B08_Att__J-06_TUIN_231534_Reg_Matr_Survey.pdf

PSI Project Number: 04671836 November 15, 2021

Professional Service Industries, Inc.

2804 Commerce Square East

Birmingham, Alabama Phone: 205.956.6999

Fax: 205.956.1184

LORD AECK SARGENT

A KATERRA COMPANY

1175 Peachtree Street Suite 2400 Atlanta, Georgia 30361

Attention: Susan Turner, AIA Principal, LEED AP

SUBJECT: Regulated Materials Survey

George Washington Carver Museum Campus Road Tuskegee, Alabama 36008

Dear Ms. Turner:

In accordance with our agreement of August 10, 2020, Professional Service Industries, Inc. (PSI), an Intertek company, is providing you with one (1) copy of the final report for the above referenced project.

PSI thanks you for choosing us as your consultant for this project. Please contact us at 205-956-6999 if you have any questions or we may be of further service.

Respectfully submitted, PROFESSIONAL SERVICE INDUSTRIES, INC.

Darryl W. May Christopher Hundley Project Manager Principal Consultant

REGULATED MATERIALS SURVEY

George Washington Carver Museum Campus Road

Tuskegee, Alabama 36008

PREPARED FOR

LORD AECK SARGENT

A KATERRA COMPANY

1175 Peachtree Street

Suite 2400 Atlanta, Georgia 30361

Darryl W. May Project Manager

PREPARED BY

PROFESSIONAL SERVICE INDUSTRIES, INC.

2804 COMMERCE SQUARE EAST

BIRMINGHAM, ALABAMA 35210

PHONE: (205) 956-6999

FAX: (205) 956-1184

Christopher Hundley November 15, 2021 Principal Consultant

PSI Project Number: 04671836

Project Number: 04671836 Lord Aeck Sargent – George Washington Carver Museum www.intertek.com/building

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

2 INTRODUCTION

2.1 SCOPE OF SERVICES

2.2 PURPOSE

2.3 AUTHORIZATION

2.4 LIMITATIONS

2.5 WARRANTY

3 GENERAL BUILDING AND SURVEY INFORMATION

3.1 BUILDING INFORMATION

3.2 INSPECTION INFORMATION

4 METHODOLOGY

4.1 RECORD DOCUMENT REVIEW

4.2 VISUAL INSPECTION PROCEDURES

4.3 SAMPLING PROCEDURES

4.4 ANALYSIS PROCEDURES

4.5 QUANTIFICATION

5 FINDINGS

5.1 RESULTS

6 CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS

6.1 CONCLUSIONS

6.2 RECOMMENDATIONS

TABLES

TABLE 1 – SUMMARY OF ASBESTOS SAMPLING RESULTS

TABLE 2 – SUMMARY OF LEAD PAINT RESULTS

TABLE 3 – SUMMARY OF AIRBONE MOLD SPORE SAMPLING RESULTS

TABLE 4 – SUMMARY OF SURFACE MOLD SPORE SAMPLING RESULTS

LIST OF APPENDICES

APPENDIX A – REPORT OF BULK SAMPLE ANALYSIS FOR ASBESTOS AND SAMPLE CHAIN OF CUSTODY

APPENDIX B – REPORT OF LEAD PAINT ANALYSIS AND SAMPLE CHAIN OF CUSTODY

APPENDIX C – REPORT OF AIRBORNE MOLD SPORE ANALYSIS AND CHAIN OF CUSTODY

APPENDIX D – REPORT OF SURFACE MOLD SPORE ANALYSIS AND CHAIN OF CUSTODY

APPENDIX E – PHOTOGRAPHS

APPENDIX F – INSPECTOR & LABORATORY CERTIFICATIONS

1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Professional Service Industries, Inc. (PSI), an Intertek company, was retained by Lord Aeck Sargent, A Katerra Company (LAS), to conduct a regulated materials survey that included asbestos-containing materials (ACM), lead-based paint (LBP), mold and other hazardous material investigation (to include chemicals, paints, hydraulic equipment, aboveground storage tanks, underground storage tanks, PCB and mercury containing items, blood borne pathogen containers and the identification and quantification of containers/storage vessels associated with the spaces) in the George Washington Carver Museum, located at Campus Road in Tuskegee, Alabama. Mr. Darryl May of PSI conducted the survey on October 26, 2021.

The subject building is a two-story brick structure containing approximately 16,000 square feet (SF). The subject building contains exhibits and office space but was closed to the public and was un-occupied during the inspection. The building is interpreted as a historic structure. The U.S. National Parks Service (NPS) has plans to display the building as a historic museum.

The purpose of the investigation and sampling was to provide information regarding the presence, condition, and estimated quantity of accessible ACMs, LBPs, mold and other hazardous materials located at the facility prior to its planned renovation. The exterior features and roof systems of the subject building were not included in the scope of this survey.

This summary does not contain all the information presented in the full report. The report should be read in its entirety to obtain a more complete understanding of the information provided and to aid in any decisions made or actions taken based on this information.

ACM Survey Summary A total of twenty-nine (29) samples were collected from seven (7) suspect asbestos-containing homogeneous materials during the survey. The samples were analyzed by polarized light microscopy (PLM). The U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and the Alabama Department of Environmental Management (ADEM) define an ACM as any material containing greater than one percent (>1%) asbestos. No ACMs (>1%) were identified through PLM analysis during this investigation.

In addition, materials that could not be sampled due to inaccessibility, safety concerns, or in order to avoid compromising their integrity, would be identified as assumed ACM. No assumed ACM’s were identified during this survey.

LBP Survey Summary In 1978, the Consumer Product Safety Commission banned the sale of lead-based paint to consumers, and its application to areas where consumers have direct access to painted surfaces. As a result of this ban, buildings painted prior to 1978 are suspected of containing leaded paint. The EPA and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) define a LBP as any coating having 1.0 mg/cm2 or greater lead when tested by an X-Ray Fluorescence (XRF) device or 0.5% lead by weight with laboratory analysis.

PSI performed a walk-through evaluation of accessible and/exposed areas within the subject building. Laboratory analysis identified the following paint as LBP:

• White painted wood window frame (1.1% lead by weight)

The following paints were found to have detectable levels of lead:

• White painted wood window unit (0.028% lead by weight)

• White painted plaster wall (<0.020% lead by weight)

• White painted plaster wall (<0.026% lead by weight)

• White painted plaster wall (<0.022% lead by weight)

Limited Mold Survey Summary Minor staining indicative of mold in the Lower Level HVAC mechanical room on the exterior insulation of the duct work was observed. Evidence of prior moisture intrusion was observed in the building. Current moisture intrusion in the building was not observed at the time of the site visit.

Results of the airborne spore trap samples collected did not indicate significant elevated indoor airborne concentrations of fungal spores as compared to the outside ambient sample.

Results of tape lift surface samples collected did indicate elevated concentrations of fungal spores. The following elevated surface concentrations of target fungal spores were identified:

• Cladosporium

Visual Hazardous Materials Survey Summary The purpose of this limited visual Hazardous Materials survey was to provide general information for this facility regarding the presence of suspect hazardous materials. A visual survey was conducted to provide general information for this facility regarding the presence of suspect hazardous materials. The following materials were considered suspect:

• Fluorescent lighting fixtures (bulbs and ballasts)

This summary does not contain all the information presented in the full report. The report should be read in its entirety to obtain a more complete understanding of the information provided and to aid in any decisions made or actions taken based on this information.

2 INTRODUCTION

2.1 SCOPE OF SERVICES

The scope of services for this project consisted of conducting an ACM, limited LBP, limited mold and other hazardous materials survey, including inspection, sampling and analysis of accessible and exposed interior and exterior areas at the subject facility, excluding the roof.

The subject area(s) of the facility for this investigation included the interior of the building. The exterior portions and the roof were excluded from this investigation.

Asbestos Survey This survey was intended to identify all asbestos containing materials (ACM) as required by the EPA National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP), the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and the ADEM. Additional information relative to friability, quantity and condition is also provided to assist the owner or his representative in the appropriate decisions involved with renovation and demolition. Regulations pertaining to asbestos renovation and demolition surveys include EPA NESHAP (40 CFR Part 61), OSHA Asbestos in Construction (29 CFR 1926.1101) and applicable ADEM regulations.

Lead Paint Survey This survey was intended to identify LBP in general accordance with the EPA, OSHA and the HUD Guidelines for the Evaluation and Control of Lead-Based Paint Hazards in Housing.

Mold Survey This survey was intended to evaluate indoor air quality and surface mold concentrations in the facility to determine if they are present. Visual observations were made to identify possible water intrusion and causes.

Hazardous Materials Investigation The purpose of the proposed scope of services was to visually inspect the extent and identify hazardous materials. PSI visually inspected for and quantify chemicals found at the location, including but not limited to:

cleaning chemicals, maintenance chemicals, paints, hydraulic equipment, aboveground storage tanks, underground storage tanks, batteries, acids and photographic development; PCB and mercury containing items (ballasts, fluorescent light bulbs, thermostats, smoke detectors, exit signs); blood borne pathogens containers and the identification and quantification of containers/storage vessels associated with the spaces. No sampling was conducted for this assessment.

2.2 PURPOSE

The purpose of this survey was to provide general information for the subject building(s) regarding the presence, condition, and quantity of accessible and/or exposed friable and non-friable, building materials that contain asbestos, components coated with lead containing paint, potentially mold impacted building materials and other hazardous materials.

2.3 AUTHORIZATION

Authorization to perform this work was given by Susan Turner with LAS. The project was conducted in accordance with the scope, terms and conditions of PSI Proposal No. 0467-318429 dated August 10, 2020.

2.4 LIMITATIONS

The asbestos survey was intended to meet the requirements of the EPA NESHAP for Asbestos demolition or renovation. The lead paint survey was intended to meet the requirements of the EPA, OSHA or HUD requirements for demolition or renovation. The limited mold investigation was conducted within industry standards. The ACM/LBP/Mold/Hazardous Materials survey included a thorough inspection of all areas of planned renovation.

The exterior features of the building and the roof systems were not included in the scope of this survey.

Destructive sampling, such as behind finished surfaces (plaster/drywall walls, above hard ceilings, etc.) inside mechanical chases, behind mirrored walls, under carpet or tiled floors, etc., was not generally conducted to assess inaccessible or concealed materials. PSI provided a pre-survey drawing plan dated August 23, 2021 showing the locations of the suspect materials and planned sampling locations which was approved by the

NPS.

Inaccessible is defined as areas of the building that were locked, or where admittance was not permitted. It also includes areas/materials that could not be tested (sampled) without destruction of the structure or a portion of the structure, and areas/materials that could not be safely reached by the inspector or inspection team. In the event that access to a portion of the building was not obtained (which otherwise would have been tested), such limitations specifically are identified in the Findings Section of this report.

PSI did not sample any system which presented a hazard to the inspection team such as energized electrical systems or within confined spaces.

PSI did not collect samples from building elements where the intended use would be compromised by testing, such as fire rated doors, vapor barriers, mirror mastics, etc.

PSI provided a pre-survey drawing plan dated August 23, 2021 showing the locations of the suspect materials and planned sampling locations which was approved by the NPS.

2.5 WARRANTY

The field and laboratory results reported herein are considered sufficient in detail and scope to determine the presence of accessible and/or exposed suspect ACM/LBP/Mold/Hazardous Materials for the building structure.

PSI warrants that the findings contained herein have been prepared in general accordance with accepted professional practices at the time of its preparation as applied by professionals in the community. Changes in the state of the art or in applicable regulations cannot be anticipated and have not been addressed in this report.

The survey and analytical methods have been used to provide the client with information regarding the presence of accessible and/or exposed suspect ACM/LBP/Mold/Hazardous Materials existing at the time of the inspection. Test results are valid only for the material(s) tested. There is a distinct possibility that conditions may exist which could not be identified within the scope of the study or which were not apparent during the site visit. This inspection covered only those areas that were exposed and/or physically accessible to the Inspector. The study is also limited to the information available from the client at the time it was conducted.

No other warrantees are implied or expressed.

Use By Third Parties This report was prepared pursuant to the contract PSI has with LAS. That contractual relationship included an exchange of information about the subject site that was unique and between PSI and its client and serves as the basis upon which this report was prepared. Because of the importance of the communication between PSI and its client, reliance or any use of this report by anyone other than LAS, for whom it was prepared, is prohibited and therefore not foreseeable to PSI.

Reliance or use by any such third party without explicit authorization in the report does not make said third party a third-party beneficiary to PSI’s contract with LAS. Any such unauthorized reliance on or use of this report, including any of its information or conclusions, will be at third party’s risk. For the same reasons, no warranties or representations, expressed or implied in this report, are made to any such third party.

Unidentifiable Conditions This report is necessarily limited to the conditions observed and to the information available at the time of the work. Due to the nature of the work, there is a possibility that there may exist conditions which could not be identified within the scope of work or which were not apparent at the time of our site work. This report is also limited to information available from the client at the time it was conducted. The report may not represent all conditions at the subject site as it only reflects the information gathered from specific locations.

3 GENERAL BUILDING AND SURVEY INFORMATION

3.1 BUILDING INFORMATION

Subject Property: George Washington Carver Museum Campus Drive Tuskegee, Alabama 36008

Facility Construction Date: 1915

Previous Renovation Dates: 1938, 1940, 1947, 1950s, 1974, 1979, 1985, 1988, 1994, 1995 and 2005

Number of Floors: Two (2)

Estimated Square Footage 16,000 SF

Construction Type: Brick masonry construction with painted exterior wood trim and covered by a pre-finished metal panel roof system.

Building Occupant(s) Museum exhibits and U.S. National Park Service office facilities

Additional Information N/A

3.2 INSPECTION INFORMATION

Name of PSI Inspector(s): Darryl May

Date(s) of Inspection: October 26, 2021

Escort: None, NPS official opened the facility for PSI’s access and returned prior to completion of the assessment to secure the facility.

4 METHODOLOGY

Inspection and sampling procedures were performed in general accordance with the guidelines published by the EPA, OSHA and HUD. The inspection and survey described below was performed by an EPA accredited and ADEM licensed inspector.

4.1 RECORD DOCUMENT REVIEW

Prior to conducting the visual inspection, PSI reviewed documents provided by the client, including drawings, floor plans, historical data, maintenance records, previous survey reports, laboratory reports, etc. for information regarding construction history and building materials. No prior reports were provided to PSI by the client for review.

4.2 VISUAL INSPECTION PROCEDURES

ACM Survey An initial individual building structure walkthrough was conducted to determine the presence of suspect ACM’s that were accessible and/or exposed. Exterior areas and the roof systems were not included in the scope of this investigation.

The inspection and sampling was limited to those areas and materials that were accessible and did not involve destruction of walls, other building elements, physical barriers, or the structural integrity of the item being tested.

Materials which were similar in color, texture, general appearance and which appear to have been installed at the same time were grouped in Homogeneous Sampling Areas. Such materials are termed "homogeneous materials" by the EPA. During this walkthrough, the approximate locations of these homogeneous materials were also noted.

The inspector evaluated the overall condition of the material and determined whether the materials were friable or non-friable by touching the material, where practical. A friable material is defined as any material able to be crushed, crumbled, pulverized or reduced to a powder by hand pressure when dry.

Each material was further assessed for overall condition. Conditions were rated as good, damaged or significantly damaged. PSI’s inspector also identified the EPA NESHAP classification of the material: Regulated ACM (RACM), Category I non-friable ACM, and Category II non-friable ACM, based on the materials current condition. PSI’s inspector provided estimated quantities of the materials identified as ACM, based only on materials that were accessible and exposed.

Limited LBP Survey A visual inspection was conducted of interior accessible building surfaces for the presence of paints suspected of containing lead. Paint chip sampling was conducted for painted surfaces. Paint chips were analyzed by the EPA recommended Flame Atomic Absorption (Flame AA) Method. PSI was not responsible for re-painting surfaces where paint chip samples were collected.

Limited Mold Survey Observations were performed focusing on identification of potential indoor air quality concerns and possible pathways of exposure was conducted. The building was visually evaluated for evidence of biological growth or other correlated factors, which may cause contaminants or odors to be entrained into the building.

Other Hazardous Materials Visual Survey PSI performed a visual evaluation focusing on identification of other hazardous materials. Photographic images were collected to document visual observations of the subject site at the time of the evaluation. Photographs for site evaluations typically included images of observations such as the suspect equipment including labels/tags.

4.3 SAMPLING PROCEDURES

ACM Survey Following the walkthrough, the Inspector collected samples of suspect materials.

EPA guidelines were used to determine the sampling protocol. Sampling locations were chosen to be representative of the homogeneous sampling area. While an effort was made to collect samples randomly, samples were taken preferentially from areas already damaged or areas which were the least visible to minimize disturbance of the material.

Each sample location was sprayed with amended water and was kept wet during the entire sampling process.

Samples were collected by coring through the material from the surface down to the base substrate. All layers of the material were extracted and placed into a sample container for transport to the laboratory. Sample containers were sealed and labeled with a unique sample identification number. Where appropriate, sampled materials were sealed with an encapsulant or covered with tape after sampling. PSI was not responsible for restoring the sampled areas to their pre-sampled condition.

In accordance with the agreement between PSI and the client, exterior areas of the building and roofing materials were not sampled as part of this survey.

Limited LBP Survey For paint chip samples, an area of approximately one (1) to two (2) square inches was extracted from coated components down to but not including the substrate. Chip samples were placed in a sealed container and labeled for analysis. Restoration and repainting of sampled surfaces was not within the scope of PSI’s lead inspection protocol.

Limited Mold Survey Potential airborne fungal spores were sampled utilizing a high-volume pump with a spore trap for initial identification of non-viable bioaerosols (i.e. not cultured). The high-volume pump was calibrated to a known volume of air with sample time over a 10-minute period for the collection of 150 liters of air per sample. In addition to the indoor samples collected, two outside ambient samples were collected for comparison. Zefon Air-O-Cell spore traps were used for sampling.

Surface samples were collected for direct examination utilizing tape lift methodologies. Fungal analysis includes genus identification of viable and non-viable fungi present. However, utilizing this method it is not possible to differentiate between viable and non-viable fungi spore types. Surface samples were collected from surfaces within selected areas that were visually observed to have or exhibit potential signs of fungal growth.

Surface samples were collected using Zefon Bio-Tape microscope slides with a clear adhesive pad that were applied to the sample area and placed into a plastic protective case.

4.4 ANALYSIS PROCEDURES

ACM Survey All samples were analyzed at PSI’s Asbestos Laboratory located at 850 Poplar Street in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15220. The PSI Pittsburgh Asbestos Laboratory is a National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program (NVLAP) Accredited (#101350-0) and an American Industrial Hygiene Association (AIHA) Accredited (#8222) Laboratory.

The samples were analyzed for asbestos by PLM and in accordance with the “EPA Method for the Determination of Asbestos in Bulk Building Materials” (EPA/600/R-93/116 July 1993). Analysis was performed by visually observing the bulk samples with a stereoscope followed by slide preparation(s) for microscopic examination and identification.

Using a stereoscope, the microscopist visually estimated relative amounts of each constituent by determining the volume of each constituent in proportion to the total volume of the sample. Next, the samples were mounted on slides and analyzed by PLM for asbestos (chrysotile, amosite, crocidolite, anthophyllite, actinolite/tremolite), and fibrous non-asbestos constituents (mineral wool, fiberglass, cellulose, etc.). Asbestos was identified by refractive indices, morphology, color, pleochroism, birefringence, extinction characteristics, and signs of elongation. The same characteristics were used to identify the non-asbestos constituents.

The EPA method allows samples which are visually determined to have less than 10% asbestos to be quantified using a Point Count procedure. An ocular reticule (cross hair or point array) is used to visually superimpose a point or points on the microscope field of view. A total of 400 points superimposed on either asbestos fibers or non-asbestos matrix material must be counted over at least eight different preparations of representative subsamples. If an asbestos fiber and matrix particle overlap so that a point is superimposed on their visual intersection, a point is scored for both categories. Point counting provides a quantification of the area percent asbestos. Point counted results supersede the results of the visual estimation. No samples were point counted for this survey.

It should be noted that some ACM might not be accurately identified or quantified by PLM. As an example, the original fabrication of vinyl floor tiles routinely involved milling of asbestos fibers to extremely small sizes. As a result, these fibers may go undetected under the standard PLM method. Transmission Electron Microscopy (TEM) is recommended for a more definitive analysis of these materials.

Limited LBP Survey The paint chip samples were analyzed by flame Atomic Absorption (AA) in accordance with method EPA SW- 846 7420. The analysis was performed by PSI’s American Industrial Hygiene Association (AIHA), Environmental Lead Laboratory Accreditation Program (ELLAP) accredited laboratory (AIHA #100373) in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

Limited Mold Survey The airborne and surface mold samples were forwarded under chain-of-custody to PSI’s American Industrial Hygiene Association (AIHA), Environmental Microbiology Laboratory Accreditation Program (EMLAP) Microbiological Laboratory in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, for analysis and identification of the mold samples.

4.4.1 Laboratory Quality Control Program

The PSI Asbestos, Lead Paint and Mold Laboratory maintains an in-house quality control program. This program involves blind reanalysis of ten (10) percent of all samples, precision and accuracy controls, and use of standard bulk reference materials. In addition, the PSI Asbestos Laboratory is accredited by NVLAP, which also has quality control procedures inherent in its program.

4.5 QUANTIFICATION

Quantification of suspect ACMs/Mold/Other Hazardous Materials was conducted using visual estimation by the accredited inspector. This visual estimation was performed in accordance with generally accepted practices in the asbestos and lead paint industry based on materials that were accessible and exposed. These values are sufficiently accurate for the purpose of documenting the presence of ACMs/LBPs/Mold/Other Hazardous Materials within its space for the purpose of identifying abatement control conditions or for general policy considerations. Actual quantities may differ between visually estimated values and physical measurements. If a licensed abatement contractor is engaged to remove ACM/LBP, the abatement contractor is responsible for verifying reported quantities of ACMs/LBPs/Mold/Other Hazardous Materials to be removed.

5 FINDINGS

5.1 RESULTS

The “Report of Bulk Sample Analysis for Asbestos”, the Sample Chain of Custody(s), and Photographs are included in the Appendices.

Asbestos Survey A total of twenty-nine (29) samples were collected from seven (7) suspect homogenous materials during this asbestos survey.

The Table attached to this report list the suspect ACMs observed throughout the building. Table 1 lists the materials that were sampled during this survey, along with the results of the inspection and laboratory analysis.

Table 1 gives a description of the materials, their general locations, condition, friability, EPA NESHAP Category, and estimated quantity of identified ACM.

Table 1 - Summary of Asbestos Sampling Results for George Washington Carver Museum

HSM

(Sample

Numbers) Material Description Material Location

Asbestos Type & Percent

Friable (Yes/No)

Condition of Material

Approximate Quantity

NESHAP

Category

01 (1-7) White ceiling texture Upper Level ceiling NAD Yes Good N/A N/A 02 (8-10) Gray linoleum flooring Upper Level NAD No Good N/A N/A

03 (11-17) White and gray wall plaster Throughout Interior NAD Yes Fair/Poor N/A N/A

04 (18-20)

Gray Carpet mastic inseparable black and yellow mastics with gray leveling compound

Upper Level NAD Yes Good N/A N/A

05 (21-23) Black base cove and yellow mastic Throughout Interior NAD No Good N/A N/A

06 (24-26) Gray drywall system Lower Level NAD Yes Good/Fair N/A N/A

07 (27-29) Carpet mastic inseparable yellow mastic with gray leveling compound

Lower Level NAD Yes Good N/A N/A

NOTES:

HSM = Homogenous Sampling Material, Asbestos Type NAD = No Asbestos Detected NESHAP Category - Regulated ACM (RACM), Cat I NF=Category I Non-Friable ACM, Cat II NF= Category II Non-Friable ACM

Limited LBP Survey The current Regulatory Standards for the definition of a LBP is the “Federal Action Level” from the EPA and HUD’s “Guidelines for the Evaluation and Control of Lead-Based Paint Hazards in Housing”, 2012 Edition. The “Federal Action Level” for a paint chip is 0.5% lead by weight.

PSI collected samples for lead analysis during this survey. Table 2 lists the paints that were sampled along with the results of the inspection and laboratory analysis.

Table 2 - Summary of Lead Paint Results for George Washington Carver Museum

Sample Number

Paint Color

Component Description Component Location Substrate Lead Content

(% by weight) Paint

Condition

LBP-PC-30 White Window unit Upper Level interior window Wood <0.028% Deteriorated

LBP-PC-31 White Wall plaster Upper Level interior wall Plaster <0.020% Deteriorated

LBP-PC-32 White Window frame Upper Level interior window Wood 1.1% Deteriorated

LBP-PC-33 White Wall plaster Lower Level interior wall Plaster <0.026% Deteriorated

LBP-PC-34 White Wall plaster Lower Level interior wall Plaster <0.022% Deteriorated

Mold Assessment Evidence of visible fungal growth was not observed in the facility except for a small minor stain indicative of mold in the Lower Level HVAC mechanical room on the insulation of the duct work. Evidence of prior moisture intrusion (deteriorated wall plaster) was observed along the north perimeter walls on the Lower Level and Upper Level of the structure; along the east perimeter wall of the Lower Level near the northeast corner building entrance; and, on the east wall of the Women’s and Men’s restrooms. The visual investigation did not observed evidence of current moisture intrusion in the building at the time of the site visit.

Airborne Mold Spore Sampling Results of the airborne spore trap samples collected did not indicate significant elevated indoor airborne concentrations of fungal spores as compared to the outside ambient sample.

It is important to note that mold is ubiquitous in the environment and fungal bioaerosols (i.e., airborne mold) will be present in all interior settings. It is also important to note that there are a variety of factors that impact indoor airborne mold levels. Factors such as the use of restroom fans, opening of windows, and occupant activities all potentially affect the indoor levels of airborne mold. Additionally, the presence of visible mold amplification indoors will likely augment, or contribute to, interior airborne mold levels.

The diversity in mold species (taxa) identified at the selected indoor and outdoor sample locations is reviewed by PSI to identify airborne mold species, which are commonly associated with moisture impacted materials (i.e., Stachybotrys sp. and Penicillium/Aspergillus type spores). The presence of such fungi significantly above outdoor concentrations is viewed by PSI as a possible indicator of an interior amplified mold source.

“Significantly elevated” conditions are present when the indoor sample concentration is observed to be at least one order of magnitude (10 times) above the average outdoor measured concentration. In evaluating airborne mold data, PSI also reviewed the total airborne mold spore concentrations, measured from indoor sample locations, to determine if they were “significantly elevated” when compared to total airborne spore concentrations measured from outdoor locations.

The indoor airborne mold total spore concentration ranged from 160 spores per cubic meter of air (spores/m3) to 850 spores/m3 while the outdoor total levels ranged from 2,300 spores/m3 to 2,900 spores/m3. The types of mold identified indoors were generally similar to the outdoor types, but at significantly elevated concentrations. Table 3 shows only the same types of spores found inside as compared to outside or only found inside. The detailed laboratory report for the spore trap samples is provided in Appendix B.

Table 3 - Summary of Spore Trap Results for George Washington Carver Museum

Fungi Identification

AS-1

Upper Level Central Area

AS-2

Upper Level

East Area

AS-4

Lower Level Central Area

AS-3

Upper Level

Outside

AS-5

Lower Level

Outside Cladosporium 750 60 110 810 1,100

Ascospores 67 40 47 850 750 Basidiospores 13 7 7 240 230

Smuts/Myxomycetes --- 13 27 60 150 Penicillium/Asp 13 13 530 170 420 Alternaria sp. --- --- 7 7 20 Curvularia sp. --- 13 13 7 40

Unknown/Brown --- 7 --- 13 20 Ulocladium sp. 7 --- --- --- --- Nigrospora sp. --- 7 --- --- 7 Total Spores 850 160 740 2,263 2,871

Notes: Result in Spores/m3 = fungal spores per cubic meter, --- Indicates no fungal spores were detected

Surface Sampling Results of a surface sample collected with a tape lift on the HVAC duct work insulation on the Lower Level HVAC mechanical room indicated a small area of mold growth, including Cladosporium, a target mold. The mold stains should be properly cleaned with a biocide as routine maintenance.

Table 4 - Summary of Surface Mold Spore Sampling Results for George Washington Carver Museum

Fungi Identification

SS-1

Upper Level NNE Perimeter Plaster Wall

SS-2

Lower Level

HVAC Room - Duct Work Hyphal Fragments --- 4+ Pollen --- 1+ Cladosporium 1+ 4+ Ascospores --- 1+ Smuts/Myxomycetes --- 2+ Penicillium/Asp --- 1+ Drechslera/Bipolaris --- 1+

Table 4 - Summary of Surface Mold Spore Sampling Results for George Washington Carver Museum

Fungi Identification

SS-1

Upper Level NNE Perimeter Plaster Wall

SS-2

Lower Level

HVAC Room - Duct Work Curvularia sp. --- 1+ Pithomyces sp. --- 1+ Epicoccum sp. --- 1+ Nigrospora sp. --- 3+

Visual Hazardous Materials Survey Summary A visual survey for hazardous materials was performed to determine the presence and locations of suspect hazardous materials in or around the existing renovation space. The results of the hazardous materials visual survey are as follows:

Table 4 - Summary Other Hazardous Materials for Results for George Washington Carver Museum

Item Location Approximate Quantity Observed

Fluorescent lighting fixtures (bulbs and ballasts) Primary lighting throughout the facility 25

5.1.1 INACCESSIBLE AREAS

PSI was able to access the majority of the areas within the building. Several areas with locked doors were not accessed on the Lower Level of the building

5.1.2 NON-SUSPECT MATERIALS

The following materials were observed but are considered ‘non-suspect’ ACM due to their composition (fiberglass, rubber, etc.) and were not sampled.

• Fiberglass HVAC Duct Insulation

• Foam Pipe Insulation

5.1.3 REGULATORY GUIDELINES:

Asbestos

ACM Definition –

The EPA and OSHA consider a material to be ACM if at least one sample from the homogeneous area shows asbestos in an amount greater than 1%.

Point Count Quantification –

If a material is found to contain less than 10% asbestos via visual estimation, it can be treated as non-ACM per EPA Regulations, if verified to contain 1% or less asbestos by the Point Count Quantification Procedure. If not point counted, a sample in which asbestos was visually detected and estimated (including trace to ≤1%) must be assumed to be greater than 1% and treated as ACM. Please refer to the laboratory analyses for a more detailed description of the microscopic analysis of individual samples. No samples were quantified by the Point Count Procedure in this Asbestos Survey.

EPA NESHAP Category –

EPA NESHAP classifies ACM into the following categories:

• RACM is any (a) Friable asbestos material, (b) Category I non-friable ACM that has become friable, (c) Category I non- friable ACM that will be or has been subjected to sanding, grinding, cutting, or abrading, or (d) Category II non-friable ACM that has a high probability of becoming or has become crumbled, pulverized, or reduced to powder by the forces expected to act on the material in the course of demolition or renovation operations.

• Category I Non-friable ACM includes packings, gaskets, resilient floor covering, and asphalt roofing products which contain more than one percent asbestos.

• Category II Non-friable ACM includes any material, except for a Category I non-friable ACM, which contains more than one-percent asbestos and cannot be reduced to a powder by hand pressure when dry.

OSHA –

OSHA requires all suspect materials to be analyzed by layer, even materials such as drywall/joint compound, which may sometimes be composited per the EPA. If any layer contains asbestos in a concentration >1%, the material is considered an ACM.

OSHA has a classification system (I thru IV) for ACM depending on the type of material and the disturbance as follows:

• Class I work is defined as activities involving the removal of ACM or presumed ACM (PACM) that is thermal system insulation (TSI) and surfacing materials.

• Class II activities involve removal of ACM/PACM other than TSI or surfacing material.

• Class III work includes repair and maintenance operations which are likely to disturb ACM/PACM.

• Class IV’ work includes maintenance and custodial activities during which employees contact but do not disturb ACM/PACM.

Materials where asbestos is detected, but where point counting is conducted and determined that the concentration is ≤1% asbestos, are not considered to be ACM by EPA or OSHA. However, these materials are considered unclassified asbestos work per OSHA. Some OSHA work control practices and prohibitions will still apply, with the extent depending on whether the worker's exposure to airborne asbestos exceeds the OSHA permissible exposure limit (PEL).

Additional details of the OSHA asbestos regulations related to the construction industry can be found in 29 CFR part 1926.1101.

Lead Paint

LBP Definition –

The EPA and HUD defines "lead-based paint" as any "paint, surface coating that contains lead equal to or exceeding one milligram per square centimeter (1.0 mg/cm2) or 0.5% lead by weight."

EPA – Renovation, Repair and Painting Program

EPA's Lead Renovation, Repair and Painting Rule (RRP Rule) requires that firms performing renovation, repair, and painting projects that disturb lead-based paint in homes, child care facilities and pre-schools built before 1978 have their firm certified by EPA (or an EPA authorized state), use certified renovators who are trained by EPA-approved training providers and follow lead-safe work practices.

OSHA –

The current OSHA standard (29 CFR 1926.62) for lead exposure in construction has a permissible exposure limit (PEL) of 50 micrograms per cubic meter of air (50 µg/m3), measured as an 8-hour time-weighted average (TWA). As with all OSHA health standards, when the PEL is exceeded, the hierarchy of controls requires employers to institute feasible engineering and work practice controls as the primary means to reduce and maintain employee exposures to levels at or below the PEL. When all feasible engineering and work practice controls have been implemented but have proven inadequate to meet the PEL, employers must nonetheless implement these controls and must supplement them with appropriate respiratory protection. The employer also must ensure that employees wear the respiratory protection provided when it is required.

HUD –

The Guidelines for the Evaluation and Control of Lead-Based Paint Hazards in Housing (2012 Edition) enforce HUD’s vision to reduce hazards in housing in a cost-effective manner while protecting the health of children. These guidelines are used by those who are required to identify and control lead paint hazards, as well as property owners, landlords, and child-care center operators. Helpful advice on renovations in older housing, lead-based paint inspections and risk assessments, and where to go for help can be found in the guidelines. The guidelines also outline what users have to do to meet requirements and recommendations;

identify training – and if applicable, certification – required for people who conduct the work; and describe how the work should be done.

The guidelines complement regulations that have been issued by HUD, the EPA, and OSHA.

Mold The interpretation of bioaerosol sample results is a challenge for the health and safety professional as there are at present no strict numerical guidelines which are appropriate for assessing whether the contamination in an area is acceptable or not. There are currently no regulatory standards for evaluating airborne fungi concentrations for this or any other facility. The standard of care in the industry involves the comparison of airborne fungal species from the indoor air environment to outdoor varieties and concentrations. The best scenario in this evaluation is to observe similar species indoors and outdoors, with the concentrations indoors being less than, or not significantly more than, the outdoor concentrations.

The ACGIH has recommended rank order assessment, as shown below, as a means of interpreting data.

Because of the problems noted above, numerical guidelines cannot be used as the primary determinant of whether there is a problem.

1. Significant numbers of certain pathogenic fungi should not be present in indoor air. These include Aspergillus fumigatus, Histoplasma, and Cryptococcus. Bird or bat droppings in air intakes, ducts or rooms should be assumed to contain these pathogens. Corrective action should be taken accordingly in the event of positive findings. The air sampling techniques used in this survey cannot measure some of these species.

2. The persistent presence of significant numbers of toxigenic fungi, Stachybotrys, toxigenic

Aspergillus, Penicillium, and Fusarium species indicates that further investigation and remedial action should be taken accordingly.

3. The confirmed presence of one or more fungal species occurring as a significant percentage of a sample in indoor air samples and not similarly present in concurrent outdoor samples is evidence of a fungal amplifier.

4. The indoor airborne species of mold (mycoflora) and bacteria is qualitatively similar and quantitatively lower than that of outdoor air.

It is important to note in evaluating air sampling data that airborne concentrations may vary significantly based on variability in fungal growth, time of day, temperature, humidity and air movement.

Other Hazardous Materials

Hazard Materials Definition –

By definition, EPA determined that some specific wastes are hazardous. These wastes are incorporated into lists published by the EPA. These lists are organized into three categories:

1. The F-list (non-specific source wastes). This list identifies wastes from common manufacturing and industrial processes, such as solvents that have been used in cleaning or degreasing operations.

Because the processes producing these wastes can occur in different sectors of industry, the F-listed wastes are known as wastes from non-specific sources. Wastes included on the F-list can be found in the regulations at 40 CFR §261.31.

2. The K-list (source-specific wastes). This list includes certain wastes from specific industries, such as petroleum refining or pesticide manufacturing. Certain sludges and wastewaters from treatment and production processes in these industries are examples of source-specific wastes. Wastes included on the K-list can be found in the regulations at 40 CFR §261.32.

3. The P-list and the U-list (discarded commercial chemical products). These lists include specific commercial chemical products in an unused form. Some pesticides and some pharmaceutical products become hazardous waste when discarded. Wastes included on the P- and U-lists can be found in the regulations at 40 CFR §261.33.

Waste that have not been specifically listed may still be considered a hazardous waste if exhibits one of the four characteristics defined in 40 CFR Part 261 Subpart C - ignitability (D001), corrosivity (D002), reactivity (D003), and toxicity (D004 - D043).

1. Ignitability - Ignitable wastes can create fires under certain conditions, are spontaneously combustible, or have a flash point less than 60 °C (140 °F). Examples include waste oils and used solvents.

2. Corrosivity - Corrosive wastes are acids or bases (pH less than or equal to 2, or greater than or equal to 12.5) that are capable of corroding metal containers, such as storage tanks, drums, and barrels.

3. Reactivity - Reactive wastes are unstable under "normal" conditions. They can cause explosions, toxic fumes, gases, or vapors when heated, compressed, or mixed with water.

Toxicity - Toxic wastes are harmful or fatal when ingested or absorbed (e.g., containing mercury, lead, etc.).

When toxic wastes are land disposed, contaminated liquid may leach from the waste and pollute ground water. Toxicity is defined through a laboratory procedure called the Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) (Method 1311). The TCLP helps identify wastes likely to leach concentrations of contaminants that may be harmful to human health or the environment.

6 CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS

6.1 CONCLUSIONS

ACM Survey ACMs were not found in the George Washington Carver Museum.

Assumed ACMs were not found in the George Washington Carver Museum.

Materials with low concentrations of asbestos (trace to 1%) were not identified in the George Washington Carver Museum.

LBP Survey Lead was not detected above the regulatory level for a LBP in paint tested, however, detectable levels of lead were identified in the George Washington Carver Museum.

Mold Survey Indications of apparent mold growth or water intrusion were found in the George Washington Carver Museum.

Elevated airborne mold spore concentrations were not found in the George Washington Carver Museum.

Visual Other Hazardous Materials Survey Other Hazardous Materials were visually observed in the George Washington Carver Museum.

6.2 RECOMMENDATIONS

ACM

Asbestos was not detected in the suspect materials identified during this investigation and no materials were assumed to be ACM. Should suspect materials not sampled as part of this survey be discovered during the demolition, they must be treated as ACM until sampling and analysis prove otherwise.

LBP

Surfaces coated with LBP/leaded coatings can be painted over and encapsulated, where practical. However, for components containing deteriorated paint, the surfaces may need to be prepared prior to repainting. For surfaces that will be scraped by mechanical means to remove loose or flaking paint, control measures should be established to capture loose paint. If chemical stripping techniques are to be utilized, precautions should be taken to properly collect the paint/stripper waste. Some components may be removed intact with the lead paint. Painted surfaces are considered to be in fair to poor condition.

Waste resulting from LBP coated component removal or removal of LBP by chemical stripping/mechanical removal is likely to result in the requirement for disposal in a hazardous waste facility. All lead paint and debris, whether from chemical or mechanical removal from its substrate, or whole component removal, must be tested to determine proper disposal. Waste characterization testing should be performed on all materials prior to making a disposal decision. Materials that are to be disposed of should be tested by the Toxicity Characteristic Leachate Procedure (TCLP) per EPA requirements to determine disposal requirements.

Note: OSHA regulates workers exposure to lead paint concentrations in any detectable amount. Therefore, in order to satisfy OSHA requirements, worker protection and monitoring may be required for work activities that disturb paints that contain lead in any amount. In accordance with the OSHA Construction Standard for Lead (29 CFR 1926.62), it is the contractors’ responsibility to protect their workers when an employee may be occupationally exposed to lead.

Mold Minor staining indicative of mold in the Lower Level HVAC mechanical room on the insulation of the duct work was observed. Evidence of prior moisture intrusion was observed in the building. Current moisture intrusion in the building was not observed at the time of the site visit.

Results of a surface sample collected with a tape lift on the HVAC exterior duct work insulation on the Lower Level HVAC mechanical room indicated a small area of mold growth, including Cladosporium, a target mold.

The mold stains should be properly cleaned, and treated with an EPA approved biocide.

Results of the airborne spore trap samples collected did not indicate significant elevated indoor airborne concentrations of fungal spores as compared to the outside ambient sample.

Other Hazardous Materials Mercury-containing equipment, mercury containing lamps, batteries and PCB’s that are classified as hazardous waste can be collected under the streamlined collection standards for Universal Waste as defined by the EPA in 40 CFR §273 and the State of South Carolina. Universal Waste identified as part of this investigation should be removed and either disposed or recycled in accordance with the EPA guidelines.

PSI recommends disposing the hazardous materials identified on the site in accordance to applicable regulations. Any unknown containers present on the site need to be verified through testing followed by proper disposal in accordance to applicable regulations.

APPENDIX A – REPORT OF BULK SAMPLE ANALYSIS FOR ASBESTOS AND SAMPLE

CHAIN OF CUSTODY

REPORT OF BULK SAMPLE ANALYSIS FOR ASBESTOS

TESTED FOR: PSI, Inc Lord Aeck Sargent

Date Received: 10/29/2021 Date Completed: 11/2/2021

2804 Commerce Square East Birmingham, AL 35210 Attn: Darryl May

Project ID: 04671836

ACM Survey

Date Reported: 11/2/2021

George Washington Carver Museum Campus Road, Tuskegee, AL 36008

Page: 1 of 3Analyst: Preston Hunt Work Order: 2110731

Lab ID (Layer)

Asbestos Content

(Percent and Type)

Non-asbestos Fibers

(Percent and Type)

Client ID Sample Description (Color, Texture, Etc.)

Analyst's Comment

001A01-1 (1) White, Texture, Homogeneous NO ASBESTOS DETECTED None Reported

002A01-2 (1) White, Texture, Homogeneous NO ASBESTOS DETECTED None Reported

003A01-3 (1) White, Texture, Homogeneous NO ASBESTOS DETECTED None Reported

004A01-4 (1) White, Texture, Homogeneous NO ASBESTOS DETECTED None Reported

005A01-5 (1) White, Texture, Homogeneous NO ASBESTOS DETECTED None Reported

00…