Project_Book_Exec_Summary.pptx

VA MEDICAL CENTER

.;·t; Fort Harrison Montana

U. S. Department of Veterans Affairs Office of Construction & Facilities

Management Central Region VA Project 436-401

ANDERSON

ENGINEERING

: NGINEER ING • I\RC HITECTU RE • LIHW SURV EV1 t1G

ENVI AotlMrn TAL SH\VICES • LAt DSCAPE ARC l l TECTURE

Fort Harrison Seismic Upgrade and Specialty Care Improvements Project Book August 30, 2018 Executive Summary The Department of Veterans Affairs Montana Health Care System (FHVAMC) located at 3687 Veterans Drive, Fort Harrison, Montana provides essential medical services to veterans living near Helena, Montana. Montana is the fourth largest state geographically, and it has one of the largest per capita veteran populations in the United States. FHVAMC is a 34-bed acute care, medical-surgical facility that provides a wide range of inpatient and outpatient services.

To ensure compliance with current Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) design standards, criteria and submission requirements, the (VA) has determined that Government Furnished Information (GFI) be gathered and assessed with existing conditions and facility requirements to manage risk by confirming the proposed scope of work. This will help to ensure the SOW for the Project Book is as complete as possible. This collection of pre-design information will be utilized as a foundation for all subsequent design efforts for FHVAMC.

One of the major factors identified in previous Facility Conditions Assessments (FCA) is the outdated seismic design of many structures on campus. FHVAMC is located within a moderate high seismic zone and a previous assessment of the facility determined that numerous buildings are seismically deficient considering this seismic classification. Since the Primary Medical Center houses inpatient functions, a significant seismic event would inflict damage to structures and potentially cause harm to patients and staff. This project book will address the building structure / seismic condition gaps by identifying the seismic upgrades needed to be made to Building 154 (FHVAMC main hospital building), as well as the other structurally connected buildings that make up the Medical Center, specifically 154A, 154INF, 150, Connecting Corridor (CC), and 141.

To lessen the impact of Inpatient Care during these renovations, a new 80,000-square foot facility to house all Acute Inpatient Care and associated functions will be constructed. Upon occupancy of the

Figure 1: Fort Harrison Location Map Figure 2: Aerial Image of Fort Harrison Campus

Specialty Care Improvements Project Book August 30, 2018 new facility, the existing Medical Center Complex will be seismically retro-fitted, correcting an estimated $46,000,000 seismic liability. In addition to seismic corrections, significant portions of Buildings 154, 154A and 141 will receive a major renovation to create space to accommodate project needs as identified in the 2013 Facility Master Planning session. Figure 3 provides a general overview of the anticipated area impacted by these efforts.

Table 1 - Building Improvements Summary

This will allow the VA to terminate VISN 19 administrative leases that are anticipated to cost approximately $800,000 annually at the time of occupancy. It is anticipated that building 154 clinic functions will remain operational throughout the construction and the building will serve as the primary clinical space post construction.

In addition to the renovations and new construction stated previously, overall site and infrastructure improvements are needed to comply with current VA design standards and building codes. The addition of a parking structure will eliminate and correct the deficiency of accessible stalls within the appropriate vicinity to facilities. Existing accessible routes will also be updated to meet the VA Barrier Free Design Standard, PG 18-13, 2016.

Fort Harrison Seismic Upgrade and Specialty Care Improvements Project Book August 30, 2018 Figure 3 - Campus Map

Figure 4 - Detailed Campus Map

Specialty Care Improvements Project Book August 30, 2018 Project Narrative The Fort Harrison Veterans Hospital Historic District (Fort Harrison VHHD) was listed in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) in 2016. The historic district has 29 contributing elements and 10 non-contributing elements; of the 29 contributing elements, most are buildings from the property’s history as a military fort. The district is listed under Criterion A for its history as a military fort and later conversion to a Veterans hospital, as well as its importance to Montana Veterans and the City of Helena, and under Criterion C for its military-related buildings and evolution of the post architecture from late 19th century military facility to government hospital. Many of the buildings follow the standard designs typically used by the United States Army in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. The period of significance for the Fort Harrison VHHD starts in 1894 with the construction of the first buildings on the fort and ends in 1967.

The feature element of the Fort Harrison VHHD is the parade ground. The parade ground held a significant military role when the facility was still a fort, and it remains a central focal point and organizing feature for the campus. Sixteen of the thirty- four buildings of the Fort Harrison VHHD face the parade ground. Although it was slightly compromised by the construction of Building 169, which disrupted the historical configuration of the site and the circulation historical pattern surrounding it, the parade ground continues to serve as a “unifying factor” for the military post buildings and the later buildings constructed by the VA to create a cohesive historic district.

Due to the historical significance of the original building, a seismic evaluation was conducted to ensure the preservation of buildings on the site in case of a seismic event. The evaluation determined that an extensive amount of seismic upgrading was required to bring the buildings up to code. For mechanical and electrical non-structural items to withstand a seismic event, the connected buildings also required seismic work to upgrade the fastening systems.

In addition to the seismic deficiencies, the utilization of space within the buildings was also found to be insufficient and requires updating. The location of departments with respect to other departments and therefore the flow between these departments has become inefficient over many years of use for staff and patients. Many departments within the hospital require additional space but have nowhere to expand. For improved space utilization, it was determined that departments will be resized and lease spaces returned to campus. To do this, departments are required to relocate within Figure 5: Historic District Contributing & Non-Contributing Features

Specialty Care Improvements Project Book August 30, 2018 the existing connected building, expand within the existing building or move to new space. To determine the scope of renovation of existing buildings, functional utilization projections were forecasted for the next 20 years and an evaluation of the available onsite space was completed. An additional study determined the existing available space onsite and the amount of additional space needed for proper resizing of all departments.

It was determined during the 2017 Business Case study that an additional 120,000 square feet (SF) would be required. An outpatient addition of approximately 40,000 SF is planned for construction in 2020, which leaves a balance of 80,000 SF remaining as deficit in space required. Upon studies of the facility usage projections, the development of an updated Program for Design (PFD), and required department adjacencies, a plan for a new building, which would provide the remaining required space, was developed.

This new 80,000 SF building would be used for acute care during and after the completion of the seismic upgrade. Three possible locations for the new Acute Care Inpatient building were initially considered within the Phase II Seismic Study prepared by Engineered with Layton, PLC (EWL) dated August 2017 (refer to Appendix A-18). These three locations were further evaluated and documented within the New ACB Siting Alternatives Evaluation contained within Appendix A-37 New Building Site Alternatives Report. The evaluation concluded the preferred location of the new building to be the existing parking lots D and E, adjacent to building 154.

With the removal of parking lots D and E and an increased need for parking due to hospital growth, it was determined that a new parking structure would be necessary to mitigate the deficiency in forecasted parking demand. This new parking structure will occupy the existing parking lots L and K and will supply the additional parking spaces needed. To accommodate the construction impacts of the parking structure a temporary surface parking lot will be constructed on campus.

In addition to the forecasted parking deficiency, the current Central Energy Plant (CEP) is also insufficient for the forecasted needs of the facility. It is assumed for that a new CEP will be designed and constructed as a standalone project (Project Number 436-20-102) in advance of the seismic upgrade project with sufficient capacity to accommodate the new ACB. The seismic upgrade of the FHVAMC and construction of new structures on site will all work to satisfy the critical and non-critical objectives of the facility through their design and construction.

Figure 6: New Building Site Alternatives

Phasing of the project elements is crucial to maintaining an operational medical center during construction. This Project Book is developed with two major categories of activities; 1) New Construction and 2) Seismic Upgrades / Renovations. These two categories are further subdivided into more specific tasks to allow full functionality of the medical center throughout the duration of the seismic upgrade. Figure 7 highlights the high-level phasing plan for the efforts described within Project Book

New Construction

Construct Temporary Parking Lot

New Parking Structure

New Acute Care Building

Seismic Retrofits & Remodels

Building 154

Seismic Retrofits

Renovations

Building 141

Seismic Retrofits (By Wing)

Building 154A and 150

Seismic Retrofits

Renovations

Figure 7 - Phasing Diagram Figure 8 - Campus Phasing Map

PB-2.0 General Site / Infrastructure

2.1. NEPA / Historic Preservation

NEPA Environmental Assessment Under NEPA federal agencies are required to "determine if their proposed actions have significant environmental effects and to consider the environmental and related social and economic effects of their proposed actions." NEPA is triggered when a federal agency proposes to engage in any action that may have environmental effects. The NEPA process is "done" at the completion of one of three levels of evaluation; Categorical Exclusion, Environmental Assessment, or Environmental Impact Statement. The Seismic Upgrade Project at FHVAMC was determined by VA to require an Environmental assessment (EA). An EA takes a broad look at the potential impacts of the Action on the environment which includes both natural and historical resources, as well as human impacts such as socio- economic, visual, and noise. The NEPA process also requires an EA to clearly state the purpose and need for the proposed Action as well as review all reasonable alternatives, including no action. If there are no significant impacts (i.e. any potential issues are routinely handled through issuance of permits, consultations, modifications to design, or other agreements) a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) can then be issued following a public comment period concluding the NEPA process.

The EA prepared for the FHVAMC Seismic Upgrade Project generally evaluated the no action alternative and the preferred action alternative, which consisted of constructing a new ACB, construction of a parking structure, seismic upgrades and renovation of existing buildings. The alternative action was preferred because it enabled VA to continue to provide essential medical services to the veterans near Helena, Montana while meeting VA Directive 7512 that establishes policy regarding the seismic safety of VA buildings, the stated purpose and need. The preferred action alternative will involve short-term and temporary impacts associated with construction and demolition; however, impacts will be mitigated by implementing best management practices. Upon completion, the preferred action will result in seismically compliant facilities, enhance indoor environmental quality, and create a more favorable healing environment.

The draft EA was published June 15, 2018 for a 30-day public comment period. The final EA and FONSI was published August 17, 2018.

Appendix A-12: Final Environmental Assessment (NEPA)

Cultural Historic Resources Studies The complete Cultural Historic Resource Study as prepared by Row10 Historic Preservations Solutions, LLC. can be found in Appendix A-13: Preliminary Cultural Resources Study – VA Montana Health Care Systems.

Historic Preservation Requirements Under the NHPA, VA is responsible for taking into account the effect of its actions on historic properties. The impact to cultural and historic resources for this project is addressed in the 2018 Preliminary Cultural Resource Study, included as Appendix A- 13: Preliminary Cultural Resources Study – VA Montana Health Care Systems. In addition, VA recently commissioned a Historic Preservation Plan, available as Appendix A-14: Historic Preservation Plan, for the FHVAMC to ensure VA is meeting its historic preservation requirements, both those of the NHPA and in accordance with VA Handbook 7545. The plan is designed to assist the FHVAMC to comply with the NHPA Sections 110 and 106, NEPA, various federal laws for the protection of historic and cultural properties, and relevant Executive Orders. The plan also provides guidance regarding future FHVAMC activities that could impact historic properties, including routine maintenance, new construction, demolition, leasing, and the application and utilization of the Secretary of Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Buildings.

Summary of Impacts The FHVAMC contains several types of historic properties, from landscape features to historic buildings to archaeological sites. The Fort Harrison VHHD was listed in the National Register of Historic Places in 2016. The FHVAMC has two potential archaeological sites; neither has yielded artifacts, but both are designated as archaeological sites by the Montana State Historic Preservation Office (MT SHPO) for their potential to yield significant archaeological resources.

The proposed project will have indirect adverse effects to select contributing resources, namely the former officers’ quarters, and could potentially affect as-yet undiscovered archaeological resources. VA needs to comply with Section 106 of the NHPA by consulting with, at a minimum, the MT SHPO and any Federally-recognized Native American Tribes with an interest in or association to the property. The Section 106 compliance effort will address ways to avoid, minimize, or mitigate the impacts to the historic resources.

2.2. Hazardous Materials Report

Medical Center Hazardous Materials Report Summary The completed limited scope asbestos survey can be found in Appendix A-15: Limited- Scope Asbestos Survey.

Hazardous Materials A limited-scope asbestos survey was completed for Buildings 141, 154, 154A,154B. The limited-scope asbestos survey included a gap analysis to review all available existing facility data and documentation followed by a visual inspection to identify suspect building asbestos-containing materials (ACMs) for the designated project areas Buildings 141, 154, 154A, and 154B. The visual inspection was limited to those areas identified for seismic upgrade and minor renovation.

Specialty Care Improvements Project Book August 30, 2018 The information collected was used to determine the level of effort that will be required to complete the full survey which would include the physical assessment, bulk sampling, laboratory analysis and summary report.

EPA NESHAP Asbestos Survey Under the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 61-National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP), Subpart M-National Emission Standards for Asbestos, an owner or operator of a demolition or renovation activity, prior to the commencement of the demolition or renovation, shall thoroughly inspect the affected facility or part of the facility where the demolition or renovation operation will occur for the presence of asbestos, including friable ACM, Category I nonfriable ACM and Category II nonfriable ACM. Friable ACM is a material containing more than 1% asbestos that, when dry, can be crumbled, pulverized or reduced to powder by hand pressure.

The asbestos NESHAP regulation classifies ACM as either friable ACM, Category I nonfriable ACM or Category II nonfriable ACM. Regulated asbestos-containing material (RACM) is defined as friable ACM, Category I nonfriable ACM that has become friable, Category I nonfriable ACM that will be or has been subjected to sanding, grinding, cutting or abrading and Category II nonfriable ACMs that have become friable; or have a high probability of becoming or has become crumbled, pulverized, or reduced to powder by the forces expected to act on the material in the course of demolition or renovation operations Category I nonfriable ACM are exclusively asbestos-containing packings, gaskets, resilient floor coverings, resilient floor covering mastics and asphalt roofing products that contain more than 1% asbestos. Category II nonfriable ACM are nonfriable materials other than Category I nonfriable ACM that contain more than 1% asbestos.

MDEQ Asbestos Survey The Montana Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) incorporates the asbestos NESHAP by reference in the Administrative Rules of Montana (ARM) Title 17, Chapter 74, Subchapter 3-Asbestos Control. ARM 17.74.354 further expands the “thorough inspection” requirement in the NESHAP regulation which includes elements of 40 CFR Part 763-Asbestos, Subpart E-Asbestos-Containing Materials in Schools also known as the Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act (AHERA).

The owner or operator of a demolition or renovation activity must provide MDEQ with written notification at least 10 working days prior to the commencement of asbestos abatement activities that will disturb RACM in amounts greater than or equal to 160 square feet, 260 linear feet or 35 cubic feet of volume. The owner or operator must provide MDEQ with written notification at least 5 working days prior to the commencement of asbestos abatement activities that will disturb RACM in amounts involving more than 10 square feet but less than 160 square feet, more than 3 linear feet but less than 260 linear feet linear feet or more than 3 cubic feet but less than 35 cubic feet of volume.

Specialty Care Improvements Project Book August 30, 2018 Asbestos Survey of Designated Project Areas of FHVAMC Limited-Scope Asbestos Surveys were conducted from February 26 to March 2, 2018. The following homogenous areas of suspect ACM were identified in the designated project areas of buildings 141, 150, 154, 154A, and 154B. The number of samples to be collected were estimated based on the requirements of MDEQ regulation ARM 17.74.354 Inspection Requirements for Demolition and Renovation Activities.

Building 141 – 93 homogenous area materials. A total of 284 samples (including 7 samples for wall and ceiling plaster) would be required to be collected.

Building 150 – 40 homogenous area materials. A total of 125 samples (including 7 samples for wall and ceiling plaster) would be required to be collected.

Building 154 – 99 homogenous area materials. A total of 301 samples (including 7 samples for wall and ceiling plaster) would be required to be collected.

Building 154A – 45 homogenous area materials. A total of 139 samples (including 7 samples for wall and ceiling plaster) would be required to be collected.

Building 154B – 20 homogenous area materials. A total of 60 samples would be required to be collected.

Totals include 297 homogenous area materials requiring a total of 909 samples to be collected.

Project Demolition or Renovation Requirements Under the USEPA NSHAP 40 CFR Part 61 Subpart M and MDEQ ARM 17.74, the suspect ACMs identified in the limited-scope asbestos surveys must be assumed to be ACM or sampling of suspect ACM must be conducted by an AHERA-accredited and State of Montana-accredited asbestos inspector and analyzed by a laboratory accredited by the National Laboratory Voluntary Accreditation Program (NVLAP) in accordance with state and federal regulations.

Lead-Based Paint and Lead-Containing Paint Lead is regulated by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), and Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA).

Specialty Care Improvements Project Book August 30, 2018 The EPA issued the lead-safe practices rule aimed at preventing lead poisoning. The rule requires contractors performing renovation, repair and painting projects that disturb lead-based paint in homes, childcare facilities, and schools built before 1978 to be certified and follow specific work practices to prevent lead contamination. HUD regulates lead-based paint (LBP) in target housing that is federally owned, target housing receiving federal assistance, and child-occupied facilities. EPA and HUD define “lead-based paint” as any coating that has a lead concentration equal to or greater than (≥) 1.0 mg/cm2 or if the lead concentration is ≥0.5% by weight. The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) provides the EPA with the authority to regulate the waste status of demolition or renovation debris, including lead wastes. Specific notification and testing requirements must be addressed prior to transporting, treating, storing, or disposing of hazardous wastes such as lead.

OSHA’s lead in construction standard, 29 CFR 1926.62, applies to all construction work where an employee may be exposed to lead. All work related to construction, alteration, or repair, including painting and decorating, is included. With regards to paint, OSHA has not defined a lower threshold lead concentration for lead- containing paint, but states that paint with any measurable level of lead may pose a significant potential for exposure when disturbed.

A lead paint inspection (including XRF readings and paint chip sampling) for the designated project areas of Buildings 141, 150, 154, 154A, and 154B will need to be conducted to assess and identify lead-containing paint prior to demolition or renovation activities so that appropriate control measures can be implemented.

Hazardous Building Materials Hazardous building materials are regulated by the EPA. Regulated hazardous building materials will typically include mercury, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), chlorofluorocarbons, and radioactive sources. These materials must be identified prior to demolition or renovation activities and must be properly handled and disposed or recycled if they will be removed or disturbed.

A hazardous building materials inspection for the designated project areas of Buildings 141, 150, 154, 154A, and 154B will need to be conducted to identify and inventory hazardous building materials prior to demolition or renovation activities so that appropriate measures can be implemented.

2.3. Alternatives for Waste Disposal

Existing Conditions Summary Waste disposal data as provided by VAMC staff is incorporated in Appendix A-16.

Specialty Care Improvements Project Book August 30, 2018

2.5. Site Analysis

Seismic Analysis The VA is committed to providing life-safety protection to all patients, staff and visitors in all facilities on campus. FHVAMC is in a seismically active area, classified as Moderate High by the VA. Two studies have been previously prepared evaluating the FHVAMC facilities; Seismic Inventory, Fort Harrison, building 154 completed by Degenkolb Engineers, dated August 2005 and Phase II Seismic Study, VAMC Fort Harrison, prepared by EWL dated 2017. The reports generally provide relevant background information, identify deficiencies, and recommend seismic upgrades are based on current seismic codes.

The complete Phase I and Phase II Seismic Studies can be found as follows: Appendix A-19: Phase I Seismic Study Appendix A-20: Phase II Seismic Study A general summary of seismic upgrades needed for facilities within Project Book is listed below. A more detailed description can be found in section 3.0 – Existing Building Analysis and Assessment.

Table 3 - General Seismic Upgrades Summary

Climate Analysis Climate Data FHVAMC is approximately 4,150 feet above sea level, located on the “dry side” of the Continental Divide giving way to more sunny days. All four seasons are well represented, with an annual high temperature of 58 degrees. The average high temperature in July is the highest at 70 degrees. The coldest average high temperature is 32 degrees in December. Average annual precipitation (rainfall) is

11.12 inches, with an average snowfall depth of 38 inches.

ASHRAE Climatic Data and VA Climatic data is attached in Appendix A-21 to indicate HVAC design criteria, precipitation, average wind speeds, extreme temperatures (Dry Bulb and Wet Bulb), Clear-Sky solar irradiance and All-Sky solar irradiance. Winds are predominately out of the West.

Extreme weather events include wildfires and extreme cold events (20-year extreme temperature of -35 degrees Fahrenheit).

The following charts are courtesy of weatherspark.com:

Figure 9 - Average Hourly Temperature Figure 10 - Daily Chance of Precipitation

Preliminary Geotechnical & Soils Report General Site Subsurface Conditions FHVAMC is located within the southwestern corner of the Helena Valley, to the northwest of Tenmile Creek. Topography of the site is indicative of alluvial and colluvial influences from the Cherry Creek and Sevenmile Creek drainages emanating from the low hills to the west of the site and the Tenmile Creek flood plain to the south of the project site. Subsurface conditions primarily consist of alluvial sand and gravel soils, with some interbedding of silt and clay soils that are likely overbank flood deposits.

General Foundation Considerations -Structures The geologic setting and subsurface conditions generally lend themselves to utilization of shallow foundation (frost-depth) systems supported on native alluvial sand/gravel bearing surfaces. This will need to be reviewed for site specific conditions, including planned structure loadings and allowable differential settlement conditions. New structure construction adjacent existing facilities should be assessed to provide reliable bearing support within the same bearing stratum as the adjacent structure, where possible, or designed to limit potential for undermining of existing foundations. Limiting differential settlement between connected facilities will be important in design alternatives.

Figure 11 - Cloud Cover Categories Figure 12 - Average High and Low Temperature

Specialty Care Improvements Project Book August 30, 2018 General Infrastructure Improvement Considerations - Utilities and Pavements Native alluvial soils are expected to be excavatable using standard track-mounted or wheel-mounted excavation equipment to the anticipated depth for utility installation. Stability of excavation will be the responsibility of the contractor; OSHA compliance will be required. On-site soils may be suitable for reuse as trench backfill, pending evaluation of the materials by a geotechnical engineer.

Pavement subgrade conditions are expected to vary across the site, with near surface native alluvial clay subgrades providing substantially lower subgrade modulus values than those of native alluvial sand or gravel subgrades. Evaluation of pavement and parking areas specifically for subgrade modulus will assist in providing the most reliable and cost effective pavement sections. See Appendix A- 22: Geotechnical Engineering Report.

Transportation and Parking The existing facility provides a total of 909 parking spaces based on a physical count conducted in October 2017. These stalls include 55 designated handicap spaces, 39 designated visitor spaces, and 21 designated carpool/vanpool spaces. All existing parking stalls are in surface lots around the buildings. A breakdown of the parking capacity per individual lot, as well as the observed peak parking demand for the site, can be found in Tables 3 & 4 of the traffic Transportation Study Appendix A-23.

Stormwater Regulations Storm Water and Erosion Control:

Storm water and erosion control are required for any new construction that modifies existing storm sewer networks or changes the sites impervious area. The most current guidelines and requirements for Montana should be followed. Below is a list of applicable forms and permits required at the writing of this document. These requirements should be verified with current regulations and guidelines prior to future project design.

Applicable documents and permits required for construction may include but are not limited to the following:

Montana’s storm water requirements for construction activity;

Notice of Intent (NOI) and Notice of Termination (NOT) forms;

Fee Summary Schedule;

Storm water pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) application forms;

Delegation of authority form;

Self-inspection form.

Site Cost Impacts Additional studies, planning and coordination will need to occur between the AE-of- Record, FHVAMC staff and the Contractor to minimize the costs associated with traffic control and site access.

It is required that a comprehensive traffic control plan be completed prior to the start of construction to address the following concerns:

Specialty Care Improvements Project Book August 30, 2018 Site Access / Circulation:

Construction improvements will need to allow for daily operations of the campus to remain intact. Site access and circulation routes for vehicular and pedestrian routes will need to remain intact to the extent possible, potentially adding additional costs and time to the project. Special considerations will need to be taken into account by the contractor and AE-of-Record when developing construction access routes, road closures and detailed project phasing plans to minimize associated costs.

Ingress / Egress by pedestrians:

Due to the remote location of Fort Harrison, a small number of pedestrians will access the campus from adjacent communities. Pedestrian routes throughout the campus should be reviewed at the time of design by the AE-of-Record and VAMC staff to ensure accessibility to all facilities during construction.

Vehicular Access:

Vehicular access to the campus will need to remain operational during construction improvements. A traffic control plan should be established by the AE-of-Record prior to construction. Review of accessible routes, available parking and deliveries will need to occur throughout the design process. Early planning of these efforts will help reduce costs associated with traffic control.

Emergency Vehicles:

Access for emergency vehicles will need to remain throughout construction. During improvements to the existing ambulance bay, planning and design by the AE-of-Record will need to be completed for the campus to remain operational. Access for fire apparatuses will also need to be accounted for and further discussion and planning will need to occur with the FHVAMC Fire Chief.

Mass Transit:

Currently mass transit is not provided to the FHVAMC. Site Security:

Construction traffic and operations will need to comply with current PSDM requirements.

Drainage Storm Water:

Stormwater for the existing site is split into two major drainage areas, roughly split in the middle of Building 154A, and bisecting the site diagonally from southwest to northeast. The northwest portion of the site enters a storm sewer network of pipes below ground and outlets directly to the north of the site. The southeast portion of the site enters a storm sewer network below ground and exits into an existing storm pond. Future site expansion could employ both strategies of below ground pipe networks or incorporate sustainable design efforts such as bio-swales, infiltration basins or other Best Management Practices (BMP’s) provided all current regulations and guidelines are followed. The existing storm pond could be expanded to handle additional runoff. No deficiencies were noted during on-site survey. See Exhibits 2-4 Flood Plain FHVAMC is not within any mapped flood plains according to the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) maps provided by Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), dated September 19th, 2012.

See Exhibit 5-6 for adjacent NFIP maps.

Permanent USGS Survey marker Two permanent USGS Survey markers are located adjacent to the FHVAMC:

USGS Survey Markers Project Control Points

Table 4 - USGS Survey Markers

Land Survey and Site Utility Plans Topographic and on-site utility surveys of the campus were completed in October of 2017. The survey identifies, but is not limited to:

Building Footprints Subsurface basements and tunnels Paving, curb and gutter, and other hardscape elements Trees and significant vegetation Covered walkways Storm water treatment areas Site utilities First floor elevations, spot elevations and contours are also identified on this survey The completed topographic and on-site utility survey, which serves as the background / basis of design, can be found in Appendix A-24: On Site Utility Survey.

It was determined that a boundary survey was not needed for the efforts of Project Book as all information researched and studied was within the parcel limits. If a perimeter fence is to be installed, a boundary survey will need to be completed at that time.

Note that FHVAMC staff indicated a potential minor land swap to simplify boundary areas shared with Fort William Henry Harrison Montana National Guard facility. AE- of-Record shall validate boundary at time of design.

Seismic Information The VA is committed to providing life-safety protection to all patients, staff and visitors in all facilities on campus. FHVAMC is in a seismically active area, classified as Moderate High by the VA. Two studies have been previously prepared evaluating the FHVAMC facilities; Seismic Inventory, Fort Harrison, Building 154 completed by Degenkolb Engineers, dated August 2005 and Phase II Seismic Study, VAMC Fort Harrison prepared by Engineered with Layout, PLC dated 2017. The reports generally provide relevant background information, identify deficiencies, and recommend upgrades are based on current seismic codes.

The complete Phase I and Phase II seismic Studies can be found as follows: Appendix A-19 Phase I Seismic Study Appendix A-20 Phase II Seismic Study Site Context FHVAMC is located in a remote area north east of Helena, Montana. Adjacent properties consist of the state veteran’s cemetery and Fort William Henry Harrison, which is home to the Montana National Guard Training Facility.

Currently there are no mass transit routes provided to or from the facility.

Being in a remote area, surrounding views of mountain tops and rural Montana provide a scenic setting for the campus. Advantageous views are best seen when looking south and north east of the campus.

Specialty Care Improvements Project Book August 30, 2018

2.6. Utility Surveys

On-Site Utilities An On-Site Utility survey was completed and can be located in Appendix A-24: On-Site Utility Survey.

Central Energy Plant Currently there are two boiler plants, Building 171 which contains steam boilers and Building 141 which contains hydronic boilers. Today there are no central chilled water services.

Building 171 Steam Boiler Plant Building 171 contains the steam boilers, as described in the Steam Sections 2.8 –

2.14. Per the Business Plan – Boiler Plant Capital Investment, Appendix A-25: Business Plan – Boiler Plant Capital Improvement Project, there are several short comings to the existing steam boiler system. The PSDM identifies this facility as mission critical and does not meet stand-off distances. Several safety devices on the existing boilers have been cited by FHVAMC staff to be in need of replacement.

A risk assessment of the facility recommends adding catwalks for service, but due to existing physical constraints, not all required service areas can be addressed by catwalks. Monitoring and controls equipment, including data logging and stack combustion gas analyzers, are required to be added per new directives. ASHRAE

90.1 was not addressed in the original design of the steam boiler systems.

The current plan is to replace the existing steam boiler plant Building 171 with the Future CEP.

B141 Hydronic Boiler Plant The Hydronic Boiler Plant associated with Building 141 was built in 2009 and contains the hydronic boilers and feeds heating water systems in the existing hospital buildings. The hydronic boilers generally serve heating systems within the hospital buildings, including VAV reheat, fin tube and air handler heating coils. There is hot water to hot water heat exchangers that are used to isolate the boiler water system to individual heating systems within the buildings. This allows heating water in individual coils to include glycol if needed without having glycol circulate through the boilers.

There are two larger fire tube boilers which each can carry the full hydronic load if both of the two modular boilers are also operational. This allows for an N+1 redundancy. Both boilers also have the required dual fuel capability with natural gas and fuel oil capability. The two smaller modular boilers are run most times of the year and are supplemented by the firetube boilers if needed during peak heating conditions.

Specialty Care Improvements Project Book August 30, 2018 The equipment located in the existing Building 141 hydronic plant are listed below. All the boiler systems are in excellent condition and have a life expectancy between 20-25 years. This hydronic boiler plant is assumed to stay operational.

Building 141 Existing Installed Mechanical Equipment

Table 5 - Building 141 Existing Installed Mechanical Equipment

Future Central Energy Plant Sizing The future CEP is not a part of the Seismic Upgrade Project covered by this Project Book effort and is planned to be built prior. The future CEP is assumed to be sized for the current steam boiler loads and the new ACB heating and process loads. The CEP will also house a centralized chilled water plant. Both systems are assumed to be sized for current and future loads including the new ACB. FHVAMC has indicated the potential location for the CEP is east of Building 170.

Steam System Assumed utility loads are listed below for the planning efforts of the Future CEP and should be verified by the AE-of-Record. Any requirements for future planned buildings or additions should be taken into consideration if planned to be connected to the Future CEP. The new heating loads are assumed to come from the future CEP and not from Building 141 in these calculations. One of the considerations for the new steam system is to be used as a back-up for Building 141 to eliminate one or both of fire tube boilers and add additional modular boilers to make up for the differential load difference. This would eliminate the need to maintain fuel oil systems for both boiler plants and potentially reduce energy usage by not needing to keep both a spare hydronic boiler and steam boiler on standby.

The AE-of-Record should perform a life cycle cost analysis to determine if adding hydronic boilers to Building 141 is financially more cost effective than using steam from the Future CEP.

Steam Boiler Requirements:

Existing steam boiler loads: 14 MMBH New ACB heating loads: 4 MMBH New ACB process loads: Approximately equal to existing loads Back-up for B141 loads: 11 MMBH Future Buildings: TBD Excess Capacity: TBD

Specialty Care Improvements Project Book August 30, 2018 Total steam loads including current loads and future ACB are about 18 MMBH, assuming the heating load for the ACB are served from the Future CEP.

Chilled Water System The existing chilled water systems do not have excess capacity and the chillers do not have any back up capacity except for the Surgery Chillers. The sizing of the new central chiller plant should consider future capacity for planned buildings, potential to replace existing DX systems and back-up capacity.

Building 154 chiller in room B100: Approximately 180 tons, water-cooled with a matched cooling tower located in Parking Lot C. This chiller is an R-22 Trane Series R Centravac was installed around 1994 and serves various air handlers in Building

154. It is assumed that this chiller will be removed as a part of the future CEP, along with its cooling tower. Otherwise the cooling tower will need to be relocated due to its proximity to the new ACB.

Building 154 air cooled chiller serving AHU-S1A, AHU-2A and AHU-S2. This chiller has approximately 100 tons of capacity and is located outside Building 154 penthouse. It is an R-410 machine and in good condition. It is assumed that this chiller will be removed as a part of the future CEP.

SADIE Addition has a 40-ton air-cooled chiller serving the two air handlers in the penthouse mechanical room and is in good condition.

Building 154A has an air-cooled chiller with a split air-cooled condenser. The chiller is located in the basement of Building 154A and its associated air-cooled condenser is located near the Building 154A entrance adjacent to Building 150. This chiller has an approximate capacity of 40 tons and is in fair condition.

Pharmacy Building has an air cooled ClimaCool 4-ton chiller serving the Pharmacy air handler in excellent condition.

Building 141 air cooled chiller serving the air handlers in Building 141 is located on the south-east side of the roof. This McQuay chiller is approximately 65 tons and in good condition. It is assumed that this chiller will be removed as a part of the future CEP. It is in good condition.

Building 169 has a chiller located on the roof, with an approximate capacity of 60 tons. This chiller was not field verified. Information was taken from the existing plans. It is assumed that this chiller will be removed as a part of the future CEP.

Chilled Water Requirements:

Existing B154 chillers: 280 tons Existing B154A chiller: 40 tons Existing Sadie chiller: 40 tons Existing Pharmacy chiller: 4 tons Existing B141 chiller: 65 tons Existing B169 chiller: 60 tons New ACB chilled water loads: 270 tons DX systems in B154, B154A, B141: 100 – 150-ton potential replacement

Future Buildings: TBD Excess Capacity: TBD Total chilled water loads including current loads and future ACB area about 760 tons. This does not include the potential replacement of DX systems, nor does it address redundancy or future capacity.

Steam Generation This project is assumed to receive all of the steam loads for new ACB from the planned future CEP so alternative types of steam generation should be considered in that project. Differing types of cogeneration systems including natural gas and biomass fired CHP systems were evaluated in the cogeneration report. The Combined Heat & Power System Feasibility Study is included in Appendix A-4.

Combined Heat and Power (cogeneration) This project is assumed to receive all the steam loads for new ACB from the planned future CEP so alternative types of steam generation should be considered in that project. Differing types of cogeneration systems including natural gas and biomass fired CHP systems were evaluated in the cogeneration report. The Combined Heat & Power System Feasibility Study is included in Appendix A-4.

Waste Disposal Locally there is limited options for alternative waste disposal as mentioned by VAMC staff.

Current waste disposal data is located in section 2.6.19 of Project Book.

Gas Natural Gas Natural gas is distributed to the site at 25 psi, with gas meters located at Building 168, Building 171 and at the hydronic boiler plant attached to Building 141. The gas is regulated at each of those locations down to pressures required for the building. Gas lines and meters are shown on the gas, electric and generator drawing. Any revisions to the gas loads would need to be coordinated with the local utility to confirm site pipe sizing, gas meter sizing, and pressure regulating valves. It is assumed that the natural gas loads for the campus will increase by approximately 5MMBH due to the steam and heating loads for the new ACB. Since the future CEP is assumed to cover those new loads, the ACB should not have to review or revise the site natural gas piping. Refer to Exhibit 7 for pipe locations routing and gas meter locations.

Fuel Oil Systems There are several fuel oil tanks on campus. The locations and sizes are summarized in Exhibit 7. There is an 8,000-gallon diesel tank that serves the hydronic boiler plant near B141 and a 10,000-gallon tank that serves the steam boiler Building

171. Other tanks are shown on the exhibit, but serve buildings outside this scope of work. An analysis of the fuel oil storage tank capacities is located in the Physical Security Section 2.4.3 of this report.

Medical Gas

Specialty Care Improvements Project Book August 30, 2018 The only site medical gas utility is the oxygen storage tank. The current site pipe routing of the 2” oxygen pipe is shown on Exhibit 8. It is assumed that the current oxygen storage tank will be relocated in the future CEP and that the piping and tank will be sized appropriately for the new ACB.

Steam, Hot & Chilled Water Steam Routing of the main steam piping is shown in the Exhibit 9. A 12” Low pressure steam, 4” High Pressure Steam and 4” Pumped Condensate pipe are routed between Building 171 and Building 154 through a tunnel as shown. At a maximum of 7,200 Feet/Min velocity, a 12” pipe at 10 psi has a capacity of around 19,000 lb/hr. Similarly, the 4” HPS at 80 psi has a capacity of around 7,000 lb/hr. It is unknown how the new steam piping will be routed for the future CEP and whether the piping in the existing tunnel will be re-used. An analysis of the new and existing steam boiler systems is in the CEP section 2.6.2.

See Appendix A-26: Steam Drawings Chilled Water Currently there are no central chilled water utilities and the existing chilled water piping and chillers serve local air handlers within each building. An analysis of the new and existing chilled water systems is in the Central Energy Plant section.

Heating Water Systems The existing heating water boilers located in Building 141 provide 200-degree hot water to 7 locations. There is hot water to hot water heat exchangers located and serving areas in buildings Building 141, Building 150, Building 154 and Building 154A. The boiler water exchanges with the load side of the heat exchangers serving existing air handlers, hot water radiation and reheat piping in these buildings. All of which was installed around 2010. The scheduled load for these heat exchangers is around 11.5 MMBH. The flow rate of the pumps is scheduled at 1,000 gpm and the scheduled flow through the boiler side of the heat exchangers is around 900 gpm. The main boiler piping that serves the hospital is 8”. At a maximum velocity of 10 fps, the maximum flow rate is around 1,560 gpm.

If the hydronic heating water system is used to provide heat for the new ACB, the existing pumps would need to be revised to increase the flow rate. The main 8” pipes have additional capacity of around 600 gpm.

The total existing hydronic boiler capacity is around 16.8MMBH, but if N+1 redundancy is considered, the total capacity is about 11.1 MMBH which nearly matches the connected load. Therefore, if any load is added to the hydronic boiler system, additional boilers appear to be required.

Design drawings indicating boiler plant layout and main pipe routing through the buildings are included in Appendix A-27: Heating Water Drawings

Stormwater Existing stormwater utility information can be found in section 2.5.7.

Wastewater and Sewer Waste water is collected site wide into two main runs along the north and east side of the site. Waste water collects in these two 8” main lines converging into a single outlet at the north of the site. The single outlet at the north of the site is currently an 8” pipe with 0.6% slope.