Microbial Assessment Report 29 Units 20200608.pdf

Limited Microbial Assessment

Report

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

29 Units

Enid, Oklahoma

June 8, 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

29 Units

Enid, Oklahoma

Dear Mr. Bray:

The purpose of this report is to present the results of the limited microbial assessment performed on May 20, 2020, in 29 vacant 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: Analytical Results

APPENDIX B: Photographs

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 1

LIMITED MICROBIAL ASSESSMENT REPORT

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

29 Units

Enid, Oklahoma

1.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

Terracon Consultants, Inc. (Terracon) conducted a limited microbial assessment in 29 vacant 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 assessment on May

20, 2020. The microbial assessment was limited to readily observable and accessible surfaces within client-identified vacant 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. Surface samples were also collected.

1.2 Standard of Care

The evaluation was conducted at the subject buildings on May 20, 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 May 20, 2020, assessment. 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 in the proposal, this report, and Terracon’s Agreement for Services. The limitation of liability defined

Buildings 641, 642, 643, 644 and 645 ■ Vance Air Force Base June 8, 2020 ■ Terracon Project No. 03197270

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 2 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 29 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 fourteen of the units evaluated. The source of the moisture damage appeared to be related to historical rainwater intrusion at windows, roof leaks, or condensate formation on building materials. Eleven of the units evaluated appeared to have windows that did not properly close.

Suspect fungal growth was observed in twenty-eight of the units evaluated. The fungal growth was observed on furniture, stored personal items, floors, walls, ceilings and doors. The majority of the fungal growth observed appeared to be related to condensate formation caused by elevated relative humidity events.

In Building 645 Unit 217, a significant amount of fungal growth was observed on the backing of drywall walls and ceilings, which had been partially deconstructed. The source of the fungal growth was not determined at the time of the assessment; however, historical rainwater intrusion through the roof or exterior wall may have occurred.

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.

Eleven tape lift samples were collected from representative surfaces, including a closet door, a headboard, vinyl flooring, ceiling drywall, a tall cabinet, window blinds, a recliner, a bathroom door, a mirror frame, a pair of stored coveralls, and the backside of an opened wall cavity. Laboratory analysis identified fungal growth from each of the referenced sample locations (Appendix A).

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 each unit. The temperature and relative humidity were within the referenced ASHRAE recommended range at the time of the evaluation. Relative humidity was below 60 % in the areas evaluated.

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 5

The thermal comfort results are presented in Table 1.0.

TABLE 1.0, MOLD ASSESSMENT RESULTS TABLE

Unit TEMP RH Moisture Damage and Misc.

Observations Fungal Growth Observations Photos

Outdoors

A.M.

76.4 F 42.3% - - -

Outdoors

P.M.

81.0 F 42.5% - - -

Building 641

101 71.0 F 53.2%

Historical moisture damage on wall and ceiling by window

Dirt/debris on windowsill

Dirt/debris on return air register

Minor amounts of debris on floor

Peeling cove base under kitchen sink

Suspect fungal growth on closet doors (2 ft2 each) 1,2

104 74.6 F 48.3%

Minor debris on kitchen floor

Suspect fungal growth on closet doors (2 ft2 each)

Suspect fungal growth on bathroom door (4 ft2)

3,4

107 71.7 F 52.0%

Window slightly open

Suspect fungal growth on recliner

(<1 ft2) bathroom door (2 ft2)

5, 6

109 74.8 F 47.4%

Dirt/debris on floor

Suspect fungal growth on small dresser (2 ft2)

7, 8

110 79.1 F 40.7% vinyl edges of kitchen cabinet doors (3 ft2)

9,10

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 6

Moisture Damage and Misc.

Observations Fungal Growth Observations Photos

Dirt/debris on return air register Fungal growth on mirror frame

(1 ft2, sample 09) tall cabinet (4 ft2) doors (4 ft2 each)

114 71.6 F 53.0%

Dirt debris on return air register bar chairs (2 ft2 each) night stand (4 ft2) tall cabinet (10 ft2) closet doors (6 ft2 each) bathroom door (12 ft2)

11, 12

116 73.0 F 50.5%

Dirt/debris on windowsill and blinds closet doors (6 ft2 each) tall cabinet (1 ft2)

Fungal growth on bathroom door

(10 ft2, sample 08)

13, 14

117 73.4 F 51.0% closet doors (4 ft2 each) tall cabinet (2 ft2)

15, 16

206 73.2 F 52.8%

17-20

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 7

Moisture Damage and Misc.

Observations Fungal Growth Observations Photos

Historical water damage to wall base under windowsill desk (4 ft2)

Suspect fungal growth on desk lamp chord (<1 ft2) small dresser (4 ft2) closet doors (2 ft2 each)

210 75.7 F 50.4%

Historical water damage on drywall by the window

21, 22

216 73.4 F 47.8% headboard (10 ft2) bed frame (3 ft2)

Suspect fungal growth on recliner

(<1 ft2) small dresser (6 ft2) closet doors (5 ft2) disassembled drawer (2 ft2)

23, 24

Building 642

108 72.6 F 49.4% Dirt/debris on windowsill

Suspect fungal growth on return and supply air registers (2 ft2 each) ceiling by supply air register (10 ft2)

25, 26

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 8

Moisture Damage and Misc.

Observations Fungal Growth Observations Photos bar chairs (1 ft2 each)

201 74.1 F 48.0%

Historical moisture damage and dirt/debris on window sill drywall adjacent to window exterior wall drywall by bed supply air register (2 ft2) register (15 ft2)

27-30

211 74.1 F 49.0% supply air register (1 ft2)

Fungal growth on recliner

(1 ft2, sample 07) nightstand (2 ft2) headboard (2 ft2) bed frame (2 ft2)

31-36

Building 643

116 73.5 F 47.9% Dirt/debris on windowsill Suspect fungal growth on 37, 38

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 9

Moisture Damage and Misc.

Observations Fungal Growth Observations Photos

Fungal growth on tall cabinet (2 ft2, sample 05)

201 71.7 F 17.1 %

Dirt/debris and historical moisture damage on window sill

Minor historical moisture damage on wall adjacent to window will

Fungal growth on window blinds (4 ft2, sample 06)

39-42

Building 644

112 70.5 F 50.7% ceiling by window

Suspect fungal growth on ceiling by supply air register (2 ft2)

43, 44

120 72.3 F 48.3 %

Fungal growth on ceiling by supply air register

(20 ft2, sample 04)

45, 46

201 75.2 F 45.7%

West and north exterior wall drywall removed

Drywall dust and insulation on floor desk (2 ft2) small dresser (1 ft2)

47. 48

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 10

Moisture Damage and Misc.

Observations Fungal Growth Observations Photos

203 73.5 F 47.6%

Dust/debris on windowsill

Minor historical water damage on drywall by window

Suspect fungal growth on closet wall base common with the bathtub (2 ft2)

49, 50

212 72.6 F 48.0%

Minor historical water damage on drywall under windowsill

Minor water damage on wall by supply air register

None observed 51, 52

Building 645

111 75.2 F 45.7% wall by window (6 ft2) supply air register (<1 ft2) mirror frame (<1 ft2) tall cabinet (3 ft2) bar chairs (1 ft2 each)

53-56

118 73.4 F 49.5 % register (8 ft2) closet doors (1 ft2 each)

57, 58

202 70.1 F 52.2 % Historical water damage on drywall adjacent to window mattress (3 ft2) bar chairs (4 ft2, each) desk chair (<1 ft2)

59-68

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 11

Moisture Damage and Misc.

Observations desk (4 ft2) window blinds (8 ft2) headboard (2 ft2) night stand (2 ft2) tall cabinet (6 ft2)

Fungal growth on closet doors (8 ft2 each, sample 01) bathroom door (8 ft2)

Fungal growth on vinyl flooring, at seams in discreet locations

(4 ft2 total, sample 02)

203 72.1 F 50.0% Historical water damage on drywall adjacent to window register (20 ft2) wall behind desk (<1 ft2) desk (1 ft2) nightstand (1 ft2)

69, 70

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 12

Moisture Damage and Misc.

Observations window blinds (5 ft2) recliner (1 ft2) bathroom upper wall (1 ft2)

210 71.2 F 51.0% register (20 ft2) desk (1 ft2) nightstand (1 ft2) closet doors (8 ft2 each)

71-74

211 70.7 F 54.2%

Dirt/debris and historical water damage on window sill supply air register (<1 ft2) window blinds (2 ft2) mirror frame (2 ft2) desk (3 ft2) nightstand (2 ft2)

75-78

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 13

Moisture Damage and Misc.

Observations Fungal Growth Observations Photos

212 71.2 F 53.3 % register (10 ft2) small dresser (2 ft2)

Fungal growth on headboard

(3 ft2, sample 03) bed frame (<1 ft2) mirror frame (2 ft2)

79-82

217 76.6 F 50.2%

East, north and west wall drywall partially removed

Ceiling drywall at northwest and northeast corner partially removed

Drywall dust and debris on surfaces throughout

Historical water damage/rust on exposed north wall studs

Historical water stains east wall

Drywall behind insulation

Debris and rust on trashcans and tall lamp base

Fungal growth on west wall drywall backing

(30 ft2, sample 11)

Fungal growth on north wall drywall backing (10 ft2)

Fungal growth on northeast ceiling drywall backing (8 ft2)

Fungal growth on green coveralls on closet upper shelf

(<1 ft, sample 10) small dresser (3 ft2) bed frame (2 ft2)

83-96 ft2= Square Foot

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 14

5.0 SUMMARY

Terracon Consultants, Inc. (Terracon) conducted a limited microbial assessment in 29 vacant housing units at Vance Air Force Base – Buildings 641, 642, 643, 644 and 645 located in Enid, Texas. At the time of the evaluation, temperature and relative humidity were within currently recommended ranges. The representative building materials evaluated in the targeted areas exhibited normal moisture content during the site reconnaissance.

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

Suspect fungal growth was observed in twenty-eight of the units evaluated. The fungal growth was observed on furniture, stored personal items, floors, walls, ceilings and doors. The majority of the fungal growth observed appeared to be related to condensate formation on stored items and building materials caused by elevated relative humidity events.

In Building 645 Unit 217, a significant amount of fungal growth was observed on the backing of drywall walls and ceilings, which had been partially deconstructed. The source of the fungal was not determined at the time of the assessment; however, historical rainwater intrusion through the roof or exterior wall may have occurred.

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:

◼ 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 where feasible. Alternatively, the affected drywall may be removed and replaced.

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 15

◼ 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

ANALYTICAL REPORT

Report

PROJECT INFORMATION

Vance Air Force Base - Microbial Evaluation 140 Channel Street Enid, Oklahoma 73705

Test Code 3: Direct Exam -fungal limited Consulting Engineers & Scientists 2501 East Loop 820 NorthAnalysis Method: Internal SOP M-3

This test report contains the following sections: Report and Chain of Custody.

Building 645, Unit 202 - Closet DoorBuilding 645, Unit 202 - Closet DoorBuilding 645, Unit 202 - Closet DoorBuilding 645, Unit 202 - Closet Door 01Sample No:

Location:

Identification Rating

Analysis Date: 5/29/2020 Sample Type: Tape /Bio-tape

HeavyAspergillus/Penicillium-like

Hyphal Fragments Minor

Building 645, Unit 202 - Vinyl FlooringBuilding 645, Unit 202 - Vinyl FlooringBuilding 645, Unit 202 - Vinyl FlooringBuilding 645, Unit 202 - Vinyl Flooring 02Sample No:

Location:

Identification Rating

Analysis Date: 5/29/2020 Sample Type: Tape /Bio-tape

Alternaria Minor

Ascospores, non-specified Minor

Aspergillus/Penicillium-like Minor

Bipolaris/Dreschslera/Helminthosporium/ Exserohilum

Minor

HeavyCladosporium

Epicoccum Minor

Non-specified spore Minor

Hyphal Fragments Moderate

Building 645, Unit 212 - Bed HeadboardBuilding 645, Unit 212 - Bed HeadboardBuilding 645, Unit 212 - Bed HeadboardBuilding 645, Unit 212 - Bed Headboard 03Sample No:

Location:

Identification Rating

Analysis Date: 5/29/2020 Sample Type: Tape /Bio-tape

HeavyAspergillus/Penicillium-like

Basidiospores, non-specified Minor

Cladosporium Moderate

Nigrospora Minor

Hyphal Fragments Moderate

Submitted By: Robert Garrison | via: Billable Stamp (FedEx) | Submittal Date: 5/28/2020 10:00:00 AM | Sample Date: 5/20/2020 | Analysis Date: 5/29/2020 | Report Date: 5/29/2020 | Lab Job No.: 20-3848 | Technician: Dana Alvarado

Tech Notes: Page 1 | 4

This test report contains the following sections: Report and Chain of Custody.

Building 644, Unit 120 - Ceiling by SA VentBuilding 644, Unit 120 - Ceiling by SA VentBuilding 644, Unit 120 - Ceiling by SA VentBuilding 644, Unit 120 - Ceiling by SA Vent 04Sample No:

Location:

Identification Rating

Analysis Date: 5/29/2020 Sample Type: Tape /Bio-tape

Aspergillus/Penicillium-like Minor

HeavyCladosporium

Hyphal Fragments Moderate

Building 643, Unit 116 - Tall CabinetBuilding 643, Unit 116 - Tall CabinetBuilding 643, Unit 116 - Tall CabinetBuilding 643, Unit 116 - Tall Cabinet 05Sample No:

Location:

Identification Rating

Analysis Date: 5/29/2020 Sample Type: Tape /Bio-tape

Alternaria Minor

HeavyAspergillus/Penicillium-like

Cladosporium Minor

Hyphal Fragments Moderate

Building 643, Unit 201 - Window blindsBuilding 643, Unit 201 - Window blindsBuilding 643, Unit 201 - Window blindsBuilding 643, Unit 201 - Window blinds 06Sample No:

Location:

Identification Rating

Analysis Date: 5/29/2020 Sample Type: Tape /Bio-tape

Alternaria Minor

Aspergillus/Penicillium-like Minor

Basidiospores, non-specified Minor

Bipolaris/Dreschslera/Helminthosporium/ Exserohilum

Minor

HeavyCladosporium

Epicoccum Minor

Pithomyces Minor

Spegazzinia Minor

Hyphal Fragments Moderate

Submitted By: Robert Garrison | via: Billable Stamp (FedEx) | Submittal Date: 5/28/2020 10:00:00 AM | Sample Date: 5/20/2020 | Analysis Date: 5/29/2020 | Report Date: 5/29/2020 | Lab Job No.: 20-3848 |

Tech Notes: Page 2 | 4

Building 642, Unit 211 - ReclinerBuilding 642, Unit 211 - ReclinerBuilding 642, Unit 211 - ReclinerBuilding 642, Unit 211 - Recliner 07Sample No:

Location:

Identification Rating

Analysis Date: 5/29/2020 Sample Type: Tape /Bio-tape

Alternaria Minor

Ascospores, non-specified Minor

Aspergillus/Penicillium-like Moderate

Bipolaris/Dreschslera/Helminthosporium/ Exserohilum

Minor

Cladosporium Moderate

Hyphal Fragments Moderate

Building 641, Unit 116 - Bathroom DoorBuilding 641, Unit 116 - Bathroom DoorBuilding 641, Unit 116 - Bathroom DoorBuilding 641, Unit 116 - Bathroom Door 08Sample No:

Location:

Identification Rating

Analysis Date: 5/29/2020 Sample Type: Tape /Bio-tape

HeavyAspergillus/Penicillium-like

Cladosporium Minor

Hyphal Fragments Moderate

Building 641, Unit 110 - Mirror FrameBuilding 641, Unit 110 - Mirror FrameBuilding 641, Unit 110 - Mirror FrameBuilding 641, Unit 110 - Mirror Frame 09Sample No:

Location:

Identification Rating

Analysis Date: 5/29/2020 Sample Type: Tape /Bio-tape

Alternaria Minor

Aspergillus/Penicillium-like Moderate

Basidiospores, non-specified Minor

HeavyCladosporium

Hyphal Fragments Moderate

Building 645, Unit 217 - Green Coveralls on Closet ShelfBuilding 645, Unit 217 - Green Coveralls on Closet ShelfBuilding 645, Unit 217 - Green Coveralls on Closet ShelfBuilding 645, Unit 217 - Green Coveralls on Closet Shelf 10Sample No:

Location:

Identification Rating

Analysis Date: 5/29/2020 Sample Type: Tape /Bio-tape

Alternaria Minor

Ascospores, non-specified Minor

Aspergillus/Penicillium-like Moderate

Hyphal Fragments Minor

Submitted By: Robert Garrison | via: Billable Stamp (FedEx) | Submittal Date: 5/28/2020 10:00:00 AM | Sample Date: 5/20/2020 | Analysis Date: 5/29/2020 | Report Date: 5/29/2020 | Lab Job No.: 20-3848 |

Tech Notes: Page 3 | 4

Building 645, Unit 217 - West Wall, Drywall Backing Behind Insulation

Building 645, Unit 217 - West Wall, Drywall Backing Behind Insulation

Building 645, Unit 217 - West Wall, Drywall Backing Behind Insulation

Building 645, Unit 217 - West Wall, Drywall Backing Behind Insulation

11Sample No:

Location:

Identification Rating

Analysis Date: 5/29/2020 Sample Type: Tape /Bio-tape

HeavyDicyma

HeavyHyphal Fragments

Submitted By: Robert Garrison | via: Billable Stamp (FedEx) | Submittal Date: 5/28/2020 10:00:00 AM | Sample Date: 5/20/2020 | Analysis Date: 5/29/2020 | Report Date: 5/29/2020 | Lab Job No.: 20-3848 | Technician: Dana Alvarado

2501 Mayes Rd #110 Carrollton, Texas 75006

P - (972) 820-9373 Toll Free (866) 416-6653

Website - www.moldlab.com

Tech Notes:

Results apply only to samples tested. Results may not be reproduced except in full without written approval of Moldlab. All samples were received in acceptable condition unless noted in the Tech Notes section.

Moldlab assumes no responsibility for sample collection or handling prior to receipt at the laboratory. Field blank correction of results is not applied. Rating is based on the average Qualified Structures (QS) per Field of View (FV). A QS is the analyte of interest chosen by the client. No Mold Detected (0 QS), Minor (1 QS/FV or less), Moderate (>1 to 3 QS/FV), and Heavy (>3 QS/FV) ratings are used. QS observed from the samples submitted are listed on this report. If a QS is not listed, it was not observed in the samples submitted. This report does not express or imply interpretation of the results contained herein.

LAB0137 by the Texas Dept. of Licensing and RegulationAIHA-LAP, LLC EMLAP Accredited ID No. 154782Report Approved by Kristina Rucker

Page 4 | 4

Samples received and analy-zed by MoldLab, Ltd.

APPENDIX B

PHOTOGRAPHS

Vance Air Force Base – 29 Housing Units ■ Enid, Oklahoma Date Pictures Taken: May 20, 2020 ■ Terracon Project No. 03197270

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable

Photo 1: Building 641, Unit 101. Moisture damage on drywall walls and ceiling by window.

Photo 2: Building 641, Unit 101. Suspect fungal growth on closet door.

Photo 3: Building 641, Unit 104. Dirt/debris on window sill.

Photo 4: Building 641, Unit 104. Suspect fungal growth on bathroom door.

Photo 5: Building 641, Unit 107. Window slightly open.

Photo 6: 5: Building 641, Unit 107. Suspect fungal

Photo 7: Building 641, unit 109. Suspect fungal growth on small dresser.

Photo 8: Building 641, unit 109. Suspect fungal

Photo 9: Building 641, unit 110. Window slightly

Photo 10: Building 641, unit 110. Suspect fungal growth on kitchen cabinet doors.

Photo 11: Building 641, Unit 114. Suspect fungal growth on bar chair.

Photo 12: Building 641, Unit 114. Suspect fungal growth on tall cabinet.

Photo 13: Building 641, Unit 116. Window slightly

Photo 14: Building 641, Unit 116. Suspect fungal

Photo 15: Building 641, Unit 117. Suspect fungal

Photo 16: Building 641, Unit 117. Suspect fungal

Photo 17: Building 641, Unit 206. Window slightly

Photo 18: Building 641, Unit 206. Suspect fungal growth on desk lamp cord.

Photo 19: Building 641, Unit 206. Suspect fungal

Photo 20: Building 641, Unit 206. Suspect fungal

Photo 21: Building 641, Unit 210. Suspect fungal

Photo 22: Building 641, Unit 210. Water damage on wall adjacent to window sill.

Photo 23: Building 641, Unit 216. Window slightly

Photo 24: Building 641, Unit 216. Suspect fungal growth on bed headboard.

Photo 25: Building 642, Unit 108. Suspect fungal growth on ceiling by supply air register.

Photo 26: Building 642, Unit 108. Suspect fungal

Photo 27: Building 642, Unit 201. Water damage on drywall adjacent to window.

Photo 28: Building 642, Unit 201. Suspect fungal growth on supply air register and adjacent ceiling.

Photo 29: Building 642, Unit 201. Suspect fungal

Photo 30: Building 642, Unit 201. Suspect fungal

Photo 31: Building 642, Unit 211. Window slightly

Photo 32: Building 642, Unit 211. Suspect fungal growth on recliner.

Photo 33: Building 642, Unit 211. Suspect fungal growth on nightstand.

Photo 34: Building 642, Unit 211. Suspect fungal growth on bed frame.

Photo 35: Building 642, Unit 211. Suspect fungal

Photo 36: Building 642, Unit 211. Suspect fungal

Photo 37: Building 243, Unit 116. Suspect fungal

Photo 38: Building 243, Unit 116. Suspect fungal

Photo 39: Building 243, Unit 201. Suspect fungal growth on window blinds.

Photo 40: Building 243, Unit 201. Suspect fungal

Photo 41: Building 243, Unit 201. Suspect fungal

Photo 42: Building 243, Unit 201. Suspect fungal growth on bathroom door.

Photo 43: Building 644, Unit 112. Suspect fungal

Photo 44: Building 644, Unit 112. Suspect fungal

Photo 45: Building 644, Unit 120. Fungal growth on ceiling.

Photo 46: Building 644, Unit 120. Suspect fungal

Photo 47: Building 644, Unit 201. Drywall walls partially removed.

Photo 48: Building 644, Unit 201. Suspect fungal growth on desk.

Photo 49: Building 644, Unit 203. Window slightly

Photo 50: Building 644, Unit 203. Suspect fungal growth on drywall in closet corner.

Photo 51: Building 644, Unit 212. Minor water damage on drywall adjacent to window.

Photo 52: Building 644, Unit 212. Minor water damage on upper wall by supply air register.

Photo 53: Building 645, Unit 111. Suspect fungal growth on wall.

Photo 54: Building 645, Unit 111. Suspect fungal growth on mirror casing.

Photo 55: Building 645, Unit 111. Suspect fungal

Photo 56: Building 645, Unit 111. Suspect fungal

Photo 57: Building 645, Unit 118. Suspect fungal

Photo 58: Building 645, Unit 118. Suspect fungal

Photo 59: Building 645, Unit 202. Suspect fungal growth on mattress.

Photo 60: Building 645, Unit 202. Suspect fungal

Photo 61: Building 645, Unit 202. Suspect fungal growth on desk.

Photo 62: Building 645, Unit 202. Suspect fungal growth on recliner.

Photo 63: Building 645, Unit 202. Suspect fungal growth on window blinds.

Photo 64: Building 645, Unit 202. Suspect fungal growth on headboard.

Photo 65: Building 645, Unit 202. Suspect fungal

Photo 66: Building 645, Unit 202. Fungal growth on closet door.

Photo 67: Building 645, Unit 202. Suspect fungal

Photo 68: Building 645, Unit 202. Fungal growth on vinyl floor tile.

Photo 69: Building 645, Unit 203. Suspect fungal

Photo 70: Building 645, Unit 203. Suspect fungal

Photo 71: Building 645, Unit 210. Water damage on drywall by window.

Photo 72: Building 645, Unit 210. Suspect fungal

Photo 73: Building 645, Unit 210. Suspect fungal

Photo 74: Building 645, Unit 210. Suspect fungal

Photo 75: Building 645, Unit 211. Window slightly

Photo 76: Building 645, Unit 211. Suspect fungal

Photo 77: Building 645, Unit 211. Suspect fungal

Photo 78: Building 645, Unit 211. Suspect fungal

Photo 79: Building 645, Unit 212. Suspect fungal growth on supply air register and adjacent ceiling

Photo 80: Building 645, Unit 212. Suspect fungal

Photo 81: Building 645, Unit 212. Suspect fungal growth on headboard.

Photo 82: Building 645, Unit 212. Suspect fungal

Photo 83: Building 645, Unit 217. Walls partially removed.

Photo 84: Building 645, Unit 217. Fungal growth behind north wall insulation, on drywall backing.

Photo 85: Building 645, Unit 217. Water stains behind east wall insulation, on drywall backing

Photo 86: Building 645, Unit 217. Water damage/rust on north wall metal studs.

Photo 87: Building 645, Unit 217. Fungal growth behind west wall insulation, on drywall backing

Photo 88: Building 645, Unit 217. Hole in ceiling at northeast corner.

Photo 89: Building 645, Unit 217. Fungal growth under insulation above northeast ceiling.

Photo 90: Building 645, Unit 217. Suspect fungal

Photo 91: Building 645, Unit 217. Clothes stored in closet. Green coveralls on upper shelf.

Photo 92: Building 645, Unit 217. Fungal growth on green coveralls.

Photo 93: Building 645, Unit 217. Suspect fungal

Photo 94: Building 645, Unit 217. Stored items in bathtub.

Photo 95: Building 645, Unit 217. Water damage/debris on lamp base.

Photo 96: Building 645, Unit 217. Suspect fungal