Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPermit L92-0006 - BEDFORD PROPERTIES - BUILDING DEMOLITION ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (EIS)l92-0006 12855 48th avenue south ALLIED BODY DEMOLITION ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (EIS) A F F I D A V I T 1, Sylvia A. Osby ❑ Notice of Public Hearing LI Notice of Public Meeting fl Board of Packet f Board of Packet Adjustment Agenda • Appeals Agenda Planning Commission Agenda Packet 0 Short Subdivision Agenda Packet O Notice of Application for Shoreline Management Permit fl Shoreline Management Permit v' Mrt\4 Jar0 Er f NAAad 4-D 4¼C r - Name of Project DEMOLITION OF ALLIED BODY Signa WORKS File Number L92 -0006 O F D I S T R I B U T I O N hereby declare that: X XKDetermination of Non - significance LI Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance Determination of Significance and Scoping Notice O Notice of Action II Official Notice Other Other was mailed to each of the following addresses on March 3, 1992 WAC 197-11-970 Description of Proposal To demolish the Allied Building which consist of 20,118 square feet. Proponent Bedford Development Company Location of Proposal, including street address, if any 12855 48th Avenue South, Date Section 14, Township 23, Range 4E Responsible Official Rick Beeler Position /Title Planning Director Address FM.ONS DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE 6200 Southcenter Boulevard, Tuk Z Signature Lead Agency: City of Tukwila File No. EPIC- L92 - 0006 The lead agency for this proposal has determined that it does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An environmental impact statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c). This decision was made after review of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency. This information is available to the public on request. 1 There is no comment period for this DNS This DNS is issued under 197 -11- 340(2). Comments must be submitted by . The lead agency will not act on this proposal for 15 days from the date below. 98188 Phone 433 -1846 You may appeal this determination to the City Clerk at City Hall, 6200 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188 no later than 10 days from the above date by written appeal stating the basis of the appeal for specific factual objections. You may be required to bear some of the expenses for an appeal. Copies of the procedures for SEPA appeals are available with the City Clerk and Planning Department. Purpose of Checklist: Instruction for Applicants: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST ib-ea lJL! l ITS; 5 1 , i L JAN 3 1 1992 Cil I PLANiNiNG DEPT. The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), chapter 43.21C RCW, requires all governmental agencies to consider the environmental impacts of a proposal before making decisions. An environmental impact statement (EIS) must be prepared for all proposals with probable significant adverse impacts on the quality of the environment. The purpose of this checklist is to provide information to help you and the agency identify impacts from your proposal (and to reduce or avoid impacts from the proposal, if it can be done) and to help the agency decide whether an EIS is required. This environmental checklist asks you to describe some basic information about your proposal. The City uses this checklist to determine whether the environmental impacts of your proposal are significant, requiring prepara- tion of an EIS. Answer the questions briefly, with the most precise infor- mation known, or give the best description you can. You must answer each question accurately and carefully, to the best of your knowledge. In most cases, you should be able to answer the questions from your own observations or project plans without the need to hire experts. If you really do not know the answer, or if a question does not apply to your proposal, write "do not know" or "does not apply ". Complete answers to the questions now may avoid unnecessary delays later. Some questions ask about governmental regulations, such as zoning, shore- line, and landmark designations. Answer these questions if you can. If you have problems, the City staff can assist you. The checklist questions apply to all parts of your proposal, even if you plan to do them over a period of time or on different parcels of land. Attach any additional information that will help describe your proposal or its environmental effects. The City may ask you to explain your answers or provide additional information reasonably related to determining if there may be significant adverse impact. Use of checklist for nonproject proposals: Nonproject proposals refer to actions which are different or broader than a single site specific development project, such as plans, policies and programs. Complete this checklist for nonproject proposals, even though questions may be answered "does not apply." In addition, complete the supplemental sheet for nonproject actions (part D). For nonproject actions, the references in the checklist to the words "project," "applicant," and "property or site" should read as "proposal," "proposer," and "affected geographic area," respectively. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST A. BACKGROUND 1. Name of r4. osed project, if applicable: i / / n . < /<' P P p P P I t' Iv s "Lle f et-, 2. Name of applicant: K4;JL DP t (o1,t tit 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: _ ©b t—}cfv -+ 1 7.26, 6-a rucy (NiUP /0 7 `1e'166 - / /o3 4. Date checklist prepared: - 7; LA -`7 1 ?q 5. Agency requesting Checklist: City of Tukwila 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): • /1/La c. L. 1. — /111 , 1 / 9 J, 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected le { ith this proposal? I J / f yes, explain. e S q 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, di related to this proposal. / ecao C_ Wl Wks A►. ] . a Vr G ct'J u v a ( • 9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain. ,4/0 Cont ContL No. Epic File No. 1.94.2 — ea: Fee -4# O.O6 Receipt No. .2 .Q2 6348 d t4/ ,' 1 10. List any governme t appro s or per its that will be needed,f or your proposal. ZQ 1rd d21^42e W k.c'& L. i J 11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. There are several questions later in this checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do not need to repeat those answers on this page. Section E requires a complete description of the objectives and alternatives of your proposal and should not be summarized here. ( j' _ � et, —t l i s [. a , /> fv ___ 12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your proposed project, including a street address, if any, and section, township, and range, if known. If a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applica- tions related to this checklist. a «4 kcA.--er, t W °J ac -�� ! /vi i 5 13. Does the proposal lie within an area designated on the City's Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan Map as environmentally sensitive? -3- TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLIC .... B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1. Earth a. General description of the site (circle one): lat rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? c. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any prime farmland. C &i, S 6 t e e l Nf ca - <<ct I. d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quanti- ties of any filling or grading proposed. I dicate source of fill . r` �_' _ ' p� fgt. e »v-1 5 re- (4,--1)1/ eV f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? `F,, '4r49 .1 0 g I I de Ci trv, ✓� tiS �Vtr �1C�S. Evaluation for Agency Use Only 2. Air h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosjon, or other impacts to the earth, if any: / `4- 3. Water a. Surface: a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (i.e., dust, automobile odors, industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give app oximate quantities if known. T14 (1 e �%w 4 S 1s A-6“. 4 b. Are there any off -site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. r c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other imp is to air, if any: d5 t.t 5 ( 2 1) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year - round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into. 7P S (7 Evaluation for Agency Use Only 2) Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described waters? If yes, please describe and attach availabl: pl.ns. i • ! 1., /67y' le-- 4, /1 6 U lfisS 74' A , ✓_ 3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material. .4 /el 4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quan- tities, if known. 5) Does the proposal lie within floodplain? f so, note location plan. ,, ( . �k�h . F S r 1c 4 6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticip volume of discharge. 442 Ll1Lt(/' 1� /" 6 a 100 -year on the site - Evaluation for Agency Use Only b. Ground: 1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quan- tities, if known. ,//r9 2) Describe waste materials that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sour- ces, if any (for example: Domestic sewage; industrial, containing the following chemicals...; agricultural; etc.) Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve. / Oil c. Water. Runoff (including storm water): 1) Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this water flow into other waters? If so, describe. K J C r II be 11-\ Evaluation for Agency Use Only ( �_... Evaluation for 2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if any: 4. Plants a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other shrubs grass pasture crop or grain wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bullrush, skunk cabbage, other water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, othe other types of vegetation b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be remove or altered? 4/0k-o, c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. Agency Use Only Vote d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: 5. Animals _. Evaluation for a. Circle any birds and animals which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site: birds: hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds, other: mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other: fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other: b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: ,A/O Agency Use Only 6. Energy and Natural Resources a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solor) will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc. 7. Environmental Health b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. 4/0 c. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? List other proposed.. measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any: a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could occur as a result of this proposal? If so, describe. /r> 1) Describe special emergency services that might be required. 2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environ- mental health hazards, if any: Evaluation for Agency Use Only b. Noise 1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other) ?__ 2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short - term or a long -term basis (for example: traf- fic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site. �O v15 4-,^uc lf� etn I�i , � w∎ 8. Land and Shoreline Use 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: ,1Vc . a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? �� LS_ `L1 Varc/v P. ) w:-15 c( 41,-mot( _inecl %r b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If describe. (,.Q ' as c. Describe any structures qn the site. fAxp 10 a __ J so, Evaluation for Agency Use Only Evaluation for d. Will any structures be de olished? If / so, vj at? A f < � a �ln. oe �( Oikt e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? A/1— f. What is the current comprehensive la designation of the site? Z.4 j, .-- Ak / c If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? /lN 9. h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? If so, specify. /t/r? i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? h� j- Approximately how many people would the completed projct displace? j' o c t rQV e ac, S vc m 1 A Lj ka " e cI k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: 1. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is com- patible with existing and project land uses and plans, if any: .4/ AI' Agency Use Only 9. Housing a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low- income housing? b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eli- minated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low - income housing. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: 10. Aesthetics /Va v�e a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed? b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: Evaluation for Agency Use Only 12. Recreation 11. Light and Glare a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? z1/491 b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? X 7 4 c. What existing off -site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? d. Proposed measures to reduce or ontrol light and glare impacts, if any: 4- a. What designed and informal recreational oppor- tunities are in the immediate vicinity? 'i 1 IS '/' 1„9,51 g7 Qki5 9—f 4) u krOm 14 h P,; 1^4P c,g 417,1 c1 c y. b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: Apr Evaluation for Agency Use Only 14. Transportation 13. Historic and Cultural Preservation a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or pro- posed for, national, state, or local preservation registers known to be on or next to the site? If so, generally describe. 4/0 b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any: a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe proposed accss to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. roec., acG s s is w, g X ,D14 S L - ve4 d b. Is the site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? , ,,1, 4, 4,0,1,,,e [ s n %ok hp- "r{ le f t , 1 / 1 4 S e ' 1 . e c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would th 2roject eliminate? bi r ,a^. • Evaluation for Agency Use Only d. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets, or improvements to existing roads or streets, not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private). 4-41 vs I u-Nv IuO— a IA_Pr✓ /0 ,es sel pkt- e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. .ii /m f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur. ./ZePl�Q g. Proposed measures to reduce or con i;rol transpor- tation impacts, if any: l 15. Public Services a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire protection, police protection, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe. /V b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. Evaluation for Agency Use Only 16. Utilities a. Circle utilitiecu,rr_en,i.ly available at the site: 67 �„„'n .un 1 watei refuse service, lephone( :sanitary sewer se d•-1_,..1_11 tic system, other. c k A 1 \; f tom-- (il • r ' l'K "IA/ I/ l` I"'`Ai f �i r E • i P b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be needed. iVo _21-61g(4041 C. Signature The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. I understand that the lead agency is relying on them to make its decision. Signature: Date Submitted: PLEASE CONTINUE TO THE NEXT PAGE. Evaluation for Agency Use Only TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICk.. Evaluation for Agency Use Only D. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS (do not use this sheet for project actions) Because these questions are very general, it may be helpful to read them in conjunction with the list of the elements of the environment. When answering these questions, be aware of the extent the proposal, or the types of activities likely to result from the proposal, would affect the item at a greater intensity or at a faster rate than if the proposal were not imple- mented. Respond briefly and in general terms. 1. How would the proposal be likely to increase discharge to water; emissions to air; production, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production of noise? " / c 0 I Gt C 0-Q Q S ' Proposed measures to avoid or reduce such increases are: 2. How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, ani- mals, fish, or marine life? Proposed measures to protect or conserve plants, ani- mals, fish, or marine life are: 3. How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources? A/ .4 Proposed measures to protect or conserve energy and natural resourses are: 4. How would the proposal be likely to use or affect environmentally sensitive areas or areas designated (or eligible or under study) for governmental protection; such as parks, wilderness, wild and scenic rivers, threatened or endangered species habitat, historic or cultural sites, wetlands, floodplains, or prime farmlands? Proposed measures to protect such resources or to avoid or reduce impacts are: 4 5. How would the proposal be likely to affect land and shoreline use, inclduing whether it would allow or encourage land or shoreline uses incompatible with existing plans? Evaluation for Agency Use Only a v€ r Proposed measures to avoid or reduce shoreline and land use impacts area: � S .6Jt�Q. It, How does the proposal conform to the Tukwila Shoreline Master Plan? 6. How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or public services and utilities? Proposed measures to reduce or respond to such demand(s) are: 7. Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with local, state, or federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. Evaluation for Agency Use Only 8. Does the proposal conflict with policies of the Tukwila Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan? If so, what poli- cies of the Plan? /1/9 Proposed measures to avoid or reduce the conflict(s) are: Evaluation for Agency Use Only TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICI.._ E. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR ALL PROJECT AND NON PROJECT PROPOSALS The objectives and the alternative means of reaching the objectives for a proposal will be helpful in reviewing the aforegoing items of the Environmental Checklist. This information provides a general overall perspective of the proposed action in the context of the environmental infor- mation provided and the submitted plans, documents, suppor- tive information, studies, etc. 1. What are the objective(s) of the proposal? . 7,en,t7 l(' ito 2. What are the alternative means of accomplishing these objectives? 3. Please compare the alternative means and indicate the preferred course of action: Evaluation for Agency Use Only 4. Does the proposal conflict with policies of the Tukwila Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan? If so, what poli- cies of the Plan? Proposed measures to avoid or reduce the conflict(s) are: -23- Evaluation for Agency Use Only I JAN 31 1392 CITY OF T.:! MI; A PI ANNitsiG Dr: -PT. GATEWAY 1 W Z W a INTERURBAN 3 30 30 30 50' 50' REVISED LOT 3 SHORT PLAT 1)) DRIVE '5'1 � .✓ _.. _— „• OIL eS 5.HA ?i/44, .W...'• •-• 400,1' f44,, i VARIES 17' FUTURE SIDEWALK AND UTILITIES EASEMENT 50' 50' URE ROAD GHT-0- WAY : Cr: 1*0,��s q4Q r JQ40 ix %s NORTHWESTERLY LINE PARCEL 'A' INSTRUMENT NO. 8505301272 Ai 49' 24' 00" W 87.00' 579'15'35"W 12.81' 0 LOT 38 an 6' • FUTURE SIDEWALK EASEMENT • NORTHWESTERLY LINE PARCEL 'A' INSTRUMENT NO. 8508301272 RIVER PROTECT1014 EASEMENT .• 5479828 PROPOSED RIVER PROTECTION ESM'T (TO BE CREATED BY SEPERATE INSTRUMENT) (WIDTH VARIES APPROXIMATELY IO TO 20 FEET) V 3 0 0 RIVER LEGEND PROPOSED SANITARY SEWER. EASEMENT -- •• STORM DRAINAGE WATER LINE I _._-_-_._-_ (STORM AND WATER EASEMENTS AS RECORDED UNDER REC. NO. 9105231164) RIVER PROTECTION EASEMENT REC. NO. 5928214 RIVER PROTECTION EASEMENT REC. NO. 5479828 t le LOCATION OF 7 POPLAR TREES, 8" TO 24" IN II DIAMETER 1I 48th AVENUE SOUTH SOUTHERLY LINE PARCEL 'A' INSTRUMENT NO. 8508301272 EASEMENT FOR WATER PIPELINE ANO INCIDENTAL. PURPOSES REC. NO. 7312050083 DATE ' 10-15-91 BCE NO. 3132 MOST EASTERLY CORNER PARCEL "A" INSTRUMENT NO. 8508301272 LOCATION OF 6 POPLAR TREES, 8" TO 20" IN DIAMETER. 9103070405 Geo 1! Engineers INTRODUCTION PURPOSE AND SCOPE SITE CONDITIONS SURFACE CONDITIONS AND DRAINAGE SUBSURFACE SOIL CONDITIONS GROUND WATER CONDITIONS FIELD EXPLORATIONS BORINGS . REMEDIAL EXCAVATION MONITOR WELL CONSTRUCTION GROUND WATER SAMPLING PROGRAM GROUND WATER ELEVATIONS CHEMICAL ANALYTICAL PROGRAM SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM KEY TO BORING LOG SYMBOLS LOGS OF MONITOR WELLS T A B L E O F CONTENTS Page No. 1 1 2 2 3 3 PETROLEUM - RELATED CONTAMINATION 4 GENERAL 4 SOIL CONTAMINATION 5 GROUND WATER CONTAMINATION 6 FREE PETROLEUM PRODUCT 7 SITE REMEDIAL ACTIVITIES 7 CONCLUSIONS 10 Lf7 LIMITATIONS 10 O C List of Figures Figure No. O 0 VICINITY MAP 1 SITE PLAN 2 CT) SITE PLAN AND GROUND WATER ELEVATIONS 3 SOIL SAMPLE LOCATIONS 4 APPENDIX A List of Appendix A Figures Page No. A -1 A -1 A -3 A -3 A -4 A -4 A -4 Figure No. A -1 A -2 A -3 & A -4 CTS 1NUV { JAN 3 1 1992 I C► s r s► 1 UYWjIj !AMII,N,G....DEPT.;. Geo Engineers REPORT ASSESSMENT AND REMEDIATION OF SUBSURFACE PETROLEUM- RELATED CONTAMINATION FORMER TIME-DC TRUCK TERMINAL FOR BEDFORD PROPERTIES INTRODUCTION This report presents the results of our services during the assessment and remediation of subsurface petroleum- related contamination at the site of the former Time -DC Truck Terminal in Tukwila, Washington. The former truck terminal facility is located south of the Duwamish River and north of the intersection between 48th Avenue South and Interurban Avenue South. The Lf7 site location and surrounding features are shown in Figure 1. The general ti layout of the site is shown on Figure 2. O CD O The former truck terminal facility included 15 underground steel tanks used for the storage of diesel, gasoline, lubricating oil and waste oil. These tanks included ten 20,000 - gallon diesel tanks, two 10,000 - gallon diesel tanks, one 10,000 gallon gasoline tank, one 10,000 gallon lube oil tank and a 5,000 gallon waste oil tank. The underground tanks were removed from the site during February 1989. The locations of the former tanks are shown in Figure 2. Soil contaminated by petroleum products and free (floating) product consisting of diesel fuel were encountered during removal of the underground storage tanks. PURPOSE AND SCOPE The purpose of our services was to monitor the tank removal activities, explore and evaluate the extent of subsurface petroleum - related Geo Engineers contamination, develop recommendations for remedial measures and monitor the remedial activities at the site. The scope of services completed during this project includes:. 1. Monitor the removal of the fifteen underground storage tanks. 2. Subcontract and monitor the drilling of eight exploratory borings and the installation of monitor wells in each boring. 3. Develop recommendations for remedial actions and monitor the remedial program. 4. Collect soil and ground water samples from each boring /monitor well and from the excavation completed for removal of the tanks and contaminated soil. 5. Subcontract the analysis of the soil and ground water samples for god - O the presence of petroleum related contamination. O CD O SITE CONDITIONS 0, SURFACE CONDITIONS AND DRAINAGE The general layout of the former Time -DC truck facility is shown in Figure 2. The facility included a corrugated metal building, fifteen underground storage tanks and three fuel pump islands prior to the remedial activities. The underground storage tanks and fuel pump islands were removed from the site as part of the remedial program. The western portion of the corrugated metal building included remote fueling lines and truck maintenance facilities. The western portion of the building was demolished and removed from the site during the remedial program. The site is bordered by the Duwamish River along the eastern property line. The surface of the site is relatively level and is covered by asphaltic concrete pavement outside of the limits of the remedial 2 Geo ,, excavations and building footprint. Runoff from precipitation is collected in a storm drain system and is pumped to the Duwamish River. Runoff from areas where remedial activities were conducted was diverted to a Metro sewer line. SUBSURFACE. SOIL CONDITIONS Information pertaining to subsurface soil conditions was obtained by drilling eight borings (MW -1, MW -2 and MW -4 through MW -9) at the locations indicated in Figure 3 and observing conditions in the excavation completed for the removal of the underground storage tanks and petroleum- contaminated soil. Details of the field exploration program and the boring logs for MW -8 and MW -9 are presented in Appendix A of this report. The logs for MW -1, L.f7 O MW -2 and MW -4 through MW -7 are given in our reports dated April 18, 1989 Q and May 23, 1989. Boring MW -3 was completed by Geraghty & Miller, Inc. O C;) Two general soil units were observed in the remedial excavation and O) borings at the site. The uppermost soil unit consists of 8 to 10 feet of brown to gray interbedded silt, silty sand and sand. The lowermost unit consists of black fine to medium sand. The base of the black sand was not encountered in the excavation or the borings. Numerous horizontal tree logs, ranging from 1 to 4 feet in diameter and up to 100 feet in length, were encountered in the lower soil unit. GROUND WATER CONDITIONS Ground water conditions at the site were explored by constructing wells (MW -1, MW -2 and MW -4 through MW -9) in each of the borings completed by GeoEngineers. Construction details for MW -1, MW -2 and MW -4 through MW -7 are given in our reports dated April 18, 1989 and May 23, 1989. Construction 3 Ln PETROLEUM- RELATED CONTAMINATION CD O GENERAL CD Subsurface petroleum- contaminated soil was detected during the removal © of the fifteen underground storage tanks from the site. The tanks were Geo 1 =elm- 1 ! Engineers details for MW -8 and MW -9 are given in Appendix A of this report. Well MW -3, installed by Geraghty & Miller, Inc., was included in our field measurements to provide additional information pertaining to ground water conditions beneath the site. Ground water was encountered at depths of approximately 11 to 14 feet below the ground surface. Water level measurements conducted on June 12, 1989 indicate that the shallow ground water beneath the site generally flows northeastward toward the Duwamish River. Water table elevations at each well on June 12, 1989 are shown in Figure 3. Water table contours based on interpretation of the June 12, 1989 measurements are also shown in Figure 3. removed between February 15 and February 22, 1989 by Gaston Brothers Excavating. Free (floating) petroleum product was detected on the water table in portions of the excavation completed for removal of the tanks. The extent of subsurface contamination at the site by petroleum products was evaluated by: 1. Physical examination of soil samples for visual indications of petroleum contamination. 2. Conducting field sheen tests on the soil samples. 3. Sampling the well casings for presence of free (floating) petroleum products. 4 Geoff Engineers 4. Analyzing soil and ground water samples from the remedial excavation and the borings /wells for the presence of petroleum - related contamination. The laboratory data are presented in Appendices B, C and D. SOIL CONTAMINATION Soil samples were collected from beneath the tanks during the tank removal program and analyzed for the presence of total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) and benzene, ethylbenzene, toluene and xylenes (BETX). The concentrations of TPH and BETX detected in the soil samples collected during the tank removal program generally exceeded Ecology's cleanup guidelines for underground petroleum storage tanks. The analytical results Ln "at for soil samples collected during the tank removal program are summarized 0 in Table 1. O CZD The extent of the petroleum- contaminated soil was evaluated primarily 0) during the excavation phase of the remedial program. The remedial program is described in a later section of this report. Soil samples were collected from the base and sidewalls of the excavation and submitted for analysis of the presence of TPH and BETX. The locations from which soil samples were collected from the excavation are shown in Figure 4. The analytical results for soil samples from the excavation are summarized in Table 2. Excavation of soil continued until the concentration of petroleum - related contaminants in the remaining soil were less than Ecology's cleanup guidelines. The limits of the excavation are shown in Figures 2, 3 and 4. Soil samples were also collected from MW -1 through MW -9 and submitted for analysis of the presence of TPH, BETX and /or fuel hydrocarbons. The analytical results for soil samples from the borings are summarized in 5 Geor Engineers Table 3. Petroleum- related contaminants were not detected in the soil samples from MW -1, MW -2, MW -3 and MW -5 through MW -9. TPH was detected at a concentration of 6.3 ppm in the soil sample from MW -4. BETX and fuel hydrocarbons were not detected in the soil sample from MW -4. GROUND WATER CONTAMINATION Ground water samples were collected from MW -1 through MW -9 and submitted for analysis of TPH and BETX. The analytical results for the ground water samples from the wells are summarized in Table 4. Petroleum - related contaminants were not detected or were detected at concentrations much less than drinking water quality standards in the ground water samples from MW -1 through MW -9. O Ground water samples were also collected from the remedial excavation and from a temporary recovery well that was installed in the remedial ti excavation. The analytical results for the ground water samples from the excavation and recovery well are summarized in Table 5. Petroleum- related O) contaminants were detected at concentrations greater than drinking water quality standards in the ground water samples collected from the excavation during the initial portion of the remedial program. Petroleum- contaminated soil and free product were present in the excavation during the initial portion of the remedial program. Petroleum- contaminated soil and free product were removed from the excavation as part of the remedial. program. Petroleum - related contaminants were generally not detected, or were detected at concentrations less than drinking water quality standards, in the ground water samples collected from the excavation during the later portion and after completion of the remedial excavation. 6 Geo!Engineers FREE PETROLEUM PRODUCT Free (floating) product was encountered during removal of the underground storage tanks. Analysis of petroleum product present in the excavation indicated that the product was diesel fuel. SITE REMEDIAL ACTIVITIES Gaston Brothers Excavating excavated approximately 14,500 cubic yards of soil contaminated by petroleum products between February 15 and May 26, 1989. The limits of the excavation are shown in Figure 4. The excavated soil was stockpiled on -site. Free product and contaminated soil were found to extend horizontally beneath the western portion of the terminal building. A portion of the of Lr7 O the building was demolished during March 1989 to remove the contaminated ( CD soil and-free product beneath the building. O As described above, soil samples were collected from the base and sidewalls of the excavation and submitted for analysis of the presence of TPH and BETX. Excavation of soil continued until the concentration of petroleum - related contaminants in the remaining soil were less than Ecology's cleanup guidelines. Ecology's petroleum cleanup guidelines at the time of the site remedial work are summarized below. PARAMETER CONCENTRATION Benzene 660 ppb Toluene 143 ppm Ethylbenzene 14 ppm Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons 200 ppm Free product that was encountered in the excavation was recovered with the use of a product recovery well and by skimming product from the water 7 Geoff Engineers surface with vacuum trucks operated by Environmental Transport, Inc. and Northwest EnviroService, Inc. The majority of the free product was recovered by skimming the surface of the water in the excavation with a boom and removing it with the vacuum trucks. Water and product that was removed from the excavation with the vacuum trucks was transported to ChemPro's facility for disposal. Water that was pumped from the recovery well was discharged to a Metro sewer line (Minor Discharger Permit No. 154). Contaminated soil that was removed from the excavation was subjected to a thermal treatment process by Olympus Environmental, Inc. The soil was treated between July 5, 1989 and October 5, 1989. The thermal treatment process involved the removal of petroleum hydrocarbons from the soil by the Lf7 application of heat followed by treatment of the exhaust gases. The d' treatment plant consisted of a diesel -fired rotary kiln with facilities to N— Cr) control air emissions. Soil was conveyed to the kiln where the petroleum O U 7 hydrocarbons were volatilized and partially incinerated. The exhaust gas treatment plant included a bag house and wet scrubber to reduce the emission of dust and volatile hydrocarbons. Olympus Environmental monitored the effectiveness of the thermal treatment process by collecting soil samples at a frequency of about one sample per 240 cubic yards of treated soil. These soil samples were analyzed to determine the concentration of TPH remaining in the soil after treatment. The analytical results are given in Appendix D and summarized in Table 6. The concentrations of TPH detected in the treated soil averaged less than 50 ppm and did not exceed 100 ppm. Ecology's - current cleanup guideline for TPH is established at 200 ppm. 8 Geo Engineers GeoEngineers also collected samples of the treated soil to monitor the effectiveness of the treatment process. Samples were collected by GeoEngineers at a frequency of about one sample per 1,850 cubic yards of treated soil. These soil samples were analyzed to determine the concentrations of TPH, BETX and fuel hydrocarbons remaining in the soil after treatment. The analytical results are given in Appendix D and summarized in Table 7. The analytical results for the samples collected by GeoEngineers were generally similar to the results obtained by Olympus Environmental and indicated that the concentration of petroleum- related contaminants remaining in the treated soil were less than EFECTogy's cleanup Lf7 guidelines. Comparison of the concentrations of TPH before and after O 0 treatment indicates that the thermal treatment process removed about 98 ti percent of the petroleum product from the soil. 0 The remedial excavation was backfilled with crushed concrete from the base of the excavation to about one foot above the water table. The crushed concrete was obtained from a recycling plant. The remaining portion of the excavation was backfilled with treated soil. A layer of woven geotextile fabric was placed over the crushed concrete prior to placement of the treated soil. Approximately 1,000 cubic yards of oversized material (cobbles, concrete and wood) were removed from the soil prior to treatment. The oversized material was transported to the Newcastle Landfill for disposal. An additional 400 cubic yards of soil that was not subjected to the thermal treatment process was transported to the Ceder Hills Landfill for disposal. Permission for disposal of the untreated soil and oversized material was granted by the King County Health Department prior to disposal. 9 • Geo ! Engineers CONCLUSIONS Based on the results of our field observations and analytical testing, it is our opinion that actions to mitigate subsurface petroleum- related contamination in the vicinity of the former underground storage tanks at the Time -DC facility have been completed successfully. On -site observations and chemical analysis of soil and ground water samples indicate that no petroleum- related contamination of regulatory significance remains in the vicinity of the former underground storage tanks. LIMITATIONS We have prepared this report for use by Bedford Properties. This report may be made available to regulatory agencies. This is not L!D intended for use by others and the information contained herein is not O applicable to other sites. M Our interpretation of soil conditions during remediation is based on O7 field observations and chemical analytical data. It is always possible that areas with undetected contamination may exist in portions of the site which were not excavated or analyzed. Within the limitations of scope, schedule and budget, our services have been executed in accordance with generally accepted practices in this area at the time the report was prepared. No other conditions, express or implied, should be understood. 1.0 Geo �j Engineers Please call if you have any questions regarding this submittal. Yours very truly, GeoEngineers, Inc. JHB:JAM:sd Two copies submitted John H. Biggane Associate James A. Miller, P.E. Principal 11 Former Building L . GATEWAY DRIVE 10.000 - Gallon Lube Oil Tank (Removed) 14 EXPLANATI 1 1 2 3 4 5 5,000 - Galion Waste Oil Tank (Removed) Ten 20,000 - Galion Diesel Tanks (Removed) \u 1 10 1 9 f 8 T 1. d 0 c 0 V FORMER UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK LOCATIONS Fuel Islands (Removed) 1 11 1 12 1 Two 10.000 -Gallon Diesel Tanks 13 Existing Building Property Une 0 10.000 - Gallon Gasoline Tank (Removed) Limit of Excavation Geo Engineers 9103070405 SCALE IN FEET 40 . 80 SITE PLAN FIGURE 2 N J i Former Building B¢ •6 . EXPLANATION: • MW-3 �? \!84.35 Geo eP Eng MW-2 84 .12 MIN-5 MW 6 83.85 83.65 MW -4 8 4.10 MW -7 \ 83.66 Approximate Limits Of Excavation 0 MW -8 84.69 MONITOR WELL LOCATION AND NUMBER MW -1 84.35 WATER TABLE ELEVATION ON 6/12/89 o Existing Building 150 300 - 1 - - -� SCALE IN FEET GROUND WATER CONTOUR BASED ON 6/12/89 MEASUREMENTS GENERAL DIRECTION OF GROUND WATER FLOW BENCHMARK AT WATER MAIN LID. ASSUMED ELEVATION AT 100.00 FEET. FIGURE 3 SITE PLAN AND GROUND WATER ELEVATIONS 1 + - VICINITY MAP lw roralxcc.„ C eu4 c•si SITE 'CAUL r . 100' .• r 5 P• 'in0u0 r....„ a," :: \ \ \\ ,I \ •� ' L 1Wt M•t \ , ' OO� PROP • =ED OT A7 V114 4,. S57, 0 8O FT U3 11 C1f10.1 N} 1LLIAT/ b.f• MOIf<TON / (At( xl 1 m w/ M:. x041V.. LOT 7 GATEWAY CORPORATE CENTER *10 1 0 In.1 '4 [w / "ISLE MIC Al A PORTION OF THE NE 1/4 OF SEC. 15, AND THE NW 1/4 OF SEC. 14, AND THE SW 1/4 OF SEC. 11, AND THE SE 1/4 OF SEC. 10, KING COUNTY,WASHIINGTON • 7 EFTS» A.L.T.A. SURVEY °1*-a OV A 104110 1 . 7 40x. 1P ema AB. 4 :R J4/ ovOemt owl" 4 LEGEND n c•tax esw J - • 111, 4.,1'44 • .01101 • Pd. x ALA O sat. r•000C • Pwu POLL • LOOT Q0. GAIL POST 0. 40•x1 MIL. VA.. • OAS PL ., WV POLL 44 ul 000ltclal i44� x0 e•ru.. n. LINE TABLE "R M i0 wti1'"mlow1"*" GENERAL. NOTES 1 .r w. e 4 , • . w.11. r 0. 0 . ...14 %q .. C.A. I boo.. 1..,,•..J 00,4,.... I....y Pr , • . M . 44..44 N .•rr.. . , . 4.. 4 •'r+ ww« .'.•.ry.w r..y•rw, wo ., ll v ' i 1 tier 4444. Joni 4.411.... I911.I 11..1 1 N.Mn ..r•.44.1•. 444.4 1.1....1 «11 ,44.HJr •1444444 ' � + b .w1.. ,.11..,. •w.r 441.4 ▪ o• r,.. �e_ .. m. 1.,... ......44 4 1.,40..0 4.. 1 1x. • .J..t0&.1110, 0 'I••.r.r.. _ ..«o ...AA A MO M. MM .••k. •n.Jy lu .. Pm.. LW Mn w 1.411 ..w•..•..Ir w,Im 44..n r•..•w r.W •' .•Wr.r.•wrH.44 moo o w4l.rJ.. «xx 4.440 M � LINt 4..J •••.1\..w 1J L.nr. 11 141 Wl.nn•.14. , 144.4.44.1 r.... rvwJ +. r novo.ry. 044 . «a.x«r.�w....... w..wr 0«.440.... 1...J «•.• C.+t W 44.4.11•la . 11. MS....1• 4.uJ.<N. 1... more + IV .M•J r .....1. 1 1 •.1.0. 4 0, • .•.« 44.•...11.. w 1. Wm .•r«J o.' .xya. 10.444.. 1111.... As u.b r, 11.10..1 Mu r r N.. r •..b•• 1•. • r.• A.1. 4..1 .1.44 1111. r... 11.....44.0 Pq...a 410.0..Y ..r 1. •4 I .... n.),J(ALM 44 .o x ' ...rr A. aea ••...• vbs.. i .. l .•u•1. medal . ,. . .1'114... J•, 1111 1111'., 1 ' /44 1...1.. 44V n JW M w ..•w nor. • .. rw.. + .401. w....1 TN 0.44. r47.4.1=47 10.. f S .. 1 e ,,,4. fw N.. M Jrw ..w '44' .4.01441. IM, 44 YnuJ.•�. vNe„Iw • n •. 01.... «J..x.........rr...,.n..• w ,wr......1 u4 . 1� w11r. ...V..: 11 101 0.1111. ,. voo Pm n 1441 ...row. +P.•4PU.r 1.1... 44.4404, . lwp..•44. brr..( ,1'.. 1, .44 ,II...w. 1.1..1.4.+..1. Y ...J C. 1.1.. Sm. • 1111 y...i �.. to:. �, :I ro Il. 'b 11 L... 44.1:1. i. w.. ' coo.. 44.1N •x44 11..4144 Aar •...... u.fy,. • W .....110 10 141.... 0 II 10. Y....r...rl.w.... • u... Pm . 144.0 0 UI ...1 W..... mores Ow ., I...4. M.au1.. 1111 44•..YJ w•• L .� r WwM 1./1 1.0 .......... .l4._$ . N.....•.ra.r444'•44 % O A ...a. 1., n�..a..11.....0., V. 40111}.0 •.•44.•. + / mm4 LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS I row r + +M « . I ...� . . . ' c w .. 11 ..�. .4 11.w +.i <• . rw..• C.,.* 1r..ww,.x l /•. ...w 144... xw.r.iw w m. . «.. 44 at NV. C0.•.Mr4 .w ••■•«..t as w 1x44 Meet W rGr4.G M..1 ,ww• wP.... me 4444'• 10 14..• Mw. tyro 14.40I1MAL P.••• 40141 Sao. «AI' /POP leo 1ww 1..•, '•10 Prism /00101.. Mw 40. 11 PON l Gi 1114111141•004.4111...... 1141141 1.... 11..... • i1 WY ' V. 14 L41..1 +./1•'15'•...4 /)•1 x« �rS1 x. •44 Of Or. IL x41 u 44. ,..n...ux x .. . LI 1 1'4.40• u MI La. OH 1, X' MP Lem ....." Ivem...• 1111...•M w w .M 1 .141 r.xxu• ><'w • •,..,«. � . :......x...x.. /m,IwN.. 11.1 + 0 CO 10 •m...1. .. ..•1 II 1111, IoM 1...w 441 101. 11.:111044 w 11' Ara %LONA 110.. 11 w•u1 .140..0. , • w .Iw. N •1.114', .1V101'1A 0. LO., MAI • 1.41 r1..N..1mJ1 «1 a ;...w.l.. A44.1M f ..,.1..I "'.....w1111 `1111... . . "... , +•b 1.. :' . 44 1 0n .1M /4 1,me ▪ M. m '1401 + 441 n.. «// 11 10 401, 4.441' J • +m... N ,1N x 1" Oao...l.. w'I..1'am ..«1 ....44 r. /1111..0«0..0 x- +•u.N/..J....w � 0 1....44..44.. +..« /.4441010• GI 0.11 M AI . y ,0 I�....., .r., 444.004'.,x. 0,4 a '"" . . ' « 54.1 r. /,^ x.r.w.Mx 40 w . DEC It !9' • 140 J • 1..1.. .1I N w. w0rl..unx .10.40 A.11 .1' µ lea Ova.IG' n1. .0 I . 044 I Ova. G' w• 111• Jj 401 w. 444.4. 1441 .41 r. x......40+..r..a. x. SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE 1 Imo, ....I, MIA .n01. ..... e.M n, .1.0•A*4 me 11.11.0 1.010 /A1 1...0.0.4.......4x.5 411 e.r...0 44•' .r.11�ALIA 1..x..1 wr.•1140 x•••. r.W .44 Am .J Or 44..Y•. ...•,. yew• 1111.1 r. ..wow 1 01. w•it5 - :7 - o 4471/ 1111 -. „El . � giE