Hazardous Materials Discipline Report · PCB polychlorinated biphenyl ... SMP soil management plan...

SR 520: I-5 to Medina Bridge Replacement and HOV Project

DECEMBER 2009

SUPPLEMENTAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENTand SECTION 4(F) EVALUATIONSR 520 BRIDGE REPLACEMENT AND HOV PROGRAM

Hazardous Materials Discipline Report

SR 520: I-5 to Medina Bridge Replacement and HOV Project

Supplemental Draft EIS

Hazardous Materials Discipline Report

Prepared for

Washington State Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration

Lead Author

CH2M HILL

Consultant Team

Parametrix, Inc. CH2M HILL

HDR Engineering, Inc. Parsons Brinckerhoff

ICF Jones & Stokes Cherry Creek Consulting

Michael Minor and Associates PRR, Inc.

December 2009

I-5 to Medina: Bridge Replacement and HOV Project | Supplemental Draft EIS

Contents Acronyms and Abbreviations ........................................................................................................... vIntroduction .......................................................................................................................................... 1

Why are hazardous materials considered in an environmental impact statement? ............................................................................................................................ 1

What are the key points of this report? ............................................................................... 1What is the I-5 to Medina: Bridge Replacement and HOV Project? ................................ 3What are the project alternatives? ........................................................................................ 4

Methodology ...................................................................................................................................... 15What is the study area?........................................................................................................ 15What are the sources of data? ............................................................................................. 15What are the classifications of hazardous materials? ...................................................... 17What are the site screening criteria? .................................................................................. 19What are the risk ranking categories?................................................................................ 20

Affected Environment ...................................................................................................................... 27What is the historical land use of the study area?............................................................ 27What is the physical environment of the study area? ..................................................... 27What are the results of information gathering for this assessment? ............................. 30What are the hazardous material sites of concern in the study area? ........................... 33

Potential Effects of the Project ........................................................................................................ 37How would construction of the project affect hazardous materials? ............................ 37How would operation of the project affect hazardous materials? ................................ 45

Mitigation ........................................................................................................................................... 47What has been done to avoid or minimize negative effects? ......................................... 47What would be done to mitigate negative effects that could not be avoided or

minimized? ........................................................................................................................ 47What negative effects would remain after mitigation? ................................................... 48What are the preliminary cost estimates for mitigation of negative effects? ............... 48What data gaps or additional investigations were identified? ...................................... 48

References ........................................................................................................................................... 51

EA_TM_HAZ.DOC iii


Attachments

1 Applicable Federal and State Regulations

2 EDR DataMap Corridor Studies (SR 520 Westside and SR 520 Eastside)

3 Photographs

4 Hazardous Materials Sites of Concern

5 Standard Hazardous Materials Effects and Mitigation Measures

6 Preliminary Cost Estimates for Mitigation of Negative Effects

List of Exhibits

1 Project Vicinity Map

2 No Build Alternative Cross Section

3 6-Lane Alternative Cross Section

4 Option A, K and L: Montlake and University of Washington Areas

5 6-Lane Alternative at the Evergreen Point Bridge (Common to All Options)

6 Possible Towing Route and Pontoon Outfitting Locations

7 Geographic Areas along SR 520 and Project Phasing

8 Study Area: Seattle and Eastside

9 Potential Locations for Production of Supplemental Stability Pontoons

10 Summary of Low- to Moderate-Risk Sites

11 Sites with Underground Storage Tanks within 1/4 Mile of the Project Centerline

12 Locations of Low- to Moderate-Risk Sites

13 Locations of Low- to Moderate-Risk Sites, Options A, K, and L

14 Known Hazardous Materials Sites Affected by Construction under Options A, K, and L

15 Contaminated or Partially Contaminated Parcels Proposed for Acquisition by the Project under Option A

16 Sites Recommended for Further Investigation Before Construction

EA_TM_HAZ.DOC iv


Acronyms and Abbreviations ACM asbestos-containing material

AST aboveground storage tank

ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials

bgs below ground surface

BTEX benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylene

CCT Concrete Technology Corporation

CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

CTED Community, Trade, and Economic Development

CWA Clean Water Act

DCE dichlorethylene

Ecology Washington State Department of Ecology

EDR Environmental Data Resources, Inc.

EIS environmental impact statement

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

FHWA Federal Highway Administration

FINDS Facility Index System

FITS FIFRA (Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act)/TSCA (Toxic Substances Control Act) Tracking Systems

GIS geographic information system

GSP General Special Provision

HCT high-capacity transit

HMIRS Hazardous Materials Information Reporting System

HOV high-occupancy vehicle

ICR Independent Cleanup Report

EA_TM_HAZ.DOC v


ID identification

INST CONTROLS institutional controls

L&I Washington State Department of Labor and Industries

LBP lead-based paint

LUST leaking underground storage tank

MOHAI Museum of History and Industry

MTCA Model Toxics Control Act

NFA No Further Action

NGVD National Geodetic Vertical Datum

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

NonGen Non-generator

NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service

ORC oxygen release compound

OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Act

PAH polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbon

PCB polychlorinated biphenyl

PCE perchloroethylene

PCS petroleum contaminated soil

ppb parts per billion

ppm parts per million

Health Department Public Health, Seattle and King County

RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

RCRAInfo Resource Conservation and Recovery Information System

RCW Revised Code of Washington

SDEIS Supplemental Draft EIS

SEM sequential excavation method

SHWS State Hazardous Waste Site

EA_TM_HAZ.DOC vi


SMP soil management plan

SPCC spill prevention control and countermeasures

SPILLS Washington State Reported Spills

SPUI single-point urban interchange

SR State Route

TCE trichloroethylene

TCLP Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure

TPH total petroleum hydrocarbons

USC United States Code

USGS U.S. Geological Survey

UST underground storage tank

VCP Voluntary Cleanup Program

WAC Washington Administrative Code

WISHA Washington Industrial Safety and Health Act

WSDOT Washington State Department of Transportation

EA_TM_HAZ.DOC vii


Introduction Why are hazardous materials considered in an environmental impact statement? Hazardous materials include several categories of substances regulated by federal and state laws because of the concerns theypose to human health and/or the environment. An environmental impact statement (EIS) considers hazardous materials in order to identify and evaluate how a proposed project may affect, or be affected by, these types of materials.

A primary concern is that a release of contaminants during or after project construction could harm human health or the environment. In addition, hazardous materials encountered on properties that may be owned, managed, sold, or purchased by WSDOT have the potential torequire cleanup or disposal. Evaluating possible effects of hazardous materials as part of the environmental review process informs decision-makers on potential risks and liabilities associated with alternatives for project construction. Attachment 1 discusses the specific federal and state regulations that govern hazardous materials.

Hazardous materials vary in the degree of their potential to affect a roadway project. Some of the variables include the types of hazardous materials present at a given site, the distance of the site from the roadway footprint, and whether contamination is contained or has the potential to spread into the surrounding environment.

What are the key points of this report? The most likely effects associated with hazardous materials include thefollowing:

Encountering contaminated soils, groundwater, and sediments

Releasing hazardous materials used at the construction sites intothe environment

Generating hazardous building materials through demolition

Encountering underground storage tanks (USTs) or leaking underground storage tanks (LUSTs)

What are hazardous materials?

Hazardous materials are substancesregulated under the federal and statelaws that are toxic or harmful to human health or the environment. Examples of hazardous materials include asbestos, lead-based paint, and toxic chemicalssuch as polychlorinated biphenyls(PCBs).

EA_TM_HAZ.DOC 1


Creating accidental spills

Increasing risks to worker safety and public health.

The primary construction and operation effects related to hazardous materials for Options A, K, and L of the 6-Lane Alternative and the differences among the options are outlinedbelow.

Option A would have the greatest number of identified hazardous materials sites that might affect construction and would be the only option that would acquire known contaminated or potentially contaminated sites.

Option K would include construction within 1,000 feet of the Montlake Landfill, which would likely require mitigation for potential methane gas. Also, Option K would remove the greatest amount of soil in the Miller Street Landfill vicinity during temporary bridge construction.

For all options, the risk of encountering contaminated sediments is uncertain due to limited sediment data. Option K, however, would remove the largest volume of sediments during project activities, thereby posing the greatest risk for encountering contaminatedsediments.

Option K would involve a tunnel under the Montlake Cut and,therefore, the safety risk associated with accidental releases of hazardous materials during vehicle transport through the tunnel would be greater under this option.

The Phased Implementation scenario and the full build scenario would have the same suite of hazardous materials effects, including the risks of encountering contaminated sediments and accidental release of hazardous materials into the aquatic environment during construction. Contaminated sediment, if found, would impose limits on how the sediments are handled, reused, and disposed. However, because the Phased Implementation scenario involvesreplacement of the vulnerable structures that include the floatingportion of the Evergreen Point Bridge, the Portage Bay Bridge, and the west approach of the Evergreen Point Bridge during the early phase of the project, the risks of encountering contaminated sediments and accidental releases of hazardous materials into the aquatic environment would be incurred during the early phase of the project as well.

EA_TM_HAZ.DOC 2


What is the SR 520 Program?

The SR 520 Bridge Replacement and HOV Program will enhance safety by replacing the aging floating bridge and keep the region moving with vital transit and roadway improvements throughout the corridor. The 12.8-mile program area begins at I-5 in Seattle andextends to SR 202 in Redmond.

What is the I-5 to Medina: Bridge Replacement and HOV Project? The Interstate 5 (I-5) to Medina: Bridge Replacement and High-Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Project is part of the State Route (SR) 520 Bridge Replacement and HOV Program (SR 520 Program) (detailed in the text box below) and encompasses parts of three main geographic areasSeattle, Lake Washington, and the Eastside. The project area includes the following:

Seattle communities: Portage Bay/Roanoke, North Capitol Hill, Montlake, University District, Laurelhurst, and Madison Park

Eastside communities: Medina, Hunts Point, Clyde Hill, and Yarrow Point

The Lake Washington ecosystem and associated wetlands

Usual and accustomed fishing areas of tribal nations that have historically used the areas aquatic resources and have treaty rights

The SR 520 Bridge Replacement and HOV Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), published in August 2006, evaluated a 4-Lane Alternative, a 6-Lane Alternative, and a No Build Alternative. Since theDraft EIS was published, circumstances surrounding the SR 520 corridor have changed in several ways. These changes have resulted in decisions to forward advance planning for potential catastrophic failure of the Evergreen Point Bridge, respond to increased demand for transit

In 2006, WSDOT prepared a Draft EISpublished formally as the SR 520 Bridge Replacement and HOV Projectthat addressed corridor construction from the I-5 interchange in Seattle to just west of I-405 in Bellevue. Growing transit demand on the Eastside and structure vulnerability in Seattle and Lake Washington, however, led WSDOT to identify new projects, each with a separate purpose and need, that would provide benefit even if the others were not built. These four independent projects were identified after the Draft EIS was published in 2006, and these now fall under the umbrella of the entire SR 520 Bridge Replacement and HOV Program:

I-5 to Medina: Bridge Replacement and HOV Project replaces the SR 520 roadway, floating bridge approaches, and floating bridgebetween I-5 and the eastern shore of Lake Washington. This project spans 5.2 miles of the SR 520 corridor.

Medina to SR 202: Eastside Transit and HOV Project completes and improves the transit and HOV system from Evergreen Point Road to the SR 202 interchange in Redmond. This project spans 8.6 miles of the SR 520 corridor.

Pontoon Construction Project involves constructing the pontoons needed to restore the Evergreen Point Bridge in the event of a catastrophic failure and storing those pontoons until needed.

Lake Washington Congestion Management Project, through a grant from the U.S. Department of Transportation, improves trafficusing tolling, technology and traffic management, transit, and telecommuting.

EA_TM_HAZ.DOC 3


service on the Eastside, and evaluate a new set of community-based designs for the Montlake area in Seattle.

Exhibit 1. Project Vicinity Map

To respond to these changes, the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) initiated new projects to be evaluated in separate environmental documents.Improvements to the western portion of the SR 520 corridorknown as the I-5 to Medina: Bridge Replacement and HOV Project (the I-5 to Medina project)are being evaluated in a Supplemental Draft EIS (SDEIS); this discipline report is a part of that SDEIS. Project limits for this project extend from I-5 in Seattle to 92nd Avenue NE in Yarrow Point, where it transitions into the Medina to SR 202: Eastside Transit and HOV Project (the Medina to SR 202 project). Exhibit 1 shows the project vicinity.

What are the project alternatives? As noted above, the Draft EIS evaluated a 4-Lane Alternative, a 6-Lane Alternative (including three design options in Seattle), and a No Build Alternative. In 2006, following Draft EIS publication, GovernorGregoire identified the 6-Lane Alternative as the states preference for the SR 520 corridor, but urged that the affected communities in Seattle develop a common vision for the western portion of the corridor.Accordingly, a mediation group convened at the direction of the state legislature to evaluate the corridor alignment for SR 520 through Seattle. The mediation group identified three 6-lane design options for SR 520 between I-5 and the floating span of the Evergreen Point Bridge; these options were documented in a Project Impact Plan (Parametrix 2008). The SDEIS evaluates the following:

No Build Alternative 6-Lane Alternative

Option A Option K Option L

These alternatives and options are summarized below. The 4-Lane Alternative and the Draft EIS 6-lane design options have been eliminated from further consideration. More information on how the project has evolved since the Draft EIS was published in 2006, as well as

EA_TM_HAZ.DOC 4


more detailed information on the design options, is provided in the Description of Alternatives Discipline Report (WSDOT 2009a).

What is the No Build Alternative? Under the No Build Alternative, SR 520 would continue to operate between I-5 and Medina as it does today: as a 4-lane highway with nonstandard shoulders and without a bicycle/pedestrian path. (Exhibit 2 depicts a cross section of the No Build Alternative.) No new facilities would be added to SR 520 between I-5 and Medina, and none would be removed, including the unused R.H. Thomson Expressway ramps near the Washington Park Arboretum. WSDOT would continue to manage traffic using its existing transportation demand management and intelligent transportation system strategies.

The No Build Alternative assumes that the Portage Bay and Evergreen Point bridges would remain standing and functional through 2030 and that no catastrophic events, such as earthquakes or extreme storms, would cause major damage to the bridges. The No Build Alternative also assumes completion of the Medina to SR 202 project as well as other regionally planned and programmed transportation projects. The No Build Alternative provides a baseline against which project analysts can measure and compare the effects of each 6-Lane Alternative build option.

What is the 6-Lane Alternative? The 6-Lane Alternative would complete the regional HOV connection(3+ HOV occupancy) across SR 520. This alternative would include six lanes (two 11-foot-wide outer general-purpose lanes and one 12-foot-wide inside HOV lane in each direction), with 4-foot-wide inside and10-foot-wide outside shoulders (Exhibit 3). The proposed width of the roadway would be approximately 18 feet narrower than the onedescribed in the Draft EIS, reflecting public comment from localcommunities and the City of Seattle.

SR 520 would be rebuilt from I-5 to Evergreen Point Road in Medina and restriped and reconfigured from Evergreen Point Road to 92ndAvenue NE in Yarrow Point. A 14-foot-wide bicycle/pedestrian path would be built along the north side of SR 520 through the Montlake

Exhibit 2. No Build Alternative Cross Section

EA_TM_HAZ.DOC 5


area and across the Evergreen Point Bridge, connecting to the regional path on the Eastside. A bridge maintenance facility and dock would be built underneath the east approach to the Evergreen Point Bridge.

Exhibit 3. 6-Lane Alternative Cross Section

The sections below describe the 6-Lane Alternative and design options in each of the three geographical areas the project would encompass.

Seattle Elements Common to the 6-Lane Alternative Options SR 520 would connect to I-5 in a configuration similar to the way it connects today. Improvements to the I-5/SR 520 interchange would include a new reversible HOV ramp connecting the new SR 520 HOV lanes to existing I-5 reversible express lanes. WSDOT would replace the Portage Bay Bridge and the Evergreen Point Bridge (including the west approach and floating span), as well as the existing local street bridges across SR 520. New stormwater facilities would be constructed for the project to provide stormwater retention and treatment. The project would include landscaped lids across SR 520 at I-5, 10th Avenue East and Delmar Drive East, and in the Montlake area to help reconnect the communities on either side of the roadway. The project would also remove the Montlake freeway transit station.

The most substantial differences among the three options are the interchange configurations in the Montlake and University of Washington areas. Exhibit 4 depicts these key differences in interchange configurations, and the following text describes elements unique to each option.

EA_TM_HAZ.DOC 6

Montlake Cut

East Montlake

Park McCurdy Park

Burke-Gilman Trail

UW Open Space

E LAKE WASHINGTON BLVD

E ROANOKE ST

EAST MONTLAKE PL E

MO

NTL

AKE

BLVD

E

NE PACIFIC ST

MO

NTLA

KEBL

VD N

E

WES

T

MONT

LAKE

PL E

Proposed Bicycle/ Pedestrian Path

Montlake Lid

New Bascule Bridge

Westbound to Northbound

Transit-Only Ramp

Future UW Light Rail Station

Arbo

retu

mCr

eek

New Bascule Bridge

Elevated Single Point Urban Interchange

MO

NTL

AKE

BLVD

NE

HOV Direct Access Ramps

Montlake Cut

East Montlake

Park

McCurdy Park

Burke-Gilman Trail

UW Open Space


E ROANOKE ST

EAST MONTLAKEPL E

WES

T

MONT

LAKE

PLE

MO

NTL

AKE

BLV

D E

NE PACIFIC ST

Proposed Bicycle/

Pedestrian Path

Montlake Lid

Montlake Blvd/ Pacific St Lid


Arbo

retu

mCr

eek

Montlake Cut

East Montlake

Park

McCurdy Park

Burke-Gilman Trail

UW Open Space


E ROANOKE ST

EAST MONTLAKE

PL EWES

T

MONT

LAKE

PLE

MO

NTL

AKE

BLV

D E

NE PACIFIC ST

MO

NTL

AKE B

LVD

NE

Proposed Bicycle/

Pedestrian Path

Montlake Lid

Depressed Single Point Urban Interchange

Traffic Turn-around

Twin Tunnels

Montlake Blvd/ Pacific St Lid

Eastbound HOV Direct Access On-ramp

Westbound HOV Off-ramp


Arbo

retu

mCr

eek

Option A Option K Option L

Lake Washington

UV520 5

AREA OF DETAIL Potential Sound Wall Existing Regional Bicycle/Pedestrian Path

Tunnel

Lid or Landscape Feature

Proposed Bicycle/Pedestrian Path

Stormwater Facility

General Purpose Lane HOV, Direct Access, and/or Transit-Only Lane


Park

250 500 1,000 Feet 0

Source: King County (2006) Aerial Photo, King County (2005) GIS Data (Streams), City of Seattle (1994) GIS Data (Bike/Ped Trail), Seattle Bicycle Map (2008) GIS Data (Bike/Ped Trail) CH2M HILL (2008) GIS Data (Park). Horizontal datum for all layers is NAD83(91); vertical datum for layers is NAVD88.

Exhibit 4. Options A, K, and L: Montlakeand University of Washington Areas I-5 to Medina: Bridge Replacement and HOV Project

\\SIMBA\PROJ\PARAMETRIX\180171\GIS\MAPFILES\SDEIS\COMMON\SDEIS_DR_ALTSF_PROJECTFOOTPRINT_MONTLAKE.MXD 9/15/2009


Is it a highrise or a transition span?

Todays highrises have two characteristicslarge overhead steel trusses andnavigation channels below the spans where boat traffic can pass underneath the Evergreen Point Bridge. The new design for the floating bridge would not include overhead steel trusses on the transition spans, which would change the visual character of the highrise. For the SDEIS, highrise and transition span are often used interchangeably to refer to the area along the bridgewhere the east and west approach bridges transition to the floating bridge.

Option A Option A would replace the Portage Bay Bridge with a new bridge that would include six lanes (four general-purpose lanes, two HOV lanes) plus a westbound auxiliary lane. WSDOT would replace the existing interchange at Montlake Boulevard East with a new, similarly configured interchange that would include a transit-only off-ramp from westbound SR 520 to northbound Montlake Boulevard. The Lake Washington Boulevard ramps and the median freeway transit stop near Montlake Boulevard East would be removed, and a new bascule bridge (i.e., drawbridge) would be added to Montlake Boulevard NE, parallel to the existing Montlake Bridge. SR 520 would maintain a low profile through theWashington Park Arboretum and flattenout east of Foster Island, before rising to the west transition span of the Evergreen Point Bridge. Citizen recommendations made during the mediation process defined this option to include sound walls and/or quieterpavement, subject to neighborhood approval and WSDOTs reasonabilityand feasibility determinations.

Suboptions for Option A would include adding an eastbound SR 520 on-ramp and a westbound SR 520 off-ramp to Lake Washington Boulevard, creating an intersection similar to the one that exists today but relocated northwest of its current location. The suboption would also include adding an eastbound direct access on-ramp for transit and HOV from Montlake Boulevard East, and providing a constant slope profile from 24th Avenue East to the west transition span.

Option K Option K would also replace the Portage Bay Bridge, but the new bridge would include four general-purpose lanes and two HOV lanes with no westbound auxiliary lane. In the Montlake area, Option K

A transition span is a bridge span that connects the fixed approach bridge to the floating portion of the bridge. The Evergreen Point Bridge has two transition spans, one at the west end of the floating bridge transitioning trafficon and off of the west approach, and one on the east end of the floatingbridge transitioning traffic on and off of the east approach. These spans are often referred to as the west highrise (shown) and the east highrise duringthe daily traffic report, and the west highrise even has a traffic cameramounted on it.

EA_TM_HAZ.DOC 8


would remove the existing Montlake Boulevard East interchange and the Lake Washington Boulevard ramps and replace their functions with a depressed, single-point urban interchange (SPUI) at the Montlake shoreline. Two HOV direct-access ramps would serve the new interchange, and a tunnel under the Montlake Cut would move traffic from the new interchange north to the intersection of MontlakeBoulevard NE and NE Pacific Street. SR 520 would maintain a low profile through Union Bay, make landfall at Foster Island, and remain flat before rising to the west transition span of the Evergreen Point Bridge. A land bridge would be constructed over SR 520 at Foster Island. Citizen recommendations made during the mediation process defined this option to include only quieter pavement for noiseabatement, rather than the sound walls that were included in the 2006 Draft EIS. However, because quieter pavement has not beendemonstrated to meet all FHWA and WSDOT avoidance andminimization requirements in tests performed in Washington State, it cannot be considered as noise mitigation under WSDOT and FHWA criteria. As a result, sound walls could be included in Option K. The decision to build sound walls depends on neighborhood interest, the findings of the Noise Discipline Report (WSDOT 2009b), and WSDOTs reasonability and feasibility determinations.

A suboption for Option K would include constructing an eastbound off-ramp to Montlake Boulevard East configured for right turns only.

Option LUnder Option L, the Montlake Boulevard East interchange and the Lake Washington Boulevard ramps would be replaced with a new, elevated SPUI at the Montlake shoreline. A bascule bridge (drawbridge) would span the east end of the Montlake Cut, from the new interchange to the intersection of Montlake Boulevard NE and NE Pacific Street. This option would also include a ramp connection to Lake Washington Boulevard and two HOV direct-access ramps providing service to andfrom the new interchange. SR 520 would maintain a low, constant slope profile from 24th Avenue East to just west of the west transition span of the floating bridge. Noise mitigation identified for this option would include sound walls as defined in the Draft EIS.

Suboptions for Option L would include adding a left-turn movement from Lake Washington Boulevard for direct access to SR 520 andadding capacity on northbound Montlake Boulevard NE to NE 45th Street.

EA_TM_HAZ.DOC 9


Lake Washington Floating Bridge The floating span would be located approximately 190 feet north of the existing bridge at the west end and 160 feet north at the east end (Exhibit 5). Rows of three 10-foot-tall concrete columns would support the roadway above the pontoons, and the new spans would be approximately 22 feet higher than the existing bridge. A 14-foot-wide bicycle/pedestrian path would be located on the north side of the bridge.

The design for the new 6-lane floating bridge includes 21 longitudinalpontoons, two cross pontoons, and 54 supplemental stability pontoons. A single row of 75-foot-wide by 360-foot-long longitudinal pontoons would support the new floating bridge. One 240-foot-long by 75-foot-wide cross-pontoon at each end of the bridge would be set perpendicularly to the longitudinal pontoons. The longitudinalpontoons would be bolstered by the smaller supplemental stability pontoons on each side for stability and buoyancy. The longitudinal pontoons would not be sized to carry future high-capacity transit (HCT), but would be equipped with connections for additionalsupplemental stability pontoons to support HCT in the future. As with the existing floating bridge, the floating pontoons for the new bridge would be anchored to the lake bottom to hold the bridge in place.

Near the east approach bridge, the roadway would be widened to accommodate transit ramps to the Evergreen Point Road transit stop. Exhibit 5 shows the alignment of the floating bridge, the west and east approaches, and the connection to the east shore of Lake Washington.

Bridge Maintenance FacilityRoutine access, maintenance, monitoring, inspections, and emergency response for the floating bridge would be based out of a new bridge maintenance facility located underneath SR 520 between the east shore of Lake Washington and Evergreen Point Road in Medina. This bridge maintenance facility would include a working dock, an approximately 7,200-square-foot maintenance building, and a parking area.

Eastside Transition Area The I-5 to Medina project and the Medina to SR 202 project overlap between Evergreen Point Road and 92nd Avenue NE in Yarrow Point.Work planned as part of the I-5 to Medina project between Evergreen Point Road and 92nd Avenue NE would include moving the Evergreen

EA_TM_HAZ.DOC 10

Lake Washington

E MCGILVRA ST

E LYNN ST

EV

ER

GR

EE

N P

OIN

T R

D

Fairweather Nature

Preserve

Madison Park

Existing Floating Bridge

New Bridge Maintenance

Facility

See Schematic Cross Section

Supplemental Stability Pontoon

Schematic Cross Section

Anchor and Cable

Pontoons

Park

Proposed Profile

Water Level

Existing Ground

Evergreen Point Road Lake Washington

Existing Profile

Lake Bed

Source: King County (2006) Aerial Photo, CH2M HILL (2008) GIS Data (Park). Horizontal datum for all layers is NAD83(91); vertical datum for layers is NAVD88.

80' 40'

0'

-40'

-80'

Lake Washington

UV520

AREA OF DETAIL

Limits of Construction

Proposed Bicycle/Pedestrian Path

General Purpose Lanes

HOV, Direct Access, and/or Transit-Only Lane

Exhibit 5. 6-Lane Alternative at the Evergreen Point Bridge (Common to All Options) I-5 to Medina: Bridge Replacement and HOV Project

0 250 500 1,000 Feet \\SIMBA\PROJ\PARAMETRIX\180171\GIS\MAPFILES\SDEIS\COMMON\SDEIS_DR_ALTSF_BRIDGEDESIGN.MXD 9/22/2009


EA_TM_HAZ.DOC 12

What is Outfitting?

Pontoon outfitting is a process by which the columns and elevated roadway ofthe bridge are built directly on the surface of the pontoon.

Exhibit 6. Possible Towing Route and Pontoon Outfitting Locations

Point Road transit stop west to the lid (part of the Medina to SR 202 project) at Evergreen Point Road, adding new lane and ramp striping from the Evergreen Point lid to 92nd Avenue NE, and moving and realigning traffic barriers as a result of the new lane striping. The restriping would transition the I-5 to Medina project improvements into the improvements to be completed as part of the Medina to SR 202 project.

Pontoon Construction and Transport If the floating portion of the Evergreen Point Bridge does not fail before its planned replacement, WSDOT would use the pontoons constructed and stored as part of the Pontoon Construction Project in the I-5 to Medina project. Up to 11 longitudinal pontoons built and stored in Grays Harbor as part of the Pontoon Construction Project would be towed from a moorage location in Grays Harbor to Puget Soundfor outfitting (see the sidebar to the right for an explanation of pontoon outfitting). All outfitted pontoons, as well as the remaining pontoons stored at Grays Harbor would be towed toLake Washington for incorporation into the floating bridge. Towing would occur as weather permits during the months of March through October. Exhibit 6 illustrates the general towing route from Grays Harbor to Lake Washington, and identifies potential outfitting locations.


EA_TM_HAZ.DOC 13

The I-5 to Medina prneeded to complete the new 6-lane floating bridge. The additional pontoons could be constructed at the existing Concrete Technology Corporation facility in Tacoma, and/or at a new facility in Grays Harbor that is also being developed as part of the Pontoon Construction Project. The new supplemental stability pontoons would be towed fromthe construction location to Lake Washington for incorporation into the floating bridge. For additional information about pontoon construction,please see the Construction Techniques Discipline Report (WSDOT 2009c).

Would the project be built all at once or in phases? Revenue sourfrom various state and federal sources and from future tolling, but there remains a gap between the estimated cost of the project and the revenue available to build it. Because of these funding limitations, there is a strong possibility that WSDOT would construct the project in phases over time.

If the projecthose project components that are vulnerable to earthquakes and windstorms; these components include the following:

The floating portion of the Evergreen Point Bridge,vulnerable to windstorms. This is the highest priority in the corridor because of the frequency of severe storms and the high associated risk of catastrophic failure.

The Portage Bay Bridge, which is vulnerable ta slightly lower priority than the floating bridge because the frequency of severe earthquakes is significantly less than that ofsevere storms.

The west approavulnerable to earthquakes (see comments above for the PortBridge).

Exhibit 7 shows the vulnerable portioprioritized, as well as the portions that would be constructed later. The vulnerable structures are collectively referred to in the SDEIS as the Phased Implementation scenario. It is important to note that, while the new bridge(s) might be the only part of the project in place for a certain

oject would build an additional 44 pontoons

ces for the I-5 to Medina project would include allocations

t is phased, WSDOT would first complete one or more of

which is

o earthquakes. This is

ch of the Evergreen Point Bridge, which is age Bay

ns of the project that would be


period of time, WSDOTs intent is to build a complete project that meets all aspects of the purpose and need.

Exhibit 7. Geographic Areas along SR 520 and Project Phasing

The Phased Implementation scenario would provide new structures to replace the vulnerable bridges in the SR 520 corridor, as well as limited transitional sections to connect the new bridges to existing facilities. This scenario would include stormwater facilities, noise mitigation, and the regional bicycle/pedestrian path, but lids would be deferred until a subsequent phase. WSDOT would develop and implement all mitigation needed to satisfy regulatory requirements.

To address the potential for phased project implementa tion, the SDEIS evaluates the Phased Implementation scenario separately as a subset of the full build analysis. The evaluation focuses on how the effects of phased implementation would differ from those of full build and on how constructing the project in phases might have different effects from constructing it all at one time. Impact calculations for the physical effects of phased implementation (for example, acres of wetlands and parks affected) are presented alongside those for full build where applicable.

EA_TM_HAZ.DOC 14


Methodology The Methodology section includes a description of the study area and outlines the methods used to identify contaminated sites that may have an impact on the project. The research methods included reviewing multiple data sources, conducting a site screening evaluation, and ranking sites according to risk.

What is the study area? The study area for the hazardous materials analysis includes the proposed project footprint and the area up to 1 mile from the centerline of the project roadway as shown on Exhibit 8. The study area was defined in accordance with American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) search radius guidance (ASTM E 1527) as referenced inWSDOTs Environmental Procedures Manual M 31-11 (2008b).

As described in the What are the project alternatives? section, 54 supplemental stability pontoons required for a new 6-lane floating bridge would need to be constructed to support the 6-Lane Alternative.The Construction Techniques Discipline Report (WSDOT 2009c) contains more information about pontoon construction and construction locations. Exhibit 9 shows the Tacoma and Grays Harborlocations.

What are the sources of data? The analysts reviewed multiple data sources to collect information about hazardous materials sites, as described below:

Hazardous Materials Discipline Report and Addendum Report prepared for the SR 520 Bridge Replacement and HOV Project (WSDOT 2006) were reviewed, and information regarding the hazardous materials sites has been incorporated into this report.

Local, state, and federal environmental regulatory databases were researched to identify potential contamination sources within 1 mile of the centerline of the proposed project (EDR 2009).

EA_TM_HAZ.DOC 15

E LYNN ST

40 T H

AV

E N

E

E MAD

ISON

ST

BOYER AVE E

24TH

AV

E E

NE 45TH ST

NE PACIFIC ST

MO

NTL

AKE

BLVD

NE

25 T H

AV

E N

E

RO

OS

EV

ELT

WAY

NE

E BOSTON ST

Arboretum C

reek

Co

eke

Cr

Cove

zy

5

EA

STL

AK

E A

VE

E

EV

ER

GR

EE

N P

OIN

T R

D

84TH

AV

E N

E

5

Union Bay

Lake Washington

Portage

Bay U520 V

Lake Union

Washington

Park

Arboretum

Volunteer

Park

92N

D A

VE

NE

AREA OF DETAIL Source: King County (2005) GIS Data (Streams and Streets) King County (2007), GIS Data (Water Bodies), CH2M HILL (2008) GIS Data (Parks). Horizontal datum for all layers is NAD83(91); vertical datum for layers is NAVD88.

Lake

UWashington Project Extent

520 Limited Improvements V Exhibit 8. Study Area: Seattle and One Mile Study Area Eastside

0 0.25 0.5 1 Miles U99V Park I-5 to Medina: Bridge Replacement and HOV Project \\SIMBA\PROJ\PARAMETRIX\180171\GIS\MAPFILES\SDEIS\HAZARDOUSMATERIALS\SDEIS_DR_HAZ_STUDYAREA.MXD 9/28/2009


Exhibit 9. Potential Locations for Production ofSupplemental Stability Pontoons

Historical topographic maps (dated 1884, 1891,1908, 1944, and 1972), land use maps (Kroll Atlases dated 1939, 1941, 1947, 1950, 1966, and 1977, and Sanborn maps dated 1968), aerial photos (WSDOT 2006), and tax records (1929-1969) were reviewed to identify past uses of and activities on sites located within the study area. Visual site reconnaissance was conducted on April 15, 2009, within the study area to observe current site conditions and to identify potential contamination sources.

Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) regulatory files were examined to obtain additional site-specific environmental data on sites of highest concern.

Previous investigation results were reviewed to identify past and present releases or potential releases of contaminants to soil and/or groundwater.

Public Health - Seattle and King County (Health Department) was contacted on April 1, 2009, to determine if there were any records indicating the prior use, storage, or generation of hazardoussubstances or petroleum products in the study area.

What are the classifications of hazardous materials? As discussed in the WSDOT Environmental Procedures Manual (WSDOT 2008b), many terms are commonly used to describe different types of problem materials that require special handling and disposal when encountered at construction sites. Hazardous materials is a common term for all types of contaminated or hazardous media, including contaminated environmental media, dangerous waste, hazardous substances, hazardous waste, toxic waste, problem waste, solid wastes, and petroleum products. These hazardous materials types, as described in WSDOT (2008b), are defined below.

Contaminated Environmental Media includes soil, sediment, groundwater, surface water, or vadose zone air that have been contaminated by a release of a hazardous material, hazardous ordangerous waste, or hazardous substance. These sites may be regulated under the federal Comprehensive Environmental

EA_TM_HAZ.DOC 17


Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) or Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), or under the state Model Toxics Control Act (MTCA).

Dangerous Wastes are solid wastes designated in WAC 173-303-070 through 173-303-100 as dangerous, or extremely hazardous ormixed waste. Dangerous waste includes all federal hazardous waste, plus certain wastes exhibiting specific characteristics based on toxicity and persistence. The regulatory requirements for disposal of dangerous waste are more complex than the requirements for disposal of problem waste (defined below), and place additional responsibility both on WSDOT as the generator and on the contractor for safe handling and disposal.

Hazardous Materials is a generic term for any medium that contains organic or inorganic constituents considered toxic tohumans or the environment. This term includes hazardous and dangerous waste, problem waste, petroleum products, and hazardous substances.

Hazardous Substances are designated in 40 CFR 116 pursuant tothe Clean Water Act (CWA) and in 40 CFR 302 pursuant toCERCLA. Hazardous substances include over 600 materials that pose a threat to public health or the environment. Federal regulation of hazardous substances excludes petroleum, crude oil, natural gas, and natural gas liquids or synthetic gas usable for fuel. State regulation of hazardous substances includes petroleumproducts, which MTCA addresses. Federally designated hazardous substances are listed in 40 CFR 116.4, Table 116.4A and in 40 CFR 302.4, Table 302.4.

Hazardous Wastes are solid wastes that are designated in 40 CFR Part 261 and regulated as hazardous and/or mixed waste by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Mixed waste includes both hazardous and radioactive components; waste that is solely radioactive is not regulated as hazardous waste. Hazardous waste includes specific listed waste generated from particular processes or activities, or exhibits certain reactive, corrosive, toxic, or ignitable characteristics. Hazardous waste is also regulated by Ecology asdangerous waste. These wastes include those that are characteristically reactive, corrosive, toxic, or ignitable, as well as specified listed wastes.

EA_TM_HAZ.DOC 18


Problem Wastes include contaminated soil, sediment, sludge, or liquid removed during cleanup efforts that contain hazardous substances but are not designated as dangerous waste. Problem wastes include contaminated soil, sludge, groundwater, surface water, and construction demolition debris. Problem wastes alsoinclude dredge soils (sediments) resulting from dredging of surface water where contaminants are present in dredge spoil atconcentrations that are not suitable for open water disposal and are not regulated by Section 404 of the CWA. Problem wastes alsoinclude materials containing asbestos.

Solid Waste is defined slightly differently in state regulations and federal regulations. State regulations define solid waste as all putrescible and nonputrescible solid and semisolid wastes including, but not limited to, garbage, rubbish, ashes, industrial wastes, swill, sewage sludge, demolition and construction wastes, abandoned vehicles or parts thereof, problem wastes as definedabove, and recyclable materials. Federal regulations define solid waste as any garbage, refuse, or sludge from a wastewater treatment plant, water supply treatment plant, or air pollution control facility, and other discarded material that includes solid, liquid, semisolid, or contained gaseous material resulting from industrial, commercial, mining, and agricultural operations and from community activities. Solid waste includes hazardous and problem wastes

What are the site screening criteria? Following WSDOTs Guidance and Standard Methodology for WSDOT Hazardous Material Discipline Reports (WSDOT 2009d), an initialscreening process was performed to eliminate sites determined not to have an impact on the project and to identify those sites requiring further investigation.

The initial screening process began with a list of hazardous materials sites generated from a multiple environmental database search conducted by Environmental Data Resources, Inc. (EDR) (EDR 2009). Then, sites were eliminated from further evaluation from this initial list if they posed little to no risk to the project (that is, the sites were listed only on the Resource Conservation and Recovery Information System [RCRAInfo] database [conditionally exempt small quantity, small, and large quantity generators]; the Facility Index System (FINDS) database;

EA_TM_HAZ.DOC 19


and/or the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide & Rodenticide Act/Toxic Substances Control Act Tracking System (FTTS) database). These database listings indicate that the site generates or uses hazardous materials that are regulated but that no soil or groundwater contamination exists at the site.

Since groundwater is the primary method of transport of contaminants, and groundwater flow generally follows the gradient of surface slopes, the topography of identified contaminated sites was evaluated. Based on the groundwater gradient flow direction, sites that were determined not to have an impact on project activities were also eliminated.

What are the risk ranking categories? Risk rankings for the hazardous materials sites were developed

What are the risk categories? based on the sites potential effects on construction activities,

Low- to moderate-risk sites have property acquisitions, and costs. During a risk analysis, sites were known potential contamination, or their prioritized to determine the need for mitigation, remediation, or contamination can be reasonably

predicted. These sites are typicallyavoidance. small to medium in size, potential

contaminants are not difficult to treat, Hazardous materials sites that were identified as having a and remedial options are potential impact to the project were placed into one of two risk straightforward (WSDOT 2009d)

High-impact sites are usually sites that categories: low to moderate risk or high risk. No high-risk sites have substantial contamination and were identified in the study area. would create significant liability for

WSDOT through construction activities

Of the initial list of sites created from the search of environmental or property acquisition. These sites are typically large in size and/or have large

regulatory databases by EDR (EDR 2009), nine sites remained after volumes of contaminated materials, or applying WSDOTs initial site screening criteria, as described might have a long history of commercial

or industrial use (WSDOT 2009d) above. Exhibit 10 lists the final nine sites that were carried into the evaluation. Exhibit 11 lists sites with an underground storage tank (UST) located within 1/4 mile of the project centerline. Overlap between Exhibits 10 and 11 exist when a site identified as low to moderate risk is also listed in the UST database. Exhibit 12 shows the location of the low- and moderate-risk sites within the 1-mile study area. The sites are described in more detail in the Affected Environment section.

EA_TM_HAZ.DOC 20


Exhibit 10. Summary of Low- to Moderate-Risk sites

Map ID Site Name Site Address Agency List(s)

Reported Prior

ReleaseaPotential Contaminant

of Concern Site Status

2 Shell Oil Products

2756 Northeast 45thStreet, Seattle

SHWS, FINDS Yes Petroleum products and non-halogenated solvents in soil and groundwater, according to Ecologys Cleanup Site Details database; chlorinatedsolvents and their breakdown products including perchloroethylene(PCE),trichloroethylene (TCE), and dichloroethylene(DCE), and vinyl chloride are often contaminants at drycleaner (this site was once used as a dry cleaner).

Soil and groundwater remedial action is in progress.

2 Village Autocare (former gas station)

2724 Northeast 45thStreet, Seattle

SHWS, FINDS, LUST, UST,VCP, RCRA ConditionallyExempt Small-QuantityGenerator

Yes Petroleum products in soiland groundwater; chlorinated solvents including TCE and PCE have been detected belowgroundwater cleanup levels. Chlorinated solvents and their breakdown products DCE and vinyl chloride could be present in soil and groundwater.

Soil and groundwater remedial action is in progress. Under VCP program, Final Cleanup Report was received and an Opinion Letter was issued on April 29, 2003.Four USTs were removed in 2003.

Potential to affect Option L if groundwater contamination is not remediated.

Potential to Affect Project

Potential to affect Option L if groundwater contamination is not remediated.

EA_TM_HAZ.DOC 21


EA_TM_HAZ.DOC 22


4 MontlakeLandfill (Ravenna Landfill Union Bay)

Northeast 45thStreet and MontlakeBoulevard, Seattle

SHWS, FINDS Yes Methane-gas migration confirmed; metals and cyanide confirmed in groundwater; petroleum products, pesticides, metals, cyanide, PAHs, and organic and inorganic conventional contaminants confirmed in soil; surface water contamination suspected

Methane gas exists at explosive levels belowlandfill. Project construction is expected to occur within 1,000 feet of the landfill, so methane-gas monitoring would be required.

Potential to affect Option K during construction of a tunnel under the MontlakeCut. Construction willoccur within 1,000 feet of the landfill boundary requiring methane gas mitigation.

12 National Marine Fisheries-Northwest Fisheries Science Center (NOAA)

2725 MontlakeBoulevard, Seattle

ICR, Hazardous Materials Network, EmergencyResponse Notification System, PCB Activity Database System, RCRASmall-Quantity Generator, FINDS, LUST, UST, Hazardous Waste ManifestList, Material Licensing Tracking System

Yes Petroleum products in soil, groundwater, and surface water

Petroleum-contaminated soil remains in place below the research laboratory foundation. Status of petroleum in groundwater unknown.Three USTs removed in1992, and one USTremoved in 1996.

Soil and groundwater reported to Ecology as cleaned up in 2003.From 2000 to 2006, several informal written violations (Generators-General and Generators-Records/ Reporting); achieved compliance for written violations.

Under Option A, the property is proposed for acquisition. Potential to also affect Options K and L due to contamination present at the site and the sites close proximity to construction activities.


Potential to affect Option L suboption that adds capacity on northbound Montlake Boulevard NE to NE 45th Street requiring methane gas mitigation.

Soil and groundwater remediation might be needed under Options A, K, and L.


Reported Prior




EA_TM_HAZ.DOC 23


15 Montlake 76 Station

2625 East MontlakePlace, Seattle

UST, SPILLS Yes Petroleum products (gasoline)

Potentially unknown historical releases. Three operational USTs, and two USTs closed in place in 2000.

Under Option A, the property is proposed for acquisition. Potential to also affect Options K and L due to contamination present at the site and the sites close proximity to construction activities.

17 Seattle Fire Station 22

901 East Roanoke Street, Seattle

UST No N/A; no violations reported Potentially unknown historical releases and close proximity to project construction (less than 500 feet).One UST removed in 2000.

24 Exxon Mobil Oil Corporation 99MPB

2200 24th Avenue East, Seattle

NonGen, LUST, FINDS, SHWS, VCP, UST, ICR

Yes Petroleum products in soiland groundwater Metals in groundwater

Remedial action in progress. Four USTs removed in1998.

24 Circle K Station #1461/ Jays DryCleaners


FINDS, Inactive Dry Cleaners, NonGen, SHWS, INST CONTROLS, UST, LUST, ICR

Yes Petroleum products and non-halogenated solvents in soil and groundwater; chlorinated solvents and breakdown products including PCE, TCE, DCE, and vinyl chloride in soil and groundwater.

Remedial action in progress. Consent Decree issued. Four USTs removed in1989.


Soil and groundwater remediation might be needed under Options A, K, and L.

Located immediatelyadjacent to proposedright-of-way.Contamination, if present, may need to be remediated under Options A, K, and L.

Under Option A, contaminatedgroundwater could affect project construction.

Under Option A, contaminatedgroundwater could affect project construction.


Reported Prior






Reported Prior

Releasea Potential Contaminant

of Concern Site Status Potential to Affect

Project

LF Miller Street Washington SHWS, FINDS Yes Potential for encountering Methane gas not expected Under Options A, K, and Landfill Boulevard and unknown contaminants to be existing at significant L, project construction

Interlake Drive because of former site use level due to landfill age. would be expected to as landfill Potential for hazardous

materials due to use as occur within the Miller Street Landfill.

former landfill site.

Sediments Lake N/A N/A Metals, polychlorinated Existing sediment quality Under Options A, K, and Washington, biphenols (PCBs), data is limited. Risk of L, project construction Union Bay, polyaromatic hydrocarbons encountering could potentially and Portage (PAHs), phthalates contaminated sediment encounter contaminated Bay during construction is sediments in Lake

unknown. Washington, Union Bay, and Portage Bay.

a A contaminated substance was released to the environment and is recorded with a regulatory agency; the substance and amount released and the media affected are sometimes identified.

FINDS Facility Index System SHWS State Hazardous Waste Site ICR Independent Cleanup Report SPILLS Washington State Reported Spills LUST Leaking Underground Storage Tank UST Underground Storage Tank NonGen RCRA Non-generator VCP Voluntary Cleanup Program

Note: EDR assigned the same Map ID to some sites if multiple sites were located within close proximity. The sites are listed in the order in which they appeared in the EDR (2009) report.

EA_TM_HAZ.DOC 24


Exhibit 11. Sites with Underground Storage Tanks within One-Quarter Mile of the Project Centerline

Map ID Site Name Underground Storage Tank Status

2 Village Autocare Four USTs removed in 2003: one 500-gallon, one 2,000-gallon, and two 4,000-gallon gasoline USTs

12 National Marine Fisheries-Northwest Fisheries Science Center (NOAA)

2725 MontlakeBoulevard, Seattle

One 300-gallon UST removed in 1996

13 Chevron Station #9-5627 (also known as Ter-Kel, Inc.)

Five USTs closed in 1993: two 10,000- and one 5,000-gallon gasoline, one 550-gallon heating-oil, and one 100-gallon waste-oil USTs

15 Montlake 76 Station 2625 East Montlake Place, Seattle Two USTs closed in place in 2000: one

500-gallon and one 300-gallon waste-oil UST

17 Seattle Fire Station 22 One UST removed in 2000: 500-gallon diesel UST

20 Broadmoor Golf Club 2340 Broadmoor Drive East, Seattle Two USTs operational: one 111- to

1,100-gallon UST and one 1,101- to 2,000-gallon

24 Exxon Mobil Oil Corporation 99MPB

Four USTs removed in 1998: one 2,000-gallon, one 3,000-gallon, one 5,000-gallon, and one 8,000-gallon

24 Circle K Station No. 1461 Four USTs removed in 1989

Site Address

2724 Northeast 45th Street, Seattle

Three USTs removed in 1992: one 300-gallon gasoline, one 3,000-gallon heating-oil, and one 10,000-gallon heating-oil USTs

2727 EastlakeAvenue East, Seattle

Three operational USTs: one 5,000- and two 10,000-gallon gasoline USTs

901 East Roanoke Street, Seattle

Two USTs removed in 1996



Note: EDR assigned the same Map ID to some sites if multiple sites were located within close proximity. The sites are listed in the order in which they appeared in the EDR (2009) report.

EA_TM_HAZ.DOC 25

LAKE

UN

IVE

RSI

TY W

AY N

E

19TH

AVE

E

NE 45TH ST

40 T H

AVE

NE

10TH

AVE

E

15TH

AV E

E E

MADI

SON

ST

24TH

AVE

E

NE PACIFIC ST

MO

NTL

AKE

BLVD

NE

RO

OSE

VEL

T W

AY N

E

N 42ND ST

MERCER ST

DENNY WAY

N 50TH ST

26TH

AVE

E

EAS

TLA

KE A

VE

E

WAHKAIKUM LN

MARY G

ATES

MEM

DR

WAS

HIN

GTO

N B

LVD

AUR

OR

A AVE

NGreen Lake

S E A T T L E

2 - Village 2 - Shell Oil Autocare Products

##BB 4 - Montlake

Landfill

XW

5

Approximate Lake

Landfill Washington Boundary

12 - National

Marine Fisheries

Portage #B #

Bay #B#B XWXWMillerB 15 - Montlake Street 17- Seattle 76 Station Landfill Fire Station 22 520UV24 - Jay's Dry Cleaners,

##BB Circle K Station##BB24 - Exxon Mobil

Lake

Union

0 2,000 1,000 4,000 Feet AREA OF DETAIL Source: Environmental Data Resources, Inc. (2009) GIS

Data (Listed Site), King County (2005) GIS Data (Streams 99UV and Streets), King County (2007) GIS Data (Water

Bodies),University of Washington (2009) GIS Data (Former24 Low- to Moderate-Risk Site#B (Map ID number correlates to EDR report) Landfill Site), and CH2M HILL (2008) GIS Data (Parks).

Horizontal datum for all layers is NAD83(91); vertical datum 5 Lake XW Former Landfill Site for layers is NAVD88.

Washington

UProject Extent

520V Limited Improvements Exhibit 12. Locations of Low- to

One Mile Study Area Moderate-Risk Sites Park I-5 to Medina: Bridge Replacement and HOV Project

\\SIMBA\PROJ\PARAMETRIX\180171\GIS\MAPFILES\SDEIS\HAZARDOUSMATERIALS\SDEIS_DR_HAZ_LOW2MODERATERISKSITES.MXD 9/28/2009


Affected Environment This section discusses the historical land use and the physical environment of the study area, and identifies the nine hazardous materials sites of concern identified as low to moderate risk to the project (refer to Exhibits 10 and 12).

What is the historical land use of the study area? Seattle Euro-American settlement in the Seattle area began in the 1850s. Over the past century, land use in the area has changed from mostly rural tohigh-density urban development. Industrial land use was located near Lake Union in the 1900s, just west of SR 520. Today, commercialbusinesses and high-density residential neighborhoods have replaced those industrial land uses.

The study area along the SR 520 corridor (Exhibit 8) has historically been primarily residential, with some commercial development near the I-5 and SR 520 on-ramps and off-ramps. The area south of the Montlake Cut also includes commercial areas, research facilities, andthe Museum of History and Industry (MOHAI). The University of Washington has occupied the area north of the Montlake Cut since 1895 when it relocated from its original downtown Seattle location to the western shore of Lake Washington.

Eastside Transition Area Over the past century, land use on the Eastside has changed from rural use to more urbanized, primarily residential use. Minor commercial development has occurred near the SR 520 on-ramps and off-ramps.

What is the physical environment of the study area? The physical environment of the study area determines the potential fate (that is, what happens to a chemical), degradation, and transport of contaminants into the environment. Generally, the chemicals mobility, degradation rate, and travel pathways after release, and whether the environment enhances or limits the transport of contaminants along

EA_TM_HAZ.DOC 27


these pathways, control the fate and transport of contaminants. Aspects of the physical environment, such as topography, soil type, geology, and aquifer characteristics, control the behavior and movement of contaminants through environmental media such as soil and groundwater. For example, an environment with soils that have high permeability can provide an easier means for a contaminant to travel (via groundwater) beyond the point of release. An environment where groundwater exists close to the surface can provide a mechanism for contaminants to be readily transported away from the point of release.

Transport of contaminants released to the environment can be limited or enhanced depending on the permeability of the underlying geologic units, topography, and the patterns of groundwater flow. The Geology and Soils Discipline Report (WSDOT 2009e) and the Water Resources Discipline Report (WSDOT 2009f) provide a more detailed description of the study areas physical environment. A summary is presented below.

Seattle TopographyThe topography of the Seattle study area resulted from glacial erosion and deposition. Topographic elevations along the project corridor vary from approximately 175 feet National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD)near I-5 to less than 5 feet NGVD in low-lying areas near Lake Washington (USGS and NOAA 1983).

Soil and Geology The Seattle study area is generally underlain by artificial fill, landslide deposits, peat, lake deposits, glacial river and lake deposits, and non-glacial river and lake deposits (WSDOT 2009e). The permeability of these deposits ranges from low to high and can vary widely within the same material.

Loose and soft surficial deposits are typically underlain by dense to very dense glacial deposits. The top of the dense to very dense deposits are encountered at varying depths within the study area, ranging from 0 to 125 feet below the existing ground surface (WSDOT 2009e).

Groundwater Two main aquifers occur throughout most of the study area: the Vashon Advance Outwash and the Sea-Level Aquifer. These two aquifers are saturated and considered an important source of

EA_TM_HAZ.DOC 28


groundwater. The main source of recharge to the aquifers is precipitation or downward seepage.

The Vashon Advance Outwash Aquifer consists of highly permeable sand and gravel glacial deposits. This aquifer is eitherunconfined (where it exists at the surface) or semi-confined (where it is overlain by till deposits). The Vashon Advance OutwashAquifer is located in the highlands on both sides of Lake Washington. The aquifer is susceptible to contamination where it occurs close to the ground surface. Water in the aquifer discharges into creeks and lakes. Some of the water in the aquifer leaks and provides recharge to the Sea-Level Aquifer.

The Sea-Level Aquifer is confined and is the deepest regional aquifer. Precipitation recharges the Sea-Level Aquifer, as well asleakage from overlying aquifers, lakes, and rivers. The Sea-Level Aquifer has the capacity to store the greatest amount of groundwater because of its great thickness, large areal extent, and the quantity of precipitation in the study area. The Sea-Level Aquifer ultimately discharges to Puget Sound.

Two minor aquifers also underlie parts of the study area: the AlluvialAquifer and the Vashon Recessional Outwash Aquifer. These aquifers are found around Lake Washington and atop several hills and do not store large amounts of groundwater (Vaccaro et al. 1998).

The Alluvial Aquifer consists of sand and highly permeable gravels deposited by water on the shores of lakes and in river valleys. Groundwater in this aquifer is unconfined and occurs from justbelow ground surface (bgs) to 100 feet bgs. Contaminants may be transported easily into and through the aquifer. This aquifer islocated near the ground surface in the study area, and therefore, is susceptible to contamination.

The Vashon Recessional Outwash Aquifer consists of sand andgravel with interbedded silt and clay deposits (Konrad and Booth 2002). Groundwater in this aquifer is unconfined or semi-confined and is generally encountered from just below the ground surface to 100 feet bgs throughout the study area. The Vashon Recessional Outwash Aquifer may be unsaturated east of Lake Washington (between the highlands) and is saturated beneath Lake Washington and Portage Bay. The aquifer is susceptible to contamination inareas where it occurs near ground surface.

EA_TM_HAZ.DOC 29


Groundwater in the study area has a limited use as a drinking water supply. Local municipalities supply drinking water from a source outside of the study area (WSDOT 2009f).

Eastside Transition Area TopographyThe topography of the Eastside transition study area also resulted from glacial processes. Elevation rises rapidly from sea level near Lake Washington to about 120 feet NGVD at Evergreen Point Road (Medina) (USGS and NOAA 1983).

Soil and Geology Soils in the Eastside transition study area consist of predominantly gravelly, sandy loams of the Alderwood Series (NRCS 2009). The Alderwood series soils are moderately to well-drained and form in uplands in glacial till deposits.

To a lesser extent, some soils in the area have been classified as Arents. Arents are Alderwood Series soils that have been disturbed by urban development to the point that they are no longer classified as the Alderwood Series. The permeability of the Arents varies from low to high.

The geologic units that underlie the Eastside study area are similar to Seattle area soils and geology discussed above. The Geology and Soils Discipline Report (WSDOT 2009e) provides a detailed description.

Groundwater Groundwater aquifer characteristics are similar to Seattle area aquifers. Groundwater resources are described above. The Water Resources Discipline Report (WSDOT 2009f) provides a detailed description.

What are the results of information gathering for this assessment? This section summarizes the results of information gathered and used to characterize the final nine low- to moderate-risk sites selected for evaluation in this report. Exhibit 10 lists these sites, and Exhibit 12 depicts their locations.

EA_TM_HAZ.DOC 30


Historical Records Search Historical land uses are an indicator of potentially contaminated sites in a study area. Many historical industrial land usesand some commercial usesare associated with hazardous materials.

Seattle The historical maps and tax records reviewed showed mixed residential, commercial, and industrial land uses immediately adjacent to the SR 520 corridor along I-5; however, primarily residential areas were located adjacent to the SR 520 corridor. No new sites were identified from the historical sources that have not already beenidentified by other research methods.

Eastside Transition Area The historical maps and tax records reviewed identified most areas as undeveloped and the Medina, Hunts Point, Clyde Hill, and Yarrow Point areas as residential. Residential structures (now demolished) built as early as 1890 recorded wood stoves and oil as heating sources for residences; the oil was typically stored in USTs. No new sites were identified from the historical sources that have not already beenidentified by other research methods.

Visual Site Reconnaissance The analysts did not observe obvious indications of hazardous materials or contamination of the properties in the study area. The analysts findings were generally consistent with the database records, with one exception. The Eastside study area EDR report described Map ID 16 as the Evergreen Floating Bridge. The site visit confirmed the listed address (2830 Evergreen Point Road) as the WSDOT Maintenance facility (EDR 2008).

Attachment 3 includes photographs taken during the reconnaissance.

Interviews The analysts contacted and interviewed a representative of Public Health - Seattle & King County (Public Health) on April 1, 2009. No significant releases of hazardous substances or impacts to human healthor the environment along the SR 520 corridor in the Seattle or Eastside study areas were identified during the telephone interview.

EA_TM_HAZ.DOC 31


Previous Investigations During the Draft EIS phase of the SR 520 Bridge Replacement and HOVproject, WSDOT completed a Hazardous Materials Discipline Report and Addendum for the same study area (WSDOT 2006). In the reports, several hazardous material sites were identified in the study area thatcould potentially affect the project. Those sites have been incorporated into this report.

During a 2006 cultural resources study conducted for the SR 520 project by Onat and Kiers (2007), an abandoned landfill known as the Miller Street Landfill was partially delineated in the area near the Washington Park Arboretum. The northern and eastern boundaries of the landfill extended to the edges of Union Bay. The western boundary appeared to extend to Lake Washington Boulevard according to 1937 and 1938aerial photographs. The southern boundary appeared to be near the Miller Street parking lot (Onat and Kiers 2007). Samples collected from trenches indicated that the historical debris at the site consisted of a range of domestic refuse including glass bottle, ceramics, brick, tile, mammal bones, and various scraps of metal. The landfill was abandoned in 1936 (Onat and Kiers 2007).

Regulatory File Review Seattle The analysts reviewed additional regulatory files for all the sites identified as low- to moderate-risk sites because these sites reported prior releases to soil and/or groundwater. Files for two sites were not reviewed, the Seattle Fire Station (Map ID 22) because there was no reported prior releases, and the Montlake Landfill (Map ID 4) becauseregulatory files were previously collected. The analysts reviewed the files at Ecologys Northwest Regional Office. Exhibit 10 summarizes the information reviewed in the regulatory files. Attachment 4 also includes a summary of the file information for the low- to moderate-risk sites.

Lake Washington, Union Bay, and Portage Bay The analysts reviewed a report titled Survey of Contaminants in Sediments in Lake Union and Adjoining Waters (Salmon Bay, Lake Washington Ship Canal, and Portage Bay) by Cubbage (1992). Of the 21 sites surveyed in the report, two sites were located in the study area: one was within the Montlake Cut and the other was in Portage Bay. Chemical analyses and bioassays were conducted on sediments collected from these two sites. Relatively low concentrations of pollutants were found compared to the

EA_TM_HAZ.DOC 32


concentrations found in the Lake Union area or area west of the I-5 bridge, and none of the bioassays showed toxicity at these sites.

The analysts also reviewed another report, A Sediment Triad Analysis of Lake Sammamish, Washington, and Union, which was prepared for King County Department of Natural Resources andParks (Moshenberg 2004). Sediment samples were collected from 29 stations in Lake Washington in 2000. Chemical, physical, and biological testing was conducted for these sediments samples. The study concluded that in all three lakes contaminants of concern included metals, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), and phthalates; Lake Washington sediments were less affected compared to that of Lake Union sediments.

Eastside Transition Area No files were reviewed for any sites listed in the Eastside study area because no sites were identified as having previous reported releases to the environment or violations.

What are the hazardous material sites of concern in the study area? The nine low- to moderate-risk sites identified for evaluation in this report are described below.

Seattle Hazardous materials sites of concern identified in the Seattle study areainclude the following:

Shell Oil Products, 2756 Northeast 45th Street (Map ID 2)

Village Autocare, 2724 Northeast 45th Street (Map ID 2)

Montlake Landfill, NE 45th Street and Montlake Boulevard (Map ID 4)

National Marine Fisheries Northwest Fisheries Science Center (NOAA), 2725 Montlake Boulevard (Map ID 12)

Montlake 76 Station, 2625 East Montlake Place (Map ID 15)

Seattle Fire Station 22, 901 East Roanoke Street (Map ID 17)

Circle K Station/Jays Dry Cleaners, No. 1461, 2350 24th AvenueEast (Map ID 24)

A bioassay is a study conducted to measure the effects of a substance on a living organism. For environmental testing, bioassays provide the overalltoxicity of a water sample, sediment, or soil from a site.

EA_TM_HAZ.DOC 33


Exxon Mobil Oil, 2200 24th Avenue East (Map ID 24)

Miller Street Landfill, Washington Park Arboretum and 26thAvenue North

Sediments in Lake Washington, Union Bay, and Portage Bay

Information about the release history and cleanup status of these sites is included in Attachment 4 of this report (Hazardous Materials Sites of Concern).

With the exception of the Montlake Landfill, Miller Street Landfill, andsediments in Lake Washington, Union Bay, and Portage Bay, all of the hazardous materials sites of concern contain total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) in soil and groundwater.

In addition, Shell Oil Products (Map ID 2) and Circle K Station/Jays Dry Cleaners (Map ID 24) may contain chlorinated solvents such as perchloroethylene (PCE), trichloroethylene (TCE), dichloroethylene (DCE), and vinyl chloride due to their past or current use as dry cleaners. One site (Village Autocare, Map ID 2), located adjacent to Shell Oil Products, had detections of TCE and PCE, but the concentrations were below MTCA Method A cleanup levels (see Attachment 4).

The Montlake Landfill, the Miller Street Landfill, and the sediments in Lake Washington, Union Bay, and Portage Bay are considered unique to this project and are discussed in more detail below.

Montlake Landfill (Ravenna Landfill Union Bay) (Map ID 4) The abandoned Montlake Landfill site was identified in the 200-acre area south of Northeast 45th Street between Montlake Boulevard and Lake Washington. The Montlake Landfill is also known as the Ravenna Landfill, the Ravenna Dump, the Union Bay Dump, and the University Dump. The City of Seattle operated the Montlake Landfill on University property between 1926 and 1971. The landfill lays over one the largest peat bogs in Washington state. When the landfill was closed in 1971, approximately 2 to 3 feet of earth were used to cap the landfill.

In 2000, a site hazard assessment conducted by Ecology concluded that if the Montlake Landfill is left undisturbed, the risk of adversely affecting human health and the environment is low, and no remedial cleanup actions would be required in the near future (Public Health Department 2000). According to EDR, the presence of metals and cyanide in groundwater and TPH, pesticides, metals, cyanide, and

EA_TM_HAZ.DOC 34


polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) were confirmed in soil (EDR 2009).

A normal decomposition product in landfills and peat bogs is methane gas. Methane gas is lighter than air and is explosive within the range of 5% to 15% by volume of methane in air (50,000 to 150,000 ppm). In 2000, the City of Seattle Solid Waste Department, Public Health, and the University of Washington conducted a methane-gas monitoring study (City of Seattle 2000). As part of the study, gas samples were collected at over 41 locations at the landfill. Results confirmed the presence of a high concentration of methane gas (at or above the explosive range), especially in areas to the north and northeast of the Intramural Activities Building and near the play fields. Permanent methane-gas monitoring stations were put in place along the landfill boundary.

In 2004, the University of Washington (the owner of the landfill) developed an environmental management plan to address construction activities that might occur within the Montlake Landfill boundary (University of Washington 2004). The plan specified the requirements for handling landfill debris, groundwater contaminants, asbestos-containing material (ACM), methane gas, stormwater control, and worker safety.

The university oversaw the installation of multiple methane-gas detection wells on and around the perimeter of the landfill in 2004. In 2005, the University completed development of a methane-gas monitoring plan and began monitoring methane in April 2005.Monitoring continues today on a quarterly basis.

According to the Montlake Landfill Project Guide (University of Washington 2009), new projects within 1,000 feet of the landfill need toconduct methane-gas mitigation or demonstrate through geotechnicalengineering that the project does not need a methane-gas mitigation system.

Miller Street Landfill The Miller Street Landfill is located near the Washington Park Arboretum and east of 26th Avenue North. Between 1909 and 1936, this site was operated as a municipal landfill. Little historical information isavailable about the Miller Street Landfill, and the sites exactboundaries have not been fully delineated, although the landfill was partially delineated during a 2006 cultural resources study conducted for the SR 520 project (Onat and Kiers 2007). The northern and eastern

EA_TM_HAZ.DOC 35


boundaries of the landfill extended to the edges of Union Bay. The western boundary appeared to extend to Lake Washington Boulevard according to the 1938 aerial photographs. The southern boundary appeared to be near the Miller Street parking lot (Onat and Kiers 2007). Samples collected in 2006 indicated that the historical debris at the site consisted of a range of domestic refuse, including glass bottles, ceramics, brick, tile, mammal bones, and various scraps of metal (Onat and Kiers 2007).

In a 1984 report on abandoned landfills, the Public Health Department collected soil, gas, and surface water samples at the Miller Street Landfill site (identified as the Arboretum Playfield site in the report). Detected in the Arboretum Playfield samples was trace gas, but no trace methane. The study concluded that, based on the sample findings, the landfill age, and the relatively benign wastes, the historical landfill posed a low environmental health risk (Public Health Department 1984). The Public Health Department recommended no further study.

Sediments from Lake Washington, Union Bay, and Portage Bay Two sediment-related studies were conducted in Lake Washington and Portage Bay (Cubbage 1992; Moshenberg 2004). These studies show that relatively low concentrations of pollutants such as metals, PCBs, PAHs, and phthalates are present in the sediment of Lake Washington and Portage Bay compared to pollutants found in Lake Union. However, because the existing sediment quality data is limited and the samples were not collected from areas anticipated to be directly impacted by project construction, the risk of encountering contaminated sediments during construction is unknown.

Eastside Transition Area The analysts did not identify any low- to moderate-risk or high-risk sites in the Eastside transition study area based on WSDOTs screening criteria.

EA_TM_HAZ.DOC 36


Potential Effects of the Project This section discusses the potential construction and operational effects of the nine low- to moderate-risk sites listed in Exhibit 10 and presents the potential effects under each of the three proposed options: A, K, andL. Exhibit 13 shows the locations of the low- to moderate-risk sites relative to the limits of construction for Options A, K, and L.

How would construction of the project affect hazardous materials? No Build Alternative The No Build Alternative would not result in construction effects related to hazardous materials because the project would not be built. The No Build Alternative assumes that existing infrastructure would remain as it is today.

6-Lane Alternative Construction effects of the 6-Lane Alternative could include the following:

Encountering contaminated soil, sediment, and groundwater

Releasing hazardous materials used at construction sites

Generating hazardous building materials through demolition

Encountering USTs or LUSTs

Creating accidental spills

Addressing worker safety and public health issues.

Attachment 5 details these general types of effects and associated mitigation measures. Exhibit 14 shows which hazardous material sites could affect, or be affected by, the 6-Lane Alternative design options A, K, and L during construction.

EA_TM_HAZ.DOC 37

LAKE

5 U

NIV

ER

SITY

WAY

NE

E GALER ST

24TH

AV E

E

NE PACIFIC ST

MO

NTL

AKE

BLVD

NE

WAS

HIN

GTO

N B

Date post:	29-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	lamcong
View:	218 times
Download:	3 times

Hazardous Materials Discipline Report · PCB polychlorinated biphenyl ... SMP soil management plan...

Documents