Asbestos & Lead-Based Paint Survey Report Fort Gordon Gate

Asbestos & Lead-Based Paint

Survey Report

Fort Gordon

Gate 1 AAFES Station

Augusta, Georgia

S&ME Project No. 1419-15-020

Prepared for:

Marshall Waters Woody Associates

1736 E. Sunshine Street, #311

Springfield, Missouri 65809

Prepared by:

S&ME, Inc.

134 Suber Road

Columbia, SC 29210

November 10, 2015

Inspection Performed by:

Owen Astwood, P.G.

SCDHEC Lic. BI-00475

Inspection Date: October 23, 2015

S&ME, Inc. | 134 Suber Road | Columbia, SC 29210 | p 803.561.9024 | f 803.561.9177 | www.smeinc.com

November 10, 2015

Marshall Waters Woody Associates

1736 E. Sunshine Street, #311

Springfield, Missouri 65809

Attention: Mr. William Woody, AIA

Reference: Asbestos and Lead-Based Paint Survey Report


Fort Gordon

Augusta, Georgia


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. 14-1500511, dated July 8, 2015. 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) 561-9024.

Sincerely,

S&ME, Inc.

Owen Astwood, P.G. Tom Behnke, P.G., CHMM

Asbestos Building Inspector Senior Reviewer

(SCDHEC License No. BI-00475) (SCDHEC License No. MP-00004)

Asbestos and Lead-Based Paint Survey Report


Augusta, Georgia


November 10, 2015 i

Table of Contents

Executive Summary ......................................................................................................... 1

1.0 Introduction ............................................................................................................ 2

2.0 Asbestos Survey ..................................................................................................... 3

2.1 Purpose .............................................................................................................................. 3

2.2 Site Description ................................................................................................................. 3

2.3 Investigative Procedures ................................................................................................. 3

2.4 Assessment ........................................................................................................................ 3

2.5 Findings and Results ........................................................................................................ 4

3.0 Lead-Based Paint Survey ..................................................................................... 4

3.1 Investigative Procedures ................................................................................................. 5

3.2 Findings and Results ........................................................................................................ 5

4.0 Conclusions and Recommendations ................................................................. 5

4.1 Asbestos Conclusions ....................................................................................................... 6

4.2 Lead-Based Paint Conclusions ........................................................................................ 6

5.0 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



Augusta, Georgia


November 10, 2015 1

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 single-

story convenience store that was constructed in 1995. 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/cm2) or higher. Lead-based paint was not

identified as a result of this assessment.



Augusta, Georgia


November 10, 2015 2

1.0 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 14-

1500511, dated July 8, 2015.

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 61-86.1

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

1926.1101. 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 1926.62 (Lead in

Construction) and provide information to facilitate proper disposal of lead-based paint coated

components and debris in accordance with the EPA.



Augusta, Georgia


November 10, 2015 3

2.0 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 asbestos-

containing 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:



Augusta, Georgia


November 10, 2015 4

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

(1-1-87 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

2-1.

2.5 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 1926.1101, to include but not limited to worker protection, using wet

methods, proper clean-up, use of proper tools/equipment, engineering controls, etc.



Augusta, Georgia


November 10, 2015 5

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 1997. 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/cm2.

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/m3) during an eight-hour day and a permissible exposure limit of fifty micrograms per cubic

meter (50 µg/m3).

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/cm2) 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, 2015. Our findings and conclusions are summarized

below:



Augusta, Georgia


November 10, 2015 6

4.1 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/cm2) 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.



Augusta, Georgia


November 10, 2015 7

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.

Appendices

Appendix I – Summary of Asbestos Sampling

Summary of Asbestos Sampling

Project Name: Gate 1 AAFES Station Project Number: 1419-15-020

Location: Ft. Gordon, Augusta, GA Sampling Date(s): October 23, 2015

Former Power Plant

Sample

No. Sample Location Material

Approx.

Quantity1

Asbestos

Type %2 Condition P.F.D.3 H.A.4

C-1 Base of west wall Gray exterior caulking

196 LF

NAD NA NA NA NA

C-2 Base of NW pillar by front door Gray exterior caulking NAD NA NA NA NA

C-3 Base of south wall Gray exterior caulking NAD NA NA NA NA

C-4 Vertical joint in west wall Brown exterior caulking

10 LF

NAD NA NA NA NA

C-5 Vertical joint in west wall Brown exterior caulking NAD NA NA NA NA

C-6 Vertical joint in west wall Brown exterior caulking NAD NA NA NA NA

S-1 Portico ceiling – leaking corner over Redbox

machine

Exterior stucco – white layer

Gray layer

200 SF

NAD

NAD

NA

NA NA NA NA

S-2 Portico ceiling by front door Exterior stucco – white layer

Gray layer

NAD

NAD

NA

NA NA NA NA

S-3 Portico ceiling over loading dock Exterior stucco NAD NA NA NA NA

CT-1 Middle of retail area 2’ x 4’ Acoustic ceiling tile

2,672 SF

NAD NA NA NA NA

CT-2 Break room 2’ x 4’ Acoustic ceiling tile NAD NA NA NA NA

CT-3 Office 2’ x 4’ Acoustic ceiling tile NAD NA NA NA NA

FT-1 Break room, by door Red 12” vinyl floor tile

Tan mastic

20 SF

NAD

NAD

NA

NA NA NA NA

FT-2 Break room, under table Red 12” vinyl floor tile

Tan mastic

NAD

NAD

NA

NA NA NA NA

FT-3 Break room corner Red 12” vinyl floor tile

Tan mastic

NAD

NAD

NA

NA NA NA NA

FT-4 Break room, by door Gray 12” vinyl floor tile

140 SF

NAD NA NA NA NA

FT-5 Break room, under table Gray 12” vinyl floor tile

Tan mastic

NAD

NAD

NA

NA NA NA NA

FT-6 Break room corner Gray 12” vinyl floor tile

Tan mastic

NAD

NAD

NA

NA NA NA NA

Summary of Asbestos Sampling

Project Name: Gate 1 AAFES Station Project Number: 1419-15-020

Location: Ft. Gordon, Augusta, GA Sampling Date(s): October 23, 2015

Former Power Plant

Sample

No. Sample Location Material

Approx.

Quantity1

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

2,512 SF

NAD

NAD

NA

NA NA NA NA

FT-8 Break room, under table White with blue 12” vinyl floor tile

Tan mastic

NAD

NAD

NA

NA NA NA NA

FT-9 Break room corner White with blue 12” vinyl floor tile

Tan mastic

NAD

NAD

NA

NA NA NA NA

DW-1 Damaged area by back electrical panel Drywall

800 SF

NAD NA NA NA NA

DW-2 Break room wall, above ceiling Drywall NAD NA NA NA NA

DW-3 Office, north wall Drywall NAD NA NA NA NA

JC-1 Damaged area by back electrical panel Joint compound

800 SF

NAD NA NA NA NA

JC-2 Break room wall, above ceiling Joint compound NAD NA NA NA NA

JC-3 Office, north wall Joint compound NAD NA NA NA NA

BB-1 By cooler 4’ Black/gray vinyl baseboard

Tan mastic

450 LF

NAD

NAD

NA

NA NA NA NA

BB-2 Office 4’ Black/gray vinyl baseboard

Tan mastic

NAD

NAD

NA

NA NA NA NA

BB-3 Break room 4’ Black/gray vinyl baseboard

Tan mastic

NAD

NAD

NA

NA NA NA NA

SF = square feet LF = linear feet NAD = No Asbestos Detected NA = 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

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 G = Good (Very localized limited damage)

NF = Non-friable 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

7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Appendix II – Photographs

Site Photographs Gate 1 AAFES Station – Fort Gordon

Augusta, Georgia


Taken by: O. Astwood Date: October 23, 2015

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.

3 The stucco ceilings on the exterior porticos tested negative for asbestos.

4 The gray caulking at the base of the exterior walls and pillars tested negative for asbestos.

Site Photographs Gate 1 AAFES Station – Fort Gordon

Augusta, Georgia


Taken by: O. Astwood Date: October 23, 2015

5 The brown exterior caulking in the vertical joint on the west side of the building tested negative for asbestos.

6 Non-suspect fiberglass pipe insulation was observed on the interior of the building.

7 No asbestos was reported in samples of the red and gray floor tiles located in the store’s break room.

8 No suspect asbestos-containing materials were observed above the ceilings in the store building.

Appendix III – Asbestos Bulk Sample Analysis Sheets and

Chain of Custody Record

EMSL Analytical, Inc.376 Crompton Street Charlotte, NC 28273

Tel/Fax: (704) 525-2205 / (704) 525-2382

http://www.EMSL.com / [email protected]

411508081EMSL Order:

Customer ID: S&ME50

Customer PO: 1419-15-020

Project ID:

Attention: Phone:Owen Astwood (803) 561-9024

Fax:S&ME, Inc. (803) 561-9177

Received Date:134 Suber Rd. 10/27/2015 9:35 AM

Analysis Date:Columbia, SC 29210 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

Sample Description Appearance % Fibrous % Non-Fibrous

Non-Asbestos Asbestos

% Type

C-1

411508081-0001

Gray

Non-Fibrous

Homogeneous

None DetectedAt Base of W. Wall -

Exterior Caulking

(Grey)

<1% Cellulose 10%

90%

Ca Carbonate

Non-fibrous (Other)

C-2

411508081-0002

Gray/Beige

Non-Fibrous

Homogeneous

None DetectedAt Base of NW Pillar

by Door - Exterior

Caulking (Grey)

10%

90%

Ca Carbonate

Non-fibrous (Other)

C-3

411508081-0002A

Gray

Non-Fibrous

Homogeneous

None DetectedAt Base of NW Pillar

by Door - Exterior

Caulking (Grey)

15%

85%

Ca Carbonate

Non-fibrous (Other)

C-4

411508081-0003

Brown

Non-Fibrous

Homogeneous

None DetectedVertical Seam in W.

Wall - Brown Exterior

Caulking

5%

95%

Ca Carbonate

Non-fibrous (Other)

C-5

411508081-0004

Brown

Non-Fibrous

Homogeneous



Caulking

5%

95%

Ca Carbonate

Non-fibrous (Other)

C-6

411508081-0004A

Brown

Non-Fibrous

Homogeneous



Caulking

<1% Cellulose 5%

95%

Ca Carbonate

Non-fibrous (Other)

S-1-White Layer

411508081-0005

White

Fibrous

Homogeneous

None DetectedPortico Ceiling -

Corner over Red Box

- Stucco

3% Glass 5%

5%

87%

Quartz

Ca Carbonate

Non-fibrous (Other)

S-1-Gray Layer

411508081-0005A

Gray

Non-Fibrous

Homogeneous

None DetectedPortico Ceiling -

Corner over Red Box

- Stucco

20%

5%

75%

Quartz

Ca Carbonate

Non-fibrous (Other)

S-2-White Layer

411508081-0006

White

Non-Fibrous

Homogeneous

None DetectedPortico Ceiling - by

Front Door - Stucco

10%

5%

85%

Quartz

Ca Carbonate

Non-fibrous (Other)

S-2-Gray Layer

411508081-0006A

Gray

Non-Fibrous

Homogeneous

None DetectedPortico Ceiling - by

Front Door - Stucco

25%

5%

70%

Quartz

Ca Carbonate

Non-fibrous (Other)

S-3

411508081-0007

White

Non-Fibrous

Homogeneous

None DetectedPortico Ceiling - Over

Loading Dock -

Stucco

<1%

1%

Cellulose

Glass

20%

5%

74%

Quartz

Ca Carbonate

Non-fibrous (Other)

CT-1

411508081-0008

Gray

Fibrous

Homogeneous

None DetectedMiddle of Store - 2'x4'

Ceiling Tile

45%

20%

Cellulose

Min. Wool

15%

20%

Perlite

Non-fibrous (Other)

CT-2

411508081-0009

Gray

Fibrous

Homogeneous

None DetectedBreak Room - 2'x4'

Ceiling Tile

45%

20%

Cellulose

Min. Wool

15%

20%

Perlite

Non-fibrous (Other)

CT-3

411508081-0010

Gray/White

Fibrous

Homogeneous

None DetectedOffice - 2'x4' Ceiling

Tile

45%

25%

Cellulose

Min. Wool

15%

15%

Perlite

Non-fibrous (Other)

FT-1-Floor Tile

411508081-0011

Red

Non-Fibrous

Homogeneous

None DetectedBreak Room by Door

- Red 12" VCT w/ Tan

Mastic

30%

70%

Ca Carbonate

Non-fibrous (Other)

FT-1-Mastic

411508081-0011A

Tan

Fibrous

Homogeneous

None DetectedBreak Room by Door

- Red 12" VCT w/ Tan

Mastic

2% Cellulose 98% Non-fibrous (Other)

Initial report from: 10/29/2015 13:40:13

Page 1 of 3PLM - 1.65 Printed: 10/30/2015 9:14 AM


Tel/Fax: (704) 525-2205 / (704) 525-2382



Customer ID: S&ME50


Project ID:


Light Microscopy



% Type

FT-2-Floor Tile

411508081-0012

Red

Non-Fibrous

Homogeneous

None DetectedBreak Room under

Table - Red 12" VCT

w/ Tan Mastic

30%

70%

Ca Carbonate

Non-fibrous (Other)

FT-2-Mastic

411508081-0012A

Tan

Non-Fibrous

Homogeneous


Table - Red 12" VCT

w/ Tan Mastic

<1% Cellulose 100% Non-fibrous (Other)

FT-3-Floor Tile

411508081-0012B

Red

Non-Fibrous

Homogeneous


Table - Red 12" VCT

w/ Tan Mastic

35%

65%

Ca Carbonate

Non-fibrous (Other)

FT-3-Mastic

411508081-0012C

Tan

Non-Fibrous

Homogeneous


Table - Red 12" VCT

w/ Tan Mastic

100% Non-fibrous (Other)

FT-4-Floor Tile

411508081-0013

Gray/Tan/Blue

Non-Fibrous

Homogeneous

None DetectedS.A. FT-1 - Grey 12"

VCT w/ Tan Mastic

30%

70%

Ca Carbonate

Non-fibrous (Other)

No mastic present

FT-5-Floor Tile

411508081-0014

Gray/Tan

Non-Fibrous

Homogeneous


VCT w/ Tan Mastic

30%

70%

Ca Carbonate

Non-fibrous (Other)

FT-5-Mastic

411508081-0014A

Tan

Non-Fibrous

Homogeneous


VCT w/ Tan Mastic


FT-6-Floor Tile

411508081-0014B

Gray/Blue

Non-Fibrous

Homogeneous


VCT w/ Tan Mastic

35%

65%

Ca Carbonate

Non-fibrous (Other)

FT-6-Mastic

411508081-0014C

Tan

Non-Fibrous

Homogeneous


VCT w/ Tan Mastic


FT-7-Floor Tile

411508081-0015

Gray/Blue

Non-Fibrous

Homogeneous

None DetectedThreshold to Store -

White w/ Blue 12"

VCT w/ Tan Mastic

35%

65%

Ca Carbonate

Non-fibrous (Other)

FT-7-Mastic

411508081-0015A

Tan

Non-Fibrous

Homogeneous

None DetectedThreshold to Store -

White w/ Blue 12"

VCT w/ Tan Mastic


FT-8-Floor Tile

411508081-0016

Beige

Non-Fibrous

Homogeneous

None DetectedFreezer Door - White

w/ Blue 12" VCT w/

Tan Mastic

35%

65%

Ca Carbonate

Non-fibrous (Other)

FT-8-Mastic

411508081-0016A

Tan

Non-Fibrous

Homogeneous


w/ Blue 12" VCT w/

Tan Mastic


FT-9-Floor Tile

411508081-0016B

Gray

Non-Fibrous

Homogeneous


w/ Blue 12" VCT w/

Tan Mastic

35%

65%

Ca Carbonate

Non-fibrous (Other)

FT-9-Mastic

411508081-0016C

Tan

Fibrous

Homogeneous


w/ Blue 12" VCT w/

Tan Mastic


DW-1

411508081-0017

Brown/Gray

Fibrous

Homogeneous

None DetectedDamaged Area by

Elec. Panel - Drywall


DW-2

411508081-0018

Brown/Gray

Fibrous

Heterogeneous

None DetectedBreak Room Wall

(Above Ceiling) -

Drywall


DW-3

411508081-0019

Gray

Fibrous

Homogeneous

None DetectedOffice N. Wall (Above

Ceiling) - Drywall

2%

1%

Cellulose

Glass


JC-1

411508081-0020

White

Non-Fibrous

Homogeneous

None DetectedS.A. DW-1 - Joint

Compound

25%

75%

Ca Carbonate

Non-fibrous (Other)




Tel/Fax: (704) 525-2205 / (704) 525-2382



Customer ID: S&ME50


Project ID:


Light Microscopy



% Type

JC-2

411508081-0021

White

Non-Fibrous

Homogeneous


Compound

30%

70%

Ca Carbonate

Non-fibrous (Other)

JC-3

411508081-0022

White

Non-Fibrous

Homogeneous


Compound

30%

70%

Ca Carbonate

Non-fibrous (Other)

BB-1-Baseboard

411508081-0023

Gray

Non-Fibrous

Homogeneous

None DetectedBy Cooler - 4" Black/

Grey BB & Tan

Mastic

5%

95%

Ca Carbonate

Non-fibrous (Other)

BB-1-Mastic

411508081-0023A

Tan

Non-Fibrous

Homogeneous

None DetectedBy Cooler - 4" Black/

Grey BB & Tan

Mastic

10%

90%

Ca Carbonate

Non-fibrous (Other)

BB-2-Baseboard

411508081-0024

Gray

Non-Fibrous

Homogeneous

None DetectedOffice - 4" Black/

Grey BB & Tan

Mastic

5%

95%

Ca Carbonate

Non-fibrous (Other)

BB-2-Mastic

411508081-0024A

Tan

Non-Fibrous

Homogeneous


Grey BB & Tan

Mastic


BB-3-Baseboard

411508081-0024B

Gray

Non-Fibrous

Homogeneous


Grey BB & Tan

Mastic

5%

95%

Ca Carbonate

Non-fibrous (Other)

BB-3-Mastic

411508081-0024C

Tan

Non-Fibrous

Homogeneous


Grey BB & Tan

Mastic

10%

90%

Ca Carbonate

Non-fibrous (Other)

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 200841-0, VA 3333 00312



OrderID: 411508081

Page 1 Of 3

OrderID: 411508081

Page 2 Of 3

OrderID: 411508081

Page 3 Of 3

Appendix IV – XRF Lead-Based Paint Reading Summary Table

Serial #95004

PAINT

Project No.: 1419-15-020

Site: Ft. Gordon Gate 1 AAFES Store

Date: October 24, 2015

Ranges (NEG<INC<POS): Device PCS

Reading

NumberArea Room Feature Substrate Condition Color Result

XRF

Reading

(mg/cm²)

1 Shutter Calibrate -- NA

2 Calibrate Positive 1.0



5 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




1 of 1

Appendix V – Copy of SDHEC Inspector’s License

S&ME, INC. / 134 Suber Road / Columbia, SC 29210 / p 803.561.9024 / f 803.561.9177 / www.smeinc.com

South Carolina Department

of

Health and Environmental Control

Asbestos License

Owen R. Astwood

Air Sampler AS-00226

Building Inspector BI-00475

Project Designer PD-00085

Asbestos Supervisor SA-01241

Documents

Asbestos & Lead-Based Paint Survey Report Fort Gordon Gate