Asbestos & Lead-Based Paint Survey Report Fort Gordon Gate 1 AAFES Station Augusta, Georgia S&ME Project No

Transcription

1 Asbestos & Lead-Based Paint Survey Report Fort Gordon Gate 1 AAFES Station Augusta, Georgia S&ME Project No Prepared for: Marshall Waters Woody Associates 1736 E. Sunshine Street, #311 Springfield, Missouri Inspection Performed by: Owen Astwood, P.G. SCDHEC Lic. BI Inspection Date: October 23, 2015 Prepared by: S&ME, Inc. 134 Suber Road Columbia, SC November 10, 2015

2 November 10, 2015 Marshall Waters Woody Associates 1736 E. Sunshine Street, #311 Springfield, Missouri Attention: Reference: Mr. William Woody, AIA Asbestos and Lead-Based Paint Survey Report Gate 1 AAFES Station Fort Gordon Augusta, Georgia S&ME Project No Dear Mr. Woody: S&ME, Inc. (S&ME) is pleased to provide the enclosed report detailing our Asbestos and Lead-Based Paint Survey of the AAFES station building located at Gate 1 on Fort Gordon in Augusta, Georgia. Our services consisted of an asbestos survey and lead-based paint survey of the subject building. The work was performed in general accordance with S&ME Proposal No , dated July 8, The enclosed report includes the executive summary, project background, investigative procedures, findings and results, and conclusions and recommendations for the proper treatment of identified hazardous materials, if applicable. This report is provided for the use of the client. Use of this report by any other parties will be at such party's sole risk and S&ME, Inc. disclaims liability for any such use or reliance by third parties. The results presented in this report are indicative of conditions only during the time of the assessment and of the specific areas referenced. The information provided in this assessment report should not be used as a bidding document, and building conditions and asbestos quantities should be verified by contractors bidding on asbestos removal. We appreciate the opportunity to provide you with our industrial hygiene/environmental services. If you have any questions concerning this report, please call us at (803) Sincerely, S&ME, Inc. Owen Astwood, P.G. Asbestos Building Inspector (SCDHEC License No. BI-00475) Tom Behnke, P.G., CHMM Senior Reviewer (SCDHEC License No. MP-00004) S&ME, Inc. 134 Suber Road Columbia, SC p f

3 Asbestos and Lead-Based Paint Survey Report Gate 1 AAFES Station Augusta, Georgia S&ME Project No Table of Contents Executive Summary Introduction Asbestos Survey Purpose Site Description Investigative Procedures Assessment Findings and Results Lead-Based Paint Survey Investigative Procedures Findings and Results Conclusions and Recommendations Asbestos Conclusions Lead-Based Paint Conclusions Limitations... 6 Appendices Appendix I Summary of Asbestos Sampling Appendix II Photographs Appendix III Asbestos Bulk Sample Analysis Sheets and Chain of Custody Record Appendix IV XRF Lead-Based Paint Reading Summary Table Appendix V Copy of SDHEC Inspector s License November 10, 2015 i

4 Asbestos and Lead-Based Paint Survey Report Gate 1 AAFES Station Augusta, Georgia S&ME Project No Executive Summary An asbestos survey and lead-based paint assessment were conducted on October 23, 2015 of the AAFES station located at 100 Chamberlain Avenue on Fort Gordon in Augusta, Georgia. The building is a singlestory convenience store that was constructed in The building is approximately 4,100 square feet and consists of retail space, offices, storage/warehouse area and walk-in coolers. We understand that an addition is planned for the eastern side of the building. Asbestos The asbestos survey was performed in general accordance with the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) and the Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act (AHERA). The purpose of the asbestos survey is to identify the presence and quantity of asbestos-containing materials (ACMs) that may be disturbed by the planned renovations. The asbestos survey included the bulk sampling and analysis of suspect ACMs from the interior and exterior of the subject building. The suspect materials identified consist of: three styles of vinyl floor tiles, drywall, drywall joint compound, exterior caulking, stucco, acoustic ceiling tiles and vinyl baseboards. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Georgia Environmental Protection Division (GEPD) define materials as asbestos-containing if an asbestos content of greater than one percent (>1%) is detected in a representative sample. Asbestos in concentrations greater than one percent was not identified as a result of this assessment. A material with an asbestos content of one percent or less is not classified as an ACM applicable to EPA and GEPD; however, trace levels of asbestos (less than one percent) in a material is subject to Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) regulatory requirements, to include, but not limited to, worker protection, using wet methods, proper clean-up, use of proper tools/equipment, engineering controls, etc. This summary is for convenience only and should not be relied upon without first reading the full contents of this report, including appended materials. Lead-Based Paint Painted surfaces throughout the interior and exterior of the subject building were considered suspect and analyzed for lead content. The EPA considers a paint to be lead-based if it contains lead at a concentration of one milligram per square centimeter (1.0 mg/cm 2 ) or higher. Lead-based paint was not identified as a result of this assessment. November 10,

5 Asbestos and Lead-Based Paint Survey Report Gate 1 AAFES Station Augusta, Georgia S&ME Project No Introduction Marshall Waters Woody Associates retained S&ME to conduct an asbestos and lead-based paint survey of the AAFES store building located on Chamberlain Street on Fort Gordon in Augusta, Georgia. An ACM is defined by State and Federal regulations as a building material containing greater than one percent (>1%) of one of the six asbestos minerals regulated by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the OSHA. This asbestos and lead-based paint survey was performed in general accordance with S&ME proposal , dated July 8, Demolition and renovation activities in public and commercial buildings are regulated by OSHA, EPA and GEPD. The EPA and GEPD require asbestos assessments, conducted by licensed individuals, prior to renovation and/or demolition projects. Code 40 of Federal Regulations Part 61, Subpart M, Final Rule, National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) and SCDHEC Regulation require asbestos assessments, followed by the proper removal, and disposal of ACM that is affected by renovation or demolition. The identification of ACMs will aid in the prevention of occupational exposures and/or environmental releases of airborne asbestos. Identification of ACM is also required by OSHA The EPA, OSHA and GEPD define ACM as materials containing greater than one (1) percent asbestos in a representative sample. However, OSHA also regulates materials containing less than or equal to one percent asbestos. Asbestos Survey The purpose of the asbestos survey is to identify the presence and quantity of asbestos-containing materials (ACMs) that may be disturbed by the planned renovations. The identification of ACMs will aid in the prevention of occupational exposures and/or environmental releases of airborne asbestos. Identification of ACMs also complies with Title 40 Code of the Federal Regulations, part 61, and GEPD Regulations, along with Title 29 Code of Federal Regulations, part 1926 enforced by OSHA. Section 2.0 describes the assessment procedures used, results of the suspect ACMs sampled and analyzed, confirmed ACMs located in the structure, and conclusions and recommendations regarding the subject building as related to ACMs. Lead-based Paint Assessment The purpose of the lead-based paint survey was to identify any existing lead-based paint finishes associated with the structure which may be adversely affected by future renovation or demolition activities. The identification of these materials will aid in the compliance of occupational exposure (OSHA) and/or environmental releases of airborne lead dust in accordance with 29 CFR (Lead in Construction) and provide information to facilitate proper disposal of lead-based paint coated components and debris in accordance with the EPA. November 10,

6 Asbestos and Lead-Based Paint Survey Report Gate 1 AAFES Station Augusta, Georgia S&ME Project No Asbestos Survey 2.1 Purpose The purpose of this asbestos assessment was to identify the presence and quantity of asbestos-containing materials associated with the subject building that may be disturbed by the proposed demolition activities. The identification of ACMs will aid in the prevention of occupational exposures and/or environmental releases of airborne asbestos. Identification of ACMs also complies with Title 40 Code of the Federal Regulations, part 61, enforced by the GEPD, along with Title 29 Code of Federal Regulations, part 1926 enforced by OSHA. The assessment included the interior and exterior of the subject building, including roofing materials. An assessment strategy believed by S&ME to be appropriate for this purpose was presented in our proposal and is described in this report. The report should be interpreted only with regard to the specific locations and materials referenced. 2.2 Site Description The subject site is the AAFES store building located by Gate 1 on Fort Gordon in Augusta, Georgia. The building is a masonry and wood frame structure on a slab foundation. The building contains approximately 4,100 square feet of floor space and has a pitched metal roof. Interior finishes include vinyl floor tiles, limited painted drywall walls, and acoustic ceiling tiles. The structure was constructed in 1995 and was open and active at the time the surveys were performed. 2.3 Investigative Procedures The asbestos assessment was performed by observing and collecting random samples of suspect asbestos-containing materials located on the interior and exterior of the subject building. Significant destructive investigative techniques and sampling was not performed as part of this assessment. Consequently, the possibility exists that suspect materials were not detected in inaccessible areas such as pipe chases, wall voids or above the drywall fire ceiling. If additional suspect materials are discovered during future renovation or demolition activities, bulk samples should be collected and analyzed for asbestos content. Suspect surfacing materials that were identified in the building consisted of joint compound associated with the limited interior drywall wall systems and stucco located on the underside of the exterior porticos. No suspect Thermal System Insulation (TSI) or additional surfacing materials were observed in the building. Suspect flooring materials consisted of three styles of 12-inch vinyl floor tiles. Additional suspect ACMs that were observed and sampled include two colors of exterior caulking, drywall, acoustic ceiling tiles and vinyl baseboard and associated mastic. A sampling strategy was developed to provide representative samples of the observed suspect asbestoscontaining materials in accordance with OSHA, GEPD and EPA. Bulk samples were then extracted from suspect ACMs and recorded on a chain of custody record and submitted to EMSL Analytical s asbestos laboratory in Charlotte, North Carolina for analysis via the following method: November 10,

7 Asbestos and Lead-Based Paint Survey Report Gate 1 AAFES Station Augusta, Georgia S&ME Project No Polarized Light Microscopy (PLM) The suspect materials were analyzed by trained microscopists using PLM techniques coupled with dispersion staining in accordance with EPA Test Method Title 40 Code of Federal Regulations, Chapter I ( edition), Part 763, Subpart F-APPENDIX A. This method identifies asbestos mineral fibers based on six optical characteristics: morphology, birefringence, refractive index, extinction angle, sign of elongation and dispersion staining colors. The laboratory analysis reports the specific type of asbestos identified (there are six asbestos minerals) and the percentage of asbestos present. The PLM laboratory are accredited by the National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program (NVLAP), which is administered by the National Institute of Standards and Technology. 2.4 Assessment The identified suspect ACMs were assessed based on the observed condition (good, damaged or significantly damaged) and potential for disturbance due to the scheduled renovation/demolition. Identified ACM were also categorized based on the EPA s NESHAP regulation categories. A friable ACM is classified as an ACM that can be crumbled to a powder by moderate hand pressure. A non-friable ACM is classified as either Category I Non-friable ACM or Category II Non-friable ACM. Category I and Category II Non-friable ACM are distinguished from each other by their fiber release potential when damaged. Generally, Category I Non-friable ACM, which by definition includes intact ACM roofing materials, gaskets, packing, and resilient floor coverings is less likely to become friable and release fibers in a damaged state. Category II Non-friable ACM include all other non-friable ACM excluding Category I that have a high probability of being rendered friable during removal activities or demolition. All Friable ACM, Category I Non-friable ACM that has become friable, Category I Non-friable ACM that will be or has been subjected to sanding, grinding, cutting or abrading, or 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 are considered to be a Regulated Asbestos-Containing Material (RACM). The NESHAP category for each identified ACM is provided in Table Findings and Results The asbestos survey conducted on October 23, 2015 included the quantification and random bulk sampling of observed suspect asbestos-containing materials located on the interior and exterior of the subject structure. These suspect materials include: exterior caulking, stucco, acoustic ceiling tiles, three styles of vinyl floor tiles, drywall, drywall joint compound and vinyl baseboard. Of the representative materials sampled and analyzed during this assessment, asbestos in concentrations >1% was not identified. If materials were assumed to contain asbestos and were not sampled, the materials must be treated as asbestos-containing unless sampling indicates the materials are not ACM. A material with an asbestos content of one percent or less is not classified as an ACM applicable to EPA and GEPD; however, trace levels of asbestos (less than one percent) in a material is subject to OSHA regulatory requirements in 29 CFR , to include but not limited to worker protection, using wet methods, proper clean-up, use of proper tools/equipment, engineering controls, etc. November 10,

8 Asbestos and Lead-Based Paint Survey Report Gate 1 AAFES Station Augusta, Georgia S&ME Project No A summary of bulk sample locations and asbestos results is provided in Appendix I. Representative site photographs are provided in Appendix II. A copy of the asbestos inspector s license is provided in Appendix V. The laboratory report and chain of custody records are provided in Appendix III. 3.0 Lead-Based Paint Survey 3.1 Investigative Procedures The assessment and test methods used to identify lead-based paints as part of this assessment generally followed the guidelines set forth by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) entitled Guidelines for the Evaluation and Control of Lead-based Paint Hazards in Housing, June 1995 and the Chapter 7 revision issued in Representative components were tested by collecting paint chip samples and analyzing them for lead content utilizing a Niton XLp-300A X-Ray Fluorescence (XRF) spectrum analyzer (serial #95004). The EPA defines a lead-based paint as any paint containing lead at concentrations of 1.0 mg/cm 2. OSHA does not recognize a threshold level of lead for definition purposes, only the presence or absence of lead. The current OSHA regulations recognize an airborne action level of thirty micrograms per cubic meter (30 µg/m 3 ) during an eight-hour day and a permissible exposure limit of fifty micrograms per cubic meter (50 µg/m 3 ). Attached in Appendix IV is a summary of the paint readings analyzed by the XRF spectrum lead analyzer. The XRF summary provides the sample numbers, sample location, component, substrate, paint color, condition, and results. Only a limited amount of paint was observed in the building. The observed painted finishes consisted of white drywall walls and one office with brown drywall walls. 3.2 Findings and Results Coated surfaces throughout the interior and exterior of the subject building were observed for the presence of potential lead-based paint. A limited amount of paint was observed on the interior of the building. No painted surfaces were observed on the exterior of the building. Paint chip samples were collected from three locations on the interior of the retail building. The paint chip samples were subsequently analyzed for lead content with XRF spectrum analyzer. Lead-based paint as defined by the EPA ( 1.0 mg/cm 2 ) was not detected. The summary of the XRF readings is provided in Appendix IV. 4.0 Conclusions and Recommendations An asbestos survey and lead-based paint assessment was conducted of the Gate 1 AAFES station building on Fort Gordon in Augusta, Georgia on October 23, Our findings and conclusions are summarized below: November 10,

9 Asbestos and Lead-Based Paint Survey Report Gate 1 AAFES Station Augusta, Georgia S&ME Project No Asbestos Conclusions The asbestos survey conducted on the Gate 1 AAFES retail building did not identify the presence of asbestos-containing materials. Significant destructive sampling was not performed during the asbestos survey. If additional suspect ACMs not included in this report are discovered and will be disturbed by the renovation/demolition activities, bulk samples must be collected by a licensed asbestos inspector and analyzed for asbestos content, prior to disturbance of the suspect material(s). The EPA and GEPD require proper removal and disposal of ACMs that will be destructively affected by demolition activities, therefore we recommend that if ACMs are identified in the future, they should be properly removed and disposed by a qualified contractor licensed by the GEPD prior to any renovation and demolition activities. A copy of this report must be submitted to the GEPD, along with a separate asbestos notification, 10 business days prior to destructive actions. This report should also be provided to the contractor(s) to assist with compliance with applicable State and Federal regulations. 4.2 Lead-Based Paint Conclusions Lead-based paint, as defined by the EPA ( 1.0 mg/cm 2 ) was not identified in association with the retail structure at Fort Gordon s Gate 1 AAFES station. The client is advised that OSHA does not recognize a threshold level of lead for definition purposes, only the presence or absence of lead. Consequently, the OSHA regulations governing worker protection for lead-based paint may apply to work practices including the disturbance of paint systems with detectable levels of lead. Destructive actions (sanding, burning, demolition, component removal, paint preparation) to the lead-containing paint surfaces will require the contractor comply with the standards of OSHA, including but not limited to initial exposure monitoring, the use of personal protective equipment, and medical surveillance. 5.0 Limitations This report is provided for the sole use of the Client. Use of this report by any other parties will be at such party s sole risk, and S&ME disclaims liability for any such use or reliance by third parties. The results presented in this report are indicative of conditions only during the time of the sampling period and of the specific areas referenced. Under no circumstances is this report to be used as a bidding document, or as a project design or specification. S&ME performed the services in accordance with generally accepted practices of reputable industrial hygiene consultants undertaking similar studies at the same time and in the same geographical area. S&ME has endeavored to meet this standard of care. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is intended or made with respect to this report or S&ME s services. Users of this report should consider the scope and limitations related to these services when developing opinions as to risks associated with the site. November 10,

10 Asbestos and Lead-Based Paint Survey Report Gate 1 AAFES Station Augusta, Georgia S&ME Project No The possibility exists that suspect materials were undetected in inaccessible or concealed areas such as under multiple flooring layers, and inside pipe chases or wall voids. If additional suspect materials are discovered during the planned destructive activities, bulk samples must be collected by a licensed asbestos inspector and analyzed for asbestos content. November 10,

11 Appendices

12 Appendix I Summary of Asbestos Sampling

13 Summary of Asbestos Sampling Project Name: Gate 1 AAFES Station Project Number: Location: Ft. Gordon, Augusta, GA Sampling Date(s): October 23, 2015 Former Power Plant Sample No. Sample Location Material Approx. Quantity 1 Asbestos Type % 2 Condition P.F.D. 3 H.A. 4 C-1 Base of west wall Gray exterior caulking C-2 Base of NW pillar by front door Gray exterior caulking 196 LF C-3 Base of south wall Gray exterior caulking C-4 Vertical joint in west wall Brown exterior caulking C-5 Vertical joint in west wall Brown exterior caulking 10 LF C-6 Vertical joint in west wall Brown exterior caulking S-1 Portico ceiling leaking corner over Redbox machine Exterior stucco white layer Gray layer S-2 Portico ceiling by front door Exterior stucco white layer Gray layer 200 SF S-3 Portico ceiling over loading dock Exterior stucco CT-1 Middle of retail area 2 x 4 Acoustic ceiling tile CT-2 Break room 2 x 4 Acoustic ceiling tile 2,672 SF CT-3 Office 2 x 4 Acoustic ceiling tile FT-1 Break room, by door Red 12 vinyl floor tile Tan mastic FT-2 Break room, under table Red 12 vinyl floor tile Tan mastic 20 SF FT-3 Break room corner Red 12 vinyl floor tile Tan mastic FT-4 Break room, by door Gray 12 vinyl floor tile FT-5 Break room, under table Gray 12 vinyl floor tile Tan mastic 140 SF FT-6 Break room corner Gray 12 vinyl floor tile Tan mastic

14 Summary of Asbestos Sampling Project Name: Gate 1 AAFES Station Project Number: Location: Ft. Gordon, Augusta, GA Sampling Date(s): October 23, 2015 Former Power Plant Sample No. Sample Location Material Approx. Quantity 1 Asbestos Type % 2 Condition P.F.D. 3 H.A. 4 FT-7 Break room, by door White with blue 12 vinyl floor tile Tan mastic FT-8 Break room, under table White with blue 12 vinyl floor tile Tan mastic 2,512 SF FT-9 Break room corner White with blue 12 vinyl floor tile Tan mastic DW-1 Damaged area by back electrical panel Drywall DW-2 Break room wall, above ceiling Drywall 800 SF DW-3 Office, north wall Drywall JC-1 Damaged area by back electrical panel Joint compound JC-2 Break room wall, above ceiling Joint compound 800 SF JC-3 Office, north wall Joint compound BB-1 By cooler 4 Black/gray vinyl baseboard Tan mastic BB-2 Office 4 Black/gray vinyl baseboard Tan mastic 450 LF BB-3 Break room 4 Black/gray vinyl baseboard Tan mastic SF = square feet LF = linear feet = No Asbestos Detected = Not Applicable Note 1: Estimated quantities. The quantities should not be used for bidding purposes, as field conditions should be verified. Note 2: The EPA, GEPD and OSHA define a material as asbestos-containing if an asbestos content greater than one percent (>1%) is detected in a representative sample. Note 3: Potential for Disturbance Note 4: Hazard Assessment

15 Abbreviations and Hazard Assessment Key In accordance with the EPA and GEPD, a confirmed ACM is assigned a hazard assessment based on its present condition and potential for disturbance. The hazard assessment is used as a tool for prioritization in remedial actions regarding any identified ACM(s). The following key exhibits the criteria that compose the hazard assessment. Present Condition F = Friable NF = Non-friable G = Good (Very localized limited damage) D = Damaged (Damage of less than 10% distributed and less than 25% localized) SD = Significantly Damaged (Damage equal to or greater than 10% distributed, 25% localized) Potential for Future Disturbance LPD = Low Potential for Disturbance (Contact, Vibration, and Air Erosion all of Low Concern) PD = Potential for Disturbance (Contact, Vibration, or Air Erosion of Moderate Concern) SPD = Significant Potential for Disturbance (Contact, Vibration, or Air Erosion of High Concern) Hazard Assessment Significantly Damaged (SD) Damaged (D) Good (G) SPD PD LPD SPD PD LPD

16 Appendix II Photographs

17 1 The front (west) side of the AAFES store building. 2 The east side of the subject AAFES store building. An addition is reportedly planned for this area. The stucco ceilings on the exterior porticos tested negative for The gray caulking at the base of the exterior walls and pillars 3 asbestos. 4 tested negative for asbestos. Site Photographs Gate 1 AAFES Station Fort Gordon Augusta, Georgia S&ME Project No Taken by: O. Astwood Date: October 23, 2015

18 The brown exterior caulking in the vertical joint on the west side Non-suspect fiberglass pipe insulation was observed on the 5 of the building tested negative for asbestos. 6 interior of the building. No asbestos was reported in samples of the red and gray floor No suspect asbestos-containing materials were observed above 7 tiles located in the store s break room. 8 the ceilings in the store building. Site Photographs Gate 1 AAFES Station Fort Gordon Augusta, Georgia S&ME Project No Taken by: O. Astwood Date: October 23, 2015

19 Appendix III Asbestos Bulk Sample Analysis Sheets and Chain of Custody Record

20 EMSL Analytical, Inc. 376 Crompton Street Charlotte, NC Tel/Fax: (704) / (704) / charlottelab@emsl.com EMSL Order: Customer ID: S&ME50 Customer PO: Project ID: Attention: Owen Astwood Phone: (803) S&ME, Inc. Fax: (803) Suber Rd. Received Date: 10/27/2015 9:35 AM Columbia, SC Analysis Date: 10/29/2015 Collected Date: 10/23/2015 Project: Ft. Gordon/ AAFES Store Test Report: Asbestos Analysis of Bulk Materials via EPA 600/R-93/116 Method using Polarized Light Microscopy Non-Asbestos Sample Description Appearance % Fibrous % C C C A C C C A S-1-White Layer S-1-Gray Layer A S-2-White Layer S-2-Gray Layer A S CT CT CT FT-1-Floor Tile FT-1-Mastic A At Base of W. Wall - Exterior Caulking (Grey) At Base of NW Pillar by Door - Exterior Caulking (Grey) At Base of NW Pillar by Door - Exterior Caulking (Grey) Vertical Seam in W. Wall - Brown Exterior Caulking Vertical Seam in W. Wall - Brown Exterior Caulking Vertical Seam in W. Wall - Brown Exterior Caulking Portico Ceiling - Corner over Red Box - Stucco Portico Ceiling - Corner over Red Box - Stucco Portico Ceiling - by Front Door - Stucco Portico Ceiling - by Front Door - Stucco Portico Ceiling - Over Loading Dock - Stucco Middle of Store - 2'x4' Ceiling Tile Break Room - 2'x4' Ceiling Tile Office - 2'x4' Ceiling Tile Break Room by Door - Red 12" VCT w/ Tan Mastic Break Room by Door - Red 12" VCT w/ Tan Mastic Gray Gray/Beige Gray Brown Brown Brown White Fibrous Gray White Gray White Gray Fibrous Gray Fibrous Gray/White Fibrous Red Tan Fibrous <1% Cellulose 10% Ca Carbonate 90% Non-fibrous (Other) 10% Ca Carbonate 90% Non-fibrous (Other) 15% Ca Carbonate 85% Non-fibrous (Other) 5% Ca Carbonate 95% Non-fibrous (Other) 5% Ca Carbonate 95% Non-fibrous (Other) <1% Cellulose 5% Ca Carbonate 95% Non-fibrous (Other) 3% Glass 5% Quartz 5% Ca Carbonate 87% Non-fibrous (Other) <1% Cellulose 1% Glass 45% Cellulose 20% Min. Wool 45% Cellulose 20% Min. Wool 45% Cellulose 25% Min. Wool 20% Quartz 5% Ca Carbonate 75% Non-fibrous (Other) 10% Quartz 5% Ca Carbonate 85% Non-fibrous (Other) 25% Quartz 5% Ca Carbonate 70% Non-fibrous (Other) 20% Quartz 5% Ca Carbonate 74% Non-fibrous (Other) 15% Perlite 20% Non-fibrous (Other) 15% Perlite 20% Non-fibrous (Other) 15% Perlite 15% Non-fibrous (Other) 30% Ca Carbonate 70% Non-fibrous (Other) 2% Cellulose 98% Non-fibrous (Other) Asbestos % Type Initial report from: 10/29/ :40:13 PLM Printed: 10/30/2015 9:14 AM Page 1 of 3

21 EMSL Analytical, Inc. 376 Crompton Street Charlotte, NC Tel/Fax: (704) / (704) / charlottelab@emsl.com EMSL Order: Customer ID: S&ME50 Customer PO: Project ID: Test Report: Asbestos Analysis of Bulk Materials via EPA 600/R-93/116 Method using Polarized Light Microscopy Non-Asbestos Sample Description Appearance % Fibrous % FT-2-Floor Tile FT-2-Mastic A FT-3-Floor Tile B FT-3-Mastic C FT-4-Floor Tile No mastic present FT-5-Floor Tile FT-5-Mastic A FT-6-Floor Tile B FT-6-Mastic C FT-7-Floor Tile FT-7-Mastic A FT-8-Floor Tile FT-8-Mastic A FT-9-Floor Tile B FT-9-Mastic C DW DW DW JC Break Room under Table - Red 12" VCT w/ Tan Mastic Break Room under Table - Red 12" VCT w/ Tan Mastic Break Room under Table - Red 12" VCT w/ Tan Mastic Break Room under Table - Red 12" VCT w/ Tan Mastic S.A. FT-1 - Grey 12" VCT w/ Tan Mastic S.A. FT-2 - Grey 12" VCT w/ Tan Mastic S.A. FT-2 - Grey 12" VCT w/ Tan Mastic S.A. FT-2 - Grey 12" VCT w/ Tan Mastic S.A. FT-2 - Grey 12" VCT w/ Tan Mastic Threshold to Store - White w/ Blue 12" VCT w/ Tan Mastic Threshold to Store - White w/ Blue 12" VCT w/ Tan Mastic Freezer Door - White w/ Blue 12" VCT w/ Tan Mastic Freezer Door - White w/ Blue 12" VCT w/ Tan Mastic Freezer Door - White w/ Blue 12" VCT w/ Tan Mastic Freezer Door - White w/ Blue 12" VCT w/ Tan Mastic Damaged Area by Elec. Panel - Drywall Break Room Wall (Above Ceiling) - Drywall Office N. Wall (Above Ceiling) - Drywall S.A. DW-1 - Joint Compound Red Tan Red Tan Gray/Tan/Blue Gray/Tan Tan Gray/Blue Tan Gray/Blue Tan Beige Tan Gray Tan Fibrous Brown/Gray Fibrous Brown/Gray Fibrous Heterogeneous Gray Fibrous White 30% Ca Carbonate 70% Non-fibrous (Other) <1% Cellulose 100% Non-fibrous (Other) 35% Ca Carbonate 65% Non-fibrous (Other) 100% Non-fibrous (Other) 30% Ca Carbonate 70% Non-fibrous (Other) 30% Ca Carbonate 70% Non-fibrous (Other) <1% Cellulose 100% Non-fibrous (Other) 35% Ca Carbonate 65% Non-fibrous (Other) 100% Non-fibrous (Other) 35% Ca Carbonate 65% Non-fibrous (Other) <1% Cellulose 100% Non-fibrous (Other) 35% Ca Carbonate 65% Non-fibrous (Other) <1% Cellulose 100% Non-fibrous (Other) 35% Ca Carbonate 65% Non-fibrous (Other) 2% Cellulose 98% Non-fibrous (Other) 4% Cellulose 96% Non-fibrous (Other) 5% Cellulose 95% Non-fibrous (Other) 2% Cellulose 1% Glass 97% Non-fibrous (Other) 25% Ca Carbonate 75% Non-fibrous (Other) Asbestos % Type Initial report from: 10/29/ :40:13 PLM Printed: 10/30/2015 9:14 AM Page 2 of 3

22 EMSL Analytical, Inc. 376 Crompton Street Charlotte, NC Tel/Fax: (704) / (704) / charlottelab@emsl.com EMSL Order: Customer ID: S&ME50 Customer PO: Project ID: Test Report: Asbestos Analysis of Bulk Materials via EPA 600/R-93/116 Method using Polarized Light Microscopy Non-Asbestos Sample Description Appearance % Fibrous % JC JC BB-1-Baseboard BB-1-Mastic A BB-2-Baseboard BB-2-Mastic A BB-3-Baseboard B BB-3-Mastic C S.A. DW-2 - Joint Compound S.A. DW-3 - Joint Compound By Cooler - 4" Black/ Grey BB & Tan Mastic By Cooler - 4" Black/ Grey BB & Tan Mastic Office - 4" Black/ Grey BB & Tan Mastic Office - 4" Black/ Grey BB & Tan Mastic Office - 4" Black/ Grey BB & Tan Mastic Office - 4" Black/ Grey BB & Tan Mastic White White Gray Tan Gray Tan Gray Tan 30% Ca Carbonate 70% Non-fibrous (Other) 30% Ca Carbonate 70% Non-fibrous (Other) 5% Ca Carbonate 95% Non-fibrous (Other) 10% Ca Carbonate 90% Non-fibrous (Other) 5% Ca Carbonate 95% Non-fibrous (Other) <1% Cellulose 100% Non-fibrous (Other) 5% Ca Carbonate 95% Non-fibrous (Other) 10% Ca Carbonate 90% Non-fibrous (Other) Asbestos % Type Analyst(s) Kristie Elliott (14) Maria Cao (29) Lee Plumley, Laboratory Manager or Other Approved Signatory EMSL maintains liability limited to cost of analysis. This report relates only to the samples reported and may not be reproduced, except in full, without written approval by EMSL. EMSL bears no responsibility for sample collection activities or analytical method limitations. Interpretation and use of test results are the responsibility of the client. This report must not be used by the client to claim product certification, approval, or endorsement by NVLAP, NIST or any agency of the federal government. Non-friable organically bound materials present a problem matrix and therefore EMSL recommends gravimetric reduction prior to analysis. Samples received in good condition unless otherwise noted. Estimated accuracy, precision and uncertainty data available upon request. Unless requested by the client, building materials manufactured with multiple layers (i.e. linoleum, wallboard, etc.) are reported as a single sample. Reporting limit is 1% Samples analyzed by EMSL Analytical, Inc. Charlotte, NC NVLAP Lab Code , VA Initial report from: 10/29/ :40:13 PLM Printed: 10/30/2015 9:14 AM Page 3 of 3

23 OrderID: Page 1 Of 3

24 OrderID: Page 2 Of 3

25 OrderID: Page 3 Of 3

26 Appendix IV XRF Lead-Based Paint Reading Summary Table

27 Serial #95004 PAINT Project No.: Site: Ft. Gordon Gate 1 AAFES Store Date: October 24, 2015 Ranges (NEG<INC<POS): Device PCS Reading Number Area Room Feature Substrate Condition Color Result XRF Reading (mg/cm²) 1 Shutter Calibrate -- 2 Calibrate Positive Calibrate Positive Calibrate Positive Interior Break room Wall paint Drywall Good White Negative 0 6 Interior Break room Wall paint Drywall Good White Negative 0 7 Interior North office Wall paint Drywall Good White Negative 0 8 Interior South office Wall paint Drywall Good Brown Negative 0 9 Calibrate Positive Calibrate Positive Calibrate Positive of 1

28 Appendix V Copy of SDHEC Inspector s License

29 South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control Asbestos License Owen R. Astwood Air Sampler AS Building Inspector BI Project Designer PD Asbestos Supervisor SA S&ME, INC. / 134 Suber Road / Columbia, SC / p / f /