HomeMy WebLinkAboutSEPA EPIC-35-91 - RHONE POULENC - PLANT DEMOLITIONRHONE- POULENC, INC.
PLANT DEMOLITION
DEMOLITION OF A CLOSED
INDUSTRIAL PLANT
9229 EAST MARGINAL
WAY SOUTH
EPIC 35 -91
STATE OF WASHINGTON
DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY
Mail Stop PV -11 • Olympia, Washington 98504 -8711 • (206) 459 -6000
September 16, 1991
Mr. Rick Beeler
City of Tukwila
6200 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila, WA 98188
Dear Mr. Beeler:
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 may 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 callMr. Norm Peck also_in our Northwest Regional Office at (206)
649 - .7047. _.._
SEP 1 71991
Sincerely,
PLANNING DEPT.
MVS:91 -5433
cc: Kyle Dorsey, NWRO
Norm Peck, NWRO
Janet Thompson -Lee, NWRO
ViAmta iztc.
M. Vernice Santee
Environmental Review Section
3
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
=thP_.remo.val of above —round structures to the to. of h- floor slab exce•t for the
laboratory building and administration building, both of which will remain. The site
will then be sold.
Proponent Rhone - Poulenc, Inc. (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.
There is no comment period for this DNS
Ailx 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 15 days from the date below.
Responsible Official Rick Beeler
Position /Title
Address 6200 Southcenter Boulevard, TukwA 98188
Date
Signature
Planning Director Phone 433 -1846
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.
FM.DNS
O
KMHI LL
Engineers
Planners
Economists
Scientists
August 21, 1991
SEA32112.B0
Mr. Darren Wilson
City of Tukwila
6200 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila, Washington 98188
Re: Rhone - Poulenc Plant Demolition
Dear Mr. Wilson:
A UG p u 1991
This letter is a response to the four items that you requested in your letter to Ryan Daugherty,
dated July 30, 1991. The first three items pertain to the Plant Demolition as described in
EPIC- 35 -91. The fourth item refers to the removal of approximately 200 cubic yards of
copper - containing soil at the RCRA storage unit, as described in EPIC- 29 -91.
1. As indicated in the accompanying letter from TLH Abatement, Inc., all identified
asbestos - containing material has been removed with the exception of asbestos in the
Distribution Center, a building still in use at this time, and in the Vanillin Building.
Asbestos - containing material is scheduled to be removed from these areas as described
in the letter from TLH Abatement, Inc.
2. There will be two permit approvals required by the State of Washington before work
can commence on removal of the existing wood dock. The Department of Ecology
will require a Water Quality Modification (WQM) permit which will allow for the
temporary modification of water quality during demolition of the dock. This permit
has not yet been issued, but the conditions of the permit will be specific as to when
the proposed work can be done, how long the work can be conducted, and the extent
to which the water can be disturbed.
The Department of Fisheries requires a Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA) permit for
demolition of the existing dock. This permit has not yet been issued. The HPA is a
predecessor to the WQM permit. It will define specific times during which the
demolition work within the waterway may occur. These permits will be distributed to
the City of Tukwila upon issuance.
3. Mr. Richard Berg, Project Manager for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps)
Regulatory Branch has been contacted in regard to the Corps preferred method of
CH2M HILL Seattle Office 777 108th Avenue N.E., Bellevue, WA 98004 206.453.5000
P.O. Box 91500, Bellevue, WA 98009 -2050 Fax 206.462.5957
Mr. Darren Wilson
August 21, 1991
SEA32112.B0
Page 2
removing the existing dock pilings. Mr. Berg said that the Corps has no preference as
to whether the pilings are pulled or cut, but indicated that if they are cut, they should
be cut to the bottom of the waterway to avoid interference with navigation. Mr. Berg
also said that no permit would be required from the Corps for the demolition of the
pier.
4. In that the proposed demolition involves only above - ground structures, no removal of
soils from the site is planned other than the following:
The Washington State Department of Ecology has requested that Rhone -
Poulenc, Inc. remove approximately 200 cubic yards of soils containing copper
residue from the area around that structure presently designated as the RCRA
Storage Shed on Addendum No. 1 to the Demolition Plan (Refer to Figure
1A - Structures Designated for Demolition Permits). This work is a part of
final closure activities for the RCRA - regulated storage unit.
The soils to be removed contain copper which is not designated as RCRA
waste but is a State -only Dangerous Waste based on toxicity to fish and not
human health concerns.
The Department of Ecology has reviewed the soil excavation plans for the
removal of this material and has approved them. Please contact Mr. Dave
Lunstrom or Mr. Byung Maeng at the Washington State Department of
Ecology in Olympia, if there are questions.
The actual removal of the material cannot proceed until the City of Tukwila
issues the Shorelines Permit, but will be accomplished shortly thereafter.
I hope this information provides the material needed for you to complete your review. Please
contact me at 453 -5000 if you have any further concerns.
Sincerely,
CH2M HILL
M
Ryan Daugherty
Manager, Construction Management
RD /ju/82191
AUG -15 -1991 13:09 FROM RHONE — POULENC TO 9 -1G2 -595? P.02
• I ••■•• VI.
•
August 13, 1991
Mr. Larry Benson
Site Manager
Rhone- Poulenc, Inc.
922e F. Marginal Way S.
P.O. Box 80963
Seattle, WA 95109
Re: Certificate of Completion
TLH
koatmatina
9221 ROV5evef rtdy N.E.
Settle, WA 9811$
206$23dM1
FAX, 5224099
This is to certify that, with the exceptions noted below, TLH
Abatement, Inc. has removed all identified asbestos containing
material (ACM) that was included within the scope of our contract
from the Rhone Poulenc processing plant at 9229 E. Marginal Way
S., Seattle, WA 98108.
Exceptions:
1. All ACM in and on the warehouse.
2. Approximately 250 square feet of inaccessible cement asbestos
board (C.A.B.) behind the electrical panels in the Vanillin
building.
3. A small quantity of tightly adhered non - friable a mentitious
ACM on each of 12'autoclave tanks in the vanillin building.
TLH will remove the ACM on and in the warehouse when the area is
released to us by Rhone Poulenc. The C.A.S. behind the electrical
panel will be removed after the demolition contractor has provided
access by demolishing the panels. TLH will double poly wrap the
autoclaves after the demolition contractor has cut them up and.
placed the pieces in the dumpsters provided by Rhone Poulenc.
With the exception of mobilization expenses connected with work on
the warehouse, TLH considers the above work to be within the scope
of our contract.
Meanwhile, we will allow all of the PSAPCA notifications to expire
on August 20, 1991, except for notifications 01 (vanillin
Building), #17 (Warehouse), and #22 (Miscellaneous), which we will
amend to keep active until December 31, 1991 in case additional
material is discovered during demolition activities.
Please let me know when and if you require additional services or
if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
TLH Abatement, Incl.
Herman Husen
Technical Director
rhoneltril.dcx /rma
TOTAL P.02
Control No.
Epic File No. 35— 7/ , .Se.Y
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
sea8101ro54q.51/1
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.
8. List any environmental information you know about that has been pre-
pared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal.
ISEPA 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.
sea8101/054q.51/2
6/13/91
6/13/91
TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT
B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS
1. Earth
a. General description of the site (circle one): laVrolling, hilly,
steep slopes, mountainous, other.
The site is essentially flat.
b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent
slope)?
Less than one percent.
c. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example,
clay, sand, gravel, peat, muck)? If you know the classification of
agricultural soils, specify them and note any prime farmland.
Silty sand, sandy silt, minor gravel.
d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the
immediate vicinity? If so, describe.
None.
e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any
filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill.
The project will not disturb the below -grade portions of structures; therefore,
no grading is proposed. Certain structures are below - ground structures.
These include basement, wet wells, and trenches. These will be filled with
granular material and capped to prevent infiltration of runoff water into the
groundwater. This material will be obtained locally or recyclable material
will be reused onsite where possible.
f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use?
If so, generally describe.
Erosion will be minimal because no structures will have the below -grade por-
tions removed. Existing plant drainage will remain intact.
sea8101/054q.51/4
6/13/91
sea8101/054q.51/5
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.
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.
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.
The existing barge dock located in the Duwamish Waterway will be
demolished. No dredge material will be associated with removal of
the dock.
4. Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or
diversions? Give general description, purpose, and ap-
proximate quantities if known.
No.
5. Does the proposal lie within a 100 -year floodplain? If so,
note location on the site plan.
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.
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.
No.
b. Ground:
1. Will groundwater be withdrawn, or will water be dis-
charged to groundwater? Give general description, pur-
pose, and approximate quantities if known.
No.
sea8101/054q.51/6
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.
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.51n
6/13/91
• •
4. Plants
sea8101/054q.51/8
6/13/91
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
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.
sea8101/054q.51/9
6/13/91
7. Environmental Health
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.
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.
b. Noise
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.
sea8l0l/054q.51/10
6/13/91
• •
8. Land and Shoreline Use
sea8l0l/054q.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.
No.
c. Describe any structures on the site.
Structures on the property include single -story offices and laboratory, and
process -type structures related to former Vanillin manufacturing.
d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what?
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.
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.
"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.
■
J•
• •
Approximately how many people would the completed project
displace?
Not applicable.
k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if
any:
Not applicable.
1. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with
existing and projected land uses and plans, if any:
Not applicable.
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
sea8l0l/054q.51/12
6/13/91
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?
Not applicable.
b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or
obstructed?
None.
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if
any:
None.
11. Light and Glare
a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What
time of day would it mainly occur?
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.
d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts,
if any:
None.
12. Recreation
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
sea8l0l/054q.51/13
6/13/91
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?
Not applicable.
c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have?
How many would the project eliminate?
None.
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).
None.
e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of)
water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe.
No.
f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the
completed project? If known, indicate when peak volumes
would occur.
g.
sea8l0lro54q.51/14
6/13/91
Not applicable.
Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts,
if any:
Not necessary.
•
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.
No.
b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public
services, if any.
None.
16. Utilities
a.
Circle utilities currentl
as efuse service
avail.. - at the site:
g
tem,
401.
nitary sewer
�+f atural
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.
C. SIGNATURE
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.
sea8101/054q.51 /15
6/13/91
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?
No.
Proposed measures to avoid or reduce the conflict(s) are:
None are proposed.
sea8101/054q.51
sea8101 /054q.51/18
6/13/91
TO BE CUMPLticu aY AP'L •Ni
D. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS
(do not use this sheet for project actions)
.ecause these questions are very general, it may
to read them in conjunction with the list of the elemen
the environment.
•
GvaluaLloh Tur
Agency Use Only
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:
•
• Evacuation tor
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:
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:
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?
L V Q I V Q b 1 V• 1 1 ∎/ 1
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