HomeMy WebLinkAboutPermit L92-0008 - BEDFORD PROPERTIES - TUK INN RESTAURANT DEMOLITION / SEPAl92-0008 13050 interurban avenue south
burger king demolition
c
A F F I D A V I T
Sylvia A. Osby hereby declare that:
O Notice of Public Hearing
fl Notice of Public Meeting
O Board of Adjustment Agenda
Packet
[]Board of Appeals Agenda
Packet
Planning Commission Agenda
Packet
fl Short Subdivision Agenda
Packet
[]Notice of Application for
Shoreline Management Permit
[]Shoreline Management Permit
O F D I S T R I B U T I O N
was mailed to each of the following addresses
MkM ik.PP1;c A- (60h
V m t:,tEd D. e.
Name of Project DEMOLITION OF TUKWILA -INN Signat
File Number L92 -0008
X(XDetermination of Non -
significance
fl Mitigated Determination of
Nonsignificance
Determination of Significance
and Scoping Notice
O Notice of Action
J Official Notice
Other
LI Other
on March 3, 1992
WAC 197 -11 -970
DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE
Description of Proposal To demolish the Tuk -Inn Restaurant which consist of 4,000
square feet.
Proponent Bedford Development Company
Location of Proposal, including street address, if any 13050 Interurban Avenue,
Section 14, Township 23, Range 4E.
Lead Agency: City of Tukwila File No. EPIC- L92 - 0008
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.
XX[�(X There is no comment period for this DNS
(i This DNS is issued under 197 -11- 340(2). Comments must be submitted by
. The lead agency will not act on this
iii days from the date below.
Responsible Official Rick Beeler
Planning Director
Position /Title
Address 6200 Southcenter Boulevard, Tuk'.1., 98188
Date . / 2 _ Signature
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.
FM.DNS
Phone 433 -1846
Purpose of Checklist:
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
7 k
JAN 3 1 1992
OF rUKWILA
PLANNING 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.
Instruction for Applicants:
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.
ce
9P"
P
1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: Pew() /!'4 2 - L tc,t 1 ..LI,, k
A. BACKGROUND
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST ,
2. Name of applicant: _I—fee/4d L A (1)1,,,,Q,,,, 4 (0 V
3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: E0 t /civf
1''7 0 l`gtiP. / or,v.e t 7 `it376 9.`71/- /(v3
4. Date checklist prepared: Twa 4J/ 7, / / 2
5. Agency requesting Checklist: City of Tukwila
6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing,
4A / —
Conti-al No.
Epic File No. /1 - 4q:)O41e
Fee44OO 1-69 Receipt No.
225, G ',1
if applicable):
/C rq9 a
7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity
related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. 1/(-"S
50/ ov- F `(c/ - Sti /
8. List any environmental information you know about that has been .repared, or will
be prepared, directly o
ctly related t9 this proposal. s' i,„�
I ca
5/,1 ' w 41/. ( e- f
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
10. List any governor rt appr.v.ls or permits th t will be needed for your proposal.
/ f ` �Db1 r 41/1 W Y� i l/ i Vt C. / &S
AIN/ t 4 A 046/( CIS
n * ' .�5 u/ •
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.
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. I
f jOSO jh v'tA✓Act A V vt*A
13. Does the proposal lie within an area designated on the City's Comprehensive Land
Use Policy Plan Map as environmentally sensitive?
..t/U
TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICL
Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS
1. Earth
a. General description of the site (circle one):
rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous,
g.
i
other
b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate
percent slope)? 1
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.
`� tv w1
d 6t45e ?-c' ('re24/1 .5 y S_'cl vd y
4 1 f- 1-t -, s o 1 1 Sri ,
d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable
soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe.
-vO
e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quanti-
ties of any filling org grading proposed. Indicate
source of fill. 7. 'r 4-1,49 t
21 I 1".4 Ica
C-' ' r4 ( b i' 1r C- I mac! , 1 k S
f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing,
construction, or use? If so, generally describe.
4- s tit
About what percent of the site will be covered with
impervious surfaces after project construction, (for
example, asphalt or buildings)? x'07., t
f A 4-14 r•P uP r %de
2. Air
h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or
other impacts to the earth, if any:
3. Water
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 a • give approximate quantities if known.
i 4 .�
it � I- IA _a_
b. Are there any off -site sources of emissions or odor
that may affect your proposal? If so, generally
describe. A/ - 0/te--
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control missions or
other impa ,ts to air, if any: M /c i (A ' Q_
O ✓ ( )us I cnit g' 1
a. Surface:
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.
/vo
Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
( }r
Evaluation for
2) Will the project require any work over, in, or
adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described
waters? If yes, please describe and attach
available plans. /1/0
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) 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 a 100 -year
floodplain? If so, note location on the pite
plan. e2tn e C - `'.¢ v2.ec o
h i k,44 1 4`6; - .° k t,
6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of
waste materials to surface waters? If so,
describe the type of waste and anticip ted
volume •f disch rge. .y0 ✓-
\ Sik S
1,
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. ,f/Q
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.
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, de y cribe.
�l c { ti 7w S /0e -
e. 5f e "5 (41 Itv gas $
Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
4. Plants
(.. Evaluation for
2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface
waters? If so, generally describe. 4/(9
d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface,
ground, and runoff water impacts, if any:
a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the
site:
deciduous tree: _ e, 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, other
other types of vegetation
b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed
or altered? - 3 �i.S J � ( (43
/ '� - / c" 1 (5 ' f
bQ r 4)- "-k 16-49
c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on
or near the site.
Agency Use Only
d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other
measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the
site, if any: ,A/DIAe —_ F-a■VofP tiSo
5. Animals
6J
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 enhan a wildlife,
if any: ,���
Evaluation for
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
/t/f7
4/
b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar
energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally
describe.
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.
1) Describe special emergency services that might
be required.
2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environ-
mental health hazards, if any:
w-a tki Ai/2e
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 ho rs noise would come from the s'te.
— 1 J ( J V�
7 m -P/ n
3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise
impacts, if any: 2/101A�
8. Land and Shoreline Use
a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent
properties? elt - 5
T /'.2 k5 a 1
I ,(c,5
b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so,
describe. .4/0
c. Describe any structures on the site._
`f 000 5 F fps �cr�cr
Wo o 6 V K
'`` Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
d. Will any structures be det3olished? If so, what?
e P S - -t v-sz n Y'
e. What is the current zoning classification of the
site? .i✓1 - /
f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation
of the site? /A-1
g.
If applicable, what is the current shoreljn9 master
program designation of the site? / /V
h. Has any part of the site been classified as an
"environmentally sensitive" area? If so, specify.
i. Approximately how many people would reside or work
in the completed project? ft/ a ' , .e-
j. Approximately how many people would the completed
project displace? _
k. Proposed measures to avoid or r du a displacement
impacts, if any:
1. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is com-
patible with existing and projected and uses and
plans, if any: .N / ,4-
Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
�,....: Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
9. Housing
a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if
any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low- income
housing? /44
b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eli-
minated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low -
income housing.___________________ e
c. Proposed measures to re'uc, or control housing
impacts, if any:
10. Aesthetics
a. What is the tallest height of any proposed
structure(s), not including antennas; what is the
principal exterior building mat proposed?
4/
b. What views in the immediate ity would be
altered or obstructed? //
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic
impacts, if any: Al(
11. Light and Glare
a. What type of light or glare will the proposal
produce? What time of day would it mainly occur?
b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a
safety hazard or interfere with views?
4/7:4
c. What existing off -site sources of light or glare may
affect your proposal? /L/ e
d. Proposed measures to reduce or cont-o1 light and
glare impacts, if any: �"
12. Recreation
a. What designed and informal recreational oppor-
tunities are in the immediate vicinity? .„1/, t..,e._...
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;
Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
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.
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:
14. Transportation
a. Identify public streets and highways serving the
site, and describe proposed accss to the existing
street system. Show on site plans, if any.
0
c. How many parking spaces would the completed project
have? How many would the project inate?
b. Is the site currently served by public transit? If
not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest
transit stop? 2-'t2 s
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). .A/69
Will the project use (or occur in the immediate
vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If
so, generally describe. 4/0
f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated
by the completed project? If known, indicate when
peak volumes would occur. -4/0k (c
g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transpor-
tation impacts, if any:
15. Public Services
Ar7
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. /( /0
b. Proposed measures to reduce or control
impacts on public services, if any.
Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
16. Utilities
C. Signature
a. Circle utilities
<-eectric1
e e• on
Signature:
Date Submitted:
currently
atu a
PLEASE CONTINUE TO THE NEXT PAGE.
available at the site:
refuse service,
1 ary sewer septic system, other.
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 neede
ee
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.
- °A/P
Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLIC_.: 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? rl /T)
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:
/VA-
_• Evaluation for
3. How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or
natural resources?
N //-
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?
71/4) rU �
Proposed measures to protect such resources or to avoid
or reduce impacts are:
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?
Agency Use Only
Proposed measures to avoid or reduce shoreline and land
use impacts area:
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?
A /
/.4
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
4/0
8. 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:
--' Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICL., Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
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?
c4■, (( c ', t„
2. What are the alternative means of accomplishing these
objectives?
3. Please compare the alternative means and indicate the
preferred course of action:
4. Does the proposal conflict with policies of the Tukwila
Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan? If so, what poli-
cies of the Plan?
(J
Proposed measures to avoid or reduce the conflict(s)
are:
-23-
Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
nala
JAN 3 1 1992
C:I i Y O 1UKWII A
PRELIMINARY HYDROCARBON ASSESSMENT
TUKWILA BURGER KING
Tukwila, Washington
PREPARED FOR
Dave Lively
PROJECT NO. 9103-07V
APRIL 3, 1991
ASSOCIATED
EARTH
SCIENCES, INC
FIGURE 1 - VICINITY MAP
APPENDIX B - METHODS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Purpose and Scope 1
1.2 Authorization 1
2.0 PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION 1
3.0 FIELD OPERATIONS 2
3.1 Exploration Pit Excavation 2
3.2 Subsurface Conditions 3
3.3 Field Instrumentation Screening 3
4.0 ANALYTICAL RESULTS 4
5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 4
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 1 - FIELD INSTRUMENTATION READINGS IN SOIL SAMPLES
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE 2 - SITE AND EXPLORATION PLAN
LIST OF APPENDICES
APPENDIX A - ANALYTICAL REPORTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION
April 3, 1991
Project No. 9103 -07V
This report presents the results of the preliminary hydrocarbon
assessment at the proposed Tukwila Burger King Site located at
13050 Interurban Avenue South in Tukwila, Washington.
1.1 Purpose and Scope
PRELIMINARY HYDROCARBON ASSESSMENT
TUKWILA BURGER KING SITE
13050 INTERURBAN AVENUE SOUTH
TUKWILA, WASHINGTON
The purpose of Associated Earth Sciences, Inc.'s (AESI) activities
was to estimate the existence or nonexistence of hydrocarbon
contamination on the site. The parcel is adjacent to two gasoline
stations, one of which appears on the Washington State Department
of Ecology's Leaking Underground Storage Tank (UST) list. During
the course of this study we interviewed the owner of the Union 76
gasoline station located immediately to the north of the subject
site. Although his station is shown on the above noted list, the
owner stated that his tanks have been replaced and no contamination
was encountered during the tank replacement process.
1.2 Authorization
Verbal authorization to proceed with this project was granted by
Mr. Dave Lively on March 5, 1991. Our work was accomplished in
general accordance with our discussion with Mr. Lively concerning
the site. This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of
the Mr. Lively and his agents. Within the limitations of scope,
schedule and budget, our services have been performed in accordance
with generally accepted environmental consulting practices in
effect in this area at the time our report was prepared. No other
warranty, expressed or implied is made regarding conclusions,
recommendations, and professional opinions presented in this
report.
2.0 PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION
The property was situated at 13050 Interurban Avenue South in
Tukwila, Washington. See Figure 1 for site location. The
approximately 180 foot by 150 foot property was generally level.
An abandoned restaurant, the Tuk -Inn, was located centrally on the
east side of the property. At the time of our field work the
remainder of the site was covered with asphalt or concrete except
for a small landscaped area immediately in front of the restaurant
entrance.
The property is bounded on the north by a Union 76 gasoline
station, to the east by International Trucks Sales and Service, to
the south by a Texaco gasoline station and a BP gasoline station
and to the west by a small vacant parcel and then Interurban Avenue
South.
3.0 FIELD OPERATIONS
3.1 Exploration Pit Excavation
On March 7, 1991 representatives of AESI observed the excavation of
nine backhoe exploration pits at the referenced site. The pits
permitted direct, visual observation of subsurface conditions.
Materials encountered in the exploration pits were studied and
classified in the field by a geologist from our firm. All
exploration pits were backfilled immediately after examination and
logging. During the excavation of each exploration pit, two
duplicate soil samples were collected from the backhoe bucket at
selected sampling depths. The samples were visually examined for
the presence of hydrocarbon contamination and placed into
laboratory - cleaned jars. One set of samples was placed on ice for
transportation to an analytical laboratory. The second set of
duplicate samples will be retained by AESI for a minimum of 30
days. See Figure 2, Site and Exploration Plan for approximate
locations of the exploration pits.
3.2 Subsurface Conditions
Fill materials were encountered in all of the explorations
excavated for this study. The fill ranged in thickness from 4 to
6 1/2 feet and generally consisted of crushed rock (immediately
beneath the asphalt pavement) overlying medium dense to dense,
grey, sandy silt to silty sand with some gravels and cobbles.
Minor amounts of debris were encountered in some of the excavations
and included old flooring, a bottle, pieces of concrete and wood
and some automobile chrome trim. In EP -5 a large amount of cobbles
and quarry spalls was encountered.
Underlying the fill at all locations were natural, valley silts and
clays. These sediments were deposited as floodplain deposits by
the Duwamish River. Significant quantities of organics, including
marsh vegetation and various sizes of limbs and logs were
encountered in the silts /clays. A strong organic odor was noted
from these sediments.
Ground water was encountered at a depth of approximately 6 feet in
all of the explorations. Exploration pit EP -2 was left open for
several hours to monitor the water table. The water was noted to
2
have a brownish, organic coloration. Very little or no sheen was
noted and no hydrocarbon odor was detected in the ground water.
In EP -7 rapid water infiltration was noted within the crushed rock
underlying the asphalt pavement. This water appeared to be trapped
between the pavement and the underlying, relatively impermeable
fill soils. It is estimated that more than 100 gallons of water
entered the excavation before the water flow began to subside.
This water appeared to be clear and did not have either a sheen or
a hydrocarbon odor.
3.3 Field Instrumentation Screening
Portions of all samples that were collected from each of the
excavations were placed into clean, plastic bags and then tested
for volatile organic vapors using a TIP photoionization detector
for field screening purposes. The results of this field screening
are presented in Table 1.
TABLE 1 - FIELD INSTRUMENTATION READINGS OF SOIL SAMPLES
Excavation Depth (feet) Field reading (ppm)
EP -1 3.5 19.0
EP -1 6.0 3.0
EP -1 7.0 6.0
EP -1 8.0 3.3
EP -1 11.0 2.2
EP -2 3.0 3.7
EP -2 6.0 2.7
EP -2 10.5 3.8
EP -3 3.0 3.1
EP -3 6.0 2.1
EP -4 2.8 3.4
EP -5 3.0 5.6
EP -6 3.0 6.3
EP -6 6.0 7.1
EP -6 9.0 5.6
EP -7 3.0 1.2
EP -7 7.0 2.3
EP -8 3.2 2.0
EP -8 6.5 3.1
EP -9 3.0 1.8
EP -9 6.0 2.7
3
4.0 ANALYTICAL RESULTS
The soil sample from EP -1, collected at 3.5 feet, which indicated
the highest field instrumentation reading (19.0ppm) was submitted
to an analytical laboratory for chemical testing. Analysis for low
boiling point hydrocarbons (gasoline) by EPA Method 8015/8020
indicates none detected above the test detection limits. Analysis
for high boiling point hydrocarbons (petroleum oil) indicates 24
ppm (parts per million). Copies of the laboratory analyses are
attached in Appendix A.
Soil sampling and handling, decontamination, and chain of custody
procedures are presented in Appendix B - Methods, as well as the
use of an TIP photoionization detector for field screening
purposes.
5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Chemical test results indicated that the soil sample collected from
EP -1, which had the highest field detected hydrocarbon
contamination (19ppm), has TPH (total petroleum hydrocarbons), as
gasoline, diesel, or waste oil, and BTEX concentrations below the
recommended DOE cleanup guidelines for soils. TPH cleanup
guidelines for soils are 100 ppm for gasoline and 200 ppm for oil.
Based on our field observations and the results obtained from the
laboratory analyses of the single sample, it is AESI's opinion that
the on -site soils do not contain "significant quantities" of the
tested contaminants in the areas sampled. The term "significant
quantities" is defined as contaminant levels which are above
current cleanup guidelines as established by the Washington State
Department of Ecology and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Sincerely,
ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC.
Gary A . Flowers, P.G.
Principal
GAF /ld
A103 -07V
WP.3 /1/91 ld
4
!. • r3�t11ff
!Reservoir
•
O
IIE
VICINITY MAP
Note: Map prepared from USGS Des Moines, Washington Quadrangle,
photorevlsed 1968 and 1973.
TUKWILA BURGER KING
TUKWILA, WASHINGTON
0
r
2000
Scale In Feet
4 4111
9103-07V March 1991 1 Figure 1
•
. -�
i s
4000
MK ASSOCIATED
EARTH
�"
SCIENCES, 1 C
EP -7
•
EP -9
■
INTERURBAN AVENUE SOUTH
LEGEND
EP -1 ■ Approximate location of exploration pit
EP-8 •
SITE AND EXPLORATION PLAN
EP -3
•
EP -2
■
EP -1
■
r
40
Scale in Feet
80
TUKWLA BURGER KING
TUKWLA, WASHINGTON
ASSOCIATED
EARTH
SCIENCES, INC
9103-07V I 'March 1991 I Figure 2
APPENDIX A
. = NORTH
CREEK _.
ANALYTICAL
....:: }yvw!..
:: rr.•.• , .
i.. <. ,..... rr.•! n•}'¢:{ ww: v,. vy;{ w}}•} :;w}iit•}v.v.1•:y.N:. } }•{::.v.• •x:w..xr :. ::w:.ww•w:!•vn. •w•n,•:.vxw::• .•.v,v :v, n•!•.vxnw r v. v.:. :x: w•w••: nv :•r •.vvr.• .
1:::,vx.:..v :vn•!r.:vn::•nn•.•
w. ...w:..:.. ..:w,. . ::.{:...:::.:. i s .........::...v.......:..::: r::.:....t ..;.:,N,.{:.:m.:.:.v:::::J: . .............. /.. Y.d ..{1.:.:i?, ...<.......... v.
. .,..}.,.. >...w:.. Y:.. r: L.. }. } .. w,n.m ,•. w. r.,{ x.:. Sn,: YS. x.. h, w, �., v.... \.�:{:h:,,MX..:.,v:wi•.vnw•kvx. rvTA \7nK,�w..,:l•}nvhwh.A, vii }S: Lori{{ ii: S}: i::•) tivv} h' nV::., v .:v.4 }:n:}n:w•:.w7:J: {J }i:<iNi vX .,,vr.,,::::::i:4i } }:: ii::1:
u; Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. Client Project ID: Tukwila Burger King, 9103 -07V Sampled: Mar 7, 1991i
;;;911 5th Avenue, Suite 100 Sample Descript.: Soil, EB -1 @3.5' Received: Mar 8, 1991;;'.
Kirkland, WA 98033 Analysis Method: EPA 5030/8015/8020 Analyzed: Mar 20, 1991 ::
yAttention: Leah Brant Lab Number 103 -0282 Reported: Mar 21, 1991
y•: : :.. .•,,...::.::rr :•:. ..:r!:::: w•:...•...;w:w:: {J:r:.. •. } }}: {.y:. }}•;�{.:;.;Jy :....;}}, :.;k.,;.w•.,r...•:.,•:.,•:::.:• :•• },•vr.•..•. w., :,.::!:. •.,... ,::::•. ,,.,• ,..:•:.,•. •::••!r, •.�,•x:r.,,. •..:w•:::rwv:r•w.n. +•rw:•r:: •r.:::• r.,.:•::. ,,; .; ..,.; �
v:::; . •+:.v.: }... ... r:.. .....: .. v. v... ..: w... ................. r..: J. n.....}}........... X•..::. 1.........................n.... {...4...h...: .n
+•::::: , ::•: ,.., .. J:....w:;: } }:• }i }i } :J::...:: p•.vr: x::::.v.v :;:....}::. ;..: r •: h• w; :• .v w: n,v; v ::....xm w::;; •:i::;. ..
Jn r.,, f , .:::+.: ., .. ,.... \Y.: }v: n };n;: n ? :. }y :.v : ..r: y:::� i:•w: ........ .. r....+....,
.iv: rY.v.Jvm} }, w.wf•Jxxh +.•: SGPShNO`.vxxwt „�:,,JZ•f:iv xis }/wA.AG.i�i:iv}}U S. r3..}7 r} S+ rww:. vw�..., JY. i• S. W .vfv}:.r:•n:}hvr.:.rA:•iJSr•} i:{7 R�7i i:(: mYAti>. S: itliir::] 2: J<< C�] 4 i: Sti3)f u�n2: ti:{{ i. Y•.\ ii 7?Ji?.k{ ?J:iO:•Xwi::i�`ri:7Lv: i i "i:i ±:
TOTAL PETROLEUM FUEL HYDROCARBONS WITH BTEX DISTINCTION (EPA 8015/8020)
Analyte
Purgeable Hydrocarbons 1.0 N.D.
Benzene 0.050 N.D.
Toluene 0.10 N.D.
Ethyl Benzene 0.10 N.D.
Xylenes 0.10 N.D.
Purgeable (low to medium boiling point) Hydrocarbons are quantitated against a gasoline standard.
Analytes reported as N.D. were not present above the stated limit of detection.
RTH CREEK ANALYTICAL
cot Cocanour
I Laboratory Director
18939 120th Avenue N.E., Suite 101 • Bothell, WA 98011 -2569
Phone (206) 481 -9200 • FAX (206) 485 -2992
Detection Limit
mg /kg (ppm)
Sample Results
mg /kg (ppm)
1030282.AES <2>
:
=NORTH ,1
CREEK
= ANALYTICAL
18939 120th Avenue N.E., Suite 101 • Bothell, WA 98011 -2569
Phone (206) 481 -9200 • FAX (206) 485 -2992
+;.; }y};,.}; }:.} k} x.. rxr :•.;r,.yy,..}..;..:.,,r: {:!a.} . }.w., „ .y.ra•:. rr :• w.:.w.,{H . •Ayr y},
:.. } ...4. : ...:. .......... Y...:: ... .:...,?+., ..... .. ...... ...n .... ....... .. .n...n...Qv. .
...v.....t. �C}\,: r ,.: };? : } +:{ }r , ? .:^:{::»{ j. �S»{ t. w, X{!,.; ».!..:•'.Y.:: {{ }vr :v.: }v }�i: ?t�.;.w »:.}�.y »!» {{
if ors•}. c.:•.::,•. v:.,•.. v: xt{?„?„s,:,• x:.,,:.. s: s, s! r.•. ta,•:. t•:,, k•.,,.:::: a•: su:s,•::,: e:c r. �: r. s. rx??•::•:.,{ cxt, �sn•, t, h,•..{ c,•:..: xoxso-}::•: t•}: ctscs.,:: saa,,.,,,,, o,,., l.. a.,v.,•K ?.,,,{,t,�s.....:,•.x Q.s .+....,.:; {rc ? ?hf:� »rx:, T,:..::.....
Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. Client Project ID: Tukwila Burger King, 9103 -07V Sampled: Mar 7, 1991 <<
X911 5th Avenue, Suite 100 Matrix Descript: Soil Received: Mar 8, 1991 >'
;$Kirkland, WA 98033 Analysis Method: EPA 418.1 (I.R. with clean -up) Extracted: Mar 18, 1991
;Attention: Leah Brant First Sample #: 103 -0282 Analyzed: Mar 19, 1991;;;
r3
. ,... Reported: Mar 21, 1991'>
} : , { }' 4, v^. .., :. ti.; ;:O.: } }yA:;O:. }y}:.y. y ryv{. yxx•: vx4.. y{^}:{{.,\:;•.: x,•; n.\••} Y :Mi!y.4n { ^. ;r^;{{^ Y};{{^}. .: {i.;{nv.y }};n n:.t,vv •.,v •.y..::: x::: v::: •n•.vx:,:•..v {:
....}:'::.. :... ? \.. fi r...... ... ..... x : : ; : :vv , : : ::w tunti••'v . � : : : : : ;a . ::
.,.. : .. :.......... r. .::...::.................. .:..... r... ..,:. .:..... .......{r....... n... .: /. .}. .:...:.,..:....:,. .m.. n... ......:.:. :. �::.. :.. .....: :.:1..: } i } } {':^}•
.,,,w... Y.{.:,.:.J. {:.n.. {.n•.L.Y r: v... ..: n.: ..... .... .... .. ... .:.. .n.fn i r... .. n.. .. .,...., ,... .. ... y :r
. r} r\ vxn,,,, nrY..}. L. 4: Y.{, 2I. J. w• r.,,. r.} xr: F:: r. 4:: r: F. A•.•. WY:. vnr. �., V\ v. �Wn. n,.. t•.. rY.• rY: n. nv}} C...,, C: Wri^ ir%•} h{ wh,} Y:. hv}} �•' x f. W'. O: t{{< v�: �: �: w}:? iC4:•: 4w• n+ F}:? 4�Cvii 4. tiJ�ivri: i:? is�? i. Y':•:{^ hrvCCC.: 6S:{: n; ti{ ?.:C { {::< > {:ii >::tv:!'i,.:':�:j
Sample Sample Petroleum Oil
Number Description mg /kg
(PPm)
103 - 0282 EB- 1@3.5' 24
Detection Limits: 5.0
Analytes reported as N.D. were not present above the stated limit of detection.
RTH CREEK ANALYTICAL
c ot Cocanour
Laboratory Director
TOTAL RECOVERABLE PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONS
1030282.AES <1>
APPENDIX B
•
Decontamination
APPENDIX B
METHODS
Decontamination is performed as a quality assurance measure and as
a safety measure. It prevents cross - contamination between samples
and also helps to maintain a clean and safe working environment.
Decontamination is most commonly achieved by rinsing with liquids
which include soap and /or detergent solutions, tap water, distilled
water, and methanol. Equipment may be allowed to "air dry" after
decontamination or wiped dry with chemical -free cloths or paper
towels if immediate re -use is necessary. Immersible equipment is
normally washed in a soap or detergent solution and triple rinsed
with water. In some cases it may also be sprayed with methanol
before it is re -used. Non - immersible equipment is usually sprayed
with methanol and wiped dry with chemical -free cloths.
At most sites, decontamination will be conducted between each
sample collection point. Waste products produced by the
decontamination procedures including liquids, rags, gloves, etc.
will be collected and disposed of properly based on the nature of
their contamination.
Soil Screening for Total Organic Vapors
As samples are collected in the field and placed in laboratory -
cleaned jars, a headspace analysis is performed to screen samples
in the filed for organic contamination using a Microtip
photoionization detector. This instrument is designed to measure
organic vapor levels in the range of 0 - 1000 parts per million
(ppm). In addition, the Microtip can be used to monitor air
quality as part of the site's Health and Safety program. Prior to
field use, the Microtip is calibrated with 100 ppm isobutylene. To
screen a sample, the probe nozzle is placed in close proximity to
the sample, taking care not to contaminate the probe with the
sample. The concentration of organic vapors may then be read from
the instrument's readout dial.
The Microtip may also be used to monitor organic vapors within
boreholes and excavation pits by lowering the probe into the area
of interest. The readings may then be recorded on boring logs or
exploration pit logs.
NOTE: The Microtip is not capable of measuring actual levels of
soil contamination. The Microtip is capable of detecting only those
volatile (airborne) organic compounds which easily undergo
photoionization. In many cases the Microtip readings may differ
significantly from contaminant levels indicated by analytical
analysis. Such differences may result from soil type, contaminant
type, temperature effects, humidity effects, or other variations in
field conditions.
Chemical Sampling
After screening with the Microtip, samples are selected for
shipment to an analytical laboratory. Soil and water samples
selected . for analysis are packaged so that they will not break,
leak, or vaporize. Each sample label includes the following
information: project name, project number, field identification
number, date, and the analysis required. Cold packs or ice are
placed in heavy duty zip -lock type bags and distributed over the
tops of the samples for shipping. Additional packing material is
also used to protect the samples.
All samples are collected as duplicate samples. In some cases
individual subsamples may be combined to form composite samples
which may represent an entire boring or exploration pit. Composite
samples are used to estimate the existence or nonexistence of
contamination in areas which appear to have levels of contamination
which fall below cleanup guidelines. This practice minimizes the
number of chemical analyses. If elevated levels of contamination
are indicated in composite samples, the second subsamples collected
at various boring or exploration pit depths may be submitted for
analysis individually to estimate the location and concentration of
TPH contamination.
Chain of Custody
Upon completion of sample collection, a chain of custody log is
initiated. The chain of custody log includes the following
information: project, work order number, shipping recipient,
sampling point, location, field identification number, date, time
of collection, sample type, number of containers, analysis
required, and sampler's signature(s).
The chain of custody records accompany the samples to the
laboratory. Upon arrival, the samples are checked in and signed
over to the appropriate laboratory personnel. A copy of the chain
of custody is then turned over the to project manager. Upon
completion of the laboratory analysis, the completed chain of
custody is returned to the project manager.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
LEGEND
A PORTION OF THE NE 1/4 OF THE NE 1/4 OF SEC. 15, TWP. 23 N., ROE. 4 E., W.M.
GENERAL NOTES
A.L.T.A. / A.C.S.M. SURVEY
SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATION
TAX LOT
AREAS
PUGET
sITE'
PARCEL
SOUND k POWER
LIGHT CO.
E INTERURBAN AVE. S. (PUBLIC)