Resolution 3528 - Laserfiche WebLink

regularly (DEIS, App. C -Surface Water, pp 2-10 & 2-16). • The Decision Document includes the following requirement: Boeing's existing operational procedures in on-site drainage basins include regular monitoring, inspection and cleanout of oil/water separators, catch basins and biofiltration systems. Boeing shall continue these or equivalent operational procedures to maintain effectiveness of separators, basins and systems (Decision Document, pg 14). Conclusions: • Because all fueling stations drain into the Powder Mill Gulch Surface Water Treatment System, water quality monitoring is more important for this basin. A water quality monitoring program is required to be provided by Boeing and approved by the City prior to occupancy of any new structure located in the area draining to the main fork of Powder Mill Gulch. Monitoring at the outfall of the peat filter system and at the outfall of the created wetlands is required (Decision Document: General Mitigation (4) Surface Water, pg 14). • Other on-site water quality controls have been previously constructed, and additional water quality controls have been required in the Decision Document. These controls, in conjunction with the sand peat filter system provide state-of-the-art water quality controls in the Powder Mill Creek drainage basin. • The design criteria for discharge from the sand peat filter is 10 to 15 times more stringent for fuel and oil than State water quality standards (see DEIS, App. C -Surface Water, pg 1-17). • The water quality monitoring program includes a contingency requirement. If the design criteria for the peat filter is not met, Boeing must identify the source of pollutants and remedial options. The City must approve a remediation plan and it must be implemented by Boeing (Decision Document: General Mitigation (4) Surface Water, C 2 & 3, pg 14). These requirements insure that any foreseen water quality problems will be corrected. • Boeing has established operational procedures which include an extremely aggressive, regular and effective level of maintenance of on-site water quality systems. The Decision Document requires that these or equivalent operational procedures be used to continuously maintain the effectiveness of on-site water quality systems. • Appellants have not demonstrated that the decision of the Responsible Official is unreasonable. 13