HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 1B, TCAAP Review of Predemolition Asbestos-Hazardous Materials Survey and Cost Estimate
Request for Council Action
.
Prepared By: Kristine Giga
Council Meeting Date: May 12, 2008
TCAAP- Review of pre-demolition asbestos/hazardous materials
survey and cost estimate
Budgeted Amount:
N/A
Actual Amount:
N/A
Funding Source:
N/A
Recommendation:
No action needed. For informational purposes only.
Supporting Documents:
1. Memorandum dated May 9, 2008 from Barr regarding the review of pre-demolition
asbestos/hazardous survey and cost-estimates.
Representatives from Barr will be present for the discussion.
Sarr Engineering Company
4700 West 77th Street . Minneapolis, MN 55435-4803
Phone: 952-832-2600 . Fax: 952-832-2601 . www.barr.com
An EEO Employer
BARR
Minneapolis, MN . Hibbing, MN . Duluth, MN ' Ann Arbor, MI . Jefferson City, MO
May 9, 2008
Ms. Kristine Giga
City of Arden Hills
1245 West Highway 96
Arden Hills, MN 55112-5743
Re: Professional Opinion, Asbestos/Hazardous Materials Surveys and Abatement Cost Estimate
TCAAP Transfer Property, Arden Hills, MN
'I.i>~:!""
~~ar:MtQjga:
This letter summarizes the results of a review completed by Barr Engineering Co. (Barr) and Barr's
subcontractor, Applied Environmental Sciences, Inc. (ABS), of asbestosJhazardousmaterials survey
reports and a related abatement cost estimate for the buildings and former building pads located on the
585-acre Twin Cities Army Ammunition Plant (TCAAP) transfer property (the Transfer Property). RRLD
LLC (RRLD), the development group for the Transfer Property, retained two subcontractors to perform the
surveys for the purpose of identifying asbestos and other regulated materials that will require special
handling and disposal prior to demolition of the buildings in preparation for redevelopment of the Transfer
Property. A cost estimate for abatement of the asbestos and other regulated materials identified in the
surveys was prepared by a third RRLD subcontractor for RRLD's use in negotiations with the Army.
Barr was retained by the City of Arden Hills to provide a professional opinion regarding the adequacy of
the survey reports and the cost estimate. Our assistance included attending a presentation of the resuits
hosted by RRLD on April 29, 2008. The RRLD presentation included a summary of the sampling
techniques and results, the qualifications of the subcontractors and a summary of the assumptions and unit
prices usedto develop the abatement cost estimate.' Following the presentation, Barr and AES
representatives spent about three hours at RRLD's offices reviewing represen1ative sample reports from
each subcontractor and the cost estimate prepared by RRLD' s abatement subcontractor. A detailed review
of the all of the reports was not possible. Validation of the information given to Barr and ABS was also.
not possible. Likewise, inspection of the buildings or the collection and analysis of confmnation samples
were not a part of Barr's review.
Our review is considered adequate for the purposes of providing the opinion requested by the City. The
following opinions are premised on the provided information. You must keep in mind that ifthe
information given to Barr and AES is incorrect, then the opinions expressed in this letter will be incorrect.
Asbestos/Hazardous Materials Surveys
RRLD retained two subcontractors to perform the surveys which included assessing the buildings and
former building pads for the presence of asbestos, flaking lead paint, mercury containing components,
PCB's, and ozone depleting chemicals. RRLD selected the subcontractors from their in1emallist of pre-
qualified firms which they require to be licensed by the State of Minnesota. Because oftheJarge number
of buildings on the Transfer Property (93 separate building will require abatement), the work was broken
P:\Mpls\23 MN\62\2362975 TeAAP Redevelopment Envirorunental Review\FinalDeliverabJes\TCAAP Survey Eval.doc
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
Ms. Kristine Giga
May 9, 2008
Page 3
It is seldom feasible to inspect 100 percent of a building during a pre-demolition survey. Conservative
nnit costs and contingencies are typically included in cost estimates for abatement work because of the
potential to encounter previously unforeseen items during abatement and demolition. At the Transfer
Property, bo1h BI and IHSC concluded that the buildings are fairly open, so 1he potential for hidden
material is somewhat minimized. There is concern that asbestos containing material will be discovered
below 1he slabs in some of the buildings. RRLD has included a contingency for unseen asbestos and other
regulated materials in the fmal cost estimate.
In summary, based on the available information, the subcontractor's pre-demolition surveys were
completed in accordance wi1h industry and regulatory standards. The abatement cost estimate was
prepared following standard me1hods, contains what are considered to be appropriate, somewhat
conservative, contingencies and appears adequate for its intended purpose. Costs may be reduced through
competitive bidding as competition for such projects is typically strong. Efficient project scheduling also
may reduce ultimate costs.
Sincerely yours,
Barr Engineering Co.
~~~
P:\Mpls\23 MN\62\2362975 TCAAP Redevelopment Envirorunental Review\FinalDeliverables\TCAAP Survey Eva1.doc