DOCSLIB.ORG

Responsiveness Summary for King County's West Point Wastewater

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Responsiveness Summary for King County's West Point Wastewater Responsiveness Summary for King County’s West Point Wastewater Treatment Plant & CSO System NPDES Permit Number WA-002918-1 Table of Contents Comments Received During Hearing – January 27, 2009 ........................................................ 3 B.J. Cummings .................................................................................................................... 4 Ecology‘s Response to BJ Cumming‘s Testimony ........................................................................... 5 Cathy Farrar ........................................................................................................................ 6 Ecology‘s Response to Cathy Farrar‘s Testimony ............................................................................ 6 Richard Hart ........................................................................................................................ 7 Ecology‘s Response to Richard Hart‘s Testimony ............................................................................ 7 Christina Gallegos ............................................................................................................... 7 Ecology‘s Response to Christina Gallegos‘ Testimony .................................................................... 8 Dagmar Cronn ..................................................................................................................... 8 Ecology‘s Response to Dagmar Cronn‘s Testimony......................................................................... 9 Steve Richmond .................................................................................................................. 9 Ecology‘s Response to Steve Richmonds‘s Testimony .................................................................. 10 Heather Trim ..................................................................................................................... 10 Ecology‘s Response to Heather Trim‘s Testimony ......................................................................... 13 John Guevarra ................................................................................................................... 14 Ecology‘s Response to John Guevarra‘s Testimony ....................................................................... 15 Pamela Elardo ................................................................................................................... 15 Ecology‘s Response to Pam Elardo‘s Testimony............................................................................ 17 Fred Felleman ................................................................................................................... 18 Ecology‘s Response to Fred Felleman‘s Testimony ....................................................................... 18 Lisa De Alva ..................................................................................................................... 18 Ecology‘s Response to Lisa De Alva‘s Testimony ......................................................................... 19 Table 1: Hearing Attendance List ............................................................................................ 19 Comments from People For Puget Sound ................................................................................ 21 Ecology‘s Response to General Comments .................................................................................... 30 Ecology‘s Response to Specific Comments .................................................................................... 34 Comments from EPA .................................................................................................................. 55 Ecology‘s Response to Comment #1 .............................................................................................. 56 Ecology‘s Response to Comment #2 .............................................................................................. 59 Comments from King County.................................................................................................... 61 Second Set of Comments Received from King County…………………………………….... 65 Comments from Sierra Club...................................................................................................... 70 Ecology‘s Response to Sierra Club Comments ............................................................................... 71 Comments from Suquamish Tribe ............................................................................................ 72 Ecology‘s Response to the Suquamish Tribe‘s Comments ............................................................. 73 Responsiveness Summary for King County – West Point Wastewater Treatment Plant Page 2 of 112 NPDES Permit Number WA-002918-1 Comments from MWPAAC ....................................................................................................... 74 Ecology‘s Response to MWPAAC‘s Comments ............................................................................ 76 Comments from Helen Engle ..................................................................................................... 77 Ecology‘s Response to Ms. Engle‘s Comments .............................................................................. 77 Comments from Keith Hutchings.............................................................................................. 79 Ecology‘s Response to Mr. Hutchings‘ Comments ........................................................................ 80 Comments received via email form letters ............................................................................... 81 Email Form Letters – Standard Versions via People For Puget Sound’s Webpage ............ 81 Ecology‘s Response ........................................................................................................................ 81 Ecology‘s Response ........................................................................................................................ 82 Ecology‘s Response ........................................................................................................................ 83 Table 2: Form emails received from ........................................................................................ 83 Table 3: Additional comments received via form emails. ...................................................... 91 Ecology‘s Response ...................................................................................................................... 106 Comments from Peter Maier ................................................................................................... 107 Ecology‘s Response ...................................................................................................................... 112 Responsiveness Summary for King County – West Point Wastewater Treatment Plant Page 3 of 112 NPDES Permit Number WA-002918-1 Comments Received During Hearing – January 27, 2009 DouGlas Palenshus (male speaker) B.J. Cummings (female speaker) Cathy Farrar (female speaker) Richard Hart (male speaker) Christina Gallegos (female speaker) Dagmar Cronn (female speaker) Steve Richmond (male speaker) Heather Trimm (female speaker) John Guevarra (male speaker) Pamela Elardo (female speaker) Fred Felleman (male speaker) Lisa De Alva (female speaker) January 27, 2009 Hearing DouGlas Palenshus: Mike, could you please check that microphone with your voice? Mike Dawda: You‘re making me nervous. DouGlas Palenshus: Okay. Check, check. Okay, now it‘s your turn and . Got that on—thank you. Thanks for making sure the recorder was on. This is pretty important for us here. So, as I said, I‘ll be starting with people in the order they signed up for public testimony for the hearing. And I‘ll open it up for any others. And remember one at a time questions that you ask as part of your comment are for the record. And I‘d like to ask at this point—we had 5 people indicate that they wish to make a comment tonight and another 15 who indicated that perhaps they might, by indicating ―maybe.‖ Could I see now anyone who knows that they wish to make a comment, just with their show of hands please? One, two, three, four, five, six, seven. If you could, keep them up, I‘m going to go back just to make sure I have the right number. One, two, three, four, five, six, seven. Okay. And is there anyone who thinks that they may still wish to, but aren‘t sure? Okay. Thanks very much. So that‘s possibly eight comments and seven for sure. And we wanted to be sure that everyone who wished to do so would have a chance to make comments. So I‘m doing some quick math here—help me out if you can. Maximum of 80 minutes that we can conceivably use for this time. So with potentially 8 people, please limit your comments to 10 minutes. But I will be keeping time. And if you don‘t have 10 minutes of meaningful things to say, don‘t feel any obligation to continue speaking. And if you wish to pass, when your name comes up, we‘ll put you at the end. So in order of those who have indicated they wish to comment, I‘m just gonna name the names. B.J. Cummings? Would you please step up to that microphone and . (applause) Responsiveness Summary for King County – West Point Wastewater Treatment Plant Page 4 of 112 NPDES Permit Number WA-002918-1 B.J. Cummings There we go. (laughter) I‘m really much shorter than I look. Thank you. Okay. I hadn‘t had a chance to complete my review of the entire document this evening. And there was actually some new information that
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Discovery Park: a People’S Park in Magnolia
    Discovery Park: A People’s Park In Magnolia By Bob Kildall Memorial to US District Judge Donald S. Voorhees Authors Note: Before Don died he asked me to say a few words at his memorial service about Discovery Park. After his death July 7, 1989, Anne Voorhees asked me to help in a different capacity. This is the speech I wrote and later used at a Friends of Discovery Park memorial service and in a letter to the editor. Discovery Park is his park—that we all agree. He felt that Seattle would be known for this Park—like London is known for Hyde Park; Vancouver for Stanley Park; San Francisco for Golden Gate Park and New York for Central Park. It was a difficult task. The Department of Defense wanted an anti-ballistic missile base and the ABM headquarters for the entire West Coast located here. Native Americans claimed the property. We didn’t have enough money to buy the land and no federal law allowed excess property to be given for parks and recreation. A golf initiative proposed an 18-hole course. And Metro had its own plans for the Park’s beach. The missile base was moved. A treaty was signed. A federal law was passed. The golf initiative failed. And even Metro studied an off-site solution first suggested by Don. He named the park “Discovery” partly after Capt. George Vancouver’s ship. But even more “because when our children walk this park, discoveries will unfold for them at every turn.” History, beauty, nature and the future are melded here.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 13 -- Puget Sound, Washington
    514 Puget Sound, Washington Volume 7 WK50/2011 123° 122°30' 18428 SKAGIT BAY STRAIT OF JUAN DE FUCA S A R A T O 18423 G A D A M DUNGENESS BAY I P 18464 R A A L S T S Y A G Port Townsend I E N L E T 18443 SEQUIM BAY 18473 DISCOVERY BAY 48° 48° 18471 D Everett N U O S 18444 N O I S S E S S O P 18458 18446 Y 18477 A 18447 B B L O A B K A Seattle W E D W A S H I N ELLIOTT BAY G 18445 T O L Bremerton Port Orchard N A N 18450 A 18452 C 47° 47° 30' 18449 30' D O O E A H S 18476 T P 18474 A S S A G E T E L N 18453 I E S C COMMENCEMENT BAY A A C R R I N L E Shelton T Tacoma 18457 Puyallup BUDD INLET Olympia 47° 18456 47° General Index of Chart Coverage in Chapter 13 (see catalog for complete coverage) 123° 122°30' WK50/2011 Chapter 13 Puget Sound, Washington 515 Puget Sound, Washington (1) This chapter describes Puget Sound and its nu- (6) Other services offered by the Marine Exchange in- merous inlets, bays, and passages, and the waters of clude a daily newsletter about future marine traffic in Hood Canal, Lake Union, and Lake Washington. Also the Puget Sound area, communication services, and a discussed are the ports of Seattle, Tacoma, Everett, and variety of coordinative and statistical information.
    [Show full text]
  • Indigenous People and the Transformation of Seattle's
    05-C3737 1/19/06 11:43 AM Page 89 City of the Changers: Indigenous People and the Transformation of Seattle’s Watersheds COLL THRUSH The author is a member of the history department at the University of British Columbia. Between the 1880s and the 1930s indigenous people continued to eke out traditional livings along the waterways and shorelines of Seattle’s urbanizing and industrializing landscape. During those same years, however, the city’s civic leaders and urban plan- ners oversaw massive transformations of that landscape, including the creation of a ship canal linking Puget Sound with Lake Washington and the straightening of the Duwamish River. These transformations typified the modernizing ethos that sought to improve nature to ameliorate or even end social conflict. The struggle of the Duwamish and other local indigenous people to survive urban change, as well as the efforts by residents of nearby Indian reservations to maintain connections to places within the city, illustrate the complex, ironic legacies of Seattle’s environmental his- tory. They also show the ways in which urban and Native history are linked through both material and discursive practices. Seattle was a bad place to build a city. Steep sand slopes crumbled atop slippery clay; a river wound through its wide, marshy estuary and bled out onto expansive tidal flats; kettle lakes and cranberried peat bogs recalled the retreat of the great ice sheets; unpredictable creeks plunged into deep ravines—all among seven (or, depending on whom you ask, nine or fifteen) hills sandwiched between the vast, deep waters of Puget Sound and of Lake Wash- ington.
    [Show full text]
  • Bookletchart™ Puget Sound – Shilshole Bay to Commencement Bay NOAA Chart 18474
    BookletChart™ Puget Sound – Shilshole Bay to Commencement Bay NOAA Chart 18474 A reduced-scale NOAA nautical chart for small boaters When possible, use the full-size NOAA chart for navigation. Included Area Published by the depths were 14 feet in the S entrances, and 15 feet in the N entrance. There are berths at the concrete floats for 1,400 craft to 250 feet long, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration including a guest pier and transient berths. The marina can provide National Ocean Service electricity, gasoline, bio-diesel (#1 and #2), diesel fuel, water, ice, marine Office of Coast Survey supplies, and a pump-out station at the 600-foot pier at the midpoint of the basin. Two 3-ton hoists are at the S end, and one 3-ton and one 4- www.NauticalCharts.NOAA.gov ton hoists are at the N end of the basin. A 55-ton marine travel lift, for 888-990-NOAA haul-out, is available at the boatyard at the S end of the basin. Dry storage is available for 82 boats on movable trailers at the N end of the What are Nautical Charts? marina. A boat launching ramp is located N of the marina in Golden Gardens Park. The marina can be contacted on VHF-FM channel 17. Nautical charts are a fundamental tool of marine navigation. They show West Point, at the N entrance to Elliott Bay, is a low, sandy point which water depths, obstructions, buoys, other aids to navigation, and much rises abruptly to an elevation of over 300 feet 0.5 mile from its tip.
    [Show full text]
  • It a Staging for the Port of Embarkation, As Such, the Facilities
    HISTORY - DISCOVERY PARK To meet the maritime of a developing Territory, particularly the logging/sawmill industry following the 1851 Pioneer Landing at Alki Beach, the U. S. government in 1881 built the West Point Lighthouse on the dense, stony rim of a salt marsh (on property bought from John Leary, partner of Capt, Bal'lard). Original kerosene light was French-built brass- and-glass and, by hand-crank, fog horns are activated at 4-Mile Rock and Shilshole. (The Alki Point Light was built this time.) The bluff had logged prior to 1880 and their roads formed the basic layout for the new Fort, The first official suggestion to locate a military post on Magnolia Bluff was in an 1894 report by Brig. Gen. Otis, followed by an Act of Congress in 1895 authorizing the Secretary of War to choose a suitable site on Puget Sound (donated! by citizens! An inspection trip by Gen. Otis, Capt, Fisk (C.E.) and Capt, Crosby (Q.CTTesulted in the acquisition of 613 acres from 27 owners at $1 per owner, Seattle viewed bhe project with great interest and anticipation: "the Army post will undoubtedly this the most popular Sunday outing in the neighborhood of Seattle." (P.I. 1896) The Post was established in 1897, and in 1900 in honor of Haj^^ Lawton, United States Volunteers, for his cap- ture of Chief Geronimb~nrf8My~^^ in action at San Mateo, Philippine Islands, in 1899. Development of the Fort included a pier to the north on Salmon Bay, a vegetable garden, large stockade for cavalry horses, a water line from Seattle, plus the usual bar- racks, etc.
    [Show full text]
  • West Point Treatment Plant Treatment Point West Is Four Miles Miles Four Is The
    0903westpointBRO.indd www.kingcounty.gov/wtd www.kingcounty.gov/wtd l t a h e h a n c i Wastewater Treatment Division Treatment Wastewater d l 206-263-6028 or 1-800-325-6165, ext. 36028 ext. 1-800-325-6165, or 206-263-6028 b t h u Natural Resources and Parks and Resources Natural e p Seattle, WA 98104-3855 WA Seattle, t e Department of Department c n e 01 S. Jackson Street, Suite 500 Suite Street, Jackson S. 01 2 v i r r d o o o h p Wastewater Treatment Division Treatment Wastewater n r and effectively as possible. possible. as effectively and m o . e t o n b t h g i Department of Natural Resources and Parks and Resources Natural of Department e n operating as efficiently efficiently as operating r u o K y i n n service available while while available service i g C g o n i u k n r t o y , w 206-684-1280 or TTY Relay: 711 Relay: TTY or 206-684-1280 wastewater treatment treatment wastewater and testing new treatment technologies. treatment new testing and provide the region with the best best the with region the provide biosolids, reclaiming water, recovering energy, energy, recovering water, reclaiming biosolids, Alternative formats available formats Alternative operate effectively. Our goal is to to is goal Our effectively. operate wastewater and stormwater, producing producing stormwater, and wastewater that supply it with wastewater wastewater with it supply that Plant workers operate facilities for treating treating for facilities operate workers Plant www.kingcounty.gov/wtd and the pipelines and pump stations stations pump and pipelines the and to Puget Sound and Seattle’s Discovery Park.
    [Show full text]
  • Presented at the 2018 ISA Water / Wastewater and Automatic Controls Symposium Aug 7-9, 2018 – Bethesda, Maryland, USA – Mast 2
    Summary of the King County, Washington, West Point WWTP Flood of 2017 Brian Lee Mast, PE Copper Bell Consulting LLC 12223 Dayton Avenue North Seattle, Washington [email protected] , or [email protected] KEYWORDS Plant Failure, Float Switch, Normalization of Deviance, Electrical Failure, Redundancy ABSTRACT On February 9, 2017, the King County, Washington, West Point Wastewater Treatment Plant experienced a catastrophic failure of the entire plant due to a cascade of system failures resulting in a complete flood of the Primary Treatment process, some Solids Handling, and Boiler areas. This led to plant bypasses and discharges of raw wastewater into Puget Sound for several months while the plant was decontaminated, equipment replaced and retested, and systems restarted. Damages topped $50million. Life safety was at risk. The failures began at 2 am during a rainstorm with the plant running at full capacity, 440 MGD. An electrical failure in the Effluent Pump Station which pumps all plant effluent into Puget Sound decreased pumping capacity and began to overfill the station’s wet well. While operators were trying to restart the station, the hydraulic discharge valves for each pump also failed. From there, a safety interlock triggered the hydraulic isolation of the pump station and confined flow to the Primary Treatment Tanks. High level float switches in those tanks, meant to shut off flow into them, failed to operate which allowed the tanks to overflow for half an hour. This flooded the underground gallery system surrounding that part of the plant from base up to grade level and damaged all electrical systems and equipment in those galleries.
    [Show full text]
  • Discipline Report Water Quality
    Discipline Report Water Quality Prepared by: KPFF Consulting Engineers Shannon and Wilson, Inc. April 2005 Draft EIS Magnolia Bridge Replacement City of Seattle Contents Contents ......................................................................................................................... i Purpose and Need ........................................................................................................ 1 Purpose .................................................................................................... 1 Need.......................................................................................................... 1 Structural Deficiencies...........................................................................................1 System Linkage .....................................................................................................1 Traffic Capacity......................................................................................................4 Modal Interrelationships ........................................................................................4 Transportation Demand.........................................................................................4 Legislation .............................................................................................................5 Description of Alternatives .......................................................................................... 7 No-Build Alternative...............................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • West Point Treatment Plant
    WHAT’S THE PROJECT? West Point Treatment Plant King County is updating the underground Water Reservoir Facility West Point Treatment Plant serves more than 700,000 people. at Discovery Park. We are committed to protecting public health Treats wastewater from homes and businesses in Seattle, Shoreline, north and promoting a healthy environment. Lake Washington, north King County and parts of south Snohomish County. The treatment plant was built in 1966. The reservoir was built around the The facility has two reservoirs of drinkable and process water. Drinking water is used at FAST FACTS FAST same time. West Point Treatment Plant, the lighthouse and drinking fountains in the park. Process water is used for industrial purposes at the treatment plant. The project will upgrade the facility to meet current standards and allow safe and efficient access for annual inspections required NORTH BEACH TRAIL by Seattle Public Utilities. Installing a 460-foot pipe from the reservoir to a discharge site will keep overflows away from the treatment plant and other populated areas. LOOP TRAIL West Point DISCOVERY PARK BLVD. This project protects water sources and equipment. Treatment Evacuation assembly area Plant Inplant assembly area Emergency exit Puget Sound Evacuation route rail Parking T Rest rooms each Picnic area th B Nor Roads Trails Secondary clarifier DISCOVERY PARK BLVD. LOOP TRAIL (LOWER) Wetland Administration Building LOOP TRAIL (UPPER) TRAIL LOOP WETLAND ifiers NORTH BEACH Clar Light house HIDDEN VALLEY TRAIL Hidden Valley Trail l i SOUTH
    [Show full text]
  • Cultural Resources Report
    Cultural Resources Assessment of the Proposed Burke-Gilman Trail Extension Project King County, Washington Submitted to SVR Design Submitted by Gretchen Kaehler Ann Gillespie Seattle, Washington November 2008 Table of Contents Management Summary ...............................................................................................................iii 1.0 Introduction....................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Identification of Area of Potential Effects...................................................................................1 2.0 Methodology ...................................................................................................................... 4 2.1 Tribal Consultation......................................................................................................................4 2.2 Environment ................................................................................................................................4 2.3 Background Research and Archival Review ...............................................................................5 2.3.1 Archaeological Studies............................................................................................................5 2.3.2 Historic Buildings and Structures Studies...............................................................................7 2.3.3 Prehistory ................................................................................................................................8
    [Show full text]
  • 10 Marine Nearshore 81-92.P65
    Seattle’s Aquatic Environments: Marine Nearshore Marine Nearshore The following write-up relies heavily on the Review Draft of the State of the Nearshore Ecosys- tem: Eastern Shore of Central Puget Sound, Including Vashon and Maury Islands (WRIAs 8 and 9). January 2001 (Review Draft) for the WRIA 8 and 9 Nearshore Technical Committee. Overview The city of Seattle’s marine nearshore area extends cumulative impacts of urban development have from North 145th Street south to Brace Point in resulted in major changes to the shoreline environ- West Seattle and includes approximately 30 miles ment and the marine nearshore ecosystem. Rela- of Puget Sound shoreline. The nearshore environ- tively little is known about the direct effects of ment in the city of Seattle includes areas within urban development and other human impacts on both WRIA 8 and WRIA 9. Approximately 8 the migration, growth, survival, and habitat of miles of shoreline is within Elliott Bay and 2.5 Chinook salmon in the marine nearshore areas of miles of shoreline is within Shilshole Bay. Seattle. However, we do know that bulkheading, bank armoring, and other human activities within The nearshore environment in Puget Sound shoreline areas have affected many physical possesses an extremely productive and dynamic processes including sediment production and ecosystem. Tides, currents, wave action, and transport, and that these processes are important intermixing of salt with freshwater create a com- for forming and maintaining habitat for juvenile plex physical environment situated at the juncture Chinook salmon in the marine nearshore and between land and water. The marine nearshore estuary areas.
    [Show full text]
  • Quantitative Analysis of Shoreline Erosion at Magnolia, Seattle David Kiehl, Department of Earth and Space Sciences Dr
    Quantitative Analysis of Shoreline Erosion at Magnolia, Seattle David Kiehl, Department of Earth and Space Sciences Dr. Terry Swanson and Dr. John Stone, Department of Earth and Space Sciences Abstract Aerial Photos and LIDAR: Methods and Results The shoreline and bluffs of Magnolia hill in Seattle have undergone significant erosion since the Historic aerial photos from 1946, 1965, 1985, and 1995 were scanned from the Suzallo Maps last glaciation. The Puget Lobe of the Cordilleran Ice Sheet advanced southward from Canada Collection and georeferenced in ArcGIS. Control points for georeferencing were based on a and covered Seattle and the rest of the Puget Lowland. When the ice sheet advanced and 2002 USGS orthophoto. withdrew from the Seattle area ~15,000 years ago, it left thick deposits of unconsolidated glacial sediments. As sea level rose due to the melting of large continental ice sheets, wave and tidal action began to erode into the unconsolidated glacial sediment comprising the many drumlin- shaped hills along the Seattle shoreline, including Magnolia hill. Due to its high bluffs with ocean and mountain views, Magnolia has long been a desirable residential neighborhood, but its bluffs are also prone to frequent landslide activity that contributes to the long-term erosion of the hill. Little work has been done to determine long-term erosion rates, though this information would be useful to the scientific community as well as the city and neighborhood residents. The goal of this project is to establish relatively accurate erosion rates for the coastline of Magnolia using a variety of research methods. Analysis of LIDAR digital elevation models provides a baseline estimate for a long-term erosion rate, and measurements on historic aerial photos provide data on the variable nature of short-term erosion.
    [Show full text]