2015_0511_CCPacket - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

May 6, 2015 Page 2 of 1 1 MPCA Comment: Will soil be brought on to the site to complete the grade? If so, where will the soil come from? How will it be ensured that the soil brought on the site is not contaminated? ROSEVILLE's Comment: This bullet point should be answered RAMAKER Comment: The proposed final site grades may require importing suitable soils and fill material. These materials will be secured from locations that can be verified as "clean" sources. This verification will be completed prior to being brought on-site and maintained, at a minimum, during the construction phase of this project. The future Waste Handling plan will further define how contaminated soils and/or groundwater, found on-site, are handled. Additional comments regarding the forthcoming Waste Handling Plan are detailed in responses to questions 13 A. & B., below. • MPCA Comment: What is the surrounding land use? ROSEVILLE's Comment: Response to this bullet is not required. RAMAKER Comment: Response to this bullet was not required. 6. PERMITS AND APPROVALS REQUIRED MPCA Comment: The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System�State Disposal System (NPDES�SDS) General Permit should be rewritten to state "NPDES�SDS General Construction Stormwater Permit". ROSEVILLE's Comment: Response should indicate that your noted the name change. RAMAKER Comment: The "Environmal Review Worksheet Application & Process" report, completed by Cities Edge Architects, dated March 11, 2015 has been updated. The update included the renaming of the MPCA permit (Section 6, page 4) from "NPDES/SDS General Permit" to "NPDES/SDS General Construction Stormwater Permit". • MPCA Comment: The Minnesota Environmental Quality Board does not issue any permits or approvals for this type of project. ROSEVILLE's Comment: Response should indicate that your noted the name change. RAMAKER Comment: See RAMAKER commenf above. 7A. LAND USE � MPCA Comment: Adjacent land use needs to be described here. ROSEVILLE's Comment: Response to this bullet is not required. RAMAKER Comment: Response to this bullet has not been provided. • MPCA Comment: Since there is some demolition to take place, briefly describing the site's past use would be appropriate. Since there are indications of past sources of environmental concern, these should be described and it should be stated how contamination from these sources will be appropriately remediated. ROSEVILLE's Comment: The second bullet address the past source/type of contamination and how they appropriately be remediated. RAMAKER Comment: Based on previous environmental reports, the site was agricultural land with a residential farmstead until the 1930s, and was utilized as a strawberry/raspberry farm from the 1930s until as late as the 1960s. By 1964 a commercial building was constructed on the site. The use of the site included trucking operations, including the occupants Dohrn Transfer Company (circa 1966 to 1981), ABF Freight Systems (circa 1986 to 1996), and Old Dominion Freight Line, Inc. (1996 to 2005). Since 2005 the sife has been vacant with no permanent improvements locafed above grade, with exception to a fence around the site perimeter. Evidence of an underground stormwater storage system was also reported. Environmental concerns associated with the past use of the site and surrounding properties were identified in previous environmental reports. 1. The site was used for trucking operations from circa 1964 to 2005 2. Two leaking underground storage tank release cases were reported on the site. The releases are associated with a 10,000-gallon diesel UST and 8,000-gallon gasoline UST (release