Document 3NYG5om02vdZgEGvVm1vpBKb0

/7\hr 75> .r/i AIHA Committee Activities and Reports ASBESTOS HAZARD ASSESSMENT AND HAZARD ABATEMENT - CRITERIA EMPLOYED BY POLICY MAKERS - Asbestos Subcommittee Indoor Environmental Quality Committee* Introduction The accelerating concern over asbestos in buildings has prompted action by many building owners, managers and facility administrators. During the past year the Asbestos Subcommittee of the AIHA Indoor Environmental Quality Committee undertook a project to gather information con cerning the criteria used during hazard assessment and fol lowing completion of an asbestos abatement project. A sur vey questionnaire was designed and sent to approximately 70 Federal and State agencies, large school districts, and several trade associations. The purpose of the survey was to provide information to assist in answering the following questions. 1. What criteria are used in visual assessment of asbestos in buildings today? 2. If air sampling is employed as part of the assessment, how is it used and what procedures are followed? 3. Upon conclusion of an asbestos abatement-project, what criteria are important to determine if the work area is safe for reoocupancy by unprotected personnel? 4. If air monitoring is used after asbestos abatement, what concentration must be achieved and what procedures are employed? Hazard Assessment The survey participants were asked to rate, on a scale of zero to five, the importance of 17 selected criteria that may be used when conducting a hazard assessment of a building with asbestos-containing materials. The following list of criteria has been arranged in order from most important to least important, as indicated by the survey respondents. The numbers in parentheses represent the mean rating, based on the survey responses (scale of 0 - 5). 1. Material Condition (4.7) 2. Degree of Friability (4.5) 3. Return Air Plenum (4.2) 4. Air Stream Effects (4.1) 5. Material Accessibility (4.1) 6. Activity Level (4.0) 7. Exposed Surface Area (3.5) 8. Water Damage (3.4) 9. Bldg. Mgmt. Policies (3.3) 10. Building Characteristics (3.3) 11. Percentage of Asbestos (3.2) 12. Potential Building Use (3.1) 13. Material Function (3.1) 14. Population Characteristics (3.0) 15. Type of Asbestos (2.0) 16. E.P.A. Algorithm Score (1.8) 17. Non-asbestiform Components (1.2) In a separate question, approximately 80 percent of the survey respondents indicated air sampling should be used in addition to other hazard assessment criteria. Half of these preferred phase-contrast microscopy for analyses. Trans mission electron microscopy was preferred over scanning electron microscopy, when available. The survey respon dents using air sampling as a criteria for hazard assessment most often chose 0.01 fiber per cubic centimeter (f/ cc) as an action level initiating a response. Post-abatement Clearance Criteria Clearance criteria are the minimum cleanliness requirements following an asbestos abatement project which must be met before reoccupancy is permitted by unprotected personnel. Air sampling and a thorough visual inspection of the work area were determined to be the two most important clear ance criteria. The results of settled dust and wipe samples were also judged to be important, according to the survey responses. The survey respondents indicated a preference for elec tron microscopy (58%) when analyzing clearance air sam ples. Forty-two percent (42%) of the respondents preferred phase-contrast microscopy. Those who preferred electron microscopy selected transmission electron microscopy (TE M) over scanning electron microscopy (SEM) by a slight mar gin. The Fibrous Aerosol MonitorTM was not considered appropriate for clearance air monitoring, although it is used occasionally for daily air monitoring during the asbestos abatement project. The airborne concentration most frequently suggested by the survey participants for a clearance criterion was 0.01 f/cc. Several respondents also indicated they require either 0.01 f/ cc or the outside ambient asbestos fiber concentration (measured by TEM), whichever is greater. Conclusions The following conclusions were generated by the asbestos subcommittee following review of the submitted question naires: I. The physical condition of the material and its likeli- A-37* ALCQA0000008248 Am Ind Hyg 4sjoc. J. (47) June. 1986 "...the MIRAS IB Is the most versatile portable toxic gas analyzer you can buy." "Ofall the direct-reading instruments on the market, the MIRAN IB provides the best features I "I used to use detector tubes for many substances and the MIRAN IB is so much easier to use. I am getting very accurate readings." "The AllRAN IB allows you to conduct quick, accurate general surveys which are usefulfor planning future industrial hygiene strategies." "Found toxic environments where none were thought to exist '.' "It was found to be a practical method to test for anesthetic gases in hospital operating rooms, especially since the type ofanesthetic was not known until the day of the survey!' "The MIRAN IB has enabled us to identify propane gas leaks, ethylene oxide leaks and screen for various airborne contaminants'.' "I wouldn't hesitate to buy Foxboro equipment in the future'.' \ Customer comments like these make it easy to understand why the MIRAN IB is so widely used in all kinds of workplace environments --especially for "Right-to-know" compliance. In fact, the MIRAN IB is the only direct-reading portable ambient air analyzer on the market today that conies precalibrated to ana lyze any of 116 OSHA-cited vapors and gases, with room in its mem ory for up to 10 more user-selected and calibrated gases. The MIRAN IB is very userfriendly too. It provides on-site analysis in just seconds, with push button ease. There's no complex procedure to learn. And no waiting for laboratory results. Simply enter the gas code name and the MIRAN IB does the rest, automatically And because it's fully portable, the MIRAN IB goes wherever there's a need for fast, accurate on-the-spot analysis. Good reasons why you should call Foxboro today--(203) 853-1616. Or write for free literature on the MIRAN IB and our full line of cus tomer-proven portable and installed toxic gas analyzers. The Foxboro Company Foxboro, MA 02035 USA. The leader in toxic ga? anafyaie. toxBono CIRCLE READS* SSRVtCf CARD NO. 7 \ ALCOAOOOOOQ8249 The Sigma-Aldrich Library of Chemical Safety Data A CONCISE REFERENCE FOR THE SAFE HANDLING OF OVER 7000 CHEMICALS Edited by Robert E. Lenga Over 1900pages, hardbound, with tearproofjacket. Page size: 9Yi x 13 inches. Indispensable Safety Tool: The Sigma-Aldrich Library of Chemical Safety Data is an extensive yet compact collection of up-to-date safety information. The data were compiled through the collaboration of the Technical Services Departments of Sigma and Aldrich Chemical Companies. Each entry includes chemical structure, physical properties, toxicity data and regulatory standards, health hazards, First Aid statements, incompatibility data, decomposition products, handling and storage requirements, fire-extinguishing media, spill and leak procedures and recommended waste-disposal methods. See sample entry below. p*oooct ,,,recs ***** ssssfr TVf* 0 9 The library will be useful to the chemical industry and to manufacturers in the plating, coating, plastics, automotive, semiconductor, paint, and cosmetics industries, as well as to blenders, formulators, and laboratory personnel who must assess the composite hazards of mixtures, solutions, and reactions. It should provide employers with the basis for a sound safety program for complying with the hazard communication and training program required by law. jssssbs. iSSJSu.c- I Ci--. zsrz&r ..... -------- * ttoowas o ,'M moo1* jSk'SbW" iitaei >9* ORDER YOUR COPY TODAY! Catalog No. Z14,000-7: S295.00 Call toll-free: 800-558-9160 ^0.00-cef*** aldrich chemical co. PO. Box 355, Milwaukee, Wisconsin USA 53201 414-273-3850 CIRCLE READER SERVICE CARD NO. B ALCOA0000008250 hood for entrainment into the air were considered the two most important criteria for the assessment of potential hazard. 2. The range of responses to questions dealing with hazard evaluation indicated a strong need for a con sistent hazard assessment methodology. 3. The criteria utilized in the E.P.A. algorithm is cur rently being employed for the assessment of hazard; however, the numerical rating system is considered invalid. 4. The general consensus of the survey respondents was that an airborne fiber concentration of0.01 fiber/ cc or greater initiates concern during hazard assessment and is the preferred criterion for post-abatement clearance. 5. Survey respondents indicated a preference for electron microscopy over light microscopy; however, cost and availability has limited its use. Phase contrast micros copy is still being widely used. 6. Survey respondents had a clear preference for report ing fiber concentrations over mass (nanogram) con centrations for asbestos. 'Members: William M. Ewing. William S. Kerbel. Barbara S Burnett. Eva M. Clay. Frank J. Oenny. Larry W. Johnson. Ken Wallingford. i i A-380 Am Ind Hyg Assoc J (47) June. 1986