HomeMy WebLinkAboutSEPA EPIC-275-85 - SEATTLE RENDERING WORKS - 2 FILTRATION TOWERS AND PUMPING FACILITYSEATTLE RENDERING
WORKS
TWO AEROBIC BIO-
TOWER FILTER & SUMP
PITS
5795 S0. 130T" PLACE
EPIC 275 -85
January 3, 1986
Mr. Brad Collins, Planning Director
City of Tukwila
6200 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila, Washington 98188
Dear Mr. Collins,
•
CITY
PLLANNING DEPT.
As stipulated by Rick Beeler, we are required to submit
results of drain field test well samples twice a year.
Attached you will find a map showing the location of the
four test wells (two added to the existing two at your
request) and the location of the river samples taken.
The laboratory certificate indicates the drain fields
are performing very well.
Please bring this report to Mr. Beeler's attention as
I'm sure he would be interested to know we are conforming
to the content of the permit.
Yours truly,
SEATTLE RENDERING WORKS, INC.
William H Hammond,
Dan Gargi 1
D 0 E
Encl.
WHH/ags
SEATTLE RENDERING WORKS, INC. 5795 south 130th place * seattle, washington 98178 * (206) 243 -7387 - (206) 243 -2828
•
•
No :11109
tAl 41
• • •-•
611-E4T : Seb til.etRendei- rt9
• - • , • p2:0;]''tfip, 5835§ •
'S'e4t:t - WA 98188
•
PEPORT, OM: WATER
_ • . . .. .. . .
SAMPLE
IDEMTIF 1 rAT-10-14k, • Submi tted 12 /13185' and- tdebtified7-4s;.g1901-,Axo.
,' -
...... ,,, ,.....: ..;
.....• ..._...... .
_ . :..-. 2:.----:-....!,. ;;-:, .., .-.):,:.• -;:-t:(..:".-'14';tlif''`
•• - - ...z'.'•:,--;;L11,4-;,-,..:''',..':-
:: .,. c,...<....-::,.,.:•
... .. ...
:,...--..,-• •-:.-
TESTS PERFORMED 11 #1 Seattle Renderi nd: 12 /1-3111P.-9WPF,',*:.fr-,!fr' •- :--‘1'' -.:-: _AI:: ,.: • .. . . .,,„--; r1;_
AND P,ESULTS : 21 #2 Seattle Rende ridd : 12 /0j05'..-. 9:ie0 i.#-..',,,k;
3) #3 Seattle Repijoi•toci..::12/11/85:,;9:Wi-.'......, : ‘,•:. • : -.:,: , .
4) #4 Seattle Renderi 64.:, 12 /13 A36..400:0.:i,i'::;:,..,:::'
5) r •14c -, Seattle Renoei-ind 12/13/85. 9•:.00 a:.11).:.—: :-
61 #6 Seattle Rendering 12/13/85 9100: •a:ri!.••• -
. . . ,, .::...-._... -
..._ .•„.•,
...-
par'ts.::.petZ:nit ' ,64;.:(*Ci/12) ,-::4,:-:..,.. -;;.....
' ,- ..;:,-.:-.. : ,',.,i,-..---,:-:• --4..,-...
•
•. •
• c7:tABORATORY: -hie:- 9427
• • -
5-day Biochemical .Oxyaen Demand
1
10. 12.
4
L/10.
6
5-iay riochernical Oxycen Deu,ang L/10. L/10. 1./10.
Key
L/ iniicates "1€.,ss than
(
DEC 24 1985
SEATTLE RENDERING WORKS
This report is submitted for the OXCIIISNO use of the person, partnership, or corporation to whom it is addiessed:*.ibie4tient:tisiolltae,*.fte.oi:this.eonvany. Orafirk?*--* •
member of its staff in connection with the advertising or sale of -any product or process will be granted only on contract. This 4ompanyeceeptsino responsibility ept
for the due performance of inspection and/or analysis m good faith and-according to the rules of the trade .and otackince:, .. • . Y.' :
. ,
OFF"ICE MEMO
CITY OF TUKWILA
TO :J C.>\-\M ' ) i .-LJ es
FROM: t'•'1 ` -Ac
DATE: I -���- (`i, t t. (fig
SUBJECT: Q�`J2 kp3C WC KICS 0;1, (L .1) D v S
• •
King County Executive
Randy Revelle
Department of Planning and Community Development
Holly Miller, Director
[a «�`1 LR
AUG 8 1985
CgTY OFT;! ( ,LA
PLANNING DEPT.
August 1, 1985
Mr. Brad Collins
Planning Director
6200 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila, WA 98188
RE: Seattle Rendering Works DNS
Dear
o lins:
The Department of Planning and Community Development has reviewed the
environmental checklist and accompanying documents for the Seattle Rendering
Works and has the following comments.
Question 7 of the checklist indicates the applicant has no plans for future additions
or expansions connected with the proposal. This statement seems to be contradicted
in a November 3, 1980 letter from the applicant's consultant, F.C.R. Technical,
to the Department of Ecology. In the letter, the consultant refers to anticipated
future expansion of the Rendering Works. Does the applicant have plans for
future expansion of the Rendering Works plant, or only of its wastewater treatment
facilities?
The wooded area adjacent to the Rendering Works plant is noted as a possible
park site in the River of Green Study conducted by King County. This area should
be protected from damage during construction to retain a maximum visual buffer
between the Rendering Works and the Green River and golf course to the west.
The mitigation measures attached to the declaration of nonsignificance should
be stated in more specific, measurable terms. As they now stand, they are open
to a variety of interpretations.
For example, a minimum of four test wells are to be installed to sample groundwater
for contamination. Who decides where these wells will be located, who will conduct
tests on the samples, and what will constitute contamination?
811 Alaska Building 618 Second Avenue Seattle, Washington 98104 (206) 344 -7503
1
•
Mr. Brad Collins
August 1, 1985
Page Two
Another mitigation measure requires connection to the sewer system if the drain
fields fail and are not repairable. What constitutes failure and who will decide
whether or not the drain fields are repairable? Finally, there is to be no significant
increase in odor from the filter system. Who decides what is a significant increase
and what is the standard?
If you have any questions about our comments, please contact Martin Seybold
at 344 -7990.
HM:MS:dl
MS005
Sincerely,
t294L
v
HOLLY MILLER
Director
cc: Harold Robertson, Manager, Planning Division
ATTN: Bill Jolly, Chief, Resource Planning Section
Martin Seybold, Resource Planner
Chuck Kleeberg, Chief, Environmental Health
M.M. Dawda, District Inspector, Environmental Quality
CITY ofr
TO:.
F ROM :
DATE: e
5--
SUBJECT: ::"D(31
RY__E=.5) 1c,:tcyZE kKSI-
N-c-Y\CM0 esKYO \t\Re-E KICW
S 12--Q1.4 ‘cz-\1
KY3K\ 6(1-)
- - �-- - ---- �-r
-
• •
CITY OF TUKWILA
PLANNING DIVISION
PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
85- 22 -UUP: SEATTLE RENDERING WORKS
AGENDA ITEM
INTRODUCTION
Seattle Rendering Works, Inc., is located at 5795 South 130th Place in the M -1
(Light Industrial) zone. The existing anaerobic filter system of the rendering
plant is failing and requires replacement. The applicant proposes installation of
two 34# -foot high and approximately 23 -foot diameter filtration towers and
approximately 21 -foot pumping facilities. This requires an unclassified use per-
mit per TMC 18.66.020(3).
FINDINGS
1. The subject site is essentially level and lies along the Duwamish River and
adjacent to a railroad main track. A ground level anaerobic filter lies in
the approximate middle of the property and drains to multiple drainfields bet-
ween the filter and the river (Exhibit A).
2. TMC 18.66.020(3) stipulates that processing of animal byproducts and refuse
disposal require an unclassified use permit. The proposed above ground filter
system is an expansion of the rendering plant's physical facilities, and
therefore, requires an unclassified use permit approved by the Planning
Commission per the review criteria of TMC 18.66.060. Since the subject site .
is located in the Board of Architectureal Review jurisdiction and the
Interurban special Review area, the additional review criteria of TMC
18.60.050 and 18.60.060 also apply.
3. The attached letters from IPEC Consultants, Inc. and the-State Department of
Ecology (Exhibits B and C) outline the deterioration of the existing anaerobic
filter which requires repair or replacement. After evaluating alternative
systems and repair of the existing system, the applicant selected the propo-
sal.
In two stages the 34i -foot high and about 23 -foot diameter filter towers will
be erected on and adjacent to the existing filter system (Exhibits D & E).
Waste water from the rendering plant will be sprayed into the cooling towers,
which will be open to the air, and drawn through the filters into the sump
pump mechanism and out to the existing drain fields. This will increase pro-
cessing of waste water beyond the capacity of the existing filter.
Page -2-
Planning Commission
85- 22 -UUP: SEATTLE RENDERING WORKS
July 25, 1985
4. The proposal lies outside of the shoreline management environment of the
Duwamish River, therefore a Shoreline Management substantial development per-
mit is not required.
5. Information has not been provided relative to the color(s) of the tanks and
equipment or landscaping around the proposal.
6. A mitigated determination of non- significance will be issued for the proposal
per the State Environmental Policy Act (EPIC- 275 -85) subject to conditions.
The specific conditions will be available at the public hearing. Because the
determination has not been finalized 15 days prior to the public hearing, the
Planning Commission and BAR cannot take final action on the proposal (SEPA
Ordinance No. 1334).
The staff's Environmental Review process resulted in the following concerns
and recommendations for inclusion in the determination and this report:
A. Set up a written operation and test procedure for the drain fields which
contains as a minimum:
1. Procedures for transfering effluent from drain field to drain field
with the maximum time for operation of any one field and a minimum
rest time between uses of the field. Also, include the position
description of the responsible individual.
2. Locate a minimum of 4 test wells which will be used to sample ground
water for contamination. Each location will be sampled a minimum of
twice per year. AT least one of the samples will be taken at high
tide during the period of high ground water.
B. Meet the requirements of the Department of Ecology permit, when issued.
C. Meet the requirements of RCW 90 -48 in regard to the on site waste
disposal system until the DOE permit is issued.
D. Connect to the sewer system if the drain fields fail and are not
repairable.
E. Connect to the sewer system when the system is extended, in accordance
with the Tukwila Municipal Code.
CONCLUSIONS
1. Unclassified Use Permit Review Criteria:
A. Criteria TMC 18.66.060(1): "The proposed use will not be materially
detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or impro-
vements in the vicinity."
Page -3-
Planning Commission
85- 22 -UUP: SEATTLE RENDERING WORKS
July 25, 1985
The proposed filter system will not likely produce "material detriment"
to other properties in the vicinity or to the City in general since the
existing deteriorating filter system is in need of repair /replacement.
However, staff is concerned that the uncapped /unenclosed filter towers
may produce odors if a power failure or other breakdown should occur.
B. Criteria TMC 18.66.060(2): "The proposed use shall meet or exceed the
same standards for parking, landscaping, yards and other development
regulations that are required in the district it will occupy."
Additional parking is not required per TMC 18.56.050. Required building
setbacks and building height regulations are met per TMC 18.50.020.
Sufficient existing landscaping exists to meet the landscaping require-
ments of TMC 18.52.020. However, TMC 18.52.030 (Special landscape
requirements) appears to require a "solid planting screen within a
10 -foot wide landscape strip with a height of 5 to 8 feet or the
construction of a decorative fence..." since the M -1 industrial zone is
located adjacent to the westerly R -A agricultural zone. (The R -A zone is
interpreted to be a single family use district.) Therefore, it appears
that additional landscaping may be necessary along the southerly,
northerly and westerly boundaries of the new filter.
C. Criteria TMC 18.66.060(4): "The proposed use shall be in keeping with
the goals, objectives, and policies of the Comprehensive Land Use Policy
Plan."
Objective 5, p. 28, encourages improvement of the quality of the air in
the City. Therefore, the design of the filter systems should include
either total enclosure or sufficient assurances that odor will not be
created.
Policies 3, 4 and 5, p. 61, encourage consideration of aesthetics and
promotion of renovation of less aesthetically pleasing areas. Softening
of the visual impact of the proposed filter towers appears appropriate in
terms of color and screening by landscaping. This would be especially
appropriate relative' to the westerly and northerly public golf course
facility, and westerly and northerly residential areas.
D. Criteria TMC 18.66.060(5): "A11 measures have been taken to minimize the
possible adverse impacts which the proposed use may have on the area in
which it is located."
The unenclosed design of the filter systems creates the real potential
for odors impacting the area during a breakdown and /or normal operations
of the system. The utilitarian design of the towers and filter system
without visual screening contributes to the visual impact of the ren-
dering plant on the area. Therefore, measures should be taken to totally
enclose the filtration system and screen the system via landscaping from
Page -4-
Planning Commission
85- 22 -UUP: SEATTLE RENDERING WORKS
July 25, 1985
adjacent properties. Evergreen trees of 2i to 3 inch caliper at a maxi-
mum of 30 foot spacing should be planted along the westerly and northerly
portion of the most westerly driveway to screen the existing filter
system.
2. Board of Architectural Review guidelines:
A. Criteria TMC 18.60.050(1): Relationship of Structure to Site
Adequate pedestrian circulation is provided on site in the existing dri-
veways. However, additional landscaping appears appropriate along the
westerly and northerly margin of the most westerly driveway in order to
accomplish transition with the adjacent properties. The "height and sca-
le" of the proposed filter system appears consistent and harmonious with
the other structures of the rendering plant.
B. Criteria TMC 18.60.050(2): Relationship of Structure and Site to
Adjoining Area.
The utilitarian and industrial appearance of the proposed filtration
system is a departure from the existing "texture, lines, and masses" of
the rendering plant. While this departure is not significant relative to
the rendering plant itself, it is significant relative to the westerly
and northerly properties. The industrial design may not be adequately
compatible with these properties.
As mentioned earlier, additional landscaping is necessary along the
westerly and northerly portion of the site to accomplish reasonable tran-
sition to adjacent westerly properties.
C. Criteria TMC 18.60.050(3): Landscape and Site Treatment
The proposal contains no landscaping beyond existing vegetation. This
does not appear to "...enhance architectural features, strengthen vistas
and important access... ". The landscaping recommended earlier should be
implemented.
Exterior illumination was not included on the submitted plans, but could
soften the utilitarian and industrial design of the proposal and con-
sequent visual impact during the hours of darkness. Therefore, any
exterior illumination should be returned to the BAR for approval.
D. Criteria TMC 18.60.050( ): Building Design
The utilitarian and industrial nature of the proposed design increasing
the overall impact of the use on the surrounding non - industrial land
uses. While the scale of the proposal is generally compatible with that
Page -5-
Planning Commission
85- 22 -UUP: SEATTLE RENDERING WORKS
July 25, 1985
• •
of surrounding development, the proposed design may not be harmonious
with adjacent westerly and northerly developments, which are mostly resi-
dential and public.
Colors of the proposal were not submitted, but staff recommends that the
proposal be painted a muted earth tone in order to soften the overall
visual impact of the proposal.
The "mechanical equipment or other utility hardware" of the facility are
not proposed to be screened from view. As recommended earlier, addi-
tional landscaping is necessary to accomplish this screening.
The design of the facility is not monotonous but is an intricate rela-
tionship of divergent forms and design subelements.
E. Criteria TMC 18.60.060(4)(a): Proposed development design should be sen-
sitive to the natural amenities of the area.
Adjacent to the subject site are the natural amenities of the Duwamish
River and public golf course. Increasing the industrial development of
the rendering plant is questionably sensitive to these existing ameni-
ties. The proposed filtration system consists of simple forms of a
straightforward industrial and utilitarian design which may not be har-
monious with the Duwamish River environment and public golf course faci-
lity.
F. Criteria TMC 18.60.060(4)(b): Proposed development use should
demonstrate due regard for the use and enjoyment of public recreational
areas and facilities.
Increasing the capacity of the filtration system via the proposal may
increase the potential for increased odor emissions which does not
"...demonstrate due regard for the use and enjoyment..." of the Duwamish
River environment and nearby public golf course. Instead of the propo-
sal, perhaps a lower profile filtration system which matches the capacity
of the existing filtration system could be utilized.
G. Criteria TMC 18.60.060(4)(c): Proposed development should provide for
safe and convenient on site pedestrian circulation.
Existing accessways on the subject site provide for adequate pedestrian
circulation.
H. Criteria TMC 18.60.060(4)(d): Proposed property use should be compatible
with neighboring uses and complimentary to the district in which it is
located.
The proposal is questionably "...compatible with neighboring uses..."
which are the Duwamish River environment, single family land uses and the
Page -6-
Planning Commission
85- 22 -UUP: SEATTLE RENDERING WORKS
July 25, 1985
public golf course. Additional odors beyond that already experienced is
potential as a result of the design of the facility and the increased
capacity of the system. The recommended total enclosure of the filtra-
tion system would contribute to reducing the odors from the plant.
However, perhaps additional study is necessary to ensure that odors will
not be created by the proposed filtration system.
I. Criteria TMC 18.60.060(4)(e): Proposed development should seek to mini-
mize significant adverse environmental impacts.
Impacts associated with the proposal have been mentioned in terms of
increased potential odor and aesthetic considerations. The proposal
addresses the deterioration of the existing filtration system and the
economic considerations of the applicant. While understandable, the pro-
posed new filtration system is a utilitarian approach which potentially
increases the odor problem and may increase the visual impact of the
existing industrial facility. The recommendations herein lessen the
overall impact of the proposal, but other measures may be necessary to
constitute substantial efforts to "...minimize significant environmental
impacts."
J. Criteria TMC 18.60.060(4)(f): Proposed development should demonstrate
due regard for significant historical features in the area.
Historical features in the area are the westerly and northerly Foster
Golf Links (Foster Family Homestead) facility, the easterly railroad
facility and the rendering plant itself. Over the years odors have been
generated by this facility. The recommended conditions help soften the
impacts of the proposal and the industrial nature of the rendering plant.
However, additional design considerations may be appropriate to more
substantially demonstrate "due regard" for the public facility.
3. Consideration of the unclassified use permit application includes the primary
issue of whether or not the proposed new filtration system represents an
increase in the existing rendering plant facility, and if so, whether or not
the increase is appropriate. Staff is concerned that the additional above-
ground improvements of the two filtration towers and accessory equipment
represents an addition beyond existing .structures and facilities, that could
substantially impact the rendering plant operation and surrounding areas, par-
ticularly the northerly and westerly residential areas and public golf course.
The potential exists that the new filtration system could increase the ren-
dering plant production capacity beyond that of the existing filter system,
however, the principle concerns are the potential odor emissions, adequacy of
the existing drainfields serving the system, and the design impacts on
surrounding development. Mitigation measures have been suggested to address
these concerns and enable approval of the proposal.
Page -7-
Planning Commission
85- 22 -UUP: SEATTLE RENDERING WORKS
July 25, 1985
PRELIMINARY RECOMMENDATION
Based on the above, staff preliminarily recommends the unclassified use permit be
approved subject to:
1. Total enclosure of the filtration system to prevent odors occuring into the
air and /or submission of documentation that odors will not occur as a direct
or indirect result of the proposal.
2. Landscaping be planted along the westerly and northerly portion of the most .
westerly driveway consisting of 2i to 3 inch caliper evergreen trees planted
at a maximum of 30 foot spacing.
3. The towers and filtration system be painted a muted earthtone color.
4. Set up a written operation and test procedure for the drain fields
which contains as a minimum:
A. Procedures for transfering effluent from drain field to drain
field with the maximum time for operation of any one field and a
minimum rest time between uses of the field. Also, include the
position description of the responsible individual.
B. Locate a minimum of 4 test wells which will be used to sample
ground water for contamination. Each location will be sampled a
minimum of twice per year. AT least one of the samples will be
taken at high tide during the period of high ground water.
5. Meet the requirements of the Department of Ecology permit, when issued.
6. Meet the requirements of RCW 90 -48 in regard to the on site waste
disposal system until the DOE permit is issued.
7. Connect to the sewer system if the drain fields fail and are not
repairable.
.8. Connect to the sewer system when the system is extended, in accordance
with the Tukwila Municipal Code.
EXHIBITS
A Site plan
B Letter of February 15, 1985, from IPEC - USA.
C Letter of April 5, 1985, from State Department of Ecology
D Plan of filter system
E Plan and elevations of filter system
Page -8-
Planning Commission
85- 22 -UUP: SEATTLE RENDERING WORKS
July 25, 1985
(RENDER,RENDER3)
(5A.2)
200 F.T.
‘`. •
,)(1`V'1 ,
agy. 1r7.4 PF.-12
C/A0,15-1-h 5.1•1/•1•
oNle43 juoe
or194
PARK1N4- 5 STALLSF-1..
Li/A CoKATOKY
ii N/OTIN4
)1-
t/OA9161 GOK
x TIN
ANAK'ot316
or or
12
WOKK_TI-111's
N5W -f0W5K
\Nevi
Otlt7. •
TOW-1
rxis-r
1-fop
PK.0655
E31-t2
1,0A/711\14
0A1
WAR -
1,4
• .
. ••."
• . • ..,
Violoolo"
ET , riNIZKIWA
. •
\
f004,1991,1.e9
Gt-z1GE t%1-1ZI,
EXHIBIT A
IPEC CONSULTANTS INC.
International Pollution and
Environmental Control
Seattle Rendering Works
P.O. Box 58368
Seattle, Washington
98188
RE: WATER POLLUTION CONTROL
Gentlemen:
'MAR 2'J 1985
CITY OF TUKWILA
PLANNING DEPT.
February 15, 1985
This letter will report on our recent investigation on the anaerobic
filter portion of your water pollution control system.
The anaerobic filter has continued to deteriorate structurally over
the past year. Despite the structural works recommended and carried out
last year as a temporary measure, the state of the filter has worsened.
Functionally, the filter is still performing at the approximate
efficiencies of last year, although you will recall that the reported
"silting -up" of the filter has resulted in generally poorer and poorer
performance.
The rapid physical deterioration of the filter and the build -up of
solids within the filter indicate that immediate steps must be taken to
replace this facility.
We continue to recommend an above ground BI0 -TOWER system to replace
the current filter system. This is based on the practical difficulties in
reworking or exactly replacing the existing unit due to space
requirements, and difficulties in replacement during continuing
operations. The above ground BIOTOWER filters have some operational
advantages at equal efficiencies.
We are proceeding with preparing a budget estimate fora two stage
BIOTOWER system as a replacement. Since your existing system has provided
adequate performance, the capacity and performance of the replacement
system will be approximately the same.
We recommend immediate action on this matter as continued
deterioration of existing facilities could pose a danger to your
drainfields and result in long term negative consequences. Also, o'-)r
escape could begin to occur and become a nuisance.
If there are any questions on the above please contact us at (2 =",)
292 -8198.
P.O. Box 1607. Vashon, Washington 98070
Yours truly,
IPEC -USA,
EXHIBIT B
Thomas .R Irwin '
• elephone: (206) 292 -8198
JOHN SPELLMAN
Governor
STATE OF WASHINGTON •
DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY
4350 -150th Ave. N.E. • Redmond, Washington 98052 • (206) 885-7900
April 5, 1985
Mr. John Stevens
Seattle Rendering Works Inc.
P. O. Box 58368
Seattle, Washington 98188
Dear Mr. Stevens:
DONALD W. MOOS
Director
WENOWEEM
APR 8 f3.85
CITY OF TUKWILA
PLANNING DEPT.
This is in reference to the concerns you have expressed regarding the
failing anaerobic filter at the Seattle Rendering facility. The
anaerobic filter is an essential unit of the wastewater treatment system
at this facility.
During our meeting on March 7, 1985 with you, Mr. Lee Johnson of Protam
Laboratories and Mr. Tom Irwin of IPEC Consultant Inc., we discussed
your plans regarding replacing the anaerobic filter unit with two.
biotowers to provide the required biological treatment to the wastewater
stream. We also discussed the urgency of the project during the
meeting.
I inspected Seattle Rendering facility on March 14, 1985 as a part of
our routine permit inspection and also to inspect the condition of the
anaerobic filter. As I observed during my inspection, the concrete
cover on the filter unit had cracked in several places and the effluent
was seeping out of it. There were strong septic odors in the vicinity
of the filter and the effluent seeping out looked black in color. It is
apparent that the filter unit is in very poor condition. In order to
provide adequate wastewater treatment at your facility, we recommended
that the filter unit be either repaired or replaced with an alternative •
trea-m:ent system. Considering the current condition of the anaerobic
filter unit, it should be repaired or replaced as soon as possible to
prevent any damage to the succeeding treatment units. This is also
necessary to prevent violations of state water quality standards that
may result from poorly treated effluent. It is likely that the poorly
treated effluent could violate state water quality st.an'ards which could
be significant from the standpoint of aquatic life and public health.
As we understand, your current plan is to replace the anaerobic filter
with two biotowers. As discussed with you, the plans and specifications
for the proposed biotowers shall be submitted to this department for
review and approval prior to construction. I am enclosing a copy of
WAC 173 -240, Construction of Wastewater Facilities, for your informa-
tion. You should review VAC 173 - 240 -110 through 173 - 240 -180 for the
proposed modification of the wastewater treatment facility at Seattle
Rendering. Since IPEC consultant is in the process of designing the
biotowers, we recommend that an engineering report be prepared for the
EXHIBIT C
Mr. John Stevens
April 5, 1985
Page 2
whole treatment system at this time. Also, it would -be to your benefit
to look at the test results from a pilot plant or a full scale model
inVOIVi g biotower•treatment of similar wastes._ If. there are any test
ra.available_I would also like to look at them.
• In ordei to prevent any odor problems from the biotower units, we will
require that these units be provided with some sort of air scrubber
... s stem. When you submit the plans and specifications for the biotowers, •
gut] E,.0 444ljwi11 contact the Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency (PSAPCA)
--- -=--° ---~ - air scrubber system. Finally, the approval of
fdr`"theZr review of the y Y
the system from the department will not guarantee that the system will
function as designed: It will be the responsibility of Seattle
Rendering Company to ensure proper operation and maintenance of the
system so that the wastewater discharge does not violate the State Water
Quality Standards.
If you have any que_..tions or comments, please contact me at this office.
Sincerely,
(i7 m •) tiwc.,
M. M. Dawda
District Engineer
Environmental Quality
MMD: jw
cc: L. Rick Beeler, City of Tukwila
John Phillips, Attorney, Seattle Rendering
Lee Johnson, Protam Laboratories
•
X16111.161
P\NAEROBV.
rtl:TER
T1 T
6
1-:
•
--www4-2.;
miwAL,K
OL-ITL,IN OF exeT
ooNci. rAr2 0 GO Kb
t -9-- WA6TVNA1-12
-10A-ft7 WA.
di.
71-4,
4_7<
. yN;
A-A
4 . •
i7.O K_.
/ k--
EXHIBIT D
"ND041/1 NAN
4.414I
,DV I
!.A
OVTINt Or 10141.
PAY, rAP ILJRD
r $1 MTIK I
-- 1KMt10 *mut an
OumP Kr aVWw1111
•9?) /VM I4.4r.1V411
KRJIICR $ IKMwa
recto
117W44( I. ger
,RAN IIh NO PM,
IVK rvu44411110■ AM.
0.( Th4I {MRW OYLC
4 T01uCR I t
IA R.,11111 INRN•Yj041
I, 1I. VARY Tyr
—
l _J
•EVII ION
APPROVED
M WOAROC
µGr- TT -cf �
$1$T6M + /W+.
W OACTau !A
tor MK-WM
PART
or/ IrYh IAA
VICINITY MAP
F10 {lAL1/
tOw1K 11
I
K i
O•n yl1•t0
I 1
1 At11 -
1 t Nf.
II (I111I
Il�j I I(� I I(�
I +ulalmnra. - �.
EJ
HARVEY a DODD & ASSOCIATES, INC.
CONSULTING ENOINEXI W
Imo 1,mm+ onmke 10,
PO 00lmn
• 44n1144. 0•.10.,010.. C I
ON) -
to-
w
cc V
��aR�•y W
CO
m
INK WOW lad
lgh
/K14 V „' nR
... ,n.I Loh pd.
W�.0 1 i4
o
ar*r huuu
WIT. NAVA/
•
rwr PLAN
MI./I II IQ,110'
44AL p4�Gr�IP?10N
/6 Att4 Otf1r1
COM INFOIRMATION
:o
1441124e 0•64
oza
11.1 HH14 Irtmu latg
>rr
60110'T101CnON Tar/ YN
rARKNp 11714.100MX00
19400. 1cN YRYA Rags Max• 1100 rat
NTY.r .IYIWIiA.
C.J
0111044. 1146.1.
140 ntw
COWL 10010014044
W
w
W
0004 44”04 Co bpi OOO••,O
• N Or owl P0004 sr. op
144441• It WO I IawCMIlLPC
4 0011•.0.00 tops
CONTENTS
I'►ot RAN.lOVtr INFORMATION,
FLAN, TOWER ELEVAI ION/ y4GT10N
PROJLCT
NEW AERODI6 tSIO-TOWCR FILTEXi
hEATTLE KENDENN4 WOKK5ING
5775 70. 190tH r.-X4 *OAT TLC, WYA41$
. 200.ca
-CITY OF TUK/IL
A
Central Permit System
MASTER LAND DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION FORM
Nom
X8o5-
9Sa2-GLt2
07- ) 7 ,a['
RECEIVED
CITY OF TUKWILA
Y21 1985
BUILDING DEPT.
PLEASE WRITE LEGIBLY OR TYPE ALL REQUESTED INFORMATION -- INCOMPLETE
ACCEPTED FOR PROCESSING.
APPLICATIONS WILL NOT
BE
SECTION I: GENERAL DATA
TYPE OF APPLICATION: D BSIP SPLAT HORT a SUBDIVISION
0 CONDITIONAL
USE
('�UNCLASS.
ii�� --��11 USE
DSHORELINE
PERMIT
PRD DPM%J0
CHG. OF
0 VAR I ANCE D
ZONING
APPLICANT' NAME TT -jLG+ 1657- ..U4%t/L%LI �Y/�O%/LIL$ JdC• TEL EPHONE
ADDRESS 57S-/16, / / 4-4C6
PROP. OWNER: NAME R-0 p.1 c, s 8')0 7, ,p7.J dd 41 /5a At TELEPHONE
DCOMP. PLAN
AMENDMENT
ZIP
BAR
INTERURBAN
-?q3 73g7
,-// ��//��l ) ..W.5-73S 7
ADDRESS 2Z2 5i/.4 , /D7 5..&-7a 7-77-e" /7//J" ZIP / tf(0
PROJECT LOCATION: (STREET ADDRESS, GEOGRAPHIC, LOT /BLOCK)
/JD 274-4C
SECTION 1I: PROJECT 1Y'1FORMATION
4) DESCRIBE BRIEFLY THE PROJECT YOU PROPOSE. /7d;r C' ®/V 5T7Z Ji 17 p .v. 'of."
Th& 44. i' i o LeGn- / 0.42)s 1? T ufm c a w'G xi s o7.0 4 �N.oer -a a
5) ANTICIPATED PERIOD OF CONSTRUCTION: FROM c TO 7///$ 6
WILL PROJECT BE DEVELOPED. -IN PHASES? 'EYES ONO IF YES,,DESCRIBE:
6)
Ave
w/
F /L T -
aer Bover OP6Ime-17-7,ve Pilioti 7�
7), PROJECT STATISTICS: .
Gv elf rrjZ'G 77 )A' /Ai P.i' 2.0 /sv7.a‹ /7a_Tls�c a'G-
A) ACREAGE OF PROJECT SITE: NET
B) FLOORS OF :CONSTRUCTION: TOTALIFLOORS
. TOTAL GROSS
FLOOR AREA
GROSS // EASEMENTS
O INCLUDES• BASEMENT O MEZZANINE
INCLUDES: D BASEMENT DMEZZANINE
C). SITE UTILIZATION: EXISTING PROPOSED :. NOTES
ZONING DESIGNATION P7r
COMP: PLAN DESIGNATION
BUILDING FOOTPRINT AREA 0 0 Two -.7.2 -4 .> /A 72,t✓Gx-5.
LANDSCAPE AREA et/OWL--- 0 0 f A M Sa., -r 1°.
PAVING AREA No A7Lt 0 0
TOTAL PARKING STALLS:
A/ti vf`r..
- STANDARD SIZE.,
-COMPACT SIZE
- HANDICAPPED SIZE.
TOTAL LOADING SPACES
AVER. SLOPE OF PARKING AREA
AVER. SLOPE OF SITE
IS THIS SITE DESIGNATED FOR SPECIAL
MAP? D YES .D NO
AD C ;v1LJ
c
Lass / °le .
Geis /'Y
CONSIDERATION ON THE CITY'S ENVIRONMENTAL BASE
SECTION I11: APPLICANT'S AFFIDAVIT
- T.f. 1'!. BE\TEFIEL -- , , -BEING DULY SWORN; DECLARE THAT 1- AM- THE --
CONTRACT PURCHASER OR OWNER OF THE PROPERTY INVOLVED IN Ti-115 APPLICATION AND THAT THE FORE-
GOING STATEMENTS AND ANSWERS HEREIN CONTAINED AND THE INFORMATION HEREWITH SUBMITTED ARE IN
ALL RESPECTS TRUE AND CORRECT TO THE BEST OF MY
DATE MAY 20, 1985 x30/
(SIGNATURE OF CONTRACT PURCHASER OR OWNER)
KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF.'
SUBSCRIBED AND SWOORN BEFO
THI
Oth
RESIDING AT
- EXHIBIT F
E STATE OF
ISSAT.TIA
AFFI
I, L. Rick Beeler
AVIT OF •DISTRIWUTION
hereby declare that: ( [ Notice of Public Hearing.
[1 Notice of Public Meeting ([ Notice of Application for Shoreline Management
Mitigated Declaration of Nonsignificance
Substantial Development Permit IX ( - {}et1-a-r-a tip- cif- S}gei-€i-eaeee- eed- 3eotrifrg- -Notes.
was mailed to each of the following addresses on
Washington State Dept. of
Ecology
Environmental Review Section
Mail Stop PV -11
Olympia, WA 98504
Washington State Dept. of
Fisheries
115 General Administration Bldg
Olympia, WA 98504
July 24
King County Building & Land
Development
Environmental Review -Sepa Info.
431 King County Admin. Bldg.
Seattle, WA 98104'
King County{fydraulics Division
900 King County Admin. Bldg.
Seattle, WA 98104
Wash. State Dept. of Natural
Resources
PO Box 68
Enumclaw, WA 98022
John E. Phillips
Market Place One Suite 555
2001 Western Avenue
Seattle, WA 98121
Name of Project Seattle Rendering Works
File Number
, 1985.
WAC 197 -11 -970
PROPOSED MITIGATED
DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE
Description of Proposal Construction of two 34+ feet filtration towers and
21 foot pumping facility to replace existing anerobic below ground filter.
system
Proponent Seattle Rendering Works, Inc.
Location of Proposal, including street address, if any 5795 S. 130th Place
Lead Agency: City of Tukwila File No. EPIC - 275_85
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.
O There is no comment period for this DNS
Q This DNS is issued under 197 -11- 340(2).
August 7, 1985. . The lead agency will not act on this
s. proposal for 15 days from the date below.
This determination is subject to the attached conditions.
Responsible Official Brad Collins
Comments must be submitted by
Position/Title Planning Director
Address
Date July 23, 1985
Phone 433 -1845
6200 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188
r
Signature
You may appeal this determination to the City Clerk at Cit ate, 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
EPIC - 275 -85 Seattle Altering Works, Inc.
1. Set up a written operation and test procedure for the drain fields
which contains as a minimum:
A. Procedures for transfering. effluent . from_drain field to drain
field with the maximum time for operation of any one field and
a minimum rest time between uses of the field. Also, include the
position description of the responsible individual.
B. Locate a minimum of 4 test wells which will be used to sample
ground water for contamination. Each location will be sampled
a minimum of twice per year. At least one of the samples will
be taken at high tide during the period of high ground water.
2. Meet the requirements of the Department of Ecology permit, when issued.
3.. Meet the requirements of RCW 90 -48 in regard to the on site waste
disposal system until the DOE permit is issued.
4. Connect to the sewer system if the drain fields fail and are not
repairable.
5. Connect to the sewer system when the system is extended, in accor-
dance with Tukwila Municipal code 14.12.030.
6. No significant increase in odor from the filter system.
• •
EPIC - 275 -85 Seattle Rendering Works, Inc.
1. Set up a written operation and test procedure for the drain fields
which contains as a minimum:
A. Procedures for transfering effluent from drain field to drain
field with the maximum time for operation of any one field and a
minimum rest time between uses of the field. Also, include the
position description of the responsible individual.
B. Locate, per Department of Ecology requirements, a minimum of 4
test wells which will be used to sample ground water for con-
tamination. Each location will be sampled a minimum of twice per
year. AT least one of the samples will be taken at high tide
during the period of high ground water. The samples will be
tested by a certified laboratory, and the results will be mailed
to the City and the Department of Ecology.
2. Meet the requirements of the Department of Ecology permit, when issued.
3. Meet the requirements of RCW 90 -48 in regard to the on site waste
disposal system until the DOE permit is issued.
4. Connect to the sewer system if the drain fields fail and are not
repairable, per findings and requirements of the Department of Ecology.
5. Connect to the sewer system when the system is extended, in accordance
with Tukwila Municipal code 14.12.030.
6. No significant increase in odor from the filter system as determined by
the Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Authority.
7. Compliance with Board of Architectural Review decision of August 8,
1985.
(REND)
( #1)
City of Tukwila
6200 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila Washington 98188
433 -1800
Gary L VanDusen, Mayor
MEMORANDUM
TO: Rick Beeler
FROM: Ross Earnst
DATE: July 18, 1985
SUBJECT: Mitigation Measures for Seattle Rendering Works
1. Set up a written operation and test procedure for the drain fields
which contains as a minimum:
A. Procedures for transfering effluent from drain field to drain
field with the maximum time for operation of any one field and a
minimum rest time between uses of the field. Also, include the
position description of the responsible individual.
B. Locate a minimum of 4 test wells which will be used to sample
ground water for contamination. Each location will be sampled a
minimum of twice per year. AT least one of the samples will be
taken at high tide during the period of high ground water.
2. Meet the requirements of the Department of Ecology permit, when issued.
3. Meet the requirements of RCW 90 -48 in regard to the on site waste
disposal system until the DOE permit is issued.
4. Connect to the sewer system if the drain fields fail and are not
repairable.
5. Connect to the sewer system when the system is extended, in accordance
with the Tukwila Municipal Code.
(REND)
(KPW.1)
\11LA
•
City of Tukwila
2 6200 Southcenter Boulevard
0
Tukwila Washington 98188
433 -1800
Gary L VanDusen, Mayor
July 10, 1985
Barbara Ritchie
Department of Ecology
Environmental Review Section
Mail Stop PV -11
Olympia, WA 98504
Re: EPIC - 275 -85, Seattle Rendering Works
Withdrawal of Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance
Dear Ms. Ritchie:
Per your interpretation of WAC 197 -11- 350(3) we are withdrawing issuance of
the Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance for Seattle Rendering Works
filter towers project because the applicant is not willing to agree to the
specified mitigation.
Inadvertently, we did not include the environmental checklist with the
Mitigated DNS previously sent to you. We are enclosing it now for your
reference.
If you should have any questions please feel free to contact me at 433 -1845.
Sincerely,
I; ;l.
Bradley J. r.' ins
Planning Director
BJC /BLK
Enclosure
cc: Applicant
Property Owner
King County Water Surface Management
Attorney General's Office
WAC 197 -11 -970
•
.MITIGATED
DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE
Description of Proposal the construction of two aerobic bio -tower filters-to replace
the existing anaerobic filter
Proponent
Seattle Rendering Works, Inc.
Location of Proposal, including street address, if any 5795 So. 130th Place
Lead Agency: City of Tukwila File No. EPIC-275.8,5
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.
(� There is no comment period for this DNS
J This DNS is issued under 197 -11- 340(2). Comments must be submitted by
July 23, 1985 . The lead agency will not act on this
proposal for 15 days from the date below.
Responsible Official Brad Collins
Position /Title Planning Director
Phone 433 -1845
Address 6200 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188
Date
11FS5- 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
Published: Record Chronicle, July 1q 1985
•
cc: wash. 6 oo. cO1ajU
�u,w� `wu;Fw S.rzY- F- Fac�J-vnQmu9,emn�
0065(0,9 GGrn.etQ -L
MITIGATED DETERMINATION O•ONSIGNIFICANCE
EPIC - 275 -85: Seattle Rendering Works, Inca
Mitigation Measures
1. Connection into sewer system /Metro treatment.
2. Meet Department of Ecology requirements as appropriate mitigation measure.
; CITY OF TORitil
:6200 SOIMICENTER
TUKWILA, VIA 95180
thti REAs
04' -
Atfp
I n a4:1`d
.
.o Ifs&IELTtriLl
24* stree-.Ahress
such officenumb
o not ternaii ll! state
"" enZioi—T;
GROW WITH US
IN THE LAND
OF THE HAZELNUTS
Ronald K. 84/lud,ith Johnson
222 S.W. 107th
Seattle, WA 98146
—
City of Tukwila
6200 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila Wasbingtor):98188
G R 0 Vt VITF°:,fiS
IN THE LA
OF THE HAZE UM'.
Ronald & J ith Johnson
222 S.W. 07th .
Seattl WA 98146
- -,
JUL 1 r#5 .
_ - -
0
if•
-0-2 5- -?s--
1
City of Tukwila
6200 Southcenter Boulevard
Tuft la Washintjton 98188 .
•
• GROW WITWUP14
IN THE , NO
1 I.
3F
cp99\
ancaot_ putiV) „7011-06(5i
.222 to, Ml //
qcp (
CITY OF TUKWILA
CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM
•
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ROUTING FORM
CN
EPIC
FILE
TO: [l BLDG n PLNG n P.W. n FIRE LICE n P & R
PROJECT arldiA a /(a 'J
LOCATION 5-7a9- '5 /')'
DATE TRANSMITTED 7-02i
STAFF COORDINATOR sec[
FILE NO. n- Z5 1tLL. 7
RESPONSE REQUESTED BY 7-":5-
k2
RESPONSE RECEIVED
THE ATTACHED ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST WAS RECEIVED REGARDING THIS PROJECT. PLEASE
REVIEW AND COMMENT BELOW TO ADVISE THE RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL REGARDING THE THRESHOLD
DETERMINATION. THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW FILE IS AVAILABLE IN THE PLANNING DEPART-
MENT THROUGH THE ABOVE STAFF COORDINATOR. COMMENTS REGARDING THE PROJECT YOU WISH
CARRIED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION, BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, AND CITY COUNCIL SHOULD BE
MADE ON THE ATTACHED CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM ROUTING FORM.
ITEM COMMENT
THIS DEPARTMENT HAS NO COMMENT RE:UPGRADE OF DISPOSAL SYSTEM. OF
CONCERN IS THE REASON BEHIND THE UPGRADE.IS IT TO:
1. PROVIDE A MORE EFFICIENT, COST EFFECTIVE FILTRATION SYSTEM, OR
2. IS IT TO PROVIDE A GREATER CAPACITY TO THE FACILITY AND THEREFORE
AN INCREASE IN THE QUANTTTY OF EFFLUENT BEING PROCESSED, AND
THEREFORE...AN INCREASE IN THE TRUCK TRAFFIC THROUGH FOSTER POINT.
THIS INCREASE IN TRAFFIC, A POSSIBILITY WITH THE NEW BRIDGE, WOULD BE
A CONCERN TO THIS DEPARTMENT.
YJ
DATE COMMENTS PREPARED BY
C.P.S. Form 11
• CITY OF TUKWILA
CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ROUTING FORM •
CN
EPIC
FILE
TO: n BLDG [j PLNG [ P.W. ] FIRE n POLICE 1-1 P & R
PROJECT
LOCATION 5?'?
lmilvj 4.1)0(tb
DATE TRANSMITTED 7-02i
FILE NO. �s 25
RESPONSE REQUESTED BY 7
STAFF COORDINATOR E3e 0 RESPONSE RECEIVED
THE ATTACHED ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST WAS RECEIVED REGARDING THIS PROJECT. PLEASE
REVIEW AND COMMENT BELOW TO ADVISE THE RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL REGARDING THE THRESHOLD
DETERMINATION. THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW FILE IS AVAILABLE IN THE PLANNING DEPART-
MENT THROUGH THE ABOVE STAFF COORDINATOR. COMMENTS REGARDING THE PROJECT YOU WISH
CARRIED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION, BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, AND CITY COUNCIL SHOULD BE
MADE ON THE ATTACHED CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM ROUTING FORM.
ITEM COMMENT
t 1 IT 1.5-, -izLbeft,t - (ORALS C -IC. NT-o A •
s sqr-eYY\ %V L WIT 1D,
4 U I kern Li As A-PP jl,r) P 21ATE NI 111 --T-f 01,N
1tiNENSU ills
DATE 7 / 7/8:C COMMENTS PREPARED BY
L i
C.P.S. Form 11
• CITY OF TUKWILA
CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM
ENVIRONMENTAL _EVIEW ROUTING FORM
TO: BLDG [j PLNG f j P.W.
PROJECT
LOCATION
&, b1 nri 'Lb'th.
DATE TRANSMITTED 17',
CN
EPIC
FILE
FIRE n POLICE n P & R
STAFF COORDINATOR P3ed
FILE NO. ,s Z5"1,{(,( -0
RESPONSE REQUESTED BY 7-.3 021:
RESPONSE RECEIVED
THE ATTACHED ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST WAS RECEIVED REGARDING THIS PROJECT. PLEASE
REVIEW AND COMMENT BELOW TO ADVISE THE RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL REGARDING THE THRESHOLD
DETERMINATION. THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW FILE IS AVAILABLE IN THE PLANNING DEPART-
MENT THROUGH THE ABOVE STAFF COORDINATOR. COMMENTS REGARDING THE PROJECT YOU WISH
CARRIED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION, BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, AND CITY COUNCIL SHOULD BE
MADE ON THE ATTACHED CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM ROUTING FORM.
ITEM COMMENT
edrrm6t77 S 77-4- 7/7
DATE COMMENTS PREPARED BY /Z
C.P.S. Form 11
JOHN E. PHILLIPS
BARBARA A. WILSON
HAND DELIVER
LAW OFFICES OF
PHILLIPS & WILSON
A PROFESSIONAL SERVICE CORPORATION
MARKET PLACE ONE -SUITE 555
2001 WESTERN AVENUE
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98121
June 25, 1985
Mr. L. Rick Beeler
Associate Planner
City of Tukwila
6200 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila, Washington 98188
(206) 467 -7766
[MEM 1
L2 8 1985
CITY QF TUKW4i..A
PLANNING DEPT,
Re: Environmental Review /Seattle Rendering
EPIC - 257 -85
Dear Mr. Beeler:
Works
The following information is submitted pursuant to your
request in your letter to me dated June 7, 1985. This infor-
mation has been provided to me by Seattle Rendering Works;
Lee Johnson, a chemist and consultant and expert advising
Seattle Rendering Works; Phillip M. Botch & Associates,
Consulting Engineers; Shannon & Wilson, Inc., Geotechnical
Consultants; Laucks Testing Laboratories, Inc.; IPEC -USA
Consultants, experts on international pollution and environ-
mental control; and Frank Hofmeister of Harvey R. Dodd &
Associates, Consulting Engineers.
The questions your letter presents are answered slightly
out of order to facilitate adequate and complete discussing
of the subjects.
(1) and (2). Engineering Report Regarding the Condition
of the Existing Drainfields and Their Life Expectancy.
Please find attached a report prepared by Shannon &
Wilson, Inc., Geotechnical Consultants for Seattle Rendering
Works which provides an expert opinion as to the life expect-
ancy of the drainfields. The report was written in 1980,
and, as of this date there have been no failure of the
drainfields. Because of the rotation -rest regiment given to
the six drainfields, no failures are anticipated. Also
attached is F.C.R. Technical letter giving the ground geology.
As it explains, when the anaerobic filter system is replaced
and there continues to be clean water and continued rotation
of the drainfields, there should be no problem with the
existing drainfields. There is, therefore, an indefinite
life expectancy with a properly operating system.
Mr. L. Rick Bee.
June 25, 1985
Page 2
(5) and (10). Effect on the Duwamish River and Shore-
line Environment.
Please find attached Laucks Testing Laboratories, Inc.
Certificate of Analysis No. 88283 -1 reporting on the bio-
chemical oxygen demand results of two samples taken on
February 1, 1985 from test holes drilled at the perimeter of
the north drainfield, pursuant to Washington State Department
of Ecology request. The results show a 5 -day BOD of 10 PPM
and 11 PPM, which are extremely low. This indicates the
ground water draining into the river is not being contaminat-
ed by the drainfield effluent. This further indicates that
the impact on the Duwamish River and its shoreline environ-
ment is presently negligible. With the new anaerobic filter
system, the results should even be better and show no affect
on the shoreline environment. Seattle Rendering Works plans
to continue to monitor the drainfields. Failure to immedi-
ately approve the new towers and system could cause negative
impacts to the river.
(6) and (9). Evaluation of Alternative Filter Systems.
Please find attached a letter dated December 14, 1983
from IPEC -USA outlining the "best replacement water treatment
system for the existing anaerobic filter system ". This
document shows that the composite hourly samples from the DAF
I Effluent system and the effluent required and options.
Other recommendations to Seattle Rendering Works result-
ed in further studies on Bio- Oxidation Towers as discussed in
the attached letter dated May 2, 1985 to the Washington State
Department of Ecology.
Seattle Rendering Works believes that they have selected
the best filter system to handle the waste water volume
discharge, while protecting the environment and meeting the
needs of Seattle Rendering Works.
(8). Evaluation of the Possibility of Connecting the
Filter System to Metro Sewer Systems in Lieu of Utilization
of the Drainfield.
Connection of the filter system to Metro sewer systems
is not economically feasible. However, even if it was
possible, it would still be necessary to construct the new
towers and filtration system.
Several economic studies have been made to evaluate the
option of pumping the untreated, semi- treated, and
fully- treated effluent into the Metro sewer main running
along Interurban Avenue. The first route studied is the
route running southwest across Foster golf course linking to
a man hole at the intersection of 139th Street and Maule
Road. The second route is south along the railroad
Mr. L. Rick Beer
June 25, 1985
Page 3
right -of -way and west along South 139th Street (Edwards Road)
to the intersection of 139th Street and Maule Road. Please
find attached a letter from Phillip M. Botch & Associates
dated August 27, 1982 which outlines the costs which were
then associated with these alternatives ($149,000 and
$118,000 respectively). Of course, those figures would be
higher in 1985 -86.
In addition to the foregoing costs there would be a
latecomer's fee of approximately $52,272.00. Sewer charges
would run $1.29/100 cubic feet per month. At the rate of
63,600 GPD or 8,537 cubic feet per day x 25 days would amount
to 256,107 cubic feet of sewage to be dumped at a cost of
$3,560.00 per month. If you were to amortize the route 2
costs (the cheaper one) and the latecomer's fee over five
years, it would amount to approximately $34,000 fixed costs
plus $52,720 dumping fee for a total yearly outlay of $86,720
per year not including financing charges or the cost of
installing the new bio towers and operating the waste dispos-
al plant. Of course these figures which would be substant-
ially higher today, are uneconomical and unnecessary.
If the bio towers are not installed, further charges by
Metro would be made because of the surcharges for excess
suspended solids and excess BOD.
The BOD being pumped into the sewer would be @ 1500 PPM.
With a surcharge of $0.035/# of BOD in excess of 300 PPM a
charge of $0.035 x 1200 x 63,000 x 8.34 x 30/1,000,000 would
result in an additional charge of $662.00 per month or
$7,944.00 per year.
A surcharge of $0.045/# suspended solids over 400 PPM
will also be charged. As the suspended solids being fed to
the bio towers will be @ 1200 PPM additional charges of 0.045
x 800 x 63,000 x 8.34 x 30 would result in excess suspended
solids charges of $567.00 per month or $6,809.00 per year.
As Metro will not accept effluents with over 100 PPM oil
and grease, operation of a bio tower or anaerobic filter
dissolved air flotation system to remove the oil and grease
in excess of 100 PPM must occur.
It is an indisputable fact that Seattle Rendering Work's
effluent must have tertiary treatment either before being
pumped into a sewer or going into the six drainfields.
Therefore there is no question that they must replace the
system whether discharging into the drainfields or even if
pumped to Metro sewer system.
With adequate capacity in the existing six drainfields,
which has been assured, it would be unrealistic, unnecessary
and not cost effective to propose to install a force main to
connect to the Metro sewer and pay dumping fees at a cost of
Mr. L. Rick Bee r •
June 25, 1985
Page 4
more than $76,700 per year. Even if the system was connected
to the Metro sewer system, there remains the requirement to
replace the filtering system with the towers.
(4) Survey.
A copy of the land survey and plans have been provided
to you under separate cover showing that the bio towers will
be constructed out of the 200 foot line of the shoreline.
(3) Breakdown.
Should a mechanical or electrical failure or stoppage
occur, the forced air system of the bio tower would become
inoperative. The pumps feeding the tower from the closed
equalization tanks would also be inoperative and therefore no
new untreated effluent would be pumped over the expanded
media into the tanks. Since the media has a large surface
area per unit volume, normal oxidation of the residual
effluent would continue to occur and odors would be minimal.
The disposal system prior to the bio filter is contained
either in the main production building or in enclosed equal-
ization tanks so mechanical or electrical failures would have
little effect on the ecological aspects.
(7) Views.
The bio towers would not be seen from adjacent proper-
ties and therefore views are not affected. Existing build-
ings and tanks which are approximately 60 feet are much
taller than the proposed bio towers which are 30 feet high
and will blend in with the entire manufacturing complex,
hence no visual screening is contemplated or needed. Pres-
ently the view of the facility is screened by vegetation from
the west and north; the east is bounded by the main line of
the BNSF Burlington Northern Railroad and a high bluff used for
demolition debris; the south is undeveloped property. The
bio towers would blend in with the surrounding buildings and
would not be visible to the general public.
We hope the above information is sufficient to answer
all your questions. As you know they would like to complete
this matter so that they may install the new bio towers
immediately.
As we previously informed you, the Department of Ecology
as well as other agencies have requested and required that
Seattle Rendering Works install the new towers. We believe
that these towers will be designed in order to protect the
environment and hence any delay in allowing Seattle Rendering
Works to install them could cause damage. If it is the
City's position that they are responsible under the State
Environmental Policy to protect the environment, it appears
that the City should be requiring the towers as a mitigating
Mr. L. Rick Beellpr
June 25, 1985
Page 5
measure rather than suggesting any other action by Seattle
Rendering Works.
If you have any questions or need additional informs=
tion, please do not hesitate to contact me or Lee Johnson who
provided most of the above information.
JEP:nlb
Enclosures
cc w /enc: Lee Johnson
cc: Seattle Rendering Works
rm' Sew., ea/u-frumi-c2 �
CITY OF TUKWILA 110 ICN 55=/3 s'
CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM EPIC ,27 T-35
FILE 2'3 - i-L(,1.0
ENVIRONMENTAL
TO: BLDG [] PLNG
PROJECT
LOCATION 579 /30 44/jaQ.
VIEW ROUTING FORM
P.W. (j FIRE POLICE 17 P & R
c 4i./ WO-Y /14/ - (i P2(V 7 .S?> d 11,54 ,uryn,
FILE NO. / S -,2 :2 -tat40
DATE TRANSMITTED 5-1.2-g5- RESPONSE REQUESTED BY .5-2Q15
STAFF COORDINATOR
RESPONSE RECEIVED
THE ATTACHED ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST WAS RECEIVED REGARDING THIS PROJECT. PLEASE
REVIEW AND COMMENT BELOW TO ADVISE THE RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL REGARDING THE THRESHOLD
DETERMINATION. THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW FILE IS AVAILABLE IN THE PLANNING DEPART-
MENT THROUGH THE ABOVE STAFF COORDINATOR. COMMENTS REGARDING THE PROJECT YOU WISH
CARRIED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION, BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, AND CITY COUNCIL SHOULD BE
MADE ON THE ATTACHED CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM ROUTING FORM.
ITEM COMMENT
_4 VZ 7Leel -,i,fri/).PA;1- &71 --r,ie -e/A;1Z, ;' \ /ze,4
,e' Gam, 9-7-63
(4zu sii, ,i6(,-d-+ e6Le-4. 1 9 (7-7-
// (d).
h41/7-(.., e-..4 .2,12-'4 0-1 4 p.r.e." fAa4-1,66..r22-..
ic{;(,-e_6in).0 ^ 4--_,Ife.c.e ii-A x_e_e_"/;Ated-laY
1
ii-a 7 / .
„e0
DATE ,,j 3/ .75 COMMENTS PREPARED BY
C.P.S. Form 11
,>,
CITY OF TUKWILA
CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM
roc eOrkulu,r11--Q
.CN Y5- /alp
EPIC 2V"--35
FILE 5 -,2. =GG,L(.-
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ROUTING FORM
TO: n BLDG ] PLNG r P.W. n FIRE n POLICE El P & R
PROJECT ,etifiG%/1Jl4C1 ,t)( /4/ - Oil(V 2 •?d Um, i,am rrf' 4
LOCATION 579, ,',. 1x30' ' FILE NO. 15 :2 l.(apo
DATE TRANSMITTED 5-02,2-5'5-
07.2 -8✓ RESPONSE REQUESTED BY 5 -2Q-?5
STAFF COORDINATOR r RESPONSE RECEIVED
THE ATTACHED ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST WAS RECEIVED REGARDING THIS PROJECT. PLEASE
REVIEW AND COMMENT BELOW TO ADVISE THE RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL REGARDING THE THRESHOLD
DETERMINATION. THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW FILE IS AVAILABLE IN THE PLANNING DEPART-
MENT THROUGH THE ABOVE STAFF COORDINATOR. .COMMENTS REGARDING THE PROJECT YOU WISH
CARRIED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION, BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, AND CITY COUNCIL SHOULD BE
MADE ON THE ATTACHED CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM ROUTING FORM.
DATE /d
COMMENTS PREPARED BY
C.P.S. Form 11
CITY OF TUKWILA
CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM
••
CN 85 /31,
EPIC .2785
FILE Y5~..2;
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ROUTI FORM
TO: (J BLDG PLNG j P.W. n FIRE 17 POLICE (l P & R
PROJECT airkil/L6 WO-r&40/ -U_ii('/01t`//1.Cd 466 J*617,1 tL
LOCATION 5795 " > Qg'iQP. FILE NO. /5 -,2 tay0
DATE TRANSMITTED 5 22 -85 RESPONSE REQUESTED BY 5 02Q-fJ5
STAFF COORDINATOR
RESPONSE RECEIVED
THE ATTACHED ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST WAS RECEIVED REGARDING THIS PROJECT. PLEASE
REVIEW AND COMMENT BELOW TO ADVISE THE RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL REGARDING THE THRESHOLD
DETERMINATION. THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW FILE IS AVAILABLE IN THE PLANNING DEPART-
MENT THROUGH THE ABOVE STAFF COORDINATOR. .COMMENTS REGARDING THE PROJECT YOU WISH
CARRIED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION, BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, AND CITY COUNCIL SHOULD BE
MADE ON THE ATTACHED CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM ROUTING FORM.
ITEM COMMENT
t3 0
� .
b,4vec, 35' - �3a' -// 4 T
DATE Z9 - S j COMMENTS PREPARED BY
A(WPZil,
C.P.S. Form 11
h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or
other impacts to the earth, if any:
None needed.
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 completed? If any, generally
describe and give approximate quantities if known.
The emissions during construction will be from the
exhaust of construction equipment. which will he
minimal.
'rSee Attached Sheet
b. Are there any off -site sources of emissions or odor
that may affect your proposal? If so, generally
describe. No. There are no off -site emission
that effect this proposal.
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or
other impacts to air, if any: The air from the
process filters will be routed throu • h a wet scr
i a e any o•ors prior to discharging into: the
atmosphere.
.-
• •
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. lies. The
Green River. The proposed towers will be
constructed more than 200 ft. from the
shore in1' of the Green River.
•
Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
•
Attachment
2. Air
a. (con't. page 5)
No significant air emission will occur as a
result of the completed construction. I n
operation maximum air discharge is
5000 CFM of wet scrubbed air from the
Aerobic Bio -Tower System, there will
be significantly less odor emissions, if
any.
•
2) Will the project require any work over, in, or
adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described
waters? If yes, please describe and attach
availably Tans. The new construction will not
be 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 affectedfill or Indicate the
source of fill material. dredging
in the Green River or wttIand is
associated with this project
4) Will the proposal require surface water
withdrawals or diversions? Give general
description, purpose, and approximate quan -.
tities, if known. No
5) Does the proposal lie within a 100 -year
floodplain? If so, note location on the site
plan. No
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
!valuation for
Agency Use Only
•
b. Ground:
1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be.
discharged to ground water? Give general
description, purpose, and approximate quan-
tities, if known. No water will be
withdrawn from the ground. Treated waste
water will be discharged into the existing
anaerobic filter drainfield at apprnximatPly
44 gal. per minute.
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.
Treated water only will be discharged into the
existing drainfield. The discharge rate of the
titter waste water will not be changed as a result
of this proposal. The water discharge will be
cleaner than the present discharge, and discharge
no odor into the air. The proposal protects the
groundwater at the site by. treatment prior to
discharge into the existing drainfield.
•
Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
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.
Not applicable for this permit. The existing
site is served by a series of catch basins, and
the surface water runoff is discharged_ into the
Green River.
• •
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.
The project will require electicity to power -
the pump associated with the waste water
treatment process.
b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar
energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally
describe. No
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: None
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. No
1) Describe special emergency services that might
be required. None
2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environ-
mental health hazards, if any: The proposed
modification is a direct and timely measure to re-
duce a developing potential environmental health
hazard due to physical deterioration of an existing
portion of the waste water pretreatment prnrecs .
Action is required on an immediate basis or there
could be a health hazard.
-10-
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)? None
2) What types and levels of noise would be created
by or associated with the project on a short -
term or a long -term basis (for example: traf-
fic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate
what hours noise would come from the site.
The sound of construction equipment between
7:00 a.m. and 5: uU p.m. will be created during'
construction.
3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise
impacts, if any: The equipment is all
equipped with mufflers to mitigate any noise
Impact.
8. Land and Shoreline Use
•
•
What is the current use of the site and adjacent
properties? The site is currently used for
processing of animal wastes by a rendering
process. The adjacent property is a railroad rirg.ht
of way.
b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so,
describe. No
c. Describe any structures on the site. The site is
presently developed with an office. a labnratnry, _
process and shop building, and an urn' clerground
anaerobic filter for Seattle Rendering Workc, Inc
Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
w •
d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, chat?
No -
e. What is the current zoning classification of -the
site? M -1
f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation
of the site? Light Industrial
9.
If applicable, what is the current shoreline master
program designation of the site? Not applicable
h. Has any part of the site been classified as an
"environmentally sensitive" area? If so, specify.
Yes. Due to the shoreline of the Green River.
i. Approximately how many people would reside or work
in the completed project? Di a loyees workat,
the site during normal working hours.
j. Approximately how many people would the completed
project displace? None
k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement
impacts, if any: Not applicable
1. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is com-
patible with existing and projected land uses and
plans, if any: Not applicable
Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
• •
9. Housing
a. Approximately how may units would be provided, if
any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low- income
housing? 'None
b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eli-
minated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low -
income housing. None
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing
impacts, if any: None
10. Aesthetics
What is the tallest height of any proposed
structure(s), not including antennas; what is the
principal exterior building material(s) proposed?
Two 35' -0" high prefabricated steel towers
b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be
altered or obstructed? None
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic
impacts, if any: The new aerobic bio- towers will be
painted and maintained in a clean and neat manner,
and will blend in with the existing buildings. The
towers are a substantial distance from public view.
Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
• •
.1. Light and Glare
a. ghat type of light or glare will the proposal
produce? What time of day would it mainly occur?
None
b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a
safety hazard or interfere with views? No
c. What existing off -site sources of light or glare may
affect your proposal? None
d. Proposed measures to reduce or-control light and
glare impacts, if any: None
12. Recreation
a. What designed and informal recreational oppor-
tunities are in the immediate vicinity?
Foster Golf Course is south of the site.
b. Would the proposed project displace any existing
recreational uses? If so, describe. No
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on
recreation, including recreation opportunities to be
provided by the project or applicant, if any:
The project will not alter the existing
recreational opportunities in the vicinity of the
site.
Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
CITY OF TUKWILA
CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ROUTING FORM
TO: n BLDG 1---1 PLNG (� P
PROJECT a 7dJ4 49 W'r ?4/
LOCATION 5 -1dq Je3e) 46 icy .
DATE TRANSMITTED 5,22-35-
•cN S-
8
EPIC .27./z35
FILE 2(5 -..2a tl.1 -(-P
.W. [ FIRE 0 POLICE [i P & R
!inc /015fbiCd U )67evrni
FILE NO. 15'- :2 GGGLp
RESPONSE REQUESTED BY ,.5- 2Q-g5
STAFF COORDINATOR
RESPONSE RECEIVED
THE ATTACHED ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST WAS RECEIVED REGARDING THIS PROJECT. PLEASE
REVIEW AND COMMENT BELOW TO ADVISE THE RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL REGARDING THE THRESHOLD
DETERMINATION. THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW FILE IS AVAILABLE IN THE PLANNING DEPART-
MENT THROUGH THE ABOVE STAFF COORDINATOR. .COMMENTS REGARDING THE PROJECT YOU WISH
CARRIED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION, BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, AND CITY COUNCIL SHOULD BE
MADE ON THE ATTACHED CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM ROUTING FORM.
ITEM COMMENT
NN.
DATE S n -gC COMMENTS PREPARED BY •
C.P.S. Form 11
r ,
F F ,,e/xt: eorn
CITY OF TUKWILA CN
CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM EPIC .27,9-15
FILE
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ROUTING FORM
TO: [—] BLDG PLNG n P.W. n FIRE n POLICE ER
PROJECT 7 jjJ4 wo -rieQ/ -U.!'1r/O..Sfi:Cd /Opi/h'U A
LOCATION 5795 )3 ' 2F. FILE NO. /6- -.7,012140
DATE TRANSMITTED 5-02.2-y5- RESPONSE REQUESTED BY 5-2Q15
STAFF COORDINATOR
RESPONSE RECEIVED
THE ATTACHED ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST WAS RECEIVED REGARDING THIS PROJECT. PLEASE
REVIEW AND COMMENT BELOW TO ADVISE THE RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL REGARDING THE THRESHOLD
DETERMINATION. THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW FILE IS AVAILABLE IN THE PLANNING DEPART-
MENT THROUGH THE ABOVE STAFF COORDINATOR. COMMENTS REGARDING THE PROJECT YOU WISH
CARRIED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION, BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, AND CITY COUNCIL SHOULD BE
MADE ON THE ATTACHED CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM ROUTING FORM.
ITEM COMMENT r
DATE " = d2. t/- �,S- COMMENTS PREPARED BY_________________________________ _-__4.--✓
C.P.S. Form 11
,c 3
IlLA
40-
4 City of Tukwila
Z 6200 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila Washington 98188
433 -1800
Gary L VanDusen, Mayor
;1909
•
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Department
FROM: Don Williams, Parks and Recreation Director
DATE: May 24, 1985
SUBJECT: Response to Rendering Works - Unclassified Use Permit Request
Our department's comments involve the aesthetics of the two 35 feet
high by 22 feet wide steel towers. The location of the towers is such
that from the Foster Golf Links they will be visible from approximately 13
of the 18 holes. The present facility has very little landscaping and I.
see nothing in their proposal to screen the existing buildings nor the new
towers.
One of the main reasons why people enjoy playing at Foster is because of
the pleasant surroundings of grass and trees, and not having to look at man
made features. The two towers will be highly visible and obtrusive to the
60,000 plus golfers who play at Foster each year.
I disagree with the proponents statement on page 10 of the
Environmental Checklist that no views would be altered. I believe the
construction of the two sizeable towers will be very visible and cause a
change from present views. I do not recommend the towers be allowed to be
built based on a negative impact on the views at the golf course.
eOntiourAL
CITY OF TUKWILA
CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM
N S-
EPIC .2735
FILE 2'5 - ,2.- -(,{,(,(..P
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ROUTING FORM
TO: n BLDG n PLNG n P.W. n FIRE POLICE n P & R
PROJECT Y7G%/J /4 Wor' ' - 5>eh 16-6
/Dj v,ni i4
LOCATION 5795 /36 ih'np
DATE TRANSMITTED 5--22-'5
STAFF COORDINATOR
FILE NO. S -a ,7 tat p
RESPONSE REQUESTED BY 5- e2Q1.5-
RESPONSE RECEIVED
THE ATTACHED ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST WAS RECEIVED REGARDING THIS PROJECT. PLEASE
REVIEW AND COMMENT BELOW TO ADVISE THE RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL REGARDING THE THRESHOLD
DETERMINATION. THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW FILE IS AVAILABLE IN THE PLANNING DEPART-
MENT THROUGH THE ABOVE STAFF COORDINATOR. .COMMENTS REGARDING THE PROJECT YOU WISH
CARRIED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION, BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, AND CITY COUNCIL SHOULD BE
MADE ON THE ATTACHED CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM ROUTING FORM.
ITEM COMMENT
/5; 4 1 LU h c a. �l.� 4 �d 1 r c r c
L4 (:k d se( u k4PL_2 c.o pOss- fa,
1 ✓} -�Gt� f- S �-p-G� -* Ski —J4� t-tJcd.o
ck 4713
eZ• q,� fi.. U� r I _ lksL.
;! t • • .Q- r � I r t AJo e...Q ct
4�:' �irr; i 0s.11 p DS.S;b)
DATE COMMENTS PREPARED BY
C.P.S. Form 11
.) I .7(..P
CITY OF TUKV LA .51 4 RECERTM
CITY OF 1UKIMU4
�5 -,72 -tLUO
Central Permit System
MASTER LAND DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION FORM
MAY 211985
sUNQ DEFT.
PLEASE WRITE LEGIBLY OR TYPE ALL REQUESTED INFORMATION - - INCc PLETE APPLICATIONS WILL NOT BE
ACCEPTED FOR PROCESSING.
SECTION 1:
GENERAL DATA
TYPE
OF APPLICATION: D BSIP SHORT
PLAT
CONDITIONAL
USE
0 SUBDIVISION D SHORELINE
PERMIT
OrUSESS. a VARIANCE
USE
0 PRD DPMUD
DCHG. OF DCOMP. PLAN
ZONING AMENDMENT
APPL 1 CANT: NAME .5e/,- Tr' G� F-L- /Z b� /Lilj W (214 5 `JI/C .TELEPHONE
ADDRESS 5795 .5- /.v/�' i4/064
PROP. OWNER: NAME gt'/i4l,7 1' etJo 7d dd �f% NSo,oi TELEPHONE (
ADDRESS 17.7./2- S , m / , /0 7 h1/1
PROJECT LOCATION: (STREET ADDRESS, GEOGRAPHIC, LOT /BLOCK)
-7755- .5 1.5D (P`•/JGC
ZIP
ZIP
BAR
1NTERURBAN
-?9.5 73g7
rPly�
<DV3-73S 7
l V
SECTION 1I: PROJECT I NFORMATION
)
)
DESCRIBE BRIEFLY THE
12410 fl i7Z913 �L•
PROJECT YOU PROPOSE. /' . /-L''Q/�SY?�c,Gj7p.k7 Q%-
TRIO lc�u�G'n- / -7Zn -S PTO /ZG7', cc- The P.X/Sr),7a �NAL-'7 -oe5�
ANT 1C1PATED PERIOD OF CONSTRUCTION: FROM ? N$ 5 TO 7//`$
WILL PROJECT BE DEVELOPED.•IN PHASES? ® YES ONO IF YES,.pESCRIBE:
1 / / O w tv4 8 j 23 '/ - 2 e e Pen-19 7.7 Pv 4 f L/D ,1E, 73
12 . ' 1iv 7-we" ex i s) rz-
f t 7232. •
PROJECT STATISTICS:
A) ACREAGE OF PROJECT SITE:
B) FLOORS OF CONSTRUCTION:
SITE UTILIZATION:
ZONING DESIGNATION
COMP. PLAN DESIGNATION
BUILDING FOOTPRINT AREA
LANDSCAPE AREA
PAVING AREA
TOTAL PARKING STALLS.:
- STANDARD SIZE.
- COMPACT SIZE
- HANDICAPPED SIZE
TOTAL
AVER.
AVER.
NET GROSS
TOTAL I FLOORS
TOTAL GROSS
FLOOR AREA
LOADING SPACES
SLOPE OF PARKING AREA
SLOPE OF SITE
a INCLUDES:
P INCLUDES:
EXISTING
A /vNr ❑
No nit ❑
PROPOSED
41A; yr r�
EASEMENTS
0 BASEMENT D MEZZANINE
BASEMENT MEZZANINE
NOTES
❑ Two . j -4 9 /4 Towcn -s•
❑ dNGs av� �'•
0
eVO C1A-4(14 L%
r•
r2.v
ft5s /070
Les-s l °iv
IS THIS SITE DESIGNATED FOR SPECIAL CONSIDERATION
MAP? D YES D NO
ON THE CITY'S ENVIRONMENTAL BASE
SECTION I 1 1 : APPL I CANT' S_ AFF I DAV_LT_
1 , W. W. BEtEF-IEL , BEING DULY SWORN, DECLARE THAT I AM THE
CONTRACT PURCHASER OR OWNER OF THE PROPERTY INVOLVED IN THIS APPLICATION AND THAT THE FORE-
GOING STATEMENTS AND ANSWERS HEREIN CONTAINED AND THE INFORMATION HEREWITH SUBMITTED ARE IN
ALL RESPECTS TRUE AND CORRECT TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF.
DATE MAY 20, 1985
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN BEFO: ME
THIS/ .0th
19 85 .
PUZLI•: IN AND
RESIDING AT
STATE OF ASHINGTON
(SIGNATURE OF CON'RACT PURCHASER
OR OWNER)
A ocu►
O 2 0 1985
o ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
loam
Control No. 8S" 136
Epic File No.
Fee $100.00 Receipt No.Q6162
A. BACKGROUND
1. Name of proposed .project, if applicable: Two Aerobic Bio -Tower Filter & Sump Pits
2. Name of applicant: Seattle Rendering Works, Inc. c/o Harvey R. Dodd & Assoc., Inc.
3. Address .and phone number of applicant and contact person: Harvey R. Dodd & Assoc, Inc.
P.O. Box 20038, Seattle, WA 98102 (206) 328 -1500 Contact: .Frank Hofmeister
4. Date checklist prepared:
May 17, 1985
5. Agency /requesting Checklist:
City of Tukwila
6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable):
The construction will begin upon issuance of .a building permit and will be completed
within one year.
7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity
related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. None
8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will
be prepared, directly related to this proposal. None
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
10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal.
City of Tukwila Building Permit
Electrical Permit
Unclassified: Use Permit, if required
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.
The proposal consists of replacing the existing anaerobic filter system by the rnnstruction
of twoj 22' -4" diameter by 30' -11" high towers and related sumps and piping to process
waste water from animal waste rendering by an aerobic, 'filter process prior to discharging
the water into an existing drain field.
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.
The project is located at 5795 South 130th Place, Tukwila, Washington
13. Does the proposal lie within an area designated on the City's Comprehensive Land
Use Policy Plan Map as environmentally sensitive?
No
• •
TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT
b. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS
1. Earth
a. General description of the site (circle one):
rolling, hilly, steep slopes, ,mountainous, other
Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
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.
Loose brown silty sand and gravel
d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable
soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe.
No
Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quanti-
ties of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate
source of f i l l . The area of the foundations for the _
tanks will be excavated, and refilled with an
engineered- compacted_ fill in accoardance with
Shannon & Wilson, Inc. recommendations.
f. Could erosion occur as a result of .clearing,
construction, or use? If so, generally describe.
g.
About what percent of the site will be covered with
impervious surfaces after project construction (for
example, sphalt or buildings)? •.The site is
presently developed and approximately one percent
lb wvered wlth.lmpervious surtaces. - No ,.addi tional
surface will be created.'
Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or
other impacts to the earth, if any:
None needed.
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 completed? If any, generally
describe and give approximate quantities if known.
The emissions during construction will be from the
exhaust of construction equipment. which will hp
minimal.
*See Attached Sheet
b. Are there any off -site sources of emissions or odor
that may affect your proposal? If so, generally
describe. No. There are no off -site emissions
that effect this proposal.
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or
other impacts to air, if any: The air from the
process filters will be routed through a wet scrubber
ina a any o ors prior to discharging into: the
atmosphere.
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.
lies. The
Green River. The proposed towers will be
constructed more than 200 ft. from the
o e inT off the Green River.
Attachment
2 Air
•
(con't. page 5)
No significant air emission will occur as a
result of the completed construction. I n
operation maximum -air discharge is
5000 CFM of wet scrubbed air from the
Aerobic Bio -Tower System, there will
be significantly Tess odor emissions, if
any.
•
2) Will the project require any work over, in, or
adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described
waters? If yes, please describe and attach
availably.plans. The new construction will not
be 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. Indicat the
source of fill material. or dredging
in the Green River or wetland is
associated with this project
4.) Will the proposal require surface water
withdrawals or diversions? Give general
description, purpose, and approximate quan-
tities, if known. No
5) Does the proposal lie within a 100 -year
floodplain? If so, note location on the site
plan. No
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
Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
•
Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
b. Ground:
1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be
discharged to ground water? Give general
description, purpose, and approximate quan-
tities, if known. No water will.be
withdrawn from the ground. Treated waste
water will be discharged into the existing
anaerobic filter drainfield at approximately
44 gal. per minute.
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._
Treated water only will be discharged into the
existing drainfield: The discharge rate of the
filter waste water will not be changed as a resin
of this proposal. The water discharge will be
cleaner than the present discharge, and discharge
no odor into the air. The proposal protects the
groundwater at the site by treatment prior to
discharge into the existing drainfield. .
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.
Not applicable for this. permit. The existing
site is served by a series. of catch basins and
the surface water runoff is "dischargectintn the _
been iver.
•
Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface
waters? If so, generally describe. No
d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface,
ground, and runoff water impacts, if any:
None
4. Plants
a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the
site:
X deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other
X evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine; other
X 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 am N one of vegetation will be removed
or altered?
c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on
or near the site. None
Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other
measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the
site, if any: None
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
other:
trout, herring, shellfish,
b. List any threatened or endangered species known to
be on or near the site. None
c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so,
explain. No
d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlif
' if any: No
•
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.
The project will require electicity to pnwer
the pump associated with the waste water
treatment process.
b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar
energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally
describe. No
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: None
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. No
1) Describe special emergency services that might
be required. None
2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environ-
mental health hazards, if any: The proposed
modification is a direct and timely measure to re-
duce a developing potential environmental health
hazard due to physical deterioration of an existing
portion of the waste water pretreatment process •
Action is required on an immediate basis or there
could be a health hazard.
-10-
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)? None
2) What types and levels of noise would be created
by or associated with the project on a short -
term or a long-term basis (for example: traf-
fic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate
what hours noise would come from the site.
The sound of construction equipment between
7:00 a.m. and 5: UU p.m. will be created during.
•construction.
3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise
impacts, if any: The equipment is all
equipped with mufflers to mitigate . any noise
Impact.
8. Land and Shoreline Use
What is the current use of the site and adjacent
properties? The site, is currently used for
processing of animal wastes by a rendering
process. The adjacent property is a railroad right
of way.
a.
b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so,
describe. No
c. Describe any structures on the site. The site is
presently developed with an office. a laboratnry,
process and shop building, and an underground
anaerobic filter for Seattle Rendering Works, Inc,
•
Evaluation for
Agency. Use Only
d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what?
No
e. What is the current zoning classification of the
site? M-1:
f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation
of the site? Light Industrial
g.
If applicable, what is the current shoreline master
program designation of the site? Not applicable
h. Has any part of the site been classified as an
"environmentally sensitive" area? If so, specify.
Yes. Due to the shoreline of the Green River.
i. Approximately how many people would reside or.work
in the completed project? 16 employees work at_
the site during normal working hours.
j. Approximately how many people would the completed
project displace? None
k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce . displacement
impacts, if any: Not applicable
1. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is com-
patible with existing and projected land uses and
plans, if any: Not applicable
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? None
b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eli-
minated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low -
income housing. None
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing
impacts, if any: None
10. Aesthetics
What is the tallest height of any proposed
structure(s), not including antennas; what is the
principal exterior building material(s) proposed?
Two 35' -0" high prefabricated steel towers
b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be
altered or obstructed? None
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic
impacts, if any: The new aerobic bio- towers will be
painted and maintained in a clean and neat manner,
and will blend in with the existing buildings. The
towers are a substantial distance from public view.
• •
Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
11. Light and Glare
a. What type of light or glare will the proposal
produce? What time of day would it mainly occur?
None
b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a
safety hazard or interfere with views? No
c. What existing off -site sources of light or glare may
affect your proposal? None
d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and
glare impacts, if any: None
12. Recreation
a. What designed and informal recreational oppor-
tunities are in the immediate vicinity?
Foster Golf Course is south of the site.
b. Would the proposed project displace any existing
recreational uses? If so, describe. No
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on
recreation, including recreation opportunities to be
provided by the project or applicant, if any:
The project will not alter the existing
recreational opportunities in t h e vicinity of the
site.
• •
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. No
b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of
historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural
importance known to be on or next to the site.
None
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if
any: Not applicable
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.
South 130th Place:
b. Is the site currently served by public transit? If
not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest
transit stop? No
c. How many parking spaces would the completed project
have? How many would the project eliminate?
ThP Ci .. •
Existing _parking will not be altered.
1 •_
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). No
e.. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate
vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If
so, generally describe. The site is adjacent to the
Burlington Northern Railroad right of way on the
east side of the site.
f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated
by the completed project? If known, indicate when
peak volumes would occur. There will not be any
change as a .result of t ids project.
g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transpor-
tation impacts, if any: Not applicable
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
b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct
impacts on public services; if any. Not applicable_
16. Utilities
a.. Circle utilities currently available at the site:
ec rici y, natural gas, rater (refuse service
retephon,e,) sanitary sewer, epic sys em, o er.
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.
No additional service will be required by this
j p roj ect .
C. Signature
The above answers are true and complete to the best of
my knowledge. I understand that the lead agency is
relying on them to make its decision.
Signature:
Date Submitted:
Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
J2S -/.5 -o
•
TO SE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT 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 d 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?
The objective of the proposal is to replace the existing
anaerobic filter with a new two -stage tower aerobic
filter system. The existing filter system is no longer
adequate or repairable. It is necessary to replace the
system and the proponent is proposing ,replacing the
the system with the best economically feasible system,
and will not increase capacity.
2. What are the alternative means of accomplishing these
objectives? Refer to page 6 of 6 Engineering Report by
1 PEC -USA, dated May 2, 198s.
3. Please compare the alternative means and indicate the
preferred course of action:
See Item No. 2.
IPEC CONSULTANTS INC.
International Pollution and
Environmental Control
Mr. John Philips
Philips & Wilson
#555 -2001 Western Avenue
Seattle, WA 98121
U. S. A.
Re: Seattle Rendering /Environmental Checklist
Dear 'John:
May 14, 1985
RECEIVED
CITY OF TUKWILA
NAY 2 1 1985
BULLING UWI
Subsequent to your telephone call today regarding Sections B2, B3 and B7,
following are our comments:
B2 AIR
a) TYPES OF EMISSIONS
No significant air emissions will occur during construction. In
operation, maximum air discharge is 5000 CFM of wet scrubbed air
from the aerobic BI0 -TOWER system.
b) OFF SITE - SOURCES
There are no uncontrolled off -site sources of emissions that may
affect this proposal.
c) CONTROL
All air emissions will be collected and ducted through a wet
scrubber system. This system also has provision for addition of
chemical oxidants and /or odor control chemicals. (Note: This
design is conservative in regards to air emission control given
that conventional installations have uncontrolled air emissions
and are operating successfully at hundreds of locations in the
U.S.)
B3 WATER
a) TO SURFACE WATER
1) WATERBODIES - The site is approximately 100 yards (Note:
John please verify) east of the Duwamish River.
2) SITE - No.
P.O. Box 1607
• Vashon, Washington 96070
• •
Mr. John Philips
- 2 -
May 14, 1985
B3 a) TO SURFACE WATER (cont'd)
3) DREDGING - N /A.
4) DIVERSIONS - N /A / =.
5) FLOOD PLAIN - (answer by others)
6) DISCHARGES - No.
b) TO GROUND
1) DISCHARGES TO GROUNDWATER
No water will be withdrawn from the ground. Water will be
discharged to the groundwater only indirectly by percolation
from subsurface soil absorption fields (see below B3.b.2).
2) DISCHARGES TO GROUND
Discharges to the ground remain unchanged and consist of:
i) approximately 100 gallons per day of domestic septic
tank wastewater to a separate existing subsurface soil
absorption field.
ii) approximately 63,500 GPD pretreated industrial process
wastewater and 1500 GPD cooling water to existing
subsurface soil absorption fields.
(John: You may or may not want to include a paragraph something
like, "The existing plant (wastewater source) recycles and
recovers waste animal by- products at approximately Lbs /day
and employs approximately employees. ")
The process water pretreatment facilities consist of:
- fine screening
- gravity clarification
- equalization
- pH adjustment
- chemical coagulation
- dissolved air flotation (stage 1)
- proposed BIO- TOWER system
- dissolved air flotation (stage 2)
— sand filtration
• 1
Mr. John Philips
-3-
May 14, 1985
c) WATER RUNOFF
1) RUNOFF
Runoff from the plant is collected in sumps and treated
through the process wastewater pretreatment facilities.
2) WASTE
No.
B3. d) CONTROL OF RUNOFF
Runoff is collected and processing through the pretreatment
facility as described in B3.c.1.
B7 ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
a) No
1) N/A
2) The proposed modification is a direct and timely measure to
reduce a developing potential environmental health hazard
due to physical deterioration of an existing portion of the
wastewater pretreatment process (See letter, Dept of Ecology
to Seattle Rendering dated APR 5/85). Action is required on
an immediate basis.
REFERRING TO SECTION A8:
This section should include a reference to the Engineering Report
prepared for the Department of Ecology by IPEC CONSULTANTS dated MAY
2/85 and the letter by the Department of Ecology to Seattle Rendering
dated APR 5/85.
REFERRING TO SECTION E2 and 3:
If necessary refer for details to the above referenced engineering
report section V.
.../4
Mr. John Philips
- 4 -
May 14, 1985
I hope these comments are useful John, although we have not seen the draft
of the environmental checklist prepared to date. Call us if we can be of
further assistance.
Yours truly,
IPEC -USA INC.
T. R. Irwin
TRI /bf
cc: SEATTLE RENDERING
May 02, 1985
Mr. M. M.` Dawda
State of Washington
Department of Ecology
4350 -150th Ave N.E.
Redmond, WA
•98052
Re: Seattle Rendering Works - Proposed Wastewater System Modification
Dear Mr. Dawda:
Due to the urgency in making the modifications to our wastewater treatment
system as discussed with you, we request to waive the three step
submission of documents per WAC 173- 240 - 110(5). We are supplying however:
1) an overview and conceptual plan of the full, existing,
multi -stage wastewater treatment facility.
2) a detailed engineering report on the proposed modification.
3) plans and specification of the proposed modification.
Plans and specification information not included but required by WAC
173 -240 -140 and operation and maintenance information required per WAC
173- 240 -150 will be provided shortly.
Structural: and geotechnical engineering are being performed by local
professional consulting engineers (Harvey Dodd & Associates, Shannon &
Wilson Inc., respectively). Process design and engineering reports are
being done by consultants experienced in our industry (IPEC Consultants
Inc.). Under WAC 173- 240 - 160(2), we request to waive the requirement for
preparation of documents under consultants licensed per 18.43 RCW.
We look forward to your cooperation in moving the approval process along
as quickly as possible.
Yours truly,
SEATTLE RENDERING WORKS
IPE.C•-IfS.A
IPEC CONSULTANTS INC.
International Pollution and
Environmental Control
May 02, 1985
ENGINEERING REPORT
PROPOSED MODIFICATION: WASTEWATER TREATMENT FOR
Seattle Rendering Works Inc.
5795 S. 130th Place
Seattle, WA
98168
A) TYPE OF INDUSTRY
The company is involved in animal by- product recycling. This includes
the processing of waste products such as meat scrap, bones, offal, and
restaurant grease.
B) FINISHED PRODUCTS
The final products are meat meal, tallow, and feed fat.
C) i) PROCESS WASTEWATER:
The quantity and quality of all process water are described
schematically on enclosed drawing SE -SS -102.
ii) DOMESTIC WASTEWATER:
Approximately 100 gallons of domestic wastewater are discharged
daily to a separate domestic septic tank and drain field.
iii) NON - CONTACT COOLING WATER:
Non - contact cooling water consists of approximately 1500 GPD and
flows directly to the plant drainfield.
iv) EVAPORATION LOSS:
Evaporation losses amount to approximately 100 GPD from the wet
scrubber and cooling tower.
D) WASTEWATER CHEMICALS
Wastewater chemicals are utilized for pH adjustment, coagulation, and
flocculation as necessitated by the two DAF stages. These chemicals
are sulphuric acid (10 GPD), sodium hydroxide (10 GPD), . aluminium
sulphate (300 Lb /day), and two widely used polymers (CHITOSAN and
POLYACRYLAMIDE, 3 Lb /day each).
P.O. Box 1607
Vashon, Washington 98070 Telephone: (206) 292 -8198
- 2 -
E) DESIGN DATA (EXISTING SYSTEM AND PROPOSED MODIFICATION)
Complete design data on the existing treatment facility is not
available, however this 10 -stage facility is fully explained in
section (G) and associated drawing. The proposed modification is
replacement of the existing anaerobic filter with a two stage BIO-
TOWER system, the first stage of which is to be installed immediately
dee to the physical deterioration of the anaerobic filter.
The existing anaerobic filter had 7200 cubic feet liquid volume (20 hr
retention time) when installed 12 years ago. Over the years this
volume has decreased substantially due to gradual solids build -up.
Under current conditions, the anaerobic filter is helping achieve
(after subsequent solids removal by DAF and sand filtration) BOD5
reductions to 700 -1000 mg /l. When new, BOD results of less than 100
mg /1 were obtained.
The design of the new BIO- TOWERS is being done to achieve results
comparable to those with the original anaerobic filter (ie. 100 BOD).
The first BIO -TOWER will be designed to achieve BOD5 of 375 mg /1.
The second will reduce this to 100 mg /l.
No additional treatment capacity is being proposed over the original
system.
The design was done based on well developed computer models of
BIO -TOWER operation. This is substantially based on the formula:
in Leo )= - KD x 1.035(T -20 °C)
Q
where Le = BOD5 of effluent
Lo = BOD5 of influent
t = influent temperature in °C
D = depth of media in feet
Q = raw hydraulic loading rate (gpm /ft2)
K = treatability factor
n = 0.65
.../3
Using the following data:
Lo = 1500
t = 20 °C
Q = (@ 63,600 GPD) = 0.11 gpm /ft2
K = 0.017
For one tower (D = 20 ft) then: Le = 368 mg /1 BOD5
For two towers (D = 40 ft) then: Le = 100 mg /1 BOD5.
F) SITE SUITABILITY
The site has been selected beside and on the existing anaerobic
filter. This provides for adequate access and minimizes the repiping
necessary. The site has been studied and found acceptable by our
geotechnical engineers given proper placement of structural fill.
G) TREATMENT PROCESS
The full treatment process is shown on the enclosed schematic drawings
SE -SS -101 and SE -SS -102.
It consists of the following ten treatment stages:
1) Fine screening
2) Gravity clarification
3) Equalization
4) pH adjustment
5) Chemical coagulation
6) Dissolved air flotation ( #1)
7) Anaerobic filter (to be replaced by BIO -TOWER system)
8) Dissolved air flotation ( #2)
9) Sand. filtration
10) Subsurface disposal
.../4
- 4 -
General wastewater from the plant is collected in a sump, pumped
intermittently at 100 gpm over a rotating fne screen (0.040 inch
mesh), and into a gravity clarifier (140 ft surface), then pumped
to a 30,000 gallon: equalization tank. Plant cooker condensate is
pumped to the equalization tank directly as it contains low levels of
gross suspended solids and free non - emulsified grease. pH adjustment
is made automatically at the equalization tank. Wastewater is pumped
at a cogtrolled constant rate to the #1 dissolved air flotation system
(140 ft surface) where emulsified fats and solids are coagulated
and separated.
The wastewater then is pumped to the existing anaerobic filter
system. The proposed modification is to pump to a two stage BIO -TOWER
system described in detail below. Wastewater then is pumped to the #2
dissolved air flotation system for solids removal then on to filters
for polishing prior to final in line aeration and discharge to the
drain fields.
The proposed BIO- TOWERS consists of conventional plastic high surface
are trickling filter media (MUNTERS BIODEK MEDIA) stacked in a
glass- coated steel bolt together trickling filter tank, (A 0 SMITH
AQUASTORE TRICKLING FILTER SHELL). Liquid distribution is by a
rotating distributer. Media wetting rate minimums are achieved by a
recycle ratio of 3:1. A series of overflow sumps provides the
necessary collection sumps for receiving, recycling, and discharge of
final wastewater. Air flow is by concurrent ventilation powered by a
centrifugal fan. This allows all aeration air to be collected and
ducted through a wet scrubber.
H) LAYOUT
The wastewater treatment facilities are shown on the attached drawings
SE -GA -302 and SE -GA -303.
I) BYPASS PROVISIONS
No wastewater bypass facilities are provided.
J) ACCIDENTAL SPILL PROVISION
AAll•plant areas. are.. sloped. to collection sumps "which are pumped to the
wastewater treatment facility,
K) RESULTS�EXPECTED
The:results and wastewater characteristics expected at the point of
discharge to the drainfields, after completion of the BIO- FILTER
• system, are detailed in. section;:(E).
• •
5
L) RECEIVING WATERS
N/A
M) OUTFALL ANALYSIS
See section (L) below.
N) RELATIONSHIP TO EXISTING FACILITIES
See section (G) above.
0) MUNICIPAL SEWER SYSTEM
N/A
P) LAND APPLICATION
Discharge of effluent is by subsurface soil disposal by drainfield.
High levels of treatment within the soil have been confirmed by
results of test wells placed in perimeter areas. The drain fields
have been successfully used for many years. While engineering
information on the soil is not available, the proposed modifications
will be positive because of improved treatment levels of the
wastewater prior to disposal.
Q) ENGINEERING
Trickling filters are among the most well established biological
treatment methodologies for organic bio- degradable pollutants. They
have proven adaptability to changing conditions characteristic of
industrial applications, particularly since the development of plastic
media with large surface and void areas. They are proven on similar
wastewater (see attached paper). The design models have also been
well developed.
R) SLUDGE DISPOSAL
Disposal of wastewater treatment sludge will continue to be both by
assimilation in the rendering plant process and disposal to landfill.
S) OPERATION
The wastewater facilities will continue to be owned, operated, and
maintained after construction by Seattle Rendering Works Inc.
.../6
6/6
T) COMPLIANCE
The facility will continue to comply with state, local, or federal
water quality managements plans or Acts.
U) FUTURE PLANS
No future plans are committed.
V) ALTERNATIVE PLANS
Numerous alternative plans were evaluated, including:
i) REPAIR OR REPLACEMENT OF ANAEROBIC FILTER: Repair is not
feasible because of the need for continuous operation and the
construction difficulties, costs, and time requirements
involved. Space is . not available for the large space
requirenent.
ii) ACTIVATED SLUDGE:
This was rejected due to high operational time requirements in
this application, greater sensitivity to upset, larger power
requirements, and larger costs.
iii) AEROBIC STABILIZATION LAGOON SYSTEM:
Space requirements were unavailable.
iv) ANAEROBIC TREATMENT - SECONDARY:
Anaerobic lagooning is not feasible due to space and odor
concerns. Anaerobic tank construction required large space and
capital investment.
W) TIMETABLE
Because of immediate availability and advance planning, the system can
be in operation within 6 weeks of receipt of all necessary
governmental approvals. Expected operation: JUNE 15/85.
X) COMPLIANCE
Seattle Rendering Works will continue to comply with the State
Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) and the Natural Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA), where applicable.
•
TREATMENT OF MEAT PACKING WASTE
USING PVC TRICKLING FILTERS
by
Darrell A. Baker* and James White **
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT
In the summer of 1968 Burns & McDonnell Engineerirg of Kansas City,
Missouri was approached by Farmland Foods, a subsidiary of Farmland
Industries, Inc., Kansas City, Missouri, a farmer owned cooperative,
for the specific purpose of designing a waste treatment plant for
our Denison, Iowa, pork operation. Several limitations account for
this particular type of plant, but foremost was the land available
for such a plant. In short, this plant was designed specifically
for the minimal land available.
Sbortly after the inception of the plan the Environmental Protec-
tion Agency, then F.W.P.C.A. was approached for possible funding of
the treatment plant construction. The construction phase of the
project began in ,April, 1969 with E.P.A. participating in the pro-
ject in the amount of $290,000.
PLANT DESCRIPTION
The plant is located N.W. of Denison, Iowa, which has a population
of 6,500, and has the capacity to kill and dress 5,000 hogs per day.
The hog cut operation generally accounts for about 40 percent of
the kill plus two or three hundred head per day from our Iowa Falls
plant. Processing as hams, picnics, bellies (bacon) accounts for
about 46 percent of the 40 percent above. The following line diagram
illustrates the breakaown:
ILLUSTRATION I
BREAKDOWN OF PLANT PROCESSES(lbs.)
Kill Cut Processing!
1,000,000 400,000 184,000
hams picnics! bacon
38,640 14,720 27,600
600,000 (shipped)
Rendering,
Fat & Bones
7,700
*Farmland Foods, Inc., Denison, Iowa.
**Allen Wymore, Burns & McDonnell Engineering, K. C., Mo.
289 •
•
The waste from the plant is typical of most packing house operations,
having high BOD, grease and solids content, with variable pH and tem-
peratures. The waste from the plant is collected in two main lines,
one line accepting all wastes from the kill floor area except the
scald tank; the other line accepting wastes from the hog pens, scald
tank, rendering, blood drying operation, and the domestic waste. There
is no cooling water entry into either line.
Plant Units:
The waste from the No. 1 main sewer line is pumped into an air flo-
tation cell for pretreatment before going into the anaerobic lagoons.
The grease removed from the flotation cell is sent back to be rendered
and sold as brown house grease.
The flotation effluent and the other sewer discharge combine shortly
before discharging into the anaerobic lagoons which are operated in
parallel. The anaerobic lagoons serve two functions, the first being
biological treatment of the wastes and the second that of acting •
as holding lagoons to distribute the flow to the filter plant evenly
throughout the work week. The plant generally operates on a 5 or 6
day work week; for this reason an appreciable difference in flows may
be noted on the weekends.
The effluent from the anaerobic lagoons flows through a control valve
which can be operated manually or automatically; then through a
preaeration tank which serves two purposes; to control odors emanating
from the anaerobic effluent, since the plant is relatively close to
a residential area, and to supply a limited amount, of oxygen to the
waste before treatment by the trickling filters. Presently a masking
agent is being used intermittently to control odors in the anaerobic
effluent. The preaeration tank effluent is then pumped to the trickling
filters normally operated in series; then to the final clarifiers,
and then to a chlorine contact basin for disinfection. Sludge removed
from the final clarifiers is recycled to the anaerobic lagoons. i
DESIGN CRITERIA
A summary of design criteria for the treatment facilities is shown in
Tables 1 through 8.
-290
• •
Table 1 Raw Wastes Criteria
Hogs Killed Per Day 5,000
BOD Loading:
5,000 Hogs Kill at 4.3 pounds 21,500 lbs. /day
Average Waste Flow: -
Gallons per Hog 175 gal. /hog
Gallons per Day . . . . . . . . ... . . . 850,000 gpd
Maximum Daily Flow 0 1,000,000 gpd
Beak Hourly Flow .. . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,500,000 gpd
Table 2
Air Flotation Tank Design Criteria
Diameter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
22' -6"
Water Depth
12' -0"
Hydraulic Rate . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . 1500 -gpm
BODRemoval . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . 40%
Grease Removal . . . . . . . . . . ... . 85%.
Table 3 . Anaerobic Lagoon Design Criteria
Number of Cells 2
BOD Applied, lbs. /day 12,900
Design loading, lbs. BOD /1000 ft3 15
Water Depth, ft. 14
Surface Area, Total acres 1 97
BOD removal, percent '7-" 80
Table 4 Preaeration Tank Design Criteria
Detention, minutes 0 30
• Volume of air, cfm
291.
o •
Table 5 Trickling Filter Design Criteria
Number of Filters 2
Diameter, ft 39
Media Depth, ft. 22
BOD Loading, lbs. /1,000 ft.3 �_ 3
S 2., . c. z:. F Ta M,.
101
First Stage 1
Second Stage 3 31'
Average .
Hydraulic loading, gpm /ft.2 Surface Area 0.5
Recirculation None
BOD Removal, percent (includes final clarifiers) 91
Table 6
Number of Clarifiers 2
26
N Diameter, ft. 7
Water Depth, ft
Surface Settling Rate, gpd /ft.2 800
Weir Overflow Rate, gpd /ft. . . • . • . . . • . . . . . . 6800
r
Final Clarifier Design Criteria
\\ Table 7 Chlorine Contact Basin
Detention, at average daily flow, minutes 4
Max. Chlorine Dosage Capacity, lbs. C12 /day 100
Chlorine Dosage Rate, ppm 10
Table 8 Treatment Plant Pumping Facilities
Trickling Filter Pumps - Variable Speed:
Filter No. 1:
Number of Pumps ; 2
Rated Capacity, gpm.__ /700
Filter No. 2: f.i
Number of Pumps l ! 2:
Rated Capacity, gpm. 700
•
Final Clarifier Sludge Pumps:
Number of Pumps
Rated Capacity, gpm.
292
2
85
ERAlb1+ 2
LEGEND
�. OrtUt14M '111111* 111 St11[S,
- ►IITEIS Ir PARALLEL
$22131 tilt
f. TI ::Altrc FILTER
• ;I212024 /t11T
►LN ►S
:AN "AST(*
I'lt 12' +47
SRO
III tl0Taf101
TANI
FARY8ES1. INC.
MAST( TREATMENT ►ICILITIES
DEMONSTRATION GRANT
PIIIECT IP10 111.01.11
5- 8
CUIIfIUI NCI
MUM COMI/CE
5-5 .I TA11
•
(Marl TO 111(1
Plt IUUAT101
5-1
111 rlsiff
LCl44iI; sOC PUS
Sall t111'1M0 MIMIC
5-2
-•5-4
-
•
S-'
CUlIi1(1
10.E
5-7
5-9
BURNS & MCD)NNELL ENGINEERING CO.
KANSAS CITY (1Th MISSOURI
5-9
J0• NO.
$T•2$C4
Kano
swum / or / wars
•
SmtCT . ltV.
•
Table 17 Summary of Raw Wastes
Average of Percent of
Design 1970 Data , Design
BOD
lbs. /day
lbs. /hog
Waste Flows:
Gallons per day
Gallons per hog
Plant Data
21,900
4.3
20,752
6.0
850,000 1,123,247
175 325
9576
140%
132%
1867:
Air Flotation Tank:
This treatment unit • is generally considered to be an inplant recovery
unit. However, analyses were run on the unit from June through Dec-
ember to determine the performance of the unit.
Since it was extremely difficult to obtain.a representative sample
of the flotation tank influent, the results are somewhat limited In
value. The main constituents removed in the flotation tank are BOD,
COD, grease and solids. The annual averages are shown in Table 18.
•
Table 18 Dissolved Air Flotation Tank Performance
Analysis Influent, ppm Effluent, ppm Percent Removal
BOD 2624 1762 33
COD . 4591 4106 11
Grease 1484 559 62
Total Suspended Solids 2223 1507 32
Anaerobic Lagoon:
The anaerobic lagoons performed very well during the test year. .The
results.of,the annual averages of the more important parameters are
shown in Tables 19 and 20.
The performance of the lagoons were probably enhanced by the thick
grease cover which acts as an insulator. The minimum temperature
of 60 °F. of the lagoon contents occurred in December. The summer
temperatures varied between 70 -75 °F. and the annual average was 69 °F.
302
The lagoons performed as expected, removing an average of 82 percent
of the applied BOD even though the lagoons are loaded much heavier
than design loading. Based on pounds BOD applied per day, the total
organic loading averaged 24,940 pounds BOD per day,, Thus the lagoon
}goading rate averaged 29.3 pounds BOD per 1000 ft. of lagoon volume.
en compared to the design loading rate of.15 pounds BOD per 1000
eft. of lagoon volume, the lagoons are operating at a loading rate
of 195 percent of design.
,fi
IIf
t is interesting that only 59 percent of the total suspended solids
'were removed by the anaerobic lagoons. Although the actual lagoon
detention during the evaluation program was five days as compared,
to an expected detention of 7.5 days, based on design hydraulic flows,
one would expect a higher removal of suspended solids.
As expected, much of the organic nitrogen was converted to ammonia
nitrogen in the lagoons. The pH remained relatively constant during
the year, averaging 7.0:
. Table 19 Anaerobic Lagoon Performance
Analysis 'Influent, ppm Effluent, ppm Percent Removal
710D 2635 477 82
396 1403 68
•
FOD 4
Grease 485 106 78
Total Solids 4094 1955 52
Volatile Solids .2112 663' 69
Total Suspended Solids 1402 579 59
Organic Nitrogen (N) 95.9 42.1 --
Ammonia Nitrogen (N) 42.5 121.6
Sulfates -- • 38.9 --
Hydrogen Sulfide
Trickling. Filters:
. The trickling filters were operated in series during the entire pro-
gram since parallel operation did not provide sufficient hydraulic
loading. The performance of the trickling filters are shown in
Table 21.
4.6
303
Table 20 Anaerobic Lagoon Influent, BOD
Domestic + Air Flotation Tank Effluent
PPm
onth . Hsth: Low •. Average. High
'eb 70 5.9:50-: 3836 4868 49,394
Mar.., 70 3406 1648 2392 29,007 13,381
:,.Apr., 70 5263 2760 3340 45,962 21,903
.1May, 70 4645 2986 3830 39,760 25,560
une, 70 2780, 1295 2102 25,751 13,355
1.04, 70 2130.;.. 1260 1672 19,049 12,198
.l.A0g,.:, 70 3521 1370 . 2176 37,170 12,725
Sept.,
70. 4149 1013 2440 39,905 10,415
-00., 70 2265: 818 1453 22,087 7,977
Nov., 70 .2520. 2251 2386 26,078 22,094
Dec..• 70 • 2041 1421 1731.. 18,206 14,197
lbs.
Low
31;791
Average 2635
•
Final Clarifier
.Sludge Return
Average lbs. Hi
40,346 770 50,
Anaerobic Lagoon
Influent, lbs.
Rh Low 'Ave:rage:
164 32,561 44.116
21,123/ 770 29,773 14,151 21,893
46,732 22,673 34,234
40,530 26,330 36,823
770 26,521 14,126 20,700
33,464 770
36,053 . 770
19,930
14,9.78 770 19,549 12,968 15,748.
21,985 .770 : 37,940 13,495 • 22,755
23,5P9 770 - 40,675 11,185 24,369
14,103 770 • 22,857 8,.747 • 10,873
24,086 770 26,848 :22,864 24,850
16,201 770 • 18,976 . 14,967: 16;971
24,169
24,939
•
Table 21'
•
Trickling Filter Performance
Trickling Trickling Final - Total
Filter Filter Clarifier Percent
Analysis Influent, ppm Effluent, ppm Effluent, pga Removal
Dissolved Oxygen
0 2.3. 3.9 - --
BOD-
477 . 296 124 74
COD
1403 1010 372 73
•
Grease
106 73 33 69
706 354 47
Volatile Solids 663
Volatile Suspended Solids 418 443 83 80
Total Suspended Solids
579 602 108 80
Organic Nitrogen (N) 42.1
•
41.1 21.3 49
�-
Ammonia Nitrogen (N) 121.6 103.2 100.0 18
Nitrate Nitrogen (N)
9.3 25.2 15.1
Sulfates •
38.9 64.3 63.7
Hydrogen Sulfide
4.6 0.2 0 100
,�
Total Phosphates 53 52 53 0
The efficiency of the trickling filter system was not as good as
anticipated. It was hoped that the trickling filters would remove
approximately 90 percent of the applied organic loading. However,
the demon organic loading was 2580 pounds BOD per da�+�whereas . the
actual organic loading was 3850 pounds BOD per day during the test
ear or 150. percent of esign loading,. This results in an overall
loading rate of 73.4 pounds of BOD per 1000 cubic ft. of filter media.
The hydraulic loading rate during the evaluation program averaged
0.79 gPm per ft.2 surface area, The design _ hydraulic :oad ng. rate
vas 0.5 gpm per ft. of surface area, or 158% overloaded.
The;.filter provided ample aeration to the wastes, with the dissolved
oxygen in the filter effluent averaging 3.9 ppm.
OPo.t'. /2%,r1 O ✓4 L
=;cetera `removedlOQpercent of ;the hydrogen. sulfide present, .but
did
"Ilot TemoVe:anyAppOsOhates, with approximately 53 ppm being
in thefinal: clarifier effluent. The filters and clarifiers
provided good grease removal, but still discharged an effluent with
an average of 33 ppm grease.
Several aolids;.. analyses . were .run on the final clarifier sludge. These
analyes :are'shownr n1Table 22. It was hopeful that some
305
Table 22 Trickling Filter Sludge Solids Analyses, ppm
Total Fixed Volatile ..-- Suspended Solids 0 Dissolved Solids
Date Sollids Solids Solids Total. Fixed Volatile Total Fixed Volatile
/
7/17/700 -6696 2418 4276 5422 1358 4064 1274 1061 '213.
8/11/70: 2659 1769 890 1424 792 632 1236 977 259
9/10/70 • 10,439 • 2375 8064 9183 1388 - . 7795 1256 987 269
1/24/70 6284 2365 3919 / 4988 1289 3699 1296 1075 221 •
•' 1/26/70 5762. • ' 2486 .. 4276 . 5472 •. 1428 .. 4044 .`1290 • 1058 232
1/27/70 6950 . ..25.42 4408 5633 1463 4170 1317 1079 238
Average 6632 • •• 2326 4306 5354 1286 4067 .1278• 1039 239
•
!.
Correlation could be obtained between the applied BOD and solids
produced. Npwever, in comparing the suspended solids in the filter
inOuenvwitiv'the suspende4 solids in the final clarifier effluent
and sludge, little correlation can be made. Table 23 shows the
Pilo0AsOr:au-spended.solids=per,day in the various waste streams.
isevidaA from Table 23 that the average suspended solids loading
discharged to the.filters.was 5340 pounds per day, whereas, the
total, pounds of suspended solids removed as sludge and discharged
.in the clarifier effluent-averaged 5577 pounds per day, for a net
gain in suspended solids of 237 pounds per day.
•
(
Table 23 Suspended Solids. Lbs. Per Day
Trickling Final Final
Filter Clarifier Clarifier
Influent. Effluent Sludge_
Month
January
February. 2120 473
March '11527 473
• April 3527 512
Hay -2442 813
June • 3430. 457
July 2948 663
August' 6193 558
September 8204 886
October 8650 904
November 6404 1350
. . •
December '13,487 T 1355
Average 5340 . 767 4810
Chlorine Contact Basin:
Thechlbrine-contact basin was designed for disinfection of the
final:iffrOent, however, the analyses show that some BOD and sus-
pended'abrids- were also removed in the chlorine contact basin.
Table'24 shows the performance of the chlorine contact basin.
•
-
•,„ • - • - -
.•••• • • •
• •
Table 24 Chlorine Contact Basin Performance
Analysis
Basin Basin Percent
Influent, ppm* Effluent, ppm* Removal
BOD 124 61 51
COD 372 371 0
Grease 33 17 49
Volatile Solids 354 348 2
Volatile Suspended Solids 83 68 18
Total Suspended Solids • 108 90 17
Chlorine, Total 7.7 1.3
Coliforms (per 100 ml)`' 35,300,000 1513 99.99
*Except Colitorms •
In studying the BOD analyses of the chlorine contact basin's influent
and effluent, it may be that the chlorine affected the BOD test of
the final effluent. Even though the proper procedure for dechlor-
ination was followed in accordance with Standard Methods, 7.7 ppm of
chlorine can not oxidize 63 ppm of BOD.
Table 25 gives the monthly chlorine usage and coliform destruction
through the chlorine contact basin. • Excellent disinfection was
accomplished during the year. It is evident from the data that.
the mairity of the available chlorine was immediately tied up as
combined chlorine. This would certainly be expected with such high
ammonia nitrogen concentrations in the waste stream.
Summary of Treatment Plant Performance:
Table 26 summarizes the average efficiency of each plant unit.
Table 26 Plant Efficiency Percent Removal
Analysis BOD COD Grease Suspended Solids Coliform
Dissolved Air
Flotation Tank 3.3 11 62
Anaerobic Lagoon 82 68 78
Trickling Filters 74 73 69
Chlorine Contact Tank 51 0 49
To ta+1P1antRemoval -,
Excluding Dissolved
Air F1'otation 'Tank 9�7' 4 91`..5• 96;.5
32
59
80
17
99..99
• •
The suspended solids concentration in the final clarifier effluent averaged
108 ppm during the evaluation program. Further reduction of suspended
solids and BOD within the clarifiers would be` extremely difficult to:'ob-
tain at such high hydraulic loading rates unless chemical coagulation
facilities are added ahead of the clarifiers.
Another factor which may be affecting the settling characteristics of
the solids is the grease concentration in the trickling filter effluent.
The filter effluent averaged 73 ppm of grease. It may be that the
grease tended to adhere to the solids and change their specific gravity.
This would create a light sludge with poor sludge settling characteristics.
Flotation of solids and grease is apparent in the basins. Although
skimming is provided on the final clarifiers considerable solids are
being discharged in the effluent.
Another possible cause of poor solids settling characteristics is that
denitrification is occurring in the basins. Although the nitrate data
is limited and quite variable, the trend indicates that denitrification
is occurring.
Based on the above discussion, it is apparent that the extremely high
organic and hydraulic loading rates above what was anticipated has
contributed to the reduction in expected plant. efficiency. The anaerobic
lagoon and trickling filters operated very well under these extreme
conditions. However, the data indicates that the final clarifiers were
greatly affected by the high hydraulic loading rates and by some
constituents in the waste stream.
•
Certificate
cuea Seattle Rendering
P.O. Box 58368
Seattle, WA 98188
REPORTON PERIMETER TEST HOLES
LABoRATooly No 88283-1
DATE
IDLE TWCATIO,. Submitted 1/25/85 and numbered 1 and 2
TESTS PERFORMED
AND RESULTS
5 -day Biochemical Oxygen Demand,
parts per million (mg /L)
Key
L/ = less than
JMO:veg
1
L /10. 11.
Feb. 1, 1985
Respectfully submitted,
Laucks Testing Laboratories, Inc.
M. Owens
rapbrt is Robin/nod for Owro odull t 001 Wino petacin.'Vorinaroldp. or corponion to whom 1 .qu—t twatihiminvol Oda eanpiny soy • --
mw.baralll. wolf inmr or►lillOw. M a ld* r" itoy➢ wduU' a► veoe. s. rMwanladonlyonoo. ttaot' 111+mnpnyimpsao..pmaiDi•ty.ac.A
*Om dos i.-..._.c cr anion tnA!oi.ai. sn good t,G and . _ ...
a000r� rip o iw rtirc �l th.'trd. and a' +l�r:s
C
IPEC CONSULTANTS INC.
International Pollution and
Environmental Control
-USA'
December 14, 1983
Mr. Herb Sorenson
Mr. Wes Benefiel
Seattle Rendering Inc.
P.O.Box 58368
Seattle, Wa.
98188
Dear Herb and Wes;
As indicated in our letter of October 24, we have included
our response to your requests as follows. A special thanks to
Klaus, who was most helpful to us in sampling and chasing data
and information.
Lee Johnson will also be responding with his comments, an
economic review, and data on the Metro sewage system, including
costs of connection, high strength charges, volume charges and
their net - present - values.
You asked us to "analyze the requirements and make
recommendations as to the best replacement water treatment
system for the existing anerobic filter system ".
A short sampling program was initiated to confirm the nature
and volume of the wastewater. That data is presented in Appendix
I. ,
The data collected generally confirmed the similarity of
Seattle Rendering wastewater to other rendering operations,
including the wide fluctuations normally experienced. The
information in, APPENDIX I and data from other rendering
operations was utilized to develop design input data.
The data in APPENDIX I generally reflect the normal wide
variations in individual grab samples:
Examples: Untreated wash water BOD 18,200 mg /1
Raw condensate BOD 2500 - 5000 mg /1
DAF I Effluent BOD 2000 - 5200 mg /1
DAF II Effluent BOD 600 - 1400 mg /1
(The only grab sample outside the "normal" range is the one
anaerobic filter discharge at BOD = 100 which may be an error,
or an "extra -wide" fluctuation.)
Rt. 5, Box 276 • Vashon, Washington, 98070 • Telephone: 12061567 -5150
Howeverethe composite samples, pSicularly the hourly
samples, give important averaged values:
DAF I Effluent
(12/2/83)
BOD 2500 mg /1
SS 1200 mg /1
FOG 340 mg /1
The averaged samples of condensate were lower than expected
on the basis of some of the grab samples. This may be due to
periods of relatively "clean" condensate flow due to operating
conditions at certain times.
The main water sources were investigated and the volumes
estimated on the best available information as detailed in
APPENDIX I. This resulted in an estimated 53 gpm average flow
estimate and a 77 gpm "high- flow" estimate. These would
represent 63,600 and 92,400 gpd on a twenty -hour per day basis.
The 63,600 gpd figure is probably a good average flow estimate
for current operations.
Based on this information, and experience from other
rendering operations, as well as information provided by
yourselves, the following conservative design input will be
utilized to compare some possible treatment options.
INFLUENT EFFLUENT REQUIRED
FLOW 100,000 gpd
BOD 2,500 mg /1 BOD 30 mg /1
COD 5,000 mg /1 COD 150 mg /1
SS 1,200 mg /1 NH3 NITRIFICATION NOT
REQUIRED
DESIGN APPROACH
The design approach, based on the above data and on
experience, will be to utilize primary anaerobic treatment for
the relatively high strength waste. This is also the most
efficient area for use of anaerobic treatment. This will be
followed by reaeration of the water prior to a full aerobic
treatment system. The anaerobic and reaeration treatment system
will also act to provide flow equalization for the following
aerobic system. The final treatment will continue to be DAF and
filtration.
The features of this IPEC design concept are:
1) Utilizes anaerobic primary treatment (low energy, low
sludge .production) to reduce size, energy requirements,
and sludge production of aerobic plant.
2) Utilizes •robic treatment for hijIlefficiency and high
effluent quality requirements.
3) Utilizes as much existing equipment as possible.
Following the anaerobic treatment, a variety of secondary
treatment options were reviewed and evaluated. A brief
description of these various options follow.
OPTIONS:
The influent to the following systems is expected to be
as follows:
BOD 1500 mg /1
COD 3000 mg /1
SS 400 mg /1
The following compares the equipment and horsepower
requirements of the options considered.
1) BIO- OXIDATION TOWERS (TRICKLING FILTERS)
Two towers in series , each with a diameter of 33' and
height of 26', each with a media surface area of 560,000
ft
Horsepower requirements: 30 hp
2) ACTIVATED SLUDGE PLANT
To accomodate practical reaction rates, rendering plants
utilizing activated sludge processed use aeration basins
with total hydraulic retention times from 0.75 (eg.
Rothsay Concentrates) to more than 4 days (eg.J.0.
Ryder). Good performance has been achieved at
approximately 1.6 days. This requires two aeration basins
each with a volume of 80,000 gallons,a diameter of 30',and
a height of 15'.
Horsepower requirements: 50 hp
3) AEROBIC STABILIZATION LAGOON SYSTEM (DPMC)
High efficiency dual -power level, multi - cellular lagoon
system allows high quality effluent in a series of four
lined cells:
Cell No. 1: 36' x 36' x 10' deep
Cell No. 2: 100' x 100' x 2' deep.
Horsepower requirements: 65 hp
•
4) ANEROBIC TREATMENT SYSTEM - SECONDARY
A) Anaerobic packed towers at 25 degrees C. Two in
series.
Sized at 30' diameter, 20' height, and 1.1 million Ft2
(total), will achieve BOD of 200 mg /1
Horsepower requirements: 30 hp
B) Anaerobic lagoon with flexAble cover 60' x 80' x 15'
deep at 17.5 #BOD /1000 ft @ 25° C. Final BOD
achieved 300 mg /1.
Horsepower requirements: NIL
RELATIVE BENEFITS AND COSTS OF VARIOUS OPTIONS
Each of the above options has advantages and
disadvantages. They are discussed below together with an
estimated "total system cost" which includes the option being
considered.
1) BIO- OXIDATION TOWERS (TRICKLING FILTERS)
This method is a very well established treatment system.
They have good stability when exposed to changing load
conditions. Their most popular application has therefore been
as a "roughing" primary stage. Other advantages are low
maintenance, low power requirements, and a minimal labor
requirement. Recent utilization of plastic media has increased
efficiency and dramatically reduced size requirements. The main
disadvantage is cost.
Total System Estimated Cost $450,000.
2) ACTIVATED SLUDGE SYSTEM
Activated sludge plants are by far the most wide - spread
aerobic biological treatment system used today. More data and
experience is available for this type of plant than for any
other. They suffer from being easy to upset, and .generally
require close monitoring (labor- intensive) in a rendering plant
application. They also need considerable time to recover from
upsets.
Total System Estimated Cost $375,000.
• •
3) DPMC LAGOON SYSTEM
This is the modern adaptation of conventional aerated
lagoon systems. In this application the power
requirement is high and space requirements eliminate its
practicality.
Costs generally run about 60% of Activated Sludge
systems.
4) ANAEROBIC TREATMENT — SECONDARY
A) Anaerobic Packed Tower
This is a comparitively high efficiency anaerobic
treatment system utilizing plastic media to give very
high surface area and open area. Total hydraulic
retention time of 2.2 days would give BOD effluents of
200 mg /1. Advantages are low power requirements and low
sludge production. Odors can be easily contained with
this type of system. Cost is the biggest disadvantage,
given the effluent quality.
Total System Estimated Cost: $350,000.
B) ANAEROBIC LAGOON WITH FLEXIBLE COVER
This is a conventional anaerobic lagoon covered for odor
control and collection of gases. Advantages are
simplicity, low cost, and low sludge production. Odors
and the flexible cover are possible problem areas. Total
hydraulic 3retention time of 5.4 days (and 17.5 lb
BOD /1000 ft ) would give 300 mg /1 BOD effluents. In
this application where above ground tankage is preferred,
space and cost of tankage (and covers) become very high.
Costs have not been estimated.
• •
As quickly as you've had time to digest this information,
we'd like to meet with you and Lee Johnson to discuss the next
steps to be taken. If you have questions in the mean time,
please call.
very truly yours,
IPEC CONSULTANTS INC.
Thomas R Irwin
14520
Phi ip G. Peterson
/pc
• •
APPENDIX I
SUMMARY OF VOLUME AND POLLUTANTS.
A series of grab and composete samples were taken. The results
are as follows.
SAMPLES:
Nov. 21/83 - grab samples - 11:00 AM
BOD S.S. FOG pH
1) Anaerobic filter discharge 100 6.7
2) DAF #2 Effluent 600 4.0
3) DAF #1 Effluent 5,200 7.4
Nov. 22/83 - The entire system was flushed of accumuluated
solids.
Nov. 23/83 - Composite Samples - 1 every 3 hours mixed for 9
hours
5) DAF #1 Discharge 2,400 19 4.8
9) Condensate Sump 2,500 110 9.7
Nov. 26/83 - Grab Samples - Running Fish - 11:00 A.M.
11) DAF #1 Effluent 2,000 82 15 6.1
13) DAF #2 Effluent 1,400 32 13 6.8
15) Condensate Sump 2,700 88 270 9.9
Nov. 29/83 - Grab samples - 9:00 A.M.
cl) Condensate Sump - filtered 4,000
c2) Condensate Sump -Coag. &
Filtered 4,200
c3) Condensate Sump -Raw 5,000
c4) General Flow Sump -Raw 18,200
c5) General Flow Sump - Filtered 5,700
c6) General Flow Sump -Coag. &
Filtered 5,500
December 2, 43 - All night hourly comp3sites
20) DAF 11 Effluent 2500 1200 340 5.9
21) CONDENSATE SUMP 1400 770 410 9.4
WATER VOLUMES.
Water Sources were investigated.
Condensate - May be calculated from product capacity
- Max.fish 12 ton /hr (to 288 ton /day)
at 75% moisture = 9 ton /hr water = 36 GPM
- Max. meat 16 ton /hr (to 384 ton /day)
at 50% moisture = 8 ton /hr water = 32 GPM
- Average 10.5 ton /hr product (210 ton /20hr day)
= 21 GPM.
AVERAGE HIGH
CONDENSATE 21 GPM 36 GPM
CLEAN -UP 21 GPM 30 GPM
SCRUBBER 5 GPM 5
VENTURI 6 GPM 6
GREASE ROOM NIL
COOLING TOWER
N/A
TOTAL 53 GPM
WORKING 20 HRS 63,600
WORKING 24 HRS 76,300
77 GPM
92,400
111,000
TI Q 33:1■0,II413:8CEiE
Pm -Tp M. BOTCH ASSOCIATES, INC.
11000 MAIN STREET
August 27, 1982
Lee Johnson
Food, Chemical and Research
Laboratory
4900 — 9th Ave. NW
Seattle, WA 98107
Dear Lee:
BELLEVUE, WASHINGTON 98004 TELEPHONE (206) 682 -5300
Enclosed is the capital cost update for the Seattle Rendering Works'
Sewer Alternatives you requested. These cost estimates were based on
two sources of information: 1) the Dodge Public Works and Heavy
Construction Cost Guide; and 2) Contractor's Estimates.
If you have questions or need additional information regarding this
matter, please contact us.
Sincerely yours,
PHILIP N. BOTCH & ASSOCIATES, INC.
n Stemkoski
Enclosure
cc: Document No. 37.32
JS /jkc
SEATTLE RENDERING WORKS' SEWER ALTERNATIVES
CAPITAL COST ESTIMATES
ROUTE I
ESTIMATED
DESCRIPTION QUANTITY, UNIT COST TOTAL COST
Mobilization 1 LS $ 7,500.00 $ 7,500.00
6' Ductile Iron 2,650 LF 19.71 52,231.50
Force Main
6' Ball Joint 170 LF 200.00 34,000.00 '
Ductile Iron
(River Crossing)
Pump Station 1 LS 50,000.00 50,000.00
Sampling Station 1 LS 5,500.00 5,500.00
TOTAL $149,231.50
ROUTE 1I
ESTIMATED
DESCRIPTION QUANTITY, UNIT COST TOTAL COST
Mobilization 1 LS $ 7,500.00 $ 7,500.00
6' Ductile Iron 1,300 LP 19.71 25,623.00
Force Main
6' Ball Joint 150 LF 200.00 30,000.00
Ductile Iron
(River Crossing)
Pump Station 1 LS 50,000.00 50,000.00
Sampling Station 1 LS 5,500.00 5,500.00
TOTAL $118,623.00
Document No. 37.32
R. TECHNICAL
20 - 124th N.E.. BUILDING C 106 • BELLEVUE. WASHINGTON 98005 • 1206) 883 -2488
November 3, 1980
Washington State Department of Ecology
4330 150th N.E.
Redmond, Washington
Attn: Mike Dawda
Dear Mike:
This letter will confirm our recent conversation concerning the expansion
plans of the Seattle Rendering Works with regards to their waste water
disposal system.
As you know the Seattle Rendering Works Inc. occupies a tract of land
contiguous to the Duwamish River at Tukwila, Washington.
This land is not sewered so the Rendering Works disposes of its waste
water via an extensive drain field.
The Department of Ecology with the view to upgrading the Duwamish Rivers
organic loading has been concerned with the Rendering Works present
treatment system to adequately remove the suspended solids, oil and
grease from the waste water.
Recognizing the problem and anticipating the need for additional treatment
and disposal facilities for future expansion the Rendering Works has
retained FCR Technical to coordinate these activities and assist in their
design.
A comprehensive plan has been developed for the building of a 150 gpm
waste water treatment plant utilizing pooled storage, top bottom skimming,
air flotation, anaerobic digestion and sand filtration to achieve minimum
suspended solids and oil and grease discharge into the drainfield.
A schematic of this facility is attached.
Equipment is being ordered and the new disposal . plant is expected to be
fully operational by 6/30/81.
Earlier this year the Rendering Works retained the Geotechnical Engineering
firm of Shannon and Wilson to make a complete subsurface soil condition
survey as there was indications that the capacity of the existing drainfield
was being approached. Their remarks on Subsurface Conditions, Subsurface
Explorations and Laboratory Testing are as follows:
Page 2
SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
The results of the subsurface explorations show that the site is underlain
by two basic natural soil units to a depth of at least 25 feet. Flood
deposited silt and fine sand mantles the site. These fine - grained materials
are underlain by black alluvial sand of coarser texture.
SAND and SILT - From the surface to a depth of between about 4 and 10
feet a flood -plain deposit of light brown, fine sand and silt was
encountered. It is in this fine grained material that most of the
existing drainfield is situated. Grain -size distribution curves of selected
samples are shown on Figure 12.
Alluvial SAND - The sand underlying the flood plain deposits is generally
black, fine to medium grained and contains variable amounts of silt. Grain -
size distribution curves of selected samples from this unit are shown on
Figure 13.
Groundwater - Groundwater was encountered in each of the borings. The
depth of groundwater ranges from 13 to 16 feet below the ground surface.
Water levels measured on 20 May 1980 are shown on the boring logs.
SUBSURFACE EXPLORATIONS
Exploration of the subsurface soil conditions in and adjacent to the existing
drainfield was conducted in two phases. The first phase employed a.backhoe
provided by P. & K Enterprises to excavate 10 test pits in the area on 5 May
1980. The purpose of the test pits was to obtain samples of the materials in
and below the drainfield for laboratory testing and to visually observe the
condition of the drainfield soils and distribution system in selected areas.
We were assisted by Mr. Lee Johnson of FCR Technical in locating the test pits.
The test pits were sampled and logged by Mr. Steve Bruce, Geologist with
Shannon & Wilson, Inca
Phase 2 explorations consisted of 10 borings varying in depth between 24 and
26.5 feet. The borings were drilled by Rainier Explorations of Milton,
Washington, on 16 and 17 May 1980, using a truck - mounted hollow stem auger
drill rig. The purpose of the borings was to provide information on site soil
and groundwater conditions beyond the depth capability of a backhoe. Samples
were obtained in the borings at 2 -1/2 foot depth intervals using a split
barrel sampler. In each boring an observation well was installed to allow
monitoring of the groundwater level.
All borings were logged by Mr. Ron Free, Geologist with Shannon & Wilson, Inc.
The locations and elevations of the borings and test pits were approximately
determined using a tape and hand level referenced to existing features and
an assumed elevation. These approximate locations are shown on the Site
Plan, Figure 1.
The test pit logs are presented on Table 1. The logs of borings are shown
on Figures 2 through 11.
Page 3
LABORATORY TESTING
Laboratory tests were performed primarily on samples taken during the Phase
1 site explorations at the request of Mr. Lee Johnson. The purpose of the
testing was to provide data on the site soils which relate to on -site
disposal of wastewater. The following paragraphs summarize the procedures
used for testing.
Visual Classification - All samples were classified in accordance with ASTM
Designation D2488 -69 (Reapproved 1975), Description of Soils (Visual Manual
Procedure).
Natural Moisture Content - All natural moisture content determinations were
performed in accordance with ASTM D2216 -71, Laboratory Determination of
Moisture Content of Soil.
Soil pH Determination - Soil pH was determined for selected samples by mixing
equal volumes of soil and distilled water then measuring the pH of the resulting
mixture using a calibrated pH meter. The results are shown on Table 1.
Sieve and Hydrometer Analyses - Mechanical analyses were performed in accordance
with the Department of the Army Manual of Laboratory Soils Testing, Appendix
V, Grain Size Analyses. Both sieve and hydrometer analyses were performed
on all samples selected for grain size analysis unless the sample had less
than 10% passing the No. 200 mesh sieve.
Organic Content - The organic content of selected samples was determined by
weighing oven dried samples then burning the soil with a torch. The resulting
weight loss is expressed as a percentage and is tabulated on -the Test Pit
Logs Table 1. The relatively low percentages are believed to be the result
of high moisture content within the organic portion of the samples. This
moisture within the organic portion would have been lost during the oven
drying of the sample.
A state plan together with the boring logs and test pit grain size classifi-
cation charts are attached.
As the capacity of the present drainfield is being approached at the present
waste water discharge rate of 70,000 gal /day, they recommend that a
supplemental drainfield be established as shown on the site plan.
Their recommendations are:
RECOMMENDATIONS
1) In our opinion, development of a supplemental drainfield system to
discharge wastewater on -site, combined with additional wastewater
treatment, is feasible for providing a waste water disposal system.
Two drainfields with separate supply controls are recommended. Each
field should have a bottom area of. 10,000 square feet. We understand
that you are in contact with the various permitting agencies and will
obtain the required permits for establishment of the system. If desired,
we would assist you in your efforts to obtain such permits. The following
guidelines are provided for the development of such a system.
Page 4
a). We recommend that two areas, each having a bottom surface area of
10,000 square feet, be excavated down to the alluvial sand and the
excavated material set aside. The bottom surface area recommenda-
tion is based on the assumption that the undisturbed sand can
transmit a minimum of 2 -1/2 gallons per square foot per day of clear
waste water. All of the fine sand and silt unit should be removed
during excavation. The depth of the bottom of the excavations could
vary between 6 and 12 feet based on the subsurface exploration data.
The area outlined on Figure 1 shows potential for development.
b) The bottom of each excavation should be observed by our representa-
tive to determine whether silty soils of lower permeability are
present. Such silty soils should be removed where practical and
replaced with clean sand. Prior to placing fill, the bottom of the
excavations should be raked to loosen the soil compacted by the
excavation equipment.
c) The grade of the bottom of the excavations should then be raised to a
depth of about 5 feet below the present land surface. This may be
accomplished by importation of clean sand satisfactory to us or by
use of clean alluvial sand taken from the area next to the excavation.
d) The bottom should then be leveled and raked again to loosen the soil
compacted by the excavating equipment.
A two foot thickness of clean washed drainage gravel varying in size
between 3/4 and 1 -1/2 inches should then be placed on the bottom of
the excavations.
A distribution system consisting of rigid perforated 4" diameter PVC
pipe should then be installed on top of the gravel. Distance between
laterals should not exceed 6 feet.
g) Following installation of the piping one .additional foot of gravel
should be placed to cover the pipes. The upper few inches should be
pea gravel to minimize the possibility of tearing the semi- permeable
membrance. This gravel should be covered with a semi - permeable
membrane paper to prevent migration of top soil into the drainage
blanket.
h) The excavated sand and silt should then be replaced over the area and
the area regraded. Suitable grass could then be planted to stabilize
the area and reduce potential odors.
j) Provision of a separate supply control system for each of the two
fields will allow one field to be rested while the other is operating.
Page 5
The south westerly edge of this drainfield will be approximately 100
feet from the banks of the river and is the only area on the property
with soil conditions suitable for handling this effluent.
Construction of this new drainfield can commence as soon as your department
provides the necessary approval.
Please let me know if their are any questions.
Yours very truly,
F.C.R. TECHNICAL
E.L. Johnson
ELJ /mem
CONSULTANTS
William L. Shannon. P.E.
Stanley D. Wilson, P.E.
awn pp
SHANNON & WILSON, INC.
Geotechnical Consultants
1105 North 38th.Street • Seattle, Washington 98103•Telephone: (206) 632- 8020•Cable: GEOSAW
W-3709-01
13 June 1980
Seattle Rendering Works
5795 South 130th Place
Seattle, WA 98166
Attn: Mr. Wes Benefiel, President
SUPPLEMENT TO GEOTECHNICAL REPORT, WASTEWATER DISPOSAL PROBLEM,
SEATTLE RENDERING WORKS
In accordance with Mr. Lee Johnson's request on 6 June 1980, this letter supplements
our report dated 28 May 1980. During his telephone conversation with Mr. Dexter
McCulloch of our firm, Mr. Johnson asked our opinion regarding the length of time the
drainfields proposed in our report could be expected to function if only clear fresh
water were discharged into them. Mr. Johnson then asked the same question stating
that filtration systems would be installed to process the wastewater prior to disposal
in the drainfields to remove all suspended solids and all oil and grease leaving no more
than 300 parts per million of soluble organic waste in the water. Our opinions with
regard to these questions are based on the assumption stated in our report that the
drainage capacity of the site material will equal or exceed 2 -1/2 gallons per square
foot per day.
If clear fresh water is discharged to the proposed system, the system should, in our
opinion, function considerably longer than the previous drainfield system.
If prior to disposal within the proposed drainfields the wastewater is filtered to
remove all suspended solids and all oil and grease leaving only 300 parts per million of
biodegradable soluble organic materials, the system should be expected to function
much longer than the previous drainfield system. The soluble organic materials should
have no tendency to produce slime. No chemical additives with a tendency to inhibit
the rapid degradation of the organics or with a tendency to precipitate solids within
the natural soil materials should be present and /or introduced to the wastewater.
Earl A. Sibley, P.E. • Walter L. Wright, P.E. • Raymond P. Miller, P.E. • David E. Hilts, P.E. • Derek H. Cornforth, P.E.
M. Mike Alizadeh, P.E. • Rohn D. Abbott, P.E. • Robert J. Deacon. P.G. • George Yamane, P.E. • Maurice D. Veatch, P.G.
e. •.� _ o... ,....w - r. 1 _.. :_ - "- -•--
• •
Seattle Rendering Works
Attn: Mr. Wes Benefiel, President
13 June 1980
Page 2
W- 3709 -01
We trust that this supplemental information meets your current needs. Should you
have further questions please do not hesitate to call us.
Sincerely,
Dexter McCulloch, C.E.G.
Associate Geologist
Maurice D. Veatch, C.E.G.
Divisional Vice President
DMc /abv
cc: Lee Johnson