Website:www.scpropertypros.com E-Mail:firstname.lastname@example.org July 10, 2008
Post-Remediation Inspection Property Address
Eatonton, GA 31024 Report Ordered By:
57 Hasell Street Charleston, SC 29401 (LOCAL) 843.296.5006
Project Information OWNER INFORMATION
City, State, ZIP
City, State, ZIP
Type of Exterior
Date of Inspection(s)
Substrate (if known)
Age of Property
Present at Inspection
Temperature / Humidity 90
Type of Windows
Inspection Test Equipment Test Equipment Description
Low Medium High A Tramex Interior Moisture 10-12 13-18 19-25 2 B Tramex Exterior Wet Wall Detector 10 - 20 21-50 51-100 4.5 C Delmorst Moisture Probe Meter 10-15 16-25 26-99 2 D Structural Resistance Tester (SRT) >44 = Pass <44 = Fail Higher is better Important Note: The test equipment is used to help locate problem areas. It must be understood that the test equipment is not an exact science but rather good tools used as indicators of possible problems. At times, because of hidden construction within the wall cavity, the meters get false readings or no readings at all. Some meters will pick up on metals, wiring, unique wall finishes, etc. Positive readings do not always mean there is a problem, nor do negative readings necessarily mean there is not a problem. We do not use the equipment to obtain exact moisture content, but rather to obtain relative readings between suspected problem areas and non problem areas. This information is then used to help determine potential problem areas which may warrant more investigation.
Front Elevation- Before Remediation
NO GRID LOCATIONS TO REFERENCE DEFICIENCIES ON THIS ELEVATION PAGE
Right Elevation 1-Before Remediation
5/6 F/G Moisture 30-40% N/A
EPDM roof material delaminating on seam joints at flashing intersections creating entry points for water ingress. Red shaded area indicates 40% moisture content on 9.5-9.6 floor inside door under carpet and 30% on door header Metal panel vertical overlap seams loose in numerous 1.2, 1.6 locations where water can breach building envelope 1.1, 2.4, Metal "head flashing" design inverted and holding 2.6 water above doors 4.2-4.6
Right Elevation 2-Before Remediation
EPDM adhesive failure at counter flashing under roof covering Poor weatherproofing detail at corner connection joint where water infiltration is possible Adhesive sealant failure observed around perimeters of windows
Rear Elevation- Before Remediation
NO GRID LOCATIONS TO REFERENCE DEFICIENCIES ON THIS ELEVATION PHOTO
Left Elevation- Before Remediation
Tape flashing and sealants around HVAC unit inadequate to prevent water intrusion Screws on left HVAC nailing flange loose with no sealant; EPDM roof material at section joint above HVAC delaminated and allowing water ingress Arrows indicate approximate location of EPDM delamination from flashing on all connection seams of building where water HAS breached structure and caused interior damage (office) Flashing details above doors holding water and require construction sealant at wall intersection in order to function properly
Wall Deficiencies #1-Before Remediation
Photo #1.1- Note silicone at flashing/wall intersection necessary in order to prevent water ingress at junction.
1.2- Note silicone at separation joint on vertical panels in an attempt to prevent water infiltration into the building envelope.
1.3- Clear silicone caulk was applied between overlap joints on vertical panels in an attempt to prevent water ingress.
1.4- Caulk was applied on window headers (tops) but omitted on jambs (sides) leaving entry points for water.
1.5- Nailing flange fasteners on HVAC attachments into siding system inadequately sealed to prevent water intrusion.
1.6- Horizontal overlap seam pieces are bowing away from wall where water can penetrate siding system.
Wall Deficiencies #2-After 1st Repair Attempt
2.1- Silicone sealant applied at vertical overlap on flashing under roof/wall intersection in effort to stop H2O ingress.
2.2- Contractor applied silicone caulk on gap at vertical overlap of panels in attempt to mitigate water infiltration
2.3- Note presence of silicone on left portion of photo and omission on right indicating haphazard installation technique.
2.4- Excessive accumulation of caulk material at the flashing apparatus attached to the top of doors.
2.5- Contractor attempted to stop water intrusion into the structure by excessively applying caulk on siding panel pieces.
2.6- Line indicates outside lip of flashing detail installed on top of doors which is holding instead of diverting water.
Roof Perspective-Before Remediation
3.1- Photo view of EPDM (Ethylene Propylene Diene Monomer) rubber roof system installed on surface space.
3.2 The connection joints of building sections on the roof system require an additional vinyl seam at intersections to conform with roofing and code specifications.
3.3- The EPDM roof covering is a single ply rubber material fully adhered to the underlying substrate. There is a slope in the center of the structure intended to prevent standing water.
3.4- EPDM manufacturers recommend a positive drainage of a minimum of 1/4" per foot to prevent standing water and subsequent accelerated system deterioration.
Roof Deficiencies #1-Before Remediation
4.1- Standing water was observed at this location indicating inadequate slope (no precipitation 48 hrs prior to inspection).
4.2- Severe delamination of EPDM on roof/wall intersection flashing where water has entered and caused interior damage.
4.3- Areas where the roof material has separated from the metal are at ends of all connection joints from poor workmanship.
4.4- Note EPDM delamination at ends of connection seam joints where water intrusion was confirmed.
4.5- Attempts to patch seams with silicone were made but the EPDM separation over flashing was not addressed.
4.6- Silicone is neither an acceptable or permanent repair material for EPDM roof systems.
Roof Photos #2-Before Remediation
5.1- EPDM manufacturer code and batch number can be used to determine manufacturing date if necessary.
5.2- Note staining and residue from area of standing water. Substantial water ingress has occurred around this location.
5.3- Existing patch attempt with appropriate material but poorly installed and caulked with unapproved silicone sealant.
5.4- Contractor attempted to fill hole with silicone in lieu of repairing EPDM separation from flashing.
5.5- Excessive amounts of silicone were applied under EPDM where delamination has occurred in attempt to stop water ingress
5.6- Evidence of roof degradation was observed above area where flashing has separated (possible water entry points)
Roof Photos #3-After 1st Repair Attempt
6.1- Recent repairs included tucking EPDM behind metal strips, screwing to wall then caulking with silicone.
6.2- Silicone was chosen to seal cracking of roof material instead of appropriate EPDM patch kit as required.
6.3- Clear silicone caulk is not an approved repair method as stated by EPDM manufacturers'.
6.4- Note large circumference of area where standing water stain residue is visible, indicating inadequate slope.
6.5- Several areas of adhesive material failure were observed after recent repair attempts to stop water intrusion.
6.6- Contractor installed new seam along joint connecting front and second section of buildings after initial inspection was completed.
6.7- One penetration through roof system above office was flashed with seal tape during recent repairs.
6.8- Note sealant was applied horizontally above metal pieces but not vertically, thus leaving entry points for water infiltration.
6.9- Piece of EPDM not tucked behind metal after recent repairs leaving system susceptible to water penetration.
Roof Photos #4-After 1st Repair Attempt
7.1- Evidence of ponding water is visible in this area where recent remediation attempts to stop water ingress included metal strips to re-attach roof covering to vertical wall with caulk. Severe moisture damage to ceiling sheetrock is evident inside office.
7.2- Note poor workmanship with haphazardly applied sealant on corner section. Employing silicone is not only an unapproved method for EPDM repair but a temporary solution at best.
7.3- The vinyl seam joints are holding water near outside edges where EPDM was recently reattached to wall to mitigate substantial water infiltration into the building envelope.
7.4- Obvious degradation to roof patch area with silicone applied around perimeter.
Interior Moisture #1- Before Remediation
8.1- Location of severe leak in office ceiling, approximately 3' from area on exterior recently repaired.
8.2- Note close proximity of leak and ceiling damage to building connection joint where water was entering structure.
8.3- The tiles of the suspended ceiling, sheetrock of original ceiling and insulation were all damaged from leak.
8.4- Acceptable moisture content range for drywall is between .1% and 1.0%. The 6.2% reading collected indicates total saturation.
8.5- Evidence of mold was observed in sheetrock of office ceiling leak area and ceiling of classroom across hall.
8.6 - Samples sent to San-Air Technologies Laboratory in Virginia confirmed the presence of toxic stachybotrys mold.
Interior Moisture #2-Before Remediation
9.1- Dropped ceiling was installed over existing original blown sheetrock ceiling prior to delivery of building.
9.2- Evidence of water leak from visible stain in ceiling tile of room opposite office.
9.3- Removal of dropped ceiling tile revealed presence of mold from elevated moisture content in drywall material.
9.4- Staining to tiles in classroom caused by water infiltration at roof/wall intersection on exterior of right elevation.
9.5- Shaded area indicates elevated moisture content (20%+) collected on door jamb and plywood under carpet.
9.6- A reading of 40% (total saturation) was collected in wood under carpet along with 30% on right jamb of door. (20+% problem)
Roof #1: Post-Remediation
10.1- A piece of drip edge flashing was installed as required at the roof/wall intersection before roof installation.
10.2-The rolled asphalt roof covering was turned down over the face of the flashing to assist in diverting water into gutter system.
10.3-Rolled asphalt roofing material was employed over all roof surface space and installed in accordance w/ specifications.
10.4-All penetrations through roof system were properly detailed as required for installation.
10.5-Water is moving away from the center roof seam towards the outside edges as recommended by manufacturer.
10.6-Installation kits for penetrations through roof with appropriate sealants were observed on new roof system as required.
Roof #2: Post-Remediation 11.1-Significant amount of standing water was observed on the left elevation middle section of asphalt roof covering. Although minor water accumulation is acceptable on this roofing material, proper slope to prevent standing water should have been installed during repairs.
11.2-Any standing water should evaporate 24-48 hours after rainfall. It rained the day prior to our inspection, but it's unlikely the low spots holding water will dry out within the recommended timeframe during cooler months.
11.3-Standing water was also observed on the front section of the left elevation on the outside edge. It is my understanding that Mr. Henry Darby, the occupant's representative, instructed the contractor to properly slope the roof. Our initial inspection report also suggested proper slope to prevent standing water.
12.1-A membrane flashing adhesively attached was installed along with modified metal flashing on all HVAC penetrations where water was breaching exterior envelope prior to remediation.
12.2-Metal roof drip edge flashing was installed at roof/wall intersection as recommended to mitigate water ingress. This intersection was identified as a major contributing factor to water infiltration during out initial inspection on 1.31.08.
12.3-Roof drip edge flashing was installed in accordance with building code and manufacturers' specifications as required.
12.4-Silicone caulk was applied at the door head flashing details to stop water intrusion. Caulk maintenance will be necessary on exterior to ensure integrity and restrict potential water ingress.
13.1-An Indoor Air Quality machine was utilized to measure air quality (control sample) and detect abnormal levels of harmful air toxins in the office area where stachybotrys mold was identified during initial inspection. Results revealed all level are "normal" and within acceptable guidelines.
13.2-The entire roof space of office area and other classrooms were removed and replaced during remediation. Saturated materials with mold presence were detected during our initial investigation.
13.3-Air samples collected in office area under location where problem was most severe tested normal and no indication of contaminated air was detected. Relative humidity inside structure also fell within normal guidelines (40-60%).
CONCLUSION 1.31.08: At the request of Mr. Henry, the building occupant's representative, we initially inspected this structure on January 31, 2008. The following is our conclusion from the initial report. "The purpose of this investigation was to determine the source of ongoing leaks as requested and identified by the building occupants. Our pre-inspection protocol included a complete visual inspection of the entire structure, both interior and exterior, along with interviews of tenants to learn a "leak history" as well as any attempts to mitigate the problem. Visual examination of the interior revealed a number of locations where visible staining of building materials in the ceiling was evident, indicating water ingress into the building envelope (or shell). Testing for moisture content is accomplished with several moisture meters, both invasive and non-invasive, which included scanning all interior walls to obtain a relative moisture content. Any indications of problem areas identified with moisture scanners are investigated further with a probe meter to ascertain a definitive moisture content. Any readings in wood above 20% or 1.0% in sheetrock indicate a potential problem usually associated with exposure of the building material to moisture from water breaching the envelope. Our inspection began with the roof system which is covered with EPDM single ply rubber material. EPDM manufacturers recommend a minimum of 1/4" of slope per foot (see attached EPDM recommendations literature) to prevent standing water and subsequent material failure. Although our inspection identified a number of areas with standing water, the entry points allowing water ingress appear to be limited to the roof/wall intersections where the EPDM material has delaminated from the flashing. The building connection joints have an additional seam over the abutments to bridge the transition and prevent water infiltration. The roof system and seam terminations are supposed to turn down over the face of the flashing detail at the wall intersections. At the time of our investigation, we detected numerous areas where the EPDM had separated from the metal on the outside edge, thus creating large entry points for water. The interior leaks are in close proximity of the exterior deficiency where water is entering at the roof and wall junction, suggesting a direct correlation between the roof/wall failure and the interior water damaged materials. Our investigation also identified many areas on the exterior siding and openings in the system where water can enter. The panel overlap joints, both vertically and horizontally, are bowing in several areas leaving the structure vunerable to detrimental water infiltration. The doors have a flashing apparatus installed on all headers (tops) which appears to be inverted and holding water. All building code bodies require flashing be installed to prevent the entrance of moisture. The current head flashing requires a well maintained caulk joint be present at the wall intersection in order to prevent water ingress, thus rendering the flashing useless if caulk is required for functionality and effectiveness. Moreover, it appears the aforementioned flashing is a contributing factor to the elevated moisture readings (30-40%) collected around the door and interior threshold on the right elevation. The
elevation and photo pages of this report illustrate the roof and wall deficiencies contributing to water penetration at the time of our inspection.
Upon close examination of the damaged ceiling materials in the office, we noticed the original ceiling had been covered with a dropped ceiling. Mr. Darby inquired whether there was any way to determine how long the leaks were ongoing and expressed concern that the dropped ceiling may have been installed to mask an existing moisture problem. There is no way to establish an exact chronology or timeline of water intrusion, but it is certainly possible. A moisture content of over 6% was confirmed in the gypsum material, indicating total saturation and material failure, which takes a substantial amount of time, especially considering the drought like conditions in recent months. We observed what appeared to be black mold in the ceiling of the office and collected samples to send off for analysis by an accredited laboratory. Proper chain of custody forms were filled out and the report findings from SanAir Technologies Laboratory in Virginia were received on February 6. The report, which I included, identified "heavy" levels of toxic stachybotrys mold in the sample we sent. Since we are not certified mold specialists, I suggested to Mr. Darby he contact a mold testing and remediation firm immediately to perform the appropriate air and sample testing. Considering the use of this building is to educate small children, it is imperative swift action is taken to determine the extent of mold presence and possible remediation. However, the first course of action in eliminating a climate conducive to mold infestation is prevention of water intrusion. Mold cannot grow or flourish if the building material is dry. It is critical that all deficiencies noted in this report, which are either currently allowing water infiltration or may allow it in the future, be corrected before any remediation begins. It is my understanding the maintenance company has already performed some repairs they deemed necessary in order to stop water intrusion. I re-visited the site before finalizing this report to inspect the repairs. It appears the scope of work simply involved attempts to tuck the EPDM behind a metal strip and re-attach to the wall along with haphazard application of clear silicone caulk around likely entry points. Silicone is not an approved material for repair of EPDM roof systems! The appropriate EPDM repair kit and adhesives should be utilized for a permanent and effective repair to these problems. Caulk was poorly applied on wall panel joints and EPDM delamination points which will be a temporary fix at best. Moreover, the repairs left many areas where water can still penetrate the wall and roof system. The mold remediation firm should be able to prepare a comprehensive scope of work once their testing to determine the extent of stachybotrys is complete. Again, urgent attention to the water ingress and mold problem is essential! I would be happy to consult with your mold specialist on a suggested scope of work upon request. Representative photographs illustrating deficiencies allowing water to breach this structure have been included in the elevation and custom photo pages of this report. Additional literature relating to EPDM roof systems has also been included. I you have any questions or comments concerning this report, please feel free to contact our office."
CONCLUSION: As we recommended in our first inspection report, a certified mold specialist was contacted and retained to perform a comprehensive mold survey and study of the subject structure. His findings confirmed the presence of toxic stachybotrys mold in building materials and air as we suspected. A scope of work was formulated and a qualified remediation contractor, Dririte of Atlanta, was hired to perform the required scope of work to mitigate water intrusion and neutralize all mold. The scope of work included, but was not limited to : 1- Complete removal of all contaminated building materials, including carpet, drywall and insulation. 2- Replacement of all contaminated building materials. 3- HEPA vacuuming. 4- Dry-ice blasting of exposed ceiling and framing. 5- Application of anti-microbial agent where necessary 6- Clean all ductwork and registers. I visited with the project supervisor, Mr. Zach Boyd, at the commencement of the remediation. He provided me with a detailed interior scope of work, which I found the be thorough and comprehensive, not unlike Mr. Boyd. However, I inquired about the roof scope and was told the roofing contractor would need to be consulted. I mention this because I'll reference a possible design and roofing issue later. I offered my third party services to Mr. Darby, which would include site visits and stage reports, but was told that would neither be necessary or financially feasible.
Pursuant to the request of Mr. Darby and Mr. Boyd, we conducted a post-remediation inspection on July 10, 2008 to evaluate the repairs, conduct interior/exterior moisture scanning and test the indoor air quality. We scanned all exterior walls, ceilings and other areas and detected NO elevated moisture readings indicative of a problem or conducive to material degradation. We also performed indoor air and relative humidity tests which can indicate the presence of harmful air toxins or humidity problems. Our findings revealed the air to be clean and humidity to be normal, indicating the remediation was successful and the building is no longer "sick". In our initial inspection report, we observed the existing roof to be flat in areas and holding water in several locations. We suggested a positive slope be installed during the remediation to prevent this condition as recommended by roofing manufacturers. It is my understanding after speaking with Mr. Darby that he instructed Dririte many times and had discussions ad nauseum about installing a positive slope on the roof. Our post-remediation inspection revealed the roof to still be flat in the same areas where it was holding water prior to the remediation. Although flat roof areas are tolerated with asphalt rolled roofing, it is not recommended and will certainly increase maintenance and reduce the life expectancy of the material. As a result of the inadequate slope, I have several suggestions relating to roof
maintenance. The roof should be inspected twice a year, preferably in the spring and fall. Roof surface problems such as blisters or bubbles, worn surfaces, open seams, visible cracks, ruptures or other holes, loose surfaces or fasteners, clogged drains and gutters, bent or missing drain covers, flashing problems including cracks, holes, rust, missing flashing, and failed caulking at joints between flashing and walls should be repaired promptly. Additionally, all other exterior weatherproofing materials, especially the existing silicone caulk applied at panel seam joints and fasteners, should be examined during the roof inspection for adhesive or cohesive failure.
I generally like to inspect a property six (6) months after the completion date to ensure all repairs have been and remain effective. Due to the fact this structure is used to educate small children, it is especially critical. I will offer my services for the six month follow up inspection at no charge since six months has not elapsed. If you have any questions or comments concerning this report, please feel free to contact my office.
Certified Moisture Analyst/Inspector
Website:www.scpropertypros.com E-Mail:email@example.com Property Address Report Ordered By: July 10, 2008 57 Hasell Street Charleston,...