11AY-3j-2005 TUE 02: 09 PM tleta FAX NO, 785 842 6993 p, 01....' ~.:. "". Mold Assessment of 816 Seabury Street Modular Units A & B Effingham, Kansas Corporate Office P,O, Box 786 Lawrence, KS 66044 785,842.6382 1.800,444,6383 Fax 785.842.6993 Website: metaworjd.org
~IAY-Jl-~UUb lui:: 02:U~ PM tleta FAX NO, 785 842 6993 p, 02 META Mold Assessment of 816 Seabury Street Modular Units A & B Effingham, Kansas META Project Number 051905MA
NAY-31-2005 rue 02:09 PM META ~AX NO, 785 842 6993 p, 03 Mold Assessment REPORT CONTENTS Section Topic 1.0 Summary 2,0 Introduction 2.1 Introduction and Purpose 2.2 Limiting Conditions and Methodology V sed 3.0 Site DeSCription 3.1 Site Description and Location 3.2 Current Uses of the Property 3.3 Description of Remediation or Other Corrective Measures 4.0 Information from Site Reconnaissance and Interviews 4.1 Visual Inspection of Interior ofsile for Moisture 4.2 Visual Inspection of Exterior of Site for Moisture 4.3 Visual Inspection ofhvac System 4.4 Occupant Interviews andlor Complaints 5.0 Sampling andlor Measurements Collected 6.0 Findings and Recommendations 7.0 Signatures of Mold Assessment Professionals 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 4 4 5 8.0 Appendices: 8.1 8.2 Sample Analysis Results Site Photographs 7 8
~IAY-31-2005 rue 02: 10 PM tleta FAX NO. 785 842 6993 P. 04 Mold Assessment 816 Seabury Street Modular Units A & B Effingham, Kansas 1.0 SU!'.tMARY Based on visual observations and moisture measurements collected on-site. there is a definite problem with the infiltration of moisture into the structures, primarily into the crawlspaces below the classrooms. This water infiltration is causing deterioration ofbllilding materials and mold growth. The crawlspace. are where the HVAC dueting transfers the heated or cooled air from the air conditioning unit to the classrooms. These ducts showed visual evidence of mold on their interior walls and had moderate to high moisture readings in many areas of both buildings. There is also visible growth on almost all the wood floor joists and foundation supports in the crawls paces of both buildings. and there is mold present in large areas of the roof decking in the attic of Building A. Water infiltration and intrusion into the buildin must be stopped. 2.0 INTRODUCTION 2.1 Introduction and Purpose META Consulting, LLC has performed a visual site assessment of two modular classroom units located at the Effingham Middle School, in Effingham, Kansas. The assessment was performed at the request of Mr. Dan Coder, Maimenance Supervisor for the Atchison County Community Schools. Field reconnaissance, interviews, and report compilation was performed by Robert 1. Baer and reviewed by Thomas Bradford Mayhew. P.E. The purpose of this assessment was to respond to occupant concerns regarding musty smells, and idemify any potential sources of water intrusion andlor suspected mold development that could present a potential health risk at the subject site, and to evaluate the potential for current or future moisture contamination of the site from these sources. 2.2 Limiting Conditions and Methodology Used The results contained in this report are representations of the conditions obsen'ed and evaluated on the date of this survey. The information is based upon our evaluation of exposed and readily accessible materials and ~Clnditions observed at the time of the assessment. This Mold Assessment was a non-intrusive visual assessment of real property along with moisture measurements in accessible materials. This is the most cost effective first step in a mold
MAY-31-2005 rue 02:10 PM META FAX NO. 785 842 6993 P. 05 evaluation. If a non-inlnlsive visual assessment does not yield conclusive results, and conditions resulting in concern persist, it may be appropriate to engage in some or all of the following steps: l. Visual observations and moisture measurements of building material only accessible through destructive measures. 2. An air sampling regimen involving a characterization of both mdoor and outdoor conditions to determine the relative indoor levels. 3. Surface sampling designed to characterize level and type of contamination This report reflects technical judgment based on visual evidence, (and limited moisture measurements). obtained during the investigation. Recommendations characterizing sampling and other further investigations or recommendations on remediation measures are strictly of a technical nature and are in no way intended to sul;gest that the property owner should or should not conduct or has a legal obligation to conduct or not to conduct any further investigations or remediations. 3.0 SITE DESCRIPTION 3.1 Location and Site Description The location of the site is 816 Seabury Street in Effingham, Kansas, The area surrounding the two modular buildings is cover with asphaltic concrete on the south and east sides of Building A, and on the south, west and a large portion of tne east sides of Building B. The north sides of both buildings are covered with grass. 3.2 Current Use of the Property The two modular buildings are currently being used as additional classroom space for student activities at the school. 3.3 Description of Remediation or Other Corrective Measures There has been no mold remediation of any type performed on either of the two modular structures, and no recent renovations have been performed. 4.0 INFORMA'fION FROM SITE RECONNASSANCE AND INTERVIEWS 4.1 Visual Inspection of Interior of Site for Moisture Intrusion A visual inspection of the interior of the buildings was conducted to determine if moisture intrusion of infiltration was occurring. There was minimal evidence of water damage or mold in the classrooms, hallways, or restrooms. The east classroom in Building A had a smaller amount of mold visible near the HVAC intake. There were minimal water stains in several areas of the 2
MAY-31-2005 TUE 02:11 PM META f:ax NO. 785 842 6993 P. 06 classrooms, and a larger water stain in the girls restroom in Building A, but these appeared to be older stains, and moisture measurements indicated no excessi"e moisture present. The visual inspection of the crawlspace of both buildings identified what appears to be a significant water infiltration and intrusion problem into these areas. The dirt crawlspace floor in Building A was very wet, whereas the floor in crawlspace B was dry in the center area and wet along the walls, specifically the nor-ill wall. Both buildings north walls showed evidence of mold growth and water damage to the wood building materials. There is also visible growth on almost all the wood floor joists and foundation supports in the crawlspaces, and there is a large amount of paper, wood, and other porous materials in the crawlspaces which show mold growth and help hold moisture. The primary source of the water entering the crawlspaces is from air ventilari(lo ports or wells located around the perimeter foundation walls of the building. There is also ~vidence of water seeping between the concrete block foundation walls and the concrete footings, and from damaged areas of some walls or roof trim, and also a small amount from some condensation on water pipes. The crawlspaces are where the HVAC dueting transfers the heated or cooled air from the air conditioning unit to the classrooms. These ducts are constructed entirely from fiberglass will} only a plastic jacket covering them, (no metal inside or outside the ducts). The jacket is missing in several areas, and the fiberglass ducts showed visual evidence of mold at'. their interior walls and had moderate to high moisture readings in many areas of both buildings. The visual inspection of the attics in both buildings showed some evidence of previous water damage. Building A had mold growth present on most of the north half and smaller areas of the southeast corner. Building B showed minimal amounts 0: mold growth in the attic. 4.2 Visual Inspection of Exterior of Site ror Moisture A visual inspection of the exterior of the buildings showed some damaged wall and ttim matejials. There were higher moisture readings 011 the exterior north wall of both buildings compared to the readings on all the other exterior walls. and there was damaged trim along some of the roofs including above the north wall on Building B. The major moisture problem for the crawlspace areas was caused by the design of theo crawlspace ventilation wells along the buildings foundations. Most of the vents are below grade which causes the water to funnel into the crawlspace areas. The design also pulls leaves and debris into the vents which prevents air flow and inhibits ventilation and drying of the crawlspace. 4.3 Visual Inspection of HVAC System Both buildings HVAC rooms had some water damage to the building materials, and minimal mold growth. As stated above, the crawlspaces are where the HVAC dueting transfers the heated or cooled air from the air conditioning unit to the classrooms. These ducts are constructed entirely from fiberglass with only a plastic jacket covering them, (no metal inside or outside the ducts). The jacket is missing in several areas, and the fiberglass ducts showed visual evidence of mold on their interior walls and had moderate to high moisture readings in many areas of both buildings. 3
MAY-31-2005 rue 02: 11 Pri META FAX NO. 785 842 6993 p. 07 These HV AC units appear to have no external source of make-up. air, pulling all their make-up air from the classrooms. It was reported that the external source of air, ducts running through the attics and roof, have been sealed. This was not able to be verified at the time of the inspection. 4.4 Occupant Interviews and/or Complaints No interviews with any occupants were conducted. The only indh'idual questioned during the assessment was Mr. Dan Coder, Maintenance Supervisor with the Atchison County Community Schools. Mr. Coder said that some building occupants had complained of a mllsty or moldy smell in the building. 5.0 SAMPLING AND/OR MEASUREMENTS COLLECTED There was no sampling collected to detennine the type or presence of mold in either structure. Current practice advises against collecting samples to detennine if mold is present if the mold is VIsible. Since mold was visible in numerous locations in the buildings, no samples were oollected. Numerous moisture readings were collected in both structures to determine if any construction materials had high levels of moisture present. The Actual Percentage Moisture Content (%MC) values are measured in wood products. Wood Moisture Equivalent (WME) values are measured in materials other than wood. The WME measurement is the theoretical value of the (%~C) that would be attained by a piece of wood in moisture equilibrium with the material being investigated at the point of the measurement. When the critical %MC levels of wood are known, WME values may be used directly to establish if the material is dry, borderline, or damp condition as indicated by the color code scale on the moisture measurement instrument. These reading correlate to: 1. Dry (Green) ill the 5% - 14.9% WME ranbe. 2. Borderline (Yellow) in the 15% - 19.9% WME range. 3. Damp (Red) in the 20% - 95% WME range. The readings collected of the drywall systems in both th~ A & B buildings showed no elevated moisture levels, with the exception of the drywall around the mechanical room on the west side of BuildinB A, on the south side. These readings were only low to moderate with respect to 0ther building materials measured. There were no high moisture values located on the interior occupied building spaces. Most of the exterior also had low readings with the exception of the north wall of both buildings. These had low to moderately high readings, with the readings getting higher from rap to bottom. The ducts had moisture measurements collected from both inside the duct, (to the extent feasible from inside the classroom registers). and from the exterior of the duct from the crawlspace area. Most readings were from moderately low to moderately high, however severa! areas of the ducts registered very high moisture levels. Most measurements collected in the crawlspace from the Joists were low to moderately low, however, the closer to the foundation,he higher the readings were, with readings in some areas along the foundation registering very high moisture levels, (pegging the meter). 4
MAY-31-2005 rue 02:12 PM META FAX NO. 785 842 6993 P. os The measurements collected in the attic were all in the low moisture range, with the exception of the areas near the gables, above the HVAC rooms, where readings were low to moderately low. 6.0 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS There is current evidence that a water infiltration problem exists in the two modular Sirtlctures. This infiltration has resulted in some significant mold growth in the crawlspace areas and less significantly in the attic of the Building A. The moisture in the crawlspace has also impacted the physical and environmental condition of the HVAC ducts in that area. The following remediation measures should be performed to prevent the continued water infiltration into the buildings, and to reduce or eliminated the potential health effects that could be caused by the presence of mold in the buildings, particularly in the HVAC ducts. These measures constitute recommendation only, and are not a design. I. Eliminate the flow of water into the crawlspaces, by redesigning the present \'entilation wells along the perimeter of the foundation and sealing any cracks or penetra:ions.. This would allow the crawlspace to dry. 2. Clean up all existing mold growth in all areas. especially the HV AC system and mechanical room, by following currently accepted work and safety practices available from the EPA or ACGIH. 3. Replace the damaged fiberglass ducts with a more rigid, airtight, duct system. This would eliminate the mold growth and dirt present in the current system and would prevent moisture from being absorbed throughout the fiberglass ducts. Also make sure the HVAC system has proper air in-take system. 4. Place the crawlspace under negative pressure with respect to the occupied areas of the building and the exterior, by pulling fresh air into the crawlspaces and exhausting it outside the building. 7.0 SIGNATURE(S) OF MOLD ASSESSMENT PROFESSIONAL(S) Robert J. Baer Site Inspector I Project Manager 5
NAY-31-2005 rue 02:12 PM META FAX NO, 785 842 6993 p, 09 8.0 APPENDICES: 8.1 Sample Analysis Results 8.2 Site Photographs 6
NAY-31-2005 rue 02:13 PM NETA FAX NO. 785 842 6993 P. 10 8.1 Sample Analysis Results NO SAMPLES COLLECTED DURING THIS ASSESSMENT 7
~IAY-31-2005 rue 02: 13 PM META FAX NO. 785 842 6993 P. II 8.2 Site Photographs 8
NAY-3HOUb TUE 02: 13 PM tleta FAX NO. 785 842 6993 P. t2 PholO # 1: View of mold growth on ceiling in the east classroom of Building A..' ",..., ".,t ;,!:~_... Pholo #2: View looking into duel in Building A. (Note mold growth and debris in duct.) 9
~lily-31-2005 7UE 02: 14 PM rleta FAX NO. 785 842 6993 P. 13 Photo #3: View of dueling and floor joists in Building A crawlspace. (Note mold on joists and tear to jacket of duct.) Photo #4: View of the north wall of Building A crawlspace. (Note mold and deteriorlltion ohill plate) 10
1 IAY-3J-2005 TUE 02: 14 PM META FAX NO. 785 842 6993 p,! 4 Photo #5: View from attic of Building A roof decking. Left halfof photo is the north side of roo f... ;" \. \ Phot" #6: View of the crawlspace ventilation "well" of Building A. There are at least four of these vents]j\!t building. and they are at or below grade. 11
~ijw- 31-2C05 TJE 02: 14 PM METR "AX NO. 785 842 6993 o 15 Photo #7: View of duci and north wall of crawlspace of Building B. (Note damaged and wet duct and water seeping into the crawlspace.) Photo #8: View of floor joists of crawlspace of Building B. (Note mold growth on the joi;1s.) 12
tiav-31-2c05 T'jE 02: 15 PM META FAX NO. 785 842 6993 o 16 Photo #9: View of north side of Building B. (Note water damage to the roof trim and wall secti(ln below.) \., ~.., ", I' " i I, : i I Photo #10: View of the crawlspace ventilation "wew' of Building 3. (Note thebe vents are at or below grade.) )3
NAY-31-2Q05 rue 02: 15 PM HETA FAX NO. 785 842 6993 D I"" I Corporate Office P.O. Box 786 Lawrence, KS 66044 785.842.6382 1.800.444.6382 Fax 785.842.6993 Website: metaworld.org