HARDESTY RENAISSANCE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ......FY 15 EPA BROWNFIELDS CLEANUP GRANT NARRATIVE I. Community Need Current Brownfield Effects on our Targeted Community: The former Hardesty

Hardesty Renaissance EDC, Page 1 of 33

HARDESTY RENAISSANCE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION FY 15 EPA BROWNFIELDS CLEANUP GRANT NARRATIVE I. Community Need Current Brownfield Effects on our Targeted Community: The former Hardesty Federal Complex brownfield site is approximately 18.5 acres in size, with seven buildings located at 607 Hardesty Avenue, in historic northeast Kansas City, Missouri (Jackson County). The property was purchased by the Department of the Army’s Quartermaster Corps in the early 1900s as a storage facility for military posts in nearby states. This federal facility received and stored protective and impermeable clothing, laundry, and dry-cleaning supplies, inks, lithographic chemicals, petroleum products, petroleum handling equipment, petroleum containers (underground storage tanks), and graphic arts operating supplies and chemicals. The federal government closed the facilities in 2002, and it has been vacant ever since, adversely affecting the surrounding communities by its overwhelming presence, as it deteriorates and insulates hazardous materials and toxins into the existing dilapidated, mold-filled buildings, contaminating both the on-site soil and ground water.

The targeted community surrounding the site, herein referred to as the “Truman Plaza Area,” is a primarily low-income, immigrant and minority community. The Truman Plaza Area, located within Jackson County, encompasses the neighborhoods of Lykins, Sheffield, Indian Mounds, Scarritt Renaissance, Pendleton Heights, Independence Plaza, and East Paseo, which has been plagued for over 10 years by this 18-acres brownfield site that has sat vacant and added large-scale blight and vandalism to a community already challenged with higher poverty rates (34%), unemployment (14.6%), and poor health, as compared to the rest of the City. (Source: Truman Plaza Area Plan, City of Kansas City, MO) According to 2012 County Health Rankings, Jackson County is ranked at a very low 71st out of 115, in overall health outcomes, which are measures that describe the current health status of a county. (Source: 2012 County Health Rankings, RWJ Foundation, University of Wisconsin Population Health Institute). A brownfield site, at the scale of the former Hardesty Federal Complex, can have a detrimental effect on the communities where it is located as evidenced by the decreasing home values and disinvestment in properties surrounding the site, resulting from a decline in manufacturing industries that left many people jobless and living in homes adjacent to vacant manufacturing plants and industrial buildings, many of which are contaminated and/or inaccessible to the public for reuse and redevelopment as seen in the Truman Plaza Area. With a preponderance of vacant manufacturing buildings and industrial sites, some of which are brownfields, the community with the highest number of families with children (61%) as compared to the rest of the City, is left with limited open space and parkland. (Source: Truman Plaza Area Plan, City of Kansas City, MO) Based on data from the 2000 and 2010 U.S. Census, American Community Survey 2009, Mid-America Regional Council, and Missouri Department of Economic Development, the City of Kansas City has deemed the Truman Plaza area as “one of the most distressed areas in the City,” giving it a “Composite Distress” rating that is based on indicators such as median household income, unemployment, active foreclosures, crimes per acre, etc. (Source: Truman Plaza Area Plan, City of Kansas City, MO) In order for this rating to change, many of the existing conditions must be improved upon. The City of Kansas City, along with Hardesty Renaissance EDC, and other community-based partners, has begun the visioning and planning necessary to clean-up and redevelop the former Hardesty Federal Complex into beneficial community asset.


Summary of the Various Cumulative Environmental Issues: The Truman Plaza area was incorporated from 1873 to 1909. After World War II, various programs impacted the physical character and environment of Truman Plaza, such as the Missouri Urban Renewal Act in the 1940s and Section 353 designations that lead to demolition of large areas of single family homes for new business and housing. The 1950s were characterized by a large number of urban renewal projects that replaced substandard or unsuitable housing with new multifamily housing and commercial or industrial buildings meant to rejuvenate the area, which now characterize the Truman Plaza Area. Apart from the renewal efforts that brought large, heavy industrial and manufacturing buildings to the area (along with their respective pollutants), the construction of the interstate highways I-70 and I-35/29 at the edges of Truman Plaza increased the amount of automobiles, buses, and trucks into the area, resulting in a disproportionate share of air pollution from vehicle emissions to this community. Geographically, the Truman Plaza community is surrounded by either highways or railroad tracks: to the north, there is the Union Pacific (UP) Railroad track; to the south, I-70; to the east, Chouteau Trafficway between the UP Railroad Tracks and BNSF Railroad Tracks; and to the west, I-35. While railways and highways provided easier access into Kansas City’s urban core, it also resulted in movement towards the suburbs, that when coupled with a decline in manufacturing, lead to disinvestment in the area in the mid to late twentieth century. From 1980 to 2010, the white population decreased in the Truman Plaza Area, many moving to the suburbs, while the black population increased, and the Hispanic and “Other” population increased considerably. As a result, the remaining population in the Truman Plaza Area (predominantly minority communities) is now disproportionately impacted as compared to the rest of the City. Today, major challenges for the Truman Plaza Area goes beyond redevelopment, crime, and deteriorating physical conditions, and now includes environmental justice as a result of the area’s industrial and manufacturing history. The Truman Plaza Area, part of Kansas City’s urban core, is dense, with commercial and industrial areas throughout. The targeted area is prone to receiving higher levels of pollution, because of the high concentration of manufacturing industry, and being surrounded by highways and commercial/cargo rail. Due to limited mass transit in the area, more people rely on driving to work than taking public transportation (buses), hence increasing air pollution. Other similar industrial or manufacturing buildings in the Truman Plaza Area, like the Hardesty Complex, may still contain hazardous materials that can also be detrimental to this community’s health and environment. At the Hardesty Complex, there are chlorinated solvents found in the soil and ground water, which have also been found in off-site ground waters. Some of the soil is contaminated with lead and sulfur from the former on-site firing ranges, and another part of the facility had its soil and groundwater identified with petroleum hydrocarbon contamination. What is found at the Hardesty Complex, may potentially be found in similar buildings in the area that continue vacant and/or abandoned after years of closure. By acquiring the Hardesty Complex, we aim at reclaiming and reusing the site for a public benefit that creates jobs, promotes health and nutrition, and is environmentally-friendly and sustainable, transforming the lives of the existing community and its future generations.

The Health and Welfare of Sensitive Populations: The targeted community on average has a higher household size than the rest of the city, and around two-thirds of the households are family households, meaning they have two or more people living together, and are related. This area also has more households with children compared to the entire city. While the area has more children and families, it also has a larger percentage of unemployed and people living in poverty,


which makes it a greater hardship in larger homes where the wage earners aren’t making enough to sustain the entire family. The area is also filled with a higher percentage of younger families, who usually earn less than the typical wage earners, resulting in a lower median income as compared to the rest of the area. Overall, the community is having children younger, and increasing the number of people having to share a house, because they are unable to earn higher wages that afford independence and self-sufficiency, thus hindering the overall welfare of the community, and impeding the health and quality of life for the families living there. The targeted area is also more diverse than the city. In the area, Hispanics make up 41% of the population, while they only hold 10% of the population in the whole city. Whites make up 40% of the community compared to 59% citywide. Blacks make up 27% compared to 30% citywide, and Other Races is 34% compared to 11% citywide. (Source: Truman Plaza Area Plan, City of Kansas City, MO) What is not seen in these percentages, but can be seen throughout the Truman Plaza area, is the diversity in nationalities from long-time, or newly-arrived, immigrants who now also make-up the rich cultural fabric of this community, which is also now home to refugees from east Africa (Somalia). Due to the higher percentage of foreign born residents that now call the Truman Plaza area home, there is resulting educational gap that is adversely impacting the general welfare and health of the area. Due to their residence status, cost of education, and/or linguistic challenges (as English Language Learners), the targeted area’s college attendance rate is at a low 28%, compared to the city’s 58%. Also impacting their ability to attend college is their inability to complete high school; 40% of the residents in the Truman Plaza area, who are 25 years old or older, have not earned their high school diplomas. With a low-income, immigrant population, with little educational attainment, one can see how this community can become trapped in the cycle of poverty. By initiating brownfield clean-up efforts at the Hardesty Complex, Hardesty Renaissance can promote job creation as part of a community economic development plan, while making fresh/affordable produce, dairy, and meats more accessible to a community in desperate need of positive environmental changes and opportunities. Economic Impact of Brownfields on Our Community: The Truman Plaza Area has been devastated by the decline in manufacturing and industrial businesses from the mid to late twentieth century, including the closure of the former Hardesty Federal Complex, which in itself, created jobs for military and civilian personnel from the area. As with most brownfield sites, the Hardesty Complex remained vacant for many years due to its undesirability as a contaminated site on the market, with a hefty “clean-up” bill to the prospective buyer, which at a scale of 18.5 acres, has been perceived by the community as a herculean remediation effort that no one would take one. They were right. Notwithstanding the low bids GSA was willing to accept from Buyers, none of the Buyers would be willing to take on the costly brownfield remediation associated with the acquisition of the site, estimated in the millions. Accordingly, prospective businesses and other industries with space requirements have gone to other parts of Kansas City, where they can undertake new construction projects without environmental issues, rather than the more environmentally –sustainable approach of reusing an old structure, carrying out environmental remediation, and preserving what in many cases are historic buildings. Since its closure in 2002, the Hardesty Complex began to deteriorate, ending up a contaminated, brownfield site that has exacerbated both population flight, and neighborhood blight. It has also decreased the value of land for the adjacent properties. The Hardesty Complex remained vacant for more than 10 years until 2011, when the GSA auctioned the site and, for the first time,


accepted responsibility for its clean-up on behalf of the buyer. The prospective buyer/successful bidder, who would become Hardesty Renaissance EDC, would solely be responsible for the interior clean-up of the buildings and structures, while the GSA would clean the contaminated soil and groundwater, finally promulgating remediation and redevelopment of the site. After 10 years of abandonment and neighborhood blight, the Hardesty Complex now has a chance to transform the landscape and lives of the local community, by promoting new businesses, employment, and environmental sustainability. Economics and the Community: The area’s median income is at $27,055, compared to $44,466 citywide; Poverty levels are at 34%, compared to 17% citywide; and the Unemployment is at 14.6%, compared to 8.5% citywide. All of this can be attributed to the decline and transformation of the Truman Plaza Area, once an industrial hub with multiple rail lines transporting manufactured goods and other cargo from Kansas City to other metropolitan cities. During the 1980’s, many manufacturing and heavy-industries left the Truman Plaza Area, leaving the workforce heavily reliant on construction, farming, and production or low-wage service jobs.

Demographic Information Table

It has been especially hard to attract new industries to the Truman Plaza Area, not only because of its brownfield sites, but also due to the lack of educational attainment, leaving this predominantly low-income minority community stuck at the lower ring of employment. This area does not only have an unemployment problem, but also a dire youth unemployment problem. 30% of people between the ages of 16-19 in the targeted area are not in school, and of

Target Community:

Truman Plaza (a)

County/City:

Jackson County/Kansas City (b)

State:

Missouri (b)

National:

(b)

Population: 44,958 674,158/302,499 5,988,927 314,847,155

Unemployment: 14.6% 7.2%/6.8% 6.9% 7.9%

Poverty Rate: 34% 16.8%/18.1% 15.3% 11.7%

Percent Minority: 54% 36.6%/45.1% 19.2% 36.6%

Median Household Income:

$27,055 $46,252/$44,113 $46,262 $51,914

Other:

Sources: (a) Data is available from the Truman Plaza Area Plan, City of Kansas City, MO, available at http://www.kcmo.org/CKCMO/Depts/CityPlanningandDevelopment/CitywidePlanning/TrumanPlazaAreaPlan/index.htm (b) Data is from the 2010 U.S. Census available at: http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/29/29095.html

http://www.kcmo.org/CKCMO/Depts/CityPlanningandDevelopment/CitywidePlanning/TrumanPlazaAreaPlan/index.htm

http://www.kcmo.org/CKCMO/Depts/CityPlanningandDevelopment/CitywidePlanning/TrumanPlazaAreaPlan/index.htm

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/29/29095.html


those youth, about 80% are unemployed (Source: Truman Plaza Area Plan, City of Kansas City, MO). All of these factors impact the median income and poverty levels of the Truman Plaza Area, furthering the economic hardships on future generations.

The targeted area has also experienced a consistent decline in population, which means that vacant housing percentages were significantly higher compared to the rest of the city; but after the housing crisis, foreclosures skyrocketed, devastating this community which was hit the hardest compared to the rest of the city. (Source: Truman Plaza Area Plan, City of Kansas City, MO) The foreclosure crises not only lowered the value of the remaining houses, but left residents to rent, rather than own, their homes…slowly deteriorating personal wealth gains and vanquishing community assets and other public institutions, i.e. public school closures along Independence Avenue due to family relocations, loss of jobs, foreclosures, etc. As a consequence of the economic downturn of 2008, with highest rates of unemployment and foreclosures in the city, crime began to increase significantly in the targeted area. Low-income households, low educational attainment, high unemployment (especially for youths), and deteriorating wealth, are all factors that have flipped the trend of crime upward in the Truman Plaza Area.

Through responsible, community economic development projects, like those planned by Hardesty Renaissance EDC for Building No. 10, residents of the Truman Plaza Area will be afforded an opportunity to gain financial independence, access to healthy food, and increase the value of their properties through neighboring redevelopment activities, while curtailing “crime and grime” through this beautification and environmental remediation project that puts the community back to work and on a positive trajectory of revitalization. However, as a not-for-profit organization, Hardesty Renaissance EDC is also challenged by the hardships of the economic downturn which have reduced and significantly limited the amount of grant or philanthropic funds necessary for this type of community-driven development project. Hardesty Renaissance EDC is faced with the challenge of raising sufficient private capital and public funds to address all of the environmental remediation issues (e.g. asbestos containing materials, lead-based paints, mold, etc.) affecting the interior of the seven (7) buildings, which is necessary in order to move forward to the next phase: preservation of the buildings and redevelopment into a food hub site. Many private foundations and lending institutions prefer not to grant funds or make loans to projects during the brownfield remediation phase, making it challenging for a not-for-profit developer like Hardesty Renaissance EDC to get the project off the ground. Therefore, to ensure successful development of this project, Hardesty Renaissance is undertaking a building-by-building, phased approach, commencing site redevelopment efforts with Buildings No. 10 and 11, due to these fiscal constraints. It is the hope of Hardesty Renaissance EDC, that through FY 15 EPA funding, this hurdle can be overcome and the project can move on to its next phase.

II. Project Description and Feasibility of Success

Conditions of the existing property: In 1940, the Department of the Army’s Quartermaster Corps purchased the subject property located at 607 Hardesty Avenue (corner of Independence Avenue) in Northeast Kansas City, Missouri, which encompasses approximately 18.5 acres and includes seven (7) main structures/buildings constructed between 1919 and 1943. The Quartermaster Corps began operating on site to purchase, store, and issue Quartermaster supplies for various posts, including protective and impermeable clothing, laundry and dry-cleaning supplies, inks, lithographic chemicals, petroleum products, petroleum handling equipment,


petroleum containers, and graphic arts operating supplies and chemicals. This federal facility continued to provide a variety of support functions for various federal agencies after World War II, until it was permanently closed by the federal government (General Services Administration) in 2002 due to a surplus in properties exceeding federal needs. After its closure, the Hardesty federal complex remained vacant for almost 10 years, falling into various stages of disrepair, with leaking roofs and evidence of vandalism. Numerous containers of different sizes were observed on the property, both labeled and unlabeled, and are believed to contain hazardous substances/wastes, including paint, adhesives, cleaning solvents, water treatment chemicals, lubricant oil, and janitorial products. The property is also registered by the state as an “underground storage tank site (UST),” and a “leaking underground storage tank site,” which left contamination in areas surrounding the USTs, although the Missouri Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) has confirmed that the four (4) USTs have been removed by Cape Environmental in 2000. In 2002, Terracon also issued a report entitled “GSA Preliminary Assessment” that identified several areas on the site where there was a likelihood of a release of hazardous substances, with subsequent investigations that confirmed chlorinated solvent and petroleum hydrocarbon contamination exceeding regulatory action levels. As part of the sale contract to Hardesty Renaissance, the GSA has accepted full responsibility to conduct all necessary assessment and remediation of the soil and groundwater contamination to achieve regulatory closure. Regulatory oversight for this work is being provided by the Missouri Department of Natural Resources’ (MDNR’s) Federal Facilities Program. Hardesty Renaissance is solely responsible for asbestos and/or lead remediation in the interior of the site’s structures/buildings. This FY 15 EPA grant request focuses solely on the remediation of what is referred to as Building No. 10, which is located at 605 Hardesty Avenue, just south of the intersection Independence and Hardesty Avenues. This building is a two (2) story structure with a basement that was constructed in 1942 and comprises 86,400 square feet. Hardesty Renaissance EDC will begin redevelopment of the Hardesty federal complex with Building No. 10, which is located at the far west, and hydrogeologically upgradient, portion of the site. In July 2012, Hardesty Renaissance EDC engaged Asbestos Consulting and Testing, Inc. (ACT) to complete an asbestos survey of Building No. 10 (included as an attachment), which identified Asbestos Containing Materials (ACM), potential lead-based paints (LBP), mold and hazardous materials (HM) inside the structure. However, based on environmental studies conducted to-date by the GSA (Terracon), there is no evidence that this area of the site, where Building No. 10 is located, has been significantly impacted by soil and/or groundwater contamination. Proposed project redevelopment and potential site reuse: Through funding support from the EPA, Hardesty Renaissance EDC will begin the clean-up and redevelopment of Building No. 10, to serve as part of broader regional “Food Hub” that will encompass and be housed in multiple buildings on the Hardesty site ---similar to a farmers market, where local and regional farmers can aggregate and distribute their commodities directly to the local community and institutions (e.g. schools, hospitals, etc.)---selling their locally-grown, fresh, affordable food (e.g. produce, dairy, and meats) in an area with the 5th highest rate of child food insecurity in the United States. (Source: Feeding America and Harversters-The Community Food Network) Food insecurity is the way that the USDA measures levels of access to food; food insecure households are those that are unable


to afford a nutritionally adequate diet at all times in the past 12 months. For individuals and families, food insecurity may mean reducing food portions or skipping meals altogether, or the uncertainty of not knowing where the next meal will come from. According to the Greater Kansas City Food Policy Coalition, the rate of food insecurity in Jackson County is almost 20%. Recent federal and state legislation demonstrates support for public sector involvement in local food. The 2008 Farm Bill includes $1.3 billion in new funding over a 10-year period for specialty crops (vegetables, fruits, etc.) through programs that support local food production and expand distribution of local, healthy food. (Source: American Farmland Trust, “A Rightful Place at the Table for Local and Healthy Foods,” analysis of the 2008 Farm Bill, 2010) Locally-grown food trends are taking off in neighboring states like Illinois, where the 2009 Illinois Local Food, Farms, and Jobs Act set procurement goals for purchase of local food by state and state-funded agencies. The Act also created the Local Food, Farms, and Jobs Council to address local food issues such as infrastructure, training and interagency coordination. (Source: Illinois Local and Organic Food and Farm Task Force, Report to the Illinois General Assembly, March 2009) The City of Kansas City has also begun to explore initiatives that promote local food and sustainable redevelopment in various parts of the City. Members of the Kansas City Council have become proponents of local food policy and have championed the redevelopment of the former federal complex, from a brownfield site, into a green project that also yields affordable and local food.

Hardesty Renaissance’s Building No. 10 seeks to transform the food environment of the Truman Plaza Area in Northeast KC, with its limited grocery stores and fresh food markets (considered by some a “food desert,” primarily because staple grocery items are not affordable or easily accessible), into an oasis of affordable, local fresh food with limited or minimal “food miles”----considered the distance that food must travel, i.e. from the farm, to a processing plant, to a supermarket, etc., until it finally arrives to your home. There are numerous convenience stores within the target community (along the Independence Avenue corridor) that carry highly processed, high-fat foods, with fast food restaurants as the only other alternative. To investigate the local food distribution system, Hardesty Renaissance EDC commissioned a market feasibility study from the Port Authority of Kansas City in September 2012, to determine the viability of opening a food hub at the former federal complex. This study looks at local farmers (supply), and local institutions, farm-to-table restaurants, and potential consumers (demand) who may actively participate in a fully-operational food hub sited at the former federal complex.

To respond to the need to provide local residents both with healthy fresh foods, as well as job opportunities, Hardesty Renaissance has reached out to multiple food retailers and wholesalers who have expressed interested in occupying Building No. 10. These vendors include: Wispering Roots, a 501(c)3 non-profit organization whose mission is to provide fresh, locally grown healthy food for socially and economically disadvantaged communities by using Aquaponics, Hydroponics and Urban Farming; Spike and Jessie Nguyen, the owners of two, i-Pho Tower, French Vietnamese fusion restaurants; and, Wang Guo Qing, an entrepreneur from Inner Mongolia whose business plans include both agriculture and process manufacture (i.e., growing Goji berries and other herbs to be incorporated with yeast-like enzymes into a healthy beverage). Hardesty Renaissance will continue its outreach efforts to identify additional potential vendors/tenants for Building 10 though, together, if all 3 of the vendors mentioned above moved in they could fully occupy the building.


Previous activities to investigate, secure, stabilize, and clean up the site: As part of the sale contract to the current owner, HREDC, the General Services Administration (GSA) has accepted full responsibility to conduct all necessary assessment and remediation of the soil and groundwater contamination to achieve regulatory closure. Regulatory oversight for this work is being provided by the Missouri Department of Natural Resources (MDNR’s) Federal Facilities Program. Numerous environmental investigations have been conducted on the property, dating back to the early 1980s. These studies have focused primarily on the assessment of soil and groundwater contamination, primarily pertaining to chlorinated solvents and petroleum hydrocarbons which have impacted the site as a result of prior land use. Hazardous materials were identified in the ENVIRONMENTAL SITE INVESTIGATION REPORT prepared by SCS Engineers dated November, 2003 and were remediated as reported in the ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND LOW LEVEL PCB REMEDIATION REPORT prepared by ESC Engineers dated February 2007. This report indicates the identified hazardous materials are documented to have been properly addressed in the Building No. 10. A comprehensive asbestos survey of this Building No. 10 was conducted in December 2013 that identified both friable and non-friable asbestos containing materials. A comprehensive lead-based paint survey of Building No. 10 was conducted in December 2013 that identified the presence of lead-based paint. A hazardous materials inventory of Building No. 10 was conducted in December 2013 to identify and quantify PCBs, mercury-containing equipment, CFCs, batteries, and radioactive sources present at the site, typical items that need addressed that were not covered in the SCS Engineers reports referenced above.

Proposed Clean Up Plan: The principal goal of Hardesty Renaissance’s Brownfield cleanup action is to address the environmental conditions preventing or impeding the redevelopment of the site, and to do so in a manner protective of human health and the environment. As part of the contract of sale, Hardesty Renaissance EDC is responsible for abatement of any hazardous wastes (HW), asbestos-containing materials (ACMs), and lead-based paint (LBPs) necessary to rehabilitate any structure for future land use. Hardesty Renaissance’s environmental consultant has evaluated various cleanup alternatives and proposed the following in accordance with U.S. EPA and Missouri Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) Brownfields/Voluntary Cleanup Program (MDNR-BVCP) procedural requirements:

o Abatement/Removal of All ACMs – will involve proper abatement of all ACM at the site,

which includes pipe insulation, mudded joint fittings, tank insulation, ceiling tiles, flue pipes, floor tile and mastic, roof flashing, and cementitious panels. Abatement would be conducted in accordance with all applicable local, state, and federal regulations by a registered Missouri Asbestos abatement contractor. Regulatory clearance would be obtained through successful implementation of a pre-approved Remedial Action Plan, including clearance sampling and pre/during/post inspections by Kansas City Air Quality. Prior to these activities, in order to assure all the ACM is accessible, the following task would need to be completed: removal and disposal of all non-hazardous debris in the building to allow for safe and complete access to all identified ACM. Any sampling for clearance would have to be performed in accordance with a pre-approved Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP).


o Removal and Disposal of All HW Items – will involve property consolidating and

packaging/containerizing of the various HW items strewn throughout the building, and arranging for off-site transportation to an appropriate disposal/recycling facility.

POTENTIAL CLEANUP ALTERNATIVES 1.0

The overall goal of a Brownfields cleanup action at the Former Hardesty Federal Complex is to address the environmental conditions preventing or impeding the preferred type of site redevelopment, and to do so in a manner protective of human health and the environment.

It is the desire of HREDC to continue redevelopment of the Hardesty Federal Complex with Building 10, which is located just east of Building 11. Based on the environmental studies conducted to-date by GSA, there is no evidence that this area of the site has been significantly impacted by soil and/or groundwater contamination. Surveys of Building No. 10 have identified asbestos-containing materials (ACMs), lead-based paints (LBPs) and hazardous materials (HMs) inside the structure.

As part of the sale contract, HREDC is responsible for abatement of any ACMs, LBPs and HMs necessary to rehabilitate any structure at the site for future land use. The purpose of this Analysis of Brownfield Cleanup Alternatives (ABCA) is to present viable cleanup alternatives based on site-specific conditions, technical feasibility, and preliminary cost evaluation. Each alternative is evaluated in terms of its effectiveness, implementation ability, and cost.

The following sections describe Brownfields alternatives for addressing the ACMs, LBPs and HMs identified in Building 10, including the “No Action” alternative. Due to water damage and that the building has remained vacant for many years, most of the interior furnishings (e.g. gypsum wallboard walls, floor coverings, etc.) will need to be physically removed and disposed of that are not removed in conjunction any abatement activities associated with ACM and LBP removal. As such, the abatement of any intact LBPs will be achieved as part of any required demolition work associated with future construction work, and will be incorporated in the construction specifications.

The criterion used to assess the effectiveness of a remedial alternative, based upon its ability to meet the objectives of the Brownfields cleanup, include the following:

Overall protection of public health and the environment Compliance with applicable regulatory requirements, advisories, and guidance documents Long-term effectiveness Reduction of toxicity, mobility, or volume through treatment/removal Short-term effectiveness


Criteria used to assess implement ability or an alternative are:

Technical feasibility Administrative feasibility Availability of services and materials State acceptance Community acceptance

Each alternative is evaluated to determine its estimated cost. The evaluations compare among the alternatives direct capital costs, which include equipment, services, and contingency allowances. The purpose of evaluating each alternative is to determine its advantages and disadvantages relative to the other alternative in order to identify key tradeoffs that would affect selection of the preferred alternative.

2.0 Evaluated Contamination

Contaminants and items possibly containing hazardous materials, which have been evaluated as part of this ABCA, include ACM, LBP and HM.

Asbestos-Containing Materials (ACMs)

A comprehensive asbestos survey of this building was conducted in December 2013. USEPA accredited and State of Missouri certified asbestos inspectors conducted the survey, and the samples were submitted to an NVLAP accredited laboratory for analysis utilizing polarized light microscopy with dispersion staining. A summary of the friable and non-friable ACMs identified in Building 10 and the approximate quantity of each is provided below in Table 1.


TABLE 1

IDENTIFIED ASBESTOS CONTAINING MATERIALS BY HOMOGENEOUS AREA (HA)

HA

HA MATERIAL DESCRIPTION HA MATERIAL LOCATION

TYPE

ASBESTOS** FRIABILITY CONDITION ESTIMATED

QUANTITY*

01 Preformed Mag./Cal. Pipe Insulation

Basement - west tunnel, NW area, bathroom

10% Amosite

5% Chrysotile

Friable Damaged 185 Linear Ft.

02 Mudded Joint Packings With Preformed Mag./Cal. Block Pipe Insulation


10% Amosite; 65% Chrysotile

Friable Damaged 20 Joint(s)

03 Corrugated Pipe Insulation

Basement - west tunnel, east tunnel, north center area, along east wall, bathroom. 1st floor - NE room, east center rooms, bathroom. 2nd floor - east center room, bathroom.

50% Chrysotile


04 Mudded Joint Packings With Corrugated Pipe Insulation





HA


TYPE


QUANTITY*

05 Layered Paper Pipe Insulation

Basement - west tunnel, east tunnel, north center area, east center area, along west wall, at north and south stairs, bathroom pipe chase. 1st floor - bathroom and bathroom pipe chase. 2nd floor - bathroom pipe chase, at north and south stairs.

50% Chrysotile

Friable Damaged 1,050 Linear Ft.

06 Mudded Joint Packings With Layered Paper Pipe Insulation


65% Chrysotile


07 Mudded Joint Packings With Fiberglass Pipe Insulation

Basement - bathroom and shower room.

2% Amosite

2% Chrysotile


10 Brown 9" x 9" Floor Tile and Mastic

1st floor throughout except in north center area and NE room, in checkerboard pattern with 9"x9" black floor tile.

10% Chrysotile

Non Friable

Damaged 12,500 Sq. Ft.


HA


TYPE


QUANTITY*

11 Black 9" x 9" Floor Tile and Mastic

1st floor throughout except in north center area and NE room, in checkerboard pattern with 9"x9" brown floor tile.

10% Chrysotile

Non Friable


12 12" x 12" Floor Tile and Mastic

1st floor - east center room.

5% Chrysotile

Non Friable

Good 900 Sq. Ft.

13 Mastic Beneath Sheet Flooring/Paper (Linoleum)

2nd floor - NE area. 5% Chrysotile

Non Friable

Good 360 Sq. Ft.

14 Leveling compound

1st floor - north center. 5% Chrysotile

Non Friable

Damaged 500 Sq. Ft.

15 Cement Pipes Basement - north center area at ceiling, NE electric room, bathroom. 1st floor bathroom. Exterior at east center of building.

15% Chrysotile

5% Crocidolite

Non Friable

Damaged 175 Linear Ft.

16 Cement Panels

Exterior – covering windows of 2nd floor

15% Chrysotile

Non Friable

Damaged 2500 Sq. Ft.

17 Cement Panels

Basement – north side of NE electric room in electric panel

15% Chrysotile

Non Friable

Damaged 10 Sq. Ft.

20 Window Caulking

Exterior – at perimeter of windows

10% Chrysotile

Friable Damaged 420 Windows

*Estimated quantities are based on a cursory field evaluation, and actual quantities may vary significantly, especially if asbestos containing materials are present in hidden and/or inaccessible areas not evaluated as part of this survey.


**% & Type Asbestos = this column contains both the analytical result of the sample with the highest concentration of asbestos detected in the samples that make up the HA and the types of asbestos identified.

MATERIALS CONTAINING 1% OR LESS ASBESTOS BY HA

HA # HA MATERIAL DESCRIPTION HA MATERIAL LOCATION

08 Gypsum Wallboard with Joint Compound & Tape

Basement - east side storerooms. 1st floor - interior walls throughout. 2nd floor - north center storage area.

09 Gypsum board air ducts Basement, 1st and 2nd floors - running along center areas at ceilings branching to side areas.

*The gypsum wallboard tested negative for asbestos, the joint compound tested positive for asbestos. The EPA and State of Missouri allow the laboratory to composite the joint compound and the gypsum wallboard materials together and treat the sample as one material. In this case, the composited analysis is less than 1% asbestos, which means the gypsum wallboard and joint compound composite material is considered not a asbestos-containing material.

Please note, that friable ACM and nonfriable ACM that is damaged to the extent that if is friable, need to be abated by a State of Missouri licensed asbestos abatement contractor prior to demolition or renovation activities that may disturb these materials. Non-friable ACM such as the cementitious panels need to be abated by a State of Missouri licensed asbestos abatement contractor prior to demolition activities, if the materials will be crumbled, pulverized or reduced to powder. Additionally, non-friable asbestos-containing material floor tile and mastic needs to be abated prior to renovation and/or demolition activities that disturb the materials and render them friable.

Lead-Based Paint (LBP)

A comprehensive lead-based paint survey of this building was conducted in December 2013. A State of Missouri licensed lead inspector conducted the survey using an X-Ray Fluorescence Spectrometer to determine if surface coatings contain lead. In addition, the inspector collected paint chip samples and submitted samples under chain of custody to QuanTEM Laboratories of Oklahoma City, Oklahoma for analysis by United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) methodology 7000B (1). Lead content in samples were reported in percent lead by weight.


A summary of LBP identified in Building 10, and the condition and approximate quantity of each, is provided below in Table 2.

TABLE 2

IDENTIFIED LEAD-BASED PAINT BY LOCATION

Location Color Condition Approximate Quantity

Basement Columns Yellow Peeling 3,400 Square Feet

Basement Windows Gray Peeling 500 Square Feet

Basement Doors Gray Peeling 500 Square Feet

Basement Handrails Gray Peeling 250 Square Feet

1st Floor Gypsum Wallboard Orange Peeling 12,000 Square

Feet

1st Floor Windows Tan Peeling 1,000 Square Feet

1st Floor Doors Pink, Red,

Blue Peeling 1,000 Square Feet

1st Floor Garage Doors Orange, Tan Peeling 1,500 Square Feet

1st Floor Baseboards Black Peeling 1,000 Square Feet

1st Floor Radiators Brown Peeling 850 Square Feet

2nd Floor Concrete Walls Green Peeling 15,000 Square

Feet

2nd Floor Concrete Columns Tan, Green Peeling 3,500 Square Feet

2nd Floor Wood Windows Green Peeling 1,000 Square Feet

2nd Floor Wood Handrails Yellow Peeling 250 Square Feet

Exterior – Wood Windows Gray Peeling 750 Square Feet

Exterior – Wood Awning Gray Peeling 3,800 Square Feet

Exterior – Wood Garage Door

Blue Peeling 800 Square Feet


1.1 Hazardous Materials (HM) Inventory

An HM inventory of Building 10 was conducted in December 2013 to identify and quantify PCBs, mercury-containing equipment, CFCs, batteries, and radioactive sources.

Items identified are:

1. PCB Light Ballasts – approximately 360

2. Fluorescent Light Tubes – approximately 725

3. Thermostat Switches - 5

4. Exit Signs - 5

Due to water damage which has occurred over the many years while the buildings remained vacant, most of the interior furnishings (e.g. sheetrock walls, floor coverings, etc.) will need to be physically removed and disposed of during demolition and redevelopment construction. Other hazardous materials listed in the ENVIRONMENTAL SITE INVESTIGATION REPORT prepared by SCS Engineers dated November, 2003 were addressed and documented in the ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND LOW LEVEL PCB REMEDIATION REPORT prepared by ESC Engineers dated February 2007 and are documented to have been properly addressed in the building.

1.0 Evaluation of Cleanup Alternatives

The roof on Building No. 10 has deteriorated over the years resulting in water intrusion into the building. Windows are cracked or broken out in many locations resulting in water intrusion. Pigeons have taken over the entire first floor contaminating it with their droppings creating a biological hazard. Surfaces that are painted are peeling extensively. Thermal system insulation is damaged in most areas.

Given the above condition statement, cleanup alternatives are limited for ACM, LBP and HM. Evaluations of cleanup alternatives have been developed with specific consideration to USEPA and Missouri Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) Brownfields/Voluntary Cleanup Program (MDNR-BVCP) procedural requirements.


1.2 Asbestos-Containing Materials

Alternative 1: No Action

Alternative 1: consists of leaving the ACM in-place at the site.

Effectiveness

This alternative would be ineffective in achieving the goal of reduction of health risks and future redevelopment of Building No. 10.

Implementation

Implementation of this alternative is straightforward – seal off the building and abandon it place.

Cost

This alternative would not involve any direct remediation costs.

Alternative 2: Abatement/Removal of Identified ACMs

Alternative 2 involves proper abatement of all identified ACM at the site, as stated in Table 1 above. Abatement would be conducted in accordance with all applicable local, state, and federal regulations by a licensed Missouri Asbestos abatement contractor. Regulatory clearance would be obtained through successful implementation of a preapproved Remedial Action Plan, including clearance sampling and pre/during/post inspections by Kansas City Air Quality. Any sampling for clearance would have to be performed in accordance with a pre-approved Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP), per federal cooperative agreement if Brownfields Revolving Loan Funds grants are used.

Effectiveness

If all of the identified ACM is removed, this alternative would be most effective in removing risk to human health and the environment posed by the ACM. In addition, full abatement would allow for redevelopment of the site without the need for restrictions.

Implementation

Implementation requires the development of procedures and work practices in compliance with MDNR’s Publication 2099 entitled “Asbestos and Lead-Based Paint Abatement Requirements at Brownfields/Voluntary Cleanup Program Sites” (MDNR 2009). The abatement would be conducted in accordance with all applicable local, state, and federal regulations by a Missouri licensed asbestos abatement contractor. ACM identified at the site includes all materials identified in Table 1 above.


Cost

Estimated abatement costs were prepared based on similar work under similar building conditions. The estimated costs listed below include costs associated with labor, materials, notification and inspection fees, and disposal costs. A summary of ACM removal estimates are provided in the table below.

IDENTIFIED ASBESTOS CONTAINING MATERIALS BY HOMOGENEOUS AREA (HA)

REMOVAL ESTIMATE

HA


TYPE


QUANTITY*

01 Preformed Mag./Cal. Pipe Insulation


10% Amosite

5% Chrysotile


Removal Estimate Between $2,775 and $3,700

02 Mudded Joint Packings With Preformed Mag./Cal. Block Pipe Insulation




Removal Estimate Between $300 and $400

03 Corrugated Pipe Insulation


50% Chrysotile




HA


TYPE


QUANTITY*

04 Mudded Joint Packings With Corrugated Pipe Insulation





05 Layered Paper Pipe Insulation


50% Chrysotile

Friable Damaged 1,050 Linear Ft.


06 Mudded Joint Packings With Layered Paper Pipe Insulation


65% Chrysotile




HA


TYPE


QUANTITY*

07 Mudded Joint Packings With Fiberglass Pipe Insulation

Basement - bathroom and shower room.

2% Amosite

2% Chrysotile


Removal Estimate Between $900 and $1,200

10 Brown 9" x 9" Floor Tile and Mastic

1st floor throughout except in north center area and NE room, in checkerboard pattern with 9"x9" black floor tile.

10% Chrysotile

Non Friable



11 Black 9" x 9" Floor Tile and Mastic

1st floor throughout except in north center area and NE room, in checkerboard pattern with 9"x9" brown floor tile.

10% Chrysotile

Non Friable



12 12" x 12" Floor Tile and Mastic

1st floor - east center room.

5% Chrysotile

Non Friable

Good 900 Sq. Ft.


13 Mastic Beneath Sheet Flooring/Paper (Linoleum)

2nd floor - NE area. 5% Chrysotile

Non Friable

Good 360 Sq. Ft.



HA


TYPE


QUANTITY*

14 Leveling compound

1st floor - north center. 5% Chrysotile

Non Friable

Damaged 500 Sq. Ft.


15 Cement Pipes Basement - north center area at ceiling, NE electric room, bathroom. 1st floor bathroom. Exterior at east center of building.

15% Chrysotile

5% Crocidolite

Non Friable

Damaged 175 Linear Ft.

Removal Estimate Between $875 and $1,750

16 Cement Panels

Exterior – covering windows of 2nd floor

15% Chrysotile

Non Friable

Damaged 2500 Sq. Ft.


17 Cement Panels

Basement – north side of NE electric room in electric panel

15% Chrysotile

Non Friable

Damaged 10 Sq. Ft.

Removal Estimate Between $50 and $100

20 Window Caulking

Exterior – at perimeter of windows

10% Chrysotile

Friable Damaged 420 Windows


Total estimated removal costs are between $125,375 and $183,150. Technical oversight and clearance sampling would be necessary. Development of procedures and work practices in compliance with MDNR’s Publication 2099 entitled “Asbestos and Lead-Based Paint Abatement Requirements at Brownfields/Voluntary Cleanup Program Sites” (MDNR 2009), technical oversight and clearance sampling are estimated between $35,000.00 and $45,000.

Incorporating all costs discussed above, the total estimated cost for abatement of identified ACMs is between $160,375 and $228,150. Prevailing wage requirements in effect, may increase the cost estimates by as much as 28%, to between $205,280 and $292,032.


Alternative 3: Abatement of Identified Friable ACMs Only

Alternative 3 involves proper abatement of the identified friable ACMs and damaged non-friable ACMs at the site, as stated above in Table 3 with the exception of HAS 12 and13. Abatement would be conducted in accordance with all applicable local, state, and federal regulations by a licensed Missouri Asbestos abatement contractor. Regulatory clearance would be obtained through successful implementation of a preapproved Remedial Action Plan, including clearance sampling and pre/during/post inspections by Kansas City Air Quality. Any sampling for clearance would have to be performed in accordance with a pre-approved Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP), per federal cooperative agreement if Brownfields Revolving Loan Funds grants are used.

Effectiveness

If all of the identified friable ACMs and damaged non-friable ACMs are removed, Alternative 3 would be cost effective in removing the risk to human health and the environment. The management of non-friable ACMs, that remains in-place, will require implementation of an Asbestos Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Plan.

Implementation

Implementation requires the development of procedures and work practices in compliance with MDNR’s Publication 2099 entitled “Asbestos and Lead-Based Paint Abatement Requirements at Brownfields/Voluntary Cleanup Program Sites” (MDNR 2009). In addition, the ACM floor tile and mastic and sheet flooring would be left in-place. Future redevelopment plans would have to consider locations and condition of the ACM and ensure those areas/materials would not be disturbed. An Asbestos Operations & Maintenance Plan (O&M Plan) would be required to document the presence and location of ACMs, and future maintenance procedures regarding the ACMs. In addition, filing the Asbestos O&M Plan on the property’s chain of title as an institutional control would be required by MDNR-BVCP.

Cost

Total estimated removal costs are between $121,775 and $176,850. Development of procedures and work practices in compliance with MDNR’s Publication 2099 entitled “Asbestos and Lead-Based Paint Abatement Requirements at Brownfields/Voluntary Cleanup Program Sites” (MDNR 2009), technical oversight and clearance sampling, and development of an Asbestos Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Plan would be necessary. Technical oversight and clearance sampling are estimated between $35,000.00 and $45,000. Development of an Asbestos O&M Plan is estimated at $2,500.


Incorporating all costs discussed above, the total estimated cost for abatement of identified ACMs is between $159,275 and $225,350. Prevailing wage requirements in effect, may increase the cost estimates by as much as 28%, to between $203,872 and $287,168.

Lead-Based Paint (LBP)


Alternative 1: consists of leaving LBP in-place without disturbing it at the site.

Effectiveness

This alternative would be ineffective in achieving the goal of reduction of health risks and future redevelopment of Building 10.

Implementation

Implementation of this alternative is straightforward – seal off the building and abandon in-place.

Cost


Alternative 2: Repair/Remove/Stabilize Peeling Paint

Alternative 2: consists of the removal of flaking and peeling lead-based paint and lead-based paint dust that may be a hazard to human health or the environment.

Effectiveness

This alternative would be effective in achieving the goal of reduction of health risks and future redevelopment of Building 10.

Implementation

Implementation requires the development of procedures and work practices in compliance with MDNR’s Publication 2099 entitled “Asbestos and Lead-Based Paint Abatement Requirements at Brownfields/Voluntary Cleanup Program Sites” (MDNR 2009). In addition, the LBP would be left in-place. Future redevelopment plans would have to consider locations and condition of the LBP in future redevelop of the building. An LBP Operations & Maintenance Plan (O&M Plan) would be required to document the presence and location of LBP, and future maintenance procedures regarding the LBP. In addition, filing the LBP O&M Plan on the property’s chain of title as an institutional control would be required by MDNR-BVCP.


Cost

Estimated repair/removal/stabilization costs were prepared based on similar work under similar building conditions. The estimated costs listed below include all costs associated with labor, materials, removal and disposal costs. A summary of LBP repair/ removal/stabilization estimates are provided in the table below.

IDENTIFIED LEAD-BASED PAINT BY LOCATION

Location Color Condition Approximate Quantity

Removal/Stabilization Estimate

Basement Columns Yellow Peeling 3,400 Square Feet $10,200 to $13,600

Basement Windows Gray Peeling 500 Square Feet $2,250 to $2,750

Basement Doors Gray Peeling 500 Square Feet $2,250 to $2,750

Basement Handrails Gray Peeling 250 Square Feet $1,125 to $1,375

1st Floor Gypsum Wallboard

Orange Peeling 12,000 Square Feet

$20,000 to $25,000

1st Floor Windows Tan Peeling 1,000 Square Feet $4,500 to $5,500

1st Floor Doors Pink, Red, Blue

Peeling 1,000 Square Feet $4,500 to $5,500

1st Floor Garage Door Orange, Tan Peeling 1,500 Square Feet $5,250 to $6,750

1st Floor Baseboard Black Peeling 1,000 Square Feet $2,500 to $3,000

1st Floor Radiators Brown Peeling 850 Square Feet $2,000 to $2,500

2nd Floor Concrete Walls

Green Peeling 15,000 Square Feet

$52,500 to $67,500

2nd Floor Concrete Columns

Tan, Green Peeling 3,500 Square Feet $12,250 to $15,750

2nd Floor Wood Windows

Green Peeling 1,000 Square Feet $4,500 to $5,500

2nd Floor Wood Handrails

Yellow Peeling 250 Square Feet $1,125 to $1,375


Exterior – Wood Window

Gray Peeling 750 Square Feet $3,375 to $4,125

Exterior – Wood Awning

Gray Peeling 3,800 Square Feet $17,100 to $20,900

Exterior – Wood Garage Door

Blue Peeling 800 Square Feet $3,600 to $4,400

Total estimated repair/removal/stabilization costs are between $149,275 and $188,275. Technical oversight and clearance sampling would be necessary. Development of procedures and work practices and a Lead Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Plan in compliance with MDNR’s Publication 2099 entitled “Asbestos and Lead-Based Paint Abatement Requirements at Brownfields/Voluntary Cleanup Program Sites” (MDNR 2009), technical oversight and clearance sampling are estimated between $37,500 and $47,500.

Incorporating all costs discussed above, the total estimated cost for abatement of identified LBP is between $186,775 and $235,775. Prevailing wage requirements in effect, may increase the cost estimates by as much as 28%, to between $239,072 and $301,792.

Alternative 3: Complete Removal LBP

Alternative 3: consists of the complete removal of all lead-based paint and lead-based paint dust that may be a hazard to human health or the environment.

Effectiveness

This alternative would be effective in achieving the goal of reduction of health risks and future redevelopment of Building 10.

Implementation

Implementation requires the development of procedures and work practices in compliance with MDNR’s Publication 2099 entitled “Asbestos and Lead-Based Paint Abatement Requirements at Brownfields/Voluntary Cleanup Program Sites” (MDNR 2009).

Cost

Total estimated cost to remove identified lead base paint is between $750,000 and $900,000. Technical oversight and clearance sampling would be necessary. Development of procedures and work practices and a Lead Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Plan in compliance with MDNR’s Publication 2099 entitled “Asbestos and Lead-Based Paint Abatement Requirements at


Brownfields/Voluntary Cleanup Program Sites” (MDNR 2009), technical oversight and clearance sampling are estimated between $75,000.00 and $125,000.

Incorporating all costs discussed above, the total estimated cost for abatement of identified LPB is between $825,000 and $1,025,000. Prevailing wage requirements in effect, may increase the cost estimates by as much as 28%, to between $1,056,000 and $1,312,000.

Hazardous Materials (HMs)


Alternative 1: consists of leaving the HMs in-place at the site.

Effectiveness

This alternative would be ineffective in achieving the goal of reduction of health risks and future redevelopment of Building 10.

Implementation

Implementation of this alternative is straightforward – seal off the building and abandon it place.

Cost


Alternative 2: Removal of Identified HMs

Alternative 2 involves the removal intact, segregation, packaging and recycling of identified mercury-containing lights, PCB containing light ballasts, and exit sign batteries in accordance with applicable state and federal regulations prior to renovation of the building..

Effectiveness

This alternative would be most effective in removing risk to human health and the environment posed by the HMs. This alternative would allow for redevelopment of the site without the need for restrictions.

Implementation

Implementation requires the development of procedures and work practices in compliance with all applicable local, state, and federal regulations.

Cost

The estimated costs to remove approximately 360 PCB Light Ballasts, approximately 725 Fluorescent Light Tubes, 5 Thermostat Switches, and 5 Exit Signs is between $9,000 and $12,000.


RECOMMENDED CLEANUP ALTERNATIVES 2.0

2.1 Asbestos-Containing Materials (ACMs)

Alternative 2: Complete abatement is the recommended cleanup alternative for ACM identified at the site. This alternative would be effective in removing ACM located at the site, as well as removing the risk to human health posed by the ACM. In addition, this alternative would allow redevelopment of the site without restrictions.

2.2 Lead-Based Paint (LBP)

Alternative 2: Repair/remove/stabilize is the recommended cleanup alternative for LBP identified at the site. This alternative would be effective in remediating the LBP hazard located at the site, as well as removing the risk to human health posed by the peeling LBP. In addition, this alternative would allow redevelopment of the site without restrictions.

2.3 Hazardous Materials (HMs)

Alternative 2: Complete removal and disposal/recycling of the HMs is the recommended cleanup alternative. This alternative would allow redevelopment of the site without restrictions.

3.0 Total Cleanup Costs

Based on the recommended cleanup alternatives for ACM, LBP and HW, the estimated total cleanup cost is between $408,552 and $548,160.

Additional cost consideration under enrollment in the MDNR-BVCP is preparation of a Quality Assurance Protection Program (QAPP), a Remedial Action Plan (RAP) and a Final Closeout Report. Preparation of the QAPP and RAP and Final Closeout Report costs are estimated between $10,000 and $15,000.

It is important to recognize that these costs vary depending on various factors, such as: the abatement techniques used; time of the year the work is performed, new or revised regulatory requirements, etc. Other considerations given the general poor condition of the windows and the amount of ACM and LBP present on them, if they are removed intact, then some type of put-back is required.


How project fits with the targeted community plan: Hardesty Renaissance is consistent with and implements recommendations from the local comprehensive community plans: Forging Our Comprehensive Urban Strategy---Kansas City’s Comprehensive Plan (“FOCUS Kansas City”) and the Truman Plaza Area Plan, both developed by the City of KCMO, which itself further refines and details the policies of FOCUS on an area basis. The Truman Plaza Area Plan also includes many development/design review recommendations, which Hardesty Renaissance will implement along with the following recommendations from the Truman Plaza Area Plan:

• “Proactively promote and apply development incentive tools in target areas…” A targeted location is the Hardesty Renaissance property.

• “Focus large redevelopment efforts at the ‘Hardesty Federal Complex’ at Independence Avenue and Hardesty Avenue.

• “…site buildings abutting streets, orient building access points to streets and sidewalks and provide a direct, delineated connection to transit locations…”

• “Apply the concepts of transit-oriented development (TOD) along the primary transit corridors and near future transit stations…”

Leveraging As previously mentioned, Hardesty Renaissance has commissioned a feasibility study with the Port Authority of Kansas City that is being funded through a $150,000 Planning for Sustainable Places grant from the Mid-America Regional Council, awarded to Hardesty Renaissance EDC, along with four (4) other collaborative organizations, as part of a Historic Northeast Sustainable Redevelopment Project. Each of the five (5) organizations working on this initiative will receive their pro rata share of the funds. However, for the asbestos remediation work to be funded through this EPA clean-up grant request, Asian Americans for Equality, Inc. (AAFE), parent-company of Hardesty Renaissance EDC, will commit $173,400 in funding towards this scope of work. Please find attached a signed firm commitment letter from AAFE’s Executive Director. Programmatic Capability and Past Performance. Asian Americans for Equality (AAFE), through its subsidiary Hardesty Renaissance EDC, acquired the former Hardesty Federal Complex with a goal of transforming a brownfield site into a green, community economic development project that would empower the local community through job creation, access to nutritional food, improved health, and remediate/redevelop a brownfield site that would become a community asset. AAFE is an almost 40-year old organization founded in 1974 to advocate for equal employment, affordable housing, homeownership, and community economic development, with over 700 units of housing in New York City. As the developer of the first low-income tax project in NYC, with two (2) community development fund institutions (CDFIs) (one of which is a member of the Federal Home Loan Bank of New York), AAFE brings vast experience and is well-positioned to take on the successful redevelopment of this former federal complex. Hardesty Renaissance’s development team is comprised of two members of AAFE’s Executive Team (one a former member, now based in Kansas City), along with two (2) local consultants who bring vast experience and expertise in environmental remediation, as well as architectural-sustainable design of industrial structures for reuse and redevelopment. Collectively, the Hardesty Renaissance team brings over 100 years of real estate development, environmental


justice, and community-based services and support. The following list provides details of Hardesty Renaissance’s development team, consultants, and advisors: • Ernesto J. Vigoreaux, MA, Chief Operating Officer of Asian Americans for Equality;

Mr. Vigoreaux is an urban planner by training, with over 15 years of experience in affordable and supportive housing development, real estate finance, and community economic development projects. Mr. Vigoreaux brings expertise in construction project management, community planning, and development of green/sustainable projects utilizing renewable energy. Mr. Vigoreaux is providing fundraising assistance and project management support.

• David Ravvin, Project Manager of Hardesty Renaissance Economic Development Corporation. Mr. Ravvin has a BA in Economics from the University of Michigan – Ann Arbor and an MBA from the Stern School of Business at NYU. Prior to joining AAFE and Hardesty Renaissance Economic Development Corporation and owned a restaurant in Manhattan. Mr. Ravvin is responsible for overall project management of the Hardesty site and brings expertise in commercial real estate finance and construction contracting.

• Robert L. Fine II, P.E., is President of FINEnvironmental, Inc., a multi-disciplined

environmental engineering firm providing a broad array of project management, consulting and field services in Kansas City. He serves as the principal-in-charge of all projects, and maintains overall authority for all work scope development, technical design and budget related issues. Mr. Fine’s 30 years of professional experience has allowed him to interface and work closely with government, industry and the private sector. Mr. Fine will provide technical oversight, clearance sampling, manage environmental contractor bidding, and produce all respective work plans and closure reports.

• Josh Shelton, AIA, is Principal of El Dorado Architects, Inc., and Architect for the

Hardesty Renaissance project. He manages a 25-person firm founded in 1996 that comprises licensed architects, construction managers, and experts in sustainable design. Throughout the years, El Dorado has built a reputation for design excellence with a proven track record in building renovations, new design, community outreach/engagement, integration of landscaping, and is LEED accredited. In Kansas City alone, El Dorado has completed over 50 building renovation projects, balancing preservation with green technologies such as planted rooftops, efficient lighting systems, and water run-off filtration systems.

Adverse Audits / Past Performance This is an affirmation statement that Hardesty Renaissance EDC has not had any adverse audit findings. Hardesty Renaissance EDC has never received any type of federal or non-federal assistance agreements. Community Engagement and Partnerships How the project involves the affected community in clean-up decisions or reuse planning. Hardesty Renaissance EDC adopts and implements recommendations from the Truman Plaza Area Plan. Public participation was an essential component of preparing the Truman Plaza Area Plan. A citizen-based steering committee of area stakeholders met six times to review and move the plan forward in the right direction. Three meetings were held for the general public. A


statistically significant survey was utilized to further gauge public opinions, wants, and needs while creating the Plan. A charrette was held to discuss design components at Independence Blvd & Prospect. Finally, this planning process was the first in the region to utilize the MindMixer online town hall forum platform to gather additional feedback and facilitate a continued dialogue 24 hours a day. The site attracted over 500 unique visitors. Apart from community feedback through the Truman Plaza Area Plan, Hardesty Renaissance EDC is conducting its own community outreach to solicit feedback and suggestions specific to the redevelopment of the Hardesty complex, particularly the redevelopment of Building No. 10 into a food hub. Hardesty Renaissance brings to the Northeast community AAFE’s long history and practice of advocating for low-income, disenfranchised communities, by ensuring their equitable participation in the decision making process. To this end, Hardesty Renaissance EDC has met with surrounding neighborhood associations to solicit their input and encourage their participation in the planning process for Building No. 10, with follow-up meetings scheduled for each respective association’s members. (Further details regarding our community partners is provided in the next section) Hardesty Renaissance will also work with El Dorado architects to conduct visioning sessions and design charettes, with support from other local community organizations that will provide translation services, i.e. Spanish, Somali, etc, to make sure that every single voice is heard. Project plan for communicating the progress of the project to citizens: Hardesty Renaissance EDC is a member of the Kansas City Brownfields Coalition, and as such, will report back on the progress of environmental remediation at the Hardesty complex, as it did when it presented the proposed project plans in preparation for this EPA grant request. Hardesty Renaissance will also continue to work with its local community partners to ensure materials are provide in multiple languages, as necessary, along with translation services during community meetings or design charettes. Other methods for communicating progress of the project include additional citizen and stakeholder feedback through: community workshops, neighborhood meetings, utilizing the Truman Plaza Area Plan Implementation Committee, utilizing the Independence Avenue Special Review District Board, neighborhood associations (see attached support letters), a project website, and public meetings where translation services will be made available, along with project materials in multiple languages. Efforts To Develop Partnerships. Local/state/tribal environmental and health agencies: Hardesty Renaissance EDC has partnered with the City of Kansas City, through the Kansas City Brownfields Coalition, to cleanup and redevelop the former Federal complex. Apart from providing guidance and technical assistance with procuring the necessary City approvals, the City is also making available loans under the voluntary cleanup program to the project. At the state level, the Missouri Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) has provided guidance and support, apart from oversight, on the soil and groundwater remediation being conducted by the GSA. MDNR will work with Hardesty Renaissance EDC to ensure all necessary requirements are met in order to obtain a Final Closure approval and sign-off. (See attached support letters)


Other relevant federal and state governmental agencies: In April 2012, Hardesty Renaissance’s Director, and Asian Americans for Equality’s Chief Operating Officer, attended the National Good Food Network/Wallace Center/USDA’s “2012 Food Hub Convening” where we discussed the development of the Hardesty Renaissance site and respective food hub project in Building No. 10 with representatives from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). Hardesty Renaissance now receives guidance and support from Dr. James Barham, Agricultural Economist with the USDA, who has agreed to be listed as a reference for this grant request: James Barham, Ph.D., USDA, 1400 Independence Ave., SW, Room 4523, Washington, DC 20250. Tel. (202) 690-4077 or [email protected]. Local Hiring: Hardesty Renaissance EDC is an Equal Opportunity Employer committed to affording local residents an opportunity for employment. We have identified a few environmental job training programs in Kansas City, including Opportunity Advancement Innovation in Workforce Development (OAI), which provides environmental remediation and green job training programs for unemployed and underemployed residents of the Kansas City metro area. If successfully awarded, Hardesty Renaissance EDC will invite OAI to bid on the remediation work and will explore other collaborative opportunities during the remediation process for the entire site. Description and Role of Key Community-Based Organizations involved in the project, with Support Letters Attached. • Indian Mound Neighborhood Association – A homeowner association located to the

north of the site in the Indian Mound neighborhood, which has provided feedback and suggestions for the project from its membership. Their ongoing role will be to report back to members on the status of the redevelopment provide feedback at design charettes.

• Mattie Rhodes Center – A community-based organization with a long history of provided community services to residents in the Northeast. Apart from feedback and suggestions on site uses, Mattie Rhodes will also participate in design charettes and assist with translation services and materials to better inform their predominantly Latino constituents of progress.

• Northeast Arts KC – A local community arts organization that is providing design

suggestions for the redevelopment of the other on-site buildings, including artists’ studios. • Northeast Chamber of Commerce – A chamber of commerce that provides site use

feedback and suggestions from its members, focusing on redevelopment ideas to stimulate the creation of a “new business hub” that Hardesty can also become.

• Scarritt Renaissance Neighborhood Association - A homeowner association located to

the west of the site in the Scarritt Renaissance neighborhood, which has provided feedback and suggestions for the project from its membership. Their ongoing role will be to report back to members with project updates and solicit feedback at design charettes.

mailto:[email protected]


Project Benefits Welfare and/or Public Health: The overall site will require several stages of environmental remediation so that it can be repurposed, and during its remediation, will remain secured and closed-off (there’s an existing chainlink fence around the site perimeter) to the general public. Apart from protecting the community’s health during the remediation stages, members of the community (through our community partners) will be continuously updated with progress on remediation and the development of the anticipated food destination. According to a study by the Community Food Network, the state of Missouri ranks 8th among the 50 states in food insecurity. (Source: Feeding America and Harvesters – The Community Food Network) By initiating the environmental remediation and repurposing of Building 10 as a potential food hub, Hardesty Renaissance begins to not only promote sustainable land-use patterns and redevelopment, but also sustainable and healthy living. Economic Benefits and/or Greenspace: Hardesty Renaissance brings various economic benefits through its redevelopment, apart from the jobs created through environmental remediation and construction. Hardesty Renaissance estimates four (4) temporary jobs created during the remediation of Building No. 10, and four (4) temporary jobs during the redevelopment phase. The true economic benefits begin once Building No. 10 is completed and transformed into a regional food hub, providing a place where local farmers can bring and aggregate their commodities under one roof, from which it can distribute their goods to local businesses, institutions, and local consumers. As a result, the economic impact to Missouri farmers can be significant since the food hub affords them the opportunity to cut out the middle man and sell directly to potential buyers---who also benefit when the “middle man” is taken out---through lower prices for their staple food products, like vegetables, dairy, seafood, and meats. Food affordability will result in savings to local consumers---another economic benefit. The food hub itself will create jobs for those working in the maintenance and operations of the facility, as well as local retailers who want to sell value-added and/or processed foods from the commodities received. Furthermore, the 2-story structure has sufficient space to accommodate small business incubators or start-ups, promoting entrepreneurship that can benefit both the owner and worker of the new business. Non-Economic Benefits Associated with the Site: As previously mentioned, green spaces have been anticipated by our design team as demonstrated in the attached site plans (see attachments). Through initial feedback, El Dorado architects have proposed to redevelop Building No. 10 and incorporate various sustainable design elements, as well as renewable energy sources. Both the community and the environment can benefit from this kind of sustainable, redevelopment approach. Since the rest of the Hardesty complex is undergoing remediation, the focus is solely on the first phase of redevelopment which is Building No. 10 and its immediate surrounding areas, currently excessive parking spaces which will be repurposed as a water filtration garden. Next to the proposed solar panels, the development team met with the Lykins Urban Farm group to discuss the cultivation of a rooftop farm on the building. The community will also benefit from nutritious, organic, locally-grown vegetables and fruits they themselves plant and harvest on the rooftop of Building No. 10, which will be surrounded by vegetation on the ground (repurposed parking spaces), vegetables, fruits, and other foods in the interior, and vegetables and other crops on the roof top. The Lykins Urban Farm, with Hardesty Renaissance EDC, will


steward the roof top farming activities to benefit both volunteer community members and families in need. Environmental Benefits from Infrastructure Reuse/Sustainable Reuse: The Hardesty Renaissance redevelopment project is a great example of environmental stewardship. The project not only reuses a former federal site, but remediates the brownfield issues and promotes sustainable land-use patterns by fostering infill and redevelopment at its existing corridor, into an environmentally equitable redevelopment project that adopts livability principles appropriate for its location within the urban core of Kansas City. Sited along Independence Avenue, the Hardesty complex will reopen access from this major arterial avenue into the site to afford pedestrian travel once the food hub is operational, as well as:

• Provide more transportation choices due to its location along Independence Avenue, as well as petitioning the Kansas City Area Transportation Authority (KCATA) for the creation of a bus stop at the Hardesty Building 10 Food Hub.

• Encourage bicycling and other environmentally friendly modes of transportation both to and from the site, through green shopping incentives.

• Begin feasibility research on the redevelopment of the other six buildings as part of the

next phase, once remediation is completed. Hardesty Renaissance’s parent company, AAFE, brings close to 40 years of experience in the development of affordable housing.

• Support existing communities by making locally-grown, affordable fresh food accessible.

• Support the existing community by creating green, open public spaces. • Leverage federal investment with AAFE, Inc. organization funds and MARC grant.

• Value and respect the communities and neighborhoods it serves, by first engaging them

in the visioning and design process of the project.

HARDESTY AVENUE

E. 9TH ST.

PRO

PER

TY L

INE

OPEN MARKET/EVENT ZONE

COMMUNITY GARDEN/ BIOSWALE

HARDESTY REN. PARTIAL RENOVATION607 HARDESTY AVENUE, KANSAS CITY, MO 64124

PROJECT #1302DRAWN BY: LF, RD, SSACHECKED BY: SSA, JS

ISSUE PACKAGE:

510 avenida cesar e chavez kansas city missouri 64108 p 816 474 3838 f 816 474 0836 www.eldoradoarchitects.com

DATE:CONSULTANTS:

KEYNOTES

M/E/P:PKMR ENGINEERS8801 BALLENTINE, SUITE 200OVERLAND PARK, KANSAS 66214TEL: 913-492-2400FAX: 913-492-2437

CODE CONSULTANT:CODE CONSULTING SERVICES103 WISTERIASMITHVILLE, MISSOURI 64089TEL: 816-985-9669FAX: 816-532-1558

STRUCTURAL:BOB D. CAMPBELL & CO4338 BELLEVIEW AVENUEKANSAS CITY, MISSOURI 64111TEL: 816-531-4144FAX: 816-531-8572

ARCHITECTURAL CORPORATIONMO LICENSE NO. 2004006230JOSH M. SHELTON

ARCHITECTLICENSE NO. A-2009030400

A050SITE PLAN

01 SITE PLAN 0" 50' 100' 200'25'RE: 01/A050

Documents

HARDESTY RENAISSANCE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ......FY 15 EPA BROWNFIELDS CLEANUP GRANT NARRATIVE I. Community Need Current Brownfield Effects on our Targeted Community: The former Hardesty