Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Permit L92-0063 - USPIC / RELCO PARTNERSHIP - ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENTS (EIS)
l92-0063 17300 west valley highway Permit L92-0063 - USPIC / RELCO PARTNERSHIP - ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENTS (EIS) .. ..- . Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the determination of nonsignificance to remove 21 underground storage taniks and remediation of petroleum saturated soils proposed by USPIC /RELCO (L92- 0063). We reviewed the environmental checklist and have the following comments. This site has had a reported release of hazardous substances (petroleum product) which must be remediated according the Chapter 173 -340 WAC. This release is associated with surface contamination and other contamination not associated with the underground tanks, which have not been investigated yet. A final cleanup report must be submitted to the Department of Ecology's Northwest Regional Office. If you have any questions, please call Mr. Joe Hickey with the Toxics Cleanup Program at (206) 649 -7202. Sincerely, n id( 9' 6 M. Vernice Santee Environmental Review Section MVS: 92 -5682 cc: Joe Hickey, NWRO Janet Thompson -Lee, NWRO CITY OF TUKWILA DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE (DNS) DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: REMOVAL OF 21 UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK5AND REMEDIATION OF PETROLEUM SATURATED SOILS. PETROLEUM - SATURATED SOILS WILL. BE' PLACED WITHIN A VISQUEEN -LINED AND BERMED AREA FOR LONG -TERM. REMEDIATION. ALL FILL SOILS WILL BE PLACED ON- SITE WHEN REQU -IRED FOR EXCAVATION BACKFILL. PROPONENT: USPIC /RELCO LOCATION OF PROPOSAL, INCLUDING STREET ADDRESS, IF ANY:_ ADDRESS: PARCEL'NO: SEC /TWN /RNG: LEAD AGENCY: 17300 WEST VALLEY HY 252304 -9021 25 -23 -04 CITY. OF TUKWILA FILE NO: L92 -0063 The City 'has determined that, the proposal 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 an ,other information on. file with the lead agency. This information is available to the public on request. *•k********** **************************** *** ******* *.* ******** ** * ** * **** fr*** This determination is final and signed this 1992. . Ric" Beeler, 'Responsible Official City of Tukwila, (206) 431 -3680, 6300 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 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 signature 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 Department of Community Development. City of Mkwila An Central Permit System - Engineering Division 6300 Southcenter Blvd., Suite #100, Tukwila, WA 98188 Phone: (206) 433 -0179 UTILITY PERMIT APPLICATION z'z,•j °'• -'." ;-i Site Address: 17300 West Valley Highway :;:INF.O;tM.,ATiON';i° Name of Pro ject: USPIC / Relco Partnership, alias "Leber '.Ink" Property Owner; Relco Partnership Street Address: 8851 S.E. 37th St., Mercer Island, WA Engineer: Shannon & Wilson, • Robert Colombo Street Address: 400 N. 34th St. , Suite 100 Contractor: to be determined by owner Street Address: King Cty Assessor Acct #: Contractor's License #: Phone No.: (206) 232 -5529 Cit /State /7 : ' 98040 Phone No.: (206) 632 -8020 City / State/Zip: Seattle, WA 98103 Phone No.: City/ State/Zip: Exp. Date: i1T$l! `; !:! '':. • D Channelizatlon/Striping /Signing ❑ Curb Cut/Access/Sidewalk G Fire Loop /Hydr. (main to vault) - No. Sizes: ❑ Flood Zone Control ❑ Hauling L Land Altering 800 cubic yards D Landscape Irrigation CI Moving an Oversized Load Est. start/end times' Date: Cl Sanitary Side Sewer- No.: Name: ;WATEF Street Address: ❑ Sewer Main Extensbn ❑ Private ❑ Public O Storm Drainage D Street Use CI Water Main Extension OPrivate ❑ Public O Water Meter / Exempt: - No.: Sizes: Deduct ❑ Water Only ❑ O Water Meter/ Permanent - No.: Sizes:..__ ❑ Water Meter / Temporary: - No.: _ Sizes; Estimated quantity. Schedule: ❑ Other: Name: Street Address: Phone No.: City /State/Zi•: Phone No.: City /State/Zip: ❑ Water ❑ Sewer ❑ Metro ❑ Standby ,SRIPT10`::OF PROJET:( i ❑ Single- Family Residential ❑ Multiple - Family Dwelling ❑ Hotel ❑ Duplex ❑ Apartments ❑ Other: No. of Units: ❑ Motel ❑ Triplex ❑ Condominiums Lj Commercial/Industrial ❑ Office ❑ Warehouse ❑ Church ❑ School /College /University go. VANE ❑ Retail ❑ New Building Square E°etage; King County Assessor's valuation of existing structures: $ ❑ Manufacturing ❑ Remodel/ Addition ❑ Hospital I 1 Other: Tank Removal Square footage of original building space: Square footage of additional building space: Valuation of work to be done: $65,000 : - ..EREBYOR IFY THA , ti:15 ' ' :. ;.T '404.:...-4.00.0.k.40.10.".". Yl : 'f ".• ' '#'M ' TQ :I UE FRR„Af ' ' .. ;•, Applicant /Authorized went Siarature: Contact Person (orint name /: Print Name: Address: Date: Phone: Phone: Date Application Accepted: Date Application Expires: 04/22/92 AIM I SHANNON & WILSON, INC. Geotechnical Consultants Engineering and Applied Geosciences T- 1370 -02 Over 35 Years of Excellence 400 North 34th Street, Suite 100 • P.O. Box 300303 • Seattle, WA 98103 • (206) 632 -8020 • Fax: (206) 633 -6777 August 6, 1992 City of Tukwila Department of Community Development 6300 S. Center Blvd., Suite 100 Tukwila, WA 98188 Attn.: Mr. jack Pace, Senior Planner RE: SEPA Checklist and Construction Permits for USPIC /Leber Ink RECEIVED AUG 0 7 1992 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Shannon & Wilson, Inc. (S &W), on behalf of USPIC /Leber Ink, is working to meet all of the regulatory requirements of the City of Tukwila imposed on the self - initiated removal of underground storage tanks from the Leber Ink property. Please find enclosed four copies of the SEPA checklist and one copy of the relevant portions of the site assessment perfomed by S &W which you requested during our phone conversation of August 5, 1992. Currently the owner is negotiating with a contractor for the removal of 21 underground storage tanks. For the benefit of the project, it is anticipated that removal of the tanks can begin as soon as the 17th of August. Attached to this letter you will find a proposed project schedule as provided by the contractor. Please note that removal of the tanks is the primary objective of this project, and that the replacement of concrete slabs and moving of a single steel storage shed are items which need to be addressed in accordance with the tank removal schedule in order to avoid interrupting the tank removal, as well as normal business proceedings at thelant. Since this is a self - inititated cleanup, the Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology), will not be involved in the project beyond an initial review of the site assessment and work plan. Mr. Joseph Hickey, Environmental Supervisor with Ecology, has been provided with these documents, and is currently reviewing them. Formal notice of consent by Ecology will not be issued. If you are unfamiliar with the self - inititated cleanup process, we suggest that you contact Mr. Hickey directly at 649 -7202 for confirmation. Seattle • Everett • Fairbanks • Anchorage • St. Louis PRESIDENT: Earl A. Sibley, P.E. SR. VICE PRESIDENT: Ater A. Azzam; Raymond P. Miller, P.E.; Harvey W. Parker, P.E.; George Yamane, P.E. VICE PRESIDENT: Herman H. (Tex) Druebert, P.E.: Richard H. Gates, P.E.; W. Paul Grant, P.E.; Leland B. Jones, P.E.; Thomas E. Kirkland, P.E.; Gerry Millar, R.G.,; Frank W. Pita, P.E., P.G.; Ming -Jiun (Jim) Wu, P.E. CONSULTANT: William L. Shannon, P.E. 3s:'' 1,41P.. .fii ?' a:ii'.i'�:cfr' ".:F..�..; City of Tukwila Attn.: Mr. J. Pace T- 1370 -02 August 6, 1992 We look forward to meeting with you at 10 a.m. on August 12 and discussing any questions you might have regarding this remediation project. Sincerely, SHANNON & WILSON, INC. Brian L. Clark Engineer cf� Robert Colombo Environmental Project Manager SHANNON at WILSON; INC.. T- 1370-01 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Results obtained from the limited, shallow, soil assessment at the facility suggest that of the seven area investigated, petroleum hydrocarbons, primarily consisting of oil and grease as determined by utilization of EPA Method 418.1, are present in shallow soils at concentrations which exceed the 200 ppm Model Toxic Control Act (MTCA) Method "A" Cleanup Levels (for) Soils. Halogenated hydrocarbons analyzed for in each area's "worst case" saturated soil sample were found not to contain halogenated hydrocarbons at concentrations which exceed the specific compound reporting limit. Thirteen priority pollutant metals were also analyzed for in each area's "worst case" saturated soil sample and determined to be at concentrations which do not exceed current MTCA Method "A" Cleanup Levels (for) Soil with the exception of the area which contains residual ink residue. Metals which do not have specific cleanup levels were found to be at concentrations similar to those determined for the facility's abandoned septic leach field soils. In a single area at the facility, residual ink residue in soil contained elevated levels of metals; this particular area has no apparent relationship to the oil release incidents at the facility. Further analysis by Toxicity Characteristics Leaching Procedure (TCLP) methods of this area's soil will be required for an assessment of disposal options. Analysis of several "worse case" samples by the Washington (state) Total Petroleum Hydrocar- bon - Hydrocarbon Identification (WTPH -HCID) techniques yielded inconclusive data required to discern among the individual type and grades of oils used in the production of ink at the facility. Field prepared duplicate samples, analyzed by the project laboratory, were found to be in good agreement with each other suggesting that field sampling protocol utilized for representative sampling from each area was adequate. Laboratory internal quality assurance/quality control data is acceptable. From the data generated in the areas investigated at the facility during S &W's limited, shallow, soil investigation, an estimated volume of petroleum saturated soil in excess of the MTCA Method "A" 200 ppm cleanup level is on the order of 50 to 80 cubic yards. Additional soils which were found to contain residual ink pigments and elevated levels of total metals may be RECEIVE b AUG 0 7 1992 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT i SHANNON & WILSON. INC. T- 1370 -01 on the order of one to two cubic yards. Further analysis and delineation will be required during clean -up activities at the site. This estimate does not include the areas which contain the 21 underground storage tanks at the facility, nor does it include groundwater. Note: This executive summary should be used only in conjunction with the enclosed detailed discussion contained within the full Technical Memorandum. SHANNON & WILSON. INC. .. TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY T- 1370-01 i 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1 2.0 AUTHORIZATION 1 3.0 OBJECTIVE 1 4.0 SITE LOCATION 2 4.1 Facility Description 2 4.2 Site Visit 2 5.0 DATA SOURCE EVALUATION 3 5.1 Ownership 4 5.2 Federal and State Hazardous Site Listings 4 6.0 ENVIRONMENTAL HISTORY 5 7.0 UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANKS 6 8.0 SHALLOW SOIL INVESTIGATION 6 8.1 Previous Inspections and Analytical Results 7 8.2 Summary of Sampling Program 7 8.3 Results 8 9.0 DISCUSSION 10.0 RECOMMENDATIONS 11.0 CLOSURE 11 12 13 SHANNON & WILSON, INC. T- 1370-01 TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont.) LIST OF FIGURES Figure No. 1 Vicinity Map 2 Property Tax Lot #21 3 Site Plan 4 CERCLIS and LUST Location Map 5 Sampling Area Plan 6 USPIC Sampling Location Areas No. 1 and 7 7 USPIC Sampling Location Areas No. 2 8 USPIC Sampling Location Areas No. 3 9 USPIC Sampling Location Areas No. 4 10 USPIC Sampling Location Areas No. 5 11 USPIC Sampling Location Areas No. 6 LIST OF APPENDICES APPENDIX A - ECOLOGY SITE REPORT APPENDIX B - MATERIAL DATA SAFETY SHEETS (MSDS) APPENDIX C - LABORATORY RESULTS SHANNON .& WILSON; INC. T- 1370-01 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 02 SUMMARY OF SITE CONDITIONS AT 17200 WEST VALLEY HIGHWAY, TUKWILA, WASHINGTON 1.0 JNTRODUCTION Technical Memorandum 02 provides for an environmental assessment of the facility located at 17300 West Valley Road, in Tukwila, Washington. Services at the above referenced facility were completed during the period of June 1 through 6, 1992. Services have been carried out by Shannon and Wilson, Inc. and it's sub - contractors in accordance with our contract of April 17, 1992. 2.0 AUTHORIZATION Activities at this facility have been provided as authorized by our contract dated April 17, 1992. 3.0 OBJECTIVE The objective of this assessment is to develop a professional opinion as to the presence, distribu- tion, and quantity of potentially hazardous substances, as defined by the Model Toxics Control Act, in soil at seven locations at the facility. Information is also presented which describes historical practices and uses on the facility. Tasks to be completed during this phase of work at the facility include: • Perform a reconnaissance of the immediate vicinity to gather preliminary data for the development of the site history. • Conduct a visual assessment of the surficial conditions at the property for indications of potential environmental issues. • Review records of the relevant environmental site history to identify previous land use or other activity which could have led to the presence of hazardous materials at the site. • Prepare and conduct a limited, shallow soil investigation at seven areas which were previously identified by Ecology in their Inspection Report dated March 1, 1990. • Prepare a report summarizing the results of the above assessments and our professional conclusions and recommendations for future compliance issues. 1 SHANNON & WILSON. INC. T- 1370 -01 The scope of services is not an evaluation of wetlands or a geotechnical engineering study, nor is the sampling program intended to be a remedial investigation. The intent of this effort by S &W is to augment previous data collected at the site. 4.0 SITE LOCATION The subject facility is comprised of two properties which are located on West Valley Road, in Tukwila, Washington. The facility is located in the southwest quarter of Section 25, Township 23, Range 4, King County, Washington. The facility and the surrounding geographical features are illustrated in Figure 1, Vicinity Map. Figure 2, Property Site Tax Lot #21, shows the subject property in relationship to the surround- ing tax lots, easements, and the Green River. The facility is bordered to the north by Cello Bag Company, to the west by the West Valley Road and the Green River, to the south by the Alaska Copper & Brass Co., and to the east by the Puget Sound Power and Light Company right -of -way and the Union Pacific and Burlington Northern Railroads as illustrated in Figure 3, Site Plan. 4.1 Facility Description The facility description is based on a review of public records and a visit performed by a Shannon & Wilson engineer on April 17, 1992. The facility is approximately 1.81 -acre in size and consists of three structures containing an office, warehouse /production facility, and a storage building. The total area of the structures is 20,975 square feet. The office and warehouse/production facility was constructed in 1966 of ordinary masonry and structural steel. The storage building located on the north side of the structure was constructed in 1973 of prefabricated metal. "NThe facility contains 36,400 square feet of paving and 21 underground storage tanks were noted as an accessory data item. 4.2 Site Visit The site visit included a visual reconnaissance of the facility and surrounding areas which included the confirmation of the locations of seven areas which had previously been cited as 2 SHANNON & WILSON, INC. T- 1370 -01 potential sources of contamination as described in Ecology's March 1, 1990, site report. Ecology's report is contained in Appendix A for review. Ecology's March 1, 1990 report indicated that, in part, six individual areas at the facility contained Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons, as quantified as oil and grease by utilization of federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Method 418.1, and 11 priority pollutant metals quantified by the Inductive Coupled Plasma (ICP) scan, are present in site soil at concentrations which exceed current Ecology cleanup levels. This assessment of the facility lead to it's inclusion onto the Ecology Hazardous Waste Investigation and Cleanup Program (HWICP) list. Each of the six locations were field verified and marked for future soil sampling activities. The six Ecology noted areas included: • Area No. 1: Oil transfer station located on the west side of the south platform. • Area No. 2: The southern oil water separator. • Area No. 3: The area to the east of the south oil water separator in the vicinity of the adjacent railroad tracks. • Area No. 4: East side of plant along oil transfer piping. • Area No. 5: East side of plant near shed located on the north platform. • Area No. 6: North side of Plant; North Oil Water Separator. At the request of USPIC, a seventh area was added to the soils investigation. The area is identified as follows: • Area No. 7: Abandoned septic leach field located on the southern property line parallel to the concrete platform. 5.0 j)ATA SOURCE EVALUATION Data sources reviewed for this site assessment included readily available public information which included records and maps pertinent to the property. The following data sources were identified and reviewed: • King County Assessor's Office - tax assessor's current and historical property informa- tion 1973 - present. • King County Archives - tax assessor's historical property information prior to 1973. 3 SHANNON & WILSON, INC. T- 1370-01 • Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology) Affected Media List • U.S. EPA CERCLIS • Ecology List of Leaking Underground Storage Tanks • 1950 Kroll Atlas of Seattle, Scale 1" = 200' • 1972 Kroll Atlas of Seattle, Scale 1" = 200' • 1987 Kroll Atlas of Seattle, Scale 1" = 200' • RELCO Partnership, Mr. Lewis Leber, Partner • USPIC facility supplied information; Material Safety Data Sheets • Polk City Directories 5.1 Ownership The following chronological ownership history has been assembled from the previously cited data sources: 1963: Fee owner is listed as John E. Ehrlichman 1964: Fee owner is Listed as Work Saver Body Company 1965: Fee owner is listed as University Building Company 1973: Fee owner is listed as Relco Investment Company 5.2 Federal and State Hazardous Site Listings At the request of USPIC, the following is a list of sites which have been documented to contain hazardous materials within a one mile radius of the subject facility. Each site is identified on Figure 4, CERCLIS and LUST Location Map. #1 N.C. Machinery 17025 West Valley Highway Listed on CERCLIS and on Ecology LUST List #2 Howard Cooper Machinery 17700 W. Valley Hwy. Listed on Ecology LUST List #3 UG Raden and Sons 18289 Olympic Ave. S. Listed on Ecology LUST List #4 Bon Marche Dist. Center 17000 Southcenter Parkway Listed on Ecology LUST List 4 SHANNON & WILSON, INC. T- 1370-01 #5 Chevron Station 220 Strander Boulevard Listed on Ecology LUST List #6 Firestone 215 Andover Park W. Listed on Ecology LUST List #7 American Can Company 400 Baker Boulevard Listed on CERCLIS (this site is no longer American Can, it is now an Acura dealership) #8 Red Dot Corp. 495 Andover Park E. Listed on Ecology LUST List #9 Shasta Beverages 1227 Andover Park E. Listed on Ecology LUST List Listings from: U.S. EPA Superfund Programs, CERCLIS 07/19/91; WDOE LUST Listings, 05/25/92 6.0 ENVIRONMENTAL HISTORY The following is summary of an audit of supplied documents regarding the environmental history of the site provided to Shannon & Wilson by RELCO Partnership, USPIC, and Ecology. Shannon & Wilson makes no guarantees as to the completeness or accuracy of this documenta- tion. Major events with dates are provided below: 1966 Office and warehouse constructed. 1968 Waste discharge permit issued. 1973 Facility is connected to the public water treatment system. 1974 National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) waste discharge permit applied for and received. "Housekeeping" problems noted by Ecology, King Co. Health Dept. and the U.S. Coast Guard. 1977 NPDES applied for and received. 1982 New NPDES permit issued, expires 6/4/89. 1985 Ecology gives "satisfactory" inspection rating. 1985 United States Printing Ink Co. purchased assets of Leber Ink Co. 1985 20 USTs tested with Petro-Tite method; 20 USTs, less #9, to 1985 NFPA standards. 5 SHANNON & WILSON, INC. T- 1370-01 1986 Norton Corrosion Limited, Inc. tests, designs, installs, and operates cathodic protection for 21 on -site USTs. 1989 NPDES applied for and issued. 1989 Inspection of facilities by Ecology receives a "fair" grade. 1990 Inspection of facilities by Ecology receives "unsatisfactory" grade, facility is deemed non - compliant with requirements outlined in NPDES. 1990 Owner operator site information is sent to USPIC from Ecology indicating that the facility is on the known or suspect contaminated site list. 1990 USPIC is fined by Ecology for permit violations. 7.0 UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANKS The facility contains an approximate underground storage capacity of 176,500 gallons (gal.). Underground storage tanks are distributed at the facility as follows: North Platform: Five, 12,000 gal.; three, 2,500 gal.; two, 10,000 gal.; and two, 6,000 gal. USTs. South Platform: Four, 12,000 gal.; three, 8,000 gal.; and two, 2,500 gal. USTs. Product stored included several brands /grades of petroleum process oil utilized in the printing ink formulations and approximately 8,000 gal. of motor grade diesel fuel and approximately 8,000 gal. of CHEVRON Thinner 325; comprised of 99% paraffins and < 1% aromatics. Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS), supplied by the facility, are appended in Appendix B for review. No physical analytical testing of residual material within each UST at the facility was conducted during this assessment. Underground storage tanks remain intact at the facility as of this writing. 8.0 SHALLOW SOIL INVESTIGA ON Shannon and Wilson, Inc. contracted with USPIC and RELCO Partnership; in part, to provide a soil sampling program which would allow for an assessment of the presence and distribution of residual petroleum hydrocarbons, halogenated hydrocarbons, and 13 priority pollutant metals at the seven locations described in section 4.2 of this report. 6 SHANNON & WILSON. INC. T- 1370-01 8.1 Previous Inspections and Analytical Results A previous site inspection was executed at the site by Mr. Norm Peck, representing Ecology, on March 1, 1990. The results of this site inspection, as well as the analytical results obtained from selected soil and wastewater samples, are contained in the Appendix A of this report for review. Results of the inspection conducted by Ecology indicated that the site contains six individual areas which show signs of being impacted by oil(s) caused from improper housekeeping practices. 8.2 Summary of Sampling Program S &W developed a randomly positioned sampling grid in the field at each location based on field observations of distressed areas and topography. A subset of sampling points were selected for obtaining soil samples at the surface (i.e 2 to 4 inches) as well as at depth (i.e. 12 to 16 inches) below grade (bg). The intent was to characterize the extent of residual compounds of concern in soil and to maximize the amount of data that can be obtained from both the horizontal and vertical substrate. A backhoe was utilized at the facility to obtain soil samples from Area No. 7, the abandoned septic leach field. All other samples were collected with hand tools. Sampling protocol followed the established method as outlined in Shannon and Wilson's work plan dated May 7, 1992. All soil samples were collected with new, disposable stainless steel spoon and thoroughly homogenized in a new, disposable aluminum pan and then placed into a laboratory supplied container, identified with a unique sample number, placed in a cooled ice chest and logged in the field notebook. Laboratory analytical services were supplied by Alden Analytical Laboratories, Inc. located in Seattle, Washington. Copies of the laboratory data and Chain -of- Custody forms are appended in Appendix C of this report. The main elements of the sampling program at the site were to: • Obtain and analyze discrete soil samples for total petroleum hydrocarbons. 7 SHANNON & WILSON. INC. T- 1370 -01 • Obtain a "worse case sample" from each area and screen for priority pollutant metals and halogenated hydrocarbons. • Obtain and analyze additional surface soil samples to estimate "background" concentra- tions of metals in site soils. 8.3 Results Refer to Figures 5 through 10 for orientation of sampling locations within each of the designated areas. Area No. 1 - Oil Transfer Station Area No. 1 and Area No. 7 are illustrated in Figure 5. Sample numbers 004 through 014 are designated for Area No. 1. Concentrations of total petroleum hydrocarbons are noted to decrease with depth and distance from the fill pipes as illustrated in Figure 5. Refer to Appendix C. Halogenated hydrocarbons analyzed for with EPA Method 8240 were not detected at concentra- tions at or in excess of the Reporting Limit. Refer to Appendix C. Metals listed below were detected at the following concentration; all other priority pollutant metals analyzed for and not listed were found to be below the method reporting limit: Arsenic 3 ppm Chromium 26 ppm Copper 37 ppm Lead 57 ppm Nickel 20 ppm Zinc 87 ppm Area No. 7 - Abandoned Septic Drain Field The upper section of the soil column at the facility is comprised of sandy silts which are well compacted. Below this upper horizon of compacted material, soils grade downward into a sandy silt/silty sand. During the excavation of the two test pits in Area No. 7, the septic drain field, groundwater was observed at an approximate elevation of nine feet below grade (bg). Soil samples obtained from the two test pits contain less than 15 parts per million (ppm) of total petroleum hydrocarbons as determined by EPA Method 418.1. Refer to Appendix C. Halogenated hydrocarbons analyzed for with EPA Method 8240 were not detected at concentra- tions at or in excess of the Reporting Limit. Refer to Appendix C. 8 SHANNON & WILSON, INC. T- 1370 -01 Metals listed below were detected at the following concentration; all other priority pollutant metals analyzed for and not listed were found to be below the method reporting limit: Arsenic 4 Chromium 15 Copper 17 Zinc 54 Area No. 2 - South Oily Water Separator ppm ppm ppm ppm Area No. 2 is illustrated in Figure 6. Sample numbers 035 through 050 are designated for Area No. 2. Concentrations of total petroleum hydrocarbons vary greatly with depth and distance from the both the oily water separator and in the area of the concrete slab above the south platform's underground storage tanks. Refer to Appendix C. Halogenated hydrocarbons analyzed for with EPA Method 8240 were not detected at concentra- tions at or in excess of the Reporting Limit. Refer to Appendix C. Metals listed below were detected at the following concentration; all other priority pollutant metals analyzed for and not listed were found to be below the method reporting limit: Arsenic 3 Chromium 33 Copper 20 Lead 58 Nickel 25 Zinc 63 ppm ppm ppm ppm ppm ppm Area No. 3 - Area to the East of the South Oil Water Separator in the Vicinity of the Adjacent Railroad Tracks Area No. 3 is illustrated in Figure 7. Sample numbers 016 through 034 are designated for Area No. 3. Concentrations of total petroleum hydrocarbons are concentrated in the immediate vicinity of the eastern side of the railroad track and are not disseminated throughout the area. Refer to Appendix C. Halogenated hydrocarbons analyzed for with EPA Method 8240 were not detected at concentra- tions at or in excess of the Reporting Limit. Refer to Appendix C. Metals listed below were detected at the following concentration; all other priority pollutant metals analyzed for and not listed were found to be below the method reporting limit: 9 SHANNON & WILSON. INC. T- 1370 -01 Arsenic 10 ppm Cadmium 1 ppm Chromium 79 ppm Copper 87 ppm Lead 204 ppm Mercury 0.2 ppm Nickel 27 ppm Zinc 24 ppm Area No. 4 - Southern Half of East Side of Plant Area No. 4 is illustrated in Figure 8. Sample numbers 051 through 063 are designated for Area No. 4. Concentrations of total petroleum hydrocarbons have permeated throughout the horizons sampled and are well distributed through out the area west of the railroad tracks. Refer to Appendix C. Halogenated hydrocarbons analyzed for with EPA Method 8240 were not detected at concentra- tions at or in excess of the Reporting Limit. Refer to Appendix C. An area was noted to contain residual ink residues at this sampling area. Samples were obtained and the metals listed below were detected at the following concentration; all other priority pollutant metals analyzed for and not listed were found to be below the method reporting limit: Arsenic 6 ppm Cadmium 2 ppm Chromium 1,020 ppm Copper 569 ppm Lead 5240 ppm Nickel 28 ppm Zinc 742 ppm Area No. 5 - North Half of East Side of Plant Area No. 5 is illustrated in Figure 9. Sample numbers 064 through 078 are designated for Area No. 5. Concentrations of total petroleum hydrocarbons have permeated throughout the horizons sampled and are well distributed through out the area west of the railroad tracks. Refer to Appendix C. Halogenated hydrocarbons analyzed for with EPA Method 8240 were not detected at concentra- tions at or in excess of the Reporting Limit. Refer to Appendix C. Metals listed below were detected at the following concentration; all other priority pollutant metals analyzed for and not listed were found to be below the method reporting limit: 10 SHANNON & WILSON, INC. T- 1370-01 Arsenic 4 ppm Chromium 20 ppm Copper 32 ppm Nickel 30 ppm Zinc 71 ppm Area No. 6 - North side of Plant North Oil Water Separator Area No. 6 is illustrated in Figure 10. Sample numbers 079 through 089 are designated for Area No. 6. Concentrations of total petroleum hydrocarbons have permeated throughout the horizons sampled and are well distributed through out the area west of the railroad tracks. Refer to Appendix C. Halogenated hydrocarbons analyzed for with EPA Method 8240 were not detected at concentra- tions at or in excess of the Reporting Limit. Refer to Appendix C. Metals listed below were detected at the following concentration; all other priority pollutant metals analyzed for and not listed were found to be below the method reporting limit: Arsenic 12 ppm Cadmium 2 ppm Chromium 29 ppm Copper 60 ppm Lead 58 ppm Nickel 19 ppm Zinc 437 ppm 9.0 DISCUSSION Results obtained from the limited, shallow, soil assessment at the facility suggest that of the seven area investigated, petroleum hydrocarbons, primarily consisting of oil and grease as determined by utilization of EPA Method 418.1 are present in soils at concentrations which exceed the 200 ppm Model Toxic Control Act (MTCA) Method "A" Cleanup Levels (for) Soils. Analysis of several "worse case" samples by the Washington (state) Total Petroleum Hydrocar- bon - Hydrocarbon Identification (WTPH -HCID) techniques yielded inconclusive data required to discern among the individual type and grades of oils used in the production of ink at the facility. 11 SHANNON & WILSON, INC. T- 1370 -01 Halogenated hydrocarbons analyzed for in each area's "worst case" saturated soil sample were found not to contain halogenated hydrocarbons at concentrations which exceed the specific compound reporting limit. Thirteen priority pollutant metals were also analyzed for in each area's "worst case" saturated soil sample and determined to be at concentrations which do not exceed current MTCA Method "A" Cleanup Levels (for) Soil. Metals which do not have specific cleanup levels were found to be at concentrations similar to those found in the facility's abandoned septic leach field soils which were found to be relativity devoid of hydrocarbons. In a single area at the facility, residual ink residue in soil contained elevated levels of metals; this particular area has no apparent relationship to the oil release incidents at the facility. Further analysis by Toxicity Characteristics Leaching Procedure (TCLP) methods of this area's soil will be required for an assessment of disposal options. Field prepared duplicate samples, analyzed by the project laboratory, were found to be in good agreement with each other suggesting that field sampling protocol utilized for representative sampling from each area was adequate. Laboratory internal quality assurance/quality control data is acceptable. From the data generated in the areas investigated at the facility during S &W's limited, shallow, soil investigation, an estimated volume of petroleum saturated soil in excess of the MTCA Method "A" 200 ppm cleanup level is on the order of 50 to 80 cubic yards. This estimate does not include the areas which contain the 21 underground storage tanks at the facility, nor does it include groundwater. 10.0 RECOMMENDATIONS Shannon and Wilson, Inc. recommends that the following steps be implemented at this facility in accordance with prevailing Ecology regulations and the intent of the concerned parties which initiated this work: • USPIC and the RELCO Partnership should review and comment on the findings of this report. Upon completion of this review, S &W will prepare a final copy of this report for issuance to Ecology's underground storage tank division located in Bellevue, Washington for their review and analysis with respect to the status of this facility on Ecology's HWICP List. 12 SHANNON & WILSON, INC. T- 1370-01 • During review by Ecology, USPIC and the RELCO Partnership should continue to progress forward with the arrangements for the removal and closure of the 21 under- ground storage tanks at the facility. This will involve the solicitation of competitive bids from several local contractors for these services. • Proceed with the facility's engineering considerations which will entail the relocation of equipment on the north loading platform. • Prepare for logistical considerations, off -site disposal and /or on -site treatment of petroleum saturated soils from the areas investigated during this assessment as well as those quantities of soils which may be generated during the removal of the 21 under- ground storage tanks at the site. • Re- sample Area No. 4 and analyze sample by TCLP for an assessment of disposal options. • Prepare engineering controls to be implemented at the facility which would eliminate the need for the oil water separators and therefore the need for the NPDES permit. 11.0 CLOSURE The findings we have presented within this technical memorandum are based on limited research at the facility. They should not be construed as a definite statement regarding reported condi- tions. Shannon and Wilson, Inc. performed these studies within our best judgement to adequate- ly describe the known and anticipated conditions at the facility. The data presented in this technical memorandum should be considered representative at the time of our observations. Changes in the conditions of the property can occur with time from both natural processes and human activities. In addition, changes in governmental codes, regulations, or law may occur. Due to such changes, our observations at this facility may need to be revised wholly or in part, due to changes beyond our control. This technical memorandum was prepared for the use of the USPIC and the RELCO Partnership and its representatives in the study of their facility in Tukwila, Washington, and in no way guarantees that an agency or it's staff will reach the same conclusions as Shannon and Wilson, Inc. 13 SHANNON & WILSON, INC. T- 1370-01 , If you have any questions or comments regarding this material, please contact me at (206) 632- 8020. SHANNON & WILSON, INC. Robert Colombo Environmental Project Manager Frank W. Pita, P.E., P.G. Vice President/Director Waste Management Services RC:FWP /rc 7- 9- 921x1370- 01.I7R/r1370-1kd/d w 14 SHANNON &.WILSON. INC. 0 1/4 1/2 1 Scale in Miles NOTE Map adapted from USGS topographic map of Renton and Des Moines, WA quadrangles, dated 1973. RELCO/ USPIC 17300 West Valley Road Tukwila, Washington VICINITY MAP April 1992 T-1370-01 SHANNON & WILSON, INC. I FIG. 1 Cactschnical and Errikonmental Corsulants o 100 200 1-1H1--11-1H Scale in Feet NOTE Map provided by King County Assessors office, revised date of 3 -90. RELCO /USPIC Tukwila, Washington PROPERTY SITE TAX LOT #21 May 1992 T- 1370 -01 SHANNON & WILSON, INC. I FIG. 2 GsotscMfcal and Envkonnnial Conutana DY BDY • • . . %COR ! 1 CORP r BDY Scale In Miles LISTED SITES WITHIN ONE MILE OF USPIC SITE 10 N.C. Machinery 02 Howard Cooper Machinery 30 UG Raden and Sons ® Bon Marche Dist. Center 05 Chevron Station © Firestone 07 American Can Co. Cr Red Dot Corporation 09 Shasta Beverages NOTE Map adapted from USGS topographic maps of Burien and Renton, WA quadrangles, dated 1983. RELCO /USPIC Tukwila, Washington CERCLIS & LUST LOCATION MAP May 1992 T- 1370 -01 SHANNON & WILSON, INC. I FIG. 4 Geotechnical and Environmental Conulanls 1 • • MO MD •. Area No. 6 N North ' Loading Dods l" Area No. 5 • USPIC x Area No.1 Abandoned Septic System L ?� Area No. 2 Unpaved x x x x 4 -In. B &S Concrete P.pe Area No. 4 South Loading Dock x x Area No. 3 56) 9101 s1'9i\J Not t0 Scale J •. RELCO/USPIC Tukwila, Washington SITE PLAN WITH SAMPLING AREAS July 1992 T- 1370 -01 SHANNON & WILSON, INC. 1 FIG. 5 GaolacMcal and Er wvni l Conuhha Koll Business Center City of Tukwila Shops Greenbelt to 11$ • 5' Drainage Easement 10' Slope Easement Ralph Leber Co. Cello Bag Co. Union Pacific R.R. 1111 1 1 1 1 11 1 1 1 1 11 1I11 1 1 1 111111111111 I111111111111441111111111 1111 Burlington Northern R.R. 0 Gov't Lot 7 44.1 Acres Burlington Northern Industrial Park Renton 1I 100 200 Scale in Feet USPIC /Leber Ink Tukwila, Washington 400 SITE PLAN June 1992 T- 1370 -01 SHANNON & WILSON, INC. I FIG. 3 GscNcti ai d Err/NormalCorruhnts x x x Parking Lot x USPIC-A1-HL5-013-SL-0 USPIC-M-HL5-0146L-0 10` itt T USPIC-Al -HL3-009-SL-0 USPIC-A1 -HL3-010-SL-0 USPIC-A1-HL2-007-SL-0 USPIC-A1-HL2-008-SL-0 USPIC-A1-HL6-015-SL-0 S x 1*.r.o.s.onva<Vnilme.leN.611,4"14M1 Fill Pipes US PI C-Al -H L4-011-S L-0 x USPIC-A1-HL4-012-SL-0 Oitch 11'3 18" TP001 17 USPIC-A7-TP001-001-SL-0 USPIC-A7-TP001-002-SL-0 Not to Scale 1 ' to Fenoe Edge 1 USPIC-M-SHVL1-004-SL-0 USPIC-A1-HL1-005-SL-0 South Loading Dock (Fenced) TP002 Sewer Junction/ Cleanout Box USPIC-A7-17002-003-SL-0 USPIC-A7-17002-004-SL-0 1 1' b Far Edge of Sewer USPIC/Leber Ink Tukwila, Washington USPIC SAMPLING LOCATIONS AREAS 1 AND 7 June 1992 T-1370-01 SHANNON & WILSON, INC. I FIG. 6 Geachrical and Envhornontal Consultants 10' USPIC-A2- HL7 -047 4L-0 USPIC-A2-11L7-048-SL-0 Concrete Slab USPIC- A2- HL6-045-SL-0 USPIC-A2-111-6-0464L-0 13' USPIC- A2- HLS-043 -SL0 USPIC- A2- HLS-044 -SL-0 Not to Scale 3' 20' x 5. 4- x South Loading Dock Fence x �x 1'=g- 4'- 8- ----2' USPIC- A2-HL4-041-SL-0 USPIC- A2- HL3-039-SL-0 USPIC-A2-HL4042-SL-0 USPIC-A2-HL3 O5O-SL -1 USPIC42- HL3-040 -SL-0 USPIC-A2- HL2 -037 -SL-0 USPIC -A2- HL2 -0494L-1 USPIC-A2- HL2 -038 -SL-0 — x USPIC- A2- HL1 -035-SL-0 USPIC-A2-111.1-038-SL-0 —26' to End of Fence 1 USPIC /Leber Ink Tukwila, Washington USPIC SAMPLING LOCATIONS AREA 2 June 1992 T- 1370 -01 SHANNON & WILSON, INC. I FIG. 7 GoouchiicaI and ErYonnsi I Conwtxnls ...c,r:•;wrxe:..c�iwn:m. acv.:• u :�..,.�,ow....,.....,.......... . .- .....:.,........... ,...», e.-.. u. n... w-....++....... .....w.w*..n- -.1. fxu..nnauacxn fv+e49+'X.:K .T/iaM31 x /Fence USPIC-A3- HL2 -018 -SL-0 USPIC -A3- HL2 -018 -SL -1 USPIC -A3- HL2 -020-SL-0 USPIC- A3- HL1 -016.SL-0 USPIC-A3-HL1.017-SL-0 South Loading Dock 12' OIVWater Separator Overflow T USPIC- A3-HL3 021.SL-O 1 USPIC- A3- HL3-022 -0L-0 2-6- .��T 1 1 12' -3' 13' -T • { USPIC-A3- HL8-031 -SL-0 USPIC- A3 -HLS. 032 -SL-0 USPIC-A3-H1.6-027-SL-0 USPIC- A3- HL6-028-SL-0 €41) USPIC- A3- HLS-025.SL-0 r �,��i USPIC-A3-HL5-026-SL-0 S USPIC-A3-HL4-023-SL-0 USPIC-A3-HL4-024-SL-0 t� USPIC-A3- HL7 -029 -SL-0 AN USPIC-A3- HL7 -030-SL-0 1_ USPIC-A3-HL9-033-8L-0 USPIC- A3- HL9-034-SL-0 (No Flag) Not to Scale USPIC/Leber Ink Tukwila, Washington USPIC SAMPLING LOCATIONS AREA 3 June 1992 T- 1370 -01 SHANNON Ilr WILSON, INC. Gadadwcal and Enviorr,s lCorrularta FIG. 8 Building 7 -10' Area 5 USPIC-A4-HL1-051-SL-0 10 USPIC-A4-HL1-052-SL-0 Doorway USPIC- A4- HL3-055 -SL-0 USPIC-A4-HL3-056-SL-1 USPIC- A4- HL3-0574L-0 USPIC- A4- HL3-058-SL -1 6' -s• USPIC•A4- HL4 -059-SL-0 USPIC-A4-HL4-060-SL-0 1 USPIC-A4-HL5-061SL-0 USPIC- A4- HLS -062SL-0 13'-6' 2'-6• 4' USPIC- A4- HL6-063SL-0 Not to Scale Railroad Tracks I Ni 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I� 1 1 1 �I 1 1 1 1 1 111 1 1 1 1 USPIC/Leber Ink Tukwila, Washington USPIC SAMPLING LOCATIONS AREA 4 June 1992 T- 1370 -01 SHANNON & WILSON, INC. I FIG. 9 Gaouehnioal and Erwironmeroal Conutarta USPIC-A5-HL1-064-SL-0 I _ USPIC-AS-HL1-065 SL -0g Fence x' North Loading Dock $: Y'•'::ti a v;:: n i74$ >k; USPIC- AS- HL3-068S'L -0' USPIC-A5-HL3-069.SL-O U S PI C-A5 -H L3-070S L -1 Building USPIC- A5- HL4-071-SL-0 USPIC-A5-HL4-072-SL-0 USPIC-A5-HL5-073SL-0 USPIC- A5- HL5 -074SL-0 USPIC- A5- HL6- 075SL -0 USPIC- A5- HL6-076SL -0 Doorway 1 -10- USPIC -A5- HL7 -077SL-0 USPIC -A5- HL7 -078SL-0 USPIC-A4-HL1-051SL-0 USPIC- A4.HL1 -052SL-0 1' -6- Not to Scale 23' 10" Railroad Tracks USPIC-A5- HL2 -066 -SL-0 USPIC -A5- HL2 -067 -SL-0 USPIC/Leber Ink Tukwila, Washington USPIC SAMPLING LOCATIONS AREA 5 June 1992 T- 1370 -01 SHANNON & WILSON, MIC. I FIG. 10 - GwucMicxi and En*orman>;I ConaWub • x Fence USPIGA6•HL4085 -SL-0 USPIC-A6.HL4086 -SL-0 USPIGA6•HL4087 -SL4 rr I 13'-6• Storm Drain 21'-8• USPIC-A6•HLS-088 -SL-0 AN USPIC-A6- HL3-083 -SL-0 USPIC- HLS-089 -SL-0 ? USPIGA6•HL3-084-SL-0 iv 6• 6• 6• x x I x x I %� x I Not to Scale Fill Pipe x North Oil/Water Separator 10001 x Area 5 --I--T USPIC-AO•HL1.07$.SL-0 uSPIGA6•HL1 -080 -SL411 x x USPIC-A6•HL2 -081 -SL-0 USPIC-A6- HL2 -082 -SL-0 x USPIC/Leber Ink Tukwila, Washington USPIC SAMPLING LOCATIONS AREA 6 June 1992 T- 1370 -01 SHANNON & WILSON, INC. j FIG. 11 O hiW and EmYonaNIN ConNANra ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Purpose of Checklist: RECEIVED AUG 0 7 1992 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), chapter 43.21C RCW, requires all governmental agencies to consider the environmental impact 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 preparation of an EIS. Answer the questions briefly, with the most precise information 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, shoreline, 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 non - project proposals: Non - project 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 non - project proposals, even though questions may be answered "does not apply." In addition, complete the supplemental sheet for non - project actions (part D. 1 For non - project 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. Control No. '0 -93--0615 Epic File No. L. ct — Mb--; Fee $225.00 Receipt No. RECEIVED AUG 0 7 1992 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST A. BACKGROUND 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: USPIC /Leber Ink. Underground Storage Tank Closure and Remediation 2. Name of applicant: Lewis Leber, General Partner 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: RELCO Partnership P.O. Box 88041 Seattle, WA 98138 (206) 251 -8700 Contact: Consulting Environmental Engineer Shannon and Wilson, Inc. Robert Colombo, Environmental Project Manager and /or Brian Clark, Project Engineer Shannon & Wilson 400 North 34th Street, Suite 100 Seattle, WA 98103 (206) 632 -8020 FAX (206) 633 -6777 4. Date checklist prepared: August 6, 1992 5. Agency requesting Checklist: Tukwila DCD-- Planning 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): Project to start as soon as August 17, 1992; Refer to attached tentative construc- tion schedule for phasing. 3 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. Possible minor upgrades to replaced concrete northern slab which will include elevation adjustment of less than 1.0 foot to match existing production floor grade, repositioning of a single, pre - fabricated steel storage shed to southern concrete slab, and up -grade of an oil water separator. 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. Removal of 21 Underground Storage Tanks (USTs) and remediation of petroleum saturated soils. Refer to the enclosed site assessment as prepared by Shannon & Wilson. 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. None pending. 10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal. Fire department UST removal approval Possible City of Tukwila Demo /Construction permits 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. Existing printing ink production facility will not change. Refer to site diagrams (previously provided /enclosed) for site size and scope of project 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 applications related to this checklist. 17300 West Valley Highway Tukwila, Washington 4 13. Does the proposal he within an area designated on the Citib-Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan Map as environmentally sensitive? The site does not lie within the King County, Washington, December 1990 Sensitive Areas Map Folio for Wetlands, Streams and 100 -Year Floodplains, Erosion Hazards Area, Landslide Hazard Areas, or Seismic Hazard Areas; Shannon and Wilson, Inc., is not responsible for the accuracy of this referenced document. `Y. TO BE COMPLETED BY-APPLICANT B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1. Earth a. General description of the site (circle one): Flat, rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other. b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? Less than 0.5% c. What general types of soils are found on the site (for ex- ample, clay, sand, gravel, peat, muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any prime farmland. Soils, as classified by the King County Soil Survey, United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Con- servation Services, November, 1973, consist of the Puyallup fine sandy loam (py); Shannon and Wilson, Inc., is not responsible for the accuracy of this refer- enced document. No farm land in the immediate vicinity of the site. d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. No signs of stressed vegetation is evident at the site. e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. Total of approximately 873 cubic yards of back fill in UST areas; commercial availability based on economic considerations. f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. The potential for erosion during re- construction is slight. g. About what percent of the site will be covered with imper- vious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? Reference current site plan; no net increase in imper- vious surfaces (slab replacement) during project com- pletion. h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: Petroleum saturate soils will be placed within a visq- ueen lined and bermed area for long -term remediation. All fill soils will be placed on -site when required for excavation backfill. 2. Air 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 com- pleted? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known. Exhaust from backhoe and other construction equip- ment emissions at times throughout the project. b. Are there any off -site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. None; no volatile emissions due to character of petro- leum hydrocarbons known at the site. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: None required. G&[1ot rri- dds eue, idee atoid .�' C' Ci r roaWmipof c„teaa, . .,«.... • _....... v.tor•.eraa:n9.sn'w7.. 3. Water 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. Green River flows directly west of site. 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. No work is required during this project within 200 feet of the Green River. 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. None, does not apply. 4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities, if known. No, does not apply. 5) Does the proposal lie within a 100 -year floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan. No, does not apply 6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. No discharges to surface waters required dur- ing duration of proposed project, does not apply. b. Ground: 1) Will groundwater be withdrawn, or will water be dis- charged to groundwater? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities, if known. No groundwater withdrawal required during duration of project, does not apply. 2) Describe waste materials that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, 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 applica- ble), or the number of animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve. None, does not apply. 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. Possible storm water runoff will be directed to existing storm water drains located at site. 2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. Project is for the remediation of petroleum saturated surface soils, see appended technical report which describes the conditions at the site. 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, other other types of vegetation b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? None, does not apply. c. List threatened or endangered species known to be of or near the site. Unknown. d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other mea- sures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: None, does not apply. 5. Animals 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. Unlikely. c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. Unlikely. d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: 10 None, does not apply. 6. Energy and Natural Resources a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heat- ing, manufacturing, etc. None, does not apply. b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. No, does not apply. 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: Not required, does not apply. 7. Environmental Health 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. Standard underground storage removal hazards is minimized due the inert characteristics of the oil(s) stored. A site health and safety plan has been prepared by the contractor and reviewed by Shannon & Wilson, Inc. 1) Describe special emergency services that might be required. • Refer to site Health and Safety plan. ' $ (p),oL-c . 2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: Refer to site Health and Safety plan. 11 b. Noise 1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, opera- tion, other)? West Valley Highway and construction equipment create noise, no adverse affect on project anticipated. 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: traffic, construction, opera- tion, other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site. Noise from construction machinery only during normal business hours. 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: None required, does not apply. 8. Land and Shoreline Use a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? Site is zoned industrial and currently houses a printing ink plant, Cello bag to north, other industrial facilities to south, east and west. b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe. No agricultural activities in the area at this time. c. Describe any structures on the site. Single story manufacturing building, loading dock(s). Refer to enclosed report and attached site. plan. d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? Two concrete slabs located on the north and south side of building, as required for underground storage tank removal. 12 e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? Commercial. f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? Anticipated to be industrial. + U6.71-1--- g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? Does not apply. h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmen- tally sensitive" area? If so, specify. No part of the site has been identified as a sensitive area to the knowledge of the consultant. i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? J• None, does not apply. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? None, does not apply. k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement im- pacts, if any: None, does not apply. 1. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: Planned pre- construction meeting with City of Tukwila; land use unaffected by site remedial actions. 13 Housing a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low- income housing? None, does not apply. b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminat- ed? Indicate whether high, middle, or low- income hous- ing. None, does not apply. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: None, does not apply. 10. Aesthetics a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed? Does not apply, no additional structures planned during this project. b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? None, does not apply. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: None, does not apply. 11. Light and Glare a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? None, does not apply. 14 ...�..........e.ivtrafw4f::lY<� Mu£•n`�.i.� i. i�« 4. wuwu. r.. vra.. �... a.. n... �vw... �. w, �- w...... �.. r«. .r....a..�v..una�e. »n......mrk. b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? No, does not apply. c. What existing off -site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? None, does not apply. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: None, does not apply. 12. Recreation a. What designed and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? None, does not apply. b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recre- ational uses? If so, describe. No, does not apply. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recrea- tion, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: None, does not apply. 13. Historic and Cultural Preservation a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for, national, state, or local preservation registers known to be on or next to the site? If so, generally describe. None known. 15 b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site. None known. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any: None, does not apply. 14. Transportation a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe - proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. West Valley Highway will be used for all access, construction will not affect traffic. b. Is the site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? No, does not apply. c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? Does not apply. 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). None, does not apply. e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. Site is currently serviced by rail. f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur. No net increase in vehicular trips as a result of 16 g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: None, does not apply. 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. No, does not apply. b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. None, does not apply. 16. Utilities a. Circle utilities currently available at the site: Electricity, Natural gas, Water, Refuse service, Telephone, Sanitary 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 needed. None, does not apply. . 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: (-4 (4, PLEASE CONTINUE TO THE NEXT PAGE. 18 TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT D. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NON - PROJECT 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 implemented. 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? Proposed measures to avoid or reduce such increases are: 2. How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, animals, fish, or marine life? Proposed measures to protect or conserve plants, animals, fish, or marine life are: 3. How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources? 19 w�+nxtr'�Nfitlu7J "F'lh±:'T Y:nxivx-n Ow.< Proposed measures to protect or conserve energy and natural resources are: 4. How would the proposal be likely to use or affect environmen- tally 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 habi- tat, historic or cultural sites, wetlands, floodplains, or prime farmlands? 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, including whether it would allow or encourage land or shoreline uses incompatible with existing plans? 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? Proposed measures to reduce or respond to such demand(s) are: 20 7. Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with local, state, or federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. 8. Does the proposal conflict with policies of the Tukwila Com- prehensive Land Use Policy Plan? If so, what policies of the Plan? Proposed measures to avoid or reduce the conflict(s) are? TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT 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 information provided and the submitted plans, docu- ments, supportive information, studies, etc. 1. What are the objective(s) of the proposal? 2. What are the alternative means of accomplishing these objec- tive? Please compare the alternative means and indicate the preferred course of action: 21 4. Does the proposal conflict with policies of the Tukwila Com- prehensive Land Use Policy Plan? If so, what policies of the Plan? Proposed measures to avoid or reduce the conflicts) are: 22.