pasadena unified school district district service center...

Pasadena Unified School District

District Service Center Facilities Department

740 West Woodbury, Pasadena, CA 91103 ♦ Tel: (626) 396-5850 ♦ Fax: (626) 808-9742

May 18, 2016 Subject: Don Benito Elementary School – Improvements to Existing Modular Classrooms

Pasadena Unified School District Bid #08-15/16 Addendum No. 2

ADDENDUM NO. 2 Changes and/or clarification to the contract documents. Bidders shall acknowledge receipt of this addendum in the space provided therefore in the Bid Form. NOTICE TO BIDDERS This addendum forms a part of the Contract and modifies the original documents. It is intended that all work affected by the following modifications shall conform with related provisions and general conditions of the contract of the original drawings and specifications. Modify the following items wherever appearing in any drawing or sections of the specifications. Acknowledgement receipt of this addendum (Addendum No. 2) in the space provided on the Bid Form. Failure to do so may subject bidder to disqualification. ASBESTOS AND LEAD-BASED PAINT SURVEY REPORT ITEM 1: ASBESTOS and LEAD-BASED PAINT SURVEY REPORT Bidders shall note that a Limited Asbestos and Lead-Based Paint Survey Report has been performed for the project. For the samples tested, the report indicates no detectable levels of asbestos or LBP. The report, dated May 13, 2016 and performed by Sief Clark Sief, Inc., is attached with this Addendum for bidders information and reference. FUNGAL INVESTIGATION AND SAMPLING ITEM 2: FUNGAL INVESTIGATION AND SAMPLING REPORT


District Service Center Facilities Department

740 West Woodbury, Pasadena, CA 91103 ♦ Tel: (626) 396-5850 ♦ Fax: (626) 808-9742

Bidders shall note that Limited Fungal Investigation and Sampling has been performed for the project. For the areas / samples tested, the report indicates levels below the concentration of ambient samples and finds no air borne fungal concern in these areas. The report, dated May 16, 2016 and performed by Sief Clark Sief, Inc., is attached with this Addendum for bidders information and reference.

END OF ADDENDUM NO. 2

LIMITED ASBESTOS and LEAD-BASED PAINT

SURVEY REPORT

Prepared For:

Mr. Nelson Cayabyab

740 West Woodbury Road

Pasadena, California 91103

CSC Project No. 4007646

May 13, 2016

May 13, 2016


Mr. Nelson Cayabyab



RE: Asbestos and Lead-Based Paint Survey Report

Don Benito Elementary School

3700 Denair Street


CSC Project No. 4007646

Dear Mr. Cayabyab:

Attached is the asbestos and lead-based paint survey report for the subject property. It represents our evaluation

of the subject site with regard to asbestos-containing and lead-based painted materials in accordance with our

agreement for a survey.

The objective of the evaluation was to identify asbestos and lead containing materials that are present at the site.

The attached report documents our findings, assessments and recommendations.

If you have any questions concerning the report, please call our office.

Sincerely,

Ivan Paxton

Project Manager

Asbestos Consultant Certification #02-3146

CA Accredited Lead Inspector/Assessor #I-9201

Enc.

ASBESTOS and LEAD-BASED PAINT SURVEY REPORT

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

i. LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL

ii. TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................ 1

2. BUILDING PROFILE................................................................................................................ 1

3. SURVEY DESCIRPTION ......................................................................................................... 1

4. SURVEY RESULTS ................................................................................................................... 2

5. CONCLUSIONS ......................................................................................................................... 3

6. LIMITATIONS ........................................................................................................................... 3

APPENDIX A: ASBESTOS ANALYSIS RESULTS

APPENDIX B: LEAD-BASED PAINT ANALYSIS RESULTS

APPENDIX C: FORM 8552

APPENDIX D: INSPECTOR CERTIFICATIONS

Asbestos and Lead-Based Paint Survey Report

Don Benito Elemenatary School

3700 Denair Street

Pasadena, California

CSC Project # 4007646

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Pasadena Unified School Districted retained Clark Seif Clark, Inc. (CSC) to perform a limited

asbestos and lead-based paint survey at the Don Benito Elementary School located at 3700 Denair Street,

Pasadena, CA 91103. Mr. Ivan Paxton, State of California Certified Asbestos Consultant #02-3146 and

Accredited Lead Inspector/Assessor #9201 conducted the survey on May 11, 2016. The survey included

visual observations for ACM and suspect lead-based paint, sampling of accessible suspect materials, and

laboratory analysis. Findings of the survey, recommendations and conclusions are summarized below.

Materials containing detectable quantities of asbestos - legally defined in California as materials

containing percentages of asbestos greater than one percent (1%) by area – were not found at this

residence.

Materials containing less than 1% asbestos were also not identified in the school. In the State of

California, materials that contain between <1% asbestos but greater than 0.1% by weight asbestos are

considered to be Asbestos Containing Construction Material (ACCM).

The State of California defines LBP as those materials, which contain greater than 1.0 mg/cm2 or 5,000

parts per million (ppm) lead. The County of Los Angeles defines LBP as having a lead concentration

greater than 0.7 mg/cm2. The Los Angeles County lead standard was used on this project. LBP was not

identified in the school. The State of California also requires that if LBP with a lead concentration over

600 ppm is to be disturbed, that the individuals performing the work have the proper lead training and

wear personal protective equipment.

The purpose of this limited investigation is to sample and test suspect asbestos-containing materials

(ACM) and lead-based painted components, which may present an exposure risk or will be disturbed

during the upcoming renovation/demolition activities.

1. BUILDING PROFILE

All of the standard relocatable buildings inspected at Don Benito Elementary School are pre-fabricated

buildings consisting of wooden frames with wood exterior. The interior walls are covered with vinyl

sheeting, ceiling are 2 x 4 suspended ceiling tiles, flooring in the classroom relocatables are carpet over

wood while the restroom building has floor sheeting over wood.

2. SURVEY DESCRIPTION

ASBESTOS

The asbestos survey was performed in accordance with EPA regulations and the criteria of the Asbestos

Hazard Emergency Response Act (AHERA, EPA 40 CFR 763).

CSC collected ten (10) samples of suspect asbestos containing materials and broken down on a layer by

layer basis by the laboratory totaling eleven (11) samples. The samples were submitted to L.A. Testing,

Inc., in Garden Grove, California for analysis by Polarized Light Microscopy (PLM). L.A. Testing is

accredited for bulk asbestos analysis through the Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program

(ELAP) and the National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program (NVLAP) of the National Institute

of Standards and Technology. The results are presented in units of area percentage, and are compared to

the EPA threshold of 1% by area for classification as ACM.



3700 Denair Street



The following presumed asbestos-containing materials were sampled during the survey:

1) Roof system;

2) Restroom floor sheeting;

3) Suspended ceiling.

LEAD-BASED PAINT

The lead survey was performed using a Niton XLp Series 703, X-Ray Fluorescence analyzer (XRF). The

XRF provides on-site readings of the concentration of lead. HUD defines Lead-Based Paint (LBP), as

those materials, which contain 1.0 mg/cm2 of lead by XRF analysis. The survey was conducted in

accordance with HUD guidelines, and the materials tested were selected based on color, component type,

and substrate.

For the building’s exterior, CSC designated side A, B, C, and D, as follows:

1. Side A is the wall directly facing Denair Street.

2. While facing side A, side B is the wall directly to the right of side A, or the next wall

clockwise.

3. While facing side B, side C is the wall directly to the right of side B or the next wall

clockwise.

4. Side D is the wall directly to the left of side A or directly to the right of side C.

4. SURVEY RESULTS

ASBESTOS

The following table is a list of the samples of suspected asbestos-containing materials and their analytical

results:

TABLE 1

ASBESTOS ANALYTICAL RESULTS

Sample No. Material Type Location % Asbestos

646-1 Cap sheet roofing Room 26 roof N.D.

646-2 Roof seam mastic

Room 26 roof N.D.

646-3 Cap sheet roofing

Room 28 roof N.D.

646-4 Roof seam mastic Room 28 roof N.D.

646-5 Floor sheeting Girls restroom N.D.

646-5 Mastic Girls restroom N.D.



3700 Denair Street



TABLE 1

ASBESTOS ANALYTICAL RESULTS

Sample No. Material Type Location % Asbestos

646-6 Cap sheet roofing Room 30 roof N.D.

646-6 Roof mastic Room 30 roof N.D.

646-7 Roof seam mastic Room 30 roof N.D.

646-8 2x4 suspended ceiling tile Room 34 N.D.



LEAD RESULTS

The results of the XRF analysis indicated that, none of the components tested had a lead concentration

over 0.7 mg/cm2.

5. CONCLUSIONS

ASBESTOS

None of the tested components contained detectable levels of asbestos.

LEAD

LBP was not identified on the tested components of the impacted re-locatable school buildings.

6.0 LIMITATION

The field observations, measurements, and research reported herein are considered sufficient in detail and

scope to form a reasonable basis for a limited asbestos and lead-based paint survey of this subject

property. The assessment, conclusions, and recommendations presented herein are based upon the

subjective evaluation of limited data. They may not represent all conditions at the subject property as they

reflect the information gathered from specific locations. CSC warrants that the findings and conclusions

contained herein have been promulgated in accordance with generally accepted industrial hygiene

methodology and only for the subject property described in this report. No other warranties are implied or

expressed.

USE BY THIRD PARTIES

This report was prepared pursuant to the contract CSC has with the Client. That contractual relationship

included an exchange of information between CSC and its Client about the subject site that was unique,

and serves as the basis upon which this report was prepared. Because of the importance of the



3700 Denair Street



communication between CSC and its Client, reliance or any use of this report by anyone other than the

Client, for whom it was prepared, is prohibited and therefore not foreseeable to CSC.

Reliance or use by any such third party without explicit authorization in the report does not make said

third party a third party beneficiary to CSC’s contract with the Client. Any such unauthorized reliance on

or use of this report, including any of its information or conclusions, will be at third party’s risk. For the

same reasons, no warranties or representations, expressed or implied in this report, are made to any such

third party.

UNIDENTIFIABLE CONDITIONS

This limited asbestos and lead paint investigation has been developed to provide the Client with

information regarding apparent conditions relating to the subject property. Although CSC believes that

the findings and conclusions provided in this report are reasonable, the assessment is necessarily limited

to the conditions observed and to the information available at the time of the work. Due to the nature of

the work, there is a possibility that there may be existing conditions which could not be identified within

the scope of the assessment or which were not apparent at the time of our site work. The assessment is

also limited to information available from the Client at the time it was conducted. It is also possible that

the testing methods employed at the time of the report may later be superseded by other methods. CSC

does not accept responsibility for changes in the state of the art.

CSC does not guarantee that all asbestos-containing or lead-containing materials in the subject property

were recognized during our evaluation. This report is limited only to the samples taken and locations

sampled. Additional sampling may be needed to further identify other materials inside the property.

We have employed state-of-the-art practices to perform this analysis of risk and identification, but this

evaluation is limited in scope to the areas listed above and per Client's request. No demolition or product

review was performed in attempts to reveal material compositions. Our services consist of professional

opinions and recommendations made in accordance with generally accepted engineering principles and

practices, and are designed to provide an analytical tool to assist the client. CSC or those representing

CSC bear no responsibility for the actual condition of the structure or safety of a site pertaining to

asbestos or lead-based paint regardless of the actions taken by the Client.

Clark Seif Clark, Inc. prepared this asbestos and lead based paint survey under agreement with the Client.

No warranties expressed or implied, are made by Clark Seif Clark, Inc. or its employees as to the use of

any information, apparatus, product or process disclosed in this report. Though reasonable efforts have

been made to assure correctness, if a Contractor is employed he should bring any discrepancies to the

immediate attention of Clark Seif Clark, Inc.

Clark Seif Clark appreciated having the opportunity to inspect your property. If you have any questions

regarding this report, please do not hesitate to contact us at 562-435-8080.

APPENDIX A

LABORATORY ANALYSIS REPORTS

LA Testing11652 Knott Street Unit F5 Garden Grove, CA 92841

Tel/Fax: (714) 828-4999 / (714) 828-4944

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

331608339LA Testing Order:

Customer ID: CLCL77

Customer PO:

Project ID:

Attention: Phone:Ivan Paxton (949) 453-8177

Fax:Clark Seif Clark () -

Received Date:110 Pine Ave 05/11/2016 3:50 PM

Analysis Date:Suite 925 05/12/2016

Collected Date:Long Beach, CA 90802

Project: Don Benito 4007646

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

646-1

331608339-0001

None DetectedNon-fibrous (Other)85%Glass15%White/Black

Fibrous

Heterogeneous

Room 26 roof cap

sheet

646-2

331608339-0002

None DetectedNon-fibrous (Other)85%Cellulose15%Black

Non-Fibrous

Homogeneous

Room 26 roof seam

mastic

646-3

331608339-0003

None DetectedNon-fibrous (Other)85%Glass15%White/Black

Fibrous

Heterogeneous

Room 28 roof cap

sheet

646-4

331608339-0004

None DetectedNon-fibrous (Other)100%Black

Non-Fibrous

Homogeneous

Room 28 roof seam

mastic

646-6

331608339-0005


Non-Fibrous

Homogeneous

Room 30 roof cap

sheet

646-6-Mastic

331608339-0005A

Analysis CancelledRoom 30 roof cap

sheet

646-7

331608339-0006


Non-Fibrous

Homogeneous

Room 30 roof

646-5-Flooring

331608339-0007

None DetectedNon-fibrous (Other)70%Cellulose

Synthetic

Glass

20%

6%

4%

Gray

Fibrous

Homogeneous

Girls restroom floor

sheetinig

646-5-Mastic

331608339-0007A

None DetectedNon-fibrous (Other)100%Beige

Non-Fibrous

Homogeneous

Girls restroom floor

sheetinig

646-8

331608339-0008


Glass

30%

5%

Gray

Fibrous

Homogeneous

Room 34 2x4 ceiling

tile

646-9

331608339-0009


Glass

30%

5%

Gray

Non-Fibrous

Homogeneous

Room 35 2x4 ceiling

tile

646-10

331608339-0010


Glass

30%

5%

Gray

Fibrous

Homogeneous

Room 28 2x4 ceiling

tile

Initial Report From: 05/12/2016 09:30:39

Page 1 of 2PLM - 1.69 Printed: 5/12/2016 9:30 AM

LA Testing11652 Knott Street Unit F5 Garden Grove, CA 92841

Tel/Fax: (714) 828-4999 / (714) 828-4944


331608339LA Testing Order:

Customer ID: CLCL77

Customer PO:

Project ID:

Analyst(s)

Jeffrey Deboo (11) Michael DeCavallas, 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 LA Testing Garden Grove, CA NVLAP Lab Code 101384-0, CA ELAP 1406

Initial Report From: 05/12/2016 09:30:39

Page 2 of 2PLM - 1.69 Printed: 5/12/2016 9:30 AM

OrderID: 331608339

Page 1 Of 2

OrderID: 331608339

Page 2 Of 2

APPENDIX B

LEAD-BASED PAINT XRF ANALYSIS RESULTS

CSC Project No.4007646

Site: Don Benito Elementary School

Site Address: 3700 Denair Street, Pasadena, CA 91103

Shot Site Room Component Substrate Side Condition Color Results PbC PbC Error Units

137 SHUTTER CALIBRATION 1.99 0 cps

138 NIST CALIBRATION 2574 Positive 0.8 0.1 mg / cm ^2



141 34 34 DOOR METAL D INTACT GREEN Negative 0 0.02 mg / cm ^2

142 34 34 DOOR FRAME METAL D INTACT GREEN Negative 0 0.02 mg / cm ^2

143 34 OUTSIDE DOOR FRAME METAL D INTACT BEIGE Negative 0 0.02 mg / cm ^2

144 34 OUTSIDE DOOR METAL D INTACT BEIGE Negative 0 0.02 mg / cm ^2

145 34 OUTSIDE WALL WOOD D INTACT TAN Negative 0 0.02 mg / cm ^2

146 34 OUTSIDE WINDOW WOOD D INTACT BEIGE Negative 0 0.02 mg / cm ^2

147 34 OUTSIDE RAIL METAL D INTACT BEIGE Negative 0 0.02 mg / cm ^2

148 34 OUTSIDE RAMP WOOD D CRACKED GRAY Negative 0 0.02 mg / cm ^2

149 33 OUTSIDE WALL WOOD A INTACT YELLOW Negative 0 0.02 mg / cm ^2

150 33 OUTSIDE DOWNSPOUT METAL D INTACT YELLOW Negative 0 0.02 mg / cm ^2


152 33 OUTSIDE DOOR METAL D INTACT BEIGE Negative 0 0.02 mg / cm ^2

153 33 OUTSIDE WALL WOOD D INTACT YELLOW Negative 0 0.02 mg / cm ^2

154 35 OUTSIDE WINDOW WOOD D INTACT BEIGE Negative 0 0.02 mg / cm ^2



157 35 OUTSIDE RAMP WOOD D INTACT GRAY Negative 0 0.02 mg / cm ^2

158 35 OUTSIDE WALL WOOD C INTACT YELLOW Negative 0 0.02 mg / cm ^2

159 35 OUTSIDE DOWNSPOUT METAL B INTACT YELLOW Negative 0 0.02 mg / cm ^2

XRF LEAD-BASED MATERIALS INSPECTION REPORT

Clark Seif Clark, Inc.-

110 Pine Avenue, Suite 925, Long Beach, CA 90802

(562) 435-8080, Fax (562) 590-8795, web: csceng.com Page 1 of 4






160 35 OUTSIDE EAVE WOOD B INTACT BEIGE Negative 0 0.02 mg / cm ^2

161 35 OUTSIDE GUTTER METAL B INTACT BEIGE Negative 0 0.02 mg / cm ^2

162 35 OUTSIDE FLASHING METAL B INTACT BEIGE Negative 0 0.02 mg / cm ^2

163 34 OUTSIDE WALL WOOD B INTACT YELLOW Negative 0 0.02 mg / cm ^2

164 34 OUTSIDE WINDOW WOOD B INTACT BEIGE Negative 0 0.02 mg / cm ^2






170 33 OUTSIDE GUTTER METAL B INTACT BEIGE Negative 0 0.02 mg / cm ^2

171 RESTROOMS OUTSIDE DOOR METAL C INTACT BEIGE Negative 0 0.02 mg / cm ^2

172 RESTROOMS OUTSIDE DOOR FRAME WOOD C INTACT BEIGE Negative 0 0.02 mg / cm ^2

173 RESTROOMS OUTSIDE WALL WOOD C INTACT YELLOW Negative 0 0.02 mg / cm ^2

174 RESTROOMS OUTSIDE FLASHING METAL C INTACT BEIGE Negative 0 0.02 mg / cm ^2

175 RESTROOMS OUTSIDE RAMP WOOD C INTACT GRAY Negative 0 0.02 mg / cm ^2

176 RESTROOMS OUTSIDE FOUNDATION WOOD C INTACT YELLOW Negative 0 0.02 mg / cm ^2

177 RESTROOMS OUTSIDE WALL WOOD A INTACT YELLOW Negative 0 0.02 mg / cm ^2




181 32 OUTSIDE RAIL METAL B INTACT BEIGE Negative 0 0.02 mg / cm ^2

182 32 OUTSIDE RAMP WOOD B INTACT GRAY Negative 0 0.02 mg / cm ^2









183 26 OUTSIDE RAMP WOOD B INTACT GRAY Negative 0.01 0.04 mg / cm ^2




187 26 OUTSIDE DOOR METAL B INTACT BEIGE Negative 0 0.02 mg / cm ^2

188 28 OUTSIDE DOOR METAL B INTACT BEIGE Negative 0 0.02 mg / cm ^2


190 28 OUTSIDE RAMP WOOD B INTACT GRAY Negative 0 0.02 mg / cm ^2


192 28 OUTSIDE WALL WOOD C INTACT YELLOW Negative 0.03 0.11 mg / cm ^2



195 25 OUTSIDE DOWNSPOUT METAL D INTACT YELLOW Negative 0 0.02 mg / cm ^2

196 30 OUTSIDE FLASHING METAL C INTACT BEIGE Negative 0 0.02 mg / cm ^2

197 30 OUTSIDE FASCIA WOOD C INTACT BEIGE Negative 0 0.02 mg / cm ^2



200 30 OUTSIDE RAIL METAL C INTACT BEIGE Negative 0 0.02 mg / cm ^2

201 30 OUTSIDE RAMP METAL C INTACT GRAY Negative 0 0.02 mg / cm ^2



204 30 OUTSIDE DOWNSPOUT WOOD D INTACT BEIGE Negative 0 0.02 mg / cm ^2

205 30 OUTSIDE WINDOW WOOD C INTACT BEIGE Negative 0 0.02 mg / cm ^2









206 30 OUTSIDE DOOR FRAME WOOD C INTACT BEIGE Negative 0 0.02 mg / cm ^2

207 30 OUTSIDE DOOR METAL C INTACT BEIGE Negative 0 0.02 mg / cm ^2




Inspection Comments: Los Angeles County identifies XRF readings with ≥ 0.7 mg/cm² as lead based paint. Action Level 0.7 mg/cm²

Inspection date 04/11/2016 performed with a NITON XLp 300 serial number 25374.

None of the tested components contained lead at or above 0.7 mg/cm².

May 13, 2016

Inspector signature Date

9201

CDPH Certification No.




APPENDIX C

FORM 8552

APPENDIX D

INSPECTOR CERTIFICATIONS

CSC 110 Pine Ave., Ste. 925, Long Beach, CA 90802

Tel 562-435-8080 Fax 562-590-8795 www.csceng.com

May 16, 2016


Mr. Nelson Cayabyab



RE: Limited Fungal Investigation & Sampling


3700 Denair Street



Dear Mr. Cayabyab:

The Pasadena Unified School District retained Clark Seif Clark, Inc. (CSC) to perform a limited fungal

investigation and sampling at the above referenced property. Mr. Ivan Paxton conducted the initial on-site

investigation of the aforementioned area on May 16, 2016.

PURPOSE, SCOPE & ASSESSMENT

The purpose of this investigation was to conduct a visual, instrumental and analytical survey in an effort to

determine the presence or absence water damage and fungi contamination, and develop a scope of work to return

the affected areas to background condition.

The scope of this investigation included a non-destructive visual inspection of the reported areas, collection of

moisture measurements of the affected areas and production of a written report including findings and

recommendations for fungal growth contamination and/or water damage.

The assessment was executed in accordance with the authorized scope of work; however, this report does not

indicate the termination of work at the subject site. This report is solely a record of activities, observations, and

recommendations performed to date.

BACKGROUND

A water leak from the roof resulted in water damage in the ceiling area.

SITE DESCRIPTION

The damaged area is in a pre-fabricated classroom building identified as classroom 34.

Limited Fungal Investigation & Sampling






SITE OBSERVATION

On the day of the site visit, the classroom was visually inspected for deficiencies that potentially

promote fungal growth, which includes signs of water damage, fungal-enzyme staining, and visible

fungal growth. In general, the interior of the building appeared to be in good condition with the

exception of water damaged 2 x 4 ceiling tiles.

OBSERVATIONS

1. The following observations were made:

1. Visible signs of water damage;

2. No visible water damage or mold growth on walls and floor;

3. The general area appeared very clean and no foul odors were encountered.

ANALYTICAL AND SAMPLING METHODOLOGIES

Laboratory

All microbial samples collected from the subject property were submitted for laboratory analysis under chain of

custody to L.A. Testing. The laboratory analytical results and chain(s) of custody can be found in attachments.

Laboratory Accreditation

L.A. Testing is inspected and/or proficiency tested by the following: American Industrial Hygiene Association

(AIHA, Environmental Microbiology Laboratory Accreditation Program (EMLAP).

ANALYTICAL RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Fungi Sample Results

Background

Fungal spores are ubiquitous; they are a normal and important part of our indoor and outdoor environment, but

they will not proliferate indoors unless their environmental requirements are met. Fungi generally grow on

cellulose-based material, such as wood or drywall paper, when the moisture content is greater than 15% or the

relative humidity is greater than 50%, and when air is readily available.

Common biological dust components such as fungi are not regulated and have no mandated permissible exposure

limits (PEL). According to current industry guidelines, concentrations of airborne fungi found indoor, which

exceed concentrations of airborne fungi found outdoors and/or demonstrate a difference in hierarchy of fungi

detected, suggest an indoor fungal reservoir and should be considered positive. Positive samples may warrant

additional investigation, supplemental testing, or corrective measures.

Spore Air Samples

Spore trap air samples are collected using Zefon Analytical Accessories Air-O-Cell™ cassettes. The samples are

collected using electrically powered air sampling pumps set at 15 liters per minute (LPM). Calibration is by a

field rotameter previously calibrated following the frictionless piston method, a primary standard. This sampling







device is useful in providing rapid analysis of airborne contaminants in indoor air quality testing, allergy testing,

and flood restoration monitoring. Air-O-Cell™ cassettes are mainly used to analyze samples for quick turn-

around and when identification of a specific genus or species is not important to the outcome of the investigation.

Molds are identified by direct microscopy, a method that counts both viable and nonviable spores to derive the

total spore count.

A total of four (4) air samples were collected and submitted to the laboratory for analysis. Two (2) outside air

samples were collected to provide background information for comparative analysis. These results represent the

airborne fungi concentration at the time of sampling only and should not to be misconstrued as being a true

representation of the airborne fungi concentration inside the subject property at all times. The laboratory results

were as follows:

Total Spore Air Sample Results

Sample

No. Location

Total Spore

Count

(Counts/m3)

Spores Present

(Counts/m3)

Results

646-1 Room 34 inside 590

Alternaria – 40

Ascospores – 100

Aspergillus/Penicillium – 40

Basidiospores – 200

Cladosporium – 100

Unidentifiable Spores – 10

Acceptable

646-2 Room 35 inside 470

Ascospores – 40


Basidiospores – 300

Cladosporium – 40

Myxomycetes – 80

Acceptable

646-3 Roof 35 exterior 11,830

Alternaria – 30

Ascospores – 100


Basidiospores – 11,000

Cladosporium – 590

Ganoderma – 10

Background

646-4 Room 34 exterior 16,920

Alternaria – 10

Ascospores – 800


Basidiospores – 13,800

Cladosporium – 1,300

Myxomycetes – 760

Ulocladium – 50

Background

CONCLUSIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS

The concentrations of fungal spores identified in the air samples collected in the affected areas were less that the

concentration of fungal spores in the ambient samples. Therefore, there CSC does not believe that there is an air

borne fungal concern in these areas.







LIMITATIONS

The field observations, measurements, and research reported herein are considered sufficient in detail and scope

to form a reasonable basis for a limited fungal contamination investigation of this subject property. The

assessment, conclusions, and recommendations presented herein are based upon the subjective evaluation of

limited data. They may not represent all conditions at the subject property as they reflect the information gathered

from specific locations. CSC warrants that the findings and conclusions contained herein have been promulgated

in accordance with generally accepted industrial hygiene methodology and only for the subject property described

in this report. No other warranties are implied or expressed.

Use by Third Parties

This report was prepared pursuant to the contract CSC has with the Client. That contractual relationship included

an exchange of information between CSC and its Client about the subject site that was unique, and serves as the

basis upon which this report was prepared. Because of the importance of the communication between CSC and

its Client, reliance or any use of this report by anyone other than the Client, for whom it was prepared, is

prohibited and therefore not foreseeable to CSC.

Reliance or use by any such third party without explicit authorization in the report does not make said third party

a third party beneficiary to CSC’s contract with the Client. Any such unauthorized reliance on or use of this

report, including any of its information or conclusions, will be at third party’s risk. For the same reasons, no

warranties or representations, expressed or implied in this report, are made to any such third party.

Unidentifiable Conditions

This limited fungal contamination investigation has been developed to provide the Client with information

regarding apparent conditions relating to the subject property. Although CSC believes that the findings and

conclusions provided in this report are reasonable, the assessment is necessarily limited to the conditions observed

and to the information available at the time of the work. Due to the nature of the work, there is a possibility that

there may be existing conditions which could not be identified within the scope of the assessment or which were

not apparent at the time of our site work. The assessment is also limited to information available from the Client

at the time it was conducted. It is also possible that the testing methods employed at the time of the report may

later be superseded by other methods. CSC does not accept responsibility for changes in the state of the art.

CSC does not guarantee that all fungal contaminated areas in the subject property were recognized during our

evaluation. This report is limited only to the samples taken and locations sampled. Additional sampling may be

needed to further identify other pollutants, or other fungal affected areas inside the property.

We have employed state-of-the-art practices to perform this analysis of risk and identification, but this evaluation

is limited in scope to the areas listed above and per Client's request. No demolition or product review was

performed in attempts to reveal material compositions. Our services consist of professional opinions and

recommendations made in accordance with generally accepted engineering principles and practices, and are

designed to provide an analytical tool to assist the client. CSC or those representing CSC bear no responsibility

for the actual condition of the structure or safety of a site pertaining to fungal contamination regardless of the

actions taken by the Client.

CSC appreciated having the opportunity to perform this limited investigation at your property. If for some reason

you have any questions regarding this report, please do not hesitate to contact us.







Respectfully Submitted,

Clark Seif Clark, Inc.

Ivan Paxton

Project Manager

cc: File







ANALYTICAL RESULTS

&

CHAIN OF CUSTODY


Tel/Fax: (714) 828-4999 / (714) 828-4944

11652 Knott Street Unit F5 Garden Grove, CA 92841

LA Testing LA Testing Order: 331608345

Customer ID: CLCL77

Customer PO:

Project ID:

Ivan PaxtonAttn: Phone: (949) 453-8177

Clark Seif Clark Fax: () -

110 Pine Ave Collected: 05/11/2016

Suite 925 Received: 05/11/2016

Long Beach, CA 90802 Analyzed: 05/13/2016


Test Report: Air-O-Cell(™) Analysis of Fungal Spores & Particulates by Optical Microscopy (Methods EMSL 05-TP-003, ASTM D7391)

Lab Sample Number:

Client Sample ID:

Volume (L):

Sample Location

331608345-0001

646-1

75

Room 34 inside

331608345-0002

646-2

75

Room 35 inside

331608345-0003

646-3

75

Room 35 exterior

Spore Types Raw Count Count/m³ % of Total Raw Count Count/m³ % of Total Raw Count Count/m³ % of Total

Alternaria 1 40 6.8 - - - 2* 30* 0.3

Ascospores 3 100 16.9 1 40 8.5 3 100 0.8

Aspergillus/Penicillium 1 40 6.8 1* 10* 2.1 3 100 0.8

Basidiospores 5 200 33.9 6 300 63.8 260 11000 93

Bipolaris++ - - - - - - - - -

Chaetomium - - - - - - - - -

Cladosporium 3 100 16.9 1 40 8.5 14 590 5

Curvularia - - - - - - - - -

Epicoccum - - - - - - - - -

Fusarium - - - - - - - - -

Ganoderma - - - - - - 1* 10* 0.1

Myxomycetes++ 3 100 16.9 2 80 17 - - -

Pithomyces - - - - - - - - -

Rust - - - - - - - - -

Scopulariopsis - - - - - - - - -

Stachybotrys - - - - - - - - -

Torula - - - - - - - - -

Ulocladium - - - - - - - - -

Unidentifiable Spores 1* 10* 1.7 - - - - - -

Zygomycetes - - - - - - - - -

Total Fungi 17 590 100 11 470 100 283 11830 100Hyphal Fragment - - - 1 40 - - - -

Insect Fragment - - - - - - 1* 10* -

Pollen 1 40 - - - - 1 40 -

Analyt. Sensitivity 600x - 42 - - 42 - - 42 -

Analyt. Sensitivity 300x - 13* - - 13* - - 13* -

Skin Fragments (1-4) - 1 - - 1 - - 1 -

Fibrous Particulate (1-4) - 1 - - 1 - - 1 -

Background (1-5) - 2 - - 2 - - 2 -

Bipolaris++ = Bipolaris/Drechslera/Exserohilum

Myxomycetes++ = Myxomycetes/Periconia/Smut

Cecil Strait, Micro Laboratory Manager

or other approved signatoryNo discernable field blank was submitted with this group of samples.

High levels of background particulate can obscure spores and other particulates leading to underestimation. Background levels of 5 indicate an overloading of background particulates, prohibiting accurate detection and quantification.

Present = Spores detected on overloaded samples. Results are not blank corrected unless otherwise noted. The detection limit is equal to one fungal spore, structure, pollen, fiber particle or insect fragment. "*" Denotes particles found

at 300X. "-" Denotes not detected. Due to method stopping rules, raw counts in excess of 100 are extrapolated based on the percentage analyzed. EMSL maintains liability limited to cost of analysis. This report relates only to the

samples reported above 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. Samples received in good condition unless otherwise noted.

Samples analyzed by LA Testing Garden Grove, CA AIHA-LAP, LLC EMLAP 101650

Initial report from: 05/13/2016 11:51:56

For information on the fungi listed in this report, please visit the Resources section at www.emsl.com

MIC_M001_0002 1.68 Printed: 05/13/2016 11:51 AM Page 1 of 2


Tel/Fax: (714) 828-4999 / (714) 828-4944

11652 Knott Street Unit F5 Garden Grove, CA 92841

LA Testing LA Testing Order: 331608345

Customer ID: CLCL77

Customer PO:

Project ID:

Ivan PaxtonAttn: Phone: (949) 453-8177

Clark Seif Clark Fax: () -

110 Pine Ave Collected: 05/11/2016

Suite 925 Received: 05/11/2016

Long Beach, CA 90802 Analyzed: 05/13/2016


Test Report: Air-O-Cell(™) Analysis of Fungal Spores & Particulates by Optical Microscopy (Methods EMSL 05-TP-003, ASTM D7391)

Lab Sample Number:

Client Sample ID:

Volume (L):

Sample Location

331608345-0004

646-4

75

Room 34 exterior

331608345-9901

Dummy

9999

Dummy

331608345-9902

Dummy

9999

Dummy

Spore Types Raw Count Count/m³ % of Total - - - - - -

Alternaria 1* 10* 0.1 - - - - - -

Ascospores 19 800 4.7 - - - - - -

Aspergillus/Penicillium 4 200 1.2 - - - - - -

Basidiospores 328 13800 81.6 - - - - - -

Bipolaris++ - - - - - - - - -

Chaetomium - - - - - - - - -

Cladosporium 30 1300 7.7 - - - - - -

Curvularia - - - - - - - - -

Epicoccum - - - - - - - - -

Fusarium - - - - - - - - -

Ganoderma - - - - - - - - -

Myxomycetes++ 18 760 4.5 - - - - - -

Pithomyces - - - - - - - - -

Rust - - - - - - - - -

Scopulariopsis - - - - - - - - -

Stachybotrys - - - - - - - - -

Torula - - - - - - - - -

Ulocladium 4* 50* 0.3 - - - - - -

Unidentifiable Spores - - - - - - - - -

Zygomycetes - - - - - - - - -

Total Fungi 404 16920 100 - - - - - -Hyphal Fragment - - - - - - - - -

Insect Fragment 1* 10* - - - - - - -

Pollen 1 40 - - - - - - -

Analyt. Sensitivity 600x - 42 - - - - - - -

Analyt. Sensitivity 300x - 13* - - - - - - -

Skin Fragments (1-4) - 1 - - - - - - -

Fibrous Particulate (1-4) - 1 - - - - - - -

Background (1-5) - 2 - - - - - - -

Bipolaris++ = Bipolaris/Drechslera/Exserohilum

Myxomycetes++ = Myxomycetes/Periconia/Smut

Cecil Strait, Micro Laboratory Manager

or other approved signatoryNo discernable field blank was submitted with this group of samples.

High levels of background particulate can obscure spores and other particulates leading to underestimation. Background levels of 5 indicate an overloading of background particulates, prohibiting accurate detection and quantification.

Present = Spores detected on overloaded samples. Results are not blank corrected unless otherwise noted. The detection limit is equal to one fungal spore, structure, pollen, fiber particle or insect fragment. "*" Denotes particles found

at 300X. "-" Denotes not detected. Due to method stopping rules, raw counts in excess of 100 are extrapolated based on the percentage analyzed. EMSL maintains liability limited to cost of analysis. This report relates only to the

samples reported above 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. Samples received in good condition unless otherwise noted.

Samples analyzed by LA Testing Garden Grove, CA AIHA-LAP, LLC EMLAP 101650

Initial report from: 05/13/2016 11:51:56

For information on the fungi listed in this report, please visit the Resources section at www.emsl.com

MIC_M001_0002 1.68 Printed: 05/13/2016 11:51 AM Page 2 of 2

OrderID: 331608345

Page 1 Of 1

pasadena unified school district district service center...

Documents