HomeMy WebLinkAboutLUA-91-150 - Black River Waste Reduction Center - Final EISa j
Final
Environmental Im
pact Statement
0 '
Black River,
Waste Reduction Center
[� City of Renton
200 Mill Avenue South
a Renton, Washington 98055
a
a
r
a
j
a �
Parametrix, Inc.
August 1991
n i
U
r. '
BLACK RIVER WASTE REDUCTION CENTER
(CDL RECYCLING AND TRANSFER STATION)
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
Prepared for
CITY OF RENTON
DEVELOPMENT PLANNING SECTION
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS
200 Mill Avenue South
Renton, Washington 98055
Prepared by
PARAMETRIX, INC.
13020 Northup Way
Bellevue, WA 98005
In association with
LARSON ANTHROPOLOGICAL/ARCHAEOLOGICAL SERVICES
RITTENHOUSE-ZEMAN AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
TRANSPORTATION SOLUTIONS INC.
TRC ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS
August 1991
FACT SHEET
Nature and Location of Proposal:
At the proposed Black River Waste Reduction Center (CDL Recycling and Transfer
Station), manual and mechanical processes would be used to remove recyclable material
from the construction and demolition debris waste stream, process some of the recyclables,
package others for delivery to processing facilities, and package the remaining waste for
shipment to a disposal facility. The site is located in northwest Renton on 68th Avenue
South, east of Foster Golf Links and west of the Renton Concrete Recycling gravel pit.
Proponent:
Rabanco Regional Landfill Company
Proposed Date for Implementation:
Autumn 1991
Lead A2ency:
City of Renton
200 Mill Avenue South
Municipal Building
Renton, WA 98055
Responsible Official:
Environmental Review Committee
c/o Don Erickson, Secretary
Development Planning Section
Department of Planning/Building/Public Works
200 Mill Avenue South
Renton, WA 98055
Contact Person:
Donald K. Erickson, AICP
Secretary to the Environmental Review Committee
Planning/Public Works/Building Department
(206) 235-2550
Black River Waste Reduction Center i August 1991
Final EIS
Permits./Licenses Required:
Routine Vegetation Management Permit, City of Renton
Building Permit, City of Renton
Electrical Permit, City of Renton
Mechanical Permit, City of Renton
Plumbing Permit, City of Renton
Shoreline Development Permit (likely), City of Renton
General Solid Waste Facility Permit, King County Department of Health
Metro Industrial Waste Discharge Permit
NPDES Permit for discharge of stormwater to Duwamish River, Washington Department
of Ecology
Hydraulic Project Approval may be required by the Department of Fisheries
Notice of Construction Permit, Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency
Authors and Principal Contributors:
Parametrix, Inc.
Water Resources
Plants and Animals
Land Use
Aesthetics
Public Services and Utilities
TRC Environmental Consultants
Air Resources
Noise
Transportation Solutions Inc.
Traffic/Transportation
Larson Anthropological/Archaeological Services
Cultural Resources
Date of Issue of Draft EiS:
May 17, 1991
Date of Issue of Final EIS:
August 21, 1991
Black River Waste Reduction Center ii August 1991
Final EIS
J
Nature and Date of Final Action:
Following issuance of the Final EIS, the City will take action on a Mitigation Document for
the proposed project.
Tyne and Timing of Subsequent Environmental Review:
This EIS is expected to satisfy SEPA requirements for review of the construction and
operation of the proposed Black River Waste Reduction Center at the proposed site on 68th
Avenue South in Renton.
Location of EIS Background Data:
The appendices included with this draft EIS incorporate technical reports and background
data. Other background data are available at the following location:
City of Renton
Development Planning Section
Department of Planning/Building/Public Works
200 Mill Avenue South
Renton, WA 98055
Cost to the Public for Copy of Draft EIS:
$10.00
Black River Waste Reduction Center iii August 1991
Final EIS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
UPDATED FACT SHEET ............................................ 1
SUMMARY...................................................... vi
INTRODUCTION..................................................
xin
1. EIS REVISIONS .............................................
1-1
1.1 Revision to the Text ..................................
1-1
1.2 Revisions to Figures ...................................
1-10
2. COMMENT LETTERS AND RESPONSES ........................
2-1
3. PUBLIC HEARING COMMENTS AND RESPONSES ................
3-1
3.1 Renton Public Hearing Comments and Responses ............
3-2
3.1.1 Renton Public Hearing Transcript .................
3-2
3.1.2 Responses to Renton Public Hearing Comments ......
3-8
3.2 Tukwila Public Hearing Comments and Responses ............
3-11
3.2.1 Tukwila Public Hearing Transcript ................
3-11
3.2.2 Responses to Tukwila Public Hearing Comments .....
3-47
DISTRIBUTION LIST ............................................. DL-1
APPENDICES
The appendices for this document are the same as those found in the DEIS, with
changes indicated in Section 1 of this FEIS.
Black River Waste Reduction Center
Final EIS
iv
August 1991
LIST OF FIGURES
Fi ure
Page
3.7-3 Views of Site from Tukwila Hill .................................. 1-12
3.8-1 Existing Street Network ........................................ 1-13
3.8-6 1993 Without Project, AM Peak -Hour Traffic Volumes ................ 1-14
3.8-7 1993 AM Peak -Hour Traffic Volumes ............................. 1-15
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
I-1 Impact matrix ................................................. ix
Black River Waste Reduction Center v August 1991
Final EIS
SUMMARY
ALTERNATIVES
Proposal
The Rabanco Regional Landfill Company (RRLC) proposes constructing and operating a
recycling and transfer station for construction and demolition debris, and incidental, mixed
loads of landclearing debris. Discrete loads of landclearing debris (including mud and dirt)
and yard waste will be hauled to other specialized facilities, such as the Cedar Hills
composting facility. The proposed recycling and transfer facility would be constructed on
a 13.5-acre site in the City of Renton.
At full operation, up to approximately 90,000 cubic yards per month of construction,
demolition, and landclearing (CDL) waste would be processed. After recyclables are
extracted, the remaining waste would be transferred to the Roosevelt Regional Landfill in
Klickitat County, Washington.
The proposed facility is intended to be part of a larger regional approach to managing CDL
waste in King County. Based on the goals of the King County Solid Waste Management
Plan, recycling will play a major role in reducing total volumes in the waste stream.
Phased Implementation
The proposed facility could be initially scaled down for processing smaller volumes
(approximately 40,000 cubic yards per month) of CDL debris. Gradually, the facility could
expand operationally to process the larger volumes of waste. Analysis in the EIS is based
on handling the larger waste volume.
No -Action Alternative
Under this alternative, no CDL recycling and transfer station would be built on the
proposed site. The site could remain vacant and would be available for other development.
Unrelated development in the vicinity would continue.
PURPOSE AND NEED
In 1990, King County's solid waste system handled approximately 148,000 tons of CDL
waste. The closures of the Newcastle Landfill in January 1990 and the Mt. Olivet Landfill
in August 1990 were followed by an emergency public rule (PUT-7-1) revising the waste
acceptance policy for CDL waste at County solid waste facilities. With this new policy, there
Black River Waste Reduction Center vi August 1991
Final EIS
are three disposal options for nonrecycled CDL waste generated in King County:
Hidden Valley Landfill in Pierce County
Morrison Sand and Gravel disposal facility in Kitsap County
King County Transfer Stations (from which waste is transferred to a
permanent disposal site). The Hidden Valley Landfill is scheduled to close
by November 31, 1991, and the Morrison Sand and Gravel facility has little
remaining capacity. One of the objectives in the King County Comprehensive
Solid Waste Management Plan (CSWMP) is to reduce to the maximum extent
possible the amount of solid waste requiring disposal. The CSWMP
recommends that the County select and contract with a vendor to plan and
permit one or more new facilities for disposal and potential recycling of
construction demolition, and landclearing (CDL) waste.
OBJECTIVES OF THE PROPONENT
One of the primary objectives of the proposal is to provide a specialized recycling facility
for CDL waste. The proposed facility would provide the means for processing CDL waste
in an environmentally safe and economically sound manner. In processing CDL waste, the
applicant would be allowed to charge tipping fees and to recapture concrete, wood, metal,
and other materials currently valuable on the recycling market.
SIGNIFICANT AREAS OF CONTROVERSY AND UNCERTAINTY AND ISSUES TO BE
RESOLVED
Transportation
The potential for traffic safety impacts due to project -generated truck traffic was raised
during scoping and investigated by the City of Renton and its transportation consultant. Of
special concern was the safety of school bus stops. Given the small proportion of trucks that
would travel past school bus stops when children are present, safety at school bus stops does
not appear to be a potential problem (see Section 3.8.2.3 of the DEIS). However, specific
data reflecting accidents on local streets involving the types of trucks typically generated by
this type of facility could not be found. Thus, the safety impacts due to an increase in
project -related truck traffic cannot be concluded.
Historic and Cultural Preservation
No archaeological sites or culturally significant historic structures have been identified on
the proposed site. However, the site is in an area that formerly contained an ethnohistoric
Indian population' and a number of historic activities. Cultural resource remains in the area
could likely be uncovered during subsurface excavations associated with construction.
Black River Waste Reduction Center vii August 1991
Final EIS
1 Section 3.10 describes this potential impact and outlines important mitigation to address the
potential discovery of cultural resources on the site.
I
I
I
MAJOR CONCLUSIONS
See the Impact Matrix (Table I-1) for a summary of the major conclusions on anticipated
impacts from the proposed Waste Reduction Center.
Black River Waste Reduction Center viii
Final EIS
August 1991
0
Q
z
d
F
O
a
o'
s
tko
C
N
y
N
C
o
z
C
o
z
V
R
Q
E
V
'V-'
d
a�
c o
y ;
m
R it R 'G
C
aU..
.yJ'
y (aV�RJi7 N V
C
O R
y OO 7 C i�
Q
.05
aOi
N O .0 60"" 'a C
O 00 'O UU y U
Q �
Y
� •':
� Ou � � � C `r0
u
w
w
a � o .a •Ro> .° ai
py
fn O
0. C" •C C 'O O
�
o y
R
V L, N
C
%L.
Q ►/
a
o
r
a
C
�
•,c, ; o
•� u
�o
„
s �
ca O
U
O V O
N T V
''n
L
at°i aRi
y N p
O
0
o
r N aT
u
0 is
Q
C
ca �
_m
i.^.
U 7
O
e
u
N
7 'O U
U
s
R
3 0 'O
d �° •=
•�
a
5
L •C N
En U
R
C
X .0 'U
z=
0y2
;� 2
_ _
cO . •. 7
_ U � R
3
o u A
w c
>
O'
4R >
O
C
Q V
t Awl C
—
=L•�
bD
a=i
> M u
IV
C h w
U p
C
C O
;g .
19
_ •G 0. �
'�
'O E
u ~
L T N
L
O In
06
`/ N
O;
N
! L y
w
R
e c s
c
L
N~;
y V
C N
�°°°�'
•� •�
a
�
�du
u
v
Q y
y
Too c
u c s
4
Go u y
Q
A w
R
E 3$
v
p
'Ca
d
•v
C
pp
p
O
Z$
�
Np,
p vl
�
>
C
141
4�i
> � ��•
x
axi
cya aui E O
N Cl. C41
G
�
R L
N
y
u
O N
O
••
V R
,�
'...
R y� i N
QI
VyEF.E
JE
3
_
14
D
E�
0
b
z
a
a
a
>
o
3
c
;o
50
A
°
A
o
ecn
e
fO
N
C
`
i
w C
tuj
_
T
m
FUi
aue 7
a
D
t
cN
�+
�
•N O T
N
O
- C V
4)
a)
fd
U
'U
N Ote
o
;, c
y
O
°
a
C
�'
4 en a
3
°
A
r
u
p
°
v
N u
aj
>
m
::
c
0
o
a
o
3
C u
= H
m
O
c
A
z
y
E
o
IE
o
�e
ho
.=
_
O
i•
° c
C
E
vi
✓ u
a1
o
o
m
,Z
A D c m
Y
o
o a°�°
Uj
o
m
t y
c c '
•E ,c c
_
•O O
_s
u& o
t H
C 0' d=
a7
° u 0 E o
O w
p
m 0
Q u �.
.a' t c C
.N
a O jr-, •_' 'O
N
=
c= CL
e° ai °
c
u a
C
•C N
C
c3c_
C N
m ye 7.1
c
u
'Cboo
u
N
•� cO m o o
N— N L.
N Q•
G y
a9) i
ca
N
O C
7 L. CC,
O �O �'
N
C
?� = m
C Vl
__ 'O u
== O ._
O
C
= N 4-1—0u
7 og N
O izA
o
:3 y
N ai 3
y m c
CC 0 V
o«
t 0.
0 .N N .f0
H y N y
'N ate $
y
m R 0. cr 7
60
r
boo3 i
c.m
u
y
> 0 0 cC
c 3
= C u c
O > m
N 'O .�
1:
Q
m
a) V We •O
C
L
o
r
N °
p
> 'c a
� m
10 c m
.N o Cor en
y
.m. m `a a"i y
d
v
o .3 v°�i
N T
W O
O 3 N •�
G
y=_ N
oa f�
Ir ~ T U �
D N C Or .O �
t7
�+
UW
.te
u O
10
tUNO
u
JD
Q
aEi a o
e
c E ai =ca
..
i a7
°
u
p
up�p u bo
C
•y �. C O O P
01
Ea
d
p
0.
u
m
�C
N
v1 O O C
v_� "c = 3
i"' y � y
6..
cv � u •C u,
�
�
>
Q p u
'CO
m
O
CO
D
•O
[nl
O= O
II
m
W
z
cn
F
a
a
m
�v
•FOi
�
OD
N �
Y
o
O
0
w
w
Cc
C
C
iC bOi
_o
ao
_
A
a.
°
F
r
'�
1°
c
?
.y
a
�
a
�
•$ y
� ca
u
o
•o
�
•o
0
0
O
0.
y
O
G.
ui✓
m�
vi•
N
V
W V
aN+ 7
A Fri
e�i
d
F
y
C. to
VJ
E > E03
°
e
N
u
c
y
b
c a
E
w
a
E
00 C
c yc� v
U
O c
a�
N V
A p
1O p„ O
C_
Q u
al
E
�°
`: rn°
.k
u A�
� L N
•� cO A c u a
' 3 0
o
N N
p C
O cv N
CD
pQ
w O0 m
w
ca y
N •p > N
Y. C —cC
OY 5
> c0
A u �,,,
5
R y O
y a >, -
a
>
o..
t c L
'3sa.
d
Q. N o
L N
wNq
N i7
CD
Ao
�?`E
�_�',w
°—'°E'a3
room
EQv
0 0 3
OL
y>,
d0 hCD
CAe0
.y f�
o
S
_ N p
' V
>
_ y
E 'O
'0 'C
r
=
d
G x
N
'C C N
C 9 L
_
C
00
V Y tp7 C N y
�.. C A cv Y
cO y
.2 C = y
N
r
O)
L
tn
VyVI
° c.0 o
H
O
Tm� 4 �00.�
u M' s
U
.=
.0
N
°� A
A
u e Y u r .�.
3 O y
u
O
°
°' c
c o °'
. y
O
3 o A=
°¢a"
a
u
'O
— o
c Q
u
cc
N
N
yN
° .O
y
W
�3
z°
'�E"0.
F.
•.A.
i y C
i•. c N
..
rn °� �.. O N
C c
CD
bi
O
f0
UE
A VwL4. V
V V W p >
A .V+
o
Ln
u
y
Oc .0Va
. CV
2 O
c
MT O(]
h••
II
W
�OL
zGO
z
�N hV
¢
i
d
F
�
Q
I
I
I
�J
u
C
C
iO55
.G
G
CN
o,
o
�
u
p
C
u
�
O
y
N
9
R
3
>
o
A
V
0 N
�_
V
14
V
u
�
u
w
u
O
U co
•fn
y
bo C
pNG�
N
R
3
C
•y �
at O
o a.
c
7
•
c
o
�
t
u
C y
n a
0
O y
ru
O
A
p t
>
C
Q
In
>
uo
c
O e
c
-c-- o
Z
R
o
o
c �
o
R
Q
0
JE
•p
T
r
u
w c
U
p
a : f
N c
.oV
.
y
w e �
.+
R tC
3 d
$
°�'
d
\ Nti
u
yp�
R
R C O
u
R V u
£ O b
N
V
T
C
y d
O Co
N V p
u°
C
N y u
�
aV+
is
41
'� o
� 7 u
� Y �
O f�O+ n.i
�
� p
_
•O
vi
R 3� d
y
F
C
pp
u
p •O
V
OF uc '� a�i
o T o �
o •p
:o �
uu
a
p oba
u
�.
•v
O
R
bo
•u
7
V O 4.'
R
R
p
(�
Q 6:
z
Uii
° ayi
z 1-i
p A
e
V
u
C
..v.
N .� N
R 7
_ a o
y
p R O
>
.N. C
R�D�
A c 4
CO
U O
R.5
R N
.T.
_
Ln
�w
�I
`:
-- Q
u a
�I=
`:
:a a
o
.y
INTRODUCTION
This document, in conjunction with the Draft EIS (City of Renton 1991a), comprises the
Final EIS for Rabanco's proposal to construct and operate a construction/demolition/land
clearing (CDL) waste recycling and transfer station. The proposed transfer station would
be located on a predominantly vacant, 13.5-acre site in the City of Renton. These two
environmental documents consider the Proposed Action, the Proposed Action and
mitigation, and the No -Action Alternative. Significant environmental impacts associated
with these alternatives were assessed, and potential mitigating measures to reduce or
eliminate these impacts were described and assessed in the Draft EIS.
The City of Renton has reviewed the comments received on the Draft EIS. Comments,
from the public hearings and letters, include personal opinions or preferences, as well as
factual corrections. As such, the City of Renton is issuing this addendum to the Draft EIS
in compliance with WAC 197-11-560 of the SEPA rules. The Final EIS consists of this
addendum and the Draft EIS.
The addendum is organized into four major sections. The first section is a revised Summary
and this Introduction. The second section (Chapter 1) includes revisions to the text and
figures of the Draft EIS. It lists corrections and additions in page order. The third section
(Chapter 2) contains all of the written comments received on the Draft EIS and responses
to these comments. The fourth section (Chapter 3), includes comments received during two
public hearings, as well as responses to these comments. The appendices include the
distribution list for this document.
Black River Waste Reduction Center xiii August 1991
Final EIS
I
1. EIS REVISIONS
This chapter contains the revisions to the Draft EIS. Included are factual corrections
pointed out by agencies, organizations, and/or individuals who commented on the Draft EIS
as well as corrections identified by the consultants. Supplemental information that improves
fl or modifies the analysis contained in the Draft EIS is also presented in response to
comments received. These revisions are organized in page order according to the chapters
and subsections of the Draft EIS.
] 1.1 REVISIONS TO THE TEXT
FACT SHEET
See the updated Fact Sheet in this FEIS.
SUMMARY
See the updated summary in this FEIS.
1. DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES
1
p. 1-6: In the second paragraph of Section 1.5.1.3, replace the first sentence with:
The facility would be open for waste deliveries approximately between
the hours of 7 am and 8 pm weekdays and Saturdays, and would likely
be closed on Sundays.
P. 1-10: In the fifth paragraph, the first sentence should be revised to read:
A "yard goat" (a diesel -powered, or electric -powered, tractor -like
vehicle) would pull the container on a trailer to the rail spur for
loading onto the train.
2. NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE
1 3. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION
J MEASURES
I
I
I
Black River Waste Reduction Center
Final EIS
1-1
August 1991
I
3.1 EARTH
No change.
3.2 AIR
p. 3-6: Add the following paragraphs at the end of Section 3.2.2.2:
There is concern that hazardous substances (primarily asbestos) may
be present in demolition debris from older structures, and that this
could contaminate the air and/or stormwater. While asbestos is not
uncommon in older structures, the chance that the proposed facility
would result in contamination of either the water or air is relatively
low.
First the risk of asbestos being included in waste entering this facility
is minimized because its removal and disposal is controlled. Before
issuance of a demolition permit for any building suspected of including
asbestos -containing materials, the following actions would be required:
• Inspect the building for asbestos -containing materials
• Test suspected materials
• Properly remove asbestos (removal to be conducted by a
licensed contractor)
• Complete a notice of removal
• Properly dispose of asbestos (complete a Waste Shipment
Report). The inspection, removal, and disposal of asbestos are
controlled by local, state, and federal regulations. They are
enforced locally by the Puget Sound Air Pollution Control
Agency.
While these controls would minimize the risk of receiving asbestos at
the proposed facility, they would not eliminate the chance that asbestos
could accidentally or intentionally be included in waste hauled there.
Thus, there is a chance that asbestos could be (1) blown from a truck
hauling asbestos -containing waste to the site, or (2) released at the site
itself when the load is dumped and sorted. The risk of such releases
would be further reduced through the proponent's proposed safety
practices, and through mitigation suggested in the EIS.
First, the EIS suggests that all loads be covered, and that loads that
Black River Waste Reduction Center 1-2 August 1991
Final EIS
aren't covered be levied an additional fee to encourage haulers to
cover future loads. (Current state law does not require that loose
loads be covered, only that six inches of freeboard be maintained.)
Second, the proponent has committed to training employees to identify
and properly handle hazardous substances that may illegally enter the
facility. Third, the EIS suggests that at least one of the employees on
duty be specifically qualified to identify various forms of asbestos -
containing materials. Fourth, the EIS suggests that air monitoring be
conducted routinely to monitor asbestos levels. And fifth, the
processing building will be equipped with a dust collection system
(including a HEPA filter) that will capture airborne particulate matter.
p. 3-6: Add the following paragraphs at the end of Section 3.2.3:
However, the proponent could reduce on -site emissions by using
electric -powered, rather than diesel -powered machinery on site. While
an electric -powered top pick is probably not feasible, it may be
possible to use an electric yard goat.
Although this facility is not intended to accept hazardous waste, it will
be equipped and employees will be trained to detect and handle
hazardous substances that may enter the waste stream. At least one
of the employees on -duty should be especially qualified to identify
various forms of asbestos -containing materials, and to supervise the
proper disposal of asbestos containing materials. Routine monitoring
of air quality in the building should be conducted to determine
asbestos levels.
3.3 WATER
p. 3-10: Add the following to the end of Section 3.3.2.1:
The 30" steel culvert was not analyzed for its ability to pass the 100-
year storm. Backwater effects, if any, from the culvert during the 100-
year storm would be accommodated on the site in the wetland area.
p. 3-10: Add the following to the end of Section 3.3.2.2:
Also, there is concern that asbestos may be present in demolition
debris from older structures, and that this could contaminate the
stormwater. Please see Section 3.2.2.2 for a discussion of this.
Black River Waste Reduction Center 1-3 August 1991
Final EIS
p. 3-12: Add the following to the end of the first chapter on this page:
All materials at the site will be transferred in enclosed areas that drain
to the sanitary sewer, not to the stormwater system. In the unlikely
event that a spill occurs on the open paved area, the stormwater
structures will be designed with valves to contain spills in one or more
cells of the facility. This will facilitate cleanup and prevent possible
pollutant discharges to the river from spills.
3.4 PLANTS AND ANIMALS
p. 3-18: Add the following as a separate paragraph after the last paragraph in Section
3.4.3:
It is recommended that a comprehensive plan for monitoring and
assuring successful preservation of the wetland, protection of water
quality, and restoration of wildlife habitat be implemented. This could
include visits by a qualified wetlands ecologist at 6 and 12 months
following project installation to verify success of preservation and
revegetation efforts. If found to be in need during these inspections,
modification of designs and/or re -planting should be performed to
ensure wetland and wildlife habitat integrity. Water quality
monitoring, similar to that conducted at Rabanco's existing facility at
3rd Avenue and Lander Street, should be conducted at this facility.
3.5 NOISE
p. 3-24: In the last paragraph, the first sentence should be revised to read:
The facility is expected to operate between 7 am and 8 pm, Monday
through Saturday.
3.6 LAND AND SHORELINE USE
No change.
Black River Waste Reduction Center 1-4 August 1991
Final EIS
3.7 AESTHETICS
p. 3-40: In the first paragraph of Section 3.7.3, the second sentence should be revised
to read:
Contrast due to color differences should be minimized by painting the
exterior surface of the facility (including the walls and roof) shades of
green and/or brown. Color choices should be subject to approval by
the City of Renton.
p. 3-46: Replace the first paragraph in this page with the following:
Also, to minimize the potential for waste blowing from trucks and
littering the roadways, the proponent should require all of its trucks to
be covered while hauling debris to the facility, and hauling light -weight
recyclables from the facility. Also, the proponent should require
independent haulers using the facility to similarly secure their loads.
Haulers violating this requirement could be assessed an additional fee.
Funds collected through such assessments could be used toward a bond
to be posted by the proponent to pay for roadway cleanup. This bond
would be used to fund mitigation for the litter that may occur in spite
of preventive measures, and would be to the City of Renton for the
first year of operation. Through interlocal agreement, King County
and the City of Tukwila could also participate in this mitigation. After
the first year of operation, the impacts and mitigation should be re-
evaluated, and the mitigation measures adjusted, if appropriate.
p. 3-46: Add the following paragraph to the end of Section 3.7.3:
Measures could be taken to reduce the amount of activity on the
western border of the site, nearest Foster Golf Links. This could
include orienting the loading bays so that they open to the south.
3.8 TRANSPORTATION
p. 3-47 Replace the last sentence in Section 3.8.1.1 with the following:
In addition, WSDOT is planning to signalize the intersection of Martin
Luther King Way (SR-900) at 68th Avenue South; construction is
scheduled to be completed by mid-1993.
p. 3-58 Replace the second sentence in Section 3.3.2.4 with the following:
Black River Waste Reduction Center 1-5 August 1991
Final EIS
Although the plans for the commuter rail are not yet fully developed,
it is the traffic consultant's understanding that the plan is to use the
existing Burlington Northern Railroad tracks for both commuter and
freight transportation. Train loading operations at the Black River
facility will occur on a spur track off the main rail line. Train
movements on the main line will be scheduled to avoid conflict with
the commuter rail and other rail activity.
At this time, Metro has narrowed the list of potential sites for a
commuter rail station in this area down to several locations. The
options receiving highest consideration are located along the
Burlington Northern Railroad in the area from I-405 south to Strander
Boulevard. Metro has stated that the Rabanco site is not on their list
of potential commuter rail station sites.
p. 3-59 In Section 3.8.3.2, insert the following before the last sentences in the first
paragraph:
Interlocal agreements between the City of Renton and the City of
Tukwila, and the City of Renton and King County could be formulated
to include those other jurisdictions in this mitigation program.
p. 3-59 In Section 3.8.3.2, add the following to the end of the first paragraph:
Also, local jurisdictions could designate travel routes, and provide
weight -restricting signage on roads where heavy truck traffic is not
desired.
p. 3-59 In Section 3.8.3.1, add the following to the end of the first paragraph.
However, the City of Tukwila has requested a mitigation fee of $1,000
per peak -hour trip generated by the project through the intersection of
Interurban Avenue/Grady Way and West Valley Highway/South 156th
St. It is suggested that the project proponent sign an agreement with
the City of Tukwila to contribute the suggested mitigation fee provided
they have reviewed and verified the basis for the fair share calculation.
Black River Waste Reduction Center 1-6 August 1991
Final EIS
3.9 Public Services and Utilities
p. 3-63: In Section 3.9.1.3, delete the third and sixth sentences in the first paragraph,
and add the following between the 1st and 2nd paragraphs:
The site is in a location that exceeds the 4-minute maximum response
time for aid service and 5-minute maximum response time established
for fire assistance. The response time is between 6- and 7-minutes
(Gotti, personal communication 1991).
p. 3-65: Replace the first paragraph of Section 3.9.2.3 with the following:
The site is in a location that exceeds the 4-minute maximum response
time for aid service and 5-minute maximum response time established
for fire assistance. The response time is between 6- and 7-minutes
(Gotti, personal communication 1991).
p. 3-65: Add the following to the end of the last paragraph in Section 3.9.2.1:
A bicycle trail route is proposed along Monster Road connecting
Oakesdale Boulevard and Empire Way. Substantial bike traffic on this
road could conflict with existing truck traffic and truck traffic
generated by the proposed facility.
p. 3-66: Delete the first sentence in Section 3.9.3.1.
p. 3-66: In the second paragraph of Section 3.9.3.1, replace the second sentence with
the following:
The City of Renton or Rabanco could provide signage in the vicinity
of the site to warn bicycle commuters of truck operations, as well as to
warn truck operators of bicycle traffic. The addition of a separate
bicycle lane along Monster Road and Oakesdale Parkway would help
mitigate bicycle/auto-related conflicts as the area develops.
Construction of the bike lane could be undertaken by the City of
Renton as improvements are made on these roads or it could be
developed by the City in conjunction with proportional share
contributions made by developments that generate traffic on this road
system. Also, the proposed bike route should be included in the state's
plans for re-channelization of parts of 68th Avenue South, and
signalization of the intersection of SR 900 and 68th Avenue South.
Black River Waste Reduction Center 1-7 August 1991
Final EIS
Also, although no significant increase in the use of existing recreational
facilities is expected from this proposed project, the proponent could
consider volunteer impact fees (proposed in the City of Renton's
Comprehensive Park, Recreation, and Open Space Plan) as a means
to mitigate potential employee -related impacts to recreational facilities
in the area.
p. 3-66: Replace the existing text in Section 3.9.3.2 with the following:
No specific mitigation is necessary. However, in support of waste
reduction and recycling goals, the proponent has committed to using
recycled organic materials, such as compost and chipped woody debris,
during the landscaping phase of the project. The proponent has also
committed to using recycled paper in the facility's offices.
To further support waste reduction and recycling, the proponent should
be encouraged to:
• Use products made from recycled materials wherever
possible during the construction phase.
• Use nontoxic chemicals for cleaning and maintenance
p. 3-67: In Section 3.9.3.3, replace the first sentence with the following:
The proponent should make a proportional contribution toward
locating a fire station on the valley floor that would reduce response
times below 5 minutes for fire assistance and 4 minutes for aid service.
3.10 HISTORIC AND CULTURAL RESOURCES
No change.
3.11 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
No change.
Black River Waste Reduction Center 1-8 August 1991
Final EIS
DISTRIBUTION LIST
See revised Distribution List in this FEIS.
REFERENCES
Add the following references
Ecology. 1991. Personal communication with Peter Christiansen, Department of Ecology,
Northwest Regional Office. June 28, 1989.
Gotti, Gary. 1991. Memorandum from Gary Gotti, Renton Fire Marshall, to Mark Pywell,
Renton Senior Planner. July 29, 1991. Renton, Washington.
King County Division of Roads and Engineering. 1991. Personal communication with Jon
Cassidy. July 9, 1991.
King County Solid Waste Division. 1991a. Selection of private vendor(s) to provide
construction, demolition, and land clearing waste handling services, Draft EIS.
February 1991. Seattle, Washington.
King County Solid Waste Division. 1991b. Selection of private vendor(s) to provide
construction, demolition, and land clearing waste handling services, Final EIS. June
1991. Seattle, Washington.
Merlino, Gary. 1991. Personal communication with Gary Merlino, Anmar Corporation.
June 26, 1991.
City of Renton. 1991a. Black River Waste Reduction Center Draft Environmental Impact
Statement. May 1991. Renton, Washington.
APPENDICES
APPENDIX C - NOISE REPORT
p. 8: In the second paragraph, the first sentence should be revised to read:
The proposed hours of operation are between 7 am and 8 pm, Monday
through Saturday.
Black River Waste Reduction Center 1-9 August 1991
Final EIS
APPENDIX D - TRANSPORTATION REPORT
p. 4: In the first paragraph, the first sentence should be revised to read:
This facility is expected to be open for receipt of waste from 7 am to
8 pm, Monday through Saturday.
1.2 REVISIONS TO FIGURES
CHAPTER 3 FIGURES
Figure 3.7-3
This figure is revised to accurately identify viewpoints C and D. In the
Draft EIS, the photograph captions were transposed. The revised
Figure 3.7.3 has been printed below.
Figures 3.8-1 through 3.8-8
Figure 3.8-6
Figure 3.8-7
These figures are revised by adding the Metro Treatment Plant access
road onto the Oaksdale Parkway/SW 7th Street intersection, and
adding South 156th Street as the east leg of the intersection of West
Valley Highway/northbound I-405 ramp. A revised Figure 3.8-1 has
been printed in this FEIS to indicate these changes.
This figure is revised to correct a typographical error. Eighteen
vehicles (not 8) are projected to turn left off Empire Way onto 68th
Avenue South.
This figure is revised to correct a typographical error. Under the
proposed project, 662 vehicles (not 661) are projected to turn right off
Rainier Avenue South onto Empire Way South -Sunset Blvd.
Black River Waste Reduction Center 1-10 August 1991
Final EIS
1
IAPPENDIX D FIGURES
` Figures 3 through 11
Figures 3 through 11 should all be revised to add South 156th Street
as the east leg of the intersection of West Valley Highway/northbound
I-405 ramp.
This addition is shown on Figure 3.8-1, which has been reprinted in
i this FEIS. Figures 3 through 11 have not been reprinted.
_j
Figure 8
l This figure is revised to correct a typographical error. Eighteen
vehicles (not 8) are projected to turn left off Empire Way onto 68th
Avenue South. Figure 7 has not been reprinted. However, the
revision is the same as that shown on the revised version of Figure 3.8-
6, reprinted in this FEIS.
Figure 9
This figure is revised to correct a typographical error. Under the
proposal, 662 vehicles (not 661) are projected to turn right off Rainier
Avenue South onto Empire Way South -Sunset Boulevard. Figure 9
1 has not been reprinted. However, the revision is the same as that
shown on the revised version of Figure 3.8-7, reprinted in this FEIS.
Black River Waste Reduction Center 1-Il
Final EIS
August 1991
J
1
I
I
I
Black River Waste Ren„�,.,.�,
N
SCALE IN FEET Figure 3.8-1 .
Existing Street
0 1,500 3,000
Network
DISTRIBUTION LIST
11 FEDERAL
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region X
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
aU.S.
Soil Conservation Service
STATE
Department of Ecology (SEPA Register)
Department of Natural Resources
D
Department of Wildlife
Department of Transportation
Department of Social and Health Services
a
Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation
Office of Public Archaeology, University of Washington
Puget Sound Water Quality Authority
REGIONAL
LI Metro - Water Quality Division
J Metro - Transit
Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency
aPuget Sound Council of Governments
Seattle - King County Department of Public Health
r1 Seattle - King County Commuter Pool
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
aKing County Department of Public Works, Surface Water Management Division
King County Building and Land Development Division SEPA Information Center
a King County Parks, Planning and Resources Department: Attn: Eric Stockdale
King County Soil and Water Conservation District
CITY OF RENTON
Mayor: Attn: Mayor's Assistant
City Council
Hearing Examiner's Office
Planning Commission
1 Parks Board
Department of Planning/Building/Public Works
Black River Waste Reduction Center DL-1 August 1991
Final EIS
CITY OF RENTON (continued)
Community Services Department - Parks & Recreation
Police Department
Fire Department
City Attorney a
SEPA Information Center
UTILITIES/SERVICES U
Renton School District No. 403
Puget Sound Power and Light a
Washington Natural Gas
Pacific Northwest Bell
LIBRARIES
Renton Public Library - Main Branch (3)
Renton Public Library - Highlands Branch (2)
University of Washington Library, College of Arch. and Urban Planning
King County Public Library System a
NEWSPAPERS _
Seattle Times - Eastside Edition u
Seattle Post-Intelligencer
Daily Journal of Commerce 1
Valley Daily News 1
Journal American
PRIVATE ORGANIZATIONS AND OTHERS
Black River Quarry Coalition O
Greater Renton Chamber of Commerce
City of Kent a
Indian Tribal Council
City of Tukwila - Mayor's Office
City of Tukwila - Planning Department a
Seattle Audubon Society
Nature Conservancy
Friends of the Earth H
Black River Waste Reduction Center DL-2 August 1991
Final EIS
r1
C
7
289 327
29 � /� B
LAKE WASHINGTON
o \
476 234
0 419
253'*1 1321
N \
40 221
400 464
366 - 480
IN
Z
o�a
246- 0 z
721 0 LU
> 405
38 0 Q
Q \
N $ <
n
m '
v �
M y
m m�
M
L
AIRPORT WY
S 2ND ST �\
S 3RD ST �`�•;
o�
yy �
�d$
306 204
238 193
344 115
RE S
�r
v '
285 28 <
730 641 m
193 --� 21 (n , 67 S Fuck. Da
N O �
Z
136J k.20 m o
13 8 C
252�) /r 7 M atGO
9a
,o e y 535 566 286 Al- 313
in z 116 374
D 1 448 386
m o �, 210 /•� 436 03
ellN 1 m
co man z
�`c v O
z
v
Black River Waste Reduction Center
N ' _ Number of Vehicles
and Direction of Travel
Figure 3.8-6.
SCALE IN FEET 454 1993 Without Project
366 Midday Peak Hour
Vehicles Vehicles
0 1,500 3,000 Turning Leh X —Turning Right Traffic Volumes
nw
a io \
62 J � 532
205 24
11
PAF
SW 7TH ST
wpMISH
I
N
1680 - 643
45� �4
.N^.
1g-) f �_520
165 44
204 r 0
h A N
N a
ON/P
121 4168
4 4
0-) 232
n n
N N
LAKE WASHINGTON
9N
. s
Z
. G1
Oy
4
444
955
gap
O
227 781
e�nm
2
N
M
1238
.0
0
Z
405
gg
^So
43�
0
r0
>
`1
662
93
Q
0
256
C1
a
668
144
m
My�
M
�v
2�
AIRPORT WY
S2NDST
A S 3RD ST
�O
N
SUNSET
r
1046
SW 7TH ST
0�
O N
I
a}mZO
138 r 33 D
884 527 m 167
160—) (-5 CD
t0 N
O N
396- y150
369 43
305 32
S PVGOS
��
56 13
9 6 C w P a g
2 51� 9 75� ��
o� N D 1101 268
CO Z 138 /� 136 1035 191
D 1 388 �1 /� 667 pp
m �m r / m
ii N io N ^ Cn
O
Z
v
Black River Waste Reduction Center
N : —Number of Vehicles
and Direction of Travel
Figure 3.8-7.
SCALE IN FEET 454 1993 AM Peak Hour
366
Vehicles Vehicles
Traffic Volumes
0 1,500 3,000 Turning LeftTurningRight With Project
L1
0
J,
J
2. COMMENT LETTERS AND RESPONSES
In this section, written comments received on the Black River Waste Reduction Center Draft
Environmental Impact Statement are presented as well as the City of Renton's responses to
these comments. The City's responses follow each comment letter. All original comment
letters are filed with the City of Renton's Development Services Division.
According to Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 197-11-550, comments on a Draft
EIS are meant to be as specific as possible and may address either the adequacy of the
document and/or the merits of the alternatives. Such comments may include criticism of
the analysis methodology, the existence of additional information not considered in the Draft
EIS, or the appropriateness of listed mitigation measures.
The lead agency shall consider the comments on the proposed project and respond.
According to WAC 197-11-560, adequate responses may include the following: modify
alternatives; develop and evaluate alternatives not previously given detailed consideration;
supplement, improve, or modify analysis; make factual corrections; or explain why the
comments do not warrant further response.
Written comments were received from the following:
Government Agencies:
Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology)
Washington State Department of Fisheries (WDF)
Washington State Department of Wildlife
Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT)
Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency (PSAPCA)
Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle
City of Renton Parks and Recreation
King County Division of Roads and Engineering
City of Tukwila
Businesses:
First City
Citizens:
Steve Lawrence
Mark C. Schueler
Black River Waste Reduction Center 2-1 August 1991
Final EIS
�aE iTAT� OP
o � �
.d N
�N Z
r 3y1 1869 :JY
STATE OF WASHINGTON
DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY
Mail Stop PV-11 • Olympia, Washington 98504-8711 •
IJune 13, 1991
Environmental Review Committee
Attn: Don Erickson
City of Renton
200 Mill Ave S
Renton, WA 98055
RE: Black River Waste Reduction Center
JDear Mr. Erickson:
(206) 459-6000
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the draft environmental
impact statement (DEIS). We reviewed the environmental checklist and
have the following comments.
(`y Waste Reduction and Recycling
lIWJi The DEIS correctly notes the need for a solid waste permit.
The facility is a recycling and transfer station, not a waste reduction
center. This important difference should be noted and the title of the
O facility changed to correctly reflect the actual operations of the
] facility. By definition, (RCW 70.95.030) "waste reduction" means
1 reducing the amount or toxicity of waste generated or reusing
materials, while "recycling" means transforming or remanufacturing
waste materials into usable or marketable material for use other than
landfill disposal or incineration.
J
buring the construction phase of the project, we encourage the
applicant to use products made from recycled materials wherever
possible. Products containing recycled materials including parking lot
bumper stops, park and picnic benches, landscape timbers and sign posts
made from recycled plastic, rubberized asphalt made with recycled
tires, glassphalt made with ground glass, insulation and other building
materials. An inquiry to a building material supplier will provide
information on what products are available and at what percent the
products contain recyclable materials (the higher the better).
During the landscaping phase of the project, we recommend using
recycled materials. Compost from recovered organic waste can be used
as a soil amendment in landscaping. Chipped woody debris can be used
to mulch ornamental beds, to control erosion on slopes, and as a base
for pathways and jogging trails. We also recommend that organic
landscaping debris generated on site be used on site.
i �3 0
Don Erickson
June 13, 1991
Page 2
We suggest using products and supplies made from recyclable materials
Gin the office. High quality recycled paper is available at competitive
prices. Also., non -toxic chemicals for cleaning and maintenance should
be considered.
Col
Wetlands
Page 3-17 mentions that stormwater management is allowed in Class 3
wetlands. It is not clear what is meant by stormwater management. If
stormwater treatment is proposed, use of a natural system such as a
wetland or pond in lieu of stormwater runoff treatment is not permitted
under the State Water Pollution Control Act, Chapter 90.48 RCW. All
runoff discharged into a receiving water, including wetlands, must be
treated prior to discharge. To further protect water quality and to
maintain the other functions of buffers around wetlands and streams, we
additionally recommend that runoff be adequatelv pretreated before dis-
charge into such buffer areas.
Suggested methods of treatment include the tise of infiltration,
presettling basins, grassed swales, API or CPI -type oil/water
separators, and wet ponds. We recommend the use of a detention basin
and/or grass -lined swales to filter runoff. Two hundred feet of
grass -lined swale with less than 5 percent slope has been proven
effective in removing particulates and hydrocarbon pollutants. This
type of biofiltration has been shown to be more effective in improving
water quality than most vault oil/water separator systems.
If stormwater detention is proposed, we recommend that any facilities
be constructed in accordance with the King County Surface Water Design
Manual.
Shorelands
O As note on page 3-35, a shoreline permit may be required for utility
crossing of the Black River.
Don Erickson
June 13, 1991
Page 3
If you have any questions regarding waste reduction and recycling
comments, please call Cullen Stephenson of the Northwest Regional Office
at 649-7245 oc Peter Christiansen at 649-7048. If you have any wetlands
questions, please call Patty Crumley of Environmental Review at 459-6829.
4 For shorelands questions, please contact Linda Rankin of the Shorelands
Program at 459-6763.
Sincerely,
Brenden McFarland
Environmental Review Section
BMF:
91-2953
cc: Patty Crumley
Linda Rankin
Peter Christiansen
1 Cullen Stephenson
Response to Washington State Department of Ecology
1. Since this facility was first proposed, it has been referred to under several titles.
References to it changed as the facility's operations became more defined. When
applications were submitted and extensive review of the proposal began, it was desirable
to use a relatively brief, but comprehensive title that could be commonly recognized and
easily referenced. There was no intention to imply that this facility would function to
"reduce the amount or toxicity of waste generated... " The DEIS clearly describes the
proposed facility's purpose and operations.
However, the proponent acknowledges Ecology's concern over the title of the facility and
has proposed to refer to it as the Black River Construction/Demolition/Landclearing
Debris Recycling and Transfer Station. Where a shorter reference is desirable, it could
be referred to as the Black River CDL Recycling and Transfer Station. Ecology has since
been contacted and has approved this title (Ecology 1991 a). Note that the Final EIS
cover includes both titles so that it can be easily associated with the Draft EIS.
1 2. The FEIS has been revised to include encouraging the use of products made from
J recycled materials during the construction phase wherever possible, and the use of non-
toxic chemicals for cleaning and maintenance. The proponent has been informed and
is exploring these measures.
Also, the FEIS has been revised to include the proponent's commitment to use recycled
materials during the landscaping phase of the project. Rabanco would also use recycled
paper in the office of this facility, as it does in all of its other offices.
3. Preliminary design of the stormwater management facilities is described in Section 3.3.3
of the DEIS. The proposed design contains multiple in -line treatment structures
including oil/water separators, a three -celled water quality wetpond, a detention pond,
followed by biofiltration Swale. The stormwater flow would enter the existing wetland
after passing through the biofiltration swale. It is not planned to use the wetland for
stormwater detention from the proposed project.
4. Comment noted.
Black River Waste Reduction Center August 1991
Final EIS
52Aro^ .
'WH R. BLUM a
YC)
Directors gee.
STATE OF WASHINCTON
DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES
175 General Administration Building • Olympia, Washington 96504 • (206) 753-6600 • (SCAN) 234-6600
May 24, 1991
PLANirlNG GIV!SIC^i
DEnvironmental Review Committee ���`�� L ;CCU
ATTENTION: Mark Pywell
Development Planning Section �►4E;- ICE
Department of Planning/Building/Public Works��3 '-�
200 Mill Avenue South
C� Renton, Washington 98055
SUBJECT: Draft Environmental Impact Statement - Black River
Waste Reduction Center - Black River, Tributary to
Duwamish River, King County, WDF SEPA Log No. 13981,
WRIA 09.0004
r-� Dear Mr. Pywell:
UThe Washington Department of Fisheries (WDF) has received the
above -referenced proposal and has the following comments.
U One of the major impacts to streams in urbanizing areas is
stormwater run-off. In order to protect water quality and fish
o
habitat, peak flows in excess of the natural flows have to be
detained and bio-filtration provided. WDF has developed
stormwater management guidelines for the purpose of protecting
fisheries habitat and aquatic life (attached). We strongly
recommend that the final drainage plan for the proposed
development conform to the guidelines or to stricter standards.
[� An Hydraulic Project Approval will likely be required for this
�j project.
On Thank you for the opportunity to comment. If you have any
Uquestions regarding these comments, please contact me at
(206) 392-7190.
I
gk
Attachment
Sincerely,
A14 /_
Gayle Kreitman
Regional Habitat Manager
Habitat Management Division
act Wnr - Olympia
`. �141A
uR
F] R. RLUM =�
1 r•cicx �6�i 1... °/
STATE OF WASHINGION
DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES
115 General Administration 1iudding • n11•ripia, (. ashing(nn 9135U4 • (?(Jri) 753-66(N) . (SCAN) 134-66W
U DRAFT STORKWATER GUIDELINES
0 November 1, 1990
APPLICATION OF -GUIDELINES
0
I
Ti
I
Run-off from a project with more than 5,000 square feet of
impervious surface should meet the following guidelines for water
quantity and water quality. Depending on proximity of downstream
fish and shellfish resources, water quantity guidelines may not
apply to all projects. Water quality guidelines will apply to all
projects.
Increased run-off from development should be retained and
infiltrated to preserve base stream flows, and/or detained and
released in a manner to preserve the receiving stream channels
dominant discharge (Bates, 1983). Pre- and post -development run-
off rates should be analyzed using a continuous simulation model
such as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) HSPF
computer program (HSPF, 1988). If such a watershed model is not
available, a rainfall event simulation model may be used. If using
a rainfall event model, run-off should be computed using a Sail
Conservation Service (SCS) based hydrograph method, and the
rainfall event should be a Type lA distribution with a 24-hour
duration (USDA, 1986).
For SCS hydrologic soil groups Type A and B (USDA, 1986) use of
infiltration basins should be considered. Site investigation and
design criteria are essential for successful performance of
infiltration basins (Ecology 1990; King County 1990). Infiltration
could significantly reduce the volume required for detention.
Detention basin performance (Figure 1), shall be such that
discharge from the developed area meets the following criteria:
1. Fifty percent of .the pre -development two-year peak release
rate for the two-year developed design storm.
The release rate of 50 percent of the two-year pre -development
peak accounts for the extended duration of release that occurs
as a result of the increase in run-off volume from the
developed state (Powers, 19a9).
21. The pre -development 25-year peak release rate for the 25-year
developed design storm.
1
If a continuous simulation model is used, flow duration (instead of
peak flow criteria) should be used to design detention ponds at the
two -and 25-year floods.
Q25
Peak
Outflow
02
50% Q2
Pre -Development
Post -Development
R
25
Deslgn Storm Frequency (yrs)
Figure 1 - Detention Basin Performance
WATER QUALITY
Pollutants in stormwater run-off should be treated using best
management practices. Treatment of stormwater run-off with a wet
detention pond (Kulzer, 1989) and biofiltration channel (Horner,
1988) will provide acceptable water quality control. Where
possible, biolfiltration channels of any length should be used for
pretreatment of stormwater runoff. Sedimentation and erosion
control practices should be included in the design to prevent water
quality features from becoming silted in. Also, regular
maintenance is required to •?nsure pollutant removal effectiveness.
The following are acceptai Le design standards, for wet ponds and
biofiltration channels.
Ea
i
0
n
Wet Ponds - A pool of water retained in a pond by placing the
outlet above the pond bottom.
1. Permanent pond surface area should equal two percent of the
catchment area for residential, and three percent for
commercial. Pond volume should be equal to the volume generated
from two-thirds of the two year, 24-hour storm.
2. The permanent pond water depth should be three to six feet, plus
one foot of dead storage for sediment.
3. Ponds shall have a minimum of two cells.
4. Residence time shall be enhanced by configuring the pond to have
a length to width ratio greater than 3:1. A 5:1 configuration
(or other method of lengthening flow path such as use of
baffles) is preferred.
5. If the wet pond is also used as a detention pond, the permanent
wet pond volume should not be part of the detention volume
required.
Biofilters - A filter strip or swale used to treat stormwater run-
off by interaction with vegetation and soil surfaces.
1. Avoid gravelly and coarse sandy soils in order to maximize water
contact with vegetation and soil surface.
2. The biofilter width should be designed based on a two-year 24-
hour peak flow, and the following;
a. Velocities should be less than 1.5 fps.
b. The flow depth should be less than four inches.
Ij c. Longitudinal slope should average two to four percent. Rock
or log check dams or terraces should be installed as
necessary to achieve slopes less than four percent.
J3. Biofilters should be located to obtain maximum length. If less
than 200 feet, the width should be increased by an amount
proportional to the reduction below 200 feet, in order to obtain
the same area of vegetation contact.
4. Side slopes should be no steeper than three horizontal:one
vertical.
3
References
Department of Ecology. 1990. Stormwater management manual for the
Puget Sound basin. Washington State Department of Ecology.
Technical Review Draft.
Bates, K. 1983. Draft guidelines for policy development.
Stormwater management in urban areas. Washington Department of
Fisheries. Habitat Management Division. Unpublished.
Horner, Richard R. 1988. Biofiltration systems for storm run-off
water quality control. Prepared for Washington State Department
of Ecology and others.
King County surface water design manual. January 1990. King
County Department of Public Works.
Kulzer, Louise. 1989. Considerations for the use of wet ponds for
water quality enhancement. office of Water Quality.
Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle.
Powers, P.D. 1989. Stormwater detention performance based on
dominant discharge. Draft. Washington State Department of
Fisheries. Habitat Management Division. Unpublished.
United States Department of Agriculture. 1986. Urban hydrology
r}
for small watersheds. Soil Conservation Service.
Engineering Division. Technical Release 55.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1988. Hydrologic simulation
fl
program - FORTRAN (HSPF). USEPA Environmental Research
Laboratory. Athens, Georgia.
0
III
U
0
n
0
I
I
I
11
J
J
I
Response to Washington State Department of Fisheries
1. The King County Surface Water Design Manual (SWDM) was used to guide the
development of the preliminary stormwater management system for the site. The SWDM
requires that the post -development discharges for the 2- and 10-year design storm events do
not exceed the predevelopment discharges for those same storm events. The reduction of the
2-year storm post -development discharge to 50% of the 2-year predevelopment discharge, as
recommended by WDF, has not been provided. Since the ultimate discharge from the site
is into the Duwamish and no significant fish -rearing habitat is located between the discharge
point of the stormwater system and the steel discharge culvert under the railroad, we believe
that the King County standards will be sufficient to control impacts to fisheries habitat. The
water quality facilities and biofiltration swale provided will protect water quality in
accordance with the WDF water quality control guidelines.
2. Comment noted. The possibility that a Hydraulic Project Approval will be required is noted
in the EIS Fact Sheet.
Black River Waste Reduction Center
Final EIS
August 1991
CURT SMITCH
Director �y! 1 89 `Oy
STATE Of WASHINGTON
DEPARTMENT OF WILDLIFE
16018 Mill Creels Blvd.. Mill Creels. WA 98012
June 18, 1991
Donald K. Erickson, AICP
Zoning Administrator
Planning/Building/Public Works Department
Attention: Mark Pywell
200 Mill Avenue South
Renton, Washington 98055
Tel. (206) 775-1311
RE: ECF; RVMP-082-90; RABANCO/BLACK RIVER WASTE RECOVERY CENTER; DEIS
Dear Mr. Erickson:
Department of Wildlife staff have reviewed the Rabanco/Black River
proposal and submit the following recommendations for discussion in
the final study.
1. The narrow roadway fill across the existing wetland should be
removed and the wetland vegetation restored. This would slightly
O increase the area (and volume) of the wetland and would reduce the
potential for further degradation of the wetland. Many small
birds, amphibians and small mammals would likely take up residence
as the wetland vegetation is reestablished.
2. Provide open retention/detention facilities and biofiltration
swales to clean surface water runoff before it enters the
O wetlands. This should allow for settling out particulate
materials, storage of peak stormwater flows and control of the
stormwater discharge rate.
We support the recommended addition of screening vegetation for both
Oaesthetic value and wildlife habitat enhancement. Implementation of
these measures will improve the habitat available for some small
mammals and many of the passerine birds that presently use the site.
Donald K. Erickson, AICP
June 18, 1991
Page 2
A comprehensive plan should be presented in the final document that
includes a period of monitoring and a contingency plan assuring the
successful preservation of the wetland, protection of water quality
and restoration of wildlife habitat.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this proposal.
Sincerely,
Tony O'pperman
Habitat Biologist
TO:ks
cc: Habitat, Olympia
IResponse to Department of Wildlife
1. Preliminary design of the stormwater management facilities described in Section 3.3.3 of the
DEIS utilized this existing roadway as part of the berm required for detention pond and
biofiltration swale construction. Mitigation for loss of wildlife habitat on the site will include
the establishment of wetland plant communities in or around all of the stormwater
management facilities planned in this area.
2. An open three -celled water quality wetpond, two -celled detention pond, and wetland
biofiltration swale have been included in the preliminary design of the stormwater
fmanagement system for the site, as described in Section 3.3 of the DEIS.
L� 3. Comment noted.
4. A suggested monitoring and contingency plan has been added to the FEIS. See the FEIS,
Section 1 for more information.
U
0
_a
Black River Waste Reduction Center August 1991
Final EIS
I
u
n
n.
I
m
L
I
I
I
I
L
I
a
I
I
Washington State Duane Be-WSCQ n
Department of Transportation Sxetary:ov ysnsaor.�on
Distnc: 1
I 15325 S.S. 30th Place -
J 8eilevue. Wasningtcn 98G07-85-18
(206) 562-4000-
_:- •_.-:.� •'tea
June 24, 1991
I
a Mr. Donald K. Erickson, AICP
Zoning Administrator
Department of Planning/Building/Public Works
a City of Renton
200 Mill Avenue South
Renton, WA 98055
Black River Waste Reduction
Center DEIS
Review Comments
0 Dear Mr. Erickson:
This letter is in response to the Draft Environmental Impact
Statement (DEIS) issued by the City for the proposed Black
River Waste Reduction Center. The developer proposes to
construct and operate a recycling and tran (COL) waste non for
a
�} construction, demolition and landclearing
U 13.5-acre site located on the west side of 68th Avenue So
uth
in the northwest corner of the City. At full operation,
the
facility is expected to process approximately 90,000 cubic
D yards of COL waste per month. The facility would generate
approximately 808 truck trips per day and 60 employee vehicle
trips per day.
Our comments on the DEIS for this proposal are as follows:
(( 1. The DEIS analyzed the level of service (LOS) at area
l� intersections utilizing the AM and midday peak hour
traffic volumes because these times were forecasted to
have the greatest impact. Seventy percent of the waste
is expected to be brought to the facility between the
hours of 11 a.m. and 3 p.m. Less than 2 percent of the
daily truck traffic for this facility will be generated
1 O in the afternoon peak period. As a result of this LOS
1 analysis, intersection LOS ratings showed no significant
change with the addition of the proposed project's
traffic. The two most affected intersec�.-ions showed an
J increase in delay of 4-6 secands_ Nevertheless, five
intersections in the study area operate at a LOS E or F
during the Am peak hour and need to be addressed with
appropriate mitigation measures.
Mr. Donald K. Erickson, AICP
Black River Waste Reduction Center DEIS
June 24, 1991
Page 2
2. As indicated in Table 1 of Appendix D (Traffic Impact
Analysis), two State highway intersections operate at
LOS E during the AM peak hour. The DEIS states that
King County plans to signalize one of these
intersections (SR 900 at 68th Avenue South) by the end
of 1991 or early in 1992. The second intersection (SR
405 southbound ramps at Interurban Avenue/Grady Way) is
also planned for improvements beginning in late 1992.
OThe SR 405 sauthbound ramps will be relocated to the
Southcenter Boulevard will be relocated to
D
north and
align with Grady Way. Since the proposed Black River
Waste Reduction Center would distribute a substantial
proportion (78 percent) of their generated trips to
0
these two State highway intersections, we recommend that
the developer be conditioned to contribute a
proportionate share of the construction costs for these
planned roadway improvements as mitigation for the
a
development's traffic impacts.
3. Transporting COL waste to and from the proposed waste
reduction center could create a potential safety hazard
S to motorists if the waste material should fall onto the
Oroadway during shipment. Every effort must be taken to
ensure that the waste material stays inside the shipping
container or transporting vehicle.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the DEIS for the
ro osed Black River Waste Reduction Center. If you have any
questions concerning these remarks, please contact Mr. David
Oberg of my staff at 562-4106.
Sincerel ,
I'
JERRY B. SCHUTZ
Assistant Manager for D
Route Pla=j ng
DAO:la a
23/do-blk
cc: Art Lemke, WSDOT HQ o
d
IResponse to Washington State Department of Transportation
a I. The traffic consultant agrees that six of the intersections analyzed in the traffic analysis
operate at LOS E or F during the AM peak hour in 1993 with the proposed project.
However, four of these six already operate at LOS E or F under existing conditions, and the
(� forecasted growth in background, nonproject traffic volumes accounts for almost all of the
(J deterioration in the operation of these intersections between now and 1993. Because these
background conditions have such an overriding impact on the level of service, an AM peak-
�j hour level of service with project does not represent a significant condition. Note that AM
u and PM peak project -generated volumes are less than the day-to-day variation in traffic
volumes at these intersections.
In addition, the City of Renton has determined that the significant impacts of the extra truck
traffic generated by this development are on roadway surfaces rather than on the capacity
of intersections. Therefore, the mitigation measures are oriented towards structural impacts
U rather than capacity -related improvements.
J
7
I
2. Please see the response to the City of Tukwila letter, comment 12.
3. Please refer to the response to King County Division of Roads and Engineering letter,
comment 2.
Black River Waste Reduction Center August 1991
Final EIS
it
u
I
Ili
0
I
',I
PUGET SOUND AIR POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY
KING COUNTY ♦ KITSAP COUN.T'r ♦ PIERCE COUNTI ♦ S`OHOMISH COU.N71
U June 19, 1991
Mr. Donald Erickson
City of Renton
Department of Planning/Building/Public Works
200 Mill Avenue South
Renton Washington 98055 ' =a'
�1 Dear Mr. Erickson: JD
Black River Waste Reduction Center DEIS
In response to your request for comments on the Black River Waste Reduction Center Draft
OEnvironmental Impact Statement, we ask that you inform the proponent that a Notice of
Construction permit is required by this Agency for the installation of rock crushers, woodwaste
grinders, and dust filtration systems.
Secondly, because of the likelihood of asbestos contamination in the CDL waste stream, a
U Ocertified asbestos supervisor should be on the premises to identify and properly dispose of
asbestos containing materials.
n Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
Sincerely,
Harry A. Watters
Senior Air Pollution Engineer
a
a
GSP:ls
Anita 1• Frankel, Air Pollution Control Onicer
B O A R D O F D I R E C T
0 Chairman: Wm Granlund, Commissioner, Kttsap Countv Pete Kinch. Mavor. Everen
Ti Vice Chairman: m Hill, King Counry Executive Darlene Maoenwald, Member at Large
Peter Hurley, Councilman, Snohomish Counry Lows Mentor, ma%or, Bremerton
O R S
Norm Rice, titavor, Seattle
Joe Stortini, Pierce County Executive
Karen Vialle. ♦favor, Tacoma
200 West Mercer, Room 205, Seattle, Washington 98119-3958 ♦ 1206) 296-7330 A (800) 552-3365 ♦ FAX: (206) 296-7431
J•nM U�'PI�tICp UJUrf
Response to Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency
1. Comment acknowledged. This requirement has been added to the FEIS, and the proponent
has been notified.
2. Comment acknowledged. This suggestion has been added to the FEIS.
Black River Waste Reduction Center August 1991
Final EIS
is
Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle
] Exchange Building • 821 Second Ave. • Seattle, WA 98104-1598
11,
H
I
I
PL �r: !,G C;;��I 0I:
June 25, 1991
Environmental Review Committee
c/o Don Erickson, Secretary
City of Renton
Department of Planning/Building/Public Works
200 Mill Avenue South
Renton, Washington 98055
Determination of Nonsignificance
File Name: Rabanco Regional Landfill
Dear Environmental Review Committee:
Thank you for the extension of one week to prepare our
comments. Metro staff has reviewed this proposal and
iOanticipates no significant impacts to Metro's public
transportation services. We have the following comments
regarding water quality and Metro's wastewater facilities.
Water Quality
Metro acknowledges the appropriate use of stormwater
management practices to reduce impacts to water quality. We
agree that the use of pond design criteria mentioned, such
Oas long residence time, and large ratio of pond volume and
surface area to drainage area size are relevant in design
for water quality improvement. The combination of a multi -
celled detention pond, followed by a bioswale before
discharge to the wetland on site is consistent with guidance
developed by the Puget Sound Wetlands and Stormwater
Research Program for preventing degradation of wetland
values and functions.
Wastewater Facilities
Metro's Effluent Transfer System force main is located on
Othe west side of the proposed project. Construction
drawings for the project should be submitted to Metro's
Engineering Services Division for review during design
development so that Metro staff can assess the project's
U
City of Renton
June 25, 1991
Page Two
Oimpacts. For additional information, please contact Rich
Putney of Engineering Services at 684-1291.
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment.
Sincerely,
Gregory M. Bush, Manager
Environmental Compliance Division
GMB:pgg296
cc Barb Badger
Rich Putney
0
d
Response to Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle
I. Comment noted.
2. Comment noted.
3. Comment noted. The proponent has been notified and the City of Renton is aware that
construction drawings should be submitted to Metro's Engineering Services Division for
review during design development.
Black River Waste Reduction Center
Final EIS
August 1991
J
11
.. L..\: �: •1 9
CITY OF RENTON
MEMORANDUM
DATE: June 6, 1991
TO: Don Erickson, Zoning Administrator
FROM: Sam Chastain, Parks & Recreation Director
."4—
SUBJECT: Black River Waste Reduction Center
The Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Black River Waste Reduction
Center deals only with the pedestrian portion of the Trails Master Plan. On page 3-
61, it talks about the trails proposed near this site, i.e., Empire Ridge Trail and
Black River Trail, which are pedestrian trails; but there is no mention of the bike
trail route along Monster Road connecting both Oakesdale Boulevard and Empire
Way. This portion of the bike trail will pass next to the Waste Reduction Center.
Given the traffic count projected in the DEIS by this project and the accumulative
effect of other proposed projects in the area, it is extremely important that sufficient
right-of-way be provided for a bicycle route, per the Trails Master Plan Bicycle
Corridor map.
so, no measures were taken into consideration regarding the recreational impacts,
Oon -site or off -site. The Parks Department recommends that the proponent reviews
2 the Parks and Recreation Comprehensive Plan and the related mitigation measures
that are necessary.
SC:wr
c: John Webley
stotvwSr
I
Response to City of Renton Parks and Recreation
1. Comment acknowledged. Please see revisions made in response to this comment (Section
1 of this FEIS).
2. The proponent could consider volunteer impact fees (proposed in the City of Renton's D Comprehensive Parr Recreation, and Open Space Plan) as a means to mitigate potential
employee -related impacts to recreational facilities in the area
D
Black River Waste Reduction Center August 1991
Final EIS
I
a
ill
H
III
{
King County _
Division of Roads and Engineering
Department of Public Works
956 King County Administration Bldg.
500 Fourth Avenue c G =
Seattle, Washington 98104
June 17, 1991
Mr. Donald K. Erickson, AICP
Zoning Administrator
City of Renton
Planning/Building/Public Works Department
j� 200 Mill Avenue South
u Renton, WA 98055
I
I
0
11
n
11
RE: Black River Waste Reduction Center Draft Environmental Impact
Statement (DEIS)
Dear Mr. Erickson:
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Black River Waste Reduction
Center DEIS. The Roads and Engineering Division have the following
comments:
O Section 1.2: The Newcastle site has been approved for expansion and
should be considered in this DEIS.
Section 3.7: The DEIS does not consider the effects of additional
litter due to "blow out" from the trucks hauling waste to the site.
OThis has been seen to be fairly significant on routes to and from our
solid waste transfer stations and along other haul routes to CDL waste
sites.
Section 3.8.1.1: King County is not currently planning to widen 68th
Avenue South from the Renton city limits to State Route (SR) 900 nor
Oare we planning to install a traffic signal at 68th Avenue South and
SR 900. Neither of these projects are included in our six -year
program.
OSection 3.8.3: King County Public Works should also be included in
this mitigation program.
1.5.1.3 and 3.8.2.1: Although Seattle is contracting for its
Gjurisdictional material to be handled at facilities within Seattle,
developers are likely to haul their waste to the closest and least
expensive location. This may result in much more truck traffic to the
Rabanco site than was considered in the DEIS from the Seattle area.
0
Mr. Donald K. Erickson, AICP
June 17, 1991
Page 2 �J
68th Avenue South currently has some minor settlement problems due to "
its steep fill slopes. Additional truck traffic will cause
accelerated deterioration of the roadway surface and cause additional
stress in fill sections of 68th Avenue South currenly showing signs of
Osettlement.
The following County roads should be subject to weight restrictions to
truck usage: Beacon -Coal Mine Road South, South 132nd Street, South
129th Street, and South Langston Road. Truck traffic should not be
allowed to short cut through residential areas. 0
Appendix D: The traffic study does not provide any information on
Oexisting
truck traffic, only total traffic volumes. Since road design
be
is based primarily on truck traffic, truck counts should performed
on each affected roadway to show existing conditions and should
compare this with proposed truck traffic to and from the site.
Page 34 - Heavy Truck Traffic. King County has developed a mitigation
formula for determining the percent of damage and costs of repair
through negotiations with Washington State Department of
Transportation. A copy of this formula is included below for your �J
information.
Assessment = A x B x 0.2 (C 1- C) D D
WHERE:
= Cost/mile to overlay (in King County this is agreed to be a
OA
1 inch overlay)
B = Length of Haul Road in miles
C = Measured change in Pavement Condition Rating during the Haul
period. PCR before haul - PCR after haul.
C = Normal change in Pavement Condition Rating for the same time
period (i.e., 5 pts. in 1 year, 10 pts. in 2 years, 15 pts. a
in 3 years, etc.)
D = Typical overlay life in years. (For King County, this is
agreed to be 10 years)
I
III
0
Mr. Donald K. Erickson, AICP
June 17, 1991
Page 3
If you have any questions about the Black River Waste Reduction Center DEIS,
please contact Jon Cassidy of my staff at 296-8148.
Sin rely,
uis J. H a f f
County Road Engineer
LJH/ab
cc: Bill Hoffman, Manager, Transportation Planning Section
ATTN: Wanda Lauderdale, Transportation Planner
Doug Mattoon, Maintenance Engineer
ATTN: Jon Cassidy, Underground Utilities Engineer
John Logan, Traffic and Planning Engineer
ATTN: Gary Samek, Development Review Engineer
Sandy Adams, Intergovernmental Relations Coordinator, Administration Section
Response to King County Division of Roads and Engineering
1. A closure plan has been filed for the Newcastle landfill. Expansion is unlikely.
2. The density of much of the CDL waste stream is high enough that litter blow-out is unlikely.
However, a portion of the waste stream is of low enough density that an unsecured load, or `
a load with little freeboard (distance from top of load to the top of the container), would
be likely to litter the road sides. Additional mitigation has been suggested in this FEIS to
address this potential impact (see Section 1.1).
3. Comment acknowledged. The statement in the DEIS concerning the date of installation of
a traffic signal at the intersection of SR 900168th Avenue South was incorrect. In
discussions with King County staff, information regarding the signalization of this intersection
was confused with the intersection of Renton Avenue/68th Avenue South, which is to be
signalized this year. However, the Washington State Department of Transportation
(WSDOT) is planning to signalize this intersection; construction is scheduled for completion
in mid-1993. The EIS has been revised to reflect this.
D
In regard to the widening of 68th Avenue South, the City of Renton acknowledges that this
project is not included in the County's 1989-1994 Roads Capital Improvement Plan (CIP).
However, according to the County's 1990 Transportation Need Report, a study of the
corridor is included. Also, the project is contained in the Valley TBD list of projects, and
King County is a participant in the TBD.
4. The City of Renton has expressed an openness to include King County and the City of
Tukwila in a roadway surface mitigation program. King County and the City of Renton, and
Tukwila and the City of Renton would need to formulate an interlocal agreement to meet
this goal. The EIS has been revised to reflect this (see Section 1 of this FEIS).
S. The estimate of truck trip generation to the Black River facility was based on the King
County Solid Waste Division's EIS for countywide CDL waste flow alternatives (King County
Solid Waste Division 1991a). This countywide EIS considered the implications of CDL
(�
waste hauling from Seattle to the proposed site, to existing facilities, and to other potential
L�
CDL recycling sites. Thus, CDL-related truck trips are already included in the trip
generation estimates and traffic assignment forecasts. In a follow-up call to King County
Division of Roads and Engineering, the Division's expressed concern over this issue based
on the potential for lower tipping fees at the Black River facility, which could draw more of
the Seattle -generated waste to that facility. When informed that the Black River facility
tipping fees would not differ significantly from tipping fees at Rabanco's existing facility at
Ad Avenue and Lander Street in Seattle, a representative of the King County Division of
Roads and Engineering replied that the truck traffic projections and assignments considered
Black River Waste Reduction Center August 1991
Final EIS
0
I
J
J
J
in the DEIS are acceptable (King County Division of Roads and Engineering, personal
communication 1991).
According to the City of Renton, restricting the use of trucks on King County streets, for
reasons of structural integrity or neighborhood protection, is the responsibility of the County.
If the County wishes to restrict truck traffic on the roads mentioned above, the traffic
consultant does not foresee any major problems in this restriction. In addition, these
restrictions should help to prevent trucks from short cutting through residential areas.
6. Information on truck volumes was not available for every affected roadway. Typically, heavy
trucks make up about S% of the total traffic volume on a road. To safeguard against any
unusual wear and tear on the roadway, the applicant has agreed with the City of Renton to
measure and pay for their portion of the costs to repair damage due to increased truck
traffic. Compensation to other jurisdictions could be realized through interlocal agreements.
Z This equation was suggested by the traffic consultant as a basis for a separate Road Wear
and Tear agreement between the project sponsor and the City of Renton (see Section 3.8.3.2
and Appendix G in the DEIS). The details of this agreement are now being finalized
between the City and the project proponent.
Black River Waste Reduction Center August 1991
JFinal EIS
l� CITY OF T UKIVILA
6200 SOUTHCENTER BOULEVARD, TUKIVILA. IVASHINGTON 98188
DJune 17, 1991
a Ms. Lynn Guttman, Administrator
Planning/Building/Public Works Department
200 Mill Avenue South
Renton, WA 98055
I
U
0
I
RE: RabancoBlack River Waste Reduction Center
Dear Ms. Guttman:
RCCE-NEC
PUSUC W-0;=t S DP —:PT.
C;rf OF FFMN T ON
PHONE N (206) 433.1800
PP4G 01Vi'S'RE
a
Gary L. IanDusen. Mavor
This letter represents the City of Takwila's comments on the subject Draft E-LS. As you know, I am keenly
interested in this project and its impacts on Tukwila citizens. Our comments on the DEIS are preceded by
the comments made in a March 29 letter from Rhonda Berry of my staff. New comments are differentiated
from the original comments by bold print These written comments supplement the comments made at the
public hearings on June 5 and June 13.
Page No. Comment
OSummary ix. Concern over traffic impacts on Tukwila roads should also be expressed (i.e. not only
Renton roads).
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
U 1-5
i of
1-7
DELS COMMENT:
1-7
O
DM COMMENT:
Need site plan and elevation figures to show dimensions of structures, container
stacks, etc.
There should also be an air photo of the site with the property lines and project
improvements outlined.
The two story employee center is not apparent on the site plan.
The above are still needed for an adequate project description.
In addition, Figure 14 must be dimensional and raises more questions than it
answers. The six westerly loading bays are a feature not shown in previous
drawings. This results in much more westerly activity and severely limits the
possibility for aesthetic impact mitigation (see Aesthetics).
Hours of operation are only cited as being 6 - 8 on weekdays and 8 - 8 on Saturdays.
Sunday closure is only implied and should be explicitly stated if this is the case. Any
holiday closures should also be identified.
No Tukwila response needed. No further clarification is given. We can therefore
rely on the facility being closed on Sundays, but open on all holidays on a normal
schedule. Impacts of this schedule are discussed under each subject area-
Ms. Lynn Guttman
June 17, 1991
Page 2
1-7
ODEIS COMMENT:
3-27
O
DEIS COWO ENT:
EARTH
Is the 10-truck queuing area sufficient? The experience of other landfills on peak
queuing should be reviewed to substantiate this.
No Tukwila response needed. No further clarification is given. No further comment
is appropriate since all impacts would affect Renton.
The openings on the north and south for containers and trucks should be shown on
elevations. The existing textual reference does not describe these openings.
No Tukwila response needed. New data shows that there are no north -south
openings. All openings are on the east and west.
3-2 There has been no analysis of off -site dust control on site access roads or
entrainment of possibly hazardous demolition dust in storm runoff systems. Off -site
dirt control on access roads is a significant enough problem to have required daily
road cleaning at the Newcastle CDLC landfill. Mitigating measures to control dust
could also include mandatory debris wet down and tarp cover, with inspection by
Rabanco staff prior to dumping, an initial informational program of fliers for those
haulers whose loads are too dry or uncovered; and escalating fines for repeat
offenders to be administered at the site.
There is also the need to assess the impacts of lead, mercury, and other hazardous
contaminants which may be present in demolition debris from older structures. The
adequacy of the proposed sediment and biofiltration systems to keep expected
hazardous demolition debris from entering the Duwamish River or ground water
table needs to be assessed before any determination of impact significance can be
made.
3-9 An analysis of the needed cleaning of demolition debris from storm runoff before it
enters the Duwamish River or ground water table needs to be completed as discussed
above.
DEIS COMMENT: The DEIS addresses storm water management facilities as being designed to be very
effective at removing the "typical urban pollutants" expected at the site. Pollutants
at the site have the potential for being other than typical, and the storm water
system design should consider the potential pollutants and corrections so they do
not reach the Duwamish or ground water.
MOISE
3-19/C-6 Maximum noise impacts may occur at Tukwila's Foster Golf Links, approximately
300 ft. across the open, hard surfaced railroad right of way, and at King County's
OFort Dent Park, approximately 500 feet to the southwest.
7
Fisting noise levels should be field measured and impacts then evaluated at these
sites. It is not reasonable to use a measurement at SLM 7 (Pg. 3-20 and 21) where
industrial noise levels dominate, to represent all westerly areas since the golf and
park areas should be expected to have much lower noise levels.
0
III
I
U
0
I
0
of
I
I
I
I
I
Ms. Lynn Guttman
June 17, 1991
Page 3
The significance of noise impacts in golf and park areas should be evaluated based
on effects on normal conversation levels as discussed in the Tukwila Attachment A.
3-19 Is one of the "L-25"'s supposed to be "Lr2.5" in Table 3.5-1?
3-24 Foster Golf Links is located immediately across the hard surfaced railroad right of
way (approximately 300 feet); not 400 feet across a river and associated soft/buffering
vegetation. This is correctly shown in Figure 3.6-1, page 3-29.
3-24 & 25 It is inappropriate to imply that the receiving golf course environment could be
treated as an industrial area merely because it is zoned R-A (Agricultural) in order
to be a legally conforming use per Tukwila Municipal Code 18.10.020(7). It is our
feeling that EPA guidelines are not meant to be so literally applied and that this
statement should be removed.
DEIS CODIIM ENT: In Table 35-1, page 3-20, the Leq maximum noise standard for residential areas
should be changed to 60 day and 50 night from 62 and 52 respectively (TMC
8.22.050 and WAC 173-60-040). This should also be reflected in page 3-20
paragraph 1.
(Page 3-20) It is appropriate to clarify that while daytime construction noise is not
subject to a specific standard, it is subject to regulation as a nuisance pursuant to
WAC 173-60-060 and per Tukwila Code TMC 8.22.120, and night time construction
noise is limited to 50 Leq on residential areas by both the State (WAC 173-60-040)
and Tukwila (TMC 8.22.040 and 050) between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m.
Additional noise studies were done for Foster Golf Course and Fort Dent Park
(pages 3-20 through 3-24). An analysis of the results show two potential Tukwila
impact areas of concern:
a. The calculated top pick (container loading equipment) generates 56 to 57 dBA at
the Foster Golf Course site. The top pick would exceed maximum noise standards
adopted by the State (WAC 173-60-040) and Tukwila (TMC 8.22.040- 050) during
the hours and 6 a.m. to 7 a.m., which happen to be one of the busiest times for the
course during golfing season. A mitigating measure would be to limit top pick
operations to the hours of 7 a.m. to 8 p.m. when it would be in compliance with all
noise standards.
b. (Page 3-24) It is incorrect to say that truck backing beepers are "...near -
instantaneous...and are not of sufcient duration of frequency to significantly affect
compliance with standards.-" These backing sounds could register 77 dBA at Foster
and 66 dBA at Fort Dent Park. The cumulative impacts of 800+ truck backing
operations per day is very significant due to the volume increase and the sound's
piercing quality. Mitigation would include ensuring that all backing operations are
done in areas which buffer the Golf Course and Ft. Dent Park with concrete walls
and sound deadening roofs.
OI
Ms. Lynn Guttman
June 17, 1991
Page 4
3-26
II DI � �IU1�1�
The listed mitigating measures on page 3-30 are all important to minimizing noise.
However, there is no commitment to implement these measures. They should either
be required, enforceable under specific circumstances, or not included since there
is not assurance of implementation.
Pulsing, piercing noise impacts from truck backup beepers on Foster Golf Course
and Fort Dent Park must be included as a Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impact
in the absence of additional assured mitigation.
A final concern relative to noise is the impact of sudden, loud noises whose dBA
levels cannot be measured. Examples include crashing of truck gates, dropping of
large pieces of metal, as well as other types of demolition debris. This type of noise
can be more annoying than others that have been referenced in the DEIS.
It is not clear why there is a 4.5 dBA reduction for each doubling of distance. What
is the initial distance required (i.e. would a doubling of an initial 20 foot distance to
40 feet result in a 4.5 dBA reduction)?
No comment -- the basis was explained.
TAND AND SHORELINE USE
O3-32 The rendering plant referenced under "Tukwila Comprehensive Plan" is a legally non-
conforming use. Such a use is not generally allowed in a light industrial zone.
DM COMMENT: No comment required. This reference was deleted.
3-35 The extent of visual impact should be quantified. For instance, the "...upper part of
the main processing building" being visible should be better quantified as the upper
W feet of the main processing building.
3-36 Mitigating measures should be specific actions which the reviewer is assured will be
taken. If there is a question on a measure's implementation, then it should not be
considered since the reviewer cannot rely upon it to have any effect on an ultimate
evaluation of significant unavoidable adverse impacts.
The minimum landscape mitigating measures to screen the general site, break up the
visual impact of large paved areas, and soften building masses would include the
following: A mix of fast and moderate growing large stature evergreen trees to mix
with the very fast growing poplar, large stature (8 feet high) evergreen shrubs to form
a perimeter screen from the golf course and park, the shrub screen to be set behind
a three tiered mix of deciduous and coniferous plantings; and all planted areas to be
automatically irrigated and protected from equipment damage. A conceptual
landscaping plan with species and planting sizes should be provided at a level of
detail shown in the project site plan.
3-38 Project views from Fort Dent Park should also be provided.
I
I
I
Ms. Lynn Guttman
June 17, 1991
Page 5
3-40
10
DEIS COMMENT:
61
The tentative nature of potential mitigating actions makes the conclusion of no
significant impacts very questionable. The suggested modified mitigating measures
would allow a more realistic comparison of impacts and mitigating actions, and make
any final conclusions much more valid.
The additional view analyses requested have been provided.
DEIS COMMENT: (Page 344). It is not explained why plantings at Foster Golf Course would result
in a more effective vegetative screen for the project in a much shorter time than on
site plantings as is normally required. A review of the site plan shows many
opportunities for not only on site plantings, but plantings of large stature evergreen
trees adjacent to the structures where they would be most effective in breaking up
the large wall masses.
SEPA guidelines usually require mitigation to be done on the project site, as should
be the case here. Tukwila's Parks and Recreation Director is, at this time, not
amenable to plantings on the Golf Course property. As you might imagine, sunlight
is essential for grass growth especially on tee and greens areas, and any additional
plantings on the course would provide more shaded areas and unacceptably inhibit
growth.
Section 3.8 of the DEIS addresses transportation issues. Although the project's peak hour traffic volumes
generated will not make a measurable difference in the service level at Interurban/Grady Way or at West
Valley Highway/S. 156th Street, they will further degrade traffic flow. The existing level of service is F, and
the improvements will cost over $11,000,000. A Black River proportionate share of those costs based on
traffic volume increase, as we use with other developments, would be unfair due to the high cost of this
improvement. The trip fee approach has been used with other developments generating traffic in the
interchange, and we feel that the Black River development should be treated similarly. That is, a mitigation
fee of $1,000 per peak hour trip would be assessed for use in funding the planned capacity improvements.
The Black River development $1,000/trip would be for:
Interurban/Grady
southbound lefts increase
5
eastbound throughs increase
29
westbound lefts increase
8
Total
42
W. Valley Hwy/South 156th St.
eastbound lefts 34
southbound rights 7
Total 41
This is computed based on the DEIS a.m. peak hour data, which provides volume projection but proposes no
mitigation for its affect on the Interurban/I-405 interchange.
A final concern of mine is wetlands. A wetland is shown in Figure 1-3, but it does not seem to correspond
13 to what I found on a visit to the site. It is also evident that some wetland filling has taken place over a period
of some years. I would like to know how the filling was done, who performed the filling, was the City of
Renton aware of this filling, and were proper permits obtained?
Ms. Lynn Guttman
June 17, 1991
Page 6
Pd like to take the opportunity to commend you and your staff on your efforts to get public input on this
q projecL The public hearing on June 13 in the Tukwila City Council Chambers made it possible for some of
our citizens to participate who may not have taken the time to come to Renton City Hall or the put their
comments in writing.
Thanks again for the opportunity to participate. Please feel free to contact me at 433-1805 if I can be of
further assistance.
Sincerely,
L anDusen
Mayor
GLVD:RAB/so
CC. J. McFarland
R. Berry
V. Umetsu
R. Cameron
M. Kenyon
dResponse to City of Tukwila
As noted, many of the comments in the City of Tukwila's most recent letter are from a March
1 29, 1991 letter from Tukwila to the City of Renton. These early comments were directed toward
a preliminary draft EIS that the City of Renton provided to the City of Tukwila. All of
Tukwila's pre -draft comments were addressed, and where appropriate, changes were made prior
to issuing the Draft EIS.
1. This comment was previously addressed in the DEIS.
2. Dimensions are included in the DEIS site plan and text, including dimensions of the
container stacks. An aerial photo, with the site and the primary project improvements
outlined, was included in the DEIS (Figure 1-2). The employee center was clarified as
single -story, and was shown on the site plan and isometric view, and was discussed in the
text (Section 1.5.1.2).
The six westerly loading bays are shown in other drawings. These bays would be used only
by trucks hauling separated recyclable materials from the site. Additional mitigation has
been added to the FEIS, which could further reduce activity near the golf course and better
accommodate aesthetic mitigation.
3. Expected hours of operation have been changed. The proponent expects hours of operation
to be from 7 am to 8 pm, Monday through Saturday. This will avoid generating noise
between the hours of 10 pm and 7 am, when the maximum permissible sound levels are
reduced. The DEIS has been revised to reflect this change (see Section 1 of this FEIS).
Holiday closures will likely be subject to contract between King County and the vendor.
4. This comment was previously responded to in the DEIS, Section 1.5.1.3.
5. Comment noted.
6. Please see the response to the Tukwila public hearing speaker A, Gary VanDusen, comment
2.
` 1 7. These comments were previously addressed in the DEIS, Section 3.5. See also the response
J to comment 8 below.
8. Washington, Renton and Tukwila noise regulations identify a "maximum permissible" sound
level, but also allow this level to be exceeded for specified fractions of an hour. As a result,
the allowable exceedances actually govern compliance with the environmental noise limits.
1 Table 3.5-1 reflects this fact by displaying the allowable sound levels more precisely. The
table also indicates that the standard can be expressed as an hourly Leq that is
Black River Waste Reduction Center August 1991
Final EIS
approximately 2 dBA higher than the "maximum permissible" level without an allowed
exceedance. The table and text are correct as written.
The text has been revised to indicate that night-time project -related construction noise would
be limited to 60 dBA during the day and SO dBA at night on residentially zoned property
(excluding allowable exceedances). The text has also been revised to state that construction
noise may also be subject to nuisance provisions of Tukwila's noise code. In addition, the
text states that construction would be limited to day -time hours.
If the top pick were operated continuously at the location closest to Foster Links golf course,
the calculated noise impacts would exceed night-time sound levels if one considers the golf
course to be a residential district. In reality, the top pick usually travels all over the site; as
a result, noise impacts are likely to be less than those described in the Draft EIS. Limiting
top pick operations to daytime hours (7 am to 10 pm) would be one means of avoiding
violations of the environmental noise limits.
It is unclear how the commentor determined back-up alarm levels at Foster Links and Fort
Dent Park TRC maintains that these alarms would not constitute significant adverse
impacts, given the distance attenuation and the character of other noise sources in the area.
Because most of the backing up will occur east of the transfer building, the building may
partially block back-up alarms from receivers at Foster Links and Fort Dent Park -
It should also be noted that the proponent has committed to requesting that all trucks
delivering waste to the waste recovery facility deactivate their back-up alarms (to the extent
allowed by state and federal law). Rabanco will require that its trucks deactivate backup
alarms on the site. Deactivating back-up alarms on trucks is expected to be legal and
feasible because state regulations seem to require only that a person be present to signal
truck drivers that it is safe to back up.
The commentor's assertion that the EIS should not include mitigation measures unless they
are certain to be implemented is inconsistent with SEPA Rules. SEPA Rules specifically
direct an EIS to, "indicate those mitigation measures ... if any, that could be implemented
or might be required, as well as those, if any, that agencies or applicants are committed to
implement" (WAC 197-I1-440[6][c][iii]) (emphasis added).
TRC measured impulsive noises such as truck doors closing and metal dropping into bins
in the recycling area and reported the results in the EIS. This type of noise can be more
annoying than steady noise sources. The DEIS text has been revised to note this comment.
9. This comment was previously addressed in the DEIS.
P.
F
L
Ti
I
I
Black River Waste Reduction Center August 1991
Final EIS H
i
Ll 10. These comments were previously addressed in the DEIS. Also, see the response to
comment 11 below.
11. Please refer to the response to Tukwila Public Hearing Speaker A, Gary VanDusen,
Comment S.
aSEPA Rules define "mitigation" as "(1) Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a
certain action or parts of an action; (2) Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or
(� magnitude of the action and its implementation, by using appropriate technology, or by
�J taking affirmative steps to avoid or reduce impacts; (3) Rectifying the impact by
repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment; (4) Reducing or
eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance operation during the
life of the action; (S) Compensating for the impact by replacing, enhancing, or providing
substitute resources or environments; and/or (6) Monitoring the impact and taking
appropriate corrective measures.
r� SEPA Rules describe other specific requirements for mitigation measures, but they do not
lu' require mitigation to be done on the project site.
12. The traffic consultant believes this to be a fair approach for determining the proportional
share of the cost of these improvements due to the project. It is suggested that the
project proponent sign an agreement with the City of Tukwila to contribute the suggested
mitigation fee once they have reviewed and verified the basis for the fair share
calculation. The DEIS has been revised to suggest this mitigation.
13. Please refer to the response to the Tukwila Public Hearing, Speaker A, Gary VanDusen,
comment 6, for a discussion of the wetlands shown in the 1984 aerial photograph
presented by the Mayor of Tukwila.
l_
14. Comment noted.
0
it
Black River Waste Reduction Center
Final EIS
August 1991
0
i
l
I
EI
O
Suite 6000
700 Fifth Avenue
Seattle. Washington 98104
(206) 624.9223
Facsimile (206) 382.9752
YSStCUy WASHINGTON, INC.
June 14, 1991
Mr. Donald K. Erickson, AICP
Zoning Administrator
Planning/Building/Public Works Dept.
ATTN: Mark Pywell
200 Mill Ave. S.
Renton, WA 98055
Via Facsimile
Re: DEIS for Rabanco/Blackriver Waste Recovery Center
Dear Mr. Erickson
We have read the "Draft Environmental Impact Statement" dated
May, 1991. Blackriver Corporate Park, the 150 acre office
park to the southeast, is one of the premier office projects
in the area with major natural resources, including the P-1
Pond and Riparian Forest. In addition, we are also neighbors
to the north with our future First City apartment site. As a
neighbor we are especially concerned about visual screening of
the proposed project, street maintenance (cleanup and repair),
and the long term effects of increased noise levels and
traffic resulting from this proposal. To quote page 3-30,
"There will be a significant increase in traffic noise on
Oakesdale Parkway between Waste Reduction Center and Grady
Way."
In addition, we have spent four years in a coordinated effort
with the City working out a development plan to minimize or
Oeliminate any impacts on the Great Blue Heron Habitat. It is
imperative the development plans for this project address
these same concerns and guidelines.
a
We would like a meeting with representatives of the City and
Rabanco to discuss and gain more information about our
Oconcerns for this proposal. We look forward to a cooperative
effort in minimizing any adverse impacts as we develop our
respective properties in the years to come. rj
Sincerely, lJ
tZ
HIGTON, INC. a
Dean R. Erickson
Director of Commercial Properties
I
I
I
I
0
J
Response to First City
1. Regarding the following three issues, please refer to responses to the noted comments, or
sections of the DEIS:
a. Visual screening - See Section 3.7.3 of the DEIS, and the response to City of
Tukwila's letter, comment 10.
b. Street maintenance - See Section 3.8 3 of the DEIS for a discussion of road
wear mitigation, and the response to King County Division
of Roads and Engineering letter, comment 2 for a
discussion of street cleanup mitigation.
c. Noise impacts - See Section 3.5.2 for a discussion of noise impacts on
Oakesdale. It should be noted that increasing the distance
between the noise source and the receiver attenuates noise
levels. Section 3.5.2.2 states that the proposal's projected
truck traffic would increase noise levels along Oakesdale
Parkway. However, the FHWA's 72-dBA criterion for
commercial and industrial areas would not be exceeded.
2. As discussed in Section 3.4 of the DEIS, no significant impacts to the heronry would be
expected from this proposal. The distance from the proposed site to the heronry, and the
intervening hill and quarry provide a substantial barrier between the proposed project and
the heronry.
3. Comment noted.
Black River Waste Reduction Center
Final EIS
August 1991
of
OI
Steve Lawrence
Councilmember
Tukwila
Donald Erickson
Zoning Administrator
r�
City of Renton
1
Dear Sir:
It is imperative that the potential economic impacts of the
proposed Rabanco facility be addressed. The site for this
facility is in such close proximily to public recreation
(�
properties, and its operations are of such an incompatible
l
nature with those recreations, that the negative impacts may
be substatial.
Foster Golf Course and Ft. Dent Park are major public assets
whose value may be diminished by additional noise and air
pollution generated by this facility. Public ownership does
D
not prevent an asset from losing value. In fact, this public
ownership should require regulating jurisdictions to use extra
care to protect public interests.
D
It has been alleged that this proposed complex is sized to
process significantly more than 400 vehicle loads per day (as
presented in the DEIS). Additional vehicle trips will present
U
a potential hazard and impediment for customers attempting to
access the regional retail center south and west of the proposed
Rabanco site. Traffic in this area is already perceived by
D
the public as being horrendous. The life blood of this retail
area flows through intersections proposed to be shared with
Rabanco trucks. Any further clogging of these already crowded
intersections could be disasterous to hundreds of businesses,
thousands of employees, and the Tukwila community.'
The final EIS must consider all potential economic impacts
resulting from this project. I hope the citizens and officials
of Renton and Tukwila can work cooperatively on this and other
upcoming projects.
Sincerely,
Steve Lawrence
D
PLANNING DIVISION
jResponse to Steve Lawrence
D1. Please refer to the response to Tukwila Public Hearing Speaker D, Dennis Robertson,
comment 7.
a2. Please refer to the response to Tukwila Public Hearing, Speaker D, Dennis Robertson,
comment 2. Also, please refer to the response to Tukwila Public Hearing Speaker D, Dennis
n Robertson, comment 7.
U
a
I
al
U
Black River Waste Reduction Center August 1991
�I Final EIS
7
0
I
0
June 16, 1991
Donald Erickson
Zoning Administrator
City of Renton Planning/Building/Public Works Dept.
Attention of Mark Pywell
200 Mill Avenue So.
Renton, WA 98055
Dear Mr. Erickson,
Mark C. Schueler
15123 Sunwood Blvd., G-22
Tukwila, WA 98188
I'm writing to express my concern over the proposed construction -debris transfer station planned
for development on Monster Road. I believe the area will suffer if this project is undertaken and I
hope your office will consider carefully the common good in this matter.
As a resident of Sunwood in Tukwila and a commuter to Renton, I expect to be adversely impacted
Oshould this project go forward. My community already suffers from jet, train, and freeway noise —
development of the Rabanco project would necessarily add to this burden. Users of Foster Golf Links
and Fort Dent Park, myself included, will be forced to endure this detrimental effect along with
residents of the surrounding area. The added traffic on South Grady Way will exacerbate an already
difficult situation in the area.
It appears that this project will afford limited public good in return for significant harm to the
surrounding residents. Please use the power of your office to see this draft EIS rejected.
Sincerely,
a Lc
l Mark C. Schueler
Pl.?,i�NING Difq_�N D
D1iY Ci- �_'
a
Response to Mark C. Schueler
[is
1. Please refer to the DEIS, Sections 3.5, 3.8, and 3.9 for a discussion of expected impacts
and mitigation measures for noise, parks and recreation, and traffic, respectively. 0
a
III
III
III
JI
n
r�L
Black River Waste Reduction Center August 1991
Final EIS i 1
d3. PUBLIC HEARING COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
(� In this section, comments received at two public hearings on the Draft EIS are presented,
(� as well as the City of Renton's responses to these comments. A transcript of the first public
hearing, held in Renton City Council Chambers appears first, followed by responses to those
j� comments. The next section includes a transcript of comments taken at the second public
�J hearing, held in Tukwila City Council Chambers, followed by responses.
I
I
In
H
Black River Waste Reduction Center 3-1 August 1991
1 Final EIS
I
3.1 RENTON PUBLIC HEARING COMMENTS AND RESPONSES U
3.1.1 Renton Public Hearing Transcript f1
The following is an approximate transcript of the Draft EIS public hearing held in the �J
Renton City Council Chambers on June 5, 1991. City of Renton responses follow the H
transcript of these comments.
Mark Pywell: Good evening, my name is Mark Pywell. What we have this evening is a (�
public hearing to receive comments on the draft Environmental Impact Statement for the �1
Black River Waste Reduction Center. There are two sign-up sheets at the front of the
room. If you plan to speak tonight, if you could sign in on the one for speakers, or if you
just want to be a party of record, if you could sign on the other one, it would allow us to
keep track of everybody's name and address.
Sitting in the audience tonight, we have Mark Wolken, who is representing Rabanco, and U
also, Jeff Heilman, who is working with Parametrix. They're the ones who prepare the
Environmental Impact Statement for the City of Renton.
The purpose of this public hearing is to receive comments on the draft EIS, which was
issued on May 17th, 1991. A recording is being made of this hearing and a set of minutes
will be prepared.
All of the comments that are made at this public hearing will be included in the final EIS.
Staff will not try to respond to any comments this evening; however, responses for all the
comments will be included in the final EIS. If anyone needs clarification to any aspect of
the project, and in order to better formulate their comments, I will try to answer these
questions to the best of my ability.
Written comments on the draft EIS will be accepted until 5 pm on June 17, 1991. All
written comments and staff responses will be included in the final EIS. Basically, after this
comment period, there will be a final EIS prepared. At that time a notice will be sent to
everybody that has applied to be a party of record, when the final EIS is available. j
The Black River Waste Recovery Center has requested review, the environmental review, j
for the redistribution of recycling and transfer operations employing manual and mechanical �J
processes to remove recyclable material from construction and demolition debris on an
industrialized land strip located on a 13.5-acre site within the City of Renton. r 1
The facilities would consist of several structures. The structures include a main recycling u
building, two smaller buildings for equipment repair and maintenance, and Metro (�
Administrative services. Two container storage areas of approximately 5,000 to 7,500 square �J
U
Black River Waste Reduction Center 3-2 August 1991
Final EIS 0
if
feet each will also be included. The tallest structure would be approximately 50 feet above
grade. Tipping stations would be located within the east end of the main processing center
D immediately below 68th Avenue South, which is the front of the building. The loading bays
would be located on the west side of the main processing center. Also, a new rail spur
would parallel that side of the facility.
JThis project would be located on Monster Road South, north of the Black River and
adjacent to the Stoneway Rock and Recycling.
At this time I would open up the public hearing to comments from the public. I would
request that before you start speaking, that you give us your name and address, and, if you
would please, spell your name slowly so that we can record it.
n
Is there anybody who wishes to make a public comment this evening?
Mark Wolken: (Rabanco) I believe there's a couple people on the list, or are you looking
for other comments?
Mark Pywell: I'll start with Scott Nangle.
A. Scott Nangle: (BRQCI
My name is Scott Nangle. I'm President of the Black River Quarry Coalition. It's a
nonprofit organization that was formed back in March of 1988.
I guess I do have a question, and I'm not sure if it can be answered tonight, but it's with
regard to the hours of the operation of the proposed facility. And, the reason I'm asking
is because during the initial phase we were told through the Rabanco people that they were
planning a 6 am to 8 pm, Monday through Saturday operation.
In the EIS on page 16, or 1-6, it refers to the hours of operation as 6 am to 8 pm, but only
on Monday through Friday; 8 to 8 on Saturday. While in EIS on page 8, the hours of
operation are on 8 am to 8 pm, I guess, Monday through Saturday. Do you know what the
hours of operation will be, or --
Mark Pywell: It is my understanding at this time that the hours of operation are the 6 am
to 8 pm, Monday through Friday, and then Saturday 8 to 8.
Scott Nangle: All right. Thank you.
My first issue, I guess, with the EIS is not really a technical issue, it's more of a personal
Oissue. As representing the Black River Quarry Coalition, I guess I felt left out that we were
Black River Waste Reduction Center 3-3 August 1991
Final EIS
a
not included on the distribution list. I did talk to a Renton person, and they said, well, they
don't send it out to community organizations, and I opened it up, showed them how the
Friends of the Earth and the Audubon Society receive copies of the EIS, and they are part
O
of the distribution list. And, she said, "Well, they're a nonprofit organization." Well, I'm
from a nonprofit organization.
O2
I guess I don't know where you draw the line as to when somebody is included on the
distribution list but I guess I felt left out. Perhaps it was art our fault for not clarifying
� P P
that we are a nonprofit organization, but have been based in the area for three years now.
I guess it's not a real big deal, but I guess King County has been very nice with dealing with
solid waste issues, and they've tried to encourage public input, and distribution —putting
people on the distribution list would help encourage the same input for the Renton facilities.
With regard to technical concerns, I was concerned that the difference between the
proposed Rabanco facility and the No Action facility or No Action Alternative, which is
required for you to be studied, wasn't really properly done, because the No Action
Alternative wasn't really known. It was a case of continued development in the area.
U
O3
And, then it tried to compare continued development in the area with the proposed
development and said, well, see look, everything is going to get worse in the future, so when
O
we have this new facility it doesn't matter, because it's already degraded.
So, I guess my concern was, why isn't there a true No Action alternative where we're
discussing what if the property is not developed, and what impact or what benefits would
be derived by not developing?
rl
U
and, a particular interest is the piece of property and its land use. At the initial meetings
with the Rabanco Company we had citizen input, and they were asking, well, why was this
site selected? and, we were basically told, well, it's a unique piece of property, that a search
a
was done throughout the county for a piece of land that would satisfy the needs of a transfer
station, and that this was the best parcel.
( )
OMike
Wilkins, who is the King County CDL Manager, was noted in the newspaper, and
basically he was saying that this is one of the few sites available in the entire county.
�J
I guess I have to ask, what is so unique about this site that people are saying it's the only
one around, and what happens when that site is gone, what do we lose? And, I think that
was left out of the No Action Alternative.
OI'm very concerned that one of the things we might lose is an opportunity for a commuter
rail in the Tukwila area. u
Black River Waste Reduction Center 3-4 August 1991
Final EIS 0
u �I
Metro Transit sent me a flyer. They're called Choices On It. They show their plans for a
commuter rail, which includes a train station in the Tukwila/Renton area.
They have, I believe, three proposed sites. One of the sites is called the Monster Road site.
I guess I have to wonder, is this the same property, or would this development of this
property interfere with a proposed commuter rail? I don't believe it's Metro's prime site
for a train station, but I guess I do have to ask, what are we losing in this site? I don't
believe it was brought out in the No Action Alternative.
Likewise, I would assume that if you're going to have to develop a train station or side
tracks for the facility, that could development of those tracks on the facility prohibit the
development of additional spurs, or whatever is necessary for a nearby commuter station?
So, I would like to see that included in some discussion under the EIS, and probably it
would be filed under the No Action Alternative as to what benefits are required if the
facility is not developed.
The other particular technical issue I have regard to traffic. We had a meeting with some
people in the community, and their concern was traffic on residential streets. We've been
assured that this would not be a problem, and that the EIS, I guess, since it's supposed to
reassure us that this is true.
Well, I tried to reassure myself that it was true and I went to the information of traffic,
looked at the peak am, peak midday traffic studies, and the concern was they lived, I think,
on Langston or South 131st—or, they changed names, and they're real similar —and they
were also concerned with South 133rd Street. So, I was looking at the routes —traffic
routes— that would go up Empire Way South heading towards 68th Avenue from down in
the Renton Valley.
When I looked at their traffic studies, I showed seven vehicles traveling up Empire Way.
Basically, I guess coming from Rainier Avenue. And, then I went to 68th Avenue to see
how many trucks were turning left —or left —into the 68th Avenue route down to the facility,
and it showed 22 trucks.
So, somewhere between Rainier Avenue and 68th Avenue along Empire, we picked up an
additional 15 trucks, or at least so it would seem based on the traffic study, and the only way
I can find it is you point 15 trucks through a residential street, and they would be on South
131st, basically, because I think South 131st Street is the only real connector entrance
between Empire, between those two roadways.
Black River Waste Reduction Center 3-5 August 1991
Final EIS
I
D
So, I guess I felt the traffic study was, first, hard to use, because the projected numbers were
O
not readily available. You had to look at existing traffic, and then you had to look at the
projected traffic, subtract out the numbers to get where the facilities would be.
a
And, I would think that for the information that was kind of requested as to whether there
would impact to residents, or where the impact would be, it would be very nice to have just
a map showing the projected traffic of the Rabanco facility itself, and not have it mixed in
Owith
the existing traffic. I know it's nice to do that.
So, big numbers with a little addition of these additional truck trips, looks like a very small
addition, but we would like to know where these trucks are coming from. We've kind of
been told they're coming from the south county area, yet it's very hard to demonstrate this.
In addition, some of the traffic circles that show which way the traffic is going, have a four-
way intersection, while the map is drawn with a three-way intersection, so it kind of makes
fl
it difficult to decide where the fourth road goes.
9
I think usually it's a case where there's a smaller road that's not being considered, but since
it's not drawn, it's hard to get an orient as to where the traffic is going. The road doesn't
line up perfectly north/south, as the traffic, etc., so it makes it very difficult to interpret the
results given in the traffic study.
[ }
I guess I would like to see some sort of traffic analysis done just showing us where the
trucks come from, or where its percentage of volume or numbers, or just some way showing
10
us how they're getting in and out of the facility. Because the traffic circuits —there's not.
enough of them with the number of roads to give you any way to calculate it.
That's basically my comments for the night. I thank you.
Mark Pywell: Thank you.
O
Wally Rants. Am I close on that?
B. Wally Rants: (City of Tukwila)
That's pretty close. I can accept that. Q
My name is Wally Rants. I am a Councilman for the City of Tukwila. ; 1
I am not a NIMBY. I do not believe in that, and I think that all the communities in King J
OCounty are very much going to be sharing in the development project that we have, whether (�
it be siting of jails, or whatever goes on. �J
a
Black River Waste Reduction Center 3-6 August 1991
Final EIS R
'1
But, I am really concerned with this transfer site, because commercial waste is some of the
Omost hazardous waste we have. It's situated on the banks of the river where everything
there, any kind of drainage, no matter how well we construct, has the option, and has the
possibility of getting into that —into the river.
The comments that I've had from the citizens who have called me and talked to me about
O it —the traffic mitigations which have not all been favored, like 405 or I-5 during peak hours.
Even at 12 o'clock now in the afternoon, it is bumper to bumper traffic there.
If this were to come before me, in my jurisdiction, based on the information that's in the
G
EIS, I would have to vote no on it.
Thank you.
Mark Pywell: At this time, is there anybody else who wishes to speak? I see no one else.
I'll close the public comment period for this evening.
As I mentioned earlier, there will be a second public hearing to be held at the City of
Tukwila in Council Chambers on June 13th at 7 pm It will not be necessary for anyone who
spoke tonight to repeat their comments at that meeting, but you certainly are welcome to
speak again if you have additional comments at that time.
The comments from both public hearings will be put into the final EIS. And, I thank
everyone for showing up tonight.
The meeting was completed at 8:05 pm
Black River Waste Reduction Center 3-7 August 1991
Final EIS
3.1.2 Responses To Renton Public Hearing Comments H
Response to Speaker A, Scott Nangle 0
1. Comment acknowledged. As noted on page 1-6 of the DEIS, the exact schedule is a
unknown at this time as it is subject to the conditions between the vendor and King
County. Please refer to the response to City of Tukwila's letter, comment 3. The
expected schedule is 7 am to 8 pm, Monday through Saturday. a
2. Comment acknowledged The Black River Quarry Coalition was sent a Notice of
Availability for the Draft EIS, and they have now been added to the distribution list. a
3. The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) and the SEPA Rules do not provide an
explicit definition of No Action. But SEPA Rules state that, "(a) project action involves
a decision on a specific project, such as a construction or management activity located
in a defined geographic area. " (WAC 197-11-704[2][a]) For this EIS, the action is the
potential approval (and subsequent construction and operation) of the Black River Waste U
Reduction Center. "No -action" means that the BRWRC would not be approved, u
constructed, or operated. No -action does not mean that on -going and projected,
unrelated development and growth would cease.
Analysis of impacts is based on the facility at full operation, which is not expected to
occur before 1993. Because these impacts would occur in the future, future conditions,
such as projected traffic, are considered. To consider the impacts of the proposal on
conditions as they are at the moment the analysis is conducted would ignore the
development that is occurring, approved, and most likely to continue in the surrounding
area. Where future conditions are used in the analysis, these are based on accepted
projections or projection methods. Speculation is avoided. o
4. Primarily, what makes this site relatively unique and suitable for the proposed project is
not any single characteristic, but the combination of the following characteristics:
• Easy access to rail
• Easy access to arterials a • Proper zoning and comprehensive plan designation
• Site grade below street level, which facilitates grade separation of the processing
floor from the tipping stations. a
If this facility is built on this site, it would prevent the construction and operation of
other uses that require similar amenities. This would include transfer and shipping uses a
(light industrial uses) dependent on both rail and truck transportation. This project
Black River Waste Reduction Center
Final EIS
3-8
August 1991
U
0
would not preclude a commuter rail station from this vicinity. Please see the response
to comment 5 below.
U5. At this point in time, Metro has narrowed the list of potential sites for a commuter rail
station in this area down to several locations. The options receiving highest
U consideration are located along the Burlington Northern railroad in the area from I-405
to Strander Boulevard. Metro has stated that the Rabanco site is not on their list of
potential commuter rail station sites.
UThe comment letter from Metro (see Section 2 of this FEIS) states that Metro staff have
reviewed the proposed BRWRC and anticipate no significant impacts to Metro's public
Utransportation services.
6. Please see the response to comment 7 below.
7. Based on a review and comparison o Figures 7 and 9 o the traffic analysis, 19 project
P f� f .� Y� P I
trips travel westbound from the intersection of Empire Way/Rainier Avenue in the AM
peak hour, and 20 trips arrive at the intersection of Empire Way/68th Avenue South.
This difference is due to a graphics error, and was not meant to imply that some of these
trips will arrive at 68th Avenue South via residential streets. All trips have been
considered in the level of service analysis.
Figures 8 and 9 have been revised to correct errors. Please see Section 1.2 of this FEIS.
U
8. Figure 11 of the May 1991 Traffic Impact Analysis reflects a vehicle trip distribution for
n the subject project. Although this figure shows percentages and not actual vehicle trips,
S i the vehicle trip numbers can be arrived at by multiplying the forecasted trip generation
by these percentages.
9. Comment acknowledged. The intersection of Oakesdale Parkway/SW 7th Street is
shown on the traffic figures as a three-way intersection. It is actually a four-way
U intersection. Missing from the figures is the entrance road into Metro's Renton Treatment
Plant. This correction is shown in Section 1 of this FEIS.
Also, at the intersection of West Valley Highway/northbound Interstate-405 ramps, the
east leg of this intersection is South 156th Street, and should be shown on the report
figures. This street was constructed during the time that the DEIS was being prepared,
U and was accidently left off the final figures showing the existing street network- This
correction has been made in Section 1 of this FEIS.
10. Please see the response to comment 8 above.
U
Black River Waste Reduction Center 3-9 August 1991
Final EIS
B. Response to Wally Rants H
1. Comment noted. 0
2The proposed facility would handle CDL debris, not commercial waste. Also, �J
stormwater would be directed to an on -site stormwater treatment system, described in
Section 3.3.3 of the DEIS and further in Section ??? of the FEIS. 0
In the event of a spill on the uncontained portions of the site, the stormwater ponds are
designed to double as emergency spill containment areas. The pond outlet structures will
have gates that can be closed in seconds. The spill can be readily cleaned up by
conventional maintenance of the pond. In the unlikely event that a spill occurred during
a very large storm event, the 30-inch steel outfall pipe that discharges into the river could
be gated and closed. The spill and flooding would be contained on site. While some
impacts to the wetland could occur during such an emergency, pollutant discharges to a
the river or offsite would be avoided.
�. The traffic analysis has been developed to equitably distribute traffic along routes that
represent the least time path along streets that access the project site. There has not
been any attempt to divert traffic to or away from any given route to minimize severity
of impacts.
Comment noted.
11
I
I
u
H
Black River Waste Reduction Center 3-10 August 1991
Final EIS H
I
0
3.2 TUKWILA PUBLIC HEARING COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
3.2.1 Tukwila Public Hearing Transcript
MARK PYWELL: Good evening. As it is now seven o'clock, I'll get us started here.
My name is Mark Pywell, I'm a Senior Planner for the City of Renton and Project Manager
for the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Black River Waste Reduction Center.
Sitting in the audience also tonight is Jeff Heilman from Parametrix; that is the firm that
the City of Renton has hired to prepare the EIS.
The purpose of this hearing is to receive public comments on the Draft EIS that was issued
on May 17, 1991. A record is being made of this public hearing.
I would ask that when you speak that you come to the podium at the front here, and speak
into the mike. The tape machine I'm using tonight is a Dictaphone, so it does not have the
best recording capacity.
Also, Joan here is making a transcript of the hearing. Both of these will be available from
the Environmental Counter at the City of Renton, hopefully by the middle of next week.
Staff will not be trying to respond to anybody's comments tonight. However, your comments
will be part of the Final EIS and the responses will be in that document.
If anyone needs any clarification on the project in order to better compose your comments
this evening, I'll try to respond to those questions as best I can.
Also, written comments on the Draft EIS will be accepted until 5 p.m. on June 17, 1991.
Again, both the written comments and the comments from the first public hearing I held on
a June 5 in the City of Renton and the comments taken verbally tonight will all be included
in the Final EIS.
''
I
Briefly, this is a Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Black River Waste
Reduction Center. The applicant proposes to remove recyclable materials from the CDL,
which is the construction, demolition, and land clearing debris, and recycle the material that
it is able to, and then the rest will be sent off to a landfill. The project is located in the City
of Renton on the west side of Monster Road, north of the Black River, and adjacent to the
Stoneway Rock and Recycling.
Black River Waste Reduction Center 3-11 August 1991
JFinal EIS
As I mentioned, after the comment period there will be a Final EIS prepared in the City
of Renton. After the Final EIS is prepared, we also prepare a mitigation document. It is
expected that these documents would be prepared in July and available at that time.
a
At this time I would like to open up the portion of the public hearing to receive comments.
Thank you.
a
Oh, Again, when you come up, if you would give your name and address, and try to speak
a little bit slowly so that we can get them into the record. And, also, if you are reading from
a prepared statement, be cognizant of the fact that people read statements quicker than they
normally speak, and you can outpace our recorder here. So, again, if you could just
recognize that and speak in a moderate pace, I would appreciate it.
The first person I'd like to call forward will be Gary Van Dusen, the Mayor of the City of
Tukwila.
a
A. GARY VAN DUSEN
Tukwila Mayor
Thank you. I will be addressing several issues here and, also, we will have a more formal
written response that will come to before —hopefully before the deadline.
O
you
This has been an on and off experience for me. There's been a lot of issues going on in the
and I've been trying to keep abreast of this and a few other things.
a
OCity,
The biggest thing, though, in my own viewpoint, is that this isn't Renton, it's out of sight for
the Renton citizens, and it's probably a good location for Renton citizens, but it's certainly
Q
going to impact my citizens. And, with that, that's why I've more or less taken the lead in
some of my comments.
I have, basically, four paragraphs here I want to address, and the one big issue. Storm water v
runoff. The Draft EIS refers to the storm water management facilities being designed to Q
Obe very effective at removing typical urban pollutants. Pollutants at this site have the
potential for being other than typical, for example, hazardous contaminants which may be
present in demolition debris from older structures. a
The other one is traffic degradation. The DEIS states that the peak hour traffic volumes
generated will not make a measurable difference in the service level —A, B, C and so forth.
OThis is true in the case of the service levels, but the traffic flow will, in fact, be degraded.
Figures from the DEIS show an increase in truck trips through the Interurban/Grady Way
intersection at 42 during peak hours, and the West Valley Highway/South 156th intersection
would have an additional 41 truck trips during the same time.
Black River Waste Reduction Center 3-12 August 1991
Final EIS a
I
Probably one of the biggest things that bothers me personally, and for a lot of my citizens,
is the noise. The container loading equipment generates noise at the Foster Golf Course
site that exceeds maximum noise standards adopted by the State and by Tukwila during the
Ohours of 6 a.m. to 7 a.m.
4
An additional thing is the beepers on the 800 plus backing trucks would be very significant,
as far as the increased noise volumes at both Foster Golf Course and Fort Dent Park.
Mitigation could include ensuring that all backing operations are done in areas which buffer
the Golf Course and Fort Dent with concrete walls and sound deadening roofs.
A fourth item is aesthetics. The DEIS states that the plantings at the Foster Golf Course
would result in a more effective vegetative screen for the project in a shorter period of time.
OFirst of all, we don't understand the logic of this statement. Secondly, Tukwila's Golf
aCourse improvement includes no tree plantings of any kind. Sunlight is essential for our
trees and greens, and more trees would provide more shade which causes more problems
for the greenkeepers. Planting trees on the golf course property is a solution that we are
anot ready to consider at this time.
a Now, the last one is —I'm not fully prepared, because I just put it together at six o'clock
tonight, but I'd like to address it, because I think it's really significant.
a For years, one of the pieces of art that we've had in our City Hall is an aerial view of the
area, including the Black River Quarry. Which gave me an idea of what has happened to
their quarry over a period of time. Therefore, I went and got some historical pictures and
n looked at them closely and what I see —and since I can't state them as fact, I can always
i present them as evidence and let somebody else view them and address them —is what I
6 perceive, or what I see, is at one time there was significant wetlands, going back even as late
as 1984, and completely filled to date, and, being what I would say recently filled down
there.
And, it does not conform, from a personal visit that I made down there this evening, what's
shown on Figure 1-3, and what that aerial shows. I think there's a problem there, and I
think the City of Renton needs to address that and address it very significantly. I'm not sure
that the Corps of Engineers would do with it.
The last think I want to do is no for me, but for the citizens, and this citizen sent a letter.
The letter is from William Lindberg, 7202 South 131st Street in Seattle, and this is
addressed to me, but he wanted to bring it to you.
U
a
Black River Waste Reduction Center 3-13 August 1991
Final EIS
Dear Sir, Since I am unable to attend the hearings with regard to the proposed transfer
station for construction waste, this letter will serve to register my opposition to this facility
for the following reasons:
Estimated 800 truck trips daily will further impact the already overload of the traffic on
local streets and highways.
Noise levels will be excessive in local residential areas.
Danger to motorists from debris falling from trucks, litter adding to the burden of cleaner
roadsides.
7
Excessive damage to area roads from increased heavy truck traffic.
Excessive dust and area air pollution will pose a health risk to area residents.
Please do all you can to prevent this addition to the already over -polluted environment of
this area.
Yours truly, William Lindberg.
Should I give you these aerials, I guess?
MARK PYWELL: Yeah.
GARY VAN DUSEN: And, I'm addressing Figure 1-3 in the aerials. Thank you very much.
MARK PYWELL: At this time I call Marie Gardner.
B. MARIE GARDNER
14112 57th Avenue South
Tukwila, WA 98168
I'm Marie Gardner, 14112 57th Avenue South, Tukwila.
I have spoken against this Rabanco/Black River Waste Reduction Center at most every
Omeeting that has been held from the beginning. At no time have I heard anyone speak in
favor of the project.
Has anyone from Rabanco tried to get through the traffic at Interurban Avenue, not only
at peak hours, but at any time?
Black River Waste Reduction Center 3-14 August 1991
Final EIS
And, which agency tested for the air and noise pollution? They certainly do not live around
Ohere. This area is bad enough without adding to it. We have had more than enough with
Metro and the Rendering Works. Why isn't our quality of life considered? We should have
the same chance as others in our county.
L I am also worried around the herons.
OToday's P.I. has an article —I wrote this on the loth —on the poisoned salmon in the
Duwamish River. At some of the previous meetings I've been told that there will be some
water runoff, and that could cause pollution. Isn't this enough to stop this dangerous
enterprise?
a I will be this to you. And this is a co of the article on the pollution.
� Y � PY
MARK PYWELL: Thank you.
aAt this time I call forward Catherine Harris.
a C. CATHERINE HARRIS
5610 South 141st Street
Tukwila, WA 98168
I I I am Catherine Harris at 5610 South 141st Street in Tukwila.
In general, the DEIS concentrated naturally in Renton; yet, Tukwila will be significantly
affected much more than Renton by the noise, traffic, air quality and visual effects.
` ] Not enough consideration was given to traffic in Tukwila, which is already severely
j congested a good share of the day, with particularly heavy congestion and delay at peak
O hours. I could not find a drawing in the DEIS portraying the relocation of the southbound
D ramps on I-405, so I don't have a clear impression of where they are or how they will be
constructed. I note there is presently no funding for this relocation, so what assurances do
we have that they will ever be relocated/ And, will they really relieve the traffic problems
(� at the Grady Way/I-405/Interurban Avenue intersection?
There are other projects in the mill for this same area. The expansion of the Metro
a Treatment Plant, for one. It must be mentioned that Metro Transit has a big bus barn in
(DTukwfla. In my opinion, the total scope of public facilities concentrated in a single area
must be considered, rather than only single, separate facilities, because, if they are all
acompleted, then they will all be a quote, unquote, package, so to speak.
LJ
Black River Waste Reduction Center 3-15 August 1991
IFinal EIS
0
In previous public hearings, and in writing, I have addressed the matter of zoning. Although a
the site is in an L-1 zoning classification, and recycling is a permitted use therein, I still
question the actual use of this facility in the L-1 zoning. a
Among the numerous definitions of cycle is quote, unquote, to recur in cycles, and, then I've
added, or circular. So, in terms of to recycle something, one can reasonably conclude that a
something would be reclaimed, and used again in some form for a useful purpose, to wit:
Gthen establish a pattern of cycling a material.
In reality, I think that very little and insufficient quantity of material coming into this facility a
will, in fact, be recycled.
The main thrust is to sort and ship Y b rail to a landfill the waste. Thus, this is only a step
to the ultimate disposal of the material. In that light, is this facility then a proper use in the
L-1 zoning?
It has been interesting to follow the changing and various names of this project. From Black
River Recycling/Transfer Station for Construction, Demolition and Land Clearing Wastes, D
Oto Black River Waste and Recovery Center and Shipping Yard, to Black River Waste
Reduction Center. I have to ask, is something happening here to make this sound more
pleasing by using euphemistic titles?
And, in conclusions, credit must be given where credit is due. I compliment both the City
Oof Renton and Rabanco in your efforts to conduct more than required public hearings in
order to provide we, the public, with maximum opportunity to express our concerns. Thank
you. ( 1
MARK PYWELL: Thank you. l J
Dennis Robertson.
D. DENNIS ROBERTSON Q
Council President, City of Tukwila
16038 48th Avenue South
Tukwila, WA
Do you need me to identify my address, or anything? _
MARK PYWELL: Yes.
I
a
Black River Waste Reduction Center 3-16 August 1991
Final EIS 0
DENNIS ROBERTSON: Okay. It's Dennis Robertson, Council President for the City of
Tukwila. My address is 16038 48th Avenue South. And, it's been a long time since I've
been at a podium like this, and I'll try to talk slow.
There are several issues I'd like to deal with. And, as the Mayor did, I apologize for not
f l better prepared and not having the material in a formal writing for you.
u First off, I think, if you look at Page 1.1, Description of Alternatives, there is an assumption
there on the siting. And, the number of sites is very important. This document basically
implies that we need to do this type of recycling, and that's correct. And, it's always the
rl issue of not in my neighborhood, and that's a problem everybody wants to do.
u But, the assumption that's here, and based upon King County's DEIS that's also in the
works, is that we only need one or two sites. I find that rather interesting. I fail to
a understand why four or five sites wouldn't be better. If you had more than one site —by the
way the reason I'm raising this is, that's a definite alternative to a single site and to the size
1O of this site. All of the negative impacts derived from the fact of the size of the sites, the
anumber of trucks coming, the noise, the pollution, everything generated. There seems to
be little basis for only one or two sites here. We could have many.
The distance from where the material is generated to where it's dropped off at a rail station
would be shorter if we had more sites. I can see from a private standpoint of Rabanco why
they would like to consolidate everything into several, or more interestingly, into one site.
So, that the assumption that two transfer recycling stations are necessary, one in Seattle, and
athe one in South King County isn't presented, isn't defended, isn't in any way justified.
The second assumption there on Page 1-2 is that Rabanco will keep its recycling center at
Third and Lander open. The reason I'm questioning that point is that the site that we're
talking about will actually handle --based on the number of stalls, something in the
neighborhood of four times more trips than are proposed. Now, if I was in private business
and I was developing a facility, and I wanted to make a profit, I would not size that facility
a four times what's necessary.
OMany times those of us in government are accused to siting or building things much larger
than necessary, but I can guarantee you, people in commercial business don't, so why is it
four times necessary? Four times necessary comes from, according to this document, it
basically takes six minutes to turn a truck around from the point it enters to the point it
dumps and leaves. If that's true, you take 14 stalls times 10 trips per hour --that's one every
six minutes per stall --times 14 hours results in 1,960 trucks per day, or 3,920 one-way trips.
That's what the facility is sized for. Raises an interesting question of why?
Black River Waste Reduction Center 3-17 August 1991
Final EIS
D
O2 Nowhere, against, is there anything that says that Rabanco will keep the Third and Lander D
site open. I presume that that facility and that land is a fairly high value, given its location.
And, the second assumption is that the majority of the Seattle -generated garbage --not D
garbage, but recyclable material --will go to the Lander site in Seattle and not come here.
Yet, in the Transportation Study it freely admits, as part of its assumptions, that it's totally D
up to the driver, there's no cost differential. So, what's going to happen is the person
Odriving the truck will determine which is the easiest site to get in and out of.
I think if you were to lay out a map and look at Third and Lander, and then draw some D
radiuses, we'd find that far more than what is stated only as a small percentage of the
Seattle -generated material would come to this site. That may be another reason that it's
built to handle four times what is used as the estimate for the EIS.
I do have a question on Page 1-6 of the EIS. It says the facility will be open from 6 a.m.
O4 to 8 p.m. on weekdays, and 8 to 8 on Saturdays. However, on Page 6 of the Transportation
Study it says that the hours of operation would be 8 to 8, Monday through Saturday.
impacts. The significant impacts, if we o back to a very
D
Going on to talk about significant p gmfi p g ry
interesting map that has many people from Tukwila upset, and it's Page 30 -- sorry, wrong
one -- it's Page 31 of the Transportation Study, it shows that 60 percent of the material that
comes and goes will go down Grady Way to Interurban Avenue South. That leads directly
into the City of Tukwila. So, what we're saying right off the bat is, the majority of the trips
Oin and out will basically access through Tukwila.
There are several interesting problems there. One, the access is through the one of two
intersections that this study says is already at a Class E Category for impact LOS, I believe
it's called. If that's true, yet this plan still plans to route 60 percent, or expects 60 percent
of the traffic to go into a Category E. Nowhere does it deal with that in the EIS of what D
will happen.
The other site -- the other intersection that's in LOS of E is the one on Rainier Avenue and
O6 Grady, but only 4 percent of the traffic will go there. Sixty percent is going to hit at that
intersection. What's more, that's one of the two key intersections for the retail traffic's
access to the Southcenter complex. D
I would suspect that it's of no surprise to the City of Renton that retail access in and out
of the Southcenter area is very important to Tukwila. But, we're going to put 18-wheel a
Otrucks on one of the two major intersections that's already at the next to the worst category
7 of access for an intersection. It seems rather obvious that one of the impacts would be that
a lot of people -- since they have the choice of where they shop, would choose to not shop
where they have to go through an intersection. Remember its a very, very funny thing of
D
Black River Waste Reduction Center 3-18 August 1991
Final EIS
�11
why people choose to shop where they shop, but I think Southcenter is perfect proof that
0 its access to major freeways by a private vehicle, is the key to where people shop. You're
going to take one of the key points and jam it up with 18-wheel semi -trucks.
So, again, one of the major impacts is not discussed at all here.
There is a plan that is semi -funded, at least from Tukwila's standpoint, to improve the
intersection there. Essentially, what that intersection improvement is, is it extends Grady
Way on a new bridge straight across to Southcenter Boulevard, in front of the City Hall
here. So, what we'll have, essentially, is a five -lane road running from the -- actually, all the
way through on Grady Way, all the way across the valley to Tukwila with a clear access, a
different access onto I-5, 405, and continuing west to the Burien area. Yet, on the map
Ohere -- and, that's planned during the period this will be completed -- on the map here for
traffic, it doesn't show that.
It would seem fairly apparent to us that a certain number of those truckers trying to get in
and out of this new Rabanco facility would determine that's a reasonable route. So, then
what we're going to do is route some number of trucks across the street here. Again, with
an impact in an area that was not designed, it's not zoned for that type of traffic. Which
leads me to my next point.
The map shows approximately 18 percent of the traffic going down Southwest 7th Street,
Renton. I find that incredible. I drive that regularly, because of where I work, every day.
that area is an office area. True, there is a certain amount of traffic, of truck traffic there,
Obut its changing, it's a heavily changing area into an upscale office. In fact, that's what the
1 whole complex area is. Routing a large number of 18-wheel trucks carrying garbage, or this
Jtype of material through there, is going to have a significant impact on the value of that
property, on the willingness of people to use it, just the same as trying to run even 4 percent
through the intersection on Grady Way and Rainier Avenue.
I find it difficult to believe that the City of Renton will allow that. The access that shows
n 4 percent of the trucks going up Empire Way or up 68th to Empire Way doesn't make much
I J 8 sense either. That's a terrible road. What I'm guessing is almost the entire access, far
greater than 60 percent, is going to come -- is going to have to come west on Grady Way
to the Interurban Intersection. And, that puts almost the entire load on Tukwila.
Nowhere in this Draft EIS does it discuss of how that would be mitigated. Everything from
the wear and tear, to the intersection improvements, to the cost to the retail shopping center
11 that's dependent upon that as an access point. And, that's only talking about 808 single trips
per day. Again, I'll make the point that the facility is sized for four times that number of
n trips.
Black River Waste Reduction Center 3-19 August 1991
1 Final EIS
We talk about noises on Page 3-5. It implies in the document that since the noise level is
already high, that you will see no impact of the noises generated by the trucks or the
operation of the facility. But, that implies that the noise level is not additive. It is additive.
(�
It's not merely the impact of whether it's 0 or 5 or 10 db. It's also what it's adding on. In
(�
fact, later on Page 328 of the document, it says the noise due to the trucks is based upon
12 the truck volume. That merely means it is additive. The more trucks, the more noise you
have, the higher level it is. Yet, the whole noise analysis seems to ignore the fact the noise
level is additive and we're approaching the limits there.
The fact that the increase is not dramatic isn't the issue. The fact is that this increase, on
top of the already existing noise level, is. And, against, the document doesn't deal with that.
a
On land use policies, itY g's certainly interesting. The land use in Tukwila is described briefly,
but they do not talk about how to mitigate other than planting trees on the Golf Course, but
to show how Tukwila views this. There's a portion of the Tukwila zoning code, again, that
was not dealt with in the EIS. Section 18.60.060 of the Tukwila zoning code says special
review guidelines for Interurban special review area. Purpose of review. Owing to its
unique physiography, the present of natural amenities in recreation facilities. I'll submit a
copy of it later.
13
The point is that Tukwila has added many years ago a special section to its zoning code that
deals with the area immediately adjacent to this proposed site that says that we review every
proposal there to build there, to see what impact it has on us, because it is considered a very
environmentally sensitive area. That was not dealt with in the Draft EIS at all. It's
considered the Interurban Special Review District, as used in this Section, the Interurban
area, the area lying between I-405 on the south, the top of the slope on the west of
rl
Interurban Avenue, I-5 north, and City limits on the east. It's true the proposed
U
development is not within the City limits, but it sure as the devil isn't very far away.
is is for four times that is
To summarize, my major point first off that this site sized
U
discussed in the Draft EIS. Second, the assumption is that only two sites are needed in all
of King County, based upon the King County EIS. However, there is no assurance there
l
will be even two sites.
1
O14 I'll point out that the first site and the existing site is only controlled by Rabanco. There
is no assurance that would continue to stay open because it's a very high value property. a
Second point, is there is no reason to even assume in the first place that only two sites are a
either necessary or reasonable or desirable. If the sites were considerably smaller, the
facilities, the impact on the neighboring area will be less, and the traffic to and from them
will be shorter. We would not impact the already overloaded highway system.
U
Black River Waste Reduction Center 3-20 August 1991
Final EIS U
I
j a
I
11
I
Next point is that the two worst intersections dealt with, one of those has a lawsuit, E to F,
that's the Rainier Avenue/Grady Way one. This says only 4 percent of the traffic will go
there. It implies that 60 percent would go the other way. I would contend far greater than
60 percent, unless, of course, Renton is going to allow 18-wheelers to run carrying this type
of material through what is an engineering office area into the heart of Renton's commercial
retail business area, and I'm willing to bet that's not true. But, even 60 percent of that into
an intersection that's already that bad is not dealt with anywhere on how to mitigate it.
Plus, there is a budgeted amount of money and a plan to continue that five -lane road all the
way through, which would provide even more reason for the truckers who are making their
own decisions moment by moment to use that route.
So, I agree with everybody else the true impact of this facility not on the City of Renton.
It is totally on the City of Tukwila, and there is nothing in here that talks about mitigation
to Tukwila, other than suggesting we plant some trees on a Golf Course. That's a trivial
issue.
Thank you.
MARK PYWELL: Thank you.
Joan Hernandez.
E. JOAN HERNANDEZ
15224 Sunwood Boulevard
Tukwila, WA
Joan Hernandez, 15224 Sunwood Boulevard, Tukwila.
Actually, many of my comments might be a duplication, so I'll try to skim. Dennis and I
didn't get together before hand and it's amazing how many similarities we probably came
up with.
OThe summary addresses a need for recycling in transfer stations as part of the regional goal
to reduce the waste stream. I can understand the need for it. I do have a problem with this
particular site. The synopsis states that full operation of this facility will process 90
thousand cubic yards of construction waste per month. But, the proposed facility initially
being proposed has been scaled down to process a smaller version of only 40 thousand cubic
yards per month, so that gradually the facility can expand to process a larger volume of
waste.
Black River Waste Reduction Center 3-21 August 1991
Final EIS
OI understand that this EIS is based on the facility handling the larger volume, the 90
thousand cubic yards per month.
Page 1-6 of the EIS states that the estimated King County volume generated is
approximately 133,000 cubic yards per month, which doesn't even include the Seattle waste
stream. My concern, of course, is that once this facility is built, that it would be allowed to
expand just as the Metro Treatment facility is now being expanded by 50 percent. To me,
Othe whole tone of this Draft EIS seems to state that it really doesn't matter what is built on
this site, because there already is going to be adverse impacts with noise pollution and
traffic from industrial growth that will occur regardless of whether this facility is built or not.
So, this area just seems to be written off whether this facility is built or not. We may as well
not protest what is going to be built there, for it is an undesirable area anyway. The
proponents objectives state that.
The proposed facility would provide the means for processing construction waste in an
environmentally safe and economically sound manner. The impact matrix shows that one
of the impacts will be an increase in dust emissions on the site and that the air quality will
be degraded. The mitigation proposed to counteract the dust is that it will be paved and
regularly cleaned where the vehicles travel.
OPage 3-8 states that significant water pollutants may come from equipment operated on or
near the site. Where will the surface water go? Will it further contaminate the water
quality in the Green River where we like to canoe and fish? Will the dust blow in the faces
of people walking along the King County Interurban Trail and, blow onto the picnic tables
of the families picnicking at Fort Dent Park? How will the noise and dust affect our Senior
Citizens playing golf at the Golf Course?
Page 13, Aesthetics, states that the facility would be most visible from Foster Golf Links and
residences on the Eastern slope.
Page 14 states that the Foster Golf Links would be just 400 feet from the proposed waste
recovered buildings.
OPage 3-26 states that Fort Dent Park will just be 600 feet from the southern end of the
proposed site.
Page 3-37 states that parks are the second most common land use in this vicinity and will
be adversely impacted by air quality, noise, traffic, and aesthetics. The proposed facility will
be visible from Fairway Hole 6, 7, 12, 13, and 14. Fort Dent Park is a regional park built
with Forward Thrust funds. No wonder the County doesn't want it anymore and is trying
to give it to Tukwila. Who would want a park across from a waste transfer station?
0
I
ui
I
0
Black River Waste Reduction Center 3-22 August 1991
Final EIS J
�1
I
The proposed Interurban Trail is to be constructed using King County open space bond
funds. Who will want to walk across the river from a constructional demolition transfer
Ostation? Foster Golf Links is one of our largest and most heavily used recreational facilities.
Who is going to want to play golf there when they have to listen to noisy trucks and dust
pollution?
Page 3-25 addresses the noise impacts to Tukwila's residences. I, too, have a problem
believing the accuracy of the EIS here. Sound measurements, it says, will be taken at the
O site of the Third and Lander Recycling Center are appropriate for the nearest commercial
�J 6 residential area in Tukwila? Doesn't sound right to me, based on the measured sound levels
in this area, the transfer building noise would not disturb residents? I think it could be a
serious fall in the Draft EIS and I need more proof before I can be convinced that it won't
J disturb Tukwila residences.
Page 28 addresses the additional traffic volumes and states that there will be no change in
�J the letter ratings of level of service and less than one second increase in delay to the
Oadditional truck and employee traffic at all intersections except Grady Way. It's hard to
(� believe that adding an additional 868 trips a day are not going to impact our major
L� intersections beyond the current level of service.
It is a known fact that Boeing will be building on the Longacres site, and the EIS only
Oaddresses this impact by saying that the construction facility will be in place in operation
before the Longacres site is developed. That's like an ostrich putting its head in the sand,
just because you got here first it doesn't matter.
I would prefer the No -Action Alternative in order to allow future development of this site
Owith less adverse environmental impacts. But, I hope that the future uses would be more
compatible with the recreational and residential land uses on the Tukwila side of the river
such as a business park, an office complex, and a hotel.
r-�
Thank you.
Louise Strander.
J F. LOUISE STRANDER
P.O. Box 88636
Tukwila, WA 98138
I Louise Strander, P.O. Box 88636, Tukwila, 98138.
j 1O The first criticism of the EIS is that it is dealing with a regional facility, and it is so
described in the EIS, but the impacts are kept within micro -mini bombs not moving outside
I
Black River Waste Reduction Center 3-23 August 1991
Final EIS
11
O2
of Renton's Municipal jurisdiction, even though the first major impact would be to Tukwila,
and, subsequently to Greater South King County.
Number Two. The traffic studies are too far to the east and north to show the full load of
the motor trips generated by the Rabanco Facility. There is no reference to the size, shape,
Ocondition,
cleanliness of the trucks involved, and especially the importance of these vehicles
a
being fully enclosed. A study of West Valley Highway from the Allentown Bridge south to
Kent should be first priority.
Number Three. The noise studies were all done from points level with the proposed facility.
j l
l 1
noise travels in many directions, and when dealing with noise reaching or surpassing
allowable Federal Standards, one would suppose extraordinarily thorough test methods
Gwould
be used.
The bulk of the residents affected live on surrounding hillsides. The proposed noise
mitigation heavily depends on sensitivity training for truck drivers and dozer operators.
Since the truck drivers are not employed by the operator of this facility, how can they insure
that sensitivity training is given or acted upon?
Number Four. The air pollution question has been muddled since the beginning documents
of this facility. There has been little effort to accurately analyze air standards now or in the
O5
future. Obviously, the pollution from such a number of truck trips per day will add to the
air pollution reaching dangerous levels.
6O
Number Five. Use of the tram tracks does not agree with information provided by the
Boeing Company in this particular document. Who is correct? Boeing, who claims they will
attempt to use the rail tracks for commuter purposes, or Rabanco?
Number Six. Finally, the effects of our quality of life must be addressed. In just one week,
the following newspaper articles have appeared in local papers. Here's an article on life
a
expectancy with our section of King County showing us having a life expectancy below
Oaverage.
Another day, an article on Duwamish Salmon being poisoned. A third article,
describing Metro enlarging the Sewage Treatment Plant just to the south of this proposed
a
Rabanco facility. And, finally, an article stating we have more than one million cars in King
County, and using a Southcenter intersection as an example of the worst traffic situation.
Thank you.
MARK PYWELL: Thank you.
Albert Arrington. H
H
Black River Waste Reduction Center 3-24 August 1991
Final EIS 0
G. ALBERT E. ARRINGTON
7027 South 131st Street
Seattle, WA 98178
I am Albert Arrington. I live at 7027 South 131st Street, Seattle, Washington 98178.
u� My great concern from my location where I live is truck traffic. And, you wouldn't think
probably that this would be an area that I should be concerned about. But, the past times
when there was a lot of construction and demolition going on in the neighborhood, trucks
u Owill not use established routes, and when you have the intersections being congested and
1 gridlocked where they're supposed to be, they'll look for alternate routes, and, therefore,
instead of staying to the established arterials, they will try to find an alternate route, which
LI will be through secondary streets, and both 134th and 131st is ideal shortcuts to tie in to go
down through Allentown and then on down into the area. So, anyone coming from the east,
j if they continually get tied up after established routes will attempt to use shortcuts.
And, another thing that bothers me is the litter that will be created from trucks traveling
(Don both primary and secondary routes. It is an established fact that the trucks hauling
debris do not cover their loads. And, therefore, litter blows off and we will only add to the
already heavy littering of our highways.
So, as I said, my main concern is traffic, and another concern is the noise created in the
area of the plant, which is in close proximity to a large wildlife area. And the type of noise
from trucks and from the chippers and other construction/demolition noise, and loading of
Gcars and so forth, will greatly impact the wildlife in the area.
So, therefore, I do not believe that this is a good location in an already congested area, for
something as large and with the impacts that will be established by this facility.
Thank you.
MARK PYWELL: Thank you.
Steve Lawrence
0 H. SIEVE LAWRENCE
4461 South 144th
(� Tukwila, WA 98168
�J I'm Steve Lawrence. 4461 South 144th Street, Tukwila. I am also on the City Council.
u
Black River Waste Reduction Center 3-25 August 1991
r-� Final EIS
I have a question first. Does Renton require that economic impacts be considered in their
Draft EIS?
MARK PYWELL: Not necessarily, no.
SIEVE LAWRENCE: Is it an optional item then that is sometimes included or sometimes
required?
MARK PYWELL: In my experience with the City, I have not seen one does at this time. {�
STEVE LAWRENCE: Okay. I
One of my main points is I think it should be included in this, because to me that's going
to be one of the very large significant impacts for the local environment. In particular, this
proposed facility is bordered by two very large public facilities that represent a huge
expenditure by thousands of Tukwila residents, and, really, tens of thousands of King County
Oresidents.
athletic ark it's quite near the facility.
Fort Dent serves a very large area and it's a large at p q
It could be susceptible to both air pollution and, of course, the noise pollution. The traffic
problems in accessing Fort Dent are already somewhat bad and those would only be
worsened by additional truck traffic.
Foster Golf Course, as has been mentioned, is only about 400 feet away from the facility, U
and at this time there is very little screening at all, only the raised beds of the railroad. The
Oidea of putting in trees on Foster Golf Course is totally impractical. Besides the shading
problem that Dennis mentioned earlier, there really is no space right now. The Green is
right close to the edge of the property and it would require the Golf Course to be adjusted
considerably just to allow trees to go in that area.
L— 0
I think that the economic impact, in terms of the value of these facilities for our residents
and King County as a whole, would be severe if you allow this facility to go in. At what Q
Opoint do people believe that a golf course really isn't worth taking the extra effort to play,
or at what point is it no longer the unique facility that someone seeks when they go out for
recreation? When do people quit visiting Fort Dent for picnics, because there's so much
noise?
The DEIS does refer to the possible impacts on the Black River heron rookery and it states
that the noise would not be severe enough or that much greater to have a negative impact,
Owhich even if you accept that, which I don't necessarily, it didn't address the fact that this
site is underneath one of the major flight paths for the birds to get in and out of the
rookery.
a
Black River Waste Reduction Center 3-26 August 1991
Final EIS a
0
Now, I don't know at what point the birds will quit coming if there is such a significant
Oamount of noise that's continual, as opposed to the noise that's already there which sort of
comes and goes with the trains and airplanes, but 14 hours a day of constant racket may
drive them out completely if they can't fly across that area.
Also, in my one visit to the site recently, I noticed that, believe it or not, there was an eagle
flying over the river near the golf course being harassed by several crows. I don't think any
Owildlife considerations were taken into the Green River corridor, which is really a green belt
in and of itself, and there may be even eagle nesting sites within this area less than 400 feet
from the property.
With all the possible impacts, the storm water runoff was considered, air pollution is
considered, increased traffic, street damage, the noise pollution, the aesthetics questions.
According to this DEIS, all of these are not significant, or they're so minor they can be
Oeasily mitigated. I don't buy it. I think there's a cumulative effect. A community can only
6 absorb so much and that cumulative effect is really ignored by this. We've reached the
saturation point in this community and that needs to be considered more thoroughly than
has been addressed already.
Thank you.
MARK PYWELL: Thank you.
Scott Nangle.
1 I. SCOTT NANGLE
s 14140 56th Avenue South
Tukwila, WA 98168
,j My name is Scott Nangle. I live at 14140 56th Avenue South in Tukwila. I'm also President
of the Black River Quarry Coalition.
J My basic desire is to race through these notes, but I'll try to go slow so we can get them
recorded.
At the first hearing, we heard that the building was described as being a 50 foot tall, or
approximately a 50 foot tall structure. If you look on Page 1-6, it says that the building
a O would be 50 feet tall on, basically, the east side, the Renton side, and then as you come to
the Tukwila side the roof slopes down and so does the grade of the land slope down. But,
we find that the grade of the land slopes down to 30 feet lower than the Renton side. So,
Tukwila is left looking under a building that is 80 feet tall.
u
Black River Waste Reduction Center 3-27 August 1991
Final EIS
H
On Page 3-33, you inform us that a 50 foot height maximum is permitted for industrial a
Obuildings. And, I guess I'm wondering, can this building be built legally, or will some
variance be needed to permit it to be constructed, because the Tukwila facade that we will (�
have to look at will be 80 feet tall. �J
On Page 3-44, there's discussion of mitigation of aesthetics, because of the size of the
building, and they talked about picking a proper color scheme to kind of reduce the overall
Gimpacts. I would like to make sure that the roof color is included in the mitigation so that
we don't end up with subdued building sides and some bright Day-glo color on the rooftop,
because residents do have a view of the rooftop, as we can see from the various viewpoints
that are given in the project. j
And in fact Figure 3.7-3 shows viewpoints C and D. They're mislabeled. Viewpoint C is
G
� wP Y wP
really from viewpoint D, which happens to be the driveway --from the driveway of my house.
On Page 3-51 there is discussion of traffic volumes. There's a mention of 808 trips er da
g �P Y,
but it seems to discuss these truck trips only in terms of waste being delivered. And, there's
no discussion of truck trips hauling out recyclables. Supposedly, this is a station where it's
O4 not just a transfer station. Recyclables are going to be taken out, and if we're talking of
recycling rates of 15 or 20 or 25 percent, are we talking about an additional 200 truck trips
a day that were not included in the analysis, and would these truck trips be spread across,
or would their impacts affect all the due considerations in the EIS traffic, noise, and air
pollution? There was no clear indication as to whether the 808 truck trips included trucking
Lout recyclables.
On Page 3.9.2 -- I'm sorry, Paragraph 3.9.2.1, Page 3-64, there's a discussion of parks and
recreation areas, and in the very first paragraph you tell us that there's a potential for
impacts to Foster Golf Links and Fort Dent Park, our recreation areas, and that they will
need mitigation, and please see the mitigation section. A couple paragraphs later you say, �}
5O well, overall there's no significant impacts. And, then when you get down to the mitigation
section, you say, well, we don't have any specific mitigation for the parks and recreation.
It's all handled under the individual sections.
I guess I don't have a very comfortable feeling that you're protecting Tukwila's assets, our
parks and recreational areas.
With regards to vegetative screening, you show a picture 3.7-4, and it shows vegetative
Oscreening being planted on the Tukwila Foster Golf Links. i guess, as a Tukwila citizen Q
that's helped, I guess in a sense, finance the Foster Golf Links, I find it kind of
unfathomable that you would usurp my public space to mitigate your commercial building.
I mean, it's kind of like saying, well, gee, we're going to produce a lot of noise, Scott, so (�
Black River Waste Reduction Center 3-28 August 1991
Final EIS j`�
here, we bought you some earplugs so you don't have to listen to it. I think if you're going
to properly mitigate this site, you should be doing it on your own site, at your own cost.
6O If the site is too big, I mean, if you're planning on taking so much waste that you can't
mitigate it, maybe that's the problem and the scope should be reduced so that you can
properly mitigate the facility.
An additional aspect we would like you to consider is that for mitigation of both noise and
r 1 air pollution is to use an electric yard vehicle. In the King County Solid Waste EIS
regarding the three vendor proposals, I believe there's more of an elaborate discussion on
Oair pollution. There's talk of non -attainment areas, and I guess I'd like to see, as much as
possible, that this area is being inundated in nearby areas with air pollution. Your own No -
Action Alternative shows us that air pollution is going to increase, but we can mitigate this
perhaps to some small degree by having an electric yard vehicle present, rather than diesel-
powered vehicle.
I have three rather technical issues I want to deal with. The first is commuter rail. There's
ul a Paragraph 3.8.2.4 on Page 3-58, that's title Commercial Commuter Rail Traffic. I believe
the only reason it was there was because it was part of the scoping comments for this EIS
that you consider commuter rail impacts. Your little paragraph states that there's no
specific plans for commuter rail and the commuter rail is likely to run on its own tracks.
And, I guess I'd like to know, who dreamed up this response?
I noticed that Metro Transit was not contacted, or at least was not included as a reference
in the Draft EIS, and, what I ended up doing, is I contacted Metro Transit. They sent me
gOjust a little brief flyer on transit, and they answer the question, what is commuter rail? And,
they say it is rail that shares traffic with freight traffic, otherwise it would be called light rail.
They further go on to show a picture of where the rail will travel, and it travels right by the
F- Rabanco facility. In fact, there's a Monster Road transfer station listed, which I have to
wonder, would the Rabanco facility be such that it's train traffic would interfere with the
�] potential commuter rail transfer station for people?
1' Additionally, this brief article says that to support commuter rail, there is going to be a need
for computerized train control and a partial third mainline track.
Now, these are improvements that will be needed to support commuter rail, and I guess my
feeling is that this facility should be paying a proportional share for these improvements.
I F—Several years ago, about two or three years ago, the City of Renton, City of Tukwila, and
Oseveral other southend cities, put up money for a commuter rail study. A couple years ago
we had a vote in King County, where the King County citizens basically said yes, we're
interested in commuter rail. Please proceed. It was a vote of confidence by the whole
J
Black River Waste Reduction Center 3-29 August 1991
JFinal EIS
I
I
County, and now in this Draft EIS there's no discussion as to what sort of impacts the
ORabanco facility would provide and no discussion of mitigation for any of the impacts, and
I guess I feel that that's something that needs to be addressed in the Final EIS.
10
I'll give you, or I'll submit this Choices magazine that they sent me so that you can have it
For your record.
The second issue that I didn't find to be properly addressed was the solid waste issue. In
Paragraph 3.9.2.2, on Page 365 or 3-65, we're told that this facility is consistent with all
relevant Solid Waste Management Plans and Policies. Yet, there is no mention of King
County Code 10.08.030, which says, and I'll try to quote it here slowly:
To the extent practicable, solid waste disposal facilities shall be located in a manner which
-.qualizes their distribution around the County, so, that no single area of the county will be
required to absorb an undue share of impact from these facilities."
Now, you're talking about adding, what I'll call a sixth solid waste disposal facility in an area
that already has major solid waste disposal facilities, which I guess I feel you should be
telling me about in your EIS, but I'll just list the five I know of, and I guess if you an find
more you should be telling me about them.
The first is the Stoneway Concrete Recycling at the Black River Quarry. It's a related solid
waste disposal facility and that it will be taking concrete, which is part of this CDL waste
stream. So, if we're successful with recycling and source separation, instead of making a left
turn into the Rabanco facility, they'll make a right turn into the Stoneway Concrete. That
doesn't seem like we've had the facilities spread equitably across the County.
On Empire Way you mentioned that there's a Sunset Demolition Landfill. Up there they're
taking -- it seems to vary from day to day -- but recently there was all sorts of rebar, twisted
metal, collected up there. They're moving earth around all the time. For awhile, I believe
they were taking bricks. There's trucks parked along the roadside all the way -- there's
trucks parked along vacant property nearby. Obviously, this is one of the adverse impacts
that was discussed in this County Code, and now you're going to say, well, let's have another
Facility.
But, it doesn't stop there. There's the Seattle Rendering Works, which somebody else
mentioned. I believe that has been mentioned. I don't know how many rendering works
there are in the City. I certainly don't know of one being in every neighborhood, and I
guess, I would like you to tell me how many rendering works there are and what is the scope
Df Seattle Rendering. We take trucks coming in, picking up, trucks taking carcasses to the
Facility. That's all a solid waste disposal facility.
I
I
III
I
R
I I
Black River Waste Reduction Center 3-30 August 1991
Final EIS U
On Empire Way, there's Hunter's Auto Wrecking. At this site they apparently take the
valuable parts off of the car and dump the hulk over the side of a hill. Automobile parts
are all part of the solid waste stream, and this is a solid waste disposal facility, and it's an
unsightly one. It's another adverse impact that we're being told to take and it's very near
the proposed Rabanco facility.
10 And, then, there's my favorite, the Metro Sewage Treatment Plant, which is supposed to
expand by 50 percent, which is going to take effluent from Pierce, King and Snohomish
Counties. And, it's another solid waste disposal facility that's just one parcel away from the
proposed Rabanco facility.
These are five major impacts that smell, have trucks, are unsightly, and we're looking for
some equitable distribution of these facilities. I don't think we're being given that
opportunity.
My last issue is noise. I'll just go through Appendix C, I guess, basically, page by page
because I found that the noise analysis was poorly done and it was very hard to actually
extract any useful information out of it. And, I guess as I go through this, I hope to present
why I feel this way.
On Page 1, you state that local regulations limit the maximum sound levels that a facility
can generate. Then on Page 2, you introduce a variable you call LEQ, which is the average
sound level. They you go on and use this average sound level to show how you meet
maximum sound levels. This would be fine if the average sound level was a constant
11 volume, but we know from your EIS that it isn't. It fluctuates, and without knowing how
high it fluctuates, we don't know if the maximum legal limits are being met.
Likewise, on Page 2, you introduce variables L-90, L-25, L-8.33.33 and L-2.5.5. These are
supposed to -- you tell us these represent the minimum level of the sound for a certain small
window of time, so an L-25 should mean 25 percent of the time the sound level exceeds this
level, yet you use these minimum levels to show compliance with local maximums. You
can't do this. They're totally unrelated.
In Tables 2 and 5, you've lined up these columns to imply that you can just scan down them
and see if you have compliance. You can't do it. They don't mean anything in that manner.
On Page 1, in Appendix C again, you say Renton and Tukwila use the same noise
ordinances as Washington. That's not exactly true. In fact, Tukwila has a five dba for
12 generating pure tonal noises. There is no discussion in the EIS as to whether pure tonal
noises would be generated. I would imagine with the mass of trucks that we're going to
have and the backup beepers that are usually on them, that the tones from the backup
Black River Waste Reduction Center 3-31 August 1991
Final EIS
12
beepers will constitute a pure
should be taken into account.
tonal sound, and that this five dba criteria or adjustment
But, it hasn't been addressed in the DEIS. It's a recognized environmental factor when
considering impacts of noise, and should certainly be considered.
On Page 3, you refer to Foster Golf Course as being zoned agricultural, and as such, you
claim it's an industrial noise receptor. An industrial noise receptor is the most lax meaning
13 you can generate on quite a bit of noise over it, but in truth, neither Renton or Tukwila
consider either Foster Golf Links or Fort Dent Park to be an industrial noise source. In
Tukwila, it is clearly based on zoning. The zoning is agricultural, which is a residential
receptor, which is the most stringent requirement.
On Page 7, we're told in the test that we should expect impulse noises of 80 to 90 decibels
from metal banging around, and 82 to 92 decibels for top pick.
14 Now, the local limits only allow a certain maximum, and these would certainly seem to
exceed the maximums. And, even with the exceptions to the maximums that are granted,
we're not showing -- you don't discuss whether there's compliance. And, I guess I'd like to
know, are you going to file for a variance from the noise ordinances over these impulsive
noises so that you could meet Renton regulations?
On Page 8, you incorrectly state the hours of operation from 8 a.m. to 8 p.m., and by doing
so means you don't have to do any of the analysis for the ten decibel penalty that's given
for early morning noise generation. The obvious solution is to actually make the hours of
15 operation 8 a.m. to 8 p.m., or ever better, 8 a.m. to 6 p.m., because I believe other
references say that as people start to come home, they want a quiet atmosphere to be in,
and around suppertime is when the noise level should stop, drop off, and it shouldn't be at
8 o'clock. It should be pushed back a little earlier.
On Page 10, you bring out a variable called L-max, which is not defined, but it does show
that there will be a 61 decibel reading which will exceed local regulations for the City of
Renton for residential areas, in particular the first City developments, and with the other
numbers being minimums and trying to show them with stated maximums, there is no way
to compare and find out if you're going to have compliance, even with an exception of being
able to generate a slightly louder noise for a short period of time.
Again, you've left out the 10 decibel correction needed for early morning operations on this
page. And, on Page 11, you again refer to Foster Golf as an industrial noise receptor,
where it's clearly a residential noise receptor in Tukwila.
Black River Waste Reduction Center 3-32 August 1991
Final EIS
I
M
!� And, then on Page 13 -- this is one of my favorites -- it's trains. You tell me your additional
train trips are going to generate 0.1 db, an increase in the ambient noise level, yet I live
probably a half mile away from the trains and every time they go by, I can hear them just
fine.
_ 17
Now, a tenth of a decibel is very small. It's not even humanly perceptible, and I guess
why -- I have to ask, why are your averaging out the noise of the trains when, in reality, it
goes by, it makes a lot of noise, if it's a heavily loaded freight train it will even rattle my
windows a little bit, yet I can't even perceive it. And, I think this is quite ludicrous.
So, overall, I guess I feel that the noise analysis section needs to show compliance with State
18 or your local regulations, and certainly should include consideration for Tukwila, Tukwila
zoning, and Tukwila's considerations for noise analysis on its property.
Thank you.
MARK PYWELL: Thank you.
Allan Ekburg.
J. ALLAN EKBURG
4920 South 161st
Tukwila, WA 98168
[—Good evening. My name is Allan Ekburg. I live at 4920 South 161st here in Tukwila. I'm
J� a Council Member with the City of Tukwila.
OAs I sat in the audience, I had a feeling that a lot of my thunder was being captured
adequately by the people that spoke before me. Issues that were keen to my heart have
already been clarified and spoken probably more eloquently that I can say, but some of the
issues that strike me personally is the amount and the volume of truck traffic that will be
incurred with this type of development.
Another thing that strikes me personally is the size and awkwardness of such a location, for
j a building of its size and nature. But, the point there is not the building itself, it's the
l� G
specifications, the framework that went into identifying the size, the scope, the dimensions,
etc. of the building for that location. They are not spelled out adequately in the Draft
1 Environmental Impact Statement to make me, as a citizen, really understand the picture of
what's going to go there.
J
Black River Waste Reduction Center 3-33 August 1991
1 Final EIS
n
And, then there's the issue of mitigation. Mitigation is an Environmental Impact Statement
that's a draft? That comes up during preliminary design and scoping of what the project is
really going to do, and then mitigating the different circumstances surrounding that project.
I think I have the solution to what the problem is with this Draft, and what everyone before �f
me have spoken about. There's a lot of ambiguity, a lot of missing information, things that LJ
aren't relevant, things that should be relevant which aren't clarified. And, it seems apparent LJ
to me that it's not the Draft Environmental Impact Statement that it should be, and that,
in jest, it could have been the preliminary draft being submitted as a draft and the required (�
homework not being done ahead of time. If it had been done ahead of time, some of the ! 1
Oinformation presented by our citizens in Tukwila would have been more adequately
addressed.
So, it's my contention here before you tonight to let you know my personal feelings that I
think the draft should be tabled and redrafted in the future and taken into consideration the {�
points that the citizens had to raise to the City of Renton, and let the citizens guide you in U
how to prepare a Draft in the most appropriate manner.
I do not take this out personally on anybody sitting here tonight. It's Just the scope of the
project is so immense and can create such a blight on our City of Tukwila that the City of
Renton and its citizens aren't as impacted by it as we are.
If we look on a regional basis, on a regional scale, and we forget about City boundaries, let's
look regionally. There is a lot of different waste stream management programs going on
Oin this central corridor. How much more can this region take? It's not necessarily always
that city against city issue. It's what can the regions take? And, personally to my own heart,
the thing that bothers me tremendously is an environmental situation that's before us.
Damage to the Green River, damage to a potentia wetland the Mayor identified earlier.
But, then again, once upon a time if we counted, we could hold our hands up and say there
was maybe 10 heron rookeries in the neighborhood. If we do that today, how many can we
Ocount? If we do that tomorrow: can we even count? r�
5 '�J
So, with the statements I've said tonight, I would like to respectfully request the Draft
Environmental Impact Statement be tabled and reanalyzed and looked at with a finer pen. r�
Thank you. �J
MARK PYWELL: Thank you.
That concludes the people that signed up to speak prior to the public hearing. I noticed a
number of people came in after the hearing had started, and if there is anybody that wishes
Black River Waste Reduction Center 3-34 August 1991
Final EIS j,
to speak now that didn't sign in, you may come forward at this time. And, I would ask that
you sign this.
At this time I call forward Joseph Anderson.
K. JOSEPH B. ANDERSON
12929 Empire Way South
Seattle, WA
My name is Joseph Anderson. I reside at 12929 Empire Way South. I think it's necessary
to give you a little background on my experience in Tukwila. I moved to Tukwila in 196
and lived in Tukwila from 1956 to 1966. I live directly across from this piece of property
that you're talking about, which is now an industrial area where there's trucks and other
OI construction types across the River. I swam, I fished, and I played in the Black River, as
well as the Green River.
I'm quite familiar with the property. I am the person that owns the wrecking yard on
Empire Way, as well as the recycling center on top. So, I'm quite familiar with the
problems that the Rabanco's are having.
{
The situation is that they run a first-class operation. This operation is going to be inside of
a building. The trucks are going to be dumped inside of a building. I was assured that the
Odust that was created by the trucks dumping inside the building was going through a
filtration system. And, that the water that may be created, due to washing the roads, would
be filtered. As far as it being filled, the only property that I know being filled is between
railroad tracks, which is owned by Puget Power.
E The wetlands that they're talking about had been impacted by all of us; Tukwila, all the
surrounding areas.
As far as the truck traffic goes, I don't believe it's going to be impacted as greatly as you
�J imagine. Due to the fact that they keep talking 18-wheelers, these are all going to be big
trucks. That's not true. They're going to be roofing contractors with pickups. All sorts of
Olight trucks. Agreed, there is going to be big trucks, 18-wheelers, but they aren't going to
go through Tukwila. They're going to bypass that traffic jam. They're going to take 405.
They are going to go through Renton. They are going to go through up SR 900 and they
r1 are going to come down I-5.
1 I watched the truck traffic increase trememdously when the two recycle centers opened
across from this piece of property. It's only the natural site for this dump facility, whatever
you want to call it; recycle center.
Black River Waste Reduction Center 3-35 August 1991
JFinal EIS
Everybody says, not in my backyard. Well, it is in my backyard, and my mother lives in
Tukwila. Se lives at 14234 57th Avenue South. She is going to look straight down into this.
And, I wouldn't wish anything bad for her.
As far as the beepers when you back up, the truck noise, Rabanco ordered all of its trucks
and truckers at the Renton site -- or we'll call it the Issaquah, where everybody fought them
OS last time -- no Jake brakes. We all live by that rule. It's very simple to put a switch on, and
you pull into the site, you shut it off, it's that simple. You don't shut it off, you don't dump
there. You don't dump there, you don't work.
The situation is that they're going to put in a class act, nice looking facility, or I wouldn't
wish it on anybody.
And, that's all I have to say. Thank you.
MARK PYWELL: Okay.
Jack McFarland. Could you spell your last name at the mike, please?
L. JACK MCFARLAND
9360 Forest Court Southwest
Seattle, WA
My name is Jack McFarland. I live at 9360 Forest Court Southwest in Seattle.
I've been in the demolition business in the Seattle area for the past 42 years, and I've seen
Tukwila grow from a wide spot in the road into one of the most prosperous communities
in the Puget Sound. The growth of Tukwila is such that there is now wrecking/remodeling
work going on in Tukwila to where it is becoming one of the contributors to the waste
stream. It's a modern city and it has the same problem that the other developed cities in
this area have.
1O There is a need, a necessity, a public necessity, for a transfer station such as this. The
problem is to find the most suitable location for such a transfer station.
I appreciate the thoughtful comments that have come from the people who have opposed
it here and their considerations are real, but there is the countervailing fact that as a public
necessity, there must be such a facility sited. if you are going to site such a facility, to locate
such a facility, UI believe that this is the best facility that could be found in the Tukwila or
Renton area. The people in the Seattle area that are hauling their demolition debris are
going to prefer to go to Third and Lander in Seattle to avoid the trip and the mileage that
would be entailed of coming down to Tukwila.
Black River Waste Reduction Center 3-36 August 1991
Final EIS
'T
L
I
I
I
�J
., I
NO
O
The waste stream that's generated in Seattle by demolition, I expect to go there primarily.
There will be some coming here from Seattle that will be largely from Burien. I've done
demolition in Burien, for Sea-Tac. I've done demolition in Tukwila, and in Renton, and in
Auburn and in Kent. And, there is a need to get another facility down in Auburn, so that
you're not a magnet for everything that's south of you, nor a magnet for everything that's
north of you. The distribution of waste flow should be spread throughout.
And, from the east side there's a need for a facility in Monroe, which I understand has been
permitted, so that the waste flow coming from that direction will not flow into here instead
of Seattle.
There is a further waste depot that's being set up in Arlington to draw the waste flow from
the north end up towards Snohomish and keep it there. And, I think with a balanced
operation like that, that we get away from the overloads of a single source.
The location here I'm familiar with, from the last 30 years or more, the rock crushing outfit.
The quarry has been there for at least 40 years, to my recollection.
The trains come through there. The rendering plant is an established nuisance. This facility
and its area are separated by the natural barrier of the River from Foster Golf Course, and
despite all of those natural obstacles, Foster Golf Course is a very nice recreational center.
And, the impact from this with the mitigation that they've taken, and, as Mr. Anderson said,
they do run a first-class operation. I would expect that the noise levels would not be
perceptibly larger at the Foster Golf Course with the distance buffer that you have.
You will have traffic coming down Monster Road, and I understand that plans are underway
with Boeing, with Rabanco's help, and others along the way to four -lane that highway and
put a signal up on Empire Way/Martin Luther King Way.
I believe that no objection is truly meaningful if it doesn't identify a comparable or better
site.
O3 There is a problem here, a public problem, a public necessity, that must be addressed. And,
if you are going to have an objection to it, I believe that one of the conditions is to find a
better place. I don't think that there is a better place in this area than the one that they've
selected.
Thank you very much.
MARK PYWELL: Thank you.
John McFarland.
Black River Waste Reduction Center 3-37 August 1991
Final EIS
J
I
M. JOHN MCFARLAND
3401 14th Avenue West
Seattle, WA 98136
My name is John McFarland. I'm located at 3401 14th Avenue West in Seattle. I'm a
demolition contractor. 1"1
I'd like to address some of the concerns that were expressed by some of the residents in the
Oarea there.
The past years that Renton Concrete Recycling has been open, it's been very rare that we've �J
ever going through the Tukwila area, mainly because of the bad traffic patterns that already rj
exist. Almost entirely, whenever we go there, we go up the Martin Luther King direction
and I feel that that's how most of the future traffic will also be routed.
He also mentioned a number of trucks that would come into the area based upon a dump
Ocycle time, which was 6 minutes, and I believe that that's a little bit optimistic. My drivers
tend to spend somewhere more in the neighborhood of 10 to 15 minutes, and that would n
reduce the number of truck trips, as he calculated, almost in half U
There was also an idea that the Third and Lander site would close because of its valuable
location. But, because of its valuable location, it's all the more reason that it's going to stay `
open. It's a very central spot for all of Rabanco's recycling trucks throughout the City, and
it would be a mistake for them to move it anywhere farther away from that central location, ]
so I'm quite sure that they're going to leave that there. They picked that site with a lot of '
time and consideration.
There's been concern about the site being built for over capacity, and recently, on an `
airplane trip when I was returning to the Seattle/Tacoma area, I looked out the window as i
OI was coming into Sea-Tac, and all you could see for miles and miles were houses and
houses. And, the first thing that I though was a tremendous amount of inventory for me to
keep busy for years and years.
But, the thing is that there is a regional problem for all of these different houses to get rid
of their debris. And, nobody wants to have a dump site nearby. The solution is to transport r-1
the materials to Eastern Washington or to Oregon, and this site that they've selected among (�
the other sites is a very good location and a very good idea to solve the problem.
I also golf at Foster Golf Links, which is directly across from the rendering plant, and on
a hot summer day, if you've smelled that down there, it's quite powerful, but it still hasn't
prevented me from going there to golf. It's quiet convenient, and it's a nice course, and I
really don't think that a recycling plant, construction debris plant would hamper that either.
0
Black River Waste Reduction Center 3-38 August 1991
Final EIS 0
i�
Regarding the truck traffic concerns, with trucks taking alternate routes, a designated truck
route could be established with penalties for drivers who don't follow the designated routes.
And, there are truck police and traffic police that consistently monitor truck routes that are
Onear transfer stations or loading areas like down by the water that set up trailer mounted
4 scales. They inspect trucks coming into such a facility and they monitor for unsafe loads and
unsafe driving practices. So, I feel that the concerns regarding the unsafe trucks could be
monitored and that problem alleviated.
M
Thank you.
MARK PYWELL: Thank you.
Bobby Wolford.
N. BOBBY WOLFORD
6421 Lake Washington Boulevard, #403
Kirkland, WA
I'm Bobby Wolford. I reside at 6421 Lake Washington Boulevard in Kirkland.
"m probably one of the largest for hire trucking companies in Seattle, and I just want to
;xpress the need for this facility.
We've been hauling to a facility in Gig Harbor that just closed, and the added, well, the
:ruck time down there and inconvenience has been tremendous. My dump fee bill has been
ike $72,000 a month average, and a lot of that truck time could be cut down with a closed-
n facility.
We've followed the facility, the Rabanco operation, for the last 15 years. We've watched
:hem take over a real bad site at the landfill at Coal Creek and turn it into a really classy
)peration with paved roads and no debris flying around. And, they really turned an
)peration around, and I think they'd do a great job here at this site.
the safety factor of trucks. My company has a safety first attitude about trucking. I'd carry
:hat out throughout this new installation that they'd have for us.
just think it would be a good idea down there.
thank you.
MARK PYWELL: Thank you.
Black River Waste Reduction Center 3-39 August 1991
`� Final EIS
M
r
Jerry Warfield.
O. JERRY WARFIELD
8425 1st Avenue South
Seattle, WA 98108
I'm Jerry Warfield. My address is 8425 1st Avenue South, Seattle. l I,
I've been in the demolition contracting business for 14 years now, and I've been able to `
work with the people at Rabanco for that period of time. They've always backed up 1
anything they've ever told me in the lines of dumping and furnishing a place to dump.
So, some of the things that these people bring up, these numbers of trucks coming in. Well,
anyone that goes to work has to come home from work, so I take it when they say 800 truck
traffic they actually mean 400, because it's coming in and then going out, is how they arrive
at their numbers -- and one gentleman brought up some things on recycling. I know we take
the time to recycle anything. , l
We can, out of your demolition, due to the high cost of dumping, so if it is recyclable, then
U
we take the time to take it out and not send it to a transfer station where it's going to cost
us "X" amount of dollars to dump this, and as far as -- I sit down and weigh out every time �}
I bid a job or anything, of where I have to go to dump this and I know the Rabanco people v
are not going to close Third Avenue. II�l
They're already working on sites in Pierce County and Snohomish County, so, if you're so
far north of you, make yourself a dividing line and then you figure your cost from that
dividing line which way you're going to go to dispose of your material.
And, I know trucking right now costs right at a dollar 25 cents a minute, so anybody can
figure out if you got a transfer station at Third Avenue, you're going to transfer there rather
than come up to Tukwila at another half hour turnaround.
I didn't have any notes, because I didn't realize this meeting was going on tonight, until
some people informed me, so that's all I have to say on the matter. Thank you.
MARK PYWELL: Thank you.
The next persons would be Chris -- Sorry, can't get the last name.
P. CHRIS CRISTICH
24307 128th Avenue East
Graham, WA
Black River Waste Reduction Center 3-40 August 1991
D
Final EIS n
My name is Chris Cristich. I live at 24307 128th Avenue East in Graham, Washington.
Doesn't make me much of a Tukwila neighbor, but I am within two miles of Pierce County
Sanitary Landfill. I'll be within two miles of the new one if they manage to permit that one
as well.
But, so far I'm not suffering real ill effects. They run a pretty good operation down there
that's also, I think, consistent with, like Rabanco.
A little bit on the Pierce County operation. Pierce County ran one real shabby operation
down there for many, many years. Private organization, private operator took it over,
cleaned it up and turned it into a pretty nice operation down there. Got the bird problem
gone, the smell problem gone, new programs under way, leachate control and methane
control, and all those things.
I know any demolition contractor that works Seattle/Tacoma by name or rank, but we've
had the opportunity in our business to work closely with Rabanco for a number of years.
As many of the people that spoke before me here as a proponent, I seen Rabanco do far
better than even the people in Pierce County. As Mr. Wolford and some others expressed,
they took a shabby operation out on the east side and turned it into a real first-class
Ooperation. They complied at all times with all the permit qualifications, until they expired.
And they, in fact, were sensitive enough to the neighborhood and the neighboring people
and businesses that if there were some problems they were immediately addressed and
corrected.
1 I don't like to be just an echo here, to toot the hom for Rabanco, but I believe one must
have to realize with whom they're dealing. This is an organization that does what they say.
They have the resources to back that up, and not to necessarily fight people or shove it
down their throat. They can back up what is necessary and get the job done.
But, on other things, Mr. Wolford had mentioned right before me, so, I'm again echoing
others, we're one of the larger demolition contractors in the northwest and we've watched
the disposal of demolition waste go from like $3 a ton to $75 a ton. That's not just taking
it across the street. We're hauling if halfway across the world, it seems like, to pay a whole
lot more money. That's not the problems with the residents of Tukwila. Those are our
problems and its industries problems.
What happens is this becomes a mother of invention, so to speak, and we've learned to
reduce that waste stream. What, even as close as five or six years ago, we would take a
project that had about 20 thousand tons of material in it and to ship that to a landfill
automatically, pay $3 a ton, that's it, gone, out of our hair, out of the neighbor's hair.
Black River Waste Reduction Center 3-41 August 1991
Final EIS
11
I
No longer is that realistic. We will reduce that quantity by half, two thirds, three quarters,
before it goes anywhere. And, we're talking about the type of material coming into this
transfer station, transload station, that would be the time, that once upon a time we would
ship to a landfill. �f
We now separate all the steel products. We separate all the aluminum products. We
separate all the siding, we pull all the timber, all the wood, anything that can be reduced
or recycled in some other form or fashion that goes elsewhere.
Steel and like metals we ship to the scrap yard. Timber and reusable wood we ship to our
own salvage yard in Tacoma, or our other salvage yard in Marysville and Arlington. We
don't throw away anything anymore. Brick, veneers, that type of material. We have to
recover those materials.
And, we got into the rock crushing business. In fact, we're doing a job right now as we
speak over here at Boeing, where there's a hundred thousand tons. There's a project here
in Seattle for Boeing that we're working on right now, I think there's about a hundred and
30 thousand tons of what would have been debris, plus another 15 to 20 thousand tons of
steel. We're throwing away to landfills approximately 9 thousand tons. That's today's
technology and economics, and that's what you have to do.
O1 1thousand crushed tons with the concrete asphalt, and cinder
We're reducing those to 00 p ,
block, packed crushed rock base that go into the project, and taking sites.
I'm bringing these up, because this goes towards the noise and traffic concern, and it's one
of ours. We don't like to spend all this money to run them up and down the road, and we
don't have a real desire to irritate citizens by excessive truck traffic. This is strictly t�
economics. And, proposed rate schedules, even at Rabanco's facility, showed a permit in
open that is going to be such that it is going to be a motivator for us to just through n
everything in those trucks and send them down to their facility. We have to continue to do U
the things we're doing now and get better at it.
But, in closing, I would like to reiterate one more time, I think this site is probably the best
sited facility of all that we've had the opportunity to look at, and we've had the good fortune
of being a little bit involved with the Rabanco people for a long time and have been able �1
to work with them on sites and proposed sites. U
This would be one of the best sites. It has a draw radius and Third and Lander will also
exist, Snohomish County will come on board, Monroe will come on board, further south of
Tukwila will come on board. There will be other sites other than just centrally in Tukwila.
I thank you very much for your time. t-i
f l
l
Black River Waste Reduction Center 3-42 August 1991
Final EIS D
MARK PYWELL: Thank you.
Steve Spence.
Q. STEVE SPENCE
3603 Southwest 110th
Seattle, WA 98146
My name is Steve Spence. I live at 3603 Southwest 110th in Seattle. That's West Seattle.
I'm the General Manager of the Rabanco Recycling Center down on Third and Lander that
we've heard so much about and it's -- I think, that probably what we need to look at is ten
years ago, you just basically threw things away. And, as the County and the Federal and the
State and the City have all set very high recycling goals, what you end up with is a very
sophisticated solid waste infrastructure to handle different materials, and I think you can
see -- you know, now we have curbside, and of course, Rabanco has always been involved
in commercial recycling. And, we do a tremendous amount of that in this area, as well as
in Seattle and as far north as Edmonds and Lynnwood, but this is just part of the
continuation of just sophisticating the solid waste infrastructure on handling material.
And, you know, there was a lot of concern when we started what we do at Third and
Lander, and if you look at the number of referrals that we get from the City of Seattle and
from King County, and the number of tours that we get with that facility, we have literally
had visitors from all over the world. The only countries we haven't had people coming
1 through are some of the Africans, Russians, and Japanese and Swedens, and we are just
(� under a continuous system and, of course, we also -- since we are a permitted facility, we
�l have a lot of inspections, you know. The City and the State and County, and during one of
the last trips, they just come, knock on the door, and one of the people commented that
they just really wish that our competitors ran their facilities as well as we run outs. I mean,
that's something that we really work hard on and we're really proud of that. And, I think
that if we put this up in Tukwila, Tukwila will be proud of it, especially your solid waste in
j your City and County. The attention that you get to that.
I've been with Rabanco a little over four years and I think part of the time when you
i operate a business you want to be a good neighbor. And, if you visit the people
immediately adjacent to the Third and Lander facility, I'm on a first name basis with all of
those people, and I think that's really important, because if you ever move into a
( neighborhood and yo have a problem and don't know where to go. And, I think that all
those people feel very comfortable, and we patronize those businesses to have some of their
recycle.
J
Black River Waste Reduction Center 3-43 August 1991
1 Final EIS
I
You know, I just again, with all the very aggressive recycling goals that we have, I think
Rabanco has impressed those, and I think that the various government agencies will say that
we've also been a pretty innovative company. And, that this is just a part of the solution to
the solid waste problem that you have, and it's here to stay.
O
I think as years go on, we'll continue to recycle more, and this is just a real important part
of it.
Thank you for giving me the opportunity.
MARK PYWELL: Thank you.
At this time, is there anyone else that wishes to address the Draft Environmental Impact
Statement?
R. KAREN PROCTOR
7273 South 135th
Seattle, WA 98178
My name is Karen Proctor. My address is 7273 South 135th, Seattle, 98178.
I live on 135th. I cannot believe everything that I can see from my one -acre property that
is less than a mile from downtown Renton. You have a sewer -- I don't know how they got
Metro sewer in. I've only been in the neighborhood for five years. I don't know how they
snuck in.
And, the concrete recycling. I've already had my car dinged up from the concrete recycling
people that drive over there, and, of course, they say, oh, I'll pay for it, and they've never
paid for it.
OThat road. They're going to put in a four -lane road. I've just got a left turn off Empire.
It's 50 miles an hour. I don't care what it says, people go 50 miles an hour. I've had trucks
almost rear -end me while they're watching a cop pull over a car on the other side of the
road when I turn off my street. There is a lot of traffic.
And, now they want to put in a four -lane. I don't even see how they can do it. They're just
going to dig out the hillside?
I golf down at Foster. I moved from Tyee to Foster because of the Darth Vader effect of
the airplanes that come in for landings at Tyee. I think there is an impact. I golf with the
Boeing League. The women already complain about the smell from the Rendering Plant.
This is a beautiful area, one -acre sites right in town here.
Black River Waste Reduction Center 3-44 August 1991
Final EIS 0
l�
IJ
And, people think they have to move out to Issaquah just so they can get a nice place to
Olive. I can't believe how made this makes me.
1
Thank you.
MARK PYWELL: Thank you.
Is there anybody else that wishes to speak at this time? Bruce Bentley.
S. BRUCE BENTLEY
1613 Southwest Austin
Seattle, WA
My name is Bruce Bentley. I live at 1613 Southwest Austin in Seattle. I am the Plant
Manager for Rabanco Recycling at Third and Lander Street. I've been with Rabanco for
about 16 years now.
As Steve said, we give a lot of tours, and we do a lot of other things down there. Just in
particular, there was a Monroe City Council came down not too long ago, and they were just
super impressed at how well we keep our facility, how clean it is kept, and I think that's
some thing that will probably carry over to the Black River Quarry facility where it's going
Oto be a constant clean-up process.
I heard some people mention dust, and so forth. It will be dumped in a building and it
will -- I know down at our plant we have a filtration system that's a bag -house type system,
and before we put that system in place, the environment was pretty bad down there, and it
was hard to keep people employed there; the turnover rate, I should say.
The bag -house works real well. It's a great system. And, I'd say it would probably be
enlarged down at the Black River Quarry site.
I thank you for the opportunity.
MARK PYWELL: Thank you.
Is there anyone else that wishes to speak at this time? I see no one else. I'll close the
meeting tonight.
At this time I'd also like to thank the City of Tukwila for making their Council Chambers
available to me.
Black River Waste Reduction Center 3-45 August 1991
Final EIS
A final closing comment would just be that the comments received tonight will be reviewed
by myself and the people writing the EIS, and will be included in the Final EIS.
At this time, I would like to thank everybody for coming tonight and giving us their
comments.
The hearing was completed at 9:10 p.m.
Black River Waste Reduction Center
Final EIS
3-46
August 1991
a
3.2.2 Response to Tukwila Public Hearing
Response to Speaker A, Gary VanDusen
1J1. Comment noted.
2. This facility is not intended to accept hazardous contaminants. However, it will be
1 equipped and employees will be trained to detect and handle hazardous substances that
may enter the waste delivered to this facility. This is explained in Section 1.5.1.4 of the
DEIS.
Also all materials at the site will be transferred in enclosed areas that drain to the septic
f P
sewer, not to the stormwater system. In the unlikely event that a spill occurs on the open
paved area, the stormwater structures will be designed with valves to contain spills in one
or more cells of the facility. This will facilitate cleanup and prevent possible pollutant
discharges to the river from spills.
There is concern that hazardous substances (primarily asbestos) may be present in
demolition debris from older structures, and that this could contaminate the stormwater
,1 and/or the air. While asbestos is not uncommon in older structures, the chance that the
proposed facility would result in contamination of either the water or air is relatively low.
r
First the risk of asbestos being included in waste entering this facility is minimized
because its removal and disposal is controlled. Before issuance of a demolition permit
for any building suspected of including asbestos -containing materials, the following
actions would be required.
Inspect the building for asbestos -containing materials
• Test suspected materials
• Properly remove asbestos (removal to be conducted by a licensed contractor)
(� • Complete' a notice of removal
r�J • Properly dispose of asbestos (complete a Waste Shipment Report). The
inspection, removal, and disposal of asbestos are controlled by local, state, and
I federal regulations. They are enforced locally by the Puget Sound Air Pollution
J Control Agency.
While these controls would minimize the risk of receiving asbestos at the proposed
facility, they would not eliminate the chance that asbestos could accidentally or
intentionally be included in waste hauled there. Thus, there is a chance that asbestos
could be (1) blown from a truck hauling asbestos -containing waste to the site, or (2)
released at the site itself when the load is dumped and sorted. The risk of such releases
Black River Waste Reduction Center 3-47 August 1991
Final EIS
would be further reduced through the proponent's proposed safety practices, and through
D
mitigation suggested in the DEIS.
First, the EIS suggests that all loads be covered, and that loads that aren't covered be
levied an additional fee to encourage haulers to cover future loads. (Current state law
does not require that loose loads be covered, only that six inches of freeboard be
maintained.) Second, the proponent has committed to training employees to identify and
properly handle hazardous substances that may illegally enter the facility. Third, the EIS
suggests that at least one of the employees on duty be specifically qualified to identify
various forms of asbestos -containing materials. Fourth, the EIS suggests that air
monitoring be conducted routinely to monitor asbestos levels. And fifth, the processing
building will be equipped with a dust collection system (including a HEPA filter) that
will capture airborne particulate matter.
See Section 1 of this FEIS for additional safety measures.
3. Comment acknowledged.
4. Please refer to the response to the City of Tukwila's letter, comment &
S. To be effective, visual screening can be placed anywhere between the viewer and the
object to be screened. However, placing vegetative screening closer to the viewer is
1 P g g
typically more effective because it increases the apparent size of the screening relative to
the object behind it. Therefore, for viewers on Foster Golf Links, the apparent size
(height) of the screening would be greater if planted on the east edge of the course
(closer to viewers) rather than on the west edge of the site (further from viewers). This
would reduce the time required for the vegetation to create an effective visual screen as
it would appear taller (relative to the building behind it) sooner.
Trees northeast and east of the greens would increase the shade time on the greens.
However, the increased shade would be small based on (1) the relative path of the sun,
and (2) the existing ridge east of the greens.
The relative path of the sun varies from winter to summer, but it travels generally east
to west. From March 21 to September 21, the sun rises north of east and sets north of
west. During the remaining six months, the sun rises and sets south of east, and south
of west, respectively. Therefore, trees northwest of the greens would potentially create
shade only in the morning during late spring and early summer. They would not shade
O
the greens at all from late summer, through the fall, winter, and early spring. Trees more
directly east of the greens would create morning shade during early spring and late
summer. However, there is another factor that reduces the shade time that these trees
would cause. From these greens, the existing ridge east of the golf course creates an
F1
Black River Waste Reduction Center
Final EIS
3-48
August 1991
effective horizon that currently does not allow the sun to reach these greens until well
after sunrise. Trees between the greens and the ridge top will extend the shade time, but
only to the extent that they project above an imaginary plane drawn from the green to
the ridge top. Given the height and proximity of the ridge to the greens, the increased
shade from additional trees would not be great.
If the City of Tukwila will not consider allowing vegetative screening on the east side of
the golf course, then other effective mitigation suggested in the DEIS, such as planting
on the west side of the site, could be required instead. This screening will be subject to
the final mitigation document.
6. The 'wetlands" that appear on the site in the 1984 aerial photograph are the settling
ponds that were associated with the mining operations at the Black River Quarry.
Historically, a rock crusher on the west side of the quarry site was connected to a
conveyor system that passed over 68th Avenue South to the proposed site. Under a
Hydraulic Permit, the mining operations pumped water from the Black River for use in
rock and gravel washing. This water was then detained in the settling ponds before
entering the wetland at the north end of the site and then discharging through the existing
culvert to the Duwamish River. In 1987, the crusher was moved, and the settling ponds,
no longer needed, were graded over (Merlino 1991). Filling these settling ponds began
when the property was in the jurisdiction of the City of Tukwila.
Currently, a wetland exists on the north end of the property, and would receive treated
runoff from the on -site stormwater treatment facilities. In commenting on the EIS, the
Department of Wildlife requested that wetland vegetation be restored there. This
` restoration has been suggested in the EIS.
0
n
7. For a discussion of impacts to air, noise, and traffic, see Sections 3.2, 3.5, and 3.8,
respectively, of the DEIS. Also, see the response to the King County Division of Roads
and Engineering letter, comment 2.
Black River Waste Reduction Center 3-49
Final EIS
August 1991
Response to Speaker B, Marie Gardner
1. Comment noted.
2. As discussed in Appendix B of the DEIS, three agencies have air quality jurisdiction:
The United Stated Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Washington Department
of Ecology (Ecology), and the Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency (PSAPCA).
Ecology and PSAPCA maintain air quality monitoring stations. TRC Environmental
Consultants conducted the air and noise impacts studies for this proposal
3. All stormwater runoff from the site will be collected in on -site stormwater management
facilities to prevent pollutants from entering the river.
Black River Waste Reduction Center 3-50 August 1991
Final EIS
Response to Speaker C, Catherine Harris
1. It is expected that the proposed Black River project will be in operation before
completion of the Grady Way/I-405/Interurban Avenue construction. Therefore, the
analysis of 1993 traffic volumes with the proposed project does not include the 'flip-flop "
of the southbound I-405 ramps with Southcenter Boulevard. At present, the City of
Tukwila and WSDOT are securing funding for the intersection relocation, and it is
expected that the Black River project will be asked to contribute money towards this
construction (see the City of Tukwila comment above). The relocation of the ramps, in
combination with other proposed future improvements, will help to relieve some of the
congestion at this location.
2. Cumulative impacts are considered. The analysis of impacts includes the impacts
expected from this proposal added to existing and projected conditions.
The annual traffic volume growth rate used to forecast future traffic volume without the
project is intended to encompass all future growth. This growth includes the normal
increase in traffic due to expanding population and vehicle ownership, as well as any
new projects and facility expansions. Thus, the effect of all publicly announced projects,
as well as those that have not been publicly disclosed, have been taken into account.
3. This use does appear to fall within the uses allowed as principal uses in the L-1 zoning
district, including "manufacturing, processing, assembling, and packaging of articles,
products, or merchandise from previously prepared or synthetic materials. "
4. Please refer to the response to the Department of Ecology's letter, comment 1.
5. Comment noted.
Black River Waste Reduction Center 3-51 August 1991
Final EIS
Response to Speaker D, Dennis Robertson
1. This EIS is a project -specific EIS for Rabanco's proposed Black River Waste Reduction
Center. In 1989, King County issued the Adopted 1989 comprehensive solid waste
management plan (King County Solid Waste Division 1989) which considered several
alternatives for disposal of CDL waste, including the following.
Status quo in which the private sector independently provides disposal without
County participation
Disposal by the private sector via contracts between vendors and King County
Continued private sector activity plus back-up site selection and development by
the County.
This Plan recommended Alternative 2, that the County select and contract with one or
more private vendors to provide disposal services for CDL waste, and, potentially,
materials recovery or recycling services. In December 1989, the County issued a request
for proposals (RFP) from private vendors. In February 1991, and June 1991, King
County issued a Draft EIS, and Final EIS, respectively on the Selection of vrivate
vendor) to provide construction demolition, and land clearing waste handling services
(King County Solid Waste Division 1991 a and 1991 b). Rabanco is one of the three
vendors considered in King County's EIS. King County's EIS considers seven possible
private vendor alternatives available to the County, including. three alternatives involving
selection of a sole vendor, one alternative involving a combination of all three vendors,
and three alternatives involving different combinations of two vendors. King County's
EIS evaluates all of these alternatives (King County Solid Waste Division 1991a and
1991 b).
For the distribution of solid waste facilities, see Figure N--2 in the Adopted 1989 Solid
Waste Management Plan Technical Appendices and Final EIS (King County
Department of Public Works 1989). This map indicates the distribution of landfills and
transfer stations throughout King County. County wide, the distribution is much more
equal, compared to local distribution. Zoning tends to concentrate similar uses such that
within a smaller jurisdiction or sub area, industrial uses will tend to be located close to
other industrial uses.
2. This facility is sized to handle peak loads. The 'peak traffic" into this facility is expected
to occur between 11 am and 3 pm (Section 3.8 of the DEIS). The number of tipping
stations and the tipping floor area are designed to accommodate the anticipated peak
load to avoid the need to queue trucks on 68th Avenue Southwest, and to minimize
truck queuing on site during peak demand.
Black River Waste Reduction Center 3-52 August 1991
Final EIS
Peak demand is an important factor in determining the size of most facilities, including
roadways, sewage treatment plants, supermarkets, shopping malls, parking lots, etc. This
does not mean that the facilities will operate at full capacity during the entire operating
schedule. As a comparison, a supermarket with 14 check-out lanes can open all 14
lanes during peak shopping times. Most of the time, however, only a portion of the lanes
are operating.
3. The individual drivers/haulers will choose which facility to use. Ease of access, driving
time, proximity to waste generation sites, proximity to hauler's offices, and other costs,
will all be factors in their decisions. There is no indication that a significant amount of
waste from Seattle would be diverted from the Third and Lander Street facility to the
proposed Black River facility.
4. Comment acknowledged. The DEIS has been revised to indicate the change in the
expected schedule (7 am to 8 pm Monday through Saturday). See Section 1 of this
FEIS.
5. As described in the traffic analysis, the City of Tukwila and the WSDOT are currently
working together on a project to 'flip-flop" the intersections of the southbound I-405
ramps/Interurban Avenue and Southcenter Boulevard/Interurban Avenue. This project,
when completed, will align Southcenter Boulevard with Grady Way at Interurban
Avenue, while the southbound I-405 ramps will intersect Interurban Avenue at the
present Southcenter Boulevard intersection. While 60% of the trips generated by the
1 Black River project are expected to pass through the intersection of Grady
Way/Interurban Avenue, 90% of the trips that pass through this intersection will be
` traveling I-405. Project trips using Southcenter Boulevard under the existing or planned
configuration are expected to be almost non-existent, mainly because it is difficult to
reach I-405 or I-5 from this street. Therefore, trips generated by the Black River project
are not expected to have a noticeable impact on the Southcenter shopping mall or access
to it. Please see the comment from the City of Tukwila and the subsequent response
above.
J It should also be noted that most CDL haulers do not use large I8-wheeler tractor -trailer
trucks. Most are single -unit tilt bed trucks, or single -unit trucks that carry drop -box
I containers
�J 6. Please refer to the response to comment 5 above.
7. "SEPA contemplates that the general welfare, social, economic, and other requirements
and essential considerations ... will be taken into account in weighing and balancing
alternatives and in making final decisions. However, the environmental impact
statement is not required to evaluate and document all of the possible effects and
l
Black River Waste Reduction Center 3-53 August 1991
Final EIS
considerations of a decision ... Rather, an environmental impact statement analyzes
environmental impacts and must be used by agency decisionmakers, along with other
relevant considerations or documents... " (WAC 197-11-448[1 ]). SEPA further states
that 'Examples of information that are not required to be discussed in an EIS are: �J
Methods of financing proposals, economic competition, profits and personal income and
wages, and social policy analysis (such as fiscal and welfare policies) ... " (WAC 197-I1- f
448[2J). Elements of the environment to be considered under SEPA are detailed in U
WAC 197-I1-444. This list does not include economic impacts.
However, SEPA Rules state that 'Discussion of significant impacts shall include the cost
of and effects on public services, such as utilities, roads, fire, and police protection ... "
(WAC 197-11-440[6][e]). Parks and recreational facilities are included in the list of
public services discussed in SEPA Rules. The potential for impacts to Fort Dent Park
and Foster Golf Links was considered in the DEIS. The analyses indicate that this
proposal would not generate any additional significant use of the park and golf course, j
and its impacts to the environment are not likely to adversely impact use of these U
recreational facilities. For example, during the morning and midday peak hours
projected for 1993, S to 6 vehicles coming from or going to the facility would travel along D
Interurban Boulevard near Foster Golf Links and Fort Dent Park Given the small
impacts expected, it follows that the cost impacts to these public services would not be
significant. See Section 1 of this FEIS for additional discussion.
Also, see the response to comment S above.
8. See the response to comment S above.
9. The trip distribution was based on population and employment data compiled by the 1LI
Puget Sound Council of Governments (PSCOG), and was assigned to the street system
based on travel time studies for all routes likely to be used to access the Black River
facility. The facility operator will not likely be able to choose the specific routes for the
trucks coming to and exiting from the project site. Therefore, the trip distribution
developed for the study reflects a more realistic scenario, where there are many truck D
routes to and from the project site, as opposed to just one through the Grady
Way/Interurban Avenue intersection. This approach was recommended by the City of
Renton environmental review and transportation staff. Mitigation for wear and tear will n
be monitored based on the actual use of the street network Thus, if travel patterns are (_J
different than shown in the traffic analysis, the mitigation is flexible enough to respond
to these shifts. U
10. See the response to comment 9 above.
0
Black River Waste Reduction Center 3-54 August 1991
Final EIS 0
D
J
11. See the response to comment 9 above. For the size of the facility, see the response to
comment 2 above.
12. If the DEIS implied that noise is not additive, it was not intentional. Because of the
logarithmic response of our hearing, however, the decibel scale was established on a
logarithmic basis. As a result, it requires a doubling of the noise source strength to
increase a sound level by 3 dBA. It requires a 10 fold increase in the noise source
strength to increase the sound level by 10 decibels, which is perceived as being roughly
twice as loud.
Because of the relatively high background sound levels in the project area, on -site noise
sources would not have a significant noise impact. They may be audible off -site during
lulls in other noise sources, but the noise would not significantly increase environmental
noise in the area. As acknowledged in the DEIS, however, the increase in the number
of trucks along Oaksdale Parkway would produce a significant noise impact near the
road during the busiest midday hours.
13. When provided with a preliminary copy of the DEIS and asked to comment, the City of
Tukwila did not express any desire that the EIS consider the requirements of Tukwila's
Interurban Special Review Area. The proposed site is outside of Tukwila's Interurban
Special Review Area, and is therefore not subject to that Area's requirements, just as a
proposal within Tukwila, but outside the Area, would not be subject to that Area's
requirements. However, under SEPA, significant environmental impacts that could
potentially occur on or off the site, including in Tukwila, are analyzed in the DEIS.
14. These summarized comments are responded to in comments 1-13.
Black River Waste Reduction Center 3-SS August 1991
Final EIS
Response to Speaker E, Joan Hernandez
1. Comment noted.
2. Given existing and projected conditions, the DEIS describes existing conditions in the
vicinity and considers the impact of the facility.
Any expansion of the facility or operations that would require additional permitting or
approval would be subject to additional SEPA review.
3. In addition to the dust control measures mentioned in this comment, there will also be
a dust collection system in the processing building. Stormwater will be treated on site,
as described in Section 3.3 of the DEIS. Washdown water from inside the building will
go into the sanitary sewer.
4. Comment noted.
5. Comment noted. Please see Sections 3.2 and 3. 5 for descriptions of impacts to air, and
noise, respectively.
6. Comment noted.
7. Although it is acknowledged that this project will generate an additional 868 trips per
day, this is a relatively small number. By comparison, Grady Way currently carries
approximately 26,000 vehicles per day (two-way volume) east of its intersection with
Interurban Avenue. If 60% of the trips generated by this project travel on Grady Way,
traffic volume will increase by 520 vehicles, or approximately 2%. The normal variation
of traffic volumes from day to day is approximately 5%. In addition, most of these trips
will fall during non -peak periods of traffic congestion on adjacent streets, and thus
should not severely impact the operation of the surrounding street network
8. Among the potential impacts from the proposed Boeing development of the Longacres
property, the potential impact that would most likely be relevant to the proposed
Rabanco facility would be traffic. A traffic analysis of the Boeing proposal is not yet
available, so the specific traffic generation and distribution projections from this proposal
cannot be considered. However, for the Black River Waste Reduction Center DEIS, the
annual traffic volume growth rate used to forecast future traffic volume without the
proposal is intended to encompass future growth. This includes the normal increase in
traffic due to expanding population and vehicle ownership, as well as any new projects
and facility expansions programmed to occur within the forecasted time frame. Thus,
the effect of all publicly announced projects, as well as those that have not been publicly
disclosed, have been taken into account.
Black River Waste Reduction Center
Final EIS
3-56
August 1991
J
I_1 9 Comment noted. Please see Section 3.6 of the DEIS for a more complete description
of the land uses on the Tukwila side of the Duwamish River, including many
(� manufacturing activities and other light- and medium -industrial uses.
IL
11
f]
II
0
Black River Waste Reduction Center 3-57 August 1991
Final EIS
I
Response to Speaker F, Louise Strander a
1. Comment noted.
T area or the proposal was selected to incorporate the areas o probable
2. he study f P P P f
significant impact. The traffic analysis indicates that the most heavily impacted
intersections were considered. Activity on West Valley Highway was considered, and was
reflected by traffic volumes presented in the DEIS. Regarding waste blow-out from
trucks, see Section 1.1 of this FEIS.
3 In the interest of providing a conservative assessment, the noise analysis ignored ground
effects and terrain. If terrain were considered, calculated noise impacts would not
change for hillside locations with a direct line -of -sight to the facility. Calculated noise
impacts would be reduced at locations where the line -of -sight to the facility is interrupted
by intervening terrain or where the line -of -sight is near the ground.
The noise assessment determined that noise generated at the facility would have a slight
impact on adjacent property. The assessment did not consider any additional benefits
from noise -sensitive behavior by employees and truck drivers. Therefore, noise impacts
would be reduced compared with those described in the EIS if the employees and drivers ( j
are more noise -conscious. U
4. Localized air pollution generated by project -related truck trips was specifically analyzed
and quantified in the DEIS. The analysis demonstrated that carbon monoxide
concentrations would remain well below ambient standards along Oaksdale Parkway.
S. Although the plans for the commuter rail are not yet fully developed, it is the traffic
consultant's understanding that the plan is to use the existing Burlington Northern
Railroad tracks for both commuter and freight transportation. Train loading operations U
at the Black River facility will occur on a spur track off the main rail line and train U
movements on the main line will be scheduled to avoid conflict with the commuter rail
and other rail activity. a
6. Comment noted. See Sections 3.3, 3.4, and 3.8 for a description of mitigation measures
and potential impacts to water quality, fisheries, and transportation, respectively. o
Black River Waste Reduction Center 3-S8
Final EIS
D
�l
August 1991
Response to Speaker G, Albert E. Arrington
1. Most of the trucks hauling waste to the project site will be from independent sources, and
thus not under the control of the facility operator. Therefore, it will be difficult to control
or dictate the routes used by the trucks. The trip distribution for the traffic impact
analysis was designed to reflect trucks traveling to and from the project site using many
routes. Significant use of local streets is not anticipated because these streets are more
indirect and create greater travel times. Nonetheless, if the City of Renton or any other
ilocal jurisdiction wishes to prevent trucks from traveling on certain streets, the easiest way
to do this is to establish load limits or official truck routes on specific streets. Initially,
additional load limits may require additional police enforcement on these streets, but it
IL will prevent trucks from using them as shortcuts.
n 2. Please refer to the response to the King County Division of Roads and Engineering letter,
I I comment 2.
3. The analysis of potential impacts to wildlife expects that noise impacts are not likely to
be significant (DEIS, Section 3.4).
Black River Waste Reduction Center 3-59 August 1991
Final EIS
0
Response to Speaker H, Steve Lawrence
0
1. See the response to Tukwila Public Hearing Speaker D, Dennis Robertson, Comment 7. Q
2. The visual mitigation suggested in the DEIS does not intend that golf greens be moved.
If insufficient space exists between the greens and the railroad grade, trees could be
planted on the proposed site, as discussed in Section 3.7 of the DEIS. See the response
to Tukwila Public Hearing Speaker A, Gary VanDusen, comment 5.
3. See the response to Tukwila Public Hearing Speaker D, Dennis Robertson, comment 7.
4. Predicted increases in noise levels at the Black River heronry resulting from the project
are unlikely to elicit a measurable response by nesting great blue herons. While noise
criteria have not been developed to evaluate wildlife responses, the projected noise
increases are negligible to humans. Available evidence suggests that the herons are
tolerant of existing levels of traffic and industrial activity, and there is no reason to
believe that adding another facility more than a5 mile from the nesting trees will hinder
flight patterns or other heron biology. As stated in the DEIS, the heronry has tripled
during the last four years despite construction on Oakesdale Avenue during parts of two
nesting seasons and the attendant traffic increases within 1,000 feet of the heronry.
5. The bald eagle observed flying over the Green River may have been one of several
nesting pairs in the Greater Seattle area, or possibly a migrating bird. The nearest known
bald eagle nesting territory is in Seward Park on Lake Washington, several miles north
of the project site. The Washington Department of Wildlife has no documented record
of a bald eagle nest within 400 feet of the proposed project.
6. Where significant impacts are likely (for example, see pavement and bridge impacts,
Section 3.&2 of the DEIS) the DEIS describes these impacts, and discusses extensive
measures intended to mitigate these effects.
Black River Waste Reduction Center 3-60 August 1991
Final EIS
Response to Speaker I, Scott Nangle
I 1. No variance is needed. The building was designed to comply with applicable height
restrictions. Renton's Zoning Code, Section 4-31-2 (City of Renton 1990) defines "height
of building" as:
"a vertical distance at the center of a building's principal front measured from the
level of the first floor above grade to the ... center height between eaves and ridges
} for gable, hip or gambrel roofs. For buildings set back from the street line, the
J height may be measured from the average elevation of the finished grade, along
the front of the building. First floor above grade means the floor which is not
iJ more than four feet sir inches (4'6') above grade. "
'J From this definition, the 50-feet height limit is measured from finished grade at the front
(east) side of the building, to the center between the eaves and ridge of the building's
eastern section (over the tipping stations).
2. The suggested building coloring mitigation was intended to include the roof, as this would
be the most visible surface from the central and northern part of Tukwila Hill. To clarify
this, the DEIS has been amended to specify that all exterior surfaces (including walls and
roof) should be appropriately colored. See Section 1 of this FEIS.
3. Comment acknowledged. Figure 3.7-3 has been corrected and reprinted in this FEIS.
4. The 808 truck trips per day reflected in the traffic analysis do account for both inbound
n and outbound trips, as well as those trips associated with hauling recycled material. As
(} described in the EIS, most of the nonrecyclable waste will be hauled away from the
project site by train, thereby reducing the number of trucks trips on the local street
network
5. Section 3.9.2.1 states that "there is some potential for impacts to the Foster Golf Links
(1 or Fort Dent Park as a result of traffic, air, noise, or aesthetic impacts. " Given that
} potential impacts would be due to impacts on these specific elements, the DEIS refers
to those respective sections for a discussion of mitigation.
6. Mitigation costs would be the proponent's responsibility, subject to conditions of the
mitigation document. See the response to Tukwila Public Hearing Speaker A, Gary
VanDusen, comment 5.
7. It is unlikely that the top pick (the rubber -tired vehicle that lifts containers) could be
electrified. However, an electric 'yard goat" may be feasible, and the DEIS has been
modified to include such mitigation.
Black River Waste Reduction Center 3-61 August 1991
Final EIS
A, Gary VanDusen, 5,
a
8. See the response to Tukwila public hearing speaker comment and
the response to Tukwila public hearing speaker F, Louise Strander, comment 5 above.
5,
(�
9. See the response to Tukwila public hearing speaker A, Gary VanDusen, comment and
U
the response to Tukwila public hearing speaker F, Louise Strander, comment 5 above
10. See the response to Tukwila public hearing speaker D, Dennis Robertson, comment 1.
11. The energy -average sound level (Leq) was used to describe noise impacts because it is
a simpler noise descriptor than the L2.5, L8.33, L25 descriptors that more rigorously
demonstrate compliance. As discussed in the text, the maximum sound level identified
in state, Tukwila and Renton regulations can be exceeded for specific periods of time. 0
The Leq descriptor takes both the "maximum" levels and the allowable exceedances into
account. Although most of the text describes impacts in terms of Leq, Table 5 in
Appendix C identifies specific sound levels attributable to the facility for comparison with 0
environmental noise regulations.
12. Page 1 of Appendix C includes the statement that 'Renton and Tukwila environmental
noise ordinances apply the same criteria as the Washington State regulation. " In fact,
both the criteria and the maximum permissible sound levels are identical. It is true that
Tukwila's noise ordinance has a provision that penalizes pure tones by 5 dBA, but
Section 8.22.150 specifically exempts back-up alarms from environmental noise limits
and the tonal noise penalty. n
13. Foster Links is zoned agricultural. Agricultural property is included in the least restrictive
noise district in Washington State noise regulation, but is not identified in the definitions n
of noise districts in Tukwila's noise regulation. For evaluating noise impacts (rather than U
compliance with noise regulations), the DEIS noise analysis addresses the noise impacts
of the proposed action as if Foster Links and Fort Dent Park were residential noise 0
districts.
14. As stated in the DEIS, the impulsive noise levels were measured at a distance of 100
feet. The noise regulations pertain to property lines. Because property lines are more
than 100 feet from the sources of impulsive noise, compliance with the noise regulations
is expected. To date, there is no plan to apply for a variance.
15. The text has been corrected to state that operation hours are from 7 am to 8 pm rather
than from 8 am to 8 pm. (�
16. The text has been revised to note that Lmax refers to the maximum sound level. Table U
5 on page 10 clearly demonstrates compliance with the local and state environmental a
0
Black River Waste Reduction Center 3-62 August 1991
Final EIS r-J
sound regulations because the L2.5, L&33, and L25 are less than allowable levels at each
receiving location.
There is no reason to consider the 10 dBA night-time penalty because the facility would
not operate at night (where night is specifically defined as 10 pm to 7 am).
17. The discussion of train noise acknowledges that the proposed recycling center would add
an average of 1 more train trip to the tracks north of the site each day. It also
acknowledges that this would produce an additional peak noise event due to another
passing train (an average of 38 per day instead of 37 per day). Near the waste recovery
center, the train would be moving relatively slowly and would only be moving north of
the site.
Another way to look at train noise impacts is to consider the project's effect on daily
Qaverage sound levels. The text notes that the additional train would add 0.1 dBA to the
daily average equivalent sound level attributable to trains.
18. Although the noise regulations established by Washington and by Tukwila and Renton
are difficult for many people to interpret correctly, the noise analysis has demonstrated
n compliance with the appropriate environmental noise limits.
�1
U
11
l�
Black River Waste Reduction Center 3-63 August 1991
Final EIS
I
Response to Speaker J, Allan Ekburg U
1. Comment noted.
U
2. The EIS includes an aerial photo of the vicinity, a vicinity map, a site plan, an isometric
view of the facility, and a textual description of the facility and operations. Additional
materials, as noted in the DEIS, are available at the Renton City Hall, Department of
Planning/Building/Public Works.
{�
3. The commentor objects to including mitigation in a draft EIS, and suggests that the
U
DEIS be re -done to take into consideration the points that the citizens raised.
First, it is unclear why the commentor objects to including mitigation in a draft EIS.
SEPA Rules clearly authorize the inclusion of mitigation measures in a draft EIS. The
SEPA Rules section entitled 'EIS Contents, " discusses eight basic sections to be in an
EIS, including, 'Affected environment, significant impacts, and mitigation measures... "
(WAC 197-11-440).
a
Second SEPA does not intend that a draft EIS be re -done merely because people have
commented on it or disagree with it. A basic function of a draft EIS is to obtain
"a
comments. These comments are responded to in a final EIS. SEPA Rules state that
draft EIS (DEIS) allows the lead agency to consult with members of the public, affected
tribes, and agencies with jurisdiction and with expertise. The lead agency shall issue a
DEIS and consider comments as stated in Part Five... A final EIS (FEIS) shall revise
the DEIS as appropriate and respond to comments as required in 197-11-560. An FEIS
shall respond to opposing views on significant adverse environmental impacts and
reasonable alternatives which the lead agency determines were not adequately discussed
in the DEIS. The lead agency shall issue an FEIS as specified by 197-11-460. " (WAC
197-11-405)
4. See the response to Tukwila Public Hearing speaker I, Scott Nangle, Comment 10 for U
discussion of regional solid waste sites.
Water quality and wetlands are discussed in the DEIS, Sections 3.3 and 3.4, respectively. U Also, see the response to Tukwila public hearing speaker A, Gary VanDusen, comment
6.
5. Comment noted. Please see the response to comment 3 above. Also, see Section 3.4
of the DEIS for a discussion of impacts to the heronry.
D
Black River Waste Reduction Center 3-64 August 1991
Final EIS 0
I
J
Response to Speaker K, Joseph B. Anderson
1. Comment noted.
2. Comment noted.
3. See discussion of truck traffic in the DEIS, Section 3.&
Black River Waste Reduction Center 3-65 August 1991
Final EIS
Response to Speaker L, Jack McFarland
1. Comment noted.
2. See Sections 3.5 and 3.8 in the DEIS for discussion of noise and transportation impacts
respectively.
3. Comment noted.
Black River Waste Reduction Center 3-66 August 1991
Final EIS
Response to Speaker M, John McFarland
1. Comment noted.
2. See the response to Tukwila Public Hearing, Speaker D, Dennis Robertson, comment 2.
3. Comment noted.
Q4. Comment noted. The Washington State Patrol uses a mobile scale to enforce weight
limits and other regulations. This has occurred on routes to Rabanco's existing facility
at Third Avenue and Lander Street in Seattle.
�1
J
0
Q
0
a
0
a
J
Black River Waste Reduction Center 3-67 August 1991
I Final EIS
Response to Speaker N, Bobby Wolford
1. Comment noted.
Black River Waste Reduction Center 3-68 August 1991
Final EIS
Response to Speaker O, Jerry Warfield
1. Comment acknowledged. The DEIS, Section 3.8.2.2, specifies that 808 trips per day
translates into 404 trips in and 404 trips out.
0
1
Black River Waste Reduction Center 3-69
1 Final EIS
August 1991
i
Response to Speaker P, Chris Cristich
1. Comment noted.
U
Black River Waste Reduction Center 3-70 August 1991
Final EIS H
a
j
Response to Speaker Q, Steve Spence
1. Comment noted.
Black River Waste Reduction Center 3-71 August 1991
Final EIS
Response to Speaker R, Karen Proctor
1. Comments noted.
Impacts to Foster Golf Links are not expected to be significant. Aesthetic impacts can
be mitigated, and impacts from noise, air, and traffic would be insignificant.
Black River Waste Reduction: Center 3-72 August 1991
Final EIS
I Response to Speaker S, Bruce Bentley
1 1. A dust control system would be installed in the Black River facility. At the proponent's
1 existing facility at Third Avenue and Lander Street in Seattle, the dust control system is
effective enough to exhaust particulate matter at a rate less than 0.05 grains per dry
standard cubic foot.
I
I
U
Black River Waste Reduction Center 3-73 August 1991
Final EIS
I