Attachment 5 - Woodward Building 7 Hazmat Report.pdf

SOUTHERN PLAINS RANGE RESEARCH

STATION, 2000 18TH

ST.

WOODWARD, OK 73801

BUILDING 6 HVAC AND BUILDING 7 DEMOLITION

UTILITY RELOCATION

CONTRACT # 12805B20D0002 &

12805B21F0076

DRAFT INVESTIGATIVE REPORT

OCTOBER 1, 2021

Prepared By:

Setty & Associates, Ltd.

3040 Williams Drive, Suite 600

Fairfax, VA 22031

SIG212911.07 & 09

SOUTHERN PLAINS RANGE RESEARCH STATION BUILDING 6 HVAC & BUILDING 7 UTILITY RELOCATION WOODWARD, OK Draft INVESTIGATIVE REPORT

SETTY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. PAGE 1

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Setty & Associates, was contracted to evaluate Buildings 6 and 7. Building 6 is to be assessed for HVAC/BAS/Boiler system deficiencies, and building 7 is to be evaluated to determine recommendations/options for utility relocation associated with the demolition of this building.

Setty contracted Apex Companies LLC. (HazMat services) to perform a HazMat survey of building 7 to identify asbestos and lead containing materials. The HazMat report is attached to the end of this investigative report. Building 6 was not surveyed for asbestos.

Task 1:

Building 6 is the main building at the USDA ARS Woodward location. Building 6, built in 1950 with a lab building addition in 2003, is mixed lab and office space totaling 26,704 SF. The scope of work is to provide an investigative report that details any deficiencies within the entire HVAC/BAS/Boiler systems, complete with cost estimate for recommended activities.

Task 2:

Building 7, and the attached greenhouse, is planned for demolition; however, there are utilities within the building that will require relocation, since they serve other buildings. The investigative report shall include recommendations and options to encapsulate or reroute the underground electrical, natural gas, and communications lines that pass through the basement of building 7, complete with cost estimate for recommended activities and a HazMat Investigation/Assessment for asbestos containing materials and lead paint.

Setty and Apex survey teams visited the site on August 19, 2021 to observe existing conditions and gather information in relevant areas of buildings 6 & 7. USDA has provided the design team with existing building drawings and valuable insight into the current uses, issues, and future expectations.

The survey, existing documentation, and information gathered from discussions with USDA team members serve as the empirical basis for this investigative report.

Below is a summary of the recommended activities for building 6 HVAC and building 7 utility relocation.

Building 6 Mechanical HVAC:

1. The overarching recommendation is to replace the HVAC and BAS systems serving the lab/office spaces, as the systems are nearing their end of life expectancy, and are experiencing increasing performance and maintenance issues.

2. If a full HVAC replacement is not possible, then it is recommended to value for a budget to fix equipment that needs repaired, replace the BAS with a modern system, and recommission the building HVAC systems to ensure that the BAS and equipment operate as originally designed. Below is a list of priority equipment recommended for replacement or repair.

- Air cooled chillers – Replace.

- Fume hood exhaust fans – Replace.

- Original Building 6 Lennox RTU – Replace.

- Original Building 6 Trane RTU – No action.

Brian.Dean Sticky Note Suggest making clear boilers replaced in 2017 and do not need to be replaced.

SETTY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. PAGE 2

- RTU-1, RTU-4, and office RTU – value for replacement of broken actuators, repair leaking piping, repair insulation, remediate rusted pipes.

- Indoor terminal units and air valves – Value for replacement of all hot water reheat coils, and have dampers, valves, and actuators replaced.

- Small Cook roof downblast exhaust fans – Replace.

- BAS – Value to update head end unit with new hardware and software.

- TAB/Commissioning – Value for systems to be tabbed and commissioned to ensure original design values and controls are met.

3. It is recommended that USDA has the chilled water system loop, hot water system loop, and makeup water sampled and tested for chemical makeup and forward the test results to Setty for review. This will allow Setty to determine if corrosive water has an effect on reported increasing equipment leakage.

4. The recommendation for the BAS would be to upgrade the system from the outdated Windows 2000 era operating system, to an entirely new head end unit with a more user friendly graphical interface.

5. The need to keep both fume hood exhaust fans running continuously indicates that there is a blockage in the fume hood exhaust ductwork, possibly a stuck damper, or the bleed damper on the roof might be stuck open. Verification of fume hood exhaust damper operation, and checking for blockages is recommended to determine the potential cause of this flow issue. Once the cause is determined, the system should be rebalanced.

6. For RTU-1 supply fans, it is recommended to verify that both backdraft damper actuators operate normally.

7. The RTUs on the roof of the original building 6 are packaged DX units with gas heat. One Trane, and one Lennox. The smaller Lennox unit is recommended to be replaced due to its age and severely damaged condenser coils. Any new units should have hail guards, and any existing unprotected coils should have hail guards installed.

Building 7 Electrical Utilities:

1. Two electrical feeders, which pass through the basement of Building 7, are recommended to be rerouted around the footprint of Building 7 prior to or in concurrence with demolition.

2. Any low voltage wiring, which pass through or terminates in Building 7, is recommended to be removed. However, if the owner determines there is still need for a connection between Building 6 and Building 54, then the wiring can be rerouted along with the electrical feeders.

Building 7 Mechanical Utilities:

1. The natural gas line, at SW corner of the building, is recommended to have the meter demolished, line capped at building 6, and the portion of the line between building 6 and 7 (going under the street) abandoned in place.

2. The water service line, at the SW corner of the building, is recommended to be demolished at the building end and capped at the isolation valve near the street.

3. The sanitary sewer ejection system, on the NW corner of the building, is recommended to be demolished in its entirety, and capped at the cleanout branch across the street. This would leave the portion of the sewer line under the road abandoned. Lines to be pumped of any remaining liquids and purging the gas line prior to demolition. For returning to a green site, the best option is to remove the system.

Brian.Dean Sticky Note Sewage ejection system (lift station) should stay. At the time of inspection it was being repaired and power was off. This system removes sewage from Headhouse and Greenhouse. Serves B54 HH and two greenhouses (B53 and B60).

Brian.Dean

No known low voltage wiring exists, so any there can be removed.

SETTY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. PAGE 3

4. The septic system under the NE corner of the building is recommended to be abandoned in place, tank pumped to remove any remaining fluids, cleanouts removed, and returned to a green site.

2. MECHANICAL

2.1 Building 6 Mechanical Existing Conditions

2.1.1 Existing Heating Ventilation and Air Conditioning (HVAC)

Building 6 office and lab spaces are currently served by a combination of packaged DX gas heat rooftop units, and chilled water/hot water variable air volume (VAV) air handlers. The packaged rooftop units serve the original building 6 office spaces, and the 2003 addition with lab/office space is served by chilled water/hot water VAV air handlers.

The 2003 lab addition is served by a VAV 100% outdoor air (OA) unit on the roof, distributing air to supply air VAV boxes with hot water reheat. General exhaust air is controlled through exhaust air valves, which are connected to an energy recovery air handler with glycol run around coil before being exhausted out the stack. Fume hood exhaust is VAV through a damper and air flow measuring station for each hood, which is then combined at the fume hood exhaust fans. Chilled water is provided to the building by two air cooled chillers on the roof. Hot water is provided by two natural gas boilers in the mechanical room. The mechanical room houses all associated pumping and glycol feeding equipment for the hot water and chilled water systems, along with all plumbing systems that support the labs. The building has a building automation system (BAS), and controls in the building are by KMC controls.

2.1.2 Chilled Water System

The glycol chilled water is provided through two matching 100 ton Carrier air cooled chillers, Figure 2.1 below. They were both manufactured in 2003, so they are approximately 18 years old. In general, a mechanical system’s life expectancy is approximately 20 years. During the survey the building engineer noted that one of the chillers only operates at partial capacity due to a failed compressor. After inspection of the chillers it was also noted that the evaporators are leaking with damaged insulation, Figure 2.2, and the condenser coils are seriously clogged with dirt, Figure 2.3. The clogged condenser coils can contribute to large capacity reductions and fan failures when seriously clogged. It is recommended that the coils be cleaned. Since the chillers are nearing their end of life cycle and require compressor replacements, and run on R-22 (which is being phased out) the recommendation is to replace the chillers with a new state of the art system.

Brian.Dean

Sewage ejection system should say. Serves B54 HH and two greenhouses (B53 and B60).

SETTY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. PAGE 4

Figure 2.1

Figure 2.2

SETTY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. PAGE 5

2.1.3 Hot Water System

The glycol hot water system has two recently replaced 1000 MBH condensing natural gas boilers. The new boilers seem to be operating smoothly with no issues. The issues in the hot water system appear to be downstream at the terminal units and at the glycol energy recovery system. The piping, pumps in the mechanical room appear to be in good condition. Multiple hot water reheat coils are currently leaking on site, see Figure 2.4. The building engineer suggested that the leaking issue appears to be happening more often lately.

Figure 2.4

Figure 2.3

SETTY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. PAGE 6

When reviewing the reheat coil conditions in the field, it appears that this is not caused by improper connection materials, causing galvanic corrosion. In some areas the hot water piping supports were lacking, which could cause premature fatigue failure at joints between hot water coils and hot water piping, but this is not likely a widespread issue since piping was supported adequately in most places observed above ceiling. The hot water coil leak observed above ceiling was from the hot water coil itself, not a connection from the hot water piping to the coil. One potential cause for the hot water leaks, which needs further investigation and testing, is the possibility of the water chemistry not being right in the hot water system. The building engineer indicated that the only thing he has added to the hot water system is propylene glycol, and it was also noted that no chemical shot feeder was found in the mechanical room, even though it is shown on design drawings. Only glycol feeders for the hot and chilled water systems were identified.

Water chemistry is important to maintain in a hot water system, or any system running glycol, because glycol will break down over time and this process is much quicker when exposed to high temperatures

(heating hot water systems). When glycol decomposes, it creates aldehydes, alcohols, ethers, and organic acids, which will erode the piping, react with galvanized fittings, and attack valve packings and gaskets, causing them to leak over an extended period when the PH and other chemicals in the water are not regularly tested and adjusted. The propylene glycol used at this USDA facility has a reserve alkalinity of 9 ml, which is average for corrosion inhibitor content. In order to rule out corrosive water as a possible cause of leaks, it is recommended that USDA have the chilled water system loop, hot water system loop, and makeup water sampled and tested for chemical makeup, and forwarded to Setty for review.

The glycol energy recovery system is also currently out of service, due to the pump age. It will remain out of service until the pump can be fixed.

2.1.4 Building Automation System

The BAS was identified as a critical item for replacement and or updating in the project requirement document (PRD). After reviewing the controls, surveying the site, and discussing issues with the building engineer and a lab user, it appears that the BAS itself may not be the cause of the control issues as much as the failing equipment controlled by the BAS. The building engineer suggested that he cannot trust that what is commanded through the BAS actually happens at the equipment due to ongoing issues with failing actuators.

At some point in the past there was an attempt to update the BAS software to fix control issues and provide a graphical user interface. The BAS head end unit had new software installed, but it stopped working soon after it was installed, so the original BAS software was reinstalled to get things working again.

Detailed commissioning of a lab space is critical to initial and ongoing function of the lab supply and exhaust systems, and their correct interaction with the BAS user controls. Any exiting building commissioning records have been requested, to identify whether or not this was performed at the time of construction.

Brian.Dean

Checked with location. Glycol energy recovery system make economic sense to repair. No issues with system except for pump replacement. Location to repair.

SETTY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. PAGE 7

The recommendation for the BAS would be to upgrade the system from the outdated Windows 2000 era operating system, to an entirely new head end unit with a more user friendly graphical interface. Simply updating software on the current operating system may end up having issues due to patches being required to allow the new software to be used on the old computer. Similar to what was described above.

2.1.5 Exhaust systems

The exhaust systems in building 6 consist of exhaust fans serving spaces such as toilets, the ganged VAV fume hood exhaust system, and the general office/lab exhaust system, which exhausts general exhaust only to the energy recovery unit on the roof of building 6.

The individual exhaust fans, varying from 155-2850 CFM, are all manufactured by Cook in 2004. No visual issues were identified with the fans on the roof, however, the expected life span of a commercial grade exhaust fan is 15-20 years, and the fans are around 17 years old. Similar to the chillers, they are at or near their end of life expectancy. None of the fans at the time of survey were operating.

The fume hood exhaust fans are also Cook fans, 7160 CFM each, manufactured in 2004. They are not in good condition and also have operating issues. The fans are physically degraded with large amounts of rust, see Figure 2.5. This condition indicates that they were not designed and purchased with the proper amount of corrosion protection. Both fans were operating at the time of survey, and both fans were exhibiting abnormally high vibration during operation. Excessive vibration leads to premature failure.

The fume hood exhaust fans are near their expected end of life.

Figure 2.5

Brian.Dean

Location may not have enough funds to install new HVAC system right away. Should the new BAS system involve new wiring and terminal devices or just upgrade the front end if a new HVAC system is not installed?

SETTY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. PAGE 8

Fume hoods are designed to be VAV hoods, with sash position sensors and face velocity measuring devices installed to control fume hood exhaust and makeup air. The fume hood exhaust fans are designed to be lead-lag, meaning one fan runs while the other is in standby mode in case one fan fails. It was discovered during the survey that the lab users were not getting the air flow they needed through the fume hoods, so currently both fume hood exhaust fans operate in tandem at all times to maintain fume hood flow. Also it was noted that the bleed damper on the roof exhaust ductwork was open at the time of survey, pulling in a large amount of outside air, contributing to the need for both fans operating.

The fume hood controls show that the bleed damper on the roof ductwork shall open up if fan speed drops or static pressure rises above preset limits. The need to keep both fume hood exhaust fans running continuously indicates that there may be a blockage in the fume hood exhaust ductwork somewhere, possibly a stuck damper, or the bleed damper on the roof might be stuck open, bypassing the fume hoods and exhausting outdoor air through the stack. Physical verification of fume hood exhaust damper operation, and checking for blockages are required to determine the potential cause of this flow issue.

The other indication of fume hood flow issues is the fact that all fume hood rooms, with the exception of room 6168, are positively pressurized, as determined by the tissue test for airflow direction. This is not a code violation, but it is a safety issue, depending on the chemicals, materials, and experiments performed in the hoods.

The general exhaust energy recovery air handler, RTU-4, 16,862 CFM, appears to exhaust adequately. At the time of the survey, the energy recovery portion of the unit liquidside was offline due to the glycol loop pump being shut down due to leakage. The unit airside was operating at the time of survey, so the pressurized sections were not opened up for inspection. The unit is the same age as the air cooled chillers and RTU-1, nearing the end of its expected life.

2.1.6 Air handling Systems

Overall, the supply, return, and exhaust ductwork on the roof and above ceiling is in good condition.

Insulation appears to be in good condition, and rooftop ductwork does not have any major leakage or degradation identified during the survey. What is visible of VAV boxes appears to be in good condition, except for the failing hot water reheat coils on the boxes. Air valves and dampers, internal to the ductwork, were not inspected, because all areas surveyed did not have inspection ports for these items.

RTU-1, is a 12,000 CFM Temtrol hot water chilled water 100% OA unit serving the lab/office spaces, and within the unit there is evidence of corrosion, missing insulation, and damper actuators clamped in place to maintain proper operation, see Figure 2.6 below.

SETTY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. PAGE 9

Figure 2.6

There do not appear to be problems with RTU-1 maintaining pressurization in the lab/office spaces.

Overall lab pressures indicate that the labs are negative with respect to the corridor. It was noted that Researchers had complained about the feeling of very high air change rates (ACH) in the labs, so RTU-1 is always kept in unoccupied mode (one fan running during the day and night) to reduce ACH in the labs.

The Ecology/Physiology lab space ACH was calculated based on the design drawings provided. The occupied design ACH is 11 on the exhaust, and 6 ACH during unoccupied mode. It is not an issue in this case to operate the air handler in unoccupied mode all the time. If this lab were to be designed today the occupied ACH would be 6-8, and the unoccupied ACH would be 2-4, depending on program specific requirements. If the program requirements in the labs do not require 11 air changes, then it is possible that the system was oversized. If 6 air changes is acceptable for occupied mode, it is possible that the air changes could be reduced even more during the night to save energy when the building is truly unoccupied.

When only one fan is running the building engineer noted that the standby fan VFD will go into alarm.

This is likely caused by backwards airflow through the non-operating fan. Typically in a multi-fan unit each fan will have a dedicated isolation damper to prevent backflow, and the fans are controlled such that both fans operate at 50% flow. The design drawings indicate that a motorized backdraft damper is installed, but this was not verified at the time of the survey due to the unit being operational and under pressure. It is recommended to verify that both backdraft damper actuators operate normally on BAS controls.

The RTUs on the roof of the original building 6 are packaged DX units with gas heat. One Trane, and one Lennox, See Figure 2.7 below. The Trane unit on the left appears to be in good shape, and does not need replacing. The smaller Lennox unit on the right is recommended to be replaced. It appears to be an older model based on research, potentially late 90s or early 2000s. The tag is not legible. The condenser coils on the Lennox unit have severe damage, which appears to be storm damage, as illustrated in Figure 2.8.

SETTY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. PAGE 10

Figure 2.7

SETTY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. PAGE 11

Figure 2.8

2.2 Building 7 Mechanical Utility Relocation

Building 7 is to be demolished in its entirety, so all HVAC systems shall be removed, and will not be described. The focus shall be on the utility requirements associated with the demolition.

SETTY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. PAGE 12

Building 7 has natural gas service, water service, sanitary sewer service, and a septic system. These systems are dedicated to building 7, and do not require relocation, so it is recommended that they simply be demolished or abandoned, branch lines capped as required, and tanks/pits pumped and purged as required and abandoned in place. For the sewage ejection system on the NW corner of the building, illustrated in Figure 2.9. That is recommended to be removed completely. This is more costly than abandoning in place, but if the building is removed, then it would look cleaner to remove the sewage ejection pit completely as well and simply plant grass.

Figure 2.9

3. ELECTRICAL

3.1 Electrical Existing Conditions

3.1.1 Existing Site Conditions – Building #7 Demolition

Currently between the Main Building and Building #7 there are six (6) 4” conduits carrying electrical power conductors and two (2) 4” conduits carrying telecom cabling. The content of these conduits is broken down below.

Item will need to remain and needs to stay operational.

SETTY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. PAGE 13

Size System Conductor/Cables Serves

4” Power – Normal (4) 500 kcmil, #3 G.

Panel GHDP (Building #54)

4” Power – Normal (4) 500 kcmil, #3 G.

4” Power – Emergency (4) 500 kcmil, #3 G.

Panel GHSDP (Building #54) 4” Power – Emergency (4) 500 kcmil, #3 G.

4” Power – Emergency (4) 500 kcmil, #3 G.

4” Power – Emergency (4) #6, #10 G. Sewage Lift (Building #7)

4” Telecom Yellow Cat5 Wall outlets

4” Telecom (Empty)

Currently between Building #7 and Building #54 there are six (6) 4” conduits carrying electrical power conductors and two (2) 4” conduits carrying telecom cabling. The content of these conduits is broken down below.

Size System Conductor/Cables Serves

4” Power – Normal (4) 500 kcmil, #3 G.

Panel GHDP (Building #54)

4” Power – Normal (4) 500 kcmil, #3 G.

4” Power – Emergency (4) 500 kcmil, #3 G.

Panel GHSDP (Building #54) 4” Power – Emergency (4) 500 kcmil, #3 G.

4” Power – Emergency (4) 500 kcmil, #3 G.

4” Power – Emergency (Empty)

4” Telecom Blue Cat5 Orange Fiber Optic

Wall Outlets Fiber Optic Terminal (Abandoned)

4” Telecom Red Cat5 Internet Switch (Inoperable)

3.2 Recommendations – Building #7 Demolition

As part of the demolition of Building #7, the following conductors or cables can be considered to be abandoned and removed along with Building #7:

(4) #6, #10 G. power conductors from the Main Building to Building #7 serving the sewage lift pump outside of Building #7, which has been turned off

Orange fiber optic cable from Building #54 to Building #7 serving the fiber optic terminal in Building #7, which has been disconnected

Red Cat5 cable from Building #54 to Building #7 serving an internet switch, which has been turned off.

Additionally, the following cables appear to be unnecessary and can potentially be removed along with Building #7. These cables are jointed together in building #7, appear to serve some purpose for the greenhouses, and it unclear if they would continue to serve a purpose once Building #7 is demolished. The owner should verify the status of these cables to determine their removal or relocation:

Yellow Cat5 cable between the Main Building and Building #7

Blue Cat 5E cable between Building #7 and Building #54

Cables can be removed.

Brian.Dean Sticky Note Must remain - (4) #6, #10 G. power conductors from the Main Building to Building #7 serving the sewage lift pump outside of Building #7, which has been turned off. Sewage lift pump is needed.

Brian.Dean Sticky Note New fiber optic cables have been ran, these new cables must be protected or termination points connected again after project.

Brian.Dean

Red Cat IV cable can be removed.

SETTY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. PAGE 14

The following conductors will remain in service even after the demolition of Building #7 and will need to be relocated prior to or in concurrence with the removal of Building #7:

Two (2) sets of (4) 500 kcmil and #3 Ground between the Main Building and Building 54 serving panel GHDP

Three (3) sets of (4) 500 kcmil and #3 Ground between the Main Building and Building 54 serving panel GHSDP

3.3 Options – Building #7 Demolition

There are two options for relocating the electrical conductors that will remain in service. Additionally, there are two alternate options which may not be viable, depending on the existing conditions of the underground conduits. These options are described below. There will also be a cost difference between the options which can be determined by a contractor experienced with this type of work in this region.

Option 1: Replace the entire feeder

In this option, a second set of feeders would be run parallel to the existing feeders. This can be done while the existing feeders are still in service and the switchover to the new feeders can occur during a single work day. The advantage is it is the simplest and would require the least amount of coordination as well as provide a clean installation. The disadvantage is the amount of material and excavation required.

Option 2: Two manholes

In this option, the existing conductors are cut within the Building #7 footprint and left to be reused, then 2 manholes intercept the conduits, one between Building #7 and Building #54 and one between the Main Building and Building #7. Conduits are routed around Building #7 foundation between the manholes. New conductors are pulled between the manholes and joined to the existing conductors in each. The advantage is this reuses the most existing conductor material. The disadvantages are the cost of two manholes and this would be the most visible solution as it includes a manhole near the roadway.

Option 3: Spliced conduits

Note: This would not be viable if the total bend radius of the new and existing conduits spliced together exceeds 360°.

In this option, the existing conductors are pulled from the conduits, the conduits are dug up near Building #7 foundation and new conduits are routed around the Building #7 foundation. New conductors are pulled. This would be the most advantageous option, providing a clean installation with minimal excavation and no manholes. However, it has the highest chance of not being viable due to existing conditions.

Option 4: Single manhole

Note: This would not be viable if the total bend radius of the new and existing conduits spliced together exceeds 360°.

Brian.Dean

ARS Prefers Option 1 of running new feeders.

SETTY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. PAGE 15

In this option, the existing conductors are pulled back from one end of Building #7 to the Main Building and the remainder is left to be reused, then a manhole intercepts the conduits between Building #7 and Building #54 and conduits are routed around Building #7 foundation to the conduit from the Main Building. New conductors are pulled from the Main Building to the manhole and jointed to the existing conductors to Building #54. The advantage is the manhole can still be in a discrete location and some conductors can be reused. The disadvantage is the cost of the manhole. It does have a slightly higher chance of being viable compared to option #3.

APEX COMPANIES, LLC

Asbestos and Lead-Containing Materials – Executive Summary

USDA Greenhouse (Building 7 ) 2000 18th Street Woodward, Oklahoma Setty Project No.: SIGQ212911.07

Apex Project No.: SET21-001

Date of Report: September 30, 2021

PREPARED FOR:

Joseph A. D’Alu, P.E.

Director of Mid-Atlantic Operations Setty & Associates 1415 Elliot Place, NW, Suite 100 Washington, DC 20007

PREPARED BY:

Apex Companies, LLC 6666 S Sheridan Rd, Suite 250 Tulsa, OK 74133

USDA Greenhouse Building 7, 2000 18th Street, Woodward, OK

Asbestos and Lead-Containing Materials Survey Report Apex Project No. SET21-001

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Apex Companies, LLC (Apex) was retained by Setty & Associates (“Setty”) to conduct pre-demolition asbestos-containing material (ACM) and lead-containing paint (LCP) surveys of the Greenhouse (Building 7, “Site”) at the USDA Agricultural Research Service, 2000 18th Street, Woodward, Oklahoma. The ACM survey was performed on August 19, 2021, by Oklahoma Department of Labor (DOL)-accredited asbestos inspector

Mr. Eli Barnett (Accreditation No. 402312). The lead-containing paint survey was performed on August 19, 2021, by Oklahoma certified LBP Inspector Mr. Eneojo Onuche (Certification Number OKRASR13853).

Setty requested that Apex collect samples of suspect ACM for asbestos laboratory analyses and perform X-ray fluorescence (XRF) testing of suspect LCP on interior and exterior areas of the building.

The following areas were surveyed:

Main Building 1st and 2nd Floor: North Lab Room, South Lab Room, Hallway, Bathroom and Stairwell

Main Building Basement

Header Room Basement

Header Room Main Area

Greenhouse

Header Room and Main Building Roofing Material

Header Room and Main Building Exterior Features

Header Room Roof – Heating, Ventilation and Air conditioning (HVAC) System

The survey was performed in accordance with the Oklahoma Asbestos Control Act (OAC), Title 40 O.S., Oklahoma Clean Air Act, Title 27A, Sections 2-5-114 and 116, United States Environmental Protection Agency

(EPA) 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 61, National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants

(NESHAP). NESHAP requires that commercial and public buildings be thoroughly inspected (surveyed) for the presence of ACM prior to conducting renovation or demolition activities. ACM is defined as material containing greater than 1% asbestos. The sampling protocol was based on procedures outlined in AHERA, 40 CFR , Part 763.

Asbestos and Lead-Containing Materials Survey Report Apex Project No. SET21-001

Marshall Environmental Management, LLC. (Marshall) performed an XRF survey of suspect lead-containment materials/paints. OSHA has not established a limit for lead in paint and coatings; however, the US

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)/Housing and Urban Development (HUD) action level for lead-based painted surfaces is 1.0 milligram per square centimeter (1.0 mg/cm2) using the X-ray fluorescence analyzer

(XRF) method, or 0.5% by weight. This is only enforceable for child occupied housing; however, is a reasonable and conservative limit that can be used as a guideline for other types of buildings. OSHA regulations for LCP apply to any paint that contains detectable levels of lead.

Findings

1. Apex collected seventy-one (71) bulk samples of suspect ACM. Laboratory results indicate that one

(1) of the sampled materials is an ACM:

• Blue floor tile on stairs (Sample #’s HA-14-38, 39 and 40, 3% Chrysotile) in the stairwell of the main building.

The laboratory analytical reports and associated chain-of-custody documents for ACM are included in Attachment 1; sample location diagrams are provided in Attachment 2; site photographs are included in Attachment 3; and copies of applicable staff and laboratory accreditations can be found in Attachment 4.

2. Marshall tested eighty (80) painted surfaces of lead throughout the building. Sixteen (16) painted surfaces detected lead concentrations at or above 1.0 mg/cm2 are listed below. Twenty-seven (27) painted surfaces with detected lead concentrations below 1.0 mg/cm2 are highlighted in the results table presented in Attachment 5 along with sample location diagrams.

• Room 3 – White paint on door, Sample 18, 14.2 mg/cm2

• Room 3 – White paint on door casing, Sample 19, 12.5 mg/cm2

• Room 6 – Blue paint on metal cabinet, Sample 45, 6.8 mg/cm2

• Room 7 – White paint on wall, Sample 46, 3.1 mg/cm2

• Room 7 – White paint on ceiling, Sample 50, 1.1 mg/cm2

• Room 9 – White paint on windowsill, Sample 55, 6.6 mg/cm2

Asbestos and Lead-Containing Materials Survey Report Apex Project No. SET21-001

• Room 9 – White paint on window frame, Sample 56, 9.6 mg/cm2

• Room 11 – White paint on garage door, Sample 67, 12.5 mg/cm2

• Room 11 – White paint on door, Sample 68, 7.7 mg/cm2

• Exterior – White paint on window frame, Sample 73, 7.2 mg/cm2

• Exterior – White paint on garage door, Sample 74, 12.7 mg/cm2

• Exterior – White paint on door casing, Sample 75, 8.6 mg/cm2

• Exterior – White paint on window frame, Sample 77, 12.7 mg/cm2

• Exterior – White paint on window frame, Sample 79, 3.1 mg/cm2

• Exterior – White paint on fascia, Sample 80, 13 mg/cm2

• Exterior – White paint on soffit, Sample 81, 14.3 mg/cm2

Conclusions and Recommendations

1. The results of the surveys indicate that ACM and LCP are present in Building 7 at the USDA

Agricultural Research Service facility.

2. The identified ACM (HA-14, blue floor tile, stairwell of main building) must be removed by an

Oklahoma licensed asbestos abatement contractor prior to any disturbance. Asbestos abatement work should be performed in accordance with OAC 380:50, EPA regulations (40 CFR 763, subpart G), and OSHA regulations (29 CFR 1926.1101). Oklahoma asbestos removal regulations include:

• Contractors performing asbestos abatement work must be licensed (380:50-5-5 et seq.).

• Ten-day notification of asbestos abatement is required in most cases (380:50-9-1 and

380:50-14-1).

• Asbestos removal procedures including wetting requirements (380:50-17-5)

• Asbestos must be properly transported and disposed of at an authorized site (380:50-17-

9).

• Additional Oklahoma provisions for handling, storing, and transporting friable asbestos during demolition or renovation operations (in addition to national emission standards)

(252:100-40-5)

• Asbestos related violations (380:50-7-1) https://www.ok.gov/odol/documents/Asbestos%20Control%20Act%20and%20Administrative%20Rules.pdf https://www.ok.gov/odol/documents/Asbestos%20Control%20Act%20and%20Administrative%20Rules.pdf https://www.ok.gov/odol/documents/Asbestos%20Control%20Act%20and%20Administrative%20Rules.pdf https://www.ok.gov/odol/documents/Asbestos%20Control%20Act%20and%20Administrative%20Rules.pdf https://www.ok.gov/odol/documents/Asbestos%20Control%20Act%20and%20Administrative%20Rules.pdf http://www.deq.state.ok.us/rules/100.pdf

Asbestos and Lead-Containing Materials Survey Report Apex Project No. SET21-001

3. Prior to asbestos abatement, Apex recommends establishing a work plan and developing specifications for the removal procedures. Additionally, Apex recommends that a qualified third-party consultant perform air sampling and visual inspections, before, during and after abatement procedures.

4. The identified LCP may be removed prior to demolition activities by an Oklahoma licensed lead-based paint remediation contractor. If the LCP is left in place, the contractor will have to perform the demolition work in accordance with 29 OSHA CFR 1926.62 that includes rules for worker exposure monitoring, medical monitoring, training, respiratory protection, and housekeeping.

During demolition the contractor will have to separate the LCP waste from the other construction debris and test for lead toxicity to determine if the LCP debris is a hazardous waste for disposal purposes. Pre-demolition removal of the LCP also eliminates the possibility of lead dust migration and soil contamination; however, these issues may also be minimized by using wet removal methods and other recommended OSHA guidelines.

5. If suspect ACM or LCP are discovered in areas that were not identified in this survey, demolition work must be halted. The suspect material must be tested/sampled by Oklahoma accredited Inspectors prior to disturbance. Suspect asbestos samples must be analyzed by a National Voluntary Laboratory

Accreditation Program (NVLAP) accredited laboratory.

Limitations

Apex performed its services consistent with the level of care and expertise exercised by professionals performing the same or similar services at the same time and in the same geographic area. No express or implied warranties apply to these services or this report. Apex does not profess to be able to locate all suspect materials in a building. Apex did not inspect the Site for other hazardous materials or for unsafe or hazardous conditions.

All conclusions and recommendations in this report represent the professional opinions of the Apex personnel involved with the project. The findings, conclusions and recommendations discussed in this report apply to the Site conditions existing at the time of the survey work and the interpretation of current regulations pertaining to ACM or lead-containing materials. Therefore, the opinions and recommendations present in this report may not apply to future conditions at the Site. All applicable federal, state, and local

Asbestos and Lead-Containing Materials Survey Report Apex Project No. SET21-001 regulations should be verified by building owners and contractors, prior to initiating any work that will disturb regulated building materials. This survey and report were prepared for the exclusive use of Setty, solely for their use and reliance in determining the presence of ACM or lead-containing materials at the Site.

The results of this report are not considered a legal interpretation of existing federal, state, or local environmental, health and safety laws or regulations. Apex assumes no responsibility or liability for errors in information or data provided to Apex by Setty or any third party or developments resulting from activities or situations outside the scope of this project. This report is not to be used as a bidding document.

Contractors or consultants reviewing this report must draw their own conclusions regarding further investigation or restoration/remediation deemed necessary. Apex does not warrant the work of regulatory agencies, laboratories or other third parties supplying information, which may have been used in the preparation of this report.

Closing

Apex appreciates the opportunity to be of service to Setty on this project. If you have questions or comments regarding the information in this report please do not hesitate to contact Apex at 918.610.3543.

Sincerely, Apex Companies, LLC

Ted Alfred Daniel Wolf, PE, CIH

Project Manager Program Manager

Attachments

Attachment 1 Laboratory Analytical Reports and Chain of Custody Documents Attachment 2 Sample Location Diagrams Attachment 3 Site Photographs Attachment 4 Licenses/Certifications Attachment 5 LCP Results and Sample Location Diagrams

Attachment 1

ATTACHMENT 1

LABORATORY ANALYTICAL REPORTS & CHAIN OF CUSTODY DOCUMENTS

Date Received: 08/20/2021

Project: Setty HazMat Survey

QuanTEM Lab No. 338369

Analyzed By: Dee Ammerman

Methodology: EPA/600/R-93/116

Polarized Light Microscopy Asbestos Analysis Report

Project Location: Woodward, OK

Project Number: SET 21-001

Account Number: B780

Received By: Courtney Holman

Date Analyzed: 08/24/2021

QuanTEM

Sample ID

Client

Sample ID Composition

Color /

Description Asbestos (%)

Non-Asbestos

Fiber (%)

Client: APEX - OKC

Rob Hill

Non Fibrous

001 HA1-001 Layered CaCO3

Sand

Asbestos Not Present NA

Mortar

Gray

001a Layered Clay

Sand

Asbestos Not Present NA

Brick

Red

002 HA1-002 Layered CaCO3

Sand

Asbestos Not Present NA

Mortar

Gray

002a Layered Clay

Sand

Asbestos Not Present NA

Brick

Red

003 HA1-003 Layered CaCO3

Sand

Asbestos Not Present NA

Mortar

Gray

003a Layered Clay

Sand

Asbestos Not Present NA

Brick

Red

004 HA2-004 Layered CaCO3

Sand

Asbestos Not Present NA

Mortar

Gray

QuanTEM is a NVLAP accredited Testing PLM laboratory (Lab Code: 101959-0). This report relates only to the specific items tested.

NVLAP accreditation applies only to analysis performed utilizing EPA/600/M4-82-020 and EPA/600/R-93/116 methods.

This report may not be used to claim product endorsement by NVLAP or any agency of the US Government.

This report may not be reproduced except in full, without the written approval of the laboratory.

Unless otherwise noted, upon receipt the condition of the sample was acceptable for analysis.

QuanTEM Lab No. 338369

Analyzed By: Dee Ammerman

Methodology: EPA/600/R-93/116

Polarized Light Microscopy Asbestos Analysis Report

Project Location: Woodward, OK

Project Number: SET 21-001

Account Number: B780

Received By: Courtney Holman

Date Analyzed: 08/24/2021

QuanTEM

Sample ID

Client

Sample ID Composition

Color /

Description Asbestos (%)

Non-Asbestos

Fiber (%)

Client: APEX - OKC

Rob Hill

Non Fibrous

004a Layered ClayAsbestos Not Present NA

Surfacing

Black

004b Layered Clay

Sand

Asbestos Not Present NA

Brick

Red

005 HA2-005 Layered ClayAsbestos Not Present NA

Surfacing

Black

005a Layered Clay

Sand

Asbestos Not Present NA

Brick

Red

006 HA2-006 Layered ClayAsbestos Not Present NA

Surfacing

Black

006a Layered Clay

Sand

Asbestos Not Present NA

Brick

Red

QuanTEM is a NVLAP accredited Testing PLM laboratory (Lab Code: 101959-0). This report relates only to the specific items tested.

NVLAP accreditation applies only to analysis performed utilizing EPA/600/M4-82-020 and EPA/600/R-93/116 methods.

This report may not be used to claim product endorsement by NVLAP or any agency of the US Government.

This report may not be reproduced except in full, without the written approval of the laboratory.

QuanTEM Lab No. 338369

Analyzed By: Dee Ammerman

Methodology: EPA/600/R-93/116

Polarized Light Microscopy Asbestos Analysis Report

Project Location: Woodward, OK

Project Number: SET 21-001

Account Number: B780

Received By: Courtney Holman

Date Analyzed: 08/24/2021

QuanTEM

Sample ID

Client

Sample ID Composition

Color /

Description Asbestos (%)

Non-Asbestos

Fiber (%)

Client: APEX - OKC

Rob Hill

Non Fibrous

007 HA3-007 Homogeneous CaCO3

Sand

Gypsum

Asbestos Not Present NA

Concrete

Gray

008 HA3-008 Homogeneous CaCO3

Sand

Asbestos Not Present NA

Concrete

Gray

009 HA3-009 Homogeneous CaCO3

Sand

Asbestos Not Present NA

Concrete

Gray

010 HA4-010 Layered CaCO3

Sand

Asbestos Not Present NA

Mortar

Gray

010a Layered Clay

Sand

Asbestos Not Present NA

Brick

Red

011 HA4-011 Layered CaCO3

Sand

Asbestos Not Present NA

Mortar

Gray

011a Layered Clay

Sand

Asbestos Not Present NA

Brick

Red

QuanTEM is a NVLAP accredited Testing PLM laboratory (Lab Code: 101959-0). This report relates only to the specific items tested.

NVLAP accreditation applies only to analysis performed utilizing EPA/600/M4-82-020 and EPA/600/R-93/116 methods.

This report may not be used to claim product endorsement by NVLAP or any agency of the US Government.

This report may not be reproduced except in full, without the written approval of the laboratory.

QuanTEM Lab No. 338369

Analyzed By: Dee Ammerman

Methodology: EPA/600/R-93/116

Polarized Light Microscopy Asbestos Analysis Report

Project Location: Woodward, OK

Project Number: SET 21-001

Account Number: B780

Received By: Courtney Holman

Date Analyzed: 08/24/2021

QuanTEM

Sample ID

Client

Sample ID Composition

Color /

Description Asbestos (%)

Non-Asbestos

Fiber (%)

Client: APEX - OKC

Rob Hill

Non Fibrous

012 HA4-012 Layered CaCO3

Sand

Asbestos Not Present NA

Mortar

Gray

012a Layered Clay

Sand

Asbestos Not Present NA

Brick

Red

013 HA5-013 Layered Foil

Binder

Asbestos Not Present 30

Cellulose

Glass FiberWrap

White

013a Layered Asbestos Not Present 100Glass Fiber

Insulation

Yellow

014 HA5-014 Layered Foil

Binder

Asbestos Not Present 30

Cellulose

Glass FiberWrap

White

014a Layered Asbestos Not Present 100Glass Fiber

Insulation

Yellow

QuanTEM is a NVLAP accredited Testing PLM laboratory (Lab Code: 101959-0). This report relates only to the specific items tested.

NVLAP accreditation applies only to analysis performed utilizing EPA/600/M4-82-020 and EPA/600/R-93/116 methods.

This report may not be used to claim product endorsement by NVLAP or any agency of the US Government.

This report may not be reproduced except in full, without the written approval of the laboratory.

QuanTEM Lab No. 338369

Analyzed By: Dee Ammerman

Methodology: EPA/600/R-93/116

Polarized Light Microscopy Asbestos Analysis Report

Project Location: Woodward, OK

Project Number: SET 21-001

Account Number: B780

Received By: Courtney Holman

Date Analyzed: 08/24/2021

QuanTEM

Sample ID

Client

Sample ID Composition

Color /

Description Asbestos (%)

Non-Asbestos

Fiber (%)

Client: APEX - OKC

Rob Hill

Non Fibrous

015 HA5-015 Layered Foil

Binder

Asbestos Not Present 30

Cellulose

Glass FiberWrap

White

015a Layered Asbestos Not Present 100Glass Fiber

Insulation

Yellow

016 HA6-016 Homogeneous Cork

Binder

Asbestos Not Present NA

Insulation

Brown

017 HA6-017 Homogeneous Cork

Binder

Asbestos Not Present NA

Insulation

Brown

018 HA6-018 Homogeneous Cork

Binder

Asbestos Not Present NA

Insulation

Brown

019 HA7-019 Layered CaCO3Asbestos Not Present NA

Joint Compound

White

019a Layered GypsumAsbestos Not Present 15Cellulose

Sheetrock

White

QuanTEM is a NVLAP accredited Testing PLM laboratory (Lab Code: 101959-0). This report relates only to the specific items tested.

NVLAP accreditation applies only to analysis performed utilizing EPA/600/M4-82-020 and EPA/600/R-93/116 methods.

This report may not be used to claim product endorsement by NVLAP or any agency of the US Government.

This report may not be reproduced except in full, without the written approval of the laboratory.

QuanTEM Lab No. 338369

Analyzed By: Dee Ammerman

Methodology: EPA/600/R-93/116

Polarized Light Microscopy Asbestos Analysis Report

Project Location: Woodward, OK

Project Number: SET 21-001

Account Number: B780

Received By: Courtney Holman

Date Analyzed: 08/24/2021

QuanTEM

Sample ID

Client

Sample ID Composition

Color /

Description Asbestos (%)

Non-Asbestos

Fiber (%)

Client: APEX - OKC

Rob Hill

Non Fibrous

020 HA7-020 Layered CaCO3Asbestos Not Present NA

Joint Compound

White

020a Layered GypsumAsbestos Not Present 15Cellulose

Sheetrock

White

021 HA7-021 Layered CaCO3Asbestos Not Present NA

Joint Compound

White

021a Layered GypsumAsbestos Not Present 15Cellulose

Sheetrock

White

022 HA8-022 Homogeneous CaCO3

Binder

Asbestos Not Present NA

Caulk

Brown

023 HA9-023 Layered CaCO3Asbestos Not Present NA

Joint Compound

White

QuanTEM is a NVLAP accredited Testing PLM laboratory (Lab Code: 101959-0). This report relates only to the specific items tested.

NVLAP accreditation applies only to analysis performed utilizing EPA/600/M4-82-020 and EPA/600/R-93/116 methods.

This report may not be used to claim product endorsement by NVLAP or any agency of the US Government.

This report may not be reproduced except in full, without the written approval of the laboratory.

QuanTEM Lab No. 338369

Analyzed By: Dee Ammerman

Methodology: EPA/600/R-93/116

Polarized Light Microscopy Asbestos Analysis Report

Project Location: Woodward, OK

Project Number: SET 21-001

Account Number: B780

Received By: Courtney Holman

Date Analyzed: 08/24/2021

QuanTEM

Sample ID

Client

Sample ID Composition

Color /

Description Asbestos (%)

Non-Asbestos

Fiber (%)

Client: APEX - OKC

Rob Hill

Non Fibrous

023a Layered GypsumAsbestos Not Present 15Cellulose

Sheetrock

White

024 HA9-024 Layered CaCO3Asbestos Not Present NA

Joint Compound

White

024a Layered GypsumAsbestos Not Present 15Cellulose

Sheetrock

White

025 HA9-025 Layered CaCO3Asbestos Not Present NA

Joint Compound

White

025a Layered GypsumAsbestos Not Present 15Cellulose

Sheetrock

White

026 HA10-026 Homogeneous Sand

Clay

Binder

Asbestos Not Present NA

Flooring

Gray

027 HA10-027 Homogeneous Sand

Clay

Binder

Asbestos Not Present NA

Flooring

Gray

QuanTEM is a NVLAP accredited Testing PLM laboratory (Lab Code: 101959-0). This report relates only to the specific items tested.

NVLAP accreditation applies only to analysis performed utilizing EPA/600/M4-82-020 and EPA/600/R-93/116 methods.

This report may not be used to claim product endorsement by NVLAP or any agency of the US Government.

This report may not be reproduced except in full, without the written approval of the laboratory.

QuanTEM Lab No. 338369

Analyzed By: Dee Ammerman

Methodology: EPA/600/R-93/116

Polarized Light Microscopy Asbestos Analysis Report

Project Location: Woodward, OK

Project Number: SET 21-001

Account Number: B780

Received By: Courtney Holman

Date Analyzed: 08/24/2021

QuanTEM

Sample ID

Client

Sample ID Composition

Color /

Description Asbestos (%)

Non-Asbestos

Fiber (%)

Client: APEX - OKC

Rob Hill

Non Fibrous

028 HA10-028 Homogeneous Sand

Clay

Binder

Asbestos Not Present NA

Flooring

Gray

029 HA11-029 Layered PaintAsbestos Not Present 40

Cellulose

Glass FiberCeiling Tile

Brown

029a Layered GlueAsbestos Not Present NA

Mastic

Brown

029b Layered GypsumAsbestos Not Present 15

Cellulose

Glass FiberCeiling Tile

White

030 HA11-030 Layered PaintAsbestos Not Present 40

Cellulose

Glass FiberCeiling Tile

Brown

030a Layered GlueAsbestos Not Present NA

Mastic

Brown

QuanTEM is a NVLAP accredited Testing PLM laboratory (Lab Code: 101959-0). This report relates only to the specific items tested.

NVLAP accreditation applies only to analysis performed utilizing EPA/600/M4-82-020 and EPA/600/R-93/116 methods.

This report may not be used to claim product endorsement by NVLAP or any agency of the US Government.

This report may not be reproduced except in full, without the written approval of the laboratory.

QuanTEM Lab No. 338369

Analyzed By: Dee Ammerman

Methodology: EPA/600/R-93/116

Polarized Light Microscopy Asbestos Analysis Report

Project Location: Woodward, OK

Project Number: SET 21-001

Account Number: B780

Received By: Courtney Holman

Date Analyzed: 08/24/2021

QuanTEM

Sample ID

Client

Sample ID Composition

Color /

Description Asbestos (%)

Non-Asbestos

Fiber (%)

Client: APEX - OKC

Rob Hill

Non Fibrous

030b Layered GypsumAsbestos Not Present 15

Cellulose

Glass…