Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSWP2702959_5�►ITA, HWA�GEOSQCIENCESiINC. t,eoenvirnnmeninl Services • /ns ection � TeshtCEIVED L�I� 8 8 Y S SY P May 3, 2005 HWA Project No. 2003-007-300 Gray & Osborne, Inc. 701 Dexter Avenue N., Suite 200 Seattle, Washington 98109 Attention: Mr. Matt Winkleman Subject: POTENTIAL SOURCES OF CONTAMINATION SOUTHWEST 7n" STREET STORM DRAIN RENTON, WASHINGTON (G&O #02640) Dear Mr. Winkleman: MAY - 4 2005 CITY OF RENTON UTILITY SYSTEMS Petroleum -contaminated soil and ground water were encountered during construction of a storm drain along Southwest 71h Street, between Rainer Avenue South and Shattuck Avenue South, in Renton, Washington. HWA GeoSciences Inc. (HWA) reviewed information on file at the Washington state Department of Ecology (Ecology) Northwest Regional Office, on behalf of the City of Renton (the City), in order to identify likely sources of the contamination. HWA reviewed the Ecology Facility/Site Identification System, including underground storage tank (UST) list, leaking underground storage tank (LUST) list, and Confirmed & Suspected Contaminated Sites Report. Several listed sites were listed within 0.25 miles of the contamination encountered in the Southwest 7th Street right-of-way (ROW). Table 1 summarizes the sites. Figure 1 shows the site locations. TABLE 1 LISTED SITES ON ECOLOGY FACILITY/SITE IDENTIFICATION SYSTEM Business Name List Address Known Release Soil Impacted Ground water impacted ; Lithia Chrysler LUST, CSCS 585 RAINIER AVE S YES YES YES Renton 1 LUST 621 RAINIER AVE S YES YES YES Sound Subaru LUST 720 RAINIER AVE S YES YES YES Sound Ford LUST 750 RAINIER AVE S YES YES YES USA MiniMart 115 LUST* 765 RAINIER AVE S YES YES YES Renton Lincoln Mercury LUST 201 S 7TH ST YES YES NO Les Schwab Tires VCP, CSCS 710 RAINIER AVE S YES YES NO Bob Bridge Toyota UST 150 SW 7TH ST NO Wolf Bros Oil Co Inc UST 632 RAINIER AVE S NO CSCS - confirmed & suspected contaminated sites list UST — underground storage tank LUST — leaky underground storage tank VCP — voluntary cleanup program * — ranked as a TIER 2 priority site by Ecology 19730 - 64th Avenue W. Suite 200 Lynnwood, WA 98036.5957 Tel: 425.774.0106 Fax: 425.774.2714 www.hwageosciences.com May 3, 2005 HWA Project No. 2003-007-300 Review of Ecology lists and files for these sites indicated the following: 1. Lithia Chrysler / Puget Sound Chrysler Plymouth • Known impacts to soil and ground water on LUST list, soil on CSCS list • Reported "cleanup started, monitoring" on LUST list 2. Renton 1/Car Wash Enterprises, 621 Rainier Ave S. • Located approximately 500 feet northwest of site • Known impacts to soil and ground water • Ground water flow reported to be toward the west-southwest • Reported "cleanup started" on LUST list 3. Sound Subaru, 720 Rainier Ave S. • Located approximately 500 feet south of site. • Known impacts to soil or ground water • Reported "cleanup started" on LUST list, no file available 4. Sound Ford, 750 Rainier Ave S. • Located approximately 1000 feet south of site • Known impacts to soil and ground water • Reported "cleanup started" on LUST list • 6 USTs removed in 1989 5. USA Minimart 115, 765 Rainier Ave S. • Located approximately 1500 feet southwest of site • Known impacts to soil and ground water • Reported "cleanup started" on LUST list, no file available 6. Renton Lincoln Mercury, 201 SW 7th St. • Adjacent south of site • Known impact to soil, probable impact to ground water • 2000 gallon gas UST and 500 gallon waste oil UST removed in 1991 • Site "reported cleaned up" on LUST list 7. Les Schwab, 710 Rainier Ave S • Confirmed petroleum impacts to soil • On CSCS list, no file available at Ecology 8. Bob Bridge Toyota, 150 SW 7th St. • Adjacent to the north of site • No known impacts • 1000 gallon gasoline UST removed in 1991. Soil reported clean by Renton Fire Department Notes on SW 7th St Environmentalkdoc 2 HWA GEOSCIENCES INC. May 3, 2005 HWA Project No. 2003-007-300 9. Wolf Bros Oil Co., 632 Rainier Ave S. • Located approximately 500 feet north of site • No known impacts to soil or ground water • 6 USTs including one 5-10,000 gallon diesel, one 5-10,000 gallon leaded gasoline, two 5-10,000 gallon unleaded gasoline, and two 1-5,000 gallon unknowns, were removed in 1988. Ground water gradient at the Renton 1/Car Wash Enterprises site was reported to be to the west/southwest. The gradient along 7a' Street (based only on borings along 7`h Street, in the east -west direction) was generally to the west, based on HWA's geotechnical investigation. No other ground water gradient information was reviewed. The area is located in an alluvial valley between two rivers, therefore the regional shallow ground water gradient may not be very steep or may vary locally. For this reason, potential source sites were not ruled out based on location relative to presumed ground water gradients. Based on our file review, insufficient conclusive information exists to ascertain the source of the encountered petroleum hydrocarbons in the ROW, although several of the listed sites are more likely sources, due to location and history, including: • Lithia Chrysler - known release to ground water • Renton 1 - known release to ground water • Renton Lincoln Mercury - known release to soil, adjacent to ROW • Bob Bridge Toyota - no documented release, but possible source due to proximity M We appreciate this opportunity to be of service to you and would be pleased to discuss the contents of this report or other aspects of this project with you at your convenience. Please feel free to call me if you have any questions or need any more information. Sincerely, HWA GEOSCIENCES INC. Pete Pearson Environmental Geologist cc: Allen Quynn, City of Renton Arnie Sugar Vice Preside Notes on SW 7th St Environmentalkdoc 3 HWA GEOSCIENCES INC. "ORECEIVED CITY OF RENTON .,� Office of the City Attorney Kathy Keolker-Wheeler, Mayor JAN 2 0 2005 Lawrence J. Warren CITY OF RENTON Assistant City Attorneys UTILITY SYSTEMS Mark Barber Zanetta L. Fontes Ann S. Nielsen Sasha P. Alessi MEMORANDUM Whitney A. Faulkner '74t-cr/ -JAIVTo: Gregg A. Zimmerman, PBPW Administrator CST o 92 461) a p41Qi/CWFq� § From: Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney oAk qo0 Date: January 18, 2005 Subject: Recover for City's Costs for Polluted Soils at SW 7`h and Rainier Please find enclosed a one -page discussion about a Supreme Court case limiting the rights of contribution under the Superfund law. I don't believe that this case applies to the pollution found at SW 7th and Rainier because I believe that the pollution was petroleum based which is exempted from the Superfund laws and controlled by MTCA. The right to recover costs under MTCA apparently are unaffected by the Supreme Court case. Even then, the cost recovery is limited under MTCA. If it appears that we are going to try and recover our costs, please contact me so that I can provide you with the necessary statutory, regulatory and case authorities to ensure that we have put our case together correctly. Lawrence J. Warren LJW:tmj T10.42:21 cc: Jay Covington Post Office Box 626 - Renton, Washington 98057 - (425) 255-8678 / FAX (425) 255-5474 ® This paper contains 50 % recycled material, 30 % post consumer RENTON AHEAD OF THE CURVE rage r or Larry Warren From: "FPS News" <fpsnews@foster.com> To: <undisclosed -recipients:> Sent: Wednesday, December 22, 2004 10:29 AM Subject: FP&S News Alert: Supreme Court Limits Right of Contribution Foster Pepper & Shefelman PLLC brings you a leading news story: Supreme Court Limits Right of Contribution Under Superfund (CERCLA) Please visit our website newsroom to view the article (http://www.foster.com/newsroom) The full article is also attached below If you have questions or comments, please contact: Chuck Wolfe (206-447-2901) or wol�foster.com Supreme Court Limits Right of Contribution Under Superfund (CERCLA) Cost Recovery Under Washington's Model Toxic Control Act (MTCA) Likely Unaffected In Cooper Industries, Inc. v. Aviall Services, Inc., Case No. 02-1192, 543 U.S. , (December 13, 2004), the U.S. Supreme Court decided that voluntary cleanup costs pursued under the private contribution provision of the Federal Superfund law ("CERCLA) cannot be recovered in a contribution lawsuit against responsible parties. The case involved contamination at aircraft maintenance facilities in Dallas, Texas and was decided based on the court's interpretation of CERCLA's statutory provisions (specifically § 113(f)(1), 42 U.S.C. § 9613(f)(1)). In CERCLA cases, this ruling is likely to have a chilling effect on voluntary environmental remediation, which is typically faster and less expensive than a remediation effort that is begun following a lawsuit filed by the federal or state environmental agency. Aviall may also affect contribution lawsuits filed under state laws that incorporate identical or substantially comparable language comparable to the federal law. Washington's Model Toxic Control Act ("MTCA"), RCW 70.105D, contains a "private right of action" provision (RCW 70.105D.080), that expressly allows recovery of voluntary cleanup costs when the remedial action, as a whole, are the substantial equivalent of a Department of Ecology conducted or -supervised remedial action. RCW 70.105D.080 was passed by the Washington legislature after the Washington courts held that no such private right of action existed under MTCA. Potentially liable persons may try to assert a defense to cost recovery actions brought under MTCA based upon the Aviall decision; however, the clear statutory right created under MTCA should prevail over such arguments. Thus, the Aviall case should have limited impact on Washington's MTCA regime. Aviall is also unlikely to affect other various other statutory or common law theories of recovery such as trespass, negligence, strict liability contribution and indemnity, and, where appropriate, breach of contract (such as breach of a purchase and sales agreement or breach of a lease). Foster Pepper & Shefelman will be providing a more detailed article on the Aviall case in the next edition of its Land Use and Environmental Newsletter, which will be available on our web -page at www.foster.com. For additional information or a copy of the decision, please feel free to contact Charles Wolfe at (206-447-2901) or wolfc@foster.com. 12/22/04 CITY OF RENTON PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS MEMORANDUM DATE: November 24, 2004 TO: Larry Warren Mike Webby ��yy FROM: Gregg Zimmerman 6- T� STAFF CONTACT: Ron Straka, x-7248 Allen Quynn, x-7247 SUBJECT: SW 71h Street Drainage Improvement Project Phase II Soil Contamination Introduction The purpose of this memo is to provide you background information regarding the contaminated material that was encountered during construction of the SW 7'h Street Drainage Improvement Project Phase II. Additionally, Utilities Systems Division would like guidance on two issues. Issue One The Contractor requests the City provide a "Liability Release to FCCC" letter to hold Frank Coluccio Construction Co. (FCCC) harmless for assisting the City with the excavation, storage and disposal of contaminated material. How should this be handled? Issue Two Should the City pursue legal action against those responsible for the contamination on public right of way? The City's estimated cost to haul and dispose of the contaminated material to date is approximately $108,000. Sequence of Events On October 14, 2004, the project inspector notified City staff of possible petroleum contamination. The night prior, the Contractor's crew and the City's inspector detected a petroleum odor emanating from the construction trench during excavation to install a 60" storm pipe at the middle of the intersection of Rainier Ave. and SW 7'h Street. See Figure 1. The Contractor completed the nightshift work, stockpiling the excavated material at the Contractor's staging yard, which is rented from a private property owner. On the afternoon of the 10, City staff directed HWA Consultants to visit the stockpiled material and test for petroleum contaminates. During construction on the evening of the 14'h, the Contractor continued to smell the presence of petroleum product. Excavated material was stockpiled onsite next to the previous night's November 24, 2004 Page 2 of 4 excavated material. On Friday the 151h, the lab results from the material sampled on the 141h came back. See Exhibit A. Based on these results, the contaminant levels are below the Model Toxics Control Act (MTCA) Method A cleanup levels as well as within the Class 2 levels as determined by the Washington State Department of Ecology (DOE) Toxics Cleanup Program, Guidance for Remediation of Petroleum Soils, Revised November 1995. Class 2 soils are non -hazardous materials suitable for use as backfill at the original site; fill in commercial or industrial areas, or road or parking lot construction material. Because the soil in this area of the project is composed of significant organic matter and not suitable for trench backfill, it was decided to take the material to a licensed facility for disposal. On Monday, October 18"', Coluccio contracted with Lafarge Processing of Seattle to haul and dispose of the contaminated backfill. As of October 20`h, 1,689 tons of material was disposed of at Lafarge. On October 19`h, a second set of lab results from samples taken from the stockpile showed elevated contamination levels. The levels exceeded both MTCA and Class 2 and can no longer be used as onsite backfill; however, it is still classified as non -hazardous waste and is, therefore, excepted at most waste processing facilities. As Coluccio continued work through the intersection of Rainier Ave. they became concerned that the groundwater being dewatered from the trench was contaminated and would need to be pumped to the sanitary sewer. The City directed the Contractor to bring a Baker Tank onsite to temporarily store the groundwater. The City also contacted Metro to determine if the contaminated water could be discharged to the sewer system. Metro would approve the discharge provided the contamination levels were under Metro's limits. Please see Exhibit B. At the beginning of the work shift on Wednesday, October 20"', it was observed that the material being excavated from the trench had a much stronger petroleum smell. At this point, Coluccio made the decision to halt all excavation until an industrial hygienist could sample the trench air quality and recommend a plan for how to protect the Contractor's workers. The Contractor retained Prezant Associates, Inc.'s Industrial Hygienist to provide air monitoring and to recommend actions needed to minimize exposure while working in the trench. On October 22nd, a third lab test result showed a continued high level of petroleum contamination exceeding both MTCA and Class 2 Standards. Coluccio continued to haul excavated material to Lafarge for disposal. The following week (Oct. 25`h — Oct. 29`h) the Contractor elected to postpone the mainline pipe construction and worked on installing two manholes and a vault structure at Shattuck Ave. S. while the Industrial Hygienist completed the monitoring and recommended safety plan. On Wednesday, October 2761, Coluccio's safety officer and Prezant Associates reviewed the air samples and recommended the use of respirators and tyvek suits and gloves for all construction personnel working in the trench. HAFile Sys\SWP - Surface Water Projects\SWP-27 - Surface Water Projects (CIP)\27-2959 SW 7th St. Drainage Improvement Project\Phase II Construction\1600 Construction\1003 City Correspondence\Contamination\Larry memo.doc November 24, 2004 Page 3 of 4 Coluccio made the necessary preparations to continue trench work and resumed mainline pipe installation on Monday night, November I". HWA also sampled the groundwater that was being pumped to the Baker Tank. The groundwater lab test results were made available the afternoon of November 2nd and showed that all contamination parameters were below the Metro limits. Coloccio then began discharging groundwater from the Baker Tank to the sanitary sewer the evening of the 2°a By Wednesday, November 3ra, Coluccio reached a point 100 feet east of Rainier Avenue. The City inspector reported there was no longer any odor or visible sign of petroleum product in the soil. HWA took another soil sample for testing. The soil sample results on Thursday, Nov. 4`h are shown on Exhibit C. These results show that the soils are in the Class 2 range due to the presence of lube oil. HWA concluded that the construction had progressed out of the contamination plume and what the lab test was picking up was a small amount of lube oil that had most likely been mixed in with the imported backfill that was placed there previously during another utility project(s). Coluccio continued to haul excavated material to Lafarge. Exhibit D shows that samples from the evening of November 41h had similar results. All parameters are at Class 2 or below except lube oil, which fell within the Class 3 range. However, because all parameters are below MTCA, the material can be used as onsite fill. Since it is likely that this will be typical of the soil contaminate levels for the duration of the project, the City has instructed the Contractor to re -use the top 4 feet of excavated material as backfill for the project. Ecology Reporting As required by DOE, the City has ninety (90) calendar days from the date of discovery to notify Ecology of the contamination. HWA will prepare and submit the report to DOE within the ninety -day reporting period. Contractor Liability Coluccio has requested the City provide a letter of "Liability Release to FCCC" as their position is that they are not the responsible party for any claims that may result of excavating, storing on private property, and hauling contaminated material at the City's direction (see attached letter dated October 27, 2004). They have liability concerns. They state that DOE considers potential liable persons as anyone who arranged for disposal or treatment of hazardous substances at a contaminated site and anyone who transported hazardous substances for disposal or treatment at a contaminated site. Coluccio has also provided the Department of Ecology's Focus 94-129, which explains the Model Toxics Control Act Cleanup Regulation and Policy 300, Toxics Cleanup Program Policy. HAFile Sys\SWP - Surface Water Projects\SWP-27 - Surface Water Projects (CIP)\27-2959 SW 7th St. Drainage Improvement Project\Phase 11 Construction\1600 Construction\1003 City Correspondence\Contamination\Larry memo.doc November 24, 2004 Page 4 of 4 If we legally can provide the letter of liability release, please prepare the letter. Please determine if the City can usually release FCCC from liability from claims that may result from their handling of the contaminated material. Legal Action Should the City pursue legal action against the party(ies) responsible for the contamination? At a minimum, it would involve hiring a consultant to research the DOE archives to determine past cleanup sites in the vicinity of the project. The breakdown of the City's total cost to date as a result of the contamination is: Disposal $52,000 Transporting material $10,000 Contractor downtime $15,000 Consultant $12,000 Industrial Hygienist $1,000 Subtotal: $90,000 Markup (10%): $9,000 Subtotal: $99,000 Sales Tax (8.8%) $8,712 Total: $107,712 These are just estimates and costs could be higher depending on discovery of additional contaminated material. Conclusion Please provide legal and risk management guidance directing us how to respond to Coluccio's request for their release of liability for any potential contamination claims due to this project. Also, whether the City should pursue any potential legal action against the undetermined soil contaminator, if any. Attachments Exhibits A, B, C, & D Coluccio letter dated Oct. 27, 2004 cc: Lys Hornsby Ron Straka Allen Quynn H:\File Sys\SWP - Surface Water Projects\SWP-27 - Surface Water Projects (CIP)\27-2959 SW 7th St. Drainage Improvement Project\Phase II Construction\I600 Construction\1003 City Correspondence\Contamination\Larry memo.doc 97 WE MIA PKEMIM" �16� Mow. vw NLWZ Exhibit A Analyte Results (Sample 1/Sample 2) Units Class 2 MTCA TPH gasoline 48/<3 parts/million 5-100 30/100* TPH diesel ND (<25/<25) parts/million 25-200 2000 Benzene ND (<0.06/<0.03) parts/million 0.005-0.5 0.03 Toluene ND (<O.1/<0.05) parts/million 0.005-40 7 Xylenes ND (<0.4/<0.2) parts/million 0.005-20 9 Ethylbenzene ND (<0.1/<.05) parts/million 0.005-20 6 Heavy Lube Oil ND (<50/<50) parts/million 60-200 2000 *Note: If not Benzene detected, use 100 for TPH gasoline under MTCA standards. HAFile Sys\SWP - Surface Water Projects\SWP-27 - Surface Water Projects (CIP)\27-2959 SW 7th St. Drainage Improvement Project\Phase 11 Construction\1600 Construction\1003 City Correspondence\Contamination\Larry memo Exhibits.doc\AQ\tb Exhibit B Analyte Results (Sample 3/Sample 4) Units Class 2 MTCA TPH gasoline 370/100 parts/million 5-100 30/100* TPH diesel 91 /25 parts/million 25-200 2000 Benzene ND (<O.12/0.03) parts/million 0.005-0.5 0.03 Toluene 19/0.4 parts/million 0.005-40 7 Xylenes 1.0/0.2 parts/million 0.005-20 9 Ethylbenzene 1.0/0.2 parts/million 0.005-20 6 Heavy Lube Oil 60/ND parts/million 60-200 2000 *Note: If not Benzene detected, use 100 for TPH gasoline under MTCA standards. HA\File Sys\SWP - Surface Water Projects\SWP-27 - Surface Water Projects (CIP)\27-2959 SW 7th St. Drainage Improvement Project\Phase II Construction\] 600 Construction\1003 City Correspondence\Contamination\Larry memo Exhibits.doc\AQ\tb Exhibit C Analyte Results (Sample 1/Sample 2) Units Class 2 MTCA TPH gasoline ND/ND parts/million 5-100 30/100* TPH diesel 24/ND parts/million 25-200 2000 Benzene ND (<0.03/<0.03) parts/million 0.005-0.5 0.03 Toluene . ND (<0.02/<0.05) parts/million 0.005-40 7 Xylenes ND (<0.4/<0.02) parts/million 0.005-20 9 Ethylbenzene ND (<0.05/<.05) parts/million 0.005-20 6 Heavy Lube Oil 170/ND parts/million 60-200 2000 *Note: If not Benzene detected, use 100 for TPH gasoline under MTCA standards. HAFile Sys\SWP - Surface Water Projects\SWP-27 - Surface Water Projects (CIP)\27-2959 SW 7th St. Drainage Improvement Project\Phase II Construction\1600 Construction\1003 City Correspondence\Contamination\Larry memo Exhibits.docWQ\tb Exhibit D Analyte Results (Sample 1) Units Class 2 MTCA TPH gasoline ND parts/million 5-100 30/100* TPH diesel 48 parts/million 25-200 2000 Benzene ND (<0.03) parts/million 0.005-0.5 0.03 Toluene ND (<0.05) parts/million 0.005-40 7 Xylenes ND (<0.02) parts/million 0.005-20 9 Ethylbenzene ND (<0.05) parts/million 0.005-20 6 Heavy Lube Oil 300 parts/million 60-200 2000 *Note: If not Benzene detected, use 100 for TPH gasoline under MTCA standards. HA\File Sys\SWP - Surface Water Projects\SWP-27 - Surface Water Projects (CIP)\27-2959 SW 7th St. Drainage Improvement Project\Phase 11 Construction\I600 Construction\1003 City Correspondence\ContaminationUarry memo Exhibits.doc\AQ\tb LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL Im Frank Coluccio Construction Company SEWERS, WATER MAINS, UTILITIES 9600 Martin Luther King Jr. Way South Seattle, Washington 98118 FR-AN KC-C340L7 (206) 722-5306 Fax (206) 7254764 Allen Quynn Planning/Building/Public Works Department Utility Systems - Fifth Floor 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 WE ARE SENDING YOU: Rl Attached ❑ Shop Drawings Rl Copy of letter ❑ Under separate cover via ❑ Prints ❑ Change Order ❑ Plans ❑ Other Date: October 28, 2004 Job No, COR SWP-27-2959 RE: Contaminated Soil Notification and Liability the following items: ❑ Samples ❑ Specifications COPIES DATE PGS DESCRIPTION 1 10/27/04 2 Letter to Allen Quynn from Heather Meeds on DOE Reporting Requirements May 2001 6 Focus 94-129 — Model Toxics Control Act Cleanup Regulations 1 06/10/04 9 Policy 300 — Toxic Cleanup Program Policy Washington State Department of Ecology THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below: ❑ For Approval ❑ Approved as Submitted ❑ Resubmit copies for approval Q For Your Use ❑ Approved as Noted ❑ Submit copies for distribution ❑ As requested ❑ Returned for corrections ❑ Return corrected prints 0 For review and comment ❑ ❑ FOR BIDS DUE 19_ REMARKS: Allen, Please provide the Following: 1—Copies of all the TCLP Reports associated with the Contaminated Soils for SW 7`h Project. 2—A "Letter of Rele,ase'=from the COR to FCCC with regards to the Contaminated Soils for SW 70' Project. 3 — A Copy of the Letter/Notification between the COR or it's agents, notifying the Department of Energy of the contaminated material discovered on the SW 7`h Project. Please provide the above listed items by 10/31/04 so that we have them prior to the return to work scheduled for 11/01/04. Received By SIGNED: W. Scott Cfemons 10/28/04 t*z,!R P f J R. Scott Clemons Project Manager to g Title ��� 1 "' na ��r Dated / / / 01 N o� t o e`aX o�lc?� October 27, 2004 Mr. Allen Quynn Project Manager City of Renton Planning/Building/Public Works Department Utility Systems - Fifth Floor 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 Re: WA Department of Ecology Reporting Requirements Dear Mr. Quynn: On October 20, 2004 I made a visit to the job site where I became aware of the contaminated soil issue. As there was a strong odor of gasoline present, I made the decision to stop work so that I could have an opportunity to assess the newfound safety and environmental situation. I used a photoionization detector to test the air and found levels of unknown ionizable gases greater than 300 ppm. Further testing has found measurable amounts of the components of gasoline, including benzene. I have attached two Washington Department of Ecology (DOE) publications which contain information regarding several issues of environmental concern that you are obligated to address. 1. Reporting Requirements DOE regulations (WAC 173-340-300(2)) requires the reporting of a hazardous substance release within 90 calendar days of discovery. "Owners and operators are required to report the discovery of a release of hazardous substances that may pose a threat to human health or the environment. Persons other than owners and operators are strongly encouraged to report knowledge of any release to the environment." Frank Coluccio Construction Company (FCCC) is neither an Owner nor an Operator and is not required to report the presence of contaminated soils at the project site. However, it is our interpretation that as the owner of the property, the City of Renton has a legal obligation to contact DOE and report that a hazardous substance release has occurred. We believe 9600 M. L. King Way South • Seattle, Washington 98118-5693 • (206) 722-5306 • Fax (206) 725A764 • FR AN-KC-C340L7 that FCCC has a secondary obligation to report this release. Please provide FCCC with a copy of the report that you have filed pursuant to the DOE regulations and the WAC. 2. Determination of Hazardous/Dangerous Waste DOE requires that contaminated soil be subject to testing using the toxicity characteristic leaching procedure (TCLP) in order to determine if the soil should be classified as a dangerous waste. Preliminary air sampling has found benzene at a concentration that is above the Washington State Department of Labor and Industries Action Level. It stands to reason that the source of the benzene in the air is from the contaminated soil. If benzene is present in the soil at sufficient levels, then the contaminated soil may need to be reclassified as a dangerous waste. Have the soil samples been tested using TCLP? If the soil meets the hazardous waste disposal requirements, then does that require the use of 40-hour hazardous waste trained personnel? 3. Potentially Liable Persons According to DOE, any past or present relationship with a contaminated site may result in liability. Their list of potential liable persons (PLP) includes "anyone who arranged for disposal or treatment of hazardous substances at the site" and "anyone who transported hazardous substance for disposal or treatment at a contaminated site". As FCCC has been involved in the arrangements and the actual transport and disposal of contaminated soils for the City of Renton, this raises future liability issues for the Company that need to be addressed. As Safety Director, it is my duty is to protect the FCCC and its employees from physical harm and liability. It is not my intention to cause further delay in the project schedule or threaten the City of Renton with "whistle blowing". I hope that you can provide me with the necessary information so that these environmental issues may be laid to rest as soon as possible. Thank you for you immediate attention to this matter. Please feel free to call me on my cell phone ((206) 793-0974) if you need further information or wish to discuss this matter. Best regards, 4- xq4-( Heather Meeds, CIH Safety Director Encl. r� Focus NASN106T 00 STATF I FART HF MT OF ECOLOGY Model Toxics Control Act Cleanup Regulation: Process for Cleanup of Hazardous Waste Sites In March of 1989, an innovative, citizen -mandated toxic waste cleanup law went into effect in Washington, changing the way hazardous waste sites in this state are cleaned up. Passed by voters as Initiative 97, this law is known as the Model Toxics Control Act, chapter 70.105D RCW. This fact sheet provides a brief overview of the process for the cleanup of contami- nated sites under the rules Ecology adopted to implement that Act (chapter 173-340 WAC). How the Law Works The cleanup of hazardous waste sites is complex and expensive. In an effort to avoid the confusion and delays associated with the federal Superfund program, the Model Toxics Control Act is designed to be as streamlined as possible. It sets strict cleanup standards to ensure that the quality of cleanup and protection of human health and the environment are not compromised. At the same time, the rules that guide cleanup under the Act have built-in flexibility to allow cleanups to be addressed on a site -specific basis. The Model Toxics Control Act funds hazardous waste cleanup through a tax on the wholesale value of hazardous substances. The tax is imposed on the first in -state possessor of hazardous substances at the rate of 0.7 percent, or $7 per $1,000. Since its passage in 1988, the Act has guided the cleanup of thousands of hazardous waste sites that dot the Washington landscape. The Washington State Department of Ecology's Toxic Cleanup Program ensures that these sites are investigated and cleaned up. What Constitutes a Hazardous Waste Site? Any owner or operator who has information that a hazardous substance has been released to the environment at the owner or operator's facility and may be a threat to human health or the environment must report this information to the Department of Ecology (Ecology). If an "initial investigation" by Ecology confirms fiirther action (such as testing or cleanup) may be necessary, the facility is entered onto either Ecology's "Integrated Site Information System" database or "Leaking Underground Storage Tank" database. These are computerized data- bases used to track progress on all confirmed or suspected contaminated sites in Washington State. All confirmed sites that have not been already voluntarily cleaned up are ranked and placed on the state "Hazardous Sites List." Owners, operators and other persons known to be potentially liable for the cleanup of the site will receive an "Early Notice Letter" from Ecology notifying them that their site is suspected of needing cleanup, and that it is Ecology's policy to work cooperatively with them to accomplish prompt and effective cleanup. May 2001 Ecology is an equal -opportunity employer Revised Focus No. 94-129 Cj printed on recycled paper Who is Responsible for Cleanup? Any past or present relationship with a contaminated site may result in liability. Under the Model Toxics Control Act a potentially liable person can be: ■ A current or past facility owner or operator. ■ Anyone who arranged for disposal or treatment of hazardous substances at the site. ■ Anyone who transported hazardous substances for disposal or treatment at a contaminated site, unless the facility could legally receive the hazardous materials at the time of transport. ■ Anyone who sells a hazardous substance with written instructions for its use, and abiding by the instructions results in contamination. In situations where there is more than one potentially liable person, each person is jointly and severally liable for cleanup at the site. That means each person can be held liable for the entire cost of cleanup. In cases where there is more than one potentially liable person at a site, Ecology encourages these persons to get together to negotiate how the cost of cleanup will be shared among all potentially liable persons. Ecology must notify anyone it knows may be a "potentially liable person" and allow an opportunity for comment before making any further determination on that person's liability. The comment period may be waived at the potentially liable person's request or if Ecology has to conduct emergency cleanup at the site. Achieving Cleanups through Cooperation Although Ecology has the legal authority to order a liable party to clean up, the department prefers to achieve cleanups cooperatively. Ecology believes that a non -adversarial relationship with potentially liable persons improves the prospect for prompt and efficient cleanup. The rules implementing the Model Toxics Control Act, which were developed by Ecology in consultation with the Science Advisory Board (created by the Act), and representatives from citizen, environmental and business groups and government agencies, are designed to: ■ Encourage independent cleanups initiated by potentially liable persons, thus providing for quicker cleanups with less legal complexity. ■ Encourage an open process for the public, local government and liable parties to discuss cleanup options and community concerns. is Facilitate cooperative cleanup agreements rather than Ecology -initiated orders. Ecology can, and does, however use enforcement tools in emergencies or with recalcitrant potentially liable persons. What is the Potentially Liable Person's Role in Cleanup? The Model Toxics Control Act requires potentially liable persons to assume responsibility for cleaning up contaminated sites. For this reason, Ecology does not usually conduct the actual cleanup when a potentially liable person can be identified. Rather, Ecology oversees the cleanup of sites to ensure that investigations, public involvement and actual cleanup and monitoring are done appropriately. Ecology's costs of this oversight are required to be paid by the liable party. When contamination is confirmed at the site, the owner or operator may decide to proceed with cleanup without Ecology assistance or approval. Such "independent cleanups" are -2- allowed under the Model Toxics Control Act under most circumstances, but must be reported to Ecology, and are done at the owner's or operator's own risk. Ecology may require additional cleanup work at these sites to bring them into compliance with the state cleanup standards. Most cleanups in Washington are done independently. Potentially liable persons conducting independent cleanups do not have access to financial assistance from Ecology. Those who plan to seek contributions from other persons to help pay for cleanup costs need to be sure their cleanup is "the substantial equivalent of a department -conducted or department -supervised remedial action." Ecology has provided guidance on how to meet this requirement in WAC 173-340-545. Persons interested in pursuing a private contribution action on an independent cleanup should carefully review this guidance prior to conducting site work. Working with Ecology to Achieve Cleanup Ecology and potentially liable persons often work cooperatively to reach cleanup solutions. Options for working with Ecology include formal agreements such as consent decrees and agreed orders, and seeking technical assistance through the Voluntary Cleanup Program. These mechanisms allow Ecology to take an active role in cleanup, providing help to potentially liable persons and minimizing costs by ensuring the job meets state standards the first time. This also minimizes the possibility that additional cleanup will be required in the future — providing significant assurances to investors and lenders. Here is a summary of the most common mechanisms used by Ecology: ■ Voluntary Cleanup Program: Many property owners choose to cleanup their sites independent of Ecology oversight. This allows many smaller or less complex sites to be cleaned up quickly without having to go through a formal process. A disadvantage to property owners is that Ecology does not approve the cleanup. This can present a problem to property owners who need state approval of the cleanup to satisfy a buyer or lender. One option to the property owner wanting to conduct an independent cleanup yet still receive some feedback from Ecology is to request a technical consultation through Ecology's Voluntary Cleanup Program. Under this voluntary program, the property owner submits a cleanup report with a fee to cover Ecology's review costs. Based on the review, Ecology either issues a letter stating that the site needs "No Further Action" or identifies what additional work is needed. Since Ecology is not directly involved in the site cleanup work, the level of certainty in Ecology's response is less than in a consent decree or agreed order. However, many persons have found a "No Further Action" letter to be sufficient for their needs, making the Voluntary Cleanup Program a popular option. Consent Decrees: A consent decree is a formal legal agreement filed in court. The work requirements in the decree and the terms under which it must be done are negotiated and agreed to by the potentially liable person, Ecology and the state Attorney General's office. Before consent decrees can become final, they must undergo a public review and comment period that typically includes a public hearing. Consent decrees protect the potentially liable person from being sued for "contribution" by other persons that incur cleanup expenses at the site while facilitating any contribution claims against the other persons when they are responsible for part of the cleanup costs. Sites cleaned up under a consent decree are also exempt from having to obtain certain state and local permits that could delay the cleanup. -3- ■ De Minimus Consent Decree: Landowners whose contribution to site contamination is "insignificant in amount and toxicity" may be eligible for a de minimus consent decree. In these decrees, the landowner typically settles their liability by paying for some of the cleanup instead of actually conducting the cleanup work. Ecology usually accepts a de minimus settlement proposal only if the landowner is affiliated with a larger site cleanup that Ecology is currently working on. ■ Prospective Purchaser Consent Decree: A consent decree may also be available for a "prospective purchaser" of contaminated property. In this situation, a person who is not already liable for cleanup and wishes to purchase a cleanup site for redevelopment or reuse may apply to negotiate a prospective purchaser consent decree. The applicant must show, among other things, that they will contribute substantial new resources towards the cleanup. Cleanups that also have a substantial public benefit will receive a higher priority for prospective purchaser agreements. If the application is accepted, the requirements for cleanup are negotiated and specified in a consent decree so that the purchaser can better estimate the cost of cleanup before buying the land. ■ Agreed Orders: Unlike a consent decree, an agreed order is not filed in court and is not a settlement. Rather, it is a legally binding, administrative order issued by Ecology and agreed to by the potentially liable person. Agreed orders are available for remedial investigations, feasibility studies, and final cleanups. An agreed order describes the site activities that must occur for Ecology to agree not to take enforcement action for that phase of work. As with consent decrees, agreed orders are subject to public review and offer the advantage of facilitating contribution claims against other persons and exempting cleanup work from obtaining certain state and local permits. Ecology -Initiated Cleanup Orders Administrative orders requiring cleanup activities without an agreement with a potentially liable person are known as enforcement orders. These orders are usually issued to a potentially liable person when Ecology believes a cleanup solution cannot be achieved expeditiously through negotiation or if an emergency exists. If the responsible party fails to comply with an enforcement order, Ecology can clean up the site and later recover costs from the responsible person(s) at up to three times the amount spent. The state Attorney General's Office may also seek a fine of up to $25,000 a day for violating an order. Enforcement orders are subject to public notification. Financial Assistance Each year, Ecology provides millions of dollars in grants to local governments to help pay for the cost of site cleanup. In general, such grants are available only for sites where the cleanup work is being done under an order or decree. Ecology can also provide grants to local governments to help defray the cost of replacing a public water supply well contaminated by a hazardous waste site. Grants are also available for local citizen groups and neighborhoods affected by contaminated sites to facilitate public review of the cleanup. See Chapter 173-322 WAC for additional information on grants to local governments and Chapter 173-321 WAC for additional information on public participation grants. Public Involvement Public notices are required on all agreed orders, consent decrees and enforcement orders. Public notification is also required for all Ecology -conducted remedial actions. -4- Ecology's Site Register is a widely used means of providing information about cleanup efforts to the public and is one way of assisting community involvement. The Site Register is pub- lished every two weeks to inform citizens of public meetings and comment periods, discus- sions or negotiations of legal agreements, and other cleanup activities. Persons affected by contaminated sites and needing additional information on the Act, cleanup standards, or risk assessment can call Ecology's Citizen Technical Advisor toll free at 1-800-826-7716. The Site Register can be accessed on the Internet at: www.ecy.wa.gov/projzrams/tcp/pub inv/pub inv2.html. How Sites are Cleaned U The rules describing the cleanup process at a hazardous waste site are in chapter 173-340 WAC. The following is a general description of the steps taken during the cleanup of an average hazardous waste site. Consult the rules for the specific requirements for each step in the cleanup process. 1. Site Discovery: Sites where contamination is found must be reported to Ecology's Toxics Cleanup Program within 90 days of discovery, unless it involves a release of hazardous materials from an underground storage tank system. In that case, the site discovery must be reported to Ecology within 24 hours. At this point, potentially liable persons may choose to conduct independent cleanup without assistance from the department, but cleanup results must be reported to Ecology. 2. Initial Investigation: Ecology is required to conduct an initial investigation of the site within 90 days of receiving a site discovery report. Based on information obtained about the site, a decision must be made within 30 days to determine if the site requires additional investigation, emergency cleanup, or no further action. If further action is required under the Model Toxics Control Act, Ecology sends early notice letters to owners, operators and other potentially liable persons inviting them to work cooperatively with the department. 4. Hazard Ranking: The Model Toxics Control Act requires that 3. Site Hazard Assessment: A sites be ranked according to the relative health and environmental risk site hazard assessment is conducted each site poses. Working with the Science Advisory Board, Ecology to confirm the presence of hazardous created the Washington Ranking Method to categorize sites using data substances and to determine the from site hazard assessments. Sites are ranked on a scale of I to 5. A relative risk the site poses to human score of I represents the highest level of risk and 5 the lowest. health and the environment. Ranked sites are placed on the state Hazardous Sites List. 5. Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study: A remedial investigation and feasibility study is conducted to define the extent and magnitude of contamination at the site. Potential impacts on human health and the environment and alternative cleanup technologies are also evaluated in this study. Sites being cleaned up by Ecology or by potentially liable persons under a consent decree, agreed order or enforcement order are required to provide for a 30 day public review before finalizing the report. 6. Selection of Cleanup Action: Using information gathered during the study, a cleanup action plan is developed. The plan identifies preferred cleanup methods and specifies cleanup standards and other requirements at the site. A draft of the plan is subject to public review and comment before it is finalized. 7. Site Cleanup: Actual cleanup begins when the cleanup action plan is implemented. This includes design, construction, operation and monitoring of cleanup actions. A site may be taken off the Hazardous Sites List after cleanup is completed and Ecology determines cleanup standards have been met. -5- For More Information / Special Accommodation Needs If you would like more information about the state Model Toxics Control Act, please call us toll -free at 1-800-826-7716, or contact your regional Washington State Department of Ecology office listed below. Information about site cleanup, including a listing of ranked hazardous waste sites, is also accessible through our Internet address: http://www.ecy.wa. ov/pro raQ ms/tcp/cleanLap.htmi ■ Northwest Regional Office 425/649-7000 (voice) / 206/649-4259 (TDD) (Island, King, Kitsap, San Juan, Skagit, Snohomish, Whatcom Counties) ■ Southwest Regional Office 360/407-6300 (voice) / 360/407-6306 (TDD) (Southwestern Washington, Olympic Peninsula, Pierce, Thurston and Mason Counties) ■ Central Regional Office 509/575-2490 (voice) / 509/454-7673 (TDD) (Benton, Chelan, Douglas, Kittitas, Klickitat, Okanogan, Yakima Counties) ■ Eastern Regional Office 509/456-2926 (voice) / 509/458-2055 (TDD) (Adams, Asotin, Columbia, Ferry, Franklin, Garfield, Grant, Lincoln, Pend Oreille, Spokane, Stevens, Walla Walla, Whitman Counties) If you have special accommodation needs or require this publication in alternative format, please contact Carol Esget at (360) 40 7- 7224 (Voice) or (360) 407-6006 (TDD). Disclaimer Notice: This fact sheet is intended to help the user understand the Model Toxics Control Act Cleanup Regulation, chapter 173-340 WAC. It does not establish or modify regulatory requirements. ala� lemma qINFOM WASNIN 6I DN SIA1E D E P ANI NE NI 01 ECOLOGY Policy 300 Resource Contact: Policy and Technical Support Staff Effective: April 8, 1992 References: Cancels Policies 101 and 102 Revised: June 10, 2004 Policy 300 Site Discovery —Reporting Releases The Model Toxics Control Act (MTCA), Chapter 70.105D RCW, requires the Department of Ecology (Ecology) to establish a program to identify sites potentially contaminated with hazardous substances. That program is set forth in WAC 173-340-300, which is part of the MTCA Cleanup Regulation, chapter 173-340 WAG. Under that program, Ecology requires owners and operators to report releases of hazardous substances occurring as consequence of past practices. Releases occurring as a consequence of current practices must be reported under other authorities. Ecology believes it is in the interest of the state and the public in the vicinity of contaminated sites to be informed of these sites, and encourages all persons to report any discovery of a release of hazardous substances to the environment. This policy provides guidance on the types of releases that should be reported under WAC 173-340-300 and the procedures for reporting such releases. 1. Owners And Operators Are Required To Report Releases. Owners and operators are required to report the discovery of a release of hazardous substances that may pose a threat to human health or the environment. Persons other than owners and operators are strongly encouraged to report knowledge of any release to the environment. 2. Releases Must Be Reported Within A Specified Time Period. A. For confirmed releases from Underground Storage Tanks (UST) regulated under chapter 90.76 RCW, the release must be reported within 24 hours of discovery (WAC 173-340-450(2)). B. For other releases of hazardous substances, the release must be reported within ninety (90) calendar days of discovery (WAC 173-340-300(2)). However, pursuant to WAC 173-340-515 (4)(c), if an independent remedial action is completed within ninety (90) calendar days of discovery, a single written report may be submitted on both the release and the action taken. The combined report must include the information specified in WAC 173-340-515(4)(b) and be submitted within ninety (90) calendar days of completion of the remedial action. For additional information regarding the reporting of independent remedial actions, see WAC 173-340-515(4) and POL 515, Independent Remedial Actions. Page 1 of 9 Revised.• 6110104 Policy 300: Site Discovery — Reporting Releases 3. Some Releases Are Exempt From The Reporting Requirement. Pursuant to WAC 173-340-300(3), the following releases of hazardous substances are exempt from the reporting requirements, and therefore do not need to be reported to Ecology: A. Application of pesticides and fertilizers for their intended purposes and according to label instructions; B. Lawful and non -negligent use of hazardous substances by a natural person ("unincorporated individual") for personal or domestic purposes; C. A release in accordance with a permit that authorizes that release; D. A release previously reported to Ecology in fulfillment of a reporting requirement in chapter 173-340 WAC or in another law or regulation; E. A release previously reported to the United States Environmental Protection Agency under CERCLA ("Superfund"), Section 103(c) (42 U.S.C. Sec. 9603(c)); F. A direct release to the air from an industrial or commercial process or operation; Note: Release that is exempt from the reporting requirements should still be reported to the local air pollution control agency, which for some counties is the Ecology regional office. G. Releases discovered in public water systems regulated by the Department of Health (rules governing the reporting of these releases to the Department of Health are in chapter 246-290 WAC); or H. A release to a permitted wastewater facility. These exemptions are intended primarily to avoid duplicate reporting requirements. An exemption from the reporting requirements is not a release from liability under RCW 70.105 D.040. 4. When Determining Whether A Release Has Occurred, Persons Should Rely On Physical Evidence. Persons should rely on available physical evidence to determine whether hazardous substances have been released to the environment. If there is physical evidence that a release has occurred, then the release must be reported if it may be a threat to human health or the environment (see Section 5 of this policy). The release report submitted to Ecology should be based on physical evidence. Examples of physical evidence include visual observations, readings from field instruments, and lab data. Ecology does not expect that additional testing be performed for the purpose of complying with the reporting requirements of WAC 173-340-300 or this policy, only that available information is provided. 5. When Determining Whether A Release Should Be Reported, Persons Should Use "Best Professional Judgment." To determine whether a release of hazardous substances poses a threat, or potential threat, to human health or the environment, persons should use their "best professional judgment." In making this determination, persons are expected to use the regulation Revised.• 06110104 Page 2 of 9 Policy 300 Site Discovery — Reporting Releases (Chapter 173-340 WAC), the guidance contained in this policy, and their professional training and experience. To assist persons in making this determination, Section 6 of this policy describes several situations where the release of hazardous substances is presumed to pose a threat, or potential threat, to human health or the environment. Ecology recognizes that hazardous substances can be found at almost any commercial or industrial facility. The presence of such substances does not necessarily mean that a release has occurred. Even if a release has occurred, the release may not need to be reported under MTCA, either because the release does not pose a threat or because the release is regulated under another authority. For example, the presence of asbestos in a building, scrap metal at a commercial facility, litter along a roadway, or hazardous substances in wastewater conveyance systems do not need to be reported under MTCA. If you determine, based on your best professional judgment, that the release does not pose a threat or potential threat, then you do not need to report the release. When an environmental consultant recommends that a site be reported to Ecology, the owner/operator must report that site to Ecology. Failure to report a site is a violation of the law and could result in enforcement action. If you are not sure if a release should be reported, you should report the release to Ecology. You may contact Ecology if you need assistance in determining whether or not to report a release. A map of Ecology's regional offices can be found at http://www.ecy.wa. og v/org html. 6. Ecology Has Determined That Certain Types Of Releases Should Be Reported. Ecology has determined that the following types of releases of hazardous substances pose a threat, or potential threat, to human health or the environment, and therefore should be reported under WAC 173-340-300. These types of releases are presumed to pose a threat, or potential threat, based on the risk assessment process set forth in chapter 173-340 WAC. Note that the guidance contained in this section of the policy, which reflects the guidance provided in WAC 173-340-300(2)(b), does not provide an exhaustive list of releases that should be reported. Other types of releases not described herein may also pose a threat, or potential threat, to human health or the environment and should be reported. The purpose of this guidance is merely to provide some examples of obvious situations that should be reported under WAC 173-340-300. A. Releases to ground water or surface water causing a health hazard based on ingestion; Finding any hazardous substance in potable ground water, or surface water classified as suitable for use as drinking water supply under chapter 173-201A WAC, in excess of the natural background and any one of the following applicable federal or state standards: Page 3 of 9 Revised: 06110104 Policy 300: Site Discovery — Reporting Releases i. Maximum contaminant levels (MCL) established under the Safe Drinking Water Act and published in 40 C.F.R. Part 141; ii. Maximum contaminant level goals (MCLG) for non carcinogens established under the Safe Drinking Water Act and published in 40 C.F.R. Part 141; or iii. Maximum contaminant levels (MCL) established by the Department of Health and published in chapter chapter 246-290 WAC. This includes ground water both inside and outside the facility boundaries. Pursuant to WAC 246-290-480, if contamination is found in a public water supply in excess of the MCL established by the Department of Health, the water purveyor is also required to report the contamination to the Department of Health. B. Release to surface water; Finding any hazardous substance in surface water or sediment, including run-off leaving a facility, at levels exceeding the natural background level and any one of the following federal or state ambient water quality criteria that are based on the protection of human health or aquatic organisms: i. State water quality criteria published in chapter 173-201A WAC; ii. Federal water quality criteria published in the National Toxics Rule, 40 C.F.R. Part 131; or iii. Federal water quality criteria established under section 304 of the Clean Water Act (see http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/standards/Wgcriteria.html) iv. Marine sediment quality standards chemical criteria — Table 1 in WAC 173- 204-320 Example: There is an unpennitted leachate seep from an area of fill at a landfill. As discussed in Section 3 of this policy, permitted discharges do not need to be reported under MTCA. However, spills must be reported immediately under state water quality laws. C. Releases to the air causing a health hazard based on inhalation: L Indoor Air Finding any vapors in a building, utility vault, or other structure that appear to be entering the structure from nearby contaminated soil or ground water. • Example: Finding vapors in a building (or other structure) originating from nearby contaminated soil or ground water that might require workers to wear respirators or self-contained breathing apparatus (SCBA). Revised.• 06110104 Page 4 of 9 Policy 300 Site Discovery — Reporting Releases Example: Finding vapors in a building (or other structure) originating from nearby contaminated soil or ground water at concentrations that pose an explosive hazard. For the purposes of this policy, hazardous substance concentrations exceeding 10% of the lower explosive limit (LEL) pose an explosive hazard. For example, gasoline vapor originating from a leaking tank and in excess of 1,000 ppm (10% of LEL) should be reported. ii. Ambient Air Finding vapors in the ambient air or in the soil exceeding natural background levels that appear to be originating from waste material or from contaminated soil, sediment or water. Example: Finding vapors in the ambient air or in the soil originating from waste material or from contaminated soil, sediment or water that might require workers (such as those installing underground utilities) to wear respirators or self-contained breathing apparatus (SCBA). Exam le: Finding vapors in the ambient air or in the soil originating from waste material or from contaminated soil, sediment or water that pose an explosive hazard. For the purposes of this policy, hazardous substance concentrations exceeding 10% of the lower explosive limit (LEL) pose an explosive hazard. For example, methane originating from decomposing waste and in excess of 5,000 ppm (10% of LEL) should be reported. If the gas is collected and controlled by a venting system approved by Ecology, then no additional reporting is necessary. As discussed in Section 3 of this policy, releases of hazardous substances to the air originating from an industrial or commercial process or operation do not need to be reported under MTCA. However, such releases should still be reported to the local air pollution control agency, which for some counties is the Ecology regional office. D. Sites where hazardous substances have been leaked or dumped on the ground; • Example: Finding waste materials or contaminated soil at levels that could cause immediate injury such as burning the skin or causing damage to vegetation or wildlife. • Example: Transformer leaks and leaks from industrial process lines or storage tanks. • Example: Spillage or dumping of chemicals on the ground. • Example: Heavily stained soil or soil with a strong odor. E. Releases resulting in the formation of free product; Page 5 of 9 Revised: 06110104 Policy 300: Site Discovery — Reporting Releases Finding unconfined petroleum product or other organic liquids (as a "free" liquid) on the ground or in the ground water. Example: Diesel fuel found floating on the ground water table or solvents puddling around a drum on the ground. This situation is not intended to include the incidental surface spillage that occurs at a service station during vehicle refueling. F. Releases of dangerous wastes; Finding a site where solid wastes designated as dangerous wastes, have been released to the environment without a permit or not in accordance with a permit. • Example — Industrial Waste: Finding wastes from commercial or industrial operation (such as sludge from a wastewater treatment plant or dust from a bag house) that have been abandoned or disposed of without a permit. • Example — Unexploded Ordnance: Military munitions discharged during military activities and left in place at a firing range at the time the range is closed or transferred constitute "discarded materials" and therefore "solid wastes." If those discharged munitions remain unexploded, then those munitions (unexploded ordnance) also constitute "dangerous wastes" because those munitions exhibit one or more dangerous waste characteristics. As defined in WAC 173-303-040, a "dangerous waste" is any solid waste designated in WAC 173-303-070 through 173-303-100 as a dangerous, or extremely hazardous or mixed waste. As defined in WAC 173-303-016, a "solid waste" is any discarded material, not excluded under WAC 173-303-017, which has been i. Abandoned; ii. Recycled; iii. Considered inherently waste -like; or iv. Military munition identified as a solid waste at WAC 173-303-578(2). Under WAC 173-303-070, to determine whether the "solid waste" is also a "dangerous waste," one must i. Determine whether the waste is a listed discarded chemical product in accordance with WAC 173-303-081; Revised.• 06110104 Page 6 of 9 Policy 300 Site Discovery — Reporting Releases ii. Determine whether the waste is a listed dangerous waste source in accordance with WAC 173-303-082; iii. Determine whether the waste exhibits any dangerous waste characteristics (listed below) in accordance with WAC 173-303-090; and • Ignitability; • Reactivity; • Corrosivity; and • Toxicity. iv. Determine whether the waste meets any dangerous waste criteria (listed below) in accordance with WAC 173-303-100. • Toxicity; and • Persistence. For more information regarding the identification of solid wastes and the designation of dangerous wastes, please refer to chapter 173-303 WAC and the following fact sheet published by the Hazardous Waste and Toxics Reduction Program: "Designating Dangerous Waste," Pub #96-436 (revised Dec. 2002). G. Contaminated soil designated as dangerous waste; Finding any contaminated soil which upon removal, would be designated as a dangerous waste under the Dangerous Waste Regulations, chapter 173-303 WAC. For guidance regarding the designation of dangerous wastes, see above. Example: In the process of installing an underground utility, a worker encounters a dark soil with a strong gasoline odor. The soil is stockpiled and sampled. It is found to fail the toxicity characteristic leaching procedure (TCLP) test for benzene, requiring it to be handled and disposed of as a hazardous waste. The release should be reported to Ecology. H. Abandonment of containers of hazardous substances; Finding any abandoned containers, such as drums or tanks, located above or below ground, still containing more than trace residuals of hazardous substances. Abandoned drums and tanks that potentially contain hazardous substances should be checked only by environmental professionals. For the purposes of this policy, "abandoned" means not being managed in accordance with the Dangerous Waste Regulations, Chapter 173-303 WAC. Page 7 of 9 Revised.• 06110104 Policy 300: Site Discovery — Reporting Releases NOTE: Caution! Drums or tanks containing even trace levels of many contaminants can explode or emit toxic vapors. Do not open or enter these tanks or drums without proper training and protective equipment. I. Release from regulated underground storage tanks (UST); Finding any release from an underground storage tank regulated under chapter 90.76 RCW, including those tanks containing petroleum (e.g., gasoline and diesel) or other "regulated substances" (see definition in WAC 173-360-120). J. Finding a site where unpermitted industrial waste disposal has occurred at a location not permitted for the disposal of these wastes. For example, finding an industrial waste dump site for ash, slag, sludge or similar materials. K. Finding any other situation where, because of site -specific circumstances, there is a potential threat to human health or the environment due to the release of hazardous substances. 7. The Release Report Must Include Certain Information, If Known. Persons may submit the release report to Ecology in writing or over the telephone. The release report must include the following information, if known: A. The name(s) and address(es) of the owner and operator of the site; B. The location of the site (street address, and latitude/longitude if available); C. The hazardous substances released and their location (latitude/longitude if available); D. The circumstances of the release and the discovery of the release (including how and when the release occurred and was discovered); E. The results of all remedial investigations and cleanup actions; F. The results of any compliance monitoring planned or underway; and G. If a restrictive covenant has been placed on the property deed as part of the remedial action, a copy of the covenant that the County has stamped with a filing number. Ecology may request additional information be provided and may specify that written documentation be submitted. If multiple releases have occurred and the above information is unavailable for each occurrence, a report summarizing the current site conditions may be submitted in fulfillment of these requirements. 8. Persons Must Submit The Release Report To The Appropriate Ecology Regional Office. Revised.• 06110104 Page 8 of 9 Policy 300 Site Discovery — Reporting Releases Persons must submit the release report to the Toxics Cleanup Program in the Ecology regional office responsible for the County where the site is located. A map of Ecology's regional offices can be found at http://www.ecy.wa.,gov/org.htmi. 9. Ecology Must Respond To The Release Report Consistent With WAC 173-340-300(5). Approved.• Pursuant to WAC 173-340-300(5) and 173-340-310(2), Ecology must determine whether an initial investigation is required based on the information in the report and other available information. If Ecology determines that an initial investigation is required, then Ecology must conduct an initial investigation within 90 days of receiving the release report. For further information regarding the performance of an initial investigation, see WAC 173-340-310 and POL 310A, Initial investigations. James J. Pendowski, Program Manager Toxics Cleanup Program Page 9 of 9 Revised: 06110104 �,;ff -�� DEC 0 �+ 'fT UTILiTITv, s s9 ,� CITY OF RENTON .,� Office of the City Attorney -Wheeler, �4ayor Lawrence J. Warren Kathy Keolker Assistant City Attorneys Mark Barber Zanetta L. Fontes Ann S. Nielsen Sasha P. Alessi Whitney A. Faulkner MEMORANDUM To: Gregg A. Zimmerman, PBPW Administrator �EC _ From: Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney DEC Q - - C1Ty � Date: November 30, 2004 PUB�� wpREN�QN Subject: SW 7`h Street Drainage Improvement Project Phase II Soil Contain nai�8'�'N By memo dated November 24, 2004, reaching my office after the Thanksgiving holidays on November 29, 2004 you raise certain issues about soil contamination and how it should be handled. Apparently, our contractor ran into soil contamination in the SW 71h Street Drainage Improvement Project. It was determined that a portion of the contaminated soil could be used for backfill, because of the low level of contaminates, while other soils had to be shipped off site for disposal at an approved disposal facility. You now raise two issues. 1. The contractor, Frank Coluccio Construction Co. wants an indemnity for assisting the City with the excavation, storage and disposal of contaminated material. I would suggest that the work has been already been done, without an indemnification, and that one should not be provided. At the current time, I do not know enough about the issue to suggest an indemnification. I do not know whether the contractor properly handled the material, unnecessarily disturbed it, or disposed of it in an acceptable facility. I find it somewhat odd that the request for the indemnification should come after the work is completed. I can see no advantage to the City in indemnifying the contractor, at this point. 2. The second issue you raise is whether or not the City should pursue those responsible for the contamination to recover the City's costs, which to date have been approximately $108,000. I would need to know more before I can answer this question. As I understand it, from a conversation with Ron Straka on November 29, 2004, the contaminated soil that had to be removed was probably contaminated by a gas station that existed on the SE corner of the intersection of SW 71h and Rainier Avenue South. That is a current location of the Bob Bridge Auto Dealership. In order to pursue a third party, we would have had to have cleaned up the area in a certain manner that is "the substantial equivalent of a department conducted or department supervised remedial action". Guidance on meeting these requirements is provided by WAC 173-340-545, a copy of which is attached. Post Office Box 626 - Renton, Washington 98057 - (425) 255-8678 / FAX (425) 255-5474 R E N T O N 0 This paper contains 50 % recycled material. 30 % post consumer AHEAD OF THE CURVE Gregg A. Zimmerman November 30, 2004 Page - 2 The determination on whether or not to pursue a third party depends first on whether we have met the WAC standard. After that point, the determination would be factually driven. For example, was the service station a mom and pop facility, unassociated with a national or international oil company? Or, was it a franchise station of a national or international oil company? Do we have a factual basis to actually trace the contamination back to that facility? Is all the work to remediate this contamination done, or will DOE require further work? Would it be wise to wait for a while to see if further work is necessary? Perhaps you can have your staff review the attached WAC standard to see if it was followed so that we can seek contribution in the first instance. Then we can start pursuing the answers to the remainder of my questions so that we can make a reasoned decision whether or not to expend further money and staff time in pursuing a third party. Lawrence J.,Warren LJW:tmj T 10.42:06 cc: Jay Covington Ron Straka Allen Quynn if % �earcti - 4 Kesults - 1 /S-J4U-�4J Yage 1 of 4 Source: My Sources > Washington > Statutes & Regulations. > WA -Washington Administrative Code 1i TOC: Washington Administrative Code > / ... / > PART V-- ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES FOR REMEDIAL ACTIONS > WAC 173-340-545. Private rights of action. Terms: 173-340-545 (Edit Search) FSelect for FOCUS TM or Delivery r WAC § 173-340-545 (2004) WASHINGTON ADMINISTRATIVE CODE Copyright © 2004 by The State of Washington and Matthew Bender & Company, Inc., one of the LexisNexis Companies. All rights reserved. *** THIS SECTION IS CURRENT THROUGH JULY 7, 2004 *** TITLE 173. DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY CHAPTER 340. MODEL TOXICS CONTROL ACT -- CLEANUP PART V--ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES FOR REMEDIAL ACTIONS WAC § 173-340-545 (2004) WAC 173-340-545. Private rights of action. (1) Purpose. A private right of action is a legal claim authorized by RCW 70.105D.080 under which a person may recover costs of remedial action from other persons liable under the act. RCW 70.105D.080 limits recovery of remedial action costs to those remedial actions that, when evaluated as a whole, are the substantial equivalent of a department -conducted or department -supervised remedial action. The purpose of this section is to facilitate private rights of action and minimize department staff involvement in these actions by providing guidance to potentially liable persons and the court on what remedial actions the department would consider the substantial equivalent of a department -conducted or department - supervised remedial action. In determining substantial equivalence, the department anticipates the requirements in this section will be evaluated as a whole and that a claim would not be disallowed due to omissions that do not diminish the overall effectiveness of the remedial action. (2) Substantial equivalent. For the purposes of this section, the department considers the following remedial actions to be the substantial equivalent of a department -conducted or department -supervised remedial action. (a) A remedial action conducted by the department; (b) A remedial action that has been or is being conducted under an order or decree and the remedial requirements of the order or decree have been satisfied for those portions of the remedial action for which the private right of action is being sought; or (c) A remedial action that has been conducted as an independent remedial action that includes the following elements: (i) Information on the site and remedial actions conducted has been reported to the department in accordance with WAC 173-340-300, 173-340-450 and 173-340-515, as applicable; (ii) The department has not objected to the remedial action being conducted or any such http://www.lexis.comlresearchlretrieve?_m=c573 ab l aOcOc2239Od4c94b5c883c l 52&docnu... 11 /29/04 Nearch - 4 Kesults - 173-340-545 Page 2 of 4 4 objection has been cured as determined by the court; (iii) Except for emergency remedial actions, before conducting an interim action or cleanup action, reasonable steps have been taken to provide advance public notice; (iv) The remedial actions have been conducted substantially equivalent with the technical standards and evaluation criteria described in subsection (4) of this section; and (v) For facilities where hazardous substances have been disposed of as part of the remedial action, documentation is available indicating where these substances were disposed of and that this disposal was in compliance with applicable state and federal laws. It is not the intent of this provision to require extensive documentation. For example, if the remedial action results in solid wastes being transported off -site for disposal, it would be sufficient to have records indicating the wastes have been disposed of at a permitted solid waste or hazardous waste landfill. (3) Public notice requirements. This subsection shall be used to determine if reasonable steps have been taken to provide advance public notice under subsection (2)(c)(iii) of this section. These public notice procedures apply only to interim actions or cleanup actions conducted as independent remedial actions after December 25, 1993. The notice may be combined with any notices under another law. For interim actions or cleanup actions conducted as independent remedial actions before December 25, 1993, the department recognizes little or no public notification typically occurred because there were no department -specified requirements other than the reporting requirements in this chapter. For these actions, this chapter contains no other specific public notice requirements or guidance, and the court will need to determine such requirements, if any, on a case -by -case basis. For independent remedial actions consisting of site investigations and studies, it is anticipated that public notice would not normally be done since often these early phases of work are to determine if a release even requires an interim action or cleanup action. For the purposes of this section only, unless the court determines other notice procedures are adequate for the site -specific circumstances, the following constitutes adequate public notice for independent remedial actions and supersedes the requirements in WAC 173-340-600: (a) Except for emergency remedial actions, written notification has been mailed at least fifteen days before beginning construction of the interim action or cleanup action to the last known address of the following persons: (i) The department (which shall publish a summary of the notice in the Site Register); (ii) The local jurisdictional health department/district; (iii) The town, city or county with land use jurisdiction; (iv) The land owners identified by the tax assessor at the time the action is begun for that portion of the facility where the interim action or cleanup action is being conducted; and (v) Persons potentially liable under RCW 70.105D.040 known to the person conducting the interim action or cleanup action. In identifying persons potentially liable under RCW 70.105D.040 who are to be noticed under this provision, the person conducting the remedial action need only make a reasonable effort to review information currently readily available. Where the interim action or cleanup action is complex, written notification before beginning detailed design is recommended but not required. For emergency remedial actions, written notice should be provided as soon as practicable; (b) The written notification includes: A brief statement describing the releases being remedied and the interim actions or cleanup actions expected to be conducted; the schedule http://www.lexis.comlresearchlretrieve? m=c573ablaOcOc2239Od4c94b5c883cl52&docnu... 11/29/04 Search - 4 Results - 173-340-545 Page 3 of 4 for these interim actions or cleanup actions; and, for persons potentially liable under RCW 70.105D.040 known to the person conducting the interim actions or cleanup actions, a statement that they could be held liable for the costs of remedial actions being conducted; and (c) Posting a sign at the site at a location visible to the general public indicating what interim actions or cleanup actions are being conducted and identifying a person to contact for more information. Except for emergency remedial actions this sign should be posted not later than the beginning of construction of any interim action or cleanup action and should remain posted for the duration of the construction. For emergency remedial actions posting of a sign should be done as soon as practicable; (4) Technical standards and evaluation criteria. This subsection shall be used to determine if the remedial actions have been conducted substantially equivalent with the technical standards and evaluation criteria contained in this chapter. For the purposes of this section, remedial actions shall be deemed to comply with subsection (2)(c)(iv) of this section if they have been conducted substantially equivalent with the technical standards and evaluation criteria contained in the following sections, where applicable. Except for a restrictive covenant under WAC 173-340-440, where documents are required by the following sections, the documents prepared need not be the same in title or format. Other documents can be used in place of the documents specified in these sections as long as sufficient information is included in the record to serve the same purpose. When using the following sections to determine substantial equivalence it should be recognized that there are often many alternative methods for cleanup of a facility that would comply with these provisions. When this chapter requires a consultation with, or an approval or determination by the department, such a consultation, approval or determination is not necessary for remedial actions to meet the substantial equivalence requirement under this section; however, the remedial action must still be conducted substantially equivalent with the substantive requirements of those provisions. In applying these sections, reference should be made to the other applicable sections of this chapter, with particular attention to WAC 173-340-130 (Administrative principles), WAC 173-340-200 (Definitions), and WAC 173-340-210 (Usage). (a) WAC 173-340-350 (Remedial investigation/feasibility study); (b) WAC 173-340-355 (Development of cleanup action alternatives that include remediation levels); (c) WAC 173-340-357 (Quantitative risk assessment of cleanup action alternatives); (d) WAC 173-340-360 (Selection of cleanup actions); (e) WAC 173-340-380 (Cleanup action plan); (f) WAC 173-340-400 (Cleanup actions); (g) WAC 173-340-410 (Compliance monitoring requirements); (h) WAC 173-340-430 (Interim actions); (i) WAC 173-340-440 (Institutional controls); 0) WAC 173-340-450 (Releases from underground storage tanks); (k) WAC 173-340-700 through 173-340-760 (Cleanup standards); and (1) WAC 173-340-810 through 173-340-850. (General provisions). http://www.lexis.com/research/retrieve?—m--c573abl aOcOc2239Od4c94b5c883c I 52&docnu... 11/29/04 Search - 4 Results - 173-340-545 Page 4 of 4 Statutory Authority: Chapter 70.105D RCW. 01-05-024 (Order 97-09A), § 173-340-545, filed 2/12/01, effective 8/15/01. Source: My Sources > Washington > Statutes & Regulations > WA - Washington Administrative Code [i TOC. Washington Administrative Code > / ... / > PART V-- ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES FOR REMEDIAL ACTIONS > WAC 173-340-545. Private rights of action. Terms: 173-340-545 (Edit Search) View: Full Date/Time: Monday, November 29, 2004 - 7:23 PM EST About LexisNexis I Terms and Conditions Copyright © 2004 LexisNexis, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. http://www.lexis.com/research/retrieve?—m--c573ab I aOcOc2239Od4c94b5c883c I 52&docnu... 11/29/04 % Contamination -OP Los -rq& dMNjp too 'dos&,. now P. Exhibit A Analyte Results (Sample 1/Sample 2) Units Class 2 MTCA TPH gasoline 48/<3 parts/million 5-100 30/100* TPH diesel ND (<25/<25) parts/million 25-200 2000 Benzene ND (<0.06/<0.03) parts/million 0.005-0.5 0.03 Toluene ND (<O.1/<0.05) parts/million 0.005-40 7 Xylenes ND (<0.4/<0.2) parts/million 0.005-20 9 Ethylbenzene ND (<O.1/<.05) parts/million 0.005-20 6 Heavy Lube Oil ND (<50/<50) parts/million 60-200 2000 *Note: If not Benzene detected, use 100 for TPH gasoline under MTCA standards. HAFile Sys\SWP - Surface Water Projects\SWP-27 - Surface Water Projects (CIP)\27-2959 SW 7th St. Drainage Improvement Project\Phase II Construction\1600 Construction\1003 City Correspondence\Contamination\Larry memo Exhibits.doc\AQ\tb Exhibit B Analyte Results (Sample 3/Sample 4) Units Class 2 MTCA TPH gasoline 370/100 parts/million 5-100 30/100* TPH diesel 91/25 parts/million 25-200 2000 Benzene ND (<O.12/0.03) parts/million 0.005-0.5 0.03 Toluene 1.9/0.4 parts/million 0.005-40 7 Xylenes 1.0/0.2 parts/million 0.005-20 9 Ethylbenzene 1.0/0.2 parts/million 0.005-20 6 Heavy Lube Oil 60/ND parts/million 60-200 2000 *Note: If not Benzene detected, use 100 for TPH gasoline under MTCA standards. HAFile Sys\SWP - Surface Water Projects\SWP-27 - Surface Water Projects (CIP)\27-2959 SW 7th St. Drainage Improvement Project\Phase 11 Construction\1600 Construction\1003 City Correspondence\Contamination\Larry memo Exhibits.doc\AQ\tb Exhibit C Analyte Results (Sample 1/Sample 2) Units Class 2 MTCA TPH gasoline ND/ND parts/million 5-100 30/100* TPH diesel 24/ND parts/million 25-200 2000 Benzene ND (<0.03/<0.03) parts/million 0.005-0.5 0.03 Toluene ND (<0.02/<0.05) parts/million 0.005-40 7 Xylenes ND (<0.4/<0.02) parts/million 0.005-20 9 Ethylbenzene ND (<0.05/<.05) parts/million 0.005-20 6 Heavy Lube Oil 170/ND parts/million 60-200 2000 *Note: If not Benzene detected, use 100 for TPH gasoline under MTCA standards. HA\File Sys\SWP - Surface Water Projects\SWP-27 - Surface Water Projects (CIP)\27-2959 SW 7th St. Drainage Improvement Project\Phase H Construction\1600 Construction\1003 City Correspondence\ContaminationU arry memo Exhibits.doc\AQ\tb Exhibit D Analyte Results (Sample 1) Units Class 2 MTCA TPH gasoline ND parts/million 5-100 30/100* TPH diesel 48 parts/million 25-200 2000 Benzene ND (<0.03) parts/million 0.005-0.5 0.03 Toluene ND (<0.05) parts/million 0.005-40 7 Xylenes ND (<0.02) parts/million 0.005-20 9 Ethylbenzene ND (<0.05) parts/million 0.005-20 6 Heavy Lube Oil 300 parts/million 60-200 2000 *Note: If not Benzene detected, use 100 for TPH gasoline under MTCA standards. HAFile Sys\SWP - Surface Water Projects\SWP-27 - Surface Water Projects (CIP)\27-2959 SW 7th St. Drainage Improvement Project\Phase II Construction\1600 Construction\1003 City Correspondence\Contamination\Larry memo Exhibits.docWQ\tb )L1ETTIER OF TRAIvSI\y[1[TTA\lL TO: Frank Coluccio Construction Company SEWERS, WATER MAINS, UTILITIES 9600 Martin Luther King Jr. Way South Seattle, Washington 98118 FR-AN-KC-C340L7 (206) 722-5306 Fax (206) 725-4764 Allen Quynn Planning/Building/Public Works Department Utility Systems - Fifth Floor 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 WE ARE SENDING YOU: Q Attached ❑ Shop Drawings Q Copy of letter ❑ Under separate cover via ❑ Prints ❑ Change Order ❑ Plans ❑ Other Date: October 28, 2004 lob No. COR SWP-27-2959 RE: Contaminated Soil Notification and Liabilitv the following items: ❑ Samples ❑ Specifications COPIES DATE PGS DESCRIPTION 1 10/27/04 2 Letter to Allen Quynn from Heather Meeds on DOE Reporting Requirements 1 May 2001 6 Focus 94-129 — Model Toxics Control Act Cleanup Regulations 1 06/10/04 9 Policy 300 — Toxic Cleanup Program Policy Washington State Department of Ecology THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below: ❑ For Approval ❑ Approved as Submitted Q For Your Use ❑ Approved as Noted ❑ As requested ❑ Returned for corrections Q For review and comment ❑ ❑ FOR BIDS DUE 19 REMARKS: ❑ Resubmit copies for approval ❑ Submit copies for distribution ❑ Return corrected prints Allen, Please provide the Following: 1—Copies of all the TCLP Reports associated with the Contaminated Soils for SW 7`" Project. 2—A "Letter of Rele�'=from the COR to FCCC with regards to the Contaminated Soils for SW 7`' Project. 3 — A Copy of the Letter/Notification between the COR or it's agents, notifying the Department of Energy of the contaminated material discovered on the SW 7" Project. Please provide the above listed items by 10/31/04 so that we have them prior to the return to work scheduled for 11/01/04. SIGNED: [R Scott Cfemons 10/28104 R. Scott Clemons, Project Manager Received By Y4 Title ��� Llano - Dated / / QJ 01f Ot 000 � o G A. e�etaGO�tta Q ee October 27, 2004 Mr. Allen Quynn Project Manager City of Renton Planning/Building/Public Works Department Utility Systems - Fifth Floor 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 Re: WA Department of Ecology Reporting Requirements Dear Mr. Quynn: On October 20, 2004 I made a visit to the job site where I became aware of the contaminated soil issue. As there was a strong odor of gasoline present, I made the decision to stop work so that I could have an opportunity to assess the newfound safety and environmental situation. I used a photoionization detector to test the air and found levels of unknown ionizable gases greater than 300 ppm. Further testing has found measurable amounts of the components of gasoline, including benzene. I have attached two Washington Department of Ecology (DOE) publications which contain information regarding several issues of environmental concern that you are obligated to address. 1. Reporting Requirements DOE regulations (WAC 173-340-300(2)) requires the reporting of a hazardous substance release within 90 calendar days of discovery. "Owners and operators are required to report the discovery of a release of hazardous substances that may pose a threat to human health or the environment. Persons other than owners and operators are strongly encouraged to report knowledge of any release to the environment." Frank Coluccio Construction Company (FCCC) is neither an Owner nor an Operator and is not required to report the presence of contaminated soils at the project site. However, it is our interpretation that as the owner of the property, the City of Renton has a legal obligation to contact DOE and report that a hazardous substance release has occurred. We believe 9600 M. L. King Way South • Seattle, Washington 98118-5693 • (206) 722-5306 • Fax (206) 725-4764 • FR•AN•KC•C340L7 that FCCC has a secondary obligation to report this release. Please provide FCCC with a copy of the report that you have filed pursuant to the DOE regulations and the WAC. 2. Determination of Hazardous/Dangerous Waste DOE requires that contaminated soil be subject to testing using the toxicity characteristic leaching procedure (TCLP) in order to determine if the soil should be classified as a dangerous waste. Preliminary air sampling has found benzene at a concentration that is above the Washington State Department of Labor and Industries Action Level. It stands to reason that the source of the benzene in the air is from the contaminated soil. If benzene is present in the soil at sufficient levels, then the contaminated soil may need to be reclassified as a dangerous waste. Have the soil samples been tested using TCLP? If the soil meets the hazardous waste disposal requirements, then does that require the use of 40-hour hazardous waste trained personnel? 3. Potentially Liable Persons According to DOE, any past or present relationship with a contaminated site may result in liability. Their list of potential liable persons (PLP) includes "anyone who arranged for disposal or treatment of hazardous substances at the site" and "anyone who transported hazardous substance for disposal or treatment at a contaminated site". As FCCC has been involved in the arrangements and the actual transport and disposal of contaminated soils for the City of Renton, this raises future liability issues for the Company that need to be addressed. As Safety Director, it is my duty is to protect the FCCC and its employees from physical harm and liability. It is not my intention to cause further delay in the project schedule or threaten the City of Renton with "whistle blowing". I hope that you can provide me with the necessary information so that these environmental issues may be laid to rest as soon as possible. Thank you for you immediate attention to this matter. Please feel free to call me on my cell phone ((206) 793-0974) if you need further information or wish to discuss this matter. Best regards, 4,iq4-( Heather Meeds, CIH Safety Director Encl. awm� Focus WA SM IX Gi CX STAY Df P A ; I M S1 DF ECOLOGY Model Toxics Control Act Cleanup Regulation: Process for Cleanup of Hazardous Waste Sites In March of 1989, an innovative, citizen -mandated toxic waste cleanup law went into effect in Washington, changing the way hazardous waste sites in this state are cleaned up. Passed by voters as Initiative 97, this law is known as the Model Toxics Control Act, chapter 70.105D RC W. This fact sheet provides a brief overview of the process for the cleanup of contami- nated sites under the rules Ecology adopted to implement that Act (chapter 173-340 WAC). How the Law Works The cleanup of hazardous waste sites is complex and expensive. In an effort to avoid the confusion and delays associated with the federal Superfund program, the Model Toxics Control Act is designed to be as streamlined as possible. It sets strict cleanup standards to ensure that the quality of cleanup and protection of human health and the environment are not compromised. At the same time, the rules that guide cleanup under the Act have built-in flexibility to allow cleanups to be addressed on a site -specific basis. The Model Toxics Control Act funds hazardous waste cleanup through a tax on the wholesale value of hazardous substances. The tax is imposed on the first in -state possessor of hazardous substances at the rate of0.7 percent, or $7 per $1,000. Since its passage in 1988, the Act has guided the cleanup of thousands of hazardous waste sites that dot the Washington landscape. The Washington State Department of Ecology's Toxic Cleanup Program ensures that these sites are investigated and cleaned up. What Constitutes a Hazardous Waste Site? Any owner or operator who has information that a hazardous substance has been released to the environment at the owner or operator's facility and may be a threat to human health or the environment must report this information to the Department of Ecology (Ecology). If an "initial investigation" by Ecology confirms further action (such as testing or cleanup) may be necessary, the facility is entered onto either Ecology's "Integrated Site Information System" database or "Leaking Underground Storage Tank" database. These are computerized data- bases used to track progress on all confirmed or suspected contaminated sites in Washington State. All confirmed sites that have not been already voluntarily cleaned up are ranked and placed on the state "Hazardous Sites List." Owners, operators and other persons known to be potentially liable for the cleanup of the site will receive an "Early Notice Letter" from Ecology notifying them that their site is suspected of needing cleanup, and that it is Ecology's policy to work cooperatively with them to accomplish prompt and effective cleanup. May 2001 Ecology is an equal -opportunity employer Revised Focus No. 94-129 40 printed on recycled paper Who is Responsible for Cleanup? Any past or present relationship with a contaminated site may result in liability. Under the Model Toxics Control Act a potentially liable person can be: ■ A current or past facility owner or operator. ■ Anyone who arranged for disposal or treatment of hazardous substances at the site. ■ Anyone who transported hazardous substances for disposal or treatment at a contaminated site, unless the facility could legally receive the hazardous materials at the time of transport. ■ Anyone who sells a hazardous substance with written instructions for its use, and abiding by the instructions results in contamination. In situations where there is more than one potentially liable person, each person is jointly and severally liable for cleanup at the site. That means each person can be held liable for the entire cost of cleanup. In cases where there is more than one potentially liable person at a site, Ecology encourages these persons to get together to negotiate how the cost of cleanup will be shared among all potentially liable persons. Ecology must notify anyone it knows may be a "potentially liable person" and allow an opportunity for comment before making any further determination on that person's liability. The comment period may be waived at the potentially liable person's request or if Ecology has to conduct emergency cleanup at the site. Achieving Cleanups through Cooperation Although Ecology has the legal authority to order a liable party to clean up, the department prefers to achieve cleanups cooperatively. Ecology believes that a non -adversarial relationship with potentially liable persons improves the prospect for prompt and efficient cleanup. The rules implementing the Model Toxics Control Act, which were developed by Ecology in consultation with the Science Advisory Board (created by the Act), and representatives from citizen, environmental and business groups and government agencies, are designed to: ■ Encourage independent cleanups initiated by potentially liable persons, thus providing for quicker cleanups with less legal complexity. ■ Encourage an open process for the public, local government and liable parties to discuss cleanup options and community concerns. is Facilitate cooperative cleanup agreements rather than Ecology -initiated orders. Ecology can, and does, however use enforcement tools in emergencies or with recalcitrant potentially liable persons. What is the Potentially Liable Person's Role in Cleanup? The Model Toxics Control Act requires potentially liable persons to assume responsibility for cleaning up contaminated sites. For this reason, Ecology does not usually conduct the actual cleanup when a potentially liable person can be identified. Rather, Ecology oversees the cleanup of sites to ensure that investigations, public involvement and actual cleanup and monitoring are done appropriately. Ecology's costs of this oversight are required to be paid by the liable party. When contamination is confirmed at the site, the owner or operator may decide to proceed with cleanup without Ecology assistance or approval. Such "independent cleanups" are -2- allowed under the Model Toxics Control Act under most circumstances, but must be reported to Ecology, and are done at the owner's or operator's own risk. Ecology may require additional cleanup work at these sites to bring them into compliance with the state cleanup standards. Most cleanups in Washington are done independently. Potentially liable persons conducting independent cleanups do not have access to financial assistance from Ecology. Those who plan to seek contributions from other persons to help pay for cleanup costs need to be sure their cleanup is "the substantial equivalent of a department -conducted or department -supervised remedial action." Ecology has provided guidance on how to meet this requirement in WAC 173-340-545. Persons interested in pursuing a private contribution action on an independent cleanup should carefully review this guidance prior to conducting site work. Working with Ecology to Achieve Cleanup Ecology and potentially liable persons often work cooperatively to reach cleanup solutions. Options for working with Ecology include formal agreements such as consent decrees and agreed orders, and seeking technical assistance through the Voluntary Cleanup Program. These mechanisms allow Ecology to take an active role in cleanup, providing help to potentially liable persons and minimizing costs by ensuring the job meets state standards the first time. This also minimizes the possibility that additional cleanup will be required in the future — providing significant assurances to investors and lenders. Here is a summary of the most common mechanisms used by Ecology: ■ Voluntary Cleanup Program: Many property owners choose to cleanup their sites independent of Ecology oversight. This allows many smaller or less complex sites to be cleaned up quickly without having to go through a formal process. A disadvantage to property owners is that Ecology does not approve the cleanup. This can present a problem to property owners who need state approval of the cleanup to satisfy a buyer or lender. One option to the property owner wanting to conduct an independent cleanup yet still receive some feedback from Ecology is to request a technical consultation through Ecology's Voluntary Cleanup Program. Under this voluntary program, the property owner submits a cleanup report with a fee to cover Ecology's review costs. Based on the review, Ecology either issues a letter stating that the site needs "No Further Action" or identifies what additional work is needed. Since Ecology is not directly involved in the site cleanup work, the level of certainty in Ecology's response is less than in a consent decree or agreed order. However, many persons have found a "No Further Action" letter to be sufficient for their needs, making the Voluntary Cleanup Program a popular option. ■ Consent Decrees: A consent decree is a formal legal agreement filed in court. The work requirements in the decree and the terms under which it must be done are negotiated and agreed to by the potentially liable person, Ecology and the state Attorney General's office. Before consent decrees can become final, they must undergo a public review and comment period that typically includes a public hearing. Consent decrees protect the potentially liable person from being sued for "contribution" by other persons that incur cleanup expenses at the site while facilitating any contribution claims against the other persons when they are responsible for part of the cleanup costs. Sites cleaned up under a consent decree are also exempt from having to obtain certain state and local permits that could delay the cleanup. -3- ■ De Minimus Consent Decree: Landowners whose contribution to site contamination is "insignificant in amount and toxicity" may be eligible for a de minimus consent decree. In these decrees, the landowner typically settles their liability by paying for some of the cleanup instead of actually conducting the cleanup work. Ecology usually accepts a de minimus settlement proposal only if the landowner is affiliated with a larger site cleanup that Ecology is currently working on. ■ Prospective Purchaser Consent Decree: A consent decree may also be available for a "prospective purchaser" of contaminated property. In this situation, a person who is not already liable for cleanup and wishes to purchase a cleanup site for redevelopment or reuse may apply to negotiate a prospective purchaser consent decree. The applicant must show, among other things, that they will contribute substantial new resources towards the cleanup. Cleanups that also have a substantial public benefit will receive a higher priority for prospective purchaser agreements. If the application is accepted, the requirements for cleanup are negotiated and specified in a consent decree so that the purchaser can better estimate the cost of cleanup before buying the land. ■ Agreed Orders: Unlike a consent decree, an agreed order is not filed in court and is not a settlement. Rather, it is a legally binding, administrative order issued by Ecology and agreed to by the potentially liable person. Agreed orders are available for remedial investigations, feasibility studies, and final cleanups. An agreed order describes the site activities that must occur for Ecology to agree not to take enforcement action for that phase of work. As with consent decrees, agreed orders are subject to public review and offer the advantage of facilitating contribution claims against other persons and exempting cleanup work from obtaining certain state and local permits. Ecology -Initiated Cleanup Orders Administrative orders requiring cleanup activities without an agreement with a potentially liable person are known as enforcement orders. These orders are usually issued to a potentially liable person when Ecology believes a cleanup solution cannot be achieved expeditiously through negotiation or if an emergency exists. If the responsible party fails to comply with an enforcement order, Ecology can clean up the site and later recover costs from the responsible person(s) at up to three times the amount spent. The state Attorney General's Office may also seek a fine of up to $25,000 a day for violating an order. Enforcement orders are subject to public notification. Financial Assistance Each year, Ecology provides millions of dollars in grants to local governments to help pay for the cost of site cleanup. In general, such grants are available only for sites where the cleanup work is being done under an order or decree. Ecology can also provide grants to local governments to help defray the cost of replacing a public water supply well contaminated by a hazardous waste site. Grants are also available for local citizen groups and neighborhoods affected by contaminated sites to facilitate public review of the cleanup. See Chapter 173-322 WAC for additional information on grants to local governments and Chapter 173-321 WAC for additional information on public participation grants. Public Involvement Public notices are required on all agreed orders, consent decrees and enforcement orders. Public notification is also required for all Ecology -conducted remedial actions. -4- Ecology's Site Register is a widely used means of providing information about cleanup efforts to the public and is one way of assisting community involvement. The Site Register is pub- lished every two weeks to inform citizens of public meetings and comment periods, discus- sions or negotiations of legal agreements, and other cleanup activities. Persons affected by contaminated sites and needing additional information on the Act, cleanup standards, or risk assessment can call Ecology's Citizen Technical Advisor toll free at 1-800-826-7716. The Site Register can be accessed on the Internet at: www.ecy.wa.gov/propTams/tcp/Sub inv/pub inv2.html. How Sites are Cleaned U The rules describing the cleanup process at a hazardous waste site are in chapter 173-340 WAC. The following is a general description of the steps taken during the cleanup of an average hazardous waste site. Consult the rules for the specific requirements for each step in the cleanup process. 1. Site Discovery. Sites where contamination is found must be reported to Ecology's Toxics Cleanup Program within 90 days of discovery, unless it involves a release of hazardous materials from an underground storage tank system. In that case, the site discovery must be reported to Ecology within 24 hours. At this point, potentially liable persons may choose to conduct independent cleanup without assistance from the department, but cleanup results must be reported to Ecology. 2. Initial Investigation: Ecology is required to conduct an initial investigation of the site within 90 days of receiving a site discovery report. Based on information obtained about the site, a decision must be made within 30 days to determine if the site requires additional investigation, emergency cleanup, or no further action. If further action is required under the Model Toxics Control Act, Ecology sends early notice letters to owners, operators and other potentially liable persons inviting them to work cooperatively with the department. 4. Hazard Ranking. The Model Toxics Control Act requires that 3. Site Hazard Assessment: A sites be ranked according to the relative health and environmental risk site hazard assessment is conducted each site poses. Working with the Science Advisory Board, Ecology to confirm the presence of hazardous created the Washington Ranking Method to categorize sites using data substances and to determine the from site hazard assessments. Sites are ranked on a scale of 1 to 5. A relative risk the site poses to human score of 1 represents the highest level of risk and 5 the lowest. health and the environment. Ranked sites are placed on the state Hazardous Sites List. S. Remedial InvestigatiowFeasibility Study: A remedial investigation and feasibility study is conducted to define the extent and magnitude of contamination at the site. Potential impacts on human health and the environment and alternative cleanup technologies are also evaluated in this study. Sites being cleaned up by Ecology or by potentially liable persons under a consent decree, agreed order or enforcement order are required to provide for a 30 day public review before finalizing the report. 6. Selection of Cleanup Action: Using information gathered during the study, a cleanup action plan is developed. The plan identifies preferred cleanup methods and specifies cleanup standards and other requirements at the site. A draft of the plan is subject to public review and comment before it is finalized. 7. Site Cleanup: Actual cleanup begins when the cleanup action plan is implemented. This includes design, construction, operation and monitoring of cleanup actions. A site may be taken off the Hazardous Sites List after cleanup is completed and Ecology determines cleanup standards have been met. -5- For More Information / Special Accommodation Needs If you would like more information about the state Model Toxics Control Act, please call us toll -free at 1-800-826-7716, or contact your regional Washington State Department of Ecology office listed below. Information about site cleanup, including a listing of ranked hazardous waste sites, is also accessible through our Internet address: hLtp://www.ecy.wa.gov/t)rograms/tcp/cleanup.html ■ Northwest Regional Office 425/649-7000 (voice) / 206/6494259 (TDD) (Island, King, Kitsap, San Juan, Skagit, Snohomish, Whatcom Counties) ■ Southwest Regional Office 360/407-6300 (voice) / 360/407-6306 (TDD) (Southwestern Washington, Olympic Peninsula, Pierce, Thurston and Mason Counties) ■ Central Regional Office 509/575-2490 (voice) / 509/454-7673 (TDD) (Benton, Chelan, Douglas, Kittitas, Klickitat, Okanogan, Yakima Counties) ■ Eastern Regional Office 509/456-2926 (voice) / 509/458-2055 (TDD) (Adams, Asotin, Columbia, Ferry, Franklin, Garfield, Grant, Lincoln, Pend Oreille, Spokane, Stevens, Walla Walla, Whitman Counties) Ifyou have special accommodation needs or require this publication in alternative format, please contact Carol Esget at (360) 407-7224 (Voice) or (360) 407-6006 ('TDD). Disclaimer Notice: This fact sheet is intended to help the user understand the Model Toxics Control Act Cleanup Regulation, chapter 173-340 WAC. It does not establish or modify regulatory requirements. moo WASHIM"ll STATE O E I AAI.IBT 01 ECOLOGY Policy 300 Resource Contact: Policy and Technical Support Staff Effective: April 8, 1992 References: Cancels Policies 101 and 102 Revised.• June 10, 2004 Policy 300 Site Discovery —Reporting Releases The Model Toxics Control Act (MTCA), Chapter 70.105D RCW, requires the Department of Ecology (Ecology) to establish a program to identify sites potentially contaminated with hazardous substances. That program is set forth in WAC 173-340-300, which is part of the MTCA Cleanup Regulation, chapter 173-340 WAC. Under that program, Ecology requires owners and operators to report releases of hazardous substances occurring as consequence of past practices. Releases occurring as a consequence of current practices must be reported under other authorities. Ecology believes it is in the interest of the state and the public in the vicinity of contaminated sites to be informed of these sites, and encourages all persons to report any discovery of a release of hazardous substances to the environment. This policy provides guidance on the types of releases that should be reported under WAC 173-340-300 and the procedures for reporting such releases. 1. Owners And Operators Are Required To Report Releases. Owners and operators are required to report the discovery of a release of hazardous substances that may pose a threat to human health or the environment. Persons other than owners and operators are strongly encouraged to report knowledge of any release to the environment. 2. Releases Must Be Reported Within A Specified Time Period. A. For confirmed releases from Underground Storage Tanks (UST) regulated under chapter 90.76 RCW, the release must be reported within 24 hours of discovery (WAC 173-340-450(2)). B. For other releases of hazardous substances, the release must be reported within ninety (90) calendar days of discovery (WAC 173-340-300(2)). However, pursuant to WAC 173-340-515 (4)(c), if an independent remedial action is completed within ninety (90) calendar days of discovery, a single written report may be submitted on both the release and the action taken. The combined report must include the information specified in WAC 173-340-515(4)(b) and be submitted within ninety (90) calendar days of completion of the remedial action. For additional information regarding the reporting of independent remedial actions, see WAC 173-340-515(4) and POL 515, Independent Remedial Actions. Page 1 of 9 Revised: 6110104 Policy 300: Site Discovery — Reporting Releases 3. Some Releases Are Exempt From The Reporting Requirement. Pursuant to WAC 173-340-300(3), the following releases of hazardous substances are exempt from the reporting requirements, and therefore do not need to be reported to Ecology: A. Application of pesticides and fertilizers for their intended purposes and according to label instructions; B. Lawful and non -negligent use of hazardous substances by a natural person ("unincorporated individual") for personal or domestic purposes; C. A release in accordance with a permit that authorizes that release; D. A release previously reported to Ecology in fulfillment of a reporting requirement in chapter 173-340 WAC or in another law or regulation; E. A release previously reported to the United States Environmental Protection Agency under CERCLA ("Superfund"), Section 103(c) (42 U.S.C. Sec. 9603(c)); F. A direct release to the air from an industrial or commercial process or operation; Note: Release that is exempt from the reporting requirements should still be reported to the local air pollution control agency, which for some counties is the Ecology regional office. G. Releases discovered in public water systems regulated by the Department of Health (rules governing the reporting of these releases to the Department of Health are in chapter 246-290 WAC); or H. A release to a permitted wastewater facility. These exemptions are intended primarily to avoid duplicate reporting requirements. An exemption from the reporting requirements is not a release from liability under RCW 70.105D.040. 4. When Determining Whether A Release Has Occurred, Persons Should Rely On Physical Evidence. Persons should rely on available physical evidence to determine whether hazardous substances have been released to the environment. If there is physical evidence that a release has occurred, then the release must be reported if it may be a threat to human health or the environment (see Section 5 of this policy). The release report submitted to Ecology should be based on physical evidence. Examples of physical evidence include visual observations, readings from field instruments, and lab data. Ecology does not expect that additional testing be performed for the purpose of complying with the reporting requirements of WAC 173-340-300 or this policy, only that available information is provided. 5. When Determining Whether A Release Should Be Reported, Persons Should Use "Best Professional Judgment." To determine whether a release of hazardous substances poses a threat, or potential threat, to human health or the environment, persons should use their "best professional judgment." In making this determination, persons are expected to use the regulation Revised: 06110104 Page 2 of 9 Policy 300 Site Discovery — Reporting Releases (Chapter 173-340 WAC), the guidance contained in this policy, and their professional training and experience. To assist persons in making this determination, Section 6 of this policy describes several situations where the release of hazardous substances is presumed to pose a threat, or potential threat, to human health or the environment. Ecology recognizes that hazardous substances can be found at almost any commercial or industrial facility. The presence of such substances does not necessarily mean that a release has occurred. Even if a release has occurred, the release may not need to be reported under MTCA, either because the release does not pose a threat or because the release is regulated under another authority. For example, the presence of asbestos in a building, scrap metal at a commercial facility, litter along a roadway, or hazardous substances in wastewater conveyance systems do not need to be reported under MTCA. If you determine, based on your best professional judgment, that the release does not pose a threat or potential threat, then you do not need to report the release. When an environmental consultant recommends that a site be reported to Ecology, the owner/operator must report that site to Ecology. Failure to report a site is a violation of the law and could result in enforcement action. If you are not sure if a release should be reported, you should report the release to Ecology. You may contact Ecology if you need assistance in determining whether or not to report a release. A map of Ecology's regional offices can be found at hLtp://www.ecy.wa. og v/org html. 6. Ecology Has Determined That Certain Types Of Releases Should Be Reported. Ecology has determined that the following types of releases of hazardous substances pose a threat, or potential threat, to human health or the environment, and therefore should be reported under WAC 173-340-300. These types of releases are presumed to pose a threat, or potential threat, based on the risk assessment process set forth in chapter 173-340 WAC. Note that the guidance contained in this section of the policy, which reflects the guidance provided in WAC 173-340-300(2)(b), does not provide an exhaustive list of releases that should be reported. Other types of releases not described herein may also pose a threat, or potential threat, to human health or the environment and should be reported. The purpose of this guidance is merely to provide some examples of obvious situations that should be reported under WAC 173-340-300. A. Releases to ground water or surface water causing a health hazard based on ingestion; Finding any hazardous substance in potable ground water, or surface water classified as suitable for use as drinking water supply under chapter 173-201A WAC, in excess of the natural background and any one of the following applicable federal or state standards: Page 3 of 9 Revised: 06110104 Policy 300: Site Discovery — Reporting Releases i. Maximum contaminant levels (MCL) established under the Safe Drinking Water Act and published in 40 C.F.R. Part 141; ii. Maximum contaminant level goals (MCLG) for non carcinogens established under the Safe Drinking Water Act and published in 40 C.F.R. Part 141; or iii. Maximum contaminant levels (MCL) established by the Department of Health and published in chapter chapter 246-290 WAC. This includes ground water both inside and outside the facility boundaries. Pursuant to WAC 246-290-480, if contamination is found in a public water supply in excess of the MCL established by the Department of Health, the water purveyor is also required to report the contamination to the Department of Health. B. Release to surface water; Finding any hazardous substance in surface water or sediment, including run-off leaving a facility, at levels exceeding the natural background level and any one of the following federal or state ambient water quality criteria that are based on the protection of human health or aquatic organisms: i. State water quality criteria published in chapter 173-201A WAC; ii. Federal water quality criteria published in the National Toxics Rule, 40 C.F.R. Part 131; or iii. Federal water quality criteria established under section 304 of the Clean Water Act (see http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/standards/wgcriteria.htmi iv. Marine sediment quality standards chemical criteria — Table 1 in WAC 173- 204-320 Example: There is an unpermitted leachate seep from an area of fill at a landfill. As discussed in Section 3 of this policy, permitted discharges do not need to be reported under MTCA. However, spills must be reported immediately under state water quality laws. C. Releases to the air causing a health hazard based on inhalation: i. Indoor Air Finding any vapors in a building, utility vault, or other structure that appear to be entering the structure from nearby contaminated soil or ground water. • Example: Finding vapors in a building (or other structure) originating from nearby contaminated soil or ground water that might require workers to wear respirators or self-contained breathing apparatus (SCBA). Revised.• 06110104 Page 4 of 9 Policy 300 Site Discovery — Reporting Releases Example: Finding vapors in a building (or other structure) originating from nearby contaminated soil or ground water at concentrations that pose an explosive hazard. For the purposes of this policy, hazardous substance concentrations exceeding 10% of the lower explosive limit (LEL) pose an explosive hazard. For example, gasoline vapor originating from a leaking tank and in excess of 1,000 ppm (10% of LEL) should be reported. ii. Ambient Air Finding vapors in the ambient air or in the soil exceeding natural background levels that appear to be originating from waste material or from contaminated soil, sediment or water. Example: Finding vapors in the ambient air or in the soil originating from waste material or from contaminated soil, sediment or water that might require workers (such as those installing underground utilities) to wear respirators or self-contained breathing apparatus (SCBA). Example: Finding vapors in the ambient air or in the soil originating from waste material or from contaminated soil, sediment or water that pose an explosive hazard. For the purposes of this policy, hazardous substance concentrations exceeding 10% of the lower explosive limit (LEL) pose an explosive hazard. For example, methane originating from decomposing waste and in excess of 5,000 ppm (10% of LEL) should be reported. If the gas is collected and controlled by a venting system approved by Ecology, then no additional reporting is necessary. As discussed in Section 3 of this policy, releases of hazardous substances to the air originating from an industrial or commercial process or operation do not need to be reported under MTCA. However, such releases should still be reported to the local air pollution control agency, which for some counties is the Ecology regional office. D. Sites where hazardous substances have been leaked or dumped on the ground; • Example: Finding waste materials or contaminated soil at levels that could cause immediate injury such as burning the skin or causing damage to vegetation or wildlife. • Example: Transformer leaks and leaks from industrial process lines or storage tanks. • Example: Spillage or dumping of chemicals on the ground. • Example: Heavily stained soil or soil with a strong odor. E. Releases resulting in the formation of free product; Page 5 of 9 Revised: 06110104 Policy 300: Site Discovery — Reporting Releases Finding unconfined petroleum product or other organic liquids (as a "free" liquid) on the ground or in the ground water. Example: Diesel fuel found floating on the ground water table or solvents puddling around a drum on the ground. This situation is not intended to include the incidental surface spillage that occurs at a service station during vehicle refueling. F. Releases of dangerous wastes; Finding a site where solid wastes designated as dangerous wastes, have been released to the environment without a permit or not in accordance with a permit. • Example — Industrial Waste: Finding wastes from commercial or industrial operation (such as sludge from a wastewater treatment plant or dust from a bag house) that have been abandoned or disposed of without a permit. • Example — Unexploded Ordnance: Military munitions discharged during military activities and left in place at a firing range at the time the range is closed or transferred constitute "discarded materials" and therefore "solid wastes." If those discharged munitions remain unexploded, then those munitions (unexploded ordnance) also constitute "dangerous wastes" because those munitions exhibit one or more dangerous waste characteristics. As defined in WAC 173-303-040, a "dangerous waste" is any solid waste designated in WAC 173-303-070 through 173-303-100 as a dangerous, or extremely hazardous or mixed waste. As defined in WAC 173-303-016, a "solid waste" is any discarded material, not excluded under WAC 173-303-017, which has been i. Abandoned; ii. Recycled; iii. Considered inherently waste -like; or iv. Military munition identified as a solid waste at WAC 173-303-578(2). Under WAC 173-303-070, to determine whether the "solid waste" is also a "dangerous waste," one must i. Determine whether the waste is a listed discarded chemical product in accordance with WAC 173-303-081; Revised.• 06110104 Page 6 of 9 Policy 300 Site Discovery — Reporting Releases ii. Determine whether the waste is a listed dangerous waste source in accordance with WAC 173-303-082; iii. Determine whether the waste exhibits any dangerous waste characteristics (listed below) in accordance with WAC 173-303-090; and • Ignitability; • Reactivity; • Corrosivity; and • Toxicity. iv. Determine whether the waste meets any dangerous waste criteria (listed below) in accordance with WAC 173-303-100. Toxicity; and Persistence. For more information regarding the identification of solid wastes and the designation of dangerous wastes, please refer to chapter 173-303 WAC and the following fact sheet published by the Hazardous Waste and Toxics Reduction Program: "Designating Dangerous Waste," Pub #96-436 (revised Dec. 2002). G. Contaminated soil designated as dangerous waste; Finding any contaminated soil which upon removal, would be designated as a dangerous waste under the Dangerous Waste Regulations, chapter 173-303 WAC. For guidance regarding the designation of dangerous wastes, see above. Example: In the process of installing an underground utility, a worker encounters a dark soil with a strong gasoline odor. The soil is stockpiled and sampled. It is found to fail the toxicity characteristic leaching procedure (TCLP) test for benzene, requiring it to be handled and disposed of as a hazardous waste. The release should be reported to Ecology. H. Abandonment of containers of hazardous substances; Finding any abandoned containers, such as drums or tanks, located above or below ground, still containing more than trace residuals of hazardous substances. Abandoned drums and tanks that potentially contain hazardous substances should be checked only by environmental professionals. For the purposes of this policy, "abandoned" means not being managed in accordance with the Dangerous Waste Regulations, Chapter 173-303 WAC. Page 7 of 9 Revised: 06110104 Policy 300: Site Discovery —Reporting Releases NOTE: Caution! Drums or tanks containing even trace levels of many contaminants can explode or emit toxic vapors. Do not open or enter these tanks or drums without proper training and protective equipment. I. Release from regulated underground storage tanks (UST); Finding any release from an underground storage tank regulated under chapter 90.76 RCW, including those tanks containing petroleum (e.g., gasoline and diesel) or other "regulated substances" (see definition in WAC 173-360-120). J. Finding a site where unpermitted industrial waste disposal has occurred at a location not permitted for the disposal of these wastes. For example, finding an industrial waste dump site for ash, slag, sludge or similar materials. K. Finding any other situation where, because of site -specific circumstances, there is a potential threat to human health or the environment due to the release of hazardous substances. 7. The Release Report Must Include Certain Information, If Known. Persons may submit the release report to Ecology in writing or over the telephone. The release report must include the following information, if known: A. The name(s) and address(es) of the owner and operator of the site; B. The location of the site (street address, and latitude/longitude if available); C. The hazardous substances released and their location (latitude/longitude if available); D. The circumstances of the release and the discovery of the release (including how and when the release occurred and was discovered); E. The results of all remedial investigations and cleanup actions; F. The results of any compliance monitoring planned or underway; and G. If a restrictive covenant has been placed on the property deed as part of the remedial action, a copy of the covenant that the County has stamped with a filing number. Ecology may request additional information be provided and may specify that written documentation be submitted. If multiple releases have occurred and the above information is unavailable for each occurrence, a report summarizing the current site conditions may be submitted in fulfillment of these requirements. 8. Persons Must Submit The Release Report To The Appropriate Ecology Regional Office. Revised: 06110104 Page 8 of 9 Policy 300 Site Discovery — Reporting Releases Persons must submit the release report to the Toxics Cleanup Program in the Ecology regional office responsible for the County where the site is located. A map of Ecology's regional offices can be found at http://www.ecy.wa. og v/org.html. 9. Ecology Must Respond To The Release Report Consistent With WAC 173-340-300(5). Approved: Pursuant to WAC 173-340-300(5) and 173-340-310(2), Ecology must determine whether an initial investigation is required based on the information in the report and other available information. If Ecology determines that an initial investigation is required, then Ecology must conduct an initial investigation within 90 days of receiving the release report. For further information regarding the performance of an initial investigation, see WAC 173-340-310 and POL 310A, Initial investigations. James J. Pendowski, Program Manager Toxics Cleanup Program Page 9 of 9 Revised: 06110104 Allen Quynn - RE: soil sampling Pagel From: "Arnie Sugar" <asugar@hwageo.com> To: <aquynn@ci.renton.wa.us>, <rstraka@ci.renton.wa.us> Date: 10/15/2004 4:57:47 PM Subject: RE: soil sampling Following are the analytical results of the stockpiled soils sampled yesterday. Table 1 Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons Soil Analytical Results (all values mg/kg) Analyte SP-1 SP-2 MTCA-A Class 1 Class 2 Gas/BTEX Benzene <0.06* <0.03 0.030 <0.005 0.005-0.5 Toluene <0.1 <0.05 7.0 <0.005 0.005-20 Ethylbenzene <0.1 <0.05 6.0 <0.005 0.005-40 xylenes <0.4 <0.2 9.0 <0.005 0.005-20 TPH as Gasoline 48 <3 30/100** <5 5-100 Diesel Extended Range TPH as Diesel <25 <25 2000 <25 25-200 TPH as Lube Oil <50 <50 2000 <60 60-200 MTCA-A - Ecology Chapter 173-340 WAC MTCA Method A soil cleanup levels for unrestricted land use, for reference only * Raised reporting limit due to interference from other gasoline range hydrocarbons ** Method A soil cleanup levels for gasoline are 100 mg/kg if no benzene is detected in the sample and 30 mg/kg if benzene is detected. Although this soil may not contain contaminants exceeding cleanup levels, treatment or disposal at a licensed facility may still be recommended, as many fill sites will not accept soils with detectable concentrations of contaminants. MTCA cleanup levels are used in this report for reference only, and normally apply to soils being excavated for the purpose of remediation. If excavated soil is disposed off -site as "unsuitable", property owners at the receiving site should be notified of the results of this study and any additional testing information available at that time. Criteria for unrestricted use of soils may be lower than the cleanup levels shown. Soils with contaminant concentrations above detection limits but below cleanup levels should not be used as fill near surface or ground water, and may not be accepted at fill sites. Soil classes (end use criteria) shown in Table 1 are taken from the Washington State Department of Ecology, Toxics Cleanup Program, Guidance for Remediation of Petroleum Contaminated Soils, Revised November 1995. This guidance document (not a regulation) was prepared prior to the promulgation of the revised Model Toxics Control Act (MTCA), although is still technically in effect. Current MTCA Method A cleanup levels now in effect for BTEX are lower than the pre 2001 levels (used to develop the Class 2 criteria), creating a potential conflict. The 1995 guidance document describes Class 1 soils as suitable for "any use which will not cause threat to human health or the environment". Class 2 soils are suitable for: * Backfill at the original site * Fill in commercial or industrial areas * Cover or fill in permitted landfills * Road or parking lot construction material * No use as residential topsoil or fill in or near wetlands, surface water, groundwater, drinking water wells or utility trenches If a suitable Class 2 fill site can be identified, this may be a low cost alternative for soil disposal. If not, we Allen Quynn - RE. soil sampling Page can try to field screen and sample the existing stockpiles and any new soils to attempt to segregate out Class 1 soils (below detection, unrestricted off site disposal). Following is a list of disposal facilities with estimated costs per ton. 300 cubic yards of wet soil would amount to approximately 500 tons. Prices do not include transportation costs. $24-30/ton 0 $22-24/ton 0 206-762-3000, $24.30/ton 0 $30/ton Rabanco, 3rd and Lander (rail transfer station), Seattle, 206-332-7711, Lafarge, 5400 West Marginal Way SW, Seattle, 206-937-8025, Waste Management, Inc., 70 S. Alaska St., Seattle (rail transfer station), TPS Technologies, Inc., HW-5 and SR 512, Tacoma, 206-938-6279, Lafarge is probably the best option because they are the cheapest and because they burn and recycle the soil, whereas Rabanco and Waste Management landfill it. Collucio may have accounts with some of these. We can help prepare a profile sheet with the lab results for whoever you decide to go with. Additional analytical testing may be required depending on the facility, since we don't know the source of the contamination. I will be out of the office Monday, but Pete will be in, and plans a site visit. Arnie Sugar, P.G. HWA GeoSciences Inc. 19730 64th Avenue West, Suite 200 Lynnwood, Washington 98036 425 774 0106 425 774 2714 fax asugar@hwageo.com Electronic File Transfer Note that these electronic files are provided as a courtesy only. HWA GeoSciences Inc. in no way guarantees the accuracy or completeness of the digital data contained within these files. Furthermore, HWA GeoSciences Inc. assumes no liability for any errors or omissions in the digital data herein. Anyone using the information contained herein should always consult the hard copy drawings or reports for the most current information available. The use of this electronic information is restricted to the original site and project for which it was prepared. This message (including any attachments) contains confidential information intended for a specific purpose, and is protected by law. If you are not the intended recipient, you should delete this message and any disclosure, copying, or distribution of this message or the taking of any action based upon it, is prohibited. CC: "Matt Winkelman" <mwinkelman@g-o.com>, "Pete Pearson" <ppearson@hwageo.com> A , • CCI ANALYTICAL LABORATORIES, INC. CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS CLIENT: HWA GEOSCIENCES INC. 19730 64TH AVE. W., SUITE 200 LYNNWOOD. WA 98036 CLIENT CONTACT: PETE PEARSON DATE: 12/8/04 CCIL JOB #: 412041 CCIL SAMPLE #: 1 DATE RECEIVED: 12/7/04 WDOE ACCREDITATION #: C142 CLIENT PROJECT ID: SW 7TH ST CSO 2003 007 CLIENT SAMPLE ID: S-1-1207 12/7/04 11:30 DATA RESULTS ANALYSIS ANALYSIS ANALYTE METHOD RESULTS' UNITS" DATE BY TPH-VOLATILE RANGE NWTPH-GX ND MG/KG 12/7/04 LAP BENZENE EPA-8021 ND(<0.03) MG/KG 12/7/04 LAP TOLUENE EPA-8021 ND(<0.05) MG/KG 12/7/04 LAP ETHYLBENZENE EPA-8021 ND(<0.05) MG/KG 12/7/04 LAP XYLENES EPA-8021 ND(<0.2) MG/KG 1217/04 LAP TPH-DIESEL RANGE NWTPH-DX ND MG/KG 1217/04 DLC TPH-LUBE OIL RANGE NWTPH-DX ND MG/KG 1217/04 DLC "N D" INDICATES ANALYTE ANALYZED FOR BUT NOT DETECTED AT LEVEL ABOVE REPORTING LIMIT. REPORTING LIMIT IS GIVEN IN PARENTHESES OR AS FOLLOWS: GASOLINE(VOLATILE RANGE) REPORTING LIMIT IS 3 MG/KG DIESEL RANGE REPORTING LIMIT IS 25 MG/KG LUBE OIL RANGE REPORTING LIMIT IS 50MG/KG UNITS FOR ALL NON LIQUID SAMPLES ARE REPORTED ON A DRY WEIGHT BASIS APPROVED BY: C /j— Page 1 8620 Holly Drive • Everett, WA 98208 • 425 356-2600 • FAX 425 356-2626 • Seattle 206 292-9059 CCI ANALYTICAL LABORATORIES, INC. CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS CLIENT: HWA GEOSCIENCES INC. 19730 64TH AVE. W., SUITE 200 LYNNWOOD, WA 98036 DATE: 12/8/04 CCIL JOB #: 412041 DATE RECEIVED: 12/7/04 WDOE ACCREDITATION #: C142 CLIENT CONTACT: PETE PEARSON CLIENT PROJECT ID: SW 7TH ST CSO 2003 007 QUALITY CONTROL RESULTS SURROGATE RECOVERY CCIL SAMPLE ID ANALYTE SUR ID % RECV 412041-01 NWTPH-GX TFT 75 412041-01 EPA-8021 TFT 80 412041-01 N WTPH-DX C25 82 412041-02 N WT P H-GX TFT 86 412041-02 EPA-8021 TFT 91 412041-02 NWTPH-DX C25 88 METHOD BILK RESULT BLANK AND DUPLICATE RESULTS ASSOC SMPLS NWTPH-GX (GAS) ND(<3) 412041-01, 02 EPA-8021(BENZENE) ND(<0.03) 412041-01, 02 EPA-8021(TOLUENE) ND(<0.05) 412041-01, 02 EPA-8021(ETHYLBENZ) ND(<0.05) 412041-01, 02 EPA-8021(XYLENE) ND(<0.2) 412041-01, 02 NWTPH-DX (DSL) ND(<25) 412041-01, 02 NWTPH-DX (OIL) ND(<50) 412041-01, 02 SPIKE/ SPIKE DUPLICATE RESULTS ASSOCIATED % SPIKE % SPIKE DUP METHOD SPIKE ID SAMPLES RECOVERY RECOVERY REL % DIFF NWTPH-GX GASOLINE 412041-01, 02 71 72 1 EPA-8021 BENZENE 412041-01, 02 90 92 2 EPA-8021 TOLUENE 412041-01,02 89 92 3 EPA-8021 ETHYLBENZENE 412041-01,02 87 89 2 EPA-8021 XYLENE 412041-01,02 89 91 2 NWTPH-DX DIESEL 412041-01, 02 96 96 0 APPROVED BY: l / j— Page 3 8620 Holly Drive • Everett, WA 98208 • 425 356-2600 • FAX 425 356-2626 • Seattle 206 292-9059 CCI ANALYTICAL LABORATORIES, INC. CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS CLIENT: HWA GEOSCIENCES INC. 19730 64TH AVE. W., SUITE 200 LYNNWOOD, WA 98036 CLIENT CONTACT: PETE PEARSON DATE: 12/8/04 CCIL JOB #: 412041 CCIL SAMPLE #: 2 DATE RECEIVED: 12/7/04 WDOE ACCREDITATION #: C142 CLIENT PROJECT ID: SW 7TH ST CSO 2003 007 CLIENT SAMPLE ID: S-2-1207 12/7/04 11:40 DATA RESULTS ANALYSIS ANALYSIS ANALYTE METHOD RESULTS' UNITS" DATE BY TPH-VOLATILE RANGE NWTPH-GX ND MG/KG 1217/04 LAP BENZENE EPA-8021 ND(<0.03) MG/KG 12/7/04 LAP TOLUENE EPA-8021 ND(<0.05) MG/KG 12/7/04 LAP ETHYLBENZENE EPA-8021 ND(<0.05) MG/KG 12/7/04 LAP XYLENES EPA-8021 ND(<0.2) MG/KG 1217/04 LAP TPH-DIESEL RANGE NWTPH-DX ND MG/KG 12/7/04 DLC TPH-LUBE OIL RANGE NWTPH-DX ND MG/KG 12/7/04 DLC "ND" INDICATES ANALYTE ANALYZED FOR BUT NOT DETECTED AT LEVEL ABOVE REPORTING LIMIT. REPORTING LIMIT IS GIVEN IN PARENTHESES OR AS FOLLOWS: GASOLINE(VOLATILE RANGE) REPORTING LIMIT IS 3 MG/KG DIESEL RANGE REPORTING LIMIT IS 25 MG/KG LUBE OIL RANGE REPORTING LIMIT IS 50MG/KG UNITS FOR ALL NON LIQUID SAMPLES ARE REPORTED ON A DRY WEIGHT BASIS APPROVED BY: Page 2 8620 Holly Drive • Everett, WA 98208 • 425 356-2600 - FAX 425 356-2626 • Seattle 206 292-9059 CLIENT: HWA GEOSCIENCES INC. 19730 64TH AVE. W., SUITE 200 LYNNWOOD, WA 98036 CLIENT CONTACT: ARNIE SUGAR CLIENT PROJECT ID: NONE GIVEN CLIENT SAMPLE ID: SP-1 10/14/04 14:45 REPORT AMENDED TO INCLUDE LEAD RESULT ANALYTE TPH-VOLATILERANGE� BENZENE TOLUENE ETHYLBENZENE XYLENES TPH-DIESEL RANGE TPH-LUBE OIL RANGE LEAD DATE: CCIL JOB #: CCIL SAMPLE #: DATE RECEIVED: WDOE ACCREDITATION #: 10/19/2004 410063 1 10/14/2004 C142 ANALYSIS ANALYSIS METHOD RESULTS' UNITS" DATE BY NWTPH-GX 48 MG/KG 10/15/2004 LAH EPA-8021 ND(<0.06) MG/KG 10/15/2004 LAH EPA-8021 ND(<0.1) MG/KG 10/15/2004 LAH EPA-8021 ND(<0.1) MG/KG 10/15/2004 LAH EPA-8021 ND(<0.4) MG/KG 10/15/2004 LAH NWTPH-DX ND MG/KG 10/15/2004 DLC NWTPH-DX ND MG/KG 10/15/2004 DLC EPA-6010 ND(<3.7) MG/KG 10/19/2004 RAB NOTE: CHROMATOGRAM INDICATES SAMPLE CONTAINS PRODUCT WHICH IS LIKELY HIGHLY WEATHERED GASOLINE AND DIESEL FUEL VOLATILE RANGE MAY BE BIASED HIGH DUE TO SEMIVOLATILE RANGE PRODUCT "'ND" INDICATES ANALYTE ANALYZED FOR BUT NOT DETECTED AT LEVEL ABOVE REPORTING LIMIT. REPORTING LIMIT IS GIVEN IN PARENTHESES OR AS FOLLOWS: GASOLINE(VOLATILE RANGE) REPORTING LIMIT IS 6 MG/KG DIESEL RANGE REPORTING LIMIT IS 25 MG/KG LUBE OIL RANGE REPORTING LIMIT IS 50 MG/KG UNITS FOR ALL NON LIQUID SAMPLES ARE REPORTED ON A DRY WEIGHT BASIS APPROVED BY: Page 1 CLIENT CONTACT: ARNIE SUGAR CLIENT PROJECT ID: NONE GIVEN CLIENT SAMPLE ID: SP-2 10/14/04 14:55 ANALYSIS ANALYSIS ANALYTE METHOD RESULTS' UNITS" DATE BY TPH-VOLATILE RANGE NWTPH-GX ND MG/KG 10/15/2004 LAH BENZENE EPA-8021 ND(<0.03) MG/KG 10/15/2004 LAH TOLUENE EPA-8021 ND(<0.05) MG/KG 10/15/2004 LAH ETHYLBENZENE EPA-8021 ND(<0.05) MG/KG 10/15/2004 LAH XYLENES EPA-8021 ND(<0.2) MG/KG 10/15/2004 LAH TPH-DIESEL RANGE NWTPH-DX ND MG/KG 10/15/2004 DLC TPH-LUBE OIL RANGE NWTPH-DX ND MG/KG 10/15/2004 DLC "'ND" INDICATES ANALYTE ANALYZED FOR BUT NOT DETECTED AT LEVEL ABOVE REPORTING LIMIT. REPORTING LIMIT IS GIVEN IN PARENTHESES OR AS FOLLOWS: GASOLINE(VOLATILE RANGE) REPORTING LIMIT IS 3 MG/KG DIESEL RANGE REPORTING LIMIT IS 25 MG/KG LUBE OIL RANGE REPORTING LIMIT IS 50 MG/KG UNITS FOR ALL NON LIQUID SAMPLES ARE REPORTED ON A DRY WEIGHT BASIS APPROVED BY: Page 1 CLIENT: HWA GEOSCIENCES INC. DATE: 10/19/2004 19730 64TH AVE. W., SUITE 200 CCIL JOB #: 410063 LYNNWOOD, WA 98036 DATE RECEIVED: 10/14/2004 WDOE ACCREDITATION #: C142 CLIENT CONTACT: ARNIE SUGAR CLIENT PROJECT ID: NONE GIVEN REPORT AMENDED TO INCLUDE LEAD RESULT ;:::::.:::.:::::::.::..:....:. T:::.::::::. .:::::::::.:::..:: SURROGATE RECOVERY CCIL SAMPLE ID ANALYTE SUR ID % RECV 410063-01 NWTPH-GX TFT 64 410063-01 EPA-8021 TFT 72 410063-01 NWTPH-DX C25 100 410063-02 NWTPH-GX TFT 78 410063-02 EPA-8021 TFT 77 410063-02 NWTPH-DX C25 101 BLANK AND DUPLICATE RESULTS METHOD BLK RESULT ASSOC SMPLS NV TPH-GX (GAS) ND(<3) 410063-01, 02 EPA-8021(BENZENE) ND(<0.03) 410063-01, 02 EPA-8021(TOLUENE) ND(<0.05) 410063-01, 02 EPA-8021(ETHYLBENZ) ND(<0.05) 410063-01, 02 EPA-8021(XYLENE) ND(<0.2) 410063-01, 02 NWTPH-DX (DSL) ND(<25) 410063-01, 02 NV TPH-DX (OIL) ND(<50) 410063-01, 02 EPA-6010 (PB) ND(<0.72) 410063-01 SPIKE/ SPIKE DUPLICATE RESULTS ASSOCIATED % SPIKE % SPIKE DUP METHOD SPIKE ID SAMPLES RECOVERY RECOVERY REL % DIFF NWTPH-GX GASOLINE 410063-01, 02 78 71 9 EPA-8021 BENZENE 410063-01,02 88 90 2 EPA-8021 TOLUENE 410063-01,02 88 91 3 EPA-8021 ETHYLBENZENE 410063-01,02 86 89 3 EPA-8021 xYLENE 410063-01, 02 87 89 2 NWTPH-DX DIESEL 410063-01, 02 89 95 7 EPA-6010 LEAD 410063-01 96 96 0 9CZ60"D :31 Page 1 CLIENT CONTACT: ARNIE SUGAR CLIENT PROJECT ID: SW 7th ST. #2002-007 CLIENT SAMPLE ID: SP-3 10/18/04 12:30 ANALYSIS ANALYSIS ANALYTE METHOD RESULTS' UNITS" DATE BY TPH-VOLATILE RANGE NWTPH-GX 370 MG/KG 10/19/2004 LAH BENZENE EPA-8021 ND(<0.12) MG/KG 10/18/2004 LAH TOLUENE EPA-8021 1.9 MG/KG 10/18/2004 LAH ETHYLBENZENE EPA-8021 1.0 MG/KG 10/18/2004 LAH XYLENES EPA-8021 1.0 MG/KG 10/18/2004 LAH TPH-DIESEL RANGE NWTPH-DX 91 MG/KG 10/18/2004 DLC TPH-LUBE OIL RANGE NWTPH-DX 60 MG/KG 10/18/2004 DLC NOTES: CHROMATOGRAM INDICATES SAMPLE CONTAINS HIGHLY WEATHERED GASOLINE, EARLY DIESEL RANGE PRODUCT, AND LUBE OIL DIESEL RANGE RESULT IS BIASED HIGH DUE TO VOLATILE RANGE PRODUCT OVERLAP "'ND" INDICATES ANALYTE ANALYZED FOR BUT NOT DETECTED AT LEVEL ABOVE REPORTING LIMIT. REPORTING LIMIT IS GIVEN IN PARENTHESES OR AS FOLLOWS: GASOLINE(VOLATILE RANGE) REPORTING LIMIT IS 30 MG/KG DIESEL RANGE REPORTING LIMIT IS 25 MG/KG LUBE OIL RANGE REPORTING LIMIT IS 50 MG/KG " UNITS FOR ALL NON LIQUID SAMPLES ARE REPORTED ON A DRY WEIGHT BASIS APPROVED BY: Page 1 CLIENT: HWA GEOSCIENCES INC. 19730 64TH AVE. W., SUITE 200 LYNNWOOD, WA 98036 CLIENT CONTACT: ARNIE SUGAR CLIENT PROJECT ID: SW 7th ST. #2002-007 CLIENT SAMPLE ID: SP-4 10/18/04 12:40 ANALYTE TPH-VOLATILE RANGE BENZENE TOLUENE ETHYLBENZENE XYLENES TPH-DIESEL RANGE TPH-LUBE OIL RANGE DATE: 10/19/2004 CCIL JOB #: 410070 CCIL SAMPLE #: 2 DATE RECEIVED: 10/18/2004 WDOE ACCREDITATION #: C142 METHOD RESULTS' UNITS" ANALYSIS ANALYSIS DATE BY NWTPH-GX 100 MG/KG 10/19/2004 LAH EPA-8021 ND(<0.03) MG/KG 10/18/2004 LAH EPA-8021 0.4 MG/KG 10/18/2004 LAH EPA-8021 0.2 MG/KG 10/18/2004 LAH EPA-8021 0.2 MG/KG 10/18/2004 LAH NWTPH-DX 25 MG/KG 10/18/2004 DLC NWTPH-DX ND MG/KG 10/18/2004 DLC NOTES: CHROMATOGRAM INDICATES SAMPLE CONTAINS HIGHLY WEATHERED GASOLINE AND EARLY DIESEL RANGE PRODU( DIESEL RANGE RESULT MAY BE BIASED BIASED HIGH DUE TO VOLATILE RANGE PRODUCT OVERLAP "ND" INDICATES ANALYTE ANALYZED FOR BUT NOT DETECTED AT LEVEL ABOVE REPORTING LIMIT. REPORTING LIMIT IS GIVEN IN PARENTHESES OR AS FOLLOWS: GASOLINE(VOLATILE RANGE) REPORTING LIMIT IS 6 MG/KG DIESEL RANGE REPORTING LIMIT IS 25 MG/KG LUBE OIL RANGE REPORTING LIMIT IS 50 MGXG UNITS FOR ALL NON LIQUID SAMPLES ARE REPORTED ON A DRY WEIGHT BASIS APPROVED BY: Page 1 e CLIENT: HWA GEOSCIENCES INC. 19730 64TH AVE. W., SUITE 200 LYNNWOOD, WA 98036 CLIENT CONTACT: ARNIE SUGAR CLIENT PROJECT ID: SW 7th ST. #2002-007 DATE: CCIL JOB #: DATE RECEIVED: WDOE ACCREDITATION #: 10/19/2004 410070 10/18/2004 C142 «.;:.;:.;:.;:.;:.;:.;:.;:.: «.;: <.;:.;:.:;.;:;.;::.;:.;:.;::. .............................................. ....................................................................... ........................ ....... ............................. .............................. ...... ......................................................... SURROGATE RECOVERY CCIL SAMPLE ID ANALYTE SUR ID % RECV 410070-01 NWTPH-GX TFT ' 410070-01 EPA-8021 TFT 89 410070-01 NWTPH-DX C25 105 410070-02 NWTPH-GX TFT 111 410070-02 EPA-8021 TFT 82 410070-02 NWTPH-DX C25 110 BLANK AND DUPLICATE RESULTS METHOD BLK RESULT ASSOC SMPLS NWTPH-GX (GAS) ND(<3) 410070-01, 02 EPA-8021(BENZENE) ND(<0.03) 410070-01, 02 EPA-8021(TOLUENE) ND(<0.05) 410070-01, 02 EPA-8021(ETHYLBENZ) ND(<0.05) 410070-01, 02 EPA-8021(XYLENE) ND(<0.2) 410070-01, 02 NWTPH-DX (DSL) ND(<25) 410070-01, 02 NWTPH-DX (OIL) ND(<50) 410070-01, 02 Page 1 CLIENT: HWA GEOSCIENCES INC. 19730 64TH AVE. W., SUITE 200 LYNNWOOD, WA 98036 CLIENT CONTACT: ARNIE SUGAR CLIENT PROJECT ID: SW 7th ST. #2002-007 DATE: 10/19/2004 CCIL JOB #: 410070 DATE RECEIVED: 10/18/2004 WDOE ACCREDITATION #: C142 SPIKE/ SPIKE DUPLICATE RESULTS ASSOCIATED % SPIKE % SPIKE DUP METHOD SPIKE ID SAMPLES RECOVERY RECOVERY REL % DIFF NWTPH-GX GASOLINE 410070-01, 02 78 71 9 EPA-8021 BENZENE 410070-01,02 88 90 2 EPA-8021 TOLUENE 410070-01,02 88 91 3 EPA-8021 ETHYLBENZENE 410070-01,02 86 89 3 EPA-8021 XYLENE 410070-01.02 87 89 2 NWTPH-DX DIESEL 410070-01, 02 88 92 5 * SURROGATE DILUTED OUT OF CALIBRATION RANGE I,\w,:Zi3M121o1 MA Page 2 ✓' 1 ht,vso(�� —zl CLIENT PROJECT ID: SW 7TH ST 2003-007 CLIENT SAMPLE ID: S-1-1021 10/21/04 9:00 ANALYTE METHOD RESULTS' TPH-VOLATILE RANGE NWTPH-GX 2400 BENZENE EPA-8021 ND(<1.5) TOLUENE EPA-8021 5.1 ETHYLBENZENE EPA-8021 9.5 XYLENES EPA-8021 5.9 LEAD EPA-6010 11 ANALYSIS ANALYSIS UNITS" DATE BY MG/KG 10/21/2004 LAH MG/KG 10/21/2004 LAH MG/KG 10/21/2004 LAH MG/KG 10/21/2004 LAH MG/KG 10/21/2004 LAH MG/KG 10/21/2004 RAB NOTE: CHROMATOGRAM INDICATES SAMPLE CONTAINS PRODUCT WHICH IS LIKELY HIGHLY WEATHERED GASOLINE "'ND" INDICATES ANALYTE ANALYZED FOR BUT NOT DETECTED AT LEVEL ABOVE REPORTING LIMIT. REPORTING LIMIT IS GIVEN IN PARENTHESES OR AS FOLLOWS: GASOLINE(VOLATILE RANGE) REPORTING LIMIT IS 150 MG/KG UNITS FOR ALL NON LIQUID SAMPLES ARE REPORTED ON A DRY WEIGHT BASIS APPROVED BY: Page 1 CLIENT: HWA GEOSCIENCES INC. 19730 64TH AVE. W., SUITE 200 LYNNWOOD, WA 98036 CLIENT CONTACT: ARNIE SUGAR CLIENT PROJECT ID: SW 7TH ST 2003-007 DATE: CCIL JOB #: 410093 DATE RECEIVED: WDOE ACCREDITATION #: C142 SURROGATE RECOVERY CCIL SAMPLE ID ANALYTE SUR ID % RECV 410093-01 NWTPH-GX TFT 410093-01 EPA-8021 TFT BLANK AND DUPLICATE RESULTS METHOD BLK RESULT ASSOC SMPLS NWTPH-GX (GAS) ND(<3) 410093-01 EPA-8021(BENZENE) ND(<0.03) 410093-01 EPA-8021(TOLUENE) ND(<0.05) 410093-01 EPA-8021(ETHYLBENZ) ND(<0.05) 410093-01 EPA-8021(XYLENE) ND(<0.2) 410093-01 EPA-6010 (PB) ND(<0.72) 410093-01 SPIKE/ SPIKE DUPLICATE RESULTS ASSOCIATED % SPIKE % SPIKE DUP METHOD SPIKE ID SAMPLES RECOVERY RECOVERY REL % DIFF NWTPH-GX GASOLINE 410093-01 78 71 9 EPA-8021 BENZENE 410093-01 88 90 2 EPA-8021 TOLUENE 410093-01 88 91 3 EPA-8021 ETHYLBENZENE 410093-01 86 89 3 EPA-8021 XYLENE 410093-01 87 89 2 EPA-6010 (PB) LEAD 410093-01 95 98 3 * SURROGATE DILUTED OUT OF CALIBRATION RANGE APPROVED BY: Page 1 w a7-{ 5a"t�& , 0, CCI ANALYTICAL LABORATORIES, INC. CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS CLIENT: HWA GEOSCIENCES INC. 19730 64TH AVE. W., SUITE 200 LYNNWOOD, WA 98036 DATE: 11 /2/04 CCIL JOB #: 411007 DATE RECEIVED: 11/2/04 WDOE ACCREDITATION #: C142 CLIENT CONTACT: PETE PEARSON CLIENT PROJECT ID: SW 7TH ST STORM 2003-007 QUALITY CONTROL RESULTS SURROGATE RECOVERY CCIL SAMPLE ID ANALYTE SUR ID % RECV 411007-01 N WTPH-GX TFT 115 411007-01 EPA-8021 TFT 103 411007-01 EDC EPA-8260 SIM 1,2-DCE-d4 411007-01 EDB EPA-8260 SIM 1,2-DCE-d4 METHOD BILK RESULT BLANK AND DUPLICATE RESULTS ASSOC SMPLS NWTPH-GX (GAS) ND(<50) 411007-01 EPA-8021(MTBE) ND(<3) 411007-01 EPA-8021(BENZENE) ND(<1) 411007-01 EPA-8021(TOLUENE) ND(<1) 411007-01 EPA-8021(ETHYLBENZ) ND(<1) 411007-01 EPA-8021(XYLENE) ND(<3) 411007-01 EPA-8260 SIM (EDC) ND(<0.01) 411007-01 EPA-8260 SIM (EDB) ND(<0.01) 411007-01 SPIKE/ SPIKE DUPLICATE RESULTS ASSOCIATED % SPIKE % SPIKE DUP METHOD SPIKE ID SAMPLES RECOVERY RECOVERY REL % DIFF NWTPH-GX GASOLINE 41 1007-01 118 112 5 EPA-8021 MTBE 411007-01 87 87 0 EPA-8021 BENZENE 411007-01 96 93 3 EPA-8021 TOLUENE 411007-01 97 95 2 EPA-8021 ETHYLBENZENE 411007-01 95 93 2 EPA-8021 XYLENE 411007-01 95 93 2 EPA-8260 EDC 411007-01 98 90 9 EPA-8260 EDB 411007-01 103 104 0 SURROGATE OUTSIDE OF CONTROL LIMITS DUE TO MATRIX INTERFERENCE APPROVED BY: Page 2 8620 Holly Drive • Everett, WA 98208 • 425 356-2600 • FAX 425 356-2626 • Seattle 206 292-9059 CCI ANALYTICAL LABORATORIES, INC. CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS CLIENT: HWA GEOSCIENCES INC. DATE: 11/2/04 19730 64TH AVE. W., SUITE 200 CCIL JOB #: 411007 LYNNWOOD, WA 98036 CCIL SAMPLE #: 1 DATE RECEIVED: 11/2/04 WDOE ACCREDITATION #: C142 CLIENT CONTACT: PETE PEARSON CLIENT PROJECT ID: SW 7TH ST STORM 2003-007 CLIENT SAMPLE ID: GW-1-1102 11/2/04 0700 DATA RESULTS ANALYSIS ANALYSIS ANALYTE METHOD RESULTS' UNITS" DATE BY TPH-VOLATILE RANGE NWTPH-GX 2200 UG/L 11/2/04 LAH MTBE*** EPA-8021 ND(<3) UG/L 1112/04 LAH BENZENE EPA-8021 ND(<1) UG/L 1112/04 LAH TOLUENE EPA-8021 3 UG/L 11/2/04 LAH ETHYLBENZENE EPA-8021 40 UG/L 11/2/04 LAH XYLENES EPA-8021 4 UG/L 11/2/04 LAH 1,2-DICHLOROETHANE (EDC) EPA-8260 SIM 0.45 UG/L 11/2/04 CCN 1,2-DIBROMOETHANE (EDB) EPA-8260 SIM ND(<0.01) UG/L 11/2/04 CCN NOTE: CHROMATOGRAM INDICATES SAMPLE CONTAINS PRODUCT WHICH IS LIKELY HIGHLY WEATHERED GASOLINE _�c "ND' INDICATES ANALYTE ANALYZED FOR BUT NOT DETECTED AT LEVEL ABOVE REPORTING LIMIT. REPORTING LIMIT IS GIVEN IN PARENTHESES OR AS FOLLOWS: GASOLINE(VOLATILE RANGE) REPORTING LIMIT IS 250 UGA. UNITS FOR ALL NON LIQUID SAMPLES ARE REPORTED ON A DRY WEIGHT BASIS ANY POSITIVE MTBE RESULT SHOULD BE CONFIRMED BY GC/MS ANALYSIS APPROVED BY: C Page 1 8620 Holly Drive * Everett, WA 98208 * 425 356-2600 * FAX 425 356-2626 * Seattle 206 292-9059 From: "R. Scott Clemons" <scottclemons.fccc@verizon.net> To: "Allen Quynn" <aquynn@ci.renton.wa.us> Date: 10/27/2004 8:14:37 AM Subject: FW: -----Original Message ----- From: Heather Meeds [mailto:heather@coluccio.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2004 4:25 PM To: R. Scott Clemons Subject: Scott: Prezant Associates has given me some preliminary laboratory data (verbal only). The sample taken Thursday afternoon showed a level of benzene that is above the Wisha action level. This is a level that cannot be exceeded at any time without the proper PPE. The evening sample did not contain hazardous levels of benzene. As benzene is highly volatile, it is the chemical component of gasoline that will dissipate first. The jobsite is not currently a hazardous waste site and so our employees do not need the 40 hour hazardous waste training. This would change if the Department of Ecology decided otherwise. They will need hazard communication training, i.e., they will need to be trained in the signs, symptoms, and hazards of exposure to gasoline and its components. They will also need a medical evaluation to wear a respirator (this has been done), respirator fit -testing, and training in how to use and clean their respirator. I will provide this. We will need to conduct additional personal monitoring during the first shift to ensure that the choice of respiratory protection is adequate. I will make arrangements to get the required sampling media. I already have the personal monitoring pump. We will use a local lab for this analysis this time so that we don't have to wait for the results. I also recommend the use of Tyvek suits and gloves so that skin exposure is not an issue. I will send you the laboratory data as soon as it becomes available. Heather qW WAIHIW6101 STATE UfFARTMENT OF ECOLOGY Policy 300 Resource Contact: Policy and Technical Support Staff Effective: April 8, 1992 References: Cancels Policies 101 and 102 Revised.• June 10, 2004 Policy 300 Site Discovery —Reporting Releases The Model Toxics Control Act (MTCA), Chapter 70.105D RCW, requires the Department of Ecology (Ecology) to establish a program to identify sites potentially contaminated with hazardous substances. That program is set forth in WAC 173-340-300, which is part of the MTCA Cleanup Regulation, chapter 173-340 WAC. Under that program, Ecology requires owners and operators to report releases of hazardous substances occurring as consequence of past practices. Releases occurring as a consequence of current practices must be reported under other authorities. Ecology believes it is in the interest of the state and the public in the vicinity of contaminated sites to be informed of these sites, and encourages all persons to report any discovery of a release of hazardous substances to the environment. This policy provides guidance on the types of releases that should be reported under WAC 173-340-300 and the procedures for reporting such releases. 1. Owners And Operators Are Required To Report Releases. Owners and operators are required to report the discovery of a release of hazardous substances that may pose a threat to human health or the environment. Persons other than owners and operators are strongly encouraged to report knowledge of any release to the environment. 2. Releases Must Be Reported Within A Specified Time Period. A. For confirmed releases from Underground Storage Tanks (UST) regulated under chapter 90.76 RCW, the release must be reported within 24 hours of discovery (WAC 173-340-450(2)). B. For other releases of hazardous substances, the release must be reported within ninety (90) calendar days of discovery (WAC 173-340-300(2)). However, pursuant to WAC 173-340-515 (4)(c), if an independent remedial action is completed within ninety (90) calendar days of discovery, a single written report may be submitted on both the release and the action taken. The combined report must include the information specified in WAC 173-340-515(4)(b) and be submitted within ninety (90) calendar days of completion of the remedial action. For additional information regarding the reporting of independent remedial actions, see WAC 173-340-515(4) and POL 515, Independent Remedial Actions. Page 1 of 9 Revised: 6110104 Policy 300: Site Discovery — Reporting Releases 3. Some Releases Are Exempt From The Reporting Requirement. Pursuant to WAC 173-340-300(3), the following releases of hazardous substances are exempt from the reporting requirements, and therefore do not need to be reported to Ecology: A. Application of pesticides and fertilizers for their intended purposes and according to label instructions; B. Lawful and non -negligent use of hazardous substances by a natural person ("unincorporated individual") for personal or domestic purposes; C. A release in accordance with a permit that authorizes that release; D. A release previously reported to Ecology in fulfillment of a reporting requirement in chapter 173-340 WAC or in another law or regulation; E. A release previously reported to the United States Environmental Protection Agency under CERCLA ("Superfund"), Section 103(c) (42 U.S.C. Sec. 9603(c)); F. A direct release to the air from an industrial or commercial process or operation; Note: Release that is exempt from the reporting requirements should still be reported to the local air pollution control agency, which for some counties is the Ecology regional office. G. Releases discovered in public water systems regulated by the Department of Health (rules governing the reporting of these releases to the Department of Health are in chapter 246-290 WAC); or H. A release to a permitted wastewater facility. These exemptions are intended primarily to avoid duplicate reporting requirements. An exemption from the reporting requirements is not a release from liability under RCW 70.105D.040. 4. When Determining Whether A Release Has Occurred, Persons Should Rely On Physical Evidence. Persons should rely on available physical evidence to determine whether hazardous substances have been released to the environment. If there is physical evidence that a release has occurred, then the release must be reported if it may be a threat to human health or the environment (see Section 5 of this policy). The release report submitted to Ecology should be based on physical evidence. Examples of physical evidence include visual observations, readings from field instruments, and lab data. Ecology does not expect that additional testing be performed for the purpose of complying with the reporting requirements of WAC 173-340-300 or this policy, only that available information is provided. 5. When Determining Whether A Release Should Be Reported, Persons Should Use "Best Professional Judgment." To determine whether a release of hazardous substances poses a threat, or potential threat, to human health or the environment, persons should use their "best professional judgment." In making this determination, persons are expected to use the regulation Revised.• 06110104 Page 2 of 9 Policy 300 Site Discovery — Reporting Releases (Chapter 173-340 WAC), the guidance contained in this policy, and their professional training and experience. To assist persons in making this determination, Section 6 of this policy describes several situations where the release of hazardous substances is presumed to pose a threat, or potential threat, to human health or the environment. Ecology recognizes that hazardous substances can be found at almost any commercial or industrial facility. The presence of such substances does not necessarily mean that a release has occurred. Even if a release has occurred, the release may not need to be reported under MTCA, either because the release does not pose a threat or because the release is regulated under another authority. For example, the presence of asbestos in a building, scrap metal at a commercial facility, litter along a roadway, or hazardous substances in wastewater conveyance systems do not need to be reported under MTCA. If you determine, based on your best professional judgment, that the release does not pose a threat or potential threat, then you do not need to report the release. When an environmental consultant recommends that a site be reported to Ecology, the owner/operator must report that site to Ecology. Failure to report a site is a violation of the law and could result in enforcement action. If you are not sure if a release should be reported, you should report the release to Ecology. You may contact Ecology if you need assistance in determining whether or not to report a release. A map of Ecology's regional offices can be found at http://www.ecy.wa. og v/org html. 6. Ecology Has Determined That Certain Types Of Releases Should Be Reported. Ecology has determined that the following types of releases of hazardous substances pose a threat, or potential threat, to human health or the environment, and therefore should be reported under WAC 173-340-300. These types of releases are presumed to pose a threat, or potential threat, based on the risk assessment process set forth in chapter 173-340 WAC. Note that the guidance contained in this section of the policy, which reflects the guidance provided in WAC 173-340-300(2)(b), does not provide an exhaustive list of releases that should be reported. Other types of releases not described herein may also pose a threat, or potential threat, to human health or the environment and should be reported. The purpose of this guidance is merely to provide some examples of obvious situations that should be reported under WAC 173-340-300. A. Releases to ground water or surface water causing a health hazard based on ingestion; Finding any hazardous substance in potable ground water, or surface water classified as suitable for use as drinking water supply under chapter 173-201A WAC, in excess of the natural background and any one of the following applicable federal or state standards: Page 3 of 9 Revised: 06110104 Policy 300: Site Discovery — Reporting Releases i. Maximum contaminant levels (MCL) established under the Safe Drinking Water Act and published in 40 C.F.R. Part 141; ii. Maximum contaminant level goals (MCLG) for non carcinogens established under the Safe Drinking Water Act and published in 40 C.F.R. Part 141; or iii. Maximum contaminant levels (MCL) established by the Department of Health and published in chapter chapter 246-290 WAC. This includes ground water both inside and outside the facility boundaries. Pursuant to WAC 246-290-480, if contamination is found in a public water supply in excess of the MCL established by the Department of Health, the water purveyor is also required to report the contamination to the Department of Health. B. Release to surface water; Finding any hazardous substance in surface water or sediment, including run-off leaving a facility, at levels exceeding the natural background level and any one of the following federal or state ambient water quality criteria that are based on the protection of human health or aquatic organisms: i. State water quality criteria published in chapter 173-201 A WAC; ii. Federal water quality criteria published in the National Toxics Rule, 40 C.F.R. Part 131; or iii. Federal water quality criteria established under section 304 of the Clean Water Act (see http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/standards/wgcriteria.html) iv. Marine sediment quality standards chemical criteria — Table 1 in WAC 173- 204-320 Example: There is an unpermitted leachate seep from an area of fill at a landfill. As discussed in Section 3 of this policy, permitted discharges do not need to be reported under MTCA. However, spills must be reported immediately under state water quality laws. C. Releases to the air causing a health hazard based on inhalation: i. Indoor Air Finding any vapors in a building, utility vault, or other structure that appear to be entering the structure from nearby contaminated soil or ground water. Example: Finding vapors in a building (or other structure) originating from nearby contaminated soil or ground water that might require workers to wear respirators or self-contained breathing apparatus (SCBA). Revised.• 06110104 Page 4 of 9 Policy 300 Site Discovery — Reporting Releases Example: Finding vapors in a building (or other structure) originating from nearby contaminated soil or ground water at concentrations that pose an explosive hazard. For the purposes of this policy, hazardous substance concentrations exceeding 10% of the lower explosive limit (LEL) pose an explosive hazard. For example, gasoline vapor originating from a leaking tank and in excess of 1,000 ppm (10% of LEL) should be reported. ii. Ambient Air Finding vapors in the ambient air or in the soil exceeding natural background levels that appear to be originating from waste material or from contaminated soil, sediment or water. • Example: Finding vapors in the ambient air or in the soil originating from waste material or from contaminated soil, sediment or water that might require workers (such as those installing underground utilities) to wear respirators or self-contained breathing apparatus (SCBA). • Example: Finding vapors in the ambient air or in the soil originating from waste material or from contaminated soil, sediment or water that pose an explosive hazard. For the purposes of this policy, hazardous substance concentrations exceeding 10% of the lower explosive limit (LEL) pose an explosive hazard. For example, methane originating from decomposing waste and in excess of 5,000 ppm (10% of LEL) should be reported. If the gas is collected and controlled by a venting system approved by Ecology, then no additional reporting is necessary. As discussed in Section 3 of this policy, releases of hazardous substances to the air originating from an industrial or commercial process or operation do not need to be reported under MTCA. However, such releases should still be reported to the local air pollution control agency, which for some counties is the Ecology regional office. D. Sites where hazardous substances have been leaked or dumped on the ground; • Example: Finding waste materials or contaminated soil at levels that could cause immediate injury such as burning the skin or causing damage to vegetation or wildlife. • Example: Transformer leaks and leaks from industrial process lines or storage tanks. • Example: Spillage or dumping of chemicals on the ground. • Example: Heavily stained soil or soil with a strong odor. E. Releases resulting in the formation of free product; Page 5 of 9 Revised.• 06110104 Policy 300: Site Discovery — Reporting Releases Finding unconfined petroleum product or other organic liquids (as a "free" liquid) on the ground or in the ground water. • Example: Diesel fuel found floating on the ground water table or solvents puddling around a drum on the ground. This situation is not intended to include the incidental surface spillage that occurs at a service station during vehicle refueling. F. Releases of dangerous wastes; Finding a site where solid wastes designated as dangerous wastes, have been released to the environment without a permit or not in accordance with a permit. Example — Industrial Waste: Finding wastes from commercial or industrial operation (such as sludge from a wastewater treatment plant or dust from a bag house) that have been abandoned or disposed of without a permit. Example — Unexploded Ordnance: Military munitions discharged during military activities and left in place at a firing range at the time the range is closed or transferred constitute "discarded materials" and therefore "solid wastes." If those discharged munitions remain unexploded, then those munitions (unexploded ordnance) also constitute "dangerous wastes" because those munitions exhibit one or more dangerous waste characteristics. As defined in WAC 173-303-040, a "dangerous waste" is any solid waste designated in WAC 173-303-070 through 173-303-100 as a dangerous, or extremely hazardous or mixed waste. As defined in WAC 173-303-016, a "solid waste" is any discarded material, not excluded under WAC 173-303-017, which has been i. Abandoned; ii. Recycled; iii. Considered inherently waste -like; or iv. Military munition identified as a solid waste at WAC 173-303-578(2). Under WAC 173-303-070, to determine whether the "solid waste" is also a "dangerous waste," one must i. Determine whether the waste is a listed discarded chemical product in accordance with WAC 173-303-081; Revised: 06110104 Page 6 of 9 Policy 300 Site Discovery — Reporting Releases ii. Determine whether the waste is a listed dangerous waste source in accordance with WAC 173-303-082; iii. Determine whether the waste exhibits any dangerous waste characteristics (listed below) in accordance with WAC 173-303-090; and • Ignitability; • Reactivity; • Corrosivity; and • Toxicity. iv. Determine whether the waste meets any dangerous waste criteria (listed below) in accordance with WAC 173-303-100. Toxicity; and Persistence. For more information regarding the identification of solid wastes and the designation of dangerous wastes, please refer to chapter 173-303 WAC and the following fact sheet published by the Hazardous Waste and Toxics Reduction Program: "Designating Dangerous Waste," Pub #96-436 (revised Dec. 2002). G. Contaminated soil designated as dangerous waste; Finding any contaminated soil which upon removal, would be designated as a dangerous waste under the Dangerous Waste Regulations, chapter 173-303 WAC. For guidance regarding the designation of dangerous wastes, see above. • Example: In the process of installing an underground utility, a worker encounters a dark soil with a strong gasoline odor. The soil is stockpiled and sampled. It is found to fail the toxicity characteristic leaching procedure (TCLP) test for benzene, requiring it to be handled and disposed of as a hazardous waste. The release should be reported to Ecology. H. Abandonment of containers of hazardous substances; Finding any abandoned containers, such as drums or tanks, located above or below ground, still containing more than trace residuals of hazardous substances. Abandoned drums and tanks that potentially contain hazardous substances should be checked only by environmental professionals. For the purposes of this policy, "abandoned" means not being managed in accordance with the Dangerous Waste Regulations, Chapter 173-303 WAC. Page 7 of 9 Revised: 06110104 Policy 300: Site Discovery — Reporting Releases NOTE: Caution! Drums or tanks containing even trace levels of many contaminants can explode or emit toxic vapors. Do not open or enter these tanks or drums without proper training and protective equipment. I. Release from regulated underground storage tanks (UST); Finding any release from an underground storage tank regulated under chapter 90.76 RCW, including those tanks containing petroleum (e.g., gasoline and diesel) or other "regulated substances" (see definition in WAC 173-360-120). J. Finding a site where unpermitted industrial waste disposal has occurred at a location not permitted for the disposal of these wastes. For example, finding an industrial waste dump site for ash, slag, sludge or similar materials. K. Finding any other situation where, because of site -specific circumstances, there is a potential threat to human health or the environment due to the release of hazardous substances. 7. The Release Report Must Include Certain Information, If Known. Persons may submit the release report to Ecology in writing or over the telephone. The release report must include the following information, if known: A. The name(s) and address(es) of the owner and operator of the site; B. The location of the site (street address, and latitude/longitude if available); C. The hazardous substances released and their location (latitude/longitude if available); D. The circumstances of the release and the discovery of the release (including how and when the release occurred and was discovered); E. The results of all remedial investigations and cleanup actions; F. The results of any compliance monitoring planned or underway; and G. If a restrictive covenant has been placed on the property deed as part of the remedial action, a copy of the covenant that the County has stamped with a filing number. Ecology may request additional information be provided and may specify that written documentation be submitted. If multiple releases have occurred and the above information is unavailable for each occurrence, a report summarizing the current site conditions may be submitted in fulfillment of these requirements. 8. Persons Must Submit The Release Report To The Appropriate Ecology Regional Office. Revised.• 06110104 Page 8 of 9 Policy 300 Site Discovery — Reporting Releases Persons must submit the release report to the Toxics Cleanup Program in the Ecology regional office responsible for the County where the site is located. A map of Ecology's regional offices can be found at hLp://www.ecy.wa.og v/org html. 9. Ecology Must Respond To The Release Report Consistent With WAC 173-340-300(5). Approved: Pursuant to WAC 173-340-300(5) and 173-340-310(2), Ecology must determine whether an initial investigation is required based on the information in the report and other available information. If Ecology determines that an initial investigation is required, then Ecology must conduct an initial investigation within 90 days of receiving the release report. For further information regarding the performance of an initial investigation, see WAC 173-340-310 and POL 310A, Initial investigations. James J. Pendowski, Program Manager Toxics Cleanup Program Page 9 of 9 Revised: 06110104 ohm WASH INGT6N STATE EC0 L EAE0 G NY Focus Model Toxics Control Act Cleanup Regulation: Process for Cleanup of Hazardous Waste Sites In March of 1989, an innovative, citizen -mandated toxic waste cleanup law went into effect in Washington, changing the way hazardous waste sites in this state are cleaned up. Passed by voters as Initiative 97, this law is known as the Model Toxics Control Act, chapter 70.105D RC W. This fact sheet provides a brief overview of the process for the cleanup of contami- nated sites under the rules Ecology adopted to implement that Act (chapter 173-340 WAC). How the Law Works The cleanup of hazardous waste sites is complex and expensive. In an effort to avoid the confusion and delays associated with the federal Superfund program, the Model Toxics Control Act is designed to be as streamlined as possible. It sets strict cleanup standards to ensure that the quality of cleanup and protection of human health and the environment are not compromised. At the same time, the rules that guide cleanup under the Act have built-in flexibility to allow cleanups to be addressed on a site -specific basis. The Model Toxics Control Act funds hazardous waste cleanup through a tax on the wholesale value of hazardous substances. The tax is imposed on the first in -state possessor of hazardous substances at the rate of 0.7 percent, or $7 per $1,000. Since its passage in 1988, the Act has guided the cleanup of thousands of hazardous waste sites that dot the Washington landscape. The Washington State Department of Ecology's Toxic Cleanup Program ensures that these sites are investigated and cleaned up. What Constitutes a Hazardous Waste Site? Any owner or operator who has information that a hazardous substance has been released to the environment at the owner or operator's facility and may be a threat to human health or the environment must report this information to the Department of Ecology (Ecology). If an "initial investigation" by Ecology confirms further action (such as testing or cleanup) may be necessary, the facility is entered onto either Ecology's "Integrated Site Information System" database or "Leaking Underground Storage Tank" database. These are computerized data- bases used to track progress on all confirmed or suspected contaminated sites in Washington State. All confirmed sites that have not been already voluntarily cleaned up are ranked and placed on the state "Hazardous Sites List." Owners, operators and other persons known to be potentially liable for the cleanup of the site will receive an "Early Notice Letter" from Ecology notifying them that their site is suspected of needing cleanup, and that it is Ecology's policy to work cooperatively with them to accomplish prompt and effective cleanup. Ecology is an equal -opportunity employer May 2001 i Revised Focus No. 94-129printed on recycled paper if Who is Responsible for Cleanup? Any past or present relationship with a contaminated site may result in liability. Under the Model Toxics Control Act a potentially liable person can be: ■ A current or past facility owner or operator. ■ Anyone who arranged for disposal or treatment of hazardous substances at the site. ■ Anyone who transported hazardous substances for disposal or treatment at a contaminated site, unless the facility could legally receive the hazardous materials at the time of transport. ■ Anyone who sells a hazardous substance with written instructions for its use, and abiding by the instructions results in contamination. In situations where there is more than one potentially liable person, each person is jointly and severally liable for cleanup at the site. That means each person can be held liable for the entire cost of cleanup. In cases where there is more than one potentially liable person at a site, Ecology encourages these persons to get together to negotiate how the cost of cleanup will be shared among all potentially liable persons. Ecology must notify anyone it knows may be a "potentially liable person" and allow an opportunity for comment before making any further determination on that person's liability. The comment period may be waived at the potentially liable person's request or if Ecology has to conduct emergency cleanup at the site. Achieving Cleanups through Cooperation Although Ecology has the legal authority to order a liable party to clean up, the department prefers to achieve cleanups cooperatively. Ecology believes that a non -adversarial relationship with potentially liable persons improves the prospect for prompt and efficient cleanup. The rules implementing the Model Toxics Control Act, which were developed by Ecology in consultation with the Science Advisory Board (created by the Act), and representatives from citizen, environmental and business groups and government agencies, are designed to: ■ Encourage independent cleanups initiated by potentially liable persons, thus providing for quicker cleanups with less legal complexity. ■ Encourage an open process for the public, local government and liable parties to discuss cleanup options and community concerns. ■ Facilitate cooperative cleanup agreements rather than Ecology -initiated orders. Ecology can, and does, however use enforcement tools in emergencies or with recalcitrant potentially liable persons. What is the Potentially Liable Person's Role in Cleanup? The Model Toxics Control Act requires potentially liable persons to assume responsibility for cleaning up contaminated sites. For this reason, Ecology does not usually conduct the actual cleanup when a potentially liable person can be identified. Rather, Ecology oversees the cleanup of sites to ensure that investigations, public involvement and actual cleanup and monitoring are done appropriately. Ecology's costs of this oversight are required to be paid by the liable party. When contamination is confirmed at the site, the owner or operator may decide to proceed with cleanup without Ecology assistance or approval. Such "independent cleanups" are -2- allowed under the Model Toxics Control Act under most circumstances, but must be reported to Ecology, and are done at the owner's or operator's own risk. Ecology may require additional cleanup work at these sites to bring them into compliance with the state cleanup standards. Most cleanups in Washington are done independently. Potentially liable persons conducting independent cleanups do not have access to financial assistance from Ecology. Those who plan to seek contributions from other persons to help pay for cleanup costs need to be sure their cleanup is "the substantial equivalent of a department -conducted or department -supervised remedial action." Ecology has provided guidance on how to meet this requirement in WAC 173-340-545. Persons interested in pursuing a private contribution action on an independent cleanup should carefully review this guidance prior to conducting site work. Working with Ecology to Achieve Cleanup Ecology and potentially liable persons often work cooperatively to reach cleanup solutions. Options for working with Ecology include formal agreements such as consent decrees and agreed orders, and seeking technical assistance through the Voluntary Cleanup Program. These mechanisms allow Ecology to take an active role in cleanup, providing help to potentially liable persons and minimizing costs by ensuring the job meets state standards the first time. This also minimizes the possibility that additional cleanup will be required in the future — providing significant assurances to investors and lenders. Here is a summary of the most common mechanisms used by Ecology: ■ Voluntary Cleanup Program: Many property owners choose to cleanup their sites independent of Ecology oversight. This allows many smaller or less complex sites to be cleaned up quickly without having to go through a formal process. A disadvantage to property owners is that Ecology does not approve the cleanup. This can present a problem to property owners who need state approval of the cleanup to satisfy a buyer or lender. One option to the property owner wanting to conduct an independent cleanup yet still receive some feedback from Ecology is to request a technical consultation through Ecology's Voluntary Cleanup Program. Under this voluntary program, the property owner submits a cleanup report with a fee to cover Ecology's review costs. Based on the review, Ecology either issues a letter stating that the site needs "No Further Action" or identifies what additional work is needed. Since Ecology is not directly involved in the site cleanup work, the level of certainty in Ecology's response is less than in a consent decree or agreed order. However, many persons have found a "No Further Action" letter to be sufficient for their needs, making the Voluntary Cleanup Program a popular option. ■ Consent Decrees: A consent decree is a formal legal agreement filed in court. The work requirements in the decree and the terms under which it must be done are negotiated and agreed to by the potentially liable person, Ecology and the state Attorney General's office. Before consent decrees can become final, they must undergo a public review and comment period that typically includes a public hearing. Consent decrees protect the potentially liable person from being sued for "contribution" by other persons that incur cleanup expenses at the site while facilitating any contribution claims against the other persons when they are responsible for part of the cleanup costs. Sites cleaned up under a consent decree are also exempt from having to obtain certain state and local permits that could delay the cleanup. -3- ■ De Minimus Consent Decree: Landowners whose contribution to site contamination is "insignificant in amount and toxicity" may be eligible for a de minimus consent decree. In these decrees, the landowner typically settles their liability by paying for some of the cleanup instead of actually conducting the cleanup work. Ecology usually accepts a de minimus settlement proposal only if the landowner is affiliated with a larger site cleanup that Ecology is currently working on. ■ Prospective Purchaser Consent Decree: A consent decree may also be available for a "prospective purchaser" of contaminated property. In this situation, a person who is not already liable for cleanup and wishes to purchase a cleanup site for redevelopment or reuse may apply to negotiate a prospective purchaser consent decree. The applicant must show, among other things, that they will contribute substantial new resources towards the cleanup. Cleanups that also have a substantial public benefit will receive a higher priority for prospective purchaser agreements. If the application is accepted, the requirements for cleanup are negotiated and specified in a consent decree so that the purchaser can better estimate the cost of cleanup before buying the land. ■ Agreed Orders: Unlike a consent decree, an agreed order is not filed in court and is not a settlement. Rather, it is a legally binding, administrative order issued by Ecology and agreed to by the potentially liable person. Agreed orders are available for remedial investigations, feasibility studies, and final cleanups. An agreed order describes the site activities that must occur for Ecology to agree not to take enforcement action for that phase of work. As with consent decrees, agreed orders are subject to public review and offer the advantage of facilitating contribution claims against other persons and exempting cleanup work from obtaining certain state and local permits. Ecology -Initiated Cleanup Orders Administrative orders requiring cleanup activities without an agreement with a potentially liable person are known as enforcement orders. These orders are usually issued to a potentially liable person when Ecology believes a cleanup solution cannot be achieved expeditiously through negotiation or if an emergency exists. If the responsible party fails to comply with an enforcement order, Ecology can clean up the site and later recover costs from the responsible person(s) at up to three times the amount spent. The state Attorney General's Office may also seek a fine of up to $25,000 a day for violating an order. Enforcement orders are subject to public notification. Financial Assistance Each year, Ecology provides millions of dollars in grants to local governments to help pay for the cost of site cleanup. In general, such grants are available only for sites where the cleanup work is being done under an order or decree. Ecology can also provide grants to local governments to help defray the cost of replacing a public water supply well contaminated by a hazardous waste site. Grants are also available for local citizen groups and neighborhoods affected by contaminated sites to facilitate public review of the cleanup. See Chapter 173-322 WAC for additional information on grants to local governments and Chapter 173-321 WAC for additional information on public participation grants. Public Involvement Public notices are required on all agreed orders, consent decrees and enforcement orders. Public notification is also required for all Ecology -conducted remedial actions. -4- Ecology's Site Register is a widely used means of providing information about cleanup efforts to the public and is one way of assisting community involvement. The Site Register is pub- lished every two weeks to inform citizens of public meetings and comment periods, discus- sions or negotiations of legal agreements, and other cleanup activities. Persons affected by contaminated sites and needing additional information on the Act, cleanup standards, or risk assessment can call Ecology's Citizen Technical Advisor toll free at 1-800-826-7716. The Site Register can be accessed on the Internet at: www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/tcp/Sub my/pub inv2.htm1. How Sites are Cleaned Up The rules describing the cleanup process at a hazardous waste site are in chapter 173-340 WAC. The following is a general description of the steps taken during the cleanup of an average hazardous waste site. Consult the rules for the specific requirements for each step in the cleanup process. 1. Site Discovery. Sites where contamination is found must be reported to Ecology's Toxics Cleanup Program within 90 days of discovery, unless it involves a release of hazardous materials from an underground storage tank system. In that case, the site discovery must be reported to Ecology within 24 hours. At this point, potentially liable persons may choose to conduct independent cleanup without assistance from the department, but cleanup results must be reported to Ecology. 2. Initial Investigation: Ecology is required to conduct an initial investigation of the site within 90 days of receiving a site discovery report. Based on information obtained about the site, a decision must be made within 30 days to determine if the site requires additional investigation, emergency cleanup, or no further action. If further action is required under the Model Toxics Control Act, Ecology sends early notice letters to owners, operators and other potentially liable persons inviting them to work cooperatively with the department. 4. Hazard Ranking. The Model Toxics Control Act requires that 3. Site Hazard Assessment. A sites be ranked according to the relative health and environmental risk site hazard assessment is conducted each site poses. Working with the Science Advisory Board, Ecology to confirm the presence of hazardous created the Washington Ranking Method to categorize sites using data substances and to determine the from site hazard assessments. Sites are ranked on a scale of 1 to 5. A relative risk the site poses to human score of 1 represents the highest level of risk and 5 the lowest. health and the environment. Ranked sites are placed on the state Hazardous Sites List. S. Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study: A remedial investigation and feasibility study is conducted to define the extent and magnitude of contamination at the site. Potential impacts on human health and the environment and alternative cleanup technologies are also evaluated in this study. Sites being cleaned up by Ecology or by potentially liable persons under a consent decree, agreed order or enforcement order are required to provide for a 30 day public review before finalizing the report. 6. Selection of Cleanup Action: Using information gathered during the study, a cleanup action plan is developed. The plan identifies preferred cleanup methods and specifies cleanup standards and other requirements at the site. A draft of the plan is subject to public review and comment before it is finalized. 7. Site Cleanup: Actual cleanup begins when the cleanup action plan is implemented. This includes design, construction, operation and monitoring of cleanup actions. A site may be taken off the Hazardous Sites List after cleanup is completed and Ecology determines cleanup standards have been met. -5- For More Information / Special Accommodation Needs If you would like more information about the state Model Toxics Control Act, please call us toll -free at 1-800-826-7716, or contact your regional Washington State Department of Ecology office listed below. Information about site cleanup, including a listing of ranked hazardous waste sites, is also accessible through our Internet address: httD://www.ecv.wa.izov/t)rograms/tct)/cleanut).htmi ■ Northwest Regional Office 425/649-7000 (voice) / 206/649-4259 (TDD) (Island, King, Kitsap, San Juan, Skagit, Snohomish, Whatcom Counties) ■ Southwest Regional Office 360/407-6300 (voice) / 360/407-6306 (TDD) (Southwestern Washington, Olympic Peninsula, Pierce, Thurston and Mason Counties) ■ Central Regional Office 509/575-2490 (voice) / 509/454-7673 (TDD) (Benton, Chelan, Douglas, Kittitas, Klickitat, Okanogan, Yakima Counties) ■ Eastern Regional Office 509/456-2926 (voice) / 509/458-2055 (TDD) (Adams, Asotin, Columbia, Ferry, Franklin, Garfield, Grant, Lincoln, Pend Oreille, Spokane, Stevens, Walla Walla, Whitman Counties) If you have special accommodation needs or require this publication in alternative format, please contact Carol Esget at (360) 407-7224 (Voice) or (360) 407-6006 (TDD). Disclaimer Notice: This fact sheet is intended to help the user understand the Model Toxics Control Act Cleanup Regulation, chapter 173-340 WAC. It does not establish or modify regulatory requirements. -6- a e�Ok etaoot���i AI October 27, 2004 Mr. Allen Quynn Project Manager City of Renton Planning/Building/Public Works Department Utility Systems - Fifth Floor 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 Re: WA Department of Ecology Reporting Requirements Dear Mr. Quynn: On October 20, 2004 I made a visit to the job site where I became aware of the contaminated soil issue. As there was a strong odor of gasoline present, I made the decision to stop work so that I could have an opportunity to assess the newfound safety and environmental situation. I used a photoionization detector to test the air and found levels of unknown ionizable gases greater than 300 ppm. Further testing has found measurable amounts of the components of gasoline, including benzene. I have attached two Washington Department of Ecology (DOE) publications which contain information regarding several issues of environmental concern that you are obligated to address. 1. Reporting Requirements DOE regulations (WAC 173-340-300(2)) requires the reporting of a hazardous substance release within 90 calendar days of discovery. "Owners and operators are required to report the discovery of a release of hazardous substances that may pose a threat to human health or the environment. Persons other than owners and operators are strongly encouraged to report knowledge of any release to the environment." Frank Coluccio Construction Company (FCCC) is neither an Owner nor an Operator and is not required to report the presence of contaminated soils at the project site. However, it is our interpretation that as the owner of the property, the City of Renton has a legal obligation to contact DOE and report that a hazardous substance release has occurred. We believe 9600 M. L. King Way South • Seattle, Washington 98118-5693 • (206) 722-5306 • Fax (206) 725-4764 • FR-AN•KC•C3401-7 that FCCC has a secondary obligation to report this release. Please provide FCCC with a copy of the report that you have filed pursuant to the DOE regulations and the WAC. 2. Determination of Hazardous/Dangerous Waste DOE requires that contaminated soil be subject to testing using the toxicity characteristic leaching procedure (TCLP) in order to determine if the soil should be classified as a dangerous waste. Preliminary air sampling has found benzene at a concentration that is above the Washington State Department of Labor and Industries Action Level. It stands to reason that the source of the benzene in the air is from the contaminated soil. If benzene is present in the soil at sufficient levels, then the contaminated soil may need to be reclassified as a dangerous waste. Have the soil samples been tested using TCLP? If the soil meets the hazardous waste disposal requirements, then does that require the use of 40-hour hazardous waste trained personnel? 3. Potentially Liable Persons According to DOE, any past or present relationship with a contaminated site may result in liability. Their list of potential liable persons (PLP) includes "anyone who arranged for disposal or treatment of hazardous substances at the site" and "anyone who transported hazardous substance for disposal or treatment at a contaminated site". As FCCC has been involved in the arrangements and the actual transport and disposal of contaminated soils for the City of Renton, this raises future liability issues for the Company that need to be addressed. As Safety Director, it is my duty is to protect the FCCC and its employees from physical harm and liability. It is not my intention to cause further delay in the project schedule or threaten the City of Renton with "whistle blowing". I hope that you can provide me with the necessary information so that these environmental issues may be laid to rest as soon as possible. Thank you for you immediate attention to this matter. Please feel free to call me on my cell phone ((206) 793-0974) if you need further information or wish to discuss this matter. Best regards, Heather Meeds, CIH Safety Director Encl. ILIE"I TIER, OF '7f RA NSM111TIFAIL TO: Frank Coluccio Construction Company SEWERS, WATER MAINS, UTILITIES 9600 Martin Luther King Jr. Way South Seattle, Washington 98118 FR-AN-KC-C340L7 (206) 722-5306 Fax (206) 725-4764 Allen Quynn Planning/Building/Public Works Department Utility Systems - Fifth Floor 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 WE ARE SENDING YOU: 0 Attached ❑ Shop Drawings 0 Copy of letter ❑ Under separate cover via ❑ Prints ❑ Change Order ❑ Plans ❑ Other Date: October 28, 2004 Job No. COR SWP-27-2959 RE Contaminated Soil Notification and Liabilitv the following items: ❑ Samples ❑ Specifications COPIES DATE PGS DESCRIPTION 1 10/27/04 2 Letter to Allen Quynn from Heather Meeds on DOE Reporting Requirements 1 May 2001 6 Focus 94-129 — Model Toxics Control Act Cleanup Regulations 1 06/10/04 9 Policy 300 — Toxic Cleanup Program Policy Washington State Department of Ecology THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below: ❑ For Approval ❑ Approved as Submitted Q For Your Use ❑ Approved as Noted ❑ As requested ❑ Returned for corrections 0 For review and comment ❑ ❑ FOR BIDS DUE 19 REMARKS: 0 Resubmit copies for approval ❑ Submit copies for distribution ❑ Return corrected prints Allen, Please provide the Following: 1—Copies of all the TCLP Reports associated with the Contaminated Soils for SW 7`� Project. 2—A "Letter of Rele,ase� from the COR to FCCC with regards to the Contaminated Soils for SW 7'h Project. 3 — A Copy of the Letter/Notification between the COR or it's agents, notifying the Department of Energy of the contaminated material discovered on the SW 7t' Project. Please provide the above listed items by 10/31/04 so that we have them prior to the return to work scheduled for 11/01/04. SIGNED: 9?. Scott Clemons 10/28/04 ,,,[t k , v�-p f R. Scott Clemons, Project Manager Received By Title T/V� �%t /"`An�rer- Dated Il I U 0'-1-_ ]LETTER OF TRANSMITTAIL TO: Frank Coluccio Construction Company SEWERS, WATER MAINS, LMLtTIES 9600 Martin Luther King Jr. Way South Seattle, Washington 98118 FR-AN-KC-C340L7 (206) 722-5306 Fax (206) 7254764 Allen Quynn Planning/Building/Public Works Department Utility Systems - Fifth Floor 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 WE ARE SENDING YOU: d Attached ❑ Shop Drawings 0 Copy of letter Date: Chta�her 28, 2004 Job No. COR SWP-27-2959 RE: Contaminated Soil Notification and Liabflity ❑ Under separate cover via the following items: ❑ Prints ❑ Plans ❑ Samples ❑ Change Order ❑ Other ❑ Specifications COPIES DATE PGS DESCRIPTION 1 10/27/04 2 Letter to Allen Quynn from Heather Meeds on DOE Reporting Requirements 1 May 2001 6 Focus 94-129 — Model Toxics Control Act Cleanup Regulations 1 06/10/04 9 Policy 300 — Toxic Cleanup Program Policy Washington State Department of Ecology THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below: ❑ For Approval ❑ Approved as Submitted ❑ Resubmit copies for approval R1 For Your Use ❑ Approved as Noted ❑ Submit copies for distribution ❑ As requested ❑ Returned for corrections ❑ Return corrected prints 0 For review and comment ❑ ❑ FOR BIDS DUE 19 Ia3i', � Allen, Please provide the Following: 1—Copies of all the TCLP Reports associated with the Contaminated Soils for SW 7 h Project_ 2—A "Letter of Release'=from the COR to FCCC with regards to the Contaminated Soils for SW 7`� Project. 3 — A Copy of the Letter/Notification between the COR or it's agents, notifying the Department of Energy of the contaminated material discovered on the SW 7 h Project. Please provide the above listed items by 10/31/04 so that we have them prior to the return to work scheduled for 11/01/04_ SIGNED: W. Scott Clemons 10/28104 ta�,Z$,lI f R- Scott Clemons, Project Manager �) t_ Received By Title Tl-yt ee - L4AWo-r- Dated lI l o o ' �` 0 o` rx A(*V ee October 27, 2004 Mr. Allen Quynn Project Manager City of Renton Planning/Building/Public Works Department Utility Systems - Fifth Floor 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 Re: WA Department of Ecology Reporting Requirements Dear Mr. Quynn: On October 20, 2004 I made a visit to the job site where I became aware of the contaminated soil issue. As there was a strong odor of gasoline present, I made the decision to stop work so that I could have an opportunity to assess the newfound safety and environmental situation. I used a photoionization detector to test the air and found levels of unknown ionizable gases greater than 300 ppm. Further testing has found measurable amounts of the components of gasoline, including benzene. I have attached two Washington Department of Ecology (DOE) publications which contain information regarding several issues of environmental concern that you are obligated to address. 1. Reporting Requirements DOE regulations (WAC 173-340-300(2)) requires the reporting of a hazardous substance release within 90 calendar days of discovery. "Owners and operators are required to report the discovery of a release of hazardous substances that may pose a threat to human health or the environment. Persons other than owners and operators are strongly encouraged to report knowledge of any release to the environment." Frank Coluccio Construction Company (FCCC) is neither an Owner nor an Operator and is not required to report the presence of contaminated soils at the project site. However, it is our interpretation that as the owner of the property, the City of Renton has a legal obligation to contact DOE and report that a hazardous substance release has occurred. We believe 9600 M. L. King Way South • Seattle, Washington 98118-5693 • (206) 722-5306 • Fax (206) 725-4764 • FR•AAN•KC-0401-7 that FCCC has a secondary obligation to report this release. Please provide FCCC with a copy of the report that you have filed pursuant to the DOE regulations and the WAC. 2. Determination of Hazardous/Dangerous Waste DOE requires that contaminated soil be subject to testing using the toxicity characteristic leaching procedure (TCLP) in order to determine if the soil should be classified as a dangerous waste. Preliminary air sampling has found benzene at a concentration that is above the Washington State Department of Labor and Industries Action Level. It stands to reason that the source of the benzene in the air is from the contaminated soil. If benzene is present in the soil at sufficient levels, then the contaminated soil may need to be reclassified as a dangerous waste. Have the soil samples been tested using TCLP? If the soil meets the hazardous waste disposal requirements, then does that require the use of 40-hour hazardous waste trained personnel? 3. Potentially Liable Persons According to DOE, any past or present relationship with a contaminated site may result in liability. Their list of potential liable persons (PLP) includes "anyone who arranged for disposal or treatment of hazardous substances at the site" and "anyone who transported hazardous substance for disposal or treatment at a contaminated site". As FCCC has been involved in the arrangements and the actual transport and disposal of contaminated soils for the City of Renton, this raises future liability issues for the Company that need to be addressed. As Safety Director, it is my duty is to protect the FCCC and its employees from physical harm and liability. It is not my intention to cause further delay in the project schedule or threaten the City of Renton with "whistle blowing". I hope that you can provide me with the necessary information so that these environmental issues may be laid to rest as soon as possible. Thank you for you immediate attention to this matter. Please feel free to call me on my cell phone ((206) 793-0974) if you need further information or wish to discuss this matter. Best regards, 4- -Z� Heather Meeds, CIH Safety Director Encl. ri r� NA SA 106T0A STATE BEEAATYE Af OE ECOLOGY Focus Model Toxics Control Act Cleanup Regulation: Process for Cleanup of Hazardous Waste Sites In March of 1989, an innovative, citizen -mandated toxic waste cleanup law went into effect in Washington, changing the way hazardous waste sites in this state are cleaned up. Passed by voters as Initiative 97, this law is known as the Model Toxics Control Act, chapter 70.105D RCW. This fact sheet provides a brief overview of the process for the cleanup of contami- nated sites under the rules Ecology adopted to implement that Act (chapter 173-340 WAC). How the Law Works The cleanup of hazardous waste sites is complex and expensive. In an effort to avoid the confusion and delays associated with the federal Superfund program, the Model Toxics Control Act is designed to be as streamlined as possible. It sets strict cleanup standards to ensure that the quality of cleanup and protection of human health and the environment are not compromised. At the same time, the rules that guide cleanup under the Act have built-in flexibility to allow cleanups to be addressed on a site -specific basis. The Model Toxics Control Act funds hazardous waste cleanup through a tax on the wholesale value of hazardous substances. The tax is imposed on the first in -state possessor of hazardous substances at the rate of 0.7 percent, or $7 per $1,000. Since its passage in 1988, the Act has guided the cleanup of thousands of hazardous waste sites that dot the Washington landscape. The Washington State Department of Ecology's Toxic Cleanup Program ensures that these sites are investigated and cleaned up. What Constitutes a Hazardous Waste Site? Any owner or operator who has information that a hazardous substance has been released to the environment at the owner or operator's facility and may be a threat to human health or the environment must report this information to the Department of Ecology (Ecology). If an "initial investigation" by Ecology confirms further action (such as testing or cleanup) may be necessary, the facility is entered onto either Ecology's "Integrated Site Information System" database or "Leaking Underground Storage Tank" database. These are computerized data- bases used to track progress on all confirmed or suspected contaminated sites in Washington State. All confirmed sites that have not been already voluntarily cleaned up are ranked and placed on the state "Hazardous Sites List." Owners, operators and other persons known to be potentially liable for the cleanup of the site will receive an "Early Notice Letter" from Ecology notifying them that their site is suspected of needing cleanup, and that it is Ecology's policy to work cooperatively with them to accomplish prompt and effective cleanup. May 2001 Ecology is an equal -opportunity employer Revised Focus No. 94-129 QJ printed on recycled paper Who is Responsible for Cleanup? Any past or present relationship with a contaminated site may result in liability. Under the Model Toxics Control Act a potentially liable person can be: ■ A current or past facility owner or operator. ■ Anyone who arranged for disposal or treatment of hazardous substances at the site. ■ Anyone who transported hazardous substances for disposal or treatment at a contaminated site, unless the facility could legally receive the hazardous materials at the time of transport. ■ Anyone who sells a hazardous substance with written instructions for its use, and abiding by the instructions results in contamination. In situations where there is more than one potentially liable person, each person is jointly and severally liable for cleanup at the site. That means each person can be held liable for the entire cost of cleanup. In cases where there is more than one potentially liable person at a site, Ecology encourages these persons to get together to negotiate how the cost of cleanup will be shared among all potentially liable persons. Ecology must notify anyone it knows may be a "potentially liable person" and allow an opportunity for comment before making any further determination on that person's liability. The comment period may be waived at the potentially liable person's request or if Ecology has to conduct emergency cleanup at the site. Achieving Cleanups through Cooperation Although Ecology has the legal authority to order a liable party to clean up, the department prefers to achieve cleanups cooperatively. Ecology believes that a non -adversarial relationship with potentially liable persons improves the prospect for prompt and efficient cleanup. The rules implementing the Model Toxics Control Act, which were developed by Ecology in consultation with the Science Advisory Board (created by the Act), and representatives from citizen, environmental and business groups and government agencies, are designed to: ■ Encourage independent cleanups initiated by potentially liable persons, thus providing for quicker cleanups with less legal complexity. ■ Encourage an open process for the public, local government and liable parties to discuss cleanup options and community concerns. ■ Facilitate cooperative cleanup agreements rather than Ecology -initiated orders. Ecology can, and does, however use enforcement tools in emergencies or with recalcitrant potentially liable persons. What is the Potentially Liable Person's Role in Cleanup? The Model Toxics Control Act requires potentially liable persons to assume responsibility for cleaning up contaminated sites. For this reason, Ecology does not usually conduct the actual cleanup when a potentially liable person can be identified. Rather, Ecology oversees the cleanup of sites to ensure that investigations, public involvement and actual cleanup and monitoring are done appropriately. Ecology's costs of this oversight are required to be paid by the liable party. When contamination is confirmed at the site, the owner or operator may decide to proceed with cleanup without Ecology assistance or approval. Such "independent cleanups" are -2- 4. allowed under the Model Toxics Control Act under most circumstances, but must be reported to Ecology, and are done at the owner's or operator's own risk. Ecology may require additional cleanup work at these sites to bring them into compliance with the state cleanup standards. Most cleanups in Washington are done independently. Potentially liable persons conducting independent cleanups do not have access to financial assistance from Ecology. Those who plan to seek contributions from other persons to help pay for cleanup costs need to be sure their cleanup is "the substantial equivalent of a department -conducted or department -supervised remedial action." Ecology has provided guidance on how to meet this requirement in WAC 173-340-545. Persons interested in pursuing a private contribution action on an independent cleanup should carefully review this guidance prior to conducting site work. Working with Ecology to Achieve Cleanup Ecology and potentially liable persons often work cooperatively to reach cleanup solutions. Options for working with Ecology include formal agreements such as consent decrees and agreed orders, and seeking technical assistance through the Voluntary Cleanup Program. These mechanisms allow Ecology to take an active role in cleanup, providing help to potentially liable persons and minimizing costs by ensuring the job meets state standards the first time. This also minimizes the possibility that additional cleanup will be required in the future — providing significant assurances to investors and lenders. Here is a summary of the most common mechanisms used by Ecology: ■ Voluntary Cleanup Program: Many property owners choose to cleanup their sites independent of Ecology oversight. This allows many smaller or less complex sites to be cleaned up quickly without having to go through a formal process. A disadvantage to property owners is that Ecology does not approve the cleanup. This can present a problem to property owners who need state approval of the cleanup to satisfy a buyer or lender. One option to the property owner wanting to conduct an independent cleanup yet still receive some feedback from Ecology is to request a technical consultation through Ecology's Voluntary Cleanup Program. Under this voluntary program, the property owner submits a cleanup report with a fee to cover Ecology's review costs. Based on the review, Ecology either issues a letter stating that the site needs "No Further Action" or identifies what additional work is needed. Since Ecology is not directly involved in the site cleanup work, the level of certainty in Ecology's response is less than in a consent decree or agreed order. However, many persons have found a "No Further Action" letter to be sufficient for their needs, making the Voluntary Cleanup Program a popular option. Consent Decrees: A consent decree is a formal legal agreement filed in court. The work requirements in the decree and the terms under which it must be done are negotiated and agreed to by the potentially liable person, Ecology and the state Attorney General's office. Before consent decrees can become final, they must undergo a public review and comment period that typically includes a public hearing. Consent decrees protect the potentially liable person from being sued for "contribution" by other persons that incur cleanup expenses at the site while facilitating any contribution claims against the other persons when they are responsible for part of the cleanup costs. Sites cleaned up under a consent decree are also exempt from having to obtain certain state and local permits that could delay the cleanup. -3- ■ De Minimus Consent Decree: Landowners whose contribution to site contamination is "insignificant in amount and toxicity" may be eligible for a de minimus consent decree. In these decrees, the landowner typically settles their liability by paying for some of the cleanup instead of actually conducting the cleanup work. Ecology usually accepts a de minimus settlement proposal only if the landowner is affiliated with a larger site cleanup that Ecology is currently working on. ■ Prospective Purchaser Consent Decree: A consent decree may also be available for a "prospective purchaser" of contaminated property. In this situation, a person who is not already liable for cleanup and wishes to purchase a cleanup site for redevelopment or reuse may apply to negotiate a prospective purchaser consent decree. The applicant must show, among other things, that they will contribute substantial new resources towards the cleanup. Cleanups that also have a substantial public benefit will receive a higher priority for prospective purchaser agreements. If the application is accepted, the requirements for cleanup are negotiated and specified in a consent decree so that the purchaser can better estimate the cost of cleanup before buying the land. ■ Agreed Orders: Unlike a consent decree, an agreed order is not filed in court and is not a settlement. Rather, it is a legally binding, administrative order issued by Ecology and agreed to by the potentially liable person. Agreed orders are available for remedial investigations, feasibility studies, and final cleanups. An agreed order describes the site activities that must occur for Ecology to agree not to take enforcement action for that phase of work. As with consent decrees, agreed orders are subject to public review and offer the advantage of facilitating contribution claims against other persons and exempting cleanup work from obtaining certain state and local permits. Ecology -Initiated Cleanup Orders Administrative orders requiring cleanup activities without an agreement with a potentially liable person are known as enforcement orders. These orders are usually issued to a potentially liable person when Ecology believes a cleanup solution cannot be achieved expeditiously through negotiation or if an emergency exists. If the responsible party fails to comply with an enforcement order, Ecology can clean up the site and later recover costs from the responsible person(s) at up to three times the amount spent. The state Attorney General's Office may also seek a fine of up to $25,000 a day for violating an order. Enforcement orders are subject to public notification. Financial Assistance Each year, Ecology provides millions of dollars in grants to local governments to help pay for the cost of site cleanup. In general, such grants are available only for sites where the cleanup work is being done under an order or decree. Ecology can also provide grants to local governments to help defray the cost of replacing a public water supply well contaminated by a hazardous waste site. Grants are also available for local citizen groups and neighborhoods affected by contaminated sites to facilitate public review of the cleanup. See Chapter 173-322 WAC for additional information on grants to local governments and Chapter 173-321 WAC for additional information on public participation grants. Public Involvement Public notices are required on all agreed orders, consent decrees and enforcement orders. Public notification is also required for all Ecology -conducted remedial actions. -4- Ecology's Site Register is a widely used means of providing information about cleanup efforts to the public and is one way of assisting community involvement. The Site Register is pub- lished every two weeks to inform citizens of public meetings and comment periods, discus- sions or negotiations of legal agreements, and other cleanup activities. Persons affected by contaminated sites and needing additional information on the Act, cleanup standards, or risk assessment can call Ecology's Citizen Technical Advisor toll free at 1-800-826-7716. The Site Register can be accessed on the Internet at: www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/tcy/pub inv/pub inv2.htm1. How Sites are Cleaned U The rules describing the cleanup process at a hazardous waste site are in chapter 173-340 WAC. The following is a general description of the steps taken during the cleanup of an average hazardous waste site. Consult the rules for the specific requirements for each step in the cleanup process. I. Site Discovery: Sites where contamination is found must be reported to Ecology's Toxics Cleanup Program within 90 days of discovery, unless it involves a release of hazardous materials from an underground storage tank system. In that case, the site discovery must be reported to Ecology within 24 hours. At this point, potentially liable persons may choose to conduct independent cleanup without assistance from the department, but cleanup results must be reported to Ecology. 2. Initial Investigation: Ecology is required to conduct an initial investigation of the site within 90 days of receiving a site discovery report. Based on information obtained about the site, a decision must be made within 30 days to determine if the site requires additional investigation, emergency cleanup, or no further action. If further action is required under the Model Toxics Control Act, Ecology sends early notice letters to owners, operators and other potentially liable persons inviting them to work cooperatively with the department. 4. Hazard Ranking. The Model Toxics Control Act requires that 3. Site Hazard Assessment. A sites be ranked according to the relative health and environmental risk site hazard assessment is conducted each site poses. Working with the Science Advisory Board, Ecology to confirm the presence of hazardous created the Washington Ranking Method to categorize sites using data substances and to determine the from site hazard assessments. Sites are ranked on a scale of 1 to 5. A relative risk the site poses to human score of I represents the highest level of risk and 5 the lowest. health and the environment. Ranked sites are placed on the state Hazardous Sites List. S. Remedial InvestigatiomFeasibility Study: A remedial investigation and feasibility study is conducted to define the extent and magnitude of contamination at the site. Potential impacts on human health and the environment and alternative cleanup technologies are also evaluated in this study. Sites being cleaned up by Ecology or by potentially liable persons under a consent decree, agreed order or enforcement order are required to provide for a 30 day public review before finalizing the report. 6. Selection of Cleanup Action: Using information gathered during the study, a cleanup action plan is developed. The plan identifies preferred cleanup methods and specifies cleanup standards and other requirements at the site. A draft of the plan is subject to public review and comment before it is finalized. 7. Site Cleanup: Actual cleanup begins when the cleanup action plan is implemented. This includes design, construction, operation and monitoring of cleanup actions. A site may be taken off the Hazardous Sites List after cleanup is completed and Ecology determines cleanup standards have been met. -5- For More Information / Special Accommodation Needs If you would like more information about the state Model Toxics Control Act, please call us toll -free at 1-800-826-7716, or contact your regional Washington State Department of Ecology office listed below. Information about site cleanup, including a listing of ranked hazardous waste sites, is also accessible through our Internet address: http•//www ecy wa gov/programs/tcp/cleanup html ■ Northwest Regional Office 425/649-7000 (voice) / 206/649-4259 (TDD) (Island, King, Kitsap, San Juan, Skagit, Snohomish, Whatcom Counties) ■ Southwest Regional Office 360/407-6300 (voice) / 360/407-6306 (TDD) (Southwestern Washington, Olympic Peninsula, Pierce, Thurston and Mason Counties) ■ Central Regional Office 509/575-2490 (voice) / 509/454-7673 (TDD) (Benton, Chelan, Douglas, Kittitas, Klickitat, Okanogan, Yakima Counties) ■ Eastern Regional Office 509/456-2926 (voice) / 509/458-2055 (TDD) (Adams, Asotin, Columbia, Ferry, Franklin, Garfield, Grant, Lincoln, Pend Oreille, Spokane, Stevens, Walla Walla, Whitman Counties) If you have special accommodation needs or require this publication in alternative format, please contact Carol Esget at (360) 407-7224 (Voice) or (360) 407-6006 (TDD). Disclaimer Notice: This fact sheet is intended to help the user understand the Model Toxics Control Act Cleanup Regulation, chapter 173-340 WAC. It does not establish or modify regulatory requirements. +® qm� NASN IN 610N SIAII D E I ANI MF NI OF ECOLOGY Policy 300 Resource Contact. Policy and Technical Support Staff Effective: April 8, 1992 References: Cancels Policies 101 and 102 Revised: June 10, 2004 Policy 300 Site Discovery —Reporting Releases The Model Toxics Control Act (MTCA), Chapter 70.105D RCW, requires the Department of Ecology (Ecology) to establish a program to identify sites potentially contaminated with hazardous substances. That program is set forth in WAC 173-340-300, which is part of the MTCA Cleanup Regulation, chapter 173-340 WAC. Under that program, Ecology requires owners and operators to report releases of hazardous substances occurring as consequence of past practices. Releases occurring as a consequence of current practices must be reported under other authorities. Ecology believes it is in the interest of the state and the public in the vicinity of contaminated sites to be informed of these sites, and encourages all persons to report any discovery of a release of hazardous substances to the environment. This policy provides guidance on the types of releases that should be reported under WAC 173-340-300 and the procedures for reporting such releases. 1. Owners And Operators Are Required To Report Releases. Owners and operators are required to report the discovery of a release of hazardous substances that may pose a threat to human health or the environment. Persons other than owners and operators are strongly encouraged to report knowledge of any release to the environment. 2. Releases Must Be Reported Within A Specified Time Period. A. For confirmed releases from Underground Storage Tanks (UST) regulated under chapter 90.76 RCW, the release must be reported within 24 hours of discovery (WAC 173-340-450(2)). B. For other releases of hazardous substances, the release must be reported within ninety (90) calendar days of discovery (WAC 173-340-300(2)). However, pursuant to WAC 173-340-515 (4)(c), if an independent remedial action is completed within ninety (90) calendar days of discovery, a single written report may be submitted on both the release and the action taken. The combined report must include the information specified in WAC 173-340-515(4)(b) and be submitted within ninety (90) calendar days of completion of the remedial action. For additional information regarding the reporting of independent remedial actions, see WAC 173-340-515(4) and POL 515, Independent Remedial Actions. Page I of 9 Revised.• 6110104 Policy 300: Site Discovery — Reporting Releases 3. Some Releases Are Exempt From The Reporting Requirement. Pursuant to WAC 173-340-300(3), the following releases of hazardous substances are exempt from the reporting requirements, and therefore do not need to be reported to Ecology: A. Application of pesticides and fertilizers for their intended purposes and according to label instructions; B. Lawful and non -negligent use of hazardous substances by a natural person ("unincorporated individual") for personal or domestic purposes; C. A release in accordance with a permit that authorizes that release; D. A release previously reported to Ecology in fulfillment of a reporting requirement in chapter 173-340 WAC or in another law or regulation; E. A release previously reported to the United States Environmental Protection Agency under CERCLA ("Superfund"), Section 103(c) (42 U.S.C. Sec. 9603(c)); F. A direct release to the air from an industrial or commercial process or operation; Note: Release that is exempt from the reporting requirements should still be reported to the local air pollution control agency, which for some counties is the Ecology regional office. G. Releases discovered in public water systems regulated by the Department of Health (rules governing the reporting of these releases to the Department of Health are in chapter 246-290 WAC); or H. A release to a permitted wastewater facility. These exemptions are intended primarily to avoid duplicate reporting requirements. An exemption from the reporting requirements is not a release from liability under RCW 70.105D.040. 4. When Determining Whether A Release Has Occurred, Persons Should Rely On Physical Evidence. Persons should rely on available physical evidence to determine whether hazardous substances have been released to the environment. If there is physical evidence that a release has occurred, then the release must be reported if it may be a threat to human health or the environment (see Section 5 of this policy). The release report submitted to Ecology should be based on physical evidence. Examples of physical evidence include visual observations, readings from field instruments, and lab data. Ecology does not expect that additional testing be performed for the purpose of complying with the reporting requirements of WAC 173-340-300 or this policy, only that available information is provided. 5. When Determining Whether A Release Should Be Reported, Persons Should Use "Best Professional Judgment." To determine whether a release of hazardous substances poses a threat, or potential threat, to human health or the environment, persons should use their "best professional judgment." In making this determination, persons are expected to use the regulation Revised.• 06110104 Page 2 of 9 t Policy 300 Site Discovery — Reporting Releases (Chapter 173-340 WAC), the guidance contained in this policy, and their professional training and experience. To assist persons in making this determination, Section 6 of this policy describes several situations where the release of hazardous substances is presumed to pose a threat, or potential threat, to human health or the environment. Ecology recognizes that hazardous substances can be found at almost any commercial or industrial facility. The presence of such substances does not necessarily mean that a release has occurred. Even if a release has occurred, the release may not need to be reported under MTCA, either because the release does not pose a threat or because the release is regulated under another authority. For example, the presence of asbestos in a building, scrap metal at a commercial facility, litter along a roadway, or hazardous substances in wastewater conveyance systems do not need to be reported under MTCA. If you determine, based on your best professional judgment, that the release does not pose a threat or potential threat, then you do not need to report the release. When an environmental consultant recommends that a site be reported to Ecology, the owner/operator must report that site to Ecology. Failure to report a site is a violation of the law and could result in enforcement action. If you are not sure if a release should be reported, you should report the release to Ecology. You may contact Ecology if you need assistance in determining whether or not to report a release. A map of Ecology's regional offices can be found at http://www.ecy.wa. og v/org.html. 6. Ecology Has Determined That Certain Types Of Releases Should Be Reported. Ecology has determined that the following types of releases of hazardous substances pose a threat, or potential threat, to human health or the environment, and therefore should be reported under WAC 173-340-300. These types of releases are presumed to pose a threat, or potential threat, based on the risk assessment process set forth in chapter 173-340 WAC. Note that the guidance contained in this section of the policy, which reflects the guidance provided in WAC 173-340-300(2)(b), does not provide an exhaustive list of releases that should be reported. Other types of releases not described herein may also pose a threat, or potential threat, to human health or the environment and should be reported. The purpose of this guidance is merely to provide some examples of obvious situations that should be reported under WAC 173-340-300. A. Releases to ground water or surface water causing a health hazard based on ingestion; Finding any hazardous substance in potable ground water, or surface water classified as suitable for use as drinking water supply under chapter 173-201A WAC, in excess of the natural background and any one of the following applicable federal or state standards: Page 3 of 9 Revised: 06110104 Policy 300: Site Discovery — Reporting Releases i. Maximum contaminant levels (MCL) established under the Safe Drinking Water Act and published in 40 C.F.R. Part 141; ii. Maximum contaminant level goals (MCLG) for non carcinogens established under the Safe Drinking Water Act and published in 40 C.F.R. Part 141; or iii. Maximum contaminant levels (MCL) established by the Department of Health and published in chapter chapter 246-290 WAC. This includes ground water both inside and outside the facility boundaries. Pursuant to WAC 246-290-480, if contamination is found in a public water supply in excess of the MCL established by the Department of Health, the water purveyor is also required to report the contamination to the Department of Health. B. Release to surface water; Finding any hazardous substance in surface water or sediment, including run-off leaving a facility, at levels exceeding the natural background level and any one of the following federal or state ambient water quality criteria that are based on the protection of human health or aquatic organisms: i. State water quality criteria published in chanter 173-201A WAC; ii. Federal water quality criteria published in the National Toxics Rule, 40 C.F.R. Part 131; or iii. Federal water quality criteria established under section 304 of the Clean Water Act (see http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/standards/wgcriteria.html) iv. Marine sediment quality standards chemical criteria — Table 1 in WAC 173- 204-320 Example: There is an unpermitted leachate seep from an area of fill at a landfill. As discussed in Section 3 of this policy, permitted discharges do not need to be reported under MTCA. However, spills must be reported immediately under state water quality laws. C. Releases to the air causing a health hazard based on inhalation: i. Indoor Air Finding any vapors in a building, utility vault, or other structure that appear to be entering the structure from nearby contaminated soil or ground water. • Example: Finding vapors in a building (or other structure) originating from nearby contaminated soil or ground water that might require workers to wear respirators or self-contained breathing apparatus (SCBA). Revised.• 06110104 Page 4 of 9 Policy 300 Site Discovery — Reporting Releases Exam le: Finding vapors in a building (or other structure) originating from nearby contaminated soil or ground water at concentrations that pose an explosive hazard. For the purposes of this policy, hazardous substance concentrations exceeding 10% of the lower explosive limit (LEL) pose an explosive hazard. For example, gasoline vapor originating from a leaking tank and in excess of 1,000 ppm (10% of LEL) should be reported. ii. Ambient Air Finding vapors in the ambient air or in the soil exceeding natural background levels that appear to be originating from waste material or from contaminated soil, sediment or water. Example: Finding vapors in the ambient air or in the soil originating from waste material or from contaminated soil, sediment or water that might require workers (such as those installing underground utilities) to wear respirators or self-contained breathing apparatus (SCBA). Example: Finding vapors in the ambient air or in the soil originating from waste material or from contaminated soil, sediment or water that pose an explosive hazard. For the purposes of this policy, hazardous substance concentrations exceeding 10% of the lower explosive limit (LEL) pose an explosive hazard. For example, methane originating from decomposing waste and in excess of 5,000 ppm (10% of LEL) should be reported. If the gas is collected and controlled by a venting system approved by Ecology, then no additional reporting is necessary. As discussed in Section 3 of this policy, releases of hazardous substances to the air originating from an industrial or commercial process or operation do not need to be reported under MTCA. However, such releases should still be reported to the local air pollution control agency, which for some counties is the Ecology regional office. D. Sites where hazardous substances have been leaked or dumped on the ground; • Example: Finding waste materials or contaminated soil at levels that could cause immediate injury such as burning the skin or causing damage to vegetation or wildlife. • Example: Transformer leaks and leaks from industrial process lines or storage tanks. • Example: Spillage or dumping of chemicals on the ground. • Example: Heavily stained soil or soil with a strong odor. E. Releases resulting in the formation of free product; Page 5 of 9 Revised: 06110104 Policy 300: Site Discovery — Reporting Releases Finding unconfined petroleum product or other organic liquids (as a "free" liquid) on the ground or in the ground water. • Example: Diesel fuel found floating on the ground water table or solvents puddling around a drum on the ground. This situation is not intended to include the incidental surface spillage that occurs at a service station during vehicle refueling. F. Releases of dangerous wastes; Finding a site where solid wastes designated as dangerous wastes, have been released to the environment without a permit or not in accordance with a permit. • Example — Industrial Waste: Finding wastes from commercial or industrial operation (such as sludge from a wastewater treatment plant or dust from a bag house) that have been abandoned or disposed of without a permit. • Example — Unexploded Ordnance: Military munitions discharged during military activities and left in place at a firing range at the time the range is closed or transferred constitute "discarded materials" and therefore "solid wastes." If those discharged munitions remain unexploded, then those munitions (unexploded ordnance) also constitute "dangerous wastes" because those munitions exhibit one or more dangerous waste characteristics. As defined in WAC 173-303-040, a "dangerous waste" is any solid waste designated in WAC 173-303-070 through 173-303-100 as a dangerous, or extremely hazardous or mixed waste. As defined in WAC 173-303-016, a "solid waste" is any discarded material, not excluded under WAC 173-303-017, which has been i. Abandoned; ii. Recycled; iii. Considered inherently waste -like; or iv. Military munition identified as a solid waste at WAC 173-303-578(2). Under WAC 173-303-070, to determine whether the "solid waste" is also a "dangerous waste," one must i. Determine whether the waste is a listed discarded chemical product in accordance with WAC 173-303-081; Revised.• 06110104 Page 6 of 9 Policy 300 Site Discovery — Reporting Releases ii. Determine whether the waste is a listed dangerous waste source in accordance with WAC 173-303-082; iii. Determine whether the waste exhibits any dangerous waste characteristics (listed below) in accordance with WAC 173-303-090; and • Ignitability; • Reactivity; • Corrosivity; and • Toxicity. iv. Determine whether the waste meets any dangerous waste criteria (listed below) in accordance with WAC 173-303-100. • Toxicity; and • Persistence. For more information regarding the identification of solid wastes and the designation of dangerous wastes, please refer to chapter 173-303 WAC and the following fact sheet published by the Hazardous Waste and Toxics Reduction Program: "Designating Dangerous Waste," Pub #96-436 (revised Dec. 2002). G. Contaminated soil designated as dangerous waste; Finding any contaminated soil which upon removal, would be designated as a dangerous waste under the Dangerous Waste Regulations, chapter 173-303 WAC. For guidance regarding the designation of dangerous wastes, see above. • Example: In the process of installing an underground utility, a worker encounters a dark soil with a strong gasoline odor. The soil is stockpiled and sampled. It is found to fail the toxicity characteristic leaching procedure (TCLP) test for benzene, requiring it to be handled and disposed of as a hazardous waste. The release should be reported to Ecology. H. Abandonment of containers of hazardous substances; Finding any abandoned containers, such as drums or tanks, located above or below ground, still containing more than trace residuals of hazardous substances. Abandoned drums and tanks that potentially contain hazardous substances should be checked only by environmental professionals. For the purposes of this policy, "abandoned" means not being managed in accordance with the Dangerous Waste Regulations, Chapter 173-303 WAC. Page 7 of 9 Revised: 06110104 Policy 300: Site Discovery — Reporting Releases NOTE: Caution! Drums or tanks containing even trace levels of many contaminants can explode or emit toxic vapors. Do not open or enter these tanks or drums without proper training and protective equipment. 1. Release from regulated underground storage tanks (UST); Finding any release from an underground storage tank regulated under chapter 90.76 RCW, including those tanks containing petroleum (e.g., gasoline and diesel) or other "regulated substances" (see definition in WAC 173-360-120). J. Finding a site where unpermitted industrial waste disposal has occurred at a location not permitted for the disposal of these wastes. For example, finding an industrial waste dump site for ash, slag, sludge or similar materials. K. Finding any other situation where, because of site -specific circumstances, there is a potential threat to human health or the environment due to the release of hazardous substances. 7. The Release Report Must Include Certain Information, If Known. Persons may submit the release report to Ecology in writing or over the telephone. The release report must include the following information, if known: A. The name(s) and address(es) of the owner and operator of the site; B. The location of the site (street address, and latitude/longitude if available); C. The hazardous substances released and their location (latitude/longitude if available); D. The circumstances of the release and the discovery of the release (including how and when the release occurred and was discovered); E. The results of all remedial investigations and cleanup actions; F. The results of any compliance monitoring planned or underway; and G. If a restrictive covenant has been placed on the property deed as part of the remedial action, a copy of the covenant that the County has stamped with a filing number. Ecology may request additional information be provided and may specify that written documentation be submitted. If multiple releases have occurred and the above information is unavailable for each occurrence, a report summarizing the current site conditions may be submitted in fulfillment of these requirements. 8. Persons Must Submit The Release Report To The Appropriate Ecology Regional Office. Revised.• 06110104 Page 8 of 9 Policy 300 Site Discovery — Reporting Releases Persons must submit the release report to the Toxics Cleanup Program in the Ecology regional office responsible for the County where the site is located. A map of Ecology's regional offices can be found at http://www.ecy.wa.gov/org.html. 9. Ecology Must Respond To The Release Report Consistent With WAC 173-340-300(5). Approved.• Pursuant to WAC 173-340-300(5) and 173-340-310(2), Ecology must determine whether an initial investigation is required based on the information in the report and other available information. If Ecology determines that an initial investigation is required, then Ecology must conduct an initial investigation within 90 days of receiving the release report. For further information regarding the performance of an initial investigation, see WAC 173-340-310 and POL 310A, Initial investigations. James J. Pendowski, Program Manager Toxics Cleanup Program Page 9 of 9 Revised: 06110104 DATA CHEM L A 9 OR AT OR I E 5 A Soren a on Company Prezant Associates, Inc. Attention: Bob Bliss 330 Sixth Avenue N., Suite 200 Seattle, WA 98109-4213 ANALYTICAL REPORT Form ARF-AL Page 1 of 3 Part 1 of 2 1026o4i4143207RX Date UL , ') 2AN Laboratory Group Name 04T-3424-01 Account No. 07003 FAX (206)281_-8922 Telephone (206.)281-8858 E-mail bb1iss2pre7ant tom Sampling Collection and Shipment Sampling Site Renton __ Date of Collection Ortnber 21, 2004 _ Analysis Date Samples Received at Laboratory nnt^her 25, 2004 Method of Analysis NMAM 1501 Date(s) of Analysis^*v�_25, 2004 Analvtical Results Field Sample Number Laboratory Number Sample Type m A ma n E map ME r m co 0'1 ww E m WE m '4 mw q E 00 0 0,>. E+E m w m E mm 0+ xE m .On m wa roe U E g4V1 0 >, a F5E m a N m :a M 01 Or m r m w >. V w E4 01 m r o a E+d FC-03 042321ee CT ND ND 0.015 ND o.e9 <0.o090 <0.066 0.12 Reporting Limit 0.001 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 i see comment on ND Parameter not iast page. detected above LOD. -- o00 ��••��� �•• -� r�y�• ( ) Parameter between LOD and LOQ. NR Parameter not requested. NA Parameter not applicable. Amalye . Robert . Copenhafer Reviewer: 960 West LeVoy Drive / Salt Lake City, Utah 84123-2547 Phone (801) 266-7700 Web Page: www.datachem.com FAX (801) 268-9992 E-mail: lab@datachem.com DATA - CHEM L A B O R A T O R I E S A Sorenson Company Prezant Associates, Inc. Attention: Bob Bliss 330 Sixth Avenue N., Suite 200 Seattle, WA 98109-4213 ANALYTICAL REPORT Form ARF-AL Page 2 of 3 Part 2 of 2 10260414143207RX Date Laboratory Group Name 041- U24-01 Account No. 0700� FAX (206)_281-$422 Telephone (206) 281-8858 E-mail bhliss@prezant.com Sampling Collection and Shipment Sampling Site Renton Date of Collection October 21, 2004 Analysis Date Samples Received at Laboratory October 25, 2004 Method of Analysis NMAM 1501 Date(s) of Analysis nntohpr 25,_2004 Analvtical Results Field Sample Number Laboratory Number Sample Type C y .aE as x a a u U0 - O law i >0 o FMa E 7 I D 44 a FC-03 04232188 ICT <0.066 7.3 34.75 Reporting Limit 1 See comment on iasc page. ouu couuneu �„ �ve� �ay�. ND Parameter not detected above LOD. ( ) Parameter between LOD and L00. NR Parameter not requested. NA Parameter not applicable. 960 West LeVoy Drive / Salt Lake City, Utah 84123-2547 Phone (801) 266-7700 Web Page: www.datachem.com FAX (801) 268-9992 E-mail: lab@datachem.com DATA CHEM L A B 0 R A T 0 R I E S A Sorenson Company General Set Comments Form ARF-C ANALYTICAL REPORT Page 3 of 3 10260414143207RX Date Laboratory Group Name 04T-3424-01 ppm formula: (24.45 * (Result * 1000)) / (Volume * MW) The total hydrocarbon results were calculated by summing all of the peak areas other than the requested analyte peaks and solvent peak and quantitating the results against hexane. General Lab Comments The results provided in this report relate only to the items tested. Samples were received in acceptable condition unless otherwise noted in the General Set Comments above. Samples have not been field blank corrected unless otherwise noted in the General Set Comments above. This test report shall not be reproduced, except in full, without Written approval of DataChem Laboratories, Inc. This page is the concluding page of the report. 960 West LeVoy Drive / Salt Lake City, Utah 84123-2547 Phone (801) 266-7700 Web Page: www.datachem.com FAX (801) 268-9992 E-mail: lab@datachem.com �'U, 06)0 SampleDate Sample Number Station Number Depth (feet) PID (ppm) Petro Flag* (ppm) TPH as Gasoline (mg/kg) Benzene (mg/kg) TPH as Diesel (mg/kg) TPH as Lube Oil (mg/kg) Lead (mg/kg) 10/14/2004 SP-1 Stockpile 37.9 286 48 <0.06 <25 <50 <3.7 SP-2 Stockpile 54.5 <3 <0.06 <25 <50 10/18/2004 SP-3 Stockpile 71.4 370 <0.12 91 60 SP-4 Stockpile 173 310 100 <0.03 25 <50 10/19/2004 S-1-1019 19+70 10 47.3 331 10/20/2004 S-1-1020 20+20 12 154 154 S-2-1020 20+20 8 247 440 10/21/2004 S-1-1021 467 " Petro flag is a semi -quantitative screening tool that measures total hydrocarbons. Sheet 2 shows example correlations (from another project) of PetroFlag vs. Laboratory results at two concentration ranges that may help in interpreting the PetroFlag data. A low PetroFlag reading is generally a reliable indicator of no TPH present, higher readings may be more difficult to interpret. False positiveas are more common than false negatives. CCI ANALYTICAL LABORATORIES, INC. CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS CLIENT: HWA GEOSCIENCES INC. DATE: 11/5/04 19730 64TH AVE. W., SUITE 200 CCIL JOB #: 411027 LYNNWOOD, WA 98036 CCIL SAMPLE #: 1 DATE RECEIVED: 11/5/04 WDOE ACCREDITATION #: C142 CLIENT CONTACT: PETE PEARSON / ARNIE SUGAR CLIENT PROJECT ID: RENTON SW 7TH ST 2003-007 CLIENT SAMPLE ID: S-3-1104 11/5/04 0420 DATA RESULTS ANALYSIS ANALYSIS ANALYTE METHOD RESULTS' UNITS" DATE BY TPH-VOLATILE RANGE NWTPH-GX ND MG/KG 11/5/04 LAH BENZENE EPA-8021 ND(<0.03) MG/KG 11/5/04 LAH TOLUENE EPA-8021 ND(<0.05) MG/KG 11/5/04 LAH ETHYLBENZENE EPA-8021 ND(<0.05) MG/KG 11/5/04 LAH XYLENES EPA-8021 ND(<0.2) MG/KG 11/5/04 LAH TPH-DIESEL RANGE NWTPH-DX 48 MG/KG 11/5/04 DLC TPH-LUBE OIL RANGE NWTPH-DX 300 MG/KG 11/5/04 DLC NOTE: CHROMATOGRAM INDICATES SAMPLE CONTAINS PRODUCT WHICH IS LIKELY LUBE OIL DIESEL RANGE RESULT DUE TO LUBE OIL RANGE OVERLAP *"ND" INDICATES ANALYTE ANALYZED FOR BUT NOT DETECTED AT LEVEL ABOVE REPORTING LIMIT. REPORTING LIMIT IS GIVEN IN PARENTHESES OR AS FOLLOWS: GASOLINE(VOLATILE RANGE) REPORTING LIMIT IS 3 MG/KG DIESEL RANGE REPORTING LIMIT IS 25 MG/KG LUBE OIL RANGE REPORTING LIMIT IS 50 MG/KG - UNITS FOR ALL NON LIQUID SAMPLES ARE REPORTED ON A DRY WEIGHT BASIS APPROVED BY: Page 1 8620 Holly Drive • Everett, WA 98208 • 425 356-2600 • FAX 425 356-2626 • Seattle 206 292-9059 Soil Sample Results City of Renton SW 7th St Sorm Sewer Project SampleDate Sample Number Station Number Depth (feet) PID (ppm)_ Petro Flag* ,(ppm) TPH as Gasoline (mg/kg) Benzene (mg/kg) TPH as Diesel (mg/kg) TPH as Lube Oil (mg/kg) Lead (mg/kg) 10/14/2004 SP-1 Stockpile - 37.9 286 48 <0.06 <25 <50 <3.7 SP-2 Stockpile - 54.5 <3 <0.06 <25 <50 10/18/2004 SP-3 Stockpile - 71.4 370 <0.12 91 60 SP-4 Stock ile - 173 310 100 <0.03 25 <50 10/19/2004 S-1-1019 19+70 10 47.3 331 f e+ro 101-. 10/20/2004 S-1-1020 20+20 12 154 154 P-W r*1 S-2-1020 20+20 8 247 440 10/21/2004 S-1-1021 NA 467 2400 <1.5 11 11/2/2004 S-1-1102 20+56 1.5 18 58 re+N ai S-2-1102 20+56 4 1.9 29 11/3/2004 S-1-1103 20+95 5 0.5 <3 <0.03 24 170 S-2-1103 20+95 11 1 <3 <0.03 <25 <50 11 /4/2004 S-1-1104 21 +42 9 5 44 S-2-1104 21+45 6 2 18 S-3-1104 21+45 3 1 513 <3 <0.03 48 300 Use On - site? YES NO Me YES YES YES * Petro flag is a semi -quantitative screening tool that measures total hydrocarbons. Sheet 2 shows example correlations (from another project) of PetroFlag vs. Laboratory results at two concentration ranges that may help in interpreting the PetroFlag data. A low PetroFlag reading is generally a reliable indicator of no TPH present; higher readings may be more difficult to interpret. False positiveas are more common than false negatives. CCI ANALYTICAL LABORATORIES, INC. CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS CLIENT: HWA GEOSCIENCES INC. DATE: 11/4/04 19730 64TH AVE. W., SUITE 200 CCIL JOB #: 411022 LYNNWOOD, WA 98036 CCIL SAMPLE #: 1 DATE RECEIVED: 11/4/04 WDOE ACCREDITATION #: C142 CLIENT CONTACT: PETE PEARSON CLIENT PROJECT ID: CLIENT SAMPLE ID: SW 7TH ST STORM SEWER 2003-007 S-1-1103 11/3/04 23:30 DATA RESULTS ANALYSIS ANALYSIS ANALYTE METHOD RESULTS* UNITS" DATE BY TPH-VOLATILE RANGE NWTPH-GX ND MG/KG 11/4/04 LAH BENZENE EPA-8021 ND(<0.03) MG/KG 11/4/04 LAH TOLUENE EPA-8021 ND(<0.05) MG/KG 11/4/04 LAH ETHYLBENZENE EPA-8021 ND(<0.05) MG/KG 11/4/04 LAH XYLENES EPA-8021 ND(<0.02) MG/KG 11/4/04 LAH TPH-DIESEL RANGE NWTPH-DX 24 MG/KG 11/4/04 DLC TPH-LUBE OIL RANGE NWTPH-DX 170 MG/KG 11/4/04 DLC NOTE: CHROMATOGRAM INDICATES SAMPLE CONTAINS PRODUCT WHICH IS LIKELY LUBE OIL DIESEL RANGE RESULT DUE TO LUBE OIL RANGE OVERLAP " "ND" INDICATES ANALYTE ANALYZED FOR BUT NOT DETECTED AT LEVEL ABOVE REPORTING LIMIT. REPORTING LIMIT IS GIVEN IN PARENTHESES OR AS FOLLOWS: GASOLINE(VOLATILE RANGE) REPORTING LIMIT IS 3 MG/KG DIESEL RANGE REPORTING LIMIT IS 25 MG/KG LUBE OIL RANGE REPORTING LIMIT IS 50 MG/KG "' UNITS FOR ALL NON LIQUID SAMPLES ARE REPORTED ON A DRY WEIGHT BASIS APPROVED BY: Page 1 8620 Holly Drive • Everett, WA 98208 • 425 356-2600 • FAX 425 356-2626 • Seattle 206 292-9059 CCI ANALYTICAL LABORATORIES, INC. CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS CLIENT: HWA GEOSCIENCES INC. DATE: 11/4/04 19730 64TH AVE. W., SUITE 200 CCIL JOB #: 411022 LYNNWOOD, WA 98036 CCIL SAMPLE #: 2 DATE RECEIVED: 11/4/04 WDOE ACCREDITATION #: C142 CLIENT CONTACT: PETE PEARSON CLIENT PROJECT ID: SW 7TH ST STORM SEWER 2003-007 CLIENT SAMPLE ID: S-2-1103 11/4/04 00:15 DATA RESULTS ANALYSIS ANALYSIS ANALYTE METHOD RESULTS* UNITS" DATE BY TPH-VOLATILE RANGE NWTPH-GX ND MG/KG 11/4/04 LAH BENZENE EPA-8021 ND(<0.03) MG/KG 11/4/04 LAH TOLUENE EPA-8021 ND(<0.05) MG/KG 11/4/04 LAH ETHYLBENZENE EPA-8021 ND(<0.05) MG/KG 11/4/04 LAH XYLENES EPA-8021 ND(<0.02) MG/KG 11/4104 LAH TPH-DIESEL RANGE NWTPH-DX ND MG/KG 11/4/04 DLC TPH-LUBE OIL RANGE NWTPH-DX ND MG/KG 11/4/04 DLC "ND"INDICATES ANALYTE ANALYZED FOR BUT NOT DETECTED AT LEVEL ABOVE REPORTING LIMIT. REPORTING LIMIT IS GIVEN IN PARENTHESES OR AS FOLLOWS: GASOLINE(VOLATILE RANGE) REPORTING LIMIT IS 3 MGXG DIESEL RANGE REPORTING LIMIT IS 25 MG/KG LUBE OIL RANGE REPORTING LIMIT IS 50 MG/KG " UNITS FOR ALL NON LIQUID SAMPLES ARE REPORTED ON A DRY WEIGHT BASIS APPROVED BY: C Page 2 8620 Holly Drive • Everett, WA 98208 • 425 356-2600 • FAX 425 356-2626 • Seattle 206 292-9059 CCI ANALYTICAL LABORATORIES, INC. CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS CLIENT: HWA GEOSCIENCES INC. DATE: 11/4/04 19730 64TH AVE. W., SUITE 200 CCIL JOB #: 411022 LYNNWOOD, WA 98036 DATE RECEIVED: 11/4/04 WDOE ACCREDITATION #: C142 CLIENT CONTACT: PETE PEARSON CLIENT PROJECT ID: SW 7TH ST STORM SEWER 2003-007 QUALITY CONTROLRESULTS SURROGATE RECOVERY CCIL SAMPLE ID ANALYTE SUR ID % RECV 411022-01 N WTPH-GX TFT 88 411022-01 EPA-8021 TFT 92 411022-01 NWTPH-DX C25 94 411022-02 N WTPH-GX TFT 88 411022-02 EPA-8021 TFT 76 411022-02 N WTPH-DX C25 93 BLANK AND DUPLICATE RESULTS METHOD BLK RESULT ASSOC SMPLS NWTPH-GX (GAS) ND(<3) 411022-01, 02 EPA-8021(BENZENE) ND(<0.03) 411022-01, 02 EPA-8021(TOLUENE) ND(<0.05) 411022-01, 02 EPA-8021(ETHYLBENZ) ND(<0.05) 411022-01, 02 EPA-8021(XYLENE) ND(<0.2) 411022-01, 02 NWTPH-DX (DSL) ND(<25) 411022-01, 02 NWTPH-DX (OIL) ND(<50) 411022-01, 02 SPIKE/ SPIKE DUPLICATE RESULTS ASSOCIATED %SPIKE %SPIKE DUP METHOD SPIKE ID SAMPLES RECOVERY RECOVERY REL % DIFF NWTPH-GX GASOLINE 411022-01, 02 80 74 8 EPA-8021 BENZENE 411022-01, 02 102 99 3 EPA-8021 TOLUENE 411022-01, 02 104 99 5 EPA-8021 ETHYLBENZENE 411022-01,02 101 98 3 EPA-8021 XYLENE 411022-01,02 102 100 2 NWTPH-DX DIESEL 411022-01, 02 103 104 1 APPROVED BY: ^ ( 4 Page 3 8620 Holly Drive • Everett, WA 98208 • 425 356-2600 • FAX 425 356-2626 • Seattle 206 292-9059 7% CITY OF RENTON i Planning/Building/PublicWorks Department !Lu -� Kathy Keolker-Wheeler, Mayor Gregg Zimmerman P.E., Administrator May 5, 2005 Jerome B. Cruz Washington State Department of Ecology Toxics Cleanup Program, Northwest Regional Office 3190 - 160th SE Bellevue, WA 98008 SUBJECT: SW 7TH STREET REVIEW OF POTENTIAL SOURCES OF CONTAMINATION Dear Mr. Cruz: The City of Renton submitted to the Washington State Department of Ecology, an Environmental Sampling Report on January 5ih, 2005, documenting the discovery, testing and disposal of contaminated materials encountered during construction of the SW 7`h Street Drainage Improvement Project — Phase II. Subsequent to that report, the City requested its geotechnical consultant, 1 WA GeoSciences, Inc., conduct a review of the Department of Ecology's archives of all sites with documented releases of contamination within''/4 mile of the SW 7`h Street contamination zone. The enclosed letter/report from HWA GeoSciences Inc. summarizes their review of 9 sites that were listed on Ecology's Facility/Site Identification System and met the '/4 mile criteria. Two sites, the Bob Bridge Toyota Dealership and the Renton Lincoln Mercury Dealership are adjacent to SW 7`h Street right- of-way (ROW) and within 50-feet of where the contamination was discovered. The review of the Bob Bridge Toyota Dealership, located on the north side of the street, reported the removal of a 1000-gallon gasoline underground storage tank (UST) in 1991, with no known impacts. The review of the Lincoln Mercury Dealership reported a 2000-gallon gas UST and 500-gallon waste oil UST removed in 1991, with known impacts to soil and probable impacts to groundwater. Although farther away from the contamination zone, review of the other sites showed known impacts to soil and groundwater, the only exceptions being Les Schwab which had confirmed petroleum impacts to soil only and Wolf Bros. Oil Co. which had no known impacts to soil and groundwater. Based upon this information, the City believes there is sufficient evidence showing that the contamination within the SW 7`h Street ROW is from other sources, especially since the City has not conducted any type of operation that would result in the type of contamination that was found within the street ROW. We therefore request that the Department of Ecology not place the SW 7`h Street ROW on the confirmed and suspected contaminated site list. Sincerely, Allen Qu , P ject Manager, P.E. Surface WV ter tility Enclosure cc: Ron Straka, P.E., Surface Water Engineering Utility Supervisor H:\File Sys\SWP - Surface Water Projects\SWP-27 - Surface Water Projects (CIP)\27-2959 SW 7th St. Drainage Impro ent Proje�hte Cnnctmrtinn\1(00 Conanirtion\1MYt CityC'nrrPcpnnrlPnr.P\Cnntamin�pp\potentlal SItec do61AQtp E N T O N 1055 South Grady Way - Renton, Washington 98055 0 This paper contains 50% recycled material, 30% post consumer AHEAD OF THE CURVE HWA GEOSCIENCES INC. Geotechnical Engineering • Hydrogeology • Geoent ironmental Services • Inspection Testing ®� i April 25, 2005 APR HWA Project No. 2003-007-300 � ���� CITY OF F� UTILITY SyS � MOIV Gray & Osborne, Inc. 701 Dexter Avenue N., Suite 200 Seattle, Washington 98109 Attention: Mr. Matt Winkleman Subject: POTENTIAL SOURCES OF CONTAMINATION SOUTHWEST 7T" STREET STORM DRAIN RENTON, WASHINGTON (G&O #02640) Dear Mr. Winkleman: Petroleum -contaminated soil and ground water were encountered during construction of a storm drain along Southwest 7th Street, between Rainer Avenue South and Shattuck Avenue South, in Renton, Washington. HWA GeoSciences Inc. (HWA) reviewed information on file at the Washington state Department of Ecology (Ecology) Northwest Regional Office, on behalf of the City of Renton (the City), in order to identify likely sources of the contamination. HWA reviewed the Ecology Facility/Site Identification System, including underground storage tank (UST) list, leaking underground storage tank (LUST) list, and Confirmed & Suspected Contaminated Sites Report. Several listed sites were listed within 0.25 miles of the contamination encountered in the Southwest 7th Street right-of-way (ROW). Table 1 summarizes the sites. Figure 1 shows the site locations. Review of Ecology lists and files for these sites indicated the following: Bob Bridge Toyota, 150 SW 71, St. • Adjacent to the north of site • No known impacts • 1000 gallon gasoline UST removed in 1991. Soil reported clean by Renton Fire Department 2. Renton Lincoln Mercury, 201 SW 7th St. • Adjacent south of site • Known impact to soil, probable impact to ground water • 2000 gallon gas UST and 500 gallon waste oil UST removed in 1991 19730 - 64th Avenue W. • Site "reported cleaned up" suite 200 Lynnwood, WA 98036.5957 Tel: 425.774.0106 Fax: 425.774.2714 www.hwageosciences.com April 25, 2005 HWA Project No. 2003-007-300 TABLE 1 LISTED SITES ON ECOLOGY FACILITY/SITF. IDENTIFICATION SYSTEM Business Name List Address Known Release Soil Impacted Ground water impacted Lithia Chrysler LUST 585 RAINIER AVE S YES YES YES Renton 1 LUST 621 RAINIER AVE S YES YES YES Sound Subaru LUST 720 RAINIER AVE S YES YES YES Sound Ford LUST 750 RAINIER AVE S YES YES YES USA MiniMart 115 LUST* 765 RAINIER AVE S YES YES YES Renton Lincoln Mercury LUST 201 S 7TH ST YES YES NO Les Schwab Tires VCP 710 RAINIER AVE S YES YES NO Bob Bridge Toyota UST 150 SW 7TH ST NO Wolf Bros Oil Co Inc UST 632 RAINIER AVE S NO uz> i — unaergrouno storage tanK LUST — leaky underground storage tank VCP — voluntary cleanup program * — ranked as a TIER 2 priority site by Ecology 3. Renton I/Car Wash Enterprises, 621 Rainier Ave S. • Located approximately 500 feet northwest of site • Known impacts to soil and ground water • Ground water flow reported to be toward the west-southwest 4. Sound Ford, 750 Rainier Ave S. • Located approximately 1000 feet south of site • Known impacts to soil and ground water including hydrocarbons and BTEX • 6 USTs removed in 1989 5. Sound Subaru, 720 Rainier Ave S. • Located approximately 500 feet south of site. • No known impacts to soil or ground water • Listed by Ecology as a UST site, no file available 6. Wolf Bros Oil Co., 632 Rainier Ave S. • Located approximately 500 feet north of site • No known impacts to soil or ground water. • 6 USTs including one 5-10,000 gallon diesel, one 5-10,000 gallon leaded gasoline, two 5-10,000 gallon unleaded gasoline, and two 1-5,000 gallon unknowns, were removed in 1988. 7. USA Minimart 115,765 Rainier Ave S. • Located approximately 1500 feet southwest of site • Known release to either soil, ground water or both • Listed by Ecology as a LUST site, no file available Notes on SW 7th St Environmental 2 HWA GEOSCIENCES INC. April 25, 2005 HWA Project No. 2003-007-300 S. Les Schwab, 710 Rainier Ave S • Confirmed petroleum impacts to soil • No file available at Ecology Ground water gradient at the Renton 1/Car Wash Enterprises site was reported to be to the west/southwest. The gradient along 7th Street (based only on borings along 7`h Street, in the east -west direction) was generally to the west, based on HWA's geotechnical investigation. No other ground water gradient information was reviewed. The area is located in an alluvial valley between two rivers, therefore the regional shallow ground water gradient may not be very steep or may vary locally. For this reason, potential source sites were not ruled out based on location relative to presumed ground water gradients. Based on our file review, insufficient conclusive information exists to ascertain the source of the encountered petroleum hydrocarbons in the ROW, although several of the listed sites are more likely sources, due to location and history, including: • Lithia Chrysler - known release to ground water • Renton 1 - known release to ground water • Renton Lincoln Mercury - known release to soil, adjacent to ROW • Bob Bridge Toyota - no documented release, but possible source due to proximity We appreciate this opportunity to be of service to you and would be pleased to discuss the contents of this report or other aspects of this project with you at your convenience. Please feel free to call me if you have any questions or need any more information. Sincerely, HWA GEOSCIENCES INC. Pete Pearson Environmental Geologist cc: Allen Quynn, City of Renton C/f-, Arnie Sugar P. Vice President Notes on SW 7th St Environmental 3 HWA GEOSCIENCES INC. �r r= o � J ------------- Lithia#.: i Chrystler 585 Rainier„ ,. r u - _ Wolf Bros Oil Renton 1 /Car Q i z s Co. 632 Rainier Wash Enterprises _ 621 Rainier - 1 6,f Bob Bridge Toyota - = 650 Rainier ----- ___ Les Schwab Tires 710 Rainier USA Minimart - 115 Renton Lincoln- 765 Rainier Mercury 201 S 76 St i Sound Ford / a Subaru 720/750 Rainier _. s x" Area of petroleum hydrocarbons encountered in 7th Street right-of-way u T1 HWAGEOSCIENCES INC. SW 7th ST STORM DRAIN RENTON, WASHINGTON NEARBY LISTED SITES PROJECT NO.: 2003 007 FIGURE: 1 Documentl doc reon�a e�. N m r � �IP� GQ �y '�M1'm e� �-- sc•nneD �'�'�"� MH 77 i0W ROLL 180 FR 12 rn.�r .4 60 • •� UJ o wT �; f a�gyi114YY'TAbM en.LL1 w w. I, Z DITC,4 S6GTIO/4 -A-A =N 'a./. •• 9M1' ♦1IrN1AK4 {q�ir�ua uauu.µpxn F. Z - �'A.'fh� 1t�-- io �uwr. ♦nmrRi .MM1 o _ g = b yrvr. a Q NLTE4� vAegK, viN<E /u0 a. OiTWT UNT/t MDLDlo SfE .80 W ��xri rya~ ♦.FfA1 a'ar. (ZJ O C7 y I n4 Avi y U i _ f11 gccvpTaETut ewE s ars � i CALL 48 HOURS m iiida.gaenD(�� w BEFORE Y0U Eg1u fA� qT b 'LT E. fv "T.DIG ore cL1AN 6YiM1T�N4 TCN ♦/ Au 1-800124�5555 6a(1 WlTAT04 /q♦N NAT[NN Ail. f W- tOI WILL Avl. i. y. ilE-'Is a, as' A r 15 DDGUMFIlI NaS Sm RFVIAKL BY W. GDVFmINENrtL aDFgC45 UID i6 T M1. ♦r.9� 4T MF e.Yi 4MRlYED Po! COgiT11ULIleM. i A PROV D FOR CONSTRUCTION i ZZn \ 3 FF-�1 2 wa N w Q 3 Q N .6 u7 w i O 2 AS- BUILT Q w 7.27.87 Z J O J Z 770 4 G iRro�e To cwm<..rr.,,� AS —BUILT d 2W 8„ 7'Fo - 0. ITV •Y !p' 8.0, �T M 'I— MMrt M.n r [ i• ssawrae, pavr • r - ^" !IVY ,1/By .Phi °�a--�>•.ve , {g y[D PECIPICATI NB 6T0 N! [ T enMtll9 � y� r+l� - - � �t�. 1. Me[[P[cAT[We POR xa[p IALY we w YOaA YS COYenC MnH __ __ ryxPtT l�c+'�✓'r$�{�•. O �� vneeMen nr rMK'A�v^I arAn cNM x AYgtcM r yLT - - _ _: �l__.� .•0- I�I AyeOtiwr[OY, lfal 1 AW [CITT or R6YTOY AYOAPOs. '4llr - - _ y 4 �� ]' etOtYlxrt�Anox/COI.I.0.YIW PAc[LIti88 — 0 reYMMMT Y •... J LADW qSq OOtB YOt BYPgOYAtV OrORAIYOR Ta -� - rCwiY01 MBO +U6T I�w—V,.TiT I% rowTwCTIOM-Bin zi 2P W rMrtOT� AI01 POS'EYT— POv t tMIM. •'..: �,) �, B at0HI0 ATige OP WtK P[ K[LIT— eI— Aw M Ot3Wra O K ?- AyP�" ul wD tT BW.[. • a [O TOv l IEBOPoYa IBIL3rT Ta vglri LOCARW M A Av010 ONN6t 0 Z 4COprTtO10N = CtCWPat1YCe A110 A ]8 {O1R YK[Q 9GLLL B t/�i �'84V rT94. V R Prpi0n 1 rMTxBO YYY CONSVVC'101. fit t U z .. n � 1B[COKtACfaR'e 8A16r0Y6IM— TO pw LL ltc4aM TIxO CO.artOLTi1Y. rICTlOI Yf • h .Z( V / ? .. ! CCOioTxe.IBptEOe IeTATm OP Tq CIn Ot AO9'011. 1 oTVAKhtYr IR eoVnB [x xovei is Tor 1 21[I.irtO T a Q S � coxrnuvxw. w i " � x1A oPK eTl --R cMt[mw MT O z T1�, cL. ]Y anT�Asr�Lo-�B�o� Yot i� G a cwvMlTw Bna w qIr ,,A`TY TO— I Acre S WITH It AOa[ Bsu.t _ rY/11-r rOtw '«A. KK-P Xu-1 ,/(f,, 3 =.a qT Ill. Ta T[OK eo«Y I- .Ales. z ,^ -� nR. TPITsa® wiMT• .; AWY[n2,eO�KgL YK ALWYw PrA ALq Q w W MnB,sG1.P® IY"-+' W AAA lrAYo - ; 1-1 1 TI— 1. PI $gs o- I. o[]ulsGrav vwe le o eta. m R ' I B. Tf l 1-C[GTT� MIIrB aW,4 n P8R MYA BTANDAAO �� i sx.�AYsa«[YMOc: a WAw aursvA m rl r r s« J -: � - au*r.�.�ar1s.�.nrc. aMl� ar x..aa. ;p„A�AS LUT .L.w . C—TIatta. AI - wwgr orl�reWa�or iYa cawrnocrioY ern. • 1H IQ. fi—TARI 3"" aln IW, aa.. P " 7 [KL n a,[at Pr , 111111-4 '- aMtmo AerY o Swa, rot u.Lrvr II. WGr[LL eaALL BB r[Ac.O .VUALLT Oe eOTn alDe. O q rtn A Gr A LOOIe A ouc. WTa 01 ! I YMI— ; (mow .O[Y DTI i IIr C« MAV, ^lO PIT Tr— BAcerV TO Is 0[NartATOt GCa l[o. Tv W A 3 .ntsr It O l q SAWCr MAT.W3AL. 1 COMLKITToL r— OVq 4 ■■■ N BB'S5 O]'-"' enaL2. 1 TY. 8Aq M B "IVVT v Pain BYALL W ro .Yt i� li. Au TicK41Yw Brow lI. B YAIeoIr� aALL eixrroW j �� � ev.cvlGrlors, rtcr[ol a]. wue ! e APxA rTAwR10 W T +0. ]e• ASS KBq wl.n0 e. Wt'IRAC[OA TV LL Q le. Ineax06a Aw Plb TP.RxITB PRIaRTO «TAfa T J Y COMnOCTIOY. uV i5. P POl— rOge IV— T Z rA.ctOt[:ClvoVq Ply, KnfRII[AAu. W M. Q ®1 .r .i _ f J le. TBwrwCTwwlAOl t....T. — .exaY L q F J —r — -- -j LB Ar TV. Pnax T.l 6[r PPTO ., � ., 'a—, W El LU «owe Pa Lu a lil N � l L L '"� - � u rnrr .u+a w r ee oN rx. roe nn Z N C[nitReCTVR! AAB IP411 OAIYtt O YlglYq coMTPOCT20Y [!�®rv00W9. r TQ r.o /.VxAIb 6EE swca fHPoRT ^ 11. ALL Gttl BMIY OMtas aeN.L e{ otrwreao 0.10 nK .1 I«H-lB.-N • evfYLPAu,S LL rAve T Ll— O AAM. P.— —Rat "11ec. 1B vrl Lit�TptY tt[si2 R. P Ma T—r1[ie0 LY + xro :a."u altl1Deru[ROC.T`aou.4 ea wuTLI�"a-TT"�LT. O 0 (Wrttw B L .� p.111 Q :r,.�,�_ _ YstNAYgT iYOr Mi; tATCa eaV.ltl oePtG[I[wlY.vl A... !0 owe A .ALT at � r q z W rorTow.l.o *1 xl eioln ow a:a`B[erceeYapau+iiAnr J _. S. W. 7 T H ST. ROLL 180 FR 1,2 Aw M.. eT A UORVee0 PPOfIa![oIAL sMlnq. UI t_oc.re oN./y,,) Moi1+x.LPL .Ip_ . W I O.LTIYLNrA .1 AEViW a4 0 2 31 d' FOR CONSTRUCTION CALL 48 HOURS Amwvm Fm cplmucnoK 7y BEFORE YOU DIG pAi] 1z-4-SG hn Y P 65213 1-800-424-5555 wrr.w,r. ,... Iw.N w..,n .....,a. a.� � \� >o a>< .• :.� .w :ea.x Mt < 4r�,MT e w.a aana r w r . ,. n.w. e. M:w ":,: w I✓ F . C . E. a n rru ,r uvwo a uunx,r w �� M � a vof - r, nn .ax .a n. w< w wa,rr •••r• n..rx ..e _ _ �� I ' 3I } � � �� ,. rrnwa,,.. .., .,... ww.......,,..w>..e w. fi'•. p r / '1'� n�.:. i w.. e,....Ew.e� ro. F+. D . K . �..I� ......., �, �I I II .r .,n a ..rra a..<ww. � x,< r.a.. 'r"" ••'• � b• .....r...c ___� .oasEe �ana...wT � • r, I aor arswn we.o ssnw �� r s � I w.. a . n,rewr nre . w.:. .. .�n."o .r.... j � . i•- r —1 I I� I .«a.-w.o _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ �.Jiwcv _ 6EC1 SON ♦-A 6c«i�u am a.v waa,. e• _ •e W �i; it J}r::• 1 ao• ♦• ai R1P PAP OHP.LT ... %_ — Nras� ►K. 1►"♦ ►.O. m wi W .1 ns ovlNe • x�4� Tav oo eaa+lc re u. a�er..l6.0 ROFOSE0 oRAINa.GE VITCH EnST OF PO CLL ROLL 180 FR 1.218 W {.tnsu ►i I 4 m, cva .. i� i• r iww "< w._ — ar.�... `�jV' t� � .0/r ✓i! CEPS H. 09 {Lb --J uJ/P"ltlf w0 B6oZG.eo /n— A 1,5tQ sc—EDMR1B 4w OF Ai h m ..-aliuiu iav u+exlwrou cnAx R RICaI] ..LIC -.I Ae IA2IOY, 11N1 IAI 1 AAND ITT 01 -1. -- I. I IM TATON/COLLOCTIOR FITIG TO x i I U12 T T SIOZMMT LAD' N A wG .R NTa. R I.ACILIrl[[ SNIGe TO CLBMIF A a. M 'ARCICIIIIIL CDIVLaTNO - -1 PoTAMTINNIG OY-lii. ] ALL -1A O NYI.TSF UTIL TIY S A. IT 6.LI AL I. COMTMC[OP'SI-1...INILITV ATOR -III TO.TDSOON caAID, CDPAaci facArzO. w N T, AVDID DAM_ an l .aovi.Ao .T ' exar sM.N. .AND D L AN us F RGroultsliaiiWTvOttsc.na L.NcaBSA.. PDM1r.� 1. T-TI. COYNTRION, lCiTYl1Me l. E PO D..r.icTmeNTA NvrinIT �ILI- CRY- I I1 FORD. IN NVMCE OP BACHI ILIF ALL WtRURIOM. s. p/TDAiI ouI a ee• + DO -ON ROLL IN cOYGera, aoeau 4NYirRD Am]C-TI, CL.I. 1.:Toax DN.. v{n ....1 u, i x0 THeircu �iIDY[YI. 1I, c xa I. ... DET- a L.. FOR 6D T IIM.C. W ITN. I.RRIFYC I.. 9wL N. I-I/I TIME I. PIP. P Trrs L-C CA_. Ml.M .- AADw s], I APHR VIASHAAD FLA. NO cD I zrvs 'ID I n. w, Il. A I AND 9, BotNY9] O.Ri.. CANeT.UCI.. TP aMI A.. SI[.. TRYxOP MOM. 1D. wITMY n.MeN N31. D e L ixrwas0 �]w<IAn DNFmO NTT] O ]D]1, SIR IfO wNa• ,o. 11. -1 CMI. RN11 TO .N IYB1_.. MtlGC IFIGTN. DO ILAM. ll. • NLARD wVALLY O I Ia6DG 1-45. i� anLYAI F.rnii oOUCAcrao v, ao roo oxsAeiPcwOIAAiaraa aAG aDa O1 IIT�v GDsiOc r Tas zR tl. T_._ _ FILL w.R ,I'. ax.,. aI TnT NO D.GI..o. 1l..i .nl.ea, ­`T"OA Mtl[n eoiG TO NO -A- IN 1 e-II, F A.N ._ I•... CO - 'TO -A _SFMOM6, .-ION 11. NARROLti .-I Da MNA . ARD w. ]1. 1S. T.V. I.SPeCTION IT MD.IMO FDA AI.L SMITHY MWOR L[tlG. IT 16' caleTRaDcTlox. ANY _ IBI LITYGI _.T. NO_ M Nx lI. Al -1 11 Au, _::.:I:LAW.. Or rORL[c NOUR aRAu -1 I TREmutt.oMuwc raTeN o. INLI zT TG CITY I v N Di NIT- A FN Wcxlr]0 ME.Y A OY TRn TR [ AIaaRO ` LA_ LL N.F[R.MON •tFRFN PRON FYa CITY F INnT,q. ]-AXT[YNT OF PODLIC Y04U. u T M OR TO. JOB IT. .YBnv.R caMn.UCY : IN I.IPNOCaYD�I IN. ALL GTG -IN DR.TTBB ONALL M .NPPYIG ..S. NAVaY6MT LML. 21, DM CUT NMD Cn0891Ma MRFUTILITY T BI ON RKUTIF M -11 WITH SIR Nim4 C INTO Tu. Lei .i cVNTIFF9aLINIAC ,-POARMYCMI 1 RCIT A IBPXAMpT ]R(Y[ORtsaPAKR,I L SS I Ylietx _,_SO.. DAYf A 'M 3FMK RXIGNv6N t.E4aLATG,O+Ict NAL +ltxAti a TTrO II. TOO fDwrMCTD n.ALL T9. D... I. A A. - _BOIL, D TY.TA . r .LMBR Y6 BYIUA.• YN 9I,. ORN .. WAI .MMB.AM[D A. IICMw A IcG.. -,...S 4Nt.eDN. Il. TOO CoVr IOR SMALL Pd:%C11 DOW" ISO YeLLf OR SURP IUMPa ro W181 +TR0 GBLI DORIF CONSTRUCTION OF rIL-tt. COLVGT 0IFs� 11 IRGTMMc u .NHL e1 vIN uwM rA.MD P L1, IRS IS. R 9S Y A. Tl Y SS INC. • [ /04AF[ IS _. l....L. ., MTL 1,TItNAlWMT 1 MP.- CI ND OR a ® IOOlo6 ALVIIIKOx HELICAL CORRDOATBD RBTIL PIP. 1IT8 .A2 6HT N.w �NIw INDa. NATC. Nor.s - 1. ALL N. MY[- .NL a1 IY m.FORMMfa N TN rG BTAMGAOB A= P.fu1I.V.`S a T.1 CITY 0[ 0� UTILITY DON P6CItZ]aGN2[ONl, 2tla TtlT .ITIOP 01 raa AINA TA.RND AF . Au wfAn OF aazeTlF uriurlG NYORY w -.- AND IT s SON cwTRACTOR'$ PNSPoNSI9t LITY TO VptTY TRUCD COMBR LO lo. NON TO AVOlD DAMAO[ G DINTUBIANGµ I. AL Y TD DR cppT .w FRIG LiIRON _ Mat 91FIFIG11.9 A-Il-11-1976 0 CW. Si. OMpT NORM ..IF AND Sw COATI.. 9MLL CONPOIUI ro M.I A-I1-1-21 OR LATGT REVISION. NRPN _L c. TO a FORK_ ON -.I- JOINT. DGIIF III 1. reiwae -1 lPDX. CpitlT LtN6p. 11.... ISO, uRm N. _S. mxexwz9. aFwlrI. ON D.MIF cOMPopIF ro ANSI BPaCIrIGTION A-.1-to.I"" NBI A-]1-11-19TT LA R.IDIOK. AL . N4 D.I.T. II M OOl, OR 112E .- II ..ILGDC1.RACCORDA- ]III. .DI6 .w auu G "' . COR-O-IOM, N.L.O. tt.vini.. II.TNT. ON D.A... G 3. • 18 I.C- AF I.ON . RN 1-1. A NIN[FN CwGYa ]6M1'- T1- II.IBN -1. ALL WATERl] Iw D . a•Rr, N[ x[ a AT A 11 I.CMR N :Yi6. cwN[. rr .w urnln -ILIR6 Om., HAT..Mina AM w AN __ ro cz.AR. 6. ALLa TH TeALLA2�3]¢TRD .�D I. MCCI NVORT.. AWDIIINIMoMCY TN. CITY IN AN ....... GTIFe IPMeaMe DIM..01 1N8 CITY .1 NWIOM. T OMlrx.e S OoaGaYC. A. . , P8 PwVIRw v TO. -I.... COMeTROCTIWp MOTIce B. IT ..All M Tub CO MLA ... ...Potl EILITl TI MCUG ALL .-.A., NDWOTD PRIOR N 9TMr1weCONmDRIOX. p. i A[.GTiOY a CpPoMT. Yro .[PVIfG, LINT. Aw ACCORILIS9. BY TM CI', ON ROM_ . 1 ALL CONKeCrIDR TO e%IeT3F M ACCOML1.- .1 TM IN SUPPL.. IroNYB CImACTa Aw 1. W-BITE PP[CR ro]J CITY 11 ]NIR.9 i.TATiie DI TOR CITY OF R. LLI, .MALL T.T.. COxTM R B RGPDX. GIL[TT B CYt[IJ.IF TO ., c=11DCTZOY.ART I ] FO.D IF NVMG ON l FIDI v LID ON ... SO YI14 AND P-TV ACCEPTY Z IRION TOpFINAL T-[.. 11. PIIYNTWILMI l ANNINCRI M- 98 INSTALL. ON ALL F,PB A PPURT PIP. Wraw., CFPI_. • i ND VALYG. lu ACCIwMC[tI TB 9NCIION 1-1 1 11.1M0 cl.I.. Po YL... IN, T GM I. M. YIDTI I.I coNFORR ANSI lA]3.3 a Io$.N 1.1. N C.DMIF 60 I FTHORT NAL B a[B6PECIIIGTIOG i - 1-19T6G 6SOY�ItYI CONI. CLM6 Sl. CINpFt wRTM L F AND n CGT3Y4 GALL CONIOM ro AYBI A-Il-1-II OP I-. -I. PE[PC JO A BD roar-Ox M NeCYLYIGL JOINT. EEOIIw i0 • 4MB C. IS. TR. CORT cG`''a`TI, I.ALL P-M. r.a C"I OFF ":0. YITN M n-wl a rea xArp OR Rxice w BaN. rAM.O A. D L Drc..w]wIX* -.I MR cFTRACYCH , YA RA.. . DYLY IM DNIY c.owi.�re ru ONNOMTRmC oerwu.]LIM itlAa IISITia�NAro]Ti ,.IG ro TRONCe .AGFIY /AV 4 CU<VERI O/PE y,TZIM,TL I WHEEL. CLEAIR RNAP DETAIL - ­1 I -•.I �u rr r%Nti DTAMDAwO I Y. r..+,Y ry.r...w BCOMYERCI. LANK Iar ra' L.B P a.fr my La.7�I Al 1I I Q CL L>•i L R1?Y!/ � I •' IL •Ia14lY SIALLL /If%HR. � ,�LI vATlR Ni NO /LACE O Z � / >LOif ~I uz i Ta •. iAN�RG/A/ ss'Y 9L'IAt' j I►AroS lN1T L. E9 IRGII AfC 7V 1 TL � �- ' /.'CANS LErur sLawvo NAI I AVTF� /ROV/OE INOC, ri CRANNfL /WNMo(E >NA/E YRf ArrA[x6! FAQ 1141mcE >L'I c~ ALL 6/OEL CUL VEKT SECT/OA/ 64<6 /D•/O �L. lw< Nl�IP k fall �rv, � ;rA+MMry�a •w•,/v /F KKivv� MTrM Na l/'M1z �M. TM trTlo AI,.A]Rr OF.Swv/TMIY >i✓/r TALa • ou rfvu eeoow ]AANr �ft]' Lrta]r NPr' L T'IKX_--R-1770 /9. 3-2 sCARI]fQwz6 O cCLp ]x15 IXYD1wfXl MB BEEN REViENiO A• ` T covtn.YPx]y.eulciES Axo ¢ CALL 48 HOURS • �V�ED FOR CONSTRUCTION , MVED FOR CORSTRUCTIOII BEFORE YOU [MO 3+, ,�Nu Dt a�M,. • �:i'Y ELITE: 1-I_I_ a(. I80DA24-5555 E ROLL 180 FR 12.6 D Z 0 Z l/E f J Vn 3 lA W a 3 0 Io N C6 0 ui Lf) CT Q u } O W Z J Z Q O if -y 1fIIlLtt_ LL z• - sue. r I ,Am �� - •. . M�wR6� n tI O..� •. O. rwcw�w.a ] �+�ii�n��i�p.w�ipSbwa rt,�eeJ�m Jo n. arrro.. wr STREET GRADE 4 STORM DRAIN PLAN SANITARY SEWER 4 WATER PLAN 1 Y. - -- I . _..- — T —_ ---_ - - - (D ; HO Z � 'x T. ... U H - =a x uj Q j 5 NU $ ID s CALL 48 HOURS BEFORE YOU 1-800-424-5 THrs DDWM"f:5BEF HeJH D MOVED we coQNSTNU `CMK AS OVED FOR CON J- i f l 3__ — �� f n r.r0 o u •Olt.. �� =..? �rl. � � i fff'KrtTt• �- .. _ j I AS BI,� �1 �. UILTa--- —_ _— IFi�7 - - -*- ,. , �, -Y , , ! �• DMZ q $ ,, ROLL 180 FR 121 55 Index Number prompt STRUCTURE INDEX TYPE grate el upper ie lower ie aELte o/w sep diam pipe length d/s struct plan WSDOT 43248201 20,H2-1 2-120. 22.46 12.81 12.63 C N 60 CC 472 43248202 4-3-205/ 43248202 20,H2-2 4-60. 21.88 12.63 12.82 C N 60 CC 128 43248203 4-3-205/ 43248203 20,H2-3 4-60. 21.24 12.82 12.72 C N 60 C 344 43247201 FIELD 09/02/2004 Page 1 Index Number prompt 09/02/2004 STRUCTURE INDEX TYPE grate el upper ie lower ie grate o/w sep diarn pipe length 43247201 20,G2-1 4-60. 21.22 12.72 12.08 C N 60 CC 396 43247210 20,G2-10 2-54. 16.22 10.17 9.37 C N 30 398 43247211 20,G2-11 2-54. 16.17 9.37 9.1 C N 30 132 43247202 20,G2-2 2-54. 17.52 9.83 9.77 S N 30 RCP 166 43247203 20,G2-3 2-54. 17.73 9.77 9.71 S N 30 RCP 88 43247204 20,G2-4 2-72. 17.82 9.61 9.16 C N 30 RCP 305 43247205 20,G2-5 2-96. 16.8 8.6 7.5 C N 48 RCP 25 43247206 20,G2-6 2-120 20.67 12.08 11.57 C N 60 RCP 3.18 43247207 20,G2-7 2-54. 16.66 11 10.34 C N 30 217 43247208 20,G2-8 2-54. 15.24 10.34 10.31 C N 30 129 43247209 20,G2-9 2-54. 16.27 10.31 10.17 C N 30 70 Page 1 Index Number prompt 09/02/2004 d/s struct Ian WSDOT 43247206 4-3-205/ 43247211 20-1 43247205 20-1 43247203 4-3-215 43247204 4-3-215 43247205 4-3-215 43247203 19-3-2 43137801 19-3-2/ 43247208 20-1 43247209 20-1 43247210 20-1 1-7-7o Page 2 - ,w LAI' AKI.iL' 1V VK 1 ri A1V1L+ K1l,A, llV l.. PETROLEUM CONTAMINATED SOILS CERTIFICATION FORM AND INDEMNITY EXHIBIT B-1 This document must be completed in its entirety and signed by the potential customer before Lafarge will consider accepting materials. If Lafarge is willing to accept materials, it will notify customer by sending Material Load Forms. All services are governed by the terms of the Terms of Engagement or Master Services Agreement. Profile Number General Information A. Generator Name: City of Renton Address: Contact: _Allen Quynn Telephone: 425-430-7247 State/EPA ID #: (if available) B. Transporter Name: Stowe Trucking and Frank Coluccio Construction DOT Identification Number: Contact: _Scott Clemens Telephone: 206-793-1251 C. Consultant Name: HWA GeoSciences Contact: _Pete Pearson Telephone: 425-774-0106 D. Billing Address (if different than generator) Address 9600 Martin Luther King Jr. Way S, Seattle, WA 98118 Contact: —Scott Clemens Telephone: 206-793-1251 Information About Petroleum Contaminated Soils (PCS) Estimated Volume of PCS: 300-400 cubic yards Original Location of PCS: Intersection of SW 7`s St and Rainier Ave S in Renton Owner of Original Location: City of Renton Lessee of Original Location: Description of Process/Activity that Generated PCS: Excavation for sewer line Has anything been added to the PCS? If so, what? no Does the PCS contain any of the following? If so, what percentage? (Check appropriate categories): _Cobble, Concrete or Asphalt%) _Wood waste%) ; _Metal debris (_%) _Oversized materials C__%) Shipping Vessel (e.g., containers, truck bed, tanker truck, etc): Truck bed Cement Chemistry Analysis: Each blank needs to be filled in by your company unless Lafarge as indicated by initials waives it. Sodium Oxide % Silica % Nickel ppm Potassium Oxide % Alumina % Copper ppm LOI % Iron Oxide % Zinc ppm Chloride % Calcium Oxide % Arsenic ppm Free Lime % Magnesium Oxide % Barium ppm Gasoline Content % Sulfur Oxide % Cadmium ppm Diesel/Oil Content % Phosphoric Oxide % Chromium ppm Mercury ppm Lead ppm Silver ppm Selenium ppm -1�1 JZcfer -'V tj h o I yfic..J IZ,(p#r t ;F q/006.3 c4H 1'4 /0/l.)I Oit -V .. -%. Materials Profile. Generator certifies that the following tests have been completed with the following results (check appropriate categories): Not Required (Lafarge Date Performed (completed by to check appropriate customer) box PCS sampled and analyzed per WAC 173-303-110 PCS analyzed and not: • ignitable per WAC 173-303-090 5 • corrosive per WAC 173-303-090 6 • reactive per WAC 173-303-090 7 • toxic per WAC 173-303-090 8 TCLP • listed per WAC 173-303-090 • toxic per WAC 173-303-100 a • persistent per WAC 171-303-100 b • carcinogenic per WAC 171-303-100 c Certification: Generator certifies, represents and wan -ants that (1) the PCS is not dangerous or extremely hazardous waste under RCW 70.105 or WAC 173-303; (2) the PCS contains no solvents or PCBs; and (3) copies of all tests performed on any samples from the PCS certified herein are attached. Generator further certifies, represents and warrants that, to the best of its knowledge, (4) there have been no alterations or material changes in the character of the PCS after the analyses were performed that would render those analyses inaccurate; and (5) the samples analyzed are representative of the PCS to be tendered pursuant to this certification. For purposes of this Agreement, certifications (4) and (5) mean that PCS must be analyzed at least every 12 months or immediately after there is any change in the process generating the PCS or the PCS itself. This document (including its attachments) is hereby incorporated into the TERMS OF ENGAGEMENT for recycling petroleum contaminated soil executed by Lafarge and LiT4 dF RMfl, on the T th day of 0CrO6cK 200� ("Agreement"). If there are conflicts between this Ce s of En ification and the Terngagement, the Terms of Engagement shall pre ail. Signature of m 's Authorized Agent Date INDEMNITY BY COMPANY Lafarge 's acceptance of PCS is based on the information provided by your company on this PCS Certification Form, the associated test data and other representations of your company. Your company shall absolutely and unconditionally protect, defend, indemnify and save harmless Lafarge and its present and future officers, directors, shareholders, agents and employees of Lafarge from and against any and all fines, loss, damage, injury, liability to or death of any person, costs of response to any governmental inquiry, request, or requirement or for loss of or damage to property or for loss or damage arising from attachments, liens or claims of material men or laborers, claims and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs relating to any of the foregoing ("Claims"), resulting from Company's activities, from Company's tender of Non -conforming Materials or from Company's breach of the Agreement, whether or not Lafarge, or its officers, directors, shareholders, agents or employees was or is claimed to be concurrently or comparatively negligent, and regardless of whether liability without fault is imposed, or sought to be imposed, on Lafarge. The foregoing indemnification shall not apply to the extent that such indemnity is void or otherwise unenforceable under applicable law in effect on or validly retroactive to the date of this Agreement, or the date of the claim, and shall not apply where such Claims are the result of the sole negligence or willful misconduct of Lafarge It is intended that the foregoing indemnity shall be broad and comprehensive. This indemnity shall survive the expiration or other termination of this Agreement. This indemnity is for the sole benefit of Lafaree and not for the benefit of anv third Dartv. PROJECT COST ESTIMATE Soil Sampling SW 7th Street Renton, WA PROPOSED SCOPE: ESTIMATED IiWA LABOR: � I HWA GEOSCIENCES INC. HNVA Ref: 2003-007 Date: 19-Oct-04 Prepared By: AS WORK TASK DESCRIPTION PERSONNEL & HOURLY RATES Proj. Mgr Proj. Geol. CAD Admin. TOTAL 43.27 18.03 21.15 15.90 HOURS TOTAL AMOUNT 1 - Sampling, 7 site visits 6 42 48 $1,017 2 - Analysis - see subcontractor costs 0 $0 3 - Reporting 8 14 2 2 26 $673 4 - review contractor change orders 6 6 12 $368 5 - Project management 10 1 11 $449 0 $0 LABOR: LABORATORY TEST SUMMARY - 24 hr TAT Kil=.7� Test Est. No. Tests Unit Cost Total Cost NWTPH-GBTEX 10 10 $130 $135 $1,300 $1,350 NWTPH-Dx VOCs 0 $360 $0 PAHs 0 $380 $0 Lead 2 $40 $80 TCLP Lead 1 $160 $160 $0 Lab "l'otal $2,890 2 3 97 $2,506 HWA LABOR COSTS Direct Labor $2,506 Overhead @ 184.46 $4,622 Fixed Fee @ 10% $713 HWA TOTAL: $7,841 ESTIMATED DIRECT EXPENSES: Mileage @ 0.36/mi $200 Petro Flag tests, 16@$30 $480 Equipment rental (PID) $600 TOTAL DIRECT EXPENS $1,280 SUBCONTRACTORS: Laboratory Testing $2.890 TOTAL SUBCONTRACT( $2 890 PROJECT TOTALS AND SUMMARY: Total Labor Cost $7,841 Direct Expenses $1,280 Subcontractor Costs $2,890 HWA TOTAL: $12,011 X I07o lhcu% G&O Renton SW 7th PCS Costs.xls HWA GeoSciences Inc. PROJECT COST ESTIMATE Fir �1,1 l Soil Sampling SW 7th Street Renton, WA PROPOSED SCOPE: Spent as of November 6, 2004 ESTIMATED HWA LABOR: HWA GEOSCIENCES INC. HWA Ref: 2003-007 Date: 15-Oct-04 Prepared By: AS WORK TASK DESCRIPTION PERSONNEL & HOURLY RATES Proj. Mgr Proj. Geol. CAD Admin. TOTAL 43.27 18.03 21.15 15.90 HOURS TOTAL AMOUNT All 13 54 67 $1,536 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 LABOR: LABORATORY TEST SUMMARY - 24 hr TAT 13 54 Test Est. No. Tests Unit Cost Total Cost NWTPH-GBTEX 9 $130 $1,170 NWTPH-Dx 7 $135 $945 VOCs (EDB/BDC) 2 $360 $720 PAHs 0 $380 $0 Lead 2 $40 $80 $0 $0 Lab Total 0 0 67 $1,536 HWA LABOR COSTS Direct Labor $1,536 Overhead @ 184.46 $2,834 Fixed Fee @ 10% $437 HWA TOTAL: $4,807 ESTIMATED DIRECT EXPENSES: Mileage @ 0.36/mi $150 Petro Flag tests,10@$30 $300 Equipment rental (PID) $600 TOTAL DIRECT EXPENS $1,050 SUBCONTRACTORS: Laboratory Testing $2,915 TOTAL SUBCONTRACT( $2,915 $2,915 PROJECT TOTALS AND SUMMARY: Total Labor Cost $4,807 Direct Expenses $1,050 Subcontractor Costs $2.915 HWA TOTAL: $8,772 BUDGETED $12,011 REMAINING $3,239 G&O Renton SW 7th PCS Costs 1.xls HWA GeoSciences Inc. Allen Quynn - SW 7th Street Budget Page 1 From: Matt Winkelman <mwinkelman@g-o.com> To: Allen Quynn <aquynn@ci.renton.wa.us> Date: 10/21/2004 2:36A9 PM Subject: SW 7th Street Budget Allen, Based on our conversation from this morning, see attached projected invoice amount for Sep. 26-Oct. 23, 2004 ("BudgeTrack Prop.xls"). It includes 120 hours for Ron and 4 hours for Matt. The projected remaining budget for the project is $1,302.11. HWA GeoSciences, Inc. budget information is also attached ("G&O Renton SW 7th PCS Costs 3.xls"). The original HWA project cost estimate was $7,742, which was compiled with the understanding that the work included in the cost would be authorized on a "as needed" basis from the City ("10-15 Budget" tab). Recent discoveries at the site prompted Arnie to increase the projected cost estimate to $12,011 ("Current Proposal Budget" tab), with the same assumptions of "as needed" services. The remaining tab in the Excel spreadsheet is HWA costs up through today (Oct. 21) - $5,475 has been expended ("Spent as of 10-21" tab). Please contact me to discuss Thank you. Matt Winkelman Design Engineer Gray & Osborne Client: Renton G-0 # 955 Electronic File Transfer Note that these electronic files are provided as a courtesy only. Gray & Osborne, Inc. in no way guarantees the accuracy or completeness of the digital data contained within these files. Further more, Gray & Osborne, Inc. assumes no liability for any errors or omissions in the digital data herein. Anyone using the information contained herein should consult the approved or certified hard copy drawings or reports for the most current information available. CC: Arnie Sugar <asugar@hwageo.com>, Mike Jauhola <mjauhola@g-o.com>, Tom Zerkel <tzerkel@g-o.com> Allen C*�ynn - RE: soil sampling Page 1 From: "Arnie Sugar" <asugar@hwageo.com> To: "Matt Winkelman" <mwinkelman@g-o.com>, <aquynn@ci.renton.wa.us> Date: 10/27/2004 11:18:56 AM Subject: RE: soil sampling Following are typical actions performed on this project, broken down by tasks shown on our cost estimate. Site visit: * Get field equipment (PID, spoons, coolers, blue ice, PetroFlag kits, gloves, etc.) * Calibrate field instruments * Travel to site * On site - sampling, PID monitoring, PetroFlag testing, communication with on site personnel, etc. * Travel from site, may include drop off samples at lab for rush analyses * Decon sampling equipment, charge field instruments, refill PetroFlag test kit reagents, exchange cooler ice packs * Prepare chain of custody forms, field notes Reporting * Prepare field reports * Preliminary reporting and recommendations (see 10/15/04, 10/21/04 emails) * Obtain, fill out, and distribute soil and water disposal profile sheets * Receive, evaluate, summarize, tabulate, and distribute analytical results * Prepare final report (we add to this as the work progresses) Project management * Research soil and water disposal options and acceptance criteria * Research likely contaminant sources for future cost recovery * Phone calls / email to G&O, City, Contractor, Disposal Facility * Copy and forward information (lab reports, profile sheets, etc.) to above listed parties As agreed, we will only provide services as requested. Please feel free to call me if you have any questions or need more information. Arnie Arnie Sugar, P.G. HWA GeoSciences Inc. 19730 64th Avenue West, Suite 200 Lynnwood, Washington 98036 425 774 0106 425 774 2714 fax asugar@hwageo.com Electronic File Transfer Note that these electronic files are provided as a courtesy only. HWA GeoSciences Inc. in no way guarantees the accuracy or completeness of the digital data contained within these files. Furthermore, HWA GeoSciences Inc. assumes no liability for any errors or omissions in the digital data herein. Anyone using the information contained herein should always consult the hard copy drawings or reports for the most current information available. The use of this electronic information is restricted to the original site and project for which it was prepared. Allen Cruynn - RE: soil sampling Page 211 This message (including any attachments) contains confidential information intended for a specific purpose, and is protected by law. If you are not the intended recipient, you should delete this message and any disclosure, copying, or distribution of this message or the taking of any action based upon it, is prohibited. CC: "Pete Pearson" <ppearson@hwageo.com> Thursday, October 21, 2004 12:43 PM FCCC 425-235-1738 p.01 s An nan Cofucc' Construction Co. otr IleAD 9600 XLL. King bray South - Seattle, ` X 98118-5693 (206) 722-5306 - Fax (206) 722-5306 SY3i6"MOSN Recipient: Allen Quynn Sent By: R. Scott Clemons Company: City of Renton Company: Frank Coluccio Construction Fax Number: 430-7241 Fax Number: 425-235-1738 Voice Number: 425-430-7247 Voice Number: 425-235-1254 Date: 10/21 /2004 Time: 12.43:21 PM Total No. Pages: 7 Subject: Testing Message: Allen, I underestimated the time and cost for the testing agency. But it is still required in order to start work again. The technitian is now on site. Regards Scott Thursday, October 21, 2004 12 43 PM FCCC 425-235-1738 P 02 October 21, 2004 Ms. Heather Mcades Frank Coluccio Construction Co. 9600 Martin Luther King Way S. Seattle, WA 98118 206-760-54240ffice Phone 2.06-725-47640ffiCe Fax ne Support for Trenching operations in Renton, Re: Proposal for Industrial Hygie Washington Dear Ms. Meades: (Prezant) is pleased to present this proposal to perform an Prezant Associates, Inc. ( Washington. industrial hygiene support services for trenching operations In Rhone conversations Prezant proposes to conduct the following scope of work based on p we had with you. SCOPE OF WORK a CertifioJ Industrial Prezant will provide a industrial hygiene C Consultation ult t ons teNP servicetimetime air monitoring anc! Hygienist and Industrial Hygiene op F laboratory quality personal air monifoea grwplp btoringvfollowi g' NIOSH Method 1501 rfor The IH tech will be present onsite a Personal air samples will bo submitted to benzene, toluone, elhylbenzene, and xylene. an accredited laboratory for 24 hour turnaround. Prezant will issue a report documenting the air samplingwill be under the direction results and the effectiveness o the personal protective equipment utilized. The overall project of Bob Bliss. Certified Industrial Hygienist of Prezant. PROJECT SCHEDULE and terrns and Prezant will schedule this work upon a signed receipt of this proposal conditions. COST with an e This proicct will be billed on a time and on torialshe basison hat we t,am°Ell atedt�`os InoG $1,035.00. This cost estimate is based p billed (1.5 times regular and is subject to change based opal �tcents nernditmile.iorlS f Overtim{e rate onne time �s portal to portal, with mileage billed lit; Fxpnnsey. t over 8 hours per day and on holidays, weekend, and nig 15% rate) apply at t pus including subcontracting is a 2004dProf b 9r 0tnay Service Fees rtiSchedule which covers Included in fees, are this proposal r� photocopy, courier, and other miscellaneous charges. Please rc: er to equipment, fax, this srhodule. Cuilicio ii-I I'ropos,"l Page 1 01 6 Thursday, October 21, 2004 1Z43 PM FCCC 425-235-1738 p 03 Any unusual or additional costs would be tilled as incurrod, after discussion with and approval of appropriate client ropresentatives. Table 1. Cost Estimate Job Classification CIH — consultation _ — II. ndustrial Hygienist - filed work and report — Air Samples - benzAne Rate $125.00/hr $75.00/hr $200.00 each Sample pump — — — $35.00/day Shipping__ — — — — — — Mileage _ TOTAL ESTIMATED COST — — — — _Quantity — 2 hours _ 4 hrs samples/day (minimum for quality control following NIOSH Method 1500). — 1 day Total 1 — $250.00 $300.00l $400.00 $35.00 00 $20,0� 035.00 CLIENT ASSISTANCE Prd�ant with access to the buildings, including rooms, crawlspaces The client will provide and any other areas deemed necessary for completion of the proposed services. LIMITATIONS This work does not include other servic;cs not spocifically described in the Scope of Work presented above. Other services not provided within this specific, scope can bo provided for additional fens. Pntwill dustr�alrform the work described in hin accordancc yyione standards of care thlatpexist inlWashington at with generally accepted the time of the study. No warranty, express or implied, is made. Prezant main airs insurance coverage on its employees and work including errors and ornissiorrs insurance. A summary of this insurance covera9P is provided in the attached Terms and Conditions. For additional details, please contact Bob Bliss AUTHORIZATION & INCORPORATION OF TERMS & CONDITIONS Prezant's standard Terms and Conditions are incorporated into this Agreement with you by this reference, and by your signature and authorization, you are agreeing to those Terms and Conditions. A signed copy of this letter will serve ay a formal authuri7.ation fur Prezant to proceed with this contract, if there is a need fur change in the scope of services or tho work schedulo described in this proposal, please call us immedialcly. Any changes to our agreement with you must bP in writing and mutually agreed to. We appreciate the opportunity l0 submit this proposal and look forward to your lavolP bl consideration. It you wlsn to discuss or nhange the scope of work prior to signing, p contact Mr. Bliss. To approve of this proposal, please sign whore indicated below. Cullicio II 1 proposal Page 9 of 6 Thursday, October 21, 2004 12:43 PM FCCC 425-235-1738 p 04 Also, pleasp provide appropriate billing information in the CLIENT Bit LING INFORMATION area. Sincerely, 1 2: S4 — Bob Ciliss, CIH Prezant Associates, Inc. 330 6th Avo. N., Suite 200 Seattle, WA 98109 206-281-8858 fax 206-281-8927 bbliss@prezant.com APPROVED: Signature (authorized personnel only) Print Name & Title Date Attachments: 2004 Terms and Condlrions 2004 Professional Fees & Services CLIENT BILLING INFORMATION (Please write "SAME" it i 6miical to information provided at top of this letter). A� LC4LaClienGfetr oAJ� vAgency Narne pilling Contact Person Address i✓;ty, Stxte, Zip Emnrt addre,.. Q eewd� Lb 2___6 �29 Purrcriase Oidcr R (if royuire�) Phone ��25 � 7��P Lutlicio IH Proposat Page 3 of U Thursday, October 21, 200412:43 PM _ _ FCCC 425-235-1738 p 05 2004 Prezant terms and Conditions I . SFRvICFS TO BC f ROVIDF0 AND STANDAnu OF CARE. Prezant Associates, Itic., hrroinnflrr roierruu t0 as: NREZANT, agrees to provide the Client, for its sole benefit and exclusive itt twlh in F'HCZANT'_, se, consulting servic"q se proposal. Such services shall be perforrrted in accordance with generally accepted industrial hygiene perfur es, in the sarne or similar localities, related to trio nature oft' II eAworrn co are of a commercial naat trio fir a cttuo and arc nPeof'9re niod the Parties agree that the services performed undo importance to the general public:. nh t will l, Q. PAYMENT. Invoices will be sulmnined once poi mouth for services performed during the prior moult. Pay,,,a due upon receipt unless otherwise agrood. Interest will be added to accounts in arrears at the ratty. of on and or," half ge rate peroent (1 112,%) of the arrears of each month of do llecli nc an odclin luontt lo damount shall be maximum e paiono Pnt-/ANT allowed tho taw All expenses incurred by PRFZANT for licning or trolled 9 Yrt PRE./ANT for ally Client. If at any time, present or tuture, the state or local govemment assesses a.sala or use tax upo is of thv corvisot performed by t'fiE7_/1N andlor its elect pay ueh taxes directlontractors y thender ,tile ,Client agrcesetotreon Iii-ilt,ura PFkE/ANT inert" pry suck, taxes, or should PREZAN full. 3• RIQHT OF ENTRY. "frig Ctiont has resDVrts'tbility for obtaining a right of entry to trio Progeny The right of entry Shall allow PREIANT. its agetits, suhcontrau+toit;, and employees to ertu:r trig property from ►Imo to tithe, as her "scary to Petforrr, all a(;ts, studies, and research pursuant to the agreed scrviu;es. 4. SITE SAftTr PROVtBtON. PnEVANT has responsibility for its own activities on the proPorty including the safety of its employees; it does not assume control of nor responsibility for the property, the person In charge of rile property nor trio safety of persona not in PREZANT's employ. PRE7_ANT will nor supervise or be responsible in any manner for file site safety ano health of outer parties not in employ of PREZANI'. 5• INSURANCE. PRE7.ANT maintains Worker's Compensation and Employer's Liability Insurance for itscombine I 85 requited by state laws. PREZAN f m000 maintains comprehensive general liability (CGL) am ount of $1,000, mage. Auto liability insurance in the single limits with annual aggregate of $2,000,000 for bodily injury and proDerly dain the amount of amount of $1,000,000. PRFZANT also maintains Professional Liability and Pollution Liability Insurance ibfe to the Client $1,0uu,000 for each occurrence with an annual aggregate of $2,000.000. PRFZANT will not be resP onsbeyond the limits of Its insurance. 6. REpORIS, RECOMM1=NDrATIONSto AND OWNERSHIP mtten rASOF Drorn PRE7.ANT'sEefforts tare intended ss, rccoirnmcnd�i olely fotlpurpos's of OC materials. including electronically. this Agreement; any reuse by tho client or other far purpoee:; outeido of this Agreement or any failure to follow FRU..ANTs recommendations, without NREZANTs written pcmission, shall be at the user s stile risk. The Client will specifications, documents, and other information doomed necessary by furnish such reports, data, studies, plans. PRFZANT for proper performance at Its selvicca. PnHZAN 1' may rely urx.+n the Client- unity r docity onttr in amllfaing the services required under this Agreement; however, PREZAN I assumes no responsibility or liability fort pr vidodacy The Client provided documeeiits or will remain properly ff,It�0 Client pKEZcairu a ion will erseta'n e'fAsd othe, dof file loct rr ontsl wh docurttentw Solely for the u, are prepared. as instruments of service, shall remain PRUAN is property. 1. HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES AND CON011 IONS. The Client warrants that, 1f it knows or suspects that hazardous PnhZAN T has no substances may exist hand) handler, eproperty, it h;ls so erie at r, operator, treater, sloor. VanspcT ►er. or di posereof hazardous E ubblM ccs found ur res(tonsiUihty as a 9 identified at the project property. $. LIMITAI•ION OF LIABILITY, The Client aijreos lhat to the fuit&S extent permitted by law, +tc maximum a70re8ate recovery for claims against PRE7.ANT. its' owners. enrptoy,+es, sul7contrrtctors, and agents cvncerninq PRFZANI's Drofossional services (which are not covered under the insurance specified in paragraph 5), including ne+7ligenc", bra>,rh of this Agrcorrient, breach of warranty or sirict liability shall W Inc amount of the fee paid PrIEZANT fc+r Drofess�HrCZANT services or $50.000.00, whichever is greater. In the "vent that tile Client requNsts a higher linulatiort of liat�ility, will iner"aso th" Wnitation of liability for an increased fee that reflects considerabor, for thN increased ri-.k, and this paragraph shall be property amended in accordaitee will; r aragiapt 1 13 in ess of the I.imitatioli, of g. INDEMNIFICATION. Toth"fullest extent and hold to a CI eW hetlnlAH (om acid against any and all tr aims, actions. Y, pREZANT agrees to indemnify, defend liabilities• damages and eKpenses, including aftomey fees, arlsing out of tltc ""'`AvidednCfJlit�nnthis Agree, �N'Tho Client employees, agents r)r subcontractors, in the performance of work and services provided and employees hannlCss hem and agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold PRE%ANT, its ag"nt,,, subcontractors, r140YW100";- arisirio out Of the against any and all claims, a tvent i orls,�vtlthe t.rnicurarent heft g�� of P'REZANT an irthc GlianL PKCZAN r and the Client negligence of it,e Client. in tt Cullicio II 1 I'rOpm81 Pcc,ige 4 of 6 Thursday, October 21, 2004 12 43 PM FCCC 425-235-1738 p.06 shalt bear responsibility proportionate to the percentage of each party's negligence or that of its ag-V%, cmpioyet's, roprescnlalivea and r+uboontrartorc. 10. UNFORESEEN OCCUHRCNCES. If unforeseen conditions or o,.currence are oncountered which, n PREZAN t s Sic>lA judgment, significantly affect or irov affect ilia recommended scope of work, then PHFZANT will promptly nUlily the Client, Aflor suer+ nottticatlorr, PREZANT will corn)>leto the orlginSil svupo of work, if aDDrorrridIA. Or aorpA with the Client to modify the Agreement, or terminate the agreement pursuant to Paragraph 11. 1 1 . TFHMINATION. In the event that the Client raquosts tArminatior+ of work prior to complrlian or PREZANT terminates work under Paragraph 10, PREZANT wilt be Palo ttr ail wurk pertomrd up to nottra to tOrnvnatiun Sind for all CXDer+ses incurred or committed to that cannot be canreled. A termination charge may also be rnado to cover proposal Presentation and administrative costs related to the work. 12. SAMPLING. This paragraph an applies when PREZANT Is providing tietu testing ad sampling a�rvicoo All camploE w+u t to discarded 60 days after PREZANT completes its services unloss regulatory requirements stipulate a longer holding pAriod or different arrangements are agreed to in writing. 13. SEVF-RADILITY AND SURVIVAL. Any olemenl of thus Agreement later held to vlola!& a law snait lie deem tiJ void. and all remaining provisions shall continue in force. However, the Client and f R[ZANT will in good faith attempt to replace any invalid or unenforceable provision with One that is valid and oniorceabie, and which comes as close as possible to orms and conditions of ttiis Agrcemer+t allocating liability Uel-00n the expressing the intent Of the original IirOVlPlon. All C Client and I NCZANI shall surviva the completion of the services hereunder and ti+e termination of this Atgteonlonl 1 A. iNTERPRETArIONS AND TIME BAR TO LEGAL ACI ION. Interpretations and cnforr;Amont of lies Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of Washington. All legal actions by either party against the other related to tots Agreement shall bo barred after tour years have passed from the date by which pnEZANT completes its services. 15. PRECEDENCE, rhoso terms and corufitions shall take precedence ovor any inconsistent or contradictory provisions contained in any proposal, contract, purchase order, requlsition, nonce to prrx;Aed or like+ document regardinU PREZANT'S services. 16. VENIJC. This contract shall bo govornod by It- laws of the State of Washington. Jurisdiction over and verve of any suit between the parties arising out of or related to this contract shall be exclusively in the state and federal courts in King County, Washington. 17, ATTORNUTS FEES AND COSTS. In +he ovenl ur any di�puto or vx)i:rovcrs,y includino . without limitation, suit or arbitration arising out of or related to this contract, the prevailing party sl+all be entitled to collect the cost and exPe++sAs of the suit, including reasonable attomey's fees, from other patty, including those incurred on appeal. 18. ENTIRE AGREEMENT. This contract constitutes u+e entire >,9rocmcnt between too psrtie - with rosr+etlt to this matter and may he modified only in writing signed by the parties, 19. FNroncbABILITY, If for any reason any portion of this contract shall be held to he invalid or uncnforr;Aable, Il+t+ holding of invalidity or unenforccability of that portion shrill not atlect any dinar portlun of tltia contract and u,e tcmaintog portiorl•a of this contract shall remain in lull forco and effect. 20. WAIVER. The waiver by PRE ZAN r of a breach of any provision of this contract by thA Client shall not operate or bet co++strued as a waiver of any sutrsequent breach by the Client. No waiver shall be vaila unless In writing and :dJnad by P REZANT. ure of the anying The Client acknowledges receivedeantlrough read ascopytof the terms and Condit conditions and agrees ttoct that they have receive abido by those terms and conditions. (:ullicio Ili I'rupn>al Page 5 of 6 Thursday, October 21, 2004 12:43 PM FCCC 425-235-1738 p 07 2004 PROFESSIONAL SERVICE FEES & EQUIPMENT SCHEDULE Personnel Labor Rates Principals -- Certified Industrial Hygicnlsl $3;0.00 per hour Fxpert Witness Services $250.00 per hour Technical Client Services Principals - Certified Professional Ergonomist $250.00 per hour Expert witness Services $135.00 per hour Technicat Client Services $115.00-125.00 per hour Certified Industrial Hygienist 5110.00 per hour Certified Safety Professional $120.00 per hour Certified Safety Specialist $120.00 per hour Hazardous Materials Specialist $135.00 per hour Professional Ergonomist $100.00 per hour Industrial Hygienist $ 65.00.75,00 per hour Industrial I lygiene Technician $ 65.00.85.00 per hour Safcty Specialist $ 9o.00-115.00 per hour Instructor Certified AHERA Building Inspector $ 55.00.70.00 per hour $ 75.00 9U.00 per hour Certified AIIERA Management Planner/Designer$ fi0,00-70.00 per hour Field & l-aboraiory Technician $ 45.00 per dour Administrative Support The above rates apply during regular businoss hours (8 am to during Mon Fri), and arc billed and 5pmply portal to portal. Holiday Expenses, ates also ncl dings ubcontgraucting and o isidor lab the reguendlar 5r are billed at 1.5 timesre 9 fees, are billed at cost plus 15%,. Equipment Usage $95.00 per day MicroFID/w Data Lo80in0 Capability PID/w Data Logging Capability $90,o0 por day $95,00 per day Microlip Gastech CO/Oxygen/Combustible Gas/H2S Meter $55.00 per day Gastech RS411A CO2 Meter Telalre Data Logging IAQ Meter (CUl, Temp, RI I) $-c;5,np per day $1;.00 per day Cyclones MSA Oxygen/Combustible Gas Meter $55.00 per day $70.00 per day Noise Doslmoter $70.00 per day Sound Level Meter $55.00 per day Emdex Lite EMI- Monitor $40.00 per day High or tow Flow Sampling Pump $6s.00 per day Biosystems Toxiultra CO monitor $250.00 per day Niton XRF $55.00 per day Quest Personal Heat Stress Monitor $B5,00 per day Quest Area Heat Stress Monitor $15,po per day fjotometer $35.0o per day Ludlum Radiation Detector $55.00 per day Roscoe Fog 'smoke" Generator Alnor 03iomcterffhermo-Anemorneter $75.00 por day $55.o0 per day Anderson Microbial Sampler (N•6) $45.00 per day Samplair Non -viable Particulate Sampler Inspection i3oroscope and Color video camera $290.00 per day $100.0o per day inspection Boroscope w/out Camera $1o0.00 per day I•►EPA Va(./Negative Air Machine TSI IAQ Monitor (CO2, CO, TenrD, RN) $90.00 per day $175.o0 por day MIRAN Portable Infrared Spectrophotometer $30,00 per day Delmhorst Moisture Meter On -Site laptop Computer (Including Software) $50.00 per Clay $90.0o per clay Solonrat lAQ Monitor (G02, CO, 't cmp. RH) Expenses 2% of project total Communications charge (fax. copies, computers) $10,00 per day 1 direct Cellular Telephone (if requested) charges $0 42 per mile Mileage Actual plus I b'y�' Cornmcreial Transportation Actual plus 15l Lodging, meals, other expenses Cullicio IH Proposal i'agc 0 of 0 Tuesday, October 19, 2004 12:25 PM FCCC 425-235-1738 p 01 FROM : STOWF CONSTRUCTION PHONE: NO. : 2530629635 Oct. 19 2004 09:36AII P1 STOWE CONSTRUCTION, INC. General Contracting NO LONGER IN MSE/WBE/DBE STOVVEC1187RZ PROGWE'VE� pax Quc T TION PROJECT, 7th STREET RENTON DATE: FIRM- FRANK COLUCCIO CONST CO ATTN: 7/_ 4/2004 OCT 19 2004 CITY OF RENTON SCOT UTILITY SYSTEMS F.O.B. JOB SITE - SLIVERED TRUCK AND_TRAILLR - ALL LOADS MIN 30 TON LOADS BUMUMP & SOLO ARE ADDITIONAL. NOTIFICATION OF INTENT TO USE THIS QUOTE MUST BE MADE WITHIN 24 HOURS OF BID OPENING. EXCLUSIONS: SALES TAX AND BOND. ALL WASTE QUOTES ARE AT DRY DIRT RATE 22 YARD TRUCK MEASURE. FRET Or WOOD. CONCRETE, ASPHALT, AND HAZARDOUS DEBRIS. OVERTIME SMALL BE ASSESSED AT $17.00 PFR TRUCK PER HOUR ADDITIONAL. THIS OFFER SI IALL REMAIN IN EFFECT FOR 30 DAYS FROM QUOTE DATE. ANY DELCTIONS FROM THIS QUOTE MUST HAVF. PRIOR APPROVAL. ,� •li'�Etil �;; ;..717. ' � � , d�s�RlRt1pl�1 •„ . ; 1,..,,.� �� , HOURLY TRUCK & TRAILER RAZE $92.00 PHONE: FAX 4224 SUMNER-TAPPS HWY E. SUMNER, WA 98390 HOURLY TRUCKING: HOURLY TRUCKING: (263) 062-1199 SOLO: TT: Tax. (253) 862-9635 WWM WASTE MANAGEMENT Landfill Sales 13221 NE 126`h Place Kirkland, WA 98034 Telephone:425-825-2007 October 18, 2004 City of Renton 3 - d �� pvi (.V Attn: Allen Quynn � � 3 no Email: aquynn@ci.renton.wa.us C- ♦ 1 o Si- JUhH RE: Petroleum Contaminated Soil 01- yzzz Dear Allen: Columbia Ridge Landfill and Recycling Center (CRLRC) and Alaska Street Reload and Recycling Facility, subsidiaries of Waste Management, appreciate the opportunity to provide you with this proposal for the disposal of approximately 500 to 1000 tons of petroleum -contaminated soil located in Renton, WA. This proposal is based on information gained from our phone conversations and can only be verified by submitting Generator Waste Profile Sheets and analytical data for review and final disposal approval. Waste Management is confident that the solution we are recommending will meet your objectives for a cost effective and environmentally secure treatment method. We would like to provide these services at the following rate: Disposal Disposal at Alaska Street Transfer Facility $26.00/ton 2' Oregon DEQ Fee $0.30/ton Transportation L c fa.7 _ Truck and trailer (30 ton min charge per load) $90.00/hour �X_ 137- �602�" r�yv Assumptions: RL,S • Soil must be non -hazardous and able to pass Paint Filter Test. S � � et' YJi s • Pricing assumes a waste density of greater than]. 0 tons/cubic yard. C-U -& -vc 9 r q — g ? 7 g • Maximum payload for truck and trailer is 34 tons. G b, h,H — .A C,,.,f 4"k This quotation and proposed scope of work is made pursuant to the terms and conditions of Waste Management's Master Industrial Waste & Disposal Services Agreement that shall be executed by the parties in connection with performing the services described above. It is also made subject to the proper submittal of an acceptable Generator Waste Profile Sheet(s), which must be submitted to and approved by Columbia Ridge Landfill and Recycling Center (CRLRC) (Subtitle D), including any analytical data requested by Waste Management regarding the waste stream. All waste materials delivered must conform to the Waste Profile(s) and any waste materials that are considered non- f>w 10"a rV1 2004 SW 7th Street Drainage Improvement Project Phase II Budget Tracking System Approved 2004 Budget: $3,407,500.00 Updated 8/23/04 EXPENDITURE ITEM Estimated YTD Actual Est. Remaining Estimated Expenditure Spent Expenditure Total (Jan -Oct) Expenditure G&O Design Contract Amount Remaining $78,278.38 $67,311.29 $10,967.09 $78,278.38 HWA Addendum $19,000.00 $0.00 $19,000.00 $19,000.00 Ron Berger additional inspection $2,500.00 $0.00 $2,500.00 $2,500.00 Frank Coluccio Construction Contract $3,045,312.00 $1,984,593.94 $1,060,718.06 $3,045,312.00 Construction Contract Change Order 1 $80,000.00 $0.00 $80,000.00 $80,000.00 Construction Contract Change Order 2 $15,000.00 $0.00 $15,000.00 $15,000.00 Construction Contract Change Order 3 $15,000.00 $0.00 $15,000.00 $15,000.00 Lafarge Disposal Cost (soil) $81,000.00 $0.00 $81,000.00 $81,000.00 Lafarge Disposal Cost (water) $1,500.00 $0.00 $1,500.00 $1,500.00 Trucking Costs $12,000.00 $0.00 $12,000.00 $12,000.00 City Inspector & Engineering Staff Time (Estimated) $80,000.00 $55,884.24 $24,115.76 $80,000.00 Metro Fee (worse case) $86,000.00 $0.00 $86,000.00 $86,000.00 Misc. Expenditures $0.00 $2,985.06 $0.00 $2,985.06 Sewer work (includes restoration) ($6,508.00) $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Transportation (Sidewalk and Curb) ($8,650.00) $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 TOTAL $3,500,432.38 $2,110,774.53 $1,407,800.91 $3,518,575.44 BUDGET REMAINING: -$92,932.38 $1.296,725.47 $1,999,699.09 -$111,075.44 Assumes no contamination past Station 22+08 Renton — SW 7th Street Project — Phase 2 Ron's time through 10/16/04 was accounted for in the 10/07/04 email to Allen. That email explained that Ron's hours would be used up by 10/16/04 (1.5 hours remaining). Following that email, Mike, Matt, and Allen discussed keeping Ron on the job for additional time. We agreed that money could be reallocated from other tasks to cover the additional inspection time. 7 C. )7/ Addendum 5 budget hours for inspection 560.0 hours Actual hours worked 596.5 hours % 'Ile Additional hours worked 36.5 hours This additional inspection time pushes the budget over by $1,607.82. Ron worked 38 hours during the week of 10/17—10/23/04, for $2,908.67. I previously sent Allen a spreadsheet estimating remaining budget beyond this past pay period (+$1,302.11). We discussed using that remaining money, as allocated from other tasks, to pay for Ron's remaining time and to potentially cover a portion of the HWA GeoSciences work. To date, HWA has billed approximately $6,500, and could expend as much as $12,011 depending on how much additional geotechnical investigation is necessary. At the request of the City, Ron will also work approximately 40 hours during the week of 10/31—11/6/04. This work will equate to approximately $3,061.76, plus any additional reimbursable expenses (mileage). Current amount over budget Expected additional billing for Ron Current HWA expenditure Potential future HWA billing Total $ 1,607.82 $ 3,061.76 + 1 week's expenses (—$50) —$ 6,500.00 $ 5,511.00 $16,730.58