Albuquerque Service Unit Building 22 Asbestos Report.pdf

ASBESTOS SURVEY

At

ALBUQUERQUE SERVICE UNIT

Building No. 22

For

Albuquerque Area Indian Health Service Division of Health Facilities 5300 Homestead Road, NE

Albuquerque, New Mexico 87110

By

U.S. Public Health Service Federal Occupational Health

2201 Sixth Avenue, M/S Rx-21 Seattle, Washington 98121-2500

June 2007

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Section Title Page No.

1.0 Introduction

2.0 Description of Inspected Area

3.0 Survey Procedures

4.0 Findings

5.0 Abatement Cost Estimate

6.0 Project Limitations

Appendices

1 Location of Functional Spaces and Bulk Sample Logs

2 Laboratory Results

3 Certifications

Area Wide Asbestos Building Inspection Indian Health Service Facilities

Albuquerque Service Unit

Albuquerque, New Mexico

1.0 INTRODUCTION

As requested by the Albuquerque Area Indian Health Service, bulk sampling of suspect asbestos-containing building materials was conducted in Building No. 22 located at the Albuquerque Service Unit, Albuquerque, New Mexico, on April 17, 2006. Bulk samples of suspect asbestos-containing materials (ACMs) were collected throughout the interior and exterior of the building.

Ms. Stephanie Jury, representing Federal Occupational Health (FOH), performed the asbestos inspection of the subject property. Ms. Jury holds current Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act (AHERA) accreditation as an Asbestos Building Inspector. Sampling of suspect asbestos-containing materials was conducted using procedures similar to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) AHERA regulations, 40 CFR 763. The Federal Occupational Health EH Environmental Laboratory in Denver, Colorado, performed the laboratory analysis of the asbestos samples.

Laboratory analysis indicates that floor tile mastic, wall sheet vinyl, exterior stucco, wall adhesive, and exterior window putty in Building No. 22 contain asbestos.

2.0 DESCRIPTION OF INSPECTED AREA

This inspection focused on the entire interior and exterior of the building. The building is single story with a basement. The exterior is stucco. The roof is a rolled roof.

Suspect building materials identified and sampled in the subject property included the following: various floor tiles and associated mastics, carpet mastic, exterior stucco, various plaster wall materials, window and door frame caulk, window putty, vapor paper barrier, ceramic tile grout, leveling board, brick, wall sheet vinyl, covebase mastic, and roofing materials.

3.0 SURVEY PROCEDURES

Each room was assigned unique functional space numbers. Each functional space was visually inspected for suspect asbestos-containing materials. Materials were mapped and quantified on maps provided by the IHS or hand drawn maps.

Each suspect ACM was designated as a distinct homogeneous area, which is a single material, uniform in texture and appearance, installed at one time, and unlikely to consist of more than one type or formulation of material. The inspector touched each suspect material in order to determine friability.

A sufficient number of samples were collected of each material to satisfy the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and the National Emission Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) regulations for the determination of asbestos content. A total of 86 samples were collected from Building No. 22.

Each sample was assigned a unique sample identification number and assessed for damage and friability classifications. The samples, with Chain of Custody documentation were delivered to FOH EH Environmental Laboratory for analysis. The FOH EH Environmental Laboratory is accredited under the National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program (NVLAP) for bulk-asbestos sample analysis conducted by the National Institute of Standards and Technology.

A description of the samples taken, location, and summary of laboratory results are located in Appendix 1.

The asbestos laboratory reports are included as Appendix 2.

4.0 FINDINGS

Results of the asbestos inspection are as follows:

Table1:

Albuquerque Service Unit Building No. 22

Bulk Sample Results April 17, 2006

HA # Material Functional Space ACM Condition Quantity

1A 12”x12” Floor Tile & Mastic (Rose/Beige)

68, 85, 96, 101, 118, 118A, 123, 124, 128, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136A, No Good 2,083 sf

1B Carpet Mastic (Yellow) 103A, 118, 133 No Good 2,529 sf

1C 12”x12” Floor Tile & Mastic (Lt. Brown) 116 No Good 180 sf

1D Ceramic Tile Grout 116, 117, 132C No Good 322 sf

1E 12”x12” Floor Tile & Mastic (Gray) 117 No Good 88 sf

1F 12”x12” Floor Tile & Mastic (Orange) 106

Yes: 4-8% Chrysotile

(Mastic Only)

Good 52 sf

1G White Tile Grout 137 No Good 35 sf

1H 12”x12” Floor Tile &

Mastic (White w/ Gray)

81, 130 No Good 132 sf

1I Leveling Board 81 No Good 132 sf 1J Vapor Paper 81 No Good 3,737 sf

1K Asphaltic Floor Tile (Black) 136 No Good 10 sf

2A Plaster Brown Coat Throughout No Good 14,596 sf

2B Plaster Skim Coat 116, 117, 132C, 136A No Good 936 sf

2C Plaster Texture (Bumpy) 136 No Good 884 sf

2D Plaster Texture (Rough) 131 No Good 500sf

2E Wall Sheet Vinyl 106 Yes: 20-30% Chrysotile Good 130 sf

2F Ceramic Tile Grout 116, 117, 132C No Good 610 sf 2G Red Brick Exterior No Good 50 sf 2H Red Brick Mortar Exterior No Good 50 sf

2I Exterior Stucco Exterior Yes: 1-2% Chrysotile

Good 5,000 sf

7A Covebase Mastic Brown Mastic 106 No Good 10 sf

7B Covebase Mastic White Mastic 116 No Good 10 sf

7C Wall Adhesive (Yellow) 117 Yes: <1

Chrysotile Good 130 sf

7D Exterior Window Caulk Exterior No Good 100 sf

7E Exterior Window Putty Exterior Yes: 2-4%

Chrysotile Good 100 sf

8A Roof Penetration Mastic (Black) Roof No Good 3,737 sf

Laboratory analysis of the bulk samples collected from the Albuquerque Service Unit Building No. 22 indicates that floor tile mastic, wall sheet vinyl, exterior stucco, wall adhesive, and exterior window putty contain asbestos.

Floor tile mastic is classified as a non-friable NESHAP Category I material. This material is currently in good condition. Floor tile mastic that is beneath floor tile, i.e., inaccessible, poses little to no health threat.

Removal or disturbance to this material should be performed by appropriately trained and certified personnel. Removed flooring material should be disposed at a landfill that accepts non-friable asbestos waste. Landfills should be checked for acceptance of this material prior to disposal.

Sheet vinyl and associated materials are classified as friable NESHAP Regulated Asbestos-Containing Material (RACM). The material is currently in good condition and intact sheet vinyl flooring poses little to no health threat. Removal or disturbance to this material should be performed by appropriately trained and certified personnel. Removed sheet vinyl flooring and associated materials should be disposed at a landfill that is approved by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for acceptance of friable asbestos waste. Landfills should be checked for acceptance of this material prior to disposal.

Exterior stucco is classified as a friable NESHAP Regulated Asbestos-Containing Material (RACM).

The material is currently in good condition and undamaged stucco poses little to no health threat.

Removal of this material should be performed by appropriately trained and certified personnel. Removal or disturbance to this material is considered an OSHA class I removal. Removed materials should be disposed at a landfill that is approved by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for acceptance of friable asbestos waste. Landfills should be checked for acceptance of this material prior to disposal.

Wall adhesive is classified as non-friable NESHAP Category II material. The material is undamaged and inaccessible; therefore, it poses little to no health threat. Removal of wall adhesive and/or affected materials or other disturbance to this material should be performed by appropriately trained and certified personnel. Removed materials should be disposed at a landfill that accepts non-friable asbestos waste.

Landfills should be checked for acceptance of this material prior to disposal.

Window putty is classified as non-friable NESHAP Category II material. The material is currently in good condition and intact window putty poses little to no health threat. Removal of this material should be performed by appropriately trained and certified personnel using intact removal methods. Removed materials should be disposed at a landfill that accepts non-friable asbestos waste. Landfills should be checked for acceptance of this material prior to disposal.

5.0 ABATEMENT COST ESTIMATE

The programming cost estimate for the removal of asbestos-containing materials follows below.

Identified asbestos-containing materials (ACMs) consist of: floor tile mastic (52 sf), wall-sheet vinyl (130 sf), exterior stucco (5,000 sf), wall adhesive (130 sf), and exterior window putty (100 sf).

This programming cost estimate was derived by use of the Means Cost Guide and by consultation with experienced local contractors. It reflects current industry pricing. Future fluctuations in industry pricing, both natural and seasonal, may affect this estimate. In addition, Service Units outside of metropolitan areas may incur additional costs due to travel requirements on the part of abatement contractors. For purposes of this estimate, an 18% mark-up for logistical costs is included.

This estimate is for abatement contractor costs only. Additional costs, which are not included in this estimate, are those of an environmental consultant and replacement of materials that have been removed.

Table 2:

Albuquerque Service Unit

Programming Cost Estimate

Asbestos-Containing Material Quantity of Material (sf)

Unit Cost (per sf)

Logistical Markup Price

Floor Tile Mastic 52 sf $2.50 18% $ 153.40 Wall Sheet Vinyl 130 sf $2.50 18% $ 383.50 Exterior Stucco 5,000 sf $3.00 18% $17,700.00 Wall Adhesive 130 sf $4.00 18% $ 613.60

Exterior Window Putty 100 sf $8.00 18% $ 944.00

Total $19,794.50

6.0 PROJECT LIMITATIONS

This Project was performed using, as a minimum, practices consistent with standards acceptable within the industry at this time, and a level of diligence typically exercised by industrial hygiene and environmental consultants performing similar services.

The procedures used in this investigation attempt to establish a balance between the competing goals of limiting investigative and reporting costs and time, and reducing the uncertainty about unknown conditions. Therefore, because the findings of this report were derived from the scope, costs, time, and other limitations, the conclusions should not be construed as a guarantee that all environmental or occupational hazards have been identified and fully evaluated. Where sample collection and testing have been performed, FOH's professional opinions are based in part on the interpretation of data from discrete sampling locations that may not represent conditions at non-sampled locations. FOH assumes no responsibility for omissions or errors resulting from inaccurate information, or data, provided by sources outside of FOH or from omissions or errors in public records.

Furthermore, it is emphasized that the final decision on how much risk to accept always remains with the client since FOH is not in a position to fully understand all of the client's needs. Clients with a greater aversion to risk may want to take additional actions while others, with less aversion to risk, may want to take no further action.

APPENDIX 1

Location of Functional Spaces

Bulk Sample Log

APPENDIX 2

Laboratory Results

APPENDIX 3

Certifications

Albuquerque Service Unit

6.0PROJECT LIMITATIONS