6_SECTION_5_ATTACHMENTS.pdf

5.0 ATTACHMENTS

A. Aerial Photo of Miller Field jglassman Ellipse jglassman Text Box Hangar 38

B. HABS/HAER Drawings, 1979

C. Historic Photo of Seaplane Hangar 38 (August 1941) jglassman

Seaplane Hangar 38, August 1941 (photo courtesy of National Archives)

Memorandum 28 June 2013 (rev 3 July 2013) Miller Field, Hanger 38 Structures North

The above new information from the June 20 and June 21 survey will help form the basis of the design-build repair documents to be formulated as our joint work product. Please do not hesitate to call if you have any question about the information conveyed in this project memo.

Very Truly Yours, Structures North Consulting Engineers

Edward Moll, P.E.

Principal

Elaine Shapiro, E.I.T.

Project Engineer

D. Structural Letter Report (Structures North, July 2013)

Memorandum

To: BH + A

Attn: Mr. Jack Glassman e-mail: JGlassman@bhplus.com

From: Ed Moll/Elaine Shapiro

Re: Miller Field Hangar 38

CC: Elaine Shapiro, SN; Deborah Robinson, BH+A

Date: 28 June 2013 (rev 3 July 2013) Pages: 5

Dear Jack:

This memo details findings on recommended structural work tasks since our initial work at the

Miller Field Hangar 38 back in February of this year. The manlift provided us access to the clerestory, and we were able to document the conditions there including the windows overframe.

We observed the hangar north and south end walls, and determined their construction and condition. From within wall enclosures on the north face of the building, we were able to determine the support structure of the hangar doors and the conditions there. We surveyed the immense hangar doors, and detailed the missing and deteriorated components. We performed a detailed survey of one of the roof trusses for each panel point connection and provide photo-documentation of the same. The roof trusses will be analyzed by others for contemporary Code loads. We sounded out the demising wall between hangar bays, which is plaster on clay tile block, and identified the extent of delamination and deterioration. We surveyed the roof secondary bracing in a schematic fashion (due to time constraints), and surveyed the building exterior for the extent of concrete deterioration. During the exterior survey, we identified the initial locations for concrete sampling for chloride ion and carbonation testing by others.

Following is a summary of our findings, with recommendations included in italics:

Clerestory Existing Conditions The clerestories occur at the peak of both hangar bays, and are the sidewalls of the headhouse formed by extension of the roof trusses. The roof trusses occur at

20’-0” on center, and the substructure of the headhouse and clerestory walls occurs at the third points of the trusses. The base of the clerestory is a 4” concrete curb 1’-5” tall, and then there are the original metal window frames, which were completely deteriorated in the location where we observed them. The window mullions are ”T” shaped sections that received the original glazing, and are spaced at 2’-0” on center. At the location where the clerestory was observed, the vertical mullions were corroded all the way through at the bottom and were hanging, and the metal sill was also completely deteriorated. At some point, in order to make the clerestories weathertight, an overframe of the sidewalls occurred. The overframe consists of (2) 2 x 4 clamped horizontally with 5/16” threaded rod clamps, one horizontal run at the top of the windows, and one at the sill. (2) 1 x 4 wood slats were then placed vertically between the clamped (2) 2 x 4, and the overframe was then sided with corrugated translucent fiberglass panels. During Hurricane Sandy, some of the fiberglass panels were displaced and are missing, but the overframe supporting structure remained intact from what we could see. We anticipate that there is nothing salvageable from the original metal window frames, and the recommended options for re-establishing the weathertight clerestories, in order of most to least expensive, are as follows: 1) Remove overframing and original window frames, and provide new glazing, 2)Inspect overframing throughout for any damaged or loose framing elements from Hurricane

Sandy. Resecure any loose framing, and completely remove corrugated fiberglass panels.

Provide new panels that are more robust (likely a heavier gage fiberglass) and will work for contemporary wind loading, or, 3) Selectively replace existing loose or missing corrugated fiberglass panels in kind.

Hangar North and South End Walls We had the opportunity to observe the hangar north and south walls up close from the lift, and were able to determine the structure of these walls, which had not be apparent during the prior visit. The structure is a horizontal angle girt system on the outside face of the truss that are suspended on hangar rods from the top chord of the truss.

Finishes are heavy stucco on expanded metal lath. The stucco is applied to wire lath that is attached to vertical #6 reinforcing steel. There were a series of 1/8” x 2” steel bands placed horizontally and bolted through to the girts at 30” on center. These bands are almost completely missing so that the face of the stucco is only marginally secured by what remains of the bolt heads instead of the benefit or more positive anchorage of the steel bands. The stucco cover over the reinforcing steel is about a half-inch, and is insufficient to protect the embedded steel from corrosion and delamination from the stucco. Generally there are vertical cracks at 4’-0” on center corresponding to the rebar locations. The rebar was presumably used to wire the metal lath to. The end walls are pretty badly compromised, and the viability of saving them to act as a substructure for new finishes will depend on whether the corrosion of the embedded steel can be halted. We recommend that chloride testing of the plaster be performed to see how aggressive the stucco environment is for the steel and the expanded metal lath. Where we found spalls in the stucco, only an imprint of the wire lath was observed, as it had completely rusted away.

Following testing of the stucco for chloride ion contamination, reinforcing steel and mortar repairs should occur, and the stucco should be resecured to the girts by through bolting and using oversized washers or plates. A new weathertight surface should be applied over the existing stucco. Synthetic stucco is lightweight, can be made durable, and may be a good solution to restoring the end wall weathertight integrity.

Vertical Support Structure of the Hangar Doors The vertical support structures of the 100 wide by about 20’-0” high hangar doors occurs in pockets at each end of the doors. The pockets contain suspended blocks of concrete counterweights what weigh about 3½ tons each. The structure of the pockets is a vertical frame comprised of steel angles and channels. On the outside walls there are 3 x 3 angles spaced 3’-0” on center vertically that are infilled with clay tile and finished on the exterior with stucco. The jambs of the doors are metal plates that are bolted to the steel frame. The cage that frames the counterweights is laced vertically with steel angles, which provide the stiffness and lateral stability of the counterweight cage. At the base of each of the pockets, the steel supports sit in a continually damp environment, and as a result, have moderate to severe corrosion damage. In addition, the vertical steel components of the cage on the outside wall have been continually exposed to weather, and are badly deteriorated. Some of the vertical components are starting to exhibit buckling, as the base of steel support is missing or compromised, and the support structure is working in unintended ways to redistribute the weight of the heavy doors and stucco end walls. Most of the hangar door structural components within the wall are deteriorated at the base, and require restoration by splicing new steel onto sound remaining steel. The restored components can then be encased in concrete for further protection. The vertical outside components are anticipated to be badly deteriorated, and should have the stucco and tile finishes removed for inspection and replacement of support steel framing. New finishes should be applied to the outside face of the vertical support pockets at the ends of the hangar doors.

Hangar Door Structure and Deteriorated Components The original hangar door structure is largely intact, with the exception of the bottom of door structural components. The original steel mullions appear to be intact, and the solid metal panels around the windows are viable. The doors are another case where an overframe occurs that made them somewhat weathertight. The overframe is similar to the clerestories, with wood placed on either side of the hangar doors, and clamped to the original hanger door structure using threaded rods. The clamped wood was then infill framed with wood studs, and provided with a plywood outside weather resistant, but not weather tight surface. The clamped wood overframe was badly damaged by Hurricane Sandy, and is not salvageable. The damaged overframe makes it look like the primary hanger door structure is compromised. The damaged to the original doors occurs at the base, as noted below.

The deterioration of the original structure of the doors occurs almost entirely at the base. The doors are suspended from the end wall, so there was always a gap. Once the glazing was gone on the metal windows of the door, moisture became prevalent at the base of the wall, which is now completely deteriorated or missing.

The structure of the door is a series of 8” vertical wide flanges that containing cable pockets for lifting the doors on a pulley system, then a series of channel and angle girts between verticals, and vertical angles between window frames. The base of the door, which is mostly missing, was a built-up steel channel with the legs turned down. The build-up was with riveted steel plates and angles that form the channel shape. There is almost nothing left of the steel in the bottom of the door, which holds all of the vertical components of the door structure in alignment. We took measurements from the fully intact girt that occurs at the sill of the windows in the door down to the bottom of intact vertical steel at each vertical steel component. We also measured down from this girt to the bottom of the metal panel closure. These measurements determine what length of splice is required from existing intact steel to the bottom of what will be a replacement steel channel along the bottom of the door. The bottoms of both 100’ long hangar doors are recommended to be restored by splicing new welded steel pieces on the bottom of the intact portion of the door. The bottom plate up to the girt that forms the sills of the windows should be replaced, and the bottom of the door will have a new C18 that will replace the built-up riveted steel base. Round head bolts can be used in the bolding of the door to imitate the original riveting. Restoration of the door structure does not address its weathertightness. The weathertighness of the door will either require new glazing in existing steel window mullions, or a new overframe that supports a weathertight finish on the surface of the doors. As part of a further investigation, the anchorage of the suspending steel cables to the bottom of the doors should be made. We could not see the anchorage, but if it is in proximity to the base of the door, then we assume it may be damaged. The anchorage provides the primary support for the heavy hanger doors, which are suspended from the end wall trusses above.

Detailed Survey of a Roof Truss As part of the current work effort, we accessed each panel point of the roof truss and took detailed information about member sizes, material thicknesses, and rivet configuration. Note that we did this for a single truss in one bay, assuming that all trusses are identical. During an up close examination of the roof, we noted that the roof structure in general is in excellent condition. It has heavy paint coatings, which are presumed to be lead-based, and are under investigation for haz-mat by others. The information obtaining the detailed roof truss survey will be used by others for the evaluation of trusses for Code gravity, wind, and seismic loads. The information from the roof truss survey will be made available in sketch form keyed to the truss elevation, and will include a photograph of the truss joints, in addition to the sketches.

Demising Wall Between Hangars The demising wall between hangars, comprised of heavy stucco finishes placed on clay tile block, was noted to pose a hazard in our initial survey due to debonding of the stucco from the clay tile, and deterioration of the clay tile block itself. The deterioration is happening due to the valley between hangar bays directly above the wall. The fluted ribs of the steel roof deck feed water into the top of the wall where the roofing materials are compromised. The water in the wall subsequently freezes, causing damage to both the stucco finishes and to the block itself. Note that at the base of the wall, we noted that there is one built-up column supporting 20’-0” of roof of both hangar bays that is badly deteriorated due to rusting.

Prior to the removal of the clay tile and stucco (which may be partially supporting the roof), the bottom of this steel column should be restored by welding cover plates over the deteriorated steel. We marked out in spray paint on the walls where the stucco finishes need to be removed due to debonding, where the clay tile back-up needs to be removed and replaced, and where the stucco was debonding, but could be pinned back to the clay tile with new anchors. This information will also be on the design-build drawings.

Roof Secondary Bracing There is secondary bracing of the roof, both on the underside of the sloping roof framing, and on the bottom chord of the trusses. This bracing forms a diaphragm in the plane of the roof and in the plane of the bottom chord, which stabilize the trusses for gravity, and distribute the building lateral forces to the sidewalls. We got only the general arrangement of this bracing, but not the member sizing or connections. The roof secondary bracing has endured numerous hurricanes and has proven that it is adequate for continued bracing of the roof structure. All of the secondary bracing, whether rods, or X-braced steel angles, should be confirmed to be in place and should be repaired, where damaged, to its original condition.

Exterior Survey for Deteriorated Concrete The perimeter of the building has numerous spalls that are primarily caused by corroding embedded steel reinforcing. The corrosion of the reinforcing steel causing the spalling can be from several sources: 1) original concrete cover over the steel not sufficient to provide protection, 2) poorly consolidated (honeycombed) original concrete, allowing water to penetrate to the steel, 3) an aggressive salt air environment, which tends to cause corrosion of the reinforcing steel, 4) lack of air entrainment in the original concrete, which affects freeze-thaw durability of the concrete, and 5) carbonation of the 1920’s concrete, which happens over time as carbon reacts with calcium within the cement to form various byproducts within the concrete, changing it from a passive corrosion environment, to an aggressive one. Concrete testing for chloride contamination and carbonation has been recommended, the results of which will inform corrosion inhibitor and anti-carbonation coatings application prior to concrete repairs. Concrete repairs will be estimated as a lump sum, with unit pricing per square foot in place for variation from the survey. Only sounding out the complete exterior surface can fully determine the extent of delaminated concrete where repairs are necessary, and sounding out the full exterior is beyond the scope of this phase of work. We anticipate that cracks in the exterior will be routed and sealed, and that a new breathable cementicious finish will be applied to the concrete in order to preserve it.

The above new information from the June 20 and June 21 survey will help form the basis of the design-build repair documents to be formulated as our joint work product. Please do not hesitate to call if you have any question about the information conveyed in this project memo.

Very Truly Yours, Structures North Consulting Engineers

Edward Moll, P.E.

Principal

Elaine Shapiro, E.I.T.

Project Engineer

E. Truss Survey (Structures North, June 2013)

F. Gable End Wall and Clerestory Monitor Details (Structures North, July 2013)

G. CardnoATC Hazardous Materials Survey, Oct. 2013 (Summary, not including lab reports)

Northeast Region Hurricane Sandy

Recovery Projects Design Services:

Hazardous Materials Survey

Prepared for:

BARGMANN HENDRI E +

ARCHETYPE, INC

300 A Street Boston, MA 02210-1710

Prepared by:

104 East 25th Street New York, NY 10010

Phone: 212.353.8280 Fax: 212.353.8306

Submit ted:

October 7, 2013

Inspection Site:

Gateway NRA Staten Island Unit

Miller Field, Hangar #38 Disposition

Gate 195019 Task Order No.

P13PD00TBD-03

bh+a Project №:

3135.05

Cardno ATC project №:

015.00651.0002

Hazardous Materials Survey Gateway NRA, Staten Island Unit M i l l e r F ie ld , Hangar #38

1.0 SUMMARY

ATC Associates Inc. (Cardno ATC d.b.a ATC Associates Inc. hereinafter CATC) was retained by BARGMANN HENDRIE + ARCHETYPE, INC. (bh+a) to conduct an hazardous materials survey at the historic Seaplane Hangar 38, located at Miller Field, Staten Island, New York.. The inspection was conducted by Mr. Krzysztof Dolinski a New York State Asbestos Inspector (AH88- 03288) and New York City Asbestos Investigator (Certification # 118839) and Ms. Denise Consanza on June 19 & 20, 2013.

The inspection included a visual inspection and select sampling of the subject site for:

• Asbestos testing of roofing felts and plaster finishes.

• Lead testing in painted steel, concrete, masonry and plaster.

• PCBs in caulking, if caulking is present.

• Testing for petroleum distillates or other hazardous chemicals in “sludge” on floor of hangar.

• Animal waste in ceilings of office area.

• Mold on interior drywall in flooded areas.

Based upon the visual inspection and select bulk sampling analytical results the following materials have been identified:

Material Location Opinion of Quantity Asbestos Containing Material – Roofing Entire +/- 60,000 square feet Asbestos Containing Material – Façade Tar Hanger Facade +/- 6,500 square feet

Asbestos Containing Material – Window Glazing Entire +/- 2,500 square feet (+/- 10,000 linear feet)

Asbestos Containing Material – Vinyl Flooring West WPA 1939 Addition +/- 9,000 square feet

Lead-based Paint

Hanger Roof Truss Assembly - Gray

+/- 10,750 square feet Hanger Stairs – Yellow Hanger Wall paint - Green Hanger Wall paint – Gray

PCB’s in Caulking Wall Cavity None identified “Sludge/Slurry” Above Remedial Program Restricted Commercial Use Soil Cleanup Objectives (SCOs) Interior of hanger - distributed 121 tons

Animal waste in ceilings of office area East WPA 1939 Addition – distributed +/- 12,000 square feet Microbial growth +/- 4,000 square feet

2.0 ASBESTOS

This investigation for asbestos-containing materials was conducted in general conformance with the Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act (AHERA) protocols established by the United States Environmental Protection Agency, and the United States Environmental Protection Agency's, "Guidance for Controlling Asbestos-Containing Materials in Buildings," EPA 560/5-85- 024 dated June 1985. Suspect materials observed during the site inspection were sampled. In addition, quantities of ACM have been calculated for use in securing asbestos abatement costs.

The following are the suspect materials identified within the SOW that were sampled and subsequently analyzed for their asbestos and vermiculite content:

• Roofing

• Ceiling plaster – white coat.

• Ceiling plaster – brown coat.

• Wall plaster – white coat.

• Wall plaster – brown coat

• Façade Plaster

• Gypsum board (Sheetrock)

• Joint Compound associated with Gypsum board.

• 1’ x 1’ ceiling tile glued to deck

• Glue/mastic associated with 1’ x 1’ ceiling tile

• Vinyl Flooring

• Felt Paper under vinyl flooring

• Façade tar

• Window Glazing

• Caulking

• 4” ceramic tile grout

• 4” ceramic tile backing

The bulk sample summary table, chain of custody sheets and analytical results can be found in Section 9.0.

ANALYTICAL METHODS

All bulk samples were analyzed by Polarized Light Microscopy (PLM) with dispersion staining as described by the Interim Method of the Determination of Asbestos in Bulk Insulation, Federal Register/Volume 47, No. 103/May 27, 1982. This is a common method of analysis in optical mineralogy and the currently accepted method for the determination of asbestos in bulk samples. A prepared sample of suspect material is immersed in a solution of known refractive index and subjected to illumination by polarized light. The characteristic optical displays which result enable mineral identification. It should be noted that some ACM may not be accurately identified and/or quantified by PLM. As an example, the original fabrication of non-friable organically bound (NOB) materials, such as vinyl floor tile materials, routinely involved milling of asbestos fibers to extremely small sizes. As a result, these fibers may go undetected under the standard PLM method. Under these circumstances, ATC’s laboratory conducted additional bulk sample analysis via Transmission Electron Microscopy (TEM), which is required under applicable State of New York regulations, for a more definitive analysis of NOB materials whenever PLM results are inconclusive. CATC’s laboratory is accredited by the New York State Department of Health (ELAP No.10879) and the National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program (NVLAP No. 101187).

SUMMARY OF ASBESTOS FINDINGS

Based upon the analytical results and visual inspections the following materials have been identified as non-ACM.

• Ceiling plaster – white coat.

• Ceiling plaster – brown coat.

• Wall plaster – white coat.

• Wall plaster – brown coat

• Façade Plaster

• Gypsum board (Sheetrock)

• Joint Compound associated with Gypsum board.

• 1’ x 1’ ceiling tile glued to deck

• Glue/mastic associated with 1’ x 1’ ceiling tile

• Felt Paper under vinyl flooring

• Caulking

• 4” ceramic tile grout

• 4” ceramic tile backing

According to the bulk sample analytical results vermiculite was not identified in any of the materials sampled. However, asbestos greater than one percent (> 1%) was identified in the materials below. Based upon the analytical results and visual inspections the following asbestos-containing materials have been identified:

Material Location Opinion of Quantity Asbestos Containing Material – Roofing Entire +/- 60,000 square feet Asbestos Containing Material – Façade Tar Hanger Facade +/- 6,500 square feet

Asbestos Containing Material – Window Glazing Entire +/- 2,500 square feet (+/- 10,000 linear feet)

Asbestos Containing Material – Vinyl Flooring West WPA 1939 Addition +/- 9,000 square feet

Notes: SF = square feet, LF = linear feet

Sketches depicting the location of identified ACM can be found in Section 10.0. The abatement of ACM as identified in this document is required to be performed in accordance with applicable, USEPA regulations, OSHA regulations, New York City Local Law 70, Title 15, Chapter 1 RCNY, New York State Industrial Code 56, NIOSH recommendations, and any other applicable federal, state or local government regulations. A budgetary opinion of cost for the remediation/abatement/clean-up of the above identified material(s) can be found in Section 18.0 at the end of this report.

3.0 LEAD-BASED PAINT

In lieu of an applicable lead sampling protocols for a non-residential property the limited lead containing coating (LCC) inspection was conducted in general conformance with the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) 40 CFR Part 745 “Lead; Identification of Dangerous Levels of Lead; Final Rule”, dated January 5, 2001, and the US Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) “Guidelines for the Evaluation and Control of Lead-Based Paint Hazards in Housing” (HUD Guidelines), dated June 1995, revised 2012. An EPA-certified CATC representative Krzysztof Dolinski conducted chip sampling at the Site on June 20, 2013.

The inspection was limited to exposed readily accessible building components. The building structural steel components tested are coasted with a generally uniform gray colored coating, hanger walls with a generally uniform green colored coating and select stairs with a generally uniform yellow colored coating. This report presents findings from the paint chip sampling survey conducted at the Site.

Lead in Paint Threshold Levels

US EPA and HUD have established a definition of “lead-based paint” (LBP) in residential housing as a paint or other surface coatings that contain lead equal to or greater than 0.5% by weight (equivalent units are: 5,000 μg/g, 5,000 mg/kg, or 5,000 ppm by weight). Surface coatings include paint, shellac, varnish, or any other coating. According to Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), any detectable amount of lead in chip sample constitutes the coating as Lead-Containing (LCC).

OSHA does not recognize the US EPA/HUD definition of LBP.

Sampling Methodology and Analytical Methods

CATC utilized the following method for obtaining paint chip samples: the area of paint to be sampled was scored with a sharp knife or scalpel, and the paint film was lifted off by sliding a thin blade along the score and underneath the paint. The paint was removed down to the substrate, making sure all layers of paint were intact. Care was taken to avoid including a substrate material (i.e. wood, mason, metal or plaster, etc.) in the sample.

CATC provided all laboratory analytical services in support of this survey. CATC is certified by the New York State Department of Health’s Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program to perform lead and related analyses of environmental samples (Laboratory ID Number: 10879). The laboratory utilizes EPA analytical method number 3050B Modified/7000B for analysis of paint chip samples for lead content.

Sampling Results

A total of four (4) paint chip samples were collected from selected representative painted building components at the Site for subsequent laboratory analysis. Of the four (4) paint chip samples analyzed for lead content, all four (4) were identified as lead-based paint as defined by HUD and lead-containing, as defined by OSHA.

Identified Building Components with Lead-Containing Coating

Material Location Lead-based Paint Hanger Roof Truss Assembly - Gray Lead-based Paint Hanger Stairs – Yellow Lead-based Paint Hanger Wall paint - Green Lead-based Paint Hanger Wall paint – Gray

There is approximately 10,750 square feet of peeling and flaking paint on the Hanger Roof Truss Assembly, stairs and walls within the building interior. Lead in paint presence may generate potentially hazardous leaded dust levels during modernization, renovation, remodeling, maintenance or other disturbances of painted/coated surfaces. In general, disturbance of painted surfaces with any lead content should only be performed with proper protection and/or interim controls. Renovation work performed impacting these surfaces will need to be performed in compliance with the current OSHA standard (29 CFR 1926.62) for lead exposure in construction involving worker exposure to lead utilizing feasible engineering and work practice controls.

A copy of the Paint Chip Sample Laboratory Analysis Report and Chain of Custody documentation for all samples collected at the Site are attached to this report in Section 11.0. A budgetary opinion of cost for the remediation/clean-up/stabilization of the above identified material(s) can be found in Section 18.0 at the end of this report.

4.0 PCB’S IN CAULKING

The inspection identified a single type of) representative caulking from which one sample was collected for subsequent laboratory analysis for PCB’s. PCB is a designation for a family of chemicals which are known as polychlorinated biphenyls.

There are 209 different PCBs, each of which is commonly referred to as a “congener”. Congeners are typically found in the environment in mixtures known by the trade name Aroclor®.

Aroclor® is designated with a four digit number which generally describe the chemical composition. The first two digits generally refer to the number of carbon atoms in the chemical, and the second two digits indicate the percentage of chlorine by mass in the mixture. According to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), PCBs were man-made and widely used in the United States for their insulating and fire-resisting properties until 1977, when their production was ceased due to evidence that they cause harmful health effects and accumulate in the environment.

Materials containing PCB congeners are regulated by the EPA for disposal depending upon the physical properties of the material containing the PCBs. Under 40 CFR 761.3 (definitions), “excluded PCB products means PCB materials which appear at concentrations less than 50 ppm”. The analytical results for the sampled recorded no detectable PCB. A copy of the Sample Laboratory Analysis Report and Chain of Custody documentation are attached to this report in Section 12.0.

5.0 “SLUDGE” ON FLOOR OF HANGAR

Sampling Activities

Sampling of sludge/slurry material as defined in the Nation Parks Service (NPS) scope of work was performed within the interior of Hangar 38 which has a footprint of +/- 50,000 square feet. Four representative sludge/slurry samples were collected and placed in laboratory supplied containers and cooled to 4 degrees centigrade (wet ice) during shipment to the laboratory. Cardno ATC completed all chain of custody documents prior to sample shipment. Samples were submitted to Chemtech Laboratories of Mountainside, NJ, a New York State Department of Health (NYSDOH) Environmental Laboratory Approval Program (ELAP) certified laboratory, and analyzed for target compounds list (TCL) VOCs plus methyl tert butyl ethane (MTBE) via EPA Method 8260B, TCL semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs) via EPA Method 8270C and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) 8 metals via EPA Method 6010B. The sludge/slurry sampling results were tabulated and compared to NYSDEC Subpart 375-6: Remedial Program Restricted Commercial Use Soil Cleanup Objectives (SCOs). With the exception of arsenic and barium in soil sample S4, all concentrations were either non-detect or below the Restricted Commercial Use Soil SCOs. Arsenic was detected in S4 at 17.6 mg/kg which is above the commercial SCO of 16 mg/kg and barium was detected in S4 at 465 mg/kg which is above the commercial SCO of 400 mg/kg. A copy of the Sample Laboratory Analysis Report and Chain of Custody documentation are attached to this report in Section 13.0.

Sludge/Slurry Removal

The removal of the sludge/slurry from the interior of the building should be conducted utilizing a high performance industrial loader with Vac-Tainer attachments. Field technicians will enter the building via bay door or over-head hangar door to remove encountered sediments by vacuuming through several 4-inch vacuum hoses connected to the industrial loader. Entrance into the building can also be gained through open windows for harder to reach areas. The collected sediments can be off-loaded and stockpiled on site for subsequent loading and disposal or loaded directly into sealed containers attached to the industrial loaders and transported for disposal to the select disposal facility. Any material temporarily stockpiled on-site should be covered with polyethylene sheeting of a minimum thickness of 6-mil. The estimated volume of sediment to be removed from the building interior is approximately +/- 200 tons.

Transportation and Disposal

Collected or stockpiled sludge/slurry should be disposed as a non-hazardous, non-regulated waste material in accordance with all local, State and Federal guidelines. All removed sludge/slurry material should be disposed of at a licensed and insured disposal or recycling facility meeting the requirements of 6 NYCRR Part 360. The transportation of the material will be performed by approved haulers with valid 6 NYCRR Part 364 Permits, in accordance with all applicable Federal, State and local rules and regulations. Facility specific sampling may be required to comply with the selected disposal facility analytical and frequency requirements. Should additional analytical testing be required by the potential disposal facility, removed sludge/slurry material should be sampled and analyzed for parameters requested by the disposal facility. Results of these sludge/slurry samples will be used by the disposal facility to determine the appropriate waste classification for the material. The number of samples collected, will be according to the disposal facility’s requirements. Waste approvals may be acquired in advance of field activities to expedite removal from the site. Copies of manifests, weight tickets and certificates of disposal must be submitted to the owner as proof of delivery. A budgetary opinion of cost for the remediation/abatement/clean-up of the above identified material(s) can be found in Section 18.0 at the end of this report.

6.0 ANIMAL WASTE IN CEILINGS OF OFFICE AREA.

An active animal infestation was observed within the East WPA 1939 Addition. Based on upon park personnel information, apparent animal waste and observed diurnal observations in the East WPA 1939 Addition, the predominant animal present are raccoons. In addition to the accumulated raccoon waste (raccoon latrine), while no dens were observed the diurnal racoon activity suggests the possibility of active dens within the East WPA 1939 Addition.

Raccoon Latrines present certain risks to clean-up personnel in that raccoons are the primary host of Baylisascaris procyonis, a roundworm that can be harmful to humans. Roundworm eggs are passed in the feces of infected raccoons, and humans become infected by ingesting eggs. Although inhalation of roundworm eggs has not been shown to result in Baylisascaris infection, wearing a N95-rated respirator will provide protection from possible exposure to aerosolized eggs and is recommended for the cleanup of raccoon latrines in confined (interior) spaces to prevent the inhalation of fungal spores, bacteria, or viruses that may be present. Approximately twelve thousand (12,000) square feet of animal waste impacted surfaces were observed throughout the East WPA 1939 Addition. A sketch depicting the location of identified animal waste impacted surfaces can be found in Section

14.0. A budgetary opinion of cost for the remediation/abatement/clean-up of the above identified material(s) can be found in Section 18.0 at the end of this report.

Raccoon Latrine Clean-up

Avoid contaminating hands and clothes. Disposable overalls (tyvek) should be used.

Avoid stirring up dust and debris, lightly mist the latrine area prior to disturbance.

Wear disposable gloves.

Wear rubber boots that can be scrubbed or cover your shoes with disposable booties that can be thrown away.

Wear a N95-rated respirator

Most chemicals do not kill roundworm eggs, but heat will kill the eggs instantly. Treat feces-soiled hard non-porous surfaces to remain with boiling water.

Feces and material contaminated with raccoon feces should be removed (using a shovel or inverted plastic bag) and bagged for proper disposal.

7.0 MOLD ON INTERIOR DRYWALL IN FLOODED AREAS.

This investigation for asbestos-containing materials was conducted in general conformance with the Guidelines on Assessment and Remediation of Fungi in Indoor Environments; New York City Department of Health, updated April, 2008.

The inspection, noted wet and/or water damaged building materials and suspect visible mold growth located throughout the East WPA 1939 Addition. There was no occurrence suspect visible mold growth observed elsewhere in the Hanger at the time of inspection. Based on the known historical source of water infiltration that impacted building components (Super Storm Sandy flood water) combined with the currently active leaking of rain water mixed with in-situ animal excreta (see section 6.0) into the East WPA 1939 Addition, the building components are considered to have been impacted by Category 3 water under the definitions in the Institute of Inspection, Cleaning, and Restoration Certification publication Standard and Reference Guide for Professional Water Damage Restoration S500 (3d edition, 2006). Category 3 water includes all forms of flooding from seawater; ground surface water and rising water from rivers or streams, and other contaminated water entering or affecting the indoor environment that is grossly contaminated and is presumed to contain pathogenic, toxigenic or other harmful agents. A sketch depicting the location of identified microbial impacted building materials can be found in Section 15.0.

Approximately four thousand (4,000) square feet of suspect visible mold growth was observed throughout the East WPA 1939 Addition. All mold impacted surfaces should be remediated following the procedures contained in the Guidelines on Assessment and Remediation of Fungi in Indoor Environments; New York City Department of Health, updated April, 2008. A budgetary opinion of cost for the remediation/abatement/clean-up of the above identified material(s) can be found in Section 18.0 at the end of this report.

8.0 EXCLUSIONS AND INACCESSIBLE AREAS

The inspection presented in this report was conducted to identify hazardous materials, specifically asbestos, lead in paint, PCBs in caulking, petroleum distillates or other hazardous chemicals in “sludge” on floor of hangar, animal waste and mold.

Interior/concealed areas were inspected to the extent practical limited limited exploratory demolition performed during the survey.

Access above the ceilings and into concealed spaces of the East WPA 1939 Addition was limited due to the active infestation of raccoons.

Administrator Rectangle

Administrator Text Box Asbestos Containing Window Glazing +/- 850 Square feet

Administrator Text Box

Hazardous Materials Survey, Gateway NRA, Staten Island Unit, Miller Field, Hangar #38 Asbestos Containing Window Glazing +/- 850 Square feet October 7, 2013

Administrator Rectangle

Administrator Rectangle

Administrator Text Box Asbestos Containing VAT +/- 4,500 Square feet

Administrator Text Box

Hazardous Materials Survey, Gateway NRA, Staten Island Unit, Miller Field, Hangar #38 Asbestos Containing VAT +/- 4,500 Square feet October 7, 2013

Administrator Text Box

Hazardous Materials Survey, Gateway NRA, Staten Island Unit, Miller Field, Hangar #38 Asbestos Containing VAT +/- 4,500 Square feet October 7, 2013

Administrator Text Box Asbestos Containing VAT +/- 4,500 Square feet

Polygon

Administrator Text Box

Hazardous Materials Survey, Gateway NRA, Staten Island Unit, Miller Field, Hangar #38 Asbestos Containing Facade Tar +/- 3,250 Square feet October 7, 2013

Administrator Rectangle

Administrator Text Box Asbestos Containing Facade Tar +/- 3,250 Square feet

Administrator Polygon

Administrator Polygon

Administrator Rectangle

Administrator Text Box Asbestos Containing Facade Tar +/- 3,250 Square feet

Administrator Text Box

Hazardous Materials Survey, Gateway NRA, Staten Island Unit, Miller Field, Hangar #38 Asbestos Containing Window Glazing +/- 1,650 Square feet October 7, 2013

Administrator Polygon

Administrator Polygon

Administrator Polygon

Administrator Rectangle

Administrator Rectangle

Administrator Rectangle

Administrator Rectangle

Administrator Rectangle

Administrator Rectangle

Administrator Rectangle

Administrator Rectangle

Administrator Rectangle

Administrator Rectangle

Administrator Rectangle

Administrator Rectangle

Administrator Rectangle

Administrator Rectangle

Administrator Rectangle

Administrator Rectangle

Administrator Rectangle

Administrator Rectangle

Administrator Rectangle

Administrator Rectangle

Administrator Rectangle

Administrator Rectangle

Administrator Rectangle

Administrator Rectangle

Administrator Rectangle

Administrator Rectangle

Administrator Rectangle

Administrator Rectangle

Administrator Rectangle

Administrator Rectangle

Administrator Rectangle

Administrator Rectangle

Administrator Text Box Asbestos Containing Window Glazing +/- 1,650 Square feet

Administrator Text Box

Hazardous Materials Survey, Gateway NRA, Staten Island Unit, Miller Field, Hangar #38 Asbestos Containing Window Glazing +/- 1,650 Square feet

Administrator Text Box

Hazardous Materials Survey, Gateway NRA, Staten Island Unit, Miller Field, Hangar #38 Asbestos Containing Roofing Material +/- 60,000 Square feet October 7, 2013

Administrator Rectangle

Administrator

Asbestos Containing Roofing Material +/- 60,000 Square feet

Administrator Text Box Animal Waste Contamination +/- 12,000 Square feet and Microbial Impacted Building Materials +/- 4,000 Square feet

Administrator Text Box

Hazardous Materials Survey, Gateway NRA, Staten Island Unit, Miller Field, Hangar #38 Animal Waste Contamination +/- 12,000 Square feet and Microbial Impacted Building Materials +/- 4,000 Square feet October 7, 2013

Administrator Text Box Animal Waste Contamination +/- 12,000 Square feet and Microbial Impacted Building Materials +/- 4,000 Square feet

Administrator Text Box

Hazardous Materials Survey, Gateway NRA, Staten Island Unit, Miller Field, Hangar #38 Animal Waste Contamination +/- 12,000 Square feet and Microbial Impacted Building Materials +/- 4,000 Square feet October 7, 2013

Hanger ACM Roofing (Typical) Animal waste impacted surfaces/debris (Typical)

Microbial Impacted Building Materials (Typical) Microbial Impacted Building Materials (Typical)

Peeling and delaminating LBP on steel truss (Typical) Peeling and delaminating LBP on interior finish surfaces (Typ.)

BUDGETARY OPINION OF COST FOR REMEDIATION/ABATEMENT/CLEAN-UP

Material Location Opinion of

Quantity Cost/Unit Extension

Asbestos Containing Material

– Roofing Entire +/- 60,000 square feet $ 10.25 $ 615,000

Asbestos Containing Material

– Façade Tar Hanger Facade +/- 6,500 square feet $ 30.00 $ 195,000

Asbestos Containing Material

– Window Glazing Entire +/- 10,000 linear feet $ 18.00 $ 180,000

Asbestos Containing Material

– Vinyl Flooring West WPA 1939 Addition +/- 9,000 square feet $ 10.80 $ 97,200

Lead-based Paint

Hanger Roof Truss Assembly - SSPC 3P Loose & Flaking + Stabilization

+/- 10,750 square feet $ 31.25 $ 335,938

Hanger Stairs – Yellow

Hanger Wall paint - Green

Hanger Wall paint – Gray

“Sludge/Slurry” Above Remedial Program Restricted Commercial Use Soil Cleanup Objectives (SCOs)

Interior of hanger - distributed +/- 121 tons $ 275.00* $ 33,275

Animal waste in ceilings of office area

East WPA 1939 Addition – distributed

+/- 12,000 square feet

$ 9.60 $ 115,200 Microbial growth +/- 4,000 square feet

TOTAL $ 1,571,613

* Sludge/Slurry Clean-up Cost Breakout/Ton Hauling/Disposal ........................................................... $ 55.37

Industrial Loader w/ Crew ........................................... $ 148.76 Waste Characterization & Consumables ...................... $ 28.93 Oversight ....................................................................... $ 41.32

Total ............................................................................ $ 274.38

H. Schematic Design Preferred Alternative (Preliminary Drawings, August 2014)

I

H

G

F

E

D

C

B

A

13121110987654321

J

HISTORIC ELM TREE

LIGHTHOUSE

TIMBER FENCE

EXISTING

MULTI-USE

PATH

DUNES

TO BEACH

REMOVE FENCE

SEGMENT

A003

LAWN

Bargmann Hendrie + Archetype, Inc. 300 A Street Boston, MA 02210 Tel: (617) 350-0450

New Dorp Lane, Staten Island, New York

D:\Revit local\3135_Hangar 38_Partial Deconstruction_080614_LLY.rvt

Gateway National Recreation AreaMiller Field Hangar 38

08/07/14 016 16 32

SCALE OF FEET

PARTIAL DECONSTRUCTION

GROUND FLOOR PLAN

jglassman

I

H

G

F

E

D

C

B

A

13121110987654321

J

NEW LATERAL BEAM

BRACING: TYPICAL

FOR (8) BAYS

STEEL ROD "X"

BRACING: TYPICAL

FOR (2) BAYS

STEEL ROD "X"

BRACING

STEEL ROD "X"

BRACING

NEW LATERAL BEAM

BRACING: TYPICAL

FOR (8) BAYS

STEEL ROD "X"

BRACING: TYPICAL

FOR (2) BAYS

STEEL ROD "X"

BRACING

STEEL ROD "X"

BRACING

KEY PLAN:

LIGHT STEEL LATERAL BEAM BRACING

STEEL ROD "X" BRACING

A003

Bargmann Hendrie + Archetype, Inc. 300 A Street Boston, MA 02210 Tel: (617) 350-0450

New Dorp Lane, Staten Island, New York

D:\Revit local\3135_Hangar 38_Partial Deconstruction_080614_LLY.rvt

Gateway National Recreation AreaMiller Field Hangar 38

08/06/14

PARTIAL DECONSTRUCTION

TRUSS BRACING PLAN

016 16 32

SCALE OF FEET

jglassman

GROUND FLOOR

0"

SECOND FLOOR

11' - 2"

T.O. WALL S&E

12' - 6"

T.O. HANGAR

WALLS

20' - 0"

T.O. WALL W

21' - 0"

121110987654321

STABLIZE HANGAR

SUPERSTRUCTURE

AS "GHOST" FRAME

Bargmann Hendrie + Archetype, Inc. 300 A Street Boston, MA 02210 Tel: (617) 350-0450

New Dorp Lane, Staten Island, New York

D:\Revit local\3135_Hangar 38_Partial Deconstruction_080614_LLY.rvt

Gateway National Recreation AreaMiller Field Hangar 38

08/07/14

1 Section 1

2 View From North West 3 View From South East

PARTIAL DECONSTRUCTION

SECTION AND PERSPECTIVE VIEWS

STEEL ROD "X" BRACE

LATERAL BEAM

BRACING

jglassman

Bargmann Hendrie + Archetype, Inc. 300 A Street Boston, MA 02210 Tel: (617) 350-0450

New Dorp Lane, Staten Island, New York

D:\Revit local\3135_Hangar 38_Partial Deconstruction_080614_LLY.rvt

Gateway National Recreation AreaMiller Field Hangar 38

08/07/14

PARTIAL DECONSTRUCTION

SECTION AND PERSPECTIVE VIEWS

1 Arial View From South West

2 Arial View From South East jglassman

I. Hangar 38 Mini-CBA Report (Sept. 2014)

Page 1 Bargmann Hendrie + Archetype, Inc.

GATE 195019 Mini-CBA Report-091014rev.docx

VALUE ANALYSIS - Mini VA

Park: Gateway National Recreation Area, Miller Field, Staten Island, NY

PMIS: 195019

Project: Historic Seaplane Hangar 38 Deconstruction, Stabilization and Resiliency Options Date: June 3, 2014

Component Evaluated: Hangar 38 This Choosing by Advantages (CBA) workshop was held to evaluate and determine the best approach for stabilization, resiliency and/or deconstruction work for the Hangar 38 building. Per Sandy Recovery Program Manager Tim Hudson’s instructions, the hangar apron was omitted from the current CBA process because it will likely require a separate evaluation and decision-making process growing out of final administrative decisions regarding disposition of the hangar building complex.

Phase I - Information

Miller Field was established prior to World War I as part of a system of aerial coast defenses for New York City. An early aviation building, Seaplane Hangar 38 was constructed at Miller Field in 1920 for the U.S. Army and is the sole survivor of a hangar group and base comprising approximately 40 buildings. Hangar 38 remains significant as one of the last extant examples of its type remaining on the eastern seaboard.

Consisting of two adjacent hangar bays, the original building was extensively renovated in 1939 as a federal Works Progress Administration (WPA) project; the WPA work included a two-story addition on the west and one-story additions on the south and east sides of the hangar. The two-story office/support facilities wing is reinforced concrete-framed with masonry infill, while the one-story utility, shop and support spaces are predominantly constructed of concrete piers and walls supporting wood roof framing.

The extant two-bay hangar structure is characterized by riveted trusses built up from steel angles and clear-spanning 110 feet in the east-west direction, over each hangar bay. Roof trusses and supporting columns are spaced 20 feet on center in the north-south direction.

Supporting columns are built up from four riveted steel angles and a web plate, all encased in terra cotta tile and stucco finishes. At each hangar bay, a double roof truss spans the north-facing hangar door opening; tying together an assembly of pylons, pulleys cables and counterweights, one truss carries the massive hangar doors and the other truss supports the gable end above.

Page 2 Bargmann Hendrie + Archetype, Inc.

Hangar bay interior, viewed from second-floor balcony.

Hangar door, with louver-vented plywood “overframe” beyond.

View from southeast, showing WPA-era one-story additions.

Page 3 Bargmann Hendrie + Archetype, Inc.

Background Information/Special Concerns/Constraints/Previous Decisions/Description of Present Proposal/Design Assumptions

Miller Field Site Description:

Established in 1920-21 as an army airfield and complex consisting of 38 structures, Miller Field is now listed on the National Register of Historic Places. Located within the Staten Island Unit of Gateway National Recreation Area (GATE), the site contains over 180 acres of open space (including 30-plus playing fields, a bocce ball court, playgrounds and picnic areas), historic buildings, and nearly 4,000 linear feet of shoreline.

Recreation is the focus at Miller Field, particularly team sports; the major athletic field complex sees intensive community use and can attract up to 15,000 young people over a weekend. The property currently contains nine visitor parking lots.

Photograph of Hangar 38 taken before hangar doors were replaced and prior to WPA-era additions and alterations.

Constructed at Miller Field in 1920, Seaplane Hangar No. 38 is important because of its association with early aviation history and the history of air coast defenses of the City of New York. A number of later additions and alterations were made under the auspices of the Works Progress Administration (WPA) of the Franklin D. Roosevelt administration in 1935–1939.

Sandy Impacts:

On October 29, 2012, Superstorm Sandy inundated Miller Field, bringing salt water, debris, and wave action to the Seaplane Hangar 38 and the rest of the site, triggering the need for mitigation of life-safety hazards and protection of the historic resource. Carrying contaminated mud and sludge into the hangar bays, the storm surge damaged features and exacerbated ongoing deterioration of interior and exterior finishes.

Constraints and Special Concerns:

Although Sandy inundated much of the first floor of Hangar 38 as…