My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
CCP 02-14-2000
ArdenHills
>
Administration
>
City Council
>
City Council Packets
>
2000-2009
>
2000
>
CCP 02-14-2000
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/8/2007 1:15:56 PM
Creation date
11/13/2006 1:22:55 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
General (2)
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
185
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br />1 <br /> <br />~vel #w,[JCJ'4 <br />;)..( I,d 00 CG~J.A^-V I <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />CITY OF ARDEN HILLS <br /> <br />MEMORANDUM <br /> <br />DATE: <br /> <br />February 14, 2000 <br /> <br />TO: <br /> <br />Mayor and City Council <br /> <br />Joe Lynch, City Administrator ~ <br /> <br />FROM: <br /> <br />SUBJECT: <br /> <br />Twin Cities Army Ammunition Plant (TCAAP) Review <br /> <br />Backl!:round <br />On February 3, 2000, I participated in a teleconference meeting with DOA, MPCA, Army <br />Headquarters, the Army Corps of Engineers, and real estate and legal advisors for the DOA to go <br />over the results of the testing that was done on the proposed City Hall site, and the direction that <br />would need to be taken based on the results of those tests. <br /> <br />The MPCA tests determined that the mercury levels are at a level that is acceptable for <br />unrestricted use of the property (0.2 parts per million [ppm]). However, the lead levels (630 <br />ppm) are above the acceptable amount determined for residential/recreational use of the property <br />(400 ppm) of the property. <br /> <br />. Mike Fix was unable to connect with the Environmental Protection Agency (EP A) for the <br />teleconference. This was crucial because a determination needed to be made about whether or <br />not removal of the material constituted a remedial action. According to those present, if the City <br />removed the material from the site, it may be considered to be a remedial action, which needed <br />to be noted and proper procedure and protocol followed. However, if the EPA determined that <br />removal of the material during the course of excavation did not constitute remedial action, we <br />would be in a much different situation. If it was determined that remedial action had to be <br />followed, the property would have to be determined to be contaminated and the DOA would <br />place a covenant on the property. This would restrict the City in its use of the property and any <br />potential future owner of the property as well. <br /> <br />NOTE: <br /> <br />The DOA did say, during the course of the meeting, that a note would be placed <br />on the title transfer of all TCAAP property, indicating that the United States <br />Government had the responsibility to clean up any future environmental <br />problems, if they were found at a later date. This note gave the United States <br />Government full access to the property to do the proper clean up. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />The rest of the conversation centered on the position of the City and the direction that we wanted <br />to go. If the procedure was considered to be remedial, we would need to follow a certain <br />protocol and procedure. Those in the teleconference wanted to know ifthe City was going to <br />want to do that, or was it our preference to somehow deal with the situation in a different <br />fashion. I indicated that we would need some time to further discuss and consider the situation, <br />and would need to get back to those in the teleconference. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.