HomeMy WebLinkAboutPermit 91-08-SMP - LEW HERR - RHONE POULENC PLANT SHORELINE SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT91-8-smp 9229 east marginal way south
91-05-smp
Permit 91-08-SMP - LEW HERR - RHONE POULENC PLANT SHORELINE SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Larry Benson
Rhone - Poulenc, Inc.
Post Office Box 80963
Seattle, WA 98109
Dear Mr. Benson:
PT:del
sdp.ma
Re:
STATE OF WASHINGTON
DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY
Mail Stop PV -11 • Olympia, Washington 98504 -8711 • (206) 459-6000
October 28, 1991
City of Tukwila Permit 11t91- 08 -SMP
Rhone - Poulenc, Inc. - Applicant
SHORELINE MANAGEMENT Shoreline Substantial Development Permit I1991 -12694
The subject Shoreline Management Substantial Development permit has been
filed with this office by the City of Tukwila on October 23., 1991.
If this permit is not appealed to the Shorelines Hearings Board on or
before November 22, 1991, authorized construction may begin. Other
federal, state, and local laws regulating such construction shall be
complied with. Unless an appeal is filed, this letter constitutes final
notification of action on this permit.
cc Darren;. Wil :`City `of .:Tukwila
Sincerely,
i C, s„ ?tick
Patricia Trerice
Permit Coordinator
Shorelands and Coastal Zone
Management Program
I Ili u t LI ll
El
[ ;31. 1991
CITY OF TUKWILA
PLANNING DEPT:
CITY OF TUKWILA
6200 SOUTHCENTER BOULEVARD, TUKWILA, WASHINGTON 98188
laboratory building. (Phase II)
PHONE ft (206) 433.1800 Gary L. Van Dusen, Mayor
File Number: 91- 08 -SMP
Approved X Denied
Date: 9 -18 -91
TYPE OF
ACTION: ( Substantial Development Permit LI Conditional Use El Variance
Pursuant to RCW 90.58, a permit is hereby granted to:
Rhone - Poulenc
to undertake the following development (be specific): Demolition of a former
vanillan manufacturing plant, except for the administration building and
upon the following property (legal description, i.e., section, township, range):
9229 East Marginal Way South, Sec. 33, Twn., 23, R4E.
Duwamish River
THE PROPOSED PROJECT WILL BE WITHIN THE AREA OF THE GREEN RIVER
AND ITS ASSOCIATED WETLANDS, WHICH IS A SHORELINE OF STATEWIDE
SIGNIFICANCE AND IS DESIGNATED AS AN URBAN ENVIRONMENT.
The following master program provisions are applicable to this development
(state the Master Program sections or page numbers) :Chapter 173- 16 -WAC
The City will implement King County Master Shoreline Program since the
City does not have a master shoreline program for this area.
Development pursuant to this permit shall be undertaken
pursuant to the following terms and conditions:
1) To obtain a Demolition Permit from the City of Tukwila Building Department,
before removal of the remaining concrete slabs.
2) Department of Ecology must concur with this permit.
This permit is granted pursuant to the Shoreline Management Act of 1971 and
nothing in this permit shall excuse the applicant from compliance with any other
federal, state or local statutes, ordinances or regulations applicable to this
project, but not inconsistent with the Shoreline Management Act (Chapter 90.58
RCW).
This permit may be rescinded pursuant to RCW 90.58.140(8) in the event the per -
mittee fails to comply with the terms or conditions hereof.
CONSTUCTION PURSUANT TO THIS PERMIT WILL NOT BEGIN OR IS NOT AUTHORIZED
UNTIL THIRTY (30) DAYS FROM THE DATE OF FILING WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF
ECOLOGY AS DEFINED IN RCW 90.58.140(6) AND WAC 173 -14 -090, OR UNTIL ALL
REVIEW PROCEEDINGS INITIATED WITHIN THIRTY DAYS FROM THE DATE OF SUCH
FILING HAVE TERMINATED; EXCEPT AS PROVIDED IN RCW 90.58.140(5)(a)(b)(c).
',..4-745•
Date
Construction or substantial progress toward construction must begin within two
years from date of issuance, per WAC 173 -14 -060.
THIS SECTION FOR DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY USE ONLY
IN REGARD TO A SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT
WITH A CONDITIONAL USE OR VARIANCE PERMIT.
DATE RECEIVED BY THE DEPARTMENT :
APPROVED (date):
PERMIT FOR SHORELINE MANAGEMENT SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT
Page 2
This conditional use /variance permit is approved /denied by the department
pursuant to Chapter 90.58 RCW.
Development shall be undertaken pursuant to the
following additional terms and conditions:
lire •r, Planning Department
DENIED (date):
1) To obtain a Demolition Permit from the City of Tukwila Building Department,
before removal of the remaining concrete slabs.
Department of Ecology must concur with this permit.
Date (Signature of authorized Department official)
cc: Applicant, File, D.O.E.
(25 /SHOR.PMT)
CITY OF TUKWILA
6200 SOUTHCENTER BOULEVARD, TUKWILA, IVASHINCTON 98188 PHONE" (206) 433.1800 Cary L. VanDusen, Mayor
September 30, 19'91
CHM2HILL
Attn: Ryan Daugherty
777 -108th Ave N.E.
P.O. Box 91550
Bellevue, WA 98009 -2050
Reference: Rhone - Poulenc Inc. Ltr, dated 9/9/91, Subj:
Demolition Plan for Plant Site, 9229 E. Marginal
Way S., Tukwila, WA 98108
Dear Mr. Daugherty:
Building Permit Application Numbers 91 -393 thru
91 -396 - Rhone - Poulenc Demolition
On September 26, 1991, a special meeting of the Tukwila
Development Review Committee was held to discuss the permit
applications referenced above, and other associated
information and concerns. The following comments are the
results of that meeting:
1. The Fire Marshal commented that he had specifically
stated at the pre - application meeting, attended by yourself
and other representative of Rhone Poulenc, that the Fire
Department would require a plant closure plan as part of the
permit application. So far it has not been received. The
Fire Department will not be able to complete their part of
the plan check process without this issue being resolved.
2. Everyone at the meeting indicated concern about possible
soil contamination and related environmental issues on this
site because of its past use. The Planning Division
representative produced a letter from the Department of
Ecology, dated September 16, 1991, which contains DOE's
comments on the Environmental Checklist submitted on this
project. A copy of the DOE letter is attached. It was
agreed by everyone present that a review of the permit
application package by DOE, and written concurrence by that
agency, shall be required from Rhone - Poulenc before any
further review action is accomplished by the city.
3. To answer the question about leaving concrete
foundations, slabs, drainage systems, and other portions of
infra - structure in the ground, the following information
applies:
a. DOE concurrence with this plan must be obtained by
Rhone- Poulenc and presented to the city as part of the
application package before the plans can go any further in
the plan check process.
b. If DOE concurrence is obtained, it has been
determined that, based on the contents of your above
referenced letter, the intent of Section 16.04.150 of the
Tukwila Municipal Code would be met by the plans you have
submitted; and TMC Sec. 16.04.150 will not apply to this
project. This is not, however, meant to infer that the City
has approved the project. Any other issues that may come up
during the plan check process will have to be resolved with
individual departments of the city.
4. It is suggested that you contact the Tukwila Planning
Division regarding the subject of "Interim Use of the
Facilities ", discussed in paragraph 2 of your above
referenced letter. I briefly discussed this subject with
Darren Wilson of the Planning Division and he stated that
both Zoning and Shorelines regulations could establish
restrictions on the type of "storage" allowed on certain
portions of this property.
5. If you should have any further questions on this subject
please feel free to contact me at 431 -3670.
Sincerely,
D'(iane Griff
Building Official
cc: Lew Herr, Rhone - Poulenc Co.
Rick Beeler, Director, DCD
Nick Olivas, Fire Dept
Phil Fraser, Public Works
Jack Pace, Planning Division
Mr. Rick Beeler
City of Tukwila
6200 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila, WA 98188
Dear Mr. Beeler:
STATE OF WASHINGTON
DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY
Mail Stop PV -11 • Olympia, Washington 98504 -8711 • (206) 459 -6000
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the determination of
nonsignificance for phase two to demolish a closed industrial plant that
formerly produced vanillin proposed by Rhone- Poulenc Inc. (EPIC- 35 -91). We
reviewed the environmental checklist and have the following comments.
1. As with phase one, the applicant proposes to demolish an existing
facility. Item B.7.a of the checklist asks if there are any
environmental health hazards that could occur as a result of the
proposal. Improper disposal of solid waste, including demolition waste,
can result in environmental health hazards. The applicant should
identify the disposal site for the demolition material. In addition,
the applicant should be encouraged to pursue mitigating activities such
as salvage, reuse, and recycling of the demolition materials.
'2. Storm drains should be checked for contamination and /or cleaned prior to
use, following plant demolition (based on information that building
floor drains are connected to the storm drainage system, Water 3.c.1) to
avoid flushing of residual chemicals by rainwater.
3. Further investigations regarding the nature and extent of soil,
groundwater, and surface water associated with the site be required
by the Department, under authority of the Model Toxics'Control Act.
Further cleanup may also be required at the sites.
If you have any questions on Comment 1, please call Mr. Kyle Dorsey in the
Northwest Regional Office at (206) 649 -7132. For questions on Comments 2 and
3, please call Mr. Norm Peck also, in our Northwest Regional Office at (206)
649-7047. --- .. - f .-r
rjl (0 \Sincerely.
SEP 1 71991 ci
PLANNING DEL_
Environmental Review Section
MVS:91 -5433
cc: Kyle Dorsey, NWRO
Norm Peck, NWRO
Janet Thompson -Lee, NWRO
September 16, 1991
M E M O R A N D U M
Date: 25 Sep 91
From: Duane Griffin, Bldg Offl
To: File
SUBJECT: Minutes of Development Review Meeting (DRC) held
on 24 Sep 91, regarding Permit Application Numbers 91 -393
thru 91 -396 - Rhone - Poulenc Demolition
PRESENT:
Rick Beeler
Nick Olivas
Jack Pace
Phil Fraser
Duane Griffin
Director, Department of Community Development
Fire Marshal
Senior Planner
Senior Engineer
Building Official
PURPOSE: Building Official requested this DRC meeting to
get decision on whether demolition permits should /could be
issued to Rhone - Poulenc for the demolition of structures
above grade only; with the intention of leaving concrete
floor slabs, paved driveways, and underground infrastructure
in place without considering it part of the demolition. The
question came up because of the provisions of TMC Sec.
16.04.150 which states that as part of demolition permits
all concrete, driveways, foundations, etc, have to be
removed. The Rhone- Poulenc Co. has requested they not be
required to remove this type of material for the reasons
outlined in their letter dated 9 Sep 91 (copy attached).
1. After reviewing contents of that letter the following
comments were made specifically about the subject of not
requiring them to remove the concrete:
Nick Olivas: The Fire Department would have no objection to
the concrete foundations and other items listed in the
letter being left in- place.
Phil Fraser: Phil stated that Public Works would have no
objection, and, based on the description of the complicated
and extensive drainage system described in the application
documents, would recommend that the concrete foundations and
infrastructure not be disturbed as part of the demolition
process.
Jack Pace: Planning would have no problems with the
concrete being left in place.
Duane Griffin: Duane feels that since the UBC doesn't cover
leaving finished concrete in- place, the intent of the TMC
requirements may have been to prohibit dangerous
excavations, unhealthy sanitary conditions, attractive
nuisances, or any other items that could be hazardous to the
public. Since the applications and accompanying documents
indicate there will be no debris, open excavations, or other
remaining hazards it would seem appropriate that the
concrete be allowed to remain and not be considered part of
the demolition permit.
CONSENSUS: If permit is issued it will be all right to
allow concrete slabs, foundations, and underground
infrastructure to stay in place and not be considered part
of the demolition permit.
2. During this meeting other comments were made and
discussed about individual Department concerns regarding the
application:
a. Nick said that at the original pre - application
meeting, held with the applicants, he had informed them the
fire department would require a "closure plan ". He said
that he didn't think that plan had been received yet, and
the permit shouldn't be issued prior to its receipt and
approval. He said he would follow up on this subject with
the applicants.
b. Everyone at the meeting indicated concern about
possible soil contamination and related environmental issues
on this site because of its past use. Jack produced a
letter from DOE, dtd 16 Sep 91, in which they commented on
the environmental checklist. It was agreed by everyone
present that a review of the permit application package by
DOE, and written concurrence by that agency, should be
required from Rhone- Poulenc before any further review action
is accomplished by the city. Duane will prepare and forward
a letter to CH2M Hill, contact agency for Rhone - Poulenc,
with info copies to DOE N.W. Regional Office, notifying them
of this requirement and that further review by the city will
be held up pending receipt of DOE concurrence.
CC:
•
p ick Olivas
Jack Pace
Phil Fraser
FINE ORGANICS DIVISION
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON PLANT
9229 E. Marginal Way South - P.O. Box 80963 - Seattle, Washington 98108 - Telephone (206) 764 -4450
September 9, 1991
SEA32112.BO.ZZ
City of Tukwila
Department of Public Works
6300 Southcenter Blvd.
Tukwila, WA 98188
W HONE • POLJLENC INC.
Attention: Mr. Duane Griffin
Building Department
Subject: Rhone - Poulenc Inc.
DEMOLITION PLAN FOR PLANT SITE
9229 E. Marginal Way South
Tukwila, WA 98108
Dear Mr. Griffin:
In response to your telephone request for more information on the
rationale for demolishing only "superstructure" of the plant and
for leaving the slabs, surface paving, and underground utilities
in place, we offer the following discussion:
1'. BUILDINGS TO REMAIN IN SERVICE
The prospective buyers and real estate consultants advise us
that due to their economic value at least two buildings are to
remain in place and operating:
o Laboratory Building
o Administration Building
The final agreement may require that other buildings be left
in place and operating. The Demolition Plan Addendum Number
1 have prioritized the sequence of demolition to provide that
those buildings which would have the greater apparent
usefulness to the prospective buyer would be demolished later
in the demolition process.
1 of 4
"RHONE POULFNC
RECEIVED
'CITY OF TUKWILA
SEP 1 0 icy
PERMIT CENTER
2. INTERIM USE OF FACILITIES
2 of 4
The plant utilities, e.g. sanitary sewer, water distribution,
storm drainage, gas, telephone, etc. are interconnected and
complex, the removal of foundations and underground utilities
would eliminate utilities to buildings that are to remain in
place and operational. The utility connections to buildings
that have been demolished or are not designated for future use
will be grouted in place.
The property remains under the ownership and custody of Rhone -
Poulenc until the agreement to sell is completed and the new
owner takes custody. Should the negotiations with the current
prospective buyers fail or be substantially delayed, Rhone -
Poulenc will seek alternative interim uses for the property.
Among the possible uses are storage or operations for
construction contractors, light manufacturing, etc. Rhone -
Poulenc has indicated that they do not intend to return the
property to vanillin processing, the previous use, however they
would seek other uses. Certain of the buildings, particularly
the D.C. Warehouse and the Maintenance Buildings lend
themselves to other uses, as do the Laboratory Building, the
Administration Building, and the Change Room Building. Other
buildings that were used strictly for vanillin production,
would probably have little value and would be demolished. The
slabs of these buildings, however could be a valuable asset
as paved storage areas. The foundations and floor slabs of
these buildings have been designed by licensed structural
engineers or qualified engineers for the original owners.
Quite evidently, the structural integrity of these foundations
is still very much intact since the facility was' in operation
until March, 1991. These foundations and slabs would be used
as "hardstand" for storage which is compatible with their
designed use to support industrial facilities.
As noted before, the utilities to buildings that would remain
under such an alternative are an integral part of the plant
utility system. To remove the foundations and underground
infrastructure would eliminate utilities to the remaining
facilities and have a significant impact on the use of the
property.
3. SITE DRAINAGE
3 of 4
The removal of slabs and paving will disrupt the current
surface drainage in an area that is relatively flat and that
has a high water table. The existing storm drainage system is
highly effective and is operated under the plant NPDES permit.
The system includes a series of laterals which collect storm
drainage from surface structures, catch basins, inlets, etc.
and conduct it to a diversion structure, which, in the event
of spills, can divert the drainage to the sanitary sewer.
Normal drainage from the diversion structure discharges to the
outfall on the Duwamish River, through a pH sensor, which, if
the pH is out of allowable range, automatically shuts down the
outfall line and diverts the drainage to the sanitary sewer.
This system will be used to effectively manage storm water
until the property is sold and the new owner develops plans for
the property, obtains permits, and modifies (if necessary) the
existing system. It is anticipated that this existing system
will be used either in part or in it's entirety by the new
owner.
Removal of underground utilities and foundations would
necessitate the removal of the storm drainage system resulting
in adverse environmental impact in the form of overland storm
runoff laden with sediment. Removal would also necessitate the
design, permitting, installation, and operation of an interim
storm water drainage system that is not likely to be as
effective as the existing system. The interim system will
then have to be replaced with a permanent system that is
designed to satisfy the new owner's use of the property.
The potential environmental impacts of the repeated disruption
of the surface drainage system suggest that the current system,
which operates with a high degree of efficiency, be maintained
as is. The costs, both environmental and economic, of removing
the underground utilities are simply too high.
4. FIRE PROTECTION
The fire protection system which serves the plant also serves
the buildings that are to remain in place for the prospective
buyer, as well as the buildings that would remain in place for
interim use should the sale be delayed. Removal of plant
utilities and foundations would require the removal of this
system.
Ordinance 16.04.150 Debris and excavations, requires
interpretation, but works as exhibited by its provisions which
allow certain improvements to remain in place. Rhone - Poulenc has
taken extra measures to provide the City with a clear understanding
of our intentions and plans in the demolition of the plant and the
sale of the property. In applying for demolition permits, Rhone -
Poulenc recognizes that it is asking the city to issue permits for
demolition of the above - ground portions of the designated buildings
only. These permits should be clearly marked to indicate this
fact, so that the intent of Rhone - Poulenc and the permit is clear
to those who follow these proceedings.
If you have any questions or wish to discuss these issues please
do not hesitate to call me at the plant or to call our consultant,
.CH2M Hill in Bellevue.
Sincerely,
w
B. Herr
Project Manager
Rhone - Poulenc, Inc
4 of 4
WAC 197-11-970
DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE
Description of Proposal The proposal consists of the demolition of a closed industrial
plant that formerly produced vanillin, an artificial vanilla flavoring. Equipment will
be dismantled and the facilities demolished as part of the proposal. Demolition includes
the removal of above - ground structures to the top of the floor slab, except for fhe
laboratory building and administration building, both of which will remain. The site
will then be sold. Rhone- Poulenc, Inc.
Proponent (Phase II)
Location of Proposal, including street address, if any 9229 East Marginal Way South,
Section 10, TWN 23, Rqe 4, Tukwila, WA.
Lead Agency: City of Tukwila File No. EPIC -35 -91
The lead agency for this proposal has determined that it does not have a probable
significant adverse impact on the environment. An environmental impact statement
(EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c). This decision was made after
review of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the
lead agency. This information is available to the public on request.
[i There is no comment period for this DNS
x x This DNS is issued under 197 -11- 340(2). Comments must be submitted by
September 13, 1991 . The lead agency will not act on this
proposal for 16 days from the date below.
Responsible Official Rick Beeler
Position /Title
Address
Date
FM.DNS
Planning Director Phone 433 -1846
6200 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukw11 _1A 98188
/ PP/ / Signature
You may appeal this determination to the City Clerk at City Hall, 6200 Southcenter
Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188 no later than 10 days from the above date by written
appeal stating the basis of the appeal for specific factual objections. You may be
required to bear some of the expenses for an appeal.
Copies of the procedures for SEPA appeals are available with the City Clerk and
Planning Department.
Dear Mr. Beeler:
Mr. Rick Beeler
City of Tukwila
6200 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila, WA 98188
July 19, 1991
*WO' 3
STATE OF WASHINGTON
DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY
Mail Stop PV -11 • Olympia, Washington 98504 -8711 • (206) 459 -6000
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the determination of
nonsignificance to demolish a closed industrial plant that formerly
produced Vanillin proposed by Rhone - Poulenc Inc. We reviewed the
environmental checklist and have the following comments.
1. Item B.7.a of the checklist asks if there are any environmental
health hazards that could occur as a result of the proposal.
Improper disposal of solid waste, including demolition waste, can
result in environmental health hazards. The applicant should
identify the disposal site for the demolition material. In
addition, the applicant should be encouraged to pursue mitigating
activities such as salvage, reuse, and recycling of the demolition
materials.
2. This site is a contaminated site, Site Management Information
system # N -17- 0125 -0000 (EPA list #D009282302). Prior to operation
by Rhone-Poulenc, Inc., the site was occupied by the Monsanto
Chemical Corporation. Demolition debris and soils may be dangerous
waste or hazardous substances regulated by RCW 70.105, RCW 70.105D,
WAC 173 -303 or WAC 173 -340. Special worker protection, air
monitoring, and other monitoring and control measures may be
required to protect the worker and public health and safety. Any
site contamination or releases involving hazardous waste or
hazardous substances discovered during demolition, and which have
not previously been accurately repeated to the Department of
Ecology, Northwest Regional Office, must be reported (WAC 173 -303,
WAC 173 -340).
3. Erosion control measures should be in place prior to any
clearing, grading, or construction. These control measures should
be effective to prevent soil from being carried into surface water
by stormwater runoff. Sand, silt, and soil will damage aquatic
habitat and are considered pollutants. 4pus359m r• lall win
pollutants to enter state waters carries aPpax$!$uthJj halt of
$10,000 per day.
1 JUL 2 2 1991 1
cm c.) TliKvvwA
_- p tt!) G DEPT.
Mr. Rick Beeler
Page 2
July 19, 1991
BJR:rch
91 -4130
cc: Kyle Dorsey, NWRO
Norm Peck, NWRO
Dan Cargill, NWRO
Janet Thompson -Lee, NWRO
Sincerely,
4. Proper disposal of construction debris should be on land in
such a manner that debris cannot enter the water body or cause
water quality degradation of state waters.
5. During demolition, all releases of oils, hydraulic fluids,
fuels, other petroleum products, paints, solvents, and other
deleterious materials should be contained and removed in a manner
that will prevent their discharge to waters and soils of the state.
The cleanup of spills should take precedence over other work on the
site.
6. After completion of demolition, all paved areas and impervious
surfaces should be swept clean to eliminate sources of contaminants
to the storm sewers.
7. The storm water system should be cleaned and all sediments
removed, characterized and properly disposed. The cleaning of the
system, including catch basins, should be conducted after
completion of demolition activities. While cleaning the storm
water system, the outfalls should be capped or plugged in such a
manner to prevent the discharge of liquids and solids to the
Duwamish River. Liquid wastes generated during the cleaning
process should be tested and, if appropriate and specifically
authorized by Metro, discharged to the sanitary sewer.
If you have any questions on comment 1, please contact Kyle Dorsey
with our Northwest Regional Office (206) 649 -7132. Questions on
comment 2 should be directed to Norm Peck of our Northwest Regional
Office at (206) 649 -7047. Questions on comments 3 through 7 should
be directed to Dan Cargill also with our Northwest Regional Office
at (206) 649 -7023.
Barbara J. Ritchie
Environmental Review Section
OUTLINE OF ISSUES CONCERNING RHONE - POULENC:
TMC Sec. 16.04.150 states: "Debris and excavations. (a) It
shall be the duty of any person to whom any permit is issued for
the demolition or removal of any building or any section or
portion of any building pursuant to the provisions of this
chapter, and of any person leasing, owning, or occupying or
controlling any lot or parcel of ground from which a building is
removed or demolished, to remove all weeds, concrete, stone
foundations, flat concrete, concrete patios, masonry walls,
garage floors, driveways and similar structures and all loose
miscellaneous material from such lot or parcel of ground, to
properly cap the sanitary sewer connections, and to properly fill
or otherwise protect all basements, cellars, septic tanks, wells
and other excavations."
Rhone- Poulenc, 9229 E. Marginal Way S., has stopped production
and started to move equipment off their /of acre site. They are
negotiating the sale of the property and want to demolish a
number of structures down to grade level, and leave the concrete
footings, slabs, etc, in place.
As far as I know, the only thing that prevents leaving concrete •
in the ground is the above referenced TMC. It seems obvious to
me that the ordinance was not meant to cover a demolition project
as extensive as this one will be. Therefore, is there a way the
city can officially exclude this project from the requirements of
the demolition ordinance. I feel this is a decision beyond the
limits of my authority.
They will fill holes, pits, etc, with some sort of material and
cover it and the flat slabs with some type of waterproof material
to prevent saturation /mud holes caused by rain water. They have
stated this covering material will be sloped so rainwater will
run into existing storm drains.
The whole site has a network of storm drains they want to leave
in place that will remain active.
I think they desire to leave all of the underground utilities in
place. Public Works Dept. has told me all underground utilities
on site are private, not public utility lines.
There's a possibility their prospective buyer (more than likely
Boeing) will want to utilize the foundations and utility lines
for new structures.
This site was developed in the early 1940's and has had hazardous
materials stored or manufactured on it ever since. Would there
be any city liability if we allowed the foundations and slabs to
remain and then the future buyer removes them and finds
contaminated soils?
Should we get supporting documentation from EPA, DO', or
somebody, that the soil has been tested and there s no
possibility of contamination on the entire site?
There's a drainage system that has automatic valves that control
what is drained from the site into the river.
What governmental agencies should be involved in a demolition
project like this?
If they have a buyer willing to do so, would it be permissible to
leave the concrete and underground utility system in place if the
buyer signed appropriate documents taking full responsibility for
all of it?
They want to leave the perimeter fence intact and in -place after .
demolition is completed.
There are concrete pits in the concrete floor systems that are
pretty deep and could be below the water table.
They plan to leave some structures that are in good condition.
These buildings are tied into the same underground utility system
that serves the whole site. So, removing all the foundations and
slabs would probably disturb some of underground lines that run
under the buildings.
How concerned should we be about contaminated soil on this site?
The owners and engineering consultant firm say that Boeing is the
prospective buyer and a lot of tests are being made by either
Boeing or Rhone- Poulenc to make sure everything is resolved
up -front about the responsibility for any soil contamination or
other hazardous material problems.
RHONE - POULENC, INC
SEATTLE PLANT DEMOLITION
CITY OF TUKWILA PERMITS
CHRONOLOGY
1. 15MAY91 - 1st Meeting - Briefed City of Tukwila staff - planning, buildings, public
works - on Rhone - Poulenc's proposed approach to demolition, i.e., to
remove process equipment and piping and ship to Baton Rouge or recycle
through local salvagers; demolish buildings to ground level; underground
structures and certain buildings to remain in place until final plans and
agreements with potential buyer are reached. Determination was made on
which portion of the facility required Shoreline Permit prior to removal
of process equipment or demolition of structures.
2. 14JUN91 - Submitted DEMOLITION PLAN FOR PLANT SITE to City of Tukwila.
Plan provides a comprehensive overview of Rhone - Poulenc's approach to
the demolition process and their intentions for permit applications.
SEPA Checklist submitted with this Plan.
3. 19JUN91 - Site visitation by City of Tukwila staff to understand scope of demolition
and determine which of the plant structures are classified as process
equipment and which are classified as buildings for the permitting process.
4. 28JUN91 - Submitted Shoreline Permit application.
5. 02JUL91 - Submitted Addendum No. 1 to DEMOLITION PLAN FOR PLANT SITE
which identifies site structures classified as buildings and provides
preliminary details on the type of structure, its nominal size and materials
of construction, and salient features of post- demolition drainage, safety
and similar requirements. Addendum No. 1 also identified buildings
within the Shoreline Zone separately from those in the Upland Zone.
6. 30JUL91 - Received a letter from City of Tukwila Planning Department - Mr. Darren
Wilson - requesting further information on asbestos abatement, dock
removal, and removal of contaminated soils.
7. 21AUG91 - Submitted responses to request for information.
8. 03SEP91 - Received Determination of Non- Significance from City of Tukwila.
9. 09SEP91 - Submitted letter response to earlier discussions with Mr. Duane Griffin
regarding Rhone - Poulenc rationale for requesting Demolition Permits for
above - ground portion of buildings.
RHONE - POULENC, INC
SEATTLE PLANT DEMOLITION
CITY OF TUKWILA PERMITS
CHRONOLOGY (cont'd)
10. 10SEP91 - Submitted Demolition Permit applications for first four buildings in the
Upland Zone.
11.. 16SEP91 - Received approval of Shoreline Permit with issuance to be held until
completion of thirty day public comment period.
12. 01 OCT91 - Received letter notification from City of Tukwila that written concurrence
with . the approach must be obtained from the Washington State
Department of Ecology before the City of Tukwila will further consider
issuance ,of Demolition. Permits as requested.
13. 16OCT91 - Notified in telephone discussion with Mr. Darren Wilson, City of Tukwila
Planning Department that Shoreline Permit will not be issued until
Demolition Permit problems are resolved.
CITY OF TUKWILA
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
STAFF:: 1
1. BRIEFLY DESCRIBE YOUR PROPOSAL: The demolition of a former Vanillin
manufacturing plan, except for the Administration Building and the Laboratory Building.
2. PROJECT LOCATION: (Give street address or, if vacant, indicate lot(s), block, and sub-
division; or tax lot number, access street, and nearest intersection) . .
9229 East Marginal Way South, Tukwila, Washington 98108
Quarter: SW Section: 33 Township: 24N Range: 4E
(This information may be found on your tax statement)
3. APPLICANT:* Name: Lew Herr
Address: Same as proiect
206 764 -4474
•
Signature: // Date: Ar •
* The a is + - per • • n whom the staff will contact • g = e application, and
to wh •' all notices and reports shall be sent, unless otherwise stipulated by applicant.
AFFIDAVIT OF OWNERSHIP
4. PROPERTY Name: Rhone - Poulenc
OWNER
Address: CN 5266 Princeton, NJ 08543 -5266
Phone: (201) 197 -0100
SHORELINE SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT
APPLICATION
6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188
Telephone: (206) 431 -3680
I /WE,(signature(s)1
swear that I /w the wner(s) or contract purchaser(s) of the property involved
in this application and that the foregoing statements and answers contained in this
application are true and correct to the
best of my /our knowledge and belief. Date: ,Q
7 U ,.
SHORELINE SUBSTANTIAL rVELOPMENT APPLICATION (+ Page 2
5. Present use of property: Closed former Vanillin manufacturing plant.
Total construction cost and fair market value of proposed project (include additional future
7. List the master program policies (use program sections or page numbers) which are applicable
to this development:
Areas within the City of Tukwila north of the 42nd Avenue South Bridge are subject
to the policies of the King County Shoreline Management Master Program. Under this
program, the project site is located in an "urban" environmental designation. The
proposed project activities are consistent with the policies of the King County
Shoreline Management Master Program.
8. List any other permits for this project from state, federal or local governmental agencies for which
you have applied or will apply, including the name of the issuing agency, whether the permit has
been applied for (and if so, the date of the application), whether the application was approved or
denied and the date of same, and the number of the application or permit:
Shoreline Substantial Development and Land Alteration Permit Application submitted
May 1991.
9. Nature of the existing shoreline. Describe type of shoreline, such as stream, lake, marsh, flood
plain, floodway, delta; type of beach, such as erosion, high bank, low bank, or dike; material such
as sand, gravel, mud, clay, rock, riprap; and extent and type of bulkheading, if any (to be completed
by local official):
reify". L a'
,'% /Fero
&)i // ,AtWide A ea 24' 4ar� of roc
.9 /Py r
5< 1
10. In the event that any of the proposed builidngs or structures will exceed a height of thirty-five feet
above the average grade level, indicate the approximate location of and number of residential
units existing and potential, that will have an obstructed view (to be completed by local official):
[.
• SHOREUNE SUBSTANTIALCWELOPMENT APPLICATION Page 3
11. If the application involves a Conditional Use or Variance, set forth in full that portion of the Master
Program which provides that the proposed use may be a Conditional Use or, in the case of a
Variance, aariance, from which the v Hance is being sought (to be completed by local official):
IV
12. Give a brief narrative description of the general nature of the improvements and land use within
one thousand (1,000) feet in all directions from the development site:
The project site is located in an industrial area. Land uses in the vicinity
include industrial uses to the north, south, and east. The Duwamish Waterway
comprises the western boundary of the site.
. . •
KING COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF ASSESSMENTS
REAL PROPERTY LEGAL DESCRIPTION
ACCOUNT NUMBER: 542260- 0010 -0
PROPERTY ADDRESS: 9229 E. MARGINAL WAY SOUTH
TAXPAYER NAME: RHONE - POULENC, INC.
QTR: SE SECT: 33 TWN: 24 RNG: 04
FOLIO: CO3686 -A- SUBAREA: 320 -000
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
LOT 1 -2 & POR BLOCK PLAT: MEADOWS THE MC NATTS D.C. #38
MEADOWS THE MC NATTS DC 38 UNREC & POR OF MC NATTS DC #38 & OF S
1/2 OF SEC 33 -24 -04 LY WLY OF E MARGINAL WAY S & NLY OF A LN BEG
1374.17 FT SLY OF N LN SD DC AS MEAS ALG W MGN OF E MARGINAL WAY
S & TPOB TH N 89 -27 -50 W 14.94 FT TH N 86 -54 -59 W 486.97 FT TH N
84 -17 -04 W 117 FT TH S 83 -57 -56 W 119 FT TH S 70 -40 -29 W 110.173
FT TH S 61 -33 -40 W TO ELY MGN CWW #1 TH NWLY ALG SD MGN TAP
237.76 FT SELY OF NW COR TR 2 SD SUBD TH E 1053.10 FT TH S 23 -02-
00 E 46.03 FT TH E 561.38 FT TH SELY TO POB LESS RR R/W
SHORELINE SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT APPLICATION
TO: City of Tukwila, Washington
FROM: Rhone - Poulenc, Inc.
DATE: June 28, 1991
A Substantial Development Shoreline Permit Application is herein submitted for the proposed
plant demolition at the Rhone- Poulenc, Inc. facility. The following information is provided for
clarification of the application checklist items identified on the standard application form
provided by the City of Tukwila.
GENERAL
PLANS
Environmental Checklist
A completed environmental checklist was prepared for the Demolition Plan for Plant Site
submitted in June 1991 and accompanies this application.
A. A vicinity map showing the site location and surround landmarks is provided in
Sheet 1.
B. Rhone - Poulenc, Inc. property boundaries are shown in plan view in Sheet 2. An
original, full -size version of Sheet 2 is provided in Attachment 1 of this
application document. A legal description of the property boundary is also
provided on Sheet 2.
C. Sheet 2 identifies the top of bank in the area. No new utilities are proposed.
D. Not applicable. No easements or dedications are proposed.
E. The 40 -foot river and 60 -foot low impact environmental boundaries are shown on
Sheets 1 and 2.
F. Not applicable. Existing landscaping will be maintained. �
�� ra V
r °-
G. Not applicable. No new landscaping is proposed.
JUL091991
PLHNNIM.; 'EPT.
MEMORANDUM
Page 2
June 28, 1991
Shoreline Substantial Development Permit Application
H. The project site area is flat (less than one percent slope) and without notable
topographic features. Elevation data is provided in the cross - section on Sheet 1
and spot elevations are provided on Sheet 2.
I. Not applicable. No new structures are proposed.
J. Not applicable. No new utility lines are proposed.
K. Not applicable. Gross floor area will be eliminated in the shoreline environment.
L. Not applicable. All structures in the shoreline environment will be removed.
M. Not applicable.
N. Not applicable. No new parking is proposed.
O. The existing plant drainage systems will be left substantially intact. The only
alteration is expected to be the removal of roof leader connections and drainage
piping from upper elevations of structures as they are demolished. Drainage from
the slabs of structures that have been demolished will be conducted to the existing
storm drainage system via the former roof leader connections or via floor drains
which are connected to the storm drainage system.
P. Not applicable.
Q. A shoreline profile and elevation data are provided on Sheet 1.
R. The location of the shoreline profile is shown in plan view on Sheet 2.
S. Certain structures -- basements, wet wells, pits and trenches are below- ground
structures. After demolition of the above - ground structures, the below- ground
portions will be backfilled with granular material and covered with ATB material
to prevent infiltration of surface water. Quantities of this fill material have not
been determined.
T. No soil will be extracted. Demolition of the above - ground structures will include
knock -down, removal, and appropriate disposal of all salvage materials, debris and
rubble.
MEMORANDUM
Page 3
June 28, 1991
Shoreline Substantial Development Permit Application
OPTIONAL
Each copy of this application contains one PMT of any figure req iring reduction
to 8.5" by 11" format.
PUBLIC NOTICE
Public Notice information is provided in Attachment 2 of this applicati • n document.
Not applicable.
sea/jak/E/3535/Tukwila
uffoo.of
Inte—t•Ke.•:i
7
I '• .
•
,
• - .
Ffr
•
v.girff "ir 7r-c•-•
1
MI EMI
AS. \ If • .
•
MT 110
S tIa luL
ocrgaizoomas goo 01./aDINCS / tt
-. •.-1.•••
f3 I / '7
•‘
•,. S•012■Ortro
fTfo.
t "
7 73
: .1 — ••
• tr : 1.•
I gra \
eirat • .4 ;
• _ _
-••="1:1:7- • • ;
tr
, ' .•
tows".
...
. -
- •
. • . .... • • ••••
-•••
='•
- - - -
trr.R • • = =.7
I. DEMOLITION INCLUDES TN, COONNETE,IEMOINN .■■
AEACNE srlrocrogrez ro rnz rzu■
• ••
Of ff.."( SLAIel. SILL. of.LL f 007TOM ORSE
PLAIrr. faf 1.113ORPTOICY ON,LOINO Nos
IWO DEFACE GROLOING.
a ALL 7D.O600P?II DEINCTEPOIJ TINS .. eS
ervol5 4o ova to ner spor .1
S TfE LATIOSATORY PWLCLNC AND Of fICE effec,va
AIRE TNE ONLY STMLICTURES N.SMANN. 77..ESE
oon.omeas ant Loaf rev onto/Os roe
ZOO z'oor zArtazz ezecor.
• .4 Of 0075 NM= DIANCRETE
S. zaus uzarrtes fir STfltXrUT'65 TO 5 OZ,411.I.11.2
MIL OE CU T.OFF AMP CAIPLO AT TNE INNIIMETETC, If,
Oczto‘mov urettnes reau Woe r
1.08050 TOM 50/LONG //NO Of:ICE EILOLCIAL3 ARE LEFT
LII ..zoce nr:o WILL cour/vozOzz
TNF EY/77.7,6 fr-ON702 avarema
SAT/IC? Amy covrAwe TO 054/N rOE ort z,rz
7 I...NO.7,0,MS WILL OF ere rArzveo
M1272212122111
•wea lamrsnynew
IIINIIMIN• IMMO .0.•
MOMMI MM. • MM.
0111.1.. TS.
11/.1
=1 TWO. MOM eir
=MOM. imm...s
Mt IS IS MOM MT MS MT sio MT MO T. msr. in Men
IT M. OM NM IN =Mr= TM .1.11.4. TIMM MM.
IMISSMOS ILLIMMO TOL MOTO MT
LIM. NM Mena IS OM Ms am lllll mo MO
.... mosso.. Nr .a. off, a. Norf. /No•ol
OCIANN IN= 0 • N • 'Mao,
TM TIOTITICOT1 I/ VONS • •=tf . :
WM GAM.. COMTE,
NOM IMONOTT. NT= TOPIND•SO OD Of.I.O.
IV. NMI ommos OOOION•O TO /0 •00 VT Off NV/ if
TNOSINIM 1:111=fr VMS mom NolIN:r. flfrOO•170.
1•1=1:=2,17 OZDMI• 1411 TN• rfaTZT "'""'"
MTN .. ./11•01..ZOttO lllll .0•0 ***** TN, TATE ••• frt
CM Of 11.12[121LA
SHOPIEUNE SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT APPLICATION
SITE PLAN
magi 2
a
PLA7T8PAl�
TOP OFPLATFOEM
EL 14•50•
MNHW.IIIO
OF ooLPN/NS
1
2=0' 20 =0'
TOP OF CAP
EL /8.50.
RNORR L
220=0'
25
20
k
�W IO
SECT /ON n
MEAN LOWER
LOW WPM .�
GYJ/u9M /SN
WNTERW.9Y
MEPN N.GNER
O N/ON WR7ER•11.10
CITY OF
TUKWIL�R y�CI rY OF IL/KWKR
D'FNFR b0 LOW
ENV ENY/RONMENT
II/
•
i l� {MI
MLLW0
J! .
CITY OF 72/x111,07 40' RIVER CITY' OF TeKW /LA 00'
ENVIRONMENT I LOW /.;PACT ENVI JNMENT
200' SNOTEL/NE ENNROVMENT
b'C 9/V LINK FENCE
RACK ,CO".CfETERIPRRP
SECT /ON n
/'�
/': 90'NORl2 2
,5'VERT
�-7OP OFCA
� EL S 7/
J �Ew' /S T /NG NG LENCE
f- -EL 21
— SLOPE
.-EL 2 /= 0'R/PROx
200'S LIZEL /NE ENV /R0/VM5VT
CRAIN
ss=G� rrw
CITY OF TUKWILA
SHORELINE SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT APPLICATION
VICINITY MAP AND SECTIONS
SHEET 1
sea81O1A 54q.51n
6/13191
Control No.
Epic File No.
Fee $225.00 Receipt No.
CITY OF TUKWILA
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
A. BACKGROUND
1. Name of proposed project, if applicable:
Rhone - Poulenc, Inc. Plant Demolition
2. Name of applicant:
Rhone - Poulenc, Inc.
3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person:
9229 East Marginal Way South, Seattle, Washington 98109; (206) 764 -4474;
Lew Herr
4. Date checklist prepared:
June 13, 1991
5. Agency requesting checklist:
City of Tukwila
6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable):
The schedule for application, review and issuance of permits for this project is the
basis for the planned sequence of demolition. The major permits required fall into
two basic categories, those required for upland, or non - shoreline demolition and
those required for demolition within the shoreline area.
Because the Shoreline and Corps of Engineers permit require longer agency review
periods than the Demolition Permit, the demolition work will be sequenced in two
phases. The first phase will be the demolition of the upland structures which may
begin immediately following the issuance of the Demolition Permit from the City of
Tukwila and approval of the SEPA checklist.
The second phase will be the demolition of structures within the shoreline area which
will immediately follow issuance of the Shoreline, Corps of Engineers, HPA/Fisheries
sea8101ro54g312
6/13/91
Permits. The pier and all structures within the 200 -foot shoreline zone will be
demolished during this phase. This work will commence as soon as the required
permits are obtained.
7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activ-
ity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain.
The site will be sold.
List any environmental information you know about that has been pre-
pared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal.
SEPA Environmental Checklist, prepared April 16, 1991, for soil excavation project.
9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental ap-
provals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by
your proposal? If yes, explain.
RCRA Part B closure of interim status storage unit.
Shoreline Substantial Development Permit Application for soil excavation project.
Land Alteration Permit Application for soil excavation project.
10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your
proposal, if known.
Hauling Permit, City of Tukwila
Grade and Fill Permit, City of Tukwila
Demolition Permit, City of Tukwila
Shoreline Substantial Development Permit, City of Tukwila
Section 10 Permit, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Hydraulic Project Approval, Washington State Department of Fisheries
Water Quality Modification, Washington State Department of Ecology
11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the pro-
posed uses and the size of the project and site. There are several ques-
tions later in this checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects of
your proposal. You do not need to repeat those answers on this page.
(Lead agencies may modify this form to include additional specific
information on project description.)
The proposal consists of the demolition of a closed industrial plant that formerly
produced Vanillin, an artificial vanilla flavoring. Equipment will be dismantled and
the facilities demolished as part of the proposal. Demolition includes the removal of
above - ground structures to the top of the floor slab, except for the laboratory build-
ing and administration building, both of which will remain. The site will then be
sold.
12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to
understand the precise location of your proposed project, including a
street address, if any, and section, township, and range, if known. If a
proposal would occur over a range of area, provide the range or
boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity
map, and topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should
submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required to
duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications
related to this checklist.
sea8101p54q.51/3
6/13/91
The project site is located at 9229 East Marginal Way South in Tukwila, Washington.
13. Does the proposal lie within an area designated on the City's Compre-
hensive Land Use Policy Map as environmentally sensitive?
The project site is located adjacent to the Duwamish Waterway. Portions of the proj-
ect site located within 200 feet of the Duwamish Waterway are considered "environ-
mentally sensitive."
B.
1. Earth
a. General description of the site (circle one): l a d rolling, hilly,
steep slopes, mountainous, other.
The site is essentially flat.
sea8101/054q.51/4
6/13/91
TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT
ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS
Erosion will be minimal because no structures will have the below -grade por-
tions removed. Existing plant drainage will remain intact.
2. Air
sea8101/054q.51/5
6/13/91
3. Water
a. Surface:
About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious
surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or
buildings)?
The project will not change the percentage of the impervious surfaces of the
site.
h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other im-
pacts to the earth, if any:
Drainage from the slabs of structures that will be demolished will be con-
ducted to the existing storm drain system.
a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the pro-
posal (i.e., dust, automobile, odors, industrial wood smoke) dur-
ing construction and when the project is completed? If any,
generally describe and give approximate quantities if known.
Minor dust generation may occur if very dry conditions exist at time of
demolition.
b. Are there any off -site sources of emissions or odor that may
affect your proposal? If so, generally describe.
None.
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other im-
pacts to air, if any:
Soils in demolition could be wetted to reduce dust.
1. Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate
vicinity of the site (including year -round and seasonal
streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? If yes, de-
scribe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what
stream or river it flows into.
The Duwamish Waterway is adjacent to the project site.
sea8101/054q.51/6
6/13/91
2. Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to
(within 200 feet) the described waters? If yes, please
describe and attach available plans.
3. Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that
would be placed in or removed from surface water or
wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be
affected. Indicate the source of fill material.
4. Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or
diversions? Give general description, purpose, and ap-
proximate quantities if known.
5. Does the proposal lie within a 100 -year floodplain? If so,
note location on the site plan.
6. Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materi-
als to surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste
and anticipated volume of discharge.
b. Ground:
The project site is adjacent to the Duwamish Waterway. The pro-
posal includes demolition of portions of the existing plant within
200 feet of the waterway and removal of an existing pier in the
waterway.
The existing barge dock located in the Duwamish Waterway will be
demolished. No dredge material will be associated with removal of
the dock.
No.
Flood heights of the Duwamish River are controlled by the Howard
Hanson Dam. The 100 -year floodplain in the project area lies within
the existing, modified banks of the river and does not impact the
project site.
No.
1. Will groundwater be withdrawn, or will water be dis-
charged to groundwater? Give general description, pur-
pose, and approximate quantities if known.
No.
seaB101/054q.51/7
6/13/91
2. Describe waste material that will be discharged into the
ground from septic tanks or other sources, if any (for ex-
ample: Domestic sewage; industrial, containing the fol-
lowing chemicals...; agricultural; etc.). Describe the
general size of the system, the number of such systems,
the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the
number of animals or humans the system(s) are expected
to serve.
None.
c. Water Runoff (including storm water):
1. Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and
method of collection and disposal, if any (include quanti-
ties, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this
water flow into other waters? If so, describe.
The existing plant drainage systems will be left substantially intact.
The only alteration is expected to be the removal of roof leader con-
nections and drainage piping from upper elevations of structures as
they are demolished. Drainage from the slabs of structures that have
been demolished will be conducted to the existing storm drainage
system via the former roof leader connections or via floor drains
which are connected to the storm drainage system.
2. Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If
so, generally describe.
No.
d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and
runoff water impacts, if any:
Reuse of the existing storm drainage system will reduce runoff water impacts.
sea8l0l/054q.51/8
6/13/91
4. Plants
a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site:
X deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen,
other
evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other
X shrubs
X grass
pasture
crop or grain
wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bulrush, skunk
cabbage, other
water plants: water lily, eelgrass,
milfoil, other
other types of vegetation
b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered?
None will be removed.
c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near
the site.
None.
d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to
preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any:
None.
5. Animals
sea8101/054q.51/9
6/13/91
a. Circle any birds and animals which have been observed on or
near the site or are known to be on or near the site:
birds: hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds, pigeons, other:
mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other:
fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish,
other:
Animals and birds which have been observed on or near the site include
waterfowl, rodents, hawks, herons, and songbirds common to the region. The
Duwamish Waterway is used by migrating salmonids and other fish, both
fresh and brackish water species.
b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or
near the site.
None.
c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain.
The area is occasionally used as a resting area for seasonally migrating water-
fowl. Migrating salmon use the adjacent Duwamish Waterway.
d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any:
None.
6. Energy and Natural Resources
a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove,
solar) will be used to meet the completed project's energy
needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating,
manufacturing, etc.
Electricity, water, sewer, and storm drainage systems will continue to serve
the two buildings not demolished.
b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by
adjacent properties? If so, generally describe.
No.
c. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the
plans of this proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce
or control energy impacts, if any:
Not applicable.
7. Environmental Health
sea8101ro54q.51/10
6/13/91
a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure
to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous
waste, that could occur as a result of this proposal? If so,
describe.
b. Noise
Elements of the process equipment to be removed that are known to contain
asbestos are being removed under separate action by a licensed asbestos re-
moval contractor. The asbestos removal is being performed under separate
permit and the schedules provided in this plan take into account that the
removal of asbestos and residual process chemicals will be complete before
any removal or demolition under this plan takes place.
1. Describe special emergency services that might be
required.
None.
2. Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental
health hazards, if any:
Standard safety procedures to be followed during demolition. The
plant fire protection system will remain in place.
1. What types of noise exist in the area which may affect
your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation,
aircraft, other)?
None.
2. What types and levels of noise would be created by or
associated with the project on a short -term or a long -term
basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation,
other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the
site.
Demolition equipment will create noise on a short -term basis.
3. Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if
any:
Equipment will have mufflers installed and be properly maintained.
c. Describe any structures on the site.
Structures on the property include single -story offices and laboratory, and
8. Land and Shoreline Use
sea8101ro54q.51/11
6/13/91
a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties?
The site was a former Vanillin manufacturing facility -- manufacturing opera-
tions were closed in February 1991. Kenworth Trucking and Boeing facilities
are located on adjacent properties.
b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe.
process -type structures related to former Vanillin manufacturing.
d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what?
e. What is the current zoning classification of the site?
M -2, Heavy Industrial.
f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site?
g.
No.
Demolition includes the removal of all aboveground structures to the top of
the floor slab, except for the laboratory building and administration building,
both of which will remain.
"Industrial."
If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program
designation of the site?
"Urban," in accordance with the King County Shoreline Management Master
Program.
h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally
sensitive" area? If so, specify.
Portions of the project site are located within 200 feet of the Duwamish
Waterway and are considered "environmentally sensitive" on that basis.
i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the
completed project?
Not applicable.
sea810lp54y.51n2
6/13/91
J•
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
None.
None.
Approximately how many people would the completed project
displace?
k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if
any:
1. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with
existing and projected land uses and plans, if any:
9. Housing
a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indi-
cate whether high, middle, or low- income housing.
Not applicable.
b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated?
Indicate whether high, middle, or low- income housing.
Not applicable.
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any:
Not applicable.
10. Aesthetics
a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not in-
cluding antennas; what is the principal exterior building materi-
al(s) proposed?
b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or
obstructed?
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if
any:
11. Light and Glare
a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What
time of day would it mainly occur?
sea8101/054q.51/13
6/13/91
Not applicable.
b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard
or interfere with views?
No.
c. What existing off -site sources of light or glare may affect your
proposal?
None.
None.
12. Recreation
d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts,
if any:
a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in
the immediate vicinity?
The Duwamish Waterway offers informal recreational opportunities.
b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational
uses? If so, describe.
No.
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation,
including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project
or applicant, if any:
None are proposed.
13. Historic and Cultural Preservation
a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for, na-
tional, state, or local preservation registers known to be on or
next to the site? If so, generally describe.
None.
b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic,
archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on
or next to the site
None.
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any:
Not applicable.
14. Transportation
a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe
proposed access to the existing street system. Show onsite plans,
if any.
Site is accessible off a private roadway to west of East Marginal Way South.
b. Is site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the ap-
proximate distance to the nearest transit stop?
sea8101ro54q.51/14
6/13/91
Not applicable.
c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have?
How many would the project eliminate?
d. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets, or improve-
ments to existing roads or streets, not including driveways? If so,
generally describe (indicate whether public or private).
e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of)
water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe.
f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the
completed project? If known, indicate when peak volumes
would occur.
g.
None.
None.
No.
Not applicable.
Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts,
if any:
Not necessary.
sea8101/054q.51/15
6/13/91
15. Public Services
a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services
(for example: fire protection, police protection, health care,
schools, other)? If so, generally describe.
16. Utilities
C. SIGNATURE
No.
b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public
services, if any.
None.
a. Circle utilities current] avail . • - . t the site: - ectrici atural
fuse servic telephone .. nitary sewers, eptic sys-
Utilities circled are those currently available at the plant. "Other" includes
the storm sewer system.
b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility
providing the service, and the general construction activities on
the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be needed.
Electricity, water, sewer, and storm drainage will continue to serve the two
buildings not demolished.
The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. I
understand that the lead agency is relying on them to make its decision.
Signature:
Date Submitted:
PLEASE CONTINUE TO THE NEXT PAGE.
TO BE CUMPLtItu by APYLC NI �... cvaluaLiori Tur
Agency Use Only
D. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS
(do not use this sheet for project actions) - NOT APPLICABLE
Jecause these questions are very general, it may be helpful
to read them in conjunction with the list of the elements of
the environment.
When answering these questions, be aware of the extent the
proposal, or the types of activities likely to result from
the proposal, would affect the item at a greater intensity
or at a faster .rate than if the proposal were not imple-
mented. Respond briefly and in general terms.
1. How would the proposal be likely to increase discharge
to water; emissions to air; production, storage, or
release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production
of noise?
Proposed measures to avoid or reduce such increases are:
2. How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, ani-
mals, fish, or marine life?
Proposed measures to protect or conserve plants, ani-
mals, fish, or marine life are:
C
5. How would the proposal be likely to affect land and
shoreline use, inclduing whether it would allow or
encourage land or shoreline uses incompatible with
existing plans?
3. How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or
natural resources?
Proposed measures to protect or conserve energy and
natural resourses are:
4. How would the proposal be likely to use or affect
environmentally sensitive areas or areas designated (or
eligible or under study) for governmental protection;
such as parks, wilderness, wild and scenic rivers,
threatened or endangered species habitat, historic or
cultural sites, wetlands, floodplains, or prime
farmlands?
Proposed measures to protect such resources or to avoid
or reduce impacts are:
�VOlu4..ui .ri
Agency Use Only
Proposed measures to avoid or reduce shoreline and land
use impacts area:
How does the proposal conform to the Tukwila Shoreline
Master Plan?
6. How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on
•transportation or public services and utilities?
Proposed measures to reduce or respond to such demand(s)
are:
7. Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict
with local, state, or federal laws or requirements for
the protection of the environment.
Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
8. Does the proposal conflict with policies of the Tukwila
Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan? If so, what poli-
cies of the Plan?
Proposed measures to avoid or reduce the conflict(s)
are:
Evaluation Tor
Agency Use Only
TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT
E. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR ALL PROJECT AND NON - PROJECT
PROPOSALS
The objectives and the alternative means of reaching the objectives for a pro-
posal will be helpful in reviewing the foregoing items of the Environmental
Checklist. This information provides a general overall perspective of the pro-
posed action in the context of the environmental information provided and the
submitted plans, documents, supportive information, studies, etc.
1. What are the objective(s) of the proposal?
The objective of the proposal is to demolish a former vanillin production plant site on East
Marginal Way South, adjacent to the Duwamish Waterway. All existing equipment and
demolition debris will be removed from the site. The site is to be sold.
2. What are the alternative means of accomplishing these objectives?
None.
3. Please compare the alternative means and indicate the preferred course of
action:
Not applicable.
4. Does the proposal conflict with policies of the Tukwila Comprehensive Land
Use Policy Plan? If so, what policies of the Plan?
sea8101ro54q.51/18
6/13/91
No.
Proposed measures to avoid or reduce the conflict(s) are:
None are proposed.
sea8101/054q.51
ATTACHMENT 1
RHONE - POULENC, INC. FACILITY DRAWING
A 1 = 60' scale drawing of the Rhone- Poulenc, Inc. facility, and appurtenant structures, is
provided in the pocket of this attachment. Property boundaries are also shown on this map,
and are legally described on the following page of this attachment.
ACCOUNT NUMBER: 542260 - 0010 -0
PROPERTY ADDRESS: 9229 E. MARGINAL WAY SOUTH
TAXPAYER NAME: RHONE - POULENC, INC.
QTR: SE SECT: 33 TWN: 24 RNG: 04
FOLIO: CO3686 -A- SUBAREA: 320 -000
KING COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF ASSESSMENTS
REAL PROPERTY LEGAL DESCRIPTION
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
LOT 1 -2 & POR BLOCK PLAT: MEADOWS THE MC NATTS D.C. #38
MEADOWS THE MC NATTS DC 38 UNREC & POR OF MC NATTS DC #38 & OF S
1/2 OF SEC 33 -24 -04 LY WLY OF E MARGINAL WAY S & NLY OF A LN BEG
1374.17 FT SLY OF N LN SD DC AS MEAS ALG W MGN OF E MARGINAL WAY
S & TPOB TH N 89 -27 -50 W 14.94 FT TH N 86 -54 -59 W 486.97 FT TH N
84 -17 -04 W 117 FT TH S 83 -57 -56 W 119 FT TH S 70 -40 -29 W 110.173
FT TH S 61 -33 -40 W TO ELY MGN CWW #1 TH NWLY ALG SD MGN TAP
237.76 FT SELY OF NW COR TR 2 SD SUBD TH E 1053.10 FT TH S 23 -02-
00 E 46.03 FT TH E 561.38 FT TH SELY TO POB LESS RR.R /W
ATTACHMENT 2
PUBLIC NOTICE INFORMATION
In accordance with instructions from the City of Tukwila, property owners and addresses were
identified within 300 feet of the Rhone- Poulenc, Inc. facility radius. The adjacent property
owners are identified below and the address labels for these owners are provided on the
following page of this attachment.
PROPERTY OWNERS AND ADDRESSES WITHIN 300 FEET OF THE PROJECT SITE
1. Kenworth Truck Company
8801 East Marginal Way South
Seattle, Washington 98108
Tax No. 344500- 0090 -08
2. The Boeing Company
P. O. Box 3707
M. S. IF -09
Seattle, Washington 98124
Tax No. 562420 -1032
3. Burlington Northern
Property Tax Department
777 Main Street
#2680
Fort Worth, Texas 76102
Tax No. 542260 -0150
4. King County
615 Adminstration Building
Seattle, Washington 98104
Tax No. 5442260 -0124
5. King County
500 4th Avenue
Seattle, Washington 98104
Tax No. 332404 -9020