657-19-117JB - Mold Investigation Report.pdf

Limited Environmental Mold Investigation Report Date January 15, 2020

LIMITED ENVIRONMENTAL MOLD

INVESTIGATION REPORT

Prepared by:

2418 Merriam Lane Kansas City, KS 66106

For:

Valhalla Engineering Group 750 W. Hampden Ave., Suite 300

Englewood, CO 80110

Project:

Limited Mold Investigation St, Louis VA Medical Center Building 1 Basement Area 1 Jefferson Barracks Dr.

St. Louis, MO 63125

TES Project #: 20047ALM.01

JANUARY 15, 2020

CLIENT:

Valhalla Engineering Group

750 W. Hampden Ave., Suite 300 Englewood, CO 80110

PROJECT:

Limited Mold Investigation

St, Louis VA Medical Center Building 1 Basement Area 1 Jefferson Barracks Dr.

St. Louis, MO 63125

TES PROJECT NO.: 20047ALM.01

Inspector: Travis TaylorTravis TaylorTravis TaylorTravis Taylor

Travis Taylor Project Manager

Report Reviewed by: Paul EhrhardtPaul EhrhardtPaul EhrhardtPaul Ehrhardt

Paul Ehrhardt Project Manager

Contact Information: Titan Environmental Services, Inc.

2418 Merriam Lane

Kansas City, Kansas 66106 Tel: (913) 432-5500 Fax: (913) 432-0704 E-mail: pehrhardt@titankc.com

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

In response to the request of Valhalla Engineering Group, a limited mold investigation including spore trap sampling was conducted by Titan Environmental Services, Inc. (TES) on January 9, 2020 at the St. Louis VA Medical Center building one basement located at 1

Jefferson Barracks Dr., St. Louis, MO 63125. It is understood that this limited investigation was requested due to the potential for indoor air quality issues associated with the subject property.

2.0 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

TES conducted a limited visual inspection of suspect areas throughout affected area of the property. TES focused on areas where building components were readily available for inspection. Based on the visual inspection performed, TES observed the following:

• GE19 – Water staining on fiberglass pipe insulation in the center of the room (12 LF).

• GE26 – Severe water staining and damage to fiberglass pipe insulation (25 LF). Active moisture on concrete floor surrounding floor drain (12 ft2).

• GE29 – Water staining on Southwest corner plaster wall from ceiling tiles to floor. Visible mold growth and water staining on topside of ceiling tile in same corner (1 ft2).

• GE32 – Water staining on fiberglass pipe insulation (4 ft2). Water staining and water calcification on fiberglass HVAC duct insulation (8 ft2).

TES did not observe any discoloration evident of mold growth or moisture staining on any other building materials in the Basement area.

TES also collected moisture meter, relative humidity and temperature readings in suspect and non-suspect areas. Moisture meter readings collected from Room GE26 floor indicated elevated moisture content. Moisture meter readings collected on the remaining building substrates tested during this assessment indicated minimal to normal moisture content.

Outdoor weather conditions at the time of the inspection were overcast skies, with little wind speeds. The outdoor and indoor conditions at the time of inspection are listed in the table below, by location:

Location Temperature

(Degrees Fahrenheit) Relative Humidity (Percent)

Dew Point (Degrees Fahrenheit)

Basement Area 72.4 32.0 40.9

EPA Mold Course Chapter 2 (https://www.epa.gov/mold/mold-course-chapter-2) recommends that, indoor relative humidity (RH) should be kept below 60%--ideally between

30% and 50%, if possible. Relative humidity level readings collected inside the areas inspected were below 60% at the time of our investigation.

3.0 SAMPLING METHODOLOGY

Five (5) spore trap samples were collected, including one (1) exterior control sample.

Representative sampling locations were chosen from inside the property, as well as an outdoor sample for comparison purposes. Air samples were collected using Zefon Air-O-

Cell sampling cassettes.

The Zefon Air-O-Cell particulate sampling cassettes, coupled with a high-volume air sampling pump, allow for the collection and analysis of a wide range of aerosols including mold spores, pollen, insect parts, and skin fragments. This sampling methodology is useful in providing rapid analysis of airborne contaminants in indoor air quality testing, allergy testing, and flood restoration monitoring.

The samples were sent via overnight shipment to Hayes Microbial Laboratory, in Midlothian, Virginia for genus/species identification and quantification. Hayes Microbial presently maintains a proficient status and is a current environmental microbiology program laboratory through the American Industrial Hygiene Association. Each sample was assigned a sample identification number and was recorded on the chain-of-custody form. Spore trap samples were collected in the following locations:

Sample ID Sample Location Cassette Type Flow Rate/Time

29931870 Basement Room GE19 - Center Zefon Air-O-Cell 15 Lpm–5 min

29931872 Basement Room GE32 - Center Zefon Air-O-Cell 15 Lpm–5 min

29931860 Basement Room GE29 - Center Zefon Air-O-Cell 15 Lpm–5 min

29931861 Basement Hallway H004 - Center Zefon Air-O-Cell 15 Lpm–5 min

29931858 Exterior Front Zefon Air-O-Cell 15 Lpm–5 min

4.0 SAMPLING RESULTS

The following table provides the spore counts for the samples obtained by TES:

Sample ID Sample Location Sample Results

(spores/M3) Notes

29931870 Basement Room GE19 - Center 67 spores/M3 Generally Consistent w/Ambient Control Sample

29931872 Basement Room GE32 - Center 80 spores/M3 Generally Consistent w/Ambient Control Sample

29931860 Basement Room GE29 - Center 66 spores/M3 Generally Consistent w/Ambient Control Sample

29931861 Basement Hallway H004 -

Center 107 spores/M3 Generally Consistent w/Ambient Control Sample

29931858 Exterior Front 146 spores/M3 Ambient Control Sample

Laboratory analysis of the interior air samples collected from the Basement areas indicated spore types and concentrations generally consistent with the ambient (outdoor) sample at the time of our investigation.

5.0 EXPOSURE GUIDELINES

Countable bioaerosols have no Permissible Exposure Limits (PELs) or Threshold Limit Values

(TLVs) for the following reasons: the culturable/countable bioaerosols have no single entry; the human response range varies greatly from one individual to the next; it is not possible to collect and evaluate all bioaerosol components using a single sampling method; and, the information relating bioaerosol concentrations to health effects is generally insufficient to describe exposure response.

Due to a wide variety of microorganisms found across different regions of the U.S. and the influence of normal humidity and temperature conditions, the concentrations of bioaerosols vary significantly from area to area. Generally speaking, the indoor air flora should be quantitatively lower than, but quantitatively similar (genus or species) to that of outdoor air.

6.0 DISCUSSION AND OBSERVATIONS

Indoor and outdoor spore level comparisons should be evaluated with an awareness of building type, activity level, and weather conditions present at the time of sampling.

As stated above, filtered or air-conditioned environments tend to produce lower relative spore counts than those with direct access to outdoor air. Highly active or dusty environments may increase spore levels. While rain washes the air clear of many spore types, it also assists in the dispersion of others. Therefore, sampling on rainy or very humid days may result in outdoor counts which are low or which have a significantly different distribution of spore types.

7.0 RECOMMENDATIONS

Based on our site investigation, observations, moisture meter and relative humidity readings including the laboratory analysis findings of the samples collected, TES recommends the following:

1. Moving forward ensure that all leaks or other sources of water intrusion into the property have been and remain sufficiently controlled. Typical building systems of concern (i.e., plumbing, etc.) should be inspected by a certified professional, when necessary, to identify any potential defects and sources of possible water and/or moisture/humidity intrusion.

2. Any mold/moisture damaged ceiling tiles associated with the Room GE29 should be removed and replaced.

3. Any affected fiberglass pipe and HVAC insulation not damaged beyond repair should be cleaned utilizing proper techniques (e.g., repetitive cleaning with an approved anti-microbial solution, HEPA vacuums, etc.). Areas that had heavy moisture damage should be removed and replaced.

4. All mold remediation work/cleaning should be performed under controlled isolated conditions using standard industry practices by a qualified contractor. The use of a negative air machine with HEPA filtrations during remediation activities is strongly recommended.

5. After all remediation and cleaning activities are completed, the negative air machine/s with HEPA filtration should be placed in the containment (in positive mode) to scrub the air for an additional 24 to 48 hours.

6. A post-remediation visual inspection and spore trap verification samples should be collected from the aforementioned areas to determine whether the remediation and decontamination efforts have successfully removed fungal growth from the affected areas without contributing to elevated concentrations of aerosolized fungi in the subject structure. As with any fungal remediation effort, sub-contractors and/or building occupants should remain outside of the work area during and after the remediation activities until results of the post remediation spore trap sampling are satisfactory.

7. In addition to routine cleaning of the property, the humidity and temperature in the property must be maintained at appropriate levels throughout the subject property (less than 60% relative humidity) to aid in the prevention of mold growth.

8.0 CONDITIONS AND LIMITATIONS

This limited scope mold investigation, sampling and report does not and cannot address correction of the conditions that caused the contamination to occur nor does this report reflect on post remediation conditions that may develop that could support or encourage the redevelopment of fungal contamination.

Air sampling results are limited in that they represent airborne concentrations at the time of sample collection only. Changes in operating procedures, ventilation, temperature, occupancy, equipment, sources, products used, and other conditions may cause variations in anticipated airborne concentrations, surface growth and contamination.

TES has performed the tasks set forth above in a thorough and professional manner consistent with industry standards. TES cannot guarantee and does not warrant that this limited assessment has revealed all adverse environmental conditions affecting the site nor can TES warrant that the assessment requested will satisfy the dictates of, or provide a legal defense in connection with, environmental laws or regulations. The results reported and any opinions reached by TES are for the benefit of the client. The results and opinions set forth by TES in its report will be valid as of the date of the report.

Attachments Appendix A - Laboratory Analysis Report

Appendix B – Notes & Photos

Appendix A - Laboratory Analysis Report

Appendix B – Notes & Photos