2002_E-E__Asbestos-LBP_Report_2002.pdf

02:000920_RX15_04- B1023

L_Hix_Watford_090902.doc-9/10/02

September 9, 2002

Ms. Diana Hix-Watford Contracting Officer

94 LG/LGC

1538 Atlantic Avenue Dobbins Air Reserve Base, Georgia 30069-4824

Re: Contract No. F09609-98-D-0003/5050 Project No. OS-000075 FY02 Update Asbestos and Lead Management Plans Task 4 – Post Site Visit Inspection Report Minneapolis - St. Paul Air Reserve Base, Minneapolis, Minnesota

Dear Ms. Hix-Watford:

Under separate cover, the Asbestos and Lead-based Paint (LBP) Inspection Report for Minneapolis- St. Paul ARB has been submitted electronically via e-mail to Mr. Dan Ragsdale at HQ AFRC/CEVC; Mr. John Marchetti, Environmental Flight Chief; Mr. Larry Nowak, Asbestos Program Manager; and Mr. Robert Bailey, Lead Program Manager at the 934th Airlift Wing/CEV.

Additionally, the report has been posted on the AFRC Environmental Web site at https://afrc.ene.com.

If you have any questions regarding this submittal, please contact either Linda Thomas or me at 716/684-8060.

Sincerely, Ecology and Environment, Inc.

Michael G. Steffan Task Order Manager xc: M. Thomas – HQ AFRC Contract Administrator – cover letter only D. Ragsdale – HQ AFRC/CEVC – cover letter and report via e-mail J. Marchetti – 934th SPTG/CEV – cover letter and report via e-mail L. Nowak – 934th SPTG/CEV – cover letter and report via e-mail

R. Bailey – 934th SPTG/CEV – cover letter and report via e-mail L. Thomas – E & E - cover letter only

CTF 000920.RX15.04

FY02 UPDATE ASBESTOS AND LEAD MANAGEMENT PLANS

PROJECT NO. OS-000075

ASBESTOS AND LEAD-BASED PAINT INSPECTION REPORT

MINNEAPOLIS - ST. PAUL AIR RESERVE BASE

MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA

Prepared for:

HEADQUARTERS, AIR FORCE RESERVE COMMAND

HQ AFRC/CEVC

255 Richard Ray Blvd.

Robins Air Force Base, Georgia 31098-1637

Prepared by:

Ecology and Environment, Inc.

368 Pleasant View Drive

Lancaster, New York 14086

Contract No. F09609-98-D-0003, Task Order 5050 E & E Project No. 000920.RX15

9 SEPTEMBER 2002

02:000920_RX_15_04-B1023 1

Minn St. Paul Inspection Report.doc-9/10/02

INTRODUCTION

Ecology and Environment, Inc., (E & E) has been tasked by Headquarters, Air Force Reserve Command (HQ AFRC) under Contract Number F09609-98-D-0003, Task Order 5050, to update the existing Asbestos Management Plan (AMP) and Lead-Based Paint Management Plan (LBPMP) at four selected AFRC bases. This Asbestos and Lead-Based Paint (LBP) Inspection Report documents the findings of the asbestos and LBP site inspection/surveys conducted by E & E between Monday, August 5, 2002, and Thursday, August 8, 2002, at the Minneapolis - St.

Paul Air Reserve Station (ARS), Minneapolis, Minnesota. E & E's survey and inspection team included Mr. Michael Steffan, Task Order Manager/Lead Risk Assessor; Mr. Scott Briggs, Lead Inspector; Mr. Jeffery Burton, Asbestos Management Planner; and Mr. James Mays, Asbestos Inspector. The team was assisted on site by Mr. Larry Nowak, Asbestos Program Manager; Mr.

Robert Bailey, Lead Program Manager, and John Marchetti, Environmental Flight Chief for the 934th Airlift Wing (AW) SPTG/CEV.

An in-brief meeting was held the morning of Monday, August 5, 2002, at the Base Civil Engineering Environmental Flight (CEV) conference room to discuss the purpose of the visit and E & E's anticipated approach to conducting the required survey, inspection, and sampling of selected buildings at the installation. The field effort at the Minneapolis - St. Paul ARS buildings included inspection, assessment, and bulk sampling for both asbestos and LBP. It was determined prior to the site visit that the inspection would be limited to older buildings, hangars, and buildings of concern based on impending projects at the Reserve unit. In addition, a review of each asbestos and LBPMP would be performed to address any concerns the base has on format and regulations.

At the in-brief, Mr. Steffan provided an overview of the task order and the development of the asbestos and LBP databases, and an update of the management plans in an Internet format. A copy of the agenda for the in-brief meeting is provided as Attachment A. Base issues regarding current security measures, location and repair of bulk sample areas, building escorts, and future task order deliverables were discussed. A Radioactive Materials Permit was approved and issued for E & E prior to the site visit by Mr. George Hunt, Base Radiation Safety Officer (RSO), to allow E & E to use an x-ray fluorescence spectrum analyzer (XRF) during the LBP survey. A copy of the site-specific Health and Safety Plan (HASP) was prepared by E & E and submitted to Mr. Nowak and Mr. Hunt at the in-briefing.

An out-brief meeting was held at the CEV offices on Thursday, August 8, 2002, to discuss the team’s inspection and the assessment results for asbestos and LBP. A copy of the agenda for the out-briefing is provided as Attachment B. A summary of the results of the LBP and asbestos inspections, assessments, and analyses performed at the site visit are provided in the following sections.

SUMMARY OF LBP SURVEY AND INSPECTION

Inspection Findings According to Air Force Policy and Guidance (AFPG) on LBP in facilities, dated May 24, 1993, the installation is to determine which facilities should be assigned a high-priority LBP

02:000920_RX_15_04-B1023 2

designation. High-priority designation is given to facilities or portions of facilities that are regularly occupied by children under age seven. Paragraph 8(c)(2) of the AFPG sets the action level for deteriorated LBP in high-priority buildings at 0.5 milligram per square centimeter (mg/cm2), which is lower than the United States Housing and Urban Development (HUD) standard action level of 1.0 mg/cm2. The Air Force’s (AF’s) justification for this lower remedial action level is to compensate for known instrument sensitivity errors during the field survey.

At the initial in-brief at Minneapolis - St. Paul ARS, it was determined that no buildings should be designated high-priority using the AFPG criteria. This determination was made because no buildings or facilities at the base support regular activities or housing for children (e.g., community outreach programs, schooling, daycare, or temporary housing of visiting personnel with children).

Based on an interpretation of the AFPG document’s definition of high-priority facilities, the intent of the policy and guidance document is to designate as high priority those facilities at installations that typically house or are used full-time by children, such as schools, daycare facilities, and family housing. Reserve bases no longer have these types of facilities. At Minneapolis - St. Paul ARS, no buildings are used for full-time child occupancy and no full-time contact is made by children at any facilities; therefore, all buildings were re-designated as non-priority buildings.

During the site visits, the E & E LBP team inspected and surveyed a total of 11 buildings or structures that were selected and prioritized by the base’s LBP Program Manager. No intrusive, demolition-type inspections and sampling were performed during the site visit that would damage finished or decorative surfaces. To conform to the project’s time constraint, the team began with the highest-ranked facilities or facilities where very little survey and inspection information was available, or where a future remodeling or demolition project is scheduled.

Additional criteria considered in ranking included the age of the building, the number of personnel using the building, lack of building data on lead-painted surfaces, and projects planned in the building. Due to time constraints, some facilities were comprehensively surveyed based on immediate concerns of the LBP program manager. Attachment C provides a list of the buildings surveyed during the site visit. Buildings that were not inspected during the site visit will need to be surveyed in the future, and the associated survey and sampling data obtained by the Base will need to be added to the LBP database.

The LBP survey team used an RMD XRF Spectrum Analyzer to test for lead content on site.

The XRF was calibrated to detect concentrations at the AF’s required lower sensitivity action level of 0.5 mg/cm2. A series of equipment calibration checks was performed every 4 hours during the site visit using known standards provided by the instrument manufacturer.

The LBP inspection forms presented at the in-briefing were used to record XRF data and assessments for each buildings surveyed. Printed results of all field data obtained during the inspection were kept. This field data will be entered into the LBP database for inclusion in the updated LBPMP.

A total of 504 XRF readings were taken during the site visit. As a result of the lower sensitivity requirements of AFRC (0.5 mg/cm2), a longer capture time was required to obtain each XRF reading and, therefore, less readings were obtained during the time on base than would have been

02:000920_RX_15_04-B1023 3

possible if the higher HUD action levels were used. A summary of the XRF results was provided at the out-briefing and is included as Attachment C.

The XRF results fall into four basic action-level categories:

� Equal to or less than 0.0 mg/cm2;

� Between 0.0 mg/cm2 and the AF action level of 0.5 mg/cm2 ;

� Between the AF action level of 0.5 mg/cm2 and the HUD action level of 1.0 mg/cm2; and � Equal to or exceeding the HUD action level of 1.0 mg/cm2.

It was noted on the inspection forms whether the painted surfaces were intact or deteriorated.

Deteriorated surfaces containing LBP and exceeding the action level, based on the building’s prioritization ranking, are cause for initiation of corrective measures by the installation.

Sampling Results

XRF Results. As shown in Attachment C, a total of 122 surfaces were found to have lead levels that equal or exceed the AF action level of 0.5 mg/cm2, but were less than the higher HUD action level of 1.0 mg/cm2. The painted surfaces in four areas were noted as peeling or in otherwise deteriorated condition. These four deteriorated surfaces were specifically located on exterior painted surfaces on concrete block walls, steel stair framing, and interior concrete flooring, where water has deteriorated subsurface materials or where abrasion has caused paint to chip.

Because these areas are located in non-priority facilities, the applicable corrective action level defaults to the HUD action level of 1.0 mg/cm2 and only minimal corrective action is required.

For the facilities scheduled for demolition in the short-term future, no corrective action is required. Minimal corrective actions for the active facilities include informing the building (facility) manager of the existence and location of LBP and increasing the frequency of inspections. Since these buildings have been designated as non-priority facilities, corrective action is based on a hazard risk determined by SGPB and the LBP Program Manager. Potential corrective actions in non-priority facilities should include the evaluation of encapsulation, enclosure, in-place management, or abatement.

A total of 151 surfaces were found to have lead levels that equal or exceed the HUD action level of 1.0 mg/cm2. Painted surfaces in 20 areas were noted as peeling or deteriorated. These deteriorated surfaces are located on interior painted steel support members, walls, exterior painted door and door casings, walls, and exterior painted windows and window frame surfaces.

For the active facilities, since HUD action levels were exceeded, the program manager needs to propose and prioritize a corrective action response. The response should include the evaluation of encapsulation, enclosure, in-place management, and abatement.

Bulk Sample Results. As outlined in the task order, locations where XRF readings were equal to or less than 0.1 mg/cm2 were evaluated for the collection of bulk samples. Sample locations were selected by the inspection team to minimize restoration of the sample area and by any recent renovations to the area. A total of nine bulk LBP samples were taken during the site visit.

Samples were obtained using standard operating procedures for bulk LBP collection and shipped under standard chain-of-custody procedures to EMSL Laboratory in Westmont, New Jersey, for analysis using the graphite furnace atomic absorption (AA) spectrometry method (EPA Method

02:000920_RX_15_04-B1023 4

SW 846-7421). The results confirm the initial XRF reading that surfacing material does not contain LBP.

The results of these analyses are provided in Table 1 and will be added to the LBP database. To summarize, all sample results were found to have lead levels below the maximum concentration and are deemed to be lead free. The Consumer Product Safety Commission (CSPS) maximum concentration of 0.06% lead by weight is allowed in paint and percentages below this limit are deemed to be lead free.

Table 1 Lead-Based Paint Bulk Sample Analytical Results

Minneapolis - St. Paul Air Reserve Station

Sample Number

Date Sampled Location

XRF

Number

XRF

Results

(mg/cm2)

Analytical Results* (mg/cm2)

MSP-821-080502-001 8/5/02 Structural Shop - white plaster ceiling -center

065 -0.1 0.023

MSP-822-080602-002 8/6/02 Room 1018 - painted glazed wall - south wall

- center

180 -0.2 0.006

MSP-865-080702-003 8/7/02 Hall 1011- Beige -wood panel -east center wall

339 -0.1 0.063

MSP-865-080702-004 8/7/02 Room 1026- Gray wood paneling- west wall right

344 -0.0 0.007

MSP-865-080702-005 8/7/02 Exterior wall outside men's room - beige transite siding - south wall center

373 -0.0 0.005

MSP-865-080702-006 8/7/02 Exterior outside room 1067 - brown wood corner board - west wall right

383 -0.1 0.002

MSP-725-080702-007 8/7/02 Room A004 - basement - beige concrete block wall - west wall center

442 0.1 0.022

MSP-395-080702-008 8/8/02 Hallway outside Room 1- white paint chips from pipe south wall center

511 0.1 0.019

MSP-395-080702-009 8/8/02 Prepay room - white drywall ceiling 522 -0.0 0.001

* Minimum Detection Level (MDL) is 0.001 mg/cm2 for Analytical Method 7421.

SUMMARY OF ASBESTOS SURVEY AND INSPECTION

Inspection Findings Air Force Instruction (AFI) 32-1052 along with AFRC Guidance recommendations directs installations to establish standard inspection and assessment timeframes for friable and non-friable asbestos-containing materials (ACM) in base buildings. Before the site visit for this task order, E & E sent a questionnaire to the base’s asbestos program manager to obtain current information on asbestos in buildings on base. This information helped the inspection team develop building inspection priorities and a methodical plan for inspecting Minneapolis - St. Paul ARS. The criteria for ranking the buildings were the age of the building, past inspection and assessment report information, and the amount of ACM remaining in the facility.

During the site visits, the E & E team inspected and assessed 21 buildings selected by the asbestos program manager. Data for each building surveyed were recorded on the ACM inspection forms presented at the in-briefing. Results of all field data obtained during the

02:000920_RX_15_04-B1023 5

inspection were printed and the data will be entered in the base’s ACM database for inclusion in the updated Asbestos Management Plan. Eighteen assessments were performed on friable ACM and 149 assessments were performed on non-friable ACM for a total of 167 asbestos assessments. These assessments were used to determine initial priority ranking of each individual material inspected, based on the AF GRADE algorithm. Attachment D provides details of the results by building. Of the 167 assessments, only one material area was found to be in poor condition based upon the assessment criteria defined by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA).

Furthermore, bulk samples were either taken from areas where it would not cause damage to existing surfaces or were duplicated from previous historical sampling and analytical efforts. A total of 40 bulk samples were obtained by certified inspection personnel using standard asbestos-sampling procedures.

Bulk Sample Results Samples were submitted under standard chain-of-custody procedures to the EMSL Laboratory in Depew, New York, for analysis. Of the 30 total samples taken, 14 samples were deemed friable.

An analysis was performed using Polarized Light Microscopy (PLM) with point counting to quantify ACM. Four samples had multiple layers (two and three layers) which required separation and further individual analysis. The analytical results of the friable samples taken indicated one of the total of 19 samples contained asbestos equal or greater than 1% by weight.

Three samples were less than 1% by weight and 15 samples were non detect for ACM.

The remaining 16 samples were determined to be non-friable, organically bound (NOB) materials and were analyzed with Transmission Electron Microscopy (TEM). With the use of TEM, the analysts evaluated the samples and performed further or multiple analyses if any other dissimilar materials were observed. This procedure is typically performed with floor and ceiling tiles, where adhesive that contains ACM is used to bond finishes to various substrates. This occurred in six samples which caused an additional seven analyses to be performed for a total of

23. To summarize the results of the TEM analysis, it was determined that eight out of the 23 samples contained asbestos equal or greater than 1% by weight. No samples were less than 1% by weight and deemed to be non-asbestos. For the balance of the samples (15), no asbestos was detected. Total number of analyses for both sets of samples for this site visit is 42.

Analytical results from the Minneapolis - St. Paul ARS site visit are provided in Table 2.

Table 2 Asbestos Bulk Sample Analytical Results

Minneapolis - St. Paul Air Reserve Station

Sample Number Date

Sampled Sample Color

General Material

Description

Friability F-friable

NF-non-friable Analytical Method*

% Matrix or Non-fibrous

Materials

Asbestos Results**

(% by weight) MSP-821-080502-001A 8/5/02 Gray Vinyl 12” x 12” floor tile

NF TEM 100% NAD

MSP-821-080502-001B 8/5/02 Black Vinyl 12” x 12” floor tile mastic

NF TEM 100% NAD

02:000920_RX_15_04-B1023 6

Table 2 Asbestos Bulk Sample Analytical Results

Minneapolis - St. Paul Air Reserve Station

Sample Number Date

Sampled Sample Color

General Material

Description

Friability F-friable

NF-non-friable Analytical Method*

% Matrix or Non-fibrous

Materials

Asbestos Results**

(% by weight) MSP-821-080502-002 8/5/02 White Lath/cement ceiling patch from stairwell to main electrical room

NF TEM 100% NAD

MSP-821-080502-003 8/5/02 Gray Vent caulk from joint above vent in entrance stairwell to subbasement

NF TEM 94.8% 5.2%

Chrysotile

MSP-822-080502-004A 8/5/02 Gray Pipe covering on ½” pipe on mezzanine deck in metals shop

F PLM-PC 100% NAD

MSP-822-080502-004B 8/5/02 Brown Pipe wrap on ½” pipe on mezzanine deck in metal shop

F PLM-PC 100% NAD

MSP-822-080502-005 8/5/02 Brown Wall board insulation at NE cage area – 3rd floor

F PLM-PC 100% NAD

MSP-820-080502-006 8/5/02 Gray High pressure condensate line elbow insulation in mechanical room

F PLM-PC 100% NAD

MSP-801-080502-007 8/5/02 Gray Bumper guard north wall, center

NF TEM 100% NAD

MSP-802-080602-008A 8/6/02 White Wall board spackling base of east wall in storage area by mechanical room

F PLM-PC 100% NAD

MSP-802-080602-008B 8/6/02 Brown Wall board fiber cover base of east wall in storage area by mechanical room

F PLM-PC 100% NAD

MSP-802-080602-008C 8/6/02 Gray Wall board core base of east wall in storage area by mechanical room

F PLM-PC 100% NAD

MSP-802-080602-009A 8/6/02 Gray Pipe insulation, 4” pipe above ceiling in restroom

F PLM-PC 100% <1% Chrysotile <1% Amosite

02:000920_RX_15_04-B1023 7

Table 2 Asbestos Bulk Sample Analytical Results

Minneapolis - St. Paul Air Reserve Station

Sample Number Date

Sampled Sample Color

General Material

Description

Friability F-friable

NF-non-friable Analytical Method*

% Matrix or Non-fibrous

Materials

Asbestos Results**

(% by weight) MSP-802-080602-009B 8/6/02 Brown Pipe wrap – 4” pipe above ceiling in restroom

F PLM-PC 100% <1% Chrysotile <1% Amosite

MSP-812-080602-010 8/6/02 Gray Interior door insulation from boiler #7 door (back door)

F PLM-PC 100% NAD

MSP-812-080602-011 8/6/02 Gray Interior door insulation - east end of boiler #5 (back door)

F PLM-PC 100% NAD

MSP-812-080602-012 8/6/02 Gray Exterior door insulation - right front door -boiler #7 - west end of boiler

F PLM-PC 60% 40% Chrysotile

MSP-812-080602-013 8/6/02 Pink Interior door insulation - left side front door of boiler #7 - west end of boiler

F PLM-PC 100% NAD

MSP-812-080602-014 8/6/02 Black Joint seal, floor by work bench west end of building

NF TEM 100% NAD

MSP-812-080602-015 8/6/02 Tan Joint seal – floor NW end of building near sink and washer/dryer

NF TEM 100% NAD

MSP-812-080602-016 8/6/02 Black Joint sealing gasket – floor/wall joint -southwest side of ELL in main bay

F PLM-PC 100% <1% Chrysotile

MSP-812-080602-017A 8/6/02 Black 9" by 9" floor tile – Mezz-SW corner

NF TEM 69% 31% Chrysotile

MSP-812-080602-017B 8/6/02 Black 9" by 9" floor tile mastic – Mezz – SW corner

NF TEM 96.2% 3.8%

Chrysotile

MSP-802-080602-018A 8/6/02 Brown Plaster board paper west wall in apparatus bay

F PLM-PC 100% NAD

02:000920_RX_15_04-B1023 8

Table 2 Asbestos Bulk Sample Analytical Results

Minneapolis - St. Paul Air Reserve Station

Sample Number Date

Sampled Sample Color

General Material

Description

Friability F-friable

NF-non-friable Analytical Method*

% Matrix or Non-fibrous

Materials

Asbestos Results**

(% by weight) MSP-802-080602-018B 8/6/02 Gray Plaster board paper – west wall in apparatus bay

F PLM-PC 100% NAD

MSP-807-080602-019A 8/6/02 Tan 9" by 9" floor tile – Chiller Room behind bar

NF TEM 98.5% 1.5%

Chrysotile

MSP-807-080602-019B 8/6/02 Gray 9" by 9" floor tile mastic – Chiller Room behind bar

NF TEM 100% NAD

MSP-807-080602-020A 8/6/02 White Plaster board covering outer surface – Basement Mech.

Room

NF TEM 100% NAD

MSP-807-080602-020B 8/6/02 Brown Plaster board-paper – Basement Mech.

Room

NF TEM 100% NAD

MSP-807-080602-020C 8/6/02 Tan /Gray

Plasterboard plaster core – Basement Mech.

Room

NF TEM 100% NAD

MSP-807-080602-021A 8/6/02 White Plaster board outer coating – base of wall at south end of chiller

NF TEM 100% NAD

MSP-807-080602-021B 8/6/02 Tan /Gray

Plaster board – core – base wall by door at south end of chiller

NF TEM 100% NAD

MSP-865-080602-022 8/6/02 Gray Custodial Admin. Room 2’ x 2’ ceiling tile

F PLM-PC 100% NAD

MSP-865-080702-023 8/7/02 White Window glazing compound – Custodial Admin. Room

NF TEM 98% 1.0%

Chrysotile

1.0% Anthophyllite

MSP-395-080702-024 8/7/02 Gray Plaster ceiling – hall outside catering office

NF TEM 100% NAD

MSP-725-080702-025 8/7/02 Brown Floor tile – 9” x 9” base of stairs to basement

NF TEM 82% 18% Chrysotile

MSP-727-080702-026 8/7/02 Black Roof shingle, attic entrance hatch to closet

NF TEM 100% NAD

02:000920_RX_15_04-B1023 9

Table 2 Asbestos Bulk Sample Analytical Results

Minneapolis - St. Paul Air Reserve Station

Sample Number Date

Sampled Sample Color

General Material

Description

Friability F-friable

NF-non-friable Analytical Method*

% Matrix or Non-fibrous

Materials

Asbestos Results**

(% by weight) MSP-727-080702-027 8/7/02 Gray Insulation at attic entrance in closet

F PLM-PC 100% NAD

MSP-729-080702-028 8/7/02 Gray Pipe insulation on disconnected pipe on west side by crawl space entry

F PLM-PC 100% NAD

MSP-730-080702-029 8/7/02 White Window glazing compound window left of double doors

NF TEM 98.4% 1.6%

Anthophyllite

MSP-802-080702-030A 8/7/02 Brown Floor tile, kitchenette on 2nd floor

NF TEM 100% NAD

MSP-802-080702-030B 8/7/02 Black Floor tile mastic 2nd floor kitchenette

NF TEM 94.7% 5.3 %

Chrysotile

* PLM for friable asbestos with point counting if results between 1%-3%. NOBs.

** NAD = No asbestos detected Note: Non-friable floor tile and mastic were analyzed separately in samples 001and 001A, 017A and 017B, 019A and 019B, 020A and 020B and 020C, 021A and 021B and 030A and 030B. Friable insulation and covering and plaster board analyzed separately in samples 004A and 004B, 008A and 008B, and 008C, 009A and 009B, 018A and 018B.

General Comments As discussed at the out-briefing with the base staff, the team stated the asbestos and LBP programs are in very well maintained condition. This is a credit to the teamwork of the BCE, CEV, and Bioenvironmental Engineering staff. The building files contain current information that needs to be reviewed and confirmed by the base staff prior to entry into the management plan. In addition, the buildings were well maintained with only a few areas of deteriorating ACMs that could be addressed with a small maintenance and repair program.

Only limited survey and assessment work was performed on the LBP program. Painted surfaces are very well maintained. As previously mentioned, 24 of the painted surfaces surveyed were above the AF action level and were noted to be in deteriorated condition. Almost all of these surfaces were located on either interior or exterior surfaces at high-impact areas in Building 865, which is under review for major reconstruction.

The base should continue to perform intrusive and non-intrusive surveys when remodeling and when demolition projects are planned under contract to outside architect/engineering firms.

These outside design firms also need to confirm the results of these surveys and incorporate environmental abatement into the specific project design and construction.

02:000920_RX_15_04-B1023 11

ATTACHMENT A

AFRC Contract No. F09609-98-D-0003 Task Order # 5050

Update Asbestos & Lead Management Plans

In-briefing Minneapolis-St. Paul Air Reserve Station

Monday, August 5, 2002

� Introduction of Minneapolis-St. Paul ARS and E & E Staff:

� Purpose of Task Order and Field Work:

♦ Updating the Lead-based Paint and Asbestos Model Management Plans

♦ Perform Inspection for Lead-based Paint (LBP) and Asbestos in prioritized buildings

♦ Perform Selected Sampling for LBP and Asbestos in prioritized buildings

♦ Review of the AFRC Environmental Data Warehouse (EDW) for LBP and Asbestos with the Program Managers

� Schedule of Site Visit:

♦ Monday, August 5, 2002, to Thursday, August 8, 2002

� Program Support Requirements:

♦ AFRC Health, Safety, and Program Managers

♦ Building Managers during inspection and sampling

♦ Program Managers during Model Management Plan Review

� Future Deliverables:

♦ Inspection Report

♦ Updated Draft Management Plans – LBP and Asbestos

♦ Internet site for Minn-St. Paul ARS – Management Plans and Data Warehouse

♦ Final Management Plans and Data

02:000920_RX_15_04-B1023 12

ATTACHMENT B

AFRC Contract No. F09609-98-D-0003 Task Order 5050

FY 02 Update Asbestos & Lead Management Plans

Out-briefing Minneapolis-St. Paul Air Reserve Station

Thursday, August 8, 2002

� Management Plans Reviewed for Updating during Site Visit:

♦ LBP Management Plan

♦ Asbestos Management Plan

� Field Work Accomplished:

Lead Based Paint Program:

♦ Buildings inspected for lead-based paint: 11 ♦ LBP XRF readings taken less calibrations: 504

♦ Confirmatory bulk lead-free samples taken: 9

Asbestos Program:

♦ Buildings Inspected for asbestos: 21

♦ Asbestos assessments performed: 167

♦ Bulk samples taken: 42

� Summary of XRF Results and Asbestos Inspections:

Tables attached

� Future Deliverables (Typical):

♦ Post Site Inspection Report submittal 4 weeks after site visit *

♦ Draft Management Plans Asbestos and LBP 8 weeks after site visit*

♦ AFRC / Base Comments due 4 weeks after draft MP

♦ Final Management Plans – Asbestos and LBP 4 weeks after comments

*(Minneapolis-St. Paul ARS site visit completion date 8/8/02)

02:000920_RX_15_04-B1023

ATTACHMENT C

AFRC Contract No. F09609-98-D-0003 Task Order 5050

FY 02 Update Asbestos & Lead Management Plans

Out-briefing Lead-Based Paint Assessment Information

Minneapolis - St. Paul Air Reserve Station Thursday, August 8, 2002

XRF Readings

Equal to and Exceeding HUD Action Level of

1.0 mg/cm2

Less than the HUD Action Level of 1.0 mg/cm2 but equal or exceeding to the AF Action

Level of 0.5 mg/cm2

Less than the AF Action Level of 0.5 mg/cm2 but greater than

0.0 mg/cm2

Equal or less than 0.0 mg/cm2

B ui ld in g N um be r

T ot al X

R F

R ea di ng s

C al ib ra ti on

R ea di ng s T ak en

T ot al R ea di ng s

In ta ct P ai nt

D et er io ra te d P ai nt

T ot al R ea di ng s

In ta ct P ai nt

D et er io ra te d P ai nt

T ot al R ea di ng s

In ta ct P ai nt

D et er io ra te d P ai nt

T ot al R ea di ng s

In ta ct P ai nt

D et er io ra te d P ai nt

Bulk Samples Taken

395 52 0 16 16 0 13 12 1 9 6 3 14 14 0 2 606 20 6 2 2 0 6 6 0 2 2 0 4 4 0 0 725 28 0 6 4 2 13 13 0 5 4 1 4 4 0 1 727 23 6 5 5 0 0 0 0 6 6 0 6 6 0 0 812 23 6 9 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 8 0 0 820 21 0 2 2 0 8 8 0 1 1 0 10 10 0 0 821 132 16 33 33 0 31 31 0 6 6 0 46 46 0 1 822 100 10 27 24 3 27 25 2 6 6 0 30 27 3 1

822A 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 830 41 6 1 1 0 12 12 0 2 2 0 20 20 0 0 865 123 10 49 34 15 12 11 1 5 5 0 47 45 2 4

Totals 564 60 151 131 20 122 118 4 42 38 4 189 184 5 9 *– Designated as high priority building per the Air Force Policy and Guidance on LBP in Facilities date 24 May 1993.

No designated high priority buildings are present at Minneapolis-St. Paul ARS. Action level for painted surfaces is per HUD guidelines of 1.0 mg/cm2.

1229106500C Highlight

02:000920_RX_15_04-B1023

ATTACHMENT D

AFRC Contract No. F09609-98-D-0003 Task Order 5050

FY 02 Update Asbestos & Lead Management Plans Out-briefing

Asbestos Assessments Minneapolis-St. Paul Air Reserve Station

Thursday, August 8, 2002

ACM Conditions*Building Number

Total Assessments

Friable Assessments

Non-friable Assessments Good Fair Poor

Bulk Samples Taken

395 2 0 2 2 0 0 1 400 0 0 0 - - - 0 606 7 1 6 7 0 0 0 720 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 725 13 0 13 13 0 0 1 726 0 0 0 - - - 0 727 7 0 7 7 0 0 2 728 0 0 0 - - - 0 729 5 3 2 3 2 0 1 730 4 0 4 3 1 0 1 750 7 1 6 7 0 0 0 760 2 2 0 2 0 0 0 801 18 0 18 18 0 0 1 802 12 2 10 12 0 0 9** 807 8 0 8 7 0 1 7** 812 13 0 13 13 0 0 9** 820 3 1 2 3 0 0 1 821 23 3 20 23 0 0 4** 822 13 2 11 13 0 0 3** 830 11 1 10 11 0 0 0 865 18 2 16 18 0 0 2

TOTALS 167 18 149 163 3 1 42

* Including some assumed Non-friable Organically Bound (NOBs) asbestos containing materials ** Multiple layer analysis included in total bulk samples taken.