I I I Fort Ord Reuse Authority I Pilot Deconstruction I Project I STAN COOK I PILOT DECONSTRUCTION PROJECT COORDINATOR I Final Report I December - 1997 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Acknowledgments I Sincere acknowledgments and thanks are expressed for the invaluable financial contribution by the Lucile and David Packard Foundation in support of this Project. The Packard Foundation funds provided critical core funding that enabled FORA to advance I this important community program. This Project would also like to acknowledge and voice appreciation to many other I contributors of time, interest and commitment by individuals, organizations and businesses such as: the Technical Support Group, for their guidance and support; A & S I Metals, Fresno House Movers, TALe Desma Builders, and the University of California, San~a Cruz Extension who have provided deconstruction crew members. I The interest and guidance provided by Robin Snyder of the US Environmental Protection Agency and Bob Faulk of the US Department of Agriculture, Forest Products Lab. has I been instrumental in finding practical methods to reduced the barriers to deconstruction. Support and interest from Fort McCoy, Fort Knox, Indian Head, Fort Chaffee Redevelopment Authority, Aberdeen Proving Ground and Bay Area Defense Conversion I Action Team has created the beginning of a network between institutions actively trying to find the best ways to remove former W.W.II buildings. I Special appreciation is acknowledged to Mr. Les White, former FORA Executive Officer for his faith in the deconstruction project. Equal appreciation extends to Mr. Michael Houlemard, the current FORA Executive Officer, for his sustaining commitment to this I project. Without the support of both Executive Officers, this prototype project could not I have succeeded. I I For further information on this Project and to obtain copies of this report, please contact: I Stan Cook, Pilot Deconstruction Project Coordinator Fort Ord Reuse Authority 100 12th Street, Marina, CA 93933 I tel: (408) 883-3672 I fax: (408) 883-3675 I I --------··------- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I -- ---- - ---- - - - - - - - - 1 Fi~ure 5.1: United States base closures, 1988-2000 &tses tl'ith more than 500 total direct Wa.tbtngtorr Kentucky f I ha f I jobs, actual and plcumed closures Adak "iAS 540 138 24,705 Sand Poinr ;"\;'$ 557 423 !10 Louisville NSWC 15 1,449 /C}.'l8, 1991. 1993. 1995 California Colorado Ohio Maine f I ha f ·'I ha f I f I ha San fr-.Jncisco 4.052 2.290 783 Newark AFB 92 658 Loring AFB 2,875 1.326 3.965 n:lv:J.I complex• 17,366 12,151 1,291 1,6!2 234 FortOrd 13.619 2.835 McClellan AFB 3.000 11,000 New Hampshire long Be-J<.:h Michigan f I ha "iSY&NS 8.386 4,183 f I f I Pea~ AFB 2.250 400 1.724 c El Toro MCAS 5.689 979 :::J Norton AFB 4520 2.133 Castle AFB 52!£) 1,164 Massachusetts r+ San Diego NTC 5,186 402 f I ha George AFB 4,852 506 Fort Devens 1.662 2,178 4.6BS CD San Fr.m<..i.o;co South a. Presidio 2.140 3.150 W"eymoUlh N AS 653 365 911 Tustin .\1C.-\S 3,75i 348 Sac..-r..tmenro New York en Army Depot 334 3,164 r+ ha Q) Mather AFB 1.~ 1,012 f I San Diego :'-:ESEC 6 619 Sr:uen IslantV r+ Brookh:n NS 2,017 1 .5-i) ;-:- CD • S<.m fra11ct:M-o 1/lll'Uio.umplex is Platbburgh AFB 2,116 346 1.9)1 01111{'< ~-..:tf (1· tbt_• jiJiJ(,/l"l1lg fi1<."Jflllt'S r.n .-Hu"wda .\AS.. ·H{U1leda SanJ.I .-lnattofl IA1)fll. 1/uwer:; Pumt .\'5. .Uart• /slaud Pennsylt'ania .\ ~· c-: .\Sr. {),Ji.!Jaud .\fwalllu..;paaf and ha Suppil' Center. Treo..sure Islam/ .\S f I m Philadelphia NSY, 2.714 8.219 3.750 Q) :"'S & Hospital r.n Arizona f I CD WilliamsAFB 1,567 781 Ida ryland f I ha (") SL Inigoes NESEC 33 2.786 392 Hau•aii Fon Ritchie 1.011 1.333 2h0 - f I ha Anna polis :"JS\VC 2 520 0 0 Barber.-; Point r.n NAS 3.534 618 1.651 LVirginia I:: f I ha ..., -, Cuneron St:Hion 337 4.355 (>b 0 Vinr Hill F.ums 40i l,'l7:! 2S·t 0 I c ;::!. H~ • (() ~.ltllita,· Te:ras Indiana South Carolina -<"' persotinel ha ha f I ha KeUyAFB 4.900 16.500 1,905 foil Benjamin Cltarleswn s. ' Bergstrom AFB 3.940 942 1.689 H:mison 3.6-ll 4.240 10.131 :\SY &:"S H.;os 6.031 --l) CD " ICit•llitUI 807 1,{)\\} 0 personnel Dalbs NAS 1.374 268 .324 Gnssom AFB 2.-197 1.288 ~l)"Jtk Bc":Ich AFll 3.193 799 :J Reese AFB Indian:1polis :J 900 1.183 1.3.\-i Clu.se Fidd !'/AS 855 956 3.901 NA\X'C 36 2.&Fi 7'5 ~ Jefferson (() Acron.l'ms Provin~ Ground 89 411 22.3H6 3 Arkansas ~ A1B .-\tr FortL' H.1 .... c- 0 ,U/C -\!111\' .\kdic:d CL"niL'f f I ha :J ARF -\11 1\.._·...,L'nL' F.Ll dLi\ Eakt:'r :\FB 2.712 792 1.!)9·1 Florillll !!!_ 2.61~ ha .IICH \Ltnnl· t:lnr .... -\n .'t:ui\lll Fort Ch:1tTec- 710 29.0<'!.." f I 0 Orl.tndo :\TC (() .\AS \,t\,li \il "LIItoll .1nJ I tosp1ul ~.-T -;-;;;_.; H.<.l :::!- .\A\I'C \.t\,li .\If \\'.tfLlfL' l._:<._'!1[L'l louisitlna Ceo! Fit·ld :\:\S ().S55 9')" .S,l'79 ~ .'V£5/:.'C \,t\.d Fk~!Hlllll _..;,..,Inn !·:ll.c.!\1\L'L'flll.~ c,·n(l'r f I ha Q .\'S \,t\.1[ :'IL!Illlll En~bnd .\Fil 3.0·12 697 1.0~n 0 .VSII'C \,t\Ji.">ll!Ll~L' \\ .. t!Ltrl' {\·n!l·t 0 :J .\SY \.1\ .tl ."hqn.ud < .\TC \.t\ .d Tr:ttOtll~ CL'lliL'I Alabama (() f I ha ;;; Fort ~lcCldl~n 6.l)l)') 2,·Hl H>.,IXl 0 :J Mobile NS 52-f 126 -ll I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1.0 Executive Summary Project Purpose/History I The closure of the Fort Ord US Army Military Reservation (Fort Ord) in 1994 left more than 28,000 acres and over 7,000 buildings to be programmed for civilian reuse. A significant number (1200 +/-)of the remaining structures do not meet civilian building I code requirements and contain remnant hazardous materials that require abatement. In order to make way for the economic reuse program of the former Fort Ord property, these substandard facilities must be removed. The Fort Ord Reuse Authority (FORA), I using baseline data from the US Army, has estimated the cost of demolition and removal to far exceed $100 million. I Working collaboratively with the University of California Santa Cruz (UCSC) Extension and the Presidio of Monterey Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) Office, FORA sought funding to establish a specialized program that would test the feasibility of a I more environmentally effective approach to remove these substandard facilities and abate the remnant hazards. The project began through the UCSC Extension "Extra­ Ord-inary" Program and transformed into the "Pilot Deconstruction Project" (Pilot I Deconstruction Project) as FORA received a generous grant from the David and Lucile Packard Foundation to "deconstruct" distinct building types and monitor the cost, timing, I and job creation results of such an effort. This purpose was central to testing the potential to reuse materials within the structures and to examine options to filling the precious limited landfill space with asbestos and lead contaminated building materials. I The results of this work are documented within this report. Major Activities I • Pilot Deconstruction Project staff identified at least one building in each former Fort Ord land use jurisdiction and various building types to offer comparative data as I deconstruction was undertaken. • Field Surveys augmented the existing US Army environmental information for each selected building, and local regulatory agencies contributed guidance in mitigating I hazardous materials. Crew members were trained as Lead Workers, however, I asbestos work was restricted to a certified abatement contractor. • Pilot Deconstruction Project staff formed the Technical Support Group, composed of representatives from Construction, Regulatory Agencies, and the Salvage Industry I to advise and guide the project. The project focused on local involvement, deconstruction with simple hand tools and the practical implication of new and I existing hazardous material regulations. • Implementation began on April, 1998 with four buildings selected for deconstruction; three more to be relocated; and one concrete building to be disassembled. Non­ I contaminated materials were offered at a public sale; and contaminated materials I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I were stockpiled for future research. Over one thousand pieces of the deconstructed I structural members have been re-graded and have been shipped by the USDA to their Forest Products Lab. I • The Pilot Deconstruction Project developed an internet web-site in the summer of 1997 and maintains it as a means of outreach to other bases and the public. I Access figures show that use is regular and repetitive.