ITEM NO. _7a_supp__
DATE OF
MEETING May 5, 2009
Briefing on the Lower
Duwamish Superfund Site

The Duwamish River



2

Active Industrial and Commercial Corridor with Two
Residential Community Neighbors
Growing Population
Economic           Habitat Restoration
Competitiveness
Global Marketplace



Recreational and
Commercial Uses

3

Who is Involved So Far?
Regulatory
Agencies





4

Who is LDWG?
Regulatory
Agencies



Lower Duwamish
Waterway Group

5

Roles and Responsibilities
Regulatory
Agencies



Lower Duwamish                        Sampling
Waterway Group                        Studies
Plans
Analyses
6

Key Milestones
NOW
2001-2002    2009       2009       2011       2011


What and    What and    What and
What and
Where isThere's a    Where is     Where isHow       Proposal      Decision:
Where is
the Risk ?Problem     the Risk ?    the Risk ?Could it be     to Clean    How it will be
the Risk?    Cleaned Up?    it Up       Cleaned Up
Superfund    Remedial     Feasibility    Proposed     Record of
List (NPL)    Investigation    Study (FS)    Plan (PP)      Decision
(RI) & Risk                              (ROD)
Washington   Assessments            Cleanup
Hazardous                      Action Plan
Sites List                               (CAP)
7

Post-Decision Steps

Negotiate               Continue
& Fund     Design the    Upland     Construct   Long-Term
Cleanup     Remedy     Source    the Remedy   Monitoring
Agreement              Control


8

Ecology and EPA Active in
Lower Duwamish
Ecology has primary responsibility for
controlling pollution from upland sources
under the Model Toxics Control Act
EPA has primary responsibility for in-water
cleanup under Superfund or CERCLA and
other authorities
There is some overlap.

9

A Lot is Happening Now



More Work Remains to be Done
10

Remedial Actions in LDW
EPA Sites
Ecology Sites
Areas under
Investigation


11

Contamination:
What's the Concern?
PCBs
(Polychlorinated biphenyls)
PAHs
(Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons)
Dioxins and furans
Arsenic
Other chemicals including phthalates
12

Study Area and
LDWG - sponsored
Early Action Areas

13

Contamination: Where Is It?



14

Starting to Look at Options
2001-2002      2009       2009       2011       2011



What and    How      Proposal     Decision:
There's a
Where is               to Clean    How it will be
Problem              Could it be
the Risk?    Cleaned Up?    it Up       Cleaned Up
Superfund    Remedial     Feasibility    Proposed    Record of
List (NPL)    Investigation    Study (FS)    Plan (PP)     Decision
(RI) & Risk                              (ROD)
Washington   Assessments
Cleanup
Hazardous                       Action Plan
Sites List                               (CAP)                15

Cleanup Goals
Seafood Consumption     Worms and Benthic
Invertebrates

Direct Contact with
Contaminants          Fish and Wildlife

Cleanup goal is to reduce risk.
How will we go about It?
16

Source: Windward (2008)

Average PCB concentrations in chinook salmon





Source: EPA (2008)

Multiple Technologies Available



19

Technologies Combine Into Five Options
Early Actions   Hot Spot    Containment   Removal     Maximum
Only     Removal     Focus     Focus     Removal




Acres Managed : 34    Acres Managed : 193   Acres Managed: 193    Acres Managed: 193   Acres Managed: 315
Estimated Cost:       Estimated Cost:       Estimated Cost:       Estimated Cost:      Estimated Cost:
$50 million          $220 million          $270 million          $480 million         $1.2 billion
Years to Complete: 5    Years to Complete:10   Years to Complete: 11   Years to Complete: 17  Years to Complete: 41


Early Action &           Containment     Monitoring and Natural Recovery &
Dredging                          Verification Monitoring                            20

Regulatory Agencies Consider These Criteria
When Evaluating an Option

Protection of human health and the environment
Consistent with all other environmental standards

Effective    Construction    Includes     Ability
Cost
Long     Time &    Treatment   to Get
Termtext      Impacts               It Done

Acceptance of community, state and tribal nations

21

Figure ESb'b: Comparative MTCA Ratings

Weighted Ratings Under MTCA
Cost
Alternative   (Net Present
Value)        Total Benets by Criterion 3








Notes:
a See Appendix J for detailed evaluation

E] Overall Protectiveness
-Permanence
E] Long-Term Effectiveness
El Management of short-term risks
- lmplementability

Community Involvement
and Cleanup Alternatives
Draft FS to recommend Approach but not
an Alternative
Clean up most contaminated areas first
Robust monitoring, reevaluating modeling,
revisit conclusions
Invest in gaining understanding while moving
forward
Take additional actions as needed
Community involvement process ongoing

Conceptual Effect of Cleanup
Approaches on Seafood Risks



24

Challenging Issues
Balancing cost and time to
achieve cleanup goals
Maintaining multiple uses
Avoiding recontamination
Setting cleanup goals
25

www.portseattle.org