|
|
|
|
City of Shelby,
Montana I. Site Information: Site History The City of Shelby, Montana in partnership with the Shelby School District # 14 sought funding for the identification and removal of hazardous substances and remediation of the Shelby Middle School property. Upon the award of an EPA Brownfields Cleanup Grant, the School District issued a resolution to transfer the ownership of the property to the City for rehabilitation. Transfer of the property took place July 1, 2005. The building was constructed in 1931 as Shelby’s High School. The facility then served as a middle school until 2003 when a new K-6 elementary school was built. The building has structurally remained the same, with abatements required by the Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act (AHERA) completed. Several types of building materials contain friable and non-friable asbestos (asbestos-containing materials or ACM), and lead-based paints (LBP). The original assessment of the site as directed by the AHERA was completed in October of 1988. Under the school district’s maintenance plan, re-inspection of school buildings took place every 3 years. School District #14 completed several abatement projects as a result of the periodic inspections. The City of Shelby contracted with Maxim Technologies to complete a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment in the fall of 2004. As of that time, there had reportedly been no Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) or the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) response actions undertaken at the site. The City of Shelby was recently (May 2005) awarded an EPA Brownfields Cleanup Grant for the Middle School site. Earthworks, Inc. of Bismarck, North Dakota received the contract as consultant/engineer on the project. Hazardous Substances On-Site Asbestos-Containing Materials Tetra Tech/Maxim Technologies performed an AHERA building inspection for ACM at the Middle School building in August 2005. The inspection report indicates that ACM at the Middle School site includes floor tile and its associated mastic; roof components, wall patching material, fire door(s), and chalkboards. Asbestos-containing thermal system insulation (TSI) appeared to have been (previously) removed from the school building. TSI associated with the boiler system and into the visible extents of the crawl spaces were determined to consist solely of fiberglass insulation (non-asbestos-containing material). The inspection identified four homogenous areas (HAs) of friable ACM (i.e., regulated ACM) that are recommended for removal due to their being damaged or having the potential for damage. These are:
Additionally, 13 HAs of non-friable ACM were identified. These HAs consist mostly of floor tile mastic under floor tiles. Also, non-friable ACM was identified in the form of some sheet flooring and floor tiles in two rooms. These items are identified as Category I ACM. Some transite blackboards were identified in two rooms, these are Category 2 items. These HAs, or portions of them, are recommended for removal if future renovation activities will cause release of asbestos fibers (i.e., render them friable). Otherwise they may be managed under a facility Operations and Maintenance Plan. Maxim was unable to inspect certain rooms and crawl spaces during their inspection; however, Earthworks inspected these areas and determined they do not have any ACM. Asbestos is a concern because asbestos minerals have a tendency to separate into microscopic-size particles that can remain in the air and are easily inhaled. Persons occupationally exposed to asbestos have developed several types of life-threatening diseases, including asbestosis and lung cancer. Although the use of asbestos and asbestos products has dramatically decreased, they are still found in many residential and commercial settings and continue to pose a health risk to workers and occupants. Exposure to asbestos would be likely to occur in those areas identified as containing friable ACM. Since the RACM identified is currently damaged or has the potential for significant damage, it may be assumed that airborne asbestos fibers would be present at some point during future use of the buildings, if the RACM is not abated. The main exposure pathway in this case would be inhalation of airborne particles onsite. Additional exposure could occur through ingestion. Indirect exposure could occur through transport of asbestos particles out of the building on occupants’ clothing or hair, with subsequent inhalation (or ingestion). Additional exposure to asbestos can be expected from identified areas of non-friable ACM, if any future renovation activities will result in damage to these areas. Such damage could occur during activities such as drilling or cutting of existing asbestos-containing flooring/mastic material. Typical maintenance activities such as floor polishing or buffing could also cause release of fibers. Under these conditions, the exposure pathways would be the same as described above for RACM. Lead-based Paint A lead-based paint survey was conducted by Maxim Technologies in 2004 as part of the Phase II ESA conducted for the property. Lead-based paints were identified on doors, windows and trim with the school. Additionally, a large quantity (10,000 square feet) of LBP was identified on the lower wall areas. Approximately 1,000 square feet of LBP was identified on locker room floors. Exposure pathways for LBP include inhalation of dust or soil and ingestion of paint chips or paint as a result of “mouthing” by small children, typically occurring through mouth contact with windowsills. While this latter pathway is more common in permanent housing, future uses of the Middle School building may include activities involving small children, so the mechanism may potentially be present. Lead may be liberated from the substrate during renovation activities and may become a respiratory hazard to renovation workers and the public proximate to the renovation site. Residual lead in dust and soil may subsequently become a respiration and ingestion hazard to occupants and employees. Due to the large quantities of LBP identified, the Middle School LBP debris will need to be disposed of separate from the general waste stream. The assessment recommends performing a Negative Exposure Assessment (NEA) as part of renovation or demolition activities. A Negative Exposure Assessment is a demonstration that exposure to lead-based paint is below the Permissible Exposure Limit (PEL) set by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). Future Use of Site The School building no longer
serves as a school facility, but will become a multi-faceted community center.
Historic Shelby High, as it will be called, will house the Boys & Cleanup Standards Even though cancer risk from exposure to asbestos is most appropriately viewed as a chronic concern, short-term standards have been established by OSHA to limit exposures of workers in the workplace. There are two types of short-term limits, as follows: · STEL (Short-term exposure limit): 1.0 PCM f/cc (fibers per cubic centimeters as detected using phase-contrast microscopy) · TWA PEL (8- hr time-weighted average permissible exposure level): 0.1 PCM f/cc (Source: USEPA, 2003 - Libby Asbestos Site Residential/Commercial Cleanup Action Level And Clearance Criteria Technical Memorandum, Draft Final - December 15, 2003). EPA AHERA regulations, (40 CFR 763) require aggressive clearance sampling after abatement activity in schools. Leaf blowers and fans are used to disturb interior air and air samples are collected according to the standard method set forth in Appendix A of Subpart E of 40 CFR Part 763. The clearance criteria as set forth in this regulation are: · PCM clearance criteria (for small areas): 0.01 f/cc · TEM clearance criteria: 70 structures/mm2 on the filter, or no significant increase from exterior air sample results Although the AHERA regulations apply to abatement in schools, the same standards are generally used for all abatement projects. The USEPA issued a final rule regarding dangerous levels of lead in pre-1978 housing and children-occupied buildings January 5, 2001 (40CFR Part 745). Under the new standards, lead is considered a hazard if there are greater than: · 40 micrograms of lead in dust per square foot on floors; · 250 micrograms of lead in dust per square foot on interior window sills and · 400 parts per million (ppm) of lead in bare soil in children's play areas or 1200 ppm average for bare soil in the rest of the yard. Applicable Laws Asbestos Laws and Regulations Asbestos is regulated by the Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act (AHERA), the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), and the Clean Air Act (CAA). Previous environmental investigations have identified several areas of ACM and LBP in the School. Asbestos inspections are required under Administrative Rules of Montana (ARM 17.74.354) to determine if ACM are present prior to scheduled renovation or demolition. Asbestos-containing material that poses a potential respiratory hazard is regulated ACM (RACM) and removal/disposal of RACM must comply with the requirements of the Asbestos National Emissions Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants (Asbestos NESHAP Section 61.150; 40 CFR Chapter 61 Subpart M), and specifically those listed in 40 CFR Sections 61.140, 61.141, and 61.145 of Subpart M. Further, to protect asbestos abatement workers all asbestos abatement work must be performed in accordance with Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) asbestos regulations as promulgated in Title 29 of the Code of Federal Regulations (29CFR), Section 1926.1101. All asbestos-related work in Montana must be conducted in compliance with the ARM, the Montana Code Annotated (MCA), and the Montana Asbestos Work Practices and Procedures Manual (Manual). The following work practice should be followed whenever demolition/renovation activities involving RACM occur:
Lead-Based Paint Laws and Regulations Lead-based paint in pre-1978 housing and children-occupied buildings is regulated under the authority of the Toxic Substances and Control Act (TSCA; 15 U.S.C. 2601 et seq.) as amended by the Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act of 1992, generally referred to as Title X (of The Housing and Community Act of 1992 - Public Law 102-550). Title X mandates the training, certification and licensing of lead-based paint abatement contractors, inspectors, risk assessors, and the training and certification of abatement workers and project designers. The Act also amended the Toxic Substances Control Act section 402 & 403. The provisions of Title X apply to residential buildings and child-occupied facilities. A proposed rule regarding lead-based paint activities in public and/or commercial buildings is under consideration by USEPA. The USEPA issued a final rule regarding dangerous levels of lead in pre-1978 housing and children-occupied buildings on January 5, 2001 (40CFR Part 745). Under the new standards, lead is considered a hazard if there are greater than:
· 40 micrograms of lead in dust per square foot on floors; · 250 micrograms of lead in dust per square foot on interior window sills and · 400 parts per million (ppm) of lead in bare soil in children's play areas or 1200 ppm average for bare soil in the rest of the yard . On April 8, 2004, USEPA published a final rule which established procedures to notify the Agency;
1) prior to commencement of lead-based paint abatement activities,
2) prior to providing lead-based paint activities training courses, and
3) following completion of lead-based paint activities training courses.
These requirements support the effort of 40 CFR part 745 subpart L to ensure that lead abatement professionals are trained and certified. The final notification rule is effective on May 10, 2004 (USEPA, 2006b; Training and Certification Program for Lead-Based Paint Activities in Target Housing and Child Occupied Facilities - Section 402/404 (TSCA) URL: http://www.epa.gov/lead/pubs/leadcert.htm.) The Occupational Safety and Health Administration has published regulations regarding worker safety during activities involving LBP abatement. The Construction Standards (29 CFR Part 1926) and the Occupational Safety and Health Standards (29 CFR Part 1910) promulgate a permissible exposure limit for lead construction workers, including workers performing demolition, salvage, or renovation of lead-containing materials at sections 1926.62 and 1910.1025 as follows: “The employer shall assure that no employee is exposed to lead at concentrations greater than fifty micrograms per cubic meter of air (50 ug/m(3)) averaged over an 8-hour period.” (29 CFR 1926.62) Additional regulations under these chapters address other worker safety precautions such as respiratory protection programs, work practices, and medical monitoring. Lead-based paint debris (material containing or surfaced with lead-based-paint) from commercial buildings may be classified as hazardous waste if lead concentrations exceed the Toxicity Characteristic Rule (40 CFR 261.24, 40 CFR 262.11) concentration limit of 5.0 mg/L in sample extract prepared according to the Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure, test Method 1311 in ``Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/Chemical Methods,'' EPA Publication SW-846. II. Analysis of Cleanup Alternatives Reasonable Alternatives considered for the Shelby Middle School Cleanup include the No-Action Alternative, Alternative 2 consisting of removal of high-risk ACM (RACM) and portions of LBP-containing material with encapsulation of remaining LBP-containing materials, and Alternative 3 consisting of complete removal/abatement of existing asbestos-containing material and lead-based paint. The City of Shelby prefers Alternative 3 as the method of cleanup for the facility. A short summary of each of these alternatives is provided below: 1. Alternative One: No-Action. A no-action alternative would leave the building in its present condition, making it unusable and unavailable for renovation and occupation. The only advantages to no action at the site are those related to immediate avoidance of expenses that would be incurred by taking action. However, in the long term, expenses associated with no action may exceed those related to taking action at the present time. These potential long-term expenses could arise as a result of liability due to safety issues associated with the site in its current state, and also potential impacts to human health and the environment. 2. Alternative Two: Remove RACM and door/window LBP material, leaving non-friable ACM and LBP on walls in place. This option would address regulated ACM (i.e., deteriorated floor tiles and sheet flooring and wall patching material) and easily removable LBP-containing immaterial such as plaster, doors, windows, trim around doors and windows, and also chair rails and baseboards. ACM that is in good condition, such as non-deteriorated flooring, would be left in place to be managed under an asbestos operations and maintenance (O & M) plan. Most of the LBP that is present on large wall areas would be covered with approved paints or coatings, after removing any deteriorated areas. 3. Alternative Three: Abate all ACM and LBP from the School Building: Abatement of all ACM and LBP from the school building would eliminate the hazards involved with ACMs and LBP. Removal of all ACM and LBP would alleviate the need to manage the material under re-use options and would allow for any future renovation projects to proceed without any hazard analysis and further removal. Since the school is currently unoccupied most of the time, removal of the ACMs and LBP could be performed without working around the public. Because the ACM on the roof of the building would not be a direct risk to occupants, and it would lower costs to leave it in- place, it is proposed that the ACM on the roof be left in-place. The objective of the Shelby, Montana Middle School Brownfields Cleanup Project is to allow for municipal use of site buildings for a variety of civic uses as described above. Re-use of the existing buildings requires a reduction of potential health risks posed by the presence of ACM and LBP in site buildings. The following sections describe the three alternatives considered in terms of their effectiveness, feasibility of implementation, and costs with regard to achieving the project objective. Again, the City of Shelby prefers Alternative 3 for clean up of the facility for the intended usage. No-Action Alternative Analysis Effectiveness: The effectiveness of the No-Action alternative in achieving project goals would be negligible. The continued presence of ACM and LBP in site buildings, as would be the case under the no-action alternative, would pose a long-term health risk to the public and also to employees working in the building. Since such health risks have been determined to be unacceptable by the City of Shelby, thereby precluding use of site buildings, the no-action alternative would be highly ineffectual in achieving the goal of safe re-use of these public buildings. Implementation: Implementation of the No-Action alternative would be fairly straightforward. The Middle School buildings would be left in the current mostly unused state in which they currently exist. The identified RACM and LBP would not pose a hazard unless the buildings were to become occupied or used by the public. Transfer and/or lease of the property to other parties would require notification of the presence of ACM and LBP, and institutional controls would be necessary to manage public exposure in those areas that contain RACM and LBP. These institutional controls would attach to property deeds and would require periodic inspection of areas of non-deteriorated ACM and LBP and corrective action for any deterioration noted. Certain areas where deteriorated ACM are present would need to be restricted from use. Access to areas where LBP is present in high-friction/abrasion settings, such as the locker room floors, would also be restricted. Under the No-action Alternative, if the Middle School buildings remain unused for an extended period of time, dilapidation and potential vandalism would be threats to the integrity of the building unless it was maintained regularly. Damage from either of these potential trends is likely to increase the potential of damage from the other, reducing the value of the property. Also, ACM and LBP that is currently intact may undergo dilapidation unless maintained, further increasing health risks. Cost: Direct costs associated with the No-Action Alternative and associated non-use of the buildings would consist of ongoing building maintenance costs and associated training for at least one competent person to be able respond to situations involving ACM or lead. Such costs are estimated at $1000 (one thousand dollars) per month, or $12,000 per year. Indirect costs could include diversion of municipal funds from other worthy projects to projects oriented around providing a site similarly suited for the intended future use of the Middle School, if the Middle School site cannot be used. Construction of a similar facility would likely cost far more than abatement of ACM and LBP at the Middle School site. Alternative 2 Analysis Alternative 2 would involve removal (abatement) of friable RACM and the more easily removable LBP-containing materials, while leaving non-friable ACM in place to be managed under an O&M plan and addressing large wall areas of LBP by consolidating and covering with approved coatings. Effectiveness: Alternative 2 would be highly effective at removing immediate ACM-related health hazards. Since much of the ACM identified in the school building is intact and non-friable, in the form of floor tiles and associated mastic, there is no immediate health hazard related to this material. This ACM would be left in place and managed under an O&M plan. Since no friable ACM would be left in the building and non-friable ACM would be maintained in good condition, ACM-related health risks would be almost completely eliminated. However, if any future renovation were to take place that would disturb the remaining ACM, the ACM would have to be removed prior to such renovation. Alternative 2 would also be highly effective at alleviating long-term health risks from LBP. All easily removable component-type LBP-containing material such as windows, doors, and associated trim, and baseboards and chair rails would be removed from site buildings, thereby eliminating the associated health hazard. LBP that is present over large wall areas would be stabilized using an approved encapsulant that binds the lead to the sealant, such as LeadlockÔ GE-40. Floor surfaces that have LBP finishes would be abated; these surfaces should not be encapsulated due to the friction/abrasion that such surfaces routinely undergo. Implementation: Implementation of Alternative 2 would be performed by certified asbestos and lead abatement contractors. Approximately 2000 square feet of friable ACM would be removed. An unknown quantity of doors, windows, and associated trim and also baseboard and chair rails would also be removed and disposed of at a permitted landfill that accepts LBP debris. The LBP on the locker room floor areas (1,000 square feet) would also be abated, by stripping the paint off the floor using a method that doesn’t produce dust. Transfer of the property to other parties would require notification of the presence of ACM and LBP, and institutional controls would be necessary to manage public exposure in those areas that contain RACM and LBP. These institutional controls would attach to property deeds and would require periodic inspection of areas of non-deteriorated ACM and LBP and corrective action for any deterioration noted. Limitations would be included regarding all areas where LBP encapsulation was performed, prohibiting removal of this encapsulation and/or exposure of LBP except by certified lead abatement workers. Cost: The Tetra Tech/Maxim Technologies ACM report includes an estimate for removal of all ACM equal to $73,530. Since approximately 3,000 square feet of the ACM identified is non-friable, as compared to 2,000 square feet of RACM, it is estimated that removal of the RACM only would cost approximately $36,000, or about half of the total estimate. Removal of all LBP-containing doors, door casings, windows, window frames, trim, baseboards, chair rails, etc. is very roughly estimated to cost $25,200, based on an estimated timeframe of 18 days for a certified two-man crew plus supervisor ($1,400/day) to accomplish removal. Abatement of the 1,000 square feet of LBP on the locker room floors is roughly estimated to cost $7,000, based on an estimated timeframe of four days ($1,400/day) and $1,400 of materials and equipment. Encapsulation of the 10,000 square feet of LBP on wall areas is estimated to cost $10,000 based on an assumption of five man-days (@ $320/day) to apply one coat of encapsulant to the wall areas ($1,600/coat), multiplied by four to include a total of four coats, plus materials costs and prep time . Disposal costs are estimated at approximately $3,000; however, the City of Shelby will be accepting the waste material at the City landfill at no cost to the contractor. Using these rough assumptions, the total cost for Alternative 2 is estimated at $78,200. This estimate does not include costs for replacement of removed components. Alternative 3 Analysis Alternative 3 would completely abate all ACM and LBP in the Middle School buildings. Effectiveness: Alternative 3 would be highly effective in achieving cleanup goals and re-use of the buildings. Abatement of all ACM and LBP would alleviate the need for management and maintenance of areas containing these substances. Any renovation projects could proceed without the need for further inspection and/or abatement. Implementation: Implementation of Alternative 3 would be performed by certified asbestos and lead abatement contractors. As described for Alternative 2, approximately 2000 square feet of friable ACM would be removed. Additionally, 3,000 square feet of ACM in the form of floor tiles and mastic would be removed. Also similar to Alternative 2, all LBP-containing doors, windows, and associated trim and also baseboard and chair rails would also be removed and disposed of at a permitted landfill (City of Shelby) that accepts LBP debris. Additionally, approximately 10,000 square feet of LBP-containing wall material would be removed. These wall areas are predominantly composed of plaster. No institutional controls for future property transfer or use would be necessary under Alternative 3. Since complete abatement of ACM and LBP would be effected under this alternative, no potential health-related hazards or risks would be present in site buildings. Cost: The Tetra Tech/Maxim Technologies ACM report includes an estimate for removal of all ACM equal to $73,530. This figure is used to estimate the Alternative 3 ACM abatement costs. Removal of all LBP-containing doors, door casings, windows, window frames, trim, baseboards, chair rails, etc. is very roughly estimated to cost $25,200, based on an estimated timeframe of 18 days for a certified two-man crew plus supervisor ($1,400/day) to accomplish removal. Abatement of the 1,000 square feet of LBP on the locker room floors is roughly estimated to cost $7,000, based on an estimated timeframe of four days ($1,400/day) and $1,400 of materials and equipment. Removal of approximately 10,000 square feet of plaster wall material is estimated to cost $32,000, based on an assumption of 20 days at $1,400/day for a two-man crew plus supervisor and $4,000 in preparation, equipment, and transportation costs. Disposal costs are estimated at approximately $5,000; however, the City of Shelby will be accepting the waste material at the City landfill at no cost to the contractor. Using these rough assumptions, the total cost for Alternative 2 is estimated at $137,730. This estimate does not include costs for replacement of removed components. Replacement costs would be significantly higher than those for Alternative 2, due to the need to replace the 10,000 square feet of wall material. III. Authorization: The City of Shelby, as a government entity is authorized under CERCLA 104(k) to perform cleanup activities at the Shelby Middle School site. The site is eligible as it is not listed or proposed for listing on the National Priorities List. It is not subject to unilateral administrative orders, court orders, administrative orders on consent, or judicial consent decrees issued to or entered into by parties under CERCLA. It is not subject to the jurisdiction custody, or control of the United States government. As previously described in the site information, hazardous substances are present within the building. An ASTM Phase I Site Assessment and Targeted Brownfields Assessment have quantified the asbestos and lead-based paints substances found within the building. The City of Shelby has contracted with Earthworks Inc. for consulting services on the project. Earthworks Inc. has developed a draft of a Request for Proposal (RFP) including cleanup specifications for the site abatement contractor and will follow the City of Shelby’s direction following the comment period for the Analysis of Brownfields Cleanup Alternatives in finalizing the RFP/specifications and publishing it for abatement services. Upon completion of the comment period and decision of the City of Shelby, the selected cleanup will be implemented. The Brownfields Cleanup will conform to all applicable Federal and State laws. Certified asbestos and lead abatement contractors will be used to perform all abatement activities. |
|
Links
Questions or problems regarding this web site
should be directed to [Stirling Web Design].
| |||||||||||||||||||
