W911SA22B2016 Attachment 7 Bidder Questions and Answers Lugenbell Div 01 Spectifications.docx

Lugenbeel ARC – Repair VMS and Construct Wash Rack Contractor-Bidder Questions REV-1, 09 September 2022

1. No division 1 specifications were included in the solicitation. Can these be provided?

See Division 1 Specifications attached.

1. Can the basis of design for the premanufactured building be provided? No.

1. Is there a basis-of-design for the epoxy floor section 09 67 23.13? No.

1. What are the dimensions/quantity of the windows that need to be covered in wire mesh panels?

Reference below document for window information:

The double window is the first set of windows, looking north. Dimensions are 32"height 81" length.

The next two sets of windows are looking toward the east. Dimensions are 32" in height 243" in length for each section.

Single window panes are 32" x 40.5".

Per AR 190-51 APDX B;

9/6/22, 9:32 AM Mail - Flumerfelt, Mark E CTR USARMY 88 RD (USA) - Outlook https://webmail.apps.mil/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADU1ZDViM2M2LWRlNWMtNGU5YS04M2VhLTAyMDgyZDAxZGY0YgAQAPmRv6P3Ei5Bg9LCmL3%2B… 3/6

b. Windows. The following apply to all first floor openings, except doors, in excess of 96 square inches that are located less than 12 feet from the ground level and to similar openings above the first floor which can be reached from an elevated portion of the structure or an adjacent structure which provides ground level access. Long narrow openings with the shortest dimension measuring less than 6 inches are exempt from these requirements. If window air conditioning is used, provide steel bars, 9-gauge expanded metal mesh, or welded steel grating per the following risk levels:

(1) Risk level I. Operable windows will have adequate individual locking devices. Windows will also be covered with either 1/2–inch diameter bars spaced at 6 inches on center each way, 9-gauge expanded metal mesh, or 9-gauge chain link fence fabric in steel frames.

Window 1: 32” x 81” = 2,592 SI Windows 2 and 3: 32” x 243” = 7,776 SI

1. A4/A-201 shows two windows, but at the site visit there were three windows on this side of the building.

Yes, three windows. Reference Question 4.

1. Would you please confirm the elevation of wire mesh cages in room 105 in regard to Keynote 9?

Annotation to Plan A-101: All four cages are to have flat ceiling elevation at 9-feet AFF (Keynote 10) and are to be constructed of the same wire mesh material as the walls and doors. All fasteners, whether anchor bolt nuts or those that join wire mesh components, are to be tamper-proof connectors. LED lights are to be underhung from mesh ceiling in each cage (EL101).

1. These cages are to run from floor to deck and I do not have enough information on this elevation to accurately price.

Annotation to Plan A-101: All four cages are to have flat ceiling elevation at 9-feet AFF (Keynote 10) and are to be constructed of the same wire mesh material as the walls and doors. All fasteners, whether anchor bolt nuts or those that join wire mesh components, are to be tamper-proof connectors. LED lights are to be underhung from mesh ceiling in each cage (EL101).

1. Will cages in room 105, keynote 10, require ceilings considering they will not be running to deck?

Annotation to Plan A-101: All four cages are to have flat ceiling elevation at 9-feet AFF (Keynote 10) and are to be constructed of the same wire mesh material as the walls and doors. All fasteners, whether anchor bolt nuts or those that join wire mesh components, are to be tamper-proof connectors. LED lights are to be underhung from mesh ceiling in each cage (EL101).

1. These trees are very large, are we to trim the tree branches straight up to the sky, or can we trim only the low branches to create a tunnel where the new structure can fit into? If a tunnel is acceptable, how high off the ground are we to cut?

Branches proposed for removal to accommodate the new construction are to be evaluated first by a professional arborist to determine best path forward for the long-term health and stability of the trees.

1. Will the Contractor be required to hire an arborist to assist in the tree trimming? There is some risk we damage the health of the trees or create a situation where they are only weighted on one side and topple over.

Yes, hiring a professional arborist is needed to ensure correct pruning for tree form and structural integrity/stability.

1. Will the Government allow these trees to be trimmed? We have run into historical or environmental restrictions on tree trimmings in the past.

Yes, trimming trees is routine and has been taken into consideration with the state historic preservation office in the past. Trees shall not be removed. Trees shall be inspected for active nests before disturbance of tree branch removal, contact the 88th RD Environmental staff if active nests are present.

If trees do require removal, we will need to complete separate agency review/approval and coordination prior to proceeding.

1. Are any special precautions to take place if encountering tree roots in our excavations?

Before construction activities begin, a root protection zone should be established with temporary fencing around trees that may be impacted.

1. Is a hazardous material survey available for this building? If not, please confirm only a hazardous materials survey is required as part of this contract. Should any items come back hot, confirm the abatement of these items will be treated as a differing site condition and a change order to the contract.

The below ACM, LBP, and EBS surveys address the hazmat questions. The REC also provides a summary with implementing instructions.

Per the REC, if confirmed or presumed ACM is to be disturbed, then contractor is responsible to comply with all federal, state, and local laws and regulations related to asbestos handling and abatement disposal procedures. Copies of disposal manifests will be provided to the 88th RD. They can also follow the guidance in those reports.

If lead-based paint is to be disturbed as a part of the project then the paint will be handled in accordance with all federal, state and local laws and regulations. It is important that the generation of dust be minimized as a part of the project. To minimize dust, loose paint should be scraped instead of sanding or grinding. Any paint removed from surfaces will be collected and disposed of as hazardous material.

1. What are the staffing requirements for this project? Will a full time Super be required? Will a full time QC be required? Will dual hatting of the Super/QC be allowed?

See Division 1 Specifications attached.

Request the Contractor provide third-party materials testing QA (concrete, structural connections for PEMB, etc.) and geotechnical for the foundation excavations, where the geotechnical excavation QA requirements include, but are not limited to:

· Hand probe the bottom of the excavations and observe/evaluate the in-situ soil to validate soil suitability for foundation bearing

· Nuclear Density testing

· Laboratory soil tests that include, but is not limited to: gradation, moisture content, and Proctor density

1. CD001 shows the concrete loading ramps to be demolished as part of Bid Option 1.

14. Bid option 1 is not listed on the bid schedule, please update the schedule.

*MICC - Does MICC or 88 RD do this?

14. It was mentioned at the site visit that this ramp is still in use. Please confirm if the government still wants a price to demolish the ramp.

Please provide cost to remove loading ramp and replace area with concrete pavement.

1. There are existing conex containers on the site that will need to be relocated to perform our work. Please confirm the government will be relocating these containers.

Yes. The facility units will move the conex containers out of the work areas. Tom Roethler and Bill Palfy with 88th RD will coordinate with unit representatives.

1. Are any as-builts available for the existing vehicle maintenance building?

88 RD DPW will provide as-built plans to MICC as available.

1. What is the thickness of the concrete slab in the vehicle maintenance building?

According to 1958 Elevation and Details plan, the floor thickness shows 8” concrete.

1. Are any existing site utility drawings available for this site?

88 RD DPW will provide as-built plans to MICC as available.

1. There is an existing hose bib at the picnic area. Please confirm if this is a live utility, the size of the water line, where it runs, and where we are to cap the line.

According to 1958 Site Utility Plan, 3” water main runs from the main Training Building to the Vehicle Maintenance Shop (VMS), but nothing is shown for the water to the hose bib in the picnic area. This line will be abandoned in place (locate and show on as-built plans) and capped at its source.

1. Are there any as-builts available for the picnic structure? How deep are the footings?

Not available at this time. 88 RD DPW will provide as-built plans to MICC as available.

1. Is funding currently secured for this project? Yes.

1. Will a winter exclusion apply to this project? If so, what are the dates?

No winter exclusion. Contractor to determine how to accomplish the project within the Period of Performance (PoP).

1. Will the PEMB structures require painting? I have seen wash rack structures painted in lieu of only red oxide to help prevent corrosion by all the water.

Yes, prime and paint all metal components with oil-based enamel. Color to be selected by client.

1. What is the water supply source for the new wash rack?

According to Mechanical plans on M-101, water is provided from within the VMS and from a frost-proof hose bib on exterior of VMS west wall.

1. Is any Wash Rack equipment to be provided as part of this contract?

No. Government to provide hoses and power washer.

1. Are any Division 1 Specifications available to be issued on this project?

Not at this time. *MICC - Division 1 Specifications are not available from 88 RD documents. Does MICC provide?

1. Is there a basis-of-design for the epoxy floor section 09 67 23.13?

See Division 1 Specifications attached.

1. Annotation to Service Bay Trench Drain Schedule on M-601:

Provide 8” wide trench drain grate with Load Class E @ 135,000# ID001 Lead-Based Paint Survey Report 13 Jan 2010.pdf

88th Regional Support Command

Lead-Based Paint Survey for

ID001 Lugenbeel USARC 410 W. Fort Street Boise, Idaho 83702

January 13, 2010

Prepared For:

88th Regional Support Command 60 South O Street

Fort McCoy, WI 54656

Report Prepared By:

2188 South Highland Drive, Suite 201

Salt Lake City, UT 84106

Cody Paul

Environmental Scientist

Reviewed By:

Frank DeRosso, MSPH, CIH Senior Scientist

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................... i

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Purpose

1.2 Scope of Assessment Services

1.3 Limitations and Exceptions

1.4 Special Terms and Conditions

1.5 User Reliance

2.0 SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION

2.1 USARC Site and Administrative Building

2.2 OMS Building

2.3 Sampling History

3.0 FINDINGS

Table 1 - USARC Administrative Building Table 2 - USARC OMS Building

4.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.0 SITE PHOTOS

6.0 APPENDICES

i RMEC Environmental 88th RSC Contract No.:

PJ09I-1950 W91238-09-P-0229

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

RMEC Environmental, Inc. (RMEC) was tasked by the United States Army Reserve (USAR) 88th Regional Support Command (RSC) to conduct a lead-based paint (LBP) survey of the Lugenbeel (ID001) U.S. Army Reserve Center (USARC), located in Boise, Idaho. There are two separate buildings located at this facility: an Administrative Building and an Organization Maintenance Shop (OMS). The purpose of this survey was to determine the presence, quantity, and location of LBP surfaces throughout the facility. This information would allow the USAR to take any necessary steps to minimize or prevent employee exposures to lead during routine worker tasks or future building renovation activities involving potential LBP.

Cody Paul, an EPA-certified lead-based paint inspector and risk assessor with RMEC, conducted the site visit on November 2, 2009. RMEC senior scientist Frank DeRosso, MSPH, CIH, provided project oversight and the final report review. This work was requested by Ms. Meline Skeldon, Environmental Protection Specialist and JM Waller Contractor, and authorized by Mr. David Moore, Environmental Chief with the 88th RSC. RMEC used an Innov-X Sytems® (Innov-X) X-ray fluorescence (XRF) analyzer to identify the presence of LBP on accessible surfaces throughout the facility.

The Lugenbeel USARC Administrative Building is a 15,593-square foot two-story building with a kitchen area, drill/assembly hall, classrooms, and offices. The OMS Building, located east of the Administrative Building, is a 4,217-square foot single-story structure with storage areas and a vehicle and equipment maintenance bay.

RMEC was able to access all but a few rooms of this facility. A visual inspection, at a minimum, was performed in each accessible area. XRF readings were taken on painted surfaces of all observed “component types” in each area. Of the 107 total (83 relevant) XRF sampling points tested, the following material(s) tested positive and should be considered LBP:

- White wooden window sills throughout the facility

- Dark brown wooden window casing in the Front Lobby/Entryway

- Dark brown wooden door on the west side of the Front Lobby

- Yellow floor striping on the concrete floor in the Drill Hall

- Beige 4” x 4” decorative ceramic wall tiles in all four restrooms

- Gray metal stairs leading down into the Boiler Room

- Tan metal support post in the OMS Bay 2 and Bay 3 main area

- Brown concrete door jamb between Bay 1 and Bay 2

- Yellow concrete exterior bumper posts adjacent to OMS bay doors

In the case of the 4” x 4” decorative ceramic tiles, it is not clear whether lead is in the ceramic itself, the paint, or the glossy finish. As such, the USAR should take precautions ii to ensure that this material is not disturbed in such a way that particles are released into the air so as to become pulverized, crushed, or otherwise altered. Disturbance of this material and the other surfaces found to be LBP may cause lead exposure to on-site employees or renovation contractors.

Precaution should also be used around the painted yellow floor striping in the Drill Hall and the tan metal support in the OMS bay area due to the poor current condition of these materials. These materials are already very degraded and, therefore, should be removed or replaced.

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Purpose

RMEC Environmental, Inc. (RMEC) was retained by the United States Army Reserve (USAR) 88th Regional Support Command (RSC) to conduct a lead-based paint (LBP) survey of the Lugenbeel (ID001) U.S. Army Reserve Center (USARC), located in Boise, Idaho. There are two separate buildings located at this facility: an Administrative Building and an Organization Maintenance Shop (OMS).

The objective of this survey was to determine the presence, quantity, and location of LBP surfaces throughout the facility. This information would allow the USAR to take any necessary steps to minimize or prevent employee exposures to lead during routine worker tasks or future building renovation activities involving potential LBP.

This report has been prepared to summarize the results of the LBP survey at the Lugenbeel USARC. Cody Paul, an RMEC employee and certified by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as a lead-based paint inspector and risk assessor, conducted the site visit on November 2, 2009. RMEC senior scientist Frank DeRosso, MSPH, CIH, provided project oversight and the final report review. This work was requested by Ms.

Meline Skeldon, Environmental Protection Specialist and JM Waller Contractor, and authorized by Mr. David Moore, Environmental Chief with the 88th RSC.

1.2 Scope of Assessment Services

Guidelines for lead-based paint surveys and sampling methods have been developed by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Although the HUD guidelines do not specifically apply to Army Reserve facilities, they served as a convenient set of criteria for the performance of LBP surveys. According to the HUD publication Guidelines for the Evaluation and Control of LBP in Housing (1997), paint applied before 1978 may contain lead. Also, any given type of paint is considered to be lead-based if it contains more than 1.0 milligram per square centimeter (mg/cm2).

There are several different types of sampling methods commonly used to sample lead-based paint. RMEC used a hand-held, alpha-series Innov-X Sytems® (Innov-X) X-ray fluorescence (XRF) analyzer to identify the presence of LBP on accessible surfaces throughout the facility. The Innov-X XRF is a state-of-the-art XRF spectral analyzing system for quantitative measurement of lead in paint on various substrate types. RMEC performed surface-by-surface XRF testing of each potential LBP “testing combination” in interior and exterior areas of each building. Testing combinations include room equivalents, components, substrates, and visible color of paint.

RMEC utilized the “Lead Paint Mode” on the XRF for testing. Equipment standardization, calibration-check readings, and information programming was performed according to the XRF instruction manual and Innov-X’s recommended protocols. These quality control methods were used to monitor the performance of the XRF analyzer. Calibration-check readings were taken after every two hours of use using a Standard Reference Material (SRM) paint film, developed by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). All calibration-check readings were within acceptable limits.

Operation of the XRF requires the operator to “point and shoot” the x-ray source at the desired painted surface. XRF test point durations were set to be either 6 or 10 seconds.

At each sampling location, the following characteristics were noted:

� Sample number � Area description (room number/area name, direction, etc.)

� Paint color � Component type � Substrate material � XRF reading � Substrate bias (recorded as a “+/-“ uncertainty value) � LBP classification � Paint condition (if testing result was positive for LBP)

Whenever necessary, additional notes and observations were recorded after each XRF sample. As part of the area description for each testing point, the four different sides of the room were characterized as sides “A”, “B”, “C”, or “D”, clockwise from the wall immediate to the left upon entering the room (for example, when entering a room, the doorway would be on the “D” side of the room; the wall opposite the entryway would be the “B” side of the room). If a room or area had multiple or unspecific entryways, “North”, “East”, “South”, or “West” were noted to describe the sampling location. All relevant sample descriptions and results are located in Section 3.0, Tables 1 and 2, of this report.

RMEC inspected all areas, both the interior and exterior, of both buildings at the Lugenbeel USARC. During this survey, all but a few rooms were accessible, and some painted surfaces were beyond reach. At a minimum, a visual inspection was conducted in accessible areas where no XRF measurements were taken. Also, if the painted surfaces in one area were consistently similar to other adjacent areas or rooms where XRF analysis was already performed, no additional XRF samples were taken.

1.3 Limitations and Exceptions

HUD guidelines apply directly to public residential structures and/or places where children may be regularly present. In general, the guidelines are designed to protect children because they are more susceptible to adverse health effects caused by lead exposure. Although HUD guidelines do not apply to commercial facilities, such as those occupied by the USAR, they do provide a protocol from which to establish effective LBP survey criteria. As such, RMEC conducted this site survey similar to the HUD procedure for a single-family housing inspection.

It should be noted that XRF readings do not just reflect the lead content of the visible, surface layer of paint at a given sampling point. In areas with multiple paint layers, the XRF reading is essentially “diluted” by interchanging layers of positive and negative LBP paint; a positive XRF reading only suggests that at least one layer of paint at that location contains lead. Similarly, diluted test results may indicate that the layer(s) that are individually LBP-positive have a higher lead content than that read by the XRF.

Further sampling (i.e. paint chip analysis) would be required to determine which specific paint layer or component layer (if overlapping components are detected by the XRF test reading) contains the lead source.

Also, while the XRF is designed to automatically correct for “substrate bias” – the effect of potential x-ray fluorescence distortions due to contact with certain substrate types – in the sampling results, there still remains an inherent level of uncertainty. To counter this effect, when skewed or unusual testing results occurred during the site survey, RMEC took multiple other test points on different parts of the same component until an acceptable sampling result (with an acceptable range of uncertainty) was attained. This same method is also employed if there is any indication that the substrate itself may contain lead (i.e. lead piping or metal work).

1.4 Special Terms and Conditions

In accordance with the Purpose, Scope of Assessment Services, and Limitations and Exceptions stated above, RMEC has developed this LBP survey using the applicable HUD guidelines with modifications appropriate for commercial structures.

1.5 User Reliance

Due to factors such as building age, paint history, accessibility, and building size, no comprehensive LBP survey can determine every possible location of LBP and other environmental lead hazards at a given facility. Performance of this LBP site investigation is intended to reduce, but not eliminate, uncertainty regarding the existence of LBP at the Lugenbeel USARC, while recognizing the reasonable limits of time and cost. It is RMEC’s goal to recognize the point at which the cost of information obtained, or the time required to gather it, outweighs the usefulness of the information and, in fact, may be of material detriment to the user’s intended purpose.

2.0 SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION

2.1 USARC Site and Administrative Building

The Lugenbeel USARC (ID001) is located in the northeast part of downtown Boise, Idaho. According to the facility coordinator, the facility was constructed in 1958. A pre-construction floor plan was provided by the USAR; however, it did not have current room numbers. As such, the corresponding room numbers and area descriptions used to detail the location of XRF testing locations refer to the room numbers and names observed while at the site. In order to help make this clearer, RMEC has developed an updated floor plan with current room numbers, located in Appendix A, to show positive LBP sample locations.

The USARC Administrative Building is a 15,593-square foot two-story building that is primarily used for office and storage areas, as well as assembly activities. The Administrative Building also contained a workout area, arms room, a drill/assembly hall, and several classrooms. The exterior of the structure was beige-painted plaster, while the interior consisted primarily of sheetrock, concrete, and cinderblock walls. The facility coordinator confirmed that nearly all of the building’s interior walls had been re-painted about seven years previous to this site visit. All floors either had tiles (varying types and sizes) or carpeting, except for the Drill Hall, which was bare concrete. The parking lot for this building is located to the east.

2.2 OMS Building

The OMS Building at the Lugenbeel USARC facility is a 4,217-square foot one-story building. Similar to the Administrative Building, the exterior was beige-painted plaster, but the interior consisted primarily of concrete floors and cinderblock walls. There is no distinct office space in the OMS, although Bay 1 appears to only be used for storage.

Bays 2 and 3 (not separated) currently have storage materials as well, but also have space for vehicle and equipment maintenance. The three bay doors for the OMS face north toward the parking lot.

2.3 Sampling History

No records of previous LBP sampling events were available at the time of inspection.

The facility coordinator was also unaware of any recorded LBP surveys or previous abatement efforts in any of the site buildings. RMEC did not observe any evidence of previous lead sampling events at this facility.

3.0 FINDINGS

A summary of the XRF readings collected at Lugenbeel USARC is presented in Tables 1 and 2 below. All non-relevant and confirmatory samples, as well as “error” results, have been removed from the tables. Table 1 shows all primary readings taken in and around the Administrative Building. Table 2 shows all primary readings from the OMS Building. According to HUD and the EPA, any paint type containing lead at a concentration greater than or equal to 1.0 mg/cm2 is considered to be LBP. Bolded results in both tables indicate that the HUD- and EPA-defined standard for LBP was exceeded.

Table 1 – Lugenbeel USARC (ID001)

Administrative Building November 2, 2009

Sample Number

Component and Substrate

Paint Color

XRF

Reading (mg/cm2)

Room/Area Description

Side

1 Asphalt floor striping yellow 0 0 East Parking Lot Exterior

Asphalt floor blue 0 0

East Parking Lot (Handicap logo)

Exterior

3 Concrete/Plaster wall cream 0 0 Northeast Wall Exterior

Concrete wall lettering brown 0 0

Northeast Wall Lettering

5 Cinderblock wall off-white 0 0 East Entryway South 6 Metal door brown 0 0.01 East Entryway East

Metal support beam black 0 0.01 Walkway Canopy Exterior

8 Pipe Insulation white 0 0 East Entryway

Anteroom C

Wooden window sill white 2.65 0.70

East Entryway Anteroom

C

10 Sheetrock ceiling white 0.03 0.03 Mail Room Center 11 Sheetrock ceiling tan/beige 0.04 0.05 Mail Room Center 12 Sheetrock wall off-white 0 0 Mail Room D 13 Cinderblock wall off-white 0.22 0.14 Mail Room C 14 Cinderblock wall off-white 0.13 0.11 Mail Room C 15 Cinderblock wall off-white 0 0 Mail Room C 16 Concrete wall cream 0 0 Front Lobby South

Wood window casing Dark brown 1.43 0.29 Front Lobby West

18 Wooden column off-white 0.60 0.16 Front Lobby West

19 Wooden door Dark brown

1.60 0.31 Front Lobby West

20 Wooden door cream 0.15 0.08 Drill Hall D 21 Metal door jamb brown 0.06 0.09 Drill Hall D

22 Metal roll-up door off-white 0.40 0.19 Drill Hall D

23 Concrete column off-white 0.03 0.03 Drill Hall A 24 Cinderblock wall white 0 0 Drill Hall A 25 Wooden casing white 0 0 Drill Hall A

26 Metal door Dark brown

0.23 0.43 Drill Hall A

27 Sheetrock wall white 0 0 Drill Hall B 28 Metal door jamb pink 0 0 Drill Hall B

Concrete floor striping yellow > 2.84 0.28 Drill Hall C

30 Sheetrock wall white 0 0 Drill Hall Storage

Room A

31 Cinderblock wall white 0 0 Drill Hall Exercise

Room B

32 Concrete column white 0.13 0.07

33 Concrete column white 0.12 0.07

Room C

34 Cinderblock wall off-white 0 0 Rm. 114 A

Lower

Cinderblock wall yellow 0.46 0.16 West Hallway North

36 Upper white 0.50 0.17 West Hallway South

Upper white 0.01 0.05 Rm. 111 West

38 Lower yellow 0.24 0.14 Rm. 111 West white 0.34 0.15 Rm. 111 West

40 Wooden door yellow 0.27 0.09 Rm. 111 C white 0.55 0.16 Rm. 111 Closet A

42 Plastic Piping white 0 0 Rm. 111 Closet B

Painted Concrete floor gray 0 0 Janitor’s Closet Center

44 Wooden door yellow 0.21 0.09 Janitor’s Closet D

Wooden cabinet/shelving white 0 0 Janitor’s Closet A

46 Ceramic wall tiles pink 0 0 Rm. 107

(Restroom) D

47 Ceramic wall tiles tan/beige > 1.00 0.01

48 Sheetrock wall off-white 0 0

Upper Sheetrock off-white 0 0 Rm. 105 A

Lower Sheetrock yellow 0 0 Rm. 105 A

51 Metal door jamb yellow 0 0.01 Rm. 104 D 52 Concrete wall off-white 0 0 Boiler Room C

Metal HVAC

Equip.

green 0 0 Boiler Room D

54 Metal panel gray 0 0 Boiler Room C 55 Metal Stairs gray > 5.00 0.67 Boiler Room D 56 Metal fire door brown 0.25 0.07 Boiler Room B white 0.80 0.17 Boiler Room B

58 Metal Window casing brown 0 0 Rm. 103 B white 0.18 0.08 Rm. 103 B

60 Metal door yellow 0 0.01 Rm. 121 (Arms Vault)

Upper white 0 0 Rm. 101 A

62 Wooden window white 1.41 0.50 Rm. 212 (Classroom #2)

B

63 Metal door jamb yellow 0 0.01 Rm. 212

(Classroom #2) D

64 Wooden window white 1.29 0.45 Rm. 209 (Classroom #1)

B

65 Sheetrock soffit white 0 0 Rm. 210 (Women’s

Restroom)

66 Metal panel gray 0 0 2nd Floor Hallway South 67 Sheetrock wall yellow 0 0 Rm. 204 C white 1.32 0.27 Rm. 204A C

69 Metal vent white 0.01 0.01 Rm. 204A C 70 Sheetrock ceiling white 0 0.02 Rm. 204 Center

Several suspect materials were found to contain enough lead to meet the HUD definition of LBP. White wooden window sills were found, on both the first and second floors, to be positive for LBP. Because the paint type was similar to that observed on the surrounding walls, it is likely that an underlying paint layer contributed to the elevated XRF readings. The paint on these surfaces was found to be in good or excellent condition. Wooden window sills throughout the Administrative Building consistently had elevated results. Therefore, for the purposes of this survey, all painted wooden window sills throughout the facility should be considered positive for LBP, even if each one was not sampled individually, or if the sample results were slightly less than 1 mg/cm2 at any given test location.

Two different materials were found to be positive in the Front Lobby area: the dark brown wooden window casing around the doors and window and the dark brown wooden door itself, both on the west side. Both materials had excellent paint condition on the surface (likely from when the building was re-painted approximately seven years prior), so the specific positive layer of paint is unknown. However, this same paint type was not noted elsewhere inside the Administrative Building.

Degraded yellow floor striping was found on the concrete floor of the Drill Hall.

Beige 4”x4” decorative ceramic wall tiles in the Room 107 restroom tested positive for LBP. This same material was also found in the women’s restroom on the first floor, and both restrooms on the second floor. A similar pink-colored ceramic tile in the restrooms was determined not to contain lead.

The gray metal stairs leading down in the Boiler Room tested positive for LBP, but were found to be in good condition.

The XRF readings also indicated that several sampled materials contain low levels of lead, but not enough to be considered LBP by HUD and EPA standards. These materials include:

- Off-white wooden column on the west side of the Front Lobby

- Off-white metal roll-up door in the Drill Hall

- Upper (white) and lower (yellow) cinderblock walls in the 1st Floor West

Hallway

- Yellow wooden door in Room 111

- Yellow wooden Janitor’s Closet door

- Brown metal fire door in the Boiler Room

Table 2 – Lugenbeel USARC (ID001) OMS Building

November 2, 2009

71 post/pole tan/beige > 5.00 1.01 Bay 2/Bay 3 Area Center 72 column tan/beige 0.12 0.06 Bay 2/Bay 3 Area East 73 fire door white 0 0 Bay 2/Bay 3 Area North 74 column tan/beige 0.15 0.06 Bay 2/Bay 3 Area West 75 wall tan/beige 0.08 0.06 Bay 2/Bay 3 Area West 76 jamb brown > 5.00 1.50 Bay 2/Bay 3 Area West 77 fire door brown 0.11 0.23 Bay 2/Bay 3 Area West 78 jamb brown 0.20 0.17 Bay 1 North 79 wall white 0.31 0.12 Bay 1 East 80 Metal Caging gray 0.03 0.11 Bay 1 Center

Concrete bumper post yellow > 5.00 1.60 Bay 1 Exterior yellow 0 0 Parking Lot Exterior striping yellow 0 0 Parking Lot Exterior

Three distinct LBP materials were found at the OMS Building. The tan metal post, found in the center of the open area comprising Bays 2 and 3, was in poor condition.

Several spots along the post were rusted and degraded. It is suspected that an underlying coat of paint is lead-positive, since the top layer of paint is similar to that on other surfaces in the area. Only one other post was noted in the vicinity with the same paint type.

The brown painted door jamb between Bay 1 and Bays 2/3 also tested positive for LBP.

The paint on this surface was found to be in excellent condition.

On the exterior of the OMS Building, yellow bumper posts were found adjacent to all three bay door entryways. Although these tested positive for LBP, the paint was found to be in excellent condition.

4.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

There were many painted surfaces in both the Administrative and OMS buildings that were found to contain enough lead to be considered LBP by HUD or EPA standards. In most cases, the paint on these materials was found to be in excellent condition. Where this is the case, no immediate hazards need to be remediated. However, care should be taken to prevent employees from exposure to these materials should they become cracked, broken, or otherwise degraded from their current state. Similarly, employees performing renovation activities around LBP materials should be made aware of the potential hazards and take the appropriate measures to minimize disturbances to the painted surfaces. By doing so, airborne lead exposures from these materials may be prevented or minimized.

Other materials, including the yellow floor striping in the Drill Hall and the tan metal post between Bays 2 and 3 of the OMS, tested positive for LBP and were found to be in poor condition. The Drill Hall, in particular, is potentially a high-traffic area at various times during a given month. Since these painted surfaces are already in poor condition, the USAR should take the necessary steps to remove them before they get worse.

Methods of removal might include paint stripping or encapsulating, or simply the complete removal of the building component (in the case of the metal post). There are advantages and disadvantages to each of these methods, as well as the costs involved, but all will help prevent or minimize potential lead exposures to employees working in or around these areas.

XRF test results show that other materials in the Administrative Building (listed in Section 3.0 above) may contain some lead, but not at high enough levels to be considered LBP by HUD or EPA standards. Because it is unknown whether there are multiple layers of paint at these locations and the actual lead content of any individual layer of paint there (see Section 1.3 of this report), RMEC cannot determine whether disturbance of these materials would result in hazardous lead exposure to employees working in these areas. As such, RMEC recommends paint chip analysis on these materials if USAR or contracted employees perform extensive work around these materials during renovation activities or other tasks, potentially causing a disturbance to the paint. Paint chip analysis will determine the lead content of every individual layer of paint on each sampled surface. Until this sampling occurs, workers performing tasks in these areas should be made aware of this potential hazard and take the appropriate measures to prevent disturbance and possible exposure.

Because of recent remodeling and painting efforts at Lugenbeel USARC, most of the paint throughout the facility appeared to be in excellent condition. Other than the materials specified in Section 3.0 above, RMEC’s sampling indicated that no other LBP was present in the facility. However, if any LBP surfaces were missed during this survey, the good condition of the painted surfaces in the facility would likely preclude any worker or occupant exposures to lead.

5.0 SITE PHOTOS

Lugenbeel USARC (ID001) Boise, Idaho

Sample #: 9

Description: The photograph shows the white wooden window sills in the room adjacent to the East Entryway (the east parking lot is visible through the window) of the Administrative Building. Window sills just like this were also found throughout the building. Although not every sampled window sill had a LBP reading of 1 mg/cm2 or higher, all of the results were elevated and approaching the limit (see Table 1). As such, and due to potential dilution factors (see Section 1.3), every painted window sill in the Administrative Building should be considered positive for LBP. The paint condition on these surfaces was “good” or better.

Date: November 2, 2009

Photographer: Cody A. Paul

Sample #: 17

Description: The photograph shows the dark brown casing around the windows of the

West Entryway into the main Lobby Area of the Administrative Building.

The painted surfaces were found to be in excellent condition. Because this material was likely re-painted during recent renovation efforts, it is possible that one or more of the underlying layers of paint is what caused the positive LBP result. Similar materials with this same paint color were not found in any other location at this facility.

Sample #: 19

Description: The photograph shows the dark brown wooden doors of the West

Entryway leading into the main Lobby Area of the Administrative Building. The surface paint is similar to Sample #17 above, and was also found to be in excellent condition. Because this material was likely re-painted during recent renovation efforts, it is possible that one or more of the underlying layers of paint is what caused the positive LBP result.

Similar materials with this same paint color were not found in any other location at this facility.

Sample #: 29

Description: The photograph shows the degraded yellow floor striping in the Drill

Hall of the Administrative Building.

Sample #: 47

Description: The photograph shows the beige 4” x 4” decorative ceramic wall tiles in a horizontal stripe across the walls of the restroom (Room 107) on the first floor of the Administrative Building. This same material was also found in other restrooms at this facility. All of it was found to be in excellent condition. The similar pink 4” x 4” decorative ceramic wall tiles did not test positive for LBP.

Sample #: 55

Description: The photograph shows the gray metal staircase leading down into the

Boiler Room of the Administrative Building. This same material was not found anywhere else in the Boiler Room or around the facility. All of it was found to be in good condition.

Sample #: 62

Description: This photograph is a second example of the white wooden window sills found throughout the Administrative Building (see photo for Sample #9 above). The room in this photo is Classroom #2 on the second floor.

Although not every sampled window sill in the building had a LBP reading of 1 mg/cm2 or higher, all of the results were elevated and approaching the limit (see Table 1). As such, and due to potential dilution factors (see Section 1.3), every painted window sill in the Administrative Building should be considered positive for LBP. The paint condition on these surfaces was “good” or better.

Sample #: 71

Description: The photograph shows the tan-colored metal post in the open area between Bay 2 and Bay 3 inside the OMS Building (looking north). As can be seen, the paint on the post is severely degraded and located adjacent to a main walkway through the area.

Sample #: 76

Description: The photograph shows the doorway between the adjoined Bay 2/ Bay 3 and into the enclosed Bay 1 inside the OMS Building. The brown-painted concrete door jamb (not the door itself) tested positive for LBP. No other doorways in the OMS tested positive. The brown surface paint at this location was found to be in excellent condition, which was likely painted during recent remodeling efforts at the site. Therefore, it is possible that an underlying layer of paint caused the positive test result.

Sample #: 81

Description: The photograph shows the yellow-painted concrete bumper post on the exterior of the OMS Building. The three bay doors are located on the west side of the building. The yellow paint appeared to be fairly new and was found to be in excellent condition.

6.0 APPENDICES

Appendix A – Site Sampling Map (positive LBP only)

Appendix B – Copy of RMEC Employee LBP Certification

Appendix A – Site Sampling Map (positive LBP only)

Lugenbeel USARC (ID001) Updated Site Map – First Floor 2 November 2009

Note: Only positive LBP locations are shown

410 West Fort Street

Lugenbeel USARC (ID001) Updated Site Map – Second Floor

Lugenbeel USARC (ID001) Updated Site Map – OMS Building

Appendix B – Copy of RMEC Employee LBP Certification image4.emf

ID001 COL Pickney Lugenbeel ACM Final Report Feb 2012.pdf

ASBESTOS

SURVEY REPORT

For

ID001 COL PICKNEY LUGENBEEL

U.S. ARMY RESERVE CENTER

SITE CODE 16725

Boise, Idaho 83702-4583

Prepared for

88TH REGIONAL SUPPORT COMMAND

60 South O Street

Fort McCoy, Wisconsin 54656 and

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Louisville District 600 Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Place

Louisville, Kentucky 40202-2232

February 7, 2012

Prepared by:

135 S. 84th Street, Suite 400 Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53214

Contract No. W91236-07-D-0012 Delivery Order No. CY04

ID001 COL PICKNEY LUGENBEEL USARC

BOISE, IDAHO

ES010312155613MKE III

Executive Summary

CH2M HILL conducted a survey for asbestos containing material (ACM) at the Colonel (COL) Pickney Lugenbeel U.S. Army Reserve Center (USARC) (ID001), Site Code 16725, in Boise, Idaho, on June 16, 17, and 22, 2011. The survey was conducted for the U.S. Army Reserve 88TH Regional Support Command (RSC) under U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Contract Number W91236-07-D-0012.

Asbestos-containing Materials Based on survey observations conducted and on the sample analytical results, the CH2M HILL team identified the areas outlined below as ACM. Figures are included in Appendix B.

Photographs of materials sampled during the survey are included in Appendix C.

USARC Building

Confirmed ACM There was no confirmed ACM in the USARC building.

Presumed ACM Suspect materials were observed within the building that could not be sampled and are presumed ACM. The presumed materials could not be sampled because sampling activities would have resulted in significant irreparable damage to the materials or because the materials were inaccessible. The following suspect materials were observed:

12-inch by 12-inch beige vinyl composition tile was observed throughout the USARC building (Photograph 9).

White duct sealant was observed in Rooms 106 and 208 (Photograph 14).

White plaster was observed in Rooms 107 and 115 (Photograph 16).

Grout found under 12-inch by 12-inch gray ceramic floor tile was observed in Room 116 (Photograph 19).

Grout found under 6-inch gray ceramic cove base was observed in Room 116 (Photograph 20).

New concrete masonry unit walls were observed in Room 114 (Photograph 24).

Grout found under 4-inch by 4-inch light pink ceramic wall tile was observed throughout the USARC building (Photograph 37).

Grout found under 1-inch by 1-inch ceramic floor tile was observed throughout the USARC building (Photograph 38).

ASBESTOS AND LEAD-BASED PAINT SURVEY REPORT FOR IN005 SGT JAMES HARLAN, USARC AND OMS/AMSA

IV ES010312155613MKE

The roof is a low-sloped membrane roof and was not sampled but is presumed ACM.

Organizational Maintenance Shop

There was no confirmed ACM in the organizational maintenance shop building.

Ceiling drywall (Photograph 34).

Polychlorinated Biphenyls Polychlorinated biphenyl surveys were not conducted as part of this survey.

Lead-based Paint Lead-based paint surveys were not conducted as part of this survey.

Radon Radon surveys were not conducted as part of this survey.

ES010312155613MKE V

Contents

Executive Summary .......................................................................................................................... iii

1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 1-1

2. Site Structures ....................................................................................................................... 2-1

2.1 USARC Building ........................................................................................................... 2-1

2.2 Organizational Maintenance Shop Building ............................................................. 2-1

3. Survey Findings .................................................................................................................... 3-1

3.1 ACM Findings ............................................................................................................... 3-1

3.1.1 USARC Building .............................................................................................. 3-1

3.1.2 OMS ................................................................................................................... 3-3

3.2 Polychlorinated Biphenyl Findings ............................................................................ 3-4

3.3 Lead-based Paint Findings .......................................................................................... 3-4

3.4 Radon Findings ............................................................................................................. 3-4

4. Field Survey and Analytical Protocols.............................................................................. 4-1

4.1 ACM Field Survey and Analytical Protocols ............................................................ 4-1

4.2 PCB Field Survey Protocols ......................................................................................... 4-2

4.3 Lead-based Paint Field Survey and Analytical Protocols ....................................... 4-2

4.4 Radon Field Survey and Analytical Protocols .......................................................... 4-2

5. References .............................................................................................................................. 5-1

Appendices

A Analytical Summary Tables B Figures C Photograph Log D Laboratory Reports and Chain-of-Custody Forms E Inspector’s Certifications

ES010312155613MKE VII

Acronyms and Abbreviations

ACM asbestos-containing material

LBP lead-based paint

NESHAP National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants

OMS organizational maintenance shop

PCB polychlorinated biphenyl

PLM polarized light microscopy

PSI Professional Services Industries, Inc.

RSC Regional Support Command

USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers

USARC United States Army Reserve Center

USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency work plan Final Work Plan, Asbestos, Lead-Based Paint, & Radon Surveys for USAR Facilities within the 88th RSC (CH2M HILL 2011)

ES010312155613MKE 1-1

SECTION 1

Introduction

CH2M HILL was tasked by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) to complete asbestos-containing material (ACM) surveys at two buildings (Building 00001 and 00002) at the Colonel (COL) Pickney Lugenbeel U.S. Army Reserve Center (USARC) located at 401 West Fort Street in Boise, Idaho (ID001), site code 16725. Buildings 00004 and 00018 were not found on the site, and the survey team was told that they are mobile buildings and had been removed prior to the site visit. The surveys were conducted for the 88th Regional Support Command (RSC) under USACE contract W91236-07-D-0012. This report was prepared in accordance with the report template provided by the 88TH RSC. CH2M HILL’s project manager for the surveys was Chandace Richardson. The ACM surveys were completed by Professional Services Industries, Inc. (PSI), including Samuel McEwen, a Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment-certified asbestos building inspector. The State of Idaho does not operate an asbestos inspector certification program, however, accepts asbestos certification obtained from any other state asbestos inspector program which meets U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s certification and licensure standards for conducting asbestos inspections in Idaho (IDEQ, 2012). A copy of the inspector’s certification is included in Appendix E.

Surveys were performed in accordance with the Final work plan, Asbestos, Lead-Based Paint, & Radon Surveys for USAR Facilities within the 88th RSC (work plan) (CH2M HILL 2011). The surveys included the collection and laboratory analysis of suspected ACM.

The CH2M HILL team conducted the ACM survey at the facility on June 16, 17, and 22, 2011. The survey was performed to assess potential site hazards on the interior and exterior of each building. The ACM survey was also intended to provide information in preparation for any proposed renovation and/or demolition activities of the structures. The ACM survey evaluated the structures for the presence, quantity, locations, and characterization of ACM. The information is required to determine if there are areas of the facility that may require pre-renovation/demolition asbestos abatement in accordance with local, state, and federal regulations to protect the public and workers by minimizing the release of asbestos fibers during activities involving processing, handling, and disposal of ACM. It should be noted that destructive sampling, such as behind finished surfaces (drywall, above hard ceilings, inside mechanical chases, etc.) was not performed during this survey.

This survey report is organized as follows: Section 2 discusses the site structures, Section 3 discusses survey findings, Section 4 discusses field survey and analytical protocols, and Section 5 contains references for works cited in this report. Appendix A contains analytical summary tables of ACM laboratory analyses; Appendix B contains figures that illustrate the buildings’ floor plans, ACM sample locations, and analytical results; Appendix C contains a survey photograph log; Appendix D contains complete copies of the laboratory reports and chain-of-custody forms for asbestos samples; and Appendix E contains a copy of the inspector certifications.

ES010312155613MKE 2-1

SECTION 2

Site Structures

The COL Pickney Lugenbeel USARC consists of two structures and is located at 401 West Fort Street in Boise, Idaho. The structures are described in the following subsections.

2.1 USARC Building

The USARC building is a two-story, 15,593-square-foot structure with a single story addition. The structure consists of offices, meeting rooms, drill areas, storage areas, bathroom, weight room, server room, and a former weapons vault. The building’s exterior is brick, block, and stucco and has a low-sloped membrane roof system. Access to the roof was not provided, and assumptions were made based on aerial photographs.