PORT OF SEATTLE 
MEMORANDUM 
COMMISSION AGENDA               Item No.       4i 
ACTION ITEM 
Date of Meeting    December 8, 2015 
DATE:    December 2, 2015 
TO:      Ted Fick, Chief Executive Officer 
FROM:   Stephanie Jones Stebbins, Director, Maritime Environmental and Planning 
Elizabeth Leavitt, Director, Aviation Planning & Environmental 
SUBJECT:  2016-2020 Environmental Remediation Liability Program 
Amount of This Request:       $13,900,000   Source of Funds:     Airport  Airport
Development Fund;
Est. Port 5 year Cost:          $71,700,000 
Maritime, Economic
Development and  
Tax Levy 
ACTION REQUESTED 
Request Commission authorization for the Chief Executive Officer to (1) spend environmental
remediation liabilities funds for 2016 in the amount of $13,900,000; (2) approving a five-year
spending plan of $71,700,000 for the Environmental Remediation Liability (ERL) Program for
the Seaport, Real Estate, and Aviation Divisions for 2016-2020. 

SYNOPSIS 
As a major industrial and commercial land owner, the Port has significant environmental cleanup
liabilities due to historic contamination of its properties. 
The $13,900,000 requested spending authorization for 2016 will allow continuation of ongoing
environmental investigation, testing, analysis, design, cleanup, and monitoring for active sites
and will initiate similar activities for new sites, as noted in this memorandum. The authorization
and five year plan will allow the Port to enter into contracts for work spanning multiple years.
Prior to actual spending of these obligated funds, Commission budget approval will be needed,
likely through a future annual ERL authorization. 
The approval of the five year plan gives greater visibility to our projected upcoming
environmental remediation liability spending. 
BACKGROUND 
The Port has identified a number of contaminated sites on Maritime, Economic Development, 
Northwest Seaport Alliance (NWSA) and Aviation properties that must be investigated and
remediated in compliance with federal and state environmental laws and regulations. In some
cases, the Port has been designated by the federal government as a "Potentially Responsible

Template revised May 30, 2013.

COMMISSION AGENDA 
Ted Fick, Chief Executive Officer 
December 2, 2015 
Page 2 of 16 
Party" (PRP), and/or by the state government as a "Potentially Liable Party" (PLP) for the
investigation and cleanup of properties owned by the Port or where the Port may have
contributed to site contamination. 
Although the Port may not bear ultimate liability for the contamination, under federal and state
law, the Port is presumptively liable as the property owner, and it is often practically and
financially beneficial for the Port to take initial responsibility to manage and pay for the cleanup. 
In many cases, the Port has successfully recovered and/or will seek recovery from other
responsible parties for Port-incurred investigation and cleanup costs. The Port also has been
successful in receiving Model Toxics Control Act (MTCA) grant funds to pay part of the cleanup
costs. The Port's goals are to cost-effectively complete this environmentally responsible work
and to maximize work accomplished by or paid for by the parties responsible for the conditions
encountered (or others, such as insurance companies, who represent them).
To mitigate such environmental expenditures, the Port also encourages, coordinates with, and
oversees the investigation and cleanup of sites by other responsible parties, to assure that legal
requirements are met and that Port liabilities are minimized. Regardless of whether the Port
conducts the investigation and remediation directly, or oversees the proper performance of that
work by other responsible parties, the Port provides a valuable public benefit by acting as a
catalyst in expediting appropriate environmental management of these sites. 
Accounting rules require that the Port "book" or establish a liability on its balance sheet for
environmental remediation when the Port's obligation meets specified definitions of certainty and
the liability amount can be reasonably estimated. When an environmental remediation liability is
booked, an expense is also recorded in the current period for the future expenditures. The Port
develops its environmental remediation liability forecasts in compliance with Government
Accounting Standards Board (GASB) Statement No. 49 "Accounting and Financial Reporting
for Pollution Remediation Obligations." 
Environmental liability expenditures are authorized in one of two ways: 
1.  If the environmental costs are incurred in the course of, or incidental to, a construction
project, the Commission authorization occurs as part of the authorization for the overall
construction project. Examples of this include asbestos removal, offsite soil disposal
during construction, or upland dredge material disposal. 
2.  If the environmental cost is not associated with a capital construction project or
maintenance (including asbestos and lead), but is a stand-alone pollution remediation
project, the expenditure is authorized through one annual action. 
Since 1993, the Commission has approved annual environmental expenditures. In addition,
Commission authorization is obtained prior to entering into legal commitments for investigation
or cleanup actions, such as an Agreed Order, Administrative Order on Consent (AOC) or
Administrative Settlement Agreement and Order on Consent (ASAOC) referred to as Orders.
Under the Orders, the Port is required to pay agency oversight costs. Further, to the extent
required by Resolution No. 3605, as amended by Resolution No. 3628, Central Procurement
Office contract actions in support of approved environmental projects may require additional
Commission authorization.


COMMISSION AGENDA 
Ted Fick, Chief Executive Officer 
December 2, 2015 
Page 3 of 16 

Since 1993, the Port has booked liabilities to recognize these obligations. While Port
environmental cleanup projects typically span several years, more complex projects have
been active for over 15 years. 
From 2010 to2014, the actual amount spent under the annual ERL authorizations was 
$64,584,000. 
We make significant efforts to recover the costs we spend on environmental remediation.
Monies recovered between 2010 and 2014 were $46.5 million and between 2004 and
2014 were $95.7. 
PROJECT JUSTIFICATION AND DETAILS 
Consistent with past practices, the duration of the authorization continues to be an annual
spending authorization. However, since 2011, the authorization requests have also provided a
rolling five year spending plan to reflect the level of resources expected to be required over the
next five years. Executing contract obligations for a longer duration minimizes the need to
rework all contract amendments and service directives that are aligned with the end-of-year
authorization. It also provides greater visibility of the environmental liability costs. 
The environmental investigation and remediation actions described below are generally required
under federal and/or state law, exceptions are noted. Remedial actions continue to focus on costeffective
study, analysis, and implementation of cleanup actions; coordination with capital
planning, design, and construction; and negotiation with agencies, tenants, other PRPs and
insurance companies. 
Project Objectives: 
Perform the remediation work at the various sites in accordance with the various agreed
orders. 
Manage and perform the work, with project controls and contract systems in place. 
Identify and consider community values and concerns as part of the various public
participation plans. 
Perform remediation investigations, designs and implementations will be carried out in a
manner that considers current and potential uses for the sites. 
Maximize cost recovery 
Perform initial investigations, scoping work to identify future actions 
Scope of Work 
Maritime, Economic Development and NWSA Sites/Projects 
Lower Duwamish Waterway Superfund  The Lower Duwamish Waterway (LDW) is a Federal 
Superfund Site. The Lower Duwamish Work Group (LDWG), consisting of the Port, the City of
Seattle, King County and Boeing, has completed a Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study
(RI/FS) of the Waterway under Order with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the
Department of Ecology (Ecology). The Port is currently the contracting agent for the Fisher
Study for the LDWG and a paying party for the Activated Carbon Pilot Study.

COMMISSION AGENDA 
Ted Fick, Chief Executive Officer 
December 2, 2015 
Page 4 of 16 
EPA issued the Record of Decision in November 2014, after seeking concurrence from
Ecology. 
In 2014, as part of the ongoing studies, LDWG initiated a year-long Fisher Study to
determine who is using the river for fishing. In addition, LDWG has scoped a carbon
amendment pilot study which began the end of 2014 and is anticipated to be completed in
2020.
Terminal 117 Sediments, Bank and Uplands  As part of the Lower Duwamish Waterway
Superfund effort, EPA identified several sediment hot spots that warranted early cleanup action
as an Early Action Area (EAA), including the Port's Terminal 117 (T-117) in South Park. 
The EPA issued the 2010 Action Memorandum that included the EPA-selected cleanup
plan. The EPA Order to design and implement the plan was signed by the Port and City
on June 9, 2011.
The T-117 upland soil and sediment cleanup was completed by the Port between June
2013 and December 2014. 
The Port is preparing to begin long-term monitoring and maintenance of the site, to verify
the continued performance of the cleanup. 
Terminal 108  As part of the effort to control sources of contamination to the LDW, Ecology 
identified potential source sites that could require early cleanup action. One such site is located
in the sediments adjacent to Terminal 108. Ecology requested, and the Port voluntarily agreed, to
perform additional investigation of the groundwater. The groundwater study determined that the
groundwater is not a source of contaminants to the river. However, additional contamination
was discovered on the site that may generate additional sampling requirements. As part of an
Interagency Agreement with Ecology, the Port in 2015 completed a bank stabilization project
along 350 feet of shoreline and cleanout of stormwater conveyance lines. 
Terminal 115  The Port, along with Boeing, has been named by Ecology as a Potentially Liable
Party at Terminal 115. Boeing and the Port have both accepted the PLP status. 
Terminal 115 North  In late January 2009, the Port received from Ecology a Notice of Potential
MTCA Liability. Ecology has focused on this site because it is located adjacent to Glacier Bay,
one of the high priority sediment sites (Glacier Bay) within the Lower Duwamish Superfund site.
Glacier Bay is located north of Terminal 115. On November 2, 2010, the Commission authorized
entering into a MTCA Order for this site, under which the Port will further characterize the site
and develop a draft cleanup action plan. Since then, the field work for the remedial investigation
has been completed and the Remedial Investigation report is being written under the Ecologyapproved
schedule. 
Terminal 5 Ecology State Cleanup Sites  In the past, as part of the Terminal 5 Southwest
Harbor redevelopment, the Port completed remediation at four sites under three Consent Decrees
with Ecology. Current obligations include on-going cap inspection and maintenance of the cap
in the four areas, and coordination and review of the future adjacent sediment cleanup work to be
performed by Lockheed. 
Terminal 5 Pacific Sound Resources (PSR) EPA Superfund Site  This site was cleaned up under
an Order with EPA as part of the Terminal 5 Southwest Harbor redevelopment project. Ongoing

COMMISSION AGENDA 
Ted Fick, Chief Executive Officer 
December 2, 2015 
Page 5 of 16 
obligations include continuing to perform required cap inspection and cap maintenance, product
recovery activities and monitoring EPA activities related to the groundwater and the off shore
sediments.
Harbor Island Superfund Site Soil and Groundwater Operable Unit  Terminal 18 is located
within this Superfund site. Cleanup of this site was performed under a Consent Decree with
EPA. Long-term groundwater monitoring is being performed by the group consultant under a 
PRP agreement. Long-term cap maintenance and inspections have been initiated as required
under the Record of Decision.
Harbor Island Superfund Site East Waterway Sediments Operable Unit  In 2006, the Port
signed an Order with EPA for a final Supplemental Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study
(SRI/FS), and a Memorandum of Agreement with the City of Seattle and King County to share
costs and cooperate in the SRI/FS process.
The Port is acting as the contracting agent for this work.
A settlement agreement with Seattle Iron Metals was negotiated for their contribution to
the SRI/FS costs. We are currently conducting the SRI/FS tasks identified in the EPA
Order and subsequent work plans. 
The final RI was approved in January 2014. 
A draft Feasibility Study was submitted in sections in early 2014 and comments were
received from EPA in January 2015. Finalization is expected in 2016. 
The Port is also conducting source control work, as required by EPA under the ASAOC.
In 2016, this may include some additional stormwater line cleanouts or camera inspection
of stormwater lines. 
Terminal 30 Oil Cleanup  Terminal 30 is a former Chevron bulk storage site. Since the 1990's,
the Port has removed significant amounts of free product and conducted an extensive
groundwater-monitoring program. The required public comment period for the draft Consent
Decree (CD) and Cleanup Action Plan (CAP) has been completed and the Port expects to sign a
final CD in early 2016. Once signed, the Port will proceed with design and implementation of
the selected final remedy followed by long-term monitoring. 
Terminal 10 Lockheed  Lockheed previously performed the upland and sediment cleanup
required at the site. The Port's continuing obligation is to maintain the upland cap and the
habitat restoration area, manage any contaminated soil and groundwater encountered or removed
during redevelopment or maintenance activities, and to protect Lockheed's groundwater
monitoring wells. Under the Terminal 10 Uplands capital project, storm water drainage and
upland cap improvements were completed in early 2012. Long term stormwater solids sampling
was initiated after the capital project as a condition of EPA approval.
Terminals 103/104/105/107  These sites have been identified by Ecology as having source
control data gaps related to the Lower Duwamish Waterway Superfund site.
Terminal 106 (West and Warehouse parcels)  Ecology has ranked these two parcels under their
Site Hazard Ranking system. Ecology ranked them 2 out of 5 with 1 being the highest rank.

COMMISSION AGENDA 
Ted Fick, Chief Executive Officer 
December 2, 2015 
Page 6 of 16 
Natural Resource Damages (NRD) Habitat Restoration  Superfund liability for LDW and
Harbor Island sediments also includes injury to natural resources from contamination.
The Port is negotiating with the Elliott Bay Trustee Council (Trustees) for a settlement of
these liabilities that will likely include habitat restoration as a component.
June 7, 2011, the Commission approved the design and permitting of an expanded
restoration project at Terminal 117.  The design work for the restoration is nearing
completion and we have applied for permits.
A credit letter was received from the Trustees that document the NRD value of the T117
habitat project as currently designed. 
After receipt of permits and permit conditions are identified and the settlement negotiations are
complete, staff will be coming back to Commission to request authorization to bid, award and
construct the habitat project. 
Terminal 91 Cleanup  Investigation and cleanup of this site is being administered by Ecology 
under a State Dangerous Waste Permit and a MTCA Order.
The draft Feasibility Study (FS) went out for public comment December 2009 and was
finalized with no changes.
A draft Cleanup Action Plan (CAP), which identifies the cleanup approach selected by
Ecology, and State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) checklist went out for public
comment October 2010 and was finalized.
A new MTCA Order for performance of the cleanup was issued in the spring of 2012.
The design has been approved by Ecology.
On August 6, 2013, the Commission approved the CEO to advertise and execute a major
construction project and to self-perform using Port crews, to implement the cleanup
action required by the Order.
The cleanup work at Terminal 91 was completed in mid-2015. 
The long term groundwater monitoring and O&M has begun. Investigation and cleanup of
discrete units continues. Limited sediment investigation and a possible removal action may be
performed in 2016 in support of maintenance dredging under an Order amendment if approved
by a separate Commission action. 
Fishermen's Terminal  The Port has removed contaminated soils in the uplands, capped the
uplands as a voluntary cleanup measure, and is conducting a continuing program of investigative
groundwater monitoring at and near the Fishing Vessel Owners tenant site. Some dredging of
contaminated sediments occurred as part of the Docks 5-10 renewal and replacement and berth
dredging project. An assessment of site-wide contamination is planned. 
Terminal 5 CEM Ecology State Cleanup Site  In addition to the four sites listed under Seaport
sites, as part of the T-5 redevelopment, the Port purchased the old West Seattle Landfill and
installed an environmental cap and a methane collection system. These systems require longterm
operation and maintenance, inspection, and reporting, which is continuing.

COMMISSION AGENDA 
Ted Fick, Chief Executive Officer 
December 2, 2015 
Page 7 of 16 
Aviation Sites/Projects 
Aircraft Fuel Farms and Fueling Systems  Five underground aircraft fueling systems were
constructed and operated by individual airlines beginning in the early 1960s. As of January 2007,
each of these systems has been decommissioned. Appropriate environmental cleanup has been
achieved for three of the systems and is in progress for two others. Long-term monitoring
continues as noted below: 
Remediation of an area impacted by operations of the former United Airlines and
Continental Airlines fuel farms is anticipated to continue into 2016 with confirmation
monitoring to follow. The Port is a member of the PLP group for this multiple-source
site. 
The Northwest Airlines and Pan Am Airlines systems have been appropriately 
remediated, but continue to require monitoring. The Port (as a result of Pan Am Airlines
bankruptcy) and Delta Airlines (successor by merger to Northwest Airlines) will continue
to monitor the former Pan Am and Northwest systems in the context of the STIA Ground
Water Study, described below. 
STIA Ground Water Study  In May 1999, the Port and Ecology executed an MTCA Order that
required that the Port conduct a study of ground water conditions in the uppermost regional
aquifer in the vicinity of the Airport. The study has been completed. 
The results demonstrate that there is little potential for Airport operations to impact ground water
conditions beyond the Airport boundary, or threaten local ground water receptors (public
drinking water supplies, creeks, etc.). 
Ecology accepted the study findings and designated the Port's obligations under the
Agreed Order as complete.
Ecology and the Port have agreed to a plan for long-term ground water monitoring to
confirm the results of the models used in the study. 
Under the terms of a responsible party agreement, Delta Airlines will implement the monitoring
program on behalf of the Port and several rental car tenants. Completion of long-term monitoring
will occur in late 2015.  If results are consistent with those acquired so far we anticipate
monitoring to end, bringing the STIA Ground Water Study to a conclusion. 
Lora Lake Apartments  On July 10, 2009, the Port and Ecology executed a MTCA Order that
required the Port to conduct a Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study (RI/FS) for the
cleanup of the Lora Lake Apartment Property. 
A Draft RI/FS was submitted to Ecology in January 2012, the RI/FS report presented the
findings of investigations and analysis of cleanup alternatives. 
January 2013, these documents were subsequently revised to address Ecology's
comments and accepted for public comment.
A follow-on Consent Decree to complete the cleanup was negotiated in 2013. 
The initial public comment period on the RI/FS and Consent Decree ended on November
25, 2013 and was extended to January 15, 2014.


COMMISSION AGENDA 
Ted Fick, Chief Executive Officer 
December 2, 2015 
Page 8 of 16 
After continued negotiations with Ecology, and subsequent revision of the Cleanup
Action Plan, a second public comment period was held in May and June of 2015. 
The Consent Decree, with the Cleanup Action Plan, was finalized on September 9, 2015. 
Remedial design, including extensive field sampling and analysis, will take place in 2015 and
2016. Remediation will begin in early 2017.
Schedule 
Included in project scope of work write-up above 
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS 
The following table summarizes 2016 through 2020 forecasted spending for environmental
remediation projects. Forecasted spending reflects projects described in the Scope of Work.
Five-Year Spending Plan 
$s in Thousands          2016     2017     2018     2019     2020    2016-2020 
Gross Project Spending       $13,900   $35,200     $5,800    $8,800   $14,800     $78,400 
Cash from 3rd Parties*       $(3,600)   $(1,200)      $(800)     $(600)     $(600)     $(6,700) 
Net Port Share             $10,300   $34,000     $5,000    $8,200   $14,200     $71,700 
*Note: "Cash from 3rd parties" is defined below. Forecasts for payments from third parties are only included when
the liabilities have been booked. Forecasted amounts do not include estimates of possible recoveries from grants,
insurance or legal settlements. A portion of the cash from 3rd parties is in the authorization but the work is managed
by another organization. 
Budget/Authorization Summary    Spending      Budget   Remaining  Recovery 
$s in Thousands 
2010               $10,704     $13,141      $2,437    $(4,575) 
2011               $11,955     $14,974      $3,019   $(10,162) 
2012                $9,358     $23,600      $14,242    $(6,754) 
2013               $14,067     $21,179      $7,112    $(7,497) 
2014               $18,500     $22,180      $3,680   $(17,595) 
2015 thru 9/30/2015            $6,870     $16,804       $9,934    $(2,979 
Note: Budget does not carry over. Recovery includes money from prior years. 
Budget Status and Source of Funds 
Environmental cleanup projects have multiple funding sources: (1) Maritime and Economic
Development non-operating projects are funded by the Port's Tax Levy; (2) Maritime and
Economic Development operating projects are funded by the General Fund; (3) Airport projects
are funded by the Airport Development Fund. In addition, there are supplementary outside
sources of funding, including the following:

COMMISSION AGENDA 
Ted Fick, Chief Executive Officer 
December 2, 2015 
Page 9 of 16 
Cash from third parties - Payment from cost sharing or contribution agreements with other
potentially liable parties (PLPs), where the Port functions as a funding conduit for the other
PLPs and the Port holds contracts on behalf of these other PLPs. 
Litigation settlements with other PLPs. 
Allocation settlements with other PLPs. 
Insurance recoveries from both the Port's insurers and other PLPs' insurers. 
Department of Ecology grants 
STRATEGIES AND OBJECTIVES 
Environmental remediation projects define and minimize, to acceptable levels, threats to the
environment caused by prior Port operations, prior tenant operations, and by the historical effects
of industrial activity on properties acquired by the Port. Generally, the results of these efforts, as
well as the attendant compliance with regulatory mandates, management of Port liabilities, and
support of the local community, align with the goals and objectives of the Century Agenda and
Maritime, Aviation, Northwest Seaport Alliance, Economic Development Division and Storm
Water Utility Business Plans. 
TRIPLE BOTTOM LINE 
Economic Development 
Cleanup of contaminated sites helps bring sites back to more productive uses and supports 
possible re-development. Cleanup reduces and may eliminate restrictions on future land uses,
protects tenants and Port workers who occupy the sites, and allows for broader re-development
options and maximizes site uses. 
Environmental Responsibility 
State and federal laws require elimination of unacceptable levels of environmental risk caused by
the presence of contaminants in soil, groundwater and sediment. Project planning and design
efforts will consider and incorporate opportunities for materials reuse, recycling, and/or
reduction. Implementation of cleanup remedies will include significant environmental controls
and performance monitoring to ensure public health and safety. 
Community Benefits 
Elimination of unacceptable levels of environmental risk caused by the presence of contaminants
in upland soil, in marine sediments, and  in  groundwater is the hallmark of responsible
environmental stewardship, from the perspectives of both the surrounding residential and
business communities and the customers that we serve. 
The environmental remediation authorization will fund a mix of Port staff, outside consultant
services and contractors to maximize the effectiveness of resources.

COMMISSION AGENDA 
Ted Fick, Chief Executive Officer 
December 2, 2015 
Page 10 of 16 
ALTERNATIVES AND IMPLICATIONS CONSIDERED 
The following alternatives were considered for accomplishing the work described above: 
Alternative 1) 
Do not complete the work. 
Pros: 
Staff could not identify positive aspects for this alternative. 
Cons: 
Could result in the regulators, including, Department of Ecology, Environmental
Protection Agency or NOAA taking enforcement action that could lead to the remedy
being implemented by them with the Port being liable for three times the cost incurred by
the regulator. 
The Port would lose the opportunity to employ the flexibility contained in the controlling
regulations, to define and direct the work, and to manage costs. 
Would not comply with Port's obligation to remediate the sites. 
Would delay work previously agreed to under existing regulatory orders or under
voluntary programs. 
Alternative 2) 
Complete the work using Port staff only. Port staff is already heavily involved in project
direction, legal analysis, and project management, and will continue to perform these services.
The nature and extent of the technical and legal work required to complete this work is
substantial, and would require a large number of additional staff with additional expertise in a
number of highly technical specialty areas.  Contracts would still be required for such work as
laboratory analysis. This is not the recommended alternative. 
Pros: 
Reduces staff costs for contract administration. 
Additional hired employees would provide flexible work force. 
Provides trained Port workforce with specific technical expertise. 
Provides consistent reporting and documentation 
Cons: 
Servicing peak seasonal demand requires hiring additional full-time employees resulting
in un-utilized labor through the majority of the year. 
Requires additional Port staff 
Would require purchase of substantial amount of sampling equipment 
Would still require some contracting for tasks staff would not be able to perform such as
laboratory analysis 
Alternative 3) 
Complete the work using outside consultants and contractors only. Outside consultants and
contractors have sufficient numbers and types of specialists necessary for timely and cost

COMMISSION AGENDA 
Ted Fick, Chief Executive Officer 
December 2, 2015 
Page 11 of 16 
effective completion of this work; however, the work would be more costly than if some Port
staff were also involved. This is not the recommended alternative. 
Pros: 
This will provide for a competitive procurement process and encourage small business
participation 
Provides full service support and expertise 
Provides staff with the tools to respond in a timely manner to new requests from Ecology. 
Cons: 
Increase staff time to track, compile and manage contractor reports. 
Prime contractor would charge to manage these services 
Reduces technical development opportunities for Port staff 
Alternative 4) 
Complete the work using a combination of Port staff (Alternative 2) and outside consultants and
contractors (Alternative 3) that maximizes the ability for the Port to direct cleanup efforts and
maximize the effectiveness of staff. This is the recommended alternative. 
Pros: 
Provides contracted and Port work force that can increase or decrease service level of
effort needed. 
Provides trained workforce with specific technical expertise 
Provides consistent reporting and documentation 
Provides opportunities for businesses, including small businesses, to participate in Port
work. 
Provides staff with the tools to respond in a timely manner to new requests from Ecology 
Does not require a large expenditure for field equipment or the long term maintenance of
the equipment. 
Allows for technical development of Port staff 
Cons: 
Requires more staff time than alternative 3. 
Coordination is required between Port Environmental Program Manager and consultant. 
ATTACHMENTS TO THIS REQUEST 
Map of ERL Sites North Properties Maritime, Economic Development 
Map of ERL sites South Properties Maritime, Economic Development and NWSA 
Map of ERL Sites Aviation 
PREVIOUS COMMISSION ACTIONS OR BRIEFINGS 
December 1, 2014  the Commission approved the project-wide authorization of (1) a
five-year spending plan of $36,804,000 for the Environmental Remediation Liability
(ERL) Program for the Seaport, Real Estate, and Aviation Divisions for 2015-2019; and
(2) environmental remediation liabilities funds for 2015 in the amount of $36,804,00, of

COMMISSION AGENDA 
Ted Fick, Chief Executive Officer 
December 2, 2015 
Page 12 of 16 
which (a) $16,804,000 is forecasted to be spent in 2015 and (b) an amount estimated not
to exceed $20,000,000 of the remaining funds approved in the five-year plan will be
obligated during 2015 to be spent in future years. 
December 3, 2013  the Commission approved the project-wide authorization of (1) a
five-year spending plan of $106,740,000 for the Environmental Remediation Liability
(ERL) Program for the Seaport, Real Estate, and Aviation Divisions for 2014-2018; and
(2) environmental remediation liabilities funds for 2014 in the amount of $42,180,000, of
which (a) $22,180,000 is forecasted to be spent in 2014 and (b) an amount estimated not
to exceed $20,000,000 of the remaining funds approved in the five-year plan will be
obligated during 2014 to be spent in future years. 
December 4, 2012 - the Commission approved the project-wide authorization of
environmental remediation liabilities funds for 2013 in the amount of $44,179,000, of
which (a) $21,179,000 may be spent in 2013 and (b) an amount estimated not to exceed
$23,000,000 of the remaining funds approved in the five-year plan will be obligated
during 2013 to be spent in future years. Commission approved a five-year spending plan
of $116,182,000 for the Environmental Remediation Liability Program for the Seaport,
Real Estate, and Aviation Divisions for 2013-2017. 
December 6, 2011 - the Commission approved the project-wide authorization expenditure
of $23,600,000  for environmental cleanup action on Port properties during 2012.
Obligating contracts (POs) valued at $32,900,000 in 2012 for work that will be
performed in later years. Commission approved the five-year spending plan of
$91,100,000 for the Environmental Remediation Liability Program for Seaport, Real
Estate and Airport for 2012 through 2016. 
December 7, 2010 - the Commission approved the project-wide authorization expenditure
of $14,974,000  for environmental cleanup action on Port properties during 2011. 
Obligation of work in later years for $16,200,000. 
November 30, 2009 -  the Commission approved the project-wide authorization
expenditure of $13,141,000 for environmental cleanup action on Port properties during
2010. 
December 9, 2008 - the Commission approved the project-wide authorization expenditure
of $10,396,000  for environmental cleanup action on Port properties during 2009.
Expenditures for 2009 were ultimately limited to 7,455,000. 
December 1, 2007 - the Commission approved the project-wide authorization expenditure
of $11,833,000  for environmental cleanup action on Port properties during 2008.
Expenditures for 2008 were ultimately limited to $11,322,258. 
December 12, 2006 -  the Commission approved the project-wide authorization
expenditure of $7,756,549 for environmental cleanup action on Port properties during
2007. Expenditures for 2007 were ultimately limited to $7,537,286. 
June 27, 2006 - the Commission approved an increase in the 2006 project-wide
authorization for environmental cleanup action on Port properties, to increase the
authorization in the amount of $6,000,000 to $14,705,760. Expenditures for 2006 were
ultimately limited to $11,087,873.38.

COMMISSION AGENDA 
Ted Fick, Chief Executive Officer 
December 2, 2015 
Page 13 of 16 
December 13, 2005 -  the Commission approved the project-wide authorization
expenditure of $8,705,760 for environmental cleanup action on Port properties during
2006. 
March 23, 2005 - the Commission approved the project-wide authorization expenditure
of $8,102,222, for environmental cleanup action on Port properties during 2005. Actual
expenditures for 2005 were ultimately limited to $6,255,791. 
March 23, 2004 - the Commission approved the project-wide authorization expenditure
of $8,081,000, for environmental cleanup action on Port properties during 2004. Actual
expenditures for 2004 were ultimately limited to $2,136,943. 
March 11, 2003 - the Commission approved the project-wide authorization expenditure
of $4,999,000 for environmental cleanup action on Port properties and for potential
environmental liabilities during 2003. Actual expenditures for 2003 were ultimately
limited to $2,459,870.
June 11, 2002 - the Commission approved the expenditure of $1,500,000 and contract
amendments for the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Order on Consent to
continue work on the Lower Duwamish Sediments Superfund site and the East Waterway
Sediment Operable Unit of the Harbor Island Superfund Site.
July 10, 2001 - the Commission approved the expenditure of $5,100,000 for nine
Aviation projects and six Seaport projects during 2001. 
March 14, 2000 - the Commission approved the expenditure of $1,000,000 for aquatic
sediment management for participating in the development and implementation of federal
and state laws and regulations relating to the disposition of contaminated aquatic
sediments, and the expenditure of $2,000,000 for cleanup-related investigations at the
former Chevron Oil Terminal site at Terminal 30. 
August 24, 1999 -  the Commission approved the expenditure of $800,000 for
environmental cleanup of Port property adjacent to the Malarkey Asphalt Co. site. 
June 8, 1999 - the Commission approved the expenditure of $300,000 to conduct the
Industrial Waste System Hydrogeological Study required by the Ecology as a
performance condition of the 1998 National Pollution Discharge and Elimination System
Permit. 
February 25, 1997 - the Commission approved the expenditure of $1,100,000 to conduct
the STIA Ground Water Study required by a Washington Ecology Model Toxics Control
Act (MTCA) Agreed Order. 
February 27, 1996 - the Commission approved the expenditure of $2,325,000 for eleven
projects during 1996. 
March 28, 1995 - the Commission approved the expenditure of $1,875,000 for nine
projects during 1995. 
March 8, 1994 - the Commission approved the expenditure of $776,000 for eleven
projects during 1994. 
July 13, 1993 - the Commission approved the expenditure of $1,050,000 for eight
projects during 1993.

COMMISSION AGENDA 
Ted Fick, Chief Executive Officer 
December 2, 2015 
Page 14 of 16

COMMISSION AGENDA 
Ted Fick, Chief Executive Officer 
December 2, 2015 
Page 15 of 16

COMMISSION AGENDA 
Ted Fick, Chief Executive Officer 
December 2, 2015 
Page 16 of 16