United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Pesticides and
Toxic Substances TS-793
Washington, DC 20460
EPA 560/5-81-002
March 1981
Pesticides and Toxic Substances
&EPA
Asbestos in
Schools
-------
DISCLAIMER
This document has been reviewed and approved for publication by the Office
of Toxic Substances, Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances, U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency. Approval does not signify that the
contents necessarily reflect the views and policies of the Environmental
Protection Agency, nor does the mention of trade names or commercial
products constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.
n
-------
EPA 560/5-81-002
ASBESTOS IN SCHOOLS
by
Janice L. Patton, Carl W. Melton,
Eric W. Schmidt, Julius S. Ogden,
Curtis Bridges, Thomas A. Bishop,
Bertram P. Price, and Charles W. Townley
Contract No. 68-01-3858
Project Officer: Frederick W. Kutz
Task Officer: Joseph Breen
Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C. 20460
-------
CONTENTS
Contents 111
Figures iv
Tables Iv
Acknowledgement vi
Executive Summary vii
1. Introduction and Objectives 1
2. Data Collection 4
2.1. Rating-Form Data 5
2.2. Bulk-Sampling Data 7
2.3. Fiber-Releasability Data 8
2.4. Air-Sampling. Data 10
2.4.1. Normal Air Sampling 10
2.4.2. Air Sampling During Sweeping 11
3. Internal-Consistency Study 14
3.1. The Effect of Rater Training on Scoring Consistency ... 15
3.2. Comparison of the Scoring Consistency of the Original
Form and the Revised Form 17
3.3. Variation in Exposure Scores 19
3.4. Summary 23
4. Bulk Sampling 24
4.1. Mean/Variance Relationship 24
4.2. Components of Variance 28
4.3. Presence/Absence of Asbestos 29
4.4. Summary 32
5. Fiber-Releasability Study 33
5.1. Introduction 33
5.2. Graphical Analysis of Relationships 34
5.2.1. Plots of Fiber-Releasability Factors 34
5.2.2. Additional Plots 38
6. Air Sampling 44
6.1. Normal Air Sampling 44
6.1.1. Collection Filters 44
6.1.2. Continuous Monitoring with the FAM 46
6.2. Air Sampling During Sweeping 49
7. Conclusions 55
References 57
Appendices
A. Rating Form and Computation of Exposure Scores A-l
B. Data B-l
C. Analytical Procedures C-l
D. Analysis of Variability Associated with the Measurement of
Fiber Concentration by Phase Microscopy and Transmission
Electron Microscopy D-l
E. Statistical Procedures E-l
F. Data Plotted on Figures 6 Through 12 F-l
iii
-------
FIGURES
Number Page
1 Schematic of Vibrator Agitation System 9
2 Schematic of Sampling System 12
3 Graphic Display of Variation Observed in Exposure Scores ... 20
4 Data From Eight Sampling Sites 25
5 Data From 40 Sampling Sites 26
6 Weighted Friability Score 35
7 Weighted Friability Score 36
8 Percent Asbestos 37
9 Weighted Friability Score 39
10 Exposure Score 40
11 Exposure Score Computed Without Percent Asbestos Multiplier. . 42
12 Exposure Score Computed Without Percent Asbestos or
Friability Multipliers 43
13 Plot of Exposure Scores Against PM Counts 45
14 Continuous Monitoring With the Fibrous Aerosol Monitor (FAM) . 47
B-l Sampling Locations at Site 15-03 (Classroom) 6^113
B-2 Sampling Locations at Site 15-01 (Entrance Hall) B=114
B-3 Sampling Locations at Site 18-01 (Entrance Hall) B-U5
B-4 Sampling Locations at Site 19-01 (Hallway and Music Practice
Room)
B-5 Sampling Locations at Site 21-01
B-6 Sampling Locations at Site 23-01
B-7 Sampling Locations at Site 24-01
Boiler Room) B-117
Library) B-118
Classroom and Hallway) . . .B-119
B-8 Sampling Locations at Site 25-01 (Entrance Hall and Inner
Hall) B-120
TABLES
1 Sampling Design 5
2 Scoring Consistency of Trained Raters Compared to Untrained . 16
3 Scoring Consistency of Untrained Raters Using Revised Rating . 18
4 Variation Observed in Exposure Scores of Trained Raters Using. 21
5 Summary Statistics Computed for Data from Eight Sampling Sites 28
6 Summary of the Presence or Basence of Asbestos in Bulk Samples 30
7 Presence/Absence Decisions 31
8 Factor Scores Sweeping Experiment 50
9 Wipe Samples for Sweeping Experiment 51
10 Air Samples for Sweeping Experiment 53
11 Results of TEM Analyses for Sweeping Experiment 54
iv
-------
TABLES (Continued)
Number Page
A-l Factor Weights for Original Rating Form A-4
A-2 Factor Weights for Revised Rating Form A-23
B-l Building Data B-l
B-2 TEM Results for Selected Normal Air Samples B-62
B-3 Results of Laboratory Analysis of Bulk Samples Collected
at Eight Sampling Sites B-63
B-4 Analysis of Variance Tables B-66
B-5 D Statistics Computed for Untrained Raters and Trained Raters. B-70
B-6 V Statistics Computed for Untrained Raters and Trained Raters. B-71
B-7 D Statistics Computed for Untrained Raters Using the Revised
Rating Form and Untrained Raters Using the Original Rating . B-72
B-8 Weighted Factor Scores B-73
D-l PM Data D-4
D-2 Analysis of Variance Calculations D-9
D-3 Variance Estimates for Data Collected by the 30-Field PM
Method D-10
D-4 Estimates of 95 Percent Confidence Intervals for y D-10
D-5 Coefficient of Variation Estimates Based on the Poisson Model. D-ll
D-6 Variance Estimates for Data Collected by the NIOSH PM Method . D-ll
F-l Raw Data Used in Figure 6 F-l
F-2 Averages Plotted in Figure 6 F-4
F-3 Raw Data Used in Figure 7 F-5
F-4 Averages Plotted in Figure 7 F-9
F-5 Data Plotted in Figure 8 F-ll
F-6 Raw Data Used in Figure 9 F-12
F-7 Averages Plotted in Figure 9 F-16
F-8 Raw Data Used in Figures 10, 11, 12 F-18
F-9 Averages Plotted in Figure 10 F-22
F-10 Averages Plotted in Figure 11 F-24
F-ll Averages Plotted in Figure 12 F-26
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The authors gratefully acknowledge the cooperation of the school
districts which granted access to their buildings and staff for the conduct
of this study. Special appreciation goes to Joseph Breen, Larry Longanecker,
and Cindy Stroup of EPA's Office of Toxic Substances for their guidance and
assistance.
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The objective of this study was to evaluate four approaches to
assessing the potential for asbestos exposure in schools: (1) a proposed
exposure-ranking system or algorithm, (2) bulk sampling and analysis of
the asbestos-containing materials, (3) measurement of stimulated fiber
release, and (4) air sampling. Only a limited amount of effort was de-
voted to air sampling.
Use of the proposed algorithm involves visual inspections of
sites in schools, and assignment of scores to seven factors (condition
of the asbestos-containing material, its accessibility, its friability,
the extent of any water damage, the fraction of the material exposed,
the presence of an air plenum or direct-air stream, and the amount of
activity in the area). If the rating form used in scoring the various
factors in the algorithm is to be useful as a measurement tool, the pre-
cision of the form must be improved as much as possible. The data from
the study suggest that training of the raters in the use of the form im-
proved the scoring consistency. With more intensive training than the
4-hour session used in this study, additional improvement might result.
The factors which were scored with the least consistency, even with train-
ing, were friability and activity. Exposure and the presence of an air-
moving system were scored with the most consistency. With untrained raters,
an expansion and improvement of the rating form did not result in improved
scoring consistency. Neither form may be meaningful to untrained raters.
An additional factor in the algorithm, percentage of asbestos
present, is scored by obtaining bulk samples of the material and analyzing
them in the laboratory. A study of the variability associated with the
bulk sampling was performed by obtaining samples from four locations in each
of eight 5000 ft^ areas of apparently homogeneous ceiling material.
Each of the samples was split into four fractions prior to analysis to yield
information in the variability associated with the analytical procedure. The
variability associated with the laboratory analysis was found to be the major
contributing factor to the total variation, and the variance was found to be
vii
-------
related to the asbestos content. The variability associated with sampling at
2
different locations in a 5000 ft area was small in comparison. This suggests
that it might be sufficient to obtain one sample of each ceiling of interest
and perform replicate analyses on that sample; however, the problem of false
negatives makes that procedure questionable. False negatives were found to
occur, even at asbestos levels greater than 10 percent. Procurement of multi-
ple samples of each ceiling is thus the recommended procedure.
The potential for release of fibers by physical disturbance of the
asbestos-containing materials was demonstrated with the use of a vibrator in
contact with ceilings in schools.
These measurements of stimulated fiber release demonstrated that
the asbestos content and friability were the primary factors influencing
fiber releasability. The releasability, as determined by the vibrator tech-
nique, was found to increase with the asbestos content and with friability.
Attempts to relate the releasability to other algorithm factors and multiples
of factors did not reveal anything.
Since the population of materials which have the greatest potential
for fiber release are those which have a high asbestos content and high fri-
ability, they should be the ones to receive the most attention in an asbestos-
control program. The friability scores, in general, were found to increase
with the asbestos content, at least for the materials examined in this study.
Thus any low friability score assigned to a material with a high asbestos
content should be viewed with suspicion though there can be exceptions (such
as cementitious materials). The scores for condition of materials were not
found to be related to either asbestos content or friability, but any asbes-
tos containing material which is badly damaged should probably be dealt with.
Limited air sampling was performed in schools during periods of nor-
mal activity, and no relationship was found between the airborne fiber levels
for fibers longer than 5 microns with an aspect ratio greater than 3:1 (OSHA
fibers) and the exposure scores computed from the algorithm. This is not sur-
prising since the algorithm is intended to be a measure of potential exposures
and not current exposures, and since the airborne fiber levels were found to be
low (less than 0.07 fibers/cc in all cases but one). Continuous monitoring of
airborne fiber levels at a few sites yielded a limited amount of evidence that
release of fibers into the air,either by reentrainment or by fiber release from
asbestos-containing materials, is an intermittent process. An experiment to de-
termine if sweeping floors increases airborne fiber levels was not conclusive.
viii
-------
ASBESTOS IN SCHOOLS
1. INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES
The presence of asbestos in building materials found in schools
(and other buildings) is a potentially serious problem for the large num-
bers of students, teachers, and support personnel who may be exposed to
the asbestos. As part of the EPA program to deal with this problem, an
assessment of the potential for asbestos exposure in a school is required.
The overall objective of the study discussed in this report was to evalu-
ate four methods for making this assessment:
o An exposure ranking system
o Bulk sampling
o Stimulated fiber release
o Air sampling.
The study was conducted in two phases. The first phase served to identify
problems and provide the information needed for planning the more definitive
study conducted in the second phase.
An exposure ranking system, or algorithm, was proposed by EPA
(USEPA 1979a). The algorithm places numerical values on conditions found
in a building or an area of a building. The items or factors which are
scored in the application of the algorithm are condition of the asbestos-
containing material, its accessibility, its friability, the extent of water
damage to the material, the fraction of the material exposed, the presence
of an air plenum or direct air stream, and the amount of activity or move-
ment in the area (USEPA 1979b). An additional key factor is the percentage
of asbestos present in the material, as determined from laboratory analysis
of a bulk sample. Each factor is assigned a value according to a prede-
termined weighting system. These values are combined in the algorithm to
yield an exposure number which is used as an indicator of potential asbestos
exposure problems. Comparison of the exposure number to a preestablished
scale would indicate what control, if any, is appropriate.
-------
A major issue in the application of the algorithm is the
consistency of the scoring of the various factors by different raters.
One objective of this study was to assess that consistency for groups
of both trained and untrained raters.
The initial step in assessment of the potential for exposure to
asbestos is the determination of the presence of asbestos in the suspect
material. This is done by obtaining one bulk sample from each 5000 sq ft
of area and analyzing it by polarized light microscopy (USEPA 1979b). An
objective of the study reported here was to determine the variability
associated with the collection of samples from a 5000-sq ft area, and with
the analysis performed by a single laboratory. (Interlaboratory compari-
sons were not part of this study.) The percentage asbestos is one factor
employed in the algorithm; so variability of the bulk sampling is a factor
in the consistency of scoring the algorithm. The percentage asbestos is
also potentially an independent measure of the potential for exposure to
asbestos. Thus another objective of this study was to assess the degree
to which the bulk sampling results can serve as a measure of the exposure
potential.
The airborne fiber levels in a building's airspace are related to
a number of processes including mechanisms for fiber release and fiber re-
entrainment. A recent study by Sebastien, et al. (Sebastien, et al. 1979
and 1980) documents the importance of the reentrainment process and the
influence of human activity in the airspace under consideration on fiber
levels once fibers have been released. The third portion of this study
addressed the identification of the factors of importance in predicting
fiber release as evidenced by fiber levels resulting from a simulated dis-
turbance. As a starting point the study investigated the relationship of
simulated fiber release levels to algorithm scores, realizing that the
algorithm was designed to be an indicator of the potential for an asbestos
exposure and not a measure of an immediate airborne asbestos problem. As
originally structured, the algorithm attempted to assess simultaneously
the potential for both fiber release and for fiber entrainment. The
present study simulated a disturbance to the surface of different asbestos-
containing materials with a vibrator and monitored the fiber fallout as a
measure of the potential releasability of asbestos. The relationship of
these vibrator results to pertinent algorithm factor scores was
investigated.
-------
The fourth potential measure of asbestos exposure potential is
the determination of airborne OSHA* fiber levels by air sampling. An
objective of this study was to measure airborne fiber levels in schools
and to investigate the relationship to algorithm scores. A strong re-
lationship was not anticipated, for the algorithm was designed to be an
indicator of the potential for release of asbestos and not an indicator
of an immediate airborne asbestos problem. Even if a strong relationship
were observed, it could not be interpreted as a validation of the algo-
rithm. The relationship would only demonstrate that the algorithm satis-
factorily identifies current ambient fiber levels. Only a limited amount
of air sampling was done, and the bulk of the samples were analyzed by
phase microscopy which only determines fibers longer than 5 microns with
an aspect ratio greater than 3:1 (OSHA fibers). A few samples were an-
alyzed by transmission electron microscopy to determine the smaller fibers,
* Occupational Safety and Health Administration
-------
2. DATA COLLECTION
To accomplish the objectives of this study, field sampling was
conducted in midwestern and southern schools. The choice of sampling sites
was based on the concept of a factorial experimental design modified to
comply with the realities of the sampling situation. In an ideal environ-
ment, sites would be selected from the sampling frame (listing of available
sites) in such a way as to include rooms that conform to all possible com-
binations of the characteristics being studied. For example, if the char-
acteristics being investigated are five algorithm factors and if each factor
is scored at two levels, then an experiment that would contain information
n 5
to independently evaluate the importance of each factor would require 2-2
or 32 sites. Additionally, each of the sites would be required to reflect
the physical conditions associated with one of the 32 combinations.
Strict adherence to such an experimental design was not possible
for this study. First, the sampling frame of sites where asbestos is
present is not defined. Secondly, sites described by every combination
of algorithm factors are not certain to exist. Finally, after appro-
priate sampling sites were identified, the cooperation of building admin-
istrators had to be secured before sampling within a building could begin.
Working within these constraints, 64 sites were chosen for
sampling, 18 in Phase I and 46 in Phase II. Sites were selected that
conform to various combinations of two algorithm factors, friability and
condition. These two factors were selected to define a modified design
table because both factors are thought to significantly effect the level
of asbestos exposure. In addition, both factors can be visually evaluated.
The rating forms used for scoring the factors in the algorithm
are provided in Appendix A.
Table 1 shows the 3x4 design table that results from the cross-
classification of condition with friability. In each cell of the table is
the number of sites sampled that were assigned to the cell by Battelle raters.
The table indicates that a variety of sites were sampled. However, sites
containing highly friable material were difficult to locate, and only one
such site was included in the study. No sites were found that correspond to
a condition score of 3 and a friability score of 1. This situation, a non-
friable material that is in poor condition, probably does not occur often.
-------
TABLE 1. SAMPLING DESIGN
FRIABILITY
1 23
CONDITION
2
5
3
12
10
10
5
16
1
The 64 sites chosen for sampling are located in 22 school buildings.
The data collected at each site are organized by building and presented in
APPENDIX B. At each site four types of data were collected:
Rating-form data
Bulk-sampling data
Stimulated-fiber-release data
t Air-sampling data.
2.1. Rating-Form Data
The exposure ranking system proposed by EPA (in consultation with
Dr. Robert N. Sawyer of Yale University) is one method for measuring the po-
tential hazard associated with the presence of asbestos in a room. The
ranking system consists of eight factors. Seven of the factors are assigned
scores based on a visual inspection of the site being evaluated. These seven
factors are: condition, accessibility, friability, air moving system, ex-
posure, water damage, and activity. The eighth factor is the measure of the
percentage of asbestos present as determined from analysis of bulk samples
of the material in question. The eight factors are combined according to a
predefined rule or algorithm to provide a summary exposure score, or exposure
number, which is an indicator of potential asbestos exposure problems. The
algorithm for computing the summary exposure score is presented in Appendix A.
The consistency of scoring is an inherent problem of any rating
form used in scoring the factors. If a form is to serve as a measurement
device, evaluations of a site by several raters using the form should produce
similar results. The form, however, is a subjective measurement tool, and
consistency among raters using the form is not guaranteed.
-------
In this study, data were collected with two rating forms to
evaluate the consistency of scoring. Initially, in Phase I, a condensed
form was used. Because preliminary analysis of the data collected with
this form showed inconsistent scoring among raters, a revised rating form
was developed, and both forms were used for the remainder of the data
collection. The condensed form includes an introductory paragraph and
brief descriptions of the factors to be scored. On this form the term
"integrity" is substituted for the term "friability" in the hope that it
is a more precise term. The revised form provides additional information
about the factors to be scored and incorporates photographs into the
factor descriptors. The term "friability" is reinstated on the revised
form. Both forms are reproduced in Appendix A.
In a program to evaluate hazard due to asbestos exposure, a
variety of people could be responsible for scoring the rating form. Two
groups identified as possible raters are school administrators and indi-
viduals trained in the use of the rating form. In the collection of data,
individuals from both groups were asked to evaluate sites using the rating
form. In addition, one or two Battelle raters scored the form at each
sampling site. In coding the data, the types of raters scoring a site
were designated numbers as follows:
1: Battelle rater using revised rating form
(the same rater at all sites)
2: School administrator using revised rating form
3: Trained rater using revised rating form
4: School administrator using condensed form
5: Battelle rater using condensed form.
This coding scheme is employed in presentation of data in Appendix B.
Currently few people are trained in the use of the rating form.
To serve in the capacity of trained raters, five graduate students studying
in the Education Administration Department at Ohio State University were
employed. These students were used to represent school personnel, for it
was not practical to train actual school personnel and move them from
school to school. A 4-hour training session was held to introduce the
graduate students to the asbestos project and to instruct them in the
scoring of the rating form. The agenda for the training session was:
-------
I. Introduction
A. Objectives of the project
B. The potential for asbestos exposure
II. The Rating Form
A. Factor definitions presented in the rating form
B. Extended definitions using photographs and slides
C. Practice scoring of the rating form using
photographs and slides.
Group discussion was encouraged throughout the training session. After
attending the session the five graduate students were taken to sampling sites
where they individually evaluated the rooms using the rating form.
2.2. Bulk-Sampling Data
During field sampling for the asbestos study, bulk samples of
ceiling materials were collected at 64 sampling sites located in 22 school
buildings. Bulk samples were taken at each site to estimate the percentage
of asbestos present at the site and determine a score for factor eight of
the rating form. The bulk samples were analyzed by Polarized Light Micros-
copy as described in Appendix C. The analyses were performed blind by the
analyst, i.e., the samples were coded and he did not know the true sample
numbers. The results of the laboratory analysis of bulk samples are pre-
sented in Appendix B.
Additionally, thorough bulk sampling was done at eight sites to
investigate the variability associated with the bulk-sampling procedure.
The eight sampling sites chosen for this purpose are Sites 15-3, 16-1,
18-1, 19-1, 21-1, 23-1, 24-1, and 25-1. At each of these sites there is
2
a 5000 ft area of apparently homogeneous ceilinq material. From each
2
5000 ft area four samples of ceiling material were taken at four randomly
selected locations. Each of the four samples were evenly divided by hand
into four individual film canisters, resulting in sixteen film canisters of
2
ceiling material for each of the eight 5000 ft areas. These data are an-
alyzed to estimate the variance components associated with the bulk-sampling
procedure.
-------
8
2.3. Fiber-Reusability Data
To obtain a measure of the releasability of asbestos from
different asbestos-containing materials in the schools, a modified
scripto vibrator was used to agitate the surface of the materials
(ceilings in all cases). A schematic drawing of the vibrator agitation
system is given in Figure 1. The vibrator marking tool was modified by
mounting a flat disk, 1 inch in diameter, on the tip of the vibrator.
The vibrator was housed in an enclosed canister, 6-1/4 inches in diam-
eter and 10-1/4 inches in height, which served as the sampling chamber.
The chamber was placed against the ceiling in the same manner each time
to ensure that the angle of contact of the ceiling by the disk was the
same each time. The vibrator was spring-loaded in order to maintain a
constant pressure against the ceiling. The vibrator frequency was set
at the beginning of the research and not changed, in order to maintain
the same energy input to all ceilings.
Particulates released into the air in the chamber during agi-
tation were sampled by drawing the air through a sampling tube into a
collection filter system identical to that used in normal air sampling.
Make-up air was admitted to the chamber through a Mi Hi pore filter. The
fiber concentration in the chamber was determined by phase contrast mi-
croscopy (PM) of the 47-mm, 0.45-ym pore size Millipore filter from the
collection system. In Phase I, the air in the chamber was also sampled
with a Fibrous Aerosol Monitor (FAM), but this was discontinued in
Phase II. This portable instrument manufactured by the GCA Corporation
of Bedford, Massachusetts, operates on a light-scattering principle, and
it does not distinguish between asbestos and other fibers. It records
fiber counts for periods of 1, 10, 100, or 1000 minutes, and automatically
3
converts the counts to concentrations, in units of fibers per cm , which
are read from a digital meter. At fiber concentrations above about 15
3
fibers per cm it is necessary to correct the FAM readings for coincidence
losses, and fiber concentrations considerably higher than this were ob-
served in Phase I. Thus the FAM was not considered to be useful for
subsequent vibrator air sampling.
-------
Inlet
Filter
Agitator
Canister
To
Collection
Filter
1 '
FIGURE 1. SCHEMATIC OF VIBRATOR AGITATION SYSTEM
-------
10
In the first two buildings sampled, three consecutive 10-minute
FAM readings were taken while a 30-minute Mi Hi pore sample was collected.
This was found to be too long a sampling time, for the filter deposits were
too dense for analysis. Thus, in subsequent work the sampling time was re-
duced to 1 minute for both techniques, and several consecutive samples were
taken. Prior to taking any samples the air was pumped from the chamber for
1 minute after turning on the vibrator, in order to clear the particulate-
free air from the tubing.
2.4. Air-Sampling Data
Two techniques were used in this study for the determination of
airborne fiber levels. The primary method involved collection of the fibers
on Mi Hi pore filters which were subsequently analyzed by PM. A few selected
filters were analyzed by transmission electron microscopy (TEM) to confirm
the presence of asbestos fibers. The second technique involved on-site
measurements with the FAM manufactured by 6CA Corporation. These techniques
were employed in air sampling during periods of normal activity in the
schools and in an experiment involving air sampling during sweeping of the
floors in one building.
2.4.1 Normal Air Sampling
Different protocols for air sampling during normal activity were
followed in the two phases of this study. In Phase I, airborne fiber levels
were measured at 18 sites in 6 schools by both techniques, the FAM and col-
lection on filters. Since the fiber levels were found to be low in the
Phase I work, air sampling during normal activity was not emphasized in
Phase II. In Phase II, only the FAM was used, and then just as a spot
check of fiber levels at a few sites. At five sites in Phase II the FAM
was used in a continuous recording mode to record the fiber levels over
long periods (up to 16.7 hours). To monitor airborne levels of short (less
than 5 microns) fibers, TEM analyses are required. Due to the high cost of
TEM analyses and the existence of such data gathered by Sebastien, et al.
(Sebastien, et al. 1979 and 1980), only a few selected samples were anal-
yzed by TEM.
-------
11
A schematic diagram of the sampling system used for collection of
airborne participates (including fibers) on filters is shown in Figure 2.
The filters used were 47-mrn, 0.45-pm pore size, mixed cellulose ester mem-
brane (Millipore) filters. A capped, open-face filter configuration was
used. The sampling flow rate was 28.3 fc/min., and the sampling time was
1 hr. At three of the six buildings sampled, outdoor ambient air samples
were also obtained. The filters were analyzed by PM as described in Ap-
pendix C. For a 1-hr sampling period, the detection limit is 0.006 fibers
3
per cm . Since the PM technique does not distinguish between asbestos and
other fibers and does not measure fibers shorter than 5 microns, selected
samples of interest were also analyzed by TEM. The TEM procedure is also
described in Appendix C.
An analysis of the variability associated with the PM and TEM
procedures is given in Appendix D.
FAM was used for on-site measurements of airborne fiber levels.
In this study, 10-minute readings were taken. The flow rate through the
FAM counting chamber is 2 fc/min, and fibers in 0.5 percent of this volume
are counted; so the detection limit for a 10-minute count is 0.01 fibers
per cm .
The FAM was also used in conjunction with a strip-chart recorder
to obtain a trace of the cumulative fiber count over time. This was done
for periods of up to 1000 minutes (16.7 hours) in Phase II in an effort to
observe intermittent releases of fibers into the air in selected school
rooms.
2.4.2. Air Sampling During Sweeping
An experiment was conducted to determine if the act of sweeping
floors increased airborne fiber levels. Three sites were studied, one that
contained no asbestos and two which did. The first sampling site (Number 12-1)
was the entrance hallway at the school having a ceiling material which
-------
12
Copped 47mm openface
filter holder
Row control valve
Vacuum pump
Rotometer to
monitor flow
J
FIGURE 2. SCHEMATIC OF SAMPLING SYSTEM
-------
13
appeared to be plaster. The hall appeared to have been thoroughly cleaned.
The wooden floors were shining, and no dust had accumulated. The second
site (13-1) was a hallway on the first floor of a school, and it was in
very bad condition. The ceiling material was hanging in pieces, and when
sunlight shined into the hall the air looked dirty. The floor had been wet
mopped several hours before sampling began, but it was still dusty and
muddy. The third site (13-2) was a classroom on the second floor of the
same building as Site 13-1. The ceiling in this room was in much better
condition than the ceiling in the hall downstairs. The room looked clean,
but the floor was slightly dusty.
Air samples were taken in the two asbestos-containing sites prior
to the sweeping experiment, and ambient air samples were taken outdoors. In
addition, wipe samples were taken from various surfaces in all three sites
to obtain an indication of the presence of fibers. The wipes were analyzed
by PM. The results merely indicate the presence of fibers on the floors
and other surfaces, and they are not quantitative measures which can be
compared with each other
The protocol for the sweeping experiment was as follows. Sixty-
minute air samples were collected on a filter while a Battelle employee
swept the floor of the hall. Ten-minute FAM readings were also taken. The
FAM and the collection filter were placed side by side in the middle of the
hall, and the sweeper swept at varying distances from the sampling equipment
as explained below. The sweeper also wore a personnel monitor that housed
a collection filter.
First 10-minute period: sweeping done greater
than 3 meters from sampling equipment, and FAM
placed on a table 3-1/2 feet high.
Second 10-minute period: sweeping done greater
than 1 meter but less than 3 meters from equip-
ment, and FAM placed on table.
Third 10-minute period: sweeping done within
1 meter of equipment, and FAM on table.
-------
14
Fourth 10-minute period: sweeping done greater
than 3 meters from equipment, and FAM placed on
the floor.
Fifth 10-minute period: sweeping done greater
than 1 meter but less than 3 meters from equip-
ment, and FAM placed on the floor.
Sixth 10-minute period: sweeping done within
1 meter of the equipment, and FAM placed on the
floor.
The filter samples and the personnel monitor samples were analyzed by PM.
Selected samples were analyzed by TEM to confirm the presence of asbestos.
3. INTERNAL-CONSISTENCY STUDY
For the rating form to be a useful measurement tool, the form
must produce consistent results when scored by various raters. Scoring
consistency is affected by many factors, two of which were investigated
in this study. First, the effect of rater training on scoring consis-
tency was examined by comparing the consistency among trained raters using
the revised form to the consistency among untrained raters using the re-
vised form. Secondly, the effect of scoring a more detailed rating form
(the revised form) rather than a condensed form (the original form) was
examined. The scores of untrained raters were used to make this comparison,
In addition to studying factors that affect scoring consistency, the amount
of variation observed in exposure scores was summarized.
Scoring consistency was evaluated for each rating form factor
individually. The seven factors studied were condition, accessibility,
friability, air-moving system, exposure, water damage, and activity. The
eighth factor, percent of asbestos present, was not included because it
is not scored by raters, but determined by laboratory analysis. The vari-
ability associated with the determination of asbestos content is discussed
in the Bulk Sampling Section of this report.
-------
15
The scoring consistency of each factor was measured as two
quantities: (1) consistency among raters' scores for a site, and (2)
agreement of scores with the true physical conditions at a site. These
two quantities are not explicitly defined. Rather, the definitions of
these quantities are determined by the statistics chosen to measure them.
A variety of statistics could be used, and each statistic would produce
a different definition of internal consistency or agreement with truth.
The two statistics used in this study were chosen to provide reasonable
definitions of the two variables of interest.
Internal consistency among raters was measured with a statis-
tic D that is the average size of the disagreement among raters weighted
by the percentage of disagreement observed. The agreement of factor
scores with the true physical conditions at the sites was measured with
a statistic V. V is the average of the differences between the rater
scores and the true score. The scoring of sites by one Battelle rater
was taken as the true evaluation of sites. Because the scale used by
raters was the scale being evaluated for consistency, unweighted rather
than weighted factor scores were used in the calculation of D and V
statistics. The mathematical formulations of D and V and a discussion
of the two statistics are presented in Appendix E.
3.1. The Effect of Rater Training on Scoring Consistency
Improved scoring consistency might be achieved by training raters
in the use of the rating form. To investigate this theory, rating-form
data were collected at 27 sampling sites from untrained school adminis-
trators using the revised form and from trained raters using the revised
form. Using D and V statistics, the scoring consistency of the two groups
was compared.
At each site and for each factor, D values were calculated from
the scores of the untrained raters and from the scores of the trained
raters. These values are presented in Table B-5 of Appendix B. The
Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test (see Appendix E) was used to test the hypothesis
-------
16
of no training effect on internal consistency (as measured by D). In the
Wilcoxon procedure, the D values of the two rater groups at each site are
compared, and the comparison information is summarized over all sites.
The hypothesis test was performed for each of the seven rating-form fac-
tors, and the results appear in Table 2.
Also in Table 2 are results based on V values. At each site and
for each factor, V values were calculated from the scores of the untrained
raters and from the scores of the trained raters. The V values are pre-
sented in Table B-6. These values were compared, using the Wilcoxon
statistic, to test the hypothesis of no training effect on rater agreement
with truth (as measured by V). The results are presented in Table 2.
Training may have improved the scoring consistency of the
condition factor and the exposure factor. Trained raters also show
improved internal consistency when scoring friability, but they seem
to agree less with the true friability scores than do the untrained raters.
Trained raters may score water damage less consistently, but there is little
evidence of a difference in the consistency of the two rater groups when
scoring the remaining factors.
TABLE 2. SCORING CONSISTENCY OF TRAINED RATERS COMPARED TO UNTRAINED
SCHOOL ADMINISTRATORS, BOTH USING THE REVISED FORM
Factor
Comparison Based
on D Values
Comparison Based
on V Values
Condition
Accessibility
Friability
A1r Moving System
Exposure
Water Damage
Activity
more consistency among trained
raters
no evidence of a difference 1n
scoring consistency between
the two groups
more consistency among trained
raters
no evidence of a difference in
scoring consistency between
the two groups
more consistency among trained
raters
less consistency among trained
raters
no evidence of a difference 1n
scoring consistency between
the two groups
more consistency among trained
raters
no evidence of a difference in
scoring consistency between
the two groups
less consistency among trained
raters
no evidence of a difference 1n
scoring consistency between
the two groups
more consistency among trained
raters
no evidence of a difference 1n
scoring consistency between
the two groups
no evidence of a difference in
scoring consistency between
the two groups
-------
17
Trained raters using the revised form seem to score the form
somewhat more consistently than untrained raters using the revised form.
The evidence in favor of training is certainly not overwhelming, but with
more intensive training additional improvement in scoring consistency
might be observed.
3.2. Comparison of the Scoring Consistency of
the Original Form and the Revised Form
The revised rating form contained improved factor descriptors,
so the revised form was expected to produce more consistent results than
the original form. To test this hypothesis, rating-form data were col-
lected from untrained school administrators using the revised form, and
untrained school administrators using the original form at 13 sampling
sites. At each site, D statistics were computed for the administrators
using the new form and for the administrators using the original form.
These D values are given in Table B-7. The Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test was
again used to compare the D values of the two groups at each site and to
combine the comparison information over all sites. The Wilcoxon statistic
tests the hypothesis of no effect, due to rating-form revision, on internal
consistency (as measured by D). The results of the hypothesis tests are
presented in Table 3.
In Table 3 no comparisons of original and revised rating forms
are made using V statistics. The computation of V statistics requires the
choice of a true score to which raters' scores can be compared. At each of
the 13 sampling sites included in this analysis, the Battelle rater comple-
ted the revised rating form, so a true score is available for the revised
rating form. At these sites, however, the Battelle rater did not complete
the original form, so no true score is available for the original form.
Consequently, V statistics for data collected with the original form cannot
be computed, and the original and the revised forms cannot be compared
using V values.
The results in Table 3 show that among the untrained raters there
is no evidence of improved scoring consistency with the revised rating form.
This does not imply, however, that the original form should be used to eval-
uate sites. The lack of improvement may be attributable to the lack of train-
ing of the raters scoring both forms. Neither form may be meaningful to raters
-------
18
TABLE 3. SCORING CONSISTENCY OF UNTRAINED RATERS USING
THE REVISED RATING FORM COMPARED TO UNTRAINED
RATERS USING THE ORIGINAL RATING FORM
Factor
Comparisons Based
on D Values
Condition
no evidence of a difference in scoring
consistency of the two groups
Accessibility
no evidence of a difference in scoring
consistency of the two groups
Friability
no evidence of a difference in scoring
consistency of the two groups
Air Moving System
no evidence of a difference in scoring
consistency of the two groups
Exposure
more consistency among raters using
revised form
Water Damage
no evidence of a difference in scoring
consistency of the two groups
Activity
less consistency among raters using
revised form
-------
19
not trained in its use. Previous analysis suggests that rater training
may improve scoring consistency. Data collected with trained raters
scoring both forms might show better consistency with the revised form,
but data to substantiate this are not available in this study.
3.3. Variation in Exposure Scores
Trained raters using the revised form appear to be the raters
that most consistently evaluate sites. The variation in the exposure
scores of the trained raters is summarized in Table 4 and displayed
graphically in Figure 3. (The weighted factor scores used in the cal-
culations of the exposure scores are given in Table B-8). For each site,
the table includes the number of raters evaluating the site and the mini-
mum, maximum, and average exposure score observed for the site. The table
also includes the coefficient of variation which expresses the variation
in exposure scores for a site relative to the average exposure score for
the site.
The variation in exposure scores that appears in Table 4 is due
to variation in the scores of the seven factors. The variation in bulk-
sampling results does not contribute to the variation shown in Table 6.
The average percent of asbestos observed at a site is used to calculate
the exposure scores of all raters evaluating the site. Since the same
percentage is used for every rater, none of the variation among raters
is attributable to the percent asbestos factor.
The summary statistics in Table 4 show the imprecision associ-
ated with the exposure-score measurement. At a given site a wide range
of exposure scores can be observed. At Site 14-01 the minimum score ob-
served is 48, and the maximum score is 108. This range might not be
disturbing since all scores observed at Site 14-01 could be interpreted
as "high". But discrepancies among scores also exist at lower exposure
scores levels. At Site 16-02 the scores range from 26 to 64, and at
Site 24-02 from 0 to 32. These values show that for a given site the
exposure-score measurement can be quite variable.
The information in Table 4 also indicates that at some sites
there is little variation in exposure-score calculations. At Sites 16-04,
19-02, and 20-02, for example, the estimates of average exposure score are
quite precise, with coefficients of variation less than 15 percent.
-------
130
120
110
100
90
80
70
5 60<
1 "
"3 40
0
i9 30
20
10
0
-10
0
t
1
i
^f m
*
[il
1 1'
i-4
»
r-4
«M
>
'
ro
o
I I II I I I
f £1 J*l C*l W CO l*> »! C*l tl r^
OO O OOOOOOOO
?5?3S^C^C«ieiH»:
-------
TABLE 4. VARIATION OBSERVED IN EXPOSURE SCORES
OF TRAINED RATERS USING REVISED FORM
Sampling Site Identification
Building
Ik.
15.
15.
15.
16.
16.
16.
16.
16.
17.
17.
17.
19.
19.
20.
20.
20.
20.
20.
25.
25.
Site
1.
2.
3.
1.
1.
3.
1.
2.
2.
3.
1.
2.
3.
1.
2.
1.
2.
3.
3.
1.
1.
2.
3.
1.
2.
Location
1.
1.
1.
1.
2.
1.
1.
1.
2.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
2.
1.
1.
2.
1.
1.
1.
1.
Number
of Raters
5.
5.
5,
5.
5.
5.
5.
5.
5.
5.
5.
5.
5.
5.
5.
5.
5.
5.
5.
5.
5.
5.
5.
5.
5.
5.
5.
Minimum
Exposure
Score
<*6.
«»8.
t»8.
56.
a<*.
c»0.
12.
26.
26.
1<«.
18.
0
0
0
0
20.
0
28.
28.
0
0
16.
2<».
0
0
0
18.
Maximum
Exposure
Score
108.
109.
78.
8«*.
126.
72.
(*0.
6
-------
22
The variability of exposure scores could be decreased by identi-
fying the factors that contribute most to the variability. Once identified,
these factors could be modified to improve precision of scoring, or the fac-
tors could be eliminated from the calculation of exposure score.
The data collected from trained raters were analyzed to determine
which of the seven factors show the least internal-scoring consistency (as
measured by D). D statistics were computed for each factor at each site
using trained-rater data, and the D values are presented in Table B-5.
Friedman's nonparametric two-way layout (see Appendix E) is applied to the
D values. In Friedman's procedure, the seven D values at each site are
ranked from least to greatest. Friedman's statistic is based on factor
ranks averaged over all sites. The statistic is referred to tabled values
of a chi-square distribution to test the hypothesis that the internal con-
sistencies of the seven factors are qual. The hypothesis is strongly re-
jected by the data. Based on the average ranks of the factors, the ordering
of factors from most internal consistency to least internal consistency is:
1. Air-Moving System
and
Exposure
3. Water Damage
4. Condition
5. Accessibility
6. Friability
7. Activity.
The data collected from trained raters were also analyzed to
determine which of the seven factors show the least agreement with truth
(as measured by V). V statistics computed for each factor at each site are
presented in Table B-6. Friedman's procedure was used to test the hypothe-
sis of equal agreement with truth for the seven factors, and the hypothesis
was strongly rejected. Based on the average ranks of the factors, the or-
dering of factors from most agreement with truth to least agreement with
truth is:
1. Exposure
2. Air-Moving System
3. Accessibility
4. Condition
5. Water Damage
6. Friability
7- Activity.
-------
23
Among the seven factors, friability and activity are the factors
that are scored least consistently. Several courses of action could be
taken to compensate for the inconsistency of these two factors. The fac-
tors descriptors might be improved, although the attempt with the revised
rating form was not successful. The friability and activity factors might
be weighted less heavily than the more consistent factors in the exposure-
score algorithm. Finally, friability and activity might be eliminated
from the calculation of exposure score.
3.4. Summary
If the rating form is to be used as a measurement tool, the
precision of the form must be improved as much as possible. The data
suggest that the 4-hour training session used in this study improved the
scoring consistency of raters. With more intensive training, additional
improvement in scoring consistency might result. Table 4 shows that at
given sites the variation in exposure scores of trained raters is large.
Friability and activity are identified as the factors that contribute most
to exposure-score variability and that consequently need attention.
-------
24
4. BULK SAMPLING
The objective of the bulk-sampling study was to determine the
variability associated with the collection and analysis of samples from
individual 5000 sq ft areas in schools. Toward this objective, the re-
lationship between the variance of the measure of asbestos content and
the mean percent of asbestos present were studied. If the variance is re-
lated to the mean, then the precision of the bulk-sampling procedure can
be expected to differ across ceilings that contain various amounts of
asbestos. Two components of variance, the variation due to sampling lo-
cation within a ceiling and the variation due to laboratory procedure,
were estimated. The components of variance analysis indicate which
source contributes more to the total variation associated with bulk
sampling and suggest guidelines for sampling from a 5000 sq ft area.
Additionally, the variation in bulk-sampling results expressed as asbestos
present or asbestos absent is summarized. The data show that analysis of
multiple samples collected from a site can produce both asbestos positive
and asbestos negative results. For this reason, the recommendation is to
always collect multiple samples from a material suspected of containing
asbestos.
4.1. Mean/Variance Relationship
Basic data summaries indicate that the variability associated
with the determination of asbestos content in a material appears to be
related to the average amount of asbestos present in the material. Sam-
ple variances are plotted against sample means for the subset of data
from the eight sampling sites in Figure 4. In Figure 5 sample variances
are plotted against sample means for data collected at the 46 sites
sampled during Phase II of the study.
2
Figure 4 shows a strong positive relationship between the S. and
the X".. when the amount of asbestos present is less than approximately
30 percent. The point corresponding to the 49 percent level of asbestos
content may be an outlier or may be an indication that at higher levels
of asbestos content the relationship between the variance and the mean is
different than seen in Figure 4.
-------
7.*9
3b 17.1? 21.90 26.67 31. 1.1 3ft. 30 dO.97 «.>.
7 A
127.94
96.19
Of
u
Q)
a.
I **»«
13.19
17.39
1.69 *
*.«« 5.21 9.97
i.7%
.......*...»»-..
33.82 Jft.59
19.SI 2«t.28 29.09
Sample Mean
FIGURE 4. DATA FROM EIGHT SAMPLING SITES
<»3.36 *iS.13
1.59.58
1*3.7S
127.99
112.19
96.39
60.59
ro
<»6.99
33.19
17.39
1.60
-------
566.67
01
u
c
-».
566.67
510.4iO
Sample Mean
FIGURE 5. DATA FRCM 40 SAMPLING SITES
0 »9** j * »
........... »....»....»....»....»....»_...»....«....»....»....»....t-. «---»-»--»-« --»->--«->--».
6 ft.00 16.OC 26.0) 12.00 63.00 M.flC 56.00 66.00 72.00 40.00
396.67
3dO.OU
283.33
2Zt.67
ro
113.33
S6.67
-------
27
The data in Figure 5 show a change in trend at higher levels of
asbestos content. If the data points corresponding to zero variance are
ignored because they are based on small numbers of observations that pro-
duced identical results, the data in Figure 5 show an increasing trend
for samples containing less than 30 percent asbestos. The samples con-
taining higher levels of asbestos do not conform to the trend.
The point with sample variance equal to 557 appears to be an
outlier. This point corresponds to Site 15-1, and the laboratory records
show that four samples were collected at this site, two from water-
damaged locations and two from undamaged locations. Laboratory analysis
of the four samples produced these results:
Percent of Asbestos in Percent of Asbestos in
Sampling Site Bulk Samples from Bulk Samples from
ID Number Water-Damaged Locations Undamaged Locations
15-1 80; 90 40; 50
The laboratory results are similar for the two bulk samples collected from
water-damaged locations and for the two bulk samples collected from un-
damaged locations, but the results are dissimilar between the two pairs of
samples. The dissimilarity between the pairs of samples accounts for the
large sample variance observed at Site 15-1.
At three other sites bulk samples were collected from both water-
damaged and undamaged locations. The data points corresponding to these
sites are not outliers in Figure 5. The laboratory results for these bulk
samples are:
Percent of Asbestos in Percent of Asbestos in
Sampling Site Bulk Samples from Bulk Samples from
ID Number Water-Damaged Locations Undamaged Locations
16-2 0; 5 10; 10
20-3 0; 0 0; 5
24-1 60; 60 10; 20
Two of these sites have comparable levels of asbestos in samples collected
from the undamaged areas and the damaged areas. The third site, like
Site 15-1, has higher observed levels of asbestos in samples from the
water-damaged area. The information from Sites 15-1 and 24-1 suggest that
water damage might affect the determination of the asbestos content of a
material. If this is the case, special consideration should be given to
water-damaged areas during a site evaluation.
-------
28
4.2. Components of Variance
Based on the model in Appendix E, the subset of data collected
at eight sampling sites was analyzed. The number of observations made at
each site, the mean percent of asbestos observed at each site and variances
estimates are presented in Table 5. Note that the variability associated
"2
with the laboratory procedure (a ) is the major contributing factor to total
variation.
TABLE 5. SUMMARY STATISTICS COMPUTED FOR
DATA FROM EIGHT SAMPLING SITES
Variance Estimates ^
Sampling
Site ID
Number
15-3
16-1
18-1
19-1
21-1
23-1
24-1
25-1
Number of
Observations,
Ni
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
Samp! e
Mean,
V
48.1
11.6
13.1
13.4
2.8
0.4
18.4
28.9
-2
°L
0.00
3.91
0.00
0.00
0.26
0.15
0.00
0.00
;f
43.75
52.60
56.25
143.23
13.02
1.48
101.56
182.29
-2
a
42.92
55.73
56.25
135.73
13.23
1.60
99.06
159.58
Percent
Coefficient
of Variation
14
64
57
87
130
316
54
44
(a) a, is an estimate of the variation attributable to sampling location
within a 5000 sq ft area;
a is an estimate of the variation attributable to laboratory
e procedure;
"2
a is an estimate of the total variation observed in bulk samples
collected from a 5000 sq ft area.
-------
29
The variation observed within a room is of interest as it
relates to the estimate of the amount of asbestos present in the room.
The mean of the observations made in a room is used as the estimate of
the percent of asbestos in the room. The variation is expressed as a
percentage of the mean by the coefficient of variation statistic,
Percent Coefficient of Variation = (a/I...) x TOO %
The percent coefficient of variation is presented for each of the light-
sampling sites in Table 5.
4.3. Presence/Absence of Asbestos
Table 6 summarizes the bulk-sampling results expressed as
asbestos present or asbestos absent. The table includes the number of
bulk-sampling observations made at each site sampled during Phase II of
the data collection. The table also includes the number of observations
that indicate asbestos present, the number of observations that indicate
asbestos absent, and the average percent of asbestos observed at each site.
At eight sampling sites, Sites 16-01, 16-02, 19-01, 20-02, 20-03, 21-01,
23-01, and 23-02, analysis of multiple bulk samples produced both asbestos-
positive and asbestos-negative results.
The discrepancies in the bulk-sampling results for Sites 16-01,
16-02, and 19-1 are particularly disturbing. The asbestos content present
at each of these sites is estimated to be greater than 5 percent, yet an-
alyses of some samples collected at these sites show no asbestos present.
These results show that false negatives can occur even at asbestos levels
as high as 13 percent. For this reason, multiple samples should be an-
alyzed from a material suspected of containing asbestos.
The presence/absence discrepancies observed in bulk-sampling
results from the five other sites are not unsettling. The amount of as-
bestos present at each of the sites is estimated to be less than 3 percent.
At this low level of asbestos content, it is not surprising that analyses
of some samples indicate no asbestos present.
-------
30
TABLE 6. SUMMARY OF THE PRESENCE OR ABSENCE
OF ASBESTOS IN BULK SAMPLES
Sampling Site
10 Number
14-01
14-02
14-03
15-01
15-03
16-01
16-02
16-03
16-04
17-01
17-02
17-03
18-01
19-01
20-01
20-02
20-03
20-04
21-01
21-02
21-03
21-04
21-05
22-01
22-02
22-03
22-04
22-05
23-01
23-02
23-03
24-01
24-02
24-03
25-01
25-02
26-01
27-01
28-02
29-01
Number of Bulk
Sampling Observations
2
2
4
4
16
16
4
2
2
2
2
4
16
16
4
2
4
2
16
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
16
2
2
16
2
2
16
2
2
2
2
2
Number of
Observations
Indicating
Asbestos Present
2
2
4
4
16
15
3
2
2
0
0
0
16
14
0
1
1
0
7
2
2
2
2
0
0
0
0
0
3
1
2
16
2
2
16
2
2
2
2
2
Number of
Observations
Indicating
Asbestos Absent
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
2
2
4
0
2
4
1
3
2
9
0
0
0
0
2
2
2
2
2
13
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Average Percent
of Asbestos
Observed
60.0
55.0
45.0
65.0
48.1
11.6
6.3
10.0
5.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
13.1
13.4
0.0
2.5
1.3
0.0
2.8
12.5
5.0
5.0
12.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.4
2.5
7.5
18.4
30.0
30.0
28.9
20.0
40.0
55.0
17.5
80.0
-------
31
Still, disagreements about the presence of asbestos are trouble-
some, and a rule for deciding an existence of asbestos is desirable. A
method for combining the results from multiple samples to decide if
asbestos is present or absent has been proposed (Lucas, et al., 1980).
The method includes the calculation of a 90 percent confidence interval,
using Student's t-distribution, for the true average percent of asbestos
present at a site. If the entire confidence interval is above 1 percent,
then the decision is that asbestos is present. If the entire confidence
interval is below 1 percent, then the decision is that asbestos is not
present. If the confidence interval includes the value 1 percent, then a
decision cannot be made without additional sampling.
The method was applied to the data from the eight sites where the
presence of asbestos is in question, and the resulting decisions are pre-
sented in Table 7. At every site where 16 observations were made, a de-
cision was reached. The method is more likely to produce a decision if a
large number of bulk-sampling observations are made at a site. Increasing
the number of observations improves the precision of the estimate of as-
bestos content and shortens the length of the confidence interval. Thorough
bulk sampling should be instituted if this method is to be used to decide on
the presence or the absence of asbestos.
TABLE 7. PRESENCE/ABSENCE DECISIONS
Sampling
Site ID
Number
16-01
16-02
19-01
20-02
20-03
21-01
23-01
23-02
Average
Percent of
Asbestos Observed
11.6
6.3
13.4
2.5
1.3
2.8
0.4
2.5
Number of
Bulk Sampling
Observations
16
4
16
2
4
16
16
2
Decision
Asbestos present
No decision
Asbestos present
No decision
No decision
Asbestos present
Asbestos absent
No decision
-------
32
4.4. Summary
The results of the statistical analysis indicate that the
variance associated with the estimate of the asbestos content of a
ceiling is related to the amount of asbestos in the ceiling. Since
the amount of asbestos varies across sampling sites, the variances of
the estimates of asbestos content also differ across sites. Conse-
quently, the data from all sites cannot be pooled to estimate total
variation within sites or to estimate the components of variance.
Variance estimates must be calculated individually for each sampling
s i te.
The information on variance components (Table 5) suggests some
guidelines for sampling when the objective is to determine the actual
level of asbestos in a ceiling. Since the variability across locations
2
(cr[) is small when compared to analytical variability, the recommendation
might be to sample one location in a ceiling and make n analytical deter-
minations in the laboratory. If the cost of sampling from different loca-
tions were high, this sampling protocol would be cost-efficient. However,
since there is no cost associated with sampling from different locations,
the prudent sampling procedure is to collect bulk samples from n locations
and analyze each sample once in the laboratory. By following this proce-
dure, there is no loss of precision. Furthermore, if the particular ceiling
being sampled should happen to be heterogeneous with respect to asbestos
content, the variation in the ceiling will not be overlooked by the sampling
plan.
A summary of the presence/absence results of analysis of multiple
samples collected from a site shows that false negatives can occur, even at
asbestos levels greater than 10 percent. The presence/absence study indi-
cates again the importance of collecting multiple samples to determine
asbestos content.
-------
33
5. FIBER-RELEASABILITY STUDY
5.1. Introduction
An accurate measure of airborne fiber levels can only be obtained
by air sampling. Sebastien, et al. (Sebastien, et al. 1979 and 1980) have
shown that 5-day air-monitoring sessions coupled with TEM analysis of filters
produces reasonable estimates of airborne fiber levels. Such a program de-
tects the intermittent as well as the continual release of fibers into the
air. The TEM analysis includes fibers of all sizes in the estimate of air-
borne asbestos levels.
The benefits of an extensive sampling program, however, are not
without costs. The program requires abundant manpower and sampling equip-
ment, dependable laboratories trained in TEM analysis, and, of course,
funds to cover expenses. For these reasons, it is impractical to implement
a sampling program, as described by Sebastien, in schools throughout the
United States.
To develop a feasible hazard-assessment program, studies have been
conducted to identify factors that influence airborne fiber levels. If such
factors can be identified, an assessment of these factors may serve as a
surrogate for the measure of airborne fiber levels. Factors identified by
Nicholson (Nicholson 1978), Sawyer (USPEA 1979b), and Sebastien, et al.
(Sebastien, et al. 1979 and 1980) can be classified into two groups: (1)
factors affecting the releasability of fibers from materials into the air,
and (2) factors affecting the reentrainment of fibers into the air after
the fibers have settled to a surface. The fiber-releasability study is
concerned with factors in the first classification. Factors affecting
fiber reentry have been documented by Sebastien, et al., and are not
studied here.
Sawyer (USEPA 1979b) identified the asbestos content of a material
and the friability of a material as determinants of fiber releasability. In
the fiber-releasability study, a vibrator air-sampling technique was incor-
porated as a measure of releasability. The association of vibrator air
sampling, asbestos content, and friability was explored with data plots.
-------
34
The trends observed in these plots suggest additional relation-
ships that might exist in the data. Several plots involving percent
asbestos, percent total mineral fiber, and exposure score were also
generated.
5.2. Graphical Analysis of Relationships
Plots of the data were used to explore relationships of interest.
Pearson product-moment correlation coefficients were computed and are pre-
sented with each plot. The correlation coefficient assumes values between
-1 and 1 and is a measure of the strength of the linear relationship be-
tween two variables being plotted. A value of zero indicates no linear re-
lationship; values trending toward 1 indicate a direct relationship; values
trending toward -1 indicate an inverse relationship. The correlation coef-
ficients may be misleading, however, because of irregularities in some plots.
Two statistical techniques used to display the data are rescaling
and averaging. When rescaling would accentuate trends in the plots, the af-
fected variables were presented on the natural log scale. To remove a por-
tion of the variability from the plots, the average of replicate measurements
made at each site were plotted. Vibrator air-sampling results, estimates of
asbestos content, and rating-form scores of Battelle and trained raters were
each averaged to estimate the true values for a site. The raw data and the
averages used for each plot are given in Appendix F.
5.2.1. Plots of Fiber-Releasability Factors
Figure 6 shows the plot of vibrator air-sampling results with
friability scores. As indicated by Sawyer (USEPA 1979b), fiber releasabil-
ity appears to increase as the friability of the material increases. In
Figure 7 asbestos content is plotted against weighted friability scores. This
plot shows that friability is also positively related to asbestos content.
Since friability appears to be related to both measures, it may be confound-
ing the relationf.hip between fiber releasability and asbestos content.
Figure 8 shows that vibrator air-sampling results and asbestos content are,
in fact, positively related. The friability score of the Battelle rater is
included in Figure 8 to show that most low friability scores are associated
-------
. *-
f>. 11 «
[561.2]i
5.<«M *
[242.3] I
I
I
'
2.25
2.50
2.75
»
I
I
I
I
*
I
I
I
I
»
I
I
I
I
*
I
I
I
I
«
I
I
I
I
»
I
I
I
I
»
1
I
I
I
*
I
I
I
I
*
I
I
I
I
»
I
I
I
I
»
-».
3.0C
(a) for each site, log (vibrator air saraple)=*log (average vibrator air sample for the site)
(b) if average vibrator air sample for a site equals zero, the site is not included in the plot
(c) for each site, the average of the weighted friability scores of Battelle and trained raters
is plotted. (See Table F-2)
GO
01
-------
.» 1 1 i , 1 1 1 1 f t 1 1 f 1 f f 1_. t t f .
N
)
^
(0
s
CO
0)
*s
**
4J
a
01
u
01
PH
[ r = .52
! n = 64 sites
i
7t..-.3 »
i
i
i
i
fH.OC »
I
I
I
I
T'9.<50 » «
I
I
I
I
SI. 00 »
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
U.30 »
I
I
I
I
25. SO *
I »
I
I
I
ir. a& *
i
1 2
I *
I
tJ .Su » 5 2
I 3 »
I
I' 2
I 2 2
0 » » 22
C .Ju .^3 .9(i 1.20 1.90 1.00
Weighted Friability Score (b*
FIGURE 7
(a) for each site, the average percent of asbestos is plotted
(b) for each site, the average of the weighted friability scores
Blotted. JSee Table F-41
I
I
I
I
i
I
1
I
2 I
»
I
I
I
I
»
I
I
* I
I
»
« I
I
I
2 * I
I
* I
I
I
»
I
I
<, I
I
»
I
I
I
I
* »
1
I
2 I
I
*
I
1
2 I
I
5 2 » *
2.10 2.
-------
37
6.300
[544.6]
r- 4.900
^ -2 [134.3]
J2 U
s^ CO
~?jl 3-500
3.^ [33.1]
S P
a O
CO
M
M U
3-g. 2-100
u § [8.2]
O CO
a H
lj ^i
ua <
> M -70(>
>^ O
ooa [2.0]
bJ ft
^^ :^
-.700
[0.5]
-2.100
[0.1] ^
r = .70
n = 38 sites ^ ^ * «
m * * *
O
O
0
^ D ^
03 n
^ * D «
D
J 03 *
J
3
90 1.590 2.090 2.590 3.090 3.590 4.090
.0] [4.9] [8.1] [13.3] [22.0] [36.2] [59.7]
T ftrr /'D<*vn&««> A «.K«»«»+»»»«!^ ^ ^ ^ '
Weighted
Friability
Symbol Score ^e'
O 0
D 1
« 2
A 3
[Percent Asbestos, Original Scale]
FIGURE 8
(a) for each site, log (vibrator air sample) = log (average vibrator
air sample for the site) e
(b) if average vibrator air sample for a site equals zero, the site is
not included in the plot.
(c) for each site, log (percent asbestos) = log (average percent asbestos
for the site). e
(d) if average percent of asbestos for a site is less than or equal to 1%,
the site is not included in the plot.
(e) the weighted friability score of one Battelle rater is indicated.
-------
38
with points in the lower left quadrant of the graph, and high friability
scores cluster in the upper right. The data plotted in Figure 8 are
given in Table F-5.
The graphs suggest that duplicate measures are included in the
exposure-score algorithm (see Appendix A). Friability and asbestos con-
tent are similar factors, and both measure, to some degree, fiber releas-
ability. This information might be used to improve the precision of exposure
scores. Both friability and asbestos content have been shown to be quite
variable (see Internal Consistency Section and Bulk Sampling Variability
Section, respectively). One of the two factors could be removed from the
algorithm, leaving the second factor to measure fiber releasability. This
revision would eliminate one of the larger sources of exposure-score
variability.
Between the two factors, friability is the likely candidate for
elimination. The estimation of asbestos content of a material is central
to the determination of hazard. Furthermore, asbestos content is measured
with a laboratory procedure, certainly a more reputable technique than the
subjective rating scale used to evaluate friability.
Attempts to relate the vibrator data to other algorithm factors
did not reveal anything.
5.2.2. Additional Plots
Because of the positive trend observed in Figure 7 between percent
asbestos fibers and friability, the relationship between total mineral
fibers and friability was explored. Figure 9 suggests that the two measures
are related. The implication is that the percent of asbestos fibers in a
material is not the only factor contributing to the friability of the mate-
rial. Other mineral fibers also increase material friability.
An additional hypothesized relationship is that between percent of
asbestos and exposure score. Figure 10 suggests that the two variables are
related. This relationship exists, however, because percent of asbestos is
related to the two factors included as multipliers in the exposure-score
algorithm. Percent of asbestos is itself one of the multipliers. Friability
-------
<-s
5
03
M
0)
a
h
«H
Hi
n
01
a
3
rH
at
4J
O
f-l
4J
g
o
fe
01
rt .
^*<
TJ.OJ *
i r = .54
i
I n = 64 sites
I
51. aa *
i
I
I
i
72. CG »
I
I
I
I
61.30 »
I
I
I
I
at ^ r &
TH .JO r
I
T
I
I
»«5.0C »
I
I
I *
I
{*> . 00 *
I
I
I
I
?7 .CO »
I
I
I
1
lrt.01 * *
I
I
I
I
'i . 0 j '
I.
(
M
n » *
. » » » » » +
n i r . f> .:
r----r t . »-. f---_, » »- * t » «. » 1 _
2 »
I
1
» « I
« 1
»
»1
I
I
* I
»
Z
*
*
v
*
CO
» VO
«l
«
2
*
*
i
I
2 « I
« 2 I
I
$
3 * I
I
« 2 I
I * I
22 5 2 * *
____^_._.f... -«.----»----*- -»----*----*--»----» -»----»---.«._--_». ___»|
.90 1.2C 1.50 t.tJO 2.10 2.«iO 2.70 S. 03
0 .1C
Weighted Friability Score
FIGURE 9
for each site, the
for each site, the
(See Table F-7)
-------
s
*
11
X
(0
O
0)
-------
41
is the second multiplier, and the relationship between percent of asbestos
and friability has been demonstrated in Figure 7. Percent of asbestos was
deleted from the calculation of exposure score, and the revised score is
plotted with percent asbestos in Figure 11. A trend is still present, but
the observed relationship is not as strong as in Figure 10. In Figure 12,
percent of asbestos is plotted against exposure score calculated without
either multiplier. The trend in the data is removed, indicating that the
two multipliers accounted for the observed relationships.
Figure 11 (the plot of asbestos content against the partial
exposure score calculated without asbestos content) suggests that the
building materials fall into two clusters. One cluster is composed of
points with asbestos content >30 percent and partial scores >20 and the
other, of points with asbestos content <30 percent and partial scores <20.
The first group is composed of the typically more friable materials. This
is apparent in Figure 8 where the friability scores are indicated.
The condition of the materials was not found to be related to
either asbestos content or friability.
-------
. »
S3 . jO »
et
i r = .60 }
I n = 64 sites }
i 1
i . * j
od . Qu t t
I T
I . J
i }
(0 I
O *
« -2.50 »
3 l
0) J't . ub »
O j
-------
'-- ' " " t. i. .-. «n.«n ty.?i\ ix.dn nn
l.C? 2.
-------
44
6. AIR SAMPLING
A discussion follows of the results of air sampling under normal -
activity conditions and while floors were being swept.
6.1. Normal Air Sampling
Airborne fiber levels during normal-activity periods were measured
with collection filters analyzed by PM and also with the FAM.
6.1.1. Collection Filters
The relationship between airborne fiber levels, as measured by the
collection filter method, and exposure scores calculated from rating-form
data were examined. Using the data collected during Phase I of sampling, PM
counts were plotted against exposure scores. To eliminate a portion of the
variability that exists in the rating-form data, only the exposure scores
computed from the scores of the Battelle raters were included. If the two
measures are related, there would be a pattern in the plot of the data. If
no relationship exists between PM counts and exposure scores, the plot would
show a random scatter of points.
Figure 13 shows the plot of PM counts against exposure scores. No
pattern is evident in the data, and the plot shows random scatter for the
majority of points. There is one site with a PM value of 0.17 fibers/cc
that is removed from the general scatter of points. The exposure scores for
this site are also somewhat larger than the scores in the cluster of points.
For this site, the rating form may have detected the increased hazard asso-
ciated with the higher airborne fiber level.
The lack of a relationship between PM counts taken during normal
activity periods and exposure scores is not surprising. While the PM counts
indicate the current exposure level in a room, the exposure scores are in-
tended to measure the potential hazard associated with asbestos exposure.
The two measurement techniques do not measure the same quantity and should
not be expected to be strongly related.
-------
. I)'
.06
,oq
.it
16
iso.nn »
1J5.JD
120.00
tos.oo
0)
S 90.01
0
to
01
N
g 75.00
O
I
60.00
4S.QO
30. JU
15. on
0
[ . - .51
T
T
I
I
1
I ' - - -- - -
1
#
*
I
*
1
I
1 *
I
t
I
f
f
I
I *
I
I
I ?
I
I '
I *
I*
I
I*
T
i*
i
, » »
i
-f
i
i
i » *
.. * * t » f » » » » » » * * * » » ».
150.10
135.Ofl
120.00
115.10
90.00
79.00
60.00
30.00
15.00
.05
.07
.09
.10
,12
.Id
.15
,17
PM Count
FIGURE 13. PLOT OF EXPOSURE SCORES AGAINST PM COUNTS
-------
46
The collection filters from five sites (8-1, 8-2, 8-5, 9-3,
and 11-2) and an ambient sample were also analyzed by TEM. The results
are in Table B-2. The relatively high value of 0.17 fibers/cc obtained
by PM for Site 8-1 (page B-7) was confirmed by TEM, which yielded 0.20
fibers/cc for fibers longer than 5 microns. At the other sites the PM
values (Table B-l) were 0.06 fibers/cc or less, and TEM yielded values
of 0.03 fibers/cc or less for fibers longer than 5 microns. The TEM
results indicate that the major fraction of the fibers measured are
small fibers, less than 5 microns. The sample-preparation procedure for
TEM analysis is not believed to result in breakup of fibers; so this re-
sult should reflect the actual fiber distribution in the air. The TEM
results also suggest that the asbestos in the air came from the ceiling
material in the rooms, for the air samples from the rooms were found to
contain asbestos amphiboles as did the bulk samples of the ceiling mate-
rials, whereas the ambient sample contained only chrysotile fibers.
6.1.2. Continuous Monitoring with the FAM
The results of continuous monitoring of airborne fiber levels
with the FAM are given in Figure 14. The figure shows reproductions of
the strip-chart recorder traces obtained at five sites in schools and
at an outdoor ambient site on the Battelle grounds in Columbus, Ohio.
The traces show the accumulated fiber counts detected by the FAM as a
function of time. Airborne fibers were detected at only two of the six
sites, Site 16-5 which is a school library and Site 18-3 which is a school
office. Neither one was a sampling site used in the other portions of
this study, so no bulk sampling or rating of paradigm factors were done
for them. The asbestos content of the other ceilings in Building 16 was
5-10 percent chrysotile, and the ceiling of Site 16-5 had a comparable
appearance; so Site 16-5 probably was the same in asbestos content.
Site 18-3 was adjacent to Site 18-2 which had an asbestos content of 10-20
percent chrysotile; so Site 18-3 was probably comparable.
-------
50 ggggggFffi" ::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::
00 [[[
50 [[[
00 ::::: ;::|'[[[
50 ::: :: ::: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
oyjjJJjffilWIIIIIIIIIWt^
01234567
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::: :::: Start - 4:13 pm ::::
Frn Tit 'm E 1 F End ~ 8:53 am f E 1
-------
00
23456789
Hours
a Site 26-1, Air Plenum
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
Start - 5:00 pm
End - 9:40 am
8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
f. Outdoors, Columbus, Ohio
FIGURE 14. (Continued)
-------
49
At both sites where fiber counts showed in the traces (Figures 14a
and 14b), the fibers were detected intermittently. At Site 16-5 three dis-
tinct increases in the fiber count were observed, and at Site 18-3 two in-
creases were detected. No particular activity going on within these sites
can be correlated with the intermittent increases in fiber levels, with the
possible exception of the increase at the beginning of the day (at 8:30 a.m.)
at Site 18-3. The other increases all occurred when the schools were closed.
Averaging the fiber counts over the 1000-minute sampling periods at these
two sites yields average airborne fiber concentrations of 0.0061 fibers per
cm for Site 16-5 and 0.0027 fibers per cm3 for Site 18-3. A 1-hour collec-
tion filter sample was taken at Site 16-5, and the PM analysis of it yielded
an airborne fiber level of 0.8 fibers per cc; however, the fibers may not
have been asbestos. The room was carpeted and the fibers detected by PM
(and possibly by the FAM) may have been carpet fibers.
Site 21-5 contained 5-20 percent chrysotile, but no counts were
recorded by the FAM with the strip-chart recorder. Site 26-1 contained
40 percent chrysotile, but it also yielded no counts with the FAM even
though the ceiling was in poor condition. A 1-hour collection filter sam-
ple obtained at Site 26-1 yielded a fiber level of 0.01 fibers/cc. No counts
were recorded at Site 23-1 either, but the bulk sample from this site showed
the material to contain no more than a trace of asbestos.
6.2. Air Sampling During Sweeping
A sweeping experiment was conducted at three sampling sites to
determine if the process of sweeping floors increases airborne fiber levels.
The evaluation of the three sites by a Battelle rater using the original
rating form is presented in Table 8. No asbestos was present in the ceiling
at Site 12-1,but asbestos was present in the ceilings at Sites 13-1 and 13-2.
Wipe samples were taken from surfaces in the schools to determine
if fibers were present on these surfaces. The samples were obtained by wiping
2
areas of approximately 100 cm with 47 mm Millipore filters. The wipe samples
were analyzed by PM, and the number of fibers counted on each filter is re-
ported in Table 9. These numbers merely indicate the presence or absence of
fibers on floors and other surfaces. The numbers are not quantitative mea-
sures, and the numbers for different filters are not comparable.
-------
TABLE 8. FACTOR SCORES SWEEPING EXPERIMENT
SAMPLING SITE IDENTIFICATION
BLDG
12
13
13
SITE
01
01
02
SAMPLING
LOCATION
1
1
1
TYPE OP
RATER
5
5
5
Condition
1
4
2
UNWEIGHTED FACTOR SCORES
Access
1
3
2
Friability
1
4
4
Air
2
2
2
Expose
3
3
3
Water
1
1
1
Average Z
Activity Asbestos
1 0
3 47
1 28
Exposure
Score
,0
84
42
Ul
o
-------
TABLE 9. WIPE SAMPLES FOR SWEEPING EXPERIMENT
Sampling Site Identification
Bldg
12
12
12
13
13
13
13
13
13
Site
01
01
01
01
01
01
02
02
02
Location
Sampling
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Surface
Hanging light
Floor
Floor
Floor, near wall
Floor, middle of room
Bulletin board, top
ledge
Floor
Blackboard, top ledge
Floor
Before or
After Sweeping
Before
Before
After
Before
Before
Before
Before
Before
After
Number of
Fibers Counted
300,000
200,000
0
70,000
300,000
30,000
300,000
50,000
100,000
Ul
-------
52
Ambient air samples were taken outside the main entrance of
Building 12 and in the parking lot of Building 13. The samples were
taken with collection filters mounted 5 feet from the ground and with
10-minute FAM runs. The results are given in Table 10. Also in Table 10
are the results of air sampling done prior to sweeping and during sweep-
ing, and air sampling done with a personnel monitor. Selected filters
were analyzed by TEM, and the results presented in Table 11.
The PM results of filters collected during sweeping are similar
to the PM results of filters collected before sweeping and of ambient fil-
ters. The FAM results indicate somewhat higher airborne fiber levels during
sweeping than before sweeping. The analysis of filters housed in the per-
sonnel monitor produced the highest fiber counts observed at the sites.
-------
TABLE 10. AIR SAMPLES FOR SWEEPING EXPERIMENT
Ambient Air Samples
Sampling Site Identification Air Sample Prior to Sweeping Air San
Bldg
12
13
13
Sampling (Fibers/cc) (Fibers/cc)
Site Location PM FAM PM FAM PM
01 1 0.03 0.01 0.03
0.00
0.01
0.04
0.03
0.03
01 1 0.01 0.18 0.03 0.03
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.00
02 1 0.01 0.03 0.02 0.02
0.01
0.00
0.03
0.01
0.01
iples During Sweeping
(Fibers/cc) , v
FAM 10-Min RunW
0.09
0.21
0.08
0.17
0.31
0.20
0.05
0.10
0.05
0.03
0.02
0.15
0.04
0.05
0.08
0.05
0.04
0.17
Personnel
Monitor
0.44
.
3.03
0.80
en
to
(a)
10-minute FAM runs are described in the data collection section of this report.
-------
TABLE 11. RESULTS OF TEM ANALYSES FOR SWEEPING EXPERIMENT
Number of
Type
Fibers < 5y
Grid Openings of Fibers
Sample Analyzed Asbestos Counted
12-1
13-1
13-2
13-1
Personnel Monitor
Personnel Monitor
Personnel Monitor
Filter Sample
Before Sweeping
Blank
10
8
10
4
10
Chrysoti 1 e
Chrysotlle
Chrysoti le
Chrysoti ]e
Chrysotlle
52
101
28
129
6
Fibers > BM
Fibers Fibers
per cc Counted
6.1
14.9
3.3
2.7
-(a)
0
0
0
3
0
Fibers As
per cc
<0.12
<0.15
<0.12
0.06
-(a)
Total
ibestos Fibers,
ng/m3
62
150
180
41
-(a)
01
(a) No air was filtered through the blank; so fibers per cc and ng/m3 cannot be calculated.
-------
55
7. CONCLUSIONS
Four approaches to assessing the potential for asbestos exposure
in schools were evaluated in this study: (1) a proposed exposure-ranking
system or algorithm, (2) bulk sampling and analysis of the asbestos-
containing materials, (3) measurement of stimulated fiber release, and
(4) air sampling.
If the rating form used in scoring the various factors in the
algorithm is to be useful as a measurement tool, the precision of the form
must be improved as much as possible. The data from the study suggest that
training of the raters in the use of the form improved the scoring consis-
tency. With more intensive training than the 4-hour session used in this
study, additional improvement might result. The factors which were scored
with the least consistency, even with training, were friability and activity.
Exposure and the presence of an air-moving system were scored with the most
consistency. With untrained raters, an expansion and improvement of the rat-
ing form did not result in improved scoring consistency. Neither form may be
meaningful to untrained raters.
One of the factors in the algorithm, percentage of asbestos present,
is scored by obtaining bulk samples of the material and analyzing them in the
laboratory. The variability associated with the laboratory analysis was found
to be the major contributing factor to the ,total variation, and the variance
was found to be related to the asbestos content. The variability associated
with sampling at different locations in a 5000-sq ft area was small in com-
parison. This suggests that it might be sufficient to obtain one sample of
each ceiling of interest and perform replicate analyses on that sample; how-
ever, the problem of false negatives makes that procedure questionable. False
negatives were found to occur, even at asbestos levels greater than 10 percent.
Procurement of multiple samples of each ceiling is thus the recommended
procedure.
-------
56
The measurements of stimulated fiber release conducted with the
vibrator demonstrated that the asbestos content and friability were the
primary factors influencing fiber releasability. The releasability, as
determined by the vibrator technique, was found to increase with the
asbestos content and with friability. Attempts to relate the releasability
to other algorithm factors and multiples of factors did not reveal anything.
Since the population of materials which have the greatest poten-
tial for fiber release are those which have a high asbestos content and high
friability, they should be the ones to receive the most attention in an
asbestos control program. The friability scores, in general, were found to
increase with the asbestos content, at least for the materials examined in
this study. Thus any low friability score assigned to a material with a
high asbestos content should be viewed with suspicion though there can be
exceptions (such as cementitious materials). The scores for condition of
materials were not found to be related to either asbestos content or fri-
ability, but any asbestos-containing material which is badly damaged should
probably be dealt with.
No relationship was found between the airborne fiber levels
measured in schools for fibers greater than 5 microns (OSHA fibers) and
the exposure scores computed from the algorithm. This is not surprising
since the algorithm is intended to be a measure of potential exposures
and not current exposures, and since the airborne fiber levels were found
to be low (less than 0.07 fibers/cc in all cases but one). Continuous
monitoring of airborne fiber levels at a few sites yielded a limited amount
of evidence that release of fibers into the air, either by reentrainment or
by fiber release from asbestos-containing materials, is an intermittent
process. An experiment to determine if sweeping floors increases airborne
fiber levels was not conclusive.
-------
57
REFERENCES
D. Lucas, T. Hartwell, A. V. Rao. 1980. Asbestos-Containing Materials in
School Buildings: Guidance for Asbestos Analytical Programs, Research
Triangle Institute, prepared for U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, D.C. under Contract Number EPA 560/13-80-017A.
William J. Nicholson. 1978. Control of Sprayed Asbestos Surfaces in
School Buildings: A Feasibility Study, National Institute of Environmental
Health Sciences.
P. Sebastien, M. A. Billon, 6. Dufour, A. Gaudichet, and G. Bonnard. 1979.
Levels of Asbestos Air Pollution in Some Environmental Situations, Annals
of the New York Academy of Sciences, 380: 401-415.
P. Sebastien, M. A. Billon-Galland, G. Dufour, and J. Bignon. 1980.
Measurement of Asbestos Air Pollution Inside Buildings Sprayed with Asbestos,
Laboratoire d'Etude des Particules Inhalees. Paris, France (In French;
translation in the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Report Number EPA
560/13-80-026).
USEPA. 1979a. U.S.Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Toxic Sub-
stances. Asbestos-Containing Materials in School Buildings; Advance Notice
of Proposed Rulemaking. Federal Register. September 20, 1979, 44:54676.
USEPA. 1979b. Asbestos-Containing Materials in School Buildings: A
Guidance Document, Part 1 and Part 2. U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Report Number C00090, March, 1979.
-------
APPENDIX A
RATING FORM AND COMPUTATION OF EXPOSURE SCORES
-------
A-l
APPENDIX A
RATING FORM AND COMPUTATION OF EXPOSURE SCORES
The Original Rating Form
Background
Epidemiological studies have shown that exposure to asbestos fibers constitutes
a potential health hazard. Unfortunately, for several decades asbestos has
been included in many construction products, including fireproofing, insulation,
and decorative materials. Battelle's Columbus Laboratories is conducting this
study for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to investigate one aspect
of the asbestos issue. Your assistance i's sincerely appreciated. Please read
the following explanation and complete the rating form.
Instructions
The rating form consists of seven factors that should be considered when deter-
mining whether a hazardous condition exists due to the presence of asbestos.
The purpose of this study is to test the usefulness of each factor for predicting
the corrective action to be taken. This is accomplished by comparing the results
from the rating form to quantitative methods of asbestos analysis. Hopefully,
this study will produce a rating form that can be used to visually assess the
potential for asbestos exposure in a room.
Below are criteria to consider in rating each factor:
CONDITION: Is the material cohesive, and does the material adhere
to the underlying surface? Is the material deteriorating
or damaged?
ACCESSIBILITY: Can the material be reached? Is it accessible and
subject to accidental or intentional contact and damage?
INTEGRITY: To what extent can the material be broken apart when a
person makes contact with it?
PART OF AIR MOVING SYSTEM: Is the material present in a direct air
stream of a ventilation or heating system?
EXPOSURE: Is the material exposed? Is it visible?
WATER DAMAGE: Has water dislodged, delaminated or disturbed the
material? Has water transported the material?
ACTIVITY OR MOVEMENT: Is there general air movement, building
vibration or any other source of movement in the area?
Are building occupants or maintenance workers active
in the area of the material?
One rating form should be completed for each area that is being inspected. The
numbers beside each box are specifications for keypunchers and can be ignored.
-------
Bldg No.
Site No.
A-2
The Original Rating Form (Contd)
1-5
6-10
Date
11-20
CONDITION
22
1. No damage
2. Mild damage
3. Moderate damage
4. Severe damage
ACCESSIBILITY
24
1. Enclosed
2. Inaccessible beyond reach during normal activity
3. Accessible
INTEGRITY
26
1. Firmly bound
2. Difficult but possible to damage by hand
3. Fairly easy to dislodge and crush
4. Fluffy, spongy, flaking &/or pieces hanging
PART OF AIR MOVING SYSTEM
1. Yes
2. No
EXPOSURE
1. Enclosed
2. 10% exposed
3. Greater than 10% exposed
WATER DAMAGE
1. None
2. Minor
3. Severe
ACTIVITY OR MOVEMENT
1. None or low (libraries & some classroom)
2. Moderate (some classrooms & corridors)
3. High (some corridors)
28
30
32
34
COMMENTS:
-------
A-3
Computation of Exposure Score
(1) Determine the weights for each of the seven factors.
(2) Using the weighted factor scores, compute
SUM = CONDITION + ACCESSIBILITY + AIR MOVING
SYSTEM + EXPOSURE + WATER DAMAGE
+ ACTIVITY.
(3) Multiply SUM by the weighted factor score for INTEGRITY
and the weighted factor score for percent of asbestos.
EXPOSURE SCORE - SUM x INTEGRITY x PERCENT ASBESTOS.
-------
A-4
TABLE A-l. FACTOR WEIGHTS FOR ORIGINAL RATING FORM
Unweighted Weighted
Factor Scores Scores
Condition
No Damage ] 0
Mild Damage 2 2*
Moderate Damage 3 2*
Severe Damage 4 5
Accessibility
Enclosed 1 0
Inaccessible - beyond reach during normal activity 2 1
Accessible 3 3
Part of Air Moving System
No 20
Yes 1 1
Exposure
Enclosed 1 0
10 percent exposed 2 1
Greater than 10 percent exposed 3 4
Water Damage
None 1 0
Minor 2 1
Severe 3 2
Activity or Movement
None or low 10
Moderate 2 1
High 3 2
Integrity
Firmly bound 1 0
Difficult but possible to damage by hand 2 1
Fairly easy to dislodge and crush 3 2
Fluffy, spongy, flaking, pieces hanging 4 3
Percentage Asbestos
Less than or equal to 1 percent - 0
Greater than 1 percent and less than or equal - 2
to 50 percent
Greater than 50 percent - 3
*A weighted score of 2 was used for both mild and moderate damage.
-------
A-5
The Revised Rating Form
-------
A-6
INSTRUCTIONS
This booklet can be used to evaluate the health hazard associated
with a material that contains asbestos. The hazard associated with an
asbestos-containing material depends on seven factors:
the condition of the material
the accessibility of the material
the friability of the material
the proximity of the material to air moving systems
the amount of the material that is exposed
t the amount of the material that is water damaged
the activity level near the material.
The seven factors are described in this booklet. Scores for
each factor follow the factor description.
Please read the description of each factor. Select the factor
score that is most appropriate for the material that you are evaluating.
Write the number of that score in the space provided for the factor on
the scoring sheet.
-------
A-7
CONDITION
To evaluate the condition of the material, consider two
questions:
What percentage of the material is damaged or deteriorating?
0 Have only small pieces of the material (no bigger than a
half-dollar) been dislodged from the underlying surface, or
is the material noncohesive with large pieces dislodged
from the surface?
Based on these two questions, score the condition of the material
as follows:
(1) No DamageThe material is intact.
-------
A-8
(2) Moderate Damage--!0% or less of the material is damaged,
and
only small pieces of the material have been dislodged.
-------
A-9
(3) Severe DamageGreater than 10% of the material is damaged,
and/or
large pieces of the material have been dislodged.
-------
A-10
ACCESSIBILITY
If the material can be reached, it is accessible. Consider the
behavior of the people who frequent the area of the material, and score
the accessibility of the material as follows:
(1) Not AccessibleThe material is located above a suspended ceiling, and
building occupants cannot contact the material.
(2) Rarely AccessibleThe material is contacted only during abnormal
activity such as infrequent maintenance or repair of nearby heating,
ventilation, lighting or plumbing systems. Building occupants
infrequently jump and touch the material or throw objects against it.
-------
A-ll
(3) AccessibleBuilding occupants contact the material during normal
building activity. Occupants frequently contact the material, jump
and touch the material or throw objects against it.
-------
A-12
FRIABILITY
The material being rated MUST BE TOUCHED to determine how friable
it is. The term "FRIABLE" is defined as "easily crumbled or crushed into
powder". To what extent can the material be broken apart when a person
makes contact with it? Using the canister supplied by Battelle for testing,
score the friability of the material as follows:
(1) Not FriableCannot penetrate the surface with pressure and twisting
of canister.
(2) Low FriabilityDifficult to penetrate surface with pressure and
twisting of canister. Material may be removed in large chunks.
-------
A-13
(3) Moderate Friability--Can penetrate surface easily with slight pressure
and twising of canister. Material may be removed in small or large
pieces.
-------
A-14
(4) High FriabilityCan penetrate surface easily with very slight pressure
and twisting of canister. Material removed is flaky and powdery.
-------
A-15
IN PATH OF AIR MOVING SYSTEM
Is the material located directly in an air stream of a ventila-
tion or heating system? Does an air current flow directly over the surface
of the material?
(1) Yes.
(2) No.
-------
A-16
EXPOSED SURFACE AREA
If the material is visible, it is exposed. If the material is
located above a suspended ceiling, it is not considered exposed. If,
however, the panels of the suspended ceiling are removed or damaged, the
material is considered exposed. What percentage of the material is
exposed?
(1) Material is not exposed.
(2) 10% or less of the material is exposed.
-------
A-17
(3) Greater than 10% of the material is exposed.
-------
A-18
WATER DAMAGE
Has the material been damaged by water? To determine the extent
of water damage, consider two questions:
What percentage of the material is water damaged?
Has water merely stained the material and caused it to
buckle, or has water dislodged the material and caused
it to break off?
Based on these two questions, score the water damage to the
material as follows:
(1) No Water Damage.
-------
A-19
(2) Minor Water Damage--! 0/J or less of the material is water damaged,
and
the material is stained or buckling but not dislodged.
(3) Moderate or Major Water DamageGreater than 10% of the material
has any kind of water damage,
and/or
water has dislodged the material, and pieces of the material have
broken off.
-------
A-20
ACTIVITY OR MOVEMENT
To evaluate the level of activity in the area of the material,
consider air movement, building vibration from machinery or other sources,
and the activity levels of building occupants and maintenance workers.
Score the activity level as follows:
(1) None or Low Activity Level--The activity in the area of
the material does not result in building vibration or
in contact and damage to the material. Libraries and
administration offices usually have low activity levels.
(2) Moderate Activity Level--The activity in the area of
the material may lead to building vibration or contact
with the material. The damage from contact to the
material, however, is minimal.
(3) High Activity Level--The activity in the area of the
material causes building vibration or contact and
damage to the material. All gymnasiums and rooms that
contain machinery have high activity levels.
-------
A-21
SCORING SHEET
BLDG NO. 1-5
SITE NO. 6-10
CONDITION 22
1. No Damage
2. Moderate Damage
3. Severe Damage
ACCESSIBILITY 24
1. Not Accessible
2. Rarely Accessible
3. Accessible
FRIABILITY 26
1. Not Friable
2. Low Friability
3. Moderate Friability
4. High Friability
IN PATH OF AIR MOVING SYSTEM 28
1. Yes
2. No
EXPOSED SURFACE AREA 30
1. Material is not exposed.
2. 10% or less of the material is exposed.
3. Greater than 10% of the material is exposed.
WATER DAMAGE 32
1. No Water Damage
2. Minor Water Damage
3. Moderate or Major Water Damage
ACTIVITY OR MOVEMENT 34
1. None or Low Activity Level
2. Moderate Activity Level
3. High Activity Level
RATER CODE 40
-------
A-22
Computation of Exposure Score
(1) Determine the weights for each of the seven factors.
(2) Using the weighted factor scores, compute
SUM = CONDITION + ACCESSIBILITY + AIR MOVING
SYSTEM + EXPOSURE + WATER DAMAGE
+ ACTIVITY.
(3) Multiply SUM by the weighted factor score for FRIABILITY
and the weighted factor score for percent of asbestos.
EXPOSURE SCORE = SUM x FRIABILITY x PERCENT ASBESTOS.
-------
A-23
TABLE A-2. FACTOR WEIGHTS FOR REVISED RATING FORM
Unweighted Weighted
Factor Scores Scores
Condition
No Damage 1 0
Moderate Damage 2 2
Severe Damage 3 5
Accessibility
Not Accessible 1 0
Rarely Accessible 2 1
Accessible 3 3
Part of Air Moving System
No 20
Yes 1 1
Exposure
Material is not exposed 1 0
10 percent or less of the material is exposed 2 1
Greater than 10 percent of the material is exposed 3 4
Water Damage
No water damage 1 0
Minor water damage 2 1
Moderate or major water damage 3 2
Activity or Movement
None or low activity level 1 0
Moderate activity level 2 1
High activity level 3 2
Friability
Not Friable 1 0
Low Friability 2 1
Moderate Friability 3 2
High Friability 4 3
Percentage Asbestos
Less than or equal to 1 percent - 0
Greater than 1 percent and less than or equal - 2
to 50 percent
Greater than 50 percent - 3
-------
APPENDIX B
DATA
-------
BUILDING DATA
Bulk-Sampling Results Expressed As Percentages
Rating-Form/Air-Sampling Results
-------
TABLE B-1. BUILDING DATA
Type Sample Type of
Bid
Asbestos Content
Ub
06
01
02
06 near site
2
06 near site
2
of Roon
Classroom
Hall
:e
:e
Mo.
06-01A
06-01B
06-02A
06-02B
6-SV3A
6-SV3B
Material
granular
granular
granular
granular
granular
granular
Aooslte
0
0
0
0
0
0
Chrysotile
SO
10
5
5
2
2
Crocldollte
0
0
0
0
0
0
present
present
present
present
present
present
Opaque Wood Other
paint
paint
paint
paint, glass
paint
paint
O
ii
X
CD
CO
-------
SAMPLING SITE IDENTIFICATION
SAMPLING TYPE OF
BLOC SITE LOCATION RATER
06 01 1 5
4
It
4
4
4
06 02 1 5
4
4
4
4
4
Condition
4
3
4
3
3
3
3
2
4
4
4
3
UNWEIGHTED FACTOR SCORES
Access
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
2
Friability
3
2
3
3
3
4
2
2
4
4
2
3
Air
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
Expose
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Water
3
3
3
3
2
3
3
2
3
3
3
2
Average Z
Activity Asbestos
2 30
3
3
2
2
2
3 5
3
3
3
3
2
Exposure Normal With Vibrator
Score PM
52 0
22
56
40
36
60
22 0
20
96
102
34
40
FAM PM
.13
.12
.10
.17
.05
.15
.09 ~
.07
.06
.09
.07
.10
FAM
8.59
13.16
11.47
2.96
2.48
4.76
CO
ro
-------
Type
Sample Type of
Asbestos Content
Bldg
07
07
07
Site of Room No.
01 Hall 7-01A
7-01B
02 Cafeteria 7-02A
7-02B
03 Classroom 7-03A
7-03B
Material
granular
granular
granular
granular
granular
granular
Amoslte
0
0
0
0
0
0
Chrysotile
5
10
5
5
5
10
Crocidollte
0
0
0
0
0
0
paint
paint
paint
paint
paint
paint
GO
oo
-------
SAMPLING SITE IDENTIFICATION
SAMPLING TYPE OF
BLDG SITE LOCATION RATER
07 01 1 5
4
4
4
4
4
07 02 1 5
4
4
4
4
4
07 03 1 5
4
4
4
4
4
Condition
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
a
2
3
2
2
2
1
UNWEIGHTED FACTOR SCORES
Access
2
1
1
3
2
1
2
3
3
3
3
1
2
2
3
2
1
2
Friability
2
2
2
2
1
2
1
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
4
2
2
2
Air
2
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
1
1
1
2
2
2
1
1
2
1
Expose
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
1
3
Water
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Average Z
Activity Asbestos
3 8
2
2
3
3
1
2 5
2
3
3
3
2
2 8
2
1
1
1
1
Kxpnnure Nnn.*,i With Vibrator
Score PM
20 °
18
18
26
0
14
0 0
44
52
52
52
32
18 .03
18
66
18
6
14
FAN PM
.09
.36
.19
.06
.16
.07
.05
.02
.03
.03
.12
.09
.08
.05
.02
.01
FAM
34.19
26.52
18.45
30.50
19.38
11.37
31.17
17.48
11.24
DO
-------
Type
Sample Type of
Asbestos Content
Bldg Site of Room
08 01 Metal
Shop
08 02 Art Room
08 03 Offices
08 04 Choir
Room
8 05 Gym
08 06 Auto Shop
08 near site
5
08 near site
5
Mo.
08-01A
08-01B
08-02A
08-02B
08-03A
08-03B
08-04A
08-04B
08-05A
08-05B
08-06A
08-06B
08-SV1A
08-SV1B
Material
fibrous
fibrous
fibrous
fibrous
cemented
granules
cemejnted
granules
fibrous
fibrous
fibrous
fibrous
fibrous
fibrous
fibrous
fibrous
Amoslte
75
75
30
30
0
0
30
30
30
30
30
30
40
30
Chrysotlle
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
Crocidolite Calcite
0
0
0
0
0 ~
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Cotton Pibergla Gypsum Minrl-Wl Opaque Wood Other
present glass
present glass
present glass
present glass
glass
glass
glass
glass
present glass
present glass
present glass
present glass
present glass
present glass
00
1
01
-------
Type Sample Type of Asbestos Content
Bldg Site of ROOB Mo. Material Amoslte Chrysotile CrocIdolite Calcite Cotton Fibergls Gypsum Hinrl-Wl Opaque Wood Other
08 near aite
5
08 near site
5
08 near aite
5
08 near aite
5
08-SV2A fibrous 30
08-SV2B fibrous 40
08-SV3A fibrous 40
08-SV3B fibrous 40
present glass
present glass
present glass
present glass
CO
Ok
-------
SAMPLING SITE IDENTIFICATION
SAMPLING TYPE OF
BLDG SITE LOCATION RATER
08 01 1 5
5
4
4
4
4
4
4
08 02 1 5
5
4
4
4
4
4
08 03 1 5
5
4
4
4
Condition
4
4
2
3
3
4
3
3
4
3
3
3
3
3
2
1
1
1
1
1
UNWEIGHTED FACTOR SCORES
Access
2
3
3
3
2
3
3
3
2
2
3
2
3
3
2
2
2
1
2
3
Friability
3
4
3
4
4
3
4
4
3
3
4
3
4
4
4
1
2
1
1
2
Air
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
Expose
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
1
3
1
Hater
3
3
2
2
2
1
2
1
1
2
1
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
Average Z
Activity Asbestos
3 75
3
2
3
3
2
3
2
2 30
1
3
3
2
2
1
2 1
1
1
2
2
Exposure Normal With Vibrator
Score PM
84 .17
144
66
108
99
78
108
90
44 .06
32
66
40
66
72
48
0 .03
0
0
0
0
FAM PM FAM
.02 269.9 ~
.05
.03
.10 560.6 37.3
.11 57.5
.08 46.4
.03 3.5 .7
.07 .5
.08 .6
00
i
-------
SAMPLING SITE IDENTIFICATION
SAMPLING
BLDG SITE LOCATION
08 04
08 OS
08 06
[PE OF
UNWEIGHTED FACTOR SCORES
LTER Condition
4 I
4
5
5
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
4
4
2
2
2
2
2
3
2
4
4
4
4
4
3
3
4
2
3
3
2
Access
3
1
2
2
3
2
3
2
3
2
2
2
3
3
2
3
2
2
3
2
Friability Air
1 1
1
2
3
3
2
3
4
4
3
3
3
4
3
3
4
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
I
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Expose
3
1
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Water
1
1
1
2
1
2
1
1
2
3
3
2
3
3
2
3
1
2
1
2
Average X
Activity Asbestos
3
2
2 30
2
2
2
3
2
2
3 30
3
2
3
2
2
3
2 30
3
3
2
Exposure Normal With Vibrator^
Score PM
0
0
16 .03
36
40
18
48
48
84
56 .04
44
48
96
48
36
96
32 .04
40
44
36
FAM PM
.23 28.2
.20
.20
.11
.06
.06
.03 62.5
.02
.02
.02
.03
.03
.07 232.0
.24
.07
.07
FAM
18.5
10.4
29.3
30.7
48.6
50.8
00
00
-------
SAMPLING SITE IDENTIFICATION Air Sampling Data (Fibers/cc)
SAMPLING TYPE OF UNWEIGHTED FACTOR SCORES Average Z Exposure Horaa! With Vibrator
BLDG SITE LOCATION RATER Condition Access Friability Air Expose Hater Activity Asbestos Score PM FAM PM FAM
42322322 22 .04
43341313 72 .06
43331322 48
oo
i
vo
-------
Type Sample Type of
Asbestos Content
Bldg Site of Room tto. Material Amosite Chrysottle Crocidolite Calclte Cotton Pibergla Gypsum Minrl-Wl Opaque Wood Other
glasa
glass
glass
glass
glass
glass
glass
glass
glass
glass
09 01 Classroom 09-01A granular
09-01B granular
09 02 Classroom 09-02A granular
09-02B granular
09 03 Library 09-03A granular
09-03B granular
09 near site
3
09 near site
3
09 near site
3
09 near site
3
09-SV1A granular
09-SV1B granular
09-SV2A granular
09-SV2B granular
050
and SX anthrophyllite
050
and 52 anthrophyllite
050
and 52 anthrophyllite
050
and 5X anthrophyllite
050
and 52 anthrophyllite
050
and 5Z anthrophyllite
050
5 0
and 52 anthrophyllite
present
present
present
* present
I
o
-------
SAMPLING SITE IDENTIFICATION Air Sampling Data (Fibers/cc)
SAMPLING TYPE OF UNWEIGHTED FACTOR SCORES Average Z Exposure normal With Vibrator
BLDG SITE LOCATION
09011 522 12311 10
09021 512 12312 10
TYPE OF
RATER
5
5
4
4
4
4
5
5
4
4
4
4
5
5
4
4
4
4
4
Condition
2
2
1
2
1
1
1
2
2
4
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
UNWEIGHTED FACTOR SCORES
Access
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Friability
1
2
2
2
4
4
1
2
2
3
4
4
2
1
3
2
1
4
4
Air
2
2
1
2
1
1
2
2
2
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
Expose
3
3
3
3
2
2
3
3
3
3
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
Water
1
2
1
2
1
1
1
2
2
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Activity
1
1
1
2
1
1
2
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
09031 522 22321 10
Score PM
0 .04
16
12
18
18
18
0 .19
16
18
60
36
36
16 0
0
32
18
0
36
36
FAM FM
.10 6.1
.14
.11
.16
.10
.15
.04 9.9
.17
.11
.08
.03
.04
.04 57.2
.02
.05
.04
.02
.03
FAM
80.9
58.5
42.2
29.1
37.6
29.0
00
1
-------
Type
Sample Type of
Asbestos Content
Bldg Site of Room Ko. Material Amostte Chrysotile Crocidolite Calcite Cotton Pibergls Gypsum Minrl-Wl Opaque Wood Other
10 01 Hall
10-01A fibrous
10-01B fibrous
10 02 Cafeteria 10-02A fibrous
10-02B fibrous
10 near site
2
10 near site
2
10-SV3A fibrous
10-SV3B fibrous
0
0
0
0
70
70
70
70
70
40
0
0
0
0
paint
paint
glass
paint
paint
paint
00
ro
-------
SAMPLING SITE IDENTIFICATION
SAMPLING TYPE OF
BLDG SITE LOCATION RATER
10 01 1 5
5
4
4
4
10 02 1 5
5
4
4
4
Condition
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
4
UNWEIGHTED FACTOR SCORES
Access
2
3
2
3
2
2
2
2
3
2
Friability
3
3
4
4
4
3
3
1
3
2
Air
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
1
2
Expose
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Water
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
2
1
Average Z
Activity Asbestos
1 70
1
2
2
2
2 70
3
2
3
2
Exposure Normal With Vibrator
Score PM
42 0
54
72
108
72
48 .04
54
0
78
33
FAM PH
.07 36.0
.06
.01
.03
.04
.06
.10 63.6
.11
.07
.15
.05
FAM
26.5
17.5
63.0
62.2
-------
Type
Sample Type of
Asbestos Content
Bldg Site of Room No. Material Amoslte Chrysotlle Crocidolite Calclte Cotton Pibergla Gypsum Mintl-Wl
11
01 Hall
11-01A fibrous
11-01B fibrous
11 02 Lounge 11-02A fibrous
11-02B fibrous
11-SV3A fibrous
11 near site
2
11 near site
2
11-SV3B fibrous
5
5
10
10
10
40
40
40
40
60
70
0
0
0
0
present
present
present
present
present
present
Opaque Wood Other
glass
glass
glass
glass
glass
glass
00
i
-------
SAMPLING SITE IDENTIFICATION Air Sampling Data (Fibers/cc)
SAMPLING TYPE OF
BLDG SITE LOCATION RATER
11 01 1 5
5
4
4
4
4
11 02 1 5
5
4
4
4
4
Condition
3
4
3
2
3
4
4
4
4
4
3
3
UNWEIGHTED FACTOR SCORES
Access
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
2
3
3
3
3
Friability
3
4
4
3
3
2
3
4
3
4
3
4
Air
2
2
1
2
2
2
1
1
2
1
1
2
Expose
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Water
1
1
2
1
1
2
1
1
2
2
2
2
Average Z
Activity Asbestos
2 45
2
2
3
3
3
3 SO
3
3
3
3
3
Exposure Normal With Vibrator
Score PM
32 .01
66
72
44
44
30
60 .03
78
60
96
52
72
FAN PM
.07 104.7
.04
.02
.16
.10
.09
.05 61.9
.08
.07
.20
.24
.22
FAM
36.6
60.1
41.5
33.9
00
01
-------
Type Sample Type of
Asbestos Concent
Idg
14
14
14
14
14
Site of Room No.
01 Cafeteria 14-01A
14-01B
02 Classroom 14-02A
14-02B
03 Hall 14-03A
14-03B
near site 14-SV1
3
near site 14-SV2
3
Material Amosite
40
60
50
60
30
60
fibrous 50
40
Chrysotlle Croc idol it e
20 0
0 0
0 0
. 0 -. 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
Calclte
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Cotton
trace
.
trace
1
0
5
trace
trace
5
Fibergls
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Gypsum
8
4
4
4
5
4
10
5
Minrl-Wl
30
30
40
30
50
30
30
50
Opaque
trace
1
1
2
5
1
5
5
Wood
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Other
trace gl.
chips
5Z glass
chips
4Z glass
chips
4Z glass
chips
5Z glass
chips
52 glass
chips
52 glass
chips
5Z glass
chips
CO
-------
SAMPLING SITE IDENTIFICATION Air Sampling Data (Fibers/cc)
SAMPLING TYPE OF UNWEIGHTED FACTOR SCORES Average Z Exposure Normal With Vibrator
BLOC SITE LOCATION
14 01 1
14 02
14 03
ATER
1
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
1
2
2
3A
3B
3C
3D
3E
1
2
2
3
Condition
2
2
1
2
3
3
2
3
2
1
2
2
3
2
3
3
2
2
2
3
Access
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Friability
3
1
2
3
3
4
4
4
3
1
2
3
3
4
4
4
3
2
2
3
Air
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Expose
3
1
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
1
3
3
Water
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
2
1
1
2
3
Activity Asbestos
2 60
3
2
2
2
3
3
2
1
2 55
1
2
2
2
2
2
1 45
3
1
2
Score PM FAM PM FAM
48 0.0 117.0
0 0-0 261.9
18 114.4
48
66
108
31
99
36 0.0 238.2
0 0.0 266.8
21 174.8
48
72
72
99
108
28 181.9
10 123.8
16 311.4
52
GO
-------
SAMPLING SITE IDENTIFICATION Air Sampling Data (Flbers/cc)
SAMPLING TYPE OF UNWEIGHTED FACTOR SCORES Average Z Exposure Normal With Vibrator
BLDG SITE LOCATION RATER Condition Access Friability Air Expose Water Activity Asbestos Score PH FAM PM FAM
33232322 48
32242333 66
33242332 78
33242322 72
oo
i
Co
-------
Type Sample Type of
Asbestos Content
Ud
15
15
15
15
g Site of Room No. Material
01 Hall 15-01A(a)
15-01B(8)
15-01C
15-01D
03 Classroom 1S-03A
15-03B
near site 15-SV1
3
near site 15-SV2
3
Anosite
90
80
50
40
20
40
AO
50
Chrysotile
0
0
0
0
0
5
0
0
Crocidollte
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Calcite
5
0
0
0
10
20
15
15
Cotton
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Fibergls
0
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
Gypsum
0
10
10
20
AO
0
0
0
Minrl-Wl
2
0
30
30
20
30
AO
25
Opaque
3
5
5
10
10
trace
2
5
Wood
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Other
5Z glass
chips
5Z glass
chips
5Z glass
chips
5Z glass
chips
3Z glass
chips
5Z glass
chips
(a) Samples collected from water-damaged area.
DO
l
-------
SAMPLING SITE IDENTIFICATION
SAMPLING TYPE OF
BLDG SITE LOCATION RATER
15 01 1 1
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
15 01 2(a) 1
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
15 03 1 1
2
2
3A
Condition
3
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
3
UNWEIGHTED FACTOR SCORES
Access
2
3
3
3
2
2
3
2
2
3
3
3
2
2
3
2
2
2
2
2
Friability
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
3
2
3
3
Air
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
Expose
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Water
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
Average X
Activity Asbestos
2 45
3
3
3
2
3
3
2
2 85
3
3
3
2
3
3
2
1 33
2
2
1
Exposure Normal With Vibrator
Score PM FAM PM FAM
4» 121.9
48 88.7
60 172.5
56
66
72
84
66
72 -- 209.1
72 257.8
90 249.1
34
99
108
126
99
40 180.4
18 276.3
36 12.8
40
(a) This site is a vater-danaged area. Rating form data, bulk sampling data and vibrator
data were collected at the water-danaged area.
00
l
ro
o
-------
SAMPLING SITE IDENTIFICATION Air Semolina Data (Fibers/cc)
SAMPLING TYPE OF
BLDG SITE LOCATION RATER
3B
3C
3D
3E
Condition
3
3
3
3
UNWEIGHTED FACTOR SCORES
Access
2
2
3
2
Friability
4
4
4
4
Air
2
2
2
2
Expose
3
3
3
3
Water
1
1
1
1
Average Z
Activity Asbestos
2
1
1
1
Exposure Normal With Vibrator
Score PM FAM PM FAX
66
60
72
60
03
-------
Type
Sample Type of
Asbestos Content
tide
16
16
16
16
16
16
Site of Room
01 Entrance
Hall
02 Hall
03 Music
Practice
Room
04 Cafeteria
near site
1
near site
1
Ho.
16-01A
16-01B
16-02A(B)
16-02B(a)
16-02C
16-02D
16-03A
16-03B
16-04A
16-04 B
16-SV1
16-SV2
Material
granular
granular
granular
granular
granular
chucky
granular
granular
granular
granular
granular
granular
granular
Amoslte
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Chrysotlle
10
5
0
5
10
10
10
10
5
5
10
10
Crocidollte
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Calclte
40
SO
20
45
SO
30
25
40
35
25
SO
30
Cotton
0
.
5
0
0
0
0
5
0
0
0
0
5
Plbergls
0
0
0
0
0
10
10
10
10
10
0
0
Gypsum
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Mlnrl-Wl
0
0
20
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Opaque
SO
40
60
SO
40
50
50
40
50
60
40
50
Wood
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Other
--
--
(a) Samples collected from water-damaged area.
co
ro
ro
-------
SAMPLING SITE IDENTIFICATION Air Sampling Data (Fibers/cc)
SAMPLING TYPE OF UNWEIGHTED FACTOR SCORES Average X Exposure normal With Vibrator
BLDG SITE LOCATION RATER
16 01 1 1
2
2
> .
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
16 02 1 1
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
Condition
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
3
2
1
2
2
2
2
3
3
Access
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
2
2
3
3
3
3
Friability
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
3
3
2
2
2
3
2
1
2
2
2
Air
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Expose
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Water
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
3
3
2
1
2
1
1
3
3
3
Activity Asbestos
3 7.5
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
2
2 10
2
1
3
2
2
3
3
3
Score PM FAM PM FAM
18 - - 6.0
10 3.0
8 0.4
12
12
0
12
16
18
36
40
26 - - !.!
IB o
1« 1.9
40
16
0
26
32
32
CO
I
INJ
CO
-------
SAMPLING SITE IDENTIFICATION
SAMPLING TYPE 0
BLDG SITE LOCATION RATER
3
3
16 02 2(a) i
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
16 03 1 i
2
2
2
2
2
3
F
Condition
3
3
3
2
1
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
2
1
1
1
1
1
2
UNWEIGHTED FACTOR SCORE!:
Access
3
2
2
2
3
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
' 2
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
Friability
3
2
2
2
2
3
2
1
2
2
2
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
3
Air
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Expose
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Water
3
3
3
2
1
2
1
1
3
3
3
3
3
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
Activity Asbestos
3
3
2 2.5
2
i
i
3
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
2 10
2
1
1
2
1
2
Air Sampling Data (Fibers/cc)
Exposure Nornal With Vibrator
Score PH FAM PM FAM
64
28
26 o
18 o
14 0
40
16
0
26
32
32
64
28
16 2.3
12 o
10 o
8
12
0
32
(a) This site is a water-damaged area. Rating form data, bulk sampling data
and vibrator data were collected at the water-damaged area.
ro
-------
SAMPLING SITE IDENTIFICATION
Air Sampling Data (Flbera/cc)
SAMPLING TYPE OF
BLOG SITE LOCATION RATER
3
3
3
3
16 04 1 1
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
16 05 1
Condition
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
2
3
2
2
2
2
UNWEIGHTED FACTOR SCORES
Access
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Friability
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
Air
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Expose
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Water
1
1
1
1
3
2
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
Average Z
Activity Asbestos
2
1
1
1
3 5
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
3
3
2
Exposure Normal With Vibrator
Score PM FAM PM FAM
16
14
14
14
22 - _. 3.0 _
14 1.1
12 1.9
12
10
0
24
18
20
22
20
~ 0.8*
Fibers are not asbestos fibers.
oo
I
ro
-------
Type
Sample Type of
Asbestos Content
17 01 Classroom 17-01A fibrous
17-01B fibrous
17 02 Art Room 17-02A fibrous
17-02B fibrous
17 03 Hall 17-03A fibrous
17-03B fibrous
17-SV1 fibrous
17 near site
3
17 near site
3
Aoosite
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Chrysotile
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Crocidollte
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Calcite
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Cotton
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Fiberfrls
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Gypsum
30
20
20
20
40
20
20
Minrl-Wl
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Opaque
*- -- _
10
20
10
20
10
20
20
Wooc
60
60
70
60
50
60
60
17-SV2 fibrous
30
10
60
ro
en
-------
SAMPLING SITE IDENTIFICATION Air Sampling Data (Fibers/cc)
SAMPLING TYPE OF UNWEIGHTED FACTOR SCORES Average Z Exposure Normal With Vibrator
BLDG SITE LOCATION
17 01 1
17 02
IATEI
1
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
1
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
I Condition
3
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
Access
2
1
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
1
3
3
2
2
2
2
Friability
3
2
3
2
2
4
3
3
3
3
3
2
3
2
2
4
3
3
4
3
Air
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Expose
3
3
3
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
3
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
Water
3
3
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
3
2
2
3
3
2
3
3
2
Activity Asbestos
2 0
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2 0
1
3
1
2
2
2
2
3
2
Score PM FAH PM FAM
0 0.0 2.3
0 1.5
0 1.9
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0.01 0.8
0 4.5
0 1.1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
00
I
ro
-------
SAMPLING TYPE OF
BLDG SITE LOCATION RATER
17 03 1 1
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
Condition
3
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
UNWEIGHTED FACTOR SCORES
Access
3
2
1
1
1
3
3
2
3
2
Friability
3
3
2
1
2
4
3
3
3
3
Air
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Expose
3
3
1
1
1
3
3
3
3
3
Water
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Average Z
Activity Asbestos
2 0
2
2
2
1
3
3
3
3
2
Exposure Normal With Vibrator
Score PM FAH PM FAM
0 0.01 0
0 O.B
0 1.9
0
0
C
C
0
0
0
00
ro
oo
-------
Type Sample Type of
Asbestos Content
Bldg
IB
18
Site of Room No.
01 Entrance 18-01 A
Hall
18-01B
02 Hall 18- 02 A
18-02B
Material Amosite
granular
with fibers
granular
with fibers
fibers/
powder
granular
0
0
0
0
Chrysotile
5
20
20
10
Crocidolite Calclte Cotton
0
0
0
0
45
50
40
40
0
trace
0
0
Fibergla
5
0
5
10
Gypsum
0
0
0
0
Minrl-Wl
0
0
0
0
Opaque
40
30
35
40
Woo
5
0
0
0
5
CO
I
ro
10
-------
SAMPLING SITE IDENTIFICATION Air Sampling Data (Fibers/cc)
SAMPLING TYPE OF UNWEIGHTED FACTOR SCORES Average Z Exposure Normal With Vibrator
BLDG SITE LOCATION RATER Condition Access Friability Air Expose Water Activity Asbestos Score PM FAH PM E*
18 01 1 133 2 2 3 1 } 13 26 0*
0*
0*
18 02 1 122 2 2 3 3 2 15 20 0*
0*
0*
*
Too much powder on filters - no fibers visible.
CD
l
Co
o
-------
Type Sample Type of Asbestos Content
Bldg Site of Room Ho. Material Aaosite Chrysotile Crocidolite Calcite Cotton Fibergla Gypsum Mlnrl-Wl Opaque Wood Other
19 01 Hall 19-01A granular 0 10 0 60 0 0 00 30 0
19-01B granular 0 5 0 40 ' 0 0 0 0 55 10
19 02 Music 19-02A powder and 0 20 0 40 0 5 0 0 35 0
Practice fibers
Room
19-02B granular 0 30 0 50 0 0 0 0 20 0
with fibers
CO
I
Co
-------
» M u b«w *F & & . &.fcr**il A 4.1 4. wn & A V/li
SAMPLING TYPE Of
UNWEIGHTED FACTOR SCORES
BLDG SITE LOCATION RATER Condition
19 01 1 11
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
Access
3
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
J
3
3
3
3
3
Friability Air
2 2
2
2
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Expose
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
3
3
3
3
3
Water
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Average Z
Activity Asbestos
3 7.5
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
3
Exposure Normal With Vibrator
Score PM FAM PM FAM
18 0.4
16 0*
20 0*
0
0
0
0
22
22
22
22
16
22
22
22
16
0
Too much powder on filters - fibers not visible.
co
ro
-------
SAMPLING SITE IDENTIFICATION
Air Sampling Data (Flbera/cc)
SAHPLINC TYPE OF
BLDG SITE LOCATION KATER
19 02 1 1
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
2
Condition
2
2
1
2
2
2
3
3
2
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
UNWEIGHTED FACTOR SCORES
Access
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Friability
2
3
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
2
2
2
1
Air
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Expose
3
3
3
3
3
2
3
3
3
3
3
2
3
3
3
2
3
Water
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Average X
Activity Asbestos
3 25
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
2
Exposure Normal With Vibrator
Score PM FAH PM FAM
24 0* 1.5
40 !.9
0 1.1
0
0
14
28
28
20
26
26
12
36
18
18
12
0
Too much powder on filter - no fibers visible.
CXI
co
CO
-------
Asbestos Content
Idg
20
20
20
20
20
20
jr~
Site of Roon No.
01 Band Room 20-01A
20-018
02 Art Room 20-02A
20-02B
03 Music 20-03A
Room
20-03B
20-03C
20-030
04 Classroom 20-04A
20-04B
near site 20-SV1
1
near site 20-SV2
1
Material Amoslte
granular 0
granular 0
granular 0
granular 0
(a)
granular 0
granular*8' 0
granular 0
granular 0
granular 0
chunky 0
granular 0
granular 0
Chrysotile Crocidollte Calclte Cotton Flbergls Gypsum Mlnrl-Wl
0 0 0 0 0 20 0
0 o 0 0 0 30 0
0 o 0 0 0 20 0
5 o 0 0 0 40 0
0 o 0 0 0 30 0
0 o 0 0 0 30 0
0 o 0 0 0 20 0
5 o 0 0 0 25 0
0 o 0 0 0 25 0
0 o 0 0 0 40 0
0 o 0 0 0 45 0
0 o 0 0 0 30 0
Opaque Hood Other
20 10 SOX glass
chips
10 10 507, glass
chips
10 20 50Z glass
chips
20 5 30Z glass
chips
10 10 502 glass
chips
10 20 40Z glass
chips
10 20 50Z glass
chips
10 10 50Z glass
chips
10 10 55Z glass
chips
15 5 40Z glass
chips
15 10 30Z glass
chips
10 10 50Z glass
chips
CO
1
Co
(a) Samples collected from water-damaged area.
-------
SAMPLING SITE IDENTIFICATION Air Sampling Data (Fibers/cc)
SAMPLING TYPE OF UNWEIGHTED FACTOR SCORES Average Z Exposure Hormal With Vibrator
BLDG SITE LOCATION
20 01 1
20 02
UTEI
1
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
1
2
2
2
2
I Condition
3
1
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
4
2
2
1
1
1
1
Access
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Friability
2
1
1
1
1
2
3
2
2
2
2
1
4
4
4
1
2
1
1
1
I
Air
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
Expose
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
Water
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
3
2
3
1
1
1
1
Activity Asbestos
3 0
2
2
1
2
2
3
3
3
2
3
1
1
1
2
1
2 2.5
1
1
2
1
Score PM FAM PH
0 _ 0.8
0 0.8
0 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
22 0
0 1.1
0 0
0
0
FAH
CD
1
CO
cn
-------
SAMPLING SITE IDENTIFICATION
SAMPLING TYPE OF
BLDG SITE LOCATION RATER
2
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
20 03 1 1
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
Condition
2
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
1
2
3
1
1
1
1
2
3
3
UNWEIGHTED FACTOR SCORES
Access
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Friability
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
4
1
1
4
2
1
1
1
1
2
3
2
Air
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Expose
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
3
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Water
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
2
3
3
3
3
Average X
Activity Asbestos
1
2
2
2
3
2
1
1
2
1
1
3 2.5
2
2
2
1
2
2
3
Exposure Normal With Vibrator
Score PM FAM PM FAM
20
28
28
28
30
28
0
30
0
1
30
30 -- 0
0 0*
0 1-5
0
0
22
56
30
Too nuch powder on filter - no fibers visible.
co
i
co
-------
SAMPLING SITE IDENTIFICATION
Air Sampling Data (Flbers/cc)
SAMPLING TYPE OF
BLDC SITE LOCATION RATER
J
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
20 03 2(a) 1
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
4
UNWEIGHTED FACTOR SCORES
Condition
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
3
1
1
1
1
2
3
3
3
3
3
2
Access Friability Air
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
2
3
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
Expose
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
Average 2
Water Activity Asbestos
3
3
3
2
2
2
3
2
3
3
3
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
3
2
1
1
1
1
1
3 0
2
2
2
1
2
2
3
2
3
2
1
Exposure Nona! With Vibrator
Score FM FAM PH FAM
23
30
28
0
10
10
12
If.
0 - - 1.1
0 0
o o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
(a) This site Is a water-damaged area. Rating lurro Uula, bulk sampling
and vibrator data were collected at the water-damaged area.
CO
CO
-------
3Anri.u«i ant Lutm J.r AUAiiuw
SAMPLTHC TYPE OF
UNUFTGHTED FACTOR SCORES
BLDG SITE LOCATION RATER Condition
4 2
it
4
It
20 04 1 1
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
2
2
2
3
1
1
1
1
1
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
Access Friability
2 2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
4
Air
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
Expose
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
Average Z
Water Activity Asbestos
2 1
2
3
2
3
3
3
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
1
1
1
2 0
1
2
2-
1
1
2
2
2
3
2
1
1
Exposure Noraal With Vibrator
Score PM FAM PM ***
0
0
0
0
0 0*
0 7.2
0 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Too much powder on filter - no fibers visible.
co
CD
-------
SAMPLING SITE IDENTIFICATION Air SanpllnR Data (Fibera/cc)
SAMPLING
BLDG SITE LOCATION
PE OF
UNWEIGHTED FACTOR SCORES
IEK Condition
4 2
4
4
2
2
Access Friability Air
2 4 2
2
2
4
2
1
2
Expose
2
3
3
Average Z Exposure Normal With Vibrator
Water Activity Asbestos Score PM FAH ?M FAM
2
3
2
1
2
1
0
0
0
CO
I
CO
10
-------
Type of
Asbestos Concent
Idg
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
Site of Room No.
01 Boiler 21-01A
Room
21-01B
Pipe 21-01C
Insulation
Hipe 21-01D
Insulation
02 Classroom 21-02A
21-02B
03 Hall 21-03A
21-03B
04 Library 21-04A
21-04B
05 Classroom 21-05A
21-05B
near site 21-SV1
1
near site 21-SV2
2
Material Amosite Chrysotile Croc idol ite
flaky
flaky
powder , no
fibers
powder , no
fibers
chunky ,
granular
flaky
flaky
flaky
flakes
chunks
chunks,
no flakes
chunky
chunks
flaky
0
0
30
40
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
10
0
0
15
10
5
5
5
5
5
20
5
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
30
30
30
60
60
15
60
70
50
35
80
60
40
80
50
35Z venniculite
30Z vermlculite
35Z venniculite
30Z venniculite
25Z vermiculite
45Z venniculite
60Z vermlculite
15Z venniculite
35Z vermiculite
40Z vermiculite
15Z venniculite
45Z vermlculite
CD
i
-------
SAMPLING SITE IDENTIFICATION Air Sampling Data (Fibers/cO
SAMPLIMC TYPE OF
UNWEIGHTED FACTOR SCORES
BLDG SITE LOCATION RATER Condition
21 01 1 11
2
2
21 02 1 1
2
2
21 03 1 1
2
2
21 04 1 1
2
2
21 OS 1 1
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
1
2
2
1
2
2
1
2
2
Access Friability Air
232
1
1
2
1
1
2
1
1
2
1 .
1
2
1
1
2
2
3
2
2
3
2
2
3
2
2
3
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Expose
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Average Z Exposure Moraal With Vibrator
Hater Activity Asbestos Score PM
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
2
1
1
2
2
2
1
1
1
2
1
1
7.5 24
12
12
12.5 24
12
14
5 24
14
16
5 20
12
12
12.5 24
0
0
FAM PM
0 1
2
1
0.01 1
1
5
0 1
2
0
0 3.
3.
2.
0 0.
0.
0.
FAM
.1
.3
.5
.5
.9
.0
.1
.3
.8
.1
,0
3
8
8
8
CD
-pi
-------
Bids
22
22
22
22
22
Type
Sample Type of
Asbestos Content
Site of Room No. Material Amosite Chrysotile Crocidolite Calcite Cotton Fibergls Gypsum Mlnrl-Wl Opaque Wood Other
01 Classroom 22-01A flakes
22-01B chunky
02 Classroom 22-02A chunky
22-02B chunky
03 Classroom 22-03A chunky,
no flakes
22-03B chunky
04 Classroom 22-04A chunky
22-04B flakes
05 Classroom 22-05A flaky
22-05B chunky,
no flakes
Aroosite
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Chrysotile
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Crocidollte
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
vermiculite
5 95Z vermiculite
15 5 80Z vermiculite
vermiculite
10 10 80% vermiculite
vermiculite
20 10 70Z vermiculite
10 90Z vermiculite
vermiculite
vermiculite
Ho Bulk Sampling Variability data was collected in this building because asbestos-
containing material was on beams and no 5000 ft2 area could be defined.
CO
l
ro
-------
SAMPLING SITE IDENTIFICATION
Air Sampling Data (Fibers/cc)
SAMPLING TYPE OF
BLDG SITE LOCATION RATER
22 01 1 1
2
2
22 02 I 1
2
2
22 03 1 1
2
2
22 04 1 1
2
2
22 05 1 1
2
2
Condition
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
1
1
UNWEIGHTED FACTOR SCORES
Access
1
1
1
1
1
I
1
1
I
I
1
1
1
1
1
Friability
3
1
1
3
1
1
3
1
1
3
1
1
3
1
1
Air
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
Expose
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Water
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Average Z
Activity Asbestos
2 0
1
1
2 0
1
1
2 0
1
1
2 0
1 0
1
2 0
1
1
Exposure Normal
Score PM FAM
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
»
o
0
0
With Vibrator
PM FAM
3.1
7.6
1.9
8.0
0.4
1.5
3.4*
5.7*
5.0*
7.6*
4.8*
8.4*
5.7
4.8
5.0
Vibrator, held horizontally.
DO
i
co
-------
Type of
Asbestos Content
lld$ Site of Room
23
23
23
23
23
01
02
03
near
1
near
1
Library
Rest room
Admini-
strative
Office
site
site
No.
23-01A
23-01B
23-02A
23-02B
23-03A
23-03B
23-SV1
23-SV2
Material
chunky
powder,
no flakes
flaky
chunky
painted
flakes
flaky
chunky
chunks ,
flakes
Amosite
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Chrysotile
trace
0
0
5
5
10
0
0
Crocidolite Calclte Cotton Plbergls Gypsum Minrl-Wl
0 30
0 10
o
0 ________
0
0
0 20
0 ______
Opaqi
_pC__v-U
60
20
30
70
70
70
10Z vermicullte
10 60Z vermlculite
70% vermicullte
25Z vermicullte
25Z vermicullte
20Z vermlculite
10Z mica
70Z vermicullte
10 90Z vermicullte
CD
-------
SAMPLING SITE IDENTIFICATION
Air Sampling Data (Fibers/cc)
SAMPLING TYPE OF
BLOG SITE LOCATION RATER
23 01 1 1
2
2
23 02 1 i
2
2
23 03 1 i
2
2
Condition
1
1
1
3
2
2
1
1
1
UNWEIGHTED FACTOR SCORES
Access
2
1
1
2
2
I
2
1
1
Friability
2
2
2
2
3
2
2
2
2
Air
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Expose
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Water
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
Average Z
Activity Asbestos
1 0.
1
3
1 2.5
1
3
1 7.5
3
2
Exposure Normal
Score PM FAM
0
0
0
22
36
18
12
U
12
With Vibrator
PH FAM
0.8 ~
0
0
0.8
0.8
0.8
3.4
0
2.7
DO
I
tn
-------
Type Sample Type of Asbestos Content
Bldg Site of Room No. Material Amosite Chrysotile Crocidollte Colette Cotton Fibergls Gypsum Hinrl-Hl Opaque Wood Other
24 01 Home 24-01A fibrous 0 60 0 10 30
Economics
Room
24-01B(a) fibrous 0 60 0 20 -- 20
24-01C powder 0 10 0 40 10 40
with fibers
24-01D powder 0 20 0 50 10 20
with fibers
24 02 Art Room 24-02A powder 0 40 0 30 30
with fibers
24-028 powder 0 20 0 40 ~ *0
with fibers
(tile on 24-EXTRA fibrous 0 70 0 15 ~ 15
table top)
24 03 Hall 24-03A powder 0 30 0 40 10 20
wllh fibers
24-03B powder 0 30 0 40 10 -- 20
with fibers
(a) Samples collected from water-damaged area. CD
-------
SAMPLING SITE IDENTIFICATION
Air Sampline Data (Flbers/cc)
SAMPLING TYPE OF
BLDG SITE LOCATION RATER
24 01 1 i
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
4
A
4
Condition
3
1
1
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
UNWEIGHTED FACTOR SCORES
Access
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
2
1
1
1
Friability
2
1
1
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
Air
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Expose
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
1
1
1
Water
3
2
3
3
2
3
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
Average Z
Activity Asbestos
2 15
2
2
2
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
1
1
1
Exposure Normal With Vibrator
Score PM FAM PM FAM
26 0
0 0
0 0
20
16
0
16
16
16
22
18
0
0
0
oo
-P.
-------
SAMPLING SITE IDENTIFICATION
SAMPLING TYPE OF
BLOC SITE LOCATION RATER (
24 01 2(U) 1
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
it
4
4
UNWEIGHTED FACTOR SCORES
Condition Access
3
1
1
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
2
I
1
1
Friability
2
1
1
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
I
1
Air
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Expose
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
I
1
1
Water
3
2
3
3
2
3
I
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
Average Z
Activity Asbestos
2 60
2
2
2
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
I
1
1
Air Sampling Data (Flbers/rcJ
Exposure Normal With Vibiator
Score PH FAH PM FAM
CO
39 0
0
0
30
24
0
24
24
24
33
27
0
n
0
(a) This site is a water-damaged area. Rating form data, bulk sampling data
and vibrator data were collected at the water-damaged area.
(b) The extent of damage prevented vibrator air sampling.
CO
.£»
00
-------
SAMPLING SITE IDENTIFICATION
SAMPLING TYPE OF
BLDG SITE LOCATION RATER
24 02 1 1
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
Condition
2
2
2
2
1
1
3
3
2
3
3
1
1
1
1
UNWEIGHTED FACTOR SCORES
Access
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
2
1
1
1
1
Friability
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
I
1
1
1
1
Air
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Expose
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
1
1
1
1
Water
2
I
1
1
1
I
1
1
1
3
1
1
1
1
1
Average Z
Activity Asbestos
3 30
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
1
1
1
1
Exposure Normal With Vibrator
Score PM FAN PM FAH
20 0
14 0
0 0.4
0
0
0
0
22
ir.
32
0
0
0
0
0
DO
V£>
-------
- «»»ii iuc.li! rrii^/viiun
SAMPLING TYPE OF
imuFTnHTpn F*rroR srnRES
BLDG SITE LOCATION RATER Condicion
24 03 1 1 2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
I
1
1
2
1
3
3
3
3
3
1
1
1
1
Access
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
Friability Air
1 2
1
1
1
2
1
I
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Expose
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
1
1
1
1
...«,_»^ » p =..,» v~=i With Vibrator
Water Activity Asbestos Score PM FAM HJ EM
1 3 30 0 0 0
1
1
1
1
1
3
3
3
3
3
1
1
1
1
3
2
3
3
3
1
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
0 0
0 0
0
18
0
0
26
26
26
0
0
0
0
0
00
en
o
-------
Type Sample Type of Asbestos Content
Bldg Site of Room No. Material Amosite Chryaotile Crocidolite Calcite Cotton Fibergla Gypsum Minrl-Wl Opaque Wood Other
25 01 Entrance 25-01A powder 0 10 0 50 5 35
Hall with fibers
25-01B powder 0 20 0 40 ~ 40
with fibers
25 02 Classroom 25-02A powder 0 20 0 20 30 30
with fibers
25-02B powder 0 20 0 40 10 30
with fibers
25 near site 25-SV1 powder 0 40 0 40 ~ 20
1 with fibers
25 near site 25-SV2 powder 0 * 50 0 30 20
2 with fibers
oo
CJl
-------
SAMPLING SITE IDEHTTFir-ATTnH
SAMPLING TYPE OF
UNWEIGHTED FACTOR SCORES
BLDG SITE LOCATION RATER Condition Access
25 01 1 123
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
1
1
2
1
1
2
2
2
3
2
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
2
1
1
1
1
Friability
1
1
1
2
1
1
2
2
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
Air
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Expose
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
1
1
1
1
Water
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Average Z Exposure Normal With Vibrator
Activity Asbestos
2 15
2
3
1
3
3
2
2
3
3
3
1
1
1
1
Score PM FAM rn tsii
00 0
0 0
0 0
14
0
0
16
20
0
28
18
0
0
0
0
00
in
ro
-------
SAMPLING SITE IDENTIFICATION Air Sampling Data (Fibers/cc)
SAMPLING TYPE OF
IILDU SITE LOCATION RATER
25 02 1 1
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
Condition
2
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
UNWEIGHTED FACTOR SCORES
Access
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
Friability
1
1
1
1
2
1
3
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
Air
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Expose
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
1
1
1
1
Water
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
3
2
2
2
2
2
Average Z
Activity Asbestos
2 20
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
3
2
1
1
1
1
Exposure Normal With Vibrator
Score PM FAM t>H 1-AM
00 0
0 0
0 0
0
10
0
32
18
18
22
18
0
0
0
0
00
I
en
oo
-------
Type Sample Type of Asbestos Content
ldg Site of Room No. Material Amostte Chrysotile Crocldolite Calctte Cotton Fibergla Gypsum Hinrl-Wl Opaque Wood Other
26 01 Air 26-01A paper 0 40 0 _____ 60 ~
Plenum with fibers
26-01B paper 0 40 0 °0
with fibers
CD
en
-------
SAM-LINK SITE IDENTIFICATION Air SampUnu Data (Fibera/cc)
SAMPLING TYPE OF UNWEIGHTED FACTOR SCORES AveraBe Z Exposure Normal With Vibrator
BLUC SITE LOCATION RATER Condition Access Friability Air Expose Water Activity Asbestos Score PH FAM PM FAM
26 01 1 132 3 1 3 1 3 40 52 0.01 -- 0.4*
23141323 78 2.3*
23141311 60 1.5*
22131311 28
Vibrator held horizontally.
01
-------
Type Sample Type of Asbestos Content
Bide Site of Room Mb. Material Amosite Chrysotile Crocidoiul Calcite Cotton FiberKlB Gyjjsum Minrl-Hl plague Wood Other
50
27 01 Air 27-01A paper 0 50 0
Plenum with fibers
_ 10 " 30
DET-2 cloth 0 60 0
CD
I
CJ1
-------
SAMPLING SITE IDENTIFICATION Air Sampling Data (Flbers/cc)
SAMPLING TYPE OF UNWEIGHTED FACTOR SCORES Average I Exposure Normal With Vibrator
BLOC SITE LOCATION RATER Condition Access Friability Air Expose Water Activity Asbestos Score PH FAM PH FAN
27 01 1 132 3 1 3 1 3 55 78 0.03 2.7*
23131313 72 3.4*
21121311 15 1.1*
* Vibrator held horizontally.
oo
i
en
-------
Type Sample Type of Asbestos Content
Bld^ Site of Room Mo. Material Amosite Chrysotile Crocidolita Calclte Cotton Fibergls Gypsum Minrl-Wl Opaque Wood Other
28 02 Hall 28-02A fibrous 0 30 0 10 50 10
DET-1 fibrous 0 5 0 5 '____ 80 5 5Z glass
chips
CD
l
cn
CO
-------
SAMmtK SITE IDENTIFICATION
SAMPLING TYPE OF
SITE LOCATION KATi
Air SaropllnR Data (Kibcrs/cc)
BLUU
28
02
' UNWEIGHTED FACTOR SCORES
Condition
2
2
1
1
Access
2
2
2
1
Friability
3
4
3
4
Air
2
1
1
1
Expose
3
3
3
3
Water
1
1
1
1
Average Z
Activity Asbestos
2 18
2
3
3
Exposure Normal
Score PH FAM
32
54
32
42
With Vibrator
PM
20.2
0*
14.5*
FAM
»<
* Too much dust on filterno fibers visible.
03
i
en
10
-------
Type Sample Type of Asbestos Content
ldg Site of Room No. Material Amosite Chrysotile CrocidolIte Calcite Cotton Flbergla Gypsum Mtnrl-Wl Opaque Wood Other
29 01 Fan Room 29-OU fibrous 80 0 0 10 -- 10Z glass
chips
DET-3 fibrous 80 0 0 10 ~ 10X glass
chips
CO
-------
SAMPLING SITE IPENTIKICATIOK Mr sampling Data
SAMPLING TYPE OF
BLOC SITE LOCATION RATER
29 01 1 1
2
2
Condition
2
1
2
UNWEIGHTED FACTOR SCORES
Access
2
2
1
Friability
4
3
4
Air
2
1
1
Expose
3
3
3
Water
1
1
1
Average Z
Activity Asbestos
3 80
1
3
Exposure Normal
Score PH KAM
81
36
81
With Vibrator
PM
18.7
38.0
60.2
FAM
Note: The code used to identify the type of rater is:
1: Battelle rater using revised rating form
2: School administrator using revised rating form
3: Trained rater using revised rating form
4: School administrator using condensed original rating form
5: Battelle rater using condensed original rating form.
Letters are used to distinguish individual raters of a particular type.
DO
I
CT>
-------
TABLE B-2. JEM RESULTS FOR SELECTED NORMAL AIR SAMPLES
Sample
Number
8-1
8 Ambient
9-3
Blank
8-2
8-5
11-2
Blank
Number of
Grid Openings
Analyzed
2
2
2
10
10
10
3
10
Type of
Asbestos
Chrysotile
Amphibole
Chrysotile
Amphibole
Chrysotile
Amphibole
Chrysotile
Amphibole
Chrysotile
Amphibole
Chrysotile
Amphibole
Chrysotile
Amphibole
ChrysotHe
Amphibole
Fibers
Fibers
Counted
71
15
87
0
59
26
7
0
87
3
41
1
88
0
10
0
<5y
Fi bers
per cc
2.1
0.44
2.5
<0.03
1.7
0.76
--(a)
--(a)
0.51
0.02
0.24
0.01
1.7
<0.02
--(a)
--(a)
Fibers
Fibers
Counted
0
7
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
>5^
Fibers
per cc
<0.03
0.20
<0.03
<0.03
0.03
<0.03
--(a)
-(a)
<0.006
<0.006
<0.006
<0.006
<0.02
<0.02
"(a)
--(a)
Total
Asbestos Fibers
ng/m3
130
4,600
19
85
66
--(a)
-(a)
11
6
7.4
50
27
--(a)
--(a)
DO
I
CTl
ro
(a) No air was filtered through the blanks; so fibers per cc and ng/m3 cannot be calculated.
-------
B-63
TABLE B-3. RESULTS OF LABORATORY ANALYSIS OF BULK SAMPLES
COLLECTED AT EIGHT SAMPLING SITES
1503
1503
1503
1503
1503
1503
1503
1503
1503
1503
15C3
1503
1503
1503
1503
1601
1601
1601
1601
1601
1631
1631
1601
1601
1601
1601
1601
1601
1601
1631
1601
1801
1831
1301
1831
1801
1831
ieoi
1901
1801
1501
1601
1401
1801
1801
ieoi
1801
1901
1901
1901
1901
1901
1901
1901
1901
Sampling Location
1
l
1
l
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
3
Laboratory Total Percentage
Replicate of Asbestos
1 50
2 50
3 50
< 60
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
3
<»
1
2
3
U
1
2
3
*»
1
2
3
«»
1
2
3
«t
1
2
3
«
1
2
3
<>
1
2
3
*»
1
2
3
*»
1
2
3
<»
1
2
3
<»
1
2
3
*
1
2
3
50
50
<»0
<»0
50
<»0
60
50
50
50
-------
B-64
TABLE B-3. (Continued)
Sampling Site
ID Number
100:
1*01
1901
1901
1 = 01
1931
2131
3131
3101
3131
2131
2131
2101
2101
2131
2101
2131
2101
2131
2131
2101
2131
2331
2331
27C1
2331
2301
2331
2*31
2331
2301
2301
2301
2101
2301
2101
2301
2101
2<»31
2U01
2<.Q1
2401
2<»01
2<»01
2U01
2 ".01
2 (.01
2<»01
Sampling Location
3
3
3
3
i.
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
if
1
1
1
1
*%
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
f.
I.
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
21.01
Laboratory
Replicate
1
2
3
<
1
2
3
l»
1
2
3
i»
1
2
3
-------
B-65
TABLE B-3. (Continued)
Sampling Site Laboratory Total Percentage
ID Number Sampling Location Replicate of Asbestos
2501 1 1 10
2501 1 2 20
2501 1 3 30
2501 1 <* 15
2501 2 1 20
2501 2 2 1C
2501 2 3 15
2501 2 «» 30
2501 3 1 <»0
2501 3 2 20
2501 3 3 <»0
2501 3 <» 10
2501 " 1 50
2501 i» 2 1C
2501 U 3 20
2501 <. «. 1C
-------
B-66
TABLE B-4. ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE TABLES
Sampling Site 1503
BETWEEN GROUPS
WITHIN GROUPS
TOTAL
SUN OF SQUARES
118.7500
525.0000
643.7500
DEGREES OF FREEDOM
» 3»
( 12)
I 15)
MEAN SQUARE
39.5833
<»3.75CO
Sampling Site 1601
SUN OF SQJARES
BETWEEN GROUPS
WITHIN GROUPS
TOTAL
631.2500
S35.9ST5
DEGREES OF FREEDOM
C 31
( 12)
< IS)
MEAN SQUARE
68.2292
52.68*2
-------
B-67
TABLE B-4. (Continued;
Sampling Site 1801
BETWEEN GROUPS
WITHIN GROUPS
TOTAL
SUM OF SQUARES
168.7500
675.0000
8<»3. 7500
DEGREES OF FREEDOM
( 3)
( 121
< 15)
MEAN SQUARE
56.2500
56.2500
Sampling Site 1901
BETWEEN GROUPS
WITHIN GROUPS
TOTAL
SUM OF SQUARES
317.1875
1718.7500
2035.9375
DEGREES OF FREEDOM
f 3)
( 121
( 15)
MEAN SQUARE
105.7292
11.3.2292
-------
B-68
TABLE B-4. (Continued)
Sampling Site 2101
BETWEEN GROUPS
MITHIN GROUPS
TOTAL
SIM 3F SQ'JAR£S
t2.1875
156.2500
19».«375
DECREES OF FREEDOM
( 3)
( 12}
< 15)
MEAN SQUARE
14.0625
13.0208
Sampling Site 2301
BETWEEN GROUPS
WITHIN GROUPS
TOTAL
SUN OF SQUARES
6.1875
17.7500
23.9375
DEGREES OF FREEDOM
( 3)
( 121
( 15)
MEAN SQUARE
2.0625
l.<»792
-------
B-69
TABLE B-4. (Continued)
BETWEEN GROUPS
WITHIN GROUPS
TOTAL
Sampling Site 2401
\
SUN OF SQUARES DEGREES Of FREEDOM
367.1675 » 31
1218.7500 < 121
li.85.9175 ( 15)
HEAN SQUARE
89.1625
101.5625
Sampling Site 2501
BETWEEN GROUPS
WITHIN GROUPS
TOTAL
SUN OF SQUARES
206.2500
2187.5000
Z393.7500
DECREES OF FREEDOM
t 31
( 12)
( 15)
MEAN SQUARE
68.7500
182.2917
-------
B-70
TABLE B-5 ° STATISTICS COMPUTED FOR UNTRAINED RATERS AND
TRAINED RATERS, BOTH USING REVISED RATING FORM
Factors
Samp Hag
Site
Rater
Cond.
Access.
Friab.
AJ'
Water
Damage
Active
14-01-1
untrained
trained
,, n, , I untrained
14-°2-1 ! trained
14-03-1
15-01-1
15-01-2
15-03-1
16-01-1
16-02-1
16-02-2
16-03-1
16-04-1
17-01-1
17-02-1
17-03-1
19-01-1
19-02-1
20-01-1
20-02-1
20-03-1
20-03-2
20-04-1
24-01-1
24-01-2
24-02-1
24-03-1
25-01-1
25-02-1
untrained
trained
untrained
trained
untrained
trained
untrained
trained
untrained
trained
untrained
trained
untrained
trained
untrained
trained
untrained
trained
untrained
trained
untrained
trained
untrained
trained
untrained
trained
untrained
trained
untrained
trained
mil!l*j»yrlfc«i
trained
untrained
trained
untrained
trained
untrained
trained
untrained
trained
untrained
trained
untrained
trained
untrained
trained
untrained
trained
untrained
trained
1> J u
. "ir.
1. CC
. *6
e.ca
, ' fc
1 . C :.'
..'::
:. r.
. i .
a . c c
'. . L
. 16
is
.I*
.16
1 &
I w
:. cc
1 r
. 16
J « 0 C
c. or.
.35
* - T
M i. L
* u -
:.c:
u. DC
:. *c
.16
.16
. 16
v< * '. U
. if-
: . o ;
. 16
a.cc
. 1-5
c.oc
j. :c
.3*
. 3*
* u C
.?6
:. jo
. -Tr
. 16
.15
:. :c
. 16
. if
'..-..
- . V
o.cc
a . : :
i.o:
. 3o
J.Ci
. 3n
J » k
.IS
. 16
: <.;
. i»j
.16
.7%
I"1 __,
.0
j '. '
^ * w
o . ?:
. >><.
:. ^c
.57
.IP
.25
..^
.16
i.c:
J.L.
» - f»
u C L
3.CC
« - '.
o.:c
;. cc
;. ::
J . U d
j . " C
j. :;
3 . : 2
j . -ii
.16
4 * '. .
.16
V » w
.15
- f*
. ;
. . ,.1
^f1
, . t.
f
« . L.
*.3«>
I. CO
.35
.' . 0 J
. 56
. . * -.
. :=
C. C3
.16
1. OT
.16
.16
.36
.56
.16
.56
.16
.16
.16
.16
:.;:
.25
.16
.25
.36
.33
.16
.36
.16
.rj
c.:c
.16
.16
.16
J.CC
.16
.16
.16
.16
. 16
C 'JO
. 36
:.cc
.36
:.c:
.16 ~ '
.36
.16
..36
.16
.16
.16
.16
s.c :
i.:o
C 0 0
a.flj
. . j c
i. j :
:.j j
i.:a
J.OO
1.J5
o. :J
o..:o
» « ^
'. » j ^
».C3
J.CO
i>. j Q
.- . 0 C
;.3i
j.aa
0.30
w.Tu
a. :c
c.co
3.30
3.10
C.CC
:.:o
s.co
C.JJ
( f
u . u J
c.co
j.OC
G.:C
:.co
C.C3
C. JO
j.30
3. CO
i ,"! r
3.33
3.uO
u 0 J
:.oa
C t C
Q.23
J.JO
i.lj
i. U U
c.:o
.16
3.23
1 W> 'J
3. CO
C *» L
C . C j
l.gO
fi.r?
z.:c
:.:o
-.10
o .3:
.c.s:
C.oC
o.::
C . JO
C.K
» » w^
c.ia
O.JO
G.:L
c « \»c
C.JS
j.CO
C.JC
.25
fi.iC
.*<»
C.3G
.5C
C.3C
c.:c
J .33
.16
C. JC
C.iC
3 .JC
c.:c
0 .C3
C.3C
J.wC
c .3;
J - -
J.L":
^ * *
12 . :c
c.::
j.::
a. co
u . ^ *
i .^:
- . : i
C. jC
« b W
i.;<-
i. . . ,
* . : :
i.iiii
C.C'J
0.03
.36
1. C 2
.3%
l.CJ
i.:i
1. C C
C.G1
i.:o
c.sa
a. o. i
.73
.36
C.L3
.36
:.co
:.ca
C.C3
.76
.3%
. 1.4
D.3C
. Ui»
.36
2.23
c.:o
O.C3
O.C J
c.:s
C.*.3
3. CO
:. J3
.32
C. tO
.16
O.C3
.16
O.C3
.J6
;.aj
.36
c.c;
.36
C.CO
G.CJ
.32
1. . w J
:.cc
u.C3
r * -
c.c:
.56
l.CC
.?6
l.OC
C.flfl
2.30
.1-1
G.CO
.36
c.o:
.36
C.uJ
|16
.36
.16
.56
C.flP
.5%
C.OJ
.36
.36
.16
.36
C.OC
G.JO
.97
.16
.25
. 16
.36
a. so
C 3 u
. 36
.16
.16
.16
. 16
.16
.36
.16
.36 '
.36
.16
.36 ;
.36
.36
.36
.16
.36
.16
.16
.70
.3f
.16
, 1 C
-------
Sampling
B-71
TABLE B-6 v STATISTICS COMPUTED FOR UNTRAINED RATERS AND
TRAINED RATERS, BOTH USING REVISED RATING FORM
Factors
water
Site
14-01-1
14-02-1
14-03-1
15-01-1
15-01-2
15-03-1
16-01-1
16-02-1
16-02-2
16-03-1
16-04-1
17-01-1
17-02-1
17-03-1
19-01-1
19-02-1
20-01-1
20-02-1
20-03-J
20-03-2
20-04-1
24-01-1
24-01-2
24-02-1
24-03-1
25-01-1
25-02-1
Rater
untrained
trained
untrained
trained
untrained
trained
untrained
trained
untrained
trained
untrained
trained
untrained
trained
untrained
trained
untrained
trained
untrained
trained
untrained
trained
untrained
trained
untrained
trained
untrained
trained
untrained
trained
untrained
trained
untrained
trained
untrained
trained
untrained
trained
untrained
trained
untrained
trained
untrained
trained
untrained
trained
untrained
trained
untrained
trained
untrained
. ..trained
trained
Cond. _
'!i.
. e- 3 3
"* i ^
' . i :
: . i ". n
l.JOG
1.23 :
1.200
1 U s! -
."01
1.C30
L J j _
.753
1.TC3
e . ; (/ o
.533
i. :co
!?G3
1.200
C . C C G
1. 3DC
i.sec
0_«JLJC
1.1GG
2. jj:
I l.f.CC
i_ i .:- j
1.53:
i.-oo
a ^
.23C
i . ; i :
L . ; 0 :
Access
- . J JL
. . : 3 c
l.i3C
o .000
j . 3 3 5
4 -in
^ U > j
_ .; K
.23C
.2d:
. . : o :
!S3C
. * . j
.23C
: . i ." -
1.300
53C-
.750
.2CG
1.75G
:!o3C
: . o c 3
: .3cs
: .c:c
L « V U G
C.C03
v. 0 u U
C . o 0 0
: .j 00
<" 2 y C
Air
3lc33
3.000
3.303
C.OG3
C.C30
.500
3 . C 3 3
. 5 C J
0 . 0 C j
.7 J ,,
G . G 0 ..
2.303
j.OC j
U.OC j
3.003
0 .OGu
3.GG3
C . C 0 u
0.003
0.03 )
0.003
3 . 0 G j
C.G33
0.303
G.OC :
C .00 j
C.30J
0.303
C . 0 0 3
i . G : j
1.3C )
O.iOO
0.000
&.OG j
O.OCC
o.oco
0.330
C .03 0
C.3C3
C.CG3
0.000
0 . G 0 3
2.300
i.33",
0.003
w . w U 0
a . : o :
.22J
^*" in
Expose
C.C33
.500
0.303
1. ul)C
C.C03
C. ,00
0. CUC
c . : 3 c
o!:?o
:.; cc
c. o ;e
0.333
0 . C 3 C
C . 0 0 0
C.C3u
Q.C33
O.GQQ
0. C JL
. 250
0. JOG
O.G03
J.COO
W W * 4
O.CGG
.167
C.C30
G.C-GO
3. ! 00
3.003
0 . 0 G 0
C.CGO
3. 000
3. tCO
3. COO
3.CC3
O.CG3
3.0GC
C.OCO
o.ac:
c.cco
G.COC
C.3C2
Damage
J.OC3
G . iC3
.1.00
.50 u
1.603
.503
1.CG3
1. COO
.530
r. .3 CO
C .CCO
.6c:
c.cco
1.600
C.CC3
- . Cgu
o.coo
1.6GO
.BCO
ciccj
.5CC
.600
C . L Cu
O.flOO
3 . OGO
Q.COO
c!c5C
0 . G 0 3
0.000
l.&CC
J.Ou-3
.2CC
O.COO
.200
C.C03
a. :oo
2.003
2.C33
l.C LL
i.oc:
V J * -
2. COS
C.CCT
C.GQG
*ICoj
Active
.500
1.000
1. COG
1.23d
1. 000
.60C
.633
1. 003
.200
1 '»C 0
.830
l.COQ
l.COG
.600
1.2GO
.600
0 . CG G
3.000
. 750
.203
.400
. 333
0.000
l.COO
.600
1.200
.200
.003
. 2C3
1. 200
.600
1. ZCu.
. 6CO
.60u.
.200
.'.CC
.1*00
.<*Q3
i.:ca
1.2CO
.6CO
. 2C3
-------
B-72
TABLE B-7. o STATISTICS COMPUTED FOR UNTRAINED RATERS USING THE REVISED RATING
FORM ANO UNTRAINED RATERS USING THE ORIGINAL RATTNR FORM
Factors
Sampling Racing
Sice Fore Cood. Access. Friab. Air Expose
19-01-1
19-02-1
20-01-1
20-02-1
20-03-1
20-03-2
20-04-1
24-01-1
24-01-2
24-02-1
24-03-1
25-01-1
25-02-1
revised
original
revised
original
revised
original
revised
original
revised
original
revised
original
revi sed
oriainal
revised
original
revises
original
revised
original
revised
original
revi sed
original
revised
original
:. oa
. 16
.16
0. 00
j. CC
.32
C. oO
. I6
C.C3
s. ac
:.GC
C. 00
.36
c.cc
J. vt:
o.3c
j. u 0
c.oc
. 16
C . 1C
C-.C3
C.OS
. 16
'.'.iO
Q. oc
:.G:
3. 'JC
J . CC
J.C3
1. JO
J.CO
j.ac
o . ju
0 . Co
j.:o
j.;:
J . C r.
o.'jG
J . -C
3.CC
.16
u.CC
.1^
D.:C
. 16
j . :
'j . C C
J. :c
..'6
j. :c
O.C3
^ * f
b . 'J L
.16
3.C3
0.00
.15
.16
i.:a
J.CC
1.0^
.16
.16
.16
.!«>
C.OJ
1.12
:.os
0.00
t . C3
:. i3
.76
L..JC
.36
:. oo
.16
0. 'JU
.16
:.ac
u . u \t
da:
0.00
3.03
2.0'j
o.a:
O.Cu
Q.03
0.00
u.OC
3.0u
o.:s
0.00
.16
O.JO
c.ac
J.30
G . G b
3.0C
c.oa
0.00
a. 30
C.Cu
0.00
o.ca
C.31
O.JO
.<«.,
0.30
.36
O.C2
.16
o.oc
. 16
O.OC
.16
0.30
.16
0.90
.36
u.3C
3. JO
a .oc
c.:o
O.S3
G. 3C
:.:a
Q . ?C
* T *
W . J U
j.cn
O.OG
O.JO
Water
Damage
0.03
P. S3
0.00
a. CD
c.ca
.16
c.oa
C.GO
ii.C3
.16
c.oa
.16
C.C3
.16
C.C3
C.CO
tj.ca
C.5Q
.32
:.co
c.ca
c.aa
0.00
C.C 3
.=6
o.co
Active
0.00
-ifi
.36
c.aa
.16
.1^
.16
. 16 '
.36
E.OQ
.36
C.OD
.16
.16
.36
0.00
.36
C.flC
.36
C.flB
.16
C. 30
.36
0. DO
.16.
O.BO
-------
TABLE B-8. WEIGHTED FACTOR SCORES.
Sampling Site Identification
Bldg. Site
6 i
6 t
6 i
6 1
6 1
6 i
6 2
6 2
6 2
6 Z
6 2
6 2
Sanpllng
Location
t
1
1
1
I
1
1
1
i
i
t
i
Type of
Rater Condition
f 5
d 2
% 5
t 2
d 2
4 2
5 t
d 2
d $
d 5
d S
d 2
Weighted Factor Scores
Access
i
1
t
1
1
1
1
1
3
3
3
1
Friability
2
i
2
2
2
3
1
1
3
3
1
2
Air
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
a
0
1
i
t
Expose Water
d 2
d 2
d 2
d Z
d 1
d 2
d 2
d i
d 2
d 2
d 2
d t
Activity
1
2
2
i
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
Wghted. Z
Asbestos
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Z
2
Z
Z
Exposure
Score
$2
22
56
dO
36
60
22
20
03
96 -I,
CO
102
3d
dfl
-------
SampllnR Site Identlf icatlr
Sampling
Bldg. Site Location
7
7
1
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
1
1
1
1
1
1
Z
Z
Z
z
z
z
3
3
3
3
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Type of
Weighted Factor Scores Wghted. Z
Rater Condition
5
4
4
4
4
4
9
4
4
4
4
4
5
4
4
4
4
V
Z
Z
z
z
0
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
1
Access
1
a
0
3
1
a
i
3
3
3
3
0
1
1
3
1
0
1
Friability Atr Expose Water Activity Asbestos
1
1
1
1
0
1
0
z
z
2
z
z
1
1
3
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
1
1
1
0
0
0
1
1
0
1
4 1 Z
411
411
4 1 Z
4 0 Z
410
411
411
4 1 Z
4 1 Z
4 1 Z
411
411
411
410
410
010
411
2
Z
Z
z
z
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Exposure
Score
20
18
18
Z6
0
14
0
44
52
52
52
32
18
18
66
18
6
14
03
I
I
-------
Sampling Site Idenciftcation
Bldg.
8
8
8
a
a
8
8
8
a
8
8
8
8
a
8
a
a
a
a
a
Site
t
1
1
1
t
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
Sampling
Location
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
t
1
1
1
1
1
Type of
Rater
9
9
d
d
t
d
k
k
9
9
k
k
d
k
k
9
9
k
k
*
Weighted Factor Scores
Condition
5
9
Z
Z
z
9
Z
Z
9
Z
z
z
z
z
z
1
0
0
0
Accena
t
3
3
3
1
3
3
3
1
1
3
1
3
3
1
I
1
0
1
3
Friability
Z
3
2
3
3
Z
3
3
Z
Z
3
2
3
3
3
0
i
0
0
1
Air
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
D
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
Expose Hater
< Z
* z
k 1
d 1
<» t
d 0
d 1
d 0
d 0
d 1
k 0
d t
d 1
d 1
d 1
d 0
4 0
0 0
d 0
0 0
HI
Activity A'
Z
Z
1
2
2
1
2
1
1
0
2
Z
t
t
0
t
0
0
1
1
ittted. X
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
Z
Z
Z
Z
2
0
0
0
0
0
ExpoBur*
C^ -*-«a
BO
It*
66
ioa
99
ra
108
90
«,%
32
66
dO
66
72
da
0
8
0
0
0
07
cn
-------
Sampling Site Identification
Sampling Type of Weighted Factor Scores Wp.l.t^d. Z Exposure
Site Location Rater Condition Access Friability Air Expose Hater Activity Asbestos Score
2 UO
2 «»
6*1 2
851
851
851
2 96
851 »
2 *
851 *
36
851 *
2 96
851
2 32
861
2 *0
861 5
2 **
1 * 2 ' * CD
2 36
1 * * 1 « <*
2 22
861 *
861 *
2
861 !*.,., 4 D 2 0 «
831
, , i
_ _.. 4 n u u i. 2 16
8*1 5
2 36
8*1 5
23 2 0*01 2
18
Condition
2
2
5
5
i
5
S
z
2
5
2
Z
Z
Z
z
2
Z
B
Z
Z
z
2
2
Weighted Factor Scores
Access Friability Air Expose Hater Activity
3 Z 1 * 0 2
I 3 o*0l
3 3 o*ll
1 2 0*22
1 2 0122
i z 0*11
3 3 0*22
3 2 0*21
1 2 0*11
3 3 0*22
I 2 o * 1
1 2 0*12
3 2 0 * « 2
1 2 0*11
3 1 Q*ll
3 3 1 - « 2
3 2 1*11
3 0 i*02
0 0 0 0 1
1 l 0*01
1 2 0*11
3 2 0*01
1 1 fl*ll
-------
Sampling
Bldg.
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
Site Identification
Site
1
1
1
1
1
t
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Sampling
Location
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Type of
Rater
5
9
it
it
%
it
9
9
it
it
it
t
9
9
it
»
t
k
t
Weiulited Factor
Condition
2
Z
a
Z
t
0
3
Z
Z
s
Z
I
I
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Access
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Friability
0
1
1
1
3
3
0
1
1
Z
3
3
1
0
Z
1
0
3
3
Air
0
0
1
0
1
1
0
0
0
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
Scores
Expose
»
*
It
It
1
1
*
«»
*
*
1
1
k
k
It
*
*
1
1
Water
D
1
0
1
0
0
0
1
1
Z
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Activity
0
0
0
1
. 0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
Asbestos
Z
2
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Score
0
16
12
IB
ia
la
0
16
16
60
36
36
16
0
32
18
0
36
36
DO
I
-vl
-------
Sampling
Bldg.
10
to
to
10
to
to
to
to
to
to
Site Identification
Sampling Type of
Site Location Rater
t
t
t
t
t
Z
2
2
2
2
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
1
t
t
5
9
4
<»
4
5
5
t
«»
k
Weighted Factor Scores
Condition
Z
Z
Z
I
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
9
Access
t
3
1
3
t
t
t
t
3
t
Friability
2
2
3
3
3
2
Z
0
2
t
Air
0
0
0
t
0
0
0
0
t
0
Expose
-------
Saapling Site Identification
Sanpllng Type of
Bldg. Site Location
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
1
1
1
1
1
1
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Rater Condition
5
5
4
4
l>
4
5
9
k
4
k
4
Z
s
I
t
Z
5
5
S
s
5
Z
I
Access
1
1
3
3
3
3
3
1
3
3
3
3
Weighted Factor Scores
Friability Air Exoose
Z
3
3
Z
Z
1
Z
3
Z
3
Z
3
0
d
1
0
0
0
1
1
0
1
1
0
4
*
*
4
*
*
4
4
4
4
4
4
WEhtoO. Z
Water Activity Aebentos
0
0
1
0
0
1
a
0
i
i
i
i
1
1
1
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
2
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Exposure
Score
33
66
72
44
44
30
60
ra
60
96
52
72
00
I
to
-------
Sampling Site Identificatic
Sampling
Bldg. Site Location
tv
tv
tv
tv
tv
tv
tv
tv
tv
tv
tv
tv
tv
tv
tv
tv
tv
tv
tv
tv
t
1
t
t
t
t
t
t
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
3
3
3
3
1
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
12.
Type of
Rater Condition
t
Z
Z
3
3
3
3
3
t
Z
Z
3
3
3
3
3
t
Z
Z
3
Z
Z
0
Z
S
5
Z
9
Z
3
Z
Z
5
I
S
S
Z
z
z
S
Access
1
t
1
1
1
t
t
t
a
i
t
t
i
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
Weighted
Factor Scores
Friability Air
Z
a
i
z
z
3
3
3
Z
a
t
z
z
3
3
3
Z
t
t
9
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
Expose
V
a
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
t
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
0
V
V
Mater Activity
a t
1 Z
a t
a t
a t
i
a z
a z
a t
a a
a t
a a
a t
t t
a t
a t
t t
a a
a z
t a
2 t
Wghted. X
Asbestos
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Z
2
2
2
Exposure
Score
va
a
ta
v«
66
10B
t
99
36
0
21
va
fZ oo
1
19 00
IC o
99
108
za
te
16
52
-------
Sampling Site Identification . . _
Sampling Type of Weiehted Factor Scores Wghted. Z
Bldg. Site Location Rater Condition Access Friability Air Expose Water Activity Asbestos Score
Id 3 1 J 51 Z 0 «. 1 I Z «»
id 3 1 3 Z I 3 0 * 2 Z 2 «*
Id 3 1 3 S 1 3 0 * 2 I 2 '
id 3 1 35130*112 72
CD
00
-------
lampltng Site Identif icaHc
Sampling
Bldg. Site Location
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
3
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
lit
Type of
Weighted Factor Scores
Rater Condition
1
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
1
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
1
2
2
3
5
2
9
5
5
5
5
5
5
2
5
5
5
S
5
5
5
2
2
5
Access
1
J
J
3
1
1
3
1
1
3
3
3
1
1
3
1
1
1
1
1
Friability Air Expose
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
2
1
2
2
0 <.
6 <
1 <
0 4
0 <
0 «.
0 »
0 <
0 %
0 »
1 4
0 4
0 *
I %
0 «
0 %
0 %
0 <
1 »
0 t
Water Activity
i
1
0
0
0
c
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
a
1
2
2
2
1
2
2
1
1
2
2
2
1
2
2
1
0
1
1
a
Wghted. X
Asbestos
2
2
i
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
Exposure
Score
.8
18
60
56
66
72
81,
66
72
72
90
8d
CD
" k
108
126
99
-------
Sampling Site Identification
Sampling Type of Weighted Factor Scores ; Wghted. X Exposure
Bldg. Site Location Rater Condition Accesa Friability Air Expose Water Activity Aabeatoa Score
15 3 1 35136*012 66
15 3 1 3*1 30*00 2 60
15 31 35330*082 72
IS 31 35130*002 60
DO
00
00
-------
Pldj.
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
Site
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Sampling
Location
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Type o
Rater
1
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
1
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
f
Condition
Z
1
a
9
B
1
B
2
2
2
2
5
2
B
2
Z
2
2
5
5
. Weighted Factor Scores
Access
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
1
1
3
3
3
3
Friability
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
2
1
0
1
1
1
Air
0
0
B
0
B
B
0
B
0
B
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
B
0
Expose Water
t 0
t 0
4 0
k 0
t 0
t 0
t 0
«i B
t 1
t 0
t 2
« 2
t 1
% 0
* 1
t a
k 0
4 2
% 2
% 2
Activity
2
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
B
2
1
1
2
2
2
Ughted. Z
Asbestos
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Exposure
Score
18
IB
8
12
12
B
12
16
18
36
to
26
18
Ik
to
16
0
26
32
32
CO
r
-------
Sampling Site Identification
Bldg.
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
Sampling
Site Location
2 i
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Type of
Weighted Factor Scores «ai...i.-. A .u^ubur.
Rater Condition
3 $
3
1
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
1
2
2
2
2
2
3
9
9
2
0
2
2
2
2
$
S
9
9
2
0
1
D
1
9
Z
Access
S
i
1
1
3
1
1
3
3
3
3
3
1
1
1
1
a
i
i
i
Friability Air Expose
«» 0 4
1
1
1
1
2
1
0
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
e
0
0
0
0
4
4
*
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
*
4
4
4
4
*
4
4
Water Activity Asbestos
222
2
2
1
0
1
0
0
2
2
2
2
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
1
1
0
2
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
0
0
1
0
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Score
64
Z5
26
10
14
40
16
0
26
32
32
64
20
16
12
10
6
12
0
32
09
CO
01
-------
Sampltna Site Identification
Sampling
Bldg. site Location
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
3. 1
3 1
3 1
3 1
% 1
% 1
« 1
< 1
» 1
« i
% 1
% 1
% 1
* 1
k 1
i
Type of
Weighted Factor Scores
Rater Condition
3
3
3
3
1
2
Z
2
Z
Z
3
3
3
3
3
Z
Z
Z
z
z
3
1
0
1
z
5
Z
Z
Z
Z
Access Friability
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
i
1
i
1
N
Air Expose Water Activity A
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
8
0
a
0
0
a
0
< 0
% 0
% 0
k 0
«i 2
< 1
«. 0
it a
«t 0
% i
<» i
% i
% i
% 2
% 2
1
0
0
0
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
Z
1
ghted. Z
bestoa
2
Z
Z
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Z
2
2
2
2
Exposure
Score
16
1*
l
-------
If
If
If
If
If
If
If
If
If
If
If
If
if
If
If
If
If
17
If
1
1
i
1
i
1
1
1
1
i
2
2
2
2
2
2
Z
Z
z
1
1
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
t
z
z
z
z
3
3
3
3
3
i
Z
Z
z
z
3
3
3
3
5
Z
2
Z
I
5
S
S
S
5
S
z
z
z
S
S
$
5
S
t
0
1
a
i
i
i
i
i
i
t
0
i
0
3
3
1
1
i
Z
1
Z
1
t
3
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
1
1
3
Z
Z
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
c
0
0
0
a
0
0
0
0
V i
k 2
% 1
1 1
* 2
% 2
% 2
4 2
% 2
% 2
* t
f
i Z
<» 1
1 1
* Z
% z
«. t
it Z
% z
I
t
1
1
1
1
1
i
1
i
1
0
z
0
1
1
i
1
z
il
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
a
0
0
0
0
a
0
00
-------
Sampling
Bldg.
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
Site Identification
Sampling Type of
Site Location Rater
Z
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
1
Z
Z
z
z
3
3
3
3
3
Weiehted Factor Scores Wghted. X Exposure
Condition
5
9
Z
Z
Z
Z
9
9
9
9
9
Access
1
3
1
0
0
0
3
3
1
3
1
Friability
Z
Z
Z
1
0
1
3
Z
z
z
z
Air
C
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Expose Water Activity Asbestos bcore
* I I 0 0
«, 0 1 0 0
«, 0 1 0 0
0 0 1 0 0
ooio o
oooo o
<, o z o o
«, o z o o
% o z o o
«, o z o o
- 0 1 « °
00
1
00
00
-------
Sampling Site Identification
Sampling Type of Weighted Factor Scores ._ Wghtcd. Z Exposure
Bldg. Site Location Rater Condition Access Friability Air Expose Water Activity Asbestos Score
IB - i i i 5 j i o i o z z za
18 Z 1 i Z i 1 0 «. Z I 2 2«
DO
I
00
vo
-------
Bldg.
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
Sampling
Site Location
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Z
Z
z
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
i
1
1
1
Type of
Rater Condition
1
Z
Z
Z
z
z
3
3
3
3
3
%
%
H
%
Z
1
Z
z
0
t
I
I
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
I
1
z
z
1
Access
3
i
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Weighted
Factor Scores
Friability Air Expose Water Activity
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
z
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
a
0
< 0
< t
<» 0
« 0
< 0
« a
< a
k a
* 0
-------
Sampling Site Identification
Bldg.
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
Site
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Sampling
Location
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Type of
Rater
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
k
<
It
It
It
2
Weighted Factor
Condition
2
Z
2
9
S
2
S
S
2
2
2
2
2
2
Access
J
3
J
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Friability
C
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
0
Air
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
fi
0
0
a
0
Scores
Expose
«.
(t
1
*
4
«t
k
It
' 1
*
«t
«.
1
%
Water
0
0
0
a
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Activity
1
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
0
a
0
0
i
Wghted. Z
Asbestos
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Exposure
Score
0
0
1%
28
28
20
26
26
12
36
18 a>
18 -*
12
0
-------
Sai«plln« Site Identifier!,
Sampling
BWg. Site Location
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
t
t
X
t
1
1
t
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
t
t
1
1
t
1
I
X
1
t
1
1
1
i
t
i
1
1
1
1
i
on
Type of
Rater (
1
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
%
4
4
t
2
2
2
2
Condition
S
0
2
2
2
2
5
5
5
S
S
2
2
2
S
2
2
0
0
0
Acceea
X
t
i
t
1
1
X
1
1
1
i
t
t
1
X
1
X
X
X
X
X
Weighted
Factor Scores
Friability Air
1
0
C
0
0
X
2
X
X
X
X
0
3
3
3
0
X
0
0
0
0
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
0
0
0
0
0
X
X
X
1
X
Expose
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
X
X
X
X
4
4
4
4
4
%
Water Activity
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
X
X
X
2
X
2
0
0
0
0
2
X
X
0
X
X
2
2
2
X
2
0
0
0
X
0
X
0
0
X
0
Ugh ted. Z
Asbeatoa
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
2
2
2
2
Exposure
Score
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 DO
**>
0 ro
0
0
22
0
0
0
0
-------
Samp I Inn
Bldg.
20
20
20
20
20
zo
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
Sice Identification
Site
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Sampling
Location
1
1
1
i
1
1
1
1
i
1
1
1
i
t
I
1
1
1
i
1
1
Type of
Rater
2
3
3
3
3
3
*
k
k
*
1
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
Weighted Factor Scores
Condition
Z
9
S
S
s
s
t
2
2
1
2
5
1
1
D
I
2
5
5
S
S
Access
1
t
1
1
i
i
t
1
1
t
i
t
t
1
1
t
1
1
t
t
1
Friability
1
1
i
1
1
1
0
3
0
0
3
t
0
0
0
0
1
2
1
t
t
ftlc
t
i
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
t
t
i
1
1
t
1
i
t
i
Expose
0
0
22
56
30
28
SO
-------
Sampling Site Identification
Sompiing type of Weighted Factor Scores Wghted. X Exposure
Bldg.
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
Site
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Location
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Z
Rater
3
%
*
4
t
k
1
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
t
%
Condition
5
Z
Z
Z
Z
2
s
B
0
t
0
2
$
S
S
S
5
2
2
Access
1
1
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
t
1
i
Friability
i
0
I
i
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
1
2
1
i
i
1
0
1
Air
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
Expose Water
«» 2
i 1
1 1
1 1
1 2
«. 1
* 2
* 2
* 2
4 1
% 2
4 2
«. 2
% 2
* 2
l» 2
% 2
1 1
1 i
Activity
1
0
0
0
0
0
2
1
1
1
0
1
1
2
1
2
1
0
0
Asbestos
2
2
2
2
2
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
e
0
0
Scoi
28
0
10
10
12
16
0
0
0
0
a
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-------
Sampling Site Identification
Sampling Type of Weighted Factor Scores Wghted. Z Exposure
.dg. Site Location
ZO
ZO
20
ZO
ZO
ZO
20
ZO
ZO
ZO
ZO
ZO
ZO
ZO
20
20
ZO
20
20
3
3
3
k
it
t
it
it
t
it
it
t
k
4
k
k
it
it
k
Z
Z
2
1
i
1
1
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Rater Condition
(t
«,
it
1
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
t
4
t
it
k
Z
Z
Z
s
8
0
0
0
0
9
S
S
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Access
1
1
i
1
t
1
1
i
1
1
1
1
1
t
i
1
t
1
1
Friability Air
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
1
t
1
1
1
1
0
3
3
3
t
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
1
0
Expose
1
1
*
*
*
t
it
t
t
*
»
t
it
t
t
1
t
«t
Water Activity
t
Z
1
Z
Z
Z
1
1
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
1
1
1
2
1
0
0
0
1
0
1
1
0
0
1
1
1
Z
1
0
0
0
1
0
'Asbestos
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
'o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Score
0
0
0
8
0
0
a
0
0
0
0
0 a,
VO
0 en
0
0
0
0
0
0
-------
Sampling Site Identification
Sampling Type of
Idg.
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
Site
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
3
4
4
4
S
9
9
Location
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Rater
1
2
2
1
2
2
1
2
2
1
2
2
1
2
2
Condition
1
Z
2
1
2
2
a
2
2
1
2
2
1
t
t
Acceaa
1
a
a
1
0
0
1
a
a
i
a
a
i
a
a
Friability
Z
1
1
2
1
1
2
1
1
2
1
1
2
8
8
Air
a
0
0
0
0
0
0
a
0
a
a
a
a
8
8
Expose Water
4 1
4 0
4 0
-------
Saapling Site Identification
Sampling Type of
Bldg. Site Location Rater
ZZ
ZZ
zz
zz
zz
zz
zz
zz
zz
zz
zz
zz
zz
zz
zz
1
1
i
2
z
z
3
3
3
k
B
0
B
D
a
a
i
B
Access
0
a
a
0
0
i
a
0
0
a
a
a
0
0
0
Friability
Z
0
0
2
0
D
Z
0
0
z
0
0
z
0
0
Air
1
i
1
i
I
t
0
1
1
0
1
t
1
t
i
Expose
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
a
Water
0
0
a
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
I
0
Activity
i
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
t
B
0
Hghted. Z
'Asbestos
0
0
0
a
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
9
0
Exposure
Score
a
a
0
0
0
e
a
0
0
° T3
0 10
a
0
a
0
-------
Sampling Site Identification
Bidg.
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
Sampling
Site Location
1 1
1
i
2
2
2
3
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Type of
Rater Condition
i
&
2
2
t
2
2
1
2
2
0
0
5
2
2
0
a
0
Access
i
0
a
i
i
0
i
a
0
Weighted
Factor Scores
Friability Air
i
1
t
1
2
1
t
1
1
1
i
t
i
i
i
i
i
1
Expose Water
t 0
t 0
< 0
V 0
t i
V 0
< 0
« 0
* 0
Activity
1
0
2
0
0
2
0
2
1
Wghted. Z
Asbestos
0
0
0
2
2
2
2
2
2
Expo
Sc
0
0
0
22
36
ie
12
1*
12
00
I
VO
00
-------
Sampling
Bldg.
2%
Z*
Zk
Z*
Z%
Z
-------
SampllnR
Bldg.
2V
2".
2V
2V
2V
2V
2V
2V
2V
2V
2V
2V
2V
2V
2V
2V
2V
2V
2V
2V
Site Identification
Sampling Type of
Site Location Rater
t
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
Z
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
i
t
1
1
1
t
1
1
3
3
3
3
3
V
V
V
1
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
V
Weighted Factor Scores
Condition
Z
Z
I
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
0
1
5
9
Z
i
5
0
Access
1
1
i
3
1
0
Q
0
1
1
1
1
1
t
1
1
1
3
1
0
Friability
i
t
1
1
1
0
0
0
i
1
0
0
0
0
8
1
t
1
8
8
Air
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
8
0
0
0
8
0
0
0
Expose Water
V D
V 0
V 0
V 0
V 0
0 1
0 1
8 1
V t
V 8
V 0
V 0
V 8
V 0
V 8
V 8
V 0
V 2
V 8
8 8
Activity
i
i
1
2
2
8
8
8
2
8
1
1
t
t
1
1
2
2
2
8
Wghted. Z
Asbestos
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Exposure
Score
ZV
2V
2V
33
27
8
8
0
28
IV
8
8
8
6
8
22
IS
32
8
8
CO
I
o
o
-------
Sampling Site Identification
Bldg.
Zk
Zk
Zk
Zk
Zk
Zk
Zk
Zk
Zk
Zk
Zk
Zk
Zk
Zk
Zk
Zk
Zk
Zk
Site
Z
z
z
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Sampling
Location
1
1
1
t
1
t
1
1
1
t
t
i
1
1
1
t
1
1
Type of
Rater
%
k
k
1
Z
Z
Z
z
z
3
3
3
3
3
*
k
k
k
Weighted Factor Scores
Condition
B
B
B
Z
B
B
1
Z
6
5
9
9
*
9
8
1
B
B
Access
II
0
a
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
t
t
1
1
a
a
B
0
Friability
B
0
a
a
a
G
a
i
0
a
i
i
i
a
0
a
6
a
Air
B
a
a
a
a
a
B
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
Expose
G
0
a
k
k
k
k
k
k
k
k
k
k
k
0
0
a
0
Water
8
B
a
B
G
B
a
a
a
z
z
z
z
z
a
a
a
8
Activity
a
8
a
z
z
1
z
z
z
B
1
t
t
t
a
G
B
8
Wghted. Z
Asbestos
Z
Z
Z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
Exposure
Score
B
B
a
8
a
a
a
16
0
a
Z6 ro
i
Z6 o
26
a
a
a
a
i
-------
Sampling Site Identiflentin
Sampling
Bldg. Site Location
25
ZS
25
ZS
ZS
ZS
25
25
ZS
ZS
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
i
i
1
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
n
Type of
Rater C
1
2
2
2
Z
Z
3
3
3
3
3
%
*>
k
H
i
2
2
ondltion
Z
1
0
z
)
0
z
z
z
5
Z
1
a
B
a
z
i
a
Access
3
1
i
1
1
1
1
3
3
3
1
0
0
0
0
1
1
i
Weighted
Factor Scores
Friability Air
0
0
0
1
0
0
i
1
C
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
i
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
B
0
0
0
0
0
Expose Water Activity
«. 0
< 0
« 0
* 0
< 0
« 0
< 0
t 0
.* 0
d 0
% 0
0 0
C 0
0 0
0 0
* 1
% 0
t 0
1
1
z
0
z
2
1
1
z
z
z
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
Wghted. Z
Asbestos
Z
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Z
2
2
Z
2
2
2
2
2
Exposure
Score
a
0
0
Ik
0
0
16
20
0
26
18
0
0
0
0
0
0
o
ro
-------
Sampling
Bldg.
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
Site Identification
Site
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Sampling
Location
1
1
1
1
1
1
t
1
1
1
t
1
Type of
Rater
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
V
%
V
%
Weighted Factor Scores
Condition
0
1
2
2
2
Z
2
2
2
2
2
Access
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
Friability
0
1
0
2
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
Air
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Expose Hater
t 0
*» 0
t 0
* 0
» 1
It 1
4 2
4 1
0 1
o i
0 t
0 t
Activity
t
0
1
1
1
1
2
1
0
0
0
0
Hghted. Z
Asbestos
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Exposure
Score
0
10
0
32
IB
IB
22
IB
0'
0
0
0
CO
0
CO
-------
Saaplinn Site Identification
Weighted Factor Scores Wghted. Z Exposure
dg. Site Location
26
26
26
26
i
i
1
t
1
1
1
1
Rater Condition
1
2
2
2
5
s
5
z
Access
t
0
0
0
Friability Air Expose Water
2
3
3
2
i i
1 '
i <
1 '
. 0
* 1
it 0
t 0
Activity
2
2
0
0
Asbestos
2
2
2
2
Sc
52
76
60
26
03
I
-------
Sampling Site Identification
Sanpling Type of Weighted Factor Scores ,_ Wghted. Z Exposure
Bldg. Site Location Rater Condition Access Friability Air Expose Water Activity Asbestos Score
27 11 15121*023 7»
27 11 259214023 72
27 11 21011*003 15
CO
o
01
-------
Sanpllng Site Identification
Bldg.
za
28
Z8
Z*
Site
2
2
2
Z
Sampling
Location
1
1
1
1
Type of
Rater
1
Z
Z
I
Weighted Factor Scores
Condition
Z
Z
0
1
Access
1
1
1
0
Friability
Z
3
Z
3
Air
0
1
1
1
Expose
k
k
%
k
Hater
0
0
0
0
Activity
1
1
Z
Z
Hghted. Z
Asbestos
Z
Z
Z
Z
Expo
Sc
32
5k
32
tz
03
I
O
-------
Sampling Site Identification
Sampling Type of Wetuhted Factor Scores Wghted. Z Exposure
Bldg. Site Location Rater Condition Access Friability Air Expose Water Activity Asbestos Score
Z911 1Z13B«OZ3 61
29 11 Z a 1 2 1 % 0 0 3 36
Z9 1 1 2Z031*aZ3 81
co
i
-------
BUILDING INFORMATION
Corrective Actions Taken or Planned
-------
B-108
BUILDING INFORMATION
Corrective Actions Taken or Planned
Building Number 6
Corrective action information was not obtained for this building.
Building Number 7
Corrective action information was not obtained for this building.
Building Number 8
The asbestos containing ceilings in this building were removed in
the spring of 1979. At several sites in the building, particularly sites
08-01 and 08-05, the material was deteriorating. Because of the poor con-
dition at these sites and because the school district had funds available,
all the asbestos-containing ceilings in the building were removed.
Building Number 9
Corrective action information was not obtained for this building.
Building Number 10
A small portion of the asbestos containing ceilings have been
removed, and contracts have been signed to have the rest of the asbestos
containing ceiling removed in the summer of 1980. Public pressure and fear
of future health problems promoted this course of action. The material was
removed rather than encapsulated for two reasons: the cost for removal was
not much greater than for encapsulation (excluding cost of new ceiling tile);
the officials doubted the permanency of encapsulation.
-------
B-109
Building Number 11
The asbestos containing ceilings in what are considered the most
critical areas have been removed, and the rest will be removed by the
end of summer, 1980. Public pressure greatly influenced the decision to
remove the offending ceilings. The material was removed rather than en-
capsulated for two reasons: the cost for removal was not significantly
greater than for encapsulation, since the authorities planned to add a
layer of ceiling tile in either case; the board felt that encapsulation
has not been shown to be a s-ufficient long-term solution.
Building Number 12
Corrective action information was not obtained for this building.
Building Number 13
Corrective action information was not obtained for this building.
Building Number 14
No corrective action has been taken as of spring 1980, since the
asbestos containing material was not in a friable condition and did not
present as much of a potential health problem as other ceilings in other
buildings. However, as funds become available, the board plans eventually
to remove and replace the ceilings in this building.
Building Number 15
The majority of the school building has been closed. Four class-
rooms are still in use, and the asbestos containing ceilings in these
rooms have been removed and replaced with a sealant and a one inch covering of
a cellulose material as of spring 1980. The board had planned to close
this school over summer 1980 and remove all offending ceiling material at
that time to avoid future health problems, but massive public pressure
-------
B-110
Building Number 15 (Continued)
forced this building to be closed and double sessions to be instituted at
another facility. Bids have been let to remove and replace the rest of
the asbestos-containing ceilings over the summer of 1980, and the buildirr
will be completely re-opened in fall 1980.
Building Number 16
Corrective action information was not obtained for this building.
Building Number 17
Corrective action information was not obtained for this building
Building Number 18
The ceilings have been encapsulated as of spring 1980. The de-
teriorated areas or areas where air sampling showed asbestos to be
present are scheduled to be removed and replaced in the summer of 1980.
All other ceilings will be monitored, and removed and replaced if deter-
ioration becomes significant. Knowledge of the asbestos content and
potential health hazards prompted the action and future plans.
Building Number 19
All the asbestos-containing ceilings were removed and replaced
because their condition was deteriorating and air sampling test results
showed definite fiber content. Test results and awareness of health
hazards prompted this action.
-------
e-m
Building Number 20
The damaged asbestos-containing material has been removed and
replaced. Due to the low or zero asbestos fiber levels measured by
the air sampling device, no further action is planned, except re-evaluation
and retesting. Awareness of the asbestos content and potential health
hazards prompted this course of action. The authorities reported very
little public pressure.
Ekiilding Number 21
Corrective action information was not obtained for this building.
Building Number 22
Corrective action information was not obtained for this building.
Building Number 23
Corrective action information was not obtained for this building.
Building Number 24
No action has been taken as of spring 1980; the ceilings con-
taining asbestos are scheduled to be encapsulated sometime in the summer
of 1980 and will be monitored thereafter. EPA findings and the Battelle study
have prompted the action and plans; there has been no significant public
pressure, since the authorities acted to ameliorate the problem and
inform the public.
Building Number 25
No action has been taken on this building as of spring 1979.
The authorities are using air sampling results as partial justification
for delaying action. Encapsulation is scheduled to take place in the
summer of 1980, and the ceiling conditions and air quality will be moni-
tored to detect any deterioration which may occur in the future.
-------
B-112
Building Number 26
No corrective action has been taken. A state agency tested air
samples with methods similar to Battelle's (excluding the vibration testing)
and the results indicated that there were no air samples which contained
fiber levels above the current standards. The board is considering action
and favors encapsulation. Methods, standards and costs are being evaluated
by the board.
Building Number 27
No corrective action has been taken. A state agency tested air
samples with methods similar to Battelle's (excluding the vibration testing)
and the results indicated that there were no air samples which contained
fiber levels above the current standards. The board is considering action
and favors encapsulation. Methods, standards and costs are being evaluated
by the board.
Building Number 28
No corrective action has been taken. A state agency tested air
samples with methods similar to Battelle's (excluding the vibration testing),
and the results indicated that there were no air samples which contained
fiber levels above the current standards. The board is considering action
and favors encapsulation. Methods, standards and costs are being evaluated
by the board.
Building Number 29
No corrective action has been taken. A state agency tested air
samples with methods similar to Battelle's (excluding the vibration testing),
and the results indicated that there were no air samples which contained
fiber levels above the current standards. The board is considering action
and favors encapsulation. Methods, standards and costs are being evaluated
by the board.
-------
BUILDING INFORMATION
Diagrams of Typical Sites Showing
Bulk-Sampling and Vibrator Locations
-------
FIGURE B-l .
SAMPLING LOCATIONS AT
SITE 15-03 (CLASSROOM)
03
I
co
X *
-------
FIGURE B-2. SAMPLING LOCATIONS AT
SITE 16-01 (ENTRANCE HALL)
TO
*
*
OD
I
X
veurs
TO
X =
-------
FIGURE B-3. SAMPLING LOCATIONS AT
SITE 18-01 (ENTRANCE HALL)
*
CDOOE.S>
TO
TO
HALL.)
* BULK:
ie
-------
FIGURE B-4.
SAMPLING LOCATIONS AT
SITE 19-01 (HALLWAY AND
MUSIC PRACTICE ROOM)
\
\
00
I
v/ewis
^ \l\3HXT6fi-
-------
FIGURE B-5. SAMPLING LOCATIONS AT
SITE 21-01 (BOILER ROOM)
f
To
00
I
X '
-------
FIGURE B-6. SAMPLING LOCATIONS AT
SITE 23-01 (LIBRARY)
*
*
=*:
I
00
or
^ BULK
-------
FIGURE B-7.
SAMPLING LOCATIONS AT
SITE 24-01 (CLASSROOM AND
HALLWAY)
-
1
-------
FIGURE B-8. SAMPLING LOCATIONS AT
SITE 25-01 (ENTRANCE HALL
AND INNER HALL)
LEADING- TO
00
I
ro
O
TO lAJAJE'R
X
-------
APPENDIX C
ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES
-------
C-l
APPENDIX C
ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES
Polarized Light Microscopy
Bulk insulation samples were analyzed by polarized light
microscopy (PLM) for all fiber content including asbestos, glass fiber,
and mineral wool. Also, other constituents which were nonfibrous were
identified and their concentrations estimated.
First, the bulk core sample was removed from the container
and examined for homogeneity at low magnification with a stereo microscope
and specimens were selected for polarized light microscopy. Initial ex-
amination in the PLM was performed on the specimen immersed in a 1.550 re-
fractive index liquid of high dispersion without using crossed polars, but
with plane polarized light. This refractive index liquid matches one in-
dex of refraction of chrysotile, the most prevalent form of asbestos in
insulation; consequently, if no other forms were detected at this point,
all asbestos was identified and its concentration estimated visually.
Twenty to thirty fields were viewed, and the quantitation was done by
making visual estimates of the area covered by the different materials.
When glass or mineral wool fibers were present it became evident
under crossed polars where the isotropic glass is invisible. Chrysotile
and other fibrous forms which are anisotropic are bright under polarized
light. When all of the anisotropic fibers did not match the 1.55 refrac-
tive index liquid where properly oriented when illuminated with plane-
polarized light, another specimen was taken from the sample and immersed
in a refractive index liquid which matched one index of amosite, the
second most prevalent type of asbestos used in insulation materials. Usu-
ally, if the asbestos was not identified as chrysotile, it was found to
be amosite. In a few isolated cases, a few fibers of crocidolite were
found. Crocidolite is easily identified by using a matching refractive
index liquid and noting the negative sign of elongation when the first
order red plate is inserted as the specimen is observed under crossed
polars.
-------
C-2
The most prevalent nonfibrous materials in the samples were
calcite and gypsum, both of which are recognizable by their optical
properties. Calcite was also identified by observing the evolution of
C02 when a drop of 10 percent HC1 was placed on a specimen.
Phase Microscopy
Phase microscopy was used to determine concentrations of fibers
greater than 5 pm in length on filtered collections of air samples. No
identification of the fiber type was made by this procedure. This is the
standard NIOSH method described in the DHEW (NIOSH) publication, No.79-127,
entitled "USPHS/NIOSH Membrane Filter Method for Evaluating Airborne Asbes-
tos Fibers".
The phase microscopy (PM) method employs a phase microscope
equipped with a Porton reticle to count fibers greater than 5.0 pm (with
an aspect ratio or ratio of length to diameter greater than 3:1) over spe-
cific areas of cleared membrane filters. A radial section from the mem-
brane filter used to collect air particulate from a measured volume of air
was made transparent by mounting the section in 1:1 mixture of diethyl ox-
alate and dimethyl phthalate containing 0.05 g/ml of dissolved Millipore
filter. The cleared filter section on a microscope slide and beneath a
coverslip was scanned along the radius of the filter as fibers within
either 30 or 100 fields delineated by the Porton reticle were counted. In
Phase I 30 fields were used, and in Phase II 100 fields were used. One
2
Porton reticle field area was 1/333 mm .
The effective area of the particular filter used was calculated
and the number of fibers per cm was determined by multiplying the fibers/
Porton reticle field by 333 times the filter area in mm divided by the cm3
of sampled air.
Transmission Electron Microscopy
Transmission electron microscopy (TEM) was employed to analyze
collections of air particulate for asbestos content. Only asbestos fibers
were analyzed by the TEM method which involves identification of the asbestos
type by selected area electron diffraction (SAED) and energy dispersive X-ray
analysis (EDS). Also, all sizes of asbestos fibers are detected by TEM be-
cause of the high resolving power of the TEM.
-------
C-3
The steps in the TEM procedures employed were as follows:
(1) The 47-mm Millipore filter bearing collected air participate from
a known volume of air was submitted for microscopical analysis of
asbestos content.
(2) A 90° radial section was cut from the Millipore filter, placed in
a beaker and low-temperature ashed in oxygen plasma.
(3) The ash residue was suspended in 100 ml of filtered deionized
water and dispersed by ultrasonification.
(4) Three aliquots, 10, 20, and 70 ml, were filtered separately to
deposit the particulate uniformly over 0.1 pm pore size, 25 mm
diameter Nuclepore filters. During filtration the Nuclepore
filters were backed by 8.0 ym pore size Mi Hi pore filters to
promote uniform flow with attendant uniform deposition of particu-
late over the Nuclepore surface.
(5) The Nuclepore filters bearing the deposits were coated with a
carbon film by vapor deposition in a vacuum evaporator.
(6) A£ 3 x 3 mm piece was cut from each filter, placed on a 200-mesh
electron microscope support grid, and the filter material was
dissolved in chloroform by the Jaffe technique leaving the carbon
film containing the particulate supported by the 200-mesh grid.
This was the specimen which was analyzed by TEM.
(7) Specimen areas delineated by the very uniform electromesh grid
openings were systematically scanned at 20,000 X magnification in
the TEM to look for asbestos fibers. (A fiber is defined as a
structure having at least a 3:1 aspect ratio.)
(8) When a fiber was encountered, its morphology was observed, and an
attempt was made to obtain an SAED pattern. In all cases, the
fibers analyzed were found to be chrysotile asbestos as indicated
by the observed morphology and streaking of the spots in certain
layer lines of the diffraction pattern.
(9) The length and width of each fiber identified as asbestos was
measured and recorded.
-------
C-4
(10) Either 100 fibers were counted and measured
or 10 grid opening areas were scanned, which-
ever occurred first. In any case, no less
than one grid opening area was scanned.
(11) Calculations were made to determine numbers of
fibers and mass-per-unit volume of sampled air.
Fiber lengths and widths were assigned to size
classes and fiber length, width, and mass were
plotted versus cumulative number percent on
semilog paper. Mass was calculated by multiply-
ing length times width in pm squared to obtain
the fiber volume which was multiplied times the
density (2.4 for chrysotile) to obtain mass in
picograms. The area factor, the total Nuclepore
filter area to one grid opening area, was multi-
plied by the number of fibers per grid opening
area to obtain the number of fibers in the filtered
aliquot. The number of fibers in the aliquot was
multiplied by 4 because 1/4 of the original filter
was taken for analysis and by the ratio of the
total volume of suspended particulate to the filtered
aliquot to obtain numbers of fibers per filter.
The formula for calculation of numbers of fibers per cubic meter of
air thus becomes:
Effective Nuclepore filter area Volume of ash suspension 4 x No. of fibers
Area of grid opening Volume of Aliquot per grid opening
Volume of air sampled
= Number of fibers/unit volume of sampled air.
By substituting the average sum of the masses of individual fibers per grid
opening for numbers of fibers per grid opening, the mass-per-unit volume may
be calculated.
(12) Analytical data reported from a TEM analysis are:
Number of fibers and mass per cubic meter or
centimeter of sampled air,
Mean fiber length,
Mean fiber diameter,
Plots of fiber length, diameter, and mass
versus cumulative number percent.
A computer program performs the calculations and plots.
-------
APPENDIX D
ANALYSIS OF VARIABILITY ASSOCIATED WITH THE MEASUREMENT
OF FIBER CONCENTRATION BY PHASE MICROSCOPY
AND TRANSMISSION ELECTRON MICROSCOPY
-------
D-l
APPENDIX D
ANALYSIS OF VARIABILITY ASSOCIATED WITH THE MEASUREMENT
OF FIBER CONCENTRATION BY PHASE MICROSCOPY
AND TRANSMISSION ELECTRON MICROSCOPY
The objective of this study was to evaluate the variation
associated with Phase Microscopy (PM) and Transmission Electron Microscopy
(TEM) measurement of fiber concentration on a filter. For the PM method,
intra-filter variation was examined. Three sources of variation were
analyzed:
(1) Between wedges
(2) Between radii within wedges
(3) Between groups of fields within radii.
The TEM analysis was based on a review of the EPA report 600/4-78-011 on
"Preparation of Water Samples for Asbestos Fiber Counting by Electron
Microscopy".
Data were collected to be used in estimating the components of
variance, the total variation and the coefficient of variation associated
with the Battelle procedure for PM analysis. The Battelle procedure em-
ployed in Phase I involved counting the fibers in 30 fields along a radius.
The variation for this procedure was compared to the variation associated
with the NIOSH recommended procedure that requires counting fibers in up to
100 fields along a radius.
Analysis of Phase Microscopy Measurement Variability
Method of Data Collection
Three filters were selected from the set of filters collected
during initial sampling for the asbestos project. In the original analysis
two of the filters showed fiber concentrations less than 0.09 fibers per cc
of air. The third filter showed 0.17 fibers per cc of air. Filters expected
to have different fiber concentrations were included in the variability study
because the variability associated with a PM analysis is likely to be related
to the concentration level.
-------
D-2
From each filter three wedges each approximately 1/8 the size of
the filter were randomly selected for PM analysis. On each wedge two radii
were randomly selected. Along one of the radii, 30 fields were randomly
selected and fibers in each field were counted. Along the other radius,
the fibers were counted using the NIOSH recommended procedure:
Count as many fields as necessary to yield a total count
of 100 fibers. Exceptions: (a) count at least 20 fields
even if you count more than 100 fibers, and (b) stop at
100 fields even if you haven't reached 100 fibers
(Leidel, et al., 1979).
The fiber concentration levels of the filters used in the variability study
were low, so 100 fields were always counted. The total number of fibers
obtained by both counting methods was converted to fibers per cc of air
sampled by the following formula:
AC
= [(FB/FL) - (BFB/BFL)] (EGA)
(10,000) (FR) (T) (MFA)
where:
AC = Airborne fiber concentration in fibers 5>ura/cc.
BF3 = Total number of fibers counted in the BFL fields of
the blank or control filters in fibers > 5ym.
BFL = Total number of fields counted on the blank or
control filters.
2
EGA = Effective collecting area of filter (855 mm for a
37-mm filter with effective diameter of 33 mm).
FR = Pump flow rate in liters/min (1pm).
FB = Total number of fibers counted in the FL fields in
fibers > 5 urn.
FL = Total number of fields counted on the filter.
2
MFA = Microscope count field in mm (generally 0.003 to 0.006)
T = Sample collection time in minutes.
-------
D-3
To provide information about intra-radius variability 90 of the
100 fields were randomly assigned to three groups of 30 fields each. The
total number of fibers in each of the three groups produced three additional
estimates, all from one radius, of the number of fibers per cc of sampled
air.
In total, there were five estimates of the number of fibers per
cc of air on each wedge. One of these estimates was produced by counting
30 fields along one radius on the wedge. The other four estimates were
produced by counting along the second radius on the wedge. Three of the
estimates were based on examination of 30 microscopic fields, and one of
the estimates was based on examination of 100 fields. Since three wedges
were selected from a filter, a total of 15 estimates was made for each
filter. The data are given in Table D-l.
Statistical Analysis
Statistical Analysis of PM Data Based on 30 Fields. Fiber
concentration estimates based on the examination of 30 microscopic fields
were used to study the variability in Phase Microscopy measurements of
fiber concentration on a filter. The recorded data are in units of fibers
per cc of sampled air. However, each data point is the product of the num-
ber of fibers counted in 30 fields in a given radius and a constant conver-
sion factor. Therefore, the basic data are actually count data.
Two methods were used to analyze the variability associated with
PM analysis. The first method used a variance components model to separate
out the effects due to wedges, radii within wedges, and group of 30 fields
within a radius. The second method assumes a Poisson distribution for the
count data and estimates the coefficient of variation directly. Both
methods produced similar estimates for the coefficient of variation for the
three filters studied.
-------
D-4
TABLE D-l. PM DATA
Filter A, Fibers/cc
Wedge
Wedge
Radius 1
30 Fields
Counted
0.01
0.00
0.01
Filter B,
Radius 1
30 Fields
Counted
0.04
0.04
0.00
Radius 2
100 Fields Divided
100 Fields Into 3 Groups of
Counted 30 Each
0.01 0.00
0.01
0.01
0.00 0.00
0.00
0.00
0.01 0.02
0.01
0.00
Fibers/cc.
Radius 2
100 Fields Divided
100 Fields Into 3 Groups of
Counted 30 Each
0.04 0.05
0.03
0.03
0.03 0.03
0.03
0.03
0.01 0.01
0.01
0.01
-------
D-5
Wedge
TABLE D-l. (Continued)
Filter C, Fibers/cc.
Radius 1
Radius 2
100 Fields Divided
30 Fields
Counted
0.14
0.06
0.14
100 Fields Into 3 Groups
Counted 30 Each
0.12 0.14
0.05
0.16
0.09 0.10
0.11
0.06
0.06 0.05
0.09
0.06
of
Analysis of the Components of Variance Model.
Let Y
air for the
model used for the variance components analysis is
j_jk estimate of the number of fibers per cc of sampled
group of 30 fields on the j-- radii on the i wedge. The
Y-t-v = y + W. + R + e
i = 1, 2, 3, j = 1, 2
k Jl if j - 1
U,2,3 if j = 2,
where the {VT.}, {R.,..} and {e . . } are mutually independent random
variables with
E(W.) = 0,
V(W ) = o ,
j. w
- u' V^k(ij)' - °e '
The symbol y is the overall fiber concentration on the filter.
\1^ represents the difference between the fiber concentration on the i
wedge and on the overall filter. R represents the difference between
the fiber concentration on the j radius on the i wedge and the concen-
tration on the overall 1^ wedge. The component £k(ij) is the sampling
error associated with the k measurement on the j radius on the i x*edge,
-------
D-6
The analysis of variance table for the model is
Source of
Trariation
Sum of
Squares
Degrees of
Freedom
Mean
Square
Expected
Mean Square
Hedges
SSW =
- Y )2
MSW - SSW/2 4 2 + 2.5 2 + 02
Radii/Wedges
SSR =
? 1 Z(Y..
i-lj-lk
- Y. . )2
MSR = SSR/3 1.5 2 + a2
CR E
Samples /Radii
SSE =
1 I E(Y
1 J -Ik
Y. . )
-1'
MSE = SSE/6 a
Total
3 2
The estimates for the components of variance obtained from the table are
and
-2
o = MSE,
-2
a = (MSR- MSE)/1.5,
K
-2
ow- {MSW-[2.5(MSR-MSE)/1.5]-MSE}/4.
The overall variance a can be estimated by dividing the total sum of
squares by the total degrees of freedom, so
~2 32
i-1 j-1 k
The coefficient of variation for a given filter is estimated by o/Y..
-------
D-7
Analysis of the Poisson Model.
Since each Y.^, is the product of a constant conversion factor and
ijk
Y , = the number of fibers counted in 30 fields, the coefficients of varia-
ijk
tion associated with Y and Y are equal. The Y are counts which can
ij k ij k. ij K-
be modeled by the Poisson distribution in the following manner. Assuming
that the distribution of fibers on a filter is uniform on circles centered
at the middle of the filter, then the number of fibers in one microscopic
field chosen at random is assumed to be P(X). Since Y.., is the sum of
counts on 30 fields, it is assumed that Y. ^ P(30-X). (Note, the 30
fields do not constitute a random sample from the entire filter since
they are restricted to one radius. However, the assumptuon of a uniform
distribution of fibers on circles implies that the population of fields
within a radius is identical to the population of fields on the entire
filter. This leads to Y. ^ P(30-X).)
Ij K.
For a Poisson distribution P(X), the mean is X and the variance
is X. Therefore, the coefficient of variation is /X~/X = 1//X~. Since the
best estimate of 30-X is Y..., the estimate of the coefficient of variation
is l//y7. . .
Statistical Analysis of PM Data Based on 100 Fields
Only one group of 100 fields was sampled in each wedge. Therefore,
the components of variance due to wedges, radii within wedges and group of
100 fields within radii cannot be separated. However, an estimate of the
total variability can be obtained, although it is based on only 2 degrees
of freedom and not likely to be stable.
If Y. is the observed number of fibers based on the group of
100 fields selected from wedge i, then the total variance is estimated by
a = (1/2)?(Y, - Y.)2.
The coefficient of variation is estimated by oYY. .
The Poisson model can also be used in this case where Y. ^ P(IOO-X)
Then the estimate of the coefficient of variation is
-------
D-8
Results
Analysis of Data Based on 30 Fields.
Components of Variance Model.
The analysis of variance tables based on the variance component
model are given in Table D-2. The variance estimates obtained from the
analysis of variance tables are in Table D-3. The within-radius varia-
tion is larger than the between-radii variation in all three filters.
In Filters A and C it is larger than the between-wedges variation.
2
As shown in Table D-3, the overall variability cr decreases as
the fiber concentration decreases. This relationship between the mean and
the variance is logical at low concentration levels. The measurement error
in counting fibers should decrease as the number of fibers on the filter
approaches zero. At higher concentration levels, however, the mean and
variance may display a different relationship.
Because the mean and variance change together in this data set,
the coefficient of variation (the standard deviation expressed as a per-
centage of the mean) is a useful measure of the amount of variation within
a filter. Also given in Table D-3 is a plot of the coefficient of variation
for a filter against the mean fiber concentration for the filter. The co-
efficient of variation increases rapidly for the lower fiber concentration
levels. This reflects a substantial decrease in precision at low concen-
tration levels. This lack of precision at low levels is evident in the
95 percent confidence intervals for y presented in Table D-4, where the
endpoints of the interval for Filter A differ by an order of magnitude.
-------
D-9
TABLE D-2. ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE CALCULATIONS
(Data collected by the 30-field PM method.)
Filter A, y=0.00583
Source
Wedges
Radii within wedges
Error
Total
Source
Wedges
Radii within wedges
Error
Total
Source
Wedges
Radii within wedges
Error
Sum of Squares
0.000217
0.000008
0.000267
0.000492
A
Filter B, u = 0
Sum of Squares
0.002067
0.000158
0.002492
0.004717
Filter C,u = 0.
Sum of Squares
0.004017
0.005015
0.018267
Degrees of
Freedom
2
3
6
11
.02583
Degrees of
Freedom
2
3
6
11
09667
Degrees of
Freedom
2
3
6
Mean Square
0.000109'
0.000003
0.000045
Mean Square
0.001034
0.000053
0.000045
Mean Square
0.002009
0.001672
0.001539
Total
0.027299
11
-------
D-10
TABLE D-3. VARIANCE ESTIMATES FOR DATA COLLECTED
BY THE 30-FIELD PM METHOD
Filter
A
V
"2
°W
-2
°R
a
-2
a
Coefficient
of Variation
0.00583
0.000026
0.000000
0.000045
0.000045
115%
B
0.02583
0.000244
0.000005
0.000045
0.000227
58%
C
0.09667
0.000062
0.000089
0.001539
0.001661
42%
TABLE D-4. ESTIMATES OF 95 PERCENT CONFIDENCE INTERVALS FOR y
(Data collected by the 30-field PM method.)
Filter
A
V
957, confidence
interval
0.00583
(0.00140, 0.01026)
B
0.02583
(0.01583, 0.03583)
\
C
0.09667
(0.06962, 0.12372)
-------
D-ll
Poisson Model.
Coefficient of variation estimates using the Poisson model are
given in Table D-5.
TABLE D-5. COEFFICIENT OF VARIATION ESTIMATES BASED ON
THE POISSON MODEL
(Data collected by the 30-field PM Method.)
Filter
A
y
Coefficient of
Variation
0.00583
110%
B
0.02583
53%
C
0.09667
36%
The estimates based on the Poisson Model are very close to the
estimates in Table D-3. The variance components model produced similar
estimates and appears to be comparable with the Poisson model.
Analysis of Data Based on 100-Fields.
The variance estimates made from data collected by the NIOSH PM
method are in Table D-6. These are estimates of overall variances, and
they are not associated with particular sources of variation.
TABLE D-6. VARIANCE ESTIMATES FOR DATA COLLECTED BY
THE NIOSH PM METHOD
Filter
A
y
-2
a
Coefficient of
Variation
0.00667
0.000033
86%
B
0.02667
0.000233
57%
C
0.09000
0.000900
33%
-------
D-12
Comparison of the 30-Field and 100-Field PM Procedures.
Since the 100-field PM procedure samples more of the filter than
the 30-field method, an increase in precision is expected. This increase
in precision is reflected in the sample estimates of the coefficient of
variation for Filters A, B, and C. For A the coefficient of variation
dropped from 115 percent to 86 percent, for B from 58 percent to 57 per-
cent, and for C from 42 percent to 33 percent. As noted before, the
estimates based on 100 fields are not stable. This comparison is only a
rough indication of the increase that might be obtained by using 100 fields
instead of 30.
As shown in Table D-6, the variances estimated from data collected
using 100 fields increase as the mean fiber concentration levels increase.
The coefficient of variation decreases as the mean increases. This pattern
is consistent with the results from analysis of data collected by using the
30-field method.
Analysis of Transmission Electron Microscopy Variability
Transmission electron microscopy is also used to analyze the
fiber concentrations on filters used in air sampling. An analysis similar
to that performed for PM is needed to assess the variability associated
with the TEM technique.
The protocol followed by the Battelle Columbus Laboratories is
essentially identical to that described as the OFR Ashing Technique in the
Environmental Protection Agency report EPA-600/4-78-001, January, 1978.
This report is entitled "Preparation of Water Samples for Asbestos Fiber
Counting by Electron Microscopy".
A sampling study of this procedure was performed, and the results
were presented in the EPA report. Since this technique is so similar to
the technique used for analysis of air samples, a Battelle study of TEM
variability is not required.
-------
D-13
In the EPA report, the OFR ashing technique was applied to ten
filters created using standardized aqueous dispersions of chrysolite,
crocidolite, and taconite fibers. Ten samples were taken from each fil-
ter, and a variability study was performed using these samples. For
these studies the coefficients of variation ranged from 30 percent to
40 percent.
Since there is no direct relationship between concentration
levels observed in the air samples and those in water samples, a com-
parison of TEM to PM is difficult. The estimated coefficients of varia-
tion for TEM were smaller than those observed for the PM analysis. It
would appear, however, that there is not a significant increase in pre-
cision using the TEM technique.
References for Appendix D
Leidel, N.A., S.G. Bayer, R.D. Zumwalde, and K.A. Busch. 1979. USPHS/
NIOSH Membrane Filter Method for Evaluating Airborne Asbestos Fibers.
NIOSH Technical Publication 79-127.
-------
APPENDIX E
STATISTICAL_ PROCEDURES
-------
E-l
APPENDIX E
STATISTICAL PROCEDURES
Statistical Analysis of Bulk Sampling Data
The statistical methods used in the analysis of bulk sampling
data are described in. this section.
Mean/Variance Relationship
Graphical techniques are used to investigate the relationship be-
tween the variability associated with the measurement of asbestos content
a. u
and the amount of asbestos present. The amount of asbestos at the i samp-
ling site is estimated by the mean X~.. of the observations X... made at the
site,
"i
(1) X,. - (I X^/N,.
J '
where N. is the number of observations made at the i site. The variability
io.u 2
at the i site is estimated by the variance S. ,
2 Mi -2
(2) S* = E (X1,-Xf)Vni
i j=1 10 i i
where n. = N.-l.
2
The sample variances $i are plotted against the sample means X.. using data
from eight sampling sites in Figure 4 of the text and using data from all
40 sampling sites in Figures. Patterns that appear in the plots are inter-
preted in the Bulk Sampling Section of the report.
Components of Variance
Analysis of variance techniques are used to estimate the total
variation associated with the measurement of asbestos, the variation due to
-------
E-2
sampling location and the variation due to laboratory procedure. The data
collected at eight sampling sites is used in the analysis. This subset of
data supplies information about the two sources of variation that contri-
bute to the total variation.
The results in the Bulk Sampling Section of the report show that
the variance is not constant across sampling sites. Consequently, the data
is not pooled across sites. A components of variance analysis is done
individually for each of the eight sites. A formulation of the variance
components problem in mathematical notation follows.
Let Y.. be the estimate of the percentage of asbestos for the j
i J tk
laboratory analysis of the bulk sample taken at the i location in the
ceiling of a given sampling site. The model for the components of variance
analysis is
i = 1,2,3,4 and j = 1,2,3,4,
where the L. and e^.j are mutually independent random variables with
) = 0, V(L.) = ff*.
The symbol p is the overall percentage of asbestos in the ceiling. L. repre
sents the difference between the percentage of asbestos at the ith location
and the overall percentage of asbestos. The component e , . is the sampling
error associated with the jth laboratory analysis of the bulk sample taken
at the itn location.
-------
E-3
D and V Statistics
D Statistic
The choice of a measure of rater disagreement is not straight-
forward. The proper ordering of distinct configurations of raters' scores
with respect to the amount of disagreement is not obvious. For example,
suppose a factor can be scored on an ordinal scale as either 1,2,3, or 4.
If four judges independently rate a site with respect to the factor, four
of the possible configurations of scores are given on the following page.
It is not obvious how to rank these four configurations in terms of the
amount of disagreement they reflect. The statistic used to measure the
amount of disagreement will implicitly impart an ordering on all possible
configurations of scores. Therefore, the statistic must be chosen carefully
so that it orders the various configurations in a reasonable way.
Another important consideration to be addressed in this problem
is the types of inferences that can be made from the observed agreement
scores. With nominal scale data the failure of the paradigm to measure any-
think meaningful would be equivalent to the raters arbitrarily assigning their
scores. However, with ordinal scale data it is not clear that a unique refer-
ence point exists when the scale fails to measure anything meaningful. For
example, if some of the possible scores are associated with extremes (such a^
severe damage), then raters may tend to score moderately when the rating scale
is not measuring anything meaningful. In this case a high degree of agree-
ment would be observed. Thus, a high agreement rate does not necessarily
imply that the rating scale is measuring something meaningful. Under these
circumstances some additional convincing information would be required to
make that judgment.
In view of the above discussion, the following statistic is pro-
posed as a measure of rater disagreement. For a given factor scored at a
given site, let X. be the factor score from the i rater. Compute
D = 2 i i |X. - X.I
r(r-l ) i=l J
where r is the number of raters. D" is the average size of the disagreement
observed among the r raters. Let P be the proportion of agreements and
-------
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
E-4
Score
2
x
x
D:
-------
E-5
take as the overall measure of disagreement for the sites
D = (l-P)D"
D takes the average size of the disagreements and weighs it by the percentage
of disagreement. The values of D can then be averaged over all sites to obtain
an overall measure of disagreement for the factor. If there is perfect agree-
ment among the raters, then D = 0, while disagreement among raters will be
reflected in positive values of D.
Before D is adopted for use, the characteristics of the ordering
it imparts on the various configurations of scores should be considered. In
terms of configurations A,B,C, and D, the corresponding measures are D^ = 0.75,
DB = 1.33, DC = 1.52, and DD = 1.67, respectively. With respect to this measure,
configuration A is most consistent and configuration D shows the most disagree-
ment. D appears to be a reasonable summary statistic.
However, as previously discussed, a low value for D will not neces-
sarily indicate that the rating scale is measuring a meaningful concept. It
reflects consistency of the raters scoring, but this may be an artifact of a
tendency to score moderate values in the absence of any real meaning of the
factors. If a low value of D is observed, then the scores over individual
sites should be studied in an attempt to discover any pattern of moderate
scoring. If such a pattern does not exist, then the observed low value of D
could be attributed to the fact that the rating scale is measuring some
meaningful concept.
V Statistic
The V statistic is introduced to partially compensate for the problem
of values of V near zero resulting from moderate scoring of a meaningless
rating scale. A standard score indicating the true physical conditions at a
site is included in the calculation of the V statistic. In this study scores
by one Battelle rater are chosen as the standard scores.
For a given factor scored as a given site, let T be true factor score
for the site and X. be the factor score from the i rater. Compute
r
v-r1-llX1-T
where r is the number of raters scoring the site. V is the average size
of the disagreement observed between raters and truth. If raters per-
fectly agree with the true score, than V = 0, while disagreement with
the true score will be indicated by positive values of V.
-------
E-6
Friedman's Procedure for a Two-Way Layout
The D (and V) statistics computed for each factor are compared
in the Internal Consistency Section using Friedman's procedure (Hollander,
et al . 1973). One D (or V) statistic exists for each of the K=7 factors at
each of the n sites. The data can be modeled as
D . . = r + 8 . + T . + e . . ,
U i J iJ
i = 1 , . . . n ,
J = 1, ...k,
where r is the unknown overall mean, 3. is the effect of the i site (the
th
B's are unknown nuisance parameters), T. is the unknown effect of the j
J
factor. The e's are assumed to be mutually independent, and each e is
assumed to come from the same continuous population.
To test the null hypothesis that the factor effects are all equal,
that is
against the alternatives that the factor effects are not all equal;
1. Within each site, rank the D statistics from least to
greatest. Let r. . denote the rank of D.. in the joint
ranking of D., ,. . . , D.. .
3 il ik
2. Set
n R- \f + i
R- = Z r.., R .= -J-' R = ^Ll-
J ^-1 TJ .J n .. 2
Thus, for example , R2 is the sum (over the n blocks) of ranks
received by factor 2 and R 2 is the average rank obtained by
factor 2.
3. Compute
£ - 12n \ ,R R ,2
b k(k + l)?=/R.j ..J '
S has an asymptotic chi-square distribution.
-------
E-7
Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test
Paired comparisons of D (and V) statistics are made in the
Internal Consistency Section using the Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test (Hollander,
et al . 1973). In making paired comparisons, such as trained raters versus
untrained raters, two D (or V) statistics exist for each of n sampling sites.
Let D-,. be the D statistic observed at the ith site for one group of raters
^h
and D2l- be the D statistic observed at the i site for the second group of
raters. Let Z. = D2- - D, ., and task as the model
Z. = 0 + e^ i = i, ..., n,
where the e's are unobservable random variables and the parameter of
interest e is the unknown effect of the rater group. The e's are assumed
to be mutually independent, and each e is assumed to come from a continuous
population (not necessarily the same one) that is symmetric about zero.
To test the null hypothesis of no effect due to rater group,
that is,
V e = °->
1. Form the absolute differences |Z I ,..., |Z I . Let R. denote the
rank of|Z.| in the joint ranking from least to greatest of |Z,|,
.iznl-
2. Define indicator variables \\>., i = 1, ..., n, where
if Z.> 0
if l.< 0.
3. Form the n products R^. . R , and set
(3)
The product R.ij;. is known as the positive signed rank of Z..
It takes on the value zero iflZ.jis negative and is equal to
the rank of I Z^) when Z.. is positive. The statistic T is the
sum of the positive signed ranks. T has an asymtotic normal
distribution.
-------
E-8
Reference for Appendix E
Hollander, Myles, and Wolfe, Douglas. 1973. "Nonparametric Statistical
Methods". John Wiley and Sons, New York.
-------
APPENDIX F
DATA PLOTTED ON FIGURES 6 THROUGH 12
-------
TABLE F-l. RAW DATA USED IN FIGURE 6.
SaaplIng Site Identification
Average
LN
Bldg.
a.
a.
a.
e.
a.
a.
a.
a.
a.
a.
a.
a.
9.
9.
9.
9.
9.
9.
10.
10.
10.
10.
11.
11.
11.
11.
1*.
1*.
1*.
1*.
1*.
1*.
1*.
I*.
1*.
1*.
I*.
I*.
1*.
1*.
I*.
1*.
15.
15.
15.
IS.
IS.
15.
15.
IS.
15.
15.
IS.
15.
Stapling
Site Location
1.
1.
Z.
Z.
3.
3.
*.
*.
S.
5.
6.
6.
1.
1.
Z.
Z.
3.
3.
1.
1.
Z.
2.
1.
1.
Z.
Z.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
Z.
Z.
Z.
Z.
Z.
Z.
3.
3.
3.
3.
3.
3.
t.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
t.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
Z.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
Type of
Weighted Factor Scorea
Rater Condition
5.
5.
S.
5.
5.
5.
S.
S.
5.
S.
S.
s.
5.
5.
5.
5.
S.
S.
S.
S.
S.
5.
S.
S.
5.
S.
1.
3.
3.
3.
3.
3.
1.
3.
3.
3.
3.
3.
1.
3.
3.
3.
3.
3.
1.
3.
3.
3.
3.
3.
1.
3.
3.
3.
3.
3.
S.
S.
5.
Z.
1
0
2.
2.
5.
S.
2.
2.
2.
2.
0
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
5.
5.
5.
2.
2.
5.
S.
2.
S.
2.
2.
5.
2.
5.
S.
2.
5.
S.
2.
S.
S.
5.
S.
9.
5.
S.
S.
S.
5.
5.
S.
5.
5.
Acceaa
1.
3.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
3.
1.
1.
1.
1.
3.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
0
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
3.
1.
1.
3.
1.
1.
3.
1.
1.
3.
1.
Friability Atr
2.
3.
2.
2.
0
1.
1.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
0
1.
0
1.
1.
0
2.
2.
Z.
Z.
2.
3.
Z.
3.
Z.
Z.
2.
3.
3.
3.
2.
2.
Z.
3.
3.
3.
Z.
Z.
Z.
3.
3.
3.
2.
2.
3.
3.
3.
3.
2.
2.
3.
3.
3.
3.
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.
1.
0
6
0
0
0
0
D
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
H
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
e
Expoae
*.
*.
*.
*.
*.
*.
*.
*.
*,
.
.
.
.
.
*.
*.
*.
*.
*.
ll.
*.
*.
*.
ll.
it.
ll.
*.
I..
*.
*.
*.
*.
*
*.
*.
*.
*.
*.
*.
*.
*.
*.
*.
*.
*.
*.
*.
*.
*.
*.
*.
*.
It.
*.
>i.
*.
Water Activity
2.
Z.
0
1.
0
0
0
1.
Z.
2.
0
1.
0
1.
0
1.
1.
1.
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
i
t
0
1.
0
d
1.
0
Z.
1.
Z.
2.
1.
1.
0
0
0
0
0
1.
0
0
0
0
0
Z.
2.
1.
0
1.
0
1.
1.
2.
2.
1.
2.
0
0
1.
0
0
0
0
0
1.
2.
1.
1.
2.
2.
1.
1.
1.
Z.
2.
1.
0
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
0
1.
1.
2.
1.
1.
1.
2.
1.
2.
2.
1.
1.
2.
1.
2.
2.
1.
Wghted.Z
Aabeatoa
3.
3.
2.
2.
0
0
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
3.
3.
3.
3.
2.
2.
2.
2.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
,
3.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
3.
3.
3.
3.
3.
J.
Average of Expoaure
Aabeatoa Score
75.
75.
30.
30.
1.
1.
30.
30.
30.
30.
30.
30.
Id.
10.
10.
1C.
10.
10.
70.
70.
70.
70.
*S.
*5.
50.
SO.
60.
60.
60.
60.
60.
60.
55.
SS.
ss.
ss.
ss.
ss.
*s.
*s.
*s.
*5.
*5.
*S.
*5.
*S.
*S.
*5.
*S.
I|5«
85.
as.
as.
as.
85.
85.
a*.
i**.
**«
32.
0
0
16.
36.
56.
**.
32.
*t).
C
16.
0
16.
It.
0
*2.
5*.
*8.
5*.
32.
66.
6J.
78.
*8.
*8.
66.
108.
81.
99.
36.
* I.
72.
72.
99.
108.
21.
S2.
*8.
66.
78.
72.
18.
56.
66.
72.
a*.
66.
72.
a*.
99.
10 (.
126.
99.
Vibrator
Air Sample
269.9
269.9
S60.6
560.6
3.5
3.5
28.2
28.2
62.5
62.5
232.0
232.6
6.1
6.1
9.9
9.9
97.2
S7.2
36.9
36.0
63.6
63.6
10*. 7
10*. 7
61.9
61.9
16*.*
16*.*
16*.*
16*.*
16*.*
16*. *
226.6
226.6
226.6
226.6
226.6
226.6
20S.7
20$. 7
205.7
205.7
205.7
20$. 7
127.7
127.7
127.7
127.7
127.7
127.7
218.7
238.7
218.7
239.7
218.7
218.7
Vibrator
Atr Sat^U-)
5.60
5.60
6.33
6.33
1.25
1.25
3.3*
3.3*
*. I*
S.i.5
1.81
1.81
2.29
2.29
*. w5
*.OS
3.58
3.58
*.15
I..15
*.6S
*.6S
*. 1 3
*. 13
5.10
5.10
S.10
5.10
5.10
5.10
5.1.2
5.1.2
S.i.2
5.1,2
5.1.2
S.*2
5.33
5.33
5.33
5.33
5.33
S.33
*.as
*. 65
*.as
*.6S
*.as
*.as
5.1.8
S.*6
5.1.6
5.1.6
5.1.8
S.*6
-------
TABLE K-l. (Continued)
Sampling Site Identification
~$anpllng Type of
Blil; Site Loc.it Ion Rater
15. 3
15. J
15. 1
15. 3
IS. 3
IS. 3
It. 1
16. 1
16. 1
16. 1
16. 1
16. 1
16. Z
16. Z
11- Z
16. 2
16. Z
16. Z
16.
16.
16.
16.
16.
16.
16.
16.
16.
16.
16.
16. <
17. i
IT. I
1 ».
tr.
17.
17.
17.
IT.
IT.
17.
17.
17.
17.
17.
17.
17.
17.
17.
19.
19.
19.
19.
19.
19.
19.
19.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Condition Access 1
5. I
S. 1
S. 1
S. 1
S. i
S. 1
2. 1
B 1
2. 1
Z. 1
Z. 1
Z. 1
S. 1
2. 3
5. 3
S. 3
S. 3
5. 1
2. 1
2. 1
Z. 1
Z. 1
Z. 1
Z. 1
Z. 1
5. 1
Z. 1
Z. 1
Z. 1
Z. 1
5. 1
5. 1
5. 1
5. 1
S. 1
5. I
5. 1
s. 3
5. 1
S. 1
5. 1
S. 1
5. !
S. !
s. :
S. 1
s. :
5. 1
o ;
z. :
2. ;
2. !
2. ;
2. !
2. :
5. i
,
.
.
,
1.
.
.
,
.
B
.
.
1.
!.
1.
1.
..
. .
. .
..
..
,
L.
.
b
L.
L.
L.
I.
L.
L.
L.
L.
L.
L.
1.
L.
L.
L.
L.
1.
1.
1.
L.
1.
L.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
Prlnhl
2.
Z.
3.
3.
3.
3.
1.
1.
1.
1.
Z.
Z.
1.
1.
1.
1.
z.
1.
1.
2.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
2.
3.
Z.
Z.
2.
2.
2.
3.
2.
2.
3.
2.
2.
3.
2.
2.
2.
Z.
1.
0
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
r S
lr
1
1
g
i
9
9
1
9
0
t
1
g
0
g
A
i
g
0
0
c
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
rnrt'8
Expoue
s.
d.
d.
d.
S.
d.
d.
d.
d.
d.
d.
d.
4.
d.
d.
d.
d.
d.
d.
d.
d.
d.
d.
d.
d.
d.
.
.
.
.
.
.
d.
d.
d.
d.
d.
d.
d.
d.
d.
d.
d.
d.
d.
d.
d.
d.
Water
0
0
0
1
a
0
0
0
0
1.
a
z.
z.
z.
z.
z.
2.
2.
t
0
0
0
0
0
2.
1.
1.
1.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
Z.
1.
2.
1.
2.
2.
1.
0
0
0
B
0
0
0
0
0
Activity
0
0
1.
0
0
B
Z.
1.
1.
1.
z.
1.
1.
2.
2.
Z.
Z.
z.
1.
1.
1.
0
0
0
2.
1.
1.
2.
2.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
2.
1.
1.
2.
2.
2.
2.
1.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
W|;litud.
AslieHtoa
2.
2.
Z.
Z.
2.
2.
Z.
Z.
Z.
Z.
Z.
Z.
Z.
2.
Z.
Z.
z.
2.
Z.
Z.
Z.
2.
Z.
z.
z.
z.
z.
z.
z.
2.
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
Aver IJT LM (Avi-mc.--
AVI rani? of Exposure Vlki.ilor Vibrator '
A.-,l.i-stui Store Air '.inple Air S.impl. )
33.
33.
33.
33.
33.
33.
a.
a.
a.
a.
a.
e.
10.
1C.
10.
1C.
10.
10.
10.
10.
10.
10.
16.
10.
5.
5.
S.
S.
5.
5.
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
8.
8.
a.
8.
8.
8.
25.
25.
66.
6J.
72.
60.
IB.
12.
16.
18.
36.
do.
26.
26.
32.
32.
bs.
28.
16.
32.
16.
Id.
Id.
Id.
22.
2d.
ia.
2C.
22.
20.
18.
0
22.
22.
22.
22.
2d.
28.
156.5
156.S
156.S
1S6.5
1S6.S
156.5
3.1
3.1
3.1
3.1
3.1
3.1
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
.a
.a
.a
.a
.a
.a
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.C
2.0
1.9
1.9
1.9
1.9
1.9
1.9
2.1
2.1
2.1
2.1
2.1
2.1
.9
.9
.9
.9
.9
.9
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
1.5
1.5
S.OS
s.os
s.os
s.os
s.os
s.os
l.ld
l.ld
l.ld
l.ld
l.ld
l.ld
0
0
0
0
c
0
-.27
-.27
-.27
-.27
-.27
-.27
.69
.69
.69
.69
.69
.69
.6d
.td
.6d
.76
.76
. Jb
.76
.76
.76
-.11
-.11
-.11
-.11
-.11
-.11
-2.01
-2.01
-2.01
-2.C1
-2.C1
-2.C1
.dl
-------
TABLE F-l. (Continued)
Sanpllng Site Identification
Sampling
Bldg. Site Location
19.
19.
19.
19.
20.
2».
20.
20.
20.
20.
29.
28.
20.
26.
20.
20.
20.
20.
20.
20.
20.
20.
2a.
20.
20.
20.
20.
20.
20.
20.
20.
20.
20.
20.
21.
21.
21.
21.
21.
22.
22.
22.
22.
22.
21.
23.
23.
2<«.
2<«.
2*.
2d.
2.
d.
-------
TABLE F-2. AVERAGES PLOTTED IN FIGURE 6.
Sampling Site Identfctn Averaaes
Bldg.
i.
9.
9.
10.
10.
11.
11.
It.
10.
!«..
15.
IS.
IS.
16.
ie.
it.
16.
1?.
17.
If.
1%.
19.
za.
zo.
2C.
zo.
zo.
Zl.
Zl.
Zl.
Zl.
Zl.
zz.
zz.
Z2.
zz.
zz.
Z3.
Z3.
Z3.
Z«-.
Z6.
Z7.
ze.
Z9.
Sampling Weighted
Site Location Frlablty
1. 1 .
Z. 1.
3. 1.
<. 1.
S. 1.
6. 1 .
1. 1.
Z. 1.
3. 1.
1. 1.
Z. 1.
1. 1.
Z. 1.
1. 1
Z. 1
3. i
1. 1
1. i
3. 1
1. 1
Z. 1
3.
.
1. 1
.
1.
.
I.
!.
.
I.
L.
1.
L.
1.
L.
L.
L.
1.
L.
L.
L.
>.
I .
L.
Z. 1.
3. 1.
«.. 1.
5. 1.
1. 1.
Z. 1.
3. 1.
*i. 1.
5. 1.
1. 1.
Z. 1.
3. 1.
Z. 1.
1. 1.
1. 1.
Z. 1.
1. 1.
Z.50
z.ao
.so
1.50
e. 10
z.ao
.so
.50
.so
Z.10
z.oo
z.so
z.so
3.50
z.so
z.so
3.67
3.67
3.67
1.13
1.17
1.17
1.00
Z.17
Z.33
Z.17
.A3
1.00
1.17
1.00
1.17
1.17
1.00
3.00
3. CO
Z.CO
Z.OO
Z.OO
z.ao
Z.OO
Z.OO
Z.OO
z.oo
1.10
1.00
1.90
.67
Z.OO
z.co
Z.OO
3.00
Vibrator
Air Sample
370.
Sbl.
<>.
28.
63.
Z3Z.
6.
10.
57.
36.
6.13
5.10
S.HZ
5. S3
<>. as
5.1.8
5.05
Lib
0
-.37
.69
.61.
.76
-.11
-Z.01
.
1.61.
-1.3Z
-.ZZ
.71
-2.01
.31.
.64
2.85
3.66
I
-pi
-------
Sa-plln* Site Identification TABLE M" RAH DATA
Sanpllng Type of
HeUhted
USED IN
Factor
Bldg. Site Location Rater Condition Xcceaa Friability ATr
6. 1. 1. 5. 5.
6. 2. 1. S. 2.
7. 1. 1. 5. 2.
7. 2. 1. 5. 2.
7. 3. 1. 5. 2.
2.
1.
1.
0
1.
1. 1. 5. S. 1. 2.
1. 1. 5. 5. 3. 3.
2. 1. 5. 5. 1. 2.
2. 1. S. 2.
3. 1. 9. C
3. 1. 5. 0
d. 1. 5. 2.
d. 1. 5. 2.
S. 1. 5. S.
5. 1. S. S.
6. 1. S. 2.
6. 1. S. 2.
9. 1. 1. 5. 2.
9. 1. 1. 5. 2.
9. 2. 1. 5. 0
9. 2. 1. 5. 2.
9. 3. 1. 5. 2.
9. 3. 1. 5. 2.
10. 1. 1. S. 2.
10. 1. 1. 5. 2.
10. 2. 1. 5. 2.
Ib. ' 2. 1. 5. 2.
11. 1. 1. 5. 2.
2.
0
1.
1.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
0
1.
0
1.
1.
. 0
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
11. 1. 1. S. 5. 1. 3.
11. 2. 1. 5. 5. 3. 2.
11. 2. 1. 5. S. 1. 3.
Id. 1. 1. 1. 2. 1. 2.
Id. 1. 1. 3. 2. 1
2.
Id. 1. 1. 3. 5. 1. 2.
Id. 1. . 3. S. 1
3.
Id. 1. . 3. 2. 1. 3.
Id. 1. . 3. 5. 1. 3.
Id. 2. . 1. 2.
Id. 2. . 3. 2.
Id. 2. . 3. 5.
Id. 2. . 3. 2.
Id. 2. . 3. S.
Id. 2. . 3. 5.
Id. 3. 1. 2.
Id. 3. . 3. 5.
Id. 3. . 3. 5.
1«. 3. . 3. 2. 1
Id. 3. . 3. S. 1
0 2.
2.
2.
3.
3.
3.
2.
2.
2.
3.
3.
Id. 3. . 3. 5. 1. 3.
IS. 1. . 1. 5. 1
2.
IS. 1. 1. 3. 5. 3. 2.
15. 1. 1. 3. S. 1. 3.
IS. 1. 1. 3. 5. 1
IS. 1. 1. 3. 5. 3
IS. 1. 1. 3. 5. 1
15. 1. 2. 1. S. 1
3.
3.
3.
2.
C
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
G
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.
1.
0
0
0
C
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
C
0
0
u
FIGURE 7.
Scores
Expoae U
d.
d.
d.
d.
d.
d.
d.
d.
d.
d.
d.
d.
d.
d.
1.
It.
d.
d.
d.
d.
d.
d.
d.
d.
d.
d.
d.
d.
d.
d.
d.
d.
d.
d.
d.
d.
d.
d.
d.
d.
d.
d.
d.
d.
d.
d.
d.
d.
d.
d.
d.
d.
d.
d.
d.
d.
Ater
2.
2.
1.
1.
1.
2.
2.
0
1.
0
0
0
1.
2.
2.
0
1.
0
1.
0
1.
1.
1.
0
0
i
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1.
0
2.
1.
2.
2.
1.
1.
0
d
i)
0
0
1.
Actf-vtt)
1.
2.
2.
1.
1.
2.
2.
1.
9
I.
0
1.
1.
2.
2.
1.
2.
0
0
1.
0
0
0
0
0
1.
2.
1.
1.
2.
2.
1.
1.
1.
2.
2.
1.
0
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
0
1.
1.
2.
1.
I.
1.
2.
1.
2.
2.
1.
1.
Ugbted. Z
" Asbestos
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
3.
3.
2.
2.
0
0
2.
2.
2.
t.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
3.
3.
3.
3.
2.
2.
2.
2.
3.
3.
3.
3.
3.
3.
3.
3.
3.
3.
3.
3.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
3.
Average
X Asbestos
30.
5.
8.
S.
6.
75.
75.
30.
30.
1.
1.
30.
3J.
30.
30.
30.
3C.
10.
10.
10.
u.
10.
10.
70.
70.
70.
70.
dS.
dS.
SO.
SJ.
60.
6J.
60.
60.
60.
60.
55.
55.
55.
55.
55.
55.
dS.
dS.
dS.
dS.
dS.
dS.
dS.
d5.
dS.
dS.
d5.
d5.
85.
Exposure
Score
52.
22.
20.
0
18.
8d.
Idd.
dd.
32.
0
0
16.
36.
56.
dd.
32.
dO.
(,
16.
0
16.
16.
0
d2.
Sd.
dB.
Sd.
32.
66.
60.
78.
d8.
dB.
66.
108.
81.
99.
3(.
dB.
7c.
72.
9 *«
lOt.
28.
52.
dS.
66.
78.
72.
dd.
56.
6 (.
72.
Bd.
66.
72.
I
en
-------
Sampling Site Identlf Icatlo
Sampling
Bldg. Site Location
15.
15.
15.
15.
15.
15.
15.
15.
15.
15.
15.
1 (.
16.
16.
16.
16.
16.
1 S.
16.
16.
16.
If..
16.
It.
16.
16.
16.
16.
16.
16.
16.
16.
16.
1*>.
16.
16.
1C.
16.
16.
16.
16.
17.
17.
17.
17.
17.
17.
17.
17.
17.
17.
If.
17.
17.
17.
17.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
3.
3.
3.
3.
3.
3.
1.
1.
1.
1.
I.
1.
Z.
Z.
z.
z.
z.
z.
z.
z.
z.
z.
z.
z.
3.
3.
3.
3.
3.
3.
i..
k.
1,.
k.
ii.
I,.
1.
I.
1.
1.
1.
t.
Z.
Z.
Z.
z.
z.
z.
3.
3.
3.
Z.
Z.
z.
z.
z.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
z.
z.
z.
z.
z.
z.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
L.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
n
Type of
Rater C
3.
3.
3.
3.
3.
1.
3.
1.
3.
3.
3.
i.
3.
3.
3.
3.
3.
1.
3.
3.
3.
3.
3.
1.
3.
3.
3.
3.
3.
1.
3.
3.
3.
3.
3.
1.
3.
3.
3.
3.
3.
1.
3.
3.
3.
3.
3.
1.
3.
3.
3.
3.
3.
1.
3.
3.
lABLt I--J. (continued)
Weighted Factor Scores
ondltlon
5.
5.
5.
5.
5.
5.
5.
5.
5.
S.
5.
Z.
a
z.
z.
z.
z.
5.
Z.
5.
5.
S.
5.
5.
Z.
5.
5.
5.
5.
Z.
Z.
Z.
Z.
Z.
Z.
Z.
5.
Z.
Z.
Z.
Z.
5.
5.
5.
5.
5.
S.
S.
S.
5.
S.
5.
S.
5.
5.
S.
Access
3.
1.
1.
3.
1.
1.
1.
1.
t.
3.
1.
I.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
3.
3.
3.
3.
1.
1.
3.
3.
3.
3.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
t.
1.
1.
1.
1.
3.
1.
1.
1.
1.
3.
3.
3.
Friability
Z.
3.
3.
3.
3.
Z.
Z.
3.
3.
3.
3.
1.
1.
1.
1.
Z.
Z.
1.
1.
1.
1.
Z.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
z.
1.
1.
z.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
z.
3.
Z.
Z.
Z.
z.
z.
3.
Z.
z.
3.
Z.
z.
3.
Z.
Air
0
t
0
g
C
0
0
C
0
0
0
0
0
e
0
b
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
C
0
0
0
0
0
0
C
0
0
0
0
0
b
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
a
0
b
0
0
e
a
0
Expose
^
k.
k.
k.
l>.
it>
k.
4,,
^4
^,
k.
k.
k.
ii.
it.
(,.
k.
(,.
k.
k.
t.
k.
k.
k.
k.
k.
i, .
k.
k.
k.
k.
k.
k.
k.
k.
k.
k.
k.
k.
it.
k.
k.
k.
k.
k.
k.
k.
k.
k.
k.
k.
k.
k.
k.
Water
0
0
0
0
e
0
0
a
0
0
0
0
6
a
i.
0
z.
z.
z.
z.
z.
z.
z.
z.
z.
z.
z.
z.
z.
0
0
0
0
b
0
z.
1.
1.
1.
z.
z.
z.
z.
z.
z.
z.
z.
1.
z.
1.
z.
z.
1.
0
0
0
Activity
z.
1.
z.
z.
1.
a
0
1.
0
0
0
z.
1.
1.
1.
z.
1.
1.
z.
z.
z.
z.
z.
1.
z.
z.
z.
z.
z.
1.
1.
1.
0
0
1
z.
1.
1.
z.
z.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
t.
1.
1.
1.
1.
z.
1.
1.
z.
z.
Vghted. Z
Asbestos
*
m
z.
z.
z.
z.
z.
z.
z.
z.
z.
z.
z.
z.
z.
z.
z.
z.
z.
z.
z.
z.
z.
z.
z.
z.
z.
z.
z.
z.
z.
z.
z.
z.
z.
z.
z.
z.
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Average Exposure
Z Asbestos Score
85.
85.
85.
65.
65.
33.
33.
33.
33.
33.
33.
10.
10.
13.
U.
10.
10.
3.
3.
3.
3.
3.
3.
10.
10.
10.
10.
10.
10.
5.
S.
5.
5.
5.
5.
0
8k.
99.
lOt.
1Z6.
91.
kC.
kO.
66.
tj.
72.
60.
1Z.
16.
18.
36.
Z6.
3Z.
3Z.
za.
Zb.
3!.
6 t.
za.
16.
32.
16.
Ik.
Ik.
Ik.
ZZ.
Zk.
18.
ZO.
ZZ.
zo.
0
0
0
0
0
0
I
a
a
o
o
0
t
9
I
cr>
-------
Sampling Site Identification
TABLE F-3. (Continued)
Bldg.
17.
IT.
IT.
18.
19.
19.
19.
19.
14.
19.
19.
19.
19.
19.
19.
19.
19.
20.
2J.
26.
20.
20.
20.
20.
20.
20.
20.
23.
20.
2U.
20.
20.
20.
20.
20.
20.
2d.
20.
20.
20.
20.
20.
20.
20.
20.
20.
20.
21.
21.
21.
21.
21.
21.
22.
22.
22.
Site
3.
3.
3.
1.
2.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
2.
Z.
2.
2.
Z.
2.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
3.
3.
3.
3.
3.
3.
3.
3.
J.
3.
3.
3.
it.
d.
t.
S.
t.
1,,
1.
Z.
3.
it.
5.
1.
2.
3.
it.
Sanpllng
Location
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
2.
Z.
2.
2.
2.
Z.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
Type of
Rater C
3.
3.
3.
1.
1.
1.
3.
3.
3.
3.
3.
1.
3.
3.
3.
3.
3.
1.
3.
3.
3.
3.
3.
1.
3.
3.
3.
3.
3.
1.
3.
3.
3.
3.
3.
1.
3.
3.
3.
3.
3.
1.
3.
3.
3.
3.
3.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
Weighted Factor Scores
ondltlon Access Friability Air
5. 1. 2. 0
5. 3. Z.
S. 1. 2.
5. 3. 1.
Z. 1. 1.
0 3. 1.
2
2
2*
2
2
2
5«
5 .
Z .
5.
5.
5.
5.
5.
5.
5.
5.
Z.
5.
S.
5.
5.
5.
5.
5.
5.
5.
5.
5.
5.
5.
5.
S.
5.
5.
5.
5.
5.
5.
Z.
Z.
0
1
0
0
1.
1.
1.
. 1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
2.
. 1.
1.
1 .
1.
1.
1.
. 1.
1.
. 1.
1.
1.
2.
. 1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
2.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
. 1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
2.
2.
2.
0 1. Z.
0 1. 2.
C 0 2.
0 J 2.
002.
0 0 2.
0
0
0
0
0
G
0
b
0
0
1.
0
0
0
0
0
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
0
0
0
0
0
1.
1.
0
0
Expose
d.
S.
(,.
d.
S.
S.
It.
«,.
H.
[,.
t,.
It.
S.
It.
it.
it.
I,.
it.
d.
S.
i,.
It,
S.
It.
S.
H.
It.
it.
1,,
It.
i,.
it.
It.
-------
Saapling Site Identification
TABLE F-3. (Continued)
Bldg.
22.
23.
23.
23.
2.
2"t.
2«..
2.
It.
it.
t.
.
It.
It.
S.
It.
l.
Water
a
0
0
0
2.
0
0
0
0
0
2.
0
c
0
0
0
i.
0
0
a
2.
a
0
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
0
a
0
0
a
a
i.
0
i.
i.
2.
1.
t
0
0
0
\ctivtty
1.
0
0
a
i.
i.
i.
t.
2.
2.
1.
i.
i.
1.
2.
2.
2.
1.
1.
2.
2.
2.
2.
0
I.
1.
i.
1.
1.
1.
i.
2.
2.
2.
1.
i.
1.
1.
2.
1.
2.
2.
1.
2.
Wghted. S
Asbestoa
0
0
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
3.
3.
J.
3.
3.
3.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
3.
2.
3.
Average
X Aabestoa
0
0
3.
a.
15.
15.
15.
15.
15.
15.
60.
60.
60.
60.
60.
60.
30.
30.
30.
3J.
30.
30.
30.
39.
30.
30.
30.
30.
IS.
15.
IS.
15.
IS.
15.
2C.
20.
20.
20.
20.
20.
SO.
55.
IB.
ac.
Exposure
Score
0
0
22.
12.
26.
16.
16.
lb.
22.
18.
39.
2
-------
Sanpllng
Bldg.
6.
6.
7.
7.
7.
6.
a.
6.
a.
e.
a.
9.
9.
9.
10.
1C.
11.
11.
It.
11..
Id.
15.
IS.
IS.
16.
16.
16.
It.
16.
17.
17.
17.
IS.
It).
19.
19.
20.
23.
20.
Zi.
20.
21.
21.
Zl.
Zl.
Zl.
zz.
ZZ.
22.
22.
ZZ.
21.
Z3.
23.
Z
-------
TABLE M. (Continued)
Sampling Site Identfctn Averages
Bldg.
2"».
Z<>.
25.
25.
Z6.
27.
2
-------
TABLE F-5. DATA PLOTTED IN FIGURE 8 .
Sampling Site Identification
Sanollnt T*ee of
Bldg.
*.
&.
f .
».
i.
9.
9.
'1.
II.
i:.
11.
11 .
i"..
14.
1"..
19.
15.
16.
16.
IS.
16.
16.
l«r.
19.
2:.
2:.
21.
21.
2: .
21.
21.
2].
21.
2.
5.
6.
1.
2.
I.
1.
2.
1.
2.
1.
2.
3.
1.
1.
3.
1.
2.
3.
4.
1.
2.
2.
3.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
2.
3.
2.
1.
1.
2.
1.
Location Rater
1. 5.
1. S.
1. S.
1. 5.
1. 5.
1. 5.
1. 5.
1. S.
1. S.
1. S.
1. 9.
1. S.
1. 1.
1. 1.
1.
1.
2.
1.
1.
1. 1.
1. 1.
1. 1.
1. 1.
1 .
i .
1 .
1 .
1
1 .
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
.
.
.
.
.
.
1. 1.
Condition Acceaa
5. 1.
5.
2.
5.
2.
2.
0
2.
2.
2.
2.
5.
2.
2.
2.
5.
9.
5.
2.
5.
2.
2.
0
2.
2.
5.
0
0
0
0
0
5.
0
2.
9.
5.
2.
2.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
3.
1.
C
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
3.
3.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
Weighted
Factor Scores
Friability Air
2. 0
2.
1.
2.
2.
0
0
1.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
1.
1.
1.
2.
2.
2.
3.
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
C
C
0
1.
1.
1.
0
0
0
0
0
1.
t.
0
1.
1.
a
C
Expose
4.
4.
4.
4.
4.
-------
TABLE F-6. HAW DATA USED IN FIGURE 9.
Sampling Site Identification
Bldg.
6.
6.
? .
7.
7 ,
m
.
*
9.
9.
9.
9.
10.
10.
1C.
10.
11.
11.
11.
11.
Id.
Id.
Id.
1-..
Id.
Id.
Id.
l
s.
s.
s.
s.
s.
s.
Acccaa
1.
1.
i .
1.
1.
1.
3.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
3.
1.
1.
1.
1.
3.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
0
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
3.
1.
1.
3.
1.
1.
Friability Alr
Z.
1.
1.
0
1.
z.
3.
Z.
Z.
0
1.
1.
Z.
Z.
Z.
z.
z.
0
1.
0
1.
1.
0
z.
z.
z.
z.
z.
3.
z.
3.
Z.
Z.
Z.
3.
3.
3.
Z.
Z.
Z.
3.
3.
3.
Z.
Z.
z.
3.
3.
3.
Z.
Z.
3.
3.
3.
3.
Z.
C
0
0
0
c
0
0
0
c
c
0
0
c
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
c
0
0
0
0
0
1.
1.
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
c
0
0
0
0
c
0
0
0
a
0
0
0
Expose
ll.
s.
d.
d.
d.
d.
d.
d.
d.
d.
d.
d.
d.
d.
1.
d.
d.
d.
d.
d.
d.
d.
d.
d.
d.
d.
d.
d.
d.
d.
d.
d.
d.
d.
d.
d.
d.
d.
d.
d.
d.
d.
d.
d.
d.
d.
d.
d.
d.
d.
d.
d.
d.
d.
d.
d.
w
Water Activity A
Z.
Z.
1.
1.
1.
Z.
Z.
0
1.
0
0
0
1.
z.
z.
0
1.
0
1.
0
1.
1.
1.
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
«
0
1.
0
0
1.
0
2.
1.
z.
z.
1.
1.
0
0
0
t
0
1.
1.
z.
z.
1.
1.
z.
z.
1.
0
1.
0
1.
1.
z.
z.
1.
z.
0
0
1.
0
0
0
0
0
1.
z.
1.
1.
z.
z.
1.
1.
1.
z.
z.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
0
1.
1.
2.
1.
1.
1.
z.
1.
z.
z.
1.
1.
jhted. Z Average X
sbestos Aabeatoa
Z.
Z.
Z.
z.
z.
3.
3.
Z.
2.
0
0
Z.
Z.
z.
z.
z.
z.
z.
z.
z.
z.
z.
z.
3.
3.
3.
3.
Z.
Z.
Z.
z.
3.
3.
3.
3.
3.
3.
3.
3.
3.
3.
3.
3.
Z.
Z.
Z.
Z.
z.
z.
z.
z.
2.
Z.
2.
Z.
3.
30.
5.
8.
S.
a.
75.
75.
30.
30.
1.
1.
10.
3C.
30.
30.
3J.
30.
1C.
10.
10.
10.
1C.
10.
7i).
70.
70.
71.
dS.
dS.
50.
SC.
60.
6(1.
60.
60.
60.
60.
55.
55.
55.
55.
55.
55.
dS.
dS.
dS.
dS.
dS.
«t5.
d5.
dS.
dS.
dS.
dS.
dS.
65.
Exposure Z
Score
5Z.
ZZ.
ZO.
0
It.
8d.
Idd.
dl.
3Z.
0
0
16.
36.
56.
di.
3Z.
dO.
0
16.
0
16.
16.
0
d2.
5d.
dl.
Sd.
3Z.
66.
6J.
78.
d8.
d9.
66.
108.
81.
99.
36.
d8.
7Z.
72.
99.
108.
za.
sz.
d8.
66.
78.
72.
d8.
56.
66.
72.
8d.
66.
7Z.
Total Mineral
Fiber
30.
5.
8.
5.
8.
75.
75.
30.
30.
1.
1.
30.
30.
30.
30.
30.
30.
10.
10.
10.
10.
10.
10.
70.
7|).
70.
70.
dS.
dS.
SO.
S3.
90.
90.
90.
90.
90.
90.
90.
90.
90.
91.
90.
90.
85.
as.
85.
85.
85.
85.
75.
75.
75.
75.
75.
75.
86.
I
r\>
-------
TABLE F-6. (Continued)
Saapllng Site Identification
Sam
Bldg. site Loc
pllng Type of
at Ion Rater Condition
15. 1. 2. J. 5.
IS. 1. 2. 3. 5.
Weighted Factor
Acceaa
.
IS. 1. 2. 3. 5. .
IS. 1. 2. 3. 5.
IS. 1. 2. 3. 5. .
IS. 3.
16. 3.
IS. 3. 1
IS. 3.
IS. 3.
IS. 3. 1
1 (. 1.
16. 1. l
it. i. :
16. 1. 1
16. 1.
16. 1. j
16, 2. 1
16. 2.
16. 2. 1
16. i. 1
L. 1. S.
1. 3. S.
L. 3. S.
I. 3. S.
L. 3. S.
L. 3. S.
L. 1. 2.
L. !. 0
L. 3. 2.
3. 2.
1. 3. 2.
L. 3. 2.
1. 1. S.
3. 2.
L. 3. S.
L. 3. S.
1C. 2. 1. 3. S.
16. 2. 1. 3. S.
16. 2. 2. 1. S.
16. 2. 2. 3. 2.
1C. 2. 2. 3. S.
1C. 2. 2. 3. S.
16. 2. 2. .1. S.
16. 2. 2. 3. S.
16. 3. 1. 1. 2.
16. 3. 1. 3. 2.
16. 3. 1. 3. 2.
16. I. 1. 3. 2.
16. 3. 1. 3. 2.
16. 3. 1. 3. 2.
16. d. ' 1. 1. 2.
16. d. 1
3. S.
lf>. d. 1. 3. 2.
1C. d. 1
3. 2.
16. d. 1. 3. 2.
16. d. 1. 3. 2.
17. 1. 1. 1. 5.
1 T. 1. 1. 3. S.
17. 1. 1. 3. S.
11. 1. 1
3. 9.
17. 1. 1. 3. S.
17. 1. 1
17. 2. 1
It. 2. 1
17. 2. 1
17. 2. 1
17. 2. 1
17. 2. 1
17. 3. 1
17. 3. 1
17. 3. 1
3. 5.
1. S.
3. S.
3. S.
1. S.
3. S.
]. S.
1. 5.
]. 5.
3. S.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
. .
.
.
.
t
«
,
. .
.
.
.
«
.
.
,
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
«
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Friability
2.
3.
3.
J.
3.
2.
2.
3.
3.
3.
3.
1.
1.
1.
1.
2.
2.
1.
1.
1.
1.
2.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
2.
1.
1.
2.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
2.
3.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
3.
2.
2.
3.
2.
2.
3.
2.
Air
a
0
0
u
a
c
Q
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Q
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
a
c
0
0
0
c
0
0
0
0
b
0
c
0
0
a
0
0
0
0
0
Q
0
0
c
0
0
0
0
0
0
Scores
Expose
d.
d.
d.
t.
d.
d.
d.
d.
d.
d.
d.
d.
It.
d.
d.
d.
-------
TABLE F-6. (Continued)
Idg- site
l». 3.
17. 3.
17. J.
la. i.
18. Z.
19. 1.
19. 1.
19. l.
19. 1.
19. 1.
19. 1.
19. Z.
19. Z.
19. Z.
19. 2.
19. Z.
19. Z.
ZO. 1.
20. 1.
2J. 1.
ZO. 1.
20. t.
21). 1.
21). Z.
20. Z.
20. 2.
23. 2.
20. Z.
20. 2.
20. 3.
20. 3.
20. 3.
20. 3.
20. 3.
20. 3.
ZO. 3.
ZC. 3.
ZO. 3.
ZO. 3.
ZO. 3.
za. 3.
21. d.
20. d.
20. d.
ZO. d.
20. d.
21. d.
21. 1.
21. Z.
21. 3.
21. d.
21. 5.
22. 1.
22. 2.
22. 3.
22. d.
Sampling
Location
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
.1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
t.
1.
1.
Type of
Rater
3.
3.
1.
1.
1.
1.
3.
3.
3.
3.
3.
1.
3.
3.
3.
3.
3.
1.
3.
3.
3.
3.
3.
1.
3.
3.
3.
3.
3.
1.
3.
3.
3.
3.
3.
1.
3.
3.
3.
3.
1.
1.
3.
3.
3.
3.
3.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
Condition
5.
5.
5.
5.
2.
C
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
5.
5.
i.
5.
5.
5.
5.
5.
5.
5.
5.
2.
5.
5.
5.
5.
5.
S.
5.
5.
5.
S.
5.
5.
S.
5.
5.
5.
S.
5.
5.
5.
5.
2.
2.
We igli ted Factor Scores
Access Frlnblllty
1. 2.
3. 2.
1. 2.
3. 1.
1. 1.
3. 1.
I. C
3. 1.
3. 1.
3. 1.
3. 1.
3. 1.
3. 1.
3. 1.
3. 1.
3. 1.
3. 1.
1. 1.
1. 2.
1. 1.
1. 1.
1. 1.
1. 1.
1. 1.
1. 1.
1. 1.
1. 1.
1. 1.
1. 1.
1. 1.
1. 2.
1. 1.
1. 1.
1. 1.
1. 1.
1. 1.
1. 2.
1. 1.
1. 1.
1. 1.
1. 1.
1. 1.
1. 1.
1. 1.
1. 1.
1. 1.
1. 1.
1. 2.
1. 2.
1. 2.
1. 2.
1. 2.
J Z.
0 2.
C 2.
0 2.
Air Expose
0 d.
C d.
0 d.
0 d.
0 d.
C d.
0 d.
0 d.
0 d.
0 d.
0 d.
1. d.
0 d.
0 d.
0 d.
a d.
0 d.
1. d.
1. d.
1. d.
1. d.
1. d.
1. d.
1. d.
1. d.
1. d.
1. d.
1. d.
1. d.
1. d.
1. d.
1. d.
1. d.
1. d.
1. d.
1. d.
1. d.
1. d.
1. d.
1. d.
1. d.
1. d.
1. d.
1. d.
1. d.
1. d.
1. d.
0 d.
0 d.
0 d.
0 d.
0 d.
1. 0
1. C
0 C
0 0
Water
1
0
0
o
2.
fi
0
0
u
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2.
2.
2.
2.
Z.
Z.
Z.
Z.
Z.
Z.
2.
Z.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
Z.
Z.
Z.
Z.
Z.
Z.
Z.
2.
2.
Z.
Z.
Z.
Z.
0
0
Activity
2.
2.
1.
2.
1.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
1.
1.
1.
2.
2.
2.
2.
1.
2.
1.
1.
1.
1.
2.
1.
2.
1.
Z.
1.
Z.
1.
Z.
1.
Z.
1.
Z.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
Z.
1.
1.
1.
1.
0
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
Wghted. Z
Asbestos
0
0
U
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
0
0
0
0
0
0
2.
Z.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
«
0
0
C
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
0
C
G
0
Average Z
Asbestos
0
0
0
13.
15.
t
25.
25.
25.
25.
25.
25.
0
0
0
0
0
0
3.
3.
3.
3.
3.
3.
3.
3.
3.
3.
3.
3.
0
0
0
0
0
0
C
0
Q
0
fi
a.
13.
5.
5.
13.
G
G
a
0
Exposure
Score
0
0
0
28.
20.
18.
0
22.
22.
22.
22.
2d.
21.
28.
20.
26.
26.
0
0
0
0
0
0
22.
Z8.
28.
28.
30.
28.
30.
56.
30.
28.
31.
28.
a
0
0
e
0
0
0
0
1
0
a
t
Zd.
2d.
2d.
Zd.
Zd.
0
G
fi
0
X Total Mineral
Fiber
0
a
i
16.
23.
28.
28.
28.
28.
28.
28.
>
.
3.
3.
0
a
13
9
5
13
-------
TABLE F-6. (Continued)
SMpllnn Site Identlflc
Sam
Bldg. Site Loc
12. 9.
23. 1.
23. 2.
23. 3.
Zd. 1.
Zd. 1.
Zd. 1.
2d. 1.
Zd. 1.
Zd. 1.
Zd. 1.
at Ion
pi ing Type of
atlon Rater Condition
1. 1. G
1. 1. C
1. 1. 5.
1. 1. 0
1. 1. 5.
i. J. Z.
1. 3. Z.
1. 3. 2.
1. 3. 2.
1. 3. Z.
Z. 1. S.
Z. 1. Z. 3. Z.
Zd. 1. Z. 3. Z.
Zd. Z. 1. 1. Z.
Z>. 3.
ZS. 1.
25. 1.
29. 1.
ZS. 1.
25. 1.
29. 1.
25. Z.
ZS. 2.
ZS. Z.
ZS. Z.
29. Z.
ZS. Z.
26. 1.
3. 5.
3. S.
1. Z.
3. Z.
3. Z.
3. Z.
3. 5.
3. Z.
1. Z.
. 3. Z.
3. Z.
J. Z.
3. 2.
3. 2.
1. 9.
27. 1. 1. ! 5.
28. Z. 1. 1. 2.
29. 1. 1. 1. 2.
Access
C
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
3.
1.
1.
1.
1.
t.
3.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
3.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
3.
1.
3.
3.
3.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
i.
1.
1.
1.
1.
Weighted
Factor Scores
Friability Air
Z.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
0
1.
t.
1.
0
0
0
1.
1.
1.
0
0
1.
1.
0
1.
1.
0
Z.
1.
1.
1.
1.
Z.
Z.
Z.
3.
1.
1.
1.
t.
0
0
C
0
0
0
6
0
0
0
C
C
0
0
0
C
0
0
0
0
C
C
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.
1.
0
0
Expose
G
d.
S.
d.
t.
d.
d.
d.
d.
It.
-------
Sanol Inq
Bldg.
6
6
«
10.
10.
11.
11.
IS.
is.
IS.
15.
IS.
15.
16.
16.
16.
16.
16.
17.
17.
17.
IS.
ia.
i*.
19.
23.
20.
2G.
2C.
2C.
21.
21.
21.
21.
21.
22.
22.
22.
22.
22.
23.
23.
23.
Zs.
zs.
5?» f;?- *₯ER*«S PLOTTED IN f
Site Identfctn Avenq«
, sanpllng Uelghted *
Site Location Frlablty
» 1 2.10
* 1
1. I
3. 1
3.
1.
2.
3.
S.
5.
6.
1.
2.
3.
1.
2.
1.
2.
1.
2.
3.
1.
1.
3.
1.
2.
2.
3.
S.
1.
2.
3.
1.
2.
1.
2.
1.
2.
3.
3.
S.
1.
2.
3.
S.
5.
1.
2.
3.
«.
5.
1.
2.
3.
1.
1. 2
1.00
1.00
0
1.30
2. SO
2. JO
.so
1.50
2.30
2.00
.50
.50
.50
2.00
Z.iO
Z.50
2.50
2.50
2.50
2.50
2.6?
2.67
2.67
1.13
1.17
1.17
1.17
1.00
2.17
2.33
2.1?
1.30
1.30
.43
1.00
1.17
1.30
1.17
1.17
1.00
2.30
2.30
2. JO
2.30
2.00
2. GO
2.30
2.00
2.20
2.30
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.30
I.JO
1 CURE 9
Mineral
Fiber
30.
5.
a.
5.
a.
75.
30.
1.
30.
30.
30.
10.
10.
10.
70.
70.
S5.
50.
90.
90.
B5.
75.
86.
sa.
a.
15.
13.
20.
15.
0
0
0
16.
23.
a.
za.
0
3.
3.
0
0
a.
13.
5.
S.
13.
0
0
0
0
0
a
3.
e.
25.
60.
-------
TABLE F-7. (Continued)
Stapling Site Identlfctn Averages
Bldg.
2*.
2«i.
25.
25.
26.
27.
21.
24.
Sampling Weighted
Site Location Frlablty
2. 1
3.
1.
2.
1.
1.
2.
t.
.67
.50
.67
1.30
2. jo
2.00
2. SO
3.30
I Mineral
Fiber
10.
to.
to.
25.
1,0.
55.
63.
CO.
-------
TABLES F-8. RAW DATA USED IN FIGURES 10, 11,
Sampling site Identification
Stapling
Bldg Site Location
6.
6.
*
f>
9.
9.
9.
9.
9.
1.
14.
1*.
14.
15.
15.
19.
15.
15.
15.
IS.
1.
Z.
1.
2.
3.
1.
1.
2.
2.
3.
3.
4.
4.
5.
S.
6.
6.
1.
1.
2.
2.
3.
3.
1.
1.
2.
2.
1.
1.
Z.
Z.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
Z.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
3.
3.
3.
3.
3.
3.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
i.
1.
1.
1.
1.
Z.
Type of
WEIGHTED FACTOR SCORES
Rater Condition
5.
5.
5.
5.
S.
5.
5.
5.
5.
5.
5.
5.
5.
5.
5.
S.
5.
5.
5.
5.
5.
5.
5.
S.
S.
S.
5.
5.
5.
5.
S.
1.
3.
3.
3.
3.
3.
1.
3.
3.
3.
3.
3.
1.
3.
3.
3.
3.
3.
1.
3.
3.
3.
1.
3.
1.
5.
Z.
2.
Z.
2.
5.
5.
5.
Z.
I)
c
Z.
Z.
5.
S.
Z.
Z.
Z.
Z.
0
2.
2.
Z.
2.
Z.
Z.
2.
2.
S.
5.
S.
Z.
2.
S.
5.
Z.
5.
2.
Z.
5.
2.
5.
5.
2.
S.
S.
2.
9.
S.
5.
6.
5.
5.
5.
5.
S.
Access Friability
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
3.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
3.
1.
1.
1.
1.
3.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
0
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
t.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
3.
1.
1.
3.
1.
1.
Z.
1.
1.
0
1.
Z.
3.
2.
2.
0
1.
1.
2.
2.
2.
Z.
Z.
0
1.
0
1.
1.
c
Z.
Z.
Z.
Z.
Z.
3.
Z.
3.
Z.
2.
2.
3.
3.
3.
2.
2.
2.
3.
3.
3.
2.
2.
2.
3.
3.
3.
2.
2.
3.
3.
3.
3.
Z.
Air Expose
a
C
0
a
U
0
0
a
0
0
D
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
c
G
0
0
6
0
0
1.
1.
c
0
0
0
e
a
0
0
0
0
0
0
a
0
0
c
c
0
a
0
a
0
0
0
0
4.
4.
4.
S.
4.
ll.
.
S.
4.
4.
.
4.
4.
t.
l».
<>.
4.
4.
4.
4.
1..
l».
4.
4.
l».
4.
G.
60.
55.
55.
55.
55.
55.
55.
45.
45.
45.
45.
45.
45.
45.
49.
45.
45.
45.
45.
as.
Score W/Ot*.
Exposure Score W/Out Z Asb. or
Score Z Asbestos Friability
52.
22.
20.
0
11.
B4.
144.
44.
32.
0
0
16.
36.
56.
44.
32.
43.
<
16.
0
16.
16.
0
42.
54.
48.
54.
32.
66.
60.
78.
4a.
48.
66.
ica.
ai.
99.
36.
48.
72.
72.
99.
108.
2S.
52.
41.
66.
78.
72.
48.
56.
66.
72.
84.
66.
72.
26.
11.
10.
0
9.
28.
48.
22.
16.
0
5.
8.
18.
28.
22.
16.
21.
0
a.
0
a.
8.
0
14.
18.
16.
18.
16.
33.
3«.
39.
16.
16.
22.
36.
27.
33.
12.
16.
24.
24.
33.
36.
14.
26.
24.
33.
39.
36.
24.
28.
33.
36.
42.
33.
24.
is*
11.
10.
9.
9.
14.
16.
11.
8.
6.
5.
8.
9.
14.
11.
8.
10.
7.
6.
6.
6.
8.
a.
7.
9.
8.
9.
a.
it.
15.
13.
a.
8.
11.
12.
9.
11.
6.
a.
12.
8.
It.
12.
7.
13.
12.
11.
13.
12.
12.
*v
11.
12.
14.
11.
12.
pi
1 1
I
00
-------
TABLE F-8. (Continued)
Saopllnit Site Identification
SawillnR
Bldg
15.
15.
15.
15.
15.
15.
15.
IS.
15.
15.
IS.
16.
16.
16.
1C.
16.
16.
It.
1C.
16.
It.
16.
It.
16.
16.
16.
16.
16.
1C.
16.
1C.
16.
16.
16.
16.
16.
16.
1 6.
16.
16.
16.
1 7.
1 7.
1 7.
17.
17.
1 t.
IT*
1 I*
tj
».
17.
IT.
ir.
< »
A*.
1 1.
L * 9
17.
Sice Location
1. 2.
1. 2.
1. 2.
1. 2.
1. 2.
1. 1.
3. 1.
3. 1.
3. 1.
3. 1.
3. 1.
1. 1.
1. 1.
1. 1.
1. 1.
1. 1.
1. 1.
2. 1.
2. 1.
2. 1.
2. 1.
2. 1.
2. 1.
2. 2.
2. 2.
2. 2.
2. 2.
2. 2.
2. 2.
3. 1.
3. 1.
3. 1.
3. 1.
3. 1.
3.' 1.
4. 1.
4. 1.
4. 1.
>>. 1.
4. 1.
4. 1.
1. 1.
1. 1.
1. 1.
1. 1.
1. 1*
1. 1.
2. 1.
2. 1.
21 .
. * .
2. 1.
2. 1.
2. 1.
3. 1.
J *
3. 1.
3. 1.
Type of
Rater
3.
3.
3.
3.
3.
1.
3.
3.
3.
3.
3.
1.
3.
3.
3.
3.
3.
1.
3.
3.
3.
3.
3.
1.
3.
3.
3.
3.
3.
1.
3.
3.
3.
3.
3.
1.
3.
3.
3.
3.
3.
1.
3.
3.
3.
3.
3.
1.
3.
3.
3.
3.
3.
1.
3.
3.
WEIGHTED FACTOR
Condition
S.
5.
5.
5.
S.
5.
S.
5.
5.
5.
S.
2.
A
b
2.
2.
2.
2.
5.
2.
5.
S.
5.
5.
5.
2.
5.
5.
5.
S.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
5.
Z.
2.
2.
2.
9.
5.
S.
5.
S.
5.
5.
5.
5.
5.
S.
5.
5.
5.
5.
Accel*
3.
1.
1.
3.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
3.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
3.
3.
3.
3.
1.
1.
3.
3.
3.
3.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
3.
1.
1.
1.
1.
3.
3.
3.
Friability
2.
3.
3.
3.
3.
2.
2.
3.
3.
3.
J.
1.
1.
1.
1.
2.
2.
1.
1.
1.
1.
2.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
2.
1.
1.
2.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
2.
3.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
3.
2.
2.
3.
2.
2.
3.
2.
Air
0
D
0
0
0
0
0
G
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Q
0
0
0
0
0
SCORES
Expose Water
4. I)
4. 0
%
4
4
4
4
"I
4
I.
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
*
4
4
4.
S,
4.
4
4,
4,
-------
TABU F-8. (Continued)
Stapling Site Identification
Sampling
Bldg
17.
if.
ir.
la.
1«.
19.
19.
IS.
19.
19.
19.
19.
19.
19.
19.
19.
19.
20.
20.
20.
2«.
20.
20.
2u.
20.
23.
20.
20.
20.
20.
20.
23.
20.
20.
20.
20.
20.
20.
20.
20.
20.
20.
20.
20.
20.
2C.
23.
21.
21.
21.
21.
21.
22.
22.
22.
ZZ.
Sit* Location
3.
3.
3.
1.
Z.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
3.
3.
3.
3.
3.
3.
3.
3.
3.
3.
3.
3.
d.
d.
d.
d.
k.
<».
1.
2.
3.
4.
s.
1.
2.
3.
d.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
Type of
WEIGHTED FACTOR SCORES
Rater Condition
3.
3.
3.
1.
1.
1.
3.
J.
1.
3.
3.
1.
3.
3.
3.
3.
3.
1.
3.
3.
3.
3.
3.
1.
3.
3.
3.
3.
3.
1.
3.
3.
3.
3.
3.
1.
3.
3.
3.
3.
3.
1.
3.
3.
3.
3.
3.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
5.
S.
5.
5.
2.
0
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
S.
S.
2.
S.
S.
5.
9.
5.
S.
s.
s.
2.
5.
s.
5.
S.
s.
s.
5.
S.
S.
5.
5.
S.
S.
S.
5.
S.
5.
S.
5.
S.
5.
2.
2.
0
0
ft
*
(
0
1
0
c
t
Acceaa Friability Air
1.
3.
1.
3.
1.
3.
3.
3.
J.
3.
3.
3.
3.
3.
3.
3.
3.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
0
0
0
0
2.
2.
2.
1.
1.
1.
0
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
2.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
2.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
2.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
Z.
2.
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
G
0
0
0
1.
0
0
0
0
Q
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
0
0
c
0
0
1.
1.
0
Expoia Water
d. 3
d 0
i
d
it
d
d
d
t
d
d
d
d
d
d
|^
d
d
^
«L
f.
L
|
|
I
|
|
d
j
d
S
t
d
d
*
1
-n
ro
O
-------
TABLE F-8. (Continued)
Sampling Site Identification
Sampling Type oi
Bldg Site Location Rater
Z2. 5. 1. 1.
23.
23.
23.
2H.
to.
24.
?it.
2i>.
24.
24.
24.
2 it.
2 it.
24.
fit.
24.
2.
24.
24.
2>>.
24.
24.
25.
25.
ZS.
25.
25.
25.
25.
25.
25.
25.
25.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
1.
2.
3.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
3.
3.
3.
3.
3.
3.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
2.'
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
1.
1.
2.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
S.
3.
3.
3.
3.
1.
3.
3.
3.
3.
3.
1.
3.
3.
3.
3.
3.
1.
3.
3.
3.
3.
3.
1.
3.
3.
3.
3.
3.
1.
3.
3.
3.
3.
3.
1.
1.
1.
1.
r
Condition
J
0
5.
0
5.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
5.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
5.
5.
2.
5.
5.
2.
S.
5.
S.
5.
5.
2.
2.
2.
2.
5.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
5.
5.
2.
2.
WEIGHTED FACTOR SCORES
Access Friability Air
0 2. 1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
3.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
3.
1.
1.
. 1.
1.
0
0
0
fl
.
.
.
.
.
,
.
1. 1.
1.
0 0
Expose
0
i,.
4.
4.
4.
4.
4.
4.
4.
4.
4.
4.
4.
4.
4.
4.
4.
4.
1. 1. 0 4.
1. 1. 0 4.
3. 1. 0
1.
1.
1.
1. 1
1. 1
1. 1
1.
3.
1. 1
3. 1
3.
3.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1. 2
1. 2
1. 2
1. 3
0 0
0 0
0 0
0
0
0
0 0
0 0
0
0
C 0
a
0
0 0
0
0
0
0
0
. 1.
1.
0
£
4.
4.
4.
4.
4.
4.
4»
4.
4.
4.
4.
4.
4.
4.
4.
4.
4.
4.
4.
4.
4.
4.
4.
4.
Water
0
0
0
0
2.
0
0
0
0
0
2.
0
0
0
0
0
1.
0
0
0
2.
0
0
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
0
0
6
0
0
0
1.
0
1.
1.
2.
1.
0
0
0
0
Activity
1.
0
0
0
1.
1.
1.
1.
2.
2.
1.
1.
1.
1.
2.
Z.
2.
1.
1.
2.
2.
2.
2.
0
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
2.
2.
2.
1.
1.
1.
1.
2.
1.
2.
2.
1.
2.
Vghted Z
Asbestos
0
0
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
3.
3.
3.
3.
3.
3.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
3.
2.
3.
Average X
Asbestos
0
3.
8.
15.
15.
IS.
15.
15.
15.
60.
60.
60.
60.
66.
60.
30.
3d.
33.
30.
30.
30.
30.
30.
30.
30.
30.
30.
IS.
15.
IS.
IS.
IS.
IS.
20.
2t.
20.
20.
20.
ZO.
40.
55.
18.
ac.
Exposure
Score
a
0
22.
12.
26.
16.
16.
16.
22.
18.
39.
24.
24.
24.
33.
2T.
20.
0
22.
18.
32.
0
0
0
26.
26.
26.
0
0
16.
20.
0
28.
11.
0
32.
IS.
18.
22.
18.
52.
78.
32.
81.
Score W/Out
Score W/Out X Asb. or
X Asbestos Friability
4. 2.
6.
11.
6.
13.
8.
8.
8.
11.
9.
13.
a.
8.
8.
11.
9.
10.
0
11.
9.
16.
1
0
0
13.
13.
13.
0
0
8.
18.
0
14.
9.
0
16.
9.
9.
11.
9.
26.
26.
16.
27.
6.
11.
6.
13.
8.
8.
a.
11.
9.
13.
8.
8.
8.
11.
9.
10.
11.
11.
9.
16.
12.
9.
12.
13.
13.
13.
13.
10.
8.
10.
11.
14.
9.
9.
8.
9.
9.
11.
9.
13.
13.
a.
9.
-------
TABLE F-9. AVERAGES PLOTTED IN FIGURE 10.
Sampling Site Identlftcatn Averages
B1d9.
6.
6.
T.
r.
T.
8.
6.
8.
e.
a.
a.
9.
9.
9.
10.
10.
11.
11.
Id.
lit.
!«..
15.
15.
IS.
16.
16.
16.
16.
ie.
17.
17.
17.
18.
ia.
19.
1<«.
za.
2J.
23.
ZO.
29.
21.
21.
21.
21.
21.
22.
22.
22.
22.
22.
23.
zs.
2).
2<>.
2*.
Stapling
Site Location
l.
2.
1.
2.
3.
1.
2.
J.
t.
5.
6.
1.
2.
3.
1.
2.
1.
2.
1.
2.
3.
1.
1.
3.
1.
2.
2.
3.
«.
1.
2.
3.
1.
2.
1.
2.
1.
2.
3.
3.
<..
1.
2.
3.
t.
9.
1.
2.
3.
<>.
5.
1.
2.
3.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
2.
1.
1.
1.
2.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
2.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
2.
Exposure
Score
52.
22.
ZO.
0
11.
lit.
31.
0
26.
51.
36.
a.
8.
a.
48.
51.
"9.
69.
75.
73.
57.
65.
98.
56.
23.
35.
35.
18.
21.
0
0
0
28.
23.
18.
25.
0
27.
3t.
0
0
ft.
Z
-------
TABLE F-9. (Continued)
Sampling Site Identlfictn Averages
Bldg.
2?8U88 ExpS?15Fi
2.
3.
1.
2.
1.
1.
2.
1.
19.
13.
!<»
18.
92.
73.
32.
at.
t Asbestos
30.
30.
19.
20.
to.
55.
11.
SI.
ro
CO
-------
TABLE
Sampling
Bldg.
6.
6.
7.
7.
7.
9.
9.
9.
10.
10.
11.
11.
1*.
14.
14.
15.
15.
19.
16.
16.
16.
16.
16.
17.
17.
17.
16.
ie.
19.
14.
20.
20.
20.
2D.
20.
21.
21.
21.
21.
21.
22.
2Z.
22.
22.
22.
23.
23.
23.
2
-------
TABLE F-10. (Continued)
Sampling Site Identtftn Averages
«*
2*.
25.
25.
26.
27.
2d.
29.
Saapl Ing Score H/out
Site Location X Asbestos
2*1 8.
3.
1.
2.
1.
1.
2.
1.
7.
7.
9.
26.
26.
16.
27.
I As^stos
30.
19.
20.
to.
59.
18.
BO.
I
ro
en
-------
F-26
TABLE F-ll. AVERAGES PLOTTED IN FIGURE 12.
Averages
Sampling Site Identification
Bldg.
6.
6.
7.
7.
7.
8.
8.
8.
8.
8.
8.
9.
9.
9.
10*
10.
11.
11.
Ik.
14.
l
-------
F-27
TABLE F-ll. (Continued)
sampling Site TdenHf ^=,ri«n
Bldg.
2<».
24.
25.
25.
26.
27.
23.
29.
Site
2*
3.
1.
2.
1.
1.
2.
1.
Sampling
Location
1-
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
Score W/Out
% Asbestos or
Friability
12.
12.
10.
9.
13.
13.
8.
9.
% of
Asbestos
30.
30.
15.
20.
<»0.
55.
18.
80.
-------
REPORT DOCUMENTATION |.i._nePORT NO. 2.
PAGE I EPA 560/5-81-002
4. THIe and SuOtrtle
Asbestos in Schools
7. A«thorup 11/E or 1105; 13M or 1313
12. >v«ilabilfry Statement
Distribution Unlimited
19. Secunfy Class (This Report)
Q<:-i fioA
I 21. No. of P»f«s
' 2Q. Security Class (This Page)
Unclassified
! 22. Pries
I *
(Sea
See Instructions on Reverse
OPTIONAL FORM 272
(Formerly NTIS-JS)
------- |