SIGTARP-18-002 November 21, 2017

OFFICE OF THE SPECIAL

INSPECTOR GENERAL FOR

THE TROUBLED ASSET

RELIEF PROGRAM

SIGTARP OFFICE OF THE SPECIAL

INSPECTOR GENERAL FOR

THE TROUBLED ASSET

RELIEF PROGRAM

Evaluation Report

Risk of Asbestos Exposure, Illegal Dumping, 

and Contaminated Soil From Demolitions

in Flint, Michigan and Other Cities
SIGTARP-18-002 November 21, 2017

Office of the special inspector general

For the Troubled Asset Relief Program 

1801 L Street, NW, 4th Floor

Washington, D.C. 20220

MEMORANDUM FOR: Honorable Steven T. Mnuchin – Secretary of the Treasury

/signed/

FROM: Honorable Christy Goldsmith Romero – Special Inspector General for the 

Troubled Asset Relief Program

SUBJECT: Risk of Asbestos Exposure, Illegal Dumping, and Contaminated Soil From 

Demolitions in Flint, Michigan and Other Cities 

(SIGTARP 18-002)

We are providing this report for your information and use. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

conducted a review of the Hardest Hit Fund Blight Elimination Program, on behalf of SIGTARP, and 

identified environmental and safety risks. 

The Office of the Special Inspector General for the Troubled Asset Relief Program conducted this 

evaluation under the authority of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008, which also 

incorporates certain duties and responsibilities of inspectors general under the Inspector General Act of 

1978, as amended.

We considered comments from the Department of the Treasury when preparing the report. Treasury’s 

comments are addressed in the report, where applicable, and a copy of Treasury’s response is included 

in its entirety. 

For additional information on this report, please contact me at any time.
RISK OF ASBESTOS EXPOSURE, ILLEGAL DUMPING, AND CONTAMINATED SOIL IN FLINT, MICHIGAN AND OTHER CITIES

SIGTARP-18-002 1 November 21, 2017

Introduction 

On behalf of SIGTARP, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (the 

Corps) conducted July 2017 field inspections of multiple 

properties in various stages of demolition and a document review 

of one completed demolition in Flint, Michigan, under the Hardest 

Hit Fund.

1 This TARP subprogram has grown 1,500 percent—to 

$806 million—for demolitions in 248 cities and/or counties in 8 

states: Michigan, Ohio, Illinois, Indiana, Tennessee, South Carolina, 

Alabama, and Mississippi.

2 TARP pays for property acquisition, 

pre-demolition activities (such as the removal of asbestos or other 

hazardous material), demolition, and post-demolition activities 

(debris dumping, filling in open holes, grading, greening, and 

maintenance). With $67,542,278 TARP dollars, Flint is the city 

with the second-highest allocation of TARP dollars under this 

subprogram.

3 While other cities are just starting demolitions, there 

have been 2,304 HHF demolitions in Flint as of September 30, 

2017.

Observations and Findings of the U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers in Flint, Michigan

The Corps identified environmental and safety risks and failures to 

follow industry best practices that could put residents of Flint and 

other cities at risk of exposure to hazardous materials and other 

harm. The Corps’ significant findings for the Hardest Hit Fund 

demolitions in Flint, Michigan, are:

 

1 See Appendix A for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ report, Appendix B for SIGTARP’s 

recommendations, and Appendix C for Treasury’s response. SIGTARP conducted its work from 

March 2017 through November 2017, in accordance with the Quality Standards for Inspection and 

Evaluation of the Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency. The engineering 

assessment was conducted by professional engineers in accordance with the National Society of

Professional Engineers’ Code of Ethics for Engineers. 

2 Although the Hardest Hit Fund was scheduled to end in 2017, the program was extended 4 years 

after Congress added an additional $2 billion in the 2016 appropriations law. As of the drafting of 

this report, Treasury has allowed the use of TARP dollars to fund demolitions in 248 cities and/or 

counties, a figure that may increase given the fact that 25 of those cities/counties were added in 

2017.

3 For demolitions in Flint, Michigan, Treasury has contracted with the Michigan State Housing 

Development Authority (the Michigan agency). The Michigan agency has contracted with the 

Genesee County Land Bank Authority (the Land Bank) as its local partner to procure the 

properties, which performs all activities itself or through contractors.
RISK OF ASBESTOS EXPOSURE, ILLEGAL DUMPING, AND CONTAMINATED SOIL IN FLINT, MICHIGAN AND OTHER CITIES

SIGTARP-18-002 2 November 21, 2017

“Asbestos removal appears to have been mismanaged by 

the Land Bank” continuing through all contractors involved 

with asbestos. – U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

 Improper classification and handling of asbestos-containing 

material such as drywall joint compound and window caulk.

 No documentation that 72 square feet of drywall joint 

compound containing asbestos was removed and properly 

handled.

 Unmarked containers on the street during asbestos abatement 

not sealed or marked with warning labels, which, if containing 

asbestos, would be required by Federal regulation to prevent 

accidental exposure to the public.

 Documents suggesting that asbestos had been stored near a 

different demolition site for more than a week.

 No proof of inspection by the Land Bank during or after 

hazardous material removal to ensure that contractors 

handled these materials in accordance with the contract and 

Federal and state regulations.

 Missing hazardous material analyses and work plans, chain of 

custody manifests, and documentation of compliance with 

Federal air monitoring and disposal requirements, proof of 

inspector qualifications, and signatures.

 Failure to confirm that materials were disposed of only in 

appropriate landfills or recycling facilities. Missing were 

landfill receipts, waste manifests, and truck weight tickets.

“It’s unclear whether the material placed in the hole was 

clean and provided in accordance with the State and 

contract requirements.” – U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

 The Michigan agency did not verify that the hole was filled with clean 

material.

 Missing documentation showing that contractors used only backfill 

and topsoil that complied with contract requirements and regulations 

and was purchased and delivered from approved sources.

 There were no truck tickets and receipts for fill material and topsoil 

deliveries.
RISK OF ASBESTOS EXPOSURE, ILLEGAL DUMPING, AND CONTAMINATED SOIL IN FLINT, MICHIGAN AND OTHER CITIES

SIGTARP-18-002 3 November 21, 2017

 The Land Bank did not inspect the open hole to confirm all debris was 

removed from holes (or crushed, where appropriate) or to see that fill 

placed in the holes met contractual requirements, city permit 

requirements, and regulations, and instead only inspects after the 

holes are filled.

 There was no proof of soil testing.

“On properties with significant quantities of hazardous 

materials, Partners and Contractors may have allowed 

undue risks in order to keep total project costs under the 

$25,000 cap.” – U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

“All of the agreements and execution documentation were 

lacking in quality assurance.” – U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers

 Treasury’s contract with the Michigan agency is lacking in technical 

requirements, and does not even require the state agency to perform 

technical oversight to assure waste materials are handled properly 

and holes are clear of debris and filled with only clean dirt.

 The Michigan agency contract with the Land Bank and the

Michigan agency’s Blight Manual do not adequately focus on 

the highest-risk areas of asbestos, waste management, and fill.4 

“The State, City, and Land Bank performed redundant 

inspections of winter grade and final grade, and no other 

physical inspections were documented.” – U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers

 It was impossible from documentation to judge the quality or 

completeness of the inspections or whether they are actually being 

performed.

 It is unclear what level of technical review of documentation was 

performed by the Michigan agency, including (1) confirming that all 

material removed from the site was removed according to 

requirements of the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration, the Michigan Occupational Safety and Health 

 

4 SIGTARP provided the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers all versions of the Michigan agency’s Blight 

Manual.
RISK OF ASBESTOS EXPOSURE, ILLEGAL DUMPING, AND CONTAMINATED SOIL IN FLINT, MICHIGAN AND OTHER CITIES

SIGTARP-18-002 4 November 21, 2017

Administration, and the National Emissions Standard for Hazardous 

Air Pollutants, and was received at an appropriate waste and 

recycling facility; (2) confirming the open-hole was inspected; and (3) 

confirming that fill material brought on site came from an approved 

source. 

* * *

The risks identified by the Corps in Flint could extend to other 

cities and counties in TARP’s Blight Elimination Program. To 

address these risks and improve the program at the Federal, state, 

and local level, SIGTARP is issuing the recommendations

contained in Appendix B.
RISK OF ASBESTOS EXPOSURE, ILLEGAL DUMPING, AND CONTAMINATED SOIL IN FLINT, MICHIGAN AND OTHER CITIES

SIGTARP-18-002 5 November 21, 2017

Conclusion

The Hardest Hit Fund’s blight elimination subprogram has the 

potential to fulfill its mission to stabilize neighborhoods suffering 

from “eyesore” abandoned houses, but only if the demolitions do 

no harm to Americans living in these towns. The U.S. Army Corps 

of Engineers conducted July 2017 field inspections of multiple 

properties in various stages of demolition and a document review 

of one completed demolition in Flint, Michigan. The Corps 

identified for SIGTARP three high-risk areas for demolitions: 1) 

proper removal and storage of asbestos and other hazardous 

material; 2) proper dumping of all debris and waste in appropriate 

landfills or recycling facilities; and 3) filling in the demolition hole 

with only clean soil. These high-risk areas not only threaten the 

goal of neighborhood stabilization, but also carry a high risk of 

fraud, waste, and abuse. 

The people of Flint, Michigan, require more than trust that these 

demolitions will not harm them—particularly after their 

contaminated water. The Corps identified that Treasury does not 

require the Michigan state agency to have any oversight to ensure 

these high-risk areas are handled properly through safeguards and 

quality assurance. This would likely be the same with all eight 

state agencies in the program, including agencies in Ohio, Illinois, 

Indiana, Tennessee, South Carolina, Alabama, and Mississippi. In 

the absence of Federal requirements, the Corps identified that the 

Michigan state housing agency’s requirements do not adequately 

cover these high-risk areas. Absent state agency requirements, the 

Corps found that the local partner in Flint, Michigan—the Genesee 

County Land Bank Authority—is not doing enough to mitigate 

these high-risk areas, and failing to ensure that contractors meet 

all safety and environmental laws and standards. 

The Corps found that the Land Bank and its contractors may have 

allowed undue risks to keep the total project costs under the 

$25,000 cap, and that all agreements and documentation in the 

program were lacking in quality assurance. In the one completed 

demolition the Corps reviewed, asbestos was mismanaged, there 

was no proof of inspection to determine if debris was removed 

from the hole, and there was no proof of inspection to determine 

that the material placed in the hole was clean and from an 

approved source. There was no confirmation that the debris 

removed from the site went to an appropriate waste facility.

The Corps’ findings identify risks that could extend to any 

demolition site in the 248 participating cities and/or counties. 
RISK OF ASBESTOS EXPOSURE, ILLEGAL DUMPING, AND CONTAMINATED SOIL IN FLINT, MICHIGAN AND OTHER CITIES

SIGTARP-18-002 6 November 21, 2017

Given the seriousness of these risks, SIGTARP is making 

recommendations for Treasury and state agencies to mitigate 

them, and to prevent harm, fraud, waste, and abuse. Now is the 

time for Treasury and state agencies to mitigate the risks of 

asbestos exposure, illegal dumping, or demolition debris or other 

unclear material buried in the ground. Failure to implement 

SIGTARP’s recommendations—which are industry standards—

could result in violations of environmental and safety laws and 

regulations; lead to fraud, waste, and abuse; and inflict long-lasting 

harm on these already hard-hit neighborhoods. 

Treasury’s desire for state flexibility in the Hardest Hit Fund 

cannot eliminate the need for appropriate constraints. Treasury 

should place on state agencies the responsibility to ensure that 

asbestos removal, dumping, removal of debris, and filling in the 

holes is conducted properly, without harm to neighborhood 

stabilization—the goal of the program. Treasury must require 

state agencies to: 1) set technical requirements for all involved;

and 2) confirm that all technical requirements have been met 

before any payment of TARP dollars.5 Treasury should require 

state agencies to hold local partners and contractors accountable

to ensuring that all parts of the demolition process proceed safely, 

appropriately, and in compliance with all applicable 

environmental and safety requirements and standards, and 

without fraud, waste and abuse. Taxpayers and people living in 

hard-hit neighborhoods deserve nothing less.

 

5 If a local partner and/or contractor does not follow the state agency requirements that the Corps 

and SIGTARP recommend, they should not be paid, and they should remediate the problem at their 

own cost. If the state agency suspects that a contractor is not in compliance with laws and 

regulations, it should refer the matter to SIGTARP for investigation.
RISK OF ASBESTOS EXPOSURE, ILLEGAL DUMPING, AND CONTAMINATED SOIL IN FLINT, MICHIGAN AND OTHER CITIES

SIGTARP-18-002 7 November 21, 2017

Appendix A—U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers Report

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY

DETROIT DISTRICT, U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS

477 MICHIGAN AVE

DETROIT, MI 48226-2550

Blight Elimination Program (BEP) Demolition Review

September 2017

FOR

U.S. Department of the Treasury -

Special Inspector General for the Troubled Asset Relief 

Program (SIGTARP)
RISK OF ASBESTOS EXPOSURE, ILLEGAL DUMPING, AND CONTAMINATED SOIL IN FLINT, MICHIGAN AND OTHER CITIES

SIGTARP-18-002 8 November 21, 2017

Executive Summary

This review encompassed the Blight Elimination Program agreements from the Department of 

Treasury (Treasury) with the State of Michigan (State), from the State to the Genesee County 

Land Bank Authority (Land Bank), and from the Land Bank to various contractors involved with 

the demolition process. Documents reviewed were for demolition of one home at 2725 Kellar 

Avenue in Flint, Michigan which was awarded in 2014. A USACE led field inspection of multiple 

properties in various stages of demolition by the Land Bank in Flint, Michigan was also 

conducted. 

Significant findings include:

o Asbestos removal appears to have been mismanaged by the Land Bank, Global 

Environmental Engineering, DMC Consultants, and LA Construction. 

o It’s unclear whether the material placed in the hole was clean and provided in 

accordance with the State and contract requirements. 

o On properties with significant quantities of hazardous materials, Partners and 

Contractors may have allowed undue risks in order to keep total project costs under the 

$25,000 cap.

o All of the agreements and execution documentation were lacking in quality assurance. 

o The State, City, and Land Bank performed redundant inspections of winter grade and 

final grade, and no other physical inspections were documented.

Recommendations include:

o Inspections should be coordinated between agencies to limit redundancy.

 Ensure properties that contain hazardous waste include inspections during 

hazardous material removal and post hazardous material removal.

 Require documentation of an inspection when an open hole exists after 

demolition. (Basement or Cellar Demolition) 

o Require contractors to provide all submittals listed in the contract.

o Ensure Partners’ inspectors and contract administration staff are trained and qualified 

to perform the duties they are assigned (especially in the handling of hazardous 

materials).

o Require contractors to provide truck tickets for all fill material and topsoil deliveries in 

order to assure that the material is being purchased and delivered as expected.

o Perform risk-based quality assurance testing of fill materials at a limited number of sites.

 Testing should include soil classification and testing for contamination to confirm 

the fill material is clean and appropriate for the intended use.

o Create a process for allowing additional contingency funding ($5,000-$10,000) for 

properties with unusually high amounts of hazardous material removal.
RISK OF ASBESTOS EXPOSURE, ILLEGAL DUMPING, AND CONTAMINATED SOIL IN FLINT, MICHIGAN AND OTHER CITIES

SIGTARP-18-002 9 November 21, 2017

PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK
RISK OF ASBESTOS EXPOSURE, ILLEGAL DUMPING, AND CONTAMINATED SOIL IN FLINT, MICHIGAN AND OTHER CITIES

SIGTARP-18-002 10 November 21, 2017

Table of Contents

1 Report Premise ...................................................................................................................................13

1.2 Approach.....................................................................................................................................13

1.3 Findings.......................................................................................................................................13

2 Treasury Agreement with State..........................................................................................................13

2.1 Oversight Requirements...................................................................................................................13

2.2 Funding Limitations...........................................................................................................................14

3 State Agreement with the Land Bank .................................................................................................14

3.1 Blight Manual....................................................................................................................................14

3.2 Site Inspections.................................................................................................................................14

3.3 Soil Characterization .........................................................................................................................14

3.4 Technical Review...............................................................................................................................14

4 Land Bank Execution and Oversight....................................................................................................15

4.1 Inspection Authority .........................................................................................................................15

4.2 Inspection Documentation ...............................................................................................................15

4.2.1 In-process Hazardous Material Inspections...............................................................................15

4.2.2 Post Hazardous Material Removal Inspections..........................................................................15

4.2.3 NESHAP, OSHA, MIOSHA Requirements....................................................................................16

4.2.4 Open Hole Inspections...............................................................................................................16

4.2.5 Documentation ..........................................................................................................................16

4.3 Inspection Coordination....................................................................................................................16

4.4 Inspectors Qualifications...................................................................................................................16

4.5 Contract Administrators Qualifications ............................................................................................16

4.6 Quality Assurance and Testing..........................................................................................................17

4.7 Contract Efficiency ............................................................................................................................17

5 Land Bank Contracts ...........................................................................................................................17

5.1 2725 Kellar Ave - ADR Consultants for Demolition Inspection Services.....................................17

5.1.1 Missing Contract Information ....................................................................................................17

5.1.2 Inspectors Qualifications............................................................................................................17

5.1.3 Inspection Paperwork ................................................................................................................17

5.2 2725 Kellar Ave - Agreement and Oversight of Global Environmental Engineering Inc. (Global) 

for Inspection of Environmentally Hazardous Material..........................................................................18

5.2.1 Contract Deficiencies Regarding Asbestos Containing Material................................................18
RISK OF ASBESTOS EXPOSURE, ILLEGAL DUMPING, AND CONTAMINATED SOIL IN FLINT, MICHIGAN AND OTHER CITIES

SIGTARP-18-002 11 November 21, 2017

5.2.2 Improper Classification of Asbestos Containing Material..........................................................18

5.2.3 NESHAP Requirements...............................................................................................................18

5.2.4 Improper Handling of Asbestos Containing Material ................................................................19

5.3 2725 Kellar Ave - Agreement and Oversight of DMC Consultants, Inc. (DMC) for Removal of 

Environmentally Hazardous Material .....................................................................................................19

5.3.1 Asbestos Abatement Work Plan ................................................................................................19

5.3.2 Asbestos Health and Safety Plan................................................................................................19

5.3.3 Asbestos Abatement Qualifications...........................................................................................19

5.3.4 Disconnect of Asbestos Material identified for removal vice actual removal...........................19

5.3.5 Notification of Intent to Renovate or Demolish ........................................................................20

5.3.6 Unsigned NESHAP Documentation............................................................................................20

5.3.7 Research Documentation...........................................................................................................20

5.3.8 Qualified Signatories..................................................................................................................21

5.3.9 Storage of Asbestos Materials...................................................................................................21

5.3.10 PCB Analysis/Profile Sheets Missing ........................................................................................21

5.3.11 PCB Work Plan..........................................................................................................................21

5.3.12 PCB Health and Safety Plan......................................................................................................21

5.3.13 PCB Testing...............................................................................................................................21

5.3.14 PCB Manifests..........................................................................................................................22

5.3.15 Final Payment Checklist ...........................................................................................................22

5.3.16 Photo Documentation..............................................................................................................22

5.4 Physical Inspection of Removal of Environmentally Hazardous Material ..................................22

5.4.1 Improper Asbestos Waste Containers.......................................................................................22

5.5 2725 Kellar Ave - Agreement and Oversight of LA Construction Corporation (LA) for Demolition 

and Disposal............................................................................................................................................23

5.5.1 Contract Solicitation...................................................................................................................23

5.5.2 Contract Pricing..........................................................................................................................23

5.5.3 Contract Requirements..............................................................................................................24

5.5.4 Joint Compound Documentation...............................................................................................24

5.5.5 Window Caulk Documentation..................................................................................................24

5.5.6 Contract Deficiency Regarding Asbestos Removal ....................................................................24

5.5.7 Air Monitoring Requirements....................................................................................................24

5.5.8 NESHAP Notification Improperly Filled Out...............................................................................25

5.5.9 Soil Erosion Permits ...................................................................................................................25
RISK OF ASBESTOS EXPOSURE, ILLEGAL DUMPING, AND CONTAMINATED SOIL IN FLINT, MICHIGAN AND OTHER CITIES

SIGTARP-18-002 12 November 21, 2017

5.5.10 Flint Permits.............................................................................................................................25

5.5.11 Redundant Inspections............................................................................................................25

5.5.12 Landfill Receipts.......................................................................................................................25

5.5.13 Disability Compensation Act....................................................................................................25

5.5.14 Deficient Submittals.................................................................................................................26

5.5.15 Topsoil Requirements..............................................................................................................26

5.5.16 Soil Testing ...............................................................................................................................26

5.5.17 Backfill Determination .............................................................................................................26

5.5.18 Soil Confirmation .....................................................................................................................27

5.5.19 Approved Soil Sources .............................................................................................................27

5.5.20 Grass Seed Inoculation.............................................................................................................28

5.5.21 Compaction and Grading Requirements..................................................................................28

5.5.22 Dust and Noise Control Requirements ....................................................................................28

5.5.23 Internal Review Checklist.........................................................................................................28

5.5.24 Pay Requests............................................................................................................................29

5.5.25 Final Payment Checklist ...........................................................................................................29

6 Physical Onsite Inspection of Demolition and Disposal by USACE Personnel ................................30

6.1 Open-Hole Inspections..................................................................................................................30

6.2 Safety Requirements.....................................................................................................................30

6.3 Final Grade ....................................................................................................................................30

6.4 Dust Abatement............................................................................................................................30

Attachments

1. List of Omitted Documentation (Required by an Agreement or Contract)

2. Field Report
RISK OF ASBESTOS EXPOSURE, ILLEGAL DUMPING, AND CONTAMINATED SOIL IN FLINT, MICHIGAN AND OTHER CITIES

SIGTARP-18-002 13 November 21, 2017

1 Report Premise

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and SIGTARP entered into an agreement on 15 

March 2017 for USACE to provide engineering consulting services for SIGTARP’s review of the 

Blight Elimination Program (BEP). 

1.2 Approach

This review encompassed the BEP agreements from the Department of Treasury (Treasury) 

with the State of Michigan (State), from the State to the Genesee County Land Bank Authority 

(Land Bank), and from the Land Bank to various contractors involved with the demolition 

process. Documents reviewed were for demolition of one home at 2725 Kellar Avenue in Flint, 

Michigan in 2014. A field inspection of ongoing work was also conducted. At the field 

inspection, multiple properties in various stages of demolition by the Land Bank in Flint, 

Michigan were inspected. The trip report and georeferenced photographs are attached 

(Attachment 2). Both the inspection and document review were evaluated with an eye towards 

whether the demolition was planned and executed according to the agreements in place and 

following industry best practices. 

1.3 Findings

Opportunities for improvement were noted throughout the program. Recommendations are 

divided into the following three levels: Treasury, State, and Land Bank.

2 Treasury Agreement with State

Overall, the agreement is lacking in technical requirements. Specific recommendations follow.

2.1 Oversight Requirements

There are no requirements for the State to perform oversight inspections or institute any 

type of quality assurance program. Quality assurance is a process by which one assures the 

quality of the end product. Oversight via periodic on-site presence and inspections, training 

of oversight employees, and testing are all paramount to quality assurance and in executing 

a construction program of this size and complexity. At a minimum, the State should be 

required to perform technical oversight to assure waste materials are handled properly and 

holes are being filled with clean material.
RISK OF ASBESTOS EXPOSURE, ILLEGAL DUMPING, AND CONTAMINATED SOIL IN FLINT, MICHIGAN AND OTHER CITIES

SIGTARP-18-002 14 November 21, 2017

2.2 Funding Limitations

The $25k total limit for each house severely restricts performance at some properties. The 

limit does not seem to recognize or account for the different levels of abatement or 

hazardous materials that may be found at any given property versus another. USACE 

recommends providing a process for allowing exceptions for properties with unusually high 

levels of hazardous materials needing to be removed or abated. Most properties 

contaminated with unusually high amounts of hazardous material would likely only require 

an additional $5,000-$10,000 to ensure all appropriate measures are being employed.

3 State Agreement with the Land Bank

The agreement and State Blight Manual do have some technical requirements; however, they 

do not adequately focus on the highest-risk areas of waste management and fill. Specific 

recommendations follow.

3.1 Blight Manual 

The State Blight Manual calls for inspection of 5% of properties. Based on the 

documentation provided, it is impossible to judge the quality or completeness of the 

inspections, or whether they are actually being performed. It’s also unclear as to who 

performs the inspections, and whether the inspectors have any minimum required 

qualifications or training. USACE recommends that the State Blight Manual clarify these 

details.

3.2 Site Inspections 

USACE recommends that the State divide up the inspections to perform an equal number 

during abatement, demolition and after all the work has been completed.

3.3 Soil Characterization

The State is not verifying that the holes were filled with clean material. It is recommended 

that the State implement risk-based quality assurance testing of soil at a limited number of 

sites after the contractor has filled the hole and prior to making payment. USACE 

recommends performing at least one test for each partner annually. Each test is estimated 

to cost around $6,000-$11,000, depending on how many samples are to be collected at the 

same time. In order to keep the total cost under the $25,000 cap, testing should be 

strategically planned to be performed on properties with low demolition costs.

3.4 Technical Review 

It’s unclear what level of technical review of documentation was performed by the State. 

None of the documents provided showed State review for technical proficiency. USACE 
RISK OF ASBESTOS EXPOSURE, ILLEGAL DUMPING, AND CONTAMINATED SOIL IN FLINT, MICHIGAN AND OTHER CITIES

SIGTARP-18-002 15 November 21, 2017

recommends sporadic and risk-based reviews of documents. One focus for these technical 

reviews should be towards confirming that all material removed from the site was removed 

according to OSHA and NESHAP, and confirmed as received at an appropriate waste or 

recycling facility. Another focus should be towards confirming that the open-hole was 

inspected. Finally, the reviews should confirm that fill material brought on to the site came 

from an approved source.

4 Land Bank Execution and Oversight

Comments on the Land Bank’s execution of its agreement with the State follow. Many 

comments are generalized since they would apply to any blight elimination Partner executing a 

program such as the Land Bank.

4.1 Inspection Authority

The Land Bank’s 8/1/13 proposal states that a compliance demolition inspection will be 

completed prior to demolition. It’s not clear who will perform the inspection, but no 

evidence of any such inspection is provided. The Land Bank should have been more clear 

about who would perform the inspection and then documented it’s completion in the file.

4.2 Inspection Documentation 

Documentation of two physical inspections by the Land Bank of the Kellar property was 

provided. Both inspections were performed after the home had already been demolished 

and the hole filled. While these inspections were necessary, they did not assure that 

environmental regulations, safety regulations, or many contract performance requirements 

were being met. Additional inspections that would do so are recommended.

4.2.1 In-process Hazardous Material Inspections 

USACE recommends that Partners be required to perform inspections during 

hazardous material removal. This inspection should confirm that materials are 

removed according to the contract, and federal and state regulations (including 

NESHAP, OSHA and MIOSHA). It should be performed by a person trained in 

hazardous waste identification, handling, transportation, and disposal.

4.2.2 Post Hazardous Material Removal Inspections 

USACE recommends that Partners be required to perform inspections after 

hazardous material removal. This inspection should confirm that all contract 

performance requirements have been achieved. It should be performed by a 

professional trained in hazardous material identification.
RISK OF ASBESTOS EXPOSURE, ILLEGAL DUMPING, AND CONTAMINATED SOIL IN FLINT, MICHIGAN AND OTHER CITIES

SIGTARP-18-002 16 November 21, 2017

4.2.3 NESHAP, OSHA, MIOSHA Requirements

USACE recommends that Partners be required to perform inspections during 

asbestos removal work, regardless of the level of asbestos contamination. This 

inspection should confirm that all contract requirements and NESHAP, OSHA, and 

MIOSHA regulations are being followed. It should be performed by a person trained 

in these regulations. 

4.2.4 Open Hole Inspections

USACE recommends that Partners be required to ensure an open-hole inspection is 

performed at every site. The inspection should confirm that all demolition debris 

has been removed from the site and all foundation material has either been 

adequately crushed or removed according to contract requirements. In this case, 

the inspection could have been performed by the Land Bank or the City. See the 

comments under the LA Construction contract for further discussion on the Land 

Bank and City demolition inspections.

4.2.5 Documentation

USACE recommends that all inspections be documented.

4.3 Inspection Coordination

Then Land Bank should coordinate inspections between the State, City and Land Bank. 

Coordinating inspections would prevent redundant inspections by different agencies while 

providing additional inspection coverage during different phases of work at no additional 

cost to the project. 

4.4 Inspectors Qualifications

The Land Bank inspector’s required qualifications and training are unclear. Antonio D. Dunn 

signed off as the inspector on both forms. No documentation is provided to assess Dunn’s 

qualifications. It is recommend that Partners be required to provide minimum qualifications 

and training for inspectors.

4.5 Contract Administrators Qualifications

The Land Bank contract administrators’ qualifications and training are unclear. Several 

payment checklists and internal review checklists were prepared and signed off by Land 

Bank staff. However, no documentation is provided to assess those employees’ 

qualifications to do so. It is recommend that Partners be required to provide minimum 

qualifications and training for employees performing any contract administration duties 

such as reviewing contract submittals or payments.
RISK OF ASBESTOS EXPOSURE, ILLEGAL DUMPING, AND CONTAMINATED SOIL IN FLINT, MICHIGAN AND OTHER CITIES

SIGTARP-18-002 17 November 21, 2017

4.6 Quality Assurance and Testing

The Land Bank is not adequately verifying that the holes were filled with clean material. It is 

USACE policy to perform quality assurance testing on a minimum of 5% of the frequency of 

contractor testing. It is recommend that Partners be required to implement quality 

assurance testing of soil at a limited number of sites after the contractor has filled the hole 

and prior to making payment. Ideally, at least one test would be performed for each 

contract. Each test is estimated to cost around $6,000-$11,000, depending on how many 

samples are to be collected at the same time. In order to keep the total cost under the 

$25,000 cap, testing should be strategically planned to be performed on properties with low 

demolition costs. It is recommended to perform soil testing early in the contract so that any 

noted deficiencies can be corrected more easily. 

4.7 Contract Efficiency

The Land Bank awarded separate contracts for hazardous material removal and demolition. 

It also awarded multiple contracts for demolition, but a small group of contractors seem to 

have bid on and received the contracts. Partners may be able to save administrative costs 

by having fewer contracts with expanded work scopes for each contract. Examples include 

combining contracts for hazardous material removal and demolition, and soliciting fewer 

contracts with more properties on each contract.

5 Land Bank Contracts

The Land Bank issued contracts with and oversaw four contractors to execute the terms of its 

agreement with the State. Comments and recommendations for each contract follow:

5.1 2725 Kellar Ave - ADR Consultants for Demolition Inspection Services

5.1.1 Missing Contract Information

Only part of the contract was provided so it was not evaluated.

5.1.2 Inspectors Qualifications

The inspector’s qualifications were not provided.

5.1.3 Inspection Paperwork

No demolition inspections performed by this contractor were provided. 
RISK OF ASBESTOS EXPOSURE, ILLEGAL DUMPING, AND CONTAMINATED SOIL IN FLINT, MICHIGAN AND OTHER CITIES

SIGTARP-18-002 18 November 21, 2017

5.2 2725 Kellar Ave - Agreement and Oversight of Global Environmental Engineering 

Inc. (Global) for Inspection of Environmentally Hazardous Material

5.2.1 Contract Deficiencies Regarding Asbestos Containing Material 

The contract fails to require Global to adequately address materials contaminated with 

asbestos. The contract focuses on asbestos containing material (ACM), which is specifically 

defined under NESHAP as materials containing asbestos content greater than 1%. The 

writer may not have known that OSHA and MIOSHA require special handling of all materials 

contaminated with any amount of asbestos. Materials contaminated with less than 1% 

asbestos should have also been required to be highlighted in the report so they could be 

handled appropriately under OSHA and MIOSHA regulations. The failure to do so may have 

given the abatement and demolition contractors the false impression that those 

contaminated materials did not exist on site. The Land Bank should ensure its specification 

writers and inspectors are well versed in all asbestos and hazardous material handling 

regulations.

5.2.2 Improper Classification of Asbestos Containing Material 

Global’s report is inconsistent in how it classifies the asbestos containing drywall joint 

compound. At one location on “Table 2, Suspect Asbestos Containing Materials” of the PreDemolition Environmental Inspection Summary Report the asbestos containing drywall joint 

compound recorded in the hallway and bedroom 2 is highlighted as a sample that contains 

asbestos greater than 1% that must be removed prior to demolition on. However, a note 

on the same table states that the composite of the drywall and joint compound was less 

than 1% ACM. These statements are inconsistent and misleading. It is incorrect to present 

the joint material as a composite with the drywall. OSHA interprets sheet rock is separate 

from joint compound and they should not be treated as a composite sample. The joint 

compound should have been treated as separate from the drywall and as Class II asbestos 

work (see OSHA interpretation at: 

https://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=INTERPRETATIONS

&p_id=22395). This misinterpretation of regulations seems to have resulted in the 

mismanagement of the joint compound throughout demolition by giving the abatement 

and demolition contractors the false impression that the joint compound was not ACM. 

5.2.3 NESHAP Requirements 

Per NESHAP for a demolition project, the RACM is not required to be removed or stripped if 

it is Category II non-friable ACM with low probability of becoming crumbled, pulverized, or 

reduced to powder during demolition. The inspection report should have clearly stated 

whether it believed that the joint compound qualified as such and did not need to be 

removed or stripped prior to demolition.
RISK OF ASBESTOS EXPOSURE, ILLEGAL DUMPING, AND CONTAMINATED SOIL IN FLINT, MICHIGAN AND OTHER CITIES

SIGTARP-18-002 19 November 21, 2017

5.2.4 Improper Handling of Asbestos Containing Material 

Global’s report fails to highlight that the tan caulk around the living room window was 

contaminated with asbestos. “Table 2, Suspect Asbestos Containing Materials” of the PreDemolition Environmental Inspection Summary Report lists the tan caulk around the living 

room window as non ACM. The designation is correct because the amount was less than 

1%. However, there should have been another designation to highlight that the material 

was contaminated with asbestos less than 1%. Material contaminated with asbestos, even 

less than 1%, requires special handling under OSHA and MIOSHA regulations (see OSHA 

interpretation at: 

https://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=INTERPRETATIONS

&p_id=24747). This failure seems to have resulted in the mismanagement of the window 

caulk throughout the demolition by giving the abatement and demolition contractors the 

false impression that the window caulk was not contaminated.

5.3 2725 Kellar Ave - Agreement and Oversight of DMC Consultants, Inc. (DMC) for 

Removal of Environmentally Hazardous Material

5.3.1 Asbestos Abatement Work Plan 

An asbestos abatement Work Plan is a required submittal by Section 2, paragraph 1.07 of 

the Statement of Work (SOW) but not provided in the files.

5.3.2 Asbestos Health and Safety Plan 

An asbestos Health and Safety Plan is a required submittal by Section 2, paragraph 1.07 of 

SOW but is not provided in the files.

5.3.3 Asbestos Abatement Qualifications 

Qualifications for asbestos abatement is a required submittal by Section 2, paragraph 1.07 

of the SOW but not provided in the files.

5.3.4 Disconnect of Asbestos Material identified for removal vice actual removal 

Table 1 below shows the materials slated for removal in Global’s inspection versus the 

materials recorded as removed by DMC.
RISK OF ASBESTOS EXPOSURE, ILLEGAL DUMPING, AND CONTAMINATED SOIL IN FLINT, MICHIGAN AND OTHER CITIES

SIGTARP-18-002 20 November 21, 2017

Table 1

Material Survey Inspection 

Quantity

“Inventory Sheet” Quantity

Mercury Bulb 1 1 (receipt is for multiple houses)

Fluorescent Bulb 9 9 (receipt is for multiple houses)

Fluorescent Ballast 3 3 (receipt is for multiple houses)

Smoke Detector 1 1 (receipt is for multiple houses)

Tires 4 4 (receipt is for multiple houses)

ACM Duct Wrap 20 sf 21 sf

ACM duct wrap 1 lf -

ACM 9” floor tile 112 sf 112 sf

ACM Plaster 3,624 sf 3624 sf

ACM Drywall joint compound 72 sf -

ACM Debris - cy

ACM Vermiculite Insulation 906 sf 17 cy

High Pressure Light Fixture/Ballast - 1 (recycled w scrap metal)

5.3.5 Notification of Intent to Renovate or Demolish 

The asbestos containing joint drywall compound recorded in the hallway and bedroom 2 

was not listed on the “Notification of Intent to Renovate/Demolish” form. Per NESHAP, 

notification should include the estimated amount of regulated asbestos-containing material 

(RACM) to be removed as well as the amount of non-friable asbestos-containing material 

(ACM) that will not be removed before demolition 

(https://www.michigan.gov/documents/deq/deq-aqd-field-tpuasbestos_NESHAP_fact_sheet_449332_7.pdf). The drywall joint compound should have 

been listed on the notification as either RACM to be removed or non-friable Category II 

ACM that will not be removed prior to demolition. It appears that DMC treated the joint 

compound as if it were not ACM. 

5.3.6 Unsigned NESHAP Documentation 

The NESHAP notification appears to be missing two required signatures. Box 17 on the 

“Notification of Intent to Renovate/Demolish” form requires the property owner’s signature 

as well as the contractor’s signature for projects using negative pressure enclosures. In box 

11, DMC states that it will use negative pressure containment. The Land Bank and DMC 

should have signed the form for the file prior to starting abatement.

5.3.7 Research Documentation 

It is possible that it was proper to leave the joint compound for removal during demolition. 

Per NESHAP for a demolition project, the RACM is not required to be removed or stripped if 

it is Category II non-friable ACM with low probability of becoming crumbled, pulverized, or 

reduced to powder during demolition. However, DMC should have researched whether the 
RISK OF ASBESTOS EXPOSURE, ILLEGAL DUMPING, AND CONTAMINATED SOIL IN FLINT, MICHIGAN AND OTHER CITIES

SIGTARP-18-002 21 November 21, 2017

joint compound was likely to crumble during demolition and documented its findings. No 

such documentation was provided in the file.

5.3.8 Qualified Signatories 

Rich Keller signed off as supervisor on DMC’s “Daily Project Log” for asbestos abatement, 

but isn’t listed in DMC’s proposal as certified or trained. Based on the documentation 

provided, it’s impossible to determine if Keller is a competent person to supervise asbestos 

abatement. DMC’s proposal says Lloyd Whittaker will be supervisor for all abatement 

activities. Either Whittaker should have signed off as supervisor on the Daily Project Log or 

DMC should have provided documentation showing that Keller was qualified to do so. 

5.3.9 Storage of Asbestos Materials 

The Log and Manifest show that the asbestos abatement activities occurred on 9/16/14. 

The RACM was transported to the disposal facility over a week later, on 9/24/14. It’s 

unclear whether the RACM was stored safely while awaiting transport. Per NESHAP and 

OSHA (1926.1101) requirements, all ACM containers or wrapped material must be leaktight and labeled using warning labels specified by OSHA and the US DOT. If the abatement 

contractor staged containers of ACM in front of homes to await pickup, the containers 

should have been sealed and labeled properly to prevent accidental exposure by the public. 

5.3.10 PCB Analysis/Profile Sheets Missing 

Copies of all waste analyses or waste profile sheets for PCB containing equipment removal 

are a required submittal by SOW Section 3, paragraph 1.05. No documentation of analysis 

is in the file. Therefore, it’s impossible to determine whether the fluorescent light ballasts 

removed from the Kellar home contained PCB.

5.3.11 PCB Work Plan 

A PCB containing equipment removal Work Plan is a required submittal by SOW Section 3, 

paragraph 1.05. The plan is not in the file. Based on the documentation provided it’s 

impossible to determine whether the plan should have been provided, or whether there 

was no PCB containing equipment at the Kellar site.

5.3.12 PCB Health and Safety Plan 

A PCB containing equipment removal Health and Safety Plan is a required submittal by SOW 

Section 3, paragraph 1.05. The plan is not in the file. Based on the documentation provided 

it’s impossible to determine whether the plan should have been provided, or whether there 

was no PCB containing equipment at the Kellar site.

5.3.13 PCB Testing 

Information on who sampled, analyzed, and transported all wastes for PCB containing 

equipment removal is a required submittal by SOW Section 3, paragraph 1.05. This 
RISK OF ASBESTOS EXPOSURE, ILLEGAL DUMPING, AND CONTAMINATED SOIL IN FLINT, MICHIGAN AND OTHER CITIES

SIGTARP-18-002 22 November 21, 2017

documentation is not in the file. Based on the information provided it’s impossible to 

determine whether the information should have been provided, or whether there was no 

PCB containing equipment at the Kellar site.

5.3.14 PCB Manifests 

Copies of all licenses, certificates, permits, agreements, manifests, and chain of custody 

records for PCB containing equipment removal are a required submittal by SOW Section 3, 

paragraph 1.05. The documentation is not in the file. Based on the information provided 

it’s impossible to determine whether the information should have been provided, or 

whether there was no PCB containing equipment at the Kellar site.

5.3.15 Final Payment Checklist 

Review of the Land Bank’s Request for Final Payment Checklist for the Pay Request received 

10/3/14 revealed the following issues that should have been identified for corrective action 

but were not.

5.3.15.1 Missing Subcontractor Information 

The review fails to check that the contractor provided all the information required 

by the list at the very top of the form. Specifically, the subcontractors’ proofs of 

compliance with Michigan Workers’ Disability Compensation Act, insurance accord, 

and licensure should have been provided but were not included in the file.

5.3.16 Photo Documentation 

Before and after pictures are not in the file. The Land Bank’s Request for Final Payment 

Checklist for the Pay Request received 10/3/14 notes that the pictures were located at 

box.com. The pictures were not provided with the file.

5.4 Physical Inspection of Removal of Environmentally Hazardous Material

5.4.1 Improper Asbestos Waste Containers

During the physical onsite inspection on 12 July 2017, it was noted that unmarked 

containers were sitting in front of several homes. One neighbor stated that the container 

arrived during asbestos abatement. Per NESHAP and OSHA (1926.1101) requirements, all 

ACM containers or wrapped material must be leak-tight and labeled using warning labels 

specified by OSHA and the US DOT. If the abatement contractor is staging containers of 

ACM in front of homes to await pickup, the containers should be sealed and labeled 

properly. This would help prevent accidental exposure by the public. 
RISK OF ASBESTOS EXPOSURE, ILLEGAL DUMPING, AND CONTAMINATED SOIL IN FLINT, MICHIGAN AND OTHER CITIES

SIGTARP-18-002 23 November 21, 2017

5.5 2725 Kellar Ave - Agreement and Oversight of LA Construction Corporation (LA) 

for Demolition and Disposal

5.5.1 Contract Solicitation 

It is unclear whether the selection process stated in the Request for Proposal (RFP) was 

followed. The RFP #LB 14-019, dated 9/2/14, page 4 states that the Land Bank intends to 

award to the lowest responsive and responsible contractor. Page 12 states that the offeror 

with the highest score would win the contract. In the case of bid list #3, two contractors 

achieved the same score. The contract was not awarded to the contractor with the lowest 

price of those two, as would be expected. A memo to the file explained that the lowest 

price contractor was not awarded bid list #3 because it had also won bid list #2 and did not 

have the capacity to perform both bid lists simultaneously in addition to its ongoing work 

with the Land Bank. On the surface this reasoning is logical. However, some aspects of the 

decision are confusing and deserve further clarification.

5.5.1.1 Bid Line Items 

The Land Bank should have confirmed with the low bidder that it did not have the 

capacity to perform both bid lists and documented this in the memo. Specifically, 

the Land Bank interprets the bidder’s response to mean that the bidder could only 

dedicate 8-10 employees to all Land Bank projects and complete 20 demolitions per 

week in total. However, the bidder may have meant to provide 8-10 employees to 

each bid list in order to complete 20 demolitions per week for each bid list.

5.5.1.2 Selection Criteria 

The RFP should have stated how the Land Bank would determine which bid list to 

award in the case where a contractor only qualified for award of one bid list due to 

its capacity and it would have been awarded both otherwise. Even without the 

clarification in the RFP, the memo for the file should have documented how the 

Land Bank determined which bid list to award to the contractor who tied in scoring 

but lost bid list #3 due to capacity constraints.

5.5.2 Contract Pricing 

The proposal price was revised prior to award without any construction cost basis. LA’s 

original bid price for the Kellar property was $10,800. The correspondence file indicates 

that LA was asked to reduce its bid by $3,610 based solely on the amount of Treasury 

funding the property was eligible to receive. This reduction in price may have caused LA to 

take unacceptable shortcuts on quality and safety in order to cut costs. It may have 

contributed to some of the failures noted in this report. This is a prime example of why 

USACE is recommending there be a process for obtaining an exception to the maximum 

demolition cost per property.
RISK OF ASBESTOS EXPOSURE, ILLEGAL DUMPING, AND CONTAMINATED SOIL IN FLINT, MICHIGAN AND OTHER CITIES

SIGTARP-18-002 24 November 21, 2017

5.5.3 Contract Requirements 

The contract for the Kellar house should have clearly stated that the joint compound 

identified by the Global inspection was Category II ACM (see OSHA interpretation at: 

https://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=INTERPRETATIONS

&p_id=22395). It was inaccurate and misleading to list the joint material as a composite 

with the wall. Per NESHAP for a demolition project, the RACM is not required to be 

removed or stripped if it is Category II non-friable ACM with low probability of becoming 

crumbled, pulverized, or reduced to powder during demolition. The contract should have 

clearly stated whether the joint compound qualified as such.

5.5.4 Joint Compound Documentation 

In removing the joint compound, LA should have either produced a negative exposure 

assessment or used appropriate methods to ensure that airborne asbestos did not migrate 

from the regulated area in accordance with OSHA 1926.1101(g)(7). Furthermore, DMC 

should have followed the controls of OSHA 1926.1101(g)(8)(v) or 1926.1101(g)(vi) when 

removing the joint compound. From the documentation provided, it’s unclear whether any 

of the required procedures were followed.

5.5.5 Window Caulk Documentation 

The contract for the Kellar house should have stated that the tan window caulk in the living 

room was contaminated with asbestos. If this caulk was in place during demolition, then it 

should have been handled according to OSHA requirements.

5.5.6 Contract Deficiency Regarding Asbestos Removal 

Regardless of the quantity of asbestos or other NESHAP requirements, removal of materials 

contaminated with asbestos requires special handling under OSHA (including products 

containing amounts less than 1%, see OSHA interpretation at: 

https://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=INTERPRETATIONS

&p_id=24747). The contract should have included more detailed asbestos removal 

specifications in order to ensure proper handling. Specifically, the specifications should 

have required the contractor to provide a removal plan, as well as qualifications and 

certifications of the employees who would physically be performing and supervising the 

work on site.

5.5.7 Air Monitoring Requirements 

Based on the contract requirements and documentation provided, it’s seems unlikely that 

OSHA 1926.1101 requirements for containing, removing, handling, and air monitoring were 

followed when removing the joint compound and window caulk. There is no 

documentation of providing a regulated area, air monitoring, leak-tight container storage, 

or proper disposal.
RISK OF ASBESTOS EXPOSURE, ILLEGAL DUMPING, AND CONTAMINATED SOIL IN FLINT, MICHIGAN AND OTHER CITIES

SIGTARP-18-002 25 November 21, 2017

5.5.8 NESHAP Notification Improperly Filled Out 

The NESHAP Notification of Intent to Renovate/Demolish form was not filled out properly. 

The joint compound should have been listed, either as RACM to be removed or as nonfriable ACM not removed prior to demolition.

5.5.9 Soil Erosion Permits 

Soil erosion permits are required for certain properties but the contract is unclear which 

ones. Statement of Work (SOW) Section 200, paragraph 1.2 states the requirement but no 

detail is provided anywhere else in the contract. The Land Bank should clarify the 

requirement.

5.5.10 Flint Permits

The City of Flint (City) demolition permit appears to require two inspections, one of which is 

an open-hole inspection. In addition, SOW Section 300, paragraph 3.7 requires approval to 

proceed from the local municipality prior to filling the hole. However, all of the inspections 

documented in the file were performed after the hole was filled and final grade achieved. 

Either the City or Land Bank should have performed an open-hole inspection. In absence of 

an open-hole inspection, LA should have been required to prove that it met the 

requirements of the open-hole inspection prior to receiving payment. This could have been 

achieved through excavation or soil testing provided by LA at no additional cost to the Land 

Bank.

5.5.11 Redundant Inspections

The City and Land Bank performed redundant inspections. Both performed winter grade 

and final grade inspections. Given the limited resources available for inspections, the Land 

Bank and City should coordinate resources and divide the inspections. USACE recommends 

combining efforts to perform the following four inspections: asbestos removal inspection 

(while the work is underway), pre-demolition inspection, open-hole inspection, and final 

grade inspection. Sporadic inspections during demolition and fill activities are also 

recommended for a limited number of properties. All of these inspections will provide 

assurance that the contractor is performing according to the contract as well as following 

state and federal regulations.

5.5.12 Landfill Receipts

Landfill receipts/waste manifests are a required submittal by SOW Section 100, Paragraph I. 

A truck log was provided with manifest numbers but the manifests are not in the file. The 

manifests should have been received and verified prior to payment by the Land Bank.

5.5.13 Disability Compensation Act

Proof that subcontractors are in compliance with Michigan Workers’ Disability 

Compensation Act and appropriately licensed is required by SOW Section 100, Paragraph I. 
RISK OF ASBESTOS EXPOSURE, ILLEGAL DUMPING, AND CONTAMINATED SOIL IN FLINT, MICHIGAN AND OTHER CITIES

SIGTARP-18-002 26 November 21, 2017

LA’s proposal says that it will not have subcontractors. However, LA’s payment requests

reveal that it ultimately had multiple subcontractors. No documentation of compliance 

with the act of licensing is on file. LA should have provided, and the Land Bank should have 

required proof.

5.5.14 Deficient Submittals

The “Submittals” section of the SOW (Section 100, Paragraph I) is inconsistent with the 

technical requirements of the SOW. This paragraph lists documentation that must be 

included with requests for payment. It includes some technical submittals but omits others 

that are dispersed throughout the technical Sections of the SOW. This submittals/payment 

paragraph should either include a comprehensive list of all the submittals, or simply require 

that all submittals be accepted prior to payment. Based on the files provided, it appears 

that this oversight allowed LA to be paid without providing technical submittals required by 

other sections of the SOW. That being the case, it’s impossible to determine whether some 

technical requirements were met.

5.5.15 Topsoil Requirements

Topsoil material requirements are confusing and should be revised for future contracts. 

SOW Section 300, part 2, mixes terms from the USDA Soil Classification System and the 

USCS Soil Classification System. For simplicity and clarity, it is recommended that the 

specification use one classification system when defining requirements for each material. 

USACE recommends using the USDA Soil Classification System for the topsoil on this project.

5.5.16 Soil Testing

Soil testing requirements are provided in the SOW, Section 300, Part 2. The SOW requires 

documentation showing that the backfill and topsoil are below MDEQ Direct Contact level. 

The documentation provided includes a letter stating that the topsoil sample passed the 

required test and lab results for one sample. However, there is no letter of confirmation 

stating that the backfill materials met the MDEQ Direct Contact level criteria. The Land 

Bank should have required and LA should have provided the certification or statement of 

confirmation with test results for the backfill.

5.5.17 Backfill Determination

It’s impossible to determine what type of materials were provided as backfill and topsoil 

since no documentation is provided in the file. Soil requirements are provided in the SOW, 

Section 300, Part 2. However, very little soil testing and documentation are required. It is 

recommended that contractors be required to provide soil test results for each borrow 

source showing conformance with all the specified criteria prior to bringing any soil from 

that source on to the site. (The specification is confusing about whether this was expected 

for all the criteria or just to show that the material conforms to MDEQ Direct Contact level. 
RISK OF ASBESTOS EXPOSURE, ILLEGAL DUMPING, AND CONTAMINATED SOIL IN FLINT, MICHIGAN AND OTHER CITIES

SIGTARP-18-002 27 November 21, 2017

It appears that the Land Bank only required documentation that the topsoil was below 

MDEQ Direct Contact level.) Specific concerns follow.

5.5.17.1 MDOT Classification for Fill Material below 18”

Fill material up to 18 inches from the surface is required to be MDOT Class II 

Granular Material or other material as approved by the Land Bank. It’s impossible to 

determine whether this requirement was met because there is no documentation 

on backfill material in the file. 

5.5.17.2 Requirements for Fill Material 18” to 6”

Fill material from the 18 inch mark up to 6 inches from the surface is required to be 

loamy material or sandy clay (mined from the earth and not manufactured). It’s 

impossible to determine whether this requirement was met because there is no 

documentation on backfill material in the file. 

5.5.17.3 Requirements for Topsoil for Top 6”

Topsoil is required to conform to ASTM D2487 Group Symbol SM, fall within a 

certain acidity range, and contain a certain percentage range of organic matter. It’s 

impossible to determine whether the requirements were met because there is no 

documentation provided regarding these criteria.

5.5.18 Soil Confirmation

The test results for the single soil sample attached to the Statement of Confirmation letter 

for the topsoil (submitted with the final pay request) are the exact same test results 

submitted with the payment request for winter grade. It’s possible that this occurred 

because the same material was provided as both fill materials and as topsoil. If that was the 

case then the material could not have been in compliance with the contract requirements, 

and the reasons it was allowed should have been documented. As discussed in comment 

5.5.17 above, the contract requires two different materials for fill material, and provides 

another material requirement for topsoil. It is impossible for the material’s properties to be 

both MDOT Class II Granular Material, (the contract fill material requirement below 18”) as 

well as loamy material or sandy clay (the fill material requirement from 18 inches to 6 

inches). It is also impossible for the material’s properties to be both MDOT Class II Granular 

Material (the contract fill material requirement below 18”) as well as ASTM D2487 Group 

Symbol SM, with the percentage range of organic matter (the contract topsoil material 

requirement). The Land Bank and LA should have documented what material was 

determined acceptable to fill the hole.

5.5.19 Approved Soil Sources

The contract does not contain any evidence that soil is being purchased and delivered from 

the approved source. The contract should require LA to provide copies of truck tickets for 
RISK OF ASBESTOS EXPOSURE, ILLEGAL DUMPING, AND CONTAMINATED SOIL IN FLINT, MICHIGAN AND OTHER CITIES

SIGTARP-18-002 28 November 21, 2017

all fill material and topsoil deliveries. These would provide assurance that the material is 

being purchased and delivered as expected.

5.5.20 Grass Seed Inoculation 

Seed inoculation with a specific strain of bacteria is required by Section 300, paragraph 3.12 

and Section 200, Paragraph 2.1. It’s impossible to determine whether the requirements 

were met because there is no documentation required by the contract or provided in the 

file.

5.5.21 Compaction and Grading Requirements

The contract contains requirements for compaction and grading in Section 300, paragraphs 

3.9-3.11. However, it’s impossible to determine whether these criteria were met because 

there is no plan, testing, or documentation required by the contract or provided in the file.

5.5.22 Dust and Noise Control Requirements

Most submittals required by Section 400, paragraph 1.5 are not on file. These include: 

Proposed dust-control measures, Proposed noise control measures, Schedule of demolition 

activities, Inventory of items to be removed or salvaged, and Landfill records indicating 

receipt and acceptance of hazardous wastes by a facility licensed to accept hazardous 

wastes. The Land Bank should have required and LA should have provided the submittals 

prior to the start of physical work or prior to payment, as applicable.

5.5.23 Internal Review Checklist

Review of the Land Bank’s Internal Review Checklist for the pay request received 1/9/15 

revealed the following issues that should have been identified for corrective action but 

were not. 

5.5.23.1 Missing Subcontractors Information 

The review fails to check that the contractor provided all the information required 

by the list at the very top of the form. Specifically, the subcontractors’ proofs of 

compliance with Michigan Workers’ Disability Compensation Act, insurance accord, 

licensure, and LA’s confirmation of clean backfill should have been provided but 

were not included in the file. 

5.5.23.2 Categorization of ACM

The form incorrectly states that there was no ACM.

5.5.23.3 Truck Tickets

The form lists all the weight tickets from the trucking log but fails to identify that the 

weight tickets themselves are missing. These should have been required/provided.
RISK OF ASBESTOS EXPOSURE, ILLEGAL DUMPING, AND CONTAMINATED SOIL IN FLINT, MICHIGAN AND OTHER CITIES

SIGTARP-18-002 29 November 21, 2017

5.5.23.4 Soil Testing

The form notes that a soil sample test report was provided but fails to identify that 

the required Statement of Confirmation was omitted. This should have been 

required/provided.

5.5.23.5 Open Hole Inspection

The form fails to identify that the City open-hole inspection was not provided. The 

form incorrectly omits the contract and City’s open-hole inspection requirement. It 

provides for winter grade and final grade inspections only.

5.5.24 Pay Requests

Review of the Land Bank’s Internal Review Checklist for the Pay Request received 6/5/15 

revealed the following issues that should have been identified for corrective action but 

were not. 

5.5.24.1 Subcontractors Compliance with MI Workers’ Disability Compensation Act

The review incorrectly confirms that the contractor provided the subcontractors’ 

proofs of compliance with Michigan Workers’ Disability Compensation Act, 

insurance accord, and licensure. 

5.5.24.2 Topsoil Checklist

The checklist notes that the Statement of Confirmation is provided showing backfill 

and topsoil are below MDEQ Direct Contact level and backup. However, it fails to 

identify that the confirmation provided is only for the topsoil. It also fails to identify 

that the attached test report is the exact same report that was provided as the 

confirmation for the backfill provided with the previous payment request. It’s 

unclear whether anyone noticed that it was the same test report. 

5.5.25 Final Payment Checklist

Review of the Land Bank’s Request for Final Payment Checklist for the Pay Request received 

6/5/15 revealed the following issues that should have been identified for corrective action 

but were not.

5.5.25.1 Missing Information 

The review fails to check that the contractor provided all the information required 

by the list at the very top of the form. Specifically, the subcontractors’ proofs of 

compliance with Michigan Workers’ Disability Compensation Act, insurance accord, 

and licensure should have been provided but were not included in the file. 

The form is incomplete in that it fails to note whether the NESHAP notification was 

completed, fails to note whether the field report/daily log/inventory sheets were 
RISK OF ASBESTOS EXPOSURE, ILLEGAL DUMPING, AND CONTAMINATED SOIL IN FLINT, MICHIGAN AND OTHER CITIES

SIGTARP-18-002 30 November 21, 2017

provided, fails to note whether the trucking log was provided, fails to note whether 

the demolition permit was provided, fails to note whether the Land Bank inspection 

report was completed, and fails to mark that the Land Bank inspector approves the 

payment.

6 Physical Onsite Inspection of Demolition and Disposal by USACE 

Personnel

6.1 Open-Hole Inspections

Open holes were seen at several sites awaiting city open hole inspections. A question arose 

regarding if those holes should be fall protected. For excavations over 6 feet in depth on an 

active construction site when the excavation is not readily seen because of plant growth or 

other visual barrier, OSHA 1926.501 requires a guardrail system, fence, or barricades. Also, 

when equipment is required to approach or operate adjacent to an excavation and the 

operator does not have a clear view of the edge, then a warning system such as barricades, 

signals, or stop logs must be utilized. It seems that the snow fencing seen at the sites may 

be adequate to meet OSHA regulations.

6.2 Safety Requirements

No protective systems were noted in the open excavations viewed. This is not in violation 

of OSHA since no workers were in the excavation. However, inspections by the Land Bank 

should verify that workers are not allowed in excavations over 5 feet in depth without an 

adequate protective system designed in accordance with OSHA regulations. Excavations 

less than 5 feed in depth must be inspected by a competent person who determines that 

there is no indication of potential cave-in.

6.3 Final Grade

It’s unclear whether the requirement to plow strip, or break up sloped surfaces steeper 

than 1 vertical to 4 horizontal is being met (see Section 300, Paragraph 3.8). The Land Bank 

should either require the contractor to provide pictures and perform sporadic inspections 

to confirm that this is being followed, or change the requirement.

6.4 Dust Abatement

Ongoing wetting, as required by the contract, was witnessed at 3016 S Grand Traverse. A 

question arose regarding whether it would be safe and acceptable to use Flint River water 

for this operation given the elevated lead levels. Flint River water lead levels exceed 

drinking water standards. However, this does not mean that the water is unsafe for other 

types of use. The USACE assessment is that lead levels present in Flint water do not pose 

any notable risk of contaminating the debris or soil, or exposing workers to unsafe levels of 

lead through skin contact.
RISK OF ASBESTOS EXPOSURE, ILLEGAL DUMPING, AND CONTAMINATED SOIL IN FLINT, MICHIGAN AND OTHER CITIES

SIGTARP-18-002 31 November 21, 2017

Attachment 1

List of Omitted Documentation (Required by an Agreement or Contract)

 Compliance demolition inspection

 Open hole inspection

 Asbestos abatement Work Plan

 Asbestos Health and Safety Plan

 Qualifications for asbestos abatement for employees physically doing the work

 Waste analyses or waste profile sheets for PCB containing equipment removal

 PCB containing equipment removal Work Plan

 PCB containing equipment removal Health and Safety Plan

 Information on who sampled, analyzed, and transported all wastes for PCB containing 

equipment removal

 Copies of all licenses, certificates, permits, agreements, manifests, and chain of custody 

records for PCB containing equipment removal

 Before and after pictures

 Negative exposure assessment

 Soil erosion permits

 Landfill receipts/waste manifests

 Proof that subcontractors are in compliance with Michigan Workers’ Disability 

Compensation Act and appropriately licensed

 Documentation showing that the backfill is below MDEQ Direct Contact level

 Proposed dust-control measures

 Proposed noise control measures 

 Schedule of demolition activities

 Inventory of items to be removed or salvaged

 Landfill records indicating receipt and acceptance of hazardous wastes by a facility 

licensed to accept hazardous wastes
RISK OF ASBESTOS EXPOSURE, ILLEGAL DUMPING, AND CONTAMINATED SOIL IN FLINT, MICHIGAN AND OTHER CITIES

SIGTARP-18-002 32 November 21, 2017

Attachment 2

FIELD REPORT
RISK OF ASBESTOS EXPOSURE, ILLEGAL DUMPING, AND CONTAMINATED SOIL IN FLINT, MICHIGAN AND OTHER CITIES

SIGTARP-18-002 33 November 21, 2017

Figure 2: Site on Corunna awaiting backfill

Inspection of Homes being demolished in Flint and Mt Morris Michigan for the Office of the Special

Inspector General for the Troubled Asset Relief Program (SIGTARP)-Field Report

Robert Ferguson

Senior construction Representative

USACE, Detroit Area Office

Detroit District Michigan

On July 12 2017, I met with two staff members from Department of Treasury- Office of the Special 

Inspector General for the Troubled Asset Relief Program (SIGTARP) to inspect several home sites that 

were scheduled to be demolished through the Blight Elimination program. 

First house to be inspected was at 1909 Becker 

Street in Flint (Figure 1). This site was scheduled for 

demolition on this day (12/July) there was a 

dumpster placed in front of the residence but no 

contractors were onsite. We visited several 

properties in different phases of deconstruction. 

Some properties were just abated (Figure 7) the 

asbestos siding and the interior plaster walls had 

been removed and placed (per neighbors) in a 

dumpster marked for asbestos that was placed in 

front of the residence on (Brown street). 

At a site on Corunna (Figure 2) the residence 

had been demolished and all the debris had 

been removed. A clean hole (with no debris or 

remnants of the basement) was all that 

remained. We visited several sites in Flint on 

Caldwell (Figure 3 and 4), Lyons, Swayze, Brown 

and Becker (Figure 1) streets in different 

phases of demolition. On Swayze one had a 

hole similar to Corunna (Figure 2) and had one 

property that was completed with the ground 

leveled covered with clean fill that was seeded 

with a straw cover. We visited a couple more 

completed sites and a couple more that had 

open holes. 

Then we headed to three sites on Hilton Street in Mt Morris that were scheduled for demolition. The 

three sites hadn’t been touched yet. The contractor had a house on Grand Traverse that was being 

demolished that afternoon. We visited a couple more sites on Victoria (Figure 6) (completed and 

seeded), Barrie, Simcoe and Bloor streets (both had clean open holes). 

Figure 1: 1909 Becker Street
RISK OF ASBESTOS EXPOSURE, ILLEGAL DUMPING, AND CONTAMINATED SOIL IN FLINT, MICHIGAN AND OTHER CITIES

SIGTARP-18-002 34 November 21, 2017

At 3016 S Grand Traverse (Figures 7 and 8) Salenbien Trucking, the demolition company, arrived with a 

water truck and an excavator to begin demolishing the house there. They demolished the house within 

an hour. I talked briefly with Salenbien foreman (Russ David). During the conversation, I learned that the 

Genesee County Land bank requires several inspections during demolition. They inspect the house after 

abatement, and after debris removal. Before the basement can be filled, the Land bank inspects the 

excavation to make sure it is clean and free of all construction debris before it can be filled.

 Figure 3: House on Caldwell awaiting backfill

Figure 5: House on Concord awaiting demolition Figure 6: Completed Lot of 3106 Grand Traverse

Figure 4: Another site on Caldwell completed and seeded
RISK OF ASBESTOS EXPOSURE, ILLEGAL DUMPING, AND CONTAMINATED SOIL IN FLINT, MICHIGAN AND OTHER CITIES

SIGTARP-18-002 35 November 21, 2017

Figure 7: 3106 Grand Traverse abated interior prior to demolition Figure 8: 3106 Grand Traverse knocked down

 

Figure 9: 3106 Grand Traverse one week after demolition 20 July Figure 10: 3106 Grand Traverse 20 July Basement awaiting backfill
RISK OF ASBESTOS EXPOSURE, ILLEGAL DUMPING, AND CONTAMINATED SOIL IN FLINT, MICHIGAN AND OTHER CITIES

SIGTARP-18-002 36 November 21, 2017

Appendix B—SIGTARP Recommendations

1. To protect the Hardest Hit Fund’s goal of neighborhood stabilization, and 

prevent waste, fraud, and abuse, Treasury should require state agencies to, and 

state agencies should, prevent contractors or any other entity or person who has

been charged or fined for violations of local, state, Federal environmental, or 

safety requirements from participating in the Blight Elimination Program under 

the Hardest Hit Fund. If the person or entity has been charged and is later found 

not guilty, that person could be allowed to participate, but should not participate 

while charges are pending. 

2. To protect the Hardest Hit Fund’s goal of neighborhood stabilization, and 

prevent waste, fraud, and abuse, Treasury should require state agencies to, and 

state agencies should, install safeguards and a quality assurance program by 

establishing technical requirements for all engaged in work in the Blight 

Elimination Program that are consistent with regulations and best practices, 

including in the following high-risk areas: 1) proper removal and storage of 

asbestos and other hazardous material; 2) proper removal and dumping of all 

debris in approved landfills or recycling facilities; 3) filling in the demolition 

holes with only clean soil from approved sources; and 4) proper seed 

inoculation, compaction and grading, and dust and noise control. 

3. To protect the Hardest Hit Fund’s goal of neighborhood stabilization by 

protecting Americans from exposure to asbestos or other hazardous material, 

and to prevent waste, fraud, and abuse, Treasury should require state agencies 

to, and state agencies should, conduct oversight of the quality of the demolitions 

and related activities, including by not paying any TARP dollars until the state 

agency has: (1) received and reviewed documentation of inspections, by a 

qualified inspector, during the removal of all material containing asbestos or 

other hazardous material; (2) ensured that the inspection confirms the proper 

handling, proper storage in leak-tight and warning-labeled containers, and 

disposal of hazardous material in compliance with the state’s technical 

requirements, and all other applicable requirements, including those of the 

Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), the National Emissions 

Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP), and state and local 

requirements; and (3) compared the inspection report with the hazardous 

material analyses or plans, the asbestos abatement or other hazardous material 

work plan, the asbestos health and safety plan, chain of custody manifests, and 

other documents related to compliance with OSHA and NESHAP requirements. 

4. To protect the Hardest Hit Fund’s goal of neighborhood stabilization by 

protecting Americans from exposure to contaminated material filled into the 

demolition hole, and to prevent waste, fraud, and abuse, Treasury should require 

state agencies to, and state agencies should: (1) institute safeguards by 

determining in its requirements the approved sources for fill dirt; (2) conduct 
RISK OF ASBESTOS EXPOSURE, ILLEGAL DUMPING, AND CONTAMINATED SOIL IN FLINT, MICHIGAN AND OTHER CITIES

SIGTARP-18-002 37 November 21, 2017

oversight of the quality of demolitions and related activities, including by not 

paying any TARP dollars until the state agency has reviewed documentation of: 

(a) the purchase and delivery of fill dirt from an approved source; and (b) an 

inspection of the open hole to ensure that all demolition debris has been 

removed and all foundation material has either been crushed or removed in 

accordance with applicable Federal, state, and local regulations and with the 

contract requirements; and (3) confirm and document that the hole is only filled 

with clean material from the approved source. The state agency should also 

conduct periodic soil testing, at random intervals, for every contractor. The 

frequency of the soil testing should relate to the experience of the contractor, 

and any issues raised from the documentation or lack of documentation. 

5. To protect the Hardest Hit Fund’s goal of neighborhood stabilization by 

protecting Americans from exposure to illegal dumping, and to prevent waste, 

fraud, and abuse, Treasury should require state agencies to, and state agencies 

should: (1) install safeguards by determining technical requirements to require 

that all materials removed are disposed at an appropriate waste or recycling 

facility, and creating a list of approved waste or recycling facilities; and (2)

conduct oversight over the quality of the demolitions and related activities, 

including by not paying any TARP dollars until the state agency has reviewed 

documentation, including (a) landfill receipts and waste manifests to confirm the 

disposal at an approved facility; and (b) truck weight tickets showing the weight 

of debris that left the facility matched the weight received at the landfill or 

recycling facility.

6. To protect the Hardest Hit Fund’s goal of neighborhood stabilization, and to 

prevent waste, fraud, and abuse, Treasury should require state agencies to, and 

state agencies should, conduct oversight over the quality of the demolitions and 

related activities, including by not paying TARP dollars until it receives evidence 

of compliance with all seed inoculation, compaction/grading, and dust/noise 

control requirements in accordance with applicable Federal, state, and local 

regulations and with contract requirements. 
RISK OF ASBESTOS EXPOSURE, ILLEGAL DUMPING, AND CONTAMINATED SOIL IN FLINT, MICHIGAN AND OTHER CITIES

SIGTARP-18-002 38 November 21, 2017

Appendix C—Management Comments
RISK OF ASBESTOS EXPOSURE, ILLEGAL DUMPING, AND CONTAMINATED SOIL IN FLINT, MICHIGAN AND OTHER CITIES

SIGTARP-18-002 39 November 21, 2017
SIGTARP-18-002 November 21, 2017

SIGTARP Hotline

If you are aware of fraud, waste, abuse, mismanagement, or misrepresentations associated with the Troubled Asset 

Relief Program, please contact SIGTARP.

By UOnline Form: Uwww.SIGTARP.govU 

By Phone: Call toll free: (877) SIG-2009

By Fax: (202) 622-4559

By Mail: Office of the Special Inspector General

for the Troubled Asset Relief Program

1801 L Street., NW, 3rd Floor

Washington, DC 20220

Press Inquiries

If you have any inquiries, please contact our Press Office: 202-927-8940

Legislative Affairs

For Congressional inquiries, please contact our Legislative Affairs Office: 202-927-9159

Obtaining Copies of Testimony and Reports

To obtain copies of testimony and reports, please log on to our website at Uwww.SIGTARP.govU.