Attachment_1__Asbestos___Lead_Based_Paint_Surveys.pdf

Pyramid Environmental & Engineering, P.C.

P.O. Box 16265 • Greensboro, NC 27416-0265 503 Industrial Avenue • Greensboro, NC 27406

336-335-3174 • 866-545-9507

July 12, 2022 (Revised on August 23, 2022)

HAZARDOUS MATERIALS INSPECTIONS -

LIMITED ASBESTOS AND

LEAD-BASED PAINT SURVEY

CEBE Tract 02-194 8639 Valley Pike

Middletown, Virginia

Ryan Kramer – Project Manager VA Asbestos Inspectors License # 3303 003744 VA LBP Inspectors License # 3355 000781 i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACRONYMS ...................................................................................... II

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 QUALIFICATIONS

1.2 PROPERTY DESCRIPTION

1.3 PREVIOUS ASBESTOS & LEAD PAINT WORK

2.0 LIMITED ASBESTOS SURVEY

2.1 DEFINITION

2.2 ASBESTOS INSPECTION & SAMPLING

2.2.1 Single-Family Private Residence & Storage Sheds

2.3 ASBESTOS SURVEY CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

3.0 LIMITED LEAD-BASED PAINT SURVEY

3.1 LEAD-BASED PAINT INSPECTION & SAMPLING

3.2 LEAD-BASED PAINT RESULTS

3.3 QUALIFICATIONS OF LEAD-BASED PAINT SURVEY

4.0 CONCLUSIONS

5.0 CLOSURE

Figures

1) 2021 Aerial Photograph

Attachments

I) VA Asbestos and Lead-Based Paint Inspector Licenses II) Asbestos Laboratory Report III) Table of XRF Test Results IV) Table of Positive XRF Test Results V) Photographs of Positive Lead-Based Paint Components ii

Acronyms AC ..................Asbestos Coordinator ACM ..............Asbestos-Containing Material AIR .................Asbestos Inspection Report AMP ...............Asbestos Management Plan CFR ................Code of Federal Regulations Cm ..................Centimeter EA ..................Each HEPA .............High Efficiency Particulate Air HQ ..................Headquarters HUD………... US Department of Housing and Urban Development Kg ...................Kilogram LBP ................Lead-Based Paint LF ...................Linear Feet Mg/cm² ...........Milligrams per centimeter squared Mm .................Millimeter MN .................Material Number NIOSH ...........National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health NVLAP ..........National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program NPS ................National Park Service O&M ..............Operations and Maintenance OSHA .............Occupational Safety and Health Administration PCS ................Performance Characteristic Sheets PDF ................Portable Document Format PLM ...............Polarized Light Microscopy Pyramid ..........Pyramid Environmental & Engineering, P.C.

SF ...................Square Feet SMSS .............Supervisory Management Services Specialist SSSD ..............Small-Scale Short-Duration TEM ...............Transmission Electron Microscopy US EPA ..........United States Environmental Protection Agency XRF ................X-ray Fluorescence

Haz. Mat. Inspections - Limited Asbestos and Lead-Based Paint Survey 7/12/2022 CEBE Tract 02-194 – 8639 Valley Pike, Middletown, VA 1

1.0 Introduction

Pyramid Environmental and Engineering, P.C. (Pyramid) conducted a Hazardous Materials Inspection which includes a Limited Asbestos and Lead-Based Paint Survey for the CEBE Tract 02-194, located at 8639 Valley Pike, Middletown, Frederick County, Virginia. The property is located adjacent to the Cedar Creek and Belle Grove National Historical Park. The survey was conducted for the National Park Service (NPS) in addition to an ASTM Practice E 1527-21 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment. The scope of work included a Limited Asbestos and Lead-Based Paint Survey on the single-family 2 story, 1,504 square foot residential dwelling and two storage sheds. An aerial photograph showing the location of the residential dwelling and storage sheds are included as Figure 1.

1.1 Qualifications

The Limited Asbestos Survey was performed by Pyramid representative Ryan Kramer, VA Licensed Asbestos Inspector (#3303 003744 – Exp. 7-31-23). The Limited Lead-Based Paint Survey was performed by Pyramid representative Ryan Kramer, VA Licensed Lead Inspector (#3355000781 – Exp. 8-31-23). Copies of the referenced licenses are included as Attachment I.

1.2 Property Description

The property contains 2.74 acres that is improved by a single-family private residence and two small storage sheds. The subject property contains a two-story brick house that was built in 1951, and is approximately 1,504 square feet with a basement, gable roof with composite shingles.

1.3 Previous Asbestos & Lead Paint Work

No previous asbestos or lead paint work was discovered for the subject property.

2.0 Limited Asbestos Survey

Pyramid conducted a Limited Asbestos Survey of the property located at 8639 Valley Pike, Middletown, Virginia. The scope of work included the sampling and laboratory analysis of suspect Asbestos-Containing Materials (ACMs) at the subject property and a quantification and condition assessment of the suspect ACMs.

2.1 Definition

Friable Asbestos Containing Material (ACM) is defined as any material containing greater than 1% asbestos by polarized light microscopy (PLM) that, when dry, can be crumbled, pulverized, or reduced to powder by hand pressure. Non-friable material is material that cannot be crumbled, pulverized, or reduced to powder by hand pressure.

2.2 Asbestos Inspection & Sampling

On May 24, 2022, Ryan Kramer of Pyramid conducted a Limited Asbestos Survey on the

CEBE Tract 02-194 – 8639 Valley Pike, Middletown, VA 2 property located at 8639 Valley Pike in Middletown, Virginia. The asbestos survey was completed in general accordance with EPA Standards 40 CFR 763, Subpart E, Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act (AHERA) and 40 CFR 61, Subpart M, National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP), and OSHA Standard 29 1926.1101 sampling protocol.

The suspect ACMs that were sampled were selected based on a visual inspection of the residential dwelling and sheds. All suspect ACM samples were collected by Ryan Kramer, a Virginia accredited Asbestos Inspector (#3303 003744 – Exp. 7-31-23).

The samples were placed in clean plastic bags, properly labeled, and delivered to Scientific Analytical Institute, LLC (SAI) in Greensboro, North Carolina for analysis. The samples were analyzed for asbestos using PLM with dispersion staining in accordance with EPA Method 600/R-93/116 and 600/M4-82-020. Copies of the asbestos laboratory reports, bulk asbestos sampling forms and chain of custody forms are included in Attachment II.

2.2.1 Single-Family Private Residence & Storage Sheds

The residential structure was built in 1951. The building is constructed of brick and contains a total 1,504 square feet. The interior walls consist of drywall and the floors were hardwood. At the time of the survey, the building was a vacant residential dwelling.

No suspect asbestos-containing materials were observed within the two detached storage sheds, except the asphalt shingles.

Eighteen (18) samples of suspect ACMs were collected from the residential dwelling and sheds.

The materials sampled included drywall and joint compound, textured ceiling, insulation, linoleum flooring, window caulking and composite shingles. ACMs were not detected in any of the samples collected at the residential dwelling.

2.3 Asbestos Survey Conclusions and Recommendations

No positive ACMs were identified withing the residential dwelling or storage sheds. A project specification should be developed that addresses suspect ACMs that may not have been accessible during the survey and could be found during the demolition of the structure. If found, these suspect ACMs should be sampled immediately upon discovery for asbestos content in accordance with 20 CFR 1926.1101.

3.0 Limited Lead-Based Paint Survey

Pyramid conducted a Limited Lead-Based Paint Survey of the property located at 8639 Valley Pike in Middletown, Virginia. The survey was conducted in readily accessible areas of the on-site structure in accordance with the US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Chapter 7 Guidelines (1997 revision) and the Commonwealth of Virginia regulations. The presence or absence of lead-based paint and the description of the condition of those surfaces

CEBE Tract 02-194 – 8639 Valley Pike, Middletown, VA 3 applies only to the tested or assessed surfaces on the date of the field visit. Conditions may change due to deterioration or maintenance.

The purpose of the lead survey was to identify lead-based paint surfaces on the on-site buildings.

This process involves a surface-by-surface measurement of lead-based paint. The role of the lead inspector is to determine, and then report, the presence of lead-based paint surfaces. The lead-based paint inspection methodology followed the HUD guidelines for investigating dwellings.

Generally, the inspection process includes a surface-by-surface inspection of painted components throughout the existing structures.

Lead-based paint testing was performed using a Hueresis Pb200i XRF Analyzer, and conclusions were determined by comparing the test results to recommended action levels as published by the USEPA and HUD. Calibration of the XRF unit is verified in accordance with the Performance Characteristic Sheets (PCS), which require the use of a calibration standard block with a known concentration of lead nearest to 1.0 mg/cm². The NIST Standard Reference Materials (SRM 2570

- 0.00 mg/cm²) and (SRM 2573 – 1.06 mg/cm²) were used during this inspection. The XRF unit was calibrated before beginning and after every four hours of use. The test locations were labeled with side “A” being the front entrance of the building proceeding clockwise with B, C, and D around the house and storage sheds.

3.1 Lead-Based Paint Inspection & Sampling

On May 24, 2022, a Limited Lead-Based Paint Survey was performed on the residential dwelling and storage shed located at 8639 Valley Pike in Middletown, Virginia. The survey was performed by Ryan Kramer, VA Certified Lead-Based Paint Inspector (License #3355000781 – Exp. 8-31-23). Typical test areas included interior and exterior walls, window components, door components, baseboards and other wall trim components, stairway components, ceilings and exterior porch components.

3.2 Lead-Based Paint Results

A total of 172 tests were conducted on the interior and exterior surfaces of the residential dwelling on the property. No tests were taken on the two sheds. A table of all XRF test results are presented in Attachment III. A table of the positive XRF tests results (equal to or greater than 1.0 mg/cm²) is presented in Attachment IV and summarized in Table 1 (below).

Table 1: Summary of Positive XRF Test Results

XRF

ID #

Location / Room Substrate Component Color XRF Reading (mg/cm²)

20 Back Porch Wood Ceiling White 1.2 21 Back Porch Wood Ceiling White 1.51 132 Basement Room 2 Wood Door White 1.95 133 Basement Room 2 Wood Door Frame White 1.34 134 Basement Room 2 Wood Door Jamb White 2.82

CEBE Tract 02-194 – 8639 Valley Pike, Middletown, VA 4

135 Basement Room 2 Wood Door White 1.71 136 Basement Room 2 Wood Door White 1.93 139 Basement Stairwell Wood Stair Post White 1.96 140 Basement Stairwell Wood Stair Post White 1.9 141 Basement Stairwell Wood Stair Post White 1.91 142 Basement Stairwell Wood Stair Post White 1

As shown in Table 1, several interior tests were equal to or greater than 1.0 mg/cm² lead. The lead-based paint components are limited to the entire back porch ceiling, the basement stair post and basement door at the residential dwelling. The total square footage of lead-based paint located within the dwelling is approximately 250 square feet. Based on 2022 average abatement costs, the approximate cost to remove the hazardous material is roughly $15 - $20 dollars per square foot equaling a range of $3,750 – $5,000.

Photographs showing the positive lead painted components are included in Attachment V. No other painted surfaces that were tested during the survey were identified as positive for lead-based paint. The lead painted surfaces observed by Pyramid were in fair condition and no paint chips were observed on the ground.

The XRF results are based on the HUD, EPA, and Commonwealth of VA guidelines. It is important to note that, even if a component is negative based on HUD, EPA, and the Commonwealth of Virginia standards, it may still contain concentrations of lead in the paint, which when disturbed, may generate lead dust greater than the Permissible Exposure Limit (PEL) of 50 micrograms per cubic millimeter (ug/mm3) as an 8-hour Time Weighted Average (TWA) established by the OSHA “Lead Exposure in Construction Rule (29 CFR 1926.62).” The OSHA standard gives no guidance on acceptable levels of lead in paint at which no exposure to airborne lead (above the action level) would be expected. Rather, OSHA defines airborne concentrations, and references specific types of work practices and operations from which a lead hazard may be generated (reference 29 CFR 1926.62, section d). Environmental and personnel monitoring should be conducted during any removal/demolition process (as appropriate) to verify that actual personnel exposures are below the PEL. Under OSHA requirements, the contractor performing the work will be required to conduct this monitoring and follow all of the other requirements found in 29 CFR 1926.62.

3.3 Qualifications of Lead-Based Paint Survey

This report summarizes our evaluation of the conditions observed at the site. The findings prepared by Pyramid are based upon the surface-by-surface inspection of the property.

Additional lead-based paint may exist (undetected) in other areas due to their inaccessibility.

Pyramid’s recommendations are based on the guidelines presented in EPA, HUD or OSHA lead paint regulations. Please note that this document is not a specification for lead-based paint removal, and it does not contain means and methods for abatement. The quantities and locations are approximate. Use of this document without the express written consent of Pyramid is at the

CEBE Tract 02-194 – 8639 Valley Pike, Middletown, VA 5 sole risk of the user and or/abatement contractor. Pyramid is not liable for the discovery and elimination of hazards that may potentially cause damage, accidents, injury, or disease. The conclusions and recommendations presented in this report are based on a reasonable level of evaluation within the normal bounds and standards of professional practice for an evaluation of this nature. The recommendations have no relationship to insurance coverage. This document is not a legal mandate and should be used as a guideline only.

No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made with regard to the conclusions and recommendations presented within this report. This report is provided for the exclusive use of the addressee. The scope of services performed in the execution of this evaluation may not be appropriate to satisfy the needs of other users. This report is not intended to be used, or relied upon, in connection with other projects or by other unidentified third-parties. The use of this report or the findings, conclusions, or recommendations by any undesignated third party or parties will be at such party’s sole risk and Pyramid disclaims liability for any such third-party’s use or reliance.

4.0 Conclusions

Pyramid conducted a Hazardous Materials Inspection - Limited Asbestos and Lead-Based Paint Survey for the CEBE Tract 02-194 at 8639 Valley Pike in Middletown, Virginia. No asbestos-containing materials were identified on the property that contained greater than 1% asbestos.

Lead-based paint equal to or greater than 1.0 mg/cm² was detected limited to the entire back porch ceiling, the basement stair post and basement door on the residential dwelling.

5.0 Closure

This report is prepared for, and made available solely for the use of, the NPS and their designees.

The contents thereof may not be used, or relied upon, by any other person without the express written consent and authorization of Pyramid Environmental & Engineering, P.C. The observations, conclusions, and recommendations documented in this report are based on site conditions and information reviewed at the time of Pyramid's investigation. Pyramid appreciates the opportunity to provide this environmental service.

Ryan Kramer

Figure 3

National Park Service CEBE Tract 02-194

Middletown Virginia

2021 Aerial Photograph

Frederick 6/27/22 2022-143

Subject Property -

CEBE 02-194

Cedar Creek & Belle Grove National Historical Park

Agricultural Properties Residential Property

Residential Property reggi Polygon reggi Callout Resiential Dwelling reggi Callout Storage Shed #1 reggi Callout Storage Shed #2

Attachment I

VA Asbestos and Lead-Paint Inspector Licenses j�flR,�(?N · ·•· ••.

07�31-�023 ..

/ 4 '

COMMO WEALTH of VIRGINIA Department of Professional a;d Occfipa.ti�miJ iR�gul�ti6n

9960 Mayland Drive, Suite400�Richinon.djVi\ 23233 .. · Telephone: (804) 367-8500> . · ,, BOARD FOR ASBESTOS, LEAD, AND HOME INSPECTORS

·•·. ASBESTOS INSPECTOR LICENSE

RYAN P KRAMER

Status can be verified athttp://www.dpor.virginia.gov

(SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR PRIVILEGES ANO INSTRUCTIONS)

NUMBER

3303003744

11.IIIJ.il

DPOR-LIC (02/201i

EXPIRES ON

08-31-2023

COMMO WEALTH of VIRGINIA Department of l>rofessional and Occupational Regulation

9960 Mayland Drive, Suite 400, Richmond, YA23233 Telephone: (804) 367-8500 ,, }

BOARD FOR ASBESTOS, LEAD, AND HOME INSPECTORS

LEAD INSPECTOR LICENSE

RYAN P KRAMER

Status can be verified at http://www. dpor. virginia.gov

(SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR PRIVILEGES AND INSTRUCTIONS)

NUMBER

3355000781

DPOR-LIC (02/2017)

Attachment II

Asbestos Laboratory Report

Bulk Asbestos Analysis By Polarized Light Microscopy

EPA Method: 600/R-93/116 and 40 CFR, Part 763, Subpart E, App.E

CEBE #02-194Project:

Sample ID

Lab Sample ID

Description

Lab Notes Asbestos Fibrous

Components Non-Fibrous Components

Attributes

Treatment

Ryan KramerAttn:Customer: Pyramid Environmental 503 Industrial Ave Greensboro, NC 27406

Analysis ID: 71992976_PLM

Date Reported: 6/3/2022

Date Received: 5/26/2022

Lab Order ID: 71992976

None Detected 01 - A

Ceiling drywall + texture ceiling textured ceiling

White Non Fibrous Homogeneous

Crushed71992976PLM_1

Other 100%

None Detected 01 - B

Ceiling drywall + texture ceiling ceiling drywall

Tan Non Fibrous Homogeneous

Crushed71992976PLM_16

Other 100%

None Detected

Insulation Yellow Fibrous Homogeneous

Teased71992976PLM_2

Fiber Glass Other 99% 1%

None Detected

Marbled colored linoleum fl.

Black, Brown Non Fibrous Homogeneous

Ashed71992976PLM_3

Other 100%

None Detected

Drywall + joint compound drywall: none detect; joint compnd: none detect

Grayish, Gold, White Non Fibrous

Crushed71992976PLM_4

Cellulose Other Vermiculite

3% 92% 5%

None Detected

Marbled colored lino flooring Black Non Fibrous Homogeneous

Ashed71992976PLM_5

Other 100%

None Detected

Window caulking White Non Fibrous Homogeneous

Ashed71992976PLM_6

Other 100%

None Detected

Marbled linoleum flooring Black Non Fibrous Homogeneous

Ashed71992976PLM_7

Other 100%

Disclaimer: Due to the nature of the EPA 600 method, asbestos may not be detected in samples containing low levels of asbestos. We strongly recommend that analysis of floor tiles, vermiculite, and/or heterogeneous soil samples be conducted by TEM for confirmation of “None Detected” by PLM. This report relates only to the samples tested and may not be reproduced, except in full, without the written approval of SAI. This report may not be used by the client to claim product endorsement by NVLAP or any other agency of the U.S. government. Analytical uncertainty available upon request. Scientific Analytical Institute participates in the NVLAP Proficiency Testing program. Unless otherwise noted blank sample correction was not performed. Estimated MDL is 0.1%.

Approved SignatoryAnalyst

Scientific Analytical Institute, Inc. 4604 Dundas Dr. Greensboro, NC 27407 (336) 292-3888

Lachlan Krenz (18)

P-F-002 r15 1/16/2023

EPA Method: 600/R-93/116 and 40 CFR, Part 763, Subpart E, App.E

CEBE #02-194Project:

Sample ID

Lab Sample ID

Description

Lab Notes Asbestos Fibrous

Components Non-Fibrous Components

Attributes

Treatment

Ryan KramerAttn:Customer: Pyramid Environmental 503 Industrial Ave Greensboro, NC 27406

Analysis ID: 71992976_PLM

Date Reported: 6/3/2022

Date Received: 5/26/2022

Lab Order ID: 71992976

None Detected

Drywall + joint compound drywall: none detect; joint compnd: none detect

Grayish, White Non Fibrous Homogeneous

Crushed71992976PLM_8

Cellulose Other 3% 97%

None Detected 09 - A

Textured ceiling + drywall textured ceiling

White Non Fibrous Homogeneous

Crushed71992976PLM_9

Other 100%

None Detected 09 - B

Textured ceiling + drywall ceiling drywall

Tan Non Fibrous Homogeneous

Crushed71992976PLM_17

Other 100%

None Detected 10 - A

Linoleum flooring linoleum

Black Non Fibrous Homogeneous

Ashed71992976PLM_10

Other 100%

None Detected 10 - B

Linoleum flooring mastic

Tan Non Fibrous Homogeneous

Crushed71992976PLM_18

Other 100%

None Detected

Insulation Pink Fibrous Homogeneous

Crushed, Teased71992976PLM_11

Fiber Glass Other 99% 1%

None Detected

Window caulking White Non Fibrous Homogeneous

Ashed71992976PLM_12

Other 100%

None Detected

Asphalt shingle Black Non Fibrous Heterogeneous

Dissolved, Crushed71992976PLM_13

Fiber Glass Other 20% 80%

Disclaimer: Due to the nature of the EPA 600 method, asbestos may not be detected in samples containing low levels of asbestos. We strongly recommend that analysis of floor tiles, vermiculite, and/or heterogeneous soil samples be conducted by TEM for confirmation of “None Detected” by PLM. This report relates only to the samples tested and may not be reproduced, except in full, without the written approval of SAI. This report may not be used by the client to claim product endorsement by NVLAP or any other agency of the U.S. government. Analytical uncertainty available upon request. Scientific Analytical Institute participates in the NVLAP Proficiency Testing program. Unless otherwise noted blank sample correction was not performed. Estimated MDL is 0.1%.

Approved SignatoryAnalyst

Scientific Analytical Institute, Inc. 4604 Dundas Dr. Greensboro, NC 27407 (336) 292-3888

EPA Method: 600/R-93/116 and 40 CFR, Part 763, Subpart E, App.E

CEBE #02-194Project:

Sample ID

Lab Sample ID

Description

Lab Notes Asbestos Fibrous

Components Non-Fibrous Components

Attributes

Treatment

Ryan KramerAttn:Customer: Pyramid Environmental 503 Industrial Ave Greensboro, NC 27406

Analysis ID: 71992976_PLM

Date Reported: 6/3/2022

Date Received: 5/26/2022

Lab Order ID: 71992976

None Detected

Asphalt shingle Black Non Fibrous Heterogeneous

Dissolved, Crushed71992976PLM_14

Fiber Glass Other 20% 80%

None Detected

Asphalt shingle Black Non Fibrous Heterogeneous

Dissolved, Crushed71992976PLM_15

Fiber Glass Other 20% 80%

Disclaimer: Due to the nature of the EPA 600 method, asbestos may not be detected in samples containing low levels of asbestos. We strongly recommend that analysis of floor tiles, vermiculite, and/or heterogeneous soil samples be conducted by TEM for confirmation of “None Detected” by PLM. This report relates only to the samples tested and may not be reproduced, except in full, without the written approval of SAI. This report may not be used by the client to claim product endorsement by NVLAP or any other agency of the U.S. government. Analytical uncertainty available upon request. Scientific Analytical Institute participates in the NVLAP Proficiency Testing program. Unless otherwise noted blank sample correction was not performed. Estimated MDL is 0.1%.

Approved SignatoryAnalyst

Scientific Analytical Institute, Inc. 4604 Dundas Dr. Greensboro, NC 27407 (336) 292-3888

Attachment III

Table of XRF Test Results

Attachment III. CEBE Tract 02‐194 8639 Valley Pike, Middletown, VA 22645

XRF Test Results

Date

XRF

Test # Test Location

Side (A, B, C or D) Substrate Component Color XRF Reading

Margin of Error

Classification Positive/Negative

5/24/2022 1 NA NA NA 1.11 0.55 Positive

5/24/2022 2 NA NA NA 1.02 0.76 Positive

5/24/2022 3 NA NA NA 1.03 0.62 Positive

5/24/2022 4 NA NA NA 0.68 0.7 Negative

5/24/2022 5 NA NA NA ‐0.11 0.64 Negative

5/24/2022 6 Dining Room A Drywall Wall White 0.25 0.87 Negative

5/24/2022 7 Dining Room B Drywall Wall White 0.22 0.73 Negative

5/24/2022 8 Dining Room C Drywall Wall White 0.2 0.76 Negative

5/24/2022 9 Dining Room B Wood Baseboard White ‐0.26 0.87 Negative

5/24/2022 10 Dining Room B Wood Window Sill White 0.03 0.76 Negative

5/24/2022 11 Dining Room B Wood Window Frame White ‐0.31 0.83 Negative

5/24/2022 12 Dining Room B Wood Window Apron White ‐0.35 0.87 Negative

5/24/2022 13 Dining Room C Wood Door White 0.14 0.66 Negative

5/24/2022 14 Dining Room C Wood Door Frame White 0.08 0.7 Negative

5/24/2022 15 Dining Room C Wood Door Jamb White ‐0.64 0.68 Negative

5/24/2022 16 Back Porch B Wood Wall Beige 0.1 0.87 Negative

5/24/2022 17 Back Porch C Wood Wall Beige 0.02 0.79 Negative

5/24/2022 18 Back Porch D Wood Wall Beige 0.55 0.87 Negative

5/24/2022 19 Back Porch C Wood Wall Beige 0.13 0.76 Negative

5/24/2022 20 Back Porch Ceiling Wood Ceiling White 1.2 0.7 Positive 5/24/2022 21 Back Porch Ceiling Wood Ceiling White 1.51 0.54 Positive 5/24/2022 22 Back Porch C Wood Window Sill White 0.94 0.57 Negative

5/24/2022 23 Back Porch C Wood Window Sill White 0.81 0.53 Negative

5/24/2022 24 Back Porch C Wood Window Frame White 0.67 0.52 Negative

5/24/2022 25 Back Porch A Wood Window Sill White 0.5 0.51 Negative

5/24/2022 26 Back Porch A Wood Window Frame White 0.83 0.54 Negative

5/24/2022 27 Back Porch C Wood Door Frame Green 0.43 0.54 Negative

5/24/2022 28 Back Porch C Wood Door Jamb White ‐0.05 0.61 Negative

5/24/2022 29 Kitchen A Drywall Wall Beige ‐0.78 0.79 Negative

5/24/2022 30 Kitchen C Drywall Wall Beige ‐0.06 0.83 Negative

5/24/2022 31 Kitchen D Drywall Wall Beige 0.22 0.79 Negative

5/24/2022 32 Kitchen C Wood Window Frame White 0.2 0.83 Negative

5/24/2022 33 Living Room A Drywall Wall Beige ‐0.2 0.87 Negative

5/24/2022 34 Living Room B Drywall Wall Beige ‐0.18 1.05 Negative

5/24/2022 35 Living Room C Drywall Wall Beige ‐0.71 1.26 Negative

5/24/2022 36 Living Room D Drywall Wall Beige ‐0.14 1.05 Negative

5/24/2022 37 Living Room A Wood Baseboard White ‐0.08 0.87 Negative

NIST SRM 2573

NIST SRM 2573

NIST SRM 2573

NIST SRM 2573

NIST SRM 2571

XRF Test Results

Date

XRF

Test # Test Location

Side (A, B, C or D) Substrate Component Color XRF Reading

Margin of Error

Classification Positive/Negative

5/24/2022 38 Living Room A Wood Baseboard White 0.15 0.92 Negative

5/24/2022 39 Living Room A Wood Window Sill White 0.22 0.57 Negative

5/24/2022 40 Living Room A Wood Window Frame White ‐0.41 0.64 Negative

5/24/2022 41 Living Room A Wood Window Apron White 0.48 0.7 Negative

5/24/2022 42 Living Room B Wood Baseboard White 0.15 0.92 Negative

5/24/2022 43 Living Room B Wood Fireplace Mantle White 0.12 0.92 Negative

5/24/2022 44 Hallway A Wood Fireplace Frame White 0.16 0.83 Negative

5/24/2022 45 Hallway A Drywall Wall Beige 0.53 0.76 Negative

5/24/2022 46 Hallway B Drywall Wall Beige 0.85 0.73 Negative

5/24/2022 47 Hallway C Drywall Wall Beige 0.13 0.62 Negative

5/24/2022 48 Hallway D Drywall Wall Beige ‐0.21 0.7 Negative

5/24/2022 49 Hallway B Wood Baseboard White 0.08 0.73 Negative

5/24/2022 50 Bathroom 1 A Drywall Wall Beige ‐0.68 0.92 Negative

5/24/2022 51 Bathroom 1 B Drywall Wall Beige ‐0.05 0.7 Negative

5/24/2022 52 Bathroom 1 C Drywall Wall Beige ‐0.62 0.68 Negative

5/24/2022 53 Bathroom 1 D Drywall Wall Beige 0.76 0.92 Negative

5/24/2022 54 Bathroom 1 C Wood Baseboard White ‐0.03 0.76 Negative

5/24/2022 55 Bathroom 1 C Wood Window Sill White 0.04 0.83 Negative

5/24/2022 56 Bathroom 1 C Wood Window Frame White ‐0.5 0.83 Negative

5/24/2022 57 Bedroom 1 A Drywall Wall Beige ‐0.05 0.73 Negative

5/24/2022 58 Bedroom 1 B Drywall Wall Beige 0.1 0.73 Negative

5/24/2022 59 Bedroom 1 C Drywall Wall Beige ‐0.62 1.05 Negative

5/24/2022 60 Bedroom 1 D Drywall Wall Beige ‐0.7 0.87 Negative

5/24/2022 61 Bedroom 1 A Wood Window Sill White 0.9 1.05 Negative

5/24/2022 62 Bedroom 1 D Wood Window Frame White ‐0.2 1.05 Negative

5/24/2022 63 Bedroom 1 D Wood Window Apron White 0.17 1.05 Negative

5/24/2022 64 Bedroom 1 D Wood Door White 0.16 0.92 Negative

5/24/2022 65 Bedroom 1 B Wood Door Frame White ‐0.1 1.05 Negative

5/24/2022 66 Bedroom 1 B Wood Door Apron White 0.62 1.26 Negative

5/24/2022 67 Bedroom 1 B Wood Baseboard White 0.95 1.43 Negative

5/24/2022 68 Stairwell A Drywall Wall Beige ‐0.69 1.26 Negative

5/24/2022 69 Stairwell B Drywall Wall Beige ‐0.48 1.43 Negative

5/24/2022 70 Stairwell B Drywall Wall Beige 0.35 0.92 Negative

5/24/2022 71 Stairwell A Wood Stringer White 0.83 0.76 Negative

5/24/2022 72 Stairwell A Wood Stringer White 0.24 0.7 Negative

5/24/2022 73 Office A Drywall Wall Beige ‐0.52 0.92 Negative

5/24/2022 74 Office B Drywall Wall Beige 0.52 1.05 Negative

XRF Test Results

Date

XRF

Test # Test Location

Side (A, B, C or D) Substrate Component Color XRF Reading

Margin of Error

Classification Positive/Negative

5/24/2022 75 Office C Drywall Wall Beige ‐1.2 0.98 Negative

5/24/2022 76 Office D Drywall Wall Beige ‐1.29 0.92 Negative

5/24/2022 77 Office A Wood Door White ‐0.02 1.05 Negative

5/24/2022 78 Office A Wood Door Frame White ‐0.05 0.87 Negative

5/24/2022 79 Office A Wood Door Jamb White 0.88 0.83 Negative

5/24/2022 80 Office C Wood Window Sill White 0.75 1.14 Negative

5/24/2022 81 Office C Wood Window Frame White 0.2 0.87 Negative

5/24/2022 82 Office C Wood Window Apron White 0.33 1.14 Negative

5/24/2022 83 Office A Wood Baseboard White ‐0.45 1.05 Negative

5/24/2022 84 Office Ceiling Drywall Ceiling White ‐0.9 1.43 Negative

5/24/2022 85 Bathroom 2 A Drywall Wall Beige ‐0.42 1.05 Negative

5/24/2022 86 Bathroom 2 B Drywall Wall Beige ‐0.32 0.83 Negative

5/24/2022 87 Bathroom 2 C Drywall Wall Beige 0.17 0.98 Negative

5/24/2022 88 Bathroom 2 D Drywall Wall Beige 0.62 0.79 Negative

5/24/2022 89 Bathroom 2 A Wood Door White 0.28 1.05 Negative

5/24/2022 90 Bathroom 2 A Wood Door Frame White 0.26 0.87 Negative

5/24/2022 91 Bathroom 2 A Wood Door Jamb White 0.56 0.83 Negative

5/24/2022 92 Bathroom 2 C Wood Window Sill White ‐0.12 0.87 Negative

5/24/2022 93 Bathroom 2 C Wood Window Frame White 0.03 0.98 Negative

5/24/2022 94 Bathroom 2 C Wood Window Apron White 0.32 0.98 Negative

5/24/2022 95 Bedroom 3 C Wood Window Sash White 0.17 1.05 Negative

5/24/2022 96 Bedroom 3 C Wood Baseboard White ‐0.08 0.98 Negative

5/24/2022 97 Bedroom 3 A Drywall Wall Beige 0.67 0.98 Negative

5/24/2022 98 Bedroom 3 B Drywall Wall Beige 0.96 0.92 Negative

5/24/2022 99 Bedroom 3 C Drywall Wall Beige 0.15 0.92 Negative

5/24/2022 100 Bedroom 3 D Drywall Wall Beige ‐0.05 0.83 Negative

5/24/2022 101 Bedroom 3 B Wood Door White 0 0.64 Negative

5/24/2022 102 Bedroom 3 B Wood Door Frame White 0.31 0.92 Negative

5/24/2022 103 Bedroom 3 B Wood Door Jamb White 0.56 0.66 Negative

5/24/2022 104 Bedroom 3 D Wood Window Sill White 0.09 0.7 Negative

5/24/2022 105 Bedroom 3 D Wood Window Frame White 0.24 0.92 Negative

5/24/2022 106 Bedroom 3 D Wood Window Apron White ‐0.39 0.92 Negative

5/24/2022 107 Bedroom 3 D Wood Window Sash White ‐0.31 0.87 Negative

5/24/2022 108 Bedroom 3 A Wood Baseboard White 0.05 1.05 Negative

5/24/2022 109 Bedroom 4 A Drywall Wall Beige ‐0.13 0.73 Negative

5/24/2022 110 Bedroom 4 B Drywall Wall Beige 0.22 0.79 Negative

5/24/2022 111 Bedroom 4 C Drywall Wall Beige 0.43 0.83 Negative

XRF Test Results

Date

XRF

Test # Test Location

Side (A, B, C or D) Substrate Component Color XRF Reading

Margin of Error

Classification Positive/Negative

5/24/2022 112 Bedroom 4 D Drywall Wall Beige ‐0.1 0.7 Negative

5/24/2022 113 Bedroom 4 D Wood Door Beige 0.56 0.98 Negative

5/24/2022 114 Bedroom 4 D Wood Door Frame White 0.9 1.05 Negative

5/24/2022 115 Bedroom 4 D Wood Door Jamb White 0.51 0.83 Negative

5/24/2022 116 Bedroom 4 A Wood Window Sill White ‐0.28 1.05 Negative

5/24/2022 117 Bedroom 4 A Wood Window Frame White 0.08 0.98 Negative

5/24/2022 118 Bedroom 4 A Wood Window Apron White 0.52 0.98 Negative

5/24/2022 119 Bedroom 4 A Wood Window Sash White 0.52 1.05 Negative

5/24/2022 120 Basement Room 1 A Concrete Wall Beige 0.52 0.92 Negative

5/24/2022 121 Basement Room 1 B Concrete Wall Beige 0.51 0.79 Negative

5/24/2022 122 Basement Room 1 D Concrete Wall Beige ‐0.03 0.83 Negative

5/24/2022 123 Basement Room 1 C Concrete Wall Beige 0.62 0.87 Negative

5/24/2022 124 Basement Room 1 Floor Concrete Floor Grey 0.46 0.98 Negative

5/24/2022 125 Basement Room 1 Floor Concrete Floor Grey 0.7 0.98 Negative

5/24/2022 126 Basement Room 1 Floor Concrete Floor Grey 0.2 0.79 Negative

5/24/2022 127 Basement Room 2 A Concrete Wall Beige 0.49 0.92 Negative

5/24/2022 128 Basement Room 2 B Concrete Wall Beige 0.74 0.98 Negative

5/24/2022 129 Basement Room 2 C Concrete Wall Beige 0.06 0.83 Negative

5/24/2022 130 Basement Room 2 D Concrete Wall Grey ‐0.07 0.92 Negative

5/24/2022 131 Basement Room 2 Floor Concrete Floor White ‐0.23 1.05 Negative

5/24/2022 132 Basement Room 2 B Wood Door White 1.95 0.83 Positive 5/24/2022 133 Basement Room 2 B Wood Door Frame White 1.34 0.98 Positive 5/24/2022 134 Basement Room 2 B Wood Door Jamb White 2.82 0.83 Positive 5/24/2022 135 Basement Room 2 B Wood Door White 1.71 0.87 Positive 5/24/2022 136 Basement Room 2 B Wood Door White 1.93 0.45 Positive 5/24/2022 137 Stairwell A Wood Stringer Grey 0.78 0.92 Negative

5/24/2022 138 Stairwell A Wood Tread Grey 0.22 0.87 Negative

5/24/2022 139 Stairwell A Wood Stair Post White 1.96 0.92 Positive 5/24/2022 140 Stairwell A Wood Stair Post White 1.9 0.83 Positive 5/24/2022 141 Stairwell A Wood Stair Post White 1.91 1.05 Positive 5/24/2022 142 Stairwell A Wood Stair Post White 1 0.61 Positive 5/24/2022 143 Stairwell B Drywall Wall White 0.23 0.98 Negative

5/24/2022 144 Stairwell D Drywall Wall White 0.51 0.92 Negative

5/24/2022 145 Stairwell C Wood Door White ‐0.77 0.92 Negative

5/24/2022 146 Stairwell C Wood Door Frame White ‐0.1 0.87 Negative

5/24/2022 147 Stairwell C Wood Door Jamb White 0.27 0.98 Negative

5/24/2022 148 Exterior A Metal Metal White 0.35 0.7 Negative

XRF Test Results

Date

XRF

Test # Test Location

Side (A, B, C or D) Substrate Component Color XRF Reading

Margin of Error

Classification Positive/Negative

5/24/2022 149 Exterior A Wood Door Frame White 0.55 0.58 Negative

5/24/2022 150 Exterior A Wood Door Jamb White ‐0.17 0.7 Negative

5/24/2022 151 Exterior D Wood Shutter White 0.4 0.7 Negative

5/24/2022 152 Exterior D Wood Window Frame White 0.72 0.58 Negative

5/24/2022 153 Exterior C Concrete Wall Beige 0.55 1.14 Negative

5/24/2022 154 Shed # 1 A Wood Wall Beige 0.03 0.73 Negative

5/24/2022 155 Shed # 1 B Wood Wall Beige 0.46 0.76 Negative

5/24/2022 156 Shed # 1 C Wood Wall Beige 0.63 0.79 Negative

5/24/2022 157 Shed # 1 D Wood Wall Beige 0.03 0.92 Negative

5/24/2022 158 Shed # 1 A Wood Wall Beige 0.02 0.61 Negative

5/24/2022 159 Shed # 1 B Wood Door Beige ‐0.57 0.79 Negative

5/24/2022 160 Shed # 1 B Wood Fascia Beige 0.02 0.92 Negative

5/24/2022 161 Shed # 1 B Wood Soffit Beige 0.02 0.98 Negative

5/24/2022 162 Shed #2 A Wood Wall Beige 0.09 0.83 Negative

5/24/2022 163 Shed #2 B Wood Wall Beige 0.8 0.79 Negative

5/24/2022 164 Shed #2 C Wood Wall Beige 0.17 0.62 Negative

5/24/2022 165 Shed #2 D Wood Wall Beige 0.05 0.79 Negative

5/24/2022 166 Shed #2 B Wood Back Door White ‐0.16 0.98 Negative

5/24/2022 167 Shed #2 D Wood Front Door White 0.04 0.76 Negative

5/24/2022 168 NA NA NA 0.7 1.11 Positive

5/24/2022 169 NA NA NA 1.11 0.59 Positive

5/24/2022 170 NA NA NA 1.02 0.61 Positive

5/24/2022 171 NA NA NA 1.03 0.51 Positive

5/24/2022 172 NA NA NA ‐0.31 0.66 NegativeSRM

SRM

SRM

SRM

SRM

Attachment IV

Table of Positive XRF Test Results

Attachment IV. CEBE Tract 02‐194

Positive XRF Test Results

Date

XRF

Test # Test Location

Side (A, B, C or D) Substrate Component Color XRF Reading

Margin of Error

Classification Positive/Negative

5/24/2022 20 Back Porch Ceiling Wood Ceiling White 1.2 0.7 Positive 5/24/2022 21 Back Porch Ceiling Wood Ceiling White 1.51 0.54 Positive 5/24/2022 132 Basement Room 2 B Wood Door White 1.95 0.83 Positive 5/24/2022 133 Basement Room 2 B Wood Door Frame White 1.34 0.98 Positive 5/24/2022 134 Basement Room 2 B Wood Door Jamb White 2.82 0.83 Positive 5/24/2022 135 Basement Room 2 B Wood Door White 1.71 0.87 Positive 5/24/2022 136 Basement Room 2 B Wood Door White 1.93 0.45 Positive 5/24/2022 139 Stairwell A Wood Stair Post White 1.96 0.92 Positive 5/24/2022 140 Stairwell A Wood Stair Post White 1.9 0.83 Positive 5/24/2022 141 Stairwell A Wood Stair Post White 1.91 1.05 Positive 5/24/2022 142 Stairwell A Wood Stair Post White 1 0.61 Positive

Attachment V

Photographs of Positive Lead-Based Paint

CEBE Tract 02-194 – 8639 Valley Pike, Middletown, VA May 2022 Attachment V. Photographs of Positive Lead-Based Paint Components

1: Ceiling of the back porch with lead paint.

3: Post with lead‐based paint.

5: Basement door with lead‐based paint.

2: Basement Stairwell – Post with lead‐based paint.

4: Stairwell in basement with lead paint post.

6: Basement door with lead‐based paint.

P.O. Box 16265 Greensboro, NC 27416-0265 503 Industrial Avenue Greensboro, NC 27406

336-335-3174 866-545-9507

October 19, 2015

LIMITED ASBESTOS AND

LEAD-BASED PAINT SURVEY

Cedar Creek and Belle Grove NHP 172 Long Meadows Lane

Middletown, VA

Project Manager

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACRONYMS

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 QUALIFICATIONS

1.2 PROPERTY DESCRIPTION

1.3 PREVIOUS ASBESTOS & LEAD-BASED PAINT WORK

2.0 LIMITED ASBESTOS SURVEY

2.1 DEFINITION

2.2 ASBESTOS INSPECTION & SAMPLING

2.2.1 Single Family Private Residence

2.2.2 Storage Shed

2.3 ASBESTOS SURVEY CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

3.0 LEAD-BASED PAINT SURVEY

3.1 LEAD-BASED PAINT INSPECTION & SAMPLING

3.2 LEAD-BASED PAINT RESULTS

3.2.1 Single Family Private Residence

3.2.2 Storage Shed

3.3 QUALIFICATIONS OF LEAD-BASED PAINT SURVEY

4.0 CONCLUSIONS

5.0 CLOSURE

1) 2013 Aerial Map with Building Locations

2) Floorplan with Asbestos and Lead Paint Locations

3) Positive Asbestos and Lead-Based Paint Photographs

Attachments

I) VA Asbestos and Lead-Based Paint Inspector Licenses II) Asbestos Laboratory Report III) Table of All XRF Test Results IV) Table of Positive XRF Test Results

Limited Asbestos and Lead-Based Paint Survey 172 Long Meadows Lane, Middletown, VA – CEBE Tract 02-184

Acronyms AC ..................Asbestos Coordinator

ACM ..............Asbestos-Containing Material

AIR .................Asbestos Inspection Report

AMP ...............Asbestos Management Plan

CFR ................Code of Federal Regulations

Cm ..................Centimeter

CWT ...............Civil War Preservation Trust

EA ..................Each

HEPA .............High Efficiency Particulate Air

HQ ..................Headquarters

HUD………... US Department of Housing and Urban Development

Kg ...................Kilogram

LBP…………Lead-Based Paint

LF ...................Linear Feet

Mg/cm²………Milligrams per centimeter squared

Mm .................Millimeter

MN .................Material Number

NIOSH ...........National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health

NVLAP ..........National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program

NPS ................National Park Service

O&M ..............Operations and Maintenance

OSHA .............Occupational Safety and Health Administration

PCS ................Performance Characteristic Sheets

PDF ................Portable Document Format

PLM ...............Polarized Light Microscopy

Pyramid ..........Pyramid Environmental & Engineering, P.C.

SACM ............Suspect Asbestos-Containing Material

SF ...................Square Feet

SMSS .............Supervisory Management Services Specialist

SSSD ..............Small-Scale Short-Duration

TEM ...............Transmission Electron Microscopy

US EPA ..........United States Environmental Protection Agency

XRF………….X-ray Fluorescence

1.0 Introduction

Pyramid Environmental and Engineering, P.C. (Pyramid) conducted a Limited Asbestos and Lead-Based Paint Survey for the property located at 172 Long Meadows Lane (CEBE Tr. 02-

184) adjacent to the Cedar Creek and Belle Grove National Historic Park (NHP) in Middletown, Virginia. The survey was conducted for the Civil War Preservation Trust (CWT) in addition to an ASTM Practice E 1527-13 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment. The scope of work included a Limited Asbestos and Lead-Based Paint Survey on the single family private residence, well house and storage shed. An aerial map showing the building locations is included as Figure 1.

1.1 Qualifications

The Limited Asbestos Survey was performed by Pyramid representative Ryan Kramer, VA Licensed Asbestos Inspector (#3303 003744 – Exp. 7-31-16). The Lead-Based Paint Survey was performed by Pyramid representative Ryan Kramer, VA Licensed Lead Inspector (#3303 000781

– Exp. 8-31-16). Copies of the referenced licenses are included as Attachment I.

1.2 Property Description

The property contains 0.688 acres that is improved by a one-story single family dwelling that was constructed in 1956. The 2,000 square foot house is wood-framed covered with vinyl siding and a steel gabled roof. The residence is heated by an propane-powered heat pump and an electric HVAC system for cooling. The dwelling has a water supply well for potable water. The house also includes a septic system on the south side of the house. The well house for the water supply well is located on the east side of the house. The property also includes a metal storage shed near the southeast corner of the property.

1.3 Previous Asbestos & Lead-Based Paint Work

No previous asbestos or lead-based paint reports were provided by the property owner or the CWT for the subject property.

2.0 Limited Asbestos Survey

Pyramid conducted a Limited Asbestos Survey of the property located at 172 Long Meadows Lane in Middletown, Virginia located adjacent to the Cedar Creek and Belle Grove NHP. The scope of work included the sampling and laboratory analysis of suspect Asbestos-Containing Materials (ACMs) on the interior and exterior of the buildings and a quantification and condition assessment of the suspect ACMs.

2.1 Definition

Friable Asbestos Containing Material (ACM) is defined as any material containing greater than 1% asbestos by polarized light microscopy (PLM) that when dry can be crumbled, pulverized or reduced to powder by hand pressure. Non-friable material is material that cannot be crumbled, pulverized or reduced to powder by hand pressure.

2.2 Asbestos Inspection & Sampling

On September 28, 2015, Ryan Kramer of Pyramid conducted a Limited Asbestos Survey on the residential dwelling located at 172 Long Meadows Lane in Middletown, Virginia adjacent to the Cedar Creek and Belle Grove NHP. A copy of the valid VA Asbestos Inspectors license is included in Attachment I. The Limited Asbestos Survey was completed in general accordance with EPA Standards 40 CFR 763, Subpart E, Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act (AHERA) and 40 CFR 61, Subpart M, National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP), and OSHA Standard 29 1926.1101 sampling protocol.

The suspect ACMs that were sampled were selected based on a visual inspection of the residential dwelling. All suspect ACM samples were collected by Ryan Kramer, a Virginia accredited asbestos inspector (#3303 003744 – Exp. 7-31-16). The samples were placed in clean plastic bags, properly labeled and delivered to Scientific Analytical Institute, LLC (SAI) in Greensboro, North Carolina for analysis. The samples were analyzed for asbestos using PLM with dispersion staining in accordance with EPA Method 600/R-93/116 and 600/M4-82-020.

Copies of the asbestos laboratory reports, bulk asbestos sampling forms and chain of custody forms for the residence is included in Attachment II.

2.2.1 Single Family Private Residence

The one-story residential structure was built in 1956 and totals 2,000 square feet. The building is constructed of a wood and brick with a steel roof. The interior walls consist primarily of drywall in the house. The flooring in the house consists of floor tile and linoleum flooring with some areas covered by area rugs. At the time of the survey, the building was being used as a residential dwelling.

2.2.2 Storage Shed

The storage shed/work shop contained a few suspect ACMs on the interior portions of the building. The shed is constructed of wood with asphalt shingles and contains common residential maintenance material and supplies.

The well house did not contain suspect ACMs; therefore, no samples were collected from the structure.

Fourteen (14) samples of suspect ACMs were collected from the residence for laboratory analysis. Four of the samples contained two layers; therefore, 20 total samples were analyzed by the laboratory. The materials sampled included vinyl flooring and mastic, drywall and joint compound, insulation and textured ceiling tile. The laboratory results indicate that multiple samples collected at the subject property contained greater than 1% asbestos.

2.3 Asbestos Survey Conclusions and Recommendations

The Limited Asbestos Survey was conducted on the existing residential dwelling and the storage shed since both buildings contain Suspect Asbestos-Containing Materials (SACMs). Laboratory analyses of the collected samples indicate that 6 of the 14 samples contained greater than 1 percent asbestos.

Furnace Room - 6% chrysotile asbestos linoleum flooring (#01) totaling approximately 100 square feet (ft2).

Entrance Room (under wood snap-in flooring) - 4% chrysotile asbestos white and brown floor tile (#02-A) totaling 350 ft2.

Exterior Siding – Joint compound on all exterior windows and doors contained between 6-8 % chrysotile asbestos (#04, #05 & #13).

Storage Building – 4% chrysotile asbestos window caulking (#12) totaling 20 ln/ft.

3.0 Lead-Based Paint Survey

Pyramid conducted a Lead-Based Paint Survey of the property located at 172 Long Meadows Lane in Middletown, Virginia adjacent to the Cedar Creek and Belle Grove NHP. The survey was conducted in readily accessible areas of the on-site structure in accordance with the US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Chapter 7 Guidelines (1997 revision) and the Commonwealth of Virginia regulations. The presence or absence of lead-based paint and the description of the condition of those surfaces applies only to the tested or assessed surfaces on the date of the field visit. Conditions may change due to deterioration or maintenance.

The purpose of the lead survey was to identify lead-based paint surfaces on the on-site building.

This process involves a surface-by-surface measurement of lead-based paint. The role of the lead inspector is to determine and then report the presence of lead-based paint surfaces. The lead-based paint inspection methodology followed the HUD guidelines for investigating dwellings. Generally, the inspection process includes a surface-by-surface inspection of painted components throughout the existing structure.

Lead-based paint testing was performed using an Innov-X Model A-2000 XRF Analyzer, and comparing the test results to recommended action levels as published by the USEPA and HUD.

Calibration of the XRF is checked in accordance with the Performance Characteristic Sheets (PCS) which require the use of a calibration standard block with a known concentration of lead nearest to 1.0 mg/cm². The NIST Standard Reference Materials (SRM 2570 - 0.00 mg/cm²) and (SRM 2573 – 1.06 mg/cm²) were used during this inspection. The XRF was calibrated before beginning and after every four hours of use. Floor plans of the structure were labeled with side “A” being the front entrance of the building (facing Long Meadows Lane) proceeding clockwise with B, C, and D around the facility.

3.1 Lead-Based Paint Inspection & Sampling

On September 28, 2015, a Lead-Based Paint Survey was performed on the property located at 172 Long Meadows Lane in Middletown, Virginia. The survey was performed by Ryan Kramer, VA Certified Lead-Based Paint Inspector (License #3355000637 – Exp. 8-31-16). Typical test areas included interior walls, window components, door components, baseboards and other wall trim components, stairway components and ceilings and accessible exterior components. A table showing all the XRF test results are presented in Attachment III.

3.2 Lead-Based Paint Results

A total of 78 tests were conducted on the interior and exterior surfaces of the main residence and storage shed. A table of the positive XRF tests (equal to or greater than 1.0 mg/cm²) is presented in Attachment IV and Table 1 (below).

Table 1: Summary of Positive XRF Results

XRF

Test ID Location / Room Substrate Component Color XRF

Reading 10 Side A - Exterior Wood North Door Frame White 2.65 71 Side A - Exterior Wood South Door Frame White 2.13

3.2.1 Single Family Private Residence

As shown in the table of positive XRF results, two tests conducted were equal to or greater than

1.0 mg/cm² lead indicating that lead-based paint is limited to the exterior of the house including the two front doors (XRF #10 & #71). The majority of the interior and exterior painted surfaces observed by Pyramid were intact and in good condition.

3.2.2 Storage Shed

Two tests were also conducted on the exterior portions of the small shed wall and door. Lead paint was not detected on the structure.

Options for dealing with lead-based paint include interim controls or abatement. Interim controls are measures designed to temporarily reduce human exposure or possible exposure to lead-paint hazards. Examples of interim controls include:

• Paint film stabilization (repair/remove deteriorating paint and apply new protective coating of non lead-based paint)

• Friction and impact reduction treatments

• Dust removal; specialized cleaning procedures

• Occupant awareness training

Abatement includes actions designed to permanently eliminate lead-based paint hazards Examples of abatement include:

• Paint removal by heat gun, chemical stripping or abrasive techniques

• Building component replacement

• Enclosure

• Encapsulation Interim controls typically require less initial cost than abatement but greater ongoing monitoring costs, while abatement typically requires greater initial costs but less follow-up costs.

The XRF results are based on the HUD, EPA, and Commonwealth of VA guidelines. It is important to note that even if a component is negative based on HUD, EPA, and the Commonwealth of Virginia standards, it may still contain concentrations of lead in the paint, which when disturbed, may generate lead dust greater than the Permissible Exposure Limit (PEL) of 50 micrograms per cubic millimeter (ug/mm3) as an 8-hour Time Weighted Average (TWA) established by the OSHA “Lead Exposure in Construction Rule…