PORT OF SEATTLE 
MEMORANDUM 
COMMISSION AGENDA                Item No.      4d 
ACTION ITEM 
Date of Meeting    March 8, 2016 
DATE:    February 19, 2016 
TO:      Ted Fick, Chief Executive Officer 
FROM:   Kathy Bahnick, Manager, Remediation Programs 
Roy Kuroiwa, Sr. Environmental Program Manager 
Catherine Chu, Capital Project Manager 
SUBJECT:  Terminal 30 Former Chevron Site Cleanup 
Amount of This Request:    No funds requested (Up to $1.2M contract authorization) 
Source of Funds:          Environmental Remediation Liability Non Ops 
Est. Total Project Cost:      $4,400,000 
ACTION REQUESTED: 
Request Commission authorization for the Chief Executive Officer to: 
(1) execute a consent decree with the Washington State Department of Ecology for the design
and implementation of the Terminal 30 Cleanup Action Plan; and 
(2) execute a project-specific consultant contract to design and provide first-year environmental
monitoring for Terminal 30 cleanup for an estimated cost of $1,200,000. 
SYNOPSIS: 
The Port has been in negotiations with Ecology for additional cleanup work, and has reached
agreement with Ecology, pending Commission approval. The overall goal of the site cleanup is
to significantly reduce or eliminate the exposure of ecological and human receptors to subsurface
soil and groundwater contamination and thereby reduce or eliminate adverse effects on resources
in the project site. Subsequently, the cleanup will allow the terminal to continue operation as an
industrial container yard. 
Terminal 30  (T-30)  was purchased in 1985 from Chevron and has subsurface soil and
groundwater petroleum contamination as a result of Chevron's past use. The Port has been under
a Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) Agreed Order since 1991, during which
time several investigations and interim actions (hot spot cleanups) were completed. However,
some contamination is still present at the site. 
The proposed cleanup will be performed under a Consent Decree (CD) between the Port and
Ecology. The Scope of Work section summarized the scope of the CD and the attached Consent

COMMISSION AGENDA 
Ted Fick, Chief Executive Officer 
February 29, 2016 
Page 2 of 6 
Decree and its exhibits describe in detail the agreement between the Port and Ecology on how
and when the site will be cleaned. 
This authorization allows the Port to execute the CD and begin the design phase of the cleanup
project. Design is expected to be completed by the end of 2017, at which time, staff will return
to the Commission for construction phase authorization. Construction is planned for 2018 with
performance and compliance monitoring to start following the construction completion. 
Funding for this work was included in the 2016-2020 Environmental Remediation Liability
(ERL) Program. 
BACKGROUND: 
T-30 is located approximately one mile southwest of downtown Seattle on the shoreline of the
East Waterway. The terminal was acquired by the Port from Chevron in 1985 and was
subsequently developed as a container terminal. Prior to that, the terminal operated as a bulk
fuel terminal, lumber yard, and machine shop starting as early as 1905. 
As a result of the historical bulk fuel and tank farm, the site subsurface soil and groundwater is
contaminated with petroleum hydrocarbons. While T-30 is 33.9 acres, the cleanup site (extent of
contaminated groundwater plume) is approximately 11 acres in the northern portion of the
property. 
The Port and Ecology entered into an Agreed Order (AO) in 1991 for site investigation by
performing a Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study (RI/FS). During the RI/FS process,
the Site has undergone a series of interim actions that removed the vast majority of contaminant
mass. Additionally, the Site has undergone iterative redevelopment in the last twenty years. 
Since the early 1980s, the site has undergone considerable environmental study, interim actions,
and redevelopment actions with environmental benefits.  Below is a summary of T-30's
environmental efforts to date.
1983  1986:  The site's first environmental investigation, by Chevron, to delineate the
nature and extent of subsurface contamination. 
Installation of more than 100 monitoring and petroleum hydrocarbon free-product 
recovery wells. 
1984  2009:  Free-product (mainly diesel) recovery and disposal removed more than
171,000 gallons from the subsurface. 
1991: The Port and Ecology enter into an AO to perform a site-wide RI/FS. 
1998: Completion of the initial draft RI/FS report. 
2008:  During cruise-ship terminal development, more than 24,000 cubic yards of
contaminated soil were excavated and disposed of off-site. 
Construction of site-wide 12- to 16-inch thick asphalt cap. 
Oxygen Release Compound injection and treatment of groundwater in MW-42 area.

COMMISSION AGENDA 
Ted Fick, Chief Executive Officer 
February 29, 2016 
Page 3 of 6 
Numerous technical studies and reports including an additional Data Report,
Disproportionate Cost Analysis, and proposed remedy in 2008. 
Installation of a containment sheetpile wall and stormwater management system. 
Continuation of monitoring and product recovery during the 2000s. 
2013: Completion of a Supplemental RI/FS report  this report was approved by Ecology
and used to develop the site's draft Cleanup Action Plan (dCAP). 
Ecology's AO amended to require the Port to prepare a dCAP that describes the preferred
cleanup alternative. 
Next Steps: Ecology will close the current order (Agreed Order to prepare an RI/FS) and issue a
new order (Consent Decree) to the Port.
The next steps for the Port is to enter into a new order (design and cleanup) with Ecology and
perform the work as required. Ecology's formal cleanup process under MTCA requires the
following site documents are provided to the public in accordance with their Public Participation
policy (primarily allowing the general public 30 days to review and comment). Ecology satisfied 
the public comment process for all of these documents during the same time period (May 15
through June 19, 2015). They included: 
1.  Proposed Consent Decree 
2.  Draft RI/FS 
3.  Draft Cleanup Action Plan 
4.  State Environmental Policy Act Checklist 
Ecology has finalized all of the above documents and the Port and Ecology are ready to sign the
CD and begin design work. 
PROJECT JUSTIFICATION AND DETAILS 
Project Objectives: 
Perform the cleanup in accordance with the Consent Decree 
Cleanup design and implementation will be carried out in a manner that considers the
current and potential future use for the T-30 container terminal 
Scope of Work: 
The preferred cleanup alternative required in the CD includes:
a)  air sparging and soil vapor extraction (AS/SVE) and treatment of the underlying soil
vapors; 
b)  petroleum hydrocarbon free-product recovery and disposal; 
c)  long-term monitoring; and 
d)  institutional controls (e.g., site remains industrial land use).
These actions are intended to address specific cleanup goals (i.e., protect human health and the
environment).

COMMISSION AGENDA 
Ted Fick, Chief Executive Officer 
February 29, 2016 
Page 4 of 6 
Schedule: 
Execute contract for design services and first year monitoting     Q3 2016 
Begin design                                   Q3 2016 
Seek authorization for construction                      Q4 2017 
Construction complete; begin first year monitoring            Q4 2018 
Begin long-term performance monitoring                 Q4 2019 
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: 
Budget Status and Source of Funds: 
There is no funding request as part of this authorization. Funding for the associated costs is
included in the annual Environmental Remedial Liability (ERL) authorization.  The costs are
also eligible for state grant recovery when it is available. Cost recovery from the former owner  
Chevron  is unavailable by the terms of the purchase and sale agreement. 
Source of Funds: 
The total estimated cost to implement the T-30 Former Chevron Remediation consistent with the
Consent Decree is $4,400,000, including design, construction, and long-term monitoring. The
total estimated cost for the design, design support during construction, and first year monitoring
services is estimated to be between $700,000 to $1,200,000. This was included in the 5 year
forecast (2016 through 2020) in the Commission's 2016 ERL spending authorization, approved
on December 8, 2015. Any additional costs that might be required, as the project moves
forward, will be recorded as a liability and a non operating expense in accordance with Port
Policy AC-9. These amounts will be reported annually to the Commission via routine ERL 
reports and spending authorization requests. 
The primary source of funds to pay the costs for design of the project will be ERL NonOps funds
from the Port's Tax Levy. 
STRATEGIES AND OBJECTIVES: 
This project will achieve the strategic  objective of  complying with a state order by 
accomplishing cleanup of T-30, while allowing the terminal to operate as a container yard, both
during and after the cleanup construction is performed. 
TRIPLE BOTTOM LINE : 
Economic Development 
The cleanup approach negotiated for T-30 was developed to limit impacts on the current or 
future use of the terminal as a container terminal.

COMMISSION AGENDA 
Ted Fick, Chief Executive Officer 
February 29, 2016 
Page 5 of 6 
Environmental Responsibility 
State and federal laws require the elimination of unacceptable levels of environmental risk
caused by the presence of contaminants in soil, groundwater, and sediment. Opportunities for
material reuse, recycling, and/or reduction are being considered. Imp lementation of the cleanup
remedy will include significant environmental controls and performance monitoring to ensure
public health and safety. 
Community Benefits 
From the perspective of the surrounding communities and the customers that we serve, the Port's
participation in site cleanup is the hallmark of responsible environmental stewardship.
Small Business Participation 
The project manager will collaborate with the small business team to maximize the participation
of small firms. 
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED AND THEIR IMPLICATIONS: 
Alternative 1: Do not authorize execution of the Consent Decree 
Not entering the CD could result in the issuance of a unilateral Ecology enforcement order to
perform the work or Ecology may elect to perform the work themselves. The estimated total cost
for Alternative 1 is $8.8M plus possible fines. 
Pros: 
It may delay spending by a year or more while Ecology prepares an enforcement order, or
Ecology performs the work and compels the Port to reimburse Ecology for it. 
Cons: 
If Ecology issues a unilateral enforcement order, the Port would still ultimately perform
the required cleanup actions and may also be liable for civil penalties of up to $25,000
per day for each day it refuses to comply (per the Agreed Order, 1991). 
If Ecology elects to perform the work themselves and bills the Port for their work, it 
would eliminate Port control over the cleanup activity and likely result in a significant
increase in cleanup construction and operation scope and costs, as well as possible
impacts to the tenant. The costs to the Port for an Ecology-lead cleanup could increase to
$8.8M. 
Not performing this work may question the Port's commitment to public health and
stewards of community resources and the environment. 
This is not the recommended alternative. 
Alternative 2: Authorize execution of the Consent Decree, but do not authorize the start of
design and preparation of construction documents 
Not implementing the CD could result in the issuance of a unilateral Ecology enforcement order
to perform the work or Ecology may elect to perform the work themselves. The estimated total
cost for Alternative 2 is $8.8M.

COMMISSION AGENDA 
Ted Fick, Chief Executive Officer 
February 29, 2016 
Page 6 of 6 
Pros: 
It may delay spending by a year or more while Ecology prepares an enforcement order. 
Cons: 
This alternative would cause the Port to be out of compliance with the cleanup schedule. 
The costs to the Port for an Ecology-lead cleanup could increase to $8.8M. 
Not performing this work may question the Port's commitment to public health and
stewards of community resources and the environment. 
This is not the recommended alternative. 
Alternative 3: Authorize execution of the consent decree and execute contract to start of
design and preparation of construction documents. The estimated total cost for thi s
Alternative is $4.4M. 
Pros: 
This alternative would result in compliance with Ecology's Consent Decree and facilitate 
cleanup design and implementation from 2016 through 2019, and beyond. 
This alternative demonstrates the Port's value of responsible stewards of community
resources and the environment. 
Cons: 
Cost of $4.4 million (including design, construction, and long-term monitoring). 
This is the recommended alternative. 
ATTACHMENTS TO THIS REQUEST: 
Washington State Department of Ecology Consent Decree for T-30 Cleanup of the
Former Chevron Terminal, with attachments 
PREVIOUS COMMISSION ACTIONS OR BRIEFINGS: 
July 23, 1991  The Commission authorized execution of an Ecology Agreed Order
that directed the Port to: a) continue product removal and groundwater monitoring; b)
prepare a T-30 RI/FS; and c) prepare a final Consent Decree with Ecology. 
October 23, 2013  The CEO signed an amendment to the 1991 AO that directed the
Port to prepare a draft Cleanup Action Plan that describes the preferred cleanup
alternative.