Attachment 6-1_VA Fresno ACM Survey Report.pdf

Submittal No. 13 VA Fresno ACM Survey

FSS Order No. V A261-12J-2620 Asbestos Study

Volume 1of3

Submitted by:

Mr. Jeremy Malson

Millennium Consulting Associates 620 Contra Costa Blvd., Ste. 102

Pleasant Hill, CA 94523 925.808.6700

F iL'X: 925.808.6708

MILLENNIUM

CONSUL TING ASSOCIATES

A MEC/l Conau1111tg, lnr;·; Corop9fty h'dl••*l~l~llll~I

A MECA Consulting, Inc . Company

Contents

1.0 EXECUTIVE SU;\li\lr\RY

2.0 I TRODUCTIO

2.1 SCOPE OF \V'ORK

2.2 SAMPLING METHODS, PROCEDURES AND PERSONNEL

2.2.1 Review of Procedures: Asbestos Inspection, Bulk Sampling, Laboratory Information and Risk

Assessment

3.0 SITE H ISTORY AND B UILDING SUl\li\IARY

4.0 ASBESTOS SURVEY RESULTS

ACM D ATA RESULTS

Building 1 - Main Hospital

Building 2 - Boiler Plant

Building 3 - Engineering Building

Building 4 - Pump Chlorinator & Emergency Generator

Building 5 - Pump H ouse

Building 6 - Disposal \Veil

Building 7 - Gasoline Pump & Tank

Building 8 - Storage Shed

Building 15 - Recreational Storage Shed

Building 16 - Storage Building

Building 17 - Liquid 0>..)'gen Tank

Building 18 - OP Parking Lot HC Elevator

Building 19 - Electric Utility Area

Building 22 - Chiller Plant

Building 24 - VA Medical Edu ca ti on Center & Library ................................................................................... 4 7

Building 31 - Community Living Center

Building 32 - Warehouse

Building 34 - Emergency Generator Building

Building OPC - Outpatient Clinic

5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOl\IMENDA T IONS

CONCLUSIONS

RECOMl\IE Dr\TIO IS

6.0 LIMIT ING CONDITIONS

MILLENNIUM

CONSULTING ASSOCIATES

A MECA Consulting, Inc . Company

Tables Table 1. Survey Summary of Positive ACM and ACCM Results

Table 2. Building Listing for the VA Fresno Asbestos Survey Project

Table 3. AHERA Risk Assessment Summary for Building 1

Table 4. NESHAP Summary for Building 1

Table 5. AHERA Risk Assessment Summary for Building 2 Table 6. NESHAP Summary for Building 2

Table 7. AHERA Risk Assessment Summary for Building 3 Table 8. NESHAP Summary for Building 3

Table 9. AHERA Risk Assessment Summary for Building 4

Table 10. NESHAP Summary for Building 4

Table 11. AHERA Risk Assessment Summary for Building 5 Table 12. NESHAP Summary for Building 5

Table 13. AH ERA Risk Assessment Summary for Building 6 Table 14. NESHAP Summary for Building 6

Table 15. AH ERA Risk Assessment Summary for Building 7

Table 16. NESHAP Summary for Building 7

Table 17. AHERA Risk Assessment Summary for Building 8

Table 18. NESHAP Summary for Building 8

Table 19. AHERA Risk Assessment Summary for Building 15

Table 20. NESHAP Summary for Building 15 Table 21. AHERA Risk Assessment Summary for Building 16

Table 22. NESHAP Summary for Building 16 Table 23. AHERA Risk Assessment Summary for Building 17

Table 24. NESHAP Summary for Building 17

Table 25. AHERA Risk Assessment Summary for Building 18

Table 26. NESHAP Summary for Building 18

Table 27. AHERA Risk Assessment Summary for Building 19 Table 28. NESHAP Summary for Building 19

Table 29. AH ERA Risk Assessment Summary for Building 22

Table 30. NESHAP Summary for Building 22

Table 31. AH ERA Risk Assessment Summary for Building 24 Table 32. NESHAP Summary for Building 24 Table 33. AH ERA Risk Assessment Summary for Building 31

Table 34. NESHAP Summary for Building 31

Table 35. AHERA Risk Assessment Summary for Building 32

Table 36. NESHAP Summary for Building 32 Table 37. AH ERA Risk Assessment Summary for Building 34 Table 38. NESHAP Summary for Building 34

Table 39. AH ERA Risk Assessment Summary for Building OPC

Table 40. NESHAP Summary for Building OPC

Table 41 . Survey Summary of Positive ACM and ACCM Results

Project No. 22015.2025 October 2012

I~' 11 • • #I~ I~ I (I) L,, I

A MECA Consulting, In c . Company

Appendix Data Table Sununary Results .................. ... .......................................... .......... ... .................. ......... . Appendix A

Laboratory Data and Laboratory Certifications .... .................................... .......... ...... ...... .......... . Appendix B

Figures - Site Sampling Maps ....................................................................................................... Appendix C

Figures - Photo Log of ACM ........... ............ ........... ............................ ...... ................ .... ............ .. Appendix D

Project No. 22015.2025 O ctober 2012 ill

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

h~ 11 1111 #I ~ I ~I llJ ~~I

CONSULTING ASSOCIATES

A MECA Cons ultin g , In c . Company

Millennium Consulting Associates (Millennium) performed a campus-wide asbestos survey for the Fresno VA Medical Center (Fresno VA) in accordan ce with RFP VA261-12-R-1059. T he project is being conducted to d etermine the existence o f Asbestos Containing Materials (ACM) in sp ecified buildings. Th e final results o f the survey are incorporated into this report providing a m eans for the Fresno VA to m ore e fficiently plan for repairs, renovations and/ o r demolitio n projects.

The following buildings were included in the scop e o f the asbestos survey: Buildings 1-8, 15-19, 22, 24, 31, 32, 34, O P C and select exterior undergrou nd pipe chases. The following table summarizes the positive survey results for the buildings (> 1 % ACM and >0.1 % ACCM).

Table 1. Survey Summary of P ositive ACM and ACCM Results.

Building

1 •

Summary of Results

12"xl 2" light brown/beige/tan/white/peach/ light pink resilient floor tiles Ilr\1;

Black mastic associated with the 12"x12" ligh t brown/ beige/tan/white peach/ light pink/yellow resilient floor tiles HA2;

12"xl 2" yellow resilient floor tile I I.r\3;

Black floor mastic w/ associated yellow/blue/green adhesive (under cai-peti11g and/ or faux wood) .Hr\2;

Black pipe insulation 1-L.-\ L6;

9"x9" green resilient floor tile I L\ 4;

Black mastic associated with the 9"x9" green resilient floor tiles [ IA2;

9"x9" red/brown resilient floor tile Hr\5;

Black mas tic associated with the 9"x9" red /brown resilient floor tiles rIA2;

Black mas tic associated with the l 2"x 12" maroon resilient floor tiles H..:\2;

Beige vinyl sheet flooringw/ small square pattern fI L\ 6;

Black wall mastic waterproofmg/vapor sealant J 1A9;

Grar J lVAC/Fan sealant J 1Al 5;

Tan/white/beige door sealant [ 1.r\12;

Gray exterio r window sealant r IA 14;

Exterior door sealant f-11\ 13;

Brown/ orange sealant/ felt HA 11;

12" TSI pipe w I green wrap I IA 17;

Black mastic associated with the gray VSF & gray underlayment/ gray 12"x12" VFT llr\2;

Black mastic associated with the 12"xl2" peach resilient floor tiles I-IA2;

4" TSI pipe w/beige wrap f L\ 18;

Transite exhaust pipe w/ silver paint I L\10;

Tan wall tile grout HAS;

4" & 8" TSI pipe w/blue/gray wrap J IJ\19 Black mastic associated with the 12"x12" light pink resilient floor tiles I IA2;

Beige floor leveling compound fL\ 7;

4" TST pipe w/silver wrap I IA20;

Gi-ay/ black duct wrap H t\21;

) B uilding h'' 11 ••#I~ I~ I llJ ~I

CONSULTING ASSOCIATES

A MECA Consu l t i ng, Inc . Company

Summary of Res ul ts

Black mastic associated with the light pink resilient sheet floor w/ green specks H A2;

12"x12» G ray resilient floor tile HA22;

Black sink undercoat I lr\23; and

Tan resilient sheet flooring (below ligh t blue VS'b) H c\24;

Blue resilien t sheet flooring Ht\25;

Black mastic associated with the blue resilient sheet flooring H A2; and

\Vhitc wall texture/ plaster Hr\26;

Ele\' ator brake pads IlA27; and

Gray transite panels in fume hoods (- 3 hoods) }L\28 .

White TSI pipe insulation HAl ;

Gray/ green pipe flanges HA2;

Tan gaskets HA3;

Transite pipe HA4 (assumed ACM); and

Sub-grade pipe chase consisting of assumed ACM TSI pipe insulation servicing buildings 1, 10, 12, 13 and 14 HAS. Note: The tunnel did no t appear to have ACM TSI present at the time of the survey. However, the sub-grade pipe ch ases did appear to have ACM TSI present.

• Joint compound associated with the drywall system ceiling H r\l;

• Drywall system ceiling material composite analysis IIA1;

• Beige 9"x9" vinyl floor tile I IA2; and

• Black mastic associated with the beige 9"x9" vinyl floor tile 1-L\ 2.

• Transite walls, roof and siding (assumed ACM) .

• Black roof penetration mastic located at the vent(s); and

• Black wall penetration gasket located in the northwest comer .

• No suspect materials were visually noted at the time of the survey .

• No suspect materials were visually noted at the time of the survey .

• No suspect materials were visually noted at the time of the survey .

• No suspect materials were visually noted at the ti.me of the suffer .

• Black fibrous tar roofing material (roof field) .

• No ACM was detected at the time of the survey .

• N' o ACM was detected at the time of the survey .

• No .\ CM was detected at the time of the surver

• )Jo ACM was detected at the tune of the survey .

Building

OPC

I ~JI 11111 #I~ I ~I llJ ~'d

CONSULTING ASSOCIATES

A MECA Consulting, In c . Company

Summary of Results

12"x12" light brown/beige/tan/white resilient floor tile I l.c\1 & HA2;

Black mastic associated with the 12"xl2" light brown/ beige/ tan/ white resilient floor tiles IT1\2 & HA3;

Gray sink undercoating (all sinks w/ gray/white undercoat);

Black/ orange carpet mastic l I .. \4:

Gray transite panels in the fome hoods (Labs 3, \-6 & 3A-29); and

Black countertop mastic (Labs 31\-6 & 3A-29) .

• White window sealant (all exterior windows);

• Dark gray door sealant (all interior & exterior doors);

• Gray & beige door sealant (all interior doors); and

• G ray & beige window sealant (all interior windows).

• Gray/black roof flashing sealant (roof).

• No ACM was detected al the tune of the survey.

• 12"x12" light brown resilient floor tile;

• 12"x12" brown resilient floor tile;

• Black mastic associated with the 12"x12" light brown/ beige/ tan/ white/ brown resilient floor tiles;

• Black sink undercoating; and

• Gray/ white exterior transite panels.

Note: Please refer to the drawings for the homogenous area (HA# ) locations.

2.0 INTRODUCTION

Millennium conducted an asbestos survey for the Fresno VA in accordance with RFP VA261-12-R- 1059 from September 17, 2012 through October 19, 2012. The Fresno VA campus is located at 2615 E. Clinton Avenue, Fresno, CA. The survey included multiple buildings throughout the campus. The buildings included the scope of the asbestos survey are: Buildings 1-8, 15-19, 22, 24, 31, 32, 34, OPC and select exterior underground pipe chases. The final results of the survey will provide a means for the Fresno VA to more efficiently plan for repairs, renovations and demolition projects.

2.1 SCOPE OF WORK

The scope of work for the project included the submission of nine (9) deliverable items. The required submittals and their approval dates included:

l~Jll••*l~l~lllJ~d

CONSULTING ASSOCIATES

A MECA Consulting, Inc . Company

1. Pre-Survey Report - Submitted for Approval on August 31, 2012

2. QA/QC Plan -Approved 09/14/2012

3. Health and Safe ty Plan -Approved 09 / 14/2012

4. Employee Certifications -Approved 09 / 14/2012

5. Drawing Criteria - Pending

6. Project Schedule -Approved 09 / 14/ 12

7. Schedule of Values -Approved 08/ 23/12

8. Survey Report - Pending

9. Drawings - Pending

The asbestos survey tasks included reviews of historical records and data, site visits, collection of representative samples, assessment of the condition of the materials, and quantification of the asbestos-containing materials throughout the specified buildings. In accordance with the project requirements, samples were not taken if it rendered the material unstable, had the potential to cause leaking or other deterioration of the base material or if the sampling posed a hazard to those working in and around the building.

The reporting requirements also include sample location maps in AutoCAD format, indexed schedule of samples and pertinent notes, and a narrative on the methodology of the survey.

2.2 SAMPLING M ETHODS, PROCEDURES AND P ERSONNEL

A detailed sampling and analysis plan was prepared prior to the site survey. These sample collection and handling procedures were provided in the Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) dated September 7, 2012. In summary o f the QAPP, the asbestos survey was performed using general procedures and protocols defined in EPA 40 CFR, part 763.

The asbestos analyses were performed at an independent 3rd party accredited laboratory using the EPA 600/R-93/116 method. Additional confirmation analyses were not performed in accordance with the project requirements (e.g., point counting and transmission electron microscopy). All locations within the scope of work were physically inspected and categorized (i.e., AHERA and NESHAP categories), homogeneous area-by homogeneous area, to determine the presence of ACM.

Millennium personnel held valid Cal/OSHA licenses for the respective type of work they performed. These asbestos specific licenses include: Certified Asbestos Consultants (CAC) and Site

Surveillance Technicians (SST). The field staff and their respective certifications that performed site assessment activities are:

1. Mr. Jeremy Malson (CAC No. 07-4183)

2. Mr. Wes Chase (CAC No. 12-4846),

3. Mr. Kevin Milani (CSST No. 06-4035), I l'' 11111111 #I ~ I ~ I lll l'' I

A MECA Cons ulting, In c. Company

4. Ms. N ichole D 'Ottavio (CSST No. 11 -4803),

5. Mr. Tyler Belair (CSST No. 11-4744), and

6. Mr. Ramil Arcia (CAC No. 10-4613).

2.2.1 Review of Procedures: Asbestos Inspection, Bulk Sampling , Laboratory Information and Risk

Assessment

T he asbestos inspection and bulk sampling procedures were based on the guidelines established by the U.S. EPA in the Guidance for Controlling Asbestos Containing Mate1ials in B11ildings, Office of

Pesticides and Toxic Substances, DOC #560/5-85-024 and 40 CFR Part 763, Asbestos Hazard

Emergency Response Act (AHERA). Field information is organized according to the AHERA concept of H omogeneous Areas (HA). A HA is defined as a suspect material of similar age, appearance, function, and texture. Each material will be grouped together as a specific HA, sampled, and then assessed for condition. The AHERA guidelines represent an industry standard sampling protocol and as such was utilized during the inspection and sampling. For the purposes of this inspection, suspect ACM has been placed in three (3) material categories:

1. Thermal Systems Insulation (TSI);

2. Surfacing Materials; and

3. Miscellaneous Materials.

The locations within the buildings were physically inspected on a functional space-by-functional space and homogeneous area-by-homogeneous area basis, to determine the presence of ACM. Core samples of friable and non-friable suspect materials were collected by penetration of the suspect material to its substrate. The bulk samples collected were placed in individual sealed containers and labeled with unique sample identification numbers. Representative samples o f each sampling area were then submitted to the laboratory to be analyzed for asbestos content.

Specifically, the inspection involved the following tasks:

1. Visual determination as to the extent of visible and accessible suspect materials and conditions of the material;

2. Collection and analyses of suspect building materials for asbestos content;

3. Determining condition (i.e., friable or non-friable) of suspect materials by physically touching, assessing, and placing the material into the correct ACM category (i.e., Physical

Condition Assessment);

4. Q uantification of the amount of suspect friable and non-friable materials alo ng with their location;

5. Identification of all suspect materials sampled on the appropriate building floor plan diagram with the sample number; and

6. P reparation of a Chain-of-Custody form that accompanied the samples to the laboratory.

A MECA Consulting, In c . Company

The U.S. EPA AHERA specifies that a physical assessment of all friable suspect material must be performed during the inspection. The suspect materials are assessed to determine if they pose a hazard, and if so, they are then ranked according to risk. The physical condition assessment consists of determining the condition of the ACM, the probable cause of damage, and the potential for future disturbance. AHERA lists seven categories in which to assess the current condition and potential for damage. These categories are as follows:

1. Damaged or Significantly Damaged Friable Thermal System Insulation;

2. Damaged Friable Surfacing Material;

3. Significantly Damaged Friable Surfacing Material;

4. Damaged or Significantly Damaged Friable Miscellaneous Material;

5. ACM with potential for damage;

6. ACM with the potential for significant damage; and

7. Any remaining Friable ACM or Assumed Friable ACM.

Additionally, as part of the assessment and categorization of materials, the ACMs are further defined by the current condition of the ACM, the potential for future damage, and a friability rating. These are defined as follows:

1. Current Condition of ACM: A ranking system using a scale of 1-7 was used to evaluate the current condition of ACMs. A rank of "1" means the material is in "poor" condition and requires top priority for correcting the hazard risk. A result of "5" would indicate material in "fair" condition with moderate potential for future damage, which typically requires corrective actions. A rank of "7" indicates material in "good" condition with low potential for future damage; category 7 areas have a low hazard risk. The criteria for determining the fair and poor condition are as follows:

a. Fair: The overall damage is up to ten percent (:510%) and/or any localized damage is up to twenty-five percent (:525%).

b. Poor: The overall damage is greater than ten percent (> 10%) and/or any localized damage is greater than (>25%).

2. Potential for Future Damage of ACM: Another step in the assessment process is to determine the potential for future damage or deterioration for material classified as good or fair. T he potential for future damage was classified as High, Moderate, or Low. There are many factors to consider in determining whether or not there is potential for future damage. Some o f these factors may include potential for physical contact and the influence of environmental factors such as vibration, air erosion, the likelihood of water damage, etc.

I l'' 11 • • *I~ I~ I llJ l'' I

A MECA Consulting , In c. Company

3. Friability Rating: All material were given a friability rating and classified as either Friable

ACM or N on-Friable ACM. Friable ACM is defined as any material that contains more than one percent (>1 %) asbestos and can be crumbled, pulverized, or reduced to powder by hand pressure. It is a description of risk and refers to a material's likeliness to release airborne fibers.

Chain-of-Custody procedures and records provide a means of tracing each sample from the time of collection through the shipment and final analyses. Proper Chain-of-Custody procedures also provide a written record of all persons handling the samples. T he information necessary to relate sample locations for reporting purposes is documented with each sample. This information is essential to proper completion of a sample results report and typically includes client and facility information; unique sample identification number; date and time sampled; sampler name and signature; sample location including the room/ area; and field sketches of sample locations.

All sample analyses were performed by EMSL Analytical, Inc., San Leandro, CA, a laboratory which is certified by the State of California E nvironmental Laboratory Accreditation Program (CA ELAP N o. 1620), the U.S. D epartment of Commerce, National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIS1) Proficiency Analytical Testing (PAT No. 10178) program, and is accredited by the National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program (NVLAP No. 101048-3) for bulk asbestos analyses.

T he laboratory will be requested to retain the samples for at least ninety (90) days in the event re analyses of samples are required. All disposal of samples will be compliant with established Federal, state, and local regulations.

3.0 SITE HISTORY AND B UILDING SUMMARY

The United States has the mos t comprehensive system of assistance for veterans of any nation in the world. The VA health care system has grown from 54 hospitals in 1930, to include 152 hospitals;

800 community based outpatient clinics; 126 nursing home care units; and 35 domiciliaries. VA health care facilities provide a broad spectrum of medical, surgical, and rehabilitative care. This project includes the Fresno VA Medical Center.

The Fresno VA has conducted considerable remodeling o f various buildings and areas, par ticularly in the main hospital (i.e., Building 1, ca. 1949). Three large remodel projects including the entire 4th floor of Building 1, the east wing of the 6'n floor in Building 1, and the basement of the Outpatient Clinic (OPC) were fully renovated. A site-wide thermal system insulation (TSI) abatement project was completed in 2010. T his project included the removal of accessible asbestos-containing TSI.

Similarly, other buildings on the campus, which are part of this contract, have undergone multiple renovations since their original construction. The detailed list of buildings and areas included in the project are as follows:

A MECA Cons ulting , Inc . Company

Table 2. Building Lis ting for the VA Fresno Asbestos Survey Project.

Estimated

Building N o. Bu ild ing N a me Year Built Gross

Square Feet

1 Main J Iospital 1949 246,894

2 Boiler Plant (Including underground 1949 5,621 pipe chase)

3 Engineering Building 1949 7,863

4 Pump Chlorinator/ Emergency 1949 537 Generator

5 Pump J louse 1949 220 6 Disposal Well ? 5 7 Gasoline Pump and Tank 1977 2,073 8 Storage Sheds 1977 400

15 Recreational Storage Shed ? 250 16 Storage 1949 1,118 17 Liquid Oxygen Tank ? 640 18 OP Parking Lot Handicap Elevator 1987 254 19 E lectric Utility Area 1949 2,401 22 Chiller Plant 1978 2,492 24 V,.\ Medical E ducation and Library 1981 41,231

31 GECU 1982 31,328

32 \ '\1arehousc 1988 17,384 34 Emergency Generator Building ? 352

OPC O u tpatient Clinic 1981/1988 63,698

4.0 A SBESTO S S U RVEY R ESULTS

The objective of this campus-wide asbestos survey is to (1) Identify, document and sample suspect ACM; and (2) Report, assess, and quantify all ACM discovered during the survey.

ACM D ATA RESULTS

A total o f two-thousand-seven-hundred-twenty-two (2,722) bulk samples were collected and then analyzed on a layer-by-layer basis using polarized light microscopy (PLM). The following sections lists the positive building materials identified, sampled, and analyzed during this investigation. The Risk Assessment for each identified ACM is given in the first table for each building. The NESHAP Category and Quantification of each ACM is given in the second table for each building. Please refer to the laboratory data in Appendix A and B for the complete analytical details. Every reasonable effort was made to access all areas within the scope of work.

) Building 1 - Main Hospital

1~41 I•• #1~1 ~lllJ ~fJI

CONSUL TING ASSOCIATES

A MECA Consulting, Inc . Company

Building No. 1 is the main hospital. The building is 246,894 ft2 in size and was built in 1949. This building contains seven floors, a basement and a subbasement. This building has undergone numerous renovations of select areas and systems (e.g., a TSI removal project and the 4th floor renovation) since its construction.

A total of one-thousand-four-hundred-forty-three (1,443) samples were collected for Building 1, including layers. A summary of the samples containing asbestos are summarized in Tables 3 and 4.

The construction materials sampled in Building 1 include:

• D rywall Systems • Cementitious Wall Panels on the

• Ceramic Tile Wall/Floor Systems Parapet Wall

• Ceiling and Wall Plaster Systems • Roofing Penetration Mastics

• Flooring Mastics, Sealants, Paints • Roofing Field Sheet Materials

• Exterior Stucco and Concrete Systems • HV AC Mastics and Tapes

• Exterior Window Glazing • Pipe Gaskets

• Exterior Caulking Systems and • Thermal System Insulations Various Sealants • Transite panels in lab hoods

• Acoustical ceiling materials • Sink under coatings

• Elevator Brake Pads (assumed)

Note: The inaccessible areas of Building 1 include: Room E202C (rvIRI Scanner) was not accessible due to the equipment present. Therefore, the materials in this room will be assumed to be similar as the adjacent rooms.

MILLENNIUM

CONSULTING ASSOCIATES

A MECA Consulting, Inc . Company

12"x12" light brown/ beige/ tan/white/ peach/ light M pink resilient floor tiles

Black mastic associated with the 12"x12" light

M brown/ beige/ tan/ white resilient/ each/ Ii ht ink floor tiles

12"xl 2" yellow resilient floor tiles 1\1

Black mastic associated with the i\I

12"xl 2" yellow resilient floor tiles

Black floor mastic w/ associated yellow/blue/green adhesive (under M carpeting and/ or faux wood)

Black pipe insulation T

9"x9" green resilient floor tile l\I

Black mastic associated with the M

9"x9" green resilient floor tiles

9"x9" red & red / brown resilient i\I floor tile

Black mastic associated with the M

9"x9" red resilient floor tiles

Black mastic associated with the 12"x l\[ 12" maroon resilient floor tiles

Beige vinyl sheet flooring w / small M square pattern

Black wall mastic M waterproofing/vapor sealant

G ray HVAC/Fan sealant M

Project No. 22015.2025

2 6 l\lod. No

2 6 Low No

4 6 Mod. No

4 6 Low No

2 6 Low No

3 6 Low N o

2 6 l\lod. No

2 6 Low N o

2 6 l\lod. No

2 6 Low No

2 6 Low No

3 6 Mod. N o

2 6 Mod. No

4 6 l\Iod. No

October 2012