Cleaning up: In the footprint of an old corner gas station

One of the largest categories of cleanup sites, statewide, is former gas stations. Old-school underground storage tanks were prone to leaking into the surrounding soil. Tank owners today must follow laws and regulations to prevent leaks and spills. Many of the places once occupied by a corner gas station have since become desirable redevelopment locations. We're taking public comment and inviting you to a community meeting about one example that’s unfolding now in Seattle.

A row of convenience shops at the station, toward the end
of its heyday.

First, some history

There was a gas station operating under the Texaco brand at Queen Anne Avenue North and Roy Street from 1927 to 1993. After the pumps closed, a deli operated on the property to 2018.

In 1986 Ecology responded to complaints of gasoline odors at the adjacent Monterey Apartments. An investigation we conducted from 1986 to 1990 revealed the gas station as the source. We installed two wells to remove petroleum from groundwater.

When the pumps closed and the underground tanks were removed in 1993, we found soil and groundwater contamination. We installed and operated a system from 1993 to 1997 to extract vapor and recover groundwater.

Texaco’s successor, Chevron Environmental Management Company (CEMC), upgraded and operated the system from 2003 to 2008 under Ecology’s Voluntary Cleanup Program. CEMC also mapped areas where low levels of contaminated groundwater extend into part of the surrounding neighborhood. Buildings over this plume and adjacent to the former gas station -- the Del Roy and Monterey apartments -- received vapor tests in 2009 that found indoor air quality within health thresholds. 

Roystone on Queen Anne, LLC plans to clean up contamination at the former Texaco station. Chevron Environmental Management Co. will take steps needed for final cleanup of the entire site.

This corner’s about to change

Fast forward to 2019, and a developer named Roystone on Queen Anne, LLC has acquired the old gas station lot. The company plans to re-develop the vacant property into a multistory mixed-use building.

We’ve negotiated an agreement with both companies. Roystone will clean up contaminated soil and groundwater on its property to meet state cleanup standards in conjunction with excavation for its project. That cleanup is called an interim action.

Meanwhile, CEMC will proceed with the steps needed for final cleanup of the entire site. These include a site assessment, called a remedial investigation, a feasibility study of cleanup options, and a draft cleanup action plan.

What’s your take?

These empty shops will give way to cleanup work as part of re-developing
the site into a multi-story mixed-use building.

We’re inviting you to learn about these plans and tell us your thoughts about them. We’re taking comments through July 23, 2019 on the interim action plan, a legal agreement called an agreed order with the two companies, environmental reviews we’ve conducted, and a proposed public participation plan, which describes how we’ll work to inform people about the cleanup.

Our website has links to all of these documents, to our online public comment app for this site, and contacts for answers to questions. We’ve also placed copies of the documents at Seattle Public Library’s Queen Anne Branch, 400 W. Garfield St.

Pleased to see you

We’re hosting a public meeting to provide information, answer questions about the site and the cleanup process, and to take comments. The meeting will take place from 6 to 8 p.m., Thu., June 27, 2019 at the Maxwell Hotel, 300 Roy St. in Seattle.

Cleanup site information

• Fact sheet (pdf)
• Website
• Cleanup process
• Underground storage tanks

By: Larry Altose, communications manager, Northwest Region

Input wanted: Cleanup options for BNSF Railway Black Tank Property

From May 22 through June 22, we are gathering public comments on the cleanup methods we’re considering for the BNSF Railway Black Tank Property in the Hillyard neighborhood. BNSF and Marathon Oil Company are responsible for cleanup because of their past activities at the site.

The site housed an above-ground black tank that stored petroleum products, primarily the thick, heavy oil known as bunker C for fueling trains. The site also had an above-ground red tank that was used to store and transfer diesel. Areas of soil are contaminated, and a 7-acre plume of petroleum rests on groundwater 170 feet underground.

Cross-section showing petroleum contamination in soil and groundwater
(Courtesy of  ERM)

Excavation with offsite disposal or capping are proposed for contaminated shallow soil. Five groundwater cleanup options are under consideration: biodegradation, bioventing/biosparging, bioventing/biosparging and manual petroleum removal, bioventing/biosparging and steam-enhanced extraction, and smoldering combustion. Bioventing/biosparging is BNSF and Marathon's preferred cleanup option.

These cleanup methods are summarized in the fact sheet and fully described in the remedial investigation and feasibility study report.

When contamination intersects with a freeway

The Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) is building the North Spokane Corridor (NSC) to connect US Highway 395 with Interstate 90 in Spokane. The Hillyard portion of the NSC is within the Black Tank cleanup site. Ecology, BNSF, Marathon, and WSDOT are working together to keep both projects running smoothly.

BNSF and Marathon have committed to a cleanup timeframe of less than 20 years, and WSDOT is planning freeway construction work to accommodate multi-purpose cleanup infrastructure so cleanup options will not be limited by the presence of the NSC.

Educating the public about the Black Tank site and soliciting your input are important steps in the cleanup process. We have been impressed by the outpouring of public interest, which gave us the opportunity to meet with the community about this cleanup site 17 times since late 2015! The cleanup and the freeway design have and will continue to benefit from meaningful public engagement.

It’s all about the life-giving aquifer

Our business is protecting people and the environment. The Spokane-Valley Rathdrum-Prairie Aquifer provides drinking water to nearly 500,000 residents in the Spokane area. Protecting this vital, sole source of drinking water is our top priority for this site. Not only do we care about your health and the environment, but we drink that water, too!

Because the contamination is a heavy oil, it is staying on top of groundwater with very little mixing occurring (imagine oil and vinegar dressing that isn’t shaken up). Because water wells are not located close to the site, drinking water is not affected by the contamination at this time, and we monitor it regularly.

Next steps

Please submit comments to Jeremy Schmidt online, by email, or mail (4601 N. Monroe, Spokane, 99205) by June 22. We will respond to the comments we receive.

Then we’ll use the data gathered thus far and your feedback to draft a cleanup plan. We will hold a public meeting during the comment period for that cleanup plan.

There is no easy answer, but working together, understanding one another’s values and constraints with a willingness to compromise, we will protect people and the environment, preserve our precious drinking water, and successfully build a freeway.

New report compiles information about Washington’s groundwater health

A new report called the Washington Nitrate Prioritization Project identifies groundwater areas in our state that are most vulnerable to nitrate contamination.

Click on this story map to learn more.

It is not new information – but what’s new is that we have compiled it into one location. Previously the information could only be found by searching a number of sources.

Partner agencies sharing their data and helping with the project included the state Departments of Health and Agriculture, as well as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Natural Resource Conservation Service, U.S. Geological Survey, and the Washington Conservation Commission. Our data came from our Environmental Information System.

What the report highlights

The report highlights areas in Washington that show the highest levels of nitrates in groundwater.

This matters because groundwater is a source of drinking water for many people. Safe, clean drinking water is important.

Cross-section of groundwater shows how it is vulnerable to pollution 

that occurs on the land surface. Image source: USGS

Nitrates in groundwater threaten public health. Pregnant women, infants and small children are most vulnerable. Nitrate-contaminated drinking water can harm the health of babies and lead to blue baby syndrome, which is a decreased ability of the blood to carry oxygen.

Even though we are not the state’s drinking water experts – that’s the Department of Health – we are experts in protecting water quality, and we are working on solutions to reduce and prevent groundwater pollution.

Where nitrates come from

Nitrates can get into groundwater from many sources, including fertilizers, manure on the land, and liquid waste discharged from septic tanks. Natural bacteria in soil can convert various forms of nitrogen into nitrate. Nitrates make a good fertilizer for plants, but when there is more fertilizer than plants can use, rain or irrigation water can carry nitrates down through the soil into groundwater.

Our state is seeing a rise in nitrate contamination in groundwater. Both public water supply wells and individual residential wells have been contaminated in some areas of the state. Among others, these include the Sumas-Blaine Aquifer in Whatcom County, the Lower Yakima Valley and the Columbia Basin. Millions of dollars have been spent to deal with nitrate contamination of groundwater.

Helpful information

 

The Washington Nitrate Prioritization Project consolidates existing nitrate level information in groundwater areas in Washington. Our goal is to help the public – as well as local and state health and government decision-makers – be better informed about risk. Having access to this data in one location supports our efforts to protect the problem areas.

Keeping an eye on our groundwater health is important because once aquifers are contaminated, it is difficult for them to recover.

Prevention is far cheaper than cleanup. Treatment can cost millions of dollars. Public drinking water systems spend tax dollars to install treatment systems that remove the water contamination. Private drinking water wells have fewer options. They must test and treat their own water to make sure it is safe to drink.

Ecology's Laurie Morgan, report author.

We hope everybody can help us protect groundwater, especially vulnerable groundwater that is shallow or already contaminated.

If you are interested in more details, we invite you to read the Department of Health Office of Drinking Water fact sheet Nitrate in Drinking Water and the Northwest Pediatric Environmental Health Specialty Units fact sheet Nitrates, Blue Baby Syndrome, and Drinking Water: A Factsheet for Families. And, you may visit our website.

Let us know what you think

If you have comments or questions, you may contact Laurie Morgan, the report’s author, at 360-407- 6483 or laurie.morgan@ecy.wa.gov.

By Sandy Howard, Water Quality Program communications manager

Cleaning up: Boeing Auburn groundwater contamination investigation nears completion

By Robin Harrover and Neal Hines, cleanup co-managers

Robin Harrover

Neal Hines

Before you can clean up a contaminated site, you have to know where the contamination is. Gathering the needed information and developing a report on the contamination is the first step in the cleanup process. Called the remedial investigation, it lays the foundation for all of the steps that follow.

                    

Ecology oversees a remedial investigation that The Boeing Company is conducting on a plume of groundwater contamination at the company’s Auburn facility.  The plume extends more than a mile outside Boeing’s property to the north and northwest, extending under parts of Auburn and Algona.

The plume affects parts of Algona and Auburn.
(Click to englarge.)

The groundwater at the site is contaminated with a degreaser called trichloroethene (TCE) and its breakdown products, which was used at the site to clean metal parts from the 1960s through the 1980s. The solvent likely leaked through cracks that developed over time in the concrete lining of floor pits where part cleaning occurred.

Sizing up the big plume

A reality we face with underground contamination is how difficult it can be to study. Because of this challenge, a multi-year remedial investigation is common for major cleanup sites. This site has turned out to be unusually complex and large, which adds to the study time.

It has taken 13 years, more than 275 wells, hundreds of other underground probes, and thousands of air, surface water, groundwater and soil samples to fully map out this contamination. It takes time to do this: time to determine where to drill; time to get approval to drill on private property or public rights of way; time to study samples; and, when the data show a need to continue the search, time to repeat these steps.

In 2004-05, Ecology oversaw an interim action, which is a partial cleanup conducted during the remedial investigation. Boeing treated a small area on its property that had a very high concentration of TCE that was a likely source area for the plume. The company used a process called bio-remediation in which bacteria consumed the compound and converted it to simpler and safe substances.

Robin Harrover helps people learn about the
investigation at Algona Days last summer. 

Drinking water not affected

The water in homes and businesses in the area comes from public water systems that are regularly monitored by the Washington Department of Health. The City of Auburn’s 2014 Water Quality Report provides the most recent summary of data from this monitoring, which shows no detection of chemicals of concern from the Boeing Auburn site.

The contaminated area is outside designated protection areas for public water system wells. The area’s groundwater flow carries the contaminants away from these wells.

Gathering knowledge

We now know where the contamination is located and in what concentrations. To date, the chemicals are mostly found at low levels that are not expected to pose a risk to human health and the environment.  

Neal Hines explains a map of the plume during an
availability session before an Algona City Council meeting.

This is welcome news, because as investigators traced the plume, some of it was found to lay under parts of residential and commercial areas. The presence of contamination in such areas raises understandable health and safety concerns. And, contamination in groundwater can affect property development decisions.  These highlight the importance of completing the cleanup process.

Later in 2016, we expect to formally receive and review Boeing’s report on the investigation. Ecology will ask for public comments on whether we should approve the report, or if there are unanswered questions that would require the company to do additional research and testing.

Second phase builds on first

The remedial investigation provides information needed for the next major cleanup phase, which explores options for cleaning up and remediating the groundwater. It is called the feasibility study.

Ecology works to keep people up to date, including advance notice about
investigation projects, such as this groundwater probing in Algona. 

Ecology is overseeing Boeing’s work on some preliminary work on this study. The feasibility study requires nowhere near the amount of time needed for the remedial investigation, and we expect to have it for public review and comment within months of the remedial investigation report.

The final planning step is called the cleanup action plan. Ecology will select a cleanup strategy and propose a detailed plan to carry it out. As with the other major steps, we’ll invite public review and comment on a draft plan.

Samples and the story they tell

As part of the investigation, Boeing’s environmental contractor has installed a network of more than 275 wells in Auburn and Algona. These are used to collect samples so that we can see how the plume may change over time.

Ecology also oversaw the testing of indoor air and soil air at some locations above the contaminated groundwater, and sampling and testing of surface water in yards, ponds, drainage ditches and other waterways.

With Mill Creek and its wetlands a short distance from the groundwater plume, Ecology wanted to determine whether contaminants from the plume were reaching the stream. Water samples taken from sediments in Mill Creek showed neither of the plume’s key contaminants – TCE and vinyl chloride.

To find out more:

• See our 2015 Year in Review fact sheet.
• Sign up for email updates.
• Visit our website.
• Attend our open house, 10 a.m. to 2 p.m. Feb. 27, Alpac Elementary School, 310 Milwaukee Blvd. N., Pacific.  It’s a drop-in event: come any time between 10 and 2. We’ll have information displays in English and Spanish, and experts available to answer questions in either language. We’re providing childcare, too.

We’re glad to answer questions any time. Please email us, or call our English and Spanish message line at 253-219-7645 and we’ll get back to you promptly. 

Lots of thoughtful feedback received as we update the CAFO permit

By Heather Bartlett, Water Quality Program Manager

We appreciate that so many citizens, producers, groups and organizations took a considerable amount of their time to give us thoughtful comments on the permit we’re updating for concentrated animal feeding operations, the CAFO permit.


Ecology listening session in Zillah in April 2015.

This permit covers animal feeding operations that confine large numbers of animals in a small area, creating lots of manure. CAFOs are one of many sources that pose a pollution risk to the health of our waters, our shellfish beaches, and the groundwater we drink.

Public input is essential in helping us update the permit with meaningful protection for water quality that is manageable for livestock producers to implement.

At the moment, the permit is a preliminary draft. This is a step we added to the process so that we could share our goals and initial thoughts and receive feedback before starting to write the permit.

CAFO permit is important to many
As you can imagine, this permit update is important to a lot of people. That’s why we’ve spent months meeting with livestock producers, dairies, businesses, environmental organizations and other stakeholders to learn what’s important to them and understand how they’d like to see the permit crafted.

Thousands of pages of comments
We received 91 letters signed by 168 people and groups, amounting to about 5,000 pages of comments and material. We’re reading through all of it, and will use it to inform our decisions as we develop the next permit draft.

We value the agriculture and dairy industries
One of our guiding principles throughout this process is believing that Washington’s agriculture and dairy industries are vitally important to our state. At the same time, we also believe that livestock, agriculture and clean water can co-exist and even thrive together.




Agriculture and dairy industries are vitally important to our state.

Working to avoid impacts on small dairies
We understand that dairies, especially small and medium-sized dairies, are under tremendous competitive pressure. The trend in the dairy industry has been toward fewer but larger dairies. As we update the permit, we are committed to doing what we can to mitigate the impact on small dairies.

Partnering with Department of Agriculture
Today, the Washington Department of Agriculture and Ecology both have roles in overseeing animal agriculture. Both agencies believe that the current regulatory framework should continue as it is, but that it can be improved for better water quality protections. The Department of Agriculture will continue to play an important role as we update the permit.

Concerns shared with us
Here is a sampling of concerns we received:

• Requiring a permit for all producers with unlined lagoons is not necessary or warranted. Others believe permits should be required for all medium and large CAFOs. 
• This permit should not be required unless the producer is proven to be causing pollution.
• The current dairy nutrient management program protects water quality. Others believe it does not protect waters. 
• The proposed permit is Ecology’s attempt to bring the regulation of dairies back under their control. 
• The proposed permit needlessly adds regulatory burdens for little or no environmental benefit. Others believe environmental protections in the proposed permit are inadequate and need to be made significantly more protective.

Responding to some of the concerns
We appreciate the opportunity during this stage of the permit process to hear, share and respond to concerns that we have received. Two areas we wanted to respond to directly are the role of a permit and the pace for changes at facilities when a new permit goes into effect.

1. Permit coverage does not automatically mean an operation is polluting. 
Comments we received through the preliminary draft suggest that some perceive coverage under a CAFO permit means they have polluted. Both state and federal law require a water quality discharge permit for a discharge that reaches water or groundwater. They are not required because pollution is happening.

Our preliminary draft permit concluded that unlined manure lagoons seep and that seepage results in discharges to groundwater. Having CAFO permit coverage feels new for livestock operations, but the requirement to have a permit due to a discharge to water is not unique. In fact, more than 6,000 industries in Washington have to have discharge permits.

2. Permit coverage would not require changes to manure lagoons.
Under our preliminary proposal, all operations with manure lagoons would need to obtain CAFO permit coverage. However, we are not requiring lagoons to be retrofitted with synthetic liners during the permit term. There are prudent reasons for operations to consider modernizing their manure lagoon liners, but that would be a decision for the producer.

We’ll incorporate your feedback as we update the draft permit
We are still receiving comments, but we already know we have more work to do in a few areas, including:

• When and why a CAFO permit is required
• Addressing rainfall differences between eastern and western Washington
• Manure and soil sampling requirements
• Manure application restrictions and buffers

We are keeping an open mind 
The comments we received raised a lot of great questions and points. We are keeping an open mind as we update the permit. There will be another public comment period on a draft permit in the coming months. We look forward to continuing our dialogue with all who are touched by this permit.

We invite you to visit our website to see all of the comments we received.

Cleaning up: Bacteria to the rescue? A pilot study may tell us

Boeing Auburn groundwater
contamination plume

By Neal Hines and Robin Harrover
Co-managers, Boeing Auburn cleanup site

Ecology is overseeing a study by The Boeing Company and its contractor to see whether a process called bioremediation might be an effective part of cleaning up contaminated groundwater in Algona and Auburn.

Water that flows under the ground through the soil beneath parts of the two cities is contaminated with a solvent called trichloroethene (TCE), also called trichloroethylene, and its breakdown products. It is believed that these chemicals originated from the Boeing Auburn facility between the 1960s and 1980s. The contaminated groundwater, called a plume, flows north and northwest away from the Boeing property into portions of southwest Auburn and northeast Algona. The plume extends just over a mile from Boeing’s property.

A microbial feast – at first

A technician injects "feed" for natural soil bacteria.

The study is taking place in Algona’s commercial district. Technicians inject a non-toxic, food-grade solution into specially installed groundwater wells. Doing this usually increases the population of naturally occurring microbes in the soil. Some of these microscopic organisms can consume the chemicals that contaminate the groundwater.

This process eventually breaks down the contaminants into simpler, less toxic, compounds.  Groundwater will be sampled downstream from the injection wells. The results will indicate whether this cleanup method can work for this site.

Can it work here?

Bioremediation is a proven cleanup method, but usually where TCE and its breakdown products are at very high levels; easy pickings for the microbes, if you will. In fact, Boeing used this technology to clean up a highly contaminated area on its property in 2004 and 2005.

Microbe candy smells a bit like oranges.

The plume of groundwater contamination in Algona and Auburn outside of Boeing’s property contains very low levels of the chemicals involved. This pilot study will help Ecology evaluate whether bioremediation can work with contaminants at such low concentrations.

A step toward cleanup

The pilot study is part of a larger process to evaluate the feasibility of cleanup options for the plume. And, the plume itself has been under study since 2002 to determine the full extent of its location and depth. All of this will help Ecology propose a final cleanup plan for the plume, expected in 2017.

To learn more about this cleanup, please visit our website

Protect Your Groundwater Day is Sept. 8

by Lynne Geller, communications and outreach, Water Resources Program

Amidst all the holidays on your calendar, be sure not to overlook September 8: Protect Your Groundwater Day. Since we don’t see it (groundwater is water under the ground), it can be easy to overlook. But did you know that 99 percent of all available freshwater comes from aquifers underground?

It is not overstating to say that protecting our groundwater is essential to the health and well-being of people and the environment. If there is one thing our statewide drought is teaching us, it is not to take water for granted. Being a good steward of groundwater, every day, just makes sense.

And in case you need more reasons to care about groundwater:

• Most surface water bodies are connected to groundwater, so your impacts on groundwater can have far-reaching effects. By late summer, most of the water we see in streams is from groundwater.
• Many public water systems draw all or part of their supply from groundwater, so protecting the resource protects the public water supply and impacts treatment costs.
• If you own a well to provide water for your family, farm, or business, groundwater protection is doubly important. As a well owner, you are the manager of your own water system. Protecting groundwater will help reduce risks to your water supply.

 

The two sides of groundwater protection

There are two fundamental approaches to protecting our groundwater. We can all help maintain its quality and quantity by:

• Keeping it safe from contamination (water quality)
• Using it wisely by not wasting it (water quantity).

How we contribute to groundwater contamination

Human activities can pollute groundwater, and this is where each of us can help protect it. This pollution is preventable with proper care. Some of the most common culprits of groundwater contamination include:

1. Improper use of fertilizers, animal manures and pesticides
2. Improperly built or poorly located and/or maintained septic systems
3. Leaking or abandoned underground storage tanks
4. Improperly abandoned water wells
5. Stormwater drains that discharge chemicals to groundwater
6. Improper disposal of hazardous household wastes

Some contaminants are naturally occurring in the environment and therefore are naturally found in groundwater. These must be addressed through water treatment rather than groundwater protection.

What well owners can do to protect groundwater

There are 5 key strategies that you can start today that will protect your family, neighbors and community from contaminated groundwater.

1. Maintain your well
2. Test your water
3. Get a properly constructed well system
4. Use property best practices
5. Assess and respond to impacts from natural disasters.

Ecology manages well construction, licensing and reporting statewide. Another great resource for well owners is here.

 

Conserve water -- don’t waste it

Household leaks can waste more than
1 trillion gallons annually nationwide. 

ECOconnect blogs have been covering water conservation practices and ideas for a while now. So for this article, let’s approach water conservation in a slightly different way.

1. Especially with Washington’s 2015 drought, we are all becoming more aware of how important it is to use water wisely. But how do you know if you are doing a good or a poor job of not wasting water? Give your home water use a closer look by using a water calculator. It just takes a minute or two.

2. Look at your results, particularly in the areas of intensive water  use in your household, such as the bathroom or outdoor water use. (Bathroom water uses make up an average of ¾ of all indoor water use.) Where do you use water the most? Understanding this can provide hints on where the most water can be conserved. The internet is full of good tips.

3. Also consider whether you can save on consumption by installing a water-saving appliance or fixture, particularly in areas of the most intensive water use. Choose products that are water and energy efficient such as those designated by the U.S. EPA’s Water Sense program.

 

Ecology's mission to protect water supplies

Managing our water is one of the biggest challenges of the 21st century. One of Ecology’s priorities is to protect our water supplies, which we work on diligently and energetically day in and day out. A close look at the many activities we are involved with can be found throughout our website, including:

Protecting our water supplies with links to varied water topics including drought, water supply, and shorelands management

Groundwater is one of Washington’s most vital natural resources with links to all things groundwater including groundwater use, quality, and assessment and data

Groundwater assessment with links to our groundwater data system, and publications and technical resources.

So on this day, September 8

Protect Your Groundwater Day may not have all the bells and whistles of Thanksgiving or the December holidays. But groundwater is essential to our lives. The National Groundwater Association encourages you to use Sept. 8 to begin doing your part for protecting one of our most important natural resources. ACT: acknowledge, consider, and take action.