TagPollution Control Hearings Board(1507)

Subject: RE: Acceptable Fill Criteria Language for Draft 401 Certification DELIBERATIVE DOCUMENT CURRENTLY EXEMPT FROM PUBLIC DISCLOSURE If we are not going to restrict fill material to naturally occurringuncontaminated soils, I recommend you use the following language to address potential impacts on plants and animals. The intentof this language is to ensure the fill material used would be "clean enough" that itwould not be expected to cause adverse impacts on plants and animals that come in contact with it. Note that this does not address potentialhuman health exposure pathways or protectionof aquatic organisms,which will need to be addressed with other language. There are several elements to this recommendation: First, is the listof chemicals Of concern. I am recommending we use the list in Table 749-3. While lengthy,this listrepresentsthe morecommonlyoccurringcontaminantsthat haveinformationon potential terrestrial ecological impacts. Only those suspected of being present at the site would have to be tested beyond those you are already specifyingthey test for. Second, I am recommending we requirethe fill material to meet the most stringent value in Table 749-3 unless bioassay testing is conductedthat demonstrates the fill is not toxic to plants and animals. The table 749-3 values are considered screening values for ecologicallysensitive sites. Third, as a further safeguard, I am recommendingthat the uppermost 6 feet of fill placed be required to be clean natural soil. This is the zone where most soil biologicalactivityoccurs and will providea buffer zone that prevents most plant and animal contactwith any deeper contaminated fill material. It should also minimize…

_ J;ent: We¢lnesday, June 13.2001 8:42 AM To: Fitzpatrick,Kevin C¢: Thompson, Craig E.; Dahlgren, Curtis A.: Nord. Tim Subject: Accep_bleFillCriteriaLanguageforDraft401 Certification DELIBERATIVE DOCUMENT CURRENTLY EXEMPT FROM PUBLIC DISCLOSURE On Monday June 11, Mr. Craig Thompson had a limited discussion with Mr_-Pete Kmet of the HQ/'I'CP on this project. Mr. Kmet recommended MTCA should not be used for the establishment of clean-fill criteria for the Seaffie-Tacoma International Airport Third Runway project. However, if MTCA is to be used for this purpose, Mr. Kmet further recommended all other requirements of the MTCA should be applied for the establishmentof the clean fill criteria. have interpreted his MTCA requirementsat minimum as requiring: 1) a larger listing of potential contaminants for testing, 2) groundwater monitoring for compliance with the ground water and/or surface water criteria,and 2) terrestrialecological evaluation. There may be other requirements that will need to be identified priorto finalizingthe "Acceptable Fill Criteria Language." Since his recommendations are consideredas the department policywith respect to this project, therefore it would be inappropriatefor me to comment on his recommendations. Please advise as to my scope-of-work.In the interim, I will proceed to review the biological opinion by US Fish and Wildlife Service on the Master Plan Update improvements. From your previous emails, I understand you/NWRO will be meeting with the US Fish and Wildlife Service to finalize an acceptable set of fill criteria. Per agreement, I will start my review of the Clean Fill Criteria based on the most recent draft language, i.e., post US Fish and…

- f; ,it: Thursday, June 07, 2001 4:10 PM j: Kmet, Peter;,Yee, Chung K. ,oubject: _: Acceptable Fill Criteria Language for Draft 401 Certification Pete, We talkedbrieflyaboutthison Wednesday. Chun8 Yee and Iwould liketositdown withyou thiscominilMonday (6-11. 01)and tatk(up toan hour--maybe Less)abouttheconcern_"you expressedasoutlinedbelow. Ibelievea copy ofyour comments isintrudedinone ofthe attachments. Iam tiedup inthemorninguntitafter10:30but Ihave therestof theday avaitabte. Thanks, Crai_Thompson -----OriginalMessag_..... From: Rtzpatrick,Kevin Sent: Monday,June04, 20014:27PH To: Yee,ChungK. Co: Alexander,Steve(ECY);Thompson,CraigE. Subject: FW:AcceptableFillCriterialanguageforDraft401Certification DELIBERATIVE DOCUMENT CURRENTLY EXEMPT FROM PUBLIC DISCLOSURE "'hung Yee: I apologize for my oversight on the original distributionof this e-mail. The scope of work that I see remaining on providingacceptable fill criteria language for the drafting of a 401 Water Quality certification would include: 1) Review of the previous draft language on clean fill and determine its suitability for the draft 401 Certification 2) Response to comments and concerns raised by Pete Kmet on this language 3) Review and incorporationinto acceptable fill criteria language for the 401 Certification the conditions set on fill ' i' quality and placement in the recent BiologicalOpinion issued by US Fish & Wildlife Service on the Sea-Tac Master Plan Improvements project. see your involvement primarily in items 1 & 2, essentially closing out on a project you were involved with during your tenure with NWRO Water Quality relyingon your TCP technical expertise. I would anticipate that this effort would require at the most 16 hours of your time between now and the end of June. Your involvement ends when there is draft language for the…

• nt: Monday, September 11,2000 3:44 PM _e._ Jc.c, 1: o: Yee, Chung K. Cc: Fitzpatrick, Kevin Subject: New Method A Soil Cleanup Levels Here are a series of tables showing the calculations for the new Method A soil cleanup levels and providing a comparisonto the current Method A values. TAIBL740g.XL.S As I noted in our phone conversation, one point I didn't include in my earlier comments was ground water monitoring. I stillthink it would make sense to require that giventhe magnitude of the fill. You asked whether I thoughtthe Method A values could be used as a basis for defining clean fill. I understand there are some concerns about whether this can be done legally. Putting aside that issue for the moment, as I look at the Method A cleanup values in light of this use, several thoughts •come to mind: We believe the currentstandards are not protective for several chemicals. That is why we are proposing new values. You should require them to use the new standards (assuming we end up dopting them). One exception is arsenic. I think you need to lookcarefully at that value as the calculations indicate the current MethodA arsenic soil cleanup level may not always be protective. We plan to revisit that value in a future rule-making. In the interim, you may want to use a background value instead of Method A. The statewidestudy we had the USGS do found background in uncontaminated areas at PPM. As I re-look at this attachment inthe…

":; Sent: Monday, September 11,2000 3:32 PM ;_.;. To: Fitzpatrick,Kevin Subject: RE: Clean Fill Criteria Language for the 401 Water Quality Certificationon the Sea Tac Thzrd Runway just talked to Pete. His is concernedwith the Arsenic limit. Because TCP did not do arsenic in the new stds, he think 20 is toohigh and it should be set at background. Backgroundin Western Washington is 7 to 8. He think they shoulddo ground water monitoringnow, ongoing. We also talked about the samplingfrequency. Paul Agid called and he wants to talk about clean fill requirements. I left him a voicemail. Do youwant to do a conference call? _Onginal Message_ From: FitzDathck, Kevm Sent: Monday. September 11. 2000 2:36 PM To: Yee. Chung K.: Marchioto.Joan (ATG): Luster, Tom Subject: FW: Clean Fill Criteria Language for the 401 Water Quality Certification on the Sea Tic Third Runway To all: Pete Kmet has provided some very sound recommendations for the final language on clean fill criteria in the 401 Certification(when and if we issuea 401 Certificationforthe project). His recommended changes appear in the attached document below. Kevin Original Message--- From: Krnet, Peter Sent: Monday, September 11, 2000 11:51 AM To: Fitzpatrick, Kevin Subject: RE: Clean FillCriteria Languagefor the 401 Water Quality Certification on the Sea Tac Third Runway Here are my comments. Make sure youopen the attachment. << File: Clean Fill Criteria for 401 Certification.doc>> _Original Message_ From: Fitz,oatrick, Kevin Sent: Friday, September 08, 2000 12:52 PM To: Kmet. Peter Subject: Clean Fill Criteria Language for…

,Sent: Monday, September 11, 2000 11:51 AM To: Fitzpatrick, Kevin Subject: RE: Clean Fill Criteria Language for the 401 Water Quality Certification on the Sea Tac Third Runway Here are my Comments. Make sure you open the attachment. / _(F'-_ ' "t- Clean Fill Criteria for 401 Ce... _Onginal Message_ From: Fitzpatrick, Kevin Sent: Friday, September 08, 2000 12:52 PM To: Kmet, Peter Subject: Clean Fill Criteria Language for the 401 Water Quality Certification on the Sea Tac Third Runway DELIBERATIVE DOCUMENT CURRENTLY EXEMPT FROM PUBLIC DISCLOSURE Pete: The following are additionsthat have been made to the 401 Certification language which are not reflected in the attached Word document below. E6. It sounds like we are allowingthe Port to use problem fill as long as the Port notify Ecology. I think the second sentence shouldexclude the use of inappropriate fill that may result inany potential impacts to waters of the state. E7c.2.(b) Should include appropriate EPA databases and the first list should read as "_Confirmed& Suspected Contaminated Sites Report" E7c.2.(e) "The fill material shall be analyzed for the potentialcontaminant(s) identifiedin the environmental site assessment. At a minimum, fill material from all sites shall be analyzed for TPH and Priority Pollutants metals for compliance with MTCA method A soilcleanup!evels in WAC 173-340-740." In the absence of MTCA method A soil cleanup levels, the potential contaminantsshall complywith MTCA method B _00 X Grc"nd':-atcr" soil cleanup levels." [There is more to Method B than the 100 X standard. Also, we are in the…

Subject: RE: Draft Language for Clean Fill Criteria in 401 Certification " DELIBERATIVE DOCUMENT CURRENTLY EXEMPT FROM PUBLIC DISCLOSURE Below are my comments on the draft. E6. It sounds like we are allowing the Port to use problem fill as long as the Port notify Ecology. I think the second sentence should exclude the use of inappropriate fill that may result in any potential impacts to waters of the state. E7c.2.(b) Should include appropriate EPA databases and the first list should read as "Confirmed & Suspected Contaminated Sites Report" E7c.2.(e) "The fill material shall be analyzed for the potential contaminant(s) identified in the environmental site assessment. At a minimum, fill material from all sites shall be analyzed for TPH and Priority Pollutants metals for compliance with MTCA method A soil cleanup levels." In the absence of MTCA method A soil cleanup levels, the potential contaminants shall comply with MTCA method B "100 X Groundwater" soil cleanup levels." The sampling frequency.. qee if you want to add E7c.2.(f) after the sampling requirement table. This is a repeat of a sort since .he term "environmental professional" is already used in couple of places. (f) All work shall be performed by an environmental professional, with appropriate training, experience and expertise in environmental site assessment. E7c.3. I don't think they know where the placement location yet. The location should be included in the as-builts to be submitted quarterly. ..... Original Message ..... From: Fitzpamcl£ Kevm Sent: Thurs0ay. August 24. 2000 3:22 PM To: Luster.…

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE _ 7_!e/rreT_'/'_" I Western Washington Office 510 Desmond Drive SE, Suite 102 Lacey, Washington 98503 Phone: (360) 753-9440 Fax: (360) 753-9008 Lowell H. Johnson Federal Aviation Administration 1601 Lind Avenue SW Renton, Washington 98055-4056 FWS Reference #: 1-3-00-F-1420, Master Plan Update Improvements, Seattle-Tacoma International Airport X Reference #: 1-3-96-I-29, I-3-99-SP-0744 Dear Mr. Johnson: This document transmits the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (FWS) biological opinion (BO) - regarding the effects ofthe proposed Master Plan Update Improvements (MPUI) for the Seattle- Tacoma International Airport (Sea-Tac) in King County, Washington on the threatened bull trout (Salvelinus canfluentus), bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), and marbled murrelet (Brachyramphus marmoratus) in accordance with Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (Act) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). This project is proposed by the Port of Seattle, Sea-Tac (Port). Your June 15, 2000, request for formal consultation was received by our office on approximately June 16, 2000. We received a letter by fax from you on August 21, 2000, requesting that we concur with a "may affect, not likely to adversely affect" call for the marbled murrelet rather than a "no effect." This biological opinion is based on the following information: biological assessment (BA) dated June 2000; Supplement for Property Acquisition and Demolition for 34X Runway Protection Zone, dated September 2000; supplement to the BA, dated December 18, 2000; Memorandum, dated December 2 I, 2000; Sea-Tac Runway Fill Hydrology Studies Report (PGG 2000), Comprehensive Stormwater Management Plan (Parametrix 2000a);…

PRE-FILED DIRECT TESTIMONY OF FOSTER PEPPER _ SItEFELMAN PLLC JAN L. CASSIN, PH.D.- i 1111THIRDAVENUE,SUITE3400 SEATTLE, WASmNGTON 98101-3299 ORIGINAL 206-447-4400 Table of Contents Identification of Wetlands on the Vacca Farm Site .................................................................................. 2 Restoration, Enhancement, Creation and Mitigation Credit ..................................................................... 3 Adequacy of the Mitigation Plan .............................................................................................................. 4 Functions Being Impacted by the Project are the Functions Being Replaced .......................................... 5 Ecological Functions are Replaced Regardless of Whether Actions Are Labeled Enhancement or Restoration ................................................................................................................................................ 6 Mitigation Credit Ratios ........................................................................................................................... 9 When are Higher Ratios Typically Recommended? ............................................................................... 10 Enhancement of Riparian Buffers ........................................................................................................... 13 Vacca Farm Mitigation Plan ................................................................................................................... 17 Channel Plantings along Miller Creek Will Shade the Stream ............................................................... 17 Peat Soils, and Hydrology of the Vacca Farm Site and Miller Creek .................................................... 19 Effects of Removing Peat Soil ................................................................................................................ 21 Adequacy and Development of Performance Standards ........................................................................ 21 Wildlife Hazard Management Plan and Vacca Farm/Miller Creek Mitigation ...................................... 21 Reliability of Mitigation ......................................................................................................................... 23 PRE-FILED DIRECT TESTIMONY OF FOSTER PEPPER _ SItEFELMAN PLLC JAN L. CASSIN, PH.D.- ii 1111THIRDAVENUE, SUITE3400 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101-3299 206-447-4400 AR 015901 1. I have a Ph.D. in Ecology and Evolutionary Biology from the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, a Master of Science Degree in Ecology and Evolutionary Biology from the University of Michigan, and a Bachelor of Arts Degree in Biology from the University of Colorado, Boulder. I have over 15 years professional experience in conservation biology, plant ecology, and wetland science. I am currently employed as a Senior Scientist at Parametrix,…

a Caution on misusing this table. This table has been developed Table 720-1 for specific purposes. It is intended to provide conservative Method A Cleanup Levels for Ground Water." cleanup levels for drinking v,ater beneficial uses at sitesundergning routine cleanup actions or those sites v,ith relatively few haz_dous substances. This table may not be appropriatefor Hazardous Substance CAS Number Cleanup Level defining cleanup leveLs at other sites. For these Rasons. the values in this table should not automatically be used to define Arsenic 7440-38-2 5 ug/liter t' cleanup levels that must be met Ibr financial, real estate. insurance coverage or placement, or similar ¢an.uctions or Benzene 71.43-2 5 ng/liter¢ purposes. Excecdances of the values in this table do not Benzo_a)pvre_e 50-32-8 0.1 ug/literd necessarily mean the b-_'lundwater must be restored to those• levels at all sites. The level of resto_don dependson the Cadmium 7440-13-9 5 ug/iiter¢ remedy selected under WAC i 73-340-350 through 173-340-390. b Arsenic. Cleanup level b_ed on backtgound concemrations for Chromium (Total) 7440-47-3 50 ug/liter f stateof Washington. DDT 50-29-3 0.3 ug/litet_ c Benzene. Cleanup level based on applicable state and federal law (WAC 246-290-310 and 40 CF.R. 141.61). 1.2 Dichlomethaae (EDC) 107-06-2 5 ug/literh d Benzo(a)pyrene. Cleanup level based m applicable state and federal law (WAC 246-290-3.10 and 40 C.F.R. 141.61), adjtmed Ethylbenzene 100-41-4 700 ug/literi to a I x 10: risk. If other carcinogenic PAlLs are suspectedof Ethylene dibmmide (EDB) 106-93.4 0.01 ug/lite_ being pt_,ent at the site. test for them and use this value…