Item 1B, TCAAP Review of Predemolition Asbestos-Hazardous Materials Survey and Cost Estimate

Home Browse Search

Ms. Kristine Giga May 9. 2008 Page2- into two partS. Braun Intertec (BI) was selected to complete the surveys on the south portion of the Transfer Property and Industrial Hygiene Services Corporation (IHSC) was selected for the north portion of the Transfer Property. Full pre-demolition asbestos and hazardous materials surveys were completed for each building and former building pad. According to information in the survey reports, the surveys were completed in accordance with the standards required by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA), the Minnesota Department of Health (MDH), and 1he U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (US EP A). The reports state that all field staff members used for the surveys were licensed as asbestos inspectors and copies of their certifications were included in the reports. The reports state that accredited labs were used for the asbestos analyses as required by industry standards. The reports indicate that all rooms were inspected in each building, (unless noted as inaccessible) and that destructive testing was comple1ed (i.e., subcontractors en1ered walls, ceiling spaces, etc.). Separate survey reports were prepared for each building. Each report included a text description (different format for each firm), diagrams showing sampling locations, lab reports, copies of certifications and digital photos. BI and rusc recorded results for each building in a template created with RRLD's input to provide consistency between the two firms. For each building, spreadsheets .were created to quantify and describe, by type and loca1ion, the identified asbestos, lighting (bulbslballasts), regulated flaking lead based paint, and other regulated materials requiring special management. Premised on the information reviewed, both survey firms appear to have met current industry and regulatory standards in performing the work. However, conditions encountered in conducting this type of work are often variable and the ultimate accuracy of the results depends on the field inspectors' ability to visually identify items of concern and accurately quantify those items. There is always a concern that asbestos or other regulated materials may be hidden and not seen by the inspectors which has a potential to result in higher than anticipated costs. A cost contingency is appropriate. Asbestos/Hazardous Materials Abatement Cost Estimate There were 93 buildings identified during the survey that will require abatement prior to demolition. Mavo, an abatement contractor, was selected by RRLD to prepare a cost estima1e for this work. Mavo was selected, in part, because of its past experience completing an abatement project on the TCAAP site for the Army. Mavo has also completed previous abatement work for RRLD and is a licensed abatement contractor with the State of Minnesota. Mavo's cost estimate is based on the quantities reported in the spreadsheets prepared by BI and ruSC. Mavo used unit costs per material type to prepare a total estimate. AES reviewed the unit costs and they appear to be reasonable for this phase of the project. Mavo was instructed by RRLD to assume that the abatement in each building will be addressed as a separate project, involving separate mobilization and set- up costs, extra project design and monitoring costs, etc. This is a conservative approach. Effective project management such as consolidating buildings into logical groups for abatement and consultant oversight may result in cost savings. Cost estimating and bidding for abatement projects is complicated due to the potential for asbestos and other regulated materials to be present inside walls and ceilings, below floors or in other inaccessible areas. P:\MpIs\23 :MN\62\2362975 TeAAP Redevelopment Environmental Review\FinalDeliverables\TCAAP Survey Eval.doc