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

2

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

3

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

contamination

9

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

10

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

12

13

14

Wyckoff Point FFS Project Area

Wyckoff Beaches FFS Project Area

NAPL = Non-Aqueous Phase Liquid

18

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

25

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

27

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

28

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

30

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

35

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)

37

38

Questions about Upland Treatment Options ?

39

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

MNR

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 ?

49

50

Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence

Reduction of TMV

Balancing Criteria

Short-term Effectiveness

Implementability

Cost

Threshold Criteria

Protection of HH and Environment

Compliance with ARARs

Pass Pass

Rating

Rating

Rating

Rating

Rating

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:

52

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

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

53

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

54

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

56

Thank you for coming! Questions?

57