6g Memo

PORT OF SEATTLE 
MEMORANDUM 

COMMISSION AGENDA                   Item No.        6g 
Date of Meeting      April 14, 2009 

DATE:       April 3, 2009 
TO:          Tay Yoshitani, Chief Executive Officer 
FROM:      Stephanie Jones Stebbins, Senior Manager, Seaport Environmental Programs 
Kathy Bahnick, Senior Environmental Program Manager 
SUBJECT:    Authorization to1) perform environmental investigation activities at Terminal
115N, and associated regulatory coordination; and 2) procure a professional
service contract to support the environmental investigation and associated
regulatory coordination activities, at a cost of over $200,000.
ACTION REQUESTED: 
Request Port Commission authorization for the Chief Executive Officer to (1) perform
environmental investigation and associated regulatory coordination at T115N under an existing
open order contract, in order to determine if the site warrants further cleanup; and (2) begin the
procurement process for a Category 3 professional services contract for consultant support for
these activities. 
SYNOPSIS 
The Department of Ecology has informed the Port that it believes T115N is sufficiently
contaminated by hazardous substances from past practices that a cleanup at the site is necessary,
and that the work should be conducted under Ecology supervision via an Agreed Order. The
Port believes there is not enough information at this point to determine if that assessment is
correct. Therefore, the Port intends to conduct sampling at the property to determine the nature
and extent of contamination, and to coordinate with Ecology concerning the results. The Port
needs consultant assistance in order to achieve this.
Ecology is concerned about the schedule and would like the Port to begin the investigation soon.
Because of this schedule concern, staff proposes performing the initial work under an existing
open order contract for remedial investigations. At the same time, we would like to start the
procurement process for a category 3 contract for a consultant to perform the additional work,
should it become necessary. If the environmental investigation shows a level of contamination at
the site that warrants cleanup, further Commission action will be necessary to execute the
Category 3 contract for professional services, and, potentially, enter into an agreement with
Ecology.

COMMISSION AGENDA 
T. Yoshitani, Chief Executive Officer 
April 3, 2009 
Page 2 of 4 

BACKGROUND
Terminal 115 is located along the Lower Duwamish Waterway (LDW), which is a listed
Superfund site. T he U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is the lead agency for inwater
(i.e., sediment) assessment and cleanup, while the State Department of Ecology is the lead
agency for source control for adjacent and upland sites to the LDW. Assessment activities
conducted as part of the investigation of the LDW sediments have identified a number of
localized contaminated areas (often referred to as Early Action Areas or EAAs). One of these
areas of localized contaminated sediments, called Glacier Bay because of its proximity to the
property owned by Glacier Northwest, is adjacent to and north of the northern portion of T115.
T115N was the site of a tin reclamation facility from approximately 1963 to 1998 under a variety
of Port tenants. The industrial operation utilized a number of hazardous substances, including
sodium hydroxide, spent plating solution, lacquer sludge and "black mud."  Limited information
exists about the degree of contamination of the soil and groundwater at the site. In 1998, a site
hazard assessment was conducted by Seattle-King County Department of Public Health. Sites
are ranked on a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 representing the highest level of risk and 5 the lowest.
T115N was ranked as a 5.
On January 20, 2009, Ecology issued a "Notice of Potential Liability under the Model Toxics
Control Act (MTCA) for the Release of Hazardous Substances and Notice of Intent to Conduct
Site Hazard Assessment" for Terminal 115 N. The purpose of the Notice is to provide the Port
with the opportunity to comment on Ecology's proposed findings. Ecology stated its belief that a
release of hazardous substances had occurred at the site that posed a threat to human health or
the environment, and that further action was necessary. Ecology proposed to find the Port liable
as a potentially liable party (PLP) because it is the current owner of the property. Ecology's
proposed next steps were (1) initiate negotiations for an Agreed Order to further evaluate specific
levels and areas of contamination; and (2) "clean the site up to standards." 
In its response, the Port acknowledged that it is nominally a PLP because it is the property owner
and because there has been one sample that exceeded MTCA standards. However, the Port
objected to Ecology's determination that this was sufficient to find that the site posed a threat to
human health or the environment.
PROJECT SCOPE OF WORK AND SCHEDULE 
The Port believes that further sampling is necessary in order to determine the nature and extent
of contamination at the site. The Port has proposed to Ecology that this sampling be conducted
as an independent investigation. The Port will report the results to Ecology on a schedule that
will allow both parties to evaluate the additional data and make a knowledgeable decision about
the appropriate next steps.

COMMISSION AGENDA 
T. Yoshitani, Chief Executive Officer 
April 3, 2009 
Page 3 of 4 

The project consists of the following elements: 
(1) Perform the initial environmental investigation under an existing remediation
investigation open order contract to include: 
Prepare and implement sampling plans and laboratory analysis 
Validate and evaluate chemical data 
Prepare report 
Coordinate with Ecology concerning next steps 
(2) Advertise and select a consultant to perform additional remedial action work, if required, 
in the near future 

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED/RECOMMENDED ACTION 

1.  Do Nothing - Do not respond to Ecology's request to negotiate an Agreed Order, and do not
initiate an independent investigation. Under this scenario, Ecology could issue an
enforcement order to carry out the work, or proceed with its own contractor and charge the
costs to the Port. This is not the recommended alternative. 
2.  Agreed Order: Immediately sign on to an Agreed Order that would include the full range of
activities necessary to clean the property. This would include performing the following steps
under Ecology supervision: conducting a full Remedial Investigation; conducting a
Feasibility Study; developing a Cleanup Action Plan; and ultimately performing remedial
actions to clean up the site. Begin procurement for and execute a Category 3 consultant
contract for this Agreed Order work. This option would be more expensive and would have
limited flexibility in designing the appropriate cleanup. Due to the Port's lengthy
procurement process, this approach will also delay start of the investigation, which is a
concern of Ecology's. This is not the recommended alternative. 
3.  Phased Approach (Faster): First, perform initial environmental investigations under existing
open order contract, and initiate consultant procurement for additional cleanup work if
warranted: Then, continue to work with Ecology to determine whether it warrants further
cleanup. Work to identify other potential PLP's. And then return to Commission for further
authorization to enter into a Category 3 contract with an environmental consulting firm to
perform additional remedial action work, if warranted.   This is the recommended
alternative. 
4.  Phased Approach (Slower) Same as above, except wait to perform the initial environmental
investigation until a Category 3 consultant contract is in place for the entire work. This

COMMISSION AGENDA 
T. Yoshitani, Chief Executive Officer 
April 3, 2009 
Page 4 of 4 

approach will delay start of any investigation work for 6-9 months. Because Ecology is
concerned about delays, this is not the recommended alternative. 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS 
Cost Estimate 
The estimated cost for consultant services for the initial investigation and regulatory support
work is $150,000 to $250,000.
Source of Funds 
The cash funded by Environmental Reserves, which pays for the environmental cleanup projects,
is funded by the Port's Tax Levy.
In addition, there are other possible supplementary outside sources that could be pursued, such as
grant funding from Ecology and EPA, and cost sharing agreements with other PLPs. At this time
it is not known if supplementary outside sources will be available for this site. 
ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY/COMMUNITY BENEFITS 
Elimination of unacceptable levels of environmental risk caused by the presence of contaminants
in soil, groundwater and sediment is not only required by state and federal law, it is the hallmark
of responsible environmental stewardship, from the perspectives of both the surrounding
communities and the customers that we serve. 
PROJECT SCHEDULE 
A Phase 1 independent environmental investigation is projected to be completed in 2010
depending on negotiations with Ecology and consultant procurement.
PREVIOUS COMMISSION ACTION 
None specific to T115 N 
On December 15, 2008, the Port Commission approved the project-wide authorization
expenditure of $10,396,000 for environmental cleanup action on Port properties during 2009.

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.