Document qaxgb17pvEdddbkzYz4OaN9aG

1 EVALUATION OF EXPOSURES TO AIRBORNE FIBERS DURING MAINTENANCE OF ASBESTOS- CONTAINING RESILIENT FLOOR TILES USING RECOMMENDED WORK PRACTICES Prepared for Resilient Floor Covering Institute Rockville, MD Armstrong World Industries, Inc. Washington, DC Prepared by ENVIRON Corporation Arlington. VA September 10. 1990 lt jp C ONTENTS I. IT. in. IV. V. VI. vn. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY INTRODUCTION FLOOR HLE MAINTENANCE REGULATORY FRAMEWORK A. Federal Standards B. State and Local Standards STUDY DESIGN RESULTS CONCLUSIONS APPENDICES A. Recommended Work Practices for Maintenance of Floor Tiles 1) Resilient Floor Covenng Institute (August 1990) 2) Armstrong World Industries (March 1990) B. Protocol for Sampling and Analysis Eag 1 3 4 5 5 7 8 11 14 AT A-2 A-7 B-l -11- ' vJ^ \ I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Maintenance of asbestos-containing floor tiles in an occupational setting is subject to the standard set by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) for occupational exposure to asbestos in general industry (29 CFR 1910.1001). This standard requires employers to assure that worker exposures to asbestos do not exceed the permissible exposure limit (PEL) of 0.2 fibers per cubic centimeter (f/cc). of air for an 8-hour time weighted average (TWA) or the excursion limit of 1.0 f/cc averaged over a 30-mihute period. The OSHA asbestos standard requires initial monitoring of employee exposure at the start of a job to determine whether employee exposure exceeds either the action level (0.1 f/cc for an 8-hour TWA),1 or the excursion limit (1.0 f/cc over 30 minutes). The standard also provides that, in lieu of initial monitoring, an employer may rely upon objective or historical data, conducted under substantially similar workplace conditions, to demonstrate that the action level and excursion limit are not exceeded. ENVIRON Corporation was retained by the Resilient Floor Covering Institute (RFCI) and Armstrong World Industries, Inc. (Armstrong) to design and carry out a study of worker exposures to asbestos during and after maintenance of asbestos-containing resilient floor tiles pursuant to work practices recommended by RFCI and Armstrong for all resilient floor tiles. The maintenance work practices apply to all resilient floor tiles, whether or not they contain asbestos ("Recommended Work Practices", see Appendix A). Maintenance performed on the floor tiles consisted of three types of procedures assumed to be from least to most aggressive: spray buffing, wet scrubbing, and wet stripping followed by refinishing. This report presents an analysis of fiber exposures to maintenance personnel during and after the maintenance of floor tiles pursuant to the Recommended Work Practices. Based on a total of 8 exposure measurements for maintenance personnel at four sites, the average TWA was 0.025 f/cc, one-fourth of the OSHA action level, for all types of floor tile maintenance. The average of the four excursion level samples was 0.13 f/cc. approximately one-eighth of the excursion limit. Even though floor tile maintenance is not an abatement activity under the provision of the regulations (40 CFR 763) implementing the Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act, ENVIRON also conducted "clearance" sampling to determine the residual fiber levels following completion of the maintenance activity. Samples were taken according to the On Ju;\ 10. 1990. OSHA proposed 10 loaer :he PEL 10 0.1 ! cc (55 cfr 09":::. "clearance" sampling protocols specified in Appendix A to subpart of 40 CFR 763. For the two stripping and refinishing operations, neither set of "inside" samples exceeded the criterion for "clearance* of 70 s/sq mm by transmission electron microscopy (TEM), with averages of less than 18 and 31.6 s/sq mm for the two sites. Based on the uniformly low occupational exposure levels, no additional floor tile maintenance, studies were deemed necessary. Therefore, this study shows that OSHA's action level and excursion limit for exposure to asbestos fibers are not exceeded when performing floor tile maintenance activities in accordance with the Recommended Work Practices. Consequently, an employer should be able to rely upon these exposure results as historical data in lieu of conducting initial monitoring to satisfy the monitoring requirements of the OSHA standard (29 CFR 1910.1001(d)(2)(ii)) for maintenance of resilient floor tiles performed in accordance with Recommended Work Practices. -2- H. INTRODUCTION In the past year, reports regarding potential exposures to asbestos fibers from the maintenance of asbestos-containing resilient floor dies have been presented in the popular media.Examination of the studies upon which those reports are based has revealed that appropriate floor maintenance procedures were not followed, adequate scientific control over the experimental msdtsds was not exercised, and misunderstandings existed regarding the applicable regulatory requirements that bear upon control of occupational exposures and exposures to asbestos-containing materials. To provide a better evaluation of the potential exposure to airborne asbestos and other types of fibers when recommended maintenance procedures are followed, the Resilient Floor Covering Institute and Armstrong World Industries, Inc. requested ENVIRON Corporation to design and conduct a scientifically valid study of exposures to fibers during maintenance of asbestos-containing resilient floor tiles. Such tiles, although no longer manufactured, are installed in homes, institutions, and commercial or industrial establishments. The sponsors have developed specific work practices recommended for floor maintenance that are to be used whether or not resilient floor tiles contain asbestos (see Appendix A). They also specifically recommend against very aggressive maintenance techniques that are no more effective than the recommended techniques but carry a greater potential for adversely affecting the appearance of the resilient floor tiles. With the assistance of Industrial Health, Incorporated (which sampled air in the test areas before, during, and after maintenance) and the R. J. Lee-Group, Inc. (which analyzed the samples for asbestos and other fibers), ENVIRON has designed and conducted experiments on maintenance of asbestos-containing floor tiles according to the manufacturers' recommended work practices. The design of the studies and the results available to date are discussed in the following sections; details of the sampling procedures and results of the fiber analyses for the individual sites studied are provided in a companion report.4 * * A.F. Meyer and Associates. Inc. (Meyer). 1989. Untitled report on study at Sligo Middle School, Montgomery County Maryland, performed for WRC-TV. McLean, VA: A.F. Meyer and Associates. 5 Atlantic Environmental Incorporated (Atlantic). 1989. Untitled report of study at Iroma School. Ironia. NJ. for Randolph Board of Education. Dover. NJ: Atlantic Environmental Incorporated. ' ENVIRON Corporation (ENVIRON). 1990. Supporting data for evaluation of exposures to airborne Fibers during maintenance of asbestos-containtng resilient floor tiles using recommended work prac:.,es. Arlington. VA: ENVIRON. -3- m. FLOOR TELE MAINTENANCE ENVIRON's study design included the three principal types of maintenance performed routinely on resilient floor tiles: spray buffing, wet scrubbing, and wet stripping followed by refinishing. Floors showing only moderate wear and soiling on a buffable finish can be buffed with a floor machine equipped with a low-abrasion pad (equivalent to the 3M red pad). Such floors are first sprayed with a small amount of a buffing solution (diluted floor finish). Buffing continues only until the surface soiling is removed. Floors with somewhat more wear and soiling are candidates for wet scrubbing. The floor is first mopped with a dilute floor scrubbing solution, and then scrubbed with a lowspeed (170^300 rpm) floor machine equipped with a moderately abrasive pad (equivalent to the 3M blue or green pads). This process removes some of the original finish but stiil does not penetrate to the bare tiles. Severely worn floors are wet-stripped with a low-speed floor machine before being refinished. The process is very similar to scrubbing, except that a stripping solution is used and the time spent on each section of floor is longer. The objective is to remove the existing finish without adversely affecting the appearance of the underlying die. If a sealer is used under the finish, stripping may be complete when the finish is removed but the sealer is still intact. The floor manufacturers specifically recommend against using the most abrasive pads (equivalent to 3M pads color-coded brown or black) when stripping any resilient floor tiles, including those containing asbestos. Once the floor is stripped, several coats of finish are mopped on. each being allowed to dry before the next coat is applied. The finishes today typically contain synthetic metal-cross-linked polymers. Of the three types of procedures, spray buffing was assumed to be least aggressive and wet stripping most aggressive. -4- IV. REGLXATbRY FRAMEWORK A. Federal Standards At the federal level, three major regulatory structures govern in-place asbestos- containing materials. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) regulates worker exposure* to asbestos in the manufacturing and construction industries. Floor maintenance involving asbestos-containing dies is subject to the general industry standard.5 The standard specifies that exposures to fibers should not exceed a Permissible Exposure Limit of 0.2 fibers per cubic centimeter (f/cc), expressed as an 8-hour time weighted average (TWA).6 They should also not exceed an Excursion Limit of 1.0 f/cc over any 30-minute period. If these limits are exceeded, then various worker protection requirements are triggered (e.g., the use of respirators and the establishment of controlled areas). If worker exposures are expected to exceed an Action Level of 0.1 f/cc as a TWA, then initial monitoring requirements for the job are triggered. Compliance with all of the OSHA requirements is measured by phase-contrast microscopy, which records all particles with fiber-like morphology (greater than S pun in length and having an aspect ratio greater than 3 to 1), whether or not they are in fact asbestos, as long as asbestos can be assumed to be present. The National Emissions Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP)7 for asbestos is administered by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and applies to renovation and demolition activities involving friable asbestos-containing material (ACM). This standard requires notification and certain procedures to be followed (e.g., wetting the work area, preventing "visible emissions") during renovations and demolitions of friable ACM. It is not expressed in terms of any measurement of ambient air quality near the affected operations. EPA has indicated that resilient floor tile, as manufactured, is not. . friable.5 and it remains nonfriable when proper maintenance procedures are followed. When 5 29 CFR 1910.1001. * On July 20. 1990, OSHA proposed to lower the PEL to 0.1 f/cc (55 CFR 29722'i. -t0 CFR 61. Suhnart M. * Farmer. I X.. J.S. Seitz, and M S. Alushin. 1990. Memoranuum on 'Claru.-.uion of EPA SESHAi Policy S'on manic ACM. February 25. following the recommended work practices for floor maintenance, therefore, the asbestos NESHAP would not apply to maintenance of floor dies. EPA also administers the Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act (AHERA) that covers asbestos in schools; the implementing regulations9 establish "clearance" monitoring following the cleaning of an area that has been subject to a "response action" involving ACM. Response actions entail abatement of friable ACM by removal, encapsulation, or enclosure. C1mu<u1c monitoring, intended to measure the effectiveness qi cleanup after a response action, entails use of transmission electron microscopy (TEM) and counts all asbestos fibers or structures containing fibers greater than 0.5 pm in length and with an aspect ratio exceeding 5 to 1. In addition to individual fibers, structures include bundles, clusters, and matrixes. Clearance testing is designed to determine whether air in an enclosed area that has undergone a cleanup following a response action has statistically significantly elevated levels of asbestos structures in comparison to air in nearby areas not affected by the response action; it is not a health-based or risk-based concept. An area in a school previously subject to a response action is considered clear under AHERA if the TEM counts averaged over five samples inside the area after the response action show no more than 70 structures per square millimeter (s/sq mm) on the filters (when at least 1200 liters of air are sampled). If the samples do not pass that test, which is based on the chance of finding some fibers even on presumably "blank" filters, they may still pass if their average is not statistically different (by a specified test, the "Z test") from the average of five samples taken outside the area where the response action took place. For defined small AHERA response actions, clearance can also be obtained if samples analyzed by PCM do not exceed 0.01 f/cc. Because properly conducted floor tile maintenance is not an abatement and because the tile remains nonfriable, maintenance is not a response action under AHERA and therefore does not require clearance monitoring in schools or other regulated buildings. Thus, the only federal asbestos regulations that may apply to proper floor tile maintenance would be those of the OSHA asbestos standard for the construction industry. The EPA requirements under the asbestos NESHAP and the AHERA regulations (including clearance monitoring; are not applicable to proper maintenance of resilient floor tiles. For this reason. ENVIRON designed the current study to determine whether worker exposures exceeded the OSHA Action Level or Excursion Limit by PCM. Although clearance monitoring is not required by EPA regulations, ENVIRON also tested the residual levels of asbestos m rooms following4 4 JO CFR 763. -6- proper stripping operations to determine whether they exceeded the "clearance1* criterion of 70 s/sq mm by TEM. This testing was performed only because several of the studies of floor maintenance reported in the media used "clearance'-type testing. B. State and Local Standards Most state and local regulations deal with requirements for abatement of friable ACM (i.e., its remediation or removal) and with the qualifications of persons who can perform such dbateuicms. Because intact resilient floor tiles are not friable and because floor maintenance is not an abatement activity, such regulations do not apply to proper floor maintenance. V. STUDY DESIGN In the expectation that stripping and refinishing would be the most aggressive operation. ENVIRON designed an initial study that featured sampling and analysis of fiber levels in three stripping operations, two buffing operations, and one scrubbing operation as an intermediate case (see protocol. Appendix B). In each case, the size of the work area was selected to ensure that a substantial portion of an 8-hour day could be muuitored, so that time-weighting with asbestos-free exposures would have relatively little effect. If either of the latter two operations showed fiber counts higher than the stripping operations, additional studies could be recommended. Similarly, if any of the results suggested that any of the OSHA criteria might be exceeded under certain conditions within the recommended work practices for maintenance, additional tests could be recommended. In all three types of operations, maintenance was performed by independent maintenance contractors, not by employees of the sponsors. Although the work areas were thoroughly cleaned prior to maintenance to minimize sources of asbestos unrelated to the maintenance, the floors were not specially prepared and were typical of floors requiring maintenance. The maintenance operations were carried out according to the recommended work practices (Appendix A). Table l shows the characteristics of the maintenance operations. TABLE 1 Characteristics of Maintenance Operations Type of Operation Machine Speed (rpm) Buffing 360 Scrubbing 220 Stnpping <220 `Butcher product name Pad (3M Code) Red Green Green Solution* Over Drive Sundance Colonel Cutter -8- Worker exposures were monitored by placing personal samplers on two workers in each operation. (Some operations, particularly buffing, can be performed by one worker, but are sometimes performed by two.) Two companion samplers were placed on each worker, one with a filter designed for PCM analysis and one designed for TEM analysis. The protocol (see Appendix B) called for analysis of the PCM filter in all cases, but analysis of the TEM filter only if the PCM resuits exceeded the relevant OSHA criterion (0.1 f/cc for 8hr TWA; 1.0 f/cc for 30-min excursion sample). Because occupational exposures are regulated by OSHA according to PCM results, the TEM measurements are not directly relevant. However, in floor maintenance where many non-asbestos fiber sources can be present, an elevated PCM reading is not necessarily indicative of elevated exposures to asbestos. The companion personal TEM samples were reserved only to determine whether any elevated PCM count observed was truly due to asbestos. To determine whether other sources of fibers were present in the maintenance area, a pair of overnight area samples was collected prior to maintenance. To determine whether other sources of fibers outside the area were present during the maintenance activities, a pair of peripheral area samples was collected concurrent with the maintenance. If an outside source of asbestos was suspected (e.g., demolition activity nearby), a pair of outside samples could be collected concurrent with the maintenance. Again, the companion TEM area samples were to be analyzed only if the PCM readings were elevated. In the stripping operations, "clearance',-type samples were collected in response to the media reports, not because they were required by any federal or other regulation. The samples were collected in a fashion consistent with AHERA methodology/0 to characterize any residual levels of fibers following completion of the stripping operation. Although not required in everyday stripping operations, critical polyethylene barriers were erected over openings to the maintenance area for test purposes only, to isolate the "inside" and "outside" samples. This practice also maximized the retention of any fibers inside the area and represented a worst case. "Aggressive" sampling, as set forth in the AHERA protocols and featuring use of a leaf blower to mobilize fibers on the floors and wails and use of a fan to keep fibers aloft, was used inside the area both before and after the stripping operations. A third set of samples was collected after maintenance outside the area, without aggressive techniques. In each of the three cases, five samples randomly distributed over the area were collected. A set of three blank filters was also submitted with each job. To conserve resources, the analysis proceeded in typical AHERA fashion: first, the five inside samples n JO CFR "63. Appendix A 10 Suhpart E -9- s? collected after maintenance were examined; if they passed the 70 s/sq mm test, no further analysis was undertaken. If they failed the test, the remaining samples were analyzed in the following order until the results were explained: blanks, outside samples, and pre maintenance samples. Examination of the studies on which the earlier media reports were based, coupled with previous experience by ENVIRON arid IHI suggested that extreme care would need to be exercised to eliminate sources of fibers unrelated to the maintenance activities and potcuuauT wonfouriding the results. The protocol calis for use of areas in wriico no outer significant sources of fibers, especially asbestos fibers, are suspected to be present. In particular, many buildings with resilient floor tiles containing asbestos also have ceilings made of asbestos-containing materials such as acoustical plaster or acoustical dies. Even in areas free of such materials, furnishings such as rugs and drapes can be significant sources of non-asbestos fibers that could register as fibers with PCM analysis. The selection process therefore attempted to exclude areas with suspect materials. It also featured extensive precleaning of the areas prior to overnight monitoring and subsequent maintenance activities to remove any fibers due to other activities preceding the maintenance but, as stated above, no other special preparations of the floor. Finally, the ENVIRON team determined the asbestos content of the tiles at each site. It is known that asbestos content of tiles varied over the period they were manufactured. Therefore, ENVIRON specified that tiles must contain at least 10% asbestos, assured by positive identification of tile type or by bulk sampling. To avoid questions about positive identification, the tile was always bulk sampled, and some sites were rejected because the nominal asbestos content could not be confirmed. Confirmation was accomplished in as many as three stages: polarized light microscopy (PLM), which is least able to distinguish asbestos, was used first; if PLM did not reveal 10% asbestos, scanning electron microscopy (SEM) or x-ray diffraction analysis (XRD) was used. If none of these techniques could confirm the nominal content, the site was rejected. -10- VI. RESULTS To date, two qualifying sites have been monitored for wet stripping and refmishing operations and one each for wet scrubbing and spray buffing. All of the sites are in Pennsylvania near Armstrong facilities in Lancaster, and include three churches and one sporting club. Individual reports prepared by IHI covering the site description and a detailed presentation of the sampling procedures and findings can be found iu utc companion report/1 as can the results of the fiber analyses conducted by R. J. Lee. The results from the four tests are summarized in Table 2. . None of the samples of worker exposure exceeded the OSHA criteria (0.1 f/cc as an 8-hr TWA; 1.0 f/cc as a 30-min Excursion Limit) by PCM analysis. Therefore, none of the TEM samples was analyzed and the levels seen prior to maintenance or on the periphery of the area are irrelevant. The.highest TWA by PCM was 0.0416 f/cc. less than half the OSHA action ievel. for a worker performing stripping and refmishing. The highest TWA for scrubbing was 0.0365 f/cc, and the highest for buffing was 0.0197 f/cc. Thus, the general trend expected was seen. However, some of the stripping, measurements were below those for scrubbing. Overall, the average TWA for all types of maintenance was 0.0248, onefourth of the OSHA action level (eight measurements). The highest excursion level by PCM was 0.2313 f/cc, less than one-fourth of the OSHA excursion limit. The average of the four excursion samples was 0.1302 f/cc, approximately one-eighth of the excursion limit. For the two stripping and refmishing operations monitored after completion of maintenance by TEM for "clearance." neither set of "inside" samples exceeded the criterion of 70 sisq mm established in ENVIRON's protocol by analogy to the AHERA procedure. The church showing the lower worker exposures also showed the lower TEM values, which averaged less than 18 s/'sq mm. The other church showed values averaging less than 31.6 s/sq mm. Neither of these results is considered statistically different than filter background, and so u was not necessary to analyze blanks, "outside" samples, or premaintenance samples. : ENVIRON Corporation (ENVIRON). ;990. Supporting data tor evaluation ot exposures to airborne fibers uunns maintenance of asbestos-containing resilient floor tiles using recommended v.orK practices. Arlington. VV ENVIRON. TABLE 2 Summary of Exposures to Fibers During Maintenance of Asbestos-Containing Resilient Floor Tiles Site* Procedure CLC Wet Stripping & Refmishing MCB Spray Buffing CFG Wet Scrubbing SJC Wet Stripping & Refinishing Level 8-hr TWA Excursion "Clearance" (PCM. f/cc) (PCM. f/cc) (PCM. f/cc) (TEM.^/q mm) O.GL39 0.0187 0.0 i49 0.0197 0.064i < ie.O 0.0213 0.0210 0.0138 0.0138 0.0593 0.0372 0.0241 0.0365 0.0237 0.1661 0.0353 0.0435 0.0343 0.0416 0.2313 <31.6 Tile Contend (% Asbestos) 20 10 10 10 ' CLC = Covenant Lutheran Church (more than 8-hr samples) MCB = Mountviile Church of the Brethren CFG = Columbia Fish & Game SJC = St. Joseph's Catholic Church Maximum of reported values Although the original protocol called for two additional sites to be monitored (one spray buffing operation and one stripping,operation), ENVIRON and the sponsors found it difficult to find, sites that met all the criteria of the protocol. In particular, it was difficult to find sites in which the floor tile contained substantial amounts of asbestos while no other sources of asbestos were present. Buildings that were finished when asbestos content m tiles was relatively high also were likely to feature asbestos-containing ceiling materials or other asbestos-containing materials., To provide useful information on exposures to fibers during floor tile maintenance as early as possible, the sponsors decided to suspend further sampling after the completion of four sue studies. One stripping operation not included in the above summary was conducted before the protocol had been fully implemented. When the IHI and ENVIRON monitoring team arrived on the scene, the ceiling in the maintenance area was identified as an acoustical plaster of unknown composition. Rather than abort the monitoring, as the final protocol would have required, the monitoring of this site proceeded pending evaluation of the ceiling material; samples of the ceiling material were collected in addition to the usual bulk samples of tile. When the samples were analyzed, the ceiling was found to contain up to 25% asbestos by PLM analysis, featuring fiber lengths similar to those in the floor tile. As this ceiling material could well have been disturbed by the aggressive sampling procedures and to a lesser extent by the maintenance and monitoring activities, it was not surprising to find that all three sets of "clearance"-type samples showed elevated counts of short fibers by TEM analysis. To test this hypothesis, a second monitoring of the church was conducted a short time later. without aggressive techniques. All three sets of samples-inside the area, immediately outside the area, and remote-passed the 70 s/sq mm test in this second monitoring series. As the protocol had clearly been violated for this site, its results are not included in this report. It should be noted, however, that the PCM counts for the workers were among the lowest recorded, averaging 0.0180 f/cc as a TWA and 0.0604 as an excursion level, thus supporting the assumption that aggressive sampling may have been responsible for the elevated postmaintenance results. Reports from IHI and R. J. Lee regarding this unacceptable site are included in the companion report.12 : ENVIRON Corporation (ENVIRON). i990. Supporting data tor evaluation of exposures to airborne fibers .luring maintenance or asbestos-containing resident tloor tiles using recommended work practices. Arlington. A ENVIRON -13- vn. CONCLUSIONS Based on this analysis of available results from monitoring of resilient floor tile maintenance activities for exposures to asbestos and other fibers, ENVIRON concludes that exposures to fibers experienced by workers conducting resilient floor tile maintenance according to work practices recommended by the sponsors did not exceed the OSGA action ievei dr excursion iurnt from the general industry asbestos standard for protection of workers. Although federal standards promulgated by EPA are not applicable to floor maintenance and clearance monitoring is not required, the ENVIRON criterion based on the EPA AHERA "clearance" criterion was also not exceeded when maintenance was carried out according to the recommended work practices. This finding implies that there were negligible residual fiber levels inthe areas after maintenance. Non-conforming work practices were not monitored in this study and conclusions regarding them cannot be reached. Furthermore, comparison of the results in this report to those reported elsewhere suggests that anomalously high fiber counts can be obtained and incorrectly ascribed to floor maintenance if extreme care is not exercised in excluding other possible sources of asbestos and other fibers. -14- APPENDIX A Recommended Work Practices for Maintenance of Floor Tiles Resilient Floor Covering Institute (August 1990) \rmstrong World Industries. Inc. (March 1990) APPENDIX A-l Recommended Work Practices for Maintenance of Floor Tiles Resilient Floor Covering Institute (February 1990) VINYL COMPOSITION (WITH OR WITHOUT ASBESTOS) AND ASPHALT TILE FLOORS 966 Hungerford Drive Suite I2-B Rockville. MD 20850 INSTITUTE I c 1] I! i STANDARD MAINTENANCE i: CAUTION: CO NOT DRY BUFF. SPRAY BUFF OR BURNISH VINYL COMPOSITION (WITH OR WITHOUT ASBESTOS) OR ASPHALT FLOOR TILE WITHOUT PRIOR APPLICATION OF A METAL CROSS-LINKED ACRYUC FINISH WHICH IS RESISTANT TO f NEUTRAL CLEANERS. DO NOT ORY STRIP UNDER ANY CONDITIONS. WHEN WASHING. WAXING OR STRIPPING TILE FLOORS, TRAFFIC SHOULD BE EXCLUDED FROM THE AREA BECAUSE WET FLOOR SURFACES ARE USUALLY SLIPPERY. THE USE OF IMPROPER WAXES ANO FINISHES CAN CAUSE PROBLEMS SUCH AS SUPPERINESS AND DIRT ACCUMULATION. I GENERAL trances to buildings is an effective way to helo I Other than sweeping or mopping, cleaning of tile floors must always be performed by Keeping the surface wet with a neutral liquid floor cleaner. Buff i ing or burnishing of these floor tiles shall be per formed only after three to five coats of a metal prevent scratches and stains caused by tracked-in materials from outside the building. Non-stammg mats are recommended and should be the type that remove deposits from shoe soles and allow the particles to fall below the surface of the mat so they can't be tracked on to the flooring with subse cross-linked acrylic finish has been applied to the i surface of the tile. The use of a sealer prior to ap quent traffic. Mats should be cleaned on a regular basis consistent with need. plication of floor finish is optional. In addition, re I moval of finish shall always be performed by keeping the surface wet at all times during the NEW FLOORS stripping procedure using a liquid stripper solution. The least abrasive stripping or burnishing pads Allow sufficient time after installation (at least and brushes recommended for each specific op one week) for the tile to adhere tightly to the i eration shall be used to maintain the floor tile. Pads are color coded to indicate their proper use. with subfloor before scrubbing or initial maintenance.. In the interim, maintain with a non-oily dust mop or manufacturers generally using the following color. a clean soft hair push broom. In heavier traffic i ccce: areas, such as building entrances and cafeterias, damp mopping may also be necessary. Spots of Polishing (least abrasion) adhesive can be removed by rubbing with a syn i White or equivalent 3uffmg (low abrasion) thetic pad dampened with a mild liquid detergent. Rinse area thoroughly with clean water and dry. Tan or red or equivalent f Scrubbing/Stripping (moderate abrasion) Blue or green or equivalent INITIAL MAINTENANCE The most abrasive pads, brown and black pads or i eauivalent. are not recommended for use on resil ient flooring. After a week, clean with a non-oily dust mop cr a clean soft hair broom to remove alt loose debris. Using a neutral liquid floor cleaner as recom mended by the flooring manufacturer. scruD the GRIT CONTROL floor with a commercial scrubbing machine of 170250 rpm capability equipped with a moderately Preventing abrasive dirt from being tracked onto abrasive scrubbing pad (blue or green pad cr `.he surface of a flooring is crucial to prolong the life equivalent) or brush. Brushes are recommenaed of the flooring. The use of walk-off mats at en for flooring that have embossed surfaces. Keep W Bt I flooring wet at all times during the scrubbing pro cedure but do not flood the floor. Remove gummy 1 matter or spots of adhesive residue with a putty * \r.:z zr.i stubborn spots with a synthetic pad riippeo in detergent. Pick up cleaning solution with J a mco or wet vacuum. Some manufacturers of liquid floor cleaners j claim rinsing is not necessary after washing a floor. However, in order to thoroughly remove the I washing solution from a floor, it is best to rinse the ] floor with clean water after washing followed by use of a wet pickup vacuum or damp mop. | Note: Automatic scrubbing machines are avail able and perform washing, rinsing and . pickup in one operation and are recom] mended for very large areas. | APPLYING FINISH I After the flooring has been cleaned, apply three * to five coats of a good quality metal cross-linked - liauid acrylic finish that is resistant to water spills I and is non-removable by a neutral floor cleaner. The use of sealers on new flooring prior to applica| lion of finish is optional depending on the finish * being used. Allow sufficient time for thorough drving oi each coat of finish before applying addi- I ticnai coats. Apply finish with an applicator as rec ommended by the manufacturer. RESTORING GLOSS TO A FINISHED FLOOR After a ,'inisiiea floor is cleaned with a neutrai floor cleaner, rinsed and dried, it may be buffed or burnished to restore gloss using a low abrasive pad (tan or red pad or equivalent). In high traffic areas, a sparse application of a diluted liquid finish may be sprayed on the floor and buffed while wet until glossy. The manufacturer of the finish should be contacted to provide information relating to type of spray buffing solution, and maximum rpm buffer recommended for spray buffing. CAUTION: 00 NOT DRY BUFF, SPRAY BUFF OR BURNISH AN UNFINISHED FLOOR OR A FLOOR WHERE THE PROTECTIVE FLOOR FINISH IS THIN OR HAS BEEN WORN OFF. THIS WILL BE APPARENT IN AR- EAS OF HIGH TRAFFIC. SUCH AREAS SHOULD BE RECOATED PERIODICALLY. STRIPPING OFF OLD FINISH Complete removal of a finish from the surface of the flooring is required when dirt and discoloration can no longer be removed when cleaned with a neutrai floor cleaner.- Tod many coats of finish may cause discoloration and will require complete re moval in order to restore the original appearance of the floor covering. Stripping should not be done more often than is absolutely necessary. SCRUBBING A FINISHED FLOOR I ^ i-oilow instructions as found under initial maintenance using a neutral floor cleaner and a scrub- | bma machine of 170-250 rpm capability equipped with a moderately abrasive scrubbing pad (blue/ creer. cad cr equivalent) cr Drusn. Remember to * keeo the floor surface wet with the cleaning solu tion at all times while machine scrubbing. Avoid 8 "cccmg the fcor. Remove the cleaning solution Tom tr.e floor with a moo or wet vacuum. Rinse j .vith-eiean water and dry. Vacuum or sweep to remove loose debris. To strip or remove finish, use a finish or stripping so lution recommended by the manufacturer of the finish. Apply the stripping solution to 10'xlO' sec tion of the floor at a time. Allow to soak lor a lew minutes before scrubbing. Scrub the floor with a scrubbing machine of 170-7"0 rpm capability equipped with a moderately abrasive stripping pad or brush, such as a blue or green pad or equivalent. (See Note on Page 4). Keep the floor wet with stripping solution at all times during the scrubbing procedure. Pick up scrubbing so lution with a mop or wet vacuum, rinse and dry. CAUTION: DO NOTDRY STRIP FLOOR FINISH UNDER ANY CONDITIONS. THE USE OF THE MOST ABRASIVE PADS, {BROWN AND BLACK PAOS OR EQUIVALENT) ARE NOT REC OMMENDED IN ANY 3UFF.NG, SCRUBBING, BURNISHING OR STRIPPING OPERATION INVOLV ING RESILIENT FLOORING. Continue removing finish in this manner in re maining areas of floor. After entire floor has been treated in this manner, inspect for areas where finish has not been removed. Repeat procedure if necessary. After finish has been completely removed apply three to five coats of floor finish as recommended m Applying Finish Section in this document. NOTE: Special finishes are available for use where qualities such as high resistance to slip and static dissipative electrical re sistance are required. Follow the manu facturers recommendations to apply anc maintain these finishes. OLD FLOOR COVERING Follow directions found under "Stripping Off Old ' Finish" (above) to prepare the surface for applica tion of new finish. Then follow application instruc tions, cleaning and gloss restoration of finisheo floors specified earlier in this document. ; NOTE: IN INTERIM GUIDANCE OATEO JANUARY 25,1990, THE U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY RECOMMENDS THAT THE SCRUBBING MACHINE OPERATE AT 175-190 RPM WHEN STRIPPING ASBESTOS-CONTAINING FLOOR COVERINGS. ON JULY 20,1990. THE U.S. OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH ADMINISTRATION fOSHA") PRO- i POSED THAT THE SCRUBBING MACHINE OPERATE AT 190 RPM OR LESS, ALTHOUGH THIS PROPOSAL IS NOT . j FINAL HOWEVER. RFC! HAS CONDUCTED MAINTENANCE TESTS USING SCRUBBING MACHINE SPEEDS OF UP TO 220 RPM, WHICH SHOW EXPOSURE MEASUREMENTS SUBSTANTIALLY BELOW APPLICABLE OSHA EXPOSURE ! REQUIREMENTS WHEN THE ABOVE MAINTENANCE WORK PRACTICES ARE FOLLOWED. RESILIENT FLOOR COVERING INSTITUTE 966 Hungerford Drive Suite 12-B' Rockville. MD 20850 This oublication replaces prior editions of these maintenance procedures. Future editions of these procedures may be issued to replace this publication. Revised Aoni 1983 Revised Aonl 1987 Revised Auoust * APPENDIX A-2 Recommended Work Practices for Maintenance of Floor Tiles Armstrong World Industries, Inc. (March 1990) A-7 ^rnstrong Commercial Resilient Flooring Maintenance Recommendations /* ^ < 1 e 'V.; '-.V . .Ve* -* *-7V***' 'v* * / 1 *> General Maintenance Information A good maintenance program helps insure a long, attractive life for commer cial resilient flooring. Walk-off mats, sweeping, mopping, polishing, and huffing protect more than just the floor--they protect the building owner's investment as well. To insure that maintenance is considered early in the specification process-- as part of the initial investment--Armstrong has developed this commer cial resilient flooring maintenance reference guide. It discusses a variety of maintenance techniques--including do's and don'ts--and offers insight into problems that every specifier, building owner, and maintenance staff must address regularly. Early awareness of required maintenance procedures can be useful in select ing the proper floor for the space and protecting the owner's investment. Refer to the individual maintenance tip sheets located in the inside back cover of this folder for recommended maintenance procedures for specific Armstrong commercial floors. I < < Grit Control ( out rolling (|n! r, a in i.il In pfaluf'.guiq III. nllra* li\t appear am e ol am, Ilnur f's bid wav lit uinttiil i|i il in -ample tr. c-<ci| wain nil nuts R. i ornmcndt d nuts ,i li .pi tin lion open syrlau- <1. q . - IM the [Mr In li li-' bom l;,i"h(i|lnms-nt-i<Tnr:),*Tttttinrtrnt'' bit alls* mal' sIm>i:IiI b. i.-i *1 al i vi iv i uliarne and shimld Is .! Ip" I. a-1 as wide .e l', d s-i .\,t. and .gyinumali lv d I/' l.aig '< . , * r ~~ ' A .*! iIdd i I. vi i h.iu |n l;i < h.inuJ Ido Jln-v-d.mild be -l'ar.l 11 *l''d *11 lit 't i! * *! I [ `.iwnugbll *111(1 If t'l|'M.*nllv AND Ik* **!!! t1 l-> s* )i i t ,i ii-.il im!`. .!.1* '* <11!:.it i*i 1 s|.i*:l I':, 11*. ii nil fli.iis 'AO'i I i l.nri.d, g*i|;*. dal imryh I, lv fnvd*is| | .If It* ll s (.*. till li ,lli (.1 - .* ) .`.III '1*11 I "il I* * If V.ai ll.- I'll' f ((It I *- ** n s R* (};.!.if i .* d <!.. : iyu;*;* '.*.'11 In Ip * iid't.l ll'is 1 % (-, ol (jnl O.i I r"..i;yn:i| is t::e runs! m-.l 11v I . * > tl'-.i.l I - *ii*| ,i lie.di il ir.i*,i irion in Iv J is I i If s| j'roi edirre Map Iii .ids .in v.iislulili .I'.nl fi n-.ilf!' Floor Cleaning ( li .inicil ,1 Iloin 1.10 f.)';*:* ifl iiimpii-li*-if `iotn ,i ..n,;*1, dam;' inn;*;* ag In ,1 n.imp m<>;'*Mf!ij r. .ip; ;oj.fi.i'i I* r *.: .* .i -.*, *..,* d,. ! ,i r .i-i i.i titiin.e (iii The lU-li iiji fil solnlnm nin-,| I*. i ii.i::<|t t| trt gm ntlv In ehiuuiale rrtli I'osit mg ol ilnt o:i Ilk- III,nr tins I'fiimltiii' i.in mimini.v llir fuul lor - mnn linn* iiuiMim.uig in.i.nU name grmedures I snubbing i*. a ir.i;s| ..In n he,ivv'Oiling is a problem II ii i.'iifi s application ni a *'!' [.* | ik ailing snlution Inllm.ved |jv snubbing am! iii)si:\i| n! the llnm Ihis procedme uses either a ',n,|le disi tlnor in.ii l.me and .set vaim an automatic llnm rM_ M( in,Mum.* (Red. blue hi green pad) jjoUfam I hi* aiilnmalii tlimr nui lime is tulallv srli-ioniamed, so it Mn| applies snliiliim s, uais Hit- lliinr. a*id lakes up till* (In lv solution BBmHB all at one lime It is available in several sizes and ran be lilted with pads or brushes flu* single-disc maihine requires separate equipment lor e.iih ol the washuuj sups Floor Polishing ^ Floors are polished lor three reasons' 1 Pfoteition ^ 2 Appearance 3 Ease ol Maintenance m Today the best polish lor protecting and eiihancmq many commere Ml vinyl floors is a high-quality melal cross-linked acrylic lloor polish .A.mlabU hum vif (ually joy ),uuhinol yupplv house these pot.-hi s lOnln n vor ous pvrienl solids levels, most coimnonlv l.S''i. Th.vur. riilirnd '. i .lose oi iheir durability and fi so. lance to d. tcrrji nl solutions U >i vpi ... puiq solution') T3ut they are cosy la ic mow whi it stripping is doiicd A minimum protective laser (i bn late.. Is t!,,-i "mM is n ! I. vl ol polish is best maintained bv sJ'Mv bulling or burnishing hire ba.'limil Heavy- tr.it til areas will require periodic supple mcniai s m.ils Ibis pn;in l<w la, a | vps spilK 'culls, and potential slams (nun reaching Hie Ite-oimtj beneath A v.uk tv cl truss linked Joivlio (laor pol. .!a i .e. j..riu!;k I . u\ai p.d.sk .uu:ld iwnbu'.e dmjbildv i; .1 f.iil-iit - au.J . .is r, nmv.il "No-Wax" Commercial Maintenance ' iv I. tv t.umneri i.d Hum' i .ei b*. u uma. .1 Im <;.i w.u i: .: -:K r.an.. [lie u iv.it proi i ss ip ner.ilK n li. s u i bi.t(m<| the ,.i !.h> tit !'. I1 .m In 1, ii'pi r.l lutes .iliiui'l ,ii the melt mi) pinnl As the vire. I -uUi r;s. small m;i la. r ,, rah lies and irregularities are smurit lietl li av iriq Hie Hum slnnv Kid M.lhiuaij allows dt tergent residue and dnt par tub s in become ni'bidded in Hu 'mini e 'A.Hi time H e Hum inn h.. mu.- P.-colori d m li a v.av l.'.al il c.ucinl lie . aal, ih a.'.id Sealing 'i ilmg e. up-nunnl Hir.vccu i! l; i polish tna".u'.-,, laiii ii iim.i:-,. rds U'i ill a -V.lb-1 ins tuoniinendnhon should be lollin'.! d Stripping 'stripping is the removal <>l all dirt and old polish from the Ilnur exposing the <;fn|in.d surl.ite Use of .t 'iniug hnjt.lv alkaline its terqvnt 'olid.on followed by 'inibbing with a mndetjKI. ignui) abrasive pad or bru'ti is Hie usual proce dure ilk re are also mop on 'tripping solutions whu h do not require nidi tune scrubbing Itie O'e o^tlie'V high solvent con tent stnppers'lno rinse/no scrub) is not recommended on tile Hoars less than two years old because they inav al let t the adhesive system The soil solution is picked up with a wet vac or mop arid the lloor is thoroughly rinsed fins process is repeated until all ol the old polish is removed Oo NOT per form dry stripping Stripping is the most labor intensive and. there lore, the most expensive floor maintenance procedure. It should not be done more often than is absolutelv necessary A well-trained momtuuiKe stall using good quality equipment and products on a itgolar schedule can significantly reduce the need lor stripping Typical Problems and Causes f {' ill I'illr-*! I!u.', th 11! I s;,. '! (l!U O'Ul il 0! lot > illll* llcol i'ln 0 I I (lilt to.it tt (hi |v -fill>p if-eit )il or'iity ^ni;%h lli.l.!. tjll.iti <llti'u| I .lilt' .I i) U.tn ,wlt iju !*.,* j !i-f' .i;ipt a it o.t I v.,it I . ,Y I'lll.h 11<'iv i'"! i'-.'ii: I', nr. i.! .;'li r -'i; . , r | '-'.r.M <!, i : :o iS* t{tin i;i,ii k!v *' im t t;* ; t -`iitftil r Ik : . .1 I: o it .! .1 pol'Vi it.!! I* 1 I' ll! s I I'! .ill. I' ttiotf .r t 1a I /.i i ll tt.i ItlllH .l..it IHMir.ll tAlllii MlUltties ll.:! r IliiDis i,,- ol : ; t'.,1,iit .it a |it ,i If, ..:'a !. !::.i. :1.- ... it ft !.'! lcrititi.it' It it n ;! m .:,-;||:i .1 Mill I-........ {>!i'-ti :..r. liitlt.l.its c*ntM'ii .tltt.ilii.i ii'.itNitii I'tinit',itmq ttuniiuh lilt lrimittiiMt.lt MiUtlour iii'.t.ill.i!n)ii nl tin'll n'.i r 'i;t. t 'nil it ttiuirelo pan vmistit:t turn is tore the moisture lus'bti-ii sealed hi l>v the list' of .t:t iiitoirci 1 tn.ii it It tt:ii:n| tnmi'tmiii! K.i;ih! fjl.itK Motkiiiij little ur no protective polish [lulish beiur) icmnved Utroutjh the use of alkaline tie .tin is overiv abrasive floor m,it time pads and brushes pool i)o.ili(v tuoMi Klft'dinq of Briijliltv (ofim'il Vinyl Composition life loo little ffotir polish tlf.mii!ij/stii|';nmj solutions too ti()i]ressive (nlnit d i'ctOMits rt inovui by .itjr.ision from coarse stru'pmt) nr siiubbmt) pads Maintenance Glossary Automatic floor Machine A mIi iiiiii.iiuul 'ingle ni multiple disc Mum m.khine that 11 ; . i \ i li .111111(1 'mIiiIiiiii 'i it;!)' Ilio llcior .mil Ijkes up ituppiu! sulutmn, having .1 dry Jti)nr_ Av.jil.itiK',yi.ti,Kii,r.!!:Ly. til^i/tri- Ibevcrtn-treequipped with pads ur prtiMies Buff inq/Burnishing of Polishes or Finishes [Sl pu . . ' el 111.it (!(. | I III' pull'll III lull'll '(HUIlltl .llllj ljlil"\ Irit i;iKf (.in iisi't in- l.iri(I In .iii:i!i;ili P'i puipii pails uil'r .i ' (' v.ilh Is. ("u;'i i iii.H !i -i ('( i ii.i.i.l ifa iiim mi ml, il pulnli in liiu-.ii In pimliui- Hu- (|, 'ir.'ii ti 'iiil Tini pnnil i-i, f 11 ruf in.u !.,;ii ' .mil I In- 'i K11 mu ul pads should lie r. I. .uiiiiiii iiJi il w. puli',!i:lcii'!i i:!,i'nil.!i!..!i r Finish !!u lei.il t'i nnpimi.in. nil piuliline iii.itiiuj ill. kriii tm i S i' nllrii ii-.ul i'.Ii ri ti.imii ablv with 'pell'll" .tiki wax 1 Floor Machine A single dm iiuiliiiii- tli.it t..in lie equipped with either pjds nr brushes and i.iii tie ii'id tor holh si rubbing and buffing (170 hill ipm) Floor-Machine Brush Annular brush until bustles of v.uymg stiffness and abra siveness depending nn whether it s to be used for buffing. 'i rubbing, ut gripping Bristles are made of natural libers or gi it impregnated nvlmi 8 1 1 'I Sealer i/nr resilient flnnis) A medium In low pi-ru'iil solid"), inel.il < ross liiikeil a< rylu i .di r used on very porous floors |o help smooth Out the surface prior lo the application of Itoor palish II polish manufacturer ivtoinincnds the use o!a 'i-rfler as port of their maintenance program. it should be used Spray-Buffing The application and buf fin.) ol a dilute floor polish or a specially lormulaled spray bulling compound Tins procedure is espe cially useful in hir|h traffic areas The liquid is sprayed on Ihe tloor and then irriniediatilv bulled wiih a Hour machine, us.inj a Ian or red pad or butf::<) brush, i.-md it is div fins helps reduce itie need for stripping by prides ting IN lu-e io,it ol polish 7- Sfripper A slroiiq ij. in rallv hnjhle .ilhaluie d> h i.jeiil di signed spei di i ally lor the reiraieal ol Door polish Ultra-High-Speed Buffer A buffer (usually single-disc) that operates 1100-2000+- rpm The machine does not ride on the bulling disc (natural fiber or white) or brush, and is operated in a push-pull method instead ol sweeping motion These butlers are powered by electric motors or propane-fueled engines They allow for quick buffing and burnishing, helping to cut labor costs. They should be oper ated only by properly trained personnel Walk-Off Mats A sheet ol material placed at building entrances to remove gritty dirt from shoes Good mats should also trap dirt, so it can't be picked up by subsequent traffic The mats should be as wide as the doorway and ideally 8 -12' long !--- i ii i Wax A il.ihn.il or syiillu Ik Miii-I.ol.i t'.i! i* . i. ,-ll. ,in.) ..'i. mu .ilh -.unl.ii |o hi i mv.iv Mill'; Vi'.hs ,u;i) I), r . rr.i .'r i or, him o| ! lUir j'nh^h ii .1 is s111i .ii-.iilahli m Ilia; 1.1 l. .I.i, .. i i.i.'i i.-, , i, v..i> o ni.n.ih v*Usui as a iiiimii ions|>li:i m i,I it*, !.! < in - I.-.'-, .| ,u i\!,, |',ili*n x i. lie viihjiily L'iixl.ioIt.,ritMr.<|i'.i.`)h -..Hi tin 1.1"'* j.-n-h A i.i, i.'iim i U.u '.In II V.1'1 s, 11, ' .'..ili 1 ll s | .il Ii. l.I.il I'. U", hi! | .1 ll. nl (Armstrong  i I I < i 1 I 1TM I I I 1 1 fl i I I floor Machine Pad A nonwoveti nylon. pokeMtr in ri.ilur.il Ms r (.I.h up In I thick with grit partii It-sol various types .nitl ma s bonded to the surt.iu- ot tin inti r twined libers I he i oar n. ness o! (in' pad de tr irrri.r. m[' ii-i, U-.i'-i coat se lot bulling medium ' <lot Hjii:bbiii^i'fstrippj(i,q .J'qd^ .0e icdw.uud*d.i.d';j<).i*W-ili***tHtse- for ''ample, mamdnctnnrs gem r.illv ire the !*>if4!.s mi> uilu: iodt Natural I rln r (iumi'.lim.i f-y - White - I'nli'hiitij ri.;iIr:sj t h .etu .n - 11 (.'nil f Si n.bl .<<! 'tie, pi'll) Hill lilt,m cu.'lv ) ,I !'!: e i*:i BJ.ilk J h -tl i 'll tIn. I j High Speed Buffer A siinjli di't bid 1.1 di u; "i d in i.pi i.iti in tt-.e Pm IlDOipin range Ml the poipnsf lit .md .pi.u r/..!!i-,q Oonie in.liturn's .ire .is.nl.i.'ile !*.! operate ill thi tt<.'H .;U(H) t tprti i.r ;< *.< -nl..... ... i i.'!i.: ! !.;h s|,, p. ti.. I w Metal Cross-Linked Acrylic Polish Ail .krvln iimilsiun tvpe polisti put innipor.ii,s rm-t.illu s.,!)-. ui.ii.illv /mi) When dty. runic uoss links an- Imn;, it between the polymer .chains ijiv-. mf| the acrylic tilin added toughae" anilnsist.iiiie to tiiult.il deleftients Neutral Cleaner ,, A mild deti rqi-nt that does not contain any stnm<|lv alkaline ittate'rials It is designed tn ti move suit, lint limn polish Polish A temporary protective coating which usually me teases gloss m ri nl it @mstrong Standard Excelon and Premium Series Commercial Vinyl Composition Tile Smart maintenance programs consist of thorough dirt and gnt control, removal of spills and stains, and protection of the floor surface." Walk-off mats, sweeping, mopping, and vacuuming all help in the control of loose airt and gnt. Damp-mopping, spot-cleaning, and washing will remove most spills ana stains. And polishing will give the floor a protective coating which an be penadiully refurbished or removed when necessary. Regular adherence to this type of program will assure a longer, more attractive life for the floor. Recognized duality name products should be used to insure consis tency of performance. "NOTE; Armstrong Excelon* SDT Static Dissipative file and Step Master" Excelon Slip-Retardam Tile require specific maintenance procedures. Please refer to tneir tip sheets. A. Initial Maintenance After Installation 1. Sweep or vacuum thorougniy. 2. Do not wash, scrub, or strip the floor for at least four to five days after installa tion. This is to prevent excess moisture from interfering with the adhesive oond and/or seam treatments. The floor may be cleaned after installation by dampmopping with a very dilute neutral deter gent solution, carefully scrubbing olacx marks ana excessive sail.3 3. As a temoorarv measure, apply a mini mum of two coats ot nign quality, metal cross-iinked. acrviic floor polish to protect " ''ocr -guiar maintenance proce dures can oe started. B. Preparation for Commercial Traffic 1. Scrub the floor using a neutral deter gent and a floor macnine of 170-250 rpm capability equipped with a scrub brush or a scrubbing pad (3M blue or equal). However, if the floor is badly soiled and scratched, strip it using the same procedure but substituting a stripping detergent. NOTE: The use of high solvent content strippers (no-rinse/no-scrub) is not recommended on tile floors less than two years old. 2. Thoroughly rinse and allow to dry. NOTE: Do not flood the floor with rinse water, scrubbing, or stripping solutions. 3. After the floor has been thoroughly stripped, rinsed, and dried, apply three to five coats of high Quality, metal crosslinked, acrylic floor polish. The use of sealers is optional but may oe recom mended by the polish manufacturer. Allow at least 30 minutes' drying time between, applications. Do not allow traffic on the floor for the length of time specified by the polish manufacturer. C. Continuing Regular Maintenance 1. Sweeo or dust-moo frequently Use walk-off mats mat are as wide as the door way and long enough to trap dirt before feet reacn the resilient tloor. Clean tne watk-off mats ftequently. 1. Damp-mop the floor as appearance requires. Use a dilute, neutral-detergent solution. A light scrubbing with an automatic floor machine may also be performed. 3. After damp-mopping or tight scruobiitg, the floor may be spray-ouffed or burnished (dry-buffed) to restore gioss. a. To spray-Ouff. a dilute floor polish (7% to 8% sotids) or a spray-buffing compound is sprayed onto the floor. Before the liquid an dry. it is buffed with a floor machine of 170 to 1100 rpm equipped with a buffing pad or brush. A thin, protective, glossy film remains after buffing the liquid dry. This procedure allows the base coat of polish to be pro tected. reducing the need for stripping. Severe traffic areas may require extra coats of polish on a more frequent basis. b. Ultra-high-speed burnishing, utilizing a machine of 900 to 2000 rpm capacity, allows a large area to be buffed in a snon period of time. This is a dry procedure done on a floor coated with a good case of polish specifically formulated for Bur nishing. Reappuutions of polish ate needed to maintain the base of polish. Operators of ultra-high-speed floor machines should be well-trained. Careless "or improper use of these machines can result in severe and expensive damage to the floor. D. Stripping 1. Use of good quality maintenance proc ucts and regular adherence to a quality maintenance program will greatly reduce the need for stripping. Stripping snouid cdone only when necessary. 2. Procedures for stripping are outlined under Preparation for Commercial Traffic Part 1. This procedure should not be performed within the first lour to five days atter installation. |WM M * * Quantification of Fiber Releases for Various Floor Tile Removal Methods Robert N. Crossmn, Jr.,K M. Glenn Wiliams, Jr.,B Jerry Lauderdale,0 Kathy Schosek,B and Ronald F. Dodson? AD*partment of Occupational Health Sciences, The University of Texas Health Center at Tvler, 11937 U.S. Highway 271, Tyler, TO 75708; *Deportment of Cell Biology and Environmental Sciences, The University of Texas Health Center at Tyler, 11937 U.S. Highway 271, Tyler, TO 75708; division of Occupational Health, Texas Department of Health, 1100 W. 49th St., Austin, TO 78756 Use risk of human exposure Bom asbestos-containing material is directly related to the condition of the material, custo<6al/maintenance activities, and the methods used to reduce the potential expo sure to workers, bystander employees, and occupants of the area which may be'reported as 1 percent or less by PLM analysis.<J_5> Therefore, asbestos fibers, because of their potentially thin' diameters, require analytical transmission electron micros copy (ATEM) as die method ofchoice for accurate quantita tion in air samples and some bulk materials. This is partic containing the asbestos. Many consider floor tile to be non&uble, ularly important in chrysotile-containing products where which is in accordance with the National Emission Standards for many fibrils below die limit ofdetection by light microscopy Hazardous Air Pollutants regulations, although there it some docu may become airborne and thus inhalable. While it may be mentation offiber releases from deterioarioo ofsuch asbestos-con taining materials during pofishhig, removal, or routine walking, due to die friction generated by such activities. This study evaluates sev eral commonly used procedures bc removal offloor tile and quintifies the fibers released daringthose procedures usingdata obtained by analyses from phase contrast microscopy and analytical transmission electron microscopy. These data rionimmt that fibers are released when floor tile is broken and/or abraded during removal procedures. Fiber levels vary with die aggressiveness ofthe procedures. A con considered that the asbestos fibers in products such as floor tiles are bound and not easily released unless broken or crushed, Sebastien et a!., found that even under-normal conditions of weathering, asbestos fibers were released into the environ ment. Although levels of asbestos in public buildings may usually be low, elevated levels of airborne asbestos can be expected when asbestos-containing material (ACM), including floor rile, is in poor condition or is disturbed by occupants and mainte nance activities. The Environmental Protection Agency siderable percentage ofthe asbestos fibers identified by the analytical (EPA) has reported asbestos fiber release from floor tile spray transmission electron microscopy methods specified in the Asbestos buffing operations in 12 of 17 schools in New Jersey/101 The Hazard Emergency Response Act are below the size that can be Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)(n) detected by phase contrast microscopy and which are also the most easily respired due to their physical characteristics. OosswaN, X, R.N.; Whs*ms, X, M.G.; Ujdobme, J.; Soosbc, K.; Dooson, R.F.: OuwmomCN oe Fea Rhcses Ft* Vabous Roo* Tif Remcval Memccs. Am. Occur. Hrc. 11(91:1113-1124; 1996. requires polishing of asbestos-containing floor tile to be con ducted using least abrasive pads and polishers operating at .300 rpm or less.tl,) Limited numbers of other studies have been carried out to ascertain what fiber release occurs when asbestos-containing floor tiles are removed by procedures not utilizing negative pressure containment and wet methods as required under the Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act (AHERA){t2) for The risk of human exposures from asbestos-containing building materials is considered to be directly related to asbestos abatement in public schools. Unfortunately, these data are usually collected for personal exposure compliance pur the condition of the material, degree of friability of die mate poses and not as part of a protocol in .a scientific project. The rial, the asbestos content (percent), and the fiber size distribu published data often fail to describe condition, age, type of tion within the product. An effective management strategy for material, asbestos type and content, sampling information (vol reducing the potential of exposure must therefore include a ume and collection rate), filter pore size, and analysis protocob. physical inspection made by an accredited inspector to evaluate The EPA has published a guidance advisory specifying factors such as air movernene, accessibility, vibration, and po that floor tile should be analyzed by ATEM, ifit is repotted to tential for disturbance based on the type ofmaterial (surfacing, contain 1 percent or less asbestos by PLM. The OSHA regu thermal, miscellaneous)/1-21 lation 1926.1101(tl> places all floor tile installed in 1980 or Floor tile, whichis classified as miscellaneous material, poses earlier in the presumed ACM category,' Unless rebutted by a a particular challenge for proper management since any asbes bulk sample analysis by a technically feasible method. How tos is often finely dispersed within die matrix, and thus difficult ever, a final rule to phase out distribution ofvinyl asbestos rile to assess as to percentage by standard techniques using polar (VAT) in the United States was declared invalid by the U.S. ized light microscopy (PLM). Many floor tiles do contain Court ofAppeals in New Orleans; therefore, the manufacture, asbestos, usually chrysotile, at-levels up to 25 percent, but distribution, and importation of VAT are not testricced.(U> APPL.OCCUP.ENVIRON.HYG. 11(9) SEPTEMBER 1996 1047-322X/96/1I09-1113I15.00/12 O 1996 AIH PII SKM7-322X(96)00172-0 1113 n 14 R.N. Cco&srua ec al. APPt-OCCUP. ENVIRON.HYG. 11(9) SEPTEMBER. 1996 The issue of potential exposure from the removal of floor tiles in public buildings can be addressed by either total con tainment procedures or through one of several other proce dures, such as the suggested work practices published by the Resilient Floor Covering Institute (RFCI).*M1 When federal or state regulations permit, selection ofthe removal technique is left up to building owners or their consultants. The decision may be made on the perception that total containment pro cedures are the most costly, without considering the potential health risk and liability risk. Total containment controls emis sions and residue, while noncontainment may result in expo sure to workers during the project and to occupants through reentrainment by subsequent activities. The authors established a joint research investigation with the Texas Department ofHealth, which was designed to assess fiber release during floor tile removal in public buildings by a series of available procedures, monitored by phase contrast (light) microscopy (PCM) and ATEM. These data were quan tified to compare the merits ofeach method, as well as the level of fibers detected by PCM versus ATEM in actual work place environments. The Texas Asbestos Health Protection Rules, September 1994, 295.36,*1S1 provide an exemption from licensing and registration for persons removing resilient floor covering ma terials in public buildings, if those persons received training in an 8-hour course coveting the elements in the document rifled. Recommended Work Practices fir the Removal of Resilient Floor Coverings, published by the RFC! in 1990.*141 . Methods Study Design The following general criteria were established for all field investigations during this study:1 2 3 4 1. Locations for investigative procedures were evaluated by a licensed asbestos inspector to tule out the potential for asbestos contamination caused by friable and/or damaged ACM in the work areas. No sites were used which had any friable ACM or damaged ACM present in the area. 2. Each site was cleaned by high efficiency particulate air (HEPA) vacuum and/or wet wiping prior to die collec tion of baseline samples and the beginning of any work that was part of die test procedures. The baseline air samples were collected and analyzed by PCM (NIOSH 7400, Rev. 3A rules) and ATEM.*2,141 3. Bulk samples of floor tile and mastic were analyzed by PLM.<17> 4. Bulk samples offloor tile were analyzed by ATEM via the Chatfield Method.*18) 3. Each work site had critical barriers installed and was under a differential pressure of --0.02 inches water column. Two ofthe sites had polyethylene wall covering while die third site had full inverted containment consisting of a single layer of 4 mi polyethylene on the walls and ceiling. (The type of containment will be noted under specific proce dures.) All work sites had a minimum of four air changes per hour within the critical barriers. During each specific procedure, the work area within the negative pressure enclosure was sealed using double Aap doors taped dosed so there was no air circulation by suction or discharge from negative air machines. The air flow was checked using smoke tubes, and there was no detectable flow observed. The exception for this is the full AHERA procedure investigation, which was conducted with no restriction of flow through the work area. All locations had decontamination facilities.*11,19*201 6. Three air samples were collected in the work area in volved during each procedure. These were analyzed by PCM and ATEM. The relative location in each area was the same. 7. Outside samples were taken at negative air unit discharges and areas outside containment and were analyzed by both PCM and ATEM using the procedures dted in item 2 above. 8. Following the completion of the procedures being eval uated, each area was cleaned by HEPA vacuum/wet wip ing and samples for clearance analysis were collected by aggressive methods. These samples were also analyzed by PCM and ATEM. 9. After clearance was achieved, all remaining polyethylene was removed and disposed of as ACM and the areas were made available for reoccupancy following final cleaning. 10. All area air samples were collected on 0.45 fim pore size, mixed cellulose ester (MCE) filters with backup pads in 25-mm diameter conducting cassettes with 50-mm exten sion cowls. Staplex high volume pumps were used to collect the samples. The flow rates were 1 L/min to less than 10 L/min. Flow rates were checked at the start and end of each sampling period using an Asbestos Analytics rotameter, which was calibrated using a bubble burette as a primary standard. 11. All workers were EPA Model Accreditation Plan (MAP)*211 accredited and were experienced in asbestos abatement. The same workers were used at both sites of the urban school district and were employees ofthe school district. The workers conducting the procedures at the third site were furnished by another licensed asbestos contractor. 12. The Texas Department of Health is not an OSHA*111 enforcement agency and personal samples were not a part of this study. Personal samples were collected by the employer of the workers. Abatement Methods .. Removal of floor tile at the fust site, designated as Room 10 (Figure 1), was conducted under AHERA*21 rules. This site, located inside a middle school building ofa large urban school district, contained approximately 1000 square feet offloor tile, which was "flooded" each morning for 3 days preceding the removal. Gross removal was conducted using amended water and hand spud bars* to release the tiles from the floor. The 9 X 9 floor tiles had been installed 20 to 25 years before onto a concrete floor and were securely attached. Consequendy, re moval of the tiles required a great amount of force, which resulted in breakage of the tiles into many small pieces. +A spud bar is a wed shift approximately 2 inches in diameter, with a tapered, sharp end eo work under the floor ole. Hud power nuy be used or the bar may be inserted in a pneumatic power uax, which causes the bar to operate in a hammeriike mode. APPL.OCCUP. ENVIRON.HYG. tt(9) SEPTEMBER 1996 Fiber Releases in Floor Tile Removal 1115 FIGURE 1. Urban middle school, room 10, AHERA removal FIGURE 3. Commercial building, room 8, dry ice removaL There were three patterns of tile in Room 10. The pre dominant pattern was light blue-gray in color and occupied approximately 95 percent of the floor area in the room. Anal ysis by PLM of this die showed an asbestos content of 4 to 6 percent; ATEM analysis found the amount of asbestos to be considetably higher, 16 to 23 percent. No asbestos was de tected by ATEM analysis of the other two tile patterns. (See Table 1 for analytical results.) fhe second site consisted oftwo rooms ofan administrative building, which had previously been used as an elementary school, of the same urban school district. Room A (Figure 2) was approximately 1200 square feet and Room B was approx imately. 900 square feet 'During this procedure, workers wore - full personal protective equipment which included Type C supplied air respirators. Personal samples were taken by the contractor in accordance with 40 CFR 763, Subpart G, r Worker Protection.*20* In Room A, floor tiles were removed initially using a hand-powered spud bar. Later, due to the difficulty in releasing the tile from the concrete floor, the pneumatic powered spud bar was used. In Room B, floor tile was initially removed dry, using hand-held scrapers in accordance with the RFCI*,4> work practices. This method for removal was extremely slow, and sufficient force to remove all pieces ofthe tile from the floor was not possible. Because die floor tiles were so firmly attached to the concrete floor, die procedures were changed and pneu matic powered spud bars were utilized for two sampling pe riods. Use of both the hand-held scraper and the pneumatic powered spud bar resulted in many very small sized pieces of detached floor tile. (Analytical results are in Table 2.) The third location was in an unoccupied commercial build ing in East Texas, which contained approximately 1500 square feet. After this area was precleaned, critical barriers were erected, a single inverted polyethylene containment was erected for the walls and the ceiling, and differential pressure was established for the area. Work areas were separated and isolated from the air flow from the rest ofthe contained area by aped, double-flap doors. The approximate square footage of each work area was 175 to 220 square feet. At this site, methods for the removal offloor tile included heating, dry ice. - ----- /-> \ I : -'if i.S - FIGURE 2. Urban administrative building, room A, dry pneumatic spud bar removal. FIGURE 4. Commercial building, room 9 RFCI dry-hand-held scraper. 1116 R-N. Ctounua aL AlPPL.OCCUP. ENVIRON.HYG. 11(9) SEPTEMBER 1996 TABIE 1. Floor Til* Removal by AHERA Regulations Urban Middle School, Room 10 Bulk Sample Analysis of Three Patterns of 9 X 9 Floor Tiles ID Description PLM ATEM 1 Tan tile None detected None detected Black mastic None detected -- 2 Light blue-pay die 4-6% Chrysotile 16-23% Chrysodle Black mastic 1-2% Chrysodle -- 3 Dark/light green die None detected <1% Chrysodle Yellow mastic ' Insuficient sample -- Baseline air samples ED Description B-l Inside containment B-2 Inside containment B-3 Inside containment VOL 0*> 750.5 750.5 918.3 PCM (f/cc) 0.046 0.057 0.056 ATEM total (st/cc) 0.012 0.006 0.026 ATEM >0.5 (st/cc) 0.012 0.006 0.020 ATEM StS (st/cc) <0.006 <0.006 0.006 AHERA Procedure ID A-l A-2 A-3 A-4 Description Inside containment Inside containment Inside containment Outride hallway VOL (t) 741.0 731.5 950.0 630.0 PCM (f/cc) 0.042 0.022 0.027 0.062 ATEM total (st/cc) 0.24 0.13 0.093 -- ATEM >0.5 (st/cc) 0.22 0.12 0.087 -- ATEM W (st/cc) 0.025 0.012 0.006 -- Clearance (Samples for comparison ware collected within two feet of the contractor's clearance samples and reported as follows) ATEM ATEM VOL PCM total >0.5 ID Description <L) (f/cc) (st/cc) (st/cc) C-l Irnide containment 1630.0 C-2 Inside containment 1610.0 C-3 Inside containment 1590.0 C-4 Outride containment 1470.0 0.19 0.22 0.21 0.34 0.011 0.009 0.006 -- 0.008 0.009 0.006 -- NOTE: Mote dun 12 bouts elapsed between the completion of removal and the collection of the "clearance" samples. ATEM 25 (st/cc) 0.003 <0.003 <0.003 -- and hand-held scraper RFCl*14* work practices. Removal of mastic was accomplished by amended water/long-handled floor scraper and Abatix 007 mastic remover (Table 3). Following is a description for work in each of foe areas where foe investigation was conducted at foe third location: Room 7: Floor tile was removed by heating foe surface with hand-held propane torches to make it pliable. Many offoe tiles did not readily release from foe floor and were broken during their removal from foe floor with hand-held scrapers. (See Table 3A for analytical results.) Mastic was removed after a settling period by RFCl<,4) work practices, using amended water to wet foe mastic and a long-handled floor scraper to peel foe ridges down so that foe floor would be suitable for installation of a new tile floor. A HEPA wet vacuum was used to pick up foe residue and foe floor was mopped to clean it. (See Table 3B for analytical results.) Room 8: The floor tile in this room (Figure 3) was removed by dry ice cooling to release the dry tiles and/or mastic. A 2-inch thick layer of dry ice was placed in an approximately 2X5 foot movable frame, with a polyethylene bottom. The dry ice was left at each location for approximately 3 to 4 minutes. Measurements of carbon dioxide (COj) levels were made using a Drager pump and direct indicating C02 tubes about 2 feet above the floor and above die frame. The highest level ofC02 measured at this location was approximately 2500 ppm. The level of C02 found in the worker breathing zone was approximately 1000 ppm. The C02 level decreased rap idly as one moved a greater distance above the floor and from foe frame. (See Table 3C for analytical results.) Room 9: The floor tile in Room 9 (Figure 4) was remover1 using foe hand-held setapers in accordance with the RFCI(U recommended work practices. (See Table 3D for analytical results.) APPLOCCUP.ENV1RON.HYG. 11(9) SEPTEMBER 1996 Fiber Releases in Floor Tile Removal 1U7 TABUE 2. Floor Til* Rsmovol by Dry Hand Spud Bar, Dry Pneumatic Spud Bar, and Dry Hand-bald Scrapar (RFQ),<U> Administrative Building in on Urban School District .Balk Santpla Analysis ofThree Patterns of 9 X 9 Floor Tilt* ID Description PLM ATEM g A Red Tile 10-15% Chrysolite 24-29% Chrysolite Black Mastic 5-7% Chrysolite -- B Gray Tile 10-15% Chrysolite 24-36% Chrysolite Blade Masdc 3-5% Chrysolite -- C Brown Tile 7-10% Chrysolite 23-34% Chrysolite Black Mastic 2--1% Chrysolite -- Baseline Air Sample (collected only la Room B due to activity in Room A) ATEM ATEM ATEM VOL PCM total >0.5 2:5 ID Description . (L) (f/cc) (st/cc) ,(st/cc) (st/cc) 1-A Rm. B, NW quarter 1479 0.042 0.003 0.003 <0.003 Room A--Dry Hand Spud Bar VOL ID Description <t> 2-D 2-H 2-F SW third S middle N middle 292 322 284 Room A--Dry Pneumatic Spud Bar (Day 1) PCM mcc> 0.021 0.040 0.062 ATEM total (st/cc) 0.74 1.2 U ATEM >0.5 (st/cc) 0.63 0.98 1.1 ATEM 25 (st/cc) 0.11 0.20 0.16 ID 2-1 2-J 2-K ' Description SW third S middle N middle VOL (L) 248 228 204 PCM (f/cc) 0.079 0.12 0.12 ATEM total (st/cc) 6.4 6.0 8.3 ATEM >0.5 (st/cc) 5.7 5.4 7.6 ATEM 25 (st/cc) 0.70 0.57 0.73 Bulk Sample Analysis ofThree Patterns of 9 X 9 Floor Tiles ID Description PLM ATEM A Red Tile Black Mastic B Gray Tile Black Mastic C Brown Tile Black Masdc 10-15% Chrysolite 5-7% Chrysolite 10-15% Chrysolite 3-5% Chrysolite 7-10% Chrysolite 2-4% Chrysolite 24-29% Chrysolite -- 24-36% Chrysolite -- 23-34% Chrysolite -- Baseline Air Sample (collected only in Room B due to activity in Room A) 11 VOL ID Description (L) ATEM total (st/cc) ATEM >0.5 (st/cc) ATEM 25 . (st/cc) 1-A Rm. B, NW quarter 1479 0.042 0.003 0.003 <0.003 (continued) 111S R.N. Crossman ct at APPL.OGCUP. ENVIRON.HYG. lt<9) SEPTEMBER t996 Tab!# 2. Continued_________________ Room A--Dry Hand Spud Bar ATEM ATEM ATEM VOL PCM total >0.5 &5 ID Description (L) (f/cc) (tt/cc) (st/cc) (st/cc) 2-D SW third 292 0.021 0.74 2-E S middle 322 0.040 1.2 2-F N middle 284 0.062 1.3 0.63 0.98 1.1 0.11 0.20 ' 0.16 Room A--Dry Pneumatic Spud Bar (Day 1) ID 2-1 2-J 2-K . Description SW third S middle N middle VOL <t> 248 228 204 PCM (Dec) 0.079 0.12 0.12 ATEM total (tt/cc) 6.4 6.0 8.3 ATEM >0.S (st/cc) 5.7 5.4 7.6 ATEM H (st/cc) 0.70 0.57 0.73 Room A--Dry Pneumatic Spud Bar (Day 2) ATEM ATEM ATEM VOL PCM total >0.5 ID Description <L> (Dec) (Dec) (tt/cc) (tt/cc) 3-D 3-E 3-F S middle N middle SW third 446 0.082 483 0.11 446 0.14 Not analyzed/ovedoaded Not analyxed/overioaded Not analyted/overloaded Room B--Dry Hand-held Scraper (RFCI Work Practices*14') ATEM ATEM ATEM VOL PCM total >0.5 fcS ; ID Description <L) (f/cc) (st/cc) (st/cc) (st/cc) 2-A W middle 760 0.032 2-B NW quarter 929 Tom 2-C E middle 890 0.033 1.3 -- 1.0 1.3 -- 0.97 0.066 -- 0.046. Room B--Dry Pneumatic Spud Bar (Day 1) ID 2-L 2-M 2-N Description W middle NW quarter E middle VOL <L> 70 70 70 PCM (Dec) 0.088 0.074 0.074 ATEM total (st/cc) ATEM >0.5 (st/cc) Volume too low Volume too low Volume too low ATEM 2:5 (jt/cc) Room B--Dry Pneumatic Spud Bar (Day 2) ATEM ATEM ATEM VOL PCM total >0.5 2S ID Description (L) (Dee) (st/cc) (tt/cc) (st/cc) 3-A 3-B 3-C 3-1 3-J 3-K E middle, NW quarter W middle E middle NW quarter W middle 437 446 469 582 582 582 0.11 0.092 0.093 0.094 0.048 0.059 Not analyzed/ovedoaded Not analyzed/ovedoaded Not analyzed/ovedoaded Not analyzed/ovedoaded Not analyzed/ovedoaded Not analyzed/ovedoaded NOTE: The containment area was cleared by the owner upon completion of all work that disturbed ACM. No samples were collected as pan of this study. APPL.OCCUP. ENVIRON.HYG. 11(9) SEPTEMBER 1996 fiber Releases in Root Tile Removal 1119 TABLE 3. Floor Til* Remov'd! By Propane Torch Heat, Hand-held Scraper (RFG),(U) Dry Ice, and Mastic Removal by Abatix 007 or Amended Water (RFCI),<,4> Commercial Building in East Texas Balk Semple Analysis ofTwo Patterns of 9 X 9 Floir TileiA m Description PLM ATEM 1A Tan tile 4-6% Chrysolite 13-18% Chrysolite Black masdc ND -- 2A Tah/Brown mottled die 7-10% Chrysolite 20-27% Chrysolite Black masdc 2-4% Chrysolite -- Baseline Air Samples* ID cioi C102 C103 Description Room 9 Room 7 Room 2 VOL <t) 918 828 828 PCM (f/cc) 0.029 0.037 0.026 ATEM total (st/cc) 0.030 0.039 0.022 ATEM >0.5 (st/cc) 0.020 0.028 0.017 ATEM kS (st/cc) 0.010 0.011 0.005 Floor Hie Removal Applying Heat with Hand-held Propane Torchc ID C211 C212 C213 Description Room 7 Room 7 Room 7 VOL <t) 739 850 892 PCM (f/cc) 0.022 0.006 o.ou ATEM total (st/cc) 0.60 0.52 0.25 ATEM >03 (st/cc) 0.38 0.34 0.12 ATEM a (st/cc) 0.22 0.18 0.13 Masdc Removal with Amended Witter and Extended-handle Floor Semper (RFCI Work Practices'1*') ID C301 C302 C303 Description Room 7 Room 7 Room 7 VOL (L> 522 540 552 PCM (/cc) 0.035 0.027 0.027 ATEM total (st/cc) 0.34 0.26 0.18 ATEM >03 (st/cc) 0.13 0.15 0.083 ATEM 25 (st/cc) 0.21 0.11 0.099 Floor Hie Removal Using Dry Ice ID C208 C209 C210 Description Room 8 Room 8 Room 8 VOL <L) 666 703 760 PCM (f/cc) 0.024 0.019 0.024 ATEM total (st/cc) 0.36 031 0.19 ATEM >03 (st/cc) 0.25. 033 0.15 ATEM i5 (st/cc) 0.11 0.071 0.036 Dry Hand-held Semper (RFCI Work Practices1il4>) ID Cl 04 C105 C106 III Description Room 9 Room 9 Room 9 VOL (L) 522 509 PCM (f/cc) 0.17 0.15 ATEM total (st/cc) --Pump Stopped-- 1.3 0.96 ATEM >03 (st/cc) 0.63 0.51 ATEM 2S (st/cc) 0.67 0.45 (continued) \ 1120 R.N. CrawonctaL V* ' APPLOCCUP.ENVIRON.HYG. tl(9) SEPTEMBER. 1996 Table 3. Continued Mastic Removal Using Abatfat 007 Mastic Remover id C203 C204 C205 Description ' Room 9 Room 9 Room 9 VOL 1840 1890 1950 PCM (Pcc) 0.054 0.052 0.048 ATEM total (st/cc) 0.30 0.52 0.32 ATEM >0.5 (st/cc) 0.20 0.42 022 ATOM 2:5 (st/cc) 0.10 0.10 0.10 Clearance Samples foe Commercial Badding in East Texas ATOM ATOM ATOM VOL PCM total' >0.5 25 ED Description (f/cc) (st/cc) . (st/cc) (st/cc) C401 cm C403 C404 C405 Room 7 Room 8 Room 11 Room 1 Room 3 1187 1187 1345 1100 1288 <0.004 <0.004 <0.004 <0.004 <0.004 <0.005 <0.005 0.004 0.016 <0.004 <0.005 <0.005 0.004 0.010 <0.004 <0.005 <0.005 <0.004 0.006 <0.004 ATboe types were mixed dtraoehoat tbe bsaUmc area. *Htnrfine samples were taken afar die area ynt detned and the containment was erected. The floor m bang walked oa as these samples wen taken. Tl>ere wa Hide breakage. The laboratory report noted steed stzacmies probably caused by tbe beat. "Cold was applied 3 to minutes m each laeadoa. Some floor tile bteakage occulted fnm uuafiaent release, oc petiiaps bm bcitdenets due to the cold. His was usually limited to 2 to 4 pieces when breakage occuoed. Following removal ofthe floor tile and a settling period, die mastic was removed using Abatbc 007 masdc remover. The area was then hand-rubbed with the least abrasive bufer pad to loosen it and the residue picked up using a squeegee. Final cleaning was done by mopping. (See Table 3E for analytical results.) - Analytical Procedures bulk SAMPLE analysis. Bulk sample analyses were conducted using both PLM and ATEM. The PLM procedure was per formed as described in 40 CFR 763, Subpart F, Appendix A-<17) The ATEM analysis was done in accordance with the procedure of Chatfield.1**) For the PLM procedure, random portions of the floor tiles were dissected into small Augments while being examined for. obvious asbestos fibers. These fragments were dissolved in a small amount oT 1.550 Hj, dispersion oil by gentle heating, visible fiber bundles were removed and placed in fresh 1.550 nD oil and a large quantity of fresh oil was added to the remaining dispersed sample. The sample was analyzed using magnifications ranging from X7 to X400. Asbestos was iden tified based on morphology (frequently as chopped fragments), color and pleochroism, refractive indices, birefringence, ex tinction characteristics, and sign of elongation. Quantitation was by estimation from models of known composition and results were reported as area percent. For the ATEM analysis, 100- to 500-mg samples were shaved from the floor tiles, which were then weighed. These samples were, ashed in a muffle furnace at 480 5C. for at lease 12 hours and weighed again. The ash was then dispersed in 2 ml of 6N HC1. When effervescence ceased, the residue was collected on a preweighed 0.2-ptm polycarbonate filter, where it was rinsed with distilled water, oven dried, and weighed. The residue was resuspended in a known volume of water and 3 pel ofthe suspension were transferred to fomxvarcoated grids. After drying, die proportion of asbestos in the residue was visually estimated at X16,000 and the upper and lower weight percents (1096) were calculated and repotted for asbestos, organic material and calrite and dolomite. phase-contrast MICROSCOPY. Phase-contrast. microscopy following NIOSH 7400 Revision 3, May 15,1989 was used to analyze representative portions ofthe 0.45-pun mixed cellulose ester filters for later comparison with ATEM. Quadrants ofthe filters were collapsed with acetone vapor, mounted in 1.460 nD oil, and covenlipped. The quadrants were analyzed at X400 and fibers greater than 5-pun long, with aspect ratios equal to or greater than 3. were counted using the NIOSH 7400 A rules. Results were reported as fibers per cc. ANALYTICAL TRANSMISSION ELECTRON MICROSCOPY. Elec tron microscopy counts were obtained on the above filters, using the AHERA counting protocol described in 40 CFR 763, Subpart E, Appendix A or EPA Level II analysis.1**) In brief upon arrival in the lab, portions of the fibers were collapsed on glass slides with acetone vapor and plasma etched until 10 percent of the surface was removed. They were carbon coated in a vacuum evaporator and small squares were placed on calibrated 200 mesh grids. The MCE plastic was removed in an acetone condensation washer. The samples were examined in an ATEM at a screen magnification of X 16,000 for asbestos fibers. Five 200 mesh grid squares were analyzed on each of two grids. The AHERA protocol was used for the clearance samples. To be counted, a structure had to have a 5 to 1 aspect ratio or greater and be at least 0.5 pun long or greater. Selected area electron difflaction (SAED) and energy dispersive X-ray analysis (EDXRA) were used to con firm all asbestos structures. EDXRA alone was used to confirm nonasbestos. The structures were categorized as fibers, bundles. y ii r APPLOCCUP. ENVTRON.HYG. 11(9) SEPTEMBER 1996 Fiber Releases in Floor TUe Removal 1121 TABLE 4. Data Summary Removal Procedures AHERA Dry hand spud bar Dry pneumatic spud bar (Room A) Dry pneumatic spud bar (all cases) RFCI dry hand scraper (all cases) Dty ice Propane torch Abadx 007 mastic remover Wet mastic scraper ATEM dies incomplete. Mean .030 .041 .11 .092 .096 .022 .013 .051 .030 ^ PCMf/cc Standard Deviation .010 .021 .024 .025 .0073 .0029 .0082 .0031 .0046 Geometric Mean .029 .037 .10 .089 .096 .022 .011 .051 .029 Mean 0.15 l.l 6.9 1* 12 028 0.46 038 ` 026 ATEM total st/cc Standard Deviation ' Geometric Mean 0.078 030 12 I* 023 .0.086 0.18 0.12 0.08 0.14 1.0 6.8 I* 1.1 0.27 0.43 037 0.25 4 clusters, or matrices according to AHERA. Results were re corded as asbestos structures greater dan or equal to 0.5 fua to less than 5 pm, or greater than or equal to 5 pm in length per cc and as total asbestos structures per cc. A second ATEM method, known as EPA Level II, was published by Yamate et oL(t<> This method was used to analyze all samples, except die clearance samples. The samples were collected and the filters prepared as in the AHERA121 protocol. Asbestos structures were counted at X 16,000 and were classi fied as above. SAED and EDXRA were used to identify die structures. The data were made to conform to the AHERA counting rules and were reported using the AHERA guide lines. All samples for electron microscopy were prepared by the direct method, as outlined above. A one-way analysis ofvariance (ANOVA), associated with a Tukey Studendzed Range Test, was performed on the ATEM log10 transformed data. The post hoc experiment-wise error rate, representing the probability ofat least one falsely declared significant difference, was controlled at 5 percent for the 21 pair-wise comparisons ofthe seven treatment means. Analytical Results--Synopsis Representative floor dies from each site were analyzed by PLM and ATEM. The only asbestos present was chrysodle, and die concentrations tanged from "none detected" to as high as 10 to 15 percent by PLM and 24 to 36 percent by ATEM, both percentages coming from the same die. The avezage percent difference between the two analytical procedures was 194 percent, with ATEM always giving the higher results. Only chrysodle was found in the mastics, and it ranged in concentration from "none detected" to 5 to 7 percent by PLM. Ofthe various removal procedures tested, the propane torch method produced die lowest concentration of airborne fibers per cc, which averaged 0.013 by PCM (see Table 4 and Figure 5). The RFCI09 hand-held scraper (Room 9) produced the highest avenge concentration, with 0.16 fibers per cc (See "Analytical Results by Site" and Figure 4). ) i FIGURE 5. ATEM micrograph showing a chrysoale bundle (arrow) visible by PCM. Source was the urban administrative building, room B, dry pneumatic spud bar procedure. Bar = t fim. FIGURE 6. ATEM micrograph ofchrysodle fibers seen only by elec tron microscopy. Source was the East Texas commercial building Abadx 007 mastic procedure. Bar = 1 fim. 1122 R.N. Craonun ec al. FIBERS PER CC BY PCM APPL.OCCUP. ENVIPON.HYG. tt(9) SEPTEMBER 19% I PCMF/CC FIGURE 7. Fibers per cc by PCM. STRUCTURES PER CC BY TEM 11EMSIR/CC FIGURE 8. Structure! per cc by TEM. *! S ll APPL.OCCXrP.ENVmON.HYG. 11(9) SEPTEMBER 1996 Fiber Release* in Floor Tile Removal 1123 PERCENT RESPIRABLE STRUCTURES BY TEM FIGURE 9. Percent respirable asbestos structures by ATEM. ATEM 'results indicated die AHERA procedure gener ated the least number of asbestos structures per cc, with an average of0.15 (see Table 4 and figure 6). This concentration was significantly lower than that for all other floor die removal procedures except for the dry ice. The greatest concentrations, averaging 6.9 structures per cc, were produced by the drypneumatic spud bar. These concentrations were significantly higher dun those for all other removal procedures. The aver age percent difference between the PCM and ATEM counts for the various floor tile removal procedures was 2840 percent, and the ATEM counts were always die higher. (See Table 4.) The ATEM results also provided insight into the type and size of asbestos structures that were produced by the various removal procedures tested (figures 7 and 8). The most com mon structures were fibers and matrices, many ofwhich were respirable. Two amphibole fibers were identified during the electron microscopy analyses of the air samples; however, this was not considered to be a significant finding. The average percentage of respirable asbestos structures generated by each method is illustrated in Figure 9. The dry-hand-held scraper and the dry-pneumatic spud bar produced the highest percent ages, 96.5 and 90.2, respectively, but all of the removal pro cedures produced at least 48.9 percent or greater respirable structures. The above percentages represent conservatively low esti mates ofdie respirable fractions because the AHERA count ing rules require lengths to be recorded in two categories: those structures greater than or equal to 0.5 pm to less than 5 pm and those greater than or equal to 5 pm. Diameters are not recorded. Therefore, all clusters and matrices greater than or equal to 5 pm in length were considerednonrespirable, even though some may have been respirable. All fibers and bundles were considered respirable. Discussion The techniques used in this study are those presently recom mended apd/or applied in floor tile removal. The data from the present studies confirm that asbestos fibers are released in appreciable numbers during application of each of the tech niques, The AHERA procedure resulted in the least genera tion of asbestos-containing dust Seven of 28 samples taken during dry procedures exceeded 0.1 f/cc by PCM analysis. Two of these samples were collected during dry removal by RFCI(U) hand-held scraper procedures and were reported as greater than 0.1 f/cc by PCM analysis. Three of four samples collected during dry removal by the RFCl(1<) hand-heldscraper method were reported greater than 1 str/cc by ATEM. Two of three samples collected during dry removal by hand' spud bar were reported greater than 1 str/cc by ATEM. While the purpose of this study was not focused on evalu-; ation of potential health effects associated with these activities, ic is obvious that a considerable fraction ofthe asbestos dust is of a respirable size. This point was documented by ATEM analysis of air samples in which the majority of freed fibers were too small to be detectable by die light microscope. Furthermore, any remaining nonrespirable, settled asbestoscontaining particulates can be reduced to a respirable size by foot traffic or maintenance activities and can spread throughout the building.  1 > RN.Xf6unua-et.aC. ' ' APPL.OCCUP.ENVIWDN.HYG. 11(9) SEPTEMBER 1996 ; as.Have been used to justify decisions- : ftechiiiqu'ej other than fall contairtriief^T7^es^.;jSf^iR).ns 'frequently do not take into account minaiidtt>(Ashestt* m-Bullc BuildingMaterials. 600/R-93/1/ J5. Hltttmw; S.? ;.Podn1'R.F.: Asbestos. In: Pulmonary Pathol- : ` ` b^,..pp. :J?0`r-9S.3."D.H. Dad, S.P. Hammar, Eds. Springer- ^dtijndir.Picp^titd.to worken and `occupants; or the - j- Aid Of rerhoval and qtfter aiijacCilt . ar^'.^e^^i^ofitftidiijgartd compliance withC3SrtA(If) agnificam fcorisiderafion.- ........................ ; Com, C.J.; et-al.: A Comparison ' ittAjboiittii IhirdijfcihfJJaig `Parenchyma, Lymph Nodes, and ;':;;.'fti^`^^Xv;Aca<L So/643:53-60 (1991). - 8.-.Seb^eh;. P.'jjBijjSoji,- JLf Martin, M.: Indoor Airborne Asbestos dtH't.'i^'^ate<i:du|i^n^ -flopriSK retoovaT pkZ&on- exposures ' PbBJfriforiiV-Ftem the.Ceding and the Floor.-. Science 216:1410- ;3^ap82)/-. 9, Chesibp,-J;; Hatfield, J.; -Schultz,- et aL: Airborne Asbestos in /..- ^^f^^^^t6n;;,1R'51:100-107 (1990). bo ,-v-''-L ^.Hf^l^hnr&ui)hlwA6cectionAgencyrAitbome Asbestos Con v'" cetpittfio^PijripjfJiiiSig'ofJberifitiit.Fk>o.r Tt}e. 600/SR-93/ lif l^/cE>^ntmetit^<?f Uhbir.-29 CFR.1926.1101, Fed. Reg. l& -`U^:Epw^>ntiib^;Ptot^B^ Agency;. Policy, Clarification for : Ari>e*eos.-Ha3B!3l Einhtgepejr Pxsponse-.Act.iXAHERA). July _______ _______ ____ _______ _ , . . . . icftk: 7fi3,.5ubri`fl^BvP> , .- --- 14. 'Resifahr'HOor -tber-5.1993). Institute;.Reconjmended Work Prac- . ^3oaL,G>c dw:.:Ral^Wrij rf'E(j*iheJ!lpor -Covitring?. Rockville, ;&*$.:: '" 19.\4'easislC5ya^etorte^4itide 4477-3A, $T-2. Senate BUI 1341 and . ^E&Sse/Siff '72n,*Le8^t*wrt^ 199i,.FJquse.Bill 1680 and :; |Si(Tfl25,.7^cd Legjs&ttjra $.993). 16.\ifi*atb/l^`a^f^-.S^Csg^iOiR^rlMi*dw<iologyforth ' w*4<7.-. ' ` `by;Etoe^-Mtawcor. -' * -' ;.W^^;.0^'p^.^.?earch.andDevdopment,U.S. ,5> ' 3.;:.U.S;^wroiw]iTf'ral Sroeecrifia .Vi^^ry:' ASftSosy'-Regarding . AvaSKfiJity -Test - .l(ftri(^-SiOT>{rt}ieB^:j^^)ntiriOii0Btak9ain^!efeoUetfidn .^ -A^sJs:;^'.;R^^8^3wy.jyri^i 4. Na^qridypli^it^.Labocidl^At^pifitt&5ri^i6i^'^ticrhd Disrinitet -.of Science ind 'T*iito'<>k>fey?7GiitSfertbur^ Mirylifid (1991).-`- ' -`i '' 5. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: Method for the Deter- T-7. 'tk^^hyiroriiiemal,Pttitte|p5Hi^geiiey: Iaterim-Method fer die . -Dettrmiiktioh ofAsbestos iq 13(dk Samples. 40 CFR 763, 'Fed. .-Xegr^-.Agpendilc A.to SubpartF (October 30,1987). 18. SfJS.Erivirtnsn^tal Protection Aj^ncy. Chatfield; Eric J. SOP: ' - S^jle-Aiulyiis ofHoor-Tae. 1988-02,: Rev. 1. 19. H/.S.'Depaitlrijnciof Libor: Asbestos Standard for Construction ' "lndustty.' 29.''.CFlR 1926.58, Fed-' Reg. 51.22-612 (June 20, -'1^6).' ; 20. jj.S. Environmental ftoteefion ;Agepey: -Asbestos, Abatement 'Ptbjecrii 3ti'dfi&r4ptocectutnh40 CFR 763; Subpart G, Fed. Reg. ;52i56& ]ffebriiary.'2s;:i^7). 21.' y.Sxhyrmmen'tal ProtectionAgency: Asbestos Model Accred itation Pian. 40 CFR 763, Appendix C to Subpart E, Fed. Reg. 59:5236 (February 3; 1994), APPENDIX B Protocol for Sampling and Analysis B-l APPENDIX B Protocol for Sampling and Analysis Objectives: The objectives of the proposed studies are to: Determine whether asbestos exposures to maintenance personnel meet the OSHA action level of 0.1 f/cc and excursion limit of 1 f/cc during recommended maintenance activities on asbestos-containing floor tiles. The exposure should be determined as a time-weighted average of measurements using the OSHA Reference Method for phase-contrast microscopy. Determine whether asbestos concentrations following maintenance of asbestoscontaining floor tiles are significantly elevated. The criteria for elevation are: 1) The concentration of asbestos on filters, as determined by the 40 CFR Part 763, Appendix A method1 for transmission electron microscopy, is greater than 70 s/sq mm and 2) The concentration on the filters is statistically higher inside the area maintained than it is outside the area maintained. Maintenance Activities: The maintenance activities to be monitored are: Spray Buffing: Typical maintenance of modestly soiled/wom finish. Least likely of the activities to release fibers. Two sues will be selected for monitoring of spray buffing. This method ..> specified because provides a sensm-.e mcihod lor determining isnesiev conc.-iraticns ,.t \crv i.i\* .evcis j.iu beanie .'> nienii specific instructions -ample collection jssurc .-.imnafJPiliu il results jmone -.-is .1 the m.iinlenance jCUMIiCn "or b-:  Scrubbing: Typical maintenance of moderately soiied/wom finish. Intermediate likelihood of releasing fibers. One site will be selected for monitoring of scrubbing. Stripping/Refinishing: Typical maintenance of heavily soiled/wom finish. Entails removal of old finish and replacement by new finish to begin cycle anew. Most likely of the activities to generate fibers. Three sites will be selected for monitoring of stripping/refinishing. Responsibilities: Armstrong World Industries and members of the Resilient Floor Covering Institute (RFCI) will be responsible for identifying sites and designating a host company for each site. The host company will be responsible for sampling bulk materials if necessary; obtaining necessary permissions: providing maintenance personnel (preferably from outside the company); providing a floor machine and pads or brushes of the appropriate types: providing treated dust mops and washed wet mops; coordinating work schedules with the maintenance personnel, the monitoring group, and any observers; and arranging for refreshments. The maintenance personnel are responsible for supplying any stripping, scrubbing, or buffing solutions and any finishes for completion of the stripping/refinishing studies. ENVIRON Corporation is responsible for overall study design and analysis, and for coordination of the activities of the sampling and analysis subcontractors. As subcontractor to ENVIRON. Industrial Health Incorporated flHI) wiil conduct all sampling activities other than the initial collection of bulk samples in connection with site identification. IHI will also have analyzed bulk samples of the floor tiles by polarized light microscopy and scanning electron microscopy. As subcontractor to ENVIRON, The R. J. Lee Group will analyze all other samples, including bulk samples by polarized light microscopy (PLM). air samples by phase contrast microscopy (PCM), and air samples by transmission eieciron microscopy tTEM). Selection of Sites: Potential sites identified by Armstrong and RFCI v. lil be examined to determine the condition of the finish for assignment to one of the three maintenance categories above. Floors must be \myi-asbestos floor tile or aspnalt-asoestos floor ule with asbestos content greater than 10^. If the tile cannot be confirmed as containing more than iOfe asbestos by positive visual identification, a bulk sampie of tile must be assaved by PLM to verify asbestos B-3 content before the test is scheduled. Areas should not contain any suspected sources of asbestos other than the floor tiles. If suspect material is identified, bulk Samples may be obtained for PLM analysis. Areas should also not contain any significant sources of nonasDestos fibers, such as carpets. Areas must be selected to ensure that a reasonable fraction of a work day can be monitored. For stripping, a room the size of a large classroom (e.g., 500 sq ft) should be sufficient. For buffing, an area the size of a large cafeteria would be preferred. The scrubbing test should be conducted in an area of intermediate size. Preparation* of Area: Prior to the beginning of the test, heating and air conditioning vents as well as' windows and doors should be covered with plastic to reduce air exchange with the rest of the building. Next, the entire area should be thoroughly cleaned to reduce the possibility that pre-existing fibrous material, whether asbestos or not, would contribute to the sampling results. The floor should by HEPA-vacuumed and other dusty areas cleaned. (One door may be provided with overlapping plastic to allow entrance and exist.) Following cleaning, aggressive monitoring of baseline conditions according to the procedures outlined in 40 CFR Part 763, Appendix A should be conducted to verify the completeness of cleaning. As specified later in this protocol, these samples will be analyzed only if necessary. Afterwards, a pair of baseline samples (see description below) should be taken overnight to establish quiescent fiber levels in the area prior to the maintenance activities. These baseline samples need not be analyzed if worker exposures do not exceed the OSHA action level. Preparation of Equipment: All equipment and supplies should be prepared to minimize their potential contributions to fiber levels. The floor machine and pads or brushes should be new or pre cleaned. Wet mops should have been washed and dried more than once to reduce iinting. Dust mops should be treated to ensure maximum capture of dust. Any water to be used in connecuon with mopping, buffing, scrubbing, and stripping operations should be distilled. Maintenance Activities: Buffing, scrubbing, and stripping should be conducted according to the procedures described in Appendix A. Any variation from the range of conditions specified in Appendix A should be avoided. Any deviations should be noted by observers from the host company. ENVIRON, ana 1HI. Sampling: B-i 9 All six maintenance activities should be monitored for worker exposures. Except for the excursion sample, pairs of samples should be collected in each case, one for analysis by PCM according to the OSHA Reference Method and one of analysis by TEM according to tne metnod in 40 CFR Pan >63, Appendix a. i'he roiiowmg samples should be collected: A pair of overnight baseline samples should be collected inside the area following area preparation but before maintenance activities begin. A pair of samples should be collected in the breathing zone of each maintenance worker. The sampling pumps should remain on during the entire maintenance period, including initial mopping and final cleanup prior to removal of the plastic barriers. A 30*minute sample for PCM analysis should also be collected during an aggressive part of the maintenance activities to compare with the OSHA ' excursion limits. A pair of samples should be collected well removed from the sampling area, but not necessarily outdoors, to determine the overall background level of asbestos fibers in the general vicinity. The pump should remain on at least during the entire duration of the maintenance activities. Two blank filters should be submitted for analysis by PCM with each set of samples. in addition, four bulk samples of the tile should be collected. Three will be analyzed by PLM by R.J. Lee. The fourth will be analyzed by PLM and TEM by a laboratory to be selected by IHI. All of the stripping.1 rennishmg operations should be monitored before the operations begin and after the operations are complete to determine v. nether asbestos concentrations are elevated as a result of maintenance activities. Samples should be collected according to procedures specified in 40 CFR Part 763. Appendix A: Aggressive sampling methoas shouid be empiovea insiae the area. The area shouid be su-ept '.iith a minim'"- '-hp leaf blower prior to the initiation of sampling. One or more fans pointing toward the ceiling should be operated B-5 d tf d d during the monitoring. A fan should be supplied for each 10,000 cu ft of worksite volume. Five samples should be collected for TEM analysis inside the area both before all operations commence and after they are finished. The locations for the filters should be selected randomly in the area. Assuming the filters will be 25 mm in diameter, the sampling volumes should be 1200 liters. Any deviation should be toward the higher side. Another five samples should be collected outside the area that are representative of air entering the work site. Again, random placement is desired. Two field blanks and one sealed blank should be submitted for analysis. Asbestos Analysis: Initially, only the samples collected for PCM analysis should be processed. One section of the filter should be analyzed by PCM (OSHA Reference Method). The samples collected for TEM analysis should not be analyzed unless worker exposures exceed the OSHA action level, in which case the samples should be analyzed to determine the fraction of qualifying structures that are actually asbestos. TEM results should be analyzed by the EPA level II method but defining a qualifying fiber or structure as exceeding a 3:1 aspect ratio instead of 5:1. Results should be reported in the following categories: l) ail visible structures containing qualifying asbestos fibers with lengths between 0.5 and up to but not including 5 urn. 2) all visible structures containing qualifying asbestos fibers with lengths 5 um and greater. 3) total of 1) and 2) M all quaitfymg structures 5 moi and greater :n length and greater man 0.25 um m width that contain asbestos fibers B-6 4 1 5) all qualifying structures S pm and greater in length and greater than 0.25 pm in width that contain asbestos fibers jg 6) if a substantial number of amphibole structures are detected, results will also distinguish between chrysotile only and total asbestos structure counts. For the samples collected initially and following completion of the stripping/refinishing tests, analysis should proceed by the strategy and methods outlined in 40 CFR Part 763, Appendix A. Qualifying fibers should be equal to or greater than 5:1 aspect ratio. First, the five samples from inside the maintenance area should be examined. If the arithmetic mean density of asbestos structures on the filters is less than or equal to 70 s/sq mm. then the analysis can be terminated. If the above measurements exceed 70 s/sq mm, then the blank filters should be analyzed to assure that they do not exceed 70 s/sq mm and explain the earlier results. Presuming the blanks pass, the outside samples should be analyzed to assure that they do not explain the results for the inside results. Finally, if the outside samples do not explain the results, the samples taken before the maintenance activities began should be analyzed to determine whether initial conditions inside the area might explain the results. Scientific Analysis and Interpretation: Methods from 40 CFR Pan 763. Appendix A. wiil have been used in the development of the TEM data to ensure sensitivity and comparability. However, it must be emphasized that the clearance standard descnbed in the Asbestos-Containing Materials :n Schools Rule under the Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act t A HERA) applies to response actions and is not applicable to maintenance activities involving r.on-fnable materials such as floor ules. Following completion of the sampling and laboratory anaivses. the aat2 should be analyzed statistically an :he resuits compared with various criteria. For me worker exposures as measurec by PCM. ::ie results mav be comoarea io OSHA action ie\e: ot 0.1 fee and B-7 Ill' excursion limit of 1 f/cc. For the post-maintenance measurements, the asbestos concentrations will be considered elevated only if they exceed 70 s/sq mm and the samples from inside the area are statistically higher than those from outside the area. Health and Safety Issues: The A. F. Meyer study, although weak in many respects, does provide some evidence that 8-hour TWA asbestos exposures of maintenance workers wili not approach, let alone exceed, the OSHA action level. Therefore no respiratory protection is required for maintenance personnel. Because the fiber levels during aggressive sampling have not been measured previously during the first such test and thereafter if required by the results obtained, the industrial hygiene personnel conducting the aggressive practices will wear respiratory protection and protective clothing. Normal precautions for preventing electrical hazards in wet conditions (e.g,, use of a ground-fault interrupter for the floor machine), preventing slipping on wet floors, and preventing injuries from rotating machinery should be implemented. B-8 APPENDIX A Maintenance Procedures STRIPPING AND REFINISH OF FLOOR Equipment and Materials MACHINE: Any size, but limiting the speed to no more than S00 RPM 150-300 RPM preferred. PAD = 3M Green or equivalent Sttipping-Sphttfon Standard stripping solution, using the manufacturer's recommended dilution for heavy-duty stripping. grasalui Dry mop floor with treated dust mop. Thoroughly and uniformly wet floor with stripping solution. (DO NOT FLOOD) ' Allow solution to soak for amount of time recommended by manufacturer. Strip with machine and pad at the rate of 25 sq ft per 5 minutes (2 hrsi. Remove residual stripping solution with wet vacuum equipped with floor tool. RINSING Procedure Using a mop. thoroughly and uniformiy wet the floor with clear water and remove with wet vacuum. Rinse and vacuum second time. Damo moo entire floor. Allow to drv. B-9  Apply four uniform coats of metal-crosslinked finish. (Allow sufficient drying times between coats.) (Finish should be 20% +. 2% solids.) 3-4 hours 2. SPRAY BUFFING Dry mop with treated dust mop. Sptay buff floor using available equipment incorporating 3M Red or equivalent pad and standard spray buffing solution according to manufacturer's recommendations. Record manufacturer, model number, and RPM of equipment used; also record composidon or name of spray buff solution. Dust mop floor to pick up dust generated during spray-buffing. 3. SCRUBBING Follow procedure No. 1 with the following exceptions: Substitute a scrubbing solution for the stripping solution specified. Reduce the amount of soak time to that recommended by manufacturer, generally about two minutes. Scrub at the rate of 50 sq ft per 5 minutes tl hr). Rinse only once. 01-1463A.RPT:S.'28/90:05:SLB:dld B-10