HomeMy WebLinkAbout010 91
(~ OYlj
Pw ~-\-9\
STATE OF WASHINGTON
COUNTY OF WASHINGTON
In the matter of:
x
RESOLUTION NO. 10-91
Initiating a County project
designated as CR0953.
x
x
IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED that Chimacum Road. from Mile Point
0.08 to Mile point 0.35.
Be improved as follows:
Widen to include two-way left turn channelization,
construct storm drainage facilities, curbs, gutter and
sidewalk, surface with A.C. Pavement, and install traffic
facilities.
IT IS FURTHER RESOLVED that an appropriation from the
officially adopted road fund budget and based on the County
Engineer's estimate is hereby made in the amounts and for the
purpose shown:
PURPOSE
PREVIOUS APPROPRIATION
PRESENT APPROPRIATION
Engineering:
Right of Way
Acquisition:
-0-
$30.000,00
-0-
0,00
Construction:
XX Contract
- County Forces
TOTAL
-0-
$30.000,00
$230.200.00 ($184.160,00
Rural Arterial Program)
Sub-Tot a 1 :
-0-
$260.200.00 ($184.160.00
Rural Arterial Program)
This project is included in the officially adopted annual
road program as Item No, 12
xx
The projects hereby made a part of the officially adopted
annual road program in accordance with R.C.W. 36.81.130.
IT IS FURTHER RESOLVED that:
xx
The construction is to be accomplished by contract in
accordance with R.C.W. 36.77.020 et. seq.
The construction is to be accomplished by County forces in
accordance with R.C.W. 36.77.060 and W.A.C. 136.18.
~
PASSED AND ADOPTED THIS ~~ ::YJ::;:;::~o::l- CO;!:;~N~RS
SEAL;..'" .
/" ~ ", '..
-', ',.T.','
, ' w" ( .' . J\ ý.
" ,.~. r~" ' '., " "
I ~ .. ' . . .~. 1,. \
-:~...(\ I' /'~..
, ;I, t ' ,
~ .\--:~ »'~.." /.: .~A J
"'if. . '.'t\:
'.. 1.- ..I ',' ,/
"", ", '#, . ',\ '" ..,' \
" ) ¡ '1 ,,' .'
"""'" .. ~ .
.~ ~ ?/~-"
,'...' ///~~ . /;' /(
L <'"'Member
~
Member
ATT~ &1- ~ [), jJ O-h1-
Cler of the Board
, k
VOt
1 7 rJ": 00 ~ 121
TO:
The. Board of Jefferson County Commissioners
Jefferson County Planning and Building Department
Jefferson County Prosecutor
FROM:
Joe and Carter Breskin, landowners adjacent
Lakeside Operation located in "Shotwell Pit".
to the
SUBJECT:
Apparent threat to credibility of ongoing land-use
planning process and potentially significant risk of
County liability exposure inherent in granting
"grandfather" status to Lakeside Asphalt Manufacturing
operation at "Shotwell pit".
DATE:
January 28, 1991
(It is possibly significant that I received no formal notice of the
Jan 28th 1990 meeting with the county commissioners concerning the
approval of Lakeside's Asphalt Manufacturing operation. It is
certain that this lack of forwarding has limited the amount of time
available for the preparation of this document.)
Since considerable time has elapsed since the last meeting,
I feel it is appropriate that I supply some background
information on my involvement in this matter, and provide some
hypothetical information about the newly undertaken growth
management activities which may not be widely known, but may
also prove to be of considerable concern to all parties.
THE ISSUES, BEGINNING WITH THE BIG ONE, POLLUTION:
I feel that the single most serious danger this operation
presents to the surrounding community is pollution.
Pollution takes many forms. The dust and noise with which
our area was polluted by Lakeside's operation last year
were obvious to everyone within about 2 miles, impacting
most organisms from the simplest non-vascular plants all
the way to the professional people unsuccessfully trying
to sleep, when for purely economic reasons, defective and
possibly illegal equipment was used for literally months,
without regard for the laws of either the State or the
County. I believe acceptable solutions to these
particular compliance problems are probably technically
possible, given both a willingness to consider the impact
of their activities on their neighbors by the petitioners
and competent project management. To date, no evidence
of either of these ingredients has been offered by the
petitioners. However, I propose that these are relatively
minor and probably short-term problems compared to the
major pollution risk this operation presents, and the
risk of liability the county incurs if this activity is
permi tted at this point in the planning process, The most
serious and irreversible form of pollution, and the one
1
. VOl..
11 rM,t 00 123
I consider most likely to occur at this site, if asphalt
manufacture is permitted, is groundwater pollution of
indeterminable extent resulting directly and inevitably
from the operation of an asphalt manufacturing plant at
the Shotwell gravel pit.
THE RECORD OF THE PAST:
It is not my intention to dispute the historical evidence of
commercial extraction of gravel from a geological deposit in
this vicinity, or the storage of that extracted material at
the Shotwell property at this time. The issue at hand is the
lack of historical use of the site as an asphalt manufacturing
plant, and the lack of any substantial need for such an
asphalt manufacturing facility's existence in order to justify
the identification and protection of this site's resource
potential. I feel that an even more important issue is the
inappropriateness of any approving its use for such a non-
essential form of development at this critical point in
Jefferson County's recently undertaken growth management
planning process. "Grandfather" status would almost certainly
exempt Lakeside from the requirement to prepare an
Environmental Impact statement for this operation, and
therefore effectively deprives the County's citizens and
administrators of the opportunity to assess either Lakeside's
or their own preparedness for handling and mitigating the
environmental impacts of this proposed change in the area's
land use.
My expectations for the future behavior of my neighbors can
only be based on my observation of their past performance. On
the basis of Lakeside's past performance, it can reasonably
be expected that they will elect to operate at or very near
the extreme limits of the applicable laws, and ignore all laws
but those few that appear likely to be enforced and
enforceable. The petitioner is well aware that if this
operation is granted "grandfather" or existing use status by
the board, it will be substantially exempt from much of the
impact of the County's planning process and will be subject
instead to. management according to the terms of "BMP' s" or
Best Management Practices.l
1 BMP's are a euphemism for the popular practice of hiring the
foxes to guard the henhouse. BMP's under a different name brought
us the S&L scandal. In this state, through a very carelessly
thought out memorandum of understanding with the Department of
Ecology, BMP's have allowed the U.S. Forest Service to become,
simultaneously the administrator of the Clean Water Act and the
most blatant polluter of streams and rivers in the region.
-....
2
- Vûl
17 rAr.~, 00' :124
THE REAL AND APPARENT RISK:
The problem to which I refer is the probability of major
pollution resulting from an apparent lack of any appropriate
level of preparedness for a major spill of petrochemicals onto
the gravel in the vicinity of the asphalt manufacturing
equipment. The probability of such a spill is so high that in
this case, the burden of proof of preventability, preparedness
and their ability to mitigate such a spill should rest on the
peti tioner. To date there is a total lack of impermeable
concrete aprons, containment dams, evidence of financial
responsibility, or even of monitoring equipment on the storage
tanks to ensure early detection of leaks, were they to occur.
As I will show later, I believe that the current effort to
attain "grandfather" status for this facility at this moment
is in large measure, a cynical attempt by Lakeside Industries
to pass the part of the responsibility for prevention and
mitigation of a spill onto the residents and administrators
of Jefferson County.
Suffice it to say that all significant changes in the pattern
of land-use in this county should require and receive careful
analysis. Basing a decision of this importance on false
promises, falsified chronologies and bullying pressure to rush
through a decision that serves only the economic interests of
the petitioner should not be allowed. On the one hand, a
capi tulation by either the board or the planners, at this
point seems to endanger the credibility and usefulness of the
entire planning effort, especially when the risk potential is
so high and the simple and expedient decision to defer the
decision on this project is so obvious. On the other hand, it
seems highly unlikely that the commercial potential of the
gravel resources located either south-east or south-west of
Hastings Avenue are going to be significantly eroded during
the ensuing 9 months.
BELLIGERENT
GUIDELINES
DEVELOPMENT
AND
THE
IMPLEMENTATION
OF
INTERIM
The operation of several developers in this county has taken
on a belligerent, bullying tone in recent months, and in
Lakeside Industries' treatment of the dust, noise and traffic
problems their operation created last summer, they chose to
respond to complaints from the county's residents and from the
county's planners by escalating their level of belligerence,
bullying both the residents and the county.
-~.
, .
As a concrete example of Lakeside's belligerent behavior
I offer the relocation of their entrance, ostensibly done
3
VOL
1 7 f-Mr Or)
125
in response to my complaint to George Peabody at our
meeting at Nancy's Place, after which the access road was
moved from its original, extremely unsafe location on
Cape George Wye, to an exceedingly dangerous location at
the apex of the turn on Hastings, a location that was so
hazardous that the County immediately demanded that they
barricade it and relocate their entrance in compliance
with the law. Lakeside's response to this was to simply
reopen the original, merely unsafe entrance on the Wye
road.
This discussion of Lakeside's past activities is not to be
taken as an attempt to use this presentation as an opportunity
to lambaste of vilify Lakeside Industries. I offer it to point
out an aspect of a much more serious problem, which I
addressed in my previous extemporaneous presentation to the
board on and my previous letter. I see the probable causes of
an almost inevitable major spill of petrochemicals onto the
gravel in the area, and potentially into the aquifer, in order
of their likelihood, as: industrial accident, negligence in
either the design or the operation of the facilitl' vandalism,
and finally, the least likely cause: sabotage.
THE SOLUTION:
This particular problem seems to epitomize the upcoming
conflict over land use conversions during the period between
the initiation of the planning process, and the completion of
the identification process and adoption of interim guidelines.
I am neither qualified to speak for the elected board of
County Commissioners or their appointed planners or legal
council, but this current petition seems to offer several
options, each of which is sure to present unpleasant reactions
from a few developers who are used to doing more-or-less
2
I should make it clear that I am not offering or
threatening to shoot holes in their tanks: it should be
clear to all concerned that I have a lot more at risk in
the event of a spill than Leucocyte: the immersion pump
in my well is considerably less than 100 yards of gravel
away from their storage tanks. My concern is the result
of nearly 15 years of watching street signs, stop ahead
signs, speed limit signs, myriad mailboxes and even the
puget Power distribution transformer shot full of holes.
Regular weekend use by shootists of all levels of
responsibility was a traditional use of this piece of
property long before we moved in across the road in 1975.. '.
Since the property was denuded of vegetation in the mid ."~
1980's, it has also been extremely popular with
motorcyclists of various levels of responsibility.
4
~ YOL
17 fH~ 00
:Y_2G
whatever they want to in Jefferson County. The critical issue
however, is to be sure to avoid any blunder at this decision-
point which leads to an irreversible loss of authority or
control, not only of this project, but of the planning process
as a whole.
THE PLANNING PROCESS VS THE DECISION TO PERMIT:
During 1991, Jefferson County has elected to be involved in
several fairly rigorous planning exercises, which are required
by the State of Washington to be completed by September 1,
1991, as part of the growth management planning process.
Among these planning exercise are 2 which will directly
affect the Lakeside operation on Cape George Wye and
Hastings. These activities are the identification of
"Mineral Resource Lands" and "critical areas" (of which
aquifer recharge areas are specifically mentioned in the
latest version of the document, which is in the
possession of the planners and commissioners) within the
county and development of interim measures to protect
these areas from inappropriate development.
In my discussion with County Planner Craig Ward,
related to the operation of the planning processes
themselves, and the intent of the growth management
process (a discussion not focused on the Lakeside
operation) I have come to understand that he
believes that suburban development of mineral
resource lands may well constitute a paradigm of
inappropriate development of these resource lands.
It is not my intention to either dispute or accept
this belief at this moment. I expect that this issue
will be settled in the course of developing the
County's Interim RL CA development guidelines.
THE COLLISION BETWEEN INCOMPATIBLE LAND-USE GOALS:
The most important issue I wish to make sure is considered in
this discussion is simply the question of what public purpose
is to be served by any irreversible land-use decision made by
the commissioners, prior to the development of the required
planning information on which an informed decision on the
matter is supposed to rest.
In this situation we are presented with a case where,a
developer's desire for immediate commercial exploitatìon
of some of the county's potential resource lands is in
clear and confrontational conflict with an ongoing, and
accelerating pattern of suburban development. However,
5
I,'!'!!
17;w
!1n
:127
it further offers the potential for catastrophic impact
on an as yet unmapped aquifer recharge zone. It is simply
not clear how an informed decision can reasonably be made
prior to completion of these mandatory elements of our
county's latest efforts at developing a coherent growth
management code, nor is it clear that history will
indicate that the proposed Asphalt Manufacturing facility
will turn out to have been either the only or the most
appropriate use for either the gravel or the site.
THE ELEMENT OF RISK: WHAT IS REALLY AT STAKE HERE?
The most fundamental issue that is demanding to be addressed
by this proj ect is whether or not making an irreversible
decision about land use at this time is consistent with the
ongoing growth management planning process, especially at this
early stage, before the first 2 steps of the planning process
have been accomplished. The most obvious decision, the one
offering the most options to ALL parties to the planning
process, including the petitioners, is to defer all such
irreversible land-use decisions until the RL's and CAts (in
particular, the ARZ's) have been identified and the interim
guidelines to protect these areas from inappropriate
development have been produced.
It is clearly the county's responsibility to catalogue
its mineral resource lands and ARZ's before Sept 1,1991.
It is also obligate upon the county to produce, by that
date, a body of information on which informed decisions
can be made and guidelines on the process for making such
decisions.
THE COUNTY'S RISK OF LIABILITY EXPOSURE:'
It is also clear that there is significant potential
risk, in the sense of exposure to liability, in making
a premature decision, as well as in continuing to permit
unrestricted development. This risk came in unannounced,
as part of the responsibility accepted by the county when
it agreed to identify and protect resource lands and
critical areas. For example, it has been suggested that
once a geological hazard area ( a form of critical area)
has been identified in the course of this planning
process, a measure of responsibility has been adopted by
the County, and therefor, if a variance were t.o be
granted and inappropriate development thereby alloWed by
the county in such an area, in the event of damage
resulting from such inappropriate development, the county
may be exposed to significant share of the liability.
6
l'i '" - nn
:128
THE NATURE AND MAGNITUDE OF THE COUNTY'S LIABILITY:
It is my contention that since this planning process is
now underway, if the county makes an irreversible
decision which allows unhindered commercial development
of these particular resource lands, of demonstrated
commercial potential, prior to identification of ARZ's,
and this unhindered commercial development activity
results in the destruction of an ARZ, then the county's
decision to allow this development brings with it the
risk of responsibility for this damage or even'
destruction to the ARZ or the Aquifer itself.
On the other hand, as I have pointed out above: Lakeside has
very little to lose in the event this decision is postponed
(except their attempt to isolate their activities from the
planning process) because it is so unlikely that the
commercial potential of the gravel resources are going to be
significantly eroded during the ensuing 9 months.
THE LEGAL ISSUES AND THE ADMISSION OF FALSIFIED EVIDENCE:
In prior testimony before this body, in the course of
Lakeside's ongoing effort to convince the commissioners that
the operation of an asphalt manufacturing facility at this
site southwest of Hastings was an ongoing operation, not a
change in land use and therefore not subject regulation under
the current comprehensive plan. In this regard, it should be
noted that a large proportion of the chronology that was
presented was fabricated specifically to fit their
interpretation of legal requirements, without regard to fact.
In several cases (such as the claim of an office at the site)
are unsubstantiatable and will be found to be in direct
contradiction with objective records such as power bills and
mail delivery (no record of address for the site exists). It
is my contention that this activity should banish from
consideration any allowance of unrestricted development by the
petitioners, and shed considerable doubt on their ability or
willingness to successfully operate within BMP's.
It is my belief that the presentation of this faulty
chronology is evidence of a deliberate attempt to mislead
the commissioners, to give them the impression that the
Lakeside Asphalt Manufacturing operation at ~his site
was an ongoing operation. It is also now my b~1ief, that
this was done strategically, in an effort to position the
decision on this operation ahead of the implementation
of comprehensive land-use planning in Jefferson County,
7
vat
17 r~r:- on 129
on the assumption that requirements for such operations
are only likely to become more stringent in the future.
APPLICABLE LAW: THE MINIMUM GUIDELINES, WAC 365-190
with regard to the process of developing comprehensive land
use planning, I call your attention to the entire document
called Chapter 365-190 WAC, Minimum Guidelines to classify AL,
FL, ML, and CAts and especially to PART ONE, Paragraph 4, and
to focus on lines 5 through 14, The document states that the
county is obligated to prepare or adopt development
regulations that govern changes in land uses that govern
changes in land uses and new activities, "by prohibition of
clearly inappropriate actions and restricting, allowing, or
conditioning other activities, as appropriate". The next
paragraph states that it is the intent of these guidelines
that Critical Area designations overlay other land uses,
including designated Resource Lands. It then suggests that
"existing and ongoing Resource Management operations" that
have long-term commercial significance be allowed to continue
wi th Best Management Practices to control impact in areas
where Critical Areas have been designated.
THE CONFLICT BETWEEN DEVELOPMENT AND CRITICAL AREA PROTECTION
Considerable effort has been expended by the petitioners
to convince the Commissioners that this asphalt
manufacturing operation is not a new or changed use. On
the other hand, it has also been stated by the
petitioners that the asphalt manufacturing equipment and
facilities at this location are by their very design
transient and portable, and will be moved to other sites
on an irregular basis, as the need arises. This should
be considered in the context of economic or other
hardship claimed by the petitioner in the event that a
decision is postponed until the countyts CAts have been
identified and the potential conflicts between CA and the
proposed land use can be more realistically considered.
SUBVERSION OF THE PLANNING PROCESS TO BE USED BY COUNTIES
To date, no permanent development of the site or facilities
has been made: there is no evidence of electrical service,
there is no office, there is no mail service. The first
section of PART THREE of the MINIMUM GUIDELINES document
outlines the method to be used by counties and the last
sentence makes it clear that both RL t sand CA1;S are to be
protected from incompatible development WHILE THE PLAN IS IN
PROCESS. (emphasis added) It therefore seems likely that any
decision to allow asphalt Manufacturing and/or hazardous
8
vat
17 rM~ [Vl
\30
material storage at this site, before the CA' s have been
identified constitutes a subversion of the growth management
planning process.
It is clear from the continued existence & operation of gravel
extraction operations on the East side of Hastings, that the
community can enjoy significant material and economic benefit.
Applicable state statutes concerned with above ground storage of
hazardous products:
design certification
construction certification
impermeable aprons
cleanup and containment
proof of financial responsibility
Compliance with
production
state
statutes
concerned with
nuisance
noise
The reported conflict between readings taken with Lakeside's
Micrologic sound pressure dosimeter and the county's and
residents' uncalibrated soundpressure test equipment can be
dismissed as immaterial or taken as an indication of guilt:
the burden of compliance with the law is on Lakeside, who were
notified of their illegal noise production and if they doubted
that they were operating in flagrant disregard of both the law
and the impact their operation was having on the surrounding
residents, certainly could have made an appearance with their
own test equipment during the crushing or asphalt production
phases, when the continuous noise levels in excess of state
regulations were reported. The fact that Lakeside chose to
make its test only after the equipment had been reconstructed
and relocated, and after the residents had ceased to record
illegal noise levels indicates a tacit admission that they
knowingly operated in deliberate violation of state noise
production regulations for several months, and chose not to
submit their own SPL measurements for fear of self-
incrimination.
'"
. .
9
VO'.
17 qr'
- I r ~
1"3"'1
on
~'. »1 LV~ t. -+\4fc '!f.9jQ I
LAW OFFICES
SHORT CRESSMAN & BURGESS
A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS
"
;:¡
PAUL S, BISHOP
SCOTT A, SMITH
THOMAS W, READ
STEPHEN p, CONNOR
ROBERT I. GOODSTEIN
.-.. .~AMES P. DAVIS II
l,', ,.',.1"',,".;' SAN THORBROGGER
"~ ,;J, MES H, CLARK
~ g ~,MES D. OESTERLE
, U . ~H~~~A:DHENRY
'., ',' LAWRENCE K, CHEUNG
BRIAN p, WARD
STEPHANIE E. CROLL
KERRY S, BUCKLIN
CHARLES M, STRINGER
BOB C. STERBANK
PAUL R, CRESSMAN, SR" P,5,
JOHN 0, BURGESS
DOUGLAS R, HARTWICH
BRIAN L. COMSTOCK
ROBERT E, HEATON
JOHN H. STRASBURGER
CHARLES W, MERTEL
jAMES A. OLIVER
DAVID R. KOOPMANS
KENNETH L. MYER
jOSEPH D. PUCKETT
ROBERT j. SHAW
PAUL R, CRESSMAN, jR,
BRIAN E. LAWLER
ANDREW W, MARON
CHRISTOPHER j, SOELLING
PAUL J. DAYTON
BRYAN p, COLUCCIO
ROBERT E. HIBBS
CHRISTOPHER R, OSBORN
MICHAEL R, GARNER TO
3000 FIRST INTERSTATE CENTER
999 THIRD AVENUE
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98104-4008
FAX: (206) 340-8856 ~.
(206) 682-3333 I
~;
\,. ,I,¡
, v'l
1\,,' ",J
I-h!
January 18,
1991
KENNETH p, SHORT
OF COUNSEL
BE HEARD ON COMMISSION HEARING FOR JANUARY 28,
1991 jOSEF DIAMOND
COUNSEL TO TIlE FIRM
Hon, Larry Dennison
Hon. B.G. Brown
Hon. George Brown
Jefferson County Commissioners
Post Office Box 1220
Port Townsend, Washington 983689
Re:
Lakeside Industries/Shotwell Pit
Dear Commissioners:
We are attorneys for Lakeside Industries, Inc. ("LII").
This letter memorandum is submitted in support of a request to
the Board of County Commissioners ("Board") for a Board
resolution pursuant to Section 5,620 (Emergency Exceptions), of
the Jefferson County Code, permitting the extraction and
crushing of rock and the manufacture of asphalt for a period of
45 working days during the month of May through September,
1991, on property located in government lot 3, Section 7;
Township 30, Range 1 West, WM. at the intersection of Hastings
St. and Luck Rd. in accordance with Sections 2.20.49 and 7.10
through 7.30 of the Code.
The property involved formerly belonged to J.D. Shotwell
who produced crushed rock on an irregular basis in the pit
between 1979 and 1981. Shotwell crushed and stockpiled a
substantial amount of rock for use as ballast and the
manufacture of asphalt. During the years 1981, 1982, 1983, and
1984 LII purchased rock from Shotwell and manufactured asphalt
at the site using a portable asphalt plant. Also during every
year from 1981 through 1989, LII purchased and hauled crushed
rock from the pit for road ballast. An office and electric
power has been maintained at the pit site continually since its
inception as a pit. A surface mining permit was issued by DNR
in July 1980. This permit was transferred to LII at the time
of its purchase and is currently in effect. A copy of the
permit is attached to this letter marked as Exhibit A,
"CJ-&
1 7 J>.~E& 00.
1.32' ~.
Hon. Larry Dennison
Hon. B.G. Brown
Hon. George Brown
January 18, 1991
Page 2
The area in which the pit and several other close-by pits
are located was zoned Residential with the passage of the Code
in October, 1989. The Shotwell pit and the other adjacent pits
are located on a gravel deposit in close proximity to Port
Townsend. There are no other known deposits in the area that
are located on industrial zoned property, At the time that the
Shotwell and adjacent pits were opened, the area was
undeveloped and most all development has been subsequent.
In 1990, LII purchased the pit from J.D. Shotwell. In the
Spring of 1990, LII installed a crusher and thereafter an
asphalt plant. Pursuant to a hearing before the Commissioners
on October 13, and again on August 27, 1990, the Commissioners
approved an emergency suspension of the Development Code to
permit LII to crush material and manufacture asphalt through
October 31, 1990.
LII cut short its program for crushing and stockpiling
material under the Commissioners emergency suspension and
limited crushing to supplying only enough material to fulfill
the then pending contracts for asphalt. At the hearings,
particularly the second hearing on August 27, 1990, complaints
were raised concerning noise and dust stemming from the
crushing operation being carried out on the property.
Since the closure of operation on October 31, 1990, LII
has been investigating and taking action toward the improvement
of noise and dust control. LII has caused its 1990 operation
to be tested for noise level. Attached and marked as Exhibit B
is a sound level survey report made by LII indicating that the
sound level on October 30, 1990 was 57.2dBA.
Attached to that report are copies of the State laws and
WAC regulations governing noise. These laws and regulations
permit noise levels for an operation such as is carried out by
LII of 60dBA. The discrepancy in noise level monitoring by the
County and private parties was because of the inadequacy of the
equipment used,
LII has also arranged for a more efficient crusher to be
installed on the property which will reduce both noise and dust
emission. LII will maintain a water truck on duty at all times
the crusher is in operation and will water the interior roads
of the property to further reduce dust emission. LII is
prepared to pave the interior roads within the property if
necessary to reduce dust emission, The portable asphalt plant
presently located on the property is equipped with the latest
state-of-the-art bag house to insure minimum air pollution from
the manufacture of asphalt.
, vat
17 ¡;(/: rlG-. 1.33
'.
Hon. Larry Dennison
Hon. B.G. Brown
Hon. George Brown
January 18, 1991
Page 3
LII will, if it is deemed appropriate by the County,
construct approaches to Hastings Road from its property to
alleviate any safety and/or traffic congestion concerns.
LII has a pending contract for the placement of
approximately 2,500 tons of asphalt at the Indian Island Navy
Base approximately 15 miles from the Shotwell/LII property.
1II has the opportunity to bid on a State of Washington
contract scheduled for bid opening on February 5, 1991 on State
Highway No. 104, Quilscene to Center Road. This job site is
approximately 18 miles from the Shotwell/LII property. The
State Highway job calls for 15,000 tons of asphalt. LII
estimates that it will require 35 days of single shift rock
crushing in order to produce approximately 30,000 tons of
crushed material sufficient to complete both of the
aforementioned contracts. Said contracts will require 25
working days to manufacture the asphalt necessary for said
projects. Neither crushing nor asphalt production are
permitted on either of the aforementioned contracts. The
closest source of material for crushing an asphalt manufacture
that is controlled by LII is in the area of Port Angeles
approximately 45 miles from the Shotwell/LII property.
During the emergency suspension authorization by the
Commission, if granted, and based upon the development of the
mitigation programs regarding compliance with air, noise, and
traffic standards for Jefferson County, LII will initiate a
conditional use petition to authorize use of the Shotwell/LII
for crushing and asphalt production. At the same time LII will
initiate legal action seeking a judicial determination on the
issue of whether said property constitutes a "nonconforming
use" under Section 7.10 of the Code. This latter issue was
presented to the Commissioners at the August 27, 1990 hearing
and was rejected by the Commission pending further
investigation and review by the prosecuting attorney.
Contact by legal counsel for LII with the Prosecuting
Attorney's Office indicates that the recommendations of the
Prosecuting Attorney's Office will probably be that the
Shotwell/LII property does not qualify as a nonconforming use
under Code Section 7.10, thereby necessitating a judicial
determination.
CONCLUSION
LII is confident that the operation of the Shotwell/LIT
property for operation of a crusher and asphalt plant in order
to fulfill an existing anticipated asphalt contract in the area
can comply with all conditions imposed by the Commission to
. VOl.
1 7 f ~r,f 00-
:134
I'
Hon. Larry Dennison
Hon. B.G. Brown
Hon. George Brown
January 18, 1991
Page 4
insure full compliance with County regulations particularly in
the area of dust, noise and traffic.
]fier- ruly Zo ;rs, ,." "
;' .,. /1 . /i
. ,/ ~~1-' A ~:vf~
'DJ.t{glas ~ Hartwich '
2600L
~vat
1 7 fÞ.C;f 00-- 1.35
.:..,." :". f!-.'.,-
'- ..::.
SlAT[
c~ ViI-
oINGTON
COUi\j T' ,)R iv1UNICIPAliTY
R E coriA MEN D AT 101\1 5
, -
~ . ~. ... : \_~
, .,
O:-~é' j ~ -:; ;;./
, L.~
BOARD
of
NATURAL RESOURCES
Olympia, Wa:98504
J.D. Shotwell Company
}
29 acres
MINING
;: l'
, ..
TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT
Á?"UCAf JT :TY PE OF: P~I tHo
. DESCRIPTION OF SITE
AD:J~ESS
lllO2 South Steele
Tacoma, Washington 98444
SEC
~
, PGE COUNTY
JON" ¡ 1 £~:: Jefferson
i [:IPECTiON F¡:C!,. : ~;EAREST COMMur"¡ITY
;)/ST ANCE
TELEPHONE NO,: 584-6454
6mi
South
Port Townsend
INDICATE PROPOSED SUBSEQUENT USE OF SITE UPON COMPLETION OF RECLA/;,ATlor
Industrial
SIGNATURE (APPLICANT'S ¡ TITLE DATE
~ f? h .j/] Ðr ~ I Vice President 6-2:3--,80
TO BE COMPLETED BY APPROPRIATE COUNTY OR MUNICIPALITY
TO: BOARD OF NATURAL RESOURCES
SUBJECT: RECOMMENDATIONS ON SURFACE MINING PERMIT APPLICATIO:': FOR A NE:: OPEP.ATO~ COMMENCING OPERATIONS
1.
I Yes
,consistent wtth,loc~l_cQmprehensive plan and,
Is the prooosed subseauent ....", 'X~XX~OOO{X'XXXXXX'X:XXX'X'XXXX impl ementing ordinance! X
Docs the ooolicant have or. :::JDrOor;:He permit to conduct surface minin!, if required by loc::!
regulations? ¡Please attach a COPy of the permit, written order or oråinance! N/ A
I No
2,
3, \!:~~~~:;o;~;; ,,~:;;. facing County Road No, 98 should be seeded with appropriate
¡.ground cover to prevent erosion.
b. ¡The gravel extraction operation should be limited to one point of egress
~' and ingress from County Road No. 98.
c. The reclamation plan should be submitted to the Jefferson County Planning
Department for review.
d. Prior to reclamation, proposed development plans should be submitted to
Jefferson County for approval.
--{
ADDRESS
Jefferson County Planning Department
Courthouse
Port Townsend, Washington 98368
. TELEPHONE NO.: (206) 385-1427
'NOTE: Chapter 64, lows of 1970, 1st Ex. Sess., requires evidence that the proposed subsequen' use "';ouid not be il/egol unde.
b~1 '0_'_, "'010"00'- EXHIBIT -.L!.= "" no -0.' 1.36
~ t(}L ----r7 I t<OC U
PERMIT NO.
12 OCo L.j
I
/
@
LAKESI DE IN DUSTRI ES
P.O. BOX 1379
BELLEVUE, WA 98009
(206) 883-1661
FAX (206) 869-2249
SOUND LEVEL SURVEY REPORT
DATE OF SURVEY:
October 30, 1990
LOCATION OF SURVEY: Shotwell Pit--cape George Wye Road,
Jefferson County Washington
SURVEY
CONDUCTED BY:
Mike O'Neil, Lakeside Industries
WITNESS OF SURVEY: . Carter Breskin, Jefferson County Public Works
Joe Breskin, Neighboring Property Resident
George Peabody, Lakeside Industries
On the. above referenced date a sound level survey was conducted at
the location referred to as the Shotwell pit located on the Cape
George Wye Road, in Jefferson County.
The sound level meter used, a metrosonic db 307, was calibrated per
manufacturers specifications to 102.0 dBA with a metrosonic cl 302
calibrator. This process was witnessed by all the aforementioned
parties.
The sound levels indicated on the attached maps, and sited
throughout this report, of the area were obtained under
supervision, and direction of the witnesses.
FINDINGS
Three points along the recei ving property line were chosen as
sample sites, the first being at the entrance of the driveway
leading into the Breskin property, this site is directly across
the roadway from the entrance to the Shotwell pit. The sound level
obtained at this point was, 57.2 dBA. The only significant
deviation in this level occurred during the loading of trucks. As
the air releases to allow the RAM to open the gate under the
asphalt silo allowing the asphalt to dump into the trucks, the
escaping air raises the sound level to a maximum peak level of 62.3
dBA. The duration of this increase is one second.
The next sample was taken approximately 50 yards west of the
driveway along the property line. The sound level received at this
point was 55.3 dBA. At 100 yards west the level decreased to
53.5 dBA.
1
S.'()~r (RESSMA~ & BURGESS
. rLf". J,\
EXHIBIT~
NOV
1 '990
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
WA ST. CONT. REG. NO. 223-01 LA.KE.SI-.274JD
LVûl 17 rAGE 00-- 137
Additional samples were taken from various points on the driveway
leading into the Breskin property. The sample levels from Cape
George Wye Road leading into the property are as follows:
25 yards
50 yards
75 yards
100 yards
142 yards
52.3 dBA
53.0 dBA
51.5 dBA
52.1 dBA
49.3 dBA
It should be noted that the distances are not exact, but only
approximations.
CORCLUS:IONS
Under Resolution No. 67-85 Establishment of Environmental CU~[~
Designation for Noise Abatement Areas for Jefferson County, ~!
Jefferson County indicates "that éhapter 173-60 WAC is hereby
adopted in its entirety by reference"
Therefore, WAC 173-60 is the set of guidelines which determine non-
compliance, or compliance to the maximum permissible levels of
noise allowable.
Under Chapter WAC 173-60-040 (1) it is stated "No person shall
cause or permit noise to intrude into the property of another
person which noise exceeds the maximum permissible noise levels set
forth below in this section"
The EDNA (Environmental Designation for Noise Abatement) table
supplied under this section states, a Class C (Industrial) noise
source, is limited to allowing levels not greater then 60 dBA to
be received by properties listed under the residential (A)
classification.
The exception to the above referenced section, WAC 173-60-040(2) (c)
states "At any hour of the day or night, the applicable noise
levels in (a) and (b) above, may be exce~ded for any receiving
property by no more then:
(i) 5 dBA for a total of 15 minutes in anyone-hour period.
(ii) 10 dBA for a total of 5 minutes in anyone-hour period
or;
(iii)15 dBA for a total of 1.5 minutes in anyone-hour period.
2
, VOL
1 7 w)~ 00-.. 138
since the only non-compliance sound levels obtained during this
survey occurred only when trucks are being loaded, the total time
of non-compliance noise can be determined by considering the total
number of trucks which can be loaded in anyone-hour period times
the duration of the non-compliance noise equaling the total time
of non-compliance noise for a one-hour period.
The asphalt plant in the pit has a maximum output capacity of .
150 tons per hour, thus at 15 tons per truck the maximum number of
trucks which could be loaded in a one-hour period would be 15, this
number times the duration (1 second) of the non-compliance noise
(2.3 dBA over allowable limits) would equate to a total of. 15
,seconds of non-compliance noise 2.3 dBA over the allowable limit.
This is well below the permitted 5 dBA for 15 minutes allowed under
WAC 173-60-040 (2) (c) (i).
S UHMAR Y
Based on the findings of this survey stated in this report, this
asphalt plant production site, is not exceeding the maximum
permissible noise levels as dictated under chapter WAC 173-60,
adopted by Jefferson county under Resolution 67-85.
Noise levels received by the neighboring property where
consistently below the allowable level of 60 dBA, with the only
exception measured at one point on the property line, which is
exempt under chapter WAC 173-60-040 (2) (c) (i) as explained above.
Attached is a rough sketch containing two maps, indicating the
locations of each sample site, this map was drawn during the sound
level survey and was signed by the surveyor, as well as, the three
witnesses present during the survey. Also enclosed is a final map
(not to scale) of the area surveyed indicating the sample points.
The applicable WAC sections, RCW I S and a copy of the Jefferson
county Resolution adopting these guidelines are also enclosed.
3
; vet
17 'w' no
t....~t "-, .
1.39
D~\~ I~ ~L
~'b~
<z,' /5 ...- .
1
k'~
-z.~L.>'
-1
1
P I\v..("
/
. .IJ
J;
tJ
!flA-P ~ .
rr)¡~ p :JÞ. L,
t
. '_.~..
/
~+r..o 5'C'Y11~ db 36 ì Stv-o..J /~c.J-() ~
c.-¡.\f'b.eA'ríD ¡o iðZ. à db A w/~
JIA-t&$/m,( c./ 36"2 'AI,kAff~
/ " I ~- 'Ó,þ.J;,. ~~.
[;STt-e- /l},1u Ò 'NfL
~{Ca2 A J»
\}J tTN ~5~-S OF 1E5 T1 NeD
\0: IS [V~') Oc I 3'011: lCJ9 ()
~~~
¿s;1
II . - Prr ,wIÚM \ W ~ Lv. PtJþ IAJ u-&
-'-.-- R~I~, ~í 6KO\J~P ZtRO
~ VOL 17 rA.~E 00 - 140
SS:3 "þ .
ÀS I v I $0 '~
.53~~ . ~ ~:"'-~'~'~'. .';( .57~.:1 4!A
, X . ~
~? J ~ II ,
;' ~
. ,
t.JO\ ~£. ~~(l.~ 'E. Q..
-¿C~ ¿¿ =~J ,
- ~ c
AI
r
~ . i~-
0 ill rn ID~
ill
kJ\:)'~~ toVV\.UA.
J C ,.~-_._.,....-.. -;.~-.~-:-=::> ---~
I - - --.----------,..-.---.;" )
¿fttJ~ ~
fl~í..
J(
I
,
\
CDrnpo~'\~ oÇ,.
0 R.'~\MAL
l VOL 1 7 r~~E OQ.. 1. 41
I]
"
I
,;
I.
, ,I
i
~
I
,. .t
:: I
'I ¡
! ~.
II !
Ii
Ii ;
1; .
,¡ :I
. .
: "1
.1 ;
! , !
li
I¡;j
J ..
j' !
i (.
"i
,f.
i.i'
i ,;
.,' j,
., I
'" '
.j
'j ;
;
.
. ',j;
, ",
'j:
i
I'; ;1
I ! l' .
. committed more than five years after a previous convic.
tion shall be considered a first offense. ll914 eJt.s. c 49 §
16.)
70.106.900 Seftrability-1974 ex.s. c 49. H any
provision of this 1974 act is declared unconstitutional, or
the applicability thereof to any person or circumstance is
held invalid, the constitutionality of the remainder of the
act and the applicability. thereof to other persons and
circumstances shalt not be affected thereby. l I 974 eU.
c49§14.)
70.106.905 S.vïng-1974 ex.s. c 49. The enact-
ment of this 1974 act shall not have the effect of termi-
nating. or in any way modifying any liability, eivil or
criminal, which shaH already be in cxistenee on July 24.
1974. [1974 cx.s. ç 49 § IS.] .
70.106.910 Chapter cumulativt' and nonexclusive.
The provisions of this chapter shall be cumulative and
nonexclusive and shan not affect any, other remedy.
(1974 ex.$. c 4~ 17~]
. . .
Chapter 70.107
NOISE CONTROL
SccûoGS
70,107.010
70.107.020
70.107.030
70.107.040
70.107.050
70.107.060
70.107.070
PUI' )OH.
Definitions.
Powm and duties of dcpanmcnl.
T~llnicalld~isor)' commillC:C:.
Civil penalties.
~hc:r righl,- remedies, p<nrers. duties and rune.
lioas-Local conU'ol-A ppraVlI-Proc:cdurc.
Rules rclatinJ to motor "chides-Violations-
rc:naily.
Exemptions.
Construction-Severability-1974 c:U.. c 18J.
Short liUt.
(5) . Person' means any mOIYIQUal, COf¡wr<lLlOn, P<lrl-
nership, association, governmental body, state, or other
entity whatsoevcr. [1974 ex.s, c 183 § 2.]
70.107.030 Powers and duties of department. The
department is empowered as foIJow.:
(I) The department. after çonsultation with state
agencies expressing an interest therein, shall'adopt. by
rule. maximum noise levels permissible in identified en-
vironmc:nts in order to protcçt Ilgainst adverse affects or
noise on the health. safety and welfare of the peoplc, the
valuç of property, and the qultlity of environment: Pro-
vided, That in so doing the department shall take also
into account thc economic and praçtical benent~ to be
derived from the use of various products in each such
environment. whether the source of the noise or the use
of such products in each environment is permanent or
temporary in na\ure, and the state of technology relative
Lo the control of noist generated by Itn such lOurces or
the noÏJic or the praduclS.
(2) At any time afU~r the adoption of maxi J1um noise
levels under subsection (1) of this section the department
shall, iJ1 consultation with state agencies and local SOy.
ërnments cxprcS$ing an in!.erest therein, adopt rules,
consistent. with tbe Federal Noise Control AC:I of t 972
(86 Stat. 1234; 42 U.S.C. Sec. 4901-4918 and 49
U.s.C. Sec. 143 t), for noise abatement and control in
the ¡tale designed to achieve compliance with the noise
level adopted in subsection (1) of this section, including
reasonable implementation schedules where appropriate,
to insure thaI the maximum noise levels are not ex-
ceeded and that ¡¡ppUcation of the best practicable noise
control technology and practice is provided. These rules
may include, but shall not be limited to:
(3) Pcrformance standards setting allowable noise
limits for the opçration of products which produce noise;
(b) Use standards regulating, as to time and pla~, the
operation of individual products which produce noise
aboYc spccir ~d levels considering frequency spectrum
and duration; Provided, The rule ! shall provide for tem-
porarily exceeding those 't3ndards for slated purposes;
and
(c) Public information rC".qllircmcnt$ deaIin~ ~ith dis-
closure of levels and charactcristics or noise produced by
products.
(3) The department may, as dtSirable in the perform-
ance of its duties under this chapter. conduct survc)"',
studies and public education programs. and enter into
contracts.
(4) The department is authori1;çd to apply for and ac-
cept moneys from the federal gove~nment and other
$ources to assist in the in'plementation of this chapter.
(5) 1hc legislaLurc: recognizC5 that lhe operation of
motor vehicles on public highways as defined in RCW
46.09.020 contributes signiricantly 10 environmental
noise levels and directs the department, in exercising the
rule-making authority under the provisions or this sec.
tion. to give first priority to the adoption of motor vehi-
cle noise performance slllndards.
"
(1985 Ed.)
70.107.080
70.107,900
70.107.910
70.107.010 Purpose. The legislature finds that inad-
equately controlled nois~ adve/'lely aff~cts the health,
safety and welfare of the people. the value of property.
and the quality of the environment. Antinoise measures
of the past have not adequately protected against the in.
vasion of these interests by noisc. There is a need. there-
fore, for an expansion of efforts stato-wide directed
toward the abatement and control of noi~. considering
the social and economic impact upon the community and
the statc. The purpose of this chapter is to provide au-
thority for such an expansion of efforts. supplementing
existing programs in the field. (1974 ex.s. c 183 § 1.]
70.107.020 DeflnWoRS. As used in this chapter, un-
las the context dearly indicates otherwise:
(I) "Department' means the department of ecology.
(2) "Director" means director of the: department of
ecology.
(3) . Local government' means county or city govern-
menl or any combination of thc two.
(4) "Noisc' means the intensity, duration and char-
acter of sounds from any and ¡¡II sources.
rnUe 70 RCW-p 190)
, '
'.::';.J.":';t~~.;."~,\",,,,;,:."":\"',;,~,p,.~~::~~i.,,;,/;',',:""""':"""""'" ,....,.,...,',','c'" ,c".,"',;'," c"'" ,',
'. "",~":",:"¡',;..MiofIj;Ø¡o...-,Jö......,...,,.;.' """'J.-...~~....¡.I,¡r,""--'--"~~"'::""':J"".' .: . .. ,..'" ..,""~ '
, . ,.."",.""....-..",...,~.~.".". .':r""""i':-":"'~'~"""""~
lOd COO
Ij l.d - S3 I è:Jl.SnON I 301 S3>f\:n -, i£ 5 L' ¿'S ;""'9õ è .
, ,',
lS:Cr
~,,!,' .
èè-Or-O55t
Noise Control
70.101.900
(6) Noise levels and rules adopted by lhe department
pur$uant to this chapter shall not be effective prior to
March 31.1975, {I974 cu. c 183 § 3.]
70.107.040 Te1:bnial adyisory (ommitt~ The direc-
tor shall nam~ a. technical advisory committee to a$SÌ$t
the department in tho implementation of this chapter,
Committee members :shall be entitled to reimbursement
for travel expenses as provided in RCW 43.03.050 and
43.03.060, as nOW existing or hereafter amend~ [J975-
'76 2nd e)l;-$, e 34 § 164: 1974 cu. c 183 § 4.]
Effet!tlye cI.t~et'2lH1i(1-t97S-'76 %lId ex.a.. c 3« See
notes (oJ )wins RCW 2.08.11$.
70.107,050 am penalût:h (I) Any person who vio-
lates any cui:.: adopted by the department under this
chapter shall be subject to a civil penalty not to exceed
one hundred dollars. All violations of this chapter sbaU
be administered pursuant to the provision., of chapter
34,04 RCW. the stale administrative procedure O,ct.
Penalties shall beçome duo and payable lhirty days
from the dale of rC1.~ipt of a notice of penalty unless
within such time said notice is appealed to the pollution
control hearings. board purJu~nt to the provisions of
chapter 43.21 B RCW and procedural rules adopted
thereunder, In C<ises in which appeals arc timely fited.
penalties sustained by the pollution control hearings
board shall become due and payable on the issuance or
said board's final order in the appeal,
(2) Whenever penalties incurred pursuant to this sec-
tion have become due: and payable but remain unpaid,
the attorney general shall. upon request of the director,
bring an action in the name of the state of Washington,
in the superior court of Thurston county or in the county
in which the violation occurred for recovery of penalties
incurred. In aU such ilctions the procedures and rulœ of
evidence shall bc th~ same as in any other civil action.
All penalties recovered under this section shall be Xtid
into the stale treasury and credited to the general fund.
[1974 cu. c 183 § S.]
~
70.107.060 Other rights, remtdies. powers, duties and
tuncûons---l.ocal coDtrol-Approyal-Procedurc.
(I) Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to deny,
abridge or alter alternative rights of action or remedies
in equity or under common 100W or statutory law, crimi-
nal or civil,
(2) Nothing in this chapter shall deny. abridge or al-
ler any powers. duties and functions relating to noise
abatement and CQnltol nOW or hereafter vested in any
state ag~ney, nor shall this chapter be construed as
granting jurisdiction over the industrial safety and
health of employees in work places of the state. as now
or heteåfter vested in the department of labor and
industrics.
(3) No local government shall adopt resolutions. ordi-
nances. rules or regulations concerned with the control
of noise which shall be effective prior to adoption of
maximum noise Ic:vels and thc rules adopted by the dc~
partmcnl pur~uantlo this chapter or January 31. 1975.
whichever occurs sooner. Such resolutions. ordinancts.
(J9U Ed.)
...
'Ie
-
i
l
80d £00
~ld - S3I~lSnaNI 3aIS3~Vl
rules. or regulations mu3t be consistent with RCW
70.1 01.060( 4).
(4) Standards and other control measures adopted by
tile department under this chapter shall be exclusivc eX-
cept as hereinafter provided. A local government may
impose litnits or control sources dIffering from lhOlIS
adopted or conuolled by the department upon a finding
that such rcquiremcnu are necessitated by special con-
ditions. No sucb noise limitina 'requirementS of local
government shall be;) valid unlg:. lir:;t approved by the
department. If disapprovçd the 1~1 govcmment may
appeal the dcci3ion to the pollution control hearinss
board which shall decide tile appeal on the: basi¡ or the.
provisions of thi~ chapter. and the applicable re¡ulatinns,
together with such briefs. testimony, and oral argument
as the bearings board in itS discretion may require: In
the determination of whether to grant any such ap-
proval, the dcp-oIrtmcnt shall ¡ivI conaidcration tn the
reasonableness and practicability of çomplia~ with
particular attcntion to the situation of stAtionary
sources. the noise producing opcratioM of which are
conducted at or ne-olr jurbdictional bol1ndaries.
(5) In carrying out the rule-making authemty pro-
vided in this chapter, the department shall rouow the
procedures uf the administrative proçcdure act, chapter
34.04 RCW. and sbßU take care that PO rules adopted
purport to e~crcise any powers prCl:lllpted by the United
States under federal law. (1914 ex.s, c 183 § 6,)
70.107.070 Rules relating to motor Ythicles-Vt.
oJations--PeD2Jty. Any ruie adopted under this chap-
ter relating to the operation of motor vehicles on public
highways shall be administered according to testine and
inspection procedures adopted by rule by the state com-
mission on equipment. Violation of any motor vehicle
performance standard adopted pursuant to this chapter
shaH be II. misdemeanor, enforced by such authorities
and in such manner as violations of ch;1ptcr 46,37 RCW-
Violations subject tu the provisions or this section shall
be exempt from the provisions of Rt;W 70.101.050.
{1914 ex.s, c 183 § 7.)
70,101,080 Exemptions. The department shall, in the
exercise of rule-making power under this chapter, pro-
vide c)l;cmptions or specially limited regulations relating
to recreational shooting and emergency or law enfurce-
ment equipment where appropriate in the interests of
public safety.
The department in the development of rules under this
chapter, shall consult and take into consideration the
land use policiC3 and programs of locnl government.
[1974 ex.s, c 183 § 8.]
70.107.900 Construction-SeYerabillty~t974
ex.s. c 183. (I) This chapter shall be liberally construed
to carry out its broad purposes.
(2) If any provision of this chapter, or its application
to any person or circumstance is held invalid. the re-
mainder of the chàpter. or tho application of the provi-
sion to other persons or ~ircum3tllnoos is not affected.
(i974 eX.!. c 183 § 11.]
(Title 70 RCW-p 191\
G£6L "LŠ;9"o'G ' .-... '.-"'.
85:£L
'QI~
GG-OL-O55L
,~:"
II
,I
,
, ;
<1-
'-.
;\
,{
..
I:
if
J
¡ji
"/.
J
p,
t~.
,-
J
"
.,
,i!
:,~ f
.'!-I
1.-1
~li
, 'I
r ~ j
" "
h
il í
:1
L
~ 'i
f "
g
n
i:; "I
;; :.
~, ::
;:
.' '
~
r
r :
!' ,;
, '
~ ,"
, I
Maximum EnTironmenlal Noise uwels
173-60-010
~
~
~
t..
large piers, breakwater. etc.. for a minimum disl.õlltcc of
100 f(;et (30 m). Three markers (buoys or posts) shall be
placed in line, 50 feet (15 m) apart, to mark the course
the boat is to follow white being tested.
(b) Th~ sound level meter shall be a Type 2 or better.
The microphone shan be placed 50 feet (15m) from the
line determined by the three markers, normal to the line
and opposite the center marker. it shall also be placed
4-5 feet (1.2-1.5 m) above the water :lUrface and no
closer than 2 fed (0.6 m) from the surface of the deck
or platform on which tbe microphone stands. as near to
the end of the deck or platform as possible or overhang-
ing the end of the deck or platform. -
(3) Watercraft operation. The watercraft shall pass
within 1-3 feet (0.3.....0.9 meter) an the far side of all
three marleers, on a straigbt coursc.. .
(a) Watercraft which weigh less than 1,000 Ibs. gross
weight shall be operated according to the following pro-
cedure, The watercraft sh¡dl approach the first marker
at idie speed. When the bow is even with the first
marker. the engine shall be immediately accelerated to
its full throttle RPM range. Thç watercraft shall con-
tinue to accelerate until its bow passes the third marker.
(b) Watercraft which wciglr.1,OOO tbs. or more gross
weight shalt be operated at the midpoint of the manu-
facturer's recommended maximum continuous (or
'cruise') RPM range, ;/: 100 RPM. The watercraft shall
be at this speed when it passcs the first marlcer, and
shall continue to operate at this speed until its bow pas-
ses the third marker.
(4) Measurement. The watercraft sound levcl shall be
measured as foUows:
(a) The sound level meter sball be set for fast re-
sponse and on the. ^. weighting scale.
(b) The meter shalt be observed during the entire
pass by. The applicable reading shall be the sound level
obtained as the stern of tho watercraft passes the middle
marker. Peaks due to unrelated ambient noise, water
noise from waves or wakes, propellor cavitation noise, or
cJttraneous impulsive-type noise shaH be excluded. At
least two measurements shall be ¡,oade for each side of
the watercrafL All values shall be recorded.
(c) The sound level for each side of the watercraft
shall be the average of the two highest readings which
:lrc within 1 dBA of each other, rounded to the nearest
0.5 dBA. The reported sound level shall be tbat of the
loudest side of the watercraft,
(5) New watercraft shall be tested according to the
sp<:cific:ttions of the SAE J34 mea5urement procedure.
ISlatutory Authorily: Chapter 70,101 RCW. 79-04-033 (Order DE
78-19), § 173-5~. med 3/22/79.)
Chapter 173-60 WAC
MAXIMUM ENVIRONMENTAL NOISE LEVELS
WI\C
1 13-.60-{ 10
17]-60-020
17]-líð-Q30
17]-60-040
I7J-6I}..OSO
AUlhorily and purpo$C.
Ddiftitlons.
ld~ntilicalion of environments.
Maximum permissible environmonL:lI noise levell.
EAcmptions.
(19M Ed.)
£Od COO
~Ld - S3I~LSnONI 30IS3~~ì
r,c,:r.r.
¡ 1 ) -6t)..OO)
I 73-6(}-O10
I 7J~...o80
173- 61HJ90
173-60--100
173-ro-IIO
I 13-60-1 ZO
Nuisance ~tul¡liant not prohibited.
Future rcsulatil1N-
Variances ;and irt\(1lemcrtl:ation schedules.
Enrorcement policy.
Appeals.
Cooperation with ItIC11I govcrnlllcnl.
ECCectivc date.
WAC 173-60-010 Authority I1nd purpose. Theae
ruld are adopted pursuant to chapter 70.107 RCW, the
Noise Contrul Act of 1974, in order to establish maxi-
mum noise levels permiuible in identified environments,
and thereby to provide use standards relating to tho re.
ception of noise within such enviromnents.
[Ordcr 74-32, , 173.60-010. {ilcd 4/22/15, cffective 9/1/75.)
'~
1
W AC 17~O-O20 Definitions. (J) . Background'
sound level" means the level oC al1 sounds in a givcn en.
vironmcnt., independent of the specific sourc£ being
measured.
(2) "dBA' means the sound prCS$ure level in decibels
measured using the' A" weighting network on a sound
Icvè\ meter. The sound pressure level. in decibels. ot ..
sound is 20 times the logarithm to the basI: 10 or the
ratio of thc prC$Sure of the $Uund to a reference ptCS$urc
of 20 micropascals.
(3) , Department. means the department of ecology.
(4) .Director' means tbe.dircctor of the department
of ecology. .
(S) "Distribution facilitics. means any facility used
for distribution of commoditics to final consumers. in.
cluding facilities of utilities that convey watet, waste
water. natural gas, and electricity.
(6) "EDNA. means the environmental designation for
noise abatement., being an area or ZO.l1e (environment)
within which ma;timum permissible noise levels ~re
C$tnblished.
(1) . Existing' means a process, event, or activity in
an established arca, producing sound subject to or ex4
empt from this chapter, prior to the effcctive date or
September I, 1975. ... '
. (8). Load government. means county or city govern-
ment or any combination of the two.
(9) - Noisc' means the intensity, duration and char-
acter of sounds. from any and aU sources.
(to) . Person' means any individual. corporation,
partnership. association. governmental body, state
agency or other entity whatsoever.
(11) "Property boundary' means the surveyed line at
ground surface, which separates the reat property.
owned. rcnt¡;d, or tea3Eù by one or more perllon_, from
tltat owned. r"nted, or le:u¡cd by ono or more other per-
sons, and its vertical extension.
(' 2) . Racing event. means any motor vehicle compe-
tition conducted under a permit issued by II. governmcn- .
tal authority having jurisdiction or. if such permit i. not
required, then under the auspices of a recognized sane.
lionjng body, .
(13) "Receiving property. mC<\ns real property within
which tho maximum pcrmiuible noise levels specified
herein shull not be exceeded from sourCe8 ol1tside such
property. . .
melt 173 W AC-, 1"'7]
.
..
,."'-"'...""'-"-
G£6L LSÞ 90G
,..f';(, ...
? ?-() T -(H: c: T
,,'1'73-60-020
Title 173 WAC; £cotogy, ùepartmeut 01
j,
~ '
( :
I '
I.
(14) 'Sound levcl meter' means a device whieh mea-
sures sound prasurc levels and conforms to Type) or
Type 2 as spccifièd in the American National Standards
Institute Specification S 1.4-1971.
, (15) "Watercraft. means any contrivance, excluding
aircraft used or capable of being used as a means of
transportation or recreation on water.
[St.tutory Authority: Chapter 10.107 RCW. 83-15-046 (Order DE
&2-42). S 17)-6G-O20. filed 1119/83; Order DE 77-1. ¡ 173-60-020,
filed '/1/77: Order 74-32, . 11J~20. filed 4/22f75, elTectÌYc
9{1/75.)
I,
.
.
!
I
:
,
,
:I
WAC 173-60-030 identification of enyironmenu.
(1) Except when iDcluded within specific prior designa-
tions as provided in subsections (2), (3), and (4) of tbis
section. the EDNA of any propcny sh¡lIl be based on the
following. typical uses, taking into consideration the
present. future, and historical usage, as welt as the usage
of adja~nt andf't>ther lands in tbe vicinity.
(a) Class A EDNA - Lands where human beings reo
side and sleep. Typically. Cus A EDNA wiD be the
following types o( property used (or human habitation:
(i) Residential
(ii) Multiple family living accommodations
(m) Recrea,tional and ent.crUinment, (c.g., camps,
parks. camping facilities. a.nd resorts)
(jv) Community service, (e.g.. orphanages, homes (or
the aged, hospitals, health and correctional facilities)
(b) Class B EDNA - Lands involving uses requiring
protcction against noise interference with speech. Typic-
ally, Class B EDNA wiJI be the following types oc
property:
(i) Commercial living accommodations
(ii) Commercial dining establishments
(iii) Motor vehicle services
(iv) Retail services
(v) Banks and office buildings
(vi) Miscellaneous commercial services, property not
U$CCi for human habitation
(vii) Recreation and entertainment, property not used
for human habitation (c.g.. tbeatcrs, stadiums.. fair.
grounds, and amusement parks) .
(viii) Community services. property not uccd for hu-
man habitation (e.g., educational, religious, governmen.
tal, cù1Lural and recreational facilities).
(c) Class C EDNA - Lands involving economic activ-
ities ot such a nature: that higher noise levels than ex »-
rienccd in other arc:âs is normally to be anticipated.
Persons working in these areas are normally covered by
noise control regulations of the department of labor and
industries. Uses typical of Class A EDNA arc generally
not permitted within such a~$. Typically, Class C
EDNA will be the ronowing types of property:
(i) Storage, warehouse, and dislribution facilities.
(Ii) Industrial pro~rty used for the production and
fabrication of durable and nondurable man-made goods
fTltIe 173 WAC-p 10481
"
,/
"
'.
¡I
.,
q
.
)
i
:1
'I
!
I
i
,
!I
I'
(iii) Agricultural and silvicultural property used for
the production of crops, wood products, or livestock.
(d) Where there is neither a zoning ordinance in ef-
fect nor an adopted comprehensive plan, the legislative
authority of local government may, by ordinance or rcs-
oluûon, dç$ignate specifiçally described EDNAs which
conform to the above use criteria and, upon departmen-
tal approval. EDNAs so designated shall be as act forth
in such local determination.
(e) Whm: no Ip«;ific prior dcaignalion of EDNAs has
been made, tbe appropriate EDNA for properties in.
valved in any enforcement acûvity will be determined by
the investigating official on the basis of the criteria of
(a), (b), and (c) of thil subsection.
(2) In areas covered by a local zoning ordinance, the
legislative authority of the local government may, by or~
dinanœ or raiOluûoll døignatc I!DNA. to conform with
the zoning ordinance as follows:
(I) Residential zonc:s - Class ^ EDNA
(b) Commercial zones - Class B EDNA
(c) Industrial zOnes - Class C EDNA
Upon approval by the department, EDNA. so de!lig-
nated shall be p set. forth in such local determination.
EDNA dc:signaûol\& ,hall be amended as necessary to
conform to zone çhangcs under the zoning ordinance,
(3) In areas not covered by a local zonina ordinance
but within the coverage of an adopted comprehensive
plan the legislative authority of the local government
, may, by ordinanœ or rQSOlutian dcaiønato EDNAs to
conform with tile comprehensive plan as (aUcw,:
(a) Residential areas - Class A EDNA
(b) Commerçial areas - Class B EDNA
(ç) Industrial areal - Class C EDNA
Upon approval by the department EDNA, so desiS.
Dated shall be as set (orth in such local determination.
EDNA dcsignation$ sball be amended as necessary to
conform to changa in the comprehensive plan.
(4) The department rcçognizes that on certain landI,
serenity, ttanquilHty, or quiet arc an essential part of the
quality of the environment and serve an important public
need, Special designation of such lands; with appropriate
noise lovel ltandards by local govcrnmcmt may be
adopted subject to approval by the de~rtment. The di-
rector may make such special dO$ignation I'unuant to
the procedures of the Admini.mativè Procedure Act,
chapter 34,04 RCW.
[Order 14-J2,I173~30. nlcd ~/22/75. cffC;CtÍvc 9/1/1S.)
WAC 173-60-040 Maximum permissible emiron-
meatal noise leyels. (1) No person shall cause or permit
noise to intrude into thc property of another person
which noisc exceeds the maximum pc:nnissible Doise lev-
els set forth below in this section.
(2)(a) The noise limitations established are as set
forth in the following table .fter any applicable adjust.
menU provid~ for herein are IIppUed,
( 9" ad,)
ITOd £00
~ld - S3IðlSnONI 3aIS3~~l
175:£1
;::C6¿ ¿SIT 90;::
'.
;::ë:-O1-Obb1
.-- .'
Muimum Elnironmental Noise LeyeJ5
173-60-060
EtlNA of
NOISE SOURCE
EDNA of
RECEiVING PROPERTY
Class A Class a Class C
55 dBA 57 dBA 60 dDA
51 60 65
60 65 70
CLAM A
CLASS D
cUSS c
(b) Between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. the
noise limitations of the foregoing table shall be reduced
by 10 dBA for receiving property within Class A
EDNAs.
(c) Ãt any hour of the day or night the applicable
noise limitations in (a) and (b) above may be exceeded
for any receiving property by no more than:
(i) 5 dBA for a total of I S minutes in anyone-hour
period; or
(n) 10 dBA for a total of S minutes in anyone-hour
period: or
(iii) 15 dBA [or a total at I.S minutes in nny one-
hour period.
[Order 74-32. t 173.60-040, filed 4/21./75. cffcÇ\ive 9/t/1S.}
WAC 113-60-050 Exemptions. (I) The following
shaH be exempt from the pt"ovisions of WAC 173-60-
040 between the hou,", of 7:00 a.rn, and) 0:00 p.m.:
(a) Sounds originating trom residential property re-
lating to temporary projectS for the maintenance or re.
pair of homes. grounds and appurtenances,
(b) SoUJ1ds created by tbe discharge of firearms on
autborized shooting ranges.
(c) Sounds cr~ted by blasting,
(d) Sounds created by aircraft engine testing and
maintenance not related to flight operations: Provided,
That aircraft testing and maintenance shall be con-
ducted at remote sites whenever poS$iblc.
(e) Souncb created by the installation or repair of es-
sential utiHty services.
(2) The following shall be exempt from the provisions
of WAC 173-60-040 (2)(b):
(a) Noise from electrical substations and existing sta-
tionary equipment used in the conveyan~ of water.
waste water, and nstunll gas by a utility.
(b) Noise from existing industrial installations which
cxceed the standards contained in these regulations and
which, over the previous three years, have consistently
operated in excess of 15 hours per day as a consequence
of process necessity and/or demonstrated routine normal
operation. Changes in working hOUriS. which would affect
exemptions under this regulation, require approval of the
department.
(3) The following shall be exempt [rom the provisions
of WAC 173-60-040, except insofar as such provisions
relate to the reception of noise within Class A EDNAs
between the hOUf3 of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. .
(0) Sounds originating from temporary construction
sÏle3 àS a rClujt of col\$truc:t1on activity.
(1916 Ed,)
....
SOd COO
~ld - S3I~lSnaNI 3aIS3~~ì
GC6L LSv 90(:;
(b) Sounds urÎI5Înating from forest h ,m:~ting dnd sil-
vicultund activity.
(4) The following shall be c1tcrnpt from all provisions
of WAC 173-60-040:
b (~ ._'."-'~bT~~rvcl1ic~~:Wh.ò-.rè¡Uläted
y:ç .', ~C':T.. . . -
(by-Sõunùl u~j8inàting from aircraft in flight and
sounds that originate at airports which are directly re-
lated to flight operationl.
(c) Sounds created by surface eärriers engaged in in.
terstate commerce by railroad.
(d) Sounds created by warning dcvicd not operating
continuously for mure th~n five minutc:s, or bells,
chimes. andcariUOJJL..,;::"7;.:::-:-~-....,-----
.. -' , " ~ànd.,protcctivcdeviCC8:'".
(j' . ~~. ~:' ...,,~ ... i.~;~~i~~:ðf¥.~;J".! .
(f) Sounds crëau:d by cmcrg,nçy çquipmcnt and wc;)rJc
nee:essary in the interests of law enforcement' or for
health safety or weJfarc; uf the community.
(g) Sounds originating (rom motor vehicle racing
eventS at existing autlJori~ed façjJitics.
(h) Sounds originating from officially sanctioned pa-
rades and other public c"cnu,
(i) Sounds emitted from petroleum refinery boilers
during startup of ¡aid boilers: Provided. That the startup
operation is performed during daytime hours whenever
possible, .
û) Sounds crc::¡ted by watercraft.
(k) Sounds created by the discharge or Ílr~arms in the
course o[ hunting.
(J) Sounds caused by natural phenomen:t and unamp.
lified human voi~.
(m) Sounds created by motor vehicles, licensed or un.
licensed, when operated ofr public hi¡hways EXCUT
when such sounds are received in Class A EDNAs.
(n) Sounds originating from existing natural gaS
transmission and distribution Facilities. However, in. cir-
cumstances where such sounds impact EDNA CI:us A
environments and complaint! arc rece~ed. the director
or his designee may take action to abate by application
oC EDNA Class C source limits to the facility under the
rcquirc:ments of WAC 113-60-050(5). .
(6) Nothing in these exemptions is intended to pre-
clude the department from requiring installation of the
best available noise abatement technology consistent
with economic feasibility. The establishment of any such
requirement shall be subject to the provisioN of the Ad-
ministrative Procedure Act. chapter 34.04 RCW.
¡Slatutory Authority: ClIapler 70.107 RCW. 83-1S-O46 (Order DE
82-42), f 173-60 050. filed 1/19/83: Om..., DEi 11-1. § 173--60-050.
filed 6/2/77: Order 7S-18. S 113-6()..O~O. r..lcd 8/1/75: Order 74-32.
, i7~SO. filed 4/221'5, effeçlive 9/1/1S.}
i
¡
I
I
I
I
I
J
~
I
11
WAC 173-60-060 Nuisance regulations not proW!),
itell. Nothing in this chapter or the txemptions provided
'herein. shall be construed as preventing local govern-
ment from regulating noise (rom any source as a Qui.
snnce. local resolutions. ordinances, rules or regulations
rcgulating noise: 011 $uch :1 b:UljA shall not be deemed in..
con::Îstent with thiJ chapter by the department. " .
T1tlt 173 W ~C-p 1-49)
. _.
ss:E:r
c(:;-or-o¡;¡;r ~
!ff{ "
'1'1
, (
't
I
I' .
~
~!
tl.;
1m
~'I,
.' II
~I'
I:'
173-19-450
Title t 73 WAC:
I 173-19-450. filed 9/9/77; Ordc:r DE 76-15. , 173-19-450. filed
5/3/16; Order DE 74-23.1173-19-450. filed 12/30/74.)
Chapter 173-21 WAC
ADOPTION OF DESIGNATIONS OF WETLANDS
ASSOCIATED WITH SHORELiNES OF THE STATE
WAC
173-22-0648
Okanogan County.
WAC 173-22-0648 Okanoglm County. Okanogan
County designation. maps approvw June 30. 1972, Revi.
sion approved August 28. 1913, Revision approvcd Scp-
tember 20, 1977. Revision approved September 29,
1987. Rcvision approved January 5, 1988.
[Statutory Authority: RCW 90,58.120 and 90.58.200. 88...()3..{)70 (Or.
der DE 87-45). S 173-22-0648. filed 1/20/88. Statutory Allthority:
RCW 90,58.030. 90.58,120 &lid 90.58.300. 87-ZO"'()50 (Order DE 87-
3'). f I7J-22"'()6"1I. filed 10/2/87. Statutory Authority: Chapter 90-
.51 RCyI. 86;'12-oIIt(Ordcr 86-06),1 173-22-{ 648. filcd 5/23/86.)
.. °
~ ,
I¡",
',HI
i.;
:.1
"
r
;~!
ì';
¡.;;
.:.
Chapter 173-(;0 WAC
MAXIMUM ENVIRONMENTAL NOISE LEVELS
~ . :
"
,
WAC
173-60-110
Cooperation wilh local eovernment.
¡
W i..c 173-60-110 COQperation with local goyern-
ment. (t) The department conceives the function of noise
abatement and control to be primarily the role of local
government and.intends actively to encourage local gov-
ernment to adopt measures for noise abatement and
control. Wherever such measures arc made c:ffective and
arc being actively enforced. the department does not in-
tend to engage directly in enforcemcnl activities.
(2) No ordinance or resolution of any local govern-
ment which imposcs noise control requirements differing
from tho~ adopted by the department shall be effective
unless and until approved by the director. If approval is
denied, the department, following submission of such lo-
cal ordinance or resolution to the department, shaH de-
liver il3 stlitcmcnt or order of dc:nial. d(:signaling in
detail the specific provision(s) found to be objectionable
and the precis~ grounds upon which the denilil is based.
and shall submit to the local government, lhe ùcput-
ment's suggested modification.
(3) The department shall encourage all local govern-
ments enforcing noise ordinances pursuant to this chap-
ter to consider noise criteria and land use pianning and
zoning,
(Statutory Authority-. Chapter 70.107 RCW. 87-O6-{ S6 (Order 86-
40). § 173-60-110. fiI~d 3/4/87: Order 74-32. § 1ì3~60.1I0. med
4/22/75. effective 9/1/75.J
"-
Go.
.....
Chapter 173-95 WAC
USES AND LIMITATIONS OF CENTENNIAL
CLEAN WATER FUNDS
WAC
. 173-9S-{ IO
Purpose and 1CO )e.
11988 WAC Supp-paøe 3701
,.
gOd EOO
~ld - S3IdlSnONI 30IS3~~~
Ecology, Department or
.~
:;)
:;
-)
.:
,,"
i
::1
.i¡
.J
. tI
1
:t
,~
~
I 73-9S-o20
113-95-030
173-95-040
173-95-050
Dcfinhions.
Provision of guidelines.
Limitations on thç w;ç of funds.
Compliance with applicable lawI, reglllatiOlls and
other requirements.
Indeo..."ificilion,
^rproprialion of funds by the IcgÚllature. "
General provisiollL
FIiAdins J'MCC!Uð,
M,1Iti"e wate, fadlitia funding atcgory.
Ground water activities and facilitiCi fundina
category.
Freshwater lakes and rivcrs activities and facilities
funding ~IC'-fory.
NonpOinl aetivilid and facilities fundine c:at~eory.
Discretionary activities and lacililies funding
CIIte!1ory.
Financ::ial hardship ~Iiiibility and remedies,
Applk-..bility of centennial cl('..n WII.".c ", \ul.tiM tlnd
funds,
'J
?
113-95-060
17:1-9S"{)70
17)-9s.-oRO
173-95-090
173-9~IOO
I 13-9s...t 10
173-95-120
173-95-130
1 73-9S-1 40
173-95-150
173-95-160
WAC 173-95-010 Purpose and Stope, The purpoJc
and scope of this chapter is to se:t forth Iimitlitiuß un
the allocation and uscs of moncy:s ¡¡dmini~tercd by tho
deparl_ment of ~culogy for the: purp06C$ of providing
grants and loans for the planning. design, acquiaition,
construction. and improvement of water pollution <:antral
facilitic:s and related actjviti~ in the achievement of
state and federal water pollution control requirements
for the protection of the state's waters pursuant to chap...
ter 10.146 RCW. Furthermore, it is the purpose of thia
chapter to provide funds for water pollution control ae.
tivities which prevent the degradation of or restore or
improve the Quality of the state's waters. In order to as-
sist public bodies in meeting water quality requirements
and, to derive the most benefit for the state in protecting
the health and safety of the people, it is necessary to es~
tablish criteria for the use of funds made available under
chapta 70.146 RCW. This chapler will outline (1) limi-
tations on the allocation and uses of the funds, (2) the
criteria to be considered for dclerlllÎlling who will receive
funds, (3) the process to be followed for distributing the
funds, (4) the funding levels, and (5) other related is-
sues.
(Statutory Authority: Ch4 )ler 70,146 RCW. 88-14-125 (Otd~r B8-
70). . 173-95-010, filed 7/6/88.} ,
WAC 173-95-020 Definitions: (1) . Account'
means the water quality account in the state treasury,
(2) . Agreement' means any agreement to which a
public body and a scrvice provider arc parties by which
the service provider agrees to deliver service to such
public body in connection with its design, financinJt,
construction. operation, or maintenance of water pollu-
tion control facilities in accordance with chaptcr 70.150
RCW.
(3) .Collection sewers' means It pipe on public prop-
erty, including right(s)-of-wa" and e:ascments, which
conveys wastewalcr from iodividual buildin8~. Or groups
of buildinss, to an interceptor(s).
(4) .Cost~ffcÇtive alternative. means that alterna-
tive with the: lowe:;t present worth or equivalent annual
value that achieves the requirements of the facility and
that recognizes the environmental and other nonmoncp
tary considerations.
,..-......",. .......,
\; .: .0. .
. "','j. .
GE:SL .!.S!7 90G
9S:E;r
GG-or-Ot;t;f
¡
~.~,
ItESOLUTION NO. 67.85 .
ESTABI.lSnMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGNATION (EDNA)
Fon NOISE ABATEMENT AREAS
FOR JEFFERSON COUNTY
~ .
,
WHEREAS. it is recognit.cd that. inadequatt'.ly culltrollod noise may ~dversc¡.Y
dffect the health, safety, and welfare of the people, I:.ÌIG vðlue of property, Ú\lÙ
the quality of the envíronmenl:.: .md .
WHEReAS. actions and or prujects on specific properties in Jefferson Cuunly
may create bigher lIaise levels than Ilormally cxt'criel1ced within surrounding
properties; and
WHEREAS, Chapler 70.107, Revj5ed Code of Wa,hil1ILon. and Chupler 173.60. .
Washington Administrative Code. c!'llab1ish~s ÞlIlJtÏ1num permissible noise levels CUI'
various environments or classes of use; and
WHEREAS. said noi~e levels MaY be apvUeù to vnrious are88 as needed 01' as
necessary.
NOW, THEREFOHE, BE IT RESOLVED that Chapter 173-60 WAC Is hel'~by
\1dopted in its entirely by reference.
NOW. 1'lIEnEFURE. DE l'f FURTmm IŒSOLVED Ulal EDNA area$ shaU be
designated to conform with the land n:\e desígnftt1on by the Jefferson County
Comprehensive Plan as pr.r Chapler 173.60.03U(3) WAC unless otherwise clfl::lsified
by. local resolution,
NOW. 11IEHEFORl~, nIT. iT FURTHER HESOLVEtJ that this resolution re!lcluds
and replaces Resolution No. 23.84:. I
,.
APPROVED and ADOPTED litis ~~y of September. 1985,
SEAL
BOAHD OF COMMISSIONBRS OF
JEFFERSON COUNTY. W ASUlNGTON
~L~
John L. Pitls, Chairman
:A"
,.'1
/1 -7 ,.
ATTEST: - -.~ ;r:,,'&~/'i",.I,
'~erdine C. ßraRg /1dì
Clerk of the BoárclV
~~J
ß,G. Drown, Member
LQrry W. Dennison. Memba:-
~
WMESIDE' . I NJnISIRES3."
"'. -."!If' '
~ . ::..' ",....-~.~ -~
P.o-...BœC131SJ-,-BEtLEVUE;WA980093<'" (.206)118301681-';' FAX (206) 869-2248::"
cO""'-'-.
""-
".,..,. .
October 24,1990
David Goldsmith
Jefferson County
planning & Bldg. Dept.
P.O. Box 1220
Port Townsend, WA 98368
- Re:-- Shotwe11' Pit, Noise- Standard5
Dear Mr. Goldsmith,
We are in receipt of your letter dated October 18, 1990 regarding
your allegation that we are in violation or the Jefferson county
noise ordinance. As a result of your letter, we have begun- an
investigation into the standards themselves and the extent of" the
noise being emitted from our operations.
We have conducted an internal noise audit using a Metrosonic dB 307
Sound Level Meter and the results of this audit do not indicate any
violation of the county ordinance as described in Resolution No.
67-85, Establishment of Environmental Designation (EDNA) For Noise
Abatement Areas For Jefferson County. This resolution adopts by
reference and in it's entirety Chapter 173-60 WAC.
WAC 173.60.040(2a) lists the EDNA of noise source and the EDNA of
receiving property by class A, B & C. The lowest noise by class
is A to A at 55dBA minus 10dBA'between the hours of 10:00 P.M. and
7:00 A.M. This then allows for 55dBA levels at the receiving
property during the hours of 7:00 A.M. to 10:00 P.M.
However, under WAC 173.60.050 Exemptions (3a) the following shall
be exempt from the provisions of WAC 173.60.040, except insofar as
such provisions relate to the reception of noise within Class A
EDNAs between the hours of 10:00 P.M. and 7:00 A.M.
(a) Sounds originating from temporary construction sites as
a result of construction activity.
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
WA, ST. CaNT. REG. NO, 223-01 LA-KE,SI,.274JD
,-
-~~_.
,"'-~-..,. '..
',' ~~~-
---'-:.,~-':': -,.---- ,..
, +.;-~ ' . "-' '
.' ---="'"-~o ,'.
'.. .- """" .
'. --.. _..~~~;., -.~'.. ...ê_--::--.
It would appear that our operations are not. in violation o~'the: '
standard by'virtue of our own-:-inteJ:naLaudit or.are'.not. cov~:~
the_. standard'~ at~ all durinq day time operations. Please.-revav7' -- --
these standards and communicate~ yow:- position at~. your:-'ear+-f~
convenience... ='i' ?-:;~Æ""'- .
-. --. --..
Yours,
'-~"~~:;~.;;:::-,c;;";'
~',,'~
Tom Pentin
Loss Control Manaqer
".;...;..
"'."
""~~-::::...
. ;:'i~RS"
cc:
Georqe. - Peabody
Douq Hardwick' - Short, cressman and Burqess
.fF"
.'
..,,' .
TP :sm
'.":'"'.,....~":,;"",,.,
"',"
--.. "
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
October 10, 1990
TO:
George Peabody, Division Manager--port Angeles
FROM:
Mike O'Neil, Assistant Director of safety
SUBJECT: 'Sound Level Tests--Port Townsend Plant and Vicinity
Upon your request I conducted a sound level survey of the Port
Townsend ADM. portable asphalt plant Qn October 5, 1990. . The
results of which are indicated on the énclosed diagram.
The levels were obtained through the use of a metrosonic db 307
sound level meter/dosimeter. This meter was calibrated with a
. metrosonic cl 302 calibrator designed for use with the
aforementioned noise level meter. A new battery was also installed
in the noise level meter prior to calibration.
The noise level obtained at our gate to the pit during full plant
operation was 66.7 dbA, across the street at the entrance to the
driveway of the neighboring property the level read was 59.6 dbA.
The only increase in this level was during non-typical operations.
During the building of the gravel noise barrier along our property
line adjacent to the road the sound level at the entrance of the
neighboring driveway increased to a maximum of 65.6 dbA, this
operation is now complete.
Continuing up the driveway, as would be expected, the sound levels
began to drop. At 90 feet from the entrance the level decreased
to 54.5 dbA, at 222 feet the level decreased to 50.5 dbA. It
should be noted, at this point, that as a plane flew over, this
reading increased to 59.2 dbA.
Further up the driveway, 447 feet from the entrance the level was
read at 54.2 dbA this increase can be attributed to the elevation
in the driveway, as well as a gap in the trees, a natural sound
barrier between the plant and this point in the driveway.
At the porch of the house, 672 feet up the driveway, the noise
level was 49.1 dbA. This is an extremely low noise level and would
indicate at this point standard ambient noise. It was noted that
birds chirping, as well as, airplanes flying overhead increased the
noise level for short periods of time.
I have made numerous attempts to obtain the written law regarding
industrial related noise, both through the Jefferson County
Commissioners office, as well as, the Washington state Department
of Labor and Industries. Any effort made with the commissioners
office has been met with little or no success, I was informed
Jefferson County had adopted the state of Washington standards and
was allowed no further information. In fact they informed me if
I had further questions I would have to talk to the County's
attorney. .
I contacted the Department of Labor and Industries and was informed
the only standard they had written was with regards to personal
exposure to the workers. This level is a Time Weighted Average of
85.0 dbA for an eight hour period. They also informed me that any
"Neighborhood noise complaint" would fall under local jurisdiction
in the form of an ordinance, and be enforced by the local police
agency. I will continue to try and obtain the written law which
is in place in Jefferson County.
If the law states that we are allowed to produce only 60.0 dbA at
the neighboring property line, as was stated to me by the
neighboring residence, then we are still within compliance during
normal working conditions.
The only time levels above 60.0 dbA were read at the neighboring
property line, was when a truck would travel into or out of the
plant. This level was read at 61.2 dbA and lasted approximately
10 seconds.
Based on the fact that this plants maximum capacity is 150 tons an
hour, and that it would take six loads to move 150 tons, it can be
determined that total time of non-compliance in anyone hour period
would be 2 minutes. The degree of non-compliance noise would be
1.2 dbA.
Based on the information and data obtained for this report it can
be concluded the plant is not excessively, nor illegally creating
nuisance noise to the neighboring communities or residences. The
building of the gravel sound barrier has also shown an effort on
our part to reduce any sound level created by the plant operation.
Therefore, I see no reason for complaint by any neighboring
community or residence.
If you have any further questions, please contact me at
(206)883-1661.
cc:
File
George Peabody
r.~.
IŒSOLUTIOri NO.6 7.85 .
ESTABI.lSnMENT Oi~ ENVlRONMENTAL DESiGNATION (EDNA)
Fon NOISE AIJA'fEMENT AREAS
FOR JEFFERSON COUNTY
,
WHEREAS, it is recogni~cd that. inadequately controlled nO[S8 may odverscb-
affect the health. ¿afety. and welfare of the people. the' vðlue of property. u\ld
the quality of the environment: and'
WHEReAS. actions and or projects on ~pocific properties in Jefferson County
may create higher noise levels than tlorrnnHy experienced within sUl'rounding
properties; and
WHEREAS, Chapler 70.107, Revjsed Code of Wa,hinglon. and Chapler 173.60. .
Washington Administrative Code. c!lloblishes mll)tÏlnum permissible nohJe 10"els Cut.
various envjromnenls or classes of use; amI
WHEREAS, said noi~e levels may be apl,licd to vßrious areaS 8$ needed or Ð$
necessary.
NOW, THP.REFOIŒ. BE IT RESOLVED that Chnptcr 173-60 WAC is beJ.~by
adopted in its entirely by reference.
NOW, 11IEREFURE. 13E rr FUR1'II1~R ItESOLVED that EDNA areas shalJ be
d(~signi1lcd to conIurm with the land \1!\e de~í8nation by the Jefferson County
Comprehensive Plan as per Chapter 173.60.030(3) WAC unic5s olherwise clÐ~&ifi ed
by local resolution.
NOW. 11IEHEFORi~. BE lT FURTHER llESOLVED that this resolutjotl rel'cIuds
and replaces Rcsolution No. 23,t 4:. '
,
APPROVED and ADOPTED this ~~y of September, 1985.
SEAL
ßOAHD OF COMMISSIONERS OF
JEFFERSoN COUNTY, WASBlNG'fON
~L~
John L. Pitts. Chairman
~
..,
¡: "7 ("
ATTEST:. ,,~'rJ:' .(¿:Æ;,'û.c
'1erdine c. ßra~g /;7:./1
Clerk of the Boárd V
~~.J
ß,G. Drown, Member
Lm'ry W, Dennison, Memba!'