United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Water Engineering
Research Laboratory
Cincinnati OH 45268
Research and Development
EPA/600/S2-87/091 Jan. 1988
AEPA Project Summary
Evaluation of Encapsulants for
Sprayed-On Asbestos-
Containing Materials in
Buildings
W. Mirick, E. W. Schmidt, C. W. Melton, S. J. Anderson,
L J. Nowacki, and R. Clark
About 150 water-based liquid coat-
ings sprayable by conventional airless
paint-spraying equipment were applied
to 2-in.-thick sprayed, mineral wool
test matrices mounted overhead. After
curing, specimens of the encapsulated
test matrix were tested for fire resist-
ance, flame spreading index, smoke
generation, and toxic gas release.
Cohesive and adhesive strengths were
measured as well as impact resistance.
All of the criteria established for
satisfactory performance were met by
11 coatings and 19 others met most
of the criteria. Special circumstances
explained in the report text caused two
more to be rated ''acceptable" and
another two to be rated ' 'marginally
acceptable."
This Project Summary was devel-
oped by EPA's Water Engineering
Research Laboratory, Cincinnati. OH.
to announce key findings of the
research project that is fully docu-
mented in a separate report of the same
title (see Project Report ordering
information at back).
Introduction
There is an increasing awareness of
the carcinogenic properties of asbestos
fibers. One possible source of exposure
of the general population to this contam-
ination is from deteriorated, friable,
sprayed-on, asbestos-containing mate-
rials These materials were used in the
construction industry until banned by the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in
1978. Much of this asbestos-containing
material is in a loosely bonded form. It
was applied to ceilings and structural
steel columns in public buildings for
thermal insulation, fireproofing, acous-
tical insulation, and even as decorative
finishes. It is presently found in such
buildings as schools, apartments, night
clubs, hotels, office complexes, and
industrial plants.
The research program described
herein was undertaken to:
1. determine what commercial pro-
ducts, if any, are available that
could be used as encapsulants to
either contain, prevent, or restrict
the release of asbestos fibers from
friable asbestos-containing mate-
rials;
2. determine methods of evaluating
these commercial products for
their efficiency as encapsulants;
3. determine the effectiveness of the
methods used to evaluate a group
of commercial products; and
4. evaluate fiber release during field
trials.
Methods
Initially, 74 commercially available
candidate encapsulants were identified
using standard communication methods,
such as telephone, contacts, direct
mailings, and an insert in the February
1 0, 1 978, issue of Commerce Business
Daily. Later, in Phase II, an additional 84
-------
commercial products were identified
giving a total of 158 candidate
encapsulants.
Desired Encapsulant Properties
The researchers developed the follow-
ing list of properties an effective encap-
sulant should exhibit. The encapsulant
should:
1. Seal or lock in the asbestos fibers
by either bridging over the surface
or penetrating into the matrix
(asbestos-containing materials),
2. Not add any toxic substance to the
insulation and also not break down
under direct flame impingement to
release any toxic gases or an undue
amount of smoke,
3. Not reduce significantly the fire-
retardant properties of the
insulation,
4. Be applied with a minimum of effort
and technical skill,
5. Have sufficient impact resistance,
flexibility, and resistance to pene-
tration to withstand some moder-
ate physical contact,
6. Be water insoluble when cured,
7 Be nontoxic and without noxious
fumes during application, and
8. Have sufficient aging characteris-
tics to withstand normal atmos-
pheric changes for a minimum of
6 years and still have sufficient
surface integrity to allow recoating.
Encapsulant Classifications
Each encapsulant was classified by
type of resin used for the binder and
whether or not the encapsulant was
pigmented. Further screening consisted
of determining the percent solids and
viscosity of each encapsulant and its
degree of penetration into the test matrix.
The test matrix consisted of a dry-
blended, non-asbestos-containing insu-
lation (United States Mineral's Cafco
Blaze Shield D C/F)* that was spray
applied approximately 5.1 -cm (2-in.)
thick on a foam insulation board. This
test matrix exhibited key properties such
as high friability, poor cohesive strength,
and high water absorption. These are
similar to the properties of the spray-
applied, asbestos-containing insulation
that had been removed from an existing
site for use as the control matrix.
From the results of the screening
program, it was possible to divide the
initial 74 encapsulants into 2 distinct
groups. The first group (43 encapsulants)
was classified as bridging encapsulants,
and the second group (31 encapsulants)
as penetrating encapsulants.
The bridging encapsulants were
defined as those that formed a contin-
uous surface membrane over the test
matrix. These encapsulants also exhibit
minimal penetration into the test matrix
(0.6 cm [0.25 in.] maximum) even when
reduced up to one-third with water. The
bridging encapsulants, in general, were
above 35% solids (maximum 50%) and
had high viscosities (greater than 1,000
centipoise).
The penetrating encapsulants were
defined as those that penetrated 0.5 to
3 cm (0.25 to 1.25 in.) into the test matrix
and thus improved the cohesive strength
of the friable matrix to the depth of
penetration. The adhesion of the matrix
to the underlying substrate can also be
improved when the encapsulant pene-
trates all the way through the asbestos-
containing material to the substrate. In
general, the penetrating type encapsu-
lants were low in solids (minimum 15%
to 35%), nonpigmented, and had low
viscosities (water thin).
After initial screening evaluation,
division of the encapsulants into 2 groups
(bridging and penetrating), and classifi-
cation by resin binder, the following 10
encapsulants were selected for more
extensive evaluation in Phase I (Table 1).
This selection was based on the
following factors:
1. Inclusion of as many types of resin
binders as possible,
2. Inclusion of both encapsul'
groups, i.e., bridging and penetr
ing, and
3. Meeting the properties desired for
an effective encapsulant.
The 10 encapsulants selected for an
effective encapsulant evaluation in-
cluded 3 bridging and 7 penetrating
encapsulants.
The predominance of the penetrating
encapsulants was because they
appeared to exhibit more of the desired
properties for an effective encapsulant,
e.g., improving the cohesive strength of
the matrix and improving the adhesion
of the asbestos-containing materials to
the substrate when complete penetration
was achieved.
Extensive Evaluation
The 10 encapsulants selected for
extensive evaluation and those encapsu-
lants with similar resin binders included
64 of the 74 encapsulants received. The
remaining 10 encapsulants included 7
other classes of resin binders. Although
several of these encapsulants exhibited
promise, no further work was done with
them in Phase I of the study because
the limit of 10 encapsulants for extens.
evaluation and because the 10 encap-
sulants selected for this evaluation
included a greater representation of the
commercial encapsulants submitted as
classified by type of resin binder. The
selection of these encapsulants did not
mean that the other encapsulants were
considered unsatisfactory.
The extensive evaluation included
determination of flexibility (bend), impact
strength, and abrasion properties. In
most cases, these physical properties
were determined with the encapsulants
applied by airless spray onto metal
panels.
Table 1. Encapsulants Evaluated in Phase I
"Mention of trade names or commercial products
does not constitute endorsement or recommenda-
tion for use.
Class of Type of Binder
Vinyl acrylic
Butyl rubber
Epoxy. two-component
Acrylic
Acrylic
Acrylic
Polyester
Polyvinyl acetate copolymer
Acrylic vinyl acetate copolymer
Polyester, acrylic-modified
Group
Penetrating
Bridging
Bridging
Penetrating
Bridging
Penetrating
Penetrating
Penetrating
Penetrating
Penetrating
Battelle Code
3377 5 -3 B
" 4A
" -4B
" -12B
" -13B
" -15B
" -15C
" -19A
" -21 A
" -21!
-------
The encapsulants were also examined
_jr smoke generation and toxic gas
release. For these evaluations in Phase
I, the encapsulant was applied to three
substrates: (1) asbestos board, (2) non-
asbestos friable test matrix, and (3)
plywood. The criteria for evaluation were
the performance levels given in the
"National Bureau of Standards Technical
Note 808." Both the smoke generation
and toxic gas release data from the 10
encapsulants were below the value
classified as "potential problems."
Therefore, the encapsulants were con-
sidered satisfactory in these perfor-
mance areas.
One main concern was whether the
encapsulants, when applied by airless
spray, would penetrate into an asbestos-
containing matrix and thus improve the
cohesive strength. In Phase II, to evaluate
the degree of penetration and possible
increase in cohesive strength, test panels
were mounted on a rack in an overhead
position to simulate a ceiling and then
a measured amount of encapsulant was
applied using airless spray equipment.
After drying, the sealed test matrix was
evaluated for adhesion to the substrate
and cohesion using a modification of the
-inspection method recommended by the
ternational Association of Wall and
"Ceiling Contractors. This inspection
method gives an indication of the ability
of spray-applied, fire-resistant materials
to remain in place and resist separation
during anticipated service conditions.
The method measures the adhesive force
required to either separate the material
from the base substrate or overcome the
cohesive force within the material.
Field Application of Selected
Encapsulants
There were 4 encapsulants selected
for field evaluation from the 10 that
underwent the extensive evaluation in
Phase I. The selection process for field
application consisted of (1) attempts to
achieve a good mix of bridging and
penetrating encapsulants, (2) selection of
representative products based on the
evaluation, and (3) the availability of
sufficient amounts of the encapsulants.
The four encapsulants selected for
field evaluation were:
1. 13B, a bridging acrylic-based
material;
2. 19A, a penetrating polyvinyl ace-
„.- tate copolymer-based material;
3. 21 A, a penetrating acrylic-vinyl
acetate copolymer; and
4. 21 B, a penetrating acrylic-modified
polyester.
These encapsulants were then evaluated
for fire resistance using a modification
of ASTM Method E-162. The encapsu-
lants were applied to three substrates:
(1) asbestos board, (2) the test matrix,
and (3) plywood. The coated panels were
evaluated using a modification of ASTM
Test Method E-162. The asbestos board
substrate was used as a control. The
bridging encapsulant, 13B, had a Class
C flame spread index when evaluated on
the test matrix using the Department of
Housing and Urban Development Min-
imum Property Standards. Class C mate-
rials have a limited application. The three
penetrating encapsulants, 19A, 21 A, and
21 B, were rated as Class A on the same
substrate. The field trials were conducted
during two different time periods. How-
ever, both trials were conducted at the
same location and on the same asbestos-
containing substrate in different rooms.
Description of Field Substrate
The field trial matrix was a friable,
asbestos-containing material (30%-35%
chrysotile) applied approximately 5.1 -cm
(2-in.) thick over the underside of a
precast cement floor and also on steel,
support I-beams. The material, although
highly friable (released visible fibers
when brushed), was in good condition
(no loose material hanging down).
First Field Trial
The bridging encapsulant, 13B, and
penetrating encapsulant, 19A, were
applied to the asbestos-containing mate-
rial with an airless spray gun. The pump
pressure was kept as low as possible to
minimize asbestos fiber release, but
sufficient to get a good, uniform, spray
pattern. The pump pressure resulted in
a nozzle pressure of 1,050 to 1,200 psi.
The bridging encapsulant, 13B, was
applied in two coats. The first coat was
applied as a mist coat with the encap-
sulant reduced approximately 10% with
water. The second coat of encapsulant
was applied without reduction approxi-
mately 4 hours after the first coat. The
combination of the two coats formed a
very tough elastic film about 0.3-cm
(0.13-in.) thick over the surface of the
asbestos. Penetration of the two coats
including the mist coat was approxi-
mately 1 -cm (0.38-in.) deep.
The penetrating encapsulant, 19A,
was also applied in two coats. However,
the first coat was actually applied as a
"double coat." The encapsulant pene-
trated into the asbestos-coated material
very quickly. Therefore, after coating
approximately a 1.1 -m2 (12-ft2) area, the
same area was recoated immediately.
The application of the second coat was
made after allowing the first "double"
coat to cure for a minimum of 12 hours.
The second coat application was done in
one pass. This method of application
resulted in penetration by the encapsu-
lant up to 1.9-cm (0.75-in.) into the 9.1-
cm-thick (2-in.-thick), asbestos-
containing material.
Second Field Trial
The second field trial application of two
additional penetrating encapsulants was
conducted following the same procedure
used for the penetrating encapsulant in
the first trial. Similar airless spray
nozzles and pump pressures were used.
Also, the first coat application was
applied as a "double coat" and the
second application as a single coat.
Penetrating encapsulant 21A pene-
trated approximately 0.6-cm (0.25-in.).
Observations from a core sample indi-
cated that the resin binder did not carry
nor penetrate as deeply into the asbestos
material as water in the encapsulant
system. This resulted in an apparent
resin-rich, top layer that sealed the
surface, preventing the release of asbes-
tos fibers. However, the surface did not
exhibit the impact resistance desired.
Encapsulant 21 B foamed during the
airless spray application of the first coat.
This problem was solved during the
application of the second coat by reduc-
ing the encapsulant with water. The
foaming apparently restricted the pene-
tration of the encapsulant, because a
core sample indicated that the maximum
penetration achieved was 1 cm (0.38 in.).
Although the foaming was overcome
during the second coat application, no
further penetration was achieved, pos-
sibly because the surface of the asbestos
material was partially sealed by the first
coat. Even though the encapsulant did
not penetrate as desired, it did form a
sealed surface over the asbestos material
that could restrict asbestos fiber release.
Air Sampling and Analysis
Description of Test Area
The original ceiling with asbestos
insulation had been concealed by a drop
ceiling that was removed before appli-
-------
cation of the encapsulant. The test rooms
were actually two large rooms at opposite
ends of the building, divided into three
rooms by flexible partitioning. Two of
these three rooms at each site were used
for encapsulant application rooms and
the third room was a work/control room.
Although the rooms were divided by the
flexible partitioning up to the level of the
drop ceiling, the area above the drop
ceiling was continuous throughout the
entire building. The test rooms were
sealed and isolated from each other
using polyethylene sheet both over and
extending above the flexible partitioning.
However, complete isolation was not
achieved in the area extending through-
out the building. This allowed some cross
contamination of the two test rooms and
the work/control room, as indicated by
air sampling data, thus demonstrating
the need for careful sealing of the
isolated work area.
Air Sampling
A series of air samples was taken
during the field evaluations. The samples
were collected during the following
periods:
1. Before any work was initiated,
2. During removal of drop ceiling,
3. Immediately after drop ceiling
removal,
4. 3 to 5 hours after drop ceiling
removal,
5. During application of first coat of
encapsulant,
6. During cure of first coat,
7. During application of second coat,
8. During cure of second coat,
9. During clean up procedure,
10. 18 hours after clean up, and
11. 7 weeks after application of
sealant.
Analysis of Air Samples
The analysis was performed using
transmission electron microscopy (TEM)
at 20,OOOX magnification. Also, selected
area diffraction patterns were obtained
to confirm identification of fibers as
chrysotile asbestos. No fiber counts were
made using the Occupational Safety and
Health Administration (OSHA) method.
The data were processed by a computer
program designed to provide the follow-
ing information:
1. ' Calculate mass of chrysotile per m3
of air based on length and width
measurement,
2. Calculate number of chrysotile
fibers per m3 of air,
3. Calculate the mean length versus
length, width, and length/width
aspect ratios of chrysotile.
The results of the air sampling analysis
demonstrated the strong direct
dependence of airborne asbestos fiber
concentration on activity in the work
room. Also shown was the increase in
airborne fiber concentration during
active periods. For example, in the room
where encapsulant 1 3B was applied, the
initial ambient level was 8.5 x 1 0" fibers/
m3 as measured using TEM. When the
ceiling tile was removed, the level of
fibers increased to 1.3 x 1 O6 fibers/m3
After a settling period the count
decreased to 9.7 x 10" fibers/m3. How-
ever, during airless spray application of
the first coat, the count increased to 6.4
x 107 fibers/m3. Between coats the level
dropped to 4.3 x 106 fibers/m3. Appli-
cation of the second coat of encapsulant
again increased the fiber count (6.8 x 106
fibers/m3), but the level was much lower
than during application of the first coat.
This demonstrates that even one coat of
sealant is effective in reducing the
release of fibers during strong air
currents and on slight impact. An
increase in fiber count was also shown
during clean-up procedures; however,
after clean up the count was very near
ambient levels. An air sample taken after
7 weeks showed the level of fibers to
be at the initial mean outdoor level.
In all cases of encapsulant application
in the field trials, peaks in airborne fiber
concentrations were shown during
periods of activity (ceiling removal,
encapsulant application by airless spray-
ing, and clean up). Without exception, the
highest levels of airborne asbestos fiber
were observed during the application of
the first coat of encapsulant, as would
be anticipated. This occurs because loose
surface fibers are released by the spray
disturbance of adjacent areas of the
matrix.
The second phase of the resear
program was undertaken to determi,
the effectiveness of the test methods by
evaluating additional commercial pro-
ducts. These were restricted to water-
borne systems because of the fiber-
containment procedures recommended
during application.
Methods Used to Evaluate
Candidate Encapsulants
This study evaluated lOOcommerically
available candidate encapsulants. Each
was applied by airless spray to a specially
designed, 1.5-m2 (16-ft2) test matrix.
Application rates, pump pressure, and
spray nozzle size data were recorded.
After the encapsulant cured for a min-
imum of 7 days, core samples were taken
to determine the degree of penetration
when a penetrating encapsulant was
applied, or the thickness when a bridging
encapsulant was spray applied.
The test matrix with the encapsulant
applied and cured was then sectioned
into a series of test blocks and evaluated
for the following:
1. Impact resistance,
2. Smoke generation,
3. Toxic gas release,
4. Fire resistance, and
5. Surface rub test,
Each encapsulant evaluated was dis-
cussed separately. The 33 acceptable
and marginal encapsulants are described
in the full report and unacceptable
encapsulants are described in Appendix
D of the full report. Most of the unac-
ceptable encapsulants failed in one or
more of three modes:
1. Flame Spread Index greater than
Class A limit,
2. Smoke generation greater than
50%, and
3. Poor adhesion to test matrix.
Results and Discussion
A total of 158 candidate encapsulants
were evaluated. Phase I evaluated 74
encapsulants and many of them were
more extensively tested in Phase II,
where about 100 evaluations were
performed. All materials evaluated wf
applicable by standard airless spr^.
-------
equipment and were water base so that
they could be applied in an unventilated
work area without hazard to the workers
The evaluation included tests for
flexibility, abrasion resistance, penetra-
tion, cohesive strength, flame spreading
properties, emissions of smoke and toxic
gas in a fire, viscosity, percent solids,
impact resistance, and a subjective
judgment of ability to retain asbestos
fibers based on dusting when rubbed
with the hand.
Based on test results and criteria
established for desired performance, 13
encapsulants met all criteria for satisfac-
tory performance and 21 met most of the
criteria and were judged to be "margi-
nally satisfactory" by the principal
investigator (see Table 2)
Conclusions and
Recommendations
From the results of the screening
study, the field trials, and the second-
phase program, several conclusions
were reached
1. Encapsulants should not be
employed when friable, asbestos-
containing materials show evi-
dence of poor cohesive strength
and extensive damage such as
material hanging loose.
2. The use of an encapsulant, either
bridging or penetrating, should not
be considered where there \s
extensive water damage to the
asbestos-containing material.
3. When applied correctly, penetrat-
ing encapsulants, improve the
cohesive strength of the asbestos-
containing matrix, and if the encap-
sulant penetrates to the substrate
it will improve the adhesion
between the asbestos-containing
matrix and the substrate.
4. Selection of appropriate applica-
tion techniques, such as airless
spray and multiple coats, is impor-
tant to the achievement of uniform,
impervious membranes and the
desired depths of penetration.
5. Application of encapsulants to
friable asbestos thicker than 3.2 cm
(1.25 in.) is not recommended
because the penetration of the
water from the encapsulant into
the thicker, friable material can
increase the probability of
delamination.
6. The air sampling data indicated
that complete barrier systems to
contain the released asbestos
fibers within the work area were
not obtained.
7. Worker activity increases the level
of airborne asbestos in the work
area during the work period.
8. Following periods of activity, the
airborne concentrations return to
background levels in approximately
one-half day. Therefore, after work
activities, several thorough wet
cleanings followed by waiting
periods are necessary before
allowing occupancy of the work
area.
9. Evaluation of asbestos settling
(supported by analytical observa-
tions) indicates that the airborne
asbestos is most likely predomi-
nantly present as clusters and not
individual fibers.
10. The 1.4-mz (16-ft2) test matrix is
an adequate method for screening
encapsulants in the laboratory.
However, because of the wide
variations of spray-applied, friable
material experienced in the field,
it is recommended that a test area
be encapsulated and evaluated
before complete encapsulant of the
building is begun.
11. Screening test of an encapsulant
performed on any material other
than a friable matrix may not give
reliable indication of the perfor-
mance of the encapsulant when
applied to a friable, asbestos-
containing material.
The full report was submitted in
fulfillment of Contract No. 68-03-2552
by Battelle Columbus Laboratories under
the sponsorship of the U.S. Environmen-
tal Protection Agency.
Table 2. Sealants Rated Satisfactory
Battelle
Code
Company
Designation
Company
Address and Phone
Rating
33775-4A
33775-12B
Decadex Firecheck
Chemex Ultra
33775-15C Water-based Polyester
"Acceptable
^Marginally Acceptable
\Not recommended where impact is expected
" "Same Material.
Pentagon Plastics U.S.A. Ltd.
Chemex Chemical &
Coating Co
Western Coating Co
905 North RailroadAve.
West Palm Beach, FL
William F. Russek
(305)655-2111
P.O. Box 5072
Tampa. FL 33675
Herbert F. Ross
1813)248-6104
P.O. Box598
Oak Ridge Station
Royal Oak, Ml 48073
Jack Sheets
(313)588-3311
M
-------
Table 2. Continued
Batte/le
Code
Company
Designation
Company
Address and Phone
Rating
33775-19 A Cafco-Bond-Seal
United States Mineral
Products Co.
33775-21A 554-21-1 "Protector" 2 Part System H. B. Fuller Co.
33775-21B Water-based XD-DG
33775-27A, #207 Special Sealer
33775-28A Pyrokote-Mx
33775-29C 29-C Aqualoid 15-10
Western Coating Co.
Makus Development
Corporation
Development Services
International
Essex Chemical Corporation
33775-30B Asbestop BW225 Two Component McGeddy International, Inc.
33775-42-A Ocean Fire Retardant #666
33775-52-A FRC-AES
33775-52-B FRC-REPC
33775-42-B Metro Shield
33775-41-C C-1019
33775-43-A 1583
33775-45-A 95-CO-104
33775-45-C 95-W-100
33775-47-A L 241-43 Part A & B
'Acceptable.
^Marginally Acceptable.
|/Vo/ recommended where impact is expected.
"Same Material.
Ocean Fire Retardant Co
FRC Composite Ltd.
FRC Composite Ltd.
Bertelson Assoc., Inc.
California Products Corp.
H. B Fuller Co.
M. A. Bruder & Sons, Inc.
M. A. Bruder & Sons, Inc.
Carboline Co.
Stanhope, NJ 07874 A
Frank Meuwirth
(201)347-2100
Foster Products Div. .
P.O. Box 6255
Springhouse. PA 19477
Gene Secor
(212)628-2600 or
Toll Free (800)523-601 7
P. O. Box 598 M
Oak Ridge Station
Royal Oak, Ml 48073
Jack Sheets
(313)588-3311
P.O. Box 31 M
Mercer Island, WA 98040
Dan S. Makus
(206)621-8594
2021 K St.. NW Ml
Suite 305
Washington. DC 20000
(202)331-7373
125 B/ackstone A ve. M
Jamestown, NY 14701
(716)665-6313
1043 Broadway A
W. Longbranch. NJ 07764
(201)229-5580
1072 Cyrville Road A
Ottawa, Ontario KIJ 7S5 Canada
(613)741-4248
FTS: 950-5111
1993 Leslie St. A\
Don Mills, Ontario M3B2MC Canada
1613)741-4243
(Same as above) A
8 DelwoodLane M
Tinton Falls, NJ 07724
(201)542-6393
169 Waverly St. M
Cambridge, MAO2139
Foster Division M
P.O. Box 625
Springhouse. PA 19477
Toll Free (800) 523-6017
600 Reed Road M
P.O. Box 600
Broomall, PA 19008
(215)353-5100
(Same as above) M
350 Hanley Industrial Ct M
St. Louis, MO 63144
-------
Table 2. Continued
Battelle
Code
Company
Designation
Company
Address and Phone
Rating
33775-47-C Super Chemseal
33775-48-A Hygienscote
33775-50-A TCI-750
33775-51 -A 25-2355
33775-53-A Thermatek
33775-13B-3 EX 64-3 OX-LINE-ABC
33775-31A Ultra Lok 40-871
33775-33C Penqua 200
33775-34C" Product # HI-6625-583-9
33775-35A 350-A-1 Asbestight 2000
33775 35B Cable Coating 2-B
33775-36B Dust-set
33775 37A" 662-583
33775-37C Mono-Therm F-100
33775 42C SK-J3 Emulsion 360-0017
Chemray Coatings Corp. 150 Lincoln Blvd.
Middlesex, NJ 08846
Ac a/or Chemical Construction 33 Kenhar Dr.
Weston. Ontario M9L 1M9 Canada
(416)749-2265
Therma-Coustics
National Starch &
Chemical Corp.
Protek Manufacturing
Lehman Brothers Corp.
Cellin Manufacturing. Inc.
United Coatings
Habersham Industries, Inc.
Arpin Engineering, Inc.
American Coatings Corp.
Mateson Chemical Corp.
Findley Adhesives, Inc.
Mono-Therm Industries, Inc.
National Cellulose Corp.
P.O. Box 190
Colton. CA 92324
(714) 783-0462
1164 N. Great Southwest Parkway
Grand Prairie, TX 75050
(214)647-9222
520 South Muskego Ave.
Milwaukee, Wl 53208
(414)643-7689
22 Halladay St.
Jersey City. NJ 07304
Carmine Spatola
(201)434-1882
P.O. Box 688
Springfield. VA 22150
(703)550-7277
E. 1130 Sprague Ave.
Spokane. WA 99202
(509)535-4131
5212 Industrial Ct.
Smyrna, GA 30080
(404)351-7173
1716 Melv/IISt.
Oakhurst. NJ 97755
(201)280-0400
5235 N. Elston
Chicago, IL 60630
(312)286-6610
1025 Montgomery A ve.
Philadelphia, PA 19125
(215)423-3200
P. 0. Box 3000
Elm Grove. W153122
(414)782-2250
Mono-Therm International
645 £. 60th St.
Los Angeles, CA 90001
Toll Free (800) 426-8080
12315 Robin Blvd.
Houston. TX 77045
Dan Kelly
(713)433-6701
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
"Acceptable
^Marginally A cceptable
\Not recommended where impact is expected
' "Same Material.
-------
W. Mirick, E. W. Schmidt, C. W. Melton, S. J. Anderson, L. J. Nowacki, and
R. Clark are with Battelle Columbus Laboratories, Columbus, OH 43201.
William Cain is the EPA Project Officer (see belowj.
The complete report, entitled "Evaluation of Encapsulants for Sprayed-On
Asbestos-Containing Materials in Buildings," (Order No. PB 88-113 329/
AS; Cost: $19.95, subject to change! will be available only from:
National Technical Information Service
5285 Port Royal Road
Springfield, VA 22161
Telephone: 703-487-4650
The EPA Project Officer can be contacted at:
Water Engineering Research Laboratory
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati, OH 45268
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Center for Environmental Research
Information
Cincinnati OH 45268
BULK RATE
POSTAGE & FEES PAID
EPA
PERMIT No. G-35
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use 5300
EPA/600/S2-87/091
------- |