HomeMy WebLinkAboutD'Amico, Joseph /Fort Discovery Settlement - 030321SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
AND RELEASE
March 1, 2021 Version SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE
Page 1 of 21
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE
This Agreement is made between Settling Parties. (All terms in bold in this Agreement are
defined in Section 2.4, below.)
1 RECITALS
1.1 WHEREAS, since 2017, Jefferson County and its Related Persons have
received over 170 Public Records Act requests from D'Amico and his Related Persons;
1.2 WHEREAS, some of the pending Public Records Act requests from D'Amico
and his Related Persons will take many years to complete;
1.3 WHEREAS, responding to the pending Public Records Act requests from
D'Amico and his Related Persons require the commitment of significant public resources from
Jefferson County and its Related Persons;
1.4 WHEREAS, material terms of this Agreement require withdrawal of all pending
Public Records Act requests from D'Amico and his Related Persons, a five-year moratorium
on new Public Records Act requests from D'Amico and his Related Persons, and other
protections that likely will conserve valuable public resources;
1.5 WHEREAS, since 2018, Jefferson County and its Related Persons have been
sued by D'Amico, FDC or SSNW in at least eight lawsuits, several with appeals;
1.6 WHEREAS, the Washington Counties Risk Pool has defended Jefferson
County and its Related Persons a number of the lawsuits filed by D'Amico, FDC or SSNW
since 2018;
1.7 WHEREAS, the Washington Counties Risk Pool and Jefferson County have
expended significant public resources defending Jefferson County and its Related Persons in
the lawsuits filed by D'Amico, FDC or SSNW since 2018;
1.8 WHEREAS, material terms of this Agreement require a release from Past
Lawsuits brought by Settling Plaintiffs and a dismissal with prejudice that will minimize the
potential risks of Lawsuit and conserve valuable public resources;
1.9 WHEREAS, this Agreement will serve to bring FDC into compliance with the
Jefferson County Code at its Cedar Hills property, located in Quilcene, Washington;
1.10 WHEREAS, Settling Parties desire to avoid the cost of additional attorney's fees
and expenses associated with Past Public Records Act Requests, Past Claims and Past
Lawsuits;
1.11 WHEREFORE, Settling Parties hereby agree to the terms and conditions in this
Agreement;
March 1, 2021 Version SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE
Page 2 of 21
1.12 NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises and obligations
in this Agreement and pursuant to the material terms of settlement reached between Settling
Parties and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which
Settling Parties hereby acknowledge, Settling Parties agree to the following terms and agree to
be bound by the terms and conditions in this Agreement.
2 TERMS OF THIS AGREEMENT
2.1 Parties Bound.
This Agreement applies to and is binding upon, and inures to the benefit of each of the Settling
Parties and their Related Persons. The persons signing this Agreement on behalf of Settling
Parties certify that they are fully authorized to enter into the terms and conditions of this
Agreement and to execute this Agreement.
2.2 Effective Date.
This Agreement is effective on the date the last Settling Party executes this Agreement or 30
days after the last Settling Plaintiff executes this Agreement, whichever is earlier.
2.3 Purpose of this Agreement.
The purpose of this Agreement is to resolve the disputes between Settling Parties regarding the
matters released in Section 2.6.
2.4 Definitions.
2.4.1 Words used in this Agreement are to be taken and understood in their natural and
ordinary sense Words not defined in this request are meant to have their usual and ordinary
meaning in the context used and as defined in the Dictionary by Merriam -Webster
(https://www.merriam-webster.com/), unless this Agreement indicates that a different meaning
was intended. Whenever the following terms are used in this Agreement (including, without
limitation, this Section 2.4), the meanings in this Section 2.4 apply.
2.4.2 Singular/Plural: The use of the singular form of a word includes the plural form
and vice versa.
2.4.3 And & Or: "and" means "or" and "or" means "and," so as to make the term
inclusive rather than exclusive.
2.4.4 "Agreement" means this Settlement Agreement and Release.
2.4.5 "Any Alleged Violation of the Public Records Act, includes but is not limited to
failure to respond timely to a Public Records Act Request, failure to reference a proper
exemption, failure to provide a brief explanation, improper redaction, and "silent withholding."
March 1, 2021 Version SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE
Page 3 of 21
2.4.6 "Claim" means any and all damages, attorney's fees, costs and actual or alleged
claim, demand, request, action, duty, right, obligation (including contractual, common law or
statutory), fine, penalty, sanction, liability, action, order, suit, lawsuit or proceeding of every kind
and nature, wherever and whenever occurring, whether at law or in equity, and whether sounding
in tort, contract, equity, nuisance, trespass, negligence, strict liability or any statutory or common
law cause of action, duty or obligation of any sort.
2.4.7 "Cedar Hills" means the property owned by FDC near Tarboo Lake, Washington,
namely Tax Parcel Nos. 801073003 and 801074004, including but not limited to the property
referenced in Paragraph 5.64 of the Complaint, ECF 9 37, pp. 12-14. .
2.4.8 "Chemicals of Concern" means the hazardous substances listed in Section
5.2.2.2 of the Final Site Inspection Report (BATES JeffCo 0030456), the hazardous substances
being remediated pursuant to the Final Award in The Ark Group, LLC, at al. v. Joseph D'Amico,
et al., JAMS Case Reference No. 1160021946 (BATES JeffCo 0076893-901), or the hazardous
substances that are being investigated and remediated at Fort Discovery under the direction of
Ecology.
2.4.9 "Code Compliance" means efforts by Jefferson County to gain compliance with
the Jefferson County Code under Chapter 19 of the Jefferson County Code, or otherwise.
2.4.10 "Complaint" means the Second Amended Complaint filed on July 15, 2020 in
D'Amico, et al. v. Jefferson County, et al., in the United States District Court for the Western
District of Washington, Tacoma Division, No. 3:20-cv-05253-RJB, ECF 437.
2.4.11 "County Gun Range" means the gun range located at 112 Gun Club Road, Port
Townsend, Washington.
2.4.12 "County Gun Range Claim" means the claim by FDC made on or about
December 9, 2020 that the license and operating agreement between Jefferson County and the
Jefferson County Sportsman's Association for the County Gun Range is invalid.
2.4.13 "D'Amico" means:
2.4.13.1 Joseph N. D'Amico, and all his Related Persons; and,
2.4.13.2 Any entity or organization controlled, owned or managed by Joseph N.
D'Amico now or in the future, including but not limited to associations, corporations, limited
liability companies, limited partnerships, or partnerships and whether or not the entity is for
profit or is a non-profit. For the avoidance of doubt this includes the Jefferson County
Accountability Project.
2.4.14 "Ecology" means the State of Washington Department of Ecology.
2.4.15 "Effective Date" means the date set forth in Section 2.2.
March 1, 2021 Version SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE
Page 4 of 21
2.4.16 "Environment" includes, without limitation, air (whether interior or exterior),
atmosphere, land, soil, water, watercourse, body of water, groundwater or, other subsurface
water, or any other physical, chemical, or biotic condition.
2.4.17 "Environmental Claim(s)" means:
2.4.17.1 Any actual or alleged Claim, demand, request, action, duty, right,
obligation (including contractual, common law or statutory), liability, action, order, suit, Lawsuit
or proceeding of every kind and nature, wherever and whenever occurring, whether at law or in
equity, and whether sounding in tort, contract, equity, nuisance, trespass, negligence, strict
liability or any statutory or common law cause of action, duty or obligation of any sort, and
whether made, brought or could have been made or brought, known and unknown, past, present
and future, whether pursued by any person, insurer, corporation, association, governmental
entity, or any other public or private entity, arising out of the alleged contamination of soil and
groundwater at Fort Discovery and based on, arising out of, or relating to Jefferson County or
any or its Related Persons for any alleged or actual acts, omissions or responsibility for
Chemicals of Concern at Fort Discovery;
2.4.17.2 Any actual, alleged or threatened loss, cost or expense arising out of or
relating to the testing for, monitoring, cleanup, removal, containment, treatment, detoxification,
neutralization, investigation, study, prevention, mitigation, restitution, or remediation of
Chemicals of Concern, whether voluntary or involuntary or pursuant to any Environmental
Law, governmental order (consensual or otherwise), decree, judgment, or other compulsion,
whether undertaken by Settling Plaintiffs, Gunstone Family Members or Entities, or by some
other person or entity at the expense of Settling Plaintiffs;
2.4.17.3 Any past, present or future cost or expense to defend, test for, monitor,
clean up, remove, contain, treat, detoxify, neutralize, investigate, study, prevent or in any way
respond to, react to, or assess the effects of actual, alleged or threatened pollution, contamination,
or other injury to the Environment at Fort Discovery from the Chemicals of Concern;
2.4.17.4 The actual, alleged or threatened contamination, concentration, presence,
storage, deposit, leakage, leaching, discharge, dispersal, disposal, spill, release, escape,
transportation or arranging for disposal or transportation of any Chemicals of Concern in, into
or upon the Environment at Fort Discovery; or,
2.4.17.5 Alleged, actual, threatened, or potential loss of natural resources; or
alleged, actual, threatened, or potential damage to, destruction of, diminution in value or loss of
use of any property, whether owned or operated by Settling Plaintiff, Jefferson County or any
of its Related Persons, or some other person or entity, wherever, whenever, and how ever arising
out of or in any way resulting from Chemicals of Concern at Fort Discovery.
2.4.18 "Environmental Laws" means the Clean Air Act, the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act ("Clean Water Act"), the Safe Drinking Water Act ("SDWA"), the Solid Waste
Disposal Act as amended by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act ("RCRA") and the
Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments ("HSWA"), the Comprehensive Environmental
March 1, 2021 Version SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE
Page 5 of 21
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act ("CERCLA"), the Toxic Substances Control Act
("TSCA"), the Occupational Safety and Health Act ("OSHA"), the Washington Model Toxic
Substances Control Act ("MTCA") or any other federal, state, or local acts, statutes, laws,
ordinances or regulations governing or otherwise related to the protection or control of the
Environment at Fort Discovery, as the same have been or may be enacted, amended or
repealed.
2.4.19 "Facebook" means Facebook, Inc., the company named as a defendant in
D'Amico v. Facebook, Inc. in the Superior court of Washington for Clallam County, Case No.
No. 19-2-00645-05.
2.4.20 "FDC" means Fort Discovery Corporation (UBI No. 603 022 614) and all its
Related Persons.
2.4.21 "Final Site Inspection Report" means the Final Site Inspection Report Security
Services Northwest Gardiner, Jefferson County, Washington TDD: 08-03-0007 prepared by
TechLaw for the United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10, dated September
2008 (BATES JeffCo 0030434-540).
2.4.22 "Fort Discovery" means any parcel of real property owned by the any Gunstone
Family Members or Entities where any Settling Plaintiff operated in or near Gardiner,
Washington, including but not limited to the property described in paragraph i)(iii) of the petition
for review (BATES JeffCo 0029897) filed on February 7, 2009 in Security Services Northwest,
Inc. v. Jefferson County, in the Washington Superior Court for Kitsap County, Case No. 07-02-
093438-8.
2.4.23 "Fort Discovery Gun Range" means any of the gun ranges built or used by
D'Amico, FDC, or SSNW at Fort Discovery. For the avoidance of doubt, "Fort Discovery
Gun Range" does not include property owned by the Makah Nation, where one or more Settling
Plaintiff once operated a gun range.
2.4.24 "Fort Discovery Gun Range Claim" means the Environmental Claim made by
FDC to Jefferson County on or about December 3, 2020 by letter from Greg Overstreet with a
filled -in tort claim form.
2.4.25 "Future Lawsuits" means any matters a brought by any Settling Plaintiff before
any court, administrative agency, or arbitration proceedings against any Settling Defendant or its
Related Persons after the Effective Date.
2.4.26 "Future Public Records Act Requests" means any Public Records Act request
made after the Effective Date by a Settling Plaintiff to Jefferson County or any of its Related
Persons.
2.4.27 "Gunstone Family Members or Entities" means:
2.4.27.1 Reed C. Gunstone, Sr.;
March 1, 2021 Version SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE
Page 6 of 21
2.4.27.2 Renae D. Gunstone-White;
2.4.27.3 Kristen Gunstone-White;
2.4.27.4 The Estate of Charles Gunstone, Jr.;
2.4.27.5 The Estate of Irene Gunstone;
2.4.27.6 The Ark Group, LLC (UBI No. 602 039 379);
2.4.27.7 AR United, LLC (604 119 722);
2.4.27.8 Bay Mountain Timber Partnership;
2.4.27.9 Country Girl Enterprises;
2.4.27.10 Discovery Bay Land Company (UBI No. 601 421 466);
2.4.27.11 Farmhouse Landing, LLC (UBI No. 603 524 591);
2.4.27.12 Hill Timber Partnership;
2.4.27.13 The KRA Group, LLC (UBI No. 601 678 337);
2.4.27.14 J & G Gunstone Clams, Inc. (UBI No. 601 357 389);
2.4.27.15 North Slope Tree Farm, LLC (UBI No. 602 565 156);
2.4.27.16 Quinty Point, LLC (UBI No. 604 012 651);
2.4.27.17 Any other person who is a descendent of Charles Gunstone, Jr. and Irene
Gunstone; and,
2.4.27.18 Any entity or organization controlled by any descendent of Charles
Gunstone, Jr. and Irene Gunstone.
2.4.28 "Jefferson County" means Jefferson County Washington and all its Related
Persons. For the avoidance of doubt, "Jefferson County" includes but is not limited to the
Jefferson County Department of Community Development, the Jefferson County Prosecuting
Attorney's Office, the Jefferson County Sheriff's Office, the Jefferson County Public Records
Act Administrator and the Jefferson County Public Records Act Officer.
2.4.29 "JC Facebook Page" means the Facebook page/news site that D'Amico set up,
authored, or managed.
2.4.30 "Jefferson County Accountability Project" means the pro-bono legal project
sponsored by D'Amico and advertised on the JC Facebook Page.
2.4.31 "Lawsuit" a proceeding before any court, administrative agency, or arbitration
panel.
March 1, 2021 Version SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE
Page 7 of 21
2.4.32 "Past Claims" means any and all Claims that Settling Plaintiffs had on the
Effective Date against any Settling Defendant or any of its Related Persons, including but not
limited to any known claims, any unknown claims and any known claims with unknown effects.
For the avoidance of doubt, Past Claims includes all Past Lawsuits, the County Gun Range
Claim, the Fort Discovery Gun Range Claim, and any Past Public Records Act Claims.
2.4.33 "Past Lawsuits" means any and all Lawsuits brought by any Settling Plaintiff
against any Settling Defendant or any of its Related Persons on or before the Effective Date
and includes but is not limited to the following Lawsuits:
2.4.33.1 D'Amico v. Jefferson County, Clallam County Superior Court, Case No.
18-2-00349-05 (Kler Email, filed 4/10/2018);
2.4.33.2 D'Amico v. Jefferson County, Clallam County Superior Court, Case No.
18-2-00399-05 (Stanko/Gebo Emails, filed 4/26/2018);
2.4.33.3 D'Amico v. Jefferson County, Clallam County Superior Court, Case No.
18-2-00584-05 (Lorecki, filed 6/21/2018);
2.4.33.4 D'Amico v. Jefferson County, in the Clallam County Superior Court, Case
No. 18-2-00815-05 (Stanko Cell Phone, filed 8/14/2018);
2.4.33.5 Fort Discovery Corp. v. Patty Charnas, Jefferson County Superior Court,
Case No. 18-2-00245-16 (Mandamus, filed 10/18/2018);
2.4.33.6 D'Amico, et al. v. Jefferson County, et al., in the United States District
Court for the Western District of Washington, Tacoma Division, Case No. 3:20-cv-05253-RJB
(Federal Case, filed 3/16/2020); and,
2.4.33.7 D'Amico v. Jefferson County, Clallam County Superior Court, Case No.
20-2-00477-05 (Special DPA, filed 8/20/2020).
2.4.34 "Past Public Records Act Claims" means any Claims that could be made against
Jefferson County or any of its Related Persons as of the Effective Date for Any Alleged
Violation of the Public Records Act for Past Public Records Act Requests.
2.4.35 "Past Public Records Act Requests" means any Public Records Act request
made on or before the Effective Date by a Settling Plaintiff to Jefferson County or any of its
Related Persons.
2.4.36 "Public Records Act" means Chapter 42.56 RCW.
2.4.37 "Related Persons" means a Settling Party's assigns, attorneys, administrators,
departments, employees, executors, heirs, insurers, marital communities, officers (including
elected and appointed officers), officials, personal representatives, successors, subrogees,
trustees, and volunteers, including each of their agents, representatives, and attorneys.
March 1, 2021 Version SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE
Page 8 of 21
2.4.38 "Release" means to waive, abandon, relinquish, discharge any rights, Claims,
causes of action, Lawsuits, suits, or actions, of any sort, from now until the end of time.
2.4.39 "Settlement Payment" means the payment required by Section 2.5.
2.4.40 "Settling Defendant" means one of the Settling Defendants.
2.4.41 "Settling Defendants" means Jefferson County and every other defendant
named in the Complaint and their Related Persons.
2.4.42 "Settling Party" means one of the Settling Parties.
2.4.43 "Settling Parties" means, the Settling Defendants and the Settling Plaintiffs,
collectively.
2.4.44 "Settling Plaintiff" means one of the Settling Plaintiffs.
2.4.45 "Settling Plaintiffs" means D'Amico, FDC, and SSNW and their Related
Persons.
2.4.46 "SSNW" means Security Services Northwest, Inc. (UBI No. 601 622 656) and all
its Related Persons. For the avoidance of doubt, SSNW includes but is not limited to the
following predecessor businesses of SSNW: Security Services of Jefferson County, Security
Services of Jefferson and Clallam Counties, and Security Services.
2.5 Settlement Payment.
2.5.1 Within 10 days of the Effective Date, Settling Party's counsel will notify
Jefferson County's counsel in writing which of the Settling Plaintiffs are to receive any part of
the Settlement Payment, and the share thereof (with the total shares not to exceed the total
amount of the Settlement Payment).
2.5.2 Within 30 days of the Effective Date and after Setting Plaintiffs have provided
Jefferson County an IRS form W-9 for each Settling Plaintiff receiving any part of the
Settlement Payment, Jefferson County will pay to Settling Plaintiffs the settlement amount of
$275,000.00 (two hundred, seventy-five thousand dollars and no cents).
2.5.3 Settling Parties deem one-half of the Settlement Payment is for the peace
bought in this Agreement by Jefferson County and all its Related Persons from future Claims
by Settling Plaintiffs.
2.6 Release.
Settling Plaintiffs, on their own behalf and on behalf of their Related Persons, hereby Release
all Settling Defendants and their Related Persons from the Past Claims and the
Environmental Claim(s). This Release does not apply to any Settling Defendant's Related
March 1, 2021 Version SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE
Page 9 of 21
Persons for Claims or Lawsuits that arise out of the operation of businesses or other enterprises
that are unrelated to their employment at Jefferson County.
2.7 Known and Unknown Claims Release and Waiver.
2.7.1 With respect to the release given in Section 2.6 for Past Claims, Setting
Plaintiffs expressly, knowingly, and voluntarily Release any known or unknown
consequences of the Past Claims being released.
2.7.2 With respect to the release given in Section 2.6 for Environmental
Claim(s), Setting Plaintiffs expressly, knowingly, and voluntarily Release any known or
unknown Environmental Claim(s) and known or unknown consequences of the
Environmental Claim(s) being released.
2.7.3 With respect to the releases given in Section 2.6, Setting Plaintiffs
expressly, knowingly, and voluntarily waive and relinquish any and all rights that they
may have under any state or federal statute or case law that protects a settling party from
releasing claims which the settling party does not know or suspect to exist in the settling
parry's favor at the time of executing the release, which if known by the settling parry
must have materially affected the settlement.
2.7.4 Setting Plaintiffs understand and acknowledge the significance and potential
consequences of the Known and Unknown Release and Waiver and hereby assume the risk of
any changed circumstances or facts concerning the Known and Unknown Release and Waiver in
this Section 2.7. Setting Plaintiffs expressly acknowledge and agree that the Known and
Unknown Release and Waiver extends to any claims concerning the specific matters being
released in Section 2.6, whether or not Setting Plaintiffs knew or should have known about such
claims or the possibility of such claims at the time that Setting Plaintiffs executed this
Agreement.
2.8 Stipulated Order of Dismissal or Termination of Appeal.
Within 10 days of Setting Plaintiffs' receipt of the Settlement Payment, Setting Plaintiffs will
promptly sign and Jefferson County will cause to be entered a stipulated order of dismissal of
all claims in all the Lawsuits with prejudice and without costs or fees, unless a dismissal with
prejudice already has been entered or the Lawsuit is on appeal on the Effective Date. For any
Lawsuit on appeal on the Effective Date, Settling Plaintiffs will take all steps necessary to
terminate the appeal within 10 days of Settling Plaintiffs receipt of the Settlement Payment.
2.9 Withdrawal of All Past Public Records Requests.
Setting Plaintiffs acknowledge and agree that they hereby withdraw immediately and without
limitation any and all Past Public Records Requests. Setting Plaintiffs also hereby
acknowledge and agree that this Agreement constitutes a knowing and voluntary waiver of any
right to obtain such records from Jefferson County or any of its Related Persons. For the
avoidance of doubt, the withdrawal of public records requests required by this Section 2.9
March 1, 2021 Version SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE
Page 10 of 21
includes but is not limited to all Past Public Records Act Requests made to Jefferson County
or any of its Related Persons by D'Amico and Greg Overstreet.
2.10 Future Public Records Act Requests.
2.10.1 Moratorium on Public Records Requests for 5 Years.
Setting Plaintiffs offered as a part of the consideration for this settlement not to make any
Public Records Act Request to any Jefferson County or any of its Related Persons for five
years from the Effective Date. Accordingly, Setting Plaintiffs will not make any Public
Records Act Request to Jefferson County or any of its Related Persons for five years from the
Effective Date. Setting Plaintiffs also agree that the promise they made in this Section 2.10.1 is
a material term of this Agreement and that damages are not an adequate remedy for Jefferson
County or any of its Related Persons. Accordingly, Setting Plaintiffs also agrees that this
Section 2.10.1 is enforceable by specific performance.
2.10.2 No Attorney's Fees for Five Years.
Should any court refuse to enforce Section 2.10.1 by specific performance or otherwise, Settling
Plaintiffs agree not to seek attorney's fees in any Lawsuit filed by them under related to any
Public Records Act Request made to any Settling Defendant within five years from the
Effective Date.
2.10.3 Court Refusal to Enforce Section 2.10.2.
Should any court refuse to enforce Section 2.10.2. Settling Plaintiffs agree to limit any claim for
attorney's fees claim to $100.00 in any Lawsuit filed by them related to any Public Records Act
Request made to Jefferson County or any of its Related Persons within five years from the
Effective Date.
2.10.4 No Fines for Five Years.
Should any court refuse to enforce Section 2.10.1 by specific performance or otherwise, Settling
Plaintiffs agree not to seek any fines in any Lawsuit filed by them under related to any Public
Records Act Request made to Jefferson County or any of its Related Persons within five
years from the Effective Date.
2.10.5 Court Refusal to Enforce Section 2.10.4.
Should any court refuse to enforce Section 2.10.4, Settling Plaintiffs agree to limit any claim
fines to $100.00 in any Lawsuit filed by them related to any Public Records Act Request made
to Jefferson County or any of its Related Persons within five years from the Effective Date.
March 1, 2021 Version SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE
Page 11 of 21
2.11 Alternative Dispute Resolution.
2.11.1 Jefferson County and the Settling Plaintiffs agree to use their best efforts to
prevent and resolve any disputes arising after the Effective Date before they escalate into future
Claims or Future Lawsuits.
2.11.2 After using best efforts to prevent and resolve any disputes after the Effective
Date that involve any code compliance by Jefferson County against a Settling Plaintiff
pursuant to Title 19 of the Jefferson County Code as required by Section 2.11.1, Jefferson
County and that Settling Plaintiff will follow the processes in Title 19 of the Jefferson County
Code.
2.11.3 Instead of bringing any Future Lawsuit against Jefferson County or any of its
officers, officials, employees, agents or volunteers (or their marital communities), a Settling
Plaintiff must submit the dispute in writing within 10 business days to the Jefferson County Risk
Manager, whose decision in the matter will be final for Jefferson County, but which either
Settling Party can submit to binding arbitration pursuant to Section 2.11.4.
2.11.4 If a dispute brought by a Settling Plaintiff cannot be resolved pursuant to Section
2.11.3, within fifteen (15) business days after the referral required by Section 2.11.3, then either
Settling Party may submit the dispute to binding arbitration to take place in Port Townsend, WA
or other location to which the Settling Parties agree before a single arbitrator. The Settling
Parties will agree upon the single arbitrator within 30 business days after the referral required by
Section 2.11.3. If the Settling Parties cannot agree on a single arbitrator within 30 business days
after the referral required by Section 2.11.3, then Judicial Dispute Resolution, LLC will choose
the arbitrator. For the avoidance of doubt, Sections 2.11.3, 2.11.4, and 2.11.5 apply to Any
Alleged Violation of the Public Records Act by Jefferson County or any of its Related
Persons.
2.11.5 In the binding arbitration pursuant to Section 2.11.4:
2.11.5.1 No discovery is be allowed;
2.11.5.2 No punitive damages can be awarded; and,
2.11.5.3 Each parry in such action will bear the cost of its own attorney's fees and
court costs.
2.12 Claw Back of One -Half Settlement Pavment for Failure to Comply with
Section 2.10 or Section 2.11.
D'Amico, on behalf of Settling Plaintiffs, agrees to pay to Jefferson County one-half of the
Settlement Payment for any failure or any inability of any Settling Plaintiff to comply with
Section 2.10 or Section 2.11.
March 1, 2021 Version SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE
Page 12 of 21
2.13 Taxes.
Setting Plaintiffs acknowledge and agree that Settling Defendants make no representation as to
any tax consequences arising from the Settlement Payment. Moreover, Setting Plaintiffs
understand and agree that any tax consequences or liability arising from the Settlement Payment
will be their sole responsibility.
2.14 Jefferson County Accountability Proiect.
On the Effective Date, Settling Plaintiffs immediately will cease any advertising on the JC
Facebook Page for Lawsuits to fund against Jefferson County or any of its Related Persons.
Further, Settling Plaintiffs will not fund any Lawsuits against Jefferson County or any of its
Related Persons. However, this Section 2.14 does not limit counsel for Settling Parties' from
representing parties in other cases against Jefferson County or any of its Related Persons.
2.15 Code Enforcement Against FDC.
2.15.1 FDC acknowledges and agrees it is responsible to bring its Cedar Hills Property
into compliance for all the violations of the Jefferson County Code detailed in Jefferson
County's May 10, 2019 letter (BATES JeffCo 0041969-976). Unless, otherwise agreed pursuant
to Section 2.15.2, this Section 2.15.1 will constitute a voluntary compliance agreement under
Title 19 of the Jefferson County Code and FDC must bring into compliance all violations
detailed in Jefferson County's May 10, 2019 letter (BATES JeffCo 0041969-976) within one-
year of the Effective Date. While FDC is bringing the property into compliance, Jefferson
County shall not to interfere with FDC's access to the Cedar Hills Property.
2.15.2 Regardless of who owns the Cedar Hills Property, no Settling Plaintiff will
operate a commercial shooting facility at the Cedar Hills Property without obtaining permit(s)
for a commercial shooting facility in compliance with Chapter 8.50 and Chapter 18.20 of the
Jefferson County Code. Currently, Chapter 18.20 of the Jefferson County Code prohibits new
outdoor commercial shooting facilities and authorizes indoor commercial shooting facilities in
commercial and industrial zones. For the avoidance of doubt, Jefferson County acknowledges
and agrees that this Section 2.15.2:
2.15.2.1 Does not prohibit FDC from selling the Cedar Hills Property; and,
2.15.2.2 Does not prohibit any Settling Plaintiff to take advantage of any future
changes to Chapter 8.50 or Chapter 18.20 of the Jefferson County Code regarding the
Cedar Hills Property. The Settling Parties agree that this Section 2.15.2 may be
enforced by specific performance.
2.15.3 FDC agrees to enter into a separate voluntary compliance agreement with
Jefferson County, consistent with the requirements of Title 19 of the Jefferson County Code,
within 90 days of the Effective Date to address all the violations of the Jefferson County Code
detailed in Jefferson County's May 10, 2019 letter (BATES JeffCo 0041969 -976). A voluntary
March 1, 2021 Version SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE
Page 13 of 21
compliance agreement pursuant to this Section 2.15.3 may allow up to two years from the
Effective Date to complete the entire voluntary compliance effort.
2.15.4 FDC agrees that Section 2.15.1 constitutes a valid voluntary compliance
agreement under Title 19 of the Jefferson County Code if FDC has not entered into a separate
voluntary compliance agreement with Jefferson County within 90 days of the Effective Date, as
agreed in Section 2.15.3. FDC also agrees that a notice to title of all the violations of the
Jefferson County Code detailed in Jefferson County's May 10, 2019 letter (BATES JeffCo
0041969 -976) may be recorded by Jefferson County on the Cedar Hills property, if FDC does
not enter into a separate voluntary compliance agreement per this Section 2.15.4.
2.16 Investigation and Remediation of the Chemicals of Concern at Fort
Discovery.
2.16.1 FDC and SSNW agree, jointly and severally, to assume any share of the costs of
investigation or remediation of any Chemicals of Concern allocated against Jefferson County
or any of its Related Persons in any Environmental Claim(s);
2.16.2 FDC and SSNW agree, jointly and severally, to hold harmless and indemnify
Jefferson County or any of its Related Persons for any share any share of the costs of
investigation or remediation of any Chemicals of Concern allocated against Jefferson County
or any of its Related Persons in any Environmental Claim(s).
2.16.3 FDC and SSNW agree, jointly and severally, to pay any attorney's fees and costs
awarded against Jefferson County or any of its Related Persons in any Future Lawsuit based
in whole or in part on any Environmental Claim.
2.16.4 Jefferson County will take no action to cause Settling Plaintiffs or any of their
Related Persons to incur any liability to any third party relating to the investigation or
remediating the Chemicals of Concern.
2.16.5 Settling Plaintiffs will take no action to cause Jefferson County or any of its
Related Persons to incur any obligation to investigate or remediate the Chemicals of Concern.
2.16.6 FDC and SSNW agree, jointly and severally, to reimburse Jefferson County and
any of its Related Persons for any additional costs of complying with any directive by Ecology
or that increases the cost of performing work FDC, Gunstone Family Members or Entities, or
SSNW have undertaken pursuant to the Final Award in The Ark Group, LLC, at al. v. Joseph
D'Amico, et al., JAMS Case Reference No. 1160021946 (BATES JeffCo 0076893-901).
2.17 Non -Disparagement. The Settling Parties understand that this Agreement may
become the subject of a request for public records under the Public Records Act and that
Jefferson County likely would be required to produce it. The Settling Parties agree that if
asked about the settlement, they will respond only by referring any person asking to the terms of
this this Agreement and each Settling Party agrees not to make any Public Negative
Statements or Communications Disparaging the Other Settling Party.
March 1, 2021 Version SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE
Page 14 of 21
2.17.1 For purposes of this Section 2.17: "Public Negative Statements or
Communications Disparaging the Other Settling Party" includes but is not limited to any
remarks, statements, comments or criticisms that disparage, call into disrepute, defame, slander
or that can be reasonably be construed to be derogatory or critical of, or negative toward a party
whether made directly or indirectly, alone or in concert with others, whether orally or in writing,
made to any person who is not a party to this Agreement; and,
2.17.2 The provisions of this Section 2.17 will not be violated by truthful statements
about the settlement in response to legal process, required governmental testimony or Filings, or
administrative or arbitration proceedings (including, without limitation, depositions in
connection with such proceedings).
2.17.3 For the avoidance of doubt, this Section 2.17 does not apply to any comments
other than about this settlement. For example, the provisions of this Section 2.17 will not be
violated if any Plaintiff or Related Parry provides comments regarding proposed legislation or
administrative actions by Jefferson County or any other governmental entity.
2.18 No Admission of Liability.
Settling Plaintiffs agree that this Agreement is not an admission that any Settling
Defendant is liable to any Settling Plaintiff for the Past Claims or Environmental
Claim(s) or has violated any law or failed to fulfill any duty to any Settling Plaintiff.
Settling Defendants specifically deny liability and declare that this settlement is to
secure peace and end further litigation.
3 GENERAL PROVISIONS
3.1 Controlling Law.
It is understood and agreed that this Agreement is entered into in the State of Washington. It is
agreed that this Agreement is be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the
United States and of the State of Washington as if applied to transactions entered into and to be
performed wholly within Washington between Washington residents. No Settling Party may
argue or assert than any law other than Washington law applies to the governance or construction
of this Agreement.
3.2 Attorney's Fees.
Settling Parties will bear their own attorney's fees and costs related to the matters released in
Section 2.6. Further, in the event of any controversy, claim or dispute between any of Settling
Parties arising out of this Agreement, Settling Parties will bear their own attorney's fees and
costs.
3.3 Entire Agreement.
This Agreement, including documents referenced by BATES numbers in this Agreement, is an
integrated agreement and it contains the entire agreement between Settling Parties relating to
March 1, 2021 Version SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE
Page 15 of 21
this subject matter and its terms are contractual, not a mere recital. Except as specifically
provided in this Agreement, this Agreement supersedes all prior or simultaneous
representations, discussions, negotiations, and agreements, whether written or oral. This
Agreement supersedes and controls all prior communications between the Settling Parties or
their representatives relative to the matters contained in this Agreement.
3.4 No Inducements.
Settling Parties acknowledge that there have been no inducements or representations upon
which any of Settling Parties have relied in entering into this Agreement, except as expressly
set forth in this Agreement.
3.5 Third -Party Beneficiaries.
Settling Parties do not intend, and nothing in this Agreement will be construed to mean, that
any provision in this Agreement is for the benefit of any other person or entity who is not a
Settling Party.
3.6 Modification of this Agreement.
This Agreement may be amended or supplemented only by a writing that is signed by duly
authorized representatives of all Settling Parties.
3.7 Effect of Partial Invalidity.
If any term or provision of this Agreement is found to be invalid, in violation of public policy or
unenforceable to any extent, such finding will not invalidate any other term or provision of this
Agreement and such other terms and provisions will continue in full force and effect. Settling
Parties understand, intend, and agree that this Agreement and each of the terms, covenants, and
provisions of this Agreement will be enforced to the greatest extent permitted by law. If any part
of this Agreement is found invalid or unenforceable, that part will be amended to achieve as
nearly as possible the same economic effect as the original provision and the remainder of this
Agreement will remain in full force.
3.8 Signature in Counterparts.
Settling Parties agree that separate copies of this Agreement may be signed by each of Settling
Parties and this Agreement will have the same force and effect as an original signed by all
Settling Parties.
3.9 Facsimile Signatures.
Settling Parties agree that a facsimile, copied, or scanned signature of this Agreement will have
the same force and effect as an original signed by all Settling Parties.
March 1, 2021 Version SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE
Page 16 of 21
3.10 Cooperation.
Settling Parties agree that they will facilitate, in good faith, the effectuation of this Agreement.
3.11 Voluntary Undertaking.
Settling Parties acknowledge that they have read this Agreement and are fully aware of the
contents of this Agreement and its legal effect. This Agreement is entered into voluntarily and
without any coercion by or undue influence on the part of any person, firm, or corporation.
3.12 Investigation and Complete Understanding.
Settling Parties acknowledge that they have made such investigation of the facts pertaining to
this Agreement and all matters contained in this Agreement as they deem necessary, desirable,
or appropriate. Settling Parties expressly understand that the facts later may turn out to be other
than or different from the facts now known or believed to be true. Settling Parties expressly
assume the risk of such different facts and agree that all provisions of this Agreement will
remain in all respects effective and enforceable and not subject to termination or rescission
because of any such different facts.
3.13 Independent Legal Advice and Investigation.
In entering into this Agreement, Settling Parties acknowledge that they have received
independent legal advice from their own counsel and have relied on their own investigation and
upon the advice of their own attorney with respect to the advisability of making the settlement
provided in this Agreement.
3.14 No Oral Waiver.
No term or provision of this Agreement will be considered waived by either Settling Party, and
no breach excused by either Settling Party, unless such waiver or consent is in writing signed on
behalf of the Settling Party against whom the waiver is asserted. No written consent by either
Settling Party to, or waiver of, a breach by either Settling Party, whether express or implied,
will constitute a consent to, waiver of, or excuse of any other, different, or subsequent breach by
either Settling Party.
3.15 Arms -Length Negotiations.
Settling Parties agree that this Agreement has been negotiated at arms -length, with the
assistance and advice of competent, independent legal counsel.
3.16 Joint Drafting Effort.
Settling Parties acknowledge and agree that the drafting of this Agreement has been a joint
effort by Settling Parties and that this Agreement will not be deemed prepared or drafted by any
one of Settling Parties. The terms of this Agreement will be interpreted fairly and in
accordance with their intent and not for or against any one of Settling Parties. Settling Parties
March 1, 2021 Version SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE
Page 17 of 21
further acknowledge and agree that each of Settling Parties possesses equal bargaining power
with respect to this Agreement.
3.17 Admissibility of this Agreement.
Any evidence of the existence, terms or negotiation of this Agreement will be inadmissible in
any Lawsuit between the Settling Parties; provided, however, that such evidence may be
offered in any dispute concerning this Agreement itself and Settling Parties may offer such
evidence in response to any allegation of breach by them. This Agreement has been entered into
in reliance upon the provisions of Washington ER 408 and Rule 408 of the Federal Rules of
Evidence.
3.18 Headings.
The section headings in this Agreement are included as a matter of convenience and are not
intended to and will not be construed as affecting the terms and conditions of this Agreement.
4 REPRESENTATIONS AND WARRANTIES.
The Settling Parties represent and warrant:
4.1 That each is fully authorized to enter into this Agreement;
4.2 That each has taken all necessary actions to duly approve the making and
performance of this Agreement and that no other approval is necessary; and,
4.3 That each has read this Agreement in its entirety and know the contents of this
Agreement, that the terms of this Agreement are contractual and not merely recitals, and that
each has signed this Agreement, having obtained the advice of legal counsel.
(SIGNATURES FOLLOW ON NEXT PAGES)
March 1, 2021 Version SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE
Page 18 of 21
TIDE UNDERSIGNED HAVE READ AND UNDERSTAND THE FOREGOING AND
AGREE TO ITS TERMS:
SETTLING PLAINTIFFS
JC SEPH . D' MICO
oseph N. D' n-11c � - .- ...._.
Date:
FORT DISCOVERY CORP.
SECURITY SERVICES NORTHWEST, INC.
By: t
Date:
Approved as to Form:
Wright Noel, Counsel for Settling Plaintiffs
Date:
March 1, 2021 Version SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE
Page 19 of 21
THE UNDERSIGNED HAVE READ AND UNDERSTAND THE FOREGOING AND
AGREE TO ITS TERMS:
SETTLING PLAINTIFFS
JOSEPH N, D'AMICO
Joseph N. D'Amico
Date:
FORT DISCOVERY CORP.
By: _
Title:
Date:
SECURITY SERVICES NORTHWEST, INC.
By: _
Title:
Date:
Approved as tForm:
Wrig-W Noel, Counsel I'oi ,Settling Plaintiffs
ems_
Date;
March 1, 2021 Version SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE
Page 19 of 21
THE UNDERSIGNED HAVE READ AND UNDERSTAND THE FOREGOING AND
AGREE TO ITS TERMS:
SETTLING DEFENDANTS
JEF C Y, WASHINGTON
htlip Mo unt rator
Date:
GREG BROTHERTON
Greg h6herton
Date: 3/3/2021
KATE WAN
Kat Dean
Date: Z(ZO f--
ROBERT GEBO
Robert Gebo
Date: 3 -2—�
KATHLEEN KLER
Kath e ler
Date:
DAVID STAN 1)
Dm;d Stank-o /
Odle
H IDI EISENHOUR
I
idi isenho lurij
Date:
March 1, 2021 Version SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE
Page 20 of 21
DAVID SU VAN
David Sullivan
Date: 3 Z f
Approved as to Form:
Andrew C. Cooley, Counsel for Settling Defendants
Date:
Philip C. Hunsucker, Chief Civil Deputy Prosecuting
Attorney and Counsel for Jefferson County
Date:
March 1, 2021 Version SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE
Page 21 of 21
DAVID SULLIVAN
David Sullivan
Date:
Approved as to Form:
Amdrew C. C of y, Counsel for Settling Defendants
Date:
v �
Philip C. Hunsucker, Chief Civil Deputy Prosecuting
Attorney and Counsel for Jefferson County
Date: March 1, 2021
March 1, 2021 Version SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE
Page 21 of 21
5oNr°G Donna M. Eldridge
JEFFERSON COUNTY AUDITOR
�4 P.O. BOX 563, PORT TOWNSEND, NVA 98368
15-1 NG E-MAIL: deldridge@co.jelterson.wa.us (360) 385-9118
MEMO
t
E
1
To: Juelie Dalzell, Jefferson County ProsecutiY—Se�curity
ey
From: Donna M. Eldridge, Jefferson County Aud
Date: February 9, 2007
Subj: Summons (20 Days) and Petition for Revi Services Northwest,
Inc.
The attached was received in this office today and is being referred to you,
CC: BOCC
Accounting Elections Licensing Recording FAX
385-91?1 385-9117 JeffCoAQ�9086 385-9116 385-9228
2
3
4
5
6
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
07 FIT - 9 r, (1: 59
I-J i
GE
SUPERIOR COURT OF WASHINGTON FOR KITSAP COUNTY
Security'Services Northwest, Inc., }
Petitioner, }
V. }
}
Jefferson County, )
Respondent. )
TO: JEFFERSON COUNTY,
NO.
SUMMONS .(20 DAYS)
TO THE RESPONDENT: A lawsuit has been started against you in the above -captioned
court by petitioner above -named. Petitioner's claims are stated in the written Land Use Petition,
a copy of which is served upon you with this summons.
In order to defend against this lawsuit, you must respond to the Land Use Petition by
stating your defense in writing, and by serving a copy upon the person signing this summons
within 20 days after the service of this summons, excluding the day of service, or a default
judgment may be entered against you without notice. A default judgment is one where petitioner
is entitled to what has been asked for because you have not responded. If you serve a notice of
appearance on the undersigned person, you are entitled to notice before a default judgment may
be entered.
You may demand that the petitioner file this lawsuit with the court. If you do so, the
demand must be in writing and must be served upon the person signing this summons. Within
14 days after you serve the demand, the petitioner must file this lawsuit with the court, or the
service on you of this summons and Land Use Petition will be void.
If you wish to seek the advice of an attorney in this matter, you should do so promptly so
that your written response, if any, may be served on time.
T 41S SUMMONS is issued pursuant to Rule 4 of the Superior Court Civil Rules Of the
State of Washington.
LAND USE PETITION - 1
1 0336,0012l1267279.1
LANE POWELL PC
14201'IF FH AVENUE, SUITE 4100
SEATT'LE, WASHINGTON "101-2338
206-223-7000 FAX!206-223-7107
JeffCo 0029887
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15 i
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
DATED this day of
LAND USE PETITION - 2
113336.0012I1267279.1
`7 v1 "'"'" - , 2007,
LANE POW
PC
13y
Gle . Amst , l
Attom r Petitioner
JeffCo 0029888
No. 08372
LANE POWELL PC
1420 FUrM AVENUE, SUITE 4100
SEAT1'LF, WASMNOTON 98101-2338
206.223-7000 FAX 206-223-7107
1
2
3
4
51
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17 j
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
01 FEB _3 Ah II: 52
1E EE€�`5' ?. ,. _:1r �;.�17IT0R
SUPERIOR COURT OF WASHINGTON FOR KITSAP COUNTY
Security Services Northwest, Inc., )
Petitioner, ) NO.
V. ) PETITION FOR REVIEW
Jefferson County, }
Respondent. }
Petitioner Security Services Northwest, Inc. ("SSNW") brings this Petition pursuant to
the Land Use Petition Act, RCW ch. 36,70C ("LUPA"), challenging the January 22, 2007
Order in Response to Superior Court Remand (the "Remand Decision") by the Jefferson
County Hearing Examiner, which purports to define the scope and nature of SSNW's land
use as of January 6, 1992,
The Remand Decision should be reversed based on any one of dozens of errors of law
and fact. Among other things, the Remand Decision misconstrues the law governing the use
of land in Washington and, as a result, fails to fulfill the Superior Court's Order on Remand.
The Decision also misconstrues and ignores the testimony and evidence in the record.
a} This Court's Jurisdiction.
This Court has jurisdiction to consider this Petition pursuant to RCW 36.70C.040.
This Petition, which challenges a decision by Jefferson County, is properly brought against
Jefferson County in the Kitsap County Superior Court under RCW 36.01.050.
PETITION FOR REVIEW - I
113336.0012/1355666.1
LANE POWELL Fc
1420 FIFTH AVENUE, SUITE 4100
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 48101-2338
206.223.7000 FAX_ 206.223.7107
JeffCo 0029889
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
b) Name and Mailing_ Address of Petitioner.
Security Services Northwest, Inc.
Post Office Box 660
Port Townsend, Washington 98368
(360) 859-3463
c) Name and Address of Petitioner's Attorneys.
Glenn J. Amster
Lane Powell PC
1420 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4100
Seattle, Washington 98101
(206) 223-7000
d) Ngne and Mailing Address of the Local Jurisdiction Whose Land Use Decision Is at
Issue.
Jefferson County
Jefferson County Courthouse
1820 Jefferson Street
Post Office Box 563
Port Townsend, Washington 98368
e) Identification of the Decision -Making Body. Together With a Duplicate Copy of the
Decision.
On January 10, 2006, the Hearing Examiner for Jefferson County, Iry Berteig, issued
his Findings, Conclusions, and Decision (the "Decision") denying the appeals of SSNW and
affirming three orders issued by the County. SSNW challenged the Decision under LUPA by
filing a Petition for Review in the Kitsap County Superior Court (LUPA I).
On November 1, 2006, the Superior Court entered an Order reversing in part the
Decision and remanding the matter to the Hearing Examiner to determine the "scope and
nature of SSNW's nonconforming use as of January 6, 1992 ...." The Court denied SSNW's
motion for reconsideration on several issues on December 13, 2006.1 Although the Superior
Court did reverse the Hearing Examiner on the critical issue of SSNW's nonconforming use
' For purposes of this Petition, the Superior Court's Order and Order Denying
Reconsideration are referred to together as "Order".
PETITION FOR REVIEW - 2
113336.001 VI338666.1
LANE POWELL Pc
1420 F11rM AVENUE, SUITE 4 100
51AT LF, WASHINGTON 98101-2338
206.223.7000 PAX! 206,223.7107
JeffCo 0029890
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
status, on January 12, 2007, SSNW appealed the Order to the Court of Appeals because,
among other things, the Superior Court incorrectly decided other issues arising from the
Hearing Examiner's Decision, denied SSNW the opportunity to present testimony on remand,
and failed to award SSNW any part of the costs incurred in bringing suit.
In the meantime, and notwithstanding the Court of Appeals' jurisdiction, the Hearing
Examiner, after refusing to accept additional, relevant evidence, issued the Remand Decision,
a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A. SSNW anticipates the decision of the Court
of Appeals will effectively modify, if not nullify, the Remand Decision. Nonetheless, SSNW
is compelled to file this Petition at this time in order to preserve its claims pertaining to the
Remand Decision. 2
f) Identification of Persons to be Made a Pafty Under RCW 36.74C.044C2).
(i) The Remand Decision does not identify the name and address of the owners of
the property at issue. Therefore, no individuals or entities can be made parties under RCW
36.70C.040(2)(b). No individuals or entities can be made parties under RCW
36.70C.040(2)(d) because the Decision does not identify any parties other than SSNW that
appealed the County's orders.
(ii) Pursuant to RCW 36.70C.040(2)(c), the owners of the parcels identified in the
County's three orders are, according to the County Assessor's Office:
The Ark Group LLC
Post Office Box 1226
Sequim, Washington 98382
Charles Gunstone, Jr., and Renae D. Gunstone-White
Post Office Box 216
Port Townsend, Washington 98368
2 By limiting the scope of this Petition to the issues presented in the Remand Decision, SSNW
does not intend to waive its claims of error pertaining to the Superior Court's Order, which
are pending before the Court of Appeals. SSNW expressly reserves any and all claims arising
therefrom.
PETITION FOR REVIEW - 3
113336.0017J1358666.1
LANE POWELL Fc
142G F1FCH AVHNUI , SUM 4100
SEATiL$WASHNGTON 98101-2338
206,223.7000 FAX: 206223.71C7
JeffCo 0029891
1
2
3
4
.5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Charles Gunstone, Jr., and Irene Gunstone
Post Office Box 216
Port Townsend, Washington 98368
Reed Gunstone
Post Office Box 216
Port Townsend, Washington 98368
Discovery Bay Land Company
Post Office Box 216
Port Townsend, Washington 98368
North Slope Tree Farm LLC
Post Office Box 216
Port Townsend, Washington 98368
Bay Mountain Timber Partnership
Post Office Box 216
Port Townsend, Washington 98368
Hill Timber Partnership
Post Office Box 216
Port Townsend, Washington 98368
Reed Gunstone, as trustee of Reed C. Gunstone, Jr.
Post Office Box 216
Port Townsend, Washington 98368
Country Girl Enterprises
313 Hardwick Rd
Sequirn, WA 98382
Kristen Gunstone White
313 Hardwick Rd.
Sequim, WA 98382
Renae D. Gunstone-White
313 Hardwick Rd.
Sequim, WA 98382
g) Facts Demonstrating the Petitioner Has Standing to Seek Judicial Review Pursuant to
RCW 36.70C.060.
(i) SSNW has standing to bring this Petition under RCW 36.70C.060(2), because
SSNW has been "aggrieved or adversely affected by the land use decision... . " The Remand
Decision purports to define SSNW's business activities as of January 6, 1992, despite the
clear and unequivocal evidence demonstrating the noticeably broader nature and scope of its
PETITION FOR REVIEW - 4
113336.0012/1358666.1
LANE POWELL Pc
1420 FIFTH AVENUE, SUM 4100
SEATTIA WASHINOTON 99101.2339
206.223.7000 FAX_ 206.223,7107
JeffCo 0029892
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
2.5
26
land use as of that date. If the Remand Decision is affirmed, SSNW's operations will be
severely and unjustifiably constrained.
(ii) LUPA sets forth the following requirements for a party to be "aggrieved or
adversely affected," and SSNW meets them all in this case: "(a) The land use decision has
prejudiced or is likely to prejudice that person; (b) That person's asserted interests are among
those that the local jurisdiction was required to consider when it made the land use decision;
(c) A judgment in favor of that person would substantially eliminate or redress the prejudice
to that person caused or likely to be caused by the land use decision; and (d) the petitioner has
exhausted his or her administrative remedies to the extent required by law." Id.
Here, (a) the Hearing Examiner's Remand Decision prejudices SSNW because it
would significantly constrain SSNW's ability to continue to conduct business on the Property
despite its having done so with the County's knowledge since 1988; (b) the County was
required to consider SSNW's interests, because SSNW prevailed in the Superior Court, having
convinced the Court of its legal nonconforming use status and, as a result, is the beneficiary of
the Court's remand; (c) a judgment in SSNW s favor reversing Remand Decision in whole or
in part "would substantially eliminate or redress the prejudice to" SSNW; and (d) SSNW
exhausted its administrative remedies before the County.
h) Statement of Errors.
Without waiving a general assignment of error to the entirety of the Remand Decision,
SSNW asserts the following specific assignments of error:
(i) The Hearing Examiner erred in determining that the scope and nature of
SSNW's legal nonconforming land use is confined to the scope and nature of the land use as
of January 6, 1992, without any analysis of whether changes, alterations, expansions, or
intensification in SSNW s land use over the years, if any, were in conflict with the Jefferson
County Code in effect at the time such changes, alterations, expansions or intensifications
occurred.
PETITION FOR REVIEW - 5
113336.0012/1358666,1
LANE POWELL Pc
1420 FIFTH AVEKU$ SUM 4100
SFATI'M WASHINGTON 98101-2338
206223.7000 FAX 206.223.7107
JeffCo 0029893
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26.
(ii) The Hearing Examiner erred in determining that the scope and nature of
SSNW's nonconforming land use as of January 6, 1992, is somehow defined by the number of
employees. (RC-10).
(iii) The Hearing Examiner erred in determining that the scope and geographic
extent of SSNW's nonconforming land use as of January 6, 1992, is confined to the "22-acre
lease area". (RC-11)
(iv) The Hearing Examiner erred in determining that the scope and nature of
SSNW's nonconforming land use as of January 6, 1992, is limited to "only administrative type
non -conforming commercial uses," as described in Remand Conclusion (RC) 7 c & d. (RC-
12).
(v) The Hearing Examiner erred in determining that the scope and nature of
SSNW's nonconforming land use as of January 6, 1992, does not include any weapons or
security training of non- SSNW employees. (RC-13).
(vi) The Hearing Examiner erred in denying SSNW's request to supplement the
record with previously unavailable, significantly relevant evidence.
(vii) The Hearing Examiner erred in Remand Findings (RF) 2 and 4 because he
misconstrues the evidence in the record.
(viii) The Hearing Examiner erred in RF 5; among other things, it erroneously
suggests that the number of }tours worked on site or the work itself is relevant in any way to
the establishment of a nonconforming land use.
(ix) The Hearing Examiner erred in RF 6; among other things, it erroneously
attempts to correct an error in the Decision and, further, states and relies on the incorrect legal
conclusion that "contemporaneous documents as evidence are necessary to justify a
nonconforming use."
PETITION FOR REVIEW - 6
113336.001X1358666.1
LANE POWELL Pc
1420 FWM AVIfi M SUITE 41 OD
SPATTL$ WAS1lI>`lGTON 98101 2338
206.229.700D FAX 206.223.7107
JeffCo 0029894
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
(x) The Hearing Examiner erred in RF 7; among other things, it erroneously
suggests reliance on a customer flier as defining the scope and nature of SSNW's
nonconforming land use.
(xi) The Hearing Examiner erred in RF's 8 - 11 because, among other things, they
(a) inaccurately reflect the evidence in the record; (b) suggest that SSNW employees all
worked full-time; (c) suggest that the number of hours worked by employees defines the
scope and nature. of SSNW's nonconforming land use; and (d) suggest that the number of
employees is inflated.
(xii) The Hearing Examiner erred in RF 13. Among other things, RF 13 relies on
Finding 8 of the Decision, which mistakenly states that Bruce Carver testified that the first
i
firearms training of SSNW employees did not occur until after January 6, 1992 and that off -
duty police officers were not trained at the Property. Finding 8 of the Order and now RF 13
blatantly mischaracterize Mr. Carver's testimony and are not supported by the record.3
(xiii) The Hearing Examiner erred in RF 14 by disregarding evidence in the record.
(xiv) The Hearing Examiner erred in RF 15 by failing to recognize the extensive and
continuous training of employees that were part and parcel of SSNW's land use prior to
January 6, 1992.
(xv) The Hearing Examiner erred in Remand Conclusion (RC) 2 to the extent it
misconstrues the evidence in the record.
(xvi) The Hearing Examiner erred in RC-3; among other things, it erroneously
requires a "contemporaneous document" to establish a nonconforming use and otherwise
3 The Hearing Examiner, of course, neglects the hypocrisy of first having previously "found"
and concluded that "contemporaneous documents as evidence are necessary" and then citing
Mr. Carver's testimony, however incorrectly, to establish a point he wants to make. Aside
from turning Mr. Carver's testimony inside out, he simply ignores all of the other testimony in
the record because it contradicts his preordained conclusions.
PETITION FOR REVIEW - 7
113336.001211359666.1
LANE POWELL Pc
1420 FIFTH AVUNUE, SUM 4I00
SPATTLF, WASaNGTUN 4$101-2338
206.223.7000 PAX: 206.=3.7107
JeffCo 0029895
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
ignores evidence in the record establishing SSNW's nonconforming use outside the portion of
the property subject to the written lease.
(xvii) The Hearing Examiner erred in RCA; among other things, it fails to consider
the extent of services provided to DBLC as evidence of the scope and nature of SSNW's
nonconforming use.
(xviii) The Hearing Examiner erred in RC-5; among other things, it erroneously
attempts to correct an error in the Decision, states and relies on the incorrect legal conclusion
that "contemporaneous documents as evidence are necessary to justify a nonconforming use,"
and suggests that the unrebutted live testimony at the administrative hearing is insufficient to
j justify the scope and nature of SSNW's nonconforming use.
(xix) The Hearing Examiner erred in RC-6; among other things, it erroneously relies
on legal principles that are not relevant to these proceedings and neglects to consider the
affect the passage of time may have on any property owner's ability to provide
"contemporaneous" documentation of events occurring more than 15 years ago.
(xx) The Hearing Examiner erred in RC-7; among other things, it erroneously relies
on employee records almost exclusively to define the nature and scope of SSNW's
nonconforming use, neglects the testimony pertaining to the relevant time period and
concludes that "formal arms training did not begin until after January 6, 1992."
(xxi) The Hearing Examiner erred in RC-9; among other things, it erroneously (a)
relies on the number of employees, (b) assumes an erroneous number of employees, (c)
misconstrues the testimony of Bruce Carver, and (d) purports to distinguish between
"significant" and some other level of property use, to define the nature and scope of SSNW's
nonconforming land use.
PETITION FOR REVIEW - 8
113336.0012/1358666.1
LANE POWELL Pc
142D Fn7M AVENUE, SUITE 4100
SEATrU, WA5HINGTOH 98101-2338
206.223.7000 FAX 7,06223.7107
JeffCo 0029896
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
i) Concise Statement of Facts.
(i) In 1986, Joseph D'Amico, a Port Townsend native then serving as a reserve
police officer in Wenatchee, purchased SSNW a From its inception, SSNW performed a
variety of security services, including security patrols (both land and marine), armored car
services, alarm monitoring, and training.
(ii) One of SSNW's early clients was the Gunstone family. The Gunstones,
through family companies, own approximately 3,700 acres of land extending from the
western shore of Discovery Bay up to and across US 101 and up into the foothills of the
Olympic Mountains. They use the upper portion of the Property for logging and the
Discovery Bay shoreline area for their shellfish harvesting business. SSNW provided security
patrol services, both for the Gunstones' logging property in the hills and their shellfish beds,
which are located throughout Discovery Bay.
(iii) In 1988, the Gunstones invited SSNW to relocate its business from Port
Townsend to their Discovery Bay property. Mr. D'Amico accepted the Gunstones' offer; and
SSNW signed a commercial lease and moved its business to the Property. Since that time,
and without interruption, SSNW has, among other things, conducted firearms training and
shooting exercises, security team movement exercises, tactical training, K-9 unit training,
marine patrol training and exercises, and other types of security training and operations. At
the time SSNW established its business on the Property, there were no zoning regulations in
place in Jefferson County.
(iv) SSNW formally leases approximately 20 acres of the Gunstones' Discovery
Bay Property. This developed portion of the Property is located between US 101 and
Discovery Bay. With the Gunstones' permission, SSNW has also regularly used various
'Security Services Northwest has previously been known as "Security Services of
Jefferson County," "Security Services of Jefferson and Clallam Counties," and simply
"Security Services."
PETITION FOR REVIEW - 9
113336.001211338666.1
LANE POWELL rC
1420 FIM AVENU4 SWE 4100
SEA=, WASHINGTON 98101-2338
206.223.7000 FAX: 206.223.7107
JeffCo 0029897
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
portions of the entire 3,700 acre property for security training since 1988. While most of
SSNW's training, including firearms training and exercises, has taken place in the lower
developed portion of the property, some operations, including team movement training, K-9
unit tracking, and firearms training, have taken place in areas throughout the Property and off
the Property in other locations around Jefferson County.
(v) SSNW began conducting regular firearms training at the Property in 1988.
This firearms training became state -mandated beginning in mid-1991, when the Security
Guard Act, RCW Ch. 18.170, went into effect, requiring regular firearms certification of all
private security personnel who carry firearms, including armored car personnel and site
security personnel. SSNW, which trains its employees more thoroughly than the Security
Guard Act requires, has regularly conducted these firearms certifications as well as the
training necessary to prepare personnel for the certifications. Various police departments,
including the Sequim Police Department, have also conducted firearms training at the
Property since the early 1990s. SSNW s clients have included a variety of private companies
and government entities, including Jefferson County itself. Public entities, both within and
outside Jefferson County, ranging from the federal government to the Port of Port Townsend,
also have contracted with SSNW for marine patrol services since the early 1990s.
(vi) SSNW has also regularly provided K-9 tracking services to local governments
all over the Olympic Peninsula, and helicopters have taken off and landed at the Property in
order to expedite deployment of SSNW K-9 teams and facilitate emergency transport in
medical evacuations. SSNW K-9 teams have successfully tracked down and apprehended
suspects fleeing crime scenes and escaped prisoners.
(vii) Beginning between 1988 and 1990, SSNW has conducted more sophisticated
"total tactics training" courses that utilize classroom facilities and involve other types of
security training in addition to firearms training. Though some of these security services have
taken place away from the Property (i.e., tracking down escaped prisoners and providing
PETITION FOR REVIEW - 10
113336,0012/1359666.1
LANE POWELL PC
1420 FWrH A VENUN SUrM 4100
SEATML WASH2KTf0K 98101-2338
206.223.7000 FAX: 206=.7107
JeffCo 0029898
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
marine patrol services to clients other than the Gunstones), virtually all of the training
necessary for these services has taken place at the Property since 1988.
(viii) When SSNW moved to the Property in 1988, a number of buildings were
located on the Property, including an old farmhouse, an old logging bunkhouse, a garage,
several "covered pole" buildings, and other outbuildings. SSNW used a number of these
buildings for housing and training. The old farmhouse, which the Gunstone family had
previously used as both a residence and offices for their shellfish and logging business, served
as Mr. D'Amico's residence and SSNW's headquarters. Several years later, in 1993, the
Gunstones decided they wanted to build a new residence near the shores of Discovery Bay,
where the old farmhouse was then located. The old farmhouse was moved a few hundred
yards inland to its current location, where it continues to serve as Mr. D'Amico's residence
and SSNW s headquarters. The old farmhouse has also been used for classroom training since
1988. In 2003-2004, SSNW built a new bunkhouse, a latrine, and a classroom building to
replace some of the aging structures. Although SSNW did not obtain permits for these
buildings, the buildings meet the standards necessary to comply with the Jefferson County
Building Code and should be eligible for permits.
(ix) Over time, SSNW's operations evolved along with its facilities. The Maritime
Security Team, which initially was formed in the late 1980s, became the WTO Team, which
became the Y2K Team, which became the Counter Assault Team. Although the teams have
had different names, their training and missions were and are generally similar. The types of
weapons being used for both on -range and off -range training at the Property have not
changed; indeed, the same basic weapons training tactics cover training for SSNW's
employees, law enforcement, the Navy and Coast Guard, and anyone else who trains at
SSNW. To be sure, some training has evolved over the course of SSNW s history. For
example, security training used to focus primarily on how to use force, but it has involved to
PETITION FOR REVIEW - 11
113336, 0012113 S 8666.1
LANE POWELL Pc
1420 FWrH AVENM SUM 4100
SSATrL% WASHMMON 98101-2338
206,223.7000 PAX: 20&M,7107
JeffCo 0029899
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
include more emphasis on how to choose the appropriate level of force for a particular
situation or how to properly decide whether to use force in the first place.
(x) Changes to accommodate new industry standards are not uncommon in any
business, and certainly that is true for the security business. Where a man in a baseball cap
with a flashlight may have been standard site security three decades ago, security practices
have evolved, and the security business is considerably more sophisticated today. SSNW's
security services and, in turn, its training routines have developed accordingly. Mr. D'Amico
has worked to develop and grow his business like any good businessman, but SSNW's
operations have not changed dramatically over the years, Training still takes place in small
groups in the same areas of the Property with approximately the same impacts.
(xi) In June 2005, more than a decade after zoning was established in Jefferson
County, the County informed SSNW that it had received complaints about gunfire noise from
residents around Discovery Bay. The County also informed SSNW that it had determined
that there were several unpermitted buildings at the Property. Up until this time, Mr.
D'Amico had not received any complaints about SSNW's operations, even though it had been
conducting its business, including firearms and tactical training, at the Property for more than
17 years.
(xii) In response to these complaints, Mr. D'Amico met with County
representatives, including Al Scalf, the Director of the County's Department of Community
Development, to discuss how SSNW could remedy the situation. County officials informed
Mr. D'Amico that SSNW could "pull permits" for the unpermitted buildings, provided they
complied with the Building Code and Health Code. SSNW also began working with the
County to formally establish itself as a legal nonconforming use. Newspaper articles and
correspondence in late June and early July 2005 quoted County officials acknowledging
SSNW's status as a legal nonconforming use.
PETITION FOR REVIEW - 12
10336.0017J1358666.1
LANE PQWELL Pc
1420 FIM AVFsNUE, SWE 4100
SEA711A WASHINCTTON 98101-2338
206.223.7000 FAX: 206.723.7107
JeffCo 0029900
C
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
(xiii) On July 8, 2005, the County issued a stop work order under the Building Code
prohibiting SSNW from using the new unpermitted buildings. Although it was SSNW s
understanding that this stop work order was a formality that would only be in place until it
could "pull permits" for the new structures, SSNW appealed this orders In accordance with
the Development Code's preference for "voluntary correction," SSNW continued its effort to
achieve voluntary compliance with the code. On or about August 1, SSNW submitted
materials to the County to establish its legal nonconforming use. On August 11, 2005,
however, the County, without notice or warning, issued a stop work order and a notice and
order forbidding SSNW from conducting virtually all of its security training operations,
including all use of the firing ranges, and demanding SSNW submit further materials
establishing other aspects of its business as legal nonconforming uses.
(xiv) SSNW appealed these orders, which, along with the appeal of the first stop
work order, went before Jefferson County Hearing Examiner Iry Berteig. Following a hearing
on November 16-18, 2005, the Hearing Examiner issued his Decision denying SSNW's appeal
on January 10, 2006.
(xv) SSNW initiated an action in Kitsap County Superior Court by filing a Petition
for Review pursuant to the Land Use Petition Act, RCW ch. 36.70C. Following a hearing on
the record, the Superior Court entered an Order reversing in part the Hearing Examiner's
decision, concluding that SSNW had indeed established a legal nonconforming use and
remanding to the Hearing Examiner to determine the scope and nature of SSNW's
nonconforming use as. of January 6, 1992, the effective date of the County's first applicable
land use regulations. The Court denied SSNW's motion for reconsideration on several issues
5SSNW does not dispute that it is required to obtain building permits for the
unpermitted structures at the Property. SSNW filed its appeal of the first stop work order
primarily to maintain its ability to use the structures while it applied for permits. When
SSNW applied for permits, however, the County refused to accept the applications.
PETITION FOR REVIEW - 13
113336.0012/1359666.1
LANE POWELL Pc
1420 PIFM AVENUE, SUM 4100
SEATSIP., WASAINGTON 99101-2338
206.223.7000 PAX: 206Z23.7107
JeffCo 0029901
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9I
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19'
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
on December 13, 2006. On January 12, 2007, SSNW appealed the Superior Court's Order to
the Court of Appeals.
(xvi) On January 22, 2007, the Hearing Examiner issued the Remand Decision.
f) Request for Relief.
SSNW respectfully requests that this Court:
i) Require the County to submit to the Court and to SSNW a certified copy of the
administrative record pertaining to the Remand Decision, so that the Court may review the
same;
ii) Adjudge the Remand Decision clearly erroneous, arbitrary, and capricious, and
not supported by the record or applicable legal authorities;
iii) Adjudge the Decision to be null and void and of no force or effect;
iv) Stay enforcement of the Remand Decision to the extent it seeks to limit
SSNW's lawful use based on the number- of employees and enjoin the County from otherwise
interfering with SSNW's business activities until such time as this Petition is resolved by this
Court;
(v) Enter such other relief as the Court deems just and equitable, including but not
limited to the award of reasonable costs and statutory attorneys' fees to SSNW.
DATED: February 8, 2007
PETITION FOR REVIEW - 14
113336.0012J1358W.1
LANE
LIM
IY. Amster; WSBA No.
s for Petitioner Security
Northwest, Inc.
LANE POWELL rc
1420 FIFM AVENUE, SUITE 4100
SEATTLE, WASFENGTON 98101-2338
206.223.7000 FAX. 206,223.7107
JeffCo 0029902
EXHIBIT A
JeffCo 0029903
a
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
BZrORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR JEFFERSON COUNTY
Iry Berteig, Hearing Examiner
RE-: SECURITY SERVICES NORtHMST, ) File No. BLD05-00471 i COMOS-00076
INC., Appellant, ) Superior Court No. 06-2-00223-9
V. )
)
JE17ERSON COUNTY, Respondent } ORDER IN RESPONSE
} TO SUPERIOR COURT REMIND
)
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
The Hearing Examiner's January 10, 2006 decision denying Security
Services Northwest's {SSNW] appeal of Jefferson County's stop work and
notice and orders came before the Kitsap County Superior Court. The
Court then issued Order No. 06-2-00223-9, which included a remand to
the Hearing Examiner as follows:
ORDERED that SSNW's appeal shall be remanded to Hearing Examiner
Iry Berteig for further proceedings consistent with this opinion
solely to determine the scope and nature of SSNW's nonconforming us
as of January 6, 1992, based on the existing record as established
in the November 2005 hearing. Such determination by the Hearing
Examiner will establish the use which may be made of the property b
SSNW following the Examiner's modified decision. No additional
hearings should be conducted.
FINDINGS OF FACT
In accordance with the Court's Remand, the following Remand
Findings are focused on the period immediately preceding Jefferson
County's adoption of zoning effective January 6, 1992. Those findings
from the Examiner's January 10, 2006 decision that relate to the
period before January 6, 1992 are excerpted, modified or supplemented
to meet the terms of the Remand. New remanded findings are designated
by "RF-#", and previous findings are single --spaced in italics. "SSNW"
refers to Security Services of Jefferson County.
The Findings are organized by Issue Topics:
REMAND - SSNW Page 1 Order in Response
W05-00471 to Superior Court Remand
JeffCo 0029904
t
41
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
S
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
Appellant's Request to Supplement the Record:
Appellant's request and County's response were both received on
January 10, 2007.1 Examiner's Order is in CONCLUSIONS 6 ORDER.
Discovery Say Land Company (Gunstone) Agreements:
RF-1: Discovery Bay Land Company [DBLC] is owned by the Gunstone
family. Excerpts from Finding 4 of Examiners January 10, 2006 decision
note that after purchase of the security services business, Joe
D'Amico "...continued to provide services in Jefferson County,
including a contract with the Gunstone's for security service for
their properties."2 See also previous Finding 4:
Finding 4. Appellant testified that he purchased the security
servicesbusiness located in Port Townsend in 3986. The
business was founded in 1977 by a former Port Townsend police
officer. The business was later sold to Joseph Short in 1979,
who operated the business until his sudden and unexpected death
in August 3986. Joe D'Amico purchased the security services
business from the family estate, and continued to provide
services in Jefferson County, including a contract with the
Gunstone's for security services for their properties. Joe
D'Amico later relocated his business to the Gunstone properti.e
On November 15, 1988, Joe D'Amico entered into a rental
agreement with Charles and Irene Gunstone to lease a residence
at 3501 Old Gardiner Road.4 Reed Gunstone stated that the
lease consisted of approximately 22 acres.a
IRF-2: Prior to Joe D'Amico's move to the residence on the 22-acre
1parcel, Charles and Irene Gunstone vacated the old residence and
relocated to a new residence beyond the 22-acre parcel.
Rental Agreement and Move to DBLC Property:
RF-3: Joe D'Amico entered into a rental agreement on November 15, 1988
with Charles and Irene Gunstone to lease a residence at 3501 Old
1 Appellant's Request dated January 11, 2007 was sent via the department.
8 Log Item 98 at 3
7 Log Item 98 at 3
4 Log Item 98 at 18-19
6 Log Item 212 at 3, Declaration of Reed Gunstone dated September 6, 2005
REMAND - SSNW ' Page 2 Order in Response
Bid05-00471 to Superior Court Remand
JeffCo 0029905
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16 j
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
Gardiner Road,6 and later relocated his business to the leased
property,7 which consisted of approximately 22 acres.8
Description of zervices provided to the DHI,C:
RF-4: Joe D'Amico described his services for the DBLC, see Finding 3:
Finding 3. Appellant Joe D'Amico testified that he worked for the
Gunstone family with the objective of stopping the unlawful removal
of trees from the Gunstone's 3,700 acre holding, and preventing
theft from their shellfish beds along Discovery Bay. He described
how he applied his security techniques to the two problem areas.
RF-5:The following table provides data for the 19B8 to January 6, 1992
time frame:
Now RF-Table 1 expanda on Sxhibit 2:a
Nov '87
$190.50
0850
12/15/87
$12.00
15hb
Mar 188
$250.00
0873
4/12/88
$20.83
12.00
April
$250.00
0884
5/13/86
$20.83
12.00
May
$250.00
0889
6/6/86
$20.83
12.00
June
$250.00
0893
7/22/86
$20.83
12.00
July
$250.00
0897
8/11/88
$20.83
12.00
Aug
$250.00
0904
9/15/88
$20.83
12.00
Sep
$250.00
0908
10/1.0/88
$20.83
12.00
Oct
$250.00
0914
11/14/88
020.83
12.00
Nov
$250.00
0918
12/10/88
$20.83
12.00
Dec
$125.00
0929
1/23/89
$20.83
0.00
"Stopped for
winter"
0
May '69
$187.50
5322
6/15/09
$20.83
9.00
June
$177.05
1535
7/14/89
$20.83
6.50
July
$104.17
1542
8/8/89
$20.83
5.00
Aug
$130.21
1561
9/15/89
$20.83
622.5
Sep
$416.67
1571
10/14/89
$20.83
20.00
Oct
$479.17
1585
11/17/89
$20.83
23.00
Nov
$229.17
1591
12/14/B9
$20.83
11.00
Dec
$145.83
1607
1/17/90
$20.83
7.00
Jan 190
$20.83
1617
2/12/90
$20.83
1.00
Feb
$34.63
1631
3/21/90
$20.83
1.67
Mar
$72.91
1638
4/5/90
$20.63
3.50
9 Log Item 98 at 18-19
7 Log Item 98 at 3
Log Item 212 at 3, Declaration of Reed Gunstone dated September 6, 2005
Y Exhibit 2 and see also Table 4 following.
REMAND - SSNW Page 3 Order In Response
W05-00471 to 5uperior Court Remand
JeffCo 0029906
a
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
Now RY--Taible 1 RF-Table 1 (continued):
ha
fi
Apr
$166.64
1649
5/9/90
$20.83
15.00
May
$145.81
1653
6/13/90
$20.83
zoo
Jun
$213.50
1666
7/10/90
$20.83
10.25
Jul
$155.23
1679
8/16190
$20.83
7.50
Aug
$177.06
1683
9/13/90
$20.83
&.50
Sep
$62.49
1698
10/19/90
$20.83
3.00
Oct
$374.94
1706
11/19/90
$20.83
1&.00
Nov
$333.12
1720
12/22/90
$20.83
15.99
Dec
$104.15
1125
1/9/91
$20.83
5.00
Jan '91
$62.49
1737
2/7/91
$20.83
3.00
Feb
$62.49
1758
3/12/91
$20.83
3.00
Mar
$41.66
1778
4/20/90
$20.83
zoo
Apr
$104.15
1783
5/11/90
$20.83
5.00
May
$31.25
1801
6/17/91
$20.83
1.50
Jun
$405.76
1812
7/9/91
$20.83
19,46
Jul
$62.49
1827
8/12/91
$20.83
3.00
Aug
0
0
Sep
0
0
Oct
$41.66
1B79
11/23/91
$20.83
zoo
Nov
$166.64
1B88
12/9/91
$20.83
&.00
Dec
$0.00
0
Jan 192
$0.00
0
RF-5 (Continued): RF-Table 1 illustrates the magnitude of hours
billed for security work for the Discovery Bay Land Company. Since
that was security work contracted by the land owner in the forestry
and shell fish business, that security work was a permitted activity.
The security work for DBLC did not establish a non -conforming use.
Non -Conforming Use Activities:
RF-6.The descriptions that follow and other topics specifically
related to activities on the subject property during the 1988 to
January 6, 1992 period must be supported by evidence. See modified
Finding 5 below:
Finding 5. TangAb a Contemporaneous documents as evidence are
necessary to justify a nonconforming use, typically in the form of
customer acknowledgement of actual work, contracts, and receipts.
Less tangible evidence, such as solicitations and bids, may
indicate intent to do business --but not actual activity, The
Appellant provided the following exhibits in their "SSNW Exhibit
REMAND - SSNW Page 4 Order in Response
W05-00471 to Superior Court Remand
JeffCo 0029907
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
Notebook". Those exhibits that apply to the timeframe 2987 - 1992
are excerpted and summarized here from Table 3, SSNW Exhibit List:
Table 4: Excerpted Documents with Annotations
invokes for Security Services work for Discovery Say Land Company
2
11/1187
Document Is a hand written tobuietion of revenue from Discovery Z54Y Land
Co. covering 42 months from Nov'87 throueh Dec 91
3
6122/88
Letter to Nava! Undersea Weapons E:nglneertng Station m Keyport regarding security
on naval vessel [55NW Memo to Indian Island Peuchmant klenthyng five
55NW staff, including Joe and Pence D'Amico, requesting access)
4
1111&88
Rental Agreement between Charles Gwmtone & Joe D'Amko for 350101d Gardner
Rd
6
4W
Letter from AdmW Marine Works re Seca* Services program
[Letter of recommendatJon for Security ServI over Yost three ysero j
6
1991
IRS Form 1099 by Payer Admiral Marine Works - $1760.00 Mlsc Income far 1991
6
1991
IRS Form 1099 by ToRshark Constnxtion - $1131.05 Mist Income for 1991
1
411&W
Letter from Port of Part Townsend re Sectdy Services wort[ [Latter of
recommandation for security Services over savaral yeare]
8
& 194
letter commending Security Services Ibr work performed for American Otis►seas
Marine Corporation [Letter of recommendation for 5111 5ervicesJ
11
05191
Cmhd between Securly Se►vkes and Jefferson General Hospital [1 year
contract]
14
111192
1991 Form 1099 for Ph# Johnson - $1,170.00 Misc Income for 1991
14
111192
1991 Form 1099 for Jellemson County PUD - $9, 750.00 MI Income for 1991
RF-7: Security Services [SS] prepared a flier used to promote/explain
their services to potential customers. The list of services appears
to be comprehensive by including the latest expanded services in 1990.
The flier was apparently used as indicated by a hand-written notation:
"Note. Hand delivered a copy to Mr. Gadalwk on 06-27-91"
Services listed:
■ Professional, uniformed security personnel;
■ High visibility, marked late -model patrol cars;
■ Crime deterrence;
■ Management with professional police experience;
■ K-9 unit;
■ Night Vision equipment;
■ State -of -art communications;
■ Quality, cost effective alarm systems;
REMAND - SSNW Page 5 Order in Response
Bld05-00471 to Superior Court Remand
JeffCo 0029908
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
B
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
■ Alarm installation and monitoring.
Employee Activity Levels:
RF-8: Finding 6. The Appellant submitted three sets of documents at
the close of the Open Record Appeal hearing:
■ Log Item 227: Quarterly Reports of Payroll 1987-2005 (48 pages)
• Log Item 228: Transaction Detail by Account 1996-2005 (31 pages)
■ Log Item 229: Sales by Customer Summary 1995-2005 (157 pages)
Data for the 1987 to January 6, I992 period is summarized from the
Department of Labor & Industries "Employer's Quarterly Report of
Payroll" documents:
Table 5: 1987 to January 6, 1992 Employer's Payroll Report Data
4 §
Mar 1987
6601
Security Guard Agency
$4,872
833
1.7
Jun 1967
6601
Security Guard Agency
4,670
813
V
Sep 1987
6601
Security Guard Agencies
3,886
654
1.4
Dec 1987
6601
Security Guard Agencies
2,291
382
0.&
Mar 1988
660I
Security Guard Agencies
1,098
220
0.5
Mar 1991
6601
Security Guard Agencies
nfa
I,357
2,8
Jun 1991
6601
Security Guard Agencies
n/a
1,110.5
2,3
Sep 1991
6601
Security Guard Agencies
n/a
1,221
2.5
"Arioumee 480 hourolquarterAli-time equivalent (M]
At 20 8-hour work days/monthlquarter
RF-9: Although there are gaps in the Employer's Payroll Report Data
shown above, the most relevant time -frame is 1991 for gauging
employment levels and non -conforming use assumptions. Although there
was no data for the last quarter of 1991, an assumption is made that
employment continued at a similar level to the previous three
quarters.
RF-10: The Appellant submitted over 60 exhibits. Those exhibits
relevant to the 1988 to January 6, 1992 period indicate sporadic
evidence of actual employee on -site activity similar to that shown in
Tables 4 and 5, and Finding RF-4 with accompanying RF-Table 4, above,
The following RF-Table 5 is a compilation of those exhibits describing
activity —both employment/contract security work and contract
proposals.
REMAND - SSNW Page 6 Order in Response
W05-00471 to Supeflo► Court Remand
JeffCo 0029909
i A 0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16'
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
RF-Table 5: Correspondenoe during 1988 -- January 6, 1992 period:
3
Indian Island, security svc
6/24/1988 through
Request for
access list request s approval
8/20/1988
5 persons
6
Admiral Marine Works, Port
4/3/90 ltr re previous
Refers to
Townsend - commendation ltr
3 yrs - cites incident
one employee
6
Admiral Marine Works - IR5
$1,760 "Nonemployee
Security
form 1099 for 1991
compensation"
Services
6
Tollshark Construction IRS
$1,131.05 "Nonemployee
Security
form 1099 for 1991
compensation"
Services
7
Port of Port Townsend -
4/16/90 ltr refers to
No specifics
Recommendation to Port of Port
Joe D'Amico's 2 years
on employees
Angeles
of ownership
8
American Overseas Marine Corp
8/1B/90 ltr refers to
No specifics
- commendation ltr
recent SS assignment
on employees
10
Promotional flier listing
Example hand dated
No specifics
available services
6/27/90 as delivered
on employees
11
Agreement w/ Jefferson General
8/15/91 Agreement for
See
Hospital
one year
Agreement
13
Proposal to Clallam Co
12/5/91 ltr with
K-9 and
Sheriff's Dept for K-9 on -call
unsigned personal
K-9 Handler
services
services agreement
14
Ernst Home Centers - IRS form
$1,170.00 "Nonemployee
Security
1099 for 1991
compensation"
Services
14
Public Utility Dist 41 - IRS
$9,750.00 "Nonemployee
Security
form 1099 for 1991
compensation"
Services
15
Rose Inc (Phil Johnson) - IRS
$1,266.76 "Nonemployee
Security
form 1099 for 1991
compensation"
Services
17
Proposal to U.P.S. 4/22/92 ltr
Proposal to pick up
The record
deposits at 5 U.P.S.
does not
lB
Same proposal - 8/18/92 ltr
offices in Eastern
indicate
Washington and Idaho
acceptances
22
Alaska Trawl Fisheries - reply
12/16/92 reply/offer
The record
to an inquiry regarding K-9
for K-9 services
does not
security services
aboard 2B0-foot
indicate
fishing vessel
acceptances
RP-11: SSNW submitted four documents identifying work for customers
prior to 1991, one contract in 1991, and five IRS 1099 forms for five
other customers. 10
Since the IRS Form 1099 does not identify employee data, any
assumptions derived must assume no more employees during 1991 than
10 SSNW Exhibits 3,5,6,7,8,11,14&15. Also see RF-Table 5.
REMAND - SSNW Page 7 Order In Response
SldO5-W471 to Superior Court Remand
JeffCo 0029910
1
2
3
4
5
6�
7
8
gi
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
is
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
could be calculated in the above Table 5. SSNW listed five IRS 1099
Forms for a total "Nonempioyee compensation" of $15,077.75 for the
year. Assuming 480 hours/quarter/full-time equivalent [FTE] at 20 8-
hour work days/month/quarter, all work done in one quarter, and using
an hourly rate of $12/hr, the IRS 1099 forms would explain 2.62
FTE's.11 Using a pay rate of $20/hr, there would have been 1.57 FTE's.1,
Since the IRS form 1099 category is "Nonempioyee compensation" and
this analysis does not deduct for SSNW profit, the examples of number
of employees are inflated.
Training and Weapons Certif iaation :
RF-12: The Security Guard Act was enacted by the Washington State
Legislature in 1991 as Chapter 334 Laws of 1991. The Act was codified
as Chapter 18.170 RCW and implemented by Chapter 308-18 WAC effective
December 7, 1991. The original 1991 Act set June 30, 1992 as a
deadline for obtaining a valid license to perform the functions of a
private security guard or armed security guard, after which such
person would be guilty of a gross misdemeanor.18
RR-13: Finding 8 is brought forward, and identifies the first firearm
training of SSNW employees.
8. Testimony by BTUCe Carver, a firearms trainer, indicated
that the first firearm training of SSNW employees occurred in 1992,
alter January 6, 1992. Bruce Carver also testified that off -duty
police officers were not trained or certified on the Gunstone
property.1* [emphasis added]
It $12/hour is the lowest rate that Joe D'Amico invoiced the Discovery Bay
Land Company for November 1987. Any higher rate would calculate to a lower
number of employees.
It Neither hourly rate example allows for SSNW profit in estimating the number
of employees.
Is Laws of 1991, c 334 5 16 and RCW 18.170.160
14 See also, Declaration of Bruce Carver, Log Item 98 at 85
REMAND - SSNW Page 8 Order in Response
W05MVI to Superior Court Remand
JeffCo 0029911
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
JBruce Carver testified that he was "...certified to provide
certification training and the test required that each individual
private security officer or private detective would then obtain the
license if they passed my certification training."18 Mr. Carver
testified that he first met Joe D'Amico in early 1992 (January or
February). He was then employed as a contractor to provide
certification training and testing on handguns, rifles and shotguns.ls
Rr--14: The four employees of the Gunstone family signing Declarationsl
that they recalled hearing shooting and observing "stick" training
after Joe D'Amico moved to the property does not provide adequate
evidence. 17 "Hearing" gun shots and "observing 'stick' training"
without specific documentation of date and location —and without
conveying an understanding of level of professional or formal
training —fails to establish a nonconforming use.
Geographic 8xtent of Non -Conformity:
RP--15: The geographic extent of any non -conforming use had to have
been established during the period between 1988 and January 6, 1992,
and by the actual use of property and facilities for commercial
activity excluding security patrols serving Discovery Bay Land
Company. The list of services identified in RF-7 is appropriate to
the extent that such activities took place on the subject 22-acre
property and prior to January 6, 1992. There is no evidence in the
record that any of the facilities within the 22 acres were restricted
from use by Security Services Company.
1s Verbatim Transcript of Recorded Hearing, November 17, 2005; Tape 8 of 12 at
page 46.
19 Id. at 47
17 Declarations of Gary Buhiilo, Robert O'Dell, Phil Rogers, and Craig Cross
contained in Log Item 98 at 87-94, and Finding 9 of the Examiner's January
10, 2005 decision.
REMAND - SSNW Page 9 Order in Response
W05-00471 to Superior Court Remand
JeffC0" 0029912
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
I
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
REVIEW CRITERIA
The Examiner evaluates letters and testimony by applying the criteria
contained in the Hearing Examiner's Rule for "aggrieved person versus
"interested citizen". This Rule is consistent with case law that
distinguishes between general expressions of opposition or support and
asserted interests expressing substantial evidence.18
CONCLUSIONS & ORDER
Appellant'a January 18, 2007 Request to Supplement the Record:
a. Appellant cites Section (6) of the Hearing Examiner Rules of
Procedure as the authority to consider additional evidence. Section
(6)(d) Evidence Received Subsequent to the Hearing is the relevant
provision, and is excerpted here for convenience:
§6(d) If additional evidence is submitted after the public
hearing or after the date when public comment will no longer be
accepted, such additional evidence will only be considered upon a
showing that the evidence has significant relevance and there is
good cause for the delay in its submission. All 'parties" (as
that term is defined herein) will be given notice of the
consideration of such evidence and, at the discretion of the
hearing examiner, granted an opportunity to review such evidence
and file rebuttal arguments regarding that additional evidence.
b. Guidance must be taken from other sections of the Hearing
Examiner Rules, namely Section (1) Conflicts Among Authorities and
Section (4) Powers of the Hearing Examiner.
Section (1) places the State institutions (including the Courts)
ahead of the Hearing Examiner Rules.
Section (4)(f) states:
§(4)(f) To review and consider in making his or her decision all
"timely submissions," as that term is defined in this section. He
or she shall have full discretion as to whether they will
consider submissions that are not timely.
Is DOC v._City of Kennewick, 86 Wn. App. 521, 533-534; 937 P.2d 1119; 1997
Wash. App. LEXIS 792, review denied 199E Wash, LEXIS 91 and citing Maranatha
Mi_ ning, 59 Wn. App. 795, 804; 801 P.2d 985
REMAND - SSNW Page 10 Order in Response
B1605-00471 to Superfor Court Remand
JeffCo 0029913
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
16 ,
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
a. The Appellant advised the Examiner via email on November 13, 2006
that SSNW had filed a motion for reconsideration of the Court's Nov. 1
Order. On January 10, 2007, the County advised the Examiner that SSNW
had taken the matter up to the Court of Appeals.
d. The Superior Court ruled on the Appellant's appeal, in part, with
and Order that the remand shall be: "...solely to determine the scope
and nature of SSNW's nonconforming use as of January b, 1992, based on
the existing record as established in the November 2005 hearing.... No
additional hearings should be conducted."
a. There is no indication that the Court's Order has been changed.
f. Any request to consider additional information is now outside of
the Examiner's authority under the Hearing Examiner Rules of Procedure
and is in conflict with the Court's directive.
ORDER
IThe Appellant's request to consider the additional evidence is denied.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The following Conclusions of Law are focused on fixing the extent
of the nonconforming use established prior to January 6, 1992. These
Remand Conclusions [RC] may contain additional Findings of Fact when
necessary, and are organized by general issues similar to those used
under Findings of Fact:
Discovery Say Land Company Agreement Issue:
RC-1: When Joe D'Amico purchased Security Services in 1987, he
obtained an existing contract to provide security services to DBLC.19
Such services could be conducted from any residence/business location.
19 See RF-1
REMAND - SSNW
BU05-00471
Page 11
Order In Response
to Superior Court Remand
JeffCo 0029914
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
1B
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
RC-2: Any business use by DBLC (such as business use in the Gunstone
residence) moved with the Gunstone's when they vacated the 22-acre
property and moved to their new residence. The Gunstone's intended to
move and did in fact move; thereby meeting the 2-prong test for moving
a non -conforming use.20 The Gunstone's did not continue a
nonconforming use within the 22-acre parcel.
Rental Agreement Issue:
RC-3: The rental agreement is the only official, governing document
in the record. Providing security services over the 3700 acres did
not establish a nonconforming use. Having the run of the 3700 acres
for other commercial or commercial training was not established by any
contemporaneous document during the 1988 to January 6, 1992 period.21
Security Services for DBLC:
RC-4: The extent of services provided to DBLC, as illustrated by RF-5
and RF-Table 1, are merely informational and not evidence of a
nonconforming use.aa
RC--5: Contemporaneous documents are necessary to establish a
nonconforming use. The record (especially including testimony)
illustrates the extensive use of generalizations that are not time and
location specific and typically lacking "contemporaneous documents".
RC-6: The frequent "gaps" in the data are troubling, and the Examiner
must apply the principles set down in case law, namely, when
contemporaneous documents are not produced, a reasonable presumption
is that such documents would be unfavorable to SSNW.28
A0 Van Sant v. Everett, 69 Wn. App. 641, 648; 849 P.2d 1276; 1993 Wash. App.
LEXIS 188
91 See RF-5
9s See RF-5 and RF-Table 1
28 Lynott v. National Union fire Ins. Co., 123 Wn.2d 678, 689, 871 P.2d 146
(1994), citing Pier 67, Inc. v. King County, 89 Wn.2d 379, 385-86, 573 P.2d 2
(1977)
REMAND -SSNW Page 12 Order in Response
Bld05-00471 to Superior Court Remand
JeffCo 0029915
1
2
3
A
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
lA
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
Employee Activity Levels:
RC-7: Employee activity levels during the 1988 to January 6, 1992
period were not substantiated with documentation. Although clear that
Security Services was functioning as a commercial use, the nature of
that activity is important in defining the nonconforming status. Some
conclusions:
a. Providing security services to DBLC is a permitted activity;
therefore, did not establish a nonconforming use.24
.b. Security services provided to other customers must necessarily be
at the site being served; therefore, security guards would spend
a minimum amount of time at the 22-acre property.25
c. On -site activity (although poorly documented) logically includes
administration, supplies and equipment storage, K-9, payroll, new
business promotion, and management.ae
d. on -site activity logically includes some training of existing
employees (a limited number according to payroll records).
e. On -site activity probably included target practice given the
nature of the business and the rural setting. But formal arms
training did not begin until after January 6, 1992.27
Training and Weapons Certification Issue and the Security Guard
Act of 19 91:
RC-8: Although the Act was adopted in 1991, it required
implementation by adoption of Washington Administrative Code rules.
Even though the WAC became effective December 7, 1991, the Act itself
provided license deadlines at June 30, 1992,
24 See RF-5
f5 See Rf8 8 with Finding 6 and Table 5 showing security guard hours; and RF-
10 with RF-Table 5 and RF-11 showing names of some of the customers.
=9 See RF-7
a7 See RF-13
REMAND - SSNW Page 13 Order in Response
81d05-00471 to Superior Court Remand
JeffCo 0029916
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
RC-9: The implied training activity by the limited number of
employees plus the testimony of Bruce Carver does not support a claim
of significant property use for weapons training prior to January 6,
1992, and not a claim for training of non -employees.
SUMMARY CONCLUSIONS:
RC-10: The record supports three employees (rounded up from 2.6) at
the end of 1991 and prior to January 6, 1992.
RC-11: The record supports the 22-acre leased area only as the
geographic extent of any non -conforming use established by SSNW.
RC-12: The record supports only administrative type non -conforming
commercial uses, such as described in RC-7 cad.
RC-13: The record does not support any weapons or security training
of non-SSNW employees prior to January 6, 1992.
DECISION
In accordance with the Court's Remand, the Examiner now adopts the
above Findings, Conclusions, and Summary Conclusions to establish the
extent of nonconforming use prior to January 6, 1992.
DATED this 22"d Day of January 2007.
Iry Berteig
Jefferson County Hearing Examiner
:Lb
REMAND - SSNW
M05-00471
Page 14
Order in Response
to Superior Court Remand
JeffCo 0029917
SON co JEFFERSON COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
621 Sheridan Street I Port Townsend, WA 98368
360-379-4450 1 email: dcd@co.jefferson.wa.us
sly I N C,
http://www.co.jefferson.wa.us/260/Community-Development
May 10, 2019
Via email
Via USPS first class mail
Fort Discovery, Inc.
Attn: Joe D'Amico
250 Center Park Way
Sequim, WA 98382
Re: COM18-00191 / March 22, 2019 Summary of Jefferson County Site Visit — Parcel 801073003 and
801074004 (the Cedar Hills Property)
Mr. D'Amico —
Thank you for hosting Jefferson County and the Washington State Department of Ecology during the
March 22, 2019 coordinated site visit of the Cedar Hills Property near Tarboo Lake. Donna Frostholm, an
Associate Planner — Lead conducted this site visit on behalf of Jefferson County's Department of
Community Development (DCD). Stuart Whitford, Environmental Public Heath (EPH) Director and Austin
Watkins, Civil Deputy Prosecuting Attorney accompanied Ms. Frostholm during this site visit.
As discussed more fully below, during this site visit, DCD investigated citizen allegations of: (1) wetland
violations, including potential development within the wetlands and their associated buffers; (2)
unpermitted clearing and grading; and (3) unpermitted structures. The purpose of this letter is twofold:
to review in detail the substantial history with you, your properties and the history between you and
Jefferson County regarding permitted and unpermitted activities; and, to describe in more detail what ,
based upon DCD's March 22, 2019 site visit, DCD was able to confirm regarding violations of Title 15 and
Title 18 of the Jefferson County Code that have occurred and continue to occur on your current site.
Background
On June 9, 2017, the then owner of the Cedar Hills Property, James Worthington, submitted a request
for a pre -application conference that designated Joe D'Amico (Mr. D'Amico) as his agent related to the
JeffCo 0041969
pre -application conference. The request for a pre -application conference described the project as
follows:
This will be a private instituional (sic) gun range and training facility bringing customers
to the peninsula, both locally and from around the world. We have 40 acres RF located
nearTarboo Lake. Services to be provided include firearms safety and instruction, hunters
safety, firearms qualifications, security training, educational seminars, business retreats,
and special events. Facilities are to include gun ranges (pistol, rifle, trap shoot, archery),
classroom, shoot house, helicopter landing zone, food preparation (sic) and serving area,
restroom and showers, sleeping (sic) quarters, tent and RV sites, caretaker cabin, support
staff housing, and a pro shop. The amenities (sic) will be sited to conform to the landscape
with minimal intrusion, with the goal of providing a safe yet natural outdoor experience.
With the pre -application request, a diagram of the proposed project was included:
This diagram demonstrates knowledge of the need for septic systems and the requirement of setbacks
from neighboring properties and from Tarboo Lake. The pre -application request also contained a
diagram of where a proposed road was to be built for access across adjoining land owned by Pope
Resources.
2
JeffCo 0041970
On June 30, 2017, Fort Discovery Corporation's (FDC) president, Mr. D'Amico, attended a pre -application
conference with representatives of Jefferson County Community Development and the Environmental
Health Department. At the pre -application conference, Mr. D'Amico explained that the project was to
be built in phases over 3-5 years, but that the project would start with a range, bunkhouse and bathroom.
Mr. D'Amico was advised that for the project proposal, a Type III Conditional Use Permit would be
required and that would include: (1) A Master Permit Application; (2) A Supplemental Application for a
Conditional Use; (3) a Project Description/Narrative; (4) A SEPA Checklist; (5) A Stormwater Plan; (6) A
Wetland Delineation, if required; and, (7) Permit fees. The pre -application notes provided to Mr.
D'Amico after the pre -application conference state that there were "No mapped wetlands or streams"
and if "streams or wetlands present, a delineation or determination will be required."
Also at the June 30, 2017 pre -application conference, Susan Porto and Randy Marx of EPH advised Mr.
D'Amico that permits for a public water system and a septic system would be required. It appears FDC
already was aware of this before the pre -application conference because he or Ms. Scott already had
talked to Mike Deeney of Creative Design Solutions, Inc. about an on -site septic system. According to
his web site, "experience allows Mr. Deeney the ability to determine the most cost effective system for
a given site that will meet local and state code and provide a long system
life." http://www.cds4you.com/ExperienceSavesMoney.html.
In September of 2017, the County was advised by counsel for Reed Gunstone and The ARK Group, LLC
(TAG) that there were permit violations on property leased by Mr. D'Amico from the Gunstone family at
3501 Old Gardiner Road, Sequim, WA 98382 (the Old Gardiner Road Property). Mr. Gunstone's counsel
claimed that there also were uses by Mr. D'Amico that violate the zoning laws, as decided in a 2009 land
use decision of the Jefferson County Hearing Examiner. Mr. Gunstone's counsel also informed the
County that red tags placed on unpermitted structures have been removed.
Since 2005, for the Old Gardiner Road Property, the County had sought Mr. D'Amico's compliance with
zoning limitations and the need to bring unpermitted structures and on -site sewage systems into
compliance with the Jefferson County Code. A land use dispute between Mr. D'Amico and the County
began in 2005 when Mr. D'Amico attempted to build structures on Gunstone family property without
proper permits. The County issued a stop work order to Mr. D'Amico in 2005. The land use dispute was
appealed to the Washington court of appeals, which issued its decision in 2008. Sec. Servs. Nw., Inc. v.
Jefferson Cty., 144 Wash. App. 1002, *5 (2008). The court of appeals remanded the case to the Hearing
Examiner.
After the remand from the court of appeals, Security Services Northwest (SSNW) stipulated to the
Hearing Examiner that the following structures were not part of SSNW's nonconforming use of the Old
Gardiner Road Property in 1992, "but SSNW intends to submit an 'after -the -fact' building permit once
the full scope of its legal non -conforming use is established." Mr. D'Amico has admitted under oath that
he built the following structures without permits:
3
JeffCo 0041971
• A new bunkhouse built in about 2004. Mr. D'Amico's November 16, 2005 Testimony, Tape 3 at
14:15-22 and 59:16-24.
• A new classroom built in about 2004. Id. at 14:15-22.
• A range house built in about 2000. Id., Tape 4 at 10:3-13.
See also June 11, 2009 Stipulation for Remand Hearing at 2. Mr. D'Amico admitted that neither the
bunkhouse nor the classroom contain any sanitary facilities and that a latrine had been built without
permit to serve both. Id., Tape 3 at 16:6-15. Mr. D'Amico testified that between 1988 and 2005, he never
applied for any septic, fire, electrical or structural permits. Id. at 10:23-11:1. Unpermitted structures
were red tagged by the County. Mr. D'Amico admitted under oath in 2007 that the County had the right
to post the buildings with stop work orders that had not received permits. Mr. D'Amico's May 10, 2007
Deposition at 47:4-7. In a letter dated September 27, 2017, the County advised both Mr. D'Amico and
Mr. Gunstone that: "The County continues to expect respect for and compliance with the 2009 land use
decision and the permit requirements. After -the -fact permits for all the unpermitted structures listed
may be possible, except the SSNW gun ranges on Parcel 002363008 (owned by TAG)."
On September 15, 2017, Mr. Gunstone terminated Mr. D'Amico's lease of the Old Gardiner Road
Property, effective October 31, 2017. On September 27, 2017, Fort Discovery Corporation purchased
the Cedar Hills Property (Parcels 8011073003 and 801074004) from James Worthington. Mr. D'Amico
decided to move the buildings he built at the Old Gardiner Road Property to the Cedar Hills Property.
On October 23, 2017, the County advised Mr. Gunstone and Mr. D'Amico the requirements that must
be met for moving the buildings from the Old Gardiner Road Property to the Tarboo Property, including
that:
• "All necessary permits and rights of way for moving the buildings and placing them at another
location in Jefferson County must be obtained before attempting to move the buildings."
• "At any new location in Jefferson County, the moved buildings must meet the permit
requirements for sewage and water, zoning requirements for setback or other applicable County
building requirements."
Subsequently, FDC moved the buildings Mr. D'Amico built from the Old Gardiner Road Property to the
Cedar Hills Property. Mr. D'Amico never obtained any permits for the buildings before or after the
buildings were moved to the Cedar Hills Property. Thus, FDC moved buildings built without any permits
at the Old Gardiner Property and that were red tagged by the County to the Cedar Hills Property.
FDC attempted to apply for a County permit for stormwater and a County foundation permit. DCD asked
FDC whether it intended to pursue a conditional use permit for that included a commercial shooting
4
JeffCo 0041972
facility. But FDC never answered that question. Ultimately, both applications were determined to be
incomplete by the County on October 26, 2018. FDC has not submitted any applications for new permits
for the Cedar Hills Property as of the date of this letter.
On October 17, 2018, Mr. D'Amico advised DCD that he intended to install a foundation for buildings at
the Cedar Hills Property on or shortly after October 20 and 21, 2018, even though he did not yet have
any foundation permit. As a result of this conversation, DCD issued a Notice of Voluntary Correction
which stated that: 'Putting in a foundation without a permit would be a violation of Jefferson County's
Uniform Development Code (UDC), 18.50.020(1) JCC, which states: "It is a violation of this UDC for any
person to initiate or maintain, orto cause to be initiated or maintained, any use, alteration, construction,
location, or demolition of any structure, land, or property within Jefferson County without first obtaining
permits or authorizations required by this UDC."'
Subsequently, DCD received information that the permit violations described earlier were occurring at
the Cedar Hills Property and began an investigation. A request for site access was made, and FDC made
the Cedar Hills Property available for inspection on March 22, 2019.
Wetlands and Wetlands Buffers
During the March 22nd site visit, DCD confirmed the following critical area ordinance violations: (1) the
removal, excavation, grading, or dredging of material of any kind within a regulated wetland or its buffer,
Jefferson County Code (JCC) 18.22.310(1); (2) the dumping or discharging of any material or placement
of any fill in a regulated wetland or its buffer, JCC 18.22.310(2); and (3) modification of and activities
within regulated wetland buffers JCC 18.22.310(9) and JCC 18.22.330(3).
DCD informally reviewed FDC's wetland report prepared by Westech Company in July 2018, which
described on -site wetlands, including a map depicting the location each wetland identified by Westech.
The report received by DCD did not include supporting data located in the appendices (wetland data
forms, wetland rating forms, and wetland maps). During the site visit DCD did not verify Westech's
delineated wetland boundaries or wetland ratings.
However, based on plot data collected during the March 22nd site visit by DCD and Ecology more
wetlands are present on the site than was identified by Westech's July 2018 report. Attached Figure 1
demonstrates the approximate location of areas that were investigated during the site visit. The results
are as follows:
• One plot was determined to be non -wetland (flagged as TP 1);
• Three plots were determined to be wetland (flagged as TP 2, 3, 4);
• One soil sampling location was determined to be wetland (flagged as SS 1); and,
5
JeffCo 0041973
• One area was identified as having wetland hydrology (no soil sample or flagging was placed at
this location because it may be offsite).
The next step in the DCD process is for FDC to apply for after -the -fact critical area permitting. FDC's
biologist needs to return to the site to delineate and rate all on -site wetlands and to rate all off -site
wetlands for the purposes of determining protective buffers as needed. Given the deficiencies in the
Westech report submitted, such as missing supporting data appendices and missing wetland
delineations, and additional wetlands confirmed by DCD, a revised wetland report will be required for
permitting. It should be noted that there may be more unidentified wetland areas on the property than
is shown in the attached Figure 1.
CtnrMXA1AtPr
During the March 22nd site visit, DCD confirmed that more than 2,000 square feet of new development
and more than 7,000 square feet of new land disturbing activities occurred on the site. Therefore, a
stormwater permit is required under JCC 18.30.070. The next step in the DCD process is for FDC to apply
for a stormwater permit.
Unpermitted Buildings
During the March 22nd site visit, DCD confirmed that the following three unpermitted structures on were
on site: (1) an instruction and meeting area building; (2) a bathroom building; and (3) an accessory
building. DCD believes that these are the same unpermitted structures built by Mr. D'Amico at the Old
Gardiner Road Property.
Jefferson County has adopted the 2015 International Building under JCC 15.05.30. Under R 105.1 of the
2015 International Building Code, under which building permits are required unless the work exempt is
under R 105.2. Based upon our site visit, the structures moved to the Cedar Hills Property do not appear
to be exempt. The next step in the DCD process is for FDC to apply for after -the -fact building permits for
these structures.
Land Use / Health and Safety Permitting
Based upon the March 22nd site visit observations and FDC's statements, it appears that FDC intends to
build and operate a commercial shooting facility as defined under JCC 18.10.030 in the near future. The
zoning designation for the Cedar Hills Property is Inholding Forest 20 (IF 20). IF 20 allows a commercial
shooting facility as a Conditional Use. The next step in the DCD process is for FDC to apply for a
Conditional Use permit for an outdoor commercial shooting facility. FDC is cautioned that failure to
provide a SEPA Checklist for the original scope of the project would likely result in FDC having to re -do
the entire SEPA Checklist process. That could be costly.
6
JeffCo 0041974
Concurrent with the Conditional Use permit, you will be required to apply for a commercial shooting
facility operating permit under Article III of Chapter 8.50 of the Jefferson County Code.
During the March 22"d site visit, we identified the presence of an unpermitted septic holding tank. We
understand that there may be a letter coming from Jefferson County Environmental Public Health on the
unpermitted holding tank.
Again, we thank you for allowing DCD to visit your site to investigate these allegations. Based upon DCD's
site visit and information available to us at this time, we believe this letter sets a path forward for you
to achieve full compliance with the JCC of your site and proposed operations. DCD looks forward to
processing your permit applications in the near future.
Please contact this office within fifteen days or by May 20, 2019 regarding your plan of action to acquire
permits as described in this letter.
Respectfully,
Patty Charnas, Director
Department of Community Development
Cc:
Greg Overstreet, Fort Discovery Counsel
Stuart Whitford, Jefferson County Environmental Public Health Director
Philip Hunsucker, Chief Civil Deputy Prosecuting Attorney
7
JeffCo 0041975
Final Site Inspection Report
Security Services Northwest
Gardiner, Jefferson County, Washington
TDD: 08-03-0007
TechLaw, Inc.
Contract EP-S7-06-03
Region 10
START-3
Superfund Technical Assessment and Response Team
Submitted To: Mark Ader, Task Monitor
United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, Washington 98101
September 2008
JeffCo 0030434
���� �_ ���m��n���
����� Te(h�aw Final Site Inspection
September zoo
Table of Contents
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION ......_...._..~............~......_.............~.................,...................._.,...._6
2.0 SITE 7
2.1 PROJECT LOCATION ......... ............................. ..................... ..................... ...................... 7
2.2 SITE DESCRIPTION ......................................................................................... ................. 7
2.2.1 Site Ownership History ........................................................................................... 8
2.2.2 Site Operations ....—_...~_~~~~~~~...~~~~..~~~-'-~'-_~~~_~~.~~..~~~._.8
2.23 Source Characteristics ..................... °~.~~~~~.~.,�~~...................... .................... .9
2.3 P8BVlODO INVESTIGATIONS '_.~..'..,'.~~-~._'.,~..~,.^^.._.,.............~~,~....,~.~..........A
2,3.1 2006/2007 Ecology Initial Investigations .................................................. .......... l0
2L3-2 2007Ecology --._~~~^.,,...................................... l0
2.3'3 Security Services Northwest ............................................................ lO
2.3/4 2000 8IART-3PA................................................................................................ lO
3J0 FIELD ACTIVITIES AND ANALYTICAL PROTOCOLS ...................................... 14
3.1 SAMPLING METHODOLOGY .....,....—.--,~,,,--_,...-....,.....,......'_-.-,'~.l4
3.1.1 Soil ,..-...—~...........-,.,.,,,,,-,-,...,.,...-~~,~~~~,,,14
3.1.2 Sediment Samples —''~......,...,...-.~_~.~.,._,.~~.,.....-.-'.~~.-..-~....,,.,-...., 14
3.2 ANALYTICAL PROTOCOLS ........ .................................................. ~................................. 15
3.3 GLOBAL POSITIONING SYSTEM ............................................... .......... ~......... ~.............. 15
3/4 WASTE ................................................................................. l5
4.0 QUALITY CONTROL~~...~.~....~~..~~.~~......~~~~~, 19
4.1 SATISFACTION OF DATA QUALITY OBJECTIVES ........ ...... ................... .................... ~.... lA
4.2 CONTROL SAMPLES ..................................................... l9
4.3 DATA QUALITY OBJECTIVES ..................... ~................................... l9
4.3.1 Precision ........................................................... 19
4.3.2 Accuracy ....-..~~-~-'.'^~'--.-~_..-_..~...-......,,.,.,.~.-....,,.~..'~.,...~....20
4.3.3 Completeness ..—.—.---....—......~....-....~.,.....,_~...,,~'.,..,..2O
4.3/4 Representativeness ......................................... ...................................................... 28
4.3.5 Comparability _,.-.~,~..,--~.~._~_^_~~~~,~~.~_.~.._,,~~,.~~.~.~,~~~.~~._~.20
5.0 ANALYTICAL RESULTS REPORTING AND BACKGROUND SAMPLES ~~~,21
5.1 ANALYTICAL RESULTS EVALUATION CRITERIA ................. ........................................ °,2l
5.1.1 Analytical Sample Results Reporting ............ .,..,..~.....2l
5.2 BACKGROUND SAMPLES ................................................................................................ 2l
5-2.1 Background Surface Soil ................................... ,................... ,............... 2l
52.1.1 Sample .....
5.2.1.2 Suoglo�moudo..^+°~°^�°~.~~°. ~_~�~.~�~~~_~__~~_. 21
5.2.2 Background 8ediment.~.,~.....~~~-'~,~_,,.^,~°,.,.~~............. ^...^...... 22
5221 Sample Locations '22
5.2.2.2 Sample Rosults... ~_�~,~�~~_~~��,._�~�~~=_�~�,°,��,°��
6.1 SAMPLE LOCATIONS .............................................................................................. .... .,26
JcffCoO030435
Z Te(hLaw Security Services Northwest
Final Site Inspection
„ .
September 2008
Table of Contents
7.0 MIGRATION PATHWAY AND TARGETS.............................................................. 28
7.1 GROUNDWATER MIGRATION PATHWAY ........................................... .+..,,................. •,.... 28
7.2 SURFACE WATERMIGRATION PATHWAY .................. .............. ,............... I ......... I ........ r....28
7.2.1 Pathway Description ........................... ......... .......... :....... ............... ,.......,................... 28
7.2.2 Targets....................................................,..................,... ....................... ................ 29
7.2.3 Sample Locations ..................................... ................. ....,......,.:.:............... ......... 131
7.2.4 Sediment Sampling Results ........................ ................... ............... ..,.................. ... 31
7.3 SOIL EXPOSURE PATHWAY ........................................ ,... ,................. ......... ,.,... ................... 31
7.4 AIR MIGRATION PATHWAY............................................................................................ 31
8.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS............................................................................. 38
8.1 SOURCES......................:....................:....:..:.......,....:.....,..:.......:...,.........:.,:,.:.................!, 38
8.2 PATHWAYS.................................................................................................................... 38
8:3 TARGETS.............................................................................. ,........................................ 38
8.4 CONCLUSIONS................................................................................................................ 38
9.0 REFERENCES................................................................................................................39
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE Page
TABLE 3-1 Sample Collection Summary................................................................................ 17
TABLE 5-1 Inorganic Analytical Results Summary — Surface Soil Samples (SN-SS-01 to
.:...:...:......,..,...:,:....y,:..,.:,:.e:.::.:,..:.,:....+::.�::.M::f.,�...,.�:..,...r23
TABLE 5-2 Inorganic Analytical Results Summary — Surface Soil Samples (SN-SS-07 to
SN-SS-11)..rwrrw�.!}....n�!.r,•,..+rlT!..�Tle1r,..F�t!rwK•.1�.ltTlvi►rf.s•..+.+ hr��e„!.fYwl.••;fr,..!}...}.F,.r,.l1T•Frs..24
TABLE 5-3 Inorganic Analytical Results Summary — Sediment Samples................................25
TABLE 7-1 Population within a 4-Mile Radius .......................................... ,r......,...!....... .............36
TABLE 7-2 Wetlands within a 4-Mile Radius .,....::.:...:::.:..F...:. t..a...:.;..,.,::,.�::.::....�4,..,.:,..,..,....37
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE
Page
FIGURE 2-1 General Site Location Map............................:.......................,................................ 11
FIGURE2-2 Site Map .... .............,,........ ............................... ,............................................... .,.. 12
FIGURE2-3 Aerial Photograph ....................... ............. .,...+..,:............. ,..:............. ................ 13
FIGURE3-1 Sampling Location Map....................................................................................... 16
FIGURE6-1 Sample Exceedances Map...rT•}1.}.y4FraxF.�..fr;T• •NuY•iN!4.�ar fF}.}..;j.}Firf}.FF�.F}+.}*T..�a�;Fr.00.!. 27
FIGURE 7-1 Four -Mile Radius Map.......................................................................................... 33
FIGURE 7-2 Surface Water 15-Mile Target Distance Limit Map North....................................34
FIGURE 7-3 Surface Water 15-Mile Target Distance Limit Map South.........................I...........35
ii
JeffCo 0030436
Z TQchLaw
"..-. .
LIST OF APPENDICES
APPENDIX
Security Services Northwest
Final Site Inspection
September 2008
Table of Contents
A PHOTOGRAPHIC DOCUMENTATION
B GPS SAMPLE LOCATION DATA
C DATA VALIDATION MEMORANDA AND LABORATORY DATA
D FIELD LOGBOOK
E SAMPLE PLAN ALTERATION FORMS
iii
JeffCo 0030437
Z Tedaw Security Services Northwest
Final Site Inspection
1•-'" r September2008
List of Acronyms
LIST OF ACRONYMS
Acronym
Definition
OF
degrees Fahrenheit
%R
percent recovery
Assessor
Jefferson County Assessors Office
ASTM
American Society for Testing and Materials
bgs
below ground surface
Cascadia
Cascadia Consulting Group
CERCLA
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
CERCLIS
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System
CLP
Contract Laboratory Program
CLPAS
Contract Laboratory Program Analytical Services
DQO
data quality objectives
DVBWC
The Discovery Bay Village Water Company, Inc.
Ecology
Washington Department of Ecology
EPA
United States Environmental Protection Agency
ESA
Endangered Species Act
GPS
Global Positioning System
GSQAP
Generic Sampling and Quality Assurance Plan
ID
identification
IDMS
Integrated Data Management System
IDW
investigation -derived waste
Jefferson County
Jefferson County Department of Community Development
L & I
Washington State Department of Labor and Industries
LLC
Limited Liability Company
MA
Modified Analysis
mg/Kg
milligrams per kilogram
mg/L
milligrams per liter
mm
millimeter
MS/MSD
matrix spike/matrix spike duplicates
NCSS
National Cooperative Soil Survey
No.
number
NOAA
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NWI
National Wetland Inventory
PA
Preliminary Assessment
PPE
probable point of entry
PUD
Public Utility District
QA
quality assurance
QC
quality control
QMP
Quality Management Plan
RPD
relative percent difference
SARA
Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act
SHA
site hazard assessment
SI
Site Inspection
SOP
Standard Operating Procedures
SPAFs
Sampling Plan Alterations Forms
SSNW
Security Services Northwest
SSSP
Site Specific Sampling Plan
START-3
Superfund Technical Assessment and Response Team-3
TAL
Target Analyte List
TDD
Technical Direction Document
TDL
target distance limit
TechLaw
TechLaw, Incorporated
TM
Task Monitor
1V
JeffCo 0030438
1 Tekaw
V._rrri - -
Security Services Northwest
Final Site Inspection
September 2008
List of Acronyms
Acronym
Definition
U.S.
United States
USDA
United States Department of Agriculture
USDC
United States Department of Commerce
USFW
United States Fish and Wildlife
USGS
United States Geological Survey
WA
Washington
WDFW
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
WISHA
Washington Industrial Safety and Health Act
WRIA
Water Resource Inventory Area
v
JeffCo 0030439
Z TechLaw
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Security Services Northwest
Final Site Inspection
September 2008
1.0 Introduction
The United States (U.S.) Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) tasked the TechLaw,
Incorporated (TechLaw) Superfund Technical Assessment and Response Team-3 (START-3) to
conduct a Site Inspection (SI) at the Security Services Northwest (SSNW) site, EPA
Identification (ID) Number (No.) WAN001002697, under Contract No. EP-S7-06-03, Technical
Direction Document (TDD) No. 08-03-0007. The general purpose of an SI is to collect
information on current site conditions including the nature and extent of contamination,
determine potential human and ecological exposure pathways, and determine the need for federal
intervention under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability
Act (CERCLA) of 1980 and the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) of
1986.
Based on this information, START-3 was tasked by the EPA Task Monitor (TM) to:
• Review background site information;
• Develop a Site Specific Sampling Plan (SSSP) (TechLaw 2008c) to characterize the soil
on the three shooting ranges and sediment from Contractor's Creek. The SSSP was used
in conjunction with TechLaw's Generic Sampling and Quality Assurance Plan (GSQAP)
(TechLaw 2008a) and the Quality Management Plan (QMP) (TechLaw 2007).
• Arrange for EPA Contract Laboratory Program (CLP) analysis of Target Analyte List
(TAL) metals in sediment and soil samples.
• Document a threat or potential threat to public health or the environment posed by the
Site;
• Assess the need for additional detailed investigation and/or response action at the SSNW
site;
Document current site conditions; and
Prepare a SI report documenting the results.
This document includes the site background information (Section 2.0), field sampling activities
and analytical protocols (Section 3.0), quality assurance and quality control criteria (Section 4.0),
background sample results (Section 5.0), potential sources (Section 6.0), migration pathways and
targets (Section 7.0), summary and conclusions (Section 8.0), and references (Section 9.0).
JeffCo 0030440
Xi TechLaw Security Services Northwest
Final Site Inspection
September 2008
2.0 Site Background
The following subsections discuss the site background, description, ownership history, and
operations. Information presented in this subsection is based on a review of Site background
information using EPA Region 10 and Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology) files.
2.1 Project Location
Site Name: Security Services Northwest
CERCLIS* No. WAN001002697
Location: 3501 Old Gardiner Road, Gardiner, Washington (WA)
County: Jefferson
Latitude: 48.045139 North
Longitude:-122.889444 West
Legal Description: On or about the line dividing Sections 35 and 36, Township 30
North, Range 2 West
Property Owner: Reed Gunstone
3501 Old Gardiner Road, Gardiner, Jefferson County, WA, 98382-
8781
(360) 797-7302
SSNW Owner: Joe D'Amico
3501 Old Gardiner Road, Gardiner, Jefferson County, WA, 98382-
8781
(360) 821-9001
* Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System
2.2 Site Description
The SSNW site is located in Gardiner, Jefferson County, WA, just west of Contractor's Point on
Discovery Bay (Figure 2-1). Discovery Bay is located on the Olympic Peninsula and enters the
Strait of Juan de Fuca between the Miller and Quimper Peninsulas. Old Gardiner Road bounds
the majority of the southern portion of the site; forested land is located south and west of the site.
The SSNW site is comprised of eleven different parcels totaling approximately 3,700 acres
(Figure 2-2). These parcels are zoned as open space, vacant, residential, and forest land; the
zoning designations are shown on Figure 2-2 (Jefferson County Assessors Office (Assessor)
2007). Figure 2-3 provides an aerial view of the SSNW site. The parcel numbers associated
with the SSNW site are the following: 002351002, 002354003, 002354006, 002363001,
002363007, 002363003, 002363006, 002363001, 002363002, 902011003, and 002363009
(Ecology 2007a).
The owner of the property is Irene Gunstone, Reed Gunstone, and Kristen Gunstone-White and
the owner/operator of SSNW is Joe D'Amico. SSNW consists of three shooting ranges, a
helicopter landing zone, a dock, and a variety of buildings.
7
JeffCo 0030441
Z Tedaw Security Services Northwest
Final Site Inspection
September 2008
2.0 Site Background
The majority of the parcels immediately surrounding the SSNW site are also owned by the
Gunstone family and are listed as Country Girl Enterprises, Ark Group Limited Liability
Company (LLC), Discovery Bay Land Company, and Bay Mountain Timber (Assessor 2007).
2.2.1 Site Ownership History
The SSNW site is owned by Irene Gunstone, Reed Gunstone, and Kristen Gunstone-White. Joe
D'Amico and SSNW lease 22 acres of the Gunstone's property (Ecology 2007a). According to
the SSNW website, historically, the property was a tree farm. The Gunstone family utilizes the
property for a shellfish farming/shipping business. Available file information does not provide
specific information as to the dates of property ownership by the Gunstones, the dates of
operation for the shellfish businesses, or the extent of the tree farm. It is also unknown if the
SSNW site was historically utilized for any other purposes.
2.2.2 Site Operations
The Gunstone family operates one of the largest shellfish harvesting businesses in the State of
WA. Shellfish.harvesting and associated activities occur on property both owned and leased by
the Gunstones. The primary focus of the site investigation is the operation of the firing ranges
known as SSNW.
Since 1988, SSNW leased the Site from the Gunstones for security -type operations and training
purposes (D'Amico 2007). SSNW provides security services and training; counter assault team
services and training; armored car services; alarm installation and monitoring services; and K-9
services and training (SSNW 2007). In addition, SSNW provides security services to the
Gunstones by patrolling the beaches during low tides (D'Amico 2007). From 1992 to the
present, SSNW has trained 853 security officers; and requires that each security officer qualify
on the shooting range once per year. The current requirement . for qualifying is shooting 42
rounds per year (D'Amico 2008a).
The SSNW site has three shooting ranges (Shooting Range #1, Shooting Range #2, and Shooting
Range #3), a dock, a helicopter landing zone, and a variety of buildings, including an office and
a classroom. Shooting Ranges #1 and #2 are located on the main facility, which has more
controlled access, including a guard house for times when the ranges are in use. Range #3 is
located adjacent to Old Gardiner Road and is subject to trespassing. The shooting ranges are
utilized by SSNW staff for training with rifles and handguns, which primarily utilize 40
millimeter (mm), 45 mm, and 9 mm caliber rounds (D'Amico 2008a). Reportedly, State and
Federal law enforcement agencies have also used the facility for firearms training purposes
(SSNW 2007). On April 30, 2007, the Washington State Department of Labor and Industries (L
& I) conducted an inspection under the Washington Industrial Safety and Health Act (WISHA)
and determined there were no explosives stored at the SSNW site (L & I 2007); however, an old
canon is located on the D'Amico residence, which is adjacent to the firing ranges. The canon is
periodically fired on special occasions.
According to Mr. D'Amico, the amount of lead shot was recently measured at approximately 12
to 13 pounds per cubic foot in soil at Shooting Ranges #1. Mr. D'Amico plans to recycle the
spent bullet fragments when the volume by weight per cubic foot of soil reaches approximately
20 pounds. The rounds fired on site are mostly copper jacketed with a lead core. The grading at
JeffCo 0030442
Z Tekaw Security Services Northwest
Final Site Inspection
September 2008
2.0 Site Background
the shooting ranges slopes back towards the backstops to help minimize migration to nearby
surface water features (D'Amico 2008a).
2.2.3 Source Characteristics
Potentially identified sources at the SSNW site include contaminated soil located at Shooting
Ranges #1, #2, and #3. The various areas of the SSNW site containing potential source areas are
addressed below:
Shooting Ranee #1
Shooting Range #1 is located on the northwest/southern portion of parcel number
002363008, just west of Shooting Range #2, and north of Old Gardiner Road. Shooting
Range #1 is the main Shooting Range utilized by SSNW. Shooting Range #1 is
approximately 45 yards by 45 yards and has six firing lanes located on the southern portion
of the shooting range (D'Amico 2007). A berm, that is approximately 20 feet high, is located
behind the target stands. Shooting Range #1 also has a covered shelter on the northern
portion of the range and a mobile storage unit on the northeastern portion of the range.
Shooting Ranae #2
Shooting Range #2 is used when there are a more people training then Range # 1 can
accommodate and is located on the southern portion of parcel number 002363008, just east
of Shooting Range #1, and north of Old Gardiner Road. Shooting Range #2 is approximately
40 yards by 20 yards and has one, 2-foot-tall target stand located on the south side of the
range (D'Amico 2007). Located behind the target stand is a backstop that stands
approximately 15 to 20 feet high. Shooting Range #2 also has two unfinished sound barriers,
a building, and a covered shelter on the northern portion of the range.
Shootine Ranee #3
Shooting Range #3 is located in the southwestern portion of parcel number 002363001, south
of Old Gardiner Road. The exact dimensions of Shooting Range #3 are unknown, but based
on site observation, is less than a quarter of an acre in size. This range is rarely used by
SSNW; however, it is trespassed on, used for illegal dumping, and as a spot for unauthorized
target practice (D'Amico 2007). SSNW must use Range 3 every two years to maintain its
grandfathered zoning status as a shooting range. A 30-foot berm is located on the southwest
end of this range. Also located out side the gate of the range is an old car, riddled with bullet
holes. This and other illegally -dumped objects were to be removed by Jefferson County
Public Health, according to Mr. D'Amico (D'Amico 2007). No trespassing signs are posted
at Shooting Range #3, but are often removed by trespassers (D'Amico 2008a). SSNW uses
similar firearms at Range 3 as the other two ranges, however, as stated earlier, trespassing
often occurs at this range, and the types of weapons used on the range by trespasser's cannot
be specified.
2.3 Previous Investigations
The following subsections discuss previous site investigations for the SSNW site, potential
sources, and the migration/exposure pathways and hazard ranking system (HRS) targets.
M
JeffCo 0030443
S TechLaw Security Services Northwest
Final Site Inspection
September 2008
2.0 Site Background
2.3.1 2006/2007 Ecology Initial Investigations
On August 1, 2005, Ecology received a complaint about 3501 Old Gardiner Road, regarding the
SSNW site. The caller alleged concerns regarding potentially elevated lead contamination in
soils at the SSNW shooting ranges. Ecology completed an initial investigation field report
without conducting a site visit due to access issues with the property owner. Ecology
recommended that because they were unable to perform an initial site visit and investigation, the
SSNW site should be listed on the suspected contaminated site database and that a site hazard
assessment (SHA) be conducted (Ecology 2006a).
On February 3, 2006, Ecology sent a letter to Ark Group LLC, via certified mail and in care of
Reed Gunstone, informing them that the SSNW site had been placed on the database of
Confirmed or Suspected Contaminated Sites and assigned a Facility Site Identification number of
3705596 (Ecology 2006b).
2.3.2 2007 Ecology Strategy Recommendation
On May 4, 2007, the State completed a strategy recommendation. Ecology recommended that a
PA be conducted at the SSNW site and that the SSNW site be considered a high priority due to
the high number of potential contaminant migration/exposure routes posing a threat to human
health and environment (Ecology 2007a). Ecology subsequently referred the SSNW site to the
EPA.
2.3.3 Security Services Northwest Investigation
Joe D'Amico of SSNW collected one water sample from Contractor's Creek and one drinking
water well sample on September 25, 2007 and Twiss Analytical Laboratory, Incorporated
analyzed these samples for lead and copper using EPA method 200.9 for lead and EPA Method
200.7 for copper. The Contractor's Creek water sample and drinking water well samples both
contained 0.001 milligrams per liter (mg/L) of lead and the drinking water well sample contained
less than 0.006 mg/L of copper (D'Amico 2007). The sediment samples collected from
Contractor's Creek during the SI contained between 5.5 JH to 8.4 JH of lead, well below the
background sediment samples.
2.3.4 2008 START-3 PA
EPA tasked the START-3 contractor to conduct a PA in June 2007 and the PA site visit was
completed on October 10, 2007. The PA report was finalized in February 2008. Based on the
findings of the PA, it was determined that the potential contaminant at the SSNW site was lead
from spent lead shot/bullets. START-3 recommended that a SI should be conducted based on
the potential for lead contamination to impact nearby surface water features. The PA also
determined that endangered species and several sensitive environments are located in the vicinity
of the SSNW site (TechLaw 2008b).
10
JeffCo 0030444
U
a a
N m
J
lLo
.
k
@ �_ - 2
� 2
` � t
) i > LL.
MWI
�
q
fE
�2
ClBEb
!
%«§»
_
§
§
Z Te(hlaw
Security Services Northwest
Final Site Inspection
September 2008
3.0 Field Activities and Analytical Protocols
3.0 FIELD ACTIVITIES AND ANALYTICAL PROTOCOLS
3.1 Sampling Methodology
An SSSP was developed by START-3 and approved by EPA prior to field sampling (TechLaw
2008c). The SSSP was used in conjunction with TechLaw's GSQAP (TechLaw 2008a) and the
QMP (2007). The SSSP was based on a review of background information and interviews with
site representatives. The SSSP, GSQAP, and QMP describe the sampling strategy, sampling
methodology, and analytical program to investigate potential targets. The SI field activities were
conducted in accordance with the approved SSSP, GSQAP, and QMP, and focused on the
shooting range soils and Contractor's Creek sediments. Deviations from the SSSP were
approved by the EPA TM and are documented in the Sampling Plan Alteration Forms (SPAFs)
presented in Appendix E.
The START-3 SI field sampling event was conducted on June 30, 2008. All samples were
analyzed for TAL metals. Sample types and methods of collection are described below. A list
of all samples collected for fixed laboratory analysis under the SI is contained in Table 3-1.
Photographic documentation of SI field activities is presented as Appendix A.
Alphanumeric identification numbers applied by START-3 to each sample location (e.g., SN-SS-
01) are used in this SI report as the station location identifiers. Sample locations are provided in
Table 3-1 and Figure 3-1.
3.1.1 Soil Samples
Soil samples were collected at the SSNW site in accordance with the sampling methodologies
and Standard Operating Procedures (SOPS) provided in the SSSP. A total of 12 soil samples
were collected, including one background sample to assess the potential for soil contamination
on the shooting ranges. Samples were collected from directly behind the target stands in the area
of the backstops most likely to be impacted by bullet fragments. Additionally, soil samples were
collected from areas 50 to 150 feet away from the backstops in the flat area where the shooters
stand to determine whether migration from the backstops across the range towards the stream
was occurring. All surface soil samples were collected with a dedicated pre -cleaned stainless
steel spoon or a sterile plastic scoop, and transferred to a dedicated stainless steel bowl,
homogenized, screened with a 10-mesh screen, and placed into a sample container. All surface
soil samples were collected from 0 to 12-inches below ground surface (bgs). Sample materials
were screened in the field using a 10-mesh screen to eliminate large bullet fragments, as the
larger fragments are unlikely to migrate from the ranges. Figure 3-1 identifies each of the soil
and sediment sampling locations.
3.1.2 Sediment Samples
Sediment samples were collected at the SSNW site in accordance with the sampling
methodologies and SOPS provided in the SSSP. A total of five sediment samples were collected
including one background location. Sediment samples were collected from locations to
determine if the migration of contamination from SSNW Shooting Ranges has impacted the
14
JeffCo 0030448
Z Tedaw Security Services Northwest
Final Site Inspection
= September 2008
3.0 Field Activities and Analytical Protocols
surface water pathway and to determine whether there were other potential sources of
contamination to the creek from roadways that are upgradient of the SSNW ranges. All sediment
samples were collected from 0 to 6-inches bgs with a dedicated stainless steel spoon or sterile
plastic scoop (depending upon water content of sediment). The sample material was then placed
into a dedicated stainless steel bowl, excess water decanted, and sample material homogenized
and place into appropriate sample container. Figure 3-1 identifies each of the soil and sediment
sampling locations.
3.2 Analytical Protocols
Samples collected for TAL Metals were analyzed through the EPA Contract Laboratory Program
Analytical Services (CLPAS) contract. Analytical methods for sediment samples and the rinsate
blank inorganic parameters were completed using EPA Method CLPAS ILM05.4 by Bonner
Analytical Testing located at 2703 Oak Grove Road, Hattiesburg, Mississippi. Analytical
methods for soil samples inorganic parameters were completed using EPA Method modified
analysis (MA) 1580.1 also by Bonner Analytical Testing. The MA 1580.1 was analyzed using
the same method as EPA Method CLPAS ILM05.4 except for the Laboratory air dried the
samples and proceeded with sieving according to American Society for Testing and Materials
(ASTM) D422-63 using a grain size range of less than U.S. Standard #80 mesh sieve prior to
analysis.
3.3 Global Positioning System
The handheld Garmin ETrex Global Positioning System (GPS) Unit was utilized by START-3
personnel to record coordinates of all sample locations, and GPS coordinates are provided as
Appendix B.
3.4 Investigation -Derived Waste
Investigation -derived waste (IDW) generated during the SI sampling effort consisted of solid
sampling equipment (e.g. gloves) disposed of as non -hazardous waste through the City of Port
Orchard solid waste program. No IDW generated during the SI sampling effort remains on site.
15
JeffCo 0030449
O
� a
V C r
0 o
m c� rn �Zj�, F o sry
Li J cc N N
3 0� AtL, - Ot
E
m VZ
� ' r] o
El
1 , IOL, r
r
ANN
N f
O
Q ht
z
VIP �
go
z CD
4 � Of
co
41 �-
1 g !
a
. Techlaw Security Services Northwest
Final Site Inspection
September 2008
Section 3.0 Field Activities and Analytical Protocols
Table 3-1
Sample Collection Summary
Security Services Northwest
Gardiner, Washington
STATION
CLP ID
MATRIX
DESCRIPTION
NUMBER
NUMBER
SN-SS-01
MJ97E7
Soil
Source sample collected from the eastern
side of Shooting Range #1 backsto .
SN-SS-02
MJ97E7
Soil
Source sample collected from the center of
Shooting Range #1 backstop
SN-SS-03
MJ97E8
Soil
Source sample collected from the western
side of Shooting Range #1 backstop
SN-SS-04
MJ97E9
Soil
Source sample collected from the
northwestern area of Shooting Range #1,
approximately 2 ft south from covered area,
near northern backstop.
SN-SS-05
MJ97FO
Soil
Source sample collected from the center of
Shooting Range #1, approximately 25 ft from
the western side and 8 ft south from the
covered area.
SN-SS-06
MJ97F1
Soil
Source sample collected from the
northeastern area of Shooting Range #1,
sliizhtiv to the west of covered area.
SN-SS-07
MJ97F2
Soil
Source sample collected from the eastern
side of Shooting Range #2 backstop.
SN-SS-08
MJ97F3
Soil
Source sample collected from the center of
Shooting Range #2 backstop, approximately
10 ft west and 3 ft north of SN-SS-07
SN-SS-09
MJ97F4
Soil
Source sample collected from the
northeastern area of Shooting Range #2, just
east of the covered shelter.
SN-SS-10
MJ97F5
Soil
Source sample collected from the
northwestern area of Shooting Range #3
backstop, approximately 5 ft behind target.
SN-SS-11
MJ97F6
Soil
Source sample collected from north of
Shootin4 Ran a #3's gate.
SN-SS-17
MJ97F7
Soil
Background sample collected from the an
area outside of SSNW site influences and
approximately 100 R east of Shooting Range
#1
SN-SD-01
MJ97F8
Sediment
Release sample collected northeast of
Gunstone's house on Contractors Creek
downgradient of Shooting Ranges #1, 2, and
3.
SN-SD-02
MJ97F9
Sediment
Release sample collected from north of Old
Gardiner Road bridge, Shooting Ranges #1
and 2 PPE along Contractors Creek.
SN-SD-03
MJ97E3
Sediment
Release sample collected north of Highway
101 bridge, Shooting Range #3 PPE, along
Contractors Creek.
SN-SD-04
MJ97GO
Sediment
Background Sample located south and
donfradient of Highway1!jgtway 101 bridge
17
JeffCo 0030451
Tech�w Security Services Northwest
_ ' I Final
August 2008
Section 3.0 Field Activities and Analytical Protocols
Table 3-1(continued)
Sample Collection Summary
Security Services Northwest
Gardiner, Washington
STATION
CLP ID
MATRIX
DESCRIPTION
NUMBER
NUMBER
SN-SD-05
MJ97G1
Sediment
Background sample collected upgradient of
Highway 101 bridge.
SN-01-RB
NA
QC Rinsate Blank
NA
Key.
CLP ID Number.
= Contract Laboratory Program sample identification number
ft
= feet
NA
= Not applicable
PPE
= Probably point of entry
RB
= Rinsate blank
Station No.
= START-3 sample identification number
SD
= Sediment sample
SN
= Security Services Northwest
SS
= surface soil sample
SSNW
= Security Services Northwest
QC
= Quality control
IV
JeffCo 0030452
1' TechLaw
Security Services Northwest
Final Site Inspection
September 2008
4.0 Quality Assurance / Quality Control
4.0 QUALITY ASSURANCE/QUALITY CONTROL
A total of five sediment and 12 surface soil samples were analyzed for TAL Metals. Inorganic
analysis was performed in accordance with USEPA Contract Laboratory Program Statement of
Work for Inorganic Analysis ILM05.4 and MA 1580.1 (EPA 2004). Specific quality
assurance/quality control (QA/QC) requirements for analyses of the SSNW site samples are
presented in the CLP statement of work, the project SSSP, GSQAP, and QMP (TechLaw 2007,
TechLaw 2008a, and TechLaw 2008b).
All data from analyses performed were reviewed and validated by an EPA chemist. Data
qualifiers were applied, as necessary, according to statements of work, analytical methods, and
the following guidance:
• U.S. EPA Contract Laboratory Program National Functional Guidelines for Inorganic
Data Review (EPA 2004).
Copies of the data QA memoranda are included in Appendix C.
4.1 Satisfaction of Data Quality Objectives
The data quality objectives (DQO) for the SSNW site were established using the Guidance for
the Data Quality Objective Process (EPA 2000). Upon completion of data validation it was
determined that all samples collected and analyzed by the laboratories achieved sufficient data
quality to meet DQOs established in the SSSP and GSQAP (TechLaw 2008a and TechLaw
2008c).
4.2 Quality Assurance/Quality Control Samples
Samples were collected or processed in the field to assist in assessing the effectiveness of
QA/QC measures. QC samples included temperature blanks, a field duplicate, and an equipment
rinsate blank. One temperature blank sample per shipment cooler was also submitted to the lab.
QC samples for all analyses included matrix spike/matrix spike duplicates (MS/MSD) at a rate of
one sample per 20 sample media.
4.3 Project -Specific Data Quality Objectives
The following describes the laboratories' ability to meet project DQOs for precision, accuracy,
and completeness, and the overall success of the field team and the laboratories at meeting
project DQOs for representativeness and comparability. The laboratory and field team were able
to meet the project DQOs for all samples
4.3.1 Precision
Precision measures the reproducibility of the sampling and analytical methodology. Laboratory
and field precision is defined as the relative percent difference (RPD) between duplicate sample
analyses. The laboratory duplicate samples measure the precision of the analytical method.
19
JeffCo 0030453
:T Te(hLaw Security Services Northwest
f Final Site Inspection
September 2008
4.0 Quality Assurance / Quality Control
The RPD values were reviewed for all samples. No sample results were qualified solely based on
laboratory duplicate QC outliers.
4.3.2 Accuracy
Accuracy measures the reproducibility of sampling and analytical methodology. Laboratory
accuracy is defined as the spike % recovery (%R).
The %R for antimony was qualified as low bias and an estimated quantity or unusable due to low
recovery of the matrix spike. The %R for lead was qualified as low bias and an estimated
quantity due to low recovery for the matrix spike. The %R for copper was qualified as high bias
and an estimated quantity due to high percent difference for the serial dilution result.
4.3.3 Completeness
Data completeness is defined as the percentage of usable data (usable data divided by the total
possible data). All laboratory data were reviewed for data validation and usability.
Out of a total of 391 data points, 2.8% of the total data points were qualified unusable due to low
percent recoveries.
4.3.4 Representativeness
Data representativeness expresses the degree to which sample data accurately and precisely
represent a characteristic of a population, parameter variations at a sampling point or
environmental condition. The number and selection of samples were determined in the field to
account accurately for site variations and sample matrices. The DQO for representativeness of
90% was met. -
4.3.5 Comparability
Comparability is a qualitative parameter expressing the confidence with which one data set can
be compared to another. Data produced for this site followed applicable field sampling
techniques and specific analytical methodology as applied to groundwater. The DQO for
comparability was met.
20
JeffCo 0030454
S Techlaw
Security Services Northwest
Final Site Inspection
September 2008
5.0 Analytical Results Reporting and Background Samples
5.0 ANALYTICAL RESULTS REPORTING AND BACKGROUND
SAMPLES
This section describes analytical results reporting, sample locations and analytical results of SI
samples obtained from potential targets. The sampling rationale and analytical results are
summarized in Sections 5.0, 6.0, and 7.0 of this report. Surface soil sample results for inorganic
data are summarized in Tables 5-1 and 5-2, and sediment sample results for inorganic data are
summarized in Table 5-3, respectively. The complete set of laboratory analytical data sheets is
located in Appendix C.
5.1 Analytical Results Evaluation Criteria
Analytical results presented in the summary tables show all compounds, which were detected
above the method detection limit. Analytical results indicating significant concentrations above
background, which are considered, elevated for HRS scoring purposes are indicated by bold type
and are underlined. The concentration of a hazardous substance is considered elevated if the
concentration is detected at greater than or equal to three times the concentration detected in the
site -specific background or reference sample. In the case where a hazardous substance is
undetected in the background or reference sample, any concentration detected at equal to or
greater than the background or reference sample's reporting limit is considered to be elevated.
5.1.1 Analytical Sample Results Reporting
Based on EPA Region 10 policy, evaluation of aluminum, calcium, iron, magnesium, potassium,
and sodium (common earth crust elements) is beyond the scope of this report. For this reason,
these elements are not discussed.
5.2 Background Samples
Background results for the surface soil samples are shown in the first column of the analytical
results summary Tables 5-1 and 5-2. Background results for the sediment samples are shown in
the first two columns of the analytical results summary Table 5-3 for comparison against source
or target results. The background sample locations are depicted in Figure 3-1.
5.2.1 Background Surface Soil Sample
5.2.1.1 Sample Location
The background surface soil sample was collected from an area upgradient and approximately
100 feet west-northwest of Shooting Range #1.
5.2.1.2 Sample Results
For the background surface soil sample SN-SS-17, eleven inorganic constituents were detected.
The inorganic constituents and the corresponding concentrations were as follows: arsenic at 1.2
milligrams per kilogram (mg/Kg), barium at 116 mg/Kg, beryllium at 3.3 mg/Kg, chromium at
30.3 mg/Kg, cobalt at 8.8 mg/Kg, copper at 13.4 mg/Kg at a high bias estimate, lead at 3.0
21
JeffCo 0030455
1 TechLaw Security Services Northwest
Filial Site Inspection
..n,
September 2008
5.0 Analytical Results Reporting and Background Samples
mg/Kg at a low bias estimate, manganese at 208 mg/Kg, nickel at 45.9 mg/Kg, vanadium at 40.6
mg/Kg, and zinc at 32.3 mg/Kg. Although antimony was detected, the results were rejected
during the QC process due to low matrix spike percent recoveries. The complete set of sample
results are presented in the data package located in Appendix C.
5.2.2 Background Sediment
5.2.2.1 Sample Locations
Two background sediment samples, SN-SD-04 and SN-SD-05, were collected during the SI
investigation. Background sediment sample SN-SD-04 was collected from Contractor's Creek
downgradient of Highway 101. Background sediment sample SN-SD-05 was collected from
Contractor's Creek upgradient of Highway 101. When more than one background sample was
collected, the highest concentration of the constituent within the set of samples was used for
comparison purposes.
5.2.2.2 Sample Results
For the background sediment samples SN-SD-04 and SN-SD-05, eleven inorganic constituents
were detected. The inorganic constituents and the concentrations were as follows: arsenic at 1.3
to 1.5 mg/Kg, barium at 33.9 to 37.7 mg/Kg, beryllium at 1.9 to 2.1 mg/Kg, chromium at 21.3 to
25.0 mg/Kg, cobalt at 4.9 J to 6.2 mg/Kg, copper at 7.9 to 8.4 mg/Kg at a high bias estimate, lead
at 3.3 to 4.4 mg/Kg at a low bias estimate, manganese at 216 to 269 mg/Kg, nickel at 23.6 to
25.0 mg/Kg, vanadium at 29.3 to 36.3 mg/Kg, and zinc at 24.5 to 29.7 mg/Kg. The complete set
of sample results are presented in the data package located in Appendix C.
22
JeffCo 0030456
N
o
00
n�
N
� �
FYi
.--•
O
"y
ra-,
�O
N
O�
O
M
E C O RS
iNr� F Qp
.^
0~
Uj
O
n
o0
m
OD
N
M
N
n
O
n
O
nl
O
m
�
p
N
p
�ti•+
F.
FF-��
C
cp JG07
'~-'
o
z�
pp I
00
�p7
'.
vl
M
O�
�D
�D
Z:)
N
vl
O,
C/
p
M
O
i
C.jZr
V
dam'
Cy
U
o
s
r
0
04
00
M'n
00kn
F.
�''"
O
y
,g
N
O
~
M
M
n
al
enp
int+1
O
N
tn
00
00
O
N
O bA
p
O\
M
�o
tn
O,
C-0
O
W x
O
f/]
N
01
tn
r4
4
M
enM
N
N
en
tn
O
O
enN
^'
N
vl
rn
u'1
O
M
En
a
O
tn
N
Oi
O
O �p9� 06
~'
W
N
Fri
O
�D
�D
N
z
Q
J7
V
O
N
N
N
O
M
O
N
N
C40
M
.0
C/]
O
4+ bA
O�
V]
CM
y
V]
�
"
M
N
N
N
O
't
�
�••�
N
.27
0
N
r
N
G
M
cq
N
C/]
�
V]
00
O
N
d
O
;--�
iyr
N
I'o
M
cn
GO
"'+
��,
m
rD
G\
rD
�
�o
M
a,
c)
zGO),�
O
O.--��-i
M
O
0O
en
p
M
N
o�M
vl
V1
O
kn
N
O
fV
en
t3
p
o
cop
a
p
Q�WPCIUVUzcn�n�N
O
'1p
.14
O
'O
O
R
'O
u a a¢
u�wxA., a �
M
N
1 TeehLaw Security Services Northwest
Final Site Inspection
September 2008
Section 5.0 Analytical Results Reporting and Background Samples
Table 5-2
Inorganic Analytical Results Summary -
Surface Soil Samples (SN-SS-07 to SN-SS-11)
Security Services Northwest
Gardiner, Washington
CLP Sample
ID
MJ97F7
MJ97F2
MJ97F3
MJ97F4
MJ97F5
MJ97F6
Location ID
SN-SS-17
SN-SS-07
SN-SS-08
SN-SS-09
SN-SS-10
SN-SS-11
Sample Date
June 30, 2008
June 30,
2008
June 30,
2008
June 30,
2008
June 30,
2008
June 30,
2008
Location
Description
Background
Eastern and '
Upper End of
Shooting
Range #2
Backstop
Center of
Shooting
Range #2
Backstop
East of
Shooting
Range #2
Covered
Shelter
Center of
Shooting
Range #3
behind the
standing
tar et
West of
Shooting
Range #3
gate
Matrix
Soil
Soil
Soil
Soil
Soil
Soil
Inor snit~ Ca►►t ounais Mg/kg)
Antimony
6.0 R
54.0 JL
53.6 JL
6.0 R
1.5 JL
6.0 R
Arsenic
1.2
4_0
4.3
2.0
1.7
1.5
Barium
116
68.3
61.3
47.6
33.8
40.1
Beryllium
3.3
2.3
2.5
3.1
2.1
3.1
Chromium
30.3
22.6
24.8
38.5
25.1
33.4
Cobalt
8.8
6.0
6.3
10.8
7.9
9.6
CODDer
13.4 JH
168 JH
152 JH
30.9 JH
23.3 JH
19.7 JH
Lead
3.0 JL
7,760 JL
9,710 JL
15.0 JL
697 JL
11.8 JL
Manganese
208
234
218
377
293
339
Mercury
0.10 U
0.027 J
0.028 J
0.039 J
0.023 J
0.10 U
Nickel
45.9
38.6
37.6
66.5
46.4
61.8
Selenium
3.5 U
3.5 U
3.5 U
3.5 U
3.5 U
3.5 U
Silver
1.0U
0.18J
0.20J
1.0U
1.0U
1.0U
Thallium
2.5U
2.5U
2.5U
2.5U
2.5U
2.5U
Vanadium
40.6
29.5
31.8
42.2
28.5
35.8
Zinc
32.3
34.8
35.6
31.6
23.4
31.6
Key:
CLP
= Contract Laboratory Program
EPA
= United States Environmental Protection Agency
H
= High Bias
ID
= Identification
J
= The analyte was positively identified. The associated numerical result is an estimate.
L
= Low Bias
mg/kg
= milligrams per kilogram
R
= the data are unusable. The analyte may or may not be present.
SN
= Security Services Northwest
SS
= Surface Soil Sample
U
= The material was analyzed for but was not detected above the level of the associated
value. The associated value is either the sample quantitation limit or the sample detection
limit.
Buld nttd underlined
= Concentration elevated when compared to background
24
JeffCo 0030458
'4 Te(Raw SecurityFinal S es Northwest
pection
i Final Site Inspection
Site
2008
Section 5.0 Analytical Results Reporting and Background Samples
Table 5-3
Inorganic Analytical Results Summary -
Sediment Samples
Security Services Northwest
Gardiner, Washington
CLP Sample ID
MJ97GO
MJ97G1
MJ97F8
MJ97F9
MJ97E3
Location ID
SN-SD-04
SN-SD-05
SN-SD-01
SN-SD-02
SN-SD-03
Sample Date
June 30 2008
June 30, 2008
June 30, 2008
June 30, 2008
June 30, 2008
Location
Description
Background located
on Contractors
Creek north of
Highway 101
Background
located on
Contractors Creek
south of Highway
101
Northeast of
Gunstone's House
on Contractors
Creek
Downgradient of
Shooting Ranges
#1 and #2 on
Contractors Creek
Downgradient of
Shooting Range #3
and South of Old
Gardiner Road on
Contractors Creek
Matrix
Sediment
Sediment
Sediment
Sediment
Sediment
Ino anic Com ands m A
Arsenic
1.5
1.3
3.4
1.3
0.96 J
Barium
37.7
33.9
41.5
33.9
28.7
Beryllium
2.1
1.9
1.9
1.9
2.0
Chromium
25.0
21.3
25:7
21.3
23.0
Cobalt
6.2
4.9 J
5.9
4.9 J
4.6 J
Copper
8.4 JH
7.9 JH
8.4 JH
7.9 JH
5.5 JH
Lead
3.3 JL
4.4 JL
4.2 JL
4.4 JL
3.2 JL
Magnesium
4,900
4,390
4,950
4,390
3 990
Man anese
269
216
472
216
190
Mercury
0.10U
0.10U
0.024J
0.10U
0.10U
Nickel 1
23.6
25.0
1 29.6
25.0
20.8
Vanadium 1
36.3
29.3
38.0
29.3
32.4
Zinc 1
29.7
24.5 4-26.3
24.5
23.1
Key:
CLP = Contract Laboratory Program
EPA = United States Environmental Protection Agency
H = High Bias
ID = Identification
J = The analyte was positively identified. The associated numerical result is an estimate.
L = Low Bias
mg/kg = milligrams per kilogram
R = the data are unusable. The analyte may or may not be present.
SN = Security Services Northwest
SD = Sediment Sample
U = The material was analyzed for but was not detected above the level of the associated value. The associated value is either the
sample quantitation limit or the sample detection limit.
Bold and underlined = Concentration elevated when compared to background
25
JeffCo 0030459
Techlaw
6.0 POTENTIAL SOURCES
Security Services Northwest
Final Site Inspection
September 2008
6.0 Potential Sources
Potentially identified sources at the SSNW site consist of the potentially contaminated soil
located on the three shooting ranges' backstops. Potential contaminants of concern include
arsenic, copper, lead, manganese, silver, and zinc. Sampling locations, sampling rationale, and
analytical results are summarized in the following sections. Tables 5-1 through 5-3 and Figure
6-1 summarize analytes detected at each potential source location investigated. Laboratory
analytical results for all samples are provided in Appendix C.
6.1 Sample Locations
Eleven surface soil samples were collected from the three Shooting Ranges and one surface soil
sample was collected from upgradient of site influences. Soil samples were collected to
characterize source areas on -site and to determine the potential for contaminated soil to migrate
off -site. Surface soil samples SN-SS-01 to SN-SS-06 were collected from Shooting Range #1.
Surface soil samples SN-SS-07 to SN-SS-09 were collected from Shooting Range #2 and surface
soil samples SN-SS-10 and SN-SS-11 were collected from Shooting Range #3.
6.2 Soil Sampling Results
Inorganic constituents detected at elevated concentrations in surface soil samples collected from
the SSNW Shooting Ranges include arsenic (4.0 to 15.0 mg/Kg), copper (152 JH to 1,190 JH
mg/Kg), lead (9.3 JL to 52,900 JL mg/Kg), manganese (706 mg/Kg), silver (1.5 mg/Kg), and
zinc (125 to 225 mg/Kg). The elevated concentrations of inorganic constituents were primarily
detected along the shooting range backstops. The number of constituents and their
concentrations decreased as the distance from the backstops increased.
26
JeffCo 0030460
.2
a�+
Gs as Oa,
.a z
m
M
°
c. C A 3r. co) N .O
V/
(i
k
�r
E
y�r
y W
iC
W CO ' ❑
3 C Q U
1p e-w --I
� s +
I o o� to
u a 'N,
at
r , �n
fA V
0
Vi 0. q
u a N
r
41
ti
I-
eam
co
2'vi
C200
z acn C ej t n o V.
zw O p UdN U.4N
C
� L
x J M+ti M
M Q
ell
W
V f
1 TeKaw
4-1.
Security Services Northwest
Final Site Inspection
September 2008
7.0 Migration Pathways and Targets
7.0 MIGRATION PATHWAY AND TARGETS
The following section describes the migration pathways and potential targets within the site's
range of influence. Analytical results are summarized in Tables 5-1 through 5-3. Analytical data
QA forms from laboratory analysis are provided in Appendix C. This section discusses the
groundwater migration pathway (subsection 7.1), surface water migration pathway (subsection
7.2), soil exposure pathway (subsection 7.3), and the air migration pathway (subsection 7.4).
7.1 Groundwater Migration Pathway
This subsection presents the pathway description. Targets, sample locations, and sample results
for the groundwater migration pathway are not discussed because groundwater was not a
migration pathway of concern and no samples applicable to the groundwater pathway were
collected.
7.2 Surface Water Migration Pathway
This subsection presents the pathway description, targets, sample locations, and sample results
for the surface water migration pathway.
7.2.1 Pathway Description
The surface water migration pathway target distance limit (TDL) begins at the probable point of
entry (PPE) of surface water runoff from the SSNW site into Contractor's Creek and extends
northeast for approximately a quarter of a mile where it enters Discovery Bay. TDL #1 extends
north in Discovery Bay for approximately six miles, where it enters the Strait of Juan de Fuca.
In the Strait of Juan de Fuca the TDL is applied as an arc because, as coastal tidal water, the
direction of flow is not considered (EPA 1990). Discovery Bay is tidally influenced, and the
extent of tidal influence extends to the end of the bay; therefore, TDL #2 extends south in
Discovery Bay for 4.4 miles and ends. Figures 7-2 and 7-3 depict TDLs # 1 and #2, respectively.
The two potential PPEs to the surface water migration pathway have been identified from the
United States Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute series topographic maps and are described
as follows:
• PPE 1: There is a limited potential for storm water to reach Contractor's Creek. The
overland drainage from Shooting Ranges #1 and #2 could flow northeast for approximately
650 feet and may enter Contractor's Creek at PPE 1.
. PPE 2: Overland drainage from Shooting Range #3 could flow northeast for approximately
450 feet and enter Contractor's Creek, at PPE#2, approximately 0.10 of a mile upstream of
PPE 1. The surface water pathway then continues within Contractor's Creek northeast for
approximately 0.35 mile, at which point it enters Discovery Bay.
The SSNW site is not located within a 100-year flood plain area (Jefferson County 2007). The
shooting ranges were not affected during the large road -washout in late December 1996 and
28
JeffCo 0030462
S Tahlaw Security Services Northwest
Final Site Inspection
..r.;r irrsr.rf
September 2008
7.0 Migration Pathways and Targets
early January 1997 (Shanz 2005). There are no outfalls located at the SSNW site (Pearson
2007). There are no known water intakes along Discovery Bay (Pearson 2007).
Approximately 2.0 miles of wetlands are located along the surface water TDL (National
Wetlands Inventory (NWI) 2007). The 2-year, 24-hour rainfall event is 1.58-inches (National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) 1973). The average maximum temperature in
Sequim, Washington is 57.7 degrees Fahrenheit ff), the average minimum temperature in
Sequim, Washington is 39.2°F, and the average total precipitation is 15.93 inches per year
(Washington Regional Climate Center 2007).
Contractors Point, located just below the SSNW site, consists of swamp, marsh, and bog deposits
(Jefferson County IDMS 1995a). Marsh deposits are organic -matter -rich sediments deposited in
brackish or saltwater marsh (estuarine or lagoonal) environments (Schasse et al. 2005). The
shoreline along Discovery Bay consists of beach sand and gravel (Jefferson County IDMS
1995a). Beach deposits consist of sand and cobbles, which may include silt, pebbles, and clay;
pebble sized and larger clasts typically well rounded; well sorted; loose; and may be residual or
transported. Large boulders up to 10 feet in diameter are also often found resting on beach
deposits indicating a lag deposit derived from erosion and previous sliding (Schasse et al. 2005).
These outwash deposits typically consist of loose sands and gravels deposited by glacial melt
water. The water released by the failure of Old Gardiner Road scoured out this loose material
when it realigned the creek valley, leaving behind scarps of sands and gravels on the valley
margins. The washout also exposed a layer of poorly consolidated sandstone in the streambed
just below Old Gardiner Road (Shanz et al. 2005).
7.2.2 Targets
No drinking water intakes have been identified within the 15-mile TDL. Water recreational
activities such as boating and fishing do occur within the 15-mile TDL.
Contractor's Creek is located in WRIA 17's Miller Sub Basin. It is one of the two primary
freshwater features of the basin (Cascadia Consulting Group (Cascadia) 2003). Contractor's
Creek is approximately 2.85 miles long and discharges into Discovery Bay. Flow data is not
available for Contractor's Creek. Contractor's Creek flows over bedrock and till until it nears its
mouth and cuts through outwash sediments (Cascadia 2003). Contractor's Creek is not on
Ecology's list of impaired waters, and no water quality data was provided in Ecology's
Environmental Information Management database for the creek. Water quality problems are
likely to be associated with fine sediment and poor riparian condition at the Highway 101 culvert
outlet, but have not been verified by sampling (Shanz et al. 2005). Contractor's Creek has been
known to contain Coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) and cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus
clarki), although this has not been confirmed after 1996/1997 washout (Nightingale 2000).
Discovery Bay is located on the Olympic Peninsula. Discovery Bay enters the Strait of Juan de
Fuca between the Miller and Quimper Peninsulas. According to Jefferson County, a critical fish
and wildlife habitat area is located in Discovery Bay at the location of Contractors Point
(Jefferson County IDMS 1995b).
29
JeffCo 0030463
1 TeKaw Security Services Northwest
Final Site Inspection
September 2008
7.0 Migration Pathways and Targets
The mouth of Discovery Bay is just south of Protection Island, a small Federally -protected
nature preserve and sea bird sanctuary area. Approximately 70 percent of the nesting seabird
population of Puget Sound and the Strait of Juan de Fuca nest on the island, which includes one
of the largest nesting colonies of rhinoceros auklets (Cerorhinca monocerata) in the world and
the largest nesting colony of glaucous -winged gulls (Lanus glaucescens) in Washington. The
island contains one of the last two nesting colonies of tufted puffins (Fratercula cirrhata) in the
Puget Sound area. Approximately 1,000 harbor seals (Phoca vitulina) depend upon the island
for a pupping and rest area (United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFW) date unknown)
A total of 11 species present within the surface water TDL and are listed under the endangered
species act (ESA). Two endangered salmon species are within the surface water TDL, the Puget
Sound chinook (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) and the Hood Canal summer -run chum
(Oncorhynchus keta) (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) 2004). Seven
Puget Sound populations listed under the ESA are found within the surface water TDL, including
the Pacific herring (Clupea pallasi), Pacific cod (Gadus macrocephalus), Pacific hake
(Merluccius productus), walleye pollock (Theragra chalcogramma), brown rockfish (Sebastes
auriculatus), copper rockfish (Sebastes caurinus) and quillback rockfish (Sebastes maliger). The
marbled murrelet (Brachyvamphus marmoratus) and the northern/ Steller sea lion (Eumetopias
jubatus) are also found within the surface water TDL and are listed under the ESA (Nightingale
2000).
Herring spawning grounds are located along the shorelines of the southern half of Discovery Bay
including Contractors Point (WDFW 1997). The pre -spawner holding grounds extend from just
south of Protection Island in the Strait of Juan de Fuca to the middle of Discovery, Bay
(Nightingale 2000).
In 2005, the following species and quantities of salmon were caught within the surface water
TDL: 331 Chinook salmon with an average weight of 12.5 pounds; 896 Coho salmon with an
average weight of 11 pounds; 1,616 pink salmon (Oncorhynchus gorbuscha) with an average
weight of 4 pounds; 4 sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka) with an average weight of 7
pounds; and 3 chum salmon with an average weight of 10 pounds (Barker 2007). The total
weight of recreational caught salmon with in the surface water TDL is therefore 20,515 pounds.
There were no commercially caught salmon within the surface water TDL (Turcotte 2007).
In 2006, the following species and quantities of shellfish were collected from Sequim Bay for
recreational purposes: 62 Manila clams (Ruditapes philippinarum) with an average weight 6f
15.20 grams; 6,726 littleneck clams (Protothaca staminea) with an average weight of 16.9
grams; 419 butter clams (Saxidomus giganteus) with an average weight of 12.41 grams; 674
cockles (Clinocardium nuttalli) with an average weight of 18.54 grams; 35 eastern soft shell
clams (Mya arenaria) with an average weight of 33.44 grams; 1,304 horse clams (Tresus nuttalli
and Tresus capax) with an average weight of 3.5 pounds; and 14,924 oysters with an unknown
average weight (Strom 2007, Bradbury et al. 2005, and Underwater Harvester Association
unknown date). Therefore, the total weight of all clam species collected in Sequim Bay is
4,858.27 pounds.
In 2006 the following species of shellfish, including crab, were collected from non -Tribal
landings within the TDL for commercial purposes: 2,894 pounds of Dungeness crab (Cancer
30
JeffCo 0030464
1 TechLaw
Security Services Northwest
Final Site Inspection
September 2008
7.0 Migration Pathways and Targets
magister); 21,574 pounds of butter clams; 1,136 pounds of cockles; 3,229 pounds of horse
clams; 7,464 pounds of geoduck clams (Panopea abrupta); 37,888 native littleneck clams;
50,126 Manila clams; 30,568 Pacific oyster (Crassostrea gigas); and 1,331 European oyster
(Ostrea edulis). A total of 156,210 pounds of shellfish, including crab, were caught in non -
Tribal landings within the TDL. All clams and oysters in these areas are collected from aquatic
farms (WDFW 2007a).
In 2006, 4,186 pounds of Dungeness crab were documented in Treaty Tribal Landings within the
TDL. In 2005, 3,163 pounds of spot shrimp (Pandalus platyceros) and 14,089 pounds of
Dungeness crab were documented in Treaty Tribal Landings within the TDL, for a total of
17,252 pounds (WDFW 2007b).
The total amount of sport shrimp caught in the TDL for 2007 was 1,538 pounds (Cain 2007).
The total mean pounds of recreational shellfish caught in the TDL from 2001 to 2006 totaled
87,844 (Lowry 2007). The total weight of commercially caught shellfish within the surface
water TDL in 2006 is 160,396 pounds.
7.2.3 Sample Locations
Sediment samples were collected from PPE #1, PPE #2, and downgradient from Shooting
Ranges # 1, #2, and #3.
7.2.4 Sediment Sampling Results
No inorganic constituents were detected at elevated concentrations in sediment samples,
7.3 Soil Exposure Pathway
The SSNW site has 24-hour security and they have approximately two employees working at the
SSNW site. Reed Gunstone has approximately one employee working at the SSNW site once
per week to sort clams for shipments but this does not occur on SSNW leased land. There are
three residences on the Gunstone's property with a total population of 11. Mr. D'Amico leases
his residence from the Gunstone's (D'Amico 2008b). All residences are greater than 200 feet
from the firing ranges. Approximately 778 people reside within a 1-mile radius of the SSNW
site. There are no schools or daycares located within a 1-mile radius of the SSNW site. Soil
sample results were discussed in section 6. Residential areas within the property boundary were
not sampled as they were greater than 200 feet from the source areas (i.e., firing ranges).
7.4 Air Migration Pathway
The air migration pathway TDL is a 4-mile radius that extends from the sources at the SSNW
site (Figure 7-1). Approximately 3,128 people reside within four miles of the SSNW site (USDC
2000). Table 7-1 provides an estimate of the number of people residing or working within the 4-
mile TDL.
The 4-mile TDL includes habitat known to be used by several Federally- and state -listed species.
The following Federally- and state -listed species are located within a 4-mile radius of the SSNW
site: the Puget Sound Chinook and the Hood Canal summer -run chum (WDFW 2004). Other
31
JeffCo 0030465
Tthlaw
sensitive environments within the 4-mile TDL include approximately
Table 7-2 provides wetland acres by distance ring.
No air samples were collected during the sampling activities.
32
Security Services Northwest
Final Site Inspection
September 2008
7.0 Migration Pathways and Targets
198.63 acres of wetlands.
JeffCo 0030466
L
c
L
E c
N J Z C C
or-
r t�.l N O1
`w
to
or N v to
L O
lN ^ �
vZv
O) .0
minim
3a
a
�
m N
d
N
d
N N
W d L
m E p
LL
C ; ❑ Ll -
c a a a tlr
0 ` ID
N LL LL
* • • �- ��
ia
S ►t!'.•.
n J 1�F4'OD
60
mi
• � � �" � g „�, '� � ��"N
yM mow. � �; ,�
IS
M14E R
1 k. J T
-� �•'wZ
L O
0 V
/hJZ C =
"��'
N
M
N C LJ d
N N
a)N N
v ❑
p 10 .o t t = co u U ��
`A%
•ty
l!r
cli
Z Te(hLaw
Security Services Northwest
Final Site Inspection
September 2008
7.0 Migration Pathways and Targets
Table 7-2
Wetlands Within a 4-Mile Radius
Security Services Northwest
Gardiner, ashington
Distance Ring Miles
Wetlands Acreage)
On site
0
0 to 0.25
0
0.25 to 0.5
0
0.5 to 1
4.87
1 to 2
6.78
2 to 3
103.09
3 to 4
83.89
Total
198.63
(NWI 2007)
37
JeffCo 0030470
:T TeKaw
Security Services Northwest
Final Site Inspection
September 2008
7.0 Migration Pathways and Targets
Table 7-1
Population Within a 4-Mile Radius
Security Services Northwest
Gardiner Washin ton
Distance Ring
Miles
Resident Poj2ulation a
Total Per Distance Ring
On site
11
11
0 to 0.25
255.63
255.63
0.25 to 0.5
255.63
255.63
0.5 to 1
266.63
268.63
1 to 2
466.86
506.86
2 to 3
766.86
766.86
3 to 4
1116.86
1117.86
Total
3,129.05
(USDC 2000,ArcMap 9 ESRI Data and Maps 2007)
a The population is based on the average of 2.21 persons per household for Jefferson County
according to the U.S. Census Bureau (USDC 2000).
b This number is based on the number of known residences located at the three houses at the SSNW site
(D'Amico 2007 and D'Amico 2008b)
36
JeffCo 0030471
1 TeKaw
V..1... .......
8.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Security Services Northwest
Final Site Inspection
September 2008
8.0 Summary and Conclusions
In June 2008, START-3 conducted SI field sampling activities at the SSNW site in Gardiner,
Jefferson County, WA. SSNW is a security company providing security services and training.
The SSNW site consists of three shooting ranges and a variety of structures associated with their
services. The SSNW site has been in operation since 1988. The SI objectives focused on the
potential for off -site migration of contaminants from the three Shooting Ranges to Contractor's
Creek; therefore only soil and sediment samples were collected. The surface water migration
and soil exposure pathway were the only pathways evaluated.
8.1 Sources
Potentially identified sources at the SSNW site include the potentially contaminated soil located
on the three shooting ranges (Shooting Range #1, Shooting Range #2, and Shooting Range #3).
Potential contaminants of concern include TAL Metals.
Constituents detected in source areas are discussed in Section 8.2.
8.2 Pathways
Elevated constituents detected in the Shooting Ranges are antimony, arsenic, copper, lead,
manganese, silver, and zinc. The elevated constituents are mostly focused along the Shooting
Range backstops.
To determine if surface water was impacted by the SSNW site, START-3 collected three
sediment samples from Contractor's Creek located downgradient from the Shooting Ranges and
two sediment samples from upgradient, background locations. No inorganic constituents were
detected at elevated concentrations in the sediment samples.
8.3 Targets
Targets for the surface water pathway include 2.0-miles of wetlands located along the surface
water TDL, a Federally -protected nature preserve and seabird sanctuary, 11 species listed on the
ESA, recreationally caught salmon and shellfish, non -tribal commercially caught shellfish; and
tribal caught crab and shrimp. No drinking water intakes have been identified within the 15-mile
TDL. Targets for the soil exposure pathway include on -site residents and onsite workers. No
inorganic constituents were detected at elevated concentrations in the sediment samples collected
from Contractor's Creek.
8.4 • Conclusions
The SI documents that inorganic constituents were detected in the soil samples; however, no
inorganic constituents were detected in the sediment samples. Results of the SI indicate that the
SSNW site is not a significant source of soil contamination and has not impacted surface water.
It should be noted that while very -high concentration of lead were detected in the soil samples
collected directly behind the targets from the backstop, these high concentration a likely to be
very localized and would not be indicative of high volume of soil impacted by target shooting.
38
JeffCo 0030472
Z TechLaw Security ServicesNorthwest
FinallSite Inspection
r.,.., r...,
September 2008
9.0 References
9.0 REFERENCES
Barker, Morris; November 8, 2007; Telephone conversation between Morris Barker, WDFW
Marine Resource Manager; and Lesa Nelson, TechLaw; Regarding recreational take of
Marine Species in Discovery Bay Catch Area 6.
Bradbury, Alex, Brady Blake, Camille Speck, and Doug Rogers; December 2005; Length -
Weight Models for Intertidal Clams in Puget Sound.
Cain, Therese; November 13, 2007; Email from Therese Cain, Shellfish Biologist WDFW; to
Morris Barker; WDFW Marine Resource Manager; Re: Recreational Shrimp Catch in
Marine Area 6.
Cascadia Consulting Group (Cascadia); October 28, 2003; Watershed Management Plan for the
Quilcene-Snow Water Resource Inventory Area (WRIA 17).
D'Amico, Joe; October 10, 2007; Site visit interview attended by EPA, Ecology, Jefferson
County Public Health, and TechLaw.
D'Amico, Joe; April 15, 2008a; Site visit interview attended by EPA and TechLaw.
D'Amico, Joe; August 28, 2008b; Telephone conversation between Joe D'Amico, SSNW Owner
and Site Leaser; and Lesa Nelson, TechLaw; Re: Number of employees and residents
located on the SSNW site.
Fager, Steve; November 13, 2007; Telephone conversation between Steve Fager, Discovery Bay
Village Water Company, Inc.; and Lesa Nelson, TechLaw; Re: Number of connections
Discovery Bay Village Water Company, Inc has near the SSNW site.
Jefferson County Assessors Office (Assessor); October 9, 2007; Jefferson County Parcels
002351002, 002354003, 002354006, 002363001, 002363007, 002363003, 002363006,
002363001, 002363002, 902011003, and 002363009;
http://www.co.jefferson.wa.us/assessors.
Jefferson County Department of Community Development (Jefferson County); November 13,
2007; Critical Areas Map.
Jefferson County Integrated Data Management System (IDMS); February 21, 1995a; Geology
Map Eastern Jefferson County.
Lowry, David; November 13, 2007; Email from David Lowry, Region 6 Puget Sound Biologist
WDFW; to Morris Barker, WDFW Marine Resource Manager; Re: Marine Area 6 (Disco
Bay) recreational catch estimates.
National Cooperative Soil Survey (NCSS); February 2004; Clallam Series.
39
JeffCo 0030473
Z TechLaw
February 2005; Hoypus Series.
Security Services Northwest
Final Site Inspection
September 2008
9.0 References
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA); 1973; Precipitation -Frequency
Atlas of the Western United States, Volume X-Washington.
National Wetlands Inventory (NWI); 2007; http://www.fws.gov/nwi/.
Nightingale, Barbara; October 31, 2000; Summary Report from a Literature Data Search on the
Status of Marine Resources in Jefferson County.
Parker, Jim; November 8, 2007; Telephone conversation between Jim Parker, Jefferson County
PUD; and Lesa Nelson, TechLaw; Re: Number of connections Jefferson County PUD#1
has.
Pearson, Jim; November 9, 2007; Telephone conversation between Jim Pearson, Jefferson
County Public Works; and Lesa Nelson, TechLaw; Re: stormwater outfalls located on the
SSNW site and any water intakes along Discovery Bay.
Schasse, Henry W. and Stephen L. Slaughter; June 2005: Geologic Map of the Port Townsend
South and Part of the Port Townsend North 7.5-minute Quadrangles, Jefferson County,
Washington.
Security Services Northwest, Inc. (SSNW); November 11, 2007; SSNW website-
http://www.ssnwhq.com/.
Shanz, Robert W. and Jim Park, Washington State Department of Transportation Environmental
Services Watershed Management Program; October 2005; Reach Assessment for
Contractor's Creek at US 101, Work Order MS 5404.
Simonds, William F., Claire I. Longpre, and Greg B. Justin; 2004; Ground -Water System in the
Chimacum Creek Basin and Surface Water/Ground Water Interaction in Chimacum and
Tarboo Creeks and the Big and Little Quilcene Rivers, Eastern Jefferson County,
Washington.
Strom, Are; November 13, 2007; Email between Morris Barker, WDFW Marine Resource
Manager; and Are Strom, WDFW Fish and Wildlife Biologist; Regarding clam and
oyster in Sequim Bay.
TechLaw, Inc. (TechLaw), 2007, Region 10 START-3 Quality Management Plan, United States
Environmental Protection Agency, Contract number EP-S7-06-03, Seattle, Washington.
2008a, Generic Sampling and Quality Assurance Plan (GSQAP), United States
Environmental Protection Agency, Contract number EP-S7-06-03, Seattle, Washington.
February 2008b, Security Services Northwest Site Preliminary Assessment Report,
United States Environmental Protection Agency, Contract number EP-S7-06-03, Seattle,
Washington.
40
JeffCo 0030474
Z Tekaw Security Services Northwest
Final Site Inspection
September 2008
9.0 References
June 2008c, Region 10 START-3 Final Site Specific Sampling Plan, Security Services
Northwest, Gardiner, Jefferson County, Washington, TDD: 08-03-0007, prepared for
EPA, Seattle, Washington.
Turcotte, Carol; November 19, 2007; Telephone conversation between Carol Turcotte,
Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife; and Lesa Nelson, TechLaw; Re:
commercial fishing within the SSNW site surface water TDL.
Underwater Harvester Association, unknown date; Geoduck and Horse Clam Biology.
http://www.geoduck.org/Go—files/GO—Science.htrnl
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), September 3, 1991. Soil Conservation
Service, Soil Survey of Jefferson County, Washington.
United States Department of Commerce (USDC), Bureau of the Census; 2000; Census Tract
information for Jefferson County, Washington;
hgp://guickfacts.census.2ov/gfd/states/53/53031.html.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFW); date unknown; Protection Island National
Wildlife Refuge.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), December 14, 1990, 40 CFR Part 300,
Hazard Ranking System, Final Rule, Vol. 55, No. 241.
, August 2000. Guidance for the Data Quality Objectives Process, EPA QA/G-4, Office
of Research and Development, Washington, D.C., EPA/600/R-96/055.
October 2004. EPA Contract Laboratory Program National Functional Guidelines for
Inorganic Data Review, Final, OSWER 9240.1-45, EPA 540-R-04-004.
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW); 1997; Documented Herring Spawning
Grounds.
December 2004; Puget Sound Chinook Harvest Resource Management Plan National
Environmental Policy Act Final Environmental Impact Statement.
November 16, 2007a; 2003-2007 Non -Indian Landings from Areas 6B, 25E, and 42B,
Clams and Oysters are from Aquatic Farms.
November 16, 2007b; 2003-2007 Treaty Indian Landings from Areas 6B, 25E, and 42B.
Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology); January 18, 2006a; Initial Investigation Field
Report, Environmental Report Tracking System (ERTS) Number 549707.
February 7, 2006b; ERTS Initial Report, Referral, and Follow up, ERTS # 549707.
May 4, 2007a; Toxics Cleanup Program Policy and Technical Support Unit, Site
Screening- Strategy Recommendation.
41
JeffCo 0030475
Z Tech Law Security Services Northwest
Final Site Inspection
September 2008
9.0 References
November 2007b. Well Logs and Well Images near Gardiner, Jefferson County,
Washington.
Washington Regional Climate Center; June 30, 2007; Period of Record Monthly Climate
Summary Sequim 2E, Washington (457544), 10/1/1980 to 6/30/2007,
http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/cliMAIN.pl?wa7544
Washington State Department of Labor and Industry (L & 1), WISHA Services; April 30, 2007;
Security Services Northwest, Inc. Inspection, Inspection Number 4337
42
JeffCo 0030476
:7 Techlaw
APPENDIX A
PHOTOGRAPHIC DOCUMENTATION
Security Services Northwest
Final Site Inspection
September 2008
Appendix A
JeffCo 0030477
X TechLaw
PHOTOGRAPH #1
Description: Photograph of SN-SS-02 soil sample before sieving.
Security Services Northwest
Final Site Investigation
September 2008
Appendix A
Taken by: Lesa Nelson, TechLaw Inc. Direction: West
Witness: Alexis Ande, TechLaw Inc. Date: June 30, 2008
PHOTOGRAPH #2
Description: Photograph of the SN-SS-02 soil sample in sample containers after sieving.
Taken by: Lesa Nelson, TechLaw Inc. Direction: South
Witness: Alexis Ande, TechLaw Inc. Date: June 30, 2008
A-2
JeffCo 0030478
TechLaw
PHOTOGRAPH #3
Security Services Northwest
Final Site Investigation
September 2008
Appendix A
Description: Photograph of bullet fragments sieved from SN-SS-02 soil sample.
Taken by: Lesa Nelson, TechLaw Inc. Direction: South
Witness: Alexis Ande, TechLaw Inc. Date: June 30, 2008
PHOTOGRAPH #4
Description: Photograph of SN-SS-03 sample location in the foreground and SN-SS-02
sample location in the background.
Taken by: Lesa Nelson, TechLaw Inc. Direction: East
Witness: Alexis Ande, TechLaw Inc. Date: June 30, 2008
A-3
JeffCo 0030479
Security
X TechLaw Services Northwest
Final Site Investigation
September 2008
Appendix A
PHOTOGRAPH #5
Description: Photograph of a close up of SN-SS-01 and SN-SS-02 soil sample locations.
Taken by: Lesa Nelson, TechLaw Inc. Direction: East
Witness: Alexis Ande, TechLaw Inc. Date: June 30, 2008
PHOTOGRAPH #6
Description: Photographed of SN-SS-01 sample location zoomed in 4X.
Taken by: Lesa Nelson, TechLaw Inc. Direction: South
Witness: Alexis Ande, TechLaw Inc. Date: June 30, 2008
A-4
JeffCo 0030480
:! TechLaw
PHOTOGRAPH #7
Description: View of Shooting Range #1.
Taken by: Lesa Nelson, TechLaw Inc.
Witness: Alexis Ande, TechLaw Inc.
Security Services Northwest
Final Site Investigation
September 2008
Appendix A
Direction: South
Date: June 30, 2008
PHOTOGRAPH #8
Description: Photograph of SN-SS-04 sample location.
Taken by: Lesa Nelson, TechLaw Inc. Direction: West
Witness: Alexis Ande, TechLaw Inc. Date: June 30, 2008
EM
JeffCo 0030481
S TechLaw
PHOTOGRAPH #9
Security Services Northwest
Final Site Investigation
September 2008
Appendix A
Description: Photographed of SN-SS-05 sample location.
Taken by: Lesa Nelson, TechLaw Inc. Direction: West
Witness: Alexis Ande, TechLaw Inc. Date: June 30, 2008
PHOTOGRAPH #10
Description: Photograph of SN-SS-06 sample location.
Taken by: Lesa Nelson, TechLaw Inc. Direction:
Witness: Alexis Ande, TechLaw Inc. Date:
A-6
South
June 30, 2008
JeffCo 0030482
X TechLaw
PHOTOGRAPH #11
Security Services Northwest
Final Site Investigation
September 2008
Appendix A
Description: Photograph of SN-SS-07 sample location.
Taken by: Lesa Nelson, TechLaw Inc. Direction: South
Witness: Alexis Ande, TechLaw Inc. Date: June 30, 2008
PHOTOGRAPH #12
Description: Photography of SN-SS-08 sample location.
Taken by: Lesa Nelson, TechLaw Inc. Direction:
Witness: Alexis Ande, TechLaw Inc. Date:
A-7
South
June 30, 2008
JeffCo 0030483
X TechLaw
PHOTOGRAPH #13
Description: Photograph of Shooting Range #2.
Taken by: Lesa Nelson, TechLaw Inc.
Witness: Alexis Ande, TechLaw Inc.
Security Services Northwest
Final Site Investigation
September 2008
Appendix A
Direction: South
Date: June 30, 2008
PHOTOGRAPH #14
Description: Photograph of SN-SS-09 sample location.
Taken by: Lesa Nelson, TechLaw Inc. Direction
Witness: Alexis Ande, TechLaw Inc. Date:
M
West
June 30, 2008
JeffCo 0030484
X TechLaw
PHOTOGRAPH #15
Security Services Northwest
Final Site Investigation
September 2008
Appendix A
Description: Photograph of SN-SD-01 sample location.
Taken by: Lesa Nelson, TechLaw Inc. Direction: South
Witness: Alexis Ande, TechLaw Inc. Date: June 30, 2008
PHOTOGRAPH #13
Description: Photograph of entrance of woods leading to SN-SD-01 sample location.
Taken by: Lesa Nelson, TechLaw Inc. Direction: South
Witness: Alexis Ande, TechLaw Inc. Date: June 30, 2008
A-9
JeffCo 0030485
X TechLaw
PHOTOGRAPH #17
Security Services Northwest
Final Site Investigation
September 2008
Appendix A
Description: Photograph of SN-SS-11 sample location.
Taken by: Lesa Nelson, TechLaw Inc. Direction: East
Witness: Alexis Ande, TechLaw Inc. Date: June 30, 2008
PHOTOGRAPH #18
Description: Photograph of Shooting Range #3.
Taken by: Lesa Nelson, TechLaw Inc. Direction: West -Southwest
Witness: Alexis Ande, TechLaw Inc. Date: June 30, 2008
A-10
JeffCo 0030486
04 TechLaw
y..Nr. s I.Iri r�.r
PHOTOGRAPH #19
Description: Photograph of SN-SS-10 sample location.
Taken by: Lesa Nelson, TechLaw Inc. Direction:
Witness: Alexis Ande, TechLaw Inc. Date:
PHOTOGRAPH #20
Description: Photograph of SN-SD-02 sample location.
Taken by: Lesa Nelson, TechLaw Inc. Direction:
Witness: Alexis Ande, TechLaw Inc. Date:
A-11
Security Services Northwest
Final Site Investigation
September 2008
Appendix A
West -Southwest
June 30, 2008
East
June 30, 2008
JeffCo 0030487
X TechLaw
PHOTOGRAPH #21
Description: Photograph of SN-SD-03 sample location.
Taken by: Lesa Nelson, TechLaw Inc. Direction:
Witness: Alexis Ande, TechLaw Inc. Date:
PHOTOGRAPH #22
Security Services Northwest
Final Site Investigation
September 2008
Appendix A
Southeast
June 30, 2008
Description: Photograph of SN-SD-04 sample location.
Taken by: Lesa Nelson, TechLaw Inc. Direction: Northwest
Witness: Alexis Ande, TechLaw Inc. Date: June 30, 2008
A-12
JeffCo 0030488
TechLaw
0. 111. a i.1a.a1
PHOTOGRAPH #23
Description: Photograph of SN-SD-05 sample location.
Taken by: Lesa Nelson, TechLaw Inc. Direction:
Witness: Alexis Ande, TechLaw Inc. Date:
A-13
Security Services Northwest
Final Site Investigation
September 2008
Annendix A
North -Northeast
June 30, 2008
JeffCo 0030489
Z Techlaw
APPENDIX B
GPS SAMPLE LOCATION DATA
Security Services Nortbwest
Final Site Inspection
September 2008
Appendix B
JeffCo 0030490
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
1
t
t
t
t
M
t
yQ
0
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
z0
70
7o
�Jo
p
zc
o
zo
o
0
Q
M
cn
00
N
�c
01
O
kn
O
N
�c
01
O
l--
tf)
t'-
kn
[--
kn
00
l—
-
N
'ct
O
V7
r-
M
00
r-
't
V'1
—1
b
O
00
O
00
ON
r-
O
00
O
00
01
l—
01
l—
01
l—
01
r--
m
r-
o O
00
O
00
M
l—
�,p
r-
r-
00
01
l—
O
00
y
00
N
O0
N
00
00
N
00
N
00
N
00
N
00
N
00
N
00
N
O0
N
O0
N
0o
N
O0
N
00
N
00
N
x
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
�y
S!
N
N
V]
m
w
z 0
m
m
&0
Vn
00
Os
00
00
,O
ON
"t
M
N
,O
a1
M
"O
--
l-
M
ON
tf)
r-
O
M
00
,I-
M
l�
d
o0
M
M
M
e�n}
en
0
0
M�
0
0
N
0
N
0
N~
O
O
0
00
o6
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
4
4
�
4-
cc
l—
wwwwwwwwww
l--
00
rn
O
N
en
v-
00
l—
w
to
www�r1C7C7
,O
rn
M
O
��
rn
rn
rn
o,
rn
rn
rn
rn
rn
o,
rn
rn
o,
rn
rn
rn
o,
z
a
U
0
N
0
M
0
�i
0
0
0
0
00
0
m
0
--
0
r-
-1
O
-
.--,
N
0
M
0
0
0
o
vnv)v)cnCAc)c)C/)Lnq
rn
CAL
A66
1�1�1�v9112up191�
c)o
uzzzzzZZZZz
Z
ZZZZZZZ
s
v
F=
64 a
Z TechLaw Security Services Northwest
Final Site Inspection
"-""^ ' '•" •} ^ September 2008
Appendix C
APPENDIX C
DATA VALIDATON MEMORANDA AND LABORATORY DATA
JeffCo 0030492
Ina% %
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
4( � REGION 10
1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900
Seattle, Washington 98101
July 22, 2008
Reply To
Attn. Of: OEA- 095
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Data Validation for Security Services Northwest Site
Inspection, Case# 37582,,SSDDG: MJ97E3, Inorganic Analyses
FROM: Donald Matheny, Chemist 7�: �
Environmental Services Unit, OEA
TO: Mark Ader, Site Assessment Manager
Office of Environmental Cleanup (ECL-115)
CC: Alexis Ande, Techtaw, Inc.
The data validation of inorganic analyses for the above sample
set is complete. Seventeen (17) soil/sediment samples were analyzed
for total elements by Bonner Analytical, Hattiesburg, MS. Sample
numbers for this delivery group are:
MJ97E3 MJ97E6 MJ97E7 MJ97E8 MJ97E9 MJ97FO MJ97F1
MJ97F2 MJ97F3 MJ97F4 MJ97F5 MJ97F6 MJ97F7 MJ97F8
MJ97F9 MJ97GO MJ97G1
DATA QUALIFICATIONS
The following comments refer to the lab's performance in meeting
the specifications outlined in the "CLP Statement of Work (CLP-SOW)
for Inorganic Analysis, rev. ILM05.411, the "USEPA CLP National
Functional Guidelines for Inorganic Data Review" and the judgment of
the reviewer. The comments presented herein are based on the
information provided for the review.
TIMELINESS - Acceptable
The holding time from the date of collection to the date of
digestion and analyses were met for all elements (ICP 180 days, Hg 28
days). Samples were collected on 6/30/08. ICP-AES analysis was
conducted on 7/15/06. Mercury analysis was conducted on 7/11/08.
JeffCo 0030493
INSTRUMENT CALIBRATION/VERIFICTION - Acceptable
For the ICP-AES analysis, instrument calibration was performed in
accordance with method requirements. Verification standard results
(94-105%) were within the frequency (10%) and recovery (90-110%)
criteria.
For mercury, a blank and five standards were digested for
instrument calibration. The correlation coefficient (0.999) met the
criterion (> 0.995). Recoveries for verification standards (97-102%)
met the frequency (10%) and recovery (80-120t) criteria.
Quantitation verification standards met both the frequency and
recovery criteria for all analytes.
ICP-AES INTERFERENCE CHECK SAMPLE (ICS) - Acceptable
An ICS was analyzed at the required frequency for each analytical
run. ICS recoveries met the recovery criteria (+ 20*; + 2xCRDL) for
all applicable elements.
LABORATORY CONTROL SAMPLES (LCS) - Acceptable
Analyte recoveries for the LCS were within the established
control limits for ,solid samples.
BLANXS - Acceptable
Preparation and instrument control blanks were prepared and
analyzed in accordance with method requirements. Detected blank
results were below a factor (5X) that could impact sample results.
MATRIX SPIKE ANALYSIS
A matrix spike analysis was performed for sample MJ97E9. Percent
recoveries (80-103%) were within the recovery criterion (75-125W) with
the exception of antimony (18%) and lead (1%). Antimony results were
qualified (JL or R) and lead results were qualified (JL). Antimony
and lead data may be biased low.
DUPLICATE SAMPLE ANALYSIS - Acceptable
A duplicate sample analysis was performed for sample MJ97E9.
Relative percent differences (< 23%) were within the acceptance
criteria (< 35t; + 2xCRDL) for the duplicate sample analysis.
ICP-AES SERIAL DILUTION
A five -fold serial dilution was performed for sample MJ97E9.
Percent differences (< 6%) were within the criterion (< 10%) for the
serial dilution analysis with the exception of copper (14%). Copper
data were qualified (JH) and may be biased high.
JeffCo 0030494
ASSESSMENT SUMMARY
The following is a summary of qualified data; The (D) qualifier
applies to samples that were diluted by the lab.
Antimony data were qualified (JL or R) due to a low recovery for the
matrix spike. Antimony may be biased low.
Lead data were qualified (JL) due to a low recovery for the matrix
spike. Lead may be biased low.
Copper data were qualified (JH)`due to a high percent difference for
the serial dilution result. Copper may be biased high.
Mercury data were incorrectly reported. In some cases, the lab
reported a "ND" for the concentration values. Detected mercury values
were recalculated from the instrument printouts and hand entered on to
the report forms.
DATA QUALIFIERS
U - The material was analyzed for, but was not detected above the
level of the associated value. The associated value is either
the sample quantitation limit or the sample detection limit.
J - The associated value is an estimated quantity.
R - The data are unusable. The analyte may or may not be present in
the sample.
UJ - The analyte was analyzed for, but was not detected. 'The
associated value is an estimate and may be inaccurate or
imprecise.
PROJECT SPECIFIC DATA QUALIFIERS:
L - Low bias..
H - High bias.
K - Unknown Bias.
Q Detected concentration is below the method reporting limit /
Contract Required Quantitation Limit, but is above the method
detection limit.
JeffCo 0030495
USEPA - CLP
IA -IN EPA SAMPLE NO,
INORGANIC ANALYSIS DATA SHEET
MJ97E3
Lab Name: Bonner Analytical Testing Contract: EPWO6055
Lab Code: 'BONNER Case No.; 37582 NRAS No.: 1580.2 SDG No.: MJ97E3
Matrix: (Soil/Water) SOIL Lab Sample ID: 0807061-01
Level; (low/med) LOW
Date Received: 07/03/2008
% Solids 0
Concentration Units (ug/L or mg/kg dry weight): mg/Kg
CAS NO.
Analyte
Concentration
C
Q
M
7429-90-5
Aluminum
7040
P
7440-36-0
Antimony
6.0
{Y
.t
P
7440-38-2
Arsenic
0.96
J
P
7440-39-3
Barium
28.7
P
7440-41-1
Beryllium
2.0
P
7440-43-9
Cadmium
0.50
U
P
7440-70-2
Calcium
3310
P
7440-47-3
Chromium
23.0
P
7440-48-4
Cobalt
4.6
J
P
7440-50-8
Copper
5.5
P
7439-89-6
Iron
12000
P
7439-92-1
Lead
3.2
' TL
P
7439-95-4
Magnesium
3990
P
7439-96-5
Manganese
190
P
7439-97-6
Mercury
0.10
U
CV
7440-02-0
Nickel
20.8
P
7440-09-7
Potassium
348
J
P
7782-49-2
Selenium
3.5
U
P
7440-22-9
Silver
1.0
U
P
7440-23-5
Sodium
207
J
P
7440-28-0
Thallium
2.5
U
P
7440-62-2
Vanadium
32.4
P
7940-66-6
Zinc
23.1
P
Color Before: BROWN Clarity Before: texture: FINE
Color Af*er: YELLOW Clarity After: Artifacts:
Conments:
13
JeffCo 0030496
14
USEPA - CLP
lA-IN EPA SAMPLE NO.
INORGANIC ANALYSIS DATA SHEET
MJ97E6
Lab Name: Bonner Analytical Testing Contract: EPWO6055
Lab Code: BONNER Case No.: 37582 NRAS No.: 1580.2 SDG No.: MJ97E3
Matrix: (Soil/Water) SOIL Lab Sample ID: 0807061-02
Level: (low/med) LOW Date Received: 07/03/2008
8 Solids 0
Concentration Units (ug/L or ma/kg dry weight): mg/Kg
CAS NO.
Analyte
Concentration
C
Q
M
7429-90-5
Aluminum
8740
P
7440-36-0
Antimony
279
2d L
P
7440-38-2
Arsenic
12.6
P
7440-39-3
Barium
32.1
P
7440-41-7
Beryllium
2.1
P
7440-43-9
Cadmium
0.50
U
P
7440-70-2
Calcium
3270
P
7440-47-3
Chromium
25.8
P
7440-48-4
Cobalt
7.1
P
7440-50-8
Copper
1190
a-
P
7439-89-6
Iron
13100
P
7439-92-1
Lead
52900
D TNTrNTL
P
7439-95-4
Magnesium
5470
P
7439-96-5
Manganese
260
P
7439-97-6
Mercury
0.10
U
CV
7440-02-0
Nickel
45.6
P
7440-09-7
Potassium
574
P
7782-49-2
Selenium
3.5
U
P
7440-2 -4
Silver
1.5
P
7440-23-5
Sodium
189i
J
P
7440-28-0.
Thallium
2.5
U
P
7440-62-2
Vanadium
26.7
P
7440-66-6
Zinc
225
P
Color Before: BROWN Clarity Before: Texture: FINE
Co_or After: YELLOW Clarity After: Artifacts:
Cor-.ment s :
FORM IA -IN "L to 4
JeffCo 0030497
USEPA - CI.P
lA-IN EPA SAMPLE NO.
INORGANIC ANALYSIS DATA SHEET
MJ97E7
Lab Name: Bonner Analytical Testing Contract: EPW06055
Lab Code: BONNER Case No.: 37582 NRAS No.: 1580.2 SDG No.: MJ97E3
Matrix: (Soil/Water) SOIL Lab Sample ID: 0807061-03
Level: (low/med) LOW Date Received: 07/03/2008
8 Solids 0
Concentration Units (ug/L or mg/kg dry weight): mg/Kg
CAS NO.
Analyte
Concentration
C
Q
M
7429-90-5
Aluminum
8500
P
7440-36-0
Antimony
178
-K- V
P
7440-38-2
Arsenic
12.8
P
7440-39-3
Barium
30.1
P
7440-41-7
Beryllium
2.1
P
7440-43-9
Cadmium
0.50
U
P
7440-70-2
calcium
3420
P
7440-47-3
Chromium
25.1
P
7440-48-4
Cobalt
7.0
P
7440-50-6
Copper
748
-a-
P
7439-89-6
Iron
13000
P
7439-92-1
Lead
33300
D
P
7439-95-4
Magnesium
5640
P
7439-96-5
Manganese
249
P
7439-97-6
Mercury
C�'x T4F
J
CV
7440-02-0
Nickel'
46.1
P
7440-09-7
Potassium
545
P
7782-49-2 1
Selenium
3.5
U
P
7440-22-4
Silver
0.87
J
P
7440-23-5
Sodium
204
J
P
7440-28-0
Thallium
2.5
U
P
7440-62-2
Vanadium
26.1
P
7440-66-6
Zinc
125
P
Coior Before: BROWN Clarity Before: Texture: FINE
ColorAfter: YELLOW Clarity After: Artifacts:
Comments:
15
-SR,k, 13 .) �
17' 21
JeffCo 0030498
USEPA - CLP
lA-IN EPA SAMPLE NO.
INORGANIC ANALYSIS DATA SHEET
MJ97ES
Lab Name: Bonner Analytical Testing Contract: EPWO6055
Lab Code: BONNER Case No.: 37582 NRAS No.: 1580.2 SDG No.: MJ97E3
Matrix: (Soil/Water) SOIL Lab Sample ID: 0807061-04
Level: (low/med) LOW Date Received. 07/03/2008
Solids 0
Concentration Units (UC/L or mg/kg dry weight): mg/Kg
CAS NO.
Analyte
Concentration"
C
Q
M
7429-90-5
Aluminum
10000
P
1440-36-0
Antimony
192
P
7440-38-2
Arsenic
15.0
P
7440-39-3
Barium
34.9
P
7440-41-7
Beryllium
2.3
P
7440-43-9
Cadmium
0.50
U
P
7440-70-2
Calcium
3320
P
7440-47-3
Chramium
32.3
P
7440748-4
Cobalt
8.6
P
7440-50-8
Copper
559
-2-
P
7439-89-6
Iron
14800
P
7439-92-1
Lead
29300
D ---w SL
P
7439-95-4
Magnesium
6580
P
7439-96-5
Manganese
313
P
7439-97-6
Mercury
,a >ff
J
CV
7440-02-0
Nickel
57.3
P
7440-09-7
Potassium
624
P
7782-49-2
Selenium
3.5
U
P
7440-22-4
Silver
0.96
J
P
7440-23-5
Sodium
164
J
P
7440-28-0
Thallium
2.5
U
P
7440-62-2
Vanadium
30.6
P
7440- 66-6
zinc
73.5
P
Color Before: BROWN
Color After: YELLOW
Cowmen. is :
C-arity Before,. Texture: FINE
Clarity After: Artifac=sg
FORM IA -IN
...:..inn 5 , 9
16
JeffCo 0030499
USEPA - CLP
lA-IN EPA SAMPLE NO.
INORGANIC ANALYSIS DATA SHEET
MJ97E9
Lab Name: Bonner Analytical Testing Contract: EPWO6055
Lab Code: BONNER Case No,: 37582 NRAS No.: 1580.2 SDG No.: MJ97E3
Matrix: (Soil/Water) SO:L Lab Sample ID: 0807061-05
Level: (low/med) LOW Date Received: 07/03/2008
% Solids 0
Concentration Units (ug/L or mg/kg dry weight): mg/Kg_
CAS NO.
Analyte
Concentration
C
Q
M
7429-90-5
Aluminum
20400
P
7440-36-0
Antimony
6.0
P
7440-38-2
Arsenic
1.8
P
7440-39-3
Barium
113
P
7440-41-7
Beryllium
3.5
P
7440-43-9
Cadmium
0.50
U
P
7440-70-2
Calcium
2930
P
7440-43-3
Chromium
35.8
P
7440-48-4
Cobalt
9.4
P
7440-50-8
Copper
17.4
L'
P
7439-89-6
Iron
19500
P
7439-92-1
Lead
9.3
'■ N S�„
P
7439-95-4
Magnesium
5120
P
7439-96-5
Manganese
329
P
7439-97-6
Mercury
,oyg >%6
J
CV
7440-02-0
Nickel
50.3
P
7440-09-7
Potassium
889
P
7782-49-2
Selenium
3.5
U
P
7440-22-4
Silver
1.0
U
P
7440-23-5
Sodium
56.8
J
P
7440-28-0
Thallium
2.5
U
P
7440-62-2
Vanadium
45.2
P
7440-66-6
Zinc
38.9
P
Color Before: BROWN Clarity Before: Texture: FINE
Color After: YELLOW Clarity After: Artifacts:
Comments:
';RM IA- N
17
rib
JeffCo 0030500
18
USEPA - CLP
lA-IN EPA SAMPLE NO.
INORGANIC ANALYSIS DATA SHEET
Lab Name: Bonner Analytical Testing
Lab Code: BONNER Case No.: 37582
Matrix: (Soil/Water) SOIL
Level: (low/med) LOW
MJ 9'1 FO
Contract: EPW06055
NRAS No.: 1560.2 SDG No.: MJ97E3
Lab Sample ID: 0807061-06
Date Received: 07/03/2008
% Solids 0
Concentration Units (ug/L or mg/kg dry weight): mg/Kq
CAS NO.
Analyte
Concentration
C
Q
M
7429-90-5
Aluminum
21100
P
7440-36-0
Antimony
6.0
J4-
ai'
P
7440-38-2
Arsenic
1.7
P
7440-39-3
Barium
134
P
7440-41-7
Beryllium
3.3
P
7440-43-9
Cadmium
0.50
U
P
7440-70-2
Calcium
2590
P
7440-47-3
Chromium
31.1
P
7440-48-4
Cobalt
9.1
P
7440-50-8
Copper
20.7
T
P
7439-89-6
Iron
18400
P
7439-92-1
Lead
6.7
*-w TL.
P
7439-95-4
Magnesium
4440
P
7439-96-5
Manganese
295
P
7439-97-6
Mercury
0 07 3 Aff
J
CV
7440-02-0
Nickel
50.9
P
7440-09-7
Potassium
814
P
7782-49-2
Selenium
3.5
U
P
7440-22-4
Silver
1.0
U
P
7440-23-5
Sodium
51.5
J
P
7440-26-0
Thalli,am
2.5
U
P
7440-62-2
Vanadium
41.2
P
7440-66-6
Zinc
47.5
P
Color Before: BROWN Clarity Before: Texture: FINE
Color After: XELLM Clarity After: Artifacts:
Comments:
JeffCo 0030501
19
USEPA - CLP
-A-IN EPA SAMPLE NO.
INORGANIC ANALYSIS DATA SHEET
MJ97F1
Lab Name: Bonner Analytical Testing Contract: EPWO6055
Lab Code: BONNER Case No.: 37582 NRAS No.: 1580.2 SDG No.: MJ97E3
Matrix: (Soil/Water) SOIL Lab Sample ID: 0807061-07
Level: (low/med) LOW Date Received: 07/03/2008
% Solids 0
Concentration Units (uQ/L or mQ/kQ dry weight): mglKg
CAS NO.
Analyte
Concentration
C
Q
M
7429-90-5
Aluminum
14500
P
7440-36-0
Antimony
6.0
J4-
(Z
P
7440-38-2
Arsenic
1.7
P
7440-39-3
Barium
98.11
1
P
7440-41-7
Beryllium
2.8
P
7440-43-9
Cadmium
0.50
U
P
7440-70-2
Calcium
3590
P
7440-47-3
Chromium
23.0
P
7440-48-4
Cobalt
6.7
P
7440-50-8
Copper
11.0
.R-
P
7439-89-6
Iron
13700
P
7439-92-1
Lead
7.7
`4 'L
P
7439-95-4
Magnesium
3150
P
7439-96-5
Manganese
706
P
7439-97-6
Mercury
a
J
CV
7440-02-0
Nickel
31.9
P
7440-09-7
Potassium
672
P
7782-49-2
Selenium
0.58
J
P
7440-22-4
Silver
1.0
U
P
7440-23-5
Sodium
51.2
J
P
7440-28-0
Thallium
2.5
U
P
7440-62-2
Vanadium
30.6
P
7440-66-6
Zinc
43.3
P
Color Before: BROWN Clarity Before: texture: FINE
Color After: YELLOW Clarity After: Artifacts:
Comments:
i:i- : A- Ill
JeffCo 0030502
USEPA - CLP
1A-IN EPA SAMPLE NO.
INORGANIC ANALYSIS DATA SHEET
MJ97F2
Lab Name: Bonner Analytical Testing Contract: EPW06055
Lab Code: BONNER Case No.: 37582 NRAS No.: 1580.2 SDG No.: MJ97E3
Matrix: (Soil/Water) SOIL Lab Sample ID: 0807061-08
Level: (low/med) LOW Date Received: 07/03/2008
8 Solids 0
Concentration Units (Ug/L or mg/kg dry weight): mgli�g
CAS NO.
Analyte
Concentration
C
Q
M
7429-90-5
Aluminum
13300
P
7440-36-0
Antimony
54.0
7440-38-2
Arsenic
4.0
P
7440-39-3
Barium
68.3
P
7440-41-7
Beryllium
2.3
P
7440-43-9
Cadmium
0.50
U
P
7440-70-2
Calcium
2120
P
7440-47-3
Chromium
22.6
P
7440-48-4
Cobalt
6.0
P
7440-50-8
Copper
168
.rr
P
7439-89-6
Iron
12900
P
7439-92-1
Lead
7760
D '^tip
P
7439-95-4
Magnesium
3670
P
7439-96-5
Manganese
234
P
7439-97-6
Mercury
LOP -4+v
J
CV
7440-02-0
Nickel
38.6
P
7440-09-7
Potassium
379
J
P
7762-49-2
Selenium
3.5
U
P
7440-22-4
Silver
0.18
J
P
7440-23-5
Sodium
67.4
J
P
7440-28-0
Thallium
2.5
U
P
7440-62-2
Vanadium
29.5
P
7440-66-6
Zinc
34.81
P
Color Before: BROWN
Color After: YELLOW
Commert s :
Clarity Before: Texture: F_NE
Clarity After: Artifacts:
FORM IA -IN
L 5.4
20
JeffCo 0030503
USEPA - CLP
IA -IN EPA SAMPLE NO.
INORGANIC ANALYSIS DATA SHEET
MJ97F3
Lab Name: Bonner Analytical Testing Contract: EPW06055
Lab Code: BONNER Case No.: 37582 NRAS No.: 1580.2 SDG No.: MJ97E3
Matrix: (Soil/Water) SOIL Lab Sample ID: 0807061-09
Level: (low/med) LOW Date Received: 07/03/2008
8 Solids 0
Concentration Units (ug/L or mg/kg dry weight): mg/Kg
CAS NO.
Analyte
Concentration
C
Q
M
7429-90-5
Aluminum
12800
P
7440-36-0
Antimony
53.6
Fi'
P
7440-38-2
Arsenic
4.3
P
7440-39-3
Barium
61.3
P
7440-41-7
Beryllium
2.5
P
7440-43-9
Cadmium
0.50
U
P
7440-70-2
Calcium
2200
P
7440-47-3
Chromium
24.8
P
7440-48-4
Cobalt
6.3
P
7440-50-8
Copper
152
,z-
P
7439-89-6
Iron
13400
P
7439-92-1
Lead
9710
D
P
7439-95-4
Magnesium
4020
P
7439-96-5
Manganese
218
P
7439-97-6
Mercury
p.py.Q' 4!r
J
CV
7440-02-0
Nickel
37.6
P
7440-09-7
Potassium
470
J
P
7782-49-2
Selenium
3.5
U
P
7440-22-4
Silver
0.20
J
P
7440-23-5
Sodium
76.2
J
P
1440-28-0
Thallium
2.5
U
P
7440-62-2
Vanadium
31.8
P
7440-66-6
Zinc
35.6
P
Color Before: BROWN Clarity Before: Texture; FINE
Color After: YELLOW Clarity After; Artifacts:
Comments:
21
JeffCo 0030504
USEPA - CLP
lA-IN EPA SAMPLE NO,
INORGANIC ANALYSIS DATA SHEET
MJ97F4
Lab Name: Bonner Analytical Testing Contract: EPW06055
Lab Code: BONNER Case No.: 37582 NRAS No.: 1580.2 SDG No.: MJ97E3
Matrix: (Soil/Water) SOIL Lab Sample ID: 0807061-10
Level: (low/med) LOW
Date Received: 07/03/2008
8 Solids 0
Concentration Units (ua/L or mg/ka dry weight): mg/Kg
CAS NO.
Analyte
Concentration
C
4
M
7429-90-5
Aluminum
13700
P
7440-36-0
Antimony
6.0
.iP
-K
P
7440-38-2
Arsenic
2.0
P
7440-39-3
Barium
47.6
P
7440-41-7
Beryllium
3.1
P
7440-43-9
Cadmium
0.50
U
P
7440-70-2
Calcium
3740
P
7440-47-3
Chromium
38.5
P
7440-48-4
Cobalt
10.8
P
7440-50-8
Copper
30.9
.8' f
=
7439-89-6
Iron
18800
P
7439-92-1
Lead
15.0
P
7439-95-4
Magnesium
6850
P
7439-96-5-
Manganese
377
P
74 9-97-6
Mercury
0,0,:" bw
J
CV
7440-02-0
Nickel
66.5
P
7440-09-7
Potassium
745
P
7782-49-2
Selenium
3.5
U
P
7440-22-4
Silver
1.0
U
P
7440-23-5
Sodium
140
J
P
7440-28-0
Thallium
2.5
U
P
7440- 22-2
Vanadium
42.2
P
7440-66-6
Zinc
31.6
P
Color Before: BROWN Clarity Before: Texture: FINE
Color After, YELLOW Clarity After: Artifacts:
Comments:
FORM IA -IN iLM 5.4
22
JeffCo 0030505
JSEPA - CLP
lA-IN EPA SAMPLE NO.
INORGANIC ANALYSIS DATA SHEET
Mj97F5
Lab Name: Bonner Analyt`-cal Testing Contract. EPWO6055
Lab Code; BONNER Case No.: 37582 NRAS No.: 1580.2 SAG No.: MJ97E3
Matrix: (Soil/Water) SOIL Lab Sample ID: 0807061-11
Level; (low/med) LOW Date Received; 07/03/2008
8 Solids 0
Concentration Units (ug/L or mq/kq dry weight): mq/Kq
CAS NO.
Analyte
Concentration
C
Q
M
7429-90-5
Aluminum
8210
P
7440-36-0
Antimony
1.5
w T
P
7440-38-2
Arsenic
1.7
P
7440-39-3
Barium
33.8
P
7440-41-7
Beryllium
2.1
P
7440-43-9
Cadmium
0.50
U
P
7440- 00-2
Calcium
2990
P
7440-47-3
Chromium
25.1
P
7440-46-4
Cobalt
7.9
P
7440-50-8
Copper
23.3
e'
P
7439-89-6
Iron
13700
P
7439-92-1
Lead
697
11 W
P
7439-95-4
Magnesium
5130
P
7439-96-5
Manganese
2931
P
7439-97-6
Mercury
0,02
J
CV
7440-02-0
Nickel
46.4
P
7440-09-7
Potassium
476
J
P
7782-4972
Selenium
3.5
U
P
7440-22-4
Silver
1.0
U
P
7440-23-5
Sodium
133
J
P
7440-28-0
Thallium
2.5
U
P
7440-62-2
Vanadium
28.5
P
7440-66-6
Zinc
23.4
1
P
23
rsu0 `_ 2-3 , o Y
1
Color Before: BROWN Clarity Before: Texture: FINE
Color After: YELLOW Clarity Aster: Artifacts:
Comments:
JeffCo 0030506
USEPA - CLP
lA-IN EPA SAMPLE NO.
INORGANIC ANALYSIS DATA SHEET
MJ97F6
Lab Name; Bonner Analytical Testing Contract: EPW06055
Lab Code: BONNER Case No.: 37582 NRAS No.: 1580.2 SDG No.; MJ97E3
Matrix: (Soil/Water) SOIL Lab Sample ID: 0807061-12
Level; (low/med) LOW
Date Received: 07/03/2008
% Solids 0
Concentration Units (u4/L or ma/ka dry weight): mq/Kg
CAS NO.
Analyte
Concentration
C
Q
M
7429-90-5
Aluminum
1000D
P
7440-36-0
Antimony
6.0
W
-w Q.
P
7440-38-2
Arsenic
1.5
P
7440-39-3
Barium
40.1
P
7440-41-7
Beryllium
3.1
P
7440-43-9
Cadmium
0.50
U
e
7440-70-2
Calcium
4460
P
7440-47-3
Chromium
33.4
P
7440-48-4
Cobalt
9.6
P
7440-50-8
Copper
19.7
.4,- 5
P
7439-89-6
Iron
16400
P
7439-92-1
Lead
11.8
*-4L
P
7439-95-4
Magnesium
9080
P
7439-96-5
Manganese
339
P
7439-97-6
Mercury
0.10
0
CV
7440-02-0
Nickel
61.8
P
7440-09-7
Potassium
651
P
7782-49-2
Selenium
3.5
U
P
7440-22-4
Silver
1.0
U
P
7440-23-5
Sodium
347
J
P
7440-28-0
Thallium
2.5
U
P
7440-62-2
Vanadium
35.8
P
7440-66-6
Zinc
31.6
P
Color Before: BROWN Clarity Before: Textore: PINE
Color After: YELLOW Clarity After; Artifacts:
Co.iments :
;FORM IA -IN
24
JeffCo 0030507
USEPA - CLP
!A -IN EPA SAMPLE NO,
INORGANIC ANALYSIS DATA SHEET
MJ97F7
Lab Name: Bonner Analytical Testing Contract: EPWO6055
Lab Code: BONNER Case No.: 37582 NRAS No.: 1580.2 SDG No.: N.J97E3
Matrix: (Soil/Water) SOIL Lab Sample ID: 0801061-13
Level: (low/med) LOW Date Received: 07/03/2008
8 Solids 0
Concentration Units (uQ/L or ma/ka dry weight): mg/Kg
CAS NO.
Analyte
Concentration
C
Q
M
7429-90-5
Aluminum
21600
P
7440-36-0
Antimony
6.0
w
-R (Z
P
7440-38=2
Arsenic
1.2
P
7440-39-3
Barium
116
P
7440-41-7
Beryllium
3.3
P
7440-43-9
Cadmium
0.50
U
P
7440-70-2
Calcium
2530
P
7440-47-3
Chromium
30.3
P
7440-48-4
Cobalt
8.8
P
7440-50-8
Copper
13.4
r,
P
7439-89-6
Iron
17300
P
7439-92-1
Lead
3.0
;j
P
7439-95-4
Magnesium
4470
P
7439-96-5
Manganese
208
P
7439-97-6
Mercury
0.10
U
CV
7440-02-0
Nickel
45.9
P
7440-09-7
Potassium
1000
P
7782-49-2
Selenium
3.5
U
P
7440-22-4
Silver
1.0
U
P
7440-23-5
Sodium
111
J
P
7440-28-0
Thallium
2.5
U
P
7440-62-2
Vanadium
40.6
P
7440-66-6
Zinc
32.31
P
Co.or 'before: BROWN
Color After: YELLOW
-omments:
Clarity Before: 'Texture: FINE
Clarity After: Artifacts:
25
JeffCo 0030508
USEPA - CLP
!A -IN EPA SAMPLE NO.
INORGANIC ANALYSIS DATA SHEET
MJ97 F8
Lab Name: Bonner Analytical Testing Contract: EPW06055
Lab Code: BONNER Case No.: 37582 NRAS No.: 1580.2 SDG No.: N,J97E3
Matrix: (Soil/Water) SOIL Lab Sample ID: 0807061-14
Level: (low/med) LOW Date Received, 07/03/2008
% Solids 0
Concentration Units (ug/L or mg/kq dry weight): mg/Kc
CAS NO.
Analyte
Concentration
C
Q
M
7429-90-5
Aluminum
7870
P
7440-36-0
Antimony
6.0
Af ,
-R- (�,
P
7440-38-2
Arsenic
3.4
P
7440-39-3
Barium
41.5
P
7440-41-7
Beryllium
1.9
P
7440-43-9
Cadmium
0.50
U
P
7440-70-2
Calcium
4000
P
7440-47-3
Chromium
25.7
P
7440-48-4
Cobalt
5.9
P
7440-50-8
Copper
8.4
a-
P
7439-89-6
Iron
15400
P
7439-92-1
Lead
4.2
'^13.
P
7439-95-4
Magnesium
4950
P
7439-96-5
Manganese
972
P
7439-97-6
Mercury
p,p
J
CV
7440-02-0
Nickel
29.6
P
7440-09-7
Potassium
445
J
P
7782-49-2
Selenium
3.5
U
P
7440-22-4
Silver
1.0
U
P
7440-23-5
Sodium
249
J
P
7440-28-0
Thallium
2.5
U
P
7440-62-2
Vanadium
38.01
1P
7440-66-6
Zinc
26.3
P
Color Before: BROWN Clarity Before; Texture: FINE
Color After: YELLOW Clarity After: Artifacts:
Comments:
FORM IA -IN
26
JeffCo 0030509
27
USEPA - CLP
lA-IN EPA SAMPLE NO,
INORGANIC ANALYSIS DATA SHEET
MJ97F9
Lab Name: Bonner Analytical Testing Contract: EPW06055
Lab Code: BONNER Case No.: 37582 NRAS No.: 1580.2 SDG No.: MJ97E3
Matrix: (Soil/Water) SOIL Lab Sample ID: 0807061-15
Level: (low/med) LOW
Date Received: 07/03/2008
Solids 0
Concentration Units (ug/L or mg/kg dry weight): mg/Kg
CAS NO.
Analyte
Concentration
C
Q
M
7429-90-5
Aluminum
7560
P
7440-36-0
Antimony
6.0
F7
-w Q
P
7440-38-2
Arsenic
1.3
P
7440-39-3
Barium
33.9
P
7440-41-7
Beryllium
1.9
P
7440-43-9
Cadmium
0.50
U
P
7440-70-2
Calcium
3660
P
7440-47-3
Chromium
21.3
P
7440-48-4
Cobalt
4.9
J
P
7440-50-8
Copper
7.9
.8^
P
7439-89-6
Iron
11500
P
7439-92-1
Lead
4.4
P
7439-95-4
Magnesium
4390
P
7439-96-5
Manganese
216
P
7439-97-6
Mercury
0.10
U
CV
7440-02-0
Nickel
25.0
P
7440-09-7
Potassium
425
J
P
7782-49-2
Selenium
3.5
U
P
7440-22-4
Silver
1.0
U
P
7440-23-5
Sodium
269
J
P
7440-28-0
Thallium
2.5
U
P
7440-62-2
Vanadium
29.3
P
7440-66-6
Zinc
24.5
P
Color Before: BROWN Clarity Before: Texture: FINE
Color After: YELLOW Clarity After: Artifacts:
Comments:
ARM =A- N C _ . 4
JeffCo 0030510
USEPA - CLP'
IA -IN EPA SAMPLE NO.
INORGANIC ANALYSIS DATA SHEET
MJ97G0
lab Name: Bonner Analytical Testing Contract: EPW06055
Lab Code: BONNER Case No.: 37582 NRAS No.: 1580.2 SDG No.: MJ97E3
Matrix: (Soil/Water) SOIL Lab Sample ID: 0807061-16
Level: (low/med) LOW Date Received: 07/03/2008
% Solids 0
Concentration Units (uc/L or ma/ka dry weight): mg/Kg
CAS NO.
Analyte
Concentration
C
Q
M
7429-90-5
Aluminum
9580
P
7440-36-0
Antimony
6.0
'Id'
.R
P
7440-38-2
Arsenic
1.5
P
7440-39-3
Barium
37.7
P
7440-41-7
Beryllium
2.1
P
7440-43-9
Cadmium
0.50
U
P
7440-70-2
Calcium
3700
P
7440-4.7-3
Chromium
25.
P
7440-48-9
Cobalt
6.2
P
7440-50-8
Copper
8.4
.E-
P
7439-89-6
Iron
14200
P
7939-92-1
Lead
3.3
`ttj
P
7439-95-4
Magnesium
4900
P
7439-96-5
Manganese
269
P
7439-97-6
Mercury
0.10
U
CV
7440-02-0
Nickel
23.6
P
7440-09-7
Potassium
483
J
P
7782-49-2
Selenium
3.5
U
P
7440-22-4
Silver
1.0
U
P
7440-23-5
Sodium
389
J
P
7440-28-0
Thallium
2.5
U
P
7440-62-2
Vanadium
36.3
P
7440-66-6
Zinc
29.7
P
Color Before: BROWN
Color After: YELLOW
Conments:
Clarity Before: Texture: FINE
Clarity After: Artifacts.
MRN IA -IN Ii;%10°5.4
28
JeffCo 0030511
USEPA - CLP
lA-IN . EPA SAMPLE NO.
INORGANIC ANALYSIS DATA SHEET
MJ97G1
Lab Name: Bonner Analytical Testing Contract: EPW06055
Lab Code: BONNER Case No.: 37582 NRAS No.: 1580.2 SDG No.: MJ97E3
Matrix: (Soil/Water) SOIL Lab Sample ID: 0807061-17
Level: (low/med) LOW
Date Received: 07/03/2008
8 Solids 0
Concentration Units (ug/L or mg/kg dry weight): mg/Kg
CAS NO.
Analyte
Concentration
C
Q
M
7429-90-5
Aluminum
7750
P
7440-36-0
Antimony
6.0
W
Dw
P
7440-38-2
Arsenic
1.7
P
7440-39-3
Barium
37.4
P
7440-41-7
Beryllium
1.9
P
7440-43-9
Cadmium
0.50
U
P
7440-70-2
Calcium
3750
P
7440-47-3
Chromium
25.2
P
7440-48-4
lCobalt
5.6
P
7440-50-8
Copper
7.4
-R-
P
7439-89-6
Iron
11100
P
7439-92-1
Lead
3.1.E
P
7439-95-4
Magnesium
3990
P
7439-96-5
Manganese
281
P
7439-97-6
Mercury
O.05o
J
CV
7440-02-0
Nickel
25.3
P
1440709-7
Potassium
422
J
P
7782-49-2
Selenium
0.55
J
P
7440-22-4
Silver
1.0
U
P
7440-23-5
Sodium
210
J
P
7440-28-0
Thallium
2.5
U
P
7440-62-2
Vanadium
29.2
P
7440-66-6
Zinc
24.7
P
Color Before: BROWN Clarity Before: Texture: FINE
Color After: YELLOW Clarity After: Ar`ifacts:
Comments:
�-1
29
JeffCo 0030512
53
USEPA - CLP
9-IN
METHOD DETECTION LIMITS (ANNUALLY)
Lab Name: Bonner Analytical Testing Contract: EPWO6055
Lab Code: BONNER Case No.: 37582 NRAS No.: 1580.2 SDG No.: MJ97E3
Instrument Type: P Instrument ID: ICAPP 6500 Date; 10/01/2007
Preparation H$1
Concentration Units (ug/L or mg/Kg): mg/Kg
Analyte
Wavelength
/Mass
CRQL
MOL
Aluminum
396.10
20
1.90
Antimony
206.80
6.0
0.23
Arsenic
189.00
1.0
0.13
Barium
455.40
20
0.074
Beryllium
313.10
0.50
0.0042
Cadmium
214.40
0.50
0.007
Calcium
318.10
500
4.10
Chromium
267.70
1.0
0.052
Cobalt
229.60
5.0
0.030
Copper
324.70
2.5
0.19
Iron
238.20
10
0.47
Lead
220.30
1.0
0.19 .
Magnesium
279.00
500
4.65
Manganese
257.60
1.5
0.0081
Nickel
231.60
4.0
0.12
Potassium
766.40
500
8.70
Selenium
196.00
3.5
0.33
Silver
328.00
1.0
0.082
Sodium-
589.50
500
2.30
Thallium
190.80
2.5
0.21
Vanadium
292.40
5.0
0.10
Zinc
206.20
6.0
0.18
FORM %X-IN
JeffCo 0030513
USEPA - CLP
9-IN '
METHOD DETECTION LIMITS (ANNUALLY)
Lab Name: Bonner Analytical Testing Contract: EPW06055
Lab Code: BONNER Case No.: 37582 NRAS No.: 1580.2 SDG No.: MJ97E3
Instrument Type: P Instrument ID: ICAPP 6500 Date: 10/01/2007
Preparation HS1
Concentration Units (ug/L or mg/Kg): ug/L
Analyte
Wavelength
/Mass
CRQL
MDL
Aluminum
396.10
20
19.0
Antimony
206.80
6.0
2.30
Arsenic
189.00
1.0
1.30
Barium
455.40
20
0.74
Beryllium
313.10
0.50
0.042
Cadmium
214.40
0.50
0.072
Calcium
318.10
500
41.3
Chromium
267.70
1.0
0.52
cobalt
228.60
5.0
0.30
Copper
324.70
2.5
1.92
Iron
238.20
10
4.72
Lead
220.30
1.0
1.93
Ma nesium
279.00
500
46.1
Manganese
257.60
1.5
0.081
Nickel
231.60
4.0
1.20
Potassium
766.40
500
87.1
Selenium
196.00
3.5
3.30
Silver
328.00
1.0
0.82
Sodium
589.50
500
23.0
Thallium
190.80
2.5
2.10
vanadium
292.40
5.0
1.00
Zinc
206.20
6.0
1.80
..:X-1N
JeffCo 0030514
55
USEPA - CLP
9-IN
METHOD DETECTION LIMITS (ANNUALLY)
Lab Name: Bonner Analytical Testing Contract: EPWO6O55
Lab Code: BONNER Case No.: 37582 NRAS N-o.: 1580.2 SDG No.: MJ97E3
Instrument Type: Cv Instrument ID: LeemanO2 Date: 12/21/2007
Preparation CS1
Concentration Units (ug/L or mg/Kg): mg/Kg
Analyte
Wavelength
/Mass
CRQL
MDL
Mercury
257.00
0.100
0.020
FORM IX-Iti ;,MO-.4
JeffCo 0030515
60
USEPA - CLP
12-IN
PREPARATION LOG
Lab Name: Bonner Analytical Testing Contract: EPWO6055
Lab Code: BONNER Case No.; 37582 NRAS No.: 1580.2 SDG MJ97E3
Preparation Hsi
EPA
Sample
No.
Preparation
Date
Weight
(gram)
Volume
ML)
LCSS01
07/10/08
1.00
100
MJ97E3
07/10/08
1.00
100
MJ97E6
07/10/08
1.00
100
MJ97E7
07/10/08
1.00
100
MJ97E8
07/10/08
1.00
100
MJ97E9
07/10/08
1.00
100
MJ97E90
01/10/08
1.00
100
MJ97E9S
07/10/08
1.00
100
MJ97FO
07/10/08
1.00
100
MJ97F1
07 10/08
1.00
100
MJ97F2
07/10/08
1.00
100
MJ97E3
07/10/08
1.00
100
MJ97F4_
07/10/08
1.00
100
MJ97F5
07/10/08
1.00
100
MJ97F6
07 16 08
1.00
100
MJ97E7
07 10 08
1.00
100
MJ97FS
01/10/08
1.00
100
MJ97F9
07/10/08
1.00
100
MJ97G0
07/10/08
1.00
100
MJ97G1
07/10/08
1.00
100
PBS01
07/10/08
1.00 1
100
JeffCo 0030516
61
USEPA - CLP
12-IN
PREPARATION LOG
Lab Name: Bonner Analytical Testing
Lab Code: BONNER Case No.: 37582 NRAS No
Preparation CSi
Contract: EPWO6055
: 1580.2 SDG MJ97E3
EPA
Sample
No.
Preparation
Date
Weight
(gram)
Volume
(mL)
CCB01
07/11/08
0.20
100
CCB02
07/11/08
0.20
100
CCB03
07/11/08
0.20
100
CCB04
07/11/08
0.20
100
CCV01
07/11/08
0.20
100
CCV02
07/11/08
0.20
100
CCV03
07/11/08
0.20
100
CCV04
07/11/08
0.20
100
CRI01
07/11/08
0.20
100
CRI02
07/11/08
0.20
100
CR103
07/11/08
0.20
100
ICB01
07/11/08
0.20
100
ICV01
07/11/08
0.20
100
LCSS01
07/11/08
0.20
100
MJ97E3
07/11/08
0.20
100
MJ97E6
07/11/08
0.20
100
MJ97E7
07/11/08
0.20
100
MJ97E8
07/11/08
0.20
100
MJ97E9
07/11 08
0.20
100
MJ97E9D
07/11 08
0.20
100
MJ97E9S
07/11/08
0.20
100
MJ97FO
07/11/08
0.20
100
MJ97F1
07/11/08
0.20
100
MJ97F2
07/11/08
0.20
100
MJ97F3
07/11/08
0•.20
100
MJ97F4
07/11/08
0.20
100
MJ97F5
07/11/08
0.20
100
MJ97F6
07/11/08
0.20
100
MJ97F7
C7/11/08
0.2C
100
MJ97F8
07/11/08
0.20
100
MJ97F9
07/11/08
0.20
100
MJ97GO
07/11/08
0.20
100
Page 1 of 2 FORM XIS-IN-:.1l:a5.4
JeffCo 0030517
�Iyj
USEPA - CLP
12-IN
PREPARATION LOG
Lab Name: Bonner Analytical Testing Contract: EPW06055
Lab Code: BONNER Case No.: 37582 NRAS No.: 1580.2 SDG
Preparation CS1
MJ97E3
EPA
Sample
No.
Preparation
Date
Weight Volume
(gram) (mL)
MJ97G1
07/11 08
0.20 100
PBS01
07/11/08
0.20 100
SO
07/11/08
0.20 100
S0.2
07/11/08
0.20 100
S0.5
07/11/08
0.20 100
S1
07/11/08
0.20 100
S2
7/11/08
0.20 100
S6
07/11/08
0.20 100
:_'a7c G off 2 _ J;AM X__-IN y:.Mi:.` 4
JeffCo 0030518
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION 10
1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900
Seattle, Washington 98101
July 23, 2008
Reply To
Attn. Oft OEA-095
Mr..MnRAbMtTM
SUBJECT: Data Validation for Security Services Northwest Site
Inspection, Case# 37582, SDG: MJ97E0, Inorganic Analyses
FROM: Donald Matheny, Chemist
Environmental Services Unit, OEA
TO: Mark Ader, Site Assessment Manager
Office of Environmental Cleanup (ECL-115)
CC: Alexis Ande, TechLaw, Inc.
The data validation of inorganic analyses for the above sample
set is complete. One (1) water QC sample was analyzed for total
elements by Bonner Analytical, Hattiesburg, MS. The sample number.is:
MJ97EO
DATA QUALIFICATIONS
The following comments refer to the lab's performance in meeting
the specifications outlined in the "CLP Statement of Work (CLP-SOW)
for Inorganic Analysis, rev: ILM05.411, the "USEPA CLP National
Functional Guidelines for Inorganic Data Review" and the judgment of
the reviewer. The comments presented herein are based on the
information provided for the review.
TIMELINESS -. Acceptable
The holding time from the date of collection to the date of
digestion and analyses were met for all elements (ICP 180 days, Hg 28
days). The sample was collected on 6/30/0B. ICP-AES and mercury
analysis were both conducted on 7/11/08.
JeffCo 0030519
USEPA - CLP
9-IN
METHOD DETECTION LIMITS (ANNUALLY)
Lab Name: Bonner Analytical Testing Compa Contract: EPWO6055
20
Lab Code: BONNER
Case No.: 37582
NRA3 No.:
9DG NO.:
MJ97EO
Instrument Type: CV
Instrument ID:
Leeman02
Date:
12/26/2007
Preparation Method: CW1
Concentration Unite (ug/L or mg/kg): UG/L
Analyte
Piave -Length
/Mass
CRQL
MDL
Mercury
253.70
0.20
0.030
6
Comments:
Foge ii,0030520 ILMo5 . 4
1 TechLaw
y ��!!I� f•!l Frail
APPENDIX D
FIELD LOGBOOK
Security Services Northwest
Final Site Inspection
September 2008
Appendix D
JeffCo 0030521
JeffCo 0030522
. 1
A
f:-
I
1 r
3
C:r- -D
'� �° i��I�iiLJ:Ai�INtl�1 t:M � r I'1-'i�lR7i7ti ... .,.. � - _ r.�- - -' '7 •i.i . .. ' i
sN-S341
v 3�s
I
a
U
z<--
T�
_C3 few 90
Sq ]SAW'
`� � �
•�' `� �' fines • �� �� �c�
1191
UD
, , " %-
'-
�cj
T"}�.�J4lR�t.l�i:��:.�.t.':�.1•_6it L.�li�'!ti�P,�y�`r1r.'�.=<...b�st'°-1;��ils I.��
r ep,
u' UfoZq
On
--T�cee5
S14t-v-, e-IL-,,3O°
S�h,j �31sd 3,!L
PLAiJ `L
C%Ivr
UryQtvc,s
ihPJ rkF j+
;bc�ngp S4�
- cc.,4
Y rrocjey
S°y
n.
�c)
� e)Y
fig
`
sa-a►�soil
5�•�
m AJo
�K
' rs f
I il)O
/UO
tacG
sqlq
l�
Lcxr
ho
�Q
Cogr v
I
Ni�
P ! ,,l w f�a J iiPt 7 MOO
3
�'i° � r l �' �i1`•�S—QS3 �'U'N� �l�iC' 1 IOrCLO/�C�/c�J
S6LL�� 6 5 f, jarl View 0�
tje
�A+- 6-3'0- ft- I r3q DUI-S�Sl- (
-060 od
" tih
ego
Sf ;
3 I
40
SIE
3 N^Nr I s/V
c V LZ.
_ ULU
m
cr—
va
Ln
La
18-u,z L-n
Qj��fs t l Iti
Pe
:T TeKaw
r..Wk .......,,
APPENDIX E
SAMPLE PLAN ALTERATION FORMS
Security Services Northwest
Final Site Inspection
September 2008
Appendix E
JeffCo 0030535
Sample Plan Alteration Form
Project
Material to be Stop'
Measurement Parameter: ,tp_ k
Standard Procedure for Field Collection and Laboratory Analysis (cite reference):
hR
for Cha a in Field Procedure oyrAnalysis
9N A . -4-Av A A 4-&,*
i or An lytical Procedure:
.sf n nfc° , I ` li
Special Equipment, Mater��'arrls or Personnel Required:
/ �V.
Initiator's Name: Ile T 4 4190il Date: �- r � r OF -
Project
Manager: �'SQ 7 @ l S06? Date:
QA Officer: ,��- Date:.
�t
t co ,v? �,�.
JeffCo 0030536
Sample Plan Alteration Form
Project Name and TDD Number:
Material to be Sampled: �p_
1 �I P1 L1.��vh�v�� -
Measurement Parameter:., TAL i 2L_
Standard Procedur for ield Collection and Laboratory Analysis (cite refer�/e�,nncc);n
cn,p [x'�-CX�--�� �,�1 S'r���l�n� �FAnn1„c�,c 1Noo rtureC— SuI=;2Nir-
Reason for Change in Field PTOcedur or Analysis Variation:
t'@ta @' Jr Sell the NGkuS'e- enete•�L
t
o }, tjf 'ter of Q!�
Variation from Field or Analytical Procedure ' rt
�c;oral"�r���rna+►'r
r'a�1 0 5 Se..vv��te�
Special Equipment, Materials, or Personnel Required;
lnitiator's Name: _ Lsc,- r V tO I Q rl Date:
Project Manager: / V e 0l() Date: ~ Yet
QA OfficeDate:
JeffCo 0030537
Sample Plan Alteration Form
Project tName and TDD_Number:
'!.iRSFerni'�'�1J SRjP411�LET''
Material to be Sample
Ll.
Measurement Parameter:, T6L Me -It, I
Reason for Change in Figld Procedure or Analysis Variatioryn: '7
1 OtCA.QOA numLf, ntn� - d S�rx;ift�C �'tsjtnr�an� tro.s� Ihrr7Ti.19R4h E 5 fY7s✓Y
V fb a Soil itieeiru¢n c)Scrl 5ewin3foe ri4»t6ev^
-lro QrAwl-re ftiolit"CLI,e0#14ew".'-Ititole n•
Variation fiopi Field or AAplyticatProeedure: j
Z'eum h4..b —96) 5`tsmalCpS Cm11Pe7j LM �kc 4l,"G &Me--JJ-]
Special Equipment, Materials, or Personnel Required:
Initiator's Name: —lese• / 1/ e 1Se)r)
Date:
Project Manager: 4nct 019011
Date: �! °� O
QA Officer: '0��v P,0001�-U"�"
Date: -Ok-
r�
JeffCo 0030538
Sample Plan Alteration Form
Project Name and TDD"umber:
Material b� Sampled:
Measurement Parameter: -4 rhefi. k _
Standard Procedure for Field Collection and Laboratory Analysis (cite reference): 1
SOP 07-03 - 01 5ai 1 Sarn al�n� anA ►��,� l„s�� NoCeo ces—
Reason for C ange in Field P acedure or Analysis Variation: //�� (r'{ cc
bec ret, ' X ni mb ""r, ( Su, f S r►-, e s ea r ie Prom d %e l"A &1 e Vb) L
r Sail S4� p S ec4tiS� g"I Soy ( SJrf r.nh'1
tlt.M to ane y Zk prjJei1bt { 40- Range a s
Variation froQnt Field or Analytical Procedure:
,k_Cr�euell -kein C ;ei i scmpl&S Anwil i-n 3 SO 1 self"i2le S Co Peeled Prom
Special Eqy nt, Materials, or Personnel Required:
Initiator's Name: eS I Sbrl Date:
Project Manager: Sint 0 / 200C Date;
QA Officer; P_,PP-P'{ Date:
JeffCo 0030539
Sample Plan Alteration Form
Project Name an4 TDD Number-
,;; rtl�f� fly►.
Material to be Sampled:
Caller. .cn
1[](t< l'ovl UAt'nq Tiltmkip G-M.— 6-r-cExDiorer
Measurement Parameter: /w�, +J e C,- 1 zvn J t tt4J
Standard Procedure for Field
r_ _ --r_ __
T-Tet k it
Reason for Chan a in Field Procedure or Analysis Variation: An
i•�tt `k E' r ra-Ci rat i� 90-'1-9c"Pl1 �cn
cs h S' 'um lirt t'u
Vari tion Field or Analytical Proce ure:
t
UA 6C.,cm S"m drnfi`s,�S
Special Equipment, Materials, or Personnel Required:
Initiator's Name: �eSG- I V d sbn Date: 0 I � {[I
Project Manager: i,es. Nelsoo Date: RA) Ag-
QA Officer: G'a'' Date:
JeffCo 0030540