The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutSEPA EPIC-SA-13 - SEATTLE RENDERING WORKS - REPLACEMENT FACILITYSEATTLE RENDERING WORKS, INC. 13601 BEACON COAL MINE ROAD SOUTH EPIGSA -13 City of Tukwila Administration 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 433 -1845 Office of Community Development October 9, 1979 Mr. Larry Hard LeSourd, Patten, Fleming, Hartung F, Emory 3900 Seattle First National Bank Building Seattle, WA 98154 RE: Request for Analysis - Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency Letter Regarding Rendering Works Dear Larry: Please find attached Mayor Bauch's letter to the Air Pollution Con- trol Agency and their response, including a copy of the laws they operate under. I would appreciate a review and analysis from you regarding their *response :and .the,City's: right to take this matter to court. Addi- tionally, we discussed what type of evidence to gather as it relates to objective, scientific evidence for the .more subjective complaint type evidence from citizens. The net end result that I'm .looking for is that the process we use to begin' initiating compliance with any . odor control requirements also allows City to pursue court action if necessary based on the same evidence and process gathered at the initial stages. Your recommendations certainly would go a long way in this area. Sincerely, 11 Stoknes, ctor 0:fice of Community Development KS /ckh Attachments: Letters, Laws, cc: Mayor Bauch Al Pieper TO L SUBJECT: NOLD. q,OLD fir L t rC OS_ Ott 1 SP J DATE f/rp?✓ F� 4 7 KY ,,- evk 4�- ,27 14,7 Der- jeriA_ArL 77/110( AF '41 • od Ado tild t) e4e4.4 DATE: SIGNED CASCADE® L1 -C2374 PRINTED IN U S A a��lV'ri� us 19 08 City Of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila Washington 98188 Edgar D. Bauch, Mayor June 20, 1979 Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency 410 West Harrison Street P.O. Box 9863 Seattle, WA 98109 ATTN: A. R. Dammkoehler RE: Rendering Works Dear Mr. Dammkoehler: As you are probably aware, the City of Tukwila issued a permit to con- struct a new continuous rendering plant at the Seattle Rendering Works on February 14, 1977. This was done after preparation of an environ- mental impact statement, and conditions were placed on that permit as a result of negative impacts identified. Your agency was involved in the review of the environmental impact statement and your letter is a part of the Final E.I.S. That letter indicated that the technical details of the odor control systems were correct. (I presume to your permit as issued to them on December 26, 1976, said permit being No. 1655.) All indications were that this new plant, which was to replace the old one, would eliminate any objectionable odors beyond the property line of the Rendering Works. This has not been the case. The City is becoming increasingly aware of continued objectionable odors beyond their property lines. I feel that it is my duty to pro- tect the citizens of Tukwila from nuisances, and this facility at present is a nuisance. It is my understanding that the Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency can only investigate complaints for violations and issue warn- ings or fines, as applicable. Your agency cannot take court action to force corrective action and /or closure due to continued violation. It is the City of Tukwila's position that the Rendering Works is a nuisance and we are considering action as may be necessary to eliminate the nuisance. In order to do this, I would like a verification from your agency regarding: 1. What your responsibilities are as it relates to air pollution (noxious odors). A. R. Dammkoehler Page 2 Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency June 20, 1979 2. How far your agency can go in seeking compliance with present standards. 3. Any instances you are aware of where local agencies have taken action to abate an air pollution nuisance. 4. If your agency would be supportive in making investigations regarding:. a. Whether the Rendering Works is still in violation of air pollution standards, and; b. What the cause of the air pollution is, (e.g., improper operation, equipment not working as anticipated, etc.). 5. If your agency would be supportive in our abatement process. Your assistance would be greatly appreciated. Needless to say, without the cooperation of your agency, the City would have a difficult time abating this nuisance. Sincerely, gax4_eZ Edgar DV Bauch Mayor EDB/KS/ckh Attachment: P.S.A.P.C.A. letter dated January 4, 1977 cc: Bud Rohrer, Council President 1 Stoknes, 0.C.D. Director Larry Hard, City Attorney SERVING: KING COUNTY 410 West Harrison St. P. 0. Boa 9863 Sesrtte. 98109 1206) 34 4.7330 KITSAP COUNTY Oul ODarstor for Toll Free Number Zonitn 8385 Bainbridge Island, Dial 34A -7330 PIERCE COUNTY 213 Ness Building Tacoma. 98402 1206) 383 -5851 SNONOMISH COUNTY 506 medical-Dental Wag. E ,,ert. 98201 (206) 259 -0288 Mr. Fred N. Satterstrom City of Tukwila Planning Di vision 6230 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, Washington 98188. 410 We arrison Street, P.O. Box 9863 (206) 344 -7330 Seattle, Washington 98109 January 4, 1977 ECE1VE JAN 1 0 1977 CITY OF TUKWILA Subject: Seattle Rendering Works Continuous Rendering Plant Replacement Facility Dear Mr. Satterstrom: We have reviewed the draft Environmental Impact Statement. for the proposed Seattle Rendering Works replacement facility. Our review and the comments based on it will be related only to the air quality aspects of the "proposal. However, a more cursory review of the remainder of the document has led us to the conclusion that -it i s an unusually complete and well-written statement. The statement appears to be fully correct in its description of existing air quality,in the air quality impacts that will result from the granting of a building permit to construct the proposed facility, and in the technical details of the odor control systems. This Agency granted approval to install the system (in response to Notice of Con- struction and Application for Approval No. 1655) on December 27, 1976. Thank you for the opportunity to review and corrment on the statement. Very truly yours, A. R. Dammkoehler Air Pollution Control Officer ARD:JRP:fch B Ja Pearson Senior Air Pollution Engineer BoACO OF DIRECTORS CMeIAM LH; E■e■ert Foster, Alternate ter PatnCa J. Gallatner, Commissioner Pierce County: CoDe^t C. An aerien, Mayor Everett; Gtenn K. Jarstaa, Mayor Bremerton: Harvey S. Pen. Mtmper at Lame: John 0. Soenman, King County Executive; VICE CHAIRMAN: N. Richert! Forstren. Commissioner Snohomish Gov Goroon N. Johnston. Mayor Tacoma; Gene Loos, Commissioner Kitsao C[.0 Wes Uhlman, Mayor Seattle; A. R. Dammxoenier. A,r Pollution Control Olt, SERVING: KING COUNTY 410 West Harrison St. P.O. Box 9863 Seattle, 98109 (206) 344-7330 KITSAP COUNTY Dial Operator for Toll Free Number Zenith 8385 Bainbridge Island, 98110 Dial 344.7330 PIERCE COUNTY 213 Hess Building Tacoma, 98402 1206) 383-5851 SNOHOMISH COUNTY (206) 259 -0288 BOARD OF DIRECTORS The Honorable Edgar D. Bauch Mayor of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 Dear Mayor Bauch: • 410 West Harrison Street, P.O. Box 9863 (206) 344 -7330 Seattle, Washington 98109 . July 17, 1979 CITY OF TUM7LA OFFICE OF THE MAYOR r 8 1979 Agency Activities Regarding Seattle Rendering Works In response to your letter dated June 20, 1979, and as stated in the Agency letter of acknowledgment dated June 26, 1979, this Agency has the following response to your questions. Agency responsibilities relating to air pollution are stated in Regulation I (copy enclosed), Article I, Section 1.01 POLICY...To secure and maintain such levels of air quality as will protect human health and safety and, to the greatest degree practicable, prevent injury to plant and animal life, and to property, foster the comfort and convenience of its inhabitants... In regard to odor emissions, the Agency enforces SECTION 9.11 - EMISSION OF AIR CONTAMINANT OR WATER VAPOR: DETRIMENT TO PERSON OR PROPERTY, as it has with Seattle Rendering Works (a history of Agency Enforcement Actions is enclosed). The method used in enforcing Section 9.11 requires the citizen(s) affected by the odor, to file a formal air pollution complaint form (copy enclosed) at such time as the odor is verified by Agency field Enforcement personnel. Regulation I, Article 3 - GENERAL PROVISIONS - details all of the enforcement provisions available to the Agency to achieve and maintain compliance with air pollution standards, including Sections 3.25 - PENALTY 3.27 - ADDITIONAL ENFORCEMENT AND 3.29 - CIVIL PENALTY. This Agency has successfully filed and achieved abatement actions pursuant to Section 3.27 - ADDITIONAL ENFORCEMENT. However, these sources were derelict in taking any action whatsoever to prevent the emission of the air contaminant. Whereas, according to Agency records, Seattle Rendering Works' new facility (which commenced operation in October 1977) cost approximately $1.1 million dollars with something over $200,000 involved in odor control. CHAIRMAN: Gene Lobe, Commissioner Kitsap County; James B. Haines, Commissioner Snohomish County; Harvey S. Poll, Member at Large; Glenn K. Jarstad, Mayor Bremerton; William E. Moore, Mayor Everett; Charles Royer, Mayor Seattle; John D. Spellman, King County Executive; VICE CHAIRMAN: Patrick J. Gallagher, Commissioner Pierce County; Mike Parker, Mayor Tacoma: A. R. Dammkoehler, Air Pollution Control Officer. The Honorable Edgar D. Bauch July 17, 1979 Page 2 Agency field Enforcement personnel respond to all complaints from citizens as expeditiously as possible, and the Agency maintains a 24 -hour telephone answering service (344 -7330) to provide the citizens as rapid a response as possible. From January 1, 1979 through June 29, 1979, this Agency has responded to 116 citizen complaints and inspected the plant 26 times in an attempt to isolate the cause of the odorous emission. Of these complaints, 22 were received during the period May 10 through 18, 1979; this was a time when the boiler, which is used as an afterburner, was down for repairs. This Agency will continue with its Enforcement Program by responding to all citizen complaints and conducting inspections of the plant when odor problems are verified. Agency records are public records, and as such, are available pursuant to RCW 42.17.250 to 340 and Agency Resolution 337 - "Implementing the Records Disclosure Act". Therefore, our records can be used as a resource to support any action you may initiate. This Agency appreciates your support and will be pleased to meet with you or members of your staff to discuss joint efforts to achieve a solution to this problem. If you have any questions or the Agency can be of further service, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned at 344 -7320. Very truly yours, A. R. Dammkoehler Air Pollution Control Officer jk Enclosures cc: Keith D. McGoffin, Agency Counsel Rovai, McGoffin « Turner 818 South Yakima Avenue Tacoma, WA 98405 \11LA Asti City • Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard 6'1 Tukwila Washington 98188 1908 Edgar D. Bauch, Mayor June 20, 1979 Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency 410 West Harrison Street P.O. Box 9863 Seattle, WA 98109 ATTN: A. R. D. Ili koehler RE Rendering Works Dear Mr. Damm oehler: As you are probably aware, the City of Tukwila issued a permit to con- struct a new continuous rendering plant at the Seattle Rendering Works on February 14, 1977. This was done after preparation of an environ- mental impact statement, and conditions were placed on that permit as a result of negative impacts identified. Your agency was involved in the review of the environmental impact statement and your letter is a part of the Final E.I.S. That letter indicated that the technical details of the odor control systems were, correct. (I presume to your permit as issued to them on December 26, 1976, said permit being No. 1655.) All indications were that this new plant, which was to replace the old one, would eliminate any objectionable odors beyond the property line of the Rendering Works. This has not been the case. The City is becoming increasingly aware of continued objectionable odors beyond their property lines. I feel that it is my duty to pro- tect the citizens of Tukwila from nuisances, and this facility at present is a nuisance. It is my understanding that the Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency can only investigate complaints for violations and issue warn- ings or fines, as applicable. Your agency cannot take court action to force corrective action and /or closure due to continued violation. It is the City of Tukwila's position that the Rendering Works is a nuisance and we are considering action as may be necessary to eliminate the nuisance. In order to do this, I would like a verification from your agency regarding: 1. What your responsibilities are as it relates to air pollution (noxious odors). • A. R. Dammkoehler Page 2 Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency June 20, 1979 2. How far your agency can go in seeking compliance with present standards. 3. Any instances you are aware of where local agencies have taken action to abate an air pollution nuisance. 4. If your agency would be supportive in making investigations regarding: a. Whether the Rendering Works is still in violation of air pollution standards, and; b. What the cause of the air pollution is, (e.g., improper operation, equipment not working as anticipated, etc.). 5. '.If your agency would be supportive in our abatement process. Your assistance would be greatly appreciated. Needless to say, without the cooperation of your agency, the City would have a difficult time abating this nuisance. Sincerely, ga4A-e-1 Edgar DV Bauch Mayor EDB/KS/ckh Attachment: P.S.A.P.C.A. letter dated January 4, 1977 cc: Bud Bohrer, Council President Kjell Stoknes, 0.C.D. Director Larry Hard, City Attorney SERVING: KING COUNTY 410 West Harrison St. P. 0. 80. 9863 Seattle. 98109 (206) 344-7330 KITSAP COUNTY Dial Operator for Toll Free Number Zenith 8385 Bainbridge Island, Dial 344-7330 PIERCE COUNTY 213 Mess Building Tacoma. 98402 (206) 383-5851 SNOHOMISH COUNTY 506 Medical - Dental Bid`. Everett. 98201 (206) 259 -0288 Mr. Fred N. Satterstrom City of Tukwila Planning Division 6230 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, Washington. 98188 410 WilliOson Street, P.O. Box 9863 (206) 344 -7330 Seattle, Washington 98109 January 4, 1977 IECEIVEL JAN 1 p 1977 CITY. OF TUKWILA Subject:. Seattle Rendering Works Continuous Rendering Plant Replacement Facility Dear Mr. Satterstrom: We have reviewed the draft Environmental Impact Statement for the proposed Seattle Rendering Works replacement facility. Our review and the comments based on it will be related only to the air quality aspects of the proposal. However, a more cursory . review of the remainder of the document has led us to the conclusion that it is an unusually complete and well- written statement. The statement appears to be fully correct in its description of existing air quality,in the air quality impacts that will result from the granting of a building permit to construct the proposed facility, and in the technical details of the odor control systems. This Agency granted approval to install the system (in response to Notice of Con- struction and Application for Approval No. 1655) on December 27, 1976. Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the statement. Very truly yours, A. R. Dammkoehler Air Pollution Control Officer ARD:JRP:fch / 1 By/. Ja , a. Pearson Senior Air Pollution Engineer BOARD OF DIRECTORS CHAIRMAN: Everett Foster, Alternate for Patrick J. Gallagher, Commissioner Pierce County; VICE CHAIRMAN; N. Richard Forsgren, Commissioner Snohomish Court Robert C. Anderson, Mayor Everett; Glenn K. Jerstad, Mayor Bremerton; Gordon N. Jonnston, Mayor Tacoma; Gene Lobe, Commissioner Kitsao Cc.unt Harvey S. Poll, Member st Large; John O. Spellman, King County Executive; Wes Uhlman, Mayor Seattle; A. R. Dammkoehler, Air Pollution Control OIlic Date: CITY OF TUKWILA OFFICE OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPM* C01PLAINT 1 Jwtw 14111 Received by: ft A7 � Time: /1:00 AM COMPLAINANT: Name M4'. o• tVaArt iu-k1rf Address /41 q 6'7 th • Phone z¢3 —021q 2Z(o - 3070 (work Contact requested: Yes ROUTING, CHECK ONE Building Recreation Planning Public Works Other (Specify) COMPLAINT: rIVAi Ott tk- Jit.-trle- ge-kui 141 Works ;ri " Jbpt1-u; bo 1 2t d » `►4d4( wag i a. fv &rL bt,_ IPM to q PM /4J/ xu'g _14— lit -44 kt o 7 ed ret- o t1a r if mai wtur►. ' s i4C.W wad 6 kart to 4u.0 d. to P S A P LA 1 r w,ro,/ ti wad • waT U Cih1 tL d4' SO YYLL t ti KQ Qb 0 u F7 f % ip.lcafed • vkt -lk.u- 3114, .01u wit( 4014,1x-r—I r it,#td i f Jk-G J k.outd et ,k. dT'IQ,GLr -e3 ell 1 G17fiON • / .lafd xiiu J Ica wjd do I0 th i f r/u 11 A Was kwo 1 va kd fa vu -.o-Y` 0-tx rites f i `t iv rn 1 - h -r- cf Gt•IT IT itct tq� e f for t3 to £4'tt fV rcL co t1 Ua.H.u.• f o lit la.�r wG D✓0 a €4 it -dd.. ivim.p /MO" fo -- ow, fats in. d r r iv rtcor d ✓i a 1a-11 tt.i (0u sfcc-•l ed) • INVESTIGATOR: Name Date Complainant contacted: Yes If yes, name of person contacted: Action taken: No Title Time Action completed: Date Name - cc: Director, OCD (When Complete) Attach photographs if necessary. Wi A 7905 ' City Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila Washington 98188 Edgar Bauch, Mayor MEMORANDUM TO: Al Pieper, Building Official FROM: Kjell Stoknes, O.C.D. Director i,„ DATE: , 11 April 1979 SUBJECT: `Seattle Rendering Work I'd like to get this on paper so we can have something to fall back on as we pursue compliance with the obnoxious smell coming from the Rendering Works building today. Let's plan on using the following process: 1. Gather all conditions placed on the Seattle Rendering Works relating to the building permit or the environmental impact statement. 2. Gather all relevant laws in the Tukwila Municipal Code that would relate to abatement of obnoxious smells. 3. Send these items to our City Attorney with two primary questions: a. Based on the conditions of the permits, can the City prosecute if the smells are still obnoxious? b. What additional evidence should the City collect and what are the City's obligation in informing Mr. Benefield that the City is in the process of procuring the evidence? 4. After we get a response from Larry, we should sit down and discuss how to approach getting the evidence. This may include a potential budget amendment if professional services are needed. 5. The evidence is gathered, put into a report to the Mayor with a recommendation that the City Council conduct hearings regarding the Community's experience on the smells coming from the Rendering Works. A recommendation from staff should include whether we will recommend the City Council refer to the City Attorney for abatement proceedings or other remedy. 6. After this has been turned over to the City Attorney or other action, as appropriate, we should continue to monitor the Rendering Works to assure its proper operation and conformance with the other require- ments placed on them. Please have Dawn prepare a file on this so we can document our correspon- dence and evidence as we proceed. • • Seedtle .. . RENDERING WORKS BUYERS OF MEAT SCRAP • GREASE • TALLOW • 13601 BEACON COAL MINE ROAD 242 -2828 OR 243 -1421 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98178 June 15, 1978 Mr. Fred N. Satterstrom City of Tukwila 6230 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 Dear Mr. Satterstrom: WESLEY W. BENEFIEL PRESIDENT 5eaor/?__ Pi441-41f Per our conversation last week on June 9, 1978, this is our letter of commitment. We will do the planting as planned as soon as the cooler weather and some rain starts in. This will give these trees a much better chance of survival. Since y, erbert O. S rense er n Jr. HOS /eab RECEIVED O.C.D. CITY OF TUKWILA Wit t' a 1978 6 June 1978 CITY of IWOA;raLA OFFICE of COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Mr. Wes Benefiel Seattle Rendering Works 13601 Beacon Coal Mine Rd. So Tukwila, Washington 98188 RE: Landscape Plan: Seattle Rendering Works Dear Mr. Benefiel: Please be advised that the Planning Division has approved your proposed landscape plan for the Seattle Rendering Works. A copy of the approved plan is included herewith. Should you have any questions or comments, please don't hesitate to call. Res p tfully, yred N Satterst om Planning Supervisor EIS /ch cc: otroir Steve Pompeo Enclosure a4-1, 6230 Southcente.r Boulevard to Tukwila, Washington 98188 el (206) 242 -2177 OFFICE 10 Tubs on perimeter of porch Hanging baskets around perimeter of porch roof. ENTRANCE PLANTING AREA Hybrid Rhododendrons 3- Black Pine 4 ft. to 6 ft. 20- Juniper 12 iri. to 14 in. TREE AREA 75 FT. EAST OF OFFICE Add Junipers and Rhododendrons. EAST END OF NEW PLANT AND EAST END OF WAREHOUSE Juniper and Rhododendron:plants DECIDUOUS TREES Caliber-11/2 in. Height -10 to 12 ft. Fully branched, free from insects and from a qualified nursery. ws EVERGREEN TREES (9bIkt Caliber -12 in to 2 in. Height -10 to 12 ft. Fully branched, free from insects and from a qualified nursery. ON PROPERTY House- Surrounded by trees and shrubs 2 apple trees 1 pear tree 1 cherry tree 2 Birch 2 Holly 1 Popular 1 Ash Juniper Cedar Fir Rodys ON PERIMT'TER OF PROPERTY 35 Cotton Wood 1 Small Leaf Maple 12 Alder STAKING PROCEEDURES Diagrams A & B WATERING PROCEEDURES Catch basin around each tree, watering to be done by tank truck. • 7, rV / 7 2X2 "X10' HEMLOCK STAKES, PRESTAINED DK. BROWN WIRE THREADED GARDEN HOSE LOOPED AROUND TREE AND STAPLED TO STAKE ADD 2 STAKES FOR TREES OVER .2" CAL. 2'" REGULAR BARK MULCH CALIPER MEASUREMENT 12" GREATER THAN ROOT SPREAD EVERGREEN TREE STAKING DETAIL SCALE 1/2" Tn 11= n" -.: • �. '10 3/8.• Hole ( 2 ea.) cured to 1X3 W/16 Ga. Tie Wire ded Thru 10-12" pc. of Garden Hose Twisted Wire Ends (2) 2X 2X61- 0" Hemlock Stakes IX3 Cleat, Nailed to Stokes (Wooden Parts Prestained Dk. Brown) Trees Over 2 1/2" Cat., Shall be • Staked with (2) I/4X 2" L's X8'-.0" 2" Regular Bark Mulch • 121. Greator than Root Spread Water Puddled Backfill , See Planting Specifications DECIDUOUS TREE STAKING DETAIL SCALE : 1/2" to 0" l'1 ® . el 1 ?Rr?I AF11Ctl f'7. C��A :t�tI Rq:.:rK�Tt7 •�`: bll:um: M. RLJIay0r1 (eFc� dt /j •r--- - _ `� ;G'RR0�St�t;CC.UU1L'DINC9YSTLH� �' 1 -rcvrct�x..�a %3 .o.tioeri:nv^tvea irel,fVdt;:,u`A ,AOagyc.(1dIS - k,: ,V DAtci 10'' 14•71 IIne�f� 4.r7 CITY of TUKWILA OFFICE of COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 8 March 1978 MEMORANDUM TO: Kjell Stoknes FROM: Al Pieper SUBJECT: SEATTLE RENDERING WORKS: Occupancy O.C.D. CITY OF TUKWILA MAR 8 1878 Status of Building permit conditions per your memo dated February 23, 1978. 1. All truck traffic use South 130th Place for ingress /egress and not use 56th Avenue South. See item 1 and 4 of mitigating measures. Building Department has no control. 2. All driveways and parking areas be paved, except driveway to residential unit. Will be paved as soon as weather and soil conditions permit. 3. Submittal of tree planting plan to Planning Division within 30 days from occupancy and implementation within 60 days of Planning Division approval. Will be submitted in near future. (Follow 'up required.) c(r- 4. Old primary rendering plant shall be made totally inoperative within 90 days of occupancy of the new rendering structure;;failure to comply with this pro- vision shall cause revocation of this Occupancy Permit after 30 days notice. Used for storage only. (Follow up required.) 5. Old primary rendering facility shall be totally demolished and all materials properly disposed of within 2 years of new facility occupancy OR within 90 days of removal of equipment within old primary facility, whichever is sooner. Failure to comply with this provision shall cause revocation of this Occupancy Permit after 30 days notice. No action at this time. 6230 Southcenter Boulevard ■ Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 242 -2177 Memorandum Kjell Stoknes Page 2 8 March 1978 6. Storage structure situated east of feathers plant shall have all openings appropriately closed to prevent access by rodents. Will be done in 60 days or May 8. 7. Dead animals shall not be left outside of the negative air pressured build- ing for any length of time. Dumping by persons unknown is the only problem here. Cannot be controlled by owners. 8. Feathers plant shall be improved by 31 March 1978 to fulfill the following requirements: A) All openings in the structure shall be sealed by walls, windows, or doors. 8) All odor bearing gasses shall be scrubbed with chemicals to reduce them to a nohobjectiohable level consistent with PSAPCA standards. Feathers plant closed down September 10, 1977. 9. Feathers plant shall be wholly converted to a negative pressure system which is at least 90% effective by 31 March 1979. Feathers plant closed down September 10, 1977. These stipulations are mitigating measures identified in the Environmental Impact Statement (EPIC- SA -13) for the new facility and have been agreed to by both the City and representatives of Seattle Rendering Works by virtue-of written agree- ment dated 8 February 1977 and found in EPIC- SA -13. AP /ch cc: Mayor Bauch 23 February 1978 • CITY of TU W LA OFFICE of COMMUNITY OEVELOPMENT MEMORANDUM TO: Al Pieper FROM: Kjell Stoknes SUBJECT: Status of Render Works Compliance Al I would like you to take the conditions placed on the Building Permit and the conditions authorizing the issuance of the Building Permit as made in relation to the State Environmental Policy Act and inspect the Rendering Works facility to determine if compliance has been met. I'd like you to con- tact a member of the management of the Rendering Works and review the condi- tions with him personally to determine compliance and what their intentions are. I'd like a written report back on your results by March 5. Gary Crutchfield has the necessary conditions in a Planning Division file if you cannot get access to them. Please send a copy of your report to the Mayor and attach to that report the conditions as placed on the Building Permit and under the State Environmental Policy Act so he can see what you are enforcing. KS /ch cc: Mayor Bauch Fred Satterstrom 6230 Southcenter Boulevard IN Tukwila, Washington 98138 0 (206) 242 -2177 9 February 1978 CITY of TUKWILA OFFICE of COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT MEMORANDUM TO: Al Pieper, Building Official FROM: Kjell Stoknes, O.C.D. Director SUBJECT: Follow -up on Seattle Rendering Works Occupancy, Enforcement of Condi- tions and Provisions. Al, for clarity purposes, I am designating you as the City Official to follow -up on enforcement of the provisions of the occupancy permit for the Seattle Rendering Works. Please take any necessary action to see to it that the Rendering Works complies with the conditions, as placed on the occupancy permit and conditional use permit, to see that they perform as required. I am sending this memo for clarification purposes. I think you probably had already assumed this role. I would appreciate being appraised periodically on your progress on this site. I think it also has a direct image effect on the golf course and potentially, the economic feasibility of the golf course in the long term. KS /ch 6230 Southcenter Boulevard as Tukwila, Washington 98188 a (206) 242 -2177 • CITY of TUKWILA OFFICE of COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 24 January 1978 MEMORANDUM TO: Building Division OCD FROM: Gary Crutchfield nning Division SUBJECT: SEATTLE RENDERING WORKS: Occupancy Please include the following stipulations as conditions of occupancy of the new structures at the Seattle Rendering Works: 1. All truck traffic use South 130th Place for ingress /egress and not use 56th Avenue South. 2. All driveways and parking areas be paved, except driveway to residential unit. 3. Submittal of tree painting plan to Planning Division within 30 days from occupancy and implementation within 60 days of Planning Division approval. 4. Old primary rendering plant shall be made totally inoperative within 90 days of occupancy of the new rendering structure; failure to comply with this pro- vision shall cause revocation of this Occupancy Permit after 30 days notice. 5. Old primary rendering facility shall be totally demolished and all materials properly disposed of within 2 years of new facility occupancy OR within 90 days of removal of equipment within old primary facility, whichever is sooner. Failure to comply with this provision shall cause revocation of this Occupancy Permit after 30 days.notice. 6. Storage structure situated east of feathers plant shall have all openings appropriately closed to prevent access by rodents. 7. Dead animals shall not be left outside of the negative air pressured building for any length of time. 8. Feathers plant shall be improved by 31 March 1978 to fulfill the following requirements: A) All openings in the structure shall be sealed by walls, windows or doors. 6230 Southcenter Boulevard n Tukwila, Washington 98188 m (206) 242 -2177 MEMORANDUM Page 2 Building Division, OCD 24 January 1978 B) All odor bearing gasses shall be scrubbed with chemicals to reduce them to a nonobjectionable level consistent with PSAPCA standards. 9. Feathers plant shall be wholly converted to a negative pressure system which is at least 90% effective by 31 March 1979. These stipulations are mitigating measures identified in the Environmental Impact Statement (EPIC- SA -13) for the new facility and have been agreed to by both the City and representatives of Seattle Rendering Works by virtue of written agreement dated 8 February 1977 and found in EPIC- SA -13. GC /ch OCD • • FIRE DEPARTMENT CITY of TUKWILA 444 ANDOVER PARK EAST TUKWILA, WASHINGTON 98188 TELEPHONE: (20612447221 February 17, 1977 Mr. Kjell Stoknes, Director of Community Development City Annex Tukwila, Washington Dear Kjell: The Seattle Rendering Works was required to increase its hydrant coverage when they expanded during 1973. At the present time part of the fire flow requirements for the Seattle Rendering Works is based upon approximately 750 gallons per minute from the two fire hydrants connected to the City of Tukwila water system. Any trade of service areas between the City of Tukwila and Water District 38 should include an agreement that the Seattle Rendering Works would be provided equal to or better than the present volumn of water available for the city service. The indication that is presented in your Envioronmental Impact Statement, Item 5A, would prevent this department from providing a standard for fire protection in future years. When a business is required by a city agency to comply with its requirements, sane moral obligation exist on the citys part - to maintain its standards to ensure future compliance of city re- quirements. Standards required of the business community should be equally applied to the agencies of the local government. c: Director of Public Works Mayor Sincerely, G4444 Hubert H. Crawley Fire Chief th 2 cc th cc Subject: Fire Supply - Seattle Rendering Works 4( EL L!I The City of Tukwila currently with its existing system can supply approxi- mately 750 gallons per minute at the hydrants based on Tukwila Fire Depart- ment and Tukwila Water Department fire flow tests. This is based on a 20 lbs. per sq. inch residual draw down. PUBI-1 ®FIK 3 ®EPA MAT 6230 Bouthcont8r ®®ulev =; rd Tukwila, •!whin, t n telephone C 2®6 3 242 -- 2177 g; ®67 February 16, 1977 M E M O R A N D U M To: Kjell Stoknes, Director, Office of Community Development Chief Hubert Crawley, Tukwila Fire Department From: Steve Hall, Director, Public Works Department ,441. Just to enter a note into the record as far as our previous discussions with Mr. Benefiel of the Rendering Works and Mr. Mike Runyan, technical representative, I thought I would put some of the discussions in reference to the Water Department into memo form. w In discussions with Water District 38, Mr. Franklin Pearson, manager, along 5. 5. with the attached calculations, indicate the maximum available flow at the intersection point of Water District 38 and the access road to the Render- • ing Works from the Pamela Drive area would be an estimated 750 - 800 gallons per minute at a draw down pressure of 20 psi. This is based on a rough 1 field as -built drawing based on theoretical calculations contingent upon LLB all items being correct. m EC With the current negotiations between Water District 38 and the Tukwila �- Water Department, it is very possible that Water District 38 will be taking jO over the Tukwila service area which includes the Seattle Rendering Works, . Spider Staging, Technical Research and approximately twelve residential homes in the vicinity. It is not logical from a service standpoint or from an economic standpoint that the City of Tukwila nor Water District 33 would guarantee that both of these services would be available at all times in the future. Therefore, the verbal recommendations from Public Works to Fire have been based on the Department or a combination of the District 33 and Tukwila Departments to provide a maximum of approximately 750 gallons per minute at the site. It was the recommendation and was included in further discussions between the Seattle Rendering Works and the Tukwila Fire Department in conjunction with review by the Washington Survey & Rating Bureau that .storage in an amount to be determined by each on a satisfactory basis would supplement the flow presently provided by the City of Tukwila Water Department. ,ai' } .ac etlz. Memorandum February 16, 1977. Page 2 In talking with Larry Hard, Deputy City Attorney, he felt that my decision on behalf of the Water Department was reasonable and the potention liability to the City by guaranteeing two flows at approximately 750 gallons per minute from difference sources was not advisable. SMH /dp cc: Dick Williams, Office Engineer Gene Isler, Field Superintendent V14rii-K / 11.1/71-51- I4d 5427Z6 • . , R/4-7, 6_,' ,'Q3 z /?6,,,„;/„e4f„ ale_g t 6 t-1 (5,0.4 -1 c_10. i4. TE6d. V.I.. 20 5.3 LF 2..r C." cV. .:3 - c/o' (31.:..is • I - 45° 1-toim-z_ ZZ1Z t-kotz•-z_ 4° - .11'4° Vern- a Pc() 4-6- Er , 4I-° r *1'7 (a-3r Saw 46° V. 13e.i.z 45° 88,4-)07 05- Pots--)r CITY OF TUKWILA Job Nam_ 0 Date 77 ie.ct t P..upcd : LS__ Checked By: Job Ho. • Page 1 FQ.e ILT 11,..) 1 0 0 6-Pisn -1 4 • 16o N) G`' PPE) 41/ m •=7.1- NZ. / t g-411 m2) 13, a r-r-/s-- • 0:33 • 0%1,-2_ • I% • (1.,) , 1 Form 10-75 = 4 ; .;. 'a :3 Z? FT- or' Cr)" ' - f ° = 2 1000 C3Pnl cd2., P Z, 0 • ; _ 3 61Z Fr), N • 7 • • i t CITV OF TUKWILA Job Ncwu 0,2_tz-c PLc j ect PA.epan.ed b y : Chc.checi By : Date. Job No. Page 0 CP(Y) S 3 b 0 ) &-7-! . 7OXo ( 67' 4 ,_.;,•2:4__Lt ) (.71-4;- , ; • 2_ ..; t - • - -D4 ,:c.04. i I ' I ; ; ; • ; I ' -• i • Form 10-75 SEATTLE RENDERING WORKS ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT CONDITIONS ON THEIR BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION FOR A NEW RENDERING PLANT IN TUKWILA 1. NOISE: Mitigating Measures: Require all truck (with 3 or more axels) traffic to use South 130th Place for access and egress to the property rather than the residential area. Recommend the Public Works Director coordinate with King County and post a load limit on the bridge to apply to all persons equally. 2. SOIL EROSION: 3. DUST: Mitigating Measures: Provisions should be made prior to construction for the trapping of storm water into a settling pond(s) to .reduce the tur- bidity of the storm water to standards required by the Department of Ecology to discharge. Mitigating Measures: At such time as dust from this operation exceeds acceptable standards, watering, use of sawdust, or other mitigating measures will be required. All driveways and parking lots must be paved, except for the drive- way to the house on the property. 4. TRAFFIC: Mitigating Measures: Three axel or more truck traffic should be restricted from using 56th Avenue South as an access road to the Rendering Works. Load limits should .be'. imposed and en- forced. (Reference Item 1 above.) 5. WATER: Mitigating Measures: The City is presently nego- tiating an agreement with Water District #38 to provide joint service to this area. The Rendering WAtli t ' Works is to provide emergency demand water flow within 90 days of a new waterline being operated and installed to the Rendering Works property line by the Water District or within. 90 days of other x. available water system. + 6. LANDSCAPING: Mitigating Measures: The Rendering Works shall be required to strategically locate landscaping in those areas not presently screened by screening on the golf course or other screening in order to buffer the new facility. The areas to be screened are those areas along the river abutting the present old facility and a few other small areas. The land- scaping shall be the type that is natural to the river environment including such vegetation as alder intermised with evergreen. The Rendering Works is to submit to the City Planning Department a tree planting plan within 30 days from occupancy of the new facility and implement said plan within 60 days of the Planning Department's approval of the plan, except in the area of the existing primary facility, landscaping shall be installed within 90 days of demolition. 7. VEGETATION AND WILDLIFE: Mitigating Measures: No clearing or grading will be allowed under this permit for any area in a natural state within 200 feet of the Green River except as necessary for landscaping. 8. EXISTING CONDITIONS: Mitigating Measures: The existing primary rendering facility shall be totally demolished and all materials disposed of properly within 2 years of occupancy of the new rendering structure or within 90 days of removal of all existing equipment within the existing primary rendering facility, whichever is sooner. The existing primary rendering plant shall be made totally inoperative within 90 days of occupancy of the new rendering structure. In the event the Rendering Works fails to comply with these time requirements, the City shall have the right to revoke the occupancy permit for the new facility after 30 days notice. The existing storage structure east of the feathers plant should have all openings closed by either walls, door, windows, vents or other appropriate method to minimize access by rodents to the interior of the structure. The King County Health Department should make periodic inspections on rodent population and other health hazards. 9. MALODORS: Mitigating Measures: New rendering plant — The air and odor pollution components of the continuous ren- dering system proposed have been noted to meet the rules and regulations of the Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency. This agency will also monitor viola- tions and give citations when warranted. This should minimize human error and encourage preventative main- tenance to promote the successful functioning of the equipment. No dead animals are to be left outside of the negative air pressured building for any length of time. In addition, the existing feathers plant is to be up- graded to minimize malodors by implementing the following actions and times: a. By March 31, 1978: All openings in the structure are to be sealed by walls, windows or doors. b. By March 31, 1978: All odor bearing gases scrubbed with chemicals to reduce them to a nonobjectionable level consistent with Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency standards. c. By March 31, 1979: Have total building under a negative pressure system that is 90% effective. The above are conditions placed on the building permit for a new rendering plant by Seattle Rendering Works. F4rufory gifQ7? 1 Stoknes, Responsible Official Date Authority: "SEPA Guidelines" as adopted December 12, 1975 City of Tukwila Ordinance No. 986, Section 1(2), 13 (1) and (2) and 14. Resolution No. 489 was /was not invoked by City Council. Concurrance with Conditions: 7 Wes Benefiel', Seattle Rendering Works Date -3- ADDENDUM An amendment to Item 5., WATER, by substituting the following: 5.A. WATER: • Mitigating Measures: The City is not negotiating an agreement with Water District 38 for .joint service to the Rendering Works but..is in the process of trying.to trade service area with the Water District. The Rendering Works should be aware that they alone are responsible for the extension of any water mains to their property and, if the extension of said main results in dual service, it should not be construed to mean that they will have the dual service for any determined length of time. This agreement should not be construed as limiting or removing any other alternatives subject to approval by Tukwila Fire Department and Tukwila Public Works Department. Kje)l Stoknes, Responsible Official Concurrence with Condition: Wes Benefiel, Seattle Rendering Works 77/?:/t7., e 4/0/77 Date USSLOALORKS ®EPARTME 8 8230 9outhc®nt ®r• 4 oulavard Tukwila, Washington 99 097 telephone C 2 ® a 949 -2177 February 10, 1977 MEMORANDUM 2 TO: Al Pieper, Building Official ® FROM: Dick Williams, Officer Engineer •� SUBJECT: SEATTLE RENDERING WORKS'- BUILDING PERMIT CONDITIONS • Regarding item 5, Water, on the attached document, I would like to take ai this opportunity to clarify this situation. The City is not at this time h negotiating with Water District 38 to provide joint service to this area. We have discussed with the Water District the possibility of a service area swap and included in these areas was the Rendering Works property. The intent of the swap of areas was to provide only one mainline service ir EL The we now have two services. At the time that the swap was consummated, Water District 38 would have sole service rights to the Rendering Works. w It is my understanding that the Water District has no intention of keeping the dual feeds in service due to the poor condition of our existing 6" line.- W Regarding the installation'of the water line to.the above- referenced ED Rendering Works property line, no mention was made of any provisions for repayment to the City or Water District for the cost of the installation w . of this main. The cost of the main was estimated at approximately $10,000' I, and it is not the policy of the Public .Works Department or the City to pay for any utility extension that benefits only one developer. In addition, g the calculations indicate that the requirements of the Tukwila Fire Depart- ment coul�t-be met by an extension of Water Di.st.r_i.cL.38's main, and if you keep in mind the Water D tstrict's intention of abandoning the existing 6" line, it should become obvious that the additional expense at this time W is not warranted. However, we should not completely eliminate the responsi- bility of the Rendering Works to pay for,the main extension to their property line, along with the cost for connection to the on -site system, at such time EC in the future that it is required by the Water District. voiding Item No. 5, Water, and adding the following: It is recommended that an amendment be added to the statement of conditions WATER: Mitigating Measures: The City is not negotiating an agreement with Water District 38 for joint service to the Rendering Works but is in the process of trying to trade service area with the Water District. The Rendering Works should be aware that they alone pre responsible for the extension.of any water mains to their property and if the extension of said main results in dual service, it should not be construed to mean that they will have the dual service for any determined length of time. IMO iyf`a, .:F. e.,..;.,:.� .. ,.,c..`.iY.i,.✓a..ri Al Pieper, Building Official February 10, 1977 Page 2 The Public Works Department would like to have this change agreed to by a representative of the Seattle Rendering Works before a building permit is issued. • Approved by: Richard K. Williams Office Engineer MI )-164.5‘, Steven M. Hall, P. E. Public Works Director RKW /dp cc: Kjell Stoknes, Director, Office of Community Development/ SEATTLE RENDERING WORKS • ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT CONDITIONS ON THEIR BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION FOR A NEW RENDERING PLANT IN TUKWILA 1. NOISE: Mitigating. Measures: Require all truck (with 3 or more axels) traffic to use South 130th Place for access and egress to the property rather than the residential area. Recommend the Public Works Director coordinate with King County and post a load limit on the bridge to apply to all persons equally. 2. SOIL EROSION: 3. DUST: Mitigating Measures: Provisions should be made prior to construction for the trapping of storm water into a settling pond(s) to reduce the tur- bidity of the storm water to standards required by the Department of Ecology to discharge. Mitigating Measures: At such time as dust from this operation exceeds acceptable standards, watering, use of sawdust, or other mitigating measures will be required. All driveways and parking lots must be paved, except for the drive- way to the house on the property. 4. TRAFFIC: Mitigating Measures: Three axel or more truck traffic should be restricted from using 56th Avenue South as an access road to the Rendering Works. Load limits should be imposed and en- forced. (Reference Item 1 above.) . WATER: itigating Measures: The City is presently nego- tiating an agreement with Water District #38 to provide joint service to this area. The Rendering Works is to provide emergency demand water flow within 90 days of a new waterline being operated and installed to the Rendering Works property line by the Water District or within 90 days of other available water system. February 7, 197.7 TO: BOARD OF DIRECTORS PUGET SOUND AIR POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY FROM: AIR POLLUTION CONTROL OFFICER SUBJECT: AGENCY ACTIVITY REPORT - JANUARY 1977 Action Relating to ASARCO There are two appeals before the State Pollution Control Hearings Board in the matter of the ASARCO variance. One partly concerns the issue of an Environmental Impact Statement, and the other wholely concerns the EIS. The Agency's legal counsel has request- ed the PCHB to hear that part of both appeals involving the EIS on one date and hear the remaining issues later. A conference on the merits of his motion will be held by the PCHB in the first week of February. Last month it was reported that the PCHB would hold a hearing on an ASARCO appeal of nineteen civil penalties for violation of sulfur dioxide standards that occurred between November 1975 and May 1976. The week before the hearing was to be held, ASARCO filed a motion to dismiss the appeal with the understanding that the penalties would be paid. The motion to dismiss was granted and the civil penalties have been paid. Twenty additional penal- ties were levied on ASARCO in January for SO2 violations that occurred in November 1976. Long Standing Issue Before PCHB Resolved In early 1973, the Agency began levying a series of civil penal- ties on the United Grain Corporation for violations of the air pollution standards in connection with loading of grain onto vessels at a facility owned by the Port of Tacoma. The penalties were appealed to the State Pollution Control Hearings Board as they were issued. After filing for and receiving a variance from Regulation I, the appellants began to study the problem and arrange for proper control. During this period the PCHB assumed jurisdic- tion over the case and set a series of informal hearings whereby progress toward meeting the variance conditions could be reported to the PCHB. In December, a full report was filed with the PCHB showing that substantial and reasonable control apparatus had been installed on the grain loading facility resulting in reduced dust emissions and other developments that will be beneficial to the air in the Tideflats area of Tacoma. The PCHB then ordered the appeal of 25 civil penalties to be dismissed provided the appel- lants pay to the Agency the costs incurred during the pendency of the appeal. Final Dispositions '° of Appeals Regarding "Certified Alternative" Last month it . was reported that the PCHB reversed the Agency's decision to deny a permit for open burning without the use of a' "Certified Alternative ". Two other appeals were before the PCHB' and one complaint was before the King County Superior Court in- volving the same issue. These also have been dismissed for the same reason - the PCHB had held that the basic regulation of DOE, and the section of Regulation I that was based on the DOE regula- tion were both vague and ambiguous and therefore. unenforceable. The three appeals before the PCHB and the court complaint involved a total of 68 civil penalties. Seattle Rendering Plant E1S Reviewed Early in the month Agency engineers reviewed a draft EIS prepared by the City of Tukwila prior to granting permits to the Seattle Rendering. Works to build a continuous rendering plant. In October, the Board had granted a variance to Seat-tie Rendering Works pend- ing construction of the plant. In December, the Agency approved a Notice of Construction submitted as a condition of the variance. Agency_ engineers reported to Tukwila that the draft EIS appeared to be correct in the description of existing air quality, in the"" impacts that would result from replacing the present facility with a continuous rendering plant, and in the technical . details of odor control systems. Notice of Construction Published for Rock Crushing Operation The Agency published a legal notice of the opportunity to submit written comment during a 30 day period in regard to a Notice of Construction application filed by the M. E. Segale Company. The Notice of Construction application contemplates construction of a rock crushing, screening, and washing operation at a site two miles east of North Bend. The public notice advised that the Agency was proposing to approve this application. Agency Quarterly Report Forwarded to DOE The Agency's activity report for the fourth quarter of 1976, required by the Washington Clean Air Act, was forwarded to the Department of Ecology in January. 1976 Work Summary Attached to this report is a compilation of work statistics for all of.1976. Total complaints were about the same as in 1975, but odor complaints rose from 558 in 1975 to 651 in 1976. Out- door fire complaints rose slightly but not significantly. There were about 26% fewer violation notices issued than in 1975. Notices of violation of the visual standard were down by almost half the total for 1975. Notices of Construction processed were down from 260 in 1975 to 125. -2- • There were 4:74 Civil Penalties'" issued in 1'976 as compared to 780 in 1975, but about 350 of the 780 had been issued to one source (ASARCO). At the end of the year, there were 19 active variances as compared with 42 at the end of 1975. In 1976, the Agency processed 19 applications for Indirect Source Review as compared to 20 in 1975. There were more applications in 1976 than the Agency expected. As of the end of the year, there were three applications pending final action by the Agency. These are Alderwood Mali, Kent Shopping Center, and Sea -Tac Motor Inn. Public Information A news release was issued announcing continuation of the public hearing on proposed amendments to Article 18, and describing variance applications that were to be heard in January. Three talks were presented by staff at schools. The 1977 gas mileage guide is now available. The guide gives the estimated fuel economy of 1977 model year cars, station wagons, and light trucks. A useful brochure titled "Get the Most From Your Heating Oil Dollar" has been published. Both of these items are joint publications of the Environmental Protection Agency and the Federal Energy Administration. They are available at the offices of either of these Federal agencies in Seattle or by calling 344 -7322 at PSAPCA offices. Enforcement Actions In January 43 Civil Penalties were levied, 1 was appealed to the PCHB, and 44 were paid. Air Quality Data (December) The National Weather Service Summary for Sea -Tac Airport reported 1 clear, 3 partly cloudy and 27 cloudy days. Precipitation occur- red on 11 days for a total of 1.86 inches, 4.08 inches below normal. This is the fourth consecutive month with a significant departure from normal. Fog, an indication of light winds and stability, was reported on 21 mornings; however, daily winds averaging less than 5 knots occurred on only eight days. The only air stagnation advisory that was issued covered the period November 29 through December 4. Sulfur dioxide occurrences at ground level exceeding specified levels in Regulation I were: 1.00 ppm for 5- minute average 9 0.25 ppm for an hour average 8 0.40 ppm for an hour average 2 0.10 ppm for a 24 -hour average 2 The Federal three hour standard of 0.50 ppm was exceeded for the fourth time in calendar year 1976 at 26th and Pearl St. in Taco;ia with a three hour average of 0.60 ppm. The Federal 24 hour stand- ard of 0.14 ppm was also exceeded for the third time with an average of 0.17 ppm. The 1976 record of occurrences of SO2 at 26th & Pearl St. is greater than anytime in the past six years. The following table lists occurrences relative to standards. Number-6f Occurrences Exceeding PSAPCA Standards Federal Standards 1.00 ppm 0.40ppm 0.25ppm 0.10ppm 0.50ppm 0.14ppm 5 Min. 60 Min. 60 Min. 24 Hr. 3 Hr. 24 Hr. Year Average Average Average Average Average -Average - 1976 40 17 53 5 4 3 1975 8 6 35 0 0 0 1974 10 6 21 1 1 .0 1973 16 4 27 0 0 0 1972 2.7 11 34 0 0 0 1971 39 20 52 3 2 2 The monthly all- station average of suspended particulates was 56.9 ug /m3, a decrease of 6.6 ig /m3 from November. The 150 ug /m3 daily standard was exceeded twice at Harbor Island and once at the Duwamish pumping station. December monthly arithmetic averages in ug /m3 for the past six years are: 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 31.0 40.4_ 48.7 ,x,48.1 . 37.8 56.9 Other pertinent statistics for the month of December are attached. Respectfully, Arthur R. Dammkoehler Air Pollution Control Officer. wb Attachments T SOUND AIRPOLLUTION CONTROL A AIR MONITORING STATISTICS DECEMBER 1976 • Station . • Tulalip Test Facility, Snohomish Co. • Medical- Dental Bldg., Everett . Seattle Center . Harbor Island, Seattle ▪ Duwamish Pumping Sta, Seattle . 10000 West Marginal Way SW, Seattle • Southcenter, Tukwila . 1234 N. Central Avenue, Kent . McMicken Heights, King County . Maury Island . Meeker Jr,. H. S., Tacoma • Tideflats, Tacoma • Willard Elementary School, Tacoma . N. 26th & Pearl, Tacoma • Dewey Jr..H. S., Bremerton SULFUR DIOXIDE AVERAGES Max 1 hr Max 24 hr, Avg (ppm) Avg (ppm)c .02 .01 .05 .01 .13 .10 .17 .07 .27 .10 . 04 :02 . 02 . 07 . 04 Monthly ,' Avg (ppm)c .000 .003 .010 .018 .003 .011 .021 .017 1.04 .17 .019 • SO2 OCCURRENCES EXCEEDING SPECIFIED CONCENTRATIONS 1.00 ppm for 5 min Maury Island • N. 26th & Pearl, Tacoma 9 0.40 ppm for 1 hr 0.25 ppm for 1 hr 1 7 0.10 ppm for 24 hrs . ▪ NOTE: 3 hr. avg 0.60 ppm and 24 hr avg 0.17 ppm at N. 26th & Pearl, Tacoma.Federal Standards allow one excess of 0.50 ppm /3 hr. and 0.14 ppm /24 hr. per year. • SOILING INDEX (coEFFICIENT CF BAZE) • Max 1•hr Max 24 hr Avg (COH) Avg (COH)s 1.3 1.0 2.0 1.0. 3.1 1.9 2.5 2.1 1,6 1.7 1.8 1.5 2.8 2.1 2.0 3.8 3.7 2,5 2.3 3.2 . ▪ 2.3 ▪ 4.7 • 3.7 • 3,6. • • • • • Monthly c Avg (COM) 0.44 0.56 0.93 1.32 " 1.26 0,94 0.92 0.98 0.80 1.66 1.18 0,98 AIR QUALITY INDEX 50 = ALERT - 100 = WARNING 150 = EMERGENCY Max 24 hr Min 24 hr Monthly Avgc Everett Seattle Tacoma 20 40 52 3 5 8 9.6 23.2 28.6 • SUSPENDED PARTICULATE (SAMPLING PERIOD 24 HRS EACH 6TH DAY) • (STANDARD: 150 ug /m3 24 hr avg)b Station Tolt River Watershed • Tulalip Test Facility, Snoh. Co. ' Medical - Dental Bldg., Everett • U.S.C.G.S., Seattle • Seattle Center • Public Safety Bldg., Seattle • Harbor Island, Seattle • Duwamish Pumping Sta., Seattle • South Park, Seattle ' 10000 West Marginal Way S.W., Sea • Al l entown, • King County • Southcenter, Tukwila • Puget Power Bldg., Bellevue • S.E. Dist. Health Center, Renton : Municipal Bldg., Renton ' 1234 N. Central Avenue, Kent • E. Main St. & Auburn Ave., Auburn • McMicken Heights, King County ' Dewey Jr. H. S., Bremerton ' • Meeker Jr. H. S., Bremerton • 2340 Taylor Way, Tacoma • Tideflats, Tacoma • 1241 Cleveland Way, Tacoma • Fife Sr. High School • Cascadia, 2002 E. 28th St., Tac. • Willard Elementary School, Tacoma • Hess Bldg., Tacoma ' N. 26th & Pearl, Tacoma ▪ Monthly All- station averages • Min Max Occ Exc Monthlyc u9 /m3 u9 /m3 150 ug /m3 Avg ug /m3 . 3.4 8.1 18.3 22.2 23.1 17.4 26.7 30.2 14.7 17.9 15.8 12.0 14.7 8.7 16.8 14.8 17.0 16.0 21.3 13.5 23,1 20.9 17.3 12.9 11.5 17,6 14.6 15.9 17.6 34.2 60.4 134.5 99.0 94.4 201.5 153.5 93.0 85.6 94.4 80.6 63.5 60.2 119.0 103.7 98.2 59.3 34.2 72.7 150.1 138.2 127.1 87.5 96.5 105.2 94.2 91.8 8.8 21.4 41.7 72.8 62.1 58.6 112.5 106.8 59.8 1 54.4 • 53.8 50.6 41.0 41.1 ' 65.0 • 59.9 55.6 40.7 28.8 48.5 79.8 81.8 70.6 51.0 49.6 60,2 60.4 44.8 • • • PHOTOCHEMICAL OXIDANTS (STANDARD: 08 ppm /1 hr)b McMicken Kent Heights Max 1 hr avg No. of 1 hr avgs Exc. .08 ppm .03 .03 0 0 • NITROGEN DIOXIDE (STANDARD: 0.05 ppm annual Mo. Avgc • • 10000 W. Marginal .046 . Way S.W., Seattle 56.9 Tulalip Test Facility, Snoh. Co. average)a 24 hr Avgc .07 .010 .03 • HYDROCARBONS (LESS CH4) (STANDARD: 0.24 ppm - 3 hour average)b Max No. Mo. 3 hr Avg Avgc Avg Std. • 10000 West Marginal .448 1.93 170 • Way S.W., Seattle . Tulalip Test .162 0.66 28 ▪ Facility, Snoh. Co. a = Never to be exceeded. b = Not to be exceeded more than once per year c = Arithmetic average ug /m3 = Micrograms per cubic meter ppm = Parts per million NOTICES OF CONSTRUCTION RECEIVED IN JANUARY, 1977 N/C # Date Received Owner(Applicant) - Name /Address Equipment /Control Device 1665 .1/ 3/77 HiLine Asphalt Products, Ltd. Controls - $85,000 1115 South. 96th. Street Seattle, Washington Mr. Jule Romano 13019 12th Avenue South Seattle, Washington 1666 1/ 4/77 Weyerhaeuser Company Cyclone - $16,000 3401 Taylor Way Tacoma, Washington 1667 1/ 5/77 Nalley Fine Foods Direct -Fired Veg. Oil Heat 3303 South 35th Street Exchanger Tacoma, Washington 98411 1668 1/10/77 Joseph Simons & Sons, Inc. Ind. Inc. CO Model - 11C - 104 508 Puyallup Avenue Induction Sweat Furnace Tacoma,-Washington 98421 .Controls - $12,003 1669 1/19/77 Klinks Kon -Krete, Ltd. Cement Silo 18530 156th Avenue NE Woodinville, WA 98072 1670 1/19/77 Washington Asphalt Co., Inc. No controls PO Box 1379 Asphalt Batch Plant Bellevue, Washington 98008 1671 1/19/77 Miracle Auto Painting Paint Booth 18205 Highway 99 Lynnwood, Washington 98036 1672 • 1/19/77 Standard Brands New Cleave Brook Boiler Rate PO Box 488 Input BTU /Hr 20 gmm Sumner, Washington 98390 1673 1/25/77 St. Regis Paper Company Misc. Updating 801 Portland Avenue Tacoma, Washington 98421 1674 1/29/77 Reichhold Chemicals, Inc. Storage Tank PO Box 1482 50,000 Gal. Cap. Tacoma, Washington 98401 1675 1/27/77 Reichhold Chemicals, Inc. Cyclone and Demister PO Box 1482 Tacoma, Washington 98401 1676 1/27/77 Reichhold Chemicals, Inc. Relocation of Tanks , PO Box 1482 Tacoma, Washington 98401 1677 1/27/77 Reichhold Chemicals, Inc. PO Box 1482 Tacoma, Washington 98401 .1678 1/25/77 Calnesium Company Basic Heating Boiler Fired 8522 216th Ave. SE at 4.8 mmBTU Woodinville, Washington 98072 6 PUGET SOUND AIR POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY CIVIL ACTIONS JANUARY,, INITIATED The Chemithon Corp., Seattle • 3 Separate PCHB Orders Upheld by King County Superior Court. All 3 Appealed to State Court of Appeals 10/8/76. Jarvis Hawkins, Bremerton Wedgewood Apts., Seattle Joe Keller & Sons, Tacoma David A. Hunt, Tacoma Crown Cedar Products, North Bend M. G. Development Corp., Bellevue Adams Shingle Company, Marysville Crow Roofing & Sheet Metal (Complaint for temporary and permanent restraining order) Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corp.., Tacoma Robert Reeves, Bothell Adams Shingle Company, Marysville 5/ 6/76 8/23/76 9/ 9/76 9/22/76 11/ 9/76 12/ 1/76 12/ 3/76 1/ 4/77 1/13/77 1/ 5/77 1/24/77 7 RESOLVED Dismissed 1/27/77 Case Closed PENDING Awaiting Trial Default Granted 6/18/76 Default Granted 10/ 6/76 Trial Date 5/17/77 Hearing Date 6/ 9/77 Awaiting Dispositon Awaiting Disposition Temporary Restraining Order Denied 1/27/77 Hearing Date Pending Awaiting Disposition Awaiting Disposition. PUIPSO U N D AIR POLLUTION CONTROL AOCY CIVIL PENALTY STATUS SUMMARY' JANUARY 1977 J KING COUNTY - Levied Suspended Cancelled Paid Appealed Pending- Outdoor Fire 2 0 1 6 0 4 Heating Plant Smoke 3 0 0 0 0 5 Industrial Process Smoke /Fume 1 0 0 5 0 24 Dust Emissions 0 0 0 1 0 1. Odor 1 0 0 0 0 23 Ship Stack Smoke 2 0 0 2 0 2 Other 1 '0 0 0 0 9 PIERCE COUNTY Levied Suspended Cancelled Paid Appealed Pending Outdoor Fire 0. 0 59 . 2 0 2 Heating Plant Smoke 0 0 0 0 0 0 Industrial Process Smoke /Fume 1 0 0 3 0 11 Dust Emissions 0 0 0 0 0 29 Odor 0 0 0 0 0 1 Ship Stack Smoke 0 0 0 2 0 2 Other 20 0 1 19 0 20 SNOHOMISH COUNTY . Levied Suspended Cancelled Paid Appealed Pending Outdoor Fire 1 0 8 2 1 >. - 9 Heating Plant Smoke . 0 0 0 0 0 '0 Industrial Process Smoke /Fume 6 .0 0 1 0 8 Dust Emissions 0 0 0 0 0 0 Odor 0 0 0 0 0 0, Ship Stack Smoke 3 0 0 0 0 4 Other 1 0 0 0 0 1 KITSAP COUNTY Levied Suspended Cancelled Paid Appealed Pending Outdoor Fire 0 0 0 1 0 2 Heating Plant Smoke 0 0. 0 0 . 0 0 Industrial Process Smoke /Fume Q 0 0 0 0 0' Dust Emissions 0 0 0 0 0 0 Odor 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ship Stack Smoke 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other 0 0 0 0 0 1 TOTALS 43 0 69 44 1 158 $ Amount 9,350 8,150 Complete Listing Available on Request PUGET SOU ND AIR POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY WORK SUMMARY Period January, 1977 COMPLAINTS RECEIVED KING KITSAP PIERCE SNOHOMISH TOTAL '`' Outdoor Fire 8 2 8 9 27 Visible Emissions 21 1 5 5 32 Fallout 3 0 1 1 - 5 Odor 26 0 8 26 60 Other 0 0 1 1 2 VIOLATION NOTICES Outdoor Fire 5 0 7 0 12 Visual .Standard 8 1. 8 9 26 Particulate 0 0 1 0- 1 Odor 0 0 0 0 0 Other . 0 0 19 2 21 SOURCE REGISTERED Added 0 0 0 0 0 Deleted 0 1 4 6 11 Accumulated Total 1067 90 404 296 1857 NOTICES OF CONSTRUCTION Approved 3 0 8 Rejected 0 0 0 $ Value Approved 85,000 700,930 TAX CREDITS & WRITE OFFS New Applications • 0 Applications Approved 0 $ Value Approved 0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENTS Received Reviewed INDIRECT SOURCES Received Preliminary Findings Final Findings SOURCE TESTS Date Firm • Equipment Measured Allowed Measured Allowed Jan. 19 St. Regis Paper Co. No. 1 Oil Boiler 0.1014 0.10 15.64 N.A. 0.1057 0.10 16.07 N.A. Al 0 785,930 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 5 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0• 0 0 . 18 9 1. 0 .0 GR /SDCF Pounds /Hr. VAR. 0 FIRM NAME 80 Quemetco, Inc. 153 Skykomish, Town of PUGET SOUND AIR POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY' VARIANCE STATUS SUMMARY Period January, 1977 VARIANCE DATE LOCATION FROM STANDARDS APPROVED .Seattle Lead furnaces 2/21/74 Skykomish Refuse Site 12/18/75 156 Marine Disposal -Pier 35 Seattle 157 ASARCO, Inc. Ruston 159 E. A. Nord Everett 163 Western State Hospital Steilacoom Coal boiler 170 North Pacific Plywood Tacoma Solid Waste Transfer 1/15/76 Smelter emissions 2/19/76 Planer cyclone 3/18/76 5/20/76 Veneer dryers 8/19/76 171 North Pacific Plywood Graham 173 Snohomish Co. Rd. Dist.02 Kenmore 174 Northwest Hardwoods Arlington 176 Seattle Rendering Works, Inc. Seattle_ 177 Monsanto Industrial Chemicals, Inc. Seattle 178 Boeing King County Field Seattle 179 Scott Paper Company Everett 180 Puget Sound Plywood Tacoma 181 Buffelen Woodworking Co. Tacoma 182 Centrecon, Inc. 183 Washington State Soldiers Home 185 : Mutual Materials 186 E. 1. DuPont 188 U. S. Plywood 189 United Pacific 190 Mobil Oil Everett Orting Clay City DuPont Seattle Everett Tacoma Veneer dryers EXPIRATION DATE 12/31/77 STATUS Extension requested, EIS being prepared. 1/30/77 Extension requested., 8/ 1/77 Plant relocation being studied, change in design requi red. 12/31/80 Converter slag launder ventilation being installed. 3/18/77 Baghouse installed, in shakedown. 5/ 1/77 "Woodex" - pelletized wood fuel being tested, 11/30/77 Investigating building scrubbers similar to existing. 8/19/76 11/30/77 Investigating building a scrubber similar to Tacoma plant. Asphalt batch plant 8/19/76 Hog fuel boiler 9/16/76 Rendering plant 10/21/76 Vanillin reactors 10/21/76 Training fires 10/21/76 Hog fuel boilers 11/18/76 Veneer dryers . 12/16/76 Veneer dryers Sandblasting 11/18/76 11/18/76 Coal boiler 11/18/76 Brick kilns 12/16/76 Contaminated waste 12/16/76 Hog fuel boilers 1/20/77 Open burning 1/20/77 Gasoline Storage Tank 1/20/77 10 12/31/76 Extension requested. 7/31/77 Control equipment require- ments being evaluated. 10/21/77 New plant construction started, EIS completed. 7/ 1/77 Defoamer in production trial run. 10/21/77 On schedule. 5/31/77 Combustion tests completed; draft control installed. 11/18/77 Boiler inspected; draft • controls ordered. 6/30/77 Scrubber being rebuilt. 11/18/77 Baghouse ordered. 8/31/77 12/16/77 12/16/77 1/20/78 1/20/78 8/31/77 Boiler No. 1 being modified. On schedule. On schedule. Resolution No. 397. Resolution No, 398, Resolution No. 399. • PUGET SOUND AIR POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY VARIANCE APPLICATJONS PENDING Period January, 1977 VAR. # FIRM NAME LOCATION SOURCE SCHEDULED FOR HEARING 187 ( 80) Queiretco, Incorporated Seattle Lead furnaces Continued to 6/ 9/77 191 (153) Skykomish, Town of Skykomish Refuse site 2/17/77 192 (173) Snohomish County Road District No. 2 Everett Asphalt Batch Plant 2/17/77 Industrial Mineral Products Tacoma Copper Slag — — Processing Pending 11 • PUbET SOUND AIR POLLUTION CONTROL AGE! WORK SUMMARY BY COUNTY Period - Calendar Year 1976. KING KITSAP PIERCE SNOHOMISH. TOTAL . SOURCES REGISTERED Added 640 21 204 119 984 Deleted 784 23 239 137 1,183 Accumulated Total 1,067 91 408 302 1,868 VIOLATION NOTICES Outdoor Fire 53 30 110 57 . 250 Visual Standard 111 7 103 143 364 Particulate 47 0 25 30 102 Odor 28 0 1 0 29 Other 21 1 71 24 117 CIVIL PENALTIES Levied 165• 11 191 107 474 Suspended 5 1 7 9 22 Cancelled 5 4 5 2 16 Collected 131 5 556 95 787 Appealed 60 5 101 22 188 Pending 74 3 129 25 231 Total $ Amount Levied 96,400 Total $ Amount Collected 89,679 COMPLAINTS RECEIVED Outdoor Fire 156 19 134 . 132 441 • Opacity 251 6 17 85 359 Fallout 101 6 42 96 245 Odor 369 6 221 55 651 Other 78 0 5 27 110 VARIANCE APPLICATIONS Granted 5 Active 6 1 0 14 9 4 4 24 19 NOTICES OF CONSTRUCTION Approved 79 4 27 12 122 Rejected 3 0 0 0 3 $ Value Approved. 1,623,792 0 1,360,800 294,200 3,278,792 TAX EXEMPTIONS New Applications 6 0 11 1 18 Applications Approved 6 0 11 1 18 $ Value Approved 178,357. . 0 7,633,073 28,311 7,839,711 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENTS Received 5S 11 13 11 90 Reviewed 53 9 14 11 87 INDIRECT SOURCES Received 14 0 4 1 19 Preliminary Findings 13 0 3 . 0 16 Final Findings '15 / 0• 4 0 19 SOURCE TESTS . Particulate 6 0 5 2 13 12 TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL REGUL 1` FETING February 7, 1977 Page 4 Letter of Resignation, M. Catherine Harris, Conti n.ued Claim for Damages, Washi ngton Keenan Jr. r�. Mrs. Harris has indicated to Attorney Hard that this letter is all she is going to write and it is a final letter. MOVED BY VAN DUSEN, SECONDED BY TRAYNOR, THAT THE COUNCIL ACCEPT THIS LETTER OF INTENT AND DECLARE THE COUNCIL SEAT OPEN. 'MOTION! CARRIED. Councilman Hill announced that anyone interested in the position may submit a letter to the Council. He stated that all letters will be opened at the Committee of the Whole meeting of February 14, 1977. Attorney Hard stated that the person appointed to this position will be eligible for the pay increase. John McFarland, Administrative Assistant, explained the claim, involving a police matter, had been submitted to the City. He has discussed this with the City Insurance Broker who felt this was a question of legal liability rather than insurance indemnity. He recommended disallowing • the claim as the.City has met its legal obligations. MOVED BY TRAYNOR, SECONDED BY MS. PESICKA, THAT THE COUNCIL DENY THIS CLAIM FOR DAMAGES. MOTION CARRIED WITH SAUL VOTING NO. /3eattle MOVED BY HILL, SECONDED BY SAUL, THAT THE AGENDA BE AMENDED TO ADD V Rendering ITEM 7 -D (Seattle Rendering Works). MOTION CARRIED. Works RECE=SS: 8:15 P.M. - 8:25 P.M. Kjell Stoknes, OCD Director, explained that this item was just informatio;: to the Council regarding the results of the Environmental Impact Statement and the conditions that are going to be placed on the issuance of the building permit. There are nine conditions that the applicants have agreed to. The Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency states that the air cleaning equipment the Rendering Works is going to install will be effective, that is why 'smell'is not one of the conditions. Council asked questions concerning the air cleaning equipment and odors. Kjell Stoknes stated that the analysis received from the Air Pollution Control Agency was that with the added facility you would not be able to detect the smell at the property line. John Phillips, Attorney for the Rendering Works, explained some history on what has occurred. The impact statement was done as required. There are two major concerns with this facility; the stink and the looks (which go together) and the possibility of sewage water flowing into the river. The Department of Ecology is looking over the water flowing into the river and the Puget Sound Air Pollution Agency controls the smell issue. The Rendering Works is operating today within all of the City ordinances. The owner is spending over a million dollars to comply with the laws of the air pollution control agency, to improve the visual impact and the efficiency of the plant. The time delays that have occurred have cost the owner a lot of money. Now,contracts are running out and the owner has to get the equipment ordered and the plant builtimmediately as cost just keep going up. Councilman Hill again expressed concern over the possible increase in odor. Mr. Wesley Benefiel, Owner of the Rendering Works, stated that all he can do is go by the manufacturers and they say their equipment will do the job. Air Pollution Control agrees that the system will work. .Attorney Phillips stated that the Environmental Impact Statement was circulated to many businesses and citizens and only one letter was received hack. Mr. Benefiel will be after the manufacturer if their equipment doesn't do what they say. Also, the Air Pollution Control _ Agency. will continue to monitor any complaints. MOVED BY HILL, SECONDED BY SAUL, THAT THE MEETING RECESS FOR 10 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED. • Mayor Bauch called the meeting back to order -with Counci1members present as previously listed. MEMO R A N D U M CITY of TUKW LA OFFICE of COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 26 January 1977 PRELIMINARY TO: Fred Satterstrom FROM: Kjell Stoknes SUBJECT: Seattle Rendering E.I.S. - Thoughts on Final Decision. At this point we can identify which particular aspects of the Seattle Rendering Works new plant proposal will have negative impacts. The following is a review of negative impacts and potential methods of mitigation: 1. Noise: a. Impact: The only potential nuisance from noise will in all probability only be from construction related and company operated trucks. (Reference E.I.S. page 30.) b. Mitigating Require all truck traffic to use South 130th Place Measures: for access and egress to the property rather than the 56th Avenue South bridge way which goes through a residential area. Recommend the Public Works Director coordinate with King County and post a load limit on the bridge. 2. Soil Erosion: a. Impact: Where bare soils reach 3 - 5% in slope, localized . erosion and siltation will occur, which could be high in turbidity and enter the Green River. b. Mitigating Provisions should be made prior to construction for Measures: the trapping of storm water into a settling pond(s) to reduce the turbidity of the storm water to standards acceptable to the Department of Ecology prior to discharge. 3. Dust: a. Impact: Dust from construction related activities could exceed standards acceptable to the Puget.Sound Air Pollution Control Agency. b., Mitigating At such time as dust from this operation exceeds acceptable Measures: standards, watering, use of sawdust, or other mitigating measures,. will be required. All driveways and parking lots must be paved. Memorandum Page 2 Fred Satterstrom 26 January 1977 4. Traffic: a. Impact: Traffic from construction activities and plant operation could present hazards to the residential area on 56th Avenue South as well as cause a decline in the neighborhood due to reduced liveability. In addition, use of trucks on the narrow, old, wooden bridge presents potential hazards. b. Mitigating Truck traffic should be restricted from using 56th Avenue Measures: South as an access road to the Rendering Works. Load limits should be imposed and enforced. (Reference Item 1 above.) 5. Water: a. Impact: The present water supply is inadequate for emergency demand. (i.e., fire flow.) b. Mitigating The City is presently negotiating an agreement with Water Measures: District #38 to provide joint service to this area. The Rendering Works is to provide emergency demand water flow within 60 days of this agreement being finalized. (This assumes there is adequate waterflow between the two systems to meet fire flow requirements.) 6. Sewage: a. Impact: The site is being proposed to use two separate septic tank systems. One for water runoff and the other sanitary sewerage. This eliminates pollutants to a level acceptable to controlling agencies, however, not all pollutants. b. Mitigating The use of septic systems in these poorly drained soils can Measures: only be considered an interim solution. All attempts should be made to get this facility connected to the METRO sanitary sewerage system. At such time as this becomes feasible, the Rendering Works should cooperate to implement it. 7. Landscaping: a. Impact: The proposed plant (and therefore the feathers plant) will be partially visible from the west, a golf course open to public play, and could be offensive to some. b. Mitigating The applicant should be required to strategically locate Measures: redwoods along the riverbank along the length of the property to provide a visual buffer with the property to the west. The Rendering Works is to submit to the City a tree planting plan within 30 days of occupancy of the new facility and implement said plan within 60 days of City approval. The architectural review process of the C -M zone shall be used in the planting plan review. • • Memorandum Page 3 Fred Satterstrom 26 January 1977 8. Vegetation and Wildlife: a. Impact: No construction is proposed within 200 feet of the river. Clearing and grading in this area would have negative impacts on vegetation and smaller wildlife species. b. Mitigating No clearing or grading will be allowed under this permit Measures: for any area in a natural state within 200 feet of the Green River. 9. Existing Structures: a. Impacts: The Health Department urges that we require demolition of the existing rendering structure because of potential rodent problems. Also, the draft EIS states that the loss of open space on the site can be mitigated by requiring demolition of the existing structure once the new facility is constructed. The existing storage structure east of the feathers plant has many openings allowing free access to rodents. b. Mitigating The existing primary rendering plant will be required to be Measures: totally demolished and all materials disposed of properly within 60 days of occupancy of the new rendering structure. All rendering equipment is to be removed within 7 days of occupancy of the new structure to make it not useable for rendering purposes. A $7,000 demolition bond guaranteeing this should be required prior to issuance of a building permit for the new structure. The existing storage structure east of the feathers plant should have all openings closed by either walls, door, windows, vents or other appropriate method to minimize access by rodents to the interior of the structure. The King County Health Department should make periodic inspec- tions on rodent population and other health hazards. 10. Malodors: a. Impacts: Present odors come from both the primary rendering plant, which is being replaced and the feathers plant, which is not being replaced. (Reference EIS page 25 - 26). Potential impacts could result from human error or equipment breakdown in the new rendering facility and continued odor could continue from the feathers plant. b. Mitigating 1. New rendering plant - The air and odor pollution components Measures: of the continuous rendering system proposed have been noted to meet the rules and regulations of the Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency. This agency will also monitor violations and give citations when warranted. This should minimize human error and encourage preventative maintenance to promote the successful functioning of the equipment. • • Memorandum Page 4 Fred Satterstrom 26 January 1977 No dead animals are to be left outside of the negative air pressured building for any length of time. In addition, the existing feathers plant is to be upgraded to minimize malodors by implementing the following actions and times: 1. By March 31, 1978: All openings in the structure are to be sealed by walls, windows or doors. 2. By March 31, 1978: All odor bearing gases scrubbed with chemicals to reduce them to a nonobjectionable level consistent with Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency standards. 3. By March 31, 1979: Have total building under a negative pressure system that is 90% effective. Proposed decision by: Kjell Stoknes, Responsible Official Date KS /cw cc: John Phillips • MEMORANDUM gTV T Lq KW 11R. A OFFICE of COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 20 January 1977 TO: Kjell FROM: Fred SUBJECT: Responses to Comments on Draft EIS: Seattle Rendering File No. EPIC- SA -13 Robin Calhoun of John Graham & Co. has written responses to all comment letters on the Seattle Rendering draft EIS. I have reviewed her responses and generally concur with most of them. However, I did make a few changes which I thought might clarify the City's position on certain issues. One of these issues is the demolition of the existing rendering . facility following the construction of the new facility. Ms. Calhoun had indicated in one of her responses that it was doubtful if the City could require demolition of a structure which could be used for a legal use.' I took the liberty of revising her response to indicate that the City was considering requiring the demolition of said structure in order to mitigate certain environmental impacts. . I would like to meet with you sometime during the seven day period we are required to wait before making a final decision on the issuance of a building permit. At that time, we could iron out what mitigating measures are required to create . the least adverse environmental impact. I have several in mind. FS /cw Mr. Fred Satterstrom City of Tukwila 6230 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 Dear Mr. Satterstrom: January 12, 1977 ittt,„t� 30,, 1911 � Ot "NOM LETTER NO. 2 State of Mashington Department of Ecology Thank you for the opportunity for review and comment on the Seattle Rendering Works Incorporated Continuous Rendering Plant Replacement Facility, draft environmental impact statement. Your draft statement is an exceptional comprehensive and readable document and should serve the decision - making process well. We support and encourage this type of responsible impact statement preparation. To illustrate our commitment to this approach, enclosed is a copy of a final environmental impact statement for one of our programs. The author, Mr. Mitchell, would be glad to discuss or answer any questions you may have. Sincerely, Bert Bowen Environmental Review Section BB:bjw Enclosure cc: Dave Nunnallee Daniel J. Evans, Governor John A. Biggs, Director Olympia, Washington 98504 Telephone (206) 753 -2800 1 • • LETTER NO. 6 Seattle -King County /DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH Public Safety Building Seattle, Washington 98104 (206) 625 -2161 LAWRENCE BERGNER, M.D., M.P.H.' Director of Public Health Fred N. Satterstrom City of Tukwila Planning Division 6230 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 Re: Draft EIS -- Seattle Rendering Works Dear Mr. Satterstrom: We have reviewed the subject E.I.S. and have the following comments: January 10, 1977 ECEiVE JAN 13 1977 CITY OF TUKWILA 1. Fig. 31 erroneously indicates that the sanitary wastes will go into the process water treatment facilities. A septic tank drainfield system is proposed, but no site application has yet been submitted to our department for approval. While our regulations do not require sanitary sewers, we would encourage them if at all possible, particularly since the site may have the potential for flooding or a high water table during very high river levels. 2. The E.I.S. does not clarify the status of the abandoned facilities. This department would recommend that all buildings and structures no longer needed or in use be removed to eliminate harborage and food sources for rodents. Many of the buildings are old, in poor repair, and have an abundance of food sources. Although the rodent (rat) population has been greatly reduced in recent years, this has mostly been due to heavy use of rodenticides. If properly maintained, the proposed facility and improvements should greatly reduce their need. 3. In the past, we have received some complaints regarding odor from the site. (These have been referred to the Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency.) We are concerned with the present situation, and hope the improvements will solve this problem, although we have no way of evaluating how well they will work. cc: cc: W.F. Liening DISTRICT HEALTH CENTERS: CENTRAL NORTH 1000 Public Safety Building 1600 N. E. 150th Seattle 98104 Seattle 98155 625 -2571 363 -4765 Very truly yours, Ric . rd L. . ;"-NI . P . H . Chie Environmental Health Services EAST 15607 N. E. Bellevue - Redmond Road Bellevue 98008 885 -1278 SOUTHEAST SOUTHWEST 3001 N. E. 4th St. 10821 8th Ave. S. W. Renton 98055 Seattle 98146 228 -2620 244 -6400 SERVING: KING COUNTY 410 West Harrison St. P. 0. Box 9863 Seattle, 98109 (206) 344 -7330 KITSAP COUNTY Dial Operator for Toll Free Number Zenith 8385 Bainbridge Island, Dial 344 -7330 PIERCE COUNTY 213 Hess Building Tacoma, 98402 (206) 383 -5851 SNOHOMISH COUNTY 506 Medical- Dental Bldg. Everett, 98201 (206) 259 -0288 BOARD OF DIRECTORS . PUGET SOUND AIR POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY Mr. Fred N. Satterstrom City of Tukwila Planning Division 6230 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, Washington 98188 • LETTER NO. 3 410 West Harrison Street, P.O. Box 9863 (206) 344 -7330 Seattle, Washington 98109 January 4, 1977 ECEIVE JAN 1 01977 CITY OF TUKWILA Subject: Seattle Rendering Works Continuous Rendering Plant Replacement Facility Dear Mr. Satterstrom: We have reviewed the draft Environmental. Impact Statement for the proposed Seattle Rendering Works replacement facility. Our review and the comments based on it will be related only to the air quality aspects of the proposal. However, a more cursory review of the remainder of the document has led us to the conclusion that it is an unusually complete and well- written statement. The statement appears to be fully correct in its description of existing air quality,in, the air quality impacts that will result from the granting of a. building permit to construct the proposed facility, and in the technical details of the odor control systems. This Agency granted approval to install the system (in response to Notice of Con - struction and Application for Approval No. 1655) on December 27, 1976. Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the statement. Very truly yours, A. R. Dammkoehler Air Pollution Control Officer ARD:JRP:fch Bv. J . Pearson S1enior Air Pollution Engineer CHAIRMAN: Everett Foster, Alternate for Patrick J. Gallagher, Commissioner Pierce County; VICE CHAIRMAN: N. Richard Forsgren, Commissioner Snohomish County; Robert C. Anderson, Mayor Everett; Glenn K. Jarstad, Mayor Bremerton; Gordon N. Johnston, Mayor Tacoma; Gene Lobe, Commissioner Kitsap County; Harvey S. Poll, Member at Large; John D. Spellman, King County Executive; Wes Uhlman, Mayor Seattle; A. R. Dammkoehler, Air Pollution Control Officer. 1 • TO FRED N SATTERSTROM Planning Supervisor Office of Community Development 6230 Southcenter Boulevard Subject: Seattle Rendering Works 13601 Beacon Coal Mine Road South. Dear Mr. Satterson: On reading the Environmental Impact Statement I feel several thing have not been fully accounted for. • LETTER NO. 5 �ECEIYE ink JAN 3 1977 Ili Q'11f Of 1OVYMA No. I - The location of proposed new plant is directly inbetweeri a large U shaped bend in Green River, located in a narrow river valley with hills to the east & west rissing 200 feet above sea level (Proposed site is only 15' - 22' feet above sea level) with openings to Boeing Feild on the north and Renton -Kent to the south. Also lieing along side City of Tukwila. The winds blow eiather from the north or south using the valley as a funnel to distribute the odors and gases from the plant. Depending upon the air currents the residents on both hills are in the path of a chimney like'effect distributing the hazards upon us, which amounts to a great deal of fall out. Also with the soil conditions that the plant is to be built upon, any accidental waiste discharge or sewage line breakage or back up is directed into the Green River. Soil samplings show soils are sub par and specific designs have to be done to bring area up to minimum standards. A pit is to be dug which will be 3 to 4 feet below sea level or water table. The plant being only 15 feet above sea level there is little room for error in calculating our winter flood and extreme high tides. This alone should be enough to turn down a building permit. Number 2 - 4 days of air sampling - Aug 13 - 16 17 & 18 between 0800 and 1600 hours was highly inadequate. In this area you can get any air sampling you want, depending upon when you want to take it. I can not tell you the contenants of the air but if samples had been taken according to times of complaints to Air Pollution Agency the report would have been different. Friends, neighbors and family on the hillside have become ill, upon being subjected to the fall out, weather this was physical or physcological I don't know. Page 6 paragraph G points out continued use and risks of hazardous emissions from chemicals used in air and water. Paragraph A only states reduction in odorous gas and paragraph K- only reduction in malodors that poises threat to human health. Page 47 states long term inpact is continued emissions of odors and gases to atmosphere. Page 51 even with extensive control odorous gas will be created. Page 9 - impacts which cannot be mitigated - A. Some emission of odor bearing gases - B. Continued use of potentially harmful chemicals needed in air and water treatment. 2 • Odor bearing gasses will be scrubbed with chemicals before being realeased - what of the health problems incurred from a build up of these chemicals thru fall out even tho the odors have been camaflouged. Number 3 - Present utilities - fire dept. sewage & water etc are not capable of handling the proposed facility. Any increase in size will be done at taxpayers expense, while at the same time property values will be lowered. There can be no justification of allowing a plant of this type to be expanded next to a residential area. The stench created in this area last summer will take years to over come as far as selling a home to anyone who has smelled the area at its worst. An accident or some other disaster will soon be forgotten but not when you think of moving into an area where there is a possible reaccurance of last summer. Seattle Rendering Plant is a 24 hour a day 7 day a week operation allowing little time for shut down and maintenance. The soil sample, air sample, open pit sample, equip foundations, tank supports are all sub par. Even with the reputations of the impact authors some accidents are going to happen that are mans fault, and no where in the impact statement was natures elements taken into consideration. The impact statement did not include any medical report as to the dangers from a build up of gases & chemicals from fall out. A complete medical survey is a must if your impact statement is to be correct. There was no provisions for storage of hazordous material - chemicals, and no assurances that more new onbs won't be added. All references to improving quality of air to inrich environment must also have a note stating that the existing rendering plant is responsible for the reduction of quality. The new plant will not correct or eleminate the present situation only partialy correct there own errors. I would also like to remind you that in the past the management of Seattle Rendering Works has shown no consideration for there neighbors and that the only thing they were interested in was a dollar. The Air Pollution Agency would not or could not inforce any laws requiring them to stop air polluting. If this new plant is allowed to be built it will be here for many years reducing this area to that of a slum, and rather than add 15000.00 yearly to the tax rolls you will be elliminating much much more. Sincerly Vern Phillips 12613 Beacon Ave Seattle Wash 98178 SP2 2186 P.S. If the plant is allowed to proceed there should be a clause that Seattle Rendering Works are fineancly responsible to the citizens of the community every time they pollute the air. • • I 71,1•N NavG Su?ci?...v LETTER NO. 5 ttt‘i 30 -19-11 0LC Cr._ 0 C Co vin_YY_I 7.1:2Q air- h) ca A ciltra ofa.v11,2 01' tA_L- 1 e c-r- ST.V20 e e Al 1 V__g G_e e.r t "3_9\ va_o e_ ez_t Vo-ee gtall ijL)wU#eI oe. est) d rO. U.) 0 r ICS -t 3(00 L -ee.f}COA C_OA I re, I: 0011., JQtTLL1 L r cve_ S la_ 9 e-4 ^-8 eroJ k r%). `is c 1 -c)-C-11 cl Lk.t) 4 /1)._ rroJ rlje r" V. .2 0 e t A 6 sa e s i • C Ry R clts s e. vo 1.5-.-19-,59- I e )0:70■3-e. Ser. \ eue_l t:A3't-Vin cOR_eA.).-voets -T" o ---a,oe i.) 11-) --IMNP YU OC# )(1•1)j_ .-ro \NC S 001-1N MS0 Cto \ A I bv..) de.. 1,c 4_.5 . ov, vt) 0 r-t- c) 12- 0 L) S Pu &A) t —cm ‹1.0 f s cANK) e.S c4-e■WN ■3".? 0 Po k e rel ku-A, s _TT e es ,t) 1.0 01- -j(5 $A-t_y\_ 0 _ruey cif .-k TL e t-1 A -a Ar-J u on) q 6:r-e4+ -DeAi r c a I‘ Lit, gi io _ e_ t (DayaJ A c;vos k _±. ? ■Aft.)-k- I's —to e I V U ?oy0 ) K1n)y 1= lCC C SA- e 5Lk.rar• e or- Sewpk 1e L e, �re A ICA-c e CI) e" to C_ LA_p 15_ d,rcc4oC ►v4-o 'Vk Gr'ecvv Jet �c9� 1, �✓' h-, g - 6/0ctS SIN o J So.As Are G1/4, ? rJ S ce e C ► C de S 19 ry S u_e -� o toe —ct o_rv_C.-_ =-�-.o �b_r_� i� r e () -CO Y i nJ l vri u w, p;* d0 ot w e 3 `!-o Pe-?b e l a w 5 e sa_ CaQ ) e- b r w w r `1- +n b l e —T ke � ► r<it 10 o; ry el o \ .y Fee l- + =1boue Se:ta Level - T►•ere is l :4412, it or e. r- r-or va�;A)CI CD Lk-) ¶loo E1,\) C q(Cul :de S S W I o vv e S b. owl 1 e_ e_vA) 1-0 • _ —rt.) r CowhJ A 6 v cl ►vv ¢ w._ s 1'7 + 18 6e +7...weerl o Boo pod f (voo 4-►od rs w w5 ►-� 1 �v tiw �� gv w `I �. ' r h� sT t. ► 5 A re rq� you eat—u_ ./q/r, S�a� -►,_R C; ►'ti y 0 Lo 4.4J1- de�P�d,.c�c c� po�1 cuhPn1 y -o_o_ 4.1 -hi Ke.- .:.!?` -_ -- -- .Q v_O _riot * 1 you e_ Cov4e").is446 o %� e __ !_CL_. b u?'�__i� -_ S �l_►7._P 1..e_5 h_a_c�___.l7 _e e_vJ_ T KI_IG p �J AC.Cc J i i c, 1 _Q -r-v, 5 O F C Oh� Q tc�!! JS_ � �Lo- �.�.v. ►A vtJ- - l� e ►U _y Ne►c kborS 0.)4f 1 -om /I ©K.) '-T'4.ig 1-'I S c�Z hwJ - b_cc 0 r►-, e i 1 I L e o ►O 6 e_•_ y___s_0 -6 « . - �- -?�e_ _ rn // _ 7J;5 WAS ?AySrclo o r PAy,s'C641/Csi .C. I 0/0,04 lC w o w . - - - -- - ?ArATrA G Fo /4.)4S co- CorJil dUPGA Use A!Jcl_.- _1Z;S_k_5 __4 _ 1/q 2 a rdQas /71c5,5!_odet.5 m C is,9 /S C04 -A • 3 • • re_ vc-1/PPO _Q iorous Vs igifici Pprklyrafil - 0,,K4ty_ recto c..4 toK) irn a I acio rs III 4- o tses -r- r --ry 7Lexii-R, • — P I N e 17 54-A t o r,r7 in.710,2cy- S Corti:1i nJu* g e/_/ 55. Litt.t.S_ clor.S_. ALA.Ld 12t_s_f 5 _71-4 Pri o_SV he e 5 Kit) Lka■Ay_t_ e_gl erosi.ue Co vt)i-ro ( Odor-0:0,c _ be re a egrovo-1 be 1-17,1i7,41.1 stv' sl___Gg _S 2b i/grmAi CAorn,ja • roeeded _4,k) M id niiCi4 Is b-ePor-22 b-e t:roci re I — 4 .04' -Tfin e 1,1.0.44170A t-vo c r b_oj o s e evv ou--\-- 0,210i.s_ b_e e rrt Olou e .1 %les -e Cie • itie) e/IP 8_44 4,9,J/4 S cie r cc, e r-e e 5 e /".) 6 10-C Clow re _II 4- --17 X _P _•51 e r 5 e5c_P e KIS Lo ,k_%21,e_. '1-7 t r4 v4 ius.&iii Vo-e_ o LA.) e re d. oP P/0/171 or —ryPe +o exPiOcieel toe Yi • _ reS___Itted:e■ELIL e 7A e 51e,ex4 CreqAo/ / Alre4 sopn,r7er- Y-tei Ke Veigts our,- e 0 e )15 5e_11111) 1 A- t_ '1-3y, 0 e 6 /72e/t9(27 -7- e €41 Cc • • • tL.ptJQe OVUeti y --nA. „:0 p OL) ■ I PU r_e 11. e .5 po SS Lft_ r-e--4ccc)e-',9,-Oce 5u■-y, met^. • Se ,,z) e vt.)cle c_t_vu -P s 4 -y_ Wee .IC 4.1 iyA/raVetrin.riC-e- pez 21/ ahio7g/e_7 -rardic 5,.epor45 grt /1/ S-4/0 pg.- 17 �_u_ _ L/7 ail 5-0/29,0/ c, ;9 _ o),/J 4 41 045/ e-d -e 14 4& LpOL ./1‘4100-6 so >lei e e s_ 4/.e. _177/15 c k e og _S _e) vvie pt.) 1- ) 5 11) r --t- ice in)46 QovvS.1442 r 1 v-v‘ a.c_.4. 4-errt ■ Yk.) dt vo- VI kJ./ riles:Lc...4Q. YLeS) e o -rhe taeti okeQs Fr�- ■ 6 a ? 0 P AS cs.S & Cke vv. :C 4 tS E F c-o_v:r..9_1,Q.A- C. __VTled Ca L..) S ■.1 Q Ouse- v-w-N.e A CA- S4 4-4--evr,0 ».f\ -I 5 Ape Co.rrec_A- LikYlks rOo r- va-cre_ 1,1 tti o g_5_Sur4rOc-PS Tit rnort )1) ec.c.) e s LA-) ovt.1 10,e ri cidcd, 6.3s..s_s_271. 0 . .Nro 3 0 A if 6 _ 17) c.t‘ eN) yyt.erJ4 1\ IS 0 \'1 A e v1) oe 64-041A/el VNA-k- e NrektMar■i.)ek R1valirt Is ■e•eq.o,rs 1)1.-e Coe- 't clu ,*(3,,,) 0 c 3 A k/13 e Lt.) 4-kit- rk.1 e 6 r e fern , edigie -r h "prei egji e•--0 to y ? - :A 1 r • 1 uuooka A o I f_ 'to reryl 1:rOd you -1-64 fre.)- P4,54 e /77/9/7/<2,?,77,-,e%1 eel°, s /I/0 e 0 A.)5 ; 4.4; ',a A-or ff/e/i4,40,.s -1.6 4 1 - 1 1 e Okt) y t.Ne y (.4) erg, ot.){ er e12,4-e d yi.) j qs, *-71.kg Roltu--ho,) 1e&jCi _ •c-,L3 Lw 1 d Cool ro t ■ro.e-pr-c- e._ ±ty Ro tt u-k;y00.1 . C s vvek.ki R ‘yx is A Lu-e by 61)%. I 4- _ \\_ 10_32 ‘7, e rv_y _ 4ite -7-17.0-i .o r / //Oil P.W1/0/- 1-4A/h/ 40// 15-000 yekirly t7i TThe -1- ocw b e e //,:i17 en c% hza_c-4 teL)C. Pr- Li 2A_://p. - /026 /3 Oevconl 59##/e 045 A ?V 7if 540.4,72/er4 PT-5i JP -I e "Seec Proced ,s4c.,/c/ ,29 .7/ _ _s7e.zyg/e ec.)0(fics r-e _ 61 e srke o _P e 0 121 Pv, E 71-1;le —7—he y #074 -/-4 Pi.4 • LETTER NO. 4 OF THE CITY OF RENTON 7 MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON, WASH. 98055 2 o CHARLES J. DELAURENTI, MAYOR • PLANNING DEPARTMENT A <4, 235 -2550 O,P�T fD SF PI GO0 Fred N. Satterstrom City of Tukwila Planning Division 6230 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 December 23, 1976 1;6 1% 0 0, i3OC� • RE: DRAFT EIS -- SEATTLE RENDERING WORK Dear Mr. Satterstrom: The City of Renton has reviewed the abovementioned docu- ment and wishes to express the following concerns: 1. It appears that Shoreline Management juris- diction would apply, even though the proposed building area is beyond the 200 foot limit, (reference the Merckle vs. Port of Brownsville, State court decision). 2. In relation to general public interest and welfare, other site locations should be con- sidered as an alternative to the existing site selection. This could eliminate problems with adjacent land uses, upgrade the Green River water frontage, and consider a site with better soil conditions and load bearing capacities. 3. It is stated that the new plant will be "visible from the west and could be considered offensive by some." Alternative exterior building material, other than a metal building, should be considered as a mitigating measure. Also, landscaping adjacent to the building and proper exterior building color would help reduce the visual impact. 4. Additional landscape /screening should be incor- porated to reduce the potential impact of alter- ation of vegetation and wildlife habitats plus aesthetic amenities to the community. Fred N. Satterstrom December 23, 1976 Page Two 5. Removal and demolition of the old plant should be required to mitigate the loss of open space and provide improved visual amenities to adjacent property uses and improvement along the Green River waterway. 6. As an alternative it might be feasible for the City of Tukwila to acquire this site and extend the Foster Golf Course. Thank you for the opportunity to review this document. Please contact ifs if we can be of further service. Very truly yours, Gordon Y. Ericksen Planning Director JAL:ms Joan A. Lankford Assistant Planner/ Landscape Architect • JOB TITLE: Seattle Rendering Works JOB NUMBER: 76111-00 TO: Fred Satterstrom, Planning Supervisor ADDRESS: Office of Community Development 6230 Southcenter Boulevard CITY: Tukwila, WA 98188 REPLY TO 1110 Third Avenue Seattle, Washington 98101 ❑ 329 F Street Anchorage, Alaska 99501 WE ARE FORWARDING THE FOLLOWING: gJ ATTACHED ❑ UNDER SEPARATE COVER ❑ Drawings ❑ Samples El EIS ❑ Specifications ❑ Request for Proposal ❑ ❑ Photographs ❑ Change Order ❑ ❑ Shop Drawings ❑ Equipment Submittals ❑ DRAWING NOS. C EAES TITLE OR DESCRIPTION, DATE SIZE 8 Seattle Rendering Works, Inc. Continuous Rendering Plant Replacement Facility Draft EIS —X REMARKS: DELIVER VIA: Mail SIGNED: cm • DATE: R. C. Calhoun ❑ NON - REIMBURSABLE ID REIMBURSABLE ❑ BILL ADDRESSEE ® BILL CLIENT ❑ BILL OTHER . December 17, 1976 TRANSM ITTAL JOHN GRAHAM AND COMPANY ARCHITECTS • PLANNERS • ENGINEERS • SEATTLE RENDERING WORKS, INCORPORATED CONTINUOUS RENDERING PLANT REPLACEMENT FACILITY Environmental Impact Statement • City of Tukwila Office of Community Development • December 9, 1976 • • • • • • • • • • TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page Introduction 1 • Distribution List 3 Summary 0 5 I Description of the Proposal 11 II Existing Environmental Conditions and The Impact of the Proposal on the Environment 23 III The Relationship between Local Short -Term Uses of Man's Environment and Maintenance and Enhancement of Long -Term Productivity 39 IV Irreversible or Irretrievable Commitments of Resources 41 V Alternatives to the Proposal 43 VI Adverse Environmental Impacts Which may be Mitigated 47 VII - Unavoidable Adverse Impacts 51 iii • • • • • • LIST OF EXHIBITS I Legal Description of Site 'II Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency Notice of Construction and Application for Approval III Department of Ecology — NPDES Permit Application IV National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit V List of Elements of the Environment VI Soils Report VII Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency — Variance Permit VIII Odor Survey by Food, Chemical and Research Laboratories, Inc. IX Odor Abatement Program and Schedule X Water Right Claim iv • • • • • • • INTRODUCTION A. ACTION SPONSOR AND NATURE OF PROPOSAL The action sponsor is Seattle Rendering Works, Inc. The proposed action'is for issuance of a building permit and other necessary permits for construction of a new continuous rendering plant to replace a currently used facility which, due to its nature and age, is unable to meet existing air quality rules and regulations. The project is located at 13601 Beacon Coal Mine Road South approximately 800 feet south of the intersection of 130th South and South 56th in the City of Tukwila, Washington. B. LEAD AGENCY The lead agency for this action is the City of Tukwila. The Office of Community Development is responsible for preparation of the draft EIS and compliance with SEPA regulations. The responsible official is Kjell Stoknes, Director of the Office of Community Development. Contact Person: Fred N. Satterstrom, Planning Supervisor Office of Community Development 6230 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 (206) 242 -2177 C. AUTHORS AND PRINCIPAL CONTRIBUTORS TO DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATMENT W.W. Benefiel — President, Seattle Rendering Works, Inc. Project Background Robin C. Calhoun — Director of Environmental Studies, John Graham and Company; General Environmental Analysis, Natural, Physical and Human Environment Lee Johnson Michael Runyon Tom Bekey President, Food - Chemical and Research Laboratories, Inc., Odor, Water Quality, Noise, Traffic, Utilities - Garwest, Inc., Plant Design and Engineering - Rittenhouse - Zeman and Associates, Geology, Topography, Soils 1 D. OTHER LICENCES /PERMITS REQUIRED In addition to a building permit, the project will require a grading and fill permit from the City of Tukwila, an electrical permit from the State of Washington, plumbing and sanitary sewerage permits from King County, a Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Permit, and approval of the Department of Ecology for modification or new construction related to an existing National Pollution Discharge Elimination System permit. E. LOCATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT DATA Much of the background data pertinent to this draft Environmental Impact Statement, including maps, plans, records, and related permit information can be reviewed at the Office of Community Development, 6230 Southcenter Boulevard in Tukwila. F. COST TO PUBLIC FOR COPY OF DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT $4.75, including exhibits. G. DATE OF ISSUE OF DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT December 9, 1976 4 4 4 4 4 0 4 4 4 0 • • • • • • • • • DISTRIBUTION LIST Office of the Governor Legislative Building Olympia, Washington 98504 Department of Ecology Dennis Lunblad, Head Environmental Review Olympia, Washington 98504 Puget Sound Council of Governments Brian Beam, Environmental Planning Division Grand Central on the Park Seattle, Washington 98104 Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency A:R. Dammkoehler, Air Pollution Control Officer 410 West Harrison Street P.O. Box 9863 Seattle, Washington 98109 King County Land Use Management Division Edward B. Sand W -217 King County Court House Seattle, Washington 98104 Kent Planning Agency James P. Harris, Planning Director P.O. Box 310, City Hall Kent, Washington 98031 Renton Planning Department Gordon Ericksen, Planning Director 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, Washington 98055 Walter Jaspers U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region X 1200 6th Avenue Seattle, Washington 98101 Emil Jensen Department of Social and Health Services P.O. Box 1788 Olympia, Washington 98504 Bill Boxter Department of Natural Resources Public Lands Building Olympia, Washington 98504 3 Dr. Richard Wade Seattle-King County Health Department 903 Public Safety Building Seattle, Washington 98104 John J. Fotheringham South Central School District #406 4640 South 144th Seattle, Washington 98168 Gary F. Kohlwes Renton School District #403 435 Main Avenue South Renton, Washington 98055 Wes Benefiel 5111 South 163rd Place Seattle, Washington 98188 Ben Aliment Foster Golf Course 13500 Interurban Avenue Seattle, Washington 98168 Vern Phillips 12613 Beacon Avenue South Seattle, Washington 98178 Florence Delaurenti 12617 Beacon Avenue South Seattle, Washington 98178 Thelma Larson 12522 51st Avenue South Seattle, Washington 98178 John Yates 13325 56th Avenue South Seattle, Washington 98168 4 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 • • SUMMARY A. THE PROPOSAL Seattle Rendering Works, Inc. proposes to construct a replacement for its existing rendering plant. The existing plant has been in operation since 1942 for the purpose of manufacturing and processing meat meal, fish meal, feathers, and tallow at a volume of approximately one million pounds per week. Due to its age and to existing government standards, the project sponsor proposes to abandon the facility upon completion of the replacement plant. The new • facility has been designed to improve product quality, operational effi- ciency, and to incorporate an air pollution control system which will eliminate the discharge of offensive odors in compliance with applicable rules and regulations including Regulation I (Section 9.11(a) and 9.12) of the Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency. The new plant facility will also employ primary, secondary, and tertiary treatment of effluent to • assure that untreated pollutants are not discharged to surface waters. • • • • • • The total gross area of construction related to the replacement facility will be approximately 20,000 square feet, including 8,640 square feet for the plant, 10,000 square feet for paved parking, loading and traffic areas, and 1,536 square feet for a new office building. The processing facility will be contained in a single story, metal frame structure with adjacent silos and tanks. The proposed facility is expected to cost $1,100,000.00 and will support approximately 30 employees. Potential plant capacity will be increased by approximately 21 percent or to a volume of 1.21 million pounds per week. The proposed plant will be located on approximately 1 -3/4 acres of a 12 acre site east of the Green River between the river and the BNSF Burlington Northern Railroad in the City of Tukwila, Washington. The project site is zoned M -1 (light industrial). B. DIRECT AND INDIRECT IMPACTS 1. Direct Impacts Resulting from the Proposal A summary of those aspects of the physical and human environ- ment directly altered by the proposal or that will continue to be affected because the project is basically a continuing use are as follows: a. Earth: Compaction and overcovering of soils for con- struction of facilities; slight alteration in topography due to required cut and fill; increased erosion potential during construction. 5 b. Air: Reduction in odorous gases emitted to atmosphere to levels which meet standards and regulations. c. Water: Continued withdrawal of surface waters for.pro- cessing; some alteration in runoff quantity and quality due to impervious surfaces; continued discharge of treated effluent into subsurface drain system; improved treatment of storm and wastewaters in compliance with existing regulations. d. Flora /Fauna: Some reduction in habitat due to loss of vegetation will result in reduced number of species currently on the site. e. Noise: Increase in on -site noise levels during con- struction; continued traffic noise during operation; reduction in on -site plant noise levels following construction due to enclosure of sources. f. Land Use: Continued commitment to use of site for manufacturing. g. Risk of Explosion /Hazardous Emission: Continued risk of hazardous emissions from chemicals used in air and water pollution cleanup systems; reduction in risk of boiler upset due to improvement in technology employed. h. Transportation /Circulation: Increase in short -term con- struction related traffic volumes; continued generation of traffic due to employee and product trips. i. Public Services: Possible need for improved fire flow. j. Utilities: Improved on -site . wastewater treatment; con- tinued need for other utilities with minor alterations to service new plant. k. Human Health: Reduction in malodors emitted to atmos- phere. Reduction in rodent population due to total enclosure of plant and improved housekeeping. 1. Aesthetics: Addition of man -made structures visible to public and concommitant reduction in open space on the site. m. Revenue /Employment: Loss of 8 full -time employees from plant related work force; increase in tax and sales revenues in support of public services and facilities. 2. Indirect Impacts Resulting from the Proposal Indirect impacts associated with the proposal and interactions which could result are as follows: 6 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 • • • • • 0 • a. Earth: Increased erosion potential during construction could result in significant siltation during periods of rain. If silt loads increase substantially, aquatic environments can be drastically affected through habitat destruction and suffocation of organisms leading to popu- lation decreases; overcovering of soils can alter the quantity and quality of surface waters by reduction in natural drainage. Significant increases in quantity affect flooding and decreases in quality of waters from contaminated human uses (oil, grease, sediments) affect surface and ground water quality which in turn affects aquatic and terrestrial productivity. b. Air: Decreases in the levels of odor bearing gases emitted to the atmosphere should provide substantial indirect benefits to those living and working in the area including increased livability; increased utility of land; reduction in annoyance; increased property values; reinforcement of use of adjacent lands for residential and recrea- tion purposes. The possibility of an improved local environment could also spur additional growth of such uses and might have some effect on the local population base. c. Water: Improved wastewater (storm and sanitary) treat- ment and retention of effluent waters prior to discharge into the ground will reduce contaminants entering the water regime thereby improving associated aquatic and terrestrial productivity. d. Noise: Reduction in long -term on -site noise levels will be beneficial to the health and welfare of those working in the area and will reduce the potential for long -term conflict with adjacent land uses. e. Flora /Fauna: Reduction in on -site habitat will place additional stress on other off -site habitats by increasing the demand for use by displaced species and eventually there will be an incremental reduction in the affected populations. f. Land Use: The long -term continued use of nearby areas for residential and recreation uses should be enhanced due to odor reduc- tion to nondetectable levels. g. Population /Housing /Human Health /Recreation: The over- all improvement in the human environment due to control of odors could have a growth inducing effect on the area. Such growth should tend to be stabilizing rather than detrimental. C. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED AND ASSOCIATED IMPACTS The major alternative considered is that of no action" including abandonment of the site as a rendering facility or modification of the existing plant for future use. A second alternative consists of on -site alternatives for placement of the facilities and facilities configuration. A summary of associated impacts for each follows: 1. "No Action" - Abandon Site a. Beneficial Impacts: Improved local air quality; reduc- tion in local traffic volumes; reduction in use of nonrenewable energy sources; reduction in water consumption; return to natural water quality and quantity conditions of site, maintenance of existing topography, soils, flora, and fauna; reduction in land utilization of the site; removal of on -site use of chemicals and associated risks; improvement in livability due to removal of odors from local atmosphere; and removal of structures from public view. b. Adverse Impacts: Loss of waste recycling facility from region; increased regional health hazards; increased need for sanitary land fills or other methods of disposal in region; loss of services to police; economic loss to community and region in terms of employment, tax revenues, and materials purchased and sold; potential realization of impacts similar to those now felt due to the fact that current zoning would permit other manufacturing on the site; loss of significant quantity of end products consisting of high protein food additives for animal feed stock. 2. "No Action" - Modify Existing Plant Modification of the existing plant is thought to be function- ally inferior and economically prohibitive as a method for achieving the objectives of the. proposal. Additional adverse impacts include the proba- bility that plant emissions would be greater than those achievable under the proposal and may not be able to meet air quality rules and regulations. Other impacts associated with continued use of the existing facility are substantially the same as described under the section on "Existing Conditions ". 3. Alternatives on the Site Three configurations and two locations within the project property were examined prior to selection of the site proposed. Soils were limiting at other locations and other configurations and equipment were not found to offer improvements over the selected alternative. D. MEASURES PROPOSED TO MITIGATE OR ELIMINATE ADVERSE IMPACTS for: Mitigation and /or elimination of adverse impacts includes measures • Selection of site requiring minimal topographic change • Preloading soils to minimize settling • Use of selected soils to minimize sediment entering surface waters • Use of retention wells /settling ponds to contain runoff during construction 8 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 • • • • • • • • • Containment and treatment of runoff waters after construction to reduce water contamination • Treatment of effluent from processing stormwaters and sub- surface injection of treated waters to meet existing state and federal rules and regulations • Treatment of air contaminants to reduce odor emissions in compliance with existing rules and regulations • Reduction of on -site noise levels by building enclosure • Control of traffic flow through residential areas by specifi- cation of less hazardous routes • Specification of dust control strategies during construction • Future removal of existing plant to increase visual character, open space, and habitat of site. E. IMPACTS WHICH CANNOT BE MITIGATED Impacts which cannot be totally mitigated or eliminated include: • Compaction and overcovering of soils • Some alteration of topography • Some emission of odor bearing gases (nondetectable off -site) • Continued recharge of groundwaters from treated effluent and runoff • Reduction of habitat at selected site • Increased on -site noise levels during construction • Continued use of potentially harmful chemicals needed in water and air pollution treatment facilities • Short -term construction related increase in local traffic volumes • Visible structures open to partial public view • Loss of employment for some current employees. 9 • SECTION I DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL A. NAME OF PROPOSAL /SPONSORS The proposed action is the issuance of a building permit to Seattle Rendering Works, Inc. for construction of a continuous rendering Replace- ment Facility for an existing batch rendering plant together with paving for parking, loading and access, and a new office facility for plant management. i B. PROJECT LOCATION • • • • The proposed project will be located adjacent to the existing plant at 1360 Beacon Coal Mine Road South on approximately 1 -3/4 acres of a 12 acre site east of the Green River. The Plant site is situated between the river and the Burlington Northern Railroad in the City of Tukwila, Washington. The project vicinity is depicted in Figure 1 and the local project site is shown in Figure 2. For further reference a complete legal description of the site is, contained in Exhibit I. C. REFERENCE FILE NUMBERS OF OTHER AGENCIES INVOLVED Department of Ecology — Water Right Claims Registration Registry No. APR2175158760 NPDES Waste Discharge Permit, Permit No. WA- 000162 -7 Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency — Variance from Section 9.11(a) and 9.12 of Regulation I for Inedible Rendering Plant — Variance No. 176 D. PHASING OF CONSTRUCTION The proposed new rendering plant is expected to take approximately nine months to construct. Estimated completion and startup are scheduled for October, 1977. There are no plans for future phases of development. E. MAJOR PHYSICAL AND ENGINEERING ASPECTS OF THE PROPOSAL 1. Nature and Background of Existing and Future Plant Activities Seattle Rendering Works, Inc. was established approximately 35 years ago as a rendering facility for processing of meat, fish, shellfish, feathers, restaurant grease, fallen animals, and packing house offal. The facility services the western regional area of the State of Washington extending from southern Lewis County to the Canadian border and from the Cascade Mountains to the western border of the State. 11 • • 4.1 • • 0 •r, 0 I1 a 0 • New Buildings Existing Buildings Shoreline Management Boundary Revised / 1/1 Paved Area PIGOfl6 2 - PROJECT SITS HAP. • B.64 • • • • • • • • IRO The plant currently employs 35 full time people and operates on a 24 -hour basis. Its services include the removal and processing of approximately 1 million pounds per week of raw materials including 150,000 pounds of fallen animals, 150,000 pounds of waste feathers from the poultry industry, 200,000 pounds of fish scrap and shellfish waste, 100,000 pounds of packing house waste, with the remainder being restaurant grease and butcher house scrap. The facility receives its raw materials from 12 independent suppliers and via its own fleet of 22 trucks. Each fleet truck and indepen- dent supplier truck makes one round trip per day, with the exception of one barrel truck which makes two trips daily for pickup of raw fish. Seattle Rendering is the only plant south of Bellingham, Washington and north of Portland, Oregon presently handling feathers, fallen animals, fish scrap, and shellfish waste. These waste products amount to an animal poundage of 31.2 million pounds annually. Other services include 24 hour per day, 7 day per week pick up service for animals killed on highways in King, Pierce, and Snohomish counties. This is done at the request of law enforcement agencies in these counties and the Washington State Patrol. At the request of the State and County Health Departments the service includes pick up of animals in streams, rivers, lakes, and bays. The existing plant facilities layout is shown in Figure 2 and consists primarily of the existing processing plant, tankage, storage facilities, barrel scrubbing area, plant office, truck maintenance build- ing, parking and delivery areas, and effluent treatment facilities. In order to more fully understand the nature of these process activities, the following discussion has been included (EPA- 440/1 - 74/031- d, 1975) Rendering is a process to convert animal by- products into fats, oils, and proteinaceous solids. Heat is used to melt the fats out of tissue, to coagulate cell proteins, and to evaporate the raw material moisture. Rendering is universally used in the production of proteinaceous meals from animal blood, feathers, bones, fat tissue, meat scraps, inedible animal carcasses, and animal offal (the viscera and trimmings of butchered animals). The rendering industry consists of both off -site independent renderers and on -site or captive renderers. Indepen- dent renderers such as Seattle Rendering Works, Inc. reprocess discarded animal materials such as fats, bones, hides, feathers, blood, and offal into saleable by- products, almost all of which are inedible for human consumption, and "dead stock" (whole animals that die by accident or through natural causes). Captive rendering operations, on the other hand, are usually conducted as an adjunct to meat packing or poultry processing operations and are housed in a separate building on the same premises. Consequently, captive renderers produce almost all of the edible lard and 14 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 • • • $ • • tallow made from animal fats in addition to producing inedible by- products. Inedible rendering is accomplished exclusively by dry rendering where the raw material is cooked with no addition of steam or water. Rendering of animal by- product materials is one of the original recycling industries; it began as an industry over 150 years ago. During the past two decades the production of inedible tallow and grease (the major products of rendering plants) has increased from 2.3 billion pounds, worth $150 million in early 1950, to an estimated 5.4 billion pounds, worth $430 million for 1971 -72. This increase is largely caused by an expansion in livestock and poultry production. The increase resulting from increased plant efficiency is negligible. Renderers send out trucks daily on regular routes to collect discarded fat and bone trimmings, meat scraps, bone and offal, blood, feathers, and entire animal carcasses from a variety of sources: Butcher shops, supermarkets, restaurants, poultry processors, slaughter- houses and meat packing plants, farmers, and ranchers. Each day the rendering industry, including both on -site and independent plants, pro- cesses more than 80 million pounds of animal fat and bone materials, in addition to dead stock, that would otherwise have to be suitably disposed of to prevent its becoming a national public health problem. The independent renderer pays for the raw material he collects and he manufactures usable products, such as tallow for soap and for derivatives for the chemical industry, and meal and inedible grease for animal and poultry feed. Because of the perishable nature of the raw material collected, renderers must process the material without delay. This normally restricts the collection area to a 150 -mile radius around the plant. However, if the renderer is only picking up restaurant grease, which is more stable, it is possible that he may travel greater distances. Renderers are located in both urban and rural areas. The urban renderer normally has more modern equipment, shorter routes for pickup of raw materials, a better grade of raw materials, and high production rates that enable his operation to run more efficiently. The urban renderer usually has access to municipal sewers and has the option of either providing his own treatment system or buying into the municipal plant. The country renderer, on the other hand, normally has older equip- ment, longer routes, picks up dead stock, and has a lower capacity system. The location of the rural renderer does not permit him to tie into a sewer facility and, therefore, he normally has his own waste treatment facilities. PROCESS DESCRIPTION A general flowsheet of the processes of an inedible rendering plant is shown in Figure 3. The bulk material (offal, bones, and trimmings) collected by renderers is normally dumped into a bin from which it is conveyed to a grinder. Liquid wastes collected on the bottom of the pits are usually sewered, although in a few cases the liquid, if not an 15 PROCESSES WASTE WATER 1 1 RAW MATERIAL RECOVERY CRUSHING AND GRINDING COOKING AND MOISTURE REMOVAL DRYING LIQUID - SOLID SEPARATION MEAL GRINDING AND SCREENING BLENDING SOLIDS MEAL STORAGE SHIPPING HIDE CURING LIQUID GREASE CLARIFYING GREASE STORAGE SHIPPING ODOR CONTROL VAPOR _ CONDENSING TRUCKPLANT AND WASHING SANITARY FACILITIES MATERIAL RECOVERY SYSTEM TREATMENT SYSTEM -a. WASTE WATER FLOW PRODUCT AND MATERIAL FLOW Figure 3 — General Flowsheet of Operations for a Typical Inedible Rendering Plant 16 4 1 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 • • • • 0 • • • • excessive amount, is pumped on top of the materials being conveyed to the grinder or the cooker. In the case of poultry offal, it is not always necessary to grind the raw material before cooking unless it contains a large number of whole birds. Feathers, if they are not mixed with poultry offal, are dumped directly on a floor to allow excess liquid to drain off. Rendering plants normally process feathers separately from poultry offal. Oils are poured into receiving tanks and from there go directly to cookers. The process of rendering consists of two essential steps. First, the raw material is heated or cooked to melt the tallow or grease and permit the phases to separate and, in the dry inedible process, to evaporate the moisture. Also, the animal fibrous tissues are conditioned. The second step is a separation of tallow or grease from the solid proteinaceous material. Proper conditioning of the fibrous tissue is important to accomplish the second step efficiently. The product yields and process control of the coolers are very dependent on the nature of the raw materials. For example, the moisture content of raw materials ranges from 20 percent moisture for beef fats to 87 percent moisture for blood. Tables 1 and 2 give the percentage of yield of a number of common materials processed by independent rendering plants. The percentage of moisture, of course, can be calculated by subtracting the total percentage of yield of fat and solids from 100 percent. The current rendering plant operates as a batch system whereas the proposed replacement plant will operate as a continuous system. A brief discussion of the major aspects of each system is included to distinguish the following description of existing environmental conditions and impacts. Batch rendering, a dry process, is a cooking and moisture- evapora- tion operation performed in a horizontal steam jacketed cylindrical "cooker" equipped with an agitator. It is referred to as a dry rendering process because the raw material is cooked with no addition of steam or water and because the moisture in the material is removed from the cooker by evaporation. It is a batch process because it follows the repetitive cycle of charging with raw material, cooking under controlled conditions, and finally discharging of the material. The general practice in determining the end point of the cooking operation is by previously established cook cycles and by periodic with- drawal of samples by the operator to determine the consistency by touch of the cooked material. Temperature is used to follow the progress of the cooking. The temperature of the material being processed remains substan- tially constant until the moisture level has dropped to 5 to 10 percent. At this point the temperature begins to rise rather rapidly and the cooking process should then be stopped to prevent product degradation and odor problems. Throughout the cook, the jacket steam pressure usually is maintained constant, between 2.7 and 6.1 atmospheres (25 and 75 psig), although a few use a pressure as great as 7.8 atmospheres (100 psig) or a temperature of 170 degrees C (334 degrees F). 17 Table 1: Raw Material and Product Yields for Inedible Rendering by Type of Animal Table 2: Product Yields for Inedible Rendering by Type of Raw Material By- Products from Materials Product Yields Tallow and Grease, Percent Offal and Bone Tallow & Cracklings* By- Products from Animals per Head, kg (lb) Grease, Percent at 10 -15% Fat, Percent Percent Moisture 38 63 67 -69 40 -45 53 82 88 86 -88 Steers 41 -45 (90 -100) 15 -20 30 -35 45 -55 Cows 50 -57 (110 -125) 10 -20 20 -30 50 -70 Calves 6.8 -9.1 (15 -20) 8 -12 20 -25 63 -72 Sheep 3.6 -4.5 (8 -10) 25 -35 20 -25 40 -55 Hogs 4.5 -6.8 (10 -15) 15 -20 18 -25 55 -67 Broilers (offal & feathers) 0.45 (1) 4 26 74 -96 Table 2: Product Yields for Inedible Rendering by Type of Raw Material By- Products from Materials Product Yields Tallow and Grease, Percent Cracklings* at 10 -15% Fat, Percent Percent Moisture Shop fat and bones Dead cattle Dead cows Dead hogs Dead sheep Poultry offal (broiler) Poultry feathers Blood 37 12 8 -10 30 22 14 -- -- 25 25 23 25 -30 25 4 12 (meal) 12 -14 (meal) 38 63 67 -69 40 -45 53 82 88 86 -88 * Cracklings: the crisp residue left after removal of lard. Source: After Development Document for Effluent Limitation Guidelines and New Source Performance Standards for the Renderer Segment of the Meat Products and Rendering Processing Point Source Category, Environmental Protection Agency, 1975. 18 1 1 1 1 4 4 4 4 1 1 1 1 1 r 9 • The cooked material is discharged from the batch cooker into a percolation pan and left standing until all free - draining fat has run off. The solids are then conveyed to a press (usually screw press) to further reduce the fat content. Finally, the solids are conveyed to grinding and screening operations. Prior to 10 years ago, essentially all inedible rendering at indepen- dent rendering plants was conducted using the dry batch cookers. In recent years, however, a number of plants have replaced batch cookers with continuous systems because these systems offer inherent advantages: Improved product quality control; better confinement of odor and fat aerosol particles within the equipment, thereby requiring less cleanup; less space; and less labor for operation and maintenance. Also, continuous systems permit increased throughput and occasionally result in consolida- tion of two or more plants. It is currently estimated, however, that 75 to 80 percent of the plants still use dry batch cookers. In order to improve future product quality, plant efficiency and odor confinement, Seattle Rendering Works, Inc. has determined that a continuous rendering plant will be the most viable method of operation. Continuous rendering systems, as mentioned above, have replaced some batch systems. A continuous system has the ability to provide an uninter- rupted flow of material and produce a product of more constant quality. In addition, the residence time in some continuous systems is much less than in batch systems, ranging between 30 and 60 minutes; as a result of less exposure to heat, product quality is improved. An inherent disadvantage of the continuous system is that when a component breaks down, the entire plant is shut down. Hence, it is important that a thorough preventive maintenance program be rigidly followed to keep the plant in operation. Unlike batch systems, the manufacturers of continuous systems do not use the same basic design. Currently there are at least three major manufacturers of continuous systems being used by independent renderers. These three companies are the Duke continuous system, manufactured by the Dupps Company; the Anderson C -G (Carver - Greenfield) system, manufactured by Anderson -Ibec; and the Strata -Flow System manufactured by Albright -Nell Company. Seattle Rendering has elected to use the Duke system. The Duke system was designed to provide a method of cooking similar to that of batch systems except that it operates continuously. The cooker, called the Equacooker, is a horizontal steam - jacketed cylindrical vessel equipped with a rotating shaft to which are attached paddles that lift the material and move it horizontally through the cooker. Steam - heated coils are also attached to the shaft to provide increased heat transfer. The Equacooker contains three separate compartments which are fitted with baffles to restrict and control the flow of materials through the cooker. The feed rate to the Equacooker is controlled by adjusting the speed of the variable speed drive for the twin screw feeder; this establishes the production rate for the system. The discharge rate for the Equacooker is 19 controlled by the speed at which the control wheel rotates. The control wheel contains buckets similar to those used in a bucket elevator that pick up the cooked material from the Equacooker and discharge it to the Drainor. Next to the control wheel is located a site glass column which visually shows the operating level in the cooker. A photoelectric cell unit is provided to shut off the twin screw feeder when the upper level limit is reached. The Drainor performs the same function as a percolator pan in the batch cooker process. It essentially is an enclosed screw conveyor that contains a section of perforated troughs allowing the free melted fat to drain through as the solids are conveyed to the Pressor or screw press for additional separation of tallow. The Pressor is similar to any other screw press used along with a batch cooker to reduce the grease level of the crackling. A central control panel consolidates the process controls for the Duke system. The control panel houses a temperature recorder, steam pressure indicators, equipment speed settings, motor load gauges, and stop and start buttons, allowing one person to operate the Equacooker part of the Duke system. Detailed engineering plans and specifications related to the project are available for inspection at the office of the lead agency. 2. Process Design and Engineering Elements of Concern The primary sources of pollutants from continuous rendering plants are odor bearing emissions from the stacks and building and waste water effluents from the processing and boilers. The following description of the proposed treatment facilities is intended to generally describe how these pollutants will be handled. Exhibit II contains detailed information on the planned air pollution control systems and Exhibit III describes the effluent treatment planned. Additional engineering plans are available for inspection at the City of Tukwila. a. Air Pollution Control: The project will employ two odor control systems; one for treatment of stack gases and the other for containment and treatment of building odors. The process gas system will use an air condenser system rather than a water condenser system to conserve on water usage for cooling and to avoid discharge of the asso- ciated heated effluent. The air cooled surface condenser will use ambient air as a coolant. The air condenser employs fin tubes to extend the surface and increase the heat transfer area. Condensing steam has a large heat - transfer coefficient, and air a very small one. Therefore, air is placed on the fin side to the advantage of the large transfer area. Emission reductions of about 50 percent through sub - cooling of the condensate can be achieved. Further odor reduction of stack gases will be achieved through incineration using a boiler fire box which at sustained high heat (about 1200 degrees F) is capable of completely oxidizing odorous vapors. The 20 4 4 4 4 4 1 • • • combination of cooling and incineration can achieve an odor removal efficiency of 99 percent. The surface condenser - incinerator system which will be employed yields odor emissions of between 70 and 140 odor units (ou) per standard cubic foot (scf). This can be contrasted with an average of 50,000 ou per scf from the typical batch plant such as that now in use. The second odor control system to be employed is one which is designed to contain and treat odors escaping directly from the plant structure. The new plant will be equipped with a scrubber which uses a chemical scrubbing liquid to dissolve the gases in a selective solvent. The type of system to be used is a peroxide irrigated packed tower. General plant ventilation air and process exhausts will be contained within the building, which will be under negative pressure, and conducted into this system for treatment before they are discharged to the atmosphere. The condenser- scrubber system will reduce plant related odor emissions to less than 100 ou per scf under the manufacturers guarantee. b. Water Pollution Control: The existing plant is operated in accordance with effluent limitations as specified in their current National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Waste Discharge Permit, as shown in Exhibit IV. The new plant will, however, employ even more stringent controls through primary, secondary, and tertiary treatment of the waste water streams prior to discharge into a subsurface drainfield. Plant effluent will be collected in an equalization tank and then sent to a dissolved air flotation system. This system is, by definition, a primary treatment system which removes fine suspended solids, oil, and grease. At this stage of treatment there is approximately 60 percent suspended solids removal, 80 to 90 percent grease removal, and 35 to 70 percent nitrogen reduction. The sludge from the system is recycled through the rendering process and the remaining waters sent to the secondary treatment facility. This system uses an anaerobic filter which basically digests the organic nutrients within the influent stream. The proposed project will employ an anaerobic contact system, rather than a lagoon system, which consists of equalization tanks, digesters, gas strippers, and clarifiers. Overall reduction of 5 -day biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5) and suspended solids by 90 to 97 percent is achievable. Sludge is again removed from the system and recycled to the rendering process. Additional treatment (tertiary treatment) by use of a clarifier will be achieved utilizing alum and polyelectrolytes which act as coagulants further reducing suspended solids and grease. The final effluent treatment stage is disinfection through chlorination which is designed to achieve a 99.9 percent reduction in coliform content. After final treatment the water will be sent to storage tanks for use in plant and equipment maintenance and the remainder of excess water will be sent to a subsurface drainfield which has been designed to meet the requirements of the State of Washington Department of Ecology. 21 F. RELATIONSHIP OF PROPOSED PROJECT TO EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLANS AND ZONING REGULATIONS The project site is zoned M -1 (light industrial) and both the existing uses and those to be conducted in the proposed new facilities are permitted in this zone. The pKoposal is in conformance with the existing Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan. The Planning Commission has recom- mended, to the City Council, that continuous rendering plants of the type proposed be classified as conditional uses rather than outright uses in an M -1 zone. As yet, no action has been taken on this recommendation. However, any change in the Zoning Code will not be applicable to the proposed action. 1 1 1 1 1 22 • • i 0 SECTION II EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS AND THE IMPACT OF THE PROPOSAL ON THE ENVIRONMENT A description of the physical setting of the proposal and the land area to be affected are included in the following narrative to assist in understanding the environmental setting of the project. Exhibit V contains a complete list of the elements of the environment which are contained in the SEPA Guidelines (WAC 197 -10 -444) and adopted by reference by the City of Tukwila (Ord. No. 986, Section 2) . Those elements of the environment which will not be significantly affected by the proposed action (directly or indirectly) have been marked "N /A" (not applicable). Those elements of the environment which are known to be affected by the project (either beneficially or adversely) are discussed in greatest detail; while "potential" impacts are addressed at a level of detail which is considered to be reasonable. A. ELEMENTS OF THE PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT 1. Earth a. Existing Conditions: (1) Topography: The project site is located in a narrow river valley and is bounded by hills to the east and west which rise in elevation to over 200 feet. The entire project site (12 acres) varies in elevation from about 15 to 22 feet above mean sea level (USC &GS Datum, City of Tukwila, Section 14, TWP23, Range 4). (2) Soils: The location of the proposed new rendering plant on 1 -3/4 acres is generally flat and covered with 7 to 11 feet of soft or loose sand and silt. Subsurface soils investigations indicate the site is also generally underlain with sand (loose to dense). Further detailed information of surface and subsurface soils is contained in Exhibit VI, entitled Soils and Foundation Investigation Report Rendering Plant Addi- tions, Seattle Rendering Works, Tukwila (Rittenhouse — Zeman and Asso- ciates, October, 1976). These alluvial soils generally have a low bearing capacity, slight erosion hazard, poor internal drainage, and a high water table which requires much site preparation prior to development. (3) Geology: A complete discussion of the geologic history, surface geology, and associated characteristics of the project vicinity is contained in the "Data Inventory: Tukwila Planning Area" (City of Tukwila, 1975). Briefly the geologic character of the subject site is alluvium which was laid down in depths of over 100 feet by the waters of the Duwamish River after glacial retreat. Significant features of alluvium (primarily silt, clay with some peat) include poor foundation and seismic stability with low stable slopes. 23 b. Impacts: (1) Soils: The attached soils report (Rittenhouse — Zeman and Associates, 1976, Exhibit VI) indicates that in order to support building foundations, it will be necessary to improve the density of near surface soils. This is to be achieved through overexcavation, backfilling with sand and gravel, and compacting to at least 90 percent of laboratory maximum density. Preloading of the soil may also be feasible to achieve sufficient surficial soil density and preclude unnecessary settlement of structures. Following construction, structures and paving will cover about 20,000 square feet and will result in long -term removal of the underlying soils from productivity. (2) Topography: Existing land contours will be slightly altered by the required excavation, relocation, and fill of approximately 1450 cubic yards of earth for fill and 1695 cubic yards of earth from cut. (3) Erosion, Accretion, and Avulsion: Short -term construction - related erosion and siltation are possible as grading and fill operations are expected to occur during normally rainy months. To mitigate the potential wind or water erosion and deposition of silt, the project specifications will incorporate the recommendations of the soils report. Included will be specifications that fill to be placed on the site should consist of clean granular material containing no more than 5 percent fines and placed under supervision of a Soils Engineer. Following construction, no increase in wind or water erosion of soils is expected. (4) Geology: The compressive loads to be imposed by the proposed structures and preloading of soils are not considered to be such that the geology of the area will be significantly altered or adversely affected. 2. Air a. Existing Conditions: (1) Climate and Weather: The Olympic and Cascade Mountain ranges which border Puget Sound protect the area from cold arctic air and ocean storms. Maritime air, which enters from the south, tempers the summer and winter climate. Mean annual precipitation is 34 inches and occurs primarily as rain between October and March. Temperature ranges from 70 degrees during the summer to 30 degrees in the winter. Prevailing winds are channeled by the Olympics and Cascades and are northerly or southerly. Seasonal wind patterns are pronounced due to the presence of a semi - permanent low- pressure area off 24 41 41 1 41 1 • • • i • the Pacific Coast during the winter, which results in prevailing southerly winds. During the summer, prevailing winds bring Pacific air through the Straight of Juan de Fuca over the northern part of Puget Sound, and from the Grays Harbor area south of the Olympics to the southern part of the Sound. Diurnal variations in wind direction are most pronounced during the summer when daytime winds at the Seattle- Tacoma International Airport are typically northerly and the nighttime winds are predominantly southerly. (2) Air Quality /Odor: Malodors are the principal air contaminants occurring at the existing facility. These are organic in nature and include aldehydes, fatty acids, amino mercaptans and sulfides. The plant is currently operating under a variance issued by the Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency (See Exhibit VII) with scheduled compliance with existing measures for odor control to be achieved by October 21, 1977. Aldehydes and fatty acids are principal odorous breakdown products from fats; putrescence and cadaverine are two extremely malodorous organic nitrogen compounds associated with decaying flesh. Keratins, the primary constituents of skin, hair, feathers, etc. are the principal sources of sulfides and mercaptans. Odor threshholds are extremely low for some of the compounds and they can be detected in concentrations as low as 0.2 parts per billion. Typical threshholds are in the range of 0.2 to 20 ppb. Compounds with threshholds of this magnitude are trimethyl amine (0.21), ethyl mercaptan (1.0), hydrogen sulfide (4.7), dimethyl sulfide (2.5), and butryic acid (1.0). The existing plant cookers are the predominant source of emissions. Typical batch cookers release 250 -750 scfm of exhaust gases over the 2 to 4 hour cooking cycle, with a typical concentration of 50,000 odor units /scf. These cooker odors are currently being condensed by use of Hudson Engineering Company air condensers equipped with Intalox filled packed tower, irrigated with hydrogen peroxide solution to scrub any residual odors from the non - condensable gas. Another major odor source is the feather cooker dryer. A typical feather dryer emits 2,000 odor units /scf. These gases are scrubbed in a contact scrubber utilizing hydrogen peroxide as the oxidant. The odor reduction efficiency of this scrubber is about 99 percent which is typical for a device of this type. Exhibit VIII contains the results of a survey conducted in August, 1976 to qualitatively relate odor and selected air pollutant levels from the plant with air quality downwind of the site (Food, Chemical and Research Laboratories, Inc., 1976). And the odor abatement program and schedule presently in effect are shown in Exhibit IX. The Air Quality Data Summary for Counties of King, Kitsap, Pierce, and Snohomish (Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency, 1975) indicate that for other pollutants of interest as measured at the monitoring station at 10000 West Marginal Way S.W., no violations of the standards were recorded for suspended particulates, carbon monoxide, 25 nitrogen dioxide, or sulfur dioxide. However, the standard for hydro- carbons (0.24 ppm, 3 hour average not to be exceeded more than once per year) was exceeded 51 times. The existing rendering facility does not contribute to the hydrocarbon pollution problem of the area. b. Impacts: (1) Odor: As discussed in Section I.E., the proposed new plant has been designed and engineered to improve the air quality of associated manufacturing and to meet existing odor rules and regulations as specified by Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency. The air pollution control system to be employed is designed for high intensity odor control. The design standard established should reduce the odor source to less than 100 odor units per cubic foot. Such levels would not be detectable at any downwind receptor and no odors will be detectable beyond the site. Further detailed information is contained in Exhibit II which describes the pro- posed air quality control systems to be employed. (2) In conjunction with the above discussion of emissions, the new plant will be under negative pressure with all mal- odorous material stored within the building. Process vapors will be incinerated and all odor bearing gases scrubbed with chemicals to reduce them to a nonobjectionable level. The anticipated development should be of substantial improvement to the local area, and the resulting benefits are expected to generally improve the quality of the environment for present and future generations. 3. Water a. Existing Conditions: (1) Surface Water: The subject property is situated in the Green - Duwamish drainage basin and is bounded on the north, south, and west by the Green River which is also the principal source of water used in the existing manufacturing plant. Under their current Water Right Claim, as shown in Exhibit X, the Rendering facility has claim to 315 gallons per minute (gpm) for cleaning, cooling, and domestic supply and current use of water for plant operation is approximately 17 gpm. Plant effluent is not discharged to surface waters of the State. The existing plant is currently operating in compliance with the provisions of Chapter 90.48 RCW as amended and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendment of 1972 (P.L. 92 -500) and has a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Waste Discharge Permit, as shown in Exhibit IV. Additional information on surface water movement, runoff /absorption, flooding, and surface water quality and quantity, in the project vicinity, is contained in the "Data Inventory; Tukwila Planning Area" (City of Tukwila, 1975). 26 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 41 1 • • • • • • • • • Water quality of the Green River is 'classified as Class A by the Department of Ecology and its relation to existing standards is shown in Table 3. TABLE 3 GREEN RIVER, TUKWILA, WASHINGTON *1 — Meets Class A water standards 2 — Sometimes does not meet Class A standards 3 — Does not meet Class A standards. (2) Groundwater: Groundwater within the project vicinity is abundant and feeds directly into the adjacent Green River. Treated effluent from the existing plant is discharged to a subsurface drainfield and then through natural infiltration it reaches the ground- water system. It is expected that prior to reaching the ground- water table, additional reduction of pollutant levels would be achieved. No public water supplies from surface or groundwaters on �r downstream of the subject site are known to exist. Groundwater was located during subsurface investi- gations in October of 1976 at depths of about 13 feet. The water table generally fluctuates with variations in the river due to season, rainfall, or discharge from Howard Hanson Dam. In winter, the water table is at or near the ground surface. b. Impacts: (1) Runoff /Absorption: Placement of buildings and paved areas on the site will alter the local drainage patterns and absorption rates. Stormwater will be conducted to a collection basin and then directed into the effluent treatment system before it is returned to the ground. This would diminish the natural entry of stormwater into the groundwater system. Impoundment and treatment should reduce the proba- bility of surface contaminants entering existing watercourses. The rate of discharge of water into the subsurface drainfield will be controlled so that it would not be substantially different from that currently being experienced from use of the present plant operation. 27 Temperature Dissolved Oxygen pH Coliform Turbidity Lead Concentra- tion Relation to Standards* of State of Wash. Dept. of Ecology 2 1 1 3 2 1 *1 — Meets Class A water standards 2 — Sometimes does not meet Class A standards 3 — Does not meet Class A standards. (2) Groundwater: Groundwater within the project vicinity is abundant and feeds directly into the adjacent Green River. Treated effluent from the existing plant is discharged to a subsurface drainfield and then through natural infiltration it reaches the ground- water system. It is expected that prior to reaching the ground- water table, additional reduction of pollutant levels would be achieved. No public water supplies from surface or groundwaters on �r downstream of the subject site are known to exist. Groundwater was located during subsurface investi- gations in October of 1976 at depths of about 13 feet. The water table generally fluctuates with variations in the river due to season, rainfall, or discharge from Howard Hanson Dam. In winter, the water table is at or near the ground surface. b. Impacts: (1) Runoff /Absorption: Placement of buildings and paved areas on the site will alter the local drainage patterns and absorption rates. Stormwater will be conducted to a collection basin and then directed into the effluent treatment system before it is returned to the ground. This would diminish the natural entry of stormwater into the groundwater system. Impoundment and treatment should reduce the proba- bility of surface contaminants entering existing watercourses. The rate of discharge of water into the subsurface drainfield will be controlled so that it would not be substantially different from that currently being experienced from use of the present plant operation. 27 (2) Surface Water Quantity: In the event of a fire, water withdrawal at the required flow and pressure could temporarily reduce the flow within the systems. The amount of surface water used in the manufac- turing and processing facility is not expected to change significantly as a result of the replacement plant. (3) Surface Water Quality: During construction, run- off from the site could increase the transport of silt and sediments to the local watercourse. Mitigation of extensive siltation can be achieved by use of soils materials in accordance with specifications discussed in Section II.A.1.b., above, and by construction of holding basins to prevent exces- sive silting. Following construction, any barren areas will be covered with a bonding grass in order to stabilize the soil. Additional discharge of effluents to surface waters are not expected from plant operations. Current rules and regula- tions applicable to operation preclude such discharge and the new plant will operate in conformance with the requirements set forth in Exhibit IV (NPDES Permit). In addition, runoff waters• will be collected on site and directed into the wastewater treatment facility before discharge to the subsurface drainfield. (4) Groundwater Quantity: The existing plant employs the method of groundwater recharge through addition of treated, recycled process water to a subsurface drainfield in accordance with the NPDES Permit (Exhibit IV). The new plant will employ the same method. Prior to startup, the Department of Ecology must review the plans for alteration and hookup to the system. No significant alteration or change in quantities are expected as a result of the new plant. During construction, dewatering will probably be required due to the current water table level. Use of deepwells or well points to dewater are proposed during this phase of construction. (5) Groundwater Quality: As described in Section I.E., the process waters will receive primary, secondary, and tertiary treatment prior to discharge into the subsurface drainfield. Regular monitoring of water quality will be conducted to assure that the treatment system is performing as required. The proposed effluent treatment system will reduce pollutant levels currently entering the ground. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 4. Flora 1 a. Existing Conditions: The project site has been previously cleared and is sparsely covered with grasses, small bushes, blackberries, and native lowland deciduous trees. 28 1 1 • • 0 • The primary species of trees include cottonwood, ash, willow, and alder. On the project site these species are found primarily along the property perimeter along the Green River. No unique, rare, or endangered species of flora are associated with the site or near environs. A portion of the subject site currently supports a small 1/2 acre garden patch which is cultivated by plant personnel during the growing season with rhubarb and truck crops. b. Impacts: All existing vegetation will be removed in areas of proposed buildings and parking and paving areas (about 1 -1/2 acres), thereby reducing the number of species currently on the site. Revegetation of uncovered areas will be employed following construction; however, the extent of existing habitat will be reduced. 5. Fauna a. Existing Conditions: Animal life is limited primarily to invertebrates, birds (seagulls and crows), and rodents; the site does not serve as a critical breeding, feeding, or resting area for any species. Numerous crows and seagulls presently feed on the spillage from the existing plant. The Green River supports significant fisheries popula- tions including chinook, chum, and coho salmon, cutthroat, and Dolly Varden trout, stickleback, white fish and dace. Some natural spawning occurs in the river but the majority occurs about 20 miles upstream from Tukwila. Further information on vegetation and wildlife of the area can be found in the "Data Inventory: Tukwila Planning Area" (City of Tukwila, 1975). b. Impacts: (1) The loss of habitat will have a concommitant effect on the number of species currently using the project site. Elimina- tion of habitat may reduce the carrying capacity of the site and those species using the site will either be displaced or lost. Displacement will put added burdens on adjacent habitats and may result in overcrowding. Thus, wildlife species affected will eventually suffer a reduction in population. • The size and extent of the new plant are not such that a substantial loss in number or species diversity would be expected. (2) Long -term deterioration of habitat is not expected to occur as a result of the new plant facility. However, complete enclosure of operations may reduce the attraction of scavengers (crows, seagulls, rodents) currently utilizing the area for feeding. 29 • 6. Noise a. Existing Conditions: Noise levels from the existing plant activities and nearby railroad usage clearly predominate in the project vicinity. Noise readings taken on October 21, 1976 at 17 locations indicate that plant noise levels as measured at a distance of approximately 100 feet range from an L9 of about 54 dBA to an L10 of 66 to 68 with L5 's of 61 to 62 dBA. The L 0' L50' and L110 values relate to those noise levels exceeded 90, 50, and 10 percent of the time, respectively. Nearby passage of trains result in levels of 81 to 84 dBA and aircraft overflight noise was measured at 88 to 90 dBA on the subject property. At distances of 300 to 400 feet from the plant area, the average noise levels measured ranged from 54 to 58 dBA. Because of its proximity, the predominant noise source in the residential area to the north of the subject site is from traffic on Interstate 5 which forms the northern boundary of the area. Peak noise levels are also due to passage of trains to the east and from aircraft overflights. Due to its distance from existing residences, plant noise is not detectable above the existing ambient levels. b. Impacts: (1) Construction Noise: Short -term construction noise levels of about 88 dBA (measured at 50 feet) will be experienced over the 6 month period of construction. The nearest noise sensitive property is located approximately 700 feet north of the construction area. At this distance the levels from the project site would be reduced to such a degree (about 66 dBA) that no significant impact would be expected. Construction traffic may have a short -term impact on local residents. Control of traffic and scheduling of deliveries could be employed to reduce this impact. (2) Operations Noise: Long -term operations noise from the processing facilities are not expected to be as great as those currently measured from the existing plant. Plant enclosure should assure reduction of noise levels over time. Traffic volumes are not expected to increase significantly as a result of the new plant; therefore, trans- portation noise should not be altered to any significant degree. 7. Light and Glare a. Existing Conditions: Existing plant lighting does not affect the surrounding properties. b. Impacts: N /A. 30 1 1 1 1 1 4 4 4 • • • • 8. Land Use a. Existing Conditions: The project site is zoned M -1 (light industrial) and the existing and new facilities are permitted in this zone. The plant is in conformance with existing zoning code and Comprehensive Plan. Surrounding uses include the railroad right of way to the east, a golf course on the west bank of the abutting Green River watercourse (future Tukwila Park for which purchase by the City was authorized by passage of a $1.8 million general obligation bond), and a residential neighborhood to the north, the nearest residence being approx- imately 700 feet from the project boundary. Commercial, industrial and park /recreation uses also exist along the watercourse to the south, north, and east. Detailed information on existing land use in the area is also contained in the "Data Inventory: Tukwila Planning Area" (City of Tukwila, 1975) . b. Impacts: Development of the project represents a continued long- term commitment to use of the project site for manufacturing. The odor abatement technology should have further implications for future land use in the near environs of the property. Indirectly, the new facility should act to reinforce the continued use of nearby lands for residential and recreation use by improving the ambient air quality and thereby the overall use and habitability of such areas. 9. Natural Resources a. Existing Conditions:. The existing plant and associated storage and treatment facilities currently use water from the Green River as described in Exhibit X which is recycled after treatment and returned to the water regime. In addition, a primary source of energy is natural gas which is consumed at a rate of about 87,000 therms per month. During periods of natural gas interruptions, bunker fuel oil is used as an energy source. b. Impacts: N /A. 10. Risk of Upset a. Existing Conditions: The only potentially hazardous substance currently used in the plant operation is hydrogen peroxide. This chemical is used in the gas cleanup system (scrubbers) at a rate of 20 ppm. Delivery is via common 31 carrier in quantities of 55 gallon drums. In the event of spillage, the substance is a strong oxidizing agent and would dissipate in the soil and would not result in a toxic hazard. Other potential scrubbing agents which could be substituted in the scrubbing include sodium hypochlorite, chlorine, and potasium permanganate, all of which are more dangerous or hazardous. The plant boilers are designed and maintained according to all applicable standards and regulations. b. Impacts: Use of hydrogen peroxide as a scrubbing agent will be continued in the new facility. No additional risk should be incurred from such continued use. Liquid chlorine used as a disinfectant in the waste- water treatment system is also considered to be a hazardous substance. Special safety precautions in storage and handling will be employed. The new boiler system will meet all existing and appli- cable rules and regulations for installation, use, and maintenance and should not constitute a significant risk. B. ELEMENTS OF THE HUMAN ENVIRONMENT 1. Population /Housing a. Existing Conditions: The existing plant currently employs 35 employees on a full time basis. Since the facility has been in existence for over 30 years within the community, it can probably be assumed that its influence on the location, distribution, density, and growth rate of human population of the area has been normalized over time. A single family house on the property is currently used by the company watchman. The subject property is within Census Tract 262 which also includes the residential area to the north and open space areas to the north, south, and west (Foster Golf Course). An analysis of this neighbor- hood's population and housing characteristics can be found in the pre- viously cited Data Inventory. The existing rendering plant odors have probably ad- versely affected the local population. A national survey conducted in 1969 concluded that odors should be considered undesirable air pollutants, whether or not they are linked to long -term health effects, simply because they constitute an annoyance to people (Sullivan, 1969). b. Impacts: Because the proposed project will reduce odors to levels that are undetectable, a long -term beneficial impact should be realized by those currently living in the area. Such benefits, should include increased use and enjoyment of property and positive effects on property values. 32 1 1 1 1 1 1 ,1 1 1 1 • • • • • • Should property values increase, it is possible that undeveloped residen- tial lands may be developed for such uses. The replacement facility should, at a minimum, have a long -term stabilizing influence on the population and housing base of the area due to improvement in environmental quality. 2. Transportation /Circulation a. Existing Conditions: The Seattle Rendering Company site is connected to South 130th Place by a paved private road leased from the Burlington Northern Railroad. Current traffic volumes to the plant are light. The average daily traffic is approximately 100 vehicles with peaks of 40 vehicles at 7 to 8 AM and 40 vehicles at 4 to 5 PM. The subject site is 'served by Metro operated buses which run along Interurban Avenue with the nearest stop at 56th Avenue South. The plant operates a fleet of 22 trucks for pickup of supplies and materials and also receives raw materials from 12 independent suppliers Interstate 5 is located approximately 1/2 mile from the subject property and is the primary route used for pickup and delivery vehicles servicing the existing plant. Routing of truck traffic along 130th to I -5 is currently practiced by the project sponsor to avoid traffic hazards and residential areas along 56th Avenue South. On -site parking facilities are provided for fleet trucks and employees. b. Impacts: Short -term construction - related traffic increases will occur due to the need for delivery of materials and labor to the site. Control of traffic to restrict movement through the residential area served by 56th Avenue South will be employed to reduce potential traffic hazards associated with conflicting uses and to prevent added hazards on the narrow wooden bridge which connects the area to the West Valley Highway. Long -term traffic increases are not expected. Employment will be modestly reduced. Product deliveries will moderately increase. It is estimated that there will be approximately 5 additional vehicle trips per day for product handling. Continued truck routing along 130th South will be employed. 3. ,Public Services a. Existing Conditions: Services to the property are provided by the City of Tukwila including police protection and fire protection. An existing fire station is located within 2 miles of the property. The site is located in Renton School District 403. Road maintenance to the site is not provided as the existing primary access road is privately owned. Other special public services are not requisite to operation or maintenance of the facility. 33 b. Impacts: The proposal may have an effect upon, or result in, a need for new or altered fire protection services, and the need for additional fire flow may result. The City of Tukwila Department of Public Works and Fire Department are currently working with the applicant to determine possible methods for improving fire flow. 4. Energy a. Existing Conditions: Fuel requirements were previously described above. Elec- trical requirements primarily for lighting are currently about 148,000 KWH per month. b. Impacts:. N /A. 5. Utilities a. Existing Conditions: The project site is serviced by adequate electrical, natural gas, and communication systems. Water service to the site is provided by a 6 -inch main capable of supplying 700 gpm at 20 pounds per square inch (psi) residual pressure. Sewage (sanitary, process, and storm) is handled on the site, process and storm sewerage is treated to remove suspended solids, oil, grease, and other pollutants; and discharged into a subsurface drainfield in accordance with the NPDES permit previously discussed (Exhibit IV). Sanitary sewerage is handled in a separate septic system. The new facilities will require a new sanitary septic disposal system which has been designed in accordance with the requirements of King County. Solid wastes consist primarily of used metal containers which are picked up weekly. b. Impacts: The proposal will result in a need for alterations to the following utilities: • Water • Sewer or septic tanks • Stormwater drainage The above utilities, with the exception of municipal water, are maintained and provided by the project sponsor. Alterations in locations would be required to serve the new plant locations. No signifi- cant impacts from relocation are expected as a result of the replacement facility. 34 0 0 0 0 4 0 4 0 4 • • • • The improved project wastewater treatment facility (storm and sanitary) will provide treatment which exceeds that currently available in the area. 6. Human Health a. Existing Conditions: The existing rendering plant is a source of noxious odors. While such odors have not been determined to be toxic or hazardous to human health, an abatement schedule for odor control (see Exhibit IX) has been adopted with the construction of a replacement facility incorpo- rating maximum abatement as the final step in achieving compliance. Seattle Rendering also has a contract for pest control services. The program employed includes use of 40 locked person -proof bait boxes containing a powerful anticoagulant approved by both the U.S. Public Health Service and Seattle-King County Health Department. There have been no complaints from nearby residents and the site is not a source of vector caused illnesses. b. Impacts: Reduction of malodors should have a beneficial effect on those persons living and working in the project area by reducing the annoyance associated with such air contaminants. Improved efficiency, containment of plant activities and enclosure of raw materials should further reduce the number of pests (rodents and birds) attracted to the site.' 7. Aesthetics a. Existing Conditions: The existing facility does not obstruct any scenic vista or view open to the public. It is visible primarily from the golf course to the west and due to its nature as a manufacturing plant, it is probably not considered to be visually pleasing to many observers. Partial screening by native vegetation is afforded. b. Impacts: The proposal will not result in the obstruction of any scenic view or vista open to the public. The new plant will, however, be partially visible from the west and could be considered offensive by some. Existing vegetation and the distance between the plant and open viewing areas should serve to mitigate this possible impact. Additional screening could further reduce the potential impact. 35 8. Recreation a. Existing Conditions: The existing project places no substantial demands on local recreation facilities due to both its nature and size. However, it is expected that malodors may presently have an adverse effect on the use and enjoyment of the nearby golf course. b. Impacts: The proposed project should have a beneficial effect on the recreational use of the adjacent golf course (future Tukwila Park) by improving the quality of the environment for users. It is expected that the area will have increased use due to the elimination of annoying odors which may currently restrict use by some people. 9. Archeological /Historical a. Existing Conditions: The project area contains no known or existing archeo- logical or historical sites listed in the State or Federal records. b. Impacts: N /A. 10. Revenue /Employment a. Existing Conditions: The existing plant employs about 35 persons full time. The current 1976 tax payment on real estate is $1,814.96 which is based on a levy rate of 14.026 mils on taxable value. The existing annual payroll is over $500,000. Contracts with the 12 independent raw materials suppliers are valued at an additional $500,000 per year. b. Impacts: There will be a reduction in total plant employment, resulting in a loss of about 8 full -time employees. Those individuals who are laid off will suffer a loss of income and place additional burdens on the employment /unemployment structure until they are able to find new employment. This impact could be mitigated by giving employees sufficient notice of the cutback, thereby affording them an opportunity to find other employment prior to termination at Seattle Rendering. The loss in direct payroll will amount to about $100,000 per year. Tax revenues will be substantially increased. Based on the 1976 levy rate, the new plant would generate approximately $15,700 in 36 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 • • • added real estate tax revenues in support of public services and facilities. 11. Additional Population Characteristics a. Existing Conditions: The distribution of area residents by age was discussed under the general subsection on population. Distribution by sex and ethnic character is not considered relevant to this analysis. b. Impacts: N /A. 12. Additional Elements to be Covered in an EIS a. Existing Conditions: (City of Tukwila — Ordinance 986, Section 11) • Employment (see B.10 above) • Economy (see B.10 above) • Tax Base (see B.10 above) • Cultural Factors (N /A) • Quality of Life (N /A) • Neighborhood Cohesion (N /A) • Sociological Factors (N /A) b. Impacts: • Employment (see B.10 above) • Economy (see B.10 above) • Tax Base (see B.10 above) • Cultural Factors (N /A) • Quality of life (N /A) • Neighborhood cohesion (N /A) • Sociological factors (N /A) 37 • • • • SECTION III THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LOCAL SHORT -TERM USES OF MAN'S ENVIRONMENT AND MAINTENANCE AND ENHANCEMENT OF LONG -TERM PRODUCTIVITY The project site was zoned and developed for rendering plant use prior to implementation of the State Environmental Policy Act. In addition to the immediate loss of the natural use of the site, the result was continuation of a long -term trend toward the gradual removal of the area's natural environment and addition to the area's man -made environment. Because of the location of the site and population growth in the region, the long -term use of the site is not suited to use as a natural habitat for wildlife. According to the present zoning, economic conditions, air and water quality conditions, and land use planning, the potential long -term and future environmental and economic productivity of the site would appear to be greatest if the site were developed as stated in the proposed action. Such development would restrict change in the use of the site for the owner's estimated usable life span of the facilities. Because malodors are to be significantly reduced to nondetectable levels, it is expected that this project may indirectly result in the increased residential develop- ment of the surrounding areas, thereby reinforcing the long -term plans for maintenance of existing residential and open space recreation areas. Other uses for the land are limited should the proposed project not be implemented. Under the existing zoning, other manufacturing uses might be developed. The short -term use of the site for such alternative develop- ments would not be expected to substantially alter the long -term produc- tivity of the area. If the site is developed as proposed, other options for land use would be precluded. The structures proposed would not be temporary in nature. If, for some reason, it is decided that the space is more valuable for other purposes, the buildings could be torn down and the site restored to its present condition. However, without considerable change in the condition of the site and surrounding area, it is not probable that the area could become a productive natural ecosystem nor does the size of the site allow for a significant improvement to the natural environment. The project and other development in this area would be expected to contribute to a trend of increased use and development. This trend reflects, in turn, man -made decisions for long -term use of the environment. The decision to reduce malodors which have affected the area's environment for several decades represents a decision which will affect both the short -term uses of the environment and influence the long -term environmental productivity of the site and area. Intensification of land use can often create continued environmental problems associated with air quality, noise, water quality, and utility and public service demands. However, the proposed project as well as the existing plant and associated 39 manufacturing represents a service which recycles waste products thereby reducing public health hazards as well as the need for less productive or nonproductive disposal. A commitment to effluent and emission controls represents a further reduction in long -term environmental degredation and increased productivity of the natural, physical, and human environment. The over -all increase in the economic productivity of the area, the long- term fiscal gains as well as the increased diversity of the available goods and services must be weighed and evaluated in terms of the associated losses inherent in the commitment to such a project as that proposed. Should implementation of the proposal be postponed at this time, the plant would be unable to meet its present commitments for air quality control. The nature and age of the existing building and equipment are such that even with extensive remodeling and use of newer technology, the end result would be less satisfactory both from an economic and environmental perspective. Plant shutdown would perhaps serve to benefit those now living in the near area and the local environment. On a regional level, even a short -term loss of the goods and services provided by the plant could create adverse impacts for governmental agencies and private suppliers now using the plant for disposal. If a suitable alternative site were avail- able, relocation to another area would displace the impact of plant operation. The overall cost of relocating would require a substantially greater capital investment which the owner does not feel is justified. Use of the existing site for a modern, well- designed, and adequately controlled plant capable of meeting existing environmental standards appears to achieve the greatest benefit to cost ratio for the applicant, the public, and the government. 40 • • • 1 • 1 SECTION IV 40 IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES • • The proposed action could possibly result in adverse impacts to a lesser degree than alternative uses permitted in M -1 zoning, a modified project at the same location, or abandonment of the project. Such alter- natives, or other alternatives mentioned in Section V, may not provide public benefits to the same degree. It would be considered permanent for at least the estimated lifetime of the structures. The building techniques utilized would render unlikely its dismantling or modification prior to this time, even if the resulting environmental impacts should indicate such a consideration. In addition to the continued commitment of the site to intensified land utilization, the proposed project would result in the commitment of other natural environmental and human resources and could also result in a secondary impact by committing future generations to similar uses. The following discussion serves as a summary of those aspects of the project which could be considered either irreversible or irretrievable. A. NATURAL ENVIRONMENT The preliminary commitment to the modification of the topography and surface soils conditions was made when the site was first developed. Further modification of the topography and increases in ground coverage by buildings and pavement would further commit these resources and could possibly constitute an irreversible commitment to man -made surface condi- tions for at least the life of the project. The loss of vegetative cover and the associated wildlife use of the land would be further committed by the proposed project. Continued develop- ment in the area could be expected to irreversibly influence wildlife habitats. Some of the loss of vegetation and habitable areas could be offset by landscaping. However, this would be considered to be primarily a visual amenity rather than a significant habitat for the area's wildlife. Alteration of the water quality of receiving waters from water runoff would be minimal due to the treatment method to be employed. Surrounding land use changes would probably not be such that they would result in an irretrievable commitment of the quality of this resource for future generations. Traffic in the area and at the project site would continue at about the same level and continue to contribute to the associated concentrations of carbon monoxide (CO) and noise levels. While neither of these effects are considered irreversible or irretrievable commitments of resources, there would be some commitment to degradation in the quality of the area with continued operation of the proposed project. Malodors emitted from the 41 site will be reduced to nondetectable levels. However, emissions at even a reduced level will continue and therefore involve an irretrievable commit- ment to such degradation. The project would require a continued long -term commitment of energy resources, natural gas, and on -site waste treatment facilities. All elec- trical power, gas, and water expended and the waste treatment and solid waste facilities utilized during the construction, operation, and mainten- ance of the proposed project are considered irreversible and irretrievable commitments. Should the requirement for these utilities and services be terminated the energy sources and water consumed could be utilized elsewhere. B. HUMAN RESOURCES Continued commitment of the subject site to manufacturing utiliza- tion will require a commitment of human resources. Labor and services required by persons in the construction, operation, and maintenance of the project facilities are considered an irretrievable commitment of human resources. Additionally, the municipal and public services required to maintain the project during its operation would require a commitment of the associated human resources. The capital expenditures necessary for construction of the project would require a substantial monetary commitment. However, monies committed to the development should be retrievable over the lifetime of the project through the operation of the project facilities. The alteration of the visual character of the site is considered an irreversible commitment for the life of the project. A past commitment was made when the site was developed for the proposed use. The visual character of the site should be somewhat enhanced by a general cleanup of operations and by future removal of the existing batch plant which is scheduled for abandonment after the new plant is operational. The use of various construction and building materials required for development of the project can be considered an irreversible commitment of these materials. It is likely that very few of these materials could be retrieved and reused when the useful life of the project ends. The proposed action should increase the range of benefits within the local environment. Since the uses of the site are defined by the zoning requirements, the proposed project should increase the benefits derived by such zoning through an increase in the tax base, which should benefit the local jurisdictions. 42 1 4 1 1 4 1 SECTION V IP ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSAL • • 0 • Because the nature of this proposal involves a private project rather than public action, the alternatives considered are limited to the "no action" alternatives plus other reasonable means of achieving the objec- tive of the proposal on the same site. A. . "NO ACTION" The alternative of no action involves reliance upon the existing facilities for rendering on the site. Since the current plant is not able to meet Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency regulations with respect to odor, the plant would have to be abandoned or substantially improved to remain in use. Abandonment would affect both the natural and physical environment of the site and region and would result in the following environmental changes: • Improvement of local air quality • Reduction in local traffic volumes • Reduction in the use of nonrenewable sources of energy for processing and lighting • Reduction in water consumption • Removal of need to maintain waste water treatment facilities and removal of subsurface drainfield and a return to natural groundwater quality conditions • Removal of need to further alter surface topography • Maintenance of existing flora and fauna with potential long- term increases in the number and diversity of species • Reduction in land utilization on the site • Removal of on -site use of potentially hazardous chemicals • Improvement in human livability and land values due to removal of malodorous emissions • Removal of need for additional structures which would be visible from off -site areas. 43 In addition to achieving the above stated environmental improve- ments, project abandonment would result in the following adverse impacts: • Regional loss of over 52 million pounds of waste products presently recycled for further use and consumption • Increased health hazards created, in the community and region. Should the present rendering plant be abandoned because it is unable to meet environmental requirements, there are not suf- ficient existing facilities in Western Washington equipped to handle the 52 million pounds of offal presently being rendered harmless by Seattle Rendering Company. • Fallen animals, feathers, shellfish waste, and fish scrap would have to be disposed of on an individual basis in the 8 counties served by Seattle Rendering Company and their inde- pendent suppliers. This would cause monumental problems in the sanitary landfills if they were allowed to be used for this purpose, providing the offal was even presented for disposal. • Under Chapter 16.68 of the Revised Code of Washington, all fallen large animals (cows, horses, mules, etc.) have to either be rendered or buried immediately after demise. Dumping in sanitary land fills is not allowed. If buried, all parts of the ° animal must be covered by 3 feet of earth. As the water table in the Kent and Snoqualmie valleys is within 3 feet of the surface at all times, the burial of animals as a disposal method is not condoned by the Seattle-King County Health Department. • Removal of a service now available to law enforcement officers for disposal of fallen animals from highways in King and parts of Pierce and Snohomish counties. • With the exception of Seattle Rendering, none of the other 6 rendering plants in Western Washington can handle feathers. Only 2 of these can handle fallen animals, and on occasion these 2 have asked Seattle Rendering to take their overload; 1 handles shop scrap and yellow grease only; 1 handles restau- rant grease only; and the remaining 2 are in -house operations of meat packers who handle only their own offal. • Economic loss to the community and region, with 35 employees forced on the already tight job market, contracts with 12 independent raw material suppliers cancelled, and all future tax revenues from plant operation lost. • Loss of significant amounts of manufactured products consist- ing of protein additives for animal feed and tallow for export. 44 0 0 1 0 0 41 Abandonment of the plant would not preclude use of the site for other permitted uses in an M -1 zone and potentially any other such permitted uses could result in many of the impacts which are associated with both the existing and proposed project (i.e., topographic changes, energy consump- tion, traffic, air and water degredation, habitat reduction, etc.). Modification of the existing plant may be possible but has been found to be both functionally inferior and economically prohibitive as a method for achieving the objectives of the proposal. The age of the structure and equipment have made both obsolete given the advanced state of technology available in the rendering industry. If control of emissions could be achieved, it is doubtful that they could approximate the levels achievable with the proposed replacement plant. Since it is also possible that existing emission standards could not be achieved using the existing plant, this possibility has led the pro- ponent to the conclusion that modification is not a viable alternative. The environmental effects of this alternative strategy, if it were possible to achieve the objectives at all, would be substantially the same as those described in the section on existing conditions with the exception that odorous emissions and their associated effects would be altered due to cleanup of gases. B. ALTERNATIVES ON THE SITE Three potential configurations and two site areas within the project property were evaluated prior to selection of the proposal at the preferred location. The major constraint to other locations on the site was the soils ability to provide adequate structural and subsurface conditions for development. Based on a soils engineering study it was determined that the selected area was the best suited to the proposed use. Other equipment configurations and technology exist which might be substituted. However, the proposal represents the best available tech- nology and it is not likely that other designs would result in lesser impacts. Therefore, further consideration of such alternatives does not appear to be warranted. 45 • SECTION VI ID ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS WHICH MAY BE MITIGATED 0 r 0 • • The adverse environmental impacts which could occur as a result of the project would be of two types: short -term and long -term. These impacts are briefly summarized in this section, together with those mitigating measures that could reduce the impacts. • Short -Term Impacts - On -site construction noise Soil erosion during construction Dust during construction - Construction- related traffic • Long -Term Impacts — Continued vehicular traffic Increase in impervious surfaces and continued effluent discharge - Continued demand on public utilities — Change in the visual character of the site and area Alteration of vegetation and wildlife habitat - Loss of open space — Continued emissions to the atmosphere A. SHORT -TERM IMPACTS 1. On -Site Construction Noise Noise from construction - related activities associated with the proposed project would create an unavoidable short -term impact. Noise impacts will be mitigated to a great extent by the relatively large distances between the major construction activities and the nearest noise - sensitive locations. Further mitigation could be achieved by contract specifications which limit construction activities to normal working hours and normal working days and by specifying the use of low -noise equipment. Since the use of internal combustion equipment is the source of most prevalent construction - related noise, the specifications could require muffling of all such engines. In addition, scheduling of the noisiest operations to coincide with the hours of peak noise activity in the area could reduce the potential impacts. These controls would not have a significant effect on the cost of construction if it is determined that they are necessary. 2. Soil Erosion During Construction The erosion hazard of soil disturbed during construction could result in significant amounts of silt being carried from the site into the 47 area's water courses. Siltation, or the settling of suspended solids, can cause suffocation of food organisms and shellfish populations. The months which are most likely to result in significant impacts on water quality are October through March. In addition to the requirements for use of controlled soils quality for fill, the following precautions could be employed during site preparation to ensure environmental consideration during this phase of the project. a. If construction and site preparation are to occur during periods of high potential damage, the contractor will be required to construct holding basins and employ other methods which would prevent excessive silting. b. If land is graded and left barren for any length of time, a bonding grass cover will be required to stabilize the soil. Prudence would dictate reference to the State Department of Fisheries and Game regarding acceptable construction periods. Again, such precautions should not significantly affect the cost of construction. 3. Dust During Construction During construction there could be an increase in windblown dust and vehicular emissions at the site. Control strategies, such as periodic sprinkling or use of sawdust, will minimize the expected increase in windblown dust. No significant cost increase would be expected. 4. Construction - Related Traffic Construction - related vehicles and transport of heavy equipment and materials to the site could alter traffic flow in the area during the construction period and result in increased noise levels and traffic hazards along some routes to the site. Control and specification of preferred delivery routes and scheduling of transportation to and from the site should be undertaken as it relates to the area's normal traffic patterns and requirements. When necessary, traffic controllers may be required for directing and maintaining traffic flows on local streets. In addition, only minimal traffic backup and interruption would be generated if delivery of bulky, odd -size material were scheduled to avoid peak commuter periods. No substantial cost would be involved in implementing this control strategy. B. LONG -TERM IMPACTS 1. Continued Vehicular Traffic There could be some long -term increases in traffic in the project area. About 100 to 110 vehicle trips per day are projected. Peak hour volume projections are 30 to 40 vehicles per hour. There are two 48 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 • routes leading to the project from I -5. The anticipated volumes should not result in any reduction in the capacity on local arterials in the project area, however, use of 56th Avenue South by heavy trucks does represent a potential traffic hazard crossing the Green River Bridge. Continued and future routing of such vehicles along 130th South should be employed. Such routing will have only a minimal economic effect, if any. 2. Increase in Impervious Surfaces and Continued Effluent • Discharge • • • • Runoff from the project area will be accelerated because of the increase in impervious surfaces. Natural percolation of water into the groundwater table will also be limited by the loss of permeable area. Continued effluent discharge will occur. The construction of a runoff collection system and treatment of storm and process waters in the recycled process sewer system is planned. The basin will control discharge of stormwater runoff into the ground. The treatment facilities also control most deleterious materials contained in the stormwater and process effluent. Installation and tie -in to existing sewer systems could achieve approximately the same end quality and control. Loss of groundwater recharge from the site would result but the loss would be minimal. The cost of tie -in to such systems has been estimated for two possible routes at $76,593.00 and $103,016.50 respectively, exclusive of a late- comers fee for tie -in, yearly maintenance fees, and power requirements for pumping stations. In addition, the added waste requiring METRO treatment will increase. Because of the high quality of the planned effluent treatment system it is doubtful that other on -site technology could be employed at the same cost/benefit ratio. 3. Continued Demand on Public Utilities The need for electrical power, fire water supply, and solid waste disposal will require a commitment of the area's utilities and resources for the operating life of the project. Currently, existing water pressure for fire protection may be inadequate. If it is determined that this is the case, methods for improving fire flow will be required and costs evaluated. No significant increase in energy requirements are projected due to increased operating efficiency and elimination of the use of the existing plant. 4. Changes in the Visual Character of the Site and Area The development of the project will replace an undeveloped' area with a number of man -made facilities. These facilities are the proposed plant, its support facilities, parking areas, and traffic areas. Efforts have been made to place the facilities in a location that will have 49 the least adverse impact upon the visual quality of the surrounding area and the environment. It has been placed away from the shoreline with the natural buffering left in its current state. Additional screening could be employed if required. The cost of such screening would be dependent on the nature and extent of materials proposed. 5. Alteration of Vegetation and Wildlife Habitat Construction of the proposed project will remove most of the vegetation and wildlife habitat upon the building site itself. Further, the quality of wildlife habitat adjacent to the development will also be reduced due to increased noise and human activity. The surrounding vegetation will be preserved in its natural state as much as is possible. In order to reduce the impact on the fauna of . the project site, certain wildlife management techniques could be employed to increase the carrying capacity of undeveloped lands on the site for some wildlife species. One method would be to create additional vegetation areas on the site and maintain them in an early state of succession, thereby increasing plant diversity and productivity and an increase in wildlife productivity. The overall cost of additional planting would again depend on the nature and extent of materials used. 6. Loss of Open Space. The construction of the proposed project and support facili- ties will result in a loss of natural open space in the project area. While the selected area will preserve a significant portion of the site in its natural character, the project will constitute a continued activity center which could increase other local development of housing but would also serve to protect the use of the adjacent open space (golf course /park), due to the reduction in annoying odors. Removal and demolition of the old plant rather than future use for storage and maintenance could result in the return of the lost open space of the site. Cost of demolition is estimated at about $5,000.00, excluding removal of equipment and cost of permits. Serious consideration of this measure will be given after startup of the new plant is achieved. 7. Continued Emissions to the Atmosphere The proposed project will significantly reduce the level of odorous gases emitted from the plant stacks and buildings in compliance with existing air quality rules and regulations. The systems to be employed represent the existing state of the art in rendering plant emission control. Other than removal of the plant at a significant economic cost, further reductions in emissions using other technology would not appear to be warranted. 50 1 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 • SECTION VII a UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS • • • 0 • • t • The following list of impacts are those which may be adverse but cannot, or will not, be mitigated or avoided by further modifications to the project. A more complete discussion of each is found in Section II. A. IMPACTS TO THE PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT 1. Earth a. Soils/Topography: Disruptions, displacements, compac- tions and overcovering of soil: Placement of structures and paving on the site will result in long -term removal of soils from productivity. b. Topography: Slight alteration in ground surface relief. Cut and fill required to achieve stabilization will alter existing land contours slightly. 2. Air Odor: Some odorous gases will be created by the plant even with extensive control technology. However, at receptor points not located on the plant property, such levels should be undetectable and the long -term effects are considered to be beneficial. 3. Water Groundwater Quality: Process and storm water will be exten- sively treated to reduce the level of contaminants entering the ground. Even with treatment, some contaminants may remain in the effluent water. Those not subsequently removed by natural percolation will enter the groundwater system. Temporary loss of surface waters during fires would be considered an unavoidable short -term impact if it occurred. 4. Flora /Fauna Reduction of Habitat: There will be an unavoidable long -term loss of habitat for species now using the proposed building site due to removal of existing vegetation. 5. Noise Construction Related Noise: On -site noise levels will be unavoidably increased during the construction period, and additional heavy truck traffic to the construction site may affect some area residents if controls are not employed. 51 6. Risk of Explosion or Hazardous Emissions Regardless of the safety measures employed in transport, storage, handling, and use of chemical substances, some risk is involved. Spills of hydrogen peroxide can cause burning and irritation of skin, and chlorine gases are toxic and can be lethal. While the amount and use of these chemicals will not be extensive, their use is deemed unavoidable and they will be employed in the gas and water pollution control systems. B. IMPACTS ON THE HUMAN ENVIRONMENT 1. Transportation /Circulation Short -term construction related traffic increases will un- avoidably occur due to the need for materials, supplies, and labor on the site. If routing and scheduling are not employed, traffic hazards and use conflicts may result should such vehicles use 56th Avenue South. 2. Aesthetics The new plant will be partially visible to the public and may be considered objectionable by some. 3. Revenue /Employment There will be an unavoidable loss of about 8 full -time employees due to the improved level of technology to be used. Those impacts previously described in Section II and considered to be nonadverse are also included. Rationale for such determination is dis- cussed in Sections I E. and II and is only briefly described or referenced in the following list. A. NONADVERSE.IMPACTS TO THE PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT 1. Earth a. On -Site Erosion During Construction: Rationale: Contract specifications described in Section II A.1.b. and VI A.2. b. Geology: Rationale: As discussed in II A.1.b., the compressive loads are not expected to be sufficiently great enough to adversely affect the geology. 52 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 2. • Water a. Runoff /Absorption: Rationale: Controls to be employed as discussed in Section II A.3.b. and VI B.2. b. Surface Water Quantity: Rationale: The proposed processing facility is not expected to require water use significantly greater than that already used. See Section II A.3.b. c. Surface Water Quality: Rationale: Short -term construction related discharge will be controlled and long -term discharge from processing or storm runoff will not be permitted as discussed in Sections I E., II A.3.b., and IV B.2. 3. Noise Long -Term Noise from Plant Operation: Rationale: Total enclosure of plant equipment should result in a decrease in associated noise levels. See Section II A.6.b. 4. Land Use Alteration in Present Use of Area: Rationale: Odor abatment should have a long -term positive effect on the quality of the environment and be beneficial in stabilizing off -site uses for housing and recreation. See Section II A.8. B. NONADVERSE IMPACTS TO THE HUMAN ENVIRONMENT 1. Population /Housing Rationale: Odor abatement should benefit the local residen- tial population as further discussed in Section II B.1. 2. Vehicular Transportation - Long -Term Rationale: Reduction of employment and increase in product volumes should result. in minimal change in the traffic generated as further discussed in Sections II B.2. and VI 8.1. 53 3. Public Services Potential Increase in Fire Protection with Regard to Increased Fire Flows: Rationale: The need for added protection has not yet been established. Should such improved fire flow services be required, the project sponsors may be subject to paying part of the initial improvement and the added tax revenues would offset a portion of the cost of mainten- ance. See Section II B.3. and VI B.3. 4. Utilities Need for New or Expanded Systems: Rationale: Modifications to existing utilities will be minimal, and the plant wastewater treatment facilities exceeds that avail- able using an alternative system such as METRO. See Section II B.S. and VI B.3. 5. Human Health Reduction in Malodors in Area and. Improved Handling and Storage of Raw Materials: Rationale: Reduction in odor bearing emissions should have a beneficial effect on area residents and plant employees, as discussed in Section II B.6. Improved handling of materials and enclosure of plant activities should reduce the attraction of rodents as previously discussed in Section II B.6. 6. Recreation Reduction of Malodors in Area: Rationale: Improvement in the quality of the environment by odor reduction should be of long -term benefit to the use of the nearby recreation area. See Section II B.8. 7. Revenue Increase in Tax Base: Rationale: Real property values will be significantly increased by the proposal as discussed in Section II B.10. 54 • • 1 1 41 1 0 1 i Exhibits I through X have been incorporated by reference or are included in the following section. Copies of all exhibits may be reviewed at the City of Tukwila Environmental Public Information Center (EPIC) located at 6230 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, Washington. Purchase Price of Exhibits: $2.50: .Exhibits I through X $.04 per page: Selected exhibits. • 7 0 w • MEMORANDUM CITY of TUKWN. • OFFICE of COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 10 December 1976 TO: Recipients of Draft Environmental Impact Statement FROM: Planning Division SUBJECT: Comment Deadline on Draft EIS Please find enclosed a copy of the draft environmental impact statement for the proposed Seattle Rendering Works replacement facility. The proposed action is for issuance of a building permit for construction of a new continuous rendering plant to replace a currently used facility which, due to its nature and age, is unable to meet existing air quality standards and regulations. The issue date of the draft EIS is December 9, 1976. Pursuant. to SEPA guidelines, the comment period is 35 days, ending January 13, 1977. If you have any comments concerning this proposal, please respond to the'0ffice of Community Development before January 13. Please address any comments you may have to: Fred N. Satterstrom City of Tukwila Planning Division 6230 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 • • SEATTLE RENDERING WORKS, INCORPORATED CONTINUOUS RENDERING PLANT REPLACEMENT FACILITY DV; FT Environmental Impact Statement City of Tukwila Office of Community Development December 9, 1976 • • • • • • • TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page Introduction 1 Distribution List 3 Summary 5 I Description of the Proposal 11 II Existing Environmental Conditions and ' The Impact of the Proposal on the Environment 23 III The Relationship between Local Short -Term Uses of Man's Environment and Maintenance and Enhancement of Long -Term Productivity 39 IV Irreversible or Irretrievable Commitments of Resources 41 V Alternatives to the Proposal 43 VI Adverse Environmental Impacts Which may be Mitigated 47 VII Unavoidable Adverse Impacts 51 iii • •. r • • • LIST OF EXHIBITS I Legal Description of Site II Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency Notice of Construction and Application for Approval III Department of Ecology — NPDES Permit Application IV National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit V List of Elements of the Environment VI Soils Report VII Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency — Variance Permit VIII Odor Survey by Food, Chemical and Research Laboratories, Inc. IX Odor Abatement Program and Schedule X Water Right Claim iv • • • • • • • • INTRODUCTION A. ACTION SPONSOR AND NATURE OF PROPOSAL The action sponsor is Seattle Rendering Works, Inc. The proposed action'is for issuance of a building permit and other necessary permits for construction of a new continuous rendering plant to replace a currently used facility which, due to its nature and age, is unable to meet existing air quality rules and regulations. The project is located at 13601 Beacon Coal Mine Road South approximately 800 feet south of the intersection of 130th South and South 56th in the City of Tukwila, Washington. B. LEAD AGENCY The lead agency for this action is the City of Tukwila. The Office of Community Development is responsible for preparation of the draft EIS and compliance with SEPA regulations. The responsible official is Kjell Stoknes, Director of the Office of Community Development. Contact Person: Fred N. Satterstrom, Planning Supervisor Office of Community Development 6230 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 (206) 242 -2177 C. AUTHORS AND PRINCIPAL CONTRIBUTORS TO DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATMENT W.W. Benefiel Robin C. Calhoun Lee Johnson Michael Runyon Tom Bekey - President, Seattle Rendering Works, Inc. Project Background Director of Environmental Studies, John Graham and Company; General Environmental Analysis, Natural, Physical and Human Environment - President, Food - Chemical and Research Laboratories, Inc., Odor, Water Quality, Noise, Traffic, Utilities - Garwest, Inc., Plant Design and Engineering - Rittenhouse - Zeman and Associates, Geology, Topography, Soils 1 D. OTHER LICENCES /PERMITS REQUIRED In addition to a building permit, the project will require a grading and fill permit from the City of Tukwila, an electrical permit from the State of Washington, plumbing and sanitary sewerage permits from King County, a Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Permit, and approval of the Department of Ecology for modification or new construction related to an existing National Pollution Discharge Elimination System permit. E. LOCATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT DATA Much of the background data pertinent to this draft Environmental Impact Statement, including maps, plans, records, and related permit information can be reviewed at the Office of Community Development, 6230 Southcenter Boulevard in Tukwila. F. COST TO PUBLIC FOR COPY OF DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT • $4.75, including exhibits. G. DATE OF ISSUE OF DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT December 9, 1976 2 4 4 4 4 1 4 4 4 4 4 • • • • • • DISTRIBUTION LIST Office of the Governor Legislative Building Olympia, Washington 98504 Department of Ecology Dennis Lunblad, Head Environmental Review Olympia, Washington 98504 Puget Sound Council of Governments Brian Beam, Environmental Planning Division Grand Central on the Park Seattle, Washington 98104 Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency A.R. Dammkoehler, Air Pollution Control Officer 410 West Harrison Street P.O. Box 9863 Seattle, Washington 98109 King County Land Use Management Division Edward B. Sand W -217 King County Court House Seattle, Washington 98104 Kent Planning Agency James P. Harris, Planning Director P.O. Box 310, City Hall Kent, Washington 98031 Renton Planning Department Gordon Ericksen, Planning Director 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, Washington 98055 Walter Jaspers U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region X 1200 6th Avenue Seattle, Washington 98101 Emil Jensen Department of Social and Health Services P.O. Box 1788 Olympia, Washington 98504 Bill Boxter Department of Natural Resources Public Lands Building Olympia, Washington 98504 3 Dr. Richard Wade Seattle -King County Health Department 903 Public Safety Building Seattle, Washington 98104 John J. Fotheringham South Central School District #406 4640 South 144th Seattle, Washington 98168 Gary F. Kohlwes Renton School District #403 435 Main Avenue South Renton, Washington 98055 Wes Benefiel 5111 South 163rd Place Seattle, Washington 98188 Ben Aliment Foster Golf Course 13500 Interurban Avenue Seattle, Washington 98168 Vern Phillips 12613 Beacon Avenue South Seattle, Washington 98178 Florence Delaurenti 12617 Beacon Avenue South Seattle, Washington 98178 Thelma Larson 12522 51st Avenue South Seattle, Washington 98178 John Yates 13325 56th Avenue South Seattle, Washington 98168 4 1 1 4 1 1 41 1 1 1 • • • • • SUMMARY A. THE PROPOSAL Seattle Rendering Works, Inc. proposes to construct a replacement for its existing rendering plant. The existing plant has been in operation since 1942 for the purpose of manufacturing and processing meat meal, fish meal, feathers, and tallow at a volume of approximately one million pounds per week. Due to its age and to existing government standards, the project sponsor proposes to abandon the facility upon completion of the replacement plant. The new facility has been designed to improve product quality, operational effi- ciency, and to incorporate an air pollution control system which will eliminate the discharge of offensive odors in compliance with applicable rules and regulations including Regulation I (Section 9.11(a) and 9.12) of the Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency. The new plant facility will also employ primary, secondary, and tertiary treatment of effluent to assure that .untreated pollutants are not discharged to surface waters. The total gross area of construction related to the replacement facility will be approximately 20,000 square feet, including 8,640 square feet for the plant, 10,000 square feet for paved parking, loading and traffic areas, and 1,536 square feet for a new office building. The processing facility will be contained in a single story, metal frame structure with adjacent silos and tanks. The proposed facility is expected to cost $1,100,000.00 and will support approximately 30 employees. Potential plant capacity will be increased by approximately 21 percent or to a volume of 1.21 million pounds per week. The proposed plant will be located on approximately 1 -3/4 acres of a 12 acre site east of the Green River between the river and the Burlington Northern Railroad in the City of Tukwila, Washington. The project site is • zoned M -1 (light industrial). B. DIRECT AND INDIRECT IMPACTS 1. Direct Impacts Resulting from the Proposal A summary of those aspects of the physical and human environ- ment directly altered by the proposal or that will continue to be affected because the project is basically a continuing use are as follows: a. Earth: Compaction and overcovering of soils for con- struction of facilities; slight alteration in topography due to required cut and fill; increased erosion potential during construction. 5 b. Air: Reduction in odorous gases emitted to atmosphere to levels which meet standards and regulations. c. Water: Continued withdrawal of surface waters for pro- cessing; some alteration in runoff quantity and quality due to impervious surfaces; continued discharge of treated effluent into subsurface drain system; improved treatment of storm and wastewaters in compliance with existing regulations. d. Flora /Fauna: Some reduction in habitat due to loss of vegetation will result in reduced number of species currently on the site. e. Noise: Increase in on -site noise levels during con- struction; continued traffic noise during operation; reduction in on -site plant noise levels following construction due to enclosure of sources. f. Land Use: Continued commitment to use of site for manufacturing. g. Risk of Explosion /Hazardous Emission: Continued risk of hazardous emissions from chemicals used in air and water pollution cleanup systems; reduction in risk of boiler upset due to improvement in technology employed. h. Transportation /Circulation: Increase in short -term con- struction related traffic volumes; continued generation of traffic due to employee and product trips. i. Public Services: Possible need for improved fire flow. j. Utilities: Improved on -site wastewater treatment; con- tinued need for other utilities with minor alterations to service new plant. k. Human Health: Reduction in malodors emitted to atmos- phere. Reduction in rodent population due to total enclosure of plant and improved housekeeping. 1. Aesthetics: Addition of man -made structures visible to public and concommitant reduction in open space on the site. m. Revenue /Employment: Loss of 8 full -time employees from plant related work force; increase in tax and sales revenues in support of public services and facilities. 2. Indirect Impacts Resulting from the Proposal. Indirect impacts associated with the proposal and interactions which could result are as follows: 6 4 4 4 4 4 4 0 4 1 4 1 • • • • a. Earth: Increased erosion potential during construction could result in significant siltation during periods of rain. If silt loads increase substantially, aquatic environments can be drastically affected through habitat destruction and suffocation of organisms leading to popu- lation decreases; overcovering of soils can alter the quantity and quality of surface waters by reduction in natural drainage. Significant increases .in quantity affect flooding and decreases in quality of waters from contaminated human uses (oil, grease, sediments) affect surface and ground water quality which in turn affects aquatic and terrestrial productivity. b. Air: Decreases in the levels of odor bearing gases emitted to the atmosphere should provide substantial indirect benefits to those living and working in the area including increased livability; increased utility of land; reduction in annoyance; increased property values; reinforcement of use of adjacent lands for residential and recrea- tion purposes. The possibility of an improved local environment could also spur additional growth of such uses and might have some effect on the local population base. c. Water: Improved wastewater (storm and sanitary) treat- ment and retention of effluent waters prior to discharge into the ground will reduce contaminants entering the water regime thereby improving associated aquatic and terrestrial productivity. d. Noise: Reduction in long -term on -site noise levels will be beneficial to the health and welfare of those working in the area and will reduce the potential for long -term conflict with adjacent land uses. e. Flora /Fauna: Reduction in on -site habitat will place additional stress on other off -site habitats by increasing the demand for use by displaced species and eventually there will be an incremental reduction in the affected populations. f. Land Use: The long -term continued use of nearby areas for residential and recreation uses should be enhanced due to odor reduc- tion to nondetectable levels. g. Population /Housing/Human Health /Recreation: The over- all improvement in the human environment due to control of odors could have a growth inducing effect on the area. Such growth should tend to be stabilizing rather than detrimental. C. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED AND ASSOCIATED IMPACTS The major alternative considered is that of no action" including abandonment of the site as a rendering facility or modification of the existing plant for future use. A second alternative consists of on -site alternatives for placement of the facilities and facilities configuration. A summary of associated impacts for each follows: 1. "No Action" - Abandon Site a. Beneficial Impacts: Improved local air quality; reduc- tion in local traffic volumes; reduction in use of nonrenewable energy sources; reduction in water consumption; return to natural water quality and quantity conditions of site, maintenance of existing topography, soils, flora, and fauna; reduction in land utilization of the site; removal of on -site use of chemicals and associated risks; improvement in livability due to removal of odors from local atmosphere; and removal of structures from public view. b. Adverse Impacts: Loss of waste recycling facility from region; increased regional health hazards; increased need for sanitary land fills or other methods of disposal in region; loss of services to police; economic loss to community and region in terms of employment, tax revenues, and materials purchased and sold; potential realization of impacts similar to those now felt due to the fact that current zoning would permit other manufacturing on the site; loss of significant quantity of end products consisting of high protein food additives for animal feed stock. 2. "No Action" - Modify Existing Plant Modification of the existing plant is thought to be function- ally inferior and economically prohibitive as a method for achieving the objectives of the proposal. Additional adverse impacts include the proba- bility that plant emissions would be greater than those achievable under the proposal and may not be able to meet air quality rules and regulations. Other impacts associated with continued use of the existing facility are substantially the same as described under the section on "Existing Conditions ". 3. Alternatives on the Site Three configurations and two locations within the project property were examined prior to selection of the site proposed. Soils were limiting at other locations and other configurations and equipment were not found to offer improvements over the selected alternative. D. MEASURES PROPOSED TO MITIGATE OR ELIMINATE ADVERSE IMPACTS for: Mitigation and /or elimination of adverse impacts includes measures • Selection of site requiring minimal topographic change • Preloading soils to minimize settling • Use of selected soils to minimize sediment entering surface waters • Use of retention wells /settling ponds to contain runoff during construction 8 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 • Containment and treatment of runoff waters after construction to reduce water contamination • Treatment of effluent from processing stormwaters and sub- surface injection of treated waters to meet existing state and federal rules and regulations • Treatment of air contaminants to reduce odor emissions in 41 compliance with existing rules and regulations • 4 • • • • Reduction of on -site noise levels by building enclosure • Control of traffic flow through residential areas by specifi- cation of less hazardous routes • Specification of dust control strategies during construction • Future removal of existing plant to increase visual character, open space, and habitat of site. E. IMPACTS WHICH CANNOT BE MITIGATED Impacts which cannot be totally mitigated or eliminated include: Compaction and overcovering of soils • Some alteration of topography • Some emission of odor bearing gases (nondetectable off -site) • Continued recharge of groundwaters from treated effluent and runoff • Reduction of habitat at selected site • Increased on -site noise levels during construction • Continued use of potentially harmful chemicals needed in water and air pollution treatment facilities • Short -term construction related increase in local traffic volumes • Visible structures open to partial public view • Loss of employment for some current employees. 9 • SECTION I DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL A. NAME OF PROPOSAL /SPONSORS The proposed action is the issuance of a building permit to Seattle Rendering Works, Inc. for construction of a continuous rendering Replace- ment Facility for an existing batch rendering plant together with paving for parking, loading and access, and a new office facility for plant management. B. PROJECT LOCATION The proposed project will be located adjacent to the existing plant at 1360 Beacon Coal Mine Road South on approximately 1 -3/4 acres of a 12 acre site east of the Green River. The Plant site is situated between the river and the Burlington Northern Railroad in the City of Tukwila, Washington. The project vicinity is depicted in Figure 1 and the local project site is shown in Figure 2. For further reference a complete legal description of the site is contained in Exhibit I. C. REFERENCE FILE NUMBERS OF OTHER AGENCIES INVOLVED II Department of Ecology — Water Right Claims Registration Registry No. APR2175158760 NPDES Waste Discharge Permit, Permit No. WA- 000162 -7 Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency — Variance from Section 9.11(a) and 9.12 of Regulation I for Inedible Rendering Plant — Variance No. 176 D. PHASING OF CONSTRUCTION • The proposed new rendering plant is expected to take approximately nine months to construct. Estimated completion and startup are scheduled for October, 1977. There are no plans for future phases of development. E. MAJOR PHYSICAL AND ENGINEERING ASPECTS OF THE PROPOSAL 1. Nature and Background of Existing and Future Plant Activities Seattle Rendering Works, Inc. was established approximately 35 years ago as a rendering facility for processing of meat, fish, shellfish, feathers, restaurant grease, fallen animals, and packing house offal. The facility services the western regional area of the State of Washington extending from southern Lewis County to the Canadian border and from the Cascade Mountains to the western border of the State. 11 • N V alli■••■••■•••■••••■■■• 0,1 I.$' �i!i New Buildings Existing Buildings Shoreline .1( X X Management Boundary Revised / t // Paved Area ' PIGdR6 2 — PRGJI* T SITS MAP. • • • • • • • • The plant currently employs 35 full time people and operates on a 24 -hour basis. Its services include the removal and processing of approximately 1 million pounds per week of raw materials including 150,000 pounds of fallen animals, 150,000 pounds of waste feathers from the poultry industry, 200,000 pounds of fish scrap and shellfish waste, 100,000 pounds of packing house waste, with the remainder being restaurant grease and butcher house scrap. The facility receives its raw materials from 12 independent suppliers and via its own fleet of 22 trucks. Each fleet truck and indepen- dent supplier truck makes one round trip per day, with the exception of one barrel truck which makes two trips daily for pickup of raw fish. Seattle Rendering is the only plant south of Bellingham, Washington and north of Portland, Oregon presently handling feathers, fallen animals, fish scrap, and shellfish waste. These waste products amount to an animal poundage of 31.2 million pounds annually. Other services include 24 hour per day, 7 day per week pick up service for animals killed on highways in King, Pierce, and Snohomish counties. This is done at the request of law enforcement agencies in these counties and the Washington State Patrol. At the request of the State and County Health Departments the service includes pick up of animals in streams, rivers, lakes, and bays. The existing plant facilities layout is shown in Figure 2 and consists primarily of the existing processing plant, tankage, storage facilities, barrel scrubbing area, plant office, truck maintenance build- ing, parking and delivery areas, and effluent treatment facilities. In order to more fully understand the nature of these process activities, the following discussion has been included (EPA- 440/1 - 74/031- d, 1975) : Rendering is a process to convert animal by- products into fats, oils, and proteinaceous solids. Heat is used to melt the fats out of tissue, to coagulate cell proteins, and to evaporate the raw material moisture. Rendering is universally used in the production of proteinaceous meals from animal blood, feathers, bones, fat tissue, meat scraps, inedible animal carcasses, and animal offal (the viscera and trimmings of butchered animals). The rendering industry consists of both off -site independent renderers and on -site or captive renderers. Indepen- dent renderers such as Seattle Rendering Works, Inc. reprocess discarded animal materials such as fats, bones, hides, feathers, blood, and offal into saleable by- products, almost all of which are inedible for human consumption, and "dead stock" (whole animals that die by accident or through natural causes). Captive rendering operations, on the other hand, are usually conducted as an adjunct to meat packing or poultry processing operations and are housed in a separate building on the same premises. Consequently, captive renderers produce almost all of the edible lard and 14 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 1 4 4 • • • • • • • • tallow made from animal fats in addition to producing inedible by- products. Inedible rendering is accomplished exclusively by dry rendering where the raw material is cooked with no addition of steam or water. Rendering of animal by- product materials is one of the original recycling industries; it began as an industry over 150 years ago. During the past two decades the production of inedible tallow and grease (the major products of rendering plants) has increased from 2.3 billion pounds, worth $150 million in early 1950, to an estimated 5.4 billion pounds, worth $430 million for 1971 -72. This increase is largely caused by an expansion in livestock and poultry production. The increase resulting from increased plant efficiency is negligible. Renderers send out trucks daily on regular routes to collect discarded fat and bone trimmings, meat scraps, bone and offal, blood, feathers, and entire animal carcasses from a variety of sources: Butcher shops, supermarkets, restaurants, poultry processors, slaughter- houses and meat packing plants, farmers, and ranchers. Each day the rendering industry, including both on -site and independent plants, pro- cesses more than 80 million pounds of animal fat and bone materials, in addition to dead stock, that would otherwise have to be suitably disposed of to prevent its becoming a national public health problem. The independent renderer pays for the raw material he collects and he manufactures usable products, such as tallow for soap and for derivatives for the chemical industry, and meal and inedible grease for animal and poultry feed. Because of the perishable nature of the raw material collected, renderers must process the material without delay. This normally restricts the collection area to a 150 -mile radius around the plant. However, if the renderer is only picking up restaurant grease, which is more stable, it is possible that he may travel greater distances. Renderers are located in both urban and rural areas. The urban renderer normally has more modern equipment, shorter routes for pickup of raw materials, a better grade of raw materials, and high production rates that enable his operation to run more efficiently. The urban renderer usually has access to municipal sewers and has the option of either providing his own treatment system or buying into the municipal plant. The country renderer, on the other hand, normally has older equip- ment, longer routes, picks up dead stock, and has a lower capacity system. The location of the rural renderer does not permit him to tie into a sewer facility and, therefore, he normally has his own waste treatment facilities. PROCESS DESCRIPTION A general flowsheet of the processes of an inedible rendering plant is shown in Figure 3. The bulk material (offal, bones, and trimmings) collected by renderers is normally dumped into a bin from which it is conveyed to a grinder. Liquid wastes collected on the bottom of the pits are usually sewered, although in a few cases the liquid, if not an 15 PROCESSES WASTE WATER 1 RAW MATERIAL I___ RECOVERY CRUSHING AND GRINDING COOKING AND MOISTURE REMOVAL DRYING LIQUID - SOLID SEPARATION MEAL GRINDING AND SCREENING BLENDING SOLIDS MEAL STORAGE SHIPPING HIDE CURING LIQUID GREASE CLARIFYING GREASE STORAGE SHIPPING ODOR CONTROL VAPOR CONDENSING PLANT AND TRUCK WASHING SANITARY FACILITIES MATERIAL RECOVERY SYSTEM TREATMENT SYSTEM ��-- -► WASTE WATER FLOW PRODUCT AND MATERIAL FLOW Figure 3 — General Flowsheet of Operations for a Typical Inedible Rendering Plant 16 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 11 0 • e • • • excessive amount, is pumped on top of the materials being conveyed to the grinder or the cooker. In the case of poultry offal, it is not always necessary to grind the raw material before cooking unless it contains a large number of whole birds. Feathers, if they are not mixed with poultry offal, are dumped directly on a floor to allow excess liquid to drain off. Rendering plants normally process feathers separately from poultry offal. Oils are poured into receiving tanks and from there go directly to cookers. The process of rendering consists of two essential steps. First, the raw material is heated or cooked to melt the tallow or grease and permit the phases to separate and, in the dry inedible process, to evaporate the moisture. Also, the animal fibrous tissues are conditioned. The second step is a separation of tallow or grease from the solid proteinaceous material. Proper conditioning of the fibrous tissue is important to accomplish the second step efficiently. The product yields and process control of the coolers are very dependent on the nature of the raw materials. For example, the moisture content of raw materials ranges from 20 percent moisture for beef fats to 87 percent moisture for blood. Tables 1 and 2 give the percentage of yield of a number of common materials processed by independent rendering plants. The percentage of moisture, of course, can be calculated by subtracting the total percentage of yield of fat and solids from 100 percent. The current rendering plant operates as a batch system whereas the proposed replacement plant will operate as a continuous system. A brief . discussion of the major aspects of each system is included to distinguish the following description of existing environmental conditions and impacts. Batch rendering, a dry process, is a cooking and moisture- evapora- tion operation performed in a horizontal steam jacketed cylindrical "cooker" equipped with an agitator. It is referred to as a dry rendering process because the raw material is cooked with no addition of steam or water and because the moisture in the material is removed from the cooker by evaporation. It is a batch process because it follows the repetitive cycle of charging with raw material, cooking under controlled conditions, and finally discharging of the material. The general practice in determining the end point of the cooking operation is by previously established cook cycles and by periodic with- drawal of samples by the operator to determine the consistency by touch of the cooked material. Temperature is used to follow the progress of the cooking. The temperature of the material being processed remains substan- tially constant until the moisture level has dropped to 5 to 10 percent. At this point the temperature begins to rise rather rapidly and the cooking process should then be stopped to prevent product degradation and odor problems. Throughout the cook, the jacket steam pressure usually is maintained constant, between 2.7 and 6.1 atmospheres (25 and 75 psig), although a few use a pressure as great as 7.8 atmospheres (100 psig) or a temperature of 170 degrees C (334 degrees F). 17 Table 1: Raw Material and Product Yields for Inedible Rendering by Type of Animal. Table 2: Product Yields for Inedible Rendering by Type of Raw Material By- Products from Materials Product Yields Tallow and Grease, Percent Offal and Bone Tallow & Cracklings* By- Products from Animals per Head, kg (lb) Grease., Percent at 10 -15% Fat, Percent. Percent Moisture 38 63 67 -69 40 -45 53 82 88 86 -88 Steers 41 -45 (90 -100) 15 -20 30 -35 45 -55 Cows 50 -57 (110 -125) 10 -20 20 -30 50 -70 Calves 6.8 -9.1 (15 -20) 8 -12 20 -25 63 -72 Sheep 3.6 -4.5 (8 -10) 25 -35 20 -25 40 -55 Hogs 4.5 -6.8 (10 -15) 15 -20 18 -25 55 -67 Broilers (offal & feathers) 0.45 (1) 4 26 74 -96 Table 2: Product Yields for Inedible Rendering by Type of Raw Material By- Products from Materials Product Yields Tallow and Grease, Percent Cracklings* at 10 -15% Fat, Percent Percent Moisture Shop fat and bones Dead cattle Dead cows Dead hogs Dead sheep Poultry offal (broiler) Poultry feathers Blood 37 12 8 -10 30 22 14 -- -- 25 25 23 25 -30 25 4 12 (meal) 12 -14 (meal) 38 63 67 -69 40 -45 53 82 88 86 -88 * Cracklings: the crisp residue left after removal of lard. Source: After Development Document for Effluent Limitation Guidelines and New Source Performance Standards for the Renderer Segment of the Meat Products and Rendering Processing Point Source Category, Environmental Protection Agency, 1975. 18 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 • • • • The cooked material is discharged from the batch cooker into a percolation pan and left standing until all free - draining fat has run off. The solids are then conveyed to a press (usually screw press) to further reduce the fat content. Finally, the solids are conveyed to grinding and screening operations. Prior to 10 years ago, essentially all inedible rendering at indepen- dent rendering plants was conducted using the dry batch cookers. In recent years, however, a number of plants have replaced batch cookers with continuous systems because these systems offer inherent advantages: Improved product quality control; better confinement of odor and fat aerosol particles within the equipment, thereby requiring less cleanup; less space; and less labor for operation and maintenance. Also, continuous systems permit increased throughput and occasionally result in consolida- tion of two or more plants. It is currently estimated, however, that 75 to 80 percent of the plants still use dry batch cookers. In order to improve future product quality, plant efficiency and odor confinement, Seattle Rendering Works, Inc. has determined that a continuous rendering plant will be the most viable method of operation. Continuous rendering systems, as mentioned above, have replaced some batch systems. A continuous system has the ability to provide an uninter- rupted flow of material and produce a product of more constant quality. In addition, the residence time in some continuous systems is much less than in batch systems, ranging between 30 and 60 minutes; as a result of less exposure to heat, product quality is improved. An inherent disadvantage of the continuous system is that when a component breaks down, the entire plant is shut down. Hence, it is important that a thorough preventive maintenance program be rigidly followed to keep the plant in operation. Unlike batch systems, the manufacturers of continuous systems do not use the same basic design. Currently there are at least three major manufacturers of continuous systems being used by independent renderers. These three companies are the Duke continuous system, manufactured by the Dupps Company; the Anderson C -G (Carver - Greenfield) system, manufactured by Anderson -Ibec; and the Strata -Flow System manufactured by Albright -Nell Company. Seattle Rendering has elected to use the Duke system. The Duke system was designed to provide a method of cooking similar to that of batch systems except that it operates continuously. The cooker, called the Equacooker, is a horizontal steam - jacketed cylindrical vessel equipped with a rotating shaft to which are attached paddles that lift the material and move it horizontally through the cooker. Steam - heated coils are also attached to the shaft to provide increased heat transfer. The Equacooker contains three separate compartments which are fitted with baffles to restrict and control the flow of materials through the cooker. The feed rate to the Equacooker is controlled by adjusting the speed of the variable speed drive for the twin screw feeder; this establishes the production rate for the system. The discharge rate for the Equacooker is 19 controlled by the speed at which the control wheel rotates. The control wheel contains buckets similar to those used in a bucket elevator that pick up the cooked material from the Equacooker and discharge it to the Drainor. Next to the control wheel is located a site glass column which visually shows the operating level in the cooker. A photoelectric cell unit is provided to shut off the twin screw feeder when the upper level limit is reached. The Drainor performs the same function as a percolator pan in the batch cooker process. It essentially is an enclosed screw conveyor that contains a section of perforated troughs allowing the free melted fat to drain through as the solids are conveyed to the Pressor or screw press for additional separation of tallow. The Pressor is similar to any other screw press used along with a batch cooker to reduce the grease level of the crackling. A central control panel consolidates the process controls for the Duke system. The control panel houses a temperature recorder, steam pressure indicators, equipment speed settings, motor load gauges, and stop and start buttons, allowing one person to operate the Equacooker part of the Duke system. Detailed engineering plans and specifications related to the project are available for inspection at the office of the lead agency. 2. Process Design and Engineering Elements of Concern The primary sources of pollutants from continuous rendering plants are odor bearing emissions from the stacks and building and waste water effluents from the processing and boilers. The following description of the proposed treatment facilities is intended to generally describe how these pollutants will be handled. Exhibit II contains detailed information on the planned air pollution control systems and Exhibit III describes the effluent treatment planned. Additional engineering plans are available for inspection at the City of Tukwila. a. Air Pollution Control: The project will employ two odor control systems; one for treatment of stack gases and the other for containment and treatment of building odors. The process gas system will use an air condenser system rather than a water condenser system to conserve on water usage for cooling and to avoid discharge of the asso- ciated heated effluent. The air cooled surface condenser will use ambient air as a coolant. The air condenser employs fin tubes to extend the surface and increase the heat transfer area. Condensing steam has a large heat - transfer coefficient, and air a very small one. Therefore, air is placed on the fin side to the advantage of the large transfer area. Emission reductions of about 50 percent through sub - cooling of the condensate can be achieved. Further odor reduction of stack gases will be achieved through incineration using a boiler fire box which at sustained high heat (about 1200 degrees F) is capable of completely oxidizing odorous vapors. The 20 4 4 4 4 4 1 1 1 4 1 • • • • • • • • combination of cooling and incineration can achieve an odor removal efficiency of 99 percent. The surface condenser - incinerator system which will be employed yields odor emissions of between 70 and 140 odor units (ou) per standard cubic foot (scf). This can be contrasted with an average of 50,000 ou per scf from the typical batch plant such as that now in use. The second odor control system to be employed is one which is designed to contain and treat odors escaping directly from the plant structure. The new plant will be equipped with a scrubber which uses a chemical scrubbing liquid to dissolve the gases in a selective solvent. The type of system to be used is a peroxide irrigated packed tower. General plant ventilation air and process exhausts will be contained within the building, which will be under negative pressure, and conducted into this system for treatment before they are discharged to the atmosphere. The condenser - scrubber system will reduce plant related odor emissions to less than 100 ou per scf under the manufacturers guarantee. b. Water Pollution Control: The existing plant is operated in accordance with effluent limitations as specified in their current National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Waste Discharge Permit, as shown in Exhibit IV. The new plant will, however, employ even more stringent controls through primary, secondary, and tertiary treatment of the waste water streams prior to discharge into a subsurface drainfield. Plant effluent will be collected in an equalization tank and then sent to a dissolved air flotation system. This system is, by definition, a primary treatment system which removes fine suspended solids, oil, and grease. At this stage of treatment there is approximately 60 percent suspended solids removal, 80 to 90 percent grease removal, and 35 to 70 percent nitrogen reduction. The sludge from the system is recycled through the rendering process and the remaining waters sent to the secondary treatment facility. This system uses an anaerobic filter which basically digests the organic nutrients within the influent stream. The proposed project will employ an anaerobic contact system, rather than a lagoon system, which consists of equalization tanks, digesters, gas strippers, and clarifiers. Overall reduction of 5 -day biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5) and suspended solids by 90 to 97 percent is achievable. Sludge is again removed from the system and recycled to the rendering process. Additional treatment (tertiary treatment) by use of a clarifier will be achieved utilizing alum and polyelectrolytes which act as coagulants further reducing suspended solids and grease. The final effluent treatment stage is disinfection through chlorination which is designed to achieve a 99.9 percent reduction in coliform content. After final treatment the water will be sent to storage tanks for use in plant and equipment maintenance and the remainder of excess water will be sent to a subsurface drainfield which has been designed to meet the requirements of the State of Washington Department of Ecology. 21 F. RELATIONSHIP OF PROPOSED PROJECT TO EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLANS AND ZONING REGULATIONS The project site is zoned M -1 (light industrial) and both the existing uses and those to be conducted in the proposed new facilities are permitted in this zone. The proposal is in conformance with the existing Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan. The Planning Commission has recom- mended, to the City Council, that continuous rendering plants of the type proposed be classified as conditional uses rather than outright uses in an M -1 zone. As yet, no action has been taken on this recommendation. However, any change in the Zoning Code will not be applicable to the proposed action. 22 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 • • • • • SECTION II EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS AND THE IMPACT OF THE PROPOSAL ON THE ENVIRONMENT A description of the physical setting of the proposal and the land area to be affected are included in the following narrative to assist in understanding the environmental setting of the project. Exhibit V contains a complete list of the elements of the environment which are contained in the SEPA Guidelines (WAC 197 -10 -444) and adopted by reference by the City of Tukwila (Ord. No. 986, Section 2). Those elements of the environment which will not be significantly affected by the proposed action (directly or indirectly) have been marked "N /A" (not applicable). Those elements of the environment which are known to be affected by the project (either beneficially. or adversely) are discussed in greatest detail; while "potential" impacts are addressed at a level of detail which is considered to be reasonable. A. ELEMENTS OF THE PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT 1. Earth a. Existing Conditions: (1) Topography: The project site is located in a narrow river valley and is bounded by hills to the east and west which rise in elevation to over 200 feet. The entire project site (12 acres) varies in elevation from about 15 to 22 feet above mean sea level (USC &GS Datum, City of Tukwila, Section 14, TWP23, Range 4). (2) Soils: The location of the proposed new rendering plant on 1 -3/4 acres is generally flat and covered with 7 to 11 feet of soft or loose sand and silt. Subsurface soils investigations indicate the site is also generally underlain with sand (loose to dense). Further detailed information of surface and subsurface soils is contained in Exhibit VI, entitled Soils and Foundation Investigation Report Rendering Plant Addi- tions, Seattle Rendering Works, Tukwila (Rittenhouse — Zeman and Asso- ciates, October, 1976). These alluvial soils generally have a low bearing capacity, slight erosion hazard, poor internal drainage, and a high water table which requires much site preparation prior to development. (3) Geology: A complete discussion of the geologic history, surface geology, and associated characteristics of the project vicinity is contained in the "Data Inventory: Tukwila Planning Area" (City of Tukwila, 1975). Briefly the geologic character of the subject site is alluvium which was laid down in depths of over 100 feet by the waters of the Duwamish River after glacial retreat. Significant features of alluvium (primarily silt, clay with some peat) include poor foundation and seismic stability with low stable slopes. 23 b. Impacts: (1) Soils: The attached soils report (Rittenhouse — Zeman and Associates, 1976, Exhibit VI) indicates that in order to support building foundations, it will be necessary to improve the density of near surface soils. This is to be achieved through overexcavation, backfilling with sand and gravel, and compacting to at least 90 percent of laboratory maximum density. Preloading of the soil may also be feasible to achieve sufficient surficial soil density and preclude unnecessary settlement of structures. Following construction, structures and paving will cover about 20,000 square feet and will result in long -term removal of the underlying soils from productivity. (2) Topography: Existing land contours will be slightly altered by the required excavation, relocation, and fill of approximately 1450 cubic yards of earth for fill and 1695 cubic yards of earth from cut. (3) Erosion, Accretion, and Avulsion: Short -term construction - related erosion and siltation are possible as grading and fill operations are expected to occur during normally rainy months. To mitigate the potential wind or water erosion and deposition of silt, the project specifications will incorporate the recommendations of the soils report. Included will be specifications that fill to be placed on the site should consist of clean granular material containing no more than 5 percent fines and placed under supervision of a Soils Engineer. Following construction, no increase in wind or water erosion of soils is expected. (4) Geology: The compressive loads to be imposed by the proposed structures and preloading of soils are not considered to be such that the geology of the area will be significantly altered or adversely affected. 2. Air a. Existing Conditions: (1) Climate and Weather: The Olympic and Cascade Mountain ranges which border Puget Sound protect the area from cold arctic air and ocean storms. Maritime air, which enters from the south, tempers the summer and winter climate. Mean annual precipitation is 34 inches and occurs primarily as rain between October and March. Temperature ranges from 70 degrees during the summer to 30 degrees in the winter. Prevailing winds are channeled by the Olympics and Cascades and are northerly or southerly. Seasonal wind patterns are pronounced due to the presence of a semi - permanent low- pressure area off 24 1 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 • • • • • the Pacific Coast during the winter, which results in prevailing southerly winds. During the summer, prevailing winds bring Pacific air through the Straight of Juan de Fuca over the northern part of Puget Sound, and from the Grays Harbor area south of the Olympics to the southern part of the Sound. Diurnal variations in wind direction are most pronounced during the summer when daytime winds at the Seattle- Tacoma International Airport are typically northerly and the nighttime winds are predominantly southerly. (2) Air Quality /Odor: Malodors are the principal air contaminants occurring at the existing facility. These are organic in nature and include aldehydes, fatty acids, amino mercaptans and sulfides. The plant is currently operating under a variance issued by the Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency (See Exhibit VII) with scheduled compliance with existing measures for odor control to be achieved by October 21, 1977. Aldehydes and fatty acids are principal odorous breakdown products from fats; putrescence and cadaverine are two extremely malodorous organic nitrogen compounds associated with decaying flesh. Keratins, the primary constituents of skin, hair, feathers, etc. are the principal sources of sulfides and mercaptans. Odor threshholds are extremely low for some of the compounds and they can be detected in concentrations as low as 0.2 parts per billion. Typical threshholds are in the range of 0.2 to 20 ppb. Compounds with threshholds of this magnitude are trimethyl amine (0.21), ethyl mercaptan (1.0), hydrogen sulfide (4.7), dimethyl sulfide (2.5), and butryic acid (1.0). The existing plant cookers are the predominant source of emissions. Typical batch cookers release 250 -750 scfm of exhaust gases over the 2 to 4 hour cooking cycle, with a typical concentration of 50,000 odor units /scf. These cooker odors are currently being condensed by use of Hudson Engineering Company air condensers equipped with Intalox filled packed tower, irrigated with hydrogen peroxide solution to scrub any residual odors from the non - condensable gas. Another major odor source is the feather cooker dryer. A typical feather dryer emits 2,000 odor units /scf. These gases are scrubbed in a contact scrubber utilizing hydrogen peroxide as the oxidant. The odor reduction efficiency of this scrubber is about 99 percent which is typical for a device of this type. Exhibit VIII contains the results of a survey conducted in August, 1976 to qualitatively relate odor and selected air pollutant levels from the plant with air quality downwind of the site (Food, Chemical and Research Laboratories, Inc., 1976). And the odor abatement program and schedule presently in effect are shown in Exhibit IX. The Air Quality Data Summary for Counties of King, Kitsap, Pierce, and Snohomish (Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency, 1975) indicate that for other pollutants of interest as measured at the monitoring station at 10000 West Marginal Way S.W., no violations of the standards were recorded for suspended particulates, carbon monoxide, 25 nitrogen dioxide, or sulfur dioxide. However, the standard for hydro- carbons (0.24 ppm, 3 hour average not to be exceeded more than once per year) was exceeded 51 times. The existing rendering facility does not contribute to the hydrocarbon pollution problem of the area. b. Impacts: (1) Odor: As discussed in Section I.E., the proposed new plant has been designed and engineered to improve the air quality of associated manufacturing and to meet existing odor rules and regulations as specified by Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency. The air pollution control system to be employed is designed for high intensity odor control. The design standard established should reduce the odor source to less than 100 odor units per cubic foot. Such levels would not be detectable at any downwind receptor and no odors will be detectable beyond the site. Further detailed information is contained in Exhibit II which describes the pro- posed air quality control systems to be employed. (2) In conjunction with the above discussion of emissions, the new plant will be under negative pressure with all mal- odorous material stored within the building. Process vapors will be incinerated and all odor bearing gases scrubbed with chemicals to reduce them to a nonobjectionable level. The anticipated development should be of substantial improvement to the local area, and the resulting benefits are expected to generally improve the quality of the environment for present and future generations. 3. Water a. Existing Conditions: (1) Surface Water: The subject property is situated in the Green - Duwamish drainage basin and is bounded on the north, south, and west by the Green River which is also the principal source of water used in the existing manufacturing plant. Under their current Water Right Claim, as shown in Exhibit X, the Rendering facility has claim to 315 gallons per minute (gpm) for cleaning, cooling, and domestic supply and current use of water for plant operation is approximately 17 gpm. Plant effluent is not discharged to surface waters of the State. The existing plant is currently operating in compliance with the provisions of Chapter 90.48 RCW as amended and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendment of 1972 (P.L. 92 -500) and has a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Waste Discharge Permit, as shown in Exhibit IV. Additional information on surface water movement, runoff /absorption, flooding, and surface water quality and quantity, in the project vicinity, is contained in the "Data Inventory; Tukwila Planning Area" (City of Tukwila, 1975). 26 41 41 41 1 • • • • • • • Water quality of the Green River is classified as Class A by the Department of Ecology and its relation to existing standards is shown in Table 3. TABLE 3 GREEN RIVER, TUKWILA, WASHINGTON *1 — Meets Class A water standards 2 — Sometimes does not meet Class A standards 3 — Does not meet Class A standards. (2) Groundwater: Groundwater within the project vicinity is abundant and feeds directly into the adjacent Green River. Treated effluent from the existing plant is discharged to a subsurface drainfield and then through natural infiltration it reaches the ground- water system. It is expected that prior to reaching the ground- water table, additional reduction of pollutant levels would be achieved. No public water supplies from surface or groundwaters on or downstream of the subject site are known to exist. Groundwater was located during subsurface investi- gations in October of 1976 at depths of about 13 feet. The water table generally fluctuates with variations in the river due to season, rainfall, or discharge from Howard Hanson Dam. In winter, the water table is at or near the ground surface. b. Impacts: (1) Runoff /Absorption: Placement of buildings and paved areas on the site will alter the local drainage patterns and absorption rates. Stormwater will be conducted to a collection basin and then directed into the effluent treatment system before it is returned to the ground. This would diminish the natural entry of stormwater into the groundwater system. Impoundment and treatment should reduce the proba- bility of surface contaminants entering existing watercourses. The rate of discharge of water into the subsurface drainfield will be controlled so that it would not be substantially different from that currently being experienced from use of the present plant operation. 27 Temperature Dissolved Oxygen pH Coliform Turbidity Lead Concentra- tion Relation to Standards* of State of Wash. Dept. of Ecology 2 1 1 3 2 1 *1 — Meets Class A water standards 2 — Sometimes does not meet Class A standards 3 — Does not meet Class A standards. (2) Groundwater: Groundwater within the project vicinity is abundant and feeds directly into the adjacent Green River. Treated effluent from the existing plant is discharged to a subsurface drainfield and then through natural infiltration it reaches the ground- water system. It is expected that prior to reaching the ground- water table, additional reduction of pollutant levels would be achieved. No public water supplies from surface or groundwaters on or downstream of the subject site are known to exist. Groundwater was located during subsurface investi- gations in October of 1976 at depths of about 13 feet. The water table generally fluctuates with variations in the river due to season, rainfall, or discharge from Howard Hanson Dam. In winter, the water table is at or near the ground surface. b. Impacts: (1) Runoff /Absorption: Placement of buildings and paved areas on the site will alter the local drainage patterns and absorption rates. Stormwater will be conducted to a collection basin and then directed into the effluent treatment system before it is returned to the ground. This would diminish the natural entry of stormwater into the groundwater system. Impoundment and treatment should reduce the proba- bility of surface contaminants entering existing watercourses. The rate of discharge of water into the subsurface drainfield will be controlled so that it would not be substantially different from that currently being experienced from use of the present plant operation. 27 (2) Surface Water Quantity: In the event of a fire, water withdrawal at the required flow and pressure could temporarily reduce the flow within the systems. The amount of surface water used in the manufac- turing and processing facility is not expected to change significantly as a result of the replacement plant. (3) Surface Water Quality: During construction, run- off from the site could increase the transport of silt and sediments to the local watercourse. Mitigation of extensive siltation can be achieved by use of soils materials in accordance with specifications discussed in Section II.A.1.b., above, and by construction of holding basins to prevent exces- sive silting. Following construction, any barren areas will be covered with a bonding grass in order to stabilize the soil. Additional discharge of effluents to surface waters are not expected from plant operations. Current rules and regula- tions applicable to operation preclude such discharge and the new plant will operate in conformance with the requirements set forth in Exhibit IV (NPDES Permit). In addition, runoff waters will be collected on site and directed into the wastewater treatment facility before discharge to the subsurface drainfield. (4) Groundwater Quantity: The existing plant employs the method of groundwater recharge through addition of treated, recycled process water to a subsurface drainfield in accordance with the NPDES Permit (Exhibit IV). The new plant will employ the same method. Prior to startup, the Department of Ecology must review the plans for alteration and hookup to the system.. No significant alteration or change in quantities are expected as a result of the new plant. During construction, dewatering will probably be required due to the current water table level. Use of deepwells or well points to dewater are proposed during this phase of construction. (5) Groundwater Quality: As described in Section I.E., the process waters will receive primary, secondary, and tertiary treatment prior to discharge into the subsurface drainfield. Regular monitoring of water quality will be conducted to assure that the treatment system is performing as required. The proposed effluent treatment system will reduce pollutant levels currently entering the ground. 4. Flora a. Existing Conditions: The project site has been previously cleared and is sparsely covered with grasses, small bushes, blackberries, and native lowland deciduous trees. 28 1 1 1 1 1 1 • • The primary species of trees include cottonwood, ash, willow, and alder. On the project site these species are found primarily along the property perimeter along the Green River. No unique, rare, or endangered species of flora are associated with the site or near environs. A portion of. the subject site currently supports a small 1/2 acre garden patch which is cultivated by plant personnel during the growing season with rhubarb and truck crops. b. Impacts: All existing vegetation will be removed in areas of proposed buildings and parking and paving areas (about 1 -1/2 acres), thereby reducing the number of species currently on the site. Revegetation of uncovered areas will be employed following construction; however, the extent of existing habitat will be reduced. 5. Fauna a. Existing Conditions: Animal life is limited primarily to invertebrates, birds (seagulls and crows), and rodents; the site does not serve as a critical breeding, feeding, or resting area for any species. Numerous crows and seagulls presently feed on the spillage from the existing plant. The Green River supports significant fisheries popula- tions including chinook, chum, and coho salmon, cutthroat, and Dolly Varden trout, stickleback, white fish and dace. Some natural spawning occurs in the river but the majority occurs about 20 miles upstream from Tukwila. Further information on vegetation and wildlife of the area can be found in the "Data Inventory: Tukwila Planning Area" (City of Tukwila, 1975). b. Impacts: (1) The loss of habitat will have a concommitant effect on the number of species currently using the project site. Elimina- tion of habitat may reduce the carrying capacity of the site and those species using the site will either be displaced or lost. Displacement will put added burdens on adjacent habitats and may result in overcrowding. Thus, wildlife species affected will eventually suffer a reduction in population. I/ The size and extent of the new plant are not such that a substantial loss in number or species diversity would be expected. (2) Long -term deterioration of habitat is not expected to occur as a result of the new plant facility. However, complete enclosure of operations may reduce the attraction of scavengers (crows, seagulls, rodents) currently utilizing the area for feeding. 29 6. Noise a. Existing Conditions: 4 Noise levels from the existing plant activities and nearby railroad usage clearly predominate in the project vicinity.. Noise readings taken on October 21, 1976 at 17 locations indicate that plant noise levels as measured at a distance of approximately 100 feet range from an L9 of about 54 dBA to an L10 of 66 to 68 with L5. 's of 61 to 62 dBA. The L90' �50' and L10 values relate to those noise levels exceeded 90, 50, and 1D percent of the time, respectively. Nearby passage of trains result in levels of 81 to 84 dBA and aircraft overflight noise was measured at 88 to 90 dBA on the subject property. At distances of 300 to 400 feet from the plant area, the average noise levels measured ranged from 54 to 58 dBA. Because of its proximity, the predominant noise source in the residential area to the north of the subject site is from traffic on Interstate 5 which forms the northern boundary of the area. Peak noise levels are also due to passage of trains to the east and from aircraft overflights. Due to its distance from existing residences, plant noise is not detectable above the existing ambient levels. b. Impacts: (1) Construction Noise: Short -term construction noise levels of about 88 dBA (measured at 50 feet) will be experienced over the 6 month period of construction. The nearest noise sensitive property is located approximately 700 feet north of the construction area. At this distance the levels from the project site would be reduced to such a degree (about 66 dBA) that no significant impact would be expected. Construction traffic may have a short -term impact on local residents. Control of traffic and scheduling of deliveries could be employed to reduce this impact. (2) Operations Noise: Long -term operations noise from the processing facilities are not expected to be as great as those currently measured from the existing plant. Plant enclosure should assure reduction of noise levels over time. Traffic volumes are not expected to increase significantly as a result of the new plant; therefore, trans- portation noise should not be altered to any significant degree., 7. Light and Glare a. Existing Conditions: Existing plant lighting does not affect the surrounding properties. b. Impacts: N /A. 30 1 1 1 1 1 • • 8. Land Use a. Existing Conditions: The project site is zoned M -1 (light industrial) and the existing and new facilities are permitted in this zone. The plant is in conformance with existing zoning code and Comprehensive Plan. Surrounding uses include the railroad right of way to the east, a golf course on the west bank of the abutting Green River watercourse (future Tukwila Park for which purchase by the City was authorized by passage of a $1.8 million general obligation bond), and a residential neighborhood to the north, the nearest residence being approx- imately 700 feet from the project boundary. Commercial, industrial and park /recreation uses also exist along the watercourse to the south, north, and east. Detailed information on existing land use in the area is also contained in the "Data Inventory: Tukwila Planning Area" (City of Tukwila, 1975) . b. Impacts: Development of the project represents a continued long- term commitment to use of the project site for manufacturing. The odor abatement technology should have further implications for future land use in the near environs of the property. Indirectly, the new facility should act to reinforce the continued use of nearby lands for residential and recreation use by improving the ambient air quality and thereby the overall use and habitability of such areas. 9. Natural Resources a. Existing Conditions: The existing plant and associated storage and treatment facilities currently use water from the Green River as described in Exhibit X which is recycled after treatment and returned to the water regime. In addition, a primary source of energy is natural gas which is consumed at a rate of about 87,000 therms per month. During periods of natural gas interruptions, bunker fuel oil is used as an energy source. b. Impacts: N /A. 10. Risk of Upset a. Existing Conditions: The only potentially hazardous substance currently used in the plant operation is hydrogen peroxide. This chemical is used in the gas cleanup system (scrubbers) at a rate of 20 ppm. Delivery is via common 31 carrier in quantities of 55 gallon drums. In the event of spillage, the substance is a strong oxidizing agent and would dissipate in the soil and would not result in a toxic hazard. Other potential scrubbing agents which could be substituted in the scrubbing include sodium hypochlorite, chlorine, and potasium permanganate, all of which are more dangerous or hazardous. The plant boilers are designed and maintained according to all applicable standards and regulations. 4 b. Impacts: 4 Use of hydrogen peroxide as a scrubbing agent will be continued in the new facility. No additional risk should be incurred from such continued use. Liquid chlorine used as a disinfectant in the waste- water treatment system is also considered to be a hazardous substance. Special safety precautions in storage and handling will be employed.. The new boiler system will meet all existing and appli- cable rules and regulations for installation, use, and maintenance and should not constitute a significant risk. B. ELEMENTS OF THE HUMAN ENVIRONMENT 1. Population /Housing a. Existing Conditions: The existing plant currently employs 35 employees on a full time basis. Since the facility has been in existence for over 30 years within the community, it can probably be assumed that its influence on the location, distribution, density, and growth rate of human population of the area has been normalized over time. A single family house on the property is currently used by the company watchman. The subject property is within Census Tract 262 which also includes the residential area to the north and open space areas to the north, south, and west (Foster Golf Course). An analysis of this neighbor- hood's population and housing characteristics can be found in the pre- viously cited Data Inventory. The existing rendering plant odors have probably ad- versely affected the local population. A national survey conducted in 1969 concluded that odors should be considered undesirable air pollutants, whether or not they are linked to long -term health effects, simply because they constitute an annoyance to people (Sullivan, 1969). b. Impacts: Because the proposed project will reduce odors tb levels that are undetectable, a long -term beneficial impact should be realized by those currently living in the area. Such benefits should include increased use and enjoyment of property and positive effects on property values. 32 4 4 4 4 4 4 • Should property values increase, it is possible that undeveloped residen- tial lands may be developed for such uses. The replacement facility should, at a minimum, have a long -term stabilizing influence on the population and housing base of the area due to improvement in environmental quality. 2. Transportation /Circulation a. Existing Conditions: The Seattle Rendering Company site is connected to South 130th Place by a paved private road leased from the Burlington Northern Railroad. Current traffic volumes to the plant are light. The average daily traffic is approximately 100 vehicles with peaks of 40 vehicles at 7 to 8 AM and 40 vehicles at 4 to 5 PM. The subject site is served by Metro operated buses which run along Interurban Avenue with the nearest stop at 56th Avenue South. The plant operates a fleet of 22 trucks for pickup of supplies and materials and also receives raw materials from 12 independent suppliers Interstate 5 is located approximately 1/2 mile from the subject property and is the primary route used for pickup and delivery vehicles servicing the existing plant. Routing of truck traffic along 130th to I -5 is currently practiced by the project sponsor to avoid traffic hazards and residential areas along 56th Avenue South. On -site parking facilities are provided for fleet trucks and employees. b. Impacts: Short -term construction - related traffic increases will occur due to the need for delivery of materials and labor to the site. Control of traffic to restrict movement through the residential area served by 56th Avenue South will be employed to reduce potential traffic hazards associated with conflicting uses and to prevent added hazards on the narrow wooden bridge which connects the area to the West Valley Highway. Long -term traffic increases are not expected. Employment will be modestly reduced. Product deliveries will moderately increase. It is estimated that there will be approximately 5 additional vehicle trips per day for product handling. Continued truck routing along 130th South will be employed. 3. Public Services a. Existing Conditions: Services to the property are provided by the City of Tukwila including police protection and fire protection. An existing fire station is located within 2 miles of the property. The site is located in Renton School District 403. Road maintenance to the site is not provided as the existing primary access road is privately owned. Other special public services are not requisite to operation or maintenance of the facility. 33 1 b. Impacts: The proposal may have an effect upon, or result in, a need for new or altered fire protection services, and the need for additional fire flow may result. The City of Tukwila Department of Public Works and Fire Department are currently working with the applicant to determine possible methods for improving fire flow. 4. Energy / a. Existing Conditions: Fuel requirements were previously described above. Elec- trical requirements primarily for lighting are currently about 148,000 KWH per month. b. Impacts: N /A. 5. Utilities a. Existing Conditions: The project site is serviced by adequate electrical, natural gas, and communication systems. Water service to the site is provided by a 6 -inch main capable of supplying 700 gpm at 20 pounds per square inch (psi) residual pressure. Sewage (sanitary, process, and storm) is handled on the site, process and storm sewerage is treated to remove suspended solids, oil, grease, and other pollutants; and discharged into a subsurface drainfield in accordance with the NPDES permit previously discussed (Exhibit IV). Sanitary sewerage is handled in a separate septic system. The new facilities will require a new sanitary septic disposal system which has been designed in accordance with the requirements of King County. Solid wastes consist primarily of used metal containers which are picked up weekly. b. Impacts: The proposal will result in a need for alterations to the following utilities: • Water • Sewer or septic tanks • Stormwater drainage The above utilities, with the exception of municipal water, are maintained and provided by the project sponsor. Alterations in locations would be required to serve the new plant locations. No signifi- cant impacts from relocation are expected as a result of the replacement facility. 34 1 4 4 4 • • • • • The improved project wastewater treatment facility (storm and sanitary) will provide treatment which exceeds that currently available in the area. 6. Human Health a. Existing Conditions: The existing rendering plant is a source of noxious odors. While such odors have not been determined to be toxic or hazardous to human health, an abatement schedule for odor control (see Exhibit IX) has been adopted with the construction of a replacement facility, incorpo- rating maximum abatement as the final step in achieving compliance. Seattle Rendering also has a contract for pest control services. The program employed includes use of 40 locked person -proof bait boxes containing a powerful anticoagulant approved by both the U.S. Public Health Service and Seattle-King County Health Department. There have been no complaints from nearby residents and the site is not a source of vector caused illnesses. b. Impacts: Reduction of malodors should have a beneficial effect on those persons living and working in the project area by reducing the annoyance associated•with such air contaminants. Improved efficiency, containment of plant activities and enclosure of raw materials should further reduce the number of pests (rodents and birds) attracted to the site. 7. Aesthetics a. Existing Conditions: The existing facility does not obstruct any scenic vista or view open to the public. It is visible primarily from the golf course to the west and due to its nature as a manufacturing plant, it is probably not considered to be visually pleasing to many observers. Partial screening by native vegetation is afforded. b. Impacts: The proposal will not result in the obstruction of any scenic view or vista open to the public. The new plant will, however, be partially visible from the west and could be considered offensive by some. Existing vegetation and the distance between the plant and open viewing areas should serve to mitigate this possible impact. Additional screening could further reduce the potential impact. 35 8. Recreation a. Existing Conditions: The existing project places no substantial demands on local recreation facilities due to both its nature and size. However, it is expected that malodors may presently have an adverse effect on the use and enjoyment of the nearby golf course. b. Impacts; The proposed project should have a beneficial effect on the recreational use of the adjacent golf course (future Tukwila Park) by improving the quality of the environment for users. It is expected that the area will have increased use due to the elimination of annoying odors which may currently restrict use by some people. 9. Archeological /Historical a. Existing Conditions: The project area contains no known or existing archeo- logical or historical sites listed in the State or Federal records. b. Impacts: N /A. 10. Revenue /Employment. a. Existing Conditions: The existing plant employs about 35 persons full time. The current 1976 tax payment on real estate is $1,814.96 which is based on a levy rate of 14.026 mils on taxable value. The existing annual payroll is over $500,000. Contracts with the 12 independent raw materials suppliers are valued at an additional $500,000 per year. b. Impacts: There will be a reduction in total plant employment, resulting in a loss of about 8 full -time employees. Those individuals who are laid off will suffer a loss of income and place additional burdens on the employment /unemployment structure until they are able to find new employment. This impact could be mitigated by giving employees sufficient notice of the cutback, thereby affording them an opportunity to find, other employment prior to termination at Seattle Rendering. The loss in direct payroll will amount to about $100,000 per year. Tax revenues will be substantially increased. Based on the 1976 levy rate, the new plant would generate approximately $15,700 in 36 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 • • added real estate• tax revenues in support of public services and facilities. 11. Additional Population Characteristics a. Existing Conditions: The distribution of area residents by age was discussed under the general subsection on population. Distribution by sex and ethnic character is not considered relevant to this analysis. b. Impacts: N /A. 12. Additional Elements to be Covered in an EIS a. Existing Conditions: (City of Tukwila — Ordinance 986, Section 11) • Employment (see B.10 above) • Economy (see 8.10 above) • Tax Base (see B.10 above) • Cultural Factors (N /A) • Quality of Life (N /A) • Neighborhood Cohesion (N /A) • Sociological Factors'(N /A) b. Impacts: • Employment (see B.10 above) • Economy (see B.10 above) • Tax Base (see 8.10 above) • Cultural Factors (N /A) • Quality of life (N /A) • Neighborhood cohesion (N /A) • Sociological factors (N /A) 37 • • SECTION III THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LOCAL SHORT -TERM USES OF MAN'S ENVIRONMENT AND MAINTENANCE AND ENHANCEMENT OF LONG -TERM PRODUCTIVITY The project site was zoned and developed for rendering plant use prior to implementation of the State Environmental Policy Act. In addition to the immediate loss of the natural use of the site, the result was continuation of a long -term trend toward the gradual removal of the area's natural environment and addition to the area's man -made environment. Because of the location of the site and population growth in the region, the long -term use of the site is not suited to use as a natural habitat for wildlife. According to the present zoning, economic conditions, air and water quality conditions, and land use planning, the potential long -term and future environmental and economic productivity of the site would appear to be greatest if the site were developed as stated in the proposed action. Such development• would restrict change in the use of the site for the owner's estimated usable life span of the facilities. Because malodors are to be significantly reduced to nondetectable levels, it is expected that this project may indirectly result in the increased residential develop- ment of the surrounding areas, thereby reinforcing . the long -term plans for maintenance of existing residential and open space recreation areas. Other uses for the land are limited should the proposed project not be implemented. Under the existing zoning, other manufacturing uses might be developed. The short -term use of the site for such alternative develop- ments would not be expected to substantially alter the long -term produc- tivity of the area. If the site is developed as proposed, other options for land use would be precluded. The structures proposed would not be temporary in nature. If, for some reason, it is decided that the space is more valuable for other purposes, the buildings could be torn down and the site restored to its present condition. However, without considerable change in the condition of the site and surrounding area, it is not probable that the area could become a productive natural ecosystem nor does the size of the site allow for a significant improvement to the natural environment. The project and other development in this area would be expected to contribute to a trend of increased use and development. This trend reflects, in turn, man -made decisions for long -term use of the environment. The decision to reduce malodors which . have affected the area's environment for several decades represents a decision which will affect both the short -term uses of the environment and influence the long -term environmental productivity of the site and area. Intensification of land use can often create continued environmental problems associated with air quality, noise, water quality, and utility and public service demands. However, the proposed project as well as the existing plant and associated 39 manufacturing represents a service which recycles waste products thereby reducing public health hazards as well as the need for less productive or nonproductive disposal. A commitment to effluent and emission controls represents a further reduction in long -term environmental degredation and increased productivity of the natural, physical, and human environment. The over -all increase in the economic productivity of the area, the long- term fiscal gains as well as the increased diversity of the available goods and services must be weighed and evaluated in terms of the associated losses inherent in the commitment to such a project as that proposed. Should implementation of the proposal be postponed at this time, the plant would be unable to meet its present commitments for air quality control. The nature and age of the existing building and equipment are such that even with extensive remodeling and use of newer technology, the end result would be less satisfactory both from an economic and environmental perspective. Plant shutdown would perhaps serve to benefit those now living in the near area and the local environment. On a regional level, even a short -term loss of the goods and services provided by the plant could create adverse impacts for governmental agencies and private suppliers now using the plant for disposal. If a suitable alternative site were avail- able, relocation to another area would displace the impact of plant operation. The overall cost of relocating would require a substantially greater capital investment which the owner does not feel is justified. Use of the existing site for a modern, well- designed, and adequately controlled plant capable of meeting existing environmental standards appears to achieve the greatest benefit to cost ratio for the applicant, the public, and the government. 40 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 • • • • SECTION IV IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES The proposed action could possibly result in adverse impacts to a lesser degree than alternative uses permitted in M -1 zoning, a modified project at the same location, or abandonment of the project. Such alter- natives, or other alternatives mentioned in Section V, may not provide public benefits to the same degree. It would be considered permanent for at least the estimated lifetime of the structures. The building techniques utilized would render unlikely its dismantling or modification prior to this time, even if the resulting environmental impacts should indicate such a consideration. In addition to the continued commitment of the site to intensified land utilization, the proposed project would result in the commitment of other natural environmental and human resources and could also result in a secondary impact by committing future generations to similar uses. The following discussion serves as a summary of those aspects of the project which could be considered either irreversible or irretrievable. A. NATURAL ENVIRONMENT The preliminary commitment to the modification of the topography and surface soils conditions was made when the site was first developed. Further modification of the topography and increases in ground coverage by buildings and pavement would further commit these resources and could possibly constitute an irreversible commitment to man -made surface condi- tions for at least the life of the project. The loss of vegetative cover and the associated wildlife use of the land would be further committed by the proposed project. Continued develop- ment in the area could be expected to irreversibly influence wildlife habitats. Some of the loss of vegetation and habitable areas could be offset by landscaping. However, this would be considered to be primarily a visual amenity rather than a significant habitat for the area's wildlife. Alteration of the water quality of receiving waters from water runoff would be minimal due to the treatment method to be employed. Surrounding land use changes would probably not be such that they would result in an irretrievable commitment of the quality of this resource for future generations. Traffic in the area and at the project site would continue at about the same level and continue to contribute to the associated concentrations of carbon monoxide (CO) and noise levels. While neither of these effects are considered irreversible or irretrievable commitments of resources, there would be some commitment to degradation in the quality of the area with continued operation of the proposed project. Malodors emitted from the 41 site will be reduced to nondetectable levels. However, emissions at even a reduced level will continue and therefore involve an irretrievable commit - ment to such degradation. The project would require a continued long -term commitment of energy resources, natural gas, and on -site waste treatment facilities. All elec- trical power, gas, and water expended and the waste treatment and solid waste facilities utilized during the construction, operation, and mainten- ance of the proposed project are considered irreversible and irretrievable commitments. Should the requirement for these utilities and services be terminated the energy sources and water consumed could be utilized elsewhere. B. HUMAN RESOURCES Continued commitment of the subject site to manufacturing utiliza- tion will require a commitment of human resources. Labor and services required by persons in the construction, operation, and maintenance of the project facilities are considered an irretrievable commitment of human resources. Additionally, the municipal and public services required to maintain the project during its operation would require a commitment of the associated human resources. The capital expenditures necessary for construction of the project would require a substantial monetary commitment. However, monies committed to the development should be retrievable over the lifetime of the project through the operation of the project facilities. The alteration of the visual character of the site is considered an irreversible commitment for the life of the project. A past commitment was made when the site was developed for the proposed use. The visual character of the site should be somewhat enhanced by a general cleanup of operations and by future removal of the existing batch plant which is scheduled for abandonment after the new plant is operational. The use of various construction and building materials required for development of the project can be considered an irreversible commitment of these materials. It is likely that very few of these materials could be retrieved and reused when the useful life of the project ends. The proposed action should increase the range of benefits within the local environment. Since the uses of the site are defined by the zoning requirements, the proposed project should increase the benefits derived by such zoning through an increase in the tax base, which should benefit the local jurisdictions. 42 1 1 1 1 0 1 4 1 1 • SECTION V 40 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSAL • i Because the nature of this proposal involves a private project rather than public action, the alternatives considered are limited to the "no action" alternatives plus other reasonable means of achieving the objec- tive of the proposal on the same site. A. "NO ACTION" The alternative of no action involves reliance upon the existing facilities for rendering on the site. Since the current plant is not able to meet Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency regulations with respect to odor, the plant would have to be abandoned or substantially improved to remain in use. Abandonment would affect both the natural and physical environment of the site and region and would result in the following environmental changes: • Improvement of local air quality • Reduction in local traffic volumes • Reduction in the use of nonrenewable sources of energy for processing and lighting • Reduction in water consumption • Removal of need to maintain waste water treatment facilities and removal of subsurface drainfield and a return to natural groundwater quality conditions • Removal of need to further alter surface topography • Maintenance of existing flora and fauna with potential long- term increases in the number and diversity of species • Reduction in land utilization on the site • Removal of on -site use of potentially hazardous chemicals • Improvement in human livability and land values due to removal of malodorous emissions • Removal of need for additional structures which would be visible from off -site areas. 43 In addition to achieving the above stated environmental improve- ments, project abandonment would result in the following adverse impacts: • Regional loss of over 52 million pounds of waste products presently recycled for further use and consumption • Increased health hazards created in the community and region. Should the present rendering plant be abandoned because it is unable to meet environmental requirements, there are not suf- ficient existing facilities in Western Washington equipped to handle the 52 million pounds of offal presently being rendered harmless by Seattle Rendering Company. • Fallen animals, feathers, shellfish waste, and fish scrap would have to be disposed of on an individual basis in the 8 counties served by Seattle Rendering Company and their inde- pendent suppliers. This would cause monumental problems in the sanitary landfills if they were allowed to be used for this purpose, providing the offal was even presented for disposal. • Under Chapter 16.68 of the Revised Code of Washington, all fallen large animals (cows, horses, mules, etc.) have to either be rendered or buried immediately after demise. Dumping in sanitary land fills is not allowed. If buried, all parts of the animal must be covered by 3 feet of earth. As the water table in the Kent and Snoqualmie valleys is within 3 feet of the surface at all times, the burial of animals as a disposal method is not condoned by the Seattle-King County Health Department. • Removal of a service now available to law enforcement officers for disposal of fallen animals from highways in King and parts of Pierce and Snohomish counties. • With the exception of Seattle Rendering, none of the other 6 rendering plants in Western Washington can handle feathers. Only 2 of these can handle fallen animals, and on occasion these 2 have asked Seattle Rendering to take their overload; 1 handles shop scrap and yellow grease only; 1 handles restau- rant grease only; and the remaining 2 are in -house operations of meat packers who handle only their own offal. • Economic loss to the community and region, with 35 employees forced on the already tight job market, contracts with 12 independent raw material suppliers cancelled, and all future tax revenues from plant operation lost. • Loss of significant amounts of manufactured products consist- ing of protein additives for animal feed and tallow for export. 44 1 1 1 1 4 1 4 1 1 i • 6 • • • Abandonment of the plant would not preclude use of the site for other permitted uses in an M -1 zone and potentially any other such permitted uses could result in many of the impacts which are associated with both the existing and proposed project (i.e., topographic changes, energy consump- tion, traffic, air and water degredation, habitat reduction, etc.). Modification of the existing plant may be possible but has been found to be both functionally inferior and economically prohibitive as a method for achieving the objectives of the proposal. The age of the structure and equipment have made both obsolete given the advanced state of technology available in the rendering industry. If control of emissions could be achieved, it is doubtful that they could approximate the levels achievable with the proposed replacement plant. Since it is also possible that existing emission standards could not be achieved using the existing plant, this possibility has led the pro- ponent to the conclusion that modification is not a viable alternative. The environmental effects of this alternative strategy, if it were possible to achieve the objectives at all, would be substantially the same as those described in the section on existing conditions with the exception that odorous emissions and their associated effects would be altered due to cleanup of gases. B. ALTERNATIVES ON THE SITE Three potential configurations and two site areas within the project property were evaluated prior to selection of the proposal at the preferred location. The major constraint to other locations on the site was the soils ability to provide adequate structural and subsurface conditions for development. Based on a soils engineering study it was determined that the selected area was the best suited to the proposed use. Other equipment configurations and technology exist which might be substituted. However, the proposal represents the best available tech- nology and it is not likely that other designs would result in lesser impacts. Therefore, further consideration of such alternatives does not appear to be warranted. 45 • • 1 1 1 SECTION VI ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS WHICH MAY BE MITIGATED The adverse environmental impacts which could occur as a result of the project would be of two types: short -term and long -term. These impacts are briefly summarized in this section, together with those mitigating measures that could reduce the impacts. • Short -Term Impacts On -site construction noise Soil erosion during construction Dust during construction Construction- related traffic • Long -Term Impacts - Continued vehicular traffic Increase in impervious surfaces and continued effluent discharge Continued demand on public utilities - Change in the visual character of the site and area Alteration of vegetation and wildlife habitat Loss of open space Continued emissions to the atmosphere A. SHORT -TERM IMPACTS 1. On -Site Construction Noise Noise from construction - related activities associated with the proposed project would create an unavoidable short -term impact. Noise impacts will be mitigated to a great extent by the relatively large distances between the major construction activities and the nearest noise- sensitive locations. Further mitigation could be achieved by contract specifications which limit construction activities to normal working hours • norma working days and by specifying the use ow -noise equipment. tince the use of internal combustion equipment is the source of most prevalent construction- related noise, the specifications could require muffling of all such a gippc. In addition, scheduling of the noisiest operations to coincide with the hours of peak noise activity in the area could reduce the potential impacts. These controls would not have a significant effect on the cost of construction if it is determined that they are necessary. an 2. Soil Erosion During Construction The erosion hazard of soil disturbed during construction could result in significant amounts of silt being carried from the site into the 47 area's water courses. Siltation, or the settling of suspended solids, can cause suffocation of food organisms and shellfish populations. The months which are most likely to result in significant impacts on water quality are October through March. In addition to the requirements for use of controlled soils quality for fill, the following precautions could be employed during site preparation to ensure environmental consideration during this phase of the project. a. If construction and site preparation are to occur during periods of high potential damage, the contractor will be re• i -• to cons ruc o •ing •assns and employ other metho•s w ich would prevent excessive silting. b. If land is graded and left barren for any length of time, a bonding grass cover will be required to stabilize the .i Prudence would dictate reference to the State Department of Fisheries and Game regarding acceptable construction periods. Again, such precautions should not significantly affect the cost of construction. 3. Dust During Construction During construction there could be an increase in windblown dust and vehicular emissions at the site. Control strategies, such as periodic sprinkling or use of sawdust, will minimize the expected increase in windblown dust. No significant cost increase would be expected. 4. Construction - Related Traffic Construction - related vehicles and transport of heavy equipment and materials to the site could alter traffic flow in the area during the construction period and result in increased noise levels and traffic hazards along some routes to the site. Control and specification of •referred delivery routes and scheduling of trans•ortati.t to and from the site shou •e un.ertaken as it relates to the area's normal traf is patterns and requirements. When nec� Ge y., .tr?.c controllers may be required for directing and maintaining traffic flows nn- _1ora1 etreets. In addition, only iinimal traffic backup and interruption would be generated if delivery of bulky, odd -size material were scheduled to avoid peak commuter periods. No substantial cost would be involved in implementing this control strategy. B. LONG -TERM IMPACTS 1. Continued Vehicular Traffic There could be some long -term increases in traffic in the project area. About 100 to 110 vehicle trips per day are projected. Peak hour volume projections are 30 to 40 vehicles per hour. There are two 48 4 4 4 4 4 1 4 1 • • • • • • routes leading to the project from I -5. The anticipated volumes should not result in any reduction in the capacity on local arterials in the project area, however, use of 56th Avenue South by heavy trucks does represent a potential traffic hazard crossing the Green River Bridge. Continued and future routing of such vehicles along 130th South should be employed. Such routing will have—aTIT777aTiTal economic effect, if any. 2. Increase in Impervious Surfaces and Continued Effluent Discharge Runoff from the project area will be accelerated because of the increase in impervious surfaces. Natural percolation of water into the groundwater table will also be limited by the loss of permeable area. Continued effluent discharge will occur. The construction of a runoff collection system and treatment of storm and process waters in the recycled process sewer system is planned. The basin will control discharge of stormwater runoff into the ground. The treatment facilities also control most deleterious materials contained in the stormwater and process effluent. Installation and tie -in to existing sewer systems could achieve approximately the same end quality and control. Loss of groundwater recharge from the site would result but the loss would be minimal. The cost of tie -in to such`'systems has been estimated for two possible routes at $76,593.00 and $103,016.50 respectively, exclusive of a late- comers fee for tie -in, yearly maintenance fees, and power requirements for pumping stations. In addition, the added waste requiring METRO treatment will increase. Because of the high quality of the planned effluent treatment system it is doubtful that other on -site technology could be employed at the same cost/benefit ratio. 3. Continued Demand on Public Utilities The need for electrical power, fire water supply, and solid waste disposal will require a commitment of the area's utilities and resources for the operating life of the project. Currently, existing water pressure for fire protection may be inadequate. If it is determined that this is the case, methods for improving fire flow will be required and costs evaluated. No significant increase in energy requirements are projected due to increased operating efficiency and elimination of the use of the existing plant. 4. Changes in the Visual Character of the Site and Area The development of the project will replace an undeveloped area with a number of man -made facilities. These facilities are the proposed plant, its support facilities, parking areas, and traffic areas. Efforts have been made to place the facilities in a location that will have 49 the least adverse impact upon the visual quality of the surrounding area and the environment. It has been placed away from the shoreline with the natural buffering left in its current state. Additional screening could be employed if required. The cost of such screening would be dependent on the nature and extent of materials proposed. . Alteration of Vegetation and Wildlife Habitat Construction of the proposed project will remove most of the vegetation and wildlife habitat upon the building site itself. Further, the quality of wildlife habitat adjacent to the development will also be reduced due to increased noise and human activity. The surrounding vegetation will be preserved in its natural state as much as is possible. In order to reduce the impact on the fauna of the project site, certain wildlife management techniques could be employed to increase the carrying capacity of undeveloped lands on the site for some wildlife species. One method would be to create additional vegetation areas on the site and maintain them in an early state of succession, thereby increasing plant diversity and productivity and an increase in wildlife productivity. The overall cost of additional planting would again depend on the nature and extent of materials used. 6. Loss of Open Space The construction of the proposed project and support facili- ties will result in a loss of natural open space in the project area. While the selected area will preserve a significant portion of the site in its natural character, the project will constitute a continued activity center which could increase other local development of housing but would also serve to protect the use of the adjacent open space (golf course /park), due to the reduction in annoying odors. Removal and demo ition of the old plant rather }ham attire use for storage and maintenance could result in return of the lost—open Space of -the site. Cost of demolition is estimated at about $5,000.00, excluding removal of equipment and cost of permits. Serious consideration of this measure will be given after startup of the new plant is achieved. 7. Continued Emissions to the Atmosphere The proposed project will significantly reduce the level of odorous gases emitted from the plant stacks and buildings in compliance with existing air quality rules and regulations. The systems to be employed represent the existing state of the art in rendering plant emission control. Other than removal of the plant at a significant economic cost, further reductions in emissions using other technology would not appear to be warranted. 50 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 • SECTION VII • UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS 1 1 1 The following .list of impacts are those which may be adverse but cannot, or will not, be mitigated or avoided by further modifications to the project. A more complete discussion of each is found in Section II. A. IMPACTS TO THE PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT 1. Earth a. Soils/Topography: Disruptions, displacements, compac- tions and overcovering of soil: Placement of structures and paving on the site will result in long -term removal of soils from productivity. b. Topography: Slight alteration in ground surface relief. Cut and fill required to achieve stabilization will alter existing land contours slightly. 2. Air Odor: Some odorous gases will be created by the plant even with extensive control technology. However, at receptor points not located on the plant property, such levels should be undetectable and the long -term effects are considered to be beneficial. 3. Water Groundwater Quality: Process and storm water will be exten- sively treated to reduce the level of contaminants entering the ground. Even with treatment, some contaminants may remain in the effluent water. Those not subsequently removed by natural percolation will enter the groundwater system. Temporary loss of surface waters during fires would be considered an unavoidable short -term impact if it occurred. 4. Flora /Fauna Reduction of Habitat: There will be an unavoidable long -term loss of habitat for species now using the proposed building site due to removal of existing vegetation. 5. Noise Construction Related Noise: On -site noise levels will be unavoidably increased during the construction period, and additional heavy truck traffic to the construction site may affect some area residents if controls are not employed. 51 6. Risk of Explosion or Hazardous Emissions Regardless of the safety measures employed in transport, storage, handling, and use of chemical substances, some risk is involved. Spills of hydrogen peroxide can cause burning and irritation of skin, and chlorine gases are toxic and can be lethal. While the amount and use of these chemicals will not be extensive, their use is deemed unavoidable and they will be employed in the gas and water pollution control systems. B. IMPACTS ON THE HUMAN ENVIRONMENT 1. Transportation /Circulation Short -term construction related traffic increases will un- avoidably occur due to the need for materials, supplies, and labor on the site. If routing and scheduling are not employed, traffic hazards and use conflicts may result should such vehicles use 56th Avenue South. 2. Aesthetics The new plant will be partially visible to the public and may be considered objectionable by some. 3. Revenue /Employment There will be an unavoidable loss of about 8 full -time employees due to the improved level of technology to be used. Those impacts previously described in Section II and considered to be nonadverse are also included. Rationale for such determination is dis- cussed in Sections I E. and II and is only briefly described or referenced in the following list. A. NONADVERSE IMPACTS TO THE PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT 1. Earth a. On -Site Erosion During Construction: Rationale: Contract specifications described in Section II A.1.b. and VI A.2. 4 4 4 4 4 4 b. Geology: 1 Rationale: As discussed in II A.1.b., the compressive loads are not expected to be sufficiently great enough to adversely affect the geology. 4 52 • 1 1 2. Water a. Runoff /Absorption: Rationale: Controls to be employed as discussed in Section II A.3.b. and VI B.2. b. Surface Water Quantity: Rationale: The proposed processing facility is not expected to require water use significantly greater than that already used. See Section II A.3.b. c. Surface Water Quality: Rationale: Short -term construction related discharge will be controlled and long -term discharge from processing or storm runoff will not be permitted as discussed in Sections I E., II A.3.b., and IV B.2. 3. Noise Long -Term Noise from Plant Operation: Rationale: Total enclosure of plant equipment should result in a decrease in associated noise levels. See Section II A.6.b. 4. Land Use Alteration in Present Use of Area: Rationale: Odor abatment should have a long -term positive effect on the quality of the environment and be beneficial in stabilizing off -site uses for housing and recreation. See Section II A.8. B. NONADVERSE IMPACTS TO THE HUMAN ENVIRONMENT 1. Population /Housing Rationale: Odor abatement should benefit the local residen- tial population as further discussed in Section II B.1. 2. Vehicular Transportation - Long -Term Rationale: Reduction of employment and increase in product volumes should result in minimal change in the traffic generated as further discussed in Sections II B.2. and VI B.1. 53 3. Public Services Potential Increase in Fire Protection with Regard to Increased Fire Flows: Rationale: The need for added protection has not yet been established. Should such improved fire flow services be required, the project sponsors may be subject to paying part of the initial improvement and the added tax revenues would offset a portion of the cost of mainten- ance. See Section II B.3. and VI B.3. 4. Utilities Need for New or Expanded Systems: Rationale: Modifications to existing utilities will be minimal, and the plant wastewater treatment facilities exceeds that avail- able using an alternative system such as METRO. See Section II B.5. and VI B. 3• 5. Human Health Reduction in Malodors in Area and Improved Handling and Storage of Raw Materials: Rationale: Reduction in odor bearing emissions should have a beneficial effect on area residents and plant employees, as discussed in Section II B.6. Improved handling of materials and enclosure of plant activities should reduce the attraction of rodents as previously discussed in Section II B.6. 6. Recreation Reduction of Malodors in Area: Rationale: Improvement in the quality of the environment by odor reduction should be of long -term benefit to the use of the nearby recreation area. See Section II B.S. 7. Revenue Increase in Tax Base: 1 4 4 4 4 4 1 Rationale: Real property values will be significantly 1 increased by the proposal as discussed in Section II B.10. 4 54 • Exhibits I through X have been incorporated by reference or are included in the following section. Copies of all exhibits may be reviewed at the City of Tukwila Environmental Public Information Center (EPIC) located at 6230 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, Washington. Purchase Price of Exhibits: $2.50: Exhibits I through X $.04 per page: Selected exhibits. r • • • EXHIBIT I 11 Legal Description of Site 0 1 1 1 • • • • • 1 1 1 1 OLD PLANT AREA That portion of the Brownell Donation Claim more particularly described as followst Beginning noar the West line of Section 13, Township 23 North, Range 4 East W. 11.. at a concrete monument vhia is 1510.74 ft. South of and 2143.69 ft. Whet of the jlorthcu t oo:c-. ner of said Donation Clain and mAnning thence due West parallel to the North line of said Donation Clain 1715.29 ft. to a point 1 foot West of the most westerly rail of the Northern Pacific Re►i1 -oa,'.; thence parallel to Acid rail North 27 211„ 30" West 668.61 r j thcnoe South 69 22' 40" west 47.4A, ft. to an iron pipe on the westerly line of Right of ' z of lfl E�:��:gin,P�citio Rails d, shish iron pipe is a TROE POIRT.obf beginning; thence continuing South 69 22+ 40" West 190.00 ft. to a second iron pipe at the top of the East bank of the Duwamish River; thence continuing South 69 22' 40" West about 30 feet to a moan high water of said Dawamiah River as the same has averaged for the past five years; thence along said high water line•southoasterly to the.said westerly line of Right of Way; thence northwesterly along said westerly line of Right of Ray about 290.00 ft. to the TROZ POUT of beginning. Reserving therefrom an easement for the use of the premises o •ed by the grantors to the North of the above described tract on an over a strip of land 30 feet wide adjacent to the said Northern Pacific Right of Way, extending from the Northerly line of the above described tract southerly to the South side of the grade crossing of the said railway right of may as. said grade crossing now exists or as said gradts crossing may be reconstructed. AREA CONTAINING .99 ACRS 1 A portion of the Brownell Conation Claim more particularly described as follows: Beginning noar the West line of Scotian 13, Township 23 North, Range 4 East, W. U. at a concrete monument which is 1510.74 feet South and 2143.89 foot bloat of the Northeast corner 4 of said donation claim thcnoe Vogt, parollol to the. North lino o? said. donation claim, 1)15.29 foot to a point one foot Woot of tho Wooterly rail of tho Northorn Pacific Railway; thence North 27 Cc.:ryaa 211 30* peat, parallel to said rail, 663.61 foot; thence South 69 ' o roo® 221 40v Clot 47.44 feat to C2 ire pipe lino on the Woatorly li of io Right of Way of maid Uowthora Pe to Lailwoy, thidh Lrvn pipo is the true point of beginning; tt cloo 27 dc, room 211 30" Wont, alcag the Westerly line of said right of way 111.07 feet to an iron pipe; thence South 69 degrees 221, 40" Wont 460.00 foot to as iron pipo; thonoo continuing South 69 dogrooa 221 40' Wont 64 feet to the North - eestorly bank of the Dummirh River, at a moan high Astor; thence Easterly,, along the Northoaaterly bank ' of said river 355 foot, more or leas, to a point 1103 foot distant from the forthvestQrly margin of this tract; thence North 69 dogrooa 221 408 East 30 foet,.more or less, to on iron pipe; thence l orth 69 do:reeo 221_ 40" mot 190.00 feet,to the Point of Beginning. Containing 0.99 acres, more or logs. LESS a 30 foot easement for Roadway from the Railroad Crooning 1 across the property to the North line of said sore which is to be fenced by the Grantee with a five strand thace, including a gate on the North line. AREA CONTAINING APPROXLiLATELY 10 ACRES 1 4 1 That portion of property lying in North half of C. B. Brownell Donation Cla No. 4,1, in section fourtoon (14) Township twenty -three 23) North of Range 4 Boat, W. M. lying 'seat of Northern Pao/ io Railway right of way, and • bounded on the South by the North lino of property now ownod by the Seattle Rendering Works bow on the Wost and North- 4 'oat by the tic River, aty3 z7aod on tho north by the Aorta lino of void C. E. Brommol1 a=mt4.4412 Claim, containing aporoxia:ately ten aoras, moro or leas. 4 1 • • • • • • • • EXHIBIT II Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency Notice of Construction and Application for Approval • O PUGET SOUND AID POLLUTIO � CO T ENGINEERING DIVISION 410 WEST HARRISON STREET, P.O. BOX 9863, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 1206) 344 -7334 Notice of Construction and Application OL AGENCY 98109 for Approval ��iill, V SIDE 1 Be sure to complete items 39, 40, 41, & 43 before submitting Form P. DATE REG. SIC. GRID (AGENCY .us ONLY) N/C NUMBER NO. VAR. NO • NO. COS. NO. NO UTM 1. TYPE OF BUILDING (Check) 2. STATUS OF EQUIPMENT (Check) New 0 Existing 'p New 0 Existing 0 Altered 0 Relocation 7. APPLICANT L. 3. COMPANY (OR OWNER) NAME Seattle Rendering Works 8. APPLICANT ADDRESS • • 0 • • • • 4. COMPANY (OR OWNER) MAILING ADDRESS 13601 Beacon Coal Mine Road 9. INSTALLATION ADDRESS same 5. NATURE OF BUSINESS rendering 10. TYPE OF PROCESS continuous rendering plant EQUIPMENT (ENTER NUMBER OF UNITS OF EQUIPMENT IN SPACES IN COLUMNS. COMPLETE A FORM S FOR EACH ENTRY.) 11. NO OF UNITS SPACE HEATERS OR BOILERS (Complete Form S -A) 14. NO. OF UNITS OVENS 16. NO OF UNITS MECHANICAL. EQUIP. 18. NO OF UNITS MELTING FURNACES lal 1 _... (a)....__.._. (b).__.. -_._.. (cl. _.. __.. _.. (d) ..______ (e) ______ U )_. -_____ (o)....__... _. (h)._- _- __-,_. 11) _____ (11._._.____. CORE BAKING OVEN PAINT BAKING PLASTIC CURING LITHO COATING OVEN DRYER ROASTER KILN HEAT - TREATING OTHER ,._ .- ._.....___..__._.__._.._.____ (a) . .._ (b) .._.... (c) ., (d)__..,.. _ (el.-_.__._... (f ) _____ (g) _.. . 0).- ..... (i I.__ _.._ (11 - - _.._ AREAS BULK CONVEYOR CLASSIFIER STORAGE BIN BAGGING OUTSIDE BULK STORAGE LOADING OR UNLOADING BATCHING MIXER (SOLIDS) OTHER (al_..._._.._ (b►_- -__._ (c)..._____ (d)..+....._ -.. (e)...--__ -_. (t)__.. ._ (ol.__- _____ (h)..._..._ ._. (11--- --- (I I - - - -- POT REVERBERATORY ELECTRIC INOUC /RESIST CRUCIBLE CUPOLA ELECTRIC ARC SWEAT OTHER METALLIC GLASS OTHER NON METALLIC 12. NO. OF UNITS INCINERATORS (Complete Form S -B) (a) ___ .___ 13. NO. OF UNITS OTHER SYSTEMS (01 (b) (c) (d) DEGREASING. SOLVENT SHOT BLASTING SANG BLASTING OTHER - SYSTEM 17. NO. OF UNITS GENERAL OPER. EQUIP. t7. NO. OF UNITS GENERALOPER.EQUIP. 17. NO. GENERAL OPER. EQUIP. 18. NO. OF UNITS OTHER EQUIPMENT (a) (0) (c) Id) (e) - CHEMICAL MILLING PLATING __. ___ _. ___ DIGESTER DRY CLEANING FORMING OR MOLDING (f)___ -,_._ (9) ____ (h)_ __ _ _ (I) -_._ (j) _ GALVANIZING IMPREGNATING MIXING OR FORMULATING REACTOR STILL (k)_____. _ (I) .__._ (m) _.,_ _ _. (n)_ _ (o)._.___.____ ASPHALT BLOWING CHEMICAL COATING COFFEE ROASTER DEEP FAT FRYER STORAGE TANK (a) ______ (b).. (C) ______ _ (dl._... ._ _ (e) SPRAY PAINTING GUN SPRAY BOOTH OR ROOM FLOW COATING FIBERGLASSING OTHER ___ _ CONTROL DEVICES (ENTER NUMBER OF UNITS OF EQUIPMENT IN SPACES IN COLUMNS. COMPLETE A FORM R FOR EACH ENTRY.) te. No. OF UNITS CONTROL DEVICE 20. NO. OF UNITS CONTROL DEVICE. 21. NO. OF UNITS CONTROL. DEVICE 22. NO. OF UNITS CONTROL DEVICE (al (b) (c) (d) SPRAY CURTAIN CYCLONE MULTIPLE CYCLONE INERTIAL COLL. - OTHER la) _ (b)- ___,_.__ (c)___ _____ (d) __ ...._ AIR WASHER WET COLLECTOR VENTURI SCRUBBER _.. _ _ (a)__-_____ (b).__._._- (c)_..._- . . (d)..... _ - ABSORBER ADSORBER FILTER PADS AFTERBURNER (a)______.. (b)- ,_,_-,. lc) - ......... (d) DEMISTER BAGHOUSE ELEC. PRECIPITATOR OTHER 23. BASIC EQUIPMENT COST (Estimate) million $1.1 24. CONTROL EQUIPMENT COST (Estimate) $150, 000 25. DAILY HOURS '44, FROM AM to PM 26. DAYS OF OPERATION (Circle) 27. ESTIMATED STARTING DATE OF CONSTRUCTION: 2/1/77 28. ESTIMATED COMPLETION DATE OF CONSTRUCTION: 10/21/77 29. RAW MATERIALS (List starting material used In process) AND FUELS (Type and amount) ANNUAL AMT. 30. PRODUCTS (List End Products) UNITS ANNUAL PROD. UNITS (a) meat scraps & dead stock 10,800 Tim meat meal 3,000 T 2,000 T lb) lb) tallow (c) (c) (d) (d) lei (e) (1) (f) Inl � PUGET SOW4D AIR POLLUTIO11 CONTROL AGENCY ENGINEERING DIVISION 410 W. HARRISON STREET SEATTLE. WASHINGTON 98119 (206) 344.7334 Notice of Construction and Application for Approval , *Note: Information required by Section la must be completed, for this form to be accepted for review. FOR AIR OINSTRUCTONE FORIVI R DATell /22/6N/C# PLEASE CONSULT SHEETS BEFORE FORWARDING *a. COMPLETE THE [ 1 t2 2S3 04 05 06 b. COMPANY (OR OWNER) INSTALLATION ADDRESS 13601 Beacon Cal Mine Road South SECTIONS INDICATED O 7 NI 8 IN 9 0 10011012 c. COMPANY (OR OWNER) NAME Seattle Rendering Works d. APPLICANT Seattle Rendering Works e. PREPARED BY: (Name and Title) W. W. Bennefiel f. PREPARED BY: (Signature) g. PHONE 243 -1421 , 2 a' AIR POLLUTION CONTROL EQUIPMENT DATA:- b. TYPE OF EQUIPMENT plant odor control f. ' EFFICIENCY COLLECTION 57,000 ACFM cEntArOnMental Research Systems g ( 01 00 P1dbTntinuO11b rendering d. DIMENSIONS IL x W x H► System 300 Model 574 CONNECTED TO: boiler ■ e. NUMBER OF UNITS CAPACITY • 1 3 a. BAGHOUSE b. NUMBER. OF BAGS , see attached specifications c. SHAKING CYCLE (auto or manual rapp.ng or reverse air) and plans d. CLOTH AREA e. MATERIAL USED f. 9. h. CONNECTED TO: ' 4 a. ELECTROSTATIC PRECIP. b. ELECTRODE SEPARATION (FT) c. COLL. ELECTRODE DIMENSIONS: W x L (Feet) d. MEAN VELOCITY OF GAS (FPS) e. AREA (Sq Ft) f. VOLTAGE g• COLL. ELECTRODE OR PLATE AREA (Sp Ft) h. CONNECTED TO: 5 a. BURNER DATA b. TYPE OF BURNER. FUEL c. MAKE AND MODEL d. RATING ' e. NUMBER OF UNITS /IGNITION . f. g. CFM EXHAUSTED (Temp) • h. CONNECTED TO: 6 a. STACKS, VENTS , b. TYPE OF VENT c. DIMENSIONS IL x H x W) d. DAMPERS e. NUMBER OF VENTS, MAT'L USED I. g• CFM'EXHAUSTED (Temp) h. CONNECTED TO: 4 7 8. SCRUBBER DATA b. TYPE OF FLOW (Spray, Bubbler) c. PACKING TYPE ■ d. PACKING SIZE e. COMPOSITION OF SOLUTION f. g. FLOW RATE (GPH) h. MAKE UP (GPH) 8 a. FAN DATA b• TYPE OF FAN (Designate Blade) c. MAKE AND MODEL d. MOTOR DATA RPM HP4 e. NUMBER OF FANS, MAT'L USED f. g• CFM EXHAUSTED ( Temp ®` SP) h. CONNECTED TO: 9 a, CYCLONE DATA b. TYPE OF CYCLONE . a common o split Duct a Multiclone c. MAKE AND MODEL - d. INLET AREA So Ft e. NUMBER OF UNITS, MAT'L USED f. BODY DIA. OUTLET DIA. INCH INCH g. BODY HEIGHT INCH EFFICIENCY h. CONNECTED TO: 10 a. COLLECTION DATA b. DESCRIPTION OF COLLECTED MAT'L c. AMOUNT COLLECTED POUNDS /DAY d. PARTICLE SIZE (Average) MICRONS e. TYPES OF POLLUTANTS a Particulate a Gas a Odor f. g. COLLECTION h. DISPOSITION OF COLLECTION WASTE 11 a. b. C. d. • . f. r ' g. h. i. 1. k. I. 12 a, GAS FLOW b. ACTUAL CFM c. SCFM (Reg I Standard) d. TEMPERATURE ('F) IN OUT II e. PRESSURE DROP f. EFFICIENCY g. INLET AND OUTLET POLLUTANT CONCENTRATIONS h. • • • • • • PUGET SOUND AIR POLLUi 1U 9 CONTROL AGENCY S E GINE III G DIVISION N/C NOTICE OF CONSTRUCTION AND APPLICATION FOR APPROVAL Continuation Form for FUEL BURNING EQUIPMENT 1. PLANT: (AI MFR; Uleaver 13rooks (B) MODEL 2. TYPE OF PLANT: (CHECK APPLICABLE ITEMS) (A) © STEAM HEATING ❑ WATER HEATING ❑ PROCESS STEAM ❑ OTHER PURPOSE (B) ❑ GAS BURNER ❑ PNEUMATIC FEED AND PULVERIZER ❑ OIL BURNER ❑ CYCLONE FURNACE ® CONVERT. BURNER ❑ AUTOMATIC WOOD WASTE FEED ❑ SPREADER STOKER ❑ OTHER STOKER 3. DESIGN HEAT INPUT RATING 161/40,000 NUMBER OF UNITS 1 BTU /HOUR EACH 4. TYPE FUEL - USE RECORDED DATA OR BEST ESTIMATES TYPE GRADE OR SPEC. ,. SULFUR ANNUAL CONSUMPTION RATED HOURLY CONSUMPTION GALS. /THERM$ APPROXIMATE SCHEDULE OF OPERATION (CHECK APPLICABLE MONTHS( J_ F M A M J J A S 0 N D O1 bunker < 13 — 252,000 70>•nm ft315 109 - X000 ft3 - -- -------,------- - ---- GAS natural - WOOD OTHER 5. STEAM OUTPUT CONDITIONS (A) LB /HR: NORMAL 10,000 MAX 17,250 (B) PRESSURE 120 (C) TEMP. °F 34.0 (D) % SATURATION 100 )E) °SUPERHEAT -- 6. STACK GASES (ESTIMATE (A) FLOW RATE 7,000 (8) TEMP. °F 250 SCFM (C) EXIT PARTICULATE CONCENTRATION > -3 GR /SCF (D) % MOISTURE 10 7. EMISSION CONTROLS: (CHECK ONE);. (A) ® NONE (8) ❑ PRIMARY CONTROLS ONLY (C) ❑ PRIMARY AND SECONDARY CONTROLS IF APPLICABLE; COMPLETE (0) OR. BOTH (0) AND (E). (0) PRIMARY CONTROL: (E) SECONDARY CONTROL: TYPE OF CONTROL: TYPE OF CONTROL: MAKE - MAKE. MODEL MODEL CFM CFM GPM (IF APPLIC.) GPM (IF APPLIC 1 e EFF. % EFF. A. ESTIMATE OF MATERIALS CAPTURED: (A) LB /HR OF (B) ITYPE(S) OF MATERIAL) (C) MATERIAL IS ❑ WASTED ❑ REINJECTED ❑ SOLO (CHECK ONE) 9. STACK OR CHIMNEY • (A) STEEL ❑MASONRY ❑CONCRETE (CHECK ONE) (8) HEIGHT ABOVE GRADE •34 (FT.) )E) DIAMETER AT SAMPLING PORTS (IN.) (C) EXIT DIMENSIONS 1 (IN.) (REQUIRED IF DIAMETER EXCEEDS 36 ") (0) NOTE: INDICATE LOCATION AND HEIGHT OF NEARBY BUILDINGS ON PLAT PLAN. ADDITIONAL REMARKS: Proposal Number 6- 2104R September 8, 1976 2. GENERAL DESCRIPTION 2.1 System Design A System 300,. Model 570 will be supplied. Design capacity is 57,000 acfm.. It is understood that raw or incoming material processed in the plant consists of shop fat, meat, bone and fish. The equipment used in the processing of this material is located in the .following areas: Equipment Area One (1) Duke 1200 continuous rendering system 108 feet long x 80 feet wide x 24 feet high rendering building The system is designed to draw odor bearing gases into the scrubber at the indicated rates from the following sources or '4 areas : 4 4 4 1 Source or Area Flow Rate(c.fm) Gas Temperature ( °F) 57,000 80 -90° 108 feet long x 80 feet wide x 24 feet high rendering building. Figure 1 shows the packed tower with dimensional • and weight data. The enclosed drawing shows the general location of the packed tower within the plant. 2 4 4 4 4 1 • .rna• U1avvnig i.1110 Lie Sigh Lift tiie p5 live, ty v' u,. A =NVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH CORPORATION ind are loaners on the expressed agreement tha• . 'hey will not be, copied, reproduced or used in ar •the► way eYGent for the 01.1r00. cnor.' ' • • 7E 1) mfr.... • ilmow o�P. , • 4 - l•�t,oWN.AYS . ZO" DIA. , S� `.. MIST GLIM1NATalZ, • -- Cyr •••49th•• d .t • = ' �/ .. •�' \' . • - V 1 . �� r'�<- cI1•4C- - - ( ue i c Fool) • • -Pi .C.KI NCx ' ._) F:4pr'C:- 111.--1C... . . PtL.4..1T Vt■aTte(C„ DuctC r-wJ . - IZEGYG LE • D.ItAt►.] (4k G .V .■••. I L 6" PAD. SII&.1 ic,Ac F»Errl....o...ssTowtr.. G.F:M. A E-5 G C E F SHIP.- kJ,: . t,:c..f -1,0r. OFv-_. &Yr,.. I TOGO C►' • Z11- V E 2711 5' 36' Z zb I, 6501' 2,784" 9,844* 23,000 7' Z1= Id' 3'-10' 33 6 3'- 6' 30e I'c 1* 3,2Z7 1 2,93 6'r 30;000 e,' 22.1-.5" b'-3" 36` '7' 31- S" 402. 2,4 65" - 4,031 I G,5 EI-o 37,oOO s' L3' ' 5' -1o`i 3'- 3 e' 4,-0" • 3o 1'' S,2.4•4-`s 21,1S 3' • 4b Op0 10' 24' 6' -O�" . 3- " 6'-1.' 4 =6" 6Z8 3,°a6°J 4:.,5•S' 2599e '.1 57,000] 1 I I 2.4 6'-'s". A -o Io-o s'-o" '7 4,47 • 7410 -3I 144 447rgir.416b I L' 225' 6' -9" 4_6" II -0" 5=0" 905 .4,P5oe 8,IS 3G,393' 3 Proposal Number 6 -2104R September 8, 1976 2.2 System Operation Gases are drawn into the scrubber at a rate of '57,000.cfm. In this scrubber the gases flow upward through a bed of poly - propylene packing that is wetted by an aqueous solution of oxidi- zing agent (scrubbing liquid) flowing downward at a rate of 570 gpm. In the packed bed section the gases are absorbed and oxidized .by the scrubbing liquid. From the packed bed the gases flow up- ward through the mist eliminator which removes any entrained.. liquid droplets. The exhaust fan then discharges the cleaned gases through a stack to the atmosphere. The recycle pump continuously delivers a fixed amount of scrubbing liquid to the spray nozzles that are positioned above the packed. bed. This liquid flows by gravity through the packed bed and to the integral recycle tank where a fraction of the liquid is continuously discharged' from this tank. The liquid level in the recycle tank is maintained by 'an overflow pipe. The overflow is discharged to .a floor. drain. The chemical supply system continuously pumps a. fixed amount of chemical solution.to' the inlet side of the spray nozzles. Oxidizing agent (chemical) to be used in the system is sodium hypochlorite or other appropriate chemicals. • Proposal Number, 6,.210411. September 8,, 1976 . • SYSTEM SPECIFICATIONS• 3..1 Tower Scrubber - One (1) supplied by. ERC Type: Packed column counter current. .Model No. 570 b) Capacity: 57,000 acfm c.) .Packed section:. Polypropylene packing d) Mist eliminator: Wire mesh screen type of 304 stainless steel e) Recycle tank capacity: 1,740 gallons f) %Plumbing connections; Access: Materials: of" construction: Plant water inlet, outlet to pump, drain outlet and overflow Three (3) manhole access openings, . one above packed bed, one in the packed bed section, and one below packed bed Spray nozzles of 316 stainless steel, packing support plate and . shell of fiberglass reinforced plastic. (FRP) Proposal Number 6- 2.104R September 8, 1976 3.2 Recycle Pump- One (1) supplied by ERC. Capacity: Pump type and configuration:.. c) Seal: d). Materials of. construction: Electrical motor: 570 gallons per minute at a head of 120 feet Centrifugal single stage, side inlet and top. outlet Mechanical. . Casing of cast iron; shaftsleeve of stainless steel .Totally enclosed'., fan cooled, General Electric` o.r equivalent; 30 horsepower,:460 /3/60 .3.3 Chemical. Supply Equipment - One (1) supplied by ERC Chemical supply pump: Metering pump with suction strainer and check valve Pump capacity: Feed rate control to 6 gph at 150 psi Pump construction: PVC pump head Pump motor: c) d) e) .Tank. capacity: f) Tank construction:. 1/3 hp, totally enclosed motor,. 1725 rpm, 110 /1/60 55 gallons Mild steel with polyethylene liner,: hinged cover and mounting base . • • Proposal Number '6 -2104R September 8, 1976 3.4 System Exhaust Blower - One (1),supplied by ERC Capacity: b) Arrangement: Type of •construction: Materials of ._ construction: Electrical motor: 57 00b cubic feet per minute (cfm) 70c/F, delivered at 6 inches of water; AMCA rated Arrangement number 1 with fan • and motor mounted on integral base•separa.te. from the scrubber, .OSHA approved belt guard less mounting.brackets • .Heavy duty construction with oversize shaft and self - aligning pillow block bearings Housing: and impeller of coated mild steel 100.horsepower., 460/3/60 Note: The pressure drop in the packed tower is approximately 4 inches w.g. The remaining 2 inches w poobiow w static are available for duct and losses. 7 Proposal Number 6- 21048. September 8, 1976 3.5 Electrical Control Panel - One (1). supplied by ERC a) Power service shall be 460 volt,. 60: cycle ,•3 phase. b) Panel shall be NEMA 12 design . and construction and house all components. c) One (1) main switch shall be provided. d) Three -way selector switches (auto- off - hand) and amber operating lights for exhaust fan and each.pump motor shall be provided. One (1) transformer for converting 460 -volt service to 110 -'volt service shall be provided. f). One (11.motor starter for the recycle. pump: for across the -line operation shall be provided.' One . (1..) motor starter for the system blower for across • the line operation,.shall be' provided., Proposal Number 6. -21048 September 8, 197.6 . 3.6 Instruments and Controls supplied by ERC One (1) pressure gauge.(range 0 -10 inches of water) for indicating total pressure drop . across the tower scrubber. One (1) flow meter with range of 0 to 621 gpm for measuring the liquid flow rate to the spray nozzles. One (1) flow meter of. range 0 to 12 gpm for measuring the flow .of plant water to the recycle tank. • • EXHIBIT III Department of Ecology NPDES Permit Application Food Chemical & Research Laboratories, Inc. Dept. of Ecology 4350 150th Avenue N. E. Redmond, Washington Attention: Mr. D. A. Nunnallee Dear Sir: 4900 Ninth Ave., N.W., Seattle, Wash. 98107 /SUnset 3-4700 November 22, 1976 This letter will serve as further information to substantiate Seattle Rendering Works' request to extend their present recycle process water subsurface disposal field to accommodate the increase in process water required by the proposed erection of a new $1..1 million Duke Continuous. Rendering Plant. The Seattle Rendering. Works is presently operating under NDDES Waste Discharge Permit WA- 000162 -7 which eliminates all discharge from outfalls 001 and 002 into surface water of the state and allows up to 150,000 gallons per day of process water to be disposed of by a recycle drainfield. A copy of the permit is attached. '. As per Section S3C.of the permit, detailed plans are attached of the proposed extension of the recycle drainfield. The present system, in operation by the rendering company, is as follows: 1. An equalization tank receives all condensate and floor wash -• ing waters from the present rendering plant.' 2. This water is pumped to an air flotation cell where it is treated with alum and a polyelectrolyte to remove part of the oil and grease, suspended solids, and BOD. 3. The treated water is then pumped to an anaerobic contact filter where it is further treated by action of anaerobic bacteria. 4. The process effluent is further treated after the anaerobic filter by means of alum and a polyelectrolyte in a thickener. Dept. of Ecology Page 2 5. It is chlorinated by means of sodium hypochlorite to elim- inate coliform indicator organisms and is pumped to the recycle water storage tank where it is recycled for plant cleaning use, or is disposed of in the drainfield. A typical average analysis of this present effluent is listed below Air Parameter flotation B. 0. D. (ppm) 3,567 C. 0. D. (ppm) 13,503 Susp.. solids (PPm) Oil & grease (PPm) Coliform (MPN /100m1) TNT TN* =.too numerous to count coliforms 2,110 535 Sampling Location Anaerobic Clarifier filter chlorinator 975 3,646 640 72:: 227 850 10' 10 0: Because of the variation in the feed supply, no average analysis of the incoming :effluent is listed. As the majority of the present effluent is obtained from an antiquated rendering facility built .in.'1942, which is to''be':aban- doned,..it.:is felt -that the quality of effluent from the proposed facility should be typical of other modern rendering plant opera- ting today. In EPA Report 440/1- 74/031d, Group 1, Phase II, titled. " Development Document for Effluent Limitation Guidelines and New Source Performance: Standards for the Render ", it lists on page 47. a summary of raw waste characteristics for the rendering indus- try. The average values of flow, raw materials, BOD, COD, susp. solids, and_ .oil , and grease are given. They are Parameter Typical Seattle Rendering Flow. -. gal /1,000.ib raw material Raw material - 1,000 lb /day B. O. D. lb /1,000 lb raw mat'l C. 0. D. - lb /1,000 lb raw mat'l Susp. solids -. lb /1,000.lb RM Oil & grease:- lb /1,000..lb RM 403 . .206 2.15 $.04 1.13 0.72. 360 166 n,3 — ppm 375 ppm 238 ppm Dept. of Ecology Page 3 • If these average flows were applied to Seattle Rendering's effluent, using average reduction values as outlined in the section on dissolved air flotation (pages $1 -86); anaerobic processes (pages $6 -$9); and chemical precipitation (pages 99 -100); as well as breakpoint chlorination and disinfection • (pages:.116- 177),'the following effluent characteristics could be obtained by the new plant under ideal. conditions. Parameter • Ave B. 0.. D. Susp. solids Oil &..grease • Coliform (Percentages • Air Anaerobic .Out of Influent. Flotation Filter. Thickener 713 (90%) 71 (90%) 7 1 375 (90 %) 3$ (90 %) 4 0 :23a (90%) 24 (90 %) 2 '0 TN TN. TN . 0 indicate approximate reduction.) These figures'are to be strived for.' Using this type of treatment, the effluent fed to a sub- surface disposal system, one should encounter no operational difficulties. . You will note..from the drainfield plans that. the depth of the field is to be five feet under the surface of the soil. Please .referyto the attached Soils and Foundation Report Rendering Plant Addition, Seattle: Rendering Works, Tukwila, • October'12, 19.76, prepared by Rittenhouse -Zeman & Associates, Geologists and. Soil.Engineers: This report. :shows the groundwater level to be at 13 feet with the water table' fluctuating with changes in the river level, season and discharge from the Howard Hansen Dam. We propose to place the drainfield lateral lines at an elevation down five feet from grade. The'soil structure there is soft, moist brown and gray mottled. _sandy silt which should be capable of draining 3.5 gallons of process water per square foot per day. The drainfield is comprised of four drainfields each containing15 laterals, each 150 feet in length, fora total of 9;000 lineal feet of drainfield. • The laterals will be placed in trenches two feet wide,_and filled, with 3/$ to 1 -1/2 inch'washed gravel as per. the plan. The.field :W ll.have a capacity of 63,000 gallons per. day of treated process water. Dept. of Ecology Page 4 If there are any questions or further details required, please let us know.. Cordially, FOOD, CHEMICAL & RESEARCH LABORATORIES,. INC. Quintin P. Peniston Washington State Engineer, Professional License 4141. Enc. 1 1 1 1 1 1 • 12. • • • • 4 _MAIJ,yOLE / Gr40Q■A.Z LC�IZ �QooF�vG ►�ys?C.�— : ' (. 3 `k/,2.0 uk1�5�LLD a ' ?- 81/4.)T t 0�.1 �34`�C v-� \"C ti•\ CC:NJ Z - QCP Ql\-7CL\ %I" k A tvF'EE.F off. A.^t EX.) tom- %'?L %cz) . l� 1,A ty t V M '�.'. . \'IZ=":;). 14:3 lee 4" .:"+2�o2ca. -� o : ? tp E - o`ra.S -: 14 4 4 4 4 4 4 • • RENTON CONCRETE PRODUCTS, INC. • • • • n! • • • P.O. BOX 917 • 7th & RAINIER Variable I' -2' -3' RENTON, WASH. • (206) 255 -1521 CATCH BASIN - RUBBER GASKET-Type 2-State of Washington, Dept. of Highways _L_ 1-*-- 34" 6" 1 1 6" � SEE DETAIL 'A' 48" "S" UNIT - Top 'slab for Type 2 Catch Basin with cast iron frame cast in. Olympic Fdry. 434, State of Washington 48 20. "S" UNIT - Plain - For adjusting top slab to grade. One or more may be used for up to 12' depth. 34" x 36" 56" x 8" TOP SLAB - Units "M" "N" "P" or "R" as required, by the individual or specifica- tions.. See diagram below. !8" Pre -cast barrel sections are available in 1, 2, or 3 foot increments as required by grade. L8" x 4' high base may have inlets and outlets cast for pipe sizg up to and including 214", Iocated•vertically and horizontally, as required. When ordering catch basins by telephone, specify the location of inlets and outlets with reference to the face of a clock. Place out- let at 6 :00 o'clock and inlets at the corre- sponding hour of the clock. Weights: 48" x 4' Base 4100# 48" x 3' Base 3240 48" x 4' Section 2720 48" x 3' Section 2040 48" x 2' Section 1 360 48" x l' Section 680 Unit "M" 56" x 8" Slab 1400 Unit "N" 56" x 8" Slab 1 080 Unit "P" 56" x 8" Slab 1080 Unit "R" 56" x 8" Slab 1080 Unit "S" Plain 34" x 30" 290 Unit "S" w /Frame & Cover 590 Unit "R" Unit "N" Unit "P" Unit "M" DETAIL 'A' Page 15 • • • • • • EXHIBIT IV National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit • • • • • Page 1 of 7 Permit No. WA- 000162 -7 Issuance Date 9/4/74 Expiration Date 3/30/79 NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM WASTE DISCHARGE PERMIT State of Washington DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY Olympia, Washington 98504 In Compliance with the Provisions of Chapter 90.48 RCW as amended and The Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendment of 1972, Public Law 92 -500 SEATTLE RENDERING WORKS 13601 Beacon Coal Mine Road Seattle, Washington 98178 Plant Location: Receiving Water: Duwamish River 13601 Beacon Coal Mine Road Seattle, Washington 98178 Discharge Location: Outfalls 001 & 002 Latitude: 47 °28'38 "N Longitude: 122 °15'32 "W Industry Type: RENDERING Waterway Segment No.: 04 -09 -09 is authorized to discharge in accordance with the special and general conditions which follow. ROBERT K. McCORMICK, Regional Manager Department of Ecology • • REVISED 2/10/76 Y✓ Page 2 of 7 Permit No. WA- 000162 -7 SPECIAL CONDITIONS SI. INTERIM EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS During the period beginning on the date of issuance of this permit and lasting through June 30, 1976, the permittee is authorized to discharge from Outfalls 001 and 002 except as indicated in Condition S2a, subject to the following limitations and monitoring requirements: EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS MONITORING REQUIREMENTS Parameter Daily Maximum Minimum Frequency Sample Type Temperature, °C 30 °C (86 °F) Quarterly Grab BOD5, mg /I* 70 mg /I Quarterly 4 hr. composite Grease and Oil, mg /I 70 mg /I Quarterly 4 hr. composite Flow, gallons /day 150,000 gal /day Estimated daily average of quarterly total *COD may be substituted for BOD5if a ratio is established. Discharge limitations are over and above pollutant levels in the raw water supply for BOD5 and Grease and oil. The daily maximum is defined as the greatest allowable value for any calendar day. . REVISED 2/10/76,- • • • Page 3 of 7 Permit No. WA- 000162 -7 S2a. FINAL EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS Beginning October 1, 1974 and lasting until the expiration date of the permit, the permittee is authorized to discharge subject to the follow - ing limitations: OUTFALL 002 - Zero discharge to surface waters of the state. S2b. FINAL EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS Beginning July I, 1976 and lasting until the expiration date of the permit, the permittee is authorized to discharge subject to the follow- ing limitations: OUTFALL 001 - Zero discharge of pollutants to surface waters of the state. • S3. SCHEDULE OF COMPLIANCE a. The permittee shall achieve compliance with the effluent limitations specified for discharges in accordance with the following schedule: 1. September 30, 1974: Complete construction of recycle drainfield and full operation; elimination of Outfall 002. • • • • 2. March 31, 1975: Submit specifications for condenser cooling water recycle system, Outfall 001. , 3. June 30, 1976: Complete construction of condenser cooling water recycle system, Outfall 001. b. The permittee is expected to meet the aforementioned compliance schedule. No later than 14 calendar days following a date identified above, the permittee shall submit to the appropriate regional office of the Depart- ment a notice of compliance or noncompliance with the specification re- quired in the schedule. c. Prior to constructing or modifying any wastewater control facilities, detailed plans shall be approved in writing by the Department. S4. MONITORING AND REPORTING The permittee shall monitor the operation and efficiency of all treatment and control facilities and the quantity and quality of the waste discharged. A record of all such data shall be maintained. The permittee shall monitor the parameters as specified in Condition SI of this permit. REVISED 2/ 1 0/76 (%—'' • • • EXHIBIT V • List of Elements of the Environment 0 • • 11 • • • EXHIBIT V LIST OF ELEMENTS OF THE ENVIRONMENT Existing Conditions Impacts (1) APPENDED LIST OF ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS (2) ELEMENTS OF THE PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT (a) Earth (i) Geology (ii) Soils (iii) Topography (iv) Unique physical features N/A (v) Erosion N/A (vi) Accretion /avulsion N/A (b) Air (i) Air quality (ii) Odor (iii) Climate (c) Water (i) Surface water movement (ii) Runoff /absorption (iii) Floods (iv) Surface water quantity (v) Surface water quality (vi) Ground water movement (vii) Ground water quantity (viii) Ground water quality (ix) Public water supplies N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A (d) Flora (i) Numbers or diversity of species (ii) Unique species (iii) Barriers and /or corridors (iv) Agricultural crops (e) Fauna (i) Numbers or diversity of species (ii) Unique species (iii) Barriers and /or corridors (iv) Fish or wildlife habitat (f) Noise (g) Light and Glare (h) Land Use (i) Natural Resources (i) Rate of use (ii) Nonrenewable resources (j) Risk of Explosion or Hazardous Emissions (3) ELEMENTS OF THE HUMAN ENVIRONMENT (a) Population (b) Housing (c) Transportation /Circulation (i) Vehicular transportation generated Existing Conditions Impacts N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 4 4 4 4 4 4 1 4 • • • • • • • • • Existing Conditions Impacts (ii) Parking facilities (iii) Transportation systems (iv) Movement /circulation of people' or goods (v) Waterborne, rail and air traffic N/A (vi) Traffic hazards N/A N/A N/A (d) Public Services (i) Fire (ii) Police (iii) Schools (iv) Parks or other recreational facilities N/A (v) Maintenance (vi) Other governmental services N/A (e) Energy (i) Amount required (ii) Source /availability (f) Utilities (i) Energy (ii) Communications (iii) Water (iv) Sewer (v) Storm water (vi) Solid waste (g) Human Health (including mental health) (h) Aesthetics (i) Recreation N/A N/A N /A. N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A (j) Archeological /Historical (4) ADDITIONAL ELEMENTS OF THE ENVIRONMENT (a) .Employment (b) Economy (c) Tax Base (d) Cultural Factors (e) Quality of Life (f) Neighborhood Cohesion (g) Sociological Factors Existing Conditions Impacts N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1 4 4 1 4 • • • • • • EXHIBIT VI Soils Report RITTENHOUSE - ZEMAN & ASSOC. GEOLOGY & SOILS ENGINEERING • • • 13240 NORTHUP WAY, BELLEVUE, WASHINGTON 98005 (206) 746 -8020 W -2347 October 12, 1976 . Seattle Rendering Works C /o. Garwest, Inc. 13240 Northup Way Bellevue, Washington 98005 Attention: Subject: • Gentlemen: Mr. Michael Runyon Soils and Foundation Investigation Report Rendering Plant Additions Seattle Rendering Works, Tukwila In accordance with your request, we have completed our soils and foundation investigation at the above site. This report summarizes our work and presents conclusions and recommendat- • ions for the proposed new facilities. Seattle Rendering Company is situated on a nearly level site on the east side of the Duwamish River, between the river and the Milwaukee Railroad tracks. The Foster Golf Course lies on the west side of the Duwamish River, opposite the rendering plant. •The site of the proposed facility is adjacent .to the existing feather plant, and silo. The northeast portion is covered with deciduous trees and underbrush. Present plans call for the • construction of a. treatment facility and .processing plant to be housed in a single story, metal frame structure with adjac- ent silos and tanks. • • SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION • Our exploration program consisted of drilling three test bor- ings on the site of the proposed facilities, using a truck - mounted, hollow stem, continuous flight auger. In all borings,. Standard. Penetration. Tests were performed at selected intervals. The Standard Penetration Test consists Seattle Rendering Works Mr. Michael Runyon. October 12, 1976 Page Two SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION (continued) of driving a 2 -inch O.D. split spoon sampler 18 inches with a 140 - pound hammer, free falling a distance of 30 inches. The number of blows required to drive the sampler the last 12 inches is termed the "Standard Penetration Resistance ", (N), and is an approximate measure of the in situ relative density,.or consistency of a soil. These rest t nce values, (N) are plotted on the right side of the boring logs.. Sam - ples retained in the split spoon were visually classified in the field by an Engineering Geologist from our firm. Repre- sentative portions were placed in air -tight jars and returned to our laboratory for re- inspection and testing. In addition to split spoon samples, undisturbed samples of cohesive soils were obtained by hydraulically pushing a 3- inch I.D.•thin. wall sample tube into the soil beneath the auger. Samples were sealed to prevent drying and returned to our laboratory. Approximate boring locations may be found on the Site Plan. Boring Logs are presented in Appendix "A ", Exploration Logs. These show materials encountered, observed depths to ground- water, sample locations, and "N" values. .Laboratory testing results are presented in Appendix "B ". SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS • In general, the site is covered with 7 to 11 feet of soft, mottled, sandy silt, which grades to loose silty sand. This surficial stratum is underlain by a 13 to 23 foot section of loose to dense, black sand. Boring 2 indicates silt lenses within this horizon, while in Boring 3, gravel appears at the base of the layer. Beneath this lies a 19 to 29 foot section of loose to medium dense silty sand, which grades to a medium stiff sandy silt with shells and wood fragments. Boring 2 encountered medium dense, tan, silty sand from 58 to 59 feet. 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 GROUNDWATER . 4 A piezometer was installed at Boring 1 to measure groundwater levels. From present surface elevations, readings indicate • • • • • Seattle Rendering Works Mr. Michael Runyon October 12, 1976 Page Three GROUNDWATER (continued) water at approximately 13 feet. The water table will fluc- tuate with changes in river level, as well as with the season. As such, they can rise during rainy weather or during periods of large discharge from Howard Hansen Dam. DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS General: The site soils are marginal for support of conventional spread footings. Generally, spread footings are not recommended where Standard Penetration Test values are less than 5 blows per foot of penetration. At this site, • all three borings encountered soils in the upper six to ten feet, with blow counts of less than 5. Because of . this, remedial work or special foundations will be neces- •sary. Foundation-support systems may include: removal and replacement of existing soils, surcharging, piling, etc. • The three borings show appreciably different soil pro- files, although they are not far apart. We anticipate that subsurface conditions will probably vary, even in the vicinity of the borings. • • • II Building Foundations: In order to support conventional spread or continuous structure footings, it will be necessary to improve the density of the near surface soils. For this, we recom- mend that the area beneath the foundations be overexcav- ated at least three feet below the planned footing ele- vations. This excavation should be backfilled with sand or gravel fill, compacted to at least 90 percent of labor- atory maximum density (ASTM:D - 1557 -70 or AASHO:T -180). The area excavated and compacted should extend at least three feet outside of the edge of the footing element. Conventional footings supported by a compacted structural . fill may be designed with an allowable bearing pressure of 1,000 pounds per square foot, including both dead and Seattle Rendering Works Mr. Michael Runyon October 12, 1976 Page Four DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS (continued) 4 live loads.. The base of the footings should be at least 4 eighteen inches below adjacent grade. Footings should be at least twelve inches in width, in all cases, regardless of the loading experienced. Settlements on the order of one to two inches may be experienced. For this reason, it might be appropriate to allow for shimming- of columns 4 or machinery foundations if necessary. III Floors: The floor slab should be supported by a compacted sand or gravel blanket at least two feet thick. This will not eliminate settlement, but it should tend to minimize warp- ing and cracking. Also, the slab should be reinforced with mesh or steel to control cracks. Because of the magnitude of settlements, due to column loadings, we suggest casting the floor slab after erect- ion of the steel building. In this way, some of the init- ial settlement would be completed prior to floor placement. To further control settlement induced cracking, the floor slab could be separated from the footings. IV Surcharge Fill: In order to reduce post construction settlement, it would be feasible to surcharge fill the site. Such a surcharge would need to be some five to six feet high, across the entire building area. It would be necessary to leave the fill in place about three months. The fill would have con - solidated near the surface soils, thereby reducing building settlements, probably to about one inch. It would still be necessary to place approximately two feet of compacted material beneath the footings, however. Machinery Foundations: Support for the machinery should be designed in the same manner as the building foundations. In this way about two feet of compacted gravel or sand should be placed beneath 4 4 4 4 4 • • • • • • • • • • Seattle Rendering Works Mr. Michael Runyon October 12, 1976 Page Five DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS (continued) each footing. This structural fill should extend later- ally beyond the base of each footing at least three feet in all directions. As in the case of the building it- self, unless there is sufficient time to surcharge the site, all footings should be designed to permit shimm - ing, if necessary. VI Tanks: Several outside storage tanks and silos are planned. The largest of these are approximately 20 feet in diameter, and will impose loadings on the ground of around 2,000 pounds per square foot. The soils encountered in all of the borings will be inadequate for supporting these loads in their present density. Several options are available for obtaining support, including: (1) over excavation and replacement of the existing soil; (2) piles; or (3) surcharge fill. 1. Over excavation and recompaction: This approach consists of removing the surficial soil down to a depth of ten feet below grade. The resulting excavation should be backfilled with com- pacted structural fill. Compaction should be to at least 90 percent of laboratory maximum density, using ASTM:D -1557 or AASHO:T -180 as a standard. The base of the excavation should extend laterally at least ten feet outside of the foundation perimeter. The excavation slopes will also need to be flattened for safety,: or shored. Foundations supported by a com- pacted fill of this type, may be designed with a maxi- mum allowable bearing pressure of 2,500 pounds per square foot, provided that the base of the footing is at least eighteen inches below adjacent grade. 2. Piling: Piles may be used to develop support for the tanks. Pile lengths and capacities do vary from place to place. In the area of Boring 2, we suggest using piles with a ten -inch tip diameter. Such piles, if driven to a depth of approximately 20 feet, should Seattle Rendering Works Mr. Michael Runyon October 12, 1976 Page Six DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS (continued) be capable of supporting loads on the order of 16 tons each. In the area of Boring 3, thrity -five foot long piles, with eight -inch diameter tips, should be good for 20 tons each. Because of the variable soil conditions across the site, the pil- ing contractor should drive a test pile at each location, prior to delivery of production piling. The piles should be full depth treated timber, driven with a steam or diesel hammer delivering at least 15,000 foot pounds of energy. 3. Surcharge Fill: If time permits, it would be feasible to preload the site to densify the surficial soils. Sur - charge heights would vary from ten to fifteen feet. It probably will be necessary to let the surcharge stand about three months, to develop the required . amount of soil consolidation. After surcharing, the tank foundations may be designed with a maxi- mum allowable-bearing pressure of 2,500 pounds per square foot, when founded at least eighteen inches below adjacent grade. Depending upon tank loca- tions, it is possible that the surcharge embank- ment may extend into building area. VII Below Grade. Structures: A portion of the facility will include a pit area, ex- tending some fifteen feet below grade. Bearing capac- ity does not appear to be a problem since the weight of the soil to be removed is greater than the anticipated loading. On the other hand, water table currently is about 12 to 13 feet below grade, and it may rise during wet weather. Therefore, structures extending below grade should be sufficiently heavy to resist hydrostatic uplift. During construction, which apparently will occur during the winter, it will probably be necessary to use wellpoints or deepwells to dewater any excavation. Ex- cavations extending below water table which are dewatered with sumps and sump pumps, will likely be unstable. 1 1 1 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 Seattle Rendering Works Mr. Michael Runyon October 12, 1976 Page Seven DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS (continued) 4 VIII Grading: Fill to be;.placed on the site in rainy weather . should consist of clean granular material, containing no more • • than 5 percent fines, passing a No. 200 sieve. This percentage should be based on the fraction of soil which passes the No. 4 screen. Fill should be placed under the full time supervision of the Soils Engineer. It should be compacted to at least 90 percent of labor - atory maximum density, using ASTM:D- 1557 -70 or AASHO- • P -180 as a standard. Surcharge fill, which will re- main above floor or foundation levels, need not be as thoroughly compacted, however. • • • • • • IX Summary: The site soils are relatively soft and compressible. Even after taking the remedial measures described in this report, sizable settlements should be anticipated. For this reason, whenever possible, foundations should be designed to permit future shimming, or releveling. As plans and designs are prepared and completed, we will gladly assist you in any way necessary. If you have any questions, please call. p,ll1/S Ao RAZ E: tic ��F_.__S'�G;_'✓ Respectfully submitted, RITTENHOUSE -ZEMAN & ASSOCIATES, • Tom Bekey, Chief Geologist Alvin R. Zeman, P B- B-2. O LEGEND 8or(1Zq ri e-; r attic( (oc.c►f torte RITTENHOUSE - ZEMAN & ASSOC. FOUNDATION AND 801L8 ENGINEERING. GEOLOGY 16190 S.W. 72ND AVENUE PORTLAND, OREGON 97223 (603( 620 -3062 13240 NORTHRUP WAY BELLEVUE, WASHINGTON 96005 AFFILIATE OFFICES IN MOST PRINCIPAL CITIES NLO. tit./ 23 '41 BY DATE C' C. '74 SCALE • • 4 • • • • • • ' APPENDIX '.'A" EXPLORATION LOGS 1.3 so SOIL DESCRIPTION Surface Elevations Soft, moist, brown and gray mottled, sandy silt u IX 0 STANDAii0 PENETRATION RESISTANCE (140 I0. weight, 30 "drop) O Blows pot foot 10-SM Loose, moist, brown, silty, fine to • medium sand -15- SW 2 Loose, wet to saturated, black, fine to coarse sand -25. Bottom of Boring 24, feet LEGEND Z 2.0 "O.D. split spoon sample It 3.0" O.D. thin -wall sample !f' Somple not recovered Another(' limits* �l'quid limit Natural water content Plastic limit ;G impervious Mol -St— water level Piesometer tip P Sampler pushed USC . unified Soil Classification • % Water content Seattle Rendering LOG OF BORING NO, 1 W 2347 RITTENHOUSE - ZEMAN & ASSOC. rOIJNOATIOM AMC. SOIL. ENOINL[MINO. O[OLOOY • • SOIL DESCRIPTION Surface Elevations x a t a IANDARU PENETRATION RESISTANCE (140lb. w1ght, 30 "drop) A Blom' per foot 0 25 50 "10 Soft, moist, brown and gray mottled, sandy silt with some organics ML -15. SW .20. Loose to dense, wet to saturated, black, fine to coarse sand Saturated below 13 feet -25-SW Medium dense, saturated, black, medium to coarse sand, with silt lenses - 30- 35. 40 LEGEND SM Very loose to medium dense, saturated, Gray silty, fine sand with shells and some gravel See next page = 2.0 "0.0. split spoon sample II 3.0" 0.D. thln- wolisample * Sample not recovered Att•rberp limits F— O--j-+L squid limit \‘k-- Natural water content Plastic limit Impervious seal .�. Water level Piezometsr tip P Sampler pushed USC Unified soil Classification • % Water content Seattle Rendering LOG OF BORING NO. 2 W -2347 RITTENHOUSE - ZEMAN & ASSOC. rOUNDAr19■ ANO •OIL• [NOINICI 11NO. 01110LOOY - 45- - 50- 55- cs se z SM JSM SOIL DESCRIPTION- Surface Elevations Very loose to medium dense, saturated gray, silty, fine sand, with shells and some gravel Medium dense, moist, tan silty, medium sa -60- Bottom of Boring 59 feet $ TANDAi';v PENETRATION RESISTANCE (14010. might, 30/ "drop) A wove Por foot 0 25 5Q LEGEND I. 2.011 O.D. split spoon sample II 3.011 0.0. thin -wall sample * Sample not recovered Atterb.rq limit.' j-- 4— j�L!quid limit \NL-- . Naturo I water content Plastic limit .�i Impervious 6401 .Q.- Water level Piezometer tip P Sampler pushed USC Unified Soil Classification % Water content Seattle .Rendering LOG OF BORING NO. 2 (continued; W -2347 RITTENHOUSE - ZEMAN & ASSOC. FOUNDATION ANO SOILS [NOINI[RINO. 01C01.O0Y 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 SOIL.JESt:RIPTIOIN Surface Elevations • iii fiiAJ1v'1 NGSI,:'NCt • (140 lb. weight, 30 "drop) A SI out e pot foot • 0 25 • 50 SM Loose, moist, brown to gray, silty, fine to medium sand ML SW 10. SW 15 - - 20 - 25 Soft, moist, brown and gray mottled, sandy silt Loose, moist, black, mottled,• fine to medium sand with silt lenses Loose to medium dense, wet to saturated, black, fine to coarse sand Wood debris @ 23.5 feet _30 SW Medium dense, saturated, gray and black, fine to medium sand with fine to medium gravel �---� ML - 35- Hard ( ?) moist, grayish brown, sandy silt Blow count is believed to be over stated due to gravel content T 40- . ML Medium stiff to stiff, moist, grayish brown, fine sandy silt, with shells and wood fragments LEGEND " Z 2.0 O.D. split spoon sample 7I 3.0" O.D. thin -wall somple * Sample not recovered Atterberg limit's • P )-- 4— jr- LIQu1d limit . USC 4-- Noturo I eater content Piastre limit Irnp.r•vlous seal Water level Piezometer tip Sampler pushed Unified Soil Classification % Water content Seattle Rendering LOGO 349ORING NO. 3 MOENING -GREY & ASSOCIATES GEOLOGISTS Arco ENGINEERS ML . 45. SOIL DESCRIPTION Surfaco Elavatlont Medium stiff to stiff, moist, gray to brown, sandy silt, with shells and wood fragments PENETRATION RESISTANCE. (1401b.wstght, 30 "drop) t A Blow; per foot a� X 0 - 50- Pe Y. Bottom of Boring 49 feet LEGEND Z 2.0" 0.D. split spoon sample II 3.0" 0.D. thin -wall sample * Sample not recovered. Att.rberp limits 1-- 4--j-it-Liquid limit QL-- Natural water content Plastic limit USC Impervious seal Water level Pierom.t.r tip Sampler pushed Unified Soil Classification O % Water content Seattle Rendering LOG OF BORING NO. 3 (continued) RITTENHOUSE 77 - ZEMAN & ASSOC. /OUNOATI9N ANO 111O11.0 [NOIN[[I1I1.1O. OEOLOOY 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 • • • • • • • • ■ • • APPENDIX "B" • LABORATORY TESTING ONSOLIDATION IN PERCENT 0.01 .v 0.1 16 u. O. V m tD :1111111 11111 1 111 Ili Ili 111 iii 1 ::::;ilIlIllH1 110,MAIIIIII ■■1e 11 1111 Ill C : :uiiilllliliili IfflUii1hil 111 ■■11:1111111111 11 iii 11 ■fuf11 11 I III ::: :1 �1l i II pi Hun �1I 1 �1 Ilr ilI ■1U :11111111111 I i ( 11 III rll r 1111 1111 m_ 11111111111111111111 1 111111[11 ■■°lee In 11 I IIII :1::: 1111nIi 111 ' 1111 ■■11II1n1W�I 1111 1111 1 1 ■■nf 11111 III ■11111 IIIII 11 MI 1■11111 1�1��1� 111 ' 111 1111.11 ■ ■1 :11 11111 III I 111 II ■1 11 11111111 1 ii I 11 11 1 ■■lIe1 min 1 I 1 11 I Nunn : l liil�lii 1 i 1 u '1 111 1!11111 .°°lee minl I; 1 1 °°feel Iuii 111 JII 111 Itflll� l II II ■11111111111 I 11 111 II rl a nl nl II ion I i V 11 II fl :9:IIIIII111li1 il111 X11 111 1111 I 11 1111111111111 11111 I 1 111 Ili 111 1 III ::lee■1;U11 1 IIII Ilyll I IR 11u111II I I I . 1111 IHhIlIll 1 1 II ■111111111 1111 I�I iill m 111 1111{ II VP STRESS IN TONS /SQ.FT. 1.0 td s CO O. v CO •.O :MIIII 1111 1g11111i 11N 11111 1 11111 11 III l ip,iiiii 11 ■flee I11f1 1 1P1 11 1III11111 n IIII I 111111111111 11111T 11 I. I!l1 1 111111111 1411 �'Ii II'll =1111 111 111 I I'. 1:iieu111 111 1 . ' 1 ! 11111 Il �� 11 I i I uu III. : :1 /1 11 1 II HI 01.141 I f 4` rIli ' � I 'tit 1, �li ill; ,1., ::ill ill 1 Hi tourbh,. 1111 pit11111 It11111 III ll I IRD' fle iiiill,- :I11110111 111 I , 111 I1 rI �'ii`- irlliiiiiiiiilliqi,i1111111 1 1. ' ! ? ,, ii, 11' m1111111 111 A 0iMoill 1 1 11fe1 uu 11 Ir C1e11 :1111 111 111 ,I t I I " t y� ;�� 111 11 11 1111111!+ 11 11`1 II ;:1;11111 111 h �1 IihiII'I"Iij 1 1 1 l 1111 1. 111111119 1 l 1111111.1 ill 1 11 !'r goy ,I1101d1l �1IIR L:ii1u'11i11111R1 11111 1 111 IIIIIIIIl 1y1 ■ ■11111111 1 1 CONSOLIDATION TEST Boring No. 2 Depth 7 1/2 - 10' Sample No- 3 Work Order No. 2347 Rittenhouse -Zeman & Assoc. Geotechnical Engineering 10 IS Of V Ot tO r� °1,�1' 1111�111111 I II h�111 II II I is :11:'11 iii 1 111 :Ilii'ui1111i1In Ili � Iuu IMP ..l■■uluI n lI III 11 1iin�ln m 1 ..■■■1f1111111111Ii111 II UN 11 r1 : ■■■■nll ul 11 I I m 11 11 .. 1p1 1 1111 111 U 1 ::i��I; ■1 111 1111 Mil] � 111111111 ..■1i■■III a ii m 1 ` X11 Nil: . n�lllllll 11 i�j 1 i1=11i 1li 'II 11 1,1118 I Ilj, 1 I I11 I 111111101111 111 LII II .■1n��f�111 I 111111_ :::11i1111u II IIIIIhi ■■ 11111111 '1 UIt 11 IIU I1' ��111111 0 IIHIlIII_ =�C�11 1 j j iJH . amii;1�ni bil 1I i1 .■■:f11111 11.1 111 11 uuu':1111 llr1ij J'IIII 1111 111 ,11,iu1'1i i i f t lIIrk i 1111 ll 11 II I� 1 III{ ni II I ;I ;:, iil 1'1 111 1111 il�gimp, il 1111111 1 yy 11 11 1 I :. ■ ■ : ■f111111I1<llllll111 '� r!Ilpl, Ill it 1111 111 ■ : :i::olill'I1 l Rif I b 1I 1 II II 111 li 11 { :::1:111' iii i I �II I hI iiihill„i I u�� 111111111llll 11 11 I ■.■■ ■111111111111 rlri II 6 r II 1 1 ..... 1 _ 111 Iii i1 1111 I it ■::::::i 10.111E111,16 I 1 iiilllllI I I 111 R I ■. ■f 111 1rn1� 111 Ili II� ■■■■ :111 { 111111111 I I nm111)L�� 111 1u m 111 1 11 In 111 111 n ntmIl� IIr lIf .1ia�11i ...uuu1:f1I11 jiji' ii 1 11 111111I1 11 � �j 1■ti■ ■. II 1 1111111111111.111.1111111111 11 I 1 11111111 CII 11111111IIII11I 1 11...11 111 111 •••I �1� �fi{ ■ feiiniiliiilmm�mm,rn�..... -. ...I 11111 1 I III 1 11 1111 II I 1 ■.I■■11111111111111 911 11 TI11m1 111 1 1111 1 I 1 Iii 1 Iii 111 II :: ■1:::1 11111111 111 I I lI 1Ii 1111 1111 1 11111 I I I 1 1 I ii11 111 1I ■ ■ ■ ■■1■11i1111111 lI 111111 I 1111 III Ili. ll II 11 Illtlll 1 111111111 1111 NI l 11111 llI 1) UIIIIa::::i 111 r 11111 I' 111111111 11111 11111 1 1111 III :a :11::1 hi lII l 111 IIIIIIIIiiiiii,1111 I I 11111 =III II 11 .n■1■1h11111I'1 a ■.a8' 1 1 I ..C■■ 111 11 ■.Illhlee111 01111 1.■ I man■ m u r1i ini C ��ei II . ■1,11 ::,111 IIII 1 111 ■ ■■ ■111111111- II ::::::Uh -11 :: :'�11111'1i ■.■ 1..0101 111 ��.�:. ■i11111111 11I�.: :1 111111111 111 lmoos I:1'IIIII111 ll�.. ■■ ■1,1111111 111 19111191111 11 Bonn on X11 ■■■11111 f �! i I It 11 1411 1 1, u Ili fil 11 111'. Ur. 1111 Ills )l1 Illl 111'1 !lC .I: ii; 1100 11111 ;i1' III. L. yyI, r'• iL1 I!1! IL. III ii 11; _,t i 200 • !:150 11.1100 cc 6 ai ■..■■■■■■O.■1■.■■.■■..■... ■� ■ rs■.1■■■■ .■ 1111 ■.n ■.■.■...■.■■■■.■ ■.■■.■■.■■ ■ ■ ■ = 1 .■.■C..■■C.•.■■ ■.■ ■■Q.■ ■CQC = iIIiIrr!ldIuu!I!ulI!III ............ ...C... 1111■■ ■ 1111■ ■ 1111■■ n■■.■■ 1111■■ ■ ■ ■ ►,. C ■.■■C ■■n ■.■C ■C a ■e■■ =1111.■ .CU C C C 'p'� '� n■■ ■■..'�■ ■ 1 CC' ... ■ . CC:...111: ■ .■ .. 1111 ... .. ■�i.Q . . . H ■=■......1.1.....1..n LIIMERAddilliallAIIIIIIIINIIIIIAIIIIIIIIIIIEN C �s E. ■... ■H.■■ ■■..1.■.....n....■ ■1■ ■ 1111■/. /■ ■. ■.■ ■■ ■.■..1.■ ■... ■■■■..■■...■ . .. C1 C=p. ■■1C..1�E ..� i..C:i .C.....=QCQ. p..n =....C= C ■■■.■1■■...�.■ ■.■■ 1111 ■ ■.■ .■.■ 1111 r1 ■ ■H.H ■ ■■■ ■a Q1CC1Q.u111111■■ 1111. ■ ►i 1111..■■ 1111 •u = n■ .. ■ C ...... 11114111111 C �.i.EQ......Q1i�... V111 i1111 'Q..Q RITTENHOUSE - ZEMAN & ASSOC: GEOLOGY & SOILS ENGINEERING 13240 NORTHUP WAY. BELLEVUE. WASHINGTON 98005 (208) 748 -8020 Seattle Rendering Works C/o Garwest, Inc. 13240 Northrup Way Bellevue, Washington 98005 Attention: Subject: Gentlemen: November 11, 1976 Mr. Michael Runyon Supplemental Report Soils and Foundation Investigation Rendering Plant Addition Seattle Rendering Works, Tukwila In accordance with your request, we have completed a fourth boring at the above site. The location of the boring is shown on the site plan, where the tanks are to be located. After clearing the brush from the boring area, a 19 foot hole was drilled. • Results of the boring indicate 4 feet of soft, brown, sandy silt underlain by 8 feet of loose mottled gray silty sand with occasional silt layers. At least 7 feet of loose to medium dense black medium sand lies beneath the gray silty sand. The water table was encountered at. 11.5 feet. Based on the additional boring, it appears the proposed tank site is well suited to surcharging in order to increase allowable bearing pressures and 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 • Seattle Rendering Works November 11, 1976 • Page Two decrease post construction settlements. The sands and silts tend to consolidate quite rapidly and we anticipate that surcharging can be completed • in6to8weeks. The thickness of surcharge material can be varied from tank to tank depending on anticipated foundation pressures. Generally, we suggest • that the surcharge vary from a low of about 10 feet to nearly 20 feet for the more heavily loaded tanks. As we have discussed, settlement markers should be placed on the completed surcharge so the required amount of sur- charge time can be determined in the field. • The heavily loaded tanks should be designed for a maximum allowable bearing pressure of 2, 500 psf. Although surcharging will reduce post construction settlements, we anticipate that post construction settlements • may be on the order of 1 to 2 inches. A continuous slab supporting all of the tanks is not recommended since differential settlements may cause severe cracking. • • • AZ /jw • • Respectfully submitted, RITTENHOUSE -ZEMAN & ASSOC., INC. 3 V es ML SOIL DESCRIPTION Surface Elevation= Soft, dry, light brown sandy silt STANDARD PENETRATION RESISTANCE (1401b. weight, 30 "drop) • Blown Per foot 0 25 50 r■al 10 SM Loose, dry, brown and gray mottled, silty fine to medium sand Moist below 11.5 feet - 15- SW Loose to medium dense, saturated, black, fine to medium sand with some organic debris. - 20- Bottom of Boring: 19 feet LEGEND I. 2.0 "0.D. split spoon sample II 3.0" 0.D. thin -wall sample * Sample not recovered Atterberp limits* 1-4s-1-4-Liquid limit \Nt— Natural water content Plastic limit P use Impervious seal Water level Pi•:ometer Hp Sampler pushed Unified Soil Classification • % Water content Seattle Rendering LOG OF BORING NO. 4 W -2347 RITTENHOUSE - ZEMAN & ASSOC. IOUND■TION AND SOILS [NOIN<[AINO. GEOLOGY 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 • • EXHIBIT VII Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency Variance Permit • • • • • • Paget ScA nd Air Allution Antrol Agency TO: 410 West Harrison Street, P.O. Box 9863 (206) 344.7330 Seattle, Washington 98109 October 6, 1976 Board of Directors Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency SUBJECT: Application for Variance No. 176 Seattle Rendering Works, Inc., Tukwila, Washington Variance from Section 9.11(a) and 9.12 of Regulation _I for an Inedible Rendering Plant STAFF RECO'PIENDATIONS Honorable Members: Seattle Rendering .Works, Inc., located.at 13601 Beacon Coal !line Road South, has applied for a variance from Section 9.11(a) and 9.12 of Regulation I until October 21, 1977. Dur- ing this one -year time period, the applicant proposes to replace the five existing batch rendering cookers in the old portion of the plant and install a new, continuous rendering process, and up -grade the odor control facilities in other portions of their plant. The staff has reviewed the applicant's.proposal in their vari- ance application and believes that the new rendering facility,. coupled with the odor abatement schedule in Exhibit 1 of their variance application, will bring the odors from the plant into compliance with Regulation I. - However, because of numerous citizen complaints and the need, to minimize odor emissions to the greatest degree•practical- during the variance time period, the staff does not propose that a variance from Section 9.11(a) be granted. The staff believes that it is mandatory that the applicant takes all reasonable precautions and uses all reasonable methods to mini- mize odor emissions to the greatest degree practical during the variance time period. Therefore, it is proposed that the Agency staff continue _to Notices of Violation for documented violations of Sec - o, tion 9.11(a) and, if the applicant proceeds to install the new rendering process on schedule, and completes the odor abate- ment schedule in Exhibit 1 within the time period proposed, and takes all reasonable precautions and uses all reasonable.. ...f1 methods to minimize odor emissions during the variance time •.. CG_I.tY period, no Civil Penalties would be assessed for those Notices of Violation. If however, the applicant fails to install the new rendering process as proposed, and /or fails to meet "° the proposed odor abatement schedule of their Exhibit 1, and/ or fails to take all reasonable precautions and /or fails-to • • • • = i[10 =6 foe", ♦ .Ie tn. P.n... J. G..'....., Coo A•t..on.. P..,e. County. VICE CM■RMAK- M. RIthfN Fe..V.a. Colnml.Meno1 Rnononnfl COOa¢ _.._ .,o. E.ottn. G..nn K. J.,.Iaa. M. o, O...n.non: Careen N. Jonnl.n. Mayo. TK.•; G.a. lobo, Comml..ionoy Anson Counts J..n 0 •.A.I' non, n•n, Ceuny E.. wow: Woo tm1.>•n, Wfw 6.afUE A. R. OaTWbonw, AM Pollution CO.IMN 0111t•t. -2- • • use all reasonable methods to minimize odor emissions during the variance time period, Civil Penalties in the amount of $250.00 would be assessed against Seattle Rendering Works, Inc., for each violation of Section 9.11(a). This will allow for installation of the new rendering process and the correction of existing odor problem areas, provide incentive to the applicant to solve their air pollution prob- lems in accordance with the commitment to the Agency, and enable the Agency to work towards minimizing the impact of odors upon the applicant's neighbors. Since this is an odor problem, the staff does not know if the interim measures of Exhibit 1 will stop the odor complaints. The staff does believe, however, that the proposed interim measures will reduce the emissions of odors, and, that if all the proposals of the variance are completed, there will be a substantial reduction in odor emissions. The staff believes that if this variance were granted in accordance with the pro- posed conditions, the emissions that would occur during the time of the variance would not endanger public health or safety. THEREFORE, the staff recommends that the Board grant a variance from Section 9.12 of Regulation I to Seattle Rendering harks, Inc., at 13601 Beacon Coal Mine Road South, Tukwila, Washington, until October 21, 1977, with the following conditions: 1. That Seattle Rendering Works, Inc., shall install a con- tinuous rendering system, and building air scrubber as pro- posed in their variance application by October 21, 1977; and 2. That Seattle Rendering Works, Inc., shall complete all the improvements to the plant related to odor control as out- lined in Exhibit 1.of their Variance Application by the proposed dates in that schedule; and 3. That Seattle Rendering Works, Inc., shall meet an instal- lation schedule for the new continuous rendering system of: a. Notice of Construction submitted by December 1, 1976, in accordance with Article 6 of Regulation I. b. Equipment ordered by January I, 1977. c. Installation completed by September 1, 1977. d. Start -up of new facility completed by October 1, 1977. e. Shakedown of new equipment completed by October 21, 1977; and 4. That during the time of this variance, the Agency shall con- tinue to investigate citizen complaints of odors from this plant and, when appropriate, shall issue Notices of Viola- tion for violations of Section 9.11(a) of Regulation I, subject to the following stipulations: a. That if Seattle Rendering Works, Inc., meets all the conditions and dates of the equipment installation schedule, and modification schedule as outlined in Exhibit I, and takes all reasonable precautions and uses all reasonable methods to minimize odor emissions during the variance time period, no Civil Penalties shall be'assessed for violations of Section 9.11(a) that occur during the variance period. b. That if Seattle Rendering Works, Inc., does not have the new, continuous rendering process completely installed and operating by October 21, 1977, and /or if they do not have the items in Exhibit 1, odor abatement schedule, completed as proposed, and /or fails to take all reasonable precautions and /or fails to use all reasonable methods to minimize odor emis- sions during the variance time period, a Civil Penalty in the amount of $250.00 will be assessed against Seattle Rendering Works, Inc., for each violation of Section 9.11(a)'; and. 5. That Seattle Rendering Works, Inc., shall submit monthly written progress reports, detailing the progress of com- pleting the projects of Exhibit 1, and the installation of the new rendering process, to the Agency;-such reports are due no later than ten days after the end of each cal- endar month; and 6. That this variance shall expire on October 21, 1977, or earlier if the new, continuous rendering process is deter- mined by the Agency to be installed completely and oper- ating in compliance with Regulation I; and 7. That the failure to comply with any condition and /or com- plete any specific action by its related date, without prior written approval of the Agency, shall subject the applicant to appropriate penalties and /or legal remedies as provided in RCW 70.94, for any violation of Regulation I; provided further that this variance does not prevent the Agency, during the term of the variance, from issu- ing to the applicant Notices of Violation of any viola- tion of Regulation I. Respectfully submitted, A. R. Dammkoehler Air Pollution Control Officer' ARD:RAK:fch • a Ill■ /111 • • EXHIBIT VIII Odor Survey by Food, Chemical and Research Laboratories, Inc. • • • • • JOHN GRAHAM ANO COMPANY CA CA 1G CO Ur PIn 00 RRK 00 Env Ser 00 ATS 00 • St Pln 00 Des C0 • Sp PIn 00 Arch [0 = Inst PIn 70 Ar Prd [i ; C Devl +_0 Struct 00 ?rod. C. 100 Civil 07 = lib 00 &tech 010 M File 00 Elect CL O 1 File 00 Specs 00 14 MtPtstr=! 23 , 1976 Const 00 Arlen LL Acctg jr Fair 10 Trattic 00 Beaver LC Client Est CG Seattle Rendering Company u- 13601 Deacon Coal Mine Road s.o.a. 00 :;cattle, Washington Pro;.Dic 70 Attention: Mr. W. I3ennefiel 'year Sir: On August 13, 16, 17 and 13, 1976 a survey was conducted to qualitatively relate odor and selected air pollutant levels on thq Seatttle aendering plant site with air quality in areas down- wind of Seattle Rendering. An attemptswws made by the investi- gator, a chemist, to rate odor levels on the following basis: 1. Po odor R. Faint odor 3. Low odor level 4. Moderate odor 5. Strong odor 6. Very strong odor !ietween about 0100 and 1600 hours each sample day, several trips • were made around the Seattle 'tendering site to detect periods of maximum odor emissions.. All measurements to detect pollutants were made at such times. Determinations made, equipment employed and procedures followed are described below. • 1. Pollutant Measurements A Model 1 i.iine ;safety Appliances (II.3A) Universal Testing 1 it was used in conjunction with MSA detector tubes for 112S (MSA P•�.rt No. 37414) and amines (MSA Part No. 92115) .detection. The latt,ir tubes are stated to be sensitive to ammonia, n— butylam_ne, . -- hexylamine, diethylamine, dimethylarnine, di— n— propylarnine, et'iv'- • amine, ethylene imine, n— ethylrnorpholine, isop.ropilamine, methyl— amine, propylene imine, triethylatnine and trirnethylarLrine. Before use, the sample pump was tested according to r4.Th instructions for leakage and flow rate. Tests with both types of detector tubes were conducted at the oriface settings, pump strokes • and sampling timb©sspecified by iTif.. When no pollutant was detected under such sampling conditions, the number of pump strokes was tripled to provide greater sample volumes and, thus, permit detec- tion of any very low pollutant levels present. • Seattle Rendering Page 2 All pollutant measurements were made in a sectthr about 60° downwind of the source. Since the Seattle Rendering site is located in a broad shallow valley bordered by low hills, some measurements and odor observations were made well outside these sectors in an effort to account for topographical and micrometeor- °logical effects on dispersion. 2. Odor Observations Detection of odor was purely subjective and based on the sensitivity of the investigators olefactory nerves. Whenever possible, odors downwind of the Seattle Rendering site were fol- lowed until undetectable. 3. Wind velootty and direction Wind velooity was measured with a Bacharach Instrument Company Fiorito Air Velocity Meter (Style 3035A) having a range of 0 to 35 mph. Velocity range and approximate short —term mean velocity were noted. Wind direction was estimated by means of a silk flag or smoke Plumes and a compass. During all test periods, wind velocities were quite low with mean velocities ranging from less than 1 mph to 5 mph and a maxi- mum measured velocity of 8 mph. Horizontal and vettical dispersion of odors emitted by Seattle Rendering operations should, therefore, have been efla low order. As shown by the survey data tabulated in the attached table, no odor levels rated above faint were noted at locations off of the Seattle Rendering plant site, even when the on —site odor was very strong. In all but two instances, no pollu- tant levels were measured even with sample volumes three times those specified for the detector tubes. under such sample conditions the two instances when the presence of amines or ammonia was detected produced color changes in only the first layer of crystals in the detector tubes. Thus, any amines present even when the odor level was very high on the Seattle Rendering site were far less than one part per million. Respectfully submitted, FOOD, CHEMICAL & RESEARCH LABORATORIES, INC. E. Lee Johnson CAM :kbb Att. table 4 4 4 4 1 4 4 4 4 4 • • • • • • Wind • • • • Range Mean Time Velocity Velocity Odor H2S Amines Date Location hrs Direction MPH MPH Level ppm ppm $/13/6 57 Ave S & 133 St. 1405 E /ESE 0-$ 5 1 0 0 Foster Golf Links . parking lot 1415 E /ESE 0-$ 5 1 0 0 Beacon Coal Mine @ 50 Ave. S. 1420 E /ESE 0-8 4 1 - - Beacon Coal Mine N of Seattle Ren 1430 E /ESE 0-6 3 1 Beaoon Coal Mine 0 @ 68 Ave. S. 1440 E /ESE . 0-6 3 1 - - Empire Way @ 64 S. 1453 E 0-6 3 1 - - Seattle Rendering • at gate 1505 E o-8 3 3 Seattle Rendering W of feathermeal plant 1517. E 0-8 3 5 0 0 8/16/6 Road closed sign near Seattle Ren office 1135 variable 0-2 to 1320 variable . 0 -2 it 1450 variable 0-3 Empire Way @ 64 S. 1605 variable 0-3 8/17/6 Seattle Ren site @ fire hydrants 1015 SW 0-2 1. 6 across fm warehouse Seattle Ren between plants 1025 SW 0-2 Seattle Ren @ road closed sign 1035 SW 0-2 Beacon Coal Mine/ Empire Way /50 S/ Seattle Ren gate circuit 1055 SW 0-2 1 1 Above 3 sites @ Seattle Ren 1450 SW 0-4 2 6 O 4 1 1 1 2 3 -4 3 -4 3 -4 1 1 O ' 0 O 4 O 0 O 0 6 0 6 0 0 O 0 Date Location Wind Range Mean Time Velocity Velocity Odor hrs Direction MPH MPH Level H2S Amines ppm ppm 8/17/6 Beacon Coal Mine/ Empire Way /50 S/ Seattle Ren gate circuit 1510 SW+ 0-4 Empire Way @ 64 S 1607 SW' 0-4 8/18/6 Seattle Ren NW of feathermeal plant 0900 SE. Seattle Ren gate 0913 SE S 130 P1 @ 56 S 0921 SE • Beacon Coal Mine 1 block W of 50 S. SE Beacon Coal Mine N of Seattle Ren 0927 SE Beacon Coal Mine @ RR track S of Spider Staging 0934 SE Beacon Coal Mine @ 6$ S 0940 SE 68 S @ Empire Way 0946 SE Empire Way @ 64 S 0949 SE 64 S @ S 129 0953 SE S 124 @ 50 S 1000 SE S 124 @ 42 S 1003 SE Interurban from 42 S to S 149 1025 S 149 up hill to end of road 1030 SE Foster Golf Links parking lot 1034 SE 57 S @ S 133 1042 SE Seattle Ren gate 1045 SE Seattle Ren NW of feathermeal plant 1049 SE d Alb 0-i < 1 6 0-1 < 1 . 4 0 -1 < 1 1 0-1 < 1 0-1 -< 1 0-1 < 1 0-1 ..< 1 '0-1 <1 0-1 < 1 1 0-1 < 1 1' 0-1 <1 1 0-1 < 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 - 0 0 1 0 0 3 -4 0 . 0 6 0 trace ( < 1 ) OMB O trace (< 1 ) O 0 0 0 0 0 MOD 0 0 O NO • • • • • • • • • • Date Location Wind Range Mean Time Velocity Velocity Odor H2S hrs Direction MPH MPH Level ppm Amines ppm 8/19/6 Seattle Ren between plants 0830 SE 1 -5 3 6 0 0 Seattle Ren NW of feathermeal plant 0836 - SE 1 -5 3 6 0 0 Seattle Ren gate 0843 SE 1 -5 3 2 0 0 57 S@ S 133 0847 SE 1 -5 3 1 0 0 O. • 0 0 EXHIBIT IX Odor Abatement Program and Schedule • • • • • • EXHIBIT IX ODOR ABATEMENT PROGRAM AND SCHEDULE Program Element To be Completed by 1. Fill in barrel washing swamp 10/1/76 2. Pave west side feather plant from boiler blow off drain to anaerobic filler waste tank and curb area 6/1/77 3. Provide 2,000 gallon tank with heating coils to receive foam and to avoid spills from air flotation unit 11/1/76 4. Provide peroxide irritated packed scrubber with fan from feather air condenser to treat noncondensables 11/1/76 5. Cover and connect to irrigated scrubber: (a) Air flotation unit (b) Anaerobic filter feed tank (c) Condenser water tank - dissassembled and removed 11/1/76 (d) Wooden settling tank (e) Vent from anaerobic filter waste tank 1/1/77 (f) Feather vibrating screen 6. Provide hood for: (a) Feather cooker discharge screw (b) Feather cooker elevator 3/1/77 (c) Surge bin to drier (d) Loading dome on fish cookers 1 and 2 7. Connect items in 6 to feather drier scrubber 3/1/77 8. Cover hot wells in old plant 11/1/76 9. Provide covered drains for: (a) Boiler blow down 10/1/76 (b) Tallow tank blow down EXHIBIT IX ODOR ABATEMENT PROGRAM AND SCHEDULE • Program Element To be Completed by 10. Provide weekly pick up service for used restaurant grease cans, rubbish, and floor sweepings 11. Check peroxide residue of scrubber effluent on daily basis and send report of findings to PSAPCA monthly 12. Provide monthly inspection service of facilities for odor emissions and send copy of report to PSAPCA 13. Have clean up man to police area daily • • 10/1/76 9/1/76 9/1/76 9/1/76 • EXHIBIT X Water Right Claim r-tit 1 I'Y,u WATER RIGHT CLAIMS REGISTRATION WATER RIGHT CLAIM 1.NAME M. & L. Investment Co. tl 1 ADDRESS13601 Beacon Coal Mine Road Seattle, Washington CODE 98178 2. SOURCE FROM WHICH THE RIGHT TO TAKE AND MAKE USE OF WATER IS CLAIMED: Surface Water A. IF GROUND WATER, THE SOURCE IS 8. IF SURFACE WATER, THE SOURCE I5 W. R.I.A. Z 7.11 CAZiii_.I,;:,L. ; :. /:...E_' r r `(SURFACE -OR GROUND WATER) (LEAVE BLANK) Green River T. THE QUANTITIES OF WATER AND TIMES OF USE CLAIMED: A. QUANTITY OF WATER CLAIMED 315 GPM PRESENTLY USED 315 GPM (CUBIC FEET PER SECOND OR GALLONS PER MINUTE) 8 ANNUAL QUANTITY CLAIMED 89,856,000 Gallons PRESENTLY USED 89,856,000 Gallons (ACRE FEET PER YEAR) C. IF FOR IRRIGATION, ACRES CLAIMED G. TIME(S) DURING EACH YEAR WHEN WATER,IS USED: 4 DATE OF FIRST PUTTING WATER TO USE: MONTH PRESENTLY IRRIGATED 52 weeks per year 6 days each week l41 May YEAR 1958 . 5. LOCATION OF THE POINT(S) OF DIVERSION /WITHDRAWAL• 1510.74 FEET South AND 2143.89 FEET West FROM THE CORNER OF SECTION 13 BEING WITHIN OF SECTION 13 T 23 N R. 4' . (E M.) W.M. I IF THIS IS WITHIN THE LIMITS OF A RECORDED PLATTED PROPERTY, LOT CE -DC. BLOCK #41 • OF I Brownell King County Tax Code 2330 ■ GIVE NAME OF PLAT OR ADDITION) 6. LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF LANDS ON WHICH THE WATER 15 USED Description Attached COUNTY RING L 7. PURPOSE(S) FOR WHICH WATER IS USED: } 8. THE LEGAL DOCTRINE(S) UPON WHICH THE RIGHT OF CLAIM IS BASED* Cleaning, Cooling & Domestic Supply 7'. Appropriation THE FILING OF 4 STATEMENT OF CLAIM DOES NOT CONSTITUTE AN ADJUDICATION OF ANY CtAIM TO THE RIGHT TO USE OF WATERS AS BETWEEN THE WATER USE CLAIMANT AND THE STATE OR AS BETWEEN ONE OR MORE WATER USE CLAIMANTS AND ANOTHER OR OTHERS. THIS ACKNOWLEDGEMENT CONSTITUTES RECEIPT FOR THE FILING FEE. DATE RETURNED THIS HAS BEEN ASSIGNED WATER RIGHT CLAIM REGISTRY NO. 1151 1.r30 (RECTOR. DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY A EREBY SWEAR 101. HE ABOVE INFORMATION IS TRUE AND R . T E B ST MY KNOWLEDGE AND IEF. GATE `"c1 / 9 V IF CLAIM FILED BY DE GNATED REPRESENTATIVE. PRINT OR TYPE FULL NAME AND MAILING ADDRESS OF AGENT BELOW. • ❑ ADDITIONAL INFORMATION RELATING TO WATER OUALITY AND/ OR WELL CONSTRUCTION 15 AVAILABLE 1I RETURN ALL THREE COPIES WITH CARBONS INTACT. ALONG WITH YOUR FEE TO DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY WATI'R RIC,111 CI AIMS REGISTRATION .11 YMI'IA, WA:,IUH< .IC IN ,By GREG ANDERSON In a major step toward meeting its Oct. 1977 deadline for building a new plant, Seattle Rendering Works in Tukwila has completed a draft environmental impact statement. The City of Tukwila required that the company write the impact ''statement before it would consider granting a building permit for con- struction of the proposed $1.1 million plant. The proposed plant, to use a "con- • ina works hands over stat tinuous rendering" system, will be designed to meet state air and water quality regulations. Residents living near the company's site have long complained of the bad smell generated by the rendering process. The Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency has given the firm until Oct. 1977 to comply with pollu- tion regulations. One condition of that variance is that Tukwila must grant the firm a building permit for the new plant by March 1, 1977. If Seattle Rendering Works does not meet its deadlines, it will be sub- ject to further financial penalties and possible "legal remedies," according to the pollution control agency. _ Fred Satterstrom, Tukwila plan- ning supervisor, said the impact statement will be reviewed for 35 days by officials of area agencies, such as cities, school districts, pollu- tion control bodies and health departments. These persons will be allowed to submit comments concerning the impact statement, and the city will be required to respond. At the completion of this step in the process, work will begin on a final environmental impact statement. Satterstrom said the final statement should be completed within 75 days of the issuance of the draft statement. That means the final impact statement can be expected to be completed by late February or early March. When the final impact statement • is prepared, Kjell Stoknes, director of Tukwila's Office of Community Development, will decide whether a building permit should be.granted. • Stoknes can call a public hearing on the matter if he thinks it would aid the decision - making process, but . it isn't required, Satterstrom said. The public can obtain copies of the draft environmental impact statement at Tukwila City Hall. There is a charge..' Seattle Rendering Works processes about one million pounds of waste material per week using two plants, one built in 1942 and the other in 1972. It is the 1942 plant which dis- charges most of the offensive odors about which 'nearby residents com- plain, company officials say. Wes Benefiel, company president, said the 1942 building will be torn down if the firm is allowed to con- struct the new plant. The business's 1972 . plant is being upgraded to meet air and water quality standards. ecord. j rone6 Tukwila - Riverton - McMicken Heights Edition Thursday, December 16, 1976 Vol. LV, No. 201 DISTRIBUTION LIST Office of the Governor. Legislative Building Olympia, Washington 98504 Dennis Lundblad Department of Ecology Olympia, Washington 98504 Walter Jascers Environmental Protection Agency 1200 Sixth Avenue Seattle, Washington 98101 Emil Jensen Department of Social and Health Services P.O. Box 1788 Olympia, Washington 98504 Bill Boxter Department of Natural Resources Public Lands Building Olympia, Washington 98504 Brian Beam Puget Sound Council of Governments Grand Central on the Park Building Seattle, Washington 98104 A. R. Dammkoehler Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency 410 West Harrison Street P.O. Box 9863 Seattle, Washington 98109 Dr. Richard Wade Seattle -King County Health Department 903 Public Safety Building Seattle, Washington 98104 Edward B. Sand King County Department of Community and Environmental Development W -217 King County Courthouse Seattle, Washington 98104 James P. Harris Kent Planning Agency P.O. Box 310, City Hall Kent, Washington 98031 Gordon Ericksen Renton Planning Department 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, Washington 98055 • John J. Fotheringham South Central School District #406 4640 South 144th Street Seattle, Washington 98168 Gary F. Kohlwes Renton School District #403 435 Main Avenue South Renton, Washington 98055 Wes Benefiel 5111 South 163rd Place Seattle, Washington 98188 Ben Aliment Foster Golf Course 13500 Interurban Seattle, Washington 98168 Vern Phillips 12613 Beacon Avenue South Seattle, Washington 98178 Florence DeLaurenti 12617 Beacon Avenue South Seattle, Washington 98178 Thelma Larson 12522 - 51st Avenue South Seattle, Washington 98178 John Yates 13325 - 56th Avenue South Seattle, Washington 98168 • STATE OF WASHINGTO• De zt.ore to a6 1faeae e4oa'tce4 December 15, 1976 OLYMPIA, WASHINGTON 98504 Mr. Fred N. Satterstrom Planning Division, City of Tukwila 6230 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 Dear Mr. Satterstrom: LETTER NO. 1 7ti,7W i % ;OM WS-6 VSV r• •'mp y�0(KTI dy �� The draft environmental impact statement for the proposed Continuous Rendering Plant Replacement Facility has been reviewed by the Department of Natural Resources. We have no comments regarding this proposal. We appreciate having an opportunity to review this statement. Yours very truly, BERT L. COLE Commissioner of Public Lands 60 Gerald D. Probst Resource Planning Coordinator GDP:bd COMMISSIONER BERT COLE DON LEE FRASER SUPERVISOR CITY OF TUKWILA OFFICE OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DECLARATION OF SIGNIFICANCE/NON-SIGNIFICANCE Description of proposal Continuous Rendering Plant Replacement Facility Proponent Seattle Rendering Works, Inc. Location of Proposal 13601 Beacon Coal Mine Road South Lead Agency City of Tukwila This proposal has been determined to (have /##1.0-4 a significant adverse im- pact upon the environment. An EIS (is /4p) required under RCW 43.21C.030(2) (c). This decision was made after review by the lead agency of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency. Responsible Official Kjell Stoknes Position /Title Director, Office of Community Devel pment Date November 29. 1976 Signature 402-'0 COMMENTS: • MEMO RANDUM CITY of TUKW LA OFFICE of COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT • 29 November 1976 TO: Kjell Stoknes, SEPA Responsible Official FROM: Fred Satterstrom SUBJECT: Seattle Rendering Works Environmental Questionnaire I have recommended herein that an Environmental Impact Statement be . completed pursuant to Ordinance No. 986 for the Seattle Rendering Works project for the following reasons: 1... The use of explosive or hazardous substances (hydrogen peroxide) is to be continued by the proposed project. 2. The impacts to water and sanitation utilities need to be addressed in more detail. FS /cw 3. Circulation of an EIS to other concerned agencies will ensure review by experts and, hopefully, will indicate to us whether or not the "anticipated beneficial impacts" of the project are realistic. 4. Because of the recent controversy surrounding the SRW, I feel it is important to get this proposed project out into public view. An EIS may accomplish this. Q9 w7t y t, S► /04/7G mi . • MEMORANDUM CIITY of °fit°'UKWOL, OFFICE of COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 16 November 1976 TO: Reviewing Departments FROM: Fred Satterstrom, Planning Department SUBJECT: Seattle Rendering Works Environmental Checklist RECEIVED Public Works Dept. City of Tukwila NOV 1 66 The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) and the City's ordinance #986 require that an environmental questionnaire be completed for every "major action" or proposal. The proposed project at the Seattle. Rendering Works is such an action. The checklist is intended to give reviewing officials — such as yourself — an indication of the expected-environmental impacts of the proposed building project. The attached document is the environmental checklist submitted by the Seattle Rendering Works-. Please review the checklist and indicate with a ( +) or a ( -) on the page directly following page 8 whether, in your professional judgment, an environmental impact statement should be required. Also, please respond within 10 days for we are obligated by law to inform the applicant within a certain time - frame. If you have any questions, please contact me. FS /cw OFFICE MEMO C I TY o F T U KW I L.A ,e/7/7,6. TO: A;(4/ MOM: , �/ U�f/ ac /ems 5�� !e 4� re G . ,2- „,e.„ 04 �ere l ,o74) /S .;C ape. r/ // 0'7/7? 17 ,� � 4 7,L _ %S� Q ro r/e /UD /1; /� 44 / / /!Ay 0 .GO c /" o Q. 16 6.30 P\2, 1 f O. A firil • MEMORANDUM CITY of TUKW LA OFFICE of COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 16 November 1976 TO: Reviewing Departments FROM: Fred Satterstrom, Planning Department SUBJECT: Seattle Rendering Works Environmental Checklist The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) and the City's ordinance #986 require that an environmental questionnaire be completed for every "major action" or proposal. The proposed project at the Seattle Rendering Works is such an action. The checklist is intended to give reviewing officials — such as yourself — an indication of the expected environmental impacts of the proposed building project. The attached document is the environmental checklist submitted by the Seattle Rendering Works. Please review the checklist and indicate with a ( +) or a ( -) on the page directly following page 8 whether, in your professional judgment, an environmental impact statement should be required. Also, please respond within 10 days for we are obligated by law to inform the applicant within a certain time - frame. If you have any questions, please contact me. FS /cw y �r�v 5-4)Li-o qv/176 CITY of T U KW I LA OFFICE of COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT November 15, 1976 Mr. Wes Benef i el Seattle Rendering Works 13601 Beacon Coal Mine Road So. Tukwila, Washington .98188 Dear Mr. Benef1el:. This is to acknowledge receipt of the Environmental Check List on the building permit for the addition to the Seattle Rendering Works at 13601 Beacon Coal Mine Road South. - FS /dp Siji erely yours, ,AKA imA red Satterstrom Associate Planner 6230 Southcenter Boulevard o Tukwila, Washington 98188 A (206) 242 -2177 CITY OF TUKWILA CERTIFICATION BY APPLICANT:. I, the undersigned, state that to the best of my knowledge the above infor- mation is true and complete. It is understood that the lead agency may withdraw any declaration of non - significance that it might issue in reliance upon this checklist should there be any willful misrepresentation or willful lack of full disclosure on my part. November 15, 1976 ature and Title Date Project Name: Seattle Rendering Works, Replacement Facility -.Continuous Rendering Project Address: 13601 Beacon Coal Mine Road South, Tukwila, WA 98188 plant. BELOW THIS LINE FOR CITY USE ONLY ACTION BY OTHER DEPARTMENTS: 1.. Date of Review: Building Planning Engineering Police Fire II- 1 -76 Check one by: ( +) or ( -) by: • ( +) or ( -). by: ( +) or ( -) by: `12P. ( +) or by: ( +) or ( -) 2. Agency review of environmental checklist determined that: The project is exempt by definition. The project has no significant environmental impact and application should be processed without further consideration of environmental effects.. The project has significant environmental impact and a complete'environ mental.. impact statement must be prepared prior to further action for permit. More specific information is needed to determine impact. Signature and Title of Responsible Official Date 3. Applicant was notified of decision on: by by Date Staff Person Letter, phone In accordance with Washington State Environmental Policy Act and City of Tukwila Ordinance No. 759. ( +) Means recommend a full environmental impact statement be done. ( -) Means recommend a full environmental impact statement not be done. OFOICE MEMO CITY of TUKWILA TO: fixe ye. FROM: ,©` °-'� rids- CITY OF TUKWILA CERTIFICATION BY APPLICANT: I, the undersigned, state that to the best of my knowledge the above infor- mation is true and complete. It is understood that the lead agency may withdraw any declaration of non - significance that it might issue in reliance upon this checklist should there be any willful misrepresentation or willful lack of full disclosure on my part. ature and Title November 15, 1976 Date Project Name:. Seattle - Rendering Works, Replacement Facility --Continuous Rendering Project Address: 13601 Beacon Coal Mine °Road South, Tukwila, WA 98188 Plant BELOW.THIS LINE FOR CITY USE ONLY ACTION BY OTHER DEPARTMENTS: 1. Date of Review: Building Planning Engineering. Police( Fire 11/17/7 ti Check one by: Qz 4 ( +) or (k by : ( +) or ( -) by: ( +) or ( -) by: ( +) or ( -) by : : ( +) or ( -) 2. Agency review of environmental checklist determined that: The project is exempt. by definition. The project has no significant environmental impact and application should be processed without further consideration of environmental effects.. The project has significant environmental impact and a complete'environ mental. impact statement must be prepared prior to further action for permit. More specific information is needed to determine impact. Signature and Title of Responsible Official Date 3. Applicant was notified of decision on: by Date by Staff Person Letter, phone In accordance with Washington State Environmental Policy Act and City of Tukwila Ordinance No. 759. ( +) ( -) Means recommend a full environmental impact statement be done. Means recommend a full environmental impact statement not be done. CITY OF TUKWILA ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM This questionnaire must be completed by all persons applying for a permit from the City of Tukwila, unless it is determined by the Responsible Official that the permit is exempt or unless the applicant and Responsible Official previously agree an Environmental Impact Statement needs to be completed. I. BACKGROUND 1. Name of Proponent: Seattle Rendering Works, Inc. 2. Address and Phone Number of Proponent: 13601 Beacon Coal Mine Road,S., Tukwila, WA 98188; (206) 243 -1421, Contact: W.W. Benefiel 3. Date Checklist Submitted: November 15, 1976 4. Agency Requiring Checklist: City of Tukwila — Building 5. Name of Proposal, if applicable: Replacement Facility - Continuous Rendering Plant 6. Nature and Brief Description of the Proposal (including but not limited to its size, general design elements, and other factors that will give an ac- curate understanding of its scope and nature): See Attachment A 7. Location of Proposal (describe the physical setting of the proposal, as well as the extent of the land area affected by any environmental impacts, in- cluding any other information needed to give an accurate understanding of the environmental setting of the proposal): See Attachment A 8. Estimated Date for Completion of the Proposal: October 21, 1977 9. List of all Permits, Licenses or Government Approvals Required for the Proposal (federal, state and local): (a) Rezone, conditional use, shoreline permit, etc. (b) King County Hydraulics Permit (c) Building permit YES NO x YES NO x YES x NO • (d) Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Permit YES x NO :' (e) Sewer hook up permit YES NO x (f) Sign permit YES NO x (g) Water hook up permit YES NO x (h) Storm water system permit YES NO x (i) Curb cut permit YES NO x (j) Electrical permit (State of Washington) YES x NO (k) Plumbing permit (King County) YES x NO (1) Other: Department of Ecology approval for an extension to process /recycle water disposal system. 10. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or futher activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain: 11. Do you know of any plans by others which may affect the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain: No 12. Attach any other application form that has been completed regarding the pro - posal;'if none has been completed, but is expected to be filed at some future date, describe the nature of such application form: SeeAttachment A II. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS (Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are required 1. Earth. Will the proposal result in: (a) Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures? (b) Disruptions, displacements, compaction or overcover- ing of the soil? (c) Change in topography or ground surface relief fea- tures? YES MAYBE NO x (d) The destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical features? i. YES MAYBE NO (e) Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site? x (f) Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands, or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake? Explanation: See Attachment B 2. Air. Will the proposal result in: (a) Air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? (b) The creation of objectionable odors? (c) Alteration of air movement, moisture or temperature, or any change in climate, either locally or regionally? Explanation: See Attachment B 3. Water. Will the proposal result in: (a) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements, in either marine or fresh waters? (b) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface water runoff? (c) Alterations to the course or flow of floodwaters? (d) Change in the amount of surface water in any water body? (e) Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of surface water quality, including but not limited to temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? . T (f) Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? _ (g) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? x x x x x • • (h) Deterioration in• ground water quality, either through direct injection, or through the seepage of leachate, phosphates, detergents, waterborne virus or bacteria, or other substances into the ground waters? (1) Reduction in the amount of water otherwise avail- able for public water supplies? Explanation: See Attachment B 4. Flora. Will the proposal result in: (a) Change in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of flora (including trees, shrubs, grass, crops, microflora and aquatic plants)? (b) Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of flora? (c) Introduction of new species of flora into an area, or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? (d). Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? Explanation: See Attachment B 5. Fauna. Will the proposal result in: (a) Changes in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of fauna (birds, land animals including reptiles, fish and shellfish, benthic organisms, insects or microfauna)? (b) Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of fauna? (c) Introduction of new species of fauna into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of fauna? YES MAYBE NO x x (d) Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat? x Explanation: See Attachment B -4- x YES MAYBE NO 6. Noise. Will the proposal increase existing noise levels? x Explanation: See Attachment B 7. Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce new light or glare? x Explanation: 8. Land Use. Will the proposal result in the altera- tion of the present or planned land use of an area? Explanation: 9. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in: (a) Increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? (b) Depletion of any nonrenewable natural resource? Explanation: 10. Risk of Upset. Does the proposal involve a risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radi- ation) in the event of an accident or upset conditions? Explanation: See Attachment B x • • 11. Population. Will the proposal alter the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the human population of an area? Explanation: YES MAYBE NO 12. Housing. Will the proposal affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing? x Explanation: 13. Transportation /Circulation. Will the proposal result in: (a) Generation of additional vehicular movement? (b) Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking? (c) Impact upon existing transportation systems? (d) Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and /or goods? (e) Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? (f) Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? Explanation: 14. Public Services. Will the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered governmental services in any of the following areas: (a) Fire protection? (b) Police protection? (c) Schools? (d) Parks or other recreational facilities? (e) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? x x x (f) Other governmental services? Explanation: See Attachment B 15. Energy. Will the proposal result in: (a) Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? (b) Demand upon existing sources of energy, or require the development of new sources of energy? Explanation: 16. Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need for new systems, or alterations to the following utilities: (a) Power or natural gas? (b) Communications systems? (c) Water? (d) Sewer or septic tanks? (e) Storm water drainage? (f) Solid waste and disposal? Explanation: See Attachment B 17. Human Health. Will the proposal result in the crea- tion of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental health)? Explanation: YES MAYBE NO x x x x x • • 18. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in the obstruc- tion of any scenic vista or view open to the public, or will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically of- fensive site open to public view? Explanation: 19. Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or quantity of exist- ing recreational opportunities? Explanation: 20. Archeological /Historical. Will the proposal result in an alteration of a signifi- cant archeological or histor- ical site, structure, object or building? Explanation: YES MAYBE NO • CITY OF TUKWILA CERTIFICATION BY APPLICANT: I, the undersigned, state that to the best of my knowledge the above infor- mation is true and complete. It is understood that the lead agency may withdraw any declaration of non - significance that it might issue in reliance upon this checklist should there be any willful misrepresentation or willful lack of full disclosure on my part. November 15, 1976 ature and Title Date Project Name: Seattle Rendering Works, Replacement Facility — Continuous Rendering Project Address: 13601 Beacon Coal Mine Road South, Tukwila, WA 98188 Plant. BELOW THIS LINE FOR CITY USE ONLY ACTION BY OTHER DEPARTMENTS: Check one 1. Date of Review: Building by: ( +) or ( -) Planning by: ( +) or ( -) Engineering by: ( +) or ( -) Police by: ( +) or ( -) Fire by: ( +) or ( -) 2. Agency review of environmental checklist determined that: The project is exempt by definition. The project has no significant environmental impact and application should be processed without further consideration of environmental effects.. The project has significant environmental impact and a complete environ- mental impact statement must be prepared prior to further action for permit. More specific information is needed to determine impact. S A o .Q.). Z /, ! ? ?lo Signatfure and Title of Responsible Official Date 3. Applicant was notified of decision on: by Date Staff Person by Letter, phone In accordance with Washington State Environmental Policy Act and City of Tukwila Ordinance No. 759. ( +) Means recommend a full environmental impact statement be done. ( -) Means recommend a full environmental impact statement not be done. • .• • • • ATTACHMENT A I — Background Data Supplement . • • • • 6. Nature and Description of Proposal: • Seattle Rendering Works currently operates its continuous rendering plant on the project site as shown in Figure 2. The existing plant has been in operation since 1942 for the purpose of manufacturing meat meal and tallow at a volume of approximately one million pounds per week. Due to its age and to existing government standards, the project sponsor proposes to abandon the facility upon completion of the replacement plant. The new facility has been designed to improve product quality, operational effi- ciency, and to incorporate an air pollution control system which will eliminate the discharge of offensive odors in compliance with applicable rules and regulations including Regulation I (Section 9.11(a) and 9.12) of the Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency and as specified in Exhibit I. The new plant facility will also employ primary, secondary, and tertiary treatment of effluent to assure that no pollutants are discharged to surface waters. The total gross area of construction related to the replacement facility will be 18,640 square feet, including 8,640 square feet for the plant, and 10,000 square feet for paved parking, loading and traffic areas. The project layout is also depicted in Figure 2. The processing facility will be contained in a single story, metal frame structure with adjacent silos and tanks. The proposed facility is expected to cost $1,100,000.00 and will support approximately 30 employees. Product volume is not expected to increase as a result of the proposal. 7. Location of Proposal: The proposed. Seattle. Rendering. Works replacement rendering plant will be located on a. 12 acre site east. of the Green River between the river and the Burlington Northern Railroad in the City of Tukwila, Washington. The project vicinity is depicted in Figure 1 and the local project site is shown in Figure 2. The project site is zoned' M -T (manufacturing) and a• legal description of the site is. contained in Exhibit II. A.. brief description of the physical setting of the proposal and the land area to be affected are included in the following narrative to assist in accurately understanding the environmental setting of the project.. A) Physical (1) Earth The project site is located in a narrow river valley and is bounded by hills to the east and west which rise in elevation to over 200 feet.. The entire project site itself varies in elevation from about 15 to 32 feet. The location of the proposed new rendering plant is generally flat and covered with 7 to 11 feet of soft or loose sand and silt. Subsurface soils investigations indicate the site is also generally underlain with sand (loose to dense). (2) Air (a) Climate and Weather The Olympic and Cascade mountain ranges which border Puget. Sound protect the area from cold arctic air and ocean storms. Maritime air, which enters from the south, tempers the summer and winter climate. Mean annual pre- cipitation is 34 inches and occurs primarily as rain between October and March. Temperature ranges from 70 degrees during the summer to 30 degrees in the winter. Prevailing winds are channeled by the Olympics and Cascades and. are northerly or southerly. Seasonal wind patterns are pronounced due to the presence of a semi- permanent low- pressure area off the Pacific Coast during the Winter, which results in prevailing southerly winds. During the summer, prevailing winds bring Pacific air through the Straight of Juan de Fuca over the northern part of Puget Sound,- and from the Grays Harbor area south of the Olympics to the southern- part of the Sound. Diurnal variations in wind direction are most pronounced during the summer: when daytime winds at the airport are typically-northerly and the nighttime winds are predomi- nantly southerly. (b) Air Quality Malodors are the principal air contaminants occurring at the- existing. facility.. These are organic in nature and include aldehydes, fatty acids, amino mercaptans and sulfides. The plant is currently operating under a variance issued by the Puget Sound Air. Pollution Control Agency with scheduled compliance with existing measures for odor control to be achieved by October 21, 1977. The air quality data summary for counties of King, Kitsap, Pierce, and Snohomish (Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency, 1975) indicate that for other pollutants of interest as measured at the monitoring station at 10000 West Marginal Way S.W., no violations of the standards were recorded for suspended particulates, carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, or sulfur dioxide. However., the- standard for hydrocarbons: (0.24 ppm, .3 hour average not to be exceeded more than once per year) was exceeded 51 times. - 2 - (3) Water The subject property is bounded on the north, south, and west by the Green River which is also the principal source of water used in the existing manufacturing plant. Under their-current Water Right Claim, as shown in Exhibit III, the Rendering facility has claim to and presently uses 315 gallons per minute for cleaning, cooling, and domestic supply. Plant effluent is not discharged to surface waters of the State. The existing plant is currently operating in compliance with the provisions of Chapter 90.48 RCW as amended and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendment of 1972 (P.O. 92 -500) and has a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Waste Discharge Permit, as shown in Exhibit IV. Groundwater was located during subsurface investigations at depths of about 13 feet. The water table generally fluctuates with variations in the river due to season, rainfall, or discharge from Howard Hanson Dam. (4) Flora/Fauna The project site has been previously cleared and is sparsely covered with grasses, small bushes, blackberries, and early successional deciduous trees. Animal life is limited primarily to invertebrates, birds (seagulls and crows), and rodents; the site does not serve as a critical breeding, feeding, or resting area for any species. (5). Noise Noise levels from the existing plant activities and nearby railroad usage clearly predominate in the project vicinity. Noise readings taken on October 21, 1976 at 17 locations indicate that plant noise levels range from an Lon of about 54 dBA to an L of 66 to 68 with L 's of 61 to 62 dBA. Nearby passage of trains result in levels5of 81 to 84 dBA and aircraft overflight noise was measured at 88 to 90 dBA on the subject property. (6) Light and Glare Existing plant lighting does not affect the surrounding properties. (7) Land Use The project site is zoned M -1 (manufacturing) and the existing and new facilities are permitted in this zone. The plant is in conformance with existing zoning code and Comprehensive Plan. - 3 - Surrounding uses include the railroad right of way to the east, a golf course on the west bank of the abutting Green River watercourse (future Tukwila Park), and a residential neighbor- hood to the north, the nearest residence being approximately 700 feet from the project boundary. Commercial and industrial uses also exist along the watercourse to the south, north, and east. (8) Natural. Resources The existing plant and associated storage and treatment facil- ities currently use water from the Green River as described in Exhibit III which is recycled after treatment and returned to the water regime. In addition, a primary source of energy is natural gas which is consumed at a rate of about 87,000 therms per month. During periods of natural gas interruptions, bunker fuel oil is used as an energy source. (9) Risk of Upset The only potentially hazardous substance currently used in the plant operation is hydrogen peroxide. This chemical is used in the gas cleanup system (scrubbers) at a rate of 20 ppm. Delivery is via common carrier in small quantities of 5 to 10 gallon drums. In the event of spillage, the substance is a strong • oxidizing agent and would dissipate in the soil and would not result in a toxic hazard. Other potential scrubbing agents which could be substituted in the scrubbing include sodium =hypochlorite, chlorine, and.potasium permanganate, all of which are more dangerous or hazardous. Human (1) Population The existing plant currently employs 35 employees on a full time basis.. Since the facility has been in existence for over 30 years within the community, it can probably be assumed that its influence on the location, .distribution, density, and growth rate-of human population of the area has been normalized overtime. A single family house on the property is currently used by the company watchman. (2) Transportation /Circulation The Seattle Rendering Company site is connected to South 130th Place by a paved private road leased from the Burlington Northern Railroad.. Current traffic volumes to the plant are light. The average daily traffic is approximately 100 vehicles with peaks of 40 vehicles at 7 to 8 AM and 40 vehicles at 4 to 5 PM. The subject site is served. by Metro operated buses which run along Interurban Avenue with the nearest stop at 56th Avenue South. - 4 - The plant operates a fleet of 22 trucks for pickup of supplies and materials and also receives raw materials from 12 indepen- dent suppliers. Routing of truck traffic is currently practiced by the project sponsor to avoid traffic hazards and residential areas along 56th Avenue South. (3) Local Services Services to the property are provided by the City of Tukwila including police protection and fire protection. An existing fire station is located within 1 mile of the property. The site is located in South Central School District 403. Road main- tenance is not provided as the existing primary access road is privately owned. Other special public services are not requi- site to operation or maintenance of the facility. (4) Energy' Fuel. requirements were previously described in A)(8) above. Electrical requirements primarily for lighting are currently about 148,000 KWH per month. (5) Utilities The project site is serviced by adequate electrical and commu- nication systems. Water service to the site is provided by a 6- inch main capable of supplying 700 gpm at 20 pounds per square inch (psi) residual pressure. Sewage (sanitary and storm) is handled on the site, treated to remove suspended solids, oil, grease, and other pollutants; and discharged into a subsurface drainfield in accordance with the NPDES permit previously discussed (Exhibit IV). Solid wastes consist primarily of used metal containers which are picked up weekly for disposal. (6) Human Health The existing rendering plant is a source of noxious odors. While such odors do not exist at levels which are toxic or hazardous to human health, an abatement schedule for odor control has been adopted with the construction of a replace- ment facility incorporating maximum abatement as the final step in achieving compliance. (7) Aesthetics The existing facility does not obstruct any scenic vista or view open to the public. It is visible primarily from the golf course to the west and due to its nature as a manufacturing plant, it is probably not considered to be visually pleasing to many observers. - 5 - (8) Recreation The existing project places no substantial demands on local recreation facilities due to both its nature and size. (9) Archeological/Historical The project area contains no known or existing archeological or historical sites listed in the State or Federal records. (10) Revenue /Employment The existing plant employs 35 persons full time. The current 1976 tax payment on real estate is $1,814.96 which is based on a levy rate of 14.026 mils on taxable value. 12. A) Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Permit: Notice of Construction and Application for Approval (Form P) — To include a description of equipment, raw materials processed, control devices employed, emis- sions expected and a flow diagram of process. Department of Ecology: Written approval for modification or new construction related to existing NPDES Permit (see Exhibit IV). - 6 - • 1 "",; 1. Earth: (b) Disruptions, displacements, compaction, or overcovering of soil: (e) 2. Air: The attached soils report (Rittenhouse, Zeman and Associates, 1976, Exhibit. V) indicates that in order to support building foundations, it will be necessary to improve the density of near surface soils. This is to be achieved through overexcavation, backfilling with sand and gravel, and compacting to at least 90 percent of laboratory maximum density. Preloading of the soil may also be feasible to achieve sufficient surficial soil density and preclude unnecessary settlement of structures. Following construction, structures and paving will cover about 18,640 square feet and will result in long -term removal of the underlying soils from productivity. Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off site: Stort term construction related erosion and siltation are possible as grading and fill operations are expected to occur during normally rainy months. To mitigate the potential wind or water erosion and deposition of silt,•the project specifications will incorporate the recommendations of the soils report. Included will be specifications that fill to be placed on the site should consist of clean granular material, containing no more than 5. percent fines and placed under supervision of a Soils Engineer. Following construction, no increase in wind or water erosion of soils is expected. (a) Air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality: 40010/IP ("ti)Al* (b) As discussed in Attachment A, the proposed new plant has been designed and engineered. to improve the air quality of associated manufacturing and to meet existing odor rules and regulations as specified in Exhibit II. The air pollution control system to be employed is designed for high intensity odor control. The design standard established should reduce the odor source to less than 100 odor units per cubic foot. Such levels would not be detectable at any downwind receptor. The creation of objectionable odors: In conjunction with 2(a) above, the new plant will be under negative pressure with all malodorous material stored within the building. Process vapors will be incinerated and all odor bearing gases scrubbed with chemicals to reduce them to a nonobjectionable level. The anticipated development should be of substantial improvement to the local area. - 1 - 3. Water: (b) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface water runoff:. Placement of buildings and paved areas on the site will alter the local drainage patterns and absorption rates. Storm water will be conducted to a collection basin and then directed into the effluent treatment system before it is returned to the ground. This would diminish the natural entry of storm water into the groundwater system. Impoundment and treatment should reduce the probability of surface contaminants entering existing water courses. The rate of discharge of water into the subsurface drainfield whould not be substantially different from that currently being experienced from use of the present plant operation. (d) Change in the amount of surface water in any water body: In the event of a fire, water withdrawal at the required flow and pressure could temporarily reduce the flow within the systems. The amount of surface water used in the manufacturing and processing facility is not expected to change as a result of the replacement plant. (e) Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of surface water quality, including but not limited to temperature, dissolved oxygen . or turbidity: During construction, runoff from the site could increase the trans- port. of silt and: sediments. to the local. water course. Mitigation of extensive siltation can be achieved by use of soils materials -in accordance with specifications discussed in 1(e) above and by con - struction.of holding basins to prevent:excessive silting. Following construction barren areas should be covered with a bonding grass in order to stabilize the soil. Additional discharge of effluents to surface waters are not expected from plant operations. Current rules and regulations applicable to operation preclude such discharge and the new plant will operate in conformance with the requirements- set forth in Exhibit. IV (NPDES Permit) . (g) Change in quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations: The existing plant employs the method of ground water recharge through addition of treated, recycled process water to a subsurface drainfield in accordance with the NPDES Permit (Exhibit IV)., The new plant will employ the same method. Prior to startup, the Department -2- of Ecology must review the plans for alteration and hookup to the system. No significant alteration or change in quantities are expected as a result of the new plant. During construction, dewatering will probably be required due to the current water table level. Use of deepwells or well points to dewater are proposed during this phase of construction. (h) Deterioration in ground water quality, either through direct injec- tion, or through seepage of leachate, phosphates, detergents, water- borne virus or bacteria, or other substances into the ground water: As described in Attachment' A, the process waters will receive primary, secondary, and tertiary treatment prior to discharge into the subsurface drainfield.. Regular monitoring of water quality will be conducted to assure that permissable effluent discharge linits are not exceeded prior to such discharge. 4. Flora: (a) Change in diversity of species, or numbers of any species of flora: All existing vegetation will be removed at the construction site thereby reducing the number of species currently on the site. Revegetation of uncovered areas will be employed following construc- tion, however, the extentof existing habitat will be reduced. Fauna: (a) Changes in diversity of species, or numbers of species of fauna: The loss- of= habitat will have a concommitant effect on. the number of species currently using the project site. Elimination of habitat may reduce the. carrying capacity of the site. The -size and extent of the new plant are not such that a substantial loss in number of species: diversity would be expected. (d) Deterioration of existing fish or wildlife habitat: (See discussion in (a) above.) Long term deterioration of habitat is not expected to occur as a result of the new plant facility. However, complete enclosure: of operations may reduce the attraction of scavengers (crows, seagulls, rodents) currently utilizing the area for feeding. 6. Noise: Short -term construction noise levels of about 88 dBA (measured at 50 feet). will be experienced over the 6 month period of construction. The nearest . noise sensitive property is located approximately 700 feet north of the construction area. At this distance the levels from the project site would be reduced to such a degree that no significant impact would be expected. Construction traffic may have a short -term impact on local residents. Control of traffic and scheduling of deliveries could be employed to reduce this impact.. Long -term operations noise from the processing facilities are not expected to be as great as those currently measured from the existing plant. Plant enclosure should assure reduction of noise levels over time. Traffic volumes are not expected to increase as a result of the new plant, therefore, transportation noise should not be altered to any significant degree. 10. Risk of Upset: Does the proposal involve a risk of an explosion or release of hazardous substances: Use of hydrogen peroxide as a scrubbing agent will be continued in the new facility. No additional risk should be incurred from such continued use. Public Services:. Will the proposal have an effect upon or result in a need for governmental services in any of the following areas: new or altered Fire Protection:. Need for additional fire flow may result from the proposal. Utilities: Will the proposal result in a need for new systems, or alterations to the following utilities: (c) (d) (e) Water Sewer or septic tanks Storm water drainage All the above utilities are maintained and provided by the project sponsor. Alterations in locations would'be required to serve the new plant location. No significant impacts from relocation are expected as a result of the replacement facility. - 4 - .. . 1 1 1 1 REVI3E1) PAYED AREA] • 941-• 'WOE rod o PARKING. CONCkETE RAMPS )•• SLA83. HI 3uq.utr46 s. NE'w WET • T or ErIG(IGG AI'LT loa PROJECT rilEA. BOUNDR ir •• zuo•LINE MANAGEMENT AREA �r 6.110061. . taalb TIGERS 2 — PROJECT SITE MAP , Izo ise.G ) . '',.. • •■••• ,•• • • EXHIBIT I Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency Variance Permit Ptget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency 410 West Harrison Street, P.O. Box 9863 (206) 344.7330 Seattle. Washington 98109 . October 6, 1976 TO: Board of Directors Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency SUBJECT: Application for Variance No. 176 Seattle Rendering Works, Inc., Tukwila, Washington Variance from Section 9.11(a) and 9.12 of Regulation.I for an Inedible Rendering Plant STAFF RECO;LMENDATIONS •. Honorable Members: Seattle Rendering Works, Inc., located at 13601 Beacon Coal Mine Road South, has applied for a variance from Section 9.11(a) and 9:12 of Regulation I until October 21, 1977. Dur- ing this one -year time period, the applicant proposes to replace the five existing batch rendering cookers in the old portion of the plant and install a new, continuous rendering process, and up -grade the odor control facilities in other of their plant. The staff has reviewed the applicant's .Proposal in their vari ante application and believes that the new rendering facility,. • coupled with the odor abatement schedule in Exhibit 1 of their. variance application, will bring the odors from the plant into compliance with Regulation I. . However, because of numerous citizen complaints and the need,. to minimize odor emissions to the greatest degree-practical- during, the variance time period, the staff does not propose that a variance from Section 9.11(a) be granted. The staff :'.• believes that it is mandatory that the applicant takes all. :�,,, reasonable precautions and uses all reasonable methods to mini: :_et mize odor emissions to the greatest degree practical during': ",;;D the variance time period. „. Therefore, it is proposed that the Agency staff Continue to ...,._.„,.,.,write Notices of Violation for documented violations of Sec- a' tion 9.11(a) and, if the applicant proceeds .to install the new; rendering process on schedule, and completes the odor abate , ment schedule in Exhibit 1 within the time period proposed, and takes all reasonable precautions and uses all reasonable : °: ,. methods to minimize odor emissions during the variance time -teary period, no Civil Penalties would be assessed for those. Notices : - ,,.,,,,,,, of Violation. If, however, the applicant fails to install •,.1 the new rendering process as proposed, and /or fails to,meet• ;` ' "' the proposed odor abatement schedule of their Exhibit 1, and /; or fails to take all reasonable precautions and /or fails- to. -2- use all reasonable methods to minimize odor emissions during the variance time period, Civil Penalties in the amount of $250.00 would be assessed against Seattle Rendering Works, Inc:, for each violation of Section 9.11(a). This will allow for installation of the new rendering process and the correction of existing odor problem areas, provide incentive to the applicant to solve their air pollution prob- lems in accordance with the commitment to the Agency, and enable the Agency to work towards minimizing the impact of odors upon the applicant's neighbors. • . Since this is an odor problem, the staff does not know if the interim measures of Exhibit 1 will stop the odor complaints. • The staff does believe, however, that the proposed interim measures will reduce the emissions of odors, and, that if all the proposals of the variance are completed, there will be a substantial reduction in odor emissions. The staff believes - that if this variance were granted in-accordance with the pro- • posed conditions, the' emissions that would occur during the time of. the variance would not endanger public health or safety. THEREFORE, the staff recommends that the Board grant a variance from Section 9.12 of Regulation I to Seattle Rendering Works, Inc., at 13601 Beacon Coal Mine Road South, Tukwila, Washington, until October 21, 1977, with the following conditions:. 1. That Seattle Rendering Works, Inc., shall install a con- tinuous rendering system, and building air scrubber as pro- posed in their variance application by October 21; 1977; and , 2. That Seattle Rendering Works, Inc., shall complete all the improvements to the plant related to odor control as out - lined 'in Exhibit 1.of their Variance Application by the . proposed dates in that schedule; and. That Seattle Rendering Works, Inc., shall meet an instal lation schedule for the new continuous rendering system of: 4 Notice of•Construction submitted by December 1; 1976, in accordance with Article 6 of Regulation I: Equipment ordered by January 1, 1977: c.. Installation completed by September. 1, 1977. • . d.' Start -up of new facility completed by October 1, 1977. e. Shakedown of new equipment completed by October 21, 1977;, and That during the time of this variance, the Agency shall con- tinue to Investigate citizen complaints of odors from this plant and, when appropriate, shall issue Notices of Viola= Lion for.violations of Section 9.11(a) of Regulation I, • r -...., re.b...•,...•en .e. P.erKe J. De.4twe., een.....•en.r P...ea f h: YICe GMIU4MI�N M R4�iti �e.iK eeernMYew. WMn.. • ". w e•...R. Ow.' R, l..eba. M.Iar a..a..y.a: W.W. M. fare .. reew Tee.. e.w WY.. Ce+Mhe.ar kn.. d.... le... 0.anurv.. P..., ee..., fem.. wee UAW. Meyer a..mx -A. R. Dee.wt.*r. aP Pe4.D.. eewRM Deleee. . • - subject to the following stipulations: a. That if Seattle Rendering Works, Inc., meets all the • Legal Description of Site `.; • OLD PLANT AREA • That portionrof .the Brownell Donation Claim more particularly. . described as follows; Beginning near the West line of Section 13, Township 23 North, 'Range 4 East W. It. at oonarete monument Which is 1510.74 ft. South of and 2143.g9 ft. West of the Northeast oor—. ner of said Donation Claim and gumming thence due West parallel to the North line, of said Donation Claim 1715.29 ft. to a point 1 foot . west of the most westerly rail of the Northern Pacific Railroad, them,* parallel to said rail North 27 211:30" west 668.61 ft; then** South 69 22' 40" West 47.4A, ft. to an irOn.pipe on the westerly limo of Right of Way of gala Eorthern,Pacific Railroad, Which iron • pipe is a TROE POINTolof beginningj thence continuing South 69 221 40"- West 190.00 ft. to a second iron pipe at the top of the Eait bank of• theDuwamish River; thcncs Wo4t140ing South 69 22' 40" West about 30 feet to a mean. high water of said Duwamiah River as the same has averaged for the past five years; thence along said-high water line•southeasterly to the.maid westerly line of Right of Way; thence northwesterly along said westerly line or • Right of Way Omit 290.00 ft. to the TROE POINT of beginning. Reserving therefrom an easement for the use of the premises o id by the grantors to the North of the above described tract on an over a strip of land 30 feet wide adjacent to the said Northern Pacific Right of Way, extending from the Northerly line of the above-doscribed: tract southerly to the South side of the grade crossing. of the said railway right of way es- said grade crossing now, exists or as said grad W crossing may be reconstructed. , • •• • • • AREA CONTAINING .99 ACRE A portion of the Brownell Conatlon Claim more particularly described as follows Beginning near the west line of Section 13, Township 23 North, Range 4 East, W.'1[. at a concrete monument which is 1510.74 feet South and 2143.89 root West of the Northeast cornor of said donation claim, hence West, parallel to the. North lino of said donation claim, 1715.29 feet to a point ono foot West of the Westerly rail of the Northern Pacific Railway; thence North 27 dc3roos 211 30e pest, parallel to said rail, 668.61 feet; thence South 69 dogreea 221. 40 ftst 47.44 faint to en ircn pipe on the Westerly lino of the Right of Way of said Southern Pac$tte lallwey, rhiah inn pipe is the true point of beginning; thumb 27 d roes 21:. 30" Wost, alcrag the Westerl line' of said right of way 111.07 feet to an iron pipe; thence South 69 degrees 221. 4p" Woat 460.00 feet to an iron pipe; thence continuing South 69 dc¢ross 22 4011 West S4 feet to the North- easterly bank of the Datuam.trh River, at a mean high water; thence Easterly,, along the Northeasterly bank of said river 355 feet, more or leas, to a point 1103 feet. distant from the Northwesterly margin ot.• this tract; thence North 69 decrees 22! 4pe East 30 feet, more or less, . to, an iron pips; thence North 69 degrees 221. 40" East 190.00 feet,to.the Point.ot 8oginning. Containing 0.99 aeres, more or less. LESS a 30 foot easement, for Roadway troaa. the Railroad. Crossing, across the property to the North lino of said acre which is to be fended by the Grantee, with a five' strand fence,, including a gate on the North` line.: AREA,. CONTAINING:. APPROXIMATELY . 10, ACRES That portion of property lying in North half of C. E. Brownell Donation Cla . No.. 4;1, in section fourteen (14) Township twenty -three 23) North of Rang* 4 East,. W'. M. lying West of Northern Pact is Railway right of way, and bounded on'the -South by•the North line of property now owned by the Seattle Rendering Works bod.on the West and North - west bth Doawaisa River, add hew -741 on the North by the North limo of .did C. Z. Broomall ttam Claim, containing' •prroxinately' ten acres, nor* or isms. EXHIBIT III Water Right Claim ". • • 1. NAME ADDRESS 13601 Beacon. Coal Nine Road ;I Seattle, Washington. • Z. SOURCE FROM WHICH THE RIGHT TO TAKE:AND. AAAKE USE OF WATER IS CLAIMED. M. & L. Investment Co. • FAR t‘i • • WATER RIGHT CLAIMS REGISTRATION WATER RIGHT CLAIM 11 8. IF SURFACE WATER, THE SOURCE'S ZIP rose 98178 Surface Water. (S )JRFACE.OR GROUND WATER) (LEAVE BLANK) A. IF GROUND WATER. THE SOURCE IS Green River fti 3. THE QUANTITIES OF WATER AND TIMES OF USE CLAIMED: .. A. OUANTITY OF WATER CLAIMED 315 GPM PRESENTLY USED 315 Mt (CDBIC.FEET PER SECOND OR GALLONS PER MINUTE) 8. ANNUAL ClUANTITYCLAIMED 89i8369900 Ca 11°32a• PRESENTLY USED. 89,856,000 C41101141, (ACRE FEET PER YEAR) C. IF FOR IRRIGATION: ACRES CLAIMED' PRESENTLY IRRIGATED D. TIME(S) DURING EAO+ YEAR WHEN WATER IS USED: 62. weeks' Per year 6' der" each week ,. a. DATE OF FIRST PUTTING WATER TO USE: MONTH Mar YEAR 1958 5. LOCATION OF THE POINT(S) OF DIVERSION/WITHDRAWAL: 1510.74 - FEEr South Akio 2143.89 ',1 Went., i FEET" FROM THF CORNER OF SECTION:. 1.3 • SEING.INITHIN OF SECTION 13 T 23' N W 4 (E SM.) W.M. 1 : - • ' -, • IF THIS IS.WITHIN THE LIMITS OF A RECORDED:PLATTED PROPERTY . . L (GIVE NAME OF PLAT OR ADDITION) • • .. . 6. LEGAL.DESCRIPTION'OF LANDS-ON:WHI04-THE WATBE- IS USED: Description Attar-had- • • . s - -... ,._-.........., .. i.•::••••":: 7- ;7._'....-.:Ft•.• ' i.:: • ..::::. .....• - . . _ • • .. " • .. -• • • .: • - - ' - • • • • - - couNri. znic . ..• . . 7. PURPOSE(S) FOR WHICH WATER.I5 USED:: -Cleaning, Cooling & Domestic- Supply :-•-• : . B. THE LEGAL DOCTRINE(S) UPON- WHICH THE RIGHT. OF CLAIM IS BASED: APPrwPrietiww • :• ... .- • * . . • • 1 UM SWEAR. IV mow troogrAnols is MUM MbO a a T NM KNOWLEDGE AnO5LEM. RETURN ALL THREE COPIES WITH CARBONS INTACT. ALONG WITH YOUR FEE TO DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY WATFR RIGHT CI AIMS REGISTRATION. OLYMPIA. WA:ADM:UM 90504 EXHIBIT IV National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit - - Page 1 of 7 • Permit No.- WA-000162-7 Issuance Date 9/4/74 Expiration Date 3/30/79 NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM. WASTE DISCHARGE PERMIT • State of Washington • DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY Olympia,. Washington 98504 • .InCompliende with:the Provisions'of Chapter 90..48 RCW as amended and 71 1e-Pederal Water Pollution Control Act Amendment of 1972-,s Public-Law 92-500 Plant-Location:- 13601 Beacon Coat Mine Road. Seattle,,Washington 98178/ Industry.Type: RENDERING . . Receiving Water: Duwamish River Discharge,Location: Outfalls 001 & 002 Latitude: 47°28'38"N Longitude: 122°15'32"W Waterway Segment No.:- 04-09-09 :.:.rs,.euthortze“o'discharge in accordance With the special —i-OndTgeneraE conditions which follow. _ ROBERT McCORMICK, Regional Manager '.Departmentof Ecology-. REVISED 2/10/76 SPECIAL CONDITIONS Page2of. 7 Permit No. WA- 000162 -7 SI.. .INTERIM EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS ,During the period beginning on the date of•issuance of this permit the permittee is authorized to discharge from Outfalis 001 and 002 except'as indicated subject.to the following limitations and monitoring. requirements:- and lasting through 'EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS Parameter' Temperature, C • B0D5, mg /I* Grease and 011, mg /1 Flow, gallons /day Daily Maximum 30 0C (86 °F) 70 mg /I 70 mg/ I - .150,000 gal /day June 30, 1976,, in Condition S2a, MONITORING REQUIREMENTS .,Minimum Frequency Sample Type • Quarterly Grab Quarterly. 4. hr. composite ,Quarterly 4 hr • composite Estimated daily average of quarterly total *COD may be substituted for B0051f a ratio is established... Discharge limitations are over and above pollutant levels in the raw water. supply for BODE and Grease and oil. The daily maximum is defined as the greatest allowable vaiue for any calendar day. • REVISED 2/ 1 0/76 )_, ,.::_. • S2a. FINAL EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS Beginning October 1,..1974 and lasting until the expiration date of the ::.permit, the permittee is authorized to discharge subject to the follow ing limitations: 'OUTFALL 002-.-:Zero discharge to surface waters of the state. S2b.: FINAL EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS Beginning July I, .1976 and lasting until the expiration date of. the permit,' the permittee is.authorized to discharge subject to the follow ing.Iimitations: Page 3 of 7 Permit No. WA- 000162 -7 -: OUTFALL':001 Zero discharge _of. pollutants to surface waters of the state. S3". -SCHEDULE OF COMPLIANCE The-permittee shall achieve compliance with.the effluent limitations specified for discharges in accordance with the following schedule: ;September 30. 1974:. Complete construction of recycle dr.ainfield and;fuif.operation; elimination of Outfall 002. March 31' 1975: Submit specifications for condenser cooling water recycle, system, .Outfa I 1 001.. . 3 June 30,4976:' Complete construction.of condenser cooling water .:'recycle system, Outfall 001. ▪ The-permittee is expected to meet the aforementioned compliance schedule. No later than 14 calendar days. following a date identified above, the . permittee shall submit to the appropriate regional office of the Depart - . ment a notice of compliance or noncompliance with the specification re- quired inthe-schedule. • Prior:to constructing or modifying any wastewater control facilities, •detailed'plans shall be approved in writing by the Department. S4. . MONITORING AND:REPORTING' The permittee shalt monitor the operation and efficiency of all treatment and control facilities and the quantity and quality of-the waste discharged. A record..of all: such data shall be maintained.. The permittee shall monitor the- parameters.. as specified in Condition Sr of this- permit. REVISED 2/10/76 6F '7' RITTENHOUSE - ZEMAN & ASSOC. GEOLOGY a SOILS ENGINEERING 13240 NORTHUP WAY. BELLEVUE. WASHINGTON 98000 (206) 740.9020 October .12,. 1976 Seattle Rendering Works. C/o. Garwest, Inc.. 13240 Northup Way Bellevue, Washington 98005 Attention: • Subject: :Mr. Michael. Runyon Gentlemen: W -2347 Soils and Foundation Investigation Report Rendering Plant Additions Seattle. Rendering Works, Tukwila In accordance with your request, we have completed our soils and foundation investigation at the above site. This report summarizes our work and presents conclusions and recommendat- ions for the proposed new facilities.. Seattle Rendering Company is situated on a nearly level site on the east side of the Duwamish River, between the river and the•_Milwaukee.Railroad tracks.. The Foster Golf Course lies on the west' side. of. the-Duwamish. River,. opposite the rendering plant. The site of the proposed facility is adjacent to the existing feather,plant, and silo. The northeast portion is covered with deciduous trees and underbrush. Present plans call for the • construction of a treatment facility and .processing plant to be housed in a. single . story, •' metal frame structure with.adjac- ent: silos and tanks. • SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION Our exploration program: consisted of drilling three test bor- ings on the site of the proposed facilities, using a truck - mounted, hollow stem, continuous flight auger. In all bor.ingsr Standard .Penetration. Tests; were performed at selected intervals..-'The•Standard Penetration Test. consists Seattle Rendering Works Mr. Michael Runyon. October 12, 1976 Page Two SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION (continued) of driving a 2 -inch O.D. split spoon sampler 18 inches with a 140 -pound hammer, free falling a distance of 30 inches. The number' of blows required to drive the sampler the last 12 inches is termed the "Standard Penetration Resistance ", • • (N), and is an approximate measure of the in situ relative density,•or consistency of a. soil. These rest as nce values, (N) are plotted on the right side of the boring logs. Sam - ples retained in the split spoon were visually classified in the field by an Engineering Geologist from our firm. Repre- sentative portions were placed in air-tight jars and returned to our laboratory for re- inspection and. testing. In addition to split spoon samples, undisturbed samples of . cohesive soils were obtained by hydraulically pushing a 3- inch I .D.. .thin. wall sample tube into the soil beneath the auger. Samples were sealed to- prevent drying and returned to our laboratory.. Approximate boring locations may be found on the Site Plan. Boring Logs are presented in Appendix "A", Exploration Logs. These show . materials encountered, observed depths to ground - water, sample ..locations, and "N" values.:. Laboratory testing results;', are presented in Appendix "B SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS • In general,: the site is covered with.? to 11 feet of soft, mottled,: sandy _. silt, which grades to loose silty sand. This surficial stratum is-underlain by a 13 to 23 foot section of loose to dense, black sand.. Boring 2 indicates silt lenses within this horizon, while in Boring 3, gravel appears at the base of the. layer. Beneath this lies a 19 to 29 foot section of loose to medium dense silty sand, which grades to a medium stiff sandy silt with shells and wood fragments. Boring 2 encountered., medium dense, tan, silty sand from 58 to 59 feet. GROUNDWATER " A piezometer was installed at. Boring 1 to measure groundwater levels. From present surface elevations, readings. indicate Seattle Rendering Works Mr. Michael Runyon October 12, 1976 Page Three GROUNDWATER 0 (continued) water at approximately 13 feet. The water table will fluc- tuate with changes in river level, as well as with the season. As such, they can rise during.rainy weather or during periods of large discharge from Howard Hansen Dam. • DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS, I General: - The site soils are marginal for support of conventional spread footings. Generally, spread footings are not recommended where Standard Penetration Test values are - The three borings show appreciably -different soil pro- * files, although they are not far apart. We anticipate 1 that subsurface conditions will probably vary, even in the vicinity of the borings. • II Building Foundations: In order to support conventional spread or continuous structure footings, it will be necessary to improve the density of the near surface soils. For this, we recom- mend that the area beneath the foundations be overexcav- ated at least three feet below the planned footing ele- vations. This excavation should be backfilled with sand or gravel fill, compacted to at least 90 percent of labor- atory maximum density (ASTM:D-1557-70 or AASHO:T-180). The area excavated and compacted should extend at least • three feet outside of the edge of the footing-element. Conventional footings supported by a compacted structural fill may be designed with an allowable bearing pressure of 1,000 pounds per0 square foot, including both dead and -- Seattle Rendering Works Mr. Michael Runyon October 12, 1976 Page Four. DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS (continued), "live loads.. The base of the footings should be at least eighteen inches below adjacent grade. Footings should be at least twelve inches in width, in all cases, regardless of the loading experienced. Settlements on the order of one to two inches may be experienced. For this reason, it might be appropriate to allow for shimming- of columns or machinery foundations if necessary. 111. Floors :The floor.slab should be: supported by a compacted sand or gravel blanket at least. two feet thick. This will not :,:.eliminate settlement, but-it should. tend to minimize warp- ing. and cracking. • Also, the slab should be reinforced with. mesh or steel to control. cracks. Because, of the magnitude of settlements, due to column -loadings, we suggest.casting the floor slab after erect - ion of the steel building. In this way, some of the init- settlement would be completed prior to floor' placement. • To•further control settlement. induced' cracking, the floor -slab.'could be separated from the footings. • • IV Surcharge Fill: In order to reduce post construction settlement, it would be feasible to surcharge fill the site. Such a surcharge would need to be some five to six feet high, across the entire building area. It would be necessary to leave the fill in place about three months. The fill would have con - solidated near the surface soils, thereby reducing building settlements, probably to about one inch. It would still be necessary to place approximately two feet of compacted material beneath the footings, however. Machinery Foundations: Support for the. machinery should be.designed in the same 'manner.as.the building foundations. In this way about two feet.. of compacted gravel or :sand should.be placed beneath :. Pile lengths and capacities do vary from place to place. In the area of Boring 2, we suggest using piles with a ten-inch tip diameter. Such piles, if driven to a depth of approximately 20 feet, should • Seattle Rendering Works. Mr. Michael Runyon October 12, 1976 Page Five DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS (continued) each footing. This structural fill should extend later- ally beyond the base of each footing at least three feet in all directions. As in the case of the building it- self, unless there is sufficient time to surcharge the site, all footings should be designed to permit shimm - ing, if necessary. • :VI • ..Tanksr Several. outside storage tanks and silos are planned. The largest of these .are approximately 20 feet in diameter, .-. and will_impose loadings. on the ground of around 2,000 pounds per square foot. The soils encountered in all of - the borings will be inadequate for supporting these loads in their present density. Several options. are available . Hforobtaining support,. including: '(1) over excavation. T. and: replacement of the existing soil;. (2). piles; or', 1 -.(3):.:.surcharge 1. :.:Over: excavation and recompaction: This approach consists of removing the surficial soil down to a. depth of ten feet below grade. The , ;resulting excavation should be backfilled with com- pacted structural fill. Compaction should be to at least 90 percent of laboratory maximum density, using. ASTM:D-1557 or AASHO:T-180 as a standard. The base of the excavation should extend laterally at least ten feet outside of the foundation perimeter. The excavation slopes will also need to be flattened for safety,: or shored. Foundations supported by a com- pacted fill of this type, may be designed with a maxi- . mum allowable bearing pressure of: 2,500 pounds per square foot, provided that the base of the footing , is at least eighteen inches below adjacent grade. 2. Piling: • Seattle Rendering Works Mr. Michael Runyon October 12, 1976 Page Six. DESIGN .CONSIDERATIONS (continued) be capable of supporting loads on the order of 16 tons each. In the area of Boring 3,-thrity-five foot long piles, with eight-inch diameter tips, should be good for 20 tons each. Because of the variable soil conditions across the site, the pil- ing contractor should drive a test pile at each location, prior to delivery of production piling. The piles should be full depth treated timber, • - driven with a steam or diesel hammer delivering at least 15,000 foot pounds of energy. • .':„! • 3., Surcharge Fill: If time permits, it would be feasible to preload the site to densify the surficial soils. Sur- _ charge heights would vary from ten to fifteen feet. :.- It probably will be necessary to let the surcharge stand about three months, to develop the required amount. of soil consolidation.. After surcharing, - the tank foundations may be designed with a maxi- -mum allowable-bearing pressure of 2,500 pounds per square foot, when founded at least eighteen inches - 'below adjacent grade. Depending upon tank iota- ' . tions,:it is possible that the surcharge embank- ment may extend into building area. . VII Below Grade Structures: A. portion of the facility will include a pit area, ex- - . tending some fifteen feet below grade. Bearing capac- ity does not appear to be a. problem since the weight of the soil to be removed is greater than the anticipated loading. On the other hand, water table currently is about 12 to 13 feet below grade, and it may rise during wet weather. Therefore, structures extending below • grade should: be sufficiently heavy to resist hydrostatic uplift. During construction, which apparently will occur • during the winter, it will probably be necessary to use wellpoints or deepwells to dewater any excavation. Ex- cavations extending below water table which are dewatered • with sumps and sump pumps, will likely be unstable. • • Seattle Rendering Works Mr. Michael Runyon October 12, 1976 Page Seven DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS (continued) VIII Grading: Fill to be placed on the site in rainy weather should consist of clean granular material, containing no more than 5 percent fines, passing a No. 200 sieve. This percentage should be based on the fraction of soil -;! which passes the No. 4 screen. Fill should be placed under the full time supervision of the Soils Engineer. It should be compacted to at least 90 percent of labor- atory maximum density, using ASTM:D-1557-70 or AASHO- P-180 as a standard. Surcharge fill, which will re- main above. floor or foundation levels,, need not be as thoroughly compacted,, however. IX Summary: The site soils are relatively soft and compressible. Even after taking the remedial measures described in this report, sizable settlements should be anticipated. For this reason, whenever possible, foundations should •be designed to permit future shimming, or releveling. As plans and designs are prepared and completed, we will gladly assist you in any way necessary. If you have any questions, please call. Respectfully submitted, RITTENHOUSE-ZEMAN • & ASSOCIATES, Tom. Bekey, Chief Geologist • s. JAIL Alvin R. Zeman; Pi • • RITTENHOUSE ZEMAN & ASSOC. FOUNDATION AND 0011.5 ENGINEERING. GEOLOGY 18190, B.W. 72ND AVENUE PORTLAND. OREGON' 97223 11071 820.7062 13240 NORTHRUP-WAY BELLEVUE. WASHINGTON 91008. AFPILIATC OFFICES IN MOST PRINCIPAL. CITIES W O. w 234e1 DATE Oe.♦ -7G lY —191 SCALE • -. .:�. u a SOIL OtSCRIPTION Surface Elevations Soft, moist, brown and gray mottled, sandy silt - 10 - SM Loose, moist, brown, : silty, fine to medium. sand 15 20 SW Loose, wet to saturated,.: black,., fine to coarse sand 0 STANDARD PENETRATION RESISTANCE (140 Its. weight, 30 "drop) a Glows p. foot r25 Bottom of Boring 24 feet:. LEGEND - 2.0" QM split spoon: sample a 3.0" 0.D. thin-wall sample * Sample not recovered° A Herb erg limits, P 1 -•-- {fLlquld limit 'USG �-- Nature 1 water content �.— Plastic limit Impervious seal Water level Piesomet.r Hp Sampler pushed: Unified Sell Classlfioatlon • % Water content Seattle Rendering LOG OF BORING NO. 1. W 2347 • RITTENHOUSE - ZEMAN & ASSOC. FOUNDATION AND' SOILS £NOINU INO. OtOLOOT � ' • • • • , • 0 so k) SOIL .ESCRIPTION Surface Elevations AO) 3 TAW/ARO w .9. PENETRATION RESISTANCE e i= (1401 b. walght, 30"drop) k Mow; per foot 3 o 25 50 "10 L Soft, moist, brown and gray mottled, sandy silt with some organics . ' . -15 .20 SW Loose to dense, wet to saturated, black, fine to coarse sand Saturated below 13 feet • .. •. • ..•. SW Medium dense, saturated, black, medium to coarse sand,: with silt lenses • • „ - 30- SM - 35. • 40 IC • Very loose to medium dense, saturated, Gray silty, fine sand with shells and some - . • ••.• - • gravel - : • ' •... . • .. See next page LEGEND I s_ 2.0" 0.D. split spoon sample . Impervious seal 3.0" O.D. thln-wall sample Water level Sample not recovered . Piesometer hp A tterberg P - Sampler pushed }--111---1-4-LIquid limit ° USC Unified Soll Natural water aonteni Classification- Plastic limit • ok water Seattle Rendering LOG OF BORING NO. 2 W-2347 RITTENHOUSE - ZEMAN & ASSOC. content ' FOUNDATION AND 111011.0' IINOINDEDINO. 011101.00Y v to SOIL. DESCRIPTION- Surface Elavatlgn: ▪ 45 *50 - 55 8 Very loose to medium-dense, saturated gray, . silty, fine sand, with shells and some gravel SM Medium dense, moist, 'tan,. silty, :. medium sand - 60 ottom of Boring. 59 feet. LEGEND I. 2.0 "0.1 split spoon sample II 3.0 0.0. thin -wall sample * Sample not recovered Atternerg limits* j— —$ L :Quid limit ‘1--- Natural water content Plastic limit P usC Impervious -seal Water level Piesometer Hp Sampler pushed? Unified Soil Classiflootion 3TANOAriv PENETRATION RESISTANCE _ (140 Ib. weight, 30 "drop) E A Blows per toot E 0 25 5Q % Water content Seattle- Rendering LOG. OF BORING NO.. 2 (continued • W -2347 RITTENHOUSE - ZEMAN & ASSOC. FOUNDATION *NO SOILS [NOINE[AINO. O&OLOOV • 5 1/4— ML 5clIVESCRIPTION • 0 z. Surface Elevations SM Loose, moist, brown to gray, silty, fine to medium sand 3 sw - 10 20- -•25. Soft, moist, brown and gray mottled, sandy silt Loose, moist, black, mottled,• fine to medium sand with silt lenses Loose to medium dense, wet to saturated, SW black, fine to coarse sand Wood debris @•23.5 'fee r'�tii:TiiAj l ' Nt31b ::1NC% (140 lb. weight. 30 ~drop) • Blows per foot 0 25 • 50 ..30 Medium dense, saturated, gray and. black, SW fine to medium: sand with fine to medium. gravel Hard ( ?) moist, grayish brown, sandy silt • ML Blow count is believed to be over stated due L.35. to gravel content. . 40 ML Medium stiff to stiff, moist, grayish brown, fine sandy silt, with shells and wood fragments LEGEND 1. 2.0 0.0. split spoon- sample• it 3.0" 0.0. thin -wall sample- * Sample not recovered Afloat erg Ilmltes • P 1-• jam- Llqu1d limit'.. USC �-- Natural water content Plastic limit. GEOLOGISTS AND ENGINEERS Impervbus seal _.Water level Pie :ometer tip Sampler pushed Unified. Soli Classification 70/12" % Water content Seattle Rendering LOCO 3WORING NO. 3 MOENING -GREY & ASSOCIATES' • 2 45. 50' se ML SOIL SCRIPTION Surface Elevations Medium stiff to stiff, moist, gray to brown, sandy silt, with shells and wood fragments • Bottom of Boring 49 feet • • • . . •„ . • - • . • ,.• ••- 1 . • • •• • .^ • ■ • -• - 1,, • •■ •w • .c PENETRATION RESISTANCE z (I40 lb. weight, 30"drop) a t A WOWS per foot 3 X 0 LEGEND. 2.0"0.D. split spoon sample Impervious seal 31 3.0" 0.0. thin-wall sample 2Wotu level * Sample not recovered Piezometir tip • Atterberg limits, P Sampler pushed .—•—i.o.LIquid limit USC Unified Son W-2347 ‘t--- Nature I water content . Classification RITTENHOU5t - ZEMAN & ASSOC. Plastic limit • 0 . • Vo' Water content Seattle Rendering LOG OF BORING NO. 3 (continued) FOUNDATION •ANO SOILS ENGINIESMING. curoLoaly 0.3 0 z z o J 0.01 0.1 u or .s m uo STRESS IN TONS /SQ.FT. -. 1.0 to en v m 1e ■■■■■111111111111111111 {III Illlll j.l11111111 { 1111 �■ ■11111111111111 ,niil1II 11 1111Iii_-!n llljl ■ ■ ■u ■■ Illllllllllll 111111{ AA Ilgq �i�' I ri ,i rr�H 1111 1 ! II �(p 111 nuw l II m • :I ::1111I1IIIIIIIIIIII110 HI11 ; Hill li {IIII {I {(I = ■ ■II,I1n1111I{1 IIII 11111 IIr III 111 110 ■■■II■111II 111111 11 n ■■I =141 I jhl n I�r i 111 ■■■ 111 1 111 1 I��■ ■1111111 uln 11 111 I III' 111 II (111 1(I ■■1 111111 111 1 111 I 1!1 If .■■■ ■IIII 111111! 111:::1 : :Ilallll { {li{ {1111{ 1 111 1 111111! 111 Illl i r�■■III1ll!!nl h! �1ll � 11 1 r 1 i■■■iu111! a 11 11 11111 II I IIII 1111 III II t ■111 ■II 111 11 un 1 X1111 II I n U ■■■ n mil 1 in'IA�,�, nI i {101{1111 1 II u : IIII) iii 1{ u I II I I ii ■ i1' i ' i {i" I .11 111{ { �I Ili _p 11 �lR 141,1 11 :� 11� I 1 { '� 111 111 II Il I ■■ 111 111 I I HI I 1 ■ 11 111 1111 {il 1 { {I {I {{ {111 ri u {{ �i.� : : : : :ialii i{ I {° ' Ih�i ■i'� :11{ 'i {11,I�I (° i {! 1 I 11111111 111011 11111 ::1:111I111111IIIII11111111 1 I0�dd1� 11111 III III {1111 11n11= 111111llllll { { {{ 111111111 �I1 III 10 11111�1�I IIII I y'NEL: 11IIIaiiiIIi 11 hI ■■1I111IIIIIIIIIIlllll►IIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIl111! IIIIIIII111I_1111111111111l11 11111111�11111� 1111{IlulQlllnlii�d ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■1 1 I I tl ■■■■■ 1 nn 1 10 ♦ 111 T V a b 11 01111 111 11111111 I p In Iltll IIII{ II 1111 „,! 111 I 111q1 iiIHiiiIlI��IU1 11111 II u11� mn uii! 1 HIllII{lIlI P� 111111111 1 111 pr �`l`IlI llnt l tm11�"ID (1 mnl {{■�lHIInIli 11 II m1I1I111111 111) 11 Hi. 111{ lin grill ' 11 1 1l�: :11uIl 1111111I1 IIIIIIIII milli” IH Ci::CIIIIIIIIIII{ IIllllll Illul�u� !� _ ■■ ■111111111 III HH II m 1 M. 6111.11111111111111111111 �: � ∎lm IIIIII11�1 i! Ill 1 � 11 IW UIIIIIulIpIIIIIIlIII{lii ni 1 II 6{111 111 11 II 11_1: 11 1 r i "• .1 I 111111011111111 1 11 1 1 11111 11BIln 11 . ■■.1111111 1 111 111 1111_ ■■I 11 111 IIII nl I IIr _■■ ■11111 IIn'1 19 1 111 I ■I■ ■■ 111111 1 1 I ■■■ 111 1 r1111111111111111' 1 II ■ ■111111I�1111_! 111111 nn I {I IIII I q e■■■�'Illllll �I IIIIJ C ■■■ :IIIII I 1 111 IIII 111 II I ■■1111' 1 11�11�1 II I�II 1 I ■■■ nl 111 11 Imn � ■■1111 1 �l� MI6 III 1111 kill Ili 1111I1 lllll� { {{ Iilr NI IIII Ii I{ IR IINi►i :■ : : :iiiiii 111111pI1111 � ■ : =I��lllli 111 II 1 ■■1111 1 1 Ilnlllll 1111 ■ ■■■I11111111W11m11111 _■ ■■■1111 111111111 I PAp '1111 111 11 In_ ■1 ■1 ■1111 111pp II 11 191111 1r� Inl 111 n■�■■■11111111111111 1111 (11 III! II 1111 IIn_■■111111111IIIn1 II 1 I ��■ =C■11161 ll 1 I ■■11111 run ml 11 '111 111 1 11 III_■ :■:IIIII 1 1111 1 ! ■■1■IIIII1111 lu l III 1 1 l ■ ■ 1 11 y II ■1■■■IIIIIIIIIIII 1111 11 1111 111 II 811 {I11C■■■11111111111! IIII Ilt {li ur 11 ■■■■Illllnlll119111 nl l 11 ll 111 _■■■1111 111111 111 11 I 1 ll l _■ ■ 1 ■11111 IIIIIIII{II 11 I {111 �I IIII ■1111111111 {I I{ 11 1 { II' I ■�■■ : : :e;11111 111 I I {{ I 11 I I I A_:/1111111 1 fl �11 1111 1!1 ■ .1 1 1 1 1' ::::: h a111 i� I iii = : III!' i ..*miuui I �� 1y ' 4;� ■■ ■■■ 11 1 �, ■ ■■ ■■:IIIIIIIIIIIIII {I { ll ■ 11 ■■_■ 1 1 11 nl ■■11 ■1111111 nn I �j111 I I I �� ■■ ■1■111111111I111 {Ill 11 AU 111!!1{ ■n■IIIn111 1111 111 11 111 01 11 1 ■■■■■In 111 n II I 11 11111 Illllnll In_■ ■II 1111 1111 Im IIfl�ryryln I1mm ■■■■■■IIII 11p llnlnl IIn _ n ■■■■■1191111 111 III IIIIIrIn11 III IIII lIH _■uIIu1I1111Ii11 111 1111p1 II If 1 ■�■ ■1111111 1 II! III n jlnn �I 11BIII� �I� I 1 �'11■111 III 111 11 111 111 r nl III III III ■ ■11 111I111I I I Ill 1111 11 IIt ■I■■111I II iI1� i1 III I i I "I Ill 111'_1■ : 1 t � 1 1'11 � �I � III I ! y ! := I � i� � ! �h 9 ■11 IIIIIIIlllill 11 111 MIDI 1 III! {111! 11 Itl_. �.1 0111 IIn Iill i 1111 11 1 Ulp III IIII III 111111 :1: III :u11I1 1 1 IIIII nil III III U: 111111ail 1 II 1111► I►�II1 11 111 I IIII Ill Illllln_ ■/ : :�: :111 IIII { {{ Ii II iii ill' ]iii ={ II {ill 11 =: =1 1111111 {i�l { (11 �i�li u �I 1 : IIlIl IIII 111 �1 l 11111] I{ li l 111 { {IICII11I :: I {111�{ C 1 n {�1 : 1 ■■ 111111111 111 i''Il InIIII 1 111 11 1 111 ■■ 111 1 111111 IIII 1 1 1 111 II I ■■ ■1 ■1 11 1 11 IIII 111 t 1111 nl l ll 1 ■ ■�111I11111 IIlIIINI�I I II ip 11119) II II! IIII■■_ ■� 1 11111111 {{ II {{1111 p III 1111m11lIIl IJ�� ■ ■ ■11111111I11 i1111111I ��►,,i11�11111111 1 1 ■ 11 ■■ / 1111111 11 111 11 nn 111 1111 11 I III _■ ■11111 1 111 1 1 1 1 I III I 1 II■ ■■■ 11111111 II IIf11111110 1111 1111111111111 III 11111 :■ 11 ::::::1�11o,i1{ {{I{{{ uii 'I 111 { { 1 { { {I { {y11I1lII : :: ::i11ai1III{ {{{IIII{ II {{ iii 11 I{1ni : :IUIIUIIIIIII�ill' ur�lii9 I1 11 111•! { { { {{ {�l1 II 1. :1{ulII ■■■■111 1111111111111 1111 111 1111111I11III11111111 IIIIF .■■111 11111111 11111 1 I 1 111 II IIII 111 �II iln III ■■I.■ ■111p 1111 11111 111 1 1 1 1 111 III 1 111 l l t l ll 1 1 ■111111 1111 I I nl I 11 I I I I I ■■■■111 IIr 1 11 11III 1111111II III II II�_ ■■■11111 II { I { � I I l 1 _1111111111111 11!1111 lIIII 111 11I 1 ■ ■ ■■ ■11111111111111 {1111 Ile! n IIIIIh.Illl 111_■■n111111I IIII ■■■11111 11 1111 111 1111 111 mllnll IIII 111111111 I {1111 III 111111111 11111111 I i =::1 :11 °1111 111{{ {1111111111I19i11111111141 1 111{ 11111 11 11 ( I ■_■1111111 I I I II II III III ■■■■11111 1 1 IIII II nI.IIIIIII III ►1 II II ■■ ■1111 Il l t l 11I1 n n 1111! ii m I 1111 111{ I m 1 u 1111 1 1� u 111IinV �p ■1111 111 I! 1111 f1�111In 11111{1 11111111C ■ ■ ■ ■ :IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIiIIIIII {II II1111lllllllli ►In�iu� ■ ■ ■IIIIIIIIIIII I CONSOLIDATION TEST Boring No. 2 Depth 7 1/2 - 10' Sample No. 3 Work Order No. 2347 Rittenhouse -Zeman & Assoc. Geotechnical Engineering • I 1 II Il11111 !la1IIII111HNii{ 1 • ■■ IIII{ Ii 1ni n 11 nil{ 11 °II 01I{I{Iii{I{ III { :"na i 1 �� : 1111 1 !!{ { 1 �11 ql II 1�Halal II 1 1111 111{ 1 ��1 � u■■■■■::iiiiiiiitlim 1111 II i1im1 11;1;1111{ � ■11111 °111111 111111111 11 III 1 11 1 i, __ 1111 111_!.. I n 111 111 111 n11�lll11 11 1 �r 11111 11 nl 1111111 11111111ll111 11 I■■i■1 1!! 111' I Imnmmn x11...._... 1 II ■ 111 11 1111 10 11111111 1111 11111 III 1 ■■■11111111 1 IIIIIlIf11111111111 IIDIIIIIn111�1Hi(In mni ■■1 ■11111111 11i1111�n1111 II n I 111 1 1 I■■■ ■11111 111 Illllllll ul III 111111111111 111 111 1111�1._1111111 111 II 111 111 III 11 I I� III l (1 1■■■ ■.11111111 1111111111111III 1111111rii III'll ill_�,.��I11 "� 111 ! 11 111 111 111 1 { I I ■... ■■■111 1111111111 11 nl nn 11111111 n I_■ 111111111 111 !'III IIII III 1110 III III I ■■■■■111111 III 111111111111111111111111 I I1{ ii 11� 1Il■� ■■IIII 11111111l 111111111 IIIIIn11111 1111111111 III _■� I111111Itllm 111 III I I I ■ ■■11111 1 1 1 11111 1 11111111 111 11 1 11 _■ 11 1 1 111 III 11 I 1 II I ■ �� ■1111 �1 11 11111 I �I 1 0111 1 !IIII �I ■_■ 11 11 111 lilliill 11 111111{1 1 11 ii ■■1:: :1 111111111 1111 111111 1 11111111111 1111 111111 i■■■U111iIIIIIIIIII 11 11 11 •I „ 200 • nommo:::: nsommilmomm:i:: _:'::� POPennilinnininianinnininilln :eii ~ M�� ■�� ■�� •.0 ■■ ■0 ■00..0000100000■ ■■ ■ ■:■ ■ ■..■.:■.■..a.■■■.■N■.■i.•iie■ i:i'i'ii 10■ ■■10■10■■10■10.■.■ =s10..■ ■■■..■ ■00. ■H.0 ■000■ ■.0■.■ ■■ ■■ ■ OA N0:0■0000000.0000■ ■ ■0■■.■■ il■i:i:::in i:::::':::: ■inn iii::" ' ' ' �� • 1010••••••• 1010 • 1010ronaan•••• �;:......:�: 000:0.1010■ 10.10■ ■ i�' ■� :H■.•■■■.�: ■i� : ■N= ■10. ■ ■ ■■■■■■■■ ■ ■■■■i■■ 1010■• ■i ■� �■■ ■ ■.■■■■■ ■■ ■ ■■ ■ . ■ ■ ■ ■ 1010■ ■..:... ■.. ■.� ■C•.e . :. �■ a :�..10■ ■ ■a . 10.10 ■•H / ■ ■ ■ ■ / ■ ■ ■ ■ ■. ■ ■ ■H ■ ■0. ■ / ■ ■■ I' 0.:�0:0i�: ■■ ■ ■H� ■ ■.��■■■ ■ ■■. aM ■■ ■.■ ■ ■■ ■■1010■■.■e■ ■■10■ ■10..■101010a10.10■ .� :� 1 1/i00UMU0 : ■0� :00■p ■U000001:010■00010000.0•.i ■ ■. ■■ ■00/00.■ ■H■ ■000 mime 1010■ ■0■■ ■�0■ �■■ ■� ■ ■0.0H■ ■ 00000000000 :::::iiii=a1010a.10■.■ ■.■_111111/21111:111:1110111611111 111111111111111111:1:111 C : H■ ■ / ■ / ■0.N 1010/■ ■ ■10/■ 10.10 •■ ■H ■10./■.■ //1010■ �� Ci C. ■.::CC■ : ■10 .=:i ■.0 ..p. ■10■. C:::C••• ••!000100--- :1onnEniutm. 10m.001. ■■■■■■■100■ ■0■■ ■■■ ■000■■ ■000■■ ■ ■0 ■N ■000 ■0 ■00. ■ ■■ ■ ■0100■ p• ■ ■ ■ppC: :: :nni :s10'/e : :.■■ o 5,■■ ■p : ■■■■ ■e■ ■e■ 1010■■■• ■N■ ■e■■ 1010.■ ■.10■ :■. ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■■C 1010•• 1010.■■■ ■ ■0 ■:0. 000■ 0■ ■0:0 ■00:■■■■:0000::N0■■.0■■•■■■ • H ■00■ ■ ■ ■0.000■■0N0■■ ■ ■N ■� ■ ■■10■ ■00■ 1010 ■• ■ ■ ■0 ■ ■■ 0. ■ ■. ■ ■0■ ■ ■ ■ ■■ ■ ■.. 0 ■■■■■.■■■■■■■■■■•■■■■ i■ i. �aimmin uiC■■• ■C■■■ =C■■.■I■■.■■■C■■C..■ ■■■C■: CC.CC■ :C 1010■ . ■..._. ■_...■ """_ "':"'::i :ii ■i1 : :i ■iii : :i :i : :C : : :i :■ii ■11111:1 411 ......... ... ........... ... 1000. 1010€ 1■ ■■0000000■ ■0■ ■00■■RW ■H0■ ■0.0.00■ 001.0/./ ■.0 ■■■ ■0010■■■ ■000100.00■ ■■■■ 1000•1■0:0■u • U01 IuI0.., u.. 0■■1 ■•■ ■■�0 ■ ■M ■ ■ ■ ■ / ■•• ■■ ■1010■■■■ ■•R10•�■0•■ p ■■� ■■■po■■pe0■ p /. ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■■ onn N■■■• ■0■■ ■00 ■•0■■■ ■ rmum 10.10■ 1010 1010■■ 10■ ■ m'•.m s:pi nmp:gg :r =: •002 ■■. ■.....e...■.... 10 ■ ■ 0010■ ■ ■ . ■H ■ ■.■10■■ ■■ ■ ■ ■ "'iM '�0■ ■M ■.■1.N ■ ■ ■■0. ■0 /, /■ .0 ■0■ 0 0:011. ■00010%Hn ■0i ■000 ■0■ . ■■ ■ ■00.010 '•••O :E1llP 1121M ":' 101.""" ='1 ' :' PRIII•m •0••••••••••11• : "i ::!' un I ■■ ■00.10 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ �10� ii : :'■=ir�iif;i.•'■a':1i'1:i'::1' ■01' 1111111111111111111111114' : ■ =1 ■ ■ •ii••� ■0■■■o /. / ■■a ■0■■ . 0a.1 H■0a00■■• • no ■00•• : C. :: ■.. ■■0100■ : • ■0■00000 ■■ ■00 ■00000000100010■1 001 ':"p!';•i1 :1. 0. 11111 11:�`i'■1•■Na.'1.1111000i00:10 :: 111111111111111111111111111111111 111111011 :i� 10 10:10■ ■10■ n 1000.. ■ ■.� 1 ■ ■0■ ■ ■0■■■ ■ ■00■ ■ 0.. Amnon mu mo■s 0000 ■■■ 000 1000• ■■:■■■■0•: ■0■ ■ u m 1: 0110■■ 000 ■000■ '■•■ ■.■.0/ ■■ 0.0■ ■0■ ■■ ■0■ ■■■N■ ■■■■■10:.■.■ ■"■:R : ■ ■EE ■■0100 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■e0:■ :EM■■eH NAME I :.■. a.•.■■ C■■:•■ H0■■ :H■0.■■■U.■■.■■■.■H■e:■■■ ■■ .U.....I ..............■.■■n 00000 ..■■■..a...e .■e....■.■..■.■ .■..■.10■■ ■.■■■■..a ■ ■10.10■ ■.■/10.•a■10■10::: 0:':■.■ 10.10.■ :isis summ : :momo mumm siiaiiiii�immom �er'•011 ommommem•••••••••••••••••• .'•iii 5 0 0 1000 1500. 2000 NORMAL STRESS IN LBS. /SQ.FT. DIRECT SHEAR TEST Angle of Internal Friction ot1_ 35 _ _degrees Cohesion (0-22.5_ _ lbs. /sq.ft. Soil Type Bras, silty fine sand 500 Boring No. z Sample No. 2 Depth - - Work Order No. 2 347 Rittenhouse -Zeman & Ae Geotechnical Engineeri. ;.- :?. 2I.5 4 00. •• FRO ELE •2 22'0 REVISED' PAVED AREAS.._ IUCL. :ROADS qNO PARKING.. • CONCRETE RAMPS Ana — SLABS. - BOUNDRY'OF EX/STING ASPHALT IN PROJECT i•:KEA. t W r BOUNDRY of SNORLINE' MANAGEMENT AREP. / REVISED PAVED AREAS. INCL. ROADS AND PARKING. CONCRETE RAMPS . ANC SLABS. BOLINDRY OF EXISTING • ASPHALT IN PROJECT) YEA. / LFL LES BRON4N-7-L1- DOW:ION CLAIM - N pc,p.riori OF 0 ,C- L'IN6 OF E5GINI4mri.• 14IQ FT .A./EST L.F NOR-4E 1F-4 ST f7/ rr. 71: I FT . r RAIL. Op 144? Ft/W ; I, 27- 21"-2:" ,.. :,- •■ • . TRUE 85•sir..,'..1145 OF Tr4IE Lt,417-1t. L; REVISED PAVED AREAB. INCL.. ROADS A, No PARKING. CONCRETE RAMPS AND SLABS. NEW BUILDINGS. - BOUNDRY OF EXISTING . , ASPHALT IN PROJECT AREA. ' . . • BOUNDRY oF SHORLINE : • MANAGEMENT AREA w -W- WATER - STORM &RAJ 35-55-- 1 SEPTIC TANK LINE. ALki 1JE Ft!? VAR ED' It.snrE JAN. 1518- 54L. CO p: o'IDENLRY /b.-21• 344, ryi - • :mg*. \h‘rilerl.ES 1515 4 \ L EG,4 OF_SC BROWN ELL G0114; -ON., CLAIM Nt.- 41 - N7: -& -4 POP.r10N OF 0.0 L'i I NO.`nIE T OF.- .•.E e EGINI:h. 141 j: ;,..:1, WEST CF NOrt: r+E :CT ._- ,. • ' =T4: •r:: "rr• =1ra WEST 1715. " °r ;,�i I :T, I F.T. -,. _S f. O= •dn°_ .:- RAIL OFril? R./\v; 5.7.- 5 TO TRUE BE4.;.,>.INS OF T,s. 1 L:•n:TI1,; lE r:�. 00. x' FROM EL E •? REVISED PAVED AREAS. INCL. :ROADS. AN PARKING. CONCRETE RAMPS ANG" SLABS. NEW BUILDING5. NEW SCALE. 16.0 BOUNDRY of EXISTING' . ASPHALT IN.PR0.7ECT AREA. BOLINDRY of SHORLINE • MANAGEMENT AREA .HATER. MAIN 422:0 RECEIVED Cllr OF TW.'A NOV 151976 wagon OED • -5O -STY -- STORM UR4i R. - 55 -55.- 5EPT IC TANK LINE. • 4L P; SE , Frk We SD 5. -5: �'�? .• JW1Il5R JAM. - IS_ /F° 56bL.' VA RtErt65. �. 1 •