francis gregory cost benefit analysis

8/14/2019 Francis Gregory Cost Benefit Analysis

1/147

W IENCEK + ASSOCIATES AR

Francis Gregory Library3660 Alabama Avenue. SE, Washington, DC

Facility Condition Assessment & Cost Benefit AnalysiMay 2, 2008

Prepared for

Prepared by

The Argos Group Wiencek + Associates Arch631 D Street NW, Suite 638, Washington, D.C. 20004 1814 N Street, NW, Washingto


2/147


3/147

Page 1 W IENCEK + ASSOCIATES AR

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The Argos Group and Wiencek + Associates Architects + Planners, DC, LLP conducted a Facility Condition AssessmeLibrary to determine the best use for the facility. The options under consideration were 1) demolition of the facilityfacility, in whole or in part.

Our assessment followed a four-step process: 1) Baseline Data Collection, 2) Facilities Inspection, 3) Analysis and RRecommendations.

The results of the assessment show that the facility is in poor condition, the building systems are outdated, and the buildbuilding codes and ADA requirements for a public facility. It was determined the building is not energy efficienmodifications to bring it up to current building standards. In addition, the Environmental Site Assessment (Phase I) ilead and asbestos-containing materials. Our assessment determined that the cost to bring the facility up to code complistandards is high in relationship to the cost of building a new facility.

Based on the high replacement cost and poor condition of the building, we recommend that the District of Columbia design and construction of a new building to replace the Francis Gregory Library.


4/147


ARCHITECT AND ENGINEER STATEMENT

The purpose of this report is to provide a written opinion regarding the condition of various physical, functional, and envof the Francis Gregory Library. Specific attention was directed toward major work items that in our opinion represproblems or defects in the site, design, structural, mechanical, and electrical systems, or the site layout and configuration

This report was assembled following a visit to the site and visual observation of the grounds and various public spaces.was gathered through conversations with management and maintenance personnel.

This report intends to represent our professional opinion of the condition of the project and the component parts to whseen on the dates of our visits. No physical demolition of the structure was conducted, and it was not possible or feasibthe construction in order to expose concealed and, therefore, hidden conditions. Similarly, mechanical, electrical, and psystems were not shut down or disassembled for detailed inspection or review

Therefore, this report does not constitute a representation or warranty of such conditions and should not be viewed or coreflect our professional opinion as stated in this report and as qualified above.


5/147

SECTION I

PROJECT SUMMARY


6/147

Page 3


Existing Conditions

Project Name: Francis Gregory Public Library

Location: 3660 Alabama Avenue. SE Washington, D.C.

Year Constructed: Circa 1961

Number of Stories: Two (2) stories and basement

Current Applicable Codes:

Building : IBC, 2003DCMR SupplementDEMR-2003, Existing Building Code

Mechanical: IMC, 2003DCMR Supplement

Plumbing: IPC, 2003DCMR Supplement

Electrical: NFND

Energy: IED

Fire: IFD

Accessibility: AND


7/147

Page 4


Existing Space Breakdown

Note: all square footages are approximate


8/147

Page 5



9/147


1. Site:

COMPONENT TYPE AGa) Parking lot Asphalt O

b) Driveway Concrete Ori

c) Sidewalk Concrete Orid) Retaining Wall Concrete Orig

e) Retaining Wall Brick on CMU Ori

f) Guardrails Painted Steel Orig

g) Handrails None N/A

h) Storm Water Drainage Underground with inlets Origin

i) Landscaping Grass areas, miscellaneous shrubs and small caliper trees Original

j) Dumpster Enclosure None

2. Facility Structure:

COMPONENT TYPE AGa) Exterior Wall Face brick over CMU O

b) Floor Deck Reinforced Concrete Slab Origin

c) Floor Structure Reinforced Concrete Joist, Beam and Column Original

d) Roof Deck Reinforced Concrete Slab Origin

e) Roof Framing Reinforced Concrete Joist, Beam and Column Original

f) Roofing Material Membrane Roofing with Aggregate Ballast 2 Year

g) Roof Drainage Internal Cast Iron Origi

h) Stairs Steel Orii) Building Insulation None N/A


10/147

Page 7


3. Non-Structural Systems:

COMPONENT TYPE AGa) Windows Single Pane Aluminum Awning O

b) Storefront Entry Glass/Single Pane Aluminum Origin

c) Doors Hollow Metal Steel Orid) Interior Walls Painted CMU Orig

e) Ceiling Suspended Acoustical Ceiling Tile and Painted Drywall 1-2 Yea

f) Flooring Vinyl Composition Tile Ori

g) Flooring Ceramic Tile 5 Y

h) Restroom None ADA Compliant Orig

4. Service Systems:

COMPONENT TYPE AGConveying System

a) Elevator Hydraulic R

b) Elevator Machine 1 YNote: Elevator recently upgraded with new cab finish over existing cab and new equipment with auto recall.Elevator is not ADA Compliant

HVAC

a) Boiler Gas Fired Steam 5

b) Chiller Air Cooled Chilled Water 7 Y

c) Distribution Piping Insulated Steel Orig

Plumbing

a) Domestic Water Copper Ob) Waste Galvanized and Cast Iron Origin

c) Boiler Gas Fired 4-1


11/147

Page 8


d) Gas Distribution Black Steel Orig

COMPONENT TYPE AGElectric

a) Main Service 600 amps, 208/120 volts, 3 phase, 4 wire Origin

b) Feeders and BranchWirings

Copper in concealed Conduit Orig

5. Fire and Emergency Systems:

COMPONENT TYPE AGa) Fire Sprinkler None N

b) Fire Alarm System Line Voltage None Addressable Origina

c) Emergency Power None N/A

d) Emergency Lights Battery power 2 yea

6. Environmental:

COMPONENT TYPE AGa) Asbestos Floor tile mastic, pipe insulation Orig

b) Lead Paint Wall paint New

c) UST N/A R


12/147

SECTION II

METHODOLOGY


13/147

Page 9

W IENCEK + ASSOCIATES A

METHODOLOGY

For analysis purposes, we have divided the facility into six (6) distinct categories. Each category has a maximum point the facility as follows:

BUILDING ASSESSMENT CATEGORIES

CATEGORY COMPONENT EXAMPLE

1. Site Improvements Parking structures, sidewalks, curbs and gutters,utilities, exterior lighting, life safety (exterior),landscape.

2. Facility Structure Foundations, structural members, slab-on-grade,building envelope, masonry, curtain walls, buildingroof, canopies, terraces, balconies, stairs, floors(structural), walls (structural).

3. Non-Structural Components Windows, miscellaneous metals, floors, interiorwalls (non-structural), partition systems, ceilings.

4. Service Systems HVAC, plumbing, electrical, vertical/horizontaltransportation.

5. Fire Detection and Emergency Systems Fire alarm system, sprinkler system. 6. Environmental Phase I and Phase II if required

Total Possible Points


14/147


Each of the six categories were evaluated based on the relationship between estimated value and repair/replacement ctechnique is shown below:

REPAIR/REPLACEMENT COST ANALYSIS TABLE

Excellent-Satisfactory-Suitable Continued normal use - no repairs required.

Good-Adequate In need of alterations or repairs not greater than 25% of theEstimated Value.

Fair Not adequate, in need of repairs not greater than 50% of theEstimated Value.

Poor-Deficient In need of major repairs no greater than 75% of the EstimatedValue.

Failing-Unsatisfactory In need of complete replacement, if repairs are greater than 75%of Estimated Value.

The point value generated for each component within a Building Assessment Category is the basis for developing the RAnalysis. The Repair/Replacement Cost Analysis shows the condition of the different categories of the facility with resOnce a particular piece of equipment or part of the building is evaluated using the Repair/Replacement Cost Analweighted by multiplying the Maximum Point value according to the Building Assessment Categories. As an example:

A boiler is inspected and assessed to be in Good-Adequate condition and is given a score of 75% according to the RAnalysis table above. Because the boiler is part of the mechanical equipment, it is classified as a component in the Seand carries a weight of 35 points in the overall assessment of the facility. The assessment of the boiler is as follows:

Boiler = Good Adequate 75% X 35 Points = 26.25 points

When the components in each category are evaluated and weighted, the average of all components generates a total score

The final building score shown on the Summary Form in Section III is achieved by evaluating and combining the tcategories.


15/147

SECTION III

REPAIR/REPLACEMENT NEEDS ASSESSMENT


16/147

Page 11


1. SITE IMPROVEMENT

The site is in fair to poor condition due to the deterioration of various elements and lack of updated amenities. Pshould be paid to the items listed below:

Deteriorated concrete driveway with cracks and spalling requiring immediate repair. Existing designated handicap parking spaces do not meet the cross slope requirement of ICC/ANSI A

grade at the existing parking lot. The existing parking lot can only accommodate eight to ten vehicles. Current zoning code requires 22

the facility. The masonry retaining wall requires immediate repair to prevent further deterioration. Install new ca

penetration. Handrails are missing at areaway stairs. New handrails are required per the current building code. Guardrails at top of the retaining wall do not meet current code height requirements.

The result of this analysis yields a score of 1.93 out of a possible 5 and a Repair/Replacement cost of $86,70

Refer to the following pages for detailed Repair/Replacement Evaluation and existing condition photos.


17/147



18/147



19/147

Page 14


1. SITE IMPROVEMENT

1

2

Planting area stone border icoming loose

Broken concrete curb andoutdated rail design


20/147


3

Existing asphaltcondition but nesealing

Landscaping is inAdditional plantinoverall appearanc

4


21/147


Existing concrete many cracks and d

Existing desigparking space

slope requirem

6

5


22/147


Existing dumpsterenclosed for secur

appearance.

8

7

Deteriorated retaining wall wmissing caps, loose brick, andparging.


23/147


Existing pre-cast concrete

wall requires minor patchcleaning, and caulking.

10

9

Loose and deteriorated paretaining wall.


24/147


11

12

Broken retaining wall guard

connection in need of repair

Missing wall rails arecompliant.


25/147


13

Original building sign sreplaced with new, updailluminated sign for bett


26/147


2. FACILITY STRUCTURE

The buildings concrete superstructure is generally in excellent condition with no major repairs needed at this tim

The masonry exterior wall has a few movement cracks at the buildings northeast corner. Repair and re-poinwill be necessary to prevent further deterioration.

There are many loose and deteriorating mortar joints around various window openings, which will require imme

The recently replaced roof is in good condition; however, it is in need of overflow drains or scuppers.

Other areas of concern are as follows:

The guardrails at top landings need to be replaced to meet code requirements. The existing stair landin34 inches above the finished landing, the current building code requires 42 inches.

The existing stair wall rails need to be replaced to include the proper rail extension at all landings. The exit from the east stairwell is not level with the exterior grade. The ramped sidewalk adjacent to

building needs to be reconfigured to provide a level exit outside of the stair door (no step down). All rusted break metal trims concealing steel lintels at all window openings require replacement. The existing building does not meet current Energy Code requirements due to lack of insulation at

exterior wall.

The result of this detailed analysis yields a score of 19.09 out of a possible 35 and a Repair/Replacement co



27/147

Page 22



28/147

Page 23


2. FACILITY STRUCTURE

1

Movement cracks at bu

corner.

Loose and broken morta

2


29/147


3

4

Rail extension at landing requires 12.

Guardrails at top landing are 34 (


30/147


6

5

Existing ballasted membrane roof

with two roof drains. New overflowdrains or scuppers should be installe

Existing roof ladder is in poorcondition and should be replaced.


31/147


Rusted and deteriorated metal

at windows needs to be replac

8

7

Need to perform further inspectioensure connection between existiand new flashing is sealed proper


32/147


Insulation not provided at eximasonry perimeter wall.

9


33/147


3. NON-STRUCTURAL SYSTEMS

The recently upgraded finishes in the general public areas (Circulation, Reading, and Book Stacking) are in gmajor repairs are not required at this time.

With the exception of the elevator and corridor ceilings, the original finishes and layout at the back offices, stoareas, and rest rooms are in poor condition and require a complete upgrade.

The existing restrooms are not ADA compliant, doors to the restrooms are not wide enough for wheelchaplumbing fixtures do not have proper access clearance.

The Meeting Room in the Basement, which recently underwent a partial renovation, is in fair condition, but maunfinished (e.g. newly installed mechanical system left exposed in the corner of the room; water damasurrounding the abandoned mechanical equipment was not replaced).

Other areas of concern are as follows:

A majority of the fire doors do not self-latch properly due to multiple layers of paint and sagging hineed replacing immediately to ensure proper fire resistance continuity.

All existing windows and storefront entrance systems are the original single-pane, non-insulated sexceeded their anticipated life expectancy and should be replaced.

The existing building interior signs are non-ADA compliant and should be replaced.

The result of this detailed analysis yields a score of 3.15 out of a possible 10 and a Repair/Replacement cos



34/147



35/147



36/147


1

2

Suspended ceiling system and lfixture at Reading and Book Staareas was recently upgraded.

VCT flooring at Reading and BookStack areas was recently upgraded

3. NON-STRUCTURAL SYSTEM


37/147


3

4

Ceiling system at back offstorage areas is in poor co

Original floor finish at and storage areas is in p


38/147


5

Original plaster ceilindamaged due to water

Original plaster finish bBasement Meeting Roocondition.


39/147


7

Outdated metal cabinets in staff lounge.

8

Original non-insulated sinaluminum awning window

meet current energy coderequirements.


40/147


9

10

Original non-insulated alumstorefront entrance system dmeet current energy coderequirements.

Existing fire-rated door is not selflatching.


41/147


Existing wall-hung sink in rest rdoes not meet ADA accessrequirements.

11

12

Existing stair exit door withchain and lock provide addedsecurity during off hours.


42/147


13

14

Existing restroom does not mADA access clearance require

Existing signage does not mrequirements.


43/147

Page 38


4. SERVICE SYSTEMS

Heating Ventilating and Air Conditioning System (HVAC)

The existing HVAC system design and configuration is not capable of providing sustainable comfortable(temperature and humidity) in the building, which is evidenced by a 10 to 15 degree Fahrenheit difference bRepairs and in-kind replacement will not provide satisfactory environment control; therefore, complete demsystem is recommended. New energy efficient and properly designed and zoned environmental control sycomply with current standards and applicable codes. The new system will require installation of new ceilenergy-efficient systems will save up to 30% in energy and operating costs.

Plumbing Systems

Existing plumbing fixtures and restrooms do not comply with ADA requirements. The existing plumbing systeof new domestic water heaters and sewage ejector pumps have outlived their useful life and require replacement

Electrical Systems

Existing electrical systems have also outlived their useful life. Incoming electrical service equipment dclearances for service in accordance with current code. Circuit breakers in existing electrical panels are trippinthe existing wiring system is failing. Existing devices, receptacles, and switches do not comply with ADbuilding does not have an emergency power system to provide minimum functions during power outages ducompany maintenance.

Interior Lighting

Lighting in the public areas is in generally good condition. However, lighting in the back offices and support aand in poor condition. The lighting level in the stairwells is inadequate and needs to be replaced. All existisystems should be replaced when the HVAC system is replaced. A new energy efficient lighting syste

equipment size and will have a payback period of less than five years. New lighting will provide a comfoenvironment in the building.


44/147


Site Lighting

Current site lighting includes minimal wall-mounted HID and quartz floodlights. New site lighting is required of the entire parking lot during dusk hours.

Security Systems

The existing security system is minimal. An integrated security system is essential for security of Library conten

Data/Communication System

The data system was recently upgraded for internet service, a new integrated data/communication system is advantage of current and future technology.

The result of this detailed analysis yields a score of 3.7 out of a possible 35 and a Repair/Replacement cost



45/147



46/147



47/147



48/147


4. SERVICE SYSTEMS

2

Existing elevator upgraded one yeaago. Cab size does not meet ADArequirement for a side entry elevato

New updated elevator equipment.

1


49/147


3

Roof mounted chiller was replacedseven-years ago.

4

Existing heating /cooling distributionpiping is in poor condition withpossible asbestos mastic around pipeinsulation.


50/147


5

6

Original air handler has exceededlife expectancy. Existing distribupiping and valves are in poorcondition.

Existing distribution piping andvalves in Boiler Room.


51/147


7

Recently replaced hot water heater ingood condition.

8

Original thermostat has exceeded its

life expectancy.


52/147


9

10

Sewage ejector pump was replacetwo-years ago and is in excellentcondition.

Original above grade waste piphas exceeded its anticipated lifeexpectancy and needs to be repl


53/147


Original plumbing fixture needs tobe replaced with ADA accessible,water saving fixtures.

12

11

Original electrical distribution syshas exceed its anticipated lifeexpectancy and cannot meet todayener demand


54/147


55/147


56/147


17

Existing surfaced mounted flofixtures with surfaced mounteconduits are shown. New fix

be considered for better efficiless light spread to adjacent p

18

Lack of adequate security systemrequires additional chain and bolts tsecure exit doors during off hours.


57/147


19

20

Poor installation of the new dasystem.

Poor installation osystem.


58/147


5. FIRE AND EMERGENCY SYSTEMS

The existing fire alarm system is partial and does not satisfy life safety requirements as mandated by the DC Firintegrated, addressable, voice-activated fire alarm system is required for the safety of Library patrons and stadoes not have a fire suppression system; therefore, a new fire suppression system should be considered to brstandard.

The result of this detailed analysis yields a score of 0 out of a possible 5 and a Repair/Replacement cost of $

Refer below for the detailed Repair/Replacement Evaluation and existing condition photos.


59/147


5. FIRE AND EMERGENCY

Original fire alarm system neereplaced with new, updated,addressable system.

1


60/147


6. ENVIRONMENTALThe Phase I Environmental Site Assessment was completed in conformance with the scope and limitation of th05. The assessment identified Hazardous Materials such as general-purpose house cleaning products, and 5cleaners and antifreeze.

There is no evidence of underground or aboveground storage tanks, however the property is listed on thEnvironments (DDOE) UST and Leaking UST (LUST) databases. Fluorescent light fixtures are located thrareas in the building. Based on the construction date of the building (circa 1961), it is likely that light ballastfixtures appear to be in good condition (no staining or leaking) and functioning properly. The assessment alsosurfaces suspected of containing lead, and several surfaces suspected of containing asbestos. (Please refer to Ex

It is recommended that the District of Columbia Public Library complete a Hazardous Materials Survey forcontaining materials, lead paint, and mercury-containing thermostats prior to the commencement of renovation o

We also recommend the proper disposal of chemical storage containers no longer in use at the site.

The result of this detailed analysis yields a score of 0 out of a possible 5 and a Repair/Replacement cost of



61/147



62/147


6. ENVIRONMENTAL

Existing floor tile with poasbestos mastic.

Existing plaster wall and ceilipossible asbestos mastic.

1

2


63/147


Existing possible asbestoscovered pipe insulation.

Existing possible asbecovered pipe insulatio

3

4


64/147


SUMMARY

As indicated in the Summary of Facility Assessment Categories chart below, the existing facility scored 27.86 outhe methodology described in Section II, if the property scores less than 35 points, it is in POOR to FAIL corenovation or complete demolition and reconstruction.

Summary of Facility Assessment Categories

Repair or ReplacementCosts

Repair and ReplacemScore

1 - Site Improvement $86,700

2 - Facility Structure $211,400

3 - Non Structural Components $227,839

4 - Service Systems $905,400

5 - Fire and Emergency Systems $96,050

6 Environmental $221,600

Total $ 1,748,989


65/147

SECTION IV

MAJOR SYSTEMS MAINTENANCE COST EVALUATION


66/147

Page 60

W IENCEK + ASSOCIATE

MAINTENANCE COST EVALUATION

The Maintenance Cost Analysis for the Major System assesses the different major components of the building bamaintenance cost and initial cost. This assessment will identify excessive maintenance costs and compare it to compoalso compare multiple component replacement to system replacement. This will allow the assessment team to make a systems in the building need to undergo renovation or instead be demolished and replaced.

For example, a boiler assessed at 55% would place it in Fair condition according to the Maintenance Cost Analyestimated as follows:

Boiler = 55 % = FAIR

Maintenance Cost Analysis Table

Excellent-Satisfactory - Suitable for continued normal use for the next 5 years withannual maintenance cost is less than 2% of the cost. 9

Good - Adequate - In good condition for continued use for the next 4 years with anannual maintenance cost less than 5% of the replacement. 75-

Fair - Not adequate for continued use for the next 3 years with annual maintenancecost less than 7% of the replacement cost.

Poor - Deficient for continued use in the next 2 years with annual maintenance cost inexcess of 7% of the replacement cost. 35

Failing Unsatisfactory and in need of complete replacement.


67/147


The major systems for maintenance cost evaluation were divided into the previously established six categories: SStructural Systems, Non-Structural System, Service Systems, Fire Detection and Emergency Systems, and Environmentabuilding conditions, most of the major systems that typically would be included in the evaluation have exceed their life ein need of complete replacement; therefore, these systems were not included in the evaluation.

Major Systems evaluated in the Maintenance Cost Evaluation include:

1. Site Improvement: Parking Lot: Existing parking lot was recently resealed. Continued maintenance and upkeep

parking lot conditions scored at 94% out of 100%, which places it in Good condition.

2. Structural System: Roof System: The roof system was replaced within the last 5 years. Continued mainten

anticipated. The roof system scored 98% out of 100%, which places it in Excellent condition

3. Non-Structural Systems: Evaluation was not performed in this category - either the components are not considered to be

the systems are in need of complete renovation and continued upkeep is not anticipated.

4. Service Systems: Elevator: Elevator was upgraded one year ago. Continued maintenance and upkeep is anticip

scored 97% out of 100%, which places it in Excellent condition. Mechanical, Plumbing and Electrical Systems: various components within the systems h

recently or, in the case of the electrical system, are nearing the end of life expectancy. Thecost evaluation for these system is necessary to identify the need for replacement.

The overall score for Service Systems is 64% out of 100%, which places it in Fair condition.

5. Fire Detection and Emergency Systems: Fire Alarm System: Existing fire alarm system is nearing the end of life expectancy; therefor

evaluation for the system is necessary to identify the need for replacement. The fire alarm sys

of 100%, which places it in Fair condition.

6. Environmental: Evaluation was not performed in this category as all hazardous material is to be removed. C

not anticipated.


68/147

Page 62

W IENCEK + ASSOCIATE


69/147

SECTION V

FACILITY CONSTRUCTION COST EVALUATION


70/147

Page 63 W IENCEK + ASSOCIATES A

ESTIMATED VALUE

The facility construction cost evaluation is based on the cost comparison between the assumed new, 22,500 SF facility anwith a 3,500 SF addition.

1. NEW FACILITY

The existing site is identified on the DC Zoning Map as GOV but retains its prior zoning of R1B. Prior to prfor a new facility, the zoning should be confirmed by obtaining a zoning certification.

R1B districts are designed to protect quiet residential areas. A community center is permitted as a special exctowards matter-of-right development of single-family residential uses for detached dwellings with a minimum minimum lot area of 5,000 square feet. It permits maximum lot occupancy of 40% for all permitted non-resideheight of three (3) stories/forty (40) feet.

The site area is approximately 15,214 square feet. Maximizing the lot occupancy yields a building footpr

maximum height of three stories, this would yield a hypothetical building area of 18,257 GSF.

In considering the potential for a new facility, the desired square footage is 23,586 GSF, similar to the DCPLs Daniel/Shaw library. This requires 5,329 GSF to be located on a lower level; due to the steeply sloping site,lower level spaces would have access to daylight on the rear side of the building.

The new three-story plus basement structure on this site would occupy 40% of the site and due to the 8 sisetbacks, 60% of the 10,050 SF buildable area. This does not leave sufficient space for the required 22 parkingGSF except first 2,000 GSF require no spaces). A steeply sloped driveway will lead to lower level parking pbuilding, reducing the basement size and restricting the overall building to a maximum of approximately 22,500

The new facility construction cost in the Estimated Cost Comparison chart represents the rough square foot co

foot facility based on the value derived from 2008 RS MEANS Square Foot Costs Book 29th

Annual Ebuilding cost and does not include contingencies, furnishings, fixtures, and equipment (FF&E), and developmthe architecture and engineering fee.


71/147


2. EXISTING FACILITY

The total building value for the existing facility included in the Estimated Cost Comparison Chart was derincluding:

The total estimated cost is the repair or replacement cost from the Summary of Facility Assessment catereport.

For comparison purposes, a 3,500 SF addition to the existing facility will bring the existing facility size(the existing facility is approximately 19,000 SF). The estimated cost was generated from the data in thCosts Book.

In finalizing the construction cost the estimated contractors general conditions, profit and overhead, along wifee, was included the Building Total to provide better comparison value.


72/147


As the comparison chart above indicates, the Building Total cost for the repair/replacement of the existing facilitof the raw building cost for a new facility. This suggests that it is more cost effective to construct a new updatedthe needs of todays library patrons rather than extensively renovating an outdated existing facility .

DISCLAIMER: The cost estimates provided in this report are conceptual only. The Argos Group makes no implications or expresses any warror guarantee with the estimates provided in this report.


73/147

EXHIBIT A

PHASE I

ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT


74/147

Advantage E nvironmental C onsultants, LLC

PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT

Francis A. Gregory Library

3660 Alabama Avenue, SEWashington, DC 20020

AEC Project No. 08-054April 29, 2008

Prepared for :

Mr. Gilberto CardenasArgos Group

631 D Street, NW, #638Washington, DC 20004

Prepared by :

Advantage Environmental Consultants, LLC

8610 Washington Boulevard, Suite 217Jessup, Maryland 20794Phone (301) 776-0500 FAX (301) 776-1123


75/147


76/147

Phase I Environmental Site Assessment AEC Project No. 08-054Francis A. Gregory Library April 29, 2008

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................................................................................................1

1.1 S UMMARY AND FINDINGS ................................................................................................................................1 1.2 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .......................................................................................................5

2.0 INTRODUCTION ..........................................................................................................................................6

2.1 P URPOSE .........................................................................................................................................................6 2.2 S COPE OF S ERVICES ......................................................................................................................................6 2.3 LIMITATIONS AND EXCEPTIONS .......................................................................................................................7 2.4 USER RELIANCE ..............................................................................................................................................8

3.0 SITE DESCRIPTION ....................................................................................................................................9

3.1 LOCATION AND LEGAL DESCRIPTION ..............................................................................................................9

3.2 ZONING INFORMATION .....................................................................................................................................9 3.3 CHARACTERISTICS OF THE S ITE AND S URROUNDING P ROPERTIES ..............................................................9 3.4 CURRENT USE OF THE S ITE ............................................................................................................................9 3.5 DESCRIPTION OF IMPROVEMENTS ..................................................................................................................9 3.6 CURRENT USES OF ADJOINING P ROPERTIES ...............................................................................................10

4.0 USER PROVIDED INFORMATION .........................................................................................................11

4.1 REASON FOR P ERFORMING P HASE I ESA ...................................................................................................11 4.2 S PECIALIZED KNOWLEDGE , COMMONLY KNOWN OR REASONABLY ASCERTAINABLE INFORMATION , ANDOBVIOUS INDICATORS OF CONTAMINATION ...........................................................................................................11 4.3 VALUATION REDUCTION FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES ...............................................................................11 4.4 TITLE RECORDS ............................................................................................................................................11 4.5 ENVIRONMENTAL LIENS OR ACTIVITY AND USE LIMITATIONS ......................................................................11

4.6 OWNER , P ROPERTY MANAGER , AND OCCUPANT INFORMATION .................................................................11 4.7 OTHER ...........................................................................................................................................................12

5.0 RECORDS REVIEW ..................................................................................................................................13

5.1 FEDERAL DATABASE REVIEWS .....................................................................................................................13 5.2 S TATE DATABASE REVIEWS .........................................................................................................................13 5.3 Local and Supplemental Federal Regulatory Agency Research ...................................................15

5.3.1 County/Local Environmental Department ............................................................................ 15 5.3.2 County/Local Fire Department .............................................................................................15

5.4 P HYSICAL S ETTING S OURCES ......................................................................................................................15 5.4.1 Topography and Hydrology..................................................................................................15 5.4.2 Soils ...................................................................................................................................... 16 5.4.3 Geology ................................................................................................................................16 5.4.4 Hydrogeology ....................................................................................................................... 16

5.5 HISTORICAL USE INFORMATION ....................................................................................................................17 5.5.1 FIRE INSURANCE MAPS ......................................................................................................................17 5.5.2 AERIAL P HOTOGRAPHS ......................................................................................................................17 5.5.3 City Directories and Telephone Directories.......................................................................... 17 5.5.4 Interview Information............................................................................................................18 5.5.5 Prior Environmental Reports ................................................................................................18 5.5.6 Historical Use Summary.......................................................................................................18 5.5.7 Historical Data Failures ........................................................................................................18


77/147


6.0 SITE RECONNAISSANCE .......................................................................................................................19

6.1 METHODOLOGY AND LIMITING CONDITIONS .................................................................................................19 6.2 INTERVIEWS ...................................................................................................................................................19

6.3 HAZARDOUS S UBSTANCES AND P ETROLEUM P RODUCTS ...........................................................................19 6.4 WASTE GENERATION , S TORAGE AND DISPOSAL .........................................................................................19 6.5 S TORAGE TANKS ...........................................................................................................................................20 6.6 P OLYCHLORINATED BIPHENYLS (PCB S ) ......................................................................................................20 6.7 OTHER CONDITIONS OF P OTENTIAL CONCERN ............................................................................................21

7.0 DATA GAPS ...............................................................................................................................................22

8.0 FINDINGS, OPINION, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .............................................23

9.0 DEVIATIONS ..............................................................................................................................................24

10.0 ADDITIONAL SERVICES .........................................................................................................................25

11.0 DECLARATIONS .......................................................................................................................................26

12.0 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................................27

APPENDICESAppendix A Site Vicinity MapAppendix B Site PlanAppendix C Site PhotographsAppendix D Records of CommunicationAppendix E Regulatory Records DocumentationAppendix F Historical Maps and DataAppendix G Qualifications of Environmental Professionals


78/147


1

1.0 Executive Summary

1.1 Summary and Findings

At the request of the Argos Group, Advantage Environmental Consultants, LLC (AEC)conducted a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA), in conformance with thescope and limitations of the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) PracticeE 1527-05, of the Francis A. Gregory Library building located at 3660 Alabama Avenue,SE in Washington, DC, (hereinafter referred to as the Site). Any exceptions to, ordeletions from, this practice are described in Section 2.3 of this report.

The Site, used as a public library, consists of a 15,477 square-foot parcel of land that isdeveloped with a two-story building with a basement level. The building totals 18,944square feet of enclosed space. The Client retained AEC to conduct this Phase I ESA inconnection with the renovation of the building.

The following summarizes the independent conclusions representing AECs bestprofessional judgment based on available information.

Historical Use Information

The review of available historical information (fire insurance maps, city directories, aerialphotographs, and interviews) indicated that the Sites first developed use was for alibrary, which was constructed in 1961. No changes of use for the Site building haveoccurred from 1961 to the present. No concerns related to the historical use of the Sitewere identified.

Adjoining Properties

The Site is situated in a densely developed residential area. Adjoining properties consistof wooded land associated with Stanton Park to the north; grass-covered and woodedland associated with Stanton Park to the east; Alabama Avenue followed by apartmentbuildings to the south; and wooded land followed by the Anne Beers Elementary Schoolto the west.

None of the adjoining properties were identified as environmental concerns to the Site.

Hazardous Substances

Chemicals used at the Site generally consist of general-purpose housekeeping products(glass cleaner, floor wax, light cleaning solvents, etc), as well asconstruction/maintenance type products (paints, primers, etc). AEC also noted three,55-gallon metal drums containing floor cleaner and one, 55-gallon drum containingantifreeze in the basement. Mr. Darrell Gray, Maintenance Engineer for the DC Office ofFacility Management, indicated that the antifreeze was used for the buildings cooling


79/147


2

system and stated that he was unaware of any significant spills or releases occurring onthe Site. All observed chemical containers were noted in the basement level andappeared to be in good condition, with no evidence of significant staining or releases.AEC did not identify any concerns related to the chemical storage at the Site.

Waste Generation, Storage, and Disposal The Site was not listed on the Resource Conservation and Recovery Information System(RCRIS) Generators database.

Municipal trash at the Site is stored in dumpsters located at the rear (northwestern)portion of the Site parcel. The dumpsters are emptied by TAC Waste Services and noevidence of significant staining or release was observed in the immediate vicinity of thecontainers. No concerns related to the municipal trash generated at the Site wereidentified.

Storage Tanks No evidence (i.e., fill ports, vent pipes) of on-site underground storage tanks (USTs)and/or aboveground storage tanks (ASTs) was noted during this assessment. However,the Site was listed on the DC Department of the Environments (DDOE) UST and LeakingUST (LUST) databases. Mr. Gray indicated that a storage tank was formerly used at thebuilding. The boiler system at the Site currently uses natural gas.

AEC completed a file review at the DDOE office on March 25, 2008. AEC reviewed a tankclosure report prepared for the Site by Horne Engineering Services, Inc., datedSeptember 9, 2002. Based on information provided in the report, a 2,500-gallon heatingoil tank that was installed during the buildings construction in 1961 was removed from theSite in May 2002. Reportedly, pinhole-sized penetrations were noted on the tank andcontamination was detected in the tank excavation pit. Approximately 38 tons ofpetroleum-impacted soil was removed from the Site. Subsequent soil sampling from thewalls and floor of the excavation pit were analyzed for Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons(TPH) Diesel Range Organics (DRO) and were below detection limits of 10 milligramsper kilogram (mg/kg).

According to Mr. Sylvester Mode with the DDOE, the LUST case (#2002051) was openedfor the Site during the tank removal and had not been formally closed. Subsequently,AEC received a Letter of No Further Action (NFA) Case Closure, dated March 28, 2008,for the associated LUST case from Mr. Mode. Based on the fact that the UST has beenremoved from the Site and a NFA letter has been issued by the DDOE, AEC considersthis UST a historical REC that warrants no further investigation.

Regulatory Review

The Site was listed on the UST and LUST databases and was discussed in the StorageTanks section of this Executive Summary. Several nearby properties were identified in


80/147


3

various regulatory databases within the applicable ASTM-defined search distances.However, based on distance from the Site, topographic relation, and/or reportedregulatory information, none of the listed properties were considered to represent anenvironmental concern to the Site.

Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) AEC investigated the Site for the presence of PCBs. PCBs are toxic coolants orlubricating oils that can be found in oil-filled electrical equipment such as electricaltransformers, capacitors, hydraulic elevators, hydraulic service bay lifts, and fluorescentlight ballasts.

AEC observed three pole-mounted transformers (pole #812375-9553) on the Site parceladjacent to Alabama Avenue. The transformers are the property and responsibility ofPotomac Electric Power Company (PEPCO). No evidence of staining or release wasnoted in the vicinity of the transformers as observed from curbside. Based on utility

ownership and observed conditions, AEC does not consider the transformers a concernto the Site.

Fluorescent light fixtures were observed throughout the Site building. Based on theconstruction date of the building (i.e., 1961), it is possible that on-site light ballasts containPCBs. The light fixtures were observed to be in good condition (no staining or leaking)and functioning properly.

AEC noted one hydraulic elevator that had been recently installed in the Site building.Mr. Gray was unaware of any concerns with the elevator system. AEC did not observeany evidence of significant staining or release in the elevator room and does not considerthe elevator an environmental concern to the Site.

AEC did not identify any additional equipment containing fluids potentially contaminatedwith PCBs such as capacitors, trash compactors, box balers, or levelers.

Lead-Based Paint

AEC identified the following painted surfaces suspected of containing lead within the Sitebuilding including:

Plaster Walls and Ceilings

Interior Concrete Columns Concrete and Masonry Unit Walls Metal Pipes Metal and Wood Doors Window Sills


81/147


4

Painted surfaces were observed to be in relatively good condition with the exception ofinterior walls in the basement boiler room and within a water-damaged area on thesecond floor.

Asbestos-Containing Materials (ACMs)

AEC completed a visual inspection for suspect ACMs within the Site building. Thefollowing is a list of suspect ACM identified:

Various Floor Tiles and Associated Mastics Plaster (two-coat) Pipe Fitting Insulation Pipe End Cap Mastic Paper and Canvas Wrap over Fiberglass Insulation Silver Paint on Pipe Insulation Wrap Black Mastic on Pipe Insulation Wrap Dropped Ceiling Tiles Black Mastic on HVAC ducts Vinyl Covebase and Associated Mastic Fire Doors Boiler Insulation Roofing Materials

Suspect ACMs were observed to be in good condition except for pipe insulation wrap,end cap mastics, and pipe fittings in the basement-level boiler room and storage room,and plaster walls in the basement and common areas of the Site.


82/147


5

1.2 Conclusions and Recommendations

This assessment has not revealed any recognized environmental conditions inconnection with the Site. However, evidence of an historical recognized environmentalcondition was noted:

A 2,500-gallon heating oil tank used in conjunction with the Sites boiler systemwas formerly located on the Site from 1961 to 2002. AEC received a Letter of NoFurther Action Case Closure, dated March 28, 2008, for the associated LUSTcase from the DDOE. Based on the fact that the UST has been removed from theSite and a NFA letter has been issued by the DDOE, AEC considers this UST ahistorical REC that warrants no further investigation.

AEC also provides the following recommendations due to the proposed renovations:

AEC recommends a Hazardous Materials Survey for the presence of asbestos-containing materials, lead paint, and mercury-containing thermostats prior to thecommencement of renovation activities.

AEC recommends the proper disposal of chemical storage containers no longer inuse at the Site.


83/147


6

2.0 Introduction

2.1 Purpose

The purpose of this Phase I ESA is to provide a professional opinion on the presence ofrecognized environmental conditions and other potential environmental conditions inconnection with the Site, as they existed on the date of the site inspection, and torecommend whether further investigation is required. ASTM Standard Practice E 1527-05, Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental SiteAssessment Process, defines good commercial and customary practice for conducting anenvironmental site assessment of a parcel of commercial real estate with respect to therange of contaminants pertinent to the scope of the Comprehensive EnvironmentalResponse, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), as well as petroleum products. Assuch, this ESA is intended to satisfy one of the requirements that permit the user toqualify for the bona fide prospective purchaser, innocent landowner or contiguousproperty owner liability protections under the Brownfields Revitalization Act (also knownas the 2002 Brownfields Amendments) of CERCLA. In other words, this ESA representsone of the practices that constitute all appropriate inquiry into the previous ownershipand uses of the property consistent with good commercial or customary practice asdefined in 42 USC Section 9601(35)(B) and 40 CFR Part 312.

The goal of the process is to identify recognized environmental conditions, which aredefined by the Practice as the presence or likely presence of any hazardous substancesor petroleum products on a property under conditions that indicate an existing release, apast release, or a material threat of release of any hazardous substances or petroleumproducts into the structures on the property or into the ground, groundwater or surfacewater of the property. The term recognized environmental condition includes hazardoussubstances or petroleum products even under conditions in compliance with laws. Theterm is not intended to include de minimis conditions that generally do not present amaterial risk of harm to public health or the environment and that generally would not bethe subject of an enforcement action if brought to the attention of appropriategovernmental agencies.

2.2 Scope of Services

This assessment was conducted under the supervision or responsible charge of an

Environmental Professional, as defined in 40 CFR 312.10, in accordance with generallyaccepted Phase I industry standards using 40 CFR Part 312, ASTM Standard Practice E1527-05. The following services were provided for this assessment:

An evaluation of information contained within Federal and State environmentaldatabases, and other local environmental records, within specific search distances.


84/147


7

An evaluation of past Site uses through a review of reasonably obtainablestandard historical sources such as historical maps, aerial photographs, priorenvironmental reports and interviews with knowledgeable persons.

A qualitative evaluation of the physical characteristics of the Site through a review

of published topographic, geologic, and hydrogeologic maps; publishedgroundwater data; and area observations to characterize surface water flow in theSite area.

An evaluation of current Site conditions including, but not limited to, a search forthe following items including: above or below ground storage tanks; potential PCB-containing electrical equipment; hazardous materials and petroleum productsgeneration; treatment, storage, or disposal of hazardous, regulated, or medicalwastes.

The identification and discussion of any data gaps encountered during the

performance of the ESA, including a discussion of all good faith efforts undertakento obtain the information required by the standards and practices identified aboveand an evaluation of the impact of the data gaps on the ability to identify RECs.

The preparation of a Phase I ESA report, which represents the findings from thestudies of the items described above and provides conclusions andrecommendations based on the information gathered above and provided by theClient.

A limited screening survey for asbestos containing materials (ACMs). The surveywas not intended to be comprehensive in nature and focused on friable and

damaged non-friable materials, as well as suspect materials in large quantities thatwould provide a business environmental risk as defined by ASTM.

2.3 Limitations and Exceptions

This Phase I ESA was conducted in accordance with ASTM guidelines for theperformance of Phase I Environmental Site Assessments. No other warranties eitherexpress or implied, are made by AEC. AECs evaluations, analyses, and opinions shouldnot be taken as representations regarding subsurface conditions or the actual value of theSite. Subsurface conditions may differ from the conditions implied by the surficialobservations, and can only be reliably evaluated through intrusive techniques.

Documentation and data provided by Argos Group, designated representatives of ArgosGroup, or other interested third parties, or from the public domain, and referred to in thepreparation of this assessment, are assumed to be complete and correct and have beenused and referenced with the understanding that AEC assumes no responsibility orliability for their accuracy. AECs conclusions are based upon such information anddocumentation and on our observations of Site conditions, as they existed on the date ofthe site inspection. Because Site conditions may change significantly over a short period


85/147


8

of time and additional data may become available, data reported and conclusions drawnin this report are limited to current conditions and may not be relied upon on asignificantly later date.

Reasonable efforts have been made during this assessment to uncover evidence of

USTs, ASTs and ancillary equipment associated with these tanks. Reasonable effortsare limited to information gained from visual observation of unobstructed areas, recordeddatabase information held in public record, and available information gathered frominterviews. Such methods may not identify subsurface equipment that may have beenhidden from view due to paving, construction or debris pile storage, or incorrectinformation from sources.

This investigation was not an environmental compliance audit. While some observationsand discussion in this report may address conditions and/or operations that may beregulated, the regulatory compliance of those conditions and/or operations is outside thescope of this investigation.

Nothing in this report constitutes a legal opinion or legal advice. For information regardingspecific individual or organizational liability, AEC recommends consultation withindependent legal counsel.

2.4 User Reliance

This report was prepared for use solely and exclusively by Argos Group, and other parties(as identified by Argos Group). This Phase I ESA may be provided by Argos Group, in itssole discretion, to third parties in connection with the sale of the land or portions thereofby Argos Group to said third parties or acquisition of the land by Argos Group from said

third party, and may be relied upon by such third party to the same extent that this reportmay be relied upon by Argos Group. No other use or disclosure is intended or authorizedby AEC. In the preparation of this ESA, AEC has used the degree of care and skillordinarily exercised by a reasonably prudent environmental professional in the samecommunity and in the same time frame given the same or similar facts andcircumstances. No other warranties are made to any third party, either express orimplied.


86/147


9

3.0 Site Description

3.1 Location and Legal Description

The Site is located directly north of the intersection of 37 th Street and Alabama Avenue inWashington, DC. The legal description of the Site parcel, as obtained from theWashington, DC Property Sales database (https://www.taxpayerservicecenter.com) waslisted as Block 0207, Parcel 0064. A Site Vicinity Map is included as Appendix A, and aSite Plan is included as Appendix B.

3.2 Zoning Information

According to the zoning map available online (http://dcoz.dc.gov/info/map), the Site iszoned Gov.

3.3 Characteristics of the Site and Surrounding Properties

The Site is used as a public library and consists of a 15,477 square-foot parcel of landthat is developed with a two-story building and a basement level. The building totals18,944 square feet of enclosed space. A parking lot is located adjacent to the westernside of the building. The areas surrounding the Site primarily consist of residentialtownhouses and apartment buildings. Detail regarding the immediately surroundingproperties is provided in Section 3.6. Site Photographs are included as Appendix C.

3.4 Current Use of the SiteThe Site is currently utilized as a public library.

3.5 Description of Improvements

The Site is developed with an 18,944-square-foot, rectangular-shaped building that is twostories tall, with a basement level. The building was built in 1961, and is constructed ofmasonry block with a brick veneer, with dropped ceiling tiles, tiled floors, and paintedplaster and wallboard. The majority of the first and second floors of the Site are used forthe library with offices in the rear. The basement levels of the building consist of

mechanical rooms, bathrooms, storage rooms, and a boiler room.

The Site building is equipped with a water-cooled chiller and natural gas-fired waterheater. Potable water and sewer service are provided to the Site by the DC Water andSewer Authority (WASA). Natural gas is provided by Washington Gas, and electricity isprovided by PEPCO.


87/147


10

3.6 Current Uses of Adjoining Properties

The Site is situated in a densely developed residential area. Adjoining properties consistof wooded land associated with Stanton Park to the north; grass-covered and woodedland associated with Stanton Park to the east; Alabama Avenue followed by apartmentbuildings to the south; and wooded land followed by the Anne Beers Elementary Schoolto the west.

None of the adjoining properties were identified as environmental concerns to the Site.


88/147


11

4.0 User Provided Information

4.1 Reason for Performing Phase I ESA

Argos Group (user of this report) retained AEC to conduct this Phase I ESA in connectionwith renovations planned for the Site building.

4.2 Specialized Knowledge, Commonly Known or Reasonably AscertainableInformation, and Obvious Indicators of Contamination

AEC was not informed by the client of specialized knowledge, commonlyknown/reasonably obtainable information, or obvious indicators of contamination pertinentto potential recognized environmental conditions at the Site.

4.3 Valuation Reduction for Environmental Issues

As the Site is not expected to be acquired by the Client, no information regarding therelationship of purchase price to the estimated fair market value of the property wasavailable.

4.4 Title Records

AEC was not provided with any title information regarding the Site. The DC ChiefFinancial Officers online database did not list a purchase date for the current owner,United States of America.

4.5 Environmental Liens or Activity and Use Limitations

AEC was not provided with a title insurance policy or lien search information for the Site.Neither the Client nor the current Site owner was aware of any environmentally relatedliens or activity use limitations (i.e. engineering or institutional controls) that are related topotential environmental issues at the Site. In addition, AECs review of the environmentaldatabase report did not reveal any environmental liens or use limitations associated withthe Site.

4.6 Owner, Property Manager, and Occupant Information

According to the DC CFOs online database, the Site is owned by the United States ofAmerica. The Site is currently managed and operated by the DC Government.


89/147


12

4.7 Other

AEC was not notified of any other environmental issues that may cause or have caused avaluation reduction of the Site.


90/147


13

5.0 Records Review

AEC reviewed Federal and State environmental databases provided by EnvironmentalData Resources, Inc. (EDR) of Milford, Connecticut, for information pertaining to

documented and/or suspected releases of regulated hazardous substances and/orpetroleum products within specified search distances. A copy of the EDR report isincluded as Appendix E.

AEC also reviewed the unmappable sites listed in the environmental database report bycross-referencing addresses and site names. Unmappable (orphan) sites are sites thatcannot be plotted with confidence, but can be located by zip code or city name. Ingeneral, a site cannot be mapped because of inaccurate or missing location informationin the record provided by the regulatory agency. Any unmappable sites that AECidentified within the specified search distances are included and discussed in thecorresponding database sections.

AEC notes that according to the environmental database report, there are no federallyrecognized Indian tribes or tribal lands located within one mile of the Site.

5.1 Federal Database Reviews

AEC reviewed all ASTM-specified federal databases. No facilities identified within theASTM-specified search distances were encountered.

5.2 State Database Reviews

AEC reviewed all ASTM-specified databases maintained by the District of Columbia. Onlythose databases with facilities identified within the ASTM-specified search distances arediscussed.

Underground Storage Tanks (USTs)

This database lists registered USTs that are regulated under Subtitle I of the ResourceConservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and must be registered with the Statedepartment responsible for administering the UST Program. This database was lastupdated on January 31, 2008.

The Site address was listed on the UST and Leaking Underground Storage Tank(LUST) databases. AEC completed a file review at the District Department of theEnvironment (DDOE) office on March 25, 2008. AEC reviewed a tank closurereport prepared for the Site by Horne Engineering Services, Inc., dated September9, 2002. Based on information provided in the report, a 2,500-gallon heating oiltank that was installed during the buildings construction in 1961 and was removedfrom the Site in May, 2002. Reportedly, pinhole-sized penetrations were noted on


91/147


14

the tank and contamination was detected in the tank excavation pit. Approximately38 tons of petroleum-impacted soil was removed from the Site. Subsequent soilsampling from the walls and floor of the excavation pit were analyzed for TotalPetroleum Hydrocarbons (TPH) Diesel Range Organics (DRO) and were belowdetection limits of 10 mg/kg (milligrams per kilogram). According to Mr. Sylvester

Mode with the DDOE, the LUST case (#2002051) was opened for the Site duringthe tank removal and had not been formally closed. Subsequently, AEC receiveda Letter of No Further Action (NFA) Case Closure, dated March 28, 2008, for theassociated LUST case from Mr. Mode. Based on the fact that the UST has beenremoved from the Site and a NFA letter has been issued by the DDOE, AECconsiders this UST a historical REC that warrants no further investigation.

One additional UST listing, Anne Beers Elementary School (3600 AlabamaAvenue, SE) was identified as an adjacent facility to the Site. The UST databaseindicated that a 6,000-gallon heating oil tank is currently in use at this facility. Thisproperty was not identified on the LUST database and is located topographically

crossgradient of the Site. Based on reported regulatory status, this UST facility isnot considered likely to have adversely impacted the Site.

Leaking Underground Storage Tanks (LUSTs)

The District of Columbia LUST records contain an inventory of reported leakingunderground storage tank incidents. This database is maintained by the District ofColumbia Department of Health. The LUST database was last updated January 31, 2008.

The Site was listed on the LUST database and was discussed in the USTsubsection.

Seven LUST facilities were identified within one-half mile of the Site. There wereno LUST cases identified within 500 feet of the Site. Of the seven cases identified,five have been closed by the DDOE. Based on distance, topographic conditions,and/or reported regulatory status, the identified LUST facilities are not consideredlikely to have adversely impacted the Site.

DC Brownfields

This is a list of potential brownfields site locations in the District of Columbia. Thisdatabase is maintained by the DDOE. This database was last updated January 28, 2008.

The Site was not listed on the DC Brownfields database.

One facility, 3504 Texas Avenue, SE, was identified within one-half mile of theSite. This facility is located at least 1,000 feet north and topographicallydowngradient of the Site. No additional information was provided on the database.Based on distance and topographic conditions, this facility is not considered likelyto have adversely impacted the Site.


92/147


15

5.3 Local and Supplemental Federal Regulatory Agency Research

The following local regulatory agency review was conducted to obtain anyenvironmentally significant information concerning the Site that may be readily available.

5.3.1 County/Local Environmental DepartmentAs required by the agency, AEC submitted a written request (dated March 17, 2008)under the Freedom of Information Act to the DDOE, in order to obtain environmentallysignificant information concerning the Site. AEC received a telephone response from theDDOE and subsequently reviewed files at their office. Pertinent information from AECsfile review at the DDOE is provided throughout this report. AECs request letter ispresented in Appendix D.

5.3.2 County/Local Fire Department

As required by the agency, AEC has submitted a written request (March 17, 2008) underthe FOIA to the District of Columbia Fire & EMS Department in order to obtainenvironmentally significant information concerning the Site. At the time of completion ofthis report, a response from this agency remained outstanding. Upon receipt and review,AEC will forward any pertinent information to the Client. AECs request letter is presentedin Appendix D.

5.4 Physical Setting Sources

The following physical setting sources were reviewed to provide information about thetopographic, hydrologic, geologic and/or hydrogeologic characteristics of the Site.

5.4.1 Topography and Hydrology

USGS Topographic Quadrangle

Based on a review of the United States Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5 Minute Series,Anacostia, DC-MD-VA Topographic Quadrangle dated 1983, the elevation of the Site isapproximately 180 feet above mean sea level (msl). Slope and surface drainage patternsin the direct vicinity of the Site are to the north towards an unnamed tributary, locatedapproximately one-half mile north of the Site. The Site and the surrounding areas to theeast, south, and west were shaded pink on the map, indicating dense urbandevelopment. Areas to the north are shaded green, which are currently occupied byforested land. A copy of a topographic map is included as Appendix A.

Hydrology/Storm Water Management

Surface drainage at the Site is facilitated by storm drains located at the rear of theproperty. Stormwater also drains from western adjacent properties onto the Site. AEC


93/147


16

did not observe evidence of vegetative stress, or other evidence of environmentalimpairment in the vicinity of the storm drains.

No additional evidence of surface impoundments, pits, ponds, lagoons, drywells, irrigationwells, injection wells, or storm water management systems was observed on the Site on

the date of the site survey.Wetlands

According to wetlands data from NWI maps presented in the regulatory databasereviewed for this assessment, no wetlands were illustrated on the Site or surroundingproperties. AEC observed no indications of wetlands on the Site.

Flood Zone

According to the EDR database report which contains Federal Emergency Management

Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) for the Site (Community Panelnumber 1100010030B), the Site is not located within the 100- and 500-year flood zones.A copy of the database report is provided in Appendix E.

5.4.2 Soils

According to the EDR Soil Survey, soils at the Site are categorized as Beltsville silt loam.These soils are moderately well drained and do not meet the characteristics for hydricsoils.

5.4.3 GeologyAccording to the Maryland Geologic Survey Geologic Map of Maryland dated 1968 (whichincludes the District of Columbia), the Site is located in the Atlantic Coastal Plainphysiographic province, which is situated east of the fall line that separates theunconsolidated sediments of the Atlantic Coastal Plain province from the metamorphicunits of the Piedmont. Specifically, the Site is underlain by the Lowland Depositsformation which consists of gravel, sand, silt and clay. Generally, the formation containsmedium- to coarse-grained sand and gravel with cobbles and boulders prevalent near thebase.

5.4.4 HydrogeologyShallow groundwater flow generally follows topography. Based on a review of thetopographic map, AEC estimates the depth to the shallow groundwater table at the Site tobe approximately 25 to 35 feet below ground surface (bgs) and flow in a direction similarto surface drainage patterns (i.e., to the north). Precise groundwater depths and flowdirections can be determined through the installation and survey of groundwatermonitoring wells. Estimated groundwater levels and/or flow directions may vary based on


94/147


95/147


18

5.5.4 Interview Information

According to Mr. Gilberto Cardenas of Argos Group, he has no knowledge of anyhistorical environmental concerns in connection with the Site. AEC also received acompleted questionnaire from Ms. Lisa Deanes, a representative of the DC Public Librarysystem. Ms. Deanes indicated the Site is owned by the US Federal Government;however, she was unaware of any historical uses of the Site prior to the construction ofthe library. Copies of the completed questionnaires are included in Appendix D.

5.5.5 Prior Environmental Reports

AEC reviewed a tank closure report prepared for the Site by Horne Engineering Services,Inc., dated September 9, 2002. This report was summarized in Section 5.2.

5.5.6 Historical Use Summary

The review of available historical information (fire insurance maps, city directories, aerialphotographs, and interviews) indicated that the Sites first developed use was for alibrary, which was constructed in 1961. No changes of use for the Site building haveoccurred from 1961 to the present. No concerns related to the historical use of the Sitewere identified.

5.5.7 Historical Data Failures

AEC encountered the following historical data failure as defined by ASTM E1527-05 and40 CFR Part 312:

No data failures were encountered during the review of historic resources.


96/147


19

6.0 Site Reconnaissance

The objective of the Site reconnaissance was to obtain information indicating thelikelihood of recognized environmental conditions in connection with the Site. The

reconnaissance was conducted on Friday, March 14, 2008 by Mr. David Svrjcek of AEC.Ms. Svrjcek was escorted by Mr. Darrell Gray of the DC Office of Facilities Management(OFM).

6.1 Methodology and Limiting Conditions

The Site reconnaissance consisted of inspecting the common areas, mechanical rooms,offices, and library within the Site building. AEC also inspected the exterior portions ofthe Site building, and the public access roads/alleyways surrounding the Site. Weatherconditions during the Site reconnaissance were cool, with no visibility issues.Photographs of the Site were taken to document existing site conditions and are includedand described in Appendix C.

6.2 Interviews

Interview information was obtained from Mr. Darrell Gray of the DC OFM during the Sitereconnaissance. Environmental questionnaires were submitted to Argos Group and arepresentative of the DC Public Library System. Interview information is provided in theappropriate sections of this report.

6.3 Hazardous Substances and Petroleum Products

Chemicals used at the Site generally consist of general-purpose housekeeping products(glass cleaner, floor wax, light cleaning solvents, etc), as well asconstruction/maintenance type products (paints, primers, etc). AEC also noted three,55-gallon metal drums containing floor cleaner and one, 55-gallon drum containingantifreeze in the basement. Mr. Darrell Gray, Maintenance Engineer for the DC Office ofFacility Management, indicated that the antifreeze was used for the buildings coolingsystem and stated that he was unaware of any significant spills or releases occurring onthe property. All observed chemical containers were noted in the basement level andappeared to be in good condition, with no evidence of significant staining or releases.AEC did not identify any concerns related to the chemical storage at the Site.

6.4 Waste Generation, Storage and Disposal

The Site was not listed on the RCRIS Generators database.

Municipal trash at the Site is stored in dumpsters located at the rear (northwestern)portion of the Site parcel. The dumpsters are emptied by TAC Waste Services and no


97/147


98/147


21

6.7 Other Conditions of Potential Concern

AEC also examined the Site for evidence of the following potential environmentalconditions:

Conditions Not Observedor Noted

Observedor Noted

SignificantConcern?

Chemical/Petroleum Odors X --Pools of Liquid X NoFloor Drains/Sumps/Wells X --Drums X NoStains or Corrosion X --Unidentified Substance Containers X --Stained Soil or Pavement X --Stressed Vegetation X --Pits, Ponds or Lagoons X --Wastewater Discharges X --

Septic Systems/Cesspools X --

AEC observed four, 55-gallon drums in the basement level of the building. These drumswere discussed in Section 6.3. No additional items of concern (as noted above) wereidentified at the Site.

AEC observed a trash incinerator in the basement level boiler room that appeared tohave collected rainwater. No indication of chemical or petroleum odors was noted byAEC. AEC does not consider the historic use of this incinerator likely to have adverselyimpacted the Site.


99/147


22

7.0 Data Gaps

AEC encountered the following data gaps as defined by ASTM E1527-05 and 40 CFRPart 312:

Information regarding a search for historic deed information and for the presenceof environmental liens or activity and use limitations was not provided by the Userfor review by the Environmental Professional.

Degree of Significance : This data gap is considered unlikely to significantly affectthe ability of the environmental professional to identify conditions indicative ofreleases or threatened release of hazardous substances on, at, in, or to the subjectproperty.

Responses to AECs requests for information from the DC Fire and EMSDepartment have not yet been received by the time of completion of this report.

Degree of Significance : This data gap is considered unlikely to significantly affectthe ability of the environmental professional to identify conditions indicative ofreleases or threatened release of hazardous substances on, at, in, or to thesubject property.


100/147


23

8.0 Findings, Opinion, Conclusions and Recommendations

AEC has performed a Phase I ESA in conformance with the scope and limitations ofASTM Practice E 1527-05 at the Francis A. Gregory Library building located at 3660

Alabama Avenue, SE, in Washington, DC. Qualifications for the environmentalprofessionals involved in the performance of the Phase I ESA are included in AppendixG. Any exceptions to, or deletions from, this practice are described in Section 2.3 of thisreport.

This assessment has not revealed any recognized environmental conditions inconnection with the Site. However, evidence of an historical recognized environmentalcondition was noted:

francis gregory cost benefit analysis

Documents