Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
LUA98-115
i 5 o ORDINARY HIGH HARBOR LAKE WASHINGTON AND WALKWAY R WATER MARK ORDINARY HIli -i R v WATER idARl CW DISCHARGE GATE STRUCTURE �17 E-+ 3b. DOCK i I • -1 t5Vl� M w ���� /.- •\`\\\ \ \\ EXCAVATION/ DISCHARGE •r FO �- • \•� \ Z~ zaN°�'01'E ZE AZ) ahcwwRCERrD."ENKxs011LENGTM'�l IN w`�KP,N 'awcL"`,Aios TUNNEL EXT. I /� Ex-e \ r EZ-+ AaSEMC-INousTRIAL TO TO O ro! w a \I IC 8Ie \ \ \ EZ-Z LEAD-R.1M . In 1 IO 0 TO 1 57 +.':•:•:•::•:' °? \ \I EZ-! OM-NOOSTNAL 15 I5 0 ro 5 K7-19- - I ::•::•:•::•: , �' \ ToTA 11PN-INOu5101AL +5 I 15 0n! riI FUEL•0 • % \ TOM IYAWY ROLL.TO K EXCAVATED FOR NOUSTMAL CLUMPIn I ::STOR4,e \ \ I EZ-5A LEAD-COMMERCIAL 15 10 TOT 51; 2D0, SHORELINE I :TANK N0. 2: ® 1 Ex-\. EE-SC EAU-000000aAL x o ro+SETBACK OOTPRINTp / EZ-00 LEAD-COMMERCIAL e5 TO TO I 2• L I \ ` Ei-u LEAD-G)YYERpK x +o ,0 1 u 1 •••::: ::::::' \ 200' SHORELINE E7-U LEAD-CPCK/L MMEROM ak D D a+ ZI I ' Ex-7 ,•••••:::• • • \\\\I� EZ-SC PCO-CONERCIAL 10 10 TO A 11 L FUEL OIL STORAGE TANKS SETBACK EZ-50 LEAD-0000ERcAL n TO TO I ' a J •�• /— EZ-K LEAD-COYMERaK ZS TO TO 1 e F I. • O / o EZa PCK-COMMERCIAL 15 IS TO I ■ �j I ••......... (TO BE REMOVED N.———— \ / TOTAL ADDITIONAL Yp.Wf TO BE EXCAVATED FOR Ca1YERpK aF.WMP ,,, ,(,YJN w li I Ex-• •. BY OTHERS \L / mw-OL,SANDS*BENEATH p X ': ; EZ-e FORMER TANKS(10 BE CONFIRNW) Tao(aAME'") o ro 1 m "/ a I ::FUEL•OIL :}.' /Y//J ;:STORAGE \\ fi-s ;;VrTA g1;0e716"ACwFIRMOO ..(DUKTR)I o ro I m I I :TANK N0. t —(ONTAINMENT H I I ::FOOTPRINT y1V EERM \\ I TOTAL ABM..VDLLAK TO K EXCAVATED BENEATH FONrr TANKS SSZ Q DZ-1 TPH- IAST KNCATH ro CI TRACKS TOO 5 0 0.5 I I / \( I DZ-Z TM-SORB ALONG NOEL.. SOo 5 o ro! »Z TOTAL'KKK TO K EXCAVATED IN DEMOLITION ZONES I I DISCHARGE M m s I I I E TUNNEL • NTAKE CANNEL / ® Ex-3 1 OIL FILLER • PREMas RECORDS INDICATE LANDS MNOER TANKS MAY HAVE BEEN TREATED MTH on 10 PNEKNT TANK CORROSION.PRESENCE i % F • I I - PIPE 014E ASANDS R6 BE CO r3o,0D 9,HYDROCARBONS(1PH)MTXM !�` / SANDS ILL i 1 vi.\ ® ANSFER 's�o Ex-!D m `U G� I I I YOOIEIED FROM A HART CROWBAR BASE YAP O GATE PUMPHOU$� E ® ' ELEV. 19.27• DATED JUNE 27, 1997. II") STRUCTURE PUMPHOUSE I PI h • ozx —Fp/e' 1 �' E FOUND CONC. MON �fl FO g / I 0.73 SO OF TRUE MH Z I \VLV 80X �� DISCHARGE GATE FH I 0.16E } CORNER ,__ ORDINARY MIOH WATER MARK // • _ I �� 1 200' SHORELINE SETBACK // SETTLING POND PANTO I% SHED TO / SAND BLAST ARE •STORAGE i� \ �t "�/ MINIMUM EKAKTON ZONE LOCATION ARO NUMBER FORMER JET W ,—Td -4 j • ._ LAB AREA AIR I 0i/n%: \ Ez-e SHUFFLE TON \ • (Tr,EXCAVAMVi ZONE Lan00N AND NUMBER CARPENTER POWER PLANT (To BE cFNYEoI SHOP � 'OMP� ox-t <twP RAILROAD mAa TO K DEMarsHEn AND RANCHED :\ T 3 I �' `�GI, —FO➢z xx FUEL OIL PIPELwE To K oEYousHEn AND RENo.ED 1 • '• MH• Iti I F I SCALE: 1'- T!T (e 1/7 X 11) Ff E\ 3 ` a LUMBER I \ SHED TRANSFORMER PLATFORM I e \\/ _2—'1'1' I ASPHALT ' / FH o off ® TT) ® I/� r;(4 O 1 a eo SHORELINE PERMIT EXHIBIT A !+I 50,I,N 1,1 WINEMAN ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING Project No. 97001-4 My fOUS E -E WOmEII RNIIDAD ND EMSTNG MADE ML EWBIM9 UADE I. IN •I VARIES _ FROM 0-1. sus, B• D- SECTION SECTION -D s,•.,F.I 's D-11 5 0-1386 scNE'' "1 D-11 D—1386 NOTE:SECTION DEPICTS TYPICAL EXCAVATION.910TI AND DEPTH DP EXCAVATIONS VARY.PRE-VERIFICATION DEPTH WILL NOT EXCEED 5 FEET. CON HOC GRACE sc T < y/�7/vtj�j \��i��Q9i maim. GO � TEL pL STIXiAOE TANK \O r/i\,‘\\‘' // P(REMONID BY OTHERS) COSMO GRADE r I00'pNtiERI SECTION { SECTION B 11 D-1386 0-11 5 0-1386 NOTE:EXCAVATCN VAIL ONLY BE REQUIRED IF SURFACE SAMPLING INDICATES THE PRESENCE OF TPH-IMPACTED SOL.(TYPICAL) II iilIRIGKillISM IVS GRAPHICS)AEI M ONLD ms IWD NO: 9603931 -A _ SHUFFLETON DECOMMISSIONING PROJECT APPROVAL DATE(Y/0/Y) DRAWN BY C.DAVIDSON B/DY/97 CIVIL DETAILS i DOSIOARD BY B.KELMED6 6/37 /BO NO�/� Mow D NO CHECKED BY M.MO. B/DY/97 LVyl%LS(/ D-11386 I�CJ� 9.0.1 I m. NE B CLOG O0 / / CADO. , - - - S • I 3 Iz N9 I 1 8 usE vA91wGTOK \'y in N 46'5211 2•E mem HARBOR L E _ -- -- - -- 607.89' WAIWN:ToN E • ueso.No P.ARO NAUWAY NRRsa II -E I4/ STE J --eI�II f pARR a n00t M.F. EATNUNF—'�'v °WAIT NM WW1 HA.I -/ T S CT I/i a40K ORI YF q1/ Rla asToorse \ -'••T N eTN sT waS / (mR'�E°nLMom ar oTH�T _ / \I', GAr RENTON o "„'vim 11 NOT TO SCALE ICI ki — ®YN: VICINITY MAP3 -MI*-a a GENE COULON ELE�19.27' PARK p, Y eox _� I r' l TRH SCHEDULE OF DRAWINGS so ASP� -1�l m J°o'�" C� DRAWING NO. TITLE FCN.RDA B'`w N'`n"�'E �� ro \ D-11989 VICINITY MAP AND SITE PLAN ER��/ r Is— I i,,\ EXISTING SOIL EXPLORATION BODING CO. / \ D-1198I LOCATION PLAN / ❑ q f \-^\ D-11888 EXCAVATION PLAN C / `1 1 FAL T1 II I M I \ D-H88S CIVIL DETAILS tRANI�KAW PIATFOKI '�` ttucl / eDIIS �/ / TH I T THE SIIIFFlETON DECOMMISSOMING REMEDAL ACT, .COgSSTMG OF EXCAVATION AND 1 .f- OFT-STE LANDHLL DISPOSAL I%IMPACTED SONS.AND DEMOURON AND REMOVAL a `W _/ W W I / vJ• ASSOCIATED SIRUCNRES,SHALL BE ACCOMPLISHED IN ACCORDANCE OM THESE PUNS yx _AIIGLTl10•$ / \ Jn_ .y, AND THE ASSOCIATED SPECIFlCATIONS. / \ �� ( t S /yRALT _vp,F K' 2 BASE MAP PREPARED EROY MANN.PROVIDED BY PUCET POKER. ,15�� pnBHOW B? O. LOCATIONS OF UNDERGROUND PIPELINES AND OTHER STRUCTURES S1OWN ON THE PLANS /I ry// II .WD uI]TAVs[ O// �T" ARE BASED ON UNITED AS-BUILT T EIXLMARpI AND DSHOULDELEv BE CONSOE.E ISTINGAPPROXIMATE. / / ALEV _7T PIPE.C.U SHALL YIELD VERIFY THE LOCATORS AND ELEVAII°F OP ALL EXISTING 1 Uc .50° O11WR PFLNES URLIRES,AND OTHER STRUCTURES WMIN 50 FEET 6 PLANNED E%CAVARpI 474. ../.. ` I S T I/ ' —1.TAB 7,y 11 AND DFLOUTON BEFORE COMMENCING REMEDIAL ACTINTES. 1. ��� . \\ PTax Tt `ZAP aw rE�o EI 0 / �' B I qua MINGI ¢Ev.MOT /f :a 4 rouNo «HwaRA NN TARO 0110 S.W.CORNER /� a TRACT NO.6fiji,. �rA # / A 2 96 iir 1. �� z L. A O J? 495.7vA \" MRu1GTAN NonTHEW R,XRDAD Rev PR..,uAE—_— -_-- -�EUNAr'�.,386.66 rc 0 B nDRLI NOT. NORTHERN R R• /v PS\�\N \\ •PMll fi'R�Aj'IP.PLYC®�ngHp1 7 fROM Ci of�.N'�PI x0,E5. ROO.EHTRA»a(PRIV.ROAD) V-PKE W HaffICROWSER I FIEND oRlraw.i Yusr BE CAN¢o •FH FIRE HYDRANT I ON GRAPHICS SYSTEY ONLY MANHIXF A M. -S— SERER UNE '^'°'®^�' TWO N0: 9603031 :a .a,; VALVE BOX -T oo)- TELEPHONE(UNDERGROUND) APPROVIL DUE(u/DM SHUFFLETON DECOMMISSIONING PROJECT i ON LI —F- FIRE LINE -v— RATER UNE lin 10 PRAWN BY S.PARK n/n/B7 VICINITY MAP AND SITE PLAN - FUEL ONE �+-- RNLNOAD TRACKS Soda Feet DESIGNED BY B.KF11EM5 B/i7/B7 /�5� NO —P(u1)— POWER(OVERHEAD) - - FENCE - ^^ �pA T T D—1 1 383 CHECKED BY N.WINDOW 6/2797 U ENGINEERING Re I -P(UG)- POKER(UNOERCRWND) - GR LAG OUT / A MO Na MOM US. NCANRIEa 'ERE NO B I 7 I 6 I a } I y I 2 I ; L.lw EXCAVATION SCHEDULE y✓�-'',.I, \ ail EXGVAlN1N/ ° I J �L— N —— \\` ` '2 pp AVATIO POTENn/iL GIEYICAIS aYEN50N5 W FEET xq[U1E N N FO \ \ \ I z� I EaE(E:ron DF CaRCERN LENciH ■DIN Dmn1 cU■C YARDS DISCHARGE- '� //J/// Q+ \ % SA \\ „ I Ez-I ARSENIC-NDusnnAL m xo oro 3- AA TUNNEL EXT. // ■ \ % \ Ez-x LEAD-INDusTRIAL ,m Io o TO I 67 x I I CONTAINMENT ;; \�? \ \�_ I Ez-s TP- DUSIRAL 15 15 oro 5 ax -E I V. L Ez-A PH-INS s RIA s s oro 3 zs —19 I BERM ;: ;:�:..�.',. I •\ \ ^I N i TOTAL MINIMUM VOLUME i0 BE EXCAVATED FOR INDUSTRIAL 0.CM Ile J I I I -TORAGE•• ® I % \\ IOI Ez-50 LEAD-COMMEROAL Is 10 0ro1 6 \ �y. E2-513 LEAD-COMMERCIAL 30 10 0 TO I 11 r RINK NO. .4:.: 1 az-V k - *.it') EZ-SC LEAN-COIELEROIAL 65 10 0 TO 1_ xaI 1 . c.•�.. I j \\ \ EZ-6A LEAD-CO MERCIAL 35 ,0 0 ro I 13 W I • \\ EZ-66 PCB•AEAD-CCOYEROIAL 10 10 0 TO 1 QEZ4 ••♦••'.�.�.�.ti�•5•••,• % I EZ-6C PC}m6ERCIAi 05 10 I TO n 11 ———' — FZ-aD LEADCOYYEROAL l5 IO 0 TO, xB _ d I ° • \ \\ I Z 22-6E LEAD-COMMEROAL 25 10 0 TO, 9 FUEL OIL STORAGE RINKS //�•" Ez-1 PCa.-CawERaa Is Is oro, ° 1 Ez (TO BE REMOVED \ I TOTALAOOITIOIA VOLUME TO BE EXCAVATED FOR COI YEROIAL CEM UP u ( .i.i.} i% BY OTHERS) \ / EZ-5 TPH-OILY SANDS.BENEATH W(DIAME ER) 0 TO t 291 ..�4.i•YI•�i..... FOIRMER RAINS(TO BE CONFIRMED) /74/i ;:;.TORAGE '}:�: 6 NH \� / Ez-9 TPH-OILY SAWS*BENEATH ,Do(DAMETER) 0 TO I z91 HMO/TANKS(TO BE CONVIRMED) I - *TANK NO. 1:. o-1•3r ,� I TOTAL AOOITKX+AL VOLWE TO BE EXCAVATED BENEATH FORMER TANKS sex 11 O- YYY I I . t�T- 1♦ A." Dz-I TR.-BALLAST BENEATH TRACKS l(p a O TO as Iw -D I / • V- 0Z-x RH-SOILS ALONG%PEUNE BOO 3 oro 3 M7 I -•• DISCHARGE H, I = TOTAL VOLUME TO BE EXCAVATED IN MAMMON ZONES 371 I I D,�>06 I I r TUNNEL • INTAKE TUNNEL / 11// • PREVIOUS RECORDS INDICATE SANDS UNDER TANKS MAY HAVE BEEN Ir360 i , III 'I PIPE OIL OR OR ABSENCE OF TOTALLPE1RROLEUMM PREVENT TANK TP)%RHINE 00 1. I� e F ®I THE SANDS MU.BE CONFIRMED BY OTHER(. - n' "-GATE • PUMP OUR sic Ez4 I ELEV. 19.27t OM + ' �� PUMPHOUSEIII'i,STRUCTURE Io-1 3r J• -yo NL ■ JI.,(.1G) FOAL FOUND CONC. MON r. rn FO • Dz-S a . g /i MH �•-� 1 0.73 SO OF TRUE Z VLV BOX Fsi -s DISCHARGE G/(TE0.16 E CORNER -'-` / FH III J j L c► % LEAN TOI T MINIMUM ..as SETTLING POND I PAINTS I SHED A EXCAVATION ZONE LOCATION AND NUMBER SAND BLAST AREA STOR• E sg • I \ FORMER JET _ w \ LAB AREA W A-. I �/,■ II \ \ �+ ADOInpIAL E%CAVAnOIR ZONE LOCATION AND NUMBER SHUFFLETON IP \\ (To BE CONFIRMED) POWER PLANT , ,on Dz-I — SHOP rpQ Li— RAILROAD TRACK TO BE DEMOUSHEO AND REMOVED _ • f�j} DI-11 3 To , 1 •I1 `/w CFO FUEL OIL PIPELINE TO BE DEMOLISHED AND REMOVED I iMaw ''L IIF`,AllF F ( e- \ 3 R \ -e a LUMBSHED TRANSFOR e f PLATFORM �� I ■ \79\ /__/ Jx 3 FoH ■ T(UG) ■ 8' _ / BVLVOX W W i!it �� \\ s�1 — 4 A9— \ / /■�vy�---—ASPR---ROARS y ,0 \ / T OIL TAjJKS Mkt •\ ! �j ASPHALT �Q. 6'I ' I OIL CONTROL 7 / ir. // IGAS❑ O❑ PUMP HOUSE S \\ \ oRIaK.iM/ / ISLAND .HOUSE v \ ON GRAPHICS SnH[M ONLY lee mHs IWO NO 9503931 _ -A SHUFFLETON DECOMMISSIONING PROJECT Q APPRVIAL DATE NAP) DRAM Of S.PARK 6/27/97 EXCAVATION PLAN sca.�n ED DESIGNED BY B.KELLEMS 6/x7/97Z°Otea DARING Ho RR Ho CHECKED BY M.NINEMAN 6/27/97 ENGINEERING D-1 1 385 RLL OFPARTYEM AS SHOWN cLAa. mown..�. LAG OUT / / N. I 8 I 7 I 6 I I + I 3 I 2 1I . I :i . asa NEIGHBORHOOD MAP I ��\ 1. � � �® ?", "' l* ':-,,,,,I..,.. SHUFFLETON STEAM PLANT SITE REMEDIATION 1 1 13* - y . ' tillk...1...,..., ....;.: \,,:i -71111141k.s. i -.1: **!. 1:4‘. L :. ! 1.?"*"j ' '4'14 . ist4 ), q, n* �N 1 N .is�,�e �' � ti �. !!!! . Eon s. la .... .. . .. r,4, \ O t4!11iii r • •. ° i . _ :,,,,, . 04, = %.r. \\A , . t !if %fib t . . 4, VI HE Ee : h ......_, , ,„ _,,, . '.1r, ; -i .1.1, _„.12,‘,,, lik. IS I ... .uc.tw• I O \k4ii o • R � wig p Bt ‘ .,,, so4 ;..-;, ;5' :I! ,..m 04•7,.,..t: • �s ` p ; \ eI ..g r;. 34 t GENE OOU • J ;NIA ; t .[ NT. sr a - ,, iiii061,...;/ ......, s i.. ,..)• il "..f.'..f.'-' I 1.., ..Er .' a • ..cl ANDS ,A �.� '� la/ MIN =': Mir: aWl r ..�`, , T li 1 it E f �� 'St4INGt LANDS 1 •�, .` a ./ �1 'i o^ ., i.' , E Daft^ V/1r//; ^ ['i^;a n • , • \� \ / 8 " N o 1 ,H),SHINGT K A ,.i, sutrasPU011 1M MUM R I r/EIf10.ORM[111N1 Hf 1 � • ^ l e n I n l [ • _ T _seuwTOM o E �"' Y, x' IF, " ' \� ° u 11 � �r//.1\ { y�_....amry_ `A. :, _ ,,`/ ' $ N NtON °G 1 , 1///' ` 1 ' BfL r `. IN E �(�r. ,11 du r� orE ttO1.N ' �I i ' o . \ 0 11,�.. . • ._, f-------- ;� pit b: 1' win'° E•"' \ 1‘.) 4. '1 ' ' [ • , ATNt ON':. .- uir,.. ' . . — .v . : ll iii* . 3 -Iry ,,, A ., y 11 IP "E 'T OF RE TON � '�tt� � � • Air LEGEND • �• C•, —'`imiOPi-:,.fit = 2500'Boundary AIRPOR !'N 1E. ,. �+� I �► \, = Renton City Lim '''\ ' I �i 0 tin `� �� I\ 1"= 800'Scale Ii/ ITN 1 ,0 fi it . ° 11 ,/ il- . ....,...lid.. III �� •1 ��%/ Northrn Santa Fe Burlington THE BOEING COMPANY BOEING COMPANY 1700 E Golf Rd#400 PO Box 3707 PO Box 3707 Schaumburg, IL 60173 Seattle,WA 98124 Seattle,WA 98124 Parcel #052305900301 Parcel #072305900101 Parcel #082305901108 Northrn Santa Fe Burlington Sound Energy&Elec Puget Sound Energy&Elec Puget 1700 E Golf Rd#400 PO Box 90868 PO Box 90868 Schaumburg,IL 60173 Bellevue,WA 98009 Bellevue,WA 98009 Parcel #082305902700 Parcel # 082305905604 Parcel # 082305905703 THE BOEING COMPANY BOEING CO THE BOEING COMPANY PO Box 3703 PO Box 1303 PO Box 3703 Seattle,WA 98124 Seattle,WA 98111 Seattle,WA 98124 Parcel #082305907907 Parcel #082305918706 Parcel #082305920405 Sound Energy&Elec Puget CITY OF RENTON PO Box 90868 200 Mill Ave S Bellevue,WA 98009 Renton,WA 98055 Parcel #334450000602 Parcel #334450077501 Zed sort oc labels %-1\5,E(. NEIGHBORHOOD MAP '.�' \ it ��� • -I » . 4. — — , ` • � 1_A `I - � . po' � , i i„ 1 f y r- d'Au '''.7.,:(," ..: il.,‘,....- tt.:::...-1..1) . rG • ...,......:$ ": lit, . , ... \sr ,„ .2; , is \\\ ' .. . ,.. , ' ' 1.,‘ .. , \ ... ...$: ‘ \ . -- ' or ` , I d LEGEND ore I _ -- ' g'; = Renton Gin Lim I 10/15/98 13:30 FAX 425 649 7098 DEPT OF ECOLOGY LJ uuz stare a „r.: 9� iee9 N° STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY Northwest Regional Office, 3190 - 160th Ave S.E. • Bellevue, Washington 98008-5452 • (425) 649-7000 September 22, 1998 O Barry Lombard cA Puget Sound Energy r Op ti7',o 815 Mercer Street MER-04S 0C RF,�, ' Seattle, WA 98109 R T L C ga Dear Mr. Lombard: /L/FO Re: City of Renton Permit# LUA-98-115, SM PUGET SOUND ENERGY - Applicant Shoreline Substantial Development Permit# 1998-NW-10147 The subject Shoreline Management Substantial Development Permit, to conduct soil remediation activities associated with demolition of the Shuffleton Steam Plant, including removal of 1245 cubic yards of material, has been filed with this office by the City of Renton on September 15, 1998. The development authorized by the subject permit may NOT begin until the end of the 21-day appeal period, October 6, 1998. The Shorelines Hearings Board will notify you by letter if this permit is appealed. Other federal, state, and local permits may be required in addition to the subject permit. If this permit is NOT appealed, this letter constitutes the Department of Ecology's final notification of action on this permit. Sincerely, Par Alice Kelly, Shorelands Specialist Shorelands and Environmental Assistance Program AMK:amk SDP.DOC cc: Gregg Zimmerman, City of Renton 41 CITS )F RENTON `WI. ' Planning/Building/Public Works Department Jesse Tanner,Mayor Gregg Zimmerman P.E.,Administrator September 29, 1998 Mr. Barry Lombard Puget Sound Energy 815 Mercer Street, MER-04S Seattle, WA 98109 SUBJECT: Shuffleton Soil Remediation Project No. LUA-98-115,ECF,SM Dear Mr. Lombard: This letter is to inform you that the comment and appeal periods have ended for the Environmental Review Committee's (ERC) Determination of Non-Significance for the above-referenced project. No appeals were filed on the ERC determination. The Shoreline Substantial Development Permit (SM) was sent to the Department of Ecology (DOE) on September 10, 1998. The project may not proceed until we receive notification from DOE. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (425) 430-7270. For the Environmental Review Committee, Lesley Nishihira Project Manager FINAL.DOC 1055 South Grady Way-Renton, Washington 98055 This paper contains 50%recycled material,20%post consumer CITY OF RENTON CURRENT PLANNING DIVISION AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAILING On the 1`ti't' day of Seprt' , 1998, I deposited in the mails of the United States, a sealed envelope containing Senor \ ' \)eY' ' documents. This information was sent to: Name Representing trt of EGOto,1 RaWtA lAw►15avd ?u.stdtt Sou wd C-hc (Signature of Sender) 4 4k- STATE OF WASHINGTON ) SS COUNTY OF KING ) I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that Qi..IV/A . = % L signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her/their free and voluntary act for Me uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. Dated: /o r S `� 277 4_.9 Notary Public' and for the State of Wa i ton Notary (Print) MARILYN KAMCHEFF My appointment exp 6; "--C;C.' L... •.'29/99 Project Name: St^t+.fe ttrtbv, Soil Reme;tta�uv� Project Number: LUP . °I - ItS, Swt,EC.f NOTARY.DOC CIT' DF RENTON Planning/Building/Public Works Department Jesse Tannerr,,Mayor Gregg Zimmerman P.E.,Administrator September 11, 1998 State Department of Ecology Northwest Regional Office 3190 160th Ave. SE Bellevue, WA 98008-5452 SUBJECT: Shoreline Management Substantial Development Permit for Shuffleton Soil Remediation/File No. LUA-98-115;SM Gentlemen: Enclosed is the Shoreline Substantial Development Permit for the above referenced project. The permit was issued by the City of Renton on September 9,1998. We are filing this action with the Department of Ecology and the Attorney General per WAC 173-14-090. Please review this permit and attachments and call me at (425) 430-7270 if you have any questions or need additional information. Sincerely, Lesley Nishihira Project Manager Enclosures: Copy of Original Application Affidavit of Public Notice/Publication Site Plan SEPA Determination cc: Office of Attorney General City of Renton, Transportation Systems City of Renton, Utility Systems Applicant SHLTR.DOC 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 COThis paper contains 50%recycled material,20%post consumer r CITY OF RENTON SHORELINE MANAGEMENT ACT OF 1971 PERMIT FOR SHORELINE MANAGEMENT SHORELINE SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT APPLICATION NO.: LUA98-115, ECF, SM DATE RECEIVED: July 15, 1998 DATE OF PUBLIC NOTICE: July 22, 1998 DATE APPROVED: September 9, 1998 DATE DENIED: N/A TYPE OF ACTION(S): [X] Substantial Development Permit [ ] Conditional Use Permit [ ] Variance Permit Pursuant to Chapter 90.58 RCW, the City of Renton has granted a permit: This action was taken on the following application: APPLICANT: Puget Sound Energy PROJECT: Shuffleton Soil Remediation DEVELOPMENT DESCRIPTION: The proposal is for soil remediation activities at the Shuffleton Steam Plant site. The purpose for the remediation is to prepare the site for future sale. The project consists of the excavation and offsite treatment or landfill disposal of soils containing chemicals of concern exceeding the Model Toxics Control Act cleanup standards. Soils will be excavated from 10 separate areas on the site and will total a maximum of 1,245 cubic yards. Approximately 849 cubic yards of the soil is associated with the removal of two above-ground fuel oil storage tanks. The tank demolition activity was previously approved under a separate permit. Post-excavation soil testing will be conducted to verify that soils exceeding remedial action goals have been removed. In addition to the soil excavation, the proposal includes the demolition of two accessory structures (900 square feet and 440 square feet), the removal of a portion of railroad tracks, and the removal of fuel oil transfer lines. After completion of the remediation activities, the affected areas will be re- graded to match the adjacent ground surfaces. SHRSUBDV.DOC\ • LEGAL DESCRIPTION: See attached. SEC-TWNP-R: 8 NW, 23 N, 5 E WITHIN SHORELINES OF: Lake Washington APPLICABLE MASTER PROGRAM: City of Renton The following section/page of the Master Program is applicable to the development: Section Description Page 4.02 Conservation Element page 17. 5.04 Urban Environment page 25. This permit is granted pursuant to the Shoreline Management Action of 1971 and pursuant to the following: 1. The issuance of a license under the Shoreline Management Act of 1971 shall not release the applicant from compliance with federal, state, and other permit requirements. 2. This permit may be rescinded pursuant to Section 14(7) of the Shoreline Management Act of 1971 in the event the permittee fails to comply with any condition hereof. 3. A construction permit shall not be issued until twenty-one (21) days after approval by the City of Renton Development Services Division or until any review proceedings initiated within this twenty-one (21) day review period have been completed. -1//0/146 PlanningB'I ng/P ictor s Administrator Date cc: Attorney General's Office City of Renton, Plan Review(Neil Watts) City of Renton, Surface Water Utility(Ron Straka) Applicant SHRSUBDV.DOC\ CITY OF RENTON SHORELINE MANAGEMENT ACT OF 1971 PERMIT FOR SHORELINE MANAGEMENT SHORELINE SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT APPLICATION NO.: LUA98-115, ECF, SM DATE RECEIVED: July 15, 1998 DATE OF PUBLIC NOTICE: July 22, 1998 DATE APPROVED: September 9, 1998 DATE DENIED: N/A TYPE OF ACTION(S): [X] Substantial Development Permit [ ] Conditional Use Permit [ ] Variance Permit Pursuant to Chapter 90.58 RCW, the City of Renton has granted a permit: This action was taken on the following application: APPLICANT: Puget Sound Energy PROJECT: Shuffleton Soil Remediation DEVELOPMENT DESCRIPTION: The proposal is for soil remediation activities at the Shuffleton Steam Plant site. The purpose for the remediation is to prepare the site for future sale. The project consists of the excavation and offsite treatment or landfill disposal of soils containing chemicals of concern exceeding the Model Toxics Control Act cleanup standards. Soils will be excavated from 10 separate areas on the site CONCURRENCE and will total a maximum of 1,245 cubic yards. DATE ���t'fri Approximately 849 cubic yards of the soil is associated with the removal of two above-ground fuel oil storage tanks. The NAME � - tank demolition activitywas previously �� � approved under a :.l%�. '4 separate permit. Post-excavation soil testing will be COW / conducted to verify that soils exceeding remedial action Z(�iMCtMmJ goals have been removed. In addition to the soil excavation, the proposal includes the demolition of two accessory structures (900 square feet and 440 square feet), the removal of a portion of railroad tracks, and the removal of fuel oil transfer lines. After completion of the remediation activities, the affected areas will be re- graded to match the adjacent ground surfaces. SHRSUBDV.DOC\ CURRENT PLANNING DIVISION • AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAILING< . On the ZL�- day of 1u11 , 1998, I deposited in the mails of the United States, a sealed envelope containing ERc de-tvrntvvoa-i-u r S, documents. This information was sent to: Name Representing Department of Ecology Don Hurter WSDOT KC Wastewater Treatment Division Larry Fisher Washington Department of Fisheries David F. Dietzman Department of Natural Resources Shirley Lukhang Seattle Public Utilities • Duwamish Indian Tribe Rod Malcom Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Joe Jainga Puget Sound Energy (Signature of Sender) ,tct.. k.• Set rr- STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) SS COUNTY OF KING ) I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that ,61,-21 ,La,.. eel signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her/their free and voluntary act for the ENSes and purposes • mentioned in the instrument. Dated: OQLA- /1 1 ._722�� {/ Notary Public ir�and for the State of Was ' on Notary(Print) My appointor 5. COMMISSION EXPIRES 6/29/88 Project Name: Sh l h sail - diatom Project Number: LU,. 96. 115, 1✓'T,r,SVY1 NOTARY.DOC �y = � CIT OF RENTON ..Il Planning/Building/Public Works Department Gregg Zimmerman P.E.,Administrator Jesse Tanner,Mayor August 20, 1998 Washington State Department of Ecology Environmental Review Section PO Box 47703 Olympia, WA 98504-7703 Subject: Environmental Determinations Transmitted herewith is a copy of the Environmental Determination for the following project reviewed by the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) on August 18, 1998: DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE SHUFFLETEON SOIL REMEDIATION LUA-98-115,ECF,SM Proposed remediation of the Shuffleton Steam Plant site, consisting of the excavation and offsite treatment or landfill disposal of a maximum of 1,245 cubic yards of soil exceeding Model Toxics Control Act standards. Approximately 849 cubic yards of the excavated soil is associated with the removal of two above-ground fuel oil storage tanks, the tank demolition activity was previously approved under a separate permit. In addition to the soil excavation the proposal includes the demolition of two accessory structures (900 sq. ft. and 440 sq. ft.), removal of a portion of railroad tracks, and removal of fuel oil transfer lines. After completion of the remediation activities, the affected areas would be re-graded to match the adjacent ground surface. This proposal will require a Shorelines Substantial Development Permit because the excavation of soils would occur within 200 feet of Lake Washington. Location: 1101 Lake Washington Boulevard North. Environmental Determination Appeal Process. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM September 7, 1998. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required $75.00 application fee with the Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-11 B. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425) 430-6513. If you have questions, please call me at (425) 430-7270. For the Environmental Review Committee, 2‘ c;16 1`31- Lesley Nishihira Project Manager cc: King County Wastewater Treatment Division Larry Fisher, Department of Fisheries David F. Dietzman, Department of Natural Resources Don Hurter, Department of Transportation Shirley Lukhang, Seattle Public Utilities Duwamish Tribal Office Rod Malcom, Fisheries, Muckleshoot Indian Tribe (Ordinance) Joe Jainga, Puget Sound Energy AGNG DOC\ 1055 South Grady Way -Renton, Washington 98055 6)This paper contains 50%recycled material,20%post consumer .. = = CIT' OF RENTON ..LL Planning/Building/Public Works Department Jesse Tanner,Mayor Gregg Zimmerman P.E.,Administrator August 20, 1998 Mr. Barry Lombard Puget Sound Energy 815 Mercer Street, MER-04S Seattle, WA 98109 SUBJECT: Shuffleton Soil Remediation Project No. LUA-98-115,ECF,SM Dear Mr. Lombard: This letter is written on behalf of the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) and is to inform you that they have completed their review of the environmental impacts of the above-referenced project. The Committee, on August 18, 1998, decided that your project will be issued a Determination of Non-Significance. The City of Renton ERC has determined that it does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c). This decision was made by the ERC under the authority of Section 4-6-6, Renton Municipal Code, after review of a completed environmental checklist and other information, on file with the lead agency. This information is available to the public on request. Environmental Determination Appeal Process. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM September 7, 1998. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required $75.00 application fee with the Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-11 B. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425) 430-6513. If you have any questions or desire clarification of the above, please call me at (425) 430-7270. For the Environmental Review Committee, Lesley Nishihira Project Manager DNSLTR.DOC 1055 South Grady Way-Renton, Washington 98055 ®This paper contains 50%recycled material,20%post consumer CITY OF RENTON DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE ADVISORY NOTES APPLICATION NO(S): LUA-98-115, ECF,SM APPLICANT: Puget Sound Energy PROJECT NAME: Shuffleton Soil Remediation DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: Proposed remediation of the Shuffleton Steam Plant site, consisting of the excavation and offsite treatment or landfill disposal of a maximum of 1,245 cubic yards of soil exceeding Model Toxics Control Act standards. Approximately 849 cubic yards of the excavated soil is associated with the removal of two above-ground fuel oil storage tanks, the tank demolition activity was previously approved under a separate permit. In addition to the soil excavation the proposal includes the demolition of two accessory structures (900 sq. ft. and 440 sq. ft.), removal of a portion of railroad tracks, and removal of fuel oil transfer lines. After completion of the remediation activities, the affected areas would be re-graded to match the adjacent ground surface. This proposal will require a Shorelines Substantial Development Permit because the excavation of soils would occur within 200 feet of Lake Washington. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: 101 Lake Washington Blvd North Advisory Notes to Applicant: The following notes are supplemental information provided in conjunction with the environmental determination. Because these notes are provided as information only, they are not subject to the appeal process for environmental determinations. BUILDING Separate permits will be required for demolition of buildings. PLAN REVIEW Temporary erosion and sedimentation control plan will be required. ) AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION Charlotte Ann Kassens first duly sworn on oath states that he/she is the Legal Clerk of the SOUTH COUNTY JOURNAL 600 S. Washington Avenue, Kent, Washington 98032 NOTICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL a daily newspaper published seven (7)times a week. Said newspaper is a legal DETERMINATION newspaper of general publication and is now and has been for more than six months ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE prior to the date of publication, referred to, printed and published in the English languageh REssued DetermGTON t t The Environmental Review Cocmumittee i continually as a daily newspaper in Kent, King County, Washington. The South County SER ificancesfor the followin projn of Non- Journal has been approved as a legal newspaper by order of the Superior Court of the the authority of the RentoproMun Municipal State of Washington for King County. The notice in the exact form attached, was published in the South County Code. Journal (and not in supplemental form)which was regularly distributed to the subscribers SHUFFLETON SOIL REMEDIATION during the below stated period. The annexed notice, a LUA-98-115,ECF,SM Proposed remediation of Shuffleton Steam Plant site. Location: 1101 Lake Shuffleton Soil Remediation Washington Blvd.N. Environmental Determination Appeal Process. Appeals of the environmental as published on: 8/24/98 The full amount of the fee charged for said foregoing publication is the sum of$42.07 determtion ut bd n writinn or before 5:00ina PMs Septemberfilei 7, 1998 Appeals must be filed in writing togethoer with the requiredm $75.00 applicationg fee Legal Number 5101 - with the Hearing Examiner,e City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton. WA 98055. Appeals to the Examiner are goy- / erned by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-118. Additional information - regarding the appeal process may be Legal Clerk, South ounty Journal obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office,(425)430-6513. / Published in the South County Journal Subscribed and sworn before me on this -4 y of 7a„ r , 1g ul August 24, 1998.5101 01ttttttri.tt��, / ----nt-- `; \I .:.,),.,' ( , 4 ..V A ,b--9 f"-----h—C-4-16(---A• 2,1.... L! // ,7.•. .•''` �',• Notary Public of the State of Washington residing in Renton ___ = King County, Washington qilimIuu►. NOTICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE RENTON, WASHINGTON The Environmental Review Committee (ERC) has issued a Determination of Non-Significance for the following project under the authority of the Renton Municipal Code. SHUFFLETON SOIL REMEDIATION LUA-98-115,ECF,SM Proposed remediation of Shuffleton Steam Plant site. Location: 1101 Lake Washington Blvd. N. Environmental Determination Appeal Process. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM September 7, 1998. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required $75.00 application fee with the Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-11B. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425) 430-6513. Publication Date: August 24, 1998 Account No. 51067 dnspub CITY OF RENTON • DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE APPLICATION NUMBER: LUA-98-115,ECF,SM APPLICANT: Puget Sound Energy PROJECT NAME: Shuffleton Soil Remediation DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: Proposed remediation of the Shuffleton Steam Plant site, consisting of the excavation and offsite treatment or landfill disposal of a maximum of 1,245 cubic yards of soil exceeding Model Toxics Control Act standards. Approximately 849 cubic yards of the excavated soil is associated with the removal of two above- ground fuel oil storage tanks, the tank demolition activity was previously approved under a separate permit. In addition to the soil excavation the proposal includes the demolition of two accessory structures (900 sq. ft. and 440 sq. ft.), removal of a portion of railroad tracks, and removal of fuel oil transfer lines. After completion of the remediation activities, the affected areas would be re-graded to match the adjacent ground surface. This proposal will require a Shorelines Substantial Development Permit because the excavation of soils would occur within 200 feet of Lake Washington. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: 1101 Lake Washington Boulevard North LEAD AGENCY: City of Renton Department of Planning/Building/Public Works Development Planning Section This Determination of Non-Significance is issued under WAC 197-11-340. Because other agencies of jurisdiction may be involved, the lead agency will not act on this proposal for 14 days. Environmental Determination Appeal Process. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM September 7, 1998. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required $75.00 application fee with the Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-11 B. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425) 430-6513. PUBLICATION DATE: August 24, 1998 DATE OF DECISION: August 18, 1998 SIGNATURES: Pegg i mer �Ad r� DAT ' v Depart nt of tannin /Buildin /Public Works 9 9 Jim Shepherd, dministra or DAT Community Services Department ,;(1A 17147-"Pt1 7/ (r)( L eeler, Fire Chief DA'r Renton Fire Department DNSSIG.DOC CITY OF RENTON DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE ADVISORY NOTES APPLICATION NO(S): LUA-98-115, ECF,SM APPLICANT: Puget Sound Energy PROJECT NAME: Shuffleton Soil Remediation DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: Proposed remediation of the Shuffleton Steam Plant site, consisting of the excavation and offsite treatment or landfill disposal of a maximum of 1,245 cubic yards of soil exceeding Model Toxics Control Act standards. Approximately 849 cubic yards of the excavated soil is associated with the removal of two above-ground fuel oil storage tanks, the tank demolition activity was previously approved under a separate permit. In addition to the soil excavation the proposal includes the demolition of two accessory structures (900 sq. ft. and 440 sq. ft.), removal of a portion of railroad tracks, and removal of fuel oil transfer lines. After completion of the remediation activities, the affected areas would be re-graded to match the adjacent ground surface. This proposal will require a Shorelines Substantial Development Permit because the excavation of soils would occur within 200 feet of Lake Washington. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: 101 Lake Washington Blvd North Advisory Notes to Applicant: The following notes are supplemental information provided in conjunction with the environmental determination. Because these notes are provided as information only, they are not subject to the appeal process for environmental determinations. BUILDING Separate permits will be required for demolition of buildings. PLAN REVIEW Temporary erosion and sedimentation control plan will be required. • NIODQE ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION POSTED TO NOTIFY INTERESTED PERSONS OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION . PROJECT NAME: SHUFFLETON SOIL REMEDIATION PROJECT NUMBER: LUA-98-115,ECF,SM Proposed remediallon of the Shutfieton Steam Plant site,consisting of the excavation and offsite treatment or landfill disposal of a maximum of 1,245 cubic yards of soil exceeding Model Toxics Control Act standards. • Approximately 849 cubic yards of the excavated soil Is associated with the removal of two above-ground fuel oil storage tanks,the tank demolition activity was previously approved under a separate permit. In addition to the soil excavation the proposal Includes the demolition of two accessory structures(900 sq.It.and 440 sq. ft.), removal of a portion of railroad tracks,and removal of fuel oil transfer lines.After completion of the remediation activities,the affected areas would be re-graded to match the adjacent ground surface.This proposal will require a Shorelines Substantial Development Permit because the excavation of soils would occur within 200 feet of Lake Washington.Location:1101 Lake Washington Boulevard North. THE CITY OF RENTON ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE (ERC) HAS DETERMINED THAT THE PROPOSED ACTION DOES NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT. Environmental Determination Appeal Process. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM September 7,1998. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required$75.00 application lee with the Hearing Examiner,City of Renton,1055 South Grady Way,Renton, WA 98055. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-11B. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office. (425)430-6513. ry :\�: ;':;. 'ncnuaenev W rr:i " ▪; { ,.: I," - G" �Ia,IL{,i ire /A iV, i ▪ -�: 1; .,v\ 70.1( \+,4 4( . .1 I , -ts.-\.. .\\., I V. ','. I l`a a....' l � _ l �1tCr-r ,,.. In . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION,PLEASE CONTACT THE CITY OF RENTON,DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISIONIAT(425)430-7200. DO NOT REMOVE THIS NOTICE WITHOUT PROPER AUTHORIZATION il Please include the project NUMBER when calling for proper file identification. CERTIFICATION I, ? rr NA/A)i T! , hereby certify that 2 copies of the above document were posted by me in 3 conspicuous places on or nearby the described property on AwsT 05/ /99�' • Signed: ���';n ATTEST: Subcribed an sworn before me, a Nortary Public, in and fo the State of Washington residing ti on the � day of , 9�. ` 771 U MARILYN KAMCHEFF • COMMISSION EXPIRES 6/29/99 STAFF City of Renton REPORT Department of Planning/Building/Public Works ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE A. BACKGROUND ERC MEETING DATE August 18, 1998 Project Name Shuffleton Soil Remediation Applicant Puget Sound Energy File Number LUA-098-115,ECF,SM Project Manager Lesley Nishihira Project Description The proposal is for soil remediation activities at the Shuffleton Steam Plant site. The purpose for the remediation is to prepare the site for future sale. The project consists of the excavation and offsite treatment or landfill disposal of soils containing chemicals of concern exceeding the Model Toxics Control Act cleanup standards. Soils will be excavated from 10 separate areas on the site and will total a maximum of 1,245 cubic yards. Approximately 849 cubic yards of the soil is associated with the removal of two above-ground fuel oil storage tanks. The tank demolition activity was previously approved under a separate permit. Post-excavation soil testing will be conducted to verify that soils exceeding remedial action goals have been removed. In addition to the soil excavation, the proposal includes the demolition of two accessory structures (900 square feet and 440 square feet), the removal of a portion of railroad tracks, and the removal of fuel oil transfer lines. After completion of the remediation activities, the affected areas will be re-graded to match the adjacent ground surfaces. The proposal will also require a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit due to excavation of soils within 200 feet of the Lake Washington shoreline. Project Location 1101 Lake Washington Boulevard North Exist. Bldg. Area gsf N/A Proposed New Bldg. Area gsf No new; demolition of 1,340 square feet Site Area 11 acres Total Building Area gsf N/A ERCRPT.DOC City of Renton PB/PWDepartment ronmental Review Committee Staff Report • SIIUFFLETONSOIL REMEDIATION LUA-98-115,ECF,SM REPORT AND DECISION OF(AUGUST 18,1998) Page 4 of 4 RECOMMENDATION Staff Recommend that the Environmental Review Committee issue a Determination of Non-Significance. B. RECOMMENDATION Based on analysis of probable impacts from the proposal, staff recommend that the Responsible Officials make the following Environmental Determination: DETERMINATION OF DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE NON-SIGNIFICANCE-MITIGATED. XX Issue DNS with 14 day Appeal Period. Issue DNS-M with 14 day Appeal Period. Issue DNS with 15 day Comment Period Issue DNS-M with 15 day Comment Period with Concurrent 14 day Appeal Period. followed by a 14 day Appeal Period. C. MITIGATION MEASURES No mitigation measures are required. Advisory Notes to Applicant: The following notes are supplemental information provided in conjunction with the environmental determination. Because these notes are provided as information only, they are not subject to the appeal process for environmental determinations. BUILDING Separate permits will be required for demolition of buildings. PLAN REVIEW Temporary erosion and sedimentation control plan will be required. D. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS In compliance with RCW 43.21 C. 240, the following project environmental review addresses only those project impacts that are not adequately addressed under existing development standards and environmental regulations. Has the applicant adequately identified and addressed environmental impacts anticipated to occur in conjunction with the proposed development? 1. Earth Impacts: The remediation activities would include cleanup of localized soil contaminates that have been detected at concentrations exceeding Model Toxics Control Act cleanup standards. The applicant estimates the total volume of soil to be excavated at approximately 1,245 cubic yards. Excavated soils will be disposed of offsite in a permitted facility. Excavated areas will be backfilled in a timely manner to match the adjacent grade. Any fill used on site will be clean material from on or offsite sources suitable for future use. When building demolition activities have been ERCRPT.DOC City'of Renton P/B/PW Department ronmental Review Committee Staff Report • t SHUFFLETON SOIL REMEDIATION L UA-98-115,ECF,SM REPORT AND DECISION OF(AUGUST 18,1998) Page 4 of 4 completed, areas of building removal will be re-graded to match the adjacent ground surface and provide continuity of surface drainage. Potential impacts of soil erosion during remediation activities are expected to be minimal; potential impacts will be mitigated by measures implemented in the Dust and Erosion Control Plan. Mitiqation Measures: No further mitigation is recommended. Nexus: N/A 2. Air Impacts: Minor emissions from construction equipment can be expected for the duration of the proje]❑❑c❑❑mall quantities of dust associated with soil excavation and building demolition could also be generated by the remediation activities at the site. Construction impacts will be short term in nature and will be mitigated through the Dust and Erosion Control Plan and with the Construction Mitigation Plan. Methods that may be implemented during excavation, hauling, backfilling, and on all active offsite and onsite roads will include water spraying as necessary to eliminate visible dust and coverage of stockpiles with suitable materials. Emissions from construction equipment exhaust will have a minor impact on local air quality. Exhaust from construction vehicles is regulated by State and City Codes. Mitigation Measures: No further mitigation is recommended. Nexus: N/A 3. Water Impacts: The shoreline of Lake Washington comprises the northwestern boundary of the site and lies within 200 feet of a significant portion of the proposed remediation work. The proposed work within the shoreline includes minor re- grading of surfaces where buildings are removed, excavating contaminated soils to depths of 5 feet or less, and backfilling and compacting the excavated areas. No water will be discharged to groundwater, and no groundwater withdrawal is planned. The application includes a Final Environmental Site Investigation report, prepared by Hart Crowser, Inc., which identifies contamination limited to surface and near surface soils with no apparent impact on property groundwaters or adjacent freshwater sediments in Lake Washington. The Dust and Erosion Control Plan will address any changes to current on-site drainage that may be necessary to accommodate existing site runoff after remediation activities are complete. Mitigation Measures: No further mitigation is recommended. Nexus: N/A 4. Environmental Health Impacts: A licensed contractor will prepare a site-specific Health and Safety Plan for review prior to conducting any work at the site and will be required to specifically address tasks necessary to comply with applicable regulations, as well as maintain a clean orderly site and comply with all local, state, and federal regulations. A Final Environmental Site Assessment, prepared by Hart Crowser, Inc., identifies contamination above screening levels found only in site soils and no impacts to property groundwaters or freshwater sediments in Lake Washington. Soils containing contamination above Model Toxics Cleanup Act soil cleanup levels will be removed through select excavation and disposed of off-site in a permitted facility. Post-excavation soil testing will be conducted to verify that soils exceeding remedial action goals have been removed. There is no on-site remediation of soils proposed. Existing regulations and standards will effectively mitigate potential environmental health impacts. Mitigation Measures: No further mitigation is recommended. Nexus: N/A ERCRPT.DOC City of Renton PB/PW Department 'ronmental Review Committee Staff Report • , SHUFFLETON SOIL REMEDIATION LUA-98-115,ECF,SM REPORT AND DECISION OF(AUGUST 18,1998) Page 4 of 4 E. COMMENTS OF REVIEWING DEPARTMENTS The proposal has been circulated to City Departmental/Divisional Reviewers for their review. Where applicable, these comments have been incorporated into the text of this report as Mitigation Measures and/or Notes to Applicant. X Copies of all Review Comments are contained in the Official File. Copies of all Review Comments are attached to this report. Environmental Determination Appeal Process. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM September 7, 1998. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required $75.00 application fee with the Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-11 B. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425) 430-6513. ` NEIGHBORHOOD MAP I 'r�• •' \` I •• . R., ..14 .^ \ i - .\ 'w i I ...,::1 '1: :prr` ,,,`I ty .r.t-L.r.r.- t '\ \--1:'\ - ' 7_ _ ,,,,,,._ i ,,, . . :,...or.;,„"k1 ,40,,.:. N. n 4 -ems �• S411 .�-y ._..,� \F \I ,, � " ` 'n\ \ t :.1i I `E _ 1 :k'\''\ .' . \...' ''' l' -.'-:"-- ri' p :.\ . ' .r. . i _ n ';T01 7r - N M, a I1 ... - �,, � �' _I. LEGEND .►.. • ► •'1 1 v - ' .�� d 2500'Boundary II r • 1 - Renton City L,n: 1 jl Y��i f... � I"- 1600'Scale ERCR PT.DOC •. �>� CIT' CIF RENTON Planning/Building/Public Works Department Jesse Tanner,Mayor Gregg Zimmerman P.E.,Administrator August 4, 1998 SUBJECT: Shuffleton Soil Remediation Project No. LUA-980115, ECF, SM To Whomever This May Concern: Enclosed is additional information to the above-referenced application to cover submittal requirements for a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit. Please include this supplemental information with the previously sent application materials. Thank you. If you have any questions, please contact me, at (425) 430-7219. Sincerely, Peter Rosen Project Manager SNORLAG.DuC 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 ®This paper contains 50%recycled material,20%post consumer PUGET ) SOUND ENERGY August 4, 1998 :` AO N\ �/ Mr. Peter Rosen City of Renton City Hall Renton, WA 98055 RE: Shuffleton Steam Plant Facility Remediation Project Supplemental Permit Information Dear Mr. Rosen: Enclosed with this letter is the additional information requested by the City of Renton for the above referenced Puget Sound Energy(PSE) permit application. The permit application was filed on July 15, 1998. In a letter dated July 22, 1998 the City informed PSE that the permit application was accepted for review. The enclosed information includes the following: 1) a revised Master Application which has been modified to cover shorelines permit requirements; 2) site plans that have been revised to meet shorelines permit requirements; and 3) a check in the amount of$500.00 to cover shorelines permit filing fees. In addition to amending our application with the enclosed information, PSE requests that the City include the following as amendments to the Environmental Checklist: Amendments to Project Narrative: - The portion of the Shuffleton Steam Plant property adjacent to the shoreline of Lake Washington consists of a concrete bulkhead partially covered by a wooden dock. - The total estimated cost of the remediation project is $350,000. - The proposed dates for completing the remediation project are from October, 1998 to January, 1999. Amendments to Environmental Checklist: - Under item A.10, add the City of Renton Shoreline Substantial Development Permit. - Under item B.3.a.2, delete accessory building demolition. Building demolition will not occur within 200 feet of Lake Washington or Park Creek. Puget Sound Energy, Inc. • 815 Mercer Street • Seattle,WA 98109 I hope the enclosed materials satisfies the City's request for additional information. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me at (206) 224-2102. Thank you very much for you help in processing our permit application. Sincerely, - AAA' SPI\4-(4/0 Barry Lo and Program Manager, Remediation Enclosures ! S CITY OF RENTON DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION MASTER APPLICATION PROPERTY OWNER(S) PROJECT INFORMATION Note: If there is more than one legal owner,please attach an additional notarized Master Application for each owner PROJECT OR DEVELOPMENT NAME: NAME: Puget Sound Energy (PSE) Shuffleton Steam Plant Site Remediatio c/o Barry Lombard PROPERTY/PROJECT ADDRESS(S)/LOCATION: ADDRESS: 1101 Lake Washington Boulevard 815 Mercer Street MER-04S On Lake Washington between Boeing and Gene Coulon Memorial Beach Park CITY: ZIP: KING COUNTY ASSESSOR'S ACCOUNT NUMBER(S): Seattle 98109 082305 9178 082305 9055 082305 9191 TELEPHONE NUMBER: EXISTING LAND USE(S): ( 206 ) 224-2102 Industrial APPLICANT (if other than owner) PROPOSED LAND USES: NAME: Same as above Industrial COMPANY(if applicable): EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION: Industrial ADDRESS: PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION (if applicable): N/A Gokl, CITY: ZIP: EXISTING ZONING: 0/4. 4,f , o Tp IH RiyTO�. • TELEPHONE NUMBER: ` PROPOSED ZONING (if applicable): `C • ,`9`�8 ONTACT:PARSON .*'s`.> �O '' SI 'E AREA 21- (sQ, T. OR ACREAGE): NAME: Barry Lombard t4r c�r4s 111. COMPANY(if applicable): PROJCT VALUE Puget Sound Energy S350 , 000 to S100 , 000 .4lYR400. ADDRESS: 815 Mercer Street IS THE SITE LOCATED IN THE AQUIFER PROTECTION AREA? MER-04S No CITY: ZIP: Seattle 98109 IS THE SITE LOCATED IN ANY OTHER TYPE OF ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREA? No TELEPHONE NUMBER: I ( 206) 224-2102 LEGAL DESCRI ; N OF PROPERTY (Attach seper sheet f necess ryl See Attached Legal Description • >:>>: .:.:::; . TYPE OF APPLICATION & FEES. ........:............. Check atl application.types that apply City;staff will deter me ee : —ANNEXATION $ SUBDIVISION: _ COMP. PLAN AMENDMENT $ — REZONE $ _ LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT $ _ SPECIAL PERMIT $ _ SHORT PLAT $ _TEMPORARY PERMIT $ —TENTATIVE PLAT $ _ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT $ _ PRELIMINARY PLAT $ - SITE PLAN APPROVAL • $ _ FINAL PLAT $ _ GRADE & FILL PERMIT $ (NO. CU. YDS: 1 PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT: $ _ VARIANCE $ (FROM SECTION: 1 _ PRELIMINARY _WAIVER $ _ FINAL • _WETLAND PERMIT $ _ ROUTINE VEGETATION MOBILE HOME PARKS: $ MANAGEMENT PERMIT $ _ BINDING SITE PLAN $ SHORELINE REVIEWS: X SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT $, ,Oo _ CONDITIONAL USE $ _ VARIANCE $ _ EXEMPTION $No Charlie _ ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW $ REVISION $ AFFIDAVIT'OOF OWNERSHIP'. I, (Print Name) 'cc.j 1--606(4,declare that I am (please check one)_the owner of the property involved in this application,Vthe authorized representativ to act for the property owner roof of authorization), and that the foregoing statements and answers herein contained and the information herewith submitted to II itieck nd correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. +,1A' v jTEST: Subscribed and sw�or�to before me, a Notary Public, in and 0 < '" 17i, �000 the State of 4,Hit/4.7`iisiding at nt (Nam f 0 ner/Representative) 0�ett 2 � r 2-9 n , on the I day of nCIA1 Stitied(10 ti:p41) F.4.113 ie:" (Signat f Owner/Representative) **ApeOJT ••% —a j(r(eif _--_-. (Sig ture of Notary Public) (This section to be'completed by City Staff). City File Number A AAIJ >BSP CAPS; CAP . CPA CU A OU H I_CF L,LA MF P ..FPUD FP PP R: RVMP SA=A SA H SHPL A� SHP.l-1 5:P SIUI SME TP: V A ,>V B V H VW :_ TOTAL'FEES :$ TOTAL POSTAGE PROVIDED $ MASTERAP.DOC REVISED 8/97 I ♦f Order No. 279600 A.L.T.A. COMMITMENT SCHEDULE A Page 2 The land referred Wash�ngten this andcommitment deseribedias situated follows : ln the county of King, state That portion of the northwest quarter of Section 8 , Township 23 North, Range 5 East , W.M. , in King County, Washington, including within this tract certain portions of Lake Washington Shore Lands as shown on Sheets 3 and 4 of the map prepared by Udo Hesse under King County Superior Court Cause Number 156371, more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the northeast corner of Government Lot 1 , in said Section 8; thence north 88°51 ' 05" west along the north line of said Lot 1 , and along the westerly production of said line, a distance of 960. 01 feet, more or less, to the westerly margin of the abandoned Burlington Northern Railway (Northern Pacific Railway Company right-of -way) and the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; thence continuing north 88°51 '05" west along said westerly production, 761 . 39 feet , more or less, to an existing concrete monument, said monument being an angle point on the northerly line of the Shuffleton Steam Plant Property; thence north 43°06 ' 56" west along said northerly property line, 680 . 06 feet , more or less, to the inner harbor line of Lake Washington Shore Lands as laid out by the State of Washington; thence south 46°52 ' 27" west along said inner harbor line, 607 . 89 feet ; thence within said shore lands south 43°06 ' 56" east , 717 _ 73 feet ; e t ;of thence south 14°36 ' 26" east, 741 . 50 feet to the northerly margin said abandoned railroad right-of-way; thence northeasterly along said right-of-way margin to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING . END OF SCHEDULE A 111111.111 CITY OF RENTON DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION LIST OF SURROUNDING PROPERTY OWNERS within 300 feet of the subject site PROJECT NAME: SL2-e- S-1-eavr. Plart+ SA-C Pcva dicL+Zdfrt APPLICATION NO: LAW •q8 • 1`S, eq. The following is a list of property owners within 300 feet of the subject site. The Development Services Division will notify these individuals of the proposed development. NAME ADDRESS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL �� NUMBER sec • (Attach additional sheets, if necessary) YJIRAM .. ..i':,t. '..30 (Continued) NAME ADDRESS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER Applicant Certification I, B&vr j Lzvvt.I0c‘vcl , hereby certify that the above list(s) of adjacent property (Pn t Name) owners and their addresses were obtained from: ❑ City of Renton Technical Services Records Title Company Records ❑ King County Assessors Records Signed < Z"" Y 4/{,Q Date 7'(5 f 18 (Applicant) NOTARY ATTESTED: Subscribed and sworn before me, a Notary Public, in and for the State of Washington, residing at 1 V 55e ct k on the i5tL day of )y N , 19 y.-' . Signed Q v.,,:d.,r,,,,,,44 (Notary Public) ****For City of Renton Use**** CERTIFICATION OF MAILING I, ; M,, _ e a . _; hereby certify that notices of the proposed application were mailed to (City Employee) each listed property owner on . ' ,� c Signed . - Date: ;: NOTARY ATTEST. Crlbed and sworn before me, a Notary Public, in and for the State of Washin ton residing at -1 ( . on the i ,�`, day of _ , 1 V . I5; ned ` '2211V. .:,!;:.,:;11..*..1•::"';'''i*:ai::: : ',:,400W,J.4....,:,: riiimi::::::::::'::: M]::.:::.::::Aaii:iiiii::.:m.:: : iiii:: ::V::::: :n :.?::N]:' listprop.doc REV07/95 MARILYN KAMCHEFF 2 COMMISSION EXPIRES 6/29/99 METROSCAN• Reference Farm King (WA) Dwner Address Phone Ref Number Boeing Company 801 Garden Ave N Renton 98055 3 Boeing Co 910 Lake Washington Blvd S Seattl 8 Burlington Northrn Santa Fe *No Site Address* Renton 1 Burlington Northrn Santa Fe 900 Lake Washington Blvd S Seattl 4 City Of Renton 1100 Lake Washington Blvd N Rento 11 Puget Sound Energy;Elec 900 Lake Washington Blvd S Seattl 60 Puget Sound Energy;Elec 1100 Lake Washington Blvd N Rento Puget Sound Energy;Elec 900 Houser Way N Renton 98055 5 The Boeing Company 800 Lake Washington Blvd S Seattl 9 The Boeing Company 800 Lake Washington Blvd S Seattl 7 The Boeing Company 800 Park Ave N Renton 98055 2 The Information Provided Is Deemed Reliable, But Is Not Gusr-,nte 'i. * - MetroScan / Ring :--- * Owner :Burlington Northrn Sa,,..a Fe Parc # :052305 9003 01 Site :*No Site Address* Renton Sale Date . Mail : 1700 E Golf Rd #400 Schaumburg I1 60173 Sale Price . Use :901 Vacant,Residential Asd.V :$922, 000 Lgl :STR 052305 TAXLOT 3 R/W SEC 5-23-5 Q:SW S:05 T:23N R:05E Bedrm: Bth F3H: / / Stories: BldgSF: Ac: 11.50 YB: Ph: * MetroScan / King * Owner :The Boeing Company Parcel # :072305 9001 01* Site : 800 Park Ave N Renton 98055 Sale Date . Mail :PO Box 3707 Seattle Wa 98124 Sale Price Use :625 Ind,Manufacturing,Aircraft Asd.V :$97, 539, 600 Lgl :STR 072305 TAXLOT 1 POR OF E 1/2 Q:NE S:07 T:23N R:05E Bedrm: Bth F3H: / / Stories : BldgSF: Ac: 149.00YB: Ph: * MstroScan / King * Owner :Boeing Company Parcel # :082305 9011 08 Site :801 Garden Ave N Renton 98055 Sale Date :12/12/96 Mail :PO Box 3707 Seattle Wa 98124 Sale Price :$254,131 Use :625 Ind,Manufacturing,Aircraft Asd.V :$19, 714,700 Lgl :STR 082305 TAXLOT 11 POR NW 1/4 LY Q:NW S:08 T:23N R:05E Bedrm: Bth F3H: / / Stories: BldgSF: Ac:44.00 YB: Ph: * MetroScan / Ring -- * Owner :Burlington Northrn Santa Fe Parcel # :062305 9027 00 Site :900 Lake Washington Blvd S Seattle 98144 Sale Date . Mail :1700 E Golf Rd #400 Schaumburg I1 60173 Sale Price . Use :953 Misc,Right-Of-Way,Utility Asd.V :$851, 000 Lgl :STR 082305 TAXLOT 27 B N RY CO R/W Q:NW S:08 T:23N R:05E Bedrm: Bth F3H: / / Stories: BldgSF: Ac:3.90 YB: Ph: * -- MetroScan / Ring ---* Owner :Puget Sound Energy/Elec Parcel # :082305 9056 04 Site :900 Houser Way N Renton 98055 Sale Date . Mail :PO Box 90868 Bellevue Wa 98009 Sale Price . Use : 953 Misc,Right-Of-Way,Utility Asd.V :$158, 800 Lgl :STR 082305 TAXLOT 56 N 200 FT OF Q:NW S:08 T:23N R:05E Bedrm: Bth F3H: / / Stories : BldgSF: Ac:1.82 YB: Ph: * MetroScaa / King Owner : Puget Sound Energy/Elec Parcel # :082305 9057 03 Site :900 Lake Washington Blvd S Seattle 98144 Sale Date . Mail :PO Box 90868 Bellevue Wa 98009 Sale Price . Use :953 Misc,Right-Of-Way,Utility Asd.V :$1, 000 Lgl :STR 082305 TAXLOT 57 IN GL 2-BEG Q:NW S:08 T:23N R:05E Bedrm: Bth F3H: / / Stories: BldgSF: Ac: YB: Ph: * lietroScan / Ring * Owner :The Boeing Company Parcel # : 082305 9079 07 Site : 800 Lake Washington Blvd S Seattle 98144 Sale Date . Mail :PO Box 3703 Seattle Wa 98124 Sale Price . Use :625 Ind,Manufacturing,Aircraft Asd.V : $17, 269, 000 Lgl :STR 082305 TAXLOT 79 POR GL 3 LY E Q:NW S:08 T:23N R:05E Bedrm: Bth F3H: / / Stories: BldgSF: Ac:31.00 YB: Ph: * MetroScan / King * Owner :Boeing Co Parcel # :082305 9187 06 Site :910 Lake Washington Blvd S Seattle 98144 Sale Date :12/14/88 Mail :PO Box 1303 Seattle Wa 98111 Sale Price :$30, 000 Use :401 Pub,Parking,Associated Asd.V :$572,200 Lgl :STR 082305 TAXLOT 187 POR OF GOV Q:NW S:08 T:23N R:05E Bedrm: Bth F3H: / / Stories: B1dgSF: Ac:2. 62 YB: Ph: *_____- MetroScan / Ring * Owner :The Boeing Company Parcel # : 082305 9204 05 Site :800 Lake Washington Blvd S Seattle 98144 Sale Date . Mail :PO Box 3703 Seattle Wa 98124 Sale Price . Use :933 Vacant,Industrial,5 To 10 Acres Asd.V :$1, 546,500 Lgl :STR 082305 TAXLOT 204 POR BN RR Q:NW S: 08 T:23N R:05E Bedrm: Bth F3H: / / Stories: BldgSF: Ac:7.10 YB: Ph: The Information Provided Is Deemed Reliable, But Is Not Guar nte^_d. • MetroScan / King -- * Owner : Puget Sound Energy/Ei__ Par( # : 334450 0006 02 Site :1100 Lake Washington Blvd N Renton 98056 Sale Date . Mail : PO Box 90868 Bellevue Wa 98009 Sale Price . Use :932 Vacant,Industrial, l To 5 Acres Asd.V :$342, 900 Lgl :LOT POR HILLMANS LK WN GARDEN OF Q:SW S:05 T:23N R:05E Bedrm: Bth F3H: / / Stories: BldgSF: Ac: 1.96 YB: Ph: * MetroScan / King * Owner :City Of Renton Parcel # :334450 0775 01 Site :1100 Lake Washington Blvd N Renton 98056 Sale Date . Mail :200 Mill Ave S Renton Wa 98055 Sale Price . Use :349 Rec, Parks,Zoos,Arboretum Asd.V :$32, 394,000 Lgl :BLK 360 & LOT ALL HILLMANS LK WN Q:SW S: 05 T:23N R:05E Bedrm: Bth F3H: / / Stories: B1dgSF: Ac:24 . 00 YB: Ph: The Information Provided Is Deemed Reliable, but Is Not Guaranteed. Northrn Santa Fe Burlington THE BOEING COMPANY BOEING COMPANY 1700 E Golf Rd#400 PO Box 3707 PO Box 3707 Schaumburg,IL 60173 Seattle,WA 98124 Seattle,WA 98124 Parcel # 052305900301 Parcel # 072305900101 Parcel # 082305901108 Northrn Santa Fe Burlington Sound Energy&Elec Puget Sound Energy&Elec Puget 1700 E Golf Rd#400 PO Box 90868 PO Box 90868 Schaumburg,IL 60173 Bellevue,WA 98009 Bellevue,WA 98009 Parcel 4f 082305902700 Parcel 4k 082305905604 Parcel It 082305905703 THE BOEING COMPANY BOEING CO THE BOEING COMPANY PO Box 3703 PO Box 1303 PO Box 3703 Seattle,WA 98124 Seattle,WA 98111 Seattle,WA 98124 Parcel # 082305907907 Parcel 4t 082305918706 Parcel # 082305920405 Sound Energy&Elec Puget CITY OF RENTON PO Box 90868 200 Mill Ave S Bellevue,WA 98009 Renton,WA 98055 Parcel 4t 334450000602 Parcel # 334450077501 • Gti< Y 0 tt ♦ ♦ NOTICE OF APPLICATION AND PROPOSED DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE DATE: July 22,1998 LAND USE NUMBER: LUA-98-115,ECF,SM APPLICATION NAME: Shuffleton Soil Remediation PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Proposed remediation of the Shuffleton Steam Plant site, consisting of the excavation and offsite treatment or landfill disposal of a maximum of 1,245 cubic yards of soil exceeding Model Toxics Control Act standards. Approximately 849 cubic yards of the excavated soil is associated with the removal of two above- ground fuel oil storage tanks,the tank demolition activity was previously approved under a separate permit. In addition to the soil excavation the proposal includes the demolition of two accessory structures (900 sq. ft. and 440 sq. ft.), removal of a portion of railroad tracks, and removal of fuel oil transfer lines. After completion of the remediation activities,the affected areas would be re-graded to match the adjacent ground surface. This proposal will require a Shorelines Substantial Development Permit because the excavation of soils would occur within 200 feet of Lake Washington. PROJECT LOCATION: 1101 Lake Washington Boulevard North OPTIONAL DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE(DNS): As the Lead Agency,the City of Renton has determined that significant environmental impacts are unlikely to result from the proposed project. Therefore,as permitted under the RCW 43.21 C.110,the City of Renton is using the Optional DNS process to give notice that a DNS is likely to be issued. Comment periods for the project and the proposed DNS are integrated into a single comment period. There will be no comment period following the issuance of the Threshold Determination of Non-Significance(DNS). A 14 day appeal period will follow the issuance of the DNS. NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: July 22, 1998 Permits/Review Requested: Demolition Permit,SEPA Environmental Review,Shorelines Substantial Development Permit. Other Permits which may be required: Metro Sanitary System Discharge Permit,in the event that dewatering is required. 6. Requested Studies: A Dust and Erosion Control Plan(DECP)will be required. S I Location where application may be reviewed: Planning/Building/Public Works Division,Development Services Department, 1055 South Grady Way,Renton,WA 98058 PUBLIC HEARING: No public hearing is required. CONSISTENCY OVERVIEW: Analytical process Project consistency refe,s to whether a project is consistent with adopted and applicable development regulations,or in their absence,comprehensive plan policies. RCW 36.70B.110(2)(g)provides that the Notice of Application(NOA) include a statement of the preliminary determination of a project's consistency with the type of land use,level of development,infrastructure,and character or development if one has been made at the time of notice. At a minimum, every NOA shall include a determination of the project's consistency with the zoning,comprehensive plan and development regulations. Land Use: The site is zoned Heavy Industrial(IH). The proposed project is consistent with the development standards of the IH zone and Comprehensive Plan policies. Environmental Documents that Evaluate the Proposed Project: Final Sediment Characterization Report, Shuffleton Steam Plant Facility DNR Lease Area, Renton Washington. Prepared for Puget Sound Energy by Wineman Environmental Consulting,in conjunction with Hart Crowser, November 7, 1997. GENMALOT.DOC Sediment Sampling and Analysis Plan,Shuffleton Steam Plant Facility,Renton Washington. Prepared for Puget Sound Energy by Hart Crowser,March 31 1997. Hazardous Materials Survey Report, Shuffleton Steam Plant Demolition Project, Renton, Washington. Prepared for Puget Sound Energy by Golder Associates, March 21 1997. Environmental Checklist for the Shuffleton Above-Ground Tank Removal. Prepared for Puget Sound Energy by David Nemens Associates,Inc.,August 1, 1996. Environmental Site Investigation, Shuffleton Steam Plant Facility. Prepared for Puget Sound Energy by Hart Crowser,April 15,1996. Environmental Site Investigation Work Plan, Shuffieton Steam Plant Facility. Prepared for Puget Sound Energy by Hart Crowser,August 4,1995. Report of Environmental Services,Soil Remediation and Groundwater Monitoring,Shuffieton Complex,Renton,Washington.Prepared by GeoEngineers,March 13,1993. Subsurface Contamination Study, Underground Storage Tanks. .Prepared by GeoEngineers,March 29,1993. Development Regulations Used For Project Mitigation: King County Surface Water Design Manual,as adopted by City of Renton. Model Toxics Control Act cleanup standards. Proposed Mitigation Measures: No additional mitigation measures beyond existing codes,standards and regulations are anticipated at this time. Comments on the above application must be submitted in writing to Peter Rosen, Project Manager, Development Services Division, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055, by 5:00 PM on September 07. 1998. If you have questions about this proposal, or wish to be made a party of record and receive additional notification by mail, contact Mr. Rosen at(425)430-7219. Anyone who submits written comments will automatically become a party of record and will be notified of any decision on this project. IPLEASE INCLUDE THE PROJECT NUMBER WHEN CALL;NG FOR PROPER FILE IDENTIFICATION ' NEIGHBORHOOD MAP .. \\ - —•1 -. iS, i '1 / " fl. 1 {+ .a L( • r i '. N ar �:. 0, 050,0. I� 11.3 11, 1 t ol" t . r ,�� Jft a1 ,l'l. ,-r;' — - Y'''; 1 \, , ,t Is (V. . % ,,, i :,i, p, , ` 6y! , \ \'\::/\ s.',.\.\..v..-ti. :,... ' - ..;ifh . ' pior ppir NA 9ts .1 F '/l i " iiir' L� LEGEND / - :moo' d, Rrntm C L,, I K� 1 ' Cr-^�r—�— .�J 9 ... ._ I boo'Scale GENMALOT.DOC City _. enton Department of Planning/Building/Pu.,,,. Norks ENVI - ONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHET REVIEWING DEPA' IENT: �bti1CQ COMMENTS DUE: AUGUST 04, 1998 APPLICATION NO: LUA-98-11b,- - SM DATE CIRCULATED: JULY 21, 1998 APPLICANT: Puget Sound Energy -------------____, PROJECT MANAGER: Peter Rosen PROJECT TITLE: Shuffleton Soil Remediation W 78413 LOCATION: 1101 Lake Washington Blvd. No. SITE AREA: 11 acres I BUILDING AREA(gross): Demolition of 1,340 sq.ft. SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: Proposed remediation of the Shuffleton Steam Plat site, consisting of the excavation and offsite treatment or landfill disposal of a maximum of 1,245 cubic yards of soil exceeding Model Toxics Control Act standards. In addition, two accessory structures (900 sq.ft. and 440 sq.ft.)would be demolished, a portion of railroad tracks removed, and removal of fuel oil transfer lines. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT(e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Housing Air Aesthetics Water Light/Glare Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Utilities Animals Transportation Environmental Health Public Services ✓ Energy/ Historic/Cultural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet Myagai. ,OD 2ic , ,O,VI iL B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas wh additional information is needed to proper/ assess this proposal. /V 9F- Signature 'f Director or Authorized Representative Date DEVAPP.DOC Rev.10/S3 City_. ...nton Department of Planning/Building/Pm.. Norks ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: texpL 11c, DeVelopmeaCOMMENTS DUE: AUGUST 04, 1998 APPLICATION NO: LUA-98-115,ECF,SM DATE CIRCULATED: JULY 21, 1998 APPLICANT: Puget Sound Energy PROJECT MANAGER: Peter Rosen PROJECT TITLE: Shuffleton Soil Remediation WORK ORDER NO: 78413 LOCATION: 1101 Lake Washington Blvd. No. SITE AREA: 11 acres BUILDING AREA(gross): Demolition of 1,340 sq.ft. SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: Proposed remediation of the Shuffleton Steam Plat site, consisting of the excavation and offsite treatment or landfill disposal of a maximum of 1,245 cubic yards of soil exceeding Model Toxics Control Act standards. In addition, two accessory structures (900 sq.ft. and 440 sq.ft.)would be demolished, a portion of railroad tracks removed, and removal of fuel oil transfer lines. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT(e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Housing Air Aesthetics Water Light/Glare Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Utilities Animals Transportation Environmental Health Public Services Energy/ Historic/Cultural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS MO eOLAc.1 ISSUE 5 . C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas wher fionat info 'ea is needed to properly assess this proposal. it4 1 . 7/ay/9� Signature o it or or Authoriz Repre§entative Date DEVAPP.DOC Rev.1 C193 City .i nton Department of Planning/Building/Put,..., ""-rks ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATa _ N REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: aa,yles COMMENTS DUE: AUGUST 04, 1998 APPLICATION NO: LUA-98-115,ECF,SM DATE CIRCULATED: JULY 21, 1998 APPLICANT: Puget Sound Energy PROJECT MANAGER: Peter Rosen PROJECT TITLE: Shuffleton Soil Remediation WORK ORDER NO: 78413 LOCATION: 1101 Lake Washington Blvd. No. SITE AREA: 11 acres BUILDING AREA(gross): Demolition of 1,340 sq.ft. SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: Proposed remediation of the Shuffleton Steam Plat site, consisting of the excavation and offsite treatment or landfill disposal of a maximum of 1,245 cubic yards of soil exceeding Model Toxics Control Act standards. In addition, two accessory structures (900 sq.ft. and 440 sq.ft.)would be demolished, a portion of railroad tracks removed, and removal of fuel oil transfer lines. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT(e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Housing Air Aesthetics Water Light/Glare Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use _ Utilities Animals Transportation Environmental Health Public Services Energy/ Historic/Cultural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet ,2Z1 ✓" / J f9C%1.-e 7 ) )4. e<it B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS )� We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional information is needed to pro assess this proposal. Signature of Director or Authorized epresentative Date DEVAPP.DOC Rev.1 G;.93 City a r►ton Department of Planning/Building/Pui..... .Vorks ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIE' A,Q-�,��T • VFNr!RE b REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: Fwe. t'revuA-h0,� COMMENTS DUE: AUGUST 04, 1998 JUL 9//DrFp7 APPLICATION NO: LUA-98-115,ECF,SM DATE CIRCULATED: JULY 21, 1998 2 2 1998 APPLICANT: Puget Sound Energy PROJECT MANAGER: Peter Rosen I:1 'I:./ PROJECT TITLE: Shuffleton Soil Remediation WORK ORDER NO: 78413 / V � LOCATION: 1101 Lake Washington Blvd. No. SITE AREA: 11 acres I BUILDING AREA(gross): Demolition of 1,340 sq.ft. SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: Proposed remediation of the Shuffleton Steam Plat site, consisting of the excavation and offsite treatment or landfill disposal of a maximum of 1,245 cubic yards of soil exceeding Model Toxics Control Act standards. In addition, two accessory structures (900 sq.ft. and 440 sq.ft.)would be demolished, a portion of railroad tracks removed, and removal of fuel oil transfer lines. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT(e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Housing Air Aesthetics Water Light/Glare Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Utilities Animals Transportation Environmental Health Public Services Energy/ Historic/Cultural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet /! 14,000 Feet t ! / 100 ��Qr p C�� V B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS 4.)4 C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS 0 We have r-viewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas wh= e additional infli tion is needed to properly assess this proposal. ahtto '•r ./ r 7 9w Sign. of Director or Authonz- Representative Date DEVA•• AOC Rev.1063 City o nton Department of Planning/Building/Pub..,, ,Vorks ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT� APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: PIaA ReUtfUW^ Las\er- COMMENTS DUE: AUGUST 04, 1998 APPLICATION NO: LUA-98-115,ECF,SM DATE CIRCULATED: JULY 21, 1998 C APPLICANT: Puget Sound Energy PROJECT MANAGER: Peter Rosen C r PROJECT TITLE: Shuffleton Soil Remediation WORK ORDER NO: 78413 CITY O RENE:MN:1 O w?r s%LOCATION: 1101 Lake Washington Blvd. No. C m SITE AREA: 11 acres I BUILDING AREA `` yy 7 -(gross): Demolition ofi34 !q.ft:'- g SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: Proposed remediation of the Shuffleton Steam Plat site, consistir;� t1h� c. -tion and offsite treatment or landfill disposal of a maximum of 1,245 cubic yards of soil exceeding Mo•- TOk1�•'4k* hl standards. In addition, two accessory structures (900 sq.ft. and 440 sq.ft.)would be demolished, a portion of railroad tracks removed, and removal of fuel oil transfer lines. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT(e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Housing Air Aesthetics Water Light/Glare Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Utilities Animals Transportation Environmental Health Public Services Energy/ Historic/Cultural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS /Vc) GOW1l'a1G11 We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional information is needed to property assess this proposal. ;)r,(,C (ate 7/4/qt Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date DEVAPP.DOC Rev.1 r_,53 City c nton Department of Planning/Building/Pu.,,.., Norks ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT:-Tvuk ee,Aaiicry\ COMMENTS DUE: AUGUST 04, 1998 APPLICATION NO: LUA-98-115,ECF,SM DATE CIRCULATED: JULY 21, 1998 APPLICANT: Puget Sound Energy PROJECT MANAGER: Peter Rosen PROJECT TITLE: Shuffleton Soil Remediation WORK ORDER NO: 78413 r�FYr LOCATION: 1101 Lake Washington Blvd. No. ;;,•� ��?F AI SITE AREA: 11 acres I BUILDING AREA(gross): Demolition .1,340 scfft.,2 SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: Proposed remediation of the Shuffleton Steam Plat site, consisting oftIt4itiAcavation and offsite treatment or landfill disposal of a maximum of 1,245 cubic yards of soil exceeding Model Toxics Control Act standards. In addition, two accessory structures (900 sq.ft. and 440 sq.ft.)would be demolished, a portion of?a1lroad tracks removed, and removal of fuel oil transfer lines. —•. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT(e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Housing Air Aesthetics Water Light/Glare Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Utilities Animals Transportation Environmental Health Public Services Energy/ Historic/Cultural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS N) c.owifryteld. We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional information is needed to property assess this proposal. /0e( / 1/e.44 A Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date DEVAPP.DOC Rev.1C/53 City o nton Department of Planning/Building/Pu,,..., .Vorks ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: stofael walskLLr kr COMMENTS DUE: AUGUST 04, 1998 APPLICATION NO: LUA-98-115,ECF,SM DATE CIRCULATED: JULY 21, 1998 APPLICANT: Puget Sound Energy PROJECT MANAGER: Peter Rosen PROJECT TITLE: Shuffleton Soil Remediation WORK ORDER NO: 78413. t ' LOCATION: 1101 Lake Washington Blvd. No. \, SITE AREA: 11 acres I BUILDING AREA(gross): Demottipn of 1,340 sq.ft'Y cs `^ SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: Proposed remediation of the Shuffleton Steam Plat site, consisting o he ekcavation and offsite treatment or landfill disposal of a maximum of 1,245 cubic yards of soil exceeding Model' xics Control Act standards. In addition, two accessory structures (900 sq.ft. and 440 sq.ft.)would be demolished, portion of railroad tracks removed, and removal of fuel oil transfer lines. 'y A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT(e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Housing Air Aesthetics Water Light/Glare Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Utilities Animals Transportation Environmental Health Public Services Energy/ Historic/Cultural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS I )O G0W1 wt'GW 1y .- We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional information is needed to properly assess this proposal. /0 id / 1/D4A 8 Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date DEVAPP.DOC Rev.1C 3 City ?nton Department of Planning/Building/Pub 'orks ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: h COMMENTS DUE: AUGUST 04, 1998 APPLICATION NO: LUA-98-115,ECF,SM DATE CIRCULATED: JULY 21, 1998rr, APPLICANT: Puget Sound Energy PROJECT MANAGER: Peter Rosen .4",„ PROJECT TITLE: Shuffleton Soil Remediation WORK ORDER NO: 78413 • LOCATION: 1101 Lake Washington Blvd. No. Li/� SITE AREA: 11 acres I BUILDING AREA(gross): Demoliclic pff 1,340 sq ft. SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: Proposed remediation of the Shuffleton Steam Plat site, consisting of the exhavation and offsite treatment or landfill disposal of a maximum of 1,245 cubic yards of soil exceeding Model Toxics Cbfol Act standards. In addition, two accessory structures (900 sq.ft. and 440 sq.ft.)would be demolished, a portion of railroad tracks removed, and removal of fuel oil transfer lines. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT(e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Housing Air Aesthetics Water Light/Glare _ Plants Recreation _ Land/Shoreline Use Utilities Animals Transportation _ Environmental Health Public Services Energy/ Historic/Cultural Natural Resources Preservation _ Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS $,ve C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS . 'lye= We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas wh additional information is neede to properly assess this proposal. nature of Dire/c�or Authoriz d Rep resentativ Date DEVAPP.DOC // Rev.10/93 .# 7a--): CITY ►F RENTON [i'.'_. NMlM4 Planning/Building/Public Works Department Jesse Tanner,Mayor Gregg Zimmerman P.E.,Administrator July 22, 1998 Mr. Barry Lombard Puget Sound Energy 815 Mercer Street,MER-04S Seattle,WA 98109 SUBJECT: Shuffleton Soil Remediation Project No. LUA-980115,ECF,SM Dear Mr. Lombard: The Development Planning Section of the City of Renton has determined that the subject application is complete according to submittal requirements and, therefore, is accepted for review. It is tentatively scheduled for consideration by the Environmental Review Committee on August 18, 1998. Prior to that review, you will be notified if any additional information is required to continue processing your application. Please contact me, at(425) 430-7219, if you have any questions. Sincerely, Peter Rosen Project Manager ACCPTLTR.DOC 200 Mill Avenue South- Renton, Washington 98055 ca anent Sampling and Analysis Plan,Slo i0.oton Steem Prod Faro y,rosin rhinglon.Prepared for Puyot Sound Energy by Han Crowser,March 31 1,Y7. zardous MaloneIs Survey Re �"��, Renton,Washington.Prepared for PugetSound Energy,ShuMeton Steam /by God Assomolition ciates,, . s March 21 1997. ,+ ) Environmental Checklist for the Shumelon Above-Ground Tank Removal. 1�,,,,,co, Prepared for Puget Sound Energy by Davie Nerc_ns Associates,Inc.,August 1. 1995. Environmental Site Investigation,Shultkton Steem Plant Facility.Prepared for NOTICE OF APPLICATION Puget Sound Energy by Hart Crowser,Ap:il 15,1928. Environmental Site Investigation Work Plan,Shu0lelon Steam Plant Facility. AND PROPOSED DETERMINATION Prepared for Puget Sound Energy by Hart Crowser,August 4,1995. Report of Environmental Services,Soy Remediction and Groundwater OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE Monitoring,Shufrteton Complex,Renton,Washing on.Prepared op GeoEngineers,March 13,1993. Subsurface Contamination Study,Underground Storage Tanks..Prepared by GeoEngineers,March 29,1993. DATE: July 22,1994 • Devslopm sat'n;olations Used For Preis=Mitiz..tion: King County Surface Water Design Manual,as adopted by City of Renton. Model Tonics Control Act cleanup standarda. LAND USE NUMBER: LUA-98-115,ECF,SM Proposed li:L4atior,Measures: APPLICATION NAME: Shuffleton Soil Remediation No adaitiona.n.S 5ation measures beyond existing codes,standards and regulations are anticipated at this lime. PROJECT DESCRIPTION, Proposed remedialion of the Shufaeton Steam Plant site,consisting of the Comments Cr':-.e above application must be submitted in writing to Peter Rosen,Project Manager,Development excavation and offsite treOlment or landfill disposal of a maximum of 1,245 cubic yards of soil exceeding Model Tonics Services Divsz.1055 Sown Grady Way,Renton,WA 98055,by 5:00 PM or.Sentember 07 1998- If you have Control Act standards.Approximately 849 cubic yards of the excavated soil is associated with the removal of two above- questions ace ins proposal,or wish to be made a party of record and receive additional notification by mail,contact ground fuel oil storage tanks,the tank demolition activity was previously approved under a separate permit. In addition Mr.Rosen a; x25)430-7219. Anyone who submits written comments will automatically become a party of record and to the still excavation the proposal includes the demolition of two accessory structures(900 sq.It.and 440 sq. ft.), will be nuL6m...any decision on this project. removal of a portion of railroad tracks,and removal of fuel oil transfer lines. After completion of the remedlahnn activities,the affected areas would be re-graded to match the adjacent ground surface. PLEASE I;.- •'THE PROJECT NUMBER WHEN CALLING FOR PROPER FILE IDE.TIFICATION This proposal will require a Shorelines Substantial Development Permit because the excavation of soils would occur within 203 feet of Lake Washington. PROJECT LOCATION: 1101 Lake Washington Boulevard North OPTIONAL DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE(DNS):As the Lead Agency,the City of Renton has deteunined that significant environmental impacts are unlikely to result trust the proposed project.Therefore,as permitted under the RCW 43.21C.110,the City of Renton is using the Optional DNS process to give notice that a OHS is se cnrm,eanreehe �T t9 ' -vC- .; likely to be issued.Comment periods for the project and the proposed DNS are integrated into a singe comment period. �' -'�� j���yC There will bone comment peri.A rollowing the issuance of the Threshold Determination of Non-Significance(DNS).A 14 ` 1 f 4. r7 day appeal period wit,follow the issuance of the DNS. �� S l • `• r{a-i p r•••444aaa NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: July 22,1998 v V.it _ 1 t A`•�,•'• € t-1't::- Permits/Review Requested: Demolition Permit,SEPA Environmental Review.Shorelines Substantial ���'',.4%F:iti::',..4 +• Development Permit. , �'Orber Permits which may be required: ktetro Sanitary System Discharge Permit,in the event that dewatering is ' - a:1 `, Gp�' required. ter...-)I,r1 y Y -. '.L .. Requested Studies: A Dust and Erosion Control Plan(GECP)will be required. r 1�"�- �,,, .; y�� �� � .' i 1 '- ) ,�• 41i.• Location where application may —;1,1{�C\ i a4',• v be reviewed: Planning/Building/Public Walks Division,Development Services Department, (. 1 n,.�.:" , 'C 7 \):4 11 _ !F 1055 South Grady Way,Renton,WA 98058 .1,',�r I..r^" \\\ PUBUC HEARING: Na public hearing is required. � ` t\.1� a " Iyls 4 '1\' ,'/ CONSISTENCY OVERVIEW: , Analytical process �,�,1 -•'r'/ I-. �l `11�Project consistency refers to whether a project is consistent with adopted and applicable development regulations,or in }' �, .r♦ their absence,compro.ansive plan policies.RCW 38.708.110(2)(g)provides that the Notice of Application(NOA) ,^,— ft• ; . it r r n include a statement of the preliminary determination of a project's consistency with the type of land use,level of .—i , i, ,I L'..y development,Infrastructure,and character of development if one has been made at the time of notice.At a minimum, , '''5`,.I - I ' .K.r ��,', UGO`0 every NOA shall Include a delemt,nalion of the project's consistency with the zoning,comprehensive plan and L l 1.grtt A 05.E development regulations. t�1 a=.- L, moo Land Use: The site is zoned Heavy Industrial(IH).The proposed project in consistent with • the development standards of the IH zone and Comprehensive Plan policies. Environmental Documents that Evaluate the Proposed Project: Final Sediment Characterization Report,ShuTelon Steam Plant Facility DNR Lease Area,Renton Washington.Prepared for Puget Sound Energy by Wineman Environmental Consulting,In conjunction with Hart Crowser, November 7,1997. GENM40OT COO GENM4LOT.00C CERTIFICATION I, /tA-ri N,,/,J i i r , hereby certify that 3 copies of the above document were posted by me in conspicuous places on or nearby the described property on LTvt-; Z-(/Icy? " • Signed: 7 ATTEST: Subcribed and sworn before me, a Nortary Public,in and for the State of Washington residing in e,i2 f , on the 7 i) day ofr C*c? • `71'77,fAlyf MARILYN KAMCHEFF COMMISSION EXPIRES 6/29/99 • CITY OF RENTON DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION MASTER APPLICATION PROPERTY OWNER(S) PROJECT INFORMATION Note: If there is more than one legal owner,please attach an additional notarized Master Application for each owner. !' PROJECT OR DEVELOPMENT NAME: Shuffleton Steam Plant Site Remediatio NAME: Puget Sound Energy (PSE) c/o Barry Lombard PROPERTY/PROJECT ADDRESS(S)/LOCATION: ADDRESS: 815 Mercer Street 1101 Lake Washington Boulevard MER-04S On Lake Washington between Boeing and Gene Coulon Memorial Beach Park CITY: Seattle ZIP: 98109 • KING COUNTY ASSESSOR'S ACCOUNT NUMBER(S): 082305 9178 082305 9055 082305 9191 TELEPHONE NUMBER: EXISTING LAND USE(S): 206-224-2102 Industrial • APPLICANT (if other than owner) PROPOSED LAND USES: NAME: Same as above Industrial COMPANY(if applicable): EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION: Industrial ADDRESS: PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION (if applicable): N/A CITY: ZIP: EXISTING ZONING: IH TELEPHONE NUMBER: PROPOSED ZONING (if applicable): 4/7.A CONTACT PERSON N/A JU` j F'VTb/t SITE AREA (SQ. FT. OR ACREAGE): Iy98 NAME: Barry Lombard 11 acres fr eO COMPANY (if applicable): PROJECT VALUE: i $350 , 000 to $400,000 Puget Sound Energy ADDRESS: 815 Mercer Street IS THE SITE LOCATED IN THE AQUIFER PROTECTION AREA? MER-04S No CITY: Seattle ZIP: 98109 IS THE SITE LOCATED IN ANY OTHER TYPE OF ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREA? No TELEPHONE NUMBER: 206-224-2102 LEGAL DESCRI N t f PROPERT;Y (Attabh epa , sheet >!f"nice nary) See Attached Legal Description • TYPE O APPLICATION $c IES Check all application types that apply-City;staff will idetermine.fees ANNEXATION $ SUBDIVISION: COMP. PLAN AMENDMENT $ REZONE $ _ LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT $ _ SPECIAL PERMIT $ _ SHORT PLAT $ _TEMPORARY PERMIT $ _TENTATIVE PLAT $ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT $ _ PRELIMINARY PLAT $ _ SITE PLAN APPROVAL $ _ FINAL PLAT $ GRADE & FILL PERMIT $ (NO. CU. YDS: ) PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT: $ VARIANCE $ (FROM SECTION: ) _ PRELIMINARY _WAIVER $ _ FINAL _WETLAND PERMIT $_ ROUTINE VEGETATION MOBILE HOME PARKS: $ MANAGEMENT PERMIT $ _ BINDING SITE PLAN $ SHORELINE REVIEWS: SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT $ _ CONDITIONAL USE $ VARIANCE $ _ EXEMPTION $No Charge X ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW $ $1 , 000 REVISION $ AFFIDAVIT OF OWNERSHIP I, (Print Name) BAIT— LOA:A ,declare that I am (please check one)_the owner of the'property involved in this application,✓the authorized representativb to act for the property owner(please attach proof of authorization), and that the foregoing statements and answers herein contained and the information herewith submitted are in all respects true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. ATTEST: Subscribed and sworn to before me, a Notary Public, in and b.cwc_ L3 \O``r-(\ for the State ofWaghI„9ion residing at (Name of Owner/Representative) I s,ub("a , on the ISi)tday of L,h, 19.. • (Signature o er/Represen tive) e„,,,,„./.) (Signature of Notary Public) do tTh�s sec n to be completed by<Ctty Staff ) City File Number (, A AAD BSP CAPS CAP U CPA CU A CU H EC ILA MHP FPUC3.: FP PP R RVMP SA=A.. SA H _ SHPL A': SHPL H SP.. .SNE .SME .TP V A . B :V H VV TOTAL FEES $ J TOTAL POSTAGE PROVIDED $ 1 MASTERAP.DOC REVISED 8/97 Order No. 279600 A.L.T.A. COMMITMENT SCHEDULE A Page 2 The land referred to in this commitment is situated in the county of King, state of Washington, and described as follows : That portion of the northwest quarter of Section 8, Township 23 North, Range 5 East, W.M. , in King County, Washington, including within this tract certain portions of Lake Washington Shore Lands as shown on Sheets 3 and 4 of the map prepared by Udo Hesse under King County Superior Court Cause Number 156371, more particularly described as follows : Commencing at the northeast corner of Government Lot 1 , in said Section 8 ; °51 ' 05" west along the north line of said Lot 1 , and thence north 83 -- along the westerly production of said line, a distance of 960. 01 feet, more or less, to the westerly margin of the abandoned Burlington Northern Railway (Northern Pacific Railway Company right-of-way) and the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; thence continuing north 88°51 ' 05" west along said westerly production, 761 . 39 feet, more or less, to an existing concrete monument, said monument being an angle point on the northerly line of the Shutfleton Steam Plant Property; thence north 43°06 ' 56" west along said northerly property line. 680. 06 feet , more or less, to the inner harbor line of Lake Washington Shore Lands as laid out by the State of Washington; thence south 46°52 ' 27" west along said inner harbor line, 607 . 89 feet ; thence within said shore lands south 43°06 ' 56" east , 717 . 73 feet ; thence south 14°36 ' 26" east, 741 .50 feet to the northerly margin of said abandoned railroad right-of-way; thence northeasterly along said right-of-way margin to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. END OF SCHEDULE A r DEVELOPMENT PL.L w CITY OF RENTC.; PROJECT NARRATIVE JUL 15 1998 Size and Location of Site RECEIVED The project is located on Puget Sound Energy's (PSE) Shuffleton Steam Plant site, which occupies 26.8 acres at the south end of Lake Washington between the Boeing Renton Plant and Gene Coulon Memorial Beach Park. The western portion of the site, which covers approximately 11 acres, contains the steam plant and related structures discussed in this proposal. This portion of the property and related structures are delineated on the attached site plan. Site address: 1101 Lake Washington Blvd. N. Site location: On Lake Washington between the Boeing Renton Plant and Gene Coulon Memorial Beach Park. Q-S-T-R: NW Section 8, Township 23 North, Range 5 East SW Section 5, Township 23 North, Range 5 East Current Use of Site and Existing Improvements Previous use of the site was for electric power generation; the plant was last operated in 1989. PSE determined, in 1994, that the Shuffleton Steam Plant would no longer be used for electric generation, and is planning activities to decommission the plant and prepare the steam plant site for sale. PSE itself has no plans to reuse or redevelop the steam plant site. PSE will retain those parts of the property, shown on the enclosed site plan, containing the existing electric distribution substation, several indoor and outdoor storage areas and selected office space. Special Site Features Lake Washington, the Cedar River, and Park Creek, a stream near the entrance to the site are in the immediate vicinity of the site. Both the river and creek drain into Lake Washington. Soil remediation work and accessory building demolition will occur within 200 feet of Lake Washington and Park Creek. This work will consist of minor re-grading of surface where buildings are removed, excavating contaminated soils to depths of 5 feet or less, backfilling and compacting the excavated areas. Number and Location of Existing Structures and/or Residential Units Which Might Have Views Obstructed as a Result of the Proposed Project None. Proposed Action The proposed project is the Shuffleton Steam Plant Site Remediation. It is a remedial action that will consist of the demolition of two accessory structures and the excavation and offsite treatment or landfill disposal of soils containing chemicals of concern exceeding Model Toxics Control Act cleanup standards and/or site remedial action goals. The accessory structures to be demolished are the Lumber Shed (900 square feet) and Paint Storage Building (440 square feet). Both of these buildings are primarily wood-frame with slab-on-grade foundations. These structures will be removed by heavy equipment. Building foundations will be demolished to or slightly below existing grade. When demolition activities have been completed, areas Puget Sound Energy Shuffleton Steam Plant Site Remediation Project Project Narrative of building removal will be re-graded to match the adjacent ground surface and provide continuity of surface drainage. Soil contamination identified is limited to surface and near-surface soils in a number of relatively limited areas of the site. The total volume of soil to be excavated from ten separate areas is expected to be a maximum of 1,245 cubic yards, but may be no greater than 1,000 cubic yards. Remediation of most areas will require shallow excavations, which will range from one to three feet in depth. The deepest excavation for the entire project is anticipated to be only five feet in depth. Identified contamination above applicable screening levels is found only in site soils, and there is no apparent impact to site groundwater or adjacent freshwater sediments in Lake Washington. The potential chemicals of concern in the soils to be remediated are arsenic, lead, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), diesel and oil range total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPHs), and associated carcinogenic polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (cPAHs). Post-excavation soil testing will be conducted to verify that soils exceeding remedial action goals have been removed. Verification soil testing will consist of sampling and laboratory analysis for the chemicals of concern. Site remediation work will also include demolition and removal of a portion of the railroad tracks (and associated ballast)that remains between the end of the pavement in the vicinity of the steam plant and the wharf. A portion of the rail spur that runs along the north and west side of the property will be removed. The site remediation will also remove the fuel oil transfer lines between the pumphouse and the storage tanks (2 lines) and between the pumphouse and the railroad vault to the north (1 line). The above ground fuel oil storage tank berm will be removed and the local area graded to match surrounding site. Page 2 of 2 OROIW'1 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST A. BACKGROUND: 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: Shuffleton Steam Plant Site Remediation Project 2. Name of Applicant: Barry Lombard Program Manager--Remediation Puget Sound Energy 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: Mr. Barry Lombard Project Manager--Remediation Puget Sound Energy 815 Mercer Street MER-04S Seattle, Washington 98109 pEVELOPR"ENT Ply (206)224-2102 CITY OF REIN G``l (206)224-2317 Fax JUL 1 ��9a 4. Date checklist prepared: RECEwED July 15, 1998 5. Agency requesting checklist: City of Renton 6. Proposed timing or schedule (include phasing if applicable): Completion of proposed project scheduled for summer of 1998. 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansions, or further activities related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain: None are planned at this time. If research shows that the site is currently one legal lot, a short plat may be necessary to segregate a portion or portions of the site for sale. 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal: Subsurface Contamination Study, Underground Storage Tanks. Prepared by GeoEngineers, March 29, 1993. Puget Sound Energy Shuffleton Steam Plant Site Remediation Project SEPA Environmental Checklist July 15, 1998 Report of Environmental Services, Soil Remediation, and Groundwater Monitoring, Shuffleton Complex, Renton, Washington. Prepared by GeoEngineers,March 13, 1993. Environmental Site Investigation Work Plan, Shuffleton Steam Plant Facility, Renton, Washington. Prepared by Hart Crowser,August 4, 1995. Environmental Site Investigation, Shuffleton Steam Plant Facility. Prepared for Puget Sound Power and Light Company by Hart Crowser;April 15, 1996. Shuffleton Above Ground Fuel Tank Removal Environmental Checklist. Prepared for Puget Sound Power and Light Company by David Nemens Associates Inc.; August 1, 1996. Hazardous Materials Survey Report, Shuffleton Steam Plant Demolition Project, Renton, Washington. Prepared for Puget Sound Power and Light Company by Golder Associates Inc.;March 21, 1997. Sediment Sampling and Analysis Plan, Shuffleton Steam Plant Facility, Renton, Washington. Prepared for Puget Sound Energy by Hart Crowser,March 31, 1997. Final Sediment Characterization Report, Shuffleton Steam Plant Facility DNR Lease Area, Renton, Washington. Prepared for Puget Sound Energy by Wineman Environmental Consulting, in conjunction with Hart Crowser,November 7, 1997. 9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain: None 10. List any governmental approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known: City of Renton Environmental Review&Threshold Determination City of Renton Demolition Permit Metro Sanitary System Discharge Permit, in the event that dewatering is required 11. Give a brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. Background The project is located on Puget Sound Energy's(PSE) Shuffleton Steam Plant site, which occupies 26.8 acres at the south end of Lake Washington between the Boeing Renton Plant and Gene Coulon Memorial Beach Park. The western portion of the site, which covers approximately 11 acres, contains the steam plant and related structures discussed in this proposal. This portion of the property and related structures are delineated on the attached site plan. Previous use of the site was for electric power generation; the plant was last operated in 1989. PSE determined, in 1994, that the Shuffleton Steam Plant would no longer be used for electric generation, and is planning activities to decommission the plant and prepare the steam plant site for sale. PSE itself has no plans to reuse or redevelop the steam plant site. PSE will retain those parts of the property, shown on the enclosed site plan, containing the existing electric distribution substation, several indoor and outdoor storage areas and selected office space. Page 2 ofl9 Puget Sound Energy Shuffleton Steam Plant Site Remediation Project SEPA Environmental Checklist July 15, 1998 Project Components The proposed project is a remedial action that will consist of the demolition of two accessory structures and the excavation and offsite treatment or landfill disposal of soils containing chemicals of concern exceeding Model Toxics Control Act cleanup standards and/or site remedial action goals. The accessory structures to be demolished are the Lumber Shed (900 square feet) and Paint Storage Building (440 square feet). Both of these buildings are primarily wood-frame with slab-on-grade foundations. These structures will be removed by heavy equipment. Building foundations will be demolished to or slightly below existing grade. When demolition activities have been completed, areas of building removal will be re-graded to match the adjacent ground surface and provide continuity of surface drainage. Soil contamination identified is limited to surface and near-surface soils in a number of relatively limited areas of the site. The total volume of soil to be excavated from ten separate areas is expected to be a maximum of 1,245 cubic yards, but may be no greater than 1,000 cubic yards. Remediation of most areas will require shallow excavations, which will range from one to three feet in depth. The deepest excavation for the entire project is anticipated to be only five feet in depth. Identified contamination above applicable screening levels is found only in site soils, and there is no apparent impact to site groundwater or adjacent freshwater sediments in Lake Washington. The potential chemicals of concern in the soils to be remediated are arsenic, lead, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), diesel and oil range total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPHs), and associated carcinogenic polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (cPAHs). Post-excavation soil testing will be conducted to verify that soils exceeding remedial action goals have been removed. Verification soil testing will consist of sampling and laboratory analysis for the chemicals of concern. Site remediation work will also include demolition and removal of a portion of the railroad tracks (and associated ballast) that remains between the end of the pavement in the vicinity of the steam plant and the wharf. A portion of the rail spur that runs along the north and west side of the property will be removed. The site remediation will also remove the fuel oil transfer lines between the pumphouse and the storage tanks(2 lines)and between the pumphouse and the railroad vault to the north(1 line). The above ground fuel oil storage tank berm will be removed and the local area graded to match surrounding site. 12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your proposed project, including a street address, if any, and section, township, and range, if known. If a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related to this checklist. Site address: 1101 Lake Washington Blvd. N. Site location: On Lake Washington between the Boeing Renton Plant and Gene Coulon Memorial Beach Park. Q-S-T-R: NW Section 8, Township 23 North, Range 5 East SW Section 5, Township 23 North, Range 5 East Page 3 ofl 9 Puget Sound Energy Shuffleton Steam Plant Site Remediation Project SEPA Environmental Checklist July 15, 1998 B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS: 1. Earth a. General description of site (circle one): Flat, rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other. b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? Less than 2%, excluding a containment berm, which surrounded two above ground fuel oil tanks, which have been removed. The proposed project includes removing this berm and regrading the area to match the adjacent site. Refer to attached site plan for berm location. c. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any prime farmland. Sandy alluvium overlain by primarily soil fill. d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. There are no surface indications and no known history. • e. Describe the purpose, type and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. Contaminated soil above remedial action goals has been identified on site. During remediation work, it will be excavated and disposed of off-site in a permitted facility. Any excavations will be backfilled in a timely manner to match the adjacent grade. The quantity of soil that needs to be removed is a maximum of 1,245 cubic yards, but may be no greater than 1,000 cubic yards, to be excavated from ten separate areas. Any fill used on site will be clean material from on or off-site sources suitable for future use. Additionally, when building demolition activities have been completed, areas of building removal will be re-graded to match the adjacent ground surface and provide continuity of surface drainage. f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction or use? If so, generally describe. Erosion is not likely. For information about the Dust and Erosion Control Plan, please see Item h in this Element. g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? No impervious surfaces are proposed to be added. Page 4 ofl 9 Puget Sound Energy Shuffleton Steam Plant Site Remediation Project SEPA Environmental Checklist July 15, 1998 h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion or other impacts to the earth, if any: Puget Sound Energy(PSE) has specified that the contractor is responsible for writing and adhering to a Dust and Erosion Control Plan (DECP) which incorporates, but is not limited to, the dust control and typical temporary erosion and sedimentation control plan requirements listed below. The DECP must be submitted for approval by PSE prior to the contractor starting work. The DECP will also reflect any changes to current on-site drainage(such as relocation of existing catch basins) that may be necessary to accommodate existing site runoff after remediation is complete. The DECP must include: • A listing of all vehicles, materials, and equipment to be used in preventing dust generation during this work. • The methods used to minimize dust during excavation, hauling, and backfilling, and for dust control on all active off-site and on-site roads. The DECP must incorporate all temporary erosion and sedimentation control plan requirements as described in the most current version of the King County, Washington, Surface Water Design Manual,unless adopted differently by the City of Renton. 2. Air a. What type of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (i.e., dust, automobile, odors, industrial, wood smoke) during construction and when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known. Construction equipment will be expected to produce minor emissions. Small quantities of dust associated with soil excavation and building demolition could also be generated by the remediation activities at the site. Once the work is complete,there will be no continued emissions to the air due to the proposed project. b. Are there any off-site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. There are no off-site sources of emissions or odor that will affect the proposal. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: The contractor will be required to develop a plan for dust and erosion control and submit it for approval to PSE prior to starting work. Dust control must include: • A listing of all vehicles, materials, and equipment to be used in preventing dust generation during this work. • The methods used to minimize dust during excavation, hauling, and backfilling, and for dust control on all active off-site and on-site roads. Page 5 ofl 9 Puget Sound Energy Shuffleton Steam Plant Site Remediation Project SEPA Environmental Checklist July 15, 1998 The contractor shall maintain continuous dust control during all activities associated with the work described in the project plans and specifications. No visible dust will be allowed. Sufficient water trucks for spraying excavations, paving areas, and haul road must be present on site at all times. Spraying may be necessary in evenings and weekends even if the contractor is not working, as directed by PSE. The contractor shall provide water for water trucks at a City of Renton hydrant. Contractors will be required to maintain a clean, orderly site and comply with all local, state and federal laws that pertain to hazardous materials abatement. Each contractor will be required to provide a description of work activities and a Health and Safety Plan (HASP) prior to beginning hazardous materials removal. For more information on the HASP, see the Environmental Health Element. Work will also be performed in accordance with the technical specifications part of the bid package. 3. Water a. Surface Water: 1) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year-round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into. Yes. Lake Washington, the Cedar River, and Park Creek, a stream near the entrance to the site. Both the river and creek drain into Lake Washington. 2) Will the project require any work over, in or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans. Yes. Soil remediation work and accessory building demolition will occur within 200 feet of Lake Washington and Park Creek. This work will consist of minor re-grading of surface where buildings are removed, excavating contaminated soils to depths of 5 feet or less, backfilling and compacting the excavated areas. 3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material. None. 4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. No. 5) Does the proposal lie within a 100-year floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan. Not to our knowledge. Page 6 ofl 9 Puget Sound Energy Shuffleton Steam Plant Site Remediation Project SEPA Environmental Checklist July 15, 1998 6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. No. b. Ground Water: 1) Will groundwater be withdrawn or will water be discharged to groundwater? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. No water will be discharged to groundwater, and no groundwater withdrawal is planned. However, the deeper excavations may require de-watering due to the proximity of the groundwater table to the soil surface. Completing the remediation in the dry season will minimize this. 2) Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground for septic tanks or other sources, if any (for example: Domestic sewage; industrial, containing the following chemicals...; agricultural; etc.). Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve. None. c. Water Runoff(including storm water): 1) Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this water flow into other waters? If so, describe. The primary source of runoff would be from precipitation falling on the project site. Most precipitation falling within this area will infiltrate into the ground, any precipitation entering catch basins will be handled in accordance with the Dust and Erosion Control Plan (DECP), described in the Earth Element,Item h. 2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. No. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground or runoff water impacts, if any: Prior to starting work, the contractor will be required to submit a Dust and Erosion Control Plan (DECP) for approval by Puget Sound Energy, which demonstrates the ability to effectively control sediment in runoff. The DECP will also reflect any changes to current on-site drainage (such as Page 7 ofl 9 Puget Sound Energy Shuffleton Steam Plant Site Remediation Project SEPA Environmental Checklist July 15, 1998 relocation of existing catch basins)that may be necessary to accommodate existing site runoff after remediation activities are complete. The DECP must incorporate all temporary erosion and sedimentation control plan requirements as described in the most current version of the King County, Washington, Surface Water Design Manual,unless adopted differently by the City of Renton. 4. Plants a. Check the types of vegetation found on the site: x Deciduous tree: alder, maple,aspen,other x Evergreen tree: fir,cedar,pine,other x Shrubs x Grass Pasture Crop or grain x Wet soil plants: cattail,buttercup,bulrush, skunk cabbage, other x Water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other Other types of vegetation b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? A limited amount of grass will be removed as a result of soil remediation. c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site: None are known of. d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: None are proposed. 5. Animals a. Circle any birds and animals that have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site: Birds: hawk,heron, eagle, songbirds, other: mallard,osprey, grebe,goose Mammals:deer,bear,elk,beaver, other: muskrat Fish: bass, salmon,trout, herring, shellfish, other: smelt,perch Other: pond slider turtle b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. Bald Eagles (threatened) are known to forage in the area and have been seen perched on pilings in Lake Washington. Puget Sound Energy contacted the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife and received a determination dated March 17, 1997, that there are no documented Bald Eagle nests within one mile of the site. Page 8 ofl9 Puget Sound Energy Shuffleton Steam Plant Site Remediation Project SEPA Environmental Checklist July 15, 1998 c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. Not to our knowledge. The site does not provide any critical habitat. d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: None are proposed. 6. Energy and Natural Resources a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing etc. None. b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. No c. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any: None are proposed. 7. Environmental Health a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill or hazardous waste, that could occur as a result of this proposal? If so, describe. Potential Hazards The hazardous materials listed below have been identified on the site in limited quantities. Potential hazards include risk of exposure to the hazardous materials in the form of dust or direct contact during remediation activities. Environmental Site Investigation Puget Sound Energy conducted an environmental site investigation (ESI) at the steam plant site in 1995-1996 (Hart Crowser, April 15, 1996). The report indicates that the Shuffleton site media (soil, sediment, and groundwater) represent relatively unimpaired environmental quality when compared to typical industrial sites. The contamination identified is limited to surface and near- surface soils in a number of relatively limited areas of the site. In addition, the identified contamination above screening levels is found only in site soils, and no impact to site groundwater or adjacent freshwater sediments in Lake Washington was identified. Soil samples were collected from surface soils, test pits and soil borings, and were submitted for chemical analysis. Soil sampling locations were focused on those areas identified as having potential concerns based on historical site use and those areas planned for future site Page 9 of19 Puget Sound Energy Shuffleton Steam Plant Site Remediation Project SEPA Environmental Checklist July 15, 1998 redevelopment. Additional information can be found in the ESI. This report is being submitted with the permit application package, additional copies will be provided by Puget Sound Energy upon request. Site soil samples were analyzed for volatile and semi-volatile organics carcinogenic polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (cPAH), total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPHs), polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), metals, herbicides, and asbestos. Analytical results for soils above remedial action goals were compared with MTCA soil cleanup levels. Limited quantities of the following hazardous materials were found on the site above regulatory clean-up levels: • Arsenic • Lead • Polychlorinated Biphenyls(PCBs) • Diesel and oil range Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons(TPHs) • cPAHs Soils containing these chemicals of concern will be removed through select excavation and disposed of off-site in a permitted facility. Post-excavation soil testing will be conducted to verify that soils exceeding remedial action goals have been removed. Verification soil testing will consist of sampling and laboratory analysis for the chemicals of concern. Site remediation work will also include removal of a portion of the railroad tracks (and associated ballast)between the end of the pavement in the vicinity of the steam plant and the wharf. The fuel oil transfer lines between the pumphouse and the storage tanks (2 lines) and between the pumphouse and the railroad vault to the north(1 line)will also be removed. 1) Describe special emergency services that might be required. None. 2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: Health and Safety Plan Any contractor working on-site shall be licensed and must prepare and submit a site-specific Health and Safety Plan (HASP) to PSE for review prior to conducting any work at the site. The contractor shall retain responsibility for all health and safety measures and conditions at the site. The contractor shall retain an industrial hygienist certified by the American Board of Industrial Hygiene. The Certified Industrial Hygienist(CIH)shall have at least one year of experience in the development of site-specific safety plans for hazardous waste sites. The CIH shall prepare the HASP for use by the contractor. The HASP will discuss potential chemical and physical hazards anticipated on site and detail control measures to maintain individual safety and health. It will include safety procedures, which shall be followed by all employees and subcontractors and any other on-site workers. Specific sections of the HASP shall include but not be limited to: • Assignment of health and safety responsibilities on-site; Page 10 of19 Puget Sound Energy Shuffleton Steam Plant Site Remediation Project SEPA Environmental Checklist July 15, 1998 • Proposed work activities; • Hazard evaluation; • Air monitoring procedures; • Protection measures for specific activities; • Site control measures; • Special work requirements; • Trench safety systems/shoring; • Medical surveillance requirements; • Training requirements; • Decontamination of equipment and personnel; • Disposal of contaminated materials generated during site activities; • Record keeping;and • Emergency procedures. In addition, the contractor shall provide health and safety documentation including medical certificates,and basic 40-hour training and 8-hour refresher certificates. Executing the Health and Safety Plan • The contractor will not proceed with site activities, which might include exposure of employees to contaminants until the HASP is submitted to and reviewed by PSE. • All individuals expected to work on this site will read the HASP and acknowledge so by signing before they enter the site. • The HASP shall be amended as needed by the CIH to include special work practices warranted by site conditions actually encountered. Special practices could include provisions for decontamination of personnel and equipment, and the use of any special equipment not covered in the initial plan. Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure Plan The contractor shall develop a Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure Plan (SPCCP) and submit it for approval by Puget Sound Energy (PSE) prior to start of work. The SPCCP shall include: • A listing of all vehicles, materials, and equipment to be used in the event of a spill of contaminated soil,petroleum product,or water; • All the steps the contractor will take in the event of a spill; • A method for protection of adjacent water bodies/streams; • A method for storm water and catch basin protection;and • An incident log and inspection log,with weekly copies provided to PSE. Dust Control The contractor shall provide the materials and labor to control dust originating from the site. The contractor shall implement the following controls: • Water(or other dust suppressant)spraying as necessary to eliminate visible dust; and • Cover soil stockpiles with suitable materials. For more information, refer to the Dust and Erosion Control Plan requirements listed in the Earth Element,Item h. Remediation Procedures For all types of contaminant remediation, qualified contractors, selected through a competitive bid process, will be used. Contractors will be required to maintain a clean orderly site and Page 11 ofl 9 Puget Sound Energy Shuffleton Steam Plant Site Remediation Project SEPA Environmental Checklist July 15, 1998 comply with all Local, State, and Federal codes. Each contractor will be required to provide a description of work activities and a health and safety plan prior to beginning removal activities. Work will also be performed in accordance with the technical specifications part of the bid package. b. Noise 1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? Surrounding noise will not affect the proposed decommissioning project. However, there is significant noise in the area from the Boeing and Paccar Plants, Renton Airport, Burlington- Northern Railroad and I-405. 2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short-term or a long-term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site. Noise will be created on a short-term basis by construction equipment. Soil remediation and building demolition activities will typically occur on weekdays within the City of Renton's designated construction start and stop time of 7 a.m. and 10 p.m. Noise will be generated by the use of various types of construction equipment, which may include trucks,excavators,air compressors and various vehicles with backup warning horns. Vehicles entering and leaving the site during the course of the project will also generate traffic noise. An estimated 130 truckloads will be required to remove soil and demolition debris from the site. 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: The proposed project will comply with state noise regulations as adopted by the City of Renton. Construction hours will be limited as described above, and/or by the City of Renton, to ensure that the project does not exceed the maximum permissible noise levels established for construction sites. 8. Land and Shoreline Use a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? Previous use of the site was for electric power generation; the plant was last operated in 1989. Currently, an electrical substation, warehouses, and offices occupy the portions of the site that are in use. Uses in the vicinity include heavy industry (Boeing, Paccar Plants,) transportation (Burlington- Northern Railroad, Renton Airport, I-405,) and recreation (Lake Washington, Cedar Park Trail, Gene Coulon Memorial Beach Park.) Page 12 ofl9 Puget Sound Energy Shuffleton Steam Plant Site Remediation Project SEPA Environmental Checklist July 15, 1998 b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe. No. c. Describe any structures on the site. Major aboveground structures include steam plant, transformer platform, pumphouse, substation, fuel oil dock,warehouses and offices. d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? Yes. Of the miscellaneous accessory structures on the site, the lumber shed and paint storage building will be demolished. The lumber facility is 900 square feet in size, and the paint storage shed is 440 square feet(See attached site plan). The rail spur that runs along the north side of the property will also be removed. e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? IH-Heavy Industrial f. What is current comprehensive plan designation of the site? Employment Area-Industrial g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? Urban h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? If so, specify Lake Washington is adjacent to the site; there is also a stream (Park Creek) located near the entrance to the site. The site is designated as "Low" on the City of Renton Landslide Hazards Map and Coal Mine Hazard Map. The site is not identified as being part of a greenbelt, nor does it have any identifiable wetlands within its boundaries per maps on file at the City of Renton. i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? None. j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? None. k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: None are proposed. Page 13 ofl9 Puget Sound Energy Shuffleton Steam Plant Site Remediation Project SEPA Environmental Checklist July 15, 1998 I. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: None are proposed. 9. Housing a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. None. b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. None. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: None are proposed. 10. Aesthetics a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is the principle exterior building material(s) proposed? N/A b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? None c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: None are proposed. 11. Light and Glare a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? Temporary lighting may be required for work at night, particularly if remediation activities extend into the autumn months. Such lighting is not expected to create light or glare impacts to the adjacent properties, and will be removed at the end of the project, thus there will be no ongoing light or glare impacts. Page 14 ofl9 Puget Sound Energy Shuffleton Steam Plant Site Remediation Project SEPA Environmental Checklist July 15, 1998 b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? No. c. What existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? None. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: None are proposed. 12. Recreation a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? Gene Coulon Park,Lake Washington(boating activities), Cedar River Trail. b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe. No. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: None are proposed. 13. Historical and Cultural Preservation a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for national, state, or local preservation registers known to be on or next to the site? If so, generally describe. No b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site? None are known of. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any: None are proposed. Page 15 ofl 9 Puget Sound Energy Shuffleton Steam Plant Site Remediation Project SEPA Environmental Checklist July 15, 1998 14. Transportation a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe the proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. The main route to the site includes I-405,Park Ave. N, Garden Ave. N and Lake Washington Blvd. N. Trucks will use the existing access off Lake Washington Blvd. N. b. Is the site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? N/A c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? No parking spaces will be built or eliminated. d. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets, or improvements to existing roads or streets, not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private). No. e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. The project is in the vicinity of the Burlington-Northern Railroad, I-405, the Renton Airport and Lake Washington(a large recreational boat launch is adjacent to the project site.) f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur. None. However, a limited number of trips are associated with on-going substation and storage related uses and will continue after completion of the proposed project. g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: None are proposed. 15. Public Services a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire protection, police protection, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe. No. Page 16 of19 Puget Sound Energy Shuffleton Steam Plant Site Remediation Project SEPA Environmental Checklist July 15, 1998 b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. None are proposed. 16. Utilities a. Utilities currently available at the site: electricity, natural gas, water, refuse service, telephone, sanitary sewer, septic system, other. Utilities currently available on site include: electricity, water, refuse service, telephone and sanitary sewer. For additional information, refer to the Generalized Utility Plan. b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be needed: None are proposed. Page 17 of19 Puget Sound Energy Shuffleton Steam Plant Site Remediation Project SEPA Environmental Checklist July 15, 1998 C. SIGNATURE: I, the undersigned, state that to the best of my knowledge the above information is true and complete. It is understood that the lead agency may withdraw any declaration of non-significance that it might issue in reliance upon this checklist should there be any willful misrepresentation or willful lack of full disclosure on my part. Proponent: Name Printed: Barry ard,Project Manager--Remediation Date: 7 1 ►5 1 lg Page 18 of19 Puget Sound Energy Shuffleton Steam Plant Site Remediation Project SEPA Environmental Checklist July 15, 1998 D. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NON-PROJECT ACTIONS (do not use this sheet for project actions) Because these questions are very general,it may be helpful to read them in conjunction with the list of the elements of the environment. When answering the questions,be aware of the extent of the proposal, or the types of activities likely to result from the proposal, would affect the item at a greater intensity or at a faster rate than if the proposal were not implemented. Respond briefly and in general terms. 1. How would the proposal be likely to increase discharge to water; emissions to air; production, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production of noise? 2. How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, animals, fish or marine life? 3. How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources? 4. How would the proposal be likely to use or affect environmentally sensitive areas or areas designated (or eligible or under study) for governmental protection; such as parks, wilderness, wild and scenic rivers, threatened, or endangered species, habitat, historic or cultural sites, wetlands, floodplains, or prime farmlands? 5. How would the proposal be likely to affect land and shoreline use, including whether it would allow or encourage land and shoreline uses incompatible with existing plans? 6. How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or public services and utilities? Proposed measures to reduce or respond to such demands are: 7. Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with local, state, or federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. Page 19 ofl 9 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISIC WAIVER OF SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS FOR LAND USE APPLICATIONS LAND USE PERMIT SUBMITTAL WAIVED MODIFIED COMMENTS: REQUIREMENTS: BY: BY: Calculations, Survey, Drainage Control Plan 2 o Drainage Report 2 AMtd Elevations, Architectural3 AND 4 A`b'rN<f Elevations, Grading 2 Existing Covenants (Recorded Copy)a Existing Easements (Recorded Copy) 4 Flood Plain Map, if applicable 4 Floor Plans 3AND4 Geotechnical Report 2ANos Grading Plan, Conceptual 2 Grading Plan, Detailed 2 King County Assessor's Map Indicating Site 4 Landscaping Plan, Conceptual 4 Legal Description 4 List of Surrounding Property Owners 4 Mailing Labels for Property Owners 4 Map of Existing Site Conditions 4 Master Application Form 4 ................ Monument Cards (one per monument) , Parking, Lot Coverage & Landscaping Analysis 4 Plan Reductions (PMTs) 4 Postage 4 Public Works Approval Letter 2 Title Report or Plat Certificate 4 Topography Map (5' contours)3 Traffic Study 2 Tree CuttingNegetation Clearing Plan 4 Utilities Plan, Generalized 2 Wetlands Delineation Map4 lam' Wetlands Planting Plan 4 itOI Wetlands Study 4 This requirement may be waived by: 1. Property Services Section PROJECT NAME: '7�hL L, 2 I j P ripiF 2. Public Works Plan Review Section i 3. Building Section DATE: 7/IG/(fe 4. Development Planning Section h:\division.s\develop.ser\dev.plan ing\waiver.xls **************************************************************** City of Renton WA Receipt **************************************************************** Receipt Number: R9804717 Amount : 500 . 00 08/04/98 12 :45 Payment Method: CHECK Notation: #478636 PUGET SO Init : LN Project # : LUA98-115 Type: LUA Land Use Actions Parcel No: 082305-9055 Site Address : 1101 LAKE WASHINGTON BL N Total Fees : 1, 507 . 04 This Payment 500 . 00 Total ALL Pmts : 1, 507 . 04 Balance: . 00 **************************************************************** Account Code Description Amount 000 . 345 . 81 . 00 . 0016 Shoreline Subst Dev 500 . 00 **************************************************************** City of Renton WA Reprinted: 07/15/98 16 : 51 Receipt **************************************************************** Receipt Number: R9804321 Amount : 1, 007 . 04 07/15/98 16 : 50 Payment Method: CHECK Notation: #478277 P.S .E. Init : LMN Project # : LUA98-115 Type: LUA Land Use Actions Parcel No: 082305-9055 Site Address : 1101 LAKE WASHINGTON BL N Total Fees : 1, 007 . 04 This Payment 1, 007 . 04 Total ALL Pmts : 1, 007 . 04 Balance: . 00 **************************************************************** Account Code Description Amount 000 . 345 . 81 . 00 . 0007 Environmental Review 1, 000 . 00 000 . 05 . 519 . 90 .42 . 1 Postage 7 . 04 LOV ''153• 115 , E"(.. ) A a' HARTCROWSCR Earth and Environmental Technologies Final Environmental Site Investigation Shuffleton Steam Plant Facility Renton, Washington Prepared for I Puget Sound Power and a", 41 Light Company J-4349-01 April 15, 1996 IL,414 hill bt ,j •:II y o aLR 1111���"' „ii Earth and Environmental Technologies 10 vy Final Environmental Site Investigation Shuffleton Steam Plant Facility •._.:[ . 71) .t Renton, Washington ..* Prepared for Puget Sound Power and Light Company J-4349-01 - . e April 15, 1996 o, CI `o Ci III Hart Crowser J-4349-01 CONTENTS Page 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1-1 1.1 Site Hydrogeology 1-2 1.2 Soil Characterization 1-2 1.3 Freshwater Sediment Characterization 1-4 1.4 Groundwater Characterization 1-5 1.5 Summary and Recommendations 1-6 2.0 INTRODUCTION 2-1 2.1 Scope 2-1 2.2 Limitations 2-2 2.3 ESI Report Organization 2-2 2.4 General Site Description 2-3 2.5 Site History 2-4 2.6 Previous Site Investigations 2-8 2.7 Site Conceptual Model 2-11 3.0 SITE HYDROGEOLOGY 3-1 3.1 Regional Geology and Groundwater Occurrence 3-1 3.2 Site Surface Conditions 3-2 3.3 Site Subsurface Conditions 3-2 3.4 Groundwater Levels and Flow 3-3 4.0 SOIL CHARACTERIZATION 4-1 4.1 Scope of Soil Sampling Program 4-1 4.2 Soil Screening Criteria 4-2 4.3 Soil Quality 4-5 5.0 FRESHWATER SEDIMENT CHARACTERIZATION 5-1 5.1 Sediment Quality Regulations 5-1 5.2 Scope of Sediment Sampling Program 5-4 5.3 Freshwater Sediment Quality 5-4 6.0 GROUNDWATER CHARACTERIZATION 6-1 6.1 Scope of Groundwater Sampling Program 6-1 Page i Hart Crowser J-4349-01 CONTENTS (Continued) Page 6.2 Groundwater Screening Criteria 6-1 6.3 Groundwater Quality 6-2 6.4 Highest Beneficial Use of Groundwater is Discharge to Lake Washington 6-5 6.5 Potential Impacts to Lake Washington 6-7 7.0 SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS 7-1 REFERENCES R-1 TABLES 2-1 Relationship of Study Areas to Source Areas 2-13 3-1 Groundwater Levels Measured on September 20, 1995 3-5 3-2 Groundwater Levels Measured on November 21, 1995 3-6 4-1 Soil Analytical Results Exceeding MTCA Screening Levels 4-16 4-2-A Analytical Results for Asbestos in Soil and Firebrick Samples 4-17 4-2-B Analytical Results for Asbestos in Soil and Lining Material Samples 4-18 5-1 Proposed Freshwater Sediment Quality Criteria - Organic Compounds 5-6 5-2 Analytical Results for Sediment Samples 5-7 5-3 Total PAH Concentrations Reported for Sediments 5-9 Associated with Treated Wood Pilings in the Puget Sound Area 5-4 Total PAH Concentrations Report for Sediments in the Seattle Area 5-9 6-1 Comparison of Groundwater Analytical Data with Federal Fresh Water 6-9 Chronic Water Quality Criteria 6-2 Arsenic Results in Groundwater Samples above MTCA Method A 6-14 Screening Level FIGURES 2-1 Vicinity Map 2-2 Preliminary Property Subdivision Map 3-1 Cross Section Location Map 3-2 Generalized Subsurface Cross Section A-A' 3-3 Generalized Subsurface Cross Section B-B' and C-C' 3-4 Groundwater Elevation Contour Map September 20, 1995 Page ii Hart Crowser J-4349-01 CONTENTS (Continued) Page FIGURES (Continued) 3-5 Groundwater Elevation Contour Map November 21, 1995 4-1 Soil and Sediment Sampling Location Plan 4-2 MTCA Industrial Soil Screening Level Exceedences for TPH 4-3 MTCA Residential Soil Screening Level Exceedences 4-4 Soil Lead Sampling Location Plan Showing Results Fuel Oil Storage Tank Area 4-5 Soil Lead Sampling Location Plan Showing Results Power House, Pump House, and Control House Area 4-6 Suspect Asbestos Sampling Location Plan 6-1 Groundwater Sampling Location Plan 6-2 MTCA Groundwater Screening Level Exceedences APPENDIX A SAMPLE COLLECTION METHODS AND LOGS OF EXPLORATIONS A-1 Preparation for On-Site Work A-1 Equipment Decontamination A-1 Test Pits A-1 Soil Borings A-3 Field Screening A-4 Soil Classification A-4 Sample and Cuttings Handling A-4 Borehole Abandonment A-4 Hand-Auger Borings A-5 Surface Soil Sampling A-5 Well Installation and Construction A-6 Well Development A-6 Water Level Measurements A-7 Groundwater Sampling Procedures A-7 Sediment Sampling A-9 TABLE A-1 Sediment Sample Descriptions A-11 Page iii Hart Crowser J-4349-01 CONTENTS (Continued) Page FIGURES A-1 Key to Exploration Logs A-2 through A-18 Test Pit Log TP-1 through TP-31, TP-34 through TP-49, and E-2 A-19 through A-23 Boring Log SB-i through SB-5 A-24 Boring Log SB-6 with Hydropunch Configuration A-25 and A-26 Hand-Auger Boring Log HA-1 through HA-5 A-27 through A-35 Boring Log and Construction Data for Monitoring Well HC-MW-1 through MC-MW-9 APPENDIX B DATA QUALITY REVIEW FOR SOIL, SEDIMENT, AND WATER SAMPLES B-1 Volatiles (EPA Method 8260) B-1 Semivolatiles (EPA Method 8270) B-2 PCBs (EPA Method 8080) B-2 Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (WTPH-D Extended) B-2 Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (WTPH-G) B-3 Metals (EPA Method 6000 and 7000) B-3 Dissolved Metals (EPA Method 6000 and 7000) B-3 Total Suspended Solids/Hardness B-3 Herbicides (EPA Method 8150) B-4 Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (Method 8310) B-4 Total Lead (EPA Method 6010) B-4 Field Duplicates B-4 Data Quality Summary B-4 Asbestos (Polarized Light Microscopy) B-5 APPENDIX C DATA AND STATISTICAL SUMMARY TABLES TABLES C-1 Analytical Results for Soil Samples C-1 C-2 Analytical Results for Total Lead in Soil Samples C-21 C-3 Analytical Results for Groundwater Samples C-22 C-4 Statistical Summary for Soil Samples - MTCA Method B C-27 Residential Screening Level Page iv Hart Crowser J-4349-01 CONTENTS (Continued) Page TABLES (Continued) C-5 Statistical Summary for Soil Samples - MTCA Method C Commercial Screening Level C-28 C-6 Statistical Summary for Soil Samples - MTCA Method C Industrial Screening Level C-29 • Page v 1 Hart Crowser J-4349-01 ENVIRONMENTAL SITE INVESTIGATION SHUFFLETON STEAM PLANT FACILITY RENTON, WASHINGTON 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report summarizes the results of an environmental site investigation (ESI) conducted at the Shuffleton Steam Plant site (located at the southeast corner of Lake Washington) under the Washington Model Toxics Control Act (MICA) administered by the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology). The site is zoned for heavy industrial use (H-1). Adjacent to the site to the southwest is Boeing's Renton operations and to the northeast is Coulon Park. The purposes of the ESI were to identify the general nature and extent of chemical contaminants present in site media (soil, sediment, and groundwater), to evaluate contaminant concentrations relative to standards protective of human health and the environment, and to provide sufficient information to Puget Power regarding the environmental status of the property to determine a strategy for future site industrial, commercial, or mixed land use redevelopment. To better focus the investigation, the site was divided into three subparcels, or zones (A, B, and C). Zones A and B (the northeastern portion of the site) are planned for future redevelopment, and Zone C (the southwestern portion of the site) is planned to be retained by Puget Power for continued future use as an electrical substation. Prior to the start of the study, a detailed site history was conducted including an extensive review of site records, a series of interviews with site workers, and a review of historical operational activities and practices. Relative to potential environmental concerns, the following five site activities were identified: ► Fuel oil storage/handling; ► Electrical equipment/transformer storage/handling; ► Settling pond/sandblast discharge; ► Site drywell disposal; and ► Chemical storage. The results of the historical review formed the basis for the development of a detailed work plan for site investigation (Hart Crowser, 1995b) which was followed to complete this ESI. The following sections briefly summarize each section of the ESI report. Page 1-1 Hart Crowser J-4349-01 1.1 Site Hydrogeology The site is located in the glacial deposits of the Cedar River valley. The regional groundwater flow is characterized by recharge in the uplands and discharge to the north into Lake Washington. Because of the discharge upward into Lake Washington in the vicinity of the site, shallow groundwater at the site is not expected to flow downward to deeper water- bearing units. The site is generally flat with a slight topographic slope toward Lake Washington. Typical of industrial sites in the vicinity, the site has been drained and filled with sands, gravels, and demolition debris over the years. Groundwater beneath the site was observed at depths of 3 to 5 feet below grade during our sampling activities. Based on our measurements at 19 groundwater monitoring well locations in September and December 1995, groundwater at the site flows in a north to northwesterly direction toward the lake at a relatively slow rate. 1.2 Soil Characterization A total of 71 soil samples were collected from surface soils, test pits, and soil borings and submitted for chemical analysis in accordance with the work plan. In addition, one surface soil sample was collected from the drainage ditch. Soil sampling locations were focused on those areas identified to have potential concerns based on historical site use, and those areas planned for future site redevelopment. Depending on the type of field exploration, soil samples were collected at selected intervals (depending on field screening and observations) between ground surface and the maximum depth of 9 feet. Site soil samples were analyzed for volatile and semivolatile organics, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), metals, total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH), herbicides, and asbestos. Analytical results for soils were compared with various MTCA soil cleanup levels for different potential future land uses (screening levels for residential, commercial, and industrial land use). The results indicate the following: ► TPHs. Fifty-seven soil samples were analyzed for TPH, and mid- to heavy-range fuels and oils were detected in approximately 65 percent of the samples. Eight locations (near the fuel oil storage tanks, the fuel pump house, the fuel oil lines, the drywells, the paint storage shed, the transformer oil tank pump house, and near the control house) contained concentrations above the residential/industrial screening level. Several locations had very weathered Bunker-C and heavy oil-like products. Page 1-2 Hart Crowser J-4349-01 Only one location, near where transformers were cleaned at the power house, indicated the presence of transformer (or mineral) oil. ► PCBs. PCBs were detected in 13 of 54 samples, and only two sample results were slightly above the screening level for residential land use (1.0 mg/kg) (but below the screening level for industrial land use - 17 mg/kg). ► Arsenic. Only 1 of 10 samples analyzed for arsenic had concentrations above the background concentration for the Puget Sound region (7.3 mg/kg), with an average concentration for the site of 5.2 mg/kg. ► Lead. Thirty-six surface soil samples were collected around the perimeter of those structures that may have been painted using lead- based paint. In the vicinity of the fuel oil storage tanks, the lead concentrations were below screening levels for residential land use. Along the northeast perimeter of the pump house, and the southwestern side of the power house, concentrations were above screening levels for residential use but below screening levels for industrial use. Lead concentrations were above residential and industrial screening levels in the vicinity of the transformer platform. Lead was not evaluated at depth in the areas in the vicinity of structures that may have been painted with lead-based paint; however, the concentrations between the 0 to 0.5 and 0.5 to 1 foot sample intervals on the property generally decreased. Lead was also analyzed in 17 subsurface soil samples collected in Zones A and B. Lead in soils at all these locations was detected at concentrations below screening levels. ► Other Metals. Other metals that were analyzed in site soils (including Ag, Cd, Cr, Cu, Ni, and Zn) were well below screening levels. ► Volatiles, Semivolatiles, and Herbicides. Of the samples analyzed for these constituents, only 1 sample had low concentrations of PAHs, and 1 sample had very low concentrations of two herbicides. The concentration of carcinogenic PAHs was slightly above the residential screening levels but below the industrial screening levels. The detected herbicide concentrations were well below residential and industrial screening levels. ► Asbestos. Asbestos concentrations were evaluated in soil samples in the limited locations identified from employee interviews where power house boiler firebrick (and associated asbestos-containing liner material) had a high to moderate probability of being placed. The firebricks Page 1-3 Hart Crowser J-4349-01 themselves do not contain asbestos. In four of seven soil samples where firebrick was observed (primarily along the shoreline, in the fuel oil storage tank area, to the west and southwest of the power house, and in Parcel B), the asbestos content of the surrounding soil was greater than the level protective of human health (in the event that the soils are disturbed during activities such as excavation). In one of the test pits (TP-37), two small (approximately 0.25 sq. in.) pieces of liner material were recovered, and test results indicated 90 percent asbestos content. These results confirmed interviewee information regarding the asbestos source (the asbestos sheet liner material that lined the power house boilers inside the firebrick). Only seven of 20 test pits in the high to moderate probability areas had observable firebrick. In addition, interviewees estimated the total volume of asbestos-containing material potentially placed at the site to be approximately 1.25 tons. Note that firebrick was only encountered in surface soils to a maximum depth of 4 feet. For this reason, the asbestos content of subsurface soils was not evaluated. 1.3 Freshwater Sediment Characterization Four surface sediment samples were collected within the Harbor Area to evaluate potential impacts to sediments associated with off-shore loading/ unloading of petroleum products and drainage ditch or groundwater discharges from the site. Samples were collected in accordance with Puget Sound Estuary Program protocols, and analyzed for metals, PCBs, and PAHs (PAHs were evaluated because there is no basis for developing a sediment standard for TPH). Although there are currently no freshwater sediment criteria, the analytical results were compared to the most relevant available values developed by Ecology and EPA. Based on these values which are described in the full report, the results indicate: ► All metals concentrations were below applicable screening levels; ► PCBs were not detected in any of the sediment samples; ► PAHs were detected at concentrations below two of the three screening levels; pyrene was the only individual PAH that was detected at a concentration more than the screening level; and ► Total PAHs detected in the four sediment samples were much lower than those detected at other locations around Lake Washington, the Ship Canal, Lake Union, and other areas that have treated wood pilings associated with docks. Page 1-4 Hart Crowser J-4349-01 Based on these results, no further action is indicated for freshwater sediments in the Harbor Area adjacent to the site. 1.4 Groundwater Characterization Nine monitoring wells and one temporary hydropunch were installed as part of the ESI. The locations where groundwater wells were placed were generally associated with locations where, based on historical site use, groundwater impacts might be expected. In addition, groundwater was monitored at the point of discharge to Lake Washington, and between the southern portion of the site that Puget Power plans to retain, and the northern portion of the site that is planned for redevelopment. Ten groundwater samples were collected and analyzed for TPH, PAHs, PCBs, and metals. The results indicated: ► Only one of the groundwater samples had detected concentrations of TPH, and it was well below the MTCA screening level. ► No PCBs or PAHs were detected in site groundwaters. ► Arsenic was the only dissolved metal detected in groundwater. Arsenic concentrations observed in groundwater were similar to regional background concentrations; or in locations close to the lake, similar to concentrations associated with reducing conditions typical of peaty soils. ► Arsenic was detected in site groundwater at concentrations somewhat above the concentration that is considered protective of use of the groundwater as a source of drinking water. However, the highest beneficial use of shallow groundwater at the site will be discharge to Lake Washington; therefore, the more appropriate screening criteria to use for comparison is for long-term protection of aquatic biota (federal chronic water quality criteria). All of the dissolved arsenic concentrations detected in site groundwater were well below the freshwater criteria for protection of aquatic life. These groundwater results provide a good indication that TPH, PCB, and lead concentrations detected in site soils have limited mobility and leachability, and are not impacting the groundwater. Based on these results, groundwater at the site is protective of adjacent Lake Washington surface waters and requires no further action. Page 1-5 Hart Crowser J-4349-01 1.5 Summary and Recommendations Based on the ESI data, the Shuffleton site media represent relatively good environmental quality when compared to typical industrial sites. The contamination identified is limited to surface and near-surface soils in a number of relatively limited areas of the site. In addition, the identified contamination above screening levels is found only in site soils, and there is no apparent impact on site groundwaters or adjacent freshwater sediments in Lake Washington. The limited contamination observed from the data is consistent with the historical practices and activities identified from employee interviews and a detailed site history review. For example, the power house was used to burn any residual petroleum, cleaning solvents, and other fuel substances generated from on-site activities. The limited concentrations and extent of PCBs in the soils sampled during the ESI are also consistent with Puget Power's policies. In general, Puget Power used transformers that do not contain PCBs and documented characterization and cleanup of any PCB spills or localized stained soils. In preparation for future site redevelopment, our recommendations, depending on future land use, include: ► No further action is recommended for groundwater or freshwater sediments; ► No further action is recommended for soils in Zone B for any future land use (if however, residential land use is considered for this zone, additional sampling may be warranted); ► In Zone A, in the case of continued industrial land use, we recommend a limited hot spot containment or removal action for primarily TPH- and lead-containing soils in approximately 10 locations in conjunction with development plans. In addition, we recommend development of construction contingency plans that include protection of site workers from asbestos in liner material or soil that may be encountered during excavation work that uncovers firebrick in the limited areas identified, or in association with steam and fuel pipelines; ► In Zone A, in the case of commercial land use, we recommend essentially the same strategy as industrial land use with the addition of a slightly more extensive containment or removal action for site soils; and Page 1-6 Hart Crowser J-4349-01 ► In Zone A, in the case of residential development, we recommend a remediation action to address a more extensive list of constituents (TPH, PAHs, PCBs, lead, and arsenic) and a larger volume of soils. We also recommend the removal of surface soils containing asbestos, and appropriate worker protection and development of contingency plans for the limited areas where asbestos in soil or liner material associated with firebricks, or steam and fuel pipelines may be used as an indicator of the potential for encountering asbestos during excavation activities. Page 1-7 Hart Crowser J-4349-01 2.0 INTRODUCTION 2.1 Scope This report summarizes the results of the work conducted in accordance with the work plan (Hart Crowser, 1995b) to conduct an Environmental Site Investigation (ESI) at the Puget Power Shuffleton Steam Plant site (site) located in Renton, Washington. There have been limited previous investigations conducted at the site as discussed below. The site investigation contains elements of a Phase II property assessment and a focused remedial investigation. However, the primary goal of the ESI at the site is to provide adequate information for Puget Power to develop an internal strategy regarding the degree of site cleanup required to adequately protect human health and the environment under various options for future site redevelopment. Project Objectives This ESI has been conducted under guidance of the Washington State Model Toxics Control Act (MTCA). The data quality objectives for each of the study areas of the ESI include: ► Identify the presence/absence of environmental impacts in the areas identified as potentially contaminated based on the site history review; ► Identify the general nature and approximate extent of contamination on the property (including chemical data analysis and statistics); ► Interpret contaminant transport pathways and rates (including groundwater flow and geologic controls); ► Identify possible source areas for soil and groundwater contamination. ► Determine whether site environmental quality data indicate a potential threat to human health or the environment; ► Determine the potential for impact to Lake Washington from groundwater discharge; and ► Verify the assumptions used in the conceptual model upon which the investigation work plan was based. Page 2-1 Hart Crowser J-4349-01 2.2 Limitations Work for this project was performed, and this report prepared, in accordance with generally accepted professional practices for the nature and conditions of the work completed in the same or similar localities, at the time the work was performed. It is intended for the exclusive use of Puget Power for specific application to the referenced property. This report is not meant to represent a legal opinion. No other warranty, express or implied, is made. 2.3 ESI Report Organization Subsequent sections of the ESI report are organized as follows: ► The remainder of Section 2.0 summarizes the site location, land use, site history, previous site investigations, and conceptual model. ► Section 3.0 summarizes the site hydrogeology including the regional geology, groundwater occurrence, surface and subsurface conditions, and groundwater levels and flow. ► Sections 4.0, 5.0, and 6.0 describe the media characterization activities, the comparative screening methods, and the quality of the media relative to the selected screening criteria for soil, freshwater sediment, and groundwater, respectively. ► Section 7.0 provides a brief summary of this work along with recommendations for future site redevelopment under various land use scenarios. The last section of the report lists the references for the entire report. Tables and figures relevant to each section are numbered to correspond to their respective section and are included at the end of each section. The following appendices are also provided after the references: ► Appendix A presents the specific methods followed for soil, sediment, and groundwater explorations and sample collection during field activities at the site. Figures presented at the end of the appendix present logs of explorations conducted at the site. ► Appendix B summarizes the results of the data quality review conducted for all soil, sediment, and groundwater samples. Page 2-2 Hart Crowser J-4349-01 ► Appendix C provides statistical summary tables for the site characterization followed by a complete set of data tables for all samples and analytical results at the site. 2.4 General Site Description This section presents information on the site location and land use. 2.4.1 Site Location and Industrial Land Use The 25-acre Shuffleton facility is located on the south end of Lake Washington within the City of Renton, as shown on Figure 2-1. It lies in Township 23 North, Range 5 East, W.M., King County, Washington. It is bordered on the northwest by Lake Washington, on the northeast by Gene Coulon Park and Park Creek, on the southeast by Burlington Northern Railroad tracks, and on the southwest by the Boeing Renton Plant. The property consists of a steam plant, an electrical substation, an analytical laboratory, and other small buildings and storage areas. The locations of these other pertinent site features are presented on Figure 2-2. Note that this investigation was limited to identification of potential impacts to environmental media (soil, groundwater, and sediments) associated with the property. This assessment did not include any investigation of existing buildings, tanks, underground utilities, or other structures. Specifically excluded from this investigation is the former Puget Power property, currently owned by Boeing, located west of the site. In addition, the interior of the Shuffleton Steam Plant (which is being separately assessed for lead-based paint and asbestos issues), and Substation buildings and property (Parcel C—which Puget Power plans to retain and is currently using for facility operations) are not being considered as part of this investigation. The site is zoned H-1 for heavy industrial use (Renton, 1995 Zoning Map) and is bordered on the northeast by public use (Gene Coulon Park) and convenience commercial zoning (CC). The area southeast and southwest of the property is also designated H-1 for heavy industrial land use. Specific features pertinent to evaluating environmental issues are: ► The site is currently zoned for industrial purposes; ► Adjacent properties are being used for industrial applications and recreational purposes; ► The site is located within a large industrial area; and Page 2-3 Hart Crowser J-4349-01 • ► Future industrial/commercial uses and other uses (e.g., commercial, residential, or open space) are part of site planning considerations. 2.5 Site History This section summarizes an extensive review of site documents and interviews (conducted within the attorney/client privilege) with former employees at the site regarding potential contamination, and associated locations. Below is a synopsis of the site operational activities which could potentially impact site soil and/or groundwater quality. 2.5.1 General History The Shuffleton Steam Plant was constructed by Stone & Webster in 1929. It served as an oil-fired, steam-powered electrical generation plant from 1929 to the mid-1950s. Because of the abundance of electric power available in the region by the mid-1950s, power from the steam plant was needed only to provide power during peak load seasons, emergencies, and equipment outages. In the mid-1950s, its operation was shifted to a standby basis. The last time the steam plant operated for power production was 1989. In addition to the steam plant, electrical substation maintenance activities for Puget Power have taken place at the Shuffleton site, and the Substation Department has been located there since the 1950s. These operations have maintained the switchyard, as well as providing a base for servicing-other substations in the Puget Power Central Division. The Shuffleton grounds around the steam plant have been used as storage areas for miscellaneous equipment. This is particularly true for Substation equipment such as transformers, capacitors, regulators, and bushings. In 1979, an analytical laboratory was built at Shuffleton to conduct physical and chemical analyses on samples of transformer oil, surface waters, and potentially contaminated soils. By February 1995, the laboratory analyses except physical performance testing were discontinued at the Shuffleton site. 2.5.2 Research Methodology Historical research was performed to collect and analyze data representing past activities and operations at the Shuffleton Steam Plant property. Several types of historical data were reviewed or requested to develop the site history described in this report and include: Page 2-4 Hart Crowser J-4349-01 ► Puget Power Records. The kinds of information reviewed included facility plans, maps, drawings, reports, memoranda, logbooks, aerial photographs, and equipment inventories; ► Personnel Interviews. Four sequential interview sessions including a total of 12 people were conducted under the attorney/client privilege with current or former Puget Power employees representing workers from the steam plant, the substation, and the laboratory on May 25, May 26, and June 19, 1995, and January 22, 1996; ► Regulatory Agency Databases. Selected regulatory databases available from EPA and Ecology were reviewed following American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) procedures for information regarding environmental concerns at the site and adjacent properties within certain radii; ► Adjacent Site Environmental Reports. Several environmental reports from adjacent sites were reviewed for information useful to refine the ESI scope of work; ► Aerial Photographs. A series of historical aerial photographs representing the years 1936, 1946, 1960, 1968, 1977, and 1985 were examined to gain additional insight into information obtained from file review information and personnel interviews; ► Topographic Maps. The 1950 and 1973 Renton and Mercer Island 7.5-minute USGS quadrangle topographic maps were reviewed regarding site features and gross area topography; and ► Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps. A Sanborn map inquiry was conducted, but no Sanborn maps were available for this area of the Puget Sound region. 2.5.3 Shuffleton Steam Plant The power facility consisted of the main steam-generating plant of three oil-fired boilers. The boilers were connected to two steam turbines, primary fuel storage tanks (initially located to the southwest on what is now part of the Boeing plant complex), the fuel docking facility, fuel transfer systems (including a pump house and smaller service tanks near the main plant), subgrade water intake and discharge wood-lined tunnel, and a step-up transformer bank located just south of the generating unit. These features are shown by location on Figure 2-2. Located to the southeast of the plant is a switching substation complex, which in later Page 2-5 Hart Crowser J-4349-01 years served as a regional service facility for other substations, and a maintenance yard materials storage area and warehouse. Standard Operations Period: 1929 to Mid-1950s. This period represents the time of greatest activity at the steam plant. In this era, the steam plant appeared to have operated at least two-thirds of the time (extrapolated from the review of the 1941 and 1951 plant engineering logbooks), supplying electrical power to the region. Activities at the plant included petroleum storage and handling, power house maintenance activities (such as re- bricking of the three boilers, equipment maintenance and chemical storage, boiler cleanout, and steamplant laboratory operation) Standby Operations Period: Mid-1950s through 1989. During this period of standby operations, the plant operated as a reserve standby facility that ran only when the demand for power was unusually high, or as an emergency backup to other plants. For example, from December 1964 to March 1979, the plant operated 11 times, for a cumulative total of 180 days. The plant personnel stopped maintaining an around-the-clock shift sometime in 1978, when operations went to a 10-hour day, 5 days per week crew coverage. Similar activities continued at the plant, however, they were conducted less frequently. "Cold Standby" Period: 1989 to Present. During the late 1980s, the plant was put into "cold standby." Since that time, regular maintenance of the steam plant equipment has occurred. 2.5.4 Shuffleton Substation Department From the beginning of Shuffleton operations in 1929, there were personnel who supported electrical operations at Shuffleton and other Puget Power locations. A formal regional electrical substation group was not established at Shuffleton until the Seattle Puget Power Substation Department moved to Shuffleton in the early 1950s. Shortly thereafter, the steam plant was switched to a standby status. As a result, the Substation Department grew to play a more important role at Shuffleton in the years following the mid- 1950s. The Substation Department continues to operate at the Shuffleton site. The Substation Department's responsibilities included the handling of electrical equipment substation supply, repair, and maintenance. Equipment for the operation of the Shuffleton plant and for other Puget operations was stored at the site for various periods of time in a variety of locations. The electrical equipment handled and stored at the site included batteries (battery acids and battery carcasses), chargers, capacitor banks, current and potential transformers, other transformers, disconnect switches, Page 2-6 Hart Crowser J-4349-01 electronic recloser controls, motor operators, power circuit breakers, devices, reclosers, regulators, and sectionalizers. Part of the maintenance of electrical equipment involved handling transformer oils. Steam Plant Support Period: 1929 to Early 1950s. Electrical maintenance and repair work to support plant operations was being conducted at the steam plant by substation workers, under the purview of the steam plant organization. Activities during this time included the repair and maintenance of the transformer banks within the steam plant and southeast of the steam plant (i.e., transformer platform) and handling of the transformer oil in the oil pump house and associated tanks. In addition, repair and maintenance associated with the substation and associated switch yard occurred. This group was also responsible for building repair and maintenance of various piping and fixtures associated with steam plant operation. Initial Substation Department Period: Early 1950s to Early 1960s. From about 1949 through 1953, the corporate substation personnel were transferred from the City of Seattle to the Shuffleton site. The new Shuffleton staff included 3 or 4 substation inspectors; 1 wire crew with 1 foreman; 2 journeymen; and 2 helpers. This group was responsible for building and maintaining power distribution substations throughout the Central Division of Puget Power. They were headquartered at Shuffleton, though various staff might spend a lot of time in the field. The group was physically located on the fourth floor of the steam plant. Electrical Equipment Storage Relocation and Expansion: Mid-1960s to 1980. The substation's electrical equipment storage area was moved to the south-southeast end of the property in the early 1960s, to make room for the installation of two new fuel oil storage tanks presently existing in the northeast corner of the site by the dock. This followed sale of the western parcel to Boeing, which had contained the three original fuel oil storage tanks. To enable use of the northeastern area of the property for storage, fill was placed in a previously swampy area. In the early 1970s, capacitors, batteries, surplus steel, and various other materials needed by the Substation Department for their Maintenance and Construction Shops were also stored on the property. In about 1975, additional fill was brought in to the southern portion of the site from the Black River Quarry, including 4- to 6-inch rocks, with fines placed on top. The southern electrical equipment storage area has never been paved. Recent Operational Period: 1980 to Present. Substation Department operations have continued from the southern portion of the Shuffleton property during this time period. Page 2-7 Hart Crowser J-4349-01 2.5.5 Corporate Laboratory The Corporate laboratory at Shuffleton also served the Substation Department. Physical and chemical analyses of transformer oil, potentially contaminated soils, and water quality in hydroelectric reservoirs have been performed at the laboratory. The laboratory operated from approximately 1978 through February 1995. Currently, only the transformer oil physical testing is being conducted there. A portion of the building has been used for years as a storage warehouse. 2.5.6 Site History Summary The information from the detailed review of site files and the former employee interviews was compiled to evaluate the potential for historical site operations and activities to impact soil and/or groundwater at the site. Site historical information formed the basis of the site conceptual model, technical approach, and the sampling locations and chemical analyses performed for this ESI. 2.6 Previous Site Investigations During previous investigations, environmental sampling has been conducted at the site in those areas where leaks/spills occurred, as part of the cleanup activities. These area-specific investigations are discussed below and, since historical sample results were not available for all events, they were considered when developing the ESI sampling locations (discussed in Section 4.1). 2.6.1 Substation Yard Oil Spill An internal memo from December 1979 documents a small spill (less than 100 gallons) of oil from the accidental tipping over of an oil-filled circuit breaker at an uncertain location. Approximately one cubic yard of gravels and subsoil was removed, appropriately disposed of off site, and a soil sample collected for PCB analysis. Results of the analysis for the sample were not attached to the memo. 2.6.2 Settling Pond/Sandblast Area In the early to mid-1980s, bags of ASARCO slag were delivered for sandblasting the new intake screen steel surfaces to prepare for coating to prevent rust. The discarded blasting slag was initially placed in the settling pond. Page 2-8 Hart Crowser J-4349-01 Puget Power evaluated the slag through chemical and biological analysis. The material passed the extraction procedure toxicity (EP Tox) metals test, but failed the bioassay. The slag was cleaned out in 1985 and disposed of as hazardous waste. A total of 78 drums of material were sent to the hazardous waste landfill in Arlington, Oregon. The excavated area was filled with clean fill. Final confirmation results for this activity were not available for review at the time this report was prepared. 2.6.3 Sampling and Removal of Oil-Stained Soils In July and September 1985, Puget Power conducted two visual inspections for oil stains in the equipment storage area of the site, as documented in two internal memoranda from that period. The first inspection resulted in collection and analysis of 25 surface soil samples whose locations were based on where oil stains were observed, and the second inspection resulted in collection and analysis of 24 samples, for a total of 49 samples. The results of the analysis of the two sample sets show that no PCBs were found above the detection limit (unknown) for 33 samples. For the remainder samples, concentrations in 14 samples fell below 5 ppm PCBs; the remaining two samples showed PCB concentrations of 7.5 and 17.8 ppm. It was recommended in the September 1985 memo that all visible oil-stained soil at these (sample) locations be removed, plus one inch of clean appearing soil. Shortly thereafter, the removals were conducted and approximately one dozen 55-gallon drums containing impacted soils were appropriately disposed of off site. Final confirmation results for this activity were not available for review at the time this report was prepared. 2.6.4 Railcar Tanker Spill On February 1, 1988, a railcar tanker filled with approximately 5,000 gallons of transformer oil was being towed when a drain valve was broken. Approximately 800 gallons of transformer oil were released and accumulated in the gravel bed of the railroad tracks located near the northeast side of the Shuffleton Substation. It was reported that the ground was frozen during this time, which lessened the potential for movement of the oil within the soil. A backhoe and Vactor truck were used to recover the oil in an immediate response action. Approximately 50 cubic yards of soils (including railroad tracks, ties, and gravel bed) were excavated during cleanup activities. The excavated area was then filled with railroad ballast and compacted. A sample of the transformer oil was analyzed for PCBs. Results for this sample showed no PCBs present in the oil. (The detection limits for these analyses were not available for review at the time this report was prepared.) Four visibly stained soil samples were also collected and Page 2-9 Hart Crowser J-4349-01 subjected to extraction with a solvent to determine the amount of oil present in the soil. The extractable fractions ranged from less than 0.01% to 0.09% TPH. 2.6.5 Mobile Substation 3 Leak In December 1989, a slow, steady leak was discovered on Mobile Sub 3, originating from one bank of the cooling radiators. The leak was stopped by closing the valves between the transformer main tank and the radiator bank. Approximately 50 gallons of oil were believed to have leaked. The concentration of PCBs in the oil was 35 ppm. A 24 feet by 30 feet surface area was diked and trenched to trap any residual surface oil. Seven barrels of contaminated soil were removed from this location, leaving an excavated area of approximately 35 feet by 16 feet by 6 inches. Clean crushed rock was used to fill in the depression. Final confirmation results for this activity were not available for review at the time this report was prepared. 2.6.6 Boeing Wastewater Tank Leak In December 1990, a monthly report documented rupture of a wastewater tank on Boeing property. The untreated wastewater spilled onto Puget property, near the discharge tunnel. Chempro removed approximately 6 inches of soil in an area 30 feet wide by 100 feet long. Boeing and Puget Power collected and analyzed random verification samples of the underlying soil. Final confirmation results for this activity were not available for review at the time this report was prepared. 2.6.7 Gasoline Pump Island A failure in an underground drainage line from the transformer oil pump house resulted in a release of transformer oil. A soil and groundwater investigation of this area completed by GeoEngineers, Inc. in 1990 showed that soil samples collected at depths between 1 to 6 feet below ground surface in an area between the pump island and the switch yard exceeded MTCA Method A cleanup levels for TPH. Concentrations of transformer oil above MTCA Method A cleanup levels were also detected in a small area in the vicinity of boring B-11 at a depth of approximately 13 feet. Heavily degraded gasoline was also detected within the area of transformer oil operations at the pump island. PCBs were not detected in those samples analyzed. Page 2-10 Hart Crowser J-4349-01 This release was investigated extensively and was remediated in 1994. Further details regarding investigation and remediation work are provided in the GeoEngineers reports (1993 and 1995). 2.6.8 Substation Construction Storage Yard A confirmed release from a transformer in the storage yard was discovered in May 5, 1994. An estimated 400 gallons of transformer oil were released containing 6.9 ppm PCBs. Soil and groundwater in the vicinity of the release were characterized, and approximately 570 tons of impacted soil were removed and disposed of off site. Soil samples collected from the final limits of the excavation show that TPH was either not detected or was detected at a depth of 8 feet near a power pole. The TPH concentration detected in this sample was 6,510 mg/kg. Groundwater samples collected from three monitoring wells installed during the excavation did not contain TPH concentrations in excess of the MTCA Method A cleanup level. Soil associated with this PCB-containing transformer oil release was cleaned up to below MTCA Method A levels for TPH. In addition, groundwater in this area is also below TPH MTCA Method A levels. 2.7 Site Conceptual Model Based on the review of site history, and the general site information available prior to conducting the ESI, a site conceptual model was developed. The purpose of the conceptual model was to enable focused sampling efforts on the key constituents and areas that may pose a potential risk to human health and the environment. The conceptual model of the five likely contaminant sources (source area and constituents), and pathways (affected media, and the associated potential exposure risks to human and/or environmental receptors) is provided in detail in the work plan (Hart Crowser, 1995b). Because there was no existing site characterization data, our conceptual model was developed using a set of assumptions regarding the probable constituents and general extent of contaminated materials in soil and/or groundwater from each of the five likely site sources (listed previously). The likely site sources cannot be readily subdivided into study zones because the activities associated with the sources generally occurred in multiple locations of the site. The relationship between the site study zones and likely sources is shown in Table 2-1. Page 2-11 Hart Crowser J-4349-01 Based on Puget Power's intent to evaluate future property options, we also made a preliminary subdivision of the property into three zones, as noted on Figure 2-2: ► The Northern Portion (Zone A). The entire portion of the property north of the Shuffleton stores and the Shuffleton Substation which is the focus of the ESI; ► The Southeastern Portion (Zone B). The eastern portion of the property including the Warehouse and Switch Maintenance Building; ► The Southwestern Portion (Zone C). The portion of the project that includes the Shuffleton stores, Shuffleton Substation, and the Substation Construction Storage Yard that will be retained by Puget Power. Page 2-12 Hart Crowser J-4349-01 Table 2-1 - Relationship of Study Areas to Source Areas [ ource Zone A Zone B Zone C Petroleum Storage/Handling Areas X X Electrical Storage/Transformer Areas X X X Settling Pond/Sandblast Area X Site Drywells X X Chemical Storage Areas X X = Area activities took place in indicated zone. Page 2-13 Vicinity Map •rutarc Crrr "— I SMITE 44114 N 3STM I 4T '4 1; eUAr,IAA,R BEACH' y AND n R �. RM,R I T < S I o a r. c. KENNYDAL [, , . rn,D .ST� ,,. a r ,F•� I RAINI R T'V'4 L'.ST 1 I .1 I'ST ST a I T F ICN S .. • P yA1/4 S N .lIeTN ST I :-f-�.� cwtw+ S N Z TM sr L•s '/� <. " La /ce ', 1 4. Q'I<Mal ("'�� ` < I I h and Pt ja sr•-a s� F® n .0 pay— IF--LTY- s FIE ant w PP�' ".1 o • gifili9 yyN _ TN ST IfP- NI � I g rF z.t<�1 �� a'f ,• = Wa s hington i . '� m 1ekall ! I Ne n s R I I ti:> i' •� yUTINrCRi\ I .: Z ;1.- < I3CRESTON ST11111411111 .t..) �wp � I Z < r14440 c r 1 MEMORIAL AIE7J 4 : ST4 �T ' I.; : © I SITE eMEMRIAL m FOUNTAIN$T .. ' 1 1 `pj-i `�S AST ,• I ••i�°. i I� '`r I // r <® .S a FOUNTAIN ST 4� q, r I `, __ Z ii • T ,1... ..... N 4T I .. y , E S mi ®_ - ..if 13T,11 II m $ narN F7�: r S®\ I rN Si AWN < $T t SIISrN,n I1 P"' er1 ,. •E5. 'T � IIST^ CD f I,STN ®®1 • •OAr uU.CM s T L� �uNrN Sr . —n— _. S .... it tl6.N ©® d� T- a a,[a \ �i ' < A �'[, $ ®n 19.y s.�� S .6 h S 1..^ � VPy 1s ,RNroN \� A '' Z 4 119M� iIS iRBTN et'TreT— •'-—o aaAS1��7lSFLy.� s t �•1 = .N, T W ' MTN T . 12 .�,�, �.� � R E N 0 N • J $1141 1.1 < • Or a bi20'•0. i2 is r.7 M z I Q [���, `a941 ,MU v r & 0_ N' T}chi s u 3rviL.,r 122 . �4T'T'� 1234 .23"DST mN TTrSN,-• .nrmms • 'If $T\\\\' J> t,TN -� NS 124 iN r I - 1 t `\ \ C rI1rTNrt 1 1 -,,,1 TNn ? T_.____. I \'• \\ r ,,... 1 4 \ s. r� vt,�� .i R i I , t\ IMR TM I 1ff 1 rN u Iiiiiiit •<I-" $i `.�. .'I N tZr $T E4waa 5�SIR[. LJ� — �pl 9ry a • — �!� 1 sau ' `� 'Fib: .—.1 T' 1 � �.> _— — 3.D \ S�ITrI N�ST > 4t V I ,. Q • i"MI 'r ST I— \\ ♦► �� 1-1 I ;sPTnTNg s'I rN sr • <"''�: z M ar R \\.Of. '!' S 13 r. °$T I slnrN r 4 , _ ` , -..�, O 7RU fT >- /v, !•\+C 9q flfT L I► IANOSTON^RD i:1. r .• Y C g / S �Oq, jy � srry ur N �• "L•' .:.41RPORT W � i. <� S y O 4 I • \�+` S I]MO ST Sr hr+ip r w : /-k 1 iiiiii .. -. `\Mh �/llyF• S 1351.,3"'IS. '9`. m _.�'� lT ''�,:;.a `)� ^ KIN s sr .,,,>I M.'a. Q!• .,IS!J \ i ';1 C . T. •2ND Kipp.PO»• ito !• GOLF ..'Mk „. ......:--'7;x: „tit/it, •. , ., . . ,;,... „.„.. , „...„, ,, i.c...v ----0, , • .-, " r , .'.` ' y RIVE' i,, EARU T(3P sz i_ i., ,. N.,,pt.P.o. a . • ....„ . „.,.....- ,- -11 17 3 I inakmirpi \\„ - 4.- ..-., -- , , 1 dorwmiks 0. i,s, A :....-: 4 0 1/2 1 i Scale in Miles 1111 HAR7CROWSER J-4349-01 2/96 Figure 2-1 1 Hart Crowser J-4349-01 3.0 SITE HYDROGEOLOGY This section presents the findings of our ESI hydrogeology characterization efforts at the site. The purpose of the hydrogeology characterization was to evaluate regional geology, and site groundwater level and movement relative to conditions at the property. The following sections present specific information on site hydrogeology, including: ► Regional Geology and Groundwater Occurrence. Discusses historical regional geology and regional groundwater flow and sources. ► Site Surface/Subsurface Conditions. Discusses site surface and subsurface conditions. Descriptions of subsurface conditions are summarized and outlined in geological cross sections of the site. ► Groundwater Level and Flow. Describes local groundwater elevations and flow direction. Summarized figures for groundwater elevation contours and water levels indicate that Lake Washington is a regional groundwater discharge area and groundwater flow is expected to be essentially horizontal toward the lake. Selected subsurface explorations and cross section locations are shown on Figure 3-1. Subsurface cross sections are presented on Figures 3-2 and 3-3. Groundwater elevation contour maps are presented on Figures 3-4 and 3-5, and Tables 3-1 and 3-2 present elevation data. 3.1 Regional Geology and Groundwater Occurrence The Shuffleton Steam Plant site is located in the Cedar River valley. The valley was created by glacial erosion and has since been partially filled with glacial and non-glacial sediments. The most recent deposits that fill the valley are alluvial and delta fan deposits of the Cedar River estimated to be roughly 100 feet thick in the Renton area. Several hundred feet of very dense glacial and interglacial materials underlie the valley sediments. The Cedar River alluvial and deltaic deposits consist of a mixture of sand, gravel, silt, and peat. The coarser portions of the delta fan deposits (gravel and cobbles) are located east of the Shuffleton site and make up the Cedar River Aquifer used as a source of drinking water by the City of Renton. The delta fan deposits grade to progressively finer-grained (sand and silty sand) toward the site and Lake Washington. Page 3-1 Preliminary Property Subdivision Map 4 3A 22 - Zone A 124 l ' ), __ 0 2 4 0 _ I 17 1 Shuffleton Steam Plant 14 Shuffleton Stores ( 5 I I 2 Fuel Oil Storage Tanks 15 Warehouse 12�� 13 � 3A Unloading Pier and Walkway 16 Septic System \ k <-\ 3B Dock 17 Switch Maintenance Building 4 Intake Tunnel Zone C 23 O 1 \ \\ 18 Battery Room l \� Zone B 5 Pump House 19 Stores Ei ) 6 Substation 20 Lumber Shed \ 7 Transformer Oil Tanks/Pump House 21 Carpenter Shop g 1 - )0 v\ 8 Transformer Platform 22 Harbor 9 Substation Construction Storage Yard 23 Former Jet Lab Area - \ 10 Gasoline Pump Island 24 Former Pole Storage Area / .1 11 Railroad Tracks 11 \ 25 Control House 10 Q ' {--- -__ ` N 12 Settling Pond/Sandblast Area 26 Switch Yard oD . 25 I ,i 5 Cam, _ 13 Paint Storage i 14 I 15 s f 6 'r I\` ❑ �. 1 jrf i \� z , I i' 1 19 �` �' 177 z...,,,,-P -.._ _ ____ �NO N 9 / / r 0 0 200 400 / Approximate Scale in Feet 03 LaJ N \ riri N N HARTTR0 N J-4349-01 2/96 Figure 2-2 Hart Crowser J-4349-01 The regional groundwater flow system is characterized primarily by recharge in the uplands east of the Shuffleton site and discharge into the Cedar River valley. The Cedar River is the major discharge point for groundwater flow from the uplands as well as in the valley. Groundwater adjacent to the south end of Lake Washington (such as at the Shuffleton site) generally discharges in a northerly direction directly toward the lake. 3.2 Site Surface Conditions The site is relatively flat, with a gentle slope toward Lake Washington. There are two open unlined ditches which collect the storm water runoff from the site, via the storm drainage system. The first is located along the northwest boundary of the site, as illustrated on Figure 3-1. This ditch runs into Lake Washington, and the water level in the ditch is typically similar to that in Lake Washington. The other is adjacent to the fence along the northeast boundary. The ditch along the northeast boundary drains through a normally closed valved drain line into Park Creek, which runs across the eastern corner of the property into Coulon Park. Infiltration from these unlined ditches may provide some recharge to the groundwater system. 3.3 Site Subsurface Conditions The geology at the Shuffleton Steam Plant site consists primarily of alluvium overlain by fill of varying thicknesses. The locations of selected subsurface explorations are shown on Figure 3-1, as are the locations of Generalized Subsurface Cross Sections A-A', B-B', and C-C'. These cross sections are shown on Figures 3-2 and 3-3, respectively. Cross section A-A' is oriented through the site from Lake Washington Boulevard toward Lake Washington, while sections B-B' and C-C' are roughly parallel to the shore of the lake. The fill varies in thickness from less than 2 feet to more than 4.5 feet. The thickest fill layers appear to be at the southeast side of the site, farthest from the lake. The ground surface elevation in this area of the site is approximately 2.5 feet higher than the surface elevation near the lake. The fill consists of soil and, in some locations (16 of the 49 test pits), demolition debris. The soil fill typically includes sand and gravels. The debris includes brick, firebrick, and wood debris, as well as some metal debris, glass insulators, other glass, wire, submarine cable, concrete, asphalt, mortar, and abandoned utilities, e.g., clay pipe. The alluvium encountered within our explorations below the fill layer is composed primarily of sands with some interbedded silts, with scattered Page 3-2 Hart Crowser J-4349-01 lenses of peat and peaty silts, as well as some fine gravels. Peat was more commonly found closer to the lake, as illustrated on Figures 3-2 and 3-3. 3.4 Groundwater Levels and Flow Within the depth of exploration at the site (to 16 feet), the fill and sandier portions of the alluvium appear to represent a single water-bearing unit, hydraulically segmented by discontinuous lower-permeability silt layers. Groundwater beneath the site occurs under unconfined (water table) conditions. During our field exploration program in August 1995, the water table was typically encountered at depths of 3 to 4.5 feet below grade—the water table is presumably even shallower during the wet spring season. Groundwater level data were collected in September (Table 3-1) and November (Table 3-2) of 1995. The water table elevation contours for these dates are shown on Figures 3-4 and 3-5, respectively. The water level data from September 1995 indicate a groundwater flow direction approximately northwest (toward the lake) with a hydraulic gradient (water table slope) of 0.0009 ft/ft. In November 1995, the gradient appears to be somewhat greater, at about 0.002 ft/ft, with groundwater flowing in a more northerly direction. The groundwater flow adjacent to the lake may be diverted northward to some extent by the existing bulkhead. Groundwater level data collected at the site in December 1992 indicated a very low gradient (0.0001 ft/ft) with flow in a northwesterly direction (GeoEngineers, 1995). For comparison, a hydraulic gradient of 0.004 ft/ft toward Lake Washington was measured at the neighboring Boeing property (near Building 4-86) in July 1987 (Hart Crowser, 1987). The adjacent surface water level elevation in Lake Washington varies from a low of 13.15 feet December through February, to a high of 15.15 feet in June and July. The lake elevation is strictly controlled by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers at the Ballard Locks. The depth to water readings at HC-MW-4 for both September 20, 1995, and November 21, 1995, were not used in developing the groundwater elevation contour maps. These readings appear to be inconsistent. To include them in contouring would indicate a water table mounding effect, which is unlikely. One possibility is that the storm water collection system, including the nearby catch basin, provides a localized groundwater sink, artificially lowering the groundwater table in the immediate vicinity of HC-MW-4. The collection pipes are typically bedded in coarse pea gravel, which could provide a conduit for groundwater flow. Groundwater might either leak into the catch basin, or follow the piping to the ditch on the southwest edge of the site. This may also explain why there was little Page 3-3 Hart Crowser J-4349-01 change in groundwater elevation at that well from September to November, in comparison to changes in nearby wells. In short, all available data from this site and adjacent properties indicate that shallow groundwater flows generally north toward Lake Washington as expected. Review of regional hydrogeologic information indicates Lake Washington is a regional groundwater discharge area, thus regional upward hydraulic gradients exist in the site area. Therefore, groundwater flow is expected to be essentially horizontal toward the lake, and groundwater from the upper water-bearing zone is not expected to flow downward into deeper water-bearing units. Page 3-4 Hart Crowser J-4349-01 Table 3-1 -Groundwater Levels Measured on September 20, 1995 GeoEngineers Wells Well No. Casing Elev. Depth to Water Water Level Elev. Time MW-2 17.58 2.65 14.93 1325 MW-3 17.77 2.82 14.95 1330 MW-4 18.33 3.40 14.93 1335 MW-18 18.36 3.43 14.93 1305 MW-19 18.42 3.48 14.94 1313 MW-24 17.76 2.82 14.94 1318 MW-lA 20.85 5.80 15.05 1355 MW-2A 20.81 5.76 15.05 1400 MW-3A 19.88 4.61 15.27 1405 Hart Crowser Wells Well No. Casing Elev. Depth to Water Water Level Elev. Time HC-MW-1 18.38 3.46 14.92 1455 HC-MW-2 18.37 3.57 14.80 1450 HC-MW-3 18.75 3.92 14.83 1445 HC-MW-4 18.47 3.75 14.72 1415 HC-MW-5 17.04 2.76 14.28 1432 HC-MW-6 16.44 2.10 14.34 1428 HC-MW-7 16.66 2.25 14.41 1425 HC-MW-8 16.71 2.31 14.40 1436 HC-MW-9 18.04 3.47 14.57 1441 Lake Wash. 16.44 n/a n/a n/a Note: Elevations are given with respect to the NGVD 1929 datum. Elevations and depths are in feet. 434901\TBL-3-1.xls Page 3-5 Hart Crowser J-4349-01 Table 3-2- Groundwater Levels Measured on November 21, 1995 GeoEngineers Wells Well No. Casing Elev. Depth to Water Water Level Elev. Time MW-2 17.58 2.55 15.03 1245 MW-3 17.77 2.65 15.12 1235 MW-4 18.33 3.26 15.07 1240 MW-18 18.36 3.32 15.04 1300 MW-19 18.42 3.37 15.05 1255 MW-24 17.76 2.71 15.05 1250 MW-lA 20.85 5.82 15.03 1310 MW-2A 20.81 5.84 14.97 1315 MW-3A 19.88 4.34 15.54 1317 Hart Crowser Wells Well No. Casing Elev. Depth to Water Water Level Elev. Time HC-MW-1 18.38 3.37 15.01 1155 HC-MW-2 18.37 3.61 14.76 1200 HC-MW-3 18.75 4.08 14.67 1140 HC-MW-4 18.47 3.74 14.73 1150 HC-MW-5 17.04 3.53 13.51 1130 HC-MW-6 16.44 2.90 13.54 1115 HC-MW-7 16.66 3.42 13.24 1110 HC-MW-8 16.71 3.16 13.55 1125 HC-MW-9 18.04 3.92 14.12 1135 Lake Wash. 16.44 _ 2.97 13.47 1100 Note: Elevations are given with respect to the NGVD 1929 datum. Elevations and depths are in feet. 434901\TBL-3-2.xls Page 3-6 Cross Section Location Map Exploration Location and Number • s \-- ) • SB-4 Soil Boring v 3A 22 ®TP-1 Test Pit A &M W-1 Existing Montoring Well B C (Approximate Location) 24 `Joll i - y�r.rll;__ '� �. � _ *B •HC-MW-1 Monitoring Well == ® � J (Hart Crowser) 1 ® • -W-S -6 S TP-4 P-" OSB-8 Hydropunch Open .• .I , '�AA� Cross Section Location and Designation Ditch 4 . , P-9 / :: r \ r-' .., ��_, I �1ri EH P-13 5 I ( 1 Shuffleton Steam Plant 14 Shuffleton Stores HC-SB-6 - 2 Fuel Oil Storage Tanks 15 Warehouse 13 3A Unloading Pier and Walkway 16 Septic System 1238- • .1 E v , <-1 3B Dock 17 Switch Maintenance Building 23L O S -4• 1 — \ ) \\ 4 Intake Tunnel 18 Battery Room _ !P \ Ditch \ 5 Pump House 19 Storage Shed • 21 `'\-- 6 Substation 20 Lumber Shed 7Transformer Oil Tanks/Pump House21 Carpenter Shop I ; I I 8 Transformer Platform 22 Harbor 20 TP-31® TP-I 9 Substation Construction Storage Yard 23 Former Jet Lab Area 11111110f 10 Gasoline Pump Island 24 Former Pole Storage Area C-MW-2 CitC HGMW-1 11 Tp_2 t 11 Railroad Tracks 25 Control House 12 Settling Pond Sandblast Area 26 Switch Yard HC-M -4 a MW' 25 O® TP- '-24 13 Paint Storage 14 SIM -19 16 15 26 6 1� :: \--25 TP-29 ®T- 2 , 18 19El ® 17El , fry If N TP-28® ®TP Z_____ ......s..-- MW-1 ',I Note: Base map prepared from drawing cu provided by Puget Power entitled 0 200 400 n — __ "Site Plan, Shuffleton Steam Plant o Facility", dated February 2, 1995. Approximate Scale in Feet o y __ -� ,---1 `� / o --- \ o -� 1J -- ii • : fin \ / o A/1T Olt® Nr'l in J-4349-01 2/96 o °' > � Figure 3-1 cW 2/13/96 1=200 hc.pcp 43490109 Generalized Subsurface Cross Section A-A ' Z O t- ti N Slightly silty to CD A Z i i silty SAND with Q A' O gravel, rock, and 03 1- YN ti N d co �; �i debris. (FILL) N N 3 r QQ U a a a m m as U a a a 20 - J 2 i . H F- CO N F- I- = F- I- M I- _ Bulkhead 1S i ' — _L AT`�D AT�D '- - _ ! _ �_ _ 4 — — — — �� T ?— —? — SILT to very; / � ? sandy SIl-T. : ? •j� Red-brown, Slightly silt to � o • 10 - } �� �/ slightly silty silty SAND with C Lake J � SAND. lenses of grovel Bottom Gray, slightly silty to silty and silt. N SAND with interbedded silt w -5and peaty organics 0 - Note: 1. Contacts between soil units are based upon interpolation between explorations and represent Horizontal Scale in Feet our interpretation of subsurface conditions based on currently available data. 0 200 400 2. Water levels measured September 20, 1995, except for those measured at time of drilling (ATD) only. 0 10 20 Vertical Scale in Feet N. Vertical Exaggeration x 20 3 x V Exploration Number I Exploration Location 45 E o Water Level • W a) -0► Screen 1co O 1 ,1.) � _ .n.T�j/ Beds of Silty Peat and Peaty Silt Occurrence co ��/ to Generalized Subsurface Cross Sections B-B' and C-C' B 3 3 3 B' N I r U a V a, a. V a. 20 - _ E- = i- F- = i- - - Slightly silty silty I —SAND with gravelto , rocks, a 15 - I - and debris. (FILL) t'- — — 1�—Gray, slightly silty to c T ? silty SAND with c 10 - ?,7 7 - -" -•? ? 7- - interbedded silt and o ///� //� _ ///���j peaty organics. a > a) 5 - - w 0I.- - I N CO I 1 I CO et a 3 3 G` 2 N N Slightly silty to N C' 6 3 3 U U U d. d. silty SAND with a. I 2 2 I I _ I- E- gravel, rocks, 1- 20 - and debris. (FILL) - r a i — _ Gray, slightly silty p— _? S to silty SAND with c — lenses of gravel c 10 - — and silt. Gray SILT -c 0 - - - - Ti - y Red—brown, slightly - w - silty SAND. 0 - Note: 1. Contacts between soil units ore based upon interpolation between explorations and represent our interpretation of subsurface conditions based on currently available data. 2. Water levels measured September 20. 1995, except for those measured at time of drilling (ATD) only. ti Horizontal Scale in Feet 3 0 200 400 U Exploration Number 0 10 20 = Vertical Scale in Feet Exploration Location Vertical Exaggeration x 20 Water Level 1 Screen M 1 HARMTCRO -e 2 - �.T/ / Beds of Silty Peat and Peaty Silt Occurrence J-4349-01 2/96 4 : j//� � Figure 3-3 Groundwater Elevation Contour Map September 20, 1995 Exploration Location and Number LAKE WASHINGTON 3A 22 19 MW-1A Existing Montoring Well (Approximate Location) • ®HC-MW-1 Monitoring Well 13B (Hart Crowser) 4 - \II 0SB-6 Hydropunch HC-M7-7 __ W 5 14.41 14 —14.5 — Groundwater Elevation Contour in Feet 15.05 Groundwater Elevation in Feet ''' 0 Open Inferred Groundwater Flow Direction Ditch0 ` HC-0 <), / _ \ r' r 1 Shuffleton Steam Plant 14 Shuffleton Stores �HC-SB>-6 ` 5 I 14,S I 2 Fuel Oil Storage Tanks 15 Warehouse 13 C-MW�-9 3A Unloading Pier and Walkway 16 Septic System 12 El14.�7 38 Dock 17 Switch Maintenance Building 23. O 1 \ � \\ 4 Intake Tunnel 18 Battery Room !, \ 5 Pump House 19 Storage Shed 21 ` Alpi\ \ 6 Substation 20 Lumber Shed 7 Transformer Oil Tanks/Pump House 21 Carpenter Shop 201 I I I "N 8 Transformer Platform 22 Harbor I ( 9 Substation Construction Storage Yard 23 Former Jet Lab Area -) \ 4.7$ \> 10 Gasoline Pump Island 24 Former Pole Storage Area , C I - _ 14.93 �{ ® 14.83 ---‘'\ \ 11 Railroad Tracks 25 Control House 14 2 ® �lAY1f BMW_ MW-2 11 \ 12 Settling Pond/Sandblast Area 26 Switch Yard 14.95 DO 14.93 25 MC-M W- 13 Paint Storage ;914.94 16 � 15 MW-19-,-- MW-1814.93 6 14.94 ��\' 11 / 1 O Ei El 26 .44.7 18 19 17 7 -.4s fro N -.�1 9 It \ \. \ ,.. \ ' 15.05 5.00 All ) � MW-2A 15.05 a �� M W-1 • Note: Base mop prepared from drawing a �__ I 1 — provided by Puget Power entitled 0 200 400 ---_ __ __. MW-3A. 15.2 "Site Plan, Shuffleton Steam Plant ° / Facility", dated February 2, 1995. Approximate Scale in Feet U .-} �� O - ` �� IIN �— --- (�nl u) ) / !n a) HARTCRO SLY -- c. s N 0 J-4349-01 2/96 Figure 3-4 Groundwater Elevation Contour Map November 21, 1995 Exploration Location and Number LAKE WASHINGTON (13.54) 3A 22 <9 MW-1A Existing Montoring Well (Approximate Location) ®HC-MW-1 Monitoring Well (Hart Crowser) 44 I 10.54+ 13B -191 • HC-M -7 ___ H3 5'i �' -5 0SB-6 Hydropunch 13.24? 13.50 Groundwater Elevation Contour in Feet .-- S• " 13 Sp 15.03 Groundwater Elevation in Feet Open / Inferred Groundwater Flow Direction Ditch 2 C-MW-8 4 , 13.55 ® /�\ ' N r' 3--%=. 0S \ h,.._._ I I 5 1 Shuffleton Steam Plant 14 Shuffleton Stores �'?7� I 2 Fuel Oil Storage Tanks 15 Warehouse �HC-SBO6 13----‘.*\..... Q 3A Unloading Pier and Walkway 16 Septic System ---�.- 12 ❑ C 4.H�- V-9 `C �-\ 3B Dock 17 Switch Maintenance Building 23 1 1 .12 � � \\ 4 Intake Tunnel 18 Battery Room 11 \ \ 5 Pump House 19 Storage Shed 21 I `"j \ 6 Substation 20 Lumber Shed 20` • \ 7 Transformer Oil Tanks/Pump House 21 Carpenter Shop "8 ✓\ 8 Transformer Platform 22 Harbor 9 Substation Construction Storage Yard 23 Former Jet Lab Area \ - �H C-M W-1 HC- W \ 10 Gasoline Pump Island 24 Former Pole Storage Area C _, 15.07 15.01 1 \ 11 Railroad Tracks 25 Control House ® 4 3 _ "4k ® 11 N. 12 Settling Pond/Sandblast Area 26 Switch Yard l'a 00 W5 03 25 ` /yC-M W- 14. 5 &#Wa2,4 1/ C7 14.76 13 Paint Storage a_15.05 16 15 MW--19 MW-1815.04 6` ' r4 u 15.n �0 .sO� L O 26 1918 \7 , M4*/ N x 0 9 74 S 14.97N 15.03 MW 2A MW-1A Note: Base map prepared from drawing a L-- �X� 1 E I — provided by Puget Power entitled 0 200 400 D. - I 1y 15.54 MW-3A; 7S "Site Plan, Shuffleton Steam Plant 0 / Facility", dated February 2, 1995. Approximate Scale in Feet U —' _ _ �'I 1 i -I ��' 8 1 / 1 N - \/1 D — U/C�J (0 I N M HARTOROMW N 5 / J-4349-01 2/96 0 —> • NI- Figure 3-5 I Hart Crowser J-4349-01 4.0 SOIL CHARACTERIZATION This section presents the findings of our ESI soil characterization efforts at the site. The primary objective of the soil characterization program was to identify the general nature and approximate extent of contamination in near-surface (upper 10 feet) soils in Zones A and B of the site. The following sections present specific information on soil sampling and analysis, including: ► Scope of Soil Sampling Program. Discusses how soil samples were collected and selected for chemical analysis. ► Soil Screening Criteria. Discusses use of numerical criteria for screening soil chemical data. ► Soil Quality. Presents the results of soil quality testing performed as part of this ESI. 4.1 Scope of Soil Sampling Program The scope of the Soil Sampling Program was originally developed as part of the site ESI Work Plan dated August 4, 1995 (Hart Crowser, 1995b). The scope of the soil sampling program was subsequently modified by Puget Power to only sample those portions of the site that may be redeveloped (Zones A and B), except at the monitoring well MW-1 and MW-3 locations in Zone C (which will be retained by Puget Power). In general, the soil sampling program followed the revised scope of work. Several planned explorations were converted to borings instead of test pits (e.g., SB-4 and SB-5) because of the presence of asphalt pavement and one planned test pit along the southern corner of the Transformer Platform could not be completed at the intended location because of the presence of underground utilities. An additional test pit (E-2) was installed north of the pump house to evaluate petroleum-containing soils in the area. Three sampling activities occurred in addition to what was specified in the work plan including: ► Collection of 36 surface composite soil samples which were analyzed for lead; ► Collection of firebricks and selected mortar samples which were analyzed for asbestos content; and ► Excavation of 15 exploratory test pits to a depth of 5 feet, placed in those locations identified by former employees to have a moderate to Page 4-1 Hart Crowser J-4349-01 high probability for placement of firebricks. The presence or absence of firebrick was noted and one soil sample was collected per test pit and analyzed for asbestos content. No other significant changes from the work plan were necessary. As discussed in the Work Plan, assessment of soil quality at the Shuffleton site is based on chemical laboratory data for the samples collected. A total of 57 soil samples were submitted for chemical analysis. The samples were obtained by split-spoon sampling during drilling, sampling of test pits, and grab sampling of surface soil and drainage ditch surface soil. Subsurface sampling locations for borings and test pit excavations are shown on Figure 4-1. Field procedures used to collect soil samples are described in Appendix A. In general, the soil sampling locations were selected based on areas of identified or suspected soil quality concerns indicated from a detailed review of site history (Hart Crowser, 1995a). One soil sample from each test pit and one or two soil samples from each boring were submitted to North Creek Analytical for chemical analysis. Soil samples were selected for chemical analysis if visual field observations or field screening (head- space organic, vapor screening, and shake-sheen testing) suggested the potential for contamination. If no observable indications were identified, then a representative sample was selected from the depth at which potential contamination might occur. In general, samples consisting of finer-grained materials (e.g., silts and sands) were preferentially selected for chemical analysis. Contaminants generally adsorb onto fine-grained soils versus coarser materials such as gravel. 4.2 Soil Screening Criteria Soil quality results were compared to MTCA (Chapter 173-340 WAC, February 1991) screening levels in an effort to identify chemicals of potential concern and assess whether remedial actions may be required at the site. MTCA Methods. MTCA cleanup levels were initially used to screen the data. The MTCA cleanup level we selected for screening purposes in the various media was the most conservative cleanup level for a particular constituent and land use. The site is currently zoned and used for industrial land use and is under consideration for redevelopment as industrial, commercial, residential, open space, or a combination of land uses. MTCA has three methods (Methods A, B, and C) for determining cleanup levels: Page 4-2 Hart Crowser J-4349-01 ► Method A. Method A cleanup levels are designed for simple cleanups involving only a few contaminants for which criteria have been established. A Method A cleanup level has been established for both residential and industrial land uses. Method A may also be used in cases where no Method B or C cleanup levels have been determined (e.g., lead and TPH), or in cases where a background level has been established (e.g., arsenic). ► Method B. Method B is applicable to all sites and all land uses and is a risk-based method (uses residential child exposure scenario) for setting cleanup levels at sites with multiple contaminants. There are no Method B cleanup levels specifically developed for industrial sites. ► Method C. Method C conditional cleanup levels are risk based methods used for commercial (uses modified residential child exposure scenario) and/or industrial (uses adult worker exposure scenario) sites, or when it is not technically feasible or it is impracticable to clean up to Method A or Method B levels. MTCA Land Use Definitions. MTCA cleanup levels are developed for different landuses based on different risk exposure scenarios and assumptions. Recent legislation has clarified the definition of different land uses including: ► Industrial. An industrial property is defined in the proposed MTCA rule revisions for WAC 173-340-200 (January 5, 1996) under HB 6123 as follows: Industrial properties are those generally (but not necessarily) zoned industrial by the city or county with heavy or light industrial and commercial uses such as materials manufacturing or distribution, marine terminal transportation areas and facilities, fabrication, assembly, treatment, or bulk materials storage. Industrial property is further defined (WAC 173-340-745): Properties where people do not normally live, the primary potential exposure is to adult employees, access by the general public, especially children does not occur or is highly limited, food is not grown/raised on the property, the property is mostly covered by buildings, structures, parking lots, roads, and storage areas. These properties may also include offices, restaurants, and commercial support facilities that primarily serve the industrial property and not the general public. Often such properties are characterized by the use/storage of chemicals, noise, odors, and truck traffic. Properties adjoining residential areas may not qualify unless adequate protection or buffer of adjacent residential uses is demonstrated. Page 4-3 Hart Crowser J-4349-01 ► Commercial. A commercial property was defined in earlier proposed MTCA rule revisions for WAC 173-340-200 under HB 6123, however, commercial property definitions were deleted from the most recent rule revisions referenced above. A commercial property is generally zoned or indicated in comprehensive plans and includes uses such as mini- storage, offices, professional services, retail sales, banks, hotels, motels, restaurants, taverns, automotive repair, gas stations, hospitals, medical clinics, post offices, museums, and theaters. Properties with mixed commercial and industrial uses apply. Properties with daycare or schools do not qualify as commercial property. In addition, properties with mixed residential, and commercial uses do not qualify. Properties adjoining residential areas may not qualify unless adequate protection or buffer of adjacent residential uses is demonstrated. Access by the general public occurs for the purchase of goods and services, but is typically of short duration, infrequent, and children are supervised, food is not grown/raised on the property, the property is mostly covered by buildings, structures, parking lots, roads, or intensely landscaped so there is no access to exposed soil by the public. ► Open Space. Recreational or agricultural uses are not explicitly defined under MTCA, but they are referenced [WAC 173-340-740 (1)(d)] as non-residential, and this section indicates that soil cleanup levels may be established on a case-by-case basis limited by the MTCA Method C approach. ► Residential. Residential land use is not explicitly defined under MTCA.but it is generally considered to be any property where adults and children reside, and have the potential through gardening, playing, landscaping, or other activities to have exposure to surface soils. Selected Screening Levels. For screening purposes soil quality data are compared as follows: ► Industrial land use - MTCA Method A or C Industrial ► Commercial land use - MTCA Method C Residential ► Residential land use - MTCA Method A or B Residential During the screening level comparison, only the most conservative value of the available methods was used. Tables C-1 and C-2 (Appendix C) provides a summary of the data relative to the screening levels for residential, commercial, and industrial land use. Statistical summary tables by land use (Tables C-4, C-5, and C-6) are Page 4-4 Hart Crowser J-4349-01 presented in Appendix C for only those constituents that were detected at concentrations above the most stringent screening level. The statistical summary tables present summary statistics including detection frequencies, range of concentrations, maximum detection concentration, and mean concentration. In addition, these tables present the MTCA three-fold statistical compliance criteria (WAC 173-340-740(7)(e)) including percent exceedences, maximum exceedence ratios, and the 95 percent upper confidence limits (UCL) on the arithmetic mean. For each constituent, concentrations that exceed the compliance criteria are boxed. Sample concentrations above the MTCA screening levels do not necessarily indicate that remedial actions are required. This screening approach helps identify areas and constituents which require further evaluation. Further evaluation could include an assessment of statistics, other federal and state applicable, relevant, and appropriate requirements (ARARs), fate and transport, potential exposure pathways, and the relationship to past site activity sources. 4.3 Soil Quality Soil samples were collected predominantly from Zones A and B in locations shown on Figure 4-1, and analyzed for volatile organics, semivolatile organics, PCBs, metals, total petroleum hydrocarbons (WTPH-G and WTPH-D extended), herbicides, asbestos, and/or pH. Soil quality data generated by this work were reviewed by an environmental chemist to determine the validity of the data based on the project Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) requirements and general quality control criteria. Based on this review, the analytical results were deemed acceptable for the purposes of the ESI soil sampling program. The data quality review summary is presented in Appendix B. Compounds that exceeded industrial and residential screening levels are presented on Figures 4-2 and 4-3, respectively. Table 4-1 presents a summary of all constituents detected above screening levels in site soils. Complete analytical results for each sampling location are provided in Tables C-1 and C-2 in Appendix C. 4.3.1 Comparative Screening of Soil Quality - Zone A Zone A represents areas in the northwestern portion of the Site. The two soil samples collected along the boundary between Zone A and Zone C (MW-1/S-1 and MW-3/S-1) are also included in this summary. Surface Soils Sampling Explorations. Five surface soil grab samples (HC-SS-1 through HC-SS-5, Table C-1) were collected at depths of 0 to Page 4-5 Hart Crowser J-4349-01 3 inches) in the Fuel Oil Storage Tank Pipeline Area where the oil storage and transfer formerly occur. The surface soil samples were generally collected next to above-ground petroleum pipelines including areas where visual evidence of petroleum staining was observed. The five surface samples were analyzed for TPH and PCBs, with the following results: ► Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons. Concentrations of diesel- and oil- range hydrocarbons were above the MTCA Method A (200 mg/kg) screening level (residential and industrial) for 2 of the 5 samples analyzed (HC-SS-3 and HC-SS-4, Table 4-1). Total hydrocarbon concentrations for these two samples ranged from 1,200 (HC-SS-4) to 1,580 (HC-SS-3) mg/kg. Field observations indicated that there were pieces of hard black petroleum-like substance located on the ground surface surrounding the pipeline at HC-SS-2, HC-SS-3, and HC-SS-4. Based on our review of the chromatograms for these samples, it appears that the petroleum present in these samples is an extremely weathered, high molecular weight material (possibly a mixture of degraded Bunker C and a heavy oil-like product). Based on our visual field observations and sampling results, it appears that this weathered hydrocarbon material is limited primarily to the pipeline area in the central portion of the fuel tank area. ► PCBs. Surface soil total PCB concentrations were above MTCA Method B (1.0 mg/kg) residential soil screening levels for 1 of the 5 samples analyzed (HC-SS-3 at 2.8 mg/kg, Table 4-1). PCB concentration in all of the samples were below the MTCA Industrial Method C soil screening level of 17 mg/kg. Subsurface Soils Sampling Explorations. Forty-three soil samples (TP-1 through TP-21, TP-30, TP-31, TP-34, and E-2, HA-1 through HA-6, MW-1 and MW-3, and SB-1 through SB-5, Table C-1), collected from test pits, hand augers, and borings in Zone A, were submitted for chemical analysis. Samples were collected from depths ranging from 0 to 9 feet below ground surface. Analyses indicated the following: ► Metals. Those soil samples analyzed for total metals are discussed here; soil samples analyzed for total lead only, are discussed in Section 4.3.3. Total metal concentrations detected in site soils were generally well below MTCA Method B direct contact screening levels. The only metal detected above MTCA screening levels was arsenic. Arsenic concentrations in 1 of 10 samples analyzed for total arsenic (Table 4-1) were above the MTCA Method B residential screening level of 7.3 mg/kg (based on Puget Sound regional background, Ecology, 1994a). However, the average arsenic concentration of the ten site samples (5.2 mg/kg) is within the range of expected Puget Sound Page 4-6 Hart Crowser J-4349-01 1 background conditions. The maximum arsenic concentration detected on the Shuffleton site (16 mg/kg in sample MW-3/S-1) is well below the MTCA Method C industrial screening level of 188 mg/kg. Based on the data collected as part of this study, it does not appear that arsenic soil concentrations represent a substantive concern to human health or the environment. ► Volatile Organics. Seven samples (SB-1/S-1, SB-2/S-2, SB-2/S-3, MW-1/S-1, SB-4/S-2, SB-5/S-1, and TP-34/S-20, Table C-1) were submitted for volatile organics analysis. No volatile organic compounds were detected in the samples analyzed at the reported detection limits. ► Semivolatile Organics. Five samples (MW-3/S-1, SB-4/S-2, SB-5/S-1, TP-34/S-2, and E-2, Table C-1) were submitted for semivolatile organics analysis. Sample MW-3/S-1 (at depth of 1.0 to 2.5 feet) had low concentrations of several carcinogenic polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (cPAHs, including benzo(a)anthracene, benzo(a)pyrene, benzo(b)fluoranthene, benzo(g,h,i)perylene, and chrysene) at a total concentration of 1.72 mg/kg, slightly greater than the MTCA Method A residential screening level of 1.0 mg/kg (Table 4-1). None of the detections were above the Method C Industrial screening level of 18 mg/kg. Semivolatile organic compounds, including polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), were not detected in any of the other samples analyzed. ► Herbicides. Three samples (TP-2/S-1, TP-14/S-2, and TP-18/S-1) were analyzed for herbicides. Sample TP-2/S-1 (0 to 1.5 feet) had low concentrations of dicamba (0.081 mg/kg) and dinoseb (0.015 mg/kg) (Table C-1). No record of historical on-site use of these compounds has been found. Detected concentrations were more than three orders of magnitude less than the MTCA Method B screening levels of 2,400 mg/kg for dicamba and 80 mg/kg for dinoseb. Herbicides were not detected in any of the other samples analyzed. ► PCBs. Forty soil samples (Table C-1), including three duplicate samples, were analyzed for PCBs. PCBs were detected in eight of the samples (E-2, HC-HA-2, HC-HA-3, SB-2/S-3, SB-3/S-1, TP-5/S-1, TP-7/S-1, and TP-11/S-1) analyzed. Of the eight samples, one sample (HA-3, located just northwest of the pump house at a depth of 3.0 feet) had a concentration (1.58 mg/kg) that slightly exceeded the MTCA Method B residential screening level (1 mg/kg) but was well below the Method C industrial screening level (18 mg/kg). Concentrations detected in the other seven samples were less than MTCA Method B and Method C screening levels. Page 4-7 Hart Crowser J-4349-01 ► Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons. Forty-three samples (Table C-1), including three duplicate samples, were analyzed for TPH (WTPH- gasoline and/or diesel extended). Diesel- and/or oil-range hydrocarbons were detected in approximately 50 percent of the samples analyzed. As shown on Figure 4-2, detected TPH concentrations in six samples [E-2 (1.0 to 2.5 feet), MW-1/S-1 (1.0 to 2.5 feet), MW-3/S-1 (1.0 to 2.5 feet), SB-2/S-2 (3.0 to 4.5 feet), SB-3/S-1 (1.0 to 2.5 feet), and TP-34/S-2 (3.0 to 4.0 feet)] were greater than the MTCA Method A screening level (200 mg/kg) for diesel- and oil-range hydrocarbons (Table 4-1). Sample E-2 is located northwest of the pump house at the location where Puget Power employees had observed petroleum product at the ground surface. A black, hardened layer of petroleum-like substance (approximately 2 to 4 inches thick) was observed in TP-E-2, that varied in depth from about 1 to 2.5 feet below ground surface. The total TPH concentration in sample E-2 of 76,000 mg/kg (22,000 mg/kg as diesel and 54,000 mg/kg as oil) is not surprising considering it was collected from within the product layer. The material present in this layer appears to be an extremely weathered, high molecular weight material (possibly a mixture of degraded Bunker C and a heavy oil-like product). This "heavy" petroleum material appears to be localized based on the lack of significant hydrocarbon concentrations in the adjacent test pits (TP-18 and TP-19) and hand-auger (HA-3) samples. Borings SB-2 and SB-3 are located adjacent to the Steam Plant drywells and appear to have been impacted by different sources of hydrocarbon contamination. The total TPH concentration in sample SB-2/S-2 of 4,500 mg/kg (1,300 as diesel and 3,200 as oil) appears to be derived from two distinct petroleum products including a hydraulic or lubricating oil-type product along with a lesser amount of a kerosene- like product. Sample SB-3/S-1 exhibited a total TPH concentration of 1,330 mg/kg (570 mg/kg as diesel and 760 mg/kg as oil) derived from a mineral oil-type product. The drywells received oil-containing discharges from various Steam Plant operations (Hart Crowser, 1995b). Although elevated hydrocarbon concentrations were encountered in drywell area soils, the mobility of these hydrocarbons appear to be limited based on the lack of detectable hydrocarbons in the groundwater sample from well HC-MW-9 (see Section 6.3). Approximately 5,800 mg/kg TPH (5,100 mg/kg as diesel and 670 mg/kg as oil) was detected in sample TP-34/S-2. During the excavation of test pit TP-34, which is located next to the Paint Storage Shed, a petroleum-like odor was detected. It appears that the product is a fuel oil, possibly weathered diesel or bunker C. Since the Page 4-8 Hart Crowser J-4349-01 explorations surrounding TP-34 do not appear to contain significant concentrations of petroleum hydrocarbons (Figure 4-2), the occurrence of fuel oil in the TP-34 area is likely to be fairly limited. Elevated concentrations of an oil-like product were encountered in borings HC-MW-1 (420 mg/kg as oil and 90 mg/kg as diesel) and HC-MW-3 (2,200 mg/kg as oil and 670 mg/kg as diesel) located in the vicinity of the Control House. The petroleum present in the two borings appears to be a hydraulic or lubricating oil-type product with a minor diesel-range component. A transformer oil leak apparently occurred near the Gasoline Pump Island area located just to the southwest of boring HC-MW-1 (GeoEngineers, 1995). However, the oil-like product encountered in borings HC-MW-1 and HC-MW-3 during this study appears to be heavier (higher molecular weight) than typical transformer or mineral oils. The mobility of the oil-derived hydrocarbons encountered in the two borings appears to be limited given the low to not detected concentrations of petroleum hydrocarbons in groundwater at these locations (see Section 6.3). Five soil samples (MW-1/S-1, MW-3/S-1, SB-4/S-2, SB-5/S-1, and TP-34/S-2, Table C-1) were analyzed for gasoline-range hydrocarbons. Gasoline-range hydrocarbons were detected in 2 of the 5 samples (MW-3/S-1 and TP-34/S-2) analyzed, at concentrations less than the MTCA Method A screening level (100 mg/kg) for residential and industrial land uses. Detected gasoline-range hydrocarbons in these two samples were associated with diesel-range products and do not indicate the presence of gasoline. Drainage Ditch Sediment Quality. One sediment sample (HC-SD-10, Table C-1) was collected (0 to 4.0 inches) from the open ditch at the southwestern side of the site (Figure 4-1). PCBs (0.13 mg/kg), TPH - diesel (25 mg/kg), TPH - oil (73 mg/kg), and total metals were detected at concentrations less than MTCA screening levels. Note that arsenic was detected at 7.1 mg/kg, essentially equal to the MTCA Method B screening level of 7 mg/kg (based on regional background) but well below the MTCA Method C industrial screening level of 188 mg/kg. Based on the sediment quality data collected from the HC-SD-10 sample location, it is unlikely that transport of these sediments via site runoff will impact the Lake Washington aquatic environment. 4.3.2 Comparative Screening of Soil Quality - Zone B Zone B represents areas in the southeastern portion of the Site. Page 4-9 Hart Crowser J-4349-01 Surface Soil Sampling Explorations. No surface soil samples were collected from Zone B because of the presence of 4 inches to 1 foot of crushed gravel at the surface throughout the area. Thus, underlying finer soils (to which contaminants present would adhere) were only sampled in Zone B. Subsurface Soil Sampling Explorations. Eight samples (TP-22/S-3, TP-23/S-2, TP-24/S-1, TP-25/S-2, TP-26/S-2, TP-27/S-3, TP-28/S-2, and TP-29/S-2) were collected from test pits located in Zone B and submitted for chemical analysis. Test pits were excavated to depths ranging from 3 to 9 feet below ground surface (Table C-1). Samples were collected from depths ranging from 1.5 to 7.5 feet below ground surface. Analyses indicated the following: ► Metals. Five samples (TP-24/S-1, TP-25/S-2, TP-26/S-2, TP-28/S-2, and TP-29/S-2) were analyzed for metals. All metals concentrations were less than MTCA Method B screening levels. ► PCBs. Eight samples (TP-22/S-3, TP-23/S-2, TP-24/S-1, TP-25/S-2, TP-26/S-2, TP-27/S-3, TP-28/S-2, and TP-29/S-2) were analyzed for PCBs. PCBs were not detected in the eight samples analyzed. ► Herbicides. Two samples (TP-26/S-2 and TP-28/S-2) were analyzed for herbicides. Herbicides were not detected in the two samples analyzed. ► Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons. Eight samples (TP-22/S-3, TP-23/S-2, TP-24/S-1, TP-25/S-2, TP-26/S-2, TP-27/S-3, TP-28/S-2, and TP-29/S-2) were analyzed for TPH-diesel and TPH-oil. Two samples (TP-23/S-2 and TP-27/S-3) had low concentrations of diesel- range hydrocarbons and all eight samples had low concentrations of oil- range hydrocarbons. All of the diesel- or oil-range hydrocarbon detections were less than MTCA screening levels. 4.3.3 Comparative Screening of Soil Quality - Lead-Based Paint Total Lead - Field Investigation. The lead field investigation was conducted in accordance with sampling methods and quality assurance procedures detailed in the Work Plan dated August 4, 1995. Thirty six (36) surface and near-surface composite soil samples were collected from locations adjacent to site structures which may have been painted with lead- based paint. Site structures include the two fuel storage tanks, Power House, Transformer Platform, and Pump House. Sampling locations are identified on Figures 4-4 and 4-5. Soil samples were collected from depths of 0 to 6 inches and 6 to 12 inches at each discrete location. In each case, Page 4-10 Hart Crowser J-4349-01 three discrete samples (e.g., S1-A, S1-B, and S1-C) were collected and composited into one sample. Each composite sample was analyzed for total lead by EPA Method 6010 at North Creek Analytical, of Bothell, Washington. The lead sample chemical analytical results are presented in Table C-2. Lead Results - Fuel Oil Storage Tank Area. Total lead concentrations in the Fuel Oil Storage Tank area soils were all below the MTCA Method A residential screening level of 250 mg/kg (Figure 4-4 and Table C-2). Surface sample concentrations for lead ranged from a low of 19 mg/kg (S-2) to a high of 200 mg/kg (S-1) and subsurface samples ranged from non-detect to 23 mg/kg (S-1). Lead Results - Power House, Pump House, and Control House Area. Total lead concentrations in soil samples collected from these three areas were above the MTCA Method A residential screening level of 250 mg/kg but were generally below the MTCA Method A industrial screening level of 1,000 mg/kg (Figure 4-5 and Table C-2). Generally, surface soil samples contained higher lead concentrations than samples collected at depths of 6 to 12 inches below ground surface. Surface sample concentrations for lead ranged from 41 mg/kg (S-5) to 1,200 mg/kg (S-18). Subsurface sample concentrations ranged from 41 mg/kg (S-5) to 700 mg/kg (S-18). Approximately 25 percent (7 of 28) of the soil samples collected were above the Method A residential screening (Table C-2) level but less than 4 percent (1 of 28) of the samples were above the Method A industrial screening level (Table C-2). The highest lead concentrations were encountered along the southeastern side of the Transformer Platform (S-17 and S-18). High concentrations of total lead were also observed along the northwestern side of the Power House (S-13 and S-14). Samples collected in the Pump House area were generally below Method A residential cleanup levels. 4.3.4 Comparative Screening of Soil Quality - Asbestos Asbestos Regulations. Because of its high thermal resistance, tensile strength, stability, and non-combustible nature, asbestos was widely used for many years as insulating material on pipes, boilers, ventilation ducts, tanks, and as a fireproofing material on structural steel beams and roofing decks, mortar (i.e., boiler rooms and fire walls). The materials mentioned above are some of the most common sources of ACM that might be present at a power plant facility such as Shuffleton. Page 4-11 Hart Crowser J-4349-01 Regulations applicable to asbestos include: ► Air Emissions Control and Agency Notification: The National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs), 40 CFR Part 61; ► Regulations of the agency that regulates asbestos air emissions in King County, the Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency (PSAPCA). In King County, NESHAPs regulations are enforced by the PSAPCA. NESHAPs addresses emissions of asbestos from renovation and demolition activities. In essence, NESHAPs prohibits the emission of any visible asbestos-containing dust to the environment. ► Asbestos Sampling and Worker Certification: The Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act (AHERA) Regulations, 40 CFR Part 763 which require that asbestos-related activities in schools and public and commercial buildings be accomplished by accredited personnel trained according to AHERA specifications to identify, sample, and analyze potential ACM; and ► Worker Health: OSHA Asbestos, 29 CFR Part 1926.1101. The purpose of the federal and state asbestos health regulations is to protect workers performing work in or around asbestos from inhaling the material. It is believed that by limiting asbestos exposure among workers to less than the Permissible Exposure Limit (PEL), the health effects can be minimized. The asbestos PEL is currently set by.OSHA regulations under 29 CFR 1926.1101 at no more than 0.1 fiber of asbestos per cubic centimeter of air (f/cc), averaged over an 8-hour period. How Asbestos Might Be Released. The EPA NESHAPs regulation distinguishes between "friable" and "non-friable" ACM. "Friable material" is defined as that material which when dry, may be crumbled, pulverized, or reduced to a powder by hand pressure. Intact and undisturbed non-friable asbestos poses little threat to the health of building occupants. On the other hand, both friable and non-friable asbestos may be easily turned into a dust by routine building demolition practices. Asbestos Survey. Under the EPA NESHAPs regulations, a survey to identify ACM is required before beginning demolition and renovation projects to identify ACM. PSAPCA requires that an asbestos survey use the procedures contained in AHERA regulations (40 CFR 763.86) or an alternate method that has received prior written approval from PSAPCA. This is accomplished by bulk sampling of the suspect materials. Small pieces of the materials are collected and submitted to laboratory analysis, Page 4-12 Hart Crowser J-4349-01 using polarized light microscopy (PLM) to determine asbestos content. Note that this requirement generally applies to buildings and structures that were not included as part of this work. Definition of ACM. The EPA NESHAPs only regulates asbestos when analyzed materials contain greater than 1 percent asbestos. The PSAPCA definition of ACM is similar to NESHAPs, with the exception that PSAPCA includes materials containing greater than or equal to 1 percent asbestos. If the sampled material contains less than one percent of asbestos, the material is not regulated as ACM. When laboratory analysis shows that all samples collected from a single homogeneous area do not contain greater than 1 percent asbestos, the area is considered to be free of ACM. If even one sample collected from a homogeneous area contains greater than 1 percent asbestos, the entire homogeneous area is considered to contain ACM. Note that soil is not regulated as an ACM. Emission Controls. Under both EPA and PSAPCA regulations, all ACM must be kept adequately wet while being removed from the structure, building, or vessel, and no visible asbestos emissions are allowed. Asbestos Field Investigation (Round I). Five soil samples were collected for asbestos analysis from test pits TP-8, TP-9, TP-11, TP-13, and TP-14 (Figure 4-6). Test pits TP-11, TP-13, and TP-14 are located along the pipeline area and TP-8 and TP-9 are located in the fuel oil storage tank area. Soil samples were selected for asbestos testing from locations identified by former employees where firebricks and associated ACM were placed when the power house boilers were re-bricked. Soil samples were collected from around the firebricks, if observed. The polarized light microscopy (PLM) technique was used by Prezant Associates to determine total asbestos content of the sample for each field effort (Rounds I, II, and III). These asbestos results are summarized in Table 4-2-A and 4-2-B. It was noted by the laboratory that the PLM method is a visual method and that it is generally used for building/ construction material analysis. Because soil samples are of a more heterogeneous nature, the results reported by the laboratory should be considered estimated percentages of asbestos material. Asbestos in Soil Analyses (Round I). Three of the five samples analyzed as part of this work contained greater than one percent asbestos (Table 4-2-A). Results indicate that soils located along the north end of the Old Fuel Oil Line (TP-13 and TP-14 [3.5 feet and 3.0 feet]) have greater than one percent asbestos (5 and 2 percent, respectively). Asbestos (8 percent) was also encountered in test pit TP-9 (2.0 feet) located next to the former skunk house in the Fuel Tank area. Page 4-13 Hart Crowser J-4349-01 Samples collected from the two test pits where no firebrick was observed had no detectable asbestos (TP-8 and TP-11). Firebrick and Mortar Asbestos Analyses (Round II). Although it is unlikely that firebricks contain asbestos because refractory bricks are generally manufactured with highly fire-resistant clays and would not need to contain asbestos to function, the firebricks were evaluated to verify this assumption. The mortar surrounding the firebrick was also analyzed to determine asbestos content. A total of six firebrick samples were collected on November 21, 1995. The samples were collected from the area surrounding the former skunk house (Figure 4-6), east corner of the Fuel Tank area berm, TP-14, and the west corner of the steam plant. Firebrick samples were collected from surface locations based on previous field observations. Laboratory results indicate that the firebrick does not contain asbestos greater than 1 percent for any of the firebrick samples (Table 4-2-A). However, the mortar attached to the firebrick (ASB-4) has an asbestos content of 2 percent chrysotile. Because the mortar is attached to the firebrick, the firebrick/mortar is considered to be one material. Thus, the average asbestos content of the firebrick/mortar material is less than 1 percent. The asbestos detected in soil samples surrounding the firebricks is likely associated with the asbestos sheet material that lined the firebricks, and not the firebrick/mortar itself. Additional Asbestos Field Investigation (Round III). Based on the results from Rounds I and II, additional former employee interviews were conducted to better delineate the locations where firebricks had been placed. The interviewees identified locations with high and moderate probability of firebrick placement including: southeast side of the dock, fuel oil storage tank area, old fuel oil line, settling pond/sandblast area, lumber shed/carpenter shop, and Parcel B. The interviewees indicated that all remaining areas of the property had a low probability of firebrick placement. Fifteen test pits (TP-35 through TP-49) were located on a 100-foot grid within the high and moderate probability areas. Excavations to a depth of 5 feet were conducted on January 30 and 31, 1996 (Figure 4-6). A total of fifteen soil samples were collected (one from each test pit); soil samples were collected from soils surrounding the firebrick, when observed. Two small 0.25-inch pieces of lining material were encountered in one test pit (TP-37 - Lumber shed/carpenter shop) and were also submitted for analysis. Of the 15 test pits excavated, only four contained firebrick. Visual observations at TP-48 and TP-49 (SW Dock Area) identified Page 4-14 Hart Crowser J-4349-01 occasional firebrick pieces at the 1.5- to 2.0-foot-depth interval. TP-40 (Parcel B) had traces of firebrick fragments observed at the 0.5- to 4.0- foot-depth interval and TP-37 had firebrick fragments and liner material identified in the test pit just below the asphalt layer (0.0 to 1.0 foot). No firebrick or asbestos-containing material was encountered in the other test pits. Asbestos in Soil Analyses (Round III). Laboratory results (Table 4-2-B) indicate that the soil in TP-37 is the only test pit of the 15 with greater than one percent asbestos (3% chrysotile and <1% amosite). Although firebrick was observed in three other test pits (TP-40, TP-48, and TP-49), no asbestos greater than 1% was identified in the soils associated with these firebricks. TP-42 had a reported value of less than 1% asbestos and no firebrick was observed in the test pit. The remaining test pit soil samples were non-detect for asbestos and no firebrick was observed in these test pits. The two small (0.25-inch) pieces of lining material collected from TP-37 contained 90 percent chrysotile. These results confirmed the interviewee information indicating that the liner material associated with the firebrick was the source of asbestos in soils associated with firebricks. Asbestos Results Summary. Asbestos concentrations were evaluated in soils in the locations identified from employee interviews where power house boiler firebrick (and associated asbestos-containing liner material) had a moderate to high probability of being placed. The firebricks themselves do not contain asbestos. Although the mortar itself contains greater than 1 percent asbestos, because it is attached to the firebricks, the whole material (firebrick/mortar) contains less than 1 percent asbestos. In four of seven soil samples where firebrick was observed (primarily along the shoreline, in the fuel oil storage tank area, to the west and southwest of the power house, and in Parcel B), the asbestos content of the soil associated with firebricks was greater than 1 percent. Seven of 20 test pits indicated the presence of firebrick. Interviewees estimated the total volume of ACM potentially placed at the site to be approximately one ton. Note that firebrick was only encountered in surface soils to a maximum depth of 4 feet. For this reason, the asbestos content of subsurface soils was not evaluated. Page 4-15 Table 4-1 - Soil Analytical Results above MTCA Screening Levels Residential Commercial Industrial Lab ID Sample ID Analyte Depth Concentration Unit Screening Screening Screening Interval Level Level Level Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons B508577-12 E-2 Diesel 1.0 to 2.5 ft. 22000 mg/kg 200 800 2000 B508577-10 HC-SS-3 Diesel 0 to 3 in. 280 mg/kg 200 800 2000 B508577-1 t HC-SS-4 Diesel 0 to 3 in. 250 mg/kg 200 800 2000 B508625-04 MW-3, S-1 Diesel 1.0 to 2.5 ft. 670 mg/kg 200 800 2000 B508500-03 SB-2/S-2 Diesel 3.0 to 4.5 ft. 1300 mg/kg 200 800 2000 B508500-05 SB-3/S-1 Diesel 1.0 to 2.5 ft. 570 mg/kg 200 800 2000 B508497-26 TP-34/S-2 Diesel 0.5 to 3.0 ft. 5100 mg/kg 200 800 2000 B508577-10 HC-SS-3 Oil 0 to 3 in: 1300 mg/kg 200 800 2000 B508577-11 HC-SS-4 Oil 0 to 3 in. 950 mg/kg 200 800 2000 B508577-12 E-2 Oil 1.0 to 2.5 ft. 54000 mg/kg 200 800 2000 B508625-04 MW-3, S-1 Oil 1.0 to 2.5 ft. 2200 mg/kg 200 800 2000 B508500-03 SB-2/S-2 Oil 3.0 to 4.5 ft.• 3200 mg/kg 200 800 2000 B508500-05 SB-3/S-1 Oil 1.0 to 2.5 ft. 760 mg/kg 200 800 2000 B508497-26 TP-34/S-2 Oil 0.5 to 3.0 ft. 670 mg/kg 200 800 2000 B508625-03 MW-1, S-1 Oil 1.0 to 2.5 ft. 420 mg/kg 200 800 . 2000 Metals B508625-04 MW-3, S-1 Arsenic 1.0 to 2.5 ft. 16 mg/kg 7 57 200 B511030-11 S-6 Lead 0 to 0.5 ft. 260 mg/kg 250 250 1000 B511030-17 S-13 Lead 0 to 0.5 ft. 470 mg/kg 250 250 1000 B511030-18 S-13 Lead 0.5 to 1.0 ft. 750 mg/kg 250 250 1000 B511030-19 S-14 Lead 0 to 0.5 ft. 310 mg/kg 250 250 1000 B511030-25 S-17 Lead 0 to 0.5 ft. 1000 mg/kg 250 250 1000 B511030-27 S-18 Lead 0 to 0.5 ft. 1200 mg/kg 250 250 1000 B511030-28 S-18 Lead 0.5 to 1.0 ft. 700 mg/kg 250 250 1000 PCBs B508625-01 HA-3 Total PCBs 0 to 3.0 ft. 1.58 mg/kg 1.0 5.0 17 x .N:1 B508577-10 HC-SS-3 Total PCBs 0 to 3 in. 2.81 mg/kg 1.0 5.0 17 V n P- P cPAHs B508625-04 MW-3, S-1 Total cPAHs 1.0 to 2.5 ft. 1.72 mg/kg 1.0 5.0 20 10 "I" F.\SHUFFLE\TBL-4-I.WKMAIL ~ H Table 4-2—A — Analytical Results for Asbestos in Soil, Firebrick, and Mortar Samples (1) Lab ID 95091552 95091553 95091554 95091555 95091556 Sample ID AS-1(TP-11) AS-2(TP-14)AS-3(TP-13) AS-4(TP-9) AS-5(TP-8) Matrix Soil Soil Soil Soil Soil Depth in Feet 0.5 to 3.0 3.0 3.5 2.0 1.0 to 3.0 Bulk Asbestos Fiber Analysis (Round 1) Non-Asbestos Non-Fibrous Components 99% 95% 85% 77% 85% Non-Asbestos Fibrous Components 1% 3% 10% 15% 15% Asbestos Fibrous Components 0% 2% 5% 8% 0% Total Asbestos 0% 2% 5% 8% 0% Lab ID 95110352 95110353 95110354 95110355 95110355 95110356 95110357 Sample ID ASB-1 ASB-2 ASB-3 ASB-4 ASB-4 ASB-5 ASB-6 Matrix Firebrick Firebrick Firebrick Firebrick Mortar Firebrick Firebrick • Sampling Date 11/21/95 11/21/95 11/21/95 11/21/95 11/21/95 11/21/95 11/21/95 Bulk Asbestos Fiber Analysis (Round II) • Non-Asbestos Non-Fibrous Components 100% 100% 100% > 98% > 96% > 99% > 99% Non-Asbestos Fibrous Components 0% 0% 0% 2% 2% 0% 0% Asbestos Fibrous Components 0% 0% 0% 0% 2% < 1% < 1% Total Asbestos 0% 0% 0% 0% < 1% < 1% < 1% Note: (1) An asbestos content greater than 1% in asbestos-containing material is regulated. F:ASH UFFLE W SB.WK 1 VCML x b VR• o 0 Table 4-2-13 — Analytical Results for Asbestos in Soil and Lining Material Samples (1) Lab ID 96020009 96020010 96020011 96020012 96020013 96020014 96020015 96020016 Sample ID TP-35 TP-36 TP-37 TP-38 TP-39 TP-40 TP-41 TP-42 Matrix Soil Soil Soil Soil Soil Soil Soil Soil Depth in Feet 1.0 to 2.0 0 to 2.0 0 to 0.5 0 to 1.0 0.5 to 2.0 0.5 to 2.0 0.5 to 2.0 1.0 to 3.5 Bulk Asbestos Fiber Analysis (Round III) Total Asbestos 0% 0% 3% 0% 0% 0% 0% < 1% Lab ID 96020017 96020018 96020019 96020020 96020021 96020022 96020023 96020024 Sample ID TP-43 TP-44 TP-45 . TP-46 TP-47 TP-48 TP-49 Lining Matrix Soil Soil Soil Soil Soil Soil Soil Material Depth in Feet 0 to 1.0 0 to 1.5 0 to 1.5 0 to 1.5 0 to 1.0 1 to 2.0 0 to 1.0 0 to 0.5 Bulk Asbestos Fiber Analysis (Round III) Total Asbestos 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 90% • Note: (1) An asbestos content greater than 1% in asbestos-containing material is regulated. F.SHUFFLEWSB2.WKI IKML x b P -1!1:': Q CM .' oIn 00 Soil and Sediment Sampling Location Plan Puget Power - Shuffleton Facility ExpIorotton Locatlun JIY� O SD-4- 0 SS-1 Surface Soil Sample 3A 22 • SB-1 Soil Boring 0 SD-3 0 SD-2 0 SD-1 , ®HA-1 Hand-Auger Boring F24 1- i 7 3B i EHTP-1 Test Pit T•:rtI • F®TP-1 SS-1 ® OSD-1 Sediment Sample TP-4 A E-2 Exploratory Test Pit SD.-I SS-2 a -3 T®5 ® ' " 3 ®HC-MW-1 Monitoring Well Soil Sample Open :1 0 SS-4 Ditch N p-7 0 SS-- 4 EH TP-10 2 /'� 1 Shuffleton Steam Plant 15 Warehouse TP-9 TP_18 r \ 2 Fuel Oil Storage Tanks 16 Septic System ® TP-8 SH ® '�! I rr, 3A Unloading Pier and Walkway 17 Switch Maintenance Building d-‘--,/* ,_: 1E.:2_® . -17 I 38 Dock 18 Battery Room L _1��J12 ffiTP 13- - I; ER ® 'r_ 4 Intake Tunnel 19 Storage Shed BEFOL 1 ® TP-1 5 Pump House 20 Lumber Shed 4® TP-14 f J `� 6 Substation 21 Carpenter Shop HA-4 SB 3� • B_ 7 Transformer Oil Tanks/Pump House 22 Harbor 23 120 • B-4 1 � N \\ 8 Transformer Platform 23 Former Jet Lab Area I 11 \ \ 9 Substation Construction Storage Yard 24 Former Pole Storage Area • 21 HA-1 HA-2 ® - "N\ \ 10 Gasoline Pump Island 25 Control House E F A-9® • SB-3! 11 Railroad Tracks 26 Switch Yard 20 8 l® • I _ J ® - `,N. t 12 Settling Pond/Sandblast Area DF Former Septic Drainfield - TP-31® ® TP-30 \ 13 Paint Storage OL Former Old Fuel Oil Line \---._ \ 14 Shuffleton Stores SH Former Skunk House /F . . - -MW-1 of tt� .. 4, 10 70❑ T- ® — — =24 14 2616 I 15 \ 6 :: N•-25 En O / EI❑ 19❑ I ® 0 18 TP-29 17 7 TP-26 +� 0 N fr 9 , I EH AA. ITP-28® TP- 27 Note: Base map prepared from drawing 0 200 400 4 t--- provided by Puget Power entitled _ ___ Site Plan, Shuffleton Steam Plant / Facility", dated February 2, 1995. Approximate Scale in Feet a �� Inl 0 ) N II DO HAM-OW(3MM N m — / J-4349-01 2/96 7. Figure 4-1 MTCA Industrial Soil Screening Level Exceedences for TPH Puget Power - Shuffleton Facility 0 SD-4 Exploration Location and Number 3A 22 HC-SS-3 - O SS-1 Surface Soil Sample al SD-1 Sediment Sample Diesel 280 O SD-3 0 SD-2 0 S 9-1 Oil 1300 3B • SB-1 Soil Boring A TP-E-2 Exploratory Test Pit 24 u - ®HA-1 Hand-Auger Boring •HC-M W-1 Monitoring Well Soil Sample SS-1 -® -6 EH - ® ®TP-1 Test Pit TP-E2 - Sample Number Constituent Concentration in mg/kg TP-4 EHHC-SS-4 SG-1 I 8-3 TP-5 ® ' " 3 Diesel 250 Open • SS 0 : • S-4 Oil 950 Ditch1 Shuffleton Steam Plant 15 Warehouse BITP-10-7TP-9 0 /S-5 4 TP-18 r \ 2 Fuel Oil Storage Tanks 16 Septic System ® �TP-8 TP-E-2 ! 3A UnloadingPier and Walkway SH TP-19 1�! 1� rrTPf2 17 Switch Maintenance Building TP-34/3-2 " ®4 ® ® ' -17 Diesel 22,000 38 Dock 18 Battery Room Diesel 5100 �iP-12_ 5 ® T - „ Oil 54,000 4 Intake Tunnel 19 Storage Shed Oil 670 ®TlP-11 OL1 IS TP=1a-® _ i 1 \\ 4 TP-14 ®TP-i I 1 5 Pump House 20 Lumber Shed es, I SB-2/3-2 6 Substation /I - SB 25 5 E HA-4 Diesel 1300 21 Carpenter Shop 23 12 3 0 • SB-4 • B , �Qil 3200 7 Transformer Oil Tanks/Pump House 22 Harbor 8 Transformer Platform [ 1 \ 23 Former Jet Lab Area I 3B-3)8-1 9 Substation Construction Storage Yard 24 Former Pole Storage Area 21 - \-1 Diesei'570 10 Gasoline PumpIsland HA-1 HA-2 ® oil 760 25 Control House A-9® ® ®( � \� 11 Railroad Tracks 26 Switch Yard 20 i 8 I SB3 ® , 12 Settling Pond/Sandblast Area DF Former Septic Drainfield H MW-1/3-1(soil) TP-31® EH TP-30 \ 13 Paint Storage OL Former Old Fuel Oil Line )114 ..., IOi 1420 1 \ 14 Shuffleton Stores SH Former Skunk House /V -MW-1 — - - `f 1DF ®� ��� HC-MW-3/S-1 II) � -24 14 Diesel 670 leis-23I\\" I 15 26 Oil 2200 :: �--25 6 0 19= r 18 TP-29 TP-26 V' 0 N 9 I ( I P-28® EEI TP-27 Note: Base map prepared from drawing A- --i 1 — provided by Puget Power entitled 0 200 400 —`-- _ "Site Plan, Shuffleton Steam Plant a F / Facility", dated February 2, 1995. Approximate Scale in Feet �� o i� o II L-1 gn H/1RTCORO[OR J-4349-01 2/96 o o N o Of Figure 4-2 MTCA Residential Soil Screening Level Exceedences 410 Puget Power - Shuffleton Facility 0 SD-4 - HC-SS-4 3A 22 Diesel 250 Exploration Location and Number HC-33-3 1 Oil 950 PCBs (total)2.8 O SS-1 Surface Soil Sample 4 SD-1 Sediment Sample Diesel 280 0 SD-3 0 SD-2 0 S -1 Oil 1300 — L3B • SB-1 Soil Boring A TP-E-2 Exploratory Test Pit i ' 1 ' 1`�,� _ •HC-M W-1 Monitoring Well Soil Sample 24 I ®7P-1 ®HA-1 Hand-Auger Boring B 'I,."6_ ==� ® tic-83-3 - Sample Number SS-1 ® -6 ® ®TP-1 Test Pit [Constituent Concentration in mg/kg TP-4 El SGI0' S-3 TP-5 ® ` „ 3 . O • SS-4 TP-8/3-2 SS-2 ■. \\ Arsenic 16.0 P27 O SS- 4 \ 1 Shuffleton Steam Plant 15 Warehouse ®TP-10 /^ N Open TP-18 r \ 2 Fuel Oil Storage Tanks 16 Septic System Ditch T9®SH TP-8 TP-E-2 ' I rIP-E2 3A Unloading Pier and Walkway 17 Switch Maintenance Building TP-19 Diesel 22,000 /N � ® • _17 Oil 54,000 3B Dock 18 Battery Room TP-34/3-2 _ �SP'12_ I 4 Intake Tunnel 19 Storage Shed Diesel 15100 ®TP�3® ® s A-3 Oil 670 I ® 11 OI_-� TIP-14 ® TP-� �CBs (total)I1.6 5 Pump House 20 Lumber Shed _ 6 Substation 21 Carpenter Shop 4 HA-4 Biesel-2/S-21300<", 7 TransformerTanks/Pump Oil House 22 Harbor 23 12u • B-4 • �Bils 3200 \N 8 Transformer Platform 23 Former Jet Lab Area • i - 9 Substation Construction Storage Yard 24 Former Pole Storage Area 110\\ SB-3}s-1 9 9�� Diesei�570 10 Gasoline Pump Island 25 Control House HA-2 21 ® ®� •�r \\EB\-< Oil 76011 Railroad Tracks 26 Switch Yard 20 I I HA -111313 3 12 Settling Pond/Sandblast Area DF Septic Drainfield H -MW-1/S-1(soil) P-31® ® 13 Paint Storage OL Old Fuel Oil Line , I Oi I420 I TP-31 14 Shuffleton Stores SH Skunk House -MW-1 1 `f 1 Dr TP- .�\ 10 �� 25 ® - 'C =24 --- 26 HC MW 3>3 ( o -23 I 15 ..` . 14 Arsenic 16 T1P Diesel 67� - ■■ -25 1 Oil 2.�� ❑ i Total cPAH 1 ❑ 19❑ r O 6 /' ® ® ' N 18 I TP-29 17 7 TP 26 ♦ 0 9 I ill _J TP-28 TP-27 Note: Base map prepared from drawing Al I provided by Puget Power entitled 0 200 400 L__ F F,�-� "Site Plan, Shuffleton Steam Plant a Fii -- 1,00.,�o..•--� _--/ Facility", dated February 2, 1995. Approximate Scale in Feet o / • 00 — — — __ i �_ \' �r --' '- Lai CID HARTR® ,c. � / J-4349-01 2/96 E o' Figure 4-3 U Soil Lead Sampling Location Plan Showing Results Fuel Oil Storage Tank Area 1 , L Dock ----; ---I + - r _`yam -- r. . x ..__________, ,Boeing _ _ Waste __ _- (Leak -- -- 1-A/B/C S2-A Pb 0 to 0.5 200 0.5 to 1.0 23Si- S2-A/B/C Pb 0 to 0.5 19.0 0.5 to 1.0 ND Storage Open 31-C Tank Ditch, S2-C• I II S4-A/B/C ,51-B III Pb 0 to 0.5 25 32-8 0.5 to 1.0 ND \S4A S3-A liii S3-A/B/C III I I III III I Pb0to0.5 120 Y Storage 0.5 to 1.0 ND Tank 3-C• III •S4- 1 1 I Skunk douse 5 Pump House , Oil Fuel Line' KN. 1 ' [Paint storage Former Jet Lab Area 1 (----- T1 •S1-A Soil Sample 0 80 160 Location and Number V Scale in Feet Composite Sample Number N Constituent Depth in Feet m Concemg/kntrationg / p [(�"' Pb Lead Note: Bose map prepared from drawing HARTC?O ni ND Not Detected provided by Puget Power entitled Site Plan, Shuffleton Steam Plant J-4349-01 2/96 Facility", dated February 2, 1995. Figure 4-4 cvd 2/12/98 1=80 color.pcp 43490101 Soil Lead Sampling Location Plan Showing Results Power House, Pump House, and Control House Area \ 88-A/B Pb 0 too 0.560;¢• // ��� I 0.5 to 1 0 71.0 1 36-A •se-B \L - •35-A •S5-B Oil Line S8-A S -A S- - - - - --- - - Pump House .S• 86-A/B/C S8-C Pb 0 to 0.5 41.0 •$7-B •S7-C 0.5 to 1.0 45.0 •38-B •S8-C 88-A/B/C 87-A/B/C Pb 0 to 0.5 120 Pb 0 to 0.5 220 0.5 to 1.0 79 0.5 to 1.0 120 - 813-A/B/C Pb 0 to 0.5 4700 S14-A 513-A 0.5to1: :50- S14-B Power Hus 814-A/B/C • • :13-B Pb 0 to 0.5 310 0.5 to 1.0 170 • • 13-C S14-C C ,,..-•S15-A •• - • - Pb 0 to 0.5 0.5 230 S16-A S16-B •S1:-C 0.5 to 1.0 41 I 816-A/B/C Transformer Platform Pb 0 to 0.5 140 0.5 to 1.0 160 •S17-A •517-B •517-C S18-A •S18-B •318-C 317-A/B/C 818-A/B/C Pb 0 to 0.5 Pb 0 to 0.5 1200 0.5 to 1.0 210 0.5 to 1.0 700 Ell El O - Control I House - t�l I 1 •S19-B Soil Sample Location and Number 0 80 160 Exceeded MTCA Residential Cleanup Levels Scale in Feet :1:':.....1 Exceeded MICA Industrial Cleanup Levels /N Composite Sample Number Constituent Depth in Feet Concentration In mg/kg I n / riri Pb Lead Note: Base map prepared from drawing erovided by Puget Power entitled HARTWORENT Site Plan, Shuffleton Steam Plant J-4349-01 2/96 cvd 12/8/95 1=130 hc.pep Facility", dated February 2. 1995. 43490100 Figure 4-5 Suspect Asbestos Sampling Location Plan Puget Power - Shuffleton Facility ..1\-:-.'.. --5 3A 22 Exploration Location and Number •AS-1 Test Pit (Suspect Asbestos Sampling Round I) ....'''N\ I I3B j •qgg_1 Firebrick and Mortar Sampling (Round II) I' : 24 .. T' - A `'� r * �. -" ®TP-47 Test Pit (Suspect Asbestos Sample Round ------ \ ' EEI 0 TP-45 ® ®TP-47 2 ®4 AS-4 (TP-9) TP-43 /`^ 1 Fuel ShuffleOiltonStora Steame Tanks Plant 15 Warehouse Open ■ •ASB-5 \ 2 Ditch0 r -� 9 16 Septic System n SH ■AS-5 (TP-8) I r 3A Unloading Pier and Walkway 17 Switch Maintenance Building AS-1 ( '.:.::—= •ASB-3 3B Dock 18 Battery Room II TP-38® A-:-4 5 4 Intake Tunnel 19 Storage Shed -J� •■ A=-2 TP- 4) 20 Lumber Shed AS-3 (TP-13) ASB-2 ` I 5 PumpHouse 34®n v 6 Substation 21 Carpenter Shop TP-3b� T I '1 23 td� 3 \ 7 Transformer Oil Tanks/Pump House 22 Harbor 12O 1 I ` ) \ 8 Transformer Platform 23 Former Jet Lab Area P , \ 9 Substation Construction Storage Yard 24 Former Pole Storage Area 21 �) \ 10 Gasoline Pump Island 25 Control House 1 \ 11 Railroad Tracks 26 Switch Yard El 20 TP-37® I I I i 8l _ ,. 12 Settling Pond/Sandblast Area DF Septic Drainfield 13 Paint Storage OL Old Fuel Oil Line - - J \ 14 Shuffleton Stores SH Skunk House 11-- _ \ 07 D F P-4• \� 10 oD El b - TP-38 14 I 15 26 ❑ I®-39 TP ❑ 19❑ 6 / 18 I ED 7 ♦i�0 N 9 I 41( ®TP-40 % I Note: Base map prepared from drawing L I �- / provided Steamet Power Plant 0 200 400 d o / Facility", dated February 2, 1995. Approximate Scale in Feet o _— �� // �i!{ 0 F !�F—T=--- a �_ ,-- 0 �I �\ �� Cri CO en - HARTCR0 N 0 _ J-4349-01 2/96 Figure 4-6 i Hart Crowser J-4349-01 5.0 FRESHWATER SEDIMENT CHARACTERIZATION This section presents the findings of our ESI freshwater sediment characterization efforts at the site. The purpose of the freshwater sediment characterization was to evaluate constituent concentrations in this media. Sediment sampling and analysis were conducted at four Lake Washington locations adjacent to the site as shown on Figure 4-1. The following sections present specific information on freshwater sediment sampling and analysis, including: ► Sediment Quality Regulations. Provides a background summary of the current sediment regulatory status; ► Scope of Sediment Sampling Program. Discusses how sediment samples were collected; and ► Sediment Quality. Presents the results of sediment quality testing performed as part of analyzed this ESI. 5.1 Sediment Quality Regulations Ecology's management strategy and decision-making framework for addressing sediment contamination has been promulgated under the Sediment Management Standards (SMS; Chapter 173-204 WAC). The SMS address only marine sediments and do not address freshwater sediment criteria. Freshwater sediment chemical and biological criteria are currently under development by Ecology and are not anticipated to be available in draft form until late 1996. 5.1.1 Sediment Management Standards The SMS sediment cleanup decision process governs the cleanup of contaminated sediment sites, including how sites are identified, studied, cleaned up, and monitored. Using the Apparent Effects Threshold (AET) approach, Ecology promulgated chemical and biological criteria under the SMS which are applicable only to marine sediments in Puget Sound. The AET approach uses matched data on sediment chemistry, benthic macroinvertebrate community structure, and sediment bioassays to determine concentrations above which samples for a particular biological indicator exhibit adverse effects. Adverse effects are defined as a statistically significant difference (p<0.005) between conditions in a study area relative to conditions in an appropriate reference area. Standards for freshwater sediments are under development and will be addressed on a case-by-case basis by Ecology's Sediment Management Unit. This sediment management structure and the associated cleanup decision process will likely apply to freshwater sediments once numerical criteria are Page 5-1 Hart Crowser J-4349-01 promulgated. For this reason, we have briefly described the marine sediments standards below. Two sets of numerical criteria were developed by the AET approach: ► Sediment Quality Standards (SQS); and ► Minimum Cleanup Level (MCUL) or Cleanup Screening Level (CSL). The lower SQS criteria are intended to provide a regulatory goal by identifying surface sediments that have no adverse effects on human health or biological resources. Sediments with chemical concentrations equal to or less than the SQS are designated as having no adverse effects. Sediments with chemical concentrations which exceed any SQS are then subject to optional confirmatory biological designation. The confirmatory biological test standards include two acute tests and one chronic test. Sediment samples that pass all the confirmatory biological tests are designated as passing the SQS, regardless of the chemical concentrations. The MCUL is defined as the concentration above which toxicity is always observed in two or more bioassays, recognizing that bioassay responses in any single test may not be conclusive. Under Chapter 173-204 WAC, the site-specific sediment cleanup level is defined between the SQS and the MCUL, based in part on the practicability of cleaning up to the SQS. Sediments that do not pass the confirmatory biological tests may be targeted for cleanup consideration, particularly if a substantial area of sediment exceeds the somewhat less restrictive MCUL/CSL. 5.1.2 Freshwater Sediment Screening Levels Freshwater sediment chemical and biological criteria are currently under development by Ecology. To evaluate the potential for impacts to aquatic life from contaminated sediments, three different sources of applicable screening levels were reviewed for use on this project: ► Summary of Guidelines for Contaminated Freshwater Sediments (Ecology, 1995); ► Apparent Effects Thresholds (AET) determined for Hyalella azteca and Microtox (Ecology, 1994b); and ► Sediment Quality Criteria (SQC) for three individual PAHs developed by the EPA using the equilibrium partitioning approach (EPA, 1991a, 1991b, and 1991c). Page 5-2 Hart Crowser J-4349-01 Ecology, 1995. As part of the freshwater sediment criteria development, Ecology has published a Summary of Guidelines for Contaminated Freshwater Sediments (Ecology, 1995). This report summarizes guidelines and criteria from various North American sources to provide an overview of the current status of freshwater sediment criteria. Six different sets of criteria or guidelines are discussed, including guidelines developed by the Ontario Ministry of the Environment and Energy (OMEE). Sediment quality guidelines published by the OMEE were deduced by comparing in situ benthic community data with corresponding sediment chemical concentrations in samples collected primarily in the Canadian Great Lakes area. The severe effects level (SEL) is presumed to be the concentration above which benthic communities will be severely effected. Although Ecology states that none of the above criteria are currently endorsed or recommended for use in Washington State, Ecology has referenced the OMEE SEL for comparison to bioassay tests conducted at the Quendall Terminals - J.H. Baxter site on Lake Washington (Ecology, 1992a). Ecology, 1994b. Ecology has also summarized available synoptic freshwater bioassay and chemistry sediment data collected in Washington State and the lower Willamette River in Oregon. Apparent Effects Thresholds (AET) were determined from these data for Hyalella azteca and Microtox (Ecology, 1994b). The values from this report represent an initial attempt by Ecology to define effects-based levels of selected chemicals that could be used to predict biological harm, and should not be considered as guidelines or criteria. AET concentrations are generally greater than OMEE severe effects levels. AET concentrations have been shown to be a useful indicator of toxicity. Results of chemical analyses, bioassay tests, and benthic invertebrate studies performed by Ecology on the Quendall Terminals and the J.H. Baxter site sediments showed that Hyalella most consistently showed a significant decrease in survival where PAH contamination exceeded the OMEE SEL (Ecology, 1992a). Results of the Microtox testing were less consistent. In general, results of Microtox bioassays may not be ecologically relevant because the measured effect (bacterium luminosity) may not reflect survival rates or indicate changes in viability of other organisms (Ecology, 1992b). Therefore, the Hyalella AET reported by Ecology (1994b) will be used during the screening evaluation for this project. EPA, 1991. The EPA has developed freshwater sediment quality criteria (SQC) for three individual PAHs by extrapolating ambient water quality criteria to sediments using the equilibrium partitioning approach (EPA, 1991a, 1991b, and 1991c). The equilibrium partitioning approach uses EPA's water quality criterion Final Chronic Value (FCV) and partition Page 5-3 Hart Crowser J-4349-01 coefficients (Km) to estimate the maximum concentrations of non-ionic organic chemicals in sediments, expressed on an organic carbon basis, that will not cause adverse effects to benthic organisms. Estimated sediment quality criteria were calculated for additional target analytes for this project from available ambient water quality criteria using the EPA's calculation method. To conduct a preliminary evaluation of chemicals detected in freshwater sediments collected at the site, we screened the sediment data using values from the studies described above. Sediment concentrations were compared with: ► The severe effects level reported by OMEE (Ecology, 1995); ► The AET for Hyalella azteca (Ecology, 1994b); and ► Available or calculated freshwater sediment criteria (EPA, 1991a, 1991b, and 1991c). Freshwater sediment reference criteria are summarized in Table 5-1. Analytical data and results of the screening analysis are discussed in the Freshwater Sediment Quality section below. 5.2 Scope of Sediment Sampling Program Four surface sediment samples (upper 2 centimeters) were collected within the Harbor area (Figure 4-1) to evaluate potential impacts to sediments from off-shore loading/unloading of petroleum products, and drainage ditch or groundwater discharges from the upland portion of the site. One sediment sample was collected adjacent to the discharge pipe from the cooling water line which also receives water from the open ditch (HC-SD-01), two samples were collected adjacent to the dock area (HC-SD-02, HC-SD-03), and one sample was collected adjacent to the unloading pier (HC-SD-04). Samples were collected to be representative of the biologically active zone using a ponar sampler in accordance with Puget Sound Estuary Program (PSEP) protocols and Ecology's Sediment Users Cleanup Manual (Ecology, 1991). 5.3 Freshwater Sediment Quality Samples were analyzed for metals, total organic carbon, total solids, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). Sediment quality data generated by this work were reviewed by an environmental chemist to determine the validity of the data based on the project QAPP requirements and general quality control criteria. Based on this review, the analytical results were deemed acceptable for the purposes Page 5-4 Hart Crowser J-4349-01 of the ESI sediment sampling program. The data quality review summary is presented in Appendix B. Analytical results of the freshwater sediment sampling are summarized in Table 5-2. Metals. Metals concentrations were generally consistent between the four sampling locations except for zinc. Zinc was detected in sample HC-SD-01 at a concentration of 880 mg/kg, greater than the highest upland soil detection of zinc (SB-3/S-1 at 140 mg/kg). Metals concentrations, including zinc at all locations, were less than the applicable screening levels. PCBs. PCBs were not detected in any of the sediment samples collected and analyzed. Detection limits were less than applicable screening levels. PAHs. PAHs were detected in each of the four sediment samples collected and analyzed. Total PAH concentrations ranged from 0.98 to 24.5 mg/kg (or 39 to 1,400 mg/kg organic carbon normalized [oc]). The highest PAH concentrations were detected in sample HC-SD-01 collected from the northwest corner of the site. Sediment samples were collected from nearshore sediments close to treated wood pilings. Detected PAHs may be attributed to materials leaching from treated wood pilings and accumulating in the sediments. However, detected concentrations of PAHs on site were much less than PAH concentrations reported in sediments collected from other locations near treated wood pilings in the Puget Sound area (Table 5-3). PAHs are present in the environment from both natural and anthropogenic sources. As a group, they are widely distributed in the environment, having been detected in animal and plant tissue, sediments, soils, air, and surface water (Callahan et al., 1979). For comparison purposes total PAH concentrations observed in Seattle-area sediments are summarized in Table 5-4. Organic matter observed in the sediments are listed with the sediment sample descriptions in Table A-1. Detected concentrations of PAHs were less than applicable screening levels, except for phenanthrene at 124 mg/kg oc and pyrene at 294 mg/kg oc in sample HC-SD-01. Phenanthrene was detected at essentially the same concentration as the SQC concentration of 123 mg/kg oc. Pyrene was detected above the estimated SQC concentration of 240 mg/kg oc. Detected concentrations of PAHs were less than Ecology's AET for Hyalella and OMEE's SEL, indicating low potential for adverse effects on freshwater biota. Page 5-5 Hart Crowser J-4349-01 Table 5-1 -Proposed Freshwater Sediment Quality Criteria-Organic Compounds Fresh Chronic Fresh Final Water Quality Chronic Sediment Quality Criteria Criteria(WQC) Value(FCV) Equilibrium Partitioning Approach Compound in ug/L(1) in ug/L(2) Koc(3) in mg/kg organic carbon(4) Acenaphthene 520 23 4.60E+03 140 Acenaphthylene 6.3 (5) 2.50E+03 16 Anthracene 6.3 (5) 1.40E+04 88 Benz(a)anthracene 6.3 (5) 1.40E+06 8820 Benz(a)pyrene 6.3 (5) 5.50E+06 34650 Benzo(b)fluoranthene 6.3 (5) 5.50E+05 3465 Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 6.3 (5) Benzo(k)fluoranthene 6.3 (5) 5.50E+05 3465 Chrysene 6.3 (5) 2.00E+05 1260 Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 6.3 (5) 3.30E+06 20790 Fluoranthene 8.12 3.80E+04 1020 Fluorene 6.3 (5) 7.30E+03 46 Indeno(1,2.3-cd)pyrene 6.3 (5) 1.60E+06 10080 Naphthalene 620 9.40E+02 583 Pentachlorophenol 13 5.30E+04 13 Phenanthrene 6.3 6.3 1.40E+04 120 Pyrene 6.3 (5) 3.80E+04 240 Total PCBs 0.014 5.30E+05 7.4 Notes: (1) EPA. 1992. Water Quality Criteria Standards. 40 U-K Part 131. Dec 22, 1992. (2) EPA, 1991c. Proposed Sediment Quality Criteria for the Protection of Benthic Organisms. November 1991. (3) Battelle, 1989. Water/organic carbon partioning coefficient. Chemical Databases for the Multimedia Environmental Pollutant Assessment System: Version 1. (4) Sediment Quality Criteria=Koc *FCV(or WQC if available) (5) Estimated value based on WQC of phenanthrene. 434901\TBL-5-1.xls Page 5-6 Hart Crowser J-4349-01 Sheet 1 of 2 Table 5-2-Analytical Results for Sediment Samples Lab ID B508319-01 B508319-02 B508319-03 B508319-04 Sample ID HC-SD-01 HC-SD-02 HC-SD-03 HC-SD-04 Sampling Date 8/17/95 8/17/95 8/17/95 8/17/95 Conventionals Total Organic Carbon 1.7 1.7 2.5 2.3 in percent Total Solids in percent 27 25 27 40 Metals in mg/kg Arsenic 6.6 12 6.8 4.1 Cadmium 0.67 1.7 0.8 0.3 Chromium 27 26 31 29 Copper 44 54 78 37 Lead 70 64 87 20 Mercury 0.05 U 0.05 U 0.096 0.05 U Nickel 21 25 28 27 Silver 1.5 1.4 1.8 1.6 Zinc 880 360 150 83 PCBs in ug/kg PCB 1016 50 U 50 U 50 U 50 U PCB 1221 50 U 50 U 50 U 50 U PCB 1232 50 U 50 U 50 U 50 U PCB 1242 50 U 50 U 50 U 50 U PCB 1248 50 U 50 U 50 U 50 U PCB 1254 50 U 50 U 50 U 50 U PCB 1260 50 U 50 U 50 U 50 U Total PCBs 50 U 50 U 50 U 50 U PAHs in ug/kg Acenaphthene 250 U 250 U 25 U 260 Acenaphthylene 250 U 250 U 25 U 250 U Anthracene 400 250 U 27 310 Fluorene 260 250 U 25 U 400 Naphthalene 250 U 250 U 60 250 U Phenanthrene 2100 300 82 2400 Total LPAHs 2760 300 169 3370 Benz(a)anthracene 2000 670 74 860 Benz(a)pyrene 970 380 25 U 360 Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 380 250 U 77 250 U Benzo(b)fluoranthene 2500 680 54 880 Benzo(b)fluoranthene 900 260 48 320 Chrysene 3100 870 140 1200 Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 250 U 250 U 25 U 250 U Fluoranthene 6400 770 230 4500 Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 480 250 U 25 U 250 U Pvrene 5000 960 190 3300 Total Benzofluoranthenes 3400 940 102 1200 Total HPAHs 21730 4590 813 11420 Total PAHs 24490 4890 982 14790 Pentachlorophenol 500 U 660 100 500 U Page 5-7 F:\SHUFFLE\SED XLS\KML Hart Crowser J-4349-01 Sheet 2 of 2 Table 5-2 -Analytical Results for Sediment Samples Lab ID B508319-01 B508319-02 B508319-03 B508319-04 Sample ID HC-SD-01 HC-SD-02 HC-SD-03 HC-SD-04 Sampling Date 8/17/95 8/17/95 8/17/95 8/17/95 PCBs in mg/kg organic carbon PCB 1016 2.94 U 2.94 U 2.00 U 2.17 U PCB 1221 2.94 U 2.94 U 2.00 U 2.17 U PCB 1232 2.94 U 2.94 U 2.00 U 2.17 U PCB 1242 2.94 U 2.94 U 2.00 U 2.17 U PCB 1248 2.94 U 2.94 U 2.00 U 2.17 U PCB 1254 2.94 U 2.94 U 2.00 U 2.17 U PCB 1260 2.94 U 2.94 U 2.00 U 2.17 U Total PCBs 2.94 U 2.94 U 2.00 U 2.17 U PAHs in mg/kg organic carbon Acenaphthene 14.71 U 14.71 U 1.00 U 11.30 Acenaphthylene 14.71 U 14.71 U 1.00 U 10.87 U Anthracene 23.53 14.71 U 1.08 13.48 Fluorene 15.29 14.71 U 1.00 U 17.39 Naphthalene 14.71 U 14.71 U 2.40 10.87 U Phenanthrene 123.53 17.65 3.28 104.35 Total LPAHs 162.35 17.65 6.76 146.52 Benz(a)anthracene 117.65 39.41 2.96 37.39 Benz(a)pyrene 57.06 22.35 1.00 U 15.65 Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 22.35 14.71 U 3.08 10.87 U Benzo(b)fluoranthene 147.06 40.00 2.16 38.26 Benzo(k)fluoranthene 52.94 15.29 1.92 13.91 Chrysene 182.35 51.18 5.60 52.17 Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 14.71 U 14.71 U 1.00 U 10.87 U Fluoranthene 376.47 45.29 9.20 195.65 Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 28.24 14.71 U 1.00 U 10.87 U Pyrene 294.12 56.47 7.60 143.48 Total Benzofluoranthenes 200.00 55.29 4.08 52.17 Total HPAHs 1278.24 270.00 32.52 496.52 Total PAHs 1440.6 287.65 39.28 643.04 Pentachlorophenol 29.41 U 38.82 4.00 21.74 U Notes: U=Not detected at indicated detection limit. LPAH=Low Molecular Weight Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons. HPAH=High Molecular Weight Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons. Page 5-8 F:\SHUFFLE\SED.XLS\KML Hart Crowser J-4349-01 Table 5-3 - Total PAH Concentrations Reported for Sediments Associated with Treated Wood Pilings in the Puget Sound Area Total PAH Concentration Location in mg/kg Dry Weight Puget Power - Shuffleton 0.98 to 24.5 Charleston Navy Shipyard 1,600 to 23,000 Port of Seattle 8,600 to 18,000 Wyckoff 2,700 Eagle Harbor 1,500 Table 5-4 - Total PAH Concentrations Reported for Sediments in the Seattle Area Location Sampling No. of Total PAH Interval Samples Range in mg/kg Dry Weight Puget Power Top 2 cm 4 0.98 to 24.5 Quendall Terminal/J.H. Baxter (Norton, Top 2 cm 20 0.8 to 7,300 1991) Woodward-Clyde, 1989 Top 1 ft 19 ND to 28,000 EPA, 1983 Top 1 ft 13 0.08 to 16,000 Lake Union/Ship Canal (Cubbage, 1992) Top 2 cm 22 0.11 to 800 Gas Works Park, Lake Union (EPA, 1985) Top 10 cm 33 ND to 31,000 ND = Not detected Page 5-9 I Hart Crowser J-4349-01 6.0 GROUNDWATER CHARACTERIZATION This section presents the fmdings of our ESI groundwater characterization efforts at the site. The primary objective of the groundwater characterization program was to identify the general nature and extent of contamination in shallow groundwater beneath the site. The following sections present specific information on groundwater sampling and analysis, including: ► Scope of Groundwater Sampling Program. Discusses how groundwater samplers were collected. ► Groundwater Screening Criteria. Discusses use of numerical criteria for screening groundwater chemical data. ► Groundwater Quality. Discusses groundwater quality data for the two subareas defined for this investigation (Zones A and C). Samples were not collected from Zone B because no monitoring wells were placed in this zone. 6.1 Scope of Groundwater Sampling Program The groundwater sampling program performed as part of this work followed the scope of work outlined in the ESI Work Plan (Hart Crowser, 1995b). Nine monitoring wells and one temporary hydropunch well were installed at locations shown on Figure 6-1. In general, the groundwater sampling locations were selected to assess areas of suspected potential groundwater quality concerns, evaluate groundwater quality near the point of discharge to Lake Washington, and establish a monitoring well network to evaluate groundwater quality discharging from Zone C to Zone A. The monitoring wells consisted of 2-inch-diameter PVC screens placed across the water table (screened from approximately 2 to 9.5 feet below ground surface). The temporary hydropunch well was installed by driving a stainless steel sampler into the water table using a hollow-stem auger. Groundwater samples were collected from the wells using a peristaltic pump and/or stainless steel bailer. Sampling procedures and well and hydropunch installation information are provided in Appendix A. 6.2 Groundwater Screening Criteria Groundwater quality results were screened relative to MTCA (Chapter 173-340 WAC, February 1991) screening levels and Federal Water Quality Page 6-1 Hart Crowser J-4349-01 Criteria (WQC) in an effort to identify chemicals of potential concern and assess whether remedial actions may be required at the site. Groundwater chemical data were screened relative to MTCA Method A and B groundwater cleanup levels to evaluate the groundwater quality relative to drinking water standards. Comparison to WQC levels was performed to evaluate potential impacts from the discharge of site groundwater discharge to Lake Washington. 6.3 Groundwater Quality The ten groundwater samples were submitted to North Creek Analytical for chemical analysis. Groundwater samples were analyzed for TPH (WTPH- extended), PCBs, and total suspended solids (TSS). Eight groundwater samples were also analyzed for dissolved metals and hardness. One groundwater sample was analyzed for volatile organics. The groundwater sample collected from the hydropunch well (HC-SB-6) was also analyzed for PAHs. Groundwater pH, temperature, and dissolved oxygen were measured in the field at the time of sampling. Groundwater quality data generated by this work were reviewed by an environmental chemist to determine the validity of the data based on the project QAPP requirements and general quality control criteria. Based on this review, the analytical results were deemed acceptable for the purposes of the ESI groundwater sampling program. The data quality review summary is presented in Appendix B. Chemical data for groundwater samples are presented in Table C-3 (Appendix C). A summary of MTCA groundwater exceedences for arsenic is presented in Table 6-2 and shown on Figure 6-2. 6.3.1 Comparative Screening of Groundwater Quality - Zone A Groundwater Samples. Five groundwater samples were collected in Zone A for various chemical analyses. The three shoreline wells (HC-MW-5, HC-MW-6, and HC-MW-7) and the power plant well (HC-MW-9) were analyzed for hardness, TSS, dissolved metals, PCBs, and TPH-D extended. The HC-MW-9 sample was also analyzed for volatile organics. The pump house well (HC-MW-8) sample was analyzed for TSS, PCBs, and TPH-D extended. In addition, the hydropunch sample (HC-SB-6) was analyzed for hardness, dissolved metals, PCBs, TPH, and PAHs. Analyses indicate the following: ► Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons. None of the six groundwater samples collected in Zone A contained detectable concentrations of petroleum Page 6-2 Hart Crowser J-4349-01 hydrocarbons. The lack of TPH in the groundwater samples provides a good indication that petroleum in Zone A soils is not impacting site groundwater. ► PCBs/PAHs. PCBs and PAHs were not detected in Zone A groundwater samples. ► Dissolved Metals. Arsenic was the only metal detected in Zone A groundwater samples. Arsenic was detected in 4 of the 5 groundwater samples analyzed at concentrations ranging from 9.7 to 24 µg/L (Figure 6-2). These concentrations are above the MTCA Method A cleanup level for arsenic of 5 µg/L. However, arsenic concentrations present in site groundwater are likely the result of natural or regional background conditions (see Section 6.3.3). 6.3.2 Comparative Screening of Groundwater Ouality - Zone C Groundwater Samples. Groundwater samples were collected from four monitoring wells located along the boundary between Zones A and C (downgradient of Zone C) and submitted for chemical analysis. No groundwater sampling was conducted in the existing wells in Zone B or C, and no new wells were installed in Zone B or C. Samples HC-MW-2 and HC-MW-4 were analyzed for hardness, TSS, dissolved metals, PCBs, and TPH-D extended. Groundwater samples collected from wells HC-MW-1 and HC-MW-3 were analyzed for TSS, PCBs, and TPH-D extended. Analyses indicate the following: ► Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons. None of the four groundwater samples collected in Zone C contained petroleum hydrocarbon concentrations above the MTCA Method A cleanup level of 1.0 mg/L. The only sample with detectable concentrations of petroleum hydrocarbons was collected from well HC-MW-1 (0.46 mg/L). The lack of TPH in the groundwater samples provides a good indication that petroleum in Zone C soils are not significantly impacting site groundwater. ► PCBs. PCBs and PAHs were not detected in Area C groundwater samples. ► Dissolved Metals. Arsenic was the only metal detected in Area C groundwater samples. Arsenic was detected in both of the groundwater samples analyzed at concentrations ranging from 5.9 to 8 µg/L (Figure 6-2). These concentrations are above the MTCA Method A cleanup level for arsenic of 5 µg/L. However, the arsenic concentrations Page 6-3 Hart Crowser J-4349-01 present in site groundwater are likely the result of natural or regional background conditions (see Section 6.3.3). 6.3.3 Regional Evaluation of Background Arsenic in Groundwater In this region, arsenic occurs naturally in many kinds of rock, and high groundwater concentrations are often found in basin-fill deposits of alluvial and lacustrine origin (Welch et al., 1988). Elevated concentrations of arsenic have been documented in Western Washington groundwater and are thought to be the result of natural conditions (USGS, 1994). In 12 shallow monitoring wells located in Renton, 0.25 to 0.5 mile (southeast) upgradient of the Shuffleton site, the mean arsenic concentration is 8 µg/L, with a range of less than 5 to 45 µg/L (Hart Crowser, 1989). Another possible source of arsenic is from surface water runoff. Crecelius (1975) reported an average arsenic concentration of 15 µg/L in runoff on the west side of Lake Washington. Seattle Metro (1982) reported-a mean arsenic concentration in storm water runoff of 13 µg/L. The arsenic concentrations in the upgradient wells on the Shuffleton site (HC-MW-3, HC-MW-4, and HC-MW-9) are quite similar to regional concentrations, as well as to those in storm water runoff. In these wells the arsenic concentrations range from about 6 to 10 µg/L, while those at the downgradient edge of the site (next to Lake Washington in wells HC-MW-5, HC-MW-6, HC-MW-7) range from about 10 to 24 µg/L. The arsenic concentrations in the downgradient wells do not appear to be a result of an on-site source, since the results of the soil sampling indicate arsenic concentrations in soil similar to background soils for the western Puget Sound (7 mg/kg). The elevated arsenic concentrations in these downgradient wells may be the result of the presence of reducing conditions in the vicinity of these wells. Arsenic is more soluble in oxygen deficient or reducing geochemical environments. Reducing conditions are likely to occur in the presence of peat and other organic soils. Cross sections A-A' and B-B' (Figures 3-2 and 3-3) show the presence of a significant amount of peaty soils in the site subsurface toward the edge of Lake Washington. The arsenic concentration in HC-MW-6 is about 10 µg/L, while in HC-MW-5 and HC-MW-7 the concentrations are 18 and 24 µg/L. Correspondingly, the occurrence of peaty soils in HC-MW-5 and HC-MW-7 was much greater than in HC-MW-6. These results appear to indicate that reducing conditions associated with the peaty soils result in a higher groundwater concentration of arsenic in the downgradient portions of the site relative to the upgradient site concentrations. Page 6-4 Hart Crowser J-4349-01 6.4 Highest Beneficial Use of Groundwater is Discharge to Lake Washington The highest beneficial use of groundwater at the Shuffleton Steam Plant site is as discharge to Lake Washington. The basis of this conclusion are described below. 6.4.1 Site Groundwater is Not a Current Drinking Water Source The water-bearing zone in the vicinity of the Shuffleton Steam Plant is currently not a potential drinking water source. The site is zoned industrial and is under consideration for redevelopment as industrial, commercial, or mixed land use. The area is supplied with high quality water by the City of Renton, which precludes the need for additional drinking water supply for the vicinity of the site. 6.4.2 Site Groundwater Will Not be Used for Drinking Water into the Foreseeable Future No future use of groundwater for drinking water supply is anticipated in the vicinity of the Shuffleton site. With City of Renton water supply lines serving the area, high quality potable water will be readily available into the foreseeable future. Water supply sources other than the City of Renton's are not likely to be required to accommodate needs within this largely developed industrial area. The shallow water-bearing zone, which underlies the Shuffleton site, is characterized by soils of a relatively low transmissivity in comparison with the aquifers used for the City of Renton water supply. Therefore, this shallow zone is not likely to be a desirable source of water in the future. Nevertheless, following evaluation criteria in WAC 173-340-720(a)(ii), a hypothetical domestic water well completed within the shallow water- bearing aquifer could likely yield greater than 0.5 gallon per minute and would contain a total dissolved solids (TDS) concentration of less than 10,000 mg/L. Using these criteria, groundwater in the site vicinity could theoretically support water supply uses. However, as discussed in WAC 173-340-720(1)(c), Ecology recognizes that there may be sites where there is an extremely low probability that groundwater classified as a potential future source based on yield and total dissolved solids requirements would actually be used for that purpose. At such sites, Ecology may approve groundwater standards based on protecting beneficial uses of adjacent surface water if the following can be demonstrated: Page 6-5 Hart Crowser J-4349-01 ► There are known or projected points of entry of the groundwater into the surface water. Data from the Shuffleton site indicate that groundwater flows toward and discharges to Lake Washington (refer to Section 3.4). Regional information indicates upward hydraulic gradients near the lake, thus groundwater in the shallow water-bearing zone will discharge essentially horizontally toward the lake rather than vertically to deeper zones. ► The surface water is not a suitable domestic water supply source. Lake Washington is classified under WAC 173-201A as Lake Class water, intended to support a range of aquatic uses including domestic water supply. However, Lake Washington is not currently used as a drinking water source, largely as a result of concerns regarding pathogen contamination. Further, based on the demands on Lake Washington posed by the operation of the Ship Canal locks, and the City of Seattle Water Department withdrawals from the Cedar River, water rights are no longer available for additional withdrawals from Lake Washington (Dave Garland, Department of Ecology, personal communication, March 1994). Development of drinking water supply in nearshore areas of Lake Washington is therefore highly unlikely. As a result, the highest beneficial use of the groundwater at the Shuffleton site is as a supply to the non-potable uses of Lake Washington. ► Groundwater discharges will not result in exceedences of surface water cleanup levels at the surface water point of entry or downstream locations. As described in Section 6.5, the groundwater quality at the Shuffleton site meets federal chronic surface water quality criteria. Thus, site groundwater poses no risk to surface water receptors at the point of discharge, which does not account for the substantial natural dilution occurring upon discharge to Lake Washington. ► The cleanup action includes institutional controls that will prevent the use of contaminated groundwaters influenced by site releases. Institutional controls will not likely be necessary, given: 1) site groundwaters are not contaminated or, in the case of arsenic, are comparable to background groundwater concentrations; and 2) the low probability of future drinking water supply being developed from the shallow water-bearing zone in the vicinity of the property (discussed above). ► It is unlikely that hazardous substances will be transported to a current or potential future source of drinking water at concentrations above groundwater quality criteria (Chapter 173-200 WAC). Groundwater in the shallow water-bearing zone beneath the Shuffleton site will not be transported to other potential drinking water sources because: Page 6-6 Hart Crowser J-4349-01 (1) There are no drinking water wells in the vicinity of the site, including downgradient of the site, and there will be no foreseeable future need for them; (2) Shallow groundwater beneath the site will not migrate vertically into deeper potential water supply aquifers; (3) The receptor of shallow site groundwater, Lake Washington, is not a source of drinking water; and (4) The groundwater quality meets drinking water standards for all constituents, with the exception of arsenic, which is present at concentrations comparable to background. Our evaluation indicates that using groundwater quality criteria based on protecting beneficial uses of nearby surface waters (i.e., Lake Washington) are reasonable and appropriate. A comparison of site groundwater quality with the federal chronic surface water quality criteria is made in Section 6.5. 6.5 Potential Impacts to Lake Washington Groundwater quality in HC-MW-1 through HC-MW-9 and SB-6 compare favorably with the federal Water Quality Criteria (WQC) for chronic effects in fresh water, as shown in Table 6-1. Arsenic was a constituent of potential concern when comparing the data with MTCA screening levels for groundwater used for drinking water. However, the highest concentration of arsenic that was observed was 24 µg/L in HC-MW-5, and this is well below the federal WQC limit of 190 µg/L. No other metals were detected in samples from the groundwater wells. Silver has a federal WQC value that is two orders of magnitude lower than the detection limit; however, silver is not likely to be a concern here because it was not used at the site historically and it was detected only at background levels in site soils. PCBs were not detected in any well. Although the federal WQC of 0.014 µg/L for PCBs is an order of magnitude below the detection limits used, a detection limit of 0.1 µg/L is generally the practical quantitation limit (the lowest limit attainable). PAHs were analyzed for in hydropunch SB-6 sample but were not detected. PAHs do not have a federal water quality criteria for freshwater; however, the marine acute criteria is 300 µg/L. In comparing the groundwater quality data to the marine acute criteria, the detection limits were several orders of magnitude lower. Page 6-7 Hart Crowser J-4349-01 No volatile organic compounds were detected in any of the groundwater or soil samples; therefore, we did not make a comparison of the groundwater data to federal WQC for volatiles. These data indicate that shallow groundwater quality on the Shuffleton Steam Plant site is suitable for discharge to Lake Washington and is protective of aquatic biota based on federal Water Quality Criteria. Page 6-8 Hart Crowser J-4349-01 Table 6-1 - Comparison of Groundwater Analytical Data with Federal Fresh Water Sheet 1 of 5 Chronic Water Quality Criteria Lab ID Federal B509435-03 B509435-04 B509435-05 B509435-06 Sample ID Fresh Water HC-MW-1 HC-MW-2 HC-MW-3 HC-MW-4 Sampling Date Chronic WQC 9/21/95 9/21/95 9/21/95 9/21/95 Conventionals Hardness in mg/L 130 160 Total Suspended Solids in mg/L 27 40 30 82 Dissolved Metals in ug/L Arsenic 190 5.9 8 Cadmium 1.1 0.1 U 0.1 U Chromium 11 10 U 10 U Copper 12 1 U 1 U Lead 3.2 2 U 2 U Nickel 160 30 U 30 U Silver 0.12 20 U 20 U Zinc 110 20 U 20 U PCBs in ug/L PCB 1016 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U PCB 1221 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U PCB 1232 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U PCB 1242 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U PCB 1248 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U PCB 1254 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U PCB 1260 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U Total PCBs 0.014 TPH in mg/L Diesel 1 0.46 0.25 U 0.25 U 0.25 U Oil 0.75 U 0.75 U 0.75 U 0.75 U PAHs in ug/L 300 * Acenaphthene Acenaphthylene Anthracene Benz(a)anthracene Benz(a)pyrene Benzo(b)fluoranthene Benzo(g,h,i)perylene Benzo(k)fluoranthene Chrysene Dibenz(a,h)anthracene Fluoranthene Fluorene Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene Naphthalene Phenanthrene Pyrene Total cPAHs * Federal Marine Acute Criteria Page 6-9 Hart Crowser J-4349-01 Table 6-1 - Comparison of Groundwater Analytical Data with Federal Fresh Water Sheet 2 of 5 Chronic Water Quality Criteria Lab ID Federal B509435-07 B509435-01 B509435-02 B509435-08 Sample ID Fresh Water HC-MW-5 HC-MW-6 HC-MW-7 HC-MW-8 Sampling Date Chronic WQC 9/21/95 9/20/95 9/20/95 9/21/95 Conventionals Hardness in mg/L 120 89 120 Total Suspended Solids in mg/L 250 17 28 62 Dissolved Metals in ug/L Arsenic 190 24 9.7 18 Cadmium 1.1 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U Chromium 11 10 U 10 U 10 U Copper 12 1 U 1 U 1 U Lead 3.2 2 U 2 U 2 U Nickel 160 30 U 30 U 30 U Silver 0.12 20 U 20 U 20 U Zinc 110 20 U 20 U 20 U PCBs in ug/L PCB 1016 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U PCB 1221 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U PCB 1232 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U PCB 1242 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U PCB 1248 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U PCB 1254 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U PCB 1260 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U Total PCBs 0.014 TPH in mg/L Diesel 1 0.25 U 0.25 U 0.25 U 0.25 U Oil 0.75 U 0.75 U 0.75 U 0.75 U PAHs in ug/L 300 * Acenaphthene Acenaphthylene Anthracene Benz(a)anthracene Benz(a)pyrene Benzo(b)fluoranthene Benzo(g,h,i)perylene Benzo(k)fluoranthene Chrysene Dibenz(a,h)anthracene Fluoranthene Fluorene Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene Naphthalene Phenanthrene Pyrene Total cPAHs * Federal Marine Acute Criteria Page 6-10 Hart Crowser J-4349-01 Table 6-1 - Comparison of Groundwater Analytical Data with Federal Fresh Water Sheet 3 of 5 Chronic Water Quality Criteria Lab ID Federal B509435-09 B508500-09 Sample ID Fresh Water HC-MW-9 SB-6 Sampling Date Chronic WQC 9/21/95 8/23/95 Conventionals Hardness in mg/L 78 41 Total Suspended Solids in mg/L 49 Dissolved Metals in ug/L Arsenic 190 10 4 U Cadmium 1.1 0.1 U 0.1 U Chromium 11 10 U 10 U Copper 12 1 U 1 U Lead 3.2 2 U 2 U Nickel 160 30 U 20 U Silver 0.12 20 U 20 U Zinc 110 20 U 20 U PCBs in ug/L PCB 1016 0.1 U 0.1 U PCB 1221 0.1 U 0.1 U PCB 1232 0.1 U 0.1 U PCB 1242 0.1 U 0.1 U PCB 1248 0.1 U 0.1 U PCB 1254 0.1 U 0.1 U PCB 1260 0.1 U 0.1 U Total PCBs 0.014 TPH in mg/L Diesel 1 0.25 U 0.25 U Oil 0.75 U 0.75 U PAHs in ug/L 300 * Acenaphthene 5 U Acenaphthylene 5 U Anthracene 5 U Benz(a)anthracene 0.1 U Benz(a)pyrene 0.1 U Benzo(b)fluoranthene 0.1 U Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 0.1 U Benzo(k)fluoranthene 0.1 U Chrysene 0.1 U Dibenz(a.h)anthracene 0.1 U Fluoranthene 0.1 U Fluorene 5 U Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 0.1 U Naphthalene 5 U Phenanthrene 5 U Pyrene 0.5 U Total cPAHs 0.1 U * Federal Marine Acute Criteria Page 6-11 Hart Crowser J-4349-01 Table 6-1 - Comparison of Groundwater Analytical Data with Federal Fresh Water Sheet of 5 Chronic Water Quality Criteria Lab ID Federal B509435-09 Sample ID Fresh Water HC-MW-9 Matrix Chronic WATER Sampling Date WQC 9/21/95 Volatiles in AWL 1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane 1 U 1,1,1-Trichloroethane 1 U 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 1 U 1,1,2-Trichloroethane 1 U 1,1-D ichloroethane 1 U 1,1-Dichloroethene 1 U 1,1-Dichloropropene 1 U 1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene 1 U 1,2,3-Trichloropropane 1 U 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 1 U 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene 1 U 1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane 1 U 1,2-Dibromoethane 1 U 1,2-Dichlorobenzene 1 U 1,2-Dichloroethane 1 U 1,2-Dichloropropane 1 U 1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene 1 U 1,3-Dichlorobenzene 1 U 1,3-Dichloropropane 1 U 1,4-Dichlorobenzene 1 U 2,2-Dichloropropane 1 U 2-Butanone 10 U 2-Chlorotoluene 1 U 2-Hexanone 10 U 4-Chlorotoluene 1 U 4-Methyl-2-Pentanone 10 U Acetone 10 U Benzene 1 U Bromobenzene 1 U Bromochloromethane 1 U Bromodichloromethane 1 U Bromoform 1 U Bromomethane 1 U Carbon Disulfide 10 U Carbon Tetrachloride 1 U Chlorobenzene 1 U Chloroethane 1 U Chloroform 1 U Chloromethane 1 U Cis-1,3-Dichloropropene 2 U Dibromochloromethane 1 U Dibromomethane 1 U Dichlorodifluoromethane 1 U Ethylbenzene 1 U Hexachlorobutadiene 1 U Page 6-12 Hart Crowser J-4349-01 Table 6-1 - Comparison of Groundwater Analytical Data with Federal Fresh Water Sheet 5 of 5 Chronic Water Quality Criteria Lab ID Federal B509435-09 Sample ID Fresh Water HC-MW-9 Matrix Chronic WATER Sampling Date WQC 9/21/95 Isopropylbenzene 1 U Methylene Chloride 5 U Naphthalene 1 U Styrene 1 U Tetrachloroethene 1 U Toluene 1 U Trans-1,3-Dichloropropene 2 U Trichloroethene 1 U Trichlorofluoromethane 1 U Vinyl Chloride 1 U cis-1,2-Dichloroethene 1 U m,p-Xylene 1 U n-Butylbenzene 1 U n-Propylbenzene 1 U o-Xylene 1 U p-Isopropyltoluene 1 U sec-Butylbenzene 1 U tert-Butylbenzene 1 U trans-1,2-Dichloroethene 1 U U=Not detected at indicated detection limit. Blanks indicate no criteria available or sample not analyzed for specified analyte. F:\SHUFFLEIVOL-GW.XLS\KML Page 6-13 Hart Crowser J-4349-01 Table 6-2 - Arsenic Results in Groundwater Samples above MTCA Method A Screening Level Lab ID Sample ID Analyte Concentration Unit Screening Level B509435-04 MW-2 Arsenic 5.9 g/L 5.0 B509435-06 MW-4 Arsenic 8 µg/L 5.0 B509435-07 MW-5 Arsenic 24 µg/L 5.0 B509435-01 MW-6 Arsenic 9.7 µg/L 5.0 B509435-02 MW-7 Arsenic 18 µg/L 5.0 B509435-09 MW-9 Arsenic 10 µg/L 5.0 B509435-10 MW-99 * Arsenic 8 µg/L 5.0 * MW-99 is a duplicate of MW-6. F:kSHUFFLEWS-EXCQW.WKIUCML Page 6-14 Groundwater Sampling Location Plan III Puget Power - Shuffleton Facility 3A 22 Exploration Location and Number • �MW-1 Existing Montoring Well 1— N p 136 (Approximate Location) 1 4 HC4 W-7 ®HC-M W-1 Monitoring Well -M1�11l-5 (Hart Crowser) 0 OSB-6 Hydropunch Open Ditch 2 4 0 N HC-MW-f8 i �� r' l 1 Shuffleton Steam Plant 14 Shuffleton Stores I I I 2 Fuel Oil Storage Tanks 15 Warehouse OHC-SB-6 13 I 5 C-M1k-9 3A Unloading Pier and Walkway 16 Septic System 23 12 E --\� 38 Dock 17 Switch Maintenance Building O 1 —• , \ 4 Intake Tunnel 18 Battery Room !, \ \ 5 Pump House 19 Storage Shed 21 I \"I \ 6 Substation 20 Lumber Shed I I f \v 7 Transformer Oil Tanks/Pump House 21 Carpenter Shop l f 8 III I _ \ 8 Transformer Platform 22 Harbor 20 9 Substation Construction Storage Yard 23 Former Jet Lab Area \ 10 Gasoline Pump Island 24 Former Pole Storage Area - -1 11 \ 11 Railroad Tracks 25 Control House H -4® M _ MW-2 25 ,® \ -- 12 Settling Pond/Sandblast Area 26 Switch Yard 13 Paint Storage MW-1 a 016 15 214 W 68 r. El Ll 180 / 191-1 / EI7 44*4 N )0000017 9 1110 CL _IMW-2A I WPM Base map prepared from drawing o :�'-- -- I I provided by Puget Power entitled 0 200 400 _____ MW-3A "Site Plan, Shuffleton Steam Plant �'w" ''r / Facility", dated February 2, 1995. Approximate Scale in Feet O I O +—.-I _�� N -------- II ,/ — ___ _ N�`J i. "' HARTC4ROMR NO / > � J-4349-01 2/96 CJ NI- Figure 6-1 MTCA Groundwater Screening Level Exceedences Puget Power - Shuffleton Facility Exploration Location and Number M W-1 Existing Montoring Well HC-MW-7 (Approximate Location) Arsenic 118.0 3 HC-M W-5 �Arsenic124.0 ®HC-MW-1 Monitoring Well 2 I , 4- i (Hart Crowser) H - W-7 -- -M W-5 _= OSB-8 Hydropunch 0 Arsenic MTCA Method A Screening Level == 5.0 ug/L Open--N4 Ditch 2 4 HC-MW-5 Sample Number 0 <8> Constituent Concentration in ug/L HC-MW-}8 �� , I7 r \��// HC-I�IIW-9 1 Shuffleton Steam Plant 14 Shuffleton Stores 5 Arsenic 110.0 f HC-SB-6 II 2 Fuel Oil Storage Tanks 15 Warehouse 13 HC-MW-9 I •: 3A Unloading Pier and Walkway 16 Septic System 23 12� v I C 38 Dock 17 Switch Maintenance Building 0 1 i \ \ 4 Intake Tunnel 18 Battery Room Cj _ ► \ \ 5 Pump House 19 Storage Shed \-7 \ 6 Substation 20 Lumber Shed 21 n \ 7 Transformer Oil Tanks/Pump House 21 Carpenter Shop III I I V\ 8 Transformer Platform 22 Harbor HC-MW-4 20 1 8 1 = 9 Substation Construction Storage Yard 23 Former Jet Lab Area Arsenic 8.0 1 \ / - \ 10 Gasoline Pump Island 24 Former Pole Storage Area `' ,t�W-d HG-MW 1 HC-MW 2 ® 11 11 Railroad Tracks 25 Control House H 4 ❖ M 3 ' MW-2 , '-MW-3N 12 Settling Pond/Sandblast Area 26 Switch Yard 0 25 ' MW-19 16 — \ 13 Paint Storage �p �y O 14 --Ail 8 HC-MW-2A — 15 6 Arsenicj5.9 J26 �J j , El o / 18 19 - 7- o 17 7 .)0, N 9 a / J MW-2A o ! BMW-1 Note: Base map prepared from drawing 0 200 400 0 1 provided by Puget Power entitled a MW-3A: / "Site Plan, Shuffleton Steam Plant o / Facility", dated February 2, 1995. Approximate Scale in Feet N ` �/ II I I _ I f / _r co , ` .\ l / r\i op o ) HARiTCRO N 3 / J-4349-01 2/96 ---- Figure 6-2 i Hart Crowser J-4349-01 7.0 SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS Based on the ESI data, the Shuffleton property media represent relatively good environmental quality when compared to typical industrial sites. The contamination identified is limited to surface and near-surface soils in a number of relatively limited areas of the property. In addition, the identified contamination above screening levels is found only in property soils, and there is no apparent impact on property groundwaters or adjacent freshwater sediments in Lake Washington. The limited contamination observed from the data is consistent with the historical practices and activities identified from employee interviews and a detailed property history review. For example, the power house was used to burn any residual petroleum, cleaning solvents, and other fuel substances generated from on-site activities. The limited concentrations and extent of PCBs in the soils sampled during the ESI are also consistent with Puget Power's policies. In general, Puget Power used transformers that do not contain PCBs and documented characterization and cleanup of any PCB spills or localized stained soils. In preparation for future property redevelopment, our recommendations, depending on future land use, include: ► No further action is recommended for groundwater or freshwater sediments; ► No further action is recommended for soils in Zone B for any future land use (if however, residential land use is considered for this zone, additional sampling may be warranted); ► In Zone A, in the case of continued industrial land use, we recommend a limited hot spot containment or removal action for primarily TPH- and lead-containing soils in approximately 10 locations in conjunction with development plans. In addition, we recommend development of construction contingency plans that include protection of site workers from asbestos in liner material or soil that may be encountered during excavation work that uncovers firebrick in the limited areas identified, or in association with steam and fuel pipelines; ► In Zone A, in the case of commercial land use, we recommend essentially the same strategy as industrial land use with the addition of a slightly more extensive containment or removal action for site soils; and Page 7-1 Hart Crowser J-4349-01 ► In Zone A, in the case of residential development, we recommend a remediation action to address a more extensive list of constituents (TPH, PAHs, PCBs, lead, and arsenic) and a larger volume of soils. We also recommend the removal of surface soils containing asbestos, and appropriate worker protection and development of contingency plans for the limited areas where asbestos in soil or liner material associated with firebricks, or steam and fuel pipelines may be used as an indicator of the potential for encountering asbestos during excavation activities. Page 7-2 I Hart Crowser J-4349-01 REFERENCES Battelle, 1989. Strenge, D.L., Peterson, S.R., Chemical Databases for the Multimedia Environmental Pollutant Assessment System (MEPAS); Version 1, December 1989. Callahan, Michael A., Michael W. Slimak, Norman W. Gabel, Ira P. May, Charles F. Fowler, J. Randall Freed, Patricia Jennings, Robert L. Durfee, Frank C. Whitmore, Bruno Maestri, William R. Mabey, Buford R. Holt, and Constance Gould, 1979. Water-Related Environmental Fate of 129 Priority Pollutants, Volume I: Introduction and Technical Background, Metals and Inorganics, Pesticides and PCBs. December 1979. Crecelius, E.A., 1975. "The Geochemical Cycle of Arsenic in Lake Washington and its Relation to Other Elements." Limnology and Oceanography 20(3):441-451. Cubbage, 1992. "Comprehensive Evaluation of Lake Union Sediments Using the Triad Approach." Washington State Department of Ecology, Olympia, WA, 1990. Ecology, 1991. Summary of Criteria and Guidelines for Contaminated Freshwater Sediments. Washington State Department of Ecology, Environmental Investigations and Laboratory Services, September 1991. Ecology, 1992a. Effects of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs) in Sediments from Lake Washington on Freshwater Bioassay Organisms and Benthic Macroinvertebrates. Washington State Department of Ecology, June 1992. Ecology, 1992b. Review and Evaluation of Microtox Test for Freshwater Sediments. Washington State Department of Ecology. Environmental Investigations and Laboratory Services Program. November 1992. Ecology, 1994a. Natural Background Soil Metals Concentrations in Washington State. Washington State Department of Ecology. Toxics Cleanup Program. Publication No. 94-115. October 1994. Ecology, 1994b. Creation of Freshwater Sediment Quality Database and Preliminary Analysis of Freshwater Apparent Effects Thresholds. Washington State Department of Ecology. Sediment Management Unit. Publication No. 94-118. June 1994. Page R-1 Hart Crowser J-4349-01 Ecology, 1995. Summary of Guidelines for Contaminated Freshwater Sediments. Washington State Department of Ecology. Sediment Management Unit. Publication No. 95-308. February 1995. EPA, 1983. "Port Quendall Offshore Sediment Investigation", EPA Region 10, Seattle, 1983. EPA, 1985. "Lake Union Sediment Investigation", March 20-21, 1984. EPA Region 10, Seattle, 1985. EPA, 1991 a. Proposed Sediment Quality Criteria for the Protection of Benthic Organisms: Fluoranthene. Environmental Protection Agency. November 1991. EPA, 1991b. Proposed Sediment Quality Criteria for the Protection of Benthic Organisms: Phenanthrene. Environmental Protection Agency. November 1991. EPA, 1991c. Proposed Sediment Quality Criteria for the Protection of Benthic Organisms: Acenaphthene. Environmental Protection Agency. November 1991. EPA, 1992. Water Quality Criteria Standards 40 CFR Part 131, December 22, 1992. GeoEngineers, 1993. Subsurface Contamination Study, Underground Storage Tanks, March 29, 1993. GeoEngineers, 1995. Report of Environmental Services, Soil Remediation and Groundwater Monitoring, Shuffleton Complex, Renton, Washington, March 13, 1995. Hart Crowser, 1987. Preliminary Assessment of Soil and Groundwater Quality, Boeing and Puget Sound Power & Light Land Transfer, Proposed Building 4-86, Renton, Washington, August 24, 1987. Hart Crowser, 1989. Remedial Investigation Report, PACCAR Site, Renton, Washington. September 1, 1989. Hart Crowser, 1995a. Site History, Shuffleton Steam Plant Facility, Renton, Washington, July 11, 1995. Hart Crowser, 1995b. Environmental Site Investigation Work Plan, Shuffleton Steam Plant Facility, Renton, Washington, August 4, 1995. Page R-2 Hart Crowser J-4349-01 Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle, 1982. Toxicants in Urban Runoff, Metro Toxicant Program, Report No. 2. Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle, Water Quality Division, December 1982. Norton, Dale, 1991. Distribution and Significance of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons in Lake Washington Sediments Adjacent to Quendall Terminals/J.H. Baxter Site, Washington State Department of Ecology Environmental Investigations and Laboratory Services Program. Water Body No. WA-08-9350 (Segment No. 04-08-101), May 1991. Renton, 1995. City of Renton Zoning Map (5309), City of Renton, Long Range Planning, February 2, 1995. United States Geological Survey, 1994. Geohydrology and Quality of Ground Water in East King County, Washington, Draft version revised March 1, 1994. Welch, A.H., Lico, M.S., and Hughs, J.L., 1988. Arsenic in Ground Water of the Western United States. Ground Water, V.26, No.3, p.333-347. Woodward-Clyde, 1989. "Technical Memorandum No. 1 - Nearshore Sediment Sampling - J.H. Baxter Facility Renton, WA, Project No. 86006S, Prepared for the Washington State Department of Ecology, NWRO, 1989. PPESI.rpt Page R-3 I Q. Hart Crowser J-4349-01 APPENDIX A SAMPLE COLLECTION METHODS AND LOGS OF EXPLORATIONS Hart Crowser J-4349-01 APPENDIX A SAMPLE COLLECTION METHODS AND LOGS OF EXPLORATIONS This appendix describes sample collection methods that were used to collect soil, groundwater, and sediment samples at the Shuffleton Steam Plant property. Samples were collected between August 17 and November 1, 1995. Preparation for On-Site Work Prior to initiating work on site, Hart Crowser worked in conjunction with Puget Power to coordinate site access and subsurface utility clearance. Proposed locations of all upland explorations were staked and appropriate Puget Power personnel reviewed facility utility (water, sewer, electric, telephone, gas, etc.) and "as-built" maps. A field utility survey was performed under the direction of Puget Power at each sampling location by a representative of Locating, Inc., using various utility line and metal locating devices (including Metro Tech 810, 850, and 880 detectors). During the actual sampling activities explorations were relocated if necessary to stay at least 5 to 10 feet away from any indicated utility corridors. Equipment Decontamination Before drilling, the drill rig, all auger sections, steel casing, and downhole equipment were steam cleaned. Between each boring, the drilling and downhole soil sampling equipment were steam cleaned using clean water. Steam cleaning was generally conducted adjacent to the boring location. Before each sample for chemical analysis is collected, all downhole soil and groundwater sampling equipment was decontaminated by: ► Scrubbing with detergent solution (ALCONOX); ► Rinsing with tap water; and ► Thoroughly spraying with deionized water. Test Pits Forty-eight test pits were excavated using a backhoe to depths of approximately 8 feet below ground surface, or until groundwater seepage/inflow caused the trench to cave (water table is approximately 2.5 to 8 feet below ground surface). Test pit locations are shown on Figures 4-1 and 4-6. Test pit TP-32 was eliminated because of the close proximity Page A-1 Hart Crowser J-4349-01 of underground utilities, and test pit TP-33 was converted to a hand-auger exploration. Exploratory test pit E-2 was also excavated at the site. A stainless steel spoon was used to remove sample material directly from the test pit soils, or from the center of the backhoe bucket if direct access to the soils was not safe (as determined by the field health and safety officer). Samples were homogenized in a stainless steel bowl or within the backhoe bucket before being placed into precleaned sample jars. Test pit sampling intervals were generally selected based on the soil types encountered instead of following the uniform sampling interval outlined in the Work Plan (Hart Crowser, 1995b). This deviation from the Work Plan was necessary because of the heterogenous nature of the soils encountered and the presence of fill materials which are not desirable for sampling (e.g., crushed rock fill, concrete, brick, wood, and other industrial debris). Samples were collected from individual lithologic units (e.g., sand, silt, etc.) so that the geochemical nature of the various soil types could be evaluated. For example in Zone B test pits, approximately 6 inches to 1 foot of crushed rock occurred in surficial soils. We did not collect and analyze samples of the crushed rock layer that was present on the surface. Environmental chemistry analysis requires that a significant percentage of a sample be composed of finer-grained material (sand size or smaller). In Zone B, we selected samples of the underlying sands and silts for chemical analysis. Note that this approach is conservative because the contaminants will be preferentially associated with the finer grained materials. Soils encountered in the test pits were screened in the field for the presence of hydrocarbons using visual (e.g., sheen shake tests) and vapor (e.g., headspace screening) monitoring techniques. Headspace screening was performed using a portable photoionization detector (PID) which is not significantly influenced by the presence of methane. Each test pit was logged by a Hart Crowser field representative prior to being backfilled. Logs of test pits are presented at the end of this appendix on Figures A-2 through A-18. Test pits TP-35 through TP-49 were excavated on January 30, and 31, 1996. These test pits were excavated for sample collection for asbestos analysis only and varied in locations throughout the site as shown on Figure 4-6. Logs for these test pits are presented on Figures A-13 through A-18 at the end of this appendix. Test pit excavations were backfilled with the excavated soil. The excavation site was restored to approximate pre-excavation condition. The test pit locations were staked and surveyed. Page A-2 Hart Crowser J-4349-01 Soil Borings Five soil borings were completed at the locations shown on Figure 4-1. Two of the borings (SB-2 and SB-3) were installed adjacent to drywells to evaluate soil quality over the depth of the wells. Two soil borings were placed adjacent to the Paint Storage Building (SB-4 and SB-5) instead of test pits because the initial locations were covered with pavement. The fifth boring (SB-1) was installed on the north side of the steam plant building. Soil borings were installed to depths of approximately 10 feet below ground surface using a hollow-stem auger drill rig. Soil samples were collected at 2.5-foot-depth intervals using split-spoon sampling procedures. The geology and stratigraphy of the boreholes were logged by the field geologist. Soils were classified using standard ASTM methods and screened in the field using visual and headspace techniques. Soil boring logs are presented on Figures A-19 through A-23. The borings were advanced with a Mobile A-61 truck-mounted, 6-inch- inside-diameter, hollow-stem auger. Standard hollow-stem auger drilling techniques were used. Soil samples were generally collected at 2.5-foot- depth intervals, beginning at 1.0 foot below ground surface. Soil samples were collected using the Standard Penetration Test (SPT) procedure described in ASTM D 1587. The procedure involves driving a 3-inch inside diameter split-spoon sampler into the soil a distance of 18 inches beyond the end of the borehole. The sampler was driven by a 140-pound hammer dropping 30 inches onto the end of the drilling rod. The number of blows required to drive the sampler the final 12 inches is the Standard Penetration Resistance. This resistance provides a measure of the density of granular soils (sands and gravels) and consistency of finer grained cohesive soils (silts and clays). For soil samples to be retained for chemical analysis, the sampler was placed on a clean plastic sheet, opened, and the soil sample split longitudinally. Using a stainless steel spoon, soil within the sampler was placed in laboratory-supplied clean glass jar(s) with a teflon-lined screw cap(s), and immediately placed in a cooled ice chest. Gravel larger than '/a inch in diameter was excluded from samples retained for chemical analysis. For soil samples to be analyzed for volatile organics, soil was carefully packed into the sample jar to minimize the headspace. In some cases, soil samples were not directly transported to the analytical laboratory. In these cases, samples were transported to Hart Crowser and stored under refrigeration until delivery to the analytical laboratory for chemical analysis. Page A-3 Hart Crowser J-4349-01 Field Screening The remaining soil in the split-spoon sampler was transferred into a clean jar for field screening of organic vapors using a portable photoionization detector (PID) equipped with a 10.2 eV lamp. The PID is capable of providing qualitative estimates of total organic vapor concentrations in the sample jar headspace and is not affected by the presence of methane. The soil sample jars headspace were covered with aluminum foil, capped, and allowed to equilibrate for a minimum of 10 minutes. PID measurements were made by removing the cap and penetrating the aluminum foil with the tip of the PID, taking care not to allow contact between the tip of the PID and soil particles. The maximum organic vapor reading observed during the first 10 seconds was recorded on the field boring log. Field PID measurements and visual observations were used to help select samples to be sent to the laboratory for chemical analysis. Soil Classification The on-site field representative visually classified the soil samples recovered from the test pits and borings in general accordance with ASTM Method D 2488 (Figure A-1), prepared a log of soils encountered in the exploration, and recorded pertinent observations regarding drilling conditions, types of soils encountered, and the depth to water during drilling. Soil descriptions included the following properties: density of sands and gravels/consistency of silts and clays (as determined from the Penetration Resistance or qualitatively estimated from drill action), moisture, color, minor constituents, and major constituents. The presence of non-soil substances (e.g., debris, odor) were also noted when applicable. Sample and Cuttings Handling Once the sample jar headspace vapor measurement was completed, soil headspace sample jars were emptied into the on-site drill cutting drum. Drilling cuttings were contained in 55-gallon DOT drums for later disposal. The drums were labeled with the date, boring identification number, and contents. The identification number, contents, and location of the drums were also recorded in the geologist's daily field report. Puget Power was designated to handle all waste disposal. Borehole Abandonment Boreholes which were not completed as monitoring wells were abandoned by pumping cement-bentonite grout and/or pouring bentonite chips as the auger was withdrawn, in accordance with Chapter 173-160 WAC Page A-4 Hart Crowser J-4349-01 "Minimum Standards for Construction and Maintenance of Wells." Boring locations were staked and surveyed. Hand-Auger Borings Five hand-auger borings were installed to collect soil quality data in areas inaccessible to the backhoe or drill rig. Two hand-auger borings (HA-3 and HA-4) were installed in the pump house area between the steam plant and the pump house, and just northwest of the service tanks (Figure 4-1). Three other hand-auger borings (HA-1, HA-2, and HA-5) were installed adjacent to the location of the former transformer platform above-ground storage tank (AST). Initially only two hand-augers were proposed for this area, but based on the close proximity of underground utilities, TP-33 was changed to a hand-auger (HA-5). Hand-auger borings were installed to a depth of approximately 3 to 5 feet below ground surface or until groundwater seepage/inflow caused the boring to cave. The borings were advanced using a stainless steel hand auger. Samples were collected from the 0- to 3-foot-depth interval using soils removed with the hand auger. Soil were mixed in a stainless steel bowl using a stainless steel spoon and placed in pre-cleaned sample jars. Logs of the hand-auger borings are presented on Figures A-25 and A-26. Surface Soil Sampling Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons. A visual inspection of above-ground petroleum pipelines located in the fuel oil storage tank area was performed to assess whether leakage had occurred. Surface and near-surface soil were examined at several points along the pipelines. Five discrete surface soil samples (HC-SS-1 through HC-SS-5) were collected for chemical analysis. Samples were collected from the upper 3 inches of soil using a stainless steel spoon. Discrete samples were mixed in a stainless steel bowl and placed in pre-cleaned sample jars. Lead. Thirty-six surface and near-surface soil samples were collected on October 31 and November 1, 1995, and composited for lead analyses (EPA Method 6010). Sampling locations were identified to be at locations adjacent to site structures which may have been painted with lead-based paint. Samples were collected at depths of 0 to 6 inches and 6 to 12 inches for each discrete location as shown on Figures 4-4 and 4-5. Samples were collected using stainless steel equipment and all equipment was properly decontaminated between sample locations. Three discrete soil samples were combined into the stainless steel bowl and mixed with a stainless steel spoon. An aliquot of the mixed soil was placed in pre-cleaned sample jars to represent the composite sample. Page A-5 Hart Crowser J-4349-01 Well Installation and Construction Nine monitoring wells were drilled and installed using hollow-stem auger drilling equipment at the locations shown on Figure 6-1. The wells were constructed with 2-inch-diameter schedule 40 PVC riser pipe and a 7.5-foot PVC screen (0.020-inch slot size). The.tops of the well screens were installed at a depth of approximately two feet below ground surface to straddle the water table. The driller steam cleaned the casing and screen prior to installation. Well completion was accomplished by lowering the well screen and riser down through the hollow-stem auger casing. As the casing is withdrawn, the driller placed No. 10/20 silica sand or equivalent in the annular space from the base of the boring to approximately 0.5 foot above the top of the screen. The on-site geologist sounded and recorded the depth to the top of the sand pack periodically to ensure proper placement. Well seals were constructed by placing bentonite chips in the annular space on top of the filter sand to approximately 1 foot of ground surface. The bentonite chips were wetted to allow hydration in-place for at least 20 minutes. The remainder of the annular space was backfilled with concrete to complete the surface seal. Wells were completed as flush mounts at all locations. Monitoring well construction details were documented on a monitoring well installation report form presented on Figures A-27 through A-35. Well Development The newly installed monitoring wells were developed using a pre-cleaned electric submersible pump (e.g., GRUNDFOS RediFlo2), or a pre-cleaned stainless steel bailer. Casing volumes for the wells ranged from 0.55 to 1.13 gallons. Water added during drilling was removed during development. Well development proceeded until the extracted water was relatively non-turbid. Sediment thickness at the base of the well was measured and recorded before and after development on a data form prepared for that purpose. Visual changes in turbidity during development were recorded in the comments space on this form. NAPL was not encountered during well installation or development. The purge water was discharged to the ground surface in the vicinity of the well. Page A-6 Hart Crowser J-4349-01 Water Level Measurements Two rounds of water level measurements were collected at the property. One during well development and one during groundwater sampling. Water level summarizes are presented in Tables 3-1 and 3-2. Water level data were collected from all of the site wells over a period of a few hours. During the first round of water level monitoring, we noted the general condition of the existing wells including the thickness of sediment accumulation within the well screens. Water level measurements were collected from site wells using an electronic water level probe. A product well sounder was lowered into wells suspected of containing NAPL to measure the depth and thickness of the free product. No NAPL was measured in any of the wells. Depth to water from the top of PVC casing (to the nearest 0.01 foot), the date, and time of measurements were recorded. The product and water level probes were cleaned with Alconox and tap water and wiped with a clean towel after each measurement was collected. Groundwater Sampling Procedures This section discusses the equipment and procedures for groundwater sampling. Groundwater samples were collected from each of the wells installed as part of this project. Groundwater Sampling Equipment The equipment to be used for the collection of groundwater samples included: ► pH, temperature, DO, and specific conductance meters; ► Electronic well sounder; ► Stainless steel bailer and enough disposable polypropylene rope to dedicate a length of rope to each well to be sampled; ► 0.45 micron in-line filters and peristaltic pump with disposable silicone and polyethylene tubing; ► Electric submersible pump with disposable polyethylene tubing; ► Laboratory-supplied precleaned sample containers with labels and appropriate preservatives added; Page A-7 Hart Crowser J-4349-01 ► Ice chest and blue ice; ► Hart Crowser Groundwater Sampling Data form; and ► Hart Crowser Sample Custody Record. Groundwater Sampling Procedures Groundwater samples were collected using the following basic procedures: ► Prepare the sampling site by laying out plastic around the base of monitoring well and document the general condition of the well on the Groundwater Sampling Data Form; ► Measure water and NAPL (if present) levels in the well and calculate the volume of water within the well casing; ► No NAPL was present in the wells and all groundwater samples were collected as planned. ► Purge three casing volumes of water from the well using a peristaltic pump. During purging, field parameters (pH, temperature, and specific conductance) were measured following removal of one, two, and three casing volumes. If the pH and conductance measurements are approximately stable between the second and third casing volumes (specific conductivity ± 20%; pH ± 0.2 pH units ), the groundwater sample were collected. In two wells (HC-MW-5 and HC-MW-7), the wells were purged dry and a sample was obtained as the well recovered. The purge water was discharged to the ground surface in the vicinity of the well. All readings were recorded on the Groundwater Sampling Form; ► Once purging was completed, groundwater samples were collected using a peristaltic pump. Samples analyzed for volatile organics were collected using a clean stainless steel bailer. ► Sample bottles for volatile organic analysis (VOA), were slowly filled with water, capped, inverted, and tapped to check for remaining air bubbles. Samples for dissolved metals analysis was filtered in the field using a peristaltic pump with in-line 0.45 micron filter; ► Once filled, each bottle was capped and placed into coolers with Blue-Ice. VOA bottles was placed in plastic sealable bags to minimize possible cross contamination and/or breaking of the bottles. These Page A-8 Hart.Crowser J-4349-01 bottles were kept away from direct contact with the Blue-Ice to prevent freezing of the sample water; and ► At the end of each sampling day, the samples were delivered to North Creek Analytical laboratory using standard chain of custody procedures. NAPL Sampling Procedures NAPL was not present in any of the monitoring wells; therefore, no samples were collected for NAPL chemical analysis. Hydropunch Installation and Sampling A hydropunch sampling tool used to collect groundwater samples at one location, SB-6, shown on Figure 4-1. A hollow-stem auger drill rig was used to drive the hydropunch approximately two feet below the water table. The drill was equipped with NW drill rods and a 140-pound hammer to drive the hydropunch. After reaching the sampling depth, the rods were pulled back to expose the hydropunch screen. The hydropunch configuration is shown on Figure A-24. Groundwater was sampled using a peristaltic pump following the general procedures described in the groundwater sampling section. The hollow-stem auger, hydropunch, and drill rod was steam cleaned between each sampling location. The hydropunch location was staked and surveyed. Sediment Sampling Five sediment samples were collected at the site. Four surface (upper 2 centimeters) sediment samples (HC-SD-01 through HC-SD-04) were collected within the Harbor area (Figure 4-1) to evaluate potential impacts from off-shore loading of petroleum products and surface water and groundwater discharges from the upland portion of the site. In addition, one discrete sediment sample (HC-SD-10) was collected from the drainage ditch located to the southwest of the Fuel Oil Storage area. The sample was collected from the upper 3 to 4 inches of sediment using stainless steel sampling equipment. Sample Labeling and Sample Custody All sample labeling and custody procedures were followed as outlined in the ESI Work Plan, Quality Assurance Project Plan. Page A-9 Hart Crowser J-4349-01 Immediately after retrieval, samples were assessed for acceptability according to PSEP protocols. All surface sediment samples collected were acceptable. Sufficient volume was collected from each location to perform required chemical analyses. Each surface sediment sample was homogenized separately and placed in two precleaned 8 oz. sample jars. Field observations were noted on field log forms and are kept on file in Hart Crowser's project files. Observations included the following: ► Sampling Location; ► Water Depth; ► Date and Time; ► Characteristics/Observations of Sediment Sample; ► Penetration Depth; and ► Other Comments. To prevent sample contamination, sampling equipment (sampler and stainless steel spoons and bowls) were cleaned (Alconox, tap water, deionized water) prior to and between collection activities. Guidance provided in the PSEP Protocols for preventing metals and organic sample contamination were followed. Proper custody documentation procedures were followed at all times. Sample containers were clearly labeled with the project name and number, sampling location, sample identification, date, and the field representative's initials. Chain of custody forms were completed for all samples and the forms accompanied sealed coolers to the laboratory for analysis. Table A-1 presents descriptions of sediment samples. Page A-10 Hart Crowser J-4349-01 Table A-1 - Sediment Sample Descriptions Sample Organic Matter Sheen or Odor Soil Type Number HC-SD-01 Leaves, organics, Discontinuous Loose, gray brownish, wood fragments, sheen, no odor. slightly silty, fine SAND. HC-SD-02 Plant and wood Trace sheen, no Loose, brown-gray, fragments, leaves. odor. slightly silty, fine SAND. HC-SD-03 Wood fragments. No sheen, no odor. Loose, gray-brown, fine SAND. HC-SD-04 Wood fragments. No sheen, no odor. Loose, grayish brown, fine SAND. Page A-11 Key to Exploration Logs Sample Description Classification of soils in this report is based on visual field and laboratory observations which include density/consistency, moisture condition, grain size, and plasticity estimates and should not be construed to imply field nor laboratory testing unless presented herein. Visual—manual classification methods of ASTM D 2488 were used as an identification guide. Soil descriptions consist of the following: • Density/consistency, moisture, color, minor constituents. MAJOR CONSTITUENT, additional remarks. Density/Consistency Soil density/consistency in borings is related primarily to the Standard Penetration Resistance. Soil density/consistency in test pits is estimated based on visual observation and is presented parenthetically on the test pit logs. Standard Standard Approximate SAND or GRAVEL Penetration SILT or CLAY Penetration Shear Resistance (N) Resistance (N) Strength Density in Blows/Foot Consistency in Blows/Foot in TSF .Very loose 0 — 4 Very soft 0 — 2 <0.125 Loose 4 — 10 Soft 2 — 4 0.125— 0.25 Medium dense 10 — 30 Medium stiff 4 — 8 0.25 — 0.5 Dense 30 — 50 Stiff 8 — 15 0.5 — 1.0 Very dense >50 Very stiff 15 — 30 1.0 — 2.0 Hard >30 >2.0 Moisture Minor Constituents Estimated Percentage Dry Little perceptible moisture Not identified in description 0 — 5 Damp Some perceptible moisture, probably below optimum Slightly (clayey, silty, etc.) 5 — 12 Moist Probably near optimum moisture content Clayey, silty, sandy, gravelly 12 — 30 Wet Much perceptible moisture, probably above optimum Very (clayey, silty, etc.) 30 —50 Legends Test Symbols Sampling Test Symbols GS Grain Size Classification BORING SAMPLES TUU Triaxial Unconsolidated Undrained ® Split Spoon TCU Triaxial Consolidated Undroined Ei Shelby Tube TCD Triaxial Consolidated Drained ElCuttings CPU Unconfined Compression DS Direct Shear m Core Run K Permeability No Sample Recovery PP Pocket Penetrometer Approximate Compressive Strength in TSF P Tube Pushed, Not Driven TEST PIT SAMPLES TV Torvane Approximate Shear Strength in TSF ® Grab (Jar) CBR California Bearing Ratio Z Bag MD Moisture Density Relationship Shelby Tube AL Atterberg Limits I----1 Water Content in Percent I— Liquid Limit Natural Groundwater Observations Plastic Limit PID Photoionization Reading Surface Seal I 4 CA Chemical Analysis AS Suspect Asbestos Sample • Groundwater Level on Date (ATD) At Time of Drilling _ E Observation Well Tip or Slotted Section Q Groundwater Seepage HARTcR®�1/c' r.1�' 1 z (Test Pits) J-4349-01 2/96 Figure A-1 Test Pit Log TP-1 Sample PID Depth SOIL DESCRIPTIONS in Feet 0 • - (Loose), moist, silty SAND with gravel and cobbles. S-1 0.2 1- (Medium dense), moist, light brown, silty SAND with occasional 2- o � gravel. S-2 0.2 - (Dense), wet, gray, silty SAND with some wood chips. 3- Bottom of Test Pit at 3 Feet. 4- Completed 8/22/95. 5- Groundwater seepage observed at 2 feet. 6- Test Pit Log TP-2 Sample PIO Depth SOIL DESCRIPTIONS in Feet 0- S-1 0.2 - (Loose), moist, light brown, silty SAND with abundant cobbles and 1- gravel. (Medium dense), wet, light gray, silty SAND with occasional S-2 0.2 2- cobbles and roots. 3- 4- o Bottom of Test Pit at 3)4 Feet. Completed 8/22/95. 5- Slight groundwater seepage observed at 314 feet. 6- Test Pit Log TP-3 Sample PID Depth SOIL DESCRIPTIONS in Feet 0- (Loose), damp, silty SAND with gravel and cobbles and some roots 1- 1 and grass. S-1 X 0.2 2_ Wet, light brown, gray, slightly silty SAND with occasional cobbles. 3- Bottom of Test Pit at 3 Feet. 4- Completed 8/22/95. 5- Groundwater seepage observed at 2-3/4 feet with caving. 6- • Test Pit Log TP-4 Sample PIO Depth SOIL DESCRIPTIONS in Feet 0- S_1 X 0.2 (Loose), moist, light to dark brown, silty GRAVEL with loose X 1- —� cobbles. (Old wire cable)S 2 0.2 2_ (Loose), wet, light brown, silty SAND with some roots. 3- o Bottom of Test Pit at 3 Feet. 4- Completed 8/22/95. 5- Groundwater seepage observed at 2-3/4 feet with caving. 6- ,1A Is 1. Refer to Figure A-1 for explanation of descriptions Lli iTCR wsER and symbols. /7/V[/�./7�1��J 2. Soil descriptions and stratum lines are interpretive ✓-4349-01 8/95 and actual changes may be gradual. 3. Groundwater conditions, if indicated, are at the time Figure A-2 of excavation. Conditions may vary with time. Test Pit Log TP-5 Sample PID Depth SOIL DESCRIPTIONS in Feet 0- - (Loose), damp, sandy GRAVEL with loose cobbles and gravel. 1- (Medium dense), wet, gray to brownish red, silty SAND with S-1 X 0.2 2- cobbles, pebbles, and gravel. (Encountered two 6-inch submarine cables.) 3- Bottom of Test Pit at 3 Feet. 4- Completed 8/22/95. 5- Groundwater seepage observed at 2-3/4 feet with caving. 6- Test Pit Log TP-8 Sample PID Depth SOIL DESCRIPTIONS in Feet 0- _ (Loose), damp, sandy GRAVEL with cobbles and gravel. 1- (Medium dense), brown to rusty red, silty SAND with cobbles, S-1 X 2- gravel, and red pebbles. 3- (Medium dense), wet, brown-gray-rusty, silty SAND. 4- S-2 g 0.2 Bottom of Test Pit at 3 Feet. Completed 8/22/95. 5- o 6- Groundwater seepage observed at 2-3/4 feet and 5 feet with caving. Test Pit Log TP-7 Sample PID Depth SOIL DESCRIPTIONS in Feet 0- (Loose), damp, sandy GRAVEL with cobbles and gravel. 1- (Medium dense), wet, brown, silty SAND with cobbles and gravel. S-1 0.2 2- 3- (Medium dense), wet, brown, silty SAND. S-2 0.2 4- 5- Bottom of Test Pit at 5 Feet. 6- Completed 8/22/95. Groundwater seepage observed at 2-3/4 feet and 5 feet with caving. Test Pit Log TP-8 Sample Lab PID Depth SOIL DESCRIPTIONS Tests in Feet 0- (Loose), slightly moist, sandy GRAVEL with cobbles/pebbles. 1- (Medium dense), wet, brown-gray-reddish, silty SAND with wood S-1 AS-5 0.2 2- fragments. 3- S-2 0.2 4J (Medium dense), wet, brown-gray-reddish, silty SAND. X5- Bottom of Test Pit at 5 Feet. 6- Completed 8/22/95. Groundwater seepage observed at 2-3/4 feet and 5 feet with caving. 1. Refer to Figure A-1 for explanation of descriptions Ll�n�rr'�1WSER and symbols. �LU[��./1V 2. Soil descriptions and stratum lines are interpretive J-4349-01 8195 and actual changes may be gradual. 3. Groundwater conditions, if indicated, are at the time Figure A-3 of excavation. Conditions may vary with time. Test Pit Log TP-9 Sample Lab PID Depth SOIL DESCRIPTIONS Tests in Feet 0- (Loose), damp, brown, sandy GRAVEL with cobbles/pebbles. 1- Various debris - rocks, glass insulators, wires, glass bottles, metal 2- -- and wood debris, occasional dry oil chunks, and firebrick. S-1 AS-4 - (Medium dense), wet, gray, silty SAND. 3- (Medium dense), wet, brown to gray, silty SAND with occasional S-2 0.2 4- gravel. 5- o - 1 Bottom of Test Pit at 5 Feet. 6- Completed 8/22/95. Groundwater seepage observed at 2-3/4 feet and 5 feet with caving. Test Pit Log TP-10 Sample PID Depth SOIL DESCRIPTIONS in Feet 0- 0.2 - (Loose), moist, silty, sandy GRAVEL with cobbles, pebbles, and a 1- plastic piece. S-1 2- (Medium dense), wet, brown, silty SAND with gravel and pebbles. 3- (Dense), wet, brown-gray, silty SAND with occasional gravel. S-2 5- o Bottom of Test Pit at 5 Feet. 6- Completed 8/22/95. Groundwater seepage observed at 2-3/4 feet and heavy at 5 feet with caving. Test Pit Log TP-11 Sample Lab PID Depth SOIL DESCRIPTIONS Tests in Feet 0- (Loose), dry, light brown SAND with gravel and abundant cobbles 1- -\ and wood chips. f S-1 AS-1 0.2 2_ (Loose), moist, dark brown, silty SAND with loose gravel and some roots. 3- o 1 Bottom of Test Pit at 3 Feet. 4- Completed 8/22/95. 5- Groundwater seepage observed at 3 feet 6- Test Pit Log TP-12 Sample PID Depth SOIL DESCRIPTIONS in Feet 0- (Loose), moist SAND with gravel and cobbles. 1- (Medium dense), wet, brown, silty SAND with occasional cobbles, S-1 0.2 2- gravel, large bricks, and roots. 3- - 1 Bottom of Test Pit at 3 Feet. 4- Completed 8/22/95. 5- Groundwater seepage observed at 3 feet with slight caving. 6- /7 It 1. Refer to Figure A-1 for explanation of descriptions . RTCROWSER and symbols. /7/�/i��.11V��J 2. Soil descriptions and stratum lines are interpretive J-4349-01 8/95 and actual changes may be gradual. 3. Groundwater conditions, if indicated, are at the time Figure A-4 of excavation. Conditions may vary with time. Test Pit Log TP-13 • Sample Lab PID Depth SOIL DESCRIPTIONS Tests in Feet AS-3 0.2 0- 1- (Loose), light brown, dry, sandy GRAVEL. Firebrick. 2- (Medium dense), moist, brown, silty SAND with wood debris, S-1 A 0.2 - • firebrick, wires, and broken cable. 3- o S-2 • 0.2 4- Wet, gray, silty SAND. (Very viscous) 5- S-3 A 0.2 (Hard), brown SILT. 6- 7- Bottom of Test Pit at 6f4 Feet. Completed 8/22/95. 8- Groundwater seepage at 334 feet with slight petroleum-like 9- and rotting wood odor and rapid seepage at 614 feet with caving. Test Pit Log TP-14 Sample Lab PID Depth SOIL DESCRIPTIONS Tests in Feet 0- . (Loose), damp, brown, silty, sandy GRAVEL with firebrick. 1- S I ' AS-2 0.2 2_ (Loose), wet, gray, silty, sandy GRAVEL with firebrick and wood S-2 0.2 3- o debris. 4_ Bottom of Test Pit at 334 Feet. Completed 8/22/95. 5- Slight groundwater seepage observed at 3 feet. 6- 7- 8- 9- Tes t Pit Log TP-15 Sample PID Depth SOIL DESCRIPTIONS in Feet 0- . TOPSOIL with grass, roots, gravel, and concrete chunks. 1- (Medium dense), moist to wet, silty SAND with gravel and S-I 0.2 occasional roots. 2- o S-2 0.2 3_ t (Medium dense), wet, light gray, silty SAND. 4- Bottom of Test Pit at 4 Feet. • 5- Completed 8/23/95. 6- Slight groundwater seepage at 214 feet and at 4 feet with caving. 7- 8- 9- V 1. Refer to Figure A-1 for explanation of descriptions /./w pT�'n�1WSER and symbols. �u�i�.I7V 2. Soil descriptions and stratum lines are interpretive ✓-4349-0/ 8/95 and actual changes may be gradual. 3. Groundwater conditions, if indicated, are at the time Figure A-5 of excavation. Conditions may vary with time. Test Pit Log TP-18 Sample PID Depth SOIL DESCRIPTIONS in Feet 0- 0.2 (Loose), dry TOPSOIL (grass, roots, small pebbles, and cobbles) 1- with slight musty organic-like odor. S-1 2_ (Medium dense), moist, brown, silty SAND with rusty soil streaks and occasioanl roots. 3- (Medium dense), wet, brown (rusty), silty SAND with rotton wood S-2 .4_ pieces. 5- g_ Bottom of Test Pit at 534 Feet. Completed 8/23/95. 7- Heavy groundwater seepage at 514 feet and with caving. 8- 9- Test Pit Log TP-17 Samoie PIO Depth SOIL DESCRIPTIONS in Feet 0- 0.2 (Loose), damp, road GRAVEL with cobbles. (Medium dense), moist, light brown, silty SAND with some roots, S-1 2- cobbles and gravel. 3- (Medium dense), wet, light brown and spotty gray, silty SAND. S-2 0.2 4- 5- S-3 0.2 6- 7- Bottom of Test Pit at 7 Feet. 8- Completed 8/23/95. 9- Heavy groundwater seepage at 5 feet and 7 feet with caving. Test Pit Log TP-18 Sample PID Depth SOIL DESCRIPTIONS in Feet 0- (Loose), damp, sandy GRAVEL with cobbles, grass, and roots. 0.2 1- (Medium dense), damp, silty SAND with gravel. 2- (Medium dense), moist, dark gray, silty SAND with some roots and S-1 3- slight petroleum-like odor. S-2 0.2 4 — 5- (Medium dense), moist, dark gray, silty SAND over (stiff), moist, o S-3 0.2 6- brown, silty CLAY with wood fragments. 7 Bottom of Test Pit at 7 Feet. 8- Completed 8/23/95. 9- Slight groundwater seepage at 5 feet and 7 feet. V 1. Refer to Figure A-1 for explanation of descriptions LA TCROw�c><D and symbols. I7/llil s1V.,JGn 2. Soil descriptions and stratum lines are interpretive J-4349-01 8/95 and actual changes may be gradual. 3. Groundwater conditions, if indicated, are at the time Figure A-8 of excavation. Conditions may vary with time. Test Pit Log TP-19 Sample PID Depth SOIL DESCRIPTIONS in Feet 0- 0.2 (Loose), moist, sandy GRAVEL with cobbles, pebbles, and 1- occasional roots. 2- (Medium dense) wet, dark brown to light brown (rusty), silty S-1 0.2 SAND. 3- S-2 0.2 4 5- o Bottom of Test Pit at 5 Feet. 6- Completed 8/23/95. 7- Heavy groundwater seepage at 5 feet with caving. 8- 9- Test Pit Log TP-20 5am�e PID Depth SOIL DESCRIPTIONS in Feet 0- -1 0.2 (Loose), damp SAND with roots and grass. 1- (Loose), damp, light brown with occasional spotty gray, silty S-2 0.2 2- SAND. 3- o . 1 4- Bottom of Test Pit at 4 Feet. 5- Completed 8/21/95. 6- Groundwater seepage at 3 feet with caving. 7- 8- 9- Test Pit Log TP-21 Sample PID Depth SOIL DESCRIPTIONS in Feet Ground Surface Elevation in ???? 0- (Loose), dry, light brown, silty TOPSOIL with roots and occasional S-1 0.2 gravel. 2- 3- Damp to wet, light brown to light gray, silty SAND with wood fragments. (FILL) S-2 0.2 4- 5- S-3 0.2 - Wet, moist, light gray, silty SAND. 6- 7- 8- - Bottom of Test Pit at 8 Feet. 9- Completed 8/21/95. Slight groundwater seepage at 8 feet. A r� 1. Refer to Figure A-1 for explanation of descriptions L/�n�r�"DOW�ef�D and symbols. !LU[I�..Ii ��.7LI• 2. Soil descriptions and stratum lines are interpretive J-4349-0/ 8/95 and actual changes may be gradual. 3. Groundwater conditions, if indicated, are at the time Figure A-7 of excavation. Conditions may vary with time. • Test Pit Log TP-22 Sample PIO Depth SOIL DESCRIPTIONS in Feet 0- (Loose) GRAVEL over (loose), moist, light brown SAND with S-1 0.2 1- abundant gravel. 2- S-2 0.2 3- (Medium dense to dense), moist to wet, light gray, silty SAND with debris, roots, and tree fragments. 4- S-3 5- 6- 7- Bottom of Test Pit at 7 Feet. 8- Completed 8/21/95. 9- Slight groundwater seepage at 7 feet. Test Pit Log TP-23 Sample PID Depth SOIL DESCRIPTIONS in Feet 0- (Loose), damp, sandy GRAVEL. S-1 0.2 1 (Medium dense), damp, light brown, silty SAND with occasional 2- cobbles and gravel. 3_ (Dense to medium dense), moist, light gray to gray, silty SAND with roots. S-2 0.2 4- 5- S-3 0.2 Wet, gray, silty SAND. 6- o - 1 Bottom of Test Pit at 6 Feet. 7_ Completed 8/22/95. 8- Slight groundwater seepage at 6 feet. 9- Test Pit Log TP-24 Sample PID Depth SOIL DESCRIPTIONS in Feet 0- 2Sf inches of (loose) GRAVEL over (medium dense), damp, brown, 1- silty, sandy GRAVEL. S-1 '/ 0.2 2- (Dense), damp, dark gray, silty SAND with occasional gravel. 3- (Dense), damp, dark gray SILT. 4- S-2 0 0.2 5- S-3 =' 0.2 4 (Medium dense), wet to moist, brown, silty SAND. 6- t Bottom of Test Pit at 5X Feet. 7_ Completed 8/21/95. 8- Slight groundwater seepage at 214, 4, and 5) feet with caving. 9- • %1 1. Refer to Figure A-1 for explanation of descriptions �/�r•�•/�pnws� and symbols. /7/V[��.nv 2. Soil descriptions and stratum lines are interpretive J-4349-0/ 8/95 and actual changes may be gradual. 3. Groundwater conditions, if indicated, are at the time Figure A-8 of excavation. Conditions may vary with time. Test Pit Log TP-25 Sample PID Depth SOIL DESCRIPTIONS in Feet 0- - dense), damp, brown, silty, sandy GRAVEL. S-1 0.2 1- 2- 3- S-2 0.2 (Medium dense), moist, gray, silty, gravelly SAND. 4- S-3 0.2 5- 6- 1 Bottom of Test Pit at 5)4 Feet. Completed 8/21/95. 7- Slight groundwater seepage at 5f4 feet. 8- 9- Test Pit Log TP-28 Sample PID Depth SOIL DESCRIPTIONS in Feet 0- 2Ye inches of CRUSHED ROCK over (medium dense), moist, brown, S 1 0.3 1= silty, very sandy GRAVEL. (FILL) 2- (Medium dense to loose), moist, gray, slightly silty, gravelly SAND. 3- - (FILL) S-2 0.2 4- Dark brown SILT grading to gray sandy SILT. (TOPSOIL) 5- S-3 0 2 (Loose), wet, red-brown, grading to brown, slightly silty SAND. 6- 7- Bottom of Test Pit at 6f4 Feet. Completed 8/21/95. 8- Heavy groundwater seepage at 6)f feet 9- with caving. 1171 I' 1. Refer to Figure A-1 for explanation of descriptions /d/.1RTCROWSFR and symbols. 2. Soil descriptions and stratum lines are interpretive J-4349-0/ 8/95 and actual changes may be gradual. 3. Groundwater conditions, if indicated, are at the time Figure A-9 of excavation. Conditions may vary with time. Test Pit Log TP-27 Sample PID Depth SOIL DESCRIPTIONS in Feet 0- S-1 Z 0.2 2!4 inches of CRUSHED ROCK over (medium dense), moist, brown, 1- slightly silty, sandy GRAVEL. (FILL) 2- Broken brick with asphalt chunks, mortar, some soil, <20%, a few 3- fire bricks, pieces of wire. S-2 X 0.2 4_ 5- (Soft), wet, tan to gray CLAY with roots. 6- S-3 X 0.2 7., L1 8- 9- — 10- o -�_ (Loose), wet, gray, silty, fine SAND.1 �- Bottom of Test Pit at 911 Feet. 11- Completed 8/21/95. 12 Heavy groundwater seepage at 9Yi feet 13- with caving. 14- 15- 16- 17- 18- 19- 20- Test Pit Log TP-28 Sample PID Depth SOIL DESCRIPTIONS in Feet 0- 4 inches of CRUSHED ROCK over (medium dense), moist, brown, Si- 0.2 1- thinly layered, silty, very sandy GRAVEL. (FILL) 2- (Loose), wet, gray, slightly silty, gravelly SAND. S-2 • 0.2 3- ' =4- (Soft and loose), wet, gray, interbedded very sandy SILT and very silty, fine SAND with 3 inches of topsoil. S-3 0.2 5- 6- 7 0 8- Bottom of Test Pit at 8 Feet. 9- Completed 8/21/95. 10- Groundwater seepage at 7 feet. 11- 12- 13- 14- 15- 16- 17- 18- 19- 20- Lt 1. Refer to Figure A-1 for explanation of descriptions /IA ?TCRO ER and symbols. �L��� 2. Soil descriptions and stratum lines are interpretive J-4349-01 8/95 and actual changes may be gradual. 3. Groundwater conditions, if indicated, are at the time Figure A-10 of excavation. Conditions may vary with time. Test Pit Log TP-29 Sample PID Depth SOIL DESCRIPTIONS in Feet . 0- 3 inches of CRUSHED ROCK over (medium dense), moist, brown, 1- silty, sandy GRAVEL. (FILL) S-1 0.2 2- S-2 0.2 3- (Medium dense), moist, gray, slightly gravelly, very silty SAND with cobbles. (FILL) 4- 1 inch of SOD over (loose), wet, gray, SILT with roots. S-3 0.2 5- 6- o 7- i (Loose), wet, gray, slightly silty SAND. Bottom of Test Pit at 7 Feet. 8- Completed 8/21/95. 9- Groundwater seepage at 6)4 feet. Test Pit Log TP-30 Sample PID Depth SOIL DESCRIPTIONS in Feet 0- (Loose), dry, sandy TOPSOIL with grass, roots, and occasional S-1 0.2 1- cobbles. �- 2- • (Medium dense), damp, light brown, silty SAND with roots, grass, and cobbles. S-2 0.2 - 3- q (Dense), wet, gray, silty SAND with occasional rusty spotty soil. 4- Bottom of Test Pit at 35i Feet. Completed 8/22/95. 5- Groundwater seepage at 3 feet. 6- 7- 8- 9- IT! 1. Refer to Figure A-1 for explanation of descriptions L!� TCRO�w/�c�ER and symbols. ILUiI�.n ��.7 2. Soil descriptions and stratum lines are interpretive J-4349-01 8/95 and actual changes may be gradual. 3. Groundwater conditions, if indicated, are at the time Figure A-11 of excavation. Conditions may vary with time. Test Pit Log TP-31 Sample PID Depth SOIL DESCRIPTIONS • in Feet 0- (Loose), dry, sandy TOPSOIL with grass, roots, and occasional S-1 0.2 2_ (Medium dense), damp, light brown, silty SAND with roots, grass, S-2 0.2 - -� and gravel. 3- (Dense), wet, gray, silty SAND with occasional rusty spots and wood debris. 4- - o 5- l Bottom of Test Pit at 4W Feet. Completed 8/22/95. 6- Groundwater seepage at 4W feet. • Test Pit Log TP-34 Sample PID Depth SOIL DESCRIPTIONS in Feet 0.2 0- (Loose), moist, light brown, sandy GRAVEL. 1- (Medium dense), moist, brown, silty SAND with gravel and wood • S-1 \ 10.0 2- debris. 3- S-2 4.0 4 -- 2 (Medium dense), wet, dark gray to light brown, silty SAND. Bottom of Test Pit at 4 Feet. 5- Completed 8/23/95. 6- Heavy groundwater seepage at 3W feet. Test Pit Log E-2 Sample Depth SOIL DESCRIPTIONS in Feet 0- - (Loose), damp, sandy GRAVEL with cobbles, grass, and roots. 1- S-1 Thick (hard), black layer of dried petroleum-like product. Varied 2- layer within this zone. 3- Wet, brown, silty SAND. 4- 5- Bottom of Test Pit at 5 Feet. 6- Completed 8/24/95. • is 1. Refer to Figure A-1 for explanation of descriptions Ll�nTCRO1w/["I� and symbols. !I/�l��.l�v��.7LJ1 2. Soil descriptions and stratum lines are interpretive J-4349-01 8/95 and actual changes may be gradual. 3. Groundwater conditions, if indicated, are at the time Figure A-12 of excavation. Conditions may vary with time. Test Pit Log TP-35 �amce Depth SOIL DESCRIPTIONS in Feet 0- (Dense), damp, brown, silty, gravelly SAND with trace concrete 1- debris. (FILL) S-1 2- (Medium dense), moist to wet, brown-gray, silty, fine SAND. 3- 4- • 5_ (Medium stiff), wet, gray, fine sandy SILT. 6- 7- Bottom of Test Pit at 7 Feet. 8- Completed 1/30/96 9- Moderate groundwater seepage observed at 4f4 feet. Test Pit Log TP-36 Sample Depth SOIL DESCRIPTIONS in Feet 0- (Medium dense to dense), damp, brown, silty, gravelly SAND. S-1 X 1- (FILL) (Medium dense), moist to wet, brown, silty, fine SAND. 2- 3- o (Medium stiff), wet, gray, fine sandy SILT with wood debris. 4- (Native, old tidal flats?) 5- - - Bottom of Test Pit at 5 Feet. 6- Completed 1/30/96. 7_ Moderate groundwater seepage observed at 3 feet. 8- Test Pit Log TP-37 Sample Depth SOIL DESCRIPTIONS in Feet S-1 ►�i 0 Approximately 1 inch of ASPHALT over (medium dense to dense), 1- damp, brown, silty, gravelly SAND with moderate firebrick fragments directly below asphalt. (FILL) 2- (Medium dense), moist to wet, gray, silty, fine SAND. 3- o (Medium stiff), wet, gray, fine sandy SILT with abundant wood, old 4_ log on north side of test pit. 5- 6- 7_ Bottom of Test Pit at 6)f Feet. Completed 1/30/96. 8- I Moderate groundwater seepage observed at 3 feet. 9- Firebrick and white chrysotilic lining material observed. ILI 1. Refer to Figure A-1 for explanation of descriptions IIRTCROstwl�c�ER and symbols. •Vfn��.11 ��.7 . 2. Soil descriptions and stratum lines are interpretive J-4349-01 1/98 and actual changes may be gradual. 3. Groundwater conditions, if indicated, are at the time Figure A-13 of excavation. Conditions may vary with time. Test Pit Log TP-38 Sam: e Depth SOIL DESCRIPTIONS in Feet 0- S_1 _ Approximately 2 inches of ASPHALT over approximately 8 inches 1- of (dense), damp, brown, silty, sandy GRAVEL. (Pavement - -� section) 2- (Medium dense), damp, brown, silty, gravelly SAND. (FILL) 3- (Medium dense), moist to wet, gray, silty, fine SAND. 4- 5- 6- — Grades to wet. 7- 8- g_ Bottom of Test Pit at 8)4 Feet. Completed 1/30/96. Heavy groundwater seepage observed at 7)4 feet. 111 I. Refer to Figure A-1 for explanation of descriptions IL 'R/CR'VSB? and symbols. 2. Soil descriptions and stratum lines are interpretive J-4349-0/ 1/96 and actual changes may be gradual. 3. Groundwater conditions, if indicated, are at the time Figure A-14 of excavation. Conditions may vary with time. • Test Pit Log TP-39 Sample Depth SOIL DESCRIPTIONS in Feet 0- (Dense), damp, gray, silty, sandy GRAVEL. (Pavement-like S-1Z 1- section) 2- (Dense), damp to moist, brown, silty to slightly silty, gravelly 3- SAND. (FILL) 4- (Medium dense to dense), moist to wet, gray, silty to very silty, fine SAND with abundant to moderate wood debris. 5- 6- — Grades to wet. 7- 8- o 9- 10- Bottom of Test Pit at 91i Feet. 11_ Completed 1/30/96. 12- Heavy groundwater seepage observed at 8 feet. 13- 14- 15- 16- 17- 18- 19- 20- Test Pit Log TP-40 Sample Depth SOIL DESCRIPTIONS in Feet 0- (Dense), damp, gray, silty, sandy GRAVEL. (1-inch pavement-like S_1 1- section) 2- (Dense), damp, gray, slightly silty, gravelly to very gravelly SAND 3- with trace firebrick fragments. (FILL) 4- (Dense), damp, moist, light gray, slightly silty, sandy QUARRY o SPALLS with a very occasional firebrick. 5- I (Medium stiff), wet, gray, fine sandy SILT. 6- 7- 8- 9- Bottom of Test Pit at 814 Feet. 10- Completed 1/30/96. 11- Heavy groundwater seepage observed at 4)4 feet. 12- 13- 14- 15- 16- 17- 18- • 19- 20- M/ V 1. Refer to Figure A-1 for explanation of descriptions L/�n7CROWSB? • and symbols. /7/�L[/�.11V��.7 2. Soil descriptions and stratum lines are interpretive J-4349-01 1/96 and actual changes may be gradual. 3. Groundwater conditions, if indicated, are at the time Figure A-15 of excavation. Conditions may vary with time. Test Pit Log TP-41 Sample Depth SOIL DESCRIPTIONS in Feet 0- (Dense), damp, brown, silty, sandy GRAVEL. (1-inch S-1 " 1_ pavement-like section) f . (Medium dense to dense), damp to moist. brown, slightly silty, 2- gravelly SAND. (FILL) 3- (Medium stiff), moist, to wet, gray-brown, sandy to very sandy 4_ SILT with trace wood fragments. 5- — Grades to wet. 6- - o 7- 1 Bottom of Test Pit at 7 Feet. 8- Completed 1/30/96. 9- Heavy groundwater seepage observed at 614 feet. Test Pit Log TP-42 Sam7o a Depth SOIL DESCRIPTIONS in Feet 0- - 2 inches of ASPHALT over approximately 10 inches of silty sandy 1- GRAVEL. (Pavement-like section) �- 2- (Medium dense to dense), damp to moist, brown, slightly silty, S-1 gravelly SAND. (FILL) 3- 4_ (Medium dense), moist to wet, gray-brown, silty to very silty, fine SAND. 5- 6- Grades to wet. 7- 8- Bottom of Test Pit at 75f Feet. Completed 1/30/96. 9- Very slight groundwater seepage observed at 7 feet. Old abandoned 6-inch clay sewer pipe running east to west. Test Pit Log TP-43 Sample Depth SOIL DESCRIPTIONS in Feet S-1 0 (Medium dense to dense), damp, gray-brown, silty, sandy 1- GRAVEL. (2-inch crushed pavement-like section) 2_ (Medium dense), moist to wet, brown, silty, fine SAND with trace roots. (Appears Native) 3- 4- (Medium stiff), wet, gray, fine sandy SILT with moderate wood 6- fragments. 7- Bottom of Test Pit at 7 Feet. 8- • Completed 1/30/96. 9- Heavy groundwater seepage observed at 5 feet. ILI 1. Refer to Figure A-1 for explanation of descriptions IRTCDOWSER and symbols. !7/�i��.Il 2. Soil descriptions and stratum lines are interpretive J-4349-01 1/98 and actual changes may be gradual. 3. Groundwater conditions, if indicated, are at the time Figure A-1C of excavation. Conditions may vary with time. Test Pit Log TP-44 Sample Depth SOIL DESCRIPTIONS • in Feet S-1 FA (Mediumdense), damp, brown, silty, gravelly SAND. (FILL) 1- 2- (Medium dense), moist to wet, gray-brown, silty, fine SAND with some roots at top of this unit. 3 Grades to wet. 4- o _ 2 5- Bottom of Test Pit at 5 Feet. 6- Completed 1/31/96. 7- Heavy groundwater seepage observed at 4 feet. Caving below 4 feet. 8- Two steel (abandoned) 6-inch lines on both ends of test pit at 3Y-foot depth running east to west. 9- Test Pit Log TP-45 Sample Depth SOIL DESCRIPTIONS in Feet 0- - (Dense), damp, light Drown, silty, gravelly SAND. (FILL) 1- 2- (Medium dense), moist to wet, gray to brown, slightly silty to silty, fine SAND. 3- Grade to wet. p 4- 5- 6- Bottom of Test Pit at 6 Feet. 7- Completed 1/31/96. 8- Heavy groundwater seepage observed at 4 feet. 9- Test Pit Log TP-46 Sample Depth SOIL DESCRIPTIONS in Feet •0- _ (Medium dense to dense), damp, light brown, silty, gravelly SAND. S-1 1_ (FILL) 2- (Medium dense), moist to wet, gray to brown, slightly silty to silty, fine SAND with trace wood fragments. 3- o _ 1 4- 5- Bottom of Test Pit at 5 Feet. 6- Completed 1/31/96. 7- Groundwater seepage observed at 3 feet. Caving below 3 feet. 8- 9- 11 1. Refer to Figure A-1 for explanation of descriptions UA n�r�"n�1WSER and symbols. /Ll/i��.Ilv 2. Soil descriptions and stratum lines are interpretive J-4349-01 1/96 and actual changes may be gradual. 3. Groundwater conditions, if indicated, are at the time Figure A-17 of excavation. Conditions may vary with time. Test Pit Log TP-47 Sample Depth SOIL DESCRIPTIONS in Feet x o_ S-1 - 2 inches of CRUSHED ROCK over (medium dense to dense), damp, 1- light brown, silty, gravelly SAND. (FILL) (Medium dense), moist to wet, brown, slightly silty to sitly, fine to 2- medium SAND with trace gravels and some wood debris. 3- 4- 5- • - o 6- 7- Bottom of Test Pit at 5 Feet. Completed 1/3i/96. 8- Groundwater seepage observed at 5 feet. 9- Caving below 5 feet. Test Pit Log TP-48 Sample Depth SOIL DESCRIPTIONS in Feet 0- _ 3/4-inch of CRUSHED ROCK over (medium dense), light brown, 1- silty, gravelly SAND. (FILL) S-1 „ 2- 3- (Medium dense), moist to wet, gray to brown, silty, fine SAND. 4- 5- I (Medium stiff), wet, gray, fine sandy SILT. 6- • 7_ Bottom of Test Pit at 5 Feet. Completed 1/31/96. 8- Groundwater seepage observed at 4)i feet. 9- Firebricks in fill, most concentrated at approximately Uf-foot depth. Test Pit Log TP-49 Sample Depth SOIL DESCRIPTIONS in Feet S-1 0 1 inch CRUSHED ROCK over (medium dense), damp to moist, brown, 1_ silty, gravelly SAND. (FILL) 2- (Medium dense), wet, gray, silty, fine SAND with some roots at top of unit. 3 Grades wet. 4- o 5- Bottom of Test Pit at 5 Feet. 6- Completed 1/31/96. 7- Groundwater seepage observed at 4 feet. Caving below 4 feet. • 8- Firebricks obvserved at top 1 foot of fill with trace metal debris. 9- V 1. Refer to Figure A-1 for explanation of descriptions L.nTC'ROWSER and symbols. 17/lrt 2. Soil descriptions and stratum lines are interpretive J-4349-01 1/98 and actual changes may be gradual. 3. Groundwater conditions, if indicated, are at the time Figure A-18 of excavation. Conditions may vary with time. Boring Log SB-1 Geologic Log Backfilled Boring tw, Sample N PID .c 0 Loose, damp to wet, brown, slightly gravelly, silty SAND. S-I 10 9.4 S-2 X 9 2.2 AID 5— — — — Slight sheen observed. S-3 4 2.6 S-4 4 2.6 Bottom of Boring at 9.0 Feet. 10— Completed 8/22/95. 15— — - 20— 25— OLS L J 1. Refer to Figure A-1 for explanation of descriptions and symbols. IIIIR \.ROWSER 2. Soil descriptions and stratum lines are interpretive and actual changes may be gradual. J-4349-01 8/95 3. Ground water level, if indicated, is at time of drilling (ATD) or for date specified. Level may vary with time. Figure A-19 Boring Log SB-2 Geologic Log Backfiiled Boring a) - u_ Sample N PID a) p•c 0 Loose, damp, brown, slightly silty, gravelly SAND. (FILL) _ / S-I X i5 8.2 - _ Loose, moist to wet, slightly gravelly, very silty SAND with thin bedded red staining, _ _ and strong solvent-like odor. S-2 X 12 380 _ _ rAY0 5- - - Very loose, wet, gray, very sandy GRAVEL - 4 _ with strong odor and sheen. S-3 X 2 4.5 - Bottom of Boring at 9.0 Feet. 10— Completed 8/22/95. — — 15— — — 20— — 25- - - A W 1. Refer to Figure A-1 for explanation of descriptions and symbols. TCRoER 2. Soil descriptions and stratum lines are interpretive and actual changes may be gradual. J-4349-01 8/95 3. Ground water level, if indicated, is at time of drilling (ATD) or for date specified. Level may vary with time. Figure A-2O Boring Log SB-3 Geologic Log Backfilled Boring .cv �� Sample N PIO oc 0 — — Very loose, damp, brown, slightly silty, ��� gravelly SAND. (FILL) X _ ///S-I 3 0.2 _ - Loose to very loose, wet, brown toX - gray-brown, slightly silty SAND. S-2 12 0.3 _ V _ AID 5— — — S-3 I 0 0.2 ' X Bottom of Boring at 9.0 Feet. 10— Completed 8/22/95. — — 15— — — 20— — 25— — — A 11 1. Refer to Figure A-1 for explanation of descriptions u-n and symbols. IIARTC oI5B 2. Soil descriptions and stratum lines are interpretive and actual changes may be gradual. ✓-4349-01 8/95 3. Ground water level, if indicated, is at time of drilling (ATD) or for date specified. Level may vary with time. Figure A-21 Boring Log SB-4 Geologic Log Backfilled Boring L u. Sample N PID cu p C - Loose, moist to wet, red-brown to gray, /y si lty, fine to medium SAND. (FILL) - _ S-1 i1 1.0 • - S-2 9 300 ATD 5— — — • S-3 X I I60 _ _ Very soft, wet, brown to gray,plastic SILT--\ with layers of silty fine SAND and peaty - _ organics. Very loose, wet, gray, slightly silty, fine to _ _ medium SAND with interbedded peaty S-4 XI 230 plastic SILT. _ / _ Bottom of Boring at 9.0 Feet. 10— Completed 8/22/95. — — • 15— — — 20— — 25— — 1A V 1. Refer to Figure A-1 for explanation of descriptions and symbols. TCROWS0? 2. Soil descriptions and stratum lines are interpretive and actual changes may be gradual. J-4349-01 8/95 3. Ground water level, if indicated, is at time of drilling (ATD) or for date specified. Level may•vary with time. Figure A-22 Boring Log SB-5 Geologic Log Backfilled Boring au_ Sample N PID a, o.S 0 — — Medium dense, moist, black and brown i _ interlayered, silty, very gravelly SAND with - trace gravel. (FILL) S-I 16 230 _ S-2 3 190 V _ Very soft, wet, brown, plastic SILT with _ ATO layers of very silty, fine SAND and peaty 5- organics. — — S-3 AX 1 34 - - S-4 X 1 32 ^ Bottom of Boring at 9.0 Feet. 10— Completed 8/22/95. — — 15- - - 20- - -' 25- - i A I' I. Refer to Figure A-1 for explanation of descriptions and symbols. HARTCp��WSER 2. Soil descriptions and stratum lines are interpretive and actual changes may be gradual. ✓-4349-0I 8/95 3. Ground water level, if indicated, is at time of drilling (ATD) or for date specified. Level may vary with time. Figure A-23 Boring Log SB-6 with Hydropuch Configuration Geologic Log Monitoring Configuration r v .. v o.� °) c 0 Gravelly SAND. (FILL) For r SAND. Amu Vi ATD 5 — —Not■ Bottom of Boring at 7.0 Feet. Completed 8/23/95. _ Note: Soil descriptions based on auger cuttings. No soil - - samples collected. 10 — — — 15 — — — 20 — - - r 25 — — • c� m 1. Refer to Figure A-1 for explanation of descriptions and symbols. HA R TORO=2. Soil descriptions and stratum lines are interpretive and actual changes may be gradual. J-4349-01 8/95 3. Ground water level, if indicated, is at time of drilling (ATD) or for date specified. Level may vary with time. Figure A-24 Hand-Auger Boring Log HA-1 Sample Depth SOIL DESCRIPTIONS in Feet 0- Medium dense, wet, gray to brownish red, silty SAND. S-1 - • - 3- o t Bottom of Hand-Auger at 3 Feet. 4- Completed 8/25/95. 5- 6- Hand-Auger Boring Log HA-2 Sample Depth SOIL DESCRIPTIONS in Feet 0- Medium dense, wet, gray to brownish red, silty SAND. 1- S-1 /1( 2- Bottom of Hand-Auger at 3 Feet. 4- Completed 8/25/95. 5- 6- Hand-Auger Boring Log HA-3 Sample PID Depth SOIL DESCRIPTIONS in Feet 0- Damp, brown, slightly silty, sandy GRAVEL. Damp, light brown, gravelly SAND. S-1 12.5 - 2- 3- Wet, brown, slightly sandy SILT. 4- Bottom of Hand-Auger at 3 Feet. Completed 8/24/95. 5- 6- Hand-Auger Boring Log HA-4 Sample Depth SOIL DESCRIPTIONS in Feet 0- - 2 inches of sod over damp, mottled brown, slightly gravelly, sandy 1- SILT. S-1 IK / 2- Damp, brown, slightly silty, sandy GRAVEL. 3- Bottom of Hand-Auger at 3 Feet.. 4- Completed 8/25/95. 5- 6- ILI 1. Refer to Figure A-1 for explanation of descriptions {>/�pT�"n/1WSER and symbols. �Vu�i�.IIV��.7�1 2. Soil descriptions and stratum lines are interpretive ✓-4349-01 8/95 and actual changes may be gradual. 3. Groundwater conditions, if indicated, are at the time Figure A-25 of excavation. Conditions may vary with time. Hand-Auger Boring Log HA-5 Sample Depth SOIL DESCRIPTIONS in Feet N 0 Medium dense, wet, brown-red, silty SAND. 1- S-1 2- 3- Bottom of Hand-Auger at 3 Feet. 4- Completed 8/25/95. 5- 6- • • • // 11 1. Refer to Figure A-1 for explanation of descriptions and and symbols. 2. Soil descriptions and stratum lines are interpretive J-4349-01 8/95 and actual changes may be gradual. 3. Groundwater conditions, if indicated, are at the time Figure A-28 of excavation. Conditions may vary with time. Boring Log and Construction Data for Monitoring Well HC-MW-1 .Geologic Log Monitoring Well Design Casing Stickup in Feet: -0.1 Top of PVC in Feet 18.5 �aLL Approx. Ground Surface Sample N PID o . Elevation in Feet: 18.6 Soft, damp, brown, slightly gravelly, sandy ►���A�I—i������ SILT. _ S-I 6 160 Loose, wet, red-brown over gray, slightly 5— silty SAND. — — S-3 10 8.0 • Loose, wet, gray, gravelly SAND. �•::'•:: S 4 X 6 3.4 - "�' ' ' ' :'�•:.•: 10— Bottom of Boring at 9.5 Feet. — — Completed 8/22/95. • 15— — — 20— — — 25— L 1. Refer to Figure A-1 for explanation of descriptions -n u and symbols. �111�TCnVWSER 2. Soil descriptions and stratum lines are interpretive and actual changes may be gradual. -4349-01 8/95 3. Ground water level, if indicated, is at time of drilling (ATD) or for date specified. Level may vary with time. Figure A-27 Boring Log and Construction Data for Monitoring Well HC-MW-2 Geologic Log Monitoring Well Design Casing Stickup in Feet: -0.2 Top of PVC in Feet 18.5 Ill' Approx. Ground Surface Sample N PID 8 c Elevation in Feet: 18.7 0 Soft, damp to wet, brown, slightly sandy rv+'emir ��� i . • SILT grading to SAND. ,, / _ S-I 8 8.5 _ / _ S-2 8 10.2 �...... Very loose, wet, red-brown, slightly silt ' SAND. _...�•:;..,•.' 5-3 X 3 5.5 - ::�:::: •: - Loose, wet, ray, sandy GRAVEL. 9 S-4 )C/.( t3 3.3 - •:..: - 10— Bottom of Boring at 9.5 Feet. — Completed 8/22/95. 15— — — 20— 25— — 1. Refer to Figure A-1 for explanation of descriptions L11�� and symbols. HARTCROWSER 2. Soil descriptions and stratum lines are interpretive and actual changes may be gradual. J-4349-01 8/95 3. Ground water level, if indicated, is at time of drilling (AID) or for date specified. Level may vary with time. Figure A-28 Boring Log and Construction Data for Monitoring Well HC-MW-3 Geologic Log Monitoring Well Design Casing Stickup in Feet: -0.3 Top of PVC in Feet 18.9 .c N o,L Approx. Ground Surface Sample N PID o c Elevation in Feet: 19.2 0 31f inches of ASPHALT over tan, red-black j•-• 1111.1!►j*I4 BOILER SCALE. (FILL) .*'�'I �'�Ar.4 - - ra. reA - - S 1 22 3.8 - - Medium soft, gray SILT grading to tan, _ ::'':: - silty, fine SAND. S-2 4 9.6 '.�...:.'. 1•:•. :•. •. ..• ATO 5— Very loose to loose, wet, gray-brown, very — :; ::::': — silty to silty, fine SAND. S-3 3 8.5- - - _ _ :::::: :::::: S 4 ' 7 9.4 - • �.....'. 10— Bottom of Boring at 9.5 Feet. — — Completed 8/22/95. - L - 15— — — 20— — — . _ - 4 - _II 25— L - A 1111 1. Refer to Figure A-I for explanation of descriptions and symbols. HARTCROWS'ER 2. Soil descriptions and stratum lines are interpretive and actual changes may be gradual. ✓-4349-01 8/95 3. Ground water level, if indicated, is at time of drilling (ATD) or for date specified. Level may vary with time. Figure A-29 Boring Log and Construction Data for Monitoring Well HC-MW-4 Geologic Log Monitoring Well Design Casing Stickup in Feet: -0.2 Top of PVC in Feet 18.6 Lai I' Approx. Ground Surface Sample N PID o.c Elevation in Feet: 18.8 0 Loose to medium dense, damp, brown, silty, Aza �►����4 gravelly SAND. (FILL) _ S-1 25 8.4 5-2 10 6.0 �.'.'..'.'. Soft, wet, gray, sandy SILT grading to 5— thinly bedded silty, fine SAND. S-3 X 6 4.9 Loose, wet, dark gray, non-silty, fine to r _ medium SAND with peaty organics. _ �_.•:.::: _ S-4 X 6 4.0 10— Bottom of Boring at 9.5 Feet. — Completed 8/22/95. 15— — — • 20— — - - 25— � A 1. Refer to Figure A-1 for explanation of descriptions and symbols. H/1RTCROWSER 2. Soil descriptions and stratum lines are interpretive and actual changes may be gradual. ✓-4349-01 8/95 3. Ground water level, if indicated, is at time of drilling (ATD) or for date specified. Level may vary with time. Figure A-30 Boring Log and Construction Data for Monitoring Well HC-MW-5 Geologic Log Monitoring Well Design Casing Stickup in Feet: -0.1 Top of PVC in Feet 17.8 z v�n Approx. Ground Surface Sample N PIO o°' c Elevation in Feet: 17.9 Loose, moist, brown, gravelly, silty SAND. (FILL) X _ _ - S-1 is 12.4 _ - Very loose, wet, brown to gray, silty _ _ SAND. S-2 X 2 2.4 - • • :--: — S-3 X 1/12 7.8 • _ • • • Interbeds of sandy SILT with PEAT at X _ bottom of boring. _ = _ S-4 ;.�:;. • 10— Bottom of Boring at 9.5 Feet. — — Completed 8/22/95. 15— — — 1 20— - - i _ r - 25— — A SS I. Refer to Figure A-1 for explanation of descriptions J u, and symbols. �IR'TCRO ER 2. Soil descriptions and stratum lines are interpretive and actual changes may be gradual. J-4349-01 8/95 3. Ground water level, if indicated, is at time of drilling (ATO) or for date specified. Level may vary with time. Figure A-31 Boring Log and Construction Data for Monitoring Well HC-MW-8 Geologic Log Monitoring Well Design Casing Stickup in Feet: -0.2 Top of PVC in Feet 17.2 Lv a,v Approx. Ground Surface Sample N PID o c Elevation in Feet: 17.4 0 Loose to medium dense, moist to wet, brown — r�� to red-brown, silty, gravelly SAND. (FILL) _ •�••, •�•� S-I / 18 9.8 - S-2 ' 14 7.2 ATD 5— Loose, wet, gray, non-silty, fine to medium SAND with 1-inch layer of peaty organics. 5-3 8 5.3 �..._.•• S-4 • 6 6.0 10— Bottom of Boring at 9.5 Feet. — — Completed 8/22/95. 15— — — 20— - - 7 25— I. Refer to Figure A-I for explanation of descriptions and symbols. H/RTCROWSER 2. Soil descriptions and stratum lines are interpretive and actual changes may be gradual. ✓-4349-01 6/95 3. Ground water level, if indicated, is at time of drilling (ATO) or for date specified. Level may vary with time. Figure A-32 Boring Log and Construction Data for Monitoring Well HC-MW-7 Geologic Log Monitoring Well Design Casing Stickup in Feet: -0.2 Top of PVC in Feet 17.5 = � a� Approx. Ground Surface Sample N PTD o Elevation in Feet: 17.7 Loose, damp, brown, slightly gravelly, silty i72 W. 74 SAND. (FILL) _ i - S-1 9 9.2 _ Very soft to soft, wet, brown to gray, .E. . - interbedded SILT and fine to medium SAND S-2 7 5.8 :..�.•..•. ATD with trace peaty organics. _ �.'.'..'.. — S 3 x 2 4.1 _ '.• - / \ —' ': _ _ Very soft, wet, brown, wood PEAT and - �...:'•`. - plastic SILT with thin sand beds. S-4 X 1 4'8 • • - • •••• - 10— Bottom of Boring at 9.5 Feet. — — Completed 8/22/95. 15— — — 20— — — 25— — A 1111 1. Refer to Figure A-1 for explanation of descriptions and symbols. TCROwsEI? 2. Soil descriptions and stratum lines are interpretive and actual changes may be gradual. ✓-4349-01 8/95 3. Ground water level, if indicated, is at time of drilling (ATD) or for date specified. Level may vary with time. Figure A-33 Boring Log and Construction Data for Monitoring Well HC-MW-8 Geologic Log Monitoring Well Design Casing Stickup in Feet: -0.3 Top of PVC in Feet 17.5 avi a� Approx. Ground Surface Sample N PID o c Elevation in Feet: 17.8 Loose to very loose, damp to wet. silty, plvII !► t; fine to medium SAND. �'��� "��� - ra S-1 9 2.8 S-2 3 2.4 �...•... ATO 5— Very soft, wet, brown, silty PEAT. — — S-3 X I 0.4 Loose, wet, gray, clean SAND with several �..'..., - thin peaty layers. GRAVEL at bottom of _ _ boring. S-4 12 0.1 :.;.:'.• 10— Bottom of Boring at 9.5 Feet. — — Completed 8/22/95. 15— — — 20— — — - f I 25— — A ILI 1. Refer to Figure A-1 for explanation of descriptions and symbols. /7/RTCROWSER 2. Soil descriptions and stratum lines are interpretive !ll! and actual changes may be gradual. J-4349-01 8/95 3. Ground water level, if indicated, is at time of drilling (ATD) or for date specified. Level may vary with time. Figure A-34 Boring Log and Construction Data for Monitoring Well HC-MW-9 Geologic Log Monitoring Well Design Casing Stickup in Feet: -0.4 Top of PVC in Feet 18.4 w ai a,' Approx. Ground Surface Sample N PID o c Elevation in Feet: 18.8 0 Soft to very soft, damp to wet, brown :���� mottled over gray, sandy SILT. _ �•J ���eh S-I X 7 11.9 - - ATD _ S-2 X 1 11.6 5— Loose, wet, gray, very silty, fine SAND with peaty organics at bottom. S-3 5 8.3 S-4 X 3 5.2 __• •:: • 10— Bottom of Boring at 9.5 Feet. — — Completed 8/22/95. 15— — — 20— — — 25— A 1. Refer to Figure A-1 for explanation of descriptions and symbols. 1 7/RTCROWSER 2. Soil descriptions and stratum lines are interpretive and actual changes may be gradual. J-4349-01 8/95 3. Ground water level, if indicated, is at time of drilling (ATD) or for date specified. Level may vary with time. Figure A-35 m z Q x' Hart Crowser J-4349-01 APPENDIX B DATA QUALITY REVIEW FOR SOIL, SEDIMENT, AND WATER SAMPLES Hart Crowser J-4349-01 APPENDIX B DATA QUALITY REVIEW FOR SOIL, SEDIMENT, AND WATER SAMPLES Sixty-one soil samples (including 4 sediment samples) were collected between August 17 and 29, 1995; eleven groundwater samples were collected on September 21, 1995; and twenty-eight soil samples were collected for lead on October 31 and November 1, 1995, from the Puget Power Shuffleton site. Soil samples were submitted to North Creek Analytical, of Bothell, Washington, for analysis of volatiles, semivolatiles, PCBs, metals, total petroleum hydrocarbons (WTPH-G and WTPH-D extended), herbicides, total lead, and pH. In addition, 20 soil, 6 firebrick, 1 mortar, and 1 liner material samples were submitted to Prezant Associates for asbestos analyses between January 30 and 31, 1996. Water samples were submitted for analysis of total petroleum hydrocarbons, PCBs, dissolved metals, hardness, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), volatiles, and total suspended solids. The following quality assurance/quality control parameters were evaluated: ► Holding Times; ► Method Blanks; ► Surrogate Recoveries; ► Matrix Spike/Matrix Spike Duplicate Recoveries; ► Blank Spike Recoveries; ► Field Duplicate Precision; and ► Reported Detection Limits. Volatiles (EPA Method 8260) Soil Samples Seven samples were analyzed for volatile organics. Spike recoveries were acceptable. No blank contamination was detected in any of the method blanks. Samples were analyzed within the required holding times. No data qualifiers were required. Water Samples Two samples were analyzed for volatile organics. Samples were analyzed within the required holding times. No blank contamination was detected in the method blanks and trip blanks. Spike recoveries were acceptable. No data qualifiers were required. Page B-1 Hart Crowser J-4349-01 Semivolatiles (EPA Method 8270) Soil Samples Five samples were analyzed for semivolatile organics. Samples were analyzed within the required holding times. No blank contamination was detected. Some matrix spike recoveries were slightly above control limits but no data qualifiers were required since all other QA/QC criteria were acceptable. PCBs (EPA Method 8080) Soil Samples Fifty-four samples were analyzed for PCBs. Samples were extracted and analyzed within required holding times. One sample delivery group (SDG) had no matrix spike recovery due to high levels of target analytes in the sample compared to the matrix spike concentration. Since all other QA/QC parameters were acceptable, no data qualifiers were assigned. No blank contamination was detected in the method blanks. No data qualifiers were required. Water Samples Ten groundwater samples and one hydropunch groundwater sample were analyzed for PCBs. Samples were analyzed within the required holding times. No blank contamination was detected in any of the method blanks. Spike recoveries were acceptable. No data qualifiers were required. Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (WTPH-D Extended) Soil Samples Fifty-five samples were analyzed for total petroleum hydrocarbons (WTPH-D extended). Samples were analyzed within the required holding times. No blank contamination was detected. Spike recoveries were within control limits. Only one SDG had surrogate recoveries diluted out due to high levels of target analytes in the samples compared to the matrix spike concentration. Since all other QA/QC parameters were acceptable, no data qualifiers were assigned. Water Samples Ten samples were analyzed for total petroleum hydrocarbons (WTPH-D extended). Samples were analyzed within the required holding times. No Page B-2 Hart Crowser J-4349-01 blank contamination was detected. Spike recoveries were acceptable, and no data qualifiers were required. Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (WTPH-G) Soil Samples Five samples were analyzed for total petroleum hydrocarbons (gasoline). Samples were analyzed within required holding times. No blank contamination was detected. Spike recoveries were acceptable. No data qualifiers were required. Metals (EPA Method 6000 and 7000) Soil Samples Twenty-four samples were analyzed for various metals (including Ag, Cd, Cr, Cu, Pb, Ni, Zn, As, and Hg). No blank contamination was detected. Samples were analyzed within the required holding times. One laboratory control sample had a high recovery for lead. Since all other spike recoveries were acceptable, no data qualifiers were assigned. No data qualifiers were required. Dissolved Metals (EPA Method 6000 and 7000) Water Samples Eight samples were analyzed for dissolved metals (Ag, As, Cd, Cr, Cu, Pb, Ni, Zn). Samples were analyzed within required holding times. Spike results were acceptable. No blank contamination was detected. No data qualifiers were required. Total Suspended Solids/Hardness Water Samples Eight samples were analyzed for hardness and 10 samples were analyzed for total suspended solids. Samples were analyzed within holding times. Spike recoveries were acceptable. No blank contamination was detected. No data qualifiers were required. Page B-3 Hart Crowser J-4349-01 Herbicides (EPA Method 8150) Soil Samples Five samples were analyzed for herbicides. Samples were analyzed within the required holding times. No blank contamination was detected in the method blanks. Spike recoveries were acceptable. No data qualifiers were required. Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (Method 8310) Water Samples One sample was analyzed for PAHs. The sample was analyzed within required holding times. No blank contamination was detected in the method blank. Spike recoveries were acceptable. No data qualifiers were required. Total Lead (EPA Method 6010) Soil Samples Twenty-eight soil samples were submitted for total lead by EPA Method 6010. All holding times were acceptable and no blank contamination was detected. LCS recoveries were acceptable. Matrix spike results were high due to high concentrations of target analyte in the samples. No data qualifiers were required since the LCS was acceptable. Duplicate results were higher than 50 percent; however, no qualifiers were assigned based solely on duplicate precision results. No other qualifiers were assigned. Field Duplicates Field duplicates were collected at the required frequency as outlined in the QAPP. Precision was acceptable. No data qualifiers were required. Data Quality Summary Based on the data quality review, data are acceptable for use as reported with no data qualifiers required. Page B-4 Hart Crowser J-4349-01 Asbestos (Polarized Light Microscopy) Soil, Firebrick, Mortar, and Lining Material Samples Twenty soil samples, six firebrick samples, one mortar sample, and one lining material sample were collected and submitted for asbestos analysis by Polarized Light Microscopy (PLM) to Prezant Associates. No data validation guidelines are in place for asbestos analysis. Therefore, no data quality review was performed for these analyses. Page B-5 v k a c I Hart Crowser J-4349-01 APPENDIX C DATA AND STATISTICAL SUMMARY TABLES Hart Crowser J-4349-01 Table C-1 - Analytical Results for Soil Samples Sheet 1 of 20 Lab ID B508577-12 B508577-03 B508577-04 Sample ID Residential E-2 HC-HA-1 HC-HA-11 Depth Interval Screening 1.0 to 2.0 ft. 0 to 3.0 ft. 0 to 3.0 ft. Sampling Date Level 8/25/95 8/25/95 8/25/95 Conventionals pH Total Organic Carbon in % Total Solids in % 98 77 76 Metals in mg/kg Arsenic 7 3.8 2.1 Cadmium 2 0.31 0.088 Chromium 100 13 14 Copper 2960 38 13 Lead 250 84 7.8 Mercury 1 Nickel 1600 28 15 Silver 240 Zinc 24000 67 32 PCBs in mg/kg PCB 1016 0.05 U 0.05 U 0.05 U PCB 1221 0.05 U 0.05 U 0.05 U PCB 1232 0.05 U 0.05 U 0.05 U PCB 1242 0.05 U 0.05 U 0.05 U PCB 1248 0.05 U 0.05 U 0.05 U PCB 1254 0.1 0.05 U 0.05 U PCB 1260 0.07 0.05 U 0.05 U Total PCBs 1 0.17 0.05 U 0.05 U TPHs in mg/kg Diesel 200 22000 10 U 10 U Gasoline 100 Oil 200 54000 25 U 25 U Herbicides in mg/kg 2,4,5-T 2,4,5-TP (Silvex) 640 2,4-D 2,4-DB 640 Dalapon 2400 Dicamba 2400 Dichloroprop Dinoseb 80 MCPA MCPP Page C-1 Hart Crowser J-4349-01 Table C-1 - Analytical Results for Soil Samples Sheet 2 of 20 Lab ID B508577-01 B508577-02 B508625-01 B508625-02 B508577-05 Sample ID HC-HA-2 HC-HA-22 HC-HA-3 HC-HA-4 HC-HA-5 Depth Interval 0 to 3.0 ft. 0 to 3.0 ft. 0 to 3.0 ft. 0 to 3.0 ft. 0 to 3.0 ft. Sampling Date 8/25/95 8/25/95 8/24/95 8/24/95 8/25/95 Conventionals pH Total Organic Carbon in % Total Solids in % 81 77 83 89 75 Metals in mg/kg Arsenic 4.1 5 Cadmium 0.3 0.31 Chromium 13 14 Copper 19 20 Lead 240 93 Mercury Nickel 24 24 Silver Zinc 67 76 PCBs in mg/kg PCB 1016 0.05 U 0.05 U 0.5 U 0.05 U 0.05 U PCB 1221 0.05 U 0.05 U 0.5 U 0.05 U 0.05 U PCB 1232 0.05 U 0.05 U 0.5 U 0.05 U 0.05 U PCB 1242 0.05 U 0.05 U 0.5 U 0.05 U 0.05 U PCB 1248 0.05 U 0.05 U 0.5 U 0.05 U 0.05 U PCB 1254 0.85 0.98 1.5 0.05 U 0.05 U PCB 1260 0.05 U 0.05 U 0.082 0.05 U 0.05 U Total PCBs 0.85 0.98 1.582 0.05 U 0.05 U TPHs in mg/kg Diesel 10 U 10 U 30 13 10 U Gasoline Oil 26 25 U 87 60 27 Herbicides in mg/kg 2,4,5-T 2,4,5-TP (Silvex) 2,4-D 2,4-DB Dalapon Dicamba Dichloroprop Dinoseb MCPA MCPP Page C-2 Hart Crowser J-4349-01 Table C-1 - Analytical Results for Soil Samples Sheet 3 of 20 Lab ID B508577-06 B508577-07 B508577-08 B508577-09 B508577-10 Sample ID HC-HA-6 HC-SD-10 HC-SS-1 HC-SS-2 HC-SS-3 Depth Interval 0 to 3.0 ft. 0 to 4 in. 0 to 3 in. 0 to 3 in. 0 to 3 in. Sampling Date 8/25/95 8/25/95 8/25/95 8/25/95 8/25/95 Conventionals pH Total Organic Carbon in % 0.82 Total Solids in % 76 66 83 98 98 Metals in mg/kg Arsenic 7.1 Cadmium 1.6 Chromium 17 Copper 33 Lead 55 Mercury 0.72 Nickel 19 Silver 1.1 Zinc 270 PCBs in mg/kg PCB 1016 0.05 U 0.05 U 0.05 U 0.05 U 0.05 U PCB 1221 0.05 U 0.05 U 0.05 U 0.05 U 0.05 U PCB 1232 0.05 U 0.05 U 0.05 U 0.05 U 0.05 U PCB 1242 0.05 U 0.05 U 0.05 U 0.05 U 0.05 U PCB 1248 0.05 U 0.05 U 0.05 U 0.05 U 2.7 PCB 1254 0.05 U 0.06 0.05 U 0.05 U 0.05 U PCB 1260 0.05 U 0.066 0.05 U 0.05 U 0.11 Total PCBs 0.05 U 0.126 0.05 U 0.05 U 2.81 TPHs in mg/kg Diesel 10 U 25 10 U 21 280 Gasoline Oil 25 U 73 42 100 1300 Herbicides in mg/kg 2,4,5-T 2,4,5-TP (Silvex) 2,4-D 2,4-DB Dalapon Dicamba Dichloroprop Dinoseb MCPA MCPP Page C-3 Hart Crowser J-4349-01 Table C-1 - Analytical Results for Soil Samples Sheet 4 of 20 Lab ID B508577-11 B508577-13 B508625-03 B508625-04 B508500-01 Sample ID HC-SS-4 HC-SS-5 MW-1, S-1 MW-3, S-1 SB-1/S-1 Depth Interval 0 to 3 in. 0 to 3 in. 1.0 to 2.5 ft. 1.0 to 2.5 ft. 1.0 to 2.5 ft. Sampling Date 8/25/95 8/25/95 8/22/95 8/22/95 8/21/95 Conventionals pH 5.6 Total Organic Carbon in % Total Solids in % 96 86 84 88 Metals in mg/kg Arsenic 16 Cadmium 0.54 0.17 Chromium 6.5 18 Copper 30 16 Lead 38 21 Mercury Nickel 7.3 40 Silver 1 U Zinc 24 50 PCBs in mg/kg PCB 1016 0.05 U 0.05 U 0.05 U 0.05 U PCB 1221 0.05 U 0.05 U 0.05 U 0.05 U PCB 1232 0.05 U 0.05 U 0.05 U 0.05 U PCB 1242 0.05 U 0.05 U 0.05 U 0.05 U PCB 1248 0.05 U 0.05 U 0.05 U 0.05 U PCB 1254 0.05 U 0.054 0.05 U 0.05 U PCB 1260 0.05 U 0.091 0.05 U 0.05 U Total PCBs 0.05 U 0.145 0.05 U 0.05 U TPHs in mg/kg Diesel 250 14 90 670 21 Gasoline 1 U 4.8 Oil 950 58 420 2200 49 Herbicides in mg/kg 2,4,5-T 2,4,5-TP (Silvex) 2,4-D 2,4-DB Dalapon Dicamba Dichloroprop Dinoseb MCPA MCPP Page C-4 Hart Crowser J-4349-01 Table C-1 - Analytical Results for Soil Samples Sheet 5 of 20 Lab ID B508500-02 B508500-03 B508500-04 B508500-05 B508500-06 Sample ID SB-1/S-3 SB-2/S-2 SB-2/S-3 SB-3/S-1 SB-3/S-3 Depth Interval 6.0 to 7.5 ft. 3.0 to 4.5 ft. 7.5 to 9.0 ft. 1.0 to 2.5 ft. 7.5 to 9.0 ft. Sampling Date 8/21/95 8/21/95 8/21/95 8/21/95 8/21/95 Conventionals pH 7.1 6.6 7.3 6.7 7.7 Total Organic Carbon in % Total Solids in % 84 91 84 83 78 Metals in mg/kg Arsenic Cadmium 0.035 0.46 0.07 0.78 0.068 Chromium 18 18 7.1 19 18 Copper 14 20 16 29 14 Lead 2 31 3 190 4 Mercury Nickel 17 14 8.7 44 17 Silver 1 U 1.2 1 U 1.1 1 U Zinc 34 66 29 140 38 PCBs in mg/kg PCB 1016 0.05 U 0.05 U 0.05 U 0.05 U 0.05 U PCB 1221 0.05 U 0.05 U 0.05 U 0.05 U 0.05 U PCB 1232 0.05 U 0.05 U 0.05 U 0.05 U 0.05 U PCB 1242 0.05 U 0.05 U 0.05 U 0.05 U 0.05 U PCB 1248 0.05 U 0.05 U 0.05 U 0.05 U . 0.05 U PCB 1254 0.05 U 0.05 U 0.05 U 0.05 U 0.05 U PCB 1260 0.05 U 0.92 0.05 U 0.066 0.05 U Total PCBs 0.05 U 0.92 0.05 U 0.066 0.05 U TPHs in mg/kg Diesel 10 U 1300 47 570 13 Gasoline Oil 30 3200 97 760 38 Herbicides in mg/kg 2,4,5-T 2,4,5-TP (Silvex) 2,4-D 2,4-DB Dalapon Dicamba Dichloroprop Dinoseb MCPA MCPP Page C-5 Hart Crowser J-4349-01 Table C-1 - Analytical Results for Soil Samples Sheet 6 of 20 Lab ID B508500-07 B508500-08 B508497-13 B508497-14 B508497-16 Sample ID SB-4/S-2 SB-5/S-1 TP-1/S-1 TP-2/S-1 . TP-3/S-1 Depth Interval 2.5 to 4.0 ft. 1.0 to 2.5 ft. 0 to 2.0 ft. 0 to 1.0 ft. 0 to 3.0 ft. Sampling Date 8/22/95 8/22/95 8/22/95 8/22/95 8/22/95 Conventionals pH Total Organic Carbon in % Total Solids in % 83 89 85 84 79 Metals in mg/kg Arsenic Cadmium 0.054 0.12 Chromium 11 14 Copper 12 16 Lead 1.8 21 Mercury Nickel 13 15 Silver 1 U 1 U Zinc 32 33 PCBs in mg/kg PCB 1016 0.05 U 0.05 U 0.05 U 0.05 U PCB 1221 0.05 U 0.05 U 0.05 U 0.05 U PCB 1232 0.05 U 0.05 U 0.05 U 0.05 U . PCB 1242 0.05 U 0.05 U 0.05 U 0.05 U PCB 1248 0.05 U 0.05 U 0.05 U 0.05 U PCB 1254 0.05 U 0.05 U 0.05 U 0.05 U PCB 1260 0.05 U 0.05 U 0.05 U 0.05 U Total PCBs 0.05 U 0.05 U 0.05 U 0.05 U TPHs in mg/kg Diesel 10 U 43 10 U 10 U 10 U Gasoline 1 U 1 U Oil 43 140 25 U 25 U 31 Herbicides in mg/kg 2,4,5-T 0.02 U 2,4,5-TP (Silvex) 0.02 U 2,4-D 0.005 U 2,4-DB 0.02 U Dalapon 0.005 U Dicamba 0.081 Dichloroprop 0.015 U Dinoseb 0.015 MCPA 0.75 U MCPP 0.75 U Page C-6 Hart Crowser J-4349-01 Table C-1 - Analytical Results for Soil Samples Sheet 7 of 20 Lab ID B508497-15 B508575-05 B508575-04 B508575-03 B508575-06 Sample ID TP-4/S-2 TP-5-S1 TP-6-S2 TP-7-S1 TP-8-S2 Depth Interval 1.0 to 3.0 ft. 1.0 to 3.0 ft. 4.0 to 5.0 ft. 1.0 to 3.0 ft. 3.5 to 5.0 ft. Sampling Date 8/22/95 8/24/95 8/24/95 8/24/95 8/24/95 Conventionals pH Total Organic Carbon in % Total Solids in % 91 77 72 92 56 Metals in mg/kg Arsenic 6 Cadmium 0.14 Chromium 24 Copper 22 Lead 4 Mercury Nickel 22 Silver Zinc 43 PCBs in mg/kg PCB 1016 0.05 U 0.05 U 0.05 U 0.05 U 0.05 U PCB 1221 0.05 U 0.05 U 0.05 U 0.05 U 0.05 U PCB 1232 0.05 U 0.05 U 0.05 U 0.05 U 0.05 U PCB 1242 0.05 U 0.05 U 0.05 U 0.05 U 0.05 U PCB 1248 0.05 U 0.054 0.05 U 0.21 0.05 U PCB 1254 0.05 U 0.05 U 0.05 U 0.05 U 0.05 U PCB 1260 0.05 U 0.05 U 0.05 U 0.05 U 0.05 U Total PCBs 0.05 U 0.054 0.05 U 0.21 0.05 U TPHs in mg/kg Diesel 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 11 Gasoline Oil 25 U 25 U 25 U 25 U 52 Herbicides in mg/kg 2,4,5-T 2,4,5-TP (Silvex) 2,4-D 2,4-DB Dalapon Dicamba Dichloroprop Dinoseb MCPA MCPP Page C-7 Hart Crowser J-4349-01 Table C-1 - Analytical Results for Soil Samples Sheet 8 of 20 Lab ID B508575-02 B508575-01 B508497-17 B508497-18 B508497-25 Sample ID TP-9-S1 TP-10-SI TP-11/S-1 TP-12/S-1 TP-13/S-2 Depth Interval 2.0 to 3.0 ft. 1.O to 2.5 ft. 0.5 to 3.0 ft. 0.5 to 3.0 ft. 3.5 to 5.0 ft. Sampling Date 8/24/95 8/24/95 8/22/95 8/22/95 8/23/95 Conventionals pH Total Organic Carbon in % Total Solids in % 85 73 98 79 74 Metals in mg/kg Arsenic 1.9 Cadmium 0.092 Chromium 11 Copper 36 Lead 4.4 Mercury Nickel 18 Silver Zinc 42 PCBs in mg/kg PCB 1016 0.05 U 0.05 U 0.05 U 0.05 U 0.05 U PCB 1221 0.05 U 0.05 U 0.05 U 0.05 U 0.05 U PCB 1232 0.05 U 0.05 U 0.05 U 0.05 U 0.05 U PCB 1242 0.05 U 0.05 U 0.05 U 0.05 U 0.05 U PCB 1248 0.05 U 0.05 U 0.05 U 0.05 U 0.05 U PCB 1254 0.05 U 0.05 U 0.14 0.05 U 0.05 U PCB 1260 0.05 U 0.05 U 0.05 U 0.05 U 0.05 U Total PCBs 0.05 U 0.05 U 0.14 0.05 U 0.05 U TPHs in mg/kg Diesel 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 16 Gasoline Oil 25 U 25 U 25 U 25 U 70 Herbicides in mgfkg 2,4,5-T 2,4,5-TP (Silvex) 2,4-D 2,4-DB Dalapon Dicamba Dichloroprop Dinoseb MCPA MCPP Page C-8 Hart Crowser J-4349-01 Table C-1 - Analytical Results for Soil Samples Sheet 9 of 20 Lab ID B508497-24 B508497-19 B508497-20 B508497-22 B508497-23 Sample ID TP-14/S-2 TP-15/S-2 TP-16/S-1 TP-17/S-2 TP-18/S-1 Depth Interval 3.0 to 3.5 ft. 2.5 to 4.0 ft. 1.0 to 3.0 ft. 3.0 to 5.0 ft. 2.0 to 3.5 ft. Sampling Date 8/23/95 8/23/95 8/23/95 8/23/95 8/23/95 Conventionals pH Total Organic Carbon in % Total Solids in % 90 57 73 84 77 Metals in mg/kg Arsenic Cadmium Chromium Copper Lead Mercury Nickel Silver Zinc PCBs in mg/kg PCB 1016 0.05 U 0.05 U 0.05 U 0.05 U 0.05 U PCB 1221 0.05 U 0.05 U 0.05 U 0.05 U 0.05 U PCB 1232 0.05 U 0.05 U 0.05 U 0.05 U 0.05 U PCB 1242 0.05 U 0.05 U 0.05 U 0.05 U 0.05 U PCB 1248 0.05 U 0.05 U 0.05 U 0.05 U 0.05 U PCB 1254 0.05 U 0.05 U 0.05 U 0.05 U 0.05 U PCB 1260 0.05 U 0.05 U 0.05 U 0.05 U 0.05 U Total PCBs 0.05 U 0.05 U 0.05 U 0.05 U 0.05 U TPHs in mg/kg Diesel 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U Gasoline Oil 39 49 25 U 25 U 25 U ' Herbicides in mg/kg 2,4,5-T 0.02 U 0.02 U 2,4,5-TP (Silvex) 0.02 U 0.02 U 2,4-D 0.005 U 0.005 U 2,4-DB 0.02 U 0.02 U Dalapon 0.005 U 0.005 U Dicamba 0.005 U 0.005 U Dichloroprop 0.015 U 0.015 U Dinoseb 0.01 U 0.01 U MCPA 0.75 U 0.75 U MCPP 0.75 U 0.75 U Page C-9 Hart Crowser J-4349-01 Table C-1 - Analytical Results for Soil Samples Sheet 10 of 20 Lab ID B508497-21 3508497-08 B508497-07 B508497-09 3508497-10 Sample ID TP-19/S-1 TP-20/S-1 TP-21/S-2 TP-22/S-3 TP-23/S-2 Depth Interval 1.5 to 3.0 ft. 0 to 1.0 ft. 2.5 to 5.0 ft. 3.5 to 7.0 ft. 2.5 to 5.0 ft. Sampling Date 8/23/95 8/21/95 8/21/95 8/22/95 8/22/95 Conventionals pH Total Organic Carbon in % Total Solids in % 79 70 49 76 76 Metals in mg/kg Arsenic Cadmium 0.092 0.22 Chromium 24 12 Copper 23 16 Lead 2.2 5.4 Mercury Nickel 24 13 Silver 1.1 1 U Zinc 41 20 PCBs in mg/kg PCB 1016 0.05 U 0.05 U 0.05 U 0.05 U 0.05 U PCB 1221 0.05 U 0.05 U 0.05 U 0.05 U 0.05 U PCB 1232 0.05 U 0.05 U 0.05 U 0.05 U 0.05 U PCB 1242 0.05 U 0.05 U 0.05 U 0.05 U 0.05 U PCB 1248 0.05 U 0.05 U 0.05 U 0.05 U 0.05 U PCB 1254 0.05 U 0.05 U 0.05 U 0.05 U 0.05 U PCB 1260 0.05 U 0.05 U 0.05 U 0.05 U 0.05 U Total PCBs 0.05 U 0.05 U 0.05 U 0.05 U 0.05 U TPHs in mg/kg Diesel 10 U 10 U 15 10 U 12 Gasoline Oil 25 U 49 93 50 45 Herbicides in mg/kg 2,4,5-T 2,4,5-TP (Silvex) 2,4-D 2,4-DB Dalapon Dicamba Dichloroprop Dinoseb MCPA MCPP Page C-10 Hart Crowser J-4349-01 Table C-1 - Analytical Results for Soil Samples Sheet 11 of 20 Lab ID B508497-06 B508497-05 B508497-01 B508497-02 B508497-03 Sample ID TP-24/S-1 TP-25/S-2 TP-26/S-2 TP-27/S-3 TP-28/S-2 Depth Interval 1.5 to 2.5 ft. 3.0 to 4.0 ft. 2.5 to 5.0 ft. 6.0 to 7.5 ft. 2.5 to 3.0 ft. Sampling Date 8/21/95 8/21/95 8/21/95 8/21/95 8/21/95 Conventionals pH Total Organic Carbon in % Total Solids in % 83 74 92 43 90 Metals in mg/kg Arsenic Cadmium 0.1 0.08 0.057 0.14 Chromium 10 22 18 20 Copper 14 21 16 17 Lead 3.5 3.6 1.9 4.3 Mercury Nickel 13 20 17 19 Silver 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U Zinc 25 31 31 60 PCBs in mg/kg PCB 1016 0.05 U 0.05 U 0.05 U 0.05 U 0.05 U PCB 1221 0.05 U 0.05 U 0.05 U 0.05 U 0.05 U PCB 1232 0.05 U 0.05 U 0.05 U 0.05 U 0.05 U PCB 1242 0.05 U 0.05 U 0.05 U 0.05 U 0.05 U PCB 1248 0.05 U 0.05 U 0.05 U 0.05 U 0.05 U PCB 1254 0.05 U 0.05 U 0.05 U 0.05 U 0.05 U PCB 1260 0.05 U 0.05 U 0.05 U 0.05 U 0.05 U Total PCBs 0.05 U 0.05 U 0.05 U 0.05 U 0.05 U TPHs in mg/kg Diesel 10 U 10 U 10 U 16 10 U Gasoline Oil 43 43 55 110 45 Herbicides in mg/kg 2,4,5-T 0.02 U 0.02 U 2,4,5-TP (Silvex) 0.02 U 0.02 U 2,4-D 0.005 U 0.005 U 2,4-DB 0.02 U 0.02 U Dalapon 0.005 U 0.005 U Dicamba 0.005 U 0.005 U Dichloroprop 0.015 U 0.015 U Dinoseb 0.01 U 0.01 U MCPA 0.75 U 0.75 U MCPP 0.75 U 0.75 U Page C-11 Hart Crowser .J-4349-01 Table C-1 - Analytical Results for Soil Samples Sheet 12 of 20 Lab ID 3508497-04 3508497-11 3508497-12 B508497-26 Sample ID TP-29/S-2 TP-30/S-2 TP-31/S-1 TP-34/S-2 Depth Interval 2.5 to 3.5 ft. 2.0 to 3.0 ft. 0 to 2.0 ft. 0.5 to 3.0 ft. Sampling Date 8/21/95 8/22/95 8/22/95 8/23/95 Conventionals pH Total Organic Carbon in % Total Solids in % 89 73 80 80 Metals in mg/kg Arsenic 2.9 2.8 Cadmium 0.11 0.11 0.081 Chromium 19 27 19 Copper 16 29 15 Lead 3.8 3.7 6.3 Mercury Nickel 21 24 18 Silver 1 U 1 U 1.3 Zinc 39 40 38 PCBs in mg/kg PCB 1016 0.05 U 0.05 U 0.05 U PCB 1221 0.05 U 0.05 U 0.05 U PCB 1232 0.05 U 0.05 U 0.05 U PCB 1242 0.05 U 0.05 U 0.05 U PCB 1248 0.05 U 0.05 U 0.05 U PCB 1254 0.05 U 0.05 U 0.05 U PCB 1260 0.05 U 0.05 U 0.05 U Total PCBs 0.05 U 0.05 U 0.05 U TPHs in mg/kg Diesel 10 U 10 U 10 U 5100 Gasoline 82 Oil 50 26 25 U 670 Herbicides in mg/kg 2,4,5-T 2,4,5-TP (Silvex) 2,4-D 2,4-DB Dalapon Dicamba Dichloroprop Dinoseb MCPA MCPP F:\SHUFFLE\SOIL.W Kl'KML Page C-12 Hart Crowser J-4349-01 Table C-1 - Analytical Results for Soil Samples Sheet 13 of 20 Lab ID B508625-04 B508500-07 B508500-08 Sample ID Residential MW-3, S-1 SB-4/S-2 SB-5/S-1 Depth Interval Screening 1.0 to 2.5 ft. 2.5 to 4.0 ft. 1.0 to 2.5 ft. Sampling Date Level 8/22/95 8/22/95 8/22/95 Semivolatiles in mg/kg 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 800 0.2 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 1,2-Dichlorobenzene 7200 0.2 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 1,3-Dichlorobenzene 0.2 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 1,4-Dichlorobenzene 41.7 0.2 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 2,4,5-Trichlorophenol 8000 1 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 2,4,6-Trichlorophenol 90.9 0.2 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 2,4-Dichlorophenol 240 0.2 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 2,4-Dimethylphenol 1600 0.2 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 2,4-Dinitrophenol 160 1 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 2,4-Dinitrotoluene 160 0.2 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 2,6-Dinitrotoluene 80 0.2 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 2-Chloronaphthalene 0.2 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 2-Chlorophenol 400 0.2 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 2-Methylnaphthalene 0.2 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 2-Methylphenol 4000 0.2 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 2-Nitroaniline 1 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 2-Nitrophenol 0.2 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine 2.22 1 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 3-Nitroaniline 1 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 4,6-Dinitro-2-methylphenol 1 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether 0.2 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 4-Chloro-3-methylphenol 0.2 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 4-Chloroaniline 320 0.2 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 4-Chlorophenyl phenyl ether 0.2 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 4-Methylphenol 0.2 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 4-Nitroaniline 1 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 4-Nitrophenol 1 U 0.5 U 0.5 U Acenaphthene 4800 0.2 U 0.1 U 0.1 U Acenaphthylene 0.2 U 0.1 U 0.1 U Aniline 175 0.2 U 0.1 U 0.1 U Anthracene 24000 0.22 0.1 U 0.1 U Benzo(a)Anthracene 0.14 0.47 0.1 U 0.1 U Benzo(a)Pyrene 0.14 0.36 0.1 U 0.1 U Benzidine 0.5 U 0.25 U 0.25 U Benzo(b)Fluoranthene 0.14 0.21 0.1 U 0.1 U Benzo(g,h,i)Perylene 0.14 0.22 0.1 U 0.1 U Benzo(k)Fluoranthene 0.14 0.2 U 0.1 U 0.1 U Benzoic Acid 320000 1 U 0.5 U 0.5 U Benzyl alcohol 0.2 U 0.1 U 0.1 U Page C-13 Hart Crowser J-4349-01 Table C-1 - Analytical Results for Soil Samples Sheet 14 of 20 Lab ID B508625-04 B508500-07 B508500-08 Sample ID Residential MW-3, S-1 SB-4/S-2 SB-5/S-1 Depth Interval Screening 1.0 to 2.5 ft. 2.5 to 4.0 ft. 1.0 to 2.5 ft. Sampling Date Level 8/22/95 8/22/95 8/22/95 Bis(2-Chloroethoxy)Methane 0.2 U 0.1 U 0.1 U Bis(2-Chloroethyl)Ether 0.91 0.2 U 0.1 U 0.1 U Bis(2-Chloroisopropyl)Ether 0.2 U 0.1 U 0.1 U Bis(2-Ethylhexyl)Phthalate 71 1 U 0.5 U 0.5 U Butylbenzylphthalate 16000 0.2 U 0.1 U 0.1 U Carbazole 0.2 U 0.1 U 0.1 U Chrysene 0.14 0.68 0.1 U 0.1 U Di-N-Butylphthalate 8000 1 U 0.5 U 0.5 U Di-N-Octylphthalate 1600 0.2 U 0.1 U 0.1 U Dibenzo(a,h)Anthracene 0.14 0.2 U 0.1 U 0.1 U Dibenzofuran 0.2 U 0.1 U 0.1 U Diethylphthalate 64000 0.2 U 0.1 U 0.1 U Dimethylphthalate 80000 0.2 U 0.1 U 0.1 U Fluoranthene 3200 0.23 0.1 U 0.1 U Fluorene 3200 0.2 U 0.1 U 0.1 U Hexachlorobenzene 0.625 0.2 U 0.1 U 0.1 U Hexachlorobutadiene 12.8 0.2 U 0.1 U 0.1 U Hexachlorocyclopentadiene 560 0.2 U 0.1 U 0.1 U Hexachloroethane 71.4 0.2 U 0.1 U 0.1 U Indeno(1,2,3-c,d)Pyrene 0.14 0.2 U 0.1 U 0.1 U Isophorone 10.5 0.2 U 0.1 U 0.1 U N-Nitrosodi-n-propyiamine 0.14 0.2 U 0.1 U 0.1 U N-Nitrosodi-phenylamine 204 0.2 U 0.1 U 0.1 U Naphthalene 320 0.2 U 0.1 U 0.1 U Nitrobenzene 40 0.2 U 0.1 U 0.1 U Pentachlorophenol 8.33 1 U 0.5 U 0.5 U Phenanthrene 0.48 0.1 U 0.1 U Phenol 48000 0.2 U 0.1 U 0.1 U Pyrene 2400 0.91 0.1 U 0.1 U Total cPAHs 1 1.72 0.1 U 0.1 U Total HPAHs 3.08 0.1 U 0.1 U Total LPAHs 0.7 100 U 100 U Page C-14 Hart Crowser J-4349-01 Table C-1 - Analytical Results for Soil Samples Sheet 15 of 20 Lab ID B508497-26 B508577-12 Sample ID TP-34/S-2 E-2 Depth Interval 3.0 to 3.5 ft. 1.0 to 2.0 ft. Sampling Date 8/23/95 8/25/95 Semivolatiles in mg/kg (a) (a) 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 10 U 5 U 1,2-Dichlorobenzene 10 U 5 U 1,3-Dichlorobenzene 10 U 5 U 1,4-Dichlorobenzene 10 U 5 U 2,4,5-Trichlorophenol 50 U 25 U 2,4,6-Trichlorophenol 10 U 5 U 2,4-Dichlorophenol 10 U 5 U 2,4-Dimethylphenol 10 U 5 U 2,4-Dinitrophenol 50 U 25 U 2,4-Dinitrotoluene 10 U 5 U 2,6-Dinitrotoluene 10 U 5 U 2-Chloronaphthalene 10 U 5 U 2-Chlorophenol 10 U 5 U 2-Methylnaphthalene 10 U 5 U 2-Methylphenol 10 U 5 U 2-Nitroaniline 50 U 25 U 2-Nitrophenol 10 U 5 U 3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine 50 U 25 U 3-Nitroaniline 50 U 25 U 4,6-Dinitro-2-methylphenol 50 U 25 U 4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether 10 U 5 U 4-Chloro-3-methylphenol 10 U 5 U 4-Chloroaniline 10 U 5 U 4-Chlorophenyl phenyl ether 10 U 5 U 4-Methylphenol 10 U 5 U 4-Nitroaniline 50 U 25 U 4-Nitrophenol 50 U 25 U Acenaphthene 10 U 5 U Acenaphthylene 10 U 5 U Aniline 10 U 5 U Anthracene 10 U 5 U Benzo(a)Anthracene 10 U 5 U Benzo(a)Pyrene 10 U 5 U Benzidine 25 U 12.5 U Benzo(b)Fluoranthene 10 U 5 U Benzo(g,h,i)Perylene 10 U 5 U Benzo(k)Fluoranthene 10 U 5 U Benzoic Acid 50 U 25 U Benzyl alcohol 10 U 5 U Page C-15 Hart Crowser J-4349-01 Table C-1 - Analytical Results for Soil Samples Sheet 16 of 20 Lab ID B508497-26 13508577-12 Sample ID TP-34/S-2 E-2 Depth Interval 3.0 to 3.5 ft. 1.0 to 2.0 ft. Sampling Date 8/23/95 8/25/95 Bis(2-Chloroethoxy)Methane 10 U 5 U Bis(2-Chloroethyl)Ether 10 U 5 U Bis(2-Chloroisopropyl)Ether 10 U 5 U Bis(2-Ethylhexyl)Phthalate 50 U 25 U Butylbenzylphthalate 10 U 5 U Carbazole 10 U 5 U Chrysene 10 U 5 U Di-N-Butylphthalate 50 U 25 U Di-N-Octylphthalate 10 U 5 U Dibenzo(a,h)Anthracene 10 U 5 U Dibenzofuran 10 U 5 U Diethylphthalate 10 U 5 U Dimethylphthalate 10 U 5 U Fluoranthene 10 U 5 U Fluorene 10 U 5 U Hexachlorobenzene 10 U 5 U Hexachlorobutadiene 10 U 5 U Hexachlorocyclopentadiene 10 U 5 U Hexachloroethane 10 U 5 U Indeno(1,2,3-c,d)Pyrene 10 U 5 U Isophorone 10 U 5 U N-Nitrosodi-n-propylamine 10 U 5 U N-Nitrosodi-phenylamine 10 U 5 U Naphthalene 10 U 5 U Nitrobenzene 10 U 5 U Pentachlorophenol 50 U 25 U Phenanthrene 10 U 6.3 Phenol 10 U 5 U Pyrene 10 U 8.6 Total cPAHs 10 U 5 U Total HPAHs 10 U 8.6 Total LPAHs 100 U 6.3 FAS H U FFL E'S V-SOI L.W K watt. L Page C-16 Hart Crowser J-4349-01 Table C-1 - Analytical Results for Soil Samples Sheet 17 of 20 Lab ID B508500-01 3508500-03 B508500-04 Sample ID Residential SB-1/S-1 SB-2/S-2 SB-2/S-3 Depth Interval Screening 1.0 to 2.5 ft. 3.0 to 4.5 ft. 7.5 to 9.0 ft. Sampling Date Level 8/21/95 8/21/95 8/21/95 Volatiles in µg/kg 1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane 38500 100 U 100 U 100 U 1,1,1-Trichloroethane 72000000 100 U 100 U 100 U 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 5000 100 U 100 U 100 U 1,1,2-Trichloroethane 17500 100 U 100 U 100 U 1,1-Dichloroethane 8000000 100 U 100 U 100 U 1,1-Dichloroethene 1670 100 U 100 U 100 U 1,1-Dichloropropene 100 U 100 U 100 U 1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene 100 U 100 U 100 U 1,2,3-Trichloropropane 480000 100 U 100 U 100 U 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 800 100 U 100 U 100 U 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene 100 U 100 U 100 U 1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane 714 100 U 100 U 100 U 1,2-Dibromoethane 11.8 100 U 100 U 100 U 1,2-Dichlorobenzene 7200 100 U 100 U 100 U 1,2-Dichloroethane 11000 100 U 100 U 100 U cis-1,2-Dichloroethene 100 U 100 U 100 U trans-1,2-Dichloroethene 100 U 100 U 100 U 1,2-Dichloropropane 14700 100 U 100 U 100 U 1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene 100 U 100 U 100 U 1,3-Dichlorobenzene 100 U 100 U 100 U 1,3-Dichloropropane 100 U 100 U 100 U Cis-1,3-Dichloropropene 100 U 100 U 100 U Trans-1,3-Dichloropropene 100 U 100 U 100 U 1,4-Dichlorobenzene 41.7 100 U 100 U 100 U 2,2-Dichloropropane 100 U 100 U 100 U 2-Butanone 48000000 1000 U 1000 U 1000 U 2-Chlorotoluene 100 U 100 U 100 U 2-Hexanone 1000 U 1000 U 1000 U 4-Chlorotoluene 100 U 100 U 100 U 4-Methyl-2-Pentanone 1000 U 1000 U 1000 U Acetone 8000000 1000 U 1000 U 1000 U Benzene 34500 100 U 100 U 100 U Bromobenzene 100 U 100 U 100 U Bromochloromethane 100 U 100 U 100 U Bromodichloromethane 16100 100 U 100 U 100 U Bromoform 127000 100 U 100 U 100 U Bromomethane 112000 100 U 100 U 100 U Carbon Disulfide 8000000 Carbon Tetrachloride 7690 100 U 100 U 100 U Page C-17 Hart Crowser J-4349-01 Table C-1 - Analytical Results for Soil Samples Sheet 18 of 20 Lab ID B508500-01 3508500-03 B508500-04 Sample ID Residential SB-1/S-1 SE-2/S-2 SB-2/S-3 Depth Interval Screening 1.0 to 2.5 ft. 3.0 to 4.5 ft. 7.5 to 9.0 ft. Sampling Date Level 8/21/95 8/21/95 8/21/95 Chlorobenzene 1600000 100 U 100 U 100 U Chloroethane 100 U 100 U 100 U Chloroform 164000 100 U 100 U 100 U Chloromethane 76900 100 U 100 U 100 U Dibromochloromethane 11900 100 U 100 U 100 U Dibromomethane 100 U 100 U 100 U Dichlorodifluoromethane 100 U 100 U 100 U Ethylbenzene 8000000 100 U 100 U 100 U Hexachlorobutadiene 12.8 100 U 100 U 100 U • Isopropylbenzene 100 U 100 U 100 U Methylene Chloride 133000 500 U 500 U 500 U Naphthalene 320 100 U 100 U 100 U Styrene 33300 100 U 100 U 100 U Tetrachloroethene 19600 100 U 100 U 100 U Toluene 16000000 100 U 100 U 100 U Trichloroethene 90900 100 U 100 U 100 U Trichlorofluoromethane 24000000 100 U 100 U 100 U Vinyl Chloride 526 100 U 100 U 100 U m,p-Xylene 100 U 100 U 100 U o-Xylene 100 U 100 U 100 U n-Butylbenzene 100 U 100 U 100 U n-Propylbenzene 100 U 100 U 100 U p-Isopropyltoluene 100 U 100 U 100 U sec-Butylbenzene 100 U 100 U 100 U tert-Butylbenzene 100 U 100 U 100 U Page C-18 Hart Crowser J-4349-01 Table C-1 - Analytical Results for Soil Samples Sheet 19 of 20 Lab ID B508625-03 B508500-07 B508500-08 B508497-26 Sample ID MW-1, S-1 SB-4/S-2 SB-5/S-1 TP-34/S-2 Depth Interval 1.0 to 2.5 ft. 2.5 to 4.0 ft. 1.0 to 2.5 ft. 3.0 to 3.5 ft. Sampling Date 8/22/95 8/22/95 8/22/95 8/23/95 Volatiles in µg/kg 1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane 100 U 100 U 100 U 100 U 1,1,1-Trichloroethane 100 U 100 U 100 U 100 U 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 100 U 100 U 100 U 100 U 1,1,2-Trichloroethane 100 U 100 U 100 U 100 U 1,1-Dichloroethane 100 U 100 U 100 U 100 U 1,1-Dichloroethene 100 U 100 U 100 U 100 U 1,1-Dichloropropene 100 U 100 U 100 U 100 U 1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene 100 U 100 U 100 U 100 U 1,2,3-Trichloropropane 100 U 100 U 100 U 100 U 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 100 U 100 U 100 U 100 U 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene 100 U 100 U 100 U 100 U 1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane 100 U 100 U 100 U 100 U 1,2-Dibromoethane 100 U 100 U 100 U 100 U 1,2-Dichlorobenzene 100 U 100 U 100 U 100 U 1,2-Dichloroethane 100 U 100 U 100 U 100 U cis-1,2-Dichloroethene 100 U 100 U 100 U 100 U trans-1,2-Dichloroethene 100 U 100 U 100 U 100 U 1,2-Dichloropropane 100 U 100 •U 100 U 100 U 1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene 100 U 100 U 100 U 100 U 1,3-Dichlorobenzene 100 U 100 U 100 U 100 U 1,3-Dichloropropane 100 U 100 U 100 U 100 U Cis-1,3-Dichloropropene 100 U 100 U 100 U 100 U Trans-1,3-Dichloropropene 100 U 100 U 100 U 100 U 1,4-Dichlorobenzene 100 U 100 U 100 U 100 U 2,2-Dichloropropane 100 U 100 U 100 U 100 U 2-Butanone 1000 U 1000 U 1000 U 1000 U 2-Chlorotoluene 100 U 100 U 100 U 100 U 2-Hexanone 1000 U 1000 U 1000 U 1000 U 4-Chlorotoluene 100 U 100 U 100 U 100 U 4-Methyl-2-Pentanone 1000 U 1000 U 1000 U 1000 U Acetone 1000 U 1000 U 1000 U 1000 U Benzene 100 U 100 U 100 U 100 U Bromobenzene 100 U 100 U 100 U 100 U Bromochloromethane 100 U 100 U 100 U 100 U Bromodichloromethane 100 U 100 U 100 U 100 U Bromoform 100 U 100 U 100 U 100 U Bromomethane 100 U 100 U 100 U 100 U Carbon Disulfide Carbon Tetrachloride 100 U 100 U 100 U 100 U Page C-19 Hart Crowser J-4349-01 Table C-1 - Analytical Results for Soil Samples Sheet 20 of 20 Lab ID B508625-03 B508500-07 B508500-08 B508497-26 Sample ID MW-1, S-i SB-4/S-2 SB-5/S-1 TP-34/S-2 Depth Interval 1.0 to 2.5 ft. 2.5 to 4.0 ft. 1.0 to 2.5 ft. 3.0 to 3.5 ft. Sampling Date 8/22/95 8/22/95 8/22/95 8/23/95 Chlorobenzene 100 U 100 U 100 U 100 U Chloroethane 100 U 100 U 100 U 100 U Chloroform 100 U 100 U 100 U 100 U Chloromethane 100 U 100 U 100 U 100 U Dibromochloromethane 100 U 100 U 100 U 100 U Dibromomethane 100 U 100 U 100 U 100 U Dichlorodifluoromethane 100 U 100 U 100 U 100 U Ethylbenzene 100 U 100 U 100 U 100 U Hexachlorobutadiene 100 U 100 U 100 U 100 U Isopropylbenzene 100 U 100 U 100 U 100 U Methylene Chloride 250 U 500 U 500 U 500 U Naphthalene 100 U 100 U 100 U 100 U Styrene 100 U 100 U 100 U 100 U Tetrachloroethene 100 U 100 U 100 U 100 U Toluene 100 U 100 U 100 U 100 U Trichloroethene 100 U 100 U 100 U 100 U Trichlorofluoromethane 100 U 100 U 100 U 100 U Vinyl Chloride 100 U 100 U 100 U 100 U m,p-Xylene 100 U 100 U 100 U 100 U o-Xylene 100 U 100 U 100 U n-Butylbenzene 100 U 100 U 100 U 100 U n-Propylbenzene 100 U 100 U 100 U 100 U p-Isopropyltoluene 100 U 100 U 100 U 100 U sec-Butylbenzene 100 U 100 U 100 U 100 U tert-Butylbenzene 100 U 100 U 100 U 100 U U Not detected at indicated detection limit. Exceedence of residential screening level. Blanks indicate no screening level available or sample not analyzed for specified analyte. Sample HC-HA-11 is a duplicate of HC-HA-1; sample HC-HA-22 is a duplicate of HC-HA-2; sample HC-HA-6 is a duplicate of HC-HA-5. (a) Elevated detection limits reported for semivolatile organics in soil samples TP-34/S-2 and E-2 are due to interferences caused by the presence of relatively high concentrations of petroleum hydrocarbons in the samples. F.\SH U FFLEWOL-SLNT.W K 1 UCML Page C-20 Hart Crowser J-4349-01 Table C-2 - Analytical Results for Total Lead in Soil Samples Lab ID Sample ID Depth Interval Total Lead in Feet in mg/kg (ppm) B511030-01 S-1 0 to 0.5 200 B511030-02 S-1 0.5 to 1.0 23 B511030-03 S-2 0 to 0.5 19 B511030-04 S-2 0.5 to 1.0 10 U B511030-05 S-3 0 to 0.5 120 B511030-06 S-3 0.5 to 1.0 10 U B511030-07 S-4 0 to 0.5 25 B511030-08 S-4 0.5 to 1.0 10 U B511030-09 S-5 0 to 0.5 • 41 B511030-10 5-5 0.5 to 1.0 45 B511030-11 S-6 0 to 0.5 260 B511030-12 S-6 0.5 to 1.0 71 B511030-13 S-7 0 to 0.5 220 B511030-14 S-7 0.5 to 1.0 120 B511030-15 S-8 0 to 0.5 120 B511030-16 S-8 0.5 to 1.0 79 B511030-17 S-13 0 to 0.5 470 B511030-18 S-13 0.5 to 1.0 750 B511030-19 S-14 0 to 0.5 310 B511030-20 S-14 0.5 to 1.0 170 B511030-21 S-15 0 to 0.5 230 B511030-22 S-15 0.5 to 1.0 41 B511030-23 S-16 0 to 0.5 140 B511030-24 S-16 0.5 to 1.0 160 B511030-25 S-17 0 to 0.5 1000 B511030-26 S-17 0.5 to 1.0 210 ..................... B511030-27 S-18 0 to 0.5 MilMii B511030-28 S-18 0.5 to 1.0 700 U Not detected at indicated detection limit. Exceedence of residential/commercial screening level of 250 mg/kg. MainiiiiiiiiMi Exceedence of industrial screening level of 1,000 mg/kg. F:\SH UFFLE\LEAD.WKI VCML Page C-21 Hart Crowser J-4349-01 Table C-3 - Analytical Results for Groundwater Samples Sheet 1 of 5 • Lab ID MTCA B509435-03 B509435-04 B509435-05 B509435-06 Sample ID Screening MW-1 MW-2 MW-3 MW-4 Sampling Date Level 9/21/95 9/21/95 9/21/95 9/21/95 Conventionals Hardness in mg/L 130 160 Total Suspended Solids in mg/L 27 40 30 82 pH 7.2 7.5 7.2 7.2 Temperature in °C 17.9 16.4 19.7 18.9 Dissolved Oxygen in mg/L 1.0 0.9 1.1 1.1 Dissolved Metals in ug/L Arsenic 5 (1) 5.9 8 Cadmium 8 0.1 U 0.1 U Chromium 80 10 U 10 U Copper 592 1 U 1 U Lead 5 2 U 2 U Nickel 320 30 U 30 U Silver 80 20 U 20 U Zinc 4800 20 U 20 U PCBs in ug/L PCB 1016 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U PCB 1221 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U PCB 1232 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U PCB 1242 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U PCB 1248 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U PCB 1254 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U PCB 1260 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U Total PCBs 0.0114 TPH in mg/L Diesel 1 0.46 0.25 U 0.25 U 0.25 U Oil 1 0.75 U 0.75 U 0.75 U 0.75 U PAHs in ug/L Acenaphthene 960 Acenaphthylene Anthracene 4800 Benz(a)anthracene 0.012 Benz(a)pyrene 0.012 Benzo(b)fluoranthene 0.012 Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 0.012 Benzo(k)fluoranthene 0.012 Chrysene 0.012 Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 0.012 Fluoranthene 640 Fluorene 640 Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 0.012 Naphthalene 32 Phenanthrene Pyrene 480 Total cPAHs 0.1 Page C-22 Hart Crowser J-4349-01 Table C-3 - Analytical Results for Groundwater Samples Sheet 2 of 5 Lab ID B509435-07 B509435-01 B509435-02 B509435-08 B509435-09 Sample ID MW-5 MW-6 MW-7 MW-8 MW-9 Sampling Date 9/21/95 9/20/95 9/20/95 9/21/95 9/21/95 Conventionals Hardness in mg/L 120 89 120 78 Total Suspended Solids in mg/L 250 17 28 62 49 pH 7.6 NA NA 7.4 7.3 Temperature in °C 18 18.7 19 16.6 17.3 Dissolved Oxygen in mg/L 0.9 1.8 4.7 1.1 0.6 Dissolved Metals in ug/L Arsenic 24 9.7 18 10 Cadmium 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U Chromium 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U Copper 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U Lead 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U Nickel 30 U 30 U 30 U 30 U Silver 20 U 20 U 20 U 20 U Zinc 20 U 20 U 20 U 20 U PCBs in ug/L PCB 1016 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U PCB 1221 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U PCB 1232 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U PCB 1242 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U PCB 1248 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U PCB 1254 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U PCB 1260 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U Total PCBs TPH in mg/L Diesel 0.25 U 0.25 U 0.25 U 0.25 U 0.25 U Oil 0.75 U 0.75 U 0.75 U 0.75 U 0.75 U PAHs in ug/L Acenaphthene Acenaphthylene Anthracene Benz(a)anthracene Benz(a)pyrene Benzo(b)fluoranthene Benzo(g,h,i)perylene Benzo(k)fluoranthene Chrysene Dibenz(a,h)anthracene Fluoranthene Fluorene Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene Naphthalene Phenanthrene Pyrene Total cPAHs Page C-23 Hart Crowser J 4 349-v 1 Table C-3 - Analytical Results for Groundwater Samples Lab ID B509435-10 B509435-11 B508500-09 Sample ID MW-99 TRIP BLANK SB-6 Sampling Date 9/21/95 9/21/95 8/23/95 Conventionals Hardness in mg/L 76 41 Total Suspended Solids in mg/L 37 pH 7.3 Temperature in °C 17.6 Dissolved Oxygen in mg/L 0.6 Dissolved Metals in ug/L Arsenic 8 4 U Cadmium - 0.1 U 0.1 U Chromium 10 U 10 U Copper 1 U 1 U Lead 2 U 2 U Nickel 30 U 20 U Silver 20 U 20 U Zinc 20 U 20 U PCBs in ug/L PCB 1016 0.1 U 0.1 U PCB 1221 0.1 U 0.1 U PCB 1232 0.1 U 0.1 U PCB 1242 0.1 U 0.1 U PCB 1248 0.1 U 0.1 U PCB 1254 0.1 U 0.1 U PCB 1260 0.1 U 0.1 U Total PCBs TPH in mg/L Diesel 0.25 U 0.25 U Oil 0.75 U 0.75 U PAHs in ug/L Acenaphthene 5 U Acenaphthylene 5 U Anthracene 5 U Benz(a)anthracene 0.1 U Benz(a)pyrene 0.1 U Benzo(b)fluoranthene 0.1 U Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 0.1 U Benzo(k)fluoranthene 0.1 U Chrysene 0.1 U Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 0.1 U Fluoranthene 0.1 U Fluorene 5 U Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 0.1 U Naphthalene 5 U Phenanthrene 5 U Pyrene 0.5 U Total cPAHs 0.1 U Page C-24 Hart Crowser J-4349-01 Table C-3 - Analytical Results for Groundwater Samples Sheet 4 of 5 Lab ID MTCA B509435-09 B509435-10 B509435-11 Sample ID Screening MW-9 MW-99 TRIP BLANK Sampling Date Level 9/21/95 9/21/95 9/21/95 Volatiles in µg/L 1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane 1.68 1 U 1 U 1 U 1,1,1-Trichloroethane 7200 1 U 1 U 1 U 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 0.219 1 U 1 U 1 U 1,1,2-Trichloroethane 0.768 1 U 1 U 1 U 1,1-Dichloroethane 800 1 U 1 U 1 U 1,1-Dichloroethene 0.0729 1 U 1 U 1 U 1,1-Dichloropropene 1 U 1 U 1 U 1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene 1 U 1 U 1 U 1,2,3-Trichloropropane 48 1 U 1 U 1 U 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 80 1 U 1 U 1 U 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene 1 U 1 U 1 U 1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane 0.0312 1 U 1 U 1 U 1,2-Dibromoethane 0.00051 1 U 1 U 1 U 1,2-Dichlorobenzene 720 1 U 1 U 1 U 1,2-Dichloroethane 0.481 1 U 1 U 1 U 1,2-Dichloropropane 0.643 1 U 1 U 1 U 1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene 1 U 1 U 1 U 1,3-Dichlorobenzene 1 U 1 U 1 U 1,3-Dichloropropane 1 U 1 U 1 U 1,4-Dichlorobenzene 1.82 1 U 1 U 1 U 2,2-Dichloropropane 1 U 1 U 1 U 2-Butanone 4800 10 U 10 U 10 U 2-Chlorotoluene 1 U 1 U 1 U 2-Hexanone 10 U 10 U 10 U 4-Chlorotoluene 1 U 1 U 1 U 4-Methyl-2-Pentanone 10 U 10 U 10 U Acetone 800 10 U 10 U 10 U Benzene 1.51 1 U 1 U 1 U Bromobenzene 1 U 1 U 1 U Bromochloromethane 1 U 1 U 1 U Bromodichloromethane 0.706 1 U 1 U 1 U Bromoform 5.54 1 U 1 U 1 U Bromomethane 11.2 1 U 1 U 1 U Carbon Disulfide 800 10 U 10 U 10 U Carbon Tetrachloride 0.337 1 U 1 U 1 U Chlorobenzene 160 1 U 1 U 1 U Chloroethane 1 U 1 U 1 U Chloroform 7.17 1 U 1 U 1 U Chloromethane 3.37 1 U 1 U 1 U Page C-25 Hart Crowser J-4349-01 Table C-3 - Analytical Results for Groundwater Samples Sheet 5 of 5 Lab ID MTCA B509435-09 B509435-10 B509435-11 Sample ID Screening MW-9 MW-99 TRIP BLANK Sampling Date Level 9/21/95 9/21/95 9/21/95 Volatiles in µg/L Cis-1,3-Dichloropropene 2 U 2 U 2 U Dibromochloromethane 0.521 1 U 1 U 1 U Dibromomethane 1 U 1 U 1 U Dichlorodifluoromethane 1 U 1 U 1 U Ethylbenzene 800 1 U 1 U 1 U Hexachlorobutadiene 0.561 1 U 1 U 1 U Isopropylbenzene 1 U 1 U 1 U Methylene Chloride 5.83 5 U 5 U 5 U Naphthalene 32 1 U 1 U 1 U Styrene 1.46 1 U 1 U 1 U Tetrachloroethene 0.858 1 U 1 U 1 U Toluene 1600 1 U 1 U 1 U Trans-1,3-Dichloropropene 2 U 2 U 2 U Trichloroethene 3.98 1 U 1 U 1 U Trichlorofluoromethane 2400 1 U 1 U 1 U Vinyl Chloride 0.023 1 U 1 U 1 U cis-1,2-Dichloroethene 1 U 1 U 1 U m,p-Xylene 1 U 1 U 1 U n-Butylbenzene 1 U 1 U 1 U n-Propylbenzene 1 U 1 U 1 U o-Xylene 1 U 1 U 1 U p-Isopropyltoluene 1 U 1 U 1 U sec-Butylbenzene 1 U 1 U 1 U tert-Butylbenzene 1 U 1 U 1 U trans-1,2-Dichloroethene 1 U 1 U 1 U (1) For screening of arsenic in groundwater, Method A (the same value as Federal Maximum Contaminant Level for Drinking Water)was used. U Not detected at indicated detection limit. Exceedence of MTCA screening level. Blanks indicate no screening level available or sample not analyzed for specified analyte. Sample MW-99 is a duplicate of MW-9. F:\SHUFFLE\V OL-O W NT.W K I\KM L 'Page C-26 Table C-4 — Statistical Summary for Soil Samples — MTCA Method B Residential Screening Level Residential Detection Maximum Sample ID Exceedence Percent Maximum 95 Percent UCL Analyte Screening Range Frequency Detection of Maximum Mean Frequency Exceedence Exceedence Arith. Geom. MTCA Level Detection (1) Ratio Mean Mean Stat Metals in mg/kg 29 7.6 8.5 8 .O Arsenic 7.3 1.9 to 16 10/10 16 M W 3, S 1 5.17 1/10 10 '< . :::ii.:.: ;' 4 00 3 523.8 /53 1200 S-18/0 0.5 142.9 7/53 • <' l3 >>>'' > a,.:.:: ��. : Lead 250 1.8 to 1200 50 • ............................................ ......... PCBs in mg/kg 0 57 0.34 [< $V 2 Total PCBs 1 0.050 U to 2.8 12/54 2.81 HC-SS 3 0.15 2/54 3.7 : 5 .,;. 2 ( ) Semivolatiles in mg/kg 0 i7 ? 2 / 1.72 M W-3 S 1 1.72 1/5 • <[ 2f1 1.72 .::( ) Total cPAHs 1 1.72 to 1.72 1 5 ...:..... .... Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons . in mg/kg 9 2 2 22000 E-2 539.2 7/57 €�< >`��>��€<<�< >> .l..I..... ....::220�.::(2) Diesel 200 10 U to 22000 22/57 ............... ... .,.... Gasoline 100 1 U to 82 2/5 82 TP-34/S-2 17.7 0/5 0.. NA 52 5027678 82 (2) Oil 200 25 U to 54000 38/57 54000 E-2 1148.4 8/57 ......_� 1�4< ?< <<'<'€;;<'.���'1.::::: 451 ,;. (>c�,.;5� ;;.(3) Notes: (1) Means are calculated based on detects plus half the detection limit for non-detects. (2) For these data sets, greater than 50 percent of the analytical results were non-detects, therefore the 95 percent UCL reverts to the maximum. (3) This data set does not follow a normal or log-normal distribution, therefore the maximum value is used as a default value. N/A Not applicable; i.e., cannot be calculated using standard procedures on this data set. Shading indicates non-compliance with Ecology's three-fold statistical criteria. FASHUFFLE\REQ-SA.WKI\KML x Pa b � � P o � Table C-5 — Statistical Summary for Soil Samples — MTCA Method C Commercial Screening Level Commercial Detection Maximum Sample ID Exceedence Percent Maximum 95 Percent UCL Analyte Screening Range Frequency Detection of Maximum Mean Frequency Exceedence Exceedence Arith. Geom. MTCA Level Detection (1) Ratio Mean Mean Stat Metals in mg/kg ' Arsenic 57 1.9 to 16 10/10 16 MW-3, S-1 5.17 0/10 0 NA 7.6 8.5 8.61 250 1.8 to 1200 50/53 1200 S-18/0-0.5 142.9 7/53 <: ; W; ;. .;:. >;:,.,,,,,, 46 • . Lead ;::;::>:::�>::>::;• PCBs in mg/kg Total PCBs 5 0.050 U to 2.8 12/54 2.81 HC-SS-3 0.15 0/54 .0 NA 0.257 0.34 2.81 (2) Semivolatiles in mg/kg Total cPAHs 5 1.72 to 1.72 1/5 1.72 MW-3, S-1 1.72 0/5 0 NA 0 1.72 (2) Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons in mg/kg 39.2 3/57 5.3 >><»` >€€€27 <; 1199 200 > 22( (2) Diesel 800 10 U to 22000 22/57 22000 E 2 5 Gasoline 100 1 U to 82 2/5 82 TP-34/S-2 17.7 0/5 NA 52 5027678 82 (2) Oil 800 25 U to 54000 38/57 54000 E-2 1148.4 5/57 8.8 67:5:, 2733 451 54000 (3) Notes: (1) Means are calculated based on detects plus half the detection limit for non-detects. (2) For these data sets, greater than 50 percent of the analytical results were non-detects, therefore the 95 percent UCL reverts to the maximum. (3) This data set does not follow a normal or log-normal distribution, therefore the maximum value is used as a default value. N/A Not applicable; i.e., cannot be calculated using standard procedures on this data set. Shading indicates non-compliance with Ecology's three-fold statistical criteria. F:1SHUFFLEUtEQ-5B.WKIUCML PO 4O � oy � i • Table C-6 — Statistical Summary for Soil Samples —MTCA Method C Industrial Screening Level Industrial Detection Maximum Sample ID Exceedence Percent Maximum 95 Percent UCL Analyte Screening Range Frequency Detection of Maximum Mean Frequency Exceedence Exceedence Arith. Geom. MTCA Level Detection (1) Ratio Mean Mean Stat Metals in mg/kg Arsenic 200 1.9 to 16 10/10 16 MW-3, S-1 5.17 0/10 0 NA 7.6 8.5 8.61 ........................... .......................... ........................... Lead 1000 1.8 to 1200 50/53 1200 S-18/0-0.5 142.9 1/53 1.9 13t 200.3 523.8 524.6 ......:.................... ........................... PCBs in mg/kg Total PCBs 17 0.050 U to 2.8 12/54 2.81 HC-SS-3 0.15 0/54 .0 NA 0.257 0.34 2.81 (2) Semivolatiles in mg/kg Total cPAHs 20 1.72 to 1.72 1/5 1.72 MW-3, S-1 1.72 0/5 0 NA 0 1.72 (2) Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons in mg/kg 539.2 2/57 3.5 >_>« >> ><<.... 1199 200 < 2t1?f' 2 Diesel 2000 10 U to 22000 22/57 22000 E 2 I�.:. .....( ) Gasoline 100 1 U to 82 2/5 82 TP-34/S-2 17.7 0/5 0 NA 52 5027678 82 (2) 1148.4 3/57 5.3 ><>>`:<>> >`< :> 2733 451 >«> 4 (3) Oil 2000 25 U to 54000 38/57 54000 E 2 ��7.:, Notes: (1) Means are calculated based on detects plus half the detection limit for non-detects. (2) For these data sets, greater than 50 percent of the analytical results were non-detects, therefore the 95 percent UCL reverts to the maximum. (3) This data set does not follow a normal or log-normal distribution, therefore the maximum value is used as a default value. N/A Not applicable; i.e., cannot be calculated using standard procedures on this data set. Shading indicates non-compliance with Ecology's three-fold statistical criteria. F:ISH U FFLEUREQ-SC.WK IIXML b CD o 1/40 N O rep