C.

Implementation of Remedial Action
If Ecology determines that the Port has failed without good cause to implement the

remedial actions, in whole or in part, Ecology may, after notice to the Port, perform any or all
remedial actions required by this Order that remain incomplete. If Ecology performs all or
portions of such remedial actions because of the Port's failure to comply with its obligations
under this Order, the Port shall reimburse Ecology for the costs of doing such work in
accordance with Section VIII.B (Remedial Action Costs), provided that the Port is not obligated

Agreed Order No. DE 8938
Page 23 of 43

under this Section to reimburse Ecology for costs incurred for work inconsistent with or beyond
the scope of this Order.
Except where necessary to abate an emergency situation, the Port shall not perform any
remedial actions at the Site outside those remedial actions required by this Order, unless Ecology
concurs, in writing, with such additional remedial actions. Ecology concurs with remedial
actions done in compliance with the Contamination Contingency Plan (Exhibit E) as that Plan is
approved by Ecology.
D.

Designated Project Coordinators
The project coordinator for Ecology is:
Name:
Address:
Phone:
Email:

Galen H. Tritt
Department of Ecology-BFO
1440 10th Street, Suite 102
Bellingham, WA 98225
(360) 715-5200
gtri461@ecy.wa.gov

The project coordinator for the Port is:
Name:
Address:
Phone:
Email:

Susan Roth
Roth Consulting
3937 SW 109th Street
Seattle, WA 98146-1653
(206) 617-2176
susanjroth@comcast.net

Each project coordinator shall be responsible for overseeing the implementation of this
Order. Ecology's project coordinator will be Ecology's designated representative for the Site.
To the maximum extent possible, communications between Ecology and the Port, and all
documents, including reports, approvals, and other correspondence concerning the activities
performed pursuant to the terms and conditions of this Order shall be directed through the project
coordinators. The project coordinators may designate, in writing, working level staff contacts for
all or portions of the implementation of the work to be performed required by this Order.
Any party may change its respective project coordinator. Written notification shall be
given to the other party at least ten (10) calendar days prior to the change.

Agreed Order No. DE 8938
Page 24 of 43

E.

Performance
This Order's terms regarding persons performing "work required by this Order" apply

only to persons who expressly undertake responsibility for performing such work, and not to
Agents/Contractors/Subcontractors of the Port who may take incidental actions subject to the
Order as a result of addressing contamination encountered during construction or utility work.
1.

The Port shall provide a copy of this Order to all agents, contractors, and

subcontractors retained to perform work required by this Order, and shall ensure that all
work undertaken by such agents, contractors, and subcontractors complies with this
Order.
2.

All geologic and hydrogeologic work performed pursuant to this Order

shall be under the supervision and direction of a geologist licensed in the State of
Washington or under the direct supervision of an engineer registered in the State of
Washington, except as otherwise provided for by Chapters 18.220 and 18.43 RCW.
3.

All engineering work performed pursuant to this Order shall be under the

direct supervision of a professional engineer registered in the State of Washington, except
as otherwise provided for by RCW 18.43.130.
4.

All construction work performed pursuant to this Order shall be under the

direct supervision of a professional engineer or a qualified technician under the direct
supervision of a professional engineer. The professional engineer must be registered in
the State of Washington, except as otherwise provided for by RCW 18.43.130.
5.

Any documents submitted containing geologic, hydrologic or engineering

work shall be under the seal of an appropriately licensed professional as required by
Chapter 18.220 RCW or RCW 18.43.130.
The Port shall notify Ecology in writing of the identity of any engineering, geology
contractor and subcontractor firms and other firms to be used in carrying out the terms of this
Order in advance of their involvement at the Site.

Agreed Order No. DE 8938
Page 25 of 43

F.

Access
Ecology or any Ecology authorized representative shall have the full authority to enter

and freely move about all property at the Site that the Port either owns, controls, or has access
rights to at all reasonable times, consistent with federal law, for the purposes of, inter alia:
inspecting records, operation logs, and contracts related to the work being performed pursuant to
this Order; reviewing the Port's progress in carrying out the terms of this Order; conducting such
tests or collecting such samples as Ecology may deem necessary; using a camera, sound
recording, or other documentary-type equipment to record work done pursuant to this Order; and
verifying the data submitted to Ecology by the Port. The Port shall make all reasonable efforts to
secure access rights for those properties within the Site not owned or controlled by the Port
where remedial activities or investigations will be performed pursuant to this Order. Ecology or
any Ecology authorized representative shall give reasonable notice before entering any Site
property owned or controlled by the Port unless an emergency prevents such notice. All persons
who access the Site pursuant to this Section shall comply with any applicable Health and Safety
Plan(s), and with any applicable federal law, such as that regulating access for homeland security
purposes. Ecology employees and their representatives shall not be required to sign any liability
release or waiver as a condition of Site property access.
G.

Sampling, Data Submittal, and Availability
With respect to the implementation of this Order, the Port shall make the results of all

sampling, laboratory reports, and/or test results generated by it or on its behalf available to
Ecology. Pursuant to WAC 173-340-840(5), all sampling data shall be submitted to Ecology in
both printed and electronic formats in accordance with Section VII (Work to be Performed),
Ecology's Toxics Cleanup Program Policy 840 (Data Submittal Requirements), and/or any
subsequent procedures specified by Ecology for data submittal.
If requested by Ecology, the Port shall allow split or duplicate samples to be taken by
Ecology and/or its authorized representative of any samples collected by the Port pursuant to

Agreed Order No. DE 8938
Page 26 of 43

implementation of this Order. The Port shall notify Ecology seven (7) days in advance of
collecting samples at the Site pursuant to this Order; provided, however, that Ecology may waive
this notification requirement and accept samples where they were collected during construction
projects or other circumstances where sampling was prudent or necessary but unplanned; and
provided further, sampling conducted pursuant to the approved Contamination Contingency Plan
(Exhibit E) shall not require separate reporting as a result of this subsection. Ecology shall, upon
request, allow split or duplicate samples of any samples collected by Ecology pursuant to the
implementation of this Order to be taken by the Port or its authorized representative provided it
does not interfere with Ecology's sampling.

Without limitation on Ecology's rights under

Section VIII.F of this Order, Ecology shall notify the Port prior to any sample collection activity
unless an emergency prevents such notice.
In accordance with WAC 173-340-830(2)(a), all hazardous substance analyses shall be
conducted by a laboratory accredited under Chapter 173-50 WAC for the specific analyses to be
conducted, unless otherwise approved by Ecology.
H.

Public Participation
A Public Participation Plan is required for this Site. The approved Public Participation

Plan is attached as Exhibit D.
Ecology shall maintain the responsibility for public participation at the Site. However,
the Port shall cooperate with Ecology, and shall:
1.

If agreed to by Ecology, develop appropriate mailing list, prepare drafts of public

notices and fact sheets at important stages of the remedial action, such as the submission of work
plans, remedial investigation/feasibility study reports, cleanup action plans, and engineering
design reports. As appropriate, Ecology will edit, finalize, and distribute such fact sheets and
prepare and distribute public notices of Ecology's presentations and meetings.
2.

Notify Ecology's project coordinator prior to the preparation of all press releases

and fact sheets, if they concern implementation of this Order, and before any such major

Agreed Order No. DE 8938
Page 27 of 43

meetings with the interested public and local governments. Likewise, Ecology shall notify the
Port prior to the issuance of all press releases and fact sheets, and before major meetings with the
interested public and local governments, all to the extent they concern implementation of this
Order. For all Port press releases, fact sheets, meetings, and other outreach efforts that concern
implementation of this Order that do not receive prior Ecology approval, the Port shall clearly
indicate to its audience that the press release, fact sheet, meeting, or other outreach effort was not
sponsored or endorsed by Ecology.
3.

When requested by Ecology, participate in public presentations on the progress of

the remedial action at the Site. Participation may be through attendance at public meetings to
assist in answering questions or as a presenter.
4.

Except as provided by the approved Public Participation Plan (Exhibit D), when

requested by Ecology, arrange and/or continue information repositories to be located at the
following locations:
a.

On Ecology's website which is freely accessible to the public.

b.

Department of Ecology-NWRO
3190 160th Avenue SE
Bellevue, WA 98008-5452

c.

Seattle Public Library
1000 4th Avenue
Seattle, WA 98104

At a minimum, electronic copies of all public notices, fact sheets, and press releases that concern
implementation of the Order; remedial action plans and reports, supplemental remedial planning
documents, and all other similar documents relating to performance of remedial actions required
by this Order shall be promptly placed in these repositories.
I.

Retention of Records
During the pendency of this Order, and for ten (10) years from the date of completion of

work performed pursuant to this Order, the Port shall preserve all records, reports, documents,
and underlying data in its possession relevant to the implementation of this Order. Upon request

Agreed Order No. DE 8938
Page 28 of 43

of Ecology, the Port shall make all such records available to Ecology and allow access for review
within a reasonable time.
J.

Resolution of Disputes
1.

In the event a dispute arises as to an approval, disapproval, proposed change, or

other decision or action by Ecology's project coordinator, or an itemized billing statement under
Section VIII.B (Remedial Action Costs), the Parties shall utilize the dispute resolution procedure
set forth below.
a.

Upon receipt of Ecology's project coordinator's written decision or the

itemized billing statement, the Port has fourteen (14) days within which to notify
Ecology's project coordinator in writing of its objection to the decision or itemized
statement.
b.

The Parties' project coordinators shall then confer in an effort to resolve

the dispute. If the project coordinators cannot resolve the dispute within fourteen (14)
days, Ecology's project coordinator shall issue a written decision.
c.

The Port may then request regional management review of the decision.

This request shall be submitted in writing to the Hazardous Waste and Toxics Reduction
Section Manager, Northwest Region Office, within seven (7) days of receipt of Ecology's
project coordinator's written decision.
d.

The Section Manager shall conduct a review of the dispute and shall

endeavor to issue a written decision regarding the dispute within thirty (30) days of the
Port's request for review. The Section Manager's decision shall be Ecology's final
decision on the disputed matter.
2.

The Parties agree to only utilize the dispute resolution process in good faith and

agree to expedite, to the extent possible, the dispute resolution process whenever it is used.

Agreed Order No. DE 8938
Page 29 of 43

3.

Implementation of these dispute resolution procedures shall not provide a basis

for delay of any activities required in this Order, unless Ecology agrees in writing to a schedule
extension.
K.

Extension of Schedule
1.

An extension of schedule shall be granted only when a request for an extension is

submitted in a timely fashion, generally at least thirty (30) days prior to expiration of the
deadline for which the extension is requested, and good cause exists for granting the extension.
All extensions shall be requested in writing. The request shall specify:
a.

The deadline that is sought to be extended;

b.

The length of the extension sought;

c.

The reason(s) for the extension; and

d.

Any related deadline or schedule that would be affected if the extension

were granted.
2.

The burden shall be on the Port to demonstrate to the satisfaction of Ecology that

the request for such extension has been submitted in a timely fashion and that good cause exists
for granting the extension. Good cause may include, but may not be limited to:
a.

Circumstances beyond the reasonable control and despite the due

diligence of the Port including delays caused by unrelated third parties or Ecology, such
as (but not limited to) delays by Ecology in reviewing, approving, or modifying
documents submitted by the Port;
b.

Acts of God, including fire, flood, blizzard, extreme temperatures, storm,

or other unavoidable casualty; or
c.

Endangerment as described in Section VIII. M (Endangerment).

However, neither increased costs of performance of the terms of this Order nor changed
economic circumstances shall be considered circumstances beyond the reasonable control of the
Port.

Agreed Order No. DE 8938
Page 30 of 43

3.

Ecology shall act upon any written request for extension in a timely fashion.

Ecology shall give the Port written notification of any extensions granted pursuant to this Order.
A requested extension shall not be effective until approved by Ecology. Unless the extension is
a substantial change, it shall not be necessary to amend this Order pursuant to Section VIII. L
(Amendment of Order) when a schedule extension is granted.
4.

An extension shall only be granted for such period of time as Ecology determines

is reasonable under the circumstances. Ecology may grant schedule extensions exceeding ninety
(90) days only as a result of:
a.

Delays in the issuance of a necessary permit which was applied for in a

timely manner;

L.

b.

Other circumstances deemed exceptional or extraordinary by Ecology; or

c.

Endangerment as described in Section VIII.M (Endangerment).

Amendment of Order
The project coordinators may orally agree to minor changes to the work to be performed

without formally amending this Order. In such a case, the Port shall submit a description of the
minor changes to Ecology's project coordinator in writing within seven (7) days after the oral
agreement. Minor changes will then be documented in writing by Ecology within seven (7) days
after Ecology receives the Port's written description.
Except as provided in Section VIII.N (Reservation of Rights), substantial changes to the
work to be performed shall require formal amendment of this Order. This Order may only be
formally amended by the written consent of both Ecology and the Port. The Port shall submit a
written request for amendment to Ecology for approval. Ecology shall indicate its approval or
disapproval in writing and in a timely manner after the written request for amendment is
received. If the amendment to this Order represents a substantial change, Ecology will provide
public notice and opportunity to comment.

Reasons for the disapproval of a proposed

amendment to this Order shall be stated in writing. If Ecology does not agree to a proposed

Agreed Order No. DE 8938
Page 31 of 43

amendment, the disagreement may be addressed through the dispute resolution procedures
described in Section VIII.J (Resolution of Disputes).
M.

Endangerment
In the event Ecology determines that any activity being performed at the Site is creating

or has the potential to create a danger to human health or the environment on or surrounding the
Site, Ecology may direct the Port to cease such activities for such period of time as it deems
necessary to abate the danger. The Port shall immediately comply with such direction.
In the event the Port determines that any activity being performed at the Site is creating
or has the potential to create a danger to human health or the environment, the Port may cease
such activities. The Port shall notify Ecology's project coordinator as soon as possible, but no
later than twenty-four (24) hours after making such determination or ceasing such activities.
Upon Ecology's direction the Port shall provide Ecology with documentation of the basis for the
determination or cessation of such activities. If Ecology disagrees with the Port's cessation of
activities, it may direct the Port to resume such activities.
If Ecology concurs with or orders a work stoppage pursuant to this Section, the Port's
obligations with respect to the ceased activities shall be suspended until Ecology determines the
danger is abated, and the time for performance of such activities, as well as the time for any other
work dependent upon such activities, shall be extended in accordance with Section VIII.K
(Extension of Schedule) for such period of time as Ecology determines is reasonable under the
circumstances.
Nothing in this Order shall limit the authority of Ecology, its employees, agents, or
contractors to take or require appropriate action in the event of an emergency.
N.

Reservation of Rights
This Order is not a settlement under Chapter 70.105D RCW. Ecology's signature on this

Order in no way constitutes a covenant not to sue or a compromise of any of Ecology's rights or
authority. Ecology will not, however, bring an action against the Port to recover remedial action

Agreed Order No. DE 8938
Page 32 of 43

costs paid to and received by Ecology under this Order, the 1998 Order, or the 2010 Order. In
addition, Ecology will not take additional enforcement actions against the Port regarding
remedial actions required by this Order, provided the Port complies with this Order.
Ecology nevertheless reserves its rights under Chapter 70.105D RCW, including the right
to require additional or different remedial actions at the Site should it deem such actions
necessary to protect human health and the environment, and to issue orders requiring such
remedial actions. Ecology also reserves all rights regarding the injury to, destruction of, or loss
of natural resources resulting from the release or threatened release of hazardous substances at
the Site.
O.

Transfer of Interest in Property
No voluntary conveyance or relinquishment of title, easement, leasehold, or other interest

in the Tank Farm Affected Area shall be consummated by the Port without provision for
continued implementation of all requirements of this Order and implementation of any remedial
actions found to be necessary as a result of this Order.
Prior to the Port's transfer of any interest in the Tank Farm Affected Area likely to
substantially affect the performance of work under this Order, and during the effective period of
this Order, the Port shall provide a copy of this Order to any prospective purchaser, lessee,
transferee, assignee, or other successor in said interest; and, at least fourteen (14) days prior to
any such transfer, the Port shall notify Ecology of said transfer. For purposes of this provision,
only those property interest transfers that involve planned capital improvements (for example,
such as excavation or pile driving) shall be considered likely to substantially affect the
performance of work under this Order. Upon transfer of any such interest, the Port shall restrict
uses and activities to those consistent with this Order and notify all transferees of the restrictions
on the use of the property.

Agreed Order No. DE 8938
Page 33 of 43

P.

Compliance with Applicable Laws
1.

All actions carried out by the Port pursuant to this Order shall be done in

accordance with all applicable federal, state, and local requirements, including requirements to
obtain necessary permits, except as provided in RCW 70.105D.090.
2.

Pursuant to RCW 70.105D.090(1), the Port is exempt from the procedural

requirements of Chapters 70.94, 70.95, 70.105, 77.55, 90.48, and 90.58 RCW and of any laws
requiring or authorizing local government permits or approvals. However, the Port shall comply
with the substantive requirements of such permits or approvals.
The Port has a continuing obligation to determine whether additional permits or
approvals addressed in RCW 70.105D.090(1) would otherwise be required for the remedial
action under this Order. In the event either Ecology or the Port determines that additional
permits or approvals addressed in RCW 70.105D.090(1) would otherwise be required for the
remedial action under this Order, it shall promptly notify the other party of its determination.
Ecology shall determine whether Ecology or the Port shall be responsible to contact the
appropriate state and/or local agencies. If Ecology so requires, the Port shall promptly consult
with the appropriate state and/or local agencies and provide Ecology with written documentation
from those agencies of the substantive requirements those agencies believe are applicable to the
remedial action.

Ecology shall make the final determination on the additional substantive

requirements that must be met by the Port and on how the Port must meet those requirements.
Ecology shall inform the Port in writing of these requirements. Once established by Ecology, the
additional requirements shall be enforceable requirements of this Order. The Port shall not begin
or continue the remedial action potentially subject to the additional requirements until Ecology
makes its final determination.
3.

Pursuant to RCW 70.105D.090(2), in the event Ecology determines that the

exemption from complying with the procedural requirements of the laws referenced in
RCW 70.105D.090(1) would result in the loss of approval from a federal agency that is

Agreed Order No. DE 8938
Page 34 of 43

necessary for the State to administer any federal law, the exemption shall not apply and the Port
shall comply with both the procedural and substantive requirements of the laws referenced in
RCW 70.105D.090(1), including any requirements to obtain permits.
Q.

Financial Assurance
1.

Financial assurance for corrective action is required by WAC 173-303-64620.

Ecology's Financial Assurance Officer shall determine when the Port's actions and submissions
meet the requirements of WAC 173-303-64620.
2.

The Port must submit the executed or otherwise finalized financial assurance

instruments or documents to Ecology's Financial Assurance Officer. In addition, the Port must
also submit copies of financial assurance instruments or documents to Ecology's project
coordinator.
3.

On January 4, 2011, the Port submitted and Ecology later approved a written cost

estimate to cover the following activities at the facility: completion of the CAP, which includes
Ecology's selection of a final remedy, post-cleanup monitoring at the Site, and completion of
remedial actions for Discrete Units identified on Exhibit C. This estimate is subject to annual
adjustments for inflation as set forth in subsection 6 below. If the Port is required to submit an
additional work plan(s), or to conduct activities related to corrective action not previously part of
the original cost estimate, either of which that comprise a substantial change to work required
under this Order as described in Section VIII.L, the following process for review and approval of
the estimate shall be used: the Port shall submit a revised cost estimate concurrent with the
submission of an additional work plan(s).

If Ecology rejects the Port's cost estimate as

submitted, Ecology shall provide to the Port a revised cost estimate amount that will be the
approved cost estimate. Ecology will, if requested by the Port in writing, provide a written
explanation of the variance between the Port's proposed cost estimate and Ecology's approved
cost estimate. If Ecology does not accept, reject, or revise the Port's cost estimate within sixty
(60) days after submittal, the Port's cost estimate will be deemed approved for purposes of this

Agreed Order No. DE 8938
Page 35 of 43

paragraph. Ecology reserves the right to review and revise the Port's cost estimate after the 60day review period. If Ecology revises the Port's cost estimate after the 60-day review period, the
Port will have thirty (30) days after the revision to provide an updated financial assurance
instrument. Within thirty (30) days after Ecology's final approval of the Port's cost estimate
amount or the Port's receipt of Ecology's final approval of the Port's cost estimate amount, the
Port shall establish and maintain continuous coverage of financial assurance in the amount of the
approved cost estimate and submit the applicable financial assurance documentation per
paragraph 2, provided, however, that if the Port uses the financial test mechanism, such
documentation shall be timely if submitted within one hundred fifty (150) days of the end of the
Port's next fiscal year.
4.

If the Port believes that the estimated cost of work to complete activities under

this Order has diminished below the amount covered by existing financial assurance provided
under this Order, the Port may submit a written proposal to Ecology to reduce the amount of the
financial assurance provided under this Section so that the amount of the financial assurance is
equal to the estimated cost of the remaining work to be performed. The written proposal shall
specify, at a minimum, the cost of the remaining work to be performed and the basis upon which
such cost was calculated. If Ecology decides to accept such a proposal, Ecology shall notify the
Port of its decision in writing. After receiving Ecology's written decision, the Port may reduce
the amount of financial assurance only in accordance with and to the extent permitted by such
written decision. Within thirty (30) days after receipt of Ecology's written decision, the Port
shall submit the applicable financial assurance documentation per paragraph 2. No change to the
form or terms of any financial assurance provided under this Section, other than a reduction in
amount, is authorized under this paragraph.
5.

All cost estimates must be based on the costs to the owner or operator of hiring a

third party to complete the work. A third party is neither a parent nor a subsidiary of the Port.
On a case-by-case basis, Ecology may also determine that a company which shares a common

Agreed Order No. DE 8938
Page 36 of 43

higher-tier corporate parent or subsidiary might not qualify as a third party. A cost estimate may
not incorporate any salvage value that may be realized with the sale of wastes, facility structures
or equipment, land, or other assets associated with the facility.

The Port may also not

incorporate a zero cost for wastes that might have economic value.
6.

The Port shall annually adjust all cost estimates for inflation. Adjustments for

inflation shall be calculated in accordance with the procedure outlined in 40 C.F.R. § 264.142(b).
7.

Acceptable financial assurance mechanisms are trust funds, surety bonds, letters

of credit, insurance, the financial test, and the corporate guarantee. Ecology may allow other
financial assurance mechanisms if they are consistent with the laws of the State of Washington
and if the Port demonstrates to the satisfaction of Ecology that those mechanisms provide
adequate financial assurance.
8.

If the Port is using the financial test or corporate guarantee to meet its financial

assurance obligation, the annual inflationary adjustment shall occur within one hundred fifty
(150) days after the close of the Port's fiscal year. If the Port is using any mechanism other than
the financial test or corporate guarantee, this adjustment shall occur each year within thirty (30)
days after the anniversary of the effective date of this Order.
9.

If the Port seeks to establish financial assurance by using a surety bond for

payment or a letter of credit, the Port shall at the same time establish and thereafter maintain a
standby trust fund acceptable to Ecology into which funds from the other financial assurance
instrument can be deposited, if the financial assurance provider is directed to do so by Ecology,
pursuant to the terms of this Order.
10.

The Port shall notify Ecology's project coordinator and Financial Assurance

Officer by certified mail of the commencement of a voluntary or involuntary bankruptcy
proceeding, naming the Port as debtor, within ten (10) days after commencement of the
proceeding. A guarantor of a corporate guarantee must make such a notification if it is named as
debtor as required under the terms of the corporate guarantee.

Agreed Order No. DE 8938
Page 37 of 43

a.

Once the Port has established financial assurance with an acceptable

mechanism, as described above, the Port will be deemed to be without the required
financial assurance:
1)

In the event of bankruptcy of the trustee or issuing institution; or

2)

If the authority of the trustee institution to act as trustee has been

suspended or revoked; or
3)

If the authority of the institution issuing the surety bond, letter or

credit, or insurance policy has been suspended or revoked.
b.

In the event of bankruptcy of the trustee or a suspension or revocation of

the authority of the trustee institution to act as a trustee, the Port must establish a
replacement financial assurance mechanism by any means specified in WAC 173-303620 or other financial instrument as approved by Ecology within sixty (60) days after
such an event.
11.

Ecology's Financial Assurance Officer is:
Name:
Address:
Telephone:
FAX:
Email:

R.

Kimberly Goetz
Washington State Department of Ecology
P.O. Box 47600
Olympia, WA 98504-7600
(360) 407-6754
(360) 407-6715
kgoe461@ecy.wa.gov

Indemnification
The Port agrees to indemnify and save and hold the State of Washington, its employees,

and agents harmless from any and all claims or causes of action for death or injuries to persons
or for loss or damage to property to the extent arising from or on account of acts or omissions of
the Port, its officers, employees, agents, or contractors in entering into and implementing this
Order. However, the Port shall not indemnify the State of Washington nor save nor hold its
employees and agents harmless from any claims or causes of action to the extent arising out of

Agreed Order No. DE 8938
Page 38 of 43

the negligent acts or omissions of the State of Washington, or the employees or agents of the
State, in entering into or implementing this Order.
S.

Land Use Restrictions
The Port shall record a Restrictive Covenant with the office of the King County Auditor

within ten (10) days of the completion of the remedial action described in the CAP. The
Restrictive Covenant shall restrict future uses of the Facility or portions thereof. The Port shall
provide Ecology with a copy of the recorded Restrictive Covenant within thirty (30) days of the
recording date.
IX.

SATISFACTION OF ORDER

The provisions of this Order shall be deemed satisfied upon the Port's receipt of written
notification from Ecology that the Port has completed the remedial activity required by this
Order, as amended by any modifications, and that the Port has complied with all other provisions
of this Order.
X.

TERMINATION OF 2010 AGREED ORDER

This Order supersedes the June 29, 2010, Order and the 2010 Order is terminated upon
the effective date of this Order.
XI.

ENFORCEMENT

Pursuant to RCW 70.105D.050, this Order may be enforced as follows:
A.

The Attorney General may bring an action to enforce this Order in a state or

federal court.
B.

The Attorney General may seek, by filing an action, if necessary, to recover

amounts spent by Ecology for remedial actions and orders related to the Site.
C.

In the event the Port refuses, without sufficient cause, to comply with any term of

this Order, the Port will be liable for:
1.

Up to three (3) times the amount of any costs incurred by the State of

Washington as a result of its refusal to comply; and

Agreed Order No. DE 8938
Page 39 of 43

2.
D.

Civil penalties of up to $25,000 per day for each day it refuses to comply.

This Order is not appealable to the Washington Pollution Control Hearings Board.

This Order may be reviewed only as provided under RCW 70.105D.060.
Effective date of this Order: _________________________________

PORT OF SEATTLE

STATE OF WASHINGTON
DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY

By
Tay Yoshitani
Chief Executive Officer

By
Dennis Johnson
Section Manager (Acting)
Hazardous Waste and Toxics Reduction
Northwest Regional Office

Exhibit A
Cleanup Action Plan

FINAL
CLEANUP ACTION PLAN
PORT OF SEATTLE TERMINAL 91 SITE
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON
JUNE 2010
APPROVED BY WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY
IN ATTACHED LETTER DATED DECEMBER 15, 2010

TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES .......................................................................................................................... V
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS ........................................................................................................ VI
LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS .................................................................... VII
LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS (CONTINUED) ....................................... VIII
1.0

INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................1
1.1
Purpose .....................................................................................................................1
1.2
Document Organization ...........................................................................................1
1.3
Declaration ...............................................................................................................2
1.4
Applicability ............................................................................................................2
1.5
Administrative Record .............................................................................................2

2.0

BACKGROUND .................................................................................................................3
2.1
Site Description ........................................................................................................3
2.2
Site History and Development .................................................................................4
2.2.1 History of the Tank Farm Lease Parcel and Related Operations .................4
2.2.2 History of the Vicinity Surrounding the Tank Farm Lease Parcel ..............5
2.3
Previous Investigations ............................................................................................5
2.3.1 Pre-1998 Agreed Order Site Investigations .................................................5
2.3.2 1998 Agreed Order RI/FS Site Investigations and Evaluations...................6
2.4
Previous Site Closure and Cleanup Activities .........................................................8
2.4.1 RCRA Closure Activities .............................................................................8
2.4.2 LNAPL Recovery at SWMU 30 ..................................................................8
2.4.3 2005 Tank Farm Demolition Interim Remedial Action ...............................9
2.4.4 Seeps Remedial Actions ..............................................................................9
2.4.5 Fuel Pipeline Cleaning Remedial Actions ...................................................9
2.4.6 Limited Soil Excavation Remedial Action ................................................10
2.4.7 Tanks Farm LNAPL Recovery Program and Pilot Study ..........................10

3.0

SITE CONDITIONS ..........................................................................................................11
3.1
Environmental Setting ...........................................................................................11
3.2
Hydrogeology ........................................................................................................11
3.3
Groundwater ..........................................................................................................12
3.3.1 Flow Direction and Velocity ......................................................................12
3.3.2 Tidal Influence and Seepage ......................................................................13

4.0

NATURE AND EXTENT OF CONTAMINATION ........................................................14
4.1
LNAPL ...................................................................................................................14
4.2
Soil .........................................................................................................................15
4.2.1 VOCs..........................................................................................................15
4.2.2 SVOCs .......................................................................................................16
4.2.3 TPH ............................................................................................................16
4.2.4 PCBs ..........................................................................................................16
4.2.5 Metals .........................................................................................................17
4.3
Groundwater ..........................................................................................................17

ii

CONTENTS (Continued)

4.3.1
4.3.2

Metals .........................................................................................................17
Organic Constituents..................................................................................18

5.0

CONCEPTUAL SITE MODEL ........................................................................................19
5.1
Contaminant Sources .............................................................................................19
5.2
Exposure Pathways and Receptors ........................................................................20
5.3
Terrestrial Ecological Exclusion ............................................................................21

6.0

CLEANUP STANDARDS ................................................................................................22
6.1
Selection of Indicator Hazardous Substances ........................................................22
6.2
Determination of Cleanup Levels ..........................................................................23
6.2.1 Human Health Cleanup Levels ..................................................................23
6.2.2 Ecological Cleanup Levels ........................................................................24
6.3
RSSLs ....................................................................................................................24
6.4
Groundwater Point of Compliance ........................................................................24
6.5
Areas Exceeding Groundwater Cleanup Levels ....................................................25
6.5.1 Standard Points of Compliance ..................................................................25
6.5.2 Conditional Points of Compliance .............................................................25
6.6
Areas Exceeding RSSLs ........................................................................................26
6.7
Regulatory Requirements.......................................................................................26
6.7.1 Model Toxics Control Act .........................................................................26
6.7.2 Washington Dangerous Waste Regulations ...............................................26
6.7.3 Applicable Local, State, and Federal Laws ...............................................27

7.0

APPROACH TO DEVELOPING CLEANUP ACTION ALTERNATIVES ...................29
7.1
Cleanup Action Objectives ....................................................................................29
7.2
Approach to Developing Cleanup Action Alternatives .........................................29

8.0

DESCRIPTION OF SELECTED CLEANUP ACTION ALTERNATIVE ......................31
8.1
Presumptive Cleanup Actions ................................................................................31
8.1.1 Subsurface Worker Direct Contact and Vapor Inhalation .........................31
8.1.2 Indoor Air Pathway ....................................................................................31
8.1.3 Secondary Source Area Actions ................................................................32
8.1.4 Groundwater Downgradient of Lease Parcel .............................................33
8.2
Selected Lease Parcel CAA: Alternative 4 - Containment, Subsurface Structure
Removal, and Enhanced LNAPL Recovery ..........................................................33
8.3
Summary of Costs for Selected Cleanup Actions ..................................................35
8.4
Other Lease Parcel CAAs Considered ...................................................................35
8.4.1 Alternative 1 - Existing Asphalt Paving Maintenance and Monitoring ....36
8.4.2 Alternative 2 - Containment and Passive LNAPL Recovery ....................36
8.4.3 Alternative 3 - Active LNAPL Recovery and Subsurface Structure
Removal .....................................................................................................36
8.4.4 Alternative 5 - Limited Excavation of LNAPL Areas ...............................36
8.4.5 Alternative 6 - Excavation of Soils Exceeding RSSLs .............................37

9.0

JUSTIFICATION FOR SELECTED CLEANUP ACTION ALTERNATIVE ................38
9.1
Evaluation of Presumptive Cleanup Actions .........................................................38
9.1.1 Threshold Requirements ............................................................................38
9.1.2 Other Requirements ...................................................................................39

iii

CONTENTS (Continued)

9.2

9.3

Evaluation of Selected Lease Parcel Cleanup Action Alternative .........................40
9.2.1 Threshold Requirements ............................................................................40
9.2.2 Other Requirements ...................................................................................41
9.2.3 Disproportionate Cost Analysis .................................................................42
Ecology Expectations.............................................................................................44

10.0

IMPLEMENTATION OF THE SELECTED CLEANUP ACTION ................................45
10.1 Implementation Approach .....................................................................................45
10.2 Schedule .................................................................................................................46

11.0

REFERENCES ..................................................................................................................47

TABLES
FIGURES

iv

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1

LNAPL Monitoring Data Summary

Table 2

Concentrations of PCBs in Soil Samples

Table 3

Final Cleanup Levels for Shallow Groundwater

Table 4

Final Cleanup Levels for Deep Groundwater

Table 5

Construction Costs, SMWU-30 - Limited Excavation of LNAPL
Source Areas

Table 6

Construction and Operation and Maintenance Costs, Alternative 4
Containment, Subsurface Structure Removal, and Enhanced
LNAPL Recovery

Table 7

Evaluation of Use of Permanent Solutions to Maximum Extent
Practicable, Lease Parcel Cleanup Action Alternatives

v

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

Figure 1

Site Location Map

Figure 2

Port of Seattle Terminal 91 Facility and Tank Farm Lease Parcel

Figure 3

Former Tank Farm Configuration Prior to 2005 Demolition

Figure 4

Site Plan

Figure 5

Location of Interim Remedial Actions

Figure 6

Pipeline Corridors

Figure 7

Shallow Aquifer Water Level Elevations - March 10, 2008

Figure 8

Shallow Aquifer Discharge, Piers 90 and 91

Figure 9

Lease Parcel Total PCB Results Prior to DGI Phase III

Figure 10

Lease Parcel - DGI Phase III PCBs in Soil Sample Locations

Figure 11

Gasoline-Range Hydrocarbons in Groundwater 2008
(Shallow Wells)

Figure 12

Gasoline-Range Hydrocarbons in Groundwater 2007 (Deep Wells)

Figure 13

Diesel-Range Hydrocarbons in Groundwater 2008 (Shallow Wells)

Figure 14

Naphthalene in Groundwater 2008 (Shallow Wells)

Figure 15

Chrysene in Groundwater 2008 (Shallow Wells)

Figure 16

Chrysene in Groundwater 2008 (Deep Wells)

Figure 17

Conceptual Site Model

Figure 18

SPOC and CPOC Wells

Figure 19

Shallow SPOC Wells with At Least One Exceedance of Final
FS CUL

Figure 20

Deep SPOC Wells with At Least One Exceedance of Final
FS CUL

Figure 21

Lease Parcel TPH Summary - Vadose Zone

Figure 22

Lease Parcel TPH Summary - Smear Zone

Figure 23

AOC 11 and SWMU 30 TPH Summary - Smear Zone

Figure 24

SWMU 30 - Limited Excavation

Figure 25

Natural Attenuation Evaluation Monitoring Wells

Figure 26

Alternative 4 - Containment, Subsurface Structure Removal, and
Enhanced LNAPL Recovery

vi

LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

1998 AO
ACM
AOC
API
Aspect
BD
BDR1,2,3
BEI
bgs
BTEX
CAO
CAP
Chempro
Converse
CPOC
CSM
CULs
DCA
DCE
DNAPL
Ecology
FAMM
FS
Ft
GWSAP
HQ
IHS
Lease Parcel
LNAPL
MCL
mg/kg
µg/kg
µg/L
MLLW
MNA
MTCA
ND
NPDES
PAHs
PCBs
PCE
PES

Agreed Order No. DE 98HW-N108
Asbestos-Containing Materials
Area of Concern
Asian Pacific Islander
Aspect Consulting
Bridge Document
Bridge Document Reports 1, 2, 3
Burlington Environmental, Inc.
Below Ground Surface
Benzene, Toluene, Ethylbenzene, and Xylenes
Cleanup Action Objective
Cleanup Action Plan
Chemical Processors, Inc.
Converse Consultants NW
Conditional Point of Compliance
Conceptual Site Model
Cleanup Levels
Dichloroethane
Dichloroethene
Dense Non-Aqueous Phase Liquid
Washington State Department of Ecology
Fuel and Marine Marketing
Feasibility Study
Feet
Groundwater Sampling and Analysis Plan
Hazard Quotient
Indicator Hazardous Substance
Terminal 91Tank Farm Lease Parcel
Light Non-Aqueous Phase Liquid
Maximum Contaminant Level
Milligram per Kilogram
Microgram per Kilogram
Microgram per Liter
Mean Low Low Water
Monitored Natural Attenuation
Model Toxics Control Act
Non-Detect
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons
Polychlorinated Biphenyls
Perchloroethene
PES Environmental, Inc.

vii

LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS (Continued)

PID
PIONEER
PLP
PLRD
PNO
POC
PVC
Port
PSC
RCRA
RCW
RFA
RFI
RI
RI/DE
RSSL
SPOC
SVOC
SWMU
TCA
TCE
TFAA
TPH
TSCA
USGS
VOC
WAC

Photoionization Detector
PIONEER Technologies
Potentially Liable Person
Passive LNAPL Recovery Device
Pacific Northern Oil Corporation
Points of Compliance
Polyvinyl Chloride
The Port of Seattle
Philip Services Corporation
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
Revised Code of Washington
Terminal 91 RCRA Facility Assessment
RCRA Facility Investigation
Remedial Investigation
Remedial Investigation/ Data Evaluation
Residual Saturation Screening Level
Standard Point of Compliance
Semi-Volatile Organic Compound
Solid Waste Management Unit
Trichloroethane
Trichloroethene
Tank Farm Affected Area
Total Petroleum Hydrocarbon
Toxic Substances Control Act
U.S. Geological Survey
Volatile Organic Compound
Washington Administrative Code

viii

1.0

INTRODUCTION

1.1

Purpose

This cleanup action plan (CAP) describes the selected cleanup action for the Terminal 91 Tank
Farm Site (Site), a portion of the Port of Seattle's (Port's) Terminal 91 Complex in Seattle,
Washington (Figure 1). The CAP has been developed in accordance with the Model Toxics
Control Act (MTCA) under Chapter 70.105D of the Revised Code of Washington (RCW) and
Chapter 173-340 of the Washington Administrative Code (WAC).
The selected cleanup action is based on site-specific data developed pursuant to Agreed
Order No. DE 98HW-N108 (1998 AO) between the Port and the Washington Department of
Ecology (Ecology). Specifically, the CAP is based on information provided in the Final Draft
Feasibility Study Report, Terminal 91 Site, Seattle, Washington (FS Report; PES Environmental,
Inc. et al., 2009), the Remedial Investigation Summary Report for the Terminal 91 Tank Farm
Site in Seattle, Washington (RI Summary Report; Roth Consulting, 2007), and documents
referenced therein. The FS Report and RI Summary Report are on file at the Ecology Northwest
Regional Office located at 3190 160th Avenue SE, Bellevue, Washington, 98008-5452.
1.2

Document Organization

The CAP is organized into 10 sections. A brief description of each section is presented below.


Section 1 - Introduction. Section 1 contains an overview of the CAP.



Section 2 - Background. Section 2 provides a summary of the Site description and
history, the investigations conducted at the Site, and the cleanup actions previously
performed at the Site.



Section 3 - Site Conditions. Section 3 discusses the hydrogeology and groundwater
conditions at the Site.



Section 4 - Nature and Extent of Contamination. Section 4 discusses the nature
and extent of contamination in Site soil and groundwater.



Section 5 - Conceptual Site Model. Section 5 outlines contaminant sources of,
exposure pathways to, and potential receptors of, Site-related contamination.



Section 6 - Cleanup Standards. Section 6 discusses groundwater cleanup levels
(CULs), points of compliance (POC), areas exceeding CULs, and also summarizes
the regulatory requirements applicable to the cleanup.



Section 7 - Approach to Developing Cleanup Action Alternatives. Section 7
briefly presents the cleanup action objectives (CAOs) for the Site and summarizes the
approach used in the FS for developing cleanup action alternatives (CAAs).

S94800216R_1239

1

1.3



Section 8 - Description of Selected Cleanup Action Alternatives. Section 8
provides a description of the selected CAA for the Site, including the presumptive
cleanup actions and the selected tank farm CAA, and also summarizes the other five
CAAs that were developed and evaluated in the feasibility study for the tank farm
portion of the Site.



Section 9 - Justification for Selected Cleanup Action Alternative. Section 9
summarizes how the selected CAA meets the MTCA evaluation criteria and the
disproportionate cost analysis.



Section 10 - Implementation of the Selected Cleanup Action. Section 10 outlines
the approach for implementing the selected CAA and provides a general
implementation schedule.

Declaration

In accordance with WAC 173-340-360(2)(a), the selected cleanup action meets the threshold
requirements, is protective of human health and the environment, complies with applicable state
and federal laws, and provides for compliance monitoring. The selected remedy is consistent
with the preference of the State of Washington as stated in RCW 70.105D.030(1)(b) for
permanent cleanup solutions.
1.4

Applicability

The cleanup standards and the selected cleanup action have been developed as an overall
remediation process under Ecology oversight using MTCA authority; they should not be
considered as setting precedents for other sites.
1.5

Administrative Record

The documents used to make the decisions discussed in this CAP are part of the administrative
record for the Site. The entire administrative record for the Site is available for public review by
appointment at Ecology's Northwest Regional Office. To review or obtain copies of the above
documents, contact Sally Perkins (Public Disclosure Coordinator) at (425) 649-7190.
Information related to the Site, the location of document repositories, and many of the important
documents are also available online at the following website:
http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/tcp/sites/portTerm91/portTerm91_hp.html.

S94800216R_1239

2

2.0

BACKGROUND

2.1

Site Description

The Site is defined in the 1998 AO as "the Tank Farm Lease Parcel and areas where releases of
dangerous constituents originating from the Tank Farm Lease Parcel operations have come to be
located." The Tank Farm Lease Parcel (Lease Parcel) is a contiguous parcel, approximately four
acres in size, located within the confines of the Port's Terminal 91 Complex. The Terminal 91
Complex is located at 2001 West Garfield Street, Seattle, Washington and encompasses
approximately 216 acres, including adjacent submerged and upland areas. The site location map
is provided as Figure 1.
Figure 2 is an aerial photograph of the Terminal 91 Facility showing the approximate boundaries
of the Site (also known as the Tank Farm Affected Area or TFAA), the Lease Parcel, and other
portions of the larger Terminal 91 Complex including the Upland, Short Fill, and Submerged
Land portions.
The Lease Parcel is located at the north end of the Site. The primary historical feature of the
Lease Parcel is the bulk petroleum storage present from the 1920s through 2005. The
aboveground portion of the tank farm, including all of the tanks and containment walls and other
aboveground piping and equipment, was demolished and removed in 2005 as part of an interim
remedial action. The Lease Parcel consisted of three tank yards and associated buildings and is
divided into the following areas (Figure 3):







The Black Oil Yard located at the south end of the Lease Parcel. This yard consisted of
three large tanks used to store heavy fuel oils (e.g., Bunker C);
The Marine Diesel Oil Yard located in the center of the tank farm. This yard consisted
of 12 main tanks that were used to store a variety of products including diesel, kerosene,
and other middle distillates as well as wastewater and waste oil;
The Small Yard was located at the north end of the tank farm and consisted of 10 main
tanks and a number of smaller tanks. The small yard was used to store a variety of
petroleum products including gasoline and diesel and also wastewater and a variety of
other waste materials.
The main warehouse is located just north of the three tank yards. This building still
exists at the Site; and
Additional areas including the pipe alley between the Small Yard and the Marine Diesel
Oil Yard, the decommissioned oil-water separator west of the Small Yard, and the foam
mixing area at the north end of the Lease Parcel.

The Black Oil Yard and the Marine Diesel Oil Yard were surrounded by concrete
product-containment walls approximately 15 feet (ft) high. The Small Yard was surrounded by a
concrete product-containment wall approximately three ft high. All three tank yards were fully
paved with concrete; the Small Yard was paved in 1982 while the paving of the Marine Diesel
Oil and Black Oil Yards occurred in 1986. Aboveground and subsurface piping systems were
used to transfer product within the tank yards.

S94800216R_1239

3

2.2

Site History and Development

This section describes the history of the Terminal 91 Complex and its development from the late
1800s through the present day.
2.2.1

History of the Tank Farm Lease Parcel and Related Operations

From the late 1800s through 1920, owners of the Terminal 91 Complex included various
railroads, land development companies, and private individuals. The Great Northern Railroad
began to develop the area in the early 1900s by filling the area between Magnolia Bluff and
Queen Anne Hill. Fill material was added to the area through 1920.
The tank farm at the Lease Parcel was constructed in the 1920s. The Lease Parcel initially may
have been used as a gasoline refinery by California Petroleum Company as early as 1925
(Converse Consultants NW [Converse], 1993). The Texas Company appears to have operated
the tank farm as a fuel storage facility in the late 1920s and 1930s. The U.S. Navy acquired the
entire Terminal 91 Complex in 1942 through condemnation, and operated the tank farm until
1972. During the Navy's possession of the Terminal 91 Complex, the Lease Parcel was used
primarily as a fuel and lubricating oil transfer station. The Navy began leasing the Terminal 91
Complex back to the Port in 1972 and deeded it to the Port in 1976.
At about the time the Port leased Terminal 91 back from the Navy, Chemical Processors, Inc.
(Chempro), a predecessor of Burlington Environmental, Inc. (BEI) and Philip Services
Corporation (PSC), subleased the Lease Parcel from the Port. The main activities conducted by
Chempro and its successors were waste oil recovery and wastewater treatment. Beginning in
1980, Chempro applied for and was granted interim status under the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA) and began dangerous waste management activities at the Lease Parcel.
BEI and the Port (as operator and owner, respectively) were issued a Part B RCRA permit
effective August 22, 1992 for the continued operation of a permitted dangerous waste
management facility at the Lease Parcel. In September 1995, BEI ceased operations at the Lease
Parcel and terminated its lease with the Port; no dangerous waste operations requiring a permit
(other than corrective action) have been conducted since then. All regulated waste units at the
Lease Parcel have undergone closure.
From approximately 1974 through 1999, Pacific Northern Oil Corporation (PNO) sublet a
portion of the Lease Parcel for storage of non-regulated bunker oil and other fuel products. PNO
used aboveground and underground piping systems at the Site to transfer bunker oil and fuels
within the Lease Parcel and other areas of the Terminal 91 Complex. The Port entered into an
agreement with Fuel and Marine Marketing (FAMM), who conducted bunker oil and fuel
product storage, blending and marketing operations at the Site until early 2003, when FAMM
terminated its lease.
Because the facility would no longer be used as a tank farm, the Port decided to remove the
remaining aboveground equipment to reduce risks of hazardous substance releases. In the spring
of 2005, the Port initiated product removal, demolition activities, and paving of the Lease Parcel
as part of an independent interim remedial action. That interim action was completed in the
S94800216R_1239

4

summer of 2005. An independent cleanup report documenting the interim action was submitted
to Ecology on October 20, 2005 (Roth Consulting, 2005).
2.2.2

History of the Vicinity Surrounding the Tank Farm Lease Parcel

Another tank farm was historically located in the area southwest of the Lease Parcel. This
former tank farm was identified as the Old Tank Farm and was called out as Area of Concern
(AOC) 11 in the Terminal 91 RCRA Facility Assessment (RFA) (EPA, 1994). Figure 2-4 shows
the approximate footprint of the Old Tank Farm (AOC 11). The former tank farm in AOC 11
was reportedly active between 1927 and 1942. Operators included Signal Oil & Gas and
Richfield Oil Company. This tank farm was demolished subsequent to the United States
Department of the Navy taking possession of the site in December 1942.
Other areas of interest at the Site include Solid Waste Management Unit (SMWU 30), which is
the location of a pipeline break that occurred in 1989 near the north end of Pier 91 (Figure 4),
and former fuel transfer pipelines that ran in and around the Lease Parcel and out towards Piers
90 and 91.
2.3

Previous Investigations

A number of investigations were performed at the Site between 1985 and 2008 that have
characterized the types and distribution of contaminants in soil and groundwater and provide the
basis for developing and evaluating the cleanup actions for the Site. These investigations,
divided into two general time periods (pre- and post-1998 AO), are summarized in this section.
2.3.1

Pre-1998 Agreed Order Site Investigations

Prior to the 1998 AO, a number of investigations were conducted. These pre-1998 AO
investigations provided the basis for the more comprehensive Remedial Investigation (RI)
investigation conducted pursuant to the Agreed Order. The primary pre-1998 investigations
include:


Phase I Hydrogeologic Investigation, 1988: A Phase I Hydrogeologic Investigation of
the Site was completed in 1988 (Sweet-Edwards/EMCON, 1988) to provide a
preliminary environmental characterization.



Phase II Hydrogeologic Investigation, 1989: A Phase II Hydrogeologic Investigation
of the Site was completed in 1989 (Sweet-Edwards/EMCON, 1989) to meet the
requirements of BEI's RCRA 3013 Order.



RCRA Facility Investigation, 1992/1993: BEI performed RCRA Facility Investigation
(RFI) fieldwork at the Site between 1992 and 1993 in accordance with the final April
1992 RFI Work Plan (BEI, 1992). The results of these activities were reported in the
draft RFI for the Site (BEI, 1995).

The results of these investigations were used as the primary basis for development of the
Remedial Investigation/Data Evaluation (RI/DE) Report (PSC et al., 1999).
S94800216R_1239

5

2.3.2

1998 Agreed Order RI/FS Site Investigations and Evaluations

RI/DE Report. The Agreed Order required the Potentially Liable Person (PLP) group, which
included the Port, PSC, and PNO, to prepare the RI/DE Report (PSC et al., 1999). The primary
objective of the RI/DE Report was to provide a comprehensive report of investigative work
completed to date to assist in preparation of a feasibility study and selection of potential cleanup
actions.
Bridge Document Investigations. The Draft RI/DE Report identified several data gaps, and the
PLP group concluded that additional work would be necessary prior to evaluating cleanup
options for the Site in an FS. This additional data was collected between 2000 and 2004 in a
series of "Bridge Document" (BD) investigations. The findings of this work were presented in
the BD Report 1 (BDR1; Roth Consulting, 2001), BDR2 (Roth Consulting, 2003), and BDR3
(Aspect Consulting [Aspect], 2004a), soil vapor investigation reports (PSC, 2001 and 2002;
PIONEER Technologies [PIONEER], 2004), related work plans (Aspect, 2004b), and a
groundwater sampling and analysis plan (PSC, 2003).
The primary tasks performed as part of the BD investigations included the following:


Identification of potential exposure pathways, analysis of the highest beneficial use of
groundwater, determination that a terrestrial ecological exclusion was warranted,
development of screening levels for groundwater based on site-specific potential
exposure pathways and highest beneficial use of groundwater, and assessment of
potential points of compliance for groundwater;



Assessment of monitoring well locations and the then-current sampling program, and
preparation of the Groundwater Sampling and Analysis Plan (GWSAP) (PSC, 2003).



Performance of tidal studies in the shallow and deep aquifers;



Assessment of potential stratification of contaminants in groundwater by depth-specific
groundwater sampling;



Collection of light nonaqueous phase liquids (LNAPL) samples and LNAPL bail-down
testing to assess the composition and potential for recovery of LNAPL from the water
table;



Compilation of bulkhead construction data and a review of underground utilities
information to assess the potential for contaminant migration along preferred pathways;



Revision of the conceptual site model (CSM) for the Site; and



Performance of several soil vapor investigations in the vicinity of Building M-28, located
immediately to the southwest of the Lease Parcel to assess the potential for migration of
volatile organic compounds (VOCs) from the subsurface into the building;

Groundwater Seepage Investigation. A groundwater seepage evaluation was performed in
2004 to refine the CSM. The work performed included modeling the Shallow Aquifer along the
piers and the Deep Confined Aquifer from upland areas to the downgradient offshore limit of the
Deep Confined Aquifer using the U. S. Geological Survey (USGS) groundwater flow model
S94800216R_1239

6

MODFLOW; evaluation of groundwater discharge to Elliott Bay, and recommendation of
compliance monitoring wells and an approach for evaluating groundwater compliance.
Monitored Natural Attenuation Evaluation. An evaluation of monitored natural attenuation
(MNA) was conducted in 2005 and 2006 to evaluate the effectiveness of MNA as a remedial
technology at the Site. The evaluation was completed by considering data collected along three
groundwater flow paths from the former tank farm: Pier 90, Pier 91, and AOC 11. Source,
plume, and sentinel wells were used along each flow path. The MNA evaluation showed
concentrations of site-related constituents below the screening levels at the sentinel wells, a
generally stable or shrinking groundwater plume, and strong indications that biodegradation is
occurring along each of the three flow paths evaluated.
Data Gaps Investigation. A series of three data gaps investigations was conducted in 2006 and
2007 to provide the data necessary to conduct the soil-to-groundwater pathway evaluation. The
primary focus of the first two phases of the data gaps investigation was to characterize the
distribution of total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) in the source areas of the site (i.e., Lease
Parcel, AOC 11, SMWU 30), to evaluate the distribution of LNAPL, and provide the basis for
developing site-specific Residual Saturation Screening Levels (RSSLs). The primary focus of
the third phase of the data gaps investigation was to evaluate polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB)
concentrations in soil west of the pumphouse area, in the Small Yard, and in the Marine Diesel
Oil Yard in order to develop disposal costs for use in soil excavation cleanup alternatives.
Development of RSSLs. An evaluation of RSSLs was conducted in an attempt to estimate the
maximum residual soil concentrations at which LNAPL will not accumulate on or in
groundwater. The evaluation focused on the Lease Parcel and immediately adjacent areas, using
reported spills and releases to target specific hazardous substances for evaluation. Based on the
comparison of TPH concentrations in data gaps investigation soil samples, shallow monitoring
well LNAPL monitoring results, and RSSLs, the evaluation determined that the many complex
and competing factors at the Site do not allow clear or precise conclusions regarding the
comparison of TPH concentrations in soil, RSSLs, and presence or absence of LNAPL at the Site
as a whole (i.e., including Lease Parcel, AOC 11, and SWMU 30). These factors also do not
allow for the development of a Site-wide empirical demonstration that measured soil
concentrations either will or will not result in the accumulation of LNAPL on or in groundwater.
LNAPL Monitoring Program. The nature and extent of LNAPLs at the Site has been
investigated through measurements conducted generally at least monthly since February 1992
LNAPL accumulations (including a sheen to measurable LNAPL) have been detected in 23
current or former wells within the Site.
As part of the FS work described in the FS Work Plan (PES et al., 2005), CP-PR01 and CP-PR02
were installed in August 2005 for use in a pilot study. The purpose of the pilot study was to
evaluate the recoverability of LNAPL at the Lease Parcel. CP-PR01 and CP-PR02 were
installed at locations where former wells showed the highest LNAPL recovery rate, near CP-117
and CP-118, respectively. From the time of installation until the early November 2005 monthly
LNAPL monitoring event, only sheens were detected in the two pilot study wells. Therefore, the
two pilot study wells were incorporated into the monthly LNAPL monitoring program. Wells

S94800216R_1239

7

CP-PR03 through CP-PR12 were installed in October 2007 as part of the data gaps investigation
discussed above.
Groundwater Monitoring Program. Groundwater monitoring has been conducted at the site
on an ongoing basis since the 1998 Agreed Order has been in place. Over time, the parameters
of the monitoring program (e.g., number of wells, chemicals analyzed, and frequency of
monitoring) have changed with the approval of Ecology. Groundwater monitoring is currently
being performed at the Site on an annual basis using selected wells. The current groundwater
monitoring program consists of: (1) annual monitoring of 8 Shallow Aquifer monitoring wells
and 5 Deep Confined Aquifer monitoring wells during the dry season (September/October) and
(2) samples are analyzed for TPH as gasoline, diesel, and lube-oil-range hydrocarbons; low-level
polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs); selected semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs)
including carbazole, dibenzofuran, and 1-methylnaphthalene; selected VOCs including 1-4
dichlorobenzene and vinyl chloride; and the metals arsenic and zinc.
2.4

Previous Site Closure and Cleanup Activities

This section summarizes the previous closure activities and other interim cleanup actions
conducted at the Site. Many of these historical actions have focused on the former tank farm and
the Lease Parcel, but other cleanup actions outside the Lease Parcel but within the Site
boundaries are also described.
2.4.1

RCRA Closure Activities

In 1997, PSC performed aboveground closure activities of all RCRA Part B permit related
facility equipment, secondary containment, and treatment units, pursuant to a closure plan
approved by Ecology (PSC, 1996). Specific activities conducted during the closure included
decontamination of the various concrete structures using high-pressure water spraying followed
by abrasive blasting, cleaning of Tank 164 (portable tank not shown in FS figures but located
immediately northwest of Tank 110) and ancillary equipment (associated piping), and collection
of concrete chip samples from tank yards in the vicinity of loading pads and sumps to confirm
closure standards were met. These closure activities were documented and closure was certified
in a letter PSC submitted to Ecology in 1997 (PSC, 1997). The aboveground closure was
approved by Ecology in October 2003 (Ecology, 2003). The rest of the Lease Parcel previously
used to store dangerous waste was closed under an interim status closure plan (PSC, 1997).
2.4.2

LNAPL Recovery at SWMU 30

This SMWU is the location of a pipeline break that occurred in 1989, near the north end of
Pier 91 (Figure 4). In 1989, oil was observed seeping into the Short Fill Impoundment. After a
series of investigations in 1989 and 1990, it was confirmed that the oil was the result of a
pipeline failure, and the section of pipeline around the area of contamination was abandoned by
PNO (Converse GES, 1990). An interim product extraction system for free product recovery
began operation in January 1991 (Converse, 1994). The system operated as a skimming system
in recovery well EW-1. During 1991 and 1992, the system removed about 53.5 gallons of liquid
hydrocarbons.
S94800216R_1239

8

Product thickness was observed to increase downgradient with time, and in March 1993 a
passive skimming system also was installed in downgradient monitoring well MW-102. By
April 1994, the system had recovered about 76.4 gallons of liquid hydrocarbons. Because of the
poor recovery rates, the pneumatic recovery system was decommissioned in 1994 and passive
LNAPL skimming systems were then installed in three monitoring wells (EW-1, MW-102, and
MW-3). By early 2002, the total LNAPL recovered from the three skimmers since their
installation in April 1994 was about 23.3 gallons (Aspect, 2002). PNO discontinued the
quarterly monitoring and LNAPL recovery program in 2002. The Port is currently monitoring
the fluid levels in these wells as part of the annual ground water monitoring program for the Site.
The Port also has added wells in this area containing LNAPL to its regular monitoring and
LNAPL-removal program.
2.4.3

2005 Tank Farm Demolition Interim Remedial Action

In the spring and early summer of 2005, the Port performed an independent interim remedial
action known as the Tank Farm Demolition (Tank Farm Demo). The Tank Farm Demo
consisted of the demolition and removal of aboveground fuel storage tanks, fuel stations, pump
stations, water and waste piping, steam boiler, structures, and all incidental equipment. At the
time the Tank Farm Demo was initiated, the tanks contained various fuel products which were
removed for recycling or disposal. Other activities included removal and disposal of asbestoscontaining materials (ACM), removal and disposal of petroleum-impacted soil from pipe chases,
and purging of three underground fuel transmission lines from the tank farm to the fuel riser
station on Pier 90. Once the demolition activities were completed, the Lease Parcel and adjacent,
previously unpaved areas were paved. The independent interim remedial action report (Roth
Consulting, 2005) documenting these activities was submitted to Ecology.
2.4.4

Seeps Remedial Actions

After demolition of the former tank farm and repaving of the area in 2005, three oily seeps
(Seeps 1, 2, and 3) appeared on the pavement surface at three locations in the summer of 2006
with a fourth appearing in 2007 (Figure 5). The sources were identified as oily sand within the
double-layered tank bases, which had been left in place as part of the demolition activities. The
oily sand was removed and disposed of at a permitted facility, and the locations were backfilled
with clean soil and repaved. At Seeps 2 and 4, a utility-type vault was installed to allow for
ongoing collection of oil which is recovered and disposed of with LNAPL recovered from
LNAPL monitoring wells.
2.4.5

Fuel Pipeline Cleaning Remedial Actions

In June 2007, the Port performed an interim remedial action along the west side of the Lease
Parcel at the location of a water line break. In order to access the water line for repair, the Port
needed to cut and remove some underground fuel lines at this location (Figure 5). Specific
remedial activities included removal and recycling of less than 50 gallons of oil from the pipes,
removal of several small sections of pipe, and plugging the remaining cut sections of the pipe
that remained in place with grout.

S94800216R_1239

9

In July, 2008, during excavation activities conducted along the southeast corner of the Lease
Parcel as part of the Port's Seattle City Light Duct Bank project, PCS discovered an underground
fuel pipeline that had not been decommissioned. The interim remedial action that was performed
in September 2008 consisted of removing the oil from the pipeline (Figure 5), cleaning the
pipeline, and disposing of the oil and piping at appropriate facilities.
2.4.6

Limited Soil Excavation Remedial Action

During excavation activities outside the southeast corner of the Lease Parcel as part of the Seattle
City Light Duct Bank project, soil was encountered with concentrations of TPH exceeding
MTCA Method A CULs (Figure 5). The contaminated soil was located to the north of the
September 2008 pipeline cleaning remedial action location (see Section 2.4.5) and appears to be
unrelated. Approximately 252 tons of soil were stockpiled, sampled, and subsequently disposed
of as non-dangerous TPH-contaminated soil.
2.4.7

Tanks Farm LNAPL Recovery Program and Pilot Study

In the fall of 1999, passive LNAPL recovery devices (PLRDs) were installed in eight wells that
contained or had previously contained LNAPL. At that time, a monthly product
monitoring/recovery program was initiated to monitor the occurrence of LNAPL in these wells
and to recover LNAPL. Since that time, five of the wells within the Lease Parcel have been
decommissioned (prior to initiation of the Tank Farm Demo) and 13 new LNAPL
monitoring/pilot study wells have been installed. About 140 gallons of LNAPL/water mixture
have been removed from one or more of the 24 LNAPL monitoring/pilot study wells and two
seeps since the first PLRDs were installed in October 1999 through the end of 2009.

S94800216R_1239

10

3.0

SITE CONDITIONS

3.1

Environmental Setting

The Site is located at the Terminal 91 Complex, which encompasses approximately 216 acres,
including adjacent submerged and upland areas (Figures 1 and 2). The Site lies at the south end
of the Interbay Region, which is approximately 1.5 miles long and 1,000 to 2,000 ft wide and
extends from the Lake Washington Ship Canal on the north to Elliott Bay on the south. The
Interbay Region lies within a larger physiographic region, known as the Puget Sound Lowland,
which is underlain by thousands of feet of unconsolidated glacial and non-glacial sediments.
Both the upland areas and piers at the Site overlie a portion of the Smith Cove inlet that was
initially modified by filling in the early 1900s. Adjacent surface water bodies include Elliott Bay
and the Short Fill Impoundment, an isolated water body located just south of the Garfield Street
Viaduct. Bulkheads of various types bound the seaward portions of the Site and form the
perimeter of the fill-cored piers. The east, center and west slips adjacent to the piers have been
maintained to dredged depths of about -35 ft mean low low water (MLLW). An exception to this
is the landward ends of the east and west slips, where four intertidal habitat sites are located (two
on the northeast corner of the east slip and two on the west margin of the west slip).
No drinking water supply wells are present on or downgradient from the Site. Two deep watersupply wells (screened or perforated at depths of greater than about 250 ft below ground surface
[bgs]), neither of which is currently in use, have been identified within approximately a one-halfmile radius of the Lease Parcel. Both wells are within the Terminal 91 Complex owned by the
Port. The BDR1 (Roth Consulting, 2001) concluded that groundwater at the Site is non-potable.
3.2

Hydrogeology

Analysis of the geologic and hydrogeologic data collected during investigations at the Site
indicates the presence of five primary hydrostratigraphic units beneath the Lease Parcel, which
roughly correspond to the five primary stratigraphic units present at the Site. The list below
summarizes the five hydrostratigraphic units and their corresponding stratigraphic units.
 Shallow Aquifer (Shallow Sand Unit). The Shallow Aquifer is unconfined, and
contains an unsaturated zone extending from ground surface to approximately 5 ft bgs.
The saturated thickness of the Shallow Aquifer is estimated to be about 10 to 15 ft. The
Shallow Aquifer is laterally continuous across the Lease Parcel.
 Upper Confining Unit (Silty Sand Unit). The Upper Confining Unit is fully saturated
and appears to be laterally continuous across the Lease Parcel. The unit is thickest
(approximately 29 ft) along the eastern boundary of the Lease Parcel and thins to between
13 and 15 ft along the western boundary of the Lease Parcel.
 Intermediate Zone (Gravel Layer within Silty Sand Unit). This unit is a moderately
to poorly sorted, silty sandy Gravel Layer was encountered within the Silty Sand Unit at
some boring locations and is referred to as the Intermediate Zone in the cross-sections.

S94800216R_1239

11

 Deep Confined Aquifer (Deep Sand Unit). The Deep Confined Aquifer appears to be
laterally continuous across the southern and central portions of the Lease Parcel. It is
uncertain if the Deep Confined Aquifer exists beneath the northern portion of the Site.
The Deep Confined Aquifer is confined above by the Silty Sand Unit (Upper Confining
Unit) and below by the Silty Clayey Sand Unit (Lower Confining Unit).
 Lower Confining Unit (Silty Clayey Sand Unit). The Silty Clayey Sand Unit is
composed of soft to stiff, olive to gray, fine-grained sediments, primarily silty clay and
clayey silt, with lesser amounts of silt and silty, clayey sand. The top of the Silty Clayey
Sand Unit is shallowest beneath the eastern portion of the Lease Parcel, where it occurs
as shallow as 42 ft bgs, in boring CP-106B. Depth to the top of the unit increases to the
south and west, with the top of the unit in excess of 100 ft bgs beneath the middle
portions of Piers 90 and 91 (Hart Crowser 1999, 2002).
3.3

Groundwater

3.3.1

Flow Direction and Velocity

Shallow Aquifer. Water level data collected in conjunction with a groundwater seepage
evaluation (Aspect, 2004b) and during routine monitoring of monitoring wells at the Site show
that the dominant unconfined groundwater flow direction is towards the south beneath the Lease
Parcel and to the southwest beneath AOC 11 (Figure 7). Water levels in the wells typically
range between 3 and 7 ft below ground surface (Aspect, 2004b) and generally correspond to
seasonal variations in precipitation rates, with the highest water levels observed during the wetter
winter months. The typical Site horizontal gradient beneath the Lease Parcel is approximately
0.001 ft per foot (Aspect, 2004b).
South of the Lease Parcel, water levels and tidal response data indicate that the relatively
impermeable east-west trending, shore-parallel bulkheads and fine-grained Short Fill soil exert
significant control over Shallow Aquifer groundwater flow, effectively "channeling"
groundwater between the bulkheads within the inner portions of Piers 90 and 91. The
shore-parallel bulkhead west of Pier 91 appears to direct shallow groundwater flow to the west
southwest of AOC 11. Hence, the Short Fill itself does not appear to be within the flow path of
shallow groundwater originating from the Site.
Aspect (2004a) reported that downward vertical gradients between the Shallow Aquifer and
Deep Confined Aquifers were noted throughout the Site. Vertical gradients ranged from
approximately 0.018 to 0.040 ft/foot, with vertical gradients decreasing to the south. Despite the
presence of downward vertical gradients, significant downward movement of Shallow Aquifer
groundwater under most of the Site is considered unlikely due to the low measured vertical
permeabilities in the upper confining unit. From the southeast corner of the Lease Parcel
southward where the upper confining unit appears to be absent, some net movement of Shallow
Aquifer groundwater into the Deep Confined Aquifer is likely occurring.
Deep Confined Aquifer. Tidally-averaged groundwater elevation data (Aspect, 2004a) confirm
that the groundwater flow direction in the Deep Confined Aquifer beneath and shoreward of the
Lease Parcel is towards the south. As in the Shallow Aquifer, water levels in the Deep Confined
S94800216R_1239

12

Aquifer respond to seasonal variations in precipitation rates, with the highest water levels
observed during the wetter winter months. The typical Deep Confined Aquifer horizontal
gradient is relatively constant at approximately 0.003 ft/foot beneath the Site, with a flattening of
the horizontal gradient beneath and southward of the east-west trending, shore-parallel
bulkheads. Unlike in the Shallow Aquifer, most of the existing shore-parallel and pier-perimeter
bulkheads do not exert an influence on groundwater flow in the Deep Confined Aquifer due to
their shallow depth.
3.3.2

Tidal Influence and Seepage

The shore-parallel bulkheads and the fine-grained Short Fill soil at the Site exert significant
control over Shallow Aquifer flow, effectively "channeling" groundwater between the bulkheads
within the inner portions of Piers 90 and 91. Shallow groundwater enters the fill in the piers and
then discharges to Elliott Bay, apparently from the more seaward portions of the piers, where the
pier bulkheads appear to exert less control on groundwater flow. In the case of the Deep
Confined Aquifer, the existing shore-parallel and pier-perimeter bulkheads generally do not
appear to affect groundwater flow or tidal influence, resulting in discharge to Elliott Bay parallel
to the shoreline, either where the Deep Confined Aquifer crops out or through sediments.
Groundwater models of Pier 90 and Pier 91 were used to evaluate groundwater seepage along the
pier faces. A flow budget analysis was used to compute the percent of inflow that discharges
along the pier faces. Areas of relatively high or low seepage are a factor in determining
compliance monitoring strategies for each pier.
The model-predicted percent discharge for the two pier models, plotted along the faces of Piers
90 and 91, is shown in Figure 8. The plots show cumulative discharge along the pier. Higher
rates of groundwater discharge occur in segments along the pier where the slope of the
cumulative discharge line is steep. For each pier, the east and west faces are plotted separately.
More groundwater discharges along the face with the higher cumulative discharge (i.e. the east
face of both piers). Residual discharge not accounted for on the cumulative plots discharges
through the outer end of the piers.
The discharge analysis for the Deep Confined Aquifer indicates that discharge from the Deep
Confined Aquifer is nearly uniformly distributed between the vacated Smith Cove Waterway
between Piers 90 and 91 and the slip east of Pier 90. Groundwater in the Deep Confined Aquifer
flows toward Elliott Bay from the north and discharges to Elliott Bay in areas where the Upper
Confining Unit is missing. The Upper Confining Unit is missing throughout the vacated Smith
Cove Waterway and much of the waterway on the east side of Pier 90. However, sediments do
not allow groundwater to discharge only at the head of the waterways. Consequently,
groundwater seeps offshore, and the groundwater discharge is distributed in different parts of the
waterways.

S94800216R_1239

13

4.0

NATURE AND EXTENT OF CONTAMINATION

4.1

LNAPL

NAPL monitoring at the Site has been ongoing since February 1992. LNAPL has been detected
only in the Shallow Aquifer. Dense NAPL (DNAPL) has not been detected in any well, and
historical and technical data do not indicate potential for a DNAPL source. Apparent LNAPL
thicknesses measured in the monitoring wells varies seasonally, with LNAPL thicknesses
generally decreasing during periods of rising water levels. LNAPL accumulations (including a
sheen to measurable LNAPL) have been detected in the following current or former 23 wells
within the Site:


Small Yard: existing wells CP-PR01, CP-PR11, and CP-PR12, and former wells
CP-116 and CP-117;



Marine Diesel Oil Yard: existing wells CP-PR02, CP-PR07, and CP-PR08, and former
wells CP-118 and CP-119;



Black Oil Yard: existing wells CP-PR03 and CP-PR04, and former well CP-109;



Between the Lease Parcel and AOC 11: existing wells CP-107, CP-110, UT-MW39-2,
and UT-MW39-3;



AOC 11: PNO-MW1041; and



SWMU 30: existing wells PNO-EW1, PNO-MW03, PNO-MW06A, PNO-MW102, and
PNO-MW103.

Table 1 provides a summary of the historical LNAPL monitoring data and the maximum
apparent product thickness measured in 2008. Historically, the apparent LNAPL thicknesses
measured in the monitoring wells varied seasonally, with LNAPL thicknesses generally
decreasing during periods of rising water levels. Currently, the wells with the thickest
accumulations of LNAPL are located in and directly to the west of the Lease Parcel. In 2008,
LNAPL accumulations have been detected in the following 11 wells within the Site
(see Figure 7):


Small Yard: CP-PR01, CP-PR11, and CP-PR12;



Marine Diesel Oil Yard: CP-PR02 and CP-PR07;



Black Oil Yard: CP-PR03 and CP-PR04;



Between the Lease Parcel and AOC 11: CP-110, UT-MW39-2, and UT-MW39-3;



AOC 11: PNO-MW104; and



SWMU 30: none.

1

Although well PNO1MW104 is located in the extreme eastern edge of AOC 11, LNAPL observed at this location
is likely related to releases from operations in the former pipeline corridor located between AOC 11 and the Lease
Parcel.

S94800216R_1239

14

LNAPL characteristics data have been collected from several of the original LNAPL monitoring
wells in the Lease Parcel, the adjacent former pipeline area, and from data gap investigation
wells. Recent LNAPL density and viscosity testing data supports the historical understanding
that the LNAPL may include a mixture of petroleum products (Aspect, 2004a) with a
predominance of diesel-range hydrocarbons (PSC et al., 1999). Test results for the LNAPL
sample collected from CP-PR04 indicates that the LNAPL in the Black Oil Yard may be distinct
from the LNAPL in other areas of the Site. The LNAPL in CP-PR04 has a viscosity that is
similar to a heavier fuel oil, typical of the bulk petroleum product historically stored in the Black
Oil Yard.
4.2

Soil

Soil sampling at the Site can be divided into two general time periods: (1) the sampling
conducted from 1992 through 1995 that is summarized in the RI/DE Report (PSC et al., 1999)
which evaluated a broad range of contaminants including VOCs, SVOCs, TPH, PCBs, and
metals; and (2) sampling associated with the data gaps investigations conducted in 2007 and
2008 which focused on TPH and PCBs. In the summary below, information for VOCs, SVOCs,
and metals is taken exclusively from the RI/DE Report while the TPH and PCB discussions are
based primarily on the data collected in the data gaps investigations.
4.2.1

VOCs

Twenty VOCs were detected in soil samples collected at the Site. The VOC detections included
low levels of 12 chlorinated VOCs (perchlorethene [PCE], trichloroethene [TCE],
cis-1,2-dichloroethene [cis-1,2-DCE], 1,2-DCE (total), 1,1,1-trichloroethane [TCA],
1,1,1-dichloroethane [1,1,1-DCA], chloroethane, chloroform, methylene chloride,
chlorobenzene, Freon 113, and 1,1-dicloropropene) and 8 non-chlorinated VOCs (acetone,
benzene, 2-butanone, carbon disulfide, ethylbenzene, 2-hexanone, toluene, and total xylenes).
The detections were in samples collected from borings in or near the former Lease Parcel tank
yards.
Benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes (BTEX) compounds represent the most widely
distributed group of VOCs in Site soil, detected in all but three borings (PSC et al., 1999). The
highest concentration of total BTEX (5,000 milligram/kilogram [mg/kg]) was found in a soil
boring in the eastern portion of the Small Yard, with concentrations above 10 mg/kg in other
borings drilled in the Lease Parcel tank yards. PSC et al. (1999) reported that the distribution of
BTEX compounds in soil was consistent with the distribution of LNAPL observed in Site wells.
The highest concentrations of benzene were found in a boring just outside the northeast corner of
the Small Yard, and the highest concentrations of toluene were found in borings in the Small
Yard.

S94800216R_1239

15

4.2.2

SVOCs

SVOCs were detected in most borings drilled at the Site. The detected SVOCs consisted of:


PAHs: Naphthalene, 2-methylnaphthalene, acenaphthalene, acenaphthene, fluorene,
phenanthrene, anthracene, fluoranthene, pyrene, benzo(a)anthracene, chrysene,
benzo(b)fluoranthene, benzo(k)fluoranthene, benzo(a)pyrene, indeno(1,2,3-c,d)pyrene,
dibenzo(a,h)anthracene, and benzo(g,h,i)perylene;



Phthalates: di-n-butyl phthalate, butylbenzylphthalate, bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate, and
di-n-octylphthalate; and



Other SVOCs: 1,2,4-trichlorobenzene, 4-chloro-3-methylphenol, benzyl alcohol,
dibenzofuran, and N-nitrosodiphenylamine.

Total PAH compounds in concentrations greater than 10,000 micrograms/kilogram (µg/kg) and
total phthalate concentrations in excess of 40,000 µg/kg were detected in soil samples from each
of the three Lease Parcel tank yards.
1,2,4-trichlorobenzene, n-nitrosodiphenylamine, benzyl alcohol, and dibenzofuran were only
detected in single borings located in or east of the Small Yard.
4.2.3

TPH

Soil sampling has shown the widespread occurrence of TPH in shallow soil at the Site. Most of
the samples have been collected in and near the Lease Parcel, although, samples have also been
collected in AOC 11 and SMWU 30.
The highest concentrations of gasoline range TPH (up to 22,000 mg/kg) are contained in smear
zone samples from soil borings in the Small Yard, the northern end of the Lease Parcel, and the
southern end of AOC 11. The highest concentrations of diesel range TPH (up to 130,000 mg/kg)
and motor oil range TPH (up to 41,000 mg/kg) are contained in vadose and smear zone samples
from soil borings in the Marine Diesel Oil Yard and the Black Oil Yard. The nature of the TPH
impacts in the Black Oil Yard appears to be distinct from the rest of the Site due to the heavier
oil bulk products that were stored in this tank farm; total TPH concentrations in this area are
entirely from the diesel and motor oil TPH fractions. Total TPH concentrations in the
SWMU 30 area also are entirely from the diesel and motor oil TPH fractions. Other areas
contain a mixture of gasoline-range and heavier fractions, but all are predominantly diesel and
motor oil TPH fractions.
4.2.4

PCBs

PCBs have been detected in shallow soil and in LNAPL within and directly west of the Lease
Parcel. Soil sampling results indicate only one soil result above the 50 mg/kg level regulated
under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). That sample was collected prior to 1999 from
soil boring HA-03 at 6 ft bgs. The sample contained 85 mg/kg PCBs. The remaining soil PCB
concentrations were low compared to the elevated PCB result (85 mg/kg) in historical boring
S94800216R_1239

16

HA-03. The next highest total PCB concentration was 9.3 mg/kg (DG-104). The remaining total
PCB concentrations ranged between non-detect (ND) and 4.2 mg/kg. Locations and results of
total PCBs in soil samples are shown on Figure 9, Figure 10, and Table 2.
LNAPL samples were collected from wells with sufficient volumes of LNAPL (PR-07, PR-12,
and UT-MW39-3) and analyzed for PCBs. Two of these LNAPL samples (222 mg/kg in PR-12
and 125 mg/kg in UT-MW39-3) were above the 50 mg/kg level regulated under TSCA.
Locations and results of total PCBs in LNAPL samples are shown on Figure 9.
4.2.5

Metals

Soil samples were analyzed for 12 metals: arsenic, barium, beryllium, cadmium, chromium,
copper, mercury, nickel, lead, selenium, silver, and zinc. Except for selenium, each of these
metals was detected in at least one soil sample. The results for all metals but lead were
consistent with background concentrations for metals concentrations in the Puget Sound Basin
(Ecology, 1994). Arsenic, barium, chromium, copper, nickel, and zinc were detected in every
soil sample analyzed. Lead was detected in the majority of the samples analyzed, and beryllium
and cadmium were detected in the majority of shallow soil samples analyzed, but not in the
deeper soil samples analyzed. Mercury was detected in a minority of the samples analyzed, and
silver was only detected in two soil samples. Lead, the only metal detected above the Puget
Sound Basin background concentrations, was detected in concentrations ranging from 0.91 to
326 mg/kg. The highest lead concentrations were found in and near the Small Yard.
4.3

Groundwater

The results of the 2007 and 2008 groundwater sampling at the Site are summarized in this
section2. Groundwater samples were collected from 28 monitoring wells in March 2007,
September 2007, and March 2008, and from 29 monitoring wells in September 2008. The results
of the 2007 and 2008 groundwater monitoring are summarized in the Annual Ground Water
Report for 2007 (Roth Consulting, 2008) and the Annual Ground Water Report for 2008 (Roth
Consulting, 2009).
4.3.1

Metals

Groundwater samples were analyzed for eight metals (total arsenic, barium, chromium, lead,
mercury, selenium, silver, and zinc) in 2007 and 2008. Arsenic was detected in most samples,
with the highest concentration (19 micrograms/liter [µg/L]) detected in CP-GP12. Barium was
analyzed only in 2008 and was detected in all samples, with the highest concentration (328 µg/L)
in CP-GP13. Chromium was detected in 10 to 16 wells in each sampling event, with the highest
concentration (13.6 µg/L) in CP-115B. Lead was detected in one well (CP-114) during two
events with a maximum concentration of 9.4 µg/L. Mercury was detected (0.0235 µg/L) in only
one sample, which was collected from CP-111. Selenium was analyzed only in 2008 and was
detected in 7 to 12 wells per sampling event, with the highest concentration (20 µg/L) in
2

Note that a more extensive data set is used to develop and evaluate CULs in Section 7 of the FS report. The data
summarized here are intended to describe the current nature and extent of contamination.

S94800216R_1239

17

CP-GP03AR. Silver was analyzed only in 2008 and was not detected in any of the wells. Zinc
was detected in 3 to 12 wells per event, with the highest concentration (200 µg/L) in CP-103A.
4.3.2

Organic Constituents

TPH Compounds. TPH as gasoline and diesel have been detected in groundwater at the Site,
with the highest concentrations and most of the detections in the vicinity of the former Lease
Parcel and AOC-11 tank farms and SWMU 30. TPH was not detected in the wells farthest
downgradient. Figure 11 shows the concentrations of gasoline-range hydrocarbons in the
shallow monitoring wells in 2008, while Figure 12 shows the concentrations of gasoline-range
hydrocarbons in the deep monitoring wells in 2007.
Diesel-range hydrocarbons were less widely distributed than gasoline-range hydrocarbons in
shallow groundwater and were not detected in 2007 or 2008 in any Deep Confined Aquifer
wells3. Figure 13 show concentrations of diesel-range hydrocarbons in shallow monitoring wells
for 2008.
VOCs. Seventeen VOCs were detected in groundwater samples collected in 2007 and 2008.
The VOC detections included three chlorinated VOCs (chlorobenzene, chloroethane, and
dichlorodifluoromethane) and 14 non-chlorinated VOCs (acetone, benzene, n-butylbenzene,
carbon disulfide, ethylbenzene, hexane, isopropyl benzene, n-propylbenzene, o-xylene,
p-isopropyl toluene, sec-butylbenzene, tert-butylbenzene, toluene, and total xylenes). The
detections were all relatively low (i.e., less than 20 µg/L) and were distributed in wells located
around the former tank farms in the Lease Parcel and AOC-11.
SVOCs. Twenty-two SVOCs were detected in one or more groundwater samples from all wells
monitored in 2007 and 2008. The SVOC detections included 15 PAHs (acenaphthene,
acenaphthylene, anthracene, benzo(a)anthracene, benzo(a)pyrene, benzo(b)fluoranthene,
benzo(g,h,i)perylene, benzo(k)fluoranthene, chrysene, fluoranthene, fluorene,
indeno(1,2,3-c,d)pyrene, naphthalene, phenanthrene, and pyrene) and 7 other SVOCs (2,4dimethylphenol, 2-methyl naphthalene, 2-methylphenol, bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate,
dibenzofuran, diethyl phthalate, and phenol). Low-level PAH detections were widespread but
intermittent in groundwater at the Site. One or more of the PAH compounds have been detected
in all the wells monitored with the exception of CP-115B. Some of the PAHs such as
naphthalene are distributed across the Site; Figure 14 shows naphthalene concentrations in
shallow groundwater in 2008. Other PAHs occur at limited and scattered locations. Figures 15
and 16 depict examples of a typical PAH occurrences (chrysene) in shallow and deep Site
groundwater. The other seven SVOCs detections were infrequent and localized.
PCBs. Aroclor 1260 was detected in one Shallow Aquifer monitoring well (PNO-MW06A) at a
concentration of 0.016 µg/L in March 2008. PCBs were not detected in any other groundwater
samples collected at the Site in 2007 or 2008.
3

Although diesel-range hydrocarbons were not detected in the monitoring wells sampled during the 2007 and 2008
monitoring events, not all wells were monitored. The removal of certain wells from the monitoring program was
approved by Ecology. Diesel was detected prior to 2007 in several deep monitoring wells, including wells CP_106B
and CP_203B.

S94800216R_1239

18

5.0

CONCEPTUAL SITE MODEL

This section provides a summary of the CSM for the Site, including identifying and describing
the potentially completed and complete exposure pathways.
Figure 17 presents the CSM for the Site that summarizes the sources of contamination, potential
routes of exposure, and potential receptors. The CSM is based on the current and future
industrial land use, the soil and groundwater sampling results, and the active and potentially
active fate and transport mechanisms.
5.1

Contaminant Sources

Tank Farm Lease Parcel. The primary source of contamination at the Site is the Tank Farm
and associated operations. A number of documented releases have occurred, including two large
releases of petroleum hydrocarbons in 1978 (420,000 gallons of Bunker C) and 1980 (up to
113,000 gallons of oil). In both of these cases, the oil was contained within the tank farm by the
concrete dikes and the oil and impacted soil removed to the extent practicable. A number of
smaller releases of petroleum products and/or oily water have been documented, ranging in size
from several hundred gallons to 20,000 gallons. In all cases, these documented releases were
reported to be cleaned up.
No releases were documented at the Lease Parcel prior to 1971, although historical unreported
releases are suspected. Periodic releases of oily liquids have reportedly occurred at the Lease
Parcel since the 1930s and there are historical photographs and documents indicating that the
tank yards were contaminated when Chempro began operations in 1971.
Other Source Areas. There are three other potential sources of contamination located within
the Site, but outside the Lease Parcel, which are addressed in the FS:


SWMU 30 - This SMWU is the location of a pipeline break that occurred in 1989 near
the north end of Pier 91 (Figure 4). An estimated 340 to 1,370 gallons of product were
released before the pipeline was repaired. A product recovery system was installed and
operated between 1991 and 1994 and recovered a total of 76 gallons. Passive product
recovery (i.e., bailing) continued after 1994 with limited amounts of product recovered.



AOC 11 - AOC 11 was a former tank farm located west of the Lease Parcel (Figure 4).
The former tank farm in AOC 11 was reportedly active between 1927 and 1942 and used
to store a variety of petroleum products, including gasoline and oil. The AOC 11 tank
farm was reportedly demolished after the United States Department of the Navy took
over the site in December, 1942. There are no documented releases from the AOC 11
tank farm.



Former Fuel Transfer Pipelines - Over the history of the site, petroleum and other
materials were transferred between ships at Piers 90 and 91, the tank farms, and waste
management areas located within the Site, typically via above and belowground
pipelines. Figure 6 shows the portions of the site where above or belowground pipeline
corridors were (and in some cases still are) located.

S94800216R_1239

19

5.2

Exposure Pathways and Receptors

The CSM shown in Figure 17 identifies the potentially complete exposure pathways and the
potential receptors for the Site for both soil and groundwater.
Soil. Three potentially complete exposure pathways related to soil were identified: (1) direct
contact with soil by utility or construction workers; (2) soil to indoor air; and (3) soil to
groundwater (which ultimately may impact aquatic receptors). The approach to addressing each
of these three pathways is summarized below.


Direct Soil Contact. Direct soil contact by workers (or trespassers) was not retained as a
pathway of concern for the Site because soils are currently covered by pavement or
buildings. If any future excavation or underground utility work takes place, workers
could potentially be exposed to soil, and direct contact with soil would become a pathway
of concern. However, institutional controls and standard worker health and safety
procedures will be implemented and would provide adequate protection in such instances.



Soil to Indoor Air. This pathway is only potentially applicable at the tank farm, and
possibly in areas immediately adjacent to the tank farm. Previous studies (PSC, 2002;
PIONEER, 2004) have documented that there are no unacceptable current risks. The
only potential future exposures via this pathway would result from future Site
development activities. The approach for addressing these potential future exposures will
be to implement institutional controls, such as notices on parcel deeds of the potentially
impacted properties that require either: (1) use of engineering controls (e.g., vapor
barriers, sub-slab venting systems) in Site development plans to mitigate the potential
exposure; or (2) conducting a development-specific evaluation of the soil to indoor air
pathway (i.e., developing risk-based CULs for the specific-potential exposures related to
the proposed development) and implementing remedial actions and/or engineering
controls if development specific CULs are exceeded).



Soil to Groundwater. As with the soil to indoor air pathway, the soil to groundwater
pathway is only potentially applicable to the tank farm and immediately adjacent areas,
generally coinciding with areas where LNAPLs have been observed. The soil to
groundwater pathway was evaluated consistent with WAC 173-340-747, which states
that concentrations of hazardous substances in soil shall not cause contamination of
groundwater at levels that exceed groundwater CULs. This demonstration requires that
two criteria be met at the Site:
-

Soil concentrations shall not cause an exceedance of groundwater CULs. The
potential for soil causing an exceedance of groundwater CULs was evaluated
empirically by comparing groundwater concentrations to CULs at the standard
point of compliance (SPOC) or conditional POC (CPOC). If groundwater
concentrations are below the CULs, then by definition, the concentrations of IHSs
in soil are not causing exceedances of groundwater CULs. Conversely, if
groundwater concentrations at the POC exceed CULs, then soil to groundwater
CULs will be developed for those constituents at that time.

S94800216R_1239

20

-

Soil concentrations shall not result in the accumulation of LNAPL on or in
the groundwater. The potential for accumulation of LNAPL was evaluated
through development of site-specific RSSLs. RSSLs are an estimate of the
maximum residual soil concentrations at which LNAPL will not accumulate on or
in groundwater and are based on site specific factors such as soil type and
contaminant characteristics.

Groundwater. Two potentially complete exposure pathways related to groundwater were
identified: (1) groundwater to indoor air; and (2) groundwater to surface water/sediment.

5.3

-

Groundwater to Indoor Air. As noted above, inhalation of indoor air impacted by
vapor intrusion from groundwater does not represent an unacceptable risk to workers at
the Site under current conditions (PSC 2001, 2002; PIONEER, 2004). However, this
remains a potentially-complete exposure pathway for the Site and could be of concern for
future commercial land-use scenarios.

-

Groundwater to Surface Water/Sediment. These pathways are the primary pathways
of concern for the Site. Impacted groundwater from the Site could be released to Elliott
Bay via the groundwater to surface water pathway and/or groundwater to sediment
pathway, potentially resulting in exposure to aquatic receptors (i.e., fish or invertebrates),
or to people consuming seafood collected from Elliott Bay.
Terrestrial Ecological Exclusion

An assessment of Site conditions was performed in order to determine the need for a terrestrial
ecological evaluation under WAC 173-340-7490. The Site qualifies for an exclusion from the
terrestrial ecological evaluation process, as documented in BDR1 (Roth Consulting, 2001),
which was approved by Ecology in a letter dated May 30, 2002 (Ecology, 2002).

S94800216R_1239

21

6.0

CLEANUP STANDARDS

This section summarizes the development of cleanup standards for the Site per MTCA
requirements. Cleanup standards, as explained in WAC 173-340-700 (3), consist of the
following:
a) CULs for hazardous substances present at the Site;
b) The location where these CULs must be met (i.e., the POC); and
c) Other regulatory requirements that apply to the Site because of the type of action and/or
location of the Site (i.e., applicable state, local, and federal laws).
The approach to developing CULs for the Site consisted of the following steps:


Selection of IHSs;



Development of CULs; and



Selection of the point(s) of compliance.

As described above, most of the potentially applicable soil exposure pathways (e.g., direct
contact, soil to indoor air) are either not currently complete or do not currently present a risk. As
a result, IHSs were not identified for soil and no risk-based CULs were developed for soil related
exposure pathways. Potential future risks associated with these soil-related pathways are
addressed through implementation of engineering and institutional controls. The portion of the
soil to groundwater pathway related to preventing accumulation of LNAPL in the groundwater is
a potentially complete pathway, and the RSSLs developed for the Site were evaluated for use as
remediation levels.
6.1

Selection of Indicator Hazardous Substances

Cleanup levels were developed for constituents in groundwater that could potentially contribute
significantly to human health or ecological risks. Under MTCA, these constituents are
considered IHSs. IHSs were identified for the Site according to the guidelines provided in WAC
173-340-703, which allows those constituents that do not contribute significantly to the risk
associated with a Site to be eliminated from further consideration. Constituents that contributed
only a small percentage to the risk were identified and screened from further evaluation based on
the following criteria:


The frequency that a specific constituent occurred in groundwater;



The geographic distribution of detections for that constituent;



The magnitude of the concentration for that constituent; and



The constituent's chemical/physical properties (e.g., persistence in the environment,
toxicity to humans or aquatic organisms, and the potential to bioaccumulate).

S94800216R_1239

22

Initially, the frequency of detection for each constituent was calculated for the entire
groundwater data set, which was comprised of sampling rounds from 2000 to 2007. In general,
constituents that were never detected, or detected in less than five percent of the samples, were
eliminated from further consideration. In some cases, if the detections of infrequently detected
constituents were geographically clustered (i.e., adjacent to one another), or were detected at an
especially high concentration, they were retained for further evaluation. If the maximum
detected value was greater than the 75th percentile plus three times the IQR, then the constituent
was retained for further consideration. Constituents that were detected in more than five percent
of the samples were automatically retained as IHSs. See Terminal 91 Tanks Farm Site
Feasibility Study Cleanup Levels (FS CUL Memorandum; PIONEER, 2008) for detailed
discussion of this IHS screening process. See Table 7-1 of the FS Report for a complete list of
IHSs and the rationale for excluding certain constituents.
Area background groundwater concentrations were based on analytical results from five on-site
wells and five upland wells (Figure 18). The analytical results were combined to calculate the
area background concentrations for inorganics, based on the decision rule presented in WAC
173-340-709. See Background Groundwater Evaluation (PIONEER, 2007) for a detailed
discussion. Based on this evaluation, arsenic concentrations found on the Site were determined
as area background. Ecology concurred with this conclusion, and arsenic was not considered in
the development of CULs.
6.2

Determination of Cleanup Levels

Human health and ecological CULs were developed for the following complete exposure
pathways, identified in the CSM: (1) groundwater to indoor air; (2) groundwater to surface
water; and (3) groundwater to sediment. CULs were based on the protection of indoor air,
surface water, and sediment quality according to MTCA requirements (WAC 173-340-750,
WAC 173-340-730, and WAC 173-204, respectively). A detailed description of the derivation
of human health and ecological CULs is presented in the FS CUL Memorandum (PIONEER,
2008). Table 3 presents final CULs for shallow groundwater and Table 4 presents final CULs
for deep groundwater.
The RSSLs developed for the Site are included as potential remediation levels.
6.2.1

Human Health Cleanup Levels

Groundwater Cleanup Levels Based on Protection of Indoor Air. Groundwater CULs
protective of indoor air quality were calculated to address the groundwater to indoor air pathway.
MTCA Method C (WAC 173-340-750 (4)) CULs for indoor air were derived and the
groundwater CULs were then calculated by dividing the indoor air CULs by groundwater to
indoor air attenuation factors developed based on the EPA's Johnson and Ettinger Model. A
hazard quotient (HQ) of one was used for calculating noncarcinogenic CULs. The target risk
used for calculating carcinogenic CULs was 1 x 10-5.
Groundwater Cleanup Levels Based on Protection of Surface Water and Sediment. Human
health CULs were developed to protect people who may consume seafood from Elliott Bay
(including Asian Pacific Islander [API] Fisher) in the vicinity of the Site, in accordance with
WAC 173-340-730. Human health CULs were based on surface water CULs, assuming no
S94800216R_1239

23

dilution from groundwater to surface water. MTCA Method B CULs were derived for surface
water based on protection of human health. In addition, modified exposure parameters were
used for the API Fisher population, consistent with the MTCA Science Advisory Board
recommendations. An HQ of one was used for calculating the noncarcinogenic CULs. The
target risk used for calculating carcinogenic CULs was 1x 10-6. Groundwater CULs based on
protection of surface water were considered applicable to both Shallow Aquifer and Deep
Confined Aquifer groundwater.
6.2.2

Ecological Cleanup Levels

Ecological CULs were based on surface water CULs, assuming no dilution from groundwater to
surface water and were developed to protect aquatic organisms that may be exposed to surface
water and sediment in Elliott Bay, which may be potentially impacted by groundwater from the
Site. These CULs were identified based on:





6.3

Washington State Water Quality Standards (WAC 173-201A);
Federal Ambient Water Quality Criteria (Section 304 CWA);
National Toxics Rule (40 CFR 131); and
Environmental Effects. Where there were no existing standards or criteria for IHSs,
groundwater CULs were derived from concentrations that would likely result in no or
minimal adverse effects to aquatic organisms (including benthic invertebrates).

RSSLs

Final RSSLs were developed using Site-specific soil physical property data and LNAPL
characteristic data collected in the first data gaps investigation. RSSLs were developed for
toluene, gasoline, middle distillate petroleum products (diesel range), and fuel oil. The MTCA
four-phase partitioning model spreadsheets were used to develop the revised toluene RSSL, and
Ecology and other published industry references were used to develop the revised RSSLs for
gasoline, middle distillate petroleum products, and fuel oil. The final RSSL ranges are as
follows:


For fuel oils, the calculated RSSL range was 8,727 to 30,000 mg/kg;



For middle distillate petroleum products, the calculated RSSL range was 3,879 to
13,333 mg/kg;



For gasoline, the calculated RSSL range was 1,636 to 5,625 mg/kg; and



For toluene, the calculated RSSL was 832 mg/kg.

The lower end of the ranges represents product in coarse sand and gravel, while the upper end of
the ranges represents product in fine to medium sand.
6.4

Groundwater Point of Compliance

As defined in the MTCA regulations, a POC is the point or points at which CULs must be
attained. MTCA defines both an SPOC and a CPOC. The groundwater SPOC, as described in
S94800216R_1239

24

WAC 173-340-720(8)(b), includes all groundwater within the saturated zone beneath the Site
and in any area affected by releases from the Site. A CPOC is used at the Site when it can be
demonstrated under WAC 173-340-350 through 173-340-390 that it is not practicable to meet
the CULs at the SPOC throughout the Site within a reasonable restoration timeframe.
As discussed below, IHSs are present at concentrations above CULs at a number of SPOC wells,
primarily in and adjacent to the source areas in the interior portions of the Site. As a result of
these exceedances, CPOC wells are proposed and evaluated. The demonstration of the
practicability of achieving CULs at the SPOC (i.e., throughout the Site), and the appropriateness
of using a CPOC, were made during the development and evaluation of cleanup alternatives
discussed below. The SPOC and CPOC wells for the Site are shown in Figure 18.
6.5

Areas Exceeding Groundwater Cleanup Levels

Groundwater data collected from monitoring wells at the Site were compared to the final FS
CULs to determine whether the Site detected groundwater concentrations exceeded final FS
CULs at the POC.
6.5.1

Standard Points of Compliance

The SPOC includes all wells located within the Site boundaries. To determine whether
groundwater data exceeded the final FS CULs at the Site, the IHS groundwater concentrations in
each well were compared to final FS CULs. Locations of SPOC wells are shown in Figure 18.
For shallow groundwater, maximum detected IHS concentrations in shallow groundwater
exceeded final FS CULs in 15 wells. The locations of these wells are presented in Figure 19.
Wells with PAH, diesel, or gasoline concentrations exceeding the final FS CULs were
concentrated around the former tank farm, SWMU-30, and AOC-11.
Maximum detected IHS concentrations in deep groundwater exceeded final FS CULs in seven
wells. The locations of these wells are presented in Figure 20. The main IHSs exceeding final
FS CULs were PAHs, diesel, and gasoline. As with the shallow aquifer, wells with PAH, diesel,
or gasoline concentrations exceeding the final FS CULs were clustered around the Lease Parcel.
6.5.2

Conditional Points of Compliance

Because there were exceedances of the final FS CULs at the SPOCs within the Site, compliance
at CPOCs was evaluated. Under WAC 173-340-720(8)(c), Ecology may approve use of a CPOC
if it can be demonstrated that it is impracticable to meet CULS at the SPOC in a reasonable
timeframe; this demonstration is made in Sections 10 and 11 of the FS report. Groundwater final
FS CULs must be met at the CPOC, and in areas downgradient of the CPOC.
Four shallow groundwater wells and two deep groundwater wells are proposed CPOC wells
(Figure 18). These CPOC wells are the wells closest to potential discharge points on Elliott Bay.
There were no IHSs detected in CPOC wells exceeding final FS CULs in shallow or deep wells.

S94800216R_1239

25

6.6

Areas Exceeding RSSLs

The final RSSLs listed above were compared to the results from the 250 soil samples analyzed
during the three phases of the data gaps investigation. For the purposes of this comparison, the
fuel oil RSSL is compared to motor oil range TPH concentrations at the Site, and the middle
distillate petroleum product RSSL is compared to diesel range TPH concentrations. Figures 21
through 23 highlight soil borings with samples that exceeded the RSSLs for both the individual
TPH fractions and for total TPH (i.e., the sum of the gasoline, diesel, and motor oil ranges). The
greatest number of samples with TPH concentrations greater than RSSLs is located in and
around the Lease Parcel. These samples are largely distributed across the vadose zone and smear
zone sample depths, although there are also some exceedances in the saturated zone. The
toluene RSSL is exceeded in only two smear zone samples in the Small Yard.
The other areas of the Site (AOC 11 and SMWU-30) have only a few smear zone soil samples
with TPH concentrations greater than RSSLs. The data gaps investigation in AOC 11 identified
only a single sample in one soil boring that exceeded an individual TPH-range RSSL, in this case
the RSSL for gasoline. None of the monitoring wells in AOC 11 had measurable LNAPL in
2008. With respect to SMWU-30, there were two borings each with one sample that exceeded
the diesel-range TPH RSSL in the smear zone and one well that had measurable LNAPL in
2008.
6.7

Regulatory Requirements

Cleanup actions must comply with applicable local, state, and federal laws as required by WAC
360(2)(a)(iii); WAC 173-340-710; RCW 70.105D.090. In certain cases, obtaining a permit is
required. In other cases, the cleanup action must comply with the substantive requirements of
the law but is exempt from the procedural requirements of the law (RCW 70.105D.090; WAC
173-340-710(9)).
6.7.1

Model Toxics Control Act

Ecology's MTCA regulations were the primary regulations used to guide the performance of the
FS. Specifically, the FS was conducted following the procedures outlined in WAC 173-340-350.
The 1998 AO was issued pursuant to MTCA and the Port's corrective action obligations under
the 1998 AO are enforceable conditions of the dangerous waste management permit issued
pursuant to Washington Dangerous Waste Regulations.
6.7.2

Washington Dangerous Waste Regulations

Corrective Action Requirements. Activities associated with the former tank farm included the
treatment and storage or dangerous wastes, which are regulated under Chapter 70.105 RCW, the
Hazardous Waste Management Act of 1976, as amended, and regulations codified in WAC 173303. Pursuant to these regulations, Ecology issued Permit No. WAD000812917 on August 26,
1992 to the Port, requiring corrective action at the Terminal 91 Complex.

S94800216R_1239

26

Ecology is requiring that the Port fulfill corrective action responsibilities for the facility, as
defined by WAC 173-303-040, using the MTCA regulations as well as the Dangerous Waste
Regulations (WAC 173-303 and specifically WAC 173-303-646). The corrective actions taken
must meet or exceed all substantive corrective action requirements of the state Hazardous Waste
Management Act, and Dangerous Waste Regulations as well as RCRA.
Dangerous Waste Management Requirements. The Dangerous Waste Regulations provide
the framework for how to manage the various wastes, debris, and environmental media generated
during cleanup actions at the Site. The approach to managing impacted environmental media
(e.g., soil, groundwater) and debris (e.g., concrete and steel associated with the former tank farm)
that may be generated during cleanup actions is complicated by the range of both dangerous and
non-dangerous wastes managed throughout the Lease Parcel, and by the status of the Lease
Parcel as a permitted facility. Discussions between the Port and Ecology have lead to the
development of two memoranda that provide guidance on this subject:

6.7.3



Guidance for Waste Designation Procedures at Terminal 91 (See Appendix B); and



Management of the Port of Seattle's T-91 Facility's Tank Farm Site Subsurface
Debris (Appendix B).

Applicable Local, State, and Federal Laws

As noted above, MTCA's threshold requirements listed in WAC 173-340-360(2) include the
requirement to "comply with applicable state and federal laws," which are further defined in
WAC 173-340-710. The following Federal and Washington State laws and their associated
regulations may be applicable to the CAAs developed for the Site:


Federal Clean Water Act; (33 U.S.C. §1251 et seq) contains standards protective of
human health and aquatic life. Specific portions of the Clean Water Act applicable to
the Site include:
- Ambient Water Quality Standards (Section 304); and
- Standards issued under the National Toxics Rule (40 CFR 131).



Washington Water Well Construction Regulations (WAC 173-160) establish state
standards for installing, maintaining, and decommissioning groundwater monitoring
and recovery wells.



Washington Ground Water Quality Standards (WAC 173-201) establish
standards to protect groundwater quality (e.g., maximum contaminant levels [MCLs])
and beneficial uses.



Washington State Sediment Management Standards (WAC 1732-204) establish
sediment quality standards protective of aquatic life.

S94800216R_1239

27



Washington Surface Water Quality Standards (WAC 173-201A) are applicable to
surface waters of the state, are protective of aquatic life and other beneficial uses, and
could be applicable if an alternative includes discharge of treated water.



Washington State NPDES Program Regulations (WAC 173-220) could be
applicable for discharge to surface waters under a National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit.



Washington Dangerous Waste Regulations (WAC 173-303) establish procedures
and standards related to the definition, management, and disposal of dangerous
wastes. The Dangerous Waste Management Permit and related corrective
requirements are summarized in Section 8.2.2 above.



Washington Clean Air Act Regulations (WAC 173-400) provide standards and
procedures for managing the discharge of contaminants to the atmosphere.



Washington Industrial Safety and Health Act Regulations (WAC 296-62) contain
health and safety training requirements for on-site workers. They also contain
permissible exposure limits for conducting work at the Site.

S94800216R_1239

28

7.0

APPROACH TO DEVELOPING CLEANUP ACTION ALTERNATIVES

7.1

Cleanup Action Objectives

Cleanup action objectives form the basis for evaluating potential cleanup technologies and
actions for the Site. CAOs are based on an evaluation of the data collected during previous
investigations and on the CULs established for the Site. The focus of the CAOs is protection of
human health and the environment. The CAOs for soil and groundwater focus on four primary
exposure or migration pathways:


Exposure of future subsurface construction workers to IHSs in soil, particulates, and soil
vapors;



Exposure of future workers and trespassers to IHSs in vapors originating from soil and/or
groundwater via indoor air;



Groundwater discharge to surface water and/or sediment and the subsequent potential for
impacts on aquatic life or humans consuming fish; and



The presence of LNAPL on the groundwater and/or the migration of contaminants from
soil that results in the accumulation of LNAPL on groundwater.

The CULs developed for the Site and the CAOs, combined with the current concentrations of
IHSs in the soil and groundwater, indicate that there are no current exposures above risk-based
criteria on the Site. The first two of the above future exposure pathways (direct contact with soil
and vapor migration to indoor air) will be addressed through implementation of engineering and
institutional controls.
Because long-term groundwater monitoring has documented that concentrations of IHSs at the
CPOC are below risk-based CULs, the third exposure pathway (groundwater discharge to
surface water and sediment) does not appear to present a current risk to human health and the
environment. Furthermore, the Monitored Natural Attenuation Evaluation, Final Technical
Memorandum (PES et al., 2006c) documented that naturally occurring attenuation mechanisms
have resulted in stable plumes of petroleum-related compounds originating in the tank farm,
SMWU 30, and other potential sources; and CULs are likely to continue to be met in the future
at the CPOC. As a result, the groundwater to surface water/sediment pathway will be addressed
by implementation of an MNA program at the Site.
With the first three pathways being addressed by the presumptive actions described above, the
final pathway (LNAPL accumulation on groundwater or the potential migration of LNAPL from
soil to groundwater) was the primary focus for the development of the CAA and evaluation
process.
7.2

Approach to Developing Cleanup Action Alternatives

As described in Section 7.1, the majority of the potential exposure pathways are addressed using
presumptive response actions (i.e., engineering controls, institutional controls, and MNA). The
S94800216R_1239

29

cleanup actions associated with the presumptive response actions, including the rationale for
selecting these actions, are described in Section 8.1.
The remaining parts of the Site not addressed by these presumptive cleanup actions are the Lease
Parcel and other contaminant source areas. Section 5.1.1 identified the contaminant sources at
the Site, with the Lease Parcel and immediately adjacent areas being by far the most significant
source areas. Secondary sources identified within the Site boundaries included SWMU 30,
AOC 11, and the former fuel transfer pipelines. Compared to the Lease Parcel, these secondary
sources are much smaller in size, contain fewer types of contaminants, and have much less
contaminant mass associated with them. Given the relative simplicity of these secondary
sources, evaluating a range of alternatives for each was not warranted, and specified cleanup
actions were developed for each to effectively eliminate these as potential long-term contaminant
sources. These secondary source cleanup actions were included in the presumptive actions
described below.
For the Lease Parcel and adjacent areas, addressing the CAOs associated with preventing
LNAPL accumulation on groundwater and/or the potential migration of LNAPL from soil to
groundwater (i.e., source control) was the primary focus of the CAA development process
described in the FS. The combination of the presumptive cleanup actions and one of the CAAs
developed for the Lease Parcel constituted the overall cleanup action for the Site.

S94800216R_1239

30

8.0

DESCRIPTION OF SELECTED CLEANUP ACTION ALTERNATIVE

As noted above, the final CAA for the Site consists of two major components: (1) the
presumptive cleanup actions that address areas outside the Lease Parcel and adjacent areas and
(2) the CAA for the Lease Parcel.
8.1

Presumptive Cleanup Actions

A series of presumptive cleanup actions were identified to address the following aspects of the
Site:


Preventing exposure via direct contact with contaminated soil and inhalation of vapors by
future subsurface workers;



Preventing exposure of future workers and trespassers via inhalation of indoor air
impacted by migration of vapors originating from contaminated soil and groundwater;



Secondary sources; and



Groundwater downgradient of the Lease Parcel.

8.1.1

Subsurface Worker Direct Contact and Vapor Inhalation

This pathway addresses potential future exposure of subsurface workers to IHSs in soil and
groundwater via the direct contact, vapor inhalation, and particulate inhalation pathways. The
cleanup action to address this potential exposure consists of the following institutional controls:


Notice on the property deed and in operating procedures implemented by the Port
notifying personnel of the potential exposure and requirements to implement standard
worker health and safety procedures; and



Requirement that qualified personnel evaluate soil and/or groundwater that may be
removed as part of construction activities and manage the material consistent with
applicable regulations.

These institutional controls will be included in an environmental covenant developed consistent
with Ecology's Model Restrictive (Environmental) Covenant4.
8.1.2

Indoor Air Pathway

There are no current exposures via the indoor air pathway and potential exposures via this
pathway would occur only if future development activities at the Site include construction of a
building or other enclosed structure over contaminated soil or groundwater. The approach for

4

Ecology's Model Restrictive (Environmental) Covenant can be found at:
www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/TCP/vcp/vcp_boilerplates/Model%20Covenant%20(Quick%20Fix)%20(2).doc

S94800216R_1239

31

addressing the potential future exposure of workers or trespassers via the indoor air pathway is to
implement land use restrictions that include the following institutional controls:


Placing a notice in the public land records identifying the potential presence of
contaminated soil and/or groundwater;



Requiring that one of the following approaches be taken to address the potential
exposure:
(1) Include engineering controls (e.g., vapor barriers, sub-slab venting systems) in Site
development plans to prevent the potential exposure; or
(2) Conduct a development-specific evaluation of the soil/groundwater to indoor air
pathway (i.e., developing risk-based CULs for the specific potential exposures related
to the proposed development).

If concentrations of IHSs exceed the CULs developed under the second option, appropriate
supplemental remedial actions will be evaluated and implemented or engineering controls
implemented, as appropriate.
8.1.3

Secondary Source Area Actions

The three secondary source areas within the Site are SWMU 30, AOC 11, and the former fuel
transfer pipelines. The approach for addressing each of these is described below.
SWMU 30. The presumptive remedy for SMWU 30 includes excavating two areas with
evidence of LNAPL to a depth of 9 to 12 ft (see Figure 24), totaling approximately 4,300 square
feet (sq ft) and approximately 1,000 cubic yards. The LNAPL and TPH-impacted soil will be
stockpiled and profiled for off-site disposal at an approved facility. As part of the excavation,
three monitoring wells (PNO-MW-03, PNO-MW-102, and PNO-EW-1) will be
decommissioned. Removal of the observed LNAPL source and soil exceeding the RSSLs will
greatly reduce the potential for SWMU 30 to cause future exceedances of CULs at the CPOC.
The capital costs associated with the proposed SWMU 30 actions are summarized in Table 5 and
total $260,000.
AOC 11. Given that none of the monitoring wells in AOC 11 had measurable LNAPL in 2008,
that downgradient CPOC well CP_GP14 is below CULs, and the lack of any LNAPL or
extensive areas of significant soil contamination that may lead to future LNAPL accumulation,
aggressive source removal actions similar to those proposed for SWMU 30 do not appear
warranted for AOC 11. The absence of a current LNAPL source is not unexpected given that the
AOC 11 tank farm was only operational for 15 years and was demolished over 75 years ago. As
a result, the approach for addressing the residual contamination present in AOC 11 will be
incorporated into the MNA approach described below.
Former Fuel Transfer Pipelines. A number of subsurface fuel and wastewater transfer
pipelines running between the Lease Parcel and Piers 90 and 91 remain in place (Figure 6).
Although some of these remaining pipelines have been recently cleaned or otherwise
S94800216R_1239

32

decommissioned in place and in some cases removed, there may be pipelines that remain in place
that have not been cleaned and could contain residual petroleum products. To prevent residual
product in the remaining pipelines from becoming a future LNAPL source, the following actions
are proposed:


Prepare an inventory of pipelines known to be remaining in place that have not been
properly cleaned and abandoned; and



Develop and implement a plan to clean and abandon in place the identified pipelines.
This plan will include specific procedures for characterizing and managing residual
materials in the pipelines, cleaning and decommissioning techniques, and reporting and
documentation requirements. Unless a pipeline needs to be physically removed for
development reasons, it is assumed that all pipelines will be cleaned and decommissioned
in place. This plan also will identify procedures for handling currently unidentified
pipelines that may be discovered in the future during maintenance or site development
activities.

Although the exact lineal footage of pipelines remaining is unknown, available information
suggests that there could be as much as 22,000 ft of pipelines in and around the Lease Parcel and
extending to the piers.
8.1.4

Groundwater Downgradient of Lease Parcel

As described in detail in the FS, achieving CULs at the groundwater SPOC is not practicable or
technically feasible at the Site. Therefore, consistent with WAC 173-340-720(8)(c), CPOC wells
were established for the Site, and monitoring has documented that IHS concentrations in
groundwater downgradient of the Lease Parcel are below CULs at the CPOC. The effectiveness
of MNA at achieving and maintaining compliance with the CULs was evaluated and documented
consistent with Ecology protocols (PES, 2006a). Therefore, groundwater downgradient of the
Lease Parcel will be addressed using MNA.
The Port proposes to implement an MNA program consistent with Ecology's MNA guidance
document (Ecology, 2005a and 2005b). To monitor both the primary and secondary sources at
the Site, wells along the three flowpaths monitored during the MNA evaluation (PES, 2006a)
would be included in the program (Figure 25). A well (or wells) upgradient of the Lease Parcel
tank farms will be included to confirm the background water quality over time, a well or wells
representative of the tank farm source water quality will be included to determine changes in the
source area water quality, and wells along the Pier 90, Pier 91, and AOC 11 flowpaths will be
included to determine plume water quality and sentinel well water quality. If additional wells are
needed to monitor the source area post remediation, or if wells at the site are damaged, the Port
will notify Ecology.
8.2

Selected Lease Parcel CAA: Alternative 4 - Containment, Subsurface Structure
Removal, and Enhanced LNAPL Recovery

Based on the development and evaluation of the CAAs developed for the Lease Parcel presented
in the FS report, Alternative 4 was selected for implementation at the Site. Alternative 4's
S94800216R_1239

33

primary objective is to prevent migration of LNAPL from the Lease Parcel source area and to
prevent future surface product seeps from occurring. This alternative includes: constructing a
subsurface slurry wall around the perimeter of the former tank farm; removal of the remaining
subsurface structures and tank bases that appear to be the source of the current seeps; removal of
highly contaminated soil encountered during the tank bottom removal process; installing an
enhanced passive LNAPL recovery system; replacing the existing asphalt paving with new
asphalt paving; site drainage improvements; annual asphalt paving inspections and repair;
LNAPL monitoring and passive recovery; compliance monitoring; and reporting.
The purpose of the slurry wall will be to prevent migration of LNAPL from the Lease Parcel and
to prevent groundwater from flowing through the source area. Removing the existing subsurface
structures and highly contaminated soil, along with replacing the asphalt paving, will prevent
direct contact with impacted soils, minimize infiltration of precipitation, and effectively
eliminate the potential for surface LNAPL seeps to occur. Improvements will be made to
existing site drainage infrastructure to prevent stormwater from ponding on the asphalt paving.
Figure 26 shows the major features of Alternative 4.
Prior to commencing the slurry wall construction activities described below, all 16 monitoring
wells within the footprint of the former tank farm will be decommissioned and the existing
asphalt paving will be removed and hauled off site for disposal. In addition to the pavement, all
of the remaining subsurface structures, including concrete containment wall footings, steel tank
bases, concrete tank bottom "floors," and other structures will be removed (Figure 26). This will
require removal of all of the subgrade and fill between the existing asphalt paving and the former
tank bottom floor and tank bases (approximately 6,250 cubic yards, or 9,400 tons). The steel
tank bases will be decontaminated as necessary and transported off site for recycling as scrap
metal.
The slurry wall will be approximately 2 ft wide and 1,550 ft long and will extend to an average
depth of approximately 20 ft bgs (Figure 26). The exact alignment of the slurry wall will be
evaluated during design and a final alignment proposed in the preliminary design submittal. The
wall will be constructed with a slurry mix based on site soil types and compatibility with site
groundwater and LNAPL. The depth of the wall was established to be approximately 10 ft
below the low water table to prevent migration of LNAPL and minimize contact of groundwater
from outside the wall with the most impacted source material.
It is anticipated that once the existing paving and subsurface structures (including tank bases) are
removed and the underlying soil exposed, there will likely be one or more areas of surface soil
that are visibly and highly contaminated with petroleum (i.e., product-saturated soil). In order to
minimize the potential for these soils to act as a source of future seeps, these areas of highly
contaminated surface soil will be removed. It was assumed for purposes of the FS that
approximately 240 tons of soil (10 areas each measuring 12 ft square and 3 ft deep) will be
removed, characterized, and the soil disposed of off site.
The enhanced LNAPL recovery system will be designed to remove the recoverable LNAPL to
the extent practicable using passive recovery techniques. Based on the recent LNAPL
monitoring data (PES, 2008d), portions of the Lease Parcel most likely to contain recoverable
LNAPL are located in the western portion of the former tank farm area and center around wells
S94800216R_1239

34

PR-07, PR-12, and UT-MW39-3. For purposes of the FS, the enhanced LNAPL recovery system
involved a series of 5 trenches located in the target areas listed above (see Figure 26). These
trenches would be approximately 50 to 75 ft long, 2 ft wide, and completed approximately 10 ft
below the surrounding grade. Each trench would be backfilled with pea gravel, with a section of
6-inch slotted pipe running the length of the trench installed at average low water table elevation.
At both ends of the trench, a cleanout well will be installed. These wells would be completed to
the bottom of the trench and also connected to the slotted pipe within the trench. As LNAPL
collects within the gravel backfill and the slotted piping and cleanout wells, it would be removed
either by bailing or pumping depending on the quantity of LNAPL present.
Once the slurry wall and asphalt paving have been installed, ongoing O&M activities associated
with Alternative 4 include annual asphalt paving inspections and maintenance, LNAPL recovery
and monitoring, compliance groundwater monitoring, and reporting. The enhanced LNAPL
recovery system is assumed to be operated and maintained on a monthly basis for three years,
bimonthly for an additional two years, and quarterly for five years (10 years total operation
period). Recovered LNAPL and water will be disposed of as required. In addition to the
operation of the enhanced LNAPL recovery system, O&M activities will also include LNAPL
monitoring and passive recovery outside the area of influence of the enhanced LNAPL recovery
system.
8.3

Summary of Costs for Selected Cleanup Actions

The total capital costs for implementing the presumptive actions are $930,000 and includes
developing and implementing institutional controls; excavating LNAPL source areas at
SWMU 30; inventorying, cleaning, and abandoning remaining subsurface pipelines; and
developing the MNA plan and installing the required additional monitoring wells. The only
estimable long-term O&M cost associated with these actions is the monitoring and reporting that
make up the MNA program. The NPV of these monitoring and reporting costs over a 30-year
timeframe is $450,000. The total estimated cost for implementing these presumptive cleanup
actions is approximately $1,380,000.
The estimated capital costs for Alternative 4 are approximately $2,690,000. Annual O&M costs
are estimated to range from approximately $60,000 to $70,000 per year depending on the
frequency of LNAPL recovery efforts, and the NPV of the O&M activities for a 30-year time
period is approximately $1,190,000. The total estimated present worth costs for Alternative 4
are $3,880,000 (Table 6).
The total estimated cost for implementing the selected cleanup action is $5,260,000.
8.4

Other Lease Parcel CAAs Considered

In addition to the selected CAA described above, five other CAAs were evaluated for the Lease
Parcel. These other alternatives are described in detail in the FS Report and summarized briefly
below.

S94800216R_1239

35

8.4.1

Alternative 1 - Existing Asphalt Paving Maintenance and Monitoring

Alternative 1 was the baseline option against which the other alternatives were compared and
consists of maintaining the existing asphalt paving in place over the former tank farm, LNAPL
monitoring in select wells, and long-term compliance monitoring of groundwater.
8.4.2

Alternative 2 - Containment and Passive LNAPL Recovery

Alternative 2 included constructing a subsurface slurry wall around the perimeter of the former
tank farm, replacing the existing asphalt paving with a composite cap (cap) consisting of new
asphalt paving and underlying geomembrane, site drainage improvements, annual cap
inspections and repair, LNAPL monitoring and passive recovery, compliance monitoring, and
reporting. The purpose of the slurry wall was to prevent migration of LNAPL from the Lease
Parcel and to prevent groundwater from flowing through the source area. The new composite
cap would have prevented direct contact with impacted soils, minimize infiltration of
precipitation, and effectively eliminate the potential for surface LNAPL seeps to occur. A
majority of the existing subsurface structures/soil would have been left in place. Improvements
would have been made to existing site drainage infrastructure to prevent stormwater from
ponding on the cap.
8.4.3

Alternative 3 - Active LNAPL Recovery and Subsurface Structure Removal

Alternative 3 is similar to Alternative 2 in that its primary objective was to prevent migration of
LNAPL from the Lease Parcel source area and prevent future product seeps from occurring on
the asphalt paving, but it achieved those objectives using different approaches. To address
LNAPL, Alternative 3 included a vacuum-enhanced LNAPL recovery system while surface
seeps were addressed by removing all of the remaining subsurface structures and tank bases that
appear to be the source of the current seeps. Alternative 3 also included new asphalt paving to
prevent direct contact with impacted soils and prevent infiltration of precipitation.
8.4.4

Alternative 5 - Limited Excavation of LNAPL Areas

The primary component of Alternative 5 was the removal of the LNAPL source areas in and near
the Lease Parcel through excavation and disposal of impacted soil in areas where LNAPL has
been observed. The excavation would have extended to approximately 3 ft below the low water
table, about 10.5 ft bgs after removing the paving, subgrade material, and remaining tank farm
concrete. By excavating soils to this depth, the entire "smear zone" and the top of the saturated
zone, where most if not all of the LNAPL is expected to be present, would have been removed.
The lateral extent of the excavations was based on currently available information regarding the
presence of LNAPL in the Lease Parcel and immediately surrounding areas. This approach
would have resulted in approximately 12,700 cubic yards, or 19,000 tons, of soil being
excavated. Soil would either be direct-loaded into trucks for transportation off site if sufficient
data existed to characterize the soil, or stockpiled on site for characterization prior to disposal.
Other components of this alternative included removal of the existing asphalt paving and all
remaining above ground and subsurface structures in the former tank farm, backfilling the
S94800216R_1239

36

excavation area with clean soil, constructing new asphalt paving, and installing new monitoring
wells.
8.4.5

Alternative 6 - Excavation of Soils Exceeding RSSLs

Alternative 6 was very similar to Alternative 5 (i.e., source area excavation), except that the
boundaries of the excavation were defined by two factors: (1) the areas where LNAPL has been
observed as in Alternative 5; and (2) areas where soil contains petroleum hydrocarbons at
concentrations exceeding RSSLs. In most cases, the areas exceeding the RSSLs includes all of
the areas included in Alternative 5 plus additional soil where LNAPL has not been observed but
soil sampling results show TPH concentrations above the RSSLs. For Alternative 6, the
excavation of soil to a depth of 10.5 ft would remove approximately 21,500 cubic yards, or
32,300 tons, of soil.

S94800216R_1239

37

9.0

JUSTIFICATION FOR SELECTED CLEANUP ACTION ALTERNATIVE

Because the final cleanup action for the Site consists of two components - the presumptive
cleanup actions and the Lease Parcel Cleanup Action - the analysis of the cleanup actions was
performed in two steps. First, the extent to which the presumptive cleanup actions addressed (in
part or in full) the MTCA requirements listed above was evaluated. Second, the six cleanup
actions for the Lease Parcel were evaluated against those requirements applicable to the Lease
Parcel. Finally, the comparative evaluation of the retained remedial alternatives for each
evaluation criteria was summarized and a final cleanup action selected for implementation. This
detailed evaluation of the CAAs for the Site is provided in Sections 11 and 12 of the FS Report
and summarized for the selected CAA below.
9.1

Evaluation of Presumptive Cleanup Actions

The majority of the objectives for the Site are addressed through presumptive actions including
engineering and institutional controls, implementation of an MNA program, and controlling
LNAPL at the secondary source areas. These actions are described in Section 8.1. The
combined presumptive actions address the majority of the MTCA requirements for the Site, as
discussed below.
9.1.1

Threshold Requirements

Protectiveness. The presumptive cleanup actions specifically address the primary exposure and
migration pathways at the Site and are protective of human health and the environment.
Potential future worker exposures via subsurface soil and soil vapors are controlled through
engineering and institutional controls. Discharges of groundwater to surface water, which
currently meet cleanup levels, will be addressed in the future through implementation of the
MNA program. The presumptive cleanup actions for the secondary sources, along with the
Lease Parcel Cleanup Actions, only enhance the likelihood that the protectiveness will be
maintained and improved in the future.
Compliance with Cleanup Standards. The primary numeric cleanup standards for the Site are
the groundwater cleanup levels described in Section 6.2, which address protection of human and
aquatic receptors. The other cleanup standard applicable to the Site relates to the prevention of
LNAPL from accumulating on the groundwater. Compliance with each of the two standards is
discussed below.
The concentration of IHSs in groundwater are currently below cleanup levels at all CPOC wells.
Implementation of the MNA program included in the presumptive cleanup actions will document
that cleanup levels are met at these wells in the future.
With the exception of the LNAPL observed at SWMU 30, LNAPL (and soils with the potential
to result in LNAPL accumulation) is observed primarily in and adjacent to the Lease Parcel.
Therefore, the evaluation of whether this cleanup objective is met is addressed mainly by the
Lease Parcel CAA. With respect to SWMU 30, the presumptive cleanup action removes the
observed LNAPL around well PNO-MW102 and the soil impacted with TPH above RSSLs
(Figure 24). By removing the observed LNAPL source and soil exceeding the RSSLs, the
S94800216R_1239

38

potential for SWMU 30 to cause future exceedances of the LNAPL cleanup standard is
eliminated.
Compliance with Regulatory Requirements. All of the presumptive cleanup actions will
comply with the applicable legal requirements, including MTCA. Off-site management and
disposal of wastes will comply with the applicable solid and dangerous waste regulations.
Compliance Monitoring. The presumptive actions include a comprehensive MNA program that
will be developed consistent with Ecology guidelines. Additional compliance monitoring to
assess the ongoing performance of the cleanup actions and to monitor compliance with cleanup
goals is included in the CAA selected for the Lease Parcel.
9.1.2

Other Requirements

Use of Permanent Solutions. As described in FS, the development of a "permanent" cleanup
action for the Site is not feasible because of the severe technical challenges and associated
extraordinary costs in attempting such a cleanup. Furthermore, the evaluation process for
determining whether a cleanup action uses permanent solutions to maximum extent practicable
defined in WAC 173-340-360(3), utilizes a disproportionate cost analysis that is not readily
applicable to the use of presumptive actions. That being said, the actions for SWMU 30 and the
former fuel transfer pipelines effectively and permanently remove the contaminant sources from
these areas and add to the permanence of the overall cleanup action for the Site.
Restoration Time Frame. "Restoration time frame" is defined by MTCA to be the period of
time needed to achieve the required cleanup levels at the POC established for the site. For the
Site, the POC for groundwater was established at the CPOC wells shown in Figure 18.
Groundwater monitoring results indicate that CULs are currently being met at the CPOC. The
actions necessary to maintain compliance include implementation of the MNA program included
in the presumptive cleanup actions. In addition, implementation of the source control actions
included in the presumptive cleanup actions, as well as the Lease Parcel CAA, will help assure
that IHS concentrations remain below CULs.
The FS assumes that MNA monitoring would continue for 30 years, although establishing that
cleanup standards have been met may take less time, at which point monitoring can be
discontinued (i.e., restoration is achieved). A restoration time frame of 20 to 30 years for the
Site is considered reasonable based on an evaluation of the factors listed in WAC 173-340360(4)(b) for determining what is considered a reasonable restoration time frame. Specifically,
the Site:


Poses a low risk to human health and the environment and what risk is present can be
readily and effectively controlled through implementation of engineering and institutional
controls;



The current and potential future uses of the Site (i.e., industrial, commercial) are not
significantly impacted by the Site contamination and are appropriate uses for the
property;

S94800216R_1239

39



Existing or potential future water supplies are not affected;



Monitoring can be effectively implemented throughout the entire site; and



Natural processes which reduce contaminant concentrations have been documented to
occur at the Site.

For these reasons, the presumptive cleanup actions (in conjunction with the Lease Parcel CAA)
are considered to provide a reasonable restoration time frame for the Site.
Consider Public Concerns. Ecology has developed a Public Participation Plan (PPP; Ecology,
2010) to promote public understanding and participation in the cleanup process for this Site. As
part of the activities outlined in the PPP, Ecology has solicited public comment on the RI, FS,
and the 2010 AO by providing for a 45-day public comment period from February 12 through
March 29, 2010. Comments received on these documents during the public comment period
were considered by Ecology. Ecology responded to the comments, but did not require that the
documents be altered by the Port. In its response, Ecology stated that comments from the public
will also be considered on this draft CAP once it is available for public notice. This additional
public comment period will provide a second opportunity for the public to provide input on the
preferred cleanup action alternative. Ecology will continue to involve the public throughout the
cleanup process, consistent with the approach presented in the PPP.
9.2

Evaluation of Selected Lease Parcel Cleanup Action Alternative

Alternative 4 was the selected alternative for the Lease Parcel and includes constructing a slurry
wall around the perimeter of the former tank farm, removal of all of the remaining subsurface
structures and tank bases, removal of highly contaminated surface soil, installation of an
enhanced LNAPL recovery system, new asphalt paving, annual paving inspections and repair,
LNAPL monitoring and passive recovery outside the enhanced LNAPL recovery system,
compliance monitoring, and reporting.
The only CAOs that are not addressed by the presumptive actions relate to the Lease Parcel and
include:


Controlling, to the extent practicable, the migration of IHSs from soil to groundwater in
quantities that would result in the accumulation of LNAPL on the groundwater; and



Controlling, to the extent practicable, the accumulation of LNAPL on the groundwater.

Section 11 and 12 of the FS Report provide a detailed analysis of how Alternative 4 complies
with the applicable MTCA evaluation criteria by addressing these two CAOs. This evaluation is
summarized below.
9.2.1

Threshold Requirements

Protect human health and the environment. The evaluation of protection of human health and
the environment for the Lease Parcel CAAs addressed the control, prevention, or elimination of
S94800216R_1239

40

product seeps through the asphalt paving placed over the former tank farm. All of the other
aspects of complying with this requirement are addressed by the presumptive cleanup actions.
Alternative 4 effectively eliminates the potential for product seeps through the asphalt paving by
removing all of the remaining subsurface structures, including all of the remaining tank bases, as
well as removing highly contaminated surface soil from the former tank farm area and
constructing new asphalt paving. The enhanced LNAPL recovery system would further reduce
the potential for surface seeps.
Comply with cleanup standards (WAC 173-340-700 through -760). The evaluation of
compliance with cleanup standards for the Lease Parcel considered how the CAA prevents
LNAPL accumulation on groundwater or migration from soil to groundwater. This evaluation
criterion also evaluated the MTCA requirement that nonpermanent cleanup actions treat or
remove the LNAPL sources using accepted engineering practices.
Alternative 4 addresses the cleanup standards related to LNAPL by using a combination of the
enhanced LNAPL recovery system to remove recoverable LNAPL from the Lease Parcel and
adjacent areas and construction of a slurry wall around the former tank farm. Outside the area
affected by the enhanced LNAPL recovery system, monitoring and passive recovery activities
will be used. By removing the recoverable LNAPL and surrounding the former tank farm area
with a slurry wall, Alternative 4 will greatly reduce the potential for migration of LNAPL from
the source area.
Alternative 4 relies in part on maintenance of the asphalt paving to minimize infiltration of
precipitation and prevent or minimize the migration of LNAPL from soil to groundwater.
Because all of the subsurface structures and the highly contaminated surface soil are removed in
this alternative, many of the potential soil sources for LNAPL migration to groundwater are
removed.
Comply with applicable state and federal laws (WAC 173-340-710). Alternative 4 complies
with the applicable legal requirements, including MTCA. Off-site management and disposal of
wastes will comply with the applicable solid and dangerous waste regulations.
Provide for compliance monitoring. In addition to the MNA program included in the
presumptive cleanup actions, Alternative 4 includes compliance monitoring to assess the ongoing
performance of the alternative and to monitor compliance with cleanup goals.
9.2.2

Other Requirements

Use permanent solutions to the maximum extent practicable. The process for determining
whether a cleanup action uses permanent solutions to maximum extent practicable is defined in
WAC 173-340-360(3). Since none of the alternatives, including the selected alternative, meet
the definition of a permanent cleanup action contained in WAC 173-340-200 (a cleanup action
where cleanup standards are met without any further cleanup actions being required), the
evaluation of this criteria utilized a disproportionate cost analysis that focuses on determining
which CAA provides the greatest degree of permanence [WAC 173-340-360(3)(e)(ii)(B)]. The
approach for conducting the disproportionate cost analysis is described in Section 9.2.3 below.

S94800216R_1239

41

Provide for a reasonable restoration time frame. The evaluation of this criterion focused on
the time required for Alternative 4 to prevent LNAPL accumulation on groundwater or migration
of LNAPL from soil to groundwater in the Lease Parcel. The use of the enhanced LNAPL
recovery system in Alternative 4 will remove much of the recoverable LNAPL from the
subsurface, and remove it more quickly than the passive techniques of Alternatives 1 and 2
(although potentially not as much or as quickly as the vacuum-enhanced system in
Alternative 3). The slurry wall will control migration from the source immediately upon
construction. For cost estimating purposes, it was assumed that active LNAPL recovery would
continue for 10 years (Table 6), although it is important to note that the majority of the LNAPL
recovered in this time would occur in the first several years of operation. At the end of the 10
years, there should be very little residual LNAPL remaining in the area affected by the LNAPL
recovery system. Outside the area where active recovery is feasible, monitoring and passive
recovery activities will be used and will continue for 30 years.
Preventing or minimizing the migration of LNAPL from soil to groundwater would happen
immediately upon implementation of Alternative 4 (e.g., removal of all of the subsurface
structures and the highly contaminated surface soil, new asphalt paving) and continue by
maintaining the asphalt paving.
Consider public concerns. As noted above, Ecology has developed a PPP for the Site
(Ecology, 2010) and solicited public comment on the RI, FS, and the 2010 AO by providing for a
45-day public comment period. Comments received on these documents during the public
comment period were considered by Ecology. Ecology responded to the comments, but did not
require that the documents be altered by the Port. In its response, Ecology stated that comments
from the public will also be considered on this draft CAP once it is available for public notice.
This additional public comment period will provide a second opportunity for the public to
provide input on the preferred cleanup action alternative. Ecology will continue to involve the
public throughout the cleanup process consistent with the approach presented in the PPP.
9.2.3

Disproportionate Cost Analysis

The disproportionate cost evaluation used the criteria described in WAC 173-340-360(3)(f) to
determine which Lease Parcel CAA is a permanent solution to the maximum extent practicable.
These criteria, and how they were applied to the Lease Parcel CAAs, are:


Protectiveness. This is essentially the same as the primary MTCA requirement
described above.



Permanence. This criterion focuses on the degree to which the alternative permanently
reduces the toxicity, mobility or volume of hazardous substances. For the evaluation of
the Lease Parcel CAAs, this criterion focused on the permanence of addressing the
LNAPL on the groundwater and potential sources of LNAPL in soil.



Cost. The overall cost to implement the alternative, including the cost of construction
and the NPV of any long-term costs, was used to compare alternatives to each in the costbenefit analysis.

S94800216R_1239

42



Effectiveness over the long term. This criterion addresses the degree of certainty that
the selected alternative will be successful, the reliability of the alternative during the
period of time hazardous substances are expected to remain on-site, the magnitude of
residual risk with the alternative in place, and the effectiveness of controls required to
manage treatment residues or remaining wastes. For the evaluation of the Lease Parcel
CAAs, the differentiating aspect of this criterion was the effectiveness and reliability of
the LNAPL control and prevention actions.



Management of short-term risks. This criterion addresses the risk to human health and
the environment associated with the alternative during construction and implementation,
and the effectiveness of measures taken to manage such risks.



Technical and administrative implementability. The ability of an alternative to be
implemented including the technical feasibility, availability of necessary off site
facilities, administrative and regulatory requirements, access for construction operations
and monitoring, and integration with existing facility operations was addressed by this
criterion.



Consideration of public concerns. For this evaluation, the potential for a CAA to raise
public concerns was addressed.

Alternative 4 provides protection through the construction and maintenance of new asphalt
paving and removing all of the remaining subsurface structures and highly contaminated surface
soil. It is implementable from both a technical and an administrative standpoint and, although
there are some short-term risks associated with its implementation (e.g., heavy construction
activities, volatilization of VOCs); these risks can be controlled using standard worker health and
safety procedures and engineering controls.
The enhanced LNAPL recovery system will permanently reduce the volume of the recoverable
LNAPL at the Lease Parcel. The slurry wall constructed around the former tank farm will
significantly and permanently reduce the potential migration of LNAPL from this area.
Monitoring and maintenance is required to assure the long-term effectiveness of the paving and
LNAPL recovery activities in these areas.
The disproportionate cost analysis was based on comparative evaluation of the Lease Parcel
CAAs against the criteria listed above and is summarized in Table 7. The alternatives were
ranked from the most to the least permanent solution and then compared based on cost to
determine if the benefits provided by a higher cost alternative (as defined by the permanence of
the alternative and its ability to meet the CAOs for the Lease Parcel) outweighed the incremental
increase in cost of the alternative. The alternative providing the best balance of permanence and
cost was selected for implementation along with the presumptive cleanup actions. Based on the
analysis detailed in the FS and summarized in Table 7, Alternative 4 provided the best balance of
permanence, the ability to meet the CAOs, and cost, and was therefore recommended for
implementation.

S94800216R_1239

43

9.3

Ecology Expectations

WAC 173-340-370 outlines a series of eight expectations that Ecology has regarding selection
and implementation of cleanup actions. Selection of the overall cleanup action summarized
above for the Site is consistent with these expectations in that it:


Uses engineering controls (containment) to contain large volumes of materials where
treatment is impracticable;



Minimizes migration of hazardous substances by preventing precipitation and runoff
from contacting contaminated soils and waste materials;



Takes active measures (source control actions) to prevent releases of hazardous
substances to surface waters via groundwater discharges; and



Utilizes natural attenuation appropriately in that:
-

Source control will be conducted to the extent practicable;

-

The contaminants left in place after implementation of the cleanup action do not
pose an unacceptable risk to human health and the environment;

-

There is evidence that natural biodegradation is occurring and will continue to
occur at a reasonable rate; and

-

Appropriate monitoring requirements are conducted to ensure that natural
attenuation processes are taking place and human health and the environment are
protected.

-

Does not result in a greater overall threat to human health and the environment
compared to other alternatives.

S94800216R_1239

44

10.0

IMPLEMENTATION OF THE SELECTED CLEANUP ACTION

10.1 Implementation Approach
The final CAA for the Site consists of the presumptive actions described in Section 8.1 and
Lease Parcel Alternative 4 as described in Section 8.2. This overall cleanup action will include
the general steps outlined below.


Preparation of this CAP.



Following final approval of the CAP, initiating cleanup action design.



Implementation of the presumptive cleanup actions including:



-

Developing and implementing institutional controls;

-

Excavating LNAPL source areas at SWMU 30;

-

Inventorying, cleaning, and abandoning remaining subsurface pipelines; and

-

Developing the MNA monitoring plan, including installing the required additional
monitoring wells.

Implementation of the Lease Parcel cleanup actions including:
-

Removing the existing asphalt paving;

-

Removing and stockpiling existing subgrade and fill, and demolishing the
remaining above ground and subsurface structures;

-

Removing highly contaminated surface soil from within the Lease Parcel;

-

Constructing a slurry wall around the former tank farm area;

-

Hauling all demolished and excavated material and decontamination water off
site;

-

Designing and installing the enhanced LNAPL recovery trenches;

-

Constructing new asphalt paving with associated stormwater system
improvements;

-

Installing new LNAPL monitoring wells; and

-

Initiating the long-term O&M activities including operation of the enhanced
LNAPL recovery system, monitoring, asphalt paving inspection and maintenance,
passive LNAPL recovery, and reporting.

S94800216R_1239

45

Following implementation of the preferred cleanup alternative, site development and facility
maintenance activities that include subsurface work (e.g., excavation, boring) have the potential
to discover additional contamination at the Site. This potential is recognized in the engineering
and institutional controls included in the presumptive cleanup actions; these controls will ensure
that future subsurface work (e.g., excavation, boring) will utilize appropriate worker health and
safety procedures during the subsurface work, and that the appropriate long-term engineering
controls (e.g., vapor barriers) are implemented for new developments. Potentially contaminated
soil and groundwater removed during these development and maintenance activities will be
managed consistent with the specific procedures contained in the Contamination Contingency
Plan, which is expected to be part of the new Agreed Order for the entire Terminal 91 Complex.
10.2

Schedule

The remedy design and construction of the cleanup action will be completed in accordance with
the schedule below. This schedule anticipates installation of the cleanup action during the 2012
construction season.

Cleanup Action Task

Estimated Completion Date

Finalize 2010 Agreed Order and Permit

July 2010

Public Review of Draft Cleanup Action Plan

October 2010

Finalize Cleanup Action Plan

November 2010

Finalize Cleanup Order

February 2011

The Final Cleanup Order will provide a schedule for the major tasks to be implemented under the
Cleanup Order including cleanup action design, bidding and contracting, and cleanup action
construction. It is currently anticipated that the design would occur during 2011 and
construction during 2012.

S94800216R_1239

46

11.0

REFERENCES

Aspect Consulting. 2002. Terminal 91 Second Quarter 2002 Progress Report, Free-Product
Recovery and Ground Water Quality Monitoring. Prepared for Pacific Northern Oil.
July 19, 2002.
Aspect Consulting. 2004a. Bridge Document Report 3, Terminal 91 Tank Farm Site. Prepared
for Port of Seattle and Pacific Northern Oil Corp. May 7, 2004.
Aspect Consulting. 2004b. Work Plan for Groundwater Seepage Evaluation, Terminal 91 Tank
Farm Site, Seattle, Washington. Prepared for Port of Seattle and Pacific Northern Oil
Corporation. July 1, 2004.
Burlington Environmental Inc. 1992. RCRA Facility Investigation Work Plan, Burlington
Environmental Inc. Pier 91 Facility, Seattle, Washington. April 1992.
Burlington Environmental Inc. 1995. Agency Draft, RCRA Facility Investigation Draft Report,
Burlington Environmental Inc. Pier 91 Facility, Seattle, Washington. Prepared for Burlington
Environmental Inc. February 10, 1995.
Converse GES, 1990. Phase I Remedial Investigation, Terminal 91, Seattle, Washington.
Prepared for Pacific Northern Oil. July 5, 1990.
Converse Consultants NW. 1993. Final Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Terminal 91
Facility, Seattle, Washington. Prepared for The Port of Seattle. February 16, 1993.
Converse Consultants NW. 1994. Draft Annual Progress Report, Interim Liquid Hydrocarbon
Recovery System, Terminal 91, Seattle, Washington. Prepared for Pacific Northern Oil.
February 24, 1994.
Hart Crowser, Inc. 1999. Final Geotechnical Engineering Design Study, Terminal 91
Improvement Berths E, F and G. January 14, 1999.
Hart Crowser, Inc. 2002. Geotechnical Engineering Design Study, Pier 91, Berths C and D,
Terminal 91. Prepared for Port of Seattle. December 31, 2002.
PES Environmental, Inc., Roth Consulting, and PIONEER Technologies Corporation. 2005.
Feasibility Study Work Plan, Terminal 91 Tank Farm Site, Seattle, Washington. Prepared for
Port of Seattle. August 26, 2005.
PES Environmental, Inc., Roth Consulting, and PIONEER Technologies Corporation. 2009.
Final Draft Feasibility Study Report, Terminal 91 Tank Farm Site, Seattle, Washington.
Prepared for Port of Seattle. November 2009.
Philip Services Corporation, Associated Earth Sciences, Inc., and Roth Consulting. 1999.
Agency Draft Remedial Investigation/Data Evaluation Report, Terminal 91 Tank Farm Site,
Seattle, Washington. Prepared for The Terminal 91 Tank Farm PLP Group. January 6, 1999.

S94800216R_1239

47

Philip Services Corporation. 1996. Closure Plan and Closure Cost Estimates. August 1996
(approved by Ecology through Part B Permit Modification PRMOD8-2 on October 29, 1996).
Philip Services Corporation. 1997. Letter to Department of Ecology and accompanying
documentation certifying closure of the Final Status (Part B) portions of the Pier 91 Facility.
March 3, 1997.
Philip Services Corporation. 2001. Soil Vapor Technical Memorandum No. 1, Terminal 91
Tank Farm Site, Seattle, Washington. Prepared for Port of Seattle, Philip Services Corporation,
and Pacific Northern Oil Corporation. December 2001.
Philip Services Corporation. 2002. Soil Vapor Technical Memorandum No. 2, Terminal 91
Tank Farm Site, Seattle, Washington. Prepared for Port of Seattle, Philip Services Corporation,
and Pacific Northern Oil Corp. October 2002.
Philip Services Corporation. 2003. Final Groundwater Sampling and Analysis Plan, Terminal
91 Tank Farm Site, Seattle, Washington. Prepared for Port of Seattle, Philip Services
Corporation, and Pacific Northern Oil Corporation. June 2003.
PIONEER Technologies Corporation. 2004. Soil Vapor Evaluation, Building M-28, Terminal
91 Tank Farm Site, Seattle, Washington. Prepared for Terminal 91 PLP Group. September
2004.
PIONEER Technologies Corporation. 2007. Terminal 91 Tank Farm Site Background
Groundwater Evaluation. Prepared for Port of Seattle. January 2007.
PIONEER Technologies Corporation. 2008. Terminal 91 Tank Farm Site Feasibility Study
Cleanup Levels. Prepared for Port of Seattle. May 2008.
Roth Consulting. 2001. Proposed Final Bridge Document Report 1, Terminal 91 Tank Farm
Site. Prepared for Port of Seattle, Philip Services Corporation, and Pacific Northern Oil
Corporation. November 21, 2001.
Roth Consulting. 2003. Bridge Document Report 2, Terminal 91 Tank Farm Site, Seattle,
Washington. Prepared for Port of Seattle, Philip Services Corporation, and Pacific Northern Oil
Corporation. January 2003.
Roth Consulting. 2005. Independent Interim Remedial Action Report, Terminal 91 Tank Farm
Demolition, 2001 West Garfield Street, Seattle, Washington. Prepared for Port of Seattle.
October 18, 2005.
Roth Consulting. 2007. Remedial Investigation Summary Report for the Terminal 91 Tank
Farm Site in Seattle, Washington. Prepared for Port of Seattle. August 2007.
Roth Consulting. 2009. Annual Ground Water Report for 2008, Terminal 91 Tank Farm Site.
Prepared for Port of Seattle. July 2008.

S94800216R_1239

48

Sweet-Edwards/EMCON, Inc. 1988. Phase I Hydrogeologic Investigation, Chemical
Processors, Inc. Pier 91 Facility, Seattle, Washington. Submitted to U.S. EPA Region 10 by
Chemical Processors, Inc. May 1988.
Sweet-Edwards/EMCON, Inc. 1989. Hydrogeologic Investigation, Pier 91 Facility, Chemical
Processors, Inc. Submitted to U.S. EPA Region 10 by Chemical Processors, Inc. April 24,
1989.
Washington Department of Ecology. 1994. Natural Background Soil Metals Concentrations in
Washington State. Publication #94-115. October 1994.
Washington Department of Ecology. 2002. Letter to Susan Roth re The Proposed Final Bridge
Document Report 1; Terminal 91 Tank Farm Site Agreed Order No. DE 98HW-N108. May 30,
2002.
Washington Department of Ecology. 2003. Letter to Philip Services Corporation re Acceptance
of the Clean Closure Certification for the Burlington Environmental Inc. (a wholly owned
subsidiary of Philip Services Corporation) Pier 91 Facility; WAD000812917. October 1, 2003.
Washington State Department of Ecology. 2005a. Guidance on Remediation of PetroleumContaminated Groundwater by Natural Attenuation. July 2005.
Washington State Department of Ecology. 2005b. User's Manual: Natural Attenuation Analysis
Tool Package for Petroleum-Contaminated Ground Water. July 2005.
Washington State Department of Ecology. 2010. Port of Seattle Terminal 91 Public
Participation Plan. January 2010.

S94800216R_1239

49

TABLES

PES Environmental, Inc.

Table 1
LNAPL Monitoring Data Summary
Port of SeattleTerminal 91 Cleanup Action Plan
Seattle, Washington

Location
Lease Parcel, Small
Yard

Lease Parcel, Marine
Diesel Oil Yard

Lease Parcel, Black
Oil Yard

Between Lease Parcel
and AOC 11

AOC 11
SWMU 30

Well
CP-116

Historical Apparent
Thickness Range
(feet)
0.1 to 0.9

Maximum 2008
Apparent Thickness
(feet)
Comments
-
No LNAPL recovery since 2001. Well
decommissioned in 2004.
-
Consistent/seasonal recovery until well
decommissioned in 2004.
0.09
Pilot test well installed in 2005.
0.01
Data gap investigation well installed in
2007.
1.59
Data gap investigation well installed in
2007.
-
Consistent/seasonal recovery until well
decommissioned in 2004.
-
Consistent/seasonal recovery until well
decommissioned in 2004.
0.06
Pilot test well installed in 2005.
0.49
Data gap investigation well installed in
2007.
Not detected
Data gap investigation well installed in
2007.
-
LNAPL thickness decreased to 0.0 to
0.02 ft by 2004. Well decommissioned
in 2004.
0.01
Data gap investigation well installed in
2007.
0.68
Data gap investigation well installed in
2007.
Not detected

CP-117

0.2 to 1.1

CP-PR01
CP-PR11

0.01 to 0.4
Trace to 0.01

CP-PR12

Trace to 1.59

CP-118

0.1 to 1.9

CP-119

0.1 to 1.6

CP-PR02
CP-PR07

0.01 to 0.3
Trace to 0.49

CP-PR08

Trace

CP-109

0.2 to 1.2

CP-PR03

Trace to 0.01

CP-PR04

0.01 to 0.68

CP-107

0.1 to 0.3

CP-110
UT-MW39-2

0.2 to 0.8
Not detected

Trace
0.25 to 0.71

UT-MW39-3
PNO-MW104

0.1 to 1.6
0.06 to 0.19

Trace to 0.99
0.12

PNO-EW01
PNO-MW03
PNO-MW06A
PNO-MW102
PNO-MW103

0.0 to 1.02
0.0 to 1.43
0.0 to 0.01
0.0 to 0.80
0.0 to 0.08

Not monitored
Not detected
Not detected
Not detected
Not detected

Periodically contains a PLRD.
Well monitored between August and
December 2008.
Periodically contains a PLRD.
Typical 2008 apparent thickness was 0.01
ft.
Well under concrete barriers.
Periodically contains a PLRD.

Notes:
1. Historical LNAPL thickness range is approximate and rounded to the neared 0.1 ft from historical LNAPL monitoring data.
2. PLRD = passive LNAPL recovery device.
3. - = not applicable.

S94800216R_1239_T1-2

1 of 1

Table 2
Concentrations of PCBs in Soil Samples
Port of Seattle Terminal 91 Cleanup Action Plan
Seattle, Washington

S94800216R_1239_T1‐2

Soil
Boring
Number
DG-99

Date
Drilled
9/16/08

DG-100

9/16/08

DG-101

9/17/08

DG-102

9/16/08

DG-103

9/16/08

DG-104

9/17/08

DG-105

9/17/08

DG-106

9/17/08

DG-107

9/17/08

DG-108

9/17/08

DG-109

9/17/08

DG-110

9/17/08

DG-111

9/18/08

DG-112

9/18/08

Sample
Depth
2.5
6
12
3
6
10
3
5.5
11
3
6
10
2.5
5
13
5.5
9
13
4
7
11
4
8
10
3
6
11
3
8
10
4
5
10
4
8
9.5
11
3
3 (dup)
7
4
7
7 (dup)
10

Soil
Saturation
Status
V
Sm
Sat
V
Sm
Sat
V
Sm
Sat
V
Sm
Sm/Sat
V
Sm
Sat
Sm
Sat
Sat
V/Sm
Sm
Sat
V/Sm
Sm/Sat
Sat
V
Sm
Sat
V
Sm/Sat
Sat
V/Sm
Sm
Sat
V/Sm
Sm/Sat
Sat
Sat
V
V
Sm
V/Sm
Sm
Sm
Sat

PES Environmental, Inc.

PCBs (mg/kg)
Total
PCBs
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.42
ND
0.095
0.71
ND
0.22
0.63
ND
ND
ND
ND
9.3
0.21
0.14
2.04
0.47
ND
0.76
ND
ND
1.83
0.91
ND
0.54
0.70
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.23
0.345
ND
ND
0.43
1.10
0.557
ND
ND
ND
ND

Page 1 of 2

Table 2
Concentrations of PCBs in Soil Samples
Port of Seattle Terminal 91 Cleanup Action Plan
Seattle, Washington
Soil
Boring
Number
DG-113

Date
Drilled
9/17/08

DG-114

9/17/08

DG-115

9/18/08

Soil
Sample Saturation
Depth
Status
3
V
6.5
Sm
10
Sat
5
Sm
10
Sat
13
Sat
6
Sm
10
Sat
12
Sat
12 (dup)
Sat

PES Environmental, Inc.

PCBs (mg/kg)
Total
PCBs
ND
1.58
ND
1.6
0.11
ND
2.07
ND
ND
ND

Notes:
1. ft bgs = feet below ground surface.
2. Soil saturation status (based on historical water levels):
v = vadose zone (always above the water table);
sm = smear zone (seasonally below the water table); and
sat = saturated zone (always below the water table).
3. PCB analyses performed using EPA Method 8082.

S94800216R_1239_T1‐2

Page 2 of 2

PES Environmental, Inc.

Table 3
Final Cleanup Levels for Shallow 1 Groundwater
Port of Seattle Terminal 91 Cleanup Action Plan
Seattle, WA

CAS Number

Indicator Hazardous
Substance

Class

Final
Recommended
Ecological
Basis of Final
Cleanup Level for
Ecological Cleanup
Surface Water
Level
(ug/L)

Rationale for Selecting this CUL for
Final CUL (if not most protective)

Most Protective
Human Health
Cleanup Level for
Groundwater
(ug/L)

2

Basis of Final Human Health Cleanup Level for Shallow
Groundwater

Groundwater

Area
Background
Concentration

PQL3
(ug/L)

for Groundwater4
(ug/L)
4.71

Final FS
Shallow
Groundwater
CUL5 (ug/L)

Basis for Final FS
CUL

4.7

Background

5,700

Ecological

7440-38-2

Arsenic

Inorganic

36

State WQS

0.042

API Fisher MTCA Method B - 730-2 Modified Ingestion of Fish

0.2

7440-39-3

Barium

Inorganic

5,700

ECOTOX

55,300

API Fisher MTCA Method B - 730-1 Modified Ingestion of Fish

0.5

104,000

API Fisher MTCA Method B - 730-1 Modified Ingestion of Fish

0.5

7.31

74

Ecological

1

2.47

8.1

Ecological

0.01

7440-47-3

Chromium

Inorganic

74

AWQC

7439-92-1

Lead

Inorganic

8.10

State WQS

Marine chronic; regulatory threshold

--

7439-97-6

Mercury

Inorganic

0.030

State WQS

Marine chronic; regulatory threshold

0.300

AWQC Federal Human Health Consumption of Organisms Only

0.02

7782-49-2

Selenium

Inorganic

71

State WQS

Marine chronic; regulatory threshold

27.6

API Fisher MTCA Method B - 730-1 Modified Ingestion of Fish

0.5

7440-22-4

Silver

Inorganic

1.90

State WQS

1,100

API Fisher MTCA Method B - 730-1 Modified Ingestion of Fish

0.2

7440-66-6

Zinc

Inorganic

81

State WQS

5,000

AWQC Federal Organoleptic Effect Criteria

4

68334-30-5

Diesel

Petroleum

500

Petroleum Related MTCA Method A Table 720-1 Values

86290-81-5

Gasoline

Petroleum

800

Petroleum Related MTCA Method A Table 720-1 Values

541-73-1

1,3-dichlorobenzene

Semi-Volatile

206

ECOTOX

33.2

90-12-0

1-methylnaphthalene

Semi-Volatile

1,190

ECOTOX

105-67-9

2,4-dimethylphenol

Semi-Volatile

397

121-14-2

2,4-dinitrotoluene

Semi-Volatile

91-57-6

2-methylnaphthalene

95-48-7

0.03

Ecological

27.6

Human Health

1.9

Ecological

81

Ecological

250

500

Human Health

250

800

Human Health

API Fisher MTCA Method B - 730-1 Modified Ingestion of Fish

1

33.2

Human Health

31.6

API Fisher MTCA Method B - 730-1 Modified Ingestion of Fish

0.01

31.6

Human Health

ECOTOX

236

API Fisher MTCA Method B - 730-1 Modified Ingestion of Fish

1

236

Human Health

307

ECOTOX

3.40

AWQC Federal Human Health Consumption of Organisms Only

1

3.4

Human Health

Semi-Volatile

373

ECOTOX

421

API Fisher MTCA Method B - 730-1 Modified Ingestion of Fish

0.01

373

Ecological

2-methylphenol

Semi-Volatile

4,020

ECOTOX

8,770

API Fisher MTCA Method B - 730-1 Modified Ingestion of Fish

1

4,020

Ecological

106-44-5

4-methylphenol

Semi-Volatile

1,830

ECOTOX

891

API Fisher MTCA Method B - 730-1 Modified Ingestion of Fish

1

891

Human Health

83-32-9

Acenaphthene

Semi-Volatile

34

ECOTOX

20

AWQC Federal Organoleptic Effect Criteria

0.01

20

Human Health

208-96-8

Acenaphthylene

Semi-Volatile

10.7

SMS

--

0.01

10.7

Ecological

38.3

120-12-7

Anthracene

Semi-Volatile

2.68

ECOTOX

11,000

API Fisher MTCA Method B - 730-1 Modified Ingestion of Fish

0.01

2.7

Ecological

56-55-3

Benzo(a)anthracene

Semi-Volatile

0.276

SMS

0.018

AWQC Federal Human Health Consumption of Organisms Only

0.01

0.02

Human Health

50-32-8

Benzo(a)pyrene

Semi-Volatile

0.110

ECOTOX

0.013

API Fisher MTCA Method B - 730-2 Modified Ingestion of Fish

0.01

0.01

Human Health

205-99-2

Benzo(b)fluoranthene

Semi-Volatile

0.187

SMS

0.018

AWQC Federal Human Health Consumption of Organisms Only

0.01

0.02

Human Health

UNK-009

Benzo(b,k)fluoranthene

Semi-Volatile

0.187

SMS

0.126

API Fisher MTCA Method B - 730-2 Modified Ingestion of Fish

0.01

0.13

Human Health

191-24-2

Benzo(g,h,i)perylene

Semi-Volatile

0.012

SMS

--

0.01

0.01

Ecological

207-08-9

Benzo(k)fluoranthene

Semi-Volatile

0.187

SMS

0.018

AWQC Federal Human Health Consumption of Organisms Only

0.01

0.02

Human Health

65-85-0

Benzoic Acid

Semi-Volatile

2,950

ECOTOX

280,000

API Fisher MTCA Method B - 730-1 Modified Ingestion of Fish

1

2,950

Ecological

86-74-8

Carbazole

Semi-Volatile

299

ECOTOX

0.921

API Fisher MTCA Method B - 730-2 Modified Ingestion of Fish

1

1.0

Human Health

218-01-9

Chrysene

Semi-Volatile

1,560

ECOTOX

0.018

AWQC Federal Human Health Consumption of Organisms Only

0.01

0.02

Human Health

53-70-3

Dibenz(a,h)anthracene

Semi-Volatile

0.003

SMS

0.018

AWQC Federal Human Health Consumption of Organisms Only

0.01

0.01

PQL

132-64-9

Dibenzofuran

Semi-Volatile

268

ECOTOX

14.70

API Fisher MTCA Method B - 730-1 Modified Ingestion of Fish

0.01

14.7

Human Health
Ecological

206-44-0

Fluoranthene

Semi-Volatile

4.10

ECOTOX

38.40

API Fisher MTCA Method B - 730-1 Modified Ingestion of Fish

0.01

4.1

86-73-7

Fluorene

Semi-Volatile

78

ECOTOX

1,470

API Fisher MTCA Method B - 730-1 Modified Ingestion of Fish

0.01

78

Ecological

67-72-1

Hexachloroethane

Semi-Volatile

NR

2.27

API Fisher MTCA Method B - 730-2 Modified Ingestion of Fish

1

2.3

Human Health

0.018

AWQC Federal Human Health Consumption of Organisms Only

0.01

0.01

Ecological

1

1,250

Ecological

0.01

97

Ecological

0.01

22

Ecological

193-39-5

Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene

Semi-Volatile

0.01

SMS

CRESOLS34

Methylphenol, P-, M-

Semi-Volatile

1,250

ECOTOX

--

91-20-3

Naphthalene

Semi-Volatile

97

ECOTOX

2,110

85-01-8

Phenanthrene

Semi-Volatile

22

ECOTOX

--

129-00-0

Pyrene

Semi-Volatile

35

ECOTOX

1,110

API Fisher MTCA Method B - 730-1 Modified Ingestion of Fish

0.01

35

Ecological

75-34-3

1,1-dichloroethane

Volatile

2,800

ORNL

17,500

Commercial MTCA Method C - 750-1 Inhalation of Indoor Air

0.2

2,800

Ecological

API Fisher MTCA Method B - 730-1 Modified Ingestion of Fish

95-63-6

1,2,4-trimethylbenzene

Volatile

NR

320

Commercial MTCA Method C - 750-1 Inhalation of Indoor Air

0.2

320

Human Health

106-46-7

1,4-dichlorobenzene

Volatile

NR

2.07

API Fisher MTCA Method B - 730-2 Modified Ingestion of Fish

0.2

2.1

Human Health

S94800216R_1239_T3-4

Page 1 of 2

PES Environmental, Inc.

Table 3
Final Cleanup Levels for Shallow 1 Groundwater
Port of Seattle Terminal 91 Cleanup Action Plan
Seattle, WA
Final
Recommended
Ecological
Basis of Final
Cleanup Level for
Ecological Cleanup
Surface Water
Level
(ug/L)

Rationale for Selecting this CUL for
Final CUL (if not most protective)

Most Protective
Human Health
Cleanup Level for
Groundwater

Basis of Final Human Health Cleanup Level for Shallow
Groundwater

Groundwater

Area
Background
Concentration

PQL3
(ug/L)

for Groundwater4
(ug/L)

Final FS
Shallow
Groundwater

CAS Number

Indicator Hazardous
Substance

67-64-1

Acetone

Volatile

NR

311,000

API Fisher MTCA Method B - 730-1 Modified Ingestion of Fish

1

311,000

Human Health

71-43-2

Benzene

Volatile

NR

9.66

API Fisher MTCA Method B - 730-2 Modified Ingestion of Fish

0.2

9.7

Human Health

104-51-8

Butylbenzene,n-

Volatile

NR

--

108-90-7

Chlorobenzene

Volatile

NR

20

AWQC Federal Organoleptic Effect Criteria

0.2

20

Human Health

75-00-3

Chloroethane

Volatile

230,000

USGS

381

API Fisher MTCA Method B - 730-2 Modified Ingestion of Fish

0.2

381

Human Health

156-59-2

Cis-1,2-dichloroethene

Volatile

11,600

USGS

1,360

API Fisher MTCA Method B - 730-1 Modified Ingestion of Fish

0.2

1,360

Human Health

100-41-4

Ethylbenzene

Volatile

NR

2,100

AWQC Federal Human Health Consumption of Organisms Only

0.2

2,100

Human Health

98-82-8

Cumene

Volatile

NR

850

API Fisher MTCA Method B - 730-1 Modified Ingestion of Fish

0.2

850

Human Health

103-65-1

n-Propylbenzene

Volatile

NR

1,160

API Fisher MTCA Method B - 730-1 Modified Ingestion of Fish

0.2

1,160

Human Health

135-98-8

Sec-butylbenzene

Volatile

NR

152

API Fisher MTCA Method B - 730-1 Modified Ingestion of Fish

0.2

152

Human Health

98-06-6

Tert-butylbenzene

Volatile

NR

152

API Fisher MTCA Method B - 730-1 Modified Ingestion of Fish

0.2

152

Human Health

8,260

API Fisher MTCA Method B - 730-1 Modified Ingestion of Fish

0.2

8,260

Human Health

1.69
1,160

API Fisher MTCA Method B - 730-2 Modified Ingestion of Fish
API Fisher MTCA Method B - 730-1 Modified Ingestion of Fish

0.2
0.4

1.7
1,160

Human Health
Human Health

Class

108-88-3

Toluene

Volatile

NR

75-01-4
1330-20-7

Vinyl Chloride
Xylene (total)

Volatile
Volatile

930
NR

RAIS

(ug/L)

2

CUL5 (ug/L)

Basis for Final FS
CUL

0.2

Notes:
Final FS CULs = These are the most stringent applicable CULs and are the initial CULs that will be considered in the
Feasibility Study (FS). As such, they may be adjusted upward or downward based on area background concentrations,
practical quantitation limits, or other information, as appropriate, in the FS.
-- = Toxicity value not available to calculate CUL
API Fisher = Asian Pacific Islander Fisherman
AWQC = Federal Ambient Water Quality Criteria (Section 304 of the Clean Water Act)
CR = Cancer Risk
CUL = Cleanup Level
ECOTOX = U.S. EPA Ecotoxicity Database - available on-line at http://www.epa.gov/ecotox/
HQ = Hazard Quotient
MTCA = Model Toxics Control Act (WAC 173-340)
No BCF = No bioconcentration factor was available to calculate the cleanup level
No Alpha = No groundwater to indoor air volatilization factor was available to calculate the cleanup level
No RfD = No Reference Dose was available to calculate the cleanup level
No SF = No Slope Factor was available to calculate the cleanup level
PQL = Practical Quantitation Limit
NR = No value recommended. Difficulties in the exposure methods of the tests used to derive values resulted in values being highly uncertain.
ORNL = Oak Ridge Nation Laboratory Toxicological Benchmarks for Screening Potential Contaminants of Concern for Effects
RAIS = Risk Assessment Information System - available online at http://risk.lsd.ornl.gov/index.shtml
SMS = Sediment Management Standards
USGS 1999 = United States Geological Survey - Selection Procedure and Salient Information for Volatile
WQS = Water Quality Standards
1

Shallow groundwater wells were screened at a maximum depth of 21 feet below ground surface (bgs)

2

Based on protection of surface water and protection from vapor intrusion

3

PQLs were acquired from ARI Laboratories, Inc. Personal Communication with Susan Dunnihoo, July 22, 2008 .

4

Based on Terminal 91 Tank Farm Site Background Groundwater Evaluation (PIONEER, 2007)

5

Based on Terminal 91 Tank Farm Site Feasibility Study Cleanup Levels (PIONEER, 2008)

S94800216R_1239_T3-4

Page 2 of 2

PES Environmental, Inc.

Table 4
Final Cleanup Levels for Deep1 Groundwater
Port of Seattle Terminal 91 Cleanup Action Plan
Seattle, WA
Final
Recommended
Ecological
Cleanup Level for
Surface Water
(ug/L)
CAS Number

Indicator Hazardous
Substance

Basis of Final
Ecological Cleanup
Level for Surface
Water

Rationale for Selecting this CUL for
Final CUL (if not most protective)

Groundwater

Area
Background
Concentration
for

(ug/L)2

Basis of Final Human Health Cleanup Level for Deep
Groundwater

PQL3
(ug/L)

Groundwater4
(ug/L)

4.71

Most Protective
Human Health
Cleanup Level for
Groundwater

Final FS Deep
Groundwater
CUL4 (ug/L)

Basis for Final FS
CUL

Class

7440-38-2

Arsenic

Inorganic

36

State WQS

0.042

API Fisher MTCA Method B - 730-2 Modified Ingestion of Fish

0.2

7440-39-3

Barium

Inorganic

5,700

ECOTOX

55,300

API Fisher MTCA Method B - 730-1 Modified Ingestion of Fish

0.5

4.7

Background

5,700

7440-47-3

Chromium

Inorganic

74

AWQC

104,000

API Fisher MTCA Method B - 730-1 Modified Ingestion of Fish

0.5

Ecological

7.31

74

7439-92-1

Lead

Inorganic

8.10

State WQS

Marine chronic; regulatory threshold

--

Ecological

1

2.47

8.1

7439-97-6

Mercury

Inorganic

0.030

State WQS

Marine chronic; regulatory threshold

0.300

Ecological

AWQC Federal Human Health Consumption of Organisms Only

0.02

0.01

0.03

7782-49-2

Selenium

Inorganic

71

State WQS

Marine chronic; regulatory threshold

Ecological

27.6

API Fisher MTCA Method B - 730-1 Modified Ingestion of Fish

0.5

27.6

Human Health

7440-22-4

Silver

Inorganic

1.90

State WQS

1,100

API Fisher MTCA Method B - 730-1 Modified Ingestion of Fish

0.2

1.9

Ecological

7440-66-6

Zinc

Inorganic

81

68334-30-5

Diesel

Petroleum

State WQS

5,000

AWQC Federal Organoleptic Effect Criteria

4

500

Petroleum Related MTCA Method A Table 720-1 Values

250

86290-81-5

Gasoline

Petroleum

541-73-1

1,3-dichlorobenzene

Semi-Volatile

206

ECOTOX

800

Petroleum Related MTCA Method A Table 720-1 Values

33.2

API Fisher MTCA Method B - 730-1 Modified Ingestion of Fish

90-12-0

1-methylnaphthalene

Semi-Volatile

1,190

ECOTOX

31.6

105-67-9

2,4-dimethylphenol

Semi-Volatile

397

ECOTOX

121-14-2

2,4-dinitrotoluene

Semi-Volatile

307

91-57-6

2-methylnaphthalene

Semi-Volatile

95-48-7
106-44-5

2-methylphenol
4-methylphenol

38.3

81

Ecological

500

Human Health

250

800

Human Health

1

33.2

Human Health

API Fisher MTCA Method B - 730-1 Modified Ingestion of Fish

0.01

31.6

Human Health

236

API Fisher MTCA Method B - 730-1 Modified Ingestion of Fish

1

236

Human Health

ECOTOX

3.40

AWQC Federal Human Health Consumption of Organisms Only

1

3.4

Human Health

373

ECOTOX

421

API Fisher MTCA Method B - 730-1 Modified Ingestion of Fish

0.01

373

Ecological

Semi-Volatile

4,020

ECOTOX

8,770

API Fisher MTCA Method B - 730-1 Modified Ingestion of Fish

1

4,020

Ecological

Semi-Volatile

1,830

ECOTOX

891

API Fisher MTCA Method B - 730-1 Modified Ingestion of Fish

1

891

Human Health

AWQC Federal Organoleptic Effect Criteria

0.01

20

Human Health

0.01

10.7

Ecological

83-32-9

Acenaphthene

Semi-Volatile

34

ECOTOX

20

208-96-8

Acenaphthylene

Semi-Volatile

10.7

SMS

--

120-12-7

Anthracene

Semi-Volatile

2.68

ECOTOX

11,000

API Fisher MTCA Method B - 730-1 Modified Ingestion of Fish

0.01

2.7

Ecological

56-55-3

Benzo(a)anthracene

Semi-Volatile

0.276

SMS

0.018

AWQC Federal Human Health Consumption of Organisms Only

0.01

0.02

Human Health

50-32-8

Benzo(a)pyrene

Semi-Volatile

0.110

ECOTOX

0.013

API Fisher MTCA Method B - 730-2 Modified Ingestion of Fish

0.01

0.01

Human Health

205-99-2

Benzo(b)fluoranthene

Semi-Volatile

0.187

SMS

0.018

AWQC Federal Human Health Consumption of Organisms Only

0.01

0.02

Human Health

UNK-009

Benzo(b,k)fluoranthene

Semi-Volatile

0.187

SMS

0.126

API Fisher MTCA Method B - 730-2 Modified Ingestion of Fish

0.01

0.13

Human Health

191-24-2

Benzo(g,h,i)perylene

Semi-Volatile

0.012

SMS

--

0.01

0.01

Ecological

207-08-9

Benzo(k)fluoranthene

Semi-Volatile

0.187

SMS

0.018

AWQC Federal Human Health Consumption of Organisms Only

0.01

0.02

Human Health

65-85-0

Benzoic Acid

Semi-Volatile

2,950

ECOTOX

280,000

API Fisher MTCA Method B - 730-1 Modified Ingestion of Fish

1

2,950

Ecological

86-74-8

Carbazole

Semi-Volatile

299

ECOTOX

0.921

API Fisher MTCA Method B - 730-2 Modified Ingestion of Fish

1

1.0

Human Health

218-01-9

Chrysene

Semi-Volatile

1,560

ECOTOX

0.018

AWQC Federal Human Health Consumption of Organisms Only

0.01

0.02

Human Health

53-70-3

Dibenz(a,h)anthracene

Semi-Volatile

0.003

SMS

0.018

AWQC Federal Human Health Consumption of Organisms Only

0.01

0.01

PQL

132-64-9

Dibenzofuran

Semi-Volatile

268

ECOTOX

14.70

API Fisher MTCA Method B - 730-1 Modified Ingestion of Fish

0.01

14.7

Human Health

206-44-0

Fluoranthene

Semi-Volatile

4.10

ECOTOX

38.40

API Fisher MTCA Method B - 730-1 Modified Ingestion of Fish

0.01

4.1

Ecological

86-73-7

Fluorene

Semi-Volatile

78

ECOTOX

1,470

API Fisher MTCA Method B - 730-1 Modified Ingestion of Fish

0.01

78

Ecological

67-72-1

Hexachloroethane

Semi-Volatile

NR

2.27

API Fisher MTCA Method B - 730-2 Modified Ingestion of Fish

1

2.3

Human Health

193-39-5

Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene

Semi-Volatile

0.01

SMS

0.018

AWQC Federal Human Health Consumption of Organisms Only

0.01

0.01

Ecological

CRESOLS34

Methylphenol, P-, M-

Semi-Volatile

1,250

ECOTOX

--

1

1,250

Ecological

91-20-3

Naphthalene

Semi-Volatile

97

ECOTOX

2,110

0.01

97

Ecological

85-01-8

Phenanthrene

Semi-Volatile

22

ECOTOX

--

0.01

22

Ecological

129-00-0

Pyrene

Semi-Volatile

35

ECOTOX

1,110

API Fisher MTCA Method B - 730-1 Modified Ingestion of Fish

0.01

35

Ecological

75-34-3

1,1-dichloroethane

Volatile

2,800

ORNL

23,000

API Fisher MTCA Method B - 730-1 Modified Ingestion of Fish

0.2

2,800

Ecological

95-63-6

1,2,4-trimethylbenzene

Volatile

NR

643

API Fisher MTCA Method B - 730-1 Modified Ingestion of Fish

0.2

643

Human Health

S94800216R_1239_T3-4

API Fisher MTCA Method B - 730-1 Modified Ingestion of Fish

Page 1 of 2

PES Environmental, Inc.

Table 4
Final Cleanup Levels for Deep1 Groundwater
Port of Seattle Terminal 91 Cleanup Action Plan
Seattle, WA
Final
Recommended
Ecological
Cleanup Level for
Surface Water
(ug/L)
CAS Number

Indicator Hazardous
Substance

Basis of Final
Ecological Cleanup
Level for Surface
Water

Rationale for Selecting this CUL for
Final CUL (if not most protective)

Most Protective
Human Health
Cleanup Level for
Groundwater
(ug/L)2

Groundwater

Area
Background
Concentration
for

Basis of Final Human Health Cleanup Level for Deep
Groundwater

PQL3
(ug/L)

Groundwater4
(ug/L)

Final FS Deep
Groundwater
CUL4 (ug/L)

Basis for Final FS
CUL

Class

106-46-7

1,4-dichlorobenzene

Volatile

NR

2.07

API Fisher MTCA Method B - 730-2 Modified Ingestion of Fish

0.2

2.1

Human Health

67-64-1

Acetone

Volatile

NR

311,000

API Fisher MTCA Method B - 730-1 Modified Ingestion of Fish

1

311,000

Human Health

71-43-2

Benzene

Volatile

NR

9.66

API Fisher MTCA Method B - 730-2 Modified Ingestion of Fish

0.2

9.7

Human Health

104-51-8

Butylbenzene,n-

Volatile

NR

--

0.2

108-90-7

Chlorobenzene

Volatile

NR

20

AWQC Federal Organoleptic Effect Criteria

0.2

20

Human Health

75-00-3

Chloroethane

Volatile

230,000

USGS

381

API Fisher MTCA Method B - 730-2 Modified Ingestion of Fish

0.2

381

Human Health

156-59-2

Cis-1,2-dichloroethene

Volatile

11,600

USGS

1,360

API Fisher MTCA Method B - 730-1 Modified Ingestion of Fish

0.2

1,360

Human Health

100-41-4

Ethylbenzene

Volatile

NR

2,100

AWQC Federal Human Health Consumption of Organisms Only

0.2

2,100

Human Health

98-82-8

Cumene

Volatile

NR

850

API Fisher MTCA Method B - 730-1 Modified Ingestion of Fish

0.2

850

Human Health

103-65-1

n-Propylbenzene

Volatile

NR

1,160

API Fisher MTCA Method B - 730-1 Modified Ingestion of Fish

0.2

1,160

Human Health

135-98-8

Sec-butylbenzene

Volatile

NR

152

API Fisher MTCA Method B - 730-1 Modified Ingestion of Fish

0.2

152

Human Health

98-06-6

Tert-butylbenzene

Volatile

NR

152

API Fisher MTCA Method B - 730-1 Modified Ingestion of Fish

0.2

152

Human Health

108-88-3

Toluene

Volatile

NR

8,260

API Fisher MTCA Method B - 730-1 Modified Ingestion of Fish

0.2

8,260

Human Health

75-01-4
1330-20-7

Vinyl Chloride
Xylene (total)

Volatile
Volatile

930
NR

1.69
1,160

API Fisher MTCA Method B - 730-2 Modified Ingestion of Fish
API Fisher MTCA Method B - 730-1 Modified Ingestion of Fish

0.2
0.4

1.7
1,160

Human Health
Human Health

RAIS

Notes:
Final FS CULs = These are the most stringent applicable CULs and are the initial CULs that will be considered in the
Feasibility Study (FS). As such, they may be adjusted upward or downward based on area background concentrations,
practical quantitation limits, or other information, as appropriate, in the FS.
-- = Toxicity value not available to calculate CUL
API Fisher = Asian Pacific Islander Fisherman
AWQC = Federal Ambient Water Quality Criteria (Section 304 of the Clean Water Act)
CR = Cancer Risk
CUL = Cleanup Level
ECOTOX = U.S. EPA Ecotoxicity Database - available on-line at http://www.epa.gov/ecotox/
HQ = Hazard Quotient
MTCA = Model Toxics Control Act (WAC 173-340)
No BCF = No bioconcentration factor was available to calculate the cleanup level
No Alpha = No groundwater to indoor air volatilization factor was available to calculate the cleanup level
No RfD = No Reference Dose was available to calculate the cleanup level
No SF = No Slope Factor was available to calculate the cleanup level
PQL = Practical Quantitation Limit
NR = No value recommended. Difficulties in the exposure methods of the tests used to derive values resulted in values being highly uncertain.
ORNL = Oak Ridge Nation Laboratory Toxicological Benchmarks for Screening Potential Contaminants of Concern for Effects
RAIS = Risk Assessment Information System - available online at http://risk.lsd.ornl.gov/index.shtml
SMS = Sediment Management Standards
USGS 1999 = United States Geological Survey - Selection Procedure and Salient Information for Volatile
WQS = Water Quality Standards
1
Deep groundwater wells were screened at a maximum depth of 60 feet below ground surface (bgs)
2
Based on protection of surface water and protection from vapor intrusion
3
PQLs were acquired from ARI Laboratories, Inc. Personal Communication with Susan Dunnihoo, July 22, 2008 .
4
Based on Terminal 91 Tank Farm Site Background Groundwater Evaluation (PIONEER, 2007)
5
Based on Terminal 91 Tank Farm Site Feasibility Study Cleanup Levels (PIONEER, 2008)

S94800216R_1239_T3-4

Page 2 of 2

PES Environmental, Inc.

Table 5
Construction Costs
SMWU-30 - Limited Excavation of LNAPL Source Areas
Port of Seattle Terminal 91 Cleanup Action Plan
Seattle, Washington
Construction Costs
UNIT COST
UNITS
low
high

QUANTITY
low
high

$
$
$
$

10,000
5
5
15,000

$
$
$
$

15,000
7
7
20,000

LS
ton
ton
LS

1
1,000
1,500
1

1
1,300
1,900
1

$
$
$
$

10,000
5,000
7,500
15,000

$
$
$
$

15,000
9,100
13,300
20,000

$

35

$

40

ton

1,500

1,900

$

52,500

$

76,000

$
$

10
26

$
$

12
30

ton
ton

1,000
1,650

1,300
2,100

$
$

10,000
42,900

$
$

15,600
63,000

$
$
$

0.65
2.00
400

$
$
$

0.75
2.25
500

SF
SF
EA

4,350
4,350
3

5,400
5,400
3

$
$
$

2,828
8,700
1,200

$
$
$

4,050
12,150
1,500

$
$
$
$

155,600
9,300
15,600
31,100

$
$
$
$

229,700
13,800
23,000
45,900

Total Estimated Capital Costs $
Average Capital Cost $

210,000
260,000

$

310,000

ITEM
Construction Costs
1. Mobilization/demobilization
2. Excavate clean overburden
3. Excavate TPH-impacted soil
4. Water management
5. Offsite soil disposal
a) Disposal as solid waste (TPH only)
6. Backfill excavated area with clean soil
a) With excavated "clean soil"
a) With imported clean soil
7 Replace cap
a) Remove existing asphalt
b) New asphalt paving
8. Well decommissioning

Subtotal
Sales Tax on Materials (9%)
Engineering and Permitting (10%)
Construction Cost Contingency (20%)

S94800216R_1239_T5-6

COST
low

high

Page 1 of 1

Table 6
Construction and Operation and Maintenance Costs
Alternative 4 - Containment, Subsurface Structure Removal, and Enhanced LNAPL Recovery
Port of Seattle Terminal 91 Cleanup Action Plan, Seattle, Washington

Construction Costs
UNIT COST
UNITS
high
low

ITEM
Construction Costs
1. Mobilization/demobilization
2. Remove existing asphalt paving
3. Excavate existing sub base
4. Demolish, decontaminate and haul out all
existing subsurface structures
5. Excavate highly contaminated soils, incl backfil
6. Dispose highly contaminated soils
a) Disposal as solid waste (TPH-only, low level PCB
b) Disposal as TSCA Waste (PCB >50 ppm)
c) Contained-out waste (e.g., F001-F005)
7. Excavate working trench for wall installation
8. Slurry wall installation
9. Stockpile, replace, and compact trench spoils
10. Install enhanced LNAPL recovery trenches
11. Install new asphalt paving
a) Stockpile, replace, and compact clean sub base
b) Install new asphalt paving
12. Site drainage improvements
13. Decommission and replace select monitoring wells
14. Oversight during construction/construction report

$
$
$

COST

QUANTITY
low
high

low

high

70,000
0.65
3.00

$
$
$

80,000
0.75
5.00

LS
SF
ton

1
135,000
9,400

1
135,000
11,750

$
$
$

70,000
88,000
28,000

$
$
$

80,000
101,000
59,000

$ 520,000
$
31

$
$

1,100,000
40

LS
ton

1
250

1
500

$
$

520,000
7,750

$
$

1,100,000
20,000

$
$
$
$
$
$
$

38
215
58
3
5
5
65,000

$
$
$
$
$
$
$

43
240
64
5
10
7
120,000

ton
ton
ton
ton
SF
ton
LS

150
50
50
3,900
31,000
3,900
1

300
100
100
4,900
31,000
4,900
1

$
$
$
$
$
$
$

5,700
10,750
2,900
12,000
155,000
20,000
65,000

$
$
$
$
$
$
$

12,900
24,000
6,400
25,000
310,000
34,000
120,000

$
$
$
$
$

5
2.00
25,000
5,000
50,000

$
$
$
$
$

7
2.25
50,000
8,000
75,000

ton
SF
LS
EA
LS

9,400
135,000
1
16
1

11,800
$
135,000
$
1
$
16
$
1
$
Subtotal $
Sales Tax on Materials (9%) $
Engineering and Permitting (10%) $
Construction Cost Contingency (20%) $

47,000
270,000
25,000
80,000
50,000
1,407,100
127,000
141,000
281,000

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

83,000
304,000
50,000
128,000
75,000
2,457,300
221,000
246,000
491,000

Total Estimated Capital Costs $
Average Capital Cost $
Operation and Maintenance Costs

1,960,000
2,690,000

$

3,420,000

Activity
1. Annual asphalt paving inspection and maintenance
2. Monthly LNAPL recovery (years 1-2)
3. Bimonthly LNAPL recovery (years 3-5)
4. Quarterly LNAPL recovery (years 5-10)
5. LNAPL monitoring and passive recovery outside expanded recovery system
6. Compliance groundwater monitoring
7. Annual reporting (inspections, LNAPL recovery and monitoring, groundwater monitoring

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

TOTAL ESTIMATED PRESENT WORTH COST
1
PW = present worth, calculated assuming a 5% discount rate
using the average annual cost and years of
operation indicated in the following formula

All total costs are in 2009 dollars and rounded to nearest $10,000.

where

Baseline O&M Case

$
$
$
$
$
$
$

PW1
(30 Years)
154,000
56,000
43,000
42,000
138,000
307,000
346,000

Subtotal $
O&M Cost Contingency (10 %) $
Total Estimated O&M Costs $
$

1,086,000
108,600
1,190,000
3,880,000

Estimated Annual Cost
low
high
7,000 $
13,000
25,000 $
35,000
15,000 $
20,000
10,000 $
15,000
6,000 $
12,000
15,000 $
25,000
20,000 $
25,000
98,000 $
145,000

A = average annual cost
i = discount rate
n = number of years of operation

FIGURES

948-00216001_DCAP_2

Imagery Date: June 19, 2002
Source: Google Earth

Residential

Elliott Bay Marina
West Yard
(Upland)
Submerged Land
Upland
Filled Part of Pier 91 (Upland)

Submerged Land

Tank Farm Affected Area
Short
Fill
(Upland)

Tank Farm
Lease Parcel
BNSF Rail Yard

Filled Part of Pier 90 (Upland)

d

lan

Up

Submerged Land

National Guard
(Former U.S. Navy Armory)

Interbay Golf
Driving Range
(Former Interbay Landfill)

Amgen, Inc.
(Former Industrial Area)

For areas shown as Tank Farm Affected Area ("TFAA") that are outside the Tank Farm Lease Parcel, the TFAA includes only soil and
ground water below the water table. Soil above the water table (and outside the Tank Farm Lease Parcel) is outside the TFAA.
Note:

N
0

700 feet

The locations of all
features are approximate.

Explanation
Port of Seattle Property Limits

Tank Farm Affected Area

Tank Farm Lease Parcel

Submerged Land

FIGURE

Port of Seattle Terminal 91 Facility
and Tank Farm Lease Parcel
Port of Seattle Terminal 91
Seattle, Washington
948.002.16.001
JOB NUMBER

2/10

948-00216001_DCAP_2
DRAWING NUMBER

2

REVIEWED BY

DATE

Cumulative Shallow Aquifer Discharge - Pier 90
Discharge along the Length of the Pier, either
through or under the Bulkheads

Discharge as Percent of Inflow

60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0

400

800

1200

1600

2000

2400

Distance from East-West Trending, Shore Parallel Bulkheads (ft)

West Face

East Face

Cumulative Shallow Aquifer Discharge - Pier 91
Discharge along the Length of the Pier, either
through or under the Bulkheads

Discharge as Percent of Inflow

60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0

400

800

1200

1600

2000

Distance from East-West Trending, Shore-Parallel Bulkheads (ft)

West Face

East Face

2400

Source - "Conceptual Site Model, Terminal 91 Tank Farm Site," Pioneer Technologies Corporation

Conceptual Site Model
Port of Seattle Terminal 91 Tank Farm Site
Seattle, Washington
948.002.06.008

948-00216001_DCAP_17

17
2/10

Exhibit B
Site Diagram of Port of Seattle Terminal 91 Facility

948002_factsheet-a

Imagery Date: June 19, 2002
Source: Google Earth

Residential

Elliott Bay Marina
West Yard
(Upland)
Submerged Land
Upland
Filled Part of Pier 91 (Upland)

Tank Farm Affected Area
Short
Fill
(Upland)

Submerged Land

Filled Part of Pier 90 (Upland)

Tank Farm
Lease Parcel
d
lan
p
U

Submerged Land

BNSF Rail Yard

National Guard
(Former U.S. Navy Armory)

Interbay Golf
Driving Range
(Former Interbay Landfill)

Amgen Inc.
(Former Industrial Area)

Note: For areas shown as Tank Farm Affected Area ("TFAA") that are outside the Tank Farm Lease Parcel, the TFAA includes only soil and ground water below the water table. Soil above the
water table (and outside the Tank Farm Lease Parcel) is outside the TFAA.

N
0

700 feet

The locations of all features are approximate.

Explanation
Port of Seattle Property Limits

Tank Farm Affected Area

Tank Farm Lease Parcel

Submerged Land

Port of Seattle Terminal 91 Facility
2001 W. Garfield St., Seattle, WA 98119

Exhibit C
Releases Requiring Corrective Action

Terminal 91 Site - Known Discrete Units of Contamination
Discrete Units to Be Addressed During Redevelopment (Section VII.C.1.a)
SWMU, AOC, or
Description
Status
Other Area
A.1.

AOC 2

USTs and UST Releases on
Terminal 91 Premises-Tanks
A-G

Incomplete; plan to follow
up during redevelopment
work

Discrete Units to Be Addressed under Work Plans and Schedules (Section
VII.C.1.b)
SWMU, AOC, or
Description
Status
Other Area
B.1.

SWMU 32

B.2.

SWMU 33

B.3.

SWMU 35

B.4.

SWMU 36

B.5.

SWMU 37

B.6.

SWMU 38

B.7.

SWMU 39

B.8.

SWMU 40

B.9.

SWMU 43

B.10.

SWMU 44

B.11.

SWMU 45

B.12.

SWMU 46

B.13.

SWMU 47

B.14.

SWMU 48

Oil Blending Station

Complete; Ecology letter
4/20/05
Solid Waste Yard
Complete; Ecology letter
4/20/05
Storage Area Outside Building Complete; Ecology letter
W-47
4/20/05
Storage Inside Building W-47
Complete; Ecology letter
4/20/05
Car Wash Station
Complete; Ecology letter
4/20/05
Paint and Motor Oil Waste
Complete; Ecology letter
Building C-154
4/20/05
Paint Filter Waste Storage Area Complete; Ecology letter
4/20/05
Short Fill
Complete after restrictive
covenant; Ecology letter
4/20/05
Berth Stations and Valve
Complete; Ecology letter
Vaults
4/20/05
Waste Oil Storage Shed
Complete; Ecology letter
4/20/05
Storm Drain at North End of
Complete; Ecology letter
Terminal 91
4/20/05
Two Storm Drains at Center of Complete; Ecology letter
Terminal 91
4/20/05
Abandoned Oil/Water
Complete; Ecology letter
Separator
4/20/05
Transfer Piping
Complete; Ecology letter
4/20/05

B.15.

AOC 2

B.16.

AOC 2

B.17.

AOC 2

B.18.

AOC 2

B.19.

AOC 2

B.20.

AOC 4

B.21.

AOC 5

B.22.

AOC 7--Pier 91 Area

B.23.

AOC 16

B.24.

Other Area (from
Baseline Report)

B.25.

Other Area (from
Baseline Report)
Other Area (from
Baseline Report)
Other Area (from
Baseline Report)
Other Area (from
Baseline Report)--Pier
90 Area
Other Area (from
Baseline Report)

B.26.
B.27.
B.28.
B.29.

USTs and UST Releases on
Terminal 91 Premises-Tanks
H and I
USTs and UST Releases on
Terminal 91 Premises-Tank J
USTs and UST Releases on
Terminal 91 Premises-Tank K
USTs and UST Releases on
Terminal 91 Premises-Tank T
USTs and UST Releases on
Terminal 91 Premises-Tank Z
Leaking Motor

Complete; Ecology letter
4/20/05

Complete; Ecology letter
4/20/05
Complete; Ecology letter
4/20/05
Complete; Ecology letter
11/16/11
Complete; Ecology letter
4/20/05
Complete; Ecology letter
4/20/05
PCB Transformer Pad
Complete; Ecology letter
4/20/05
Concrete Aprons (see also
Incomplete; Ecology letter
1991 Soil Investigation for Pier 11/16/11. Within eighteen
91 Chill Facility)
months of this Order's
effective date, the Port will
either:
(1) submit a work plan for
proposed remedial action
with a proposed date for
completion; (2) request
confirmation that no further
action is required: or (3)
perform the remedial work
pursuant to the requirements
of Section VII.C.1.a. of this
Order.
Inactive Transformers
Complete; Ecology letter
4/20/05
1990 PNO Pipeline Break
Complete after restrictive
South of Building T-38, Pier 91 covenant; Ecology letter
4/20/05
1991 PNO Pipeline Break at
Complete; Ecology letter
South End of Pier 91
4/20/05
1994 Transformer Pad
Complete; Ecology letter
4/20/05
1994 DAS Building Site
Complete; Ecology letter
Investigation
4/20/05
1991 Soil Investigation for Pier Complete; Ecology letter
91 Chill Facility--Pier 90 Area
11/16/11
(see also AOC 7)
1996 PNO Pipeline Alignment Complete; Ecology letter
Soil Remediation, Pier 90
11/16/11

B.30.

Other Area (from
Baseline Report)

1996 PNO Pipeline Break, Pier
91

B.31.

Other Area (from
Baseline Report)
Other Area
(Independent Cleanup)

1994 DAS Utility Trench
Investigation
1999 PNO Pipeline Release on
Pier 90

Other Area
(Independent Cleanup)

Pier 91 Pipeline
Decommissioning and Historic
Pipeline Releases in the
Vicinity of the Carnitech
Building

B.32.

B.33.

Incomplete; Ecology letter
11/16/11. Within eighteen
months of this Order's
effective date, the Port will
either:
(1) submit a work plan for
proposed remedial action
with a proposed date for
completion; (2) request
confirmation that no further
action is required: or (3)
perform the remedial work
pursuant to the requirements
of Section VII.C.1.a. of this
Order.
Complete; Ecology letter
11/16/11
Investigative work ongoing
per December 2009 work
plan as modified by
subsequent communications
between Port and Ecology.
Incomplete; Ecology letter
11/16/11. Within eighteen
months of this Order's
effective date, the Port will
either:
(1) submit a work plan for
proposed remedial action
with a proposed date for
completion; (2) request
confirmation that no further
action is required: or (3)
perform the remedial work
pursuant to the requirements
of Section VII.C.1.a. of this
Order.

B.34.

Other Area
(Independent Cleanup)

Pier 91 Pipeline
Decommissioning and Historic
Pipeline Releases in the
Vicinity of the Cruise Ship
Terminal

B.35.

Other Area
(Independent Cleanup)

Pier 91 Historic Pipeline
Releases

B.36.

Other Area
(Brownfields
Investigation)

Building 136

B.37.

Other Area
(Brownfields
Investigation)

Locomotive Fueling Area

B.38.

Other Area
(Brownfields
Investigation)

Incinerator UST Area

B.39.

Tank Farm Affected
Area Interim Action

Stormwater Sump Bottom
Filling Interim Remedial
Action

Incomplete; Ecology letter
11/16/11. Within eighteen
months of this Order's
effective date, the Port will
either:
(1) submit a work plan for
proposed remedial action
with a proposed date for
completion; (2) request
confirmation that no further
action is required: or (3)
perform the remedial work
pursuant to the requirements
of Section VII.C.1.a. of this
Order.
Investigative work ongoing
per December 2009 work
plan as modified by
subsequent communications
between Port and Ecology.
Investigative work ongoing
per December 2009 work
plan as modified by
subsequent communications
between Port and Ecology.
Investigative work ongoing
per December 2009 work
plan as modified by
subsequent communications
between Port and Ecology.
Within eighteen months of
this Order's effective date,
the Port will either:
(1) submit a work plan for
proposed remedial action
with a proposed date for
completion; (2) request
confirmation that no further
action is required: or (3)
perform the remedial work
pursuant to the requirements
of Section VII.C.1.a. of this
Order.
Complete; Ecology letter
12/7/2011.

Discrete Units Addressed under the Contamination Contingency Plan
SWMU, AOC, or
Description
Status
Other Area
C.1.
[intentionally
[intentionally blank]
[intentionally blank]
blank]
REFERENCES
Kennedy/Jenks Consultants. 1996. Letter to Port of Seattle re Update on SWMUs and AOCs at
Terminal 91, Port of Seattle. April 12, 1996.
Kennedy/Jenks Consultants. 1997. Terminal 91 Baseline Report, Terminal 91, Seattle, Washington.
Prepared for Port of Seattle. April 1997.
PES Environmental, Inc. 2009. Pier 90 Independent Remedial Action Report, Pier 90 Work Plan
for Confirmation Sampling, and Pier 91 Work Plan for Additional Assessment, Terminal 91, Seattle,
Washington. Prepared for Port of Seattle. December 29, 2009.
Pinnacle GeoSciences. 2009. Work Plan, and Sampling and Analysis Plan, Locomotive Fueling
Area and West-Central Building 136 Area Investigation, Port of Seattle Terminal 91, Seattle,
Washington. Prepared for Port of Seattle. December 29, 2009.
Port of Seattle. 1999. Letter to Washington Department of Ecology re Submittal of VCP
Application and Clarification of 2/9/99 Meeting Minutes, Terminal 91 Upland Independent
Cleanup. March 10, 1999.
Roth, Susan J. 1997. Letter to Washington Department of Ecology re Transmittal of Terminal 91
Baseline Report. April 3, 1997.
Roth Consulting. 1998a. Letter to Washington Department of Ecology re Transmittal of
Documents, Terminal 91 Upland Project. October 16, 1998.
Roth Consulting. 1998b. Proposed Additional Work, Terminal 91 Upland Independent Cleanup,
Port of Seattle. Prepared for Port of Seattle. December 10, 1998.
Roth Consulting. 2004. Letter to Ecology re Request for Letter Confirming No Further Action
Required; Certain SWMUs, AOCs, and Other Areas; Port of Seattle Terminal 91 Independent
Cleanup; Voluntary Cleanup Program Application Dated March 10, 1999. May 26, 2004.
Roth Consulting. 2010. Letter to Ecology re Request for Opinion on T91 Upland Independent
Cleanup Areas, Discrete Units B.18, B.22, B.28, B.29, B.30, B.31, B.33, and B.34 from Exhibit C to
Draft Agreed Order, Port of Seattle Terminal 91 Site. May 20, 2010.
Roth Consulting. 2011. Stormwater Sump Bottom Filling Interim Remedial Action Report,
Terminal 91 Site-Tank Farm Affected Area. April 14, 2011. Attachment C to Status Report for
First Quarter 2011 by Kennedy/Jenks Consultants dated April 20, 2011.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1994. Port of Seattle/Burlington Environmental Inc.
Terminal 91 Facility, Final Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Facility Assessment.
November 4, 1994.
Washington Department of Ecology. 1996. Letter to Port of Seattle re Corrective Action for the
Remainder of Terminal 91 Facility. July 3, 1996.
Washington Department of Ecology. 1998. Letter to Port of Seattle re Independent Remedial
Action Report for the Port of Seattle Terminal 91 Facility. June 26, 1998.
Washington Department of Ecology. 2005. Letter to Port of Seattle re Certain SWMUs, AOCs and
Other Areas at the Port of Seattle's Terminal 91 Facility (listed under the March 10, 1999 Voluntary
Cleanup Program Application as Terminal 91 Uplands). April 20, 2005.
Washington Department of Ecology. 2011. Letter to Port of Seattle re Request for Opinion on
Some of the Port of Seattle Terminal 91 Discrete Units Identified in Exhibit C of Agreed Order No.
DE 7321. November 16, 2011.
Washington Department of Ecology. 2011. Letter to Port of Seattle re Approval of a Tank Farm
Affected Area Interim Action at the Port of Seattle Terminal 91. December 7, 2011.

Exhibit D
Public Participation Plan

Port of Seattle Terminal 91
Public Participation Plan

Historical photo from 1975, prior to Tank Farm Demolition

Prepared by
Washington State Department of Ecology
3190 160th Avenue SE
Bellevue, WA 98008-5452
December 2011

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 Introduction............................................................................................................................3
Steps in the Cleanup Process ...........................................................................................................4
Schedule and Sequence of Technical and Public Involvement Activities .......................................5
Site History ......................................................................................................................................6
Site Map ...........................................................................................................................................8
2.0 Chemicals of Concern.........................................................................................................8
3.0 Public Participation Activities and Responsibilities...................................................9
Goals of this Public Participation Plan ..........................................................................................10
Roles and Responsibilities .............................................................................................................10
Public Outreach Activities .............................................................................................................10
Formal Public Comment Period.....................................................................................................10
Public Meetings and Hearings .......................................................................................................11
Information Repositories ...............................................................................................................11
Site Register and Public Involvement Calendar ............................................................................12
Mailing List ....................................................................................................................................12
Website Information ......................................................................................................................12
4.0 Public Participation Grants and Technical Assistance ...........................................12
5.0 Public Participation Plan Amendments........................................................................12
Appendix A - Glossary ............................................................................................................13

2

Introduction
The Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) developed this Public Participation
Plan (PPP) pursuant to the Model Toxics Control Act (MTCA). The purpose of the
participation plan is to promote meaningful community involvement for cleanup at Port of
Seattle Terminal 91. The Site is located at the north end of Elliott Bay at 2001 West Garfield
Street in Seattle, Washington. The public comment period is for public review of the new
Agreed Order, which implements the Cleanup Action Plan for the Tank Farm Affected Area of
the Site and contains provisions for addressing cleanup of other areas of the Site.
Based on Ecology's MTCA regulations (Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 173-340-600
public participation), this plan:
• Outlines the tools and methods that Ecology uses to inform the public about Site activities.
• Identifies opportunities for the community to get involved.
• Addresses potential community concerns regarding the cleanup.
• Defines public participation activities that will take place as a part of the cleanup process.
Ecology is committed to an open dialogue with the community to ensure that interested parties
can receive information as well as provide input during the decision-making process.
Ecology and Port of Seattle negotiated a legal agreement called an Agreed Order (No. DE 8938)
that formally describes their working relationship and outlines the scope of work. The Port will
continue to clean up the Site.

3

Steps in the Cleanup Process
The MTCA rules detail each step in the cleanup process to ensure that cleanups are thorough and
protect human health and the environment. The chart below defines these steps and how they
apply to the project site. Legal documents such as "Agreed Orders" or "Consent Decrees"
further define some of the steps and associated time frames.
1. Site Discovery and Initial Investigation: Sites may be discovered in a variety of ways
including reports from the owner, an employee, or concerned citizens. Following discovery, an
initial investigation is conducted to determine whether or not a site warrants further
investigation.
2. Site Hazard Assessment and Hazard Ranking: An assessment is conducted to confirm the
presence of hazardous substances and determine the relative threat the site poses to human health
and the environment. Sites then are ranked from 1 (highest) to 5 (lowest).
Port of Seattle Terminal 91 is listed on the state's Hazardous Sites List with a rank
of 1; primarily due to the potential to contaminate Puget Sound.
3. Remedial Investigation (RI): A Remedial Investigation is a study to define the nature,
extent, and magnitude of contamination at a site. Before a remedial investigation can be
conducted, a detailed workplan must be prepared that describes how the investigation work will
be done.
4. Feasibility Study: The Feasibility Study takes the information from the Remedial
Investigation and identifies and analyzes the cleanup alternatives available. As with the
Remedial Investigation, a workplan will be prepared which describes how the study will be done.
5. Cleanup Action Plan (CAP): A Cleanup Action Plan is developed using information
gathered in the Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study. The plan specifies cleanup
standards and identifies cleanup methods. It will also describe the steps to be taken, including
additional environmental monitoring required during and after the cleanup. Finally it will
describe the schedule for cleanup activities.
6. Cleanup: Implementation of the Cleanup Action Plan includes pre-design, design,
construction, operations, and compliance monitoring.
Port of Seattle Terminal 91 is currently at the beginning of this phase of the cleanup
process.

4

Timeline of Technical and Public Involvement Activities
Schedule
November 1997

January 1998

March-July 2005

February 2010

January 2012

2010 through mid2013

Mid-2013 through
mid-2014
Starting in 2014

Technical Activity
Pier 91 Treatment and Storage
Facility Permit Modification and
Terminal 91 Tank Farm Site Agreed
Order for Remedial Investigation and
Feasibility Study.
Finalize Pier 91 Treatment and
Storage Facility Permit Modification
and Terminal 91 Tank Farm Site
1998 Agreed Order for RI/FS.
Terminal 91 Tank Farm Demolition
Independent Interim Remedial
Action.

Complete negotiations for second
(2010) Agreed Order for Terminal
91(incorporating areas of Terminal
91 facility outside of the Tank Farm
Affected Area).
Complete negotiations for third
(2012) Agreed Order for Terminal
91 (incorporating the selected
cleanup action, and including
compliance monitoring activities).
Prepare Engineering Design report
including plans, specifications,
compliance monitoring plan, and
operations and maintenance plan.
Cleanup Action construction.
Long-term operations, maintenance,
and monitoring.

5

Public Participation/
Communications Activity
• Fact sheet mailed - week of November 5th.
• Public notice - November 5th.
• Public comment period - draft PPP, Agreed
Order, and permit modification November 5
through December 19, 1997.
• Reviewed and evaluated public comments.
• Prepared responsiveness summary.
• Prepared final PPP.
• Provided written notification to Ecology Site
Register, and Seattle and King County Public
Health Departments (January 10, 2005).
• Provided written notification to Seattle
Department of Planning and Development
(February 9, 2005).
• Provided written notification to potentially
liable persons (January 4, 2005).
• Posted a sign at the location visible to the
general public indicating what cleanup
actions were being conducted and
identifying a person to contact for more
information.
• Prepared final draft PPP.
• Published notice in Site Register.
• Public notice of Agreed Order.
• Prepared updated PPP
• Published notice in Site Register
• Public Notice of Agreed Order
 Publish notice in Site Register.

 Publish notice in Site Register.

Five years
following
completion of
cleanup action
construction

 Public Comment Period.

Periodic review.

Site History
There have been various owners and companies of the Port of Seattle Terminal 91 (T91) Complex
throughout its history. From the late 1800s through 1920, owners of the T91 Complex included
various railroads, land development companies, and private individuals.
The Great Northern Railroad began to develop the area in the early 1900s by filling in the area
between Magnolia Bluff and Queen Anne Hill. Fill material was added to the area through 1920.
A tank farm was present at the four-acre Tank Farm Lease Parcel (Lease Parcel) portion of the
Terminal, and that tank farm was for a time (beginning in 1980) used as a permitted dangerous
waste treatment and storage facility (TSD). Constructed in the 1920s, it operated partially or
fully as a fuel storage facility during the late 1920s through the time it was demolished in 2005.
Another former tank farm historically was located in the area southwest of the Lease Parcel.
Historical documents for Terminal 91 showed this tank farm consisted of nine tanks containing
gasoline and oil, and that it was in existence from approximately 1927 to 1942.
The U.S. Navy acquired the entire T91 Complex in 1942 through condemnation and operated the
tank farm on the Lease Parcel until 1972. During the Navy's possession of the T91 Complex, the
Lease Parcel was used primarily as a fuel and lubricating oil transfer station. The Navy began
leasing T91 back to Port of Seattle (the Port) in 1972 and deeded it to the Port in 1976.
Chemical Processors, Inc. (Chempro), a predecessor of Burlington Environmental Inc. (BEI)
and Philip Services Corporation (PSC), subleased the Lease Parcel from the Port when the Port
leased it back from the Navy. The main activities conducted by Chempro and its successors were
waste oil recovery and wastewater treatment. Typical waste streams included oil and coolant
emulsions, industrial wastewater, and industrial waste sludge. Bilge and ballast waters were
primarily received from ships and transferred to the Lease Parcel via pipeline. Other wastes and
wastewater were received via tankers or in drums.
Chempro notified the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) of its dangerous waste
activities at the Lease Parcel on November 14, 1980, and federal permitting requirements became
effective November 19, 1980 for its waste management operations. BEI and the Port (as operator
and owner, respectively) were issued a Part B Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA) permit effective August 22, 1992 for the continued operation of a permitted dangerous
waste management facility at the Lease Parcel. In September 1995, BEI ceased operations at the
Lease Parcel and terminated its lease with the Port. BEI subsequently performed aboveground
closure activities of all permit-related facility equipment, secondary containment, and treatment
units pursuant to an Ecology-approved closure plan. The closure activities performed under this
plan were approved by Ecology in October 2003. A Part B RCRA permit remains in effect for
6

the Site; however, it has been modified over time so that it now permits only corrective action
activities. Dangerous waste storage or treatment activities, for example, are no longer authorized.
From about 1974 through 1995, Chempro and its successors also sublet a portion of the Lease
Parcel to Pacific Northern Oil Corporation (PNO) for storage of non-regulated bunker oil and
other fuel products. PNO used aboveground and underground piping systems at the Site to
transfer bunker oil and fuels in the Lease Parcel and other areas of the Terminal 91 Complex. This
included blending and storage of marine boiler fuel, diesel, and other petroleum products.
PNO entered a new lease for the entire Lease Parcel to continue operations of the bunker oil, lube
oil, and fuels product storage and blending facility after PSC's above closure action. PNO
terminated its lease with the Port in 1999 and discontinued its fuel product and blending
operations at the Site. Subsequently, the Port entered into an agreement with Fuel and Marine
Marketing (FAMM), and that entity conducted bunker oil and fuel product storage, blending and
marketing operations at the Site until early 2003, when FAMM terminated its lease of the facility.
FAMM also subleased the lube-oil portion of the operation to Rainier Petroleum in order to
operate tankage at the tank farm until August 2003. Delta Western was hired to provide
terminaling operations during this period, and, after August 2003, monitored the facility in
caretaker status.
The tank farm remained idle after 2003. The Port decided to remove the remaining aboveground
equipment to reduce risks of hazardous substance releases. In the spring of 2005, the Port
initiated product removal and demolition activities, including paving of the Lease Parcel, as part
of an independent interim remedial action. That interim action was completed in the summer of
2005.

7

Port of Seattle Terminal 91 Site Map

2.0

Chemicals of Concern

Historically, chemicals of concern at the Lease Parcel include petroleum products, which are
considered hazardous substances under MTCA, as well as volatile organic compounds, semivolatile organic compounds (including polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons), metals, and
polychlorinated biphenyls. These substances were released to soil and groundwater primarily
from aboveground storage tanks, fuel distribution piping systems, and other activities associated
with historical operations at the Site. These activities included storage of petroleum products
and treatment and storage of dangerous waste. Results from soil and groundwater investigations
and monitoring performed over the past twenty years have been submitted to Ecology.

8

3.0

Public Participation Activities and Responsibility

The purpose of this Public Participation Plan is to promote public understanding and
participation in the cleanup process for this site. This section addresses how Ecology will keep
the public informed about site activity and provide opportunity for being involved in the cleanup.
Ecology will continue to use a variety of tools to facilitate public participation in the planning
and cleanup of this site. These tools are: formal comment periods and responsiveness
summaries, fact sheets, public meeting (if required), information repositories, site register, and
web tools including a web-based events calendar. Ecology will consider and implement
constructive input provided by the community whenever possible.
Ecology urges the public to become involved in the remedial action process. Information will be
provided regularly to allow several opportunities to review materials and submit comments. This
plan is intended to be a flexible working document that will be updated as community concerns
emerge and/or more information becomes available during the cleanup process. To arrange for a
briefing with project staff, ask questions, or provide comments on the plan or other aspects of the
cleanup, please contact one of the persons listed below. This public participation plan will be a
working document as the project progresses.
For technical questions, please contact:
Galen Tritt, Site Manager
Washington State Department of Ecology
Bellingham Field Office
1440 10th Street, Suite 102
Bellingham, WA 98225-7028
Phone: (360) 715-5232
E-mail: galen.tritt@ecy.wa.gov
For Community Involvement questions for Port of Seattle, please contact:
Rosie Courtney
Port of Seattle-Community Relations, Public Affairs
P.O. Box 1209
Seattle, WA 98111
Phone: (206) 787-3414
E-mail: courtney.r@portseattle.org

9

Goal of this Public Participation Plan
MTCA states that public participation plans are intended to encourage coordinated and effective
public involvement tailored to the public's needs at a particular facility. The goals of this plan
are to:
 Identify people and organizations with an interest or potential interest in the Site.
 Identify community concerns related to the Cleanup and ways to address those concerns.
 Promote public understanding of the proposed Agreed Order process and findings.
 Encourage communication and collaboration among Ecology, the Port, and the community.
 Meet public participation requirements under MTCA and the Dangerous Waste Regulations
(WAC 173-340-530(6), WAC 173-340-600, and WAC 173-303-840).

Roles and Responsibilities



Ecology maintains overall responsibility and approval authority for the activities outlined in this
plan in accordance with MTCA requirements.
Ecology conducts public comment periods as required by MTCA. Activities performed during
the public comment periods include:
 Receiving comments.
 Making decisions.
 Preparing responsiveness summaries, if necessary.

Public Outreach Activities



A 45-day public comment period will be scheduled for the proposed Agreed Order and
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act ("RCRA")/Dangerous Waste Permit modification.
A formal public notice for the comment period will include:
 A fact sheet distributed to the affected community and surrounding areas.
 A notice placed in the Seattle Times and the Queen Anne/Magnolia News.
 A notice published in Ecology's Site Register and Public Involvement Calendar.
 All public documents available on Ecology's website for public review.
 A public meeting held if ten or more people request a meeting during the public comment
period.

Formal Public Comment Period
Comment periods are the primary method Ecology uses to get feedback from the public on
proposed cleanup decisions, which Ecology presents as draft documents. Comment periods
usually last for a minimum of 30 days and are required during the investigation and cleanup
process before final decisions are made.
During a comment period, the public can comment in writing. Oral comments are taken if a
public hearing is held. After formal comment periods, Ecology reviews all comments received
and may respond in a document called a Responsiveness Summary.
10

Ecology will consider changes or revisions to draft documents based on input from the public.
If significant changes are made, a second comment period may be held. If no significant
changes are made, the draft document(s) will be finalized.

Public Meetings and Hearings
Public meetings may be held during the cleanup process. Ecology may also offer public
meetings for actions of particular interest to the community. Also, if ten or more people request
a public meeting or hearing during the comment period, Ecology will hold a public meeting for
the purpose of taking oral comments on draft documents.

Information Repositories
Information repositories are convenient places where the public can go to read and review site
information. The information repositories are often at libraries or community sites to which the
public has access. During the comment period, the public comment documents will be available for
review at each repository listed below. These documents will remain at the repositories for the entire
duration of the comment period. The entire site file is available for review at Ecology's Northwest
Regional Office by appointment. For special accommodation or translation assistance, please contact
Galen Tritt at (360) 715-5232. Persons with hearing loss, call 711 for Washington Relay Service.
Persons with speech disability call (877) 833-6341.
Seattle Public Library-Central
1000 Fourth Avenue
Seattle, WA 98104
(206) 386-4636

Seattle Public Library-Magnolia
Branch
2801 34th Avenue W.
Seattle, WA 98199
(206) 386-4225

Port of Seattle-Pier 69
2711 Alaskan Way
Seattle, WA 98121
(206) 787-3414

Department of Ecology
3190 160th Ave., S.E.
Bellevue, WA 98008
Call for an appointment: Sally Perkins
(425) 649-7190
(425) 649-4450 FAX
E-mail: sally.perkins@ecy.wa.gov
Hours: Tues. - Thur., 8 AM - 12:00 PM and
1:00 - 4:30 PM

11

Site Register and Public Involvement Calendar
Ecology's Toxics Cleanup Program uses Site Register and web-based Public Involvement
Calendar to announce all of its public meetings and comment periods as well as additional site
activities. To receive the Site Register in electronic or hard copy format, call (360) 407-7000.
The Public Involvement Calendar is available on Ecology's Web site at
http://apps.ecy.wa.gov/pubcalendar/calendar.asp

Mailing List
Ecology compiled and maintains a list of interested parties, organizations, and residents living
near the cleanup site. This list will be used to disseminate information by mail (fact sheets, site
updates, public notices, etc.). If you wish to be added to the mailing list for this site please
contact Galen Tritt at 360-715-5232 or by e-mail at galen.tritt@ecy.wa.gov. In the subject line,
please indicate Port of Seattle Terminal 91 mailing list.

Website Information
Ecology Web site for Seattle Port Terminal 91:
https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/gsp/Sitepage.aspx?csid=2674

4.0

Public Participation Grants and Technical Assistance

Additionally, citizen groups living near contaminated sites may apply for public participation grants
(during open application periods). These grants help citizens receive technical assistance in
understanding the cleanup process and create additional public participation avenues. For more
information about the public participation grant, please go to Ecology's Web site at
www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/swfa/grants/ppg.html.
NOTE: Ecology currently does not have a citizen technical advisor for providing technical assistance to
citizens on issues related to the investigation and cleanup of the Site.

5.0

Public Participation Plan Amendments

This Plan was developed by Ecology and complies with the Model Toxics Control Act regulations
(Chapter 173-340 WAC). It will be reviewed as cleanup progresses and may be amended if necessary.
Requests for amendments may be submitted to Ecology's site manager, Galen Tritt, for review and
consideration.

12

Appendix A - Glossary
Agreed Order: An order issued by the Department of Ecology under WAC 173-340530 with which the potentially liable person receiving the order agrees to comply.
Cleanup: The implementation of a cleanup action, or interim action.
Cleanup Action: Any remedial action, except interim actions, taken at a site to
eliminate, render less toxic, stabilize, contain, immobilize, isolate, treat, destroy, or
remove a hazardous substance that complies with WAC 173-340-350 through 173-340390.
Chemicals of Concern (COCs): Chemicals of Concern are hazardous substances of
particular concern at this Site.
Comment Period: A time period during which the public can review and comment on
various documents and proposed actions. For example, a comment period may be provided
to allow community members to review and comment on proposed cleanup action
alternatives and proposed plans.
Consent Decree: A legal document approved and issued by a court which formalizes an
agreement reached between the state and potentially liable persons (PLPs) on actions
needed at a site. A decree is subject to public comment. If a decree is substantially
changed, an additional comment period is provided.
Containment: A container, vessel, barrier, or structure, whether natural or constructed,
which confines a hazardous substance within a defined boundary and prevents or
minimizes its release into the environment.
Contaminant: Any hazardous substance that does not occur naturally or occurs at
greater than natural background levels.
Dangerous Waste permit: An authorization allowing a person to perform dangerous
waste transfer, storage, treatment, or disposal operations, and typically includes specific
conditions for such facility operations. A dangerous waste permit is necessary through
corrective action work even after dangerous waste operations stop.
Environment: Any plant, animal, natural resource, surface water (including underlying
sediments), ground water, drinking water supply, land surface (including tidelands and
shorelands) or subsurface strata, or ambient air within the state of Washington.
Facility: Any building, structure, installation, equipment, pipe or pipeline (including any
pipe into a sewer or publicly-owned treatment works), well, pit, pond, lagoon,
impoundment, ditch, landfill, storage container, motor vehicle, rolling stock, vessel, or
aircraft; or any site or area where a hazardous substance, other than a consumer product

13

in consumer use, has been deposited, stored, disposed of, placed, or otherwise come to be
located there.
Interim Action: Any remedial action that partially addresses the cleanup of a site. An
action that is technically necessary to reduce a threat to human health or the environment
by eliminating or substantially reducing pathways for exposure from? a hazardous
substance at a facility; an action that corrects a problem that may become substantially
worse or cost substantially more to address if the action is delayed; an action needed to
provide for completion of a site hazard assessment, state remedial
investigation/feasibility study, or design of a cleanup action.
Model Toxics Control Act (MTCA): Refers to Chapter 70.105D RCW, first approved
by voters in the state of Washington in the November 1988 general election as Initiative
97, and since then, as amended by the Legislature.
Public Notice: At a minimum, adequate notice mailed to all persons who have made a
timely request to Ecology and notice to persons residing in the potentially affected
vicinity of the proposed action; mailed to appropriate news media; published in the local
(city or county) newspaper of largest circulation; and the opportunity for interested
persons to comment.
Public Participation Plan (PPP): A plan prepared under the authority of WAC 173340-600 to encourage coordinated and effective public involvement tailored to the
public's needs at a particular site.
RCRA: The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act was enacted by Congress in
1976. RCRA's primary goals are to protect human health and the environment from the
potential hazards of waste disposal, to conserve energy and natural resources, to reduce
the amount of waste generated, and to ensure that wastes are managed in an
environmentally sound manner.
Responsiveness Summary: A compilation of all questions and comments into a
document open for public comment and their respective answers/replies by Ecology. The
responsiveness summary is mailed, at a minimum, to those who provided comments, and
its availability is announced in the Site Register.
Site Register: Publication issued every two weeks of major activities conducted
statewide related to the study and cleanup of hazardous waste sites under the Model
Toxics Control Act. To receive this publication, please call (360) 407-7200.
Underground Storage Tank (UST): An underground storage tank and connected
underground piping as defined in the rules adopted under Chapter 90.76 RCW.

14

Exhibit E
Contamination Contingency Work Plan

Exhibit F
Schedule

EXHIBIT F
IMPLMENTATION SCHEDULE
TERMINAL 91 TANK FARM CLEANUP ACTION

Task
Submit 30% Design Basis Memorandum (DBM) to Ecology
Ecology Review of 30% DBM
Meeting to Review Ecology Comments on 30% DBM

Schedule
1

90 days from effective date of Cleanup
Agreed Order
30 days from receipt of 30% DBM
10 days from receipt of Ecology comments

Submit Draft Engineering Design Report (EDR) and 90%
Construction Plans and Specifications (CPS) to Ecology

180 days from receipt of Ecology
comments on 30% DBM

Ecology Review of Draft EDR and 90% CPS

60 days from receipt of Draft EDR
and 90% CPS

Meeting to Review Ecology Comments on Draft EDR and
90% CPS

10 days from receipt of Ecology comments

Submit Final EDR and 100% CPS to Ecology

70 days from receipt of Ecology comments

i

Ecology Approval of Final EDR and 100% CPS

15 days from receipt of Final EDR
and 100% CPS

Construction of Cleanup Action

Per approved schedule in Final EDR

Notes -
1 - Assumes Data Gaps Investigation completed within 30 days of effective date of Cleanup AO

i

If Ecology disapproves the proposed Final EDR, the Port shall respond as provided in Section VII.A.4.c of the
Agreed Order.