HomeMy WebLinkAbout1563RESOLUTION NO. I 5"1::> 3
A RESOLUTION of the City Council of the
City of Kent, Washington, adopting a Wellhead
Protection Program to assist with the protection and
preservation of the City of Kent's drinking water
sources.
WHEREAS, the Federal Safe Drinking Water Act and the Washington
State Drinking Water regulations mandate that the City of Kent create a Wellhead
Protection Program to preserve and protect the City of Kent's drinking water source;
and
WHEREAS, the City has delineated the Soos Creek Basin Wellhead
Protection Area in cooperation with the Covington Water District and King County
Water District No. 111 ; and
WHEREAS, Kent's aquifer re-charge area for its main water sources,
the Clark, Kent, and Armstrong Springs, exist almost entirely outside Kent city limits,
mainly with the jurisdictions of unincorporated King County, Black Diamond, and the
newly incorporated cities of Covington and Maple Valley; and
WHEREAS, the Wellhead Protection Plan is designed to ensure
protection of our ground water resources through cooperation with these jurisdictions
in order to develop a policy that will ensure a high quality drinking water source for
future use; NOW THEREFORE,
1 Wellhead Protection Program
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON
DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Recitals Incorporated. The recitals set forth in this
Resolution are hereby incorporated as if fully set forth herein.
SECTION 2. Wellhead Protection Program Adopted. The City of
Kent Wellhead Protection Program, attached and incorporated as Exhibit "A" to this
Resolution, is hereby adopted.
SECTION 3. Severabilitv. If any section, subsection, paragraph,
sentence, clause, or phrase of this resolution is declared unconstitutional or invalid for
any reason, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this
resolution.
SECTION 4; Ratification. Any act consistent with the authority and
prior to the effective date of this resolution is hereby ratified and affirmed.
SECTION 5. Effective Date. This resolution shall take effect and be
in force immediately upon its passage.
PASS ED at a regular open public meeting by the City Council of the City
ofKent, Washington, this lfi day of,~ , 2000.
CONCURRED in by the Mayor of the City of Kent this //., day of
~/ ,2000.
2 Wellhead Protection Program
ATTEST:
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
~c?~ ~ :;c;;R A. LUBOVIc:l y ATTORNE
I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of Resolution No.
/.5b3 passed by the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, the IS day
of ~ ;:J..A.. ,. ,. 7J , 2000.
ITYCLERK
P:\Civil\Resolution\ Wel\beadProtectionPrg.doc
3 Wellhead Protection Program
r
City of Kent
Wellhead Protection Program
Clark, Kent, and
Atmstrong Springs
Prep~red for
City of Kent
J-3508-01
April2, 1996
Funded through a Centennial
Fund Grant No. G9400034
CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Scope of Kent's WHPP and Report Organization
1.2 Coordination of Wellhead Protection Program Development
1.3 Existing Data Sources
1.4 The Groundwater Sources
Hart Crowser
J-3508-01
vii
1-1
1-2
1-2
1-2
1-3
2.0 HYDROGEOLOGY 2-1
2.1 Topography and Drainage 2-1
2.2 Surface Water Features 2-1
2.3 Suificial Geology 2-2
2.4 Recharge and Infiltration Potential 2-2
2.5 Water Quality 2-3
2.6 Principal Geologic Units 2-4
2. 7 Subsurface Geology and Groundwater Flow 2-6
3.0 WELLHEAD PROTECTION AREA (WHPA) DELINEATION 3-1
3.1 Capture Zones Based on Numerical Modeling 3-1
3.2 Surface Water Divide as Recharge Area 3-3
3.3 Assessment of Data Uncertainties 3-3
3.4 Comporite Wellhead Management Area -Kent/Covington WHPA 3-4
3.5 Areas Highly Susceptible to Contamination 3-7
4.0 POTENTIAL SOURCES OF GROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION 4-1
4.1 Contaminant Source Inventory Methodology 4-1
4.2 Historical and Current Land Use 4-1
4.3 Potential Contaminant Sources Identified in Regulatory Databases 4-3
4.4 Other Groundwater Quality Concerns 4-8
4.5 Establishing Risk Priority for Potential Contaminant Sources within the WHPA4-12
5.0 EXISTING REGULA:I'ORY PROGRAMS
5.1 Introduction
5.2 Existing Regulatory Programs
5.3 South King County GWMP Strategies Pllmned for Risk Reduction
5-1
5-1
5-1
5-9
Page i
CONTENTS (Continued)
6.0 WELLHEAD PROTECTION MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES
6.1 Introduction
6.2 Wellhead Protection Tasks
6.3 Management and Cooperation Strategies
6.4 lAnd Use Strategies
6.5 Regulatory Strategies
6.6 Planning Strategies
6.7 Data Management Strategies
6.8 Education Strategies
,.....
7.0 MONITORING PLAN
r 7.1 Water Level and Water Quality Monitoring Recommendations
7.2 Future Model Refinement
,..... 8.0 SPILL RESPONSE
8.1 Introduction
,..... 8.2 National, State, and l.Acal Spill Response Plans
8.3 Spill Response Organizations
9.0 KENT WHPP CONTINGENCY OPTIONS
9.1 Introduction
9.2 Short-Term Contingency Plan
9.3 lAng-Term Contingency Plan
9.4 Permanent Replacement Contingency Plan
9.5 Contingency Procedures and Emergency Phone Numbers
10.0 REFERENCES
Hart Crowser
J-3508-01
£m
6-1
6-1
6-1
6-3
6-3
6-4
6-4
6-5
6-6
7-1
7-1
7-5
8-1
8-1
8-1
8-2
9-1
9-1
9-2
9-3
9-4
9-5
10-1
Pageii
r-
r-
!
Hart Crowser
J-3508-01
CONTENTS (Continued)
Page
TABLES
2-1 Nitrate Levels in Kent's Water Sources 2-4
4-1 Potential Contaminant Sources Listed by Type 4-19
4-2 Confirmed and Suspected Contaminated Sites 4-20
4-3 Leaking Underground Storage Tank Sites 4-20
4-4 Operational Underground Storage Tank Sites 4-21
4-5 Current and Former Contaminated Underground Storage Tank Sites 4-21
4-6 Solid Waste Landfill Sites 4-22
4-7 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Sites 4-22
4-8 Pesticides Used in WHPA 4-23
4-9 Covington/Kent Wellhead Protection Program Overall Risk Prioritization 4-13
4-10 Covington/Kent Wellhead Protection Program Risk Sub-Prioritization -4-13
Proximity to Source
4-11 Covington/Kent Wellhead Protection· Program Risk Sub-Prioritization -4-14
Type of Contamination
4-12 Covington/Kent Wellhead Protection Program Risk Sub-Prioritization -4-16
Contaminated Media
4-13 Risk Ranking for Kent Springs 4-24
4-14 Risk Ranking for Clark Springs 4-25
4-15 Risk Ranking for Armstrong Springs 4-26
4-16 Overall Risk Ranking for WHP As 4-18
5-1 Programs Related to Groundwater Quality and Quantity 5-12
5-2 Programs Related to Groundwater Quality Only 5-13
5-3 Programs Related to Groundwater Quantity Only 5-15
6-1 Wellhead Management Tasks 6-7
6-2 Three Main Ways to Organize Wellhead Protection Tasks 6-10
6-3 Common Tasks for All Risk Areas 6-11
6-4 Tasks for Residential Risk Areas 6-12
6-5 Tasks for Transportation/Pipeline Corridors Risk Areas 6-13
6-6 Tasks for Industrial Commercial Risk Areas 6-14
6-7 Tasks for Mining Risk Area 6-15
6-8 Tasks for Forestry Risk Area 6-16
6-9 Management Strategies 6-17
Page iii
CONTENTS (Continued)
FlGURES
1-1 Site Vicinity Map
2-1 Surficial Geology and Cross Section Location Map
2-2 Clark Springs Area
Generalized Geologic Cross Section Cl-Cl' and C2-C2'
2-3 Clark Springs Area
Generalized Geologic Cros~ Section C3-C3' and C4-C4'
2-4 Kent Springs Area
Generalized Geologic Cross Section Kl-Kl' and K2-K2'
2-5 Kent Springs Area
Generalized Cross Section K3-K3'
2-6 Armstrong Springs Area
Generalized Geologic Cross Section Al-AI'
2-7 Armstrong Spring Area
Generalized Geologic Cross Section A2-A2' -2-8 Armstrong Springs Area
Generalized Geologic Cross Section A3-A3'
2-9 Armstrong Springs Area
Generalized Cross Section A4-A4'
2-10 Armstrong Springs Area
Generalized Cross Section A5-A5'
2-11 Armstrong Springs Area
Generalized Geologic Cross Section A6-A6'
2-12 Groundwater Elevation Contour Map
3-1 Modeled Capture Zones and Surface Water Divide Map
3-2 Kent/Covington Wellhead Protection Area Map
3-3 Aquifer Susceptibility Map
Kent/Covington WHP A
4-1 Land Use Zoning and Relevant Features Map
4-2 Potential Sources -Regulatory Database Listings
4-3 Other Potential Sources
7-1 Groundwater Monitoring Plan Map
8-1 Fire Districts Spill Response Jurisdiction Map
Hart Crowser
J-3508-01
Page
Page iv
CONTENTS (Continued)
APPENDIX A
HYDROGEOLOGIC DATA ANALYSIS
Precipitation Data Summary and Analysis
Water Level DaJa Collection
Groundwater Elevation Data and Water Level Hydrographs
Groundwater Production Data
TABLES
A-1 Landsburg Monthly Total Precipitation
A-2 Summary of Well Construction Data for Wells Monitored
A-3 Monthly Monitoring Data from Kent Watersheds
A-4 Groundwater Elevation Data -City of Kent Monitoring Program
A-5 Armstrong Springs Water Production Summary
A-6 Kent Springs Water Production Summary
A-7 Clark Springs Water Production and Streamflow Summary
FIGURES
A-1 Monthly Total Precipitation and Cumulative Departure
Landsburg Station
A-2 Armstrong Springs Water Levels
A-3 Kent Springs Water Levels
A-4 Clark Springs Well No. 1
A-5 Armstrong Springs Water Production
A-6 Kent Springs Water Production
A-7 Clark Springs Water Production
APPENDIXB
GROUNDWATER MODELING PROCEDURES
Approach and Parameter Selection
Model Calibration
Capture Zone Delineation
Sensitivity Analysis and Model Limitations
Hart Crowser
J-3508-01
A-1
A-1
A-1
A-2
A-2
A-4
A-6
A-7
A-8
A-9
A-ll
A-13
B-1
B-1
B-7
B-8
B-9
Pagev
-
-
-
CONTENTS (Continued)
TABLES
B-1 Runoff Zone Calculations for Kent Numerical Model
B-2 River Node Parameters
FIGURES
B-1 Model Boundaries
B-2 Pumping Test Transmissivity Data
B-3 Hydraulic Conductivity Distribution
B-4 Bottom Elevation Distribution
B-5 Recharge Distribution
B-6 Precipitation-Recharge-Runoff Relations
Used in Groundwater Model
B-7 Predicted versus Observed Groundwater Elevation
APPENDIX C
MANAGEMENT TASK DATABASE
APPENDIXD
CITY OF KENT SPILL RESPONSE PLAN
Hart Crowser
J-3508-01
B-12
B-13
Page vi
-
-
-
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Han Crowser
J-3508-01
A wellhead protection program (WHPP) is being developed by the City of Kent (City) for the
Clark, Kent, and Armstrong Springs water supply sources. The wellhead protection program is
designed to protect groundwater resources supplying public wells used for drinking water.
Development of the wellhead protection program is mandated by the 1986 Amendments to the
Safe Drinking Water Act and the Washington State Drinking Water Regulations (WAC 246-290-
135). The wellhead protection program builds on the South King County Groundwater
Management planning process and is an important local tool for protecting groundwater quality.
Delineation of wellhead protection areas helps to identify the most important areas of focus for
protecting water supplies and the most appropriate areas to focus limited funding resources.
This project began in 1991 when the City applied to the Washington State Department of
Ecology (Ecology) for a Centennial Fund Grant to help fund the program development. A Grant
was awarded in 1992. The City is conducting program development efforts with the Covington
Water District and Water District No. 111 who are simultaneously developing wellhead
protection programs. Coordination efforts have occurred through a Project Review Committee
set up for review and input to the process and including representatives from the three purveyors
as well as the Seattle-King County Health Department, the State Department of Health, and
Ecology's Water Quality Program.
Hvdrouology and Wellhead Protection Area Delineation
The City derives its water from shallow, highly transmissive, glacial outwash aquifers without
significant confining layers between ground surface and the depth of groundwater withdrawal.
Infiltration of precipitation is the principal source of recharge to the groundwater system in the
study area. InfJ.ltration is high in the permeable outwash sediments that comprise much of the
area, particularly in the eastern foothills where precipitation averages 58 inches per year. The
till-capped uplands provide recharge through runoff to the surrounding, highly permeable
outwash channel deposits. Surface water features like Lake Sawyer provide some additional
recharge to the groundwater system.
Groundwater flow in the area is predominantly east to west from the high recharge area of the
foothills east of Clark Springs through two principal aquifers, the Vashon Recessional Outwash
(Qvr} and the deeper, older Qc(2) glacial deposits. In the western area, till lies between the
recessional outwash and the deeper Qc(2) aquifer in some locations; however, at the City's Kent
Springs and Armstrong Springs properties the till seems to be absent, and these two aquifers are
connected. In these areas the aquifer is more highly susceptible to contamination.
The east to west flow pattern creates capture zones that extend eastward from the wellheads.
The wellhead capture zones were delineated through development of a regional groundwater flow
model. The groundwater flow model, based in MODFLOW, was used in conjunction with a
particle tracking model, PATH3D, to define 1-, S-, and 10-year time of travel zones. An
assessment of data uncertainties and coordination of management efforts with the area water
Page vii
-
-
Hart Crowser
J-3508-01
districts resulted in development of a composite Kent/Covington Wellhead Protection Area
(WHPA).
Potential Contaminant Sources
With the WHPA defined, effort was focused on identifying potential groundwater contaminant
sources within the WHP A and ranking the risks associated with those contaminant sources.
Potential contaminant sources were identified based on review of current and historical land uses
within the WHPA, review of regulatory agency database lists and files, and a windshield survey
to reconnaissance for other unknown sites. Inventory considerations and methodology were
reviewed by the Wellhead Protection Project Review Committee.
Potential sources of contamination were identified and ranked according to their potential risk.
The ranking was performed in general accordance with the EPA Guidance Document entitled
Managing Groundwater Contamination Sources in Wellhead Protection Areas: A Priority Setting
Approach. The highest ranked risks to groundwater quality within the WHPA, in order of
decreasing priority, were:
.. Residential -medium-density land uses;
.. Residential -rural land uses;
.. Transportation corridors;
.. Industrial/Commercial sites;
.. Forestry land uses; and
.. Mining land uses.
Proximity to the wellhead was given the highest priority level risk for each of the sources
considered. This was followed by the type of contamination and the severity of the
contamination, respectively, as the next priority levels. Contaminated sites identified in the
regulatory databases ranked as the top priority risk for the Armstrong Springs source. For the
Kent Springs source medium-density residential, rural residential, and transportation corridors
ranked as top priority risks. The Landsburg mine ranked as the top priority risk for the Clark
Springs source, followed by medium-density and rural residential land uses.
Management Strategies
Wellhead protection management tasks were developed based on our review of the tasks included
in the South King County Groundwater Management Plan and our technical knowledge of the
WHPA issues. Forty-eight tasks were developed in consort with the Wellhead Protection Project
Review Committee. These tasks were created to help mitigate high priority risks to groundwater
quality as identified above. Management strategies were then developed, based on the concept
that an implementation steering group would need to "manage" the tasks in certain ways to
implement the program. The management strategies were developed as follows:
.. Management and Cooperation Strategies
• Establish a WHP steering group.
Page viii
• Manage large land parcels using Best Management Practices.
~ Land Use Strategies
• Consider special protection area designations for the WHPA.
~ Regulatory Strategies
• Perform hydrogeologic analyses for parcels which trigger SEPA review.
Hart Crowser
J-3508-01
• Delegate well drilling oversight authority to King County. Encourage frequent inspection
of well installation.
• Require engineering as-builts of septic systems to be recorded with the property deed.
~ Planning Strategies
• Require industrial and commercial facilities to connect to sanitary sewer. Develop
emergency plans for sewer breaks.
• Encourage funding of farm plans such that groundwater protection issues are identified
and managed.
• Encourage research of storm water discharge on aquifer quantity and quality. Evaluate
the adequacy of storm water facilities.
• Document the location and use of petroleum pipelines. Ensure that emergency response
efforts are coordinated.
• Investigate the feasibility of re-routing hazardous materials transport out of Zone 1 of the
WHPA.
• Establish formal communication with first responders for transportation hazardous
materials incidents.
~ Data Management Strategies
• Participate in regional and local groundwater monitoring strategies. Implement the
monitoring plan.
• Conduct herbicide and pesticide use surveys. Encourage vegetation management
practices which do not use chemicals.
• Inventory underground storage tanks (including exempt tanks) within Zone 1 of the
WHPA.
• Encourage King County to monitor dry wells within the WHPA.
• Inventory abandoned wells within the WHPA.
~ Education Strategies
• Continue public education program with focus toward protection of the WHPA.
Other WHPP Elements
There are three other elements of this WHPP which are required by the state program. They
include a monitoring plan, spill response plan, and a water supply contingency plan.
The monitoring plan identifies a program for water level and water quality monitoring in ·
selected areas throughout the WHPA. These data will be used to measure any water quality
Page ix
-
-
Hart Crowser
J-3508-01
degradation and will provide an early warning of groundwater quality changes. The monitoring
plan also describes focused hydrogeologic studies that will be needed to more accurately
interpret the monitoring data and refine the regional groundwater flow model developed for this
project. Refinement of the regional flow model will provide a management tool for making both
groundwater quality and quantity decisions into the future.
Spill response planning exists throughout national, state, and local programs. Depending on the
nature and location of the spill incident, the local Fire Department and the State Patrol are
normally the first responders for highway-related incidents, and Ecology is the lead agency for
environmental pollution (i.e., hazardous waste spill).
Locally, the City of Kent is responsible for assisting the local fire districts with Hazardous
Material Response within the WHPA. The City has a hazardous material response plan which
identifies the personnel and procedures that are used in response to a hazardous materials
incident within the WHPA. A copy of the response plan is included in Appendix D.
The water supply contingency plan identifies possible steps that could be taken to seek alternate
supplies of water if one of the sources within the WHPA becomes contaminated. These steps
include activating existing interties, treating contaminated groundwater at the source, or
exploring for new sources of groundwater.
Page x
-
CITY OF KENT
WELLHEAD PROTECTION PROGRAM FOR
CLARK, KENT, AND ARMSTRONG SPRINGS
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Hart Crowser
J-3508-01
The City of Kent began development of a wellhea!l protection program in August of 1993 for the
Clark Springs, Kent Springs, and Armstrong Spri!lgs water supply source areas. The purpose of
the wellhead protection project is to develop a program to protect long-term water quality at
these three groundwater sources. These sources r~resent approximately 95% of the City's
water supply. The Kent Wellhead Protection Program (WHPP) was developed in four parts,
generally consistent with the Washington State Department of Health guidelines as follows:
~ Evaluation of the hydrogeologic framework for the area around the springs;
~ Delineation of Wellhead Protection Areas (WHPAs) based on time-related capture zones for
each of the spring sources;
~ Identification of potential and known sources of groundwater contamination within the
WHPA;and
~ Development of management strategies to minimize the threat of those potential and known
sources of most concern.
The City's three spring source areas are located in the southeastern portion of King County as
shown on the Vicinity Map, Figure 1-1. The springs source areas are within small land parcels
owned by the City of Kent but surrounded by uniqcorporated King County. Most of the study
area falls within the south half of Township 22 North, Range 6 East, but also includes an area of
1 to 2 square miles west, south, and east of this Township and Range.
The need for this work was recognized by the City because of the high susceptibility of the
spring sources to contamination. The springs are fed by groundwater from shallow, highly
transmissive glacial outwash aquifers surrounded by till and bedrock. These aquifers are rapidly
recharged, often lack significant confining units, and are located in low lying, confined basins
that tend to funnel surface water into the aquifer recharge area.
In 1991 the City began a proactive effort to evaluate ways to protect these high-quality, yet
vulnerable, water supply sources. A Centennial FUnd grant was applied for to assist in the effort
of developing wellhead protection prior to the state's completion of a statewide wellhead
program. A grant (09400034) was awarded in 1992 from the Washington State Department of
Ecology (Ecology) and is helping to fund this program development.
Page 1-1
1.1 Scope of Kent's WHPP and Report Organization
Hart Crowser
J-3508-01
This report documents the program developed over the past two years under the Centennial Fund
grant and as a cooperative effort among the local purveyors which included Covington Water
District, Water District No. 111, as well as the City of Kent. Specifically, this report begins by
describing the hydrogeology of the area and the Jllethods and analyses used for delineating the
Wellhead Protection Area (WHPA) around the three spring sources (Sections 2.0 and 3.0). The
known and potential contaminant sources within the WHPA, and their relative risk to
groundwater quality, are presented in Section 4.0. Section 5.0 describes existing regulatory
programs and how they work to protect groundw$.ter quality. Management strategies and
recommended tasks for protecting the WHPA are presented in Section 6.0. Section 7.0 contains
the monitoring plan for the WHPA. The spill response plan and water supply contingency plan
are contained in Sections 8.0 and 9.0, respectively. Section 10.0 presents a list of references
cited in this report. Tables and figures supporting these sections are numbered to correspond to
and are presented within or at the end of their re~tive sections.
There are four appendices included in the document. Appendix A includes the hydrogeologic
data analysis. Appendix B includes the groundwater modeling procedures. The management
tasks database is included in Appendix C; Appendix D contains a copy of the City of Kent
Hazardous Materials Response Plan.
1.2 Coordination of Wellhead Protection Pregram Development
The City of Kent is coordinating WHPP elements with the Covington Water District and Water
District No. 111 who are simultaneously developing wellhead protection programs for the Lake
Sawyer Wellfield and North Meridian Aquifer, respectively. Covington's Lake Sawyer wellfield
is located approximately I ,000 feet southwest of the City's Kent Springs source area. Water
District No. 111 's North Meridian Aquifer study IU'ea is located approximately 1 mile northwest
of the Armstrong Springs Source, in area soon to be annexed by the City of Kent. Technical
data were shared and regular meetings were held to coordinate source inventory efforts and to
develop consistent management strategies.
A Project Review Committee was set up by Covington and Water District No. 111 to provide
input to the projects and to review and comment throughout the course of program development.
The review committee includes the three main water purveyors on the Covington Upland: Kent,
Covington, and Water District No. 111, as well as representatives from the Ecology Water
Quality Program, the State Department of Health, Seattle-King County Health Department,
consultants Hart Crowser, Robinson & Noble, and Economic & Engineering Services Inc., and
other local invitees.
1.3 Existing Data Sources
The work completed for this project relied on a n11mber of important existing data sources. For
the hydrogeologic analyses we used the South King County Groundwater Management Plan
Page 1-2
-
Hart Crowser
J-3508-01
(SKCGWMP), Grant No.I Background Data Collection and Management Report Issues (1989)
as our starting point for the regional hydrogeologic framework. Likewise, the draft South King
County GWMP (March 1995) was used in development of the management strategies.
USGS geologic maps and more current geologic mapping conducted for King County's Cedar
River Current and Future Conditions Report (1993) were used for geologic and hydrologic
information east of the SKCGWMP study area boundary which falls near the Clark Springs.
Several other published and unpublished reports prepared for the City of Kent and others
provided valuable local information on hydrogeologic conditions. All significant documents used
are listed in Section 10.0 References.
1.4 The Groundwater Sources
While the City's water sources are referred to Clark Springs, Kent Springs, and Armstrong
Springs, the water supply derived from these three areas is actually a combination of spring
inftltration galleries and wells. Production record$ maintained by the City indicate the following
usage:
Clark Springs
~ Provides 2,800 to 4,000 gpm (4 to 6 MGD) source of supply.
~ Production is primarily from an inftltration gallery with occasional supplementation by
production wells.
Kent Springs
~ Provides 700 to 2,300 gpm (I to 3.3 MGD) source of supply.
~ Production is primarily from the infiltration gallery with peak demand (late summer) supply
from Well Nos. 1 and 2.
Armstrong Springs
~ Provides 70 to 700 gpm (0.1 to 1 MGD) source of supply.
~ Production is from Well Nos. 1 and 2.
The City's Operations staff provided a substantial amount of information on the production from
each of the spring areas as well as water level data and wellhead survey information for each of
the three Spring properties. The City Engineering Department provided several consulting
reports on their facilities, well construction, and well testing activities associated with each of
the Spring properties. Data used to characterize the City's spring sources is discussed further in
Appendix A.
Page 1-3
.....
....
!
.... !
r ' !
r
!
r
r
r
!
r
'
r
'
r
I
'
r
r
!
r
r
i
,...
'
r
,...
r
i-:e
~ ·-.5 u ·-:::=.; -..
~
i ~ 2 ~ u
J-3508-01
·. Figure 1-1
11/95
2.0 HYDROGEOLOGY
Hart Crowser
J-3508-01
The hydrogeologic setting provides the basis for the delineation of the wellhead protection area
and assessment of the management strategies for aquifer protection. The hydrogeology in the 7
to 8 square mile area between Armstrong Springs in the west and Clark Springs in the east is
complex because of the multiple geologic layers, varying recharge rates, and surface water-
groundwater interactions. This section descnbes the conceptual hydrogeologic model that
formed the basis for development of a regional groundwater flow model that allowed us to better
understand the area's complexities, delineate the wellhead protection areas, and identify areas for
more focused hydrogeologic study.
2.1 Topography and Drainage
The project area lies within the central portion of the Covington Upland (SKCGWMP, 1989)
physiographic area (Figure 1-1). The Covington Upland is a glacial drift plain bounded on the
north by the Cedar River Valley, the south and west by the Green River Valley, and on the east
by the foothills of the Cascades. The topography of the central upland area ranges from bedrock
foothills at elevations of almost 1,000 feet in the east study area (near the Clark Springs
property) to gently sloping outwash plain at elevations of 500 to 400 feet in the west project area
(between the Kent Springs and Armstrong Springs properties). Occasional till-capped knobs
break up the outwash channels and several small kettle lakes and local marshy areas occur within
the study area.
The eastern portion of the study area lies within the middle portion of the Cedar River Drainage
Basin and the western portion of the study area lies within the Soos Creek Basin. Figure 2-12
shows the surface water divide between these two major drainage basins. The surface water
divides are important in defining potential rainfall runoff areas which contribute recharge to the
aquifers supplying the springs and in analysis of the overall system water budget.
2.2 Surface Water Features
The dominant surface water features of the study area include creeks which internally drain the
outwash plain area and numerous lakes scattered throughout (See Figure 2-12). Rock Creek is
the principal drainage feature in the east study area draining to the Cedar River. Rock Creek
was identified by King County (1993) originating in the southeastern comer of the study area
near Lake 12 with flow north then west through the City's Clark Springs property, eventually
flowing northward to the Cedar River.
Ravensdale Creek, Covington Creek, Jenkins Creek, and the Little Soos Creek all originate in
the drift plain west of Clark Springs. Each of these streams has a predominantly southwest flow
pattern and eventually discharges to Soos Creek which flows into the Green River near Auburn.
Little is known about the hydraulic connection of the creeks to the groundwater system but it is
suspected that a substantial relationship exists between the creeks and the shallow aquifer in the
study area. For example, during the wet winter months the streams may be recharging the
Page 2-1
-
Hart Crowser
J-3508-01
groundwater system, while during the drier summer/early fall months the groundwater may be
discharging to streams providing baseflows. These relationships may affect the amount of
recharge to the aquifer system and groundwater flow patterns, particularly in the vicinity of the
streams. Runoff from the till and bedrock knobs in the study area drains either into these
streams or directly into the coarse-grained outwash deposits which surround the base of these
till-capped hills.
Lake Sawyer is the largest lake in the study area. Ravensdale Creek flows into the lake on its
east side and Covington Creek flows out from the lake on its west side. The lake, situated very
close to the Covington and Kent Springs supply sources, appears to be situated in till over much
of its subsurface area; however, a recessional outwash channel appears to occur in the northeast
and southwest lake areas hydraulically connecting the lake to the recessional outwash aquifer.
A hydrogeologic study of the Lake Sawyer area (Hart Crowser, 1990) identifies at least 10 times
as much outflow to the groundwater system as inflow indicating the lake as a source of recharge
to the groundwater system. The study estimates an average outflow of between 1 and 4 cfs
(range of 0.4 to 40 cfs) with the higher amount occurring during the dry season. Flow from the
lake to the groundwater occurs primarily in the north and west sides of the lake. Several smaller
lakes including Retreat Lake, Ravensdale Lake, Wilderness Lake, and Pipe Lake occur within
the project area and may also provide recharge to the groundwater system.
2.3 Surficial Geology
The geology of the study area is characterized by Tertiary bedrock uplands in the eastern portion
of the study area and a thick sequence of Quaternary glacial and alluvial sediments in the
western portion of the study area. The bedrock is commonly mantled by till and interspersed
with former drainage channels now infilled with glacial meltwater deposits. Moving westward,
the bedrock dives deep beneath the subsurface, and a thick and variable sequence of glacial and
interglacial sediments occur.
The west half of the study area is dominated by recessional outwash deposits at the surface.
These deposits mark a major drainage pathway for meltwater streams during retreat of the last
major glacial advance, the Vashon. Till-capped knobs underlain by pre-Vashon glacial and
interglacial sequences are interspersed within the outwash of the western drift plain. Figure 2-1
presents a surficial geologic map for the study area.
2.4 Recharge and Infiltration Potential
Precipitation is the principal source of recharge to the groundwater system. The surficial
geology plays a major role in the amount of precipitation that infiltrates the ground to become
recharge. Likewise the surficial geology and infiltration potential help define the susceptibility
of the groundwater system to water quality impacts and the ease with which contaminants can
move into the subsurface. In terms of infiltration potential and aquifer vulnerability, there are
two distinct surficial geologic material groups in the study area:
Page 2-2
-
Han Crowser
J-3508-01
... The outwash plain deposits which are relatively permeable and allow good infiltration of
precipitation. Recharge is likely highest in these areas as is aquifer vulnerability to
contamination. Recharge rates in these deposits are estimated to range between 30 and 40
inches per year.
... The bedrock and till-capped hills, which are relatively low in permeability, have a lower
infiltration potential. However, these areas provide good recharge because the relatively low
infiltration capacity and steeper slopes cause runoff to the permeable outwash deposits
surrounding these hills. In terms of aquifer susceptibility, these materials are imponant
where they occur in the subsurface because they can provide some protection to deeper
aquifers. An aquifer susceptibility map is developed for the WHPA as discussed in Section
3.5.
2.5 Water Quality
The groundwater quality from the spring and wells sources is good. Regular water quality
monitoring conducted under the state Department of Health (DOH) regulations includes analyses
for inorganic and volatile organic compounds every three years. The last inorganics analyses
was conducted at each of the sources in 1993; the last volatile organics analyses conducted at
each of the sources was in 1994. No contaminant concerns were indicated by the sampling
results. No volatile organics were detected. No inorganics were detected above the drinking
water standards.
Other special sampling conducted voluntarily by the City included 1/90, 8/91, and 8/93 priority
pollutant analysis for metals, volatile organics, semivolatile organics, cyanide, PCBs and
pesticides at the Clark Springs because of concerns about the Landsburg mine contamination.
None of these compounds of potential concern were detected during these sampling events. The
City also panicipated in a voluntary DOH Area-Wide Groundwater Monitoring Project for
Synthetic Organic Compounds. No synthetic organic compounds were detected during this
sampling.
Nitrate levels were reviewed for all three water sources to assess any potential degradation. The
nitrate data available are presented in Table 2-1.
Page 2-3
-
-
Table 2-1 -Nitrate Levels in Kent's Water Sources
Year Clark Springs Kent Springs Armstrong
Springs
Nitrate Concentration in mg/L
1983 1.09 0.4 -
1986 0.7 0.4 0.2
1989 0.7 0.9 0.7
1993 1.1 0.7 1.1
Hart Crowser
J-3508-01
While these data are well within the drinking water standard of 10 mg/L, there is some
indication that nitrate levels may be increasing. Additional data are needed to evaluate whether
this is a statistically significant increase.
2.6 Principal Geologic Units
The surface and subsurface geology are evaluated and characterized by interpretation of geologic
units using the SKCGWMP Background Data report and well drilling records (SKCGWAC,
1989). The geologic units identified in this report are consistent with the nomenclature used in
the SKCGWMP Background Data Report. Geologic conditions in the area east of the
SKCGWMP area were based on USGS reports (Vine, 1969) and work completed by Derek
Booth for the King County Cedar Basin Study (1993). The major units delineated and described
for this study and their characteristics are outlined below and delineated significantly on
Figure 2-1.
Vashon Recessional Outwash (Qvr)
~ Consists predominantly of well-sorted sand and gravel;
~ Occurs at the surface as outwash plain throughout the study area with local areas of terrace
and valley train deposits in the easternmost study area;
~ Has a relatively high iniiltration capacity; and
~ Is an important aquifer supplying water to the City's spring sources.
Vashon Ice-Contact Deposits (Qvi)
~ Consist primarily of sand and gravel but less sorted than the Qvr deposits;
~ Occur at the surface east of Clark Springs;
~ Have a moderate to high iniiltration capacity; and
~ Are likely an important source of recharge for the Qvr aquifer in the eastern portion of the
study area.
Page 2-4
-
Vashon Till (Qvt)
"' Consists of a dense, unsorted mixture of clay, silt, sand, and gravel;
Hart Crowser
J-3508-01
"' Occurs at the surface throughout the area capping bedrock knobs and uplands, and in the
subsurface beneath the Qvr in many areas;
"' Has low infiltration capacity restricting local recharge; and
"' Provides a protective layer to deeper aquifers from contaminant migration where it occurs in
the subsurface.
Second Coarse-Grained Unit Qc(2)
"' Older (than Vashon) glacial sequence possibly correlative with the Possession Drift sequence;
"' Consists predominantly of granular soils and may include till layers;
"' Occurs at depth in western portion of the study area and in outcrops at a few locations in the
southwest and northern portion of the study area; and
"' Is an important aquifer tapped by the Armstrong Springs, Kent Springs, and Covington
wells.
Second Fine-Grained Unit Qf(2)
"' Older interglacial sequence possibly correlative with the Whidbey Formation or the Kitsap
Formation;
"' Consists primarily of fme-grained alluvial and lacustrine sand, silt, clay, and peat; and
"' Occurs primarily in the subsurface below the Qc(2) deposits and forms the lower boundary of
the Qc(2) aquifer tapped by the City's wells.
Third Coarse-Grained Unit Qc(3)
"' Next older glacial sequence may be correlative with the Salmon Springs Drift;
"' Consists predominantly of coarse-grained materials and includes layers of till;
"' Occurs at depth below the Qc(2) aquifer tapped by the City's wells and· is typically
recognized by its oxidized condition; and
~> Next principal aquifer below the Qc(2).
Third Fine-Grained Unit Qf(3)
"' Next older fme-grained sequence may be correlative with the Puyallup Formation; and
"' Consists of a thick sequence of sand, silt, clay, and peat-difficult to distinguish from the
Qf(2).
Tertiary Bedrock (Tbr)
"' Primarily sedimentary bedrock of the Puget Group but also includes local outcrops of igneous
rock;
"' Occurs at shallow depths and at ground surface in the eastern portion of the study area but
dives steeply to the west so that it is not a signifJCant unit in the western portion of the study
area; and
,. Has low infiltration capacity restricting local recharge and generally considered to bound the
area aquifers.
Page 2-5
-
Hart Crowser
J-3508-01
In addition to these primary units there are several other geologic units defmed on the maps and
cross sections prepared for this report. These include the Recent Alluvium (Qal) which occurs
in the major river valleys along the margins of the study area, thin peat layers (Qp) which occur
locally throughout, and the Vashon Advance Outwash (Qva) which, except for some minor
deposits beneath the Pipe Lake area, is largely absent from this area. Because these deposits
have no significant effect on the supply and transport of groundwater to the Kent supply sources,
they are not discussed much further herein.
2. 7 Subsurface Geology and Groundwater Flow
As the surficial geology is important to the infiltration of precipitation, the characteristics and
distribution of geologic deposits in the subsurface are important to the movement of groundwater
to the wellhead. Subsurface cross sections were developed around each of the City's Springs
properties to provide additional information on the subsurface stratigraphy, the layering and
occurrence of geologic units which defme the aquifers, and the transport pathways for potential
contaminant movement to the wellheads.
The subsurface geology and its effect on groundwater flow around each of the source areas are
discussed below. Refer to the Surficial Geologic Map (Figure 2-1) and the Cross Sections
(Figures 2-2 through 2-11) which support the discussions.
2.7.1 Clark Springs Area
The Clark Springs are situated in a narrow, sediment-fJ.!led channel bounded by till-capped
bedrock knobs to the north and south. The infJ.!led materials are very coarse-grained recessional
outwash sand and gravel deposited as the last glacier retreated from this area. These coarse-
grained glacial deposits, mapped as Qvr and Qvi on Figure 2-1, extend due east of the Clark
Springs property, then fan out to the north and south just beyond the Georgetown area. The Qvr
and Qvi comprise the aquifer which provides groundwater flow to Clark Springs. Cross sections
Cl-Cl' through C4-C4' (Figures 2-2 and 2-3) depict the generalized hydrogeology through the
Clark Springs aquifer area.
Bedrock confmement of the permeable outwash deposits to a narrow channel at the Clark
Springs property may be the cause of the springs which naturally emanate in this area. As
shown on Figure 2-1, bedrock surfaces again east, southeast, and southwest of Retreat Lake over
2 miles east of Clark Springs. In the area by Retreat Lake and southwestward, shallowing
bedrock causes the Qvr and Qvi to rise in elevation (See Well group 32A, Figure 2-3). This rise
distinguishes a northwest -southeast trending trough of recessional outwash that occurs along the
east side of the bedrock knobs north and south of Georgetown and west of Retreat Lake. This
trough may represent former meltwater discharge pathways to the Cedar and Green Rivers and a
preferred pathway for groundwater flow through this area today.
Groundwater flow through the glacial deposits east of Clark Springs appears to be predominantly
east to west as shown on the Groundwater Elevation Contour Map, Figure 2-12. However,
Page 2-6
-
Hart Crowser
J-3508-01
within the trough of recessional deposits along the east side of the bedrock knobs north and
south of Georgetown, a northward flow pattern is indicated.
There appears to be significant volume of groundwater flow moving through this foothills
recharge area. In addition to the groundwater flow toward the Clark Springs area (over 3,000
gpm), the existing data indicate there is a component of groundwater flow northward that
discharges to the Cedar River, and a component of flow southwestward moving through the
Ravensdale area toward the Kent Springs and Covington wellfields. In addition to supporting
these large water supply systems, King County (1993) maintains that the groundwater in this
area also provides a significant contribution to Rock Creek flow, the only major surface water
drainage in the eastern portion of the study area and an important fishery resource stream in the
Cedar River Basin.
2. 7.2 Kent Springs Area
The Kent Springs property lies just north of Lake Sawyer within the glacial drift plain in the
western portion of the study area. In this area the bedrock dives steeply beneath a thick
sequence of glacial and interglacial sediments. The surficial deposits are predominantly Qvr, the
permeable recessional outwash deposits seen further east. Till-capped knobs are interspersed
within the flatter outwash channels. In this area the subsurface stratigraphy becomes more
complex with a thicker sequence of variable material types. Cross sections K1-K1' through
K3-K3' (Figures 2-4 and 2-5) show interpreted subsurface stratigraphy around the Kent Springs
area.
The Kent Springs aquifer appears to be made up of two coarse-grained glacial sequences, the
Qvr and the Qc(2) units. At the Kent Springs property these units appear to be in direct contact
with each other, while to the north, east, and south, till typically separates these units. The till
occurrence is illustrated on Figures 2-4 and 2-5. Till appears to occur beneath the Covington
wells (Figure 2-4, Section K2-K2'), parts of Lake Sawyer (Figure 2-5, Section K3-K3'), and
stretches beneath the ground surface between till-capped knobs to the northeast (Figure 2-1).
However, as you near the Kent Springs property, the till deposits thin or are absent. Limited
data also suggest that the till may also be absent for some distance west -southwest of the Kent
Springs (Figure 2-4, Section K1-K1 ').
Geologic materials and seasonal behavior suggest the Kent Springs are derived from the
shallower recessional outwash (Qvr) and the wells are completed in the Qc(2) deposits. Use of
the springs occurs primarily in the wetter months of year and this would correlate with renewed
recharge of the shallower Qvr deposits. In the drier summer and early fall months the deeper
and more continuous Qc(2) unit provides a more reliable source. Well log data indicate the
Qc(2) extends throughout the area beneath the till-capped knobs while the extent of the Qvr
aquifer is limited by the till.
Groundwater flow through the Kent Springs vicinity is a continuation of the east to west flow
pattern discussed for the Clark Springs property. Moving westward from the Georgetown area
toward the Kent Springs property, groundwater passes through the bedrock-bounded recessional
Page 2-7
-
-
-
Han Crowser
J-3508-01
outwash channel around Ravensdale Lake into the drift plain in the western portion of the study
area. Water level and well log data suggest that much of the groundwater supplying the Kent
Springs property flows through the Ravensdale channel toward Lake Sawyer.
Near Lake Sawyer, the groundwater flow bends slightly northwest as it flows toward the Kent
Springs property. The aquifer supplying the Kent Springs also supplies the Covington Lake
Sawyer wellfield just south of the Kent Springs property (see Figure 2-1). The effect of Lake
Sawyer on groundwater flow is not well-studied. In the area of the Kent Springs, the geologic
data suggest hydraulic separation; however, as previously discussed, some recharge (range
between 0.4 and 40 cfs) to the groundwater system occurs.
2. 7.3 Annstrong Springs Area
The geology around the Armstrong Springs property is similar to the Kent Springs property.
The property lies within the recessional outwash plain and the wells appear to tap into the deeper
Qc(2), lying below the Qvr, in an area where the till seems to be thin or absent. Till occurs on
hills to the southeast and northwest and till-like material appears to extend beneath the Qvr in
these same directions away from the Armstrong Springs property. The till also appears eroded
away in the area 1-1/2 miles to northeast of the property within the recessional outwash channel.
Cross sections Al-AI' through A6-A6' (Figures 2-6 through 2-11) present generalized geologic
cross sections through the area around the Armstrong Springs. Sections Al-AI', A2-A2', and
A3-A3' (Figures 2-6, 2-7, and 2-8) illustrate the apparent thinning of the till at the well site and
along the outwash channel to the northeast of Armstrong Springs. Figures 2-9, 2-10, and 2-11
indicate significant thicknesses of till to the east and west of the property.
Groundwater flow patterns around the Armstrong Springs property are more complex than at the
other properties because of multiple hydrogeologic boundary conditions. That is, several
regional recharge and discharge factors appear to affect groundwater flow in this area. Regional
recharge from the Lake Youngs area (SKCGWMP, 1989) creates a north to south flow pattern
toward the Armstrong Springs property. This flow pattern converges with the regional east to
west flow (dominating the Kent Springs property) in this same area. The Soos Creek valley,
located less than a mile west of the spring property, is a central discharge area for both of these
regional groundwater flow systems. Further complicating the groundwater flow interpretation is
the likely location of a groundwater divide two miles to the northeast of Armstrong Springs
where groundwater flow may be directed toward the Cedar River.
Page 2-8
;
;
3
'l
'
~ m
;
'~ ,N
~0
~~
'~
Surficial Geology and Cross Section Location Map
' "
0
Q::J
~
Recent Alluvium
Vashon Recessional Outwash
(Local Peat Areas Noted as Qp)
Vashon Ice-contact Deposits
-~
r -~
[lJ
Older Fine-grained Deposits
Older Coarse-grained Deposits
Vashon Till
Tertiary Volcanic and
Sedimentary Bedrock
tA-A't
·-
S20H03
Cross Section Location and Designation
Wells with Logs used for Cross Section
Development (from South King County
GWMP Database)
Monitoring We!! Location and Number
0 4000
Scale in Feet
BB
8000 --
~
J-3508-01
Figure 2·1
11195
-
Q. u
Q.
-..; r
0
0
0
N
II -"' 0> .....
0
"' "' ..... 0 -i5
~
.,
0
u "' ..,
Clark Springs Area
Generalized Geologic Cross Section C1-C1' and C2-C2'
C1
700
~ 650 ...J
(/)
:::1!
~ -., 600 ., ...
. 5
c: 550 0 :;:;
0 > .,
;:;::; 500
450
C2
800
750
....... 700 ...J
(/)
:::1!
~ -., 650 ., ...
. 5
c: 600 .2 -0 > .,
;:;::; 550
500
450 ,
j!5 Well Number
Well Location
Approximate Water Level
(AlD or as measured by USGS,
1986 or Hart Crowser, 1994)
Screened Interval
(if an record)
@] Approx. Specific Capacity
from Well Logs
Aquifer Zane
~ C1' ~
<1
C2'
Horizontal Scale in Feet
0. 2000 4000
0
Vertical
Vertical
100 200
Scale in Feet
Exaggeration x 20
Notes: 1. See Figure 2 for geologic nomendoture. 88
2. Contacts between geologic units are
based upan interpalatlan between
wells and represent aur Interpretation
of subsurface canditlans based
on currently avaUable data.
J-3508-01
Figure 2-2
11/95
. .
• . .
. . . . . . .
--·-" . -·--"-
Clark Springs Area
Generalized Geologic Cross Section C3-C3' and C4-C4'
C3
800
750
~
_J
Ul
2. 700 -
""' ~ Q) Qi Q)
'-;;:: 0
""' ..
0> " c: 0 ·;::: lk: a.
" Ul
" u. _,
.£ 650 '-0 u
c: ~
0
:;; 600 >
..
0
IL
"' " .. w
550
500
450
C4
900
850
BOO
:.:;-
Ul 2. 750 -" " LL
.£ 700
c 0
0
:;; 650 lil
> " w
600 Qvr
550
Tbr
500
c:
0 :;::;
c: u .,
0 Ul :;::;
0 £ " ~
Ul Ul "0 -c: .£ ~ "' 0 w "0
c: 0 N " 0 0 w "' < ~ ....
I
.. ..
0 0
II. < "' "' .., ..,
%~-1\("fg'\rof·······.· ... ·.·.· .. · ... ·.·······.· .. ·.···.=?%''77 ~.?"··· ·--. --?-
Cross Section C3-C3'
w ..
<')
..
0
IL .. ..,
Cross Section C4-C4'
Bend in Section
~
~
" E
E
~ w
~ ..
0
0
N ..,
..
I
"'
rn:J
~
:::; ...
< ~
@]
1i: ...
C3'
~ ...
Tbr
..
~ g: Well Number
Well Location
Approximate Water Level
(A TO or as mecsured by USGS,
1986 or Hart Crowser, 1994
Screened Interval
(if on record)
@] Approx. Specific Capacity
from Well Logs
~ Aquifer Zone
Notes: 1. ~ee Figure 2 for gealogic nomenclcturc .
2. Contacts between geologic unit$ Qre
based upon lnterp.olatlon between
wells and represent our interpretation
of subsurface conditions based
on cutTently available data.
Horizon tal Scale in Feel
0 2000 4000
0 100
Vertical Scale in Feet
Vertical Exaggerotian x 20
C4'
[ill
BB
200
~
J-3608-01
Figure 2-3
11196
I
-
0-v
0-u _,
~
N •
Kent Springs Area
Generalized Geologic Cross Section K1-K1' and K2-K2'
600
550
~
::IE
~ 500
~ .. .. ...
. E 450
c
0 :z;
g 400 ..
G:i
~
-' Vl
350
300
600
~ 550
~ .. .. ...
500 .E
c
0 :z; g 450 ..
G:i
..
400
K1
K2 ..
:il •
..
0 c
10
c
10 Well Number
Well Location
Qc(2)
..
0 z
t')
t')
Approximate Water Level
(A TO or as measured by USGS,
1986 or Hart Crawoer, 1994)
Screened Interval
(If on record)
Approx. Specific Capacity
from Well Logs
Kent Springs
A reo
t')
0 a.
t')
t')
Qf(3)
Deep
A1-A1'
%, Aquifer Zone
Nate: 1. See Figu•• 2 far geologic
nomenclature
2. Contacts between geologic
units are' based upon
interpolation between wello
and repr-t our Interpretation
of subsurface conditions.
..
0
0 • t')
~ z ·o
0
0
"' ~ ..
0
A. ...
Cll
..
0 a: • t')
K1'
Horizontal Scale in Feet
0 2000 4000
0
Vertical
Vertical
100 200
Scale in Feet
Exaggeration x 20
8B
J-3608-01
Figure 2-4
11/96
-
-
0. u
0. u -:c
0
0
0
N
II -"' '" ' 0 .., :! ' 0
"0
.,
0 > "' u ..,
Kent Springs Area
Generalized Cross Section K3-K3'
~
-' Ill :::;;
~ -., .,
"-
.!:
" 0 :;::;
c > .,
w
K3
550
500
450
400
350
N
Q .., ..,
~
'ii
3: .,
"'~ c"' "i:-c: Q.-0~ Ill~ C."-
-~ .E= N "N > .,
0 "'o 03:
Q .::.~~.. u~ .., _.., Ill .., lilt') .,
Qvr
.......... _ _,.--
Qvt_.../
Qc(2)
@)
[]]Qf(3)
K1-K1' K2-K2'
Well Number
Well Location
Approximate Water Level
(A ltl or os meooured by USGS,
1986 or Hort Crowser. 1994)
Screened Interval
(If on record)
Approx. Specific Capacity
from Well Logs
~ Seep/Spring
Aquifer Zone
... ~
1: c
Ill .,
~ c
-'
Note: 1. See Figure 2 for geologic nornencloture.
2. Contacts between g~ogic units are based
upon interpolation between wells and reprU«\l
our interpretation of subsurface conditions.
-0
ll: .,
...
~
1: c
Ill -., 0
.>< w c 0 K3' ....J -
Horizon tal Scale in Feet
0 2000 4000
0 100
Vertical Scale in Feet
Vertical Exaggeration x 20
BB
J-3508-01
Figure 2·5
200
11/95
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Armstrong Springs Area
Generalized Geologic Cross Section A 1-A 1'
A1
600
550
500
~ -' Ul
~ 450 -" " "-
.E 400
c
0
:g 350
0. u
0. u
I
0 g
N
"
"' ~
>
" w
~g ::;;
"' ~~ u"'
300
250
200
150
<')
0 .., ...
"'
@]
~ w z
0 ...
I{) • 0> • ~ ~ u -0 • C!J 0 ... 0 ... <II
Qc(2)
-----@] rn:J [I] ?----. '"'\ .
Well Number
Well Loco lion
Approximate Water Level
(ATD or OS measured by uses,
1986 or Hart Crowser, 1994)
Screened Interval
(if on record)
Approx. Specific Capacity
from Well Logs
'-..._
-0
Ill
0
"'
~ w z Kent Springs Area
0 ~
0
3:
...
0
~
(f)
0
~
..,
0
..,..;
00 -0 -0
C!J 0 "'
.., ..,
GO
a: ~ -...,..,
GO 0 "'"'
"' "' "' ~ u .., ..,
//ff_&'&"P"j
Qc(2) ~---~?[Q)
---_..-/
----~---
Qf(2)/Qf(3)
A3-A3' A6-A6' Kl-Kl' K2-K2'
~ ~
Note:
I _ I I I
Aquifer Zone
1. See Figure 2 for geologic nomenclature.
2. Contacts between geologic units ore based
upon interpolation between wells and represent
our interpretation of subsurface conditions.
Horizontal Scale in Feet
0 2000 4000
0 -----100 200
Vertical Scale in Feet
Vertical Exaggeration x 20
--;;:
"0
" -Ul
~
" >. ,.
0
(f)
" ~
0
-' ~ ...
0
== ::E
~ w z ~ w
0 z
0
" 0
~ 0
Ol -~ A1' n
[Q)
BB
~
J-3508-01
Figure 2-6
11/95
I
I I l
CVO 11/30/95 1=2000 HC.pcp
I l
35080101
Armstrong Spring Area
Generalized Geologic Cross Section A2-A2'
HI 88 !~
• 0 1\,)'P •o ...,_
ill
A2
550
500
450
~
...J
Ul
~ 400 -.. ..
LL.
,!; 350
c::
0
~ 300 ..
GJ
250
200
150
... tOO
0
~
.!!!
"'~ c::
0 Ill .!::.,. me: E'c ... a.
<(U)
r"l
....:..1101 ~
., Well Number "' ~ Well Location
Approximate Water Level
(A lD or os measured by USGS,
1986 or Hart Crowser, 1994)
t Screened Interval
(If on record)
@) Approx. Specific Capacity
from Well Logs
-----------
Qf(2)/Qf(3)
m
% Aquifer Zone
Note: 1. See Figure 2 for geolo9ic nomenclature.
2. Contacts between geologic units ore based
upon lnterpolatlon t;etween wells and represent
our interpretation of subsurface conditions.
C\1
0 a
"' "'
l
A2'
Horizontal Scale in Feet
0 2000
0 100
4000 -200
Vertical Scale in Feet
Vertical Exaggeration x 20
I l I l
CVO 11/30/95 1=2000 HC.pcp
l J l J J J
35080104
Armstrong Springs Area
Generalized Geologic Cross Section A3-A3'
A3
500 r
450 r
~ vl 400
:::;;
~ -:: 350 ....
. 5
a 3oo
:;:
§! ..
w 250 t
200
:!!'i ~ C4 ... 01 • 0
1\)~ •o 01-&
...
~
01
150
88
~ .,-c .. 03:
!>UI UIO>
E.S ......
<(0. ~VI
"' 0
!liD
"' ~
Cl
"'
@)
Qvr
---------
Qo(2)/Qo(3)
Qf(3)
Well Number
Well Location
Approximate Water Level
(AlD or as measured by USGS.
1986 or Hort Crowser, 1994)
Screened Interval
(II on record)
Approx. Specific Capacity
from Well Logs
~ w
VI
0
·~-----?
Qf(3)
[1] A4-A4' Al-AI' I
I
~ Aquifer Zone
Notes: 1. See Figure 2 for geologic nomenclature.
2. Contacts between geologic units ore based
upon interpolation between wells and represent
our Interpretation of subsurface conditions
based on currently available dolo.
0
-.j-
~
l
~ w
VI
0
0
<0
~ ... A3'
0
D ...
N
Qvr
iii~···.··· ,Jb-·····-~·..-
Horizontal Scale in Feet
0 2000 4000
0 100
Vertical Scale in Feet
Vertical Exaggeration x 20
200
~
~
-
Armstrong Springs Area
Generalized Cross Section A4-A4'
~
--' Vl ::::;;
~ -Q)
Q) u..
.E
c:
.Q -~ .,
;:;:;
A4
600
550
500
450
400
350
300
...
0
Ill o Well Number ...
Well Location
Approximate Water Level
(A Tll or as measured by USGS,
1986 or Hart Crowser, 1994)
Screened Interval
~
~
(/)
0
0 ,..,
~
A3-A3'
~ w A4' z
0
0
N
~
?
Horizontal Scale in Feet
0 2000 4000
0 100
Vertical Scale in Feet
Vertical Exaggeration x 20
200
(if on record} Notes: 1. See Figure 2 for geologic nomenclature.
Q. u
Q.
cJ
l:
g
"' II
Approx. Specific Capacity
from Well Logs
Aquifer Zone
2. Contacts between geologic units are bOHd
upon interpolation between wells and represent
our Interpretation of aubsurface concfitions
based on currently available data.
BB
J-3508-01
Figure 2-9
11195
GVU 111/3Uf""11=2!JUU Jcpcp 1 1 1 1
35080103
Armstrong Springs Area
Generalized Cross Section A5-A5'
Well ·Number
~
l3
VI :z
~
Well Location
Approximate Water Level
(A TO or as meooured by USGS,
1986 or Hart Crowser, 1994)
Screened Interval
(If on record)
Approx. Specific Capacity
from Well Logs
1 1 1
% Aquifer Zone
1 1 1 1 1
A5'
Qc(2)
@]
Horizontal Scale in Feet
0 2000 4000
0 100 200
Vertical Scale In Feel
Vertical Exaggeration x 20
Notes: 1. See Figure 2 for geologic nomenclature.
2. Contacts between geologic units ore based
upon interpolation between wells and represent
our interpretation of subsurface conditions.
1 1
'"'"'-' ~1/3v/.,) 1=1~v
35080115
lc.pce
Armstrong Springs Area
1 1
Generalized Geologic Cross Section A6-A6'
A6
600
1
u u
Ill u
1 1 1 1
~
LLi
ui
"' 0
~ 0 A6' ,.._
0 ~
" ...J
-500 " " "-
.!:;
" 0 =
.··. :·.:·.··.:·:·:'
.\rL#~~} Qvr · ....•..••.•.••• ;: #f::781
.. ·. ·:·.·. ·:
.>?:.
------------
--i ··•••·••••••••••·•··
----
...
0
X ...
N
:!!'i
IQ(I)
!; 01 . ~
~· •o ...... ...
... ... .,
01
0 > ..!! 400 w
300
200
Qc(2) m
A2-A2'A1-A1'
...
~ Well Number
Well Location
Approximate Water Level
(ATD or as measured by USGS,
1986 or Hart Crawser, 1994)
Screened Interval
_ (If on record)
@] Approx. Specific Capacity
from Well Logs
I I
%
?-
[I]
Qf(2)
Aquifer Zone
Qc(2)/Qc(3) ,
-~ rn
-?
0
?/
?__.....
/' Qf(2)
@]
100 200 -Scale in Feet
Notes: 1. See Figure 2 for geologic nomenclature.
2. Contacts between geologic units ore based
upon interpolation between wells and represent
our in terpretotion of subsurface conditions .
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I &
c
0
0 I i
" " I ~ ~
0
"'" '"' :::a I 0 ~ >on un
Groundwater Elevation Contour Map
----~~------~,--------------------------~~---------------.
L
510
. ....,
---400---
--700
Monitoring Well Location and Number
Groundwater Elevation in Feet
{April 1994)
Well Location and Number from
Well Log Records.
Groundwater Elevation Contour
from April 1994
Groundwater Elevation Contour
from Well Log
Location of Low Permeability Geologic
Materials (Pnmarily Qvt and rbr)
Considered to form Aquifer Boundary
Inferred Groundwater Flow Direction
,
I
I
····-i-
1
..,o 'H· 6 ._ .-·-41< "<----~--./ l -:"~"-Y' ~~~. ·-· .,...___: I -~··-······•···-' ·:o77',;:_:
.(-. -: 2.!1" -.-I
0 4000
Scale in Feet
8000 --8B
~~
J-3508-01
Figure 2-12
11/95
I
-
-
3.0 WELLHEAD PROTECTION AREA (WHPA) DELINEATION
Hart Crowser
J-3508-01
The hydrogeology described around each of the spring sources fonns the basis for delineation of
the wellhead protection areas. A wellhead protection area is defmed as the surface and
· subsurface area surrounding a well (or spring) that supplies a public water supply through which
potential contaminants are likely to pass and eventually reach the water source (DOH, 1993).
Detennination of the wellhead protection area (WHPA) is the first step toward development of a
wellhead protection program (WHPP) to manage the quality of groundwater-based drinking
water supplies.
Delineation of the WHP A is an important component of the WHPP to ensure that the area
managed will be protective of water quality and that no undue burden is placed on land use.
Under the state's guidelines, the WHPA is detennined based primarily on time-of-travel capture
zones. Time-of-travel capture zones are estimates of the area constituting the most likely travel
paths (based on travel times) of a hypothetical particle of water moving through the aquifer to
the pumping well.
Three travel time zones are defmed; the 1-, 5-, and 10-year time-of-travel capture zones. In
addition, a buffer zone is considered to provide additional protection and compensate for any
errors in calculating the WHP A. The intent of protection within each of these areas is outlined
below.
.. 1-Year Capture Zone. This zone is managed to protect the drinking water supply from
viral, microbial, and direct chemical contamination, and is the most intensely managed zone.
The !-year zone corresponds to the area with the most acute need for protection because
there is not a great deal of time to identify a problem and take remedial action if a
contaminant enters the aquifer.
.. 5-Year Capture Zone. This zone should be actively managed to control potential chemical
contaminants with an emphasis on pollution prevention. While there is more time for
response within the 5-year zone, all potential sources should be identified and controlled.
.. 10-Year Capture Zone. Within this zone, existing medium and high risk potential
contaminant sources should be targeted to receive increased regulatory attention and technical
assistance to prevent pollution and reduce risk.
.. Buffer Zone. This zone includes the area upgradient of the groundwater capture zones
which may include the remaining area of contribution and· the recharge area to the aquifer
providing the water supply.
3.1 Capture Zones Based on Numerical Modeling
The wellhead protection area for the City of Kent's spring sources was delineated primarily .
using numerical modeling and hydrogeologic mapping. A numerical modeling approach was
used because of the size of the water system, the complexity of the hydrogeology and boundary
Page 3-1
-
Han Crowser
J-3508-01
conditions in the vicinity of the City's Spring propenies, and the susceptibility of the water
sources to contamination. Results of the numerical modeling were, used to define time-related
capture zones.
The 1-, 5-, and 10-year capture zones were based primarily on development of a groundwater
flow model using MODFLOW. The hydrogeologic conditions discussed previously and
presented in the surficial geologic map, in subsurface cross section diagrams, and water level
contour data formed the basis for the model construction. To accommodate the expected overlap
of capture zones between the three spring sources, we developed an approximately 53-square-
mile model. The model was calibrated to the measured water level data and achievement of a
reasonable water balance for the overall system. Appendix B describes the numerical modeling
approach and presents the model configuration.
The groundwater flow model was linked to a panicle tracking model, PATH3D, to defme the
time-related capture zones. This particle tracking model releases panicles from the wellhead and
tracks the movement of these particles backward in time to their point of origin. The analysis
was performed at each source area for a 1-, 5-, and 10-year period. The results of this analysis
are presented on Figure 3-1.
Because groundwater flow is generally from east to west in the study region, the predicted
capture zones generally extend east from the groundwater production areas. Because of the
relatively high hydraulic conductivities of the aquifers providing the supply, the capture zones
for the three City Springs sources overlap each other. The specific capture zone modeling
results for each of the City's Springs propenies are described below.
3.1.1 Annstrong Springs
The 1-year capture zone for Armstrong Springs extends approximately 5,000 to 6,000 feet east
of the production area. The 5-year zone extends another 6,000 feet east of the 1-year zone.
The 10-year zone extends roughly 10,000 feet further east in its northern ponion and almost to
Ravensdale along its southern ponion. Lower groundwater velocities predicted southeast of
Lucerne Lake and the till knob south of Clark Springs limit the northern ponion of the 10-year
zone, while higher permeability sediments east of the Kent Springs area cause the capture zone
to extend further east in this area. The Armstrong 10-year capture zone overlaps with the Kent
Springs 1-and 5-year capture zones.
3.1.2 Kent Springs
The 1-year capture zone for the Kent Springs source also extends approximately 5,000 to 6,000
feet east of the source area. Following the course of highly permeable recessional outwash
deposits, the 5-year capture zone for Kent Springs extends east to the vicinity of Retreat Lake1
•
The 10-year capture zone moves further down the valley south of Retreat Lake in the area of the
glacial meltwater trough. The 10-year zone may extend as far as the surface water divide
between the Green River and the Rock Creek drainage basin where a groundwater divide is also
suspected to occur.
Page 3-2
-
-
,.....
-
-
3.1.3 Clark Springs
Han Crowser
J-3508-01
The 1-year capture zone for Clark Springs is approximately 11,000 feet, approximately twice as
long as the 1-year zone for the other source areas. The Clark Springs 1-year zone is
substantially longer than the others because more groundwater is produced from Clark Springs
and more permeable sediments were encountered east of Clark Springs compared to those
encountered in the other two production areas. The 5-year capture zone for Clark Springs
extends further east, ending in an area where the aquifer thins rapidly as the bedrock shallows.
Bedrock outcrops on the eastern edge of the study region form the eastern limit of the 10-year
capture zones.
The 1-, 5-, and 10-year capture zones from Clark Springs probably overlap the 5-and 10-year
capture zones from Kent Springs. The dividing line drawn on the map is based on the concept
of a dividing streamline. In reality, natural mixing in the aquifer, seasonal changes in
groundwater elevation, and variable groundwater withdrawals will cause this dividing line to
move somewhat north and south from the fixed position shown on Figure 3-1.
3.2 Surface Water Divide as Recharge Area
The surface water divide is used to distinguish the area providing recharge to the recessional
outwash channel areas surrounding the spring sources. This divide is delineated where surface
water runoff would move toward the capture zones. This area is particularly important in areas
where till and bedrock hills occur because of the potential for runoff and infiltration into the
more permeable recessional outwash deposits which surround these hills. The surface water
divides were identified based on review of King County Surface Water Management group
maps, local topography, and the predicted locations of the groundwater capture zones. The
surface water divides are depicted on Figure 3-1 by a bounding dash-dot line and shading.
3.3 Assessment of Data Uncertainties
There are a number of areas within the study area where hydrogeologic data are limited or
lacking. In these areas, hydrogeologic judgement based on experience in other similar
environments and interpretations presented in the SKCGWMP Background Data report were
used as the basis for our conceptual and numerical modeling. There are only a few areas where
limited data are most likely to impact the capture zones. These are discussed below.
3.3.1 Groundwater Flow North-Northeast ofAnnnrong Springs
Little data exist on the aquifer properties north-northeast of Armstrong Springs. The relative
magnitude of the groundwater flow contribution from the north versus the east influences the
size and orientation of the capture zones. If more flow is derived from the northern area, the
Armstrong Springs capture zone could orient more northeasterly. Additional data need to be
developed in this area to better understand the flow contribution and its potential effect on
groundwater capture at the Armstrong Springs property, particularly since till may be absent in a
portion of this area. We address this uncertainty in development of a wellhead management area
Page 3-3
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Han Crowser
J-3508-01
discussed later and with additional data collection recommendations in Section 7. 0 Monitoring
Plan.
3.3.2 Quantity of Recharge
The groundwater moving through the aquifers is wholly derived from precipitation recharge.
The amount of recharge will have a significant effect on overall development of the groundwater
flow model. Recharge rates are, at best, rough estimates. Precipitation amount and patterns,
soil types, topography, and land use all affect the amount of recharge to the groundwater system.
We relied primarily on Landsburg precipitation data and the USGS summary graph of
precipitation-recharge relationships (USGS, 1993). Since the summary graph was based on a
recharge model for the Covington Upland area, this document should be reviewed when
available and consideration given to updating the groundwater flow model and capture zone
delineation using these data.
3.3.3 Aquifer Interaction with Surface Waters
A better understanding of surface water-groundwater interactions is needed to develop a more
accurate hydrologic budget for the area. Aquifer-surface water interactions could also impact
capture zones. For example, if we underestimated the degree to which Lake Sawyer is a source
of groundwater to the underlying aquifers, the actual Kent Springs and Lake Sawyer wellfield
capture zones may be substantially smaller than predicted. Likewise, a hazardous materials spill
or release to a stream could adversely affect groundwater quality in losing reaches of the stream.
Stream gaging with nearby groundwater level monitoring such as has been completed on Rock
Creek (a weir has been installed and is being monitored by the City of Kent) should be
conducted on Ravensdale, Covington, Jenkins, and the Little Soos Creeks for better
understanding of the surface water-groundwater interactions in the area.
3.3.4 Retreat Lake Area Groundwater Flow
Groundwater elevations, water table gradients, and groundwater flow rates through the drainage
leading from Lake 12 past Retreat Lake toward the Georgetown area and nonhward to the Cedar
River are not well known. Because the predicted capture zones for both the Kent Springs and
Clark Springs properties extend into this area, additional data need to be developed to more
accurately assess flow rates through this area and boundaries of the 5-and 10-year capture zones
for the Clark Springs, Kent Springs, and Covington sources.
3.4 Composite WeUhead Management Area -Kent/Covington WHPA
A composite map was made for wellhead protection management purposes to address
uncertainties in the hydrogeologic data and to include the capture zones for Covington's Lake
Sawyer wellfield. Coordination of the wellhead protection activities has been a goal of program
development since the work began and is particularly important for the Kent Springs and Lake
Sawyer wellfields because of their close proximity. Additionally, capture zone delineation
Page 3-4
-
-
Hart Crowser
J-3508-01
indicates overlap of the three City sources and the Lake Sawyer wellfield. To accommodate
these factors a proposed composite wellhead protection management area, the Kent/Covington
(after the two major purveyors) Wellhead Protection Area, is identified. This proposed
Kent/Covington Wellhead Protection Area is presented on Figure 3-2 and discussed below. The
specific time-of-travel capture zones for this proposed composite Wellhead Protection Area, are
delineated as Zone 1 (1-year zone), Zone 2 (5-year zone), and Zone 3 (10-year zone).
3.4.1 Armstrong Springs
Zone 1 at Armstrong Springs includes the 1-year capture zone plus the area to the northeast
where the till appears to be thin or absent. As shown on Figure 3-2, Zone 1 is expanded
northward to the surface water divide. Without any confining layers berween ground surface and
the aquifer supplying water to the Armstrong wells, the Qvr and Qc(2) aquifers are highly
vulnerable to any contaminant release. Given the absence of till, the lack of pumping test data,
and a poorly understood groundwater flow pattern, we believe inclusion of this area is
appropriate to ensure adequate protection. Zones 2 and 3 use this same concept of expanding
the 5-year and 10-year zones toward the surface water divide to incorporate uncertainties.
3.4.2 Kent Springs/Lake Sawver Wellfield
Because of the proximity of the Kent and Lake Sawyer wellfield water supply sources we have
developed composite Zones 1, 2, and 3, based on the 1-, 5-, and 10-year capture zones
delineated by Hart Crowser and Robinson & Noble for their respective study areas. The Zone 1
boundary of both the Kent Springs and Lake Sawyer wellfield capture zones are slightly
expanded beyond the 1-year capture area to account for the more southerly location of the Lake
Sawyer wellfield, the more northerly location of the Kent wellfield, and to err on the
conservative side with respect to uncertainty in the outer 1-year boundary. The composite
protection area for Zone 2 also expands Kent's 5-year capture zone to the south to account for
the more southerly location of the Lake Sawyer wellfield.
Precipitation on the small till-capped bedrock knob north of Ravensdale is likely to drain water
into the highly permeable ourwash deposits around Clark Springs and within the Ravensdale
-ourwash channel. For this reason the protection area boundaries are extended to the surface
water divide in this area for both the Kent Springs/Lake Sawyer Zone 2 and the Clark Springs
Zone 1.
Zone 2 for the Kent Springs/Lake Sawyer wellfield source extends the 5-year zone modeled for
the Kent Springs source roughly 4,000 to 5,000 feet further south of Retreat Lake. Zone 2 is
thus a composite of the modeled 5-year boundary for the Kent Springs and the modeled 5-year
boundary for the Lake Sawyer wellfield. Differences in the 5-year boundary for the Kent
Springs and Lake Sawyer wellfield stem from uncertainties in the amount of recharge occurring
in this area and a lack of good water level and hydraulic conductivity data.
Page 3-5
-
-
3.4.3 Clark Springs
Hart Crowser
J-3508-01
Zone 1 for the Clark Springs source is proposed to include the City's property and north and
south to the surface water divides. The surface water divide boundary is included based on the
likelihood that runoff from the low permeability till-capped bedrock surrounding the property
infiltrates into the high permeability outwash deposits comprising the aquifer. Because this could
happen over a very short period of time, we have extended these boundaries outward to include
this area.
The boundary of the Clark Springs Zone 2 is extended northward to the Rock Creek surface
water divide and bedrock outcrop. This larger area is proposed to account for uncertainties in
the amount of flow to the Cedar River through this area.
3.4.4 Consider Sur(ace Water Divide as a Buffer Zone
The surface water divide should be considered a buffer zone for groundwater quality protection.
The hydrogeologic conditions indicate the potential for land use practices on adjacent upland
areas to affect groundwater quality by degrading surface water recharge quality. Examples
include; urban street runoff containing traces of gasoline or other petroleum products in areas
providing surface water recharge to the Armstrong Springs, and surface water runoff from
agricultural areas upland of the Clark Springs containing traces of fertilizers or pesticides.
The surface water boundary provides a margin of safety that addresses data uncertainties and
natural variability in aquifer characteristics. Incorporating surface water recharge into the
wellhead protection area is particularly important near Clark Springs. Because till-capped
upland areas and bedrock outcrops dominate the recharge area for the Clark Springs and Kent
Springs/Lake Sawyer wellfield source areas, runoff is a significant contributing factor to
groundwater quality as well as quantity.
3.4.5 Future Data Collection Nee4s
Additional data could be collected to refine our understanding of groundwater flow to the water
supply source areas. Hydrogeologic data collection should primarily include water level
measurements, aquifer characteristics data, streamflow data, and water quality information.
These data will provide a means to more accurately describe the groundwater flow system and
refme the area model; thus providing a better tool for making groundwater-related decisions.
The primary data needs include:
.,. Water level and aquifer characteristics data (geologic description and transmissivity
estimates) north and west of Armstrong Springs in the Zone 1 area;
.,. Water level and aquifer characteristics data in the eastern portion of the Clark Springs Zone
1 to understand groundwater movement toward the Cedar River.
Page 3-6
-
-
-
Han Crowser
J-3508-01
~ Review the USGS recharge model for the Covington Upland when it is available and assess
any model revisions that may be desirable;
~ Water level and aquifer characteristics data in the Kent Springs/Lake Sawyer Zone 2 around
Retreat Lake; and
~ Streamflows gaging water level measurements around the Ravensdale, Covington, Jenkins,
and Little Soos Creeks to better understand the interaction of surface water with
groundwater.
Additional water quality monitoring is also recommended. Collection of regular water quality
data from appropriately placed wells could help provide an early warning of potential water
quality impacts as well as additional data for aquifer characterization. These data collection
efforts are discussed in more detail in Section 7.0 Groundwater Monitoring Plan.
3.5 Areas Highly Susceptible to Contamination
An evaluation of the aquifer susceptibility was performed to characterize the WHP A in
accordance with the Seattle/King County Health Department's Sensitive Aquifer Recharge Area
designations. Although a portion of the study area was already tnapped for susceptibility in the
South King County groundwater management planning process, more detailed hydrogeologic
analyses have been conducted for this wellhead protection study. Furthermore a significant
portion of the recharge area and WHP A extends beyond the eastern boundary of the South King
County Groundwater Management Planning area and the area mapped by King County. We
used the County's methodology to delineate areas of high, moderate, and low infiltration
potential. This map will be used to achieve County recognition of the sensitive nature of the
wellhead area.
The methodology used was consistent with the predominant method used by the Seattle/King
County Health Department in the groundwater management planning process to differentiate
areas of high, moderate, and low infiltration potential. The analysis included tnapping of four
hydrogeologic criteria over the wellhead protection area. The criteria included:
~ Surficial Geology. Areas where the Qvr occurs at ground surface were considered areas of
high infiltration potential, areas where Qvi occurs at ground surface were considered as
moderate in infiltration potential, and areas where Qvt and Tbr occurred were considered to
have a low infiltration potential.
~ Soils. Soils units as defined by the Soil Conservation Service were tnapped as high,
moderate, and low based on the description provided in the Soil Survey of the King County
Area ( 1973). Generally the soil types corresponded directly with the surficial geologic unit;
with Qvr and Qvi forming Everett soils which are excessively drained, and Qvr and Tbr
forming moderately well-drained Alderwood Association soils.
Page 3-7
-
-
Han Crowser
J-3508-01
... Slope. Percent slope was obtained from topographic maps and the King County Soil Survey
and the criteria used for the Redmond-Bear Creek Groundwater Management Area. High
infiltration was assumed to occur when slopes were less than 40%. Moderate infiltration was
assumed to occur with slopes between 40% and 80%, and low infiltration was assumed for
slopes greater than 80%.
... Depth to Groundwater. The depth to groundwater is an important factor in determining the
amount of time it would take a contaminant to reach the aquifer. High potential
susceptibility was assumed where the depth to water is less than 25 feet. A moderate
susceptibility factor was assumed where the depth to water is between 25 and 75 feet, and a
low factor was assumed where the depth to water was greater than 75 feet.
An Aquifer Susceptibility Map was created by overlaying the four maps developed for each of
the criteria outlined above. The resulting map is presented on Figure 3-3. The entire WHPA is
either high or moderate in susceptibility with over 66 percent of the area being potentially
Highly Susceptible to Groundwater Contamination.
King County recognition of the highly susceptible areas within this portion of the county is
extremely important to future land use decisions. The King County Comprehensive Plan
acknowledges the special level of protection needed for Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas and
Areas Highly Susceptible to Groundwater Contamination. The information on the hydrogeology,
the recharge area for the wellheads of these major City of Kent and Covington water sources,
and the susceptibility mapping, illustrate the importance of protecting these wellhead areas. This
will be particularly important given that much of the Armstrong Springs, Kent Springs, and Lake
Sawyer wellfield protection zones fall within the county's proposed Urban Growth Boundary
area where expedited permit reviews are planned.
Page 3-8
I
I Modeled Capture Zones and Surface Water Divide Map
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I ~
0
0 I " g
~
II
I t ,_
::&1 I S!fil u"'
l
~
Armstrong Springs
Kent Springs
Clark Springs
1-, 5-, and 10-Yeor Capture Zones
Based on Numerical Modeling
0 4000
Seale in Feel
Surface Water Divide
(Area likely contributing recharge to capture zones.)
8000
;;;;;;;;
8B
~~
J-3508-0f
Figure 3-1
11196
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Kent/Covington Wellhead Protection Area Map
~ u
~ c c
0 u
0
0
0 .. •
"' ~ _.,
'"' :::o
"' l!::il "'"'
L
ZONE 1
ZONE 2
ZONE 3
1-Year Capture Zone
2-Year Capture Zone
3-Year Capture Zone
D 4DDD
Scale in Feet
Surface Water Divide
BODO
iiii
8B
~
J-3508-01
Figure 3-2
11/95
I
-. ----
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
! • ~
I
5
I
" .,
~~ =s ~~ Un
Aquifer Susceptibility Map
Kent/Covington WHPA
~~ ..
,
(
/-)
~ /
!(
! ' .• i ~ "-.. ; .
-----...... "-............ ~ t.' '''"f-! I 'I '.c
Relative Susceptibility
(HHHH, HHHM, and HHMM)
1::::::::::::::::::::1 Moderate (MHLM, MHLL)
D Low (None in WHPA Area)
Designation MHLM is the relative rating af
the areas susceptibility ta Groundwater
contamination based on a high (H).
moderate (M), or low (L) rating of physical
parameters in the following order:
Soil Permeability
Geologic Materials
Depth to Water
Topography (Percent Slope)
Note:
./
Methodology for rating from Seattle/
King County Health Dept.; King County
Dept. of Development end Environmental
Services; and the Groundwater
Mona~ement Area Tect)n!col Reports
(1994)
'
'
0 4000
Scale in Feet
BODO ...
-.. ··"-~"'"
= m
I
~
~
J-3508-01
Figure 3-3
11195
I
-
I
4.0 POTENTIAL SOURCES OF GROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION
4.1 Contaminant Source Inventory Methodology
Hart Crowser
J-3508-01
The inventory of potential contaminant sources within the WHP A was conducted according to
the Washington State Department of Health guidance document entitled "Inventory of Potential
Contaminant Sources in Washington's Wellhead Protection Areas," December 1993. This
document summarizes the basic steps for conducting an inventory including review and
identification of potential contaminant sources and prioritization of the risks to the WHP A. A
summary of potential contaminant sources is provided in Table 4-1. These potential sources
were considered when performing the contaminant inventory for the three WHPA's in this study
area.
There were four primary activities conducted for the inventory of potential sources of
contamination. These included:
.. Review of current and historical land use practices in the study area;
.. Compilation of available databases from EPA and Ecology;
.. Windshield survey to confum database site locations, land uses, and identify other potentially
unregulated or unidentified sites; and
.. Review of the source inventory methodology with the Wellhead Protection Committee as it
was developed to allow locaJ and county-wide input into the process.
A discussion of the inventory process and the findings are summarized below. A prioritization
of these concerns follows the discussion of potential contaminant sources. Tables and figures at
the back of the text in this section further identify the potential contaminant sources identified in
the study area.
Identification of a site on one of the regulatory database listings does not necessarily indicate
contamination associated with the listed site. Several of the lists, e.g., the RCRIS merely
identify sites that generate, transport, or dispose of hazardous waste. Section 4.3 summarizes
our fmdings of known sites of contamination based on the regulatory database listings.
4.2 Historical and Current Land Use
Hydrogeologic conditions indicate that long-term quality of the relatively shallow groundwater
system is susceptible to contamination by historical and current land use activities throughout the
WHPA. Knowledge of these land use practices is important to understand the potential concerns
associated with the release of chemical constituents, such as pesticides, nitrates, or petroleum
compounds associated with those land uses. Historical land uses were evaluated by review of
historical aerial photographs from 1965, 1970, 1974, 1981, and 1988, and historical maps dating
back to the late 1960s and revised to the early 1990s. Our review indicated the historical land
uses were primarily residential, mining, and logging. A general review of historical and recent
land use activities are described below. ·
Page 4-1
4.2.1 Residential!Commercialllntiustrial Land Use
Hart Crowser
J-3508-01
Most of the residential/commercial/industrial lands uses are found west of the Maple Valley
Black Diamond Road near its intersection with SR-516. Map and aerial photo review indicate
that residential developments appear by the mid-1960s, but the majority of residential
developments were constructed in the 1970s and 1980s. During the 1960s, several commercial
and industrial uses appear. These land uses included, but are not limited to: sand and gravel
mines; a rock quarry; an asphalt batch plant; gasoline stations; and a BPA substation. Most of
these commercial and industrial land uses still exist today. Potential contaminants associated
with these types of land use include petroleum hydrocarbons, solvents, explosives, metals, and
PCBs. Specific sites which are known or suspected to be contaminated based on regulatory files
are discussed in Section 4.3. Figure 4-1 presents the current land use zoning based on 1993
King County mapping. Electronic information was not available for the area around Armstrong
Springs so it is not included on the map.
4.2.2 Mining and Foresrrv
Coal Mining Activities. Coal mining operations have occurred mostly east of the Maple
Valley-Black Diamond Road. Coal was initially found in King County in the mid-1800s.
Several coal mines in the Landsburg and Ravensdale areas opened in the late 1890s, along the
Burlington rail line. The coal mines in this area included the Landsburg mine (formerly
operated by the Palmer Coking Coal Company; Tobacco Prospect); the Raven and Ravensdale
mines; the Dale mine; the McKay mine; the Anderson mine; Black Beauty and Okay mines; and
the Section 6 mine (USGS). Most of these mines are no longer in operation although abandoned
mine workings have been used for waste disposal in the past and provide a conduit for
groundwater flow in an otherwise very low permeability strata. The Landsburg mine, located
northeast of Clark Springs, is a known area of waste disposal in a former coal mine. The only
current coal mining operation known to occur in the area is located near Lake 12 and is operated
by the Pacific Coast Company. A Special Use Landfill and a Confirmed and/or Suspected
Contaminants Site are listed in regulatory databases within the current mining area of the Pacific
Coast Coal and Palmer Coking Coal Company (see Section 4.3)
Other Mining Activities. Sand and gravel mines have operated throughout the study area at
various times, dating back to at least the 1940s. The Lake Wilderness Golf Course is located on
a former gravel pit and at least two current sand and gravel mines exist in the west project area
(see Figure 4-3). L-Bar Products/Reserve Silica Corporation currently operates a silica mine
southwest of Ravensdale Lake.
Forestry. Forestry operations occur in the southeast portion of the study area, within Zone 2 of
the Lake Sawyer/Kent Springs WHPA as shown on Figure 4-1. Herbicides and fertilizers may
be used in these areas to eliminate competition from unwanted species and to encourage growth
of planted species, respectively.
Page 4-2
-
4.2.3 Current Zoning
Han Crowser
J-3508-01
Current land use in the WHP A ranges from rural residential to urban medium density and
includes commercial, industrial, mining, and forestry uses. The WHPA is situated in a
transitional location as King County's proposed Urban Growth Boundary falls in the west-central
portion of the WHPA (see Figure 4-1). The Clark Springs wellhead, which is located roughly in
the middle of the wellhead protection management area, is located at a breakpoint between the
areas of differing land use. The western area is zoned primarily for urban medium-density and
rural residential; a significantly smaller proportion of the area is zoned for commercial and
industrial uses. In the eastern area, roughly equal portions of the land are zoned for rural
residential development and forestry practices. Several localized areas are zoned for mining
activities in both the eastern and western portions of the WHP A.
4.3 Potential Contaminant Sources Identified in Regulatory Databases
4.3.1 Regullltorv Database Search
To search for potential point sources of groundwater contamination in the WHPA, existing
information from various environmental databases was obtained and mapped. The following
databases were reviewed and are discussed in order of descending importance relative to the
potential for risk to the WHPA.
Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) Conrmned and Suspected Contaminated
Sites Report. This report contains a list of sites investigated under the Model Toxics Control
Act (MTCA). Sites on this list have been reported to Ecology. Ecology then typically performs
a site hazard assessment (SHA) and determines whether further investigation is necessary. Other
sites included on this list may be investigated and cleaned up under Ecology's Independent
Remedial Action Program (IRAP). Owners or operators of these sites perform investigations
and remedial actions independently of Ecology's review.
The inclusion of sites on these lists indicates that a release of chemical constituents has occurred,
or is suspected to have occurred, at the facility. The database provides information on type of
contaminants believed to have been released and the types of media which has been impacted.
Table 4-2 contains the sites that were included on this list. Significant sites identified on the
Conf'rrmed and Suspected Contaminants list within the WHPA include:
t Landsburg Mine
.. L-Bar Products Inc
(Reserve Silica Corporation)
.. Northwest Pipeline
.. Palmer Coking Coal
Zone 1-Clark Springs
Zone 2-Kent Springs/Lake Sawyer
Zone 2 -Armstrong Springs
South of Zone 2 -Kent Springs/Lake
Sawyer
The approximate location of these sites are identified on Figure 4-2, and the status of selected
sites, based on a review of Ecology files, is discussed in Section 4.3.2.
Page 4-3
Hart Crowser
J-3508-01
Ecology Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) List. Releases from USTs to the soil
and groundwater which have been reported to Ecology's Northwest Regional Office (NWRO) are
recorded on this list (Table 4-3). We have also included UST sites which have been
contaminated (Table 4-5). The starus of the investigation and cleanup for the contaminated UST
sites is also recorded.
Owners and operators of registered USTs are required to report a conftrmed release in
accordance with Chapter 173-360 WAC (Washington State Department of Ecology's
Underground Storage Tank Regulations) within twenty-four hours. Under the MTCA Cleanup
Regulation, Chapter 173-340 WAC, even UST owners that are exempt from registering their
UST with the State of Washington (e.g., heating oil UST) are required to report a release from
their UST which may pose a threat to human health and the environment.
Tables 4-3 and 4-5 contain sites in the area of the WHPA that were included on the LUST and
Contaminated UST Sites lists. The LUST and Contaminated UST sites identified within the
WHPA (Figure 4-2) include:
.,. Junior High No. 6
.,. Multicare
.,. Arco Station
Zone 2 -Armstrong Springs
Zone 1 -Armstrong Springs
Zone 1 -Armstrong Springs
Ecology Underground Storage Tank (UST) Registration. This report contains a list of
regulated USTs as defined in Chapter 173-360 WAC, which are registered with Ecology's
NWRO. State UST regulations have been in effect since 1986. New USTs are required to meet
all of the leak detection requirements as defined under Chapter 173-360 WAC by December
1993. Existing UST systems have until December 1998 to be in compliance with the corrosion
protection and spill/overf!ll prevention requirements as defined in Chapter 173-360 WAC. All
newly installed and registered USTs are likely to be in compliance with the leak detection
requirements; leaks should be detected in time and corrective action can be taken immediately.
Sites within the WHPA included on this list are identified on Figure 4-2 and listed on Table 4-4.
Exempt USTs (e.g., home heating oil USTs) as defmed in Chapter 173-360 WAC are not
typically included on this list. Because of these exemptions, this list may or may not represent
the complete risk of environmental contamination from USTs.
Ecology Solid Waste Facility List (SWFL). This list contains a summary of information
pertaining to solid waste landfills pennitted by the County Health Department. No municipal
landf!lls are present within the WHPA. One special waste landf!ll was found within the WHPA
at the Reserve Silica Corporation site. Two other special waste landfills were found just outside
the WHP A boundaries at Iddings and the Pacific Coast Coal Company. Table 4-6 contains the
sites included on the SWFL list. Figure 4-2 illustrates the locations of these landfills.
EPA Region 10 CERCUS. This list contains sites reviewed by EPA under the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). Four sites within the
srudy area were investigated under CERCLA including:
Page 4-4
~ Landsburg Mine;
~ L-Bar Products;
~ BP A Covington Substation; and
~ Toomey Property.
Han Crowser
J-3508-01
None of these sites were placed on the CERCLA National Priorities List (NPL). However,
three of these sites are now being investigated and are also listed under the State's MTCA
program. Of the three sites, only two are actually within the WHPA, the Landsburg Mine and
L-Bar Products sites. All sites are identified on Figure 4-2.
EPA Region 10 Toxics Release Inventory System (TRIS) List. This list contains an inventory
of toxic chemical emissions from certain facilities. The Emergency Planning and Community
Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA, or SARA Title ill) requires facilities that release chemicals above
threshold amounts to report to EPA the annual amount released. Releases include releases to
air, water, and soil. No facilities within the WHPAs are on the TRIS list.
EPA Region 10 RCRA Notifiers List. This list contains information on generators,
transporters, and disposers of hazardous wastes. The inclusion of facilities on the RCRA list
indicates that there is a potential risk for mishandling materials or spills at these facilities.
Eighteen facilities were identified on the RCRA list. Six of those facilities are listed as
conditionally exempt small quantity generators; these facilities generate less than 220 pounds of
hazardous waste per month. Eight facilities were identified as small quantity generators; these
facilities generate between 220 and 2,200 pounds of hazardous waste per month. There are four
large quantity generators listed, including:
~ Bremmeyer Logging Company;
~ Covington Medical Park;
~ Landsburg Mine; and
~ Ravensdale Sand Pit.
Two sites were listed as commercial transporters. There were no permitted storage, treatment,
or disposal sites identified on the list. The RCRA sites are listed in Table 4-7 and the locations
of the large quantity generators, listed above, are illustrated on Figure 4-2.
4.3.2 Regulatorv File Review of Selected Sites
Landsburg Mine. The Landsburg mine site is the location of a former underground coal mine
located in Sections 24 and 25 (T22N, R6E) less than a mile northeast of Clark Springs (Figure
4-2). The mined section, the Rogers Seam, has a near vertical dip and was mined to a depth of
up to 750 feet. Subsidence of the overburden left a trench roughly 60 to 100 feet wide, 20 to 60
feet deep, and approximately 3/4-mile long that was subsequently used in the late 1960s to the
early 1980s for disposal of industrial wastes, and construction and land clearing debris. Drums,
liquids from tanker trucks, and industrial wastes materials were disposed of in the northern
portion of the trench. ·
Page 4-5
-
Hart Crowser
J-3508-01
The Landsburg mine site is under an Agreed Order with Ecology to cleanup the former mine
site. The responsible parties are conducting a Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study
(RI/FS) to determine and evaluate cleanup alternatives, and Golder and Associates is the
consultant conducting much of the work. The site has confmned soil contamination and
suspected groundwater and surface water contamination. Constituents detected include volatile
and semivolatile organic compounds, PCBs, metals, and cyanide.
An expedited cleanup removed over 100 drums from the site in 1991. A Phase I site
characterization has been completed, which included the installation of 7 monitoring wells. Two
of the wells (installed adjacent to each other and screened in different zones) and a surface water
seep near the south portal of the Rogers Seam mine are located within the Clark Springs Zone 1.
The monitoring wells, the mine portals, and 15 private water supply wells in the surrounding
area (including Clark Springs) have been sampled quarterly over the past year for a complete
suite of priority pollutants. Another year of quarterly monitoring is planned before the RI/FS is
completed. No water quality concerns have been identified at Clark Springs, the surface water
seep, or the monitoring wells within the Clark Springs Zone 1.
L-Bar Products/Reserve Silica Corporation. This site is located within Zone 2 of the Lake
Sawyer/Kent Springs wellhead. It is the site of former underground and strip coal mines which
operated between the early 1900s and 1947. No mining activities occurred at this site between
1947 and 1968. The 380-acre site is currently an operating sandstone mine with three active
mining areas and one abandoned mine. Operations at the site include strip mining of the
sandstone from elongated pits, a sand washing plant, and settling ponds for the wash water. The
sand is used primarily for glass and concrete manufacture.
The primary areas of interest at the site are the abandoned mine and the active cement kiln dust
disposal area. Between 1979 and 1982 Ideal Basic Industries disposed of 180,000 tons of
cement kiln dust into the abandoned mine. Cement kiln dust typically has a high pH
(approximately 12) and may contain heavy metals. Contamination is suspected in the area of the
-abandoned mine in soil, groundwater, and surface water and the site is awaiting Site Hazard
Assessment by Ecology. Listed contaminants include metals and corrosives.
-
The facility received a notice of violation from the Washington State DOH in 1986. Leachate
from the cement kiln dust disposal area was found surfacing through an adjacent road bed and
discharging down an embankment. The abandoned mine was closed in 1990 and capped with 4
feet of clay and 3 feet of soil cover.
Cement kiln dust is still being disposed of at this site into the Dale Number 4 Strip Pit.
Laboratory analysis of the disposed material indicate that at least 1 sample failed the Extraction
Procedure Toxicity (EP Tox) test for lead. However, Ideal Basic Industries has obtained an
exemption from the State Dangerous Waste Regulations for disposal of this material. The
exemption includes requirements for groundwater and portal (old mine shaft) monitoring around
the disposal area.
Page 4-6
-
-
Hart Crowser
J-3508-01
Four groundwater monitoring wells have been installed around the Dale Number 4 Pit.
Referenced reports indicate that groundwater is found at depths of approximately 15 to 200 feet
below ground surface. Groundwater likely flows to the southwest toward Lake Sawyer, but
groundwater flow direction at the site may be complex because of mining influences and
naturally occurring fractures in the sandstone. Review of analytical data from the spring of 1992
indicate that pH in the monitoring wells is only slightly elevated above neutral (up to 8.0).
Metals were detected in wells with lead being measured at 0.017 ppm, slightly above the EPA
at-the-tap action level for lead of 0.015 ppm.
Northwest Pipeline. This site is included in the Confirmed and Suspected Contaminated site
database and awaiting SHA by Ecology. The site was reported to Ecology when failure of a
mercury flow meter released mercury to the soil. Northwest Pipeline performed an independent
remedial action to remove the soil contamination. However, verification soil samples indicated
that up to 92 ppm of mercury remained in the soil after the initial cleanup effort. Because
Northwest Pipeline is performing an independent cleanup action, there was little information in
Ecology files.
Palmer Coking Coal Company. This site is located just south of Zone 2 of the Lake
Sawyer/Kent Springs wellhead. The principal concerns at this site involve historical disposal of
wastewaters from coal washing operations and disposal of coal-coking slag and oily sludges from
off site into a series of pits.
Newly mined coal was transported to the Palmer site from coal mines in the area. This coal was
placed into tanks and washed to sort the lightweight coal fragments from heavier soil and rock
particles. The heavier soil and rock materials which fell to the bottom to the tank were
considered spoil materials and were scraped from the bottom of the tank and spread to dry in a
4-acre pit. Between 1969 and 1971, approximately 40,000 of oily wastewater (generated from
steam cleaning of ship bilges and apartment house oil tanks) was also disposed of in the spoil
disposal area.
Water remaining in the tank after coal washing operations was discharged to a much larger pond
along the western boundary of the site. Discharge to this pond was permitted by a National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit (No. 3822).
E&E performed a site investigation for EPA in 1986, and URS performed a Level 1 Site
Prioritization Inspection of the site in 1993. During the E&E study, surficial geologic materials
were described as 25 to 35 feet of fill material overlying 2 to 6 feet of glacial till. Sandstone
deposits were generally encountered in the bottom of the borings. Groundwater was found at
depths of between 25 and 30 feet below ground surface.
Soil and groundwater sampling conf"lrffied the presence of elevated concentrations of metals
including As and Pb, aromatic and chlorinated solvents, and PCBs in the oily sludge disposal
area. E&E (1986) concluded that additional information was needed, however, because of
underlying bedrock they suspected only limited migration of waste materials from the disposal
area may have occurred.
Page 4-7
Hart Crowser
J-3508-01
Minimal investigation has been conducted on the impact from the wastewaters and slag disposal.
EPA concluded that no further action was required under CERCLA at this site in 1993. The site
is currently being reclaimed as required by the Washington State Surface Mining Act.
4.4 Other Groundwater Quality Concerns
The relatively shallow depths to groundwater and the coarse-grained deposits identified at ground
surface within most of the study area produce relatively susceptible conditions for groundwater
contamination. The following discussion briefly summarizes the potential groundwater quality
concerns associated with the land uses and sites of known contamination within each of the three
WHPAs.
4.4.1 Nitrates in Groundwater
There are multiple potential sources of nitrates which could be released to groundwater in the
WHPAs. These potential sources include septic systems, livestock keeping operations, and
fertilizer applications to lawns, golf courses, and timber growing sites. These potential sources
are discussed briefly below.
Septic systems are used in areas which are not served by sewers. The eastern portion of the
WHPA is outside the proposed Urban Growth Boundary in King County and will likely remain
unsewered for the foreseeable future. Wastewaters released from septic systems contain
bacteria, nutrients, and may contain household chemicals which are flushed down the drain.
However, the principal concern from properly maintained and used septic systems is the impact
of nitrogen, which is converted in the environment and transported as nitrate in the groundwater
system. Nitrate is the primary constituent of concern because of its relatively high mobility in
groundwater systems and its potential toxicity to humans. Regional studies have shown that
groundwater quality impacts from septic systems used in residential developments vary widely
based on hydrogeologic setting and housing density. ·
Nitrates originating from golf courses are identified concerns in a variety of locations in
Washington. Nitrate concentrations above the federal drinking water standard (of 10 mg/L) have
been reported in groundwater collected near principal golf course fertilization sites such as
putting greens.
Agriculture, forestry, and livestock keeping are additional land use practices within the eastern
portion of the WHPAs which could result in the release of nitrates into the· groundwater system.
Multiple livestock keeping areas are located around the Retreat Lake area according to King
County records. Properly designed and operated livestock facilities can mitigate the potential for
nitrate releases by implementing best management practices defined by the US Soil Conservation
Service (1990). Poorly managed facilities can release nitrates via surficial runoff and infiltration
to the underlying groundwater system. Within the WHPAs in this study area, agricultural
practices are limited primarily to small-scale operations and do not occupy a large identifiable
blocks of land; however, they are numerous.
Page 4-8
-
Hart Crowser
J-3508-01
Forestry practice, which includes much of the undeveloped land in the eastern portion of the
WHPAs apparently uses fertilizers to encourage tree growth in newly planted areas. Nitrogen,
in the form of urea, is generally used at the rate of 300 pounds per acre.
The presence of multiple sources of nitrate in the WHP A results in the potential for additive
nitrate loadings to the groundwater system resulting in a progressive decline in water quality.
To date, nitrates have not been a detectable problem in the samples collected from the water
supply sources.
4.4.2 Pesticide APPlication
Pesticides are typically used in residential areas, along transportation corridors, at electrical
substations, golf courses, and in forestry operations. Pesticides may be most heavily used at
electrical substations to prevent unwanted plant growth and risk of electrocution to workers. A
summary of the pesticide applications inventoried during this study is provided in Table 4-8.
The term "pesticide" is used here to describe a suite of related products which include
insecticides, herbicides, and fungicides. Available pesticides include 19 varieties which are
restricted to permitted use (by the Washington State Deparnnent of Agriculture) and a wide
variety of commercially available products. When applied in accordance with manufacturer
specifications, pesticides are relatively immobile because they are consumed by the pests or
become adsorped to soil. Most of the products are toxic to humans and animals in small
quantities, with specific risk-based toxicity data available for active ingredients in the commonly
used products.
Herbicides may be used in forestry operations in reseeded/replanted areas to limit the growth of
competing weeds and trees such as alders. Spot applications of herbicides may also be used to
remove tree stumps. Brush clearing operations are generally performed by burning or
mechanical means rather than through the use of herbicides. This information was provided by
communication with the Washington State University Extension Service. We were unable to
discuss site-specific operations at these parcels with the timber companies who currently operate
on the land.
Herbicides are also used on transportation corridors. State and county transportation
deparnnents are responsible for maintaining roads within the WHPA. Herbicides are used
mainly to maintain highway shoulders to be free from plant growth. Oust, Escort, Round-Up,
Diuron, and Garlon 3A, are used on the gravel along the shoulders. They are applied at rates
between 4 oz per acre to 5.7 pounds per acre, depending on the herbicide. They are applied
annually or more frequently as needed.
Pesticides are also used by homeowners. They are used to kill garden and lawn pests, destroy
weeds, kill tree stumps, and eliminate fungus or treat plant diseases. Homeowners are able to
purchase only chemicals which have been approved for retail sale. Instructions are included. on
container labels, but there are no further restrictions provided the chemicals are used as
intended.
Page 4-9
-
-
Hart Crowser
J-3508-01
The presence of multiple sources of pesticides in the WHP A results in the potential for additive
loadings to the groundwater system resulting in a possible progressive decline in water quality.
To date, pesticides have not been a detectable problem in the samples collected from the water
supply sources.
4.4.3 Petroleum Hydrocarbons
There are numerous potential sources for petroleum hydrocarbons within the WHPA. These
include gasoline stations, industrial and commercial operations which fuel and maintain
equipment and vehicles (including mining and forestry operations), and home and commercial
heating oil tanks. Petroleum hydrocarbons are typically stored in USTs in volumes ranging for
300 gallons (residential use) to up to 10,000 per tank (gasoline service stations). Larger storage
volume requirements, greater than 10,000 gallons, are typically stored above ground.
Petroleum hydrocarbons are not highly soluble in water. Their solubility is related to the length
of the hydrocarbon chains which comprise the material. Shon chain hydrocarbons, the types
which are found in gasoline, are typically more soluble than longer chain hydrocarbons which
are found in diesel fuel and heating oil. Because these materials are not highly soluble, they are
not typically found to migrate very far from the source of the spill. The greatest potential threat
to the wellhead could be from sources of petroleum hydrocarbons very close to the wellhead or
large releases of petroleum hydrocarbons. Petroleum hydrocarbon releases may also be more of
a threat at sites where other types of solvent have also been spilled: these materials could act as
co-solvents and increase the solubility, and the likelihood of transport of the petroleum
hydrocarbon to the wellhead.
4.4.4 Metals
Groundwater contamination from metals is a potential threat from commercial and industrial sites
which handle or use materials with significant metallic constituents (paints, waste oil, etc.),
historical pesticide use areas (historical pesticides were typically metal-based compounds), and
could be a potential threat from mining sites. Metals are not highly soluble in water. Their
solubility is generally related to pH and oxidation-reduction potential (Eh) in the aquifer.
Naturally occurring metals could be solubilized in an aquifer near a mining site because changes
in the Eh/Ph relationships could be induced in the mining area. High concentrations of metals
do not typically migrate far from their source areas because of their low solubility, tendency to
adsorb to clay panicles or organic matter, or tendency to precipitate (depending of Eh/Ph
relationships) or substitute to other minerals in the aquifer.
4.4.5 Corrosive MQierilllr
Corrosive properties (acidic and basic compounds) may be present in some products used and in
waste materials generated from industrial sites within the WHPA. As discussed in Section
4.3.2, 180,000 tons of cement kiln dust (pH of 12) have been disposed of at the Reserve Silica
Corporation site. Changing the pH of shallow groundwater could induce corrosion problems in
structures which are in contact with it (foundations, pipelines, etc.). Changing pH of
Page 4-10
-
-
-
-
Hart Crowser
J-3508-01
groundwater could result in mobilizing and or immobilizing other constituents, like metals, as
described above. Extreme changes in pH, away from neutral, may make groundwater unsuitable
for use in industrial processes or for human consumption. However, the buffering capacity of
native soils and rock may minimize migration of corrosive groundwater long distances from their
source.
4.4.6 Potential Pathways for Groundwater Contamination
As discussed above, the potential sources and types of contamination to the WHPA are important
to understand for wellhead protection planning. However, potential pathways for contaminant
migration are also important features to understand because these contaminant pathways can
increase the vulnerability of an aquifer by changing travel time from a source to the wellhead.
The following section briefly discusses the main mechanisms for transport of contaminants to the
subsurface.
Discharge onto the Ground Surface. One of the main mechanisms for discharge of
contaminants to an aquifer is discharge to the ground surface. Direct discharge to the ground
surface occurs when products or waste materials are spilled or placed onto the ground.
Discharge to the ground surface occurs, for example, when materials or chemicals are accidently
released from their containers, when waste materials are placed into a landfill, when wastewaters
are stored in ponds, and when chemicals such as pesticides and fertilizers are applied to the
ground. With the help of rainfall infiltration, the materials percolate into the subsurface, and if
sufficient volume of material is released, they eventually reach the water table and migrate in the
aquifer in the downgradient direction.
Direct Discharge to the Subsurface. Discharge into the subsurface is another important
mechanism for transport of materials to the aquifer. Discharge into the subsurface occurs with
septic systems and dry wells. Discharge into the subsurface is a more direct mechanism for
transport to the aquifer because the contaminants are discharged closer to the water table and
subsurface discharge bypasses the upper layers of soil and its ability to absorb and disperse the
contaminants.
Abandoned Wells. Groundwater monitoring wells and water production wells typically consist
of a hole drilled into the ground into which metal or plastic pipe is inserted. The pipe is
perforated at the interval or intervals where the groundwater will be extracted. Sand or gravel is
typically placed in the space between the borehole and the perforated area of the pipe, and
concrete or cement is placed between the pipe and the borehole up to ground surface. Wells
which are no longer in use are currently abandoned by pressure injection of cement or
overdrilling and removal of the well pipe followed by pressure filling with cement.
Washington State has standards for construction and abandonment of wells. These standards are
provided in Chapter 173-160 WAC. Water well drillers in the state must also be licensed. The
requirements for that program are contained in Chapter 173-162 WAC. Because of these
standards, newly constructed or recently abandoned wells pose little increased risk for
contamination of an aquifer. However, old, improperly constructed or abandoned wells can act
Page 4-11
-
-
Hart Crowser
J-3508-01
as direct conduits for contaminant transport to the aquifer or as conduits between shallow and
deeper aquifers as chemicals may be transmitted between the ground surface and aquifer zones
through inadequately constructed seals.
Storm Water Runoff. Storm water may contribute to groundwater contamination in that
rainfall onto the ground either induces inf'iltration into the subsurface or induces runoff. The
quality of the water which inf'iltrates or runs off is dependant on the type of land use which
occurs and the contaminants which may be located on the ground surface. Storm water
inf'iltration issues were discussed above, as discharge to the ground surface. Storm water runoff
is considered differently as it runs over the surface of the ground, picks up and dissolves
potential contaminants, and may eventually discharge those contaminants to groundwater via
inf'iltration from ditches or ponds designed to percolate water.
The potential constituents of concern present in inf'iltrated water or runoff are diverse and reflect
the land use activities in the areas of interest. Improved roadways, parking areas, and
residential developments can contribute heavy metals and petroleum hydrocarbons which
originate primarily from automobiles. Industrial and commercial areas can discharge the same
constituents in addition to a wide variety of organic pollutants commonly used in business
practice (e.g., solvents, paints, dry cleaning solutions). The open space which dominates the
eastern portion of the wellhead protection management area poses a different risk when
considering constituents present in storm water runoff. Instead of metals and petroleum
hydrocarbons, water quality concerns from runoff in these areas consist primarily of high silt
content and nutrients. The potential for runoff is influenced greatly by the condition of
vegetative cover, slope of the land surface, and the nutrients application practice.
The largest quantities of storm water runoff are anticipated from the developed areas in the
western portion of the WHP A where there is a higher percentage of impervious land surface
cover. In the eastern portion of the management area, storm water runoff will originate from
paved roadways, residential areas, and open spaces where vegetative cover has been removed
-(often from agricultural or forestry practice).
-
4.5 Establishing Risk Priority for Potential Contaminant Sources within the WHPA
4.5.1 Methodology for Establishing Risk Priority
The methodology for prioritizing contaminant risks in the Covington/Kent WHPA was based on
the EPA Guidance document entitled "Managing Groundwater Contamination Sources in
Wellhead Protection Areas: a Priority Setting Approach," October 1991. The guidance
methodology was used in part, but the ranking effort was also based on a level of confidence in
data and information which currently are available for known and potential contamination sites as
discussed previously in Sections 4.1 , 4. 2, and 4. 3.
The ranking was based on the proximity of the source to the WHPA, the type of contamination
at the site, the severity of the contamination, the straight line distance to the well field, and the
Page 4-12
-
-
-
Hart Crowser
J-3508-01
media which contained the contamination. The overall decision level ranking is summarized in
Table 4-9.
Table 4-9-Covington/Kent Wellhead Protection Program Overall Risk Prioritization
Decision Level Available Dara and Information
I Proximity of contaminated site to water source (!-year, 5-year, JO-y ear, Outside, DG)
n Type of contamination per Ecology darabase (C&SCS, SWS, LUST)
m Severity of conramination (toxicity + transpon risk); highest risk is represented by the greatest
number.
IV Straight-line distance from the source to the contaminated sire
v Contaminated media (C-GW, GW, C-Soil, Soil, C-SW, SW)
In the event that more than one known or potential contaminated sites fall within a given
decision level, then the sites were then sub-prioritized within that decision level. The criteria for
sub-prioritizing sites within each decision level are discussed below.
Proximity to Source. For the first decision level (proximity to source), the sub-prioritization of
contaminated sites was based on its location in the time-of-travel zone for each wellhead as
shown on the GIS map. Known and potential contaminated sites were sub-prioritized as
summarized on Table 4-10.
Table 4-10-Covington/Kent Wellhead Protection Program Risk Sub-Prioritization-
Proximity to Source
Sub-Priority Level Proximity to Source
1.1 !-year time-of-travel from the source
1.2 5-year time-of-travel from the source
1.3 10-year time-of-travel from the source
1.4 Outside the time-of-travel region, but upgradient from the source
1.5 Downgradicnt from the source
Type of Contamination. For the second decision level (type of contamination}, the sites were
sub-prioritized as either known contamination or potential contamination sites. Known
contamination sites were defined as sites located within the WHP A that have been identified in
Ecology databases as discussed in Section 5.2. Potential contamination sites are sites or land
areas of the WHP A that are known to used in ways which potentially could pose a risk to the
water quality as discussed in Section 4.3. This category includes point and non-point sources.
In the event that there are more than one contaminated site for a given type of contamination,
then the sites are sub-prioritized based on contaminant severity (toxicity + transport risk),
straight-line distance from the source, and contaminated media. The sub-prioritization hierarchy
is summarized in Table 4-11.
Page 4-13
-Han Crowser
J-3508-01
Table 4-11 -Covington/Kent Wellhead Protection Program Risk Sub-Prioritization-Type
of Contamination
sub-Known or Type or
Priority Suspected Contaminated
Level Contamination Site Code Assumptions
11.1 Mown Conllrmed and c~c~ As a worst case scenano, contammation is assumed to be
Suspected comprised of the most toxic chemical identified for the site.
Contaminated based on information contained in the Ecology database.
Sites
11 .• Mown Leakmg LUH All contammauon sttes assumed to contain petroleum
Underground products.
Storage Tanks
11.3 rotentJai ~•puc ~ystems Sepuc Potential contammatton sues are assumed to be located m
residential communities. Nitrates and bacterial
conr.amination are assumed to be health risks, but it is not
known what the likelihood is for each site to contaminate
the wellhead.
11.4 Potential rerttltZed Sttes rert This category mcludes terulrzed lawns, golt courses, and
agricultural areas. Residential users are assumed to add
the highest concentration of fertilizer, followed by golf
courses, and then agriculrural users.
11., Potential Resource RCRA It tS a assumed that hazardous cnemtcals may be stored on
Conservation and site, but contamination has not necessarily occurred.
Recovery Act
Sites
11.6 Potential Operauonal u-U~l it IS assumed mat petroleum proaucts are stored m
Underground underground storage tanks on site, but contamination is not
Storage Tanks eminent.
Sites
11.7 rotentlal ~otto waste ~Ites ~w~ 11asea on a wmdow survey, the ~w~ m the WHl'A are
assumed to contain low toxicity risk contaminants such as
yard wastes, sand, and gravel.
11.~ Potential Pesuctae l'A Pesttctde use appears to be concentrated along
Application transponation corridors, at electrical power substations,
and one local golf course. For the purpose of this risk
prioritization, pesticides were assumed to include chemicals
such as aldicarb or dicamba.
11.9 rotenual ~torm water ~torm 1 nts category mc1uaes the potential release or lead,
petroleum products, and/or solventS in residential areas,
and the possible release of silt and nutrients in rural areas.
11.1U l'Otentlal ~ewer Mams sewer "lbts category mcludes restaenua• communmes ana assumes
the potential release of nitrates and bacterial contaminants.
The likelihood of an undetected release is assumed to be
low.
11.11 l'otenuai ~pillS ~ptiiS 1nts category mctuaes htgnways ana railroad tracks that
pass through the WHPA. The risk is based on the
possibility of hazardous material spill (e.g., gasoline).
Severity Risk. The severity risk was based on the EPA Risk Prioritization Model (1991). This
model can be used to prioritize contaminated sites based on (1) the likelihood of well
contamination and (2) the severity of well contamination.
Page 4-14
-
-
Hart Crowser
J-3508-01
(1) The likelihood of well contamination is based on the Likelihood of Release at the Source
(how likely is it that the contaminant will be released from the source into the soil underlying the
source) and the Likelihood of Reaching the Well (if the contaminant is released, how likely is it
to reach the well within the planning period?).
For this WHP A study, we assumed that the likelihood of well contamination was the same for
all contaminated sites. The type of site (e.g., storage tank, landfill, UST) was not assigned a
risk because the required information was not available for each site (e.g., number and size of
tanks, existence of clay liner at landfill, etc.). Once a release occurs, the quantity of
contaminant released and the likelihood of the contaminant reaching the water source were
assumed to be the same for all contaminant sites and sources.
(2) The severity of well contamination is based on the Quantity released at the Source (what is
the amount of contaminant expected to be released from the source?), Attenuation during
transport (what fraction of the contaminant released will reach the well at what concentration?),
and Toxicity (how toxic is the contaminant?).
For the WHP A study, we assumed that the quantity released was the same for all contaminated
sites. The attenuation during transport was based on uniform, sandy gravel media, depth of
aquifer of 50 to 100 feet, a straight line distance from the contaminant site to source, and the
mobility and persistence scores assigned to representative chemicals included in the EPA model.
The toxicity for each contaminant was based on toxicity scores included in the EPA model. For
sites with multiple contaminants, the most toxic substance was used as the representative
contaminant for that source. The contaminant substances for each site were based on Ecology
databases.
Straight-Line Distance from the Source. For contaminated sites with similar characteristics for
prioritization levels I, II, and ill, the straight-line distance from the contaminated site to the
water source was used to sub-prioritize the sites further. Those sites closest to the water source
were given a higher priority.
Contaminated Media. For contaminated sites with similar characteristics for prioritization
levels I, II, ill, and IV, the information regarding contaminated media included in Ecology
databases were used to sub-prioritize the sites further. These sites were sub-prioritized in the
order shown on Table 4-12.
Page 4-15
Hart Crowser
J-3508-01
Table 4-12-Covington/Kent Wellhead Protection Program Risk Sub-Prioritization-
Contaminated Media
Sub-Priority Level Contaminated Media
V.l Confinned, ground water
V.2 Confinned, soil
V.3 Confinned, surface water
V.4 Suspected, ground water
v.s Suspected, soil
V.6 Suspected, surface water
4.5.2 Results of the Risk Banking
The following discussion summarizes the findings of the risk ranking for the Lake Sawyer/Kent,
Clark Springs, and Armstrong Springs and wellheads. Tables 4-13 through 4-15 summarize the
fmdings for each wellhead, respectively, while Table 4-16 prioritizes the risks to the whole study
area.
Kent Springs. The risk ranking found ten high priority sites/land uses within Zones 1, 2, and
3. Residential medium-density, residential rural, and transportation corridors were ranked as the
top three risks, respectively, because they are all within Zone 1. There are no known
contaminant sources within Zone 1; however, potential contaminant sources from the residential
areas include nitrate loading from septic systems and fertilizer applications, and pesticide
applications. Home heating oil tanks could also be present at the residential sites. The potential
sources of contaminants from the transportation corridors include pesticide application, potential
hazardous material spills, and runoff from these areas.
The ranking analysis found six other high priority sites or types of land use within Zone 2. The
Landsburg Mine, L-Bar Products, the Elk Run Golf Course, and Reserve Silica Corporation
were ranked 4, 5, 6, and 8, respectively. The Landsburg Mine and the L-Bar Products site were
ranked more highly than the other sites because of the type of site, the severity of contaminant,
the distance from the wellhead, and because Ecology files indicated the soil contamination was
suspected or confirmed on these properties. Section 4.3 contains detailed information on these
sites.
Land uses such as mining and forestry were ranked 7 and 9, respectively. Potential
contaminants related to the facilities include pesticide and fertilizer application at forestry sites
and petroleum hydrocarbon use and storm water pollution from mining activities.
The only medium ranked site was the BPA substation on Retreat-Kanasat Road. This facility is
within Zone 3 of the wellhead. This site was not listed as a contaminated site on any regulatory
database, but it is likely that pesticides are used at this facility.
Clark Springs. The Clark Springs wellhead has six high priority sites within Zone 1. The
Landsburg Mine was ranked as the top site because of the type of site, the severity of the
Page 4-16
Han Crowser
J-3508-01
contaminants, the distance from the wellhead, and because Ecology databases indicated the soil
contamination was suspected or confirmed on these properties. Section 4.3 contains more
detailed information on the contamination at this site
Residential medium-density and residential rural land uses were ranked as 2 and 3. As with the
residential land uses for the Lake Sawyer/Kent Springs area, potential contaminant sources
include nitrate loading from septic systems and fertilizer applications, and pesticide applications.
Home heating oil tanks could also be present at the residential sites.
Forest practices were ranked as number 4. Potential contaminants at forestry sites include
pesticide and fertilizer applications described in Section 4. 4. 2.
The transportation corridor was ranked as number 5. The potential sources of contaminants
include pesticide application and potential hazardous material spills.
Mining operations were the lowest of the high ranking sites and were ranked as number 6.
Potential concerns include petroleum hydrocarbon use and storm water pollution.
Armstrong Springs. The Armstrong Springs wellhead has seven high priority and four medium
priority sites within Zones 1 , 2, and 3 . The high priority sites included the Multi care property
and an Arco Service Station located on SE Wax Road. These sites were ranked as the two
highest priority sites, respectively, because they are located within Zone 1 and because Ecology
LUST database indicated the soil or groundwater contamination was suspected or confirmed on
these properties.
Residential medium-density and transportation corridors were ranked as 3 and 4 because they are
found within Zone 1. As with the residential land uses for the Lake Sawyer/Kent Springs area,
potential contaminant sources include nitrate loading from septic systems and fertilizer
applications, and pesticide applications. Home heating oil tanks could also be present at the
residential sites. The potential sources of contaminants from the transportation corridors include
pesticide application and potential hazardous material spills.
The next tier of high priority sites were located within Zone 2. These sites included the NW
pipeline, Kent Junior High School No. 6 and residential rural land use. The NW Pipeline and
Kent JHS No. 6 were ranked highly because of the type of site, the severity of the contaminants,
the distance from the wellhead, and because Ecology databases indicated the soil or
contamination was suspected or confirmed on these properties.
The four medium priority sites all fall within Zone 3. These sites include L-Bar Products, the
Elk Run Golf Course, the Reserve Silica Corporation, and mining land uses. These sites and
land uses potentially impact the Armstrong Springs wellhead in the same way as described above
for the other wellheads, except these sources are farther from Armstrong Springs wellhead than ·
they are to either Lake Sawyer or Clark Springs.
Page 4-17
Han Crowser
J-3508-01
4.5.3 Overall Risks to the WHPAs
Table 4-16 summarizes the general risks to the study area based on the individual risk ranking in
each of the WHPAs. This risk ranking was generated by summing up the risk ranking for each
type of site WHP A: the highest ranked total score (lowest number) resulted in the highest
overall risk.
Table 4-16 -Overall Risk Ranking for WHPAs
2
Land Use/Site Lake ~awyer/ Clarle Annstrong UveraH
Description Kent Ranking
Residential Medium-1 3 3 7
Density
Residential Rural 2 4 I 13
Transportation Corridors 3 () 4 13
Industnal/Commerc!al 6.25' 1' 6.5' 13.75
Sites
Forestry H !) 1Y 2H
MltuDg 10 7 11 :.!IS
These scores are the averages of the ranks for all industrial/commercial sites with Zones 1,
2, and 3 for each WHPA.
Forestry operations are not within the Armstrong Springs WHPA. This score was arbitrarily
selected so that forestry land use was not anificially elevated in overall rank by having no
score in the column.
As illustrated in Table 4-16, residential medium-density land uses ranked highest overall, with a
score of 7. Residential rural, transportation corridors, and the industrial/ commercial sites of
known contanlination were ranked in the middle, while forestry and mining uses were ranked
lowest of the high ranking land uses.
Page 4-18
Table 4-1-Potential Contaminant Sources Listed by Type Hart Crowser
J-3508-01
CATEGORY I
Sources De.siped to Discharge SubstaDces
Subsurface Percolation (e.g., septic tanks aod cesspools)
Injection Wells
Hazardous waste
Non-hazardous waste (e.g., brine
disposal and drainage)
Non-waste (e.g., enhanced recovery,
artificial recharge solution mining, aod
in •itu mining)
Land Application
Wastewater (e.g., spray irrigation)
Wastewater byproducts (e.g., sludge)
Hazardous waste
Non-hazardous waste
CATEGORYU
Sources De.siped to Store, Treat, and/or
Dispose of Substances; Discharge
through Unplanned Release
Landfills
Industrial hazardous waste
Industrial non-hazardous waste
Municipal sanitary
Open Dumps, Including illegal Dumping (Waste)
Residential (or Local) Disposal (Waste)
Swface Impoundments
Hazardous waste
Non-hazardous waste
Waste Tailings
Waste Piles
Hazardous waste
Non-hazardous waste
Materials Stockpiles (Non-waste)
Graveyards
Animal Burial
Above-ground Storage Tanks
Hazardous waste
Noo-hazardous waste
Non-waste
Underground Storsge Tanks
Hazardous waste
Non-hazardous waste
Non-waste
Cootainers
Hazardous waste
Non-hazardous waste
Non-waste
Open Burning Sites
Detonation Sites
Radioactive Disposal Sites
CATEGORYm
Sources Desiped to Retain SubstaDces
during Transport or Transmission
Pipelioes
Hazardous waste
Non-hazardous waste
Non-waste
Materials Transport and Tnmsfer Operations
Hazardous waste
Noo-hazardous waste
Non-waste
CATEGORY IV
Sources Discharging SubstaDces as a
Consequence of Otber Planned Activities
Jrrigatioo Practices (e.g., return flow)
Pesticide Applications
Fertilizer Appllications
Animal Feeding Operations
De-Icing Salts Applications
Urban Runoff
Percolation of Atmospheric Pollutants
Mining and Mine Drainage
Swface mine-related
Underground mine-related
CATEGORYV
Sources Providing Conduit or Inducing
Discharge tbrougb Altered Flow Patterns
Prnductioo Wells
Oil (and gas) wells
Geothermal and heat recovery wells
Water supply wells
Other Wells (non-waste)
Monitoring wells
Exploratioo wells
Coostructioo Excavatioo
CATEGORY VI
Naturally Occurring Sources whose Discharge is
Created and/or E:ucerbated by Human Activity
Groundwater -Surface Water Interactions
Natural Leerbjng
Saltwater lntrusion/Brac:Jrish Water
Upconing (or intrusion of other
poor-quality natural water)
3SOBOI'l>ot<:onLxls
Page 4-19
1
Table ·4-l -Confirmed and Suspected Contaminated Sites
DXF·TEXT FACIUTY ADDRESS
I Four Comen Auto Wm:lting 26615 Maple Valley Hwy. SE
2 lddinp, Inc. 2"25 Covinpon Way SE
3 [,Bu Producls lncJ 26000 Bladt Diamond· Ravensdale Rd
SiUea Mine Area
4 Lanc1sburg Mine-Rosen Seam Kent-Kangley Rd. & 268th Ave. SE
5 Nortltwest Pipeline I Covinaton 19241 SE272ndAve.
6 Old Lawson Road 26115 Old LawsonRd
7 Palmer Coking Coal Co. 3147 Hwy 169
Table 4-3-Leaking Underground Storage Tank Sites
DXF-TEXT FACIUTY
I BP Oil Company 101964
2 Covington Substation
3 Harris Enterprises Ill
4 Junior High #6
---------
Note: Refer lo Figure 4-2 for Site locations.
3 5080 [\cnlsite4.xlw
~
t
0
ADDRESS
16405 SE 272nd
28401 Covinpon WaySE
17239 SE 272nd
19600 SE 272nd
----
1
CITY
Maple Valley
Kent
Ravensdale
Ravensdale
Kent
Black Diamond
Black Diamond
CITY
Kent
Kent
Kent
Kent
1 1
ZIP CODES COMMENTS
98038-8308
98042-9199
98051
98010
98042-8501
980[0
98010
ZIP CODES COMMENTS
98042-8211
98042-9106
98042-4900
98042-
MEDIA
Soii, Surface Water, Drinking Water,
and Groundwater
Soil and Surface Water
Groundwater, Soil, and Surface Water
Soi~ Drinking Water, and Surlace Water
Soi~ Air, and Sediment
Groundwater, Air, Sediment, and Soil
Soi~ Orounclwater,llrinking Water, and
Surfa<o Water
MEDIA
Groundwater and Soil
Soil
Groundwater and Soil
Soil
----
SUBSTANCE
SUBSTANCE
-----
STATIJS
STATIJS
------
~
.... ~
W() ~a OO:l'!
' "' On
->;
1
l l
Table 4-4-Operational Underground Storage Tank Sites
DXF-TEXT FACILITY ADDRESS CITY ZIP CODES COMMENTS
8 ARC0,68 174~0 SE 272nd St Kent
9 ARC0~~68 174~0 SE 272nd Sl Kent
10 ARC0~~68 174~0 SE 272nd Sl Kent
I BP Oil Company N 01964 1640~ SE272nd Kent
2 BPOil Company# 01964 1640~ SE 272nd Kent
3 BP Oil Company N 01964 1640~ SE 272nd Kent
II Cin:le K N 152~ 17624 SE 272nd Kent
12 Cin:le K N I ~2~ 17624 SE 272nd Kent
13 Circle K N 152~ 17624 SE 272nd Kent
14 Covington Substation 28401 Covington Way SE Kent
I~ Covington Substation 28401 Covington Way SE Kent
16 Covin(llon Substation 28401 Covington Way SE Kent
17 Norman C. Grier DBA Crest 29300 I 79th Place SE Kent
II Norman C. Grier DBA Crest 29300 I 79th Place SE Kent
19 Norman C. Grier DBA Crest 29300 I 79th Place SE Kent
Table 4-S-Current and Former Contaminated Underground Storage Tank Sites
DXF-TEXT 'FACILITY ADDRESS CITY ZIP CODES COMMENTS
3 An:o Station Covington Wax Rd. and SE 272nd Covington 98042
7 BP Oil Station NO 1964 1640~ SE 272nd Kent 98042-8211
I BP Oil Station W3144 26121 Maple Valley Hwy. Maple Valley 98031
8 BPA Covinpnn Substation 21401 Covington Way SE Kent 98042-9106
2 Exxon Station N7-346~ 26821 MapleValleyHwy. Maple Valley 98038
4 Kent School Jr. Higll #6 19600 SE 272nd St Kent 98042
6 Mufti..,. Propa1y CovinJinn 17141 SE Wax Rd. Covington 98042-49~4
' Shell Station Kent 272nd 17239 SE 272nd Kent 98042-4900 "d
cr.!
(I Note: Refer to Figure 4-2 for Site locations.
t ...... 3S0801\cn2site4.xlw
l l l
MEDIA SUBSTANCE
Unleaded Gas
Unleaded Gas
Leaded Gas
Unleaded Gas
Unleaded Gas
Leaded Gas
Unleaded Gas
Leaded. Gas
Unleaded Gas
Diesel Fuel
Diesel Fuel
Unleaded Fuel
Aviation Fuel
Aviation Fuel
Aviation Fuel
MEDIA SUBSTANCE
Soil
Groundwater and Soil
Soil
Soil
Groundwaler and Soil
Soil
Groundwater and Soil
Groundwater and Soil
------------
l
STATIJS
STATIJS
In Progress
Conducted
In Progress
In Progress
Conducted
In Progress
Conducted
In Pro~ess
I
:X: ~S wn u.a ~~
' "' Oro ..........
I
~
~
l
Table 4-6-Solid Waste Landfill Sites
DXF·TEXT FACIUTY ADDRESS CITY
3 Iddings 27S2S Covington Way SE Kent
2 Pacific Coast Coal Co. 30700 Black Diamond -Ravensdale Black Diamond
I Reserve Silica Corporation 26000 Ravensdale-Black Diamond Ravensdale
Table 4-7 -Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Sites
DXF-TEXT FACIUTY
I AC Cushion Molden
2 Ac:cCieanen
3 ARCO Products Co. SS68 Prestia<
4 Blair Industries
s BP Oil Site 01964
7 Branmeyer U.gjng Co.
9 Clean Svc. Co. Inc.
10 Covington Medical Parlt
41 Elk Run OolfCoune
II Exxon Co. USA 7346S
13 EZDozing
14 Four Comen Clemen
42 Lake Wildemess OolfCnune
19 Lakeridge Raving Co.
20 Wesidc Ind. Kent Div
B l.andsburgMine
21 Landsburg Mine
22 Lees Cleaners
40 Meridian Valley Country Club
2S Northwest Pipeline Corp.
26 Ravensdale Sand Pit
28 Thomas C-.
c Toomey Property Site
29 US T~issions Inc.
31 USOOE BPA Covington Substaticm
D US DOE BPA Covington Substation
Note: Refer to Figure 4-2 for Site locations.
3S080llcn2site4.xlw
ADDRESS CITY
20169 SE 284th
26921 Maple Vly Black Diamond Rd.
174SO SE 272nd St.
26872 172nd PI SE
1640S SE 272nd
27204 Kent Kansley Rd.
23S09 SE 2S4th Sl
17700 SE 272nd St.
22SOO SE 27Sth Pl. Maple Valley
26821 Maple Valley Hwy
23024 SE 272nd
23900 SE Kent Kansley Rd.
2S400 Witte Rd. SE Maple Valley
19601 SE F-.se Rd.
26010 I BOth Ave SE
Tl2N R6E S24 &: S2S
Tl2N R6E S24 &: S2S
!70S I SE 272nd
24830 !36th Ave. SE Kent
19241 SE 272nd St.
26000 RAvensdale Black Diamond Rd.
2640S Hwy 169
28836 !64th SE
27632 Covington Way SE
28401 Covington Way SE
21402 Cnvinston Way SE
l l l
ZIP CODES COMMENTS
98042
98010
98SOI
ZIP CODES COMMENTS
Small Qty Generator
Conditionally Exempt Generator
Small Qty <~mentor
CondUionally Exempt Generator
Conditionally Exempt Generator
Large Qty Oenerator
Comm. Transporter
Larse Qty Oenerator
98038
Small Qty Generator
Conun. Transporter
Conditionally Exempt Generator
98038
Small Qty Geuerator
Small Qty Generator
Site Investigation perfonn 1988;
NF A under CERCLA
Large Qty Generator
Conditionally Exempt Generator
98042
Small Qty Generator
Large Qty Generator
Conditionally Exempt Generator
Preliminary Assessment performed 1985~
NF A under CERCLA
Small Qty Generator
Small Qty Generator, Self-Transporter
Site Discovery 1984; no additional infonnation
I l
MEDIA SUBSTANCE
MEDIA SUBSTANCE
l
STAllJS
STAlUS
I
:r
~
r a
~
'it
~
Table 4-8-Pesticides Used in WHPA
Pesticide Use Constituents of Concern
Residential Use Over-the-shelf products used for pest and weed
control
[fransportation Corridors Non-regulated pesticides applied seasonally
and in accordance with Depanment guidance,
including Roundup, Oust, Escort, Diuron, and
Garlon 3A
Power Lines/Substations Heavy pesticide use at substations; cutting and
trimming used to maintain area under
transmission lines. Pesticides potentially used
beneath transmission lines over 10 years ago
[i'orestry Practices Hetbicides commonly used in reseeding areas
to control weeds and alders
Elk Run Golf Course Non-regulated pesticide use in accordance with
King County BMPs
350801\pestuse.xls
-
Information Sources
Washington State
Department of Ecology
Hart Crowser
J-3508-01
King County Roads Depanment,
Washington State DOT
Bonneville Power Administration
Washington State University
Agricultural Extension Office,
Weyerhaeuser, Plum Creek
Golf Course Maintenance
Staff, King County
Page 4-23
i
~
~
~
l 1
T: 4-l ---·--, ---Rankin -~ Ke' rln ·-· .. ..... .... . ... .,
Site No.
DacriJiflcnl
NPS-3 Residential -Medium Density
NPS4 Residential -Rural
NPS-g Transportation Corridon
PS4 Landsbura Mine
PS-3 L-Bar Products
NPS-1 Elk Run OolfCourse
NPS-S Forestry
PS-19 Reserve Silica Corp
NPS-6 Minins
NPS-2 BPA Substation
PS-7 Palmer Coking Coal Co.
PS-I Four Comer Auto Wrecking
PS-6 Old Lawson Road
PS-IS Exxon Station
PS-14 BP Oil Station #03144
NPS-7 Aarioulture
PS-18 Pacific Coast Coal Co.
PS-12 Laferriere Property
PS-S NWPipeline
PS-2 lddiap,loc.
PS-11 KentJrHS #6
PS-9 BPA Co>inaton Substation
PS-13 Areo Station
PS-16 Multicare Property
PS-10 Shell Station
PS-8 BP Oil Company #01964
PS-17 Iddinss __
Proximity
I • !-year TOT
S ·S-yearTOT
10-10-yearTOT
20-Outside
SO -Downgradient
C •Confined
S-Suspected
3S0801fTABLES-S.xlo
Proslmlty
to Source
I
I
I
s
s
s
s
s
s
10
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
so
so
so
so
so
so
so
so
so ----------
I
Type of
Site
3
3
8
I
I
4
4
7
9
8
I
I
I
2
2
4
7
2
I
I
2
2
2
2
2
2
7
Dlstmce
from
Contaminant Source
Severity In Feet
-1.8 0
-2.g 4,goo
-1.8 0
-1.4 lg,ooo
-6.2 14,400
-2.4 1,800
-3.7 10,800
-3.2 13,200
-20 9,600
-S.I 18,600
-I 12,000
-6.2 9,000
-6.4 17,400
-11.1 9,000
-11.1 9,000
-S.I 21,600
-3.2 13,200
-IS.6 -20,000
-62 9,000
-IS.6 18,000
-IS.6 9,600
-IS.6 IS,OOO
-IS.6 16,200
-IS.6 16,goo
-IS.6 17,400
-IS.6 19,200
-3.4 ____12.200
I
Contaminated -Media -Not Known I
Not Known 2
Not Known 3
C-Soil 4
8-Soil s
Not Known 6
Not Known 7
Not Known 8
Not Known 9
Not Known 10
C-GW 11
C-Soil 12
C-GW 13
ow 14
Soil IS
Not Known 16
Not Known 17
Soil 18
C-Soil 19
C.Soil 20
Soil 21
Soil 22
Soil 23
ow 24
ow 2S
OW 26
--NotK.no~ 27
I
Priority
Priority
High
High
High
High
High
High
High
High
High
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
I
'
:I:
.__.S
' W() v. ... oo 00~
' "' Oo
~ ...
"1:1
J:l
()
~
~
Table4 ~ -~
Site No.
PS-4
NPS-3
NPS-4
NPS-5
NPS-8
N~
PS-12
PS-7
PS-3
PS-6
NPS-7
PS.I9
PS.I8
PS-I
PS-5
PS-2
PS-14
PS-U
PS.II
PS.9
PS-13
PS-16
PS-10
PS-8
NPS-1
PS-17
NPS.2
Proximity
I -1-yenr TOT
S -S·yenr TOT
I
Risk fl .............. ..._......... ------
Dacrlllon
Landsburg Mine
Residential-Medium Den~ty
Residential-Rurol
Forestry
Transportation Conidon:
Minins
Lofetriere Property
Polmer Coking Cool Co.
L-llar Products
Old towson Rood
Aariculture
Resem> Sili<a Corp
Pooific Coat Cool Co.
Four Comer Auto Wreckins
NW Pipeline
lddinp.lnc.
BP Oil Station N03144
Exxon Station
KentJrHS N6
BPA Covington Substation
Arco Station
Multicare Property
Shell Station
BP Oil Compony NO 1964
Elk Run Golf Course
Iddings
BPA Substation
I 0 -I 0-yenr TOT
20 -Outside
SO -Downgradient
C ~Confined
S -Suspected
350101/TABW·bb
I I
-----
Prollimlty Type of
to Source Site
I I
I 3
I 3
I 4
I 8
I 9
20 2
20 I
20 I
20 I
20 4
20 1
20 1
50 I
50 I
50 I
50 2
so 2
so 2
50 2
50 2
50 2
so 2
so 2
so 4
so 1
so 8
1 l
Distance
from
Contaminant Source
Severity htFeet
-I 4,200
-1.8 0
-1.8 0
-2.8 4,800
-1.8 0
-20 3,600
-8.1 -30,000
-I 12,600
-6 3,000
-6.4 18,000
-5.1 27,600
-3 3,600
-3.2 10,800
-5.7 1,200
-6.2 14,400
-15.6 25,800
-6.S 1,200
-6.S 1,200
-IS.6 u,ooo
-IS.6 22,200
-IS.6 22,200
-IS.6 22,800
-IS.6 23,400
-IS.6 2S,800
-3.7 5,400
-3.4 2S,200
-S.l 2S,400
l
Contllllllnoted
Medlo Ronk
C-Soil I
Not Known 2
Not Known 3
Not Known 4
Not Known 5
Not Known 6
Soil 1
C-OW 8
S-Soil 9
C-OW 10
Not Known II
Not Known 12
Not Known 13
C-Soil 14
C-Soil 15
C-Soil 16
Soil 17
GW 18
Soil 19
Snil 20
Snil 21
GW 22
GW 23
GW 24
Not Known 2S
Not Known 26
Not Known 27
I
Priori
High
High
High
High
High
High
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
t
:X: ...... s wn
Vl'1 00 OO;E
' "' Oo -....
1
i
t
0\
1 1 1 1
A ................ -...... -A9oll .. .,. ........ -.. .. ava .c-aaan.:raavn u a au .:r
Site No. Description
PS-16 Muhiurc Properly
PS-13 Ar<o Station
NPS-3 Residential -Medium Density
NPS-B Tnnsportation Corridors
PS-S NWPipeline
PS-11 KentJrHSI6
NPS-4 Residentiol • Rural
PS-3 L-Bor Products
NPS-1 Elk Run Golf Course
PS-19 Resme Silico Corp
NPS-6 Minina
PS-7 Palmer Coking Coal Co.
PS-I Four Comer Auto Wrecking
PS-6 Old Lawson Road
PS-IS Exxon Station
PS-14 BP Oil Station 103144
NPS-7 Apiculture
NPS-S Forestry
PS-18 Poeific Coast Cool Co.
PS-12 Laferriere Property
PS-4 Landshu'll Mine
PS-2 lddinp.lnc.
PS-10 Sheil Station
PS-9 BPA Covin8ton Substation
PS-I BP Oil Company 101964
PS-17 lddinss
NPS-2 BPA Substation
Proximity
I o I -ycor TOT
S -S·ycor TOT
10-10-ycorTOT
20-Outside
SO -Downsradicnt
C •Confined
S -Suspected
3SOiio1nABLES.7.xls
Proslmlly
to Source
I
I
I
I
s
s
s
10
10
10
10
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
so
so
so
so
so
so
1 1
Type or
Site
2
2
3
8
I
2
3
I
4
7
9
I
I
I
2
2
4
4
7
2
I
I
2
2
2
7
8
1
Dlst•nce
from
Cont1mlnant Source
Severity In feet
-6.S 1,000
-6.S 1,200
-1.8 0
-1.8 0
-6.2 8,400
-IS.6 7,200
-2.4 2,400
-6.4 29,400
-3.7 13,200
-3.4 27,600
-20 26,000
-1.4 26,400
-6.4 21,000
-6.4 31,200
-lS.6 21,000
-lS.6 21,000
-S.l 28,800
-S.l 26,400
-3.4 28,800
-IS.6 31,200
-1.4 31,800
-7.1 2,400
-6.S 1,200
-8.1 3,600
-8.1 4,200
-3 3,000
-2.8 3600
Contomlnoted
Medlo
GW
Soil
Not Known
Not Known
C-Soil
Soil
NotKoown
S-Soil
NotKoown
Not Known
NotKoown
C-GW
C-Soil
C-GW
GW
Soil
Not Known
NotKoown
NotKoown
Soil
C-Soil
C-Soil
GW
Soil
GW
Not Known
Not Known
Rook
I
2
3
4
s
6
7
8
9
10
II
12
13
14
IS
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
2S
26
27
Prlorily
Hish
Hish
Hish
Hish
Hish
Hish
Hish
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
~
..... ~ wn
Vl"1 oo 00~
' "' o,. ..... .,.
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Land Use Zoning and Relavant Features Map
0. 0 0.
" 0
0
0
'ii -
~
"' ' ~a ,..,.
::a .,
"-a ~~
Ten-Year
Capture Zone
Sewered Area
Sewer Line
1"-·r--;,·J#~f"''l':·l· · · ~---. ... -; ·-·-· """" .. .. ~-·-J~·~:~ .. vl-., ::i----f-~H~
; • I 1 l ."! · I" . ' ;l 1---· :,::;:r.'.i. • • i......L-.io ----'--. -. . •
-·--~ ~
Interim Urban Growth Bou ndory
(from King County ... )
Commercial Center
Commercial Outside Center
Rural Neighborhood
Rural Residential
,,
,.
'
. ! ..
·, '\,_ .
.>
li!""lilllii"""" ~~~~~ Urban Medium Density
Forestry ·-··-
-Industry
/
....... -· -·I
: ~
:·-; .: ...
\ •\ ~ I • 0.: o •'
I.; 1 o.J.~ ~-• -·---''' '' ~-...:.r--
.·
~
N
'
EfB
.Mining ~f'§!JJNj,?
-City of Block Diamond J-3608-01
Figure 4-1
11/96
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I I
.!
I i • i
I I
• <:. ~-
I n
Potential Sources
Regulatory Database Listings
Ten Year
Capture Zone
Potential Sources of Contamination as Identified in Regulatory Database
$ Landfill • Leaking UST 2 Number corresponds to
. listing in Tables
It) Operational USTs ~ RCRA Lorge Quant•\y 4-2 through 4-7.
Generators
E& C01ifirmed and Suspected
Contaminated Sil!l
e Current and Former
Contaminated UST
0 4000
Scale in Feet
8000 -BB
~
J-3508-01
Figure 4-2
11195
I
-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Other Potential Sources
~ • ~
~ c
" ~
.)! • ~
" "' C>
" 0
"'"' ""' ;:o
"' 'il:il u.-,
~ARMSTRO~ I
il'!lM-aPRINOS ..........,,
PROPERTY//
J/
_l
.--~ , .
. _. : .
I
'
--Ten-Year Capture Zone
Pesticide Use
•q.•cV""''"'''"""'
~ Abandoned Mine Area m Current Mine Area
.. , .. ,,_::..: ... , ... .r.,.li'······-,--u .•...............
0 4000
Scole in Feet
8000
;o;;;l
:·::::: ·.·:--i~ ~--+
8B
I
l
~
J-3608-01
Figure 4-3
11/95
I
5.0 EXISTING REGULATORY PROGRAMS
5.1 Introduction
Hart Crowser
J-3508-01
The Potential Contaminant Source Inventory and Risk Ranking identified and ranked potential
and known sources of contamination in the WHP A. This section examines existing regulatory
programs designed to mitigate the risk associated with contaminant sources and identify
management strategies which will be used to enhance the protection of groundwater within the
WHPA.
Federal, state, and local regulatory programs have been in place for many years to help control
pollutants from development and human activity. These programs have been implemented, and
continue to be implemented, relatively independently of each other. For example, programs for
water pollution control, have not always been coordinated with those of air pollution control,
solid waste and hazardous materials management, etc. Nevertheless, these programs constitute
the basis for pollution control in general, and a framework for a more integrated approach.
Wellhead protection programs offer an opportunity to integrate the existing regulatory programs
into a more effective environmental protection effort. Specifically, wellhead protection programs
have a limited geographic focus, they have specific risk-reduction priorities, and they are of
considerable local interest and provide the opportunity for local control. These factors lend
themselves to effective integration and focus of the many existing regulatory programs, with
options for enhancement and new program development where the existing programs do not
meet local needs.
King County under Chapter 173-100 WAC, is developing the South King County Ground Water
Management Plan (GWMP). The draft GWMP (March 1995) contains management strategies
designed to address the perceived threats to groundwater quality and quantity in South King
County. Summaries of the GWMP recommendations are discussed here to portray the county-
wide concerns and resulting recommendations for groundwater protection. It will be important
to support and enhance the GWMP as it provides the building block for wellhead protection
particularly since the WHPA is within the county's jurisdiction for zoning land use and
implementations activities.
Finally, based on existing programs and the recommendation of the GWMP, we assessed
possible enhancements to existing programs or the need for additional site-specific programs.
These additional reqUirements are presented in the form of wellhead protection management
strategies and associated tasks. These strategies are organized according to activity, and are
presented in the next section of this report.
5.2 Existing Regu/lllory Programs
The following section provides a brief discussion of the existing regulatory programs which are
in place and are designed to protect groundwater from contamination. ·
Page 5-1
Han Crowser
J-3508-01
5.2.1 Contaminated Site Investigation and Cleanup-CERCLA and MTCA
The Federal "Superfund" legislation of 1980(Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation and Liability Act [CERCLA]) and the 1986 Superfund Amendments and
Reauthorization Act (SARA) were created to assure that the nation's most contaminated sites
were cleaned up. The major provisions of CERCLA include:
.. Facility owners/operators are required to identify and report sites where hazardous substances
were deposited in the past, and they are required to report current releases of hazardous
substances;
.. EPA promulgated regulations which outline the investigation and remedial action process for
identified sites. These regulations are included in the National Contingency Plan (NCP)(40
CFR Pan 300);
.. EPA is authorized to investigate and inspect sites and use the information gathered during
that process to "rank" sites to determine their priority. Sites that rank highly are placed on
the National Priorities List (NPL); and
.. EPA can use federal dollars to cleanup highly ranked contaminated sites, and can sue to
recover dollars from the people who are responsible for the contamination, the Potentially
Responsible Panies (PRPs).
There were four sites identified in the WHP A vicinity that were inspected under CERCLA as
discussed in Section 4.3. None of these sites were nominated for the NPL.
The State of Washington had over 500 contaminated sites listed by the middle of the 1980s under
CERCLA. In response to the need, Washington began a state cleanup effort. This effort was
largely funded by general tax revenue, and because of the limited funding was targeted to only a
few sites. The state legislature subsequently responded by providing a "State Superfund"
legislation which was followed within two years (1988) by the Model Toxics Control Act
(MTCA) -an initiative from the people (Initiative 97).
While the procedural details of these programs differ somewhat, the thrust has been to make
progress on what has become a list of over 900 sites in Washington. The basic differences
between the Superfund and MTCA programs are as follows:
.. MTCA includes provisions to encourage responsible panies to perform voluntary cleanup of
a site;
.,.. MTCA provides specified cleanup standards for hundreds of constituents, including
petroleum products, in air, soil, surface water and groundwater; and
... MTCA encourages public input into the cleanup process at many points, unlike superfund
which allows for public participation once a remedy is selected.
Page 5-2
Hart Crowser
J-3508-01
Four sites; Landsburg Mine, L-Bar Products, Northwest Pipeline, and Palmer Coking Coal are
located within the WHPA and are being addressed under MTCA as discussed in Section 4.3.
Seven sites in the project area were identified.
5.2.2 Underground Storage Tanks
Underground storage tanks (USTs) typically contain motor fuels or heating oil, but may also
contain solvents or other compounds. Old or improperly installed or maintained tanks frequently
leak. The most common causes of leaks are structural failure, corrosion, improper fittings,
improper installation, and natural phenomena. Soil and groundwater have been contaminated by
leaks from USTs and associated piping.
Federal regulations (Technical Standards and Corrective Action Requirements for Owners and
Operators of Underground Storage Tanks, 40 CFR 290 Part 280) were developed by the EPA
under Subtitle "I" of the RCRA to prevent leaks from USTs. The EPA regulations contain
requirements for proper UST design, leak detection, overfill protection, tank inventory
monitoring, financial responsibility, leak reporting, remedial action, and removal.
In 1989, the State of Washington enacted legislation creating a comprehensive program for the
regulation of USTs and a reinsurance program to assist owners and operators in demonstrating
financial assurance under EPA's financial responsibility requirements. The Jaw contained in
Chapter 90.76 RCW, required Ecology to develop UST rules as stringent as the EPA
regulations. These rules are contained in Chapter 173-360 WAC.
The existing Ecology program for USTs is comprehensive. Owners of all tanks covered by the
regulations must apply for and obtain an annual permit to operate the tanks. The regulations and
permit requirements include:
.. Properly completing an installation checklist filled out by a licensed tank installation
supervisor;
.. Certification of compliance with corrosion protection for tanks and piping, financial
responsibility requirements, and release detection requirements;
.. Performance standards are provided for new tanks. Existing tanks must upgrade according
to a schedule;
.. Examination and licensing for firms and persons involved in UST-related activities;
.. Authorized representatives of the State may gain access to the premises for inspection of
records, to sample, or otherwise monitor operations; and
.. Permits may be revoked for non-compliance. It is illegal for suppliers to deliver a product to
a tank unless a valid permit is displayed. It is also illegal to deliver to a tank known to be
leaking.
Page 5-3
-
Hart Crowser
J-3508-01
Fifteen (15) tanks are registered with Ecology in the WHPA study area (see Table 4-4). The
UST registration is discussed further in Section 4.3.
It is important to note that the above state and federal UST regulatory programs do not cover all
USTs. Notable exceptions are:
~ Farm or residential UST systems of 1, 100 gallons or Jess capacity used for storing motor
fuel for non-commercial purposes;
~ UST systems used for storing heating oil for consumptive use on the premises where stored,
except for systems with a capacity of more than 1,100 gallons have a reporting requirement;
and
~ USTs with a capacity of 10,000 gallons or Jess are exempted from environmental review
under SEPA.
The first two exceptions noted above, however, are subject to local regulatory authority under
Article 79 of the Uniform Fire Code (UFC). Installation and removal of abandoned home
heating oil tanks is regulated by the King County Fire Marshal's Office, local fire districts, and
cities under Article 79 of the UFC. The UFC requires that tanks which have been unused
longer than a year be properly closed in a manner approved by the appropriate fire official.
Leaking Underground Storage Tanks. Leaking underground storage tanks (LUSTs) are
handled by a separate (from the USTs or non-leaking tanks) regulatory approach by the federal
and state regulators. Both EPA and Ecology have programs for cleaning up Leaking
Underground Storage Tanks. For EPA, this has largely been a funding program to states to
implement cleanup programs. For Ecology, the program has involved regulation development,
reporting requirements, and cleanup standards.
Releases of hazardous substances from USTs in this state are currently addressed by Ecology
through oversight of voluntary cleanup actions by tank owners or through enforcement actions
under MTCA. MTCA created the Taxies Control Account and describes the many possible uses
of revenues, one of which is funding for the Ecology LUST Program cleanup activities. In
cases where a fmancially solvent owner/operator cannot be identified or is unwilling to undertake
appropriate cleanup actions, Ecology will directly undertake the cleanup of a site under this Act.
If a fmancially solvent responsible party can be identified, Ecology will seek to recover costs
incurred in any cleanup action.
Jurisdiction for LUSTs in King County rests with Ecology. Four (4) LUSTs have been
identified in the study area as discussed in Section 4.3 (Table 4-3) and shown on Figure 4-2.
5.2.3 On-Site Septic SVstems
As described in Section 4.4, potential contaminants from septic tanks and drain fields include
pathogenic organisms, toxic substances, and nitrogen compounds. Regulatory jurisdiction over
Page 5-4
-
-
Hart Crowser
J-3508-01
on-site sewage disposal systems depends on the type of waste and the size of the system.
Industrial disposal, as well as large domestic on-site septic systems {14,500 gallons per day or
more), is regulated by Ecology. DOH regulates systems with flows between 3,500 and 14,499
gallons per day, while the County Health Department has jurisdiction over smaller systems.
The purpose of the State On-site Sewerage Regulations (Chapter 248-96 WAC) is two fold:
~ Minimize the potential for public exposure to sewage from on-site sewage systems; and
~ Minimize adverse effects to public health of discharges from on-site sewage systems to
groundwater and surface water.
Under this regulation, siting, design, construction, repair, and replacement of on-site sewerage
system are controlled through the use of standards and permits. The goal is to achieve long-term
sewage treatment and effluent disposal and to limit the discharge of contaminants to waters of
the state. Both industrial and domestic systems must now comply with the state's Groundwater
Standards (Chapter 173-200 WAC).
5.2.4 Hawdous Materials/Hazardous Waste
Hazardous Materials Use. Commercial use of chemicals can present significant risk to
groundwater. While there is always the possibility of chemical release to the environment when
using and handling chemicals, significant releases of liquids frequently occur in one of two
ways:
~ Accidental Releases or Spills. Handling materials always presents a risk of spills, but the
risk can be reduced by proper handling methods, spill prevention measures, and spill
response preparedness.
~ Improper Disposal. Most waste materials which could be construed to be hazardous are
regulated by EPA and/or Ecology. For the regulated materials, disposal decisions must be
documented and reported; and the disposal facility must be licensed.
Hazardous Material Storage. The storage of hazardous materials is regulated under the
Superfund Amendments and Re-authorization Act of 1986 (SARA). This law, in additional to
providing the extension and changes to CERCLA as described above, contains Title ill,
provisions for "Community Right to Know" and Emergency Response.
Community Right to Know -As required by this law, facilities handling hazardous materials must
report quantities which are stored on site to notify the community (especially emergency
response groups and agencies) of the types and amounts of chemicals on hand. "Reportable
Quantities" vary from chemical to chemical and can go as low as one pound. In addition,
facilities must report annually on any releases of these chemicals into the environment. EPA
keeps a database of the reported releases which is entitled the Toxic Release Inventory. No
releases were identified in this database within the WHPA.
Page 5-5
Hart Crowser
J-3508-01
State and local fire regulations also regulate amount and type of hazardous materials stored at
any location. For example, above-ground storage of gasoline is generally prohibited in most
counties. Under the Uniform Fire Code (Articles 79 and 80), heating oil tanks which are not in
use must be closed, and spill prevention measures need to be taken for storage of materials
above ground.
Hazardous Material Transportation -Labeling, Placarding, Shipping Papers. Regulation of
the transportation of hazardous materials is provided by the US Department of Transportation
(DOT). DOT regulations are focused on three areas: Labeling, Placarding, and Shipping Papers
(Manifests). The DOT has very specific requirements for labeling hazardous materials.
Vehicles carrying these materials must be placarded with the appropriate DOT signage. Recent
changes to DOT regulations require emergency information to be placed on shipping papers
(such as a phone number where 24-hour emergency response information is available) and that
emergency response information be maintained in the vehicle.
Hazardous waste transportation, is partially regulated under RCRA, and utilizes a specific
manifest form which was developed to track waste material from point of origin to disposal.
There are no programs to provide notification to local government of special hazards related to
transport of materials within their jurisdiction.
Hazardous Waste. The Federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976 (40
CFR 260), as amended in 1984, regulates hazardous waste. RCRA was termed the "Cradle to
Grave" legislation regulating hazardous wastes because the legislation required controls on
hazardous wastes from the time of their creation to their ultimate disposal.
Washington was one of the first states to pass legislation and create regulations comprehensive
enough to warrant partial "authorization by EPA to administer portions of RCRA." Under the
state's Dangerous Waste Regulations (Chapter 173-303 WAC), waste materials thought to be
hazardous must be "designated" through a process of determining the characteristics of the
material. Large quantity hazardous waste generators must meet strict requirements for
accumulation and storage of waste, recordkeeping, and disposal. Four large quantity RCRA
facilities were identified in the study area as discussed in Section 4.3 (Table 4-7) and shown on
Figure 4-2.
Like the federal regulations, generation of small quantities of hazardous is exempt from most
provisions of the state rules. The regulatory threshold amounts, however, are 10 times lower
under the state rules than those of EPA. "Small quantity generators," companies who generate
up to 220 pounds of hazardous waste per month, are relatively uncontrolled and free from
requirements.
Waste Reduction Planning is also required of Washington Businesses (Hazardous Waste
Reduction Act of 1990). Under the terms of this legislation, large quantity generators of
hazardous waste must develop plans for the reduction of hazardous wastes. The overall goa! of
the legislation is for a 50% reduction of hazardous waste generated in the state by 1995.
Page 5-6
Han Crowser
J-3508-01
Emergency Response. The SARA Title m also required that local governments create a Local
Emergency Planning Committee (LEPC) and have an Emergency Response Coordinator on staff.
Part of this committee's function is to assimilate information on chemical use and release in the
area. In an attempt to improve emergency response, an emergency response organization was
required for each state.
Through the LEPC, topics such as training, chemical storage, and incident response are
discussed. In this manner, close coordination is enhanced in the event of a release or spill.
In all cases, except state highways, the local ftre district is the Incident Command Agency. For
state highways, the State Patrol serves this role.
Under Section I of SARA, there are provisions for worker protection relating to emergency
response. Federal and state rules require any business which handles hazardous materials to
provide training for their workers in emergency response. The training is required at different
levels depending on the level of emergency response expected from the worker.
5.2.5 Use of Pesticides and Fertilizers
The groundwater contamination potential from pesticides and fertilizers is discussed in
Section 4.4. The use of pesticides is regulated under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and
Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) (1975). In Washington, this activity has been delegated to the state
Departtnent of Agriculture. FIFRA allows states authority to register or restrict pesticide use.
Washington has its own statutory control under the Washington Pesticide Control Act (Chapter
15.58 RCW) and the Pesticide Application Act (Chapter 17.21 RCW). Washington Departtnent
of Agriculture is responsible for pesticide registration, quality control sampling, and testing and
licensing of applicators.
Like many of Washington's counties, King County has an active Conservation District program
which, with the assistance of the Washington State Cooperative Extension Service and the United
States Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service, provides technical assistance to land
owners. This assistance takes many forms. Fertilizer application rates, appropriate animal
density, and animal waste disposal and utilization are common topics. In many cases,
recommendations are formalized in a "Farm Plan." The Conservation District also provides a
conduit for funding of soil and water conservation and environmental protection measures.
5.2.6 lAndfills
Solid waste landfills are regulated by the federal, state, and local governments. Ecology
regulations entitled Criteria of Municipal Solid Waste Landfills are included in Chapter 173-351
WAC. These regulations include standards for:
~ Location of landfills relative to flood plains, wetlands, unstable areas, and seismic impact
zones. These standards apply to new landfills and lateral expansions of existing landfills;
Page 5-7
-
Han Crowser
J-3508-01
.. Design criteria for new landfills including composite liners, leachate collection and removal
systems, design of groundwater monitoring systems, groundwater sampling and analysis,
reporting of groundwater monitoring data, groundwater modeling, hydrogeologic reports, and
corrective action. The standards also include restrictions on the minimum separation between
the bottom of the landfill and highest groundwater; and
.. Operating the landfill.
King County has jurisdiction over design, construction, operation, and closure of solid waste
facilities in King County. These facilities are regulated under the Code of the King County
Board of Health, Title 10. Two Limited Purpose "Special Use" landfills were identified in the
study area; one at the Reserve Silica mine and one at the Pacific Coast Coal Company as
discussed in Section 4.3 and shown on Figure 4-2.
5.2. 7 Storm Water
As discussed in Section 4.4, storm water is not only a source of groundwater recharge, but is
also a potential source of contamination. Storm water discharges are regulated by the federal
government under Section 402 of the Clean Water Act. Federal regulations were promulgated in
40 CFR Pan 122. The intent of the federal program is to minimize the concentrations of
pollutants which are discharged with storm water from industrial and construction sites. The
federal program includes the following basic components:
.. Permits are required for "storm water discharges associated with industrial activities." For
example, industrial facilities which store raw materials, manufacture goods, or store products
which may come in contact with storm water, must apply for a general permit;
.. The permit requires that facilities implement a storm water pollution prevention (SWPP) plan
and utilize best management practices (BMPs) to control the quality of storm water
discharges. The SWPP plan summarizes BMPs including practices like covering raw
material stockpiles, sweeping the site to minimize pollutants which could be carried by storm
water runoff, or installing and maintaining sediment detention sumps or basins. The SWPP
plan also summarizes reporting requirements, inspection and maintenance requirements, and
establishes a team of people at each site who are responsible for implementation of the plan.
.. The federal program also requires that construction sites which disturb more than 5 acres
must apply for a general storm water permit. The intent behind this requirement is minimize
sediment-laden storm water runoff from construction sites.
Ecology has jurisdiction over the storm water program in the state. Ecology has authored a
general permit for discharges associated with industrial activity, which would typically apply to
industrial facilities within the WHP A. They have written some industrial category-specific
permits such as for sand and gravel mining sites. They have also authored a draft permit for
construction sites.
Page 5-8
-
-
-
Han Crowser
J-3508-01
The Ecology program goes somewhat farther than the federal program as it requires that permit
holders monitor storm water quality at the point of discharge to surface water or groundwater.
However, Ecology does not require the installation of groundwater monitoring wells to
determine potential impact to groundwater from storm water infiltration practices.
King County also has jurisdiction over storm water runoff quality and quantity. The Storm
Water Management Manual for the Puget Sound Basin outlines the best management practices
that should be used in King County to control storm water from facilities during and after
construction.
5.2.8 Monitoring Well Construction
As discussed in Section 4.4, groundwater monitoring wells can be a conduit for contaminant
transport between the ground surface and an aquifer if they are improperly constructed or
abandoned. Regulation of wells in Washington began in 1971 under the direction of Ecology.
Two areas of focus of this program are well construction standards (Chapter 173-160 WAC-
Minimum Standards for Construction and Maintenance of Wells) and licensing (Chapter 173-162
WAC Regulation and Licensing of Well Contractors and Operators).
The Minimum Standards for Construction and Maintenance of Wells includes:
~>-General requirements for well construction notification, design and construction of wells,
sealing of casings, and capping requirements;
~>-Specific requirements for water supply wells including well location, design and construction
of the well and seal, well testing, and well abandonments procedures; and
~>-Specific requirements of resource protection (monitoring) wells including design and
construction standards for the casing, surface protection, seals, well screen, filter pack,
development and abandonment procedures.
The Regulation and Licensing of Well Contractors and Operators includes requirements for
licensing water well drillers, examination requirements, and the responsibilities of licensed well
contractors.
5.3 South King County GWMP Strategies Planned for Iask Reduction
The South King County Ground Water Management Plan (GWMP) identified the topics or
potential problems of concern and, as part of the planning process, will adopt groundwater
management strategies. The GWMP (March 1995 Draft) identified the following topics for
consideration:
~>-Special Area Designations to Enhance Ground Water Protection;
"" Storm Water Management;
~>-Hazardous Materials Management;
Page 5-9
-
.. Underground Storage Tank Management;
.. On-site Sewage Disposal System Use;
.. Pesticides and Fenilizers;
.. Well Construction and Abandonment;
.. Sewer Pipes;
.. Solid Waste Landfills;
.. Burial of Human Remains;
.. Sand and Gravel Mining;
.. Land Application of Biosolids and Effluent; and
Han Crowser
J-3508-01
-.. Ground Water Quantity.
-
These topics were analyzed in an issue paper fonnat, developed by South King County Health
Department (SKCHD) and project consultants. The issue papers contained technical information
about the topic, a description of the existing regulations and any existing programs, and then
identified issues that could be addressed by one or more management strategies. A Ground
Water Advisory Committee (GWAC), discussed and modified these to become strategy
recommendations.
In developing the management strategies, the South King County GW AC attempted to make
maximum use of existing governmental programs and regulatory structures. The management
strategies were based upon thorough research into the problems as presented in the issue papers.
Each strategy was evaluated for feasibility, including implementation cost. The South King
County GW AC preferred strategies that could be understood and supported by the citizens in the
South King County area.
As the South King County GW AC considered each issue, data collection and management, and
educational management strategies were adopted for many of the issues. These were compiled
into a Data Collection and Management Program and an Education Program.
The South King County GW AC realized that the adopted strategies would not completely prevent
contamination problems from occurring in the South King County aquifers, but that it should
greatly limit the frequency and severity of such problems. The South King County Ground
Water Management Plan is intended to provide a framework to assist cooperation between
various regulatory agencies through implementation of the adopted groundwater protection
measures. It is also intended to serve as a guide to further focused research on the aquifers in
addressing data and regulatory protection gaps.
The GWMP discussion of strategies is organized in the following way:
.. Programs Related to Ground Water Quality and Quantity;
.. Programs Related to Ground Water Quality; and
.. Programs Related to Ground Water Quantity.
Tables 5-1 through 5-3 summarizes the groundwater management strategies listed in the GWMP.
Page 5-10
-
-
Hart Crowser
J-3508-01
The strategies that are presented in the GWMP were used as a basis for the strategies considered
for this WHP A. The consultant team reviewed the strategies provided by the GWMP and
augmented them with additional strategies which are specific and strategic to this WHPA. The
following section presents the recommended wellhead protection strategies for this WHP A.
Page 5-11
1 1 1
Table S-1-Programs Related to Groundwater Quality and Quantity
?
Ul
I ....
N
Special Area Designations
Areas with a critical recharging effect
on aquifers used for potable water per
RCW 36.70A Growth Management.
Wellhead Protection Areas per the
1986 amendments to the federal Safe
Drinking Water Act.
Environmentally Sensitive Areas per
Chapter 197-11 WAC State
Environmental Policy Act Rules.
Special Protection Areas per Chapter
173-200 WAC Water Quality Standards
for Ground Waters of the State of
Washington.
Sole Source Aquifers per the federal
Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974.
Aquifer Protection Areas per RCW
36.36.
Stonn Water
Amendment or adoption of the King
County surface water design manuals to
require infiltration, treatment, and no
net reduction in recharge as
appropriate.
Maintenance of rural and open space in
high potential aquifer recharge areas.
Pretreatment of infiltrated storm water
in high potential aquifer recharge areas.
Sponsor research on long-term
groundwater impacts.
Coordination between Department of
Ecology, Pugel Sound Water Quality
Authority, and King County surface
water and groundwater quality planning
efforts.
Assess adequacy of existing storm
water systems/establish priority for
upgrades.
Roadway runoff -priority to recharge
areas for implementation of new
standards.
Evaluate effects of soil amendments on
storm water moisture and nutrient
retention.
1 1
Education
Cooperation in including groundwater
education in existing programs.
Assess and report on adequacy of all
education programs.
Supplemental program development
(New education elements).
Coordinate implementation of education
efforts (Joint groundwater education
programs).
1
Data
Continued data collection, analysis,
and management.
:::0
"' ..... ::t
~n u. ...
00
00~
I V> On .........
1
I
'
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I
Table 5-2 -Programs Related to Groundwater Quality Only Sheet 1 of 2
Land
On-Site Sewage Burial of Applkollon or
Hazardous Underground Treatment and Pesticide and WeD Construction Sewer Pipe Solid Waste Human Sand and BlosoUds and
Materials StonceTanb Disposal Systems Use Fertillzer Use and Abando11111ent Concuns Landrdls Remalrd Gruel Mining Emuent
Support slate Provide local Require water systems Fund Farm Plan Support enforcement Encoumge Determine existing Search for and Regulatory Re-use
hazardous wask: implemcnlation of to conduct nitrate development. of standards. Adoption of level of ground-evaluated compliance with Guideline
plan UodC'!IIOUod loading analysis. routine leak walcr protection. infonnational NPDES aod Revision-
implemenlation. Storase Tank Require allemativc Evaluale pesticide Seck delegation of detection and Improve regularions studies on the Ecology General Limirs within
Regulations. disposal in areas of reduction program well drilling repair programs. if necessary. subject. Penn it Aquifer Areas.
Require vertical high ( > 5 mg/L) of Extension program. requirements.
separation from Add control nitrate. Service. Require Prohibit siting or
groundwater for requirements Regulate well •leakproof' expansion of Support
dangerous waste within County. Initiate a hazardous Cities and County location piping for new landfills in high regulatory
management units. materials management to use low risk idenlific:ation. construction and potential recharge changes lo
Regulate existing program for on-sile methods for accelerated areas by adoption provide better
Develop speciftc •exempt• tanks. systems. vesetation Explore fundins for proJram for of Chapter 173-3Sl protection of
zones for management. proper abandonment. replacemenl in WAC by reference. groundwater.
treatment or Investigate local Prohibil sale of system aquifer areas.
s10rage facilities. authority for c:leanen. Support strategies Promote an Evaluate waste Include Besl
underground home for education and education program Improved screening Management
Include assistance heating tanks. Prohibit use of systctn5 management on well construction. backfill to procedures. Practices in
in site discovery for disposal of any reduce ground SEPA euidance
and pobllc: Ameod Buildi"' materials except water Proceed with document.
education. Code 10 include domestic SCWBJe. ttansmission. investigation of
home underground abandoned sites. Carefully
Implement the ranks (if Conduct household evaluate land use
Unifonn Fire necessary). hazardous waste Education on waste of reclaimed
Cnde (Artic:le 80). education. disposal and mines.
groundwarer
effects. Amend zoning
code to protect
groundwater
from effects or
use of reclaimed
mines.
:I:
'tl ..... s
d'J ~n .. "''"' "' oo
0 00~ .... 0 "' w o,. ........
1 1
Table 5-2 -Programs Related to Groundwater Quality (Continued)
Hazardous
Materials
Implement SARA
Tideru
(Bmeqenc:y
Piannina and
Community Ri1ht
to Know).
Have water
systems assess
tnnsponation
ristldevelop
programs ror
mitiaation.
Work: with DOT
on lrlnSpOdation
risk mltiption.
? ..,.
' ....
-"'-
Underground
Storace Taub
Regulate heating
oil lank
abandonment and
maintenance.
Daoahase
development on
undel)round
lanks.
Educale owncn
on tanks and their
risks.
--
On-Site Sewage
Treatment and Pestldde and Well C'"'"'ructlon
Disposal Systems Use FertWzer Use and Abondenmenl
Education programs on
proper system
mainlenance.
Requin: "As-buiils" of
systems to be recorded
wilh deed.
----
1
Burial of
Sewer Pipe Solid Waste lluman
Concerns LandfDis Remaios
1
Sand and
Gravel Mining
Sheet 2 of 2
Land
Application of
Blosollds and
Emuent
II: .... s
~() ..,....,
oo OO;E
' "' Oo .... ...,
Table 5-3 -Programs Related to Groundwater Quantity Only
Program
Develop policies and ordinances: aquifer recharge/clearing/interim development
standards/impervious cover.
SEPA enhancements.
Data needs -groundwater data program.
Support seawater intrusion policy (Ecology).
Utility pumping data to Ecology.
Adoption of landscaping ordinance -.conservation.
Group B -water conservation.
Xeriscaping education.
Conservation education to individual system owners.
Investigate artificial recharge programs.
Recommendations to establish decline limits/prevent decline.
Han Crowser
J-3508-01
Page 5-15
-
-
-
r
-
6.0 WELLHEAD PROTECTION MANAGEMENT STRATEGmS
6.1 Introduction
Hart Crowser
J-3508-01
The next step in completing the Wellhead Protection Plan is to develop Wellhead Protection
Management Strategies. The management strategies should be developed with the following
criteria in mind:
~ Geology and hydrogeology of the WHPA, keeping in mind the susceptibility of the aquifers
to be protected, as discussed in Sections 2.0 and 3.0;
~ The potential and known sources of contamination and the relative risks associated with those
sources as identified in Section 4. 0;
~ Existing regulatory programs which are designed to protect groundwater from contamination
as discussed in Section 5.0; and
~ The desires of the local community which uses the water supply. This input was provided by
the WHPA Advisory Committee during development of this program.
6.2 WeUhead Protection Tasks
Using the above criteria, more than 70 separate Wellhead Protection Tasks were considered by
the Project Review Committee. These tasks were developed primarily through review of the
implementation tasks identified in the March 1995 Draft of the South King County Ground
Water Management Plan, with additional consideration for the wellhead-specific criteria listed
above. These tasks were presented to the WHPA Advisory Committee, who considered and
modified them as appropriate. Table 6-1 lists the 48 tasks that were approved by the committee.
6.2.1 Task Orranimtion
Each one of the 48 wellhead protection tasks perfonns a number of different functions. There
are various ways in which the tasks could be organized. Three obvious ways the tasks could be
considered include:
Risk Area. Each task generally relates to one or more of the risk areas defmed in Section 4.0,
such as the risk relating to the use of septic systems in residential areas or the risk of using
herbicides along transportation corridors. Additionally, some of the tasks relate to many or all
of the risk areas, such as the task which specifies implementing a wellhead protection steering
group.
Existing Programs. With many of the tasks, there is an existing regulatory program which, to
some degree, is designed to minimize the risk to groundwater from regulated activities: such as
federal and state regulations which apply to septic systems or to the manufacture, use, and ·
applications of herbicides (see Section 5.0).
Page 6-1
-
-
-
Hart Crowser
J-3508-01
Type of Management Activity. The tasks could also be thought of in the framework with
which they will be implemented: such as the task to implement a wellhead protection steering
group is clearly a management function, while a task to document the type and amount of
herbicide application on transportation corridors, forestry, agricultural, and recreational parcels
is a data gathering task. The task which specifies participation in public education program to
notify residents of the potential impact of septic systems within the WHP A is a education-
oriented task.
Table 6-2 illustrates these three main ways to organize the wellhead protection tasks. Because
the tasks could be looked at from so many perspectives, we created a database using Microsoft
Access to store the tasks. We flagged each task within the database to identify to following
information:
~>-Name of the task;
~>-Lead implementation agency;
~>-If the task is included in the SKCGWMP;
~>-The risk area(s) to which the task applies (residential medium-density, residential rural,
industrial/commercial sites, transportation corridors, mining, or forestry);
~>-The existing regulatory program(s) to which the task applies; and
~>-The type of "management activity" to which the task applies (management, land use,
regulatory, planning, cooperative, data gathering, or education).
Tables 6-3 through 6-8 present the tasks organized according to risk area. Table 6-3 includes
the tasks which are common to all risk areas. The other tables include tasks which are common
to one or more (but not all) risk areas. Organization of the tasks in this way, allows the
implementation steering group to see how each task relates to the risks which were identified and
prioritized in Section 4. 0.
The following discussion on management strategies provides more insight into the intent of the
wellhead protection management tasks. For the purposes of implementing this wellhead
protection plan, we have organized the discussion into management strategies which are based on
the type of "management activity" which will be performed. Table 6-9 illustrates how the
strategies relate to management activities. Appendix C contains an electronic copy of the
database as well as tables which sort the tasks according to management activity, and tables
which sort the tasks according to lead implementation agency. Please refer to these tables when
reviewing the following discussion.
Page 6-2
-
6.3 Management and Cooperation Strategies
Han Crowser
J-3508-01
This WHPP must be implemented through continuing management activity. The plan will need
to be adapted and to evolve as needed to meet future changes in the City's philosophies and/or
changes in the physical or geochemical conditions of the aquifer system. As such, the
management strategies and practices outlined within this study provide a general direction and
tone, but will periodically need to be refined to fit future conditions. Additional adaptations may
be needed to address future activities and regulations, or changes in current regulations, that may
affect the WHPA. The following strategies are recommended to address the long-term
management aspects of the plan.
Strategy No. !-Establish a WHP Steering Group. The City should establish a WHP Steering
Group. The group needs to meet periodically to:
~ Evaluate the implementation status of the WHP tasks;
.,. Review federal, state, and local programs regarding the WHP;
.,. Review changes in surface activities within the WHP A; and
.,. Meet WHP regulations and requirements.
The group should strive to focus existing and future applicable water quality and quantity
resource programs toward the WHPA; should meet, at a minimum, on a quarterly basis for the
first three years following Plan implementation; and should establish an appropriate meeting
schedule for the following the 3-year period. The Group should include a representation similar
to that established for the project development Review Committee which included representatives
from the City of Kent, Covington Water District, King County Water District 111, Washington
State Department of Ecology, Washington Department of Health, King County Health, the
Chamber of Commerce, and local citizens.
Strategy No. 2-Land Management Activities. The City should encourage owners or
operators responsible for large land parcels and developments to use and monitor best
management practices (BMP) for control of potential groundwater contaminants into the WHP A.
6.4 Land Use Strategies
City of Kent has no authority to directly control land use within the WHPA. Therefore, the City
must develop a cooperative relationship with those state and local agencies which do administer
land use programs. At the present time, the best strategy for the City is to seek appropriate
special designations for the WHPA. Accordingly, the following is recommended.
Strategy No. 3-5pecial Protection Area Designation. The City should consider having the
WHP A designated as a special protection area. Since various state and local regulations exist
for designating special protection areas, the City should evaluate and seek the designation(s)
which may be most beneficial. Specifically, the City could pursue any of the following: a.
Special Protection Area designation under the state Ground Water Quality Standards (Chapter
173-200 WAC), designation of Special Use Area by the Department of Agriculture, or
Page 6-3
-
Hart Crowser
J-3508-01
designation as an Environmentally Sensitive Area and/or a Critical Aquifer Recharge Area
(CARA) under various King County programs. At a minimum the City should ensure that the
WHPA is identified and mapped by the County as an Area of High Susceptibility to
Groundwater Contamination.
6.5 Regulatory Strategies
This WHPP is designed to use the existing statutory rules and regulations to protect groundwater
quality. The Steering Group, in coordination with state and local agencies having statutory
authority in the area, will need to assist with monitoring regulated activities conducted under
existing programs within the WHP A. Based on a preliminary review of the existing regulatory
activities, the following regulatory strategies are recommended.
Strategy No. 4-SEPA/Hydrogeologic Evaluations. The City should request King County
ODES to require hydrogeologic.evaluations for any development within the WHPA which
triggers SEPA action. Additionally, the City should agree upon a MOU with DOES requiring
City comment on the effects such development will have on the groundwater system.
Designation of the area as a Critical Aquifer Recharge Area will be the first step toward gaining
such an agreement.
Strategy No. 5-WHPA Well Drilling. The City should encourage the delegation of well
construction inspection authority be transferred from Ecology to the King County Health
Department. With or without this transfer of authority, the City should encourage more frequent
well construction inspections than currently occur.
Strategy No. 6-Septic Tanks. The City should request King County to require that
engineering as-builts of new septic systems be recorded with property deeds. Additionally, the
City needs to support the implementation of laws and regulations requiring proper inspection and
maintenance of septic systems.
6.6 Planning Strategies
A substantial degree of future protection for the WHPA will be achieved through present-day
planning and coordination. In order to maximize future protection, the following strategies are
recommended.
Strategy No. 7-Sewers. The City should encourage the County to require all industrial and
commercial facilities within the WHPA to connect to sanitary sewers, if such services are
reasonably available. The City, in coordination with the managers of local sewer systems, need
to develop emergency plans to be implemented in the advent of sewage leaks or spills.
Strategy No. 8-Farm Planning. The City and the County Conservation Districts in the area ·
should discuss how farming practices can affect groundwater. The City should encourage and ·
support the County Conservation Districts in their farm planning, such that farm plans include
items specifically designed to protect groundwater quality.
Page 6-4
-
-
r
-
-
Hart Crowser
J-3508-01
Strategy No. 9-Storm Water Management. The City should promote research on the impact
of storm water discharge on water quantity and quality. Additionally, the City, in coordination
with the responsible agencies, need to evaluate the adequacy of storm water facilities, including
proper routing, retention, and detention. A balance must be found that allows optimum recharge
of storm water to groundwater systetns while adequately protecting the water quality of the
aquifers.
Strategy No. 10-Petroleum Pipelines. The City needs to document the location and use of
petroleum pipelines and to establish emergency response plans for pipeline failure. These efforts
should be coordinated with the pipeline companies and the federal, state, and county agencies
responsible for emergency petroleum-product spill response.
Strategy No. 11-Hazardous Material Transport. The City should investigate the feasibility
of re-routing the transport of hazardous materials away from the 1-year time of travel zone.
Strategy No. 12-Emergency Response for Transportation Corridors. The City shall notify
the appropriate emergency response organizations on the location of the WHP A and establish
formal communication protocols with the first-response emergency units.
6. 7 DoJa Management Strategies
One of the principal goals of the WHPP is the development of a data collection network and
analysis plan capable of providing the City with advance warning of coDtamination to the City's
water supply. The following data management strategies seek to establish and maintain scientific
data upon which future WHPP actions can be based.
Strategy No. 13-Groundwater Monitoring. The City should actively participate in the
collection and analysis of regional and local groundwater information. This can be accomplished
by cooperating with the other local purveyors (Covington and Water District No. 111), the South
King County Regional Water Association, King County Health Department, Ecology, and other
entities seeking to monitor the groundwater resources of the region and by following the WHP A
monitoring plan detailed in this study. The monitoring plan has been designed to provide the
City with long-term information on groundwater quality and quantity and to also serve as a
central network system alerting the City of potential groundwater quality probletns. The data
collected through the network should be summarized and reviewed annually to resolve any
identified probletns and evaluate the effectiveness of the network.
Strategy No. 14-Herbicide and Pesticide Survey. The City should inventory and monitor
major herbicide and pesticide use within the WHPA. This inventory may be used to guide
future groundwater monitoring and WHP-related education progratns. In addition, the City
should encourage county, state, and private land managers to use vegetation management
practices which protect groundwater quality.
Strategy No. IS-Underground Storage Tanks Inventory. The City needs to inventory aDd
locate underground storage tanks within the 1-year time of travel zone. Besides those presently
Page 6-5
-
,....
Han Crowser
J-3508-01
identified by the current hazard inventory, this inventory should include new tanks placed after
the hazard inventory was finished, and residential home heating oil USTs and/or other tanks that
were not previously identified.
Strategy No. 16-Drywell Monitoring. The City needs to encourage King County Surface
Water Management to develop an evaluation and monitoring plan for drywells within the
WHPA.
Strategy No. 17-Abandoned Wells Inventory. The City needs to locate and inventory
abandoned or unused wells. Owners of these wells should be notified of the potential liability
such wells cause and be educated on the benefits of well decommissioning.
,.... 6. 8 Education Strategies
,....
Education of the public and industrial/commercial occupants of the WHPA concerning
groundwater protection is a critical portion of the WHPP. Through proper education, the degree
and potential for future contamination can be greatly reduced; therefore,. the following
recommendations are made.
Strategy No. 18-WHP Education Programs. The City has already begun groundwater
educational programs and should continue to educate the WHPA residents, particularly on
groundwater quality issues. The WHPA should be targeted for distribution of literature
regarding septic tank maintenance, fuel oil storage tank maintenance and abandonment,
residential use of herbicides and pesticides, and hazardous material use, disposal, and storage.
In addition to City-run programs, the City should strive to participate in and suppon small-
quantity waste disposal programs and actively work with state and local government in
developing and creating public education programs concerning groundwater.
Page 6-6
-
,.....
-
Table 6-1 Wellhead Management Tasks Sheet I of3
Conduct groundwater monitoring for analysis of nitrate according to groundwater monitoring plan.
Establish nitrate early warning valve (EWV) to allow for timely action in the event of increasing
nitrate concentrations.
Promote and coordinate public education program for household hazardous materials use, storage, and
disposal within the WHP A.
Survey pesticide and herbicide usc/work with Cooperative Extension and County with available data
to modify future monitoring and education plans.
Inventory forest ownership, the extent of harvesting, and the harvesting practices used with the WHP A.
Document the location and use of petroleum pipelines within the WHP A, and develop appropriate
emergency procedures.
Document use of hazardous materials in mining suppon activity
Establish formal communication with first responders
Update emergency response organizations on WHP A location.
Develop emergency response procedures for sewer force main brealcs within the I -year zone.
Coordinate and promote the evaluation of possible storm water routing, detention, retention priorities.
Work with responsible parties to assess adequacy of facilities and establish joint priority for storm
water upgrades.
Consider seeking designation of aquifer(s) as "special protection areas" or other special designations.
Encourage requirement of as-builts of new septic systems (prepared by designer) to be recorded with
the deed.
Suppon the implementation of state Jaw/regulation on septic system inspection and maintenance
programs.
Participate in education program to notify public of impact of septic systems to the WHP A.
Promote and coordinate public education program for proper septic system maintenance and
hazardous waste disposal.
Review annual repons produced under SARA Tide ill to document inventory of chemicals used in the
WHPA.
Develop data on number and size of exempt underground tanks within !-year time of travel zone.
Han Crowser
J-3508-01
Page 6-7
-
,...
-
-
-
Table 6-1 Wellhead Management Tasks Sheet 2 of3
Promote and coordinate public program to educate owners of exempt underground tanks of the
hazards they represent, methods of leak detection, proper removal and closure procedures.
Fund Farm Plans through the local Conservation District which focus in wellhead zones.
Request County, State, and private land owners/managers to utilize vegetation management practices
which protect water quality within the WHP A.
Encourage development and use of BMPs for large land units (large residential developments, schools,
golf courses, parks, mining, and forest parcels).
Monitor use of BMPs on large land parcels.
Support King County in seeking delegation of well drilling regulatory program for advance notice of
drilling and inspection of well construction.
Inventory abandoned or unused wells in the 1-and 5-year time of travel zones. Educate owners about
proper well construction and abandonment within the WHP A.
Review routine leak detection procedures for sewer lines in the WHP A.
Request utilities to use "leakproof' piping for sewer for any new construction in wellhead zones -
accelerate upgrade and replacement of existing risky lines.
Encourage careful analysis and adequate requirements for siting, operation, and reclaimation of mining
in the WHP A during SEP A review.
Assure that the hydrogeologic impact of development of parcels within wellhead protection areas is
adequately analyzed during SEPA review.
Participate in a regional groundwater data development and management effort to assure that an
adequate regional groundwater monitoring program is developed.
Provide continual coordination of environmental education efforts in the County.
Create and operate an IMPLEMENTATION STEERING GROUP to assure focus of applicable state
and local programs to wellhead protection areas. Review management strategies to incorporate new
data; requirements, and approaches.
Conduct groundwater monitoring for analysis of pesticides and herbicides according to groundwater
monitoring plan. ·
Promote research on the impacts of storm water discharge from residential areas.
Document the rype and amount of herbicide application with focus on transportation corridors,
forestry, agriculture, and recreation parcels.
Hart Crowser
J-3508-01
Page 6-8
-
Table 6-1 Wellhead Management Tasks Sheet 3 of3
Investigate the need for re-routing transpon of hazardous materials to areas outside of wellhead zones.
Locate signs within the WHPA along transponation routes· "Wellhead Protection Area."
Communicate location of the WHP A and wellhead protection concerns to mine operators.
Require mine operators to install monitoring wells capable to assess potential impacts from site
operations for sites within the WHPA.
Prioritize investigation of contaminated and potentially contaminated sites within the WHP A.
Review MTCA, RCRA notifiers, and LUST sites files for sites within the WHPA annually.
Monitor Ecology's progress on the cleanup of MTCA and LUST sites within the WHP A.
Encourage Ecology and County inspections of RCRA hazardous waste generator facilities within the
WHPA.
Communicate location ofWHPA to industriaVcommercial site owners.
Communicate the extent of wellhead protection areas to the County Planning Dcpanment for
consideration in critical areas regulation, susceptibility mapping, and permitting.
-Require sewer hook up for all industriaVcommercial facilities within the WHPA, if sewer service is
reasonably available.
Encourage periodic monitoring of dry wells in the WHP A.
Review water quality data generated under the general NPDES Storm Water Permit.
-
-
Han Crowser
J-3508-01
Page 6-9
-
-
,....
,....
,....
,....
-
Table 6-2 · Three Main Ways to Organize Wellhead Protection Tasks
Risk Area Existing Regulatory Program
Residential -Medium Density Housing Hazardous Waste Generation
Residential-Rural Housinl!: Underground Storal!;C Tanks
Industrial/Commercial Sites Landfills
Transportation Corridors CERCLAIMTCA Sites
Mining Land Use ~ES Process Water/Stonn Water
Forestry LaJid Use
Type of Activity
Manal!;ernent
~dUse
Regulatory
Planninl!;
Cooperative
Data Manal!;ement
Education
350801~mlnlng-p.xlw]'Drg.xls
Hart Crowser
J-3508-01
Page 6-10
-
Table 6-3 -Common Tasks for All Risk Areas
Task
Create and operate an IMPLEMENTATION STEERING GROUP to assure focus of
applicable state and local programs to wellhead areas. Review management strategies to
incorporate new data, requirements, and approaches.
Communicate the extent of wellhead protection areas to the County Planning Depanment
for consideration in critical areas regulation, suscepbbility mapping, and permitting.
Consider seekin~ desil018tion of aquifer(s) as "SDCcial Protection Areas."
Assure that the hydrogeologic impact of development of parcels within wellhead areas is
adequately analyzed during SEPA review.
Encourage development and use of BMPs for large land units (large residential
developments, schools, golf courses, parks, mining, and forest parcels).
Monitor use ofBMPs on large land parcels.
Participate in a regional groundwater data development and management effort to assure
that an adequate regional groundwater monitoring program is developed
Provide continual coordination of environmental education efforts in the County.
Encourage periodic monitoring of drywells in the WHP A.
Inventory abandoned or unused wells in the 1-and 5-year time of travel zones. Educate
owners about proper well construction and abandonment within the WHP A.
Support King County in seeking delegation of well drilling regulatory program for
advance notice of drilling and inspection of well construction.
-
Implementation
Lead
Purveyors
Purveyors
Purveyors
County
Purveyors
Purveyors
Purveyors
County
County
Purveyors
County
Hart Crowser
J-3508-01
Included in the
SKCGWMP
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
Page 6-11
-
Table 6-4 -Tasks for Residential Risk Areas
Task
SEPTIC SYSTEMS
Encourage requirement of as-builts of new septic systems (prepared by
designer) to be recorded with the deed.
Support the implementation of state law/regulation on septic system
inspection and maintenance programs.
Participate in education program tp notify public of impact of septic systerru
totheWHPA.
Promote and coordinate public education program for proper septic system
maintenance and hazardous waste disposal.
Conduct groundwater monitoring for analysis of nitrate according to
groundwater monitoring plan. Establish nitrate early warning valve (EWV
to allow for timely action in the event of increasing nitrate concentrations.
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
,.... Promote and coordinate public education program for household hazardous
materials use, storage, and disposal within the WHP A.
,....
STORM WATER
Promote research on the impacts of storm water discharge from residential
areas.
USTs
Develop data on number and size of exempt underground tanks within 1-
year time of travel zone.
Promote and coordinate public program to educate owners of exempt
,.... underground tanks of the hazards they represent, methods of leak detection,
proper removal and closure procedures.
PESTICIDES/HERBICIDES
Survey pesticide and herbicide use/work with Cooperative Extension and
County with available data to modify future monitoring and education ,.... plans.
Fund Farm Plans through the local Conservation District which focus in
wellhead zones.
350801\[miniDg-p.xlw]IRESJDENT
.....
County-Health
Purveyors
County-Health
County-Health
Purveyors
County
County
Purveyors
County
Purveyors .
County
Inc!~~ in I
SKCGWMP
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Han Crowser
J-3508-01
Page 6-12
-
Table 6-5 -Tasks for Transportation/Pipeline Corridors Risk Areas
Task
PUBLIC EDUCATION
Locate signs within the WHP A along transportation routes -"Wellhead
Protection Area
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Investigate the nee4 for re-routing transpon of hazardous materials to areas
outside of wellhead zones.
EMERGENCY RESPONSE
Document the location and use of petroleum pipelines within the WHP A, and
develop appropriate emergen_<:yproce4ures.
Establish formal communication with first responders -Update emergency response organizations on WHP A location.
STORM WATER
Work with responsible parties to assess adequacy of facilities and establish joint
priority for storm water upgrades.
Coordinate and promote the evaluation of possible storm water routing,
detention, retention priorities.
PESTICIDES/HERBICIDES
Document the type and amount of herbicide application with focus on
transportation corridors, forestry, agriculture, and recreation parcels.
Request County, State, and private land owners/managers to utilize vegetation
management practices which protect water quality within the WHP A.
Conduct groundwater monitoring for analysis of pesticides and herbicides
according to groundwater monitoring plan.
SEWERS
Request utilities to use "leakproof'' piping for sewer for any new construction in
wellhead zones -accelerate upgrade and replacement of existing risky lines.
Develop emergency response p1oc00ures for seven force main breaks within the
!-year zone.
3 5080 I lmining-p.xlw
Implementation
Lead
Purveyors
Purveyors
Purveyors
Purveyors
Purveyors
Purveyors
Purveyors
Purveyors
Purveyors
Purveyors
Purveyors
Purveyors
Hart Crowser
J-3508-01
llncludoo in the I
SKCGWMP
No
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Page 6-13
-
Table 6-6-Tasks for Industrial Commercial Risk Areas
Task
SITE REVIEW
Prioritize investigation of contaminated and potentially contaminated sites
within the WHP A. -Review MTCA, RCRA notifiers, and LUST sites files for sites within the
WHPA annually.
Monitor Ecology's progress on the cleanup of MTCA and LUST sites withili
theWHPA.
Communicate location ofWHP A to industriaUcommercial site owners.
SEWERS -Require sewer hook up for all industrial/commercial facilities within the
WHP A, if sewer service is reasonably available.
STORM WATER
Review water quality data generated under the general NPDES Storm Water
Permit.
Work with responsible parties to assess adequacy of facilities and establish
·oint priority for storm water upgrades.
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS/HAZARDOUS WASTE
Review annual reports produced under SARA Title ill to document
inventory of chemicals used in the WHP A.
Encourage Ecology and County inspections ofRCRA hazardous waste
generator facilities within the WHP A.
PESTICIDES/HERBICIDES
Survey pesticide and herbicide uselworlc with Cooperative Extension and
County with available data to modify future monitoring and education plans.
Request County, State, and private land owners/managers to utilize
vegetation management practices which protect water quality within the
WHPA.
35010 I 'miniDJ11.xlw
Implementation
Lead
Ecology
Purveyors
Purveyors
Purveyors
County-Health
Purveyors
Purveyors
Purveyors
Ecology
PUrveyors
Purveyors
Han Crowser
J-3508-01
I Included in the I SKCGWMP
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
Page 6-14
-
Table 6-7 -Tasks for Mining Risk Areas
Task
-SEPA
Encourage careful analysis and adequate requirements for siting, operation, and
reclaimation of mining in the WHP A during SEPA review.
GROUNDWATER
Require mine operators to install monitoring wells capable to assess potential
impacts from site operations for sites within the WHP A.
SITE REVIEW
Monitor Ecology's progress on the cleanup ofMTCA and LUST sites within the
WHPA.
Prioritize investigation of contaminated and potentially contaminated sites within
theWHPA.
Communicate location of the WHP A and wellhead protection concerns to mine
[Qllerators.
Encourage Ecology and County inspections ofRCRA hazardous waste -generator facilities within the WHP A.
Review MTCA, RCRA notifiers, and LUST sites files for sites within the
WHPA annually.
STORM WATER
..... Review water quality data generated under the general NPDES Storm Water
Permit.
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS/HAZARDOUS WASTE
!Document use of hazardous materials in mining support activity
-
Implementation
Lead
County
Ecology
Purveyors
Ecology
Purveyors
Ecology
Purveyors
Purveyors
Purveyors
Han Crowser
J-3508-01
I Included in the I SCKGWMP
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
Page 6-15
Table 6-8 • Tasks for Forestry Risk Areas
,...
Task
FOREST PRACTICES
Inventory forest ownership, the extent of harvesting, and the b.arvestiDg
practices used with the WHP A.
PESTICIDES/HERBICIDES
Request County, State, and private land owners/managers to utilize vegetation
management practices which protect water quality within the WHP A.
Document the type and amount of herbicide application with focus on
transportation corridors, forestry, agriculture, and recreation parcels.
Conduct groundwater monitoring for analysis of pesticides and herbicides
according to groundwater monitoring plan.
-
.....
hnplementation
Lead
Purveyors
Purveyors
Purveyors
Purveyors
Hart Crowser
J-3508-01
lmcl-md<l SKCGWMP
No
Yes
No
No
Page 6-16
-
Table 6-9 -Management Strategies
Management and
Cooperative Land Use Regulatory
On-going WIIP Evaluate Special WeD driUing
steering group Protection Area oversight at Coumy
designations level
Land management
activities (BMPs) Hydrogeologic
evaluations for
developments which
trigger SEPA
Septic tank
insWlation
documemation aod
mairuenance
-
,.....
-
Planning
Emergency rcspoD$C
plannillg for sewer
breaks
Farm pl>nning
Stonn water
management
Emergency response
pl>nning for
peaoleum pipeliDe
failure
Emeflency response
for transportation
incidents within tbc
WIIPA
Re-route hazardous
materials
aansponation
Data Management
Groundwater
monitoring within
the smdy area
Locau: and
inventory
abandoned wells
Survey herbicide
and pesticide usc
Inspect and monitor
dry wells
Locau: and
inventory USTs
Han Crowser
J-3508-01
Education
Target public
education programs
10 WIIPA
Page 6-17
-
-
-
7.0 MONITORING PLAN
Hart Crowser
J-3508-01
This monitoring plan is developed based on current understanding of the hydrogeology around
the City • s Springs sources and the land use and potential contaminant concerns identified within
the WHPA. A groundwater monitoring program for the source springs and wells (outside of
Department of Health rules) is proposed to measure groundwater quality degradation and allow
early detection of groundwater quality changes. Monitoring provides a means of identifying
trends and detecting problems before they reach the wellhead. Monitoring data can support
protective regulatory actions and allow mitigative measures to be enacted before the wells are
impacted.
Focused hydrogeologic studies are also recommended for some areas where uncertainties exist in
understanding the groundwater travel pathways. These studies will help the City more
accurately interpret the monitoring data and provide a framework for refmement of the regional
groundwater model. The data collection and monitoring are an important part of regional
groundwater management as they provide the basis for making appropriate groundwater-related
decisions that ensure the long-term water quality and quantity.
7.1 Water Level and Water Quality Monitoring Recommendations
Groundwater monitoring includes water level measurement and groundwater quality sampling
and analysis. Water level data are used to defme flow directions and gradients and to detect
seasonal and other temporal variations in groundwater flow. These data help defme the
migration pathway of any detected contaminants. Groundwater quality data collected from
selected wells and streams can help identify any water quality degradation and serve as an early
warning of water quality changes. Together these data can be used to identify a problem and
assess the impact to the water supply.
Surface water monitoring is also recommended to characterize bedrock nmoff quality,
particularly around mining areas, and to better characterize the groundwater-surface water
interactions. In the eastern study area bedrock outcrops are believed to generate runoff that
infiltrates the aquifer within the Clark and Kent Springs Zones 1 and 2. Surface water
monitoring includes measurement of flow and water quality sampling. Elevation data should be
collected at all groundwater and surface water monitoring points.
Sentinel wells located near the protection zone boundaries can help to detect degradation in time
to allow response. The water quality parameters selected for monitoring should include general
indicators and specific analyses based on local land uses. Where possible, existing wells should
be used for monitoring. Use of an existing well network is not only cost effective but helps to
involve the community in understanding and protecting their water supplies. It will be necessary
to inventory the areas planned for monitoring, ftnd a well that's properly constructed and in the
aquifer, and develop an agreement with the well owner for long-term access. If wells do not
exist in recommended areas, then new wells dedicated to monitoring can be installed. Area"
specific monitoring is discussed below.
Page 7-1
-
-7.1.1 Annstrong Springs
Hart Crowser
J-3508-01
Develop Four Sentinel Well System. Within Armstrong Zone 1, four (4) monitoring wells are
recommended to serve as sentinel wells, providing an early warning of water quality changes.
Three wells would be located within Zone 1, and one well would be located within Zone 2.
Recommended locations for the wells are shown on Figure 7-1 and the rationale is outlined
below.
~ The north well would be situated in an area northeast of Armstrong Springs on the Zone 1
boundary. In this location, limited data indicate the protective till layer may be absent
between ground surface and the aquifer. Additionally, this area is located near Highway 18
and within the King County Urban Growth Boundary and will be useful for monitoring non-
point sources such as runoff and pesticides. The existing database indicates there may be
several wells in this area already that could be pursued as potential monitoring wells (See
30A1 and 30B01 on Figure 7-1).
~ The east well would lie along Kent Kangley Road on the Zone 1 boundary. This location
monitors for transportation corridor issues and lies within commercial land use zoning. The
highway right-of-way provides a good location for locating a new well.
~ A third well is recommended for Armstrong Zone 1 and would lie along Kent Kangley Road
between the Armstrong Springs property and the Zone 1 boundary. A well is recommended
in this area because of the high density commercial and residential development and to assist
with better identification of groundwater flow patterns around Armstrong Springs. Again,
the well could be located within the highway right-of-way.
~ A fourth well would be situated on the Zone 2 boundary just downstream of Kent Springs.
This well would be located near the railroad and on the Urban Growth boundary and would
monitor for water quality changes.
Water Quality Parameters. Water samples collected from the sentinel wells should be
analyzed for general water quality parameters twice a year. The general water quality analyses
should include field testing for pH, specific conductivity, and temperature, and laboratory testing
for bacteria, nitrates, chloride, lead, turbidity, and total petroleum hydrocarbons. Because of the
urban land use of the area and the number of regulatory database sites listed in the vicinity we
also recommend an annual monitoring for volatile organic compounds including· both the
aromatics and halogenated compounds and pesticides.
Focused Hydrogeologic Study in Armstrong Springs Area. A focused hydrogeologic study is
recommended in the Armstrong Springs area to better characterize the flow patterns, the
relationship of Jenkins Creek with the aquifer, and the potential for impact from the contaminant
database sites identified near the springs. The study should include detailed review of Ecology ·
files on the contaminated sites located in this area, noting particularly if monitoring wells already
exist for some of these sites, the current monitoring plan for those wells, and any remediation
planned. Areas for focused studies are also shown on Figure 7-1.
Page 7-2
Han Crowser
J-3508-01
We also recommend a focused study of the flow patterns to the northeast of Armstrong Springs.
For this study we would develop a water level measurement network using existing wells and
survey the elevations of the wells in the network. The wells used for this study should be
included along with another 5 to 10 additional wells, as possible. The water levels should be
measured at least quanerly for several years. These data will help determine where the
groundwater divide is between the Cedar River and the Soos Creek system and will be needed
for future model updates and regional groundwater management decisions.
7.1.2 Kent Springs
Coordinate with Covington's Lake Sawyer Monitoring. Monitoring for the Kent Springs area
should include coordination with Covington to share data and avoid duplication of efforts. The
Lake Sawyer Wellhead Protection Plan (Robinson and Noble et al., 1995) proposes monitoring
of 21 wells, 4 of which are referred to as sentinel wells because they are planning expanded
water quality sampling of these. They have also proposed monitoring at 6 surface water
locations.
The monitoring plan we recommend for the Kent Springs is consistent with Covington's plan as
follows:
~ The Four Sentinel Wells proposed for the Lake Sawyer wellfield will provide adequate
information to identify any regional water quality degradation that may be occurring. These
wells include one near the Zone 1 boundary, one well between Zones 1 and 2, and two wells
near Zone 2 boundary (See Figure 7-1). Existing wells are proposed for use at these
monitoring locations. Information on the well owner is presented in the Monitoring Well
Network Plan of the Covington WHPP report (Robinson & Noble, 1995).
~ The Six Surface Water Monitoring Points planned will be useful for evaluating impacts from
mining and forestry activities as well as provide information on aquifer recharge rates. The
surface water monitoring points include a monitoring location at Lake Sawyer, Ravensdale
Lake, and Lake Retreat, along with monitoring of surface water flows from three drainages;
the Ravensdale Draw (Reserve Silica Mine area), the Retreat Draw west of Retreat Lake, and
the Sugarloaf Draw southeast of Retreat Lake as shown on Figure 7-1.
Review of the data from the other 17 wells planned for monitoring by Covington will also be
useful, panicularly for the focused hydrogeologic study work and future modeling as part of a
regional groundwater management. Again, cooperative and coordinated efforts are
recommended for all the monitoring activities associated with the Kent Springs and the Clark
Springs protection areas in conjunction with Covington's Lake Sawyer monitoring.
Monitoring in Addition to Covington's Lake Sawyer Plan. We recommend the following
additions be made to the Covington's monitoring plan for the Kent Springs:
~ Monitor Ravensdale Lake at the outlet in a location where lake discharge to Ravensdale
Creek can also be measured. These data can indicate any water quality impacts from the
Page 7-3
-
Hart Crowser
J-3508-01
Lake on the aquifer as well as provide valuable data on surface water-groundwater
interactions for future modeling efforts.
.. Include flowrate measurements at the three surface water quality data collection locations
(Draws). These data will be needed to help establish recharge rates for the eastern area.
.. Establish a water quality and flow rate monitoring point on Rock Creek near the Zone 2
boundary. These data can provide information on the interaction of Rock Creek and the
aquifer as well as early warning of water quality changes from mining and forestry activities.
.. Monitor for metals and petroleum hydrocarbons in the surface water samples in addition to
the parameters planned by Covington because of the mining activities in these areas.
Focused Hydrogeologic Study of Retreat Lake and Zone 2/3. A focused study of the
hydrogeology within the outer half of Zone 2 and Zone 3; particularly around and south of
Retreat Lake is recommended. Data collection should include elevation control on wells and
measurement of water levels, and information on hydraulic conductivity gained from pumping
tests. Covington's Lake Sawyer plan includes water level monitoring in six wells around Retreat
Lake. Collection and use of these data should be a coordinated effort between Covington and
Kent.
To better understand the effect of Lake Sawyer on recharge to the aquifer and provide a better
water balance for the regional model we recommend monitoring the flow out of Lake Sawyer to
Covington Creek.
7.1.3 Clark Springs
Coordinate with Kent Springs/Lake Sawyer Monitoring. The data being collected for the
Kent Springs/Covington Lake Sawyer wellhead protection within Zones 2 and 3 will also be
useful for understanding the groundwater conditions at the Clark Springs facility. In addition to
the monitoring discussed above, we recommend the following specific monitoring for the Clark
Springs area.
Develop 1 Sentinel Well. Share data with Covington on the two wells proposed in the
Georgetown area (CWD Ravensdale and Bremmeyer wells) and the 6 proposed for the Retreat
Lake area and develop I more; at the Zone 1 boundary as shown on Figure 7-1.
Establish Surface Water Quality Monitoring Plan. Surface water quality data are currently
being collected as part of the Landsburg Mine Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RifFS).
We recommend monitoring the progress and data collected for this investigation which includes
monitoring of a seep near the south portal of the Rogers No. 3 mine. As part of the wellhead
protection program, Ecology should be requested to continue monitoring the seep to identify any
long-term break-through of contaminants identified in the abandoned mine area. The surface
water flowrates should be measured as well as water quality. The approximate location of the
seep is shown on Figure 7-1.
Page 7-4
Han Crowser
J-3508-01
We recommend establishment of a monitoring point on Rock Creek upstream of the Clark
Springs property. This location should be selected in cooperation with King County so that any
on-going monitoring of streamflow and water quality is understood and the data shared as
appropriate.
Focused Hydrogeologic Study in Clark Springs Area. We recommend a focused water level
monitoring study in the north-half of Section 30 as shown on Figure 7-1 to establish the
groundwater divide in this area. This study will require establishing 8 to 10 existing wells as
monitoring points and making quarterly measurements in these wells for several years. In
addition, we also recommend performing pumping test on selected wells to better quantify
estimates of groundwater flow to the Cedar River in this area.
The focused study recommended for the Kent Springs area in the vicinity of Retreat Lake will
also be useful for the-Clark Springs area.
7.2 Future Model Refinement
The data collection recommended above can provide the basis for refmement of the numerical
model developed for this project. Long-term aquifer management will require this type of tool
for decision-making purposes and many of these data are essential for better calibration of the
model. With a regional groundwater flow model, better decisions can be made. These decisions
might relate to a water quality concern that becomes apparent during monitoring or decisions
about developing a new water supply well. Section 3.0 and Appendix B provide additional
information on the model that currently exists and discussions on future model refmement needs.
Page 7-5
I.
Q v
Q
0 r
0
8 v
II
'" '2:.
·-N '-v
~o
~~
"'"'
Groundwater Monitoring Plan Map
E9
:a.~ ~
@
Proposed Monitoring Well Locations
Sentinel Wells Planned for Covington's Lake Sawyer WHPP
Proposed Surface Water Monitoring Location
~ Areos for Future Focused Hydrogeologic Study
., ' , ~--,~yj I
'ZTE01
0 4000 8000
Scale in Feet
8!3
~~
J-3508-01
Figure 7-1
11/95
·.,.
8.0 SPll..L RESPONSE
8.1 Introduction
Han Crowser
J-3508-01
The purpose of this section is to outline spill response procedures and capability for the WHPA.
To conduct this evaluation, major spill response organizations were identified. Local response
organizations were contacted to determine their response capabilities, back-up assistance, and
general understanding of wellhead protection issues.
Spill events can be large or small and can consist of highly toxic to inert materials. Events can
occur under conditions and in locations which are easily contained or where time is plentiful, or
can be such that surface water, waterways, or groundwater are under immediate threat. This
range has prompted a spill response (and emergency response) system which is nationwide in
scope, which can involve federal agencies, yet one which is designed to handle the more
common, small scale (yet potentially dangerous) spills. This assessment takes into account this
range of systems.
However, the ability of the City to affect the protocols and procedures of the national and state
response systems is limited. Also, the majority of spills are small and require local response.
Therefore, for the purposes of this effort, focus is given to local response capabilities and needs
associated with these local response systems.
8.2 National, State, and Local Spill Response Plans
Spill response planning has been ongoing throughout King County (County) and within
Washington State for many years. As a result, there are many plans in existence, each focusing
on a specific geographical area or type of substance. In addition, parties involved in the storage
and transportation of hazardous materials have been required to develop contingency plans.
Each of these contingency plans should be consistent with each other, and fit within the context
of the response plans listed and described below. The following spill responses are in effect in
Washington State and cover inland, or non-marine areas, such as wellhead protection areas and
aquifer recharge areas:
.. National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution and Contingency Plan (NCP) -prepared by
the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA);
.. Oil and Hazardous Substance Pollution Contingency Plan for Federal Region 10 (RCP) -
prepared by Region 10 of EPA;
.. Washington Statewide Master Oil and Hazardous Substance Spill Contingency Plan -
prepared by Ecology;
.. Washington State Emergency Response Plan-prepared by the Department of Community,
Trade, and Economic Development (CTED); and
.. Local Emergency Response Plans-prepared by city and county governments.
Page 8-1
8.3 Spill Response Organizations
Hart Crowser
J-3508-01
Depending on the magnitude of the spill event, numerous organizations at all levels of
government, some voluntary organizations, and the private sector may have a role in spill
response and cleanup. Each of the plans mentioned above describes the relationship and roles of
these organizations in terms of the particular concern. Some of the organizations listed below
might be, depending on the size and nature of the release, involved in a spill response in
WHPA.
Spill response plans stress that spill response procedures be effectively executed. For that to be
accomplished, each party must be fully aware of their specific roles and responsibilities.
Moreover, there must be an understanding of the roles of other parties involved in response
activities, as well as effective coordination, cooperation, and communication among responding
agencies, organizations, and individuals.
The discussion below briefly summarizes the organizations that may be involved in spill response
within the WHP A and describes their roles and responsibilities. The discussion below is
organized in order from federal to local jurisdictions.
8.3.1 Federal Spill Resoonse Teams
The EPA has primary responsibility for spills that occur on inland U.S. waters not under USCG
jurisdiction, and all land spills. As directed by the NCP, the EPA is pre-designated as on-scene
commander (OSC) for spills occurring under its jurisdiction. The EPA may call on the
following response teams to assist them in responding to a spill.
National Response Team. The National Response Team (NRT) consists of representatives from
the various federal agencies (such as EPA, the US Coast Guard, Fish and Wildlife Service, etc).
It serves as the national body for planning and preparedness actions prior to a spill and as an
emergency advisory center when a spill occurs.
Regional Response Team. The Regional Response Team (RRT}, consisting of representatives
from selected federal and state agencies, performs fUnctions similar to those performed
nationally by the NRT. Essentially, the RRT is the regional body responsible for planning and
preparedness before an oil spill occurs, and provides advice to the OSC following such incidents.
Technical Assistance Team. The Technical Assistance Team (TAT) is a contractor used by the
EPA Region 10 Office to provide technical oversight for spill response. Requests for the TAT
are made via the EPA. Once on site, the TAT will report the situation to the EPA duty officer
who then decides whether an EPA OSC needs to be on scene.
EPA Environmental Response Team. The Environmental Response Team (ERT), based in
Edison, New Jersey, is established to advise the OSC and RRT on environmental issues
surrounding spill containment, cleanup, and damage assessment, with personnel expertise in
areas such as treatment technology, biology, chemistry, hydrology, geology, and engineering.
Page 8-2
-
8.3.2 State Spill Resoonse Organi711iinns
Hart Crowser
J-3508-01
Department of Ecology. Ecology is the lead state agency for environmental pollution response
within the State of Washington. As such, it has pre-designated the state OSC and the Incident
Commander (IC) for many spills occurring in state jurisdiction. In the event of a spill occurring
on a state highway, Ecology coordinates with the Washington State Patrol (State Patrol), which
assumes responsibility as IC, and Ecology acts as the lead agency responsible for cleanup
activities. Ecology may utilize the following spill response teams or coordinate with the
following state organizations.
Ecology Spill Response Team. The Ecology Spill Response Team consists of Ecology regional
office personnel. This team is responsible for determining the source, cause, and responsible
party, as well as initiating enforcement action as appropriate. Additional responsibilities include
ensuring containment, cleanup, and disposal are carried out adequately. The team coordinates
its actions with other state, federal, and local agencies.
Natural Resource Damage Assessment Team. The resource damage assessment program is an
Ecology-led effort designed to organize the state natural resource trustee agencies into an
effective resource damage assessment ask force. The state Natural Resource Damage
Assessment (NRDA) team consists of representatives from Ecology, the Department of Fish and
Wildlife (DFW), the Parks and Recreation Commission, the Department of Natural Resources
(DNR), Department of Community, Trade, and Economic Development (CTED), and the
Department of Health (DOH). In the event of a major pollution event which damages natural
resources, this committee's mission is to organize personnel, materials, and equipment necessary
to conduct reconnaissance evaluations and initiate detailed assessments of natural resource
damages.
State Patrol. The State Patrol acts as the designated Incident Command Agency for incidents
on interstate and state highways, and other roads and jurisdictions as delegated. When a spill
occurs on a state highway, Ecology joins the Unified Command and acts as the lead agency for
cleanup response.
Department of Community, Trade, and Economic Development (CTED)-Emergency
Management Division. Washington State Emergency Management Division (EMD) is
responsible for the following:
... Developing and maintaining a state Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan.
... Maintaining a 24-hour capability to receive notification of incidents and request for assistance
and initial notification to local, state, federal response agencies.
... Activating the state Emergency Operations Center (EOC) as needed to coordinate state
resource identification and acquisition in support of Ecology response.
... Providing Public Information Officer (PIO) support to the Incident Command.
... Maintaining an updated list of NRDA team members submitted by participating agencies.
... Maintaining and updating a notification list of local, state, and federal agencies involved in
emergency response.
Page 8-3
Hart Crowser
J-3508-01
.. Coordinating the procurement of state resources for use by the OSC or as requested by local
EMD or other designated local response agency or state response agencies.
.. Participating in the NRDA team.
Department of Fish and Wildlife (DFW). The DFW is a state agency with trustee
responsibilities for wildlife, game fish, food fish, non-game fish, shellfish, and associated
habitats. The agency is also responsible for state facilities (hatcheries, properties, launching
ramps, and related facilities), and assorted equipment. Of special concern are high-value
habitats which may be used as nursery grounds for fish or wildlife.
Department of Health (DOH). The DOH has the responsibility for beach closures for human
health and safety purposes, public health concerns from contaminated food supply (e.g.,
shellfish), and general health-related matters for the safety of the public. In addition, DOH is to
render all appropriate laboratory support and services to the OSC. DOH is a participant in the
NRDA team.
Department of Transportation (DOT). The Washington State Department of Transportation
(DOT) may provide traffic control, equipment, and personnel for non-hazardous cleanup
activities on state and interstate highways. The DOT may provide and mobilize equipment
necessary in a major spills incident.
8.3.3 Local Remonse
Local governments have a duty to be prepared for all disaster emergencies. The county's
Emergency Management Division (EMD) is charged with establishing Local Emergency
Planning Districts (LEPD) and Local Emergency Planning Committees (LEPC) to facilitate
planning efforts.
LEPCs have the responsibility to create local emergency response plans. General requirements
for local response plans are contained in Title m of the Superfund Amendments and Re-
authorization Act of 1986 (SARA). Generally, local agencies, particularly fire services and law
enforcement agencies, can be activated to provide emergency response services when there is a
threat to life and property. Emergency response services may include: fire and explosion
controls investigation and documentation, perimeter control, evacuation, traffic controls, and
initial containment or even removal, depending on the nature of the incident.
The "first responders" for the majority of spills are these local entities. They provide for
immediate protection of health, property, and the environment. It is this group of responders
who determine the need for additional assistance and mobilization of the additional resources
provided by the state and federal government.
Local Spill Response Capability for the City of Kent WHPA. Local response to hazardous
material spills is under the jurisdiction of local flre departments or districts. Local spill response
for the WHPA is handled by Fire District Nos. 37, 43, and 17, as illustrated on Figure 8-1.
Page 8-4
Han Crowser
J-3508-01
Two additional Fire Districts (Nos. 44 and 47) are also shown in the study area but fall outside
the WHPA.
These districts rely on the City of Kent HAZMAT team for hazardous materials response.
Currently, the City of Kent has a mutual aid agreement with Fire District No. 43, and an
agreement is under consideration with District Nos. 17 and 37. The City of Kent has prepared a
Hazardous Materials Emergency Plan. The Plan which is included as Appendix D contains the
following information:
.. Legal and regulatory authority;
.. Map of high risk areas and list of facilities which require an emergency response plan;
.. Operations plan;
.. List for notification of response agencies;
.. Incident information summary sheet;
.. Public information/communication procedures;
.. Resource list;
.. Health and safety procedures;
.. Containment and cleanup procedures; and
.. Training requirements.
8.3.4 The Responsible Party
The primary responsibility for assessing, responding to, and containing an oil spill or discharge
falls upon the individual, agency, and/or company responsible for the spill incident. The
responsible party (RP), whether there is an approved contingency plan or not, is responsible for
containment and cleanup of the spill, disposal of contaminated debris, restoration of the
environment, and payment of damages. State and federal Jaw specifically require that the
removal of a discharge of oil or hazardous substance should be immediate.
Page 8-5
-
-
-
-a. ca
::E
r::
0 ·--(.) -·-b
U) ·-... -:::s ....,
CD
U) -r::
0 a.
U) -CD a: ---·-~
U) --(.) ·;: -U) &+Q ·-0 e ~"3
~~ ·-ll.. .. ..
HMlTCROWSER
J-3508-01 11/95
Figure 8-1
-
-
9.0 KENT WHPP CONTINGENCY OPTIONS
9.1 Introduction
Hart Crowser
J-3508-01
Subsection 1428(a)(5) of the 1986 Amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act specifies that
State WHP programs require public water systems develop contingency plans " ... for the
location and provisions of alternative drinking water supplies for each public water system in the
event of well or wellfield contamination. . . " Contingency plans are also required by the State
of Washington under the Water System Plan (CWSP) pursuant to Chapter 246-290-100 WAC
and the Small Water System Management Program under Chapter 246-290-410 WAC.
Contingency plans are considered important because, even with careful planning, unforeseen
incidents can occur. A proper contingency plan helps ensure that the City is prepared to respond
to an emergency situation. Equally important is the fact that, should the City not be able to
identify economically feasible alternatives for its supply, the protection plan and management
strategies should be much more stringent.
The City of Kent updated its Water System Plan in 1990. As part of that process, overall source
and storage of the system were examined to assure that minimum DOH standards were met.
The Water System Plan includes:
.. History of the current system;
.. Description of the existing system including hydraulic analyses, storage facilities, and water
supply;
.. Water demand projections;
.. Evaluation of the expansion options of the existing system's capacity to meet future demands
for water in the service area;
.. Capital improvement program; and
.. Financial plan for future improvements.
The above planning requirements have been expanded as part of the state's Wellhead Protection
Program (WHPP). Consistent with the SDW A requirements and according to the "Wellhead
Protection Program" by DOH, additional contingency planning is being required as part of all
future WSPs pursuant to Chapter 246-290 WAC. To meet these WHPP and WSP requirements,
the following additional items are now included (Department of Health Wellhead Protection
Program Guidance-1993 and 1995):
.. Identification of existing or potential interties with other public water systems and evaluation
of the ability to deliver water assuming the loss of the largest we!Uwellfield.
.. Identification of future potential sources of drinking water and description of quality
assurances and control methods to be applied to ensure protection of water quality prior to
utilization of potential sources as a drinking water supply.
Page 9-1
-
Hart Crowser
J-3508-01
~ Evaluation of current procedures and the development of recommendations on contingency
plans for emergency events.
~ Maintenance of a current list of appropriate emergency phone numbers.
The purpose of this section is to address each of these current and proposed contingency plan
requirements based on current guidance. The contingency plan developed for the City of Kent
has both short-and long-term alternatives. Clark Springs wellfield represents about 40 percent
of the City's production capacity (approximately 4 to 6 MGD). The loss of this field, even for a
short period of time, would necessitate a series of dramatic changes in system operation and
public use patterns. It is assumed that, if a problem is identified in the Clark Springs wellfield,
the City must enact a stringent water use restriction policy and institute an extensive public
education program to increase customer awareness of the problem and to reduce overall water
use.
The alternative resource contingency plans for the City of Kent have been divided into the
following three categories: 1) short-term; 2) long-term; and 3) permanent replacement. Each of
· these is described and expanded in the following sections.
9.2 Short-Term Contingency Plan
The short-term plan presumes that Clark Springs wellfield production will be lost for not more
than 90 days. This time frame will probably not allow the drilling and/or development of
additional wells, particularly considering permitting requirements, to achieve replacement of the
2,800 gpm produced by the Clark Springs wellfield. As a result, the short-term contingency
plan is heavily dependent upon the purchase of water from neighboring water districts. The
short-term plan consists of the following items.
9.2.1 Activate lnterties Pursuant to Existing Amements
Kent has existing intertie agreements with neighboring purveyors that could be enacted in the
event of a short-term interruption of the Clarks Spring supply source. These include:
~ An open-ended agreement with the City of Tukwila to provide water on 10 days notice or on
an emergency basis. This intertie was envisioned primarily to provide Kent with up to 2
MGD in additional supply to help meet peak demands;
~ An agreement with the Highline Water District (formerly Water District No. 75) for the later
to provide continuous water service up to 1.42 MGD on request;
~ An intertie agreement with the City of Renton for up to 6 MGD of supply.
The City should ensure that each of these agreements can provide as much water as possible
under emergency situations. This option has a minimal up-front cost, but the actual cost of the
water used may be substantially higher than the City's current costs for water, especially if
Page 9-2
-
Hart Crowser
J-3508-01
-purchased under emergency conditions. These existing intertie agreements should be able to
compensate for the total loss of the Clark Springs wellfield production, at least in the short-term.
This contingency item would presume a concurrent maximum conservation effort.
-
9.2.2 Activate lnterties with Other Area Purvevors
There are existing interties with the Soos Creek Water and Sewer District (formerly Water
District No. 58) and the City of Auburn which could be activated. An intertie exists with Soos
Creek SE 227th Street and 113th Avenue SE. Although no agreement governing its use has
been pursued, the possibility could be further explored. An intertie with the Auburn Water
System exists via the dissolution of Water District No. 87 but no agreement has been executed.
Because of the hydraulics of the system, the flow from this intertie is only about 200 to 300
gpm. The City could explore the possibility of obtaining additional emergency supplies through
these sources by establishing intertie agreements and evaluating the infrastructure upgrades
which would be required to use the interties under emergency conditions.
9.3 Long-Term Contingency Plan
The long-term plan presumes the Clark Springs production will be lost for a period of up to
three years. For this scenario, it is presumed that other sources could be brought on-line which
are more economical or more consistently available than those presented in the short-term
contingency plan. It is also presumed that the long-term plan would be used to offset the
emergency use authority under which most of the short-term usage would be based. Options
discussed below include installation of a treatment system and replacement with new sources.
9.3.1 Treatment and Use of the Clark Springs
The City could establish a testing program to evaluate the potential for removing the contaminant
from the groundwater and then using the treated water as a potable water supply. This option
may involve a relatively high cost in the evaluation of the treatment alternatives and construction
of the treatment facilities.
9.3.2 Clark Springs Replacement
Should the circumstance that led to the closure of the Clark Springs be located sufficiently
downgradient in the current wellfield capture zone, it may be possible to perform a groundwater
exploration and production program in the upper capture zone to identify areas where non-
contaminated groundwater could be produced. The Georgetown area is considered a potentially
productive source although limited by seasonal precipitation lows. The Covington Water
District currently has a supplemental well in this area that reportedly has limited capacity some
years during the dry season. More detailed investigation such as seismic and test drilling
surveys would be needed farther out in the capture zone area prior to pursuing any other
groundwater development in this area. This option would also involve significant transmission
main costs and land acquisition costs, although transferring existing water rights to the new
facility is like! y feasible.
Page 9-3
9.3.3 Other GroundwqJer Source Exploration
Hart Crowser
J-3508-01
The following groundwater exploration has occurred in the Kent area. These sites could be
considered as potential sources for long-term contingency supply.
.. The Ravensdale area and west to the Kent Springs source is considered a potentially
productive aquifer area because of its geological setting. However, the site has not been
adequately explored. Development of an additional source in this area is currently being
considered to fully utilize the water rights for the Kent Springs source.
.. Another possible source of water could be provided by wells drilled at the site of the
proposed storage impoundment. A hydrogeologic study of the site indicated a potential year-
round flow of about 900 gpm (1.3 MGD); however, the water had unacceptably high levels
of manganese, iron, and turbidity, and so would require treatment. It is not considered an
economically attractive source, however, may be a considered as a long-term contingency
source.
.. Another possible source is the Ranney well field explored for on a bend of the Green River
near the former confluence of the Green and White Rivers. Tests have indicated a potential
yield of 10 MGD, however, because the water is hydraulically connected to the Green River,
production would be tied to the Green River low flow regulations. With production limited
to 7 months out of the year, capacity would be limited to an average annual yield of 5. 8
MGD if storage is provided to offset pumping restrictions during low flow periods.
9.3.4 Current Water Rights Moratorium
It may be difficult to develop new water sources that require obtaining new water rights.
Ecology has placed what is essentially a moratorium on issuance of new water rights for the
Soos Creek Basin as a result of its recent Green/Duwamish River Basin Assessment. This basin
assessment closes the Green-Duwamish River Basins to further groundwater appropriations
because of critical low flows in streams (including Soos Creek) during the late summer/fall
period. At the current large-scale level of assessment, all wells within the Covington upland are
assessed to be hydraulically connected to local streamflows which eventually end up in the
Green-Duwamish system.
A data collection and monitoring program as outlined in Section 7.0 will be needed to better
assess the inter-relationship of groundwater and surface water. These data provide the
framework for refinement of the regional groundwater flow model that can be used as a tool for
making future decisions on additional groundwater development.
9.4 Permanent Replacement Contingency Plan
In the event that the Clark Springs Source is lost to production for a period of longer than three
years, it is probable that the City may consider the wellfield permanently lost. As a result,· it
would be advisable to seek a permanent transfer of the water certificate to the appropriate
Page 9-4
Hart Crowser
J-3508-01
supplies developed under the short-or long-term plans. The viability of other groundwater
sources will be based on having developable amounts of water and the cost of bringing that
water into the distribution system. Additionally, the current water rights situation (discussed
above) could make it very difficult to develop new sources.
Other, more specific, permanent alternatives concern conjunctive use options. These options
generally involve the development of a storage mechanism to allow the City to collect and store
winter surplus water for use during the drier summer months. These types of projects are
generally large in scale and could require regional participation. Several potential alternatives
are discussed below.
9.4.1 Aquifer Storage and Recovery
The City could explore for an aquifer that is capable of storing excess winter water until it could
be utilized during the summer. At the present time, no such aquifers have been explicitly
defmed in the Kent area, although there is the possibility that such an aquifer exists around the
Ravensdale area. This type of project has a high degree of infrastructure cost and would require
a substantial degree of permitting. Additionally, a source of reliable surplus winter water must
be identified and transported to the storage aquifer.
9.4.2 Surface Reservoir Storage
The City has identified a site suitable for the construction of a surface reservoir to hold excess
winter water for later use. The land has been purchased and the soils investigation completed
for development of a surface water impoundment. The need for a permanent water supply
replacement could propel completion of this project. The City's transmission main runs through
this area, as does Tacoma's Pipeline 5. The reservoir would be designed to work conjunctively
with the Ranney wellfield development, or one of the other potential groundwater sources
discussed above. Pipeline #5 could also be called on to provide permanent replacement should
the need arise.
9.5 Contingency Procedures and Emergency Phone Numbers
Contingency procedures for fires, earthquakes, chlorine gas leaks, mechanical failures, bomb
threats, major power outages, personnel accidents or illness, and subzero weather are included in
the WSP starting on page 152. Emergency phone numbers are also included on page 151 of the
WSP.
Page 9-5
-
10.0 REFERENCES
Han Crowser
J-3508-01
Brown and Caldwell, 1978. Cedar River Well Field Study, Final Report, Prepared for the
Seattle Water Department, November 1978.
City of Kent, Department of Public Works, 1990. Water System Plan.
City of Kent, 1991. Hazardous Materials Emergency Plan.
EPA, 1991. Managing Groundwater Contamination Sources in Wellhead Protection Areas: A
Priority Setting Approach.
Hall, J.B., and K.L. Othberg, 1974. Thickness of unconsolidated sediments, Puget Lowland,
Washington: Department of Natural Resources, Geologic Map GM-12.
Han Crowser, 1990. Lake Sawyer Hydrogeologic Study, Black Diamond, Washington,
prepared for Washington State Department of Ecology, October 5, 1990, J-2484.
King County, 1993. Cedar River Current and Future Conditions Report, King County
Department of Public Works, Surface Water Management Division, Seattle, November 1993.
King County, 1991. Soos Creek Basin Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement.: Basin
Planning Program, Seattle, 330 p.
Luzier, J.E., 1969. Geology and Groundwater Resources of Southwestern King County,
Washington. Washington State Department of Ecology, Water Supply Bulletin 28.
McDonald, M.G., and A.W. Harbaugh, 1988. A Modular Three-Dimensional Finite-Difference
Groundwater Flow Model, USGS Open-File Report 83-875.
Mullineaux, D.R., 1965a. Geologic Map of the Renton Quadrangle, King County, Washington.
U.S. Geologic Survey, Geologic Quadrangle Map GQ 405, scale 1:24,000.
Mullineaux, D.R., 1965b. Geologic Map of the Black Diamond Quadrangle, King County,
Washington: U.S. Geological Survey, Geologic Quadrangle Map GQ 407, scale 1:24,000.
Mullineaux, D.R., 1970. Geology of the Renton, Auburn, and Black Diamond Quadrangles,
King County, Washington. USGS Professional Paper No. 672.
Robinson & Noble, 1995. Covington Water District Lake Sawyer Wellhead Protection Plan.
South King County Ground Water Advisory Committee (SKCGWAC), EES, Inc., Han Crowser,
Inc., Pacific Groundwater Group, and Robinson & Noble, Inc., 1989. South King County
Groundwater Management Plan, Grant Number 1: Background Data Collection and Management
Issues, Volumes I and ll, June 1989.
Page 10-1
-
-
Hart Crowser
J-3508-01
USGS, 1995. DRAFr Geohydrology and Quality of Groundwater Report for the East King
County, Ground Water Advisory Committee. 1995.
Vine, J.D., 1969. Geology and coal resources of the Cumberland, Hobart, and Maple Valley
quadrangles, King County, Washington: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 624, 67 p,
map scale 1:24,000.
Walsh, T.J., 1984. Geology and coal resources of central King County, Washington:
Washington Division of Geology and Earth Resources, Open-File Report 84-3, scale 1:24,000.
Washington State Department of Health (DOH), 1993, Washington State Proposed Wellhead
Protection Program, Environmental Health Programs, June 1993.
Washington State Department of Health, 1993. Inventory of Potential Contaminant Sources in
Washington's Wellhead Protection Areas.
Washington State Department of Ecology NWRO, et al., 1995. Initial Watershed Assessment
Water Resources Inventory Area 9, Green-Duwamish Watershed, Open-File Report 95-01,
January 20, 1995.
Zheng, C., 1992. "PATH3D, A Ground-Water Path and Travel-Time Simulator, Version 3.2",
S.S. Papadopulos & Associates, Inc.
WHPPDFI'.fr
Page 10-2
-
Hart Crowser
J-3508-01
APPENDIX A
HYDROGEOLOGIC DATA ANALYSIS
-
APPENDIX A
HYDROGEOLOGIC DATA ANALYSIS
Hart Crowser
J-3508-01
This appendix presents information on the hydrogeologic data collected and analyzed as part of
the wellhead protection area delineation. Specifically we present precipitation data, database and
well information, groundwater elevation data, and production information for the City's supply
sources.
Precipitation Data. Summary and Analysis
Monthly total precipitation recorded at Landsburg, Washington, between January 1989 and
February 1994 is presented in Table A-1. Landsburg is located approximately 20 miles east of
Kent on the Cedar River (Figure 1-1). Precipitation data from the Landsburg station are
believed to more accurately represent precipitation trends in the study area than SeaTac data
although long-term trends were observed to be similar between the two stations.
Figure A-1 graphically depicts monthly total precipitation and the cumulative departure from the
average monthly precipitation. The average monthly precipitation was calculated by National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). The cumulative departure curve on Figure
A-1 was calculated beginning in January 1989 as the difference between the recorded total
monthly precipitation and the calculated average monthly precipitation.
As illustrated on Figure A-1, average monthly total precipitation at Landsburg is approximately
4.8 inches. Annual average precipitation at Landsburg is approximately 58 inches. As indicated
by the cumulative departure curve, generally lower than average precipitation was observed at
Landsburg beginning in the winter of 1991. The total departure at Landsburg is approximately
20 inches for the two-year period ending in January 1994.
Water Level Data. Collection
Water level data were collected throughout the study area to provide a better understanding of
the groundwater flow and gradients, their variability, and to provide data for flow model
calibration. Two rounds of water level measurements were made in a selected set of wells. The
computerized database program developed for the SKCGWMP was accessed for well
information. Approximately 216 wells were identified within the study area. A subset of these
wells were field checked and used in this study for water level measurements. These wells and
the available information are presented in Table A-2. Criteria for selection generally included
availability of a well log and construction information, accessibility, and location within the
aquifer of interest.
The plan included collecting a seasonal low water level expected to occur in early Fall and a
seasonal high water level expected in the Spring. Water levels were measured over a two-to
three-day period between October 19 and 22, 1993, and between April 13 and 14, 1994. In
addition to depth to water, elevation was estimated for each well based on USGS 71h-minute
Page A-1
Han Crowser
J-3508-01
Quadrangle map elevations and altimeter measurements obtained during the period of water level
measurement. The water level data are presented in Table A-4.
The wells are referenced to the State Plane Coordinate System as· identified in the database with
the following exceptions:
.,. Several of the wells field-located during this study were assigned a new coordinates based on
our relocation of these wells on the study area map. These are noted (f) in Table A-2.
... As a part of this study the City Engineering Department surveyed the Kent Springs Wells I
and 2. These wells are identified as 33POI and 33P02 on the table and maps. The State
Plane Coordinates on these wells can be used as a fixed reference point.
Groundwater Elevation Data and Water Level Hydrographs
Table A-3 presents monthly water level monitoring data collected from one well at each of the
three springs properties between August 1990 and October 1993. Figures A-2 through A-4
present hydrographs for the wells monitored monthly (Well A3 at Armstrong Springs, Well No.
1 at Kent Springs, and Well No. 1 at Clark Springs). Additional data collected by the City of
Kent Operations group during routine daily or near daily monitoring of the water supply system
are also graphically presented on Figures A-2 and A-3 for Armstrong Springs Well Nos. 1 and 2
and Kent Springs Well No. 1.
For comparison purposes, the hydrographs are plotted on the same scale as the precipitation plot
(Figure A-1). A review of the hydrographs suggests a slight trend of decreasing water levels in
wells at each of the three watersheds possibly as a result of the lower precipitation observed in
the area after the winter of 1991. The hydrographs also illustrate seasonal fluctuations in water
levels at the three water sheds which amount to approximately 5 feet at Clark Springs and as
much as 10 feet at Armstrong Springs and Kent Springs.
Table A-4 presents water level monitoring data collected in October 1993 and April 1994 at
selected wells distributed throughout the study area. In general the water levels measured . in the
Fall of 1993 and Spring of 1994 differ by less than 2 feet. This magnitude of difference may
not reflect the range of groundwater elevation fluctuations during wetter years such as those
prior to 1991 because of the lower precipitation noted more recently. Figure 2-12 presents a
groundwater elevation contour map for the April 1994 water level data.
Groundwater Production DaJil
The City of Kent Operations group maintains a computer database of monitoring data for each of
the Kent properties. Data collected include pumping rate, hours of operation, volume pumped,
water levels in selected wells, and limited water quality parameters (pH, chloride concentration,
and temperature). Data for each of the supply sources are tabulated in Tables A-5, A-6, and
A-7 and summarized graphically on Figures A-5 through A-7.
Page A-2
-
-Annstrong Springs
Hart Crowser
J-3508-01
Table A-5 summarizes water production data for the period January 1989 to April1994. Figure
A-5 depicts individual and combined total water production from the rwo wells, Nos. 1 and 2,
used for groundwater extraction at Armstrong Springs. The rwo wells have generally only been
used for meeting additional peak demand in late summer. However, the wells produced
approximately 100 million gallons (mg) of water in the fall/winter of 1993/1994. Well No. 2
has been producing water at a higher peak rate of approximately 30 mg per month (roughly 1
million gallons per day [MGD]) compared to approximately 20 mg per month (0.67 MGD) for
well No. 1. Production from both wells was down in 1993 compared to previous years.
Kent Springs
Table A-6 summarizes water production data for the period January 1989 to April 1994. Figure
A-6 depicts individual and combined total water production from the rwo wells, Nos. 1 and 2,
and the infiltration gallery used for groundwater extraction at Kent Springs. The bulk of the
water production is from the infiltration gallery with average yields of approximately 60 mg per
month (2 MGD). The rwo wells have generally only been used for meeting additional peak
demand in late summer and fall with peak production rates of 40 to 60 mg per month (1.3 to 2
MGD). The calculated 1-year running average total combined production rate suggests a slight
decline in production from a high of approximately 90 mg per month in 1991 to approximately
70 mg per month in 1993.
CWrk Sorings
Table A-7 summarizes water production data for the period January 1989 to April1994. Figure
A-7 depicts individual and combined total water production from the three wells, Nos. 1, 2, and
3, and the infiltration gallery used for groundwater extraction at Clark Springs. The bulk of the
water production is from the infiltration gallery with average yields of approximately 120 mg per
month (4 MGD). The three wells were only used for rwo months in 1989. The calculated 1-
year running average total combined production rate suggests a slight decline in production from
a high of approximately 130 mg per month in 1991 to approximately 110 mg per month in 1993.
Page A-3
Table A·l . Landsburg Monthly Total Precipitation
Values in inches
=
Monthly Average
Decimal Total Monthly
Year Month Date Precioitation Precioitation
1989 I 1989.042 7.46 7.93
1989 2 1989.125 4.1 5.93
1989 3 1989.208 8.31 5.3
1989 4 1989.292 4.46 4.3
1989 5 1989.375 4.15 3.2
1989 6 1989.458 2.29 2.99
1989 7 1989.542 1.08 1.49
1989 8 1989.625 1.12 2.06
1989 9 1989.708 0.85 3.3
1989 10 1989.792 3.15 4.87
1989 II 1989.875 7.34 7.48
1989 12 1989.958 5.93 8.71
1990 I 1990.042 11.07 7.93
1990 2 1990.125 6.23 5.93
1990 3 1990.208 5.42 5.3
1990 4 1990.292 3.35 4.3
1990 5 1990.375 4.57 3.2
1990 6 1990.458 6.66 2.99
1990 7 1990.542 1.48 1.49
1990 8 1990.625 2.95 2.06
1990 9 1990.708 0.28 3.3
1990 10 1990.792 9.71 4.87
1990 11 1990.875 14.66 7.48
1990 12 1990.958 4.65 8.71
1991 I 1991.042 6.87 7.93
1991 2 1991.125 8.59 5.93
1991 3 1991.208 6.21 5.3
1991 4 1991.292 8.62 4.3
1991 5 1991.375 3.02 3.2
1991 6 1991.458 2.15 2.99
1991 7 1991.542 0.54 1.49
1991 8 1991.625 1.85 2.06
1991 9 1991.708 0.1 3.3
1991 10 1991.792 2.1 4.87
1991 11 1991.875 9.68 7.48
1991 12 1991.958 4.59 8.71
1992 I 1992.042 8.14 7.93
1992 2 1992.125 3.9 5.93
Departure
from
Average
-0.47
-1.83
3.01
0.16
0.95
-0.7
-0.41
-0.94
-2.45
-1.72
-0.14
-2.78
3.14
0.3
0.12
-0.95
1.37
3.67
-0.01
0.89
-3
4.84
7.18
-4.06
-1.06
2.66
0.91
4.32
-0.18
-0.84
-0.95
-0.21
-3.2
-2.77
2.2
-4.12
0.21
-2.03
Cumulative
Depanure
from
Average
-0.47
-2.3
0.71
0.87
1.82
1.12
0.71
-0.23
-2.68
-4.4
-4.54
-7.32
-4.18
-3.88
-3.76
-4.71
-3.34
0.33
0.32
1.21
-1.79
3.05
10.23
6.17
5.11
7.77
8.68
13
12.82
11.98
11.03
10.82
7.62
4.85
7.05
2.93
3.14
1.11
Hart Crowser
J-3508-01
Page A-4
Table A-I -Landsburg Monthly Total Precipitation
=
Monthly
Total
Month
3
4
5 0.89
6 2.09
7 3.16
8 0.86
9 2.35
10 3.24
II
12
1993 I
1993 2 0.49
1993 3 5.85
1993 4 7.05
1993 5 5.15
1993 6 4.32
1993 7 2.87
1993 8 0.94
1993 9 0.04
1993 10 4.31
2.99
1.49
2.06
3.3
4.87
5.93
5.3
4.3
3.2
2.99
1.49
2.06
3.3
4.87
Departure
-2.31
-0.9
1.67
-1.2
-0.95
-5.44
0.55
2.75
1.95
1.33
1.38
-1.12
-3.26
-0.56
Cumulative
Han Crowser
J-3508-01
Page A-5
-
-
-
Table A-2-Summary of Well Construction Data for Wells Monitored
State Plane Coordinates (I)
Northing Easting
in feet in feet
131794
140439
142104 (f)
141509 (f)
141243
141026
141021 (f)
135893 (f)
131922
131309 1695931
128700 (f)
127943
of Kent Well I 128271 (s)
of Kent Well 128491 (s)
Svedarsky 130231
Lasher 127915
128093
129412 (f)
128046 (f)
22N/06E-26POI of Kent Well
22N/06E-26P02 of Kent Well
22N/06E-26P03 of Kent Well
District #43
Well Head
Elevation
in feetMSL
410
560
510
515
476
517
531
574
599
591
475
525
524
623
617
577
591
577
(s)
(s)
Han Crowser
J-3508-01
Well
Depth
138
77
30
50
200
138
106
87
99
52
91
135
160
57
75
72
!55
98
•
Screen
Elevation
308
305
310
365
468
519
(I) State Plane Coordinates derived from the SKCGWMP database except as nored (f) where relocated
based on field observations or (s) where surveyed.
(2) Elevation estimated from USGS topography and field altimeter measurements except as noted (s) where surveyed.
(3) Owner identified at time of field sampling; may not be same as owner on original Water Well Report.
* No log available.
35080 I \kentwell.xls
Page A-6
Table A-3. Monthly Monitoring Data from Kent Watersheds
Armstrong Springs Kent Springs
Well A3 · · 22N/5E · 36AOI Well No. I · • 22N/6E-33POI
Date Depth to Groundwater Depth to Groundwater
Measured Groundwater Elevation Groundwater Elevation
8/14/90 20.22 349.78 55.81 469.59 -9/17/90 20.26 349.74 51.94 473.46
10/15/90 10.05 359.95 52.68 472.72
11/13/90 8.37 361.63 45.74 479.66
12117/90 7.78 362.22 43.57 481.83
115191 7.54 362.46 44.01 481.39
2112191 8.14 361.86 44.27 481.13
3/15/91 7.56 362.44 43.82 481.58
412/91 8.34 361.66 44.15 481.25
5/17/91 8.71 361.29 46.79 478.61
6/17/91 9.23 360.77 45.44 479.96
7/16/91 20.41 349.59 50.77 474.63
8113/91 20.95 349.05 53.49 471.91
9/16/91 17.45 352.55 49.84 475.56
10122191 19.89 350.11 57.16 468.24
1213/91 16.61 353.39 47.86 477.54
1121/92 9.79 360.21 45.25 480.15
2121/92 8.76 361.24 44.1 481.3
3/19/92 9.14 360.86 44.17 481.23
5/4/92 9.16 360.84 44.69 480.71
6122192 19.97 350.03 46.87 478.53
10/12192 20.22 349.78 51.14 474.26
11/17/92 16.53 353.47 49.53 475.87
1n193 9.92 360.08 45.03 480.37
4127/93 8.71 361.29 44.47 480.93
10/5/93 19.98 350.02 51 474.4
350801\ecology.xls
-
Clark Springs
Hart Crowser
J-3508-01
Well No. I · • 22N/6E-26P03
Depth to Groundwater
Groundwater Elevation
9.62 550.38
7.94 552.06
9.54 550.46
6.44 553.56
5.06 554.94
4.7 555.3
5.47 554.53
4.65 555.35
6.24 553.76
8.54 551.46
9.43 550.57
9.4 550.6
9.99 550.01
10.14 549.86
7.42 552.58
6.09 553.91
9.73 550.27
6.1 553.9
6.28 553.72
7.72 552.28
10.41 549.59
10.34 549.66
7.24 552.76
8.47 551.53
7.59 552.41
10.15 549.85
Page A-7
"d
"' IQ
"' > ' ')0
1 1 1 I
Table A-4-Groundwater Elevation Data-City of Kent Monitoring Program
Well
Designation
22N/05E-36AOI
22N/05E-36A03
22N/06E-19K03
22N/06E-20EOI
22N/06E-20GOI
22N/06E-20H03
22N/06E-20H06
22N/06E-201..03
22N/06E-29<JOI
22N/06E-32A02
22N/06E-32H03
22N/06E-32Q03
21 N/06E-04803
21N/06E-04KOI
21 N/06E-04Q03
22N/061!-271'01
22N/06E-33J02
22N/06E-33J04
22N/06E-33NOI
22N/06E-33POI
22N/061!-33P02
22N/06E-34HOI
22N/06E-34QOI
22N/06E-34Q02
22N/06E-34ROI
22N/061!-34R02
22N/06E-25M02
22N/06E-26POI
22N/06E-26P02
22N/061!-26P03
22N/06E-36AOJ
22NI071!-32C03
Elevations in feet MSL
350801\watrlevl.xls
Well Head
Elevation
370
370
394
450
443
387
395
410
560
510
515
476
538
517
531
574
599
591
475
525
524
623
617
577
591
571
600
560
560
560
620
660
Historic Data
Depth to ~~roundwater -~~ate Water (ft) Elevation (ft) Measured
Wells Monitored at Annstrong Springs
8.57 361.43 8/12/82
14.73 355.27 8/17/82
14.00 380.00 9118/79
70.00 380.00 114/83
70.00 373.00 5118184
0.00 f 387.14 5n5ns
4.00 391.00 8/27/83
37.00 373.00 8/23/85
107.31 452.69 1/25/63
104.00 406.00 5/1/80
84.00 431.00 9116175
37.00 439.00 10/25171
Wells Monitored at Kent Springs
27.47 510.53 8/16/62
40.00 476.73 10126/83
25.00 506.00 9118175
65.00 509.15 9121179
117.00 481.75 11/26/74
110.00 480.55 11122/77
3.00 472.00 2/18/83
45.25 480.15 I 1117/77
42.00 482.24 12118/77
119.00 504.36 114180
53.00 563.80 6/20178
na na na
40.00 550.55 6/17/80
·30.00 547.43 6/9183
Wells Monitored at Clark Springs
11.44 588.56 8/16/62
4.00 556.00 1/l/68
4.50 555.50 2/5/68
7.00 553.00 12/1167
10.00 610.00 2/15/82
45.00 615.00 8/16/89
f-Howing well
I
October 1993 Data April 1994 Data
Depth to -~Groundwater Depth to
Water (ft) Elevation (ft) Water (ft)
12.75 k 357.25 10.55 k
13.30 k 356.70 11.50 k
11.05 382.95 na
70.83 379.17 69.02
41.70 401.30 39.09
2.75 384.39 0.00 f
4.32 390.68 2.41
20.80 389.20 18.95
188.20 371.80 187.62
105.29 404.71 102.91
109.55 405.45 107.61
36.27 439.73 na
38.00 500.00 32.86
18.20 498.53 14.54
21.37 509.63 18.11
61.88 512.27 56.28
120.10 478.65 115.55
110.76 479.79 107.45
3.17 471.83 2.70
46.44 k 478.96 44.74 k
51.00 473.24 16.80 s
118.35 505.01 115.68
55.46 561.34 53.14
52.96 524.47 50.25
31.44 559.11 28.71
31.94 545.49 29.02
11.50 588.50 9.42
10.15 549.85 7.63
na na 32.90 s
na na 37.60 s
27.18 592.82 17.54
38.45 621.55 34.16
s -water level in ft above suction
1
~~roundwaler
Elevation (ft)
359.45
358.5
na
380.98
403.91
387.14
392.59
391.05
372.38
407.09
407.39
na
505.14
502.19
512.89
517.87
483.20
483.10
472.30
480.66
na
507.68
563.66
527.18
561.84
548.41
590.58
552.37
602.46
625.84
k -City of Kent data
1
Change
Fall to
Spring
2.2
1.8
na
1.81
2.61
>2.75
1.91
1.85
0.58
2.38
1.94
na
5.14
3.66
3.26
5.6
4.55
3.31
0.47
1.7
na
2.67
2.32
2.71
2.73
2.92
2.08
2.52
9.64
4.29
~
'-< -wr
"''"' oc OO;E
6K ........
Table A·S ·Armstrong Springs Water Production Summary
Monthly Water Production in Million of Gallons
Date Total I Well No. II Well No.2
Jan-89 0.00 0.00 0.00
Feb-89 0.00 0.00 0.00
Mar-89 0.00 0.00 0.00
Apr-89 0.00 0.00 0.00
May-89 0.01 0.00 0.00
Jun-89 12.60 5.04 7.57
Jul-89 49.09 17.45 31.64
Aug-89 58.84 23.15 35.69
Sep-89 52.12 20.46 31.68
Oct-89 26.31 10.69 15.62
Nov-89 0.92 0.00 0.92
Dec-89 0.00 0.00 0.00
Jan-90 O.ol 0.00 0.00
Feb-90 0.00 0.00 0.00
Mar-90 0.00 0.00 0.00
Apr-90 0.01 O.QI O.QI
May-90 0.00 0.00 0.00
Jun-90 0.00 0.00 0.00
Jul-90 33.37 12.54 20.84
Aug-90 49.53 18.18 31.35
Sep-90 42.83 16.43 26.41
Oct-90 19.11 7.34 11.76
Nov-90 1.46 0.57 0.90
Dec-90 0.01 0.00 0.01
Jan-91 0.00 0.00 0.00
Feb-91 0.03 0.01 0.02
Mar-91 0.00 0.00 0.00
Apr-91 0.00 0.00 0.00
May-91 O.ol 0.00 0.01
Jun-91 0.02 O.QJ 0.01
Jul-91 41.97 14.69 27.28
Aug-91 50.85 19.08 31.77
Sep-91 47.72 18.34 29.38
Oct-91 35.63 13.78 21.84
Nov-91 32.79 11.88 20.91
Dec-91 9.35 0.00 9.35 -Jan-92 0.00 0.00 0.00
Feb-92 0.00 0.00 0.00
Mar-92 0.00 0.00 0.00
Apr-92 0.00 0.00 0.00
May-92 0.00 0.00 0.00
Jun-92 33.80 10.01 23.78
Ju1-92 44.70 17.11 27.58
Aug-92 49.21 18.67 30.54
Sep-92 42.81 16.18 26.63
Oct-92 38.35 14.03 24.33
Nov-92 30.72 7.57 23.15
Dec-92 9.33 1.07 8.26
1-Ycar
Running Average
Total
16.66
16.66
16.66
16.66
16.66
16.66
15.61
14.30
13.52
12.75
12.15
12.19
12.19
12.19
12.20
12.20
12.19
12.20
12.20
12.91
13.02
13.43
14.81
17.42
18.20
18.20
18.19
18.19
18.19
18.19
21.01
21.23
21.10
20.69
2Q.92
20.74
20.74
Hart Crowser
J-3508-01
Page A-9
Table A-5 -Armstroag Springs Water Production Summary
-
Hart Crowser
J-3508-01
Page A-10
....
Table A-6 • Kent Springs Water Production Summary
Monthly Willer Production in Millions of Gallons
Combined Well Well Total
Date Total Gallery No.I No.2 Wells
Jan-89 41.11 41.11 0.00 0.00 0.00
Feb-89 43.79 43.79 0.00 0.00 0.00
Mar-89 64.90 64.90 0.00 0.00 0.00
Apr-89 59.70 59.70 0.00 0.00 0.00
May-89 76.82 76.82 0.00 0.00 0.00
Jun-89 64.69 58.13 2.77 3.79 6.57
Jul-89 109.16 46.79 25.43 36.94 62.37
Aug-89 83.75 36.82 17.57 29.36 46.93
Sep-89 61.44 30.65 11.00 19.79 30.79
Oct-89 81.26 35.17 16.97 29.13 46.10
Nov-89 85.71 35.88 17.67 32.16 49.83
Dec-89 109.53 47.49 25.05 36.99 62.04
Jan-90 129.99 57.37 29.22 43.40 72.62
Feb-90 110.05 49.46 24.10 36.49 60.59
Mar-90 77.16 66.22 4.39 6.54 10.93
Apr-90 71.84 71.84 0.00 0.00 0.00
May-90 75.65 75.65 0.00 0.00 0.00
.... Jun-90 73.36 73.36 0.00 0.00 0.00
Jul-90 114.31 72.91 22.68 18.72 41.40
Aug-90 87.16 42.81 20.96 23.39 44.35
Sep-90 106.02 47.27 31.30 27.45 58.75
Oct-90 113.95 52.11 32.23 29.61 61.84
Nov-90 90.17 58.19 17.38 14.60 31.98
Dec-90 77.72 77.72 0.00 0.00 0.00
Jan-91 98.03 98.03 0.00 0.00 0.00
Feb-91 88.00 88.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Mar-91 89.50 89.50 0.00 0.00 0.00
Apr-91 95.08 95.08 0.00 0.00 0.00
May-91 98.17 98.17 0.00 0.00 0.00
Jun-91 74.33 74.33 0.00 0.00 0.00
Jul-91 108.77 61.29 24.55 22.93 47.48 .... Aug-91 73.92 41.20 4.86 27.86 32.72
Sep-91 65.08 32.82 10.56 21.70 32.26
Oct-91 85.20 32.45 5.12 47.63 52.75
Nov-91 30.90 27.41 1.69 1.80 3.49
Dec-91 78.72 54.37 11.52 12.83 24.35
Jan-92 83.02 83.02 0.00 0.00 0.00
Feb-92 74.90 74.90 0.00 0.00 0.00
Mar-92 83.86 83.86 0.00 0.00 0.00
Apr·92 79.91 79.82 0.07 0.02 0.09
May-92 78.03 78.03 0.00 0.00 0.00
Jun-92 80.10 65.74 7.27 7.08 14.36
Jul-92 120.94 61.78 28.87 30.29 59.16
Aug-92 72.26 37.17 5.72 29.38 35.09
Sep-92 46.78 23.39 0.79 22.60 23.39
Oct-92 57.02 29.11 5.84 22.07 27.91
Nov-92 84.35 44.70 18.26 21.39 39.65
Dec-92 56.09 51.38 2.16 2.56 4.72
I· Year Running Averages
Total Gallery
73.49 48.10
80.90 49.46
86.42 49.93
87.44 50.04
88.45 51.05
88.35 50.96
89.07 52.23
89.50 54.40
89.79 54.90
93.50 56.29
96.23 57.70
96.60 59.56
93.95 62.08
91.29 65.47
89.45 68.68
90.48 70.62
92.41 72.55
94.29 74.43
94.37 74.51
93.91 73.54
92.81 73.41
89.39 72.20
87.00 70.57
82.06 68.00
82.14 66.05
80.89 64.80
79.80 63.71
79.33 63.24
78.06 61.97
76.39 60.29
76.87 59.58
77.88 59.62
77.74 59.28
76.22 58.49
73.87 58.22
78.32 59.66
76.44 59.41
Hart Crowser
J-3508-01
Wells
25.38
31.44
36.49
37.40
37.40
37.40
36.85
35.10
34.89
37.22
38.53
37.04
31.87
25.82
20.77
19.86
19:86
19.86
19.86
20.37
19.40
17.19
16.43
14.06
16.09
16.09
16.09
16.09
16.09
16.09
17.29
18.26
18.46
17.72
15.65
18.67
17.Q3
Page A-ll
-
Table A·6 • Kent Springs Water Production Summary
Hart Crowser
J-3508-01
Page A-12
Table A-7 -Clark Springs Water Production and Streamnow Summary
Mar-91
Apr-91
May-91
Jun-91
Jul-91
Aug-91
Sep-91
Oct-91
Han Crowser
J-3508-01
Page A-13
-
Table A-7 -Clark Springs Water Production and Streamflow Summary
Monthly Water Production in Millions of Gallons
Combined
Date Total
Jan-Y3 120.5"/
Feb-93 106.23
Mar-93 129.16
Apr-93 122.63
May-93 90.13
Jun-93 118.34
Jul-93 96.55
Aug-93 118.57
Sep-93 108.88
Oct-93 98.62
Nov-93 113.78
Dec-93 82.98
• Of Combined Total
350801 \clarlcsum.xls
!-Year
Running Well
Average* Gallery No.I
118.Q2 120.57 0.00
117.13 106.18 0.00
117.08 127.32 0.09
117.17 122.56 0.02
114.74 90.09 0.01
114.25 118.24 0.01
112.81 96.51 O.ot
112.91 118.50 O.ot
112.61 108.88 0.00
111.90 98.58 O.ot
112.62 113.77 0.00
108.87 82.98 0.00
Well Well
No.2 No.3
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.04
0.52 1.23
0.02 0.03
O.ot O.ot
0.01 0.08
0.01 0.02
0.02 0.05
0.00 0.00
0.01 0.02
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
Total
Wells
0.00
0.04
1.85
O.Q7
0.04
0.10
0.04
O.Q7
0.00
0.04
0.01
0.00
Han Crowser
J-3508-01
Rock Creek Aow
Rate in CFS
!-Year
Monthly A vg. Running
Average Average
10.21 7.79
13.23 7.31
8.51 6.91
14.58 7.16
15.57 7.64
14.12 8.27
10.08 8.73
5.84 8.94
4.62 9.13
4.17 9.30
3.72 9.32
5.22 9.16
Page A-14
Cb
5 t
CQ
~
Q
~ ..... ....
.!
:::s
= § .!2 -.!!! 0 Cll
c.o ... ~ = .,
"' c: ""0 c CQ :l c:
() ..... ....
CQ .... ..... . s.
(,)
Cb ct .....
!!
~
~
~ c:
~
··.
~ ....
:::.:: ...... . .·
·········.::::: .. ·····
-.-.-·.-::::: .. "':::: .........•......... _
.... ·:--=:::····~,;~E-1:..
-
.
.
~ -
~ -
"' "' "'
-..
HNri'CROWSER
J-3508-D 1 11/95
F/gureA-1
-
ac
~0
J~g ouc
~ ....... ~
\ 0 Co
0 t! c c c
9 ~ 8~
"ciS 1!!1 :::t
;;:IIIII
.{
~ .... c
•
co co 0
0
0
0 ..,. ..,
..,
"' "' -
N
"' "' -
-"' "' -
0
"' "' -
"' ..
2:
.. ..
"" 0 z
~
0
0 z
~
0
'"' <
~
I
'
HIJRTCROWSER
J-3508-D 111/95
FlgureA-2
.... c: ~
0
aJ ....
It)
Cl) ....
0
0
Cl) ....
It) ,... ....
0 ,... ....
It) co ....
0
0
0
·~
....
"' "'
....
"' "' -
N
"' ~
-"' "' -
0
"' "' -
-..
..
';
0 .. c ·= 0
·'§
0 ::;
~ c
.E ;;
~
~ c..
0
" .: ;;
0
"'
0
• ;; c .. c ·c c
-~
0 ::;
~ i" g 0 ::; ~ -I .J. ' ~
Hl.lRTCROWSER
J-3508-01 11/95
Figure A-3
•
{'
.:::
C_ ~
a:::;._, v
~~
0
"' "'
-
-
-
-
"" "' "'
"' "' "' -
-"' "' -
0
"' "' -
g;
"' -
-..
!l • c .. c ·c
" '" c
" ::!1
:2'
" " ::!1
+
IIJJRTCROWS'ER
J-3508-D 1 11/95
F/gureA-4
J J J l l J l
Armstrong Springs Water Production
£f
.5
1
Il-l ... !! "' ~
~ ~
~ '~-i':ICI c:t:~ ~0 ~'f' &to
"4-
~~
Combined Total
60 -
sol .lll ol Rl
4ol Ill Ill 111 J\1 I I
30 I I I I I I I I II I 91 I I
...... ..
·······'I ... \I 20 I I I I I k I I II r········n.. \ II
1-
10
0
1989
· ..
1990 1991
1-Year Running Average
(Cm},iueA lot:.l)
•.
!'tL), .
1992 1993
I I
..
· ....
I
1994 1995
I
1f
.5
j
l
f
r
.!!
g
I
l!
~
>. ~
0
"
J l J ,
Well No. 1 Production
60
50
40
30 .
20 (\ t\
10
0
Jh.~ ~
,., 1998 1991 1991 199) tt9t ....
Well No. 2 Production
60
so
40
30
20 l f\
10
0
I~
'""'" • .. Ill
1!119 1990 '"' 1m rm JPH '"l
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I
Kent Springs Water Production
Combined Total
140
120 r.Jr-ul bll I ~ I I I e 'i' .s 100 c:: I ~--+ ·rJ II I II I A I I
.9 . . ~ -p /-····· II •. b R I ~ n
80 R ! \,Pt b I H "V-·· · .. ·• .. l I..!" 13. · ..
Rl ' .. ' · ...
I) ' !;j 60
! y; :;: .
>. 1.,1 ' :a 1 -40 -I c::
0
~
20 '
0 I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995
~t~l~l §~ • 01 ~~ 0104
~~ -'B-Gallery Production ~ Tolal Well Production
Gallery Production
140
6' 120 .s t
g 100 ._,
i 80
~ 60 ~
" 40 ~
0
~ >lt. 0
:~ 1/1 'B'\ ~-:r
~ ~ ~ v ~r
'll" hi
" 20
0 '-' ' '
1019 19110 1991 1992 199] ltN
Well Production
140 .. e 120
.5
g 100 .,
i 80
I 60
" 40 ~
0
" 20
~~ Jl
X Ill 1\41
-~ ' . .. .. . .. .. t~ ...
0
1919 19110 1991 1992 lm 1 ...
1-Year Running Average
(COtnbine4 T otaf)
'
199,
199,
ll'r IQC4
§u. •o tt ....... _
~~
l l l l l
Clark Springs Water Production
Combined Total
160
bl) e
c
·~ 120
c
0 ·.;~
0 ~ p.. 80
~ :;::
~ -40 c
0
~
0
1989 1990 1991 1992 1993
~~
--6--Gallery Produclion ~ Tolnl Well Produclion
l
I!' .e
g
)
~ ..
1994 ~
~
160
120
80
40
1l
0 .... ,..,
1-Year Running Average
(Combined TGbf)
Well Production
'"' "" '"' , ...
-
,....
Hart Crowser
J-3508-01
APPENDIXB
GROUNDWATER MODELING PROCEDURES
-
APPENDIXB
GROUNDWATER MODELING PROCEDURES
Hart Crowser
J-3508-01
This appendix discusses procedures used for developing the groundwater flow and capture zone
evaluation model. For this modeling work we used the U.S.G.S. MODFLOW code (McDonald
and A.W. Harbaugh, 1988) for groundwater flow simulation and PATH3D (Zheng, 1992), a
discrete particle tracking code, for capture zone evaluation. Both computer codes are recognized
in the literature as standards for this kind of work. We obtained these particular versions
MODFLOW (386/486 Extended Memory Version) and PATH3D (Ver. 3.0) from S.S.
Papadopulos & Associates, Inc., of Bethesda, Maryland.
Approach and Parameter Selection
.We used a hydrogeologic mapping approach to developing the basic model grid for the City's
watersheds. We began with development of available geologic information by constructing a
map of the surficial geology of the area to identify till and bedrock outcrops (aquifer boundaries)
and to identify areas where recessional outwash or other coarse-grained sediments (potential
aquifer materials) were likely present (see Figure 2-1). Geologic cross sections were then
developed to identify the depth, extent, and nature of aquifer materials in the subsurface. These
are presented on Figures 2-2 through 2-11.
Groundwater elevation contour maps spanning the three watersheds were developed based on
water levels measured in selected wells in October 1993 and April1994. The contouring was
based on these water levels, inferred regional boundary conditions, and groundwater flow
patterns indicated by similar mapping performed for the South King County Ground Water
Management Plan (SKCGWAC et al, 1989).
Finally, we approximated the likely areal limits of the aquifers tapped by the Kent production
wells based on the location and depth extent of till and bedrock units, sand and gravel horizons,
and rivers and lakes (most importantly the Cedar River and Little Soos Creek). The boundaries
of several portions of the model domain were determined by (inferred) bounding groundwater
flow streamlines. Figure B-1 shows the model grid and associated boundaries.
Conceptual Basis for Numerical Model
For the purposes of assessing wellhead protection capture zones, we established a numerical
representation of the groundwater flow system. For the model, water-bearing zones above the
Qf(2)/Qf(3) fmc-grained horizons were represented as a single vertically homogenized water-
bearing zone. This is incorrect in some places where till is present between layers of recessional
gravels (Qvr) and older sands and gravels [Qc(2)] but probably does not introduce significant
error into the model because the Qvr is often unsaturated in those areas.
-Potential water-bearing zones below the Qf(2)/Qf(3) fmc-grained horizons in the western part of
the model grid and bedrock underlying the eastern part of the model grid were not explicitly
Page B-1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Hart Crowser
J-3508-01
represented in the model. We did this to simplify the overall model. Because a generally
downward vertical gradient appears to exist between the shallow aquifer zone and deeper water-
bearing zones, any vertical groundwater flow component is probably downward. As discussed in
the SKCGW AC, groundwater in the deeper water-bearing zones most likely drains to the Green
and Cedar Rivers.
Downward groundwater flow to deeper water-bearing zones could have been represented
explicitly by adding one or more additional layers to the model. Instead, because the downward
flow appears to simply exit the shallow aquifer zone, we represented this component by simply
reducing the areal recharge by an amount equivalent to the downward loss. The results of the
unpublished USGS recharge model indicated that on the average some 2 inches of the total
annual precipitation fmds its way down to the deeper water-bearing zones from the shallower
water-bearing zones.
We used no flow cells (cells in which head and flow are not computed) to represent bedrock and
till outcrops in the eastern portion of the model domain. Because of the large difference
between the hydraulic conductivity of the outwash deposits and till or bedrock, horizontal
groundwater flow in these units should be negligible. The low permeability units are more
important for their effect on flow directions and rates in the adjacent outwash deposits, e.g.,
channeling flow through the Clark Springs area.
An implicit assumption of this approach is that the till outcrops in the eastern portion of the
model domain are underlain by bedrock which, as noted above is assumed to discharge out of
the model domain to the Green and Cedar River. In fact, some portion of the precipitation
recharge infiltrating the till probably infiltrates adjacent outwash deposits. As a result, the
model may underestimate the total water budget. If the USGS recharge model results are taken
at face value, then the model may underestimate the water budget over the area of the eastern till
outcrops. The eastern till outcrops do not cover a large area of the model domain. Coal seams
and other conductive horizons within the bedrock may locally increase downward flow above the
2-inch per year average value.
The model domain was assumed to be bounded on the east by bedrock outcrops (east of Retreat
Lake) and on the west by Soos Creek and its tributaries (the Boundary Conditions Set section
describes model boundary conditions in more detail). Groundwater flow is generally from east
to west, principally driven by precipitation recharge in the Covington Uplands. Explicit
groundwater discharge from the model occurs via Rock Creek and a short stretch of the Cedar
River on the north and to Soos Creek and its tributaries on the west. All westward groundwater
flow is assumed to be intercepted by Soos Creek and its tributaries (Little Soos Creek and
Jenkins Creek). This is consistent with the topography of the area (the basal elevation of Soos
Creek is below the bottom of the shallow aquifer zone throughout most of the model domain).
Several surface water bodies, namely Covington and Ravensdale Creeks, may play some role in
water transfers within the model domain and out of the study area. Because we had no data
regarding base flow In these streams, they are not represented in the model.
Page B-2
-
-
-
Steady State Model Selected
Hart Crowser
J-3508-01
Principally because backward particle tracking (tracking a hypothetical contaminant particle from
its point of capture at a City extraction well backward to its point of origin) requires a steady
state groundwater flow model, the groundwater model is a steady state model. We also
simplified the model setup by making all model cells unconfined. Because the water level
changes observed at the site during routine monitoring are not substantial, this simplification has
little effect on the accuracy of the model.
For the model, water-bearing zones above the Qf(2)/Qf(3) fmc-grained horizons were
represented as a single vertically homogenized water-bearing zone. This is incorrect in some
places where till is present between layers of recessional gravels (Qvr) and older sands and
gravels [Qc(2)] but probably does not introduce significant error into the model because the Qvr
is often unsaturated in those areas. Spatial variations in aquifer permeability are represented by
varying hydraulic conductivity values across the model grid. MODFLOW automatically
computes aquifer transmissivity as the product of the hydraulic conductivity and saturated
thickness (water level at start of time step minus bottom elevation) for each cell in the model
grid.
Model Grid Constructed
For this study, we developed a model grid consisting of 53 rows and 82 columns in one layer.
The grid spans a distance of 55,492 feet from west to east and 27,000 feet from north to south.
The row spacings range from 200 feet in the City watersheds to as much as 1,650 feet on the
northern boundary of the grid. The column spacings likewise range from 200 feet in the City
watersheds to as much as 2,000 feet on the eastern boundary of the grid. Water-bearing
materials are represented in the grid by model cells with spatially varying hydraulic conductivity
and other properties. Areas where glacial till and bedrock are believed to largely inhibit
groundwater flow were represented by inactive cells within the model grid. Figure B-1 presents
our model grid with selected boundary conditions.
Model Parameters Identified
The principal parameters affecting groundwater flow include:
.. Hydraulic conductivity;
.. Bottom elevation; and
.. Precipitation recharge.
Because it affects groundwater migration rates, porosity is a significant additional parameter
affecting potential contaminant migration rates. Our evaluation of each of these parameters is
discussed below.
Hydraulic Conductivity. We initially set out to delineate hydraulic conductivity within the
modeled region using a combination of aquifer pumping test data, specific capacity data as
Page B-3
-
-
-
-
-
-
Hart Crowser
J-3508-01
reported on driller's logs, and professional judgement based on materials identified on driller's
logs and our experience with similar materials at other locations in the Puget Sound area. Much
of the available pumping test data and specific capacity data are presented on the subsurface
geologic cross sections presented on Figures 2-2 through 2-11. The production well-specific
capacity data turned out to be less useful than expected. After reviewing a number of well logs
and comparing the specific capacity data to presumably more representative pumping test results,
we concluded that the specific capacity results more likely reflected the effects of variations in
well completion (continuous slot versus torch cut or open bottom casing) than the effects of
variations in aquifer hydraulic properties. In the end, we primarily relied on pumping test
results augmented with professional judgement during the model calibration process.
Figure B-2 presents the available pumping test data. These data were used in conjunction with
Golden Software's SURFER program and the bottom elevation of the aquifer (discussed below)
to generate our starting hydraulic conductivity grid. Hydraulic conductivity values used in the
model were adjusted during the calibration process described in the Model Calibration section
below. Figure B-3 shows the final calibrated hydraulic conductivity distribution as used in
model.
Bottom Elevation. Aquifer bottom elevation values were calculated for the model by reviewing
Ecology well logs from the South King County Ground Water Management Plan database and
additional information provided by Robinson & Noble and others to develop a map of the bottom
of the shallow water-bearing zones [mainly Qvr and Qc(2)]. For this analysis, individual wells
were located on a 1:24000 USGS topographic map of the area. When available, wellhead
survey data were used to calculate the bottom elevation based on the depth at which a lower
fme-grained unit (typically Qf(2) or Qf(3) in the west study area or Qvt or Tbr in the east study
area) was reported on the driller's log. More generally, the wellhead elevation was estimated
from the U.S.G.S. topographic quadrangle maps for the study area. Please note that the
topography on the 1949 USGS, photorevised 1968 and 1973 Quadrangle map for Maple Valley,
Washington, is off by 40 feet relative to field survey data referenced to NGVD and the newer
1983 metric 7 1hx15 minute Quadrangle map for Auburn, Washington. The well locations in
Lambert (State-Plane) coordinates and the estimated bottom elevation values were then input into
Golden Software's SURFER program to generate a bottom elevation contour map.
The bottom elevation values were changed in some places during the model calibration process,
principally because of initial data gaps in portions of the eastern third of the model grid and the
narrow valley between Ravensdale Lake and Lake Sawyer where fewer well logs were available
to review. Figure B-4 illustrates the final distribution of bottom elevation ·used in the model.
Precipitation Recharge. Precipitation recharge values for the model were developed in a three-
step process. First, we used precipitation data for Landsburg, Washington, to develop a plot of
monthly total precipitation versus time. Figure A-1 presents monthly total precipitation for this
station for the period 1989 to July 1994. Discussion with David Hartley of the King County
Surface Water Management group (Hartley, 1994) indicated that precipitation over the area,
including and east of the Clark Springs property, would likely be comparable to that recorded at
Page B-4
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Han Crowser
J-3508-01
the Landsburg station while precipitation in the western portion of the study area would probably
be on the order of 80 percent of that recorded at the Landsburg station.
Our next step was a review of the precipitation-recharge relationship developed by the USGS
through recharge modeling work conducted for the Covington Upland area for the South King
County GWAC. Although the modeling results are in press and not currently available, a
relationship between precipitation and recharge, derived from the model results is presented in
the DRAFT Geohydrology and Quality of Ground Water report for the East King County area.
We initially considered this relationship (See Figure B-6) to estimate groundwater recharge rates
for the till and outwash areas in the model. During the model calibration process we reduced
the recharge rates to 20 inches in the western area and 30 inches in the eastern area to improve
the match between the water budget of the numerical model and our conceptual model of the
site.
Recharge values for the outwash sands and gravels followed directly from this relationship. In
the till-capped bedrock upland areas some portion of the incident precipitation becomes
groundwater recharge and a larger portion most likely becomes runoff. Because of their likely
low hydraulic conductivity, we assumed that groundwater flow in the till and bedrock upland
areas need not be considered in the groundwater model. For areas in which surface water
drainage is toward the City's aquifers, the runoff from these upland areas probably does need to
be considered.
We incorporated the effect of runoff from upland areas by calculating the runoff from upland
areas as precipitation minus recharge minus evapotranspiration. Figure B-5 shows the surface
water catchment areas associated with the City's aquifers that we treated as Runoff Zones. For
this analysis we divided the catchment areas into subregions. Then we took the runoff (runoff
rate in feet/day times the subregion area in ff) and distributed this volume over several adjacent
active cells in the groundwater model. This approach may not be the most accurate for fmc-
scale analysis but does incorporate the basic water balance for the region reasonably well. Table
B-1 details the subregions identified, estimated areas, and model cells used to inject the upland
runoff into the active portions of the model.
Boundary Conditions Set
The study area encompasses a relatively complex groundwater flow dotnain which we .
represented using noflow, river, and drain nodes. Figure B-1 illustrates boundary conditions
used in the model.
Noflow Boundaries. Based on our hydrogeologic mapping we identified several areas across
which limited groundwater flow occurs. These principally include till and bedrock uplands but
also include portions of the southwest and northwest model boundaries across which the
groundwater elevation contour maps indicate little potential for groundwater flow. Noflow
boundaries are the default in MODFLOW (no flow across model grid boundaries unless
specified as constant flux). Irregular noflow boundaries internal to the grid are created making
selected cells inactive.
Page B-5
-
-
....
-
-
Hart Crowser
J-3508-01
River Boundaries. Portions of the Cedar River, Lake Sawyer, and Soos Creek were
represented in the model by means of river node boundary conditions.
Figure B-1 shows the locations of river node boundary cells. Table B-2 summarizes the values
assigned to each of the nodes. In MODFLOW, each river node has three properties:
" Stage;
" Bottom elevation; and
" Conductance.
River node properties can vary with time in MODFLOW, but lacking data to characterize
possible variations, we used fixed values for this steady-state simulation. Stage was generally
set by reference to elevations presented on the USGS topographic maps for the study area.
Information regarding the elevation of Lake Sawyer was obtained from the Lake Sawyer
Hydrogeologic Study (Hart Crowser, 1990). Because we generally did not have specific
information, bottom elevation for the river nodes was generally set to 20 to 30 feet below the
river stage elevation. We also did not have data regarding river bed conductance. Consequently
we developed conductance values during the model calibration process in terms of the best fit to
observed groundwater elevation data for the study area.
Pumping Well Nodes. Two pumping well nodes each at Armstrong Springs and Kent Springs
and one at Clark Springs were used to represent the City's groundwater withdrawal. Because
the Covington Water District produces a significant quantity of groundwater, we added a fourth
pumping well node near Covington's Lake Sawyer wellfield. For the steady-state model, the
pumping rate for each node was set to the annual average daily pumping rate for the period from
January 1989 to April 1994. This appears likely to yield conservatively high pumping rates for
long-term capture zone evaluations because actual well yields at the Armstrong, Kent, and
Covington wellfields appear to have decreased slightly over the period of record (See Appendix
A for discussion).
This yields the following pumping rate values in ft3/day (gpm):
Armstrong Springs
Kent Springs
Covington
Clark Springs
64,123 (333)
340,378 (1768)
384,531 (1997)
526,597 (2735)
To represent southerly groundwater flow from the Lake Youngs area, a specified flux boundary
was specified along a portion of the northern boundary of the model grid. For this boundary,
fixed rate injection wells were specified in ten fmite difference cells to inject an aggregate total
of 115,500 ft3/day (600 gpm). This flow rate was estimated based on the prevailing water table
gradient, saturated thickness, and hydraulic conductivity in that area.
Drain Nodes. Drain nodes were used in the model to represent the interaction between the
City's aquifers and Rock Creek north of Clark Springs. Drain nodes in MODFLOW have two
Page B-6
-
-
-
-
Han Crowser
J-3508-01
properties: conductance and elevation. The elevation of the drain nodes was set to 550 feet
based on topography near the Clarlc Springs property. The conductance of the drain nodes was
set to 400,000 ft 2/day during the model calibration process. Just three drain nodes were used to
represent the aquifer discharge at Rock Creek. Based on discussions with David Hartley of the
King County Surface Water Management group, Rock Creek does not appear to interact with the
aquifer in its reach north of Clark Springs.
Model Calibration
The groundwater flow model was calibrated in an iterative process during which various model
parameters were adjusted until satisfactory agreement was obtained between observed and
predicted groundwater elevations. In some cases compromises had to be made. Because the
most reliable groundwater elevation data were obtained generally closer to the three City
properties, more weight was assigned to water levels in these areas than to areas to the north and
east for which there are little data. Similarly, we did not adjust hydraulic conductivity
substantially in areas for which we had fairly good pumping test data while we were somewhat
more liberal in areas where only boring logs or specific capacity data were available.
Near the water supply sources, the predicted groundwater elevation values agree to within plus
or minus five feet of the observed groundwater elevations in April 1994 (Figure B-7). In other
areas, the variability is between 10 and 20 feet. The accuracy of the predicted elevations is
consistent with the measured data, given the accuracy of the water level monitoring data points.
Near the production wells where the monitoring points are surveyed, the accuracy is greater,
while further out, monitoring point elevations were estimated from USGS topographic maps and
are accurate to plus or minus 10 to 20 feet.
In the Retreat Lake area, the model overpredicted groundwater elevations by as much as 80 feet.
Predicted groundwater elevations in this area are strongly dependent on assumed recharge rates
and the estimated hydraulic conductivity of soils transmitting water from this area to areas to the
west. This pan of the model grid is difficult to calibrate because areas of inferred low saturated
thickness east of Retreat Lake and up Sugarloaf Mountain are directly adjacent to areas of high
hydraulic conductivity west of Retreat Lake.
The high predicted groundwater elevations are the result of our attempt to control the total rate
of groundwater flow in the model. For this we adjusted recharge rates.and hydraulic
conductivity values to reduce the total flow to improve the correspondence between predicted
groundwater discharge rates at Soos Creek and observed values.
Future data collection effons in this area should focus on assessing the extent and saturated
thickness of the aquifer south and east of Retreat Lake, hydraulic conductivity, groundwater
elevation, baseflow in Rock Creek, and precipitation recharge to the area. Recalibration of the
model may need to consider seasonal fluctuations in water levels and possibly seasonally dry
aquifer areas.
Page B-7
-
Hart Crowser
J-3508-01
r The water budget for the numerical model is summarized as follows:
Inflow ftl/day cfs
Precipitation Recharge 5,462,055 63.2
Lake Sawyer 48,675 .6
Lake Youngs specified flux 115,500 1.3
Total 5,626,230 65.1
Outflow ft3/day cfs
Cedar River 787,280 9.1
Rock Creek Drain 244,041 2.8
Water Supply Withdrawals 1,315,630 15.2
Soos Creek and Tributaries 3,318,772 38.4
Total 5,665,723 65.5
The difference between inflow and outflow in the fmal steady-state model amounts to
approximately 0.7% of the total water budget. Many of the values are consistent with available
monitoring data and conceptual assessment. For example, a baseflow of about 2 to 4 cfs,
derived from groundwater discharge has been estimated for Rock Creek based on stream gaging
data. Low flow baseflows for the Soos Creek alone have been estimated at between 20 and 35
cfs (Ecology, 1995). Although the Soos Creek value may·be a little high, the differences may
be attributed to Jack of a deeper layer in the model to account for deeper recharge, additional
domestic groundwater withdrawals that occur in the area, and failure to incorporate groundwater
discharge to Jenkins, Little Soos, and Covington Creeks (for which no data were identified).
Capture Zone Delineation
Using the calibrated groundwater flow model as a base, 1-, 5-, and 10-year capture zones were
calculated for each of the three City groundwater extraction areas (Armstrong, Kent, and Clark
Springs). We used PATH3D, a general particle tracking program, which can be used for
calculating groundwater flow paths and travel times in steady-state or transient, two-or three-
dimensional flow fields. Generally speaking, capture zones can be delineated using this software
by releasing a number of particles at the groundwater extraction wellheads and tracking the
movement of these particles backward in time to their point of origin.
Because the three City groundwater extraction areas are located in areas of relatively high
hydraulic conductivity, releasing tracking particles at the wellheads would likely predict
relatively tightly focused, narrow capture zones. Particularly for the Armstrong and Kent
Springs properties, these capture zones could be unconservatively narrow because the regions of
Page B-8
-
-
,....
-
Hart Crowser
J-3508-01
higher conductivity are in tum surrounded by regions of lower hydraulic conductivity (capture
zones tend to spread out more laterally in regions with lower hydraulic conductivity). To
mitigate the effect of these high conductivity regions, we developed a hybrid approach in which
tracking particles were released in a broader area around the extraction wells roughly
corresponding to the dimensions of the higher hydraulic conductivity regions. This results in a
larger starting area and consequently yields a broader capture zone.
In addition to the hydraulic parameters developed for the groundwater flow model, capture zone
evaluation using PATH3D requires specification of aquifer porosity, saturated thickness, and top
elevation.
Porosity
Specific data regarding the porosity of the City aquifers were not identified. We used a value of
0.25 (25%) based on our experience with similar materials at other sites in the area.
Saturated Thickness
We set a default value of 100 feet for saturated thickness. This value was based on the
maximum saturated thickness in the model grid. Because PATH3D calculates saturated
thickness at runtime for an unconfmed aquifer this value was only indicated as a default value.
Top Elevation
We set a default value of 710 feet (10 feet higher than the highest groundwater elevation in the
model grid) for the elevation of the top of the City aquifers in PATH3D. Because finite
difference cells in the groundwater flow model are all unconfmed, PATH3D automatically limits
particle travel to top of the water table in individual cells. Therefore, this parameter has little
effect on the capture zone evaluation discussed herein.
Sensitivity Analysis and Model Limitations
After obtaining a satisfactory calibration, we performed a limited sensitivity analysis to assess
the dependence of the model predicted groundwater elevations and capture zones on various
input parameters. This was accomplished by incrementally adjusting the value of one parameter
or group of parameters by a small amount, typically 10%, and noting the effect this change had
on predicted water levels or capture zones.
We were not able to perform a first order error analysis on the model parameter set. There are
too many basic parameters and the values of the parameters vary from location to location across
the study area. Adjustment of some key parameters and groups of parameters such as pumping
rate at one of the spring sources or river bed conductance for the Cedar River did show the
sensitivity of the predicted capture zones to varying parameter values.
Page B-9
-
Han Crowser
J-3508-01
The sensitivity analysis indicated that the capture zones are not particularly sensitive to changes
in the groundwater influx from the Lake Youngs area or discharge to the Cedar River. This is a
fortunate result because the magnitudes of those fluxes are not well known. The capture zones
for individual spring sources are not particularly sensitive to changes in pumping rates at the
other spring sources. This is a result of the high hydraulic conductivities characteristic of the
glacial deposits encountered in the study area and the relatively large spacing between spring
sources.
The predicted capture zones are very sensitive to changes in parameters that affect groundwater
flow and velocity. These include porosity, hydraulic conductivity, recharge, water table
gradient, and surface water flows.
• Porosity is a difficult parameter to measure but is not likely to be a major factor in the
accuracy of the predicted capture zones. This is because although halving the soil porosity
doubles the predicted capture zone, actual porosity values do not typically vary substantially
for the types of sediments encountered in the study area. In the study area, porosity values
probably range from 0.2 to 0.3 with a mean of 0.25.
• Hydraulic conductivity is more readily measured in the field and does substantially affect
predicted capture zones. Halving the hydraulic conductivity in an area; e.g., east of Kent
Springs, halves the upgradient length of the predicted capture zone. This is a parameter that
must be measured because typical values in the study area probably range from 10 to greater
than 10,000 ft/day (0.0035 to 3.5 em/sec). Fortunately, some 15 pumping tests with
hydraulic conductivity estimates were identified in the study area. Additional testing may be
needed in some key areas where pumping tests have not been performed in the past (e.g.,
north of Armstrong Springs, southwest of Ravensdale Lake, and south of Retreat Lake).
• Recharge is not easily measured and based on the modeling analysis greatly affects predicted
capture zones. Because recharge is distributed over an area, the effect of a change in
recharge is not directly proportional as it is for porosity or hydraulic conductivity. However
our sensitivity analysis indicated that increasing the recharge rate from 30 inlyr to 40 inlyr in
the Retreat Lake area nearly doubled the length of the capture zones from Clark and Kent
-Springs. This is significant because our uncertainty in the recharge rate for this area is
probably on the order of 10 to 15 inlyr for precipitation falling on the outwash areas and 5 to
15 inlyr for the surrounding bedrock and till-capped upland areas.
• Water table gradient is readily measured in locations where suitable wells are available and
greatly affects predicted capture zones. Here doubling the water table gradient from 0.002 to
0.004 near Armstrong Springs doubles the length of predicted capture zones. Water table
gradient varies seasonally and probably varies on longer cycles (years to decades in length)
in response to changes in precipitation recharge in the study area. For this reason, quarterly
monitoring over a several year period may be needed to statistically characterize the expected
value and extremes for water table gradient. These data could then be built into a
groundwater model to better characterize mean and extreme values for capture zones.
Page B-10
-
-
-
Han Crowser
J-3508-01
~ Surface water flows are readily measured but it takes some effort to evaluate their effect on
underlying groundwater. Surface water flows indirectly affect capture zones. For example,
numerical models and hydrogeologic mapping predict capture zones from Kent Springs and
the Covington wellfield which extend well up to Retreat Lake when groundwater discharge
from Lake Sawyer is assumed minimal. If the groundwater discharge from Lake Sawyer was
found to be a substantial portion of the local water budget (at least 5 cfs), which is
conceivable based on the Lake Sawyer study (Han Crowser, 1990), then the model
sensitivity analysis indicated that the wells get more water from the lake. This alters and
shortens the predicted capture zones. Similarly, if baseflow from Ravensdale Creek is a
significant fraction of the local water budget, then the capture zones could be cut off west of
Ravensdale Creek.
One final parameter which was not evaluated for this modeling effort is the sensitivity to
downward flow to deeper aquifers and into bedrock. Lacking any real data on gradients,
hydrogeologic units at depth, hydraulic properties, or vertical flow rates, we elected not to build
this into the current numerical model. A review of the water budget of the current model
indicates that the model predicts a groundwater discharge rate to Soos Creek of some 38 cfs.
This may be high by 20 cfs or more. Some portion of the "extra" water may in fact be carried
out of the basin in other surface water drainages; e.g., Covington Creek. A larger portion could
be migrating downward to deeper aquifers which discharge to the Green River.
The effect of this extra discharge to Soos Creek is to exaggerate the groundwater flow rate in the
western portion of the model. If we are 20 cfs high on our estimate of discharge to Soos Creek
(half of the total discharge) then we are probably a factor of two high on our estimated
groundwater flow rates near Armstrong Springs. This means that the predicted capture zones
may be twice what they should be. We do not think that the modeled capture zones are this far
off because the groundwater elevations and water table gradients in the western half of the model
are reasonably close to observed values. However, this issue does need further exploration.
Page B-11
?
trJ ...
N
1 1 1 1 1
Table B-1 • Runoff Zone Calculations for Kent Numerical Model
Surface Water( I) Runoff from(2)
Catchment Precipitation Injection (3) Recharge(4)
Model Zone Areafl2 inlyr Area fl2 Rate ft/day
5 14,544,722 10 4,030,000 0.0082
6 19,293,292 10 1,738,000 0.0253
7 9,259,117 10 1,273,000 0.0166
8 18,034,260 10 1,455,000 0.0283
13 13,835,176 10 6,375,000 0.0050
14 81,038,073 10 3,268,000 0.0566
15 23,158,910 10 10,060,000 0.0053
16 71,436,861 10 2,886,000 0.0565
17 10,271,963 10 2,155,000 0.0109
20 41,838,457 10 1,383,000 0.0690
------
Notes:
I · Estimated area of contributing surface water subbasin.
2 -Calculated as precipitation falling on low permeability area minus
groundwater recharge and evapotranspiration.
3 -Total area of model cells receiving runoff from adjacent low permeability area.
4 • Calculated as ratio of calc)lment area to injection area times runoff rate.
1 1
Model Zone(5) e
Recharge
Rate ft/day
0.0151
0.0322
0.0234
0.0351
0.0118
0.0634
0.0121
0.0633
0.0177
0.0759
5-Calculated as r~te (4) plus areal recharge rate for Clark Springs area (0.0068 ft/day [30 inlyr)).
350801\recharge.xls
1 1 1 ~1 1
::c .. ..... ::t
~() v.a ~~ by.: .........
1
-
Table B-2 -River Node Parameters
Row Column Stage (ft)
Cedar River
6 72 541.5
I 48 427.3
2 48 430.7
2 49 435.3
2 50 441
2 51 446.6
3 51 451.5
3 52 456.1
3 53 468.5
3 54 471.8
3 55 474.9
3 56 476.4
3 57 477.7
3 58 479.2
3 59 481
3 60 483
3 61 485
3 62 487
3 63 488.9
3 64 491.2
3 65 494.2
3 66 498.6
4 52 460.4
4 53 464.4
4 66 504.8
4 67 509.7
4 68 515.4
4 69 522.7
5 69 526.7
5 70 530.8
6 70 536.3
6 71 539
I 39 415
I 40 415
I 41 415
I 42 415
I 43 415
I 44 415
I 45 415
I 46 415
I 47 415
Conductance
(1/Day)
50000
40000
40000
40000
40000
40000
40000
40000
10000
40000
40000
40000
40000
40000
40000
40000
40000
40000
40000
40000
40000
40000
40000
40000
40000
40000
40000
40000
40000
40000
40000
40000
40000
40000
40000
40000
40000
40000
40000
40000
40000
Bottom
Elevation
(ft)
501.3
402.2
405.4
409.9
415.3
420.7
425.3
429.7
441.7
444.8
447.7
449.2
450.5
451.9
453.6
455.5
457.4
459.3
461.2
463.4
466.2
470.4
433.9
437.7
476.3
481
486.5
493.4
497.3
501.2
506.5
509.1
407
407
407
407
407
407
407
407
407
Han Crowser
J-3508-01
Page B-13
Table B-2 • River Node Parameters
Row Column Stage (ft)
Soos Creek
53 I 340
52 I 340
14 5 340
15 5 340
16 5 340
18 5 340
19 5 340
20 5 340
17 5 340
51 I 340
50 I 340
49 I 340
48 I 340
47 I 340
46 I 340
45 I 340
21 4 340
22 4 340
23 4 340
24 3 340
25 3 340
27 3 340
26 3 340
28 3 340
29 3 340
30 3 340
31 3 340
32 3 340
33 3 340
34 2 340
35 I 340
36 I 340
38 I 340
40 I 340
39 .I 340
41 I 340
42 I 340
37 I 340
43 I 340
44 I 340
3 16 380
4 17 380
2 14 380
5 14 360
6 9 360
Conductance
(!/Day)
10000
10000
20000
20000
20000
20000
20000
20000
20000
10000
10000
10000
10000
10000
10000
10000
20000
20000
20000
20000
20000
20000
20000
20000
20000
20000
20000
20000
20000
15000
10000
10000
10000
10000
10000
10000
10000
10000
10000
10000
3000
1000
3000
1000
3000.
Bottom
Elevation
(ft)
280
280
280
280
280
280
280
280
280
280
280
280
280
280
280
280
280
280
280
280
280
280
280
280
280
280
280
280
280
280
280
280
280
280
280
280
280
280
280
280
330
330
330
330
330
Hart Crowser
J-3508-01
Page B-14
Table B-2-River Node Parameters
-
Row Column Stage (ft)
Soos Creek, Continued
10 7 350
9 7 350
II 7 350
8 8 355
7 9 355
12 6 345
13 6 345
I 12 380
Lake Sawyer
45 41 517
45 42 517
46 42 517
46 43 517
46 44 517
47 44 517
47 45 517
48 44 517
48 45 517
49 44 517
49 45 517
49 43 517
45 40 517
45 39 517
46 41 517
45 44 517
350801\rivemod.xls
Conductance
(I /Day)
20000
20000
20000
3000
3000
20000
20000
3000
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
Bottom
Elevation
(ft)
330
330
330
330
330
330
330
330
470
470
470
470
470
470
470
470
470
470
470
470
470
470
470
470
Hart Crowser
J-3508-01
Page B-15
-
-
,-(j-
Q.
l
0 .c
0
0 .-o
"' II
"' 0> ' -o ...,
'
" > 0
tl)
Q) ·-.... as
"0 c::
~
0 en -0 Q) ..., "0 0 ., 0 0
"' ..., ~
0
0
0
N
0
0
0
<0
0
" ,
0 z
·"' 0
~
0
~
0
o;
~
•
~
"' .,
u..
"
" 0 u
(/)
" ,
" 0 , z
0 z " ·"' ~ ~
" u
·"' 0
a:: E
Ill l§lj
t::::iO
CJ[J
~
J-3608-01 11196
Figure S-1
1 1 1 1
cvd 11/30/95 1:6000 he-pep 1 1 1 1
35080128
Pumping Test Transmissivity Data
..... ~ fl,
.. 01
• 0
IDOl .:,~ ..
~
01
B8 •••• Well Location and Number
1sooo Transmissivity in gpd/ft
(Value Averaged from Several
Pumping Tests)
1 1 1 1 1 1 1
0 6000 12000
Scale in Feet
1 1
CVO 11/30/95 1~6000 HC-PCP
35080131
1 1 1 1
Hydraulic Conductivity Distribution
::!!~ ~t: • 0 .. ,.
10 (o)-o
..
~
01
88
Hydraulic Conductivity in ft/doy
D 10 -1oo
IJ 150 -500
~ 600-1000
m 1500 -3ooo
g >3ooo
1 1 1 1 1 . 1 1 l
I 0 6000 12000
Scale in Feet
N
I
I l
evd 11/J0/95 1=6000 he-pep
J50801JJ
l l I l
Bottom Elevation Distribution
Bottom Elevation in feet MSL
HI~ 1 240 -3oo D 460 -500
'li!C4 .. 01 ~ 310 -350 1 510 -550 • 0
ID~
oQ 1 360 -400 1 s6o -600 ....... . .
~~I 1 410 -450 1 610 -no
CD
01
l l l 1 l l I
~ 0 6000 12000
Scale in Feet
N
'
-
,....
-
-
-
a. u a.
I u
-:I:
8
0
"' II
c:
0 ·--:;,
.Q ·-'--U) ·-Q
CD
C)
'-as .c:
()
CD a:
"' ""
I :
8
0
""
0
0
0
"'
•'. 0
, ••• ~ • rl'
""" . ,. ·=·1"(,
!i o.: i I 6 i~ .
1-1 ~ ,1\
~· • • :t -.... ··I • ~_...#
'
-Ill
Ill .....
. 5
Ill
"'6
tX
...
0 .,
~
Ul .,
.t::
0
.E
:z
., 0
~"" 0
.t::
0 .,
a::
J-3508-01
Figure B·S
X
" "" .,
c
0
Ul .,-c: I
o"'
N " _:o
-0 o"'"
c: " :::> " a::~
11/95
-
-
-
Precipitation-Recharge-Runoff Relations
Used in Groundwater Model
45
40
-;;;-35
-5 30
~ 25
~ 20
.£ 15
&! 10
5
e.---
--e.----
--
0
30 40 50
Precipitation lincheal
••r--r.ll --D--Outwash
*From Figure 8, Draft Geohydrology and Quality of Groundwater
Report for East King County Ground Water Advisory Committee; after
work completed for the South King County Groundwater Management
Plan for the Covington Upland (USGS, 19941.
Rates in in/yr
_n
-1
60
Evapo· Outwash Till/Bedrock Uplands
Model Area Precipitationl11 transpiration(21 -Eastern landsburg 58 19
Western 80% of Landsburg 46.4 21
.!'i!!ln;
( 11 From data collected by NOAA.
121 South King County Ground Water Management Plan.
-(31 Read from figure above.
(41 Calculated as P -Et -R.
Recharge(31
40
30
Recharge (31
26
20
Runoff 141
.. ..
13
5.4
H4RTCROWSER
J-3501-01 11/95
· FlgureB-6
5!:llJOlJI~2 l l l l l l 1 l l 1 1 l
Predicted versus Observed Groundwater Elevation
"'110:.. 6' c: Co) .. 01
• Q
~~~~
IQ .......
... ... co
01
B8
eo4aoa
'"
Monitoring Well Location and Number
Groundwater Elevation in Feet
(April 1994)
Well Location and Number from
·-Well Log Records.
---4 oo---Groundwater Elevation Contour in Feet
from April 1994
--100
-=-
Groundwater Elevation Contour in Feet
from Well Log
Predicted Groundwater Elevation in Feet
Inferred Groundwater Flow Direction
-...... . --. .........
l l
0 6000
Scale in Feet
-'1 !
l
12000 --
l l
·rw
-
-
-
Hart Crowser
J-3508-01
APPENDIX C
MANAGEMENT TASK DATABASE
1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I
·TASK/COOPERATIVE
31-0ct-95
Task Implementation Lood Forestry Industrial Commercial Mining Rnldontlal Transportation Corridor
Conduct groundwater monitoring for anolysls of ~rate Purveyors No No No Yes No
according to groundwater monitoring plan. Establish nitrate
early wamlng valva (EWV) to ..-for tlmoly acUon In lho event
ollncreaslng nitrate ooncontratlons.
Promoto and coordinate public education program lor hoosahokl County No No No Yes No
hazardous mstorlals usa, storage, and disposal within lhe
WHPA.
Inventory forest ownership, lha extent of harvesting, and lho Purveyors Vas No No No No
harvesting practices used wllh lhe WHPA.
Establish formal communication wllh ftrst responders Purveyors No No No No Yes
Update emorgancy response organizations on WHPA location. Purveyors No No No No Yes
Work wllh responsible parlin to assess adequacy ollac11111es Purveyors No Yes No No Yes
and M8bflsh )oint prlotfly lor storm-· upgrades.
Consider soaking designation of oqulfar(s) as 'spsdal protacUon Purveyors No No No Yes No
areas' or-spsdal designations.
Support lholmplamentatlon olstatolaw/rogllatlon on sepllc Purveyors No No No Yes No
system Inspection and maintenance programs.
Rovlaw amual r8p0fls produced under SARA T111e Ill to Purveyors No Yes No No No
document Inventory of chemicals used In lhe WHPA.
Develop data on number and size of exempt underground tanks Purveyors No Yes No Yes No
within 1-yaar lime of travel zone.
Fund Farm Plans lhrough lho local Conservation District Which County No No No Yes No
focus In wellhead zonn.
Request County, State, and prlvate land owners/managers lo Purveyors Yes Yes No No Yes
utitize vegetation management pracllcas which protect water
quetity wllhln lhe WHPA.
Encourage dovelopmant and use of BMPs for large land units Purveyors Yes Yes Yes Yes No
(large rasklentief developments, schools, golf oourses, parks,
mining, and fornt parcels).
Monitor use ol BMPs on largo land parcels. Purveyors Yes Yes Yes Yes No
Support King County In soeklng delegation of well drlnlng County No Yes No Yes No
regulatory program for advance notice of drlnlng and Inspection
of wall construction.
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Task Implementation Lead Forestry Industrial Commercial Mining Residential Transportation Corridor
Review routine leek detection procedures for sewer lines In the Purveyors No No No Yes No
WHPA.
Request utilities to use "feakproor piping lor sewer for any new Purveyors No Yes No Yes No
conslrucUon In wellhead zones -accelerate upgrade and
replacement of existing risky llnas.
Participate In a regional groundwater data development and Purveyors Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
management effort to assure that an adequete regional
groundwater monitoring program Is developed.
Provtde conffnual coonllnallon of environmental education County No No No Yes No
efforts In tha County.
Create end operate en IMPLEMENTATION STEERING GROUP Purveyors Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
to assure locus of applicable alate and local programs to
wallheed protection areas. Review management strategies to
Incorporate naw dela, requirements, and approaches.
Conduct groundwater monitoring for analysis of pesticides and Purveyors Yes Yes No Yes Yes
herblcldas according to groundwater monitoring plan.
Promote research on the Impacts of storm water discharge from County No No No Yes No
residential areas.
Document the type end amount of herbicide application with Purveyors Yes No No No Yes
focus on transportation corridors, forastry, agriculture, end
recreetion percals.
Investigate the naed lor re-routing transport of hazerdous Purvey<HB No No No No Yes
materials to areas outside of -lhead zones.
Locale signs within the WHPA along transportstion routes -Purveyors No No No No Yes
"Wellhead Protection Area .•
Communicate location of the WHPA and wellhead protection Purveyors No No Yes No No
cooooems to mlna operators.
Prioritize Investigation ol contaninated and potentially Ecology Yes Yes Yes No Yes
contaninalad Illes wllhfn the WHPA.
Monitor Ecology's progress on the cleanup of MTCA end LUST Purveyors No Yes Yes No No
sHes wllhfn the WHPA.
Communicate locatton of WHPA to Industrial/commercial lite Purveyors No Yes No No No
owners.
Communicate the extent of wenhead protection areas to the Purveyors Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
County Planning Department for oonslderaHon In criUcal areas
regulation, susceptibility mapping, and permHting.
Review water quaiHy deta generated under the general NPDES Purveyors No Yes Yes No No
Storm Water PermH.
2
I I I I I 1 I 1 1 I 1 l 1 I
TASK/REGULATORY
31-C}ct-95
Task Implementation Lead Forestry Industrial Commorclel Mining RasldenUal TransportsUon Corridors
Encourage requirement of as-bulhs of new septic systems County-Health No No No Yes No
(JH'OPOrad by designer) to be recorded wllh lha deed.
Ravlaw annual reports produced under SARA T1Ue IIIIo Purveyors No Vas No No No
doclmant lnvenlofy of chemicals used In lha WHPA.
Support King County In saaldng delegation of wall drilling County No Yes No Vas No
regulatory program tor advance nollca of drlllng and Inspection
of wei construction.
Encourage careful analysis and adequate raqukamanls for County No No Yes No No
slUng, operation, and reclalmation of mining In lha WHPA during
SEPA review.
Assure lhat lha hydmgaologlc Impact of dsvelopmant of parcels County Yes Yes Yes Vas Yes
wtlhln wellhead protacllon areas Is adequately analyzed durtng
SEPA review.
Create and operata an IMPLEMENTATION STEERING GROUP Purveyors Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
to assure locus of appllc:abla state and local programs to
wellhead protacllon areas. Ravlaw managamant strataglasto
lnco<porata now dsta, requirements, and approaches.
Require mine operators to Install monUodng wels capable to Ecology No No Yes No No
assess potential Impacts from alia operations for silas within lha
WHPA.
PrlorttlzalnvasUgation of contaminated and potanUalty Ecology Vas Yes Yes No Yes
conlamlnalad silas within lha WHPA.
Communlcalalha extant of welhaad protacllon areas to lhe
County Planning Department lor consideration In crillcal areas
Purveyors Yeo Vas Vas Vas Yes
regulation, suscepUbiDty mapping, and pemiiUng.
Encourage periodic monltot1ng of drywellsln lha WHPA. County No Yes No Yes Vas
l l l l l l l l l l l
·TASK/PLANNING
3H}ct·95
Tuk Implementation Lead Forestry Industrial Commercial Mining ResldenUal Transportation Corridors
Conduct groundwater monitoring lor analysts of nitrate Purveyors No No No Yes No
ll<lCOrdlng to groundwater monitoring plan. Establish nitrate
eerly wamlng valve (EWV) lo allow lor timely action In the event
of Increasing nitrate concentrations.
Consider saetdng designation of equller(s) as "spacial protacllon Purveyors No No No Yes No
areas• or other spacial designations.
Encourage careful analysis and adequate requirements lor County No No Yes No No
alting, operation, and rsclalmaUon of mining In the WHPA du~ng
SEPA review.
Assure thet the hydrogeologic Impact of development of parcels County Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
within wellhead protacllon areas Is adequately analyzed du~ng
SEPA review.
Create and operate an IMPLEMENTATION STEERING GROUP Purveyors Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
to assure locus of applicable state and local programs to
welhead protacllon arau. Review management strategies to
lnoorporate new data, requirements, and approaches.
Conduct groundwater monitoring lor analysis of pesticides and Purveyors Yes Yes No Yes Yes
herbtddas according to groundwater monitoring plan.
Investigate the need lor re-rouUng transport of hazardous Purveyors No No No No Yes
ma-to areas outside of welhead zones.
Communicate the extent of weUhead protection areas to the Purveyors Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
County Planning Departmant lor consideration In c~tlcal areas
ragulation, susceptibility mapping, and permitting.
Review water quality data ganerated under the general NPOES Purveyors No Yes Yes No No
Storm Water Pennlt.
1 1 l l l l 1 l 1
·TASK/LAND USE
31-C)cl-95
Teak Implementation Lead Forestry Industrial Commercial Mining Rasldentlal TransportaUon Corridors
Consider seeking dsslgnallon of aquifer(s) as 'special protection Purveyors No No No Yes No
areas' or other special designations.
Encourage careful analysis and adequate requirements for County No No Yes No No
siting, operalon, and raclalmaUon of mining In the WHPA during
SEPA review.
Assure thai the hydrogeologic Impact of development of parcels County Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
wltl*l walllead pooleclon areas Is adequately analyzed during
SEPA revieW.
Create and operate an IMPLEMENTATION STEERING GROUP Purveyors Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
fo assure focus of applicable state and local programs to
walllead prolaclon areas. Review managemant strategies to
•ICOfpl)lllte new data, requirements, and approaches.
Communicate location of tha WHPA and wellhead protection Purveyors No No Yes No No
concama to mine operators.
Communicate the extant of waRhead protection areas to the Purveyors Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
County Planning Department lor con-.eUon In criUcsl areas
ragulation, susceptibility mapping, and parmlltlng.
Review-quality-getM&ted under the general NPDES Purveyors No Yes Vas No No
Storm Water Penni!.
1 l 1 l 1 1 1 l l l 1 1 )
·TASK/DATA/DATA MANAGEMENT
31-{)cf·95
Task lmplemenllltlon Lead Forestry Industrial Commercial Mining ResldonUal TransportaUon Corridors
Conduct groundwater monitoring lor analysis of nitrate Purveyors No No No Yes No
according to groundwater monitoring plan. Establish nitrate
early wamlng valve (EWV) to allow lor Umaly action In the event
of Increasing nitrate concenlrallona.
SUrvey pesticide and herbk:lda usalwolk with Cooperaffve Purvayors No Yes No Yes No
Extension and County with avaHabla dolll to modily future
monitoring and education plans.
lnventoly loresl ownership, the extant of harvesting, and the Purveyors Yes No No No No
harvesUng pracUces used with the WHPA.
Docunent the location and use of petroleum pipelines within the Purvayors No No No No Yes
WHPA, and dev81op appropriate emergency procedures.
Document use of hazanlous materials In mining support ac\Mty Purvayors No No Yes No No
Develop emergency reeponse procedures fo< sewer Ioree main Purveyors No No No Yes No
breaks within the l·yaar zone.
Coordinate and promote the ovaluaUon of possible storm water Purvayors No No No No Yes
routing, detention, retanllon priorities.
Consider aeeldng designation of aqufler(s) as 'spacial protection Purveyors No No No Yes No
areas' cw-opeclal dwlgnatloie.
Develop dote on number and size of exempt underground tanks Purvayors No Yes No Yes No
within t·yaar ame of travel zone.
Monitor use of BMPs on large land parceto. Purveyors Yes Yes Yes Yes No
Support King County In saeldng delegation of well drilling County No Yes No Yes No
regulatory program lor -..:a noaca of drilling and Inspection
of wei construction.
lnvantory abandoned or unused walls In tho 1· and 5-year arne Purveyors No Yes No Yes No
of travel zones. Educate owners about propar well construction
and abandonment within the WHPA.
PerUclpate In a regional groundwater data development and Purveyors Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
management effort to assure that an adequate regional
groundwater monitoring program Is davaloped.
Create and operate an IMPLEMENTATION STEERING GROUP Purveyors Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
to assure locus of applicable state and local programs to
-head protection areas. Review management strategies to
Incorporate new data, requirements, and IIJlllf08dles.
I l I l l I J I I 1 l l l l l I
THk tmelemenlatlon Lead Forestry Industrial Commercial Mining Residential Transportation Corridors
Conduct groundwater monitoring lor analysis of pasUcldas and Purveyors Yes Yes No Yes Yes
herbicides according to groundwater monitoring plan.
Promote research on the Impacts ol stonn water discharge from County No No No Yes No
residential areas.
Document the type and amount of herbicide application with Purveyors Yes No No No Yes
focus on transpottaUon corridors, foreshy, agriculture, and
recreation parcels.
Require mk1e opareton1 to lnstan monitoring wels capable to Ecology No No Yes No No
........ potanUallmpacts from site oparaUons for sites within the
WHPA.
Prioritize lnvasUgaUon of conlanninated snd potentiaMy Ecology Yes Yes Yes No Yes
contaminated sites within the WHPA.
Monitor Ecology's progress on the cleanup ol MTCA and LUST Purveyors No Yes Yes No No
sHes within the WHPA.
Communicate the extant of wahhaed protection areas to the Purveyors Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
County Planning "-rtrnant lor conslderaUon In critical areas
regulaUon, susceptlbiHty mapping, and psnntttlng.
Encourage periodic monHoring of drywaHsln the WHPA. County No Yes No Yes Yes
R..._ water quality dela generated under the general NPDES Purveyors No Yes Yes No No
Storm Water Pennlt.
2
1 1 1 1 1 l 1 l 1 l 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 l )
TASK/EDUCATION
31-0ct-95
T•sk lmplernentallon Lead Forestry Industrial Commercial Mining ResldanUal TransportaUon Corridors
Promote and coordinate public education program lor household County No No No Yes No
hazardous materials use, storage, and disposal within the
WHPA.
Consider seeking dastgnallon ofaqulle~s) as "special pmtactlon Purveyors No No No Vas No
areas• or other spacial daslgnaHons.
Support the Implementation of state law/regulation on septic Purveyors No No No Yes No
syslam Inspection and maintenance programs.
Participate In education program to notify public of Impact of County-Health No No No Yes No
septic systems to the WHPA.
Promote and coordinate pubRc education program lor proper County-Health No No No Yes No
sepllc system maintenance and hazardous waste disposal.
Review annual reports produced under SARA TIUe IIIIo Purveyors No Vas No No No
document Inventory of chemicals used In the WHPA.
Develop data on number and size of exsmpt underground tanks Purveyors No Yes No Yes No
within 1-year Uma ollra""' zone.
Promote and coordinate public program to educate owners of County No Yes No Yes No
exempt underground tanks of the hazards they represent,
me1hods of leak datecUon, proper removal and closure
procedures.
Fund Farm Plans through the local ConservaUon District which County No No No Yes No
locus In wellhead zonas.
Encourage development and use of BMPs lor large land units Purveyors Yes Yes Yes Yes No
(large rasldanUal ~nts, schools, golf courses, parl<s,
mining, and lorast parcels).
Monitor use of BMPs on large land parcels. Purveyors Yes Yes Yes Yes No
lnventooy abandoned or unused wells In the I· and 5-year time Purveyors No Yes No Yes No
of Ira""' zonas. Educate owners about proper well construction
and abandonment within the WHPA.
Review routine leak detection procedures lor sewer lines In the Purveyors No No No Yes No
WHPA.
Request utilities to use "leakproof" piping lor sewer lor any new Purveyors No Yes No Yes No
construction In wellhead zones -acceterste upgrade and
replaoament of existing risky lnes.
l l l 1 1 l l l l 1 1 1 l l 1 1 l
Task Implementation Lead Forestry Industrial Commercial Mining Residential Transportation Corridors
PI'O'IIde ecntinual coonllnalion of envlrormental education County No No No Yes No
ellorls lnthe County.
Craale and operate an IMPLEMENTATION STEERING GROUP Purveyors Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Ia asstlnllocus of applicable alete and local programs 1o
welhead protection areas. Review managementstralegleslo
Incorporate new data, roqulremsnts, and approaches.
Locate signs wtlhin lhe WHPA along transportation routes -Purveyors No No No No Yes
"Wallhead Protection Area. •
Communicate localion ollhe WHPA and wellhead protection Purveyors No No Yes No No
concams Ia mine operators.
Communicate location of WHPA to lndustriaVcomrnerclal site Purveyors No Yes No No No
owners.
Communicate lhe extent of waRhead protection areas 1o lhe Purveyors Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
County l'tannlng Department for consideration In critical areas
regulation, suscepUblllty mapping, and pennlttlng.
2
-
-
-
TASKS TO BE IMPLEMENTED BY COUNTY/COUNTY-HEALTH
31-0ct-95
Task: Promote and coordinate public education program for household hazardous
materials use, storage, and disposal within the WHP A.
Task: Encourage requirement of as-builts of new septic systems (prepared by
designer) to be recorded with the deed.
Task: Participate in education program to notify public of impact of septic
systems to the WHPA.
Task: Promote and coordinate public education program for proper septic system
maintenance and hazardous waste disposal.
Task: Promote and coordinate public program to educate owners of exempt
underground tanks of the hazards they represent, methods of leak detection,
proper removal and closure procedures.
Task: Fund Farm Plans through the local Conservation District which focus in
wellhead zones.
Task: Support King County in seeking delegation of well drilling regulatory
program for advance notice of drilling and inspection of well construction.
Task: Encourage careful analysis and adequate requirements for siting, operation,
and reclaimation of mining in the WHP A during SEPA review.
Task: Assure that the hydrogeologic impact of development of parcels within
wellhead protection areas is adequately analyzed during SEP A review.
Task: Provide continual coordination of environmental education efforts in the
County.
Task: Promote research on the impacts of storm water discharge from residential
areas.
Task: Require sewer hook up for all industrial/commercial facilities within the
WHP A, if sewer service is reasonably available.
Task: Encourage periodic monitoring of drywells in the WHPA.
-
-
,.....
,.....
TASKS TO BE IMPLEMENTED BY ECOLOGY
31-0ct-95
Task: Require mine operators to install monitoring wells capable to assess
potential impacts from site operations for sites within the WHP A.
Task: Prioritize investigation of contaminated and potentially contaminated sites
within the WHPA.
Task: Encourage Ecology and County inspections of RCRA hazardous waste
generator facilities within the WHP A.
-
TASKS TO BE IMPLEMENTED BY PURVEYORS
31-0ct-95
Task: Conduct groundwater monitoring for analysis of nitrate according to
groundwater monitoring plan. Establish nitrate early warning valve (EWV)
to allow for timely action in the event of increasing nitrate concentrations.
Task: Survey pesticide and herbicide use/work with Cooperative Extension and
County with available data to modify future monitoring and education plans.
Task: Inventory forest ownership, the extent of harvesting, and the harvesting
practices used with the WHP A.
Task: Document the location and use of petroleum pipelines within the WHP A,
and develop appropriate emergency procedures.
Task: Document use of hazardous materials in mining support activity
Task: Establish formal communication with first responders
Task: Update emergency response organizations on WHPA location.
Task: Develop emergency response procedures for sewer force main breaks within
the !-year zone.
Task: Coordinate and promote the evaluation of possible storm water routing,
detention, retention priorities.
Task: Work with responsible parties to assess adequacy of facilities and establish
joint priority for storm water upgrades.
Task: Consider seeking designation of aquifer(s) as "special protection areas" or
other special designations.
Task: Support the implementation of state law/regulation on septic system
inspection and maintenance programs.
Task: Review annual reports produced under SARA Title ill to document
inventory of chemicals used in the WHPA.
Task: Develop data on number and size of exempt underground tanks within !-
year time of travel zone.
r
-
-
Task: Request County, State, and private land owners/managers to utilize
vegetation management practices which protect water quality within the
WHPA.
Task: Encourage development and use of BMPs for large land units (large
residential developments, schools, golf courses, parks, mining, and forest
parcels).
Task: Monitor use of BMPs on large land parcels.
Task: Inventory abandoned or unused wells in the 1-and 5-year time of travel
zones. Educate owners about proper well construction and abandonment
within the WHP A.
Task: Review routine leak detection procedures for sewer lines in the WHP A.
Task: Request utilities to use "leakproof' piping for sewer for any new
construction in wellhead zones -accelerate upgrade and replacement of
existing risky lines.
Task: Participate in a regional groundwater data development and management
effort to assure that an adequate regional groundwater monitoring program
is developed.
Task: Create and operate an IMPLEMENTATION STEERING GROUP to assure
focus of applicable state and local programs to wellhead protection areas.
Review management strategies to incorporate new data, requirements, and
approaches.
Task: Conduct groundwater monitoring for analysis of pesticides and herbicides
according to groundwater monitoring plan.
Task: Document the type and amount of herbicide application with focus on
transportation corridors, forestry, agriculture, and recreation parcels.
Task: Investigate the need for re-routing transport of hazardous materials to areas
outside of wellhead zones.
Task: Locate signs within the WHPA along transportation routes-"Wellhead
Protection Area."
Task: Communicate location of the WHP A and wellhead protection concerns to
mine operators.
-
-
-
-
Task: Review MfCA, RCRA notifiers, and LUST sites files for sites within the
WHP A annually.
Task: Monitor Ecology's progress on the cleanup of MfCA and LUST sites
within the WHPA.
Task: Communicate location ofWHPA to industrial/commercial site owners.
Task: Communicate the extent of wellhead protection areas to the County
Planning Department for consideration in critical areas regulation,
susceptibility mapping, and permitting.
Task: Review water quality data generated under the general NPDES Storm Water
Permit.
Han Crowser
J-3508-01
APPENDIXD
CITY OF KENT SPll..L RESPONSE PLAN
-
-
CITY OF KENT
HAZARDOUS
MATERIALS
EMERGENCY
PLAN
CITY OP UliT
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS BHBRGBNCY PLAN
,....
-
-
-
TABLE OF COHTEHTS
RECORD OF RE'V:CS:IONS •••••••••••••••••••••.••••••••••••••••••• 1
PURPOSE •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 2
STATEMENT OF INTENT ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• . . . . . . . . .3
LEGAL AU'l'HORXTY AND RESPONSXBXLXTY FOR RESPONDXNG ••••••• . . ·"
S:ITUATI:ON ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 2 4
HIGH RISE AREA MAP ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• II 2 5
SARA TXTLE XXX FACXLXTXES REQUXRXNG PLANNXNG. . . . . . . . . . . . .27
CONCEPT OF OPERATXONS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..29
TESTXNG '1'HE PLAN ••• . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .31
UPDATXNG THE PLAN •• . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..32
DXRECTXON AND COHTROL. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .33
RESPONSE FUNCTXONS •••• . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .37
EMERGENCY ASSISTANCE TELEPHONE ROSTER. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • .38
:INC:IDENT :IHFORMAT:ION SUMMARY •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 40
COMMOHZCATIONS ••••••••••••••••••••••••• . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .••• 41
PUBLXC XNFORMATXON/COMMUNXTY RELATXONS •••••••••••• . . . . . • •• 43
WARNING SYSTEMS AND EMERGENCY PUBLIC NOTIFICATION. . . . . . . ......
RESOURCE MANAGEMEN'l' •• . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .45
HEALTH AND MEDICAL ••• . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .so
RESPONSE PERSONNEL SAFETY ••••••••• . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .51
PERSONAL PROTECTION OF CITXZENS ••• . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .52
SERVZCES •••••••••••••••••••••• . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • •••• 54
LOCAL AMERICAN RED CROSS SHELTERS ••• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •• 55
ONGOXNG INCXDEN'l' ASSESSMEN'l'. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • .56
CONTAINMENT AND CLBAH UP •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 57
TRAZNZHG •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 6 0
ATTACHMEHT A
(KEHT FIRE DEPT. HAZARDOUS KA'l'ERXAL RESPONSE GUIDE
ATTACHMEHT B
(HAZARDOUS KA'l'ERIALS ANALYSIS)
RECORD OP REVISIONS
-"'.ev. No. Nature or Change Date or Change Change Made By
I SARA Title III Facilities and Map (Pages 26·28) 7/17/90 Lyn Hoffman-Gross
....
I Apparatus Inventory (Pages 47-49) 7/17/90 Lyn Hoffman-Gross
2 Update SARA Title Ill Facilities/Map (Pages 27-29) 8/08/91 Michelle R. Hale
2 Update Emergency Telephone Roster (Pages 37-39) 8/08/91 Michelle R. Hale
8/08/91 1
-
PURPOSE
The Hazardous Materials Emergency Plan is intended for
the use of the responding agencies of the City of Kent
when responding to a hazardous material emergency of
siqnificant proportion. This plan is the guide for
coordinating all resources, both public and private
toward preparedness, response and mitigation efforts.
These efforts may be utilized in fixed facility or
transportation related hazardous material emergencies.
This plan shall be used in conjunction with the City of
Kent Disaster Plan. This plan may also be used in
conjunction with the King county Emergency operations
Plan, the King county Hazardous Materials Plan and state
and Federal Emergency Plans when the incident is of
siqnificant proportion to exhaust local resources.
6/13/89 2
STATEMENT OF INTENT
1. To provide a basic plan for the City of Kent that will
result in minimizing, to the greatest degree possible,
hazardous material emergencies.
2. To provide a basic plan to be used in conjunction with
established facility plans, which will minimize the
impact of a hazardous materials release associated with
site specific emergencies.
3. To utilize present City Government structure and identify
the responsibility of each department: who does what,
when and where in a hazardous material emergency.
4. To recognize our responsibility to support other
Government agencies as well as to receive their support
if and when conditions warrant and resources are
available.
5. To assure that maximum resources (public and private) are
used effectively to cope with a hazardous materials
emergency.
6. To be consistent with County, State and Federal
regulations and procedures.
7. To establish procedures for direction, control and
coordination of emergency apparatus to the type,
magnitude and phase of the hazardous materials emergency.
8. To provide for dissemination of warning and evacuation
information to all Department Heads and personnel of the
City of Kent and to the general population of the city
of Kent.
9. To include. an adequate damage assessment system for
decision making, direction, control and reporting
purposes.
10. To provide an evacuation plan in a hazardous materials
emergency.
11.
6/13/89
To pre-determine the types of hazardous material
emergencies which pose the greatest threat to life and
property in the City of Kent.
3
LEGAL AUTHORITY AND RESPONSIBILITY FOR RESPONDING
This Hazardous Material Emergency Response Plan is
published consistent with the Superfund Amendment andRe-
authorization Act of 1986, Public Law 99-499; and the
Revised Code of Washington, Title 38, Chapter 38.52.070
as revised, Washington Administrative Code, Chapter 118-
40, RCW 34. 04, Administrative Procedures Act, Law of
Washington and Ordinance of the City of Kent.
The Chief Elected Officer has designated the Chief of the
Fire Department to be the Director of Emergency
Operations. He has further designated that the Fire
Department will be the Incident Commander in responding
to Hazardous Material Incidents within the boundaries of
the City of Kent.
6/13/89
Chapter 118-40 WAC
HAZARDOUS CHEMICAL EMERGENCY RESPONSE PLANNING AND COMMUNITY
RIGHT-TO-KNOW REPORTING
WAC
118-40-010
118-40-020
118-40-030
118-40-040
118-40-050
118-40-060
118-40-070
118-40-080
118-40-090
118-40-100
118-40-150
118-40-160
118-40-170
118-40-180
118-40-190
118-40-300
118-40-400
Introduction.
Purpose and scope.
Definitions.
State emergency response commission--
Establishment, membership, chairperson.
Commission--Purpose, responsibilities.
Department of community development--Title III
responsibilities.
Department of ecology--Title III
responsibilities.
Washington State Patrol--Title III
responsibilities.
Hazardous materials advisory committee--
establishment, membership.
Hazardous materials advisory committee--
Purpose, responsibilities.
Emergency planning districts--Designation.
Local committee--organization, membership.
Local committee--Responsibilities.
Hazardous material emergency response plan--
Content, guidelines, evaluation process.
Emergency response training.
Title III--Facilities compliance.
Title III--Enforcement, penalties.
WAC 118-40-010 INTRODUCTION
On October 17, 1986, the Superfund Amendments and
Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA) was signed into law (P.L.
99-499). one part of the SARA provisions is Title III: "The
Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act of 1986."
Title III establishes requirements for federal, state, and
local governments, and industry regarding emergency response
planning and community right-to-know on hazardous chemicals.
The emergency planning provisions of Title III (Sections 301-
305) are designed to develop state and local government
hazardous chemical emergency preparedness and response
capabilities through better coordination and planning,
especially at the local level.
6/13/89 5
-
Community right-to-know provisions of Title III (Sections 311,
312, and 313) require the owners andjor operators of
facilities to provide information about the nature, quantity,
and location of chemicals manufactured, processed, stored, or
used at their facility sites. The purpose of these provisions
is to increase public knowledge of the presence of hazardous
chemicals in communities and to better prepare for potential
emergencies.
WAC 118-40-020 PURPOSE AND SCOPE
It is the purpose of this chapter to implement the prov~s~ons
of Title III in the State of Washington to establish a
mechanism for compliance by state and local governmental
agencies and industry with the provisions of Title III. This
chapter is promulgated under the general policy and rule-
making authority of the department of community development
as established by RCW 38.52.030(2); 38.52.050 (1) and (3); and
43.63A.060.
Compliance with the requirements of Title III, as recognized
by the United States Environmental Protection Agency, is
regarded as compliance with the provisions of this chapter.
Where federal regulations are duplicated or referred to in
this chapter, Title III citations are provided. This chapter
is not intended to mandate any new compliance requirements
beyond those required by Title III.
WAC 118-40-030 DEFINITIONS
"SARA" means the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act
of 1986, as amended.
"CERCLA" means the Comprehensive Emergency Response,
Compensation and Liability Act of 1980, as amended.
"Commission" means the emergency response commission for
Washington State.
"Local committee" means the local emergency planning committee
established for each state emergency planning district
established by the commission.
"Title III" means Title III of the Superfund Amendments and
Reauthorization Act of 1986; also titled the Emergency
Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act of 1986, as amended.
"Administrator" means the administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA).
6/13/89 6
-
-
"Environment" includes water, air, and land and the
interrelationship which exists among and between water, air,
and land and all living things.
"Extremely hazardous
in Section 302 (a)
hereafter amended.
substances" means a substance described
(2) of Title III as now authorized or
"Facility" means all buildings, equipment, structures, and
other stationary items which are located on a single site or
on contiguous or adjacent sites and which are owned or
operated by the same person (or by any person which controls,
is controlled by, or under common control with such person).
For the purpose of Section 304, Title III, the term includes
motor vehicles, rolling stock and aircraft, shipping, and
pipelines.
"Hazardous chemical" means any chemical which is a physical
hazard or a health hazard as defined by OSHA Hazard
Communication Standard (29 CFR 1910.1200). Exceptions to the
definition of "hazardous chemical" in Title III and in 29 CFR
1910.1200 shall also apply in this chapter.
"Health hazard" means a chemical for which there is
statistically significant evidence based on at least one study
conducted in accordance with established scientific principles
that acute or chronic health effects may occur in exposed
individuals. The term health hazard includes chemicals which
are carcinogens, toxic or highly toxic agents which act on the
hematopoietic system, and agents which damage the lungs, skin,
eyes, or mucous membrane.
"Physical hazard" means a chemical for which there is
scientifically valid evidence that it is a combustible liquid,
a compressed gas, explosive, flammable, or organic peroxide,
an oxidizer, pyrophoric, unstable (reactive), or water
reactive.
"Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS)" means the sheet required
to be developed under Section 1910.1200 (q) of Title 29 CFR,
as that section may be amended from time to time.
"NRT-1 guidebook" means the Hazardous Materials Emergency
Planning Guide published by the National Response Team, March
1987.
"NPT-1 guidelines" means the guidance outlined in the
Hazardous Materials Emergency Planning Guide.
"OSHA" means occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970.
"Person" means any individual, trust, firm, joint stock
company, corporation (including a government corporation) ,
partnership, association, state, municipality, commission,
political subdivision of state, or interstate body.
6/13/89 7
"Release"
emitting,
leaching,
hazardous
chemical.
means any spill, leaking, pumping, pour~ng,
emptying, discharging, injecting, escap~ng,
dumping, or disposing to the environment of any
chemical, extremely hazardous substance, or toxic
"Toxic chemical" means a substance described in Section 313
(c) of Title III, as now authorized or hereafter amended.
"WISHA" means Washington Industrial Safety and Health Act of
1973.
WAC 118-40-040 STATE EMERGENCY BESPONSE COMMISSION--
ESTABLISHMENT, MEMBERSHIP, CJIAJ:RPERSON.
(1) In keeping with the provisions of Section 301 (a) of
Title III, the governor of Washington state has
established a state emergency response commission
composed of the following members of their designees:
(a) Director of the department of community development.
(b) Director of the department of ecology.
(c) Chief of the Washington state patrol.
(2) The director of the department of community development
shall be the chairperson of the commission.
(3) The assistant director, division of emergency management,
department of community development, shall serve as
alternate chairperson of the commission in the absence
of the chairperson.
WAC 118-40-050 COMMISSION--PUBPOSE, RESPONSJ:Bl:Ll:Tl:ES.
The purpose of the state emergency response commission is to
coordinate hazardous material issues and carry out the mandate
of Title III (P.L. 99-499), as now authorized or hereafter
amended.
The commission shall be responsible for the establishment of
a state hazardous materials emergency preparedness, response,
and community right-to-know program as required by Title III.
Specific duties of the commission include:
(1) Establishment of a state level hazardous materials
advisory committee.
(2) Designation of local emergency planning districts.
(3) Appointment of members to local committees established
for each of the local emergency planning districts
designated by the commission.
6/13/89 8
-
-
(4) Reception and evaluation of local emergency response
plans.
(5) Delegation of responsibilities between the department of
ecology, the Washington state patrol, and the department
of community development in implementing the Title III
program in Washington State.
(6) Establishment of a single address, telephone number and
the procedures for the receipt of, management and access
to all notifications, reports, plans and all other
information required by Title III.
WAC 118-40-060 DEPARTMENT OF coMMUNITY DEYELOPME:NT--TITLE III
RESPONSIBILITIES.
Specific responsibilities of the department of community
development include, but are not limited to, the following
duties:
(1) Receive and record verbal emergency toxic chemical
release reports through the twenty-four-hour duty officer
system. Track and maintain records of events annually.
(2) Develop emergency planning guidance and provide
assistance to local committees in the development of an
emergency response plan for their district. Advise and
assist industry in the planning process.
(3) Coordinate the review of each emergency plan as it is
submitted.
(4) Serve as repository agency for the local emergency
response plans.
(5) Set up community right-to-know program to allow citizens
to view emergency response plans, upon request.
(6) Provide staff to commission and hazardous material
advisory committee to develop agendas, prepare minutes,
coordinate meeting places, draft policy letters, and
carry out other support functions as needed.
(7) Prepare and respond to correspondence for signature by
the chairperson of the commission.
(8) Receive and coordinate the distribution of
correspondence, information, and written reports to
offices in the departments of community development and
ecology and the Washington State patrol, and local
committees, as well as other state agencies when
appropriate.
6/13/89 9
-
-
-
(9) Serve as chairperson of the training subcommittee of the
hazardous materials advisory committee.
(10) Develop and apply for training grants, as authorized and
provided under section 305 of Title III.
(11) Provide training and maintain training records for the
state hazardous materials training program as authorized
and funded through Section 305 of Title III.
WAC 118-40-070 DEPARTMENT OP ECOLOGY--TITLE III
RESPONSIBILITIES.
Specific responsibilities of the department of ecology
include, but are not limited to, the following duties:
(l) serve as advisor to the commission on emergency spill
response and environmental restoration issues.
(2) Serve as advisor for emergency responder equipment and
training needs at the state and local levels.
(3) Serve as advisor for on-scene spill response and
environmental needs at the state and local levels.
(4) Serve as advisor to the commission on community right-
to-know issues.
(5) Develop, implement, and maintain a Title III Community
Right-to-Know Program which may include, but is not
limited to:
(a) Data management of reports and notifications
submitted by businesses.
(b) Technical assistance to businesses regarding
compliance with Title III.
(c) Accessing and communicating information to the
public.
(d) outreach to businesses and the public about Title
III.
(6) Serve as chairperson or member of the community right-
to-know subcommittee of the hazardous materials advisory
committee.
(7) Serve as liaison between the commission
Environmental Protection Agency on community
know issues.
and the
right-to-
(8) Provide training for hazardous substances spill response
and cleanup.
6/13/89 10
-
WAC 118-40-080 WASHINGTQN STATE PATROL--TITLE III
RESPONSIBILITIES.
Specific Responsibilities of the Washington State patrol
include, but are not limited to, the following duties;
(1) Serve as advisor to the commission on emergency response
and coordination of on-scene activities on state and
interstate highways and other areas where it has been
designated incident command agency.
( 2) Serve as chairperson of the emergency response
subcommittee of the hazardous materials advisory
committee.
(3) Serve as advisor for emergency responder equipment and
training needs at the state and local levels.
(4) Serve as a member of the training subcommittee of the
hazardous materials advisory committee.
WAC 118-40-090 HAZARDQUS MJ.TERIALS APVISORY COMMITTEE--
ESTABLISHMENT. MEMBERSHIP.
In order to achieve a broader· representation of hazardous
materials interests in state emergency response planning and
community right-to-know, the commission may establish a state
level hazardous materials advisory committee. At a minimum,
the committee membership shall consist of members appointed
by the commission from the following interest groups:
(1) Four state legislators. One from each caucus in the
House of Representatives and one from each caucus in the
Senate.
(2) One representative of the Washington association of
counties.
(3) One representative of the association of Washington
cities.
(4) One representative of the Washington state emergency
management association.
(5) One representative of the Washington state association
of fire chiefs.
(6) One representative of the Washington association of
sheriffs and police chiefs.
6/13/89 11
-
-
(7) One representative of the Washington State utilities and
transportation commission.
(B) One representative of the Washington State department of
agriculture.
(9) One representative of the Washington State council of
firefighters.
(10) Two representatives of the association of Washington
businesses.
(11) Two representatives of the Washington environmental
council.
(12) Others may be appointed as appropriate.
WAC 118-40-100 HAZARDQUS MATERIALS ADVJ:SORY COMMI'l''l'EE--
PURPOSE, BESPONSIBIL+'l'IES.
(1) The purpose of the hazardous materials advisory committee
is to serve as a policy advisory body regarding hazardous
chemical emergencies and community right-to-know.
(2) The members of the hazardous materials advisory committee
shall serve the commission in a technical advisory
capacity regarding the development and implementation of
a hazardous chemical emergency response process and
community right-to-know functions. The committee's
responsibilities include, but are not limited to,
providing advice on the following topics:
(a) Contingency planning at the state and local levels.
(b) Enhances hazardous materials training.
(c) Assessment of emergency response equipment needs at
the state and local levels.
(d) Enhancement of emergency response capabilities at
the state and local levels.
(e) State and federal hazardous waste programs.
(f) Interstate planning and agreements.
(g) Joint purchase of equipment and specialized
materials.
(h) Develop and propose legislation to meet future
needs.
(3) The hazardous materials advisory committee shall provide
advice to the commission regarding the establishment of
a community right-to-know program including procedures
for the receipt of hazardous and toxic chemical
information and the release of such information to the
general public.
6/13/89 12
-
-
-
WAC 118-40-150 EMERGENCY PLANNING DISTRICTS--DESIGNATION.
(1) Emergency planning districts shall be based on the
statutory requirement set forth in RCW 38.52.070 which
authorized local emergency management organizations.
(2) Cities and towns that do not have active emergency
management organizations as required by chapter 38. 52 RCW
are considered part of the county planning district in
which they are located for the purposed of Title III
emergency response planning.
(3) If the provision in WAC 118-40-150 (2) is unacceptable
to a jurisdiction, the presiding official or officials
of that jurisdiction may request that the commission
designate that jurisdiction as a Title III emergency
planning district.
WAC 118-40-160 LOCAL COMMITTEB--ORGINIZATION, MEMBERSHIP.
(1) Each local committee shall include, at a minimum,
representatives from each of the following groups or
types of organizations as specified by Section 301 (c)
of Title III:
(a) State and local officials.
(b) Law enforcement.
(c) Emergency management.
(d) Firefighting.
(e) First aid.
(f) Health profession.
(g) Local environment.
(h) Hospital.
(i) Transportation personnel.
(j) Broadcast and print media.
(k) Community groups.
(1) Owners and operators of facilities subject to the
requirements of Section 302 (b) of Title III.
(2) Each local emergency planning committee shall appoint a
chairperson and establish rules by which the committee
shall· operate.
(3) Committee rules shall include provJ.sJ.ons for public
notification of committee activities, public meetings to
discuss the emergency plan, public comments, response to
such comments by the committee, and distribution of
emergency response plans to the general public.
6/13/89 13
-
-
-
-
WAC 118-40-170 LOCAL COMMITTEE--RESPONSIBILITIES
(1) Not later than October 17, 1988, each local committee
shall complete the preparation of a hazardous materials
emergency response plan. In the development of the plan,
as specified by Sections 303 (a), (b), (c) and 324 (a),
(b), Title III, committee duties include, but are not
limited to:
(a) Forming a local planning team.
(b) Designating a team leader.
(c) Evaluating the resources needed to develop,
implement, and exercise the emergency plan.
(d) Identifying existing emergency response equipment
and personnel.
(e) Conducting a needs assessment of emergency response
equipment and personnel requirements.
(f) Providing oversight for preparation of the plan by
the local planning team.
(2) Each local committee shall establish procedures for
receiving and processing requests from the general public
for information under Section 324 (including Tier II
information under Section 312) Title III. such
procedures shall include the designation of an official
to serve as committee coordinator for all information
requests.
WAC 118-40-180 HAZARDQUS MATJRIAL EMERGENCY RESPONSE PLAN-
-CONTENT, GUIDELINES, EVALUATION PROCESS.
(1) Each local committee shall complete a hazardous materials
emergency response plan as required by Section 303 (a),
(b), (c), Title III.
(2) The committee shall transmit three copies of the
completed plan to:
Chairperson
Washington State Emergency Response Commission
Department of Community Development
9th and Columbia Building, GH-51
Olympia, Washington 98504-4151
(3) At a minimum, the plan shall include the requirements of
Title III, the standards of the NRT-1 guidelines, and the
concepts of the Washington state comprehensive emergency
plan as it is written.
6/13/89 14
-
-
-
-
( 4) Upon receipt of a local committee hazardous ·material
emergency response plan, the state emergency response
commission shall:
6/13/89
(a) Send a letter to the local committee formally
acknowledging the receipt of the plan and informing
them of the review process.
(b) Copies of the plan will then be sent to the
following organizations for review and comment.
(i) The state division of emergency
management, department of community
development, to review it against required
federal criteria and the state
comprehensive emergency management plan.
(ii) The hazardous materials advisory
committee's subcommittee for contingency
planning.
(iii)The hazardous materials advisory
committee's subcommittee for emergency
response.
(c) The above organizations shall review the plan and
within ninety days submit their comments and
recommendations, if any, to the state emergency
response commission on whether the plan meets the
requirements of Title III, the recommendations of
the NRT-1 guidelines and the concepts of the
Washington State comprehensive emergency management
plan.
In the event that there are significant differences
in the recommendations of the committees, the full
state hazardous materials advisory committee will
be asked to resolve the differences and make its
recommendation to the emergency response commission
within forty-five days of the date of referral to
the state hazardous materials advisory committee.
(d) Within forty-five days of the receipt of the
recommendations, the state emergency response
commission will review the recommendations. Upon
completion of this review the commission shall, as
appropriate, send a letter to the submitting local
committee stating one of the following alternative
evaluations of the local committee's plan:
(i) The plan has been reviewed and is
considered to meet the requirements of
Title III, the standards of the NRT-1
guidelines, and the concepts of the state
comprehensive emergency management plan
as it is written.
15
(ii) The plan has been reviewed and is
considered to meet the standards of the
NRT-1 guidelines, Title III requirements
and the comprehensive emergency management
plan concept, but suggestions are included
on how it may be improved at its nest
revision.
(iii) Serious omissions are apparent in the
plan. Please note the following
suggestions on the changes. that are needed
to meet the Title III requirements, the
guidelines of the NRT-1 guidebook and the
concept of the Washington State
comprehensive emergency management plan.
(5) The local committees shall review and update their plans
annually, and submit them to the commission for review
under the procedures and guidelines prescribed in this
section.
WAC 118-40-190 EMERGENCY RESPQNSE TRAINING
(1) The department of community development, division of fire
protection services, shall provide training as authorized
by Section 305, Title III, for emergency first
responders, including firefighters, law enforcement, and
emergency medical personnel. Other constituencies to be
trained may include federal, state, and local
governmental employees who may directly or indirectly
involve themselves in a hazardous materials incident.
Such personnel may include health officials, public works
personnel, elected officials, emergency and city
managers, and personnel employed by private industry.
(2) Emergency training programs shall be designed to improve
emergency planning, preparedness, mitigation, response,
and recovery capabilities. Such programs shall provide
special emphasis with respect to emergencies and
responsibilities associated with hazardous materials and
Title III.
(3) The division of fire protection services may officially
schedule, conduct, and/or contract for courses throughout
the state, and may also provide training sessions upon
written or verbal request from public or private
organizations, agencies, or departments.
6/13/89 16
WAC 118-40-300 TITLE III--PACtLITIES COMPLIANCE
The owner or operator of a facility shall meet all of the
applicable requirements of Title III, or of rules adopted by
the administrator to implement Title III, as now authorized
or hereafter amended, including the planning, notification,
reporting, access, and information availability requirements
as specified by Sections 301, 302, 303, 304, 311, 312, 313,
324 of Title III.
WAC 118-40-400 TzTLI III--ENrOBCEMIHT• PEHALTZES.
Enforcement of all Title III provisions and the administration
of penalties for violations of the provisions shall be
pursuant to Section 325 of Title III, as now authorized or
hereafter amended.
6/13/89 17
-
-
-
-
-
Title 70 RCW:
70.136.010 Legislative Intent
It is the intent of the legislature to promote and encourage
advance planning, cooperation, and mutual assistance between
applicable political subdivisions of the state and persons
with equipment, personnel, and expertise in the handling of
hazardous materials incidents, by establishing limitations on
liability for those persons responding in accordance with the
provisions of RCW 70.136.020 through 70.136.070 [1982 c 172
§ 1.]
70.136.020 Definitions
The definitions set forth in this section apply throughout RCW
70.136.010 through 70.136.070.
1) "Hazardous materials" means:
2)
a) Materials which, if not contained may cause
unacceptable risks to human life within a specified
area adjacent to the spill, seepage, fire,
explosion, or other release, and will, consequently,
require evacuation;
b) Materials that, if spilled, could cause unusual
risks to the general public and to emergency
response personnel responding at the scene;
c) Materials that, if involved in a fire will pose
unusual risks to emergency response personnel;
d) Materials requiring unusual
transportation conditions to
containment; or
storage or
assure safe
e) Materials requiring unusual treatment, packaging,
or vehicles during transportation to . assure safe
containment.
"Applicable political subdivisions of the state" means
cities, towns, counties, fire districts, and those port
authorities with emergency response capabilities.
3) "Person" means an individual, partnership, corporation,
or association.
6/13/89 18
-
-
-
4) "Public agency" means any agency, political subdivision,
or unit of local government of this state including, but
not limited to, municipal corporations, quasimunicipal
corporations, special purpose districts, and local
service districts; any agency of the state government;
any agency of the United States; any Indian tribe
recognized as such by the federal government; and any
political subdivision of another state.
5) "Hazardous materials incident" means an incident creating
a danger to persons, property, or the environment as a
result of spillage, seepage, fire, explosion, or release
of hazardous materials, or the possibility thereof.
6) "Governing body" means the elected legislative council,
board, or commission or the chief executive of the
applicable political subdivision of the state with public
safety responsibility.
7) "Incident command agency" means the predesignated or
appointed agency charged with coordinating all activities
and resources at the incident scene.
8) "Representative" means an agent from the designated
hazardous materials incident command agency with the
authority to secure the services of persons with
hazardous materials expertise or equipment.
9) "Profit" means compensation for rendering care,
assistance, or advise in excess of expenses actually
incurred. [1987 c 238 § 1; 1982 c 172 § 2.)
70.136.030 I:ncident co-and agencies --Designation by
political sUbdivisions
The governing body of each applicable political subdivision
of this state shall designate a hazardous materials incident
command agency within its respective boundaries, and file this
designation with the director of community development.
In designating an incident command agency, the political
subdivision shall consider the training, manpower, expertise,
and equipment of various available agencies as well as the
Uniform Fire Code and other existing codes and regulations.
Along state and interstate highway corridors, the Washington
state patrol shall be the designated incident command agency
unless by mutual agreement that role has been assumed by
another designated incident command agency.
6/13/89 .19
-
-
If a political subdivision has not designated an incident
command agency within six months after July 26, 1987, the
Washington state patrol shall then assume the role of incident
command agency by action of the chief until a designation has
been made. [1987 c 238 § 2; 1986 c 266 § 50; 1985 c 7 § 132;
1984 c 165 § 1; 1982 c 172 § 4.]
70.136.035 Zncident command agencies --Assistance from
state patrol.
In political subdivisions where an incident command agency has
been designated, the Washington state patrol shall continue
to respond with a supervisor to provide assistance to the
incident command agency. [1987 c 238 § 3.]
70.136.040 zncident command agencies
assistance agreements.
Emergency
Hazardous materials incident command agencies, so designated
by all applicable political subdivisions of the state, are
authorized and encouraged, prior to a hazardous materials
incident, to enter individually or jointly into written
hazardous materials emergency assistance agreements with any
person whose knowledge or expertise is deemed potentially
useful. [1982 c 172 § 3.]
70.136.050 Persons and agencies rendering emergency aid
in hazardous materials incidents --Zmmunity
from liability --Limitations.
An incident command agency in the good faith performance of
its duties, is not liable for civil damages resulting from any
act or omission in the performance of its duties, other than
acts or omissions constituting gross negligence or wilful or
wanton misconduct.
Any person or public agency whose assistance has been
requested by an incident command agency, who has entered into
a written hazardous materials assistance agreement before or
at the scene of the incident pursuant to RCW 70.136.060 and
70.136.070, and who, in good faith, renders emergency care,
assistance, or advise with respect to a hazardous materials
incident, is not liable for civil damages resulting from any
act or omission in the rendering of such care, assistance, or
advise, other than acts or omissions constituting gross
negligence or wilful or wanton misconduct. [1987 c 238 § 4;
1984 c 165 § 2; 1982 c 172 § 5.]
6/13/89 20
-
70.136.055 Person transporting hazardous materials
Responsil:lili ty for incident clean-up
Lial:lility of person causing hazardous materials
incident.
See RCW 4.24.314.
70.136.060 Written emergency assistance agreements
Terms and conditions --Records
Hazardous materials emergency assistance agreements which are
executed prior to a hazardous materials incident shall include
the following terms and conditions:
1) The person or public agency requested to assist shall not
be obligated to assist;
2) The person or public agency requested to assist may act
only under the direction of the incident command agency
or its representative;
3) The person or public agency requested to assist may
withdraw its assistance if it deems the actions or
directions of the incident command agency to be contrary
to accepted hazardous materials response practices;
4) The person or public agency requested to assist shall not
profit from rendering the assistance.
5) Any person responsible for causing the
materials incident shall not be covered by the
standard defined in RCW 70.136.050.
hazardous
liability
It is the responsibility of both parties to ·ensure that
mutually agreeable procedures are established for identifying
the incident command agency when assistance is requested, for
recording the name of the person or public agency whose
assistance is requested, and the time and date of the request,
which records shall be retained for three years by the
incident command agency. A copy of the official incident
command agency designation shall be a part of the assistance
agreement specified in this section. [1987 c 238 § 5; 1982
c 172 § 6.]
6/13/89 21
-
-
-
70.136.070 Verbal emergency assistance agreements
Notification --Form
1) Verbal hazardous materials emergency assistance
agreements may be entered into at the scene of an
incident where execution of a written agreement prior to
the incident is not possible. A notification of the
terms of this section shall be presented at the scene by
the incident command agency or its representative to the
person or public agency whose assistance is requested.
The incident command agency and the person or public
agency whose assistance is requested shall both sign the
notification which appears in subsection (2) of this
section, indicating the date and time of signature.
If a requesting incident command agency deliberately
misrepresents individual or agency status, that agency
shall assume full liability for any damages resulting
from the actions of the person or public agency whose
assistance is requested, other than those damages
resulting from gross negligence or wilful or wanton
misconduct.
2) The notification required by subsection (1) of this
section shall be in substantially the following form:
6/13/89
NOTIFICATION OF "GOOD SAMARITAN" LAW
You have been requested to provide emergency assistance
by a representative of a hazardous materials incident
command agency. To encourage your assistance, the
Washington state legislature has passed "Good samaritan"
legislation (RCW 70.136.050) to protect you from
potential liability. The law reads, in part:
"Any person or public agency whose assistance has
been requested by an incident command agency, who
has entered into a written hazardous materials
assistance agreement . • . at the scene of the
incident pursuant to •.. RCW 70.136.070, and who,
in good faith, renders emergency care, assistance,
or advice with respect to a hazardous materials
incident, is not liable for civil damages resulting
from any act or omission in the rendering of such
care, assistance, or advice, other than acts or
omissions constituting gross negligence or wilful
or wanton misconduct."
The law requires that you be advised of certain
conditions to ensure your protection:
1. You are not obligated to assist and you may
withdraw your assistance at any time.
2. You cannot profit from assisting.
22
6/13/89
3. You must agree to act under the direction of
the incident command agency.
4. You are not covered by this law if you caused
the initial accident.
I have read and understand the above.
(Name)
o=a~t~e~----------~T~i~m~e~-----------
I am a representative of a designated
hazardous materials incident
command agency and I am
authorized to make this request
for assistance.
(Name)
(Agenc=y~)----------------------------
Date Time ____________ __
[1987 c 238 § 6; 1982 c 172 § 7.]
23
-
-
SITUATION
The city of Kent is a rapidly developing urban area comprised of
three main geographical areas. Two areas located on the east and
west hills are primarily residential with community related
commercial development intermingled. The third area consists of
the valley floor area which includes heavy commercial and
industrial development as well as single and multi-family
residential areas.
studies have been done in regard to the hazardous materials within
the Kent area. A study done by the PUget sound Council of
Governments revealed that the City of Kent has the third largest
concentration of hazardous materials in the PUget Sound area.
Another study, done by the Kent Fire Department in 1986-87
identified specific locations of these materials and further
defined areas of potential risk. The subsequent enactment by the
Federal Government of The Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization
Act has assisted in identifying those facilities using "Extremely
Hazardous Substances" which pose the greatest threat to the
community.
Transportation routes for hazardous materials include three state
and one Interstate Highway and two railroad lines on which most of
the hazardous materials transported north and south within the
State of Washington travel. Additionally, there are two limited
access roadways within Kent which are considered prime areas for
a transportation related hazardous material incident. These are
the primary routes for distribution of hazardous materials to local
facilities.
The valley area houses in excess of 200 facilities which use
hazardous materials in their business activities. Of those
facilities, 21 have been identified as SARA Planning Facilities.
These facilities have above threshold planning quantities of
"Extremely Hazardous Substances" as defined by SARA.
The Kent Fire Department Haz-Mat Team responds to nearly 100
hazardous material incidents annually. It is further known that
many on site incidents are handled by facility workers and are
never reported to local authorities.
In consideration of the facts provided both here and in the
Hazardous Materials Analysis, it is apparent that an incident of
significant proportion could occur within Kent. Response measures
and the need for evacuation would depend upon the amount and type
of material released.
Additional information is provided in the Hazardous Material
Analysis (Attachment B).
6/13/89 24
.. ~,~ : ~ . ' ' . '·,,' '• • ,,,.,. •• ,"I
1
. '
. -157 ___ ... _ ... _ .. _
~~~·r.r1 i"oc:! !c. ·
... -... -... ....:._ ... _ ..
!:!UIIIr.gtc.n .No;I~H!rq
I .·I
. I
I
' .,...
/
\
" • \ ..
\
\
\
. . :~.
j~ . ,. ,,
'· ' ~ .
~· .
·: : · .
" : , • : •' ' ·~ I
"!.'
SR-167
·-.
\
City Of Kent
Hazardous Materials
High Risk Area. Map
Hi9h Risk Areas
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS FACILITIES REQUIRING PLANNING
1 American National Can
1220 N. 2nd Ave.
Kent, W A 98032
Jay Burton
854-9950 or 774-7327
2 Americold
8805 s. !90th
Kent, W A 98031
Mark Fisk
251-9571
3 Ashland Chemical
831 5th Ave. S.
P.O. Box 220
Kent, W A 98032
Gary Creme
850-1585
4 Boeing Space Center
20403 68th Ave. S.
Kent, W A 98032
P. O.Box 3999 MS-89-02
Seattle, WA 98124
Mary Armstrong-Russell
773-3528
5 Boeing Commercial
Airplane Group
Propulsion Systems Div
7615 s. 212th
Kent, W A 98032
Yvette Barnett
237-9263 or 237-9900
6 Boeing-Kent Benaroya
20651 84th Ave. S.
Kent, W A 98032
Yvette Barnett
237-9263 or 237-9900
7 Borden Chemical
421 1st Ave.
P.O. Box 428
Kent, WA 98031
William Kramer
852-9300
8 Chemical Processors Inc.
20245 77th AveS.
Kent, W A 98032
Richard Lu
872-8030 or 821-5821
9 Continental Mills, Inc.
6320 S. !90th St. Kent
P.O. Box 88176
Seatlle, WA 98138
872-8400 or 226-2841
8/08/91
10 Crain Industries
!9635 78th Ave. S.
Kent, W A 98032
Mark Stuart
872-0170 or 838-2967
11 Crescent Foods
21612 88th Ave. S.
Kent, W A 98032
P.O. Box 3985
Seattle, W A 98124
Victor Dang
461-1440
12 Davis Wire Corp
19411 80th Ave. S.
Kent, W A 98032
Mike Hennan or
Bob Wahlberg
872-8910
13*Emerald City Chemical
21000-77th Ave. S.
Kent, W A 98032
Glen Dodge
872-5511
14 Evergreen Engravers
1819 S. Central #24
Kent, W A 98032
Jeff Hilton
852-6766
15 Exotic Metals
5411 S. 226th St.
Kent, W A 98032
Craig Adams
395-3710
16 Fisher Scientific·
8030 S. 228th St.
Kent, WA 98032
Eli Burks
872-0330
17*Fumn Aern.•pace Component
7035 212th St. Bldg. 3,Kent
3711 S. Hudson St.
P.O. Box 18319
Sc:atlle, WA 98118
Mary Downing
723-5600
26
18*Heath Teena Aerospace Co.
Plants 1,2,3,4,6,6a
19819 84th Avenue South
Kent, W A 98032
Roy Chandler
872-7500
19 Holman Distribution Center
22430 76th Ave. S.
Kent, W A 98032
Robert Downie Jr.
872-7140
20 Hytek Finishes Co.
8127 S. 216th St.
Kent, W A 98032
Cliff Johnson
872-7160
21 Kent District Swimming Pool
25316 JOist Ave SE, Kent
King County Parks Aquatics
2040 84th Ave SE
Mercer Island, W A 98040
Steve Chavey
284-2555
22 City of Kent Water Department
Clark Springs Well
24875 Kent Kangley Road
220 4th Ave.,Kent,WA 98032
Mr. Leland Fingerson
859-3395
23 City of Kent Water Department
East Hill Well
24525 104th Ave SE
220 4th Ave S.,Kent,WA 98032
Mr. Leland Fingerson
859-3395
24 City of Kent Water Department
Kent Springs Well
28600 216th Ave SE
220 4th Ave S.,Kent,WA 98032
Mr. Lel11nd Fingerson
859-3395
25 City of Kent Water Department
Soos Creek Well
11834 Kent Kangley Road
. 220 4tlt.Ave. S.,Kent,WA 98032
Mr. Leland Fingerson
859-3395
-
-
26 City of Kent Water Department
212th St. Well
9001 S. 212th St.
220 4th Ave S.,Kent, WA 98032
· Mr. Leland Fingerson
859-3395
·27 King Command Meats
7622 South !88th
Kent, W A 98032
Bill Klosterman
251-6788
28 Liquid Air Corp.
8008 S. 222nd St.
Kent, W A 98032
Dale Fix
872-7007
29 Matlack Inc.
!9929 77th Ave.S.
Kent, W A 98032
Vince Hell
872-8925
30 MCI Telecommunications Corp
West Division
12001 SE 227th Place
Kent, WA 98031
Anthony Fantham
631-8292
31 Oberto Sausage Company
7060 S. 238th St.
Kent, W A 98032
Mr. Bnt<<: Fimhaber
228-2003
32 Paci lie Propeller Inc.
5802 S. 228tb St.
P.O. Box 1187
Kent, W A 98035-I I 87
Greg McCarrel
872-7767
33 Protective Coatings Inc.
1215 North 2nd Ave.
Kent, W A 98032
Dun De Yaney
854-9330
34 Reynolds Metals
27402 72nd Ave. S.
P.O. Box 1108
Kent, W A 98035
Sum Hewlett
95-0790
35 Royal Reprographics
18817 E. Valley Hwy.
Kent, W A 98032
Jay Stanton
251-8230
36 Sea-Kent Cold Storage
621 Railroad Ave. N.
P.O. Box 368
Kent, W A 98035
Janet Larson
852-4400
37 Surftech Finishes
22436 72nd Ave. S.
Kent, W A 98032
Randy Haworth
872-0280
38 Tahoma District
Swimming Pool
18230 SE 240th,Kent
King County Parks Aquatics
2040 84th Ave SE
Mercer Island, WA 98040
Tom Warren
284-2555
39 US West Communications
Network Switching
206 S. State,Kent
Steve Marczewski
1600 Seventh Ave.,Rm ISO!
Seattle, WA 98191
623-2447
40 US West Communications
Network Switching
19640 68th Ave S.,Kent
Steve Marczewski
1600 Seventh Ave.,RM 1501
Seattle, WA 98191
623-2447
41 US West Communications
Network Switching
7235 s. 228th, Kent
Steve Marczewski
I 600 Seventh Ave., Rm I 50 I
Seattle, WA 98191
623-4032
42 Van Waters & Rogers
8201 S. 2121b St.
Kent, WA 98032
Jack Datin
872-5000
_ *Facilities which have un Emergency Phm hut ure not SARA Title Ill sites
8/08/91 27
43 Western Processing
Chemical Waste Management
20015 72nd Ave. S.
Kent, W A 98032
Nicholas D. Lewis
395-0513
44 Wilbur Ellis Co.
8643 S. 212th St.
Kent, WA 98031
John Hartman or Jim Lassen
872-6920 or 935-2701
~.-
" "' ..
·~
:'!
-)·""1:
~~~·
·!~-'
I
/
)>
"0
"0 ...
0
)(
3" ....
r+
CD
en
0
!!!.
CD
:r
~
CD
"'
iJ
!~ r
~ lil Si )>
!!!. en a.c rn -n :s ... ~ == z "' ;'[ 0 ~"" -1 H rn '1:~ 0.
&_S. -~ ...
!.' r11 11 "tl --.-~
~---o '·''' ~··I "· ·"'!; [)J :r :-: ,, I~·; -· :J !•. •n
~ lUI ,,, p_ tO lfl.
I 1 .• 10 t•JI 1}1 ('Jf.) ••
l:-/ '·: ')1 I .J .... ; ....... en } . ~ II 0 :r: -rn --· ~ (I), ,.
::J ~~ "JIC'J .. ,. ~ . , .. ~ .. -· ...;: .. .• '·'t,, J• rt-.... .... , 'J .,. :;.! r. .,, ...
..... ,..._
-
CONCEPT OP OP~RATIONS
CITY OP UNT
The Mayor is the executive head of the city and is responsible
for direction and control in an emergency to protect citizens
in a disaster.
The City council is the legis~ati ve body of the city. They
are responsible for passing or~inances, resolutions and laws
governing the city.
Director of Emergency Services
a. Plans for and coordinf!,tes emergency service
activities carried out within the city before,
during and following a hazardous material emergency
or disaster.
b. Acts as the coordinating agent for the government
of the city to assure the ~est use of resources from
the city, county, state ancl federal agencies as well
as from the private secto~.
c. Advises and assists other departments of the city
and appropriate organizat~ons of the private sector
in preparing a hazardous :materials emergency plan
pertinent to their functi~n during a disaster.
KING COUNTY
King county Executive is re~ponsible for directing and
controlling all county activ:ities to protect lives and
property from the effects of any disaster.
Director of Jmerqency services is appointed by the executive
and is authorized to act in his behalf to coordinate with the
State and Federal Government to mitigate the disaster
satisfactorily.
General Responsibilities shall be as defined in the King
County Emergency Plan for Haza~dous Material Incidents.
6/13/89 29
-
-
-
-
-
STATE OF WASHINGTON
The Governor is legally responsible for the direction and
control of all emergency servic~s activities within the State.
His appointed Emergency Servi¢es Director is delegated the
authority to act on his behalf .in coordinating all activities
and organizations for emergenc1 services within the State and
maintaining liaison.and cooper~ting in emergency matters with
the Federal Government, the Plrovidence of British Columbia
and other states.
Department of 1mergency servia•• organizes state and district
emergency services organizations to insure capability to
accomplish emergency missions, Coordinates all state and
local emergency services o~anizations during declared
emergencies as defined in t'e Washington State Disaster
Preparedness Plan. See Annex 0, Appendix 2, Section II B of
the Washington State Disaster Preparedness Plan.
Other State Agencies responsibtlities shall be as defined in
the Washington state Disaster Preparedness Plan. They shall
be assigned emergency responsibilities by the Department of
Community Development, Division of Emergency services based
on their respective capabilities.
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
FEMA Region Tep shall, under the guidance of the National
Headquarters, Federal Emergenc~ Management Agency acting in
concert with federal field es~ablishments and the military;
Interpret national policy and ,program direction, coordinate
mobilization activities of Fe~ral Field Offices and states
to assure uniform applicati~n within the region, make
emergency decisions on the use of resources and coordinate
disaster relief activities ot the Federal Government in
accordance with applicable p~lic laws, and coordinate the
activities of other federal agencies.
4/23/90 30
-
-
....
....
TESTZNG THE PLAN
PURPOSE
To provide an adequate means o~ evaluating the effectiveness
and feasibility of the plan and its standard operating
procedures to ensure maximlll$ readiness of agencies and
facilities involved in hazardoUs material incident response.
OPERATZONAL CONCEPT
"Testing" refers to the.e~ercise of all or part of
the Hazardous Material Emeirgency Plan to ensure that
all elements work in ha~ony. All or part of the
organizations and agenci~s involved may be active
participants in the testiing process. After the
test, a critique by part~cipants shall be held to
identify any elements in the plan that need to be
revised or updated. This process shall assure that
operational concepts are sound and resources are
adequately prepared to car:j:y out necessary functions
in a hazardous material e$ergency.
2. All agencies, organizat~ons and SARA Planning
facilities will be inform~d of the testing and will
be invited to partic~pate or observe, as
appropriate, for the type of test planned.
RESPONSZBZLZTY
The Director of Emergency Serv~ces or his/her designee shall
provide for and organize a $inimum of one test/exercise
annually. This test or exercise may be in the form of a table
top, functional drill, or full scale exercise •
6/13/89 31
......
......
-
-
UPDATING TaB PLAN
PURPOSE
To provide a satisfactory means of updating information
and standard operating proced~res in the plan. Ensure
that the plan is updated on an annual basis and that all
plan holders are informed of the changes.
OPERATIONAL CONCEPT
1. The plan shall be updated annually or following each
test;exercise of the plan. Following the critique
of the test/exercise, a.ny necessary changes as
identified by the evaluat~ng group of the basic plan
or its standard operating procedures shall be
initiated. In addition to changes identified in the
critique, all current i*formation in regards to
personnel assignments, e)Dergency phone lists and
resources shall be re~iewed for accuracy and
updated •
2. Revisions to the plan sha+l be distributed by first
class mail to all age~cies, organizations and
facilities which hold copies of the plan within 30
days of the final revision.
RESPONSIBILITY
The Director of Emergency Sel"Vices or his designee shall
provide for the plan to be updated following each
testjexercise and distribute final revisions to all plan
holders according to operational guidelines identified.
6/13/89 32
-
-
-
-!
DXRECTXON AND CONTROL
1. The City of Kent Fire Depa~ment has been appointed
Incident Command Agency for hazardous material
incidents within the City ~f Kent, except upon State
and Interstate roadways, (Washington State Patrol
will assume the role of Incident Command upon
arrival at the scene.)
2 . The Incident Command structure shall be as
published, by the Nation~l Fire Academy and the
National Emergency Mana~ement Institute. The
Incident Commander shall utilize the positions of
the Incident Command Syst$m as deemed necessary at
the time of the incident.
3 • Upon the request of the Incident Commander, the City
of Kent Emergency Managem~nt Division will provide
coordination between the Ihcident Commander and the
various responding agencies.
4. The Incident Commander $hall determine if the
incident has exhausted respurces or capabilities of
local agencies. A unified, command with an on-Scene
Commander from the Enviro~ental Protection Agency
or the United States Coas~ Guard will be initiated
upon their arrival at the scene.
5. When local resources have ~een exhausted, the Mayor
or his designee will reque•t activation of the King
County Emergency Plan. Upon activation, the Kent
Division of Emergency Man~gement shall relinquish
primary control of the qoordination of resource
responsibilities to Kinq County Department of
Emergency Management.
6/13/89 33
-
-
6.
7.
8.
-
-
6/13/89
The command post will be .located at a safe area as
near as practical to the incident scene. The
Incident Commander may determine an alternate
location more suitable t~ the type or size of the
incident in progress.
The operations functions 'lo(ill remain at the incident
scene regardless of the location of the command
post.
It will be the respons~bility of the Incident
commander to request ai¢t from outside agencies.
Representatives from the following agencies may be
located at the command post:
Kent Emergency Management
Kent Police Department
Kent Fire Department
Kent Public Works Department -operations Division
Technical Advisors (as requested by the Incident
Commander)
Shippers (for transportat:ion related incident)
Facility Coordinator (for fixed facility incident)
County Agencies (as requested)
State Agencies (as requested)
Federal Agencies (as requ•sted)
34
-
-
9. The Emergency operations Center will be located at
Kent city Hall in the co~rtroom. Representatives
of the following agencies may be located in the
Emergency Operations center:
Emergency Operations Center coordinator
Mayor
city council Members
Public Information Offi.ce~
city of Kent Department Heads and/or their designee.
Health Services.
10. The following guidelines may be used by the Incident
commander as assistance in determining required
resources to control a hazardous material incident:
Response Level 1.
Response Level 2.
6/13/89
Potential Emerg•ncy condition
Description: An incident or threat of a
release that can be controlled by city of
Kent responders with advice from outside
agencies. The incident is not an
immediate threat to life or property.
Evacuation is J,imited to the immediate
area or involved structure only.
contact:
Kent Fire Depar1ment
Kent Police Dep~rtment
Kent Public Wor~ Department
Washington Stat~ Department of Ecology
Chemtrec (Transportation incident only)
National Response Commission (NRC)
Limited Emergency condition
Description: ~ incident involving a
greater hazard o~ potential for threat to
life of propertr. May require limited
evacuation of surrounding area.
Contact:
All agencies in level 1
City of Kent Emetgency Operations Center Staff
King County Office of Emergency Management
Washington State Patrol
35
Response Level 3.
-
6/13/89
Full Emergency 'condition
Description: An incident that poses a
severe hazard to life and property or
covers a large •rea requiring large scale
evacuation. Th~ incident may require the
resources of cpunty 1 state 1 Federal or
private agenciels.
contact:
All agencies in level 1 & 2
Washington state Department of Emergency
Management
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)
Environmental ~otection Agency (EPA) or
United States coast Guard (USCG)
36
-
-
-
RESPONSE PUNCTIONS
INITIAL NOTIFICATION OF RESPONSE AGENCIES
1. 911 will be the telephone ~mber used to notify all local
emergency response personnel of an emergency situation within
the city limits of Kent. Tho~e calls originating outside the
protection area must call (206) 852-2121.
2. Notification of potential problems should be reported by
calling the business number of the Kent Fire Department.
(206) 859-3322.
3. The city of Kent Emergency Management Division will be
responsible for notification ,of the following agencies based
on the nature and severity of the incident.
8/08/91
a. King County Agencies
King County Police (206) 344-4080
King co. Dept. of Emergency Mgmt. (206) 344-3830
24 hour .nu~ber (206) 344-4080
METRO (Barbara Badger)
(Renton Treatment Plant)
b. State Agencies
24 hr. #
Department of
Response Team
Department of
Energy Radioactive
Ecology 24 hr. #
(206) 684-2404
(206) 226-3680
(206) 682-5327
(206) 649-7000
Dept. of Emergency Mgmt. 24 hr. # (206) 75'3-5990
1-(800)-262-5990
Washington State Patrol 24 hr. #
(Commercial Vehicle Enfo~cement)
c. Federal Agencies
National Response Center
United States coast Guard 24 hr. #
d. Technical Assistance
Chemtrec
37
(206) 455-7700
(206) 455-7903
1-(800)-424-8802
(206) 286-5400
1-(800) 424-9300
EMERGENCY ASSISTANCE 'TELEPHONE ROSTER
'"" CITY
·i.re
.ire Chief Norm Angelo
Police
:-Police Chief Ed crawford
'""Engineering Don Wickstrom
. Engineering Gary Gill
Public Works Tim Heydon
.-Local Emergency Planning committee
Mayor-Dan Kelleher
Environmental Protection Agency
Department of Ecology
'""Department of Transportation
. Washington State Patrol
Metro
_Public Health
King county Emergency Services
· Wa. st. Dept. of Emer. Management
National Response Center
-chemtrec
· . s. Coast Guard
Jget Sound Air Pollution Control -
CLEANUP CONTRACTORS
,.... Amalgamated Services
Chemical Processors
Northwest Enviroservice
'""Chempro Env. Services
Olympus Environmental
RAILROADS
Union Pacific -
-Burlington Northern
8/08/91. -38
859-3322
859-3322
8159-4167
8:59-4167
8:59-4170
859-4170
859-3395
859-3322
872-3355
553-1263
649-7000
562-4000
455-7700
226-3680
361-2891
or
or
or
or
or
or
or
911
Home 630-4334
911
Home 627-5567
Home 852-5196
Home 432-0846
Home 527-1488
.296-3830 or 296-3311
753-5990 1-800-262-5990
1"-800-424-8802
1 .. 800-424-9300
286-5540
296-7330
8p4-6643
872-8030
622-.1090
838-1543 or 872-8030
854-5094
1•503-257-9188 collect
or
1•800-228-9948
625-6246
939-1050
AGENCIES
-HEDICAL
Evergreen Hospital
overlake Hospital ·
Auburn Hospital
1rien Hospital (Riverton)
~ ~mmunity Memorial Hospital Enumclaw
Riverton Hospital
Valley Medical center
..... King County Ambulance
Shepard Ambulance
..... NEWS MEDIA
KING
~ KIRO
KOMO
I<ASY
KVI ..... KIRO
KZOK
I<JR
..-MAGIC
KLSY
-
.....
TELEVISION
448-3850
728-7777
443-4145
NEWSPAPER
821-1111
454-4011
833-7711
244-9970
825-2505
244-0180
228-3450
872-6046
852-6030
RADIO
443-3981
728-7777
443-4101
833-5220
223-5700
728-7777
281-5627
454-6397
622-3251
455-1540
•
\LLEY
..;:DERAL WAY
872-6600 or weekends 872-6604
839-0700
..-SEATTLE TIMES
POST INTELL.
ASSOCIATED PRESS
UPI
464-2200, 2239, 2272, or 2237
448-8303
682-:1812
283-3262 .....
OTHER -
NORTHWEST PIPELINE
WASHINGTON NATURAL GAS
..... PUGET POWER
B/08/91
.....
39
244-6605
464-1999
1-800-424-5555
255-2464
...
INCIDENT IHFORMA7ION SUMMARY
DATE __________________________ _ TIME. ________________________ _
NAME OF PERSON RECEIVING CALL~--------------------------------
ON SCENE CONTACT: NAME __________________ __ PHONE ____________ __
INCIDENT LOCATION·----------------------------------------------
NEARBY POPULATIONS·---------------------------------------------
NATURE OF INCIDENT __________________________________________ ___
TIME OF RELEASE-----------------------------------------------
POSSIBLE HEALTH EFFECTS ______________________________________ __
EMERGENCY MEDICAL INFORMATION ________________________________ __
NUMBER OF INJURED/DEAD-WHERE TAKEN __________________________ ___
NAME OF MATERIAL RELEASED ________________ PHY.SICAL STATE. ______ __
CHARACTERISTICS OF MATERIAL·------------------------------------
AMOUNT OF RELEASE·----------------------------------------------
POTENTIAL AMOUNT OF RELEASE __________________________________ __
OTHER HAZARDOUS MATERIALS IN AREA~----------------------------
TYPE OF EXPOSURE TO ATMOSPHERE ______________________________ ___
PLUME INFORMATION----------------------------------------------
WEATHER CONDITION __________________________________________ ___
LOCAL TERRAIN-------------------------------------------------
PERSONNEL ON SCENE--------------------------------------------
6/13/89 40
-
-
-
COMMUNICATIONS
6/13/89
communications
It is the responsibility ~f the communications personnel
to organize, establish 'llnd maintain a communications
capability sufficient td meet the emergency services
requirements during a hazardous material incident in the
City of Kent by use of land line, wire and radio service.
Communications during a h$zardous material incident are,
at best, difficult. The following information for radio
frequency use is a recqmmendation based on standard
operating procedures. It is not intended to limit the
use of any radio frequenc~ available at the time of the
incident.
1. In order to ease radio operations, portable
radios will be used at the incident scene.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Fire frequency 2 andjor 3 will
directed by the Fire Operator
Communications Cente~.
be used as
at Valley
City frequency 8 will be used as the direct
tie between the Inq:ident Commander and the
Public Works Operati~ns Center or Public Works
field personnel.
Law Enforcement Agen¢ies may utilize the LEARN
or MAARS frequencies.
Communication betweem the Emergency Management
Agencies may utilize the OSCAR frequency.
41
COMMON RADIO FREQUENCIES
NAME FREQUENCY
FIRE 1 154.070
FIRE 2 154.445
FIRE 3 154.310
,.... FIRE 4 154.250
FIRE 5 (Federal Way Fire Dept.)
FIRE 7 (HEAR)
FIRE 8 (City Government) 156.000
TAC 1 155.685
TAC 2 155.250
TAC 3 155.925
TAC 4 155.535
TAC 5 (City Government)
LEARN 155.370
MAARS Transmit 154.650 Receive 155.190
OSCAR 153.755
,....
6/13/89
-
-
-
-
PUBLIC INFORMATION / COMMDNXTY RELATIONS
6/13/89
PUblic +nformation Officer
The Public Information Officer shall act as liaison
between the Incident Comm~nder the media and the public
in chemical emergency sitUations.
The Public Information Officer will provide media
representatives with new~ releases in order to provide
incident information ana warning of danger to the
community. This informa.tion is provided so that the
public will be aware of any potential need for
evacuation, shelter in place, or other emergency
procedures necessary to protect themselves in a chemical
emergency.
All information from the Incident Commander shall be
reported to the Public Information Officer for
dissemination to the media and the public.
community Relations
The Local Emergency Plal).ning Committee shall provide
public information to th~ community regarding chemical
emergency planning and preparedness at least once
annually by one of the methods listed below.
Information regarding che.ical emergency planning and/or
preparedness may be relea.ed to the public by any of the
following methods.
* Public Information Programs
* Newspaper, radio, or television
announcements
* Pamphlets (utility bill mailers or
handouts at co~unity events)
* City Line publi~ation
*
*
Facility
(schools,
etc.)
specific training programs
hospitals, public facilities
Media coverage of training exercises.
-
WARNING SYSTEMS AND EMERGENCY PUBLIC NOTIFICATION
6/13/89
Warning systems
The City of Kent has no emergency warning system
designed to warn the comm~nity at large of a chemical or
other type emergency cur~ently in place.
Emergency Public Notification
The City of Kent, utili~ing existing resources, will
notify the public of an e•ergency situation to the best
of its ability by one or •ore of the following methods:
*
*
*
*
*
Through
utilized
Officer
sources.
the established procedures
by the Public Information
to notify the various media
Telephone
populations
in the site
contact of vulnerable
and facilities as identified
spei::ific plans.
Public announce•ents through the use of
public address systems on radio equipped
city vehicles.
Door to door notification.
Emergency Broadcast System.
-
-
-
-
RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
6/13/89
Fire service
It is the responsibility of the Kent Fire Department to
provide emergency response to hazardous material
incidents within the City of Kent and act as Incident
Commander (except on state and interstate highways where
the Washington State Patr~l will assume incident command
during the incident). Ef~ectively utilize all available
city of Kent equipment and manpower, as well as mutual
aid equipment and manpower to save lives and property.
a. Provide coordination, and control of manpower
and equipment thrQugh the communications
center and at a command post near the scene.
b. Provide manpower and equipment for
decontamination and emergency medical aid at
the scene of a hazar~ous material incident.
c. Provide manpower and equipment for control and
containment of a hazardous material release or
fire involving hazardous materials whenever
possible.
Law Enforcement
It is the responsibility of the Kent Police Department
to provide effective coordination of the law enforcement
agency during a hazardous material emergency.
a.
b.
c.
d.
Provide a capability for effective traffic
control and control of evacuation routes
during a hazardous material emergency.
Insure that law enforcement personnel are
familiar with ,procedures for the
identification and movement of essential
personnel during a hazardous ·material
emergency.
Assist where nec$ssary in the rapid
dissemination of 'li'arning and evacuation
information to the ~lie as an augmentation
segment of the established warning procedure.
Perform evacuation vithin parameters established
for specific incident action plan.
-
-
,...
6/13/89
Public Works
a.
b.
Provide equipment
the containment
release.
and manpower to assist in
of a hazardous material
Provide equipment ~nd manpower
essential city facil~ties damaged
of a hazardous material release.
to repair
as a result
c. Provide assistance t~ the Police Department in
regards to traffic control on evacuation
routes and at the incident scene.
d. Provide mitigation m•asures whenever possible
for the protection of the city water and sewer
systems.
46
-
-
Cl:TY OF XENT RESOURCES
Fl:RE DEPARTMENT
APPARATUS 750
MISCELLANEOUS EQUIPMENT
Binoculars
D.O.T. Response Book
Complete Tool Box
6 -Complete SCBA's
APPARATUS 748
CAB, DRIVER'S SIDE
I -Door Opener
I -HM, CGI & 02 meter MSA
I -HM, TLV, Probes, filters
GLOVE BOX
3 -Flares, smoke
I -Box, Ph paper
I -Calculator
I-Book, DOT, Emerg. Resp. Guide
I -Book, FF's Handbook of HM
• 911 Slickers
I -Accident Report forms
COMPARTMENT 2, MIDDLE
I -SCBA. complete
I -SCBA, spare bottle
I -Axebelt with axe
I -Dropbag with rope
I -Bundle, Cedar shakes
COMPARTMENT2,BOTTOM
I -Wrench adjustable hydrant
I -Come-a-!0111, with chains
I -Wrench, PIV
3 -Metal bars
• Denotes an Expendable Supply
7/17190
CLEAN•UP/CONT AINMENT EQUIPMENT
Shovel, scoop (4)
Broom, push (I)
Tubs (4)
Lath
Absorbent pads
Traffic COIIes (12)
PB35
Visqueen (20 Foot)
Water/Gas shut-off wrench
Saw, circular
CONSOLE
I -Radio, Portable #705
I -Radio, case
I-Lantern
I -Book, Map, Kent
I -Book, Map, Mutual aid
2 -Books, Apartment
I -Clipboard
COMPA&TMENT2,TOP
I -Crate, COIItaining: Metro sampling kit
4 -Broom handles
1-"A"Box
5 -Duct tapes
I -Box trash bags
I -Box vinyl exam gloves
12-Pair boot covers
4 -Pair silver shield gloves
• -Latex gloves
17-Pair Nitrile gloves
I -Box Ph paper
I-"E" Box
12-I piece Tyvek Saranex suits
4 -Tyvek Saranex Hoods
COMPAiRTMENT 4
47
I -EMS, Aid kit
1 -EMS, Blanket
1 -Extinguilber. pressurized water
1 -Extinguisher. dry chemical
1 -Extinguisher. soda ash
• -Ubrary, containing:
2 -CHRIS Manuals
I -SAX Manuals
1 -Manual, Explosives, AARR
1 -Manual, H20, Emer. Resp. King Co~
1 -Book, Dangerous Art. Emergency Guide
-
-
,.....
COMPARTMENT 6 COMPARTMENT 4
4 -PB-35 Gallons, dry
1 -Recovery drum, small
1-•H• Box
6 -Fire Retardant Cotton Coveralls
* -Library Continued:
1-Book, NFPA #49
1 -Fluorine Info Packet
1 -Clipboard, exposure sheets
1 -Conversion Tables
1 -SCAN Telephone Directory
1 -Liquid Air Pre-plan
1 -Fibercbem Pre-plan
15-Haz-Mat Incident Forms C-26
1 -NIOSH Pocket guide
COMPARTMENT 8 COMPAltTMENT 5
*-SCBA, thread protectors
4 -Casc•de, Air, bottles
1 -Cascade, Air, valve assembly
1 -Cascade, Air, gauge
2 -Absorbant booms, 20'
3 -Visqueen, 20'
• -Poly Propylene, Absorbant pads
4 -Decon, pools
1 -Decon, Layout visqueen
2 -Long handle scrub brushes
1 -Decon Kit:
2 -Garden hoses, w/nozzles
1 -5/8• Non-<:lappered wye
4 -Scrub brushes
5 -Waste baskets
1 -Eye wash bottle
2 -Decon diagrams
2 -Boxes trash bags
1 -Car wash soap
* -Bamboo sticks
I -Radiological monitoring kit
6-Flares
1 -Perimeter tape, box
4 -Bicycle helmets
I -Spreader
I -Gas clamp, Large
1 -Gas clamp, Small
I 0-Gallons, Soda ash
COMPAltTMENT 3
12-SCBA. spare bottles
16-Sprinkler wedge sets
1 -Extinguisher, C02, cartridge
I -Rope, utility
COMPARTMENT!, TOP
1 -Probe, Brass, CGI
1 -Wrench, 36• Pipe
1-•a• Box:
4 -Tyvek Saranex encapsulating suits
1 -Patch Kit, QUICK KIT
5 -Sprinkler wedges
1 -PVC, Couplers 2·, 1-112•, 3/4., 112"
4 -Brushes Acid
2 -Tubes, epoxy
1-Bag Oakum
2 -Teflon tape
2 -Joint compound
2-Galvanized pipe plugs, 1", 2-112", 2-3/4"
1-4" Pipe plug
* -Pipe straps, -·
5 -Male plugs, aast.
1 -Bag aasorted Bungs
4 -Brass gate valves
4 -Hose clamps
* Denotes an Expendable Supply
7117/90 48
-
-
-
1 -Tool Kit, QUICK KIT
1 -Wrench, Universal Bung
1 -Mallet, dead blow
1 -Mallet, rubber
2 -Grounding cables
1 -Caulking. gun, w/caulk
1 -Drum lift strap
1 -Lead wool, bag
1 -Plier, vice grip
1 -Tin snips
1-Dish soap
1 -Wire brush
1 -Wrench, 10" Crescent
1 -Wrench, 12 • Crescent
1 -Wrench, 16" Crescent
1 -Wrench, 5116" Crescent
1 -Pressure gauge
6 -Screwdrivers, Straight blade
1 -Pop Rivet gun, w/rivets
1 -Scissor
2 -Strap set, Rachel
1-"D" Box:
6 -Nitrile boots
1-"B" Box:
1 -Accessories Kit, QUICK KIT:
2-Goggles
4 -Nitrile gloves
*-"T" Bolts
1 -Water Gauging Paste
1-Aqua Seal
1 -Petro Seal
2 -Mega Sticks
1 -PCB Screening Kit
1 -Mega Quick Syringe
S -Ear Plugs, min.
* -Asst. Wooden Plugs
3 -Tennis Balls
* -Gasket material
1-Duct Tape
2 -Rubber Balls
* -Patching Plates
3 -PVC, Hooded raincoats (green)
4 -Yellow raincoats
6 -Yellow raincoats
4 -Yellow Tyvek, Encap. suits
COMPARTMENT1,MmDDLE
1 -SCBA, complete
1 -SCBA, spare bottle
* Denotes an Expendable Supply
PUBLIC WQRKS
TRUCKS
7117/90
1 Ton Dump (1)
S Ton Dump (2)
Water
Sanders (3)
COMPARTMENT1,BOTTOM
1 -Chain, tow
1 -Chains, tire
4 -Brooms, push
HEAVY EQUIPMENT
Graders (2) Tractors (2)
Dozer Backhoes (3)
Forklift Front-ad Loader
Vactor (3) (Super Suckers)
49
-
....
,....
-
,...
-
HEALTB AND MEDICAL
6/13/89
Ambulance Service
Ambulance service shall be provided by local ambulance
services and fire d~artment aid vehicles when
appropriate. Mutual aiq services may be requested at
the discretion of the Incident Commander, based on the
scope of the incident, These services shall be
dispatched through Vallet Communications at the request
of the On Scene commande~ either by radio or telephone.
Jmerqency Medical Treatmtpt
On scene decontamination and emergency medical treatment
shall be provided by fire' department personnel and other
available emergency mediQal personnel dispatched through
Valley Communications a$ requested by the on scene
commander.
All persons requ~r~ng medical treatment shall be
decontaminated prior to $mergency medical treatment and
transport to a hospital. or other emergency facility.
Decontamination procedures are defined in the Kent Fire
Department Hazardous Materials Response Guide
(Attachment 'A' to this plan).
Bealth
The Incident Commander, ~n cooperation with the Public
Works Department, shall, to the best of their ability,
take action to protect area water and sanitation
resources from chemical contamination.
Clean up and recovery fro• chemical contamination of the
environment may require outside assistance from state or
federal agencies and private contractors and
consultants.
Other Bealth and Medical Assistapce
Health and medical assistance beyond the capabilities of
existing local resource$ and mutual aid participants
shall be under the dire~tion of the Director of the
Seattle/King County Health Department, The State
Department of Social and Health Services andjor the u.s.
Department of Health, Education and Welfare as
determined by the scope ~f the disaster and defined in
Annex K of the City of Kent Disaster Plan.
so
RESPONSE PERSONNEL SAFETY
6/13/89
During any hazardous mate~ial emergency it is essential
that response personnel are protected to the greatest
degree possible from ad~erse effects resulting from
exposure to hazardous mat,rials involved in an incident.
In order to provide an acceptable standard of personnel
safety, detailed standard operating procedures have been
established.
1. Initial precautions
a. protective clothing
b. determination of hazardous material presence
c. establishment of command post at safe distance
d. approach to incident site
2. Incident size up
a. isolate area
b. identify hazardous material
c. assess potential danger of incident
3. Call for resources
a. identify resources needed
b. request Haz Mat Team response
4. Safety
a. rescue operations
b. containment
c. evacuation
d. decontamination
The procedures outlined ~eve are contained in the Kent
Fire Department Hazardous Material Response Guide and
may be reviewed in complete form in Attachment A of this
plan.
51
-
,...
PERSONAL PROTECTXON OF CXTXZEN$
6/13/89
During any hazardous material emergency it is essential
that the citizens of the community be protected to the
greatest degree possible from the adverse effects of
exposure to hazardous mat~rials involved in an incident.
In order to provide for personal protection of the
citizens located in an affected area the following
guidelines have been esta~lished.
1. Shelter in Place
Indoor protection shall be the preferred
method whenever possible, to protect citizens
from exposure to hazardous materials released
during an incident. The decision to shelter
in place shall be based on the quantity of
material released, the hazardous properties of
the material and technical expertise available
at the time of the incident. The incident
commander shall be re$ponsible for determining
the need for sheltering in place and executing
warning and communication procedures as
outlined in the Warning and Emergency
Notification section of this plan.
The following instructions shall be given to
citizens during a shelter in place situation:
a. Stay inside until you are notified by
television, rad~o, or other means that it
is safe to go o~tside.
b. Close all doors and windows.
c.
d.
e.
Turn off all heating,
ventilation systems.
cooling and
Do not use the fireplace or woodstove.
Put any burning fires out and close the
damper.
Listen to your ~ocal radio or television
stations for further instructions.
52
-
,.....
-
,.....
,.....
6/13/89
Additional information will need to be provided in the
event it is necessary for citizens sheltering in place
need to protect their breathing. The following
instructions will shall be given:
a. Cover mouth and nose with
handkerchief ~r towel to
breathing. Thin cloths should
over several ti$es.
a damp
protect
be folded
b. Follow all inst+ructions for shelter in
place.
2. Evacuation
The following inst~ctions shall be given
citizens when they ate notified to evacuate.
volume of informat~on may be reduced if
incident commande~ determines that
circumstances, or warring methods to be used do
allow for effective communication of
information.
a. Gather what you and your family will
need. Pack only what you will need most.
b. Turn off heating, ventilation and cooling
systems and a~pliances. Leave the
refrigerator on.
c. Lock the house or building when you
leave.
d. Do not use the p~one unless it is urgent.
Keep any emergency call very short.
e. Take only one ca~ and drive safely. Keep
all windows and vents closed, turn on the
radio for evacul!tion routes and up to
date information.
f. Follow directions given by officials
along evacuation routes.
g.
h.
Carpool if po~sible to help· reduce
traffic congesti~n during the evacuation.
If you do not h!ave transportation ride
with a neighbor, friend or relative.
Do not call your children's school or go
to pick them up. They will be the first
ones moved if any evacuation is necessary
in their location. You will be notified
by radio or teleVision where you can pick
them up.
53
to
The
the
the
not
all
-
-HUMAN SERVICES
6/13/89
It is essential during any emergency situation, either
chemical or otherwise, that persons which have been
evacuated from their h~mes or businesses due to
impending danger to life and health or actual
destruction of property be provided with essential human
services. These essential services should include but
not be limited to food, shelter and clothing.
In the event of an emerge~cy situation requiring human
services, the City of Kent Director of Emergency
Services or designee shall call the American Red Cross
andjor The Salvation Army for assistance in this area.
American Red cross
The American Red Cross will provide temporary
housing, mass care shelter and feeding
facilities, emergency first aid and medical
·services, welfare inqu1.r1.es, information
services and fina~cial assistance for
essentials based on the immediate need at the
time of the emergency.
Salvation Army
The Salvation Army w;ill assist the American
Red Cross with food collection and
distribution, provide clothing, bedding
essential furnishings and spiritual and family
counseling for displaqed individuals during an
emergency situation.
Other Agencies
Other local agencies · may be called or may
volunteer to assist w:i.th human services during
times of emergency. ~ese agencies or citizen
groups may include civic organizations, church
groups, businesses e'l:fc. These agencies may
provide human service$ support in the areas of
shelter, food, cloth ling or other immediate
needs during an emergency. ·
54
-
-
,....
-
-
,....
LOCAL AMERICAN RED CROSS SHBLT8RS
Schools
Totem Jr. High
Mt. Rainier High
Pacific Middle School
T. Jefferson High
Auburn High School
cascade Jr. High
Kent Meridian High
Kentridge Sr. High
Kentwood Sr. High
Kent Jr. High
Mattson Jr. High
Meeker Jr. High
Meridian Jr. High
Sequoia Jr. High
Churches
First Christian Church
26630 40th s.
22450 19th s.
22705 24th s.
4248 s. 288th
800 4th St. NE -Auburn
1015 24th NE -Auburn
9800 SE 256th
12430 SE 208th
25800 164th SE
620 N. Central
6400 SIE 25lst
12600 SE l92nd
23480 120th SE
11000 SE 264th
11717 SE 240th
united Methodist Church 11010 SE 248th
covington Comm. Church
covington Baptist
Kent Lutheran
zion Lutheran
6/13/89
17455 Wax Rd.
21115 SE 272nd
336 s ~nd
25105 l32nd Ave. SE
55
852-5100
433-2441
433-2581
839-7490
931-4880
931-4995
859-7404
859-7345
859-7680
859-7446
859-7671
859-7284
859-7383
859-7542
852-2957
631-2564
631-9090
432-5330
630-9181
631-0942
-
-
-
-
ONGOING INCIDENT ASSESSMENT
6/13/89
The City of Kent has limited means of monitoring a
hazardous materials emert.Jency. While the Kent Fire
Department has the responsibility for this function,
they will do so only to their capabilities. Beyond
those capabilities, ttj.e Environmental Protection
Agency's "Technical Assi!ltance Team" will be requested
to monitor an emergency ~isk area. In some incidents,
the specific facility ma~ be able to monitor their own
release and will be used in those instances.
Monitoring Equipment
Kent Fire Department
MSA c.G.I. and Oxygen meter
T.L.V. meter
Gas track
Radiological Monitor~ng Kit
Other Monitoring Age~cies
Department of Ecology
Metro
United States Coast ~uard
Washington Natural Gas
56
-
...
-
-
-
CONTAINMENT AND CLEAN UP
4/23/90
The containment and clean-up of a hazardous material
spill or release is of vjtal concern to the citizens of
Kent. The Kent Fire Department, being the agency
responsible for the initial response shall perform to
the best of its ability any necessary measures for the
control of a hazardous material release. These efforts
will focus on limiting the effects of a release on
people, property and the environment.
containment
containment by the ~ent Fire Department of a
hazardous material release shall consist of
operations which limit the size of the initial
release and attempt to mitigate adverse
effects on the commUnity.
Specific procedures for containment of a
hazardous materials release can be found in
the Kent Fire Department Hazardous Materials
Response Procedures,, Spill Control Section
(Attachment A to this document).
Clean-up and Disposal
The clean-up and ~isposal of a hazardous
materials release is the responsibility of the
owner or transporte~ of the material. Title
4 RCW 4.24.314. Clean-up and disposal
measures must be coordinated between the
responsible party an~ state/federal regulatory
agencies or private clean-up and disposal
contractors as detetmined by the nature and
severity of the release.
Washington Department of Ecology (WDOE) is the
lead state agency for overseeing the"clean up
and disposal of haza~dous materials and waste.
In the event that the owner/spiller is unknown
or unwilling, WDOE is authorized by state law
to pay for the clean up and disposal of the
spilled materials an~ pursue the owner/spiller
for reimbursement. Authorization must be
obtained through WOO~ prior to beginning clean
up and disposal opetations in order for them
to pay for clean up and disposal costs.
57
-
-
-
Title 4 RCW: Civil Procedure
4.24.314 Person transportint hazardous materials --
Responsibility for i cident clean-up --Liability
1)
of person causing ha ardous materials incident.
Any person transporting h$zardous materials shall clean
up any hazardous material~ incident that occurs during
transportation, and shall take such additional action as
may be reasonably necessary after consultation with the
designated incident command agency in order to achieve
compliance with all applicable federal and state laws
and regulations.
Any person responsible for causing the hazardous
materials incident, other than operating employees of a
transportation company, is liable to the state or any
political subdivision thereof for extraordinary costs
incurred by the state or the political subdivision in
the course of protecting the public from actual or
threatened harm resulting from the hazardous materials
incident.
2) "Extraordinary costs" as used in this section means
those reasonable and ne~essary costs incurred by a
governmental entity in the course of protecting life and
property that exceed th$ normal and usual expenses
anticipated for police aJ1d fire protection, emergency
services, and public wor~. These shall include, but
not be limited to, overtime for public employees,
unusual fuel consumption requirements, any loss or
damage to publicly owned equipment, and the purchase or
lease of any special equipment or services required to
protect the public during the hazardous materials
incident. ( 1984 c 165 § 3. )
6/13/89 58
-
-
r
-
-
6/13/89
DocUIIIeptatiop
The Incident Commander shall be responsible
for documentation qf a hazardous material
incident by means of.the Fire Incident Report
(WAFIRS) and the Haza~dous Material Data Sheet
as well as necessary reports on injuries and
casualties as appropriate for the specific
incident.
The individual or company responsible for the
release shall submit; appropriate reports as
determined by individual company procedures
and state and federal regulations.
Investigative Follow-up
Investigative follQw-up shall be the
responsibility of the individual and/or
company responsible tor the release and state
of federal regulat~ry agencies per their
standard operating pttocedures, as appropriate
for the specific incident.
59
-
,...
'
r
r
,.....
I
TJUliNING
The Training Division of the Kent Fire Department shall act
as coordinator and provide scheduling and record keeping for
all inter-city hazardous materials training. Training
schedules and information are available through the Training
Officer.
It is intended that all first responding members of the Fire
Department and selected membe~rs of the Police and Public
Works Departments will be trained to the First Responder -
"Awareness Level" as defined in 29 CFR l.9l.O.l.20. First
responding members of the Fire Department in addition to all
members of the Hazardous Materials Team will receive all or
part of the additional training as defined in 29 CFR l.9l.O.l.20
and outlined below.
The City of Kent will also utilize training resources
available through the National Fire Academy, the Washington
state Department of Community Development and the Federal
Government. Training which may become available from time to
time through private agencies will be utilized and considered
part of the regular training requirements.
TRAINING LEYELS
l.. First Responder -Awareness Level
2.
* Recognition
Materials
and I~entification
First Responder -OperatiQns Level
of
(24 hours training and de~onstrate competency)
Hazardous
* Knowledge of basic hazard and risk assessment
techniques
* Personal protective equipment for first responder
level * Basic control, containment andjor confinement
operations * Basic decontamination procedures * Understanding of Standard operating and Termination
Procedures
3. Hazardous Materials Technician
(Minimum 24 hours training and demonstrate competency)
* Knowledge of leak repair.
4. Hazardous Materials Specia~ist
6/13/89
(Minimum 24 hours training and demonstrate competency)
* Respond with, and p:r~ovide support for hazardous
materials technician. * Act as on scene Commamder
60