CIVIL ENGINEERING ASSESSMENT

CHELMSFORD FACILITIES ASSESSMENT SCHOOL ADMINISTRATION BUILDING

CIVIL ASSESSMENT

Dore & Whittier Architects Inc. I4-1

CIVIL ENGINEERING ASSESSMENT

Nitsch Engineering has performed research of the existing site conditions at the Central Administration Building located at 230 North Road in Chelmsford, Massachusetts. Nitsch Engineering has used Chelmsford GIS and design drawings provided by the Town. Nitsch Engineering gathered information during a site visit conducted by Brittney Veeck, EIT on February 17, 2016.

GENERAL SITE DESCRIPTION

The existing Central Administration Building is located at 230 North Road, Chelmsford, Massachusetts. The site is bounded by a stream to the North, wetlands and a stream to the south (Image 1), a wooded area to the west, and North Road to the east.

The entrance to site is a paved driveway to the east of the site. There is a parking lot to the north of the building, parking along the east face of the building, and a driveway to the south of the building.

EXISTING SITE UTILITIES

STORM DRAINAGE

Chelmsford GIS does not show a closed drainage system in North Road; however, it shows headwalls leading into the stream to the North of the site and the wetlands to the south of the site. Stormwater runoff from the roof of the building appears to be collected through the building and discharged below grade. There is a building addition on the west side of the building. Stormwater runoff from the addition appears to flow over the edge of the roof and drip down the side of the building without downspouts (Image 2). No catch basins were observed onsite. Stormwater runoff from the paved areas likely runs off into the grass areas or into the stream/wetland.

Image 1

Image 2

Image 3

Image 4

SCHOOL ADMINISTRATION BUILDING CHELMSFORD FACILITIES ASSESSMENT

ARCHITECTURAL ASSESSMENT

I4-2 Dore & Whittier Architects Inc.

SEWER There is a Town sewer main in North Road adjacent to the

project site. There is also a force main in North Road adjacent

to the site.

Record plans show sewer service exiting the building at the

southwest corner and flowing into a manhole. The sewer then

goes through the driveway into North Road. It is not clear from

the record plan if it connects into the sewer main or the sewer

force main.

A sewer manhole was observed onsite in the same location as

shown on the record plans (Image 3).

WATER

The Town of Chelmsford is split up into three separate water

districts: the Chelmsford Water District, the North Chelmsford

Water District, and the East Chelmsford Water District.

No fire hydrants or water valves were observed on site. The

site water service probably connects to a water main in North

Road.

NATURAL GAS

There is a gas meter and generator located along the south face of the building near the parking lot area (Image 4 and 5). No gas valves were observed onsite. Gas service for the building likely connects to a gas main in North Road.

ELECTRICAL

There is a transformer located along the face of the building.

Electrical services enter the building along the southern face

of the building. Overhead wires and utility poles run through

the southern edge of the site along the driveway. The

overhead wires connect to the southern face of the building

(Image 4 and 7).

Image 5

Image 6

Image 7

Image 8


CIVIL ASSESSMENT


EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS

SOILS

Based on the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS)

Middlesex County Soil Survey the site of the South Row

Elementary School property is on soil classified as Windsor

loamy sand and Wareham loamy fine sand.

PAVEMENT/CURBING

The asphalt pavement within the site is in generally fair to poor

condition. There are many areas of cracking and isolated areas

of ponding/icing (Image 3, 8, and 9).

There are no walkways onsite. There are concrete pads at

doorway entrances. The concrete pad on the northern face of

the building is in poor condition (Image 10).

Curbing onsite is asphalt. The curb does not appear to follow

the entire perimeter of the site drive although many areas of

the site were snow covered. The areas where asphalt curb was

exposed showed the curb to be in generally poor condition

(Image 11 and 12).

PERMITTING CONCERNS

The Central Administration Building is within a wetland buffer zone and may have areas within a FEMA Zone A. The site does not appear to be located within a Wellhead Protection Area.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Mill and overlay sections of pavement where cracking/degradation has occurred.

Regrade paved areas to prevent ponding, which can lead to ice patches in the cold weather.

Replace areas of asphalt curb that have been damaged.

Confirm walkways are ADA accessible.

Add downspouts along the building addition on the west.

Image 9

Image 10

Image 11

Image 12


STRUCTURAL ASSESSMENT


STRUCTURAL – DISTRICT OFFICE CENTRAL ADMINISTATIVE OFFICES

The purpose of this report is to assess the structure of the existing building, comment on the existing

structure and comment on the structural integrity of the building.

Basis of the Report

This report is based on visual observations during our site visit on February 16, 2016. During the

visit we did not remove any finishes or take measurements so our understanding of the structure is

limited.

Existing Conditions

The original building is a one-story structure. An addition was constructed in 2005 and is attached

to the west side.

On the boiler room floor we observed light hairline cracking due to shrinkage, which is not a

structural concern.

At the addition we observed light perceivable vibration in the wood floor due to footfall, which is

not a structural concern.

We did not observe anchorage to the roof structure at the tops of the masonry walls. When a future

renovation is planned for the original wing of the structure, interior masonry walls would need to

be clipped.

We observed the exterior masonry façade and noted some staining. We did not observe any

overhang or roofline gutters; at the time of the visit, water from melting snow was dripping from

the eaves to the ground below.

We observed existing steel loose lintels over the heads of door and wall penetrations and noted

peeling paint. We observed control joints in the exterior façade and noted moderate deterioration.

Recommendations:

No recommendations were made at this time.


ELECTRICAL ASSESSMENT


ELECTRICAL ASSESSMENT EXISTING SYSTEMS

The existing systems of this facility range from fair to good condition.

However, the building contains district-wide, head-end equipment

located within a space that is not appropriate from a security and

environmental conditions standpoint. Electrical service equipment is in

good condition; however, capacity is an issue where the Central

Administration Office is becoming the data center for district-wide

systems.

ELECTRICAL DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM

The primary service runs overhead along the street. A secondary service

drops from utility pole #77 where three bucket style, pole mounted

transformers are located. The service continues overhead to weather

heads located outside the building (Image 1, & 2).

The service enters an inline 320 class meter socket to a 400 ampere rated,

main distribution panel with a 700 ampere main circuit breaker. The

service voltage is 120/208 volt, 3 phase, 4 wire (Image 3, 4, & 5).

Branch circuit panel boards and load centers are located throughout the

building to serve power, lighting, mechanical and technology loads (Image

6, 7, & 8).

Panelboards are manufactured by Eaton and the load centers are

manufactured by Square D.

INTERIOR LIGHTING

Interior lighting consists of recessed acrylic 2x2 and 2x4 troffers with

acrylic lenses and industrial fluorescent strips in mechanical spaces

(Image 9, 10, & 11).

In general, lighting is controlled with switch style occupancy sensors in

offices, line voltage switches in corridors and public spaces (Image

12).

EXTERIOR LIGHTING

Exterior lighting consists of LED flood lights mounted to existing wooden

utility poles. There are also LED wall packs at the entries/exit doors of the

building (Image 13, & 14).

Image 1 – Utility Pole w/ Secondary Service Drop

Image 2 – Weather-heads

Image 3 – Electric Meter

Image 4 – Main Circuit Breaker




EMERGENCY STANDBY SYSTEM

A natural gas fired Generac 100kw generator, model number

QT10068GNAC, was recently installed to provide back up to the entire

facility. The generator is located outside on a pad. Protective bollards are

installed around it; however, they are placed so close to the unit, service

doors cannot be opened. (Image 15, Image 16, Image 17, Image 18)

Emergency battery units are used for life safety lighting.

FIRE ALARM SYSTEM

The fire alarm system consists of conventional 5-zone G.E. ESL 1500. The

detection seems compliant throughout the building. Pull stations in the

modular portion of the building are not ADA compliant. The master box

#122 and knox box are located outside the main entry (Image 19, 20, 21,

& 22).

LIGHTNING PROTECTION SYSTEM The facility does not have a lightning protection system.

DATA/TELEPHONE

The telephone service enters in the main electric room from overhead

utility wiring. The central administration facility houses the district’s

head-end equipment for security and district’s servers. Fiber optic wiring

originates at the central administration facility and is run to each town

building creating a district WAN.

The server room/head-end room does not contain the

electrical/environmental infrastructure or redundancy that would be a

standard recommended design practice for this type of space.

Equipment is rack mounted and backed-up by an APC rack mounted UPS.

Data wiring is CAT6 throughout the building.

Phone system is a hosted system; handsets are manufactured by Polycom.

The main conference room contains video recording/broadcasting

equipment, which consists of motorized cameras in the space and editing

and broadcasting equipment in a remote control room

(Images 22 - 30).

Image 5 – Main Service Equip.

Image 6 – Load Center

Image 7 – Panelboards

Image 8 - Panelboards




SECURITY

The building contains an intrusion system, CCTV cameras, and an access

control system.

The Central Administration Office contains the head-end security

equipment for the district.

The S2 Net box controller and server is located in the building’s server

room; S2 Net box controllers are installed to handle the local doors as

well. Exterior and interior doors are equipped with electronic access

control.

The CCTV network video recorders for the district are located in the server

room. The video management system is manufactured by S2.

The intrusion system consists of door contacts on exterior doors, motion

sensors, and intrusion keypads. The system is manufactured by

Honeywell.

The main entry is equipped with an Ai-Phone video intercom system that

can remotely unlock the door (Images 31-40).

Image 9 – 2x2 Troffer

Image 10 – 2x4 Troffer

Image 11 – Fluorescent Strip

Image 12 – Occupancy Sensor




Image 13 – Pole-mounted Flood Light Image 14 – Building Wall Pack Image 15 – Generator

Image 16 – Gas-Line for Generator Image 17 – Transfer Switch Image 18 – Typical EBU

Image 19 – Fire Alarm Control Panel Image 20 – Horn/Strobe Image 21 – Non-ADA Compliant Pull Station




Image 22 – Masterbox & Knox Box Image 23 – Incoming Phone Service Image 24 – IDF

Image 25 – Inadequate Cooling Image 26 – Inadequate Cooling Image 27 – UPS System

Image 28 – UPS System Image 29 – UPS System Image 30 – Town Fiber

Image 31 -Town Fiber Image 32 – Intrusion Keypad Image 33 – Exterior Card Reader




Image 34 – Interior Card Reader Image 35 – Video Intercom Image 36 – S2 Video Management & Keypad Server & Storage

Image 37 – CCTV Camera Image 38 – Door Contact Image 39 – S2 Door Controller

Image 40 – S2 Net Box Access Control

Head-End

March 11, 2016 Ms. Michele Rogers Dore & Whittier Architects 260 Merrimac Street Newburyport, MA 01950 Reference: Hazardous Materials Determination Survey Administration Building, Chelmsford, MA Dear Ms. Rogers: Thank you for the opportunity for Universal Environmental Consultants (UEC) to provide professional services. Enclosed please find the report for limited hazardous materials determination survey at the Administration Building, Chelmsford, MA. Please do not hesitate to call should you have any questions. Very truly yours, Universal Environmental Consultants

______________________________ Ammar M. Dieb President UEC:\216 071\Administration Building Report.DOC

Enclosure


HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ASSESSMENT

M:\9505900\REPORT.DOC Page 1 of 6

REPORT FOR

HAZARDOUS MATERIALS DETERMINATION SURVEY AT THE

ADMINISTRATION BUILDING CHELMSFORD, MASSACHUSETTS

PROJECT NO: 216 071.00

Survey Date: March 2, 2016

SURVEY CONDUCTED BY:

UNIVERSAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS 12 BREWSTER ROAD

FRAMINGHAM, MA 01702


HAZARDOUS MATERIAL ASSESSMENT


1.0 INTRODUCTION: UEC has been providing comprehensive asbestos services since 2001 and has completed projects throughout New England. We have completed projects for a variety of clients including commercial, industrial, municipal, and public and private schools. We maintain appropriate asbestos licenses and staff with a minimum of twenty years of experience. As part of the proposed renovation and demolition project, UEC was contracted by Dore & Whittier Architects to conduct the following services at the Administration Building, Chelmsford, MA:

Inspection and Testing for Asbestos Containing Materials (ACM); Inspection for Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCB’s)-Electrical Equipment and Light Fixtures; Inspection for Lead Based Paint (LBP).

Information included in this report was based on a determination inspection performed by UEC. Limited testing was performed as part of this study. It is recommended that once a detailed scope of work is identified for a renovation or a demolition project, a comprehensive Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) NESHAP inspection including asbestos testing for all suspect materials and testing for other hazardous materials including, Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCB’s) and Lead Based Paint (LBP) should be performed, which would provide a more accurate hazardous materials abatement costs and scope. Additional testing and abatement plans for EPA review are required to be performed should PCB’s befound in the caulking. The scope of work included the inspection of accessible ACM, collection of bulk samples from materials suspected to contain asbestos, determination of types of ACM found and cost estimates for remediation. Bulk samples analyses for asbestos were performed using the standard Polarized Light Microscopy (PLM) in accordance with EPA standard. Bulk samples were collected by Massachusetts licensed asbestos inspector Mr. Jason Becotte (AI-034963) and analyzed by a Massachusetts licensed laboratory EMSL, Woburn, MA. Refer to samples results. 2.0 FINDINGS: The regulations for asbestos inspection are based on representative sampling. It would be impractical and costly to sample all materials in all areas. Therefore, representative samples of each homogenous area were collected and analyzed or assumed. All suspect materials were grouped into homogenous areas. By definition a homogenous area is one in which the materials are evenly mixed and similar in appearance and texture throughout. A homogeneous area shall be determined to contain asbestos based on findings that the results of at least one sample collected from that area shows that asbestos is present in an amount >1% in accordance with EPA regulations. All suspect materials that contain any amount of asbestos must be considered asbestos if it is scheduled to be removed per the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) regulations. Number of Samples Collected Twenty one (21) bulk samples were collected from the following materials suspected of containing asbestos:




Type and Location of Material 1. Beige 12” x 12” vinyl floor tile at conference room 2. Beige 12” x 12” vinyl floor tile at copy room 3. Old 12” x 12” vinyl floor tile under carpet at hallway 4. Old 12” x 12” vinyl floor tile under carpet at hallway 5. Black mastic for old 12” x 12” vinyl floor tile under carpet at hallway 6. Black mastic for old 12” x 12” vinyl floor tile under carpet at hallway 7. Grey floor leveler at hallway 8. Grey floor leveler at IT room 9. 2’ x 4’ Suspended acoustical ceiling tile at hallway 10. 2’ x 4’ Suspended acoustical ceiling tile at hallway 11. White sink coating at hallway 12. Grey sink coating at kitchen 13. Newer joint compound at kitchen 14. Newer joint compound at kitchen 15. Old fire stop joint compound above ceiling at kitchen 16. Vertical caulking on interior wall 17. Old exterior framing caulking under newer windows 18. New exterior window framing caulking 19. Exterior door framing caulking 20. Exterior expansion joint 21. Exterior old vent caulking Samples Results Type and Location of Material Sample Result 1. Beige 12” x 12” vinyl floor tile at conference room No Asbestos Detected 2. Beige 12” x 12” vinyl floor tile at copy room No Asbestos Detected 3. Old 12” x 12” vinyl floor tile under carpet at hallway 2% Asbestos 4. Old 12” x 12” vinyl floor tile under carpet at hallway 2% Asbestos 5. Black mastic for old 12” x 12” vinyl floor tile under carpet at hallway 8% Asbestos 6. Black mastic for old 12” x 12” vinyl floor tile under carpet at hallway 8% Asbestos 7. Grey floor leveler at hallway No Asbestos Detected 8. Grey floor leveler at IT room No Asbestos Detected 9. 2’ x 4’ Suspended acoustical ceiling tile at hallway No Asbestos Detected 10. 2’ x 4’ Suspended acoustical ceiling tile at hallway No Asbestos Detected 11. White sink coating at hallway No Asbestos Detected 12. Grey sink coating at kitchen No Asbestos Detected 13. Newer joint compound at kitchen No Asbestos Detected 14. Newer joint compound at kitchen No Asbestos Detected 15. Old fire stop joint compound above ceiling at kitchen 2% Asbestos 16. Vertical caulking on interior wall No Asbestos Detected 17. Old exterior framing caulking under newer windows 4% Asbestos 18. New exterior window framing caulking No Asbestos Detected 19. Exterior door framing caulking No Asbestos Detected 20. Exterior expansion joint 3% Asbestos 21. Exterior old vent caulking 2% Asbestos




3.0 OBSERVATION AND COST ESTIMATES: OBSERVATIONS: All ACM must be removed by a Massachusetts licensed asbestos abatement contractor under the supervision of a Massachusetts licensed project monitor prior to any renovation or demolition activities that might disturb the ACM. 1. Old 12” x 12” vinyl floor tile under carpet was found to contain asbestos. 2. Black mastic for old 12” x 12” vinyl floor tile under carpet was found to contain asbestos. 3. Old fire stop joint compound above ceiling was found to contain asbestos. 4. Old exterior window framing caulking was found to contain asbestos. 5. Exterior expansion joint was found to contain asbestos. 6. Exterior old vent caulking was found to contain asbestos. 7. All remaining suspect materials were found not to contain asbestos. 8. Underground sewer pipe was assumed to contain asbestos. 9. Damproofing on exterior and foundation walls was assumed to contain asbestos. The demolition

contractor will have to segregate the ACM from non-ACM building surfaces for proper disposal in an EPA approved landfill that does not recycle.

10. Roofing materials were assumed to contain asbestos. The demolition contractor will have to segregate the ACM from non-ACM building surfaces for proper disposal in an EPA approved landfill that does not recycle.

11. Painted surfaces were assumed to be LBP. All LBP activities performed, including waste disposal, should be in accordance with applicable Federal, State, or local laws, ordinances, codes or regulations governing evaluation and hazard reduction. In the event of discrepancies, the most protective requirements prevail. These requirements can be found in OSHA 29 CFR 1926-Construction Industry Standards, 29 CFR 1926.62-Construction Industry Lead Standards, 29 CFR 1910.1200-Hazards Communication, 40 CFR 261-EPA Regulations.

12. Visual inspection of various equipments such as light fixtures, thermostats, exit signs and switches was performed for the presence of PCB’s and mercury. Ballasts in light fixtures were assumed not to contain PCB’s. Tubes, thermostats, exit signs and switches were assumed to contain mercury. It would be very costly to test those equipments and dismantling would be required to access. Therefore, the above mentioned equipments should be disposed in an EPA approved landfill.

13. Caulking materials were assumed to contain PCB’s.




COST ESTIMATES: The cost includes removal and disposal of all accessible ACM and an allowance for removal of inaccessible or hidden ACM that may be found during the demolition or renovation project. Location Material Approximate Quantity Cost Estimate ($) Various Locations Old 12” x 12” Vinyl Floor Tiles under Carpet 5,000 SF 25,000.00 Fire Stop Joint Compound Unknown 3,500.00 Hidden ACM Unknown 5,000.00 Miscellaneous Hazardous Materials Unknown 10,000.00 Exterior Old Unit Vent Caulking 50 LF 1,500.00 Expansion Joint Caulking 100 LF 2,500.00 Old Caulking on Newer Windows 100 LF 2,500.00 Transite Sewer Pipes Unknown1 25,000.00 Roofing Materials 25,000 SF2 50,000.00 Damproofing on Exterior/Foundation Walls Unknown1 35,000.00 Location Material Approximate Quantity Cost Estimate ($) PCB’s Remediation3 25,000.00 Estimated costs for ACM Inspection and Testing Services 7,400.00 Estimated costs for PCB’s Testing and Abatement Plans Services3 10,000.00 Estimated costs for Design, Construction Monitoring and Air Sampling Services 22,600.00 Total: 225,000.00 1: Part of Total Demolition and Excavation. 2: Estimated. 3: Should results exceed EPA limit. 4.0 DESCRIPTION OF SURVEY METHODS AND LABORATORY ANALYSES: Asbestos samples were collected using a method that prevents fiber release. Homogeneous sample areas were determined by criteria outlined in EPA document 560/5-85-030a. Bulk material samples were analyzed using PLM and dispersion staining techniques with EPA method 600/M4-82-020.




5.0 LIMITATIONS AND CONDITIONS: This report has been completed based on visual and physical observations made and information available at the time of the site visits, as well as an interview with the Owner’s representatives. This report is intended to be used as a summary of available information on existing conditions with conclusions based on a reasonable and knowledgeable review of evidence found in accordance with normally accepted industry standards, state and federal protocols, and within the scope and budget established by the client. Any additional data obtained by further review must be reviewed by UEC and the conclusions presented herein may be modified accordingly. This report and attachments, prepared for the exclusive use of Owner for use in an environmental evaluation of the subject site, are an integral part of the inspections and opinions should not be formulated without reading the report in its entirety. No part of this report may be altered, used, copied or relied upon without prior written permission from UEC, except that this report may be conveyed in its entirety to parties associated with Owner for this subject study. Inspected By: Jason Becotte Asbestos Inspector (AI-034963)

Documents

CIVIL ENGINEERING ASSESSMENT