HomeMy WebLinkAboutSEPA EPIC-42-91 - BOEING #9-06 - DALLAS MAVIES BUILDING DEMOLITIONBOEING MILITARY AIRPLANES
DEMOLITION OF
DALLAS- MAVIES BUILDING 9 -06
PHASE #3 - CONSTRUCT
ADDITION TO EXISTING
CHEMICAL MANAGEMENT
FACILITY BUILDING 9 -04
9725 EAST MARGINAL WAY S0.
EPIC 42 -91
CrilIOF TUKWILA
DEPARTMENT OF OMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
FAX NUMBER: (206) 431 -3665
TO:
DATE:
I I
��
+/-16LOIA)
TITLE:
FROM:
CO :
TITLE:
1
PLLALA.,'
r;
DEPARTMENT: 1 $
:..:::.:.::::.:.., .::::.::.....:.::::::.::::::...:...................:.........................:..:.::.::: .::::.::.......:,.:.,::.:,
DEPARTMENT:
:.... -DC'I)
FAX NO.
5
Wiccos-
1
0 C
NUMBER OF PAGES
TRANSMITTED, INCL.
THIS COVER SHEET:
SENT BY
(INITIALS) :
Fenr".)
IF THIS COMMUNICATION IS NOT
CLEARLY RECEIVED, PLEASE CALL:
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Office: (206) 431 -3670
6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila WA 98188
06/15/90
AF vAVTT OF DIST LiTIO,i
1, SYLVIA A. OSBY , hereby declare that:
Q Notice of Public Hearing
[] Notice of Public Meeting
(] Board of Adjustment Agenda Packet
Q Board of Appeals Agenda Packet
Q Planning Commission Agenda Packet
Q Short Subdivision Agenda Packet
EP Determination of Nonsignificance
Q Mitigated Determination of Non -
significance
Q Oetermination of Significance
and Scoping Notice
Q Notice of Action
Q Official Notice
Q Notice of Application for Q Other
Shoreline Management Permit
Q Shoreline Management Permit Q Other
was mailed to each of the following addresses on October 18, 1991 , 19.
J
Fooke.d NIDW
✓
MOO -!-o O.E.
I Ivli 4j);cA,J+
Name of Project DEMOLITION OF 9 -06 BLDG.
File Number EPIC -42 -91
CITY OF TUKWILA
6200 SOUTHCENTER BOULEVARD, TUKWILA, WASHINGTON 98188
WAC 197 -11 -970
.PHONE N (206) 433 -1800
DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE
Gary L. VanDusen, Mayor
Description of Proposal:
To demolish existing 6,500 square foot (sf) metal building
(Building 9 -06) and replace with a 12,500 square -foot addition to
existing chemical management facility (Building 9 -04) to be used
for materials storage.
Proponent: Boeing Military Airplanes
Location of Proposal, including street address, if any:
Buildings 9 -06 and 9 -04, Boeing Developmental Center, East Marginal
Way South, Tukwila, Washington
Lead Agency: City of Tukwila File Number: EPIC -42 -91
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.
D:This DNS is issued under 197 -11- 340(2). Comments must be
submitted by The lead agency will not
act on this proposal for 15 days from the date below.
Responsible Official: Rick Beeler
Position /Title: Planning Director
Address: 6300 Southcenter Boule
Tukwila, WA 98188
Date 2- -(4,t1,r7/ 7f9'7 Signature
v r
Phone: 433 -1846
You may appeal this determination to the City Hall, 6200
Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188 no later than 10 days from
the above date by written 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.
Boeing Defense & Space Group
Military Airplanes Division
P.O. Box 3707
Seattle, WA 98124 -2207
September 27, 1991
L- 6210 -TLB -204 SEP 2 7 1991
PERMIT CENTER
RECEIVED
CITY OF TI IKWILA
Ann Siegenthaler
City of Tukwila
6200 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila, Washington 98188
Subject: Demolition of the 9 -06 Building
We would like to add to the SEPA checklist a
classification to the Demolition of the 9 -06 Building.
The amendment shall read:
At the time of demolition of the 9 -06 Building
soils underlying the foundation and floor slab
will be tested for hazardous materials. A soil's
report with an evaluation of test results and
recommendations will be submitted as a required
part of this project's environmental
documentation.
We hope this will make the DNS process move more
quickly.
Thank you for your assistance.
Sincerely,
Terry L. Bennett
Permits Administrator
L -6210 46 -87
544 -2975
CITY OF TUKWILA
6200 SOUTHCENTER BOULEVARD, TUKWILA, WASHINGTON 98188
September 25, 1991
BOEING MILITARY AIRPLANES
P.O. Box 3707, M/S 4H -26
Seattle, WA 98124 -2207
6,7,79 av,5A,
PHONE # (206) 4331800 Gary L. VanDusen, Mayor
ATTN: Art Whitson
RE: Boeing 9 -06 Demolition & Boeing 9 -04 Addition
EPIC -42 -91
Dear Mr. Whitson:
The City of Tukwila has completed its review of your Environmental
Checklist (SEPA review) for the above project. The final
environmental determination will be based on the way in which your
proposal resolves the outstanding issues below:
1. At the time of demolition of Building 9 -06,
soils underlying the foundation and floor slab
must be tested for hazardous material.
2. A soils report with an evaluation of test
results and recommendations for containment
must be submitted as a required part of this
project's environmental documentation.
The City is preparing to issue a Mitigated Determination of Non -
Significance (MDNS), with the above items listed as conditions of
approval. An MDNS requires a 15 -day public comment period prior to
any departmental approvals of your permit application.
If you wish to revise your proposal to adequately address the above
issues, a Determination of Non - Significance (DNS) can be issued.
There would be no required comment period for this DNS.
}•
• •
Mr. Art Whitson
Boeing 9- 06/9 -04, 9/25/91
Page 2
Once the SEPA determination has been made (and if no additional
issues are raised during any required comment period), we can
resume your building permit review.
Should you have any questions concerning these materials or the
review process, please let me know.
Sincerely,
Ann Siegenthaler
Assistant Planner
cc: Project file.
John Pierog, Public Works
fil
(te; RolNc6a,t3
visiz- 4
September 13, 1991
BOEING MILITARY AIRPLANES
P.O. Box 3707, M/S 4H -26
Seattle, WA 98124 -2207
ATTN: Art Whitson
RE: Boeing 9 -06 Demolition & Boeing 9 -04 Addition
EPIC -42 -91
Dear Mr. Whitson:
The City of Tukwila has completed its review of your Environmental
Checklist (SEPA review) for the above project. The final
environmental determination will be based on the way in which your
proposal resolves the outstanding issues below:
1. At the time of demolition of Building 9 -06,
soils underlying the foundation and floor slab
must be tested for hazardous material.
2. A soils report with an evaluation of test
results and recommendations for containment
must be submitted as a required part of this
project's environmental documentation.
The City is preparing to issue a Mitigated Determination of Non -
Significance (MDNS), with the above items listed as conditions of
approval. An MDNS requires a 15 -day public comment period prior to
any departmental approvals of your permit application.
If you wish to revise your proposal to adequately address the abdye
issues, a Determination of Non - Significance (DNS) can be issued..
There would be no required comment period for this DNS.
Mr. Art Whitson
Boeing 9- 06/9 -04, 9/12/91
Page 2
Once the SEPA determination has been made (and
issues are raised during any required comment
resume your building permit review.
Should you have any questions concerning these
review process, please let me know.
Sincerely,
Ann Siegenthaler
Assistant Planner
cc: Project file
John Pierog, Public Works
if no additional
period), we can
materials or the
•
CONVERSATION RECORD
DATE:
MON TUE WED T}IU
FRI SAT SUN
TIME:
A.M.
P.M.
TYPE: Visit ❑ Conference ❑ Telephone— OIncoming 0Outgoing
Name of ersorl{s) contacted or in contact with you:
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
,126
Organization (office, dept., bureau, etc.)
Location of Visit/Conference:
SUBJECT:
Telephone No.:
SUMMARY:
8ZC 57 S ', �., ,; 4, 1//e)GOt
hi eLig i ,si,'Y7 , 8l
Sd/a o7' 7br/ Oy1 ei
Aeh/Ea44 `gam
Signature:
Title:
Date:
CONVERSATION RECORD
DATE: 7 / �c � FR! SATESUN U TIME P.M.
TYPE: ❑ Visit ❑ Conference ❑ Telephone— Olncoming OOutgoing
Name of perso s) contact or in contact( with yo
Organiza n (office, dept., ure u etc.a-
D
Location of Visit/Conference:
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
Telephone No.:
SUMMARY:
i7
1.7/0907.-
17,6V" ,-
/q// /s1', /�r &. 1 11,i
ia(V ii4e0Z- dt,Me OZ4e241-
Signature:
Title:
Date:
• •
CITY OF TUKWILA
6200 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, Washington 98188
(206) 433 -1800
MEMORANDUM
TO. ANN Si�rE/vT.S[AtER .oJ,v/✓rVZ4'
FROM: 1/4/6).1/N A. P /E/?O4s j .ch//D
DATE. 9/42/91
SUBJECT: BOF✓n/4 AM /90¢ ,dz-,xp Apn /Tio// 4S'T /74.P07 /144. h//4Y(.EP/G -142 - 9%)
77//s JS ONE OF f7.9NY 12.e0 ✓4rG7:5 Tit/4T .BO.E /N9 /S PAVPO.SVA/ .440442 FAST
/ AA ' /NiOL AvA/ bl/ /TW 77/E /9L OPT /DPI/ 5)D.�"14/.4L.4 Gre,owvAA/c "144/Y
.12.fa ACTS SC-01'E OF FiPOit/T
4/.0.1.-WA/1 ..r/.0.4-14./AL./<5.
..O►
A r
AY "i
_
J
P,pwCr `YORE hyJr -/avT 4ec Qv/R//✓- /%1r1E0I42 E ' FROA/ 4L /1' /P490144.41A V7 .
r / ✓•�O .PEKE / ✓FJ>
/MPxtoyh- J'ENT___.5COP_E.. ANO_.5e#1/.01/44-. 7 //.5 COR/PESeOq/DENC� 14/AS Ar -Pr O
8Y T/VE C /T}/ AS AN OFF /f/A.G Doc.v.49� /V7 D eev7/7/ T,047vr 4gY -God /NYC TO /f ' -
P4.4-/,E?VT REQo'iAEZ//1/°ROyEf>ENTS,
S /A✓cz- TNT T //YF OF QOM /N o /S E7 Z ' T.4/.0 C ? TO
y 644,5 -' DEC /DED
/yA//E BG/E /.i/q 1°A,P72G'/ 4TE /NA A c /T)' PRcc1EC7- fvy ch /ovvovd 77VAc- iv/ow-A/-
//V!/ OJT ,�4S7" /9A014'/NAG. h//4; A1.0./AGENT ?D ,BDE /Ncf MRpo.ER7Y /?4774
. 77.44/V /04J/E .BOF✓NGj P.PGtcE.FD )V /TN T-4/E //e P�7f�tS�D P.GA.1/,
I/!/ 4 /`14"z-m y kvin 7z -e'er s/D 847/vit(EOF'.BoE / vq DPI/
4/414Y /7 /99/ (Qoss.e., RO/vc. , /'4' ?4 . 5R 44.94 5 /°,QT 0. t /exx zP •9T1.�7Y43bV
Gd/1/
45,471/41z". DF TwE G /TY) SP, -c /F/G •RWAS -a-/A241.0 casT P1.44P7/c /PAT /ON
8Y BOF✓NJ� `✓ E.cA at7476D 9/ Tir✓.E UTy, 77e4.- //fP/eoVEN. ?V7S A4o4v4' 457.
4#,Y44 A142244,47)
�) S /D,EI✓/p�.K CO/VSTPVCr /oNV
.z s7-474-7- »Y/43E10/.671E4/73 /4,34:141//41 WAaEA/WO:„ srr?//0/ 4) sV_
/VAI- 2417/OA s72:7A 1 .,O/PA /N40s.E- SY.f? 7 e./Ap'AD ANA
3)
2iP91•4PAOE o/r »'42 A111 /N h7'44 y
72.E ,80,E/NY /o.E>eSONNEG ,7-7-,a4/4/.1/4- /7,77,1*. /�✓ 6E ,lr'DyNo- rO
/PEGA/ 7' /41 /4/t"OR,,,p77D4/ 727 77467e /UPPFiP /7AN/9fE/`1.F,Y7." PUBA /G
yJ/ORks `YEPE T!> P.PE~06- Z3 A/ a:E s.r mo), ,000V/Acx /-
7477e4/ Av-v /c4/ y/291-46.0 ,ems s r/ o ,9)/ .6)o17-.Q J344177.5- Ago wov.20 s f4E .4s
.4 .e.4-q/9.Li Del ✓.04Tony 0071/19•4�'7 7-4//s /i/i05 j/F7 " TD Dei✓.
/EP091991
(MENIAL REVIEW
UTING FORM
EPIC: 4Z-.11
CITY OF TUKWILA
7EPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
PROJECT
ADDRESS
• wilding. •
�d4/'
DATE TRANSMITTED
STAFF COORDINATOR
•Planning LRu
:PolIce / Parks /R c,
di, Lauf
6
RESPONSE REQUESTED BY 14/at
CP DATE RESPONSE RECEIVED
ITEM
COMMENT
Porgy .Q i5 GY•e6hIllion. of 131 q-06
Lit, l ion -b 6(1. �Dh j is £ pztitu o?1
�����" ff Inn
nett- 6u d tt v1.Ca14
Q/4//VEN /3v/4 v /NG 7 -D6 /5 /7,5-/"7,04/51/4=-0 FOV4Y/)A77 'N 4#V F.corfR A94-
A°_!'/1/4/f, U/l//effLY /A/9 o 74P Y /Or1S ..52M-S" 4'
7,- .574 FOR C6/47-1/G'2- GelleT2/tr% _DIJ,E TU 7-1/E /'2fS /R_ /L /TY ' o, C4/1/7;411//11A '
i0/✓ •
Y iP
�%ir✓aF� /9 /?/.1/6 -1 Rio /N.£raR/Y c Z' .0 .e�U/� �.5�� �, its /fry.-57? ,4WD .0 AP
774;47- /vy cFn ..coiA.S'
. ,//v_$• O✓P
T6EA7 22 4-y /7-4, 7- /7AA•e 1 / AN9/Ol?.P..??/49..Q/ ✓�/v7" An/ cp,"/ 'OTC.
5-2 7J./'94/V7- - 1X44/S,A 7 /yTo ?7✓ /; 77 /C .577aRr? • <•9l>A //!/
S/r 1 ss / /�leG /� /�•`" �. = :/r 1�? , ,N's /',S 4/v0 ' j -j
t TiR '/r / T ///l
.� C14 /=?i�.5;•i'i/' iii • 774:/ --
7-74.5:1 r0
,e9E71a! !7/s3 Av/ ,5",0vTS A- 2er> 71/E //�)V . e./N.L2/// .440i7/04/ ,fir: >J // '
/3E CONE c7 L TiV4 �X /sT /n/! .5 -7PR/ i J/.'A //V .3°.fs f`;1. (.5'6"e" c - 2
e
Date: T /9/9/ Comments prepared by; "ff.
/6•01 rIVA,/-00vIee,/ ZAL74/2:74170/_e/ N/A'4,/
(7/141.• 57.70 V.3/0,70 /v/6•04:7 ato, .za•-7zs 2(yz/v/
/V/ /vo.‘Ceiv,'"aideal _7Z'/ - -777"4 5"//// • agrePme9
77"X•e Z 44/. /WAVG e•-/cYaLS OA/" /v/-'1,74•Vf 1)4,/,c,v_ 74, Q/vy-7
.17_"7,Y,Y 1,•W -76•72_7,0/..r /1///ff-z/
•
4 •-)I‘:.'J •
1 :•t 1 ; • •
c4cf.r.zt tj.,• rec.irt,02.4 . fi 9, ce t,2.1 ft%
I •
• '1/4. ttw: • •••
r ;
r.0•.-.1'■■•Al`l.'4.'5;1 !al r.;/1-‘'.1.." • c.7
• ' t,) ,
••,
!...),
\'
. ,
. ,
% ,,f r• .... '
C,; C. % %'S VI ■,..)'''....i 4 `-i
, I i
•' •
• i„
• i‘d •
• ••.:, •''
1.
tr11,4
1.4 1 I
'6;.!:
7.t.
\• 11„.••:v
• IP •
\S4
1
‘1 "
1 1
tt.cr4
•■•
ENVIRONANTAL REVIEW
ROUTING FORM
CITY OF TUKWILA
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
PROJECT L/"Y' N& 106,
ADDRESS
DATE TRANSMITTED
STAFF COORDINATOR
EPIC: q-Z -11
Rub Wks l=ire ::; 0 Police 0 Parksll~i�c
.2
Petioto 4 Ac'VrnON — Vittividous Mc t1via1 gars?
DC17
RESPONSE REQUESTED BY
DATE RESPONSE RECEIVED
1(
The attached environmental checklist was received regarding this project. :''Please review ,a
comment below to advise the responsible official regarding the threshold determination., The
environmental review file is available in the Planning Department through the' above staff
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
P174421,41 i6 GThelehthliiion of ,( . q -tom (x4.f.)
• ,� ,� 1 „'•� o I
Gtl�Q�4 . L
Agi't1 oh -lb 011. 4t. J is 4 pztAtiian
•
EN /3/i U/N ' -D /S �E rIal -/SNED /WO
U/!1/ERLY //1c. o�iPd /p /,/S . SD /L. wad. ,4,E .E.Y 42C 1 . So s .s-/,,,c0 BE
AoR !._'//4 --/V 'A.-• kvr. -/v T!/ 271.4- 2irB /4/7Y 4o/v7-A,{'1,NA
T /O/✓_ ?f" //A/o4-224Y/A/ sews- .A,PF .rn4/7.4/.v,L447:04 Awn 4/.-..="7 1 REG
/ OF.'- ',V6 /✓S R&Ac# 7.12/S. AZile -' 1/h-' AVID O/At/4°-
ak' /L./41/411)5 ar" Are -AI/A y-D ,re/es !LP S R/®' A'
%FEA 7X7) ,w/T/,/ 7E7",A00eA.eY .AN0%(,Oaip/r1.A/YENV ,&-ie CIA/ 7 Oi -
/yEi0_Sv/.�ES. - ETll/�.4/►V7 -Ti Atir~ /d/TO 7 E .FX /tT //✓G S7"DiP"'l • .0 ?As/✓
j/r7 71 45-.1141/.4,/i ,c3fEk 13 AY sIdell , X2r1/.PeS 4/1/ L7
ar GATGS, Y /e/ -
77E5 712 ,r'3/z0 /N' 9 -De 54/. /p//b/3 / 4:400,94-30 Ple di,C e ,AeLargie
4077aL/710/✓. iv/i1,5-Po.-"S A.-/eo/y 7/S/�' /11.6-fir a /ID /n/y 0440j7 /04/ shaJ44)
e - CoNNECTEO %� 7N�,e,eArT /NW SIVA9,1 ®R.4//►/ M<S" f . (SE -• cAG )
Comments prepared by: , ,t1- /9.
Date: 71/9/
02114/1
ti l f T L v.
6
w
. 1, ,r� {�• Ski t7? I.
r •
r, r •
; 11p
�'', 1�,1ll " •
•
u.ri r en.7t•;t ,F�. 5 �� t sus ;!`.�� �' _.:,;��� . ah3:ri
� ► j i u�1•�� '�
, k t
o
70//5 svnr "TAW oer�� w/7-4//A/ ,d9 sPZ---/9G A- 4%W .#✓.v Z44,61 /0>W1
4 94'P Az 2ZZ7i441 ■4vh /4/4 ,9A(? .s-2 e/°9 .O f4/4/ ..'Avw fl'94I
.eEQIu
/P d.®Reito 0-x>//s M. eo ✓EC%' wig ,1 , 72,r -.E- P�90P7/C/P4Tio4/ /4/
r*ZyvTi94 //700RAK ,Zrod i STZEi
ENVIRON6ViEAAL REVIEW
ROUTING FORM
CITY OF TUKWILA
)EPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Building Planning ( Pub Wks Fire .Police ] Parks /RAc
PROJECT y iN ' Peivt0 kbonON - 4141.0
j
ADDRESS
DATE TRANSMITTED
STAFF COORDINATOR
RESPONSE REQUESTED BY
3°l
VP
DATE RESPONSE RECEIVED
he attached environmental checklist was received regarding this project Please review and •
comment below 10 .advise the responsible official regarding the.throshoid determination ,<The
environmental .review: file .ls available in the Planning. Department through .tho above staff
coord�ctator „` 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
?r7r ill) 15 - .610vm I11ion of t31611. 6T-06 001606:0
•altikion - Vd1 • e? -04 (
A)4114 -ion -b 4toz-f is AcizetAil6Ton -IAdv6j
littietribu6 di, cats s-oraot/ (� .
COMMENT
•
Date: 9/ /
Comments prepared by;
OW14/1
7;ITY OF TUKWILA
)EPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
• .
• Plannin Pdb Wks*,*:'•
.** o.. •
ENVIRONMEAPAL REVIEW
ROUTING FORM
PROJECT N.16
4iaL u)
DATE TRANSMITTED
STAFF COORDINATOR 4 DC17 DATE RESPONSE RECEIVED
The attached environmental:cheOklist.was.receiVed regarding Please review a
. . .
. • . . . . . . .• • •
...cornment below toadviSe the roponsible *official regardin.g.the.threshold deteminaton TL
is .available. the Panning DepartMent.throUgh.the ikc■;a. project coordinator, Comments regarding the Yod.
Board of :Adjustment and.City.COUncil should be submitted in the comment ection below.
• • •••••.:: . *. • • ••••••• •••• • • ••••• ; • •••••
• • • ..• .• • .• • .• • . • • •
ADDRESS
EPIC: 4Z-411
RESPONSE REQUESTED BY
ITEM
Pr1p54titi ClX•010,42h1-411.0n. vd‘i. g_06 00,600
• addiaimi el- 04
123(4. 4toii is ii(Toyt is.firti
Itit9dt-ku5 ditvitt C445 42tratt/ •Pet,r/i, 1,44v.
COMMENT
•
Date: 7- '3/-7/ Comments prepared by: ,
09/14/111
•
„AliCONVERSATION RECORD
DATE: g/ 2" C. (
TYPE: ❑ Visit ❑ Conference
MUN 7VE T714U TIME: Cl A.M. FR/ SAT T SUN P.M.
El Telephone — 0 Incoming 0 Outgoing
Name of ' er n(s) contacted or ' co tad with you:
•
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
Organizatio • ice,
pt., bureau, etc.)
4
Location of s' Con erence:
Telephone No.:
qdri
SUBJECT: 96F/ A/6° C'% Vdj/O li V)1)7\G
•
SUMMARY:
9 -F A-- d i
l
c_e&,;" /541x,&s•gvki
Signature:
Title: [mate:
CITY OF.,TUADILA :,,,
6200 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, Washington 98188 (206) 433 -1800
MEMORANDUM
TO. i•/Y/c/ i4)444YN/M
FROM: ./ ,,VA/ .Q..)/.4 -7 .%✓�
DATE.
SUBJECT: H. z/zJA/ P,E.f"9/ Fo.Q oe27ou77onl pe,- ,' Gr
DUie B47'/ 21t/ /`1EETWlj, Yom 7 ,A/ Z 7',47
z.
P.CE.4sF .✓oJiFY /7 Ar- .r/Na ii'4EA/ 77/E
.St7 i f/47 ? ,9.4Y /S.TU.E 7.S/E iq PPAPDPi', .47 - '
4 7 ,9J % .
AO' de
•
•
•
A. BACKGROUND
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
Epic File No..
Fee.i408.90 Receipt No. ffe_ al 0
1. Name of proposed project, if applicable:_ Chemical Management Bldg. 9 -04
2. Name of applicant: Boeing Military Airplanes PHASE #3
3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person:_ P.O. Box 3707, MSS 4x -26
Seattle. WA 98124 -2207 Contact: Art Whitson 544 -2965
4. Date checklist prepared: AUGUST 1a. 1991
5. Agency requesting Checklist: City of Tukwila
6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable):
_- WhiSTRUCTTO TC TO START APPROX. SEPT. 20. 1991 AND BE COMPLETED
APPTI In, 1891 DEMO OF THF q -nfi BI 0G WILI TO START AUG 15.1gg1 TO Al J OW
CONSTRUCTION OF PHASE 3
7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity
related to or connected with this proposal? If c' explain._
THIS CONSTRUCTION IS THE CONSTRUCTION PREVIOUSLY DESRIBED IN THE ENVIRONMENTAL
CHFCKI I SL FOR THE CHFM I CAL.. MA1 IAGF NT BUILDING 9 -04 PHASE #1 AND-#2.
FUTURESONSTRUCrION IS SCHFrul F TO RF DONE ON THIS BUILDING (9.71a) Tn THF
AMOUNT OF 12,500 SF FOR PHASE 3
8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will
be prepared, directly related to this proposal• THE FNVTR(IMFNTAI CHFCIU 1ST
_. . _.,
RIITI n PHACF a1 Anil
8: 1■ Y YI►I
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
AJC.. 1991
.Z.
1 •
°` 1O:`L1st any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal.
Gnf;``4, ':! Tukwila Building Dept.
Tukwila Fire Dept.
Tukwila Plannln &Dept.
Washington State Electrical 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.
• THF_ P(1RPfISA iS Tn MISTRJ CT .A l2,5005 ADDITION TO THE. EXISTING .CHEMICAL
�:►._ �_ T. .CI Y • PROVIDE ADD TIONAL SPACE FOR THE STORAGE OF MATERIALS
jbF At)f)TTTON wit BE CONSTRUCTED WITH SIMILAR CONSTRUCTION TO THE EXISTING
FACTI TTY _ THE 9 -06 BLDG WILL NEED TO BE DEMOLISHED TO ALLOW PHASE 3 CONSTRUCTIOI
DEMO IS FOR 6.500 SF (THE 9 -06 BLDG)
12. Location of the proposal. Dive 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
f.0 91991'
fi y ,. r 1 kJ, 1 : Y, .. -'
!- • f F :111 r i i
.v V► .vir6LICU Di ArrL1VNh)
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)? ox
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.
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 Reotechnical 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)? 95x
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.
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.
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 naves. . If appropriate, state what
stream or river it flows into.
The site borders the Duwamish River.` The
Duwamish River flows into the Puget Sound.
4
-5-
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. ENO. ACCORDING TO THE 1989 NATIOFJAL FLOOD
iNSURANCF PROGRAM MAP #53033C0170D PREPARED BY
THE FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY. ACCORDING
TO THIS INFORMATION THE SITE LIES OUTSIDE THE 100
AND 500YR FLOOD PLAINS
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.
-6-
Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
•
b. Ground:
Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
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 Duvamish River after flowing
through oil /water separators.
.7.
•
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 parkins 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
grass
pasture
crop or grain
wet soil plants: cattail, buttercGp, bullrush,
skunk cabbage, other
water plants: water lily, eelgrass, •ilfofl, other
other types of vegetation
b. What kind and amount of vegetation will 'be removed
or altered? None.
c. list threatened or endangered species know to be on
or near the site. None.
4_
•
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: Landscaping will be provided per
Tukwila building code.
5. Animals
a. Circle any birds and
observed on or near the
or near the site:
birds:
Duck, Gull
animals which have been
site or are known to be on
eagle,(songbird') other:
mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other:
None
fish: bass, salmon trout herring, shellfish,
other:
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.
-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 -
terra 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.
d.
w
•
•
any ructur s be tished? If so, what?
e. What i he current zoning classification of the
site? (Heavy Manufacturing)
f. What is the c rr - t comprehensive plan designan
(Heavy Manufacturing)
of the site?
g. If applicable, hat is the current shoreline master
program designation of the site? Urban
h. Has any part of the site been classified as an
"environmentally sensitive" area? If so, specify.
No.
i. Approximately how many peopl
in the completed project?
shifts.
de or work
rin three
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 saes 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
3� 7
/Al& -tete-04
•
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 heigh. The exterior building materials
will consist of "Tilt -up" concrete panels.
b. What views in the immediate vicinity old 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.
-13-
11. light and 61are
evaluation tor
Agency Use Only
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). Greenbelts within the site provide
Boeing employees with picnic areas and wallniays.
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.
-14-
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 ease_
side of the site. Access to the site is frog 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 ?_
T1-___1,15_0_21N RUCTION W I LLNOT ELIMINATE ANY PARK ING ,SPACES .
AREA CURRENTLY USED AS MATERIAL STORAGE AREA.
.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. Mould 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 to emergencies at this site.
-16-
Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
•
16. Utilities
•
a. Circle utilities currently available at the site:
lectricit Cnaturai 9as� refuse service
e1e hone 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 s stem
Water - Connection to Seattle Water Department
Electricity - Connection to Seattle City Light
Natural Gas - Connection to Washington Natural Gas
Signature
The above answers are true and complete to the best of
my knowledge. I understand that the. lead agency is
relying on then to make; der:s.
Signature:
Date Submitted:
AUGUST 12,1991
PLEASE CONTINUE TO THE NEXT. PAGE.
-17-
Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
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 ietensity
or at a f.•ter rate than if the proposal were not imple-
mented. Res and briefly and in general terns.
1. How would
to water;
release of
of noise?
he proposal be likely to increase discharge
fissions to air; production, storage, or
t• is or hazardous substances; or production
Proposed measures to avo
or reduce such increases are:
2. How would the proposal be likely
mats, fish, or marine life?
affect plants, an i -
Proposed measures to protect or conserve pl
- mats, fish, or marine life are:
-18-
ts. ani-
Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
v
•
•
How 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 aff t land and
shoreline use, inclduing whether it soul allow or
encourage land or shoreline uses %compat .le with
existing plans?
-19-
evaluation tor
Agency Use Only
•
Proposed measures to avoid or reduce shoreline and land
se impacts area:
How does e proposal conform to the Tukwila Shoreline
Master Plan
6. How would the proposa be likely to increase demands on
transportation or publ services and utilities?
Proposed measuressta reduce or re •ond to such demand(s)
are:
7. Identify, if possible, whether the proposal conflict
with local, state, or federal laws or requif is for
the protection of the environment.
-20-
Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
•
•
Does the proposal conflict with policies of the Tukwila
Comprehensive land Use Policy Plan? If so, what poli-
cies of the Plan?
Proposed Measures to avoid or reduce the conflict(s)
are:
Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
-21-
• •
TO BE 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 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? _
THE OR.IFCTLVF flF THIS CONSTRUCTION IS TO PROVIDE AN
AOO I T I ONAI 12 s [l n SF OF STORAGE SPACE TO THE EXISTING,
f HFMII'A1 IAANAt MFNT RUTI DING (9 -04) THIS ADDITIONAL
SperF rq QFQIITQFf Tn SIIPPORT THE COI SOI NATION— STORAGE
MFNT OF ifiAustenuc MAEERiAI S ROM THE
1 OFVFLOPMFMTAI SITE yaTHrM nmIF RUTI nTnlr
2. What are the alternative means of accomplishing these
ob.ectives?
HER AR. N. ! M OF ACCOMPLISHING THIS OBJECTIVE
THE EXISTING M THOD OF STORING HAZARDOU
MATERIALS THROUGHOUT THE DEVELOPMENTAL SITE
I INEFFICIENT
AND OUTDATED . NEW REGULATIONS REOULRE THAT.MORR STRINGENT
CONTROL OF HAZARDOUS. MATFRIAL S IS REOU IIIED; THIS _ APQ T ION
T11 IHF EY I ST I NG (HEM T CAl STOP AGF AR FA T S NFFIFD TO PROVIDE
CAPTRTLITFS Tn MFFT NFW RFPIII'ATIntgc
3. Please compare the alternative means and indicate the
preferred course of action:
N/A
-22-
r
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-
Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
1
•
•
•
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
•
• •
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
DEYEDIMENIALLEME
That portion of the abandoned bed of the Duwamish River, that portion of South 98th Street,
and the, portion of the Timothy Grow Donation Land Claim No. 44 all in Section 4, Township 23
North, Range 4 East, W.M., in King County, Washington, described as follows:
Commencing at the intersection of the north line of said Section 4 and the westerly margin of
Washington Primary State Hiway No. 1 (East Marginal Way) from whence the northeast corner of
said Section 4 bears South 88'05'05" East, thence South 22°32'15" East along said westerly margin
128.16 feet to the centerline of South 98th Street and the True Point of beginning; thence South
37°32'14" West along said centerline 132.25 feet thence South 49°23'18" West 131.56 feet; thence
South 76°34'14" West 138.91 feet, thence North 635.13 feet; thence South 77°09'41" West 150.07
feet to the easterly end of slip No. Ti of said Duwamish River, thence South 12°50'19" East 50.99
feet; thence South 67°20'40" West 57.39 feet; thence South 78 °18'39" West 105.78 feet' thence
South 73 °58'29" West 71.17 feet thence South 59°06'26" West 129.16 feet; thence South 59 °59'51"
West 168.24 feet; thence South 48°32'29" West 42.11 feet; thence South 55 °55'40" West 158.82 feet
to the easterly line of the Duwamish Waterway District No. 1 right -of -way; thence South 13 °51'49"
East along said easterly line 100.99 feet to a point on the shoreline meanders for the right bank of said
river as established by the commissioners of Commercial Waterway District No. 1 of King County,
Washington, and approved by the State District Engineer on September .4,* 1917; thence continuing
South 13° 51'49" East along said easterly line of the Duwamish Waterway District No. 1 a distance of
142.96 feet; thence continuing along said easterly line South 27 °51'49" East 134.60 feet thence
continuing along said easterly line South 27°51'44" East 562.76 feet; thence continuing along said
easterline South 41 °51'44" East 299.88 feet to the intersection with the U.S. Government meander
line for the right bank of the Duwamish River; thence along said meander line North 71°15'16" East
489.88 feet; thence continuing along said meander line South 73°21'36" East 466.63 feet to the
intersection with the southerly production of the westerly margin of 27th Avenue South (also known
as Miller Road and County Road No. 57); thence along said westerly margin and its extension North
1°22'50' east 368.46 feet to an intersection with a line parallel to and 379.11 feet, measured at right
angles, from the south line of the Timothy Grow Donation Claim No. 44; thence along said parallel
line South 88 °51'59" East 338.15 feet; thence North 1 °08101' East 7300 feet; thence South
88 °51'59" East 414.39 feet to the westerly margin of aforesaid Primary State Highway No. 1; thence
along said westerly margin North 22°32'15' West 229.80 feet to a line parallel to and 1576 feet
southerly, measured at right angles, from the north line of said Timothy Grow Donation Claim No.
44; thence North 89 °52'39" West 19.51 feet; thence North 22°32'15" West 230.00 feet; thence South
89 °52'39" East 19.51 feet; thence North 22°32'15' West 684.43 feet; thence South 62°26'15" West
20.08 feet; thence North 22°32'15" West 198.91 feet to the True Point of Beginning; said tract
containing an area of 2,427,304 square feet, more or less.
ECL -2.DOC Page A -12
I a °TECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
CONSTRUCTION SITE
•
•
InDAMES S MOORE A PROFESSIONAL. LIMITED PAR1':I:R;ifr,
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 Wold
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
UFFIL.E, WURLI)WII)E
Yours very truly,
DAMES & MOORE
Harbans L. Chabra, P.E.
Principal Engineer /Associate
• •
REPORT OF GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
PROPOSED CHEMICAL MANAGEMENT BUILDING 9 -04
DEVELOPMENTAL CENTER
TUKWILA, WASHINGTON
for the
BOEING COMPANY
INTRODUCTION
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 III.
The majority of the building will consist of high -bay warehouse storage, with an eave 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.
$COP$
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:
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.
5. 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.
1).A Ntc'o!t!
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 B -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
B -2 -90, B -3 -90, and B- 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
U MLS SI. 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 & OORE•:
• •
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 D. 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 D1557) for a depth of at least 2 feet. Achieving this criteria will probably require some
overexavation and recompaction or replacement of the subgrade soils.
DAMES d Mt >i RE
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 Su000rt
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
DAMES & MOORL
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 pile 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 S Moui1E
•
r sJERAL 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.
$ITE 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 1.5.
DANtt5 ,u `1Ouht
action Potential
rr-
We assume that Boeing will elect to design the 9 -04 Building in accordance with standard
UgC criteria for a normal risk /conventional structure. As described in our October 27, 1989
resort 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 St MOORE
•
The following items are attached and complete this report
Plate 1
Appendix
Site Plan
Site Explorations and Laboratory Tests
Respectfully submitted,
DAMES & MOORE
Harb ns L. Chabra, P.E.
Principal Engineer /Associate
2
Kelly S.'Merrill, P.E.
Senior Engineer
Xli t ?RE:
APPENDIX
SITE EXPLORATIONS AND LABORATORY TESTS
RAT •N
Subsurface conditions underlying the site were explored by five drilled borings at the
__.
;' Mmes & 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.
DA NILS Oc h4t.JLRl:
DRIVING OR
MECHANISM PUSHING
COWLING
WATER OUTLETS
NOTOIES FOR
ENGAGING
/TIMING TOOL
NEOPRENE GASKET
HEAD
NOTE,
'READ !=TENSION• CAN
et WTIOOUCED et TREEN
•Nt*O' AND 'SPLIT TARREL'
SPLIT BARREL
/TO ►ACIL/TATE T erOVAL
OF CORE SAMPLEI
BIT
SOIL SAMPLER TYPE U
FOR SOILS DIFFICULT TO RETAIN IN SAMPLER
CHECK VALVE$
VALVE CAGE
CORE•RETAINER
RINGS
Mtn' 0.o. AT I•LONGI
CORE•RE TAINING
DEVICE
RETAINER RING
RETAINER PLATES
INTERCNANGEARLE WITH
OTHER TT ►ES)
A -2
ALTERNATE ATTACHMENTS
SPLIT BARREL-,
LOCKING
RING
SPLIT
FERRULE
TMIN.WALL ED •
SAMPLING TUBE
IINTERCNANGEA$LE
LENGTHS)
CORE•RETAINING
DEVICE
!..;a9 w7, 8. Moore
•
`. I�ACfi SAMPLE IS TESTED IN A SPLIT SAMPLE HOLDER,
'WO AND ONE -HALF INCHES IN DIAMETER AND ONE
NCJI IIIGII. UNDISTURBED SAMPLES OF 1N -PLACE SOILS
METIIOD OF PERFORMING DIRECT SHEAR AND FRICTION TESTS
TESTS ARE PERFORMED TO DETERMINE
G STRENGTHS OF SOILS. FRICTION TESTS
RMED TO DETERMINE THE FRICTIONAL RE-
BETWEEN SOILS AND VARIOUS OTHER MATE -
SII'CH AS WOOD, STEEL, OR CONCRETE. THE TESTS
PERFORMED IN THE LABORATORY TO SIMULATE
ANTICIPATED FIELD CONDITIONS.
AME EXTRUDED FROM RINGS TAKEN FROM THE SAM-
PLING DE% ICE IN WHICH THE SAMPLES WERE OB-
TATNIED. LOOSE SAMPLES OF SOILS TO BE USED IN CON -
'$T$4crING EARTH FILLS ARE COMPACTED IN RINGS TO PREDETERMINED CONDITIONS AND TESTED.
DIRECT SHEAR APPARATUS WITH
ELECTRONIC RECORDER
ECT SHEAR TESTS
ONE-INCH LENGTH OF THE SAMPLE IS TESTED IN DIRECT SINGLE SHEAR. A CONSTANT PRESSURE,
4II�PROPR1ATE TO THE CONDITIONS OF THE'PROBLEM FOR WHICH THE TEST IS BEING PERFORMED,
APPLIED NORMAL TO THE ENDS OF THE SAMPLE THROUGH POROUS STONES. A SHEARING FAILURE
,THE SAMPLE IS CAUSED BY MOVING THE UPPER SAMPLE HOLDER IN A DIRECTION PERPENDICU-
TO THE AXIS OF THE SAMPLE. TRANSVERSE MOVEMENT OF THE LOWER SAMPLE HOLDER IS
"� ° --,eat yE.NTED.
E SHEARING FAILURE IS ACCOMPLISHED BY APPLYING TO THE UPPER SAMPLE HOLDER A CON-
ANT RATE OF DEFLECTION. THE SHEARING LOAD AND THE DEFLECTIONS IN BOTH THE AXIAL AND
SVERSE DIRECTIONS ARE RECORDED AND PLOTTED. THE SHEARING STRENGTH OF THE SOILS IS
= r
11 TERMINED FROM THE RESULTING LOAD - DEFLECTION CURVES.
RUCTION TESTS
Is 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
Domes & More
Boring B- 1 -90. Cont.:
Boring B -1 -90, Cont.
Oopth
in Foot
0--
2.6X -79
5
27.4X -90
—
15—
24.7X -97
20 —
to
Sya6ol; -`
Depth Sample
in Feet rThysbol
40
It concrete
d rock base (dense)
Brown Fine to medium sand
(fill) (loose)
Brownish gray fine sand
(loose)
Oark gray fino to medium
sand (loose)
SM
28.7X -90
45 —
. 21.4X -91
50—
26.6X -95
55-
Light gray silty fine sand
(medium dense) -
Oopth Sornplo
in Foot ESymbol
80
33
52
46
SP
SM
Dark gray to block fine to
medium sand with wood fragments
(medium dense)
Cray silty fine sand (medium
dense)
41
43.7X -75
90—
95 —
23.3X -103.
19
ON
19
19
LL-43 PL -23
Greenish ray fine to medium
sand with trace silt and
shell fragments (medium
dense to very dense)
100
Dark gray to block fine to
coarse sand (medium dense)
60-
100—
Boring B -1 -90 completed
at a depth of 99 feet on
2- 21 -90.
Groundwater encountered
at 0 depth of about 10
feet during drilling.
25 --I
25. 30 3X-99
35—
24.7X -101
40
grades to fine to medium
grades with alternating
layers of fine sand
grades to very dense
28Z-1
65 —
70 —
37.7X-82
75—
80
23
12
.
19
.
Log of Borings
ML
Dark gray clayey silt (stiff)
Gray silty cloy (stiff)
R
'KEY:
121.2X -108 indicates
AUG 14 1991
CITY GiCi UKVV LA
_ _ PLANNING DEPT.
moisture
In
and dry density
content
pcf
i1— Blows required to drive Domes 8 Moore sampler
11 one foot with 140 lb hammer and 30 Inch drop.
110
. Indicates undisturbed sample
▪ Indlcotos disturbed sample
G
® Indicates bulk sample
.sz
Indicates ground water level
NOTE;
The discussion in the text of this report
1s necessary for a proper understanding of
the nature of the subsurfoce,material9.
Dames & Moore _
Plate A -1
Sample
symbol
90. Ses-4/2
40
•
Boring B -2 -90 Boring B- 2- 90,Cont.
.,ispholt concroto
P Brown fine sand with some
M silt (Ftll)(medium dense)
M
Depth Samplo
in Foot ESymbol
40—
28. 2z-92
grados to loose with incroosin9
�sllt _
Vnite clayey material.
3.5 feet to 4 feet.
Brown silty fine sand (loose)
grades with decroasing
silt
SP Dark brownish gray fino to
medium sand with trace
silt (loose)
9rodos to stadium dense
grades to fine to coarse
sand
grades with wood fragments
9rodos with incroosin9
wood fragments
P Darh gray fine to =chum
M sand with some silt and
trace wood fragments (medium
dense)
45--
Log or Borings
84
ac a epcn yr 44 reet on
2- 23 -90.
•
Groundwater not moosurod
during drilling.
Domes 8 Moore
Job No. 00695 - 473 -016
Plate A -2
sM
Dark gray silty fine sand
(medium dense)
Boring B -2 -90 complotod
ac a epcn yr 44 reet on
2- 23 -90.
•
Groundwater not moosurod
during drilling.
Domes 8 Moore
Job No. 00695 - 473 -016
Plate A -2
Depth Sample
in Foot r-Bymbol
0 —
7. 3X-83
5 —
10 —
•-•
15
20 —
25
31.9X-114
30
2-2.8Z-103
•';;;
- •
.,„
12
18
35
38
28
27
110
64
Boring B-3-90 Boring B-3-90, Cont.
SP
-.Asphalt concroto
Brown Pine sand with trace
silt (Fill) (medium dense)
11
SP
SP
grades to loose
grados with trace white
clayey material at 6 feet
Grayish brown fine sand
(loose to medium dense)
grades coarsor with soma
wood fragments
Dark gray to block firm sand
(medium dense to dense)
grades with trace wood
frogments
Job No. 00595-473-015
Depth Sample
In Foot r-Bymbol
40
30. 9X-96
45—
45
Log of Borings
qwwww---
sm
Dark gray silty fine sond
(medium dense)
, Boring B-3-90 completed
1 at a depth of 44 foot of
2-23-90.
Groundwater not moasurod
during drilling.
Domes g Moore
Plate A-3
or
. -
Depth Sample
In Foot r-5ymbol
0 —
10. 10.'106
15—
25
18. 3x-102
30 —
40—
G
CED
42
MS
28
114
37
73
Boring B-4-90 Boring B-4-90, Cont.
•
flspholt concrete
GP Brown sandy grovel (fill)
(very dense)
gm Brown silty fine sand with
grovel and asphalt fragments
Kf111)(medlum dense)
sp Brown fine sand (loose)
grades to medium dense
grades coarser
sp Gray Fine to medium sond
(medium dense)
■40•■■••••....
grades to fine to coarse
sand
grades finer
Depth Sample
In Foot r-5ymbol
40 —
29.9X-92
45—
112
50—
Log of Borings
2-22-90.
Groundwater encountered
at depth oF about 13.5
feet during drillIng.
Dames & Moore
IJob No. 00695-473-016
Plate A-4
mi.
Grayish brown sandy slit
(very stiff)
Grayish brown silty fine
sand (dense)
Sarin§ B-4-90 completed
-.. - —.b.. ...0
. ..
sm
.
2-22-90.
Groundwater encountered
at depth oF about 13.5
feet during drillIng.
Dames & Moore
IJob No. 00695-473-016
Plate A-4
A
1
4
o
_ L
Depth Samplo
in Foot Symbol
0
5.6X-96
5
10
23.7X-93
15
20 —
25
33.1X-93
30 —
35 —
28.1X-94
40
21
100
-
25
1•
42
41
25
on
59
65
GP
SP
SM
SP
SW
SM
.spholt concrete
.Crushed rock base (dense)
Dark brown fine sand with
some silt (fill)(loose
to medium dense)
grodos with white cloyyey
mater i a i and gravel. 7 to 7.5'
Obstruction at 7.5 foot
Dark brown fino to medium
sand (medium dense)
grottos finer
Dark gray fine to coarse
sand with wood fragments
(medium dense)
grados finer
Dark brown silty fine sand
(medium dense)
Dopth
in Foot
40
Sample
ESymbo l
28.7X -93 58
— -
45 —
45
— -
50
38.1X -81 28
— -
55 —
30
--
60 —
18
-
65
30.9X -87 26
-
70 —
45.1X -75 14
75
40.2X -79
80 —
Log of Borings
ML
ML
Dark brownish gray sandy
silt with trace of clay
(stiff to very stiff)
Dark gray clayey silt (stiff)
Cl Dark gray silty cloy (stiff)
Oopth Sample
in Foot I—Symbol
80
grodos to vary stiff
Greenish gray firm sand with
some silt and shell fragments
(medium dense)
grades to very dcnso
Boring 8 -5 -90 comp]otod
at a depth of 99 feet on
2- 22 -90.
Groundwater ancountorcd
at a depth of about }3
feet during drilling]
________
r if4 111 NOD
Luc14l99l
il
CITY OF Tui‘vvlLA
PLANNING DEPT.
Dames & Moore
Plate A -5
FORM NO. 467.3 (4.761
•
NOTE: DUAL SYMBOLS ARE USED TO INDICATE BORDERLINE SOIL CLASSIFICATIONS
UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM
Dames & Moore
PLATE A -6
MAJOR DIVISIONS
GRAPHIC
SYMBOL
LETTER
SYMBOL
TYPICAL DESCRIPTIONS
' COARSE
GRAINED
SOILS
MORE THAN So%
OF MATERIAL IS
LARGER THAN N0.
GRAVEL
AND
GRAVELLY
SOILS
MORE THAN 501E
OF COARSE FRAC.
TION RETAINED
CLEAN GRAVELS
(LITTLE OR NO
FINESI
474' Qp4'
C�� l4
♦ t
,4: ~:
GW
wELI.GRADEOGRAVELS.GRAVEL•
SAND MIXTURES, LIT1 LE OR NO
FINES
Lq4. p4.
.1P CP
=4( '4' 1
ir
7/111
.
jjerr
;.%
/�7j/j
'' / i I
GP
GM
POORLY•GRADEOGRAVELS.
GRAVEL.SANO MIXTURES. LITTLE
OR NO FINES
SILTY GRAVELS.GRAVELSANO•
SILT MIXTURES
GRAVELS WITH FINES
(APPRECIABLE
AMOUNT OF FINES)
GC
CLAYEY GRAVELS,GRAVEISANO•
CLAY MIXTURES
ON F16. 4 SI VE
SAND
ANO
SANDY
SOILS
MORE THAN 50%
OF COARSE FRAC.
TION PASSING
CLEAN SAND
(LITTLE OR NO
FINES)
SW
WELL•GRADED SANDS, GRAVELLY
SANDS, LITTLE OR NO FINES
• ••
$P
POORLY.GRADED SANDS. GRAVEL.
LY SANDS. LITTLE OR NO FINES
SANDS WITH FINES
(APPRECIABLE
AMOUNT OF FINES)
SM
SILTY SANDS, SAND•SILT
MIXTURES
200 SIEVE SIZE
SC
/
CLAYEY SANDS. SANOCLAY
MIXTURES
N0. N SIEVE
FINE
GRAINE
5011.5
MORE THAN 50% .
OF MATERIAL IS
SMALLER THAN N0.
SILTS 110UI0LIMIT
LAY AYS LESS THAN 50
CLAYS
.
ML
- -•
CL
INORGANIC SILTS AND VERY FINE
SANDS. ROCK FLOUR• SILTY OR
CLAYEY FINE SANDS OR CLAYEY
SILTS WITH SLIGHT PLASTICITY
INORGANIC CLAYS OF LOW TO
MEDIUM PLASTICITY. GRAVELLY,
CLAYS, SANDY CLAYS,. SILTY
CLAYS. LEAN CLAYS
/
OL
i III
ORGANIC SILTS ANY ORGANIC
SILTY CLAYS OF LOW PLASTICITY
S1LTS
AND LIOUID LIMIT
CLAYS GREATER THAN 50
11111
MM
HI
INORGANIC SILTS. MICACEOUS OR
DIATOMACEOUS FINE :CANDOR
SILTY SOILS
" a
j� d%
jr; % ,
%. -��,�
//? ;ti,
(
INORGANIC CLAYS OF NIGH
PLASTICITY, FAT CLAYS
200 SIEVE SIZE
A
., � f PT
1.,.........z...::
.'4. ',: -
ORGANIC CLAYS OF MEDIUM TO
HIGH PLASTICITY, ORGANIC SILT5
PEAT. HUMUS. SWAMP SOILS WITH
H1GH ORGANIC CONTENTS
HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS
NOTE: DUAL SYMBOLS ARE USED TO INDICATE BORDERLINE SOIL CLASSIFICATIONS
UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM
Dames & Moore
PLATE A -6
0
ID
3
20)
0
0
ID
1
Boring
I
Depth
(ft)
Soil
Type
Moisture
Content
(%)
Dry
Density
(pcf)
Normal
Pressure
(psf)
Shear
Strength
(psf)
UltiPeak mate
Shear
Strength
(psf)
8-1-90
18
Fine to medium sand
24.7
97
1000
2000
1270
2300
740
1560
B-1-90
29.5
Fine to coarse sand
25.3
99
1500
3000
1650
3300
1050
2100
B-2-90
38.5
Fine to medium sand with
some silt
30.3
92
2000
4000
1800
3540
1480
2700
8-4-90
13
Fine sand
23.3
99
•
1000
2000
1000
1900
3
620
1320
8-5-90
3
Fine sand with some silt
5.6
96
500
1000
520
820
370
690
B-5-90
53
Sandy silt
i
38.1
81
2000
4000
_
1530
2940
1530
2940
Direct Shear Test Results
Fines Content Analysis Test Results
Note: Fines content is defined as the percent by weight of material passing a #200 sieve.
Dames & Moore _
Plate A -8
Boring
Depth
(ft)
Soil Type
Moisture
Content
( %)
Dry
Density
(pcf)
Fines
Content
( %)
— 4
B -1 -90
3
Fine to medium sand
2.6
79
8 -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
B -4-90
3.5
Silty fine sand
- 10.8
106
28
B -4-90
43
Sandy silt
29.8
92
_ 58
B -5 -90
3
Fine sand with some silt
5.6
96
9
B- 5-90
43
Silty fine sand
28.7
93
15
B -5 -90
53 . .
Sandy silt
38.1
81
77
8 -5 -90
.98
Fine sand with some silt
. 20.3
113
11
Fines Content Analysis Test Results
Note: Fines content is defined as the percent by weight of material passing a #200 sieve.
Dames & Moore _
Plate A -8
•
• •
1ft- DAMES & MOORE A PR\„ F S' It,n.%1 I ' I
500 MARKET PLACE TOWER. 2025 FIRST AVENUE. SEA ITI_E. WASHINGTON 98121
(20h:) 726-07.1-
March 21, 1990
Boeing Support Services
P.O. Box 3707, M/S 4H -07
Seattle, Washington 98124 -2207
Attention: Mr. Pete Wold
RECEIVED
MAR 2 7 1990
BM 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.
• •
DAMES& MOORE A PROFESSIONAL LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
Boeing Support Services
March 21, 1990
Page 2
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\BOE904A
•
Respectfully submitted,
DAMES & MOORE
Kelly S. Merrill, P.E.
Senior Engineer
•
•
16 March 1990
Mr. Kelly S. Merrill
Dames & Moore
500 Market Place Tower
2025 First Avenue
Seattle, Wa 98121
•
DAMES & MOORE
SEATTLE
MAR , u »!gin
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.
N. Rocky Wells
Laboratory Manager
N R W /bv
Enclosures
cc: file #4745
ANALYTICAL
RESOURCES
INCORPORATED
Analytical
Chemists &
Consultants
333 Ninth Ave. North
Seattle, WA 98109 -51
(206) 621 -6490
(206) 621 -7523 (FAX)
DAMES & MOORE 11, 01 �' °
500 Market Place Tower • 2025 First Avenue • Seattle, Washington 98121 • (206) 728 -0744
Chain of Custody
Date? / 1/2Q Page of __L
Project Number • • /
Analysis Request
1Number of Containers
....4
Project Manager:
Volatile Organ'
624/8240 (GC /MST--
Halogenated Volatiles
601/8010
Aromatic Volatiles
602/8020
Base/Neutral /Acids
625/8270 (GC/MS)
BTX 602/8015
Polycyclic Aromatic
Hydrocarbons 610/8310
Pesticides/PCBs
608/8080
Priority Pollutant
Metals (13)
EP TOX Metals
(8) f s�ckt,� Gjp
Comments/
Instructions
Laboratory: = 2/"
Turn around time: /wtet (tom Alt MMh e
Sampler's Initials: SAD
Sampler's Signature:
Sample ID
Date
Time
Matrix
$ -5" @ 7 1
.2.42i,
`
50;/
.><
1
1
Special Instructions/Comments: '
-f r Awe- fr11 fc4 e fZ t( t
Tv 5?.w,,one P.►v." a -at '9t7
0/6 7,5-0 p �v .. EpT f Mt 1,4 f � fv�C+ �"t
0— I tr✓e t K /14^seh,HI o 14„4
-
Relinquished
(Sig)
( Printed
(Company)
(Time)
by:
44"2'K`Y3` --j`"
Received by ab):
(Si ' `�66.
Sample Receipt
Total no. of containers:
Chain of custody seals:
Rec'd good condition/cold:
Conforms to record:
) 7c...;) il, ttc.r f r
(Printed)
(Company)
- AF1.14 L , ,
/S•
'D,.0.--%1, 1ftt•cs.- --
/•S-
5`I (Date) L- 26- `7CtTime)
S (Date
Lab number:
•
• •
EXPLANATION OF INORGANIC DATA REPORT CODES
The columns labeled 'PREP', 'C', and 'M' contain important information about your analyses. The codes are
• defined below.
,. PREPARATION CODES
These 3 -letter codes describe methods used to prepare samples for analysis:
AEN
AHM
AHN
CAN
DE6
DMM
DMN
EW6
EWM
EWN.
FHP
FPP
FRM
FRN
KRN
LEM
LEN
MHM
MHN
.0AM
IAN
HM
PHN
RCC
RCN
REC
REI
REN
RMA
USEPA Method, Metals in air filters RWC
ARI Method, Mercury in air filters SCC
ARI Method, Metals in air filters SCM
AOAC (1984) Method 25.024-.027, Metals in earthenware SCN
EPA 600/479 -020 Method 218.5, Hexavalent Cr in water SEM
DMN followed by TMM, Dissolved mercury
Filtered through .45u filter, Dissolved metals
EWN followed by DE6, EP Toxicity
EWN followed by TMM, EP Toxicity
USEPA SW-846 Method 1310, EP Toxicity
ARI Method, Metals in tissue (HNO31HC104)
PSEP, Metals in tissue (I NO3/HCIO4)
Journal Method, Mercury in tissue
Journal Method, Metals in tissue (HNO3/H202)
ARI Method, Concentration by coprecipitation
USEPA Method, TCLP followed by TMM
USEPA Method, TCLP Extraction
ARI Method, Mercury in miscellaneous materials
ARI Method, Metals in miscellaneous materials
ARI Method, Mercury in oil, grease or tar
ARI Method, Metals in oil, grease or tar
ARI Method, Mercury in wipes
ARI Method, Metals in wipes
USEPA CLP Program, Water by ICP
USEPA CLP Program, Water by GFAAS
EPA 600/4-79 -020 Method 4.1.4, Water by FAAS
EPA 600/4-79 -020 Method 200.7 and 9.4, Water by ICP
EPA 600/4-79 -020 Method 4.1.4, Water by GFAAS
EPA 600/4- 79-020 Method 206.2, As/Se in water
SHF
SRL
SPF
SSC
SSN
SSS
SW6
SWC
SWN
SWR
TEC
TEG
TEI
TEN
THG
TMM
TSC
TSN
TSS
TWC
TWG
TWN
WMN
XSC`
USEPA SW-846 Method 3005, Water by FAAS or ICP
USEPA CLP Program, Soil by FAAS or ICP
USEPA CLP Program, Mercury in soil
USEPA CLP Program, Soil by GFAAS
EPA 600/4-79 -020 Method 245.5, Mercury in soil
ARI Method, Metals in soil, Hydrofluoric acid digestion
Journal Method, Lithium meta - borate fusion
PSEP, Metals in sediment, Hydrofluoric acid digestion
Standard Methods 302C, Sb/Sn in soil
Standard Methods 302C, Soil by GFAAS, FAAS or ICP
Standard Methods 302C, Ti in soil
USEPA SW-846 Method 3060, HexavaIent Cr in soil
USEPA SW-846 Method 3050, Soil by FAAS or ICP
USEPA SW-846 Method 3050, Soil by GFAAS
USEPA SW-846 Modified Method 3005, Sb by GFAAS
EPA 600/479 -020 Method 4.1.3, Water by FAAS
EPA 600/4-79 -020 Method 272.1, Silver in water
EPA 600/4- 79-020 Method 200.7 and 9.3, Water by ICP
EPA 600/4-79 -020 Method 4.1.3, Water by GFAAS
ARI Method, Silver in photographic solutions
EPA 600/4-79 -020 Method 245.1, Mercury in water
Standard Methods 302C, Sb/Sn in water
Standard Methods 302D, Water by GFAAS,FAAS or ICE
Standard Methods 302E, Ti in water
USEPA SW-846 Method 3010, Water by ICP
USEPA SW-846 Method 7760, Silver in water
USEPA SW-846 Method 3020, Water by GFAAS
EPA 600/4 -79 -020, Preserved undigested water
Standard Methods 302B, Extractable metals In water
CONCENTRATION CODES
These codes are used to qualify reported concentrations:
U 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
FLA
6FA
:P
Cold Vapor Atomic Absorption Spectrophotometry
Flame Atomic Absorption Spectrophotometry
Graphite Furnace Atomic Absorption Spectrophotometry
Inductively Coupled 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
Kelly Merrill
695 - 473 -016
B -5 @7'
02/22/90
02/26/90
SOIL
ARI job number: 4745
ARI sample number: A
Released by: ///
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:
• •
ANALYTICAL RESOURCES, INC.
Inorganic Laboratory Data Report
03/15/90
12:04:05
Dames & Moore
Kelly Merrill
695 - 473 -016
METHOD BLANK
A N A L Y T I C A L
ARI job number: 4745
ARI sample number: MB
Released
R E S U L T S
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
CVA
7782 -49 -2 _
Selenium
0.05 mg /L
U
EWN
ICP
7440 -22 -4
Silver
0.003 mg /L
U
EWN
ICP
7440 -66 -6
Zinc
0.004 mg /L
U
EWN
ICP
•
VICINITY SITE PLAN
•
"••••),•,
•
ARK
AUG 1 4 1991
.....
CITY OF TuKWILA
PLANNING DEPT.
.*8 OP,agE LD
DEVELO MENTAL CENT
TUKWILA, WA
94.5 ACRES OWNED
69.9 ACRES LEASED
0 500 FT
I I I
SCALE
•
DUWAMISH RIVER
BSS .
LICENSED
TRANSPORTATION \ •
UNINCORD
1.17y oF
TUj.
3XBOW
3RIDGE
J28
9-78
9-06
b
D—
II
CHEMICAL
STORAGE
u----
II
9-411
TRAILERS
9-110 PARKING — 9.424 THRU 9-429
9-403
9-05
EAST MARGINAL WAY SOUTH
13-05
+ 7+ 3401 73
AOA
7-380
3-07
3-02
•
.■■
71
I
SE
CC
CL
AFL •
TRAILERsi
7-381141
THIN
721
.... ..... ....... , .............
................... • • .......... .•
I.
NON-BOEING
OWNED
MILITARY FLIGHT CENTER
76+ 74+
........ • .........
. • .... •
.......................................
• ......
......................
............
............... ............... .
.................................................................
SOUTH BOEING FIELD ...... ..... ... ....................... .........
................
— — —
.................... . ...................................
. .........
.............. .
9-5 ........................................................................................................................ . w0
: •
........
al
-. ........... ........................................................................................................ .
I 5
CONSTRUCTION SITE PLAN
Nam!
J
, 11 • V ��
k I A K
9-06. r
L
1
na..- El
a
s a
P :CHEMICAL
a ▪ o :STORAGE
■
a
---- rage
9 -403
9 -05
rrC ?,1ot\_qio
AUG 14 19911
•
•
Existing
Building 9 -06
Key
Location and number of
8 -1 -90 boring drilled during
this investigation
40
Scale in Feet
To Gate J -28
80
r
B - -4 -90 —1
Proposed
Building 9 -04
(Phase III)
418-5-90
x
Proposed
Building 9 -04
(Phase H)
- B -3 -90
-r
B -1 -90
Proposed
Building 9 -04
(Phase I)
Existing Fence
Existing Fence
I
8 -2 -90
Existing Building 9 -51
Drawing Entitled, 'Underground Utilities, 9 -04 Building Site, from Boeing Facilities Department, dated 12/89.
AUG 14 1991
CITY OF Tur<vVILA
PLANNING DEPT.
Plate 1
Site Plan
Dames & Moore _
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
DEMOLITION OF THE 9 -06 BUILDING
BOEING DEVELOPMENTAL SITE (D.C.)
9725 EAST MARGINAL WAY SOUTH, SEATTLE
Jl
.6o (I, I
ohytWz
Epic File No. --
Fee e- i49*:98 Receipt No.- 4
1P 2 .O2
�- ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
A. BACKGROUND
1. Name of proposed project, if-applicable: DEMOLITION OF 9 -06 (DALLAS- MAVIES) Bic
2. Name of applicant: Boeing Military Airplanes
3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: P.O. Box 3707, M/S 4H-
Seattle. WA 98124 -2207 Contact: Art Whitson 544 -2965
4. Date checklist prepared: AUGUST 10. 1Q,91
5. Agency requesting Checklist: City of Tukwila
6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable):
;DEMOLITION OF THE 9 -06 BUT LDING..WILL SWT -APPXN AUG- 15... 1-991 AND BE COMP:ETE
�FPT 70 1Qa1
7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity
related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain._
#7 (1F THI Q_ALi RL.ITI n.TMi THIS CON TR�JCrTON TS Ate AnnrTrnri OF 1i „5fl
•;e
• •;
•►
'AIRED
List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will
. be prepared, directly related to this proposal.
- THAT WAS PRFPARFD AND TSSUFD TO THE CITY OF TUKWILA FOR THE CHEMICAL MANAGEMENT
RIITI DTNc P1 -IASF 41 AND 49
r.
;•►u
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
-2-
10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal.
Tukwila Building Dept.
Tukwila Fire Dept. Tukwila Plannin De t.
Washington_ State Elicjrical Permits
Plumbin: ;i! e c P-
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.
_IHF PROPOSAI IS TO DEMOLISH THE EXISTING 2 =0.6 CDALLAS- MAVIES).BUILDING - - ?,`
•
I ;
n e'N \ •G
O. ;• .I I .1 i .\
•
• -ye
•►
• -►•_ C►
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 nap, 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
uvmrLc i CU •MrrL R Mn11
8. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS
1. Earth
Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
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%
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 than and note any prime farmland.
Currently the site is covered with asphalt.
See attached Yeotechnical 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%
-4-
•
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, ANQ.OF STANDARD
aam TTTrTh FflI1TDh"
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 Puget Sound.
-S-
•
•
2) Will the
adjacent
waters?
available
•
project require any work over, in, or
to (within 200 feet) the described
If yes, please describe and attach
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• N O ACCORDING TO THE 1989 NATIONAL FLOOD
TNSURANCF PROGRAM MAP #53033C0170D PREPARED BY
THE FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY. ACCORDING
TO THIS INFORMATION THE SITE LIES OUTSIDE THE 100
AND 500YR FLOOD PLAINS
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:
5 Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
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 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, buttercGp, 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 knows to be on
or near the site. None.
-8-
•
• 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: Landscaping will be_provided per
Tukwila building code. FOR FHRTHFR P1HASF #3
ADDITION TO _BE BUILT
•►
Oh, •
• -I
OF THIS STTFI.
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: ('b heron eagle,Congbirds other:
Duck, Gull
mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other:
None
fish: bass, salmon trout herring, shellfish,
other:
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.
-9-
410 • 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.
THIS PROPOSAI •TS FOR_DFMQLITION OF BUILLZING...CURRENT
I ITI T T TF S Will RF .RFILIB-NFD t SOLJRCF __
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: .
_THTS _PROPOSAL IS FOR DEM4L T (UN OF .EXISTING
CONSTRIIrTTnM NIA
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.
• 1) Describe special emergency services that might
be required.
'WTI I RF RFOIITgED DJJR N fnFMOI- TTTONJ_
r-
1. • e,,
•►e
2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environ-
mental health hazards, if any: _ -
. u.
,.
OP C WO
!► •
•
-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.
,''DEMOLITION WORK WILL CREATE STANDARD CONSTRUCTION
NOTSFS. THE DFMOI LTION WORK WILL BE CONDUCTED
HOURS Al I OWFD BF CITY OF TUKWLI A ORD. FOR
ffNSTRIICTTON_ ACTTVTTY_
3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise
impacts, if any: None required.
Land and Shoreline Use
a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent
properties? Manufacturing, Industrial, Store e,
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?
YES, 6,500SF OF BU ILDING WILL BE DEMOLISHED (9 -06)
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)
g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master
program designation of the site? Urban
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?
BUILDING TO BE DEMOLISHED IS CURRENTLY UTILIZED
AS STORAGE, NO MANPOWER IS ASSIGNED TO BUILDING..
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: T.14.. Dena A _ ka
-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?
THIS p _
!a.• _
or 1 uI S
LELIDN- TS•'! RAnF I FVFI
b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be
altered or obstructed? None.
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic
impacts, if any: THIS PROKAAI: 1-s _kP 1IbJ= TTI-nN QNLY,
-13-
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). Greenbelts within the site provide
Boeing employees with picnic areas and wallamys.
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 an,
None.
-14-
cvaivation for
Agency Use Only
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?
THIS CONSTRUCTION WILL.,NOT ELIMINATE ANY PARK PACES.
. AREA IS-CURRENTLY USED AS MATERIAL STORAGE AREA.
-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. __
anticipated.
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. pRnPncAl T 'F(112 - 1)FMnITTTnN,
Nn Aft- TTTONAC SERVICES REQUIRED,..
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 to emergencies at this site.
-16-
S
16. Utilities
a. Circle utilities currently available at the site:
lectricit fnaturai gas) i (refuse service)
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 - DTSCONNECT Metro sewer system
Water - DISCONNECT Seattle Water Department
Electricity - DISCONNECT Seattle City Light
Natural Gas - IBS ..(ANN u 'aashington Natural Gas
C. Signature
The above answers are true and c' 'lete to the best of
my knowledge. I underst•n, th=• lead ag cy is
relying on them to maw - -• j
Signature: ✓ �� /����„�;�
Date Submitted:
Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
PLEASE CONTINUE TO THE NEXT. PAGE.
• (
-17-
O. 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 eleomnts 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 and briefly and in general terms.
1. How would he proposal be likely to increase discharge
to water; - fissions 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 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
•
How 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 aff-,t land and
shoreline use, inclduing whether it woul allow or
encourage land or shoreline uses incompat ale with
existing plans?
-19-
Gvaivatlon 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 publ services and utilities?
Proposed measures4to reduce or re •ond to such demand(s)
are:
7. Identify., if possible, whether the proposal m
with local, state, or federal laws or requir
the protection of the environment.
-20-
conflict
is for
i
•
•
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
-21-
•
• (
TO BE COMPLETE• APPLICANT
• Evaluation for
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?
Agency Use Only
EMOVE
LOOP
ION TO
.—. --I MOLIT I ON OF � -S-�'' T I t I c oEQ I �ADI2 I T ION
=' • o _ •.• ' • e s • . • : A CKS
AND EMERCENCY SE1•WICE ACCE-S TO FXTSTT-NG ANT- PROPOCED
rnMCTRUrTrnls
2. What are the alternative means of accomplishing these
ob.iectives? NONF THTS RI III TT NC LS PP
Q E _ TO PROXI.IDE" CODE .REQUIRED . EGRESS AND SETBACKS.
• • D • : u•: • •''r• •
•
r•
TECTION
Tn THE I II�ITFI?._ rnN�TR f I e Z�- Il n T SIG -
3. Please compare the alternative means and indicate the
preferred course of action:,
N/A
-22-
r
• •
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-
FLAMMABLE TORAGE
FLAM
4ABLE' S TORA
1/2 HEi0H1.8100( WALLS
•
I,PMGI°Ohe -v9 x T1 .1t
°I -'04 .HemI A- VAN4C tit X11. • 7%AGI I f'y
•
C
IRK
1:filltuTWHMJ
AUG 14 1991
cli-V-6FTutcyvILA
PLANNING DEPT.
iik ijS i
%vow • % ;
BSS
LICENSED \ '
TRANSPORTATION I i •
%, _..... H
-A.A,A....."
_A......., /
A-A-I..A..A,-AAA-AA..A...A.A-A,
,..,...A.A..A-......."..,...A.A..A..1,A.A."..,/...A.A.A.A,..A.A...A.A. .-A-A.Z.%,,
..A.A.A.A.AA-A.A-A.A.,-"- . .,.. •,.. .■• , `,.... ....e.. .A-,....."-A-,..A.l..A.I..A-A-,..A.A.A..A.,..A.,,,s-A-,-,..-U.A-A.A.A..A.l..., ., •
.,,,,,,,.IN,.. /.-JA.-ft.
A.,..,..,-.A......,,,,....A...,..,/....../...A.,.......,/
,..A.A.A..A.....,.."."..".",../"../...7..,-..A.,■..,■,..L....1..1.A.A....."..A..A.A-Al,.A.A.A.A.,,A-A.k.A.,
1..A..A._/..A."..,A.,A.A.A.A.A.A.A-A.,-AA.,.A-A-A,..C.
'`.
BOEIM
DEFENSE
sr.
8 g5PR,D2' GROUP
DEVELOPMENTAL CENT
TUKWILA, WA
94.5 ACRES OWNED
69.9 ACRES LEASED
11
-0 500 FT
/1111
SCALE
DuWAMISH RIVER
• 'ft
• •
• "'VV., ", I to
'CrrY OF G COM/
TUKWILA TY
UN
I ••
:/
- 9-85
•
10
- V . •
• 9.100
•
9-80
9-120
9-102
• •••
"^-
We's
9-591/
9-7501
9-140
I II
9-130
9-103
9-47 TOWER
9-101
0-70
9-69
9-63
BOW
IDGE
9-541
9-55 9.999
9-42
9-66
TRAILERS
9-439 THRU
9-443
9-403
9-05
TRAILERS
9-110 PARKING 9-424 THRU 9-429
PARKING
EAST MARGINAL WAY SO
13-05
-
79
3-02
AOA
7-380
13-07
Teel 73+ 71
MILITARY FLIGHT CENTER
47+ 76+ 74+
t<reu 3641141
Tot
.._72
.....
z
cc
MUSEUM
OF FLIGHT
AFL A
TRAILERS!
7-381in LI
THR'"
7.
j
...... ........
............
JOINT USE
BOEING/MUSEUM
PARKING
_ I
NON-BOEING
OWNED
........
........ .. • ...
........ .................. • ......
.....
............
SOUTN"'"'"°
: . ........ •
........
................ ,
....................
...
...........
......... ........ ............
...................
.................... •
...............................
— — —
...................................... ........................................................................................
r-- -- -7
.....
-;- ......
. ....................... ............ . ................................................................
9-55 Building
9725 E Marginal Way S
nnIns
REMEDIATION DOCUMENTATION REPORT
DALLAS -MAVIS FORWARDING SITE
BOEING TERMINAL 128 FACILITY
KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Prepared for
The Boeing Company
Prepared by
Landau Associates, Inc.
P.O. Box 1029
Edmonds, WA 98020 -9129
December 18, 1989
RECEIVED
CITY OF TUKWILA
JUIL 3 0 1992
PERMIT CENTER
January 7, 1992
4- 1241 - TEL -005
To:
cc:
J. T. Johnstone 4H -26
K. J. Hendrickson 7E -EJ
P. J. Johansen 7E -EJ
C. M. Stewart 7E -HA
K. J. Thomson 7E -HF
A. B. Wipplinger 46 -87
P. B. Wold 4H -26
Subject: Dallas Mavis Building Site Investigation
RECEIVED
CITY OF TUKWILA
JUL 3 0 1992
PERMIT CENTER
References: Memo L- 6500 -PBW -402, J. T. Johnstone to T. Lords, dated
December 3, 1991, Same Subject
Report titled "Evaluation of Potential Subsurface
Contamination, Dallas -Mavis Forwarding Company ", Landau
Associates, Inc., dated March 23, 1989
Report titled "Remediation Documentation Report, Dallas -Mavis
Forwarding Site, Boeing Terminal 128 Facility, King County,
Washington ", Landau Associates, Inc., dated December 18, 1989
The above referenced memo requests that a sampling plan be prepared to confirm
that no further contamination exists around or under the 9 -06 Building site.
The enclosed Landau Associates, Inc. reports, also referenced above, document
previous investigation and remediation activities at the former Dallas -Mavis
site.
A site inspection was performed in December of 1988, which identified areas of
potential contamination. These areas were investigated further and remediation
performed where appropriate. Based on these prior documented actions, it is
our opinion that no further sampling and cleanup should be necessary. If,
however, you determine that the City of Tukwila requires additional sampling,
we will prepare such a plan.
If you require additional information, please contact me.
Terri E. Lords
4 -1241, 1/S 7E -EJ
Phone: 393 -4708
Enclosures
LAND: \ \t
December 19, 1989
The Boeing Company
Environmental Affairs
P.O. Box 3707, M/S 6U -02
Seattle, WA 98124 -2207
Attention: Ms. Terri Lords
Re: Remediation Documentation Report
Dallas -Mavis Forwarding Site
Terminal 128 Facility
Attached is Landau Associates' Remediation Documentation Report for the Dallas -
Mavis Forwarding site. This report was prepared by Landau Associates under our general
services agreement with Boeing, BECE 89 -49, Work Order Request Number 20.
This report is based on our observations, results of chemical analysis, and information
supplied by Boeing personnel (primarily Terri Lords). However, we did not observe certain
site activities, such as excavation backfilling and paving, and Ioading of contaminated soil for
disposal; nor did we observe other remedial activities, such as fuel system decontamination,
or disposal of the fuel system, oil /water separator, contaminated soil, and storm catch basin
sediments and liquids. We recommend that Boeing obtain appropriate documentation of
these activities for the project file.
Please call me if you have any questions regarding this report.
RGF /LDB:sg
No. 25 -34.20
4 copies submitted
Very truly yours,
LANDAU ASSOCIATES, INC.
By: (it/Lc.A-
1;
Lawrence D. Beard, P.E.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
Page
1
1
2.0 SITE REMEDIATION 2
2.1 : Fuel System 2
2.2 Oil /Water Separator 3
2.3 Storm System Catch Basins 3
3.0 SOIL SAMPLE COLLECTION AND CHEMICAL ANALYSES 3
3.1 Disposal of Contaminated Soil 4
4.0 CONCLUSIONS 5
APPENDIX A
APPENDIX B
APPENDIX C
Remediation Work Plan
Analytical Results
Chain -of- Custody Record
Figure 1 Site Plan
LIST OF FIGURES
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 Summary of Analytical Results, Fuel System Removal
Dallas -Mavis Forwarding Company Site
i
I•,NI\L .Ai: ;.i:;.
z
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This report summarizes the remedial activities accomplished by The Boeing Company
for a portion of the Boeing Terminal 128 facility previously occupied by the Dallas -Mavis
Forwarding Company (Site). Remediation activities were based on the results of a previous
investigation of the Site (Landau Associates, Inc. 19896), and are intended to mitigate
contamination resulting from the activities of the Dallas -Mavis Forwarding Company.
1.1 BACKGROUND
The Site is located in the southeast corner of the Boeing Terminal 128 facility at the
intersection of East Marginal Way and the Boeing Gate J -28 entrance. Records indicate that
the Dallas -Mavis Forwarding Company was the only tenant to occupy the Site since it was
developed as a terminal in about 1975, until vacated in spring 1989. Pertinent Site
development features are shown on the Site Plan, Figure 1.
A subsurface investigation was accomplished in January 1989 to evaluate whether the
activities of the Dallas -Mavis Forwarding Company had resulted in contamination of the Site.
The results of that investigation indicate a moderate level of subsurface contamination
resulted from the activities of the Dallas -Mavis Forwarding Company. The following
remedial tasks were recommended:
o Remove and dispose of all liquids and sediments from the stormwater system catch
basins and the oil /water separator;
o Remove, decontaminate, and dispose of the fuel system (10,000- gallon diesel fuel tank,
pump island, and associated piping);
o Remove, decontaminate, and dispose of the oil /water separator,
o Remove and dispose of any contaminated soil associated with the fuel system and the
oil /water separator; and
o High - pressure hot water wash the oil /water separator and the stormwater catch basins
if necessary.
* Landau Associates, Inc., 1989. Evaluation of Potential Subsurface Contamination,
Dallas -Mavis Forwarding Company, March 23.
1
,•\i■• t • ,11 .,. i\c•
.
7
2.0 SITE REMEDIATION
Site remediation was accomplished between July 5 and July 21, 1989, and was
implemented in general accordance with the work plan presented in Appendix A. Site
remediation was accomplished under the direction of Boeing Environmental Affairs (Boeing).
Physical remediation was accomplished by SME Corporation (SME) and Chemical Processors,
Inc. (ChemPro). Landau Associates, Inc. monitored and documented daily Site activities
during removal of fuel system components and soil, determined the extent of soil excavation
required, collected soil samples (for chemical analysis), and coordinated chemical analysis with
the analytical laboratory. Boeing personnel observed the cleaning of storm systems, loading
of contaminated soil for transport offsite, and backfilling of excavations.
Specific remedial tasks are discussed in the following subsections.
2.1 FUEL SYSTEM
The fuel system at the Dallas -Mavis Forwarding Site included a 10,000 - gallon
underground diesel storage tank, pump island, and associated piping. Remediation for the
fuel system included removal, decontamination, and disposal of the fuel system components,
and excavation and disposal of associated diesel - contaminated soil. The extent of soil
excavation required was based on visual observation, odor, field head -space analysis (using
a TIP II photoionization meter), and chemical analysis. Following removal, the fuel system
components were transported to the ChemPro facility for decontamination and subsequent
scrap metal usage at General Metals, Tacoma, Washington.
The fuel tank did not exhibit evidence of leakage upon excavation. However, visual
evidence of diesel contamination was observed in the soil around the tank inlet pipe. Soil
contamination was visually evident around the sides of the tank near the inlet to the base
of the tank. Approximately 10 cubic yards of soil associated with the fuel tank were
excavated and stockpiled for chemical analyses and possible offsite disposal.
Following tank removal and associated soil excavation, the remainder of the fuel
system (pump island and piping) was removed. Although no evidence of soil contamination
was observed in connection with the piping system, significant diesel contamination was
observed in the subsurface soil in the vicinity of the pump island. Free -phase diesel fuel was
observed in the immediate vicinity of the pump island to a depth of about 0.5 feet. Staining
of subsurface soil was observed to a depth of about 4 feet below the pump island. Staining
was also observed to a depth of about 2 feet for an area of about 10 feet square extending
north of the pump island. Additional excavation in the pump island area was accomplished
2
.:�';!) ,t ux
based on the presence of fuel odor and the results of field sample head -space analysis. A
total of about 130 cubic yards of soil was excavated from a 30 by 20 foot area, as shown on
Figure 1. This material was segregated into stockpiles based on the observed level of
contamination for subsequent chemical analysis and possible offsite disposal.
Based on observations made prior to and during site remediation, it appears that the
fuel contamination encountered in the pump island area was probably the result of spilled
fuel entering the subsurface through holes and cracks in the asphalt paving.
2.2 OIL✓WATER SEPARATOR
Prior to removal of the concrete oil /water separator, liquid and sediment were
removed and the oil /water separator was cleaned using a high - pressure hot water wash.
Liquid (including decontamination water) and sediment from the oil /water separator were
transported to the ChemPro facility for waste characterization and disposal.
No evidence of contamination was observed in the soil adjacent to the oil /water
separator. Consequently, the only soil excavated in the vicinity of the oil /water separator
was that required to facilitate removal of the system. Following removal, the oil /water
separator was demolished and disposed of at the Coal Creek Landfill.
2.3 STORM SYSTEM CATCH BASINS
Liquid and sediments in all the storm water catch basins on the site were removed
by ChemPro using a vacuum truck. Following removal of liquid and sediment from the
catch basins, the catch basin immediately upgradient from the oil /water separator and the
catch basin west of the Dallas -Mavis building were cleaned using a high pressure hot water
wash. All sediments and liquids (including decontamination water) were transported to
ChemPro's facility for subsequent waste characterization and disposal.
3.0 SOIL SAMPLE COLLECTION AND CHEMICAL ANALYSES
Washington State Department of Ecology's (Ecology) current guidelines indicate
excavation and disposal of soil contaminated with greater than 200 milligrams per kilogram
(mg /kg) total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPI -I). Following soil excavation (where applicable),
confirming soil samples were collected from the excavation to verify that the Ecology cleanup
guidelines had been achieved. The sidewalls and base of the diesel tank, pump island, and
oil /water separator excavations were sampled; however, only the base of the fuel system
piping excavation was sampled due to its shallow nature. These soil samples were submitted
to the analytical laboratory for chemical analyses. In general, samples collected for chemical
3
..\\I) :.'ti(); •I ti '.:c'.
analysis from excavations were obtained from discrete locations; however, composite samples
were collected from the base of some excavations to provide a more representative sample
over relatively large areas.
Samples were also collected from the stockpiles of excavated soil to determine the
appropriate disposition of these soils. Stockpiled soil was segregated based on visual
evidence of contamination and odor, and separate (composite) samples were collected from
each stockpile..
Most samples were analyzed for TPH using EPA Method 418.1 (IR method). Two
samples from the pump island excavation were analyzed only for volatile organic compounds
(EPA Method 8240) to evaluate whether nonpetroleum based volatile organic compounds
were present in the subsurface soils. The analytical results for soil samples collected from
the excavations and soil stockpiles are summarized in Table 1 and are presented in Appendix
B. These results indicate that the Ecology cleanup guideline for TPH of 200 mg /kg was
achieved for all excavations. The only nonpetroleum based volatile organic compound
detected was methylene chloride, which was also present in the laboratory blank; the
concentration in the laboratory blank was similar to the concentrations in the two samples,
indicating the presence of methylene chloride is probably the result of laboratory
contamination of samples. In general, the Ecology guideline was achieved following the first
round of soil excavation; however, a small amount of subsequent soil excavation (about 5
cubic yards) was required within the fuel tank excavation in the fuel tank inlet pipe area
(Sample DM -5) after chemical analysis indicated residual soil contamination of 880 mg /kg.
Subsequent sample analyses (DM2 -5) indicated appropriate soil removal was accomplished.
3.1 DISPOSAL OF CONTAMINATED SOIL
Analysis of composite soil samples collected from the various excavation stockpiles
indicated that approximately 95 cubic yards of soil exceeded the 200 mg /kg TPH Ecology
guidance criteria and about 50 cubic yards of soil were below 200 mg /kg TPH. Soil
exceeding 200 mg /kg TPH was transported to the Chem- Security Systems, Inc. facility in
Arlington, Oregon for disposal and soil with TPH concentrations below 200 mg /kg was used
as backfill . within the excavations.
Under guidance of Boeing representatives, excavations were backfilled using stockpiled
"clean" soil (less than 200 mg /kg TPH) and imported granular fill material. Pea gravel was
used in the base of excavations below the ground water level in fuel tank and oil /water
separator excavations only, followed by placement of stockpiled onsite material. The
4
�. \`:I)`,t•ASS ,t
remainder of the fill required to restore pre- excavation site grades was imported granular soil.
After backfilling was completed, the excavated areas were repaved with asphalt.
4.0 CONCLUSIONS
Based on our site observations, information provided to Landau Associates, and the
chemical analyses results, we conclude that remediation of the Dallas -Mavis Forwarding
Company site was conducted in general accordance with the work plan (Attachment A) and
the intent of Ecology guidance for removal of underground storage tanks. Field memoranda,
and sampling and analysis documentation will be maintained in our files to support this
Remediation Documentation Report.
Very truly yours,
LANDAU ASSOCIATES, INC.
By:
Robert G. Fulton, P.E.
Project Manager
and
Lawrence D. Beard, P.E.
Project Engineer
RGF/ LDB / tc
No. 25 -3420
4 copies submitted
i
TABLE 1
SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL RESULTS
FUEL SYSTEM REMOVAL
DALLAS-MAVIS FORWARDING COMPANY SITE
Approximate TPH
Sample Sample Collection Sample Concentration
Number Location Date Depth (ft) (mg/kg)
DM -1 Fuel Tank - East Wall 7/05/89 6.0 160
DM -2 Fuel Tank - South Wall 7/05/89 6.0 <20
DM -3 Fuel Tank - West Wall 7/05/89 6.0 <20
DM -4 Fuel Tank - North Wall 7/05/89 6.0 <20
DM -5 Fuel Tank - Bottom (East End) 7/05/89 .12.0 880
DM -6 Fuel Tank Excavation Stockpile (Composite) 7/05/89 NA 57
DM -7 Pump Island - North Wall 7/06/89 3.0 <20
DM -8 Pump Island - East Wall 7/06/89 3.0 <20
DM -9 Pump Island - South Wall 7/06/89 3.0 <20
DM -10 Pump Island - West Wall 7/06/89 3.0 <20
DM -11 Pump Island - Bottom (Composite) 7/06/89 6.0 <20
DM -12 Oil /Water Separator - North Wall 7/06/89 4.0 <20
DM -13 Oil /Water Separator - South Wall 7/06/89 4.0 66
DM -14 Oil /Water Separator - West Wall 7/06/89 4.0 47
DM -15 Oil /Water Separator - East Wall 7/06/89 4.0 <20
DM -16 Oil /Water Separator - Bottom (Composite) 7/06/89 8.0 <20
DM.-17 Fuel System Piping - Bottom 7/06/89 1.0 <20
DM -18 Fuel System Vent Line - Bottom (Composite) 7/07/89 0.5 42
DM -19 Pump Island - Directly Below Pump 7/07/89 7.0 <20
DM2 -5 Fuel Tank - Bottom (East End) 7/07/89 14.0 83
DM3 -5 Fuel Tank - Bottom (West End) 7/07/89 12.0 76
DM4 -5 Fuel Tank - Bottom (Center) 7/07/89 12.0 NT
DM -ST Fuel Tank Excavation Stockpile (Composite) 7/11/89 NA 75
DM -OW Oil /Water Separator Stockpile (Composite) 7/11/89 NA 20
DM -PI1 Pump Island Excavation Stockpile #1 (Composite) 7/11/89 NA 120
DM -PI2 Pump Island Excavation Stockpile #2 (Composite) 7/11/89 NA 1300
DM -PI3 Pump Island Excavation Stockpile #3 (Composite) 7/11/89 NA 540
DM1 Pump Island Excavation - North Wall 7/11/89 7.0 --
DM6 Pump Island Excavation - Bottom 7/11/89 7.0
NA = Not Applicable
NT = Not Tested
-- = Sample tested for volatile organic compounds (EPA Method 8240). No compounds were detected except
methylene chloride, which was present at 0.0052 mg /kg and 0.011 mg /kg in.samples DM -1 and DM -6,
respectively; methylene chloride was present in the laboratory method blank at a concentration
of 0.003 mg /kg.
=t Marginal Way
Approximate Limits of the
Fuel Pump Island Excavation
Fuel Pump Island
1 ®� Fuel Tank
and Excavation
OiVWater Separator
Office
Shop
x
Gate J -28
Entrance Road
x
Property Boundary/
Fenceline
Source: Dallas -Mavis Forwarding, Storm Drain Plan (unidentified source),
1974, provided by Boeing Environmental Affairs.
0
60
120
Scale in Feet
LANDAU ASSOCIATES, INC.
Site Plan
Figure 1
REMEDIATION WORK PLAN
Work Plan
REMEDIATION FOR
THE DALLAS -MAVIS FORWARDING SITE
BOEING TERMINAL 128 FACILITY
KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Prepared for
The Boeing Company
Prepared by
Landau Associates, Inc.
P.O. Box 1029
Edmonds, WA 98020 -1029
June 30, 1989
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This work plan presents a scope of services for remediation
of a portion of the Boeing Terminal 128 facility previously
occupied by the Dallas -Mavis Forwarding Company (Site).
Remediation is being accomplished based on the results of a
previous investigation of the Site (Landau Associates 1.989), and
is intended to mitigate contamination resulting from the activities
of the Dallas -Mavis Forwarding Company.
1.1 BACKGROUND
The Site is located in the southeast corner of the Boeing
Terminal 128, at the intersection of East Marginal Way and the
Boeing Gate J -28 entrance. The Dallas -Mavis Forwarding .Company
has been the only tenant to occupy the Site since it was developed
in about 1975. Pertinent site features are shown on the Site Plan,
Figure 1.
A subsurface investigation was accomplished in January 1989
to evaluate whether the activities of the Dallas -Mavis Forwarding
Company had resulted in contamination of the Site. The primary
site features evaluated during this investigation included:
o A 10,000 - gallon underground diesel storage tank, pump island,
and associated piping (fuel system);
o A subsurface oil /water separator, which is part of the
stormwater drainage system; and
o Sediments present within the stormwater drainage system.
Subsurface site exploration and sample collection was accom-
plished on January 11, 1989. A total of five soil borings were
LANDAU ASSOCIATES, INC.
1
25-34.10 Dallas Mavis Work Plan 6.30 -89
Property Boundary
DMF -SD1 S
Olnce J ONWater Separator
DMF3
Shop
DMFS
Fuel Pump Island
DMFI�Q9DMF2
Fuel Tank
DMF4
KEY
DMF1 Boring Number and Approximate Location
DMF -SD1 S Storm Water Sediment Sampling Location
Source: Boeing Environmental Allaira
0
70
140
Scale in Feet
ILANDAU ASSOCIATES, INC. l Site Plan
completed at the locations shown on Figure 1. All borings were
advanced to a depth of about 12 feet below ground surface (BGS) and
soil samples were collected from 3 to 4.5 feet, 8 to 9.5 feet, and
10.5 to 12 feet BGS. Additionally, a sediment sample was collected
from the stormwater catch basin to the west of the shop, at the
location shown on Figure 1.
Soil conditions at the Site consist of about 10 feet of brown
slightly silty to silty fine sand (hydraulic fill) overlying gray
to black slightly silty to silty fine to medium sand. Ground water
was encountered in all borings at 10 to 11.5 feet BGS.
The shallow and deep samples collected from each boring were
analyzed for total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH), as was the catch
basin sediment sample. Additionally, a diesel scan was run on the
shallow sample from Boring DMF1, and the catch basin sediment
sample was analyzed for volatile and semi - volatile organic
compounds. Results of these chemical analyses are summarized in
Table 1.
The results of chemical analyses indicate the presence of low
to moderate levels of petroleum hydrocarbon contamination at some
locations in shallow Site soil and the facility stormwater
collection system. Based on these results, the following remedial
tasks will be accomplished at the Site:
o Removal and disposal of all liquids and sediments from the
stormwater system catch basins and the oil /water separator;
o Removal, decontamination, and disposal of the fuel system;
LANDAU ASSOCIATES, INC.
3
TABLE 1
SUMMARY OF CHEMICAL ANALYSES
DALLAS-MAVIS FORWARDING COMPANY
Chemical Analyses Results(a)
Sample Sample Depth Diesel Volatile Semi- Volatile
Sample Location Number (feet BGS) TPH(b) Scan Organics Organics
Boring DMF1 DMF1 -1 3.0 - 4.5 310
DMF1 -2 8.0 - 9.5 - -(c)
DMF1 -3 10.5 - 12.0 ND(d)
Boring DMF2 DMF2-1 3.0 - 4.5 63
DMF2 -2 8.0 - 9.5 --
DMF2-3 10.5 - 12.0 ND
Boring DMF3 DMF3 -1 3.0 - 4.5 7900 10
DMF3-2 8.0 - 9.5 --
DMF3-3 10.5 - 12.0 ND
Boring DMF4 DMF4 -1 3.0 - 4.5 92
DMF4 -2 8.0 - 9.5 --
DMF4 -3 10.5 - 12.0 ND
Boring DMF5 DMF5 -1 3.0 - 4.5 39
DMF5 -2 8.0 - 9.5 --
DMF5-3 10.5 - 12.0 77
Storm Water DMF -SD1 N/A 4000 1.2(e) 17.9(f)
Catch Basin
(a) All concentrations in milligrams per kilogram (mg /kg).
(b) Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons.
(c) Not tested.
(d) Not Detected; detection limit = 20 mg /kg.
(e) Represents summation of Ethylbenzene, Toluene, and Total Xylene concentrations.
Acetone was also detected and was reported at a concentration of 0.6 mg /kg.
(f) Concentration represents summation of the Polynuctear Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs).
Phthalates (Diethyl and bis(2- ethylhexyl)phthalate) were also detected and were
reported at a concentration of 14.1 mg /kg (total phthalates).
4
LANDAU ASSOCIATES, INC.
o Removal, decontamination, and disposal of the oil /water
separator;
o Removal and disposal of any contaminated soil associated with
the fuel system or the oil /water separator; and
o High pressure hot water wash catch basins and oil /water
separator as necessary.
2.0 SITE REMEDIATION
Site remediation will be accomplished under the direction of
Boeing Environmental Affairs (Boeing). Landau Associates, Inc.
(LAI) will be responsible for monitoring, coordinating, and
documenting daily activities and determining the extent pf soil
excavation required. Physical remediation will be accomplished by
SME Corporation (SME) and Chemical Processors, Inc. (ChemPro).
2.1 PHYSICAL ACTIVITIES
In order to cost - effectively implement remedial activities for
the Site, task responsibilities and sequencing must be clearly
understood by all participants. The Boeing project manager will
be responsible for overall project coordination, although coor-
dination of field activities may be assigned to LAI at the
discretion of the Boeing Project Manager. Table 2 is a list of the
specific remedial tasks to be accomplished at the Site; these tasks
are presented in chronological order, and the party responsible for
the task is shown in parenthesis.
LANDAU ASSOCIATES, INC.
5
TABLE 2
REMEDIAL TASKS FOR
THE DALLAS -MAVIS FORWARDING SITE
1) Notify appropriate regulatory agencies and obtain required
permit(s) (Boeing).
2) Notify utility locate service to mark perimeter utilities
(LAI).
3) Provide property access and mark site utilities in the work
area (Boeing).
4) Remove remaining fuel from diesel tank, pump, and pipelines
(ChemPro and SME).
5) Prepare (evacuate fuel vapors) and remove tank, pump island,
and pipelines (SME).
o Tank to be removed in accordance with Federal regulations
(40 CFR Part 280), State guidance (Washington State
Department of Ecology [Ecology] Policies and Procedures
for Underground Storage Tank Removal, August 1, 1988),
and American Petroleum Institute (API) recommendations
(API publication 1604, 1987).
o Catch basins in the work area will be temporarily
decommissioned to prevent the introduction of
contamination into the stormwater system as appropriate
(SME) .
6) Excavate and stockpile contaminated soil (if any) associated
with fuel system (SME, based on LAI guidance).
o Soil is to be segregated based on the observed level of
contamination and stored within a plastic -lined bermed
area (SME, based on LAI guidance).
7) Collect soil samples from the excavations for chemical
analysis to confirm sufficient soil removal (LAI).
o Four samples from tank excavation sidewalls and one from
base.
o Two samples from pump island excavation.
o Three samples from piping excavation.
8) Remove, test (for disposal characterization), and dispose of
liquids and sediments from catch basins and oil /water
separator (ChemPro).
LANDAU ASSOCIATES, INC.
6
TABLE 2
(cont'd)
9) High pressure hot water wash oil /water separator and catch
basins as appropriate (ChemPro and SME).
10) Remove the oil /water separator (SME).
11) Excavate and stockpile contaminated soil (if any) associated
with oil /water separator (SME, based on LAI guidance).
o Appropriate materials and equipment should be present
onsite for underpinning the foundation of the nearby
building, should sidewall sloughing occur or contaminated
soil excavation adjacent to the building be required
(SME).
Excavated soil should be segregated and stockpiled, as
previously described for the fuel system excavation (SME,
based on LAI guidance).
12) Collect soil samples from oil /water separator excavation for
chemical - analysis to confirm sufficient soil removal (LAI).
o Four samples from excavation sidewalls and one from base.
13) Load fuel system for transport to decontamination location
(SME) .
14) Transport fuel system to decontamination location, decon-
taminate, and dispose of fuel system components (ChemPro).
Decontaminated tank should be decommissioned and disposed
of in a manner consistent with API recommendations
(Publication 14.04) and all regulatory requirements.
o To be disposed of (as scrap) at General Metals, Tacoma,
Washington.
15) Load concrete and asphalt rubble (SME).
16) Transport and dispose of concrete and asphalt rubble (Boeing).
o To be disposed of at the Coal Creek Landfill.
The remaining tasks are to be initiated only after chemical
analyses confirm sufficient soil has been excavated.
LANDAU ASSOCIATES, INC.
7
TABLE 2
(cont'd)
17) Load (SME) and dispose (ChemPro /Boeing) of . contaminated soil.
o Contaminated soil disposal to be coordinated by Boeing.
18) Replace oil /water separator with a tightline pipe (SME).
19) Backfill excavations with clean granular fill (SME).
o Onsite excavated material may be used for backfill if it
is' uncontaminated and is approved by the LAI field
representative.
o In general, backfill is to be placed in 8- to 10 -inch
loose lifts and compacted to at least 90 percent of
maximum dry density as determined by ASTM D -1557 test
procedures. Backfill within 2 feet of ground surface,
and within 1 foot of the base of the storm drain
reconnect, is to be compacted to at least 92 percent of
maximum dry density. The upper 6 inches of fill will
consist of crushed rock base coarse material (5/8 -inch
minus); the upper 6 inches of fill underlying the storm
drain reconnect will consist of pea gravel or crushed
rock.
20) Repave excavated areas (SME).
21) Remediation documentation report (LAI).
LANDAU ASSOCIATES, INC.
8
2.2 SOIL EXCAVATION AND SAMPLE COLLECTION
Ecology guidelines call for excavation and disposal of soil
contaminated with greater than 200 milligrams per kilogram (mg /kg)
TPH. Since these guidelines were exceeded for soil samples col-
lected from near the diesel storage tank (Boring DMF1) and adjacent
to the oil /water separator (Boring DMF3), the need for excavation
and disposal' of at least a limited quantity of soil from these
locations is anticipated.
Diesel contaminated soil with a detectable odor, or exhibiting
a positive response to a head space analysis ('using a
photoionization meter), typically exceeds the 200 mg /kg cleanup
criteria. Following fuel system or oil /water separator removal,
any soil exhibiting visual petroleum staining or an observable odor
will be excavated and stockpiled in a plastic -lined containment
area; excavated soil will be segregated based on the apparent level
of contamination.
Following soil excavation (if any), confirmatory soi:L samples
will be collected from the excavations to verify that the Ecology
cleanup goals have been achieved. The sidewalls and base of the
diesel tank and oil /water separator excavations, and the base of
pump island and piping excavations, will be sampled. Samples will
be placed in containers supplied by the analytical laboratory, with
two sample containers filled from each sampling location.. One of
these containers will be stored (on ice) at about 4 °C. The other
container will be maintained at ambient air temperature for
subsequent field headspace analysis.
LANDAU ASSOCIATES, INC.
9
After remaining in a sealed container for at least 10 minutes,
headspace analysis will be performed on the designated sample con-
tainer using a photoionization meter. Additional excavation will
be accomplished if the sample exhibits a positive response to the
headspace analysis. Following additional excavation (if needed),
the portion of the excavation subjected to additional soil removal
will be resampled and field screened (headspace analysis), as
described above.
Soil excavation will be suspended when "clean" samples (no
positive response to headspace analysis) are obtained from all
sampling locations within an excavation. Only samples which
represent the walls and base of the excavation as the result of
this process will be sent to the analytical laboratory for chemical
analysis.
Soil samples will be collected at discreet locations within
the excavations. Sidewall samples from the fuel tank and oil /water
separator excavations will be collected at or below the midpoint
of the excavation, unless field observations indicate a more
appropriate location.
Samples will be collected for disposal characterization from
the excavated soil (if any). These samples will be composited from
about four to six locations within the stockpiled soil; if soil is
segregated (based on the observed level of contamination), separate
composite samples will be collected from each segregated stockpile.
All samples will be collected using a stainless steel spoon,
or a hand auger. Personnel will not enter an unshored open
excavation greater than 4.5 -feet deep, unless the excavation
LANDAU ASSOCIATES, INC.
10
sidewalls are laid -back to a sideslope of 1:1 (Horizontal:
Vertical), or flatter. Instead, samples from excavations (deeper
than 4.5 feet) will be obtained with a long - handled sampler.
All sampling equipment will be decontaminated prior to use.
Decontamination procedures will include an Alconox wash, two tap
water rinses, and a deionized water rinse. Disposal of decon-
tamination water will be coordinated through Boeing.
3.0 CHEMICAL ANALYSIS
Soil samples collected for cleanup verification and disposal
characterization will be analyzed for TPH using EPA Method 418.1
(IR method). Laboratory turnaround for this analysis will be 24
hours. Excavation backfilling cannot be initiated until laboratory
results are received, and indicate cleanup criteria have been
achieved.
4.0 DOCUMENTATION REPORT
Documentation of remedial activities will be accomplished by
the LAI Field Representative and will include daily field logs,
pertinent field instrument readings, and analytical laboratory
results. Remedial activities and analytical laboratory results
will be summarized in a Remediation Documentation Report, which
will be submitted for Boeing review two to three weeks following
completion of remedial activities.
LANDAU ASSOCIATES, INC.
11
5.0 HEALTH AND SAFETY
Contractors participating in remedial activities will be
responsible for the Health and Safety of their respective
employees. However, all site personnel involved in remedial
activities are expected to meet the following minimum level of
protection:
Hard hat when working around construction or moving equipment;
o Safety glasses when working around construction or moving
equipment;
o Long - sleeved shirt and long- pants, or coveralls;
o Gloves (neoprene or PVC gloves should be used when handling
potentially contaminated items such as sample bottles or
equipment); and
o Boots /shoes, leather or chemical resistant, steel (or impact -
resistant plastic) toe and shank.
A photoionization (TIP) meter will be onsite and operational
during all remedial activities to provide adequate warning of
elevated volatile organic vapor levels. In addition to a TIP
meter, an oxygen /combustible gas meter will be used to evaluate
worker safety.
No eating or smoking will be permitted during remedial
activities. The LAI Field Representative and the Boeing Field
Coordinator will be authorized to impose more stringent levels of
protection if potentially hazardous conditions are recognized in
the field, including the use of respirators to prevent inhalation
LANDAU ASSOCIATES, INC.
12
of dust or organic vapors. In the event conditions are encountered
for which the level of protection described above is inadequate,
the field personnel will stop working and the situation will be re-
evaluated.
EMERGENCY INFORMATION
Telephone Numbers
Emergency: 655 -2222
Fire: 655 -2222
Boeing Security: 655 -7700
Closest Full- Service Medical Facility
Harborview Medical Center
325 9th Avenue
Seattle, WA 98122
Information: 223 -3000
Emergency: 223 -3074
6.0 QIIALITY ASSURANCE /QIIALITY CONTROL PLAN
The QA /QC policies and procedures applied during collection
and chemical testing of soil samples will include: 1) use of
standard sample collection procedures; 2) adherence to chain -of-
custody requirements for sample handling and transfer; and 3) use
of a laboratory implementing EPA - approved methods for chemical
testing of samples.
Strict sample collection and custody procedures will be
employed to preserve the integrity of each sample and maximize
confidence in the chemical test results. After collection, each
sample designated for laboratory testing will be placed immediately
into an approved sample container provided by the testing
laboratory and will be appropriately labeled to eliminate the
LANDAU ASSOCIATES, INC.
13
potential for mixing or substituting samples. Information
pertinent to each sample will be recorded on Sample Collection
Forms. Chain -of- custody records will be used to document transfer
of sample custody from field to laboratory personnel.
7.0 SCHEDULE
The field work is expected to begin July 5, 1989 and take
about four working days to accomplish. Remedial activities should
be completed by July 11, 1989.
LANDAU ASSOCIATES, INC.
14
Laucks
T Laboratories, Inc. Certificate
940 South Harney Si, Seattle, WA 98108 (206) 767 -5060 FAX 767 -5063
Chemistry Microbiology. and Technical Services
CLIENT: Landau Associates
P.O. Box 694
Edmonds, WA 98020
ATTN: Robert Fulton
REPORT ON: SOIL
RZCZai v D
JUL 1 7 1989
LANDAU ASSOCIATES, INC.
LABORATORY NO. 17363
DATE: July 12, 1989
Job No. 25 -34.10
SAMPLE
IDENTIFICATION: Submitted between July 5 and July 7, 1989 and identified
as shown below:
1) DM -1 07/05/89 15:15
2) DM -2 07/05/89 15:20
3) DM -3 07/05/89 15:30
4) DM -4 07/05/89 15:45
5) DM -5 07/05/89 16:00
6) DM -6 07/05/89 16:30
7) DM -7 07/06/89 15:45
8) DM-8 07/06/89 15:50
9) DM -9 07/06/89 16:00
10) DM -10 07/06/89 16:10
11) DM -11 07/06/89 16:15
12) DM -12 07/06/89 16:30
13) 011-13 07/06/89 16:35
14) DM-14 07/06/89 16:40
15) DM-15 07/06/89 16:45
16) DM-16 07/06/89 16:50
17) DM-17 07/06/89 16:55
18) 0112 -5 07/07/89 11:40
19) 0113 -5 07/07/89 11:30
20) 0114 -5 07/07/89 11:20
21) DM-18 07/07/89 16:45
22) DM-19 07/07/89 16:50
At your request, sample number 20 was held without analysis.
This report Is submtted for the ettMSiw use of the pew. parberanip. or mrporelicn to what, it is add+esaed• Srbeetitreri UM of the name of the company or any
member of its start In connection at ate advertwrq or sale of any product tr peaces will be granted only on contact. This asnpary aoaspts no rowan: Milky escape
for the due performance of inspection =lice aruuyss in good farts and according to the rules of the bade and of soonce.
B -1
Laucks
Testing Laboratories, Inc.
940 South Harney St., Seattle, WA 98108 (206) 767-5060 FAX 767 -5063
Certificate
Chemistry Microbiology.. and Technical Services
PAGE NO. 2
Landau Associates LABORATORY NO. 17363
TESTS PERFORMED
AND RESULTS:
By prior agreement, samples were not sieved at the laboratory nor were dry
weights determined. Before aliquots were removed for analysis, each sample
jar was opened and the contents vigorously mixed. Samples were prepared for
analysis by the sonication extraction technique (Method 3550, Test Methods
for Evaluating Solid Waste [SW 846], U.S.E.P.A., November, 1986) and the
instrumental finish was performed,using Method 418.1 (Methods for Chemical
Analysis of Water and Wastes, U.S.E.P.A., March, 1983). Test results shown
below are reported on the "as- received" basis.
parts per million (mq /kq), as- received basis
1 2 3 4
Total Petroleum
Hydrocarbons Oil & Grease 160. <20. <20. <20.
5 6 7 8
Total Petroleum
Hydrocarbons Oil & Grease - 880. 57. <20. <20.
9 10 . 11 12
Total Petroleum
Hydrocarbons Oil & Grease <20. <20. <20. <20.
•
This report is submitted kg the exclusive uarat of the paeat, parb+snhlp. or oorp.ration to whom it is addressed. Subsequent use of the nee of this oompeny or any
member of its staff in connection with the advertising or sale of any product Or process will be granted only on contract. This company exam no reparability except
for the du* performance at Inspection ender analysis in good faith and according to the rules of the trade and of science.
B- 2
Laucks
Testing Laboratories, Inc. Certificate
940 South Harney St., Seattle, WA 98108 (206) 767-5060 FAX 767 -5063
Cihanisa-y. Miclobio(ogy. and Technical Services
Landau Associates
Total Petroleum
Hydrocarbons Oil & Grease
Total Petroleum
Hydrocarbons Oil & Grease
Total Petroleum
Hydrocarbons Oil & Grease
Key
< indicates 'less than"
JMO:emt
PAGE NO. 3
LABORATORY NO. 17363
parts per million (mq /kq), as- received basis
13 '14 15 16
66. 47. <20. <20.
, 17 18 19 21
<20. 83. 76. 42.
Method
22 Blank
<20. <20.
Respectfully submitted,
Laucks Testing Laboratories, Inc.
frca
J. M. Owens
This report Is submitted for the excfusMe is of the peram% parnwanio. or corporation to whom it Is addressed. Subsequent use of the name of this company or any
member of its start In connection with the advertising or cord/ of any product or process will be panted only on contract. This company accepts no responsibility except
for the due performance of Inspection and/or analysts good forth end aceordIng to the rules of the trade and of science.
B— 3
Laucks
Testing Laboratories, Inc. Certificate
940 South Harney St., Seattle, WA 98108 (206) 767-5060 FAX 767-5063
Chemistry Microbiology. and Technical Services
CLIENT:. Landau Associates
P.O. Box 694
Edmonds, WA 98020
ATTN: Robert Fulton
REPORT ON: SOIL
LABORATORY NO. 17440
DATE: July 16, 1989
Job No. 25 -34.10
SAMPLE
IDENTIFICATION: Submitted July 11, 1989 and identified as shown below:
1) DM -ST 07/11/89 08:50
2) DM -OW 07/11/89 09:15
3) OM -PI1 07/11/89 12:10
4) DM -PI2 07/11/89 12:05
5) DM -PI3 07/11/89 12:00
TESTS PERFORMED
AND RESULTS:
By prior agreement, samples were not sieved at the laboratory nor were dry
weights determined. Before aliquots were removed for analysis, each sample
jar was opened and the contents vigorously mixed. Samples were prepared for
analysis by the sonication extraction technique (Method 3550, Test Methods
for Evaluating Solid Waste [SW 846], U.S.E.P.A., November, 1986) and the
instrumental finish was performed using Method 418.1 (Methods for Chemical
Analysis of Water and Wastes, U.S.E.P.A., March, 1983). Test results shown
below are reported on the "as- received" basis.
parts per million (mg/kg), as- received basis
1 2 3 4
Total Petroleum
Hydrocarbons Oil & Grease 75. 20. 120. 1300.
This report is submitted for the exclusive ua or the perm" peroseranip, or corporsdcaa to whom it 4 addressed. Subsequent ent tae or the ram of this com:A y or any
member of its start In connection wrth the adrarming or ash& of any product or process will be granted only on come= This company mown no responsibility except
for the due performance or Inspection inane analyse in good With and accosting to Ow rules or the trade and ot science.
B -4
Laucks
Testing Laboratories, Inc. Certificate
940 South Harney St., Seattle, WA 98708 (206) 767-5060 FAX 767-5063
Chesnisu-y. Microbiology. and Technical Services
PAGE NO. 2
Landau Associates LABORATORY NO. 17440
Total Petroleum
Hydrocarbons Oil & Grease
y
< indicates "less than"
JMO:emt
arts er million (m g), as- received basis
Method
5 Blank
540. <20.
Respectfully submitted,
Laucks Testing Laboratories, Inc.
J. M. Owens
This revert Is submitted for the exctusire toe of the persm% pahs'henfiv. or mponrtbn to whom it Is addressed Stbsequsnt use of the hems of this =mom Iy or any
member of Its staff In connection with the adnrtifaq or sale of any product or process wil be Granted only on contact This company aeapts ro responaOilty sweet
for the doe pertomrnoa of inspection and/or analysis rn 90od faith and aocadrq to the rules of the trade and of scents.
B -5
ORGANICS ANALYSIS DATA SHEET
Volatiles by Method 624/8240
Lab ID: 3269A
Marrix: Soils /Seciments
Sample No: DM1
QC Report No:
Project No:
VTSR:
Data Release Authorized:!. -���
Report prepared 07/10/89 - MAC:E
Instrument: FINN I
Date Analyzed: 07/10/89
CAS Number
Amount Analyzed:
Percent Moisture:
pH:
/K CAS Number
74 -87 -3
Chloromethone
4.0 U
74 -83-9
Bromomethane
3.2 U
75 -01-4
Vinyl Chloride
21 U
75-3
Chloroethone
3.4 U
75-09 -2
Methylene Chloride
5.2 B
67 -64 -1
Acetone,
Z2U
75-15-0
Carbon Disulfide
1.3 U
75 -35-4
1,1- Dichloroethene
Q7U
75 -34 -3
1,1- Dichloroethane
Q6 U
540 -59-0
1,2- Dichloroethene (total)
Q8 U
67 -66-3
Chloroform
1.1 U
107-06-2
1,2- Dichloroethane
a5
78 -93-3
2- Butanone
6.5 U
71 -55-6
1,1,1- Trichloroethone
Q6 U
56 -23-5
Carbon Tetrachloride
Q9 U
108-05-4
Vinyl Acetate
32U
75 -27-4
Brom odichlorom ethane
03 U
Surrogate Recoveries
d8- Toluene
Bromofluorobenzene
d4 -1,2- Dichloroethane
98.3%
94.1%
97.3%
3269- Landau
25- 34.10
07/07/89
4.79 g (dry wt.)
6.49%
NA
ANALYTICAL
RESOURCES
INCORPORATED
Analytical
Chemists &
Consultants
333 Ninth Ave. North
Seattle. WA 98109 -516'
(206) 621-6490
(206) 621 -7523 (FAX)
/K
78 -87 -5
1,2- Dichloropropane
a7 U
10061 -015
cis -1,3- Dichloropropene
1.9 U
79-01 -6
Trichloroethene
0.6 U
124 -48-1
Dibromochloromethane
0.7 U
79-00-5
1,1,2- Trichloroethane
0.7 U
71 -43-2 —
Benzene
1.0 U
10351 -02-6
Trans -1,3- Dichloropropene
20 U
110 -75-8
2- Chloroethylvinylether
28 U
75 -25-2
Bromoform
26 U
108 -10-1
4- Methyl -2- Pentanone
3.7U
591 -78-6
2-Hexanone
3.3 U
127 -18-4
Tetrachloroethene
(25 U
79 -34 -5
1,1,2,2- Tetrachloroethane
28 U
108 -88-3
Toluene
0.8 U
108 -90-7
Chlorobenzene
0.9 U
1C0 -41-4
Ethylbenzene
0.8 U
103.42 -5
Styrene
1.1 U
1330 -20-7
Total Xylenes
1.9 U
Data Reporting Qualifiers
Value If the result is a value greater than or equal
to the detection limit, report the value.
U Indicates compound was analyzed for but
not detected at the given detection limit.
J Indicates an estimated value when result
Is less than specified detection limit.
NR Analysis -not required.
B- 6
B This flag is used when the analyte is found
in the blank as well as a sample. Indicates
possible /probable blank contamination.
K This flag is used when quantitated value
falls above the limit of the calibration
curve and dilution should be run.
M Indicates an estimated value of analyte
found and confirmed by analyst but
with low spectral match parameters.
ORGANICS ANALYSIS DATA SHEET
Volatiles by Method 624/8240
Lab ID: 3269B
Matrix: Soils /Sediments
Data Release Authorized: 0,
Report prepared 07/10/89 - MAC:E
Instrument: FINN I
Date Analyzed: 07/10/89
CAS Number
Sample No: DM6
QC Report No:
Project No:
VTSR:
Amount Analyzed:
Percent Moisture:
pH:
µg /Kg CAS Number
74 -87 -3
Chloromethone
50 U
74 -83-9
Bromomethane
41 U
75-01-4
Vinyl Chloride
26 U
75-00-3
Chloroethane
43 U
75-09 -2
Methylene Chloride
11 B
67 -64 -1
Acetone
9.0U
75-15-0
Carbon Disulfide
1.6 U
75-35-4
1,1- Dichloroethene
Q9U
75 -34 -3
1,1- Dichloroethene
Q8 U
540 -59-0
1 ,2-Dichloroethene (total)
1.0 U
67-66 -3
Chloroform
1.4U
107 -06-2
1,2- Dichloroethane
427 U
78 -93-3
2- Butanone
8.1 U
71 -55-6
1,1,1- Trichloroethane
Q8U
56 -23-5
Carbon Tetrachloride
1.2 U
108 -05-4
Vinyl Acetate
41 U
75 -27-4
Bromodichloromethane
04 U
Surrogate Recoveries
d8- Toluene
Bromofluorobenzene
d4 -1,2- Dichloroethane
98.8%
96.0%
98.1%
3269 - Landau
25 -34.10
07/07/89
3.82 g (dry wt.)
24.7%
NA
ANALYTICAL
RESOURCES
INCORPORATED
Analytical
Chemists &
Consultants
333 Ninth Ave. North
Seattle. WA 98109 -5187
(206) 621-6490
(206) 621 -7523 (FAX)
/K
78 -87 -5
1,2- Dichloropropane
0.9 U
1W61 -01- ~
cis -1,3- Dichloropropene
24 U
79-01-6
Trichloroethene
0.8 U
124 -48-1
Dibromochloromethane
a9
79 -00-5
1 ,1 ,2-Trichloroethane
0.9 U
_
71 -43-2
Benzene
1.3 U
2.5 U
10061 -M5
Trans-1 ,3- Dichloropropene
110 -75-8
2- Chloroethylvinylether
3.5 U
75 -25-2
Bromoform
3.3 U
108 -10.1
4-Methyl-2-Pentanone
4.6 U
591 -78-6
2- Hexanone
4.2 U
127 -18-4
Tetrachloroethene
0.70
79-34-5
1 ,1 ,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
3.5 U
108 -88-3
Toluene
1.0U
108 -90-7
Chlorobenzene
1.2 U
103 -41-4
Ethylbenzene
1.1 U
1CO -42 -5
Styrene
1.4 U
1330 -20-7
Total Xylenes
24 U
Data Reporting Qualifiers
Value If the result is a value greater than or equal
to the detection limit, report the value.
U Indicates compound was analyzed for but
not detected at the given detection limit.
J Indicates an estimated value when result
is less than specified detection limit.
NR Analysis not required.
B- 7
B This flag is used when the analyte is found
in the blank as well as a sample. Indicates
possible /probable blank contamination.
K This flag is used when quantitated value
falls above the limit of the calibration
curve and dilution should be run.
M Indicates an estimated value of analyte
found and confirmed by analyst but
with low spectral match parameters.
ORGANICS ANALYSIS DATA SHEET
Volatiles by Method 624/8240
Lab ID:
Matrix:
0710MB
Soils /Sediments
Sample No: Method Blank
SAC Report No:
Project No:
VTSR:
Data Release Authorized: jl���— �--- --
Report prepared 07/10/89.- MAC:E
Instrument: FINN I
Date Analyzed: 07/10/89
CAS Number
3269- Landau
25 -34.10
07/07/89
Amount Analyzed: 5.0 g (equiv. dry wt.)
Percent Moisture: NA
pH: NA
µg /Kg CAS Number
74 -87 -3
Chloromethane
3.8 U
74 -83-9
Bromomethane
3.1 U
75-01 -4
Vinyl Chloride
20U
753
Chloroethane
3.3 U
75-09 -2
Methylene Chloride
3.0J
67 -64 -1
Acetone
6.9U
75-15-0
Carbon Disulfide
1.2 U
75-35-4
1,1- Dichloroethene
07U
75 -34 -3
1,1- Dichloroethane
(26 U
540 -59-0
1,2- Dichloroethene (total)
08 U
67-66 -3
Chloroform
1.1 U
107 -05-2
1,2- Dichloroethane
05 U
78 -93-3
2- Butanone
6.2 U
71 -55-6
1,1,1- Trichloroethane
(26 U
56 -23-5
Carbon Tetrachloride
09 U
108-05 -4
Vinyl Acetate .
3.1 U
75 -27-4
Bromodichloromethane
0.3 U
Surrogate Recoveries
d8- Toluene
Bromofluorobenzene
d4 -1 2- Dichloroethane
98.5%
96.3%
98.0%
ANALYTICAL
RESOURCES
INCORPORATED
Analytical
Chemists &
Consultants
333 Ninth Ave. North
Seattle. WA 98109-5187
(206) 621 -6490
(206) 621 -7523 (FAX)
1K
78 -87 -5
1,2- Dichloropropane
0.7 U
10361-01-5
cis -1,3- Dichloropropene
1.8 U
79-01 -6
Trichloroethene
0.6 U
124.48=1
Dibromochlorom ethane
0.7 U
7917 -5
1,1,2- Trichloroethane
0.7 U
71 -43-2
Benzene
1.0 U
10061-02-6
Trans -1,3- Dichloropropene
1.9U
110 -75-8
2- Chioroethylvinylether
27 U
75 -25-2
Bromoform
_
25 U
108 -10-1
4- Methyl -2- Pentanone
3 5 U
591 -78-6
2- Hexanone
32 U
127 -18-4
Tetrachloroethene
-
0.5 U
79 -34 -5
1,1,2,2- Tetrachloroethane
27 U
108 -88-3
Toluene
08 U
108 -50-7
Chlorobenzene
0.9 U
103 -41-4
Ethylbenzene
08 U
1Q7 -42 -5
Styrene
1.1 U
1330 -20-7
Total Xylenes
1.8 U
Data Reporting Qualifiers
Value If the result is a value greater than or equal
to the detection limit, report the value.
U Indicates compound was analyzed for but
not detected at the given detection limit.
J Indicates an estimated value when result
is less than specified detection limit.
NR Analysis not required.
B -8
B This flag is used when the analyte is found
in the blank as well as a sample. Indicates
possible /probable blank contamination.
K This flag is used when quantitated value
falls above the limit of the calibration
curve and dilution should be run.
M Indicates an estimated value of analyte
found and confirmed by analyst but
with low spectral match parameters.
CHAIN -OF- CUSTODY RECORD'
Landau Associates, Inc.
Edmonds, WA (206) 778-0907
Chain of Custody Record
Date 5 kill 87
Page 1 of /
Project bh1145 /4 OS Project No r'S--31.)0 Testing Parameters
Lab
Client Iti f Lab #
Project Location 11444. IA P.O. #
I
Samplers Name 3-er re/ _S Pot i L.
No. of /
Con-
Sample No. Date Time Location tainers Observations/Comments
A Al - I
,c-All in
Nis'
1
.
ak. :
I
Pt = EP' 41 „ . •
S.
i) Al - 'N
•
/30
I
icaulhad
/3-1c-
I
t_Rerks-Lig_hc_itztLioaacL
0 In -
S 4i%4/yS Z 1■• Ii/C.4/ R &if()
Lem c4 J ilysoi°
,
7
Special Shipment/il Ing
or Stor.•:: Requl I ts ..- c • C_.-
Method of
Shipment 41 dr ,
Rail # : ■ .1,
/ .
R: eived by
it '
I 4,
Relinquished by
Received by
" triaMikray /
diFAIMIW al) I
.
Sign," pre •t' I
d
Signature
Signature
.
i"
Prin ed Name
( V
Printed Name
ame
Printed Name
Company
Date 41 CD/ Time /ii;
Company
e-, e : /c
Date (4 / Time )
Company
Date Time
Company
Date Time
5/87
7
I
Landau Associates, Inc.
Edmonds, W (206) 778-0907
Chain of Custody Record
Date 611_5/y0r
Page l of I
' I Project No. AC-30) Testing Parameters
Lab
Project Al
Client sti 4 Lab #
Project Local!. efal .1 /, g P.O. #
Samplers Name <-)e- a 51
if
No. of
Sample No. Date Time Location tainers
Observations/Comments
a/ b li
5
5'o
boo
I 12
AL
en 1111
MEIN
I
I 1r, , gig j
IN
i 0 r )
II IMIUMMI
I 6 I ri
1
IPZIMMIEll
616-
. ._ 1 ofA
f Rereist d/ /i
Irmenum
. A
in-
Iri
i . /0 • /_,,:
i,,f.
- i
IN
4,55-p
ii,f6-
I
gd
IN
rik-ii5.1,
/bso
voi-i)
1615-
Special Shipment/Handling
or Sto :go Reg ir, ants 5449C . e. •
Method of
Shipment 8 i e
Reif "shjp
.fikir
Received by
64 ide-taa
Relinquished by
.
Received by
T. ,/ is
LI/ 0 S
f Pi L'A
Si natuvo
,i4VA(■ein Feittt/td
Signature
Signature
• d tia a A
• e), 1 i fisseie
Printed N e
. Leu.tet.
Printed Name
Printed Name
Company
Date MLI/P nme 1700
Company
Date to 81 Time I 70
Company .
Date Time
Company
Date Time
5/87
Landau Associates, Inc.
Edmonds, WA (206) 778-0907
Chain of Custody Record
•
Date 7AI) (
Page of _L._
Project 4§10 005 Project No y5-364/00 Testing Parameters
Lab
Client it Lab #
a
Project I.Dca n ' A P.O. #
Sampler's Name ,JIMPAWAi. Dif
I/
No. of
Con-
Sample No. Date Time Location tainers Observations/Comments
inS-S
73:)
/ 0
I
Ai' hf, :
0)3 - S"..
1130
I
r VA
II
.K.
a I
Dot 1 I e o MN
CTR mciird
1 Dm Li - c
Ild-O
..,ME
/urn
-
Said i idi f.C/S 'ee) • e ' theil/ t3:-/Ar)
t) WSSO C
Cho Nex4-1311-1- a",
11%10
Special Shipment/H
or torige Requir
ndl' oc
e s
Method of
Shipment IiiiiiC) ot Wele()
Re ir f1; - y '
R. eive b ,
a .. f '6"111111
1
Relinquished by
Received by
sitnatur— Vir
•-•.-
ft 0 ; fr‘ 1
Signature
Signature
., i(V)gt" s °4 2
Printed Name
Pri ted Name
Printed Name
d Na
1
Company Company
Date Time II - cr
Company
Date Time
Company
Date Time
Company
Data O..° Time 1160
5187
CHAIN OF CUSTODY RECORD
DATE 7 l i 1/ 891
PAGE (OF
Lauc
Testing Laboratories, Inc.
94,)1.AI111.UU7SI $.•enlrWa41'14,4.1% 9iIJtl t.i, ,)1ut SOW
NAME oef f $ /�/L
TESTING PARAMETERS _
N
O.
O
F
O
N
T
A
E N
S
S
OBSERVATIONS, COMMENTS,
INSTRUCTIONS
,.y , J /
ADDRESS /4 i '` - .06
��
ATTENTION: [7f � j/J
SPECIAL
�J
PROJECT NAME i /� %s eon
JOEVP• /•O (V IO
SAM'/ • URE) (PRIN p,Ey�
C./� =� (/ 55 '�
r.7 • •
LAB SA 1
SAMPLE NO.
DATE
T E
LOCATION
0
P VMS
Al
il
PA O'
# ii ` •
..•
A-9/ "VA/ �`L.4r1 ,t A
e //) ,e650 ifs 1/) &L / /4,
%
• /
•` i1
DATE �(] /�
7.y-
RECEIVED, BY
DATE
TOTAL NUMBER OF CONTAINERS
------
I
LLL
SHIPMENT METHOD: ./ - i ,
INSTRUCTIONS:
1. Shaded areas for lab use only.
2. Complete in ballpoint pen. Draw one line through
errors and initial.
3. Be specific in test requesls.
4. Check oft tests to be performed for each sample.
5. Retain final copy alter signing.
6. Provide name and telephone of your contact person.
NAME
SPECIAL SUIPMENT.IIANDI IN On S1ORAGE REOUMEMENTS
Q
/ G
111
SIGNATURE
�1,
1
TIME
/7,��
TIME
PRINTED NAME
d
LIIP ' ~J` /L
COMPANY
COMPANY
RELINQUISHED BY
DATE
RECEIV • BY
•
DATE
^.
SIGNATURE
SIGNA
fk I
TIME
TIME
TELEPHONE
PRI ED NAME
LAUCKS TESTING LABS
PRINTED NAME
COMPANY
COMPANY
CHAIN OF CUSTODY RECORD
DATE , VL•I`! 89
I
PAGE I OF
s
NAME 1 if ( 1 S L
✓ ✓�
TESTING PARAMETERS
N
O.
p
T
AI
N
S
OBSERVATIONS. COMMENTS.
SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS
ADDRESS 1[I(� d
��
ATTENTION ' OB_Lod., i)
PROJECT NAME l n1 /i.s //4,
JOBIPO Ni r/S `a ,/
SAMPI . • T .—
(PRINTED ME.)
e, (PRINTED
LA:, I
j'AB SA
SAMPLE NO.
DATE
ME
LOCATION
km
b
q
ibe,,
,�
‘0131 ailan
II
DATE �R�
7�l "
REC
1,(�YLJ► /µ'fl
DATE
ll
to
I'
TOTAL NUMBER OF CONTAINERS
SHIPMENT METHOD: MI , e / 0
INSTRUCTIONS:
I. Shaded areas for lab use only.
2. Complete In ballpoint pen. Draw one line through
errors and initial.
3. Be specific in lest requests.
4. Check off tests to be performed for each sample.
5. Retain final copy alter signing.
6. Provide name and telephone of your contact person.
NAME
SPECIAL SIIIPMENT. HANOI INOOiSTORAGE REQUIREMENTS
l /f�
;i.9r.(
GIGNAIUnE ...
vf,�Sar) r 9 �./(A 0Q
.ISi [iL�
TIME
//
/oQ
TIME
fiO
PRINTED NAME
1--1
r IN E NAME
�Bi ���
COMPANY
COMPANY
RELINQUISHED BY
DATE
RECEIVED BY
DATE
SIGNATURE
SIGNATURE
TIME
TIME
TEI.EPIIONE
PRIN TED NAME
PRINTED NAME
LAUCKS TESTING LABS
( :OIAPAI I I
C(MPAI I
Landau Associates, Inc.
Edmonds, WA (206) 778-0907
Chain of Custody Record
s
Date 1I OU(
Page ( ot�
Project' ' i. 1 , Project No P5'a I •iO Testing Parameters Lab
_
Client Li 0 Lab #
•
Project Loc.. I, n e0V Id • / ice�'A P.O. #
Sampler's Name II.' �C.7 M
No. of kir
Con -
Sample No. Date Time Location tainers Observations /Comments
Di-
a -oral
IfffffnEMEI
f1111=1
I
•---
to
I
✓
J = - ' ;, 011if o
TI)1
,
5 s LO1
1D Sj�O
LA"? ,c) f/s.SOC
Special Shipment /Han•iing p
or St•rage Req �'j;m= is 'Ore a Y C-
Method of I
Shipment 1 ) 4 t(/,,,)
R•ll /q is = b'
✓/ �"
Received ' y
I.ba ���✓
Relinquished by
Received by
Signature
C_l'3Q h nso A]
%C 5 0v
vv. /
Signature
Signature
/
Printed Name
1 QveA Ts
Cd Na a
I
Gr¢4 d SSa
Printed Name
CABs .
Printed Name
Company
Date Oft 'if Time l•66&
ompany
Date Time
Company
Date `'/' Time tl
Company
Date Time
5/87