Santa Fe Lead Inspection Report.pdf

Lead Based Paint Inspections

At

Santa Fe Service Unit Santa Fe, New Mexico for

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

Albuquerque, New Mexico 87110

By

U.S. Public Health Service Federal Occupational Health

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

September 2007

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Section Title Page No.

1.0 INTRODUCTION

2.0 SURVEY METHODS

2.1 XRF INSTRUMENTATION

2.2 XRF CALIBRATION CHECK

2.3 SUBSTRATE CORRECTION

2.4 FIELD DOCUMENTATION

3.0 LEAD-BASED PAINT DEFINITIONS

4.0 RESULTS SUMMARY

5.0 DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

6.0 PROJECT LIMITATIONS

Appendices

A TABLES OF XRF FIELD DATA AND CALIBRATIONS

B XRF SPECTRUM ANALYZER RESULTS & PROGRAMMING COST ESTIMATES

C SITE MAPS

D CERTIFICATIONS

1.0 INTRODUCTION

As requested by the Albuquerque Area Indian Health Service (IHS), a Lead-Based Paint (LBP) Inspection was conducted on eight (8) facility buildings at the Santa Fe Service Unit in Santa Fe, New Mexico between December 10 - 21, 2006. The purpose of the inspection was to identify lead in paint on interior and exterior painted surfaces of each building. Measurements were made using a Niton X-ray Fluorescence (XRF) Spectrum Analyzer. Confirmatory chip sampling for laboratory analysis proved to be unnecessary. The inspections were conducted by Mr. Donovan Denny, Mr. Landon Johnson, Ms.

Stephanie Jury, Mr. James Marshall, and Mrs. Suzette Numkena, Lead Inspectors and/or Risk Assessors, representing Federal Occupational Health (FOH).

Sampling procedures similar to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Guidelines for the Evaluation and Control of Lead-Based Paint Hazards in Housing, dated June 1995, and revised in 1997, were followed for each of the buildings. Within each area sampled, procedures similar to the HUD multifamily housing inspection, as outlined in Chapter 7 of the HUD Guidelines, were employed.

The Santa Fe Service unit consists of eight (8) medical facility buildings. This includes a main hospital, dental clinic, maintenance building, and other medical and administrative support buildings. The majority of the buildings are modular style buildings. The main hospital (Building 2000) is a large structure built slab on grade. Building 333 is also a former clinic building, which is non-modular. All buildings are located on the same medical complex grounds. Refer to Appendix A, for a list of painted building components found and tested at each building. Appendix C contains the site maps for each building.

2.0 SURVEY METHODS

2.1 XRF Instrumentation

Measurements of lead in paint were made using a Niton XRF Spectrum Analyzer (serial number XL309- U3978NR6814). The XRF Lead Paint Analyzer non-destructively measures lead concentrations of painted surfaces. The XRF system includes three main components: (1) the XRF analyzer, which is a portable analytical instrument operating on the principles of X-ray fluorescence; (2) forms for recording of field data; and (3) report generation software, which allows for generation of data tables.

The criteria for classifying results obtained using the XRF are as shown in Table 1 below. These results are taken from the HUD/EPA Performance Characteristics Sheet, specific for the XRF system used in this survey.

Table 1: LBP Classification Criteria, K-Shell Value

Substrate Negative Inconclusive Positive Brick < 0.9 None > 1.0 Concrete < 0.9 None > 1.0 Drywall < 0.9 None > 1.0 Metal < 0.9 None > 1.0 Plaster < 0.9 None > 1.0 Wood < 0.9 None > 1.0 *Values Reported as Milligrams per Square Centimeter (mg/cm2)

FOH Lead Inspectors are licensed by the State of Utah Department of Environmental Quality, Division of Radiation Control, to own and operate x-ray fluorescence analyzers in Utah. FOH representatives

-1-obtained a Reciprocity Agreement with the State of Arizona Radiation Regulatory Agency, which allows operation of XRF instruments in New Mexico under the Utah license. Mr. Denny, Mr. Johnson, Ms.

Jury, Mr. Marshall, and Mrs. Numkena, are certified by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to perform LBP inspections. Copies of certifications for the Lead Inspectors and/or Risk Assessors can be found in Appendix D.

2.2 XRF Calibration Check

Standard quality control procedures with respect to the XRF were performed during the survey. The internal calibration of the XRF was checked by taking a minimum of three consecutive measurements on a National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST) standard with a known concentration of lead.

The results of the calibration checks were then used to verify that the instrument was operating within acceptable limits. These calibration checks are reported within the XRF data tables found in Appendix A of this report and are maintained in a file to detect changes in instrument performance over time.

2.3 Substrate Correction

For some XRF instruments, it is necessary to make corrections for bias in XRF readings made on some painted surfaces or "substrates". In accordance with the HUD/EPA Performance Characteristics Sheet for the XRF analyzer used, it is not necessary to correct for substrate bias.

2.4 Field Documentation

Field data forms were used to manually record information about individual XRF measurements. This information included the room number, the building component (such as wall, ceiling, door, baseboard, cabinet, etc.), component substrate (for example drywall, wood, metal, concrete), and paint condition.

The field data forms were then used by the inspector to couple measurement-specific descriptive information to the sequential data once the instrument’s electronic memory was downloaded to a personal computer. This information was then manipulated by the instrument’s software to generate data tables for the written report.

According to the HUD Guidelines, each enclosed space in a structure (e.g., room, stairway, hallway, etc.)

is considered a separate "room equivalent" and must be tested separately. To keep track of where individual measurement locations were made, interior and exterior walls of a structure were designated as A, B, C, and D, as shown in the attached drawings. The A wall was designated as the North wall in this inspection, and the B, C, and D walls are in clockwise order from the A wall. The wall and position on the wall (i.e., left, right, or center) was also recorded when readings were taken on components such as windows or doors. Any comments regarding a particular room were also recorded and may be found in the data tables located in Appendix A.

Paint color and condition are noted and included in the data tables. Under Paint Condition an "I" indicates intact or sound paint; an "F" indicates fair condition (paint surfaces show minor damage); a "P" indicates poor condition (paint is peeling, cracking, or blistering or shows other significant damage).

The report generation software combined the lead readings stored in the XRF analyzer with the test sample location information recorded in the field to produce data tables. The transfer of data from the analyzer to the computer was made through an interface cable supplied as part of the XRF system.

3.0 LEAD-BASED PAINT DEFINITIONS

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) considers paint to be lead-based paint (LBP) if the concentration is 1.0 milligram of lead per square centimeter (1.0 mg/cm

) or greater, or if the lead concentration is greater than 5000 parts per million (ppm) or 0.5% by weight. The Consumer

-2-

Product Safety Commission (CPSC) currently considers paint to be lead-containing if the concentration of lead exceeds 600 ppm (0.06% by weight). In 1978, the CPSC banned the sale of lead-based paint to consumers and its application to areas where consumers have direct access to painted surfaces. This survey classified LBP on the basis of the HUD 1.0 mg/cm criteria and 0.5% by weight (5000 ppm).

By contrast, the mission of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), with respect to lead in paint, is to protect workers during construction activities that may generate elevated airborne lead concentrations. OSHA states that construction work (including renovation, maintenance, and demolition) carried-out on structures coated with paints that have lead concentrations lower than the HUD or CPSC limits can still result in airborne lead concentrations in excess of regulatory limits. For this reason, OSHA has not defined lead-containing paint, but states that paint having any measurable level of lead may pose a substantial exposure hazard during construction work, depending upon the work performed. The owner or employers must be aware of the OSHA Lead in Construction Standard (29 CFR 1926.62) and the Respiratory Protection Standard (29 CFR 1910.134).

4.0 RESULTS SUMMARY

Table 2 summarizes the results and information for each building inspected and provides hyperlinks (electronic copy) to XRF Results Tables and Programming Cost Estimates and XRF Field Data Results.

XRF Field Data Results are located in Appendix A of this report. The tables show all lead measurements in the order taken for each of the structures and sampling areas tested. Descriptions of the columns found in the data tables are also described in Appendix A.

Table 2: Santa Fe Service Unit Summary of Units Inspected and Associated Hyperlinks

(electronic version only)

Location Building Number

Unit Type (Appendix C)

Lead Present

XRF Results and

Programming Cost Estimate (Appendix B)

XRF Field Data Results (Appendix A)

Santa Fe 333 Service Yes 1 Santa Fe 334 Office No Not Applicable 1 Santa Fe 335 Service Yes 1 Santa Fe 336 Service No Not Applicable 1 Santa Fe 2000 Hospital Yes 1 Santa Fe 2001 Service Yes 1 Santa Fe 2002 Storage Yes 1 Santa Fe 2003 Clinic No Not Applicable 1

According to HUD Guidelines, lead-based paint was identified at or above 1.0 mg/cm

2 on interior and/or exterior building components sampled in Buildings 333, 335, 2000, 2001, and 2002 during the survey.

The XRF Results Table located in Appendix B identifies the room number, building component, paint color and condition, and approximate square footage of lead-based paint materials.

Programming Cost Estimates (Appendix B) were developed for the removal of lead based paint building components. The Programming Cost Estimates were derived by use of the Means Cost Guide and by consultation with experienced local contractors. The pricing reflects current industry rates. Future fluctuations in industry pricing, both natural and seasonal, may affect this estimate. In addition, Service Units outside of metropolitan areas may incur additional costs due to travel requirements on the part of abatement contractors. For purposes of this estimate, an 18% mark-up for logistical costs is included.

-3-

This estimate is for abatement contractor costs only. Additional costs, which are not included in this estimate, are those of an environmental consultant and replacement of building materials that have been removed. The total estimated cost for the chemical removal of lead based paint at the Santa Fe Service Unit is $230,773.49. The total estimated cost for the component demolition of building materials applied with lead based paint at the Santa Fe Service Unit is $13,494.83.

5.0 DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Lead-based paint (LBP) was detected on interior and exterior building components during sampling conducted by FOH on December 10-December 21 2006. The interior LBP components were in good condition. Much of the exterior LBP components on building 333 were in poor or deteriorating condition. Due to the observed good condition of the interior LBP components, FOH does not recommend abatement or maintenance attention to the LBP unless they will be disturbed by renovation or demolition activities. However, FOH does recommend stabilization of the damaged exterior LBP by encapsulation with additional non-lead containing paint. FOH’s estimate for stabilizing the damaged paint by encapsulation with additional paint is approximately six (6) days of maintenance work.

The mere presence of LBP in a building poses no health hazard so long as the paint remains intact. Lead is only a hazard to adults and workers when it is inhaled, as fine dust or fume, or when it is ingested, when a painted surface is mouthed or chewed by a child, or inadvertently through contamination of surfaces, hands, and food by lead-contaminated dust. Therefore, to minimize the potential hazards associated with the presence of LBP, the following procedures should be implemented.

• Identification (through testing) of all known or suspect LBP surfaces and communication of the presence of LBP surfaces to workers potentially affected by the presence of LBP. Although the LBP testing has been completed, completion of a specific Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Program is suggested to organize a coherent, continuous program outlining procedures for routine inspections, maintenance, and immediate clean-up of damaged LBP surfaces. The O&M Program should address periodic inspections, maintenance activities, methods of safe and prompt clean-up when a licensed lead abatement contractor is not used, work procedures which are likely to create lead hazards, and a program of standard work procedures which are designed to minimize lead contamination.

Development of an O&M Program was not part of FOH’s original Scope of Work.

The on-site maintenance should perform periodic inspections to assess the condition of LBP (i.e. chip, peel, or flake). If areas of LBP become damaged or deteriorated, a licensed lead abatement contractor should be contacted regarding removal or abatement. Maintenance activities which should be avoided in areas where known or suspect LBP is located include, but are not limited to:

• Scraping, sanding, or using a heat gun on painted surfaces before repainting;

• Making holes in walls to access at pipes, install electrical outlets, etc.;

• Removing building components for renovation activities;

• Repeatedly bumping furniture or other objects into painted components;

• Unnecessarily opening and closing windows with LBP components.

Major work or renovation performed on LBP components should be completed by a licensed LBP abatement contractor. However, if minor repair or immediate clean-up is necessary for a specific LBP component, at a minimum, the following work and clean-up procedures should be incorporated:

• Move children and pregnant women to another area of the facility until work is completed and the area is properly cleaned;

-4-

• Cover exposed areas using plastic to seal off entrances and ducts and protect furniture, carpets, rugs, and floors from paint dust and chips. Plastic should be carefully disposed;

• Wet the painted surface with soapy water prior to working;

• Thoroughly clean area following work. Clean-up dust and chips with wet mops or rags soaked in a solution of trisodium phosphate (TSP) or phosphate containing powdered dishwashing detergent.

Use two buckets of water – one for wash and one for rinse. To prevent recontamination of cleaned surfaces, wash mops and rags thoroughly after each use. Dust, chips, debris, mops, and rags should be contained in plastic bags and disposed of properly by a licensed lead abatement contractor;

• Avoid sweeping or vacuuming the work area. Sweeping and vacuuming spread lead dust particles, since the filters are not fine enough to contain LBP particles;

• If an entire LBP component (such as a window sill or door frame) requires removal, a representative sample should be taken of the LBP-coated component and this sample should be analyzed via the Toxic Characteristic Leaching Process (TCLP) method to determine whether the component must be disposed of as a hazardous waste. A licensed lead contractor should take the sample and a certified, licensed laboratory should provide the analysis for the TCLP method.

There are three general control strategies for controlling lead paint. These are component replacement, encapsulation, and paint removal. The most cost effective up front control strategy is to encapsulate LBP by repainting areas of chipped, damaged, or deteriorating paint. Cleaning of the component and surface using procedures described above should be completed prior to encapsulation activities. Safe and prompt clean-up of LBP debris or dust when damage or deterioration is encountered should be completed by a licensed lead abatement contractor when possible. LBP component removal and paint removal are considered LBP abatement and would need to be completed by a licensed lead abatement contractor.

Should removal or abatement be completed, an exposure assessment should be performed during the work, as required by the OSHA lead-in-construction standard.

FOH recommends personnel responsible for conducting maintenance of LBP components in the facility meet the training requirements for maintenance workers on LBP hazards. This training includes procedures that minimize lead dust generation and soil contamination during maintenance activities, as defined by the EPA and the United States Department HUD. Portions of the OSHA 29 CFR 1910.1025 General Lead Industry Standard apply to maintenance activities that involve making or keeping a structure, fixture, or foundation in proper condition in a routine, scheduled, or anticipated fashion.

6.0 PROJECT LIMITATIONS

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

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

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

-5-

APPENDIX A

Tables of XRF Field Data & Calibrations

DATA TABLE HEADING DESCRIPTIONS

Column Heading Description

XL No. Sequential number of each lead measurement

Site Building number or name

Insp Inspector initials

Side Wall (A, B, C, or D) the measurement was taken on

Room Room number shot was taken in

Sub Substrate of tested material (wood, concrete, etc.)

Feat The actual component tested (door, window, etc.)

Cnd Condition of paint (Intact, Fair, Poor)

Clr Color of Paint

Result Negative or Positive for lead content over 1.0mg/cm2

Pbc±Prec Result reported in milligrams per centimeter squared

(mg/cm2).

APPENDIX B

XRF Spectrum Analyzer Results & Programming Cost Estimates

Santa Fe Building 333

XRF Spectrum Analyzer Results December 19, 2006

Room No. Building Component Color/Condition Approx. ft2 Exterior Concrete Walls White/Intact 5,000

Exterior Wood Window Components Brown/Intact Beige/Fair 600

Exterior Wood Door Components Brown/Intact White/Poor 280

Exterior Wood Gutter Spout Beige/Intact 16

Exterior Concrete Curb Paint Yellow/Red/Intact 120

Interior Wood Baseboards & Toe Kicks White/Intact 350

Interior Wood Door Components White/Fair 1,400

Interior Wood Window Components White/Interior 600

Interior Wood Stall Door Components Brown/Intact 240 Interior Wood Closet Shelf Components White/Intact 300

Interior Wood Crown Molding Components White/Intact 350

Interior Wood Hanger Rods White/Intact 75

Interior Wood Closet Door Components Peach/White/Intact 360 2-Closet, 6, 29, 28-Closet Concrete Floor Gray/Poor Red/Intact 132

35 Concrete Window Sill Green/Intact 5 32 Metal Horizontal Pipe Red/Intact 10

32, 35 Metal Window Casing Green/Intact 10

35 Metal Pipe Light Green/Intact 5

32, 35 Metal Window Sash Green/Intact 5 Interior Plaster Walls White/Intact 16,000 Interior Plaster Ceilings Green/Intact 4,015 17, 22 Plaster Fireplace Red/Intact 20 17, 22 Plaster Fireplace Base Red/Intact 10

23 Wood Counter Molding White/Intact 7 23 Wood Drawer White/Intact 3 17 Wood Floor Stained/Intact 165

28 Wood Hatch Door Frame White/Intact 5 23-B Wood Lower Cabinet Door White/Intact 6

31 Wood Stair Riser White/Intact 3 23 Wood Upper Cabinet Door White/Intact 171

Table 2:

Building 333 Lead Dust Wipe Samples

Sample # Sample Date Location Wipe Area (ft2) µg/ft2

IHS-SF333-1 12/20/06 Exterior front center door step 1 328

IHS-SF333-2 12/20/06 Room 17-Floor under SW window 1 379

IHS-SF333-3 12/20/06 Room 29- Floor NW by door 1 20.6

IHS-SF333-5 12/20/06 Room 2-Floor under window 1 135

IHS-SF333-6 12/20/06 Room 8-Floor by NE door 1 1,020

IHS-SF333-7 12/20/06 Room 6-Floor at threshold 1 1,200

IHS-SF333-8 12/20/06 Room 27-Floor at threshold 1 63.0

IHS-SF333-10 12/20/06 Room 22-Floor at threshold 1 1,100

IHS-SF333-11 12/20/06 Basement floor at main door 1 2,550

IHS-SF333-12 12/20/06 Basement RT. Rm.

floor at main door 1 650

*Reported in Micrograms per Square Foot (µg/ft2)

Laboratory analysis indicates that all of the lead dust wipe samples collected from Santa Fe Building 333 were above the EPA and HUD hazard/clearance levels of 40 mg/ ft2.

Building 333

Programming Cost Estimate

Santa Fe Building 333 Chemical Removal Component Demolition

Room Number Building Component Quantity

(sf) Unit Cost

(sf) Total* Unit Cost

(sf) Total* Exterior Concrete Walls 5,000 $3.73 $22,007.00 NA NA Exterior Wood Window Components 600 $10.00 $7,080.00 $0.40 $283.20 Exterior Wood Door Components 280 $18.80 $6,211.52 $1.88 $621.15 Exterior Wood Gutter Spout 16 $13.33 $251.67 $3.98 $75.14 Exterior Concrete Curb Paint 120 $3.73 $528.17 NA NA Interior Wood Baseboards & Toe Kicks 350 $5.19 $2,143.47 $1.61 $664.93 Interior Wood Door Components 1,400 $9.22 $15,231.44 $0.81 $1,338.12 Interior Wood Window Components 600 $10.00 $7,080.00 $0.40 $283.20 Interior Wood Stall Door Components 240 $13.33 $3,775.06 $3.98 $1,127.14 Interior Wood Closet Shelf Components 300 $3.73 $1,320.42 $2.02 $715.08 Interior Wood Crown Molding

Components 350 $13.33 $5,505.29 $0.41 $169.33

Interior Wood Hanger Rods 75 $3.73 $330.11 $2.02 $178.77 Interior Wood Closet Door Components 360 $10.41 $4,422.17 $1.37 $581.98

2-Closet, 6, 29, 28- Closet Concrete Floor 132 $3.73 $580.98 N/A N/A

35 Concrete Window Sill 5 $13.33 $78.65 $3.98 $23.48 32 Metal horizontal Pipe 10 $10.10 $119.18 N/A N/A

32, 35 Metal Window Casing 10 $13.31 $157.06 $5.32 $62.78 35 Metal Pipe 5 $10.10 $59.59 N/A N/A

32, 35 Metal Window Sash 5 $13.31 $78.53 $5.32 $31.39 Interior Plaster Walls 16,000 $3.99 $75,331.20 $0.20 $3,776.00 Interior Plaster Ceilings 4,015 $7.98 $37,806.85 $0.51 $2,416.23 17, 22 Plaster Fireplace 20 $13.33 $314.59 $3.98 $93.93 17, 22 Plaster Fireplace Base 10 $13.33 $157.29 $3.98 $46.96

23 Wood Counter Molding 7 $6.96 $57.49 $0.13 $1.07 23 Wood Drawer 3 $10.41 $36.85 $1.37 $4.85 17 Wood Floor 165 $3.99 $776.85 $0.41 $79.83 28 Wood Hatch Door Frame 5 $3.99 $23.54 $1.88 $11.09

23-B Wood Lower Cabinet Door 6 $10.41 $73.70 $1.37 $9.70 31 Wood Stair Riser 3 $9.11 $32.25 $10.90 $38.59 23 Wood Upper Cabinet Door 171 $10.32 $2,082.37 $1.37 $276.44

Total* $193,653.29 $12,910.85 *Total includes 18% markup.

Santa Fe Building 335

December 19, 2006

Exterior Metal Gas Meter Gray/Intact 3

Building 335

Santa Fe Building 335

Removal

Component Demolition

Room Number

Building Component

Quantity (sf)

Unit Cost

(sf) Total*

Unit Cost

(sf) Total*

Exterior Metal Gas Meter 3 $16.62 $58.83 NA NA Total* $58.83 NA

Santa Fe Hospital 2000

December 12, 2006

G-1 Metal Ladder Orange/Intact 25 sf C-1 Metal I-Beam White/Intact 240 sf P-1 Metal Pipe Hanger White/Intact 200 sf P-1 Metal Roof Hatch Stairs Orange/Intact 40 sf

Exterior Metal Railing Cap Tan/Intact 10 sf Exterior Metal Garage Door Frame Purple/Intact 75 sf Exterior Concrete Light Post Tan/Intact 1,440 sf Exterior Asphalt Parking Stripe Yellow/Intact 2,000 sf Exterior Metal Fire Hydrant Yellow/Intact 485 sf Exterior Concrete Parking Curb Intact Yellow 500 sf Exterior Metal Spout Tan/Intact 160 sf Exterior Concrete Ramp Wall Yellow/Intact 200 sf Exterior Metal Parking Post Yellow/Intact 50 sf Exterior Concrete Low Wall White/Intact 800 sf

Hospital 2000

Santa Fe Hospital 2000

Removal

Component Demolition

Room Number

Building Component

Quantity (sf)

Unit Cost

(sf) Total*

Unit Cost

(sf) Total*

G-1 Metal Ladder 25 $16.62 $490.29 $5.32 $156.94 C-1 Metal I-Beam 240 $16.62 $4706.78 N/A N/A P-1 Metal Pipe Hanger 200 $10.10 $2383.60 N/A N/A P-1 Metal Roof Hatch Stairs 40 $16.62 $784.46 $5.32 $251.10

Exterior Metal Railing Cap 10 $3.73 $44.01 $0.81 $9.56 Exterior Metal Garage Door Frame 75 $18.80 $1663.80 $1.88 $166.38 Exterior Concrete Light Post 1,440 $3.73 $6,338.02 N/A N/A Exterior Asphalt Parking Stripe 2,000 $3.73 $8,802.80 N/A N/A Exterior Metal Fire Hydrant 485 $3.73 $2134.68 N/A N/A Exterior Concrete Parking Curb 500 $3.73 $2200.70 N/A N/A Exterior Metal Spout 160 $10.10 $1906.88 N/A N/A Exterior Concrete Ramp Wall 200 $3.73 $880.28 N/A N/A Exterior Metal Parking Post 50 $3.73 $220.07 N/A N/A Exterior Concrete Low Wall 800 $3.73 $3521.12 N/A N/A Total* $36,077.49 $583.98

Santa Fe Building 2001

December 15, 2006

Exterior Concrete Parking Lot Curb Yellow/Intact 60 Exterior Asphalt Parking Lot Striping Yellow/Intact 150

Building 2001

Santa Fe Building 2001

Removal

Component Demolition

Room Number

Building Component

Quantity (sf)

Unit Cost

(sf) Total*

Unit Cost

(sf) Total*

Exterior Concrete Parking Lot Curb 60 $3.73 $264.08 NA NA Exterior Asphalt Parking Lot Striping 150 $3.73 $660.21 NA NA

Total* $924.29 NA

Kelly Lewis

Santa Fe Building 2002

December 14, 2006

Exterior Metal Post Yellow/Intact 5

Building 2002

Santa Fe Building 2002

Removal

Component Demolition

Room Number

Component

Quantity (sf)

Unit Cost

(sf) Total*

Unit Cost

(sf) Total*

Exterior Metal Post 5 $10.10 $59.59 NA NA Total* $59.59 NA

APPENDIX C

Site Maps

6 5 4 3

21 20

Project:

ALBUQUER

U.S. Public Health Service Federal Occupational Health 2201 Sixth Avenue, M/S Rx21 Seattle, Washington 98121-2500

2 1

QUE

SAN

Sa

AREA INDIAN HEALT

TA FE SERVICE UNIT

nta Fe, New Mexico

Functional Space Map

Building 333

ICE

H SERV

NORTH

Functional Space Map

Building 334

Project:

ALBUQUERQUE AREA INDIAN HEALTH SERVICE

SANTA FE SERVICE UNIT

Santa Fe, New Mexico

U.S. Public Health Service Federal Occupational Health 2201 Sixth Avenue, M/S Rx21

8 5

7 6

Building 335

Project:

ALBUQUERQUE AREA INDIAN HEALTH SERVICE

SANTA FE SERVICE UNIT

Santa Fe, New Mexico

U.S. Public Health Service Federal Occupational Health

Building 336

Project:

ALBUQUERQUE AREA INDIAN HEALTH

SERVICE

SANTA FE SERVICE UNIT

2201 Sixth Avenue, M/S Rx21 Seattle, Washington 98121-

4 3 2 1

N02

LD1 BM G1

D

227 22 222A 220A 21 230

238 236 234 232 228 226 224 222 220 2 A A A A A A A

244A

100D

250A

310 308 306

120D

117A 115A

117C 117E 117D

177B

A

119 120B

0A

0C

115 115B

115A 115C

328 326

322 320 318 316

311 309 307

332 334

350 130A 352

352A

179B

179A

361E

361B

361A

D

271A 271 270

271B

A

G613 G612

701 290

282 267

262 261

0A

801A

8 292

180A

G608

G609 178

178C

178A

178B

252A 200C

273A

266A

200A

274A

801B

258A

256A

200B

100C

247 245

2 239 237 2

2 2

B 2

400C

149B

143C

143D 145 141

147 149A

143A

143B 143F

C

361C

139B

135 136 400B

129 506

133A

133B

131A

133 501

400A

E

1F

121D

121A

1C

B

ALBUQUE

U.S. Public Health Service Federal Occupational Health 2201 Sixth Avenue, M/S Rx21 Seattle, Washington 98121-2500

213 160 158

152 150 156 154

209 207 205 203 201 110

100A

166 219 162

100B 5 223 221 8A 216A 214A

18 216 214 212 210 208 206 204 202 200 208A 206A 204A 202A 200A

210A 212A

200A

190 196

300A

194 193 192 191

195B

195A 195

360D

F Santa

RQUE AREA INDIAN HEALTH SERVICE

SANTA FE SERVICE UNIT

Santa Fe, New Mexico unctional Space Map Fe Hospital Building 2000

15 14

4 12

7 8

Building 2001

Project:

ALBUQUERQUE AREA INDIAN HEALTH SERVICE

SANTA FE SERVICE UNIT

Santa Fe, New Mexico

U.S. Public Health Service Federal Occupational Health

ALBUQUERQUE AREA INDIAN HEALTH SERVICE

SANTA FE SERVICE UNIT

Santa Fe New Mexico

U.S. Public Health Service Federal Occupational Health 2201 Sixth Avenue, M/S Rx21 Seattle, Washington 98121-2500

Garage Door

Building 2002

Building 2003

Project:

ALBUQUERQUE AREA INDIAN HEALTH

SERVICE

SANTA FE SERVICE UNIT

2201 Sixth Avenue, M/S Rx21 Seattle, Washington 98121-

APPENDIX D

Certifications