Microbial Assessment Report 162 Units 20200722.pdf

Limited Microbial Assessment

Report

Vance Air Force Base - Buildings 641, 642, 643, 644 and 645

162 Units

Enid, Oklahoma

July 22, 2020

Terracon Project No. 03197270

Prepared for:

Cyntergy AEC LLC

Tulsa, Oklahoma

Prepared by:

Terracon Consultants, Inc.

Fort Worth, Texas

Terracon Consultants, Inc. 2501 E Loop 820 North, Fort Worth Texas

P [817] 268-8600 F [817] 268-8602 Texas Profess ional Engineers No. F -3272 t erracon.com

Cyntergy AEC LLC

810 S Cincinnati Avenue

Tulsa, Oklahoma 74119-1635

Attn: Mr. Kent R. Bray

P: 918.728.3705

E: kbray@cyntergy.com

Re: Limited Microbial Assessment Report

Vance Air Force Base - Buildings 641, 642, 643, 644 and 645

162 Units

Enid, Oklahoma

Dear Mr. Bray:

The purpose of this report is to present the results of the limited microbial assessment performed on July 2 and 3, 2020, in 162 housing units at Buildings 641, 642, 643, 644 and

645 at Vance Air Force Base in Enid, Oklahoma. Terracon understands that this inspection was requested for informational purposes prior to remediation activities.

Sincerely, Robert Garrison Andrew Cassidy

Senior Associate Senior Staff Industrial Hygienist

Department Manager, Industrial Hygiene

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

1.1 Scope of Work

1.2 Standard of Care

1.3 Reliance

2.0 EVALUATION CRITERIA

2.1 Visual Evaluation

2.2 Moisture Intrusion

2.3 Temperature and Relative Humidity

3.0 METHODS

3.1 Visual Evaluation

3.2 Moisture Detection

3.3 Temperature and Relative Humidity

4.0 RESULTS

4.1 Visual Evaluations

4.2 Moisture Evaluation

4.3 Temperature and Relative Humidity

5.0 SUMMARY

6.0 RECOMMENDATIONS

APPENDIX A: Photographs

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 1

LIMITED MICROBIAL ASSESSMENT REPORT

VANCE AIR FORCE BASE – BUILDINGS 641, 642, 643, 644 AND 645

162 UNITS

ENID, OKLAHOMA

1.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

Terracon Consultants, Inc. (Terracon) conducted a limited microbial assessment in 162 housing units at Vance Air Force Base – Buildings 641, 642, 643, 644 and 645, located in Enid, Oklahoma.

Terracon representative, Mr. Andrew Cassidy, conducted the assessments on July 2, 2020. Mr.

Cassidy and Ms. Jessica Cauthon conducted the assessments on July 3, 2020. The microbial assessments were limited to readily observable and accessible surfaces within client-identified housing units.

1.1 Scope of Work

The assessment consisted of a visual evaluation of accessible areas within the client-identified units. Measurements of moisture content of suspect building materials, temperature and relative humidity were conducted.

1.2 Standard of Care

The evaluation was conducted at the subject buildings on July 2 and 3, 2020, based on information provided to Terracon regarding building conditions. This investigation was conducted in a manner consistent with the level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by members of the profession currently practicing under similar conditions in the same locale.

The results, findings, conclusions, and recommendations expressed in this report are based on conditions observed during our July 2 and 3, 2020, assessments. Many factors such as weather conditions, building occupancy, ventilation patterns, and seasonal variations in fungal concentrations can affect the conditions observed. The information contained in this report should not be relied upon to represent conditions that existed previously or at a later date. Terracon does not warrant the services of regulatory agencies, laboratories, or other third parties supplying information that may have been used in the preparation of this report.

1.3 Reliance

The report has been prepared on behalf of and exclusively for use by Cyntergy AEC LLC

(Cyntergy) for specific application to their project as discussed. No other individual or entity may rely on this report without written permission of Terracon and Cyntergy. Reliance on this report by

Cyntergy and all authorized parties will be subject to the key understandings and limitations stated

Buildings 641, 642, 643, 644 and 645 – 162 Units ■ Vance Air Force Base July 13, 2020 ■ Terracon Project No. 03197270

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 2 in the proposal, this report, and Terracon’s Agreement for Services. The limitation of liability defined in Terracon’s Agreement for Services is the aggregate limit of Terracon’s liability Cyntergy and all relying parties.

2.0 EVALUATION CRITERIA

2.1 Visual Evaluation

Indoor air quality can be degraded due to multiple contaminant sources from within a building or from the outdoor environment. If contaminant sources are not controlled, indoor air quality issues that affect occupants can arise, even with well-maintained heating, ventilating, and air conditioning (HVAC) systems. Based on the multiple sources of potential indoor/outdoor contaminants that can affect indoor air quality, the visual evaluation is conducted to assess general indoor hygiene, building maintenance practices, HVAC system design and hygiene, moisture intrusion and uncontrolled condensate formation. Indoor air frequently contains a mixture of pollutants at low concentrations that are well below regulatory occupational exposure limits. The visual assessment focuses on collecting primarily observational data (i.e., information obtained by visual inspection of the building and interviews with the building management, owners, and occupants).

Since many building materials can provide a source of nutrients for fungal growth, moisture is the limiting factor in minimizing the potential for fungal growth. Therefore, visible fungal growth, excessive dirt and water-damaged building materials should not be observed. When these conditions are observed, it indicates a need to conduct additional assessment, cleaning, and/or remediation activities.

2.2 Moisture Intrusion

Elevated fungal bioaerosol concentrations in indoor environments can occur when excessive moisture and a nutrient source are present, especially in closed or concealed areas that trap moisture and have minimal air disturbance. The cellulose in the paper surfacing of drywall or gypsum wallboard provides an adequate food source for the growth of many fungal species. On-site moisture measurements are obtained using a direct-reading instrument or infrared thermography. Results from similar materials in non-suspect locations, such as non-impacted drywall walls or ceiling surfaces, are compared and used to assess the likelihood of fungal growth conditions in suspect or historically water-damaged materials.

There are no current regulatory standards that limit moisture levels in walls or building materials, but the data can be valuable when results from different locations are compared.

2.3 Temperature and Relative Humidity

Indoor air temperature and relative humidity are physical conditions important to the perception of comfort and the formation of condensate moisture on building surfaces. The American Society of

Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) have published recommendations regarding thermal comfort. ASHRAE Standard 55-2010, Thermal Environmental Conditions for

Human Occupancy, identifies six primary factors that affect comfort: metabolic rate (affected by the activity being performed), clothing insulation, air temperature, radiant temperature, air speed, and

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 3 humidity. Relative humidity should not exceed 60% for extended periods or microbial growth could occur on surfaces that are at dew point temperature and condensate moisture forms.

3.0 METHODS

3.1 Visual Evaluation

The visual evaluation was conducted in general accordance with consensus guidelines from the

American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienist (ACHIH®, Bioaerosols; Assessment and

Control, 1999) and Standard Guide for Assessment of Fungal Growth in Buildings (ASTM® Method

D7338-10). The indoor environments were evaluated for visual evidence of moisture intrusion, visible fungal growth or other hygiene concerns that could impact indoor air quality. Destructive sampling or disassembly of mechanical enclosures was not within the scope of work for the project.

Transparent tape lift was used to collect suspect fungal growth from building surfaces, furniture and stored items. Eleven tape lift samples were collected from indoor environmental surfaces on May 20, 2020. Criteria to establish fungal growth on the substrate sampled were microscopic confirmation of fungal somatic and reproductive structures. Tape lift samples were submitted under chain of custody

(COC) protocol to MoldLab Ltd. Moldlab Ltd. is accredited by the AIHA® Laboratory Accreditation

Programs, LLC under the Environmental Microbiology Laboratory Accreditation Program

(accreditation number 154782).

3.2 Moisture Detection

A FLIR, Model C-2, thermal imager was used to evaluate temperature differences in walls and ceilings that would be consistent with moisture intrusion. Moisture content of suspect building materials was confirmed using an Extech Instruments, Model MO55 moisture meter.

3.3 Temperature and Relative Humidity

Temperature and relative humidity were measured using an Extech Instruments, model RH300 digital psychrometer at representative indoor and outdoor locations. The instrument was calibrated prior to use in the field.

4.0 RESULTS

4.1 Visual Evaluations

Facility Description/General Observations: The 162 housing units evaluated at Vance Air Force

Base – Buildings 641, 642, 64, 644, and 645, are of similar design and layout. They consist of a kitchen area, living/bedroom area, a closet and a bathroom. They are constructed with gypsum board (drywall) walls and ceilings. The floors are finished with vinyl plank-type floor tile. The

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 4 restrooms are finished with ceramic floor and wall tiles. The footprint of each unit is approximately

300 square feet.

On site staff reported that conditioned air is provided to each unit by a 1.5-ton HVAC system with an air handling unit (AHU) located in a mechanical closet. Terracon did not access interior components of AHUs during the assessments.

Moisture damage was observed in thirteen of the units evaluated. The source of the moisture damage appeared to be related to historical rainwater intrusion at windows or condensate formation on building materials. Fifteen of the units evaluated appeared to have windows that did not properly close.

Suspect fungal growth was observed in 112 of the units evaluated on July 2 and 3, 2020. The fungal growth was observed on furniture, doors, ceilings, walls and HVAC components. The majority of the fungal growth observed appeared to be related to condensate formation caused by elevated relative humidity events.

Destructive sampling or disassembly of mechanical components was not within the scope of work for the project. Terracon did not access areas underneath floor tiles, inside wall cavities or inside

AHU components. Fungal growth may be present in these areas, if moisture intrusion has occurred.

The visual evaluation results are summarized in Table 1.0

4.2 Moisture Evaluation

The representative building materials evaluated in the targeted areas exhibited normal moisture content at the time of the site reconnaissance.

4.3 Temperature and Relative Humidity

Temperature and relative humidity were measured in representative locations in 118 of the units evaluated on July 2 and 3, 2020. In general, thermal comfort measurements were outside of the referenced ASHRAE recommended range at the time of the evaluations. Relative humidity exceeded

60% in 67 of the units evaluated.

The thermal comfort results are presented in Table 1.0.

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 5

TABLE 1.0, MOLD ASSESSMENT RESULTS TABLE

Unit TEMP RH Moisture Damage and Misc.

Observations Fungal Growth Observations Photos

Outdoors

7/2/20

94.1 F 47.5% - - -

Outdoors

7/3/20

88.1 F 52.8% - - -

Building 641

101 - - (Previously assessed on

5/20/20)

(Previously assessed on

5/20/20)

102 - - (Not assessed. Occupant in quarantine)

(Not assessed. Occupant in quarantine)

103 - - None observed Suspect fungal growth on tall cabinet (1 ft2)

104 - - (Previously assessed on

5/20/20)

(Previously assessed on

5/20/20)

105 79.3 F 64.6% Staining on sink cabinet base Suspect fungal growth on desk

(3 ft2)

106 - - None observed Suspect fungal growth on window blinds (0.5 ft2)

107 - -

5/20/20)

(Previously assessed on

5/20/20)

108 - - None observed cabinet (2 ft2)

Suspect fungal growth on bathroom door (2 ft2)

109 - -

5/20/20)

(Previously assessed on

5/20/20)

110 - - (Previously assessed on

5/20/20)

(Previously assessed on

5/20/20)

111 - - None observed

Suspect fungal growth on small dresser (2 ft2)

112 77.0 F 62.9% None observed

113 - - None observed

Suspect fungal growth on bar chairs (0.5 ft2 each) dresser (1 ft2) bathroom door (1 ft2)

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 6

Moisture Damage and Misc.

Observations Fungal Growth Observations Photos nightstand (1 ft2)

114 - - (Previously assessed on

5/20/20)

(Previously assessed on

5/20/20)

115 - - None observed

116 - -

5/20/20)

(Previously assessed on

5/20/20)

117 - - (Previously assessed on

5/20/20)

(Previously assessed on

5/20/20)

118 - - None observed

119 79.8 F 46.3% None observed

120 - - None observed

201 75.7 F 56.1%

Window slightly open

Minor historical moisture damage to drywall adjacent to window sill

Suspect fungal growth on supply air register (2 ft2)

(6 ft2) cabinet (6 ft2) dresser (4 ft2)

202 - - None observed chairs (1 ft2 each) dresser (3 ft2)

Suspect fungal growth on closet doors (3 ft2 each) nightstand (2 ft2)

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 7

Moisture Damage and Misc.

Observations Fungal Growth Observations Photos

203 - - Dust/debris supply and return air registers

204 - - None observed None observed

205 78.2 F 63.0%

Air conditioning turned off

(2 ft2)

206 - -

5/20/20)

(Previously assessed on

5/20/20)

207 77.9 F 54.0% None observed None observed

208 - - None observed None observed

209 - - None observed None observed

210 - - (Previously assessed on

5/20/20)

(Previously assessed on

5/20/20)

211 75.2 F 58.0% None observed cabinet (4 ft2)

212 75.2 F 58.0% None observed air register (1 ft2)

213 76.1 F 65.5% None observed None observed

214 - - None observed

(1 ft2)

Suspect fungal growth on night stand (1 ft2)

215 76.8 F 51.0% None observed

216 - -

5/20/20)

(Previously assessed on

5/20/20)

217 - - (Not assessed. Occupant in quarantine)

(Not assessed. Occupant in quarantine)

218 76.4 F 52.8% None observed None observed

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 8

Moisture Damage and Misc.

Observations Fungal Growth Observations Photos

219 - - None observed

220 79.7 F 61.1%

Supply air register obstructed

None observed

Building 642

101 - - None observed blinds (1 ft2)

(5 ft2)

Suspect fungal growth on bed headboard (1 ft2)

Suspect fungal growth on mirror frame (1 ft2) cabinet (3 ft2) doors (1 ft2 each) bathroom door (3 ft2)

102 77.0 F 62.9% Staining on sink cabinet base

103 - - Dust/debris on return air register chairs (0.5 ft2 each)

104 77.0 F 66.1 % None observed

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 9

Moisture Damage and Misc.

Observations Fungal Growth Observations Photos

105 74.8 F 54.0% None observed None observed

106 - - Dust/debris on return air register

107 75.2 F 61.7% None observed

108 - -

5/20/20)

(Previously assessed on

5/20/20)

109 - - Historical moisture intrusion at window sill

110 74.2 F 53.2% None observed doors (3 ft2)

Suspect fungal growth on side table (3 ft2)

111 - - None observed

112 71.9 F 62.1% Dirt/debris on sink cabinet base

(4 ft2)

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 10

Moisture Damage and Misc.

Observations Fungal Growth Observations Photos bedframe (2 ft2)

113 - - (Not assessed. Occupant in quarantine)

(Not assessed. Occupant in quarantine)

114 71.7 F 59.3% None observed stand (2 ft2)

115 - - None observed

116 - - None observed None observed

117 72.8 F 54.7% Dust/debris on return air register None observed

118 75.5 F 70.5% None observed None observed

119 74.8 F 66.1% None observed stand (1 ft2)

120 73.5 F 53.1% None observed doors (2 ft2 each)

201 - -

5/20/20)

(Previously assessed on

5/20/20)

202 69.9 F 61.4% Dust/debris on return air register

203 - - None observed

204 73.2 F 77.4% None observed

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 11

Moisture Damage and Misc.

Observations Fungal Growth Observations Photos

205 - - Dust/debris on return air register

206 74.8 F 71.9% None observed None observed

207 - - None observed

208 75.0 F 75.4% None observed

209 - - None observed chairs (1ft2 each) dresser (5 ft2)

210 75.2 F 65.2% None observed cabinet (8 ft2)

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 12

Moisture Damage and Misc.

Observations Fungal Growth Observations Photos

Suspect fungal growth on closet doors (3 ft2)

211 - - (Previously assessed on

5/20/20)

(Previously assessed on

5/20/20)

212 76.1 F 55.6% Dust/debris on return air register None observed

213 - - (Not assessed. Occupant in quarantine)

(Not assessed. Occupant in quarantine)

214 71.7 F 69.0% None observed dresser (5 ft2)

215 72.8 F 74.5% None observed

216 - - None observed

217 74.6 F 57.0% None observed None observed

218 - - None observed

219 73.9 F 59.5% None observed

220 74.1 F 69.9% Dust/debris on return air register None observed

Building 643

101 80.7 F 65.6%

Dirt/debris on return air register

Dirt/debris on window sill

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 13

Moisture Damage and Misc.

Observations Fungal Growth Observations Photos

102 80.4 F 64.6% Window slightly open None observed

103 81.3 F 63.1% None observed None observed

104 81.1 F 63.8% Window slightly open None observed

105 75.0 F 71.4% None observed

106 75.9 F 73.3% None observed bathroom door (6 ft2)

107 77.0 F 60.0% None observed None observed

108 78.4 F 49.8% None observed None observed

109 75.7 F 61.6% None observed bathroom door (4 ft2)

110 76.4 F 50.1%

Towel placed on window sill by occupant to collect water intrusion

None observed

111 76.6 F 60.9% None observed

112 76.2 F 72.6% None observed

113 78.8 F 70.8% None observed None observed

114 80.0 F 70.6% None observed None observed

115 79.3 F 67.8% None observed

5/20/20)

(Previously assessed on

5/20/20)

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 14

Moisture Damage and Misc.

Observations Fungal Growth Observations Photos

117 78.6 F 50.3% None observed

118 79.3 F 59.4%

Occupant reports recurring rainwater intrusion beneath the front door

None observed

119 79.5 F 43.5% None observed

120 80.0 F 47.0% Window slightly open Suspect fungal growth on ceiling above shower (3 linear feet)

201 - -

5/20/20)

(Previously assessed on

5/20/20)

202 80.4 F 49.6% None observed None observed

203 80.2 F 47.0% None observed None observed

204 75.7 F 55.2% Window slightly open None observed

205 76.8 F 53.7% Window slightly open None observed

206 77.9 F 69.8% None observed

207 80.0 F 68.4% None observed None observed

208 77.5 F 51.1% None observed None observed

209 76.1 F 51.3% None observed None observed

210 76.6 F 59.1% None observed

211 79.5 F 69.8% None observed

212 76.2 F 62.7% None observed air register and drywall adjacent to supply air register (3 ft2) blinds (6 ft2)

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 15

Moisture Damage and Misc.

Observations Fungal Growth Observations Photos doors (4 ft2 each)

213 77.3 F 54.2% None observed None observed

214 - - None observed

215 80.2 F 56.2% None observed

216 79.5 F 51.6 % None observed None observed

217 76.1 F 54.2% None observed None observed

218 78.8 F 50.1% None observed None observed

219 77.7 F 52.3% None observed None observed

220 76.4 F 61.3%

Dirt/debris on return air register

Suspect fungal growth on drywall walls and ceiling by supply air register (3 ft2) blinds (4 ft2)

Building 644

101 75.7 F 68.9% None observed

102 74.1 F 64.1% None observed

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 16

Moisture Damage and Misc.

Observations Fungal Growth Observations Photos bedframe (1 ft2) doors (6 ft2 each) bathroom door (6 ft2)

103 78.9 F 73.2% None observed

104 79.7 F 59.5% None observed

105 75.2 F 68.9% Historical water damage on drywall adjacent to window dresser (8 ft2)

106 75.5 F 70.9% None observed headboard (2 ft2)

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 17

Moisture Damage and Misc.

Observations Fungal Growth Observations Photos nightstand (3 ft2)

107 75.7 F 52.5% None observed

108 73.9 F 62.2% None observed

109 89.4 F 41.4% Historical water damage on drywall adjacent to window None observed

110 - - (Not assessed. Occupant in quarantine)

(Not assessed. Occupant in quarantine)

111 - - (Not assessed. Occupant in quarantine)

(Not assessed. Occupant in quarantine)

112 - - (Previously assessed on

5/20/20)

(Previously assessed on

5/20/20)

113 78.0 F 64.3% Towel placed on window sill by occupant to collect water intrusion None observed

114 78.9 F 60.9% None observed legs (1 ft2)

115 77.7 F 57.3% None observed None observed -

(Not assessed. Occupant in quarantine)

(Not assessed. Occupant in quarantine)

117 72.3 F 67.2 % None observed

(8 ft2)

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 18

Moisture Damage and Misc.

Observations Fungal Growth Observations Photos

118 82.5 F 61.6% None observed

119 82.0 F 57.9% Delaminating paint on ceiling by supply air register blinds (2 ft2) bathroom tile grout (3 linear feet)

Suspect fungal growth on recliner

120 - -

5/20/20)

(Previously assessed on

5/20/20)

201 - - (Previously assessed on

5/20/20)

(Previously assessed on

5/20/20)

202 77.0 F 60.1% None observed

203 - -

5/20/20)

(Previously assessed on

5/20/20)

204 79.5 F 70.7% None observed

205 74.4 F 57.8% Wood window sill removed None observed

206 78.8 F 60.6% None observed None observed

207 77.3 F 56.0%

Walls and ceiling drywall removed and replaced adjacent to the window

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 19

Moisture Damage and Misc.

Observations Fungal Growth Observations Photos

Delaminating vinyl cove base at corner adjacent to window

Delaminating paint on closet wall

208 73.4 F 88.3 %

Water pooling on cabinet base under kitchen sink (4 ft2)

Suspect fungal growth on kitchen sink cabinet base (2 ft2)

209 78.2 F 70.9% None observed cabinet (8 ft2) doors (4 ft2 each)

210 79.8 F 56.9% None observed air register (1 ft2)

211 79.5 F 57.0% None observed None observed

212 - - (Previously assessed on

5/20/20)

(Previously assessed on

5/20/20)

213 77.3 F 68.6% None observed None observed

214 77.7 F 53.8% None observed

215 77.0 F 69.8% None observed

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 20

Moisture Damage and Misc.

Observations Fungal Growth Observations Photos

Suspect fungal growth on small dresser (4 ft2)

216 80.2 F 55.1% None observed

217 75.5 F 56.8 % None observed

218 77.5 F 61.5% None observed Suspect fungal growth on recliner

219 79.1 F 73.0% None observed

Suspect fungal growth closet

Suspect fungal growth recliner

220 82.2 F 54.3% None observed

(8 ft2)

Building 645

101 71.0 F 75.6% Dust/debris on return air register

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 21

Moisture Damage and Misc.

Observations Fungal Growth Observations Photos

102 - - None observed

Suspect fungal growth on return

103 73.4 F 71.6% Dust/debris on return air register

104 - - None observed

Suspect fungal growth on return frame (0.5 ft2) bathroom door(3 ft2)

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 22

Moisture Damage and Misc.

Observations Fungal Growth Observations Photos

105 - - Dust/debris on return air register

106 - - Dust/debris on return air register

107 78.6 F 50.7% None observed

108 - - None observed

109 - - None observed

110 - - Historical moisture damage on drywall adjacent to window None observed

111 - - (Previously assessed on

5/20/20)

(Previously assessed on

5/20/20)

112 77.1 F 56.4% Window slightly open

113 - - (Not assessed. Occupant in quarantine)

(Not assessed. Occupant in quarantine)

114 75.2 F 72.6% Window slightly open cabinet (6 ft2)

115 - - None observed

116 71.0 F 66.6% None observed

117 - - None observed

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 23

Moisture Damage and Misc.

Observations Fungal Growth Observations Photos

118 - - (Previously assessed on

5/20/20)

(Previously assessed on

5/20/20)

119 76.8 F 60.6% None observed None observed

120 80.9 F 61.3% None observed None observed

201 - -

Historical moisture intrusion at window sill

Dust/debris on return air register

202 - -

5/20/20)

(Previously assessed on

5/20/20)

203 - - (Previously assessed on

5/20/20)

(Previously assessed on

5/20/20)

204 73.9 F 65.3%

Removed paint and drywall around supply air register

205 - - Dust/debris on return air register

206 73.7 F 59.3% Historical moisture intrusion at window sill blinds (5 ft2)

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 24

Moisture Damage and Misc.

Observations Fungal Growth Observations Photos

207 - - None observed

208 79.1 F 66.8% Staining on sink cabinet base

209 80.4 F 69.9% None observed None observed

210 - - (Previously assessed on

5/20/20)

(Previously assessed on

5/20/20)

211 - - (Previously assessed on

5/20/20)

(Previously assessed on

5/20/20)

212 - - (Previously assessed on

5/20/20)

(Previously assessed on

5/20/20)

213 - - (Not assessed. Occupant in quarantine)

(Not assessed. Occupant in quarantine)

214 - - None observed

215 75.7 F 71.5% None observed None observed

216 - - Dust/debris on return air register

217 - -

5/20/20)

(Previously assessed on

5/20/20)

218 - - None observed headboard (3 ft2)

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 25

Moisture Damage and Misc.

Observations Fungal Growth Observations Photos

219 72.5 F 59.0% Dirt/debris on bathroom floor stand (2 ft2)

220 78.0 F 62.0% None observed ft2= Square Foot

BOLD = Outside recommended range

5.0 SUMMARY

Terracon Consultants, Inc. (Terracon) conducted a limited microbial assessment in 162 housing units at Vance Air Force Base – Buildings 641, 642, 643, 644 and 645 located in Enid, Oklahoma.

At the time of the evaluation, temperature and relative humidity were generally outside of currently recommended ranges. Relative humidity exceeded 60% in 67 of the units evaluated. The representative building materials evaluated in the targeted areas exhibited normal moisture content during the site reconnaissance.

Moisture damage was observed in thirteen of the units evaluated. The source of the moisture damage appeared to be related to historical rainwater intrusion at windows or condensate formation on building materials. Fifteen of the units evaluated appeared to have windows that did not properly close.

Suspect fungal growth was observed in 112 of the units evaluated on July 2 and 3, 2020. The fungal growth was observed on furniture, doors, ceilings, walls and HVAC components. The majority of the fungal growth observed appeared to be related to condensate formation caused by elevated relative humidity events.

Destructive sampling or disassembly of mechanical components was not within the scope of work for the project. Terracon did not access areas underneath floor tiles, inside wall cavities or inside

AHU components. Fungal growth may be present in these areas, if moisture intrusion has occurred.

6.0 RECOMMENDATIONS

Based on the visual and analytical results of the limited mold assessment, Terracon recommends the following:

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 26

◼ The various sources of moisture intrusion should be identified and repaired.

◼ The various moisture damaged building materials should be replaced or repaired.

◼ The fungal growth observed on furniture and stored items should be cleaned by high efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filtered vacuum. Non-porous materials should be damp-wiped with a non-ionic detergent solution or household disinfectant.

◼ Fungal growth observed on drywall walls and ceilings may be cleaned by HEPA filtered vacuum and damp-wiping methods as previously described where feasible. Alternatively, the affected drywall may be removed and replaced.

◼ Workers with experience using industry-standard techniques should perform the required cleaning and restoration work. The goal is to remove the moisture impacted and microbial-contaminated materials in a way that minimizes the emission of microbes and dust or aerosols contaminated with microbes. A HEPA filtered air scrubber should be operated in the work area during removal of the building materials. Individuals conducting the cleaning and restoration work should have adequate personal protective equipment.

◼ Prior to any remediation activities that could disturb or damage building materials, building materials that are suspect as asbestos containing must be surveyed in accordance with local, state and federal regulations.

◼ The building envelopes should be evaluated by a building envelope professional to determine the sources of moisture intrusion and provide recommendations for repairs.

Terracon’s building envelope professionals could assist with this investigation.

◼ A mechanical engineer should evaluate the HVAC systems to determine if they are sized and operating correctly to control indoor relative humidity and temperature to mitigate condensate formation and subsequent microbial growth. Terracon’s mechanical engineers could assist with this investigation.

APPENDIX A

PHOTOGRAPHS

Vance Air Force Base – 162 Housing Units ■ Enid, Oklahoma Date Pictures Taken: July 2 and 3, 2020 ■ Terracon Project No. 03197270

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable

Photo 1: Building 641, Unit 103. Suspect fungal growth on tall cabinet.

Photo 2: Building 641, Unit 105. Staining on sink cabinet base.

Photo 3: Building 641, Unit 105. Suspect fungal growth on desk.

Photo 4: Building 641, Unit 108. Suspect fungal

Photo 5: Building 641, Unit 111. Suspect fungal growth on small dresser.

Photo 6: 5: Building 641, Unit 119. Suspect fungal

Photo 7: Building 641, unit 120. Suspect fungal

Photo 8: Building 641, unit 201. Suspect fungal

Photo 9: Building 641, unit 201. Window slightly open.

Photo 10: Building 641, unit 202. Suspect fungal growth on closet doors.

Photo 11: Building 641, Unit 205. Suspect fungal

Photo 12: Building 641, Unit 211. Suspect fungal

Photo 13: Building 641, Unit 214. Suspect fungal

Photo 14: Building 641, Unit 215. Suspect fungal

Photo 15: Building 641, Unit 220. Supply air register obstructed with filter.

Photo 16: Building 641, Unit 220. Window slightly

Photo 17: Building 642, Unit 101. Suspect fungal growth on bed headboard.

Photo 18: Building 642, Unit 102. Suspect fungal

Photo 19: Building 642, Unit 104. Suspect fungal growth on closet door.

Photo 20: Building 642, Unit 106. Suspect fungal growth on bathroom door.

Photo 21: Building 642, Unit 109. Suspect fungal

Photo 22: Building 642, Unit 110. Suspect fungal

Photo 23: Building 642, Unit 112. Suspect fungal growth on bedframe.

Photo 24: Building 642, Unit 112. Suspect fungal

Photo 25: Building 642, Unit 114. Suspect fungal

Photo 26: Building 642, Unit 114. Suspect fungal

Photo 27: Building 642, Unit 117. Dust/debris on return air register.

Photo 28: Building 642, Unit 119. Suspect fungal

Photo 29: Building 642, Unit 119. Suspect fungal

Photo 30: Building 642, Unit 203. Suspect fungal growth on nightstand.

Photo 31: Building 642, Unit 207. Suspect fungal

Photo 32: Building 642, Unit 209. Suspect fungal

Photo 33: Building 642, Unit 210. Suspect fungal growth on bar chair.

Photo 34: Building 642, Unit 210. Suspect fungal

Photo 35: Building 642, Unit 215. Suspect fungal

Photo 36: Building 642, Unit 216. Suspect fungal

Photo 37: Building 242, Unit 219. Suspect fungal

Photo 38: Building 243, Unit 101. Dust/debris on

Photo 39: Building 243, Unit 101. Window slightly

Photo 40: Building 243, Unit 101. Suspect fungal

Photo 41: Building 243, Unit 105. Suspect fungal

Photo 42: Building 243, Unit 106. Suspect fungal

Photo 43: Building 643, Unit 109. Suspect fungal

Photo 44: Building 643, Unit 112. Suspect fungal

Photo 45: Building 643, Unit 115. Suspect fungal

Photo 46: Building 643, Unit 117. Suspect fungal

Photo 47: Building 643, Unit 119. Suspect fungal

Photo 48: Building 643, Unit 120. Window slightly

Photo 49: Building 643, Unit 120. Suspect fungal growth on ceiling above shower.

Photo 50: Building 643, Unit 206. Suspect fungal

Photo 51: Building 643, Unit 210. Suspect fungal growth on supply air register.

Photo 52: Building 643, Unit 211. Suspect fungal

Photo 53: Building 643, Unit 212. Suspect fungal growth on supply air register and adjacent drywall.

Photo 54: Building 643, Unit 212. Suspect fungal

Photo 55: Building 643, Unit 212. Suspect fungal

Photo 56: Building 643, Unit 212. Suspect fungal growth on window blinds.

Photo 57: Building 643, Unit 215. Suspect fungal

Photo 58: Building 643, Unit 220. Dust/debris on

Photo 59: Building 643, Unit 220. Suspect fungal

Photo 60: Building 643, Unit 220. Suspect fungal growth on drywall adjacent to supply air register.

Photo 61: Building 644, Unit 102. Suspect fungal

Photo 62: Building 644, Unit 102. Suspect fungal

Photo 63: Building 644, Unit 105. Suspect fungal

Photo 64: Building 644, Unit 106. Suspect fungal

Photo 65: Building 644, Unit 106. Suspect fungal

Photo 66: Building 644, Unit 106. Fungal growth on bed headboard.

Photo 67: Building 644, Unit 108. Suspect fungal

Photo 68: Building 644, Unit 109. Historical moisture damage on drywall adjacent to window.

Photo 69: Building 644, Unit 114. Suspect fungal growth on desk legs.

Photo 70: Building 644, Unit 117. Suspect fungal growth on desk

Photo 71: Building 644, Unit 117. Suspect fungal

Photo 72: Building 644, Unit 119. Suspect fungal growth on recliner.

Photo 73: Building 644, Unit 119. Suspect fungal

Photo 74: Building 644, Unit 119. Delaminating paint on ceiling by supply air register.

Photo 75: Building 644, Unit 119. Suspect fungal

Photo 76: Building 644, Unit 119. Suspect fungal growth on bathroom tile grout.

Photo 77: Building 644, Unit 202. Suspect fungal

Photo 78: Building 644, Unit 207. Delaminating covebase by window.

Photo 79: Building 644, Unit 207. Wall and ceiling drywall replaced adjacent to window.

Photo 80: Building 644, Unit 207. Delaminating paint on closet wall.

Photo 81: Building 644, Unit 208. Water pooling and suspect fungal growth on sink cabinet base.

Photo 82: Building 644, Unit 209. Suspect fungal

Photo 83: Building 644, Unit 209. Suspect fungal

Photo 84: Building 644, Unit 214. Suspect fungal

Photo 85: Building 644, Unit 215. Suspect fungal

Photo 86: Building 644, Unit 217. Suspect fungal

Photo 87: Building 644, Unit 219. Suspect fungal

Photo 88: Building 644, Unit 219. Suspect fungal growth on recliner.

Photo 89: Building 644, Unit 219. Suspect fungal

Photo 90: Building 644, Unit 219. Suspect fungal

Photo 91: Building 644, Unit 220. Suspect fungal

Photo 92: Building 644, Unit 220. Suspect fungal

Photo 93: Building 645, Unit 101. Suspect fungal

Photo 94: Building 645, Unit 103. Suspect fungal

Photo 95: Building 645, Unit 104. Suspect fungal

Photo 96: Building 645, Unit 107. Suspect fungal

Photo 97: Building 645, Unit 112. Window slightly

Photo 98: Building 645, Unit 112. Suspect fungal

Photo 99: Building 645, Unit 114. Suspect fungal

Photo 100: Building 645, Unit 117. Suspect fungal

Photo 101: Building 645, Unit 201. Suspect fungal

Photo 102: Building 645, Unit 204. Drywall paper/paint removed around supply air register.

Photo 103: Building 645, Unit 206. Suspect fungal

Photo 104: Building 645, Unit 208. Suspect fungal

Photo 105: Building 645, Unit 218. Suspect fungal

Photo 106: Building 645, Unit 218. Suspect fungal growth on mirror frame.

Photo 107: Building 645, Unit 219. Suspect fungal

Photo 108: Building 645, Unit 220. Suspect fungal