Asbestos in Public and Commercial Buildings:

Supplementary Analyses of Selected Data Previously Considered by the Literature Review Panel

Health Effects Institute-Asbestos Research

The Health Effects Institute-Asbestos Research (HEI-AR) is an independent, non-profit organization formed to support research to determine the airborne exposure levels prevalen t in buildings, to characterize peak exposures and their significance, and to evaluate the effectiveness of asbestos management and abatement strategies in a scientifically meaningful manner. HEI­AR is organized to gather and to generate reliable and objective information, and is supported jointly by the Environmental Protection Agency and a broad range of private parties that have an interest in asbestos. The congressional mandate under which HEI-AR now operates specifies that the HEl-AR's research "effort shall in no way be construed to limit or alter EPA's authority or obligation to proceed with rulemakings and to issue rules as necessary."

The Board of Directors

Archibald Cox, Chairman of the Board, Carl M. Loeb University Professor (Emeritus), Harvard Law School

William O. Baker, Chairman (Emeritus), Bell Laboratories

Donald Kennedy, Bing Professor of Environmental Sciences, Stanford University

Charles W. Powers, Partner, Resources for Responsible Management

Members of the Research Oversight Committee

Jonathan Samet, Chairman; University of New Mexico, Albuquerque

J. Carl Barrett, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, Research Triangle Park

Garry Burdett, U.K. Health and Safety Executive, Sheffield

John M.G. Davis, Institute for Occupational Medicine, Edinburgh

Officers and Staff

Charles W. Powers, Acting President

Rashid Shaikh, Associate Executive Director

Richard Cooper, Secretary of the Corporation

Richard Grot, Lagus Applied Technology, San Diego

Daniel Horvitz, National Institute of Statistical Sciences, Research Triangle Park

Morton Lippmann, New York University, New York

Julian Peto, Institute of Cancer Research, London

Steven Bloom, Research Analyst

Lilia Lubeznyj, Administrative Assistant

Margaret Satterfield, Senior Research Assistant

Michelle Stakutis, Research Assistant

Maryann Swift, Manager of Administration and Finance

Elisabeth Wilson, Research Analyst

© Copyright 1992, by the Health Effects Institute-Asbestos Research.

Available from: Health Effects Institute-Asbestos Research, 141 Portland Street, Suite 7100, Cambridge, MA 02139, Tel. (617) 225-0866, Fax (617) 225-2211.

Members of the HEI-AR Asbestos Literature Review Panel

Arthur C. Upton, Chairman; New York University, New York J. Carl Barrett, ex officio member; National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences,

Research Triangle Park Margaret R. Becklake, McGill University, Montreal Garry Burdett, UK Health and Safety Executive, Sheffield Eric Chatfield, Chatfield Technical Consultants, Mississauga John M.G. Davis, Institute for Occupational Medicine, Edinburgh Gordon Gamsu, University of California, San Francisco Arthur Langer, Brooklyn College, New York Richard J. Lee, R.J. Lee Group, Monroeville Morton Lippmann, New York University, New York Brooke T. Mossman, University of Vermont, Burlington Roger Morse, ENTEK Environmental Services, Troy William J. Nicholson, Mt. Sinai School of Medicine, New York Julian Peto, Institute of Cancer Research, London Jonathan Same!, ex officio member; University of New Mexico, Albuquerque J. Chris Wagner, (Retired), Dorset

Patrick Kinney, Consultant, New York University, New York

From the Board of Directors

When the HEI-AR Literature Review Panel began its work in early 1990, it found that the published literature on asbestos measurements was surprisingly meager. With a view towards augmenting the information in the published literature, the Panel issued a call for information and requested all parties to send unpublished data on asbestos exposure. in response to the Panel's request, HEI-AR received information from several organizations; such information was considered by the Panel, and where appropriate, summarized in the Report.

This supplement to the Panel's Report includes detailed information and analyses on three of the iargest sets of previously unpublished data that were summarized in the Report. These include information sent by H ygienetics, a Boston based industrial hygiene firm that was involved in the development and implementation of an operations and maintenance plan at a hospital facility; this data set is one of the largest collections of asbestos measurements for building maintenance workers. Several sets of data from samples analyzed using the transmission electron microscopy submitted by McCrone Environmental Services are described. Finally, also presented are data submitted by the RJ Lee Group, which analyzed air samples collected in 231 buildings using the transmission electron microscope.

While the Panel's major conclusions can be confirmed from the published literature alone, the data presented here corroborate those conclusions. In addition, the information presented here adds substantially to the literature on asbestos exposure in buildings.

The Board is grateful to Dr. Arthur Upton (the Panel's Chairman) and Drs. Burdett, Chatfield, Lippmann and Samet, who took the primary responsibility for a detailed review of the materials presented here. The chapters also benefitted from comments received from other members of the Literature Review Panel. The Board also acknowledges the efforts made by HEI-AR staff (Margaret Satterfield and Rashid Shaikh) and consultant (Patrick Kinney) who analyzed and assembled the Hygienetics and McCrone chapters, and by representatives of the RJ Lee Group (Richard J. Lee and Drew van Orden) who analyzed and summarized the data from their group.

iii

Archibald Cox, Chairman William O. Baker Donald Kennedy Charles W. Powers

Table of Contents

Members of the Literature Review Panel

From the HEI-AR Board of Directors

Table of Contents

List of Tables and Figures

Chapter 1: Review of Data Provided by H ygienetics, Inc.

1.1 1.1.1 1.1.2 1.1.3 1.2 1.2.1 1.2.2 1.2.3 1.2.4 1.2.5 1.2.6 1.2.7 1.2.8 1.2.9 1.2.10 1.2.11 1.3 1.4 1.5

1.5.1 1.5.2 1.6 1.6.1 1.6.2 1.6.3

on Airborne Asbestos Levels in a Hospital Operations and Maintenance Program

Methods Background Data Coding, Entry and Processing Data Analysis Results Buildings Sample Type Degree of Asbestos Control Maintenance Work Type of Room or Area Removal of ACM Sampling Duration Relation to the Limit of Detection Multivariate Analyses Distribution of Time-weighted Average Exposures Results for Additional Variables Discussion References Attachment A: H ygienetics Project Data File,

Variable Definitions Permit Variables Pertaining to the Job Performed Variables Pertaining to the Air Samples Attachment B: Additional Categories of Data Employee Division Ceiling Outside Abatement Contractor

v

i

iii

v

vii

1-1 1-1 1-1 1-2 1-3 1-3 1-4 1-5 1-5 1-6 1-6 1-6 1-7 1-7 1-7 1-8 1-8

1-10

1-23 1-23 1-25 1-27 1-27 1-27 1-27

Chapter 2: Review of Five Data Sets Provided by McCrone Environmental Services, Inc. on Airborne Asbestos Levels in

2.1 2.2 2.3 2.3.1

2.3.2 2.3.3 2.3.3.1 2.3.3.2 2.3.4 2.3.5 2.4 2.5

Buildings

Background Methods Results and Discussion Repeated Ambient Air Monitoring in an Office

Building with an O&M Program in Place Schools Buildings Scheduled for Abatement Samples Analyzed Using the Direct Method Samples Analyzed Using the Indirect Method Maintenance (C3) Activities Janitorial (C2) Activities Summary References

Chapter 3: Review of Unpublished Litigation Data Provided by

3.1 3.1.1 3.1.2 3.1.3 3.1.4 3.2 3.3 3.4

Chapter 4:

RJ Lee Group on Airborne Asbestos Levels in Buildings

Methods Building Survey Air Sampling Sample Analysis Procedures Statistical Analysis Results Discussion References

Additional References for Chapter 5 of the Literature Review Panel Report

Errata to the Literature Review Panel Report

Note Regarding Review of this Document

vi

2-1 2-1 2-2

2-2 2-3 2-3 2-4 2-5 2-5 2-6 2-7 2-7

3-1 3-1 3-2 3-2 3-3 3-3 3-4 3-5

4-1

5-1

5-3

List of Tables and Figures

Chapter 1: Review of Data Provided by Hygienetics, Inc. on Airborne Asbestos Levels in a Hospital Operations and Maintenance Program

Tables:

1-1 1-2 1-3 1-4

1-5

Figures:

1-1 1-2 1-3

1-4 1-5 1-6 1-7

PCM Results by Building PCM Results by Sample Type PCM Results for Specific Categories of Interest Number of Samples in Each Cell of a Three-Way Matrix

of Asbestos Removal, Building, and Degree of Control PCM Results for Additional Categories of Data

Key to Figures 1-1 to 1-7 Fiber Concentration by Building Fiber Concentration by Sample Type Frequency Distribution of Fiber Concentrations,

by Sample Type Fiber Concentration by Degree of Asbestos Control Fiber Concentration by Type of Maintenance Work Fiber Concentration by Type of Room Fiber Concentration by ACM Removal

Chapter 2: Review of Five Data Sets Provided by McCrone Environmental Services, Inc. on Airborne Asbestos Levels in Buildings

Tables:

2-1

2-2 2-3

2-4

2-5

2-6

Average Airborne Asbestos Concentrations in an Office Building with an Operations and Maintenance Program

Average Airborne Asbestos Concentrations in Schools Average Airborne Asbestos Concentrations in Buildings

Before, During or After Abatement (Samples Prepared by Direct Method)

Average Airborne Asbestos Concentrations in Buildings Before or After Abatement (Samples Prepared by Indirect Method)

Average Airborne Asbestos Concentration by Type of Maintenance Work

Average Airborne Asbestos Concentrations After Janitorial Activity, by Building and Type of Area

vii

1-11 1-12 1-13

1-15 1-28

1-15 1-16 1-17

1-18 1-19 1-20 1-21 1-22

2-8 2-9

2-10

2-11

2-11

2-12

2-7 Average Airborne Asbestos Concentrations During Simulations of Janitorial Activity 2-12

Chapter 3: Review of Unpublished Litigation Data Provided by RJ Lee Group on Airborne Asbestos Levels in Buildings

Tables:

3-1 Summary of Average Airborne Asbestos Concentrations in Buildings Sampled for Litigation Purposes 3-6

3-2 Summary of 90th Percentile Values of Airborne Asbestos Concentrations in Buildings Sampled for Litigation Purposes 3-6

3-3 Summary of Median (50th Percentile) Values of Airborne Asbestos Concentrations in Buildings Sampled for Litigation Purposes 3-7

3-4 Distribution of Building Average Airborne Asbestos Concentrations for Litigation Data by Building Type 3-7

3-5 Listing of Individual Building Summaries for RJ Lee Group Data 3-8

Figures:

3-1 Percentile Distribution for Asbestos Concentrations, All Sizes 3-26

3-2 Percentile Distribution for Asbestos Concentrations, Structures Longer than 5 11m 3-27

viii

1

Review of Data Provided by Hygienetics, Inc. on Airborne Asbestos levels in a Hospital Operations and Maintenance Program

Data from Hygienelics, Inc. 1-1

1.1.1

1.1.2

As a result of the Literature Review Panel's general call for information on asbestos in buildings in April 1990, HEl-AR obtained air monitoring data from Hygienetics Inc. (now known as H'GCL), a Boston based environmental consulting firm specializing in health risk management, for an operations and maintenance (O&M) program at a large hospital in the United States. These data were discussed in Section 5.4, Effectiveness of Remediation Methods, in the main Report of the Literature Review Panel (HEI-AR 1991). This chapter presents a detailed discussion and further analyses of the data provided by Hygienetics.

Methods

Background

Hygienetics managed the O&M program for the hospital from September 1988 to February 1990. The extent and type of asbestos-containing material CACM) varied conSiderably from building to building throughout the facility. While the O&M program was underway, all maintenance work in areas containing ACM required the completion of an Asbestos Handling Permit by the Hygienetics project manager on site. Examples of such jobs induded cable pulling, re-Iamping, clean-up of ACM debris, and miscellaneous repairs. Permits had to be completed whenever work was performed in a room where asbestos was present, even if the work did not involve contact with the asbestos in any way. The permit contained information on the type of work performed, its location, precautions taken regarding ACM, and other information.

Hygienetics collected personal and/or area filter samples in conjunction with the work for which permits were filed. Samples were analyzed using the NIOSH 7400 phase contrast microscopy (PCM) method (NIOSH 1986). No data from transmission electron microscopy analysis were available. The sample results were reported on the permit form, but more complete information was reported on the Hygienetics Asbestos Air Sample Analysis Record, also called an "air data sheet." These records, provided to HEI-AR in paper form, represent the primary source of data analyzed in this report.

In this report, we present fiber concentration data categorized by building, physical proximity to maintenance work, degree of asbestos control measures employed, type of maintenance work performed, whether ACM was removed or not, and other factors. Both averages and distributions of fiber concentrations are presented, as are statistical tests comparing average levels across key variables of interest.

Data Coding, Entry and Processing

The copies of the permit forms and air data sheets provided by Hygienetics were used by HEI-AR staff to create two computer files for this study: one for permit data, and one for sample data, with the permit identification number serving as the link between the two files. The two files were then merged for data analysis.

The list of variables and code definitions for the final computer data file is shown in Attachment A. HEI-AR staff developed and aSSigned codes to the data on the permit forms and air data sheets using the text deSCriptions and other information recorded on these forms. The computer coding system pertaining to the type of job performed was reviewed prior to implementation by some members of the Literature Review Panel with expertise in this area. The codes pertaining to the degree of asbestos engineering control used were developed primarily by an HEI-AR staff member with extensive experience in

'-2

1.1.3

Asbestos in Public and Commercial Buildings: Supplementary Data Analyses

abatement and O&M procedures, and later reviewed by some members of the Literature Review Panel who had expertise in these areas.

The entire process used by HEI-AR for computer coding of permit and sample information provided on the written forms was first pilot tested, and then checked regularly during implementation, to ensure accuracy of the codes and to avoid bias in coding. Because the variable "Degree of Asbestos Control Used" was considered crucial to this analysis, two members of HEI-AR staff independently coded this variable on all the permits. The coding judgments differed for this variable on approximately 25 percent of the permits; as a "tie­breaker," these permits were independently coded for "Degree of Asbestos Control Used" by the HEI-AR staff member who developed the codes and who was knowledgeable about asbestos abatement and management.

All data were entered into a computer file at HEI-AR using the dBASE IV database management program. After all the data were entered, extensive editing procedures were employed to ensure that the data files were as error-free as possible before analysis. In addition, specific variables in the sample data file (volume, fiber concentration and limit of detection [LaD]) were re-calculated in dBASE, and the calculated values were used to check the values reported on the air data sheets.

Data Analysis

The PCM fiber data available from the Hygienetics data base were categorized on the basis of several characteristics considered to be of primary interest: sample type (e.g., personal, area); degree of control measures used (e.g., glavebag, mini-enclosure); type of maintenance work performed (e.g., generator test, cable pulling); type of room involved (e.g., mechanical, doctors' office); whether ACM was removed or not; and the building in which the sampling took place. For each of these variables, we computed the number of permits issued, the number of samples collected, and the arithmetic mean and range of fiber concentrations measured in each group. As noted below, these variables were also displayed graphically and analyzed statistically to test for concentration differences in the various groups. A set of variables of secondary interest were examined and displayed in tabular form. Only descriptive material is presented for these latter variables.

For the primary variables, distributions of fiber concentrations (inc1uding the minimum, maximum, mean, median, 10th and 90th percentiles) in the various groups were plotted graphically. Area and personal sample results were displayed separately. In instances where the sample size was less than three, no statistics were shown in these plots; if the sample size was between three and ten, only the minimum, maximum and mean were shown. Also plotted were the total number of samples, and the number of samples below the LaD. All mean values reported in this report are arithmetic averages. Except for the discussion of time weighted averages (TWAs), all analyses were performed using the actual time for which a sample was collected; thus the reported values are "un weighted."

Statistical tests were performed to compare fiber concentrations across the groups of interest. Because the distributions of concentrations were skewed and the variances tended to increase in proportion to the means, the data were log-transformed prior to statistical analysiS. Examination of Figure 1-3 shows that the log transformation did reduce the skewness of the concentration distributions. For variables that had more than two categories, such as degree of control, I-way analysis of variance (ANDV A) was used to test for overall differences among category means; if a statistically significant difference was indicated (p < 0.05), the ANOV A was followed by Student-Newman-Keuls analysis to determine which particular categories were different from one another (Zar 1984). Note

Data from Hygienetics, Inc. 1-3

that the Student-Newman-Keuls analysis identifies the categories which differ from one another with an overall p-value < 0.05, but does not indicate the specific p-value for each comparison. For the variable "removal", whieh had only two categories (yes or no), the comparison was made using the t-test for independent samples. All analyses were performed using the Statistical Analysis System (SAS) program (version 6.04).

The data given to HEI-AR by Hygieneties provided actual fiber counts even when concentrations were below the LOD (i.e., fewer than 7 fibers per mm' examined). It was therefore pOSSible to estimate airborne fiber concentrations in such situations; these estimated values were used in computing the descriptive statistics in this report. To examine the effect of different methods of treating concentrations below the LOD, certain descriptive statistics presented below were re-computed after setting all such concentrations equal to zero, and then equal to the LOD.

Note that no data on field blanks were available to HEI-AR. As a result, sample fiber counts have not been adjusted for possible filter contamination. In addition, no data were available on laboratory measurement precision during the period these samples were analyzed (e.g., due to intra- and inter-counter variability).

1.2 Results

1_2_1

In total, Hygienetics provided data for 106 permits and 394 samples (191 area and 203 personal) for the time period from September 1988 through February 1990. In addition, there were 21 clearance samples, and one permit that had only clearance samples collected; neither these samples nor this permit were included in the main data analysis. There also were data from 45 background samples that were taken at the start of the O&M program but were not associated with specific permits.

Tables 1-1 through 1-3 show the numbers of permits and samples, and means and ranges of fiber concentrations for the variables of primary interest, discussed in the following sections. Figures 1-1 through 1-7 display graphically the corresponding distributions of fiber concentrations.

Most of the mean and median values for the different categories of variables fell between 0.01 and 0.1 f/mL. The individual ranges, however, tended to be fairly wide, with the minimum and maximum often differing by two or three orders of magnitude. The highest sample concentration in this data set was 0.84 f / rnL, which was for a personal sample. Reflecting the skewed distributions, the mean was almost always higher than the median (Figures 1-1 through 1-7).

Buildings

Table 1-1 shows the numbers of permits and samples, the type of ACM, the types of sampling locations, and the means and ranges of fiber concentrations, for area and personal samples in each of the seven buildings in which samples were collected. Figure 1-1 displays the distributions of fiber concentrations in each building for both area and personal samples. Ninety percent (N =359) of the samples were collected in buildings 1 (N=154), 5 (N=53), and 6 (N=152). The remaining buildings had fewer than 12 samples each. Building 1 was the oldest in the hospital facility, and generally had the most ACM. Eighty two percent of the samples in this building were collected in mechanical areas. Similarly, most (83 percent) of the samples in building 5 were collected in mechanical areas; this building contained ACM solely in the form of pipe insulation. Building 6 contained only chrysotile sprayed on beams; of all the samples collected there, 35 percent were for

1-4

1.2.2

Asbestos in Public and Commercia' Buildings: Supplementary Data Analyses

work in mechanical areas, 34 percent were for work in patient areas (including doctors' offices), and 31 percent were for work in common areas and administrative offices. Very limited information was available to HEI-AR on the remaining buildings. However, based on the sampling locations noted on the permits, it is known that all buildings except buildings 8 and 9 contained patient rooms and doctors offices. Building 8 was the generator building. The nature of building 9 is not known; however, the one permit issued there was for work in a kitchen.

Among personal samples, building 1 had both the highest mean concentration (0.1520 f/mL) and the greatest range of values (Table 1-1 and Figure 1-1). The analysis of variance, which was limited to buildings I, 5, and 6, indicated statistically significant differences (p < 0.0001) between the personal sample concentrations in all three buildings (building 1 > building 5 > building 6). For area samples, building 6, which contained only chrysotile sprayed on beams, had an extremely wide range of values, as well as the highest mean value (0.0288 f/mL). The statistical comparison among the logs of area sample concentrations from buildings 1,5, and 6 yielded a marginally Significant p-value of 0.03, with building 1 greater than building 5.

Sample Type

Table 1-2 shows the number of samples collectLu and the means and ranges within each category of sample type. The distributions of fiber concentrations for the different sample types are displayed in Figure 1-2. Excluding clearance and background samples, approximately equal numbers of area (N=191) and personal (N=203) samples were collected. Seventy one area samples were specified as being taken inside a work area while 44 were taken outside a work area. For the remaining 76 area samples, this distinction could not be made, either because it was not noted on the permits or because there was no clearly delineated "work area". As noted above, the background samples were collected at the start of the O&M program, but they were not associated with specific permits or work activities. Of the 45 background samples, over 80 percent were taken in mechanical areas. Most background sampling (80 %) took place in buildings 1 and 6.

The overall mean fiber concentration was approximately six times greater for personal samples (0.1108 f/mL) than for all area samples (0.0196 f/mL) (Table 1-2 and Figure 1-2). Similarly, the mean area concentration was 2.6 times the mean for background samples (0.0075 f/ mL). Both these differences were statistically Significant in a I-way ANOV A on sample type. The distributions of the natural logarithms of fiber concentrations for background, all area, and personal samples are displayed in Figure 1-3. The distribution of personal samples is clearly shifted towards higher concentrations as compared with area and background samples. In addition, aU three distributions appear to be approXimately normal on the natural log scale. Ninety percent of all personal samples feU below 0.235 f/mL, while 95 percent fell below 0.418 f/mL. For area samples, the 90th and 95th percentiles were 0.034 f/mL and 0.054 f/mL, respectively.

Among area samples, samples taken inside the work area (that is, inside the enclosure or room in which the work took place) had the highest mean concentration (0.0330 f/mL), those taken outside the work area had the lowest (0.0105 f/mL), and those for which relation to the work area was unspecified had an intermediate mean (0.0124 f/mL). The former mean was statistically higher than the latter two in the ANOVA model noted above. Clearance samples had the lowest mean concentration (0.0051 f/mL) and the narrowest range, presumably reflecting the adherence to specific rules regarding acceptable clearance levels.

Dala from Hygienetics, Inc. 1-5

1.2.3

1.2.4

Degree of Asbestos Control

According to the permit sheets, personal protection (respirators, coveralls, etc.) was used during all jobs for which permits were issued. However, one-third of the permits and samples were for work in which no control was used other than personal protection. It is interesting that the ratio of the number of area to personal samples increases as the degree of control increases. Dala were available for only area samples when maximum control was used because such jobs were always performed by outside abatement contractors. Under OSHA regulations, the contractor would be responsible for monitoring its own employees; these data were therefore not available to us.

Mean area sample concentrations ranged from 0.0097 to 0.0324 f/mL in the five categories of degree of control, with glovebag and mini-containment having the highest values (Table 1-3 and Figure 1-4). However, due to the high degree of variability within groups, there was no statistical difference among these means by ANOV A (p ~ 0.27). Mean personal sample concentrations ranged from 0.0752 to 0.1530 f/mL, again with glovebag and mini-containment having the highest levels. These differences were more nearly statistically significant in the ANOVA analysis (p ~ 0.11). In all categories of degree of control, mean personal sample concentrations were greater than mean area sample concentrations; this sample-type difference was shown to be strongly Significant in a 2-way ANOV A model (p < 0.0001).

Maintenance Work

The relative numbers of area and personal samples varied greatly, depending on the type of maintenance work performed. For the categories of preventive maintenance on air handling units (AHUs), deaning of ACM debris, re-Iamping, generator tests and fire alarm tests, there were far more personal samples than area samples, while the proportion was reversed for the categories of miscellaneous repair, miscellaneous installation, and cable pulling. Of the 21 clearance samples taken, 13 were taken during miscellaneous repair work.

Mean values of area sample concentrations ranged from 0.0041 to 0.0322 flmL, with the lowest mean for generator testing and the highest for miscellaneous installation (Table 1-3 and Figure 1-5). Although the generator testing category had just three samples, the ANOV A results indicated that this mean was significantly lower than the means for the other categories (p-value for overall ANOV A ~ 0.003). In addition to the highest mean value, the category of miscellaneous installation also had the broadest range of individual area sample values, pOSSibly reflecting a wide variety of work settings, activities and control procedures. In contrast, cable pulling is a specific activity where specific and consistent control procedures were most likely employed, and as a result it had a much narrower range of values. For personal samples, mean fiber concentrations ranged from 0.0469 to 0.2030 f/mL, with the highest mean occurring with clean-up of ACM debris. However, no statistical difference was found among the maintenance work categories for personal samples (p ~ 0.27).

For each category of maintenance work, the mean personal sample concentration was greater than the mean area sample concentration. When analyzed in a 2-way ANOV A model, this difference was again found to be strongly significant (p < 0.0001).

'-6

1.2.5

1.2.6

1.2.7

Asbestos in Public and Commercial Buildings: Supplementary Data Analyses

Type of Room or Area

As noted previously, the majority 01 the work (58% 01 permits and 62% 01 samples) occurred in mechanical rooms throughout the hospital. Because mechanical areas had no suspended ceilings, sprayed-on ACM on decks and beams was exposed in these areas.

Mean concentrations of area samples spanned a range across room types from 0.0070 to 0.0445 I/mL (Table 1-3 and Figure 1-6); however, due to the variability within categories, this difference was not statistically significant in the ANOV A model (p = 0.12). Differences among categories lor personal samples were also non-signilicant (p = 0.20). The ranges of values lor work performed in mechanical areas were especially wide, reflecting the wide variety 01 activity in these areas: permits were completed for activities ranging from fire alarm testing (which required that an employee simply walk into a room with ACM present to read the alarm display board) to actual asbestos removal. Personal sample concentrations were higher on average than area samples across all room types in a 2-way ANOVA (p < 0.0001).

Work performed in doctors' offices is the only instance in the entire data set where the mean concentration for area samples (0.0445 f/mL) was higher than that lor personal samples (0.0341 f/mL). However, the mean for area samples is heavily influenced by one renovation job involving generation of a great deal of sheetrock dust, resulting in high concentrations for four area samples taken inside the work area. There were no corresponding personal samples because the job was performed by an outside contracting company, which was responsible for monitoring its own employees. The skewed nature of these data is reflected in the fact that a I-way ANOVA performed on the natural logarithm of the concentrations showed that, despite the results for this one job, for all work in doctors' offices the mean for personal samples was significantly higher than the mean for area samples (p = 0.02).

Removal of ACM

Jobs involving removal of asbestos (termed "direct impact" on the permit forms) comprised 30 percent of the permits and 40 percent of the samples in this data set. Almost all of these jobs consisted either of removing small sections of pipe insulation (using glovebags), or removing ACM debris on nearby ceiling tiles when working above ceilings.

As might be expected, average fiber concentrations were higher for samples taken in conjunction with asbestos removal than for non-removal jobs (Table 1-3 and Figure 1-7). The mean area and personal sample concentrations for removal jobs (0.0286 f/mL and 0.1662 f/mL, respectively) were roughly twice as high as those for non-removal jobs (0.0116 f/ mL and 0.0847 fl mL). These differences were statistically significant for both area (p = 0.01) and personal (p = 0.0005) samples.

Sampling Duration

The collection time 01 personal samples was generally less than that of area samples; the average duration of area samples was four hours, while the average duration of personal samples was two hours. Among personal, but not area, samples, average fiber concentrations increased as sample duration decreased (Table 1-3). This difference was shown to be statistically significant in a I-way ANOVA model. It should be noted that the relationship between sample duration and job duration in this data set is not known.

Data from Hygienetics, Inc. 1-7

1.2.8

1.2.9

Relation to the limit of Detection

There were 20 samples below the LaD in this data set 00 area, 10 personal) (Table 1-3). For the present analysis, the specific values below the LaD were calculated and used as the best estimate of the actual concentrations. The effect of using these values was investigated by re-computing key summary statistics after all sample concentrations below the LaD were alternately set to zero, and to the LOD. When the concentrations below the LaD were set to zero, the mean for all area samples changed from 0.0196 to 0.0195 f/mL; the mean for all personal samples changed from 0.1108 to 0.1102 f/mL. When the concentrations below the LaD were set to equal the LaD, the mean area and personal sample concentrations changed to 0.0197 f/mL and 0.1111 f/mL, respectively. Thus, the effects of alternative treatments of samples below the LaD were minimal in this data set.

Multivariate Analyses

Because sample type (personal vs. area) was found to be a strong determinant of measured concentrations, the deSCriptive and statistical analyses described above were conducted separately for personal and area samples. Aside from this stratification, however, analysiS of each variable was conducted independently of the others. This approach ignores the possibility that some variables may be highly correlated with one other, which could lead to misleading results. To examine this pOSSibility, we performed a limited set of multivariate analyses involving the variables degree of control, removal of ACM, and building. Because no samples were collected for many combinations of the levels of these three variables (Table 1-4), it was necessary to perform the multivariate analyses on subsets of the full range of available levels. The analyses consisted of both re-analysis by I-way ANOV A within strata, and, where pOSSible, 2-way ANOV A. The results of these supplementary analyses supported the basic findings of the main analyses described earlier. First, for buildings 1, 5, and 6, the relationship between building number and personal sample concentrations remained statistically significant after controlling for ACM removal, and vice versa. This was also true, but less conSistently so, for area samples. Further, it was possible to analyze the first four categories of the variable degree of control (none, minor, glovebag, and mini-enclosure) in 2-way ANOVAs with building number. These analyses were performed separately for removal and non-removal jobs, and for area and personal samples. In every case, fiber concentrations were not significantly related to the degree of control (i.e., p > 0.05). Thus, it appears that the basic findings reported above (for the variables sample type, building number, asbestos removal, and degree of control) remain valid after multivariate analyses.

1.2.10 Distribution of Time-weighted Average Exposures

Information provided on the permits indicates that the pumps used for collecting personal samples were usually turned off when the employee left a work area temporarily (for breaks or lunch, to get supplies, and so forth). On average, the personal samples ran for two hours (see Table 1-3 for distribution of sampling times). In view of the 8-hour time­weighted average (TWA) permissible exposure limit (PEL) of 0.2 f/ mL (OSHA 1988) -which the Agency has proposed reducing to 0.1 f I mL - it was of interest to calculate the 8-hour TWA exposure levels from the data presented here. Because background samples were not collected after the O&M program started, it was assumed that the workers' only fiber exposure occurred during the time of sampling for a job (that is, the background levels were zero). Note that it was also assumed that workers perform only one asbestos­related job per day. Thus, estimated 8-hour TWA personal exposures were computed by multiplying the reported sample concentration by the ratio of the sampling duration to 8 hours (i.e., TWA = concentration x sampling duration (hr)/8 hr). Ninety five percent of

1-8 Asbestos in Public and Commercial Buildings: Supplementary Data Analyses

these values were below 0.1 Uml, while over 99 percent were below 0.2 f/m!. (If the 8-hour TWA exposures were estimated using the average background concentration found when the O&M program began [0.0075 UmL], instead of using zero, the percentages of values below 0.1 UrnL and 0.2 f/mL would not be substantially different.)

1_2.11 Results for Additional Variables

The results for the other data categories that were investigated are presented in Attachment B and Table 1-5. The analyses 01 these categories were entirely descriptive in nature.

1.3 Discussion

In this chapter, we have presented data for airborne asbestos fiber concentration for 394 samples (191 area and 203 personal) collected during 106 jobs that were part of an O&M program at a hospital; these data Were provided to HEI-AR by Hygienetics, Inc., which was responsible for development and management of the program over an 18-month period. All samples were analyzed using PCM. Analyses of the data show that the average airborne concentration for personal samples was 0.11081/mL (Percentiles: 50th 0.0599 f I mL; 90th 0.2345 I/mL; 95th 0.4176 f/mL; highest sample 0.8395 fl mL); the average for the area samples was 0.0196 f/mL (Percentiles: 50th 0.0096 I/mL; 90th 0.0342 f/rnL; 95th 0.0542 I/mL; highest sample: 0.4222 f/mL). When the individual sample data were used to calculate 8-hour TWA concentrations for personal samples, 95 percent of the TWA concentrations were below 0.1 f/mL and 99 percent were below 0.2 f/mL.

More detailed analyses revealed several strong tendencies in this set of air sampling data from one hospital's O&M program. First, spatial and temporal proximity to maintenance work was an important determinant of PCM fiber levels. For the data set as a whole, personal samples had the highest mean concentration, followed by area samples within work areas, which in tum were higher than area samples outside work areas or with relationship to work areas unspecified. The lowest mean concentration, aside from clearance samples, was lor background samples collected prior to the initiation of the O&M program. All of the differences noted above were statistically significant. These results are consistent with the notion that elevated fiber levels result from maintenance activity and that the highest exposures will occur to the workers performing the job. Second, jobs involving removal of ACM were associated with 2- to 2.5-fold higher average fiber concentrations than were jobs not involving removal. Third, when asbestos levels in different bUildings were compared, the building with the oldest, and greatest variety of, ACM had the highest mean value lor personal samples, although this tendency was less clear-cut for area samples. Fourth, sample duration was inversely related to fiber concentrations among personal samples. Finally, based on multivariate analyses, these relationships appeared to be largely independent of one another.

Several other variables that were considered likely to be related to differing fiber concentrations, including degree of engineering control, type of maintenance work, and type of room, turned out not to be significant in this analysis. Although average fiber levels often ranged by 2- to 5-fold from the lowest to the highest mean for each variable, it appears that the high degree of variability within groups limited the statistical power to distinguish these differences.

The expected outcome of a successful O&M program would be to control airborne exposures to some low level, regardless of the job. Thus, maintenance jobs anticipated to produce higher airborne concentrations would invoke the use of more stringent engineering

Data Irom Hygienetics, Inc. '-9

control measures to mInImIZe the exposures. The lack of any correlation of fiber concentrations with degree of engineering control in the present study may indicate that the engineering controls used were, in broad terms, both correctly chosen and applied. It should be noted that the mean values for the category of "no control" (0.0126 f/mL for area samples; 0.0915 f/mL for personal samples) were not significantly lower than those for the other categories, even though it can be assumed that some of the jobs in that category did not involve any disturbance of ACM.

However, another measure of the overall success of an O&M program is its ability to reduce exposures of all building occupants below levels that would have been observed in the absence of an O&M plan. Also, in addition to keeping the exposures low during specific jobs, the O&M program should keep the overall exposures low over the long term. The effectiveness of the O&M program in this latter sense could not be evaluated in the present study.

The observed inverse relationship between sample duration and fiber concentration for personal samples may have arisen for several reasons. To obtain optimum filter loadings for microscopic analysis, field technicians are accustomed to running samples for shorter periods (or at lower flow rates) when dust (and related fiber) concentrations are high. In addition, for larger scale, well-controlled jobs, it might be expected that personal samples would tend to run for longer periods than for short duration, less controlled jobs. Indeed, there was a small, but statistically significant correlation between degree of engineering control and duration of sampling for personal samples (r=0.25). It may also be hypothesized that such longer-term samples would tend to encompass periods of relatively low exposures along with occasional, work-related peaks, yielding average levels that would be lower than short-term, work-related sampling.

Several limitations of this data set should be borne in mind when interpreting the overall results. First, due to the analytical limitations of PCM, it is impossible to pinpoint the airborne levels specificaliy of asbestos fibers. The peM does not enable distinction of asbestos from non-asbestos fibers, nor is it possible to detect fibers that are less than apprOximately 0.25 pm in diameter. Second, no data on field blanks were available to HEI­AR. Since sample fiber counts have not been adjusted for possible filter contamination, fiber concentrations reported here may overestimate airborne concentrations. Third, HEI­AR had no quality assurance data (e.g., replicate counts, inter-laboratory and inter-analyst differences), and thus could not evaluate the magnitude of laboratory measurement errors. Fourth, in relation to the assessment of peak exposures, it should be noted that few very short-term samples were taken. Only 6 (1 percent) of the samples were of 30 minutes' duration or less, while only 39 (7 percent) samples ran for 60 minutes or less (see Table 1-3). For a better analysis of peak exposures, it would be desirable to have data for samples collected over shorter durations. Fifth, the results reported here are mainly based on samples that ran for under 8 hours and thus do not necessarily represent the 8-hour time-weighted averages. As illustrated above, the 8-hour TWA's would likely be lower than the sample results reported.

In order to utilize these data to compute health risks among exposed workers, one would need to know the frequency and duration of jobs, as well as the number of workers exposed during each job. Because the Hygienetics data base lacks direct information on job durations and numbers of workers involved, no attempt has been made to calculate worker health risks. It is of interest to note, however, that the Hygienetics data base provides useful descriptive data on the incidence (frequency per unit time) of various work activities involving contact with asbestos in the course of one particular O&M program. Such data, along with the associated airborne fiber concentrations, could be used in the

1-10 Asbestos in Public and Commercial Buildings: Supplementary Data Analyses

development of risk estimates if external information on typical job durations, job frequency and worker numbers were available.

In spite of the limitations noted above, this data set represents a rich source of information on fiber concentrations associated with O&M work practices in buildings containing ACM, an area in which few data have previously been published. The main finding of this analysis indicates that proximity to maintenance work is a major determinant of airborne fiber exposure levels. Several other factors (such as the degree of engineering control or type of maintenance work) were not important determinants of fiber concentrations. Because maintenance workers are among the groups most likely to be exposed to high levels of asbestos in the course of their work, further studies which characterize exposures to these workers are needed.

1.4 References

Health Effects Institute-Asbestos Research (HEI-AR). 1991. Asbestos in Public and Commercial Buildings: A Literature Review and Synthesis of Current Knowledge. Literature Review Panel. Health Effects Institute-Asbestos Research, Cambridge, MA.

National Institutes for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). 1986. Method for Detem1ination of Asbestos in Air Using Positive Phase Contrast Electron Microscopy. NIOSH Method 7400. Issued: 2/15/84; revision 2, 5/15/86. U.s. Department of Health and Human Services, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Cincinnati, OH.

Occupational Safety and Health Administration, U.s. (OSHA). 1988. Occupational Exposure to Asbestos, Tremolite, Anthophyllite, and Actinolite; Final Rules; Amendment. Federal Register, 29 CFR Parts 1910 and 1926, Vol. 53, September 14, 1988,35610-35629.

Zar jH. 1984. Biostatistical Analysis, 2nd ed. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, Nj.

Table 1-1. PCM Resuhs by Building"

I Area Samples

No. of I I I Building ACM Type Type of Sampling Location Permits No. Mean Range

Basement-4th floor: chrysotile & Mechanical room, corridor, 40 53 0.0198 0.0031· amosite sprayed on I-beams & miscellaneous patient area, 0.1003 deck; pipe insulation. non-patient! administrative 5th & 6th floors: chrysotile & area amosite sprayed on I-beams

2 Pipe insulation Mechanical room 3 9 0.0010 0.0031-0.0159

Pipe insulation Mechanical room, lobby, 12 38 0.0094 0.0017-5 non-patient/administrative 0.0312

area

6 Chrysotile sprayed on I-beams Mechanical room, lobby, 42 75 0.0288 0.0004-doctor's office, corridor, 0.4222 miscellaneous patient area, non-patient! administrative area

7 ACM sprayed on I-beams & Mechanical room, doctor's 5 7 0.0073 0.0032-deck office, miscellaneous patient 0.0157

area

8 50 fe of thermal insulation on Mechanical room 3 7 0.0057 0.0004-exhaust duct 0.0102

9 25 linear feet of chrysotile pipe Non-patient/administrative 2 0.0044 0.0040-insulation area 0.0049

Results of statistical test' p ~ 0.03

a Data provided by Hygienetics, Inc., Boston, MA

b One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) performed on group means, log-transformed data, buildings 1,5,6 only

Personal Samples

No. I Mean I Range

101 0.1520 0.0115-0.8395

2 0.0965 0.0622-0.1308

15 0.1176 0.0039-0.6246

77 0.0466 0.0049-0.1939

3 0.0299 0.0188-0.0484

2 0.0322 0.0178-0.0467

3 0.4837 0.4176-0.5496

P < 0.0001

fill iii

a :I ::r: ;i3 iii" " CD

?: :; !'

~ , ~ ~

Asbestos in Public and Commercial Buildings: Supplementary Data Analyses

Table 1-2. PCM Results by Sample Type'

90th Sample Type No. Mean Median Percentile Range

Are"

Inside work area 71 0.0330 0.0115 0.0546 0.0004-0.4222

Outside work area 44 0.0105 0.0077 0.0197 0.0004-0.0469

Work area 76 0.0124 0.0086 0.0244 0.0017-0.1003 unspecified

Total area 191 0.0196 0.0096 0.0342 0.0004-0.4222

Clearanceb 21 0.0051 0.0050 0.0078 0.0018-0.0090

Background 45 0.0075 0.0059 0.0144 0.0008-0.0406

Personal 203 0.1108 0.0599 0.2345 0.0039-0.8395

Results of statistical test' p = 0.0001

a Data provid&d by Hygienetics, Inc., Boston, Massachusetts

b Not included in data analysis

C One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) performed on gfOUp means, log-transformed data, excluding clearance samples

Data from Hygienelics, Inc. 1-13

Table 1~ PCM Results for Specific Categories of Interest'

Area Samples Personal Samples No. of

No·1 Mean 1 No. I Mean I Variable Permits Range Range

Degree 01 Asbestos Control

None 36 38 0.0126 0.0004·0.0481 88 0.0915 0.0049·0.4196

Minor 21 24 0.0097 0.0017·0.0274 31 0.0752 0.0104·0.6805

Glovebag 11 20 0.0217 0.0032·0.1003 27 0.1443 0.0039·0.4601

Mini·containment 27 67 0.0324 0.0004·0.4222 48 0.1530 0.0052·0.8395

Maximum 3 26 0.0101 0.0020·0.0312 0

Unknown 8 16 0.0104 0.0041·0.0306 9 0.0968 0.0467·0.1878

Results of statistical test'

p ~ 0.27 P ~ 0.11

Type of Maintenance Work

Air Handling Unit 25 30 0.0181 0.0041·0.1003 87 0.0942 0.0087·0.6805 Preventive Maintenance

Miscellaneous 37 63 0.0112 0.0020·0.0982 48 0.1272 0.0039·0.5496 Repair

Miscellaneous 18 68 0.0322 0.0004·0.4222 20 0.1742 0.0049·0.8395 Installation

Clean·up of ACM 4 5 0.0108 0.0017·0.0274 8 0.2030 0.0414·0.6246 Debris

Cable Pulling 9 20 0.0110 0.0040·0.0393 9 0.0544 0.0240·0.0985

Relamping 4 0 9 0.0469 0.0205·0.0929

Generator Testing 7 3 0.0041 0.0004·0.0102 18 0.0843 0.0075·0.2261

Fire Alarm Testing 2 2 0.0129 0.0090·0.0168 4 0.1654 0.0836·0.2693

Results of statistical test'

p ~ 0.003 P ~ 0.27

1·14 Asbestos in Public and Commercial Buildings: Supplementary Data Analyses

Table 1-3 (Continued). PCM Results for Specific Categories of Interest"

Area Samples Personal Samples

No. of .. ~~ I I Variable Permits No. Mean Range No. ,

Mean Range .... -.--~.--. I .

Type 01 Room/Aree

Mechanical Room 61 105 0.0142 0.0004-0.1003 141 0.1147 0.0039-0.8395

Lobby 5 17 0.0140 0.0004-0.0444 6 0.0602 0.0133-0.1904

Doctor's Office 19 37 0.0445 0.0032-0.4222 15 0.0341 0.0154-0.0549

Corridor 5 12 0.0165 0.0040-0.0393 13 0.1070 0.0186-0.6805

Ofher Patient Area 4 6 0.0120 0.0073-0.0197 6 0.1046 0.0337-0.1939

Administrative 9 10 0.0070 0.0031-0.0161 19 0.1726 0.0052-0.6246

More than one type 3 4 0.0073 0.0032-0.0104 3 0.0489 0.0205-0.0929

Results of statistical p = 0.12 P = 0.20 test b

Removal 01 Asbestos

No 75 101 0.0116 0.0004-0.0481 138 0.0847 0.0049-0.6805

Ves 31 90 0.0286 0.0017-0.4222 65 0.1662 0.0039-0.8395

Results of statistical p = 0.01 P = 0.0005 test b

Sampling Time

0-2 hours NA' 30 0.0128 0.0032-0.1003 110 0.1174 0.0051-0.6246

2-4 hours NA 85 0.0221 0.0004-0.4222 79 0.1146 0.0039-0.8395

4-6 hours NA 41 0.0212 0.0004-0.2347 8 0.0549 0.0167-0.1308

> 6 hours NA 35 0.0176 0.0005-0.1600 6 0.0151 0.0052-0.0333

Results of statistical p = 0]0 P = 0.0001 tesf

Relation of Airborne Concentration to LOD

Greater than or NA 181 0.0206 0.0020-0.4222 193 0.1160 0.0052-0.8395 equal to LOD

Less than LOD NA 10 0.0027 0.0004-0.0078 10 0.0117 0.0039-0.0255

a Data provided by Hygienetics, Inc., Boston, Massachusetts b One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) perlormed on group means, log-transfOfmed data

C NA = Not applicable

Data from Hygienetics, Inc. 1-15

Table 1-4. Number of Samples in Each Cell of a Three·Way Matrix of Asbestos Removal, Building, and Degree of Control'

I No asbestos removal Asbestos removal ,

Degree of Sample Bldg. 5 I Bldg. 6 conlrol type Bldg. 1 Bldg. 1 Bldg. 5 Bldg. 6

None Area 21 13

Personal 52 34

Minor Area 6 10 2 2

Personal 4 16 2 6 2

Glovebag Area 11 8

Personal 19 6

Mini~enc!osure Area 3 23 3 2 21

Personal 5 14 11 3 11

Maximum Area 26

Personal

Unknown Area 7 8

Personal 8

a Data provided by Hygienetics, Inc., Boston, MA

Key to Figures 1-1 through 1-1

KEY

,Maximum T

9Oth% ~ - Mean

- - Median 10th% -

Minimum ~ Area Personal

1.0

0.1 --....I E ;;:;-...... s:::: 0

:;::: 0.01 1'1:1 ... -s:::: III U 1 s:::: 0 U

0.001

0.0001

1 2 (Area)

N 53 101 9

N < LOD 0 0 0

Figure 1·1. Fiber Concentration by Building

I f

5 6 7 (Area, Personal)

Building

38 15 75 77 7 3

2 1 6 8 0 0

-T-

8 (Area) 9 (Personal)

7 3

2 0

~ . ~

'"

,. .. g

~ !!r ~ IT

5-.. " Q,

Ii ~ co <I Qi"

!II :. 0: s· "" .. jq :g ii ~ ~

.::! c ~ ~ .. i

1,0 ~ r= I--

-

0,1 ..-. ..J E ;;;;--

=: !::: ,-t -l- I--

C i-0 :;:; 0,01 III ... -C CD

r:: --

r= -,-J

~ (.) C 0 I-U

0,001 F E i- ..L l-

i-

0,0001

Inside Work Area

N 71

N< LOD 3

Figure 1-2. Fiber Concentration by Sample Type

,-l

I--

-- I-

L,-i ~ L,-J 1=-=

I-

-L

I

---L

-1_

Outside Work Area Area Unspecified Clearance Background

Sample Type

44 76 21 45

3 4 1 9

,- .

,-t

1---

II I J I ~

Personal

203

10

!ii' a;

a 3

~ iii' => !!l. J:i" :; r

I::: ""

1018 Asbestos in Public and Commercial Buildings: Supplementary Data Analyses

Figure 1 ~3. Frequency Distribution of Fiber Concentrations, by Sample Type

30 I

27 ~ I- Personal (n", ~?_~,~J 24 [

"f m

" 18 Q. E ~ 15 '" '0

12 ~ .; Z

9~

11.11 ~II~ :t nl 0

30 I ! ~"Area (n '" 191) 27

24

21 m " 18 Q. E ~ 15 (/)

'0 .; 12 Z

9

6

3

I o I .. '" II .. I. . ............ 3°1------

27 ~ 24 t'

21

! ;l i IIIiIIIIIIl Background (n '" 45) i I

::[1 12

J ~ ~~ ",.b~l, I ,~, ,JII-,--,-' ~rrT~ Concentration (f/mL) *

·Shown on nalUrallog scale

1.0

0.1 ....... ..J IE ;;;: --I::: 0

:::: 0.01 III ... -I::: CD U I::: 0 (.)

0.001

0.0001

N

N < LOD

E F ,

I

1.:.1 t: r-F r-, I

I

r-- :::r: E-= ~ i= 'I , -

-

E ~

, , -

None

38 88

4 8

Figure 1-4, Fiber Concentration by Degree of Asbestos Control

--,-I

~ ~ .......-

r 1, . L n

~.

r· - r-1

'I ,-.- ~

1 r r

~ -

'I

~

Minor Glovebag Mini-Enclosure

Degree of Asbestos Control

24 31 20 27 67 48

1 1 1 1 4 0

I

Maximum

26

o

--,

-

c ~ if :I ::r:

U'§ iii'

~ .tl s­f'

~ . ~ .,

1.0 t= -, f:: ~ I-

I- ~

0.1 --...i E ;;:;;-........

f::l --f= l-l-

I: 0 ; 0.01 m ... -I:

I- r-- I 1=-1"- -t= ~

f:: l-CIl I-(,) I: 0

l-

I-U

0.001 f:: f= I-l-

I-

0.0001 AHU

Preventive Mtee

N 30 87

N < LOD 2 1

Figure 1-5. Fiber Concentration by Type of Maintenance Work

-, ~r

- r r= r I I r-- -

f r -. I I

- - I ' f-- ~

r--~ -I r- -, ~

l I ~ I '-, -H r 1- -

-L r- 1"--~

~

- -

-~

-- -

I I I I I I

Mise Mise Cleaning Cable Re-Iamping Generator Repair Installation ACM Debris Pulling (Personal) Test

(Area, Personal) (Area, (Area, Personal) Personal)

Type of Maintenance Work 63 48 68 20 5 8 20 9 9 3 18

2 3 3 2 1 0 0 0 0 2 4

~,

- t-

~

I

Fire Alarm Test

(Personal)

4

0

~

I\l

~ C" CD

i s· "J! ... 5-.. &.

~ i ti !: IIJ E. ;:;: s·

(Q

'" '" <: :g is" i ~ < lii' ;;;

i i

1.0 F T

~ -l-

I- ~

r-

0.1 ::J' E

~

1= "-'-t - '-

-;;;:: ....... I- r 1

I: I-0 - L...r- - --

~ 0.01 ... -I: CD

~-+ 1= = -, -

U I-I: 0 '-

U 0.001

f = - --I--

0.0001

Mechanical Lobby Room (Area,

Personal)

N 105 141 17 6

N< LOD 6 10 4 0

figure 1-6. Fiber Concentration by Type of Room

~ r=-

I ..

-,- f---- l- I e-- f -

8 --

-L

[:::-:: -,

- t-e-- I

f-, --'- I-- - [-

1--~ --'-

Doctor's Corridor Other Administrative >1 Room Type Office Patient Area (Area,

(Area, Personal) Personal)

Type of Room 37 15 12 13 6 6 10 19 4 3

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

! if :3 :r: ;;§ iD

'" !. ~.

~

1-;' ~

1.0

0.1 ....... ....I E ---....... I: 0

:;::: 0.01 II! ... -I: G) (,) I: 0 U

0.001

0.0001

N

N < LOD

t= 1= f-f-

I-

1= 1= l-f-

f-

1= 1= I-f-

f-

1= 1= f-I-I-

-

--

No (Area)

101

8

Figure 1-7. Fiber Concentration by ACM Removal

-,

,-

p.--1--

--

, No (Personal)

138

9

Removal of ACM

-

-

.

~

Yes (Area)

90

2

r--1--

--

Yes (Personal)

65

~

• ~

~ g S ., :i" ~ .,. ff .. ::J CI.

&> :I ~ ~

" !I IXI !:. c: s· '" '" g» :g ;;;

~ " s-

o::!

! ,. i

!

Data from Hygienetics, Inc. 1-23

1.5 Attachment A: HygieneUcs Project Data File, Variable Definitions

1.5.1 Permit Variables Pertaining to the Job Performed

VARIABLE

PERMITNO

JOBDATE

DIVISION

ASBCONTR

DEFINITION

Unique identification number assigned to each job permit.

Date of job for which the permit was issued.

Specific division of the Plant Engineering Department to which the employees who did the work are aSSigned. The divisions are:

HVAC Plumbing Electrical Carpentry Telecommunications (Note: No samples were taken for the jobs

involving workers from the telecommunications division because these jobs were too short)

General, including Overtime List Some jobs required employees from more than one division. The

combinations encountered on the pennit forms were: Carpentry & HV AC Carpentry & Electrical Carpentry & General HV AC & Plumbing HV AC & Electrical

There were some jobs that involved only outside contractors, and no hospital employees; such jobs were aSSigned a division code of "Outside Contractor." See also the CONTRACT variable.

Degree of asbestos control. This variable pertains to the amount of engineering control used in the work area. Personal protection is worn for all five categories. The categories and their criteria are as follows:

1. No control only personal protection worn

2. Minor control HEPA vacuum and/or wet wipe may have poly curtain hung over doorway negative air pressure NOT created

3. Glove bag used on damaged insulation (thermal or sprayed-on) localized pipe insulation removal

1-24

MTCEWORK

CEILING

BUILDING

Asbestos in Public and Commercial Buildings: Supplementary Dala Analyses

4. Mini containment/ mini enclosure Enclosure built around piece of pipe or equipment from which ACM is being removed Control Cube may be used Room or enclosure sealed off Performed by in-house employees HEPA exhaust unit used to create negative air pressure

5. Maximum control Always performed by outside abatement contractor 3-Chambered decontamination facility (DF) > 3 square feet or > 3 linear feet removed

Type of maintenance job for which the permit was issued. The categories and their criteria are as follows:

1. Preventive maintenance on air handling units (AHU) or their components. Can include any or all of the following: changing filters, replacing or cleaning belts, lubricating bearings & motor, periodic flushing of pipe lines

2. Miscellaneous repair, including Repair of leaks in pipes, valves, etc. Ceiling tile replacement Replacement or repair of faulty equipment components Room remodeling/renovation

3. Miscellaneous installation, including Various pieces of equipment New pipe lines Pipe hangers Grid for new ceilings

4. Cleaning up asbestos debris. This category is used when the sale purpose of the job is to clean up the debris. It is not used when clean-up is part of another process.

5. Cable pulling, for telephone or computer purposes

6. Changing light bulbs (Re-Iamping)

7. Generator testing. This job causes substantial vibration in rooms where ACM is present.

8. Fire alarm testing. This job requires an employee to enter a room where ACM is present to check the alarm display board.

Indicates whether the job was performed above or below a suspended ceiling. When the job took place in a room with no suspended ceiling, such as a mechanical room, it was assigned a code for "no suspended ceiling."

Building in which the job took place. For reasons of confidentiality, the buildings have been assigned code numbers to avoid use of actual names.

Data from Hygienetics, Inc. 1-25

FLOOR

AREA

ASBIMPAC

CONTRACT

The floor of the building in which the job took place. This variable is important because ACM type can vary by floor, depending on the construction date.

The type of room or area in which the job took place. The categories are: Mechanical room Lobby Corridor Doctor's office or suite Other patient areas, including nurses' stations Other non-patient, non-mechanical areas (e.g., administrative offices)

A yes/no variable, defining whether or not any asbestos was actually removed.

A yes/no variable, defining whether or not an outside asbestos abatement contractor was involved in the job.

1.5.2 Variables Pertaining to the Air Samples

VARIABLE

SAMPLElD

SAMPLETY

START

TOTALTIM

VOLUME

LOD

DEFINITION

Unique identification number for each sample. This number includes the date on which the sample was taken.

Type of sample. Categories are: Background, before job begins Background, after job completion (some samples were taken long enough

after the completion of a job that they could not be considered clearance samples)

Area, inside work area Area, outside work area Area, clearance Area, work area unspecified Personal

TI,e start time of the sample

Duration of the sample, in minutes

In liters

In all but a few instances, the LOD could be re-calculated, using the following formula:

0.055 fibers/field X 49

Volume

which is simplified from the calculation below.

1-26

CONCENTR

FIBERCOU

FIELDS

Asbestos in Public and Commercial Buildings: Supplementary Data Analyses

The fiber concentration. Although the concentration was entered into the preliminary data file from the paper forms, the value was re-calculated wherever possible, using the formula below. When data needed to re­calculate the concentration were missing, the value reported. on the paper forms was used.

(# fibers) (385 mm')

(# fields) (volume) (0.00785 mm'/field) (1000 cc/L)

Number of fibers counted

Number of fields counted

Data Irom Hyglenetics, Inc. '-27

1.6 Attachment B: Additional Categories of Data

1.6.1

1.6.2

1.6.3

Table 1-5 presents the results for additional categories that were investigated in the data set provided by Hygienetics. The analyses of these categories were entirely descriptive in nature.

Employee Division

Approximately one-third of all permits and samples were for employees from the hospital's HV AC division. Since the outside contractors were responsible for monitoring their own employees, personal sample results were not available. The one personal sample was worn by the Hygienetics representative while he was in the work area taking area samples. Workers in the "General" division have the highest mean concentration for personal samples (0.1838 f/mL), while the highest mean concentration for area samples is in the HVAC division (0.0173 f/mL).

Ceiling

Only 3 percent of the permits and 2 percent of the samples were for work performed below a suspended ceiling; permits were rarely issued for such work because the ceiling functioned as a barrier between the room and any ACM above the ceiling. Just over half of all the permits and samples were for work in areas were there was no suspended ceiling. This finding is consistent with the fact that most of the work and sampling took place in mechanical rooms/ which wouldn't have suspended ceilings. The mean concentration of personal samples taken during work below a suspended ceiling (0.1736 f/mL) is higher than the means of personal samples in the other two categories (0.0639 f/mL above ceiling, and 0.1236 f/rnL with no suspended ceiling). The high average for work below the ceiling is heavily influenced by two high samples from one permit. These personal samples were taken during clean-up of ACM debris left over from work performed before the O&M program began. Exclusion of these two samples lowers the mean concentration for work below ceiling to 0.0459 f/mL.

Outside Abatemenl Contractor

Only 6 percent of the permits and 10 percent of the samples involved outside asbestos abatement contractors. Again, no personal sample results were available. The concentrations of area samples taken during work by abatement contractors (mean of 0.0096 f/mL) are lower than those taken during other work (mean of 0.0221 f/mL), and the range of values is relatively narrow. Involvement of an abatement contractor indicates a very specific type of work activity, in addition to well-defined engineering and quality control procedures. In contrast, the category of work that does not involve abatement contractors includes an extremely wide variety of work situations, engineering controls, and quality control measures, leading to the wide ranges of concentrations in this category for both area and personal samples.

1-28 Asbestos in Public and Commercial Buildings: Supplementary Data Analyses

Table 1-5. PCM Results for Additional Categories of Data'

Area Samples No. of

Variable Permits No. Range Range

Employee Division

HVAC 37 53 0.0173 0.0032-0.1003 102 0.1278 0.0052-0.8395

Plumbing 12 10 0.0077 0.0032-0.0157 19 0.0486 0.0039-0.1904

Electrical 17 9 0.0085 0.0004-0.0168 36 0.0737 0.0075-0.2693

Carpentry 3 4 0.0124 0.0065-0.0197 7 0.0814 0.0269-0.1939

Outside Contractor 20 49 0.0360 0.0020-0.4222 0.0229 (Non-abatement)

General 10 47 0.0122 0.0031-0.0982 25 0.1838 0.0282-0.5496

Electrical & 13 0.0162 0.0004-0.0444 0.0166 Carpentry

General & 0.0130 2 0.0721 0.0516-0.0926 Carpentry

HVAC & Plumbing 0.0102 2 0.0204 0.0186-0.0222

HVAC & Electrical 0.0049 2 0.0145 0.0115-0.0175

Unknown 3 3 0.0161 0.0017-0.0364 6 0.0786 0.0104-0.1817

Relation 01 Sample to Suspended Ceiling

Below 3 0.0076 8 0.1736 0.0347-0.6246

Above 37 65 0.0110 0.0004-0.0444 46 0.0639 0.0052-0.6805

No Suspended 58 90 0.0296 0.0004-0.4222 140 0.1236 0.0039-0.8395 Ceiling

Unknown 8 35 0.0103 0.0032-0.0306 9 0.0968 0.0467-0.1878

Asbestos Abatement Contractor

No 100 153 0.0221 0.0004-0.4222 203 0.1108 0.0039-0.8395

Ves 6 38 0.0096 0.0020-0.0312 0

a Data provided by Hygienetics, Inc., Boslon, Massachusetts

2

Review of Five Data Sets Provided by McCrone Environmental Services, Inc. on Airborne Asbestos levels in Buildings

Oats from McCrone Environmental Services, Inc. 2·1

2.1 Background

In response to HEI-AR's request for data in April 1990, McCrone Environmental Services, Inc., of Norcross, Georgia, provided the Institute with data on 942 air samples analyzed by transmission electron microscopy (TIM). These samples were taken in a variety of buildings under d,ifferent circumstances, for a number of unrelated projects.

Because of the importance of obtaining detailed information on the circumstances under which the samples were collected, a questionnaire was developed by HEI-AR and sent to McCrone. The questionnaire included questions on the buildings, such as size, age, and type of use; on the asbestos-containing material (ACM) in the buildings, such as type of material present, composition and condition; and on the circumstances of sampling, such as reason for sampling, time of year, time of day, and work activities. For most projects, however, McCrone had been involved only in TEM analysis of the samples and was able to provide relatively limited information to HEI-AR. To maintain confidentiality, all information that would allow identification of a specific building or client was removed by McCrone before sending the data.

The projects for which HEI-AR received data fall into five categories, as described by McCrone: (1) repeated ambient air monitoring in an office building with an operations and maintenance (O&M) program in place; (2) air monitoring in a number of schools; (3) air monitoring in a number of buildings that had been scheduled for abatement; (4) air monitoring during maintenance (C3 worker) activities; and (5) air monitoring during janitorial (C2 worker) activities. Each category of data is addressed in separate sections of this chapter.

The data from the office building with the O&M program and from the schools (that is data from the first two categories) were presented in the main Report of the Literature Review Panel (Section 4.6.3, Numerical Asbestos Fiber Concentrations in BUilding Atmospheres; Chapter 8, Estimation of Risks to the Health of Building Occupants) (HEI-AR 1991). More details on these data sets are provided in this chapter. The data from the other three categories were reviewed by the Panel but, for the reasons discussed below, were not described in the Report; these data are presented and discussed in this chapter as well.

2.2 Methods

Air sampling was performed in a wide variety of situations lor unrelated projects, presumably for different organizations. For this reason, monitoring protocols differed across projects and cannot be generalized for this data set as a whole. In all instances, however, analysts at McCrone Environmental Services analyzed the samples by TEM; except for samples from some buildings that are part of the third category (buildings sampled before, during and after abatement), all samples were analyzed using direct transfer preparation, according to the method of Yamate and colleagues (1984). To identify chrysotile fibers, McCrone analysts usod morphology, as well as either electron diffraction or energy dispersive x-ray analYSiS, or both. The concentrations of fibers longer than 5 pm were recorded by the analysts on TEM analysis sheets.

All the data were provided to HEI-AR in paper form. The data on number of structures counted and airborne asbestos concentrations both for all sizes and fibers longer than 5 pm, as well as basic information on sample type and date collected, were entered into a computerized database using the dBASE IV database management system. Various checks

2·2 Asbestos in Public and Commercial Buildings: Supplementary Dala Analyses

on the resulting data files were fun and all errors found were corrected. Descriptive statistics were computed using the Statistical Analysis System (SAS) program (version 6.04).

The data analysis and averaging methods used in this section follow those used to summarize the building air measurement data in the main Report of the Literature Review Panel (see section 4.6.3.4, Discussion and Summary of the Building Air Measurement Data) (HEI·AR 1991). Due to problems related to the analytical sensitivity of fibers longer than 5 p.m for the available environmental measurements of asbestos, the Panel dlOse to use, throughout the Report, the arithmetic mean as the measure of central tendency of exposure. Individual building means were calculated by taking the arithmetic mean of all the sample concentrations in a building, as reported by McCrone. The average concentration in a given group of buildings was computed by summing the individual building mean concentrations and dividing by the total number of buildings in that group. This method has been used to report the building means and overall means for the McCrone data. The only exception is the janitorial simulation data; because the number of samples is so low, the means have been reported by type of sample rather than by building (Table 2-7).

2.3 Results and Discussion

2.3.1 Repeated Ambient Air Monitoring in an Office Building with an O&M Program in Place

Data from 328 samples collected over a 3-year period in a building located in the southeastern U.S. were provided to HEI-AR. TI,e building did not have ducted HVAC, and there was sprayed-on ACM in the return air plenum. No information on the size or age of the building was available to HEI·AR. The building contained mostly sprayed-on ACM consisting of 8·15% chrysotile; the condition of the ACM at the time of sampling is unknown. The basement had thermal pipe insulation of widely varying compositions, with up to 40% amosite. Ambient air sampling took place nine times, from August 1985 to November 1988. However, results for fibers longer than 5 )lm are not available for the first sampling period because these samples were not analyzed by McCrone. An O&M program was in place during the entire three years, but details regarding the program were not available.

Table 2-1 shows the average airborne asbestos concentrations in the office building, by sampling period. It should be noted that a large number of samples (an average of36) were collected in each sampling period. The mean concentrations for the entire data set for fibers longer than 5 )lm and for structures of all sizes are 0.00004 flmL and 1.89 s/L, respectively. The mean concentration for the last set of samples (November 1988; 0.00034 f/mL) is an order of magnitude higher than the others for fibers longer than 5 )lm; for structures of all sizes, the mean concentration for the first set of samples in August 1985 was the highest (9.70 s/L). The median and 90th percentile of the samples across all sampling periods are both 0 f/mL for fibers longer than 5 pm; the maximum value is 0.0021 f/mL, from a sample taken in November 1988. For structures of all sizes, the median, 90th percentile, and maximum are 0 s/L, 4 s/L, and 88 s/L, respectively.

Although the Panel was provided with limited information about this building, the data collected there are unique in providing longitudinal TEM measurements over a period of time. It was of interest for the Panel to note that airborne asbestos concentrations in this building with sprayed-on and pipe insulation asbestos materials were in the same range as or lower than the levels observed in a number of other buildings with direct TEM

Data from McCrone Environmental Services, Inc. 2-3

2.3.2

2.3.3

measurements. These data were presented in the Report of the Literature Review Panel (HEI-AR 1991).

Schools

This category comprises 19 schools in the Midwest, sampled for "documentation for O&M or later remediation" (K. Sprague, personal communication 1991). It is not known which schools were scheduled for remediation, nor when any remediation took place; however, all schools had some form of O&M program in place during the sampling periods. Each school was sampled three times: summer 1985, autumn 1986, and autumn 1987. The types and condition of the ACM varied from school to school, but the specific information for each school is unknown.

Table 2-2 presents the overall average airborne asbestos concentrations for each school, as well as for each sampling period. The airborne concentrations averaged over a1119 schools and all three sampling periods are 0.00022 flmL for fibers longer than 5 pm, and 13.94 slL for structures of all sizes. The median, 90th percentile and maximum are 0.00017 f/mL, 0.00054 f/mL and 0.00158 f/mL, respectively, for fibers longer than 5 pm; for structures of all sizes they are 4.24 slL, 15.51 slL, and 176.74 slL, respectively.

Two features of these data should be noted. First, the results, both for long fibers and for all structures, appear to be higher in the summer 1985 sampling period than for either of the subsequent autumn sampling periods. This pattern may be due to seasonal variation; alternatively, the lower average concentrations in autumn could also be due to possible remedial activity that took place after the summer of 1985.

Second, school 19 has the highest average concentration both for fibers longer than 5 pm (0.00158 f/mL) and for structures of all sizes (176.74 s/L). The high results for school 19 are due to two samples that showed high asbestos fiber levels. These samples were taken in summer 1985 and fall 1987, both of them in the boiler room; there were no asbestos structures detected in the boiler room sample taken in fa111986. It is important to note that 17 of the 19 schools had at least one sample taken in the boiler room, and the other two schools had samples taken in the basement. Therefore, the sampling locations for school 19 are not unusual, and the reason for the higher levels in school 19 is unknown.

The Literature Review Panel was interested in data regarding the effectiveness of O&M programs. Because neither the details of the O&M program nor the time of its implementation were known, these data could not be placed in the context of an O&M program. However, the data provide information regarding the ambient levels in schools, and were reported as such by the Panel in its Report (HEI-AR 1991).

Buildings Scheduled for Abatement

The Literature Review Panel was interested in data from buildings where air had been sampled before, during and after abatement action. McCrone provided data on 11 publiC and commercial buildings in which air sampling had been performed before, during and after abatement. Unfortunately, substantial gaps were found in these data. Thus, for eight of these buildings, only results of air sampling before abatement were provided; for two buildings, data were provided both before and after abatement; and for the remaining building, the only sampling data provided were obtained during abatement. The Panel considered these data, but because of the limited nature of the air sampling during or after abatement, and because of the very limited information available about the buildings, found it difficult to interpret the data and decided against including the data in the Report.

2-4 Asbestos in Public and Commercial Buildings: Supplementary Data Analyses

(Note: The Panel did evaluate data from other sources that compared airborne asbestos levels before and after abatement - such data are summarized in Chapter 5 of the Panel's Report [HEI-AR 1991].)

The data provided by McCrone represented air samples collected in a variety of buildings: (six office buildings/ one office/warehouse complex, one auditorium, one prison with dormitories, one train terminal and one hotel/motel). Most of the buildings are located in the eastern United States; one is in the Midwest and one is in California. Infonnation for most of the buildings regarding the types and condition of the ACM present at the time of sampling was not available. Samples were taken at various times from 1985 to 1990. In several cases, sampling was performed over a period of time (see buildings 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 and 11); neither the reason nor the schedule for multiple sampling was provided.

Upon closer scrutiny of these data during preparation of this supplement, it was found that the samples collected in some of the bUildings in this data set were analyzed using the direct sample preparation method, while samples in other buildings were analyzed using the indirect method. Because the two methods of sample preparation produce different results, the data are separated according to the method of sample preparation in the following discussion and in the tables (Tables 2-3 and 2-4).

2.3.3.1 Samples Analyzed USing the Direct Method

As shown in Table 2-3, data from a total of seven buildings were analyzed using the direct method; in five buildings (buildings 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5), samples had been collected before abatement, in one (building 6) samples were collected before and after abatement, and in one (building 7) samples were collected only during abatement. The average airborne asbestos concentration before abatement was 0.00069 f/ mL for fibers longer than 5 pm (3.18 s/L for structures of all sizes). This value is 3.5-fold higher than the average value reported by the Literature Review Panel for all public and commercial buildings (0.00020 f/ mL).

The major contributor to the 3.5-fold higher average is building 6, which had an average asbestos concentration before abatement of 0.00302 f/ mL for fibers longer than 5 pm). This building is an auditorium located in the southeastern U.s. Although the concentration of asbestos fibers in this building is relatively high, it is within the upper range of values found by the Panel in other buildings (see: Section 4.6.3, Numerical Asbestos Fiber Concentrations in Building Atmospheres; Chapter 8, Estimation of Risks to the Health of Building Occupants; AppendiX 1, Review of Measurements in Buildings). As noted above, McCrone provided data for samples that were collected both before and after abatement in this building. The eight pre-abatement samples with the average value of 0.00302 f/mL were taken in 1987. Three sets of samples were taken after removal of the ACM; it appears that the abatement project involved removal of some portion of the ACM in the auditorium using a negative air enclosure. The first set of nine samples was taken in April 1989, 21 months after removal, and no structures of any size were detected. The second set of five samples was taken two weeks later, while demolition (not involving ACM) was in progress in other parts of the auditorium; no fibers longer than 5 pm were detected, and the mean concentration of structures of all sizes is 1.52 slL. The third set of nine samples was taken in May 1990; unfortunately, there is no information on the reason for sampling or activities in the building during sampling. The mean for structures of all sizes is 0.67 s/L for this third set. No fibers longer than 5 pm were detected in any of the samples collected after the asbestos removal. For all post-abatement samples combined, the average concentration of asbestos structures of all sizes is 0.59 s/L. It would thus appear that abatement action in this building reduced airborne levels.

Dala from McCrone Environmental Services, Inc. 2-5

Building 7 is a multi-storied office building in California, and the only data provided were on airborne asbestos levels during abatement. The average concentrations in this building are 0.00152 f/mL for fibers longer than 5 11m, and 48.91 s/L for all sizes. Four of the 41 samples were taken in the decontamination area; their average concentrations are 0.00152 f/mL for fibers longer than 5 pm, and 21.0 s/L for all sizes. The remaining 37 samples were taken at various locations throughout the building. No samples were taken inside the enclosure. It is not clear whether abatement activity was limited to certain parts of the building or whether it was more widespread. Also, no data were provided for levels either before or after abatement. Because of the limited nature of these data, it is difficult to draw any conclusions.

2.3.3.2 Samples Analyzed USing Ille Incllrecl Method

2_3.4

Air samples collected in five buildings (5, 8, 9, 10 and 11) were analyzed using the indirect preparation method. (Note that samples collected in building 5 were analyzed using both the direct and the indirect methods.) Four of the five buildings were sampled only before abatement; the remaining building was sampled both before and after abatement.

The data for these buildings are shown in Table 2-4. The average concentration of asbestos fibers found in the five buildings before abatement is 0.00701 f/mL (744.79 sill. This number is approximately 35-fold higher than average concentration reported by the Panel for samples from public and commercial buildings analyzed using the direct method, and approximately IO-fold higher than the average levels reported in other buildings in this data set. It is well recognized that indirectly prepared samples generally produce substantially higher asbestos fiber counts than directly preparc>ct samples; the higher counts have generally been attributed to disaggregation of matrices and clusters and longitudinal splitting of certain fibers during indirect sample preparation (see Section 4.4.2.4 Transmission Electron Microscopy Analytical Methodologies).

Among these buildings, the highest concentrations before abatement were found in building 11 (0.02449 f/mL for fibers longer than 5 pm; 3460.33 s/L for all sizes). Building 11 is a train terminal in the northeastern u.s. The building had asbestos in sprayc'<l-on and thermal insulation materials, and was sampled on four occasions during 1985-86. The exact date on which abatement took place is not known. However, it is known that the last four samples were taken after abatement; their average value was 0.02238 f/mL. Given the very limited information available on this building, it is difficult to draw any conclusions.

Maintenance (C3) Activities

A limited amount of data were provided for four different projects, in different bUildings, classified by McCrone as "maintenance." The only available information on the specific activities occurring during sampling for each project is as follows:

1. Changing asbestos gaskets, in a plant/factory with some offices, located in the southeastern U.S. There was no ACM in the building other than the gaskets. Samples were taken on one day in 1988.

2. Removal of asbestos roofing material, from an office building in the southeastern U.s. One sample was taken before the work started and three were taken during the work, which occurred in 1986.

3. "Accidental disturbance" of asbestos-containing thermal insulation in a midwestern school, during the summer of 1985 when school was not in session. The nature of the disturbance was not specified.

2-6

2.3.5

Asbestos ill Public alld Commercial Buildings: Supplementary Dala Analyses

4. Unspecified maintenance activity in an office building in the southeastern u.s. in 1986. Only personal samples were taken. Neither the nature of the maintenance activity nor the type and condition of ACM were described.

The results of these four projects are shown in Table 2-5. The small number of samples for each project makes it difficult to draw general conclusions about airborne asbestos levels resulting from these activities. It should also be noted that the area sample results for changing gaskets (0.00200 flmL and 12.0 s/L) are due to six fibers, one of them extremely long, found on one filter; no fibers were detected on the other filter. For the school, data on average asbestos concentrations before the accidental disturbance of the thermal insulation are not available, and so it is impOSSible to know whether the disturbance caused an increase in the airborne levels or not. For these reasons, these data were not presented in the Report of the Literature Review Panel (HEI-AR 1991).

Janitorial (C2) Activities

Data were provided for several small projects classified by McCrone as either "janitorial" or "janitorial simulation." The janitorial project involved air monitoring "after operations and maintenance cleaning had been performed during the previous weekend" (K. Sprague, personal communication 1991) in four office buildings in the southeastern U.S., all owned by one organization. The cleaning was performed by employees of the organization. Samples were taken in spring 1988. They were all area samples taken after the work was completed; it appears that no samples were taken during the weekend while the work was under way.

In addition, data were provided for two simulations of janitorial activity performed by McCrone staff in two different office buildings in the southeastern u.s. Monitoring occurred during simulations of vacuuming and steam cleaning in the summer of 1986, and conventional and HEPA vacuuming in the winter of 1986. In the latter set of simulations, the carpet contained asbestos, but there are no data on the presence of other ACM types in the building. The ACM type and condition are unknown in the building used for simulation experiments in the summer of 1986, including the carpet used for the simulated vacuuming and steam cleaning.

Table 2-6 shows the airborne asbestos concentrations found in the four buildings after the O&M cleaning project performed the previous weekend. No fibers longer than 5 I'm were detected in any of the buildings. The average concentration of structures of all sizes is 0.17 slL. There is no difference in results between samples taken in areas typically occupied by general office workers and samples taken in areas typically occupied by janitorial or maintenance workers (equipment room, etc.). Janitorial activities are normally thought to generate airborne dust which may contain asbestos. Although the exact procedures comprising the O&M deaning are not known, it appears that they were successful in not re-suspending any asbestos--containing dust that might have been present. The type and condition of ACM in these buildings was not specified.

The results from the simulations of janitorial activities are shown in Table 2-7. No asbestos fibers longer than 5 I'm were detected in any of the experiments. For asbestos structures of all sizes, the high concentrations for both the personal samples (113.28 s/L) and the samples placed on the vacuum cleaner handles (373.90 s/L) are due to the simulations of conventional and HEPA vacuuming on the asbestos-contaminated carpet. It should be noted that several other investigators (for example, Kaminsky et a1. 1989; Keyes et al. 1991) have reported relatively high levels of asbestos fibers during vacuuming and other similar activities. It is not clear why no fibers longer than Sl'm were detected in any of McCrone's

Data Irom McCrone Environmental Services, Inc. 2-7

simulation activities, even under conditions where relatively high levels of fibers of all sizes were reported.

Because relatively little information was available about conditions under which the above data were collected, the Panel dedded not to present these data in the Report.

2.4 Summary

As mentioned earlier, these airborne asbestos measurements provided by McCrone are from samples taken in many buildings under varying circumstances, for unrelated projects. The data sets are thus not intended to be a representative sample of a larger population of buildings, or of building occupants and workers. Rather, they were considered by McCrone to be useful data that could feasibly be released to HEl-AR. Because there are so few published reports on TEM airborne asbestos levels in buildings, the Literature Review Panel found these TEM data to be particularly valuable. For example, although it would have been desirable to know more of the details concerning the office building and O&M program discussed in section 3.1 (Repeated Ambient Air Monitoring in an Office Building with an O&M Program in Place), the data provide a rare opportunity to observe ambient airborne asbestos levels in a publici commerdal building over a long period of time. Similarly, the results from the 19 schools are a substantial and useful contribution to the existing knowledge of airborne levels in schools, again over a period of time. The Panel included these two data sets in its summary of ambient airborne asbestos levels in the main report (HEI-AR 1991) (see Section 4.6.3, Numerical Asbestos Fiber Concentrations in Building Atmospheres).

For the remaining data sets, the limited information on the buildings, the ACM they contained, and the sampling drcumstances, make interpretation of the data extremely difficult. This problem is compounded by the small number of samples collected during the maintenance and janitorial activities. Nevertheless, these measurements constitute a useful set of TEM measurements both for fibers longer than 5 Jlm and for structures of all sizes, in different settings.

2.5 References

Health Effects Institute-Asbestos Research (HEI-AR). 1991. Asbestos in Public and Commercial Buildings: A Literature Review and Synthesis of Current Knowledge. Literature Review Panel. Health Effects Institute-Asbestos Research, Cambridge, MA.

Keyes OL, Chesson J, Ewing WM, et al. 1991. Exposure to airborne asbestos associated with simulated cable installation above a suspended ceiling. Am lnd Hyg Assoc J 52:479-484.

Kaminsky JR, Freyburg RW, Chesson J, Chatfield EJ. 1989. Evaluation of Two Cleaning Methods for the Removal of Asbestos Fibers from Carpet. Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory, U.s. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH.

Yamate G, Agarwal SC, Gibbons RD. 1984. Methodology for the Measurement of Airborne Asbestos by Electron Microscopy. Draft report. Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory, Office of Research and Development, U.s, Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC.

2·8 Asbestos in Public and Commercial Buildings: Supplementary Dala Analyses

Tabla 2-1. Average Airborne Asbestos Concentrations in an Office Building with an Operations and Maintenance ProgramS

I Mean Concentration f------Sampling No. of

I Fibers Longer than All Sizes

Period Samples Sftm (f/mL) (s/L)

8185 35 - b 9.70

10/86 94 0.00001 0.85

12/86 30 0.00003 0.47

3/87 31 NO' 0.32

6/87 31 NO 0.71

9/87 23 NO 0.22

12/87 30 NO 0.37

4/88 29 0.00003 0.48

11/88 25 0.00034 4.96

Total, Mean 328 0.00004 1.89

a Data provided by McCrone Environmental Services, Inc., Norcross, GA

b Data not available

I; ND = not detected

Table 2-2. Average Airborne Asbestos Concentrations in Schools'

Fibers longer than 5 ftm (flml)

School No.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

Total, Mean

No. of Samples

- . 21

14

27

18

21

9

18

9

18

9

9

9

12

12

9

9

15

21

9

269

Summer 1985

0.00020

NO NO NO NO

0.00097

NO NO NO NO NO NO NO

0.00072

NO 0.00070

NO 0.00081

0.00373

0.00038

I Autumn

1986 .

NOb

NO 0.00014

NO NO NO NO NO

0.00121

NO NO NO

0.00035

NO NO NO NO

0.00021

NO

0.00010

a Data provided by McCrone Environmental Services, Inc., Norcross, GA

b NO = not detected

I Autumn

I 1987

0.00057

NO 0.00038

0.00050

NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO

0.00070

NO NO NO NO NO

0.00100

0.00017

Total Summer I

1985

0.00026 5.97

NO 11.58

0.00017 6.91

0.00017 6.05

NO 7.57

0.00032 23.47

NO 4.44

NO NO 0.00054 3.92

NO 2.47

NO 1.40

NO 5.50

0.00035 3.50

0.00024 30.50

NO 4.53

0.00023 1.40

NO 5.84

0.00034 42.71

0.00158 520.23

0.00022 36.21

All Sizes (s/L)

Autumn

I Autumn I

1986 1987

0.43 13.43

0.75 NO 4.86 1.88

0.50 3.33

0.44 0.57

3.03 1.67

3.00 0.20

17.00 0.67

3.46 5.80

1.00 NO NO 0.67

NO 3.33

8.00 1.00

ND 3.00

NO 3.33

1.33 NO 6.86 0.40

3.81 NO NO 10.00

2.87 2.59

Total

6.61

5.18

4.59

3.29

2.86

9.39

2.62

5.89

4.24

1.16

0.69

2.94

4.17

11.17

2.62

0.91

4.37

15.51

176.74

13.94

a .. iO ::r o 3

~ o :l

'" m

" '" gO

3 .. ~ fC <! ~.

."' S' P

~

'" , ~ '"

Table 2-3. Average Airborne Asbestos Concentrations in Buildings Before, During or After Abatement (Samples Prepared by Direct Method)'

Mean Concentration for Fibers Mean Concentration for longer than 5f'm (flmL) Structures of all Sizes (s/l)

Building Building Sample No. of No. Description Period Samples Before During After Before During After \~ .,.

'" Office building 10/87 5 0.00032 3.36 .. -" II>

2 Public office 11/87-9/90 27 0.00006 0.96 :r building ."

" 3 Public office 12187-9190 46 0.00004 0.59

!!: Ir

building .. " "-

4 Hotel/motel 1/87 7 0.00071 3.21 ()

" 5 Office building 9/8Sb 9 ND 0.34 3 3 '" ~ 0 iir

6 Auditorium 7/87 8 0.00302 10.60 Ii 6 Auditorium 4/89-5/90 23 ND 0.59 :::J

'" "' 7 Office building 5/88-9/88 41 0.00152 48.91 I.§'

." iD 3

Total 0.000S9 3.18 Ii a Data provided by McCrone Environmental Services, Inc. 0 ..

b 25 samples collected in this building in 5/85 and 3/86 were analyzed using the indirect preparation method. S% Table 2-4 for these results. I'" l>

" " -< VI ., to

Data from McCrone Environmental Services, Inc. 2-11

Tabla 2-4. Average Airborne Asbestos Concentrations in Buildings Before or Alter Abatement (Samples Prepared by Indirect Method)'

Mean Concentration Mean Concentration for Fibers Longer for Structures of all than 5~m (f/mL) Sizes (siL)

Bldg. Building Sample No. of No. Description Period Samples Before After Before After

---,-_."

5 Office building 5/85-3/86b 25 0.00019 6.85

8 Office building 10/85 21 0.00035 15.13

9 Prison 3/86 7 0.00967 228.54

10 Officelwarehouse 9/85 28 0.00038 13.07 facility

11 Train terminal 12/85·5/86 21 0.02449 3460.33

11 Train terminal 10/86 4 0.02238 2859.75

Total 0.00701 744.79 . a Data provided by McCrone Environmental Services, Inc.

b 9 samples collected in this building in 9/86 were analyzed using the direct preparation method. See Tabla 2-3 for these r@sults.

Table 2..0. Average Airborne Asbestos Concentrations by Type of Maintenance Work'

Mean Concentration ~~-

Maintenance Activity Type of No. of Fibers Longer than All Sizes Sample Samples 5 ~m (f/mL) (s/L)

Changing Asbestos Gaskets Area 2 0.00200 12.0

Personal 2 NO 2.5

Roof Removal Area (before) NO NO

Area (during) 3 NO 1.7

"Accidental Disturbance of ACM" Area 5 0.00220 100.8

Activity Unspecified Personal 6 NO 10.3

a Data provided by McCrone Environmental Services, Inc., Norcross, GA

b NO = not detected

2-12 Asbestos in Public and Commercial Buildings: Supplementary Data Analyses

Table 2-6. Average Airborne Asbestos Concentrations After Janitorial Activity, by Building and Type of Areas

I Mean Concentration

No. of r----- ' I Fibers Longer Than sl'j

Sarnples (flmL)

Building

6 NDb

2 4 ND

3 2 ND

4 2 ND

Total ND

Type of Area'

"C1" 4 ND

"C2JC3" 10 ND

a Oata provided by McCrone Environmental Services, Inc., Norcross, GA

b NO = not detected

All Sizes (slL)

0.17

0.50

ND

ND

0.17

0.25

0.20

C Values are sample averages, not building averages; HC1~ typically occupied by general office workers, "C2IC3" = typically occupied by janitorial andlor maintenance workers.

Table 2-7. Average Airborne Asbestos Concentrations During Simulations of Janitorial Activity'

Mean Concentration

Type of Sample

Area, before activity

Area, during activity

Area, on vacuum cleaner handle 1-2 ft. abcve floor

Personal, during activity

No. of Samples

3

9

4

8

Fibers longer than 5j.lm (f/mL)

NDb

ND

ND

ND

a Data provided by McCrone Environmental Services, Inc., Norcross, GA

b NO = not detected

All Sizes (s/L)

2.67

3.44

373.90

113.28

3

Review of Unpublished litigation Data Provided by RJ lee Group on Airborne Asbestos levels in Buildings

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

Litigation Oat. Irom RJ Lee Group 3-1

3.1

3.1.1

In response to the request for data issued by the Literature Review Panel, the RJ Lee Group of Monroeville, Pennsylvania, provided infonnation on asbestos levels in buildings from a large data set. The samples, from 231 buildings located nationwide, were collected over a five-year period and were analyzed by the RJ Lee Group. The data were summarized in the Literature Review Panel's Report (Section 4.6.3, Numerical Asbestos Fiber Concentrations in Building Atmospheres) (HEI-AR 199]). A portion of the work involving school buildings has previously been reported (Corn et al. 1991).

The air samples were collected, by consultants for defendants in preparation for litigation, from buildings in which asbestos abatement was alleged to be necessary because of the risk to occupant health. The only buildings identified by plaintiffs that were not sampled were those where removal activities had alread y been carried out or those for which, because of time constraints or plaintiff attorney objections, samples could not be collected. Typically, a number of samples were collected outdoors and from indoor areas representing different areas or occupant activity levels; from these samples, five indoor or personal, two outdoor, and one blank sample were analyzed from each building.

A total of 2,209 air samples (1,923 samples, 286 blanks) from 231 buildings (104 school, 67 university, 21 commercial, 29 public, and 10 residential) were analyzed by transmission electron microscopy (TEM). The following measures of airborne asbestos concentrations were considered: (1) total asbestos structures (Yamate et a!. 1984) reported here as structures per liter (s/L); (2) mass density (ng/m') for total asbestos structures; (3) structures at least 5 pm long, reported as fibers per milliliter (flmL); and (4) structures/mL at least 5 pm long and at least 0.25 pm wide (optical equivalent [or PCM-equivalent] structures). No comparison of the data was attempted on the basis of product type, age of building, location within the bUilding, or other factors.

Methods

Building Survey

Building surveys and air sampling, both inside and outside the buildings, were conducted by a team composed of a certified industrial hygienist, who acted as team leader, and three or more assistants. Buildings selected for surveying were the subject of litigation and were referred to the survey team by attorneys for defendants when the attorneys received notice of imminent asbestos abatement or some other reason why sampling should be scheduled. The actual sampling sites within the recommended buildings were selected by the survey teams on-site on the basis of location, use, and other factors described below.

In situations where a survey team was not able to sample every building at a given location in the time allowed, the buildings were ranked by the owner's claim regarding the priority given to the building for need of abatement or the amount of ACM present or other factors. The buildings were then surveyed and sampled in order of highest rank, as time permitted.

During the survey, the general construction materials visible inside the building were noted, with particular attention paid to the presence, type and condition of materials alleged to contain asbestos. Potential ACMs were identified by the survey team and samples of these materials were collected for later analysis. The conditions of both the ACM and the building in general were determined. Sources of dust or other air contaminants were identified. The grounds and community surrounding the building were also surveyed. Observations were made regarding geographical terrain and ground surface materials, particularly the presence of clay or asphalt. Also noted were parking lots,

3·2

3.1.2

3.1.3

Asbestos in Public and Commercial Buildings: Supplementary Dala Analyses

chimney stacks, and high activity areas (for example, sports or play, bus loading or unloading, and construction activity).

Air Sampling

Air sampling was conducted to determine the airborne fiber concentrations in occupied buildings. Sampling was also conducted outside the buildings to allow a comparison between outdoor and indoor fiber levels. Following passage of the Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act (AHERA) (EPA 1987), the sampling protocol was modified to collect at least one outdoor sample, five indoor or personal samples, and one blank sample. Before AHERA, the sampling protocol did not require outdoor samples to be collected at each building. All samples which were collected prior to AHERA form a subset of the samples reported in Corn and associates (1991).

The survey teams noted whether the activity levels were relatively high, medium, or low. These ratings were subjective in nature and depended upon actual usage at the time of the survey. In school buildings, high activity areas included gymnasiums, cafeterias and auditoriums (if occupied). Moderate activity areas included classrooms and staff quarters. For public and commercial buildings, high activity areas included restaurants, auditoriums, copy centers, and meeting rooms. Low activity areas in any of these building types included libraries, study areas, and individual office space. Additionally, factors such as concentration of people, duration of occupancy, and level of physical activity were considered. Air sample locations were selected based on these factors and on availability of the location. All personal samples collected in this program were collected by the survey team members, who wore personal air samplers during the time they were observing the static sampling pumps.

Air sampling equipment adhered to the requirements of the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) Method 7400 (NIOSH 1986) and AHERA (EPA 1987). Normally, pumps were operated at a flow rate of two to three liters per minute. Each sample volume was kept within the range of 600 to 2,500 liters, with a desired optimum of about 2,000 liters. Sampling was conducted over a two-day period and during normal building use to obtain representative conditions. The samples were collected on two types of filters: cellulose ester membrane (both 0.8 pm and 0.45 pm pore size, 25 mm diameter) and polycarbonate filters (0.4 pm pore size, backed with a 5.0 pm cellulose ester filter). Both types of filters were mounted in a new cassette with a two-inch conductive extension.

Sample Analysis Procedures

The measurement of the asbestos concentration from a sample by TEM consists of sample preparation, asbestos fiber identification, reporting and quality assurance. Techniques for each of these phases has been developed by a number of groups over a period of years. The methods used closely parallel those of Lee and associates (1978); Yamate and associates (1984); and AHERA (EPA 1987).

The air samples that were analyzed from the collected sets were chosen by either the laboratory or an industrial hygienist. At least one outdoor sample and at least five indoor samples were chosen from each building. The selected samples were randomly chosen based on sample location (at least one indoor location from different locations in a building) and volume sampled (at least 1,000 L or about 500 minutes of sample time).

Litigation Data from RJ Lee Group 3·3

3.1.4

The direct transfer method of preparation was used and the prepared samples were analyzed using an analytical TEM capable of energy dispersive x·ray analysis (EDXA) and selected area electron diffraction (SAED). Structures were identified morphologically with an aspect ratio (length-to-width) of greater than 3:1. Bundles, clusters and matrices were classified according to Yamate and associates (1984), and the dimensions, types and numbers of all particles having an aspect ratio greater than 3:1 were recorded. Particles meeting this criterion were classified as chrysotile, amphibole, or nonasbestos follOWing the definitions developed by Yamate and associates (1984). A combination of morphology, EDXA and SAED was used in making identifications.

All amphiboles were reported as asbestos, even though, in general, the amphiboles observed were not asbestiform. Structures haVing a morphology, x-ray spectrum or SAED pattern inconsistent with either chrysotile or amphibole were classified as nonasbestos. Typically, the nonasbestos structures observed included gypsum, clays, iron-oxides, and calcite.

Statistical Analysis

For each sample, the total number of structures per unit air volume (s/L) was calculated, along with the structure concentration for structures longer than or equal to 5 pm and struclures longer than or equal to 5 pm with a width of at least 0.25 pm (optical [J'CM-J equivalent structures). For data evaluation purposes, concentrations for samples in which no asbestos structures were counted, that is, for samples below the limit of detection, were treated as 0 s/mL. In addition to structure concentration, mass concentration (ng/m3) was also determined, based on the number and size of identified structures. Though the mass calculation methods parallel the methods of Yamate and associates (1984), these data are presented as a comparative index and should not be interpreted as absolute values.

All samples were then grouped according to building and sample environment (indoor, outdoor, personal, blank) and building averages were determined for the above concentrations. Finally, overall averages of all samples within a building type (commercial, public, residential, school, and university), and an average value for each building were also generated. Blanks, outdoor ambient, and personal samples were averaged over the entire sample set.

Each indoor building data set was then evaluated using commercially available software (StatView™ II, Abacus Concepts, Inc.) for percentiles of the concentrations. An analysis of variance test was performed on these indoor samples to determine if there is a statistically significant difference (0: = 0.05, Fisher PLSD) between building types.

3.2 Results

A total of 2,209 samples from 231 buildings are included in this analysis. There are a total of 1,260 indoor samples, 597 outdoor samples, 66 personal samples and 286 blanks. The indoor samples include 672 samples from 104 schools, 336 samples from 67 university buildings, 130 samples from 21 commercial buildings, 112 samples from 29 public buildings, and 10 samples from 10 residential buildings.

The average analytical sensitivity for all samples (except blanks) was 3.39 ± 0.04 s/L for 1,923 samples. This value varied, based upon the amount of air sampled and the number of grid openings counted.

3-4 Asbestos in Public and Commercial Buildings: Supplementary Daia Analyses

The mean airborne concentrations of asbestos structures for various types of buildings are shown in Table 3-1. The average concentration of all asbestos structures for all indoor samples was 27.1 s/L; for fibers longer than or equal to 5 !lm the concentration averaged 0.0001 flmL, and for optically equivalent structures the concentration averaged less than 0.0001 fl mL. Ninety-seven percent of all structures found were chrysotile (8,289 chrysotile; 205 amphibole). Outdoor samples averaged 2.0 slL (all asbestos structures), 0.0001 f/mL (;>: 5 !lm), and 0 flmL (PCM-equivalent structures). Personal samples averaged 10.0 slL, 0.0002 f/mL, and 0.0001 f/rnL, respectively.

Table 3-2 summarizes the 90th percentile information by building type. For structures of all sizes, the highest value for the 90th percentile was 134.9 slL in schools. The second highest value was 23.8 slL for personal samples, with the remaining values ranging from 4.5 to 20.1 slL. For fibers longer than 5 !lm, 90% of the airborne asbestos concentrations in schools Was 0.0006 f! mL. The other building types had values two-fold or more smaller than schools.

Table 3-3 summarizes the median (50th percentile) information by building type. As with the 90th percentile results, the median concentration of structures of all sizes (s/L) in schools is consistently higher than in other buildings types. The majority of samples showed no fibers longer than 5 !lm for all building types.

The Report of the Literature Review Panel has presented a summary of this data with a different grouping of the buildings. Table 3-4 contains this summary showing schools and university buildings as one grouping and public and commercial buildings as a second grouping.

Table 3-5 contains a listing of the data for each building reported in this chapter.

There are Significant differences (at a 95% confidence level) in the mean concentrations shown in Table 3-1 between the various building types. For concentrations of asbestos structures of all sizes, a statistically significant difference (at the 95 percent confidence level, p < 0.0001) was observed between the levels for school samples as compared to the other buildings; the levels for schools were about ten-fold higher. No statistically significant differences were found for concentrations of fibers longer than 5 !lm (p = 0.4271).

Graphs of the percentile distributions for total asbestos structure concentration and concentration of structures longer than or equal to 5 pm are shown in Figures 3-1 and 3-2, respectively. In these figures, the distribution is truncated when the percentile corresponds to a concentration below the limit of detection. Most of the buildings have Some level of asbestos concentration (structures of all sizes) above the limit of detection. The distribution of school building concentrations is higher than for the other building types; the commercial buildings had the lowest distribution of concentration. The school data approximate a log normal distribution. Only 10% of the buildings and 2% of the outdoor samples contained any fibers longer than or equal to 5 !lm. Thus, the differences observed in the total fiber concentrations are not reflected in the concentrations of fibers longer than 5 !lm.

3.3 Discussion

With a view towards augmenting the relatively limited amounts of data on ambient asbestos concentrations that is available from published sources, the Literature Review Panel reviewed and summarized data from unpublished sources in its Report. This chapter represents a very large set of data originally collected by defendants for litigation and made

Litigation Dala from RJ lee Group 3-5

available to HEI-AR by the RJ Lee Group. For this data set, when the buildings are grouped by categories, the average concentrations of airborne asbestos for school and university buildings and for public and commercial buildings are 0.00011 and 0.00006 f/mL. Asbestos concentrations in residences sampled in this data set were below the limit of detection.

The asbestos levels reported in the data presented here are substantially similar to those found in other buildings (see pages 4-47 through 4-66 of the Report). Based on non­litigation data, the Panel had summarized asbestos concentrations observed in 198 buildings (1,377 samples) and reported that the average asbestos concentrations for schools (including a few colleges), residences and public and commercial buildings are 0.00051, 0.00019 and 0.00020 f/mL. While these averages appear to be somewhat higher than those computed from the RJ Lee Group's data, it appears that the differences are related to a few high samples that were derived from specific situations of custodial and maintenance work (see discussion of Chatfield 1986 in HEl-AR 1991, p. 4-62). If such samples were to be excluded from calculation of averages from the non-litigation data, the average values for schools (including a few colleges) and public and commercial buildings would have been 0.00038 and 0.00008 flmL (no samples collected in situations representative of maintenance or custodial activities were documented in residences); these average values aTe not substantially different from the average values reported in this chapter.

3.4 References

Corn M, Crump K, Farrar DB, Lee RJ, McFee DR. 1991. Airborne concentrations of asbestos in 71 school buildings. Regul Toxico! Pharmacol 13:99-114.

Environmental Protection Agency, U.s. (EPA). 1987. Asbestos hazard emergency response act (AHERA) regulation. Asbestos-Containing Materials in Schools: Final Rule and Notice. Federal Register, 40 CFR 763, Vol. 42, No. 210, October 30, 1987.

Health Effects Institute-Asbestos Research (HEI-AR). 1991. Asbestos in Public and Commercial Buildings: A Literature Review and Synthesis of Current Knowledge. Literature Review Panel. Health Effects Institute-Asbestos Research, Cambridge, MA.

Lee RJ, Lally JS, Fisher RM (1978). Identification and counting of mineral fragments. In: Proceedings of Workshop on asbestos: Definitions and Measurement Methods. Garavalt CC, LaFluer PD, Heinrich KF], Eds. Special Publication 506. National Bureau of Standards, Washington D.C.

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NlOSH). 1986. Method for Determination of Asbestos in Air Using Positive Phase Contrast Electron Microscopy. NIOSH Method 7400. Issued: 2/15/84; revision 2, 5/15/86. U.s. Department of Health and Human Services, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Cincinnati, OH.

Yamate G, Agarwal SC, Gibbons RD. 1984. Methodology for the Measurement of Airborne Asbestos by Electron Microscopy. Draft report. Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory, Office of Research and Development, u.s. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC.

3-6 Asbestos in Public and Commercial Buildings: Supplementary Data Analyses

Table 3-1. Summary of Average Airborne Asbestos Concentrations in Buildings Sampled for L~igation Purposes'

All Fibers Longer No. of No. of Sizes than 5 ~m Massb PCME

Building Type Buildings Samples (s/L) (f/mL) (ng/m 3) (1/mL)

School 104 672 52.4 0.0001 3.039 0.0001

University 67 336 6.7 0.0001 1.055 0.0001

Commercial 21 130 1.6 < 0.0001 3.908 < 0.0001

Public 29 112 5.4 0.0001 1.392 < 0.0001

Outdoor 597 2.0 0.0001 0.651 < 0.0001

Residential 10 10 4.9 a 0.359 0

Personal 66 10.0 0.0002 1.028 0.0001

a Oata provided by RJ Lee Group, Monroeville, PA.

b Data presented for comparative purposes, not to be interpreted as absolute values.

Table 3-2. Summary of 90th Percentile Values of Airborne Asbestos Concentrations in Buildings Sampled for L~igation Purposes'

All Fibers Longer No. of No. of Sizes than 5 ~m Massb PCME

Building Type Buildings Samples (s/L) (flmL) (ng/m3) (f/mL)

-School 104 672 134.9 0.0006 7.464 0.0003

University 67 336 20.1 0.0003 1.292 0

Commercial 21 130 4.5 0.0001 8.302 0

Public 29 112 15.9 0.0003 2.370 0

Outdoor 597 4.6 a 0.120 0

Residential 10 10 11.3 0 1.501 0

Personal 66 23.8 0 1.300 0

a Data provided by RJ Lee Group, Monroeville, PA.

b Data presented for comparative purposes, not to be interpreted as absolute values.

Litigation Data from RJ Lee Group 3·7

Table 3-3. Summary of Median (50th Percentile) Values of Airborne Asbestos Concentrations in Buildings Sampled for litigation Purposes'

All Fibers Longer No. of No. of Sizes than 5 I'm Massb PCME

Building Type Buildings Samples (slL) (f/mL) (ng/m 3) (f/mL)

School 104 672 10.2 0 0.295 0.0003

University 67 336 1.5 0 0.020 0

Commercial 21 130 1.1 0 0.010 0

Public 29 112 3.3 0 0.050 0

Outdoor 597 0 0 0 0

Residential 10 10 4.5 0 0.064 0

Personal 66 3.1 0 0.010 0

a Oata provided by RJ Lee Group, Monroeville, PA.

b Data presented for comparative purposes, not to be interpreted as absolute values.

Table 3-4. Distribution of Building Average Airborne Asbestos Concentrations for Litigation Data by Building Type'

Building No. of No. of 10th 90th Category Buildings Samples Min. Percentile Median Mean Percentile Max. Outdoor

School and 171 1008 0 0 0 0.00011 0.00046 0.0017 0.00004 university

Public and 50 242 0 0 0 0.00006 0.00012 0.00094 0.00012 commercial

Residence 10 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00065

Total 231 1260 0 0 0 0.00010 0.00051 0.00206 0.00006

a Data provided by RJ Lee Group, Monroeville, PA; Table reproduced from Table 4-11 in Report of Literature Review Panel (HEI-AR 1991)

Table 3-5 Listing of Individual Building Summaries for RJ lee Group Data

level II TEM Asbestos Structures

Building Type Building 1101 S,,-mples II Asbestos II Asb ~ 5 s/l I/ml~ __ llJ:I/mA3 School 4 Mean 1.50 0.00 4.3 0.0000 0.134

School 2 7

School 3 5

School 4 5

School 5 5

School 6 5

School 7 5

School 8 5

School 9 5

School 10 5

School 11 5

School 12 4

School 13 5

Maximum 4.00 0.00 11.1 0.0000 0.379 Stand Dev 1.73 0.00 4.8 0.0000 0.168

Mean Maximum Stand Dev

Mean Maximum Stand Dev

Mean Maximum Stand Dev

Mean Maximum Stand Dev

Mean

Maximum Stand Dev

Mean Maximum Stand Dev

Mean Maximum

Stand Dev

Mean Maximum Stand Dev

Mean Maximum Stand Dev

Mean

Maximum Stand Dev

Mean Maximum Stand Dev

Mean Maximum Stand Dev

3.00 16.00 5.83

29.00 106.00 43.69 38.80 69.00 26.15 11.40 56.00 24.94 1.40 2.00 0.55 0.60 3.00 1.34

21.80 63.00 25.55 41.60 80.00 32.79 96.00 134.00 34.62 18.40 59.00 23.80 14.25 47.00 22.34 46.80 84.00 35.52

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.20 1.00 0.45 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.20 1.00 0.45 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

11 .1 60.3 22.0

142.3 567.4 239.5 392.5 1487.4 617.7 37.2 182.5 81.3 5.1 9.5 2.8 2.2

11.0 4.9

86.2 292.3 119.9 266.3 972.7 402.5

1501.2 3015.8 1244.8

77.5 271.4 111 .1 107.0 395.0 192.7 505.4

1337.2 537.9

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0006 0.0028 0.0013 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0007 0.0035 0.0016 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.363 1.850 0.668 3.923

18.129 7.950 8.387 26.983 10.864 0.615 1.591 0.844 0.050 0.189 0.079 0.010 0.048 0.021 7.774

36.742 16.214 1.128 3.154 1.253 7.395 17.252 6.676 0.262 0.894 0.365 1.468 5.640 2.783 2.430 3.623 0.972

PCME I/ml

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0006 0.0028 0.0013 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

'" a,

1: er .. ~ ., :i' "2 er 5-II>

" Q.

S 3 ~ ~

" !.: III

" c: 5·

'" .. g> :g m ~ ~ .:;: C

~ ~ II>

1

Table 3a S Listing of Individual Building Summaries for RJ Lee: Group Data

level II TEM Asbestos Structures

Building Type Building '# of Samples # Asbestos '# Asb ;::: 5 s/L f/mL ng/m A 3

School 14 5 Mean 9.80 0.20 37.8 0.0007 104.107

School 1 5

School 16

School 1 7

School 18

School 19

School 20

School 21

School 22

School 23

School 24

School 25

School 26

5

5

5

5

5

4

5

5

5

5

5

5

Maximum Stand Dev

Mean Maximum Stand Dev

Mean Maximum Stand Dev

Mean Maximum Stand Dev

Mean Maximum Stand Dev

Mean Maximum Stand Dev

Mean Maximum Stand Dev

Mean Maximum Stand Dev

Mean Maximum Stand Dev

Mean Maximum Stand Dev

Mean Maximum

Stand Dev Mean

Maximum Stand Dev

Mean Maximum Stand Dev

48.00 21.36 39.80 94.00 37.71 24.80 57.00 29.68 42.20 75.00 29.88 19.20 56.00 21.75 3.60 17.00 7.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.80 18.00 7.95 2.60 7.00 3.21 53.40

122.00 59.93 47.80 98.00 34.02 56.00 91.00 35.23 14.00 42.00 17.51

1.00 0.45 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.20 1.00 0.45 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

185.6 82.6 155.4 300.2 134.2 82.7 193.0 99.1

134.1 275.3 108.2 54.5

162.0 62.8 9.8

45.9 20.3 0.0 0.0 0.0

10.2 48.3 21.3 9.9

32.3 13.8

216.9 559.5 260.1 144.7 300.7 106.3 182.7 345.4 130.5 37.4 112.3 46.8

0.0035 0.0016 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0007 0.0035 0.0016 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

519.853 232.409

0.790 1.538 0.633 0.388 1.119 0.535 1.496 3.330 1.194 0.086 0.213 0.077 0.025 0.105 0.045 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.046 0.224 0.099 0.224 0.771 0.330 4.232

10.316 4.755 0.710 1. 716 0.570 0.554 1.220 0.489 6.857

33.670 14.990

PCME flmL

0.0007 0.0035 0.0016 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0007 0.0035 0.0016 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

,.. '" US' !!l. ci' ::>

C

~ a 3

~ :; .. Cl g ..,

:b

Table 3-5 Listing of Individual Buildins Summaries for RJ lee Groue Data -------

level II TEM Asbestos Structures PCME I~ Building T~l!e Building # of Sam21es :# Asbestos IIAsb>5 oiL f/ml ng/m A 3 f/mL

School 27 5 Mean 27.20 0.20 83.9 0.0007 2.216 0.0007 Maximum 58.00 1.00 189.9 0.0033 9.413 0.0033 Stand Dey 18.19 0.45 61.1 0.0015 4.024 0.0015

School 28 5 Mean 1.60 0.00 4.7 0.0000 0.009 0.0000 Maximum 6.00 0.00 1 7.1 0.0000 0.036 0.0000 Stand Dey 2.61 0.00 7.5 0.0000 0.016 0.0000

School 29 5 Mean 51.20 0.00 180.7 0.0000 0.960 0.0000 !> III

Maximum 96.00 0.00 401.9 0.0000 2.217 0.0000 r:J' .. ..

Stand Dey 37.64 0.00 154.0 0.0000 0.882 0.0000 -0

School 30 5 Mean 0.40 0.00 1.1 0.0000 0.003 0.0000 '" Maximum 1.00 0.00 2.8 0.0000 0.007 0.0000 :r

"'CJ Stand Dev 0.55 0.00 1.5 0.0000 0.004 0.0000 c .,.

School 31 5 Mean 6.60 0.00 17.7 0.0000 0.563 0.0000 g: Maximum 32.00 0.00 85.9 0.0000 2.806 0.0000 .. Stand Dev 14.21 0.00 38.1 0.0000 1.254 0.0000

:l "-

School 32 5 Mean 28.40 0.00 80.5 0.0000 0.410 0.0000 (') 0

Maximum 81.00 0.00 229.2 0.0000 1.193 0.0000 :I Stand Dey 32.62 0.00 91.5 0.0000 0.482 0.0000 :I

CD

School 33 5 Mean 3.00 0.20 8.5 0.0005 0.178 0.0000 ~

!!. Maximum 13.00 1.00 37.4 0.0025 0.581 0.0000 !!!. Stand Dey 5.61 0.45 16.2 0.0011 0.243 0.0000 00

!:. School 34 5 Mean 6.40 0.00 17.5 0.0000 0.120 0.0000 c:

Maximum 12.00 0.00 33.7 0.0000 0.249 0.0000 S·

'" Stand Dev 3.51 0.00 10.1 0.0000 0.081 0.0000 .. School 35 5 Mean 0.20 0.00 0.5 0.0000 0.000 0.0000 III

t: Maximum 1.00 0.00 2.5 0.0000 0.001 0.0000 " .., Stand Dey 0.45 0.00 1.1 0.0000 0.001 0.0000 ;;

School 36 11 Mean 0.82 0.00 2.4 0.0000 0.020 0.0000 :I to

Maximum 2.00 0.00 5.7 0.0000 0.064 0.0000 ::I !il'

Stand Dey 0.75 0.00 2.2 0.0000 0.022 0.0000 ~ ... School 37 57 Mean 4.98 0.05 15.9 0.0002 4.255 0.0001 c ..

Maximum 28.00 1.00 86.6 0.0034 182.807 0.0034 -.. Stand Dev 5.31 0.23 17.0 0.0007 24.403 0.0004 »

School 38 1 7 Mean 3.53 0.00 12.3 0.0000 7.434 0.0000 " II)

Maximum 16.00 0.00 58.5 0.0000 112.156 0.0000 '< "' Stand Dev 4.61 0.00 16.4 0.0000 27.160 0.0000 CD ..

School 39 54 Mean 8.28 0.11 36.5 0.0004 9.638 0.0002 Maximum 78.00 3.00 253.1 0.0117 371.199 0.0039 Stand Dey 12.16 0.46 54.5 0.0018 50.900 0.0008

Table 3·5 Listing of Individual Building Summaries for RJ Lee Grou2: Data

level II TEM Asbestos Structures r

PCME '" Buildins T~~e Building # of Sameles 11 Asbestos # Asb ~ 5 slL flmL na/ mA3 f/mL

cO· 0>

School 40 7 Mean 0.86 0.00 2.5 0.0000 0.010 0.0000 5-" Maximum 2.00 0.00 5.6 0.0000 0.039 0.0000 " Stand Dev 0.90 0.00 2.5 0.0000 0.015 0.0000 II> -School 41 11 Mean 2.82 0.00 7.3 0.0000 0.215 0.0000 .. -Maximum 8.00 0.00 19.7 0.0000 1.815 0.0000 il

Stand Dev 2.93 0.00 7.4 0.0000 0.534 0.0000 3

School 42 9 Mean 5.56 0.22 14.3 0.0006 5.045 0.0006 ~ Maximum 15.00 1.00 39.7 0.0026 31.921 0.0026 r-

eD CD

Stand Dev 4.28 0.44 11.3 0.0011 10.450 0.0011 Q School 43 Mean 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0000 0.000 0.0000 il

Maximum 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0000 0.000 0.0000 c: " Stand Dev n/a nla n/a n/a n/a n/a

School 44 10 Mean 1.10 0.00 3.6 0.0000 0.284 0.0000 Maximum 4.00 0.00 11.8 0.0000 2.686 0.0000

Stand Dev 1.45 0.00 4.8 0.0000 0.845 0.0000 School 45 39 Mean 3.49 0.00 27.6 0.0000 4.783 0.0000

Maximum 19.00 0.00 508.2 0.0000 161.392 0.0000 Stand Dev 5.03 0.00 84.9 0.0000 25.818 0.0000

School 46 7 Mean 5.43 0.14 15.8 0.0004 36.587 0.0004 Maximum 12.00 1.00 34.2 0.0029 254.930 0.0029 Stand Dev 4.79 0.38 13.7 0.0011 96.281 0.0011

School 47 5 Mean 0.40 0.00 1.8 0.0000 0.057 0.0000 Maximum 2.00 0.00 9.2 0.0000 0.286 0.0000 Stand Dev 0.89 0.00 4.1 0.0000 0.128 0.0000

School 48 5 Mean 2.20 0.40 6.9 0.0013 13.207 0.0013 Maximum 4.00 1.00 12.3 0.0033 57.533 0.0033 Stand Dev 1.30 0.55 3.9 0.0018 25.019 0.0018

School 49 5 Mean 1.00 0.00 3.0 0.0000 0.311 0.0000 Maximum 2.00 0.00 6.8 0.0000 1.319 0.0000 Stand Dev 1.00 0.00 3.1 0.0000 0.572 0.0000

School 50 5 Mean 0.80 0.20 2.3 0.0006 0.900 0.0000 Maximum 2.00 1.00 5.7 0.0028 4.475 0.0000 Stand Dev 1.10 0.45 3.1 0.0013 1.999 0.0000

School 51 2 Mean 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0000 0.000 0.0000 Maximum 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0000 0.000 0.0000 l~ Stand Dev 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0000 0.000 0.0000

School 52 5 Mean 6.00 0.00 21.0 0.0000 0.676 0.0000 Maximum 23.00 0.00 81.7 0.0000 3.238 0.0000 Stand Dev 9.82 0.00 34.9 0.0000 1.432 0.0000

Table 3-5 listing of Individual BUilding Summaries for RJ lee Groul:?: Oats

level II TEM Asbestos Structures PCfV\E I~ Building Tyee Building # 01 S.m~les # Asbestos II lise> 5 s/l IIml ng/mJ\3 11m L

School 53 6 Mean 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0000 0.000 0.0000 Maximum 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0000 0.000 0.0000 Stand Dev 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0000 0.000 0.0000

School 54 6 Mean 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0000 0.000 0.0000 Maximum 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0000 0.000 0.0000 Stand Dev 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0000 0.000 0.0000

School 55 6 Mean 0.83 0.00 3.1 0.0000 0.016 0.0000 » III

Maximum 2.00 0.00 9.3 0.0000 0.070 0.0000 <T .. Stand Dev 0.98 0.00 3.9 0.0000 0.028 0.0000 .. -

School 56 5 Mean 0.20 0.00 0.6 0.013 0.0000 0

0.0000 ., Maximum 1.00 0.00 3.1 0.0000 0.064 0.0000 :i" Stand Dey 0.45 0.00 1.4 0.0000 0.029 0.0000 1:1 c::

School 57 6 Mean 0.67 0.00 1.9 0.0000 0.083 0.0000 <T

Maximum 3.00 0.00 9.0 0.0000 0.497 0.0000 5-.. Stand Dev 1.21 0.00 3.6 0.0000 0.203 0.0000 ::>

Q.

School 58 5 Mean 3.80 0.00 11.3 0.0000 0.243 0.0000 g Maximum 11.00 0.00 33.5 0.0000 0.630 0.0000 3 Stand Dey 4.21 0.00 12.9 0.0000 0.320 0.0000 3

School 59 5 Mean 0.80 0.00 2.6 0.0000 0.054 0.0000 CD ~

" Maximum 2.00 0.00 7.0 0.0000 0.246 0.0000 m' Stand Dey 0.84 0.00 2.9 0.0000 0.107 0.0000 III

School 60 5 Mean 0.40 0.00 1.2 0.0000 0.574 0.0000 E. 0:

Maximum 1.00 0.00 3.5 0.0000 2.851 0.0000 S· Stand Dev 0.55 0.00 1.7 0.0000 1.273 0.0000 co

III

School 61 5 Mean 10.60 0.40 30.8 0.0012 10.815 0.0000 g> Maximum 29.00 2.00 85.2 0.0059 35.926 0.0000 "" Stand Dev 13.13 0.89 38.8 0.0026 15.983 0.0000 " iii

School 62 6 Mean 1.17 0.00 3.4 0.0000 0.031 0.0000 3 Maximum 3.00 0.00 8.8 0.0000 0.060 0.0000

to ::I

Stand Dev 1 .1 7 0.00 3.6 0.0000 0.025 0.0000 iii ~

School 63 6 Mean 1.17 0.00 3.1 0.0000 0.041 -<

0.0000 c Maximum 4.00 0.00 10.6 0.0000 0.106 0.0000 ..

iii Stand Dev 1.60 0.00 4.2 0.0000 0.048 0.0000 »

School 64 6 Mean 1.33 0.17 4.3 0.0006 8.813 0.0006 " .. Maximum 5.00 1.00 17.1 0.0034 52.523 0.0034 .:c .. Stand Dev 1.97 0.41 6.7 0.0014 21.414 0.0014 CD

!II School 65 2 Mean 1.00 0.00 2.9 0.0000 0.036 0.0000

Maximum 2.00 0.00 5.9 0.0000 0.072 0.0000 Stand Dev 1.41 0.00 4.1 0.0000 0.051 0.0000

Table 3·5 Listing of Individual Building SUmmaries for RJ Lee Grouf?: Data

level II TEM Asbestos Structures POlE !:: BUildinfl T~~e Buildine # of 58m21es # Asbestos # Asb > 5 s/L flmL n9 /mA3 f/mL g

School 66 2 Mean 2.00 0.00 3.3 0.0000 0.030 0.0000 .. 6-Maximum 4.00 0.00 6.7 0.0000 0.060 0.0000 " Stand Dev 2.83 0.00 4.7 0.0000 0.042 0.0000 c

School 67 2 Mean 0.50 0.00 0.7 0.0000 0.008 0.0000 a .. Maximum 1.00 0.00 1.4 0.0000 0.017 0.0000 -~ 0

Stand Dev 0.71 0.00 1 .0 0.0000 0.012 0.0000 3 -----

School 68 2 Mean 0.50 0.00 1.4 0.0000 0.004 0.0000 ;JJ <-

Maximum 1.00 0.00 2.8 0.0000 0.008 0.0000 .-Stand Dev 0.71 0.00 2.0 0.0000 0.006 0.0000 .. ..

School 69 2 Mean 0.50 0.00 1.3 0.0000 0.066 0.0000 Cl ~

Maximum 1.00 0.00 2.6 0.0000 0.133 0.0000 0 c:

Stand Dev 0.71 0.00 1.9 0.0000 0.094 0.0000 " School 70 2 Mean 17.00 0.00 21.4 0.0000 0.050 0.0000

Maximum 24.00 0.00 31.7 0.0000 0.093 0.0000 Stand Dev 9.90 0.00 14.5 0.0000 0.060 0.0000

School 71 5 Mean 16.20 0.20 52.6 0.0006 2.414 0.0000 Maximum 32.00 1.00 97.2 0.0030 4.553 0.0000 Stand Dev 12.26 0.45 37.5 0.0014 2.144 0.0000

School 72 6 Mean 3.50 0.17 12.0 0.0005 0.263 0.0000 Maximum 10.00 1.00 33.9 0.0033 1.008 0.0000 Stand Dev 3.56 0.41 12.1 0.0013 0.384 0.0000

School 73 5 Mean 2.60 0.00 6.6 0.0000 8.093 0.0000 Maximum 7.00 0.00 17.2 0.0000 40.065 0.0000 Stand Dev 2.88 0.00 7.1 0.0000 17.873 0.0000

School 74 5 Mean 0.40 0.00 1.2 0.0000 0.004 0.0000 Maximum 1.00 0.00 3.4 0.0000 0.017 0.0000 Stand Dev 0.55 0.00 1.7 0.0000 0.008 0.0000

School 75 5 Mean 2.80 0.00 9.6 0.0000 0.684 0.0000 Maximum 6.00 0.00 20.6 0.0000 2.331 0.0000 Stand Dev 2.17 0.00 7.5 0.0000 0.989 0.0000

School 76 5 Mean 11.40 0.00 35.4 0.0000 0.268 0.0000 Maximum 21.00 0.00 61.8 0.0000 0.645 0.0000 Stand Dev 8.44 0.00 26.2 0.0000 0.279 0.0000

School 77 4 Mean 1.25 0.00 3.3 0.0000 0.028 0.0000 Maximum 4.00 0.00 10.9 0.0000 0.070 0.0000

I~ Stand Dev 1.89 0.00 5.2 0.0000 0.034 0.0000 School 78 5 Mean 1.60 0.00 4.5 0.0000 0.080 0.0000

Maximum 6.00 0.00 17.0 0.0000 0.269 0.0000 Stand Dev 2.51 0.00 7.1 0.0000 0.117 0.0000

Table 3·5 Listing of Individual Building Summaries for RJ Lee Group Data -- ------------ ------ ------------ ---~-

level II TEM Asbestos Structures PCI\IE

1* Building TY2e Building # of Som2le. 1/ Asbestos 1/ Asb > 5 sll 11m l ng/mJ\3 I/mL School 79 5 Mean 0.80 0.00 2.1 0.0000 0.753 0.0000

Maximum 2.00 0.00 5.0 0.0000 2.496 0.0000 Stand Dev 0.84 0.00 2.2 0.0000 1 .11 8 0.0000

School 80 5 Mean 15.60 0.00 22.5 0.0000 1.590 0.0000 Maximum 37.00 0.00 52.6 0.0000 6.209 0.0000 Stand Dev 19.14 0.00 25.8 0.0000 2.620 0.0000

School 81 5 Mean 17.20 0.00 25.1 0.0000 0.520 0.0000 l> Maximum 77.00 0.00 103.3 0.0000 2.386 0.0000

.. <T

Stand Dev 33.48 0.00 43.9 0.0000 1.046 0.0000 (I) In -School 82 5 Mean 4.20 0.00 11.8 0.0000 3.332 0.0000 0 ..

Maximum 14.00 0.00 40.3 0.0000 16.443 0.0000 :i" Stand Dev 5.67 0.00 16.4 0.0000 7.330 0.0000 "!l c

School 83 5 Mean 23.00 0.00 40.9 0.0000 1.054 0.0000 <T

Maximum 83.00 0.00 114.8 0.0000 4.588 0.0000 5-Stand Dev 35.32 0.00 51.8 0.0000 1.992 0.0000

., " School 84 5 Mean 13.40 0.00 24.4 0.0000 0.371 0.0000 "-

Maximum 43.00 0.00 57.4 0.0000 1.422 0.0000 9 Stand Dev 17.83 0.00 25.7 0.0000 0.598 0.0000 :3

:3 School 85 5 Mean 0.40 0.00 1.0 0.0000 0.041 0.0000 ..

~

Maximum 2.00 0.00 4.9 0.0000 0.204 0.0000 0 [

Stand Dev 0.89 0.00 2.2 0.0000 0.091 0.0000 00 School 86 5 Mean 3.20 0.00 8.6 0.0000 0.054 0.0000 =-

Maximum 15.00 0.00 40.3 0.0000 0.214 0.0000 c: 5'

Stand Dev 6.61 0.00 17.8 0.0000 0.093 0.0000 ., .. School 87 5 Mean 0.60 0.20 1.5 0.0005 19.676 0.0005 ..

fJl Maximum 2.00 1.00 4.8 0.0027 98.353 0.0027 c .., Stand Dev 0.89 0.45 2.2 0.0012 43.982 0.0012 -0

School 88 5 Mean 0.80 0.00 2.1 0.0000 0.072 0.0000 iii" :I

Maximum 2.00 0.00 5.1 0.0000 0.208 0.0000 .. " Stand Dev 0.84 0.00 2.2 0.0000 0.092 0.0000 ;;;-~

School 89 5 Mean 4.00 0.00 10.3 0.0000 1.345 0.0000 '<

Maximum 19.00 0.00 48.9 0.0000 6.723 0.0000 C ..

Stand Dev 8.40 0.00 21.6 0.0000 3.006 0.0000 ;;;-

School 90 5 Mean 1.80 0.00 5.1 0.0000 0.153 0.0000 l>

" Maximum 5.00 0.00 14.1 0.0000 0.563 0.0000 .. ~ Stand Dev 2.17 0.00 6.1 0.0000 0.236 0.0000 .,

School 91 5 Mean 35.00 0.20 57.7 0.0003 2.754 0.0003 ..

Maximum 84.00 1.00 140.3 0.0014 12.529 0.0014 Stand Dev 43.02 0.45 66.7 0.0006 5.474 0.0006

Table 3-5 Listing of Individual Buildina SUmmaries for RJ lee Grou2 Data

Level II TEM Asbestos Structures PCI\£ r-'" Building Type Building # of Samples # Asbestos IIAsb~5 s/L IImL ng!ml\3 11m l US' 0>

School 92 4 Mean 21.25 0.00 42.2 0.0000 0.459 0.0000 5-Maximum 39.00 0.00 63.3 0.0000 0.748 0.0000 " Stand Oev 13.67 0.00 17.9 0.0000 0.231 0.0000 c

School 93 5 Mean 4.80 0.00 12.2 0.0000 0.0000 !l-

0.169 AI

Maximum 16.00 0.00 40.8 0.0000 0.677 0.0000 a Stand Oev 6.46 0.00 16.5 0.0000 0.287 0.0000 :I

School 94 5 Mean 15.60 0.00 27.0 0.0000 0.107 0.0000 :J! <-

Maximum 62.00 0.00 85.0 0.0000 0.328 0.0000 r-Stand Oev 26.48 0.00 35.6 0.0000 0.150 0.0000

CD CD

School 95 5 Mean 3.40 0.00 14.0 0.0000 0.162 0.0000 Cl ~

Maximum 14.00 0.00 59.8 0.0000 0.755 0.0000 0 c:

Sland Oev 5.94 0.00 25.7 0.0000 0.332 0.0000 ."

School 96 5 Mean 27.40 0.00 76.3 0.0000 2.932 0.0000 Maximum 50.00 0.00 133.0 0.0000 12.108 0.0000

Stand Oev 18.11 0.00 49.9 0.0000 5.155 0.0000 School 97 5 Mean 2.20 0.00 6.9 0.0000 0.323 0.0000

Maximum 10.00 0.00 31.1 0.0000 1.566 0.0000 Stand Dev 4.38 0.00 13.6 0.0000 0.695 0.0000

School 98 5 Mean 5.40 0.00 17.3 0.0000 0.305 0.0000 Maximum 12.00 0.00 39.0 0.0000 0.794 0.0000 Stand Oev 5.64 0.00 17.5 0.0000 0.362 0.0000

School 99 6 Mean 3.00 0.00 11.3 0.0000 1.691 0.0000 Maximum 8.00 0.00 29.7 0.0000 9.752 0.0000 Stand Oev 3.58 0.00 13.4 0.0000 3.951 0.0000

School 100 5 Mean 2.80 0.00 7.4 0.0000 0.289 0.0000 Maximum 6.00 0.00 17.5 0.0000 1.250 0.0000

Stand Oev 2.59 0.00 7.2 0.0000 0.538 0.0000 School 1 01 3 Mean 0.67 0.00 2.1 0.0000 0.024 0.0000

Maximum 2.00 0.00 6.3 0.0000 0.072 0.0000 Stand Oev 1 .1 5 0.00 3.6 0.0000 0.042 0.0000

School 102 6 Mean 0.33 0.00 1.2 0.0000 0.008 0.0000 Maximum 1.00 0.00 3.7 0.0000 0.028 0.0000 Stand Oev 0.52 0.00 1.9 0.0000 0.012 0.0000

School 103 5 Mean 3.00 0.00 10.0 0.0000 0.090 0.0000 Maximum 6.00 0.00 19.8 0.0000 0.180 0.0000

I~ Stand Oev 2.55 0.00 8.4 0.0000 0.071 0.0000 School 104 5 Mean 3.00 0.40 10.8 0.0015 3.805 0.0007

Maximum 7.00 2.00 24.9 0.0074 10.747 0.0037 Stand Dev 2.92 0.89 10.5 0.0033 5.231 0.0016

Table 3-5 Listing of Individual BUilding Summaries for RJ Lee Groul?: Data ----------

Level II TEM Asbestos Structures PaIllE I~ Building T~!!e Buildina # of Sam(!les :# Asbestos I/Asb~5 s/l I/mL ng/ml\3 ilml University 105 5 Mean 0.80 0.00 2.5 0.0000 0.024 0.0000

Maximum 2.00 0.00 6.3 0.0000 0.056 0.0000 Stand Dev 0.84 0.00 2.6 0.0000 0.026 0.0000

University 106 5 Mean 0.40 0.00 1.2 0.0000 0.113 0.0000 Maximum 1.00 0.00 3.0 0.0000 0.486 0.0000 Stand Dev 0.55 0.00 1.6 0.0000 0.211 0.0000

University 107 5 Mean 0.80 0.00 2.2 0.0000 0.015 0.0000 II> II>

Maximum 4.00 0.00 10.8 0.0000 0.073 0.0000 cr (I)

Stand Dev 1.79 0.00 4.8 0.0000 0.033 0.0000 iii a-University 108 5 Mean 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0000 0.000 0.0000 ..

Maximum 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0000 0.000 0.0000 or Stand Dev 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0000 0.000 0.0000 ."

" University 1 09 5 Mean 4.80 0.00 16.6 0.0000 0.046 0.0000 cr 5-

Maximum 24.00 0.00 83.2 0.0000 0.230 0.0000 .. Stand Dev 10.73 0.00 37.2 0.0000 0.103 0.0000 " 0.

University 110 5 Mean 5.60 0.00 17.1 0.0000 0.107 0.0000 g Maximum 16.00 0.00 48.9 0.0000 0.268 0.0000 3 Stand Dev 7.80 0.00 23.8 0.0000 0.147 0.0000 3 ..

University 111 6 Mean 2.17 0.00 7.0 0.0000 0.090 0.0000 ~

0

Maximum 6.00 0.00 19.7 0.0000 0.249 0.0000 [ Stand Dev 2.40 0.00 7.6 0.0000 0.115 0.0000 m

c: University 112 5 Mean 11.60 0.00 20.9 0.0000 0.322 0.0000 ii

Maximum 58.00 0.00 104.3 0.0000 1.611 0.0000 :i' Stand Dev 25.94 0.00 46.7 0.0000 0.720 0.0000

., "' University 113 5 Mean 0.40 0.00 1.2 0.0000 0.005 0.0000 fJ)

Maximum 1.00 0.00 3.1 0.0000 0.019 0.0000 r::: ...,

Stand Dev 0.55 0.00 1.7 0.0000 0.008 0.0000 "CI (j)

University 114 5 Mean 1.00 0.00 2.9 0.0000 0.020 0.0000 3 CD

Maximum 3.00 0.00 9.2 0.0000 0.053 0.0000 " Stand Dev 1.41 0.00 4.2 0.0000 0.027 0.0000 Iii ..;:

University 115 5 Mean 0.60 0.00 1.7 0.0000 0.012 0.0000 0 Maximum 2.00 0.00 5.8 0.0000 0.042 0.0000 .. -.. Stand Dev 0.89 0.00 2.6 0.0000 0.018 0.0000 »

University 116 5 Mean 11.60 0.00 35.9 0.0000 0.119 0.0000 " .. Maximum 45.00 0.00 142.3 0.0000 0.356 0.0000 -< en Stand Dev 18.80 0.00 59.8 0.0000 0.146 0.0000 .. ..

University 117 5 Mean 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0000 0.000 0.0000 Maximum 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0000 0.000 0.0000 Stand Dev 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0000 0.000 0.0000

Table 3·5 Listing of Individual Building Summaries for RJ Lee Grou2 Data

Level II TEM Asbestos Struclures PCIv'E r-::;:

Building Type Building # of Samples # Asbestos # Asb > 5 s/l flml na/m A 3 I/mL .;;' 0>

University 118 5 Mean 1.00 0.20 2.5 0.0005 1.179 0.0005 g" Maximum 2.00 1.00 5.1 0.0025 3.343 0.0025 ::l

Stand Dev 1.00 0.45 2.5 0.0011 1.627 0.0011 0 a

University 119 5 Mean 0.20 0.00 0.8 0.0000 0.002 0.0000 .. -Maximum 1.00 0.00 4.1 0.0000 0.010 0.0000 a Stand Dev 0.45 0.00 1.8 0.0000 0.005 0.0000 3

University 120 5 Mean 2.60 0.60 9.1 0.0021 9.645 0.0021 :0 <-

Maximum 4.00 1.00 13.3 0.0037 24.691 0.0037 !D S1and Dev 1.52 0.55 4.8 0.0019 11 .1 83 0.0019

., University 121 4 Mean 3.50 0.00 11.9 0.0000 1.316 0.0000

G') ~ a

MaximUm 12.00 0.00 39.8 0.0000 4.202 0.0000 c "C

Stand Dev 5.69 0.00 18.7 0.0000 1.987 0.0000 University 122 5 Mean 2.00 0.00 8.4 0.0000 0.063 0.0000

Maximum 10.00 0.00 41.9 0.0000 0.313 0.0000 Stand Dev 4.47 0.00 18.8 0.0000 0.140 0.0000

University 123 5 Mean 0.20 0.00 0.7 0.0000 0.003 0.0000 Maximum 1.00 0.00 3.7 0.0000 0.014 0.0000 Stand Dev 0.45 0.00 1.7 0.0000 0.006 0.0000

University 124 7 Mean 1.00 0.00 3.6 0.0000 0.042 0.0000 Maximum 3.00 0.00 10.4 0.0000 0.172 0.0000 Stand Dev 1 .1 5 0.00 4.1 0.0000 0.061 0.0000

University 125 5 Mean 1.00 0.00 3.3 0.0000 0.011 0.0000 Maximum 3.00 0.00 9.5 0.0000 0.045 0.0000 Stand Dev 1.41 0.00 4.6 0.0000 0.019 0.0000

University 126 5 Mean 0.40 0.00 1.3 0.0000 0.003 0.0000 Maximum 2.00 0.00 6.3 0.0000 0.014 0.0000 Stand Dev 0.89 0.00 2.8 0.0000 0.006 0.0000

University 127 5 Mean 1.20 0.20 5.7 0.0010 3.015 0.0000 Maximum 3.00 1.00 14.6 0.0048 14.571 0.0000 Stand Dev 1.30 0.45 6.3 0.0021 6.464 0.0000

University 128 5 Mean 0.20 0.00 0.6 0.0000 0.002 0.0000 Maximum 1.00 0.00 2.8 0.0000 0.008 0.0000 Stand Dev 0.45 0.00 1.3 0.0000 0.004 0.0000

University 129 5 Mean 0.60 0.00 1.3 0.0000 0.182 0.0000 Maximum 1.00 0.00 2.3 0.0000 0.533 0.0000

I~ Stand Dev 0.55 0.00 1.2 0.0000 0.252 0.0000

University 130 5 Mean 0.20 0.00 0.6 0.0000 0.029 0.0000 Maximum 1.00 0.00 3.1 0.0000 0.144 0.0000 Stand Dev 0.45 0.00 1.4 0.0000 0.065 0.0000

Table 3-5 Listing of Individual Building Summaries for RJ Lee GrouE! Data

level II TEM Asbestos Structures PCIIIE I~ Building Tyee Building # 01 Sameles # Asbestos l\! Asb > 5 ./L f/ml ngJm A 3 I/ml

University 131 5 Mean 2.00 0.00 5.8 0.0000 0.034 0.0000 Maximum 5.00 0.00 14.3 0.0000 0.091 0.0000 Stand Dev 2.12 0.00 6.1 0.0000 0.041 0.0000

University 132 5 Mean 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0000 0.000 0.0000 Maximum 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0000 0.000 0.0000 Stand Dev 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0000 0.000 0.0000

University 133 5 Mean 1.00 0.00 3.2 0.0000 0.220 0.0000 :l> .. Maximum 3.00 0.00 9.2 0.0000 0.789 0.0000 u

'" Stand Dev 1.22 0.00 3.8 0.0000 0.339 0.0000 .. -University 134 5 Mean 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0000 0.000 0.0000 a ..

Maximum 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0000 0.000 0.0000 or Stand Dev 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0000 0.000 0.0000 "tI c

University 135 5 Mean 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0000 0.000 0.0000 !!: Maximum 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0000 0.000 0.0000 o·

AI Stand Dev 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0000 0.000 0.0000 " "-

University 136 5 Mean 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0000 0.000 0.0000 9 Maximum 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0000 0.000 0.0000 :3 Stand Dev 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0000 0.000 0.0000 :3

University 137 7 Mean 2.86 0.00 9.0 0.0000 0.646 0.0000 .. ~

" Maximum 14.00 0.00 44.2 0.0000 4.167 0.0000 !: Stand Dev 5.01 0.00 15.8 0.0000 1.554 0.0000 III

University 138 5 Mean 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0000 0.000 0.0000 c: c: Maximum 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0000 0.000 0.0000 :i'

Stand Dev 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0000 0.000 0.0000 '" .. University 139 5 Mean 0.20 0.00 0.6 0.0000 0.189 0.0000 en

Maximum 1.00 0.00 3.1 0.0000 0.944 0.0000 c " Stand Dev 0.45 0.00 1.4 0.0000 0.422 0.0000 ." ;;;

University 140 5 Mean 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0000 0.000 0.0000 :3 Maximum 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0000 0.000 0.0000

.. " -Stand Dev 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0000 0.000 0.0000 ..

University 141 9 Mean 2.44 0.00 7.7 0.0000 0.063 0.0000 .;;: I:>

Maximum 13.00 0.00 40.8 0.0000 0.337 0.0000 .. Stand Dev 4.75 0.00 14.9 0.0000 0.126 0.0000

Iil" :l>

University 142 5 Mean 0.20 0.00 0.6 0.0000 0.001 0.0000 :J .. Maximum 1.00 0.00 3.0 0.0000 0.003 0.0000 .c: Stand Dev 0.45 0.00 1.4 0.0000 "' 0.001 0.0000 II> ..

University 143 5 Mean 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0000 0.000 0.0000 Maximum 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0000 0.000 0.0000 Stand Dev 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0000 0.000 0.0000

Table 3·5 listing of Individual Building Summaries for RJ Lee Group Data - --- --- -- - ---_ .. _------------

Level II TEM Asbestos Structures PCII'E r ;:;:

Building Type Building # of Samples # Asbestos # Asb > 5 s/L I/mL ng/mi\3 f/mL cO' .. University 144 4 Mean 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0000 0.000 0.0000 g"

Maximum 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0000 0.000 0.0000 " Stand Dev 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0000 0.000 0.0000 C

ill. University 145 Mean 5 0.20 0.00 0.5 0.0000 0.001 0.0000 .,

Maximum 1.00 0.00 2.6 0.0000 0.006 0.0000 if Stand Dev 0.45 0.00 1.1 0.0000 0.003 0.0000 3

University 146 5 Mean 0.60 0.00 1.6 0.0000 0.464 0.0000 jJ <-

Maximum 1.00 0.00 2.8 0.0000 2.156 0.0000 ,... <D

Stand Dev 0.55 0.00 1.4 0.0000 0.948 0.0000 ., University 147 5 Mean 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0000 0.000 0.0000 G)

~

Maximum 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0000 0.000 0.0000 0 c:

Stand Dev 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0000 0.000 0.0000 "U

University 148 5 Mean 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0000 0.000 0.0000 Maximum 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0000 0.000 0.0000 Stand Dev 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0000 0.000 0.0000

University 149 5 Mean 0.60 0.00 1.5 0.0000 0.022 0.0000 Maximum 2.00 0.00 5.1 0.0000 0.092 0.0000 Stand Dev 0.89 0.00 2.3 0.0000 0.040 0.0000

University 150 5 Mean 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0000 0.000 0.0000 Maximum 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0000 0.000 0.0000 Stand Dev 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0000 0.000 0.0000

University 151 5 Mean 0.20 0.00 0.8 0.0000 0.006 0.0000 Maximum 1.00 0.00 3.9 0.0000 0.030 0.0000 Stand Dev 0.45 0.00 1.7 0.0000 0.013 0.0000

University 152 5 Mean 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0000 0.000 0.0000 Maximum 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0000 0.000 0.0000

Stand Dev 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0000 0.000 0.0000 University 153 5 Mean 0.40 0.20 1.5 0.0009 19.696 0.0009

Maximum 1.00 1.00 4.5 0.0045 97.543 0.0045 Stand Dev 0.55 0.45 2.2 0.0020 43.520 0.0020

University 154 5 Mean 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0000 0.000 0.0000 Maximum 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0000 0.000 0.0000 Stand Dev 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0000 0.000 0.0000

University 155 5 Mean 0.20 0.20 0.5 0.0005 10.966 0.0005 Maximum 1.00 1.00 2.3 0.0023 54.829 0.0023

I~ Stand Dev 0.45 0.45 1.0 0.0010 24.520 0.0010 University 156 4 Mean 0.25 0.00 1.0 0.0000 0.025 0.0000

Maximum 1.00 0.00 4.0 0.0000 0.099 0.0000 Stand Dev 0.50 0.00 2.0 0.0000 0.049 0.0000

Table 3-5 listing of Individual Building Summaries for RJ Lee Groue Data

level II TEM Asbestos Structures PCME 1~ Building T~2. Building 1/ of S.m~les :# Asbestos 1/ Asb > 5 sll 11m l na /mA3 f/ml University 157 5 Mean 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0000 0.000 0.0000

Maximum 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0000 0.000 0.0000 Stand Dev 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0000 0.000 0.0000

University 158 5 Mean 13.00 0.00 59.2 0.0000 0.805 0.0000 Maximum 29.00 0.00 133.0 0.0000 2.626 0.0000 Stand Dev 13.17 0.00 60.9 0.0000 1.098 0.0000

Un'lversity 159 5 Mean 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0000 0.000 0.0000 > "' Maximum 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0000 0.000 0.0000 "" <D

Stand Dev 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0000 0.000 0.0000 III (;

University 160 4 Mean 1.75 0.00 5.8 0.0000 0.078 0.0000 .. Maximum 6.00 0.00 19.2 0.0000 0.178 0.0000 :i" Stand Dev 2.87 0.00 9.2 0.0000 0.092 0.0000 ." c:

University 161 5 Mean 0.80 0.00 3.1 0.0000 0.286 0.0000 .,. 5-Maximum 3.00 0.00 11.3 0.0000 1.270 0.0000 .,

Stand Dev 1.30 0.00 4.9 0.0000 0.555 0.0000 " Il. University 162 5 Mean 0.60 0.00 1.5 0.0000 0.007 0.0000

&> Maximum 2.00 0.00 4.9 0.0000 0.027 0.0000 :3 Stand Dev 0.89 0.00 2.2 0.0000 0.012 0.0000 " '" University 163 7 Mean 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0000 0.000 0.0000 ~

" Maximum 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0000 0.000 0.0000 [ Stand Dev 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0000 0.000 0.0000 CD c:

University 164 5 Mean 73.00 0.20 57.9 0.0004 5.105 0.0004 is: Maximum 214.00 1.00 107.5 0.0015 8.358 0.0015 S· Stand Dev 81.73 0.45 37.0 0.0008 2.854 0.0008 '" !'!

University 165 5 Mean 16.20 0.00 25.1 0.0000 0.427 0.0000 (f)

Maximum 36.00 0.00 52.7 0.0000 1.140 0.0000 c: ."

Stand Dev 13.41 0.00 18.9 0.0000 0.451 0.0000 "tI CD

University 166 6 Mean 15.33 1.00 25.6 0.0012 14.122 0.0010 ~ Maximum 45.00 4.00 50.0 0.0050 37.910 0.0038 " Stand Dev 16.86 1.67 18.8 0.0021 16.132 0.0016 or

~

'< University 167 5 Mean 3.20 0.00 7.2 0.0000 0.344 0.0000 0

Maximum 11.00 0.00 19.7 0.0000 0.654 0.0000 .. or

Stand Dev 4.55 0.00 8.8 0.0000 0.318 0.0000 > University 168 4 Mean 0.75 0.00 2.2 0.0000 0.032 0.0000 " ..

Maximum 2.00 0.00 5.8 0.0000 0.082 0.0000 ~ Stand Dev 0.96 0.00 2.8 0.0000 0.040 0.0000 .. .,

University 169 4 Mean 1.25 0.00 4.0 0.0000 0.271 0.0000 MaximUm 3.00 0.00 10.1 0.0000 1.062 0.0000 Stand Dev 1.50 0.00 4.9 0.0000 0.527 0.0000

Table 3·5 Listing 01 Individual Building Summaries for RJ Lee Group Data

level II TEM Asbestos Structure.

Building Type Building # of~~~~_ # Asbesto~_ 11 Asb ~ 5 s/L f/ml ng/mi\3 University 170 2 Mean 2.00 0.00 5.6 0.0000 0.096

University 171 4

Commercia! 172 6

Commercial 173 4

Commercial 174 6

Commercial 175 5

Commercia! 176 6

Commercial 177 7

Commercial 178 12

Commercial 179 6

Commercial 180 6

Commercial 181 6

Commercial 182 5

Maximum Stand Dev

Mean Maximum Stand Dev

Mean Maximum Stand Dev

Mean Maximum Stand Dev

Mean Maximum Stand Dev

Mean Maximum

Stand Dev Mean

Maximum Stand Dev

Mean Maximum Stand Dev

Mean Maximum Stand Dev

Mean Maximum

Sland Dev Mean

Maximum Stand Dev

Mean Maximum Stand Dev

Mean Maximum Stand Dev

3.00 1.41

38.50 131.00 61.89 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.25 1.00 0.50 0.67 2.00 0.82 0.40 1.00 0.55 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.43 2.00 0.79 1.17 9.00 2.62 0.67 3.00 1.21 1.50 6.00 2.35 2.50 7.00 3.51 0.40 1.00 0.55

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.08 1.00 0.29 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.17 1.00 0.41 0.00 0.00 0.00

8.4 3.9

60.3 182.8 83.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 3.0 1.5 2.1 6.3 2.6 1.4 3.9 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.5 6.7 2.7 3.3

25.2 7.4 2.3

10.2 4.1 6.4

25.6 10.0 8.3

23.9 11.6 1.8 4.6 2.5

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0002 0.0028 0.0008 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0005 0.0032 0.0013 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.147 0.073 0.439 1 .1 71 0.520 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.002 0.008 0.004 0.014 0.048 0.020 1.158 5.779 2.583 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.101 0.667 0.250 0.368 4.244 1.221 0.054 0.313 0.127 5.629

27.917 11.111 61.472

368.747 150.533

0.046 0.189 0.082

I'CWE flmL

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0005 0.0032 0.0013 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

.­;:;: tiS· ll!. ci' :I

~ if :3

~

Ii ~ c: "

'f '" ~

Table 3m5 listing of Individual Building Summaries for RJ Lee Gr()IJlP Data

level II TEIIII ... sbestos Structures

Building Type Building 1# 01 Samples 1# Asbestos 1# .... 1>;" 5 s/L f/ml ng/m A 3 Commercial 183 5 Mean DAD 0.00 1.1 0.0000 12.307

Commercia! 184 5

Commercial 185 5

Commercial 186 5

Commercial 187 5

Commercial 188 5

Commercial 189 5

Commercial 190 8

Commercial 191 13

Commercial 192 5

Public 193 5

Public 194 5

Public 195 3

Maximum Stand Dev

Mean Maximum Stand Dev

Mean Maximum Stand Dev

Mean Maximum Stand Dev

Mean Maximum Stand Dev

Mean Maximum Stand Dev

Mean Maximum Stand Dev

Mean Maximum Stand Dev

Mean Maximum Stand Dev

Mear Maximum Stand Dev

Mean Maximum Stand Dev

Mean

Maximum Stand Dev

Mean Maximum Stand Dev

1.00 0.55 0.60 1.00 0.55 0.20 1.00 0.45 0.20 1.00 0.45 0.20 1.00 0.45 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.31 1.00 0.48 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.40 3.00 1.14 6.60

23.00 9.29 0.67 2.00 1.15

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.0 1.5 2.3 4.4 2.1 0.5 2.6 1.2 0.8 4.0 1.8 0.5 2.6 1.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.1 4.8 1.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.4 11.0 4.2

21.9 74.7 30.2 2.3 6.8 3.9

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

61.495 27.497 0.027 0.109 0.046 0.008 0.040 0.018 0.005 0.026 0.012 0.002 0.009 0.004 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.859 10.857 3.005 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.040 0.079 0.035 0.098 0.213 0.099 0.010 0.029 0.017

PCME f/ml

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

'I' I::l

i :r "2 .,. if ~ 0.

9 ; !! !II <:

it ~. .. g> ::g iD

i -< ~ ~ ID

i

Table 3·5 Listing of Individual Building Summaries for RJ Lee Groue Data

Level II TEIVl Asbestos Structures PCME ,...

Building TY2e Buildina II of Sam~les # AsbeSlos IIAsb>5 oiL f/ml ng/m A 3 flml g. ..

Public 196 S Mean 7.20 0.00 23.0 0.0000 0.692 0.0000 -,;-Maximum 28.00 0.00 89.7 0.0000 2.388 0.0000 '" Stand Oev 11.80 0.00 37.8 0.0000 1.040 0.0000 C

!. Public 197 5 Mean 4.60 0.00 15.2 0.0000 0.184 0.0000 .. -Maximum 13.00 0.00 42.0 0.0000 0.468 0.0000 il

Stand Oev 5.32 0.00 17.2 0.0000 0.221 0.0000 3 Public 198 2 Mean 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0000 0.000 0.0000 :I!

<-Maximum 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0000 0.000 0.0000 ID Stand Oev 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0000 0.000 0.0000 ..

Public 199 5 Mean 1.40 0.00 4.8 0.0000 0.028 0.0000 c;)

il Maximum 2.00 0.00 7.8 0.0000 0.082 0.0000 c: Stand Dev 0.0000

't! 0.89 0.00 3.2 0.0000 0.033

Public 200 5 Mean 0.20 0.20 0.6 0.0006 0.505 0.0006 Maximum 1.00 1.00 3.0 0.0030 2.524 0.0030 Stand Oev 0.45 0.45 1.4 0.0014 1.129 0.0014

Public 201 7 Mean 0.57 0.00 2.4 0.0000 0.005 0.0000 Maximum 4.00 0.00 16.5 0.0000 0.035 0.0000 Stand Oev 1.51 0.00 6.2 0.0000 0.013 0.0000

Public 202 5 Mean 0.20 0.00 0.6 0.0000 0.001 0.0000 Maximum 1.00 0.00 3.2 0.0000 O.OOS 0.0000 Stand Oev 0.45 0.00 1.4 0.0000 0.002 0.0000

Public 203 7 Mean 2.29 0.00 4.0 0.0000 0.720 0.0000 Maximum 8.00 0.00 10.8 0.0000 4.724 0.0000 Stand Oev 2.87 0.00 3.8 0.0000 1. 769 0.0000

Public 204 4 Mean 0.25 0.00 1.0 0.0000 0.005 0.0000 Maximum 1.00 0.00 4.1 0.0000 0.019 0.0000 Stand Dev 0.50 0.00 2.1 0.0000 0.010 0.0000

Public 20S 5 Mean 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0000 0.000 0.0000 Maximum 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0000 0.000 0.0000 Stand Dev 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0000 0.000 0.0000

Public 206 S Mean 0.60 0.00 2.2 0.0000 0.050 0.0000 Maximum 1.00 0.00 3.8 0.0000 0.221 0.0000 Stand Oev 0.S5 0.00 2.0 0.0000 0.096 0.0000

Public 207 S Mean 0.20 0.20 0.5 0.0005 16.798 0.0005 Maximum 1.00 1.00 2.6 0.0026 83.990 0.0026

I~ Stand Dev 0.45 0.45 1.1 0.0011 37.561 0.0011 Public 208 6 Mean 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0000 0.000 0.0000

Maximum 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0000 0.000 0.0000 Stand Oev 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0000 0.000 0.0000

Table 3-5 listing of Individual Building Summaries for RJ lee Group Data ---------_ ..... _-----

Level liTEM Asbeslos Structures PCNE I~ Building T~2e Building # of Sam~les "# Asbestos # Asb > 5 sfL IImL ns/m A 3 flmL Public 209 5 Mean 1.20 0.00 3.5 0.0000 1.831 0.0000

Maximum 3.00 0.00 8.6 0.0000 8.810 0.0000 Stand Oev 1.30 0.00 3.8 0.0000 3.903 0.0000

Public 210 8 Mean 1.38 0.00 3.4 0.0000 15.100 0.0000 Maximum 6.00 0.00 16.3 0.0000 120.513 0.0000 Stand Dev 2.07 0.00 5.5 0.0000 42.593 0.0000

Public 211 Mean 1.00 0.00 3.3 0.0000 0.008 0.0000 » co Maximum 1.00 0.00 3.3 0.0000 0.008 0.0000

.,. ., Stand Oev nfa

II> nfa nfa nfa nfa nfa -0

Public 212 Mean 1.00 0.00 2.6 0.0000 0.015 0.0000 C/)

Maximum 1.00 0.00 2.6 0.0000 0.015 0.0000 5'

Stand Oev nfa nfa nfa nfa nfa 'tI

nfa t:

Public Mean 3.6 .,.

213 1.00 0.00 0.0000 0.052 0.0000 if Maximum 1.00 0.00 3.6 0.0000 0.052 0.0000 .. Stand Dev nfa nfa nfa nfa nfa nfa " Q.

Public 214 Mean 4.00 0.00 11 .1 0.0000 0.256 0.0000 0 0

Maximum 4.00 0.00 11 .1 0.0000 0.256 0.0000 :; Stand Dev nfa nfa nfa n/a n/a nfa :; ..

Public 215 Mean 3.00 0.00 8.6 0.0000 0.136 0.0000 ~ 0

Maximum 3.00 0.00 8.6 0.0000 0.136 0.0000 [ Stand Dev nfa n/a nfa nfa nfa nfa m

t: Public 216 Mean 7.00 0.00 16.3 0.0000 2.733 0.0000 5:

Maximum 7.00 0.00 16.3 0.0000 2.733 0.0000 5'

'" Stand Dev nfa nfa nfa nfa nfa nfa ., Public 217 Mean 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0000 0.000 0.0000 !Il

Maximum c:

0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0000 0.000 0.0000 '0 ."

Stand Oev nfa nfa n/a nfa n/a nfa iO Public 218 Mean 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0000 0.000 0.0000 :; ..

Maximum 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0000 0.000 0.0000 " Iii Stand Oev nfa nfa nfa nfa nfa n/a ~

'< Public 219 Mean 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0000 0.000 0.0000 C

Maximum 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0000 0.000 0.0000 .. Iii

Stand Dev nfa nfa n/a nfa nfa nfa I> Public 220 6 Mean 3.17 0.00 10.3 0.0000 0.339 0.0000 " III

Maximum 15.00 0.00 49.4 0.0000 1.485 0.0000 -< ., Stand Dev 5.88 0.00 19.4 0.0000 0.579 0.0000 to

In

Public 221 5 Mean 2.20 0.20 10.1 0.0009 0.793 0.0000 MaximUm 5.00 1.00 23.6 0.0047 3.382 0.0000

Stand Oev 1.92 0.45 9.2 0.0021 1.453 0.0000

Table 3-5 Listing of Individual Building Summaries for RJ Lee Group Data

Level II TEM Asbestos Structure.

Building T~2e Buildins Ii of Sam!!les 1/ Asbestos II Asb > 5 s/L f/mL Residential 10 Mean 1.10 0.00 4.9 0.0000

Maximum 3.00 0.00 13.8 0.0000 Stand Dev 0.99 0.00 4.5 0.0000

Outdoor All 597 Mean 0.63 0.02 2.0 0.0001 Samples Maximum 67.00 1.00 190.9 0.0047

Stand Dev 3.20 0.15 9.3 0.0005 Personal All 66 Mean 3.02 0.06 10.0 0.0002

Samples Maximum 40.00 1.00 136.3 0.0035 Stand Dev 6.33 0.24 21.1 0.0008

nsJm A 3 0.359 2.726 0.839 0.651

190.342 8.268 1.028

32.994 4.651

~

f/ml 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0039 0.0003 0.0001 0.0035 0.0006

,... '" f o· :::I

~ [ ~

i" C)

g ..,

'f III

...l -.. c " :;:: .. ~ -c ., ., c " I,)

1000 --

-I

100 r t L ~

t I

10 r L

r [ I

1 r t t L

~ , 0,1

1

Figure 3-1, Percentile Distribution for Asbestos Concentrations, Structures of All Sizes'

_.

v /

/

V 1/ ~

IF

V jrL~/ V /

V ~ 17

V /" -~

b1 V V 1/ V / V V b----

/. V

III ~ V

1/ I

5 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Cumulalive Percent

80 90 95 99

• Data provided by RJ Lee Group

II Outdoor

--0--- Public

m-- CommeordaJ

--0-- Un!VOfslty

A School

It' !;l

1: g ~ '" 5'

~ '" 5-.. " CL

b' 3 i ~

o !: !lll c: 0: 5' ., .. g> :g iii i ~

-<!

; ~ OJ

i

.... ~ if ::t

on Al

<II .. II> J:I ii:

Figure 3-2. Percentile Distribution for Asbestos Concentrations, Structures Longer than 5 11m'

0.01

0.001 ..

0.0001 5

, Data provided by RJ Lee Group

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Cumulallve Percenl

.. -

~ ;~

V ,

i I I

I 90 95

-_ ..

/ ?- ill-- Outdoor

---CJ-- Publk:

m-- Comm$tdal

r -0--'- Unlv(/r$lI:y

A School

99

,.. '" .a' 2\. o· ::I

~ if :I

t! i Gl g ...,

'f t:l

4

Additional References for Chapter 5 of the Literature Review Panel Report

Additional References lor Chapter 5 of Ihe Literature Review Panel Report

The following are abstracts of reports of site visits performed at some asbestos-product manufacturing sites, non-manufacturing workplaces, non-asbestos manufacturing workplaces, construction sites, and asbestos abatement work sites. Asbestos-product manufacturing sites have been included only if they test the effectiveness of a control method that may be applied to asbestos remediation work. In general, asbestos-product manufacturing sites were reported as having high to very high airborne fiber concentrations.

This list was cited in the original Report of the Literatore Review Panel as the first reference to Chapter 5, Remediation of Asbestos-Containing Materials, page 5-54, as follows:

Abstracts of Asbestos-Related Site Visit Reports from NIOSH and NTIS. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Cincinnati, OH. National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA. (Detailed list to be published in supplement.)

Albrecht WN. 1981. Health Hazard Evaluation Report No. HETA-82-004-1006, Guilford School, Cincinnati, Ohio. Hazard Evaluations and Technical Assistance Branch, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Cincinnati, Ohio.

Albrecht WN. 1982. Health Hazard Evaluation Report Number HETA-82-131-1098. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Cincinnati, Ohio.

Almaguer 0, Dramkowski RS. Health Hazard Evaluation Report No. HETA 81-477-1192, Grundy Industries, Inc., Joliet, Illinois. National Institote for Occupational Safety and Health, Cincinnati, Ohio.

Anania TL. 1976a. Health Hazard Evaluation Report HETA 76-000-040, National Science Foundation, Washington, DC. National Institote for Occupational Safety and Health, Cincinnati, Ohio.

Anania TL. 1976b. Health Hazard Evaluation Report No. HETA 76-000-103, Mr. Ronald Williams, Attorney at Law, Charlotte, N.C. National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health, Cincinnati, Ohio.

Anania T, Price J. 1977. Hazard Evaluation and Technical Assistance Report No. TA 77-41, Vimasco Corporation, Nitro, West Virginia. Hazard Evaluations and Technical Assistance Branch. National Institote for Occupational Safety and Health, Cincinnati, Ohio.

Anderson K. 1982. Health Hazard Evaluation Report No. HETA-81-230-1093, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan. National Institote for Occupational Safety and Health, Cincinnati, Ohio.

Belanger PL. 1984. Health Hazard Evaluation Report No. HETA 84-408-1522, U.s. Forest Service, Redding, California. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Cincinnati, Ohio.

Bryant CJ. 1987. Health Hazard Evaluation Report No. HETA 86-434-1833, Federal Office Building, Evansville, Indiana. Hazard Evaluations and Technical Assistance Branch, National Institote for Occupational Safety and Health, Cincinnati, Ohio.

4-2 Supplement to the Report 01 the Literature Review Panel

Caplan PE, Hollett BA. 1985a. Preliminary Survey Report: Control Technology for Asbestos Removal Industry at Gateway High School, Aurora, Colorado. Engineering Control Technology Branch, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Cincinnati, Ohio.

Caplan PE, Hollett BA. 1985b. Preliminary Survey Report: Control Technology for Asbestos Removal Industry at Veterans Administration Hospital, Denver, Colorado. Engineering Control Technology Branch, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Cincinnati, Ohio.

Chrostek W. 1982. Health Hazard Evaluation Report No. HETA 81-086-1126, Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, Montoursville, Pennsylvania. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Cincinnati, Ohio.

Chrostek Wj. 1984. Health Hazard Evaluation Report No. HETA 84-043-1429, Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, Transportation and Safety Building, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Cincinnati, Ohio.

Cooper TC. 1984. In-Depth Survey Report: Control Technology for Bag Filling Operations at Company X. Engineering Control Technology Branch, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Cincinnati, Ohio.

Cornwell R. 1983. Health Hazard Evaluation Report No. HETA 83-176-1310, Easton Elementary School, Morgantown, West Virginia. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Cincinnati, Ohio.

Daniels Wj, Orris P, Arnold S. 1985. Health Hazard Evaluation Report No. HETA 83-325-1564, Ladish Company, Cudahy, Wisconsin. Hazard Evaluations and Technical Assistance Branch, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Cincinnati, Ohio.

Dement jM, Bierbaum PJ, Zumwalde RD. 1973. Fiber Identification and Length Distribution for Airborne Asbestos Fibers in an Insulation Manufacturing Facility, Pittsburgh Corning Corporation, Tyler, Texas. Division of Surveillance, Hazard Evaluations and Field Studies, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Cincinnati, Ohio.

Fannick N. 1981. Health Hazard Evaluation Report No. HETA-81-042-832, Federal Aviation Administration, New York Air Route Traffic Control Center, Ronkonokoma, New York. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Cincinnati, Ohio.

Fannick N. 1983. Health Hazard Evaluation Report No. HETA 83-073-1293, Russell-Zuhl, Inc., New York City, New York. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Cincinnati, Ohio.

Gibson SM, Ogle RB. 1988. Technical and Economic Assessment for Asbestos Abatement Within Facility 20470, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio. Oak Ridge National Lab, Tennessee.

Griefe AL. Health Hazard Evaluation Report No. HHE-80-104-101, MSHA Mine I.D. No. 11-02632, Freeman Coal Company, Farmersville, Illinois. Division of Surveillance, Hazard Evaluations and Field Studies, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Cincinnati, Ohio.

Additional References for Chapter 5 of the Literature Review Panel Report 4-3

Gunter BJ. 1978. Health Hazard Evaluation Determination Report No. 78-112-535, Beech Aircraft Corporation, Boulder, Colorado. Health Hazard and Technical Assistance Branch, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Cincinnati, Ohio.

Gunter B. 1979. Hazard Evaluation and Technical Assistance Report No. TA 79-31, Poole Construction Company, Denver, Colorado. Hazard Evaluations and Technical Assistance Branch, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Cincinnati, Ohio.

Gunter BJ. 1981. Health Hazard Evaluation Summaries Report No. HETA-81-038-801, Hensel Phelps Construction Company, Greeley, Colorado. Division of Surveillance, Hazard Evalnations and Field Studies, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Cincinnati, Ohio.

Hartle R. 1981. Health Hazard Evaluation Report No. HE-80-053-795, AT and T Longlines, Raggersville, Ohio. Division of Surveillance, Hazard Evaluations and Field Studies, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Cincinnati, Ohio.

Heitbrink WA. 1983a. Walk-Through Survey Report: Control Technology for Celotex Corporation, Perth Amboy, New Jersey. Division 01 Physical Sciences and Engineering, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Cincinnati, Ohio.

Heitbrink WA 1983b, Walk-Through Survey Report: Control Technology lor General Motors at General Motors-Inland Division, Vandalia, Ohio. Engineering Control Technology Branch,Nationallnstitute lor Occupational Salety and Health, Cincinnati, Ohio.

Heitbrink WA. 1984a. Control Technology for Richard Klinger, Inc., Sidney, Ohio. In Depth Survey Report Engineering Control Technology Branch, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Cincinnati, Ohio.

Heitbrink WA. 1984b. In-Depth Survey Report: Control Technology lor Solids Material Handling at General Motors Corporation, Inland Division, Vandalia, Ohio. Division 01 Physical Sciences and Engineering, National Institute lor Occupational Safety and Health, Cincinnati, Ohio.

Hervin RL. 1977. Health Hazard Evaluation Determination Report No. 77-102-434, Terminal B, Trans World Airlines, Inc., Kansas City International Airport, Kansas City, Missouri. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Cincinnati, Ohio,

Hervin RL. 1979. Hazard Evaluation and Technical Assistance Report No. TA 79-18, Cedar Rapids School District, Bureau of Labor, State of Iowa, Des Moines, Iowa. Hazard Evaluations and Technical Assistance Branch, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Cincinnati, Ohio.

Hervin RL, Rivera R, Flesch JP. 1973. Health Hazard Evaluation/Toxicity Determination Final Report: Mobil Oil Corporation, Augusta, Kansas. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Cincinnati, Ohio.

Hollett BA. 1983. Walk-Through Survey Report: Control TechnOlogy lor Asbestos Removal Contractor at Dual!, Inc., Mt. Laurel, New Jersey. Engineering Control Technology Branch, National Institute for Occupational Salety and Health, Cincinnati, Ohio.

4-4 Supplement 10 the Report of the Literature Review Panel

Hollett BA. 1985a. Walk-Through Survey Report: Control Technology for Asbestos Removal Industry at James Monroe Elementary School, Norfolk, Virginia. Div. of Physical Sciences and Engineering, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Cincinnati, Ohio.

Hollett BA. 1985b. Walk-Through Survey Report Control Technology for Asbestos Removal Industry at Tarrallton Elementary School, Norfork, Virginia. Engineering Control Technology Branch, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Cincinnati, Ohio.

Hollett BA. 1985c. Walk-Through Survey Report: Control Technology for Asbestos Removal Industry at Tidewater Park Elementary School, Norfolk, Virginia. Division of Physical Sciences and Engineering, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Cincinnati, Ohio.

Hollett BA, Caplan PE. 1985. Preliminary Survey Report: Control Technology for Asbestos Removal Industry at Baseline Junior High School, Boulder, Colorado. Engineering Control Technology Branch,Nationallnstitute for Occupational Safety and Health, Cincinnati, Ohio.

Hollett BA, Caplan PE, Cooper TC, Froehlich PA. 1987a. In-Depth Survey Report: Control Technology for Asbestos Removal at Bloom Middle School, Cincinnati, Ohio. Engineering Control Technology Branch, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Cincinnati, Ohio.

Hollett BA, Caplan PE, Cooper TC, Froehlich PA. 1987b. In-Depth Survey Report: Control Technology for Asbestos Removal at Sands Elementary School, Cincinnati, Ohio. Engineering Control Technology Branch, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Cincinnati, Ohio.

Hollett BA, Caplan PE, Cooper TC, Froehlich PA. 1987c. In-Depth Survey Report: Control Technology for Asbestos Removal at Washburn Elementary School, Cincinnati, Ohio. Engineering Control Technology Branch, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Cincinnati, Ohio.

Hollett BA, Caplan PE, Cooper TC, Froehlich PA. 1987d. In-Depth Survey Report Control Technology for Asbestos Removal at Winton Place Elementary School, Cincinnati, Ohio. Engineering Control Technology Branch, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Cincinnati, Ohio.

Hollett BA, Caplan PE, O'Brien DM. 1985. Walk-Through Survey Report: Control Technology for Asbestos Removal Industry at Columbus East High School, Columbus, Indiana. Engineering Control Technology Branch, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Cincinnati, Ohio.

Johnson PL. 1978. Preliminary Industrial Hygiene Survey of Tuffy Service Center, Sharonville, Ohio, August 12, 1976. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Cindnnati, Ohio.

Johnson PL. 1979. Hazard Evaluation and Technical Assistance Report No. 79-17, Saint Elizabeth's Hospital, Washington, D.C. Hazard Evaluations and Technical Assistance Branch, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Cincinnati, Ohio.

Johnston PL, Evans WA. 1979. Hazard Evaluation and Technical Assistance Report No. TA-78-64, Orlando Fire Department Station Number 6, Orlando, Florida. Division of

Additional References lor Chapter 5 of the literature Review Panel Report

Surveillance, Hazard Evaluations and Field Studies, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Cincinnati, Ohio.

Kingsley I. 1976. Health Hazard Evaluation/Toxicity Determination Report No. 76-40-341, 919 Third Garage Company, 229 East 55 Street, New York, New York. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Cincinnati, Ohio.

Kaminsky JR, Freyberg RW, Brownlee JA, Lucas JH, Gerber DR. 1989. Observational Study of Final Cleaning and AHERA (Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act) Clearance Sampling at Asbestos-Abatement Sites in New Jersey: January 1988-June 1989. PEl Associates, Inc., Cincinnati, Ohio.

Kramkowski RS, Daniels WJ. 1984. Health Hazard Evaluation Report No. HETA 83-450-1468, George Rogers Clark National Historical Park, Vincennes, Indiana. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Cincinnati, Ohio.

Kramkowski RS, McQuilkin SO. 1979. Hazard Evaluation and Technical Assistance Report No. TA-79-41, Chicago Air Route Traffic Control Center, Aurora, Illinois.

Kronoveter K. 1974. Health Hazard Evaluation Report No. HHE 74-000-035, Taft Engineering Center, Cincinnati, Ohio. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Cincinnati, Ohio.

Kronoveter KJ. 1976. Health Hazard Evaluation Report No. HETA 76-000-043, JFK Federal Building, Boston, Massachusetts. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Cincinnati, Ohio.

Kronoveter KJ. 1978. Hazard Evaluation and Technical Assistance Report No. TA-77-68, McDaniel Art Studio, Cincinnati, Ohio. Industrial Hygiene Section, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Cincinnati, Ohio.

Kronoveter K. 1983. Health Hazard Evaluation Report No. HETA-83-358-1362, George H. Fallon Federal Office Building, Baltimore, Maryland.

Lambert T, Morey P. 1983. Health Hazard Evaluation Report No. HETA 83-373-1363, Transamerica Occidental Life Insurance Company, Atlanta, Georgia. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Cincinnati, Ohio.

Lee SA. 1981. Health Hazard Evaluation Report No. HETA 81-293-983, Bulk Mail Center, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Cincinnati, Ohio.

Liveright T, Gann P, MeAna J. 1986. Health Hazard Evaluation Report No. HETA 81-372-1727, Exxon Corporation, Bayway Refinery and Chemical Plant, Linden, New Jersey. Hazard Evaluations and Technical Assistance Branch, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Cincinnati, Ohio.

Lewis FA. 1979a. Hazard Evaluation and Technical Assistance Report No. TA-79-11, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C., and Suitland, Maryland.

Lewis F. 1979b. Hazard Evaluation and Technical Assistance Report No. TA 79-28, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. Hazard Evaluations and Technical Assistance Branch, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Cincinnati, Ohio.

4-6 Supplemenllo the Report of the Lilerature Review Panel

Lewis FA. 1980. Technical Assistance Report No. TA-80-49, Defense Logistics Agency, Headquarters Personnel Support Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

McGlothlin JD. 1979. Hazard Evaluation and Technical Assistance Report No. TA-79-4, National Zoological Park, Washington, D.C. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Cincinnati, Ohio.

McManus KP. 1986. Health Hazard Evaluation Report No. HETA-85-021-1654, Portsmouth Naval Shipyard, Portsmouth, New Hampshire.

McQuilkin SD. 1980. Technical Assistance Report No. TA-79-44, Jewish Vocational Service, Chicago, Illinois. Hazard Evaluations and Technical Assistance Branch, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Cincinnati, Ohio.

Mertz RA. 1973. Health Hazard Evaluation Report No. HHE 73-00-023, Cincinnati Gas and Electric Miami Street Station, Cincinnati, Ohio. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Cincinnati, Ohio.

Okawa MT, Belanger P. 1981. Technical Assistance Report No. TA-80-100-92, u.s. Forest Service, Gasquet, California. Division of Surveillance, Hazard Evaluations and Field Studies, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Cincinnati, Ohio.

Piacitelli LA. 1981. Health Hazard Evaluation Determination Report No. HHE 80-107, Westvaco Corporation, Luke, Maryland. Division of Surveillance, Hazard Evaluations and Field Studies, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Cincinnati, Ohio.

Piacitelli L. 1983a. Health Hazard Evaluation Report No. HETA 83-106-1311, West Virginia Geological and Economic Survey, Morgantown, West Virginia. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Cincinnati, Ohio.

PiaciteUi L. 1983b. Health Hazard Evaluation Report No. HETA 83-112-1309, Saint Francis High School, Morgantown, West Virginia. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Cincinnati, Ohio.

Piacitelli L. 1987. Health Hazard Evaluation Report No. MHETA 87-162-1864. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Morgantown, West Virginia.

Poeschel E, Roth U, Schwaemmlein W, Koenig R, Weisser G. 1984. Investigations for Assessing the Asbestos Hazard Caused by Sanitation of Asbestos Cement House Fronts and by Teardown of Buildings. Part. 1. Measurements of Asbestos Dust Emissions Resulting from the Reconstruction of Asbestos Cement Housefronts. Umweltbundesamt, Beriin, Germany.

Price jH. 1976. Hazard Evaluation and Technical Assistance Report No. TA 76-63, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Cincinnati, Ohio.

Price jH, SetaJA. 1975. Health Hazard Evaluation Report No. HHE-75-046, General Services Administration, Marion, Ohio, and Fort Wayne, Indiana Depots. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Cincinnati, Ohio.

Additional References lor Chapter 5 01 !he Literature Review Panel Report 4-7

Pryor P. 1986. Health Hazard Evaluation Report HETA 84-257-1650, Denver, Colorado. Hazard Evaluations and Technical Assistance Branch, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Cincinnati, Ohio.

Reed LD. 1982. Health Hazard Evaluation Report No. HETA 82-179-1154, Wilmington High School, Wilmington, Ohio. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Cincinnati, Ohio.

Reed LD. 1985. Health Hazard Evaluation Report No. HETA 84-321-1590, Asbestos Shingle Tear-Off, Rockford, Illinois. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Cincinnati, Ohio.

Roberts DR. 1978. Industrial Hygiene Study of the Albee Theater Demolition: Industrywide Study. lndustrywide Studies Branch, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Cincinnati, Ohio.

Ruhe RL. 1981. Technical Assistance Report No. TA-80-11S-802, Centers for Disease Control, Atlanta, Georgia.

Ruhe RL. 1983. Health Hazard Evaluation Report No. HETA 83-134-1327, National Park Service Mound City Group National Monument, Chillicothe, Ohio. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Cincinnati, Ohio.

Scholemer J. 1982. Health Hazard Evaluation Report No. TA-80-028-1063, Post Office/Courthouse Building, Louisville, Kentucky. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Cincinnati, Ohio.

SepulvedaMJ, Piacitelli L. 1981. Health Hazard Evaluation Determination Report No. HHE-81-028-1059, Consolidated Railroad Corporation, Inc., Reading, Pennsylvania. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Cincinnati, Ohio.

Sheehy JW, Godbey FW, Cooper TC, Lenihan KL, VanWagenen HD. 1987. In Depth Survey Report: Control Technology for Brake Drum Service Operations at Ohio Department of Transportation, Maintenance Facility, Lebanon, Ohio. Engineering Control Technology Branch, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Cincinnati, Ohio.

Stephenson RL. 1989. Health Hazard Evaluation Report No. HETA 89-262-1994, Chapman Corporation, Albright Power Station, Albright, West Virginia. Hazard Evaluations and Technical Assistance Branch, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Cincinnati, Ohio.

Straub WE. 1976. Health Hazard Evaluation Determination Report No. 75-121-281, Penn Central Transportation Company, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Cincinnati, Ohio.

Straub WE. 1977. Hazard Evaluation and Technical Assistance Report No. TA-77-20, SI. Elizabeth's Hospital, Washington, D.C. Hazard Evaluations and Technical Assistance Branch, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Cincinnati, Ohio.

Thoburn TW, Gunter BJ. 1981. Health Hazard Evaluation Report No. HETA 81-015-898, Bradford Western Corporation, Arvada, Colorado. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Cincinnati, Ohio.

4-8 Supplement to the Report 01 the Literalure Review Panel

White GL. 1978. Hazard Evaluation and Technical Assistance Report No. TA-78-4, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC. Hazard Evaluations and Technical Assistance Branch, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Cincinnati, Ohio.

Errata

Chapter 2

p.2-2

Chapter 4

5-1

An incorrect report # was given in the reference for the U.S. House of Representatives Conference Report document appropriating funds for HEI­AR. The correct Report # is 100-817.

p. 4-9 The LRP report incorrectly states that 47 percent of the buildings studied in Philadelphia contained friable ACM. The correction is as follows: The Philadelphia Department of Health found that 47 percent of buildings studied contained asbestos; the percentage of buildings with friable ACM was 38 percent (322 out of 839 buildings).

p. 4-52/53 The LRP report incorrectly states that, for low magnification TEM counts, Guillemin and associates (1989) reported concentrations of asbestos fibers longer than or equal 10 5 11m in buildings varied from 0.00012 to 0.00859 flmL. The concentrations of asbestos fibers longer than or equal to 5 pm in buildings varied at low magnification from 0.00012 to 0.00485 flmL.

Chapter 5

p. 5-61 The Nysewander and Rhodes 1990 reference incorrectly states the conference was held in San Antonio. The paper was presented at the NAC conference in Phoenix, Arizona.

5·3

Note Regarding Review of this Document

The Health Effects Institute-Asbestos Research (HEI-AR) is funded jOintly and equally by the U.s. Environmental Protection Agency and a number of private parties that have an interest in asbestos in public and commercial buildings. Although this document was produced with partial funding by the EPA under Assistance Agreement X-815497 granted to the Health Effects Institute-Asbestos Research, it has not been subjected to the Agency's peer and administrative review and therefore may not necessarily reflect the views of the Agency and no official endorsement should be inferred. The contents of this document have also not been reviewed by the private parties that support HEI­AR; it therefore may not reflect the views or policies of these parties and no endorsement by them should be inferred.

This supplement presents detailed information and analyses of several previously unpublished data sets that were summarized in the Report of the HEI-AR Literature Review Panel. As stated by the Board of Directors (see page iii), the primary responsibility for a detailed review of the contents of this document was taken by Dr. Arthur Upton (the Panel's Chairman) and Drs. Garry Burdett, Eric Chatfield, Mort Lippmann and Jonathan Samet. All other members of the Literature Review Panel were also given the opportunity to review the supplement, and the chapters benefitted from their comments and suggestions.

In 1988, the United States Congress asked the Health Effects Institute to undertake a program of research on asbestos "to assure the quality of science and objectivity of peer review." The Institute believes that its review process meets the Congressional challenge.