Click here to load reader

Wyckoff Eagle Harbor Site - · PDF fileWyckoff Eagle Harbor Site Public Information Meeting December 10, 2014 Helen Bottcher EPA Project Manager

  • View

  • Download

Embed Size (px)

Text of Wyckoff Eagle Harbor Site - · PDF fileWyckoff Eagle Harbor Site Public Information Meeting...

  • Wyckoff Eagle Harbor Site

    Public Information Meeting December 10, 2014

    Helen BottcherEPA Project Manager

  • Provide a status update Describe cleanup alternatives under

    consideration Answer your questions Hear informal input

    No cleanup decision has been made! Formal public comment will be solicited in

    Summer 2015 when EPA releases the Proposed Plan


  • Ecology Chung Yee, Barry Rogowski, Sandra Caldwell,

    Susannah Edwards, Dawn Hooper Floyd | Snider Ecology Consultant Kate Snider

    CH2M Hill EPA Contractor Ken Scheffler, Jeff Gentry, George Hicks

    EPA Helen Bottcher, Rene Fuentes, Kira Lynch, Peter

    Murchie, Beth Sheldrake


  • 4

    (b) (6)

  • 5

  • 7

  • 1984 EPA orders Wyckoff Company to conduct environmental investigation

    1987 Site added to the Superfund List 1994 Legal settlement with Pacific Sound

    Resources for Superfund liability Cleanup Decisions

    1994 Groundwater ROD (interim) 1994 Offshore / Eagle Harbor ROD 2000 Soil and Groundwater ROD 2007 West Beach ESD

  • 1990: groundwater extraction, treatment begins 1992 1994: significant cleanup actions to remove

    contaminated soils, repair bulkhead, recycle materials in tanks, treatment equipment

    1994: upgrades to groundwater extraction system and treatment plant

    1996 1997: removal of site structures 2000 2001: perimeter sheet pile wall 2002 2003: thermal treatment pilot study 2010: replaced groundwater treatment plant 2012 - 2013: new investigation of subsurface



  • 1993 -1994: 54 acres of Eagle Harbor capped 1999: West Dock removed 2001: perimeter sheet pile wall 2001 - 2002: extended sediment cap along

    west side of site 2008: completed West Beach cap 2013: completed new investigation of

    contamination remaining in the beaches


  • 11

  • WA Department of Ecology operates groundwater extraction and treatment plant

    Groundwater is pumped from shallow aquifer, treated, discharged to Eagle Harbor

    Containment is effective, but running the pump and treat system is expensive ($800,000/yr)

    2010: Ecology completed Generational Remedy Evaluation

    Current remedy evaluation seeks more permanent and cost effective solution


  • 13

  • 14

  • Wyckoff Point FFS Project Area

    Wyckoff Beaches FFS Project Area

  • NAPL = Non-Aqueous Phase Liquid


  • 24

  • Screened available remedial technologies Bundled technologies in cleanup alternatives All the alternatives rely on more than one

    technology Developed conceptual design and rough

    duration, cost estimates for each alternative Alternatives compared to one another in Draft

    Focused Feasibility Study (FFS) reports


  • 26

    Mobilizing equipment to the site, obtaining permits, developing health and safety plans

    New sheet pile and concrete perimeter wall New Access Road from Eagle Harbor Drive down to the

    site Excavation and removal of buried concrete and other

    debris Construction of new outfall Final site cap Costs are not insubstantial: Range from $35 to $52 million

  • No cleanup action will get the upland soil and groundwater so clean that we can allow it to erode into Eagle Harbor

    Wall needed to support future use as a park Wall needs to be replaced this will involve

    installation of a second metal wall and concrete bulkhead

    2 options on the table: put the new wall inside (land side) of the existing wall, OR build it out onto the beach


  • 1. No further action2. Containment (the current remedy)3. Excavation, Thermal Desorption, and In Situ

    Chemical Oxidation 4. In-Situ Solidification / Stabilization (ISS)5. Thermal Enhanced Extraction and ISS6. Partial excavation, Thermal Desorption, and

    Thermal Enhanced Extraction7. ISS of Core Area + NAPL recovery


  • 29

    North/East/Periphery Shallow (LNAPL) Areas

    Core Area

    North Deep (DNAPL) Area

    10% RE Footprint

    Currently includes the area within the upper aquifer where NAPL is present (TarGOST >10% RE).

  • Description: Solidification through concrete mixing of virtually all the mobile NAPL.

    95% of NAPL would be treated Remaining 5% of NAPL addressed through

    natural attenuation and passive groundwater treatment

    Cost: $64M to $138M


  • 31

  • 33

  • 34

  • Description: NAPL recovery through an expanded network of groundwater wells, enhanced with heat (steam injection) in the core area, north shallow and east shallow areas. ISS in the north deep area, using jet grout mixing.

    Enhanced Aerobic Biodegradation (EAB) in peripheral areas, and to polish treated zones

    Cost: $104M to $224M


  • 36

  • Phase 1: ISS of an expanded core area. NAPL recovery in other areas with EAB. Passive groundwater treatment for residual contamination.

    Phase 2 (only if needed): Thermal enhanced wet steam injection and NAPL recovery, continued EAB and passive groundwater treatment.

    Cost: $38M to $82M (~ $55M for Phase 1 only)


  • 38

  • Questions about Upland Treatment Options ?


  • 40

    Alternative 1 No Action Alternative 2 - Seep Patches and Monitored

    Natural Recovery (MNR) Alternative 3 Thin Inset Caps and MNR Alternative 4 - Vertical Containment with Thin

    Caps and MNR Alternative 5 Dredging with Thick Caps and


  • 41

    Active Remedial Technologies for

    Seeps and Potentially Mobile NAPL Zones

    (brown areas)

    Monitored Natural Recovery (MNR) for Non-Mobile NAPL

    Zones (dark green areas)

    Existing Phase III Cap

  • Shallow excavation of active product seeps only Monitored Natural Recovery (MNR) over rest of

    beaches Excavate, dewater, and inset cap during low tide Approximately 15 40 x 40 foot areas 30-inch cap with amended base layer

    Dewater, stabilize, landfill or potentially upland dispose of excavated materials

    Cost: $8.0M to $17.0M

  • 44

  • 45

    AC- and OC-amended caps placed over areas with suspected mobile NAPL and North Shoal Surface Sheen Area

    Excavate, dewater, and inset cap during low tide Approximately 70 40 x 40 foot areas 30-inch composite cap profile Dewater, stabilize, landfill or potentially upland dispose of

    excavated materials Long-term O&M Up to 50% percent of cap replaced over first 50 years

    Cost: $10.2M to $21.8M

  • 46

    Amended caps (cross hatch) placed over suspected mobile NAPL zones (brown) and North Shoal sheening area

    Other mobile NAPL zones shown are deeper and not amenable to capping

    New Seep Area Discovered May 2014*

    Shallow NAPL Area*

  • 47

    Temporary sheet pile enclosures to contain dredging Driven to about 25 feet below beach grade Sediments removed to about 10 feet below beach grade Dredges positioned inside enclosure with standing water column

    Backfilled with capping materials OC-amended lift placed at base of dredge prism Gravelly sand backfill placed to beach surface

    Dewater/stabilize, and landfill or potentially upland dispose of dredged materials

    Long-term monitoring but no repair/replacement envisioned Cost: $32.0M to $68.5M

  • 48

    Temporary sheet pile enclosures (gray lines) placed around suspect mobile NAPL zones

    East Beach removal may be completed from land

    North Shoal areas to be refined in design

  • Questions about Treatment Options for the Beaches ?


  • 50

    Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence

    Reduction of TMV

    Balancing Criteria

    Short-term Effectiveness



    Threshold Criteria

    Protection of HH and Environment

    Compliance with ARARs

    Pass Pass






  • 51

    Threshold criteria evaluated using: Pass (yes) Fail (no)

    Alternatives that failed threshold criteria not carried forward for balancing criteria evaluation

  • Primary Balancing Criteria 3. Long-term effectiveness and permanence 4. Reduction of toxicity, mobility or volume through

    treatment 5. Short-term effectiveness 6. Implementability 7. Cost

    Balancing criteria evaluated: Narratively Rating provided using the following:


  • Modifying criteria 8. State/Support agency acceptance 9. Community acceptance

    These criteria are assessed formally after the public comment period on the Proposed Plan.


  • EPA National Remedy Review Board Choose preferred alternative for both areas Determine how best to combine the remedies

    for the two areas Publish the final FFS Reports Develop the Proposed Plan


  • 55

    Phasing and Sequencing Which first: offshore or upland?

    Which wall replacement design? Opportunities for efficiencies or cost savings Possible disposal of beach sediment in the upland portion of

    the site Will develop recommended sequence, duration

    estimates for Proposed Plan

  • Proposed Plan available for public review and comment - Summer 2015 Notice in newspaper Formal public meeting(s) Opportunity for verbal and written comment

    Final FFS document will be made available at the same time

    Join our Mail List Record of Decision Winter 2015


  • Thank you for coming! Questions?


Search related