Medford Fire Dept Facility Condition Assessment

8/2/2019 Medford Fire Dept Facility Condition Assessment

1/82

CITY OFMEDFORD,MAMedford Fire DepartmentFacility Condition Assessment

June 20, 2011

Prepared by: Maguire Group Inc.

33 Commercial Street

Foxborough, MA 02035


2/82


3/82

Medford Fire Department

Facility Condition Assessment

City of Medford - 1 - Maguire Group Inc.

June 20, 2011 Project No. 19119

Executive Summary

Maguire Group Inc. performed a detailed building conditions assessment of all 6

Medford Fire Stations from March to May 2011. The intent of this report is to

document existing conditions; to provide an analysis of the facility and site; and to makerecommendations for improvements with the ultimate goal to provide a framework for

which the City can make informed decisions to improve the longevity and functionality

of the six fire stations which will enhance firefighting operations throughout the City of

Medford.

In order provide information to City leaders who will ultimately fund the required

repairs we have categorized the work by priority, to determine the urgency and time

frame in which the work needs to be undertaken. We have used the following

classification system, which is elaborated upon in the Introduction:

Priority 1: Currently Critical - requires immediate action Priority 2: Potentially Critical - likely to become Priority 1 within year Priority 3: Necessary, Not Yet Critical - requires appropriate attention Priority 4: Recommended - sensible but not required Priority 5: Grandfathered - no action required

The following is a summary of anticipated construction costs for all proposed

renovations. Maguire Group recommends that prompt action be taken to enact the

required repairs within the time frames given.

Summary of Anticipated Construction Costs

Priority Implement repairs by Estimated Construction Cost*

1 Within 1 year $1,018,700

2 Within 1-3 years $ 751,000

3 Within 1-5 years $ 436,650

4 Within 1-7 years $ 370,100

5 No specific time frame $ 91,400

Total: $2,667,950

* See page 6 for an explanation of what is included in these costs

Items identified within our report include apparatus bay slab repairs at several stations,

roof replacements, mechanical system repair and replacement, the need for upgrade to

the fire alarm systems at all stations. Our findings are detailed by station and then by

building system. Each recommendation is prioritized and includes an estimated

construction cost for use by the City in developing a long-term plan to address these

vital public buildings.


4/82





Introduction

The Medford Fire Department (MFD) is served by six architecturally distinctive stations,

built between 1920 and 1992, and ranging from 20 to 91 years in age. Between 1986

and 1992, the City of Medford implemented a series of construction projects resulting in

a new Call Center at Station #1, two new fire stations (#2 and #5), major renovations to

Stations #3 and #4, and minor renovations to Station #6. This allowed the MFD to

accommodate modern and larger firefighting apparatus, address ongoing deterioration,

and improve response times, firefighter living conditions and accessibility.

Over the past 20+ years of 24/7 operations, wear and tear at these stations has been

significant. Engine and Ladder trucks outfitted with chains for winter conditions have

caused serious damage to apparatus bay slabs at some stations. Several roofs have

reached their useful lifespan and are starting to leak. These roof and mechanical leaks

are causing damage to ceilings and interior spaces. Chronic mechanical systemmalfunctions have also plagued some of the stations. Poor site drainage is causing

flooding and icy parking lots. Some of the basements are flooding on a regular basis. A

variety of design flaws have become apparent in each of the buildings. Appendix B

provides photographic highlights of a sample of problematic conditions that currently

exist at each station. It is by no means exhaustive.

Due to these types of ongoing, persistent and growing number of problems, Maguire

Group Inc. was commissioned by the City of Medford to perform an existing conditions

survey of all 6 Medford Fire Stations. An on-site visual assessment of the buildings was

performed between March and May 2011 by professional representatives of Maguires

Architectural and Engineering staff in the major disciplines identified below.

Principal Architect/Department Manager Mr. Fabrizio Caruso, AIA, LEED

Principal Architect Mr. Steven Lapin, AIA, LEED

Structural Engineer/Department Manager Mr. Jiten Shah, PE

Plumbing/Fire Protection Engineer Mr. Robert Higgins, PE, LEED

Senior Mechanical Engineer Mr. Mark DAndrea, Engineer

Senior Electrical Engineer Mr. Charlie Waskiewicz, Engineer

Maguire Group Inc. was further assisted by representatives from Axiom Partners,

Environmental Engineers, who took samples of building materials to determine if they

contained asbestos or lead. Axiom's report and findings are located in Appendix A of

this report.

At the time of the preparation of this report, the MFD contracted with NSTAR to provide

replacement of all interior lighting throughout their facilities with high efficiency

fixtures. As a result, MGI did not include an assessment of the existing lighting within

this report, with the exception of additional EXIT signage as required by Code.


5/82





The building evaluation presented in this report is based on field observations, review of

available construction documents, and discussions with Captain Freeman and personnel

from the facility.

The intent of this report is to identify issues and needs; to document existing conditions;to provide an analysis of the facility and site; and to make recommendations for

improvements. The report is intended to provide a framework for making informed

decisions and for defining a scope of work that will serve to improve the longevity and

functionality of the building and to enhance fire-fighting operations.

Building code and pertinent guidelines, presently in force locally and federally, were

used in evaluating the building and surrounding grounds. All alterations, repairs and

additions are regulated by the Codes referenced in Appendix D. Pertinent sections are

referenced within the individual building reports.

Another goal of this study is to categorize work by priority, to determine the urgencyand time period in which the work needs to be undertaken. We have used the following

classification system, adopted by other municipalities for this purpose:

Priority 1: Currently Critical

Conditions in this category require immediate action in order to address one

or more of the following:

Return a facility to operation. Stop accelerated deterioration. Correct an environmental hazard. Correct potentially hazardous conditions.Priority 2: Potentially Critical

Conditions in this category, if not corrected, are likely to become critical

within 1 year. Situations in the category include:

Interruption of operations. Rapid deterioration. Environmental non-compliance. Potentially hazardous conditions.Priority 3: Necessary, Not Yet Critical

Conditions in this category require appropriate attention, typically withinthe next 5 years in order to preclude:

Predictable deterioration. Potential downtime.


6/82





Likely damage or higher costs if deferred further.Priority 4: Recommended

Conditions in this category include items that represent a sensibleimprovement to existing conditions. These are not required for the most

basic function of the facility; however they will improve overall usability

and/or reduce long-term maintenance costs.

Priority 5: Grandfathered

Conditions in this category do not meet current codes/standards, but are

grandfathered in their condition. No action is required at this time, but

should substantial work be undertaken in contiguous areas, certain existing

conditions may require correction.

The following summary of anticipated construction costs provides for all proposed

renovations included within this report.


Station Priority Estimated Construction Cost

Station No. 1 Priority 1 $ 97,600

Priority 2 $ 330,400

Priority 3 $ 47,000


Priority 5 $ 23,500

Subtotal $ 675,100


Priority 2 $ 20,000

Priority 3 $ 80,400

Priority 4 $ 55,600

Priority 5 $ 1,500

Subtotal $ 329,600




Priority 4 $ 20,500

Priority 5 $ 31,700

Subtotal $ 595,700


7/82








Priority 2 $ 36,400

Priority 3 $ 79,050

Priority 4 $ 25,800

Priority 5 $ 9,200

Subtotal $ 315,850


Priority 2 $ 90,500

Priority 3 $ 54,300

Priority 4 $ 50,400

Priority 5 $ 0Subtotal $ 273,000



Priority 3 $ 66,700

Priority 4 $ 41,200

Priority 5 $ 25,500

Subtotal $ 478,700

Total: $2,667,950

Throughout this report, the Estimated Construction Costs include Subcontractor barecosts, overhead and profit; General Contractor overhead and profit at 10% each (total

subcontractor cost x 1.2); and 10% Owner contingency. Costs do not include Design

Services.

In comparison to the total above, the cost to replace the 6 existing fire stations, with a

combined floor area of 57,436 s.f., at todays construction costs, would be

approximately $18,667,000.

For some categories of work where a General Contractor may not be required, the City

may elect to bid the work directly to Subcontractors, and eliminate the 20% GeneralContractor markup. These categories of work may include:

Roofing Metal windows Waterproofing, damping and caulking Acoustical tile Resilient flooring


8/82





Painting Plumbing HVAC Electrical Masonry

Throughout the evaluation process, we have been guided by common sense, practical

considerations. All of the work listed is of practical benefit, and represents normative

minimum standards for fire station facilities found in Massachusetts. Where work can

be reasonable deferred, or is grandfathered and may remain, we have categorized it

accordingly.


9/82



City of Medford Station No. 1 Maguire Group Inc.

June 20, 2011 1 - 1 Project No. 19119

Station No. 1, Headquarters

120 Main Street

General Station Information

The combined Police/Fire Headquarters Building was constructed in 1963, and only

minor changes have been made to the building since that time, other than the 911

Combined Call Center (CCC) addition with elevator which was built in ca. 1989. The

windows, overhead doors and roofing have been replaced within the past 15 years and

are in good condition. Some key facts are:

Current Staffing/Administration (daytime): 5.(Chief, Deputy Chief, Training Officer, Fire Prevention Officer, Administrative

Assistant.)

Current Staffing/Firefighters (24/7): 8 per shift.(2 Officers, 6 Firefighters).

Original (maximum) capacity: 4-5 Administration, 9 Officers and 21 Firefighters. Current Staffing/911 Combined Call Center: 1 Firefighter and 2 Police (24/7); 1

Supervisor (daytime).

Apparatus: Engine 1, Ladder 1, Car 1, Car 2, Car 3, Rescue Boat 1,Decontamination Trailer.

3-bay Apparatus Room, plus two small bays not used for apparatus Gross Floor Area:

Fire Department only = 14,390 s.f.

911 Combined Call Center = 1,855 s.f.

Entire Building, including Police Department = 32,993 s.f.


10/82




June 20, 2011 1 - 2 Project No. 19119

Site Assessment

Site conditions observed are as follows:

Apron:

Size/material: Adequate/concrete, bituminous Condition: Good, minor crackingParking:

Size/material: Adequate/asphalt Condition: Good, minor crackingSite Drainage:

Drainage is good. Paved areas drain to street.Roof drainage: Connects into City Storm DrainSite Lighting

Type: Building mounted Condition: GoodLandscaping features/other:

A well maintained landscaped area fronts Main Street The Fire Department public entrance lacks any identifying signageRecommendations:

Provide signage at Fire Department EntrancePriority: 4 Cost: $1,000

Ramp paving 5 up to Fire Department entry to allow access to Dispatch.Priority: 5 Cost: See Accessibility Assessment

Life Safety and Code Compliance Assessment

Egress components meet Code. A minimum of two means of egress are provided from

all floors, stairs and corridors meet width requirements, no dead-end corridors exist,and exit accessways are clear and unobstructed.


11/82




June 20, 2011 1 - 3 Project No. 19119

A fire station typically contains two or three occupancies: Residential (Dorms), Storage

(Apparatus Bays) and in some facilities Business (Offices). Prior to the current (8th

)

edition of the Massachusetts State Building Code (780 CMR), a rated separation was not

required between these occupancies, because Fire Stations were classified as a single

occupancy, Business. Nonetheless, many older stations had provided rated separationsbetween these areas to protect firefighters from apparatus fires. The current edition of

780 CMR does not classify Fire Stations as a single occupancy, and therefore for new

stations, rated separations are required between these three occupancies.

Currently, Station 1 does not have rated doorways and floor openings between these

occupancies. No upgrade is required, as this condition is grandfathered in, but the cost

to bring this up to code would be modest.

As is the case with all Medford Fire Stations, the fire alarm system is indicating a

malfunction. The system has not been inspected, tested or maintained since 2001. Thisis a violation of NFPA 72, which requires annual inspections, testing and maintenance.

Fire suppression (sprinkler) system: None provided. Would be required under current

Code (due to size of building and 0 hour fire rating at 2nd

floor columns and roof), but

building is grandfathered. Providing a system would bring the building up to current

Code, which is desirable, but not required.

In summary:

Fire suppression (sprinkler) system: See above. Smoke alarms: Yes; required. Fire alarm system tested within 1 year: No. Fire alarm system indicating proper functioning: No. Exit signs: Yes. Fire separation provided between Apparatus Bay and Living area: No.Recommendations:

Provide rated doorways between occupancies (7 doors).Priority: 5 Cost: See Openings Assessment

Provide rated enclosures around fire pole openings.Priority: 2 Cost: See Critical Operational Issues

Replace fire alarm system. See Electrical Assessment for explanation.Priority: 2 Cost: See Electrical Assessment


12/82




June 20, 2011 1 - 4 Project No. 19119

Hazmat Assessment

The existing 9 x 9 Vinyl Asbestos Tile, (V.A.T.) located at all offices and dorms

throughout the second floor, including those under the carpet, approximately 5,085 s.f.

in total, tested positive for asbestos. None of the mastics or the cove base mastic or anyother of the materials tested positive.

There appears to be only one existing layer of tile, and it remains in sound condition, so

it may be covered rather than removed. This appears to have been done in some

carpeted offices. However, if the City would like to abate all asbestos, we have included

the cost of that work as well.

The Basement Mechanical Room is shared by the Fire and Police Departments.

Asbestos insulation was found on the boilers, piping, and abandoned water heater.

Because Boiler replacement is recommended in the Mechanical Assessment, and waterheater removal listed in the Plumbing Assessment, related asbestos abatement is

included here.

Recommendations:

Cover existing V.A.T. with rubber flooring.Priority: 4 Cost: See Interior Finishes Assessment

Abate all existing V.A.T.Priority: 5 Cost: $14,000

Abate asbestos at Mechanical Room.Priority: 2 Cost: $40,000**facility shared with Police Department

Programming/Space Allocation Assessment

Because of relocation of apparatus to other stations and staffing cuts, there is currently

more than adequate space in the building for Apparatus and Living Quarters, although

some spaces are not well located for their use. Administrative Office and Storage space

is tight. The Conference Room is also used for training, as well as server equipment, and

is overcrowded. The File Room is crammed full.

Below, we rate existing spaces at Station 1 as Inadequate, Adequate, or More than

adequate for current and anticipated needs. The remaining 5 stations all have more

than adequate space, except where noted otherwise.


13/82




June 20, 2011 1 - 5 Project No. 19119

Apparatus Bays: AdequateApparatus and Related Spaces Hose Storage in Apparatus Bay: Adequate Turn Out Gear Storage: Adequate Air Supply/SCBA: Adequate Washer/Extractor: Adequate Decon/Shower Room: Inadequate

No Decon/Shower Room currently exists.

Equipment, Hazmat and Disaster Supply Storage: Inadequate Housekeeping Storage: Inadequate

Food is stored in cabinets in the Apparatus Bay. Janitorial equipment is also in the

Apparatus Bay.

Day/Dining: AdequateLiving Quarters

Exercise/Fitness: AdequateExercise room in small garage bay and pool table in gear storage room are adequate in

size, but a dedicated location away from apparatus would be preferable.

Fire Fighter Bunks: More than adequate Officer Bunks: Adequate Locker Area: More than adequate Male Firefighter Rest Rooms and Showers: Adequate Female Firefighter Rest Rooms and Showers: Adequate

Male shower locks for female use. If size of female staff increases, this may become

inadequate.

Dispatch: AdequateOffice/Administration Public Rest Rooms: Adequate

Inconveniently located away from Fire Department entrance.

Administrative Offices: Adequate Conference/Training: Inadequate Office Storage: InadequateRecommendations:

Construct new Decon/Shower Room at rear of Apparatus BayPriority: 2 Cost: $20,000

Relocate food storage to portion of Dispatch Office.Priority: 4 Cost: $3,600

Reconfigure and enlarge Storage and Janitor rooms to meet current needs.Priority: 4 Cost: $4,400


14/82




June 20, 2011 1 - 6 Project No. 19119

Enlarge Conference and Storage rooms into Locker Room.Priority: 4 Cost: $20,000

Refurbish exercise room. Provide new floor, wall and ceiling finishes; providenew lighting; replace overhead door with glazed storefront; install TV. SeeMechanical Assessment for ventilation upgrades.

Priority: 4 Cost: $20,500

Critical Operational Issues Assessment

Dispatch

The existing first floor Dispatch has ample room and good visibility. No changes are

required. A new Zetron system has recently been installed.

Combined Call Center (CCC)

The existing CCC, expanded in the mid-1990s, functions well, except for some issues

mentioned in the Interior Finishes and Mechanical Assessments of this report.

Apparatus Bay/Support

Functional issues including adequate storage, headroom, and space for apparatus

are all adequate for the needs of the MFD. Gear storage is adequate and lockers are

in very good condition. The pool table in the gear storage area does not appear to

interfere with critical operations and is a reasonable use of the space, but if a space

away from the apparatus bay became available, that would be preferred. Foodstorage should be removed from the apparatus bay if possible. Some janitorial

equipment is in the apparatus bay. Overhead doors are addressed in the Openings

Assessment. See Structural Assessment for condition of Apparatus Bay floor slab.

Fire Poles

There are 3 sliding poles, 2 of which are in place, 1 of which has been removed to

make room for a pool table at the 1st floor. All floor openings have been sealed up

with plywood to stop the migration of cold air and fumes into the living quarters.

The poles are in the locker room, and lack guardrails and enclosures to separate

them from the living quarters. No landing mats are present. The MFD would like torestore 2 poles to operation, while stopping the migration of cold air and fumes.

Kitchen/Dining

In most fire stations, the living quarters has its own internal circulation, separate

from the Apparatus Bay. In Station 1, however the only way to get to the Dispatch,

Kitchen/Dining, and Exercise rooms are via the Apparatus Bay. The downside of this


15/82




June 20, 2011 1 - 7 Project No. 19119

arrangement is that at some times, the firefighters may need to traverse the cold or

damp Apparatus Bay in order to eat, file a report, or work out. It also increases the

likelihood of pollutants migrating from the Apparatus Bay into living spaces. The

upside is that it may improve response time.

Two improvements could be made to circulation. 1: Create a combined Dining/Day

room at a 2nd

Building Security/Access

floor Bunk Room. This would be about 50% smaller than the current

spaces. 2: Create a hallway from the first floor stair landing through Dispatch, to

Dining, connecting all living spaces. This would require costly changes to the layouts

of 3 rooms. Although it would be preferable to address this, as long as the MFD

considers the existing situation acceptable, we do not recommend any changes at

this time.

Security cameras are in place at front and rear entries. Entry hardware consists of

keyed locks. The MFD has indicated a desire to install key-fob accessed proximity

readers and security cameras at all fire station entrances, in order to control access

to authorized personnel.

Other

Existing bathrooms have not been renovated since the building was constructed.

They are constructed of durable materials and have held up well, except that metal

partitions are rusting and some terrazzo shower bases have worn down to the rebar.

Partitions require repair and painting. Terrazzo bases require repair. Workpertaining to plumbing fixtures is addressed in the Plumbing Assessment.

Recommendations:

Restore 2 fire poles to working order. Enclose with walls and provide doors.Eliminate and seal up 3

rd


pole location.

Relocate food storage out of Apparatus BayPriority: 4 Cost: See Space Allocation Assessment

Install stand alone proximity readers at 3 entry doorsPriority: 3 Cost: $7,500 Miscellaneous bathroom repairs



16/82




June 20, 2011 1 - 8 Project No. 19119

Accessibility and Gender Accommodation Assessment

The MAAB has several thresholds for requiring accessibility upgrades in existing

buildings, depending on the cost of the improvements. The provision reads as follows:

3.3.1 If the work being performed amounts to less than 30% of the full and fair cash

value of the building and

a. if the work costs less than $100,000, then only the work being performed is required to

comply with 521 CMR.

or

b. if the work costs $100,000 or more, then the work being performed is required to

comply with 521 CMR. In addition, an accessible public entrance and an accessible toilet

room, telephone, drinking fountain (if toilets, telephones and drinking fountains are

provided) shall also be provided in compliance with 521 CMR.

The entrance to the Fire Station has a 5 step, and is not accessible. There is an

accessible pathway to the 2nd

floor of the Fire Station via the ramped entry to the Police

Station, leading to an elevator which goes to the CCC, then cutting through the living

quarters to get to the offices. This is a very lengthy route, but not in violation of MAAB.

Providing an accessible entry at the Fire Station entrance is not technically required, but

given the impracticality of the existing accessible pathway, the low cost of providing a

fully accessible entry at the Fire Station entrance is easily justifiable.

It is generally accepted practice not to require accessible accommodations within the

living quarters, since it is assumed that firefighters must be able-bodied. However,where there is interaction with the general public, such as offices, accessible

accommodations are required.

The first floor bathroom is not accessible, but there are other accessible bathrooms at

the 2nd

floor, so it may remain as is.

A unisex rest room with toilet and sink is located at the 2nd

floor, to serve the staff and

public. However, no dedicated showers exist for female firefighters. At present there is

one female firefighter on staff, and when she is assigned to Station 1, she uses the

Mens or Officers Showers, which feature individual stalls, each with a private changing

compartment. A lock has been provided on the door to assure privacy. There are also

two single-user bathrooms with showers available.

If in the future, the number of female staff increases to the point that this is no longer a

workable solution, separate shower facilities may be needed.


17/82




June 20, 2011 1 - 9 Project No. 19119

Recommendations:

Ramp paving up 5 to existing Fire Department entry for accessibility.Priority: 5 Cost: $2,500

Building Envelope Assessment

Exterior walls and roofs are in good condition, with no significant signs of failure or

moisture damage. Comparisons were made between R-values of the existing exterior

envelope elements and the R-values required under current building code. Existing

envelope components are grandfathered in, and do not have to be upgraded to meet

current Code, but any new work must be in compliance with current Code.

Walls

Two types of exterior walls are used. According to the 1962 blueprints, the Brickwalls have 4 face brick, 1 air space and 8 masonry, with no insulation, for a total

thickness of 13. The Concrete Spandrel Panels are 5 thick and have approximately

1 of insulation inside. Our calculations show the existing estimated thermal

performance as follows, with comparisons to current Energy Code (IECC):

R-Value, Brick Walls: R-3.4 (existing) R-11.4 (IECC)

R-Value, Concrete Spandrels: R-3.9 (existing) R-11.4 (IECC)

Roof

The roof was replaced in 2001, according to the MFD. At that time, approximately25 skylights were removed and covered over on the MFD side, and 15 skylights on

the MPD side. The new roof appears to be PVC. Our calculations show an estimated

thermal performance as follows, with comparisons to current Energy Code:

R-Value, Roof: R-15 (existing) R-20 (IECC)

Recommendations:

No work at this time. Insulating the exterior walls, although desirable, wouldrequire significant changes to ceilings, baseboard heating, outlets and window

frames, and is not cost effective. However, if in the future there should occur a

reason to replace the ceilings and baseboard heat, it would be prudent to

insulate the exterior walls at that time.


18/82




June 20, 2011 1 - 10 Project No. 19119

Openings Assessment

Comparisons were made between R-values of the existing exterior envelope elements

and the R-values required under current building code. Existing envelope components

are grandfathered in, and do not have to be upgraded to meet current Code, but anynew work must be in compliance with current Code.

Overhead Doors

Apparatus Bay doors are heavy duty, aluminum stile and panel doors manufactured

in 2000 with insulated glazing, in very good condition. Two of the doors do not seal

tightly against the door heads, one due to a recent accident in which the door head

was struck and displaced by Ladder 1. Reattachment of the concrete panel above

the door is recommended in the Structural section of this report.

Due to the tight headroom, the MFD has expressed an interest in raising the height

of the overhead door head at Ladder 1 in order to avoid possible accidents in the

future. However, due to the limited height available to the existing floor structure

above, this would provide only meager gains, at considerable expense.

The door operators are in good condition, with no reported problems. Closing

timers have been requested for all stations, because it is not always possible to

verify that the door closes when leaving the station.

Doors

Doors at the 2nd

Windows

floor Offices were replaced to be accessible when the elevator was

added. First floor doors between living spaces and apparatus bay are not rated,

which no longer meets Code. Nor are they gasketed, so odors can travel from the

apparatus bay to living spaces. Some interior doors are broken and need

replacement.

Double hung, aluminum clad wood replacement windows with insulated glazing

were installed ca. 1995. Quality is average and operation is fair to good. Minor

hardware problems exist. Most window manufacturers recommend regular cleaningof windows and lubrication of moving parts to maintain ease of operation.

Our calculations show the estimated thermal performance of the windows as

follows, with comparisons to current Energy Code (IECC):

R-Value, Windows: R-2.8 (existing) R-2.8 (IECC)


19/82


20/82




June 20, 2011 1 - 12 Project No. 19119

Recommendations:

Floors: Apply sealer to first floor apparatus bay and storage room floors (5,500s.f.)

Priority: 3 Cost: See Structural Assessment

Floors: Cover exposed VAT at second floor with rubber flooring (4,700 s.f.).Priority: 4 Cost: $36,000

Floors: Replace worn raised flooring panels at CCC (200 s.f.).Priority: 4 Cost: $2,000*

*facility shared with Police Department

Walls: No work required other than cleaning and minor touch upPriority: 4 Cost: $500

Ceilings: Replace 2ndPriority: 3 Cost: $2,300

floor public corridor ceiling grid and tile (350 s.f.).

Provide new floor, wall and ceiling finishes at exercise room.Priority: 4 Cost: See Space Allocation Assessment

Structural Assessment

The building structural system consists of the following:

Footings - spread foundations and concrete walls. Apparatus floor - 8-inch thick apparatus bay floor slabs with #4 reinforcing bars

at 10-inches on center 2nd Roof - steel beams, steel joists, bulb tees and poured gypsum deck.floor slab one-way concrete joists. Columns - concrete columns up to 2nd floor, concrete filled steel columns from

2nd

Field Observations:

floor to roof.

The apparatus floor slab generally appeared in good condition. Some minor cracking

was observed. The floor finish has mostly worn off. It is recommended that the entire

apparatus floor be shot blasted and protective coating be applied to prevent any salt

migration into concrete slab.

One precast concrete panel over overhead door was recently damaged when it was hit

by a ladder truck exiting the door. The precast panel has laterally displaced

approximately 1-1/2 inches in the middle of its span. Since the panel has been attached

to concrete structure by several expansion anchors, it is very likely that some of these

expansion anchors have pulled out from the concrete structure and failed. It is


21/82




June 20, 2011 1 - 13 Project No. 19119

recommended that the precast panel be re-anchored to concrete fascia beam. One

option would be to provide angle clips with epoxy anchors between top of the concrete

floor and the precast panel. Removal and replacement of existing heating units along

the exterior wall will be required.

The rest of the building appeared in good condition.

Recommendations:

Shot blast apparatus floor and provide protective coatingPriority: 3 Cost: $27,500

Provide new anchors between damaged precast panel and concrete fascia beamPriority: 1 Cost: $10,000

Plumbing Assessment

The plumbing distribution and waste disposal systems are original to the building.

Sanitary and storm water piping appeared to be in good working condition. However,

apparatus bay drains and exterior gas and oil separator require cleaning.

Domestic water enters the mechanical room at 4 and reduces down to 2 for

distribution to the building fixtures and equipment. The water main includes isolation

valves, water meter and partial insulation.

An existing, abandoned water storage tank remains in the mechanical room and has

since been replaced with a 75-gallon, gas-fired water heater. Insulation is missing fromdomestic water systems and asbestos insulation remains on abandoned water storage

tanks. The heater did not have an expansion tank installed.

Air compressors appear to be in good working condition.

An existing trough drain in mechanical room is in disrepair which drains to an open

sump/sewage ejector.

The janitors slop sink has experienced backflow problems through the faucet as result

of missing vacuum breakers and integral check valves.

The existing sewage ejector for the lower level toilets and adjacent electrical

maintenance garage janitors sink has experienced back-ups.

Back of house Apparatus Bay has been turned into a gym. However, floor drains have

not been plugged to prevent sewer gasses.


22/82




June 20, 2011 1 - 14 Project No. 19119

Most hose connections are missing vacuum breakers. Kitchen equipment and fire truck

fill stations are missing backflow prevention.

Roof vents (PVC) appear to be within 25-feet of the HVAC fresh air intake over the

apparatus bay.

The building currently does not have a fire suppression system. MGL 148 requires a fire

suppression system in all new commercial buildings over 7,500 s.f. This is grandfathered

under the current code and a fire suppression system would not be required unless the

facility is expanded. This is a recommended safety upgrade, but under the current

status optional. It is anticipated that the construction magnitude to install a fire

suppression system for the fire station side of the facility would be in the $100,000

range. It will be higher if a booster pump is required. Since this is an optional feature,

the cost is not reflected in the Summary.

Recommendations:

Remove abandoned water storage tank. See Hazmat Assessment for relatedasbestos abatement.

Priority: 4 Cost: $2,500*


Insulate water piping.Priority: 3 Cost: $1,300

Provide backflow prevention at hose bibs, kitchen, wall hydrants, fire truck fill,and mechanical make-up water connections.Priority: 1 Cost: $7,800

Provide water conservation plumbing fixtures.Priority: 4 Cost: $19,500

Clean exterior gas and oil separator.Priority: 1 Cost: $3,200

Plug back of house apparatus bay floor drain.Priority: 2 Cost: $400

Extend roof vents above outside air intakes.Priority: 4 Cost: $600

Seal ejectors.Priority: 1 Cost: $600


23/82




June 20, 2011 1 - 15 Project No. 19119

Mechanical Assessment

The main heating system consists of two circa 1963 Weil McLain, oil-fired boilers with

Power-Flame burners, located in a basement mechanical room, that produce hot water

which is circulated by two base-mounted circulating pumps to various heating andventilating units, unit heaters, finned-tube radiators, and duct-mounted booster coils

located throughout the facility. The hydronic heating system once served a domestic

water storage tank that is off-line and has since been abandoned in place. The boiler

furthest from the mechanical room door has been reported to and is showing signs of

leaking. The burner on the nearest boiler is extremely loud during firing. The boiler

jacket insulation and pipe fitting insulation contain asbestos. Several valves and the

original pump casings are badly rusted. Combustion air is provided to the mechanical

room but appears to be undersized to meet current code requirements. The clean-out

door at the bottom of the chimney is wide open revealing a significant amount of

combustion products, suggesting that chimney cleaning has been neglected. Themechanical room is being utilized for miscellaneous storage, limiting the working

clearance around equipment requiring inspection, maintenance, and repair, which is a

code violation. The majority of the mechanical equipment, except for the boiler burners

and the pump motors, appears to be original installation. An air compressor located in

the mechanical room provides control air to thermostats, damper actuators, etc.

The Fire Department Apparatus Bays are provided with a Plymovent vehicle exhaust

capture and removal system but does not have any code-required ventilation system.

The second floor office spaces for the Fire Department and Police Department are

served by Carrier rooftop units that, according to the serial numbers, were installed in1996. Several roof-mounted exhaust fans are not running or are in poor shape.

The Combined Call Center (CCC) and adjoining server room are presently under separate

contract to evaluate and address heating, ventilation, and air conditioning issues and

are considered out of scope for this report.

Packaged terminal air conditioners are located throughout the facility to provide

supplemental cooling to areas such as the kitchen area and dorm rooms.

Recommendations:

Upgrade entire heating system within the mechanical room. The boilers areapproximately 48-years old, exceeding the estimated service life expectancy

listed in the ASHRAE Handbook by more than double. The system leaks requiring

constant make-up water, adversely affecting system efficiency while

unnecessarily increasing utility costs. (System shared with Police Department).




24/82




June 20, 2011 1 - 16 Project No. 19119

Upgrade mechanical ventilation systems throughout the facility. Mechanicalventilation of toilets, showers, locker rooms, and the apparatus bays are

required by Code during occupied times. Several roof-mounted exhaust fans are

out of service and the apparatus bays are lacking ventilation.


Upgrade rooftop air conditioning units. The units are 15-years old andapproaching their estimated service life of 20-years.


Electrical Assessment

Distribution System

Existing main service and associated distribution equipment are relatively new and in

good condition. These were replaced when dispatch area was renovated. The otherpanels within the facility are the original Federal Pacific panels and in poor condition. In

addition these panels do not contain spare breakers for future or current use.

Recommendations:

Replace existing panel seven (7) with retrofit panel and provide two (2) newpanels in selected areas to provide spare capacity for areas lacking adequate

branch circuits and for future equipment. Retrofit panels are recommended for

replacing new since these will minimize the outage time.


*shared with Police Department

Standby Generator

The standby generators fuel tank has been reported to be blistering and is in need of

replacement. The tank is located in the base of the generator, so repair of the tank

would require removal of the generator and installation of a temporary generator.

Recommendations:

Replace generator base tank, provide temporary generator during thisconstruction effort.Priority: 1 Cost: $40,000*



25/82




June 20, 2011 1 - 17 Project No. 19119

Fire Alarm System

The existing fire alarm control panel is an old Gamewell panel, currently indicating a

trouble condition. Most of the associated devices on the system are the original

devices. In addition, the fire alarm horn/strobes are not ADA compliant and many areaslack coverage.

Recommendations:

Replace existing non-addressable zoned fire alarm control panel with new firealarm control panel manufactured by the same as the original to assure UL

device compatibility with field devices. Field wiring can remain in place, as well

as existing pull stations and heat detectors. Existing smoke detectors that are 20

years old will be replaced with new since these have surpassed their life

expectancy. In addition, existing horn/strobes will be replaced with new ADA

compliant horn/strobes and new added as required. New devices will be addedto existing zones as required to comply with present code requirements.



Security

Presently there are CCTVs on the perimeter of the building and in the Apparatus bay,

providing adequate coverage.

Recommendations:

N/A.

Station No. 1 Cost Summary




Priority 3 $ 47,000

Priority 4 $ 176,600Priority 5 $ 23,500

Subtotal $ 677,100


26/82



City of Medford Appendix Section Maguire Group Inc.


Appendix Section


27/82



City of Medford Appendix A - 1 Maguire Group Inc.


Appendix A: Hazmat Survey


28/82

MAIN OFFICE:

979 Main StreetWakefield,Massachusetts 01880(781) 213-9198(781) 213-6992 Fax

BRANCH OFFICES:

46 Watergate LaneBarnstable, Massachusetts 02668(508) 746-5218(508) 732-0281 Fax

10 Diamond DriveDerry, New Hampshire 03038(603) 434-5245(603) 434-5172 Fax

www.axiomenv.comApril 28, 2011

Mr. Stephen J. Lapin, AIA, LEED AP Project Number 01023.065Project ManagerMaguire Group, Inc.33 Commercial Street, Suite 1Foxborough, Massachusetts 02035

RE: Limited Sampling for Asbestos-Containing Materials and Lead-Containing Paint, Fire

Stations One, Three, Four and Six, Medford, Massachusetts

Dear Mr. Lapin:

Axiom Partners, Inc. (AXIOM) performed limited survey Asbestos-Containing Materials (ACMs)and Lead-Containing Paint (LCP) in the four fire stations referenced above.

The scope of work included the collection of bulk material samples and paint chips fordetermination of asbestos and lead content. Experienced Asbestos Inspector, Mr. Peter A. DelSette, Jr. (Massachusetts Asbestos Inspector License Number AI061265), performed thesurvey on April 22, 2011. The survey areas were limited to the second floor of the four firestations.

.A. ASBESTOS-CONTAINING MATERIALS (ACM) SURVEY:

The scope of the ACM survey included inspection of accessible areas of the second floors ofthe four stations referenced above. The areas generally included common bunk rooms, offices,closets, bathrooms and kitchen and living spaces.

Suspect materials that were sampled included:

9 x 9 floor tiles and associated mastic pipe fitting insulation 12 x 12" floor tiles and associated mastic suspended ceiling tiles rolled floor sheeting and associated mastic cove base mastic raised floor stanchion mastic wall plaster

Asbestos bulk sampling was performed in accordance with the Environmental ProtectionAgencys Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act (AHERA) criteria. Samples were placedin labeled containers, which were sealed and submitted to the laboratory for analysis. Chain-of-custody forms were used to ensure sample integrity.


29/82

Mr. Stephen J. Lapin, AIA, LEED AP Limited Sampling for ACMs and LCPsApril 28, 2011 Fire Stations 1, 3, 4 and 6Page 2 Medford, Massachusetts

All bulk samples were analyzed by EMSL Analytical, Inc. (EMSL) located in Woburn,Massachusetts. EMSL is fully accredited for asbestos bulk sample analysis under the NationalVoluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program (NVLAP) administered by the National Institute ofStandards and Technology (NIST). EMSL is also licensed by the Commonwealth ofMassachusetts to analyze bulk material samples for asbestos.

Bulk samples were analyzed for asbestos content using EPA Method 600/R-93/116. The visualestimation technique was used to quantify asbestos concentrations. Please refer to theattached table and the Bulk Material Sample Chain-of-Custody and Analytical Report and thelaboratory report for results.

All samples of each homogeneous application of a suspect material must be found to contain"less than or equal to 1% asbestos" to conclude that the material is non-asbestos under theEPA NESHAP (National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants) regulation. Theabove analysis protocol will accordingly control survey costs without compromising the integrityof the findings.

The following materials in Table 1 have been identified as Asbestos-Containing Materials(ACMs). Attachment 1 contains the laboratory report.

TABLE 1

ASBESTOS-CONTAININGMATERIALS

Approximate Location(s)Asbestos-Containing

MaterialQuantity Unit1

Station 1 - Day Room 9 x 9 Beige Tile 375 SF

Station 1 Center Hall9 x 9 Dark Beige , Beige

and White Tile

1,975 SF

Station 1 Ladder One and Engine OneOffices and Vacant Rescue Room

9 x 9 Grey Tile 750 SF

Station 1 Administration andInspectional Services Offices Under

Carpet and Drywall9 x 9 Beige Tile 550 SF

Station 1 Shift Commanders Office 9 x 9 Brown Tile 325 SF

Station 1 Common Bunk Rooms inCenter Hall

9 x 9 Grey Tile 1,110 SF

Station 6 - Second Floor Throughout(Portions Under Carpet and Floor

Sheeting)

9 x 9 Red and Black Tile 2,900 SF

1SF = Square Feet

AXIOM did not identify any ACMs in Stations 3 or 4 that were in the areas identified to us forinspection.

AXIOM was unable to access several rooms on the second floor of Station One. These roomswere generally in the center of the floor and included the Conference Room, Education Room


30/82


and three closets. Also the Chiefs office, which is not in the center of the floor, was alsoinaccessible at the time of this survey.

It should be noted that floor tile is believed to exist under the interior wall base plates. Shouldremoval of this tile be desired, it would require the removal of the bottom portion of the wall toaccess the ACM floor tile beneath the base plate.

Based on our observations of the inaccessible areas, AXIOM has included these areas in thecost estimate under the belief that asbestos-containing tiles are likely to be present in thesespaces.

AXIOM recommends that any ACMs which may be impacted renovation work (friable and non-friable) be removed in advance by a qualified, Commonwealth of Massachusetts-licensedAsbestos Abatement Contractor in compliance with governing regulations. Note that ACM mayremain in-place if it will not be disturbed and may be enclosed, covered or encapsulated.

Until the ACMs are removed, they should be managed according to governing regulations.Impact to ACMs should be minimized to prevent damage to these materials and the possibleexposure of humans to asbestos fibers. No other actions are recommended at this time.

B. Lead Paint Investigation

The lead paint survey was performed to identify lead-containing paints (LCP) in the buildings todetermine compliance with governing regulations for lead in construction. The purpose of thelead survey was to identify representative components coated with LCP prior to renovation ofthe building.

During the survey, AXIOM collected twelve (12) bulk paint chip samples for determination oflead content. The samples were submitted to ProScience Analytical Services (ProScience), Incwhich is fully accredited for lead bulk sample analysis under the Environmental LeadProficiency Analytical Testing (ELPAT) Program administered by the American IndustrialHygiene Association (AIHA). The bulk paint chip samples were analyzed for lead content usingAtomic Absorption Spectrophotometry (AAS) under EPA Method SW846-7420/3051. Pleaserefer to Attachment 2 for the ProScience laboratory report.

Based on the lead testing results, AXIOM does not expect that lead abatement will be requiredunless surfaces with lead paint are to be sanded, blasted with abrasive or cut with a saw. Ifhand scraping or abrasive removal is performed, collection of paint chips/abrasive materialsand proper disposal may be required (see below). Worker safety requirements should also beevaluated.

WORKER SAFETY - Note that the selected renovation contractor may have specific workermonitoring requirements to satisfy the hazard communication requirements set forth by OSHAregulations. Specifically, contractors and subcontractors should be required to comply withOSHA regulations including 29 CFR 1926.62, Lead Exposure in Construction: Interim FinalRule and 29 CFR 1926.59, Hazard Communication for the Construction Industry. AXIOMrecommends providing lead testing data with the selected renovation contractor.


31/82


DISPOSAL OF LCPS - The current interpretation of the EPAs Resource Conservation andRecovery Act (RCRA) requires that waste generated during projects where LCPs are presentand will be disposed are tested for the toxicity characteristic of lead in the waste stream.Toxicity Characteristic Leachate Procedure (TCLP) testing is performed to determine whetherthe waste (construction/demolition debris) must be classified as hazardous because of its leadcontent or if it can be disposed in a conventional construction and demolition (C&D) landfill. Theregulatory limit for lead toxicity is 5.0 milligrams per liter (mg/L) using the EPA referenceMethod SW846-7420 for Atomic Absorption Spectroscopy (AAS). Although there are notsignificant lead painted materials present, AXIOM recommends TCLP waste stream testing forlead prior to disposal of C&D debris containing LCP.

C. ABATEMENT COST ESTIMATE

The estimated cost for the removal of the ACMs indentified in this report is $16,875.00. Thisestimate is based on using a Commonwealth of Massachusetts-licensed asbestos abatementcontractor to perform the abatement work.

The cost breakdown for hazmat work is detailed in Attachment 3. The cost estimate is basedon the following assumptions:

Includes materials, labor, equipment, notifications/permits, transportation and disposal; The project will be awarded to one Asbestos Abatement Contractor; Work performed by a Massachusetts-licensed asbestos abatement contractor; Work will be started and completed as one project; Power, water and heat provided by the Owner; and One contractor mobilization.

Note that this above cost does not include costs associated with removal of walls to access andremove tile believed to exist beneath the wall base plates.

D. LIMITATIONS AND EXCLUSIONS

Asbestos Survey and Inaccessible Materials/Locations

The limited survey performed by AXIOM involved an investigation of the subject buildings forasbestos-containing materials (ACMs) as part of a pre-renovation due-diligence survey. Itshould be noted that the potential for concealed ACMs to remain in the affected building areasexists.

Inaccessible building areas, systems, structural components, or surfaces which may not have

been observed because it was unsafe or impractical to demolish, disassemble, or removesystems or coverings, or because a human being cannot physically enter or observe the area orcomponent may include the following:

buried or otherwise concealed pipe trenches and utility vaults/corridors; buried foundations (except as specifically identified); electrical equipment/wire (except as specifically identified); multi-layered flooring material applications (except as specifically identified); most pipe and vessel gaskets;


32/82


inside boilers and other mechanical or processing equipment; inside ductwork and air handling equipment (except as specifically identified); enclosed wall and ceiling cavities; fire door cores (except as specifically identified); remnant window and door caulking that have been replaced or in-filled.

As this was a limited survey AXIOM did not address potential ACMs throughout the building butspecifically in areas noted. As discussed above, the potential remains that concealed ACMscould be encountered during a building renovation. Several rooms on the second floor ofStation One, as referenced above, were inaccessible.

Other Environmental Exclusions

1. This investigation did not include assessments for the presence of pesticides, herbicides,urea-formaldehyde or Radon, nor any air quality monitoring, or any chemical analyses ofsoil, surface water, or groundwater at these Sites. Furthermore, this study did not includeany subsurface exploration, testing or assessment for wetlands.

2. This investigation did not include evaluation and testing of any paints or caulkingcompounds for PCBs.

3. No attempt was made to check the compliance of present or past owners of the Sites withCity of Medford, Federal, State, or local laws.

4. Testing for lead paint was performed by one or more experienced Industrial Hygienists. It isintended only to satisfy the requirements of OSHA regulations including 29 CFR 1926.62,Lead Exposure in Construction: Interim Final Rule and 29 CFR 1926.59, HazardCommunication for the Construction Industry. This investigation was not performed by anEPA HUD1 or state accredited/licensed lead inspector, which is often required for residentialstructures where children under the age of six reside.

Please call us if you have any questions or require our assistance.

Sincerely,

Peter A. Del Sette, Jr. Randal D. AmesAssistant Project Manager/Inspector Principal

Attachment 1 Bulk Material Sample Chain-of-Custody and Analytical ReportAttachment 2 Lead Paint Laboratory Analysis ResultsAttachment 3 Asbestos Abatement Cost Estimate

\Medford FIre Dept - Stations 1,3,4,6 Limited ACM and Pb Survey 01023.065.doc

1US Department of Housing and Urban Development


33/82

AATTTTAACCHHMMEENNTT 11

BBUULLKK MMAATTEERRIIAALL SSAAMMPPLLEE CCHHAAIINN--OOFF--CCUUSSTTOODDYYAANNDD

AANNAALLYYTTIICCAALL RREEPPOORRTT


34/82

Sample Description Appearance % Type

AsbestosNon-Asbestos

% Fibrous % Non-Fibrous

Test Report: Asbestos Analysis of Bulk Materials via EPA 600/R-93/116 Method using

Polarized Light Microscopy

131101614

Attn: Peter A. Del Sette, Jr.

Axiom Partners, Inc.

979 Main Street

Wakefield, MA 01880

Customer PO:

Received: 04/25/11 8:30 AM

01023.065 (RDA) / Medford Fire Department; StationOne; Main Street; Medford, MA

Customer ID: AXIO80

Fax: (781) 213-6992 Phone: (781) 213-9198

Project:

EMSL Order:

EMSL Proj:

4/26/2011Analysis Date:

EMSL Analytical, Inc.7 Constitution Way, Suite 107, Woburn, MA 01801

Phone: (781) 933-8411 Fax: (781) 933-8412 Email: [email protected]

042211-09-01A

131101614-0001

Day Room - 9x9Beige Tile

Gray

Non-FibrousHomogeneous

Chrysotile5%Non-fibrous (other)95%

042211-09-01B

131101614-0002

Day Room - 9x9Beige Tile

Stop Positive (NotAnalyzed)

042211-09-02A

131101614-0003

Day Room -Mastic on 9x9Beige Tile

Black None Detected


Non-fibrous (other)100%

042211-09-02B

131101614-0004

Day Room -

Mastic on 9x9Beige Tile

Black None Detected



042211-09-03A

131101614-0005

Day Room -Covebase Mastic

Brown None Detected

Non-Fibrous

Homogeneous


042211-09-03B

131101614-0006

Vacant RescueRoom - CovebaseMastic

Brown None Detected



Renaldo Drakes, Laboratory Manageror other approved signatory

Analyst(s)

Test Report PLM-7.23.0 Printed: 4/26/2011 12:14:38 PM

Due to magnification limitations inherent in PLM, asbestos fibers in dimensions below the resolution capability of PLM m ay not be detected. Samples reported as < 1% or none dete

require additional testing by TEM to confirm asbes tos quantities . The above test report relates only to the items tes ted and may not be reproduced in any form without the express

approval of EMSL Analytical, Inc. EMSLs liability is limited to the cost of analysis. EMSL bears no responsibility for sample collection activities or analytical method limitations. In

and use of test results are the responsibility of the client.Samples received in good condition unless otherwise noted.

Samples analyzed by E MSL A nalytical, Inc. Woburn, MA NVLAP Lab Code 101147-0, CT PH-0315, MA AA000188, RI AAL-107T3 and VT AL357102

Kevin Pine (34)

nitial report from 04/26/2011 12:14:38
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]


35/82






131101614



979 Main Street

Wakefield, MA 01880

Customer PO:

Received: 04/25/11 8:30 AM


Customer ID: AXIO80

Fax: (781) 213-6992 Phone: (781) 213-9198

Project:

EMSL Order:

EMSL Proj:




042211-09-04A

131101614-0007

Vacant RescueRoom - 2x2Ceiling Tile

Tan None Detected

FibrousHomogeneous

Cellulose50%

Min. Wool30%


042211-09-04B

131101614-0008

Bunk Room - 2x2Ceiling Tile

Tan None Detected

FibrousHomogeneous

Cellulose50%

Min. Wool30%


042211-09-05A

131101614-0009

Center Hall - 9x9Dark Beige Tile

Brown



042211-09-05B

131101614-0010

Center Hall - 9x9

Dark Beige Tile

Stop Positive (Not

Analyzed)

042211-09-06A

131101614-0011

Center Hall - 9x9Beige Tile

White

Non-Fibrous

Homogeneous


042211-09-06B

131101614-0012

Center Hall - 9x9Beige Tile



Analyst(s)







Kevin Pine (34)



36/82






131101614



979 Main Street

Wakefield, MA 01880

Customer PO:

Received: 04/25/11 8:30 AM


Customer ID: AXIO80

Fax: (781) 213-6992 Phone: (781) 213-9198

Project:

EMSL Order:

EMSL Proj:




042211-09-07A

131101614-0013

Center Hall - 9x9White Tile

Tan



042211-09-07B

131101614-0014

Center Hall - 9x9White Tile


042211-09-08A

131101614-0015

Center Hall -Black Mastic w/Sample 05B

Black None Detected



042211-09-08B

131101614-0016

Center Hall -

Black Mastic w/Sample 06A

Black None Detected



042211-09-08C

131101614-0017

Center Hall -Black Mastic w/Sample 07B

Black None Detected

Non-Fibrous

Homogeneous


042211-09-09A

131101614-0018

Ladder OneOffice - 9x9 GrayTile

Gray




Analyst(s)







Kevin Pine (34)



37/82






131101614



979 Main Street

Wakefield, MA 01880

Customer PO:

Received: 04/25/11 8:30 AM


Customer ID: AXIO80

Fax: (781) 213-6992 Phone: (781) 213-9198

Project:

EMSL Order:

EMSL Proj:




042211-09-09B

131101614-0019

Former RescueOffice - 9x9 GrayTile


042211-09-10A

131101614-0020

Ladder OneOffice - Mastic on9x9 Gray Tile

Black None Detected



042211-09-10B

131101614-0021

Former RescueOffice - Mastic on9x9 Gray Tile

Black None Detected



042211-09-11A

131101614-0022

Inspectional Svc &

Admin Offices -Beige Tile underCarpet

Brown



042211-09-11B

131101614-0023

Inspectional Svc &Admin Offices -Beige Tile underCarpet


042211-09-12A

131101614-0024

Inspectional Svc &Admin Offices -Mastic on BeigeTile under Carpet

Black None Detected




Analyst(s)







Kevin Pine (34)



38/82






131101614



979 Main Street

Wakefield, MA 01880

Customer PO:

Received: 04/25/11 8:30 AM


Customer ID: AXIO80

Fax: (781) 213-6992 Phone: (781) 213-9198

Project:

EMSL Order:

EMSL Proj:




042211-09-12B

131101614-0025

Inspectional Svc &Admin Offices -Mastic on BeigeTile under Carpet

Black None Detected



042211-09-13A

131101614-0026

Shift CommandersOffice - 9x9Brown/White Tile

Brown



042211-09-13B

131101614-0027

Shift CommandersOffice - 9x9Brown/White Tile


042211-09-14A131101614-0028

Shift CommandersOffice - Mastic on9x9 Brown/WhiteTile

Black

None Detected

Non-Fibrous

Homogeneous


042211-09-14B

131101614-0029

Shift CommandersOffice - Mastic on9x9 Brown/WhiteTile

Black None Detected

Non-Fibrous

Homogeneous


042211-09-15A

131101614-0030

Bunk Rm nearCommunicationsCtr - 9x9 Beige Tile

Gray




Analyst(s)







Kevin Pine (34)



39/82






131101614



979 Main Street

Wakefield, MA 01880

Customer PO:

Received: 04/25/11 8:30 AM


Customer ID: AXIO80

Fax: (781) 213-6992 Phone: (781) 213-9198

Project:

EMSL Order:

EMSL Proj:




042211-09-15B

131101614-0031

Bunk Rm nearCommunicationsCtr - 9x9 Beige Tile


042211-09-16A

131101614-0032

Bunk Rm nearCommunicationsCtr - Mastic on9x9 Beige Tile

Black None Detected



042211-09-16B

131101614-0033

Bunk Rm nearCommunicationsCtr - Mastic on9x9 Beige Tile

Black None Detected



042211-09-17A

131101614-0034

CommunicationsCenter - 12x12Gray Tile

Gray None Detected

Non-Fibrous

Homogeneous


042211-09-17B

131101614-0035

CommunicationsCenter - 12x12Gray Tile

Gray None Detected

Non-Fibrous

Homogeneous


042211-09-18A

131101614-0036

CommunicationsCenter - Mastic on12x12 Gray Tile

Yellow None Detected




Analyst(s)







Kevin Pine (34)



40/82






131101614



979 Main Street

Wakefield, MA 01880

Customer PO:

Received: 04/25/11 8:30 AM


Customer ID: AXIO80

Fax: (781) 213-6992 Phone: (781) 213-9198

Project:

EMSL Order:

EMSL Proj:




042211-09-18B

131101614-0037

CommunicationsCenter - Mastic on12x12 Gray Tile




042211-09-19A

131101614-0038

Water Line inWall inBathroom - HardFitting onFiberglass Pipe Ins

Gray None Detected

FibrousHomogeneous

Min. Wool40% Non-fibrous (other)60%

042211-09-19B

131101614-0039


Gray None Detected

FibrousHomogeneous


042211-09-19C

131101614-0040


Gray None Detected

Fibrous

Homogeneous


042211-09-20A

131101614-0041

CommunicationsCenter - RaisedFloor StanchionMastic

Black None Detected




Analyst(s)







Kevin Pine (34)



41/82


42/82


43/82


44/82


45/82


46/82






131101611



979 Main Street

Wakefield, MA 01880

Customer PO:

Received: 04/25/11 8:30 AM

01023.065 (RDA) / Medford Fire Department; StationThree; Salem Street; Medford, MA

Customer ID: AXIO80

Fax: (781) 213-6992 Phone: (781) 213-9198

Project:

EMSL Order:

EMSL Proj:




042211-21A

131101611-0001

TV Room - 12x12Pink Mottled FloorTile

Pink None Detected



042211-21B

131101611-0002

Office - 12x12Pink Mottled FloorTile

Pink None Detected



042211-22A

131101611-0003

TV Room - Masticon 12x12 PinkMottled Floor Tile




042211-22B

131101611-0004

Office - Mastic on

12x12 PinkMottled Floor Tile




042211-23A

131101611-0005

Hallway - 12x12Gray Mottled FloorTile

Gray None Detected

Non-Fibrous

Homogeneous


042211-23B

131101611-0006

Bedroom - 12x12Gray Mottled FloorTile

Gray None Detected




Analyst(s)







Steve Grise (10)



47/82






131101611



979 Main Street

Wakefield, MA 01880

Customer PO:

Received: 04/25/11 8:30 AM

01023.065 (RDA) / Medford Fire Department; StationThree; Salem Street; Medford, MA

Customer ID: AXIO80

Fax: (781) 213-6992 Phone: (781) 213-9198

Project:

EMSL Order:

EMSL Proj:




042211-24A

131101611-0007

Hallway - Masticon 12x12 GrayMottled Floor Tile




042211-24B

131101611-0008

Bedroom - Masticon 12x12 GrayMottled Floor Tile




042211-25A

131101611-0009

Bunkroom -Covebase Mastic




042211-25B

131101611-0010

Hall at Bathroom -

Covebase Mastic





Analyst(s)

THIS IS THE LAST PAGE OF THE REPORT.Test Report PLM-7.23.0 Printed: 4/25/2011 7:33:29 PM






Steve Grise (10)



48/82


49/82






131101613



979 Main Street

Wakefield, MA 01880

Customer PO:

Received: 04/25/11 8:30 AM

01023.065 (RDA) / Medford Fire Department; StationFour; Riverside Avenue; Medford, MA

Customer ID: AXIO80

Fax: (781) 213-6992 Phone: (781) 213-9198

Project:

EMSL Order:

Documents

Medford Fire Dept Facility Condition Assessment