Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSEPA EPIC-34-90 - BOEING - BUILDING #9-04BOEING # 9 -04 MILITARY AIRCRAFT CENTER, CHARLES CARRIER CHEMICAL MANAGEMENT BLDG. PHASE 1 &II 9725 EAST MARGINAL WAY SO. EPIC -34 -90 . WAC 197711 7970' 1 ' DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE Description of Proposal To constr ct a 26 000 s•uare -foot chemical mana•ement building' for collectin. hazardous waste and storing hazardous materials. Proponent Boein• Militar Aircraft Center, Charles Carrier Location of Proposal, including street address, if any 9725 East Mar inal Wa South Section 4 Twn 23 R. 4E. Lead Agency: City of Tukwila File No. EPIC -34 -90 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 review of a completed environmental checklist and other on'afile after the lead agency. This information is available to the public on request. El There is no comment period for this DNS [] This DNS is issued under 197 -11- 340(2). Comments must be submitted by proposal for 15 days from the date belowe lead agency will not act on, this Responsible Official Rick Beeler Position/Title Planning Director Address 6200 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwi 98188 )ate Z9/PPS' Signature Phone 433 -1846 tou may appeal this determination to the City Clerk at City Hall, 6200 Southcenter 3oulevard, 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. :opies of the procedures for SEPA appeals are available with the City Clerk and Manning Department. M.DNS A F F I D A V I T [] Notice of Public Hearing C1 Notice of Public Meeting Q Board of Adjustment Agenda Packet 0 Board of Appeals Agenda Packet 0 Planning Commission Agenda Packet 0 Short Subdivision Agenda Packet 0 Notice of Application for Shoreline Management Permit 0 Shoreline Management Permit OF OISTRoBUTION hereby declare that: Determination of Nonsignificance [� Mitigated Determination of Non. significance Q Determination of Significance and Scoping Notice 0 Notice of Action Q Official Notice [] Other 0 Other was mailed to each of the following addresses on NA-0,115r Corviutiir fAkvy://i ifvaAtilf C,QA^,kw YV1 cy-a,t4( koik Nte4-707 1AAyek-W latA-A&) atra _ Name of Project 34- ect File Number / � 90 w , 19 . CITY OF TUKWILA 6200 SOUTHCENTER BOULEVARD, TUKWILA, WASHINGTON 98188 January 24, 1991 Charles Carrier Boeing Military Aircraft Center P.O. Box 3707 MS -4H -26 Tukwila, Wa. 98124 -2207 PHONE # (206) 433 -1800 RE: EPIC -34 -90 DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE Dear Mr. Carrier: Gary L. VanDusen, Mayor I would like to inform you that review of your Environmental Checklist (EPIC- 34 -90) was completed. A Determination of Nonsignificance•was issued on January 23, 1991. Building and Fire Department concerns on the design of the structure and related systems will be handled during the Plan Check Process. Should you have any questions regarding these matters, please contact either Building or Fire Departments for assistance. Thank You \4141) Darren Wilson Assistant Planner cc: J. Pace, Senior Planner File (EPIC- 34 -90) • Cont No. Epic File No. __ Fee -% Receipt No. 2 z .o2 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST RECEIVED A. BACKGROUND SEP Z 1 1990 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: Chemical. M.nagement Bldg. 9- phase #1 an 2. Name of applicant: Boeing Military Airplanes 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: P.O. Box 3707, M/S 4H -26 Seattle. WA 98124 -2207 Contact: Art Whitson 544 -2965 4. Date checklist prepared: 8/18/90 5. Agency requesting Checklist: City of Tukwila 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): See attached Preliminary Schedule 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. Yes Proposed phase#3 will expand the proposed chemical management facility by an additional 10.000 square feet. The addition will allow for increased material storage space. (See enclosed Vicinity Map) 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. Tukwila Building Dept. Tukwila Fire Dept. Tukwila Planning Dept. Washington State Elictrical Permits Plumbing and Mechanical Permits 11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. There are several questions later in this checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do not need to repeat those answers on this page. Section E requires a complete description of the objectives and alternatives of your proposal and should not be summarized here. To construct a 26 000 square foot ( + / -) Chemical Management Building for collecting hazardous waste and storing hazardous materials. 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. (See attached legal description and site plan) 13. Does the proposal lie within an area designated on the City's Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan Map as environmentally sensitive? No BY APPLICsi • TO BE COMPLETED B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1. Earth a. General description of the site (circle one): rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? o% �. 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. Currently the site is covered with asphalt. See attached geotechnical report for underlying soil types. �d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. See attached geotechnical report. e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quanti- ties of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. None. f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. No. g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? 95% Evaluation for Agency Use Only • Evaluation for Agency Use Only h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or . other impacts to the earth, if any: As required by the geotechnical report. 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. Typical emissions (from welding, operation of internal combustion equipment, painting) will occur during construction of the building. b. Are there any off -site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. No. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: None. 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. The site borders the Duwamish River. The Duwamish River flows into the PugetSound. • 4 Evaluation for Agency Use Only 2) Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans. No. 3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material. None. 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. Yes. The entire site lies within a 100 -year floodplain. 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 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. 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. None. 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. Storm water runoff from roof and parking lot areas enters the Duwamish River after flowing through oil /water separators. • • 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: All parking areas have catch basins with oil /water separators. 4. Plants a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: x deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other x shrubs x grass pasture crop or grain wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bullrush, skunk cabbage, other water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other — other types of vegetation b. What kind and amount of vegetation will-be removed or altered? None. c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. None. (songbird's) • IIIEvaluation for Agency Use Only d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: Landscaping will be provided per Tukwila building code. 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: (heron) eagle, Duck, Gull other: mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other: None 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 wildlife, if any: None. • 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. Electric.and natural gas (heating and lighting). 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: Building will be in compliance with Washington State energy and building codes. 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. None. The building will be constructed with containment and explosion -proof equipment as required by code. All chemicals will be handled only by fully trained personnel. 1) Describe special emergency services that might be required. The Hazardous Materials Response Team will be located in this building. Hazardous Material emergency services will be provided by this group. 2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environ- mental health hazards, if any: The building will be built to specifically store hazardous materials. All chemicals will be handled by fully trained personnel. 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. None. 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: None required. 8. Land and Shoreline Use a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? Manufacturing, Industrial, Storage, Offices, Warehouse, Parking Lots. b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe. No. c. Describe any . structures on the site. Commercial and industrial buildings, offices, warehouses. • 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/H (:Heavy Manufacturing) f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? M/H (Heavy Manufacturing) If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? Urban 9. h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? If so, specify. No. i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? Less than 45 during three shifts. 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: Design criteria states that the structure will match existing building types in the surrounding area. -12- • 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 a. What , is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed? The height of the building will be approximately 20 .feet htigh. The exterior building materials will consist of "Tilt -up" concrete panels. 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 building is designed to be compatible with existing buildings in the area. • 0 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? . A Boeing recreation facility is located at an adjacent ,site (Oxbow Site).GGreenbelts within thertsite provide Boeing employees with picnic areas and walkways. 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: None. • • 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. None. b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site. The Museum of Flight is located next to the site (on the east side of East Marginal Way South) c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any: None. 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. East Marginal Way South is adjacent to the east side of the site. Access to the site is from this road. b. Is the site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? Yes. Public transit stops on site. —c. How many parking spaces would the:Completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? The building will provide b6:new :parking spaces and eliminate 48 existing parking spaces. -15- • • 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. No. f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur. No increased traffic is anticipated. Existing employees from other buildings will be moved to this building upon completion. g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transpor- tation impacts, if any: None. 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. Minor increase in Fire Protection services. b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. The Boeing Hazardous Material Response Team, Boeing .Fire Department and Boeing Security organizations will respond toe : emer -genciesat this site. • Evaluation for Agency Use Only 16. Utilities a. Circle utilities currently available at the site: lectricity) natural gas) (water) (refuse service) telephone)- sanitary sewer septic system, other. b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be needed. Sanitary Sewer - Connection to Metro sewer system Water- -- Connection to Seattle Water Department Electricity - Connection to Seattle City Light Natural Gas - Connection to Washington Natural Gas 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 r% • ���� =. �� /� /ice Signature: Date Submitted: PLEASE CONTINUE TO THE NEXT PAGE. TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLIC• Evaluation for Agency Use Only D. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS (do not use this sheet for project actions) B ause these questions are very general, it may be helpful to ead them in conjunction with the list of the elements of the : vironment. When a wering these questions, be aware of the extent the proposal or the types of activities likely to result from the propo al, would affect the item at a greater intensity or at a f. ter rate than if the proposal were not imple- mented. Res;ond briefly and in general terms. 1. How would he proposal be likely to increase discharge to water; : issions to air; production, storage, or release of t• is or hazardous substances; or production of noise? Proposed measures to avo • or reduce such increases are: 2. How would the proposal be likely t affect plants, ani- mals, fish, or marine life? Proposed measures to protect or conserve pl• ts, ani- mals, fish, or marine life are: -18- • Evaluation for Agency Use Only Now would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources? Propos-. measures to protect or conserve energy and natural esourses are: 4. How would the p environmentally se eligible or under such as parks, wil threatened or endange cultural sites, wet farmlands? oposal be likely to use or affect itive areas or areas designated (or tudy) for governmental protection; erness, wild and scenic rivers, ed species habitat, historic or nds, floodplains, or prime Proposed measures to protect such resources or to avoid or reduce impacts are: 5. How would the proposal be likely to affect land and shoreline use, inclduing whether it woul allow or encourage land or shoreline uses incompat 'le with existing plans? • Evaluation for Agency Use Only Proposed measures to avoid or reduce shoreline and land se impacts area: How does he proposal conform to the Tukwila Shoreline Master Plan 6. How would the proposa be likely to increase demands on transportation or publi, services and utilities? Proposed measures to reduce or re are: and to such demand(s) 7. Identify, if possible, whether the proposal m: conflict with local, state, or federal laws or requir ents for the protection of the environment. -20- • • Does the proposal conflict with policies of the Tukwila Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan? If so, what poli- cies of the Plan? Proposed easures to avoid or reduce the conflict(s) are: Evaluation for Agency Use Only • TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLIl 411----Evaluation for Agency Use Only E. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR ALL PROJECT AND NON PROJECT PROPOSALS The objectives and the alternative means of reaching the objectives for a proposal will be helpful in reviewing the aforegoing items of the .Environmental Checklist. This information provides .a general overall perspective of the proposed action in the context of the environmental infor- mation provided and the submitted plans, documents, suppor- tive information, studies, etc. 1. What are the objective(s) of the proposal? To provide a chemical management building for storage of hazardous materials and consolidation of hazardous waste. The building will eliminate the need to store large quantities of hazardous materials throughout other buildings and will consolidate storage, tracking, and management of hazardous materials within one building. 2. What are the alternative means of accomplishing these objectives? There are no other means of accomplishing this objective. The existing method of storing hazardous materials throughout the site is inefficient and outdated. New regulations require more stringent control of hazardous materials and present storage capabilities within exist- ing buildings have diminished. A new building is required to store :hazardous materials, provide a focal ,point for receiving hazardous materials, distribute hazardous materials on an "as needed" basis and consolidate hazardous waste. 3. Please compare the alternative means and indicate the preferred course of action: N/A • • Evaluation for Agency Use Only 4. Does the proposal conflict with policies of the Tukwila Comprehensive Land. Use Policy Plan? If so, what poli- cies of the Plan? No. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce the conflict(s) are: N/A -23- FAX C f ' `OFF" 1'UKWILA PVJ3LIU WORKS TRANSMITTAL FAX NUMBER: (2o6) 431- 3665 TO: TITLE: DATE: /-2/211). FROM: TITLE: /%7 COMPANY: DEPMENT: FAX NO. sis - r.. m: eV a.•. w- w. w.. ,....,+w.w+vararon•vero••owwtinwo% ' DEPARTMENT: ••••••••••X**••••0o6xr TOTAL NO. OF PAGES TRANSMITTED, INCLUDING THIS COVER SHEET; SENT BY (INITIALS) SUBJECT: �i� Oyl7�s' COMMENTS/ ESSAGE: ypa MO-WS NoKI' GoVete21 pe/AnlavrIces :•.iM'r;.rx.' v .oaM.,.•..,.,v;,H�,e+eobw...vsv v:a>,v..•xtvwawa a+ooroeravc:,..H•- awnv»••Yauhy • as IF THIS COMMUNICATION IS NOT CLEARLY RECEIVED, PLEASE CALL: 3Sxaiw. r.. tal. rw46r isawu• wwu 110»•••4ow1,.. 04..: a.•••: b.::W..maaar6•••••:a;aiw;..a. .: :a:. vv:.::.:,fcea».ocamco> *.v..a e oroko.441ftwbi»9e.wAwwLoi:c,•)a mem..:mmr.:wa TUKWILA C1TY HALL - 6200 Southcenter.Boulevard, Tukwila WA 98188 - (206) 433 -1800 03/24 :ITY OF TUKWILA EPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ENVIRONM P�'�AL REVIEW ROUTING FORM EPIC: 'ROJECT .Be2e/i AO' ∎DDRESS j7, 3- )ATE TRANSMITTED /t% / ) ;TAFF COORDINATOR] /ee ) /?),(4.5‘. y1 RESPONSE REQUESTED BY /0„..? DATE RESPONSE RECEIVED Boeing 9 -04 - Hazardous Materials Storage, Environmental 1. Page 8, Item d: tt The site lies within the 100 -year floodplain. The building, U/1© including all spill containment appurtenances, must be i constructed 2' or more above the 500 -year flood. All hazardous 1\11._ materials to be isolated from storm drainage & flood waters in such a manner as eliminate the potential for discharge into the waters of the Duwamish or its tributaries. 2. Item 10, pg. 3: CAJ Comply with (DOE/EPA, METRO, and Tukwila Public Works Sf requirements. bh(?'Y( A METRO discharge permit should be obtained for discharge of any surface or ground water which may be contaminated. Provide copies of sewer and water availability letters from the City of Seattle. 4./ This construction requires frontal improvements along East Marginal Way South. The Boeing Company is currently seeking approval for improvements relative to the Boeing Development Center (of which this building is a part). An agreement is to be executed, between Boeing and the City, for the construction of these improvements. Per the City'Engineer, a letter of intent, expressing a willingness to provide these improvements, is all that,is required for this building. /2 2, .:ITY OF TUKWILA 'EPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 8ui)dinA ': ENVIRONMItITAL REVIEW ROUTIG FORM -r EPIC: 'ROJECT B'e' y 4d3: 1ODRESS .A �. j ie/ - j S. )ATE TRANSMITTED /f 4/5 ;TAFF COORDINATOR ? /,4.0,x) /?id, ry) RESPONSE REQUESTED BY /J/1,_?/,0 DATE RESPONSE RECEIVED The attitched environmental checklist was received regarding this project. Please review >a comment below to advise the responsible official regarding the, threshold determination.; environmental review file is available in the Planning Department through the above stag coordinator.. Comments regarding the project you wish carried to the Planning Commission; Board of Adjustment and City Council should be submitted In the comnient section below. ITEM COMMENT o � e e. e or £L e.oLPI,e — e m out4 o s- report: a);(5- 1140) 4 d 'c LA 5'seS -0l4 i -e _ c e 1 aie riQ / A4 14' iLl)e KQi +es+ TO ;-1-1 ally haicr4is wialerill Pict fkay provide_ r e 4 i-Ea 0-f lAc ci 7 Sr fse f t rcd i o1A Wit( it 2 Q'i.(it clean iJ i ¢ rp mo IJQ.I o t el(r S1 pkveimmtlectuaa. -(� (� iU!1 1)t. au cc 416 ror kAfge 60& s I ct Icy o U ! 1� i� goy is 4-n , n 41-ilace 7 KP 6-1(Q- i c /0- o tF J3k C 0 (5•5'UecS- ;?i t)o I VeII a ik Q 6 �� o f ) ifs Date: /046-1? Comments prepared by: 9 04114 ia :ITV OF TUKWILA ►EPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Building ] planning ENVIRONM 'SAL REVIEW lR OUTIG FARM EPIC: -3 ' )ROJECT ae%iv- ,84' \DDRESS ze. )ATE TRANSMITTED /t0-762.-.7 7 ;TAFF COORDINATOR/7A,E,� ) RESPONSE REQUESTED BY DATE RESPONSE RECEIVED The attftched environmental checklist was received regarding this project..` Please review`a • . comment below to advise the responsible official regarding the threshold determination environmontal:review file is available in the Planning Department through the :abovb atai .coordinator, . Comments regarding the project you wish carried to the Planning Commission, Board of Adjustment and City Council should be submitted in. the comment section below. ITEM COMMENT e i4 Neva lvc awauiteL °tieA dez4f7t. • 73e✓ U,Se-u SS /D-') • ® ?%1 e -c 7:5 /1i-- 3Cj -9e 2 1`4 es c Spi4 c, 1;Tt CG✓}C �� ✓� >‘t, fr1 '',Si j 8-2 a r e4 r. 0 Y G oU'74 Gee) 7 1 " 4 ; • 4 1 e , sy. sfem s) GG✓� T.� /.± 1t 4 ,[ , 444 ✓ . - , )7.) �, •, r1 h / C' Co,l C ef� cr e is © oaf 7tief t e -- Cr c" ,s A 6e r- .. gyp„/ G/vPia lG✓� 1,r-ceei ✓,e5. 7`,<A.7? l°1 Co v/7 %k ‘Y- i14A fP -T /J- •1 111 Il PLANNING DEPT. „,/ t4 . I -, s G P �G�+f4in✓�7e4”, 4i11 Date: /D/0a Comments prepared by: , aao, DA E ACTIVIA LOG 1 r COMMENTS /00 9 I1 i le, 60y,ii( S 2,/c. 2 01-* , ///o ,/401240 4 i t 2f1/71146)'7 "77 44L Si WI- ,eige}* /0//19../ roz 4'?q4•17 12 0 �d /mil .Pi an /y/-sue-() J 44 PV/WmaaSs 'SCHEDULE A Portion of Francis McNatt Donation Claim No. 38; a portion of the abandoned bed of Duwamish River lying between East Marginal Way South and the Easterly boundary of the right- of-way of Commercial Waterway District No. 1, and between said donation claim' and' the plat of Moore's Five Acre Tracts, according to the plat recorded in Volume 9 of the Plats, page 28, in King County, Washington; and portions of Tracts 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 65, 66, 67 and 68, and portions of vacated Francis. Avenue in said plat of Moore's Five Acre Tracts, all in Section 33, Township 24 North, Range 4 East, W.M., and in the North half of Section 4, Township 23 North, Range 4 East, W.M., in Ring_ County, Washington, more particularly described as follows: Beginning on the Westerly margin of East Marginal .Key South at a point which bears North 89 °15'54'. West a distance of 2,470.01 feet along the donation claim line; thence South 23 °40'59' East a distance of 1,374.17 feet along the Westerly margin of East Mar- ginal Way South from the intersection of the line between the donation claims of Francis McNatt and Henry Van Asselt with the East line of Section 33, Township 24 North, Range 4 East, W.M., in 'icing Coun- ty, Washington, said point being at the intersection of the Westerly margin of East Marginal Way South with the North line of Van de Vanter Stock Farm Tract, and true point - of beginning; thence- South 23 °39'54" East along the Westerly margin of East Mar- ginal Way South a distance 681.27 feet to a point of intersection with the South line of Tract '65, Moore's Five Acre Tracts; thence South 62.01'41" West a dis- tance of 696.29 feet to the center line of vacated Francis Avenue in said plat; thence North 27 °58'19" West along said center line a distance of 14.67 feet, more or less, to the Northwesterly line of that por- tion of land condemned by City of Seattle Ordinance No. 82962 lying Westerly of vacated Francis Avenue; thence South 62 °01'41" West along said Northwesterly line a distance of 1,079.55 feet to the Easterly line of the right - of-way of said Commercial Waterway No. 1; thence North 15 °00'00" West along said East- erly line a distance of 1,069.38 feet to the North line of a survey recorded under Auditor's Record of • • Survey No. 8108049007; thence North 61.33'40" East along said North line .840.02 feet to the most North- erly point of that portion of Slip No. 6 as hereto- fore conveyed to Monsanto Chemical Co. by deed recorded under Auditor s File No. 5018589; thence following the shoreline of said Duwamish River as established by Commercial Waterway District No. 1, North 70.49'29" East a distance of 110.173 feet; thence North 83 °57'56" East a distance of 119.00 feet; thence South .84.17'04" East a distance of 117.00 feet; 'thence South 86 °54'59" East a distance of 486.97 feet to the Northwest corner of that cer- tain tract of land heretofore deeded to Van de Vanter Stock Farm by deed recorded in Volume 784 of Deeds, page 571, records of King County; thence South 89 °27'50" .East along the North line of said Van de Vanter Stock Farm Tract a distance of 14.94 feet to the true point of beginning. -2- 012386/1/1187R HMG LOT (UNSECURED)'. • . \\,\\\\\ COVERED WAITING AREA VICINITY MAP PUMP NOUSE WATER TANK JGUARD POST] rum GATES FRIA E SIGs; OSSING �T��'�� �►T�TBViAa'�9'�►ffA�ar4Br7�J�� �g r.+�a.:.•... .w.�wr.�r .wwi._�r M.O. vim. NINI.M. .• • M • Ali►�i 11.AWAr��1���ArAMWWANL \..tP 1' :1-11-/17 P.5(1.1 THIS PARKING LOT (UNSECURED TRACKS • 1 Ifs •. _L s• N.4111II.I11t1111111111.1111H 111111111[1111111 IT111111I111llli TRUCK ACCESS ONLY ATTICS GATE — !II!'IIII1111111III 1►1111u11I11I1111111111111 =_ 155 STALLS FOR 9-51 BLDG. PARKING (SECURED) 9-51 BUILDING 200 LINEAR PARK 1%5 ------------------- AhhhA NIVW _.vrAwwv nvv.wM� ww~vwrvwwww irvwvwww Ar WrA.WWWK NerAM o Oo ENNS DEFENSAOSPACE GROUP DEVELOPMENTAL CENTER TUKWILA, WA 0 I I SCALE 600 FT ACRES: 94.5 OWNED 69.9 LEASED en Wh INIAIAAM oreflor M/W. ortortrWAIWNOW ,wwv w oww.r i/10-•- • M J8 9 -56 irchninerlinurw .w .wv fr- PARKING 9 -80 8I I J10.- 9.1.00• om 9 -102 "1,.-140 11 111 9 -130 / 9 -120 9 65 9 -101 9 -103 ' III �--- 9 591/ 9 -99 ry _ men •wvv..rt�v.v . MAMO J WIAWAIr bV V.i/1/V� 0 unimoom wwwrn 1 IhhAhN e •. 0 =TTTT IPAIRKIING e e b b b b e 0 9.7Z/J.CONSTRUCTION EXPANSION UNDER I 9 -5 964 947TOWER 9633 s -s2 9-60 C� ❑ 9-670 9 -62 .9-61 /*/*1.1/4/1/S ( r 9 -411 I T 1,,/ /p_110 - _ PARKING - _ 9-424 THRUI9 429 9 -66 9 2 9 -54 9_55 9-48 9 -49 • 11111 9-43 TRAILERS 9 -439 THRU 9.443 PARKING 1 J28 9 78 9 -06 • • co :CHEMICA p •STORAGE • A • EAST MARGINAL WAY SOUTH HELISTOP a-11 i 9 -403- 9 -05 MILITARY FLIGHT CENTER 74 1:11 TRAILERS' Il11e 8111 1 TH THRU I 721 It MUSEUM OF FLIGHT JOINT USE BOEING/MUSEUM PARKING D SOUTH BOEING FIELD NON - BOEING OWNED 9-55 Building 9725 E Marginal Way S Tukwila, WA 98108 9 PRELf iNARY PAGE )F 1 LEGEND: SCHEDULE COMPLETED FORECAST BMA PROJECTS DCA 744 CHEMICAL MGMT FACILITY BLDG 9 -04 (DESIGN /CONSTRUCT) TIER II REVISION 2 (6- 14 -90) DATE: 8 -2 -90 WORK EFFORT EVENT 0 0 V---4t V~---- EARLY EVENT --~ -O O________37 LATE EVENT PROJECT ACTIVITY 1 9 9 0 1 9 91 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUNE JULY AUG SEPT CCT NDJ DEC JAN FEB MAR APR 1 MAY JUNE JULY MAJOR PROJECT MILESTONES ' �1 5 6/30 CONCEPTUAL DESIGN/ ESTIMATES 6/30 FACILITIES REVIEW REVISE DESIGN CRITERIA PREPARE DESIGN/ CONST. RFP 1 PROPOSAL PREPARATION PROPOSAL EVALUATION/ AWARD DESIGN/ REVIEW PERMITTING 2 8 9 TIMINJ7 1 9 1 1 2 6 5 1 8 4 31 YIIIIIIIIIII?' ' 20 I 18 � 7J' BOO 15 7 CONSTRUCTION �1f 116 1 9? - BOEING COMPANY 695-473-016 March 6,1990 DAMES & MOORE • • - DAMES & MOORE A PROFESSIONAL LIMITF :i∎PARTNERSHIP . 500 MARKET PLACE TOWER. 2025 FIRST AVENUE, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98121 (206) 728 -0744 March 6, 1990 Boeing Support Services P.O. Box 3707, M/S 4H -07 Seattle, Washington 98124 -2207 Attention: Mr. Pete Woid Gentlemen: We are pleased to submit herein our 'Report of Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Chemical Management Building 9 -04, Developmental Center, Tukwila, Washington', for the Boeing Company. This study was authorized by your Work Order Request No. 90 -5002 to Basic Agreement BECE 89 -56, and was conducted in accordance with our proposal dated February 20, 1990. This report was previously submitted in draft form for your review and comment. Comments received have been incorporated into this final report. Included in this report are the results of our field exploration and recommendations regarding site preparation, foundation support, and other applicable geotechnical considerations. We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to you and look forward to working with you in the future. Please call the undersigned or Mr. Kelly S. Merrill with any comments or questions you may have. 12 copies submitted Yours very truly, DAMES & MOORE L. Chabra, P.E. Principal Engineer /Associate oFFU'ES w'oau ?WIPE REPORT OF GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION PROPOSED CHEMICAL MANAGEMENT BUILDING 9 -04 DEVELOPMENTAL CENTER TUKWILA, WASHINGTON for the BOEING COMPANY rITRODUCTION We present in this report the results of our geotechnical investigation for the proposed Chemical Management Building 9 -04 at Boeing's Developmental Center in Tukwila, Washington. The new building is to be located near Gate J -28, to the north of existing Building 9 -51, to the east of existing Building 9 -06, and to the west of East Marginal Way South. The building layout is shown on the Site Plan, Plate 1. We understand that Boeing intends to put the project out to bid as a design - build, with three separate phases. Phase I, consisting of the eastern portion of the building, and Phase II, comprising the central portion of the building, will make up the base bid. Phase III, or the western portion of the building, will be bid and constructed at a later date. Our geotechnical investigation includes the areas of all three phases. Phases I and II will enclose 24,600 square feet, with about 9,500 square feet in Phase M. The majority of the building will consist of high -bay warehouse storage, with an cave height of 20 feet. Eight -foot high masonry partitions will separate storage areas within the building. A 2,800 square foot office mezzanine will be located in the eastern portion of the Phase I area. A recessed loading dock will be constructed in the southern portion of the Phase II area. It is anticipated that the building will be of concrete tilt -up construction, with a slab -on- grade floor. Column and first floor loads are not known at this time. Second floor live loads for the office mezzanine will be on the order of 100 pounds per square foot. We understand that the existing paved areas outside the building footprint will be reused for parking and access as much as possible. The purpose of our geotechnical investigation is to provide recommendations concerning site preparation and foundation support for the proposed 9 -04 facility. Our recommendations are based on the results of subsurface exploration, laboratory testing, and engineering analyses. The specific elements of our investigation include: DAMES 61 MOORE 1. Exploration of soil and ground water conditions underlying the proposed site by drilling 5 borings to depths ranging from about 44 to 99 feet below existing site grades. 2. Laboratory testing to assess the pertinent engineering characteristics of the site soils. 3. Recommendations regarding site preparation, including removal of unsuitable soils, suitability of onsite soils for use as backfill, backfill placement techniques, and compaction criteria. 4. Recommendations concerning the most suitable and economical foundation type for the site conditions. Both shallow foundations and piles have been considered. Allowable capacities and settlement estimates are provided for appropriate foundation types. S. Recommendations regarding support of the building floor slab. 6. Generalized comments regarding liquefaction potential at the site based primarily on our previous studies in the area. 7. A written report containing a site plan, boring logs, a description of subsurface conditions, and our findings and recommendations. SITE GEOLOGY The soils at the study site consist predominantly of alluvial sediments which have resulted from deposition of the Duwamish River over many years of meandering across the valley floor. The site is located to the east of the current Duwamish River channel, between existing Slip No. 6 to the north and previously existing Slip No. 7 to the south. The slips are indicative of a previous channel of the river which looped around to the east of the study site. Straightening of the river channel as far south as South 112th Street took place principally between 1913 to 1918. During this period, the general grade of the areas on either side of the river was raised to a level several feet higher than mean sea level. The man -made fill placed to raise the area grades was primarily granular material from river dredging operations. The depositional history of the site has resulted in significant variability in the soil profile, with soil types ranging from coarse sand or gravel to silty clay. In zones where deposition occurred in a relatively high energy environment (fast moving water), more competent granular materials are present. In backwater areas with relatively low energy depositional forces, relatively soft fine- grained silty or clayey soils are present. ;Although significant variability is evident vertically, the soils at the site tend to be relatively uniform laterally. DAMES & MoORE . SITE CONDITIONS SURFACE CONDITIONS The project site is located approximately 1/4 mile to the east of the Duwamish River, just to the south of existing Slip No. 6. The site is currently in use as a paved parking area. Existing Building 9 -06 is located just to the west of the site. We understand that the parking area was previously occupied by a truck yard, and that a winery was also previously located on the site. The study site is currently paved with asphaltic concrete. The pavements appear to be in good condition over most of the site. The site is relatively flat, with relief in some areas for drainage down to several catch basins. SOIL CONDITIONS Subsurface conditions at the site of the proposed Building 9 -04 were investigated by drilling five borings to depths ranging from 44 to 99 feet beneath the existing ground surface. Two deep borings were each drilled to a depth of 99 feet, while three shallower borings were drilled to depths ranging from 44 to 49 feet. Information from nearby borings drilled for previous Dames & Moore investigations was also used in this study. The locations of the borings drilled during this study are shown on Plate 1. A description of our field investigation and the boring logs are presented in the Appendix. In general, the native soil deposits underlying the pavement consist of sand, silty sand, clayey silt, and silty clay. In addition, granular fill materials were encountered immediately below the pavement. Asphaltic concrete pavements are present at the location of all the borings, with thicknesses generally on the order of 3 to 4 inches. Crushed rock base course was encountered beneath the pavements in Borings B -1 -90 and B -5-90. The crushed rock is about 9 inches thick at the boring locations and is in a dense condition. About 1 1/2 feet of very dense sandy gravel was encountered beneath the asphalt in Boring B -4 -90. Crushed rock or sandy gravel base course materials were not observed in Borings B -2 -90 and B -3 -90. Granular fill was encountered immediately below the asphalt and /or base course materials in all of the borings. The fill consists of fine sand to silty sand and extends to depths ranging from about 5 to 10 feet below existing site grades. The fill appears to be thickest in the southwest corner of the site as observed in our Boring 13-5-90. The granular fill is typically in a loose to medium dense condition. Gravel particles and chunks of asphalt are present in the fill in Boring B -4 -90. Thin layers and seams of a white clayey material were observed within the fill in three of the borings in the central and southern portions of the proposed building footprint (Borings 13-2-90,B-3-90, and 13- 5-90). The nature and source of the material is not clear at this time, although it may be related to operations of the previous winery on the site. Chemical testing is DANES b MOORE • underway to determine if the material contains any hazardous substances. These test results will be presented under separate cover when available. Based on the limited amount of the white clayey material observed in our borings, we anticipate that it will not significantly impact foundation support of the building. However, if greater quantities of the material are discovered during construction, we recommend that Dames & Moore be notified so we can assess the possible impacts on foundation performance. The soils encountered beneath the pavement and fill material consist of a thick stratum of primarily fine to medium sand and silty fine sand, with some zones of sandy silt also present. These primarily granular soils extend to depths ranging from about 63 feet to 71 feet in the two deep borings. The three shallower borings were all terminated in this stratum. The soils tend to be in a loose condition in the upper portions of the stratum. The thickest zone of loose soil was observed in Boring B -2 -90, where the loose sand extends to a depth of 36 feet. The density of these primarily granular soils tends to increase with depth, becoming medium dense to dense in the lower portions of the stratum. The soils also tend to grade finer with depth, with several zones of sandy silt present in the western portion of the site in Borings B -4 -90 and B -5 -90. The sandy silt is in a stiff to very stiff condition. A thick zone of fine - grained soil was encountered below the upper primarily granular soils in both of the deep borings. The fine - grained soils consist of clayey silt overlying silty clay. This fine - grained zone ranges in thickness from about 20 to 28 feet in our two deep borings. The clayey soils are typically in a stiff condition, and possess moderate strength and compressibility. A stratum of fine to medium sand underlies the clayey deposit at the locations of both the deep borings. Although the sand in this stratum is only medium dense just below the clay, it becomes very dense within about 5 feet of the clay -sand interface. The very dense granular soils possess high strength and low compressibility. GROUND WATER Ground water levels measured during drilling ranged from about 10 to 13.5 feet in three of the borings. Accurate ground water levels could not be measured in two of the borings (B -2- 90 and B -3 -90) because of the fluids added during drilling to control soil heave. We anticipate that the ground water level in the area will fluctuate seasonally due to variable precipitation. The highest water levels on the site may be several feet above the levels measured during our study. LABORATORY TESTING Samples of soils encountered during our subsurface investigation were taken to our geotechnical laboratory in Seattle for further examination and testing. The purpose of the testing program was to provide information concerning classification and engineering characteristics of the soils encountered. Tests performed include direct shear, fines content analysis, and moisture- DAMES & MC/ORE density determination. A description of the test procedures, equipment, and results are presented in the Appendix. As noted above, a sample of the white clayey material encountered has been submitted to a chemical testing laboratory for analysis to determine if any hazardous substances are present. These results will be submitted under separate cover when available. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS GENERAL Based on the results of our geotechnical investigation, we conclude that the relatively loose condition of the near - surface granular soils beneath the site of the proposed Building 9 -04 precludes supporting the building on conventional shallow foundations. We are of the opinion that settlement considerations and the potential for liquefaction of the near - surface soils under seismic loading preclude the use of shallow foundations. Accordingly, we recommend that the building column and wall loads be supported on pile foundations extending into the upper granular soil deposit. However, we are of the opinion that the building floor slab can be soil - supported, given that the recommendations for site preparation described below are implemented. Our recommendations regarding site preparation, foundation and floor slab support, and comments concerning liquefaction potential are presented in the following sections. SITE PREPARATION Site preparation will consist primarily of demolition and removal of existing pavements, excavation of soils to the required depths, and subgrade preparation. The existing asphalt pavement or other construction debris should be removed from the site and properly disposed of, as it will not be suitable for use as backfill. We anticipate that site grades for the new facility will be similar to the existing grades, with relatively little excavation required, except in the area of the recessed loading dock in the southern portion of Phase II. Assuming a dock height on the order of 3 to 4 feet for the loading dock, excavations necessary for the building should generally be above the level of the water table at the site. Deeper excavations for utilities may encounter the water table, however. Localized dewatering and /or shoring may be required for deeper excavations. The soils expected at the subgrade level will include primarily loose to medium dense granular material. We recommend that the exposed subgrades be examined by a Dames & Moore representative to confirm that the soil conditions are consistent with the conditions encountered in our explorations. In order to adequately support the building floor slab, we recommend that granular soils present at the subgrade level be compacted to 95 percent of maximum dry density (ASTM DI 557) for a depth of at least 2 feet. Achieving this criteria will probably require some overexcavation and recompaction or replacement of the subgrade soils. DAMES 6 MOORE • • �:. The required minimum 2 -foot depth of compaction indicated above will be suitable for floor slab loads of up to about 200 to 250 pounds per square foot (psf). If greater loads are anticipated, we recommend that we be consulted to review these criteria and make revisions as necessary. Soils encountered during subgrade preparation which are loose, soft, or wet and cannot be compacted to the recommended criteria will require additional preparation to provide an adequate bearing surface. Any loose, soft, or wet areas that cannot be compacted should be overexcavated to firm soil or an additional 2 feet, whichever is less, under the direction of a Dames & Moore representative. The overexcavations should be backfilled with clean, well - graded sand or sand and gravel compacted to 95 percent of maximum dry density. The backfill should be placed and compacted in maximum 8 -inch lifts. Onsite granular soils that are relatively free of organics will generally be suitable for use as backfill if they are conditioned to near optimum moisture content prior to placement and compaction. It should be noted that granular soils with a significant fines content will be susceptible to disturbance when exposed to moisture and equipment traffic. FOUNDATION SUPPORT Vertical Pile Support We recommend that the columns and wall loads of proposed Building 9 -04 be supported on pile foundations. The generally loose nature of the shallow granular soils essentially precludes the use of spread footings. For this report, we have evaluated the support of the building structure by 16 -inch diameter augercast concrete piles. Augercast piles have been commonly used for similar structures in the area and are considered to be an appropriate and economical choice to provide the necessary support. Alternative pile diameters or types can be evaluated if desired. We recommend that the piles be extended to a depth of 40 feet beneath current site grades and terminated in the typically medium dense granular soils at that depth. The 40 -foot depth was chosen to extend beneath the deepest zones of loose soils observed in our borings, while also staying as far above the deep clayey strata as possible. For 16 -inch augercast concrete piles extending to a depth of 40 feet below current site grades, we recommend that an allowable downward capacity of 40 tons be used for design. This value includes a factor of safety of at least 2. The piles may have a greater actual downward capacity, but the recommended value was developed considering the settlement from consolidation of the underlying clayey stratum. We further recommend that 16 -inch augercast concrete piles be designed using an allowable uplift capacity of 20 tons. This value assumes a factor of safety of about 1.5. The recommended allowable capacities presented above for downward - acting loads are based on total dead and live loads and may be increased by 1 /3 for temporary seismic and wind loads. The recommended upward capacities are based on transient load conditions and should not • DAMFS & MookE be increased. If the piles are designed with a center to center spacing of at least 4 pile diameters, no reduction is required to account for group action of piles. Augercast concrete piles designed in accordance with the above recommendations are expected to experience total settlement of approximately 1/2 to 3/4 inch for two or four -pile groups under loads equivalent to the allowable capacities given above. If column loads are such that more than four -pile groups are required, we should be consulted to review these settlement estimates. Approximately 1/4 inch of the settlement is expected to occur rapidly after the loads are applied. Post - construction settlements, or settlements resulting from consolidation of the deep clayey strata, are expected to be on the order of 1/4 to 1/2 inch. Maximum differential settlements of approximately 1/2 inch or less are expected across the building area. The recommended pile length of about 35 to 37 feet (depending on the embedment depth of the pile cap) is within the restrictions imposed by Section 2909(b) of the Uniform Building Code which limits the length of cast -in -place piles to no more than 30 times the pile diameter. Structural characteristics of the pile material and foundation connections may impose more stringent limitations than the values given here and should be evaluated by the structural engineer. Augercast concrete piles should be appropriately reinforced. They should be installed by an experienced contractor to the recommended penetrations using a continuous flight auger. Concrete grout must be pumped continuously during withdrawal of the auger. The rate of auger withdrawal should not exceed about 7 to 9 feet per minute. The pressures at the grout pump should be in the range of 150 to 250 pounds per square inch (psi) depending on the length of the feeder hose used. We recommend that a representative of Dames & Moore be present during installation of the piles to monitor contractor procedures and to confirm that the installed piles are adequate to support the design loads. Lateral Pile Resistance For 16 -inch augercast piles, we recommend that a lateral load of 8 tons be used for design. This value corresponds to a pile deflection of 0.5 inches. Since the lateral load capacity is directly proportional to the lateral deflection for deflections of less than 0.5 inches, lower pile head deflections will result in a corresponding reduction in the design lateral load. The recommended lateral load assumes a center to center spacing of at least 4 pile diameters for piles in groups. The lateral capacities indicated above refer to the resistance available on the side of the pile. Additional resistance to lateral loads will be provided by passive soil pressure against the pile cap. The lateral resistance against the pie cap can be approximated by assuming an equivalent fluid density of 200 pounds per cubic foot (pcf). This value is consistent with a lateral deflection of 0.5 inches or less and includes a factor of safety of 1.5. This value was developed assuming that the area surrounding the pile caps are backfilled with compacted granular fill. DAMES 6: MOORE LATERAL EARTH PRESSURE CRITERIA We have also developed recommendations for lateral earth pressure for use in designing nonpile- supported foundation elements and subgrade walls to resist lateral loads. For foundations supported on and surrounded by compacted granular material above the water table, passive lateral earth pressures can be approximated using an equivalent fluid density of 250 pounds per cubic foot (pcf). We recommend that the coefficient of friction between the base of the nonpile- supported concrete foundation elements and the underlying soils be taken as 0.4. These values includes a safety factor of about 1.5. At -rest earth pressures for nonyielding subsurface walls can be estimated using an equivalent fluid density of 55 pcf. Active earth pressures appropriate for yielding walls can be estimated using an equivalent fluid density of 40 pcf. The above parameters assume free draining and properly compacted granular material above the water table. FLOOR SLAB SUPPORT As indicated previously, we are of the opinion that the concrete floor slab of the proposed building can be soil- supported provided that our recommendations concerning site preparation are followed. For light to moderate floor loads (less than about 250 psf or less), we recommend that the concrete floor slab and base course material be supported on a minimum of 2 feet of granular material compacted to 95 percent of maximum dry density. The floor slab should be underlain by a base course of at least 4 inches of crushed rock or 6 inches of clean sand and gravel with 5 percent fines or less. This granular layer will provide uniformity of support and a capillary moisture break. For design of floor slabs constructed in the manner recommended, a modulus of subgrade reaction, k, of 150 pounds per cubic inch can be used. SITE SEISMICITY General Based on the Seismic Zone Map of the United States, as presented in the Uniform Building Code (UBC), 1988 Edition, this site is situated within Seismic Zone 3. Therefore, the facilities should be designed and constructed to the regulations and standards contained in the Uniform Building Code for Seismic Zone 3 construction. Based on the data from our investigation, we recommend that the Soil Profile S3 be used for design. The corresponding site factor should be taken as I.S. DAMES & MORE Ljauefaction Potential We assume that Boeing will elect to design the 9 -04 Building in accordance with standard UBC criteria for a normal risk /conventional structure. As described in our October 27, 1989 report to Boeing concerning seismic design criteria for various facilities in the Puget Sound and Portland Areas, this design level corresponds to Category III. In the October 27 report, we indicated that a peak ground acceleration of 0.1g would be associated with this design category. Our assessment of liquefaction potential is based only on evaluation of soil conditions at this site and review of previous Dames & Moore liquefaction evaluations of nearby sites. We have not performed specific analysis of liquefaction potential at this site. Such analyses would be necessary to provide more detailed evaluation of the liquefaction potential at the site. We are of the opinion that the site soils have generally a moderate potential of liquefaction under a ground acceleration of 0.1g. Soils most likely to liquefy include fairly clean sands below the water table in a loose to medium dense condition. Soils with significant fines content or a greater density would be less likely to liquefy. Ground accelerations of 0.15g or greater would lead to a high potential for liquefaction in many of the site soils. Because of the moderate risk of liquefaction expected under the assumed design earthquake, we are of the opinion that augercast piles installed to the depths recommended herein will provide adequate foundation support of the building with an acceptable degree of risk. CLOSURE The recommendations presented in this report are provided to the client for design purposes and are based on soil conditions disclosed by field observations and exploratory borings. Subsurface information presented herein does not constitute a direct or implied warranty that the soil conditions between exploration locations can be directly interpolated or extrapolated or that subsurface conditions and soil variations different from those disclosed by the explorations will not be revealed. The recommendations outlined in this report are based on the assumption that the plan location and development details of the building are consistent with that shown on Plate 1 and the description provided in this report. If, during construction, subsurface conditions different from those disclosed by the exploratory borings are observed, we should be advised at once so that we can review these conditions and, if necessary, reconsider our design recommendations. DAMES & MORE The following items are attached and complete this report Plate 1 Appendix Site Plan Site Explorations and Laboratory Tests Respectfully submitted, DAMES & MOORE Harb L. Chabra, P.E. Principal Engineer /Associate 171Atiti Kelly S. errill, P.E. Senior Engineer 22934 Existing Bu Ming 9-06 Key + Location and number of 8 -1 -90 boring drilled during this investigation 0 40 80 Scale in Feet To Gate J-28 r �B -4 -90 j Proposed 1 Building 9 -04 (Phase 11) Proposed Building 9 -04 (Phase Ill) 1 1 1 1 1 1 .718-5-90 + 8 -3 -90 J x x x x x x Existing Fence Existing Fence • B -1 -90 Proposed Building 9 -04 (Phase I) r 1 B -2 -90 4 'Existing Building 9 -51 Reference_ Drawl Entitled, 'Under • • • Utilities, 0-04; Bondi Site,' lean Doe hci /ities Do • fmeet, dated 12/89. s Plate Site Plan Dames & Moore _ • • APPENDIX SITE EXPLORATIONS AND LABORATORY TESTS SITE EXPLORATIONS Subsurface conditions underlying the site were explored by five drilled borings at the locations shown on the Site Plan, Plate 1. The locations were determined by taping from existing reference features on the site and are approximate. The borings were advanced with a truck- mounted Mobile B -61 drilling rig using hollow - stem auger techniques to depths ranging from 44 to 99 feet beneath existing grades. Logs of the borings are shown on Plates A -1 to A-5. Relatively undisturbed samples of the soils were obtained at frequent intervals using a Dames & Moore sampler of the type illustrated on page A -2. The sampler was driven with a 140 - pound hammer falling 30 inches. The number of blows required to drive the sampler 1 foot, or as otherwise indicated, into undisturbed soils is noted adjacent to the appropriate sample notations on the boring logs. Bulk samples of near - surface soils were also obtained at several locations as indicated on the boring logs. A key to the boring logs is presented on Plate A -1. Soils were classified in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System shown on Plate A -6. After completion of drilling, the soil borings were backfilled with a mixture of bentonite pellets and soil cuttings up to a depth of about 10 feet below the existing ground surface. A cement grout plug was installed in the upper 10 feet. LABORATORY TESTS The engineering characteristics of the soils encountered were evaluated by means of direct shear, fines content, and moisture - density tests. The direct shear tests were accomplished using the procedures described on page A -3. The results are presented on Plate A -7. The gradation characteristics of the site soils were evaluated by 12 fines content analyses on representative samples. The results of fines content analyses are presented on Plate A -8. The moisture - density test results appear adjacent to the appropriate sample notations on the boring logs. DAMES & MOORE RINVONG ON PUSHING MECNANISY COUPLING IRATE, OUTLETS MOT0I11 POE P*IM' NG TOOL NEOPRENE GASKET NEWS MOTE/ •NEAO iiTIPHAON' Cam tesaleniOuC *110 •SPLIT Gael EL SHIT BARREL (T0 PACIUtayE REMOVAL OP CORE SAM PLE) BIT • SOIL SAMPLER TYPE U FOR SOILS DIFFICULT TO RETAIN IN SAMPLER OMECK VALVES VALVE CAGE CORE.iETAwfR RSNGS 17-1q• 0.0. 0t 1• LOMGI COREA( TAMING 0EvICE at, &MVO * I0 Of Tames KATES UsfillOu1GE ABLE MTh OTNtI Twin Si ALTERNATE ATTACHMENTS CORE.RtTAMHO DEVICE L'amf.s 6 Moore • METHOD OF PERFORMING DIRECT SHEAR AND FRICTION TESTS DIRECT SHEAR TESTS ARE PERFORMED TO DETERMINE THE SHEARING STRENGTHS OF SOILS. FRICTION TESTS ARE PERFORMED TO DETERMINE THE FRICTIONAL RE- SISTANCES BETWEEN SOILS AND VARIOUS OTHER MATE- RIALS SUCH AS WOOD, STEEL, OR CONCRETE. THE TESTS ARE PERFORMED IN THE LABORATORY TO SIMULATE ANTICIPATED FIELD CONDITIONS. EACH SAMPLE IS TESTED IN A SPLIT SAMPLE HOLDER, TWO AND ONE -HALF INCHES IN DIAMETER AND ONE INCH HIGH. UNDISTURBED SAMPLES OF IN -PLACE SOILS ARE EXTRUDED FROM RINGS TAKEN FROM THE SAM- PLING DEVICE IN WHICH THE SAMPLES WERE OB- TAINED. LOOSE SAMPLES OF SOILS TO BE USED IN CON- STRUCTING EARTH FILLS ARE COMPACTED IN RINGS TO DIRECT SHEAR APPARATUS WITH ELECTRONIC RECORDER PREDETERMINED CONDITIONS AND TESTED. DIRECT SHEAR TESTS A ONE -INCH LENGTH OF THE SAMPLE IS TESTED IN DIRECT SINGLE SHEAR. A CONSTANT PRESSURE, APPROPRIATE TO THE CONDITIONS OF THE PROBLEM FOR WHICH THE TEST IS BEING PERFORMED, IS APPLIED NORMAL TO THE ENDS OF THE SAMPLE THROUGH POROUS STONES. A SHEARING FAILURE OF THE SAMPLE IS CAUSED BY MOVING THE UPPER SAMPLE HOLDER IN A DIRECTION PERPENDICU- LAR TO THE AXIS OF THE SAMPLE. TRANSVERSE MOVEMENT OF THE LOWER SAMPLE HOLDER IS PREVENTED. THE SHEARING FAILURE IS ACCOMPLISHED BY APPLYING TO THE UPPER SAMPLE HOLDER A CON - STANT RATE OF DEFLECTION. THE SHEARING LOAD AND. THE DEFLECTIONS IN BOTH THE AXIAL AND TRANSVERSE DIRECTIONS ARE RECORDED AND PLOTTED. THE SHEARING STRENGTH OF THE SOILS IS DETERMINED FROM THE RESULTING LOAD- DEFLECTION CURVES. FRICTION TESTS IN ORDER TO DETERMINE THE FRICTIONAL RESISTANCE BETWEEN SOIL AND THE SURFACES OF VARI- OUS MATERIALS, THE LOWER SAMPLE HOLDER IN THE DIRECT SHEAR TEST IS REPLACED BY A DISK OF THE MATERIAL TO BE TESTED. THE TEST IS THEN PERFORMED IN THE SAME MANNER AS THE DIRECT SHEAR TEST BY FORCING THE SOIL OVER THE FRICTION MATERIAL SURFACE. A -3 Danes a Monte r Depth in Foot 0- 2.6x -79 Sample r-Symbol Boring B -1 -90 .... M N&spholt concrete rushed rock base (dense) Brown Fine to •edlum send (fill) (loose) 20 ea 27: 41-00 - 0— 10 17 15 — 24.71 -97 20 • 25— 25.31-09 30 — 35 — 24.71 -101 143 a Brownish grey fine sond (loose) Dark gray fine to medium sand (loose), Bork gray to black fine to coarse sand (medium dense) to fine to medium 5. q�odes with'olternatin9 layers of fine sand to y conga Depth in Foot 40 — 26.71 -90 45 — 21.41 -01 50 — 26.61 -95 55 — 29191 70— 37.72-02 75— 0 Sonple rSymbo 1 SM Lt9ht gray silty fine sond (medium dense) 52 46 41 23 15 12 19 'Log of Borings Bor 1 n9 B- 1 -90, Cont. S Dark gray to block fine to medium sand meth wood fragments (medium dense) SM Gray silty fine sond (medium... dense) ML gray clayey silt (stiff) CL Gray silty clay (stiff) Depth Sample In Feet r-Symbol 80 -- 43.71 -75 85 — g 23.31 -103 100 -- 19 19 19 OM Bor ng B -1 -90, Cont. Greenish g'oy fire to sodium sand ■1th ;,voce silt and shell fragments (medium dense to very dense) Boring 8-1-90 completed at a depth of 99 feet on 2-21 -90. Groundwater encountered of o depth of about 10 feet during drilling ::SCE Y: 1 21 -toe . - f i . Blows required to drive Domes 8 one foot •lth 140 lb hammer and 1410 Indicates undisturbed sample Indicates disturbed sample Indicates bulk sample Indicates ground rooter level f )TE: The discussion In the text of this report is necessary for o proper understanding of ' 'the nature Of the subsurface notarial& indicates moisture and dry density In content pcf Moore sampler 30 inch drop. Dames & Moore Plate A-1 Oopth Sample in Feet rSymbol 0 — 8.12 G 5 — 31.12-80 10— 15 24.72 -102 20 — 25 — 20.22-03 30— aMiml 35 — 30. *-02 40-- 18 35 / 37 a 30 1♦ 40 35 15 Boring B -2 -90 w — ��spholt concrete SP Brown fine Bond with some SM silt (flll)(mediun dense) SM SP L Depth in Foot 40 — 28.22 -02 grades to loose with increasing silt White clayey material. 3.5 feet to 4 Feet. Brown silty fine sand (loose) grades with decreasing silt Dark brownish 9 fine to medium sand with trace silt (loose) grades to medium dense grades to fine to coarse sand grades with wood fragments grades with increasing wood fragments 0ork gray fine to medium san� with ease silt and trace wood fragments (medium dense) 45 — Somplo rSymbo 1 84 Log of Borings Boring B -2 -90, Cont. of a epth of 44 eet on 2- 23 -90. Groundwater not measured during drilling. Dosses 8 Moore Job No. 00695- 473 -016 Plate A -2 S M Dark gray silty fine sand (medium dense) Boring 8 -2-90 coweleted of a epth of 44 eet on 2- 23 -90. Groundwater not measured during drilling. Dosses 8 Moore Job No. 00695- 473 -016 Plate A -2 Depth in Foot 0 — 7. 11X-03 5 — 17.0t-104 10 — 15 — 20 — 25 11.2C-114 30 ,11111■1 22. St-103 .1•11■11 35 40— Boring 8-3-90 Sample r-Synibol 12 NO 18 NB 35 18 28 110 27 MI 110 6.--.---.6spholt concrete SP Brown fine sand with trace silt (fill) (medium dense) ,,,,S11■1:111,1110.1.31:1...1117: SP grades to loose grades with trace white clayey material at 6 feet Grayish brown fine sand (loose to medium dense) 9rades coarser with some wood fragments Dark grey to black fine sand (medius dense to dense) . 1;s with trees wood ants Depth Semple In Feat rThymbol 40- 30.92-96 45 — 45 Lo9 of Borin9s Bon n9 8-3-90. Cont. 2-23-90. Groun000tor not measured during drilling. Domes g Moore rJob No. 00695-473-016 Plate A-3 sm Dark gray silty fine *ono (medium dense) Boring B-3-90 completed nt n month nF AA foot n 2-23-90. Groun000tor not measured during drilling. Domes g Moore rJob No. 00695-473-016 Plate A-3 Oopth Sample an Foot rsymbol 0— 10.80 -106 5— 10 — 23.30 -99 15 — 20 — 25 16.30 -102 30— 35 40 — G 42 28 Boring B -4 -90 • 114 MI 37 73 1i .,&spholt concrete GP Brown study grovel (fill) (very dense) S M Brown silty fino sand with grovel and asphalt fro9monts tf311)(medium dense) S Brown fine sand (loose) grades to medium douse grades coarser S P Gr7mefdine to sodium sond ius dense) grades to fins to coarse . sand grades finer Depth Sample in Foot rsymbol 40— 29.80 -92 45 — 50 — 34 112 Boring B -4 -90. Cont. .Log_of.Borin9s ML SM Grayish brown sandy silt (very stiff) Grayish brown silty fine sand (dense) Boren $ -4 -90 completed at o depth of 49 feet on 2- 22 -90. Groundwater oncountoroa at o depth of about 13.5 feet during drilling. Doaios t Moore Job No. 00595 -473 -016 Plat* 122954 • Depth in Foot 0 5.62 -96 5 10— 23.72-93 15 20 — 25 — 33.12 -93 35 — 28.12 -04 40— Sample r5ymbo 1 21 lop 25 41 25 Boring B -5 -90 •1 GP SP SM s 59 •-• :..• • • .. • •: • • N.� c -.Asphalt concroto .Erushed rock Dose (dense) Dark brown fine sand with some silt (fill) (loose to modsum donso) 9rodos with white clayey material and gravel. 7' to 7.5' Obstruction at 7.5 foot Depth in Foot 40— 28.72 -93 45 — Dark brown fine to medium sand (medium dense) 9rodos finer Dark gray fine to coarse Bans with wood fragments (medium dense) grodos finer Dark brown silty fine sand Cnediw dense) 38.12 -e] 55— ..I 65 — 30.92-67 70 •■r 45. 12 -75 75_ 40.22 -79 80 — Bor 1 ng B.,--5-90, Cont. rY_"ba b Sample 58 45 28 30 18 MI 26 14 Log of Borin9s ML ML CL Dork brownish gray sandy salt with truce of cloy (stiff to very stiff) Dark gray cloyoy silt (stiff) Dork.9roy silty cloy (stiff) Depth Samplo in Foot ESymbol 80 38.3X-04 90 95 — 20. 3X-113 100 19 40 21 100 t• Bor ng B -5 -90, ont. s to very stiff Greenish gray fine son with some silt and shell ogments (medium dense) grades to very dons° Burin 8 -5-90 complcymd at o depth of 99 feet' an '2- 22 -90. Grounasotor oncounto Qa at o depth of about s:d feet during drilltnq} PORN NO. 4$ .3 11.161 MAJOR DIVISIONS GRAPHIC SYMBOL LETTER SYMBOL TYPICAL DESCRIPTIONS Cams( GRAINED SOILS MORE THAN 501. OF MATERIAL IS THAN NO. GRAVEL GRAVELLY SOILS MOUE THAN EDl OF COARSE FRAC• TION RETAINED CLEAN GRAVELS 1LITTLE OR NO FINESI 4.44• .A co? t, 4' ,4' =' GIN vet U GRAOEO GPM/ LS. GRAY( L• SANG lax TURES• Loll LE OR NO FINES '4' V4' . h of 4 4; GP POORLYGRADE0GRAVELS. GRAVEI4ANOMIKTURES.LIT7LF OR NO FINES GRAVELS MITN FINES (APPRECIABLE AMOUNT OF FINESI 14. 1i1 :'$ • '(.J 0 :fi.4% 1I, ��GC �•TG1 ■ SILTY GRAVE LS, GRAVE lSAND SILT MIXTURES CLAYEY GRAVELS.GRAVEL.AND• CLAY MIXTURES ON WO. A S1 V SAND AND SANDY MR Lf MORE THAN f0B OF COARSE 'FRAC- TION PASSING CLEAN SAND ILITTLE OR NO FINESI •••••••.. Srll WSLLGRADEO SANDS. GRAVE LLY SANDS. LITTLE OR NO F NIES •... SP POORLY.GRADED SANDS. GRAVE L• LY SANDS. LITTLE OR NO FINES LARGER 700 Sit VE SIZE SANDS EMTM FINES AMOUNT OF FINESI SILTY SANDS. SAND-SILT MIXTURES j CLAYEY SANDS. SANDCLAY WXTNREf IE NO. ASVE • FINE GRAINED SOILS MORE THAN SOIL OF MATERIAL K p�tA LLER THAN NO. ALTS AND LIOUIDLIMIT CLAYS EES TMAN SO • ML INORGANIC SILTS AND VERY FINE SANDS. ROCK FLOUR. SILTY OR CLAYEY FINE SANDS OR CLAYEY SELT1 EFITH SLIGHT PLASTICITY ` INORGANIC CLAYS OF LOIN TO MEDIUM PLASTICITY.CRAVELLY. CLAYS. SANDY CLAYS. SILTY CLAYS. LEAN CLAYS 1 1 1111 1 1 1 1 1 1 OL ORGANIC SILTS AND ORGANIC SILTY CLAYS OF LOIN FLAP ICITY SILTS LIOUID LIWT R f GREATER THAN BO II 1Ii� !Ili ' IL�IIIiI III1II. II. UUU � MM i INORGANIC SiLIS. MICACEOUS OR 01A fWLE FINE SAND OR . %/ :V i r i ,: INORGANIC CLAYS OF NIGH PLASTICITY, FAT CLAVf 300 Sit vE SIZE �� • ORGANIC CLAYS OF MEDIUM TO MIGR ' LAST ICIT Y. ORGANIC SILTS 1410141.7 ORGANIC SOILS . PT A PEAT,HUMVS. CONT NTT WITH MGM OItGwNIt CONTENTS NOTE: DUAL SYMBOLS ARE USED TO INDICATE BORDERLINE SOIL CLASSIFICATIONS UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM Gems t Moore PLATE A4 % Boring Depth (ft) Soil Type Moisture Content ( %) Dry Density (Pct) Normal Pressure (Ps1) Peak Shear Strength (Psi) Ultimate Shear Strength (Psi) •::,"VA•5,;:: v:•... v': • '••�.u+a'.Y.. ..... :::n :.,... ...' • :: :: :..::....: :: :::w. : �:r:::::::n:::::::. : :.::.:v:::.: .... v.3v +:v ...... ........ .. ... ... n.... ................. ......... .. .. .... B-1 -90 18 Fine to medium sand 24.7 97 1000 1270 740 2000 2300 1560 8-1 -90 29.5 Fine to coarse sand 25.3 99 1500 1650 1050 3000 3300 2100 8-2-90 38.5 Fine to medium sand with 30.3 92 2000 1800 1480 some silt 1 4000 3540 2700 1 - 1 0.4-90 13 Fine sand 23.3 99 1000 1000 620 2000 1900 1320 8-6-90 3 Fine sand with some silt 5.6 96 500 520 370 1000 820 690 r 8 -8-90 53 Sandy silt 38.1 81 2000 1530 1530 4000 2940 2940 Direct Shear Test Results Boring Depth (n) Soil Type Moisture Content ( %) Dry Density (pcf) Fines Content (%) B-1 -90 3 Fine to medium sand 2.6 79 4 fr B-1 -90 18 Fine to medium sand 24.7 97 3 B -1 -90 53 Silty fine sand 26.6 95 23 B -2 -90 1 Fine sand with some silt 6.1 9 -- B-2 -90 43 Silty fine sand 28.2 92 14 B- 3-90 43 Silty fine sand 30.9 96 34 8-4-90 3.5 Silty fine sand 10.8 106 28 8-4-90 43 Sandy silt 29.8 92 58 8-5-90 3 Fine sand with some silt 5.6 96 9 B- 5-90 43 Sty fine sand 28.7 93 15 8 -5-90 53 Sandy silt 38.1 81 77 B- 5-90 98 Fine sand with some silt 20.3 113 11 Fines Content Analysis Test Results Note: Rnes content is defined u the percent by weight of material pasting a i200 sieve. Dames & Moore — Plato A4 M• III/ — DAM S PROFESSIONAL LIMITED PARTNERSHIP 500 MARKET PLACE TOWER. 2025 FIRST AVENUE. SEATTLE. WASHINGTON 9S121 (20c0 728 -0744 March 21, 1990 Boeing Support Services P.O. Box 3707, M/S 41-1-07 Seattle, Washington 98124 -2207 Attention: Mr. Pete Wold RECEIVED MAR 2 71990 RUC ENGINEERS Chemical Test Results Proposed Chemical Management Building 9 -04 Developmental Center Tukwila. Washington for the Boeing Company Dear Mr. Wold: We submit herein the results of chemical tests conducted on samples of fill material encountered during our geotechnical investigation for the above - described project. The results of the geotechnical investigation are contained in our report dated March 6, 1990. Verbal authorization for the chemical soil tests was provided by Boeing on February 26, 1990. During the course of our geotechnical investigation, thin layers and seams of a white clayey material were observed within the granular fill in three of the borings in the central and southern portions of the proposed building footprint (Borings B =2 -90, B -3 -90, and B- 5 -90). The material was encountered between depths of 3.5 and 7.5 feet below current site grades in the three borings. The nature and source of the material is not known at this time, although it may be related to operations of a previous winery on the site. We understand that the site also previously served as a truck yard. Chemical tests were run on a sample of the white clayey material intermixed with the granular fill. The sample tested was taken from Boring B -5 -90 at•a depth of 7 feet. The sample was tested for EP Toxicity metals (arsenic, barium, cadmium, chromium, lead, mercury, selenium, and silver) plus zinc and Copper. The EP Toxicity results of the sample collected from Boring B -5 -90 at a depth of 7 feet are attached. The test results indicate that metals concentrations in the white clayey material are below federal EP Toxicity maximum concentrations (40 CFR 261.24). The results indicate that the material is not designated hazardous based on EP Toxicity metals concentrations and therefore does not exhibit leachability characteristics. Based on the test results and on visual observation, the white clayey material does not appear to pose a significant environmental risk. More extensive chemical testing would be required to determine the exact nature of this material. OFFICES WOK DAM Boeing Support Services March 21, 1990 Page 2 & MOORE A PROFESSIONAL LIMITED PARTNERSHIP We appreciate the opportunity to provide our services on this project. Please call us if you have any questions regarding this letter or require further information. 3 copies submitted Attachment 001- 00695- 016\130E904A Respectfully submitted, DAMES & MOORE Kell S. Merrill, P.E. Senior Engineer 16 March 1990 Mr. Kelly S. Merrill Dames 8 Moore 500 Market Place Tower 2025 First Avenue Seattle, Wa 98121 DAMERMOORE SEATTLE MAR 1911' ) ROUTING 0 RE: Client Project: #695- 473 -016; ARI Job #4745 Dear Kelly: Please find the enclosed Metals results for the above referenced project. If you have any questions or need any further information, please feel free to call any time. Sincerely, ANALYTICAL RESOURCES, INC. ,A1Z4r•t W9d/,‘(‘ N. Rocky Webs Laboratory Manager NRW/bv Enclosures cc: file #4745 ANALYTICAL RESOURCES INCORPORATED AnEdytical Chemists & COMatardS 333 Ninth Ave. North Seattle, WA 98109 -5187 (206) 621-6490 (206) 621 -7523 (FAX) "AAA ; DAMES & MOORE 1 ° f' 500 Market Place Tower • 2025 First Avenue • Seattle, Washington 98121 • on 206 ( ) 728 -0744 Aerrs 1l Chain of Custody Date? /23112,2. Pam oI Project Number: L V' ? 3 —6l4 Ana ysis Request Project Manager: ;e a o $ i > 1 - , "' $ g 2 co I 1 �+ W m Comments/ Instructions a Laboratory: •4•( V 1 / -4WO Tum around time: Sampler's Initials: SED g .9t e Sampler's Signature: Sample ID Date Time Matrix 1 i� 6 -5g 7' 01/24,, — .So:l. • . f Special Instnictions/Co nts: '-6,r Awe, All fc ell'$ f t elk«, Ta 344,10- Dew+ 2.%x310 11/i 7. So fi.. E /74 Mc 415 t i,y.+ G/pt, 0L-- 1 wt.( e At-en.o.,/* 4.4 Relinquished (Sig) ( Printed (Company) (Time) by: hY"'•"`^ 'le.`74'` Received by ): (S 44A..—P . , Sample Receipt Chain Roo - To no. d =Minors: daoladyssio:_ ) !) -.•) 4 Mur r r ( Printed (Company) gTime) r-7;4 J'‘ � r. d good oonawoit�oold: IC' ) � -•••vs• Ha,., . /5-: Cantons a sooia: Sy (Date) 2 - ?4- S (Date)v% Lab number: EXPLANATIOF INORGANIC DATA RART CODES IThe columns labeled ' PREP', 'C', and 'M' contain important information about your analyses. The codes are defined below. PREPARATION CODES tThese 3 -letter codes describe methods used to prepare samples for analysis: AEN USEPA Method, Metals in air filters RWC USEPA SW-846 Method 3005, Water by FAAS or ICP • AHM ARI Method, Mercury in air filters SCC USEPA CLP Program, Soil by FAAS or ICP MIN ARI Method, Metals in air filters SCM USEPA CLP Program, Mercury in soil CAN AOAC (1984) Method 25.024 -.027, Metals in earthenware SCN USEPA Q2 Program, Soil by GFAAS ■ DE6 EPA 600/4-79-020 Method 2185, Hexavalent Cr in water SEM EPA 600 /479 -020 Method 2455, Mercury In soil DMM DMN followed by TMM, Dissolved mercury SHF ARI Method, Metals in soil, Hydrofluoric acid digestion DMN Filtered through .45u filter, Dissolved metals SRL Journal Method, lithium meta - borate fusion EW6 EWN followed by DE6, EP Toxicity SPF PSEP, Metals in sediment, Hydrofluoric acid digestion EWM EWN followed by TMM, EP Toxicty SSC Standard Methods 302C, Sb/Sn in soil . EWN USEPA SW-846 Method 1310, EP Toxicity SSN Standard Methods 302C, Soil by. GFAAS, FAAS or ICP FHP ARI Method, Metals in tissue (HNO3/HCI04) SSS Standard Methods 302C,11 in soil FPP PSEP, Metals in tissue (HNO3l1-ICaO4) SW6 USEPA SW-846 Method 3060, Hexavalent Cr in soil FRM Journal Method, Mercury in tissue SWC USEPA SW-846 Method 3050, Soil by FAAS or ICP FRN Journal Method, Metals in tissue (HNO3/H202) SWN USEPA SW-846 Method 3050, Soil by GFAAS ERN ARI Method, Concentration by coprecipitation SWR USEPA SW-846 Modified Method 3005, Sb by GFAAS LEM USEPA Method, TCLP followed by TMM TEC EPA 600/4-79-020 Method 4.13, Water by FAAS LEN USEPA Method, TCLP Extraction TEG EPA 600/4-79-020 Method 272.1, Silver in water MHM ARI Method, Mercury in miscellaneous materials TEI EPA 600/4- 79-020 Method 200.7 and 9.3, Water by ICP MHN ARI Method, Metals in miscellaneous materials TEN EPA 600/4-79-020 Method 4.13, Water by GFAAS OAM ARI Method, Mercury in oil, grease or tar THG ARI Method, Silver in photographic solutions OAN ARI Method, Metals in oil, grease or tar TMM EPA 600/4-79-020 Method 245.1, Mercury in water PHM ARI Method, Mercury in wipes TSC Standard Methods 302C, Sb/Sn in water PHN ARI Method, Metals in wipes TSN Standard Methods 302D, Water by GFAAS,FAAS or ICP RCC USEPA CLP Program, Water by ICP TSS Standard Methods 302E, 'II in water RCN USEPA CLP Program, Water by GFAAS TWC USEPA SW-846 Method 3010, Water by 1CP REC EPA 600/4-79-020 Method 4.1.4, Water by FAAS TWG USEPA SW-846 Method 7760, Silver in water REI EPA 600/4-79-020 Method 200.7 and 9.4, Water by ICP TWN USEPA SW-846 Method 3020, Water by GFAAS REN EPA 600/4-79-020 Method 4.1.4, Water by GFAAS WMN EPA 600/4-79-020, Preserved undigested water RMA EPA 600/4-79-020 Method 206.2, As/Se in water XSC Standard Methods 302B, Extractable metals in water CONCENTRATION CODES These codes are used to qualify reported concentrations: V No analyte was detected. The reported value is the lower limit of detection. METHOD CODES These codes signify the instrumental technique used for analysis: CVA Cold Vapor Atomic Absorption Spectrophotometry FLA Flame Atomic Absorption Spectrophotometry GFA Graphite Furnace Atomic Absorpdon Spectrophotomeoy 1CP Inductively Coded Plasma Atomic Emission Spectrometry Client: Contact: Project: ID number: Description: Sampled: Received: Matrix: ANALYTICAL RESOURCES, INC. Inorganic Laboratory Data Report 03/15/90 12:03:58 Dames & Moore Belly Merrill 695 - 473 -016 B -5 @7' 02/22/90 02/26/90 SOIL ARI job number: 4745 ARI sample number: A Released by: AIL/ ANALYTICAL RESULTS CAS Number Analyte Concentration C Prep M 7440 -38 -2 Arsenic 0.05 mg /L U EWN ICP 7440 -39 -3 Barium 0.692 mg /L EWN ICP 7440 -43 -9 Cadmium 0.002 mg /L U EWN ICP 7440 -47 -3 Chromium 0.009 mg /L EWN ICP 7440 -50 -8 Copper 0.002 mg /L U EWN ICP 7439 -92 -1 Lead 0.1 mg /L U EWN ICP 7439 -97 -6 Mercury 0.0001 mg /L U EWM CVA 7782 -49 -2 Selenium 0.3 mg /L U EWN ICP 7440 -22 -4 Silver 0.014 mg /L EWN ICP 7440 -66 -6 Zinc 0.004 mg /L U EWN ICP Client: Contact: Project: ID number: Description: Sampled: Received: Matrix: AOLYTICAL RESOURCES, INC. Inorganic Laboratory Data Report 03/15/90 12:04:05 Dames & Moore Kelly Merrill 695 - 473 -016 METHOD BLANK / / / / SOIL ARI job number: 4745 ARI sample number: MB Released by: nA) A N A L Y T I C A L RESULTS CAS Number Analyte Concentration C Prep M 7440 -38 -2 Arsenic 0.05 mg /L U EWN ICP 7440 -39 -3 Barium 0.001 mg /L U EWN ICP 7440 -43 -9 Cadmium 0.002 mg /L U EWN ICP. 7440 -47 -3 Chromium 0.005 mg /L U EWN ICP 7440 -50 -8 Copper 0.002 mg /L U EWN ICP 7439 -92 -1 _ Lead 0.03 mg /L U EWN ICP 7439 -97 -6 Mercury 0.0001 mg /L U EWM EWN CVA. :ICP 7782 -49 -2 Selenium 0.05 mg /L U 7440 -22 -4 Silver 0.003 mg /L U EWN ICP 7440 -66 -6 Zinc 0.004 mg /L U EWN ICP