7b Supp
ITEM NO. __7b_Supp______ DATE OF MEETING October 12, 2010 Briefing on the Lower Duwamish Waterway Superfund Site Briefing Summary Cleanup required of contamination in Lower Duwamish to protect human health and ecological environment Feasibility Study presents array of alternatives to conduct cleanup All alternatives predicted to protect environment in long term 90% reduction in PCBs achieved Short term differences include impacts of actions, length of time to reduce risk, and cost EPA and Ecology will select cleanup alternative 2 Lower Duwamish Waterway Superfund Site Industrial and Cultural Legacy, Economic Engine, Growing Communities 5-mile stretch, about 441 acres, range of industrial contaminants Listed as Superfund site in 2001 Studies define contamination and risk LDWG invested $40 million to move process forward, and is pursuing early action cleanups of prioritized contaminated areas Duwamish Valley supports over 100,000 jobs and 80% of City's industrially-zoned land 3 Roles and Responsibilities Regulatory Agencies Sampling Lower Duwamish Studies Waterway Group Plans (LDWG) Analyses Cost Sharing 4 Getting Oriented Sediment Contamination and Early Action Areas Risk Drivers PCBs 40+ state Arsenic "sediment management Dioxin standard" cPAHs chemicals Five Early Action Areas under way (hatched) Remaining hot spots require cleanup (yellow) 5 Key milestone: October 15 Getting closer to cleanup decision Draft Final Feasibility Study October 15 www.ldwg.org FS edited with significant EPA/Ecology input Focused agency and public Cover of FS review through end of year Public input key to regulators selecting preferred cleanup alternative Stakes are high time is now to engage region and provide input 6 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? 7 Risk Levels in Lower Duwamish: Baseline Risk Assessment 8 Alternatives in FS 12 Alternatives developed and evaluated in FS Alternatives vary by: Types of technologies (dredge or cap) Size of footprint requiring action Amount of natural processes vs. active Predicted time to reduce risk in sediment (12 to 43 year) Certainty of time to reduce risks Cost (200 Mil to 1,330 Mil) 9 Multiple Technologies Available 10 All Alternatives Designed to Meet Cleanup Objectives 11 Alternatives Vary in Time to Meet Objectives Alternative Time to Meet All Objectives 12 years 4C 13 years 5C 3C 14 years 3R 16 years 18 years 4R 19 years 2R CAD 19 years 2R 6C 23 years 5RT 24 years 5R 24 years 43 years 6R 12 Range of Alternatives Evaluated Varying technologies and footprints EXAMPLES: Alternative 4 actively remediates 143 acres (full range is 29-328 acres) Alternative 4 - Alternative 4 - Combined Technology Removal Emphasis (4C) (4R) Construction time: 7 yrs Construction time: 13 yrs Dredging Volume: 560,000 cy Dredging Volume: 1,100,000 cy Restoration timeframe: 22 yrs Restoration timeframe: 23 yrs Base Case Cost: $280 million Base Case Cost: $450 million Range of Costs: $210 to $390 Range of Costs: $360 to $630 million million Primary Differences: "Combined" alternatives emphasize mix of active technologies. "Removal" alternatives focus more on dredging rather than other active technologies. Costs range from $200 million to $1.3 billion, construction timeframes from 4-38 years. (Note: handout with more detailed charts) 13 Reduction in PCBs achieved in different ways 14 Tradeoffs to Consider "Combined" vs. "Removal" Dredging Considered more permanent in long term Causes most impact during construction Larger dredge volumes mean longer construction, truck/train transport impacts (traffic, emissions), community and worker impacts Non-dredge methods (capping, engineered and monitored natural recovery) Get done faster and cheaper Less short-term impacts than dredging May require more maintenance over time All technologies require monitoring to ensure they are functioning as intended 15 Moving toward Cleanup 2010 2011 2012 2013 future Review period Draft Final Feasibility Study (10/15/10 12/17/10) Public meeting on Feasibility Study (12/9/10) Agreement on approved Final Feasibility Study (May-July 2011) Agency community and stakeholder outreach (July-Dec 2011) Likely liability allocation (2011-2013) Agency proposed plan for public review (Jan 2012) EPA and Ecology decision on remedy (Jan 2013) Design, construction, monitoring (2013-ongoing) Source control implemented (ongoing) Public involvement and outreach (ongoing) Early actions (2011-beyond ) 16 Funding Impacts to Region Range of cleanup costs large, and don't include other support activities (source control, EAAs) Liability will likely be allocated broadly Public agency projections of impacts to tax and ratepayers are being developed Local and regional businesses will absorb costs, potential impacts on business health and investment Uncertain availability of MTCA grant money to local governments 17 Key Stakeholders are Involved EPA and Ecology U.S. Army Corps, NOAA, U.S. Fish and Wildlife WDFW and DNR Tribes Duwamish River Cleanup Coalition (DRCC) Local residents and businesses Potentially responsible parties Seattle and King County ratepayers/taxpayers 18 Community Outreach Is Ongoing Joint outreach to community groups with EPA, Ecology, DRCC Outreach to non-English speaking communities ECOSS hosting business meetings Web-based availability of documents and online comment opportunity EPA/Ecology public meeting December 9 19 Briefing Summary Revised Feasibility Study moves us closer to a cleanup decision Moving forward with cleanup is critical to reduce risks to community and environment Alternatives vary in time, impacts, and cost Funding impacts to businesses, Port, and municipalities EPA and Ecology will select cleanup alternative that best meets their objectives 20 www.portseattle.org
Limitations of Translatable Documents
PDF files are created with text and images are placed at an exact position on a page of a fixed size.
Web pages are fluid in nature, and the exact positioning of PDF text creates presentation problems.
PDFs that are full page graphics, or scanned pages are generally unable to be made accessible, In these cases, viewing whatever plain text could be extracted is the only alternative.