11 Request an update on Casa BonitaCITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM BRIEFING SHEET
Submittal Date:
Originating Department:
Presented By:
Agenda Item No.:
6/18/08
Community
Lisa A. Wright, Director
11.
Council Date:
Development
6/23/08
RECOMMENDED MOTiON:
Not an action item.
POLICY ISSUE(S):
Requested by Council
BACKGROUND:
At the June 9 meeting Council requested that an update on Casa Bonita be on every agenda.
Since that meeting research on what other cities have done has been initiated. So far no new
sources of funding have been found as the projects noted were either developer driven or a
pilot project by a regulatory agency to allow an alternative demolition process. One of the
specific projects mentioned during the June 9 meeting was the demolition of an apartment
complex in Ft. Worth, Texas. I spoke Dave Bary of the Environmental Protection Agency
who was mentioned in the article, and he advised that this was a pilot project to determine if
there were other safe methods for demolishing buildings containing asbestos. For funding
questions, he directed me to David Eppler, also of the EPA. He advised that, during the
Clinton administration, grants were made available under Project XL for the purposes of
finding alternati.ve asbestos control methods. Those grants were provided to municipalities
who developed alternative methods of demolition that creatively complied with federal law
in an effort to help develop more cost effective demolition methods. He stated that this
funding was used for three projects and was now depleted, but again could only have been
used for pilot project to test alternative asbestos control methods. He stated there was no
other funding available for demolition projects like ours. The request for proposal period is
still open and bids will be opened on July 8 for presentarion to the City Council on July 14.
BOARD/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION:
EXHIBITS:
Requests for public funding chart; Ft. Worth Star Telegram article of 12/18/07 re: demolition of an
office building in the Oak Hollow apartments in Ft. Worth, Texas
ACTION:
BUDGET INFO:
~ Financial Report ❑ Minute Order
Expense
$
~ Department Report ❑ Resolution
Budgeted Amt.
$
❑ Presentation ❑ Ordinance
y'TD Actual
$
❑ Public Hearing ❑ Other
Acct. Name
Acct. Number
FISCAL NOTES:
REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY:
~ Administration E City Clerk E Community Development ❑ EMS/IT ❑ Finance ❑ Fire
❑ Municipal Court ❑ Legal ❑ Library ❑ Police ❑ Eng./Public Works ❑ Utilities
City of Paris Revised 2/04/08
_ 0~~~~15.~
Janice Ellis
From:
Lisa Wright
Sent:
Friday, June 20, 2008 7:59 AM
To:
Janice Ellis
Subject:
FOR ABS
-----Original Message-----
From: Lewis F. McLain, ]r. [mailto:news@citybase.net]
Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2007 11:27 AM
To: Lisa Wright
Subject: Fort Worth: demolition method is drawing controversy
Posted on Wed, Dec. 05, 2007
Demolition method is drawing controversy
By Scott Streater and Mike Lee
Star-Telegram staff writers
FORT WORTH The city is about to jump back into a controversy over how best to demolish
asbestos-contaminated buildings.
On Dec. 12, the city and federal government plan to demolish a building in Woodhaven by an
experimental procedure that has not been used in a residential area or studied to determine
whether it could harm nearby residents.
The procedure is a revised version of the "Fort Worth method" or "wet method" of asbestos
demolition, which does not require materials containing asbestos to be removed before the
structure is torn down. The wet method is therefore much cheaper than traditional removal.
When the city wanted to use the method in 2004 to demolish the Cowtown Inn, public health
officials said the demolition would release particles of asbestos into the air. The federal
Environmental Protection Agency says asbestos fibers, if inhaled, can increase the long-term
risk of serious health problems such as lung cancer.
Eventually the federal Environmental Protection Agency, which at the time was considering
amending federal law to include the wet method as an accepted asbestos removal procedure,
abandoned the proposal. The city demolished the building the standard way in 2005.
Now federal regulators say they have improved the method and want to try it at the Oak Hollow
apartment complex on the east side. They plan to use the wet method on its office building,
which is about 2,200 square feet, and traditional demolition on the rest of the complex.
Woodhaven residents, including 7oe Epps, chairman of Woodhaven Community Development, said
they had received plenty of notice and support removing the apartments, including the wet-
method trial. But other residents and local officials protested the plan at Tuesday's City
Council meeting.
State Rep. Lon Burnam, D-Fort Worth, questioned why the city has used only east-side
locations, such as the Cowtown Inn and Oak Hollow, for the asbestos tests.
1
~ ~ ~Q~
"It's a predominantly minority community, and it's doing it on the cheap, and it's putting
people at risk," he said.
Scott Frost, a Dallas lawyer who specializes in asbestos cases and is affiliated with Trial
Lawyers for Public Justice, said the EPA and the city have tried to play down the risks.
"Even very minute exposures to asbestos can cause cancer, period," he said.
Frost helped fight the plans to use the wet method to demolish the Cowtown Inn. He is suing
St. Louis over similar "wet demolitions" near Lambert Airport.
City Environmental Director Brian Boerner said the wet method is safe. And if proven
effective, he said, the wet method could make it easier for cities to rehabilitate old
buildings with asbestos, which is a major obstacle in many inner-city neighborhoods.
Fort Worth has "dozens, if not hundreds" of such buildings, Boerner said. "Then you think
about Dallas, Austin, Houston."
Fort Worth has been trying to demolish Oak Hollow for years. The city sued the owners of Oak
Hollow and other apartments over violations of city codes and later bought the complexes with
an eye toward demolishing them to make way for redevelopment.
The City Council has approved about $1.5 million to demolish the apartments.
Boerner stressed that the EPA is leading the wet-method demolition. Fort Worth officials, who
originally proposed using the wet method to speed the demolition of asbestos-containing
buildings, haven't been involved in the testing since 2005.
The EPA has tested the method twice within the past two years on an isolated parcel that was
part of the Fort Chaffee Army reserve base in Fort Smith, Ark. The agency has not conducted a
health risk assessment of the alternative method, nor does it plan to, said Adele Cardenas
Malott, a program manger in the EPA's regional office in Dallas who's working on the
alternative method proposal.
The guideline the agency must meet, she said, is no visible asbestos in the air. That angers
some environmentalists, residents and asbestos abatement experts.
"It's stupefying," said 7ohn Walke, clean-air director for the Natural Resources Defense
Council, an environmental group that had opposed the Fort Worth method. "It's just incredible
how wrong and unthinking they are to continue to inflict the same method on the same
residents."
Federal regulators say they are taking steps to ensure that the test is safe. They will set
up an extensive network of air monitors around the site and erect a scaffolding wall, covered
in plastic tarp, to try to keep materials from escaping the site, said Roger Wilmoth, chief
of the industrial multimedia branch in the EPA's Office of Research and Development in
Cincinnati.
"We're doing everything we could possibly think of," he said. "Obviously, if we thought there
was any possibility of exposure of the residents, we would not conduct the tests in an
occupied area."
ASBESTOS DEMOLITION
The issue
z
51 (b)
The Environmental Protection Agency is developing an alternative approach to demolishing
structures that contain asbestos. The current standard, outlined in the EPA's National
Emission Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants, requires that buildings be sealed in plastic
and that specially trained crews in protective suits remove most of the asbestos-contaminated
materials by hand before the building is demolished.
The alternative
The EPA's proposed Alternative Asbestos Control Method would allow crews to leave the
asbestos-contaminated materials in the building during demolition. They would have to wet the
inside of the structure with a foaming material before, during and after demolition and to
remove as much as 3 inches of soil that may have been saturated with foam that contains
asbestos. Crews would have to wear respirators and protective gear during the procedure. The
alternative is similar to the controversial "Fort Worth method" abandoned by the EPA two
years ago. Instead of foam, that method called for wetting the structure with water.
The concern
Leaving asbestos-laden material in the building during demolition creates the possibility of
asbestos fibers wafting into the air and, depending on wind direction and speed, traveling
far from the site. That could expose many people to asbestos a fibrous mineral that can
scar the lungs and cause cancer.
Why it's important
If the test in Fort Worth works, it could have national implications. The EPA says it could
amend federal regulations governing the demolition of asbestos-contaminated structures to
include the alternative procedure. That is why public health officials, asbestos experts and
environmentalists nationwide are watching the case closely.
Previous tests
The EPA has tested the proposed alternative method twice before. The first test, in April
2006, was deemed inconclusive by experts appointed by the agency. They strongly questioned
some of the report's statements. In particular, the experts said the conclusions that the
amount of asbestos measured in the air was not a health concern hinted at "a research bias or
hidden agenda." A second test, conducted in ]uly at Fort Chaffee, is also being reviewed,
with a report expected early next year.
The site
The Oak Hollow apartment complex will be the first test of the alternative method in a
residential area. Only a 2,200-square-foot apartment management office building will be
demolished using the alternative method. The city will later demolish the rest of the complex
using the currently approved federal method.
What's next
The EPA plans to begin the experiment next week. It's scheduled to wet down the office
building with the foam Tuesday, then demolish the building Dec. 12. The federal agency will
analy2e dozens of air, soil, dust and pavement samples and issue a report by May. The agency
will then appoint a panel to peer-review the report and release a final report by the end of
2008.
Source: Environmental Protection Agency
3
5~ ~ C-)
Janice Ellis
From:
Lisa Wright
Sent:
Friday, June 20, 2008 7:59 AM
To:
Janice Ellis
Subject:
FOR ABS
-----Original Message-----
From: Lewis F. McLain, ]r. [mailto:news@citybase.net]
Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2007 11:12 AM
To: Lisa Wright
Subject: Fort Worth: city, EPA test of asbestos removal method draws safety concerns
FW, EPA test of asbestos removal method draws safety concerns
Fort Worth: EPA to test experimental method of asbestos removal, but some worry it isn't safe
for those nearby
12:00 AM CST on Tuesday, December 11, 2007
By JEFF MOSIER and BRANDON FORMBY / The Dallas Morning News
FORT WORTH - A test this week of a new method for tearing down asbestos-contaminated
buildings is probably safe, but concerns still exist, according to experts assembled by the
federal government.
The Environmental Protection Agency, with cooperation from the city of Fort Worth, will
demolish a portion of the vacant Oak Hollow Apartments using an updated version of what's
called the "wet method," or "Fort Worth method." The method, which is still in the
experimental stages, has drawn the opposition of some environmentalists, who said Monday that
they could not garner enough support to stop the testing.
A successful test could help pave the way for federal approval of the first new asbestos
abatement method in decades and potentially make it cheaper to demolish buildings that have
become eyesores and neighborhood dangers nationwide.
Opponents fear that people in this East Fort Worth neighborhood will be exposed to escaping
asbestos fibers that could potentially lead to cancer and other serious lung diseases. The
apartments, which are owned by Fort Worth, are sandwiched between the Woodhaven Country Club
and a cluster of apartment complexes with large minority populations.
Three members of a peer review panel chosen by the EPA said the alternative method is both
promising and worrisome.
"Because they are doing this in a high-impact area, could we be putting these people at
risk?" asked Thomas Laubenthal, one of the panelists who studied the test done last year at
an empty military base in Arkansas. "I'll tell you that that question would exist
legitimately."
However, Mr. Laubenthal, technical chief at the Environmental Institute in Marietta, Ga.,
said there is no definitive answer, and the safety of the wet method is still a"guess."
1
,5-) (d~
Ron Dokell, president of Demolition Consultants in Houston and another member of the panel,
was more optimistic. He said he doesn't think anyone around the Oak Hollow property is in
danger.
"If it's done properly, safetywise, it's just as good as any other method," he said.
Still being tested
Under current federal law, materials containing asbestos must be removed before a building is
demolished. That's required in the National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants,
or NESHAP.
The 2,200-square-foot Oak Hollow office building is scheduled to be demolished with what is
now being called the alternative asbestos control method. In this case, the office will be
doused with foam to reduce the chances that dust will be kicked up. The building will then be
demolished with the asbestos still intact. All the building material would be disposed of in
a landfill authorized to take asbestos-tainted material.
The rest of the apartment complex will be torn down using the traditional method of removing
the asbestos before demolition.
Brian Boerner, Fort Worth's environmental management director, said the peer review study
from Fort Chaffee in Arkansas and data from a second test at the base earlier this year are
promising. He said it's possible this could be safer than the standard method.
"When you read the peer review in its totality, it is encouraging," Mr. Boerner said.
Fort Worth wanted to use this method to demolish the former Cowtown Inn motel in 2004. But
the EPA backed off because of opposition f rom nearby residents and environmentalists.
Mr. Boerner said that testing and refining, including the use of foam instead of water, have
made the method safer and more effective.
Adele Cardenas Malott, an asbestos NESHAP program manager for the EPA, said this will be the
agency's third test of the alternative method and part of continuing research about whether
and how to change its rules governing asbestos removal.
"That will be a very long and time-consuming process," she said.
Opposition
Representatives of Public Interest, the group that fought the use of the Fort Worth method at
the Cowtown Inn, said the method is not ready for testing in a populated area. They said at a
news conference Monday that the dangers are still too great. The federal government has ruled
that there is no safe level of exposure to asbestos.
"There is no doubt that asbestos will be released into the community," said Scott Frost, a
lawyer working with Public 7ustice.
He said the health consequences of this test won't be known for 20 or 30 years. Cancer and
lung diseases caused by asbestos often take decades to develop.
Fredy Polanco, a peer review panelist and member of the Asbestos Advisory Committee for the
Texas Department of Health, said this method has the potential to be safe, but he's concerned
z
61 (e)
that if it's approved for widespread use, contractors who take shortcuts would put people at
risk. He also had issues with the cost savings estimated.
"The EPA seems to inflate the cost of the standard NESHAP method to show that this
alternative method is a fiscal way to do it," he said.
Roger Wilmoth, chief of the EPA's industrial multimedia branch in Cincinnati, said the agency
is trying to find more cost-effective ways to demolish asbestos-filled buildings. As more and
more buildings that contain asbestos surpass their usefulness, cities and landowners are
forced to deal with how to demolish them. The alternative method, he said, often costs less
and takes less time.
"That's exactly why we're looking at the research that's involved and gathering the
scientific data to support or refute the alternative method," he said. "Obviously, we
wouldn't be looking at it if we didn't think it offered great promise."
Mr. Wilmoth said some of the first peer review group's recommendations were incorporated in
the second test and will be used again in Fort Worth this week. Some of those include having
an asbestos monitor on the individual soaking the inside of the building and using more
stringent monitoring of the asbestos levels inside the structure.
Conditional savings
Mr. Dokell said the alternative method is cost-effective only in certain situations. He said
only smaller buildings with substantial land surrounding them could provide savings under the
new method. And, he added, the buildings would need to have a lot of asbestos inside.
"In most cases, it costs more to clean it up that way than to do it under the old
demolition," he said.
Mr. Boerner said they recognize the limits in cost savings for larger buildings, but noted
that in Texas, there is only a small difference in cost between disposal of regular
construction debris and debris tainted with asbestos.
"It's not significant enough to overshadow the labor cost," he said.
Mr. Laubenthal said his biggest concern about approval of the wet method is whether
contractors would follow the specifications carefully enough.
"If this were put out on the streets, we know for sure that the average asbestos contractor
out there would have a couple of kids with garden hoses making a vain attempt at trying to
keep the material wet," he said.
Representatives of Public Interest said more research should be done in isolated areas.
Inez Byrd, who lives in an apartment across the street from Oak Hollow, said she fears for
the health of the children and people with respiratory problems in her complex.
"Once this stuff gets airborne, it is going to hurt people," Ms. Byrd said.
She was one of the few neighbors to show up at the news conference on the sidewalk in front
of Oak Hollow.
Greg Ricks, vice president of the nearby Woodhaven Neighborhood Association, said he's
confident of the city's and EPA's assurances that this test isn't dangerous.
3
51(4)
"I would be out here screaming bloody murder if it wasn't safe," he said.
51
Janice Ellis
From: Lisa Wright
Sent: Friday, June 20, 2008 8:00 AM
To: Janice Ellis
Subject: FOR ABS
-----Original Message-----
From: Lewis F. McLain, Jr. [mailto:news@citybase.net]
Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2007 11:21 AM
To: Lisa Wright
Subject: Fort Worth: wet demolition safer than leaving buildings to rot, expert says
Posted on Tue, Dec. 11, 2007
Wet demolition safer than leaving buildings to rot, expert says
By SCOTT STREATER
Star-Telegram staff writer
Not all environmentalists oppose a controversial proposal to demolish asbestos-laden
buildings without first removing the hazardous substance.
Neil Carman, who directs the clean air program of the Sierra Club's Lone Star chapter in
Austin, supports efforts by the Environmental Protection Agency to develop alternate methods
that would make it less expensive to demolish asbestos-contaminated buildings. And he
supports plans to test the method this week at a building nestled in a residential area on
Fort Worth's east side.
It's more dangerous, he said, to leave abandoned asbestos-contaminated buildings standing.
Thousands of buildings nationally are still standing because current demolition standards
make it too expensive for cities and counties to tear the buildings down, he said.
"When you don't demolish a building that's falling apart, if you go out there and you test
the air, you're going to find asbestos fibers floating around the neighborhood. The stuff
could be all over the floors, and flying out the broken windows," Carman said.
Carman also said the alternate method would close a loophole in federal law that allows
building owners to wait until the structure is about to collapse, then apply for an emergency
exemption that allows them to tear it down without taking precautions to address the asbestos
inside.
Carman's views differ sharply from those of a number of environmental groups, public health
officials and asbestos experts. They argue that the proposed alternate method could allow
asbestos fibers to drift through the air, exposing people to the fibrous mineral that can
scar the lungs and cause cancer. They have asked the EPA to postpone the test until more
study is conducted.
Richard Greene, the EPA's regional administrator in Dallas, said the agency plans to go ahead
with the scheduled test in Fort Worth. The effort to develop an alternate method "is all
about helping communities get rid of old buildings that threaten the health, safety and
welfare of its residents," Greene said in a prepared statement.
I
C~~
Janice Ellis
From:
Lisa Wright
Sent:
Friday, June 20, 2008 8:00 AM
To:
Janice Ellis
Subject:
FOR ABS
-----Original Message-----
From: Lewis F. McLain, Jr. [mailto:news@citybase.net]
Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2007 9:00 AM
To: Lisa Wright
Subject: Fort Worth: asbestos-laden building demolished in test method
Posted on Tue, Dec. 18, 2007
Asbestos-laden building demolished in test
By Mike Lee and Scott Streater
Star-Telegram staff writer
FORT WORTH The city and the federal Environmental Protection Agency knocked down an
asbestos-laden building on Monday using a controversial "wet" demolition method.
The demolition at the Oak Hollow apartments on the city's east side was the first test of the
new method in a populated area. The city notified the media about the demolition after work
had begun Monday morning.
A spokesman for a national environmental group called the test "the height of
irresponsibility," but a City Council member defended it.
"The tests have been done a couple of times before. If they didn't feel, from those tests, it
was safe to bring into a populated area, they wouldn't be here," said City Councilman Danny
Scarth, whose district includes the building.
Only one building, the complex's office building, was demolished. The rest of the complex
will be taken down using methods already approved by the EPA.
Dave Bary, an EPA spokesman, said the EPA and the Department of State Health Services agreed
not to enforce regulations so that Monday's test could take place.
Monday's test is the latest in a long-running national debate over how best to demolish
asbestos-contaminated structures. The city wanted to use a similar process to demolish the
Cowtown Inn in 2005, but called off that project because of concerns from environmentalists
and health officials.
The federal government now requires that asbestos be removed from buildings before they are
demolished. The alternative method used Monday calls for soaking the walls and ceilings with
a special foam and tearing down the building with heavy equipment without removing the
asbestos. If proven effective, the alternative method would make it much less costly for
municipalities across the country to demolish old asbestos-laden buildings that attract crime
and lower property values.
I
,5) C'
I )
Critics have said the new method could allow asbestos fibers into the air, endangering nearby
residents. They argued last week that the EPA should move the test to an isolated location.
Two previous tests have been conducted in relatively isolated areas in Fort Smith, Ark.
"I think it was the height of irresponsibility to proceed with this human experiment in a
populated area," said 7ohn Walke, clean air director for the Natural Resources Defense
Council, a national environmental group.
Scott Frost, a trial lawyer associated with Public 7ustice, said EPA officials' "only agenda
is to get their test results."
Demolition work began at about 7 a.m. Monday as people nearby walked to school and work on
Boca Raton Boulevard. An hour later, an excavator began flattening the building. The EPA had
set up rows of air-sampling monitors at the site.
The crews planned to remove about 3 inches of dirt to catch any fibers that soaked into the
ground. It would have taken a specially trained crew two days just to remove the asbestos
under the old method, said EPA project manager Adele Cardenas Malott.
Terry Lynch, the health hazard administrator for the national asbestos workers union, said
there's no way to know whether any asbestos was released.
ASBESTOS ABATEMENT
The issue
The federal Environmental Protection Agency demolished a 2,200-square-foot office building at
the Oak Hollow apartments on Boca Raton Boulevard in Fort Worth using a new technique that
allows workers to take down the building without removing the asbestos. Normally, workers
would seal the building in plastic, filter the air and remove asbestos by hand while wearing
protective suits. But that process is time-consuming and expensive.
The new method
It calls for workers to soak the inside and outside walls and popcorn-textured ceiling with a
special foam and treated water. The building is demolished with heavy equipment, and the
water is contained on site by dirt berms. The top 3 inches of soil are removed after the
demolition.
The concern
Leaving asbestos-laden material in the building during demolition creates the possibility of
asbestos fibers drifting into the air and traveling far from the site. That could expose many
people to asbestos a fibrous mineral that can scar the lungs and cause cancer if it is
inhaled. Andy Oberta, a well-respected asbestos consultant in Austin who has followed the
issue closely, said he worries about what will happen if this method is approved for use at
buildings across the country. "You're going to have contractors that are not going to use the
same care they did while the EPA was looking over their shoulders," he said. "They're not
going to use this expensive foam. They're going to be out there with a garden hose."
Past tests
Fort Worth officials have been working on the method for about 12 years. The EPA has tested
it twice before on buildings on part of the Fort Chaffee Army reserve base in Fort Smith,
Ark. The first test, in April 2006, was deemed inconclusive. A second test is under review.
What's next
z
)
The EPA will analyze dozens of air, soil, dust and pavement samples and issue a report by
May. The agency will then appoint a panel to review the report and release a final report by
the end of 2008.
Source: Environmental Protection Agency
3
5) (