OH ASBESTOS RELEASE DEHOLITIOM ACTIVITIES
by
Roger C. Wilmoth and Bruce A. Hollett
Water and Hazardous Waste Treatment Research Division
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
RISK REDUCTION ENGINEERING LABORATORY
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND -DEVELOPMENT
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
CINCINNATI, OHIO 45268
To be presented at the Second Annual Caribbean HAZTECH Environmental
Conference and Exhibition being held October 21-23, 1992 in San Juan3 Puerto
Rico. The abstract will be published in the Proceedings for this Conference.
-------
OBSERVATIONS OH ASBESTOS RELEASE DURINS DEMOLITIOH ACTIVITIES
by
Roger C. Hi!moth and Bruce A. Hollett
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
INTRODUCTIOM
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Risk Reduction Engineering
Laboratory (RREL) monitored block-wide building demolition and debris disposal
activities at Santa Cruz and Watsonville, California following the 1989
earthquake, an implosion demolition of a 26-story building in Cincinnati, Ohio,
the demolition of eight wooden barracks at Fort Bliss, Texas, and the demolition
of two school buildings in Fairbanks, Alaska to evaluate if the demolition
activities and their associated dust control practices were able to prevent
downwind elevations of asbestos concentrations.
The analyses of the ambient air samples were'performed by the RREL Electron
Microscopy facility using the Transmission Electron Microscope (TEH). Personnel
monitoring at the Santa Cruz landfill and the "Fairbanks landfill during disposal
activities were analyzed by both TEM and phase contrast microscopy (PCM).
This paper will summarize the conditions of the buildings, demolition
practices, dust control practices, and up and downwind asbestos concentrations
durinq demolition.
Paper to be given at the Second Annual Caribbean Haztech Environmental
Conference and Exhibit being held October 21-23, 1992 in San Juan, Puerto Rico.
-------
California Earthquake
After the 1989 California earthquake, condemned buildings were being rapidly
demolished. The Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District and EPA
Region IX asked RREL to evaluate the effectiveness of control practices used
during demolition in preventing significant airborne asbestos release to the
communities involved. RREL monitored two demolition activities -- one in the
Pacific Garden Mall in Santa Cruz and one in downtown Watsonville. In both
locations, building construction was similar, namely mostly two-story brick
buildings with common walls to the adjacent building. The existence of asbestos
in the structures had to be presumed, because access to the insides of the
buildings for observations and bulk sampling was prohibited for safety reasons.
Since asbestos existed in similar, undamaged buildings, it was presumed to exist
in the demolition areas as well. Typical asbestos-containing materials in
adjacent buildings consisted of vinyl asbestos tile and thermal system insulation
on pipes and boilers. Control practices consisted of spraying the demolition
site with water from fire-hoses while demolition dozers, endloaders, and trucks
were operating. In Santa Cruz (Figure 1), the demolition activity released
minimal asbestos. In Watsonville, slightly higher levels (Figure 2) were
measured downwind of the demolition, probably because a three-story building came
crashing to the ground during the monitoring period.
At Santa Cruz, the demolition debris was taken to the local municipal
landfill, causing local interest in the potential for worker exposure. At the
request of the Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District, we monitored
a day's activity at the dump. As seen in Figure 3, no difference increase was
seen between the up and downwind asbestos levels using TEM analyses; however, TEH
analyses of personal samples taken on the dozer operator revealed elevated
-------
AVERAGE ASBESTOS CONC., structures per cc
0.025 -
0 02 -
On-i K —
.U I D
0.01 -
.005 -
n -
•
,
*
.
'
* * * |
X f
{
ii
I i
' , HUBM
pu
'///
:;:::
| * * * '
: : : : :
; ; ; ; ;
::::;
1 1 1 * >
t ? 1 1 1
:::::
'.'...:
71
j/
my . 1" >T J
^0II|I9Q VTTTT*
• :i!:i
^^iiilipfl
H///:-::i;
11/03/89
11/04/89
11/06/89
BACKGROUND
ADJACENT LEFT
Tm OPPOSITE GROUND LEVEL
I 1 OPPOSITE ROOF
Figure 1. Average airborne asbestos concentrations
during building demolition at the Pacific Garden Mall in
Santa Cruz, California.
-------
Average Asbestos Cone., structures per cc
O.O6
O.O5
O.O4
O.O3
O.O2
O.O1
O
O.O153
O.O512
Adjacent to demol.
Downwind of demol,
Figure 2. Average airborne asbestos
concentration during demolition of a
building in Watsonville, California.
-------
AVERAGE ASBESTOS CONCENTRATION, structures per cc
0.1
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
Background Upwind Downwind Bu!!d§2SF Gib
(adjacent to debris)
ASBESTOS CONCENTRATION, structures per cc
Personal
bretthing
zone
C.1
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
Background
Upwind Downwind
(adjacent to debris)
Bulldozer cab Persona!
breathing
zone
Figure 3. Average (top) and Individual (bottom) airborne
asbestos concentrations during the landfllling of
demolition debris at the Santa Cruz municipal landfill
-------
levels. It is important to note that PCM counts on these samples were below the
limit of detection, i.e., within compliance as far as PCM and the OSHA
regulations are concerned.
Visible emissions were observed during the structural collapse of buildings
but were generally not apparent during loading operations when fire-hoses were
used to wet the debris. There were, however, measured asbestos levels
(statistically significant) above background during the handling of debris even
though there were no visible emissions.
These limited data support the premise in the National Emission Standards
for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) (Proposed Rules, January 10, 1989; 40CFR
Part 61, page 925) that the absence of visible emission is not sufficient
evidence to assume no fugitive particulate emission.
Implosion
RREL was able to monitor an implosion-type demolition of a 26-story building
in which all known asbestos (other than vinyl asbestos tile) had been removed in
full accordance with the provisions of the applicable asbestos NESHAP. The
resulting data (Figure 4) showed initially elevated airborne asbestos levels
downwind of the site, which rapidly decreased in concentration. In fact, the
first samples were so heavily loaded with particulate that it was not possible
to analyze them by our standard technique.
We have no way to assure that all the friable asbestos was in fact removed
from all nooks and crannies of the building, nor are we able to comment on the
ability to totally remove all friable materials. Our conclusion was that the
forces involved in the spontaneous collapse of a 26-story building provide
sufficient energy to make non-friable materials friable (such as vinyl asbestos
tile) and this contributed to the observed asbestos concentration at the time of
-------
ASBESTOS CONCENTRATION, structures per cc
O.I 2
0.1
O.O8
O.O6
O.04
O.O2
O
8:55 7:OS 7:15
Before
O:25 9:35 9:45 S:55 1O:O5
After
Figure 4. Airborne levels following the
implosion/demolition of a 26-story in
Ohio.
-------
the demolition. No control options (such as wetting) were utilized during this
demolition; it is difficult, however, to envision control technologies that would
be 100 percent effective in preventing asbestos release considering the massive
forces involved in this demolition mode.
U.S. Army — Fort BUss. El Paso. Texas
RREL assisted the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Tulsa District, in
evaluating asbestos release during demolition of several wooden barracks in which
the only known asbestos remaining in the building was vinyl asbestos tile that
contained as much as 20 percent chrysotile asbestos, over mastic that contained
15 percent asbestos. No wetting was used during the demolition process. This
work was done under the auspices of a Federal Agency Asbestos Workgroup known as
the Asbestos Development and Demonstration Initiatives Group (ADDIG), which is
comprised of EPA, several other Federal Agencies, and many components of the
Department of Defense (including the Air Force, Navy, Army, and DOD Dependents
Schools). Results of this study have not yet been officially released by the
s
Corps of Engineers, but should be available in the near future. Richard Caldwell
of the Navy described some preliminary results in an article in the Navy Civil
Engineer where "Test results showed no significant increase in airborne asbestos
fiber concentrations when upwind and downwind concentrations were compared from
time periods during demolition and loading". Rick Smith of the Army Corps of
Engineers told us that the PCM levels were all below detection, but that small
levels of asbestos were observed by TEM. For additional definitive information
on this, contact Rick Smith at (918) 581-6148.
-------
U.S. Army -- Fort Wainriqht. Alaska
RREL assisted U.S. EPA Region X and the Fairbanks North Star Borough in
evaluating asbestos release from the demolition of two school buildings at Fort
Wainwright in Fairbanks, Alaska. As in the other sites, all friable asbestos had
been removed from both buildings in accordance with the asbestos NESHAP, leaving
only vinyl asbestos tile. The demolition was done by large backhoes and
front-end loaders that loaded the debris into trucks for transportation to the
dump. EPA monitored emissions from the site and Hike Taylor, a Certified
Industrial Hygienist with the Fairbanks North Star Borough, monitored the worker
{equipment operator) exposure. The demolition workers made an attempt during the
study to wet the debris with water from a tank truck during active demolition.
Their attempts to really wet the material were less than satisfactory as there
was simply an insufficient amount of water volume and pressure to accomplish the
task satisfactorily. Nature assisted somewhat in this regard as there was
intermittent rain during the demolition of the first building. At the time of
this paper, data are available only for the first of the two demolitions in
Fairbanks.
Hike Taylor reports that the worker exposure levels as determined by PCM
were all below the OSHA action level of one fiber/cc. TEH levels from the first
of the two buildings (Figure 5) averaged well below 0.005 asbestos structures/cc,
which is negligible, and there was no statistical difference between the up and
downwind asbestos levels. A single spike of asbestos release was observed in one
sample. There were no significant releases of asbestos observed by TEM analysis
in the downwind samples at the dump site.
-------
\
*—>
o
AIRBORNE ASBESTOS CONG., structures per cc
TIME
UPWIND
DOWNWIND
DUMP DOWNWIND
Figure 5. Asbestos release from demolition of the Ft.
Wainwright Elementary School in Fairbanks, Alaska.
-------
The authors wish to thank the following for their contributions to the
research summarized in this paper:
Asbestos Development and Demonstration Initiatives iroup, and particularly
Gary Jacks of the U.S. Air Force and Dick Caldwell of NAVFAC for funding
"support.
Burl Rag!and and Richard Smith of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
Pat Clark of EPA and Kim Brackett, Eugenia Shtrom, Cory DeMaris, and Susan
Seitz of IT Corporation for TEH analytical support at the Risk Reduction
Engineering Laboratory.
Barb Meyer and Christine Hary of Computer Sciences Corporation for
statistical and graphical support at the Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory.
Doug Quetin, Larry Odle, and Ed Kendig of the Monterey Bay Unified Air
Pollution Control District.
Bob Peterson, Kent Kitchingman, and Joanne Seiones of EPA Region IX.
Mike Taylor of the Fairbanks North Star Borough.
Sims Roy of the U.S. EPA Office of Air Quality, Planning, and Standards.
11
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Guidance for controlling asbestos-
containing materials in buildings (Purple Book). Office of Toxic
Substances, Washington, DC, EPA/560/5-85-024, 1985.
Wilmoth, R. C., B. A. Hollett, and P. 0. Clark. Evaluation of asbestos release
from building demolition following the October 1989 California Earthquake.
Presented at the 17th Annual RREL Hazardous Waste Research Symposium held
in Cincinnati, Ohio, April 9-11, 1991.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Proposed NESHAP for Asbestos. Code of
Federal Regulations 40CFR Part 61, page 925. Washington, DC. January 10,
1989.
Caldwell, Richard. Non-Friable Asbestos Removal: Let's Try Some Innovative
Methods. Navy Civil Engineer. Spring 1992.
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Plesse read Instructions on the reverse before complet'
1. REPORT NO.
EPA/600/A-93/040
2.
3.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Observations on Asbestos Release During Demolition
Activities
E. REPORT DATE
. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
?. AUTHOB(S)
Roger C. Wilmoth and Bruce A. Hollett, RREL, WHWTRD,
TCB, Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
B. PERFORMING O»aAN!ZATl0N REPORT NO.
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory—Cincinnati, OH
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati, OH 45268
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
In-house
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAMi AND ADDRESS
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory—Cincinnati, OH
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati, OH 45268
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Published Pao'er
14, SPONSORING AGENCY CODI
EPA/600/14
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
Roger C. Wilmoth, (513) 569-7509 presented at the
Second Annual Caribbean HAZTECH Environmental Conference & Exhibition'being held
October 21-23, 1992 in San Juan, Puerto Rico.
16. ABSTRACT
The Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory has monitored block-wide building
demolition and debris disposal activities at Santa Cruz and WatsonvWe, California
following the earthquake, an implosion demolition of a 26-story building in
Cincinnati, Ohio, and the demolition of two school buildings in Fairbanks, Alaska to
evaluate if the demolition activities and their associated dust control practices
were able to prevent downwind elevations of asbestos concentrations.
The analyses of the air samples were performed using the Transmission Electron
Microscope for ambient air levels. Personnel monitoring at the Santa Cruz landfill
and the Fairbanks landfill during disposal activities were analyzed by both TEH and
phase contrast microscopy.
The paper will document the conditions of the buildings, demolition practices,
dust control practices, and up and downwind asbestos concentrations during
demolition.
117.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b.IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS C. COSATl Field/Group
Asbestos
Buildings
Pollution
Air Pollution
Demolition
ACM
Asbestos
:1S. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
RELEASE TO PUBLIC
19. SECURITY CLASS (TiusRtport)
UNCLASSIFIED
21. NO. Of. PAGES
20. SECURITY CLASS (This page I
UNCLASSIFIED
22. PRICE
£FA Fw» 2220-1 (R«». 4-77} PREVIOUS KOITI
------- |